<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<posts>
  <row Id="1" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T18:04:44.527" Score="-1" ViewCount="328" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Baltimore Catechism says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;God made me to know him, to love him, and to serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in the next.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Catholics have this ingrained in their brains, even if they've forgotten the other 500 things in the Catechism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do all other denominations who have catechisms (i.e. Westminster Catechism) consider the meaning of life to be in their catechisms?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2018-02-24T01:45:36.600" LastActivityDate="2018-02-24T05:39:49.900" Title="How do Christian denominations define what the meaning of life is?" Tags="&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;catechism&gt;&lt;chrestomathy-request&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1784" CreationDate="2011-08-23T18:30:09.477" Score="45" ViewCount="1733" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic, I'm often baffled by other Christians who base their faith purely off personal interpretation of the Bible as the be-all-end-all proof for everything under the sun (which is what I mean by Sola Scriptura).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand the need to figure out what's going on in the bible and the need to live your life according to wisdom of the prophets and saints and especially heed the words of Jesus. But where did the idea come from that everyone can interpret the bible for themselves?  Is this just a common Catholic prejudice or a misunderstanding? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-14T01:04:57.147" LastActivityDate="2019-05-30T13:27:08.507" Title="What is the basis of my fractured understanding of  &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot;?" Tags="&lt;sola-scriptura&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T18:41:15.683" Score="22" ViewCount="1088" Body="&lt;p&gt;'Emergent' is a word I see gets thrown around a lot. Is there any definition to what is and what isn't emergent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it a catch-all for certain points of view? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there people out there that actively identify themselves as 'Emergent'? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are, or what is considered to be the main tenets and/or beliefs of the Emergent Church?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-04-15T00:54:55.967" LastActivityDate="2017-01-21T20:40:41.360" Title="What are the main tenets and/or beliefs of the 'Emergent' Church?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;emergent&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9" CreationDate="2011-08-23T18:45:39.270" Score="63" ViewCount="42928" Body="&lt;p&gt;When did most Christians (possibly excluding exceptions such as Seventh Day Adventists) and Jews start celebrating Sabbath on different days of the week and why? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-31T17:34:06.213" LastActivityDate="2018-03-30T13:15:55.513" Title="Why does Judaism celebrate Sabbath on Saturday and most Christians celebrate Sabbath on Sunday?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:02:42.700" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sabbath will always be Friday night into Saturday. However, the celebration is not the Sabbath. Christians can worship God whenever and wherever they please in spirit and truth!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4%3A21-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 4:21-24 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;  “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;  You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;  God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early Christians (who were also practicing Jews) celebrated the thanksgiving sacrifice in the Jewish temple on the first day they could, which was the day after the sabbath. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://reverendknow-it-all.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-do-we-worship-on-sunday.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More info&lt;/a&gt; from the Reverend Know-It-All (I heard the priest in charge of that site give this explanation on Relevant Radio a few months ago)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2016-01-29T13:44:13.857" LastActivityDate="2016-01-29T13:44:13.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="348" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:26:30.120" Score="43" ViewCount="4485" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in finding out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what the process of choosing the books of the New Testament was, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when did it occur,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;who did the choosing, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what are the supporting evidences&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-14T03:47:01.377" LastActivityDate="2020-03-14T03:47:01.377" Title="How were the books of the New Testament chosen?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:27:00.290" Score="54" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be clear, most Christians do not celebrate &quot;The Sabbath&quot; on Sunday. Strictly speaking, Christians do not celebrate the Sabbath at all&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; (although many Christians still refer to their &quot;day of rest&quot; as their &quot;sabbath day&quot;, even though this has no direct relationship to the Jewish Sabbath.)  Christians traditionally celebrate on Sundays because this is the day Christ was raised from the grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not yet found a specific, authoritative reference for the fact that Christians worship on Sunday because that is when Christ was raised, but some references include &lt;a href=&quot;http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2005/01-17.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080302195438AA5g4st&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*Apparently some Christian groups do call Sunday &quot;the Sabbath&quot; (with a capital S), but I believe this is a minority view out of ignorance of the significance of words, and is rarely considered dogma.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-08-21T09:08:56.663" LastActivityDate="2016-08-21T09:08:56.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:27:22.437" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Um... The Bible is the basis for Sola Scriptura. That's sorta the point. Your definition (that no assistance can be used in interpreting what is written) seems a bit Humpty Dumptyish. Although I don't doubt some do follow such practices, it is certainly not commonplace... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...Indeed, Acts tells us of Philip the Evangelist &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:27-39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;offering assistance, and then assisting in interpreting Isiah's prophecy&lt;/a&gt; as a precursor to introducing the traveler to Christ. The writings of Paul consist of &lt;em&gt;extensive&lt;/em&gt; interpretations of both the Old Testament and Christ's teachings. I would argue that evangelism is hardly even compatible with this notion of a &lt;em&gt;purely&lt;/em&gt; personal interpretation...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is this just a common Catholic prejudice or a misunderstanding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps. My understanding is that Sola Scriptura requires only that for you to accept an interpretation - whether your own or someone else's - you must be able to connect it back to the scriptures. A law, tradition, or belief that cannot be found in or understandably derived from scripture therefore has no standing as Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-12-17T05:15:55.250" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T05:15:55.250" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:27:59.170" Score="63" ViewCount="2817" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Roman Catholic church direct some prayers to Mary, the mother of Jesus. For me it would be strange to address my prayers to anyone outside the Holy Trinity. Do Catholics pray to any other individuals other than God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is praying 'to' individuals other than God widely practiced in any other denomination? If so, who do they pray to and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-05-12T14:16:02.703" LastActivityDate="2015-09-20T06:19:32.160" Title="Praying to people outside the Trinity" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;intercession-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:29:15.117" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Early followers switched from the Judaistic tradition of having the Sabbath on Saturday to having it on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, which was on a Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="34" LastEditorUserId="34" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T07:52:32.897" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T07:52:32.897" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="43" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:29:40.357" Score="31" ViewCount="12906" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read a ton about obedience in the bible and I realize that we have a responsibility to obey Jesus Christ. As it says in 2 Timothy 2:19 &quot;God's foundation stands firm, sealed with his inscription. Anybody that professes the name of Christ must repent of their wickedness&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's really no way around this. However, when I begin to speak about our responsibility to obey Jesus people begin to tell me that I am trying to follow the law or work for my salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that neither of these will earn my way into God's grace, however, I still understand that I have a responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where do you draw the line? What do we have to obey and what do we not have to obey?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T05:37:21.017" LastActivityDate="2014-04-28T21:11:51.490" Title="Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-02-05T19:32:06.887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="36" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:30:09.553" Score="24" ViewCount="1429" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where are the lines for Bible literalism in the Christian faith? Are all aspects of the Bible treated with the same level of literal belief (as actual history), or are some parts considered to be stories that are simply provided to illustrate a principle (parables). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that as a Christian it would imply belief that Jesus is the Christ. Does that also imply belief in the story of Noah's Ark as literal history? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-15T17:57:35.733" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T17:57:35.733" Title="Does being a Christian mean being a Bible literalist?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T00:05:08.090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="85" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:33:31.153" Score="31" ViewCount="6354" Body="&lt;p&gt;James 2:17 says that faith is not enough. Does that apply to salvation? Is belief (or faith) in Jesus Christ enough to be saved, or is one expected to act on that faith? If works are required for salvation, what is the threshold of that action. Does this threshold vary by denomination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-28T06:34:16.947" LastActivityDate="2021-02-27T21:54:22.040" Title="Does believing in Jesus Christ save me, or do I have to do something more?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;works&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="9" ClosedDate="2013-04-06T08:34:31.200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:34:51.300" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not view Sola Scriptura as &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; personal interpretation.  I believe there are a lot of people smarter than me that can teach me a lot about the Bible's teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another part of Sola Scriptura is that scripture alone is sufficient for giving you the wisdom you need for salvation (faith in Christ).  I would reference &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:15&lt;/a&gt; for this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, this wisdom may not necessarily come from your own interpretation, but can come through the teachings of others &lt;em&gt;based on&lt;/em&gt; scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T19:34:51.300" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:37:09.970" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being a Christian means that you follow Christ. Not just accepting Christ as a savior, but first accepting Him as YOUR GOD and your LORD. Meaning that you accept and submit to his every word as Lord over your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the bible states that it is the infallible, inspired word of God, then you must take that literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a bible character makes a statement, understand that the character making the statement is the Truth, the person &quot;DID&quot; make the statement. However, what that person stated may not be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God makes a statement, that is always the Truth. When Jesus gives a parable, the parable is a description of truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T19:37:09.970" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="240" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:37:16.827" Score="16" ViewCount="937" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prevenient Grace&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am specifically referring to the belief that if a child is born and dies before reaching the age of responsibility, and so did not have the opportunity to accept Christ, that child will still go to heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="41" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2015-01-01T16:18:43.507" LastActivityDate="2015-01-01T16:18:43.507" Title="Where does prevenient grace originate in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:37:41.177" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics pray for the entire communion of saints to intercede on their behalf. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's more than just the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (what most people refer to as Roman Catholic) it's the entire Church in communion with the pope, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church who prays fervently to the saint. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Catholic doctrine Angels are also saints (St. Raphael, St. Michael) and anyone who believes in angels must believe they can intercede for them (what else would they do).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know whether it is common for other Christian denominations to pray to their guardian angels, but the belief in their intercessory powers is certainly there, at least in popular culture and literature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T19:37:41.177" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:39:39.077" Score="19" ViewCount="1070" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that I know of any place in the Bible that directly states, &quot;this is the purpose to life.&quot; But does it give us any idea as the exact purpose as to why we were created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God is truly Sovereign then he did not Need us for any reason, so why did He create us? Please provide scripture in your answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-10-12T01:01:39.467" LastActivityDate="2015-10-12T01:01:39.467" Title="Does the Bible give us a purpose to life?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;purpose&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-02-18T18:02:13.533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:43:54.240" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the strictest sense, I would doubt anyone is truly a literalist. For example, when Jesus says that he is the door, it would be a difficult position to hold that Jesus literally is made of wood and swings on hinges. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What most people mean, on the other hand, when they speak of belief that the Bible is &quot;literally true&quot;, is merely that what is claimed in the Bible is true, with an allowance for figurative language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of a direct claim or command in scripture that belief in its truth is requisite for salvation. On the other hand, as God is a talking god, to love the Lord is no less than to love his words, so if someone establishes a pattern of rejecting God's word without repentance or movement toward it, I would begin question his or her grounds for assurance of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T19:43:54.240" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="37" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:44:08.127" Score="83" ViewCount="49129" Body="&lt;p&gt;In discussions I have had in the past over the acceptability of a Christian drinking alcohol I have heard that some 'dry' believers say that the wine in the Bible was not wine as we know it commonly today. It was actually non-alcoholic grape juice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally believe that the wine of Jesus' day is the wine that we know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Biblical/historical evidence to the contrary, that the wine of the past was non-fermented juice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="41" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-23T10:56:38.280" LastActivityDate="2019-05-11T03:37:05.817" Title="When the Bible talks about wine does it mean alcoholic wine?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;wine&gt;&lt;alcohol&gt;&lt;biblical-languages&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:44:58.077" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not really sure that's what Christians do. I'm a non-denominational Christian myself, and while I do believe in a direct and personal relationship with God, I do not believe I should use my own personal interpretation of the Bible as my sole source of foundational information upon which to base my faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a strong believer in listening to your pastor (or priest, in the case of Catholicism), as it is important to get a solid, educated viewpoint on the meaning and doctrinal nuances of the Bible. I also believe it is critically important for a true bible-believing faithful Christian to understand where the translation of the bible they study came from...the original language roots, and the original contextual meanings of critical words, the cultural context within which the bible was written, etc. A full and proper understanding of the scripture cannot be had in isolation, one needs the input of others, of those who are educated in theology and doctrine, as well as a fundamental understanding of where the bible comes from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a bible-believing Christian, I do not base my faith purely off of my own personal interpretation of the Bible...I base if off of a well-informed interpretation of the bible that is a combination of my own understanding, the educated understanding of my pastor, and many ongoing years of research in the source of my English translation of the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-12-17T05:15:07.590" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T05:15:07.590" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:45:50.797" Score="38" ViewCount="1309" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvin, among his other points starts with the point that we are totally depraved and sinful from birth. What is the Biblical basis for this point?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T21:08:56.573" LastActivityDate="2016-06-15T04:10:08.650" Title="What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;total-depravity&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:48:57.213" Score="56" Body="&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;pray to&quot; confuses most people as it gives the impression that anyone who asks a saint to &quot;pray for&quot; them is actually praying to the saint as if he/she was God.  This isn't true and is probably an artifact of language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;pray&quot; also has the meaning to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pray&quot;&gt;make an earnest petition&lt;/a&gt;&quot; so Catholics, and, I think, other Christians, call upon any saint, past or present, to pray for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as I might ask my friends to pray for me I might also ask a saint in Heaven to pray for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="47" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-02-05T23:47:31.570" LastActivityDate="2013-02-05T23:47:31.570" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:50:43.830" Score="19" ViewCount="30201" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a theological difference between the Greek Orthodox church and the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-27T13:20:20.623" LastActivityDate="2016-08-03T02:41:06.560" Title="Are there theological differences between the Greek Orthodox church and the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox church?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;coptic&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:52:06.637" Score="39" ViewCount="11481" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 11:7-8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the pig, though it has a split hood completely divided, does not&#xA;  chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or&#xA;  touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 11:11-12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat ad you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 11:19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't come across many Christians that campaign against the eating of bacon, the eating of lobsters/squid or that refuse to wear clothes made of mixtures of cotton and wool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a believer doesn't follow every instruction, how do they decide which to follow?&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: I must credit the excellent book &quot;The Philosophy Gym&quot; by Stephen Law, from which these examples are taken&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-08-11T06:58:30.637" LastActivityDate="2021-05-29T08:40:24.313" Title="How is ignoring clear Biblical instructions in Leviticus justified?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;leviticus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="27" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:58:08.850" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 9:10&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;as it is written, THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;&quot; (a quote from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps14:1-3;53:1-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Psalm%2051&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 51&lt;/a&gt;, especially verse 5 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;are generally the first references for the doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's reason for destroying the world with water in Genesis via the flood was that &quot;the imaginations of the heart of men are only evil continually&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are &quot;none righteous&quot;, and we are &quot;brought forth in iniquity&quot;, then we have already failed to keep God's holy standard, and are, therefore, depraved from birth. If we are depraved from birth, and we cannot do righteously, then it is throughout the totality of our being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T03:01:11.023" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T03:01:11.023" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:59:17.973" Score="13" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Pauline-Lutheran answer&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Paulus and later Luther's doctrine, faith is enough – it's the famous &lt;em&gt;Justification by faith alone&lt;/em&gt;.  Realizing that, Luther changed from a late scholastic to a reformer. The realization is based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 1:17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;, which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: &lt;strong&gt;“The righteous will live by faith.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; release one from doing good works. But: Good works cannot do anything regarding your salvation. That is, what makes the Pharisees thinking wrong. The Pharisees, certainly admirable persons, thought that they could obtain God's grace by following God's commandment in really each situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Luther not believing to be justified by works means accepting God as the unconditional giver.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: &quot;plus possit et velit dare, quam ego intelligo et peto&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Calvin's answer&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similiar statements can be found in John Calvins doctrine (Although the justification by faith is more important for Luther). In his Heidelberg Catechism the following can be read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: How are your righteous in the presence of God?&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;A: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Todays Roman-Catholic answer&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, there's an agreement between the Lutheran, Roman Catholic and Methodist church concerning the justification. It's the &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/Joint%20Declaration%20on%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Justification.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Joint Declaration On the Doctrine of Justification&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="42618" LastEditDate="2021-02-27T21:54:22.040" LastActivityDate="2021-02-27T21:54:22.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="36" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:59:28.567" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is &quot;sometimes&quot;. Some of the bible is literal and some of it is metaphoric. The key to discerning what is and is not literal is context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the Old Testament is written as a historical narrative. This context indicates that it is a literal record of history. Revelation on the other hand is written in a prophetic context, indicating many metaphors and analogies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="59" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T19:59:28.567" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2011-08-23T19:59:46.593" Score="56" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, understand people will adjust the literal translations of the Bible in order to hear what they want to hear. They will also interpret the words of the Bible based off of their own definitions as defined by their surroundings without truly finding out what those words meant to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Bible says that Jesus turned water into wine. Then that's what it means. Jesus literally turned water into wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was not opposed to you drinking alcohol. He specifically states that we need to stay sober in all things and to not drink to the point that we become fools. We also have a responsibility to take care of our bodies and not trash them with excessive drink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:13-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 1:13-14&lt;/strong&gt;, NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her&#xA;  voice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;and said to her,&#xA;  “How long are you going to stay drunk? Put away your wine.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's pretty clear that they had fermented drinks far before Christ came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally to answer your question, here is a verse just for you, straight from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 5:23&lt;/strong&gt;, NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-08-06T18:06:34.780" LastActivityDate="2014-08-06T18:06:34.780" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:01:41.967" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wine (and alcoholic) beverages most certainly are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_in_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in the Bible&lt;/a&gt; - in similar or identical forms to what we'd consider now (possibly excluding complex distillation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've recently started a study on the history of alcohol in the Bible, and have found nearly &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/2011/08/table-wine/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;200&lt;/a&gt; references to the substances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T20:01:41.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:02:21.090" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Lutheran perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not believe in us having to do &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt;.  Even accepting Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 1:4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;He&lt;/em&gt; chose &lt;em&gt;us&lt;/em&gt;.  Not the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If we don't accept Christ, how do we know that we're saved?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 3:21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; Baptism now saves you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only God can &lt;em&gt;really know&lt;/em&gt; whether someone goes to heaven or hell, but if the child were baptised, I would say that 1 Peter 3:21 provides a good basis for the belief that they could still go to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastEditorUserId="76" LastEditDate="2011-08-23T22:12:17.353" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:12:17.353" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="30" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:02:48.400" Score="32" Body="&lt;p&gt;The typical reformed answer on this is that the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and that we are now living under the New Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets look at this specifically point by point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011:7-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 11:7-8&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011:11-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 11:11-12&lt;/a&gt; have been fulfilled by by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2011:6-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 11:6-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;“I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as far as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 11:19&lt;/a&gt; is concerned this is pretty much the same line of thinking as above, its less explicit, but its essentially the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T20:12:44.493" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="563" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:08:37.523" Score="22" ViewCount="9434" Body="&lt;p&gt;What were Martin Luther's main disagreements with the Catholic Church? Were these beliefs of Luther's and his disagreements with the Catholic Church the origin of the Lutheran Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="76" LastEditorUserId="76" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T13:11:36.693" LastActivityDate="2019-01-06T14:37:43.260" Title="What were Martin Luther's main disagreements with the Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:09:22.407" Score="70" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is simply impossible to keep the juice from crushed grapes from fermenting without modern refrigeration and pasteurization techniques. So yes, the wine was alcoholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is plenty of textual evidence as well, but this should do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say,&#xA;  ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and&#xA;  sinners! &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:34&amp;amp;version=DARBY&quot;&gt;Luke 7:34, Darby&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hard to be accused of being a drunkard if the wine isn't alcoholic!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T20:51:42.110" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T20:51:42.110" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:10:15.010" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's easy to get tripped up trying to figure out what you should or shouldn't do, but I find the below very helpful in getting right to the heart of the matter and really the heart of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:37-40&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;37&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;38&lt;/strong&gt; This is the first and greatest commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;39&lt;/strong&gt; And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;40&lt;/strong&gt; All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:12:26.603" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="27" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:10:43.770" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I agree with warren's answer, I do believe like Ray points out that this is mostly about the original sin, transmitted from Adam to all of his offspring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total depravity goes beyond that, as it states that we are not only sinners, but that we are not even &lt;em&gt;righteous enough&lt;/em&gt; to accept Christ on our own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the fact that all have sinned, we can refer to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23, KJV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and on the fact that we are not able to deserve salvation by our own efforts, you can see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Titus 3:5, KJV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2011-12-12T20:22:15.107" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T20:22:15.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="84" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:11:29.147" Score="16" ViewCount="2041" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have often wondered why the author of 1 John, in the beginning of his letter, seems to claim that even though people have accepted Christ they will continue to sin, but two chapters later he seems to be making the opposite claim? I've never found an adequate explanation to this. Why is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://niv.scripturetext.com/1_john/1-8.htm&quot;&gt;1 John 1:8, 10&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_john/3-9.htm&quot;&gt;1 John 3:9&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="50" LastEditDate="2011-08-23T21:18:11.653" LastActivityDate="2017-02-27T01:15:26.637" Title="1 John Chapter 1 &amp; 3 - Is there an apparent contradiction?" Tags="&lt;john-apostle&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="52" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:12:57.760" Score="56" ViewCount="38064" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's definitely two sides to this coin, some people say that masturbation is not a sin that leads to death, others say that it's a sin because Jesus commands us to deny the desires of our flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question to you, is multi-faceted: What biblical basis for claiming that masturbation is a sin; and what is the biblical basis to claim it leads to death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-05T00:52:33.580" LastActivityDate="2014-11-05T15:50:19.650" Title="What is the biblical basis to claim that masturbation is a sin?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="57" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:14:35.393" Score="44" ViewCount="49758" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exodus holds the 10 commandments.  Specifically, we see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:13 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Thou shalt not kill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not kill” why do many Christians fight in a war?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note this question is not aimed at pacifist denominations, but at those who do support war (at least in some situations).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="76" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-07T20:30:24.047" LastActivityDate="2014-07-07T20:30:24.047" Title="If the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not kill” how can a Christian fight in a war?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;war&gt;&lt;killing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:15:06.367" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the term &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura&quot;&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/a&gt; isn't about personal interpretation so much as it refers to a &lt;em&gt;closed canon&lt;/em&gt;, the notion that the Bible is complete and contain all necessary knowledge for salvation, and that no other words from any other source can legitimately be added to it and hold canonical status alongside the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for its basis, there really isn't one.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is complete or closed.  (This is partially because the collection of individual works known today as &quot;The Bible&quot; wasn't actually compiled into its present form until centuries after the last of the individual works was written!)  The common justification that Revelation 22: 18-19 prohibits &quot;adding to or taking away from&quot; the Bible is clearly invalid in light of this, even before you consider that Revelation was actually written before John's other works, including the Gospel of John itself, and that extremely similar language is found in Deuteronomy chapter 4.  (Interpreted literally, that would invalidate the vast majority of the Bible, including the entire New Testament!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in any actual revelation or the writings of any prophet or Apostle does it say anything even resembling &quot;Thus saith the Lord, my words are at an end.&quot;  The concept emerged during the Reformation as a counter to Catholic traditional teachings that were not found in the Bible and, in the Reformers' view at least, directly contradicted teachings that &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; found in the Bible.  It's a useful rhetorical device, but it is not itself a scriptural doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, when you look at the history presented in the Bible itself, the concept of a closed canon is always associated with apostate groups.  The Samaritans and the Saducees both held positions that diminished or invalidated (to different degrees) the prophets after Moses.  Likewise, the Jews in the New Testament time refused to accept the new writings of Jesus's Apostles, and created the Masoretic Text (the basis for the modern Old Testament canon) as a closed work, stating that this was &quot;The Scriptures&quot; and nothing else could hold that status.  Sound familiar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T20:15:06.367" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="48" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:17:06.247" Score="46" Body="&lt;p&gt;The root of the matter is lust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with&#xA;  lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that the act itself is not the sin, it's the intent of the act.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user77" LastEditorDisplayName="user77" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T16:19:37.813" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T16:19:37.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:21:02.003" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul made the role of the Law of Moses clear in his epistle to the Galatians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of&#xA;  transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was&#xA;  made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid:&#xA;  for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily&#xA;  righteousness should have been by the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the&#xA;  promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut&#xA;  up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto&#xA;  Christ, that we might be justified by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a&#xA;  schoolmaster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this, we see that the Law was the &quot;schoolmaster&quot; given to bring us unto Christ. In fact, the Law was given to show us how foolish it is to try and merit or otherwise deserve God's love and salvation. It's impossible. By inspecting ourselves in the light of the Law, we see that we are sinners and that we come short of the glory of God, however hard we try. We cannot be righteous by our own efforts. And so the Law brings us to Christ, the only solution to our sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is in this regard unique. In all religions, men thrive to be righteous by their own power and efforts in order to please God. By &lt;em&gt;accomplishing&lt;/em&gt; the Law and dying for us, Jesus freed us from it, so we are not to try and deserve God's love and salvation, but accept his mercy and grace as a free gift, unrelated to all our efforts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law being what drives us to Christ, we are not required to follow it anymore, since through the Holy Spirit, the Law is now written in our hearts, fulfilling the promise of Jeremiah 31:33:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;33&lt;/strong&gt; But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, Paul warned the Galatians against coming back unto the Law after having received the Spirit, and called them foolish for doing so (Galatians 3 again):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey&#xA;  the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set&#xA;  forth, crucified among you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works&#xA;  of the law, or by the hearing of faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made&#xA;  perfect by the flesh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as El'endia pointed out, James 2:26 tells us that faith without works is dead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; Just as the body is dead without breath, so also faith is dead without good works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which expresses that a living faith will bear fruit, seens through good works, but does not mean we ought to make efforts to follow the Law of Moses, as pointed by Paul in Galatians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="76" LastEditDate="2011-08-23T22:12:40.940" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:12:40.940" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="54" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:22:41.490" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just studying this. If you read more about this very topic you'll find that God is talking about shedding innocent blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a look at what God did here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 3:1-2 (New International Version)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; These are the nations the LORD left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; (he did this only to teach warfare to the descendants of the Israelites who had not had previous battle experience):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God literally preserved wicked nations around Israel just to teach the Israelite's how to fight. Have a look at this other command straight from Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:36 (New International Version)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;36&lt;/strong&gt; He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is telling us to carry a sword with us when we go out to preach his word. God is not a pushover. God is a man's man that is very capable of sending you into battle, so that you may bring Him glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you hear preachers saying that soldiers need to repent, well, that preacher needs to read his Bible and come to terms with the fact that God is the General of His people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T19:11:44.963" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="55" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:28:11.363" Score="16" ViewCount="15653" Body="&lt;p&gt;Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who is understood as the fourth person in the fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://niv.scripturetext.com/daniel/3.htm&quot;&gt;third chapter of book of Daniel&lt;/a&gt; after King Nebicanesor throws Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the furnace he sees four people in the furnace instead of three, who are talking with each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is understand of who this person is? An angel, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophany&quot;&gt;Christophany&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the current Christian understanding of this? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How would a Jewish person in ancient times have understood this?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there any extra biblical Jewish sources/tradition naming the fourth person (such as a specific angel, etc)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-23T22:14:09.300" LastActivityDate="2015-04-26T23:46:12.947" Title="Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - who is understood as the fourth person in the fire?" Tags="&lt;daniel&gt;&lt;christophany&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-05-01T14:15:50.470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="56" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="48" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:29:55.477" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ἁμαρτία, ας, ἡ &lt;strong&gt;sin&lt;/strong&gt;; (1) of an act, &lt;strong&gt;a departure from doing what is&#xA;  right&lt;/strong&gt;, equivalent to ἁμάρτημα sin, wrongdoing (1J 5.17); (2) as the&#xA;  moral consequence of having done something wrong sin, guilt (AC 3.19;&#xA;  1J 1.7); (3) as the nature of wrongdoing viewed as the rejection of&#xA;  God by self-assertive human beings sin, evil (RO 5.12, 13; cf. 1.21);&#xA;  (4) especially in Johannine usage as a moral condition of human beings&#xA;  in revolt against God sin, being evil, sinfulness (JN 9.34; 15.24);&#xA;  (5) especially in Pauline usage as an abstract moral principle or&#xA;  force personified as evil in character sin, evil (RO 6.12); (6)&#xA;  especially in Hebrews as a deceiving power personified as leading&#xA;  human beings to guilt and destruction (HE 3.13; 12.1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Friberg, Timothy ;  Friberg, Barbara ;   Miller, Neva F.: Analytical&#xA;  Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books,&#xA;  2000 (Baker's Greek New Testament Library 4), S. 45&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;What is right&quot; is defined within the Bible by God; God made sex for married couples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many will point out that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:28&lt;/a&gt; talks about &lt;em&gt;adultery&lt;/em&gt; - that is, a sexual relationship outside of marriage. However, for the unmarried the principle behind this verse is the same - it shows that someone that looks at a woman lustfully commits fornication. Using your imagination to produce sexual images is a step toward that which God prohibits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T20:57:05.090" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T20:57:05.090" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="57" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:30:02.610" Score="55" Body="&lt;p&gt;This misinterpretation is due to a language shift since the days of King James, when that version of the Ten Commandments was set forth.  The term &quot;kill&quot; back then meant what &quot;murder&quot; means today, and I think that everyone would agree that that's a good thing to prohibit in strong, absolute terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look through the King James Version of the Bible, you don't see the word &quot;kill&quot; used very often, and when it's used it invariably refers to murder.  For a non-murderous cause of death, the word is &quot;slay&quot;.  This is what soldiers do to each other, and if I recall correctly it's also what the priests did to the sacrificial animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T20:30:02.610" CommentCount="18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="58" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="46" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:31:23.460" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might be a case where detail is lost in translation? According to one of my bibles, the English Standard Version, the verse &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1John3.9.ESV&quot;&gt;1 John 3:9&lt;/a&gt; is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one born of God makes a &lt;strong&gt;practice&lt;/strong&gt; of sinning, for God's seed abides&#xA;  in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word practice there seems to give deeper meaning, and as I understand it, indicates that someone who has repented and is born of God does not willfully and intent fully &lt;em&gt;practice&lt;/em&gt; sin. Rather they simply sin because of the fallen nature of man, and with a repentant heart ask for forgiveness under the weight of God's presence (under the weight of guilt?) The next verse, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1John3.10.ESV&quot;&gt;1 John 3:10&lt;/a&gt;, states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the&#xA;  children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not&#xA;  of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the intent of the passage is to indicate there is a visible difference between those who have repented and have been saved by God, and those who are willfully unrepentant and choose to remain &quot;sinners&quot;. A repentant believer who has salvation will not make it a practice to be sinful, which is in contrast with one who lacks salvation, and will by choice and nature indeed make it a practice to be sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T20:31:23.460" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="59" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:31:56.277" Score="17" ViewCount="909" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the origin of the Christmas tree and is it accepted in all Christian traditions?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm certainly not aware of a &quot;Christmas&quot; tree appearing in the Christmas story, so I'm curious when it was associated with the holiday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T15:59:27.777" LastActivityDate="2020-09-10T10:05:00.783" Title="What is the origin of the Christmas tree and is it accepted in all Christian traditions?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="60" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="48" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:32:33.880" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Corey said there is the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48/is-masturbation-a-sin/52#52&quot;&gt;matter of lust&lt;/a&gt;. Also see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2.%20Timothy%203:1-4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2nd Timothy 3 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lovers of their own selves&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;without natural affection&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any of those I italicized could apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as leading to death, all sin leads to spiritual death, which is separation from God. (Probably best to handle that in a separate question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T21:00:20.760" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="62" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="55" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:36:53.277" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The King said that the fourth person looked like &quot;a son of the Gods.&quot;  This is translated as &quot;the son of God&quot; in the King James Version, which has led some people to conflate the fourth figure with Christ, but it's important to remember that the concept of &quot;the son of God (singular)&quot; makes no sense to the King, who was a polytheist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He calls out to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and calls them servants of &quot;the Most High God,&quot; which is to be understood literally.  He saw that their God was higher (more powerful) than the Gods he worshipped, none of whom had ever been known to protect someone from incineration in a furnace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's most likely that the fourth figure was an angel, much like the one sent to Daniel to pacify the lions just a few chapters away from this story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T20:36:53.277" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="63" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:40:06.143" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the Canon of the Scripture was closed, it already contained a list of books that were widely accepted as authoritative in the Christian communities spread all over the known world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we know today as deuterocanonical (or apocryphal) books of the New Testament were considered heretic very early in the history of the Christian communities. So there was never really a given time when people gathered and examined books to decide which ones would be included and which ones wouldn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has some interesting information about the Christian Canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T20:40:06.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="64" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="76" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:41:25.190" Score="17" ViewCount="750" Body="&lt;p&gt;The subject of vegetarianism (or dietary recommendations in general) appears to me to be a bit ambivalent in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Genesis 1:29 , Romans 14:21 and Isaiah 65:21-25 appear to endorse a plant-based diet, while passages such as Genesis 9:3 and Matthew 14:13-21 seem to suggest that animal-derived foods are to be included in our diet as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should these (and any other similar) seemingly contradictary passages be interpreted?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="74" LastEditorUserId="137" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T13:52:01.563" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T09:10:46.840" Title="Where does the Bible stand on vegetarianism?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-06-27T10:50:01.730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="65" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:41:27.547" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is hard to reference because it's a fairly organic process, but the works translated by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Jerome&lt;/a&gt; into Latin to make up the Vulgate (People's) Bible are the ones that were read during early liturgies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a doctrinal stand point, this is the other answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Synod of Hippo, in northern Africa, in 393, approved the New&#xA;  Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, as&#xA;  did the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. St. Augustine regarded&#xA;  the scriptural canon as closed, as did Pope Damasus I and the Council&#xA;  of Rome in 382. Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of&#xA;  the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in&#xA;  the Latin speaking world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rev-know-it-all.com/2010/2010---06-13.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T20:41:27.547" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="66" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:41:48.373" Score="22" ViewCount="859" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvin, among his other points includes the point that we are Unconditionally Elected and chosen by God alone and nothing we can do can help or hurt this fact. What is the Biblical basis for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T00:30:32.603" LastActivityDate="2020-05-14T05:28:03.527" Title="What is the Biblical basis for Unconditional Election?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;unconditional-election&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="67" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="27" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:42:50.777" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a good place to start:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous&#xA;  deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2064:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 64:6, ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Btw, the Hebrew for &quot;polluted garment&quot; is more literally &quot;menstrual rag&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about total depravity. The Heidelberg Catechism &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crcna.org/pages/heidelberg_gratitude.cfm&quot;&gt;has this to say&lt;/a&gt; about what it means to do something good:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q91. What do we do that is good? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A. Only that which&#xA;        arises out of true faith,&#xA;        conforms to God's law,&#xA;        and is done for his glory;    and not that which is based&#xA;        on what we think is right&#xA;        or on established human tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And who would argue that natural man can do anything that fits that definition apart from grace? Here is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prca.org/cd_text3.html&quot;&gt;Canon of Dordt&lt;/a&gt; on the topic of total depravity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of&#xA;  wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in&#xA;  bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy&#xA;  Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform&#xA;  the depravity of their nature, nor to dispose themselves to&#xA;  reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you simply delete the word &quot;regenerating&quot; from that article, you get something that both John Wesley and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/nature_grace.viii.i.ii.html&quot;&gt;Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt; could agree to (because of prevenient grace).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understood this way, total depravity is not a &quot;Calvinist&quot; doctrine but one affirmed by the whole western church (the Eastern Orthodox have a distinctly different understanding of original sin). It only becomes Calvinist-specific when you start arguing over prevenient vs. regenerating grace, which to me seems like a pretty minor issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T07:47:16.420" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T07:47:16.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="68" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:48:42.590" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/shorter_catechism.html&quot;&gt;Westminster Shorter Catechism&lt;/a&gt; has as its first question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What is the chief end of man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the answer provided (with references):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Man's chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. [b]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[a]. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Psalm%2086:9&quot;&gt;Ps. 86:9&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Isaiah%2060:21&quot;&gt;Isa. 60:21&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Romans%2011:36&quot;&gt;Rom. 11:36&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:20,10:31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;I Cor. 6:20; 10:31&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%204:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Rev. 4:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;[b]. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2016:5-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Ps. 16:5-11&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20144:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;144:15&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2012:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Isa. 12:2&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Luke 2:10&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%204:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Phil. 4:4&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:3-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Rev. 21:3-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T20:48:42.590" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="69" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="86" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:50:26.463" Score="13" ViewCount="516" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Numbers 25&lt;/a&gt; shows God as a god who destroys and kills anyone who aligns him/herself with the wrong deity.  However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%205:39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:39&lt;/a&gt; talks about how we should &quot;not resist an evil person&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we reconcile God of Numbers 25 with the God of Matt 5:39?  To put this another way, is God a god of Anger or a god of Love?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T14:14:23.823" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T22:06:13.623" Title="Is God of Anger or of Love?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-02-10T18:55:18.170" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="70" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:50:39.997" Score="22" ViewCount="1152" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-09T11:18:18.170" LastActivityDate="2021-02-22T05:09:29.150" Title="What is the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;&lt;limited-atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="71" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="48" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:51:46.160" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;For completeness, here's the Catechism of the Catholic church's take on masturbation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of&#xA;the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. &amp;quot;Both the&#xA;Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and&#xA;the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly&#xA;maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely&#xA;disordered action.&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df75se.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;137&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for&#xA;whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its&#xA;purpose.&amp;quot; For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of &amp;quot;the sexual&#xA;relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the&#xA;total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the&#xA;context of true love is achieved.&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df75se.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;138&lt;/a&gt; To form an equitable judgement&#xA;about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action,&#xA;one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired&#xA;habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors&#xA;that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2352&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suffice it to say, once you know it is a sin, it is a sin. There's no aspect of the act itself that mitigates its inherent sinfulness.  The only mitigating factors are wrapped up in the state of the individual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, inside marriage you can't do it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To get your stamina up.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because your wife is at her mother's.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because you just had a baby.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/leviticus/leviticus12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lv 12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Instead of making love to your wife (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/genesis38.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gn 38&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-11-05T15:50:19.650" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="72" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2049" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:52:48.263" Score="116" ViewCount="13941" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word/term &quot;trinity&quot; is never used in the Bible. However, &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; Christians believe that God exists as three persons in one God-head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question has two parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any passages that directly show all three persons of God together - and what are they?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2014-12-08T17:53:18.187" LastActivityDate="2021-03-01T20:52:39.830" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="42" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="73" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="89" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:53:52.620" Score="30" ViewCount="4174" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible pretty clearly says not to murder (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:13&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if we examine &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2025&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Numbers 25&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018:40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1Kings 18:40&lt;/a&gt;, we see God (or more accurately, his prophets) telling us to kill people.  Indeed, entire groups of people were murdered because of their mistaken beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is it alright to murder if God or one of his prophets tells you to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would think that this concept against murdering would be against all Christian doctrine.  However, how does the mainstream Protestant groups (Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) reconcile these two concepts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T17:15:27.543" LastActivityDate="2015-04-09T07:18:23.407" Title="Is murder allowed if God tells you to do it?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;theophany&gt;&lt;murder&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:43:41.647" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="75" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="214" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:57:35.260" Score="12" ViewCount="2239" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism&quot;&gt;Gap theory&lt;/a&gt; seems to be based largely on translating Genesis 1:2 differently from the usual translations, eg. KJV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1:2 And the earth &lt;strike&gt;was&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;code&gt;became&lt;/code&gt; without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a sound translation? Why is &lt;code&gt;was&lt;/code&gt; the more usual one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="97" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T03:14:55.273" LastActivityDate="2013-12-15T17:52:20.417" Title="Should Genesis 1:2 be translated &quot;And the earth became without form...&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;translation&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:38:35.030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="76" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="64" CreationDate="2011-08-23T20:59:06.943" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romans 14  as a whole doesn't endorse a vegetarian diet as necessary or otherwise better. Look at the beginning of the chapter for the context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014:1-4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Romans 14:1-4 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful&#xA;  disputations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak,&#xA;  eateth herbs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him&#xA;  which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master&#xA;  he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to&#xA;  make him stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Paul is saying is that some believe it is better not to eat meat, and that if he is in such a case as to be a cause of temptation for such a brother, he would rather not eat meat at all so that his brother is not tempted. This is the same problem as wine in a way, in that wine is not bad in itself, but it is better to not drink wine if it will cause a brother or sister to stumble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is not saying that it is better to be a vegetarian, but he is warning to not let such fleshy matters be reasons for brothers or sisters to stumble. In other words, I'd say if you are eating with someone who believes being a vegetarian is better, don't argue on it, just go with it so it doesn't become a subject of stumble for this brother or sister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T18:02:18.113" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:02:18.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="77" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="75" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:00:05.130" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because the earth is no longer without form. When this was written, the earth was no longer without form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earth has form, as a testimony and to the Glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:00:05.130" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="78" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="139" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:00:12.367" Score="40" ViewCount="9131" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 17:3&lt;/a&gt; it says that Jesus called the Father the &quot;only true God&quot; and called himself sent by the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:10;&amp;amp;version=NIV;&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:10&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus himself says to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’`&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for accepting Jesus as not only divine, but &quot;god in the flesh&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-07-12T19:28:10.887" LastActivityDate="2016-07-12T19:28:10.887" Title="What is the biblical basis for Jesus being God incarnate?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;&lt;divinity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="79" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="97" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:03:01.180" Score="16" ViewCount="906" Body="&lt;p&gt;My question is spawned from the Church of Christ doctrine. I go to a Church of Christ university and our chapel is fully a Capella. However I've been raised baptist and music was always a part of every service. My school has tried to teach that since we are not instructed to use instruments, we CANNOT use instruments. Although not pastors or anything, I've heard some Church of Christ disciples say that the only instrument God ever made is the human voice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I've read around the internet, &lt;a href=&quot;http://cconline.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=51223&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some say it's tradition&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/music.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;others say that since God hasn't told us we can then we can't&lt;/a&gt; (I've heard this called the &quot;null argument&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I believe God is more about &quot;Do Nots&quot; instead of focusing on &quot;Dos&quot; when it comes to how we live our lives. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_commandments#Division_according_to_different_religions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this table at Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, there are 12 important facts conveyed in the 10 commandments (no matter how you group them together). Of those 12 facts, 9 of them are &quot;Do Nots.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I wrong to believe that if we're not specifically told to do something, it's allowed? I'm not trying to be overly literal, I understand there are blanket statements that do affect many things we are not specifically told not to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user77" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2013-11-27T03:28:13.337" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T17:43:30.693" Title="If we're not specifically instructed to do something, can we?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-04-21T02:16:48.863" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="80" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="69" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:03:08.650" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is our Father, and His acts can be best understood by taking this concept at least somewhat literally, and by maintaining an eternal perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Start from the basis that God has many children, and he wants as many of them as possible to go to heaven--the exact specifics of what &quot;go to heaven&quot; means are intentionally left obscure here, for simplicity's sake. That's a subject for a different answer--and that only those who have lived in such a way as to fulfill certain requirements can go to heaven when they die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understood this way, divine acts of death and destruction upon the wicked, up to and including the Flood, can be understood as acts of love.  When a society becomes so evil that there is no chance that any new children born to them and raised in that culture can end up qualifying for heaven, then it's not justifiable to allow them to continue.  He causes them to be wiped out in one way or another so as to not have to send any of His precious, beloved children into a no-win situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:03:08.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="81" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="29" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:03:47.090" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Copts have a non-Chalcedonian (miaphysite) Christology, and are considered heretics by the Greek Orthodox Church. &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;From Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Chalcedonians' understanding is that Christ is &lt;em&gt;recognized in&lt;/em&gt; two&#xA;  natures, full humanity and full divinity. Oriental Orthodoxy contends&#xA;  that such a formulation is no different from what the Nestorians&#xA;  teach. This is the doctrinal perception that makes the apparent&#xA;  difference which separated the Oriental Orthodox from the Eastern&#xA;  Orthodox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although it's a common opinion that they got shafted and were more misunderstood than heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-02-25T19:18:26.263" LastActivityDate="2016-02-25T19:18:26.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="82" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="94" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:03:52.737" Score="14" ViewCount="1598" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New World Translation of &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1&lt;/a&gt; seems to indicate that Jesus was a separate god from the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; This one was in [the] beginning with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does the concept of the trinity fit with this concept of Jesus being a separate God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-24T04:03:06.697" LastActivityDate="2021-04-24T04:03:06.697" Title="Was Jesus a separate god?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;divinity&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-02-20T23:31:13.757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="83" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="69" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:05:56.680" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you need to take that verse from Matthew in its full local context, rather than in isolation. The passage from Matthew 5:38-45 (ESV) is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;38&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;39&lt;/strong&gt; But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;40&lt;/strong&gt; And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,t let him have your cloak as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;41&lt;/strong&gt; And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;42&lt;/strong&gt; Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;43&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;44&lt;/strong&gt; But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;45&lt;/strong&gt; so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of &amp;quot;not resist an evil person&amp;quot; is not to retaliate in kind to evil, but to demonstrate love for those who are evil (but not love for evil itself)...not only for your own righteousness, but also for the benefit of those who are evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the question about whether God is a God of angler or love...I think a certain degree of specificity is necessary. God is certainly a God of Love, that is clearly demonstrated throughout the Bible. However, God is also a God of &lt;em&gt;justified wrath&lt;/em&gt; in the face of evil. I think if you look at evil as an infestation, you don't just let an infestation fester. You fight it...you route it out and destroy it before it destroys whatever was infested...like termites in a home. I believe the God of Numbers 25 is a God demonstrating his love for mankind, and demonstrating his will to fight and protect mankind from infestations of evil, just like a home owner protects their home from an infestation of termites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:13:47.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="84" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="46" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:08:11.437" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a case like this, it's best to go back to the original Greek.  As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/46/1-john-chapter-1-3-is-there-an-apparent-contradiction/58#58&quot;&gt;jrista pointed out&lt;/a&gt;, the key verb in 3:9 is the one your version translates as &quot;continue to&quot;, in the greek &quot;ποιέω&quot;.  This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/poieo.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Greek Lexicon&lt;/a&gt; gives a lot of translations for this verb, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;to make; with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.; to be the authors of, the cause&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This same verb is used in the immediately preceding verses, &lt;a href=&quot;http://niv.scripturetext.com/1_john/3-7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3:7-8&lt;/a&gt;, which the NIV translates:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is&#xA;  right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is&#xA;  sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the&#xA;  beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The emphasis here seems to be on what you produce, cause or make.  As such, I would interpret it similarly to Jesus' statement in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/7-18.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:18,20&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good&#xA;  fruit...Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of both passages does not seem to be saying that any who are &quot;born of God&quot; will never sin, but that the product of their lives will be to &quot;produce fruit in keeping with repentance.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/3-8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 3:8&lt;/a&gt;)  They may sin, but they are saved by genuine repentance such that their lives are characterized by righteousness and good fruit, not sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:08:11.437" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="85" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:08:24.043" Score="38" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question cuts to the core of an apparent conflict between the teachings of James and Paul. Here's some of the relevant scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:17-18,James%202:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;James 2:17-18, 24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by&#xA;  action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have&#xA;  deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith&#xA;  by my deeds. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what&#xA;  they do and not by faith alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=1&amp;amp;sqi=2&amp;amp;ved=0CBkQFjAA&amp;amp;url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%2b2%253A8-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&amp;amp;ei=cANUToWUMIevsQKHwOzHBw&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNHrAAi-RwQkvGJJ-uVbejMgPUzd_g&amp;amp;sig2=v3RWCyyd7E9PqspbPmfkKw&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is&#xA;  not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no&#xA;  one can boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the surface, it seems that James states that it is works, not faith that is the ultimate source of imparted righteousness. while Paul clearly states that works are useless and only through faith is righteousness and salvation attained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key is to put these writings in their proper context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul in many of his writings is addressing Jewish Christians, those who came from a fairly orthodox religious background. Orthodox Judaism is highly legalistic and works-oriented, believing that salvation is achieved through strict adherence to the law. When Paul is talking about &quot;works&quot;, he is referring to the legalistic code of Old Testament laws that continued to be a stumbling block to early Jewish Christians. And he is clear that adherence to the law is not a path to salvation. Only faith in Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the OT law with His death and resurrection, leads to salvation. Jesus' freed us from the bondage of sin as laid out in the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James on the other hand is addressing a different audience... he is addressing Christians who have faith in Christ and yet have taken their freedom from the law to the extreme. They are claiming that because of their faith in Jesus Christ, they have no need of any law and can behave any way they wish without fear for their salvation for their faith is sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus clear on the matter of how we should live lives of faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:5,%20NIV&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 15:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in&#xA;  you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ dwells in us through the Holy Spirit, and the &quot;fruit&quot; of the Spirit is &quot;love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:22-23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Galatians 5:22-23&lt;/a&gt;). These fruits are &quot;works&quot;, not works that garner righteousness or salvation, but works that grow properly out of a life strongly rooted in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so you see there is no conflict between Paul and James. Paul is teaching legalistic Christians that salvation is only achieved through faith, while James is teaching Christians who use their faith to justify living sinful lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The proper life of faith (living branches of Christ's vine) will naturally tend towards good works (bearing fruit) and that if you don't see these works, you have to question whether their faith is authentic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="51" LastEditorUserId="51" LastEditDate="2011-08-23T21:44:30.393" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:44:30.393" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="86" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="69" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:09:14.867" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I LOVE THIS TOPIC!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is a God of Love. God is also a God of Hate. If you love you must also hate. If you love children then you will hate abortion. God is angry with those enemies of his that practice sin. Here is a verse that describes the anger that God has towards sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:26-27&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the&#xA;  knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a&#xA;  fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume&#xA;  the enemies of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Numbers 25 God is specifically talking to Israel. He tells Israel that he has set them apart from the other nations. I can't find the verse right now, but God also tells the Israelites to follow specific commands regarding separation in order that Israel will remain Holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 20:26&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set&#xA;  you apart from the nations to be my own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament this author is upholding the understanding of of the Old Testament, that we should be a Holy people. But this author tells us to not associate ourselves with unholy people, instead of just killing the unholy people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 5:9-11&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral&#xA;  people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are&#xA;  immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you&#xA;  would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that&#xA;  you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or&#xA;  sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer,&#xA;  a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is unchanging, He does not want wicked people corrupting you.&lt;/strong&gt; The reason that he commanded these wicked people to be killed in Numbers is because God wanted Israel to be a Holy land, a nation that could not put up with even the smallest Sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not dwell with us today like he dwelt with the Israelites, in the temple. God is teaching us how to love these days, when before He was forcing the Israelites to be Pure and Holy. Don't get me wrong we still have a responsibility to be Pure and Holy, but the land we live in is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Mathew 5:39 God is talking to His obedient children, He's teaching them to forgive their enemies. A completely different context from the previous situation of holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Edit: to show that God is also a God that Hates.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 5:5&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence.  You hate all who do&#xA;  wrong;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 7:11&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 God is a just judge,&#xA;           And God is angry with the wicked every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 11:5&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 The LORD tests the righteous,&#xA;           But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 15:4&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 In whose eyes a vile person is despised,&#xA;           But he honors those who fear the LORD; &#xA;           He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T20:00:37.423" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T20:00:37.423" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="87" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="30" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:09:32.327" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The laws in Leviticus are not separate, individual commands, but rather the whole of the Moses' Law is a unit, &quot;which if a man do, he shall live in them&quot; (&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%208:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 8:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;). This includes the laws of the temple and the sacrifices. You can't keep some or most. This answer is the entire basis of the Christian's faith in Jesus. In answering this question, I will present the purpose of the Law and the inadequacies of the law, and the expectations that Lawgiver Jesus has for his followers today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galations 3:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Here Paul quotes Habakkuk to prove that the law does not bring about righteousness. This is confirmed in &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 2:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. The purpose of the law is not our salvation, but rather it serves as an preface to the coming Messiah. The purpose of the Law is to point to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the&#xA;  faith which should afterwards be revealed. &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;Wherefore the law was our&#xA;  schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by&#xA;  faith. &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a&#xA;  schoolmaster.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:23-36&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:23-25, KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the Prophet spoken of by Moses in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 18:15&lt;/a&gt; (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:45&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:45&lt;/a&gt;). His role on earth was to &quot;wrap up&quot; the Law. This is why &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 10:4&lt;/a&gt; says that &quot;Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.&quot; The law was already weak in that it could not provide the Spirit or righteousness through obedience in it. However, in fulfilling the law completely, Jesus is able to say, &quot;It is finished.&quot; He did not fulfill it solely by obeying each of the individual laws, he also tied all the loose ends left in the inadequacies of the Law to absolve sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very&#xA;  image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they&#xA;  offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the&#xA;  worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins&#xA;  every year. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of&#xA;  goats should take away sins... &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;But this man, after he had offered one&#xA;  sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;&#xA;   &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:1-12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:1ff&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to emphasize that last verse, taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:12&lt;/a&gt;. In sitting down, Priest Jesus is contrasted to the ever-working priests of Leviticus. He is finished working, and the law is taken care of. Pleasing the Father never had to do with following the minutia of the law anyway. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Micah%206:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Micah 6:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Today Christians walk in the Spirit, for &quot;the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:2&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:2&lt;/a&gt;. See also vv &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:3-4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;3-4&lt;/a&gt;). In a sense this is more difficult than following Moses' Law - there is no room for hypocrisy. The law of the Spirit means obedience in &lt;em&gt;everything you do&lt;/em&gt;, not just in the 600+ commands in the Pentateuch. The Pharisees of Jesus' day were seemingly the most obedient of people, yet to them He said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not&#xA;  sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to&#xA;  repentance.&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%209:13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 9:13&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T20:26:05.623" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T20:26:05.623" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="88" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="82" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:13:22.457" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to this article, the New World Translation translated this incorrectly.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-word-was-god&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-word-was-god&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this&#xA;  verse for several reasons.  First of all, the Bible teaches a strict&#xA;  monotheism.  To say that Jesus is &quot;a god&quot; is to suggest that there is&#xA;  another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah&#xA;  43:10; 44:6,8, etc.).  Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond&#xA;  that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a &quot;lesser&quot; kind of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe this was actually translated in this way to support their beliefs, rather than basing their beliefs on accurate translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:13:22.457" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="89" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="73" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:13:48.197" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;Murder and killing are not necessarily the same thing. The King James Bible adds confusion to this debate by translating &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:13&lt;/a&gt; as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou shalt not kill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which historically has been interpreted to mean a commandment against all forms of killing, including capital punishment, war, and in some cases, even against killing animals.  In the context of the rest of the Law, this is clearly not what was meant. (See especially &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Leviticus 20&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same holds for your examples--they are examples of killing, but that does not mean they are examples of God-ordained murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to Richard's comment below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder&quot;&gt;dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt;, the relevant definition of murder is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Law&lt;/em&gt;. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder),  and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here, &lt;em&gt;legal&lt;/em&gt; killing is differentiated from &lt;em&gt;illegal&lt;/em&gt; killing, and it is only illegal killing that is &quot;murder.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In ancient Israel, since God was the giver of all laws, then any God-ordained killing (whether in the form of the Law, as I mentioned previously in Leviticus, for example), or by way of his prophets, would be &quot;legal&quot;, and therefore not murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may sound a bit like a cop-out, but in a nut shell, &quot;If God says to do it, it's not murder.&quot; It can probably be boiled down to a question of &quot;Where does morality come from?&quot; But that's obviously not the specific intent of this question. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2035:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Numbers 35:16&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2035:18&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;35:18&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2035:21&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;35:21&lt;/a&gt; also provide Biblical examples or definitions of a &quot;murderer&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T03:05:36.860" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T03:05:36.860" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="90" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="82" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:14:01.513" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of &quot;Trinity in Unity,&quot; where the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are a mysterious 3-in-1 composite being, is not Biblical and has no actual justification anywhere in scripture.  Aside from the introduction to John, look at the baptism of Jesus, where Jesus is shown to be in the water, the Father in Heaven, and the Holy Ghost descending upon Jesus in the form of a dove, as three separate and distinct entities.  See also the Crucifixion, where Jesus cries out in anguish at the Father &quot;forsaking&quot; him, leaving him to suffer alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The notion of the Trinity comes from Greek philosophy, which was greatly in vogue in the Roman empire during the early Christian period.  The Holy Trinity as &quot;Trinity in Unity&quot; bears a much closer resemblance to some of Plato's notions about Deity than it does to anything in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:14:01.513" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="91" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="82" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:16:59.113" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're reading from the Jehovah Witnesses' version of the bible. The Witnesses preach that Jesus is a separate God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus IS GOD. There's a thousand verses that back this up, but the Witnesses deny Jesus of His deity. They actually try and teach that Jesus is a created angel, which the Bible states the exact opposite. Jesus IS GOD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 5:16-18&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:16&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;For by him [Jesus] were all things created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 2:9&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 3:16&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;God was made manifest in the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="8" LastEditDate="2011-08-23T21:29:59.217" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:29:59.217" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="93" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:29:00.310" Score="44" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, it's necessary to understand that Catholics (whether Roman or Eastern Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox) do not pray &lt;strong&gt;to&lt;/strong&gt; the saints; rather, they ask the faithful departed to pray &lt;strong&gt;for&lt;/strong&gt; them &lt;strong&gt;to&lt;/strong&gt; God.&lt;sup&gt;(1)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea has its basis in the &quot;communion of saints,&quot; which may be derived from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/12&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Heb. 12:1&lt;/a&gt; (as well as other scriptures):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us (NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Continuing from Heb. 11, the &quot;cloud of witnesses&quot; referred to is the faithful who have already died in Christ (those of the Old Covenant looking forward to Christ and the cross, those of the New Covenant looking back).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since those who have died in Christ are now alive in him, the Catholic understanding is that we can converse with them just as with any believer still alive in this realm.  Since they are alive we can asked them to pray for us just as we would approach a fellow believer who is living in this realm to pray for us: &quot;Bob, I am really struggling with X right now. Would you please pray for me to find victory in this area?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coupled with the idea that &quot;The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/james/5&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jam. 5:16, NABRE&lt;/a&gt;), it then seems to make sense to ask those who have been recognized by church authority as being righteous and exemplary to pray for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logic is, then, that if (a) you accept that asking another believer to pray for you is okay, and (b) you believe that those who have died with Christ are alive with him, then it follows that you can ask those who have died in Christ to pray for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnotes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(1)&lt;/sup&gt; It's not uncommon for individuals to actually, and wrongly, pray &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; the saint; but if you pay attention to the liturgy the words are of the form &quot;St. Peter, pray for us; St. Paul, pray for us...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-09-20T03:22:58.190" LastActivityDate="2015-09-20T03:22:58.190" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="94" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="82" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:29:31.883" Score="39" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verse in question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ &lt;strong&gt;θεὸς ἦν ὁ&#xA;  λόγος&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That bold part is, somewhat literally, &quot;God the word was&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue here is the lack of the indefinite article in Greek. They had no word for &quot;a, an&quot;. Depending on context, it is acceptable and even necessary to insert those words into a translation. The question is whether or not it is appropriate here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think not, for lots of reasons. John and all the apostles were Jews, monotheists, and if they were teaching some new polytheism, wouldn't it have shown up in more places than an ambiguous Greek sentence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; in response to @Sotiris' comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greek usually uses the definite article in front of proper nouns, which is probably what you're getting at. But in this case the lack of the article before θεὸς is easily explainable. A word-by-word translation would be &quot;God was the word&quot;. Word order is flexible in Greek, and since both θεὸς and λόγος are in the nominative case, it would be impossible to determine which is the subject and which is the predicate nominative except for the placement of the article. ὁ λόγος clearly identifies λόγος as the subject, but ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ambiguous (God was the word, or the word was God?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T17:54:03.937" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T17:54:03.937" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="95" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="111" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:29:52.727" Score="17" ViewCount="12981" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've looked around but can't really find a proper answer. Would anyone mind clarifying this for me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a Western Orthodox Christian, and I attended the baptism of my young cousin on Sunday, and this question just popped into my head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T13:40:06.460" Title="What are the major differences between Eastern and Western Orthodox Christianities?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-02-19T16:03:59.237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="96" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="59" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:31:22.223" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The origin of the Christmas tree is very well documented elsewhere, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree#History&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some Christians that disapprove of the use of a Christmas tree (one reason documented also at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree#Christianity&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, and further discussed (with rebuttal) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/articles/should-christians-celebrate-christmas-&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some groups that do not use Christmas trees, for various reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some Amish &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amishliving.com/forum/topics/amish-christmas-and-simple&quot;&gt;do not use Christmas trees&lt;/a&gt; (although others do)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Although not considered &quot;Christian&quot; by many, Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas at all&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many other Evangelical groups reject some or all Christmas celebrations, on the grounds that it was originally a pagan holiday (Larger discussion on this matter &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/articles/should-christians-celebrate-christmas-&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:31:22.223" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="97" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="79" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:31:22.647" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the Bible is God's Word, and it is to be read and understood in its entirety, then a dogmatic doctrine of vocal-only worship would seem to place large swaths of the Psalms (eg &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20150&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;150&lt;/a&gt;) in peril.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that in the New Testament we are given no specific direction as to &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; we are to worship (only &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=John%204:23&quot;&gt;in spirit and in truth&lt;/a&gt;&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lack of both &lt;em&gt;pre&lt;/em&gt;-scription &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;pro&lt;/em&gt;-scription would seem to leave this issue up to a matter of conscience and Christian liberty. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:12,1%20Corinthians%2010:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:12 &amp;amp; 10:23&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T19:14:07.070" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:14:07.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="98" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="79" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:34:58.217" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an aspect to this type of question that is dangerous, although surely this is not what you have intended. C. S. Lewis commented upon this in his article &quot;Man or Rabbit?&quot; in the anthology &lt;em&gt;God in the Dock.&lt;/em&gt; The gist of his argument is that our heart is not in the right place if we are trying to see what we can get away with, as opposed to constantly struggling to find the best way to serve Christ, and in this instance to do the liturgy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So perhaps the answer is that if you are not expressly told not to do something, but are not sure whether it is good to do so or not, then ask around (as you are doing here), pray about it, search the Scriptures, and, of course, see what everybody has done in the past, and try to apply all that to the situation. But there is rarely a pat or obvious answer in making decisions that haven't been made before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this instance (instrumentation in worship), tradition (in the Church of Christ and in my church) has seen fit to bar instruments from liturgical worship, &quot;because it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,&quot; I suppose. Did you want an answer to this, or to the more general question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:34:58.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="99" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="116" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:38:08.143" Score="13" ViewCount="10767" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that any robust theology of Christian baptism must incorporate and draw from the fact that Jesus himself was baptized, but I rarely hear it mentioned in discussions about baptism. What place does it have in a theology of baptism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2015-06-12T00:10:12.883" Title="What is the significance of Jesus' baptism for a theology of baptism?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-06-12T08:13:07.390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="72" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:38:51.853" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your second question, there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207:55;%20Acts%207:56&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Acts 7:55-56&lt;/a&gt; in which Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost, looks up and sees God the Father and Christ on His right hand. This passage shows all three personages together, although perhaps not in the way you are looking for (since it seems to suggest that they are three personages are distinct beings).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously Stephen felt the Holy Ghost or its influence, which may or may not be interpreted as the literal presence. And while Stephen saw God and Christ, we can only speculate as to whether their literal presence was there or if it was simply a vision. Regardless, the scripture &quot;shows&quot; all three persons in a way that was very real to Stephen the apostle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorUserId="54" LastEditDate="2011-08-23T22:13:47.990" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:13:47.990" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="99" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:43:12.253" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 3:15 (King James Version)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right before Jesus was baptised, Jesus said that being baptised was part of &quot;fulfilling all righteousness.&quot;  We have it from Jesus Himself how important baptism is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="76" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:43:12.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="102" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="716" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:46:44.557" Score="19" ViewCount="1229" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always believed (like Christians around me) that Christ's Bride is the church. However, I recently met two guys that claimed that the Bride is actually the new Jerusalem that comes down from Heaven in Revelation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%203:12&amp;amp;version=31&quot;&gt;3:12&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:2&amp;amp;version=31&quot;&gt;21:2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:10&amp;amp;version=31&quot;&gt;21:10&lt;/a&gt;). What is the Biblical support for these two viewpoints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T18:10:58.293" Title="Identity of Christ's Bride" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="99" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:46:49.983" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ, who was otherwise perfect (i.e., did not need cleansing from any sin), nevertheless did not exempt Himself from the commandment of baptism. If He was perfect and yet needed baptism &quot;to fulfill all righteousness&quot;, how much more do we imperfect souls need it! It is not just for the cleansing of sin and the (re)affirmation of our commitment, it is also to become complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:46:49.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1265" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:47:37.410" Score="13" ViewCount="1840" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many evangelical circles I hear people use the terms liberal, progressive and emergent quite a bit, especially recently. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do these all refer to the same categorization of groups or of thought? Or do these have a more precise meaning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-04-15T00:54:12.917" LastActivityDate="2017-11-10T23:08:46.693" Title="Is there a difference between Liberal, Progressive, and Emergent Christianity?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;liberal-christianity&gt;&lt;emergent&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:48:09.577" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is very simple if you understand causality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the cause is faith then the effect &lt;strong&gt;must&lt;/strong&gt; be good works.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another effect of faith is justification.&#xA;(Ephisans 2:8-9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus justification is caused by faith not by works. However a good tree that produces bad fruit can not be called good. In the same way faith does not exist without producing good works. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also have to understand that belief and faith are different&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:48:09.577" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="64" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:48:22.230" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:3&amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:3&lt;/a&gt; says that God gave all living things to Noah for food. This, in turn, applies to us as Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;3&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;  Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204:1-4&amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 4&lt;/a&gt; also gives more insight into this. It deals with those who mislead the church and tell believers that they should stop eating meat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;1&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;2&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;3&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Forbidding to marry, and &lt;strong&gt;commanding to abstain from meats,&lt;/strong&gt; which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T15:54:02.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="107" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:52:33.290" Score="5" ViewCount="967" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many musical expressions used in corporate worship gatherings. Some of these music expressions are corporate (singing songs together), some are experiential (listening to a choir or soloist).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a good and proper way to enfold music into a corporate worship gathering? Is there a bad and/or inappropriate way to enfold music into a corporate worship gathering? What's the role/responsibility of the music leader(s)? What's the role/responsibility of the congregation/participants?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="51" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T20:09:54.433" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T20:09:54.433" Title="What should be the role of music in corporate worship?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-07-16T01:54:14.060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="72" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:53:17.820" Score="32" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, I will try my best to answer this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus was prophesied to be God.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 9:6&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&#xA;6 For to us a child is born,&#xA;to us a son is given,&#xA;and the government will be on his shoulders.&#xA;And he will be called&#xA;Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,&#xA;Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 1:23&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&#xA;23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[a] (which means “God with us”).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus' disciples called him God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 20:28&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&#xA;28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” &lt;em&gt;-Thomas&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Titus 2:13&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&#xA;13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, &lt;em&gt;-Paul&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus considered himself equal with God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 2:6&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(NIV)&#xA;6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,&#xA;did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 5:18&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&#xA;18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 10:30&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(NIV)&#xA;30 I and the Father are one.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus/God created all things&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:15-16&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&#xA;15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Holy spirit is God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 3:17&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(NIV)&#xA;17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;There is one God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 45:21&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(NIV)&#xA;21 Declare what is to be, present it—&#xA;let them take counsel together.&#xA;Who foretold this long ago,&#xA;who declared it from the distant past?&#xA;Was it not I, the LORD?&#xA;And there is no God apart from me,&#xA;a righteous God and a Savior;&#xA;there is none but me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit live inside of the Children of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 13:5&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(NIV)&#xA;5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:23&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(NIV)&#xA;23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 36:26-27&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;(NIV)&#xA;26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phew... hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:53:17.820" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="109" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="229" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:53:45.987" Score="25" ViewCount="26058" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48/is-masturbation-a-sin&quot;&gt;Is masturbation a sin?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a tough subject that I've grappled with my whole life.  It's clear in God's word that sex outside of marriage (adultery) is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, what is acceptable if sex isn't?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More clearly, I expect that kissing isn't a sin.  But how far beyond kissing is allowed?  How far is &quot;too far&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T16:25:47.743" Title="Sex outside of marriage is a sin. But what about &quot;less than sex&quot;?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-12-17T12:49:12.113" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="95" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:58:01.147" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Big question!  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.saintkatherineorthodoxchurch.org/articles/eastwest.htm&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is my source:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The culture - The East is familiar to Greek, Russian and Arabic&#xA;  languages/cultures, and the West is more familiar to Americans and&#xA;  English languages/cultures &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Clergy Vestments &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Liturgy/Mass - The&#xA;  East primarily uses the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and the West&#xA;  primarily uses the Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The East has an&#xA;  Iconostasis (&quot;Icon Wall&quot;) separating the Sanctuary from the rest of&#xA;  the church, and the West either has a rail (like the old Roman&#xA;  Catholic style) or nothing at all separating the Sanctuary from the&#xA;  rest of the church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T21:58:01.147" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="112" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T21:58:29.560" Score="16" ViewCount="2521" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems in John's gospel and and in other letters by John, there is a big theological emphasis on the difference between (in the Greek) ζωή &quot;Zoe&quot; life and ψυχή &quot;Psyche&quot; life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/12-25.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:25&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; The man who loves his life [ψυχή / Psyche] will lose it, while the man who hates his life [ψυχή / Psyche] in this world will keep it for eternal life [ζωή / Zoe].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any evidence of this idea preceding Christ, in Jewish thought up to that point, or in other religious traditions or is this unique to Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="35304" LastEditDate="2017-08-24T03:08:18.780" LastActivityDate="2017-08-24T03:08:18.780" Title="What is the origin of Zoe (ζωή) vs Psyche (ψυχή) life in St. John?" Tags="&lt;john-apostle&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="113" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:00:31.287" Score="13" ViewCount="5675" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is by far one of the most profound questions in Christianity today. We have so many different denominations stating many different things. I know that this is a large debate, but go ahead and post your position alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question revolves around assurance for &quot;born of the spirit.&quot; How can somebody be absolutely assured that they have the Holy Spirit living inside of them? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T04:27:17.310" LastActivityDate="2013-08-03T09:44:01.680" Title="How do you know that you are reborn of Spirit?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;reborn&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-08-03T09:54:11.223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="114" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1022" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:01:41.813" Score="46" ViewCount="65730" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; says that women shouldn't be pastors.  But there are many denominations that allow this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a&#xA;  man, but to remain quiet. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being&#xA;  deceived, fell into transgression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea also seems supported by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:34-35&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;command that women should remain &lt;em&gt;silent&lt;/em&gt; in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for allowing women to preach or be a pastor?  Specifically, what is the biblical basis of the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Christianity&quot;&gt;ordination of women&lt;/a&gt;?  Also, how do the followers of this doctrine reconcile their beliefs with that of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Timothy&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:34-35&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:34-35&lt;/a&gt; above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2021-03-15T01:59:00.293" LastActivityDate="2021-03-15T01:59:00.293" Title="What is the biblical justification for permitting female pastors?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;1-timothy&gt;&lt;female-clergy&gt;&lt;pastor&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="48" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:02:24.450" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a very good book for married, and pre-marrital couples called &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0842360247&quot;&gt;Sheet Music&lt;/a&gt;. It's aimed at the less orthodox Christians, and it has some interesting things to state about masturbation. Unfortunately I don't have it with me (I'm at work) so I will have to paraphrase, and you'll have to excuse the lack of biblical references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically it states that masturbation itself is just a physical activity, no more sinful than brushing your hair or squeezing a pimple. What is sinful is what happens in your mind &lt;em&gt;whilst&lt;/em&gt; you masturbate. If you could masturbate without thinking lustful thoughts (approach it as just a physical release, like squeezing a big pimple), then that's OK. However, it's virtually impossible to masturbate without lustful thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:02:24.450" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="99" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:03:32.030" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an excellent discussion of just this topic among the first parts of St. Nicholas Cabasilas' &lt;em&gt;Our Life in Christ.&lt;/em&gt; Any discussion of Epiphany/Theophany also should address specifically this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some thoughts along this line include the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In becoming baptized, as the other answers mention, Christ shows us a critical step on the way to salvation, viz. baptism by water and the Holy Spirit. In becoming baptized, Christ's holy body sanctified the water that now baptizes us into his death and resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in baptism, Christ's divinity was made publicly manifest, by the full Godhead no less, and as a show against the prince of this world that the kingdom of God was now coming in subtle force. To further indicate how fully the kingdom was coming, Christ went out into the wilderness to meet Satan head-on. Now when we become baptized, we too spit on the works of Satan, and now on God's side we too meet Satan to drive him out, not to tolerate his works anymore in these last days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This by no means exhausts the relationship between our baptism and Christ's. The above references should discuss this at length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:03:32.030" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="119" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="171" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:06:50.513" Score="19" ViewCount="2107" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard it a thousand times, God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Recently I came across a verse in Psalms 5:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 5:5&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)  The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a proper translation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-11-27T00:47:47.020" LastActivityDate="2015-11-27T01:00:49.793" Title="Does God hate Sinners like he hates Sin?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;&lt;hate&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-03-16T04:17:13.390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="109" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:07:46.160" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 6:18 comes to mind which says &quot;Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is telling us that asking &quot;where is the line and how close can I get to it&quot; is not the right way to think about it. Rather that we should be seeking to avoid sinning sexually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are all tempted in different ways so fleeing means different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:07:46.160" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="121" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="177" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:08:56.703" Score="31" ViewCount="4735" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was recently listening to a podcast and the preacher said that he has looked through the entire bible and could not find anywhere where it says that homosexuality was a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where does the bible stand on this? What verses talk about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T17:57:57.070" LastActivityDate="2014-06-25T11:09:58.070" Title="What does the bible say about homosexuality?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="122" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="152" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:10:52.010" Score="20" ViewCount="33434" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has proved difficult to find an answer to this question&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick concordance search of &quot;horn&quot; and you will find many different uses for the word. My center-column notes say &quot;strength.&quot; But why? What is the Hebrew sense of this word? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 92:10&lt;/strong&gt; might give a clue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be&#xA;  anointed with fresh oil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Horns are strong, they are used for annointing, for calls to battle. I seem to be answering my own question, however, there seems to be a development of the horn in the Bible, especially in the beasts in Daniel 7 &amp;amp; 8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;the son of my right hand&quot; has several understandings, but they are more obvious since handedness is universal. I know what horn means, what does horn &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="66" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T17:45:42.863" LastActivityDate="2019-02-11T23:25:28.210" Title="The symbolic use of &quot;horn&quot;" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;translation&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="104" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:10:53.023" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's really just a way of separating their church and their beliefs from pre-existing churchs and beliefs. The same way political parties do it. In Australia, we have a political party called &quot;The Liberal Party&quot;, but when you compare their policies to their name, they're not really Liberal at all, they're quite conservative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get an exact understanding of what people mean when they use these names, you really need to ask them what they believe it means. Just because they call themselves &quot;progressive&quot;, that's their interpretation of progressive, and you might actually believe they're being conservative, or gone all the way to the other side where their beliefs might not satisfy your definition of a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:10:53.023" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:12:59.113" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most people seem to be answering the question &quot;Is belief in Christ all that is required to be saved?&quot;, whereas the question was &quot;Is belief in Christ all that is required to be a Christian?&quot;. This is an important distinction, unless you believe that someone is not Christian unless they will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree that belief in Christ and faith in Christ are not the same thing, but I do not think that those whose faith may not be perfect should be classified as non-Christian. The word &quot;Christian&quot; does not deal only with belief and faith but with family, culture, and identity. In that regard, the final judgement will not be exactly the same for all those whom we consider to be Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:12:59.113" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="128" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1206" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:18:16.013" Score="60" ViewCount="30041" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Exodus 21:10&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:15-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 21:15-16&lt;/a&gt; (among many other passages), it talks about polygamy as if it were acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, there are several holy men (Abraham and Solomon come to mind offhand) that had multiple wives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems pretty clear that God doesn't mind polygamy and that it is allowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is there a modern-day restriction on such practices?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;As has been pointed out, I'm using &quot;polygamy&quot; in the modern/popular sense (such as &quot;polygamy camps&quot; of the FLDS group).  Truly, the actual word is &quot;polygyny&quot;, which is a man marrying multiple wives.  Other forms of polygamy (polyandry and such) seem pretty clearly against God's word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit 2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Per a comment, I'm seeking any answer from any denomination/doctrine that does not support polygamy.  Although there are a few denominations that do, I'm not interested in their history so much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-21T04:48:41.490" LastActivityDate="2016-09-24T17:37:32.717" Title="The Bible seems to allow polygamy. Why doesn't the church?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;polygamy&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="16" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:30:46.750" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="130" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:22:19.070" Score="86" ViewCount="27683" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would &lt;em&gt;seem&lt;/em&gt; that the first part of the book of Genesis contradicts what science teaches about the origin of life on earth. If I am to reconcile evolution and Genesis, it seems that I have a number of options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Accept Genesis as a metaphor for the sinfulness/corruption of mankind &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dismiss the story entirely&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Believe that God picked two early humans and the first that he 'breathed' life into, and these two were Adam and Eve.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These options are not very good in my book because both Jesus and St. Paul, in the New Testament, made it clear they understood the story to have been a historical truth. At the same time I believe God gave us two eyes and a brain, and you cannot reject evolution out of hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a question that has had quite a heated debate for quite some time, and I do not have expectation that one answer will be 'right'. However, I am asking it anyway since it is one I continue to struggle with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-23T23:26:28.840" LastActivityDate="2014-02-28T11:19:44.650" Title="Can I believe in evolution and still be a Christian?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="18" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="107" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:25:38.517" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Music is a critical part of a praise service, but it is not always appropriate for other services, such as vigils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The role of music in the bible is widespread, and there's no right or wrong way to use it. Whether you listen to the music, sing along, or ignore it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very common use of music is to take the worshipper on a journey. At the beginning of the worship, some uplifting songs to get people in the spirit, and then using slower, quieter songs to take them down into self reflection and confession. Then, positive, upbeat music to end on a high. It's not uncommon in churches with a younger demographic for these later songs to be rock songs, or very contemporary songs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are certainly inappropriate uses of music. Music that detracts from the purpose of the service is inappropriate, which is why you won't usually find music at a vigil service, and the songs at a funeral aren't usually rock songs (although sometimes that could be appropriate, depending on the wishes of the family)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the roles, this depends greatly on the exact congregation you're in. At some, the worship leader (pastor, priest, etc) needs to maintain control over music and song selection to ensure that appropriate songs with appropriate lyrics are chosen. Others this is entrusted to a lay person with good biblical knowledge, but often there are both people and they work togther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the congregation, I'm of the belief that they should take whatever role they are most comfortable with. Some (most) will sing along, others will listen, others may feel the need to dance, raise their hands, and others (particularly teenagers during a traditional service with hymns from the 1700s) will just ignore it and wish they were elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:25:38.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="107" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:32:12.897" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though not exactly related, there is a biblical tradition of incorporating music into corporate worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+15:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 15:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I will sing to the LORD,     for he is highly exalted.  Both horse&#xA;  and driver     he has hurled into the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we read the context, we see that this is the Song of Moses and Miriam and that Moses and Miriam are leading these people in worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, I believe it's the role of the leader to guide the people in worshiping God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I believe we, as a congregation have a responsibility to sing praises to our God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles+16:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1Chron 16:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Sing to him, sing praise to him;     tell of all his wonderful acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We need to put aside our selfish pride and humbly sing to our God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T22:32:12.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:42:01.673" Score="72" Body="&lt;p&gt;You certainly &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt;, and some percentage of believers &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; believe in some form of (usually theistic) evolution in an effort to reconcile the findings of science with the revelation of God in his word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The essential breakdown for creation systems is (with lots of co-mingling and blurring):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Naturalism: Old universe with evolution and no God at all, for which evolution is the only game in town to explain the &quot;how&quot; of it. (NE)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Theistic Evolution: Old universe with divine inception and left largely to run itself, with varying though usually quite minor subsequent involvement by God. (TE)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Old Creation: Old universe in which a creator specifically and miraculously creates. (OEC)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Young Creation:  Young universe in which a creator specifically and miraculously creates. (YEC)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(where &quot;young&quot; means a few thousand to a few tens of thousand earth years, and &quot;old&quot; means anywhere from 9 to 14 billion earth years).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in my opinion, and it's just my opinion, the scientific evidence seems to have much more to say about the age of the universe and the fact that time and space has a beginning than whether or not macro evolution occurs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an extensive subject, and I have arrived at my current position (which is that of old-earth creation) after many years of believing differently and after a lot of research and mulling on the matter. If you would like a lot of material on such a model, I strongly recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reasons to Believe&lt;/a&gt;.  Also worth reading is material from Jewish theologian and scientist &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Gerald-L.-Schroeder/e/B000APV1XA/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gerald Schroeder&lt;/a&gt;.  Another good source looks to be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Evidence for God&lt;/a&gt; website (though I am not as well versed with their material as I am RTB).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found old-earth creation to be, on balance, the best interpretation so far of both scientific evidence and Biblical revelation when the anticipation is for both to be true and accurate and in harmony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, the most compelling arguments on the matter are those from scripture along the vein of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:20, NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 19:1, NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, to me, says we can and should expect that the revelation of God through creation is consistent with the revelation of God through scripture.  If the two seem to be in conflict then we are misunderstanding one or the other (or both).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, if what we can discover of God from observing his creation is deliberately misleading (or even downright deceptive), then that seems to put Romans 1:20 in a very bad light in terms of what it says about God's attributes.  Consideration of this principle (that we can know God by his creation), which appears to be quite Biblical, seems to render arguments that God created the universe with apparent age (and such arguments as light from distance stars being created in-transit) dubious - and certainly such arguments would not be seem to be the &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt; explanation of the entire body of evidence we currently have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that the Genesis account is not the only part of Scripture that deals with creation, and therefore your understanding of the mechanics of creation needs to consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/creation-passages-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the other relevant verses&lt;/a&gt; as well as the scientific evidence available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT: 2011-08-26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some theological/doctrinal problems that occur with evolution (theistic or otherwise):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Humanity is no longer uniquely created in the image of God, which means we no longer have innate dignity and value as distinct from the rest of creation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Humanity is no longer created to reign over the rest of creation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam and Eve are no longer historical people.  Therefore the doctrine of man's sinful nature inherited from Adam is abolished, since there was no single progenitor from which to inherit a sin-nature.  Were Jesus and the apostles mistaken when they spoke of Adam and Eve as real historical individuals - esp. Paul who bases his entire thesis of salvation on Adam's fault in Romans 5?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis must be considered mythological or semi-mythological rather than being regarded as a historical narrative.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Theistic evolution generally limits or eliminates God's providential intervention in the creation that he &quot;set in motion&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis 2:7 in describing the creation of Adam seems to require an intellectual stretch to understand as describing simpler species evolving into humans.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-01-21T00:09:04.817" LastActivityDate="2014-01-21T00:09:04.817" CommentCount="9" CommunityOwnedDate="2014-01-20T23:59:26.787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="137" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="149" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:43:28.923" Score="26" ViewCount="1522" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christians are for and some are against capital punishment. However what does the Bible have to say about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-08-11T07:04:15.463" LastActivityDate="2014-08-11T07:04:15.463" Title="What does the Bible say about Capital Punishment?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;capital-punishment&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-03-05T03:04:42.513" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="138" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:50:32.953" Score="14" ViewCount="838" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that a lot of misunderstanding of the Bible comes from scripture being taken out of context. What are some other rules or guidelines for taking a literal  or first interpretation (like 'Jesus wept'), or figurative or second interpretation (like most of Revelations)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T14:58:06.447" Title="What guidelines or rules should be used when interpreting the Bible?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-12-17T12:48:53.690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="78" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:52:14.267" Score="37" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the quick answer to your question, see &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1,14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 1:1, 14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But really, this is a simple matter of the transitive property.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus forgives sin&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%202:1-12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Mark 2:1-12&lt;/a&gt;): It's a non-debated point of doctrine that only God can forgive sins. It's easy for the modern reader to marvel at the miracle without realizing the greater significance of Jesus' statement. Jesus here uses the miracle to refute the accusations of blasphemy (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20130:4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Psalm 130:4&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%2043:25&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Isa. 43:25&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Dan. 9:9&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus is eternal&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joh%208:53-59&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 8:53-59&lt;/a&gt;): The Jews weren't about to stone Him because they didn't like what He said, but because He was saying that He is God. I AM is His name. At the very least, Jesus is claiming to be no ordinary man, for how else could He claim to exist before Abraham? Also, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joh%201:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 1:2&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joh%2017:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;17:5&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%201:8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rev. 1:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus is creator&lt;/strong&gt;: See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joh%201:3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 1:3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col.%201:16-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Col. 1:16,17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 1:2&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus is rightly worshiped&lt;/strong&gt;: Jesus is worshiped throughout the Gospels (recorded seven times in Matthew alone: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%202:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;2:11&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%208:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;8:2&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%209:18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;9:18&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2014:33&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;14:33&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2015:25&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;15:25&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2028:9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;28:9&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2028:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;28:17&lt;/a&gt;) and it is not recorded that he stopped them. See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil%202:10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Philippians 2:10&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%201:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Heb 1:6&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.%205:12-14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rev. 5:12-14&lt;/a&gt;, when all of creation and the heavenly angels worship Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T22:19:39.243" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T22:19:39.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="128" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:55:00.637" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Titus 1:6 (among other passages) states that one of the requirements for an elder in the church was that he was the husband of &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; wife. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201:6-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Titus 1:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An elder must be blameless, faithful to his &lt;strong&gt;wife&lt;/strong&gt;, a man whose children believe[a] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis mine) - notice it says &lt;code&gt;wife&lt;/code&gt;, not &lt;code&gt;wives&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read up for more info: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="100" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-09-24T17:37:32.717" LastActivityDate="2016-09-24T17:37:32.717" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-08-23T22:57:35.533" Score="36" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I have &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; strong beliefs on this subject, I cannot dogmatically say that if you believe evolution you cannot be truly saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am convinced that if you discount God's own eye-witness account of what He did during creation that you're greatly undermining your faith, but while it is an important truth to comprehend, I do not believe it is vital to salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reasoning behind the 4th Commandment makes little or no sense if the account in Genesis 1 is not correct, too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Exodus%2020:8-11&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:11&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016:26-29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Exodus 16:26-29&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the sabbath, there will be [a]none. It came about on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. Then the LORD said to Moses, &quot;How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions? See, the LORD has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Mosaic covenant does not make sense without the literal creation week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God says in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2031:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Exodus 31:17&lt;/a&gt; he made the world in 6 days and rested the 7th:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Himself &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;declared&lt;/a&gt; that He was '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Lord of the Sabbath&lt;/a&gt;', since He is the Son of God. Declaring Himself to be '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Lord of the Sabbath&lt;/a&gt;' would have been irrational if the creation days are merely figurative and do not reflect accurately the amount of time God spent to create the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2012-04-28T17:14:02.740" LastActivityDate="2012-04-28T17:14:02.740" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="144" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:00:29.443" Score="22" ViewCount="9927" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his recent book, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.robbell.com/lovewins/&quot;&gt;Love Wins&lt;/a&gt;, author and pastor &lt;a href=&quot;http://robbell.com&quot;&gt;Rob Bell&lt;/a&gt; caused quite a bit of controversy (and anger) by making the argument that Heaven is the state that we are in when we follow God's will and Hell is the state we are in when we follow our own will, and that after death there is no reason to think that we will continue on in these state. He argues that we obviously have the choice to follow God's will our or own in life, but it is debatable if that decision will be available after death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He essentially cites every single mention of Hell in the Bible and makes the case that most are fairly ambiguous when it comes to the eternal state of those who die rejecting God's will. He explains that a lot of the modern imagery of hell is a product of the middle ages, and is not in fact Biblically based (Satan is the ruler of hell, etc). I couldn't help but notice he did not mention several versus that did not mention hell &lt;em&gt;explicitly&lt;/em&gt;, but which clearly reference it and seem to make clear it is eternal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also went on to cite a number of versus that indicate that God wants everyone to be saved and ask the question 'Does God get what he wants?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_timothy/2-4.htm&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is it debatable? Are there any denominations which do not place those who rejected or never heard the gospel in hell forever? Is it heretical to believe that some non Christians will not be in hell forever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T19:19:55.843" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T14:27:57.907" Title="Is Hell eternal, or do some/all escape it?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-08-12T21:54:31.240" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="146" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="196" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:03:28.597" Score="14" ViewCount="17673" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%209&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 9:1-8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”&#xA;   &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”  &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; Then the man got up and went home.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does  Matthew 9:5 mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken literally, it doesn't seem to make any sense at all. What is the verse trying to say? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-05T11:00:12.523" LastActivityDate="2021-04-17T18:35:32.533" Title="What is the message of Matthew 9:5?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2021-04-17T21:58:45.367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="146" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:09:18.387" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's rooted in the idea that the man's affliction was a result of a past sin.  Exactly what or why, we aren't told.  But when people questioned Jesus for presuming to forgive the man's sin (which only God has the authority to do, and they weren't convinced of his divinity,) he pointed out that it's just as easy to say &quot;your sins are forgiven&quot; (thus implying that the punishment is rescinded) as to say &quot;get up and walk,&quot; and that the two are basically equivalent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T23:09:18.387" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="137" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:09:30.053" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a host of references to capital punishment in the Bible - the first of which is in Genesis shortly after the Flood in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:6&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ did not condemn the Roman soldiers for executing the thieves who were crucified with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul does not deny the government the right to execute him if he has done something worthy of death in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2025:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Acts 25:11a&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excluding specific commands regarding what was worthy of death to the nation of Israel under God's special covenant, it would seem that the Bible takes a neutral-to-positive view of the death penalty: the Noahic covenant was made with only 8 people on the planet - the forebears of all of modern humanity. As with Adamic covenants, since the it was made to the federal representative(s) of humanity, it still applies today - especially in light of the end of the covenant (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:12-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:12ff&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God said, &quot;This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T15:22:43.083" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T15:22:43.083" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:10:26.243" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most important thing to remember when Christians debate the origins of the world is that the &lt;em&gt;main&lt;/em&gt; point of the Genesis creation account is to demonstrate that God created us, and God created the world.  And as Creator, he has ultimate authority over all of creation, and over each and every one of us. Regardless of his personal view on evolution, any Christian ought to agree with this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This moves the debate about evolution into more of an academic realm, than one of great &quot;spiritual&quot; importance, except for the minority of people who have difficultly even considering Christianity as a viable religion without an answer to this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now having said that, let me provide some commentary on evolution, and the Genesis creation account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, an important Biblical principle to me is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 19:1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens declare the glory of God;&#xA;     the skies proclaim the work of his hands. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is revealed through His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 6:18&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...it is impossible for God to lie...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Together, I take this to mean that God's creation, and his scripture must be reconcilable.  This would discount your option #2 &quot;Dismiss the story entirely,&quot; and leave us with your other two options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a purely Biblical standpoint, I think either of your remaining two options could hold water.  We know that much of the Bible is metaphor, and there are many Christians who believe that much or all of the Genesis account of creation is metaphorical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You struggle with accepting the story as metaphor, because both Jesus and Paul &quot;made it clear they understood the story to have been a historical truth.&quot; It is important to understand that around the first century, &quot;historical truth&quot; had a much different meaning than it does in modern western thinking. In modern western thought, for a story to be &quot;historically true&quot;, it must have happened exactly and literally as described.  In most oral cultures, including the first century Jewish culture, &quot;historically accurate&quot; had more to do with the story having meaningful life truths in it, and describing a historical event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Christ says many things that, read in a modern western context, appear to affirm things which we now believe were not factually correct.  He refers to Jewish mythology, without actively questioning the validity of the mythology. Does this mean he believes the mythology to be true, or simply that he's using it to illustrate his point?  I would argue the latter.  Example, Christ's reference Hades in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 11:23&lt;/a&gt; and other places--we often interpret this to refer to the Christian concept of Hell, but Hades was its own, specific concept of Hell, taken from Greek mythology. Surely Christ did not mean to affirm the Greek concept of Hades by mentioning it to make his point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as a last point, while I believe that God's creation and scripture will never disagree, and therefore science, as the study of God's creation, ought to also agree with scripture, it is abundantly clear that science changes over time.  Current scientific understanding is likely to change--as it has throughout the history of Christianity.  Only a few hundred years ago, science believed the earth was the center of the universe, the earth was flat, and that all matter was made of earth, wind and fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important thing for a Christian to believe in this debate is that God and his Bible never lie, and that God is revealed through creation, and therefore &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; science and &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; Biblical interpretation should not be at odds with each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the gist of my answer... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strike&gt;But now, I'm going to step out on a limb here, and say that evolution is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; good science, and so trying to reconcile evolution with the Bible is a waste of time at best.  I'm not going to provide huge amounts of detail here, because I think it's a bit of a tangent.  But I believe there is good science to show the universe is tens of billions of years old, and that the moon formed when a planetoid collided with the earth a few short billions of years ago, and dinosaurs roamed the planet several million years ago.  In other words, I do believe that science and &lt;strong&gt;Young Earth Creatonism&lt;/strong&gt; are not reconcilable.  However, there is practically no direct evidence (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/articles/face-the-facts-about-evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/evolution/theistic-evolution/evolution-mythology-part-1-5-theory-evolution-myth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, as well as the two books mentioned below) for macro evolution, on the order necessary to explain humans having evolved from single-celled organisms.&lt;/strike&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further reading, I recommend the author &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/dr-hugh-ross.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugh Ross&lt;/a&gt;, and especially his book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0891097767&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creation and Time&lt;/a&gt;, which explains how the Biblical creation account actually &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; match good science (and this is in fact what lead Hugh Ross to faith in Christ in the first place). Another book of his, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B002U0KQVQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Creator and the Cosmos&lt;/a&gt; I also recommend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;I am re-evaluating my view on evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T02:34:36.730" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T02:34:36.730" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="138" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:11:07.553" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's easy to take things out of context when the words that you use have different meanings then when they WERE first used. Not only has the Bible been translated into the English language, there has been thousands of years since the words were first used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hypothetically, if we spoke fluent Greek and Hebrew today we still wouldn't have the exact meaning of the words used during Biblical times. For example, the definition of Love in the English language today has one meaning. But the Greek's had four different definitions of that word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Guideline One&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to understand the context of which the passages were written in, you need to use the Scripture to define the Scripture. Thus start your Biblical studies by choosing a single word at a time and then finding all of the scripture that mentions that word. This way you'll begin to redefine your own meanings of the words with the definition formed from scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Guideline Two&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Empty your presumptions. You cannot accept anything that the Bible has to say if you're not willing to first loosen your own foothold on your beliefs. Most people are not willing to adjust their traditions when reading the Bible, they simple read the Bible and reinforce their own presumptions. Ignoring completely the verses that contradict their personal beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Guideline Three&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Bible is true, as I believe that it is, then you cannot and will not understand the Scripture if you are not reborn. Thus, the reason that there are so many interpretations. In order to have the scripture opened up to you, you must first go to God in prayer and ask to be granted repentance. If you believe in Jesus then you will repent and accept Him as your Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 2:25&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that&#xA;  God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the&#xA;  truth,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 5:32&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit,&#xA;  whom God has given to those who obey him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-18T03:46:22.147" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T03:46:22.147" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="122" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:11:30.943" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hermann Gunkel's psalm commentary lets us know this: &quot;The metaphor of the horn, originally used by God (cf. the Babylonian crown of horns) was then transferred to the king, and finally to the normal prayer.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the accompanying intruction to the psalms, he calls the horns a &quot;symbol of God's power&quot;.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spurgeon basically says the same. I quote: &quot;It pleased holy David more that God was his strength than that He gave him strength [...] that God was his fortress, his buckler, &lt;strong&gt;his horn&lt;/strong&gt;, his hight tower&quot; etc.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might be suprised, but: that's all that's known.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: Hermann Gunkel, &lt;em&gt;Die Psalmen&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;1986), p410&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2: Hermann Gunkel, &lt;em&gt;Einleitung in die Psalmen&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;1985), p148&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3: Charles Haddon Spurgeon, &lt;em&gt;The treasury of David&lt;/em&gt; (2004), p78&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T03:06:16.253" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T03:06:16.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="154" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:21:18.160" Score="20" ViewCount="3683" Body="&lt;p&gt;This distinction is often called tripartite division of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ran across this series of blog posts, which considers the division of the law into &quot;moral&quot;, &quot;civil&quot;, and &quot;ceremonial&quot; parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maelandcindy.blogspot.ca/2008/06/is-mosaic-law-tripartite.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Introduction&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maelandcindy.blogspot.ca/2008/06/is-mosaic-law-tripartite-historical.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Historical Overview&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maelandcindy.blogspot.ca/2008/07/is-mosaic-law-tripartite-analyzing.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Analyzing Aquinas' arguments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maelandcindy.blogspot.ca/2008/07/is-mosaic-law-tripartite-analyzing_19.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Analyzing Calvins' arguments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maelandcindy.blogspot.ca/2008/07/is-mosaic-law-tripartite-wrapping-up.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wrapping up with two more historical views&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maelandcindy.blogspot.ca/2008/08/is-mosaic-law-tripartite-entertain.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Entertain generic arguments for flaws in the tripartite assumption&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maelandcindy.blogspot.ca/2008/08/is-mosaic-law-tripartite-some-final.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some final thoughts&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Standards&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Westminster standards&lt;/a&gt; (and others), even go on to claim that the &quot;moral&quot; law is one and the same with the Ten Commandments. This sometimes becomes something of a hermeneutical key, e.g., when interpreting passages that point out that the law is overturned, asserting that the passage is referring to the ceremonial law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, Confessional Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists are not typically considered Thomists, and yet find this principle as no minor point in their confessional documents. Aquinas's reasoning is usually rejected when directly addressed, but the essential division is held nonetheless. Is there some other supporting reasoning, or an alternative origin other than via Aquinas? Likewise, is there support for equating the &quot;moral law&quot; (which is said to remain on Christians) with the Decalogue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-12-25T01:55:35.513" LastActivityDate="2019-02-14T18:29:27.027" Title="What is the origin of the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of the Old Testament law?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;tripartite-law-division&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="155" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:23:00.793" Score="13" ViewCount="1587" Body="&lt;p&gt;Current culture has a lot to say about the similarities of the roles of husband and wife in marriage. What does the Bible have to say about roles in a Christian marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="23718" LastEditDate="2015-12-24T22:19:00.977" LastActivityDate="2015-12-24T22:19:00.977" Title="What are the differences between the roles of husband and wife in a Christian marriage?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-12-26T05:25:59.293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="156" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:28:26.340" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-23T23:28:26.340" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T23:28:26.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="157" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:28:26.340" Score="0" Body="The process whereby God brought the heavens and the earth, and all of their diverse contents, into existence" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T20:54:21.153" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T20:54:21.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="146" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:32:26.537" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ is using his ability to perform miracles as evidence that he is God, and therefore has the right and the ability to forgive sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is saying, anyone can say &quot;Your sins are forgiven,&quot; without any evidence that they have the authority to do so.  But only God can heal a paralytic.  So by performing such a miracle, Christ is proving that he has the authority of God both to heal &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; to forgive sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-12-06T22:17:43.630" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T22:17:43.630" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="160" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="164" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:37:02.317" Score="19" ViewCount="2253" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are bound to be lots of questions like &quot;Is X or Y a sin?&quot;. However, what is sin at its root and where in the Bible do we get our understanding of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T21:24:39.970" LastActivityDate="2015-10-20T16:23:00.127" Title="What is the essence of sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-10-25T00:54:38.837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="55" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:37:18.790" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is uncertain whether the person in question was an angel or was Christ.  It is my understanding that it is fairly widely held among theologians that this passage is an example of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophany&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christophany&lt;/a&gt;, but I cannot quickly cite any references for that view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That the 4th person was a heavenly being seems quite clear from the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2015-04-26T23:46:12.947" LastActivityDate="2015-04-26T23:46:12.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:43:47.093" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply put, sin (lowercase s) is the act of disobeying God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bit more complexly put, Sin (capital S) is kind of like a disorder that Adam and Eve got from disobeying God and that we all inherited.  This disorder (AKA our cursed flesh) contributes to our sinning, that is, committing sin, the act of disobeying God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Requested Biblical references for original Sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 8:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never&#xA;  again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though &lt;strong&gt;every&#xA;  inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood&lt;/strong&gt;. And never again&#xA;  will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalms 51:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Surely I was sinful at birth,     sinful from the time my mother&#xA;  conceived me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 3:10-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 As it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“There is no one righteous, not even one;   11 there is no one who&#xA;  understands;     there is no one who seeks God.  12 All have turned&#xA;  away,     they have together become worthless;  there is no one who&#xA;  does good,     not even one.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 5:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Therefore, just as &lt;strong&gt;sin entered the world through one man&lt;/strong&gt;, and death&#xA;  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all&#xA;  sinned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(All emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; this happened,  I don't know how better to describe it other than &quot;we inherited it&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastEditorUserId="56" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T18:39:32.113" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:39:32.113" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="114" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:46:36.893" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that some of the most popular verses to oppose this are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:28&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:28&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:34&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 10:34&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 16:15&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:28&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(Gal 3:28)&lt;/a&gt;  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:34&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(Act 10:34)&lt;/a&gt;  Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses are mainly saying that no one can be &amp;quot;more saved&amp;quot; than others. Saved Jews don't have anything over saved Gentiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(Mar 16:15)&lt;/a&gt;  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that women can be pastors either though, it says that every person should preach the gospel, but obviously not everyone should be a pastor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="103" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T03:18:49.370" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:49:43.620" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luther has famously argues that every time you break any other commandment, you always break the first commandment; in other words, behind every sin is the desire to worship a god other the God. Whether it is pride, in which we consider ourself to be God, or a sin of fear-of-man, in which we consider another person to be God, all sin is, at its core, idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you see the essential problem as a worship issue, over against a breaking-of-commandments issue, I think several things are clarified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Worship and idolatry addresses both the positive and negative sides. That is, when we do what is right, we are worshipping God (and conversely), and when we are not worshipping God, we are not doing what is right (and conversely).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Much of the Bible talks about idolatry, and seems a bit foreign and obsolete to modern ears. After all, we do not deal with Baal or Molech on a daily basis. However, when considering this as an example of our basic relationship with God, these passages become much more relavant. God is repeatedly enraged by his people worshipping idols and intermixing with other gods. Though we do not by and large bow down to physical idols made by hands, we do worship at the gods of money, power, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The idolatry issues allows for a distinction between things that are good and created by God against things that ultimate for us. God gives us food, but we can be gluttons. God gives us sex but we find all ways to abuse it. Seeing sin as essentially idolatry allows us to have good things be God-centered, and not find abuse to be the only use we can comprehend.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T23:49:43.620" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-08-23T23:56:13.657" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are different concepts of &quot;sin&quot; to be considered.  For instance, Christians hold to the doctrine of a sinful nature--meaning all humans are sinful from birth, by virtue of the fact that they are human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it seems your question is more along the lines of what actions (including thoughts) are sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a concise definition in this context would be &quot;Acting against the will of God.&quot;  Although to my knowledge, such a concise definition is not found in scripture.  If you look at the various scriptures that define sinful acts, though, you can come up with this concise definition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deliberate act against the law of God -- 1 John 3:4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mental consent to temptation -- Romans 7:7-8, Matthew 5:27-28, James 1:14, Proverbs 24:9 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unbelief -- Romans 14:23, John 3:18, John 16:8-9&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Negligence or Failure to do good -- James 4:17, James 2:14, Matthew 23:23, Matthew 25:43-46&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doing wrong out of ignorance -- Leviticus 5:17-19, Luke 12:48, 1 Timothy 1:13&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T23:56:13.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:01:15.150" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to scripture, hell is real, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/3-3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;anyone who was not born again will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/25-41.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;41&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/25-42.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;42&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/25-43.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;43&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/25-44.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;44&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/25-45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;45&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/25-46.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;46&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 25:41-46 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/revelation/20-14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;14&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/revelation/20-15.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;15&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Revelation 20:14-15&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This clearly states that anyone who does not follow Christ and accept Him into their heart will go to hell. It's inconvenient, but nowhere does it say that following him will be convenient. Anyone who thinks they have an expert knowledge of God is silly. God is too big for man to understand. We have the gift of prayer and his word to find answers in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Francis Chan did a wonderful job of explaining this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnrJVTSYLr8&amp;amp;feature=youtu.be&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on YouTube&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="107" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T19:21:15.420" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:21:15.420" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="155" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:01:22.200" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer would be that the Bible has little or nothing to say about &lt;em&gt;roles&lt;/em&gt; (that is, who does what) within a marriage, but it has quite a lot to say about &lt;em&gt;authority&lt;/em&gt;.  Authority does not have to do with who does what, but who leads whom and where the buck stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:21-33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:21-33&lt;/a&gt; is key:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church — &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; for we are members of his body. &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which, in the context, starts of with an admonition for mutual submission between believers and then goes on to define the authority structure within a family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have yet to meet a women who honestly would object to being submissive to a man whose objective was to love her &amp;quot;just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also that Christian authority is (should be) exercised with a servant's heart.  That is to properly lead my wife I must strive to &lt;em&gt;serve&lt;/em&gt; her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-12-24T21:38:14.053" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:03:21.433" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a good question with no direct answer in the Bible. But we get a good glimpse of it's &quot;essence&quot; in the following scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let no one say when he is tempted, &quot;I am tempted by God&quot;; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.&#xA;James 1:13-15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we see here that there is a definite process that begins before sin is committed and then after sin is committed. The above answers do really well to highlight those things, and so I will emphasize a couple of things&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Sin starts with pride - one's &quot;own desires&quot; that are not shared with God. &#xA;-Sin is born, presumably when they are committed, but after that, they can develop into something worse. Jesus might be alluding to this in John 5:14 when he says, &quot;Go and sin no more lest a worse thing befall you.&quot;&#xA;-Sin does not come from God. It is apart from Him, distinct from Him, and what ever nature or essence it has is not shared with God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="66" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T22:57:09.283" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T22:57:09.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="119" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:03:46.500" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question. I think where people often struggle with this is the imposition of the assumption that hate and love are mutually exclusive. This often tends to be the case with us, but it is a result of our sinful nature. God can both hate the sinner for what he does, and still love him in many ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Donald Carson has a great little book (&lt;a href=&quot;http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2000_difficult_doctrine_of_the_love_of_God.pdf&quot;&gt;free PDF&lt;/a&gt;) called the Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, in which he argues that God's love is not spoken of univocally throughout scripture, but instead that there are multiple perspectives that scripture gives to show us a broader lover than we can see from only one angle. I've reproduced the author's breakdown below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The peculiar love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for&#xA;the Father.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God’s providential love over all that he has made.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God’s salvific stance toward his fallen world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God’s particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, God’s love is sometimes said to be directed toward his&#xA;own people in a provisional or conditional way—conditioned, that is,&#xA;on obedience.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allowing for a multiperspectival approach to understanding God's Love helps us to see God as simultaneously loving and full of wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T00:03:46.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="113" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:22:54.523" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;You will know that you are reborn in spirit when people notice a significant change in you. It's like being hit by a large truck, you are never the same afterwards. The same can be said for the spirit of God entering your life, God is unimaginably big. If you have been truly changed and born again, people will take notice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know people that get saved and they don't even physically look the same anymore. Instead of hurt, you see love in their eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="107" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T00:22:54.523" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="121" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:31:07.063" Score="43" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an entire &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia post&lt;/a&gt; regarding this subject.  (Thus it's my source as it's easily referenced.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13%20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 20:13&lt;/a&gt; is the first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a&#xA;woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put&#xA;to death; their blood will be on their own heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+18-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 18-19&lt;/a&gt; has the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where homosexuality was a big part of their culture.  The town was destroyed for their wickedness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2019:4-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 19:4-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city&#xA;of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to&#xA;Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us&#xA;so that we can have sex with them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel even talks about this event here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49-50&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 16:49-50&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses clearly state that Sodom was destroyed because of they were haughty and did detestable things.  While Ezekiel isn't clear &lt;em&gt;which&lt;/em&gt; detestable things were done, the Genesis account only indicates rampant homosexuality (possibly alluding to public, homosexual orgies) as the cause for this phrase &amp;quot;detestable things&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also echos the Leviticus scripture showing that God finds homosexuality detestable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, we have to either conclude it was homosexuality that was detestable, or something that was not written about.  But why would Moses have included homosexuality in Genesis if it weren't the &amp;quot;detestable thing&amp;quot; for which God was destroying the city? In fact, if it wasn't one of the primary reasons for God destroying the cities, why write about it at all? It simply becomes another attribute of the city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's hard (if not impossible) to separate the destruction of Sodom from the concept of homosexuality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;3&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 1:26-27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their&#xA;women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the&#xA;same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were&#xA;inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with&#xA;other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there's 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8–10, which refer to sexual sin on a more general basis.  Those previous three are pretty solid references, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T20:08:26.930" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="82" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:31:50.497" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good way to think of the Trinity is three &lt;em&gt;persons&lt;/em&gt; sharing one infinite &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt;. That is, the way in which God is one is not the same as the way in which he is three; not that he is somehow three of one thing and at the same time one of that same thing, but that he is three of one thing and one of a completely different thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As humans, we're used to being one person and having one nature unique from other persons so it's hard, but not impossible, for us to conceive of a single nature shared by three people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great treatise on the Trinity can be found in the first part of Frank Sheed's &quot;Theology and Sanity&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T20:18:06.037" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T20:18:06.037" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="179" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:37:01.390" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the history, composition and canon of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't&lt;/strong&gt; use this tag for questions about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Specific books of the Bible - use a tag for that specific book instead&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The basis of a beliefs and practices - use a tag for the belief or practice, along with the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/biblical-basis&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;biblical-basis&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;biblical-basis&lt;/a&gt; tag&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also use the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/old-testament&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;old-testament&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;old-testament&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/new-testament&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;new-testament&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;new-testament&lt;/a&gt; tags for questions relating to only those parts of the Bible, and the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/apocrypha&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;apocrypha&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;apocrypha&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/deuterocanonical-books&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;deuterocanonical-books&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;deuterocanonical-books&lt;/a&gt; tags for questions about books outside the main scriptural canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-18T00:15:03.400" LastActivityDate="2014-07-18T00:15:03.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="180" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:37:01.390" Score="0" Body="Questions about the history, composition and canon of the Bible. Don't use this tag for beliefs and practices in the Bible." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-18T00:15:16.130" LastActivityDate="2014-07-18T00:15:16.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="181" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="197" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:38:06.210" Score="16" ViewCount="2301" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always heard it said that Jesus was &quot;completely human&quot; and &quot;completely God&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How could he be both human (finite by very nature) and God (infinite by very nature)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T14:20:14.920" LastActivityDate="2012-02-05T17:49:20.530" Title="Was Jesus finite or infinite? (human or God?)" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:45:13.297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:38:35.400" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that Wesley best defined sin as &quot;A willful transgression of a known law of God.&quot; Romans 5:13 says, &quot;... before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.&quot; Romans 7:7 says, &quot;What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, I would have to agree with Wesley's conclusion that sin is doing something of which you know God doesn't approve. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T00:38:35.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="183" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:39:07.223" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;History is crucial for understanding a lot of the Bible, such as the history of Israel, or the Roman Empire. But please use the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/church-history&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;church-history&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;church-history&lt;/a&gt; tag for questions about the history of the church and other major events since the completion of the New Testament. Please use the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/origin&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;origin&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;origin&lt;/a&gt; tag for questions about the origin of a term, belief or practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-17T19:51:59.583" LastActivityDate="2014-07-17T19:51:59.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="184" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:39:07.223" Score="0" Body="For questions related to history generally.  Use the [church-history] tag for the history of the post-NT church." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-28T14:10:48.280" LastActivityDate="2016-10-28T14:10:48.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="185" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="237" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:40:12.027" Score="35" ViewCount="119589" Body="&lt;p&gt;Randy Alcorn claims in his book &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=randy%20alcorn%20heaven&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;tbm=shop&amp;amp;cid=15277268407333200652&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=z0dUTvPsKaO30AG6u7jLAg&amp;amp;ved=0CEMQ8wIwAQ&quot;&gt;Heaven&lt;/a&gt; (page 374) that animals have souls, though not necessarily like humans. Is there any Biblical support for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T02:15:50.690" LastActivityDate="2014-10-08T02:22:46.327" Title="According to the Bible, do animals have souls?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T00:04:12.003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="186" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:43:07.653" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin is any thought, act or state of being which is contrary to God's will. It can be defined as disobedience to his laws or as disbelief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the nature of sin, or Christian attitudes towards it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westminster Shorter Catechism&lt;/a&gt; defines sin thusly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/160/what-is-the-essence-of-sin&quot;&gt;What is the essence of sin?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1011/how-should-a-christian-evaluate-whether-a-particular-action-a-sin-or-not&quot;&gt;How should a christian evaluate whether a particular action a sin or not?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1671/what-is-the-greatest-sin&quot;&gt;What is the greatest sin?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/ten-commandments&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'ten-commandments'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;ten-commandments&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:54:39.247" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:54:39.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="187" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:43:07.653" Score="0" Body="Sin is an act or state of disobedience towards God." OwnerUserId="56" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-11T19:02:57.307" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T19:02:57.307" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:44:09.943" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to &quot;have to&quot; obey God's laws?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &quot;have to&quot; show up to work, or I will lose my job. I &quot;have to&quot; grow old (I have no choice in the matter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The binding of God's laws to Christians falls into neither of these categories. It is neither the case the disobedience negates salvation nor that we are unable to sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the law is sometimes said to have several &quot;uses&quot; (in different formulations, depending on your background). One formulation has the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Civil&lt;/em&gt;, for the restrain of sin among Christians and non-Christians alike.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pedagogical&lt;/em&gt;, pointing out our sin and bringing us to Christ's grace.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Normative&lt;/em&gt;, showing us how to live our lives.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these uses apply to Christians; the law keeps order, shows us Christ's mercy, and guides us to live Christian lives in a God-honoring way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T00:44:09.943" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="189" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="215" CreationDate="2011-08-24T00:50:28.553" Score="10" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the pope is infallible, than what significance does beatifying and canonising him have?  They did both to John Paul II, but it seems odd that the church wants to make him a saint, unless I am misunderstanding the concept of saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="106" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T19:08:20.703" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T19:08:20.703" Title="Why does the Roman Catholic church consider beatification of the pope?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;canonization&gt;&lt;john-paul-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="181" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:00:50.747" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are concepts presented in the bible that are impossible for our human minds to understand. The Catholic and Lutheran (and perhaps others) idea of the Holy Trinity, for example, that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all God is very difficult to wrap our minds around, and this is another example of things that are outside our understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T01:00:50.747" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="181" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:04:30.833" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;He was completely given to humanity, entering a sinful world, experiencing pain, loss, hardships, work, temptation, hunger, and even death. All the while, He was completely God, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Take John 1:48, where Jesus said He saw Nathanael under the fig tree before Philip called him to come see Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was completely human, bled when He was whipped, suffered the agony of dying on a cross, but He was completely God, taking the sin of everyone who would ever believe in Him upon Himself and carrying it to the grave as He died, and then bringing His own body back from the dead. No one man alone could bear the sin of all. We can't even free ourselves from our own sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T01:04:30.833" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="189" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:10:39.463" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The infallibility of the Pope means that it is impossible for him (due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to lead the Church into wrong definitive teaching in regards to faith and morals. However, it does not guarantee that the Pope is a morally good person. It is possible for someone to teach the truth, but not live it himself. There are many examples of Popes who were not great examples in their moral lives, but there are no Popes who in their teaching promoted immorality or heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I say definitive teaching, I mean teaching where the Pope defines a certain teaching as part of the Christian faith to be believed by all Christians. This does not include teaching on certain practices that are deemed prudent for a particular time and place. It also does not mean that every explanation of a Pope is 100% without error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church beatifies and canonizes those Popes who lived extraordinarily exemplary Christian lives, and so far it is less than half of them. (Out of 266 Popes, I count 79 that are Saints.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastEditorUserId="111" LastEditDate="2014-02-05T14:42:27.043" LastActivityDate="2014-02-05T14:42:27.043" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="195" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2260" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:12:35.670" Score="19" ViewCount="366" Body="&lt;p&gt;(I'd prefer a Biblically-based answer, but if an early-church author or someone like C.S. Lewis needs to be referenced, that's fine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Few Christians will dispute that we humans have souls, but the question is &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; we get it. Do we get it at conception? If so, what about twins? Surely the have different souls. Or perhaps we get our soul at some later point. In that case, is abortion okay (especially in the case of medical necessity) before that point?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heh, is there even a widely-accepted authoritative source that answers this question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T21:29:48.507" Title="When are souls &quot;received&quot;?" Tags="&lt;souls&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-13T19:16:50.540" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="146" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:13:57.743" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;You must take verses 5 and 6 together, as they're a single statement. Christ has just told the paralyzed man that his sins are forgiven, and the teachers around Him that saw it believed His statement of forgiveness was blasphemy as only God can forgive sins. They failed to recognize that Christ was God. So, He then makes a point of showing them that it's just as easy for Him to heal a body as it is to forgive sins. He then solidifies His position by healing the man, proving that He does have power over the physical, removing their doubt of his power over the spiritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T01:13:57.743" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="181" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:28:32.173" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's one of those difficult things to comprehend. In fact, I think we may never be able to fully understand it. Jesus is God and has existed eternally as God (John 1:1, 18) but took on the additional nature of humanity during the incarnation. He fully possesses each nature, much in a sense that each member of the Trinity is fully God. His natures are also distinct much as the members of the Trinity are distinct. For instance, Jesus as man is not omniscient (Luke 2:52, Mark 13:32). Jesus as God cannot experience death. His two natures are completely distinct yet fully and completely unified in His single person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastEditorUserId="112" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T03:36:29.243" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T03:36:29.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="199" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="207" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:30:26.740" Score="23" ViewCount="1134" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible provide any rules or even any indication about what kind or style of music is appropriate, both for worship and in general?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-13T00:38:25.343" LastActivityDate="2015-08-13T05:53:18.797" Title="Does the Bible give any rules for music?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-08-13T05:39:16.737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="200" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:32:51.293" Score="7" ViewCount="2778" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I understand, the devil is not a character who appears obviously in any part of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is true, when was it that Satan/the devil began to terrify people who called themselves Christians, and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="113" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-02T14:04:23.580" LastActivityDate="2014-03-14T04:01:42.850" Title="When and why did the devil, or Satan, really emerge as a force in Christian belief?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="201" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:39:15.470" Score="21" ViewCount="77521" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard an interview where a Jesuit exorcist said that Lucifer and Satan were different beings. I'd always thought that they were the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are both Lucifer and Satan mentioned by name in the Bible?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the support for considering them the same being? What is the support for considering them separate beings? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-07-15T20:43:15.903" LastActivityDate="2014-07-15T21:39:44.443" Title="Are Lucifer and Satan different beings?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T00:07:36.413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="203" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="555" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:41:44.703" Score="20" ViewCount="10696" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most denominations recognize baptisms in other denominations.  (See, for example Eph 4:4-6), &quot;one Lord, one faith, one baptism&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission published &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/baptism-eucharist-and-ministry-faith-and-order-paper-no-111-the-lima-text.html&quot;&gt;Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry&lt;/a&gt; in 1982.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there major Christian denominations (in the 21st century) who don't go along with this, and who require members to be rebaptized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T21:25:37.357" LastActivityDate="2020-01-11T18:26:31.627" Title="Do any major denominations refuse to recognize Holy Baptism in other denominations" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;ecumenism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="204" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:45:37.083" Score="25" ViewCount="4746" Body="&lt;p&gt;I probably have this question since I'm very young. Here are some few sample answers that I've got:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He's waiting for the right time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Until the whole world bow knees and worship only God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMHO, the longer God waits, the more people are going to hell. See how many people actually die each day without knowing Jesus. If God just ended the world now, wouldn't it be better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is God waiting for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-23T19:37:16.207" LastActivityDate="2015-03-24T12:51:08.497" Title="What is God waiting for before He ends the world?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-03-26T03:46:16.827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="199" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:49:07.750" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think the Bible makes any mention of musical style.  What it does say is to &quot;Make a joyful noise unto the lord&quot; (KJV), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20100&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Psalm 100&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern music of course is usually accompanied by words, and the Bible of course does have much to say about words.  &quot;Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouth&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:29&lt;/a&gt;, which could apply any popular music.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T01:49:07.750" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="138" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:54:18.397" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;An important rule is &quot;be humble.&quot;  Recognize that your interpretation is likely to be wrong and certain to be incomplete. Be open to letting Holy Scripture change you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A related rule is to study and interpret Holy Scripture in the company of others. You can gather in the flesh, and you can study in the company of scholars by reading their books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be as aware as you can of your own prejudices and spiritual blind spots as you engage with scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Avoid using short &quot;proof texts&quot; and single translations.  The more important the conclusion you draw from Holy Scripture, the broader the textual support you should enlist for your conclusion.  Sometimes the one word that's most important to you doesn't mean precisely what you hope it means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let scripture fill you with joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T01:54:18.397" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="199" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:55:15.350" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given the premise that &quot;All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness&quot; (2 Tim  3:16), and recognizing that the &lt;em&gt;scripture&lt;/em&gt; to which Paul refers is the Hebrew scripture (since the NT had not yet be formulated), it is be reasonable to examine what pleased God in worship in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament frequently mentions use of song, musical instruments and dancing in praise and worship.  A great example is Psalm 150:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Praise the LORD.[a]&#xA;     Praise God in his sanctuary; &#xA;     praise him in his mighty heavens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Praise him for his acts of power; &#xA;     praise him for his surpassing greatness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, &#xA;     praise him with the harp and lyre, &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; praise him with timbrel and dancing, &#xA;     praise him with the strings and pipe, &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; praise him with the clash of cymbals, &#xA;     praise him with resounding cymbals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sounds like a lot of instruments in there, including brass, woodwind, percussion and strings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2015-08-13T05:53:18.797" LastActivityDate="2015-08-13T05:53:18.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="204" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:56:29.237" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that the best that we know is that He's waiting for the perfect time. According to Romans 11:25-27 though, we know that He will not return until &quot;the fullness of the Gentiles is come in.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”&quot; -- Romans 11:25-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as &quot;Wouldn't it be better if God ended the world now?&quot;, I would only have to ask &quot;How do you know what's better?&quot; You could say instead of &quot;more people are going to hell&quot; that more people are given the opportunity to choose not to go to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastEditorUserId="105" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T15:13:59.437" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T15:13:59.437" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="203" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:56:31.320" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This would seem to be somewhat common among any church that believes in Believer's baptism. Since baptism under that view is a profession of faith in Christ, it would seem that any previous baptism based upon the same faith would be valid. However, if there is a large doctrinal difference between the former and current fellowship (and thus the believer accepts a new &quot;Gospel&quot;) there would be reason to baptize that person as a new believer. It also would be appropriate to re-baptize those who may have experienced an infant baptism as there would have been no profession of faith at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="112" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T01:56:31.320" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="204" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:57:20.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The obvious converse to your observation is that the longer God waits, the more people will be saved as well.  That alone could probably justify it, but in addition to that, I'd point out that there are still plenty of prophecies left to fulfill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To choose just one of the more obvious ones, even with all the turmoil in the Middle East, we still haven't seen Jerusalem besieged as part of a war that drags on for three and a half years, during which time Israel manages to hold out due to heavy doses of divine assistance provided by two prophets living among them...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T01:57:20.453" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="204" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:57:25.850" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately we just don't know. Many people have tried to figure out when he will come back, or what conditions are required for him to return, but quite frankly they aren't specified and we are to be ready for his return at any moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 24:35-37 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honestly there is no telling when he will come back, but I can guarantee that no one will expect it when it comes:&#xA;Matt 24:41-44 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this to say we don't know when or under what conditions he is coming back. In fact its pretty clear that we cannot know and that we will not be expecting him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the second half of your question, God knows what he is doing. Even though more people are going to hell every minute that the earth continues to exist, more people are also coming to Christ and more people are being born who will become followers of Christ. You are looking at the pessimistic side, but look at the good side God is saving more people every day the world continues to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-18T23:18:07.640" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="212" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:08:03.490" Score="13" ViewCount="589" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that many believe that intelligent design is creationism by a different name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if my understanding of intelligent design is correct, it does not deny the the big bang or evolution occurred. It does not even deny that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis&quot;&gt;abiogenesis&lt;/a&gt; occurred by anything but natural means. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It just means that the universe exists or was created in such a state that allowed for the extra unlikely sequence of events that lead to life existing on earth and eventually humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is my interpretation of Intelligent Design off base? If not then it hardly seems that it is a form a creationism, although I cannot speak for it being a illegitimate scientific theory or not. Or is this incorrect and why? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="673" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T12:16:48.517" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T06:40:30.643" Title="Intelligent design - Creationism by a different name?" Tags="&lt;evolution&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;intelligent-design&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-13T18:41:00.977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="121" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:11:28.947" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to Richard's post, it's important to keep Acts 15 in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clearest and most unambiguous prohibitions against homosexual acts in the Bible come from the Law of Moses.  It's frequently pointed out that the Law was fulfilled in Christ and Christians aren't expected to be held to its many precepts and prohibitions, such as being forbidden to mix different types of fabric together in the same garment or various other precepts that are brought up to make the whole thing sound ridiculous and antiquated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in Acts 15, the apostles and elders hold a formal council about what should be done with regards to the Law, and how much of it Gentile converts should be expected to abide by.  The final decision, which explicitly claims divine approval in verse 28, is that most of the Law doesn't matter anymore, as it was fulfilled in Christ, but the prohibitions on idol worship, fornication, (a general term for all sexual sins, &lt;em&gt;including homosexual acts,&lt;/em&gt;) and the eating of blood are still in full force and ought to be observed by all Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T02:11:28.947" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="75" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:12:37.930" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew verb &quot;was&quot; is in the Qal (indicative) perfect tense.   &quot;Became&quot; is a fanciful translation.  There's nothing wrong with fanciful translations and midrasch.  But it's probably best to avoid basing tonnage of doctrine on midrasch or fancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an ambiguity in Hebrew about past or future actions, but that crops up when the IMperfect tense is used, not the perfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T18:43:47.177" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:43:47.177" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="189" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:13:04.013" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, Catholic teaching is not that the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does, but rather infallible only when specifically exercising the authority of his office to pronounce doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, a &lt;em&gt;Saint&lt;/em&gt; in the sense meant by the Catholic church is one whose life, witness and actions have been examined in depth and at length by church leadership and has been found to be significantly exemplary of the Christian ideal.  They are recognized by the Catholic church as examples to emulate, and are made &quot;official&quot;, so to speak, so that there is no confusion among believers as to what constitutes a great example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, as Patrick pointed out in the comments, other conditions and prerequisites apply; among them is the requirement that at least two miracles be directly attributable to the individual under consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, a Pope is not automatically a Saint (with a capital 'S' since all believers are &lt;em&gt;saints&lt;/em&gt; in the general sense); in fact, historically, many of them were decidedly unchristian in their actions and some downright wicked.  Some very reputable Catholics have said that the preservation of the doctrine of the Catholic church &lt;em&gt;in spite of&lt;/em&gt; some of her Popes is remarkable, if not nothing short of miraculous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T07:37:35.500" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T07:37:35.500" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="201" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:14:57.030" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lucifer is a transliteration of the name Morningstar used in the Latin Vulgate. Satan was referred to the Morningstar several times in the Bible. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Use_of_the_word_.22lucifer.22_in_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia has a good explanation&lt;/a&gt; of where the these terms are used in the Bible and what the various contexts are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that the being who is Satan was one of the chief angels who decided he would rather have the glory for himself that God had reserved as His own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the exorcist may have met demons with various names, we know demons are primarily invested in lying, and so I would take what the exorcist claimed with a grain of salt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-07-15T20:46:23.613" LastActivityDate="2014-07-15T20:46:23.613" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="217" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="219" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:19:16.437" Score="25" ViewCount="43874" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/204/what-is-god-waiting-for-before-he-ends-the-world/211#211&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; answer presents the following statement:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is in control and I believe that His will has always been done. So to say that He's never failed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, are some people are destined to go to hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I probably have this kind of thinking from some stories in the bible about God harden some people's heart so everything will go as He planned. i.e : Pharaoh and the religious leaders of Israel during Jesus time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2014-10-23T11:01:49.547" Title="Are some people created to go to Hell?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-10-27T14:30:33.930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="212" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:23:08.257" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are young earth creationists and old earth creationists. Young earth creationists tend to literally translate the opening chapters of Genesis as a literal 6 day creation cycle and an earth approximately 10,000 years old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Old earth creationists will generally meld evolutionary theory with with looser interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both creationist beliefs state the spiritual source is the God of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Intelligent design advocates don't specify where everything started or who started it. They just say there's a point at which matter must have begun and before that there's something non-physical that must be the source. Also, they'll argue that the order we observe in nature speaks to something will intelligence directing evolutionary or creationary forces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a way you could say Creationism is a sub-set of Intelligent Design, and Young earth/Old earth creationist are the two primary sub-sets of creationism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="119" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T02:23:08.257" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="217" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:32:36.557" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know from the Bible that Judas was not meant to be saved. So, the answer would have to be yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.&quot; -- John 17:12 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not everyone is predestined to either go to Heaven or to Hell prior to birth is a matter of debate with no clear answer (the answer either way is only clear to the believer). However, none can dispute the fact that, according to the Bible, some have been and more may be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some argue that this was not referring to Judas, as the literal translation of the &quot;one&quot; (from the NIV translation) from the Greek υἱός ἀπώλεια is &quot;son of perdition&quot;, but rather this was referring to the devil. However, this would have to be inaccurate in this context. By the time that Jesus said these words, Judas had already accepted the money from the Sanhedrin, and &quot;satan had already entered him&quot; (John  13:27). By the fact that satan had entered Judas, and shortly after (and before the resurrection) Judas went and hung himself, he would have been lost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to support the position that this verse is referencing Satan, one must posit that Judas was saved, despite the presence of Satan in him. Otherwise, Christ was in error saying that &quot;None had been lost&quot;. Otherwise, regardless of whether the verse was specifically referencing Judas or Satan, Judas had not been given to Christ to save, and thus had been doomed to destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastEditorUserId="105" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T04:56:47.413" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T04:56:47.413" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="109" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:32:54.917" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:27-28&lt;/a&gt; sums it up well, by setting the standard not at sexual immorality, but even at the thought of sexual immorality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if lusting after a woman is sin, then surely &quot;less than sex&quot; outside of marriage in a lustful context, is also sin.  This means that even kissing, holding hands, or hugging &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be sin, if it is done lustfully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect you're driving more at issues like heavy petting, oral sex, etc.  For these things, I think Tom's answer is great, when he quotes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:18&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;em&gt;Fleeing&lt;/em&gt; from sexual immorality would suggest getting as far away from immorality as possible--not flirting with it as closely as possible without &quot;crossing the line.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One definition of sin is &quot;anything that does not glorify God,&quot; and as such, a simple test I often use in my life to decide if something would be sinful or not, is &quot;Would &lt;em&gt;_&lt;/em&gt;_ bring glory to God?&quot;  In this context, &quot;Would [whatever sexual act, outside of marriage] bring glory to God?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-11-23T16:57:15.853" LastActivityDate="2012-11-23T16:57:15.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="212" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:40:57.860" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First a disclaimer: My personal leaning is that God created this universe ex-nihilo (that is, out of nothing) over a period of (most likely) about 14 billion years, precisely as described in the Genesis account.  Most importantly mankind was a direct and specific creation of God into which he breathed his Spirit, created in God's image, unique and special among all creatures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ID is tied to Creationism inasmuch as it's an attempt to provide a theory consistent with historical Christianity (and Judaism and Islam, for that matter) without actually mentioning &quot;God&quot;, per se.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, ID has become strongly associated with &quot;young-earth&quot; creationism, whose scientific merits are disputed by much of the scientific community.  A young-earth viewpoint necessarily disputes Big-bang cosmology and the consequent billions of years age of the universe, and anything else that can't fit into an age of about 8,000 to 15,000 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical creationism is not limited to a young-earth model and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reasons to Believe&lt;/a&gt; has a lot of material offering an alternative creation model within an old-earth framework.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, creationism is &lt;em&gt;typically&lt;/em&gt; opposed to evolution and so is ID, since the point is that God created the universe and everything in it, including and especially us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But some argue that Theistic or &quot;directed&quot; evolution occured, whereby God set things in motion and then sits back and observes it all play out (perhaps tinkering occasionally, perhaps not).  Certainly there is merit in the idea that a perfect and infinite God could do so and quite simply &quot;get it right from the get go&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My opinion on the evidence...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I find the evolution viewpoint hard to defend from both Scripture and from scientific evidence.  It's not so much that evolution can't have happened, but rather that, &lt;em&gt;in my opinion&lt;/em&gt;, the scientific evidence supports creation as the better explanation at this point in our scientific knowledge.  At the same time, Scripture is also &lt;strong&gt;much&lt;/strong&gt; better understood as supporting direct and supernatural creation rather than evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that many people see the debate as being between two poles: (1) Old earth naturalism, and (2) Young earth creationism.  I think that possibly most people, scientists included, reject a young earth view and with it creationism, thereby falling by default to what is perceived as only remaining option, Old earth naturalism.  I am saying there's a third choice, which IMO is worthy of consideration and better harmonizes science and scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to the claim that &quot;&lt;em&gt;98% of all biologists, including many Christians, accept evolution as the better scientific explanation&lt;/em&gt;&quot; from Bruce Alderman, and quite apart from the fact that there is no good basis for that statistic...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may be that a significant portion of those who adhere to evolution do so because their personal philosophy and world-view do not permit them to do otherwise. In other words, naturalism is the only acceptable explanation for someone who fundamentally rejects the possibility of a deity. We humans are funny about our preconceived notions in that way (on both sides of the debate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, personal philosophy is not irrelevant, though we may like to delude ourselves that it is. If one cannot personally accept the possibility of a deity, one cannot accept any explanation for this universe except naturalism, no matter how compelling the evidence one way or the other. So, supposing the evidence supports a divine creator, perhaps even powerfully, ones a priori presupposition excludes the better conclusion and forces a lessor conclusion than would be reached if the evidence was viewed objectively without bias.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point is not pertaining to the execution of the scientific method, on which point I agree with Bruce. My point is that saying 98% of biologists are naturalists is meaningless if 98% of biologists are also of a philosophical persuasion that cannot accept a non-naturalist conclusion. It simply means that 98% of biologists cannot accept any other conclusion. (Or perhaps 90%, or 80% etc cannot, in which case the statistic is at the least much less meaningful, if at all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T06:40:30.643" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T06:40:30.643" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="217" CreationDate="2011-08-24T02:42:26.960" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quite frankly Yes. Some people are created to go to hell. However you are looking at this the wrong way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone is going to hell without the intervention of a benevolent God (This is known as Total Depravity). Thankfully God has chosen some people to be his children (Unconditional Election). The number of these people is limited. Christ's death was sufficient for everyone however it is only efficient for the Elect (Limited Atonement). God draws us to himself and we do not come to him under our own power (Irresistible Grace). Finally once we are his nothing we do or anyone else does can take us from him (Perseverance of the Saints).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that my statement of faith has been laid out let me give the scriptural proof for each element:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total Depravity: Mark 7:21-23 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unconditional Election: Romans 9:11 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Limited Atonement: John 10:11 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irresistible Grace: Phillipians 2:12-13 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perseverance of the Saints John 10:27-28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are just some of many verses that support this particular position (these are the Reformed counter points to the 5 points of Aremenianism and tend to the points of differentiation between them) There are plenty more &lt;a href=&quot;http://calvinistcorner.com/tulip&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this to basically say the following&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are some people who are chosen and some who aren't&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We don't know the difference just from looking at someone so it really shouldn't effect  how we live our lives.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its only by grace that any of us are elected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T12:51:09.090" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T12:51:09.090" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2011-08-24T03:08:36.783" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;First you have to understand God's nature which is that He is just and right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is He.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is just in creating Hell since God can do nothing apart from his nature and God justly gave us free will and &quot;all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now some escape deserved eternal damnation due to Christ's sacrifice but that is getting into justification which this question is not about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hell is eternal: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:41&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:41&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Depart from me, you cursed, into the &lt;strong&gt;eternal fire&lt;/strong&gt; prepared for the devil and his angels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know of any scripture which states that we can jump back and forth between the 'eternal fire' and heaven. Therefore as far as Rob Bell and his book (I have not read it) goes I do not believe his statements reflect the truth of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is all ruling therefore He rules over the universe but he has also given us free will and the opportunity to sin. He wants us to chose Him but he cannot force us, at best he can harden peoples' hearts who have already not chosen him or he can divinely influence us (Grace).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T19:21:38.227" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:21:38.227" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="217" CreationDate="2011-08-24T03:17:07.483" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nobody was created to go to hell. After God created everything, He declared all of creation as very good. This includes us and implies that humanity was created perfect, with no flaws. He did not fail. He decided to give us our agency so that we could choose for ourselves. Because of this, we are able to choose to follow His will or not. Adam and Eve chose not to disobey God's direct command by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After Adam (mankind) sinned, God cursed all of creation as punishment, and at the same time created a path to salvation, Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to identify who is going to hell, you first need to understand what hell is and is not. The commonly portrayed hell is completely wrong. It is NOT the lake of fire and brimstone. It is not a place of eternal torment. It is not ruled by Satan. What hell IS is a place that people go that have not accepted the path to salvation (Jesus) before death. It is a learning place where they will be given the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nobody is created to go to hell. But there are people that will harden there hearts to Gods word and end up there. There are people that will never hear about God in life, and end up there. These people will be unhappy because they will feel the full weight of there sins. However, they will be given God word and an opportunity to accept salvation through Jesus. On judgment day, hell will be emptied and hell itself thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone and destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is this. God knows what choices a person will make. His plan includes countering those that go against him, like the Pharaoh. That person was not created to go to hell, they still have agency to choose for themselves, and could have chosen to do good. Anyone who accepts Christ will go to heaven, even if they die, go to hell, and accept him there. God wants all to be saved and will give you every opportunity to have and accept salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some references: righteous spirits are assigned to Paradise (Revelation 2:7), unrighteous spirits are assigned to hell (Psalm 55:15), Gospel preached to spirits in hell (1 Peter 4:6), Christ preaches to spirits in prison (hell) (1 Peter 3:18-19), Death and hell will be will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="59" LastEditorUserId="59" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T00:58:43.783" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T00:58:43.783" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="109" CreationDate="2011-08-24T03:23:22.670" Score="38" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; difficult issue.  And for someone trapped in the chains of sexual sin, there is no easy answer - but there is the stunning grace of God for freedom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would answer this question by starting with another question: Do you want to live your life seeing how close you can get to sin without actually crossing the line?  Are you motivated to be the most Godly person you can be (growing daily in Christ-likeness), or are you motivated to &quot;get away with&quot; as much as possible without actually going to hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus said, &quot;But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart&quot; in Mat 5:28 he was addressing the inclination of the heart.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, when you indulge in sexual lust you are sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We then have to define &quot;sexual lust&quot;.  Generally, lust is any desire which elevates your needs over another's.  A good working definition for sexual lust might then be, any thought or action that seeks to use another human for your personal gratification without love or respect for their &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you apply the spirit of this to your treatment of your girlfriend/boyfriend, it becomes &quot;is doing X with this person bringing both of us closer to God, respecting them as a person and expressing pure Godly love?&quot;  If not, I think you have your answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T04:40:24.173" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T04:40:24.173" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="201" CreationDate="2011-08-24T03:55:45.423" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The name &quot;Lucifer&quot; appears only once in the Bible, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah&lt;/a&gt; (KJV), where he alludes to the tale (which we can assume is already known to his Jewish audience at that time) of the great Lucifer having fallen from heaven, being cast down and looked upon with contempt, in order to draw a parallel to the king of Babylon and his kingdom's impending fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lucifer means &quot;morning star&quot;, which is used various times and in various ways in the Bible, including by Christ to refer to &lt;em&gt;himself&lt;/em&gt; at one point in Revelation.  But see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38&amp;amp;version=RSVCE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 38 (RSVCE)&lt;/a&gt;, where it says that when the foundations of the world were laid, &quot;the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.&quot;  I think this is the closest we have in the Bible to a passage equating Lucifer with an angel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to note that both of these passages are highly poetic in nature, as is the third, the story of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:3-7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dragon in Revelation&lt;/a&gt;, who is cast out of heaven and makes war with the Church, who is equated to Satan.  If the dragon cast out of heaven is the same as Lucifer the Morning Star cast out of heaven, then he is Satan.  But it's difficult to say anything for certain, going only on Biblical authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2014-07-15T20:31:07.947" LastActivityDate="2014-07-15T20:31:07.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="200" CreationDate="2011-08-24T04:11:05.400" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you mean the idea of Satan (aka &quot;the adversary&quot;), it is mentioned in the Bible, as others have referenced in comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The particular image of a creepy guy with hooves, arrow-pointed tail, horns, red skin, and possibly a pointy beard, on the other hand, originated (to my knowledge) in the literature of Dante Alighieri -- specifically his &lt;em&gt;Divina Commedia&lt;/em&gt;, or Divine Comedy, in which he narrates a journey between Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Dante concerns the work largely with medieval (it was written in the 14th century) Christian philosophy and beliefs, he drew from many other cultures in bringing the story alive.  The Bible and other pre-Divine-Comedy depictions don't go into enough detail about &quot;the adversary&quot; to create the concrete images Dante needed for his tale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though the common person at the time may not have realized it, much of the symbols coursing around 14th century Italian collective consciousness were derived from the earlier Greek and Roman polytheistic cultures.  Horns and hooves, for example, remained symbols of lust (especially homosexual lust), gluttony, and general excess of a morally-questionable (from the Christian perspective) variety, and so on thanks to the god Pan and his companions the Satyrs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dante drew on these and other symbols of older cultures in order to bring his story to life.  He did such a good job of it that his description of Satan remains strong in the collective consciousness of the Christian community despite (or perhaps due to) the Bible giving so much less detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T04:11:05.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="217" CreationDate="2011-08-24T04:12:40.440" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. To believe that God intends some people to go to hell opens many, many floodgates. If you believe that God intends for some people to go hell:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This means that there are people that &lt;em&gt;can not be saved&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which in turn means that nothing you can do, no amount of faith, worship, or belief, repentance, or whatever your belief structure says you must do for salvation (even paying indulgences if you lived in the 1500s) can save you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which means that God creates evil people&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which means that God creates evil&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which means that God is not a good God, God is in fact part good, part evil, depending on your birth right&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of that sits with anything biblical. God &lt;em&gt;lets&lt;/em&gt; evil happen, but God does not &lt;em&gt;create&lt;/em&gt; Evil. Take the story of Job - that can be perceived as God being evil, but God is not Evil. Satan does the evil behaviour, and &lt;em&gt;Satan can not be evil whilst in the presence of God&lt;/em&gt;. Every time God and Satan meet, Satan only does evil &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; Satan is no longer in the presense of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God will LET you go to hell, but he will NOT pre-ordain your trip there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T04:12:40.440" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="203" CreationDate="2011-08-24T04:27:56.183" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Baptism has different meanings to differnt denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some believe that in infant baptism,  a parent is giving their child to Christ, and committing to raise that child as a Christian. Confirmation is when the Child chooses to continue their relationship with Christ on their own, and the parents are no longer responsible for their childs faith journey (although this does not mean that they quit! It just means that their child as &quot;moved out of home&quot; per-se).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others believe that baptism is more along the lines of Confirmation in the above example - that Baptism is the individual committing themselves to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you change denominations within the same belief structure in regards to baptism, then most churches will accept your previous baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The right to Holy Communion is a very different story though, most churches will not permit you to take Holy Communion unless you go through their confirmation procedures, to prove that you know what you're doing, and that you understand what &lt;em&gt;they&lt;/em&gt; believe about Communion, and that you agree with what they believe. For example, my wife is Catholic and I am Lutheran. She has had discussions with our church pastor, and he has admitted her to the sacrament without requiring her to become Lutheran, but it is unlikely that I would be permitted to take communion in a Catholic church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are ever in doubt about whether a church will recognise your baptism/confirmation/beliefs, then the best thing to do is to ask the priest/pastor/layperson in charge. There may even be differences within denominations, depending on the personal beliefs of the pastor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T04:27:56.183" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="217" CreationDate="2011-08-24T04:40:01.697" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would question the assumptions that God's will is always done. This is part of a larger debate about whether humans have free will or are our actions under God's control?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think it's obvious that we have free will. You don't have to go far to find examples of people acting against the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, no sooner were Adam and Eve created than they disobeyed God. If God was in control of that, and it was truly his will for them to eat the fruit, then why would he have told them not to do so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then their first child, Cain, killed their second child, Abel. &lt;em&gt;That&lt;/em&gt; couldn't have been God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And even the example of Pharaoh, in half the plagues it says God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and in the other half it says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. So even that may not have been Pharaoh acting according to God's will, but rather God recognizing Pharaoh's choice to turn away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is it ever God's will for anyone to go to hell? 1 Timothy 2:4 says God &quot;desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.&quot; God doesn't desire for anyone to go to hell. He won't send them there except by their choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T04:40:01.697" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="185" CreationDate="2011-08-24T04:45:54.733" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, the word for &quot;spirit&quot; is the same as &quot;breathe.&quot; But there is ultimately a difference between the life of humans and the life in animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 2:7, God breathes into the nostrils of man and gives him life, but all land animals have this same breath as well. &quot;And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 7:15 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the distinction between the two types of spirits is apparent in the following verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts&#xA;  that perish.This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve&#xA;  their sayings. Selah.Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death&#xA;  shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in&#xA;  the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their&#xA;  dwelling. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for&#xA;  he shall receive me. Selah.&#xA;   &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2049:12-15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psa 49:12-15 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecc%203:21&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecc. 3:21 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that God does care for the animals. In many passages, God shows compassion for the beast or bird, whether by the law, or other means. Though they do not have eternal souls, they are part of God's creation, and they give Him His due worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2014-10-08T02:22:46.327" LastActivityDate="2014-10-08T02:22:46.327" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="212" CreationDate="2011-08-24T05:13:58.843" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Intelligent design means different things to different people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Michael Behe is a biochemist whose goal seems to be to use scientific research to uncover problems that can't be explained by science. (Or, his critics would say, can't be explained by Michael Behe.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;William Dembski is a philosopher and mathematician who has argued that the complexity of the universe is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Philip Johnson is a retired law professor who authored a document titled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf&quot;&gt;The Wedge&lt;/a&gt; (pdf) that set forth a strategy to eliminate &quot;materialistic science&quot; and replace it with intelligent design in educational institutions and scientific research labs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Behe's approach could be considered an attempt to put intelligent design on a scientific footing. Dembski's approach is more philosophical&amp;mdash;not primarily scientific or religious. Johnson's approach is merely packaging creationism under a new name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="301" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T12:49:38.533" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T12:49:38.533" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20" CreationDate="2011-08-24T05:28:19.397" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romans 7:7 states, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would&#xA;  not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not&#xA;  have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, &quot;Do not&#xA;  covet.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, as Wesley defined&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without known laws of God, without knowing what God wants us to/not to do, we cannot do anything &quot;in opposition&quot; to His commandments. Sin isn't accidental. Your conscience tells you when you're doing something wrong, and once you understand that concept, then you are responsible for your actions, but prior to the understanding of God's commands you cannot &quot;sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastEditorUserId="98" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T06:38:59.517" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T06:38:59.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="200" CreationDate="2011-08-24T05:43:34.967" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The devil, Satan, Lucifer, is indeed mentioned in the bible. To use @Nathan Wheeler's comment, as it has some excellent verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke 4:1-1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job 1-2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Chronicles 21:1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Psalm 109:6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Numbers 22:22-23&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zechariah 3:1-2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 4:1-3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke 4:2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 12:24&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mark 3:22&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke 11:15&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke 10:19&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 12:31&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 14:30&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 16:11&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Peter 5:8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Kings 1:2-4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The devil is first mentioned in Genesis, the tempter of a serpent who goaded Eve into the first sin that caused all of mankind to forever fall, and is repeatedly referred to throughout the bible. However he is never discussed as a being anyone should be &lt;em&gt;terrified&lt;/em&gt; of...according to the account on Job, Satan had to ask God for permission for every heinous action he took against Job and his family, not an entity that could wreak physical havoc at will. In 1 Peter 5:8 Satan is described as a roaring lion looking for someone to devour, that that we should (and most certainly CAN, with God's help!) resist him. A roaring lion, not a lion ripping and shredding the hapless victims of earth...just a roaring, chained lion, one who must await Gods word before he can do anything more than look and sound scary. I think one of the most important references to Satan is his temptation of Jesus as described in the Gospels. A more apt example of the true righteousness, purity and holiness of Jesus could not have been demonstrated without Jesus experiencing the same kinds of temptation every other human does at Satan's hand. So yes, I do indeed believe Satan appears quite obviously in the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So long as we have faith in God, there is nothing to be afraid of, and in that context, I don't think most Christians are afraid of the devil, and certainly not terrified of him. On the contrary, I think, rather sadly, that the devil often becomes the scapegoat for the little (and sometimes big) sins in a Christians life. Thats not fear, thats a rather sly use of the devil to offload ones own guilt and sin, rather than taking personal responsibility and ultimate repentance for it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding individuals who do have a fear of Satan, I think that is more a fear of eternal death than of Satan himself. With all of our modern cinematography and the rather colorful and rich &quot;history&quot; of the devil as described by @HedgeMage, I think Satan becomes the scary slavemaster of hell (rather than, as Revelation tells, an ultimate eternal habitant of it himself.) I think it is eternal death in hell that people truly fear, though, and Satan is just a visualized part of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="52" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T05:49:50.310" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T05:49:50.310" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="195" CreationDate="2011-08-24T05:49:29.733" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A soul is the combination of the body and the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul; Genesis 2:8 IV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spirit was created before the body, possibly even before the creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, all things were before created, but spiritually were they created and made, according to my word. Genesis 2:9 IV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this we can deduce that the soul is received when the spirit enters the body. Here are references that indicate God considers us individuals while in the womb and the spirit enters the body at conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the children struggled together within her womb; Genesis 25:22 IV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;children&quot; is the Hebrew word used for already-born children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb. Luke 1:41 IV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;babe&quot; is the Greek word used for already-born children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jeremiah 1:5 IV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added for clarification:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An easy way of understanding this is to use a house as an analogy. A house is made of walls and a roof. The combination makes a house. You could say that the walls are the body and the roof is the spirit. The combination of the body (walls) and spirit (roof) make a house (soul). body + spirit = soul. Your spirit is what God made to be your identity. Your conscience is the expression of your spirit through your body, the thinking aspect of your soul, therefore limited to what the body is capable of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not make the mistake of believing that any part if you is everlasting. As we know, the body can be broken. The soul can also be broken, by separating the spirit from the body. This happens is death. The spirit can also be destroyed by being cast into the lake of fire, also called the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who are having difficulty finding some of the Genesis references, I am using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Inspired Version&lt;/a&gt; of the Bible. Note: this translation may or may not correspond with the original Hebrew in places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="59" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T21:29:48.507" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T21:29:48.507" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-08-24T05:59:44.237" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that the basis behind this belief rests in a question that you need to ask yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Do you believe God or Man?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm 100% literal translation Christian. Meaning that I believe in God first, then in man. So how can I reconcile evolution with my beliefs? Well, even I have to agree with &lt;strong&gt;some level&lt;/strong&gt; of evolution, but I do not and will not agree with anything opposite the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God told Noah to take two of each KIND of animal onto the ark. From those two kinds of animals, I believe, came all of the differences within the species that we find today. We know that we're capable of breeding all kinds of new species. Evolution within a species is likely possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But evolution from species to species has never been proven and never will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So yes, I have to submit to the fact that evolution within a species is true&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I do not believe in is an old earth. There's too much evidence that this earth is young. The only so called evidence that old earthers have is the carbon dating. Which has its many many flaws. Some evidence of young earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our current population.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The earths magnetic field is dying as like all magnets&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The sun is shrinking. Only a few million years ago and it would nearly be touching us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The moon is drifting away from the earth, as expected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evidence of Dinosaurs living with man&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Truth&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that he came to testify to the truth; He also said that He is the Truth; The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of Truth; The children of god are referred to as the Side of Truth. Do a study on this word, Truth, when you have time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you'll find is that God is the absolute Truth and everything in our society states the exact opposite that God states. So you have to ask yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who do you believe? God or Man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To answer your question in my own words&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You cannot deny God as the Truth, then turn around and say that He's your LORD and King of your salvation. God's intent is not to deceive his Children, God cannot Lie and did not lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T16:51:07.763" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="128" CreationDate="2011-08-24T06:07:57.937" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the Law seems to allow polygamy, or at least be fine with it. It also seems to allow divorce, and yet Jesus was clear on the subject in this passage (&lt;em&gt;italic&lt;/em&gt; emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3-9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:3-9 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him,&#xA;  Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and &lt;em&gt;shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; He saith unto them, Moses &lt;em&gt;because of the hardness of your hearts&lt;/em&gt; suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament was clear when it stated that a man would &quot;leave father and mother, and cleave to &lt;em&gt;his&lt;/em&gt; wife, and they would be one flesh&quot;. Jesus answered on this topic of divorce that the Law was given because of the hardness of the hearts of men, and I believe the same goes for having several wives. It is not that God desired or accepted it, but it was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both cases of polygyny and divorce, you can refer to God stating that man and his wife will be one. In the case of polygyny, who is one with whom? Are the various wives of a single man one with one another because they are one with him? Clearly, polygyny is against the will of God of uniting a man and woman in such a special way that they become one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus wasn't specifically asked about polygamy, but I believe His point about divorce being adultery would apply just the same to polygamy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T13:03:14.653" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T13:03:14.653" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-08-24T06:20:26.450" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The law was given so that we might know what sin was.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:4&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is&#xA;  lawlessness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:13&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given,&#xA;  but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:17&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead&#xA;  to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here's why there is no such thing as a good atheist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 14:23&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because&#xA;  their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from&#xA;  faith is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because everything not of faith is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here's an opposing view of sin in order that you may further understand what it is.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 16:6&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through&#xA;  the fear of the LORD evil is avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love counters sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 4:8&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers&#xA;  over a multitude of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wickedness is the Sin that Jesus demands we repent of. We are the first of all of God's creation to bear a new kind of fruit and that fruit is love. Any tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T06:20:26.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="185" CreationDate="2011-08-24T06:24:32.360" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the fundamental difference between the animals and humans is not the soul, but the presence of a &lt;strong&gt;spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. I think that distinction can be derived from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:24-27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;And God said, &quot;Let the earth bring forth living creatures according&#xA;  to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth&#xA;  according to their kinds.&quot; And it was so. &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;And God made the beasts of&#xA;  the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to&#xA;  their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its&#xA;  kind. And God saw that it was good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;Then God said, &quot;Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.&#xA;  And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds&#xA;  of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over&#xA;  every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;So God created man in his own image,  in the image of God he&#xA;  created him;  male and female he created them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verses 24-25, God describes his creation of the animals...that he made the animals &quot;according to &lt;strong&gt;their&lt;/strong&gt; kind&quot;. In verses 26-27, God describes his creation of man, and clearly delineates that man was made after HIS OWN IMAGE AND LIKENESS. The likeness of God is that of an eternal being with a spirit, the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This distinction is made clearer in other passages, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:23&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:23 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your&#xA;  whole &lt;strong&gt;spirit&lt;/strong&gt; and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our&#xA;  Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where the spirit is described separately from the soul. The spirit is also described in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%202:12-15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 2 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit&#xA;  who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by&#xA;  God, &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom,&#xA;  but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual  thoughts  with&#xA;  spiritual  words.  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;But a natural man does not accept the things of&#xA;  the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot&#xA;  understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;But he who&#xA;  is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no&#xA;  one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which brings clarity to the purpose of a healthy, living spirit... It is the spirit that is rejuvenated or given to us when we are born again. It is our spirit that gives us the ability to commune with God via his &lt;em&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/em&gt;. It is the part of our being that, because it is in the likeness of God, allows us to commune with him. There are differences between different translations of the bible, and some seem to indicate that unsaved man does not have a spirit, while saved man does. I am unsure what that means, or which translations are accurate. However it is an intriguing state, one which may beg the question...are we no better than animals until we accept salvation from God? Are we simply more intelligent beings with a soul until the day we repent of our sins and ask God for forgiveness and eternal life in heaven? I am not educated in the word or its language roots enough to answer that question myself, so hopefully someone more versed than I am will come along and provide a more definitive answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding animals, there is no reference to them having a &lt;em&gt;spirit&lt;/em&gt; in the bible. It is intriguing to note, however, that animals are referenced at least once in Revelation (that I can think of):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:14&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 19:14 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the armies which were in heaven followed him &lt;strong&gt;upon white horses&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  clothed in fine linen, white and clean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do believe God cared for the animals, despite the difference between them and man. He gave mankind, the beings he created in his own image and likeness, his most cherished creation, dominion over the animals and the earth, so he must have cared for the animals. I cannot say for sure what the passage from revelation means, however it seems that there will be animals in heaven as well. Whether they are the resurrected/eternal souls of animals on earth, or new creations, I cannot say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-12T06:00:19.183" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T06:00:19.183" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="248" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T06:37:05.010" Score="44" ViewCount="14758" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians commonly celebrate Good Friday as the day that Jesus was crucified, and Easter Sunday as the day that Jesus rose from the tomb. Most relevant verses in scripture say that Jesus would be in the tomb for three days. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:61&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:61&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208:31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 8:31&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 2:19&lt;/a&gt;.) However, one verse states that Jesus would also be in the tomb for three nights:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the&#xA;  belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three&#xA;  nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can this be? Friday to Sunday could be considered three days, but it is only two nights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard it explained before that the Jewish people would define the end of one day and the start of the next as sundown, or about the 12th hour. This is why the Sabbath would always start on Friday at sundown. Jesus was buried just before sundown, or just before the Sabbath began (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:57-61&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:57-61&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015:42-47&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 15:42-47&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:50-56&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 23:50-56&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:38-42&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 19:38-42&lt;/a&gt;). This can explain the three days, but as the other commenter pointed out, it still does not explain the three nights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="13" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-09-21T21:42:36.903" LastActivityDate="2020-05-30T13:18:58.783" Title="How long was Jesus in the tomb?" Tags="&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;easter&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;tomb-of-jesus&gt;&lt;good-friday&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="249" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2965" CreationDate="2011-08-24T06:55:13.773" Score="19" ViewCount="5309" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the recent years the word &quot;meditation&quot; has been used widely, including  in non-religious contexts. Should we, Christians meditate? If yes, what should we do while meditating? S&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about meditation?  Please answer with specific verses that state the right way to mediate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="131" LastEditDate="2015-09-09T15:37:20.860" LastActivityDate="2015-09-09T15:37:20.860" Title="According to the Bible, how should Christians meditate?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;meditation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="7" ClosedDate="2015-09-08T16:56:12.517" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="82" CreationDate="2011-08-24T07:12:35.523" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question does a good job at explaining part of your question, especially the answer with a lot of references:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some verses shed some light on Christ as a/the God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrews 1:2-4- Christ help make the world (universe in NIV), sat on right hand of God, and was made 'better than the angels' (KJV) (compare to Genesis 1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isaiah 9:6- Generally accepted as a prophecy of Christ, it mentions calling Christ these names: &quot;The Mighty God&quot;, &quot;The Everlasting Father&quot;, among other holy names&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts 4:12- no salvation by any name other than Christ's (compare with Hosea 13:4, &quot;no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me&quot;, KJV)&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Either this suggests Christ and the God of the Old Testament were the same being OR&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ has the same &quot;name&quot; (or status, title) as God the Father&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty others, but these seem to me to be the most clear in support of a Jesus is God stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt;, however, seem to teach God and Christ as sharing the same physical body. Here is some basic evidence to refute that assumption:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 17:21&lt;/strong&gt;- In the intercessory prayer, Jesus explains the meaning of &quot;one-ness&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism of Jesus (voice of God heard)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vision of Stephen (Acts 7:55-56, as mentioned in the other question)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T07:12:35.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="252" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="268" CreationDate="2011-08-24T07:22:38.770" Score="16" ViewCount="7535" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Protestant Bible has 66 books. Should we read apocryphal books (e.g. 1&amp;amp;2 Maccabees and Gospel of Thomas)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T12:43:29.573" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T18:51:02.677" Title="Should a Protestant read the apocryphal books of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;apocrypha&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-03-27T18:21:12.823" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="107" CreationDate="2011-08-24T07:33:52.153" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me the last paragraph in Farseeker's answer is key. The Bible tells us that our worship should be accessible to others, and use language that any new visitor to the gathering can readily understand (1 Corinthians 14:6-17) and that we should worship &quot;in Spirit and in truth&quot; (John 4:21-24). To me, that means we shouldn't use language or musical styles that the people around us cannot relate to, or use a &quot;false language&quot; for talking/singing to God that we wouldn't use in everyday speech. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a multicultural society that means there should be a mixture of musical cultural expressions to serve the various cultures around the church (or even a menu of meetings for people to choose from based on their preferred culture/style, if resources permit) but, as Farseeker's answer implies, it's very rare that archaic organ music with &quot;thee and thou&quot; lyrics is either culturally relevant/accessible, or genuine expressions of Spirit and truth as opposed to putting on a show of what people think is expected of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not to say that it's wrong to use such music in worship, far from it - there are plenty of people who listen to ancient music like that in their leisure time and so relate to it very well - but those people are not the majority and I believe the balance of church worship styles should reflect that fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T07:33:52.153" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="128" CreationDate="2011-08-24T07:35:41.807" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer to this question first starts in Genesis 1. When God created man, he created one man and one woman, in his image. One man and one woman who, for all intents and purposes, could be seen as the template for mankind, and a theme of specific terms used to refer to men and women in righteous marriage throughout the bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt;  So God created man in his own image,  in the image of God he&#xA;  created him;  male and female he created them. &lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; And God blessed&#xA;  them. And God said to them, &quot;Be fruitful and multiply and fill the&#xA;  earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and&#xA;  over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves&#xA;  on the earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; man and &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; woman, and from those two they should be fruitful and multiply. More clarity can be found later in Genesis 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; Then the Lord God said, &quot;It is not good that the man should be&#xA;  alone; I will make him a helper fit fort him.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; Now out of the ground&#xA;  the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of&#xA;  the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call&#xA;  them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its&#xA;  name. &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the&#xA;  heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not&#xA;  found a helper fit for him. &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to&#xA;  fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed&#xA;  up its place with flesh. &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; And the rib that the Lord God had taken&#xA;  from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; Then the man said,   &quot;This at last is bone of my bones  and flesh&#xA;  of my flesh;  she shall be called Woman,  because she was taken out of&#xA;  Man.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast&#xA;  to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God sees that man is alone and needs companionship. He ultimately crafts woman...a single woman, from man himself. He clearly states in verse 24 that a man shall eventually leave his mother and father to join his &lt;em&gt;wife&lt;/em&gt;, his single wife, not plural wives...and that the two of them shall become one. I think that statement is rather profound, and one of the first things the bible says: That one man shall join with his &lt;em&gt;one wife&lt;/em&gt; and become, in Gods' eyes, &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; flesh. Very specific.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old testament is filled with the story of how God raised up man, destroyed man, and formed the nation of Isreal from the survivors of the flood. Much of mankind during the Exodus and Deuteronomy was again sinful, living pagan ways. God &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;allowed&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; polygyny during that time (after all, he did give mankind free will), however there is no mention of his &lt;strong&gt;blessing&lt;/strong&gt; it. On the contrary, it seems that all of the men throughout the old testament who did have multiple wives also had a multitude of problems. Some of the cases of polygyny were due to the treachery of other men, fathers, imposing marriage to multiple women upon individual men. Marriages born out of sin, not Godlieness. The ten commandments, intriguingly enough in the old testament, are also clear about the plurality of righteous marriage (Exodus 20:17):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;You shall not covet your neighbor's house; &lt;strong&gt;you shall not covet&#xA;  your neighbor's &lt;em&gt;wife&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, or his male servant, or his female servant, or&#xA;  his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A man shall not covet his neighbors &quot;wife&quot;, single wife. Again a demonstration of God's intent for righteous marriage. He created us to be one man and one woman as one flesh in marriage. This law is codified more clearly in the new testament 1 Corinthians 7:1-5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: &quot;It is good for a&#xA;  man not to have sexual relations with a woman.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; But because of the&#xA;  temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and&#xA;  each woman her own husband. &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; The husband should give to his wife her&#xA;  conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; For the wife&#xA;  does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.&#xA;  Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but&#xA;  the wife does. &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by&#xA;  agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to&#xA;  prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you&#xA;  because of your lack of self-control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For greater emphasis, verse 2: &lt;strong&gt;But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his &lt;em&gt;own&lt;/em&gt; wife and each woman her &lt;em&gt;own&lt;/em&gt; husband.&lt;/strong&gt; It seems pretty clear from this passage that marriage is still to be between one man and one woman, not simply as a measure to populate the earth, but also as a measure to protect both from sexual immorality. Additionally, later on at verse 10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the &lt;strong&gt;wife&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  should not separate from her husband &lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt; (but if she does, she should&#xA;  remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the&#xA;  husband should not divorce his &lt;strong&gt;wife&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again the plurality of marriage is very clear, and Gods' intent is for one man to marry one woman, for eternity. The whole passage of 1st Corinthians chapter 7 is pretty enlightening overall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I do not know of any specific passages that outright declare one man having multiple wives as sexual immorality, there are numerous passages like in 1st Corinthians that are pretty clear about men and women of salvation having a one man, one woman marriage, and that one of the intents of such a marriage is to stave off sexual immorality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there are also some self-evident truths about polygyny/polygamy, the nature of man and women in regards to their feelings. Jealousy is something that many people experience, even in proper relationships, but particularly in unconventional relationships such as polygamy. There is also the evidence of one man, one woman homes and the stability and cultural viability of the children brought up in such homes, vs. those brought up in unstable or broken homes. While I do not have specific bible verses to quote in that regard (seems to be an area I've been rather lax studying), there are passages that describe children in relation to their mother and father (singular). Taken in context with Corinthians, given one man has his own wife and one wife has her own husband, it stands to reason that each child of a mother and father is the child of a righteously married Christian couple...one man and one woman. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to Richards comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see how any of those verses above allow for Polygyny, given the lack of plurality in the term used, which is consistently &quot;wife&quot;, not wives. Specifically in the case of Corinthians 7, it is explicitly clear about the relationship of a man with his wife and a woman with her husband...each must have their own. In the case of polygyny or any other form of complex marriage, it is impossible for any woman to have her own husband, as her husband is shared amongst every woman the may may be married to. I don't see any loophole or alternative interpretation of the words of 1 Cor 7:2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding how Jesus loves the church, I believe you are inferring a meaning that is not present nor specified in the bible. The way Jesus loves the church is unconditionally and eternally, and that is the kind of love God expects a husband and wife to have with each other as a single flesh. The fact that God loves many people is consequential, and inferring from that, that God therefor allows or expects us to be polygynysts is not backed up by any other verses of the bible. For further clarity of that, compare proper marriages with polygynyst marriages in the bible. The difference between a righteous marriage and a complex marriage is clear, and in the old testament books where polygyny is present, those marriages, particularly the men, encountered many troubles and strifes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for who God is, yes, God is the same God he was and will always be. Its not God that changed, its his law. The laws of the old testament are different from the law of the new testament. God allowed, but did not bless, polygyny in the old testament; he also required that each person make a literal sacrifice to atone for their sins. Thanks to the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, our sins are atoned for now simply for the asking, and the nature of marriage has been explicitly specified. The nature of law changed, the nature of God is the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible must be taken in FULL CONTEXT, not as bits an pieces. If God did explicitly allow, and more importantly bless, the marriage of one man to multiple women, that would be clearly backed up by the bible overall. It would be present and clearly stated with terms that mean exactly that, not some ephemeral idea that because it occurred then its just and right. The new testament books would have directly referenced polygyny as being a normal and righteous form of marriage, and the word &quot;wives&quot; would be used rather than &quot;wife&quot;. The bible is not unclear or unspecified in its context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastEditorUserId="52" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T18:32:01.143" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:32:01.143" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="256" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2921" CreationDate="2011-08-24T07:45:45.080" Score="20" ViewCount="6006" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we accept that unborn babies are human beings and not merely a non-human organism, and further we require baptism as a prerequisite for salvation (using it as justification for infant baptism)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens to an unborn baby which never experiences live birth, and clearly can't have been baptized since it was not yet born?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I'd be especially interested (but not exclusively so) in responses to this from Catholic theologians and/or apologists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2016-03-16T02:59:52.183" LastActivityDate="2016-07-17T15:03:33.343" Title="What happens to unborn, unbaptized babies who die?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T05:35:36.123" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="204" CreationDate="2011-08-24T07:49:11.267" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a good reason lies in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:9 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some say that God won't return until all peoples of the earth have been reached by the gospel. As far as I know, all peoples of the earth have not yet been reached by the gospel -- there's still a few left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to this, I agree with Mason Wheeler that there are still prophecies to fulfill. There are a lot of them in the Book of Revelation. Still, there are a lot of different interpretations (e.g., will the rapture occur before the tribulation or the other way around?) and I don't have any particular knowledge in all this. However, I am sure that we live in the last of times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-08-18T23:17:19.763" LastActivityDate="2013-08-18T23:17:19.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="252" CreationDate="2011-08-24T07:56:07.623" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Treat them as you would any other work by an author who claims to be Christian.  Weigh what is said carefully against scripture and evaluate it for what value it has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; it was rejected (was it heretical or known to be falsified or simply not &lt;em&gt;surely&lt;/em&gt; inspired) might help in such an evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I have found the extra-biblical works quite interesting in their own right.  Quite like the writings of the early church fathers, which are really very informative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T07:56:07.623" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="256" CreationDate="2011-08-24T08:09:10.640" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Babies and children do not know the difference between right and wrong, and the Bible calls them &quot;those who cannot tell between their right hand and their left.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/jonah/4-11.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jonah 4:11&lt;/a&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because they do not understand what is right, what is wrong, as they are too young, they do not consciously sin. They are innocent.  There will come a time when they understand what is right and what is wrong, but until then, they are counted as &quot;saved&quot;. God has a provision for babies and very young children who die early.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/babies_who_die.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;site&lt;/a&gt; puts it better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, Jesus did state that unless we were like the little children, we wouldn't go to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-01-22T18:00:05.177" LastActivityDate="2014-01-22T18:00:05.177" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="248" CreationDate="2011-08-24T08:15:11.867" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard this explained most often in context of the Jewish culture of the day.  For Jews any part of the day is considered as representative of an entire day and night.  Thus if Jesus was in the tomb any part of Fri, Sat and Sun it was considered to be three days and three nights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do something similar, when we say things like &quot;I was at the park all day&quot;, where we really mean some number of hours during that day.  Though, to be fair, we generally use such a form if the amount of time spent constitutes the majority of the daylight hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T07:02:52.400" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T07:02:52.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="263" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="302" CreationDate="2011-08-24T09:14:27.930" Score="14" ViewCount="1117" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people I talk to claim that there cannot be a living prophet. They cite Revelation 22:18-19 claiming that the words there speak for the entire Bible.  Certainly it wasn't compiled until after the Revelation was written (sometime around the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Carthage&quot;&gt;Council of Carthage&lt;/a&gt;).  Also, a similar verse is found Deut. 4:2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the history of the Bible, there are plenty of times where there was no prophet on the earth and then a new one was called. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joseph of Egypt (about 1800 BC) and Moses (about 1550 BC)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Malachi (433 BC) - John the Baptist/Christ (30 AD)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Amos 3:7 says that God will do nothing unless he tells his prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This gives evidence that God calls prophets, but does not necessarily prove anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are there any passages in the Bible that say a prophet couldn't/won't be chosen by God today?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some sects believe that God calls prophets today (Restorationist):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_ni_Cristo&quot;&gt;Iglesia ni Cristo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Catholicism (the Pope, kinda)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2014-12-18T19:10:09.630" Title="Modern revelation. Is there Biblical evidence against it?" Tags="&lt;prophets&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-12-18T19:29:16.367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="264" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T09:15:29.443" Score="10" ViewCount="1719" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often hear people thank God about how their prayer being answered such as in competition. But what I'm thinking is, the winner is not absolutely the only one that prayed. I believe everybody in the competition pray and hope to win too. So, in this condition, only one person's prayer will be answered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how does God decide which person's prayer to answer? Is it based on how hard s/he prayed, or how much s/he deserved it? or is it according to His will only?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If none of them pray, will the result be the same?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="135" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T12:42:40.293" LastActivityDate="2015-07-10T18:37:47.127" Title="What is the Rule of Prayer?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-07-18T05:20:47.640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="264" CreationDate="2011-08-24T09:19:30.230" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a frequent competitor, I understand prayer as such following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I pray, I know that in whatever I do during the competition, God will be with me. As such, mishaps or any other unwanted disadvantages that may happen to me are voided. And thus I compete fairly with others with no disadvantages (such as sickness). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However God may not answer my prayer as it may be a lesson for me to learn. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God helps me with that, but as for the rest of the competition, it is up to me to accomplish it. God wouldn't want to intervene in order to help me win, because He wants to see me working hard and winning the competition in His will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Competitions cannot be win by greed, as greed is sin. I pray to do my best of my abilities for all competitions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="122" LastEditorUserId="122" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T09:27:12.510" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T09:27:12.510" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="252" CreationDate="2011-08-24T09:51:13.207" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;You don't need to (as in &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt;), but you can if you want to. Don't allow them any special authority if they're not in your Bible; use common sense. Apocryphal books and other writings of the time might be interesting in many ways, e.g. historically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an important distinction to be made between 1&amp;amp;2 Maccabees and the Gospel of Thomas. This distinction also tells you a lot about how useful a certain book would probably be to read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Old Testament apocrypha / &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuterocanonical books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1&amp;amp;2 Maccabees aren't included in the Protestant Old Testament, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Roman Catholics and most Orthodox Christians consider them canonical&lt;/a&gt;. They weren't in the Hebrew Bible, thus they're called &lt;em&gt;deuterocanonical&lt;/em&gt; as opposed to &lt;em&gt;protocanonical&lt;/em&gt;. As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/252/should-a-protestant-read-the-apocryphal-books-of-the-bible/283#283&quot;&gt;Raphink points out in his answer&lt;/a&gt;, these books were written later than the &lt;em&gt;protocanonical&lt;/em&gt; books and thus couldn't be included in the Hebrew Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants consider deuterocanonical books Old Testament apocrypha, i.e. books that don't have divine authority but are relevant with regard to pre-New Testament history. Martin Luther &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon#Deuterocanonical_books&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;said about them&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Useful and good to read -- but not divinely inspired, according to Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Testament apocrypha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a &lt;strong&gt;very broad consensus&lt;/strong&gt; between Christians of different denominations on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#New_Testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;what books are included in New Testament&lt;/a&gt;. In fact, there's practically no disagreement here. Luther was probably the most vocal questioner of the authority of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, but even he didn't exclude them from canon. Neither does any major denomination nowadays consider any extra books to be part of New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Thomas&lt;/a&gt; is one of the better known writings belonging to New Testament apocrypha. It might also be one of the more interesting ones. However, keep in mind that &lt;strong&gt;no one notable considers it part of the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;. Neither is there any church-father, reformer, founder of a major denomination or such saying that it's &quot;useful and good to read&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other books considered New Testament apocrypha. I'll say from personal experience that not all of them are worth reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Old Testament apocrypha are considered part of the Bible by some and &quot;useful and good to read&quot; by some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New Testament apocrypha are considered neither.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T18:51:02.677" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="271" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T10:31:50.597" Score="10" ViewCount="20068" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now, once, I was fasting. I was destined to fast for three weeks. Now the church that I went to had Communion once every month, and it happened that my second last Sunday of fasting was my church's Communion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does taking the communion break my fast? If so, should I leave &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; taking the Communion? Is fasting a &quot;good enough&quot; reason? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T13:48:55.367" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T13:54:30.010" Title="Does taking communion break the fast? Is there a Scriptural or Traditional case to be made either way?" Tags="&lt;fasting&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T00:04:52.853" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="264" CreationDate="2011-08-24T10:35:14.430" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are no rules. Prayer is a personal relationship between you and God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also not always easy to identify answers as answer to a particular prayer. It is also not given that the prayer will be answered within a short period of time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God works in mysterious ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers to prayer is never a result of the &quot;quality&quot; of your prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you pray before a competition, the answer from God may not be in you winning, but maybe in helping you enjoy the competition and even &lt;em&gt;if you don't win&lt;/em&gt; you will appreciate the result and see the positive in your experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="129" LastEditorUserId="129" LastEditDate="2013-09-02T11:03:58.297" LastActivityDate="2013-09-02T11:03:58.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-08-24T10:36:41.653" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though I'm definitely not the greatest authority on this, the Anglican Church (under whom I'm training right now) do indeed teach Evolution. There is a difference between the natural and supernatural, and though the Bible does provide all that is necessary for salvation, it does not necessarily provide all that is necessary for everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say, though, even knowing others within the denomination that disagree, that this is obviously a controversial topic. However, it should not get in the way of the main message of the Bible: salvation through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You should make your own decision on this one after weighing up both sides. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a bit more information, give this a read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T10:36:41.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="271" CreationDate="2011-08-24T10:47:03.133" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fasting is definitely a &quot;good enough&quot; reason not to take the communion. The communion is to remember the last meal Jesus had with his Diciples, and fasting is to not have a meal. Although the communion is not just any meal, it is still a meal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="129" LastEditorUserId="135" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T12:42:18.733" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T12:42:18.733" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="64" CreationDate="2011-08-24T10:48:35.983" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:29 - Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.&quot; (NIV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my understanding, that includes plants and trees as food, but does not exclude non-vegetarian food&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 65:21-25 is a prophecy is on new heaven and new earth. Even today, people build houses and live in them. Wolf and Lamp is not yet eating together. So I do not think we can use that text to say that it appear to endorse a plant-based diet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Raphink already explained Roman 14:21 and explained it does not endorse plant-based diet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I do not think any of the above text explicitly talk for vegetarianism and make a contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="140" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T10:48:23.497" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T10:48:23.497" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="271" CreationDate="2011-08-24T11:00:07.587" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The discipline of fasting is a time of introspection on God by forsaking some of the human need (here food) for a period. Communion is a time of fellowship with God in community. I believe we should follow the spirit of Bible, which is expressed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%203:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 3:6&lt;/a&gt; last part (&lt;em&gt;for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.&lt;/em&gt;  quoted from NIV). Jesus always wanted His followers to uphold the this principle when He healed people on a sabbath day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I would this taking communion will not breach the fasting, since here fasting is taken from food to  have closer fellowship with God  during that time and communion encourages that fellowship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T20:50:17.287" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T20:50:17.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2011-08-24T11:03:09.650" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two major schools about the place, whether it is eternal or whether there is annihilation. Most of the time, Jesus refers to being 'destroyed' in hell. With this definition, only two groups will have an 'eternal' hell. First, Satan and demons. In terms of people, then according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2014:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 14:11&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not the greatest source always, but Wikipedia provides the following introduction to annihilationism: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of people who also believe this. I'm not going to try to convert you one way or the other, but please be aware that though the majority of Christians believe in Hell, not all believe in eternal torment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for who escapes it, Jesus says in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16-17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we're thinking about it in the sense of annihilationism, therefore, the only ones that will go on to eternal life are those that believe in God's only Son, Jesus Christ. Will all be saved, will there be a second chance? I wouldn't want to argue for that, but read Francis Chan's book for more (see other comments).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T19:31:58.083" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:31:58.083" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="278" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="295" CreationDate="2011-08-24T11:20:12.017" Score="23" ViewCount="20671" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know there are a lot of non-biblical arguments for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state&quot;&gt;separation of church and state&lt;/a&gt;. Some Christians also support it on biblical grounds, but I've never looked into the matter myself. Which passages of the Bible support the idea?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-12T09:54:17.370" LastActivityDate="2017-02-22T20:45:39.420" Title="Biblical basis for the separation of church and state" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="280" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T11:30:57.690" Score="26" ViewCount="17676" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:5&lt;/a&gt; states there is &quot;one Lord, one faith, one baptism.&quot; Some Christians interpret this to mean that a single denomination (with its beliefs, doctrines, and practices) constitutes the &quot;one true faith.&quot; Other Christians interpret this to mean that a group of denominations (with their collective beliefs, doctrines, and practices, which are sometimes different or even contradictory) constitutes a collective &quot;one true faith.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the respective arguments for these two interpretations of the scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-17T02:22:16.883" LastActivityDate="2019-04-12T21:18:06.660" Title="Interpretation of the scripture &quot;One Lord, one faith, one baptism?&quot;" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;ephesians&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2019-05-01T04:32:03.313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="278" CreationDate="2011-08-24T11:31:44.913" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/bulletin/2009/march.htm#Women&quot;&gt;article should help:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bible does not articulate a full-blown doctrine of the separation of church and state. Yet, its seeds are clearly present. Jesus at least foreshadowed the concept when he said “[g]ive therefore to the emperor things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21) Jesus’ behavior was consistent with his words. He never took a coin from Caesar or sought the help of Herod in his ministry and mission.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In many places, the New Testament outlines the contours of the separate realms of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar. The church is given the tasks of spreading the gospel (Acts 1:8), teaching doctrine (Matthew 28:20), and discipling believers (Ephesians 4:11-13). The state is divinely ordained to resist evil (Romans 13:3) and keep order (I Peter 2:13-15). Although these realms sometimes overlap and do not necessarily clash, the New Testament bears witness to a two-kingdom world — each with separate duties and each engendering different loyalties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T11:31:44.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="252" CreationDate="2011-08-24T11:41:01.273" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As has been said already, you &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; read (and it can be interesting) the apocrypha. Just don't consider them as authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to complete the other answers by stating a difference between the Old Testament apocrypha and the New Testament apocrypha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament apocrypha, such as the Maccabees, are not included in the Jewish Canon (and thus not in the Protestant Bibles either) mostly because they were too recent (or even not written yet, depending on when you consider the Jewish Canon was fixed) to be included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that reason, Old Testament apocrypha is very interesting historically since it tells you about what happened between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. For example, it explains about the origin of Hanukkah, a day that was already celebrated at the time of Jesus. You can think of Old Testament apocrypha as an interesting part of history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, most of the New Testament apocrypha are books that were considered non interesting, not God-breathed or even heretic by the early Christian church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're more likely to find ungodly ideas or twisted scriptures in New Testament apocrypha (such as the Gospel of Thomas or of the Women) than in Old Testament apocrypha. You can think of New Testament apocrypha as alternative accounts of Jesus' life and possibly heretic theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T11:41:01.273" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="284" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="336" CreationDate="2011-08-24T11:43:21.117" Score="21" ViewCount="1303" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a non-native English speaker living in Europe myself, so I honestly couldn't read the KJV as my primary Bible and all I know about its popularity in the USA is hearsay. I'd like to know more about the different levels of KJV advocacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard that some Christians consider the KJV the only correct English translation of the Bible. From what I read on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement&quot;&gt;Wikipedia about &quot;King James only movement&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, I gather there are varying degrees of this. However, the article doesn't tell me very much. I'd like to know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What different KJV-advocating views are there?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are they based on?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How common are they?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally hold the KJV in high esteem because of its beautiful, poetic language, but it's still in a foreign language to me. I also occasionally read ESV, NASB, NIV and NLTse; I mostly check them when I want to check the translation of a specific passage and versions in my own language disagree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mean to insult anyone, so please edit if some of the terms that I use are inappropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-03-31T03:26:41.767" LastActivityDate="2016-03-31T03:26:41.767" Title="What is the King James only movement?" Tags="&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;kjv-onlyism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="286" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="290" CreationDate="2011-08-24T11:45:34.477" Score="27" ViewCount="27504" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 8:21-23 says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him. (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the meaning of the dead burying their dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-08-11T07:03:14.603" LastActivityDate="2016-07-17T14:53:45.263" Title="What is the meaning of &quot;let the dead bury their dead&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="287" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T11:52:55.880" Score="3" ViewCount="3950" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/248/how-long-was-jesus-in-the-tomb&quot;&gt;How long was Jesus in the tomb?&lt;/a&gt;, the question could be reasonably raised &quot;if Jesus was only in the tomb for a day and a half, can we be sure that he really died, or were the witnesses mistaken?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking not simply for biblical assertions by the biblical authors that Jesus died on the cross, but more objective facts about what happened. For example, if he got cold and blue, or if rigor mortis set in, or if the tomb began to smell, this type of data would be supporting evidence of his death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="34561" LastEditDate="2018-10-19T12:59:25.713" LastActivityDate="2018-10-19T12:59:25.713" Title="What evidence is there that Jesus died on the cross?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;cross&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-08-25T13:21:24.980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="280" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:01:14.360" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't talk about denominations, nor did Jesus or any of the disciples start any denominations. Denominations came from the disagreement of men on the interpretation of the Word of God. For this reason, I do not believe this passage can refer to denominations, which didn't exist when Paul wrote it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul insisted in various places on the unity of the doctrine. For example in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 6:3&lt;/a&gt;, he insisted on the supremacy of the teachings of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 1&lt;/a&gt;, he warned against false teachings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1&lt;/a&gt;, he warned again about disagreements between teachers and the importance of recognizing yourself as a disciple of Christ rather than as belonging to a specific teacher (or &quot;denomination&quot;, as we would call it today):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:5&lt;/a&gt; is then quite clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is one faith, the faith transmitted by the apostles (that includes Paul);&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there is one baptism, the one transmitted by the apostles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All other teachings are to be rejected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T20:46:36.980" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T20:46:36.980" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="286" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:03:55.280" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me, this is a very offensive direction that Jesus gives.  And that isn't a bad thing -- frequently the Bible gives directions that are offensive to what we are accustomed to believing.  We should always take them seriously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, I think the message is that we must put following Christ above everything, even our most important worldly concerns.  In Hebrew culture, it is a son's duty to bury his father -- an important duty -- but Jesus is telling him to forget about that, to put following him first.  The options are &quot;bury your father, and get around to following me in a bit&quot; or &quot;follow me&quot;.  As far as Jesus is concerned, there's only one choice.  It's quite similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=181187275&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:29&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the specific wording, I would suggest that &quot;follow me&quot; is contrasted to death.  So following Jesus is life, tarrying about with worldly duties is death.  So the dead in spirit are left to bury the dead in body: the living are following Jesus along the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T12:03:55.280" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="287" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:12:41.883" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/255/11/1455.short&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Jesus died from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. The shock, caused by his scourging, was made apparent by his inability to carry the cross member. When the spear pierced Jesus' side, both blood and water were said to come out of the wound. The latter is explained by pleural and pericardian effusions. Furthermore, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, which suggests that there was a &quot;catastrophic terminal event&quot; such as a cardiac rupture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T12:12:41.883" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="284" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:14:19.370" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are differing groups throughout the United States that argue (quite vehemently) about solely using the King James version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to be divided (very roughly) based on the culture of the area.  In the South, for example, some denominations tend to preach out of the King James version more often than churches from the Northern parts of the US (or churches from different denominations).  The line in some communities is quite divisive, in fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, I think it boils down to the community itself and what they prefer to listen to and read.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been to churches that are primarily older people (with the average age well over 60) and they solely use King James version.  Churches that are filled with younger people tend to use a more modern version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, while there are some people who strongly oppose anything but KJV, it seems that it's a matter of preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I should note that New King James version seems to be just as popular than KJV.  (The numbers are very close.)  It retains many of the same translations but changes the &quot;thee&quot; and &quot;thou&quot; for the more modern words &quot;your&quot; and &quot;you&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ironically, you do lose a sense of singular/plural-ness when you drop &quot;thee&quot; from the vocabulary (which muddles the translation a bit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, I once heard someone say that they prefer the King James Version on the grounds that &quot;if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, he was not a biblical scholar.  ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T18:02:55.883" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:02:55.883" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="278" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:19:57.807" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 12:17&lt;/a&gt; towards this goal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; And Jesus answering said unto them, &quot;Render to Caesar the things&#xA;  that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.&quot; And they&#xA;  marvelled at him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument goes something like this:  The government is here to govern the society here on Earth.  God has been given to us to govern our hearts, minds, and souls.  So, we should allow the government to do what it does best and allow God to be in control of all the other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument is generally followed with the idea that we need to elect Christians into government and pray for our government officials, but that religion should be separate from the state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think this is a bit of a stretch.  The more solid arguments are the non-biblical ones (prevention of the majority overriding the minority, insuring freedom of religion, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T12:19:57.807" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="296" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="300" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:28:18.597" Score="14" ViewCount="5802" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2028:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jesus said&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;em&gt;&quot;...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the early church apparently baptised in the name of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 8:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:48&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 10:48&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 19:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is correct? Or is there a way to combine these?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2014-09-25T00:14:53.797" Title="Into whose name should Christians be baptised?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-09-25T02:08:55.327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="296" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:33:38.217" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taken from Acts 19 :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: It's pretty clear it's Christ's baptism. &amp;quot;Christ's Baptism&amp;quot; doesn't mean that you become baptised into Christ's name, but you get baptised according to how Christ said you should be baptised. And how did Christ put it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...baptizing them &lt;strong&gt;in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, I would say, each time when baptizing, baptise in the names of the Three Beings of the Trinity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:03:01.717" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="287" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:37:03.220" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The notion that Jesus didn't die on the cross is more commonly known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;swoon theory&lt;/a&gt;. It was originally presented during the 19th century, a time when many competing naturalistic explanations for the resurrection of Jesus were formed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A well-esteemed resurrection researcher, Gary Habermas, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/criswell_theol_review/1989-fall_jesusresandcontempcrit_pt1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;describes this time as follows&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another indication of the failure of the naturalistic theories is that each one was disproven by the 19th century liberals themselves. These scholars refuted each other's hypotheses, thereby leaving no viable alternative. For example, D. Strauss delivered the historical death blow to the swoon theory held by K. Venturini, H. Paulus and others. On the other hand, F. Schleiermacher and Paulus pointed out errors in Strauss' hallucination theory. However, the major decimation of the hallucination theory came at the hands of T. Keim. The fraud and legend theories were disproven by later critical research.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a long time, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=5_AFAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA408&amp;amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;amp;cad=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;refutation of the swoon theory by Strauss&lt;/a&gt; kept the theory unsupported by specialists. It &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/trinityjournal_latetwentieth/trinityjournal_latetwentieth.htm#iiib&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;has seen only limited support&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The swoon theory has reappeared recently in a few places, although seldom among specialists. One of the only exceptions is the brief article by Margaret Lloyd Davies and Trevor A. Lloyd Davies. It develops the hypothesis that Jesus lost consciousness, causing the bystanders to conclude that he was dead. When taken down from the cross, he revived and was treated. Surprisingly, the appearances apparently seem not to be caused by Jesus actually being seen after his recovery, but by some unspecified sort of &quot;perceptions,&quot; raising once again the issue of hallucinations. The medical outcry against the Davies' stance was instructive, with multiple reasons being given to indicate that Jesus really died by crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, long story short: there are very few supporters for the theory, especially among scholars. It's academically not plausible; you'll probably have better luck with some of the other naturalistic theories. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=5_AFAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA408&amp;amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;amp;cad=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the refutation by Strauss&lt;/a&gt; for some problems with the theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T12:37:03.220" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="296" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:39:06.137" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most Churches will likely follow the words given by Jesus in Matt 28:19 than the Acts of the Apostles, and therefore &quot;...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Special mention should be given to the Apostolic Church, Apostolic traditions etc. who are more likely to baptise, as you say, in the name of Jesus. For some denominations, this is a real contention point. I don't want to de-emphasise the importance this holds for some denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T12:39:06.137" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="296" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:45:50.937" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/should-we-baptize-name-father-son-and-holy-spirit-or-name-jesus&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The reason they were baptizing &quot;in the name of Jesus&quot; is not because&#xA;  it was a formula, but because the phrase, &quot;in the name of&quot; means &quot;in&#xA;  the authority of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were baptizing with his authority. They were using his authority to baptize believers into a new life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another quote from that same site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, when someone is properly baptized, they are baptized in the&#xA;  name of Jesus; that is, by the authority of Jesus.  Therefore, when&#xA;  they are properly baptized in the name of Jesus, they should say, &quot;I&#xA;  baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,&quot;&#xA;  just as Jesus commanded us to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="122" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:07:45.143" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:07:45.143" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="301" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="310" CreationDate="2011-08-24T12:54:24.233" Score="51" ViewCount="21962" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that evil exists because God gave us free will. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Because of this The Fall of man happened and drew us away from God. Suffering exists not only because God can exert justice on the evil of the earth but also because God can grow people and bring them to greater revelation through suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a correct argument? If so how do I expand and support it to make a good response to a non-Christian who says something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I can't believe in a good God when there is evil and suffering in the world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Note my argument assumes a non-Christian who knows some of the basics of Christianity. To be clear, I intend for my question to be broad in the sense that a non-Christian also includes those of various other faiths and those that might not believe God exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2016-05-21T06:30:08.550" LastActivityDate="2016-05-21T06:30:08.550" Title="How to answer &quot;Why do evil and suffering exist?&quot;" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;&lt;theodicy&gt;" AnswerCount="21" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="25" ClosedDate="2016-05-21T06:30:34.583" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="263" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:07:18.267" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2/what-is-the-basis-for-exclusive-personal-bible-interpretation/50#50&quot;&gt;As I mentioned elsewhere,&lt;/a&gt; the concept of a closed canon of scripture, which goes hand-in-hand with the notion that &quot;we already have all the revelation we need and therefore God will not have to send any new prophets to teach us&quot; has always historically been connected with apostate groups.  It seems a bit inconsistent to think that something that has always been completely wrong with regards to the nature of God and the way He interacts with us would now be right, especially with as many times as we're told that God does not change.  (Psalms 102:27, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, for example.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, not all revelation is what we typically think of as &quot;prophecy,&quot; a prediction of events in the distant future. It was quite common for prophets to talk about current affairs with divine guidance, such as helping out kings in warfare, or even Jesus telling Peter where to go fishing that he could find an unexpected yield in various different cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if the great, sweeping events of the future have already been predicted and recorded, without revelation to guide us in current events we're at a severe disadvantage.  God's revelations to earlier patriarchs did not teach Noah to build the ark, nor did His words to Noah teach Moses how to lead Israel out of captivity and through the wilderness, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, I'm not aware of any scriptural evidence for the end of revelations and prophetic guidance, at least not before the end of the world, and we have a pretty clear pattern that contradicts the notion as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T13:15:12.060" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:20:15.750" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you have a good reason for why evil exists, but I would follow that with suffering exists &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; evil exists.  I don't agree that all suffering is punishment from God.  He may allow for suffering, because He can use it in our lives to make us perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another root reason is that God allows for our free will.  He does not want us to be robot worshipers, but gave us the choice to follow Him or not.  Many abuse that choice and do not follow him, whether that's through Satan working in their lives to tempt them away from God or simply not knowing.  It is through that choice, that they do evil and allow it in this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T13:20:15.750" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="304" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:24:08.157" Score="10" ViewCount="11907" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Good News?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a different meaning when Jesus mentions it and when Paul does?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll clarify my question. Jesus mentions the Good News (or &quot;gospel&quot; in some translations) in Mark 1:15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that His gospel is that &quot;the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.&quot; Does that relate to the time of His laying down His life for the sin of men, as the term &quot;gospel&quot; is understood after His death, or does the term have another meaning in Jesus' mouth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-11-13T12:19:24.903" LastActivityDate="2015-11-13T12:51:14.823" Title="What does the Good News refer to?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T01:20:58.327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="305" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="311" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:24:16.747" Score="27" ViewCount="10662" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church is strongly against contraception. Most Protestants nowadays accept it; I gather it was less common in the past.  Of course it's possible that Protestants have just given in to worldly things here, but I don't buy that. However, I'm not quite sure that contraception can be seen as allowed by default, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There should be either biblical or rational reasons for allowing contraception; I expect there to be both. What are they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-06-23T03:08:17.743" LastActivityDate="2018-03-22T11:36:18.390" Title="Why do Protestants allow contraception?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;contraception&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="306" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="562" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:34:53.187" Score="20" ViewCount="8865" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a difference between Augustinianism and (Five Points) Calvinism as they relate to the doctrine of salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, what is the difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-07-21T13:34:52.230" LastActivityDate="2018-09-30T05:55:56.617" Title="Difference between Augustinianism and Calvinism" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="304" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:36:54.773" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not think &lt;strong&gt;Good News&lt;/strong&gt;  was a new term when Jesus used it. He uses it first quoting prophet &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2061:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 61:1&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Old Testament Isaiah uses it four times  in the same sense as Jesus used in Gospels. &#xA;(  Ref Is 41:27, Is 52:7, Is 61:1, Nahum 1:15) &#xA;Jesus talks &lt;strong&gt;Good News&lt;/strong&gt; as something the world changing concept, some thing which will be a good news for entire humanity, one entire humanity waited for and now arrived as Kingdom of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke in Acts uses it in same sense. &#xA;Same way Paul really quotes from the same prophets when he uses this word in Romans 10:15 and Romans 10:16. Another reference I could see while looking at NIV as source version is using the term in general sense of a good news (1 Thessalonians 3:6). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Author of Hebrews (many believe this is Paul himself) also uses the term Good News in same sense as Jesus used. (Hebrews 4:2 and Hebrews 4:6).  So I do not see a conflict in meaning when Jesus uses it and when Paul uses it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="140" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T14:06:33.790" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T14:06:33.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="308" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="992" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:39:12.287" Score="19" ViewCount="629" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that when we are saved, we are irresistibly drawn to God and that there is nothing we can do to prevent this or cause this. What is the Biblical basis for this claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="40418" LastEditDate="2020-01-01T15:21:30.217" LastActivityDate="2020-01-01T15:21:30.217" Title="What is the Biblical basis for Irresistible Grace?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:44:09.287" Score="42" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy&quot;&gt;problem of theodicy&lt;/a&gt;. The assumptions usually made in the problem statement are, with a little variance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is almighty and all-knowing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God does not want evil in the world&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is good&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem goes on to state the fact that &lt;strong&gt;there is evil in the world&lt;/strong&gt;, and claims a contradiction between the assumptions and this observation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see really no problem here. If just (1) was true, God could certainly do anything.&#xA;If (1) and (2) were true, there certainly would be no evil in the world. But if (3) were true, God &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; do only things that are good, regardless of whether He &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we have (1), (2) and (3). God &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; do anything, but since He is good he &lt;em&gt;will not&lt;/em&gt; do just anything. There's no contradiction. God could remove all evil, but that would not be good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Up to that point it's all just logic. The reason that removing evil would not be good is more a matter of speculation. I suspect it has to do with free will: people are allowed to choose between good and evil, and removing the choice would be worse than the evil that ensues. This is just my speculation. God surely has His reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Goodness doesn't always mean doing what is &lt;em&gt;the most convenient to me&lt;/em&gt;. Quoting C.S. Lewis in A Grief Observed,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What do people mean when they say, &quot;I am not afraid of God because I know He is good&quot;? Have they never even been to a dentist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T13:44:09.287" CommentCount="23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="305" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:46:42.133" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is all about sex, of course -- in particular, the question of purpose: what it's for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will preface my answer by saying that contraception is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; directly addressed in the Bible, so my answer is going to be primarily theological rather than biblical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholicism says that sexual acts, to be moral, must have two purposes: that of expressing and confirming the love between the couple and that of procreation -- conceiving children.  Contraception prevents the procreative purpose, so the sexual act exists solely for the former purpose.  According to the Catholic understanding of the purpose of sex, therefore, it is immoral.  Similar arguments can be made about homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, etc etc.  Note that before the publication of &lt;em&gt;Humanae Vitae&lt;/em&gt; (the encyclical that effectively bans artificial contraception) the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control actually had a majority report in favour of revoking the ban.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Protestants, the case is (inevitably) rather complicated.  Some Protestants do indeed see contraception as inherently sinful.  They say that planning families is for God to do, so contraception is obstructing God's purpose, and often also echo the Catholic position about the purpose of sex.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Protestants, however, believe it possible to separate the two purposes of sex (love and reproduction) -- so it is possible to have a non-sinful sexual relationship without the prospect of children.  For instance, the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer has specific provision for couples who are beyond child-bearing age.  If a sexual relationship can exist without the possibility of reproduction, and if you believe that God's will can be exercised through the working of human free will, it's not hard to believe that contraception can be non-sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="137" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T14:00:55.293" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T14:00:55.293" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:48:29.637" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another argument for a existence of a just God despite the presence of evil is exactly that: the existence of evil. If God does not exist then morality is what humans make of it. If morality is what we make of it, then it shifts with time and location. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet throughout time and cultures, we see certain moral codes virtually everywhere. Stealing is bad. Adultery is bad. In other words, there are certain ideals that transcend humanity. Where else would they have come from if they didn't come from humans? They came from God. God impressed His law on each of our hearts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the existence of absolute evil in inexplainable by naturalistic causes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for lack of citations. I dont have my resources with me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T13:48:29.637" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:48:30.340" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of a non-Christian, the explanation you put forth makes no sense.  It relies on a number of assumptions that a non-Christian doesn't necessarily hold.  Regardless of whether it makes sense in the context of your belief system, it does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; make sense to a non-Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If evil is the result of the actions of Adam and Eve, what was it when the serpent tempted Eve to break God's rule? Either the serpent was evil, in which case evil predates the actions of Adam and Eve (thus they didn't cause it), or the serpent's actions weren't evil, which brings into question whether the actions of Adam and Eve were.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If suffering were merely a tool of God to bring us closer to Him, then why would children too young to have committed sin, or to understand the idea of God (let alone God himself) face unbearable suffering?  Why is so much suffering purposeless?  What's the point of free will if God is micromanaging everything that happens to us in such a confusing and unpredictable way (i.e. if this was to teach us a lesson, wouldn't it be a clear relationship between behavior and punishment/incentive like we use to bring up children?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of a non-Christian, the only ways &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; can find to posit both the existence of evil and suffering as observed on earth &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the existence of God as depicted by the Christians are the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God truly gave us free will (not the typically-described &quot;free will except where it conflicts with God's plan&quot;), and some people use it to do good things, while others use it to do bad things... others just do stupid things.  In other words: blame people.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evil is a force separate from the will of God, with which God is battling for control. Sometimes the other side gets a point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes these different?  (Note, I'm not saying they are true in the context of Christianity; I'm giving examples of the kinds of reasoning that actually make sense without certain assumptions of Christian philosophy and culture behind them.)  If you tell someone who isn't already assuming that God is X that Y must be true because God is X, you can't get anywhere unless you can prove that God is X.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short of actually meeting God amid some grand supernatural display that could not possibly have been created by man, the only way to try to convince someone of the existence of God is through positing a God-dependent explanation of things we &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; observe, but cannot otherwise explain.  When those explanations are self-contradictory, rife with logical fallacy, or conflict with our observations of the world around us, they are quite unconvincing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T13:48:30.340" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="304" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:49:39.197" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Good News&quot; in the Bible refers specifically to the Gospel of salvation. Simply that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you stated, it is sometimes translated as &quot;gospel&quot;. This is because, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_news_%28Christianity%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greek word&lt;/a&gt; it came from, can be translated as &quot;good news&quot;, &quot;glad tidings&quot;, or &quot;gospel&quot;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(from Koine Greek euangélion — also translated as &quot;gospel&quot;, &quot;glad tidings&quot; and variants&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="135" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T07:36:27.773" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T07:36:27.773" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="304" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:54:06.333" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mark, &quot;the time&quot; being reference is a period of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://vws.biblecommenter.com/mark/1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;From Marvin R. Vincent's study of Mark 1:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The time (ὁ καιρὸς)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That is, the period completed by the setting up of Messiah's kingdom.&#xA;  Compare the fulness of the time, Galatians 4:4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you compare your translation to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/mark/1-15.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;other translations&lt;/a&gt; you can see that &quot;at hand&quot; is also often translated as &quot;is near&quot;, meaning it has not yet arrived, but is coming soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul seems to define the Good News as &quot;What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus.&quot;  In Mark, Jesus could be referring to his resurrection and rising to Heaven which will be happening in the near future, and not necessarily his birth and initial time on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like Acts 13:32-35 for a definition of the Good News by Paul.  Here he is actually referencing Psalms and Isaiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2013:32-35&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 13:32-35 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; (Paul speaking)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 &quot;We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors 33 he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'You are my son;&#xA;      today I have become your father.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 So it is also stated elsewhere: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'You will not let your holy one see decay.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 13:38-39 tells how through Jesus we are forgiven and freed from sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2013:38-39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 13:38-39 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T14:40:50.810" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T14:40:50.810" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="271" CreationDate="2011-08-24T13:56:05.913" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Per @awe and @Jamess, there are really two sides of this.  It can go either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you breaking your fast?  Yes.  You truly are.  But you have to question: Why am I fasting?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are fasting in order to grow closer to God and find reliance only on him, then taking communion would not necessarily be bad.  Since communion is meant to draw us to God, then the two acts (fasting and communion) are moving towards the same purpose: moving us closer to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are fasting, however, in prayer over a specific thing (such as the salvation of a person or deliverance from a trial), then you should avoid the fast.  The purposes of the two acts (fasting and communion) are at odds.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said all of this, I believe this verse is appropriate to the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:31&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;1 cor. 10:31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;31&lt;/strong&gt; Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to&#xA;  the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you chose to break fast for communion, make sure you do it for God's glory.  If you chose to skip communion for the fast, make sure it's for God's glory.  If you follow that advice, you won't go wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T13:56:05.913" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="319" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="325" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:07:32.410" Score="10" ViewCount="21335" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an interesting topic regarding the salvation of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/256/84&quot;&gt;unborn babies&lt;/a&gt; that inspired this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that babies that die previous to birth go to heaven.  I also believe that young children that die go to heaven as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But at what point are children responsible for their sins?  My 2 year old may sin, not knowing it as a sin.  Is she guilty of that sin and will she be held accountable by God?  What about a 5 year old? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jewish belief is that they're not accountable until age 13 (thus part of the reason for the bar/bat mitzvah).  Is that really the answer for Christians, though?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T21:39:39.340" Title="When are children held accountable for ther sins?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-10-20T15:41:56.413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="320" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="366" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:13:40.470" Score="30" ViewCount="2274" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's common knowledge that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy have the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary&quot;&gt;the perpetual virginity of Mary&lt;/a&gt;. Protestants generally don't have that belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Less known is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/zwingli-luther-on-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary/&quot;&gt;Zwingli and Luther believed in perpetual virginity&lt;/a&gt;, too. What are the arguments for the doctrine, not assuming papal authority?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="35304" LastEditDate="2017-10-20T23:56:58.183" LastActivityDate="2019-06-25T00:02:00.440" Title="What Protestant arguments exist for the perpetual virginity of Mary?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="321" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="361" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:22:49.503" Score="18" ViewCount="1262" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia claims that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture&quot;&gt;the doctrine of rapture&lt;/a&gt; was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#Doctrinal_history&quot;&gt;first formed in the 17th century&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The concept of the Rapture, &lt;strong&gt;in connection with premillennialism&lt;/strong&gt;, was expressed by the 17th-century American Puritan father and son Increase and Cotton Mather. They held to the idea that believers would be caught up in the air, followed by judgments on the Earth, and then the millennium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the earliest mention of the doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2015-06-25T20:39:31.457" LastActivityDate="2015-06-25T20:39:31.457" Title="How old is the idea of premillenial rapture?" Tags="&lt;origin&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;&lt;premillennialism&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="322" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6125" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:31:03.500" Score="19" ViewCount="1965" Body="&lt;p&gt;This should be straightforward, as John the Baptist explicitly says that he isn't:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:19-21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:19-21 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, &quot;Who are you?&quot; &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;  He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, &quot;I am not the Christ.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; And they asked him, &quot;What then? Are you Elijah?&quot; He said, &quot;I am not.&quot; &quot;Are you the Prophet?&quot; And he answered, &quot;No.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However&lt;/strong&gt;, Jesus has something to say about the matter, too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011:13-14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 11:13-14 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;  For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So was he Elijah or not? Why do Jesus and John say such different things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T19:57:35.047" LastActivityDate="2015-05-26T19:21:40.627" Title="Was John the Baptist Elijah?" Tags="&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;&lt;elijah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:31:59.097" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know how much weight should be put on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess025.htm&quot;&gt;reference, but it does give different information:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It may come as a surprise but the doctrine of the Rapture is not mentioned in any Christian writings, of which we have knowledge, until after the year 1830 C.E. Whether the early writers were Greek or Latin, Armenian or Coptic, Syrian or Ethiopian, English or German, orthodox or heretic, no one mentioned it before 1830 (though a sentence in Pseudo-Dionysius in about 500 C.E. could be so interpreted). Of course, those who feel the origin of the teaching is in the Bible would say that it ceased being taught for some unknown reason at the close of the apostolic age only to reappear in 1830. But if the doctrine were so clearly stated in Scripture, it seems incredible that no one should have referred to it before the 19th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T14:31:59.097" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:32:47.253" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea of the rapture is taken from many scriptures in the Bible, but the term &amp;quot;rapture&amp;quot; is from 1 Thes. 4:17. The phrase &amp;quot;caught up&amp;quot; in latin is rapiemur. It means &amp;quot;seized&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;taken.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also the words of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two [women shall be] grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:38-42&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:03:06.757" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="319" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:35:36.167" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to give any meaningful answer, we must first assume the existence of free will.  Otherwise, the question is moot; children are simply doing what has been predestined that they will do. But if we understand that free will is given to everyone, including children, then it's fairly easy to answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained that sin begins in one's thoughts, and that it's important to keep from thoughts that can lead us to do evil.  So therefore, children who don't understand the concept of sin and the difference between good and evil aren't capable of choosing to commit sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They can do exasperating things sometimes, usually because it's simple human nature to seek fulfillment of basic needs and they don't understand self-restraint yet, or because they crave attention and they've learned that doing certain things will bring immediate reactions from adults.  But it's not until they're old enough to understand the abstract concepts of absolute good and evil existing independent of themselves and their desires that they're capable of knowingly choosing something that's wrong, and thereby committing sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe the Bible gives any doctrine as to exactly when that awareness comes to a child.  I've seen some research in child psychology that suggests that it comes towards the end of the first decade of life, but that's hardly conclusive, and it's probably a bit different for every kid anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T14:35:36.167" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="322" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:37:43.380" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Malachi had prophesied that “Elijah” would prepare the way for the&#xA;  Messiah (Mal. 3:1; 4:5). He did not actually&#xA;  imply only a literal reappearance of Elijah, and John’s earlier denial&#xA;  that he was Elijah (John 1:21) was probably an attempt to correct a&#xA;  popular belief that Elijah himself would reappear. Before John’s&#xA;  birth, he was designated as the one who would minister in the “spirit&#xA;  and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), thereby fulfilling Malachi’s&#xA;  prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Crossway Bibles: The ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, IL : Crossway Bibles, 2008, S. 1842&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John the Baptist, preacher of repentance and faith, was accordingly&#xA;  the Elijah who was to come. Like the Elijah of old, John too was a&#xA;  preacher of repentance. The two resembled each other also in the&#xA;  sudden character of their appearance, the incisiveness of their&#xA;  message, and the simplicity of their life. See on Matthew 3:3. True, John was&#xA;  not literally Elijah (John 1:21), but inwardly he was indeed, for “he&#xA;  went forth in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), and was&#xA;  therefore called Elijah by no one less than Jesus himself (Matt.&#xA;  17:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Hendriksen, William ;   Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 9), S. 490&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When asked: “Are you Elijah?” John clearly answered: “I am not.”&#xA;  (John 1:21) It had, however, been foretold that John would precede the&#xA;  Messiah “with Elijah’s spirit and power.” (Luke 1:17; Malachi 4:5, 6)&#xA;  In other words, John the Baptizer was Elijah in the sense that he&#xA;  carried out a work comparable to that of Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Watchtower 2001 5/1 Box on p. 22 DOES THE BIBLE TEACH REINCARNATION?&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorDisplayName="user14" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T15:04:16.443" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T15:04:16.443" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="327" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="908" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:39:09.217" Score="19" ViewCount="14733" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that Jesus talks out against divorce.  But in other places, divorce is allowed.  How does this all play out and where does the bible really stand on this?  Is it a sin or is it just part of the culture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm seeking the exegesis of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant&quot;&gt;mainstream Protestant&lt;/a&gt; denominations, since I believe that these will all be similar (if not identical).  If differences of interpretation exist between the different denominations, please let me know and I'll refine my scope a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-08T00:55:22.293" LastActivityDate="2015-10-26T16:25:23.167" Title="Under what conditions does the Bible support divorce?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T00:04:30.803" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="109" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:44:44.263" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would answer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblica.com/bibles/chapter/?verse=Matthew%205:27-28&amp;amp;version=niv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:27-28&lt;/a&gt; sprinkled in with the stern warning of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblica.com/bibles/chapter/?verse=Matthew%2023:25-26&amp;amp;version=niv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 23:25-26&lt;/a&gt;.  The later reminds us external observance, or doing the minimum to get by with is not enough, it is what comes from the heart.  The former passage speaks to the urges of the heart given at the Sermon on the Mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="148" LastEditorUserId="148" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T15:36:46.903" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T15:36:46.903" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="203" CreationDate="2011-08-24T14:46:10.737" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mormon's don't recognize any baptism of other faiths because they believe the person doing the baptizing needs to have the correct authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, the priesthood of God.  Hebrews 5:4 states, &quot;And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.&quot;  Aaron was called by revelation, and ordained by Moses laying hands on his head.  This is how the Priesthood is bestowed in the LDS Church.  (See Heb 1-4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2015-06-12T17:41:23.597" LastActivityDate="2015-06-12T17:41:23.597" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="327" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:01:43.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;My original answer was very ignorant and short. But these days I'm on a kick to fully understand Divorce from a biblical standpoint. This is a massively argued topic and nearly every sect has a different point of view. This answer will use logic to try and understand divorce more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. Divorce is permitted&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Albeit, a blatant declaration, but nonetheless we must accept this as a true premise. We will dive deeper into the specifics, but we first need to understand that we can even entertain this notion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 19:8&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&#xA;  Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But &gt; it was not this way from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We let Jesus interpret this premise for us. Clearly, it was Moses who permitted men to divorce their wives. So this beg's the question, is divorce a sin in every instance because it was not God permitting us, but Moses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is no, Divorce is not a sin. You would be right to expound upon my generalization and state that there are exceptions, and I would agree, but we'll get to that next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 3:8&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&#xA;  I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her &#xA;  adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and&#xA;  committed adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, if Divorce was a sin in every instance, then God himself would NOT have done it, for God does not sin. For those of you who like to distinguish between &quot;sending her away&quot; and &quot;divorce&quot;, notice that God has done both to Israel in His statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also see that God vehemently state's what He has done and that it has enuled the marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hosea 2:2&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&#xA;  Israel Punished and Restored&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 “Rebuke your mother, rebuke her,&#xA;      for she is not my wife,&#xA;      and I am not her husband.&#xA;  Let her remove the adulterous look from her face&#xA;      and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if Divorce is permitted, is it permitted under every circumstance? Well, before we can even begin to define a premise for this one, we should start with the reasoning for God divorcing Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 23:37-38&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&#xA;  37 for they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery &#xA;  with their idols; they even sacrificed their children, whom they bore to me, as food for &#xA;  them. 38 They have also done this to me: At that same time they defiled my sanctuary and &#xA;  desecrated my Sabbaths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Israel physically have sexual relations with another God? No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Israel ask God for a divorce? No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God recognized that Israel was unfaithful to the marriage. Israel had no intention of being obedient, faithful, or loving to God. Israel committed adultery, idolatry, murder and defiled God's sanctuary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel that we have enough information to form a generalized premise based off of this event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Divorce must be for a &quot;Just-Cause&quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important that we categorize the divorce between God and Israel as a &quot;Just-Cause&quot;. For God is a Just and Righteous God. God has basically explained to us that Israel has broken nearly all of the Commandments and committed sin against Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;3. The purpose to life is to learn how to Love.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am going to throw out this third premise, because it will give us rejuvenation in our marriages, so that we may understand that we should strive to have unconditional love and an infinite amount of forgiveness. Remember the prayer? &quot;Please forgive me of my sins as I forgive the sins of others?&quot; Yea, we're judged by our own standards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;4. If it causes you to sin, cut it off&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 18:8&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&#xA;  8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is &#xA;  better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be &#xA;  thrown into eternal fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;5. If a man leave his wife and children for God, he will receive a thousand fold.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 19:29&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&#xA;  29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[a] &#xA;  or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit &#xA;  eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Concluding way to early&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's so much more to talk about. But I wanted to give you a few premises that will help you make your decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see God did divorce Israel for a just-cause. God also tells us to not sin against Him, but to be obedient to Him in everything that we do. So I will conclude with this logical statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If your spouse is causing you to be disobedient to God, or has a wicked nature that gives rise to a Just-Cause, and you feel that you have done everything that you can do to correct it, then it may be beneficial for you to Divorce your wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind however, that this is one logical conclusion, but may in no way be the correct answer. Your soul depends on you doing more research.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-08T01:04:56.697" LastActivityDate="2015-10-08T01:04:56.697" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="327" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:09:37.660" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Matthew&amp;amp;chapter=19&amp;amp;verse=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;what Jesus said:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that time, the Jews were practicing divorce, on the basis that if the woman had committed adultery, and this is from Moses' law. But Jesus, although it admits that such a law exists, and therefore divorce is &lt;em&gt;legally&lt;/em&gt; right, He shows his disapproval. As Jesus said &amp;quot;but from the beginning it was not so.&amp;quot; Marriage was meant to be for life, and it was God's intention from the very beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for the Jews, at the time, it was legally correct, according to Moses' Law. However, as Christians, Moses' Law no longer applies to us. What does apply to us? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Matthew&amp;amp;chapter=19&amp;amp;verse=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus own words:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: &lt;strong&gt;and they twain shall be one flesh?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 &lt;strong&gt;Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is really important. This just states the magnitude of the importance and sacredness of marriage. The two &lt;em&gt;become one&lt;/em&gt;. That's what marriage was meant to be, the union of two people, to serve God better. The next statement, provides the rule, by which, I believe, Christians are bound:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, for Christians, I would say, no, Divorce is Wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T15:30:56.050" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="335" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="856" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:11:20.597" Score="43" ViewCount="2250" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people believe that if you have not been baptized, you cannot be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others (including myself) believe that it is merely the outward declaration of what has already happened in the heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that Jesus baptized no one, and that one of the most famous conversions involved no baptism (the thief on the cross), what Biblical basis does the argument for baptism giving or being a prerequisite to salvation have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T00:31:03.990" LastActivityDate="2015-10-23T03:18:31.207" Title="Biblical basis for baptism as a prerequisite for salvation" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="284" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:17:51.257" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a KJV Onlyer I guess I can at least answer what my view is. I go a little stronger than the only English translation. I believe it is the Word of God for this generation. To try to concisely answer the reasons for that view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Psalm 12:6-7 says that God has promised to preserve His Word unto all generations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inspiration without preservation doesn't make sense&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If God promised to preserve it to all generations, then at any generation in time there is a place you can turn to get God's Word. In the days of Moses and the Prophets it was in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the days of the Apostles and Acts it was in Greek. In the time of the early church it was in Syriac, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Based on the method of translation, the manuscripts that went into the translation, how God used the translation, the fact that God has allowed English to be a major language across the world today, etc, I believe that English is the language in which you find the pure Word of God today and that it is found in the King James Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I didn't answer the question of how common these views are. That I think is hard to say. It is a popular belief amongst the churches and pastors I fellowship the most with. It is by no means held by everyone I fellowship with. Having said that, I am sure it is a minority view in what in general is referred to as &quot;Christianity&quot; today (just take a look at any &quot;Christian&quot; bookstores Bible section, the KJV is one of the smallest and generally not prominently displayed.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another KJO view (the one you mention) is that the King James is the Bible in English (I would say that this is not really KJO but KJO-In-English). I believe that most who hold that view, hold it because of the manuscripts that were used for the translation (the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text), since all other modern English translations use a different text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="143" LastEditorUserId="143" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T15:35:29.027" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T15:35:29.027" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:19:27.183" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:5, KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:21&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:21, KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 16:16, KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like to think of the path to salvation as a marathon: you can have full confidence in yourself, and even run the race, but if you haven't signed up, you can't win.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-06T17:27:27.367" LastActivityDate="2011-11-06T17:27:27.367" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="327" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:20:29.647" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a difficult question of Christian practice.  How do you deal with marriages that fail?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easy to be consistent.  It's very easy to point to scriptural sayings and say &quot;Jesus disapproves&quot; and consider that the end of the matter.  It's easy to say something is sinful and should be forbidden.  It's even easy to ostracise those who are divorced, because they are sinners and have failed in their marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But reality is rather more complicated than that, and the reality is &lt;em&gt;pastoral&lt;/em&gt; as much as it is &lt;em&gt;biblical&lt;/em&gt;.  Pastoral experience should be relevant both to theology and to Christian ethics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine this situation.  A couple married in their early twenties.  Twenty years later, they have fallen on hard times.  He hits her.  She has been to hospital several times with increasingly bad injuries.  She is so terrified that she can no longer be in the same room as him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you going to tell her that to divorce him is forbidden?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or this situation.  A couple have been married five years when, after a period of agonising, the man comes out as a homosexual.  The basis for the marriage is undermined.  A sexual relationship is out of the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you going to tell them that divorce is forbidden?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; divorce is a tragedy. It is is the result of living broken, sinful lives in a broken, sinful world.  But the fact is that divorce can be a necessary reality, and Christians should deal with that in a loving, sympathetic way.  They must not collude in the sin (for instance, a marriage between a couple where the couple's relationship was previously adulterous should not take place in a church), but they must acknowledge that sometimes divorce is a tragic pastoral necessity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T15:20:29.647" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:23:13.200" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my understanding there are different kinds of evil. A Christian needs to be able to discern between the different evils that are in this world. God knew that men would be evil, this is probably the reason why He created a realm just for man to reside within because God was probably not willing to let us defile the heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God disciplining His children.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you become a child of God, things are not always easier. God will discipline His children as if He were pruning a tree that it might produce better fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 12:7&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children.&#xA;For what children are not disciplined by their father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people do not recognize this as discipline, but instead see hardship as evil and/or suffering in the world. In the book of James we are told to take on this Hardship with Joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God is the source of Wrath/Evil for a just cause&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's not discount God's ability to bring wrath and destruction onto/into the world. See in these next verses where God has actually promissed to bring evil/destruction upon sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 45:7b&lt;/strong&gt; KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Amos 3:6&lt;/strong&gt; KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?&#xA;shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joshua 23:15&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But just as all the good things the LORD your God has promised you&#xA;have come to you, so he will bring on you all the evil things he has&#xA;threatened, until the LORD your God has destroyed you from this good&#xA;land he has given you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 16:15&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is&#xA;tormenting you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understand that God does these evil acts as acts of Justice. He tells us that all of His ways are Just and He does these things because of the wickedness of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 34:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do&#xA;evil, from the Almighty to do wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Job it is referring to God doing evil for the sake of doing evil and not for a just purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Man is the source of unjust Evil&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the last section I mentioned evil for two purposes, one for just purposes, which is the evil from God and the other for unjust purposes, which is not from God. Men on the other hand are continuously creating evil for the sake of being evil. This is what the gospel is all about. We are a wicked and filthy people, literally enemies of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 6:45&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,&#xA;and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his&#xA;heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 13:41&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his&#xA;kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The mentions of evil that I cannot explain&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read the first paragraph of Ecclesiastes 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-04-25T04:59:28.507" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="342" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:30:39.490" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exegesis is the discipline of interpreting biblical texts to find their meanings, significance, and relevance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are various approaches to exegesis, some of which are common to particular religious traditions. The principal tools include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;history: understanding the cultural, social and geographic context for the text&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;linguistics: understanding the meanings of the words present in the text, particularly in their original languages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;context: understanding where the text stands in the Bible, and what light other biblical texts can give&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;literary analysis: understanding what the genre and style of the passage is (e.g. prophecy, poetry, history, parable, apocalypse, letter)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;tradition: understanding how the church has interpreted the text through the ages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;reason: using one's rational capacity to interpret the spiritual meaning of a text&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frequently, Christians will advocate starting exegesis with prayer. This particularly demonstrates their respect for the Bible as divinely inspired and their belief that understanding the Scriptures requires the aid and support of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interpreting the Bible is ultimately a circular task, with our interpretations being influenced by our beliefs. The goal for exegesis is however to try to hear the text speak and learn what it means, which will result in our beliefs being challenged. To only read in a text what we want it to say is &quot;&lt;em&gt;eis&lt;/em&gt;egesis&quot; - reading &lt;em&gt;into&lt;/em&gt; the passage, rather than &quot;&lt;em&gt;ex&lt;/em&gt;egesis&quot; - &lt;em&gt;out&lt;/em&gt; of the passage. (&lt;em&gt;Eis&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;ex&lt;/em&gt; come from the Greek for &quot;into&quot; and &quot;out of&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-09-21T02:26:52.270" LastActivityDate="2018-09-21T02:26:52.270" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="343" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:30:39.490" Score="0" Body="Exegesis is the interpretation of a Biblical text, to explore its meaning, significance and relevance. Most exegesis questions should be asked at the Biblical Hermeneutics site; exegesis questions on this site need to specify a perspective and explain why an answer from that perspective is needed." OwnerUserId="137" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-06T02:09:07.023" LastActivityDate="2020-06-06T02:09:07.023" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:31:53.873" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acts makes it quite clear that baptism is a requirement.  On the day of Pentecost, when the gathered people heard the apostles' words and were persuaded, they asked what they should do.  The answer was not &quot;simply profess belief and you'll be fine,&quot; but &quot;repent and be baptized every one of you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, not only is a baptism necessary, it has to be done right, and the people being baptized have to have a correct understanding of what they're participating in, or it doesn't count and has to be done again.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Acts&amp;amp;verse=19&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Acts 19&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thief on the cross is a red herring.  Jesus tells him that he will be with him that day in paradise, but clearly this is not the same thing as going to his final reward in heaven.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=2+Corinthians&amp;amp;verse=12&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 12&lt;/a&gt;, where paradise is spoken of separately from heaven, also &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=John&amp;amp;verse=20:17&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;John 20:17&lt;/a&gt;, where Jesus, after his resurrection, reveals that he has not yet been to heaven to present himself to his Father.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T19:56:40.120" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:56:40.120" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:43:54.027" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wine in the Bible may have had alcohol in it, as it was necessary to keep it from spoiling. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2023:31&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Proverbs 23:31 at Bible Gateway&quot;&gt;Proverbs 23:31&lt;/a&gt; does seem to distinguish that some wines had higher alcohol contents than others and it says to avoid that wine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2023:29&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Proverbs 23:29 at Bible Gateway&quot;&gt;Proverbs 23:29-31&lt;/a&gt; Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2023:30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Proverbs 23:30 at Bible Gateway&quot;&gt;30&lt;/a&gt;They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2023:31&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Proverbs 23:31 at Bible Gateway&quot;&gt;31&lt;/a&gt;Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 65:8&lt;/a&gt;, it mentions new wine being found in a cluster, which obviously is not fermented, so it clearly doesn't always have alcohol in it, at least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 65:8&lt;/a&gt; Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="103" LastEditorUserId="103" LastEditDate="2011-12-06T03:01:02.927" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T03:01:02.927" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="320" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:47:02.287" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've found some very interesting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quotes of Martin Luther&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) &amp;amp; Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I found no other explanation for this issue except that both Luther and Zwingli were raised in the teachings of Catholic church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the authority of the doctrine I think it relies on the early teachings of the church, as it is reflected in the teachings of the first fathers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373);  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403); &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419);  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Augustine(Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430);  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444);&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the title Mary Ever-Virgin is found in is found in Athanasius'. Orat. ii. § 70. (Orations against the Arians Book II section 70) &quot;Let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His substance, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin.&quot; You can read more in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/volume2/file7.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Newmann reader&lt;/a&gt; under the title &quot;Mary Ever-Virgin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-24T17:55:00.713" LastActivityDate="2016-01-24T17:55:00.713" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:48:42.390" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;The canon developed gradually over the course of more than 300 years. In many cases, when decisions were made, they were simply to acknowledge what was already being read in the churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The process started early. Already in 2 Peter 3:16, there is a reference to the letters of Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So at least some of the churches were already circulating Paul's letters and reading them as scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospels were written after Paul's letters, and the Apostolic Fathers quoted most often from Matthew, but also sometimes from Mark and Luke, and eventually from John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the late 2nd century, Irenaeus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Against Heresies 3.11.8&lt;/a&gt;) was claiming that the canon must contain exactly four gospels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was to counter fringe groups that were producing their own gospels, as well as Marcion, who argued for just one gospel (Luke).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't know who compiled the list known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntcanon.org/Muratorian_Canon.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Muratorian Fragment&lt;/a&gt;, but it also dates from the second century and contains this canon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Four gospels (the existing fragment begins by naming Luke as the third and John as the fourth)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Book of Acts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thirteen letters of Paul (and then names two letters attributed to Paul but not accepted as genuine)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jude&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Two letters from John&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revelations &quot;of John and Peter&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;the Wisdom written by friends of Solomon in his honour&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John were not yet accepted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fragment also recommends the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.ii.i.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Shepherd of Hermas&lt;/a&gt; as being worth reading but not qualifying for the canon because it was written &quot;quite lately in our time&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the early fourth century, the church historian Eusebius (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Church History 3.25&lt;/a&gt;) sorts the known early writings into cateogories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first category is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Four Gospels plus Acts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next in importance are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The letters of Paul&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One letter each from John and Peter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the writings that are universally accepted by the church. Eusebius adds that some believe Revelation should be included in this set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next category includes books that are disputed by some:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;James&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jude&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 and 3 John&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Peter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These would all eventually be added to the canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next category includes books that rejected from the canon but worth reading:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts of Paul&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Shepherd&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apocalypse of Peter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Letter from Barnabas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Teaching of the Apostles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He mentions that some would place Revelation in this group, and others would include the Gospel of the Hebrews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, Eusebius mentions other writings that are considered heretical, which he says should be &quot;cast aside as absurd and impious.&quot; These include the gospels of Peter and Thomas, among others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first known list of canon that matches today's New Testament is found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Easter Letter of Athanasius&lt;/a&gt; for the year 367:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Athanasius then adds that other books&amp;mdash;the Wisdom of Solomon, the Shepherd, the Teaching of the Apostles, et al.&amp;mdash;should be read by new converts. So even as the canon was being defined, there was recognition that among the excluded books were some that were part of the church teaching, and some that were not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following Athanasius, we see the beginning of a general agreement throughout the church. The Synod of Hippo in 393 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;published a list&lt;/a&gt; of New Testament books identical to Athanasius' list, but also included an Old Testament canon. The Council of Carthage of 397 published a similar list, but is notable for separating Hebrews from the letters of Paul. The Latin Vulgate translation, commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 and completed by Jerome in 405, contains the same set of books listed in these. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Decretum Gelasianum&lt;/a&gt;, widely thought to be associated with the same Pope Damasus, lists the same 27 books but makes a distinction among the letters of John (&quot;of the Apostle John, one letter, of the other John the Elder, two letters&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Council of Carthage of 419 lists the same books, but does not make a distinction between two writers named John, and does not separate Hebrews from the letters of Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the East, there would still be disagreement for more than a century. The Council of Laodicea of 364 accepted all of the current New Testament books except Revelation. The Apostolic Constitutions, compiled around 380, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/apostolic.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;has a Bible canon&lt;/a&gt; including this same list, but adding three writings attributed to Clement of Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first version of the Peshitta, the Syriac translation of the Bible, omitted the books of 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation; these books would not be translated into Syriac until the 6th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quinisext Council or Council in Trullo was held in Constantinople in 692 to reaffirm the rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumencal Councils; while this council did not publish a formal Bible canon, it did reaffirm the canons previously published, including those of Athanasius and others with the Book of Revelation. This set the stage for the 7th Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicea) in 787, which finally established what we now know as the 27-book New Testament canon for the entire church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2018-01-09T16:33:49.253" LastActivityDate="2018-01-09T16:33:49.253" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="349" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="368" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:54:00.777" Score="19" ViewCount="39509" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the steps you have to take (general steps not necessarily church specific) as someone raised in the Catholic church to become Confirmed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T17:31:27.113" LastActivityDate="2017-08-21T14:06:14.417" Title="What are the steps to become Confirmed in the Catholic church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;confirmation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="109" CreationDate="2011-08-24T15:59:43.500" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without even turning to a scripture (I could pull many out of my hat so to speak), it comes down to simple logic for me (personally).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were a fish, and you saw tasty food attached to a line, knowing it could lead to you getting hooked and potentially becoming someone's dinner, would you go for the tasty food, or avoid it to save your life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, would you engage in activities that could lead you to the &quot;hook&quot; of crossing the line, just because it makes you feel good? Or would you rather avoid taking such a risk, and wait till you are safe to go for what satisfies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A logical answer would be to wait until it is safe, and avoid going for what would put you in danger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T15:59:43.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="354" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="355" CreationDate="2011-08-24T16:30:19.750" Score="18" ViewCount="1061" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Translation of the Roman Missal is going to be put into use in Advent 2011 and there is a change made to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;one in Being with the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is going to be&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;consubstantial with the Father&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that's a nice new word to teach my CCD class, but what is the difference.  Does this further differentiate the Latin Rite Catholic creed from other Churches (especially Eastern Orthodox) or bring it doctrinally closer? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The change is just in the translation, the original Latin is the same as ever, but there still must be some significance, other than wanting to be more concise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2019-06-16T23:08:32.910" Title="What is the distinction between Consubstantial and One in Being?" Tags="&lt;translation&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;nicene-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="354" CreationDate="2011-08-24T16:42:21.743" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The aim of the retranslation, as I understand it, is to have the translated text more accurately represent the original text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Latin version of the creed says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which means &quot;begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father&quot;.  The new translation is an accurate translation of the Latin.  (In the same way, &quot;And with your spirit&quot; is a better translation of &quot;et cum spiritu tuo&quot; than &quot;And also with you&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;One in Being with the Father&quot; is an interpretation of the Latin -- and a fairly modern one at that.  If you'd said to one of the early Church fathers that the Son was one in Being with the Father, they may well have called you a heretic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;One in substance&quot; is a more accurate translation of the Latin and -- who knows? -- may give an opportunity for some good sermons on Christology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T16:42:21.743" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="306" CreationDate="2011-08-24T16:44:15.783" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Calvinism#Salvation_.28Five_Points_of_Calvinism.29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Five Point Calvinism&lt;/a&gt; teaches is based on five key points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Total_depravity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Total Depravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every member of the human race is corrupt in heart, mind, and soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Unconditional_election&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Unconditional election&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has chosen (solely of his own will) some for glory and some for damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Definite_atonement&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Limited atonement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ died only to forgive the sins of those who are called by his name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Irresistible_grace&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Irresistible grace&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The saving grace of God is applied to those who he has determined to save.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Perseverance_of_the_saints&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Perseverance of the saints&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who are truly saved will persevere and will not lose their salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinism in regards to salvation is rooted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Augustinianism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Augustinianism&lt;/a&gt; to the point where it's often called Augustinianism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Augustinianism did not have five distinct points (as outlined above), it did agree with (and was the source of) each of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T16:44:15.783" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="70" CreationDate="2011-08-24T16:51:55.060" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't really &lt;em&gt;say&lt;/em&gt; that Jesus' blood is sufficient for all, but it strongly suggests it. Jesus is the perfect lamb, and He give the power to become a son of God to &quot; as many as received him.&quot; Surely the Lord God's blood is more than sufficient for the atonement of anyone He wishes to atone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in regards to the Blood's efficacy, this is a matter of the election of God. It is not to say that the saving power of the Blood simply doesn't work for non-elect. That doesn't make sense. Jesus simply shed His blood for his elect (this is not to say that this was a simple process). This is probably what Calvin is talking about, since Unconditional Election is the basis for Limited Atonement. When Jesus took the cup he said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; Matt. 26:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just like &quot;many are called.&quot; Jesus' blood is &quot;shed for many.&quot; Not all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="66" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T07:30:11.597" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T07:30:11.597" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="360" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="387" CreationDate="2011-08-24T16:52:42.163" Score="17" ViewCount="28350" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a debate that atheists seem to thrive on. Fact vs. Faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I believe in a co-existence of the two, but I'm interested in what the Bible has to say about us learning about our environment and explaining His creations rather than accepting them as they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible say anything about science?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&#xA;I know that the bible does not directly use the word &quot;science.&quot; Even though it didn't, it still discussed the idea of gathering knowledge and learning about things outside of Christianity... As many of your answers have indicated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user77" LastEditorDisplayName="user77" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T19:19:32.843" LastActivityDate="2013-05-19T04:14:14.577" Title="What does the Bible say about Science?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-03-05T03:06:35.933" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2011-08-24T16:57:39.143" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As dleyva3 mentioned, the term comes from 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Our word &quot;rapture&quot; comes from the Latin word for &quot;caught up&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine that faithful Christians would be whisked away to be spared tribulation is a relatively new interpretation of that verse. The traditional Christian belief was that Jesus would return once, to bring judgment. At his return, the faithful would be so caught up with joy that they would rise into the air to accompany him in his descent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fourth century preacher John Chrysostom put it this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If He is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor. For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge within. And upon the coming of an affectionate father, his children indeed, and those who are worthy to be his children, are taken out in a chariot, that they may see and kiss him; but those of the domestics who have offended remain within. We are carried upon the chariot of our Father. For He received Him up in the clouds, and “we shall be caught up in the clouds.” (Acts i. 9.) Seest thou how great is the honor? and as He descends, we go forth to meet Him, and, what is more blessed than all, so we shall be with Him. &amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.v.viii.html&quot;&gt;Homily #8, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few Christians may have had other ideas through the centuries, but the first one to really popularize the idea that Jesus would return twice&amp;mdash;first to take the faithful away, and then later for judgment day&amp;mdash;was John Nelson Darby in the early 19th century. That's the view that is commonly known as &quot;the rapture&quot; today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T16:57:39.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:10:24.187" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need to look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-salvation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article.&lt;/a&gt; Look at 1 Corinthians 1 (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;17&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also writes in the same chapter (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;14&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, &lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;15&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though vs. 14-15 don't say that baptism is a requirement, they do imply that baptism is a secondary symbol. Baptism is an outer symbol and testament of your faith. Also look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-truth.org/baptism.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T17:10:24.187" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:12:13.903" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this is a huge question.  So, I'll provide a generic overview answer from a few sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; is the Wikipedia article describing Emerging churches (the Emergent Movement).  It covers a lot of ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simpler overview of their principles can be found in &lt;em&gt;Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures&lt;/em&gt; by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger (Baker Academic, 2005)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus&#xA;  within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine&#xA;  practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2)&#xA;  transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives.&#xA;  Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5)&#xA;  serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as&#xA;  created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual&#xA;  activities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there's an interesting &lt;em&gt;Christianity Today&lt;/em&gt; article about it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trying to give much more detail than that would lead to a book deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as who identifies themselves with that movement, it seems that they do have community that clearly defines themselves as &quot;emergent&quot;.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.emergentvillage.com/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T17:49:53.387" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T17:49:53.387" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="320" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:16:26.150" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no clear biblical evidence for the non-Virginity of Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible never says he had full blooded brothers and sisters.  I don't want to delve into translations which I don't understand (Aramaic words for niece, cousin, nephew, etc...), but it is clear that Jesus does however call many people his brothers, and exhorts us all to call others our brothers and sisters, who are clearly not siblings. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible says Jesus was Mary's 'firstborn' son, but firstborn could be a title given to son's offered to the temple.  Then there's the use of the word 'until', in reference to Mary and Joseph's relations.  But, if I claim to lover and serve the Lord until my dying day, I certainly hope to do so after my dying day!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is an inkling of evidence for her not having any other children - although if you accept the brothers in (1.) as being other living sons of Joseph, it confuses the argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When Jesus is dying on the Cross (in John's gospel), He instructs His beloved disciple and he takes to take Mary into his house.  If she truly had other sons, that would be moot point for the other sons would have been there to take care of her.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note, this is not an argument in relation to the doctrine that Mary was still materially a virgin after birth.  That requires adherence to the Dogma.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Virginity itself is not altogether uncommon in human history (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestal_Virgin#Pre-Roman_and_Early_Roman_vestals&quot;&gt;Vestal Virgins&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rev-know-it-all.com/2010/2010---06-20.html&quot;&gt;Jewish Virgins&lt;/a&gt;). Having a Child while remaining a virgin, is a singular event worthy of our Creator and Redeemer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T17:16:26.150" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="349" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:21:12.960" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am pulling from this specific forum response on the same question for my answer: &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?s=04a17bac6957b26dadef21776040342d&amp;amp;p=2146583&amp;amp;postcount=12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Answer Forums&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For non-baptized believers, the process as an adult is basically to go through the &quot;Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults&quot; (RCIA).  This will end with the believer being confirmed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;385 The high point of their entire formation will normally be the Easter Vigil. At that time they will make a profession of the faith in which they were baptised, receive the sacrament of confirmation, and take part in the eucharist. If, because neither the bishop nor another authorized minister is present, confirmation cannot be given at the Easter Vigil, it is to be celebrated as soon as possible and, if this can be arranged, during the Easter season.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For baptized believers, it is left up to the individual churches to determine when they may be  confirmed.  I would assume there would normally be some sort of curriculum to ensure the believer can &quot;receive both doctrinal and spiritual preparation&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;391 The baptised Christian is to receive both doctrinal and spiritual preparation, adapted to individual pastoral requirements, for reception into the full communion of the Catholic Church. The candidate should learn to deepen an inner adherence to the Church, where he or she will find the fulness of his or her baptism. During the period of preparation the candidate may share in worship in conformity witli the provisions of the Ecumenical Directory. Anything that would equate candidates for reception with those who are catechumens is to be absolutely avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-10-23T14:02:59.363" LastActivityDate="2016-10-23T14:02:59.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="360" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:26:25.810" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many references to now what has been proven by science. As has been already said, science is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 40:22 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;22&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;It is he who sits above the circle of the earth...&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Refers to the fact that the Earth is round.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 26:7 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;7&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;He stretches out the north over the void&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and hangs the earth on nothing.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Refers to the fact that the Earth floats freely in space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes 1:6 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;6&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; The wind blows to the south&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;and goes around to the north;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;around and around goes the wind,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;and on its circuits the wind returns.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wind currents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 28:25 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;25&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;When he gave to the wind its weight&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and apportioned the waters by measure,&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Air has weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 11: (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;3&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on your interpretation, it could be referring to molecules/atoms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 8:8 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;8&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;whatever passes along the paths of the seas.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 43:16 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;16&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;Thus says the LORD,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    who makes a way in the sea,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   a path in the mighty waters,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both verses attest to the fact that there are currents on the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 38:16 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;16&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;Have you entered into the springs of the sea,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   or walked in the recesses of the deep?&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonah 2:5-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;5&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;The waters closed in over me to take my life;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   the deep surrounded me;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;weeds were wrapped about my head&lt;br /&gt;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;6&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;at the roots of the mountains.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both address the fact that there are mountain and valleys in the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T05:37:45.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="372" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="523" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:34:34.620" Score="7" ViewCount="2696" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_Jesus&quot;&gt;Anointing of Jesus&lt;/a&gt; is recorded in all four Gospels. A woman anoints Jesus' feet with expensive perfume and wipes the perfume with her hair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was this one event, or multiple events?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I tend to think the former, since Jesus said that this story will be told wherever the gospel is preached (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 14:9&lt;/a&gt;). It may be a stretch, but I thought that would also apply to the four Biblical gospels.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-09-09T12:49:41.827" LastActivityDate="2016-09-09T15:19:21.723" Title="The anointing of Jesus - one event or multiple events?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-09-12T20:45:13.210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="30" CreationDate="2011-08-24T17:53:37.930" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christians divide the Mosaic law into three components: Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Moral&lt;/strong&gt; laws apply to all believers at all times: the Ten Commandments, the Shema, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Civil&lt;/strong&gt; laws were for the &lt;em&gt;governing&lt;/em&gt; of the nation of Israel. They may be valid today but the punishments listed with them might not apply to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ceremonial&lt;/strong&gt; laws were for the &lt;em&gt;worship&lt;/em&gt; of the nation of Israel and are not binding on us. These include the animal sacrifices, which pointed to Christ the ultimate sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I have never seen a reliable method for sorting the 613 laws into these three categories without resorting to arbitrary divisions, so this may be merely an intellectual exercise with no practical application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T17:53:37.930" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="374" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1116" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:00:41.493" Score="26" ViewCount="8264" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are having a lovely discussion in chat about the purpose and efficacy of prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am of the opinion that God has a plan and the future is completely set. However I also believe that you should pray for what you need and that God will answer your prayer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What scripture forms the basis for our prayers and how do we rationalize praying when the outcome is set?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2014-02-05T06:02:30.557" Title="What is the purpose of Prayer?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-05-29T07:01:14.963" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="66" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:01:41.530" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Unconditional_election&quot;&gt;Unconditional Election&lt;/a&gt; refers to &lt;code&gt;God's choosing of people to be the object of his grace or otherwise fulfill his purpose.&lt;/code&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of versus specifically that are associated with this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/esv/Ro8.29&quot;&gt;Romans 8:29&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to&#xA;  the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among&#xA;  many brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/esv/1Pe1.1-2&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,&#xA;  Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; according to the foreknowledge of&#xA;  God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to&#xA;  Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;May grace and peace be multiplied to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that God knew these people beforehand and chose these people to be saved.  It's a similar concept to predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Calvinist argument can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Unconditional_election#Calvinist_argument&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:01:41.530" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="360" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:11:36.500" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are repeated references in Daniel to knowledge of the world being a blessing from God.  Likewise, Colossians 2:3 speaks of Christ &quot;in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge&quot;.  However, 1 Timothy 6: 2 contains a warning about the opposition of &quot;science so called,&quot; or in other words, incorrect knowledge that claims authority but contradicts revealed truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scientific investigation has shown that the world around us works according to consistent laws, which is very much in keeping with what we know of God as a God of order, and there is much benefit to be found in learning about the rules that He set up.  But it's important to keep in mind that science is only based on observation and investigation, and trying to reverse-engineer the nature of the rules from the results we can observe, and thus the actual &quot;scientific truth&quot; about certain things tends to change as they become more fully understood.  (For some interesting reading on the subject, do a bit of research on the history of the Cosmological Constant.)  When current scientific understanding conflicts with revealed truth, it's likely that someone didn't quite get their experiment right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also important to keep in mind that not all things that are believed or taught by religious leaders &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; actually based in revealed truth.  One of the obvious examples would be the medieval Catholic Church's persecution of Copernicus for his scientific notions about the nature of the Solar System.  This knowledge contradicted dogmatic notions held by the Church that have no actual basis in the Bible, but instead derive from Greek philosophy and got incorporated into the dogma back when the Church was the state religion of the Roman Empire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, it's important to remember that scientists are human too.  They occasionally have an agenda beyond simply furthering the spread of knowledge of how the world works.  Experiments don't lie, but experimenters sometimes do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that God is a God of order, and that there is no conflict between true science and true religion, but that for various reasons sometimes non-true versions of both science and religion do spring up and gain widespread popularity and acceptance.  If you run into something claiming scientific authority that contradicts your religious beliefs, then one or the other (or possibly both) is in error.  Reason about it, try to find an explanation that makes sense, then pray about it and ask God if you've reached the right conclusions.  He won't steer you wrong, even if other authorities do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:11:36.500" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="378" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:20:56.840" Score="23" ViewCount="708" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and how does it differ from water baptism?  Do all Christians experience Baptism of the Holy Spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;EDIT&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few references to Baptisim of the Holy Spirit, or similar phrases, in scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit&quot; -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%203:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 3:11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 1:8&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit&quot; -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 1:33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit&quot; -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 1:5&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2011:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 11:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T14:43:04.923" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T17:25:17.933" Title="What is Baptism of the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-03-31T13:28:04.947" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="379" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:27:07.207" Score="24" ViewCount="2862" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible refers to people speaking in tongues--most notably at Pentecost. Is this something that legitimately happens today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been in church services where speaking in tongues has happened, but it always seems weird and creepy, and those doing it seem like kooks. How can I know if this is legitimate, or if I'm right in thinking it's strange?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T05:05:58.057" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T14:16:05.893" Title="Can people speak in tongues today?" Tags="&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;&lt;pentecost&gt;&lt;charismatic&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-01-25T07:45:27.343" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="296" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:27:13.413" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Certainly not into the Name of the Creator and of the Redeemer and of the Sanctifier as I've heard some people doing - it's pretty sounding, but not valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, in the Catholic Church at least, you can't have a valid baptism without actually saying, &quot;I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.&quot; in the vernacular of the parish - or Latin I'd imagine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, we recognize baptism as valid so long as that formula is followed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:27:13.413" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="381" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1385" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:29:10.180" Score="86" ViewCount="20154" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Note: I know this may start a firestorm, so I will be careful here.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is immoral.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also believe that it does NOT condemn homosexuals to hell (a sin is a sin is a sin). When a person receives Christ in them they are saved and ALL their sins are forgiven.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I would like this to be about homosexuality itself, not about homosexuals or the culture of homosexuality (i.e. stereotypes about homosexuals, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="41" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-05-16T23:04:55.777" LastActivityDate="2021-04-23T17:51:44.083" Title="Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="26" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="378" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:32:17.870" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is a bit vague about exactly what the &quot;baptism of the Holy Spirit&quot; involves, but it's clear from Acts 2 and Acts 19 that to be valid, baptism by water must be followed by the participant &quot;receiving&quot; the Holy Ghost.  Exactly what that means and how it happens is not explained, unfortunately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:32:17.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:33:15.850" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The accounts of speaking in tongues in the Bible were always in the context of speaking in a language otherwise unknown to the speaker, but to which there are hearers who understand (on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Day of Pentecost&lt;/a&gt;, each member of the crowd heard Peter is his/her own language).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, when Paul instructs the church in Corinth (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=1%20Corinthians%2014:26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 14:26&lt;/a&gt;), he says to make sure there is an interpreter if one is to speak in a tongue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can/does it happen today? I see no reason why it cannot/does not. However, absent the interpreter caveat above, it should have no place in a worship service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further note, I cannot find an instance of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=tongues&amp;amp;version1=NASB&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;limit=none&amp;amp;wholewordsonly=no&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tongues&lt;/a&gt;&quot; being used in the bible, and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; being used in the same way as on the Day of Pentecost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 16:17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:44-46&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 10:44-46&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+12:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12:10&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+12:30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12:30&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+13:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:21-23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:21-23&lt;/a&gt; (itself referencing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2028:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 28:11&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T19:57:01.913" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:57:01.913" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="384" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:34:21.640" Score="19" ViewCount="10029" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think any Christian will agree that real-life miracles happened at the time of the Old and New Testament.  I've also heard that modern day miracles are more common in developing countries than they are in western cultures.  But in these places, verifiable evidence is usually much harder to come by.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What evidence exists for miracles that occurred after the Bible was written?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in miracles on par with those performed in the Bible, especially the New Testament--changing water into wine, healing of the obviously and terminally ill, feeding of the 5,000, someone being raised from the dead, walking on water, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not interested in stories of the healing of a fever, or finding $20 &quot;just in time&quot;, etc. These may well be miracles, but they're easily debatable, so I'm more interested in &lt;em&gt;obvious&lt;/em&gt; miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T19:35:07.083" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T12:55:45.137" Title="What evidence exists for post-Biblical miracles?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-02T18:56:50.940" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="385" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1644" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:35:50.357" Score="9" ViewCount="12892" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said we could tell mountains to move (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 17:20&lt;/a&gt;), if only we had faith as small as the size of a mustard seed. Has this ever happened? If so, has it been documented or is there any evidence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of a genuine supernatural miracle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-08-04T10:22:02.040" LastActivityDate="2014-11-26T12:47:33.280" Title="Are there any documented instances of anyone moving a mountain in faith?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:40:43.427" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:38:15.617" Score="30" Body="&lt;p&gt;Random babbling isn't &quot;speaking in tongues&quot; as the Apostles did on the Day of Pentecost.  The Apostles preached, and everyone present heard the message in their native language.  This is the purpose of speaking in tongues: to facilitate communication.  In &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=1+Cor&amp;amp;verse=14&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14&lt;/a&gt; Paul warns very strongly about speaking in tongues simply for its own sake, since it doesn't accomplish any useful purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for modern occurrences, I've heard plenty of stories of missionaries and other preachers in situations where they did not possess sufficient language skills in the language of the people being taught gaining the temporary ability to express themselves clearly when it was necessary.  I don't have any references to cite right at the moment, but yes, it does still happen today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T09:20:03.067" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T09:20:03.067" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="360" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:42:02.370" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't ever use the term Science because it didn't exist at the time.  However the Bible has a lot to say about gaining knowledge and wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is the glory of God to conceal things,but the glory of kings is to search things out.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2025:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 25:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD said to Moses, &quot;See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and &lt;strong&gt;intelligence&lt;/strong&gt;, with &lt;strong&gt;knowledge&lt;/strong&gt; and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2031:1-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Exodus 31:1-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Emphasis mine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible often highly regards knowledge of the physical world and commends it's study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go to the ant, O sluggard;  consider her ways, and be wise.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%206:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 6:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can infer that the Bible encourages us to study and learn about the world, and such would be approving of science (in its purest form).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="80" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T13:20:12.750" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T13:20:12.750" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:49:53.847" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Evidence&quot; is a difficult word to work with in this context.  It implies scientific evidence, which requires independent reproducibility and verifiability, and if you had that, it wouldn't really be a miracle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you mentioned feeding the 5000, and that reminds me of something I read several years ago.  A preacher's wife wrote about an experience that she had one time. Her family lived on a mountain, near a ski resort.  It was Thanksgiving when a huge snowstorm rolled in and stranded a bunch of people on the mountain.  They understood it as their Christian duty to take in people who couldn't get home and give them shelter for the night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They had a Thanksgiving day feast prepared, and they shared their food freely.  But they had only made enough for their own small family. Nonetheless, all the refugees (she said it was a few dozen, if I recall correctly) ate their fill and there was somehow enough for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These sorts of things still happen today, but not in the sort of patterns that leave easily-examinable &quot;evidence&quot;.  Rather, the Lord gives us what we need when we truly need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:49:53.847" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="391" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:55:34.753" Score="12" ViewCount="1208" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the concept of predestination?  Are there different denominations that believe in predestination but have differences in what they believe about it?  If so, what are the differences?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="76" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-28T14:38:15.883" LastActivityDate="2015-08-28T14:38:15.883" Title="What does &quot;predestination&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-08-29T02:45:15.550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="385" CreationDate="2011-08-24T18:58:51.863" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I doubt anyone has.  I think this is either because there is no one who has faith the size of a mustard seed, or those who do have faith large enough have no need to move a mountain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T18:58:51.863" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="360" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:06:09.120" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;To expect the Bible to mention &quot;science&quot; directly is anachronistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But here are some passages that embrace the idea that we humans were created to be systematically curious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:26  The word &quot;dominion.&quot;  (NRSV and other translations)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:19ff  The Holy One gave the man the task of giving a name to every creature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 38-40: The fact that we cannot know everything about creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T19:06:09.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="378" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:10:17.740" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Baptism of water &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; Baptism of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther's Small &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/martin-luthers-small.html#BAPTISM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt; says that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not the water that produces these effects, but the Word of God connected with the water, and our faith which relies on the Word of God connected with the water. For without the Word of God the water is merely water and no Baptism. But when connected with the Word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul wrote to Titus (3:5-8): &quot;He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. This saying is sure.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which ties in with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One Lord, one faith, one Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T10:53:53.747" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T10:53:53.747" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="396" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="397" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:14:04.387" Score="6" ViewCount="646" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/385/are-there-any-documented-instances-of-anyone-moving-a-mountain-in-faith&quot;&gt;this post regarding moving mountains by faith&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has told us to rely on him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_006.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:25-34&lt;/a&gt;) for all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/jas/chapter_005.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 5:15&lt;/a&gt; says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the prayer of faith will make the indisposed one well, and Jehovah&#xA;  will raise him up. Also, if he has committed sins, it will be forgiven&#xA;  him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, since we should rely on God for all things and God will heal us, should we ever need to go to the doctor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, since God is the source of all knowledge and wisdom, should we ever trust a doctor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T13:31:18.703" Title="Should we allow doctors or God to heal us?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;healing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-10-20T16:00:29.713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="396" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:21:19.007" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does God heal?  Through whom does God offer healing and wholeness?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know several health care professionals (including some physicians, nurses, and physical therapists) who chose  those demanding professions because they hope to serve as God's hands for the healing of their little part of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my answer is &quot;Yes, go to the doctor.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T19:21:19.007" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="391" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:24:23.670" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of Predestination in so much as it speaks to the concept of Election is rooted in a couple of different passages in scripture. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:29-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:29-30&lt;/a&gt; being the foremost. It basically says that he knew from the beginning who he was going to choose and he &quot;Predestined&quot; or choose them. There are many other passages that support this concept, outlined in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-unconditional-election&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question of whether he has predestined every event that will happen in the world is a slightly more contentious one. However, I believe quite strongly that he has indeed predestined every event that will happen. This does not mean that our actions are meaningless or that we should simply drift through life. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:28 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; gets to the heart of this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for denominations that believe in predestination to one degree or another. I know that Reformed traditions (Presbyterian, URC, CRC, Reformed Baptists and countless other &quot;reformed churches&quot;) ascribe to some tenet of this belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot speak to other traditions right off hand, but those who know of them are welcome to add them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:54:16.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="399" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:31:28.940" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T19:31:28.940" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T19:31:28.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="400" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:31:28.940" Score="0" Body="Questions about charisma of healing and Christian morale concerns about medicine." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-30T13:22:41.783" LastActivityDate="2012-11-30T13:22:41.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="402" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:35:20.010" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Denominations are the different Christian groups that, while they all still believe in God, differ in some key points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="22238" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-04T22:16:33.133" LastActivityDate="2015-10-04T22:16:33.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="403" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:35:20.010" Score="0" Body="Usually used for questions asking which groups of Christians believe in a specific idea. Can also be used on questions on the history and morality of the division of Christianity into  different denominations." OwnerUserId="56" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-04T22:16:26.760" LastActivityDate="2015-10-04T22:16:26.760" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="404" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:35:47.617" Score="23" ViewCount="1280" Body="&lt;p&gt;Melchizedek (&quot;King of Justice&quot; in Hebrew) is mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2014:18-20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Genesis 14&lt;/a&gt; as receiving the dime from Abraham, and breaking bread with him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he&#xA;  was the priest of the most high God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high&#xA;  God, possessor of heaven and earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine&#xA;  enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20110:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Psalm 110:4&lt;/a&gt; depicts Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul mentions Melchizedek in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%207&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7&lt;/a&gt; and associates Jesus to him again:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,&#xA;  who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed&#xA;  him;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by&#xA;  interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of&#xA;  Salem, which is, King of peace;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither&#xA;  beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;&#xA;  abideth a priest continually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch&#xA;  Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office&#xA;  of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people&#xA;  according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out&#xA;  of the loins of Abraham:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of&#xA;  Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them,&#xA;  of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes&#xA;  in Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met&#xA;  him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt; If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for&#xA;  under it the people received the law,) what further need was there&#xA;  that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and&#xA;  not be called after the order of Aaron?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a&#xA;  change also of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe,&#xA;  of which no man gave attendance at the altar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe&#xA;  Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of&#xA;  Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after&#xA;  the power of an endless life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of&#xA;  Melchisedec.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before&#xA;  for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better&#xA;  hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath&#xA;  by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou&#xA;  art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So who is Melchizedek? Is he Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he is not, how could there be priests of God before God chose himself a nation and defined priesthood after the Hebrews left Egypt?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-08-11T16:36:01.703" LastActivityDate="2019-08-11T16:36:01.703" Title="Who was Melchizedek?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;melchizedek&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2014-12-15T06:26:17.870" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="404" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:41:53.697" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Melchizedek was the King of Salem and a high priest of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 14:18-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High,     Creator of heaven and earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although he was a priest of God, he was not Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:07:18.037" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="406" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:43:50.150" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usage guidance based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1442/21576&quot;&gt;What should we do with Jesus?&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/jesus&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;jesus&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;jesus&lt;/a&gt; is for questions related to the life of Jesus on earth.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/historical-jesus&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;historical-jesus&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;historical-jesus&lt;/a&gt; is for the &quot;ordinary&quot; aspects of Jesus' life such as what He did and said while on Earth, as opposed the religious significance of His life/events in it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/words-of-jesus&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;words-of-jesus&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;words-of-jesus&lt;/a&gt; is for questions related to the teachings of Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/christology&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;christology&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;christology&lt;/a&gt; is for the theology of the Christ, including his person, nature, and roles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-07T13:26:25.647" LastActivityDate="2016-10-07T13:26:25.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="407" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:43:50.150" Score="0" Body="For questions related to the life of Jesus on earth.  For primarily theological questions, use the 'christology' tag instead." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-07T13:26:30.950" LastActivityDate="2016-10-07T13:26:30.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="408" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:45:23.253" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag to ask questions about the ritual or practice of baptism (adult or infant), and beliefs and doctrines concerning it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T22:17:53.033" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T22:17:53.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="409" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:45:23.253" Score="0" Body="A ritual or symbol of admission to the body of Christians, generally performed by immersion or sprinkling with water." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T22:47:57.513" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T22:47:57.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="410" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="437" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:46:48.757" Score="16" ViewCount="3544" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/396/should-we-allow-doctors-or-god-to-heal-us&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, if we choose to allow a doctor to heal us, how far is too far?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:13-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lev 17:13-14&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any&#xA;  animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it&#xA;  with earth, &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; because the life of every creature is its blood. That&#xA;  is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of&#xA;  any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone&#xA;  who eats it must be cut off.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some groups have gone far enough to say that they won't take blood transfusions or even transplants. Does the preservation of life supersede this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, although a bit Sci-Fi, does the above verse conflict with the idea of &lt;a href=&quot;http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/welcome-to-the-future-synthetic-blood-saves-womans-life-after-car-crash/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;artificial blood&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's fine, but I've been wrong about stuff before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user77" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-11-24T05:09:16.520" Title="Blood transfusions and Christianity?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;healing&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-07-14T00:39:22.130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="411" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:55:41.113" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Salvation is the act of God's mercy and grace whereby an otherwise Hell-bound sinner has been rescued to eternal life via faith in Jesus Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T23:41:33.387" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T23:41:33.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="412" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T19:55:41.113" Score="0" Body="God's rescue of sinners from spiritual death to life" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T23:41:35.147" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T23:41:35.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="391" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:00:04.977" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single Predestination or Double Predestination?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now before you start thinking &amp;quot;Aw, man!  There are &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; of them?!?&amp;quot;  Let me explain the difference:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single Predestination:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God chooses us, solely by his grace, to go to Heaven.  God does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; choose people for Hell.  If we go to Hell it is because of our own sinfullness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Double Predestination:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has chosen some people to go to Heaven, and some people to go to Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now that we know what they are, what does the Bible teach?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%205:21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 5:21 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:28&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 10:28 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:29-30&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;29&lt;/strong&gt; For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;30&lt;/strong&gt; And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ok, that seems to indicate that we are Predestined to Heaven, now what about Hell?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekial%2033:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekial 33:11 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt; Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:14 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:3-4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Verdict:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based off these verses, it seems clear to me that the Bible teaches Single Predestination and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; Double Predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:51:06.213" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="415" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:00:33.867" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whereas God communicates to us through the Bible, we communicate back to God via prayer. Prayers can be supplicatory, praising, or conversational.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T21:32:03.370" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:32:03.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="416" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:00:33.867" Score="0" Body="The way in which believers communicate to God" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T21:31:55.133" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:31:55.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="417" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:01:37.890" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider using the tag nature-of-god for questions about the nature or attributes of God, or use a specific tag such as 'omniscience'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:49:49.800" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:49:49.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="418" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:01:37.890" Score="0" Body="The supreme being of the universe - its creator and sustainer. The One to whom we all owe our full allegiance and attention." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T21:31:51.593" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:31:51.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="419" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:02:37.173" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T20:02:37.173" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T20:02:37.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="420" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:02:37.173" Score="0" Body="Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament, a narrative starting with creation." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-07T11:32:36.337" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T11:32:36.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="421" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:03:16.720" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Hebrew &quot;Ha-Satan&quot;, literally the &quot;Accuser.&quot; Also know as the &quot;Devil&quot; or the &quot;Evil One&quot;, Satan is at the head of the spiritual forces arrayed against God, His elect, and the holy angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-16T15:51:28.450" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T15:51:28.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="422" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:03:16.720" Score="0" Body="Relating to &quot;the Evil One,&quot; often called Lucifer, the Devil, Beelzebub, or Satan." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-16T15:50:34.160" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T15:50:34.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="424" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:04:43.923" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T20:04:43.923" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T20:04:43.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="425" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:04:43.923" Score="0" Body="The doctrine of the three-personhood of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; who, though existing in three distinct persons and work towards different arenas, are the same God, of the same mind, and the same purpose." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T21:31:37.457" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:31:37.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="426" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:05:16.543" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T08:51:26.963" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T08:51:26.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="427" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:05:16.543" Score="0" Body="DO NOT USE, to be deleted." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T16:43:05.230" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T16:43:05.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="428" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:09:41.047" Score="9" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;p&gt;In debates over slavery in the United States, many abolitionists used the Bible as part of their reasoning for freeing the slaves.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both the Old &amp;amp; New Testaments there is very clear statements that holy people had slaves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Genesis 17:13&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;II Kings 4:1&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Colossians 4:1&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Matthew 18:25&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did abolitionists reconcile these two beliefs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="41" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T20:55:53.803" LastActivityDate="2015-02-18T06:31:35.157" Title="How was the Bible used to reduce modern slavery?" Tags="&lt;slavery&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="429" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="433" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:22:04.880" Score="11" ViewCount="396" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholicism, we believe that the Bishops in Communion with the Pope (as Vicar of Christ) have authority over Church doctrine.  The authority comes straight from the mouth of our Savior. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:18 (NAB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for non-Catholics and for other Christians who stake their claim to apostolic succession yet hold that the Bible is the only authority, can anything really be bound or loosed by the apostles or their successors?  What does this passage mean outside of my interpretation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T13:03:52.390" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T13:03:52.390" Title="What do non-Catholic Christians do with the power of binding and loosing?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T02:57:00.790" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="410" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:24:00.660" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This idea assumes that having a transfusion is equivalent to eating blood.  I find that idea a bit strange.  If I were to take my food, put it in a blender for a while so it becomes nice and liquified, and then inject it into a vein, it would most likely kill me, even though the food itself, taken properly, is good for me, because I'm bypassing the digestive system entirely.  So clearly there's a huge difference between eating something and injecting it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T20:24:00.660" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-08-24T20:40:25.130" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Longer answer: A theology that requires the early chapters of Genesis to be understood as a literal and historical narrative is not compatible with evolution; however, even in ancient times the first chapters of Genesis were often understood symbolically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxiv.html#ix.vii.xxiv-p6&quot;&gt;The 2nd century apologist Irenaeus&lt;/a&gt; understood the six days of Genesis as six 1000-year spans, via 2 Peter 3:18, &quot;With the Lord a day is like a thousand years.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html#vi.v.v.i-p94&quot;&gt;In the 3rd century, Origen&lt;/a&gt; wrote that God put stumbling blocks into the text, so we would notice the &quot;impossibilities&quot; of a literal reading, and be guided toward the spiritual meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine in the 5th century wrote (in &quot;The Literal Interpretation of Genesis&quot; 2.9, not available online) that the Scriptures were written to lead us to salvation, not to teach us about the physical universe, and that we shouldn't take literally anything that contradicts our own observations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the early chapters of Genesis are not understood as historical narrative, there shouldn't be a contradiction with evolutionary theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T20:40:25.130" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="429" CreationDate="2011-08-24T21:14:34.927" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't understand how that verse is related to Church doctrine or decisions by a limited group of leaders such as the Bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The preceeding context Mat 18:15-17 is about dealing with the alleged sin of one believer against another.  The one who has been wronged is to first approach the offending brother.  If he is unresponsive, then the one who has been wronged is to take one or two others who agree that wrong has been done and try again.  If he is still unresponsive, then the whole church (local congregation) is to be involved bringing their collective wisdom and discernment to bear on the allegation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 18 then sounds almost like it is saying that what the church decides, God will agree with.  However, I interpret it to mean that by increasing the number of believers involved, God's perception of the matter and His will regarding the matter will be correctly understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:14:34.927" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="429" CreationDate="2011-08-24T21:16:25.410" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, Lutherans hold this to be the basis of what is called &amp;quot;The Office of the Keys&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also referred to in &lt;strong&gt;John 20:22-23&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy&#xA;Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you&#xA;do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Luther's Small Catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What do you believe according to these words?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that when the called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine command, in&#xA;particular when they exclude openly unrepentant sinners from the&#xA;Christian congregation and absolve those who repent of their sins and&#xA;want to do better, this is just as valid and certain, even in heaven,&#xA;as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:16:25.410" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="410" CreationDate="2011-08-24T21:17:14.720" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way I read that verse is, &quot;If you're going to hunt animals for food then drain the blood and cover it with dirt&quot; - essentially to honor its life. Transfusing blood is not an act of killing an animal for consumption, therefore it doesn't technically conflict with the verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T23:40:06.787" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T23:40:06.787" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="404" CreationDate="2011-08-24T21:23:21.293" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 5:6, which quotes Psalms 110:4, is a bit more specific:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And in another passage God said to him,&#xA;     “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek, he's obviously not Melchizedek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-24T22:06:37.793" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T22:06:37.793" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="404" CreationDate="2011-08-24T21:37:36.700" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yeah, well no... He prefigures Jesus, the same way lots and lots of OT people do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job/Suffering Servant from Isaiah - for suffering&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moses - for leadership out of bondage&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abraham/Noah - for trusting in God's providence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;David - for kingship&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Melchizedek/Aaron - for priesthood&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:37:36.700" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="410" CreationDate="2011-08-24T21:40:31.923" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mark 3:1-6, Jesus heals a crippled man's hand on the sabbath:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus went into the synagogue again and noticed a man with a deformed hand. 2 Since it was the Sabbath, Jesus’ enemies watched him closely. If he healed the man’s hand, they planned to accuse him of working on the Sabbath.&#xA;   3 Jesus said to the man with the deformed hand, “Come and stand in front of everyone.” 4 Then he turned to his critics and asked, “Does the law permit good deeds on the Sabbath, or is it a day for doing evil? Is this a day to save life or to destroy it?” But they wouldn’t answer him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 He looked around at them angrily and was deeply saddened by their hard hearts. Then he said to the man, “Hold out your hand.” So the man held out his hand, and it was restored! 6 At once the Pharisees went away and met with the supporters of Herod to plot how to kill Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe this sets a precedent that law wasn't created to destroy life but to give it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:40:31.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="404" CreationDate="2011-08-24T21:50:29.050" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Melchizedek was the King of Salem and a high priest of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 14:18-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was&#xA;  priest of God Most High,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High,&#xA;  Creator of heaven and earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into&#xA;  your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although he was a priest of God, he was not Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 5:6, which quotes Psalms 110:4, is a bit more specific:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; And in another passage God said to him, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek, he's obviously not Melchizedek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T21:50:29.050" CommentCount="1" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-08-24T21:50:29.050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="440" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T21:55:09.167" Score="17" ViewCount="19360" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that sanctification is used as a post-reformational theological term to refer to the ongoing process of Christian growth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, biblically speaking, is this always what is meant? I know that the word literally means &quot;to make holy,&quot; which does not necessitate an ongoing process (and neither a one-time event). I am a bit nervous about limiting the semantic range when something broader may be intended in scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is the semantic range of the word as used in scripture? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-16T18:22:30.707" LastActivityDate="2015-09-16T18:22:30.707" Title="What is the biblical meaning of &quot;sanctification&quot;?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;sanctification&gt;&lt;word-study&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:50:22.403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="441" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="531" CreationDate="2011-08-24T22:10:05.663" Score="16" ViewCount="2615" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Wesley believed and taught the doctrine of Entire Sanctification, the idea that it is possible for a believer to achieve perfection in this life, based on Bible verses like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. &amp;mdash; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-john/3-9.html&quot;&gt;1 John 3:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Jesus' command:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. &amp;mdash; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/5-48.html&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:48&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain what Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification means?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2015-06-16T16:38:34.260" LastActivityDate="2018-08-22T13:29:15.073" Title="What is Wesley's concept of Entire Sanctification?" Tags="&lt;sanctification&gt;&lt;wesley&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="404" CreationDate="2011-08-24T22:13:52.873" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If he is not, how could there be priests of God before God chose&#xA;  himself a nation and defined priesthood after the Hebrews left Egypt?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 7, which you quoted, makes it fairly clear: the Order of Melchizedek is a higher order of priesthood than the order of Aaron, which the Levites operated under.  It had the power of administering the &quot;schoolmaster law,&quot; but not the full power and authority of the higher ordinances of the Gospel, and so by the Aaronic order alone, nothing could be made perfect.  But the order of Melchezidek, which predates the Aaronic order, is the priesthood order of Christ himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think back to Exodus, when the Levites, under Aaron and his family, were established as priests in Israel.  It's not unreasonable to think that after the fledgling nation of newly-freed slaves demonstrated that God literally couldn't leave them alone long enough for Moses to go up the mountain, get the stone tablets, and come back down again without them falling into rites of heathen fertility-worship, that God decided they were not ready for the fulness of the Gospel.  How were they going to deal with the high spiritual concepts taught in the Sermon on the Mount, for example, when they couldn't even grasp basic fidelity to God?  So instead he gave them a lesser law to keep them in line, and a lesser priesthood to administer it.  (&quot;For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T22:13:52.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="443" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="471" CreationDate="2011-08-24T22:25:57.667" Score="23" ViewCount="2750" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic tradition, several &quot;apocryphal&quot; books are used in addition to the same Old Testament canon used by Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the origin of these books and how do they differ from from the other books?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do Catholics view them as infallible?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are they considered to be on the same level with the rest of the Old Testament or do they have some second rate status such as some form of non-divine wisdom literature?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-04T07:40:24.297" LastActivityDate="2020-10-18T23:40:31.227" Title="What is the origin of the Catholic apocrypha?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;&lt;apocrypha&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="445" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="448" CreationDate="2011-08-24T22:36:14.180" Score="48" ViewCount="2268" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously they refer to the same human being, however what are some beliefs that Christians hold about Jesus that Muslims do not share.  I ask this question in sort of an apologetic spirit so that I can explain it to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="148" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-12T06:33:18.827" LastActivityDate="2018-12-12T06:33:18.827" Title="How is the Christian Jesus different from the Muslim Jesus?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;islam&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:46:14.223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="447" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T22:38:41.730" Score="23" ViewCount="885" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a difference in the Hebrew between the earliest Old Testament books and the relatively newer books? In other words: are there linguistic differences (syntax, grammar, word usage) in older books like Job, when compared with more recent books like Isaiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am particularly interested in this because of any light it might shed on our modern process of periodically updating our translations to keep pace with current usage of language. Languages are never static. The writing, editing and compiling of the Old Testament canon spans a vast window of time -- long enough for the language(s) it was written in to change dramatically. Do we have any reference points that show how much the language usage was updated during the various redacting processes that the various books went through?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-04T07:50:06.163" LastActivityDate="2015-11-12T00:56:04.353" Title="How much variation is in the Hebrew language of the Old Testament?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="445" CreationDate="2011-08-24T22:47:12.643" Score="40" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simplest place to start is that Muslims view Jesus as a man with a special role as prophet. Christians view him as God himself in the flesh (incarnate). To Muslims, the idea that God had a son is blasphemy. Even though Christians view him as one in the same being (as a person in the Trinity) and thus still hold the idea of God being one, that concept does not compute in the Islamic faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly there is a reference in the Qur'an to Jesus being considered sinless, but the ramifications of this idea are not developed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://quran.com/19/19&quot;&gt;Surah 19:19 (Pickthall)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides that detail, the rest of the story follows relatively consistently from the key identity issue of being God incarnate or just a man. In Islam, as just a prophet, Jesus plays no role in salvation and it is not accepted that he rose from the dead. Views on whether he was actually crucified vary, but the resurrection is never recognized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity, Jesus role is not just that of a prophet (&lt;a href=&quot;http://He%20committed%20no%20sin,%20neither%20was%20deceit%20found%20in%20his%20mouth.&quot;&gt;1 Peter 2:22&lt;/a&gt;), but also those of a priest and king -- &lt;em&gt;The King&lt;/em&gt;: Lord of all creation and Lord of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians+1:15-20/&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:15-20 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; He is the image of jthe invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; And he is the head of the body, the church. He is sthe beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T14:23:35.933" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T14:23:35.933" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="445" CreationDate="2011-08-24T23:03:36.857" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are the differences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Christianity&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus died and rose again to save the world from all their sins.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is the way to eternity in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Islam&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is not God, he was just a good prophet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus did not rise again.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;a. He was never crucified, nor would God ever let one of his prophets die in such a fashion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus does not save us. Instead, our works save us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this answers your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Source: The Dark Side of Islam by R. C. Sproul, Abdul Saleeb&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T20:28:03.073" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T20:28:03.073" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="450" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-24T23:03:37.747" Score="17" ViewCount="866" Body="&lt;p&gt;At what date (and/or event) was the Old Testament canon currently recognized by most Protestants finalized? What is the earliest occurrence we have of it being referenced in it's current form and who (or what event) announced it as finalized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-04T07:52:32.743" LastActivityDate="2017-11-02T15:01:44.723" Title="When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="451" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="453" CreationDate="2011-08-24T23:08:02.763" Score="7" ViewCount="1166" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the OT canon currently accepted by Protestants the same as the Jewish scriptures? If not, where and how do they differ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T23:20:45.080" Title="How does the Protestant OT canon differ from the Jewish scriptures?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-02-22T06:48:40.430" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="391" CreationDate="2011-08-24T23:10:37.910" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God has predestined &lt;b&gt;everything.&lt;/b&gt; Here's a simple explanation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A man was put before two doors, and given the free will to choose a door. He chose one and opened it. Behind the door, it said, &quot;Chosen from the beginning of time&quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See, God knows what we will do and yet we are given the free choice. It's hard for our finite minds to understand this concept, as we are limited to what we perceive here and now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T23:10:37.910" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="451" CreationDate="2011-08-24T23:20:45.080" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Protestant books of the Old Testament are exactly the same as the Jewish books in the Tanakh. There is absolutely no difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T23:20:45.080" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="410" CreationDate="2011-08-25T00:24:47.863" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you read the Old Testament and find restrictions like this one what you need to realize is that most of these types of restrictions are reactions to what the other inhabitants of the land were doing. God didn't want His people to copy the pagan rituals that were going on, and some of it is just preventing the spread of desease.  So if you have a doubt, look at the command and try to find out if it's in response to one of the pagan rituals, or if it's to keep them from danger. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T00:24:47.863" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="428" CreationDate="2011-08-25T00:44:59.453" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this could easily become an answer about American history and and politics unless we confine our answer to usage of the Bible. Flimsy is right in his comment above - the Bible does not condone slavery, but it does not officially abolish the institution (much like the US Constitution). What it does do is place Christ in the master-slave relationship, giving even slavery the possibility of redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%204:1&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 4:1 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203:22&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 3:22 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses do not answer for using the Bible to abolish slavery, but they could justify a move to abolish it, since it has &amp;quot;become destructive of these [Christ-Centered] ends&amp;quot; and so it is their duty &amp;quot;to alter or abolish it.&amp;quot; At least in the United States. In first-century Roman society, it wasn't written in the social framework to be able to reform slavery, or any institution for that matter. But Christians everywhere in all societies do what they can to proclaim Christ until He comes, as many abolitionists did in their efforts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T13:04:16.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="456" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="458" CreationDate="2011-08-25T01:04:47.063" Score="38" ViewCount="13375" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ. We don't make sacrifices anymore, and many other of the finer points in the Pentateuch are no longer preached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, I still see people reference these books for doctrine (for example the 10 Commandments).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How much of the Law of Moses still applies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T05:38:09.423" LastActivityDate="2014-09-30T04:57:20.913" Title="To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;&lt;torah&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="374" CreationDate="2011-08-25T01:13:41.463" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prayer is not primarily/just a means of asking God for stuff. In Matthew 6:9-13 Jesus does a brilliant job of correcting our ideas on prayer when he teaches the disciples (and us!) &quot;The Lord's Prayer&quot;. Jesus after all is the perfect teacher here. He is God and Man and knows what pleases his Father but knows our human situation too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focus of the prayer is on God and not us - especially in the first half. Then the second half we express our relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Starting with &quot;Our Father in Heaven&quot; we're expressing that God is our Father (thanks to Jesus!) but that he is also heavenly (i.e. holy, holy, holy).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We pray that His name (character) is hallowed (honoured as holy) and we express a desire to see His kingdom come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It teaches us to pray things like &quot;Your will be done&quot; rather than &quot;God, please do my will&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We pray that God will provide what we need and that we are constantly reminded of our dependence on him when we say &quot;Give us today our daily bread&quot;. And so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can recommend this book on the Lord's Prayer which I read recently: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ivpbooks.com/9781844743933&quot;&gt;Our Father (Enjoying God in Prayer) by Richard Coekin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of rationalising prayers in the light of predestination, I think Luke 11:11-13 is helpful. It compares God to a good earthly Father who when asked by his children will not given them bad things. I think the parental comparison is good. Parents know that their children need things (i.e. they buy food in advance) and will give thing to them but it's so much better when a child humbly asks and thanks their parents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="97" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T01:13:41.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="456" CreationDate="2011-08-25T01:18:25.603" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;This was actually addressed pretty explicitly early on, and doesn't require all that much interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts chapter 15, the apostles and elders of the church held a council to determine the answer to this exact question.  When they reached an answer, they claimed it had the sanction of the Holy Ghost, so their answer is to be understood as divine counsel and not simply Peter's opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their proclamation was that it was important to observe the provisions against idol worship, fornication (all sexual sin) and eating blood, and that the rest of the Law had been fulfilled in Christ and &quot;that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God&quot; with the rest of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T01:18:25.603" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="461" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-25T01:57:19.523" Score="53" ViewCount="5970" Body="&lt;p&gt;The title is a bit tongue in cheek, but according to Christianity, is it necessarily right to have to make arguments starting from atheism? It seems obvious to me that God exists. However, in both causal arguments, or public policy, this seems the default position ingrained in our culture and to make an argument otherwise is ridiculed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a legitimate premise (that atheism is the default position) to reason from? I think not, but what are the arguments against it? With what methods of reasoning does Christianity approach this issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-20T01:38:52.890" LastActivityDate="2016-07-17T15:33:27.293" Title="Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;" AnswerCount="15" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="15" ClosedDate="2014-11-26T17:17:52.033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="462" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="475" CreationDate="2011-08-25T02:14:10.443" Score="27" ViewCount="16206" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:39-41&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:39-41 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;39&lt;/strong&gt; All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. &lt;strong&gt;40&lt;/strong&gt; There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. &lt;strong&gt;41&lt;/strong&gt; There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people talk about Heaven and Hell as singular nouns; however, it doesn't seem to make sense that everyone will receive the same reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people are more righteous than others. Some people live good, honorable lives and help others, but they don't give as much to the kingdom of God as someone else might.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse seems to suggest that there are different levels of glory (sun, moon, stars).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are we to understand that there are separate levels of glory? If not, what are we to understand by this passage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-09-17T01:39:16.920" Title="Are there multiple levels to Heaven, for different levels of reward?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-12-18T00:56:45.807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-08-25T02:28:56.143" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;The obvious rebuttal is that atheism can hardly be considered &quot;the default position&quot; when the very concept was almost completely unheard of throughout world history, in any culture, up until just a few centuries ago.  Humans have an intuitive understanding of cause and effect, and the default position is to take this to its logical conclusion and believe in a First Cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T02:28:56.143" CommentCount="19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="465" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="468" CreationDate="2011-08-25T02:42:25.457" Score="7" ViewCount="357" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 21:33-46&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Mark 12:1-12&lt;/strong&gt;, Jesus tells pretty much the exact same parable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Husbandman leases his vineyard and leaves. He sends some servants to check it out, and they get whooped. He sends his son, the caretakers kill him. The moral - don't mess with the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the question-response conversation afterward with the pharisees is a touch different in both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 21:40-42&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus asks: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?&quot; They said to Him, &quot;He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.&quot; Jesus said to them, &quot;Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;Mark 12-8-11&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jesus answers his own question in Mark, and in Matthew, Jesus seems to be responding negatively to the Pharisees' answer. But they were right, right?  What am I missing here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-14T06:08:01.737" LastActivityDate="2016-04-14T06:08:01.737" Title="What is going on in Matthew 21 and Mark 12?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;parables&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="462" CreationDate="2011-08-25T02:54:20.707" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer is the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the &quot;Mormon&quot; Church).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more than two places people ultimately end up after judgement.  There are three Degrees of Glory (and there is Outer Darkness, see next section).  The three degrees of glory (in descending order of glory) are the Celestial kingdom (compared to the sun), the Terrestrial kingdom (compared to the moon), and the Telestial kingdom (compared to the stars).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Life in each of the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms is better than this life, but neither is as good as life in the Celestial kingdom.  In the Celestial kingdom, people can live with God and their family (meaning the people in their family in this life).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people on earth will end up in one of these degrees of glory.  Even most people guilty of some terrible and despicable things and not repented of them will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ending up in Outer Darkness takes something that most people on earth are not capable of: rebelling against God after &lt;strong&gt;knowing&lt;/strong&gt; (not only having faith) of the truth of the gospel.  The &lt;em&gt;vast&lt;/em&gt; majority of people, including me, do not.  If you have any wonders about if you do, you don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan will end up in outer darkness for his wilful rebellion against God with such a knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS Scriptural Ref:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.50-70?lang=eng#49&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 76:50-70&lt;/a&gt; - Description of &quot;Kingdoms of Glory&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.26-27?lang=eng#25&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 132:26-27&lt;/a&gt; - 'blasphemy against the Holy Ghost'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="76" LastEditorUserId="252" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T13:30:15.370" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T13:30:15.370" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="465" CreationDate="2011-08-25T03:07:43.007" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not a negative response in the Matthew version; he's drawing a parallel.  They explain what the owner would do, and he changes the subject, quoting a scripture, to equate the two.  The murdered son is the rejected stone, and the Jewish leaders are the vinedressers/builders.  He says, in effect, &quot;it was prophesied that the Builders would reject the true stone, and now here you are fulfilling the prophecy.  But that will come with very bad consequences attached, because fulfilling the prophecy means killing the boss's son, and you know exactly what happens to people who do that, don't you?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T03:07:43.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="465" CreationDate="2011-08-25T03:09:57.280" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to the question is obvious; asking it is rhetorical: &lt;em&gt;of course&lt;/em&gt; the owner will seek retribution for the wrong done to him and his son by those he trusted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the story - regardless of who fills in this answer - is made clear by the quote from Psalms that follows, and so it is explained (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021:43-46&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark&lt;/a&gt;) that his audience sees immediately that he was comparing them to the caretakers. By asking the question before driving the point home, He allowed them to condemn themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in Matthew, this was the second of two back-to-back parables in which He chides them for failing to do the job His father had entrusted them with, both employing the same tactic of asking a question intended to draw the condemnation from the lips of those being condemned by the comparison. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8" LastEditorUserId="8" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T03:40:37.057" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T03:40:37.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="469" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="476" CreationDate="2011-08-25T03:10:24.150" Score="14" ViewCount="1302" Body="&lt;p&gt;The parable I'm referring to is 'The Rich Man and Lazarus':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;29&lt;/strong&gt; “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;30&lt;/strong&gt; “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;31&lt;/strong&gt; “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 16:19–31 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems, unless I'm mistaken, that in every other parable that Jesus taught the characters or actors were always just a generic description of the person (the widow, the land owner, the manager, the rich man, etc...)  In this parable, however, Jesus does actually refer to the beggar as Lazarus.  Is there any significance behind this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="13" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-09-23T01:40:41.390" Title="Is there any significance to naming Lazarus in this parable?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-26T23:39:01.640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="470" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-25T03:14:32.343" Score="40" ViewCount="20291" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Christians talk about having a &quot;personal relationship with Jesus,&quot; what does this mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="156" LastActivityDate="2014-01-28T14:57:03.000" Title="What do Christians mean by a &quot;personal relationship&quot; with Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="443" CreationDate="2011-08-25T03:28:22.123" Score="16" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The books known as &quot;apocryphal&quot; to Protestants are defined by Catholics as &quot;Deuterocanonical&quot; (a second canon). They come from the Septuagint, a Greek translation (with these additional books) of the Hebrew Tanakh. Later, around the 4th century, the Old Testament was translated by St. Jerome into Latin as part of the Vulgate. Besides the Catholic Church, the Constantinople-based Eastern Orthodox Church also received Deuterocanonical books as canonical.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Catholic Church considers the Deuterocanonicals on the same level as other books in the OT and NT canon. It is not a separate list, as expressed in the &lt;em&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/em&gt; (CCC) article 120. The Deuterocanonicals are also &quot;infallible&quot;, as expressed in CCC article 107; they are without error.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This topic has been debated from the beginning, even by St. Jerome himself as he made the Vulgate. He considered some of the books and texts not found in Hebrew to be apocryphal, as expressed in his prologue to the book of Kings, Esdras, Solomon, Jeremias and Judith. But later, throughout the Middle Ages, the Vulgate was accepted as the official translation by the Church (Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). After Luther's Germanic Bible in 1534, this issue became one of the points of difference between the &quot;Old Churches&quot; (Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) and &quot;Protestant and Reformed Churches&quot; (Luther and Calvin).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="127" LastEditorUserId="10999" LastEditDate="2015-12-13T14:04:23.783" LastActivityDate="2015-12-13T14:04:23.783" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="450" CreationDate="2011-08-25T03:38:26.357" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Talmud, the Tanakh canon (Protestant OT) was compiled in 450 BC, but modern scholars describe the development of the canon as a process occurring between 200 BC to 200 AD. First the Torah, then the Nevi'im, and then the latest is the Ketuvim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="127" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-11-02T15:01:44.723" LastActivityDate="2017-11-02T15:01:44.723" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="429" CreationDate="2011-08-25T03:51:42.143" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some circles, binding is understood as restricting the activity of demonic powers and loosing is to do with releasing people from the influence of negative spiritual powers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Binding is is contrasted with deliverance, which is a more permanent release of a person from a demons power. Where deliverance requires the full cooperation of the demon-influenced individual, binding can be undertaken without their agreement. Binding is typically performed by simmply commanding the demon to be bound, whereas deliverance may require laying on of hands and extended perods of prayed and fasting. The result of deiverance is more pronounced - the person from whom the the demon is &quot;cast out&quot; will expeience complete freedom in the area from which the demon was active. In contrast, binding will result in temporary relief from the effects of demonic influence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Loosing may refer to the the practice of releasing someone from sickness, poverty etc. One basis for this belief is Luke 13:12 (KJV), where Jesus speaks to the woman with the issue of blood, &quot;He said unto her, 'Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.'&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T03:51:42.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="462" CreationDate="2011-08-25T05:31:03.960" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;To my knowledge, neither the Catholic church nor most protestant denominations believe in multiple &quot;levels&quot; of Heaven.  (Of course the Catholic church believes in Purgatory, which is a third locality, distinct from both Heaven and Hell).  However, many Christians do believe in varying degrees of reward in Heaven (and possibly varying degrees of punishment in Hell).  There are many verses used to defend this view.  One popular one is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:27&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument is that this verse (and many others with similar terminology) is using the phrase &quot;according to what they have done&quot; to indicate that deeds done on Earth will affect the degree of reward received in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more complete discussion of this topic, and many other supporting verses, go &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Are_There_Different_Degrees_of_Reward_in_Heaven&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T05:31:03.960" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="469" CreationDate="2011-08-25T05:38:07.440" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it is significant that the rich man knows and uses Lazarus's name for the same reason that it's significant that he knows Moses name. It clearly shows that he knew who the man was and had been aware in life of his condition and done nothing about it -- in the same way he did not heed the teachings of Moses and the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leon Morris also suggests in his commentary on Luke that the name Lazarus (i.e Eleazar) may be significant because it means &lt;em&gt;God has helped&lt;/em&gt;, thus adding more weight to the part of story where the poor man received no comfort from men in life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In contrast is the poor man, called Lazarus (i.e. Eleazar; the name means 'God has helped' and may be significant; certainly man did not help this unfortunate). He is the only character given a name in Jesus' parables. -- &lt;em&gt;Leon Morris; Pg. 276, V. 3, Tyndale NT Commentaries&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T16:05:54.967" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T16:05:54.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-08-25T06:00:26.750" Score="53" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christian apologetics often employ a form of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics&quot;&gt;presuppositional logic&lt;/a&gt;. In fact, the wikipedia page for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition_%28philosophy%29&quot;&gt;Presupposition (philosophy)&lt;/a&gt; specifically addresses this issue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A variety of Christian apologetics, called presuppositional apologetics, argues that the existence or non-existence of God is the basic presupposition of all human thought, and that all men arrive at a worldview which is ultimately determined by the theology they presuppose. Evidence and arguments are only marshalled after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is difficult or impossible to coherently reason with someone who makes different presuppositions than you, and sometimes the best course is to first lay out your presuppositions. After you have a place to stand on, you can look back and defend those views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical witness on this point is fairly straightforward. God exists. In addition to this testimony it claims that there is no possible excuse for men not knowing at least some basic facts about his identity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:20-21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 1:20-21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. &lt;sup&gt;21&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After asserting in verse 20 that there is clear evidence in the world pointing to some attributes of God, verse 21 goes on to state that all men knew God and that it is through willfully not honoring him As God that they become unable to reason properly. Without a worldview informed by the presupposition that God exists, as well as certain attributes about him, men are unable to see clear reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The writer C.S. Lewis applies this idea to practical belief and frames it in layman's terms rather graphically when he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To Christian reason, no further proof of God's existence is required but that, knowing he does exist, we can finally make sense out of the world around us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-03-07T08:00:54.960" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T08:00:54.960" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2011-08-25T06:12:52.840" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When God created Adam, He created him in a relationship with Himself. He walked with him in the garden. When Adam sinned, that relationship was severed. The death that Adam died was not a passing out of existence but a divorce in his relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the second Adam, the new man, the one who came to bring life were death had reigned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus called his disciples He invited them to &quot;follow me&quot;. They ate with Him, traveled with Him, worked with Him, talked with Him -- they lived in relation with Him. When Jesus was preparing to leave, he prayed in John 17 for a special kind of relationship between God and those who had believed in Himself ... a relationship where He would live in us through the Spirit and that we would be &quot;in Him&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through Jesus' calling and our faith in Him, all Christians are brought into this relationship. With the Holy Spirit dwelling in us we can speak to the Father through the Son as we are His children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T06:16:57.443" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T06:16:57.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="462" CreationDate="2011-08-25T06:24:29.753" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently, whenever &amp;quot;heaven&amp;quot; refers to what we think of as Heaven, it is singular. The times that it is used in a plural form are in cases like the clouds or space. Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?Criteria=heaven&amp;amp;x=0&amp;amp;y=0&amp;amp;st=any&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Blue Letter Bible&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to varying levels of rewards, not only is there that verse that Flimzy referred to (Matthew 16:27 [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:27&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NLT&lt;/a&gt;]), but there are even at least three different kinds of crowns that we can receive in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is the Crown of Life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 1:12&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;God blesses those who patiently endure testing and temptation. Afterward they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 2:10&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;Don’t be afraid of what you are about to suffer. The devil will throw some of you into prison to test you. You will suffer for ten days. But if you remain faithful even when facing death, I will give you the crown of life.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is the Crown of Righteousness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 4:8&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;And now the prize awaits me—the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me on the day of his return. And the prize is not just for me but for all who eagerly look forward to his appearing.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is the Crown of Glory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 5:4&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, even though there seems to be only one Heaven, you can still get different levels of rewards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T06:24:29.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="456" CreationDate="2011-08-25T06:45:24.110" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a difficult issue in many ways, although &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply/458#458&quot;&gt;Mason makes a good point&lt;/a&gt; which is worth a lot of thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told us he came not to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=abolish%20fulfill%20law&amp;amp;qs_version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;abolish the law, but to fulfill it&lt;/a&gt;.  Certainly, the Jewish sacrificial system sees it's entire fulfillment in the work of the cross and is entirely voided and unnecessary as a result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul explains that Christ came to set us free from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;law of sin and death&lt;/a&gt; by living according to the Spirit instead of the flesh.  However that leads to the question of what it means to live by the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard it explained that we are free from the law not in the sense that we can break it at will, but rather that our hearts become so aligned with it through the Holy Spirit that we no longer need that law in order to obey.  If the law says &quot;do not murder thy wife&quot; and I have no desire to murder my wife then I do not need that law and I am in that sense free from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's my opinion that...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Freedom from the consequences of the law are immediately applied to a person who confesses faith in Christ and follows him.  But there's a sanctifying aspect that is worked out over time in which our hearts and wills are ever-increasingly conformed to that of Christ and we experience a consequent increasing freedom from the law as our inclination changes to please God - &quot;Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=loves%20%20obey%20%20&amp;amp;qs_version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:23&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a consequence, much of the legislative aspect of Mosaic law, per se, is obsoleted by the far simpler principles of (1) love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength, and (2) love your neighbor as yourself, which is the summation of all the Jewish law and prophets.  The burden is shifted to the believer and the reformation of their heart under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit in community with the body of Christ, his church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, freedom in Christ is not freedom to do as we please, but freedom from the hold of sin and temptation thereof, in order to be able to ever-increasingly please him.  And what pleases him is always perfectly right, true, good and just.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think when we see legislation creeping back into the church, it's a sign of a shift from life in the Spirit to life under the law and that it's essentially displeasing to God.  At the same time, it seems some people just need to have it spelled out for them; perhaps it's that they are immature in Christ, perhaps they just don't care for the responsibility that freedom brings.  Perhaps it's a whole bunch of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summation, I think the Mosaic law does not apply to the Christian body at all, but a much greater law of love does, which Jesus summed up as love God and love others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-11-05T01:49:04.960" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="482" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="548" CreationDate="2011-08-25T07:03:23.357" Score="20" ViewCount="29957" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend once told me about the idea that there are &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; temporary &amp;quot;holding places&amp;quot;, so to speak. If a person died and would go to Heaven, but that time had not yet come, they would go to a temporary paradisaical place and similarly for Hell (not the Catholic Purgatory). Some support is given in Luke 23:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 23:40-43&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;'40 But the other criminal protested, “Don’t you fear God even when you have been sentenced to die? 41 We deserve to die for our crimes, but this man hasn’t done anything wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;43 And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where did Jesus (and the criminal) go for the three days that He was dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the fact that &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&amp;amp;t=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hades&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; refers to a different place than &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1067&amp;amp;t=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hell&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what other Biblical evidence is there for a temporary holding place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-07-31T00:21:34.837" Title="What is the Bible basis for the idea of a temporary holding place?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;place-of-the-dead&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2011-08-25T07:26:45.557" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my experience Christians often seem conflate &lt;em&gt;relationship&lt;/em&gt; with an &lt;em&gt;experience&lt;/em&gt; thereof.  Certainly, I did for the longest time.  However, I am not in a relationship with my son because we interact (that's the outworking of the relationship), but rather simply because it's a fact that he is my progeny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result, being in a personal relationship with Christ is a fact of my &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; being adopted into the family of God via the salvific outworking of my faith in Christ.  Thus, being in a personal relationship is a fact and the result of my salvation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One manifestation of that relationship has been (in my experience) personal interactions with God.  Another manifestation is a growing desire to be like Christ, my savior and model, in order to please my Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T13:57:06.197" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T13:57:06.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2011-08-25T07:49:28.047" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians believe that Jesus is alive, he knows us intimately, and is our best friend above all others. A personal relationship with him is exactly that: a relationship very much akin to  that we have with other close friends and family members. Often people focus on the majesty and &quot;kingliness&quot; side of Jesus, and in doing so are tempted to distance themselves from him by seeing him as some distant, untouchable, unreachable figure on a throne high above us; but to have a personal relationship with him means to accept our own position as co-heirs with him, to share our lives much more openly with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Brit, when I meet (earthly) royalty I dress up and put on my best manners, and in effect put on a show. I don't need to do that with Jesus - he's seen me naked, in my own home, he shares my ups and downs and secrets that I certainly wouldn't blurt out to the Queen if I met her. So while acknowledging that Jesus is King, I don't treat him in a stand-offish formal way because he's also my best friend. That's what it means to have a personal relationship with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T07:49:28.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="485" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="507" CreationDate="2011-08-25T07:55:58.467" Score="5" ViewCount="337" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard people say, &quot;God has spoken to me.&quot; In the OT there were prophets proclaiming what God said. Sometimes in the Bible God speaks audibly (e.g. to Samuel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But today: in what way does God speak to people today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/224/how-does-one-know-if-god-is-talking-to-him&quot;&gt;How does one know if God is talking to him?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T14:53:02.343" Title="How does God speak today?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-08-26T19:47:47.477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="485" CreationDate="2011-08-25T08:13:59.910" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;God has spoken to me in the past&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;with an audible external voice, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;with a distinct voice inside my mind, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;by a vision in my minds-eye, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;by opening my eyes to a song or scripture I was singing or reading in a way I had not seen before, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;through Godly council and direct prophecy of other trustworthy believers,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;by my conscience, and, of course &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;via systematic study of his Scripture which guides my life-system.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are listed in order of (exponential) increasing frequency, and are just what I've personally experienced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T09:06:39.260" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T09:06:39.260" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="488" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="543" CreationDate="2011-08-25T08:33:02.710" Score="53" ViewCount="24648" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html&quot;&gt;Apostles Creed&lt;/a&gt; makes reference to Jesus descending into Hell.  I have heard it claimed that His time spent in Hell was part of His redemptive work--in other words, that was necessary for Him to completely &quot;pay the price&quot; for our sins.  However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 19:30&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which I have generally heard interpreted to mean that the work of redemption was finished at that moment--the moment of His death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also heard that the original language of the Apostles Creed did not mean Hell in the sense of &quot;place of eternal punishment&quot; but more in the sense of a metaphorical, ambiguous &quot;place of the dead.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there Biblical evidence that Jesus spent time in Hell (as we know it today--the place of eternal punishment)?  If so, was His time there necessary for our redemption, or was there some other purpose to His visit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T14:47:55.377" LastActivityDate="2015-10-04T11:14:45.883" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the concept that Jesus spent time in Hell?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;apostles-creed&gt;&lt;place-of-the-dead&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="462" CreationDate="2011-08-25T08:42:14.870" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first thing that came to my mind is the parable of the workers in the vineyard from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2020&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 20:1-16&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the &lt;strong&gt;kingdom of heaven&lt;/strong&gt; is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. &lt;strong&gt;But each one of them also received a denarius&lt;/strong&gt;. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(emphasis mine)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone who works for the kingdom of heaven receives the same reward regardless of how long or how well they have worked. The reward may simply be salvation/eternal life, which would still allow for multiple levels of heaven. However, the parable does refer to a singular kingdom of heaven, and chastises those who want better pay than they signed up for (a higher level of heaven, when one has claimed to be satisfied with Jesus and his salvation?). While different levels of recognition within heaven and hell are hinted at in Matthew 16:27 and throughout the New Testament, multiple levels of heaven seem unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the verses you quoted (1 Corinthians 15:39-41), they would probably best be considered within their context (at least &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2015:35-43&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:35-43&lt;/a&gt;). The verses just before and after discuss the differences between perishable and imperishable bodies, and thus your verses are probably referring to difference in glory between immortal and mortal bodies. There does seem to be an allowance for some &lt;em&gt;bodies&lt;/em&gt; to have a greater degree of glory/splendor than others, but I don't see how this can be stretched beyond bodies to imply different degrees of heaven or hell, when neither is mentioned in the passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="159" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T08:42:14.870" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="181" CreationDate="2011-08-25T08:44:20.157" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;During his time in our dimension, Jesus, while remaining a &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; of the trinity put off his divine &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; (and everything that goes with it) to become incarnate as a man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Heb 2:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we do see Jesus, &lt;strong&gt;who was made lower than the angels for a little while&lt;/strong&gt;, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, while on Earth, Jesus did not possess divine attributes such as Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc.  What supernatural knowledge and power he wielded he did through the Holy Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 5:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2026&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mat 26:39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, while conceived and living sinlessly in perfect obedience to the Father, he retained his own will as a person, but subjected that will to the Father; unlike his &amp;quot;normal&amp;quot; state, without God's nature he remained like-minded only by exercise of that will in obedience, no longer by virtue of sharing one &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; with the Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Phil 2:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; rather, &lt;strong&gt;he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness&lt;/strong&gt;. And being found in appearance as a man, humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — death on a cross!.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my conclusion is that Jesus, while on earth, was wholly God in &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; and wholly man in &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt;.  In his glorified state, of course Jesus is wholly God in both person &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T01:18:10.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="488" CreationDate="2011-08-25T09:05:07.203" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't dig up the scriptural reference right now, but it is my recollection that Jesus preached the Gospel to the souls of those already departed in &lt;em&gt;Hades&lt;/em&gt;, which is what the creed refers to.  It's not that Jesus in any way suffered in Hades, but that he went there and released souls.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Hades is, in Greek mythology, a place where the dead reside and it's not certain that it correlates to Hell as we understand it, per se.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: The scripture reference is 1 Pet 3:19-20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-01-27T05:33:35.847" LastActivityDate="2014-01-27T05:33:35.847" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="456" CreationDate="2011-08-25T09:15:53.770" Score="34" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many separate views to the matter. I'll try to list the most common ones, along with sources (at the end of each section). I'll first just describe the views briefly; the sources are available for those more interested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Catholic&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church teaches that the Law of Moses (the Old Law) is a &lt;em&gt;preparation for the Gospel&lt;/em&gt;, and as such &lt;strong&gt;no longer binding&lt;/strong&gt;. The New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a &lt;em&gt;perfection&lt;/em&gt; of it, given through faith in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law of the Gospel is presented in the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5-7), but also in &lt;em&gt;the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings&lt;/em&gt;, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's Law has always remained the same, and has always been available as the &lt;em&gt;natural moral law&lt;/em&gt; (e.g. through conscience), but only Jesus could express it perfectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second edition. Paragraphs 577-582 and 1950-1986. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Reformed&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reformed teaching is that the law was given in three parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The moral law, which God gave first to Adam, and later to Moses on Sinai (the Ten Commandments).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ceremonial laws, given to the people of Israel, &lt;em&gt;prefiguring Christ&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judicial laws, given to the State of Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moral law is eternal, binding Adam, the first man, as well as any Christian today.  Ceremonial laws were abolished in the New Testament. Judicial laws only concerned the State of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted, the moral law was delivered to Moses as the Ten Commandments. Thus the Ten Commandments apply to Christians today as such. Of other laws in the OT, the &lt;em&gt;moral&lt;/em&gt; component applies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;: Westminster Confession, chapter XIX. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html&quot;&gt;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Theonomy&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Theonomy&lt;/em&gt; literally means &quot;God's law&quot;. It is the notion that God's law is eternal and universally binding. That is, the entire Bible applies to Christians today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean that &lt;em&gt;salvation&lt;/em&gt; comes by keeping the law, as theonomy is often misrepresented. Salvation is granted &quot;solely by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 119:97-98 (KJV) is a good verse to show what theonomy is about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;: Duncan, T.M. Theonomy: What it is; what it is not. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Dispensationalism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dispensationalism makes a distinction between Israel and the Christian church in God's plan. Its major objective is to be able to interpret the Bible consistently literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dispensationalists recognize seven &lt;em&gt;dispensations&lt;/em&gt; in the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The different dispensations are different ways that God has related to people. Salvation has always been through faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As today's Christians are living during the dispensation of grace, or during the New Covenant, the old laws or the Old Covenant do not bind them. Because God and His will do not change, the moral law of the New Covenant hasn't notably changed from the Old Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;: What is dispensationalism and is it biblical? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(I'd like to find a better/more original source)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T09:15:53.770" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="495" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="496" CreationDate="2011-08-25T10:33:46.093" Score="19" ViewCount="16500" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3v8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Just as &lt;strong&gt;Jannes&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Jambres&lt;/strong&gt; opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who were they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-11-12T06:23:58.743" Title="Who were Jannes and Jambres?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;2-timothy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="495" CreationDate="2011-08-25T10:38:42.917" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;They seem to be of the magicians that worked against Moses in Egypt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They also appear in Pliny the Elder's Natural History, together with Moses, as famous magicians of antiquity; Pliny's citation is also referred to in Apuleius. Numerius, a Pythagorean philosopher, calls them sacred Egyptian scribes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has been taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannes_and_Jambres&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, and I don't know how much weight should be given it. However, they seems to be evidence backing it up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the magicians&lt;/em&gt; is a manuscript among the Chester Beatty Papyri No XVI, which has been edited and translated by Albert Pietersma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews have long since known of them. Taken from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=151&amp;amp;letter=J#ixzz1W2MXkLxA&quot;&gt;Jewish Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Names of two legendary wizards of Pharaoh &quot;who withstood Moses&quot; (II Tim. iii. 8) by imitating &quot;with their enchantments&quot; the works of Moses and Aaron, though they were defeated (Ex. vii. 11, viii. 7). According to rabbinical tradition they were the two chiefs of the magicians at the court of Pharaoh who foretold the birth of Moses, &quot;the destroyer of the land of Egypt,&quot; thereby causing the cruel edicts of Pharaoh (Soṭah 11a; Sanh. 106a). They said to Moses when he performed his miracles with the water and the rod: &quot;Dost thou wish to introduce magic into Egypt, the native land of the magic art?&quot; (Men. 85a)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="135" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T11:25:53.793" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T11:25:53.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="495" CreationDate="2011-08-25T11:00:47.657" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;JANNES AND JAMBRES. Paul speaks of certain false and morally dangerous&#xA;  teachers as resisting the truth as ‘Jannes and Jambres’ resisted Moses&#xA;  (2 Tim. 3:6-8). These names do not occur in OT, but extra-biblical&#xA;  allusions show that the Egyp. magicians of Ex. 7-8 are intended. Like&#xA;  them, the teachers played on superstitious susceptibilities with a&#xA;  plausibly presented parody of the truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The names, of unknown age,&#xA;  occur in various forms. The so-called ‘Zadokite Work’, now known to&#xA;  belong with the Qumran literature, has Belial raising up ‘Yoḥaneh and&#xA;  his brother’ against Moses and Aaron (7.19 in R. H. Charles,&#xA;  Pseudepigrapha, 1913; 5.19 in C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents2, 1958,&#xA;  p. 21); the Babylonian Talmud ’Yoḥanē and Mamre’ (Menaḥoth 85a; cf.&#xA;  the spelling ‘Mambres’ in most Lat. and some Gk. mss of 2 Tim. 3:8).&#xA;  Jewish legend made much of them, even attributing their paternity to&#xA;  Balaam. Pagan sources refer, not always perspicuously, to one or both&#xA;  (cf. Pliny, NH 30. 1. 11; Apuleius, Apology 90; Numenius of Apamea in&#xA;  Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9. 8. 1), reflecting the story’s celebrity.&#xA;  Origen knew a book on the subject (Comm. in Mt. 23:37; 27:9), and the&#xA;  Gelasian Decree a Penitence of Jannes and Jambres, of which M. R.&#xA;  James identified a fragment in a Saxon ms (JTS 2, 1901, pp. 572ff.).&#xA;  It is improbable, however, that Paul is alluding to the book: he would&#xA;  employ the names simply as being then in common use, with Ex. 7-8&#xA;  alone in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Wood, D. R. W. ;   Marshall, I. Howard: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830814396&quot;&gt;New Bible Dictionary&lt;/a&gt;. 3rd ed. Leicester, England;  Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1996, S. 543&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Jan′nes). A resister of Moses with whom Paul compares apostates who&#xA;  resist the truth. (2Ti 3:8, 9) Jannes and Jambres, whose ‘madness&#xA;  became plain to all,’ are not identified in the Hebrew Scriptures, but&#xA;  it is generally agreed that they were two of the leading men in&#xA;  Pharaoh’s court, perhaps the magic-practicing priests who resisted&#xA;  Moses and Aaron on their numerous appearances there. (Ex 7:11, 12, 22;&#xA;  8:17-19; 9:11) The amount of tradition that agrees with this greatly&#xA;  outweighs what little there is to the contrary. Non-Christian sources,&#xA;  such as Numenius, Pliny the Elder, Lucius Apuleius, a Qumran writing,&#xA;  the Targum of Jonathan, and several apocryphal writings all mention&#xA;  one or both of these men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1 pp. 1254-1255 Jannes&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;JANNES AND JAMBRES Two of Pharaoh’s magicians, who opposed Moses and&#xA;  tried to show that they were as effective as he at working miracles&#xA;  (Ex 7–9). Jewish legend regarded Jannes and Jambres (somewhat&#xA;  improbably) as sons of Balaam, the Midianite prophet of Numbers 22–24.&#xA;  Curiously, the Exodus chapters do not identify them by name. The only&#xA;  biblical reference to them appears in the NT. The apostle Paul saw&#xA;  similarity between Jannes and Jambres and the false teachers of&#xA;  debased intellect who were enemies of the truth in his day (2 Tm&#xA;  3:6–8). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Much speculation has arisen about the two names. They are&#xA;  apparently Semitic, but their precise derivation is unclear. They are&#xA;  referred to in the Qumran documents and in late Jewish, pagan, and&#xA;  early Christian literature. Variations include “Yohanneh and his&#xA;  brother” (Qumran), “Yohane and Mamre” (Babylonian Talmud), and&#xA;  “Mambres” (the translation in most Latin and some Greek manuscripts of&#xA;  2 Tm 3:8). The names appear also in the writings of Pliny (first&#xA;  century ad) and of Apuleius and Numenius (both second century), though&#xA;  both names are not always cited. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Origen, an Alexandrian church father,&#xA;  twice referred to an apocryphal work entitled The Book of Jannes and&#xA;  Jambres, suggesting that it was the source of Paul’s words in 2&#xA;  Timothy. A Latin church document called the Gelasian Decree (fifth or&#xA;  sixth century?) mentions Penitence of Jannes and Jambres, possibly the&#xA;  work mentioned by Origen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Elwell, Walter A. ;   Comfort, Philip Wesley: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1414319452&quot;&gt;Tyndale Bible Dictionary&lt;/a&gt;. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House Publishers, 2001 (Tyndale Reference Library), S. 669&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorDisplayName="user14" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T11:45:48.987" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T11:45:48.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="498" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="499" CreationDate="2011-08-25T11:37:42.840" Score="19" ViewCount="7317" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where and when did the Baptists get their name and what do they believe that sets them apart from the rest of Protestant denominations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I realize there are different divisions among Baptists as well, so let's keep this limited to the issues that were relevant when the term Baptist first became used and that generally cover most Baptist denominations today but still specific enough to uniquely identify what makes Baptists different from the members of other denominations Protestant denominations.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T11:56:25.013" LastActivityDate="2016-07-08T23:43:43.413" Title="Where did Baptists get their name and what do they believe?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="498" CreationDate="2011-08-25T11:50:08.370" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key difference is that in most other denominations (Anglicanism, Methodism, the United Reformed Church, etc) infant baptism is practised. Baptists believe that baptism is a public profession of personal faith - in other words, a public display of a decision someone has made themselves - and the notion of infant baptism is at odds with this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most new churches (emergent, or whichever word you prefer - churches that were established in the last few decades) profess to be non-denominational but tend to accord with Baptist theology, at least in the respect of baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T11:50:08.370" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="498" CreationDate="2011-08-25T11:51:52.690" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;baptists&quot; came from the fact that Baptists strongly believed that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Baptism is for believers only.  (excluding infant baptism) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Baptism must be by immersion, as opposed to sprinkling and effusion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of their strong beliefs regarding baptism, they were given the name &quot;Baptists&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_beliefs&quot;&gt;Baptists generally believe:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Biblical authority (Mat 24:35; 1Pet 1:23; 2Tim 3:16-17)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Autonomy of the local church (Mat 18:15-17; 1Cor 6:1-3)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Priesthood of all believers (1Pet 2:5-9; 1Tim 5)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Two ordinances (believer's baptism and the Lord's Supper) (Acts 2:41-47; 1Cor 11:23-32)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Individual soul liberty (Rom 14:5-12)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Separation of Church and State (Mat 22:15-22)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Two offices of the church (pastor and deacon) (1Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1-2)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most Baptist traditions believe in the &quot;Four Freedoms&quot; articulated by Baptist historian Walter B. Shurden:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Soul freedom: the soul is competent before God, and capable of making decisions in matters of faith without coercion or compulsion by any larger religious or civil body&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Church freedom: freedom of the local church from outside interference, whether government or civilian (subject only to the law where it does not interfere with the religious teachings and practices of the church)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Bible freedom: the individual is free to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, using the best tools of scholarship and biblical study available to the individual&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Religious freedom: the individual is free to choose whether to practice their religion, another religion, or no religion; Separation of church and state is often called the &quot;civil corollary&quot; of religious freedom&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of other Christian Denominations that hold these beliefs as well, but what makes a Baptist distinctive, is the fact that they observe &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of these, whereas other denominations may only observe some of these points. Another distinctive point, is Christian Education, which a lot of Baptists uphold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="135" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T12:00:44.920" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T12:00:44.920" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="502" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-25T12:04:35.400" Score="30" ViewCount="4725" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Ten Commandments&lt;/em&gt; is often shown as a nice list with ten short statements, whereas in the Bible it exists as a long block of text in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21. For reference:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Exodus 20:2-17 (HCSB)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Do not have other gods besides Me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the fathers' sin, to the third and fourth [generations] of those who hate Me, &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; but showing faithful love to a thousand [generations] of those who love Me and keep My commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God, because the LORD will punish anyone who misuses His name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Remember to dedicate the Sabbath day: &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; You are to labor six days and do all your work, &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. You must not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; For the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; Honor your father and your mother so that you may have a long life in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Do not murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; Do not commit adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; Do not steal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; Do not covet your neighbor's house. Do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were given the above text &lt;strong&gt;without paragraphs nor verse markers&lt;/strong&gt; (which are a later addition), I'd have trouble spotting how it should be divided to exactly ten commandments. This might be a reason that there are multiple &quot;competing&quot; divisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The different divisions that I know of are (adapted from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Division_according_to_different_religions&quot;&gt;better table on Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;                                                            A   B   C &#xA;I am the Lord your God                                     pre   1   1&#xA;You shall have no other gods before me                       1   1   1&#xA;You shall not make for yourself an idol                      2   2   1&#xA;Do not take the name of the Lord in vain                     3   3   2&#xA;Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy                        4   4   3&#xA;Honor your father and mother                                 5   5   4&#xA;You shall not murder                                         6   6   5&#xA;You shall not commit adultery                                7   7   6&#xA;You shall not steal                                          8   8   7&#xA;You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor       9   9   8&#xA;You shall not covet your neighbor's wife                    10  10   9&#xA;You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor  10  10  10&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For fun, see if you know which is used by whom! The answer is below, mouse-over to see it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote class=&quot;spoiler&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;: Anglican, Reformed &lt;em&gt;(pre = preface)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&#xA; &lt;strong&gt;B&lt;/strong&gt;: Orthodox; Jewish (Talmudic) &lt;br /&gt;&#xA; &lt;strong&gt;C&lt;/strong&gt;: Catholic, Lutheran &lt;br /&gt;&#xA; As far as I know, almost all other denominations use A or B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the reasonings for these different divisions? Especially since the first division didn't stick, I'm quite sure the differences can't be arbitrary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T20:06:33.420" LastActivityDate="2015-07-11T16:17:22.893" Title="Why are there different divisions of the Ten Commandments?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;division&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="482" CreationDate="2011-08-25T12:44:51.277" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, there is no denying that there are couple of mentions that refer to the place where a person went who believed in God but died before the Christ. It says that they go to the Abraham's side. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 16 verse 22&lt;/a&gt;, it is written that after Lazarus died, he was carried to Abraham's side. For the people who has accepted Jesus as their christ, which is after Christ, will go to paradise.  Jesus also said this in Luke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, for those people who have not accepted Jesus as their Christ will become one of Satan, or ghosts/demons, if you will. They roam around the earth until the Judgment Day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were plenty of references of demons in the Bible if you look close enough. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%208:28-32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 8 verse 28 through 32&lt;/a&gt;, he heals two demon possessed men. In here, the demons &lt;em&gt;begged&lt;/em&gt; Jesus and asked him if he came here to torture them before the &lt;em&gt;appointed time&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would that mean? Demons are not angels who have followed Lucifer when he turned against God. These demons are souls of people who did not believe in God. They are the reasons for all kinds of sickness and disabilities. In the appointed time, they will be condemned for their actions when they lived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The back up of this explanation is on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2012:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 12 verse 24&lt;/a&gt;. Here, Pharisees said that Jesus &lt;em&gt;drives out&lt;/em&gt; demons with the power of the prince of demons. Note the word, drive out. Edit: Jesus has contridicted the Pharisees when they said that he was using the power of Devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T16:51:08.113" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T16:51:08.113" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2011-08-25T12:49:20.943" Score="26" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Yes - but &lt;em&gt;which of them&lt;/em&gt; is a matter of debate&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I already did a lot of work to answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply/494#494&quot;&gt;To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?&lt;/a&gt; I'm going to adapt that answer here, too. Similarly, I'll list and briefly describe some of the more common views along with sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Catholic&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church teaches that the Law of Moses (the Old Law) is a &lt;em&gt;preparation for the Gospel&lt;/em&gt;, and as such no longer binding. The New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a &lt;em&gt;perfection&lt;/em&gt; of it, given through faith in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law of the Gospel, which applies to Christians, is presented in the &lt;strong&gt;Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5-7)&lt;/strong&gt;, but also in &lt;em&gt;the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings&lt;/em&gt;, such as &lt;strong&gt;Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5&lt;/strong&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's Law has always remained the same, and has always been available as the &lt;em&gt;natural moral law&lt;/em&gt; (e.g. through conscience), but only Jesus could express it perfectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second edition. Paragraphs 577-582 and 1950-1986. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Reformed&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reformed teaching is that the law was given in three parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The moral law, which God gave first to Adam, and later to Moses on Sinai (the Ten Commandments).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ceremonial laws, given to the people of Israel, &lt;em&gt;prefiguring Christ&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judicial laws, given to the State of Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moral law is eternal, binding Adam, the first man, as well as any Christian today.  Ceremonial laws were abolished in the New Testament. Judicial laws only concerned the State of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted, the moral law was delivered to Moses as the Ten Commandments. Thus the &lt;strong&gt;Ten Commandments&lt;/strong&gt; apply to Christians today as such. Of other laws in the OT, the &lt;em&gt;moral&lt;/em&gt; component applies. Moral laws given in the &lt;strong&gt;New Testament&lt;/strong&gt; are also part of the eternal moral law, and meant for Christians of today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;: Westminster Confession, chapter XIX. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Theonomy&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Theonomy&lt;/em&gt; literally means &quot;God's law&quot;. It is the notion that God's law is eternal and universally binding. That is, &lt;strong&gt;the entire Bible applies to Christians&lt;/strong&gt; today. Every law God has given us is meant to be obeyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean that &lt;em&gt;salvation&lt;/em&gt; comes by keeping the law, as theonomy is often misrepresented. Salvation is granted &quot;solely by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 119:97-98 (KJV) is a good verse to show what theonomy is about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;: Duncan, T.M. Theonomy: What it is; what it is not. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Dispensationalism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dispensationalism makes a distinction between Israel and the Christian church in God's plan. Its major objective is to be able to interpret the Bible consistently literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dispensationalists recognize seven &lt;em&gt;dispensations&lt;/em&gt; in the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The different dispensations are different ways that God has related to people. Salvation has always been through faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As today's Christians are living during the dispensation of grace, or during the New Covenant, the old laws or the Old Covenant do not bind them. Because God and His will do not change, the moral law of the New Covenant hasn't notably changed from the Old Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament thus is not for Christians. &lt;strong&gt;Laws expressed in the epistles&lt;/strong&gt; are part of the dispensation of grace, and thus apply to Christians. Laws stated by Jesus are not, and thus are not really meant for Christians but for Jews. &lt;em&gt;(Though I expect there to be a small minority of dispensationalists saying otherwise.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;: What is dispensationalism and is it biblical? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(I'd like to find a better/more original source)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T12:49:20.943" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="485" CreationDate="2011-08-25T12:49:44.447" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;God speaks through multiple ways.  This includes everything from audible voices to suggestions from friends and family. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, by far, &lt;strong&gt;the most common way&lt;/strong&gt; that God speaks to us is through His Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, &lt;em&gt;if we think that we're hearing God in any other way&lt;/em&gt;, we need to go to the Bible and verify that what we think he's saying actually lines up with his will.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And while oftentimes the bible isn't clear about some decisions (such as which car to buy), God will use the Holy Spirit to guide us.  We need to listen with our ears, with our hearts, with our minds.  But most of all, we need to listen to the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why it's so critical to read your Bible daily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T14:53:02.343" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T14:53:02.343" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="508" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-25T12:54:18.683" Score="15" ViewCount="4867" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between Heaven/Paradise/Sheol &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How about Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they synonyms, are they different places?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-15T03:42:38.653" LastActivityDate="2015-03-05T07:37:27.107" Title="Heaven/Paradise/Sheol, Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T00:32:17.547" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2011-08-25T13:05:25.727" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;It all boils down to this:  God is a &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to get this as a concept, you have to pull back and take a look at it in light of other religions.  If you look at other religions, you see gods who do not care about individuals.  In other religions the goal is to please their god(s) enough to be accepted into heaven.  The love flows one direction: towards the god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, however, is &lt;em&gt;different&lt;/em&gt;.  He comes to each one of us personally.  He reaches down and speaks to each of us &lt;em&gt;individually&lt;/em&gt; and relates to us on a personal level.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that he wants to know us as individuals--that he wants to be loved by us as individuals.  That he wants a &lt;em&gt;relationship&lt;/em&gt; with us as individuals.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that relationship means that we have to both &lt;em&gt;speak&lt;/em&gt; (through prayer) and &lt;em&gt;listen&lt;/em&gt; (through all the ways that God talks with us).  That, ultimately, is what a relationship is.  A give and take; both speaking and listening.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He wants our love and gives love in return.  That's what a personal relationship is about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T12:29:09.673" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T12:29:09.673" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="462" CreationDate="2011-08-25T13:20:39.877" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In contrast to Sapphireimage's parable, see the Parable of the Pounds (Luke 19) where those who work harder in the service of the Lord are given a greater reward, proportionate to the quality of their work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apparent contradiction can be explained by looking carefully at what's being measured.  In the parable of the hired servants, all of the workers showed up ready to work, and can be assumed to have all worked faithfully once they were hired; they simply served for different lengths of time.  But in the parable of the pounds, the different servants all served for the same length of time, but displayed wildly different degrees of faithfulness and dedication to their Lord's cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Paul explicitly stated that there is a &quot;third heaven&quot; (1 Corinthians 12:2).  He speaks of it in a passing way, as if referring to something that ought to already be familiar to the readers.  Unfortunately, the original source for the doctrine has not been preserved for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But yes, in light of this, it seems that there is biblical justification for believing that there are at least three levels of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T13:20:39.877" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="488" CreationDate="2011-08-25T13:21:18.613" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, it's important to understand that a biblical understanding of hell is not as cut and dry as we might like it to be.  That's another discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the Nicene creed, which is most widely used creed across Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, simply says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;he suffered death and was buried. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with no mention of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, any orthodox (that's orthodox with a lowercase o) understanding of the crucifixion includes that Christ died.  In fact the shortest &quot;creed&quot; of sorts found in many Communion liturgies is simply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first part of that, &quot;Christ has died&quot;, is really all we need to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus, fully God and fully man, died, that means a part of the Godhead/Trinity/God died.  Think about that for minute, God died.  (Yes, it's illogical)  There was a cutting off, a separation (&quot;My God, my God why have you forsaken me&quot;).  That separation is the essence of hell/Hades/the opposite of heaven.  So, I don't think it matters whether or not Jesus traveled in some form or someway to a &quot;place&quot; that is &quot;hell&quot;, He, by being cutoff, forsaken by the Father experienced &quot;hell&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="29" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T13:21:18.613" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="508" CreationDate="2011-08-25T13:46:49.490" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Jesus hung on the cross, he famously said to one of the thieves being crucified along with him that &quot;today you will be with me in Paradise.&quot;  This establishes where Jesus was going to be after his death.  But after his resurrection, when Mary Magdalene found him in the garden, he told her that he had not yet been to Heaven to present himself to the Father. (John 20:17)  This establishes that Paradise is different from Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 3: 18-19 explains that while Jesus was dead (and therefore in Paradise), he went to preach to &quot;spirits in prison&quot; who had been disobedient in mortality.  So it would seem that after death, people's spirits are sent to an intermediary location to await the resurrection.  Those who have been righteous go to paradise, and those who have been disobedient go to a &quot;prison&quot; whose name is not specified clearly.  But these intermediary locations are not the same as Heaven and Hell, the places to which we are sent after the Judgment, which is explicitly stated to take place &lt;em&gt;after the resurrection&lt;/em&gt; in several different scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T13:46:49.490" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="514" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-25T13:58:13.403" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apologetics&lt;/a&gt; is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of reason. Those who engage in apologetics are called &lt;em&gt;apologists&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Usage:&lt;/strong&gt; Do not apply this tag to questions regarding the defense of a particular belief in the context of &lt;em&gt;debate within Christianity, broadly defined&lt;/em&gt;.  That is, this tag does not apply to debates between Protestants and Jehovah's witnesses, nor between Catholics and Mormons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21576" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-20T19:55:00.813" LastActivityDate="2015-08-20T19:55:00.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="515" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-25T13:58:13.403" Score="0" Body="Defenses of religious positions using reason.  This tag should only be used with respect to disagreements with religions other than Christianity." OwnerUserId="148" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-20T19:54:48.050" LastActivityDate="2015-08-20T19:54:48.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="502" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:15:59.507" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question, I didn't know for the different divisions. Searching about it I found the following information very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That there were “ten words” is expressly stated (Ex 34:28; Dt&#xA;  4:13; 10:4); but just how to delimit them one from another is a&#xA;  task which has not been found easy. For a full discussion of the&#xA;  various theories, see Dillmann, Exodus, 201-5, to whom we are indebted&#xA;  for much that is here set forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.  Josephus&lt;/strong&gt; is the first witness for the division now common among&#xA;  Protestants (except Lutherans), namely, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a.  foreign gods, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;b.  images,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;c.  name of God, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;d.  Sabbath,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;e.  parents, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;f.  murder, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;g.  adultery,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;h.  theft, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;i.  false witness, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;j.  coveting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before him, Philo made the&#xA;  same arrangement, except that he followed the Septuagint in putting&#xA;  adultery before murder. This mode of counting was current with many of&#xA;  the church Fathers, and is now in use in the Greek Catholic church and&#xA;  with most Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;B.  Augustine&lt;/strong&gt; combined foreign gods and images (Ex 20:2-6) into one&#xA;  commandment and following the order of Dt 5:21 (Heb 18) made the 9th&#xA;  commandment a prohibition of the coveting of a neighbor’s wife, while&#xA;  the 10th prohibits the coveting of his house and other property. Roman&#xA;  Catholics and Lutherans accept Augustine’s mode of reckoning, except&#xA;  that they follow the order in Ex 20:17, so that the 9th commandment&#xA;  forbids the coveting of a neighbor’s house, while the 10th includes&#xA;  his wife and all other property.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;C A third mode of counting&lt;/strong&gt; is that adopted by the Jews in the early&#xA;  Christian centuries, which became universal among them in the Middle&#xA;  Ages and so down to the present time. According to this scheme, the&#xA;  opening statement in Ex 20:2 is the “first word,” Ex 20:3-6 the&#xA;  second (combining foreign gods with images), while the following eight&#xA;  commandments are as in the common Protestant arrangement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The division&#xA;  of the prohibition of coveting into two commandments is fatal to the&#xA;  Augustinian scheme; and the reckoning of the initial statement in Ex&#xA;  20:2 as one of the “ten words” seems equally fatal to the modern&#xA;  Jewish method of counting. The prohibition of images, which is&#xA;  introduced by the solemn formula, “Thou shalt not,” is surely a&#xA;  different “word” from the command to worship no god other than&#xA;  Yahweh. Moreover, if nine of the “ten words” are commandments, it&#xA;  would seem reasonable to make the remaining “word” a commandment, if&#xA;  this can be done without violence to the subjectmatter. See Eerdmaus,&#xA;  The Expositor, July, 1909, 21 ff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Orr, James, M.A., D.D.: Orr, James (Hrsg.): The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia  : 1915 Edition. Albany, OR : Ages Software, 1999&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorDisplayName="user14" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T14:21:04.897" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T14:21:04.897" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="518" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="524" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:18:49.330" Score="11" ViewCount="1168" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am sure that through my faith my sins have been forgiven and I will get into Heaven.  However, how can I be sure someone else will be forgiven and allowed in Heaven?  Are there any good questions I can ask them to be assured of their own faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would expect actually ask any questions and not try to assume anything from outward appearances.  However, I am assuming that when asking the person they are answering honestly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I imagine asking these questions of someone who may have first approached me and asked how they could be assured they will get into Heaven.  Perhaps someone who is first approaching Christianity or a believer who is questioning how they'll get in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T15:15:05.213" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T00:58:14.000" Title="How can I be sure someone I know is going to Heaven?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-05-17T06:37:37.580" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="378" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:37:07.083" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to receiving the Holy Spirit into your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 14:16-17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to&#xA;  help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world&#xA;  cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you&#xA;  know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, after Jesus had ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit came to the apostles at the feast of Pentecost.  The entire story is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 2&lt;/a&gt;, but specifically&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:2-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 2:2-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven&#xA;  and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what&#xA;  seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each&#xA;  of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the Holy Spirit coming and filling us.  Once he enters our lives, we are forever changed. We have access to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_of_holies&quot;&gt;Holy of Holies&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/temple-veil-torn.html&quot;&gt;have direct communion with God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-07-06T17:25:17.933" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T17:25:17.933" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="522" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="527" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:39:40.263" Score="29" ViewCount="18570" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015:38-39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 15:38-39 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;38&lt;/strong&gt; The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39&#xA;  And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he&#xA;  died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What made the centurion say that? What is the significance of the torn curtain - does it have doctrinal significance? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-12-23T05:18:32.430" LastActivityDate="2015-12-23T12:00:54.057" Title="What is significant about the torn curtain? What about Jesus' death impressed the centurion at the cross?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-23T18:03:51.333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="372" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:42:50.527" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The four gospels record the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  There are multiple events that are shared and reported among the four gospels.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of those events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; mentions that this could be two separate events, but it is commonly accepted to be one event, shared among the gospels.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Justification?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at the four gospels, we see Jesus crucified, buried, and resurrected four separate times.  The events leading up to his death are similar including four last suppers, four records of trial, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, we can presume that he did all of these events multiple times, or we can (rightly) move forward with the understanding that these records are &lt;em&gt;four viewpoints&lt;/em&gt; of the same events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all four books, Jesus was anointed with expensive oil. Two books show he was anointed on his head, two show he was anointed on his feet.  More than likely, he was anointed on once on both his head and his feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark records the estimate of the oil at 300 denarii.  A &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;denarius&lt;/a&gt; is valued at 10 asses.  A donkey, in modern currency, is worth around &lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090315174807AAqlzb6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;US$1000-$2500&lt;/a&gt;.  This makes the oil worth 3,000 asses, which is, in today's money, $3,000,000 - $7,500,000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know about you, but I &lt;em&gt;rarely&lt;/em&gt; come across any single item that's worth multiple millions of dollars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, Jesus might have been anointed twice or four times.  But if we use just the tiniest amount of common sense, it seems pretty obvious that being anointed with a $3million oil was not a common event.  Therefore, it's &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; safe to assume that this was really simply one event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T18:39:09.087" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T18:39:09.087" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="518" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:42:53.830" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of 1 John was written for this exact reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:13&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of&#xA;God so that you may know that you have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the book of 1 John, the author gives many examples of how people doing things and then he tells us whether or not that person is saved. You can take all of the following tests and measure anybody against them to see which &lt;strong&gt;direction&lt;/strong&gt; that, that person is going in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Repentance is about you no longer following your own desires, but the desires of Christ for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 13:5&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test&#xA;yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of&#xA;course, you fail the test?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 1: Do you sin habitually?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:18-20&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who&#xA;was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. We&#xA;know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under&#xA;the control of the evil one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 1:6-76&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we&#xA;lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he&#xA;is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of&#xA;Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 2: Do you occasionally fall short?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 1:8,10&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is&#xA;not in us. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a&#xA;liar and his word has no place in our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 8:44&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your&#xA;father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to&#xA;the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his&#xA;native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 3: Do you confess your sins?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 32:3-6&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day&#xA;long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was&#xA;sapped as in the heat of summer.   Then I acknowledged my sin to you&#xA;and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, &amp;quot;I will confess my&#xA;transgressions to the LORD &amp;quot;—and you forgave the guilt of my sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 1:9&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us&#xA;our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 2:5&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are&#xA;storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his&#xA;righteous judgment will be revealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 4: Do you obey God?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:4-5&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The man who says, &amp;quot;I know him,&amp;quot; but does not do what he commands is a&#xA;liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's&#xA;love is truly made complete in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:3&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not&#xA;burdensome,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 John 1:6&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you&#xA;have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 5: Do you bear good fruit?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:5-6&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must&#xA;walk as Jesus did. 6 This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims&#xA;to live in him must walk as Jesus did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 6: Do you love your brothers?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:9-11&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in&#xA;the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there&#xA;is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother&#xA;is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know&#xA;where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 7: Do you walk in love?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 John 1:6&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you&#xA;have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 8: Do you believe in Jesus?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:23&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus&#xA;Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 9: Do you hate the things of this world?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:15-17&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the&#xA;world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the&#xA;world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the&#xA;boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from&#xA;the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does&#xA;the will of God lives forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question 10: Are you persevering in repentance?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 5:20&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 17:30&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all&#xA;people everywhere to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 36:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of&#xA;their evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 2:19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this&#xA;inscription: &amp;quot;The Lord knows those who are his,&amp;quot; and, &amp;quot;Everyone who&#xA;confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 3:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 2:19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance,&#xA;and that you are now doing more than you did at first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;You will know them by their fruit.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, Jesus tells us that we will know them by their fruit. The fruit that I just laid forth for you above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mathew 7&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s&#xA;clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit&#xA;you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or&#xA;figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but&#xA;a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and&#xA;a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear&#xA;good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their&#xA;fruit you will recognize them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T00:58:14.000" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="525" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4293" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:43:55.247" Score="23" ViewCount="10274" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation&quot;&gt;Universal salvation, or universal reconciliation&lt;/a&gt; is the belief that God will eventually reconcile Himself with every &lt;em&gt;immortal soul&lt;/em&gt;. That is, everyone will be saved. This doctrine has a long history. It's always been a minority view, but there have been proponents since, at least, the third century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that this belief quite clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible. For example, reading 2 Thess 1:7-9 (NLT):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God will provide rest for you who are being persecuted and also for us when the Lord Jesus appears from heaven. He will come with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, bringing judgment on those who don’t know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, clearly it can't be this simple, since there have been a lot of people that believed in Universal salvation. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen&quot;&gt;Origen&lt;/a&gt;, for example, probably knew the scripture quite well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the Biblical arguments &lt;strong&gt;for&lt;/strong&gt; Universal salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-25T07:03:22.863" LastActivityDate="2021-05-18T14:18:48.750" Title="What is the Biblical basis for Universal salvation?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;universalism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="518" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:45:34.137" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible teaches that we are not to judge one another - and that includes making positive judgements (&lt;em&gt;X is definitely going to heaven&lt;/em&gt;) as well as negative ones (&lt;em&gt;X is damned to hell&lt;/em&gt;). So even if we could find some good questions to assure ourselves of someone's salvation, Christianity teaches that it would be incorrect for us to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T14:45:34.137" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="522" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:49:30.323" Score="32" Body="&lt;p&gt;First understand the architecture of the temple. There were three chambers. A large courtyard where a very large altar lay. An indoor lobby where only the priests could enter after washing and finally the Holy room which only the high priest himself could enter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy room contained the ark of the covenant. This room was shielded from the lobby by a large curtain, the curtain was said to be something like one hundred feet wide and one hundred and fifty feet tall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anybody that entered past the curtain into the Holy room would surely die, the high priest could only enter once a year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus died, Jesus became our ambassador to God. No longer did we require a high priest to enter the Holy room and sprinkle blood on the mercy seat. Jesus died and once and for all completed this requirement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thus God tore the curtain in the temple and opened up His Holiness to the entire world, through Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T16:49:10.453" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T16:49:10.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="522" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:50:10.213" Score="35" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two things are significant. The first is that the curtain symbolically divided the Holy of Holies, the most revered place in the temple where God was believed to dwell and only priests were allowed to enter, from the rest of the temple where ordinary people were allowed. Removing that division was a symbol that there was now no barrier between ordinary people and God; we no longer needed specially appointed people to intercede for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is that the curtain was torn from top to bottom, as opposed to from bottom to top. This indicates that the curtain was not ripped by man but by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T14:50:10.213" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="535" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:54:20.427" Score="19" ViewCount="980" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hear so much about &quot;Do not judge others, lest you be judged.&quot; I know that there's more scripture out there that gives us a better insight into our responsibilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you please answer this question. Are we allowed to judge others? Are we called to Judge others? Are there certain groups of people that we can and cannot judge? Are there prerequisites to judging others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please start off with a simple Yes or No to the title question and then follow up by explaining the ins and outs of this confusing topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-28T15:26:51.480" LastActivityDate="2015-10-28T15:26:51.480" Title="Do not Judge others, or do we Judge others?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;judging-others&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-06-16T19:58:52.793" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="441" CreationDate="2011-08-25T14:59:33.227" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I can't say it any better than an article I found.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ucmpage.org/sgca/wesley01.htm&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wesley believed that Christ's death on the cross made it possible not&#xA;  only for sinners to be saved by grace, but, indeed, for them to be&#xA;  saved &lt;em&gt;to the uttermost&lt;/em&gt;. Entire sanctification was restoration to the&#xA;  image of God, &lt;em&gt;being made perfect in love&lt;/em&gt; toward God and neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes on to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Entire sanctification was not a goal to be achieved, but a gift to be&#xA;  received. Like justification, sanctification is the gracious gift of&#xA;  God, received by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wesley claimed that this was not a new doctrine but merely a revealing of an old doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T15:17:49.920" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T15:17:49.920" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="530" CreationDate="2011-08-25T15:24:33.157" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can judge others... once you're perfect. There's more to that passage than just that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. -- Matthew 7:1-2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea here is that we're going to be held accountable to keep the same standard as we measure others against. When you think about being judged by the standard you hold for others, it makes you want to put that standard very, very low, just in case you mess up for a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of the passage goes on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. -- Matthew 7:3-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meaning that before you even begin to look at someone else's life, you need to make sure you're ALREADY measuring up to the standard you're holding for others. Since we can never attain perfection here on earth, I think it's pretty safe to say that we won't ever be able to say, &quot;I've taken care of everything in my life now, and so I'm ready to start pointing out the flaws in yours.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T15:24:33.157" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="440" CreationDate="2011-08-25T15:36:54.567" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;sanctification&quot; derives from the Latin noun &lt;em&gt;&quot;sanctificio&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.  This original Latin word means &quot;to separate and set aside&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20111006165735/http://renewal-journal.com/blog/2010/01/28/a-biblical-definition-of-sanctification/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;--using the WayBack Machine).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, this rings of Isreal being set aside as God's holy people. (As seen in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%207:6-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deut. 7:6-8&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leviticus 20:26&lt;/a&gt;)   Also, it seems to reverberate in the New Testament with Jesus' words in the gospel of John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 17:16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sanctification, in this sense, is to be set apart from the world--to be a different people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this original Latin word was actually translated from Greek.  It's not actually the source word.  The original Greek word is often translated into English as &quot;wash&quot; or &quot;cleanse&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This implies that we are to be washed of our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an excellent use of this in Ephisians 5:25-26.  The NIV translates this as &quot;cleanse&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%205:25-26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephisians 5:25-26 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave&#xA;  himself up for her &lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; to make her holy, &lt;em&gt;cleansing her by the&#xA;  washing with water through the word&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the original King James uses the word &quot;sanctify&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%205:25-26&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephisians 5:25-26 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;That he might sanctify and cleanse it&lt;/em&gt; with the washing of water by the word&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis added) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This cleansing from sin can also be seen in the Old Testamant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leviticus 16:30 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;30&lt;/strong&gt; For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to&#xA;  cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted, though, that the translation of &quot;sanctify&quot; in the Old Testament didn't suffer from this same duality of definition.  It's just an example of how God's holy people should be both &quot;set apart&quot; and &quot;cleansed&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is kind of a two-fold definition.  My &lt;a href=&quot;http://renewal-journal.com/blog/2010/01/28/a-biblical-definition-of-sanctification/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source article&lt;/a&gt; puts it well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;position&lt;/strong&gt; believers are &lt;em&gt;eternally set apart&lt;/em&gt; for God by redemption and are positionally, therefore, holy and righteous from the moment of believing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;experience&lt;/strong&gt; the believer &lt;em&gt;is being sanctified&lt;/em&gt; by the work of the Holy Spirit and scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis in the original)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T11:26:22.757" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T11:26:22.757" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2011-08-25T15:37:52.960" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll be the critic here :) I enjoy being a critic...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understanding that God expects us to show love for each other. &lt;strong&gt;In my opinion, when a Christian talks about their personal relationship with Jesus, they are basically saying that their salvation is between them and God and has nothing to do with other people.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When in reality the Bible makes it pretty clear to me that we will be judged based upon our love for one-another. This relates back to Jesus saying the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 7:9&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands&#xA;of God in order to observe your own traditions!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't find this personal relationship stuff in the Bible, thus it can only then be a tradition of man. And in fact, it does nullify the commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;We are commanded to love&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when you chalk up your Christianity to just a relationship between you and Christ, you nullify this commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T17:08:40.440" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="538" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="578" CreationDate="2011-08-25T15:40:41.613" Score="12" ViewCount="3722" Body="&lt;p&gt;A highly debated topic I know. There are hundreds of answers for this, but I would personally like to know what the Bible says about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If somebody was interested in being saved, what is my responsibility as a disciple of Christ to do?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2014-05-01T06:29:37.290" Title="How do you &quot;Convert&quot; somebody to Christianity?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-04-30T21:29:26.703" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="488" CreationDate="2011-08-25T15:48:07.920" Score="9" Body="&lt;h2&gt;YES, He did.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 3:19-20&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the&#xA;imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God&#xA;waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In&#xA;it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those disobedient spirits are obviously in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:40&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge&#xA;fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the&#xA;heart of the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are all kinds of verses that touch on Hell being deep inside the earth, and we know that inside the earth is molten sulfur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:31&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 he, foreseeing&#xA;this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul&#xA;was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His soul went to Hades but it was not left there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 4:9&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also&#xA;first descended into the lower parts of the earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also referring to Jesus first descending to the inner earth before ascending into Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T16:30:02.783" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="541" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="547" CreationDate="2011-08-25T16:24:38.867" Score="13" ViewCount="676" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Catholic understanding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-14T03:32:40.380" LastActivityDate="2020-03-15T00:18:10.217" Title="What do Catholics mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;real-presence&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="538" CreationDate="2011-08-25T16:26:27.630" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the Bible says a lot of things about this topic. First and most important of all:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:34&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so&#xA;  you must love one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I take this as the mental set up in order to convert someone to Christianity. You must love the brother you want to convert. I always try to avoid thinking that other one is wrong and that I must show him his errors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also try to think in terms of universality as it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 16:15&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He said to them, &quot;Go into all the world and preach the good news to&#xA;  all creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, I should always be ready to &quot;preach&quot; and to &quot;preach&quot; to all. No one knows when good advice will stay in someone's heart, I believe that we must plant the seed of the Word even when we are not going to see the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I've found most difficult is that grace cannot be infused without repentance. I think that part of converting someone is being able to encourage true repentance of sins, as it is written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 18:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just&#xA;  between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your&#xA;  brother over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death,&#xA;  he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin&#xA;  does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not&#xA;  saying that he should pray about that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 6:1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should&#xA;  restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that the most important thing of all is the example you give to your brothers. If they see how your life has changed since you accepted our Lord, if they can feel your enthusiasm and radiance when you preach, if you live according to what you preach to the limit of your strength... I believe you will convert anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But don't forget to pray for them (As it is said in 1 John 5:16) because prayer is the best of weapons. With prayer demons are cast away, remember?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this expansion of my question is better!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T15:08:55.087" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T15:08:55.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="488" CreationDate="2011-08-25T16:32:11.353" Score="30" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;!  Errr... &lt;strong&gt;NO!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three competing theories on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus went to Hell with the damned.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus went to paradise in Hades&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus went to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these beliefs are based on a few critical verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Verse 1&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18-20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;, we see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the&#xA;  imprisoned spirits— &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; to those who were disobedient long ago when God&#xA;  waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In&#xA;  it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This supports (pretty conclusively) beliefs 1 and 2 by stating that Jesus, in the spirit, went to speak to the &quot;imprisoned souls&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Verse 2&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:43&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Luke 23:43 &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:43&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Luke 23:43 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;43&lt;/strong&gt; And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou&#xA;  be with me in paradise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This pretty conclusively states that he went to &lt;strong&gt;paradise&lt;/strong&gt;.  This supports beliefs number 2 and 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Verse 3&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:46&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 23:46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:46&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 23:46 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;46&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I&#xA;  commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that Jesus definitely didn't go to hell, since he committed his spirit into the Father's hands.  Therefore, this is used to support beliefs 2 and 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vers 4&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse is often used to say that Jesus &quot;descended into hell&quot; or &quot;the depths&quot; or something (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the&#xA;  lower, earthly regions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However this doesn't really hold water since the reference point of the ascension means that he really descended to earth.  Also, the translation &quot;lower, earthly regions&quot; supports the idea that he &lt;em&gt;descended&lt;/em&gt; to Earth rather than other translations which state &quot;lower earthly regions&quot; (notice the lack of the comma, which is an invalid translation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse is often used to support belief #1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, which belief is correct?  This is something that is difficult to see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2013:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 13:12 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I&#xA;  know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should note another idea that supports belief #2 is the fact that there are two different words for &quot;Hell&quot;.  One is the fiery pit referred to in Revelations and one is the place called &quot;Hades&quot;.  Unfortunately, we don't have any good, solid definition for &quot;Hades&quot;, so some have interpreted that as the &quot;paradise&quot; that Jesus was referring to on the cross.  This interpretation is used to support that second belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/did_jesus_go_to_hell.htm&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; for much more information.      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="3525" LastEditDate="2012-11-28T14:15:29.487" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T14:15:29.487" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="544" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1080" CreationDate="2011-08-25T16:40:44.153" Score="12" ViewCount="2116" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I doubted on the authenticity of a &quot;message&quot;, must I automatically associate it with the enemy's attacks?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Message here refers to any information that might be related to God's Will in our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T18:38:52.627" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T18:38:52.627" Title="How to verify if a &quot;message from God&quot; came from God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;epistemology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T00:03:58.143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="248" CreationDate="2011-08-25T16:42:59.873" Score="39" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sabdiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/1082&quot;&gt;From this discussion&lt;/a&gt;, if &quot;three days and three nights&quot; is taken idiomatically, it means 3 days as the Jewish people of the day would have understood it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now lets take a look at Jesus time in the sepulchre:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Part of Friday = one dayspan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All of Saturday = one dayspan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Part of Sunday = one dayspan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Literally three days and three nights? No. Idiomatically three days&#xA;  and three nights (i.e., three dayspans), as uncleanness-periods were&#xA;  measured? Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T16:42:59.873" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="544" CreationDate="2011-08-25T16:46:05.787" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best Biblical advice on the matter comes from James 1: 5-6.  If God has a message that He wants you to hear and act on, He will be willing to verify the truth of it to you if you pray about it with faith and sincerity.  And likewise, if the message is false, He will manifest that to you as well, to keep you from being led astray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T16:46:05.787" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="541" CreationDate="2011-08-25T16:55:17.973" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;For my part, I can quote the inside flap of the Missal in the pew which says, Catholics believe that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ (not a symbol, but actual fact).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes on to say, the Catholic Church permits eastern Orthodox adherents to come to Catholic Mass, celebrate the Eucharist and receive communion. But Catholics are not permitted to go to their Mass unless necessary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other Christians are excluded from reception of the Eucharist, mainly because if they hold strong to their professed belief, they do not believe the Eucharist could be what Catholics say it is.  (They may believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but they most certainly don't believe that only a validly ordained Catholic Priest could consecrate the host).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All peoples of all religions are invited to come to Mass and participate in the Liturgy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Transubstantiation means that the Stuff of the bread and wine is totally replaced with the Body and Blood of Christ.  Catholics don't believe that the wine is His Blood and the bread is His Body, Catholics do believe that what can be seen after consecration is just plain old different, even though there is no perceptible change. In this view, Catholic and Orthodox are the same.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Orthodox Church it is common to perform intinction (dip the consecrated bread in the consecrated wine) - but it doesn't change the essential belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Catholic and Orthodox see each others priests consecrations as valid (on account of a common acceptance of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;apostolic succession&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07698a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Imposition of Hands&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2020-03-15T00:15:54.117" LastActivityDate="2020-03-15T00:15:54.117" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="482" CreationDate="2011-08-25T16:59:24.887" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that after the Crucifixion, when Mary Magdalene found Jesus in the garden, he told her that he had not yet ascended to his Father in Heaven.  This implies that Paradise, where he had been while he was dead, is not Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It gets even more interesting in 1 Peter chapter 3, where it says that while Jesus was dead, he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had been disobedient while in mortality.  So here we have mention of two intermediate &quot;holding places:&quot; Paradise for the righteous and the spirit prison (for lack of a better name) for the wicked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are not to be understood as the final dwelling places of the soul, commonly known as Heaven and Hell, because we will be sent to our final dwelling places after the Judgment, which is described as taking place after the Resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T16:59:24.887" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="549" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-25T17:01:21.817" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John the Apostle&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John was the son of Zebedee, and the brother of James, together called the &quot;sons of thunder.&quot; They originally were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. John was first a disciple of John the Baptist, until he was called by Jesus to follow him. During Jesus' time on earth Peter, James, and John appeared to be part of Jesus' inner circle regularly experiencing things that the other disciples did not. After Jesus' death John was part of the twelve disciples to be sent out as apostles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Writtings&lt;/strong&gt; The Gospel of John, the three letters of John and the book of revelation are all attributed to John the Apostle, though not without some debate as to whether or not he actually wrote them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;WikiPedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T17:50:01.930" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T17:50:01.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="550" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-25T17:01:21.817" Score="0" Body="John the disciple of Jesus, later John the Apostle" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T17:50:05.117" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T17:50:05.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="551" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="625" CreationDate="2011-08-25T17:33:59.380" Score="21" ViewCount="29524" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus is arrested and His captors take His clothes, they split them in four parts. However, His coat they did not split, as John records, &quot;the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.&quot; See &lt;strong&gt;John 19:23,24&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this seamless robe only significant because it led to the fulfillment of the scripture in Psalm 22? Is there a theological or doctrinal symbolic significance of having no seam? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't even know the process of weaving - how would you make a coat without seams? (I assume it has sleeves)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastActivityDate="2014-09-20T17:00:27.330" Title="Why (how) does Jesus' coat have no seam?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="553" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="567" CreationDate="2011-08-25T17:49:48.150" Score="17" ViewCount="2255" Body="&lt;p&gt;I come from the assumption that God &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; read our minds.  That we can pray silently and that God will hear our prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, can Satan hear our prayers as well?  Can he hear our other thoughts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask because if Satan can hear our thoughts, then he may learn ways to tempt us by listening to our prayers to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very related question is, can he give us thoughts of evil?  Whether or not he can read our minds, can he implant ideas into our minds?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T14:04:57.083" LastActivityDate="2014-01-09T02:32:25.850" Title="Can Satan read our minds?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2011-10-29T12:07:48.880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="554" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="568" CreationDate="2011-08-25T17:51:22.913" Score="15" ViewCount="2237" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that through faith alone I am saved.  But is repentance a requirement for that salvation as a part of my faith?  Is repentance a single act, or should it be continuous?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-16T18:53:21.800" LastActivityDate="2015-11-16T18:53:21.800" Title="Is repentance required for salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;repentance&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-11-16T18:28:36.290" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="203" CreationDate="2011-08-25T17:51:52.323" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I started attending Southern Baptist churches 9 months before I was born and have been a member for over 30 years.  Each of 5 congregations that I have belonged to recognized baptism &quot;of like faith and order&quot; by other denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In each church, when someone who was baptized as an infant in another denomination wanted to join, they would have to be rebaptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, anyone wanting to join who had been baptized by sprinkling would have to be baptized by immersion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For completeness, someone joining from a Church of Christ background would also have to be rebaptized even though they were baptized as a believer and by immersion, because their previous belief that baptism was a requirement for salvation was inconsistent with our belief that baptism is a testimony of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Southern Baptists are not part of the WCC, but they are a major denomination in the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T17:51:52.323" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="556" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="564" CreationDate="2011-08-25T17:55:18.113" Score="20" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several years ago, I took a class on the book of Revelation and learned about dispensationalism.  It made sense to me then, but I can't seem to wrap my head around it now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I hear the term from time to time when discussions come up regarding the end times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is dispensationalism?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Preferably in simple words.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; made my head hurt when trying to read that.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-04T09:59:38.493" LastActivityDate="2012-08-04T09:59:38.493" Title="What is dispensationalism?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="557" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-25T17:55:36.237" Score="9" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;If two people are saved, are they &quot;equally saved?&quot; I don't doubt that both people are completely forgiven, but is it possible for one Christian to be more revered by God than another Christian? Is being saved a simple yes/no kind of thing or are there tiers to it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is not to be confused with a question about being part of an elect or pre-destination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user77" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T02:47:34.527" Title="Are all who are saved, saved equally?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T00:06:08.407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="560" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="618" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:08:18.940" Score="13" ViewCount="1951" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are proud of our son for being able to write his name, and my wife was boasting that she helped him learn to write it.  Ultimately, we both know it's from God that he is able to learn this skill and my wife has the ability to teach him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that pride and boasting in ourselves is not good (see verses below), but as long as we ultimately acknowledge God in our pride and boasting, is it acceptable to do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%209:23-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 9:23–24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;23&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; This is what the LORD says:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    &#xA;      &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;       &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;or the strong boast of their strength &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;       &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;or the rich boast of their riches, &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    &lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;24&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; but let the one who boasts boast about this: &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;      &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; that they have the understanding to know me, &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;      &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; justice and righteousness on earth, &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;       &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for in these I delight,” &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;              &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; declares the LORD.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%204:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 4:6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;6&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    &#xA;      &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“God opposes the proud &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;     &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; but shows favor to the humble.”&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-09-19T01:49:58.410" Title="Are pride and boasting ever okay?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;book-of-james&gt;&lt;jeremiah&gt;&lt;boasting&gt;&lt;pride&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-20T08:01:35.063" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="557" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:08:28.613" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, many verses in the Bible don't refer to any kind of ranking, so I would think not. All of the verses in the famous &lt;em&gt;Roman Road&lt;/em&gt; apply to everyone and one even makes it clear that Jews and Gentiles are equivalent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:13&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  12 Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect. They have the same Lord, who gives generously to all who call on him. 13 For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, even though there ARE differing levels of rewards (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/462/are-there-multiple-levels-to-heaven&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), everyone is equally saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T18:08:28.613" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="306" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:11:26.757" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Augustinianism is not nearly as specific as 5-points, Dordt Calvinism. For instance, I don't know of anyplace where Augustine specifically addresses limited atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The largest difference is that Augustine held to single predestination (God chooses the elect, but does not actively reprobate anyone - he simply &quot;passes over&quot; them), while Calvin held to double predestination (God choose the elect to salvation, and the reprobate to damnation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;update&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some specific quotes of Augustine's, as they relate to some of the points of Calvinism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unconditional Election&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.xi.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On The Predestination of the Saints&lt;/em&gt;, ch. 11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there&#xA;  preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it&#xA;  should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing. But to the&#xA;  rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in&#xA;  recompense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.xvi.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On The Predestination of the Saints&lt;/em&gt;, ch. 16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s&#xA;  gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to&#xA;  resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some,&#xA;  while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought&#xA;  not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone&#xA;  into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even&#xA;  if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for&#xA;  finding fault with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Irresistable Grace&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter25.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Enchuridion&lt;/em&gt; ch. 25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Furthermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God&#xA;  cannot turn the evil wills of men—as he willeth, when he willeth, and&#xA;  where he willeth—toward the good? But, when he acteth, he acteth&#xA;  through mercy; when he doth not act, it is through justice. For, &quot;he&#xA;  hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom he willeth, he hardeneth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.xiii.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On The Predestination of the Saints&lt;/em&gt;, Ch. 13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by&#xA;  the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for&#xA;  the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perseverence of the Saints&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.xxxiii.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On The Predestination of the Saints&lt;/em&gt;, ch. 33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For all who are teachable of God come to the Son because they have&#xA;  heard and learned from the Father through the Son, who most clearly&#xA;  says, “Every one who has heard of the Father, and has learned, cometh&#xA;  unto me.” But of such as these none perishes,&#xA;  because “of all that the Father hath given Him, He will lose&#xA;  none.” Whoever, therefore, is of these does&#xA;  not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Single vs. Double Predestination&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Look at the quotes under &quot;unconditional election&quot; above. Augustine speaks passively about the non-elect. God witholds the grace of election, but is not actively reprobating. Contrast this with Calvin on reprobation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiii.html#_Rom_9_13_0_0&quot;&gt;Institutes III.xxii.11&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At last, he concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy,&#xA;  and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom. 9:18). You see how he refers both&#xA;  to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason&#xA;  for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases&#xA;  him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his&#xA;  will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditDate="2011-11-05T04:36:31.337" LastActivityDate="2011-11-05T04:36:31.337" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="41" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:16:08.870" Score="16" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The Fundamental Change&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is: How did Luther change from a Catholic theologian to a Protstant theologian? Or to highlight more the historical aspect: How did he change from a late-scholastic to a reformer? Or a last variation: How did the early Luther change to the &quot;old Luther&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads us to a certain happening, to a conversion-like radical change in his life. What I'm talking about is the so called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orlutheran.com/html/tower.html&quot;&gt;tower experience of Luther&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Luther &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; this experience is the Luther of the monastery-struggles. With increasing progress he can not find inner peace – neither by the sacramental means of grace nor by monastic pastoral care. In light of the coming angry justice of God, that he was taught, he despairs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Luther insists on trying to understand what that righteousness is. According to the doctrine of the &lt;strong&gt;Catholic Church&lt;/strong&gt; at that time, this righteousness must be understood as a &lt;em&gt;philosophical, formal and active&lt;/em&gt; righteousness. This means: God is righteous and punishes the sinner and unrighteous. Luther not only despairs, but even hates this doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that situation, the above-mentioned tower experience can take place, since Luther discovers, that &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/romans/1-17.htm&quot;&gt;Romans 1:17&lt;/a&gt;, doesn't only say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For therein is the righteousness of God revealed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But rather has to be read in its context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, &lt;strong&gt;The just shall live by faith.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes Luther understand: The righteousness of God is this righteousness, which lets the just live by &lt;em&gt;faith&lt;/em&gt; through &lt;em&gt;God's gift&lt;/em&gt;. According to that Luther builds his understanding of righteousness inspired by Paul: it's &lt;em&gt;passive&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;makes the sinner righteous by faith and not by any good work&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is, what changes Luther from a Catholic theologian to a Protestant theologian.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that point on, the Lutheran doctrine starts to grow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Against Sale of Indulgence&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He starts critisizing the sale of indulgences since they imply that righteousness can be reached by a good human work. According to Luther it can &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; by reached by faith in God, who makes the sinner righteous.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Against the Communion as a Sacrifice&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Luther the communion is a promise of God and not a sacrifice, like the Papacy has taught, as he says in his book &lt;em&gt;The Misuse of the Mass&lt;/em&gt; (1521):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sacrifice and promise are more apart from each other than east and west, rise and decline. A sacrifice is a work, that &lt;em&gt;we give God&lt;/em&gt;, whereas the promise is God's word, which &lt;em&gt;gives us&lt;/em&gt; God's grace and mercy. It is inconceivable how Gods promise could become a human sacrifice. [...] They &lt;em&gt;give&lt;/em&gt;, but Christ &lt;em&gt;promises&lt;/em&gt; the people. &#xA;  (WA 8, 512, 12 and 28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;And much more …&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against the Papacy &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against the free will (See one of his main works &quot;De servo arbitrio&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A final word …&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther was misused by some European principalities in the 16&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century to shrink the popes and the Kaiser's influence. Against Luther's will it came to a schism, building of the Lutheran church and other confessions of Protestantism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-04-24T19:19:58.717" LastActivityDate="2012-04-24T19:19:58.717" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="556" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:30:37.833" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dispensationalism basically suggests that at different ages (eras or dispensations) in human history, God has interacted with people in different ways, through various covenants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edenic&lt;/strong&gt; (innocence)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Antedeluvian&lt;/strong&gt;(consciousness - people did what they wanted)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Civil Government&lt;/strong&gt;(After the flood, the rainbow covenant was for all people)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Patriarchic&lt;/strong&gt; (Abraham and the particular family He called)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mosaic Law&lt;/strong&gt; (God makes a nation and puts his presence there)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Church Era&lt;/strong&gt; (The Holy Spirit dwells in His people)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Millenium/eternity&lt;/strong&gt;. (Rest)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that there are seven dispensations. A perfect week, and the last dispensation corresponds with Rest. In each of the dispensation, God institutes different systems of relating to His people. He walks in the garden with Adam, He makes a covenant with all of creation, then one man, then a nation. He then establishes a throne, then a new covenant in Jesus. Today, we interact with the Holy Spirit in a way that other men and women of God did not before Pentacost. Soon we will see Him face to face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Controversy around dispensationalism usually happens when dispensationalist take the different covenants and institutions of God and say that for each era, the people in that era &lt;em&gt;are saved&lt;/em&gt; through the system of that era. For example, a follower of God during the Mosaic covenant is saved through the law. However, Paul reminds us in Galations 3 that even Abraham was saved through faith. All of God's people are saved through faith in Him, always through His Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-15T02:52:17.163" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T02:52:17.163" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="560" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:44:45.767" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are different kinds of boasting. If you are boasting on a matter which you have achieved and have great pride about, I guess it's ok to boast. However, there are some boasts that is dangerous to have. Like &quot;I am more holy and good than others&quot; kind of boasting, or even going as far as saying that one does not need God. Those are kinds of boasting that God dislikes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T18:12:26.640" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T18:12:26.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="553" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:46:26.123" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there is any Biblical evidence of this. However, if we assume he can't, &lt;em&gt;directly&lt;/em&gt; (which I suspect) then I'm sure he can indirectly, through a combination of body language, experience of humans and knowledge of specific individuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say for example you look twice at an attractive member of the opposite sex - you don't need to read minds to have an educated guess what that person might be thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Btw, I assume the question is referring to demonic entities in general. The likelihood that Satan, who is not all knowing nor all present, is trying to figure out what you are thinking must be pretty low.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T18:46:26.123" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="554" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:47:55.437" Score="22" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Short Answer, YES; Long Answer, YES YES&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First we need to define what repentance is.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word in Greek is &lt;em&gt;Metanoeo&lt;/em&gt; which means: To change ones mind. The word repent in Hebrew is &lt;em&gt;Nacham&lt;/em&gt; which means to: to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repentance is a state of mind, of sorrow over your actions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that we understand the word's definition we need to understand the context that the word is used in. Here in the old testament is one verse, of many, that defines repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 18:30 NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your&#xA;own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your&#xA;offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repentance is to turn away from all of your offenses, to turn away from sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you can see that repentance is a mindful state of abhorrence to the things that you have done. The bible says that we need to prove this mindful state by our actions. Have a look:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 26:20 niv&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all&#xA;Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent&#xA;and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your turning away from sin is proven by what you do.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Repentance is: Having a changed mind that turns you from the things that you were once doing in order that you may do the opposite.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What does God say about Repentance?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are commanded to repent of our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 36:10 niv&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He makes them [his children] listen to correction and commands them to repent of&#xA;their evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 17:30 niv&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all&#xA;people everywhere to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What does Jesus say about Repentance?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see Jesus talking about the final judgement, he's giving us insight into what He will say and do on that day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:21-23&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom&#xA;of heaven, &lt;strong&gt;but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.&lt;/strong&gt; 22 Many&#xA;will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in&#xA;Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your&#xA;name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘&lt;strong&gt;I never knew you; depart&#xA;from Me, you who practice lawlessness!&lt;/strong&gt;’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that sin is lawlessness. Christ is literally saying that if you practice sin He will have nothing to do with you, you did not know Him and He did not know you. In this next verse you see Jesus commanding us to repent, He does this constantly throughout his testimony on this earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 4:17 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that time on Jesus began to preach, &amp;quot;Repent, for the kingdom of&#xA;heaven is near.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 3:3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the &amp;gt; forgiveness of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's interesting what Luke says here, a baptism of repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins. If we put this altogether with what else we have learned so far, we see that if we turn from our sins then God will be faithful and forgive us for those sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if this is true, then the opposite should also be true. &lt;strong&gt;If we continue to sin then we will go to Hell?&lt;/strong&gt; Let's see if what the Bible says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:26-27&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the&#xA;knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a&#xA;fearful expectation of judgment and of  raging fire that will consume&#xA;the enemies of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally God says that He stands FIRM on this very statement. He will not change His mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 2:19&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this&#xA;inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who&#xA;confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Assurance of salvation as it relates to repentance&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 1:6-76 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness [evil], we&#xA;lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light [love], as he&#xA;is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of&#xA;Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you continue to sin then the truth [Holy spirit, God, Jesus] is not in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 2:4-5 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The man who says, &amp;quot;I know him,&amp;quot; but does not do what he commands is a&#xA;liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's&#xA;love is truly made complete in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you say that you know God, but you continue to sin, not loving as you were commanded, then you are a liar and [Holy spirit, God, Jesus] is not in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Repentance is a struggle against the desires of your flesh&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 2:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance,&#xA;and that you are now doing more than you did at first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will not be perfect right away, you will go through a lot of discipline and correction from God, so that you may produce more and more fruit throughout the days of your life. Persevere in your repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:36&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need to persevere so that when you have done the&#xA;will of God, you will receive what he has promised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T18:47:55.437" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="570" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="576" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:48:49.770" Score="20" ViewCount="30928" Body="&lt;p&gt;Around the time I was born, my parents were going to a Lutheran church. As such, I was baptized as an infant. In most cases in the Bible, baptism is connected with receiving the Holy Spirit. If so, then that may explain why I don't remember when I &lt;em&gt;became&lt;/em&gt; a believer. However, there ARE verses such as those in Mark and Luke (below) that make a reference to believing as well, which I couldn't have done as a baby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 16:16&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Anyone who believes &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 3:3&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had &lt;em&gt;repented&lt;/em&gt; of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, I am considering being baptized again as an adult. After all, I can now say that I believe and that I have repented, but there is little or nothing in the Bible about being baptized twice. Also, infant baptism doesn't seem to have become widespread until at least a century after Christ (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism#History&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I consider myself non-denominational on the side of Wesleyan, but I'll take answers from any viewpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-06-25T07:57:39.593" Title="Is there any sense in being baptized as an adult after being baptized as an infant?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="571" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="634" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:53:44.693" Score="11" ViewCount="29039" Body="&lt;p&gt;Someone sins against us, e.g. says something unkind. They are completely unrepentant. That might be because they don't think it is a sin or they don't care (yes, I'm deliberately mentioning two different attitudes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should we forgive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And should we forget?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know Jesus forgave on the cross, saying, &quot;they don't know what they are doing.&quot; Was this attitude something we should always try to copy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T19:55:24.207" Title="When people sin against us but don't repent, should we forgive and forget?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="572" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="577" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:54:01.383" Score="15" ViewCount="7213" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 4&lt;/a&gt; has always bothered me. The story of God accepting Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's has led me to wonder: &lt;em&gt;How did they even know to sacrifice?&lt;/em&gt; Was this practice started by Adam? Or did God establish more of a law than just 'Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'? If God did establish further law then what was it and when did He establish it? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="78" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-12T01:35:29.827" LastActivityDate="2019-07-29T20:42:08.913" Title="How did Cain and Abel know to offer sacrifices before the Law of Moses?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;&lt;cain&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="573" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:54:42.147" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faith in the Christian religion is characterized by belief and trust in God, Jesus, and the Holy Trinity, as well as loyalty to the church and the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T04:44:11.227" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T04:44:11.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="574" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:54:42.147" Score="0" Body="Belief, trust, and loyalty towards God, Jesus, and the Christian religion." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T04:44:16.157" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T04:44:16.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2011-08-25T18:58:15.487" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;See Acts 19, where it makes it clear that if baptism is performed incorrectly or without the person having a correct understanding of what's going on, the baptism is invalid and needs to be done again.  This applies here as infants are incapable of understanding baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 19:3-5 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they&#xA;  said, Unto John's baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,&#xA;  saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should&#xA;  come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord&#xA;  Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T03:39:27.313" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T03:39:27.313" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:00:33.807" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you are describing is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism&quot;&gt;Anabaptism&lt;/a&gt;, or Re-baptism, and has been a well accepted practice, and even the basis of an entire movement shortly after the Protestant reformation.  Today, Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, and a few other smaller groups, that grew out of this original Anabaptist movement, still exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, these groups held to the belief of re-baptism as an adult.  Today, most people in these groups grow up in these groups, and therefore are not baptised as infants, so when they get baptized as an adult, it is no longer a re-baptism.  However, re-baptism of new members is still often (but not always) practiced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Mennonite myself (I'm a member of a church in the Mennonite Brethren denomination, and have in the past been a member of the General Conference Mennonite denomination--now called the Mennonite Church USA denomination), I can tell you that within these circles, the common approach is to leave the decision of whether to be re-baptized up to the individual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, re-baptism is not considered a requirement for a Catholic, Lutheran, or someone from another infant-baptism-believing denomination, when they join the Mennonite church.  But when the new member desires re-baptism, it is fully supported.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sure there are some Mennonite and other Anabaptist churches/denominations that do require re-baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some (even in modern day Anabaptist circles) who consider re-baptism to be completely ridiculous, along the same lines as re-marrying your spouse, if you realized you weren't truly in love when you got married, and have since fallen in love.  Whether that (either re-baptism, or re-marriage) is actually ridiculous, I would leave as a decision for the parties involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T19:29:20.750" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T19:29:20.750" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="572" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:04:04.763" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a very good question.  Clearly there are a lot of details missing from the earliest parts of the narrative.  Remember that Genesis is traditionally attributed to Moses, who led the Israelites out of Egypt and gave them the Law of Moses.  Storytellers tend to explain unfamiliar concepts and not waste time explaining familiar ones, so it's reasonable to infer that Adam and his family were under a commandment from God to offer sacrifices in a similar, if not identical, manner to the rules about sacrifices in the Law of Moses.  Beyond that, the Bible is unfortunately silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T19:04:04.763" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="538" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:11:57.830" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't wish to sound flippant but you don't convert anyone. God does. Having said that, our responsibility is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To explain the hope we have, and be ready to do this, with &lt;em&gt;gentleness and respect&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3v15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we can explain the theology, if people want to know. It comes down to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is perfect (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:4&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:48&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:48&lt;/a&gt;). That's His standard and His requirement to be with Him forever.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No human however is perfect (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is God become man (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 1:14&lt;/a&gt;). Therefore, He is a (and the only) perfect human.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus offers to &lt;em&gt;swap&lt;/em&gt; His righteousness for our sins (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:21&lt;/a&gt;). This is possible because He sacrificed Himself for us on the cross (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Philippians 2:8&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore we can immediately, on turning to Jesus, been declared perfect (forgiven) in the eyes of God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:43&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 10:43&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As one of my friends once said, summarising the whole Gospel in seven words, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;We don't reach Him, He reaches us.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T08:56:07.980" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T08:56:07.980" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="571" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:18:35.480" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will provide two answers here, although the core of the two answers I believe is the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hank Hannegraaff briefly answers this question &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/must-i-forgive-those-who-refuse-forgiveness-&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, and in much more detail other places, by saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Forgiveness is by definition a two-way street leading to the restoration of fellowship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, he argues that it is impossible to forgive someone who does not accept the forgiveness.  By extension, you cannot forgive someone who is dead, or with whom you do not communicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He further states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We must never suppose that our standard of forgiveness is higher than God’s standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly respect Hank, but I strongly disagree with him on this issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure where he gets his definition of &quot;forgiveness&quot; that is a two-way street, or requires acceptance.  Not even one of the definitions offered &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forgive&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; requires or even implies that the forgiven party must accept forgiveness as a condition for the forgiveness having been &quot;completed.&quot;  I am aware of no evidence--either Biblically, or in the English language, that &quot;forgiveness is a two-way street.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nut shell, I believe Hank is confusing the terms &quot;forgiveness&quot; and &quot;reconciliation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now my answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First an analogy: You buy something at the store on credit, then decide not to pay your bill. After months of annoying letters and phone calls, your contempt for the store grows, and you stop shopping at the store entirely. Eventually you move away, and leave no forwarding address. Years later, some kind soul at the store decides to forgive your debt. They send a letter to your old address saying &quot;Please don't pay us.&quot; You never receive the letter because you have moved away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was your debt forgiven? Clearly, yes. Was your relationship with the store restored? Clearly not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, we are called both to forgiveness and reconciliation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ offers us the same forgiveness as the store in my analogy. It is forgiveness extended to all humans. For various reasons, not all humans accept that forgiveness, and therefore reconciliation with Christ is not always experienced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, we are to forgive everyone who sins against us, and to whatever extent possible, seek out reconciliation with them. However, it is up to them whether they are willing to reconcile.  So while our forgiveness of others is always possible, our reconciliation with others is not always possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hank Hanegraaff and I agree on one point--all Christians should seek reconciliation. Our terminology differs. To Hank, reconciliation is necessary for forgiveness. In my view, they are two distinct things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, to your question of &quot;should we forget?&quot;--I don't believe there is any Biblical evidence that &quot;forgetting&quot; is part of forgiving.  I may forgive someone for stealing my TV set. It would however be &lt;em&gt;foolish&lt;/em&gt; to forget this incident, and therefore fail to put locks on my doors.  I may forgive someone who attacks me, but it would be foolish to forget the incident, and make myself vulnerable to future attack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgiveness is no longer holding a debt against someone.  Forgetfulness is stupid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T19:44:29.167" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T19:44:29.167" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="572" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:19:46.787" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A view that I osculate is that Abel knew the prophecy in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:15 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will put enmity    between you and the woman,    and between&#xA;  your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,    and you&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;will strike his heel&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He likely had given much thought to that promise and believed that blood would have to be shed, someone would have to be ‘bruised in the heel,’ so that mankind might be uplifted again to the state of perfection that Adam and Eve had enjoyed before their rebellion. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:4&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T19:19:46.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="571" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:23:48.120" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Sermon of the Mount, Jesus gives commandments on how enemies and those who have wronged someone should be treated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:23-26 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember&#xA;  that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there&#xA;  before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then&#xA;  come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser&#xA;  while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over&#xA;  to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26&#xA;  Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the&#xA;  last penny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:43-45 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate&#xA;  your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who&#xA;  persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of&#xA;  your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and&#xA;  the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take together these passage, as well as the assertion that we forgive in Our Father. I don't think Jesus really leaves room for His followers not to forgive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgetting is another matter completely. Forgiveness is a choice; forgetting cannot be willed to happen. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should forget what we forgive (though God is said to as much as forget our sins some times).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T19:23:48.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="553" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:28:33.433" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Lutheran pastor I know addressed this question for me years ago. He said that Satan cannot read or control the thoughts of Christians. He further said that Satan can implant thoughts into our mind, but it is up to us whether we allow our minds to linger upon the thought. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe he cited demon possession as an exception to this, but Christians are protected from demon possession by the presence of the Holy Spirit. &lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; believe Satan cannot read or control the thoughts of anyone without demon possession.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Wikis brings up a crucial point that Satan can gain considerable clues as to our thoughts based on our actions, expressions, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="78" LastEditorUserId="78" LastEditDate="2014-01-09T02:32:25.850" LastActivityDate="2014-01-09T02:32:25.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="585" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="591" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:32:01.837" Score="20" ViewCount="4978" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I've heard, God wants us to glorify him and give him praise, and he enjoys when we do this.  Does God need us to do this for some reason?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T18:40:00.693" LastActivityDate="2014-06-29T01:42:31.537" Title="Does God need our praise and glory?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-07-03T18:18:15.337" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="571" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:33:20.917" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are certain steps you can take in that situation. If the person who did wrong is one of the people at the church, you can take these three steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FIRST STEP: Go to the one who has wronged you, and tell them of what they have done. If they repent and ask for forgivness, you must forgive them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SECOND STEP: If the First step does not work, you can take few witness or your friends and go back and tell him/her again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THIRD STEP: If any of these steps do not work, you can take the matter to the church. Then, the church will take care of them in these ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Corinthians 5 verse 2-13: Banish the one who has sinned out of the community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thessalonians 3 verse 4-5: Do not acknologe the sinner. If necessary, tell him about his sins so he will feel shame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Titus 3 verse 10: If the sinner does not repent, treat him like you do not know him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T04:02:19.567" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T04:02:19.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="587" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="593" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:33:56.887" Score="13" ViewCount="13497" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2014:22-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:22-25&lt;/a&gt; confuses me. Verse 22 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tongues&lt;/strong&gt;, then, are a sign, not for believers but for &lt;strong&gt;unbelievers&lt;/strong&gt;; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, tongues is a sign for unbelievers. But then, verses 22-25 go on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in &lt;strong&gt;tongues&lt;/strong&gt;, and inquirers or &lt;strong&gt;unbelievers&lt;/strong&gt; come in, &lt;em&gt;will they not say that you are out of your mind?&lt;/em&gt; But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two parts seem in contradiction. And this also applies (in reverse) to Paul's comments on prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone explain this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-01T21:15:24.040" LastActivityDate="2017-03-14T17:52:54.083" Title="Are tongues a sign for believers or unbelievers?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;&lt;signs&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-02-10T14:53:16.057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="588" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="607" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:36:55.760" Score="16" ViewCount="3470" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems common in Christian communities (and in questions on this site) for people to say they have been saved.  What does someone mean by this when they say it?  How would I know that I have been saved and is there a particular moment of saving I should be able to identify?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-07-11T23:03:31.327" LastActivityDate="2014-07-11T23:04:15.173" Title="What does it mean to &quot;be saved&quot;" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T19:56:42.403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:38:04.433" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm Catholic, but I think this is sort of normal Christian advice, let me know if it doesn't make sense (logically at least).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon IX of the Seventh Session of Trent teaches that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the faithful that cannot be removed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If any one shall say that in&lt;/strong&gt; the three sacraments, &lt;strong&gt;Baptism&lt;/strong&gt;, to wit, Confirmation, and Orders, &lt;strong&gt;there is not imprinted on the soul&lt;/strong&gt; a character, that is, &lt;strong&gt;a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be &lt;em&gt;anathema&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, if for whatever reason you had reason to believe that your original baptism was not valid (not just insufficient), then you'd probably want to get baptized (you don't need to call it re-baptized) because baptism is &lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt; for salvation and justification of the sinner (ibid. Canon IV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If any one shall say that&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;[any or all of the] the sacraments&lt;/strong&gt; of the New Law &lt;strong&gt;are not necessary unto salvation,&lt;/strong&gt; but superfluous, &lt;strong&gt;and that without them,&lt;/strong&gt; and without the desire thereof, &lt;strong&gt;men&lt;/strong&gt;, through faith alone, &lt;strong&gt;obtain of God the grace of justification&lt;/strong&gt;; though all [the sacraments] be not necessary for every individual; &lt;strong&gt;let him be &lt;em&gt;anathema&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(the same logic is applied to Marriage and Annulment of Marriage)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the best advice is to follow the advice of your spiritual advisor. Don't go into baptism for the 'feeling' of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="13767" LastEditDate="2014-06-25T07:57:39.593" LastActivityDate="2014-06-25T07:57:39.593" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="590" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3396" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:39:38.533" Score="7" ViewCount="413" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why has God created us? The Almighty Lord does not need anyone; he does not need the angels, the heaven, or the earth. Are there any written words in the Bible that tell the reason?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T04:54:03.903" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T22:59:22.667" Title="Why has God created us?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-13T18:52:09.467" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="585" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:44:26.850" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a sense in which an attribute which is an action is not fully realized until it is enacted. Love isn't real without an object of affection. Forgiveness is ethereal until somebody has crossed you. Being a redeemer requires something to save.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would not go so far as to say there was an incompleteness in God that he needed to fill ... that he had a NEED of recognition, but in there is a sense in which his had to have creatures to reveal himself to in order for all the fullness of his being to be legitimized. His Glory is glorified as it is beheld, even if it is beyond the grasp of the beholder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe God is a full-on egoist in that his is fully self centered. Whatever he does he does for himself, and he expects/demands the same of others. Egoist can also have another connotation of being conceited and limited to caring about ones-self. I am not reffering to this. Being omnipotent it's impossible for God to have a delusional or exaggerated sense of self worth. If you leave out the definition of of megalomania that includes being delusional, I think it is safe to say that God is a megalomaniac in so-far as he is obsessed with his own power and importance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://For%20my%20own%20sake,%20for%20my%20own%20sake,%20I%20do%20it,%20for%20how%20should%20my%20name1%20be%20profaned?%20My%20glory%20I%20will%20not%20give%20to%20another.&quot;&gt;Isaiah 48:11 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  for how should my name1 be profaned?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  My glory I will not give to another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He desires and &lt;em&gt;will have&lt;/em&gt; all glory for himself. Satan tried to reach out and take this from Him, and was cast out of heaven. Man was deceived and wanted to be like God in a way that was not his place to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a man, or any other being, to be an egoist is sin. All created things were made by, for and in Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/colossians+1:19/&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:15-20 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For any of those created things to focus on themselves rather than on the one-preeminent-being is sin. Being ego-centric is rightly considered to be a bad attribute when applied to a human, but not when speaking of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Being ego-centric is OK when you are &lt;em&gt;The I Am&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. It is right for us to praise Him and serves a purpose of putting his Glory on display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Westminster Shorter Catechism states that &quot;&lt;em&gt;Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.&lt;/em&gt;&quot; If that question had been about the chief end of God I would say it would read &quot;&lt;em&gt;God's chief end is to glorify Himself, and to enjoy himself for ever.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T20:52:34.327" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T20:52:34.327" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="588" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:46:24.280" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Road is a good &amp;quot;path&amp;quot; of sorts for receiving salvation, but it is &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 10&lt;/a&gt; that is especially appropriate for this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:9-10&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:13&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;13 For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't say it any better than these verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-07-11T22:47:20.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="587" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:54:09.663" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The whole 14 chapter of 1 Corinthians is dedicated on how the Christian meeting must operate. It was good to talk in tongues in many cases but a problem may occured when &quot;everyone speaks in tongues&quot;. Paul recommend an organized way for the operation of Christian meetings. He also recommended that the speaking in tongues “be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns.” However, if no one could translate, then the person speaking in a tongue was to remain silent in the congregation, speaking to himself and to God. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:22-33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:22-33&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorDisplayName="user14" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T19:59:20.123" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T19:59:20.123" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="596" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="600" CreationDate="2011-08-25T19:56:30.517" Score="22" ViewCount="47214" Body="&lt;p&gt;John refers to himself, on at least four occasions, as &quot;the disciple whom Jesus loved&quot;? (John &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2013:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;13:23&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;19:26&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;21:7&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;21:20&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is this? It seems a bit arrogant, especially as Jesus loved the other disciples as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-16T19:07:32.153" LastActivityDate="2015-11-16T19:07:32.153" Title="Why did the apostle John call himself, &quot;the disciple whom Jesus loved&quot;?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;john-apostle&gt;&lt;the-beloved-disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:46:57.540" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="596" CreationDate="2011-08-25T20:05:45.587" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you read it in a way where &quot;The Disciple whom Jesus Loved&quot; = &quot;All Disciples whom Jesus Loves&quot; (meaning you and me) then a few of the last words of Jesus take on a much deeper meaning, especially for Catholics who strongly love the Blessed Virgin Mary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take for example the footnotes from the John 19:26-27 (NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This scene has been interpreted literally, of Jesus’ concern for his mother; and symbolically, e.g., in the light of the Cana story in Jn 2 (the presence of the mother of Jesus, the address woman, and the mention of the hour) and of the upper room in Jn 13 (the presence of the beloved disciple; the hour). Now that the hour has come (Jn 19:28), Mary (a symbol of the church?) is given a role as the mother of Christians (personified by the beloved disciple); or, as a representative of those seeking salvation, she is supported by the disciple who interprets Jesus’ revelation; or Jewish and Gentile Christianity (or Israel and the Christian community) are reconciled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Add on the idea that the woman in John's Revelation is Mary and the woman is also the Church (not the manmade stuff, just the mystical stuff) the disciple is us.  So we take Mary into our home, and we are loved by Jesus as His brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T14:42:26.337" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T14:42:26.337" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="596" CreationDate="2011-08-25T20:12:10.977" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the context of a 1st century pious writer it would have been interpreted as the exact opposite of arrogance, in fact. It is much like Jesus referring to himself as &quot;The Son of Man&quot; instead of saying 'I' or 'me'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T21:46:57.203" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T21:46:57.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="596" CreationDate="2011-08-25T20:24:48.047" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two ways to read that. Reading it as an arrogant statement is certainly one, but I think it can also be read exactly the opposite way -- as a sign of humility. Not wanting to name himself in a &quot;me, John, I was there see&quot; way, he simply refers to himself based on his identity in relation to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian I think this is great way to think of ourselves. Rather than thinking about myself and my accomplishments, if I think about my identity as the way Christ sees me -- that I am simply a recipient of undeserved love -- my life is more likely to reflect him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't have to be a boastful statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T11:55:34.473" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T11:55:34.473" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2011-08-25T20:37:16.303" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Allow me to adjust the question slightly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Is salvation based upon faith/belief alone?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to answer this question we need to better define the word Faith. I believe that in today's society faith has been dwindled down to just belief. So much so, that when people hear the word faith that they think it just means belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrew the word faith is &lt;em&gt;emuwn&lt;/em&gt; which means: trusting or to trust. In Greek faith translated is &lt;em&gt;Pistis&lt;/em&gt; which means: assurance, the character of one who can be relied on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faith is complete assurance and trust in a person&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible also defines faith in Hebrews 11 and binds this word to having faith in God even when we cannot see him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Salvation is better understood through election&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without election you have humans which are enemies of God, God haters and lovers of iniquity. Without election you have a human race that is dead in their sin. They cannot come to Christ because they neither know Him nor want to submit to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 11:43&lt;/strong&gt; nkjv&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice,&#xA;“Lazarus, come out!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can a dead man hear the command that Jesus has given? He couldn't have unless Jesus first gave that man life, so that he could hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without election we are a dead people that cannot hear the commands of God. God has elected a people before setting the foundations of this world. God says that HE calls people to Christ. Christ says that you have come to Him because you have been called by the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God has first given you life, so that you may hear&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the Father can call you, He must have first elected you and given you life so that you may hear His command and respond to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“For many are called, but few are chosen.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you see that God has imputed life into you because you have been elected by Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God has given you a command, so that you may respond&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has also given you a command so that you may respond to it. He has commanded you to believe in His son whom He has sent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:29&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you&#xA;believe in Him whom He sent.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;If you truly hear his command, you will respond with action!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understand that your actions are based upon your core beliefs. If you truly, truly believe (faith) and trust (faith) and have assurance (faith) in Jesus Christ, then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works&#xA;that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do,&#xA;because I go to My Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then most assuredly you will do the same WORKS that Christ does. Christ is working and if you believe in Christ, you too will WORK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What is work?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My children have a responsibility to obey me as a father, but they do not work for me. You as a child of God have a responsibility to SERVE God the Father, but no enemy of God could ever EARN childhood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The work that Jesus did was LOVE. This is what Jesus did every day of His life, was Love His Father and His neighbors, commanding everyone, everywhere to repent of their wickedness and follow His examples of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is&#xA;love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:7-8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone&#xA;who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does&#xA;not know God, for God is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:2-3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God&#xA;and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep&#xA;His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;You are commanded to Love, have you heard and obeyed?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 John 1:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the&#xA;commandment, that you have heard from the beginning, you should&#xA;walk in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;You see that faith means much more then just believing!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again! IF you truly believe in Jesus then you will obey him. As Jesus says here&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 18:37&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I&#xA;am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is&#xA;to testify to the truth. &lt;strong&gt;Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you heard Jesus and have you listened and obeyed his command? Even the demons believe that there is one God, but they do not listen to his commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Faith and LOVE is your Righteousness in Christ&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those people that refuse the command of God and refuse to Love other people are liars and do not know God. They will not be saved on the day of judgement. Jesus tells us that right here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew%2025:31-46&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Sheep and the Goats on the day of Judgement are judged based upon what they DID while in the flesh. Mathew 25:31-46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T20:37:16.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="603" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="646" CreationDate="2011-08-25T20:55:35.040" Score="12" ViewCount="851" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis&quot;&gt;Documentary Hypothesis&lt;/a&gt; assumes that the text of the Torah as&#xA;  preserved can be divided into identifiable sources that predate its&#xA;  compilations by centuries, the Jahwist (J) source being the oldest,&#xA;  dating to as early as the 10th century BCE, along with the Elohist&#xA;  (E), the Deuteronomist (D), and the Priestly source (P), dating to the&#xA;  8th to 6th centuries. The final compilation of the extant text is&#xA;  dated to either the 6th or 5th century BCE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What specific verses or parts of Pentateuch drive to the above hypothesis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T05:45:01.943" Title="What was the reasons for documentary hypothesis?" Tags="&lt;torah&gt;&lt;documentary-hypothesis&gt;&lt;moses&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="604" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="605" CreationDate="2011-08-25T21:03:45.103" Score="9" ViewCount="720" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you respond to the &quot;trivia&quot; or &quot;only God knows&quot; type questions which cannot be answered from the Bible or science (yet)?  This is more of a general question, such as do you blow them off or provide a generic &quot;Only God can truly know the answer to that, and I have faith that he does&quot; type answer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example (you don't have to answer these ;) ): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What was there before God created the universe?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can God make a rock He can't move?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-10T01:34:19.960" LastActivityDate="2015-02-10T16:02:59.157" Title="How do you answer the unanswerable questions?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-02-11T04:06:57.247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="604" CreationDate="2011-08-25T21:08:12.397" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;My general response is to redirect the questioner to what their real issue is - most often, these questions are asked as a way of attacking fringe aspects of Christianity, and the real issue the questioner has is at his heart: he's not yet saved, and is scared that God's not happy with him, so to make himself feel better, he posts strawman and fringe-topic questions to make the Christian he is speaking with look like an idiot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T21:08:12.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="604" CreationDate="2011-08-25T21:10:45.653" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of them contain logical fallacies, like the one you mentioned &quot;Can God make a rock He can't move?&quot; In other hand a valid &quot;trivia&quot; gives an opportunity to test your faith. Personally I wouldn't like to know that there is answer to any question. This give great meaning when I talk with other people, with honest motivation, about a topic which is not very clear with result to have great discussions and exchange of different opinions and views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-02-10T16:02:59.157" LastActivityDate="2015-02-10T16:02:59.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="588" CreationDate="2011-08-25T21:16:07.780" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order for the language of being &quot;saved&quot; to make sense one has to understand what we are being saved FROM. There has to be a before and after scenario. We are saved from the wrath of God. Those without faith in Christ are described as children of wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider this passage that uses the language of being &quot;saved&quot; including some details on our original position before God, the change that happens, and our final standing after salvation as well as the key operative bits on how that actually happens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Ephesians%202%3A3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:1-9 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; And you were dead in the trespasses and sins &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; not a result of works, so that no one may boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That wrath was meted out on Christ (Isaiah 53:5) and by bearing this punishment and separation from the Father, He claimed the right to make us Sons. He transferred us from the domain of darkness into the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/colossians+1%3A19/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:1-14 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt; May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, &lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Returning to the language of Ephesians above, &quot;being saved&quot; means being made alive, to be raised up with Christ. A few verses after the Colossians passage above it talks about how God reconciled us to Himself through Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To &quot;be saved&quot; thus means to be rescued from the wrath of God, made alive in Christ and reconciled to the Father. The pre-salvation scenario thus has us as an object of God's wrath, the post-salvation scenario has us as objects of His affections and co-heirs with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-04-25T02:33:06.923" LastActivityDate="2014-04-25T02:33:06.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="585" CreationDate="2011-08-25T21:17:47.047" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does God need us to give him glory? No. That would also imply he needs us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God wants us to give him glory because he is the only worthy one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2096:4-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Pslam 96:4-6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared&#xA;  above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the&#xA;  LORD made the heavens. Splendor and majesty are before him; strength&#xA;  and glory are in his sanctuary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we put other people/things before God, we sin because those are idols. God hates sin. God wants whats best for us so by wanting us to glorify him, he is wanting us to turn from our idols.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="157" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T21:17:47.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="609" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="612" CreationDate="2011-08-25T21:19:14.593" Score="33" ViewCount="10436" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do Mormons interpret the following passage and justify the addition of the Book of Mormon to the canon of scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:18-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this&#xA;  scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person&#xA;  the plagues described in this scroll. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; And if anyone takes words&#xA;  away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person&#xA;  any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are&#xA;  described in this scroll.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, this is interpreted as referring to the entire Bible and how we should not add to or remove from it. How is the LDS view on this different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user77" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-09-06T05:41:26.493" LastActivityDate="2014-09-13T15:12:01.387" Title="How do Mormons interpret the warning in Revelation about adding to the book?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="588" CreationDate="2011-08-25T21:30:09.867" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;After we all die and we all stand before Christ to be judged for what we have done, some people will fail the test and be sent to Hell. Others will have succeeded in this life, be declared righteous and right with God and go on to live with Christ for the rest of eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To be Saved by the blood of Christ means that you are free from the Wrath of God's Justice&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to be saved you must: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17/does-believing-in-jesus-christ-make-me-a-christian-or-do-i-have-to-do-something#601&quot;&gt;Does believing in Jesus Christ save me, or do I have to do something more?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To know that you are saved, look here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/518/how-can-i-be-sure-someone-i-know-is-going-to-heaven/524#524&quot;&gt;How can I be sure someone I know is going to Heaven?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2014-07-11T22:48:27.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="609" CreationDate="2011-08-25T21:43:06.900" Score="63" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your premise is invalid, as the warning in Revelation cannot be honestly interpreted as referring to anything beyond Revelation itself.  &quot;The Bible&quot; did not exist back then.  The very concept of &quot;the Bible&quot; did not even exist back then.  Each sacred writing was its own book; they weren't compiled into a collection until centuries later.  In addition, John wrote the Gospel of John &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; he wrote Revelation.  An overly-broad interpretation of the warning at the end of Revelation would invalidate the most beautiful and profoundly spiritual of the four Gospels!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T21:43:06.900" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="613" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-25T21:58:14.063" Score="21" ViewCount="63757" Body="&lt;p&gt;A strange passage in the beginning of Genesis contains the account of Noah who, after surviving the flood, planted a vineyard and made wine. After he drank the wine and became drunk one of his sons (Ham) sees him naked, tells his two brothers about it and they cover Noah up. After Noah wakes up he figures out what has gone on while he is asleep and curses Ham and his descendants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the passage: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:20-27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:20-27 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. &lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. &lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. &lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is meaning/significance of this passage? I have heard that it was used to justify slavery in the 17th and 18th century. I suspect that the Israelites used it to justify their invasion of Canaan in ancient times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there not a better, more spiritual or redemptive interpretation on this passage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2011-08-25T22:07:28.387" LastActivityDate="2018-11-15T04:36:18.333" Title="What is the significance of Noah, after the flood, getting drunk and cursing his son who saw him Naked?" Tags="&lt;wine&gt;&lt;alcohol&gt;&lt;noah&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-11-15T15:20:27.523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="614" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="628" CreationDate="2011-08-25T22:03:28.500" Score="7" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do all Christian Churches/Denominations have a common set of readings they read throughout the year and repeat on a 2-3 year cycle? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, how do pastors in churches without a common set of readings decide what they're going to talk about in any given week?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T19:29:47.173" Title="Reading the scripture in common worship" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="482" CreationDate="2011-08-25T22:06:54.257" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two places, Hades, and Hell. Hades (Abraham's bosom) was the holding place for people before Jesus' time and was where Jesus went to preach for the three days. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/where-was-Jesus.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 3:19 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;...he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2:31 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;31&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to &lt;b&gt;Hades&lt;/b&gt;, nor did his flesh see corruption.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, there is Biblical support for two places after death, &lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt; Hades was destroyed and now people go to either hell or heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T22:06:54.257" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="538" CreationDate="2011-08-25T22:10:07.827" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way that has worked for me quite well is to simply lead by example. Be a nice person, don't be afraid to mention God in daily conversation, don't preach and still show that you're able to have a good time without indulging in all the common sins (pre-marital sex, excessive drinking, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not ashamed to answer &quot;I went to church&quot; if people ask me what I did on Sunday, or why I wasn't at some party.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If people can see that you align yourself with Christ, but you're still someone that they want to be friends with, they will become more and more curious about how you manage this balance, because a lot of peoples visions of religion is of an archaic, you're-all-doomed, brim and hellfire organisation that hates gay people; or of traditional, stuffy church services filled with old slow hyms and elderly people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When people question how I can claim to be Christian and go to church when I clearly break the commandments &lt;em&gt;all the time&lt;/em&gt; (my particular weaknesses are coveting and doing stupid things), they tend to be respectful when I explain to them that these are the exact reasons &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; I go to Church, and that Church is a place for people who are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Small, off-topic note: The favourite church billboard sign I've ever seen said &quot;This church is NOT full of hypocrites; there is always room for one more&quot;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, church is probably one of the last places you want to take someone when you're courting them in their newly budding faith. Church can be a scary place for many reasons, and it's often the last frontier to be conquered. Things like a non-traditional praise service, or informal meetings, church outings (wine tasting and sporting activites are popular ones where I go to church), and getting them into the fold of the church community are great stepping stones, and church will usually follow as a natural progression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T22:10:07.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="560" CreationDate="2011-08-25T22:30:13.457" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;To supplement your verses on proper/inproper boasting, see Phil 3:4,7-8 and Gal 6:13,14.&#xA;To answer your question, I first quote &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In all your ways acknowledge Him, and he shall direct thy paths&#xA;   Prov. 3:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially if you honor God, (as you say &quot;as long as we ultimately acknowledge God&quot;) it is good to praise others, or to be satisfied in someone or something, even your own accomplishments. We mustn't, however honor God with our lips while our heart is far from Him. (Isaiah 29:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Lord saw what He had created and called it good. He was proud of His creation. He called it good. Even to Satan, God says, &quot;Have you seen my servant Job?&quot; and in Zeph 3:17 He rejoices over His people with singing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read the words of many righteous men in scriptures, they acknowledge what they have done with the Lord's help. David did no wrong in &lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 17:34-37&lt;/strong&gt; when he said to Saul&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a&#xA;  bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: And I went out after him, and&#xA;  smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose&#xA;  against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.&#xA;  Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised&#xA;  Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies&#xA;  of the living God. &lt;em&gt;David said moreover&lt;/em&gt;, The LORD that delivered me out&#xA;  of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will&#xA;  deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto&#xA;  David, Go, and the LORD be with thee.&#xA;  (emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, your wife can be proud to say with full assurance that she is teaching your son to read. I praise God with you that she has that ability!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T22:30:13.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="619" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1019" CreationDate="2011-08-25T22:39:59.567" Score="8" ViewCount="647" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the question's title states, some traditions believe that there must be some man between every woman and God, be it her husband or a priest or whoever. What is the Biblical support for this view, and are there any &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant#Main_denominational_families&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;major Protestant denominations&lt;/a&gt; that hold this view?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2013-03-10T04:34:00.583" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T20:52:05.777" Title="What traditions believe that a woman's relationship with God must go through some man and how do they support it from the Bible?" Tags="&lt;women&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="614" CreationDate="2011-08-25T23:02:57.110" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, certainly not. There are lots of available resources. Some denominations have guidelines and some reference materials exist for those who do not (such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revised Common Lectionary&lt;/a&gt;), but by no means do all traditions have set or repeated liturgies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it falls to me, I build each weeks liturgy based on passages that have some bearing on the sermon topic. Often these are passages that have a history of being used in liturgies, but that isn't a requirement. Each week takes time in research and prayer to decide what these will be. As church elders we settled on a general format of for the liturgy and the kind of readings to include, but each week varies some to accommodate the main passage. The sermon material follows an exegetical path through whatever book we happen to be working through. We do use fixed readings for confessions and Lord Supper, but improvise to work those readings into the overall flow of the service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T23:02:57.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="557" CreationDate="2011-08-25T23:19:44.740" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some relevant parables that Jesus gave to talk about the coming age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first one is the parable of the talents (see &lt;strong&gt;Luke 19&lt;/strong&gt;) where God gives to one faithful servant 5 cities, and to another servant 10 cities, according to their ability and effort on earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also relevant is the parable of the day-laborers (&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 20&lt;/strong&gt;), where all the laborers at every part of the day recieved the same wage, even those who had only been working for 1 hour. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think what these parables show is that though all of God's servants will endter the kingdom, it will be filled with many people of many stations and rankings. Jesus said to His twelve:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of&#xA;  Israel.  &lt;strong&gt;Matt. 19:28&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;strong&gt;Psalm 84:10&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in&#xA;  the tents of wickedness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in heaven, someone has to hold the door open. It is a role with less responsibilty, but it would be awesome to hold the door open for the Father! We would do well to consider how our actions today will affect our life to come, lest we merely avoid damnation and say as Job did, &quot;I am escaped with the skin of my teeth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T23:19:44.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="525" CreationDate="2011-08-26T00:10:56.690" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are a few verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&quot;For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ &lt;strong&gt;shall all be made alive.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; - 1 Corinthians 15:22&#xA;  (Translation: English Standard Version)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&quot;For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of &lt;strong&gt;all people&lt;/strong&gt;, especially of those who believe.&quot; - 1 Timothy 4:10&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses in which God expresses his intent to save everyone (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:17&quot;&gt;John 3:17&lt;/a&gt;) are also foundational. The idea is that if God wants to save everyone, he will eventually, though there may be some level of judgement/punishment in the meantime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know how to refute your passage, however. Hopefully a Universalist will appear and post a better answer than mine!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="159" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T00:10:56.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2011-08-26T00:39:00.870" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, Noah did not curse Ham, but his son, Canaan. Ham is the father of the African People, but Canaan was the father of the Canaanites who lived in Palestine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did God curse Canaan?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most probable explanation is that Noah forsaw the sinfulness which will spread thorugh him to Canaanites. Canaanites are the ones who did not seek peace treaty with Israel, and Canaanites were the ones of sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Noah did not curse Canaan, but instead in my opinion he made a prophecy about things that will come through Ham's sinful nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T00:39:00.870" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="551" CreationDate="2011-08-26T01:22:10.057" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is definitely theological significance to the seamless tunic of Jesus, &quot;woven from the top throughout.&quot;  Here is a linguistic argument for that significance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek for John 19:23 (Nestlé-Aland) says εκ την ανωθεν υψαντος δι ολου.  ek ten anothen hupsatos di holou   &quot;From the top woven by entirety&quot;, literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That same word ανωθεν (anothen, from the top) happens to show up in John 3:7, which says in the KJV, &quot;Marvel not that I said unto thee, &quot;Ye must be born again.&quot; The Greek phrase is δει υμας γεννηθηναι ανωθεν.  It-is-necessary you will-be-born again? top?.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus's garment is woven from the top in just one piece. Yet we must be born (again?) (from above?)  Is it possible that the seamless wholeness of the garment is a symbol of the wholeness conferred by baptism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T01:22:10.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="560" CreationDate="2011-08-26T01:25:31.060" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much like &quot;love,&quot; the word &quot;pride&quot; has more than one meaning which are very different from each other.  There are two (possibly more but two principal ones) in common use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pride the Deadly Sin is rooted in enmity, competition and self-centeredness.  Its mindset is always some variation on &quot;I am better than you.&quot;  It should not be necessary to go into detail as to why this attitude is directly opposed to Christian principles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Good pride,&quot; on the other hand, is a completely different thing, based on achievement and self-improvement.  It's mindset is &quot;I am better than I was yesterday.&quot;  It's a noble emotion, one that inspires us onward towards the loftiest of all the Gospel principles:  &quot;Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Boasting is generally inspired by the evil pride, and ought to be avoided.  However, it has a nobler counterpart, whose attitude, instead of &quot;look how awesome I am!&quot; is &quot;rejoice with me!&quot; One attempts to place oneself above others; the other brings people together as equals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-04-24T16:14:43.680" LastActivityDate="2012-04-24T16:14:43.680" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="614" CreationDate="2011-08-26T01:38:56.520" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;@Caleb pointed out that many church traditions use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/&quot;&gt;Revised Common Lectionary&lt;/a&gt; (RCL) as a guide.  It's a three year cycle of readings.  In most seasons of the church year, there's a reading from the Hebrew Bible, a Psalm, a reading from the epistles of the New Testament, and a Gospel reading appointed for each week.  In the time between Easter and Pentecost (seven weeks later) the Revised Common Lectionary offers a reading from the New Testament in place of the Hebrew Bible reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This follows a Jewish tradition of reading through the entire Torah (Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Deut) on either a one-year or three year cycle.  But the Jews read the whole Torah in that time, whereas the RCL chooses (dare I say &quot;cherrypicks?&quot;) the passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church has an appointed set of readings very similar to the RCL.  Many Reformation-heritage churches also use it, as do Orthodox churches.  In fact, there's a (fading) tradition of naming Sundays after the Gospel reading, such as Good Shepherd Sunday and Prodigal Son Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The RCL is not mandatory in the Lutheran and Episcopal traditions I am familiar with; the preacher may choose other scripture to read, usually when the preaching is following a multi-week theme.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But most Episcopal and Lutheran preachers follow the RCL.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somebody else will need to answer for other traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T01:38:56.520" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="631" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-26T02:42:38.703" Score="23" ViewCount="2984" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:31-46&lt;/a&gt; (a passage subtitled &amp;quot;The Sheep and the Goats&amp;quot; in the NIV), Jesus seems to be drawing a direct relationship between good works and salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 25:31-46 NIV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt; When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? &lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. &lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, &lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt; I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt; “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt; “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt; “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read this passage to say that those people who cared for those in need will have eternal life; those people who did not will have eternal punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does this passage reconcile with other passages in the New Testament that imply or directly state that salvation is through faith in Jesus (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2023:40-43&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 23:40-43&lt;/a&gt; -- the thief on the cross; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:8-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9&lt;/a&gt; -- salvation through faith, not works)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="156" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-07-12T13:55:14.483" Title="How does Matthew 25:31-46 (&quot;The Sheep and the Goats&quot;) reconcile with salvation by faith?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;works&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="557" CreationDate="2011-08-26T02:47:34.527" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203:11-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 3:11-15&lt;/a&gt; talks about rewards being given for good works performed above and beyond the &quot;foundation&quot; of salvation through faith in Jesus -- or alternatively, suffering loss as a consequence for lack of good works (despite still being saved).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 3:11-15 NIV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="156" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T02:47:34.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="633" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2426" CreationDate="2011-08-26T03:08:36.150" Score="25" ViewCount="34283" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to understand the importance the repetition of &amp;quot;begotten&amp;quot; in the Nicene creed. It states (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    the only Son of God,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    &lt;strong&gt;eternally begotten of the Father,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    God from God, Light from Light,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    true God from true God,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    &lt;strong&gt;begotten, not made,&lt;/strong&gt; one in Being with the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand the purpose of this: that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is wholly divine, and not a separate entity from the Father, but I'm not fully clear on the purpose of emphasizing the difference between begetting and making after stating it once already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the emphasis&lt;/a&gt; to combat early heresy that Jesus's divinity was adopted, not inherent:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is &amp;quot;begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father&amp;quot;, and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God &amp;quot;came to be from things that were not&amp;quot; and that he was &amp;quot;from another substance&amp;quot; than that of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this, I read the emphasis merely as a way to ensure people know that Jesus is one with the Father: &amp;quot;we really mean the same entity, not someone or something else.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, C.S. Lewis in &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; puts it thusly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't use the words &lt;em&gt;begetting&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;begotten&lt;/em&gt; much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read that as a limitation of God's power: that He is incapable of &lt;em&gt;creating&lt;/em&gt; something that is of Himself, He &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; beget it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; it be read? That it's merely a linguistic tool to emphasize Jesus is one with the Father, a limitation on God's power to create, or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-06-12T06:06:27.017" Title="How should I understand the emphasis on &quot;begotten, not made&quot; in the Nicene Creed?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;nicene-creed&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="571" CreationDate="2011-08-26T03:27:46.337" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends, are they a &lt;strong&gt;believer or an unbeliever&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Unbeliever&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Mark 11:25 ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you forgive an unbeliever you are acknowledging that they have wronged you but you will not try to seek justice yourself, you will leave that to God. In this way you may live peacefully not worrying about getting tit-for-tat in a never ending cycle with the other person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Believer&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Luke 17:3, ASV)&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first part of this verse Jesus issues a warning, what follows is important. Next comes two If/Then's which start out addressing the cause if your brother sins. Most people would agree that 'brother' here means fellow believer. So if a fellow believer sins your first action is to rebuke him not forgive him. From here there are two options. Either he repents and you forgive him (the second If/Then) or he doesn't repent. In the second cause we can look to the Gospel of Matthew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Matthew 18:15-17, ASV)&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once again this verse is addressing what to do when a brother (fellow believer) sins against you. If he hears you, not necessarily agrees with you, he is still your brother. Otherwise if he doesn't hear you then you gather witnesses. If he still doesn't hear you then he should not be in community with you like another believer since the both of you would not be able to live in harmony. And @ChoasGamer has some verses that also point that out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Jesus didn't say that he must repent first but it is in &lt;strong&gt;your&lt;/strong&gt; best interest to not forgive him till he repents otherwise you pass judgement on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should we forget?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not necessarily. If someone sins against you, especially someone close to you, it will take time for them to gain your trust and most people would agree that this is healthy. Also trying to forget something you know to be true can be unhealthy.  Forgiveness is stating your will that you will not try to get justice back from the other person it doesn't necessarily deal with your emotional response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just a brief answer on the topic. For more information &lt;a href=&quot;http://modeletics.blogspot.com/2008/08/luke-173.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;check out this site&lt;/a&gt; which I used to form this answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main difference between this approach and the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/586/30&quot;&gt;answer by Sonic&lt;/a&gt; is the Biblical consideration of NOT ignoring the person. 1st Corinthians 5:10 &lt;a href=&quot;http://modeletics.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-corinthians-5.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;shows that&lt;/a&gt; we remove the unbeliever from community SO THAT WE CAN fellowship with them in order to win them back to Christ!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T12:31:24.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="631" CreationDate="2011-08-26T03:43:22.593" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The thief on the cross is easily misunderstood if you conflate Paradise with Heaven, but the two are not the same.  (Compare John 20:17--Jesus, post-resurrection, has not yet been to Heaven, despite spending time in Paradise.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's writings on the subject also require a proper understanding of the context.  He was speaking to Jews who believed in the Law of Moses, that their strict obedience to the acts and works prescribed in the law would bring them salvation. The Law had become twisted in recent centuries by (sometimes) well-intentioned Rabbis seeking to build a fence about it, resulting in a convoluted system that bore a stronger resemblance to &quot;worship of the Law&quot; than to &quot;worship of God,&quot; and Peter was quite correct to call it a &quot;burden&quot; in Acts 15: 28 when he declared that Christians were not required to follow the vast majority of it anymore.  These are the &quot;works&quot; that Paul explains do not lead to salvation--salvation does not come by the works of the Law, but by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, who the Law was supposed to point people's minds to, before the burden of fences and traditions obscured the symbolism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to point out that Paul also warns in Galatians 6:7,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three points here: &quot;Be not deceived.&quot; This is something that people can make mistakes about.  &quot;God is not mocked.&quot;  Some people think they've found loopholes in the Gospel.  God doesn't like that.  &quot;Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.&quot;  What a person does comes back to them, using a familiar example of agriculture: if you plant wheat, you'll get wheat back, and not something else such as herbs or fruit trees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He continues in verses 9 and 10, making it even more clear exactly what he's talking about: &quot;well-doing&quot; (good deeds) and &quot;do[ing] good unto all men.&quot;  Paul's religion is certainly not one of passive faith!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In James chapter 2, James tries to help people &quot;be not deceived&quot; by offering a clarification aimed at established Christians, not Jews, that &quot;faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.&quot;  He's not referring to the works of the Law of Moses, but to actual acts of virtue and righteousness.  He points out the absurdity of believing that simply confessing that Christ is the Lord is enough by reminding readers that devils will freely admit as much (as they often did when Jesus or His apostles were getting ready to cast them out!) and it's ridiculous to think that &lt;em&gt;they&lt;/em&gt; are worthy of salvation!  And in verse 22 he brings the two concepts together:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken together, Paul teaches us that dead works of the Law are useless without faith, and James teaches us that a profession of faith, without actual works of righteousness is equally dead and useless.  It's a little like asking a rower whether his left or his right oar is more important; without either one, he'd just go around in circles and end up getting nowhere, but using them together, he can make progress towards his goal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in the &quot;be not deceived&quot; department, see 2 Peter 3, which contains a very specific warning about the writings of Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the things Paul writes are &quot;hard to be understood&quot; and &quot;unlearned and unstable&quot; people will interpret them (and other scriptures) &quot;unto their own destruction.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not simply an idle warning, either.  Taken to its logical conclusion, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone without regard to one's works leads to the hideous doctrine of Richard Hill, an 18th century Wesleyan theologian who taught that because salvation came through faith alone, &quot;God sees no sin in believers whatever sin they commit... adultery, incest and murder shall, upon the whole, make me holier on earth and merrier in heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's difficult to imagine this being compatible in any way with the Savior's strict teachings on adultery and murder in the Sermon on the Mount!  But here we have a stark example of exactly what Peter warned about: an unstable person wresting a bad interpretation of Paul's writings to his own destruction, and that of those who followed his theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T03:43:22.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="631" CreationDate="2011-08-26T03:49:04.067" Score="12" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Judged according to what they had done, echos...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Have a look at any of the other verses that talk about the day of Judgement, they all speak about what a person did in the flesh. They all mention &quot;works&quot; in some fashion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20:11-13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth&#xA;  and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I&#xA;  saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books&#xA;  were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. &lt;strong&gt;The&#xA;  dead were judged according to what they had done&lt;/strong&gt; as recorded in the&#xA;  books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades&#xA;  gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged&#xA;  according to what he had done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 2:5-11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are&#xA;  storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his&#xA;  righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “&lt;strong&gt;will repay each person&#xA;  according to what they have done&lt;/strong&gt;.” 7 To those who by persistence in&#xA;  doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal&#xA;  life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth&#xA;  and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be&#xA;  trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for&#xA;  the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for&#xA;  everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11&#xA;  For God does not show favoritism.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 5:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, &lt;strong&gt;that each&#xA;  one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  whether good or bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Not by Faith alone?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only place in the Bible that &quot;faith alone&quot; is mentioned, is here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:24&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not&#xA;  by faith alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The command to love.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew 25 is showing us that Jesus is literally judging people based upon whether or not they showed true love to one another. This is the purpose to life as the Bible defines it: That we are the first of all creation to bear a new kind of fruit, and that fruit is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:3&lt;/strong&gt; We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:21&lt;/strong&gt; Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The&#xA;  one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them&#xA;  and show myself to them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:15&lt;/strong&gt; “If you love me, keep my commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 12:31&lt;/strong&gt; The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no&#xA;  commandment greater than these.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:23&lt;/strong&gt; And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus&#xA;  Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:3&lt;/strong&gt; In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands&#xA;  are not burdensome,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 John 1:6&lt;/strong&gt; And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you&#xA;  have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 5:14&lt;/strong&gt; For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love&#xA;  your neighbor as yourself.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Daniel 9:4&lt;/strong&gt; I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: “Lord, the&#xA;  great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who&#xA;  love him and keep his commandments,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nehemiah 1:5&lt;/strong&gt; Then I said: “LORD, the God of heaven, the great and&#xA;  awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him&#xA;  and keep his commandments,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 5:10&lt;/strong&gt; but showing love to a thousand generations of&#xA;  those who love me and keep my commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Mans rejection of God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understand man kind. THEY HATE GOD, but more then hating God, THEY HATE EACH OTHER.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:29-30&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed&#xA;  and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and&#xA;  malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, &lt;strong&gt;God-haters&lt;/strong&gt;, insolent,&#xA;  arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey&#xA;  their parents;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eighty percent of Americans consider themselves to be saved Christians, through faith in Christ. However Jesus said that there is a way that seems right to a man that leads to death. There is a wide road and a wide gate that leads to hell and many follow it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the road that leads to life is small and the gate is small and few find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By saying FAITH ALONE a person is basically telling you that they have no responsibility to care for anybody else. Why would they? They've already been saved, &quot;so let Jesus worry about doing the work through you and you can go about living  your sinful, wicked ways.&quot; This is plain WRONG.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Study for yourself Faith + Love and you will find the path that Jesus is pointing to over and over again. IF you have not learned to love people, then you do not know who God is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;We know we have come to know God, IF...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4&#xA;  Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a&#xA;  liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his&#xA;  word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we&#xA;  know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus&#xA;  did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T03:49:04.067" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="113" CreationDate="2011-08-26T03:53:34.850" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the assurance I need I find in Titus 3:5-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but&#xA;  because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and&#xA;  renewal by the Holy Spirit, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Lutheran, I believe that the &quot;washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit&quot; is Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Holding this to be true, it explicitly states: &quot;the washing of rebirth ... by the Holy Spirit.&quot;  Ergo, being born of the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that I am Baptized, so I know that I am reborn of the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T03:53:34.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="631" CreationDate="2011-08-26T04:17:07.683" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Greek word for &quot;nations&quot; (ἔθνη) in verse 32 is the same as the word for &quot;gentiles&quot;, so a part of me wonders whether this is referring to judgment on people who never had a chance to hear the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 2:14-15 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Gentiles [Greek ἔθνη] do not have the Law; but whenever they do by instinct what the Law commands, they are their own law, even though they do not have the Law. Their conduct shows that what the Law commands is written in their hearts. Their consciences also show that this is true, since their thoughts sometimes accuse them and sometimes defend them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I wonder if Matthew 25 should be read in that light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then again, as Jonathan Byrd points out, all other N.T. passages dealing with judgment day also mention works. And no one can have a genuine faith without works. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/gnta/james/passage.aspx?q=james+2:14-17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 2:14-17&lt;/a&gt;) So maybe ἔθνη in Matthew 25 should be understood as referring to all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T04:24:21.483" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T04:24:21.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="640" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="681" CreationDate="2011-08-26T04:22:11.860" Score="17" ViewCount="1748" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most Catholics teach about honoring the saints, and mostly about &quot;venerating&quot; the Blessed Virgin Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though in my country (I'm from the Philippines), the line between honoring saints / Mary and the way we should honor the Lord is very thin, to most extreme cases, like some documentary I watched in TV, wherein one bedridden young woman &lt;strong&gt;prays to Mary  &lt;em&gt;to heal her from her sickness&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (got no link sorry).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the similarities both acts share? How must they differ (aside from the recipient of the act (God for Adoration, Saint / Mary for veneration))?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;OFF-TOPIC: My original question was: Why do Catholics &quot;venerate&quot; Mary and why do they give somewhat &quot;more emphasis&quot; on &quot;venerating her&quot; over directly praying to Jesus?&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;My original question might not suit here, though if you were compelled to answer me, thanks a bunch!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastEditorUserId="166" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T11:01:17.853" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T19:50:10.833" Title="How is &quot;Veneration&quot; similar or  different from &quot;Adoration&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="181" CreationDate="2011-08-26T04:31:58.927" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word Begotten in Hebrew is translated from many different Hebrew words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yalad&lt;/em&gt; which means: to bring forth;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mowledeth&lt;/em&gt; which means: birth, offspring, relatives, kindred&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yatsa&lt;/em&gt; which means: to come or go forth (with purpose or for result)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When referring to Jesus it is the Hebrew word &lt;em&gt;Monogenes&lt;/em&gt; which means: single of its kind, only used of sons or daughters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How did God bring forth Christ?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am by no means capable of portraying Jesus in a few paragraphs but I will give you the best explanation that I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is God's Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God says that from out of a mans mouth comes that which is in the deepest chambers of his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God is Love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Out of the deepest echoes of God's heart, filled with the most compassion and love in existence, He spoke Jesus to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, when you divide infinity, you still have infinity. All of the fullness of God was in Christ Jesus. Completely Man, and also completely God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can God be man and yet still be God? Because Jesus is God in the Flesh 100%, filled with God in the Spirit 100%. The two are one, but are each their own separate entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as God empties you of your spirit and fills you with His own. Jesus had no spirit of his own, because His spirit was God in His fullness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;Glory to you father, Glory, Glory forever and ever, Amen.&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T04:31:58.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="642" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="648" CreationDate="2011-08-26T05:00:23.747" Score="44" ViewCount="12126" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Creation account in Genesis 1 (and 2), God's work of Creation is famously split into 7 &quot;days&quot;. For example, the first &quot;day&quot; occurs in verse 5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:5&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  God called the light &quot;day&quot; and the darkness &quot;night.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen claims that &quot;day&quot; refers to a literal 24-hour period, which is supported by the fact that the same Hebrew word is used for both occurrences of &quot;day&quot; in that verse. I have also seen claims that &quot;day&quot; just refers to some long period of time, which is in agreement with scientific evidence. Hence, my question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Considering context and wording, what are the main interpretations of &quot;day&quot; in Genesis 1?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-27T16:36:04.440" LastActivityDate="2016-08-16T14:43:19.330" Title="What is an overview of the main interpretations of &quot;day&quot; in Genesis 1?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;word-study&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2011-08-26T05:16:02.567" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not familiar with the NLT, but in the KJV it says it a little bit differently: &quot;the evening and the morning were the first (second, third, etc) day.&quot;  And that's all it says.  It doesn't say that these days were 24 hours long.  It doesn't even say that they were all as long as each other.  In fact, you'd have some difficulty claiming that the first two &quot;days&quot; meant the same thing as they do to us today, because we mark days by the sun, which didn't show up until the &lt;em&gt;third&lt;/em&gt; day!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This isn't as absurd as it sounds, BTW, if you consider this an account of a vision of the Creation, shown from the perspective of an observer on the Earth's surface, and not out in space somewhere.  &quot;Out in space somewhere&quot; makes sense as a point of view to our generation, but certainly not to a nation of shepherds with no concept of science fiction!  From the surface, at the very beginning, it would take quite a while before the skies became clear enough to see the sun and the moon, even though some light would filter through long before then.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, the text doesn't go into much detail as to exactly what is meant.  Some people have suggested that the Earth was created on God's time, where &quot;one day is with the Lord as a thousand years&quot; (2 Peter 3: 8), which in turn could mean literally 1000 years, or simply &quot;an arbitrarily long period of time.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I find it more important to believe that God created the world, that he put us here upon it, and that he did it all for a reason, than to worry about the details of exactly how it was done or how long it took.  I figure if He were to try to explain how He did it to me, I'd end up completely lost within the first five minutes anyway!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T05:46:04.607" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T05:46:04.607" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="644" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="804" CreationDate="2011-08-26T05:16:47.340" Score="16" ViewCount="3849" Body="&lt;p&gt;I listen to &lt;em&gt;heavy music&lt;/em&gt; and I have had people tell me on numerous occasions the vocals sound like the voice of Satan, even when the band is clearly Christian (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Today_%28band%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;For Today&lt;/a&gt; if you are curious). Movies tend to portray Satan with a raspy, scary, loud voice, but what does the bible say? And conversely, what does the bible say about the voice of God? Here are some verses I found:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 19:19 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As the &lt;strong&gt;sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder&lt;/strong&gt;, Moses spoke and&#xA;  the voice of God answered him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 5:22 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a &lt;strong&gt;loud voice&lt;/strong&gt; to your&#xA;  whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Kings 19:12 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire.&#xA;  And after the fire came a &lt;strong&gt;gentle whisper&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 37:2-5 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Listen! Listen to the &lt;strong&gt;roar of his voice&lt;/strong&gt;, to the rumbling that comes&#xA;  from his mouth.  ... After that comes the sound of his roar; he&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;thunders with his majestic voice&lt;/strong&gt;.  When his voice resounds, he holds&#xA;  nothing back. &lt;strong&gt;God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways&lt;/strong&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I couldn't find anything on the voice of Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the voice of the devil ever described in the Word or is it something man made?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="157" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T18:41:37.963" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T18:41:37.963" Title="The voice of God vs the voice of Satan" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T00:30:24.830" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="181" CreationDate="2011-08-26T05:40:12.837" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Rev 22:13 (NIV), Our Lord says &quot;I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, He is the beginning and ending. Everything starts from him and ends with him, like a Circle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T22:31:05.850" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T22:31:05.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="603" CreationDate="2011-08-26T05:45:01.943" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The hypothesis was formed from several lines of evidence suggesting that more than one author had a hand in writing the Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stage 1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first stage was the recognition of certain passages that looked like additions from a later copyist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/deuteronomy/34.html&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 34&lt;/a&gt;, the account of Moses' death, including the phrase in verse 6, &quot;no one knows his burial place to this day.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/genesis/12-6.html&quot;&gt;Genesis 12:6&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;At that time the Canaanites were in the land.&quot; And they still were when Moses died.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/numbers/21-14.html&quot;&gt;Numbers 21:14&lt;/a&gt;, referring to &quot;the Book of the Wars of the Lord&quot;, which would have been written after the Torah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/numbers/12-3.html&quot;&gt;Numbers 12:3&lt;/a&gt;, stating, &quot;Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth,&quot; which would not have been true if he had written it himself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stage 2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second stage was the discovery of &quot;doublets&quot;, stories that appeared in two forms, with differing details that included one version using Elohim to refer to God, and the other version using YHWH. Examples include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creation: Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 (&quot;six days&quot;, Elohim); Genesis 2:4-25 (&quot;Garden of Eden&quot;, YHWH)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's covenant with Abraham: Genesis 15:1-21 (YWHW); Genesis 17:1-27 (Elohim, though it refers to YWHW in verse 1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abraham calls his wife his sister: Genesis 12:10-20 (YHWH); Genesis 20:1-18 (Elohim, though it uses YHWH in verse 18)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then there are doublets that don't fit the YWHW/Elohim pattern, but appear reflect two distinct traditions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God renames Jacob to Israel: Genesis 32:22-32 (after wrestling God at Peniel); Genesis 35:9-15 (at Bethel)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moses' father in law: Exodus 2:17-22 (Zipporah's father is Reuel); Exodus 18:1-6 (Zipporah's father is Jethro)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Covenant of the Ten Commandments: Exodus 34 (on Mount Sinai); Deuteronomy 5 (on Mount Horeb) &amp;mdash; Deuteronomy 5 is written as a reminder of the covenant from Exodus 34&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stage 3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third stage was the development of the documentary hypothesis itself. Scholars identified what they believed to be four sources, which they labeled J, E, P, and D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;J: these always used YHWH to refer to God (most of the scholars were German, and German J = English Y)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;E: these almost always used Elohim (or a related form, e.g. El Shaddai or El Elyon) to refer to God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;P: these passages referred to matters relating to Priests&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D: the book of Deuteronomy was considered to have its own distinct source&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T05:45:01.943" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2011-08-26T05:56:19.930" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;While it's true that the word for &quot;day&quot; denotes a word for a period of time that is &lt;em&gt;usually&lt;/em&gt; used for a 24 hour period, that same word is translated &quot;day&quot; in the following verse and can &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; be interpreted to describe a literal 24 hour period. The following understanding of the creation account sheds light on the understanding and intent of the writer of Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:9,11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:9,11 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: ...For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD&#xA;  blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word is yowm (Strong's H3117), and is used both in the creation account and this verse. Your question pertains to Genesis 1, but certainly Exodus informs our understanding of Biblical text, especially since Exodus is not written in poetic language. The context of the creation juxtaposed with the literal seven day week and the Sabbath means both are the same length of time, and both are one literal day. While some argue that Genesis is not intended to be taken literally, this is not the case with Exodus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-24T09:24:52.000" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T09:24:52.000" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2011-08-26T06:16:17.943" Score="35" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are three primary views that explain the meaning of the word &quot;day&quot; in Genesis 1. I will describe each one, and some of the purported Biblical evidence supporting each, &lt;em&gt;briefly&lt;/em&gt; here. After all, this is a topic on which &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; books have been written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;24-hour Day Theory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view, which is held by many &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Interpretation_of_Genesis&quot;&gt;Young Earth Creationists&lt;/a&gt; states that each of the 6 days were 24-hours long. Although they admit that the Sun was not created until the third day, this does not mean that the first two days could not have been 24-hours long, just the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small sample of Biblical evidence to support this theory includes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis 1 mentions the passing of &quot;morning&quot; and &quot;evening&quot;, this suggests literal days&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A study of other Biblical texts which use the phrase &quot;evening and morning&quot; (38 not counting Genesis 1) all refer to 24-hour days&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1, whenever attached to a number elsewhere in scripture, it refers to a 24-hour day&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1877775029&quot;&gt;Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross&lt;/a&gt; by Mark A Van Beber and Paul S. Taylor for more discussion on this, and relevant topics. &lt;em&gt;Note: not to be confused with the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0891097767&quot;&gt;Creation and Time&lt;/a&gt; by Hugh Ross, to which the aforementioned book is a rebuttal.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1000-year Day Theory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another view held by many Young Earth Creationists, it is essentially the same as the 24-hour Day Theory, with the exception that it acknowledges that God's perspective of time is different than the human perspective of time, in light of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:8&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the Genesis 1 days may refer to 1000-year time periods, rather than 24-hour time periods.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Day-Age Theory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view, a subset of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism&quot;&gt;Old Earth Creationism&lt;/a&gt;, is the view that the word &quot;day&quot; in Genesis 1 is metaphorical, and represents an arbitrary amount of time. Consistency with scientific evidence is frequently cited, but also often criticized by Young Earth Creationsts as taking too liberal a view of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small sample of Biblical evidence to support this view includes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1 has many meanings: (a) Some portion of the daylight (hours), (b) Sunrise to sunset, (c) Sunset to sunset, (d) A segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch) &lt;em&gt;[i.e. &quot;In my grandfather's day&quot; or &quot;in the day of the dinosaurs]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In rebuttal to point #2 above, the argument is made that none of these 38 mentions of &quot;evening and morning&quot; use the same Hebrew word for day (Yom), so drawing parallels is inappropriate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In rebuttal to point #3 above, the argument is made that when used elsewhere in the singular (as it is in Genesis 1) the Hebrew word (Yom) is always in reference to human activity, therefore drawing parallels to this usage in Genesis 1 in this case is also inappropriate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The fact that the seventh day never ended suggests that we are still living in the seventh day, which would clearly indicate that the seventh &quot;day&quot; is many years long.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Genesis 2 re-account of creation has Adam naming &quot;all the wild animals and all the birds&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:19-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:19-20 NIV&lt;/a&gt;) between his own creation and before Eve was created, thus all on the 6th day. This would be impossible in a 24-hour period (Young Earth creationists often argue that God may have given Adam supernatural speed or abilities, or that prior to the fall man naturally had greater abilities that might allow this task to be completed in one day.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1576833755&quot;&gt;A Matter of Days&lt;/a&gt; by Hugh Ross for additional discussion of these topics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2012-01-23T23:23:38.690" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T23:23:38.690" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="649" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-26T06:30:37.123" Score="22" ViewCount="1446" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 7 and 8 describes the flood of Noah, and says in part:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:18-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 7:18-21 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Common sense&quot; seems to suggest this must have been a local flood (otherwise, where did all that water go?) but the text seems to indicate that it covered the entire earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which was it, and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-06-16T23:47:39.023" LastActivityDate="2019-06-16T23:47:39.023" Title="Was the flood of Noah global or local?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2014-06-03T16:52:37.510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="651" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-26T06:59:34.097" Score="14" ViewCount="1080" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%201:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 1:16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like topaz, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2013:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 13:22&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Kings 2:1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do these, or any other verses in the Bible, refer to UFOs, in the sense of extra-terrestrial, or extra-dimensional vehicles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-01-18T21:07:00.227" LastActivityDate="2015-01-18T21:07:00.227" Title="Are these Bible verses referencing UFOs?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;extra-terrestrial-life&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T00:33:43.117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2011-08-26T07:04:36.117" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good example of personal relationship is how God spoke lip-to-ear and walked the Earth with His prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He went to visit Abraham and set down for lunch with him. He even told Abraham, face to face, the business He was about to accomplish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is written that Enoch walked with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="165" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T07:04:36.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="653" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="658" CreationDate="2011-08-26T07:38:03.380" Score="38" ViewCount="19603" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the title sums it up.  I'm a protestant Christian, and have many Catholic friends. When I visit their churches, is it permissible for me to participate in the Eucharist/Communion ceremony by partaking of the bread and wine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-11-14T11:50:50.457" LastActivityDate="2020-11-14T11:50:50.457" Title="As a protestant, may I participate in the Eucharist (Communion) when visiting a Catholic church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="651" CreationDate="2011-08-26T07:47:54.877" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on how UFO is being defined. Extra-terrestrial? God and his angels are also extra-terrestrial! But, I assume you are meaning life outside of Earth, but not including heavenly beings. In which case, then, these cases you mentioned aren't &quot;UFO's&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first example, the things being referred to can be seen in verse one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, as I [was] among the captives by the river of Chebar, [that] &lt;strong&gt;the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This where the wheels came from. It can be clearly seen that, the wheels, came from Heaven. Being so, it would have been a heavenly object, thus, disqualifying it from being a UFO. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second example given, was actually the angel of the Lord, not any extra-terrestrial object, thus, not a UFO either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A whirlwind is obviously not an extra-dimensional vehicle, as whirlwinds appear everyday. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What might pass of as an extra-dimensional vehicle, could be the &quot;chariots of fire, and the horses of fire&quot; that took Elijah up into heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, &lt;strong&gt;[there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire&lt;/strong&gt;, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it could be argued that, as these are coming from Heaven, these are still heavenly beings or objects, and thus, not UFOs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T07:47:54.877" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="655" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="918" CreationDate="2011-08-26T07:50:17.697" Score="19" ViewCount="12326" Body="&lt;p&gt;My home church has a policy of asking non-believers not to participate in communion, but never asks if a believer has yet been baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have visited or attended several other churches where communion is withheld from anyone who has not been baptized, regardless of whether or not they profess a faith in Christ. What is the Biblical basis for setting the bar at baptism as opposed to a profession of faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T12:15:53.930" LastActivityDate="2014-05-23T17:01:18.103" Title="What is the Biblical basis for withholding communion from believers who are unbaptized?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="653" CreationDate="2011-08-26T09:24:30.427" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only safe thing to do is to ask the priest beforehand. To willingly participate in someone else's communion when they would say &quot;no&quot; if they knew your story is offensive. As a result, the only option I see is to ask them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you explain your position, and that you are [insert denomination here], but visiting their congregation with your friends, is it OK if I participate in Communion. The biggest sticking point is likely to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;transubstantiation&lt;/a&gt;, and it's a biggie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they say no, they will most likely still permit you to receive a blessing, which everyone is entitled to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Sorry, I don't mean to say that you &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; offended them, but that is a risk you run when you don't ask&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastEditorUserId="98" LastEditDate="2017-02-23T13:16:00.207" LastActivityDate="2017-02-23T13:16:00.207" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="653" CreationDate="2011-08-26T09:49:17.940" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen some Catholics be very offended by Protestants taking the Eucharist. However, I also know many confessing Catholics who have no idea what transubstantiation is about and hold quite a Protestant view about Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being a Protestant raised in a Catholic family, this is a question I've asked myself. In general, I avoid taking it, but that can sometimes raise discussions if I don't take it like everyone else does during Christmas mass when visiting family for holidays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Farseeker's point of asking the priest is a good one, when it is possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T09:49:17.940" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="649" CreationDate="2011-08-26T09:51:23.657" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two views on this topic, the local and global. Those that support local flood theory have the following thesis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since the geographical perspective of ancient people was more limited&#xA;  than that of contemporary readers, it is possible that the flood,&#xA;  while universal from their viewpoint, did not cover the entire globe&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They base this view on verse Genesis 41:57 which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And &lt;strong&gt;all the world&lt;/strong&gt; came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the&#xA;  famine was severe everywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course &quot;all the world&quot; clearly refers to the eastern Mediterranean seaboard. So comparing this verse with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 8:9&lt;/a&gt; make some people to believe in a local flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the other hand the verse you mentioned says: &quot;The waters rose and &lt;strong&gt;covered&lt;/strong&gt; the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.&quot; Of course this creates a problem with the above theory.  If “the mountains of Ararat” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%208:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 8:4&lt;/a&gt;) refers to the range that includes present-day Mount Ararat in Turkey (elevation 16,854 feet or 5,137 m), the amount of water necessary to cover it would be at least 16,854 feet above sea level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A try to fit the literal explanation with logic is made by &quot;Insight on the Scriptures&quot;, there we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is believed that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and&#xA;  the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river&#xA;  channels extending far out under the oceans. It should also be noted&#xA;  that scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower&#xA;  than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from&#xA;  under the seas. As to the present situation, it is said that “there is&#xA;  ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above&#xA;  sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would&#xA;  cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National&#xA;  Geographic, January 1945, p. 105) So, after the floodwaters fell, but&#xA;  before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds and before&#xA;  the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to&#xA;  cover “all the tall mountains,” as the inspired record says&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case we can trust the biblical account for Noah and flood because Jesus, Luke, Ezra, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul &amp;amp; Peter mentioned this event or Noah as real person. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Crossway Bibles: The ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, IL : Crossway Bibles, 2008, S. 62&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Insight on the Scriputes, Vol.1 p. 610 Deluge&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditorDisplayName="user14" LastEditDate="2013-11-19T16:38:14.453" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T16:38:14.453" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="661" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="663" CreationDate="2011-08-26T10:06:25.783" Score="16" ViewCount="5652" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses&quot;&gt;95 Theses&lt;/a&gt;, Luther makes a stand against corruption in the Catholic church of that day. This resulted in events leading to the separation between the Catholic and Protestant churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems the theses are always referred to, but never actually read. Their content does make &lt;em&gt;me&lt;/em&gt; a bit uneasy, especially this part (the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html&quot;&gt;English translation&lt;/a&gt; used as source):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;71: Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luther.de/en/95th-lat.html&quot;&gt;original&lt;/a&gt; for those that know Latin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;71: Contra veniarum apostolicarum veritatem qui loquitur, sit ille anathema et maladictus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I have never heard even one Protestant speak positively about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence&quot;&gt;indulgences&lt;/a&gt;. What are Luther's motives in saying this (especially in such strong words), and did he later on change his mind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;: Thanks to Caleb's suggestion, I'll add some other relevant theses to provide context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;67: The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain. &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  68: They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;91: If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems quite clear to me that Luther didn't oppose indulgences &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, rather just the &lt;strong&gt;sale&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;abuse&lt;/strong&gt; of them and the &lt;strong&gt;exaggeration&lt;/strong&gt; of their power. If I'm wrong here, please provide some good references to show that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T13:29:04.167" LastActivityDate="2015-12-24T05:22:40.400" Title="Why did Luther curse those who oppose indulgences?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;indulgence&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="661" CreationDate="2011-08-26T10:15:32.160" Score="13" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You need to understand the vernacular of the day. Documentation took hard line tones that would never be acceptable in today's culture. Luther in particular used much stronger wording than even many of his contemporaries. This included every detail of his daily life, not just special documents such as his 95 Theses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luther said and believed some pretty wacky stuff that would make most Protestants uncomfortable. His ideas and actions were instrumental in setting off the Reformation but he by no means perfected it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luther did not entirely reject the idea of indulgences and was not trying to say the idea behind them was heretical, only that the church of his day had perverted them. There is quite a bit contrast laid out in his Theses between ideas that he goes out of his way not to denounce and implementations and implementors that he decries vehemently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Including some additional context might help here. In #67 and #68 Luther notes that indulgences promote some good, but that they are a very small grace in comparison God's grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;#67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  #68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you continue on through the next dozen or so points you can see that he isn't asking Rome to abolish the practice so much as to put it back in proper perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2008/11/martin-luthers-95-theses-in-latin-and-english/&quot;&gt;English source text&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T10:25:36.817" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T10:25:36.817" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="649" CreationDate="2011-08-26T10:22:45.807" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a global flood. There are several logical points why. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the gathering of all of the animals in the world would be useless, if the Flood was only a local flood. If the Flood was only local, not all of the animals would drown, and thus, bringing all the animals of the World on the ark would have been a useless act. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, if the Flood was only local, would all the people die? Obviously not. There'd be other people in the world that wouldn't have died besides Noah.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thirdly, if the Flood was only local, why did Noah have to spend 100 years to build a massive ark, when all he had to do, was merely pack his bags and walk to some other place on Earth?  Consequently, why build a massive 400 ft. Ark, if it's only a local flood?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly if the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the major problem that you posed, was that , where did all the water go? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:, Due to Caleb's statement, I looked it up, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/where-did-all-the-water-go&quot;&gt;found this:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even if the glaciers and ice caps melted, the oceans would only rise some 70 m (230 ft), yet Mt Everest rises 8,848m (29,029 ft) above sea level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It may surprise you to learn that we don’t need any more water to cover the earth. There is already enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The reason water doesn’t envelop the globe now is that the earth’s surface is uneven. The ocean basins sit low and the continents sit high. Some mountains are especially high and some ocean trenches are very deep, but these extremes do not account for a large percentage of the earth’s surface (see graph).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the earth’s surface were even, then there is enough water in the oceans to cover the globe to a depth of about 3 km.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This suggests that, during the Flood, the ocean floor moved vertically relative to the continents, something mentioned in the Bible (Psalm 104:8 NASB).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the first half, the pre-Flood ocean basins rose and the pre-Flood continents eroded down until water covered everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That does not mean the earth’s surface would have to be completely even. The ocean basins would have only had to rise enough for the water to cover everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then, in the second half of the Flood, other parts of the earth’s crust sank. The water flowed off our continents into new ocean basins. Movement of the earth’s crust at this time also pushed up new mountain ranges, including the one that is home to Mt Everest.1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So where did all the water go? It is in the ocean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for the reader, Psalm 104 : 6-8 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="135" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T13:43:09.403" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T13:43:09.403" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="661" CreationDate="2011-08-26T11:34:39.987" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did Luther curse those who &lt;strong&gt;oppose&lt;/strong&gt; indulgences? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, he did not curse those who opposed indulgences. He himself was against indulgences. He wrote the 95 theses because of the sale of indulgences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luther, aflame with indignation, challenged the sale of indulgences and demanded that the entire matter be discussed by the scholars of the University. He invited his academic colleagues to a public disputation to consider the Ninety-five Theses, or objections, which he had raised against the sale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What he said in his 71st thesis, was this &quot;Let those who oppose the truth about indulgences be anathema and accursed&quot;. He didn't say &quot;curse those who oppose indulgences,&quot; but rather &quot;curse those who are against the truth concerning indulgences.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;truth about indulgences&quot; was that you cannot buy your own salvation, and Luther was trying to state that. This can be seen in Ephesians 2 : 8,9. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the Catholic priests and pope were trying to oppose this, by saying that what Luther was teaching was false. Thus, Luther says, &quot;those who oppose the truth about indulgences be...cursed&quot;. He was cursing the priests and the pope!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? Isn't this rather strong? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider this. When you get someone who deceives others concerning their salvation, telling them that by paying money, they can save themselves, this person is basically sending the poor gullible people to their damnation. They are systematically dooming people with their sell of indulgences. Isn't that what Satan is actually doing? Trying to draw more people into Hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, Luther has good reason to curse those who try to oppose the truth of the indulgences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T11:34:39.987" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="667" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-26T12:56:51.447" Score="11" ViewCount="1872" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt; 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the main verses Christians refer to when talking about love. I think this verse is helpful in showing the practical forms love takes but does not define what love is. Now I know that the English word for love is not as descriptive as the Greek are but those definitions deal with how we love (agape - unconditional) or who we love (filio - brotherly love). I want a non-abstract definition of what love is, not how, who, or why, according to the Bible. I imagine that it should take a look at many verses since I don't know of just one that lays it out, but I would be glad to be shown wrong. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T23:57:25.380" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T23:57:25.380" Title="What is the non-abstract definition of love according to the Bible?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-12-27T10:20:09.470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="655" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:01:16.793" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that regulations and opinions on this are varied.  It depends (very strongly) on the denomination and what they believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Key Verse:&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll put this here for later reference:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011.27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:27-28 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an&#xA;unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood&#xA;of the Lord. &lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat&#xA;of the bread and drink from the cup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Protestantism&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One belief is that the communion should be something solely for people who are saved, committed Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As &lt;em&gt;The&lt;/em&gt; Rev. Gerald Schrankler said in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/oct04/should-the-non-baptized-receiv.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this thread&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we invite non-baptized, non-Christians, to communion we degrade it from a celebration of our redemption by Christ's death and resurrection to a fellowship snack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The background idea behind this is that Christians who are not baptized are not saved.  Since they're not saved, they should not be able to partake of the communion and are in violation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011.27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:27&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Another Protestant View&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Wesley, however, believed that communion was a &amp;quot;means of grace&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hcna.us/columns/baptism-communion.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;).  Therefore, it shouldn't be withheld from anyone--believers or non-believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea here is that if someone wants to come to communion, we should not prevent them.  It may very well be the means that leads to their salvation!  Clearly that's not something we would want to withhold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;In Catholicism&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics actually allow others to take part in the Holy Communion, with tight restrictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Guidelines for the Reception of Communion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For Catholics&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For Other Christians&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For Non-Christians&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur142.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Link to article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Summary&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, it seems that there are very widely dispersed opinions on this matter.  The &lt;strong&gt;biblical basis&lt;/strong&gt; as you asked, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011.27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:27-28&lt;/a&gt;.  However, the interpretation of that verse has lead to varied regulations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T13:32:09.653" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="667" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:17:02.180" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't give you a full definition, but an expression of the greatest possible love is given in John 15:13 (NASB):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This certainly does tell a lot about what love is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure a lot of definitions for love can be given by first coming up with the definition and then finding the Bible passages to support it. I'm not so sure that a strict definition of love can be found in the Bible, even by combining all the possible passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all, there are a lot of instances where Bible tells us to love (one another, our neighbors, our enemies...) and it always seems expected that we know what that means. Love is quite intuitive. The only passage which could suggest otherwise that I know of is Titus 2:3-4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even that seems to me rather to be about the difficulty of loving rather than not knowing how to love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T13:17:02.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="670" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="688" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:22:58.630" Score="10" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:8,9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:8,9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia's definition of &quot;Indulgence&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, it &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven....They are granted for specific good works and prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I don't understand is, if you are forgiven, what punishment does the Indulgence remove? If you are &quot;saved not by good works&quot;, how can good works remove that punishment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-10-24T04:42:14.897" LastActivityDate="2017-10-24T04:42:14.897" Title="If you are forgiven through the Grace of God, why do you need an Indulgence?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;bible&gt;&lt;indulgence&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="633" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:28:29.620" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard this on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.relevantradio.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Relevant Radio&lt;/a&gt; on the 'Go ask your father' show a few days ago, so I can't reference it much more than that, although the good &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rev-know-it-all.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reverend Know It All&lt;/a&gt; may have written an essay about it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Begotten is a word to confer inheritance.  In Jewish culture, this would only be done between Father's and their progeny.  That's why there's all those 'Begats' in the genealogies in the Gospels come from (and how 27 begats might equal 42 begats). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was 'Born' of the Virgin Mary, but 'Begotten' of the Father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that's not your question, but I just wanted to get it out of the way because Jesus wasn't Born of the Father in any natural way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Theology of the Body, often refers to the Transmission of Love between God the Father and God the Son as the Holy Spirit. That's the part that is important, it's a Trinitarian sort of creation (and a mystery).  The only thing we can say about the Trinity is that the Father proceeds the Son and the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit - but together are One God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word proceed in this context does not mean 'came before' because God exists outside of time.  That might be why 'eternally begotten' can't really be understood in any human context.  Jesus, the new Adam, wasn't made in the image and likeness of God.  He's the 'Us' who the original man was made like!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry I couldn't answer the question totally, hopefully we get some priests on here who can answer questions in a more concise way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T13:28:29.620" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="672" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:39:36.683" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Heaven in the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some specific descriptions of this Kingdom as given in the canon of scripture include— (this list is by no means comprehensive):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Seeing God as He is; sharing in his life&lt;/strong&gt; - 1 Jn 3:2; 1 Cor 13:12; Jn 17:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Peaceful Conditions on a New Earth&lt;/strong&gt; — Is. 2:2–4, 9:7, 11:6–9, 27:13, 32:17–18, 33:20–21, &#xA;60:17–18, Ez. 34:25–28, 37:26, Zech 9:10, Matt. 5:3–5, Rev. 21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eternal Rule by a Messiah–King&lt;/strong&gt; — Ps. 72, Jer 31:33–34, Zech 2:10–11, 8:3, 14:9, Matt 16:27, Rev 21:3–4 an heir of David, Is. 9:6–7, 11:1–5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bodily perfection — No hunger, thirst, death, or sickness; a pure language, etc.&lt;/strong&gt; – Is. 1:25, 4:4, 33:24, 35:5–6, 49:10, 65:20–24, Jer. 31:12–13, Ez. 34:29, 36:29–30, Micah 4:6–7, Zeph. 3:9–19, Matt 13:43&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ruined cities inhabited by people and flocks of sheep&lt;/strong&gt; — Is. 32:14, 61:4–5, Ez. 36:10,33–38, Amos 9:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_%28Christianity%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;WikiPedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T13:50:00.743" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T13:50:00.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="673" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:39:36.683" Score="0" Body="Heaven is a place of eternal life, in the presence of God." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="41" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:07:59.043" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:07:59.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="675" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:50:46.313" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more (Orthodox and other) books, divided, very broadly, into the Pentateuch (meaning &quot;five books&quot;), the historical books, the &quot;wisdom&quot; books and the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T10:59:29.233" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T10:59:29.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="676" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:50:46.313" Score="0" Body="The Old Testament is comprised of the writings of ancient Israel held sacred by both Jews and Christians." OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-07T11:38:59.283" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T11:38:59.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="677" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:51:43.440" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholicism encompasses all churches who hold to the Pope (in Rome) as being the earthly head of the church, along with the attendant structure, mores, values, and teachings thereof. This is mainly the church commonly called the Roman Catholic church, but also a number of much smaller Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further information can be found at the helpful &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for all questions about the organization of the Catholic church, its structures and practices and teachings specific to it, and about any other churches that fall within this definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2018-12-03T14:18:59.203" LastActivityDate="2018-12-03T14:18:59.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="678" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:51:43.440" Score="0" Body="The Catholic Church and its teachings and views on specific subjects." OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-10-03T13:27:38.440" LastActivityDate="2015-10-03T13:27:38.440" CommentCount="0" CommunityOwnedDate="2012-03-02T17:34:47.583" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="679" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:53:16.747" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestantism is technically used to describe churches and denominations arising from the Reformation, or descended from them. Use this tag for questions relating to general beliefs and practices of such churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-06T08:08:48.603" LastActivityDate="2016-01-06T08:08:48.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="680" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:53:16.747" Score="0" Body="Protestantism is a broad tradition referring to the churches which broke from the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th Century and those that descended from them." OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-06T08:08:38.050" LastActivityDate="2016-01-06T08:08:38.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="640" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:53:56.567" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, there are many different forms of prayer, the three involved here are intercessory prayer and prayers of blessing and prayers of praise (which is more of paying honor to the saints and God).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are three forms of paying homage to God and His Saints in heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Veneration&lt;/em&gt; is the honor given to the saintсѕ &lt;em&gt;аdoration&lt;/em&gt; is the honor given to God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Greek there's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;latria&lt;/a&gt; (worship/adoration due to God alone), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;dulia&lt;/a&gt; (veneration given to the saints) and hyperdulia (veneration given particularly to Our Lady).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference is, you really can't say that Our Lady did such and such for you, but traditionally Catholics understood what you were saying when you said such a thing.  We understood her to be the Mediatrix of All Graces without a dogma.  Bl. John Paul II took his motto, 'totus tuus Sum Maria', which is to say,  &quot;I'm all yours Mary&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that you can't really praise her enough, and all praise of her makes Our Lord happy, just like anything you say nice about my mom would make me happy!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You go overboard when you start calling her a Goddess, start having baptizing in her name, start really believing that it is her, not God who is working miracles.  But cults like that die out and are suppressed by the Church eventually. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in short, you can't say enough good things about Mary, you can't praise her enough and everything done for her is done for Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not essential to salvation, but 'to Jesus through Mary' is not a bad path for any Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2013-07-30T19:50:10.833" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T19:50:10.833" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="682" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:54:15.453" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions specifically about the teachings or life of Martin Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For questions about the denomination based on his teachings, use the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/lutheranism&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;lutheranism&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;lutheranism&lt;/a&gt; tag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2014-06-22T14:09:34.763" LastActivityDate="2014-06-22T14:09:34.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="683" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-26T13:54:15.453" Score="0" Body="Martin Luther, the 16th-century reformer of the Roman Catholic Church" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2014-06-22T14:09:45.073" LastActivityDate="2014-06-22T14:09:45.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="670" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:04:11.040" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for an answer from a Catholic perspective, I guess your answer may be found here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think the logic breaks down at &quot;Principle 5&quot; where John 20:23 seems to be misinterpreted (and is used as a basis for many Catholic doctrines).  Up to Principle 4, I kind of agree in the sense that if I sin against another -person- I need to make mends with this person.  I believe this is the nature of John 20:21-23.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, sinning against -God- is entirely different.  Only through Jesus do we have atonement.  Only through Jesus our sins are forgiven.  Principle 3 talks about David's sin and how God punished him by allowing his son to die.  However, realize that all the examples and references are from the Old Testament, before Israel had the grace of God through Jesus.  I see no New Testament references in regards to 'temporal punishments'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="121" LastEditorUserId="121" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T14:22:31.670" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T14:22:31.670" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="667" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:04:58.530" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The most overlooked topic ever&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love is exactly what the Bible is trying to teach us in my opinion. Too often do we use a very abstract meaning when throwing this word around, almost to the point that it has been completely deflated of it's value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God recognized this more than two thousand years ago, and thus, gave us this command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:18&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions&#xA;and in truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Love for God is Obedience&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first and the most important commandment is that you Love God. But how can we do that with an abstract definition of the word? We cannot. God has told us to love with actions and in truth. The following commands are how we show God that we love Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 John 1:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you&#xA;have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands&#xA;are not burdensome,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 John 1:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you&#xA;have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's no wonder why John was considered the Apostle of Love. How does this definition fall into place with the gospel? Love is the capstone of it all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 5:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any&#xA;value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through&#xA;love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Some evidence of the power of Love in this context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Love/Obedience Purifies us&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 1:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you&#xA;have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the&#xA;heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 16:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of&#xA;the LORD evil is avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T14:04:58.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="686" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:05:34.897" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Liberal Christianity is a movement based on the religious paradigms set during the Age of Enlightenment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is, more accurately, a set of hermeneutical beliefs that state that the Bible is not a collection of factual statements, but instead an anthology that records the authors' beliefs and feelings regarding God and society &lt;em&gt;at the time of its writing&lt;/em&gt;—within a historical or cultural context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;em&gt;liberal&lt;/em&gt; in Liberal Christianity indicates the willingness to interpret scripture without beginning from the standpoint of the inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church regulations and beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T16:50:30.407" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T16:50:30.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="687" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:05:34.897" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T14:05:34.897" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T14:05:34.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="670" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:23:04.477" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea is that we are not our own. If you read that in light of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by&#xA;  human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.&#xA;  Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and&#xA;  God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose&#xA;  the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to&#xA;  reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being&#xA;  might boast before God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://new.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 26-29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another reason why no one should boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 2:8-9 is more to admonish Pharisees who thought they were saved by adherence to the law and 1 Cor 26-29 is to admonish the rich and powerful who thought they were above the law.  Both use the same language and ought to be read in the same context, they can't really mean two different things or have different weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indulgences are just a way of understanding in a human way how our actions can reduce our temporal punishment in purgatory, or be applied to others to reduce their punishment.  If we need to pay to the last penny, then we need a method of payment that is possible for human beings to understand.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing we can agree on though, it is not necessary for salvation to receive indulgences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Selling indulgences is just plain old Simony, which is not something that should have ever been going on, although it clearly did. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T14:23:04.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="689" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="699" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:24:07.110" Score="13" ViewCount="16887" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic church you have communion, in which you receive the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine.  Why do bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, rather than other elements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="1787" LastEditDate="2015-02-22T21:07:06.017" LastActivityDate="2015-02-23T01:47:40.660" Title="Why did Jesus use bread to turn into His body?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:46:47.820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="689" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:29:17.820" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Communion with bread and wine is common in most Christian denominations, although it can mean different things to different denominations (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/541/what-do-different-denominations-mean-when-they-talk-about-the-real-presence-in-th&quot;&gt;What do Catholics mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bread and wine are from the Last Supper.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Last Supper is the final meal that, according to Christian belief, Jesus shared with his Twelve Apostles in Jerusalem before his crucifixion.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:22-25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; The Last Supper provides the scriptural basis for the Eucharist, also known as &quot;communion&quot; or &quot;the Lord's Supper&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26%3A17-35%2CMark+14%3A12-32%2CLuke+22%3A7-39%2CJohn+13-14%3A31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;accounts of the Last Supper in all 4 gospels&lt;/a&gt;.  (Although John's account of the Last Supper does not directly reference the bread as Christ's body or the blood as Christ's blood as does the other gospels.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:26-29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:26-29 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given&#xA;  thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and&#xA;  eat; this is my body.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to&#xA;  them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. &lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; This is my blood of&#xA;  the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of&#xA;  sins. &lt;strong&gt;29&lt;/strong&gt; I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from&#xA;  now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s&#xA;  kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:22-25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 14:22-25 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given&#xA;  thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it;&#xA;  this is my body.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to&#xA;  them, and they all drank from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for&#xA;  many,” he said to them. &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again&#xA;  from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the&#xA;  kingdom of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:19-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22:19-20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them,&#xA;  saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This&#xA;  cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T15:09:56.597" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="689" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:29:51.333" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the analogy that Jesus chose at his last supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26:26-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt 26:26-29 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given&#xA;  thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and&#xA;  eat; this is my body.”&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to&#xA;  them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. &lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; This is my blood of&#xA;  the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of&#xA;  sins. &lt;strong&gt;29&lt;/strong&gt; I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from&#xA;  now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s&#xA;  kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The communion that all believers partake in is based on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T14:29:51.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="693" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="698" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:35:28.980" Score="27" ViewCount="2002" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exactly as the title asks; where do Catholics get their Scriptural support for the idea of Purgatory? To be more specific, how I think of Purgatory (which may be incorrect) is that it's a temporary place of suffering before one goes on to Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-07T03:29:44.620" LastActivityDate="2014-11-07T03:29:44.620" Title="What is the Biblical support for Purgatory?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="694" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:46:56.090" Score="13" ViewCount="14928" Body="&lt;p&gt;The title pretty much asks the question, but let's set the stage like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Two people meet in High School, have sex, then eventually get married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the bible say about sex prior to marriage in general?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the bible say about sex prior to marriage, but leads to marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T15:48:32.587" LastActivityDate="2014-09-10T07:58:39.237" Title="What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-03-05T16:33:56.920" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="695" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="706" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:48:42.483" Score="29" ViewCount="282726" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see that our current-day Bibles only refer to God as LORD.  Can you explain to me what the different names of God are and what they mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T20:03:05.017" LastActivityDate="2015-03-23T02:18:11.870" Title="What are the different names of God in the Bible and what do they mean?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="11" ClosedDate="2013-11-18T01:26:05.050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="696" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="703" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:50:00.560" Score="24" ViewCount="1766" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do we have to tithe? Why does God need us to tithe? What are the results of &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; tithing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-08-11T06:58:59.493" LastActivityDate="2014-08-11T06:58:59.493" Title="What does the Bible say about tithing?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;tithe&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-02-19T14:38:49.003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="653" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:51:35.620" Score="37" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is: &quot;more than likely not&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics do allow others to take part in the Holy Communion, but they maintain tight restrictions on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Guidelines for the Reception of Communion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For Other Christians&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For Non-Christians&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur142.htm&quot;&gt;Link to article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when they say &quot;not fully united&quot;, Protestants generally fall into this category.  (I'm not sure where those other churches fall in the &quot;Protestant-Catholic&quot; spectrum, so I'm leaving this a bit generic.)  So, therefore, Protestants are not admitted to Holy Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T17:12:49.090" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T17:12:49.090" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="693" CreationDate="2011-08-26T14:58:33.793" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I understand, the idea behind Purgatory is that it is a place or state where sinful believers go before they are admitted to Heaven.  It is believed that it is possible for the living to pray for and atone for the sins of the dead so they may be admitted into Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This belief is mostly based on 2 Maccabees 39-46, which is a part of the Catholic bible.  (This book is considered &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;apocrypha&lt;/a&gt; for many denominations.  See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/443/what-is-the-origin-of-the-apocrypha&quot;&gt;What is the origin of the Catholic apocrypha?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Italics were added by me in the following)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Maccabees+12%3A39-46&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Maccabees 12:39-46 (DRA)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;39&lt;/strong&gt; And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the&#xA;  bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen,&#xA;  in the sepulchres of their fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;40&lt;/strong&gt; And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries&#xA;  of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that &#xA;  all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;41&lt;/strong&gt; Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had&#xA;  discovered the things that were hidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;42&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that&#xA;  the sin which had been committed might be forgotten.&lt;/em&gt; But the most&#xA;  valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin,&#xA;  forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of&#xA;  the sins of those that were slain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;43&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to&#xA;  Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead,&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;44&lt;/strong&gt; (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise &#xA;  again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the &#xA;  dead,)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;45&lt;/strong&gt; And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with&#xA;  godliness, had great grace laid up for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;46&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the&#xA;  dead, that they may be loosed from sins.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2014-09-23T00:43:40.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="689" CreationDate="2011-08-26T15:00:50.157" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;One aspect I don't see addressed in other posts is the significance of bread and wine. Yes, it's because that's what Jesus said to do, but he did not merely pick to random substances to represent himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I would argue that John 6 does not have sacramental overtones in mind per se, we do see Jesus using bread to represent himself. A couple of observations from that chapter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Bread&quot; is used as shorthand for the manna given in the wilderness (see v31), as pointed out by the people. Jesus uses this to show them that bread in general, and specifically the True Bread, is given by God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bread was the main sustenance of the day. Food in general is that without which you die. Yet the food itself is a living thing, so either it dies, or you do. In other words, bread in general and the True Bread must give up its life for you to have life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus uses bread to contrast something that must be done repeatedly (eating daily), with partaking in him, which is done once (v35). He pushes the metaphor then away from simply eating to security as children of God. Bread is taken repeatedly and still does not prevent death. Likewise, the Jews sacrifices were performed repeatedly, but do not ultimately remove sin. But with Jesus, his one act is sufficient to secure one's place in heaven with him by faith. (see, e.g., v39)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="44" LastEditDate="2015-02-23T01:47:40.660" LastActivityDate="2015-02-23T01:47:40.660" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="700" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="702" CreationDate="2011-08-26T15:11:35.097" Score="26" ViewCount="21348" Body="&lt;p&gt;Right before his crucifixion, Jesus was made to carry his cross and to wear a crown of thorns.  Why was he made to wear the crown of thorns?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-07T03:31:09.883" LastActivityDate="2017-12-16T23:32:54.997" Title="Why did Jesus wear the crown of thorns?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="695" CreationDate="2011-08-26T15:12:18.063" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may want to start by understanding where the usage of LORD came.  LORD is Jehovah, which is Yahweh (YHWH), the ineffable name of the God of Israel.  (This is why Jewish people sometimes write G-d.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Start with the Wikipedia article on Jehova. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah#Introduction_into_English&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah#Introduction_into_English&lt;/a&gt; section, it says &quot;The Authorized King James Bible also, which used Jehovah in a few places, most frequently gave 'the LORD' as the equivalent of the Tetragammaton.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The Tetragammaton is YHWH.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS:  My favorite name is 'the LORD of heavens armies' or 'the LORD of hosts'.   (The God of Israel is also nice as it is very specific.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="121" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T15:12:18.063" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="700" CreationDate="2011-08-26T15:14:57.653" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;He was being mocked for claiming that he was King of the Jews, so the soliders gave him a &quot;crown.&quot; And to make it worse, they made it of thorns, so it was extremely painful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T15:26:40.300" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T15:26:40.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="696" CreationDate="2011-08-26T15:26:05.713" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The strongest words with respect to the benefits of paying tithing, and the consequences for not doing so, can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+3%3A8-12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Malachi 3: 8-12&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have&#xA;  we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole&#xA;  nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be&#xA;  meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of&#xA;  hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out&#xA;  a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not&#xA;  destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her&#xA;  fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a&#xA;  delightsome land, saith the Lord of hosts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it appears that in the Christian period, just as with many other provisions of the Law, tithing was superseded by a higher law.  Towards the end of both Acts 2 and Acts 4 it explains that the Christian community had all things in common, consecrating not a tithe (tenth) of their belongings but instead everything they owned to the general welfare of the church in order to do away with poverty.  (It's worth noting that, while there are many obvious differences and incompatibilities between Christianity and communism, Karl Marx's famous &quot;from each according to his ability, to each according to his need&quot; was inspired by this part of Acts.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The location of the chapter break between Acts 4 and Acts 5 is unfortunate, as Acts 5 begins with a direct continuation of the discussion of the treatment of the consecration of property that Acts 4 ended with.  Here we see the story of a man and his wife who sold their property and gave part of the money to the Apostles, but kept back part of it to enrich themselves.  Apparently the Lord takes this very seriously, (Galatians 6: 7--God is not mocked,) as He struck both of them dead when they tried to reaffirm their lie when questioned by Peter!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not aware of any church today that practices this doctrine of total consecration, but the principle is still there.  At the very least, a true believer should be willing to give up all that he posesses if it is needed to further the Lord's cause.  (See Matthew 13: 44-46, Luke 18: 18-25, and especially Luke 18: 29-30 for the Savior's own words on this matter.  See also Luke 12: 34/Matthew 6: 21--&quot;Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.&quot;  The entire point of the Gospel is to improve our hearts and turn them towards heaven instead of the things of this world.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T15:34:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T15:34:48.803" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="649" CreationDate="2011-08-26T15:38:42.513" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to offer a different perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third century apologist Origen of Alexandria argued that certain Bible stories included &quot;stumbling blocks&quot; that made them impossible to take literally, in order to guide us to seek the spiritual meaning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[D]ivine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the intro­duction into the midst (of the narrative) of certain impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. &amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html#vi.v.v.i-p94&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Origen, &lt;em&gt;De Principiis&lt;/em&gt;, Book IV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under this approach, the Noah story has many such stumbling blocks. Besides questions of where the water went, there are matters of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how hard it would have to rain to produce that much water in 40 days (more than a foot per hour)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how animals from the other continents could have gotten to the ark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;where could Noah have gotten enough grain to feed them all&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how an olive tree could have survived under flood waters for half a year so the dove could find a leaf&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So with that in mind, I'd say that the text clearly defines it as a global flood, to lead us to a deeper meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T15:38:42.513" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="695" CreationDate="2011-08-26T15:41:05.770" Score="34" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Elohim&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:1 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;1&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pslam 19:1 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;1 &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;The heavens declare the glory of God, [Elohim]&#xA;   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name &amp;quot;Elohim&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;God&amp;quot; and is a reference to God's power and might.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Adonai&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Malachi  1:6 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;… And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts [Adonai] to you, O priests…&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adonai means &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; and refers to the Lordship of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah/Yahweh&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:4 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;4 &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,in the day that the LORD God [Jehovah-Yahweh] made the earth and the heavens.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Translated as &lt;em&gt;I am&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;I am who am&lt;/em&gt;, or &lt;em&gt;I am who I am&lt;/em&gt;, and indicates God's personal, eternal, non-contingent nature. It is given to Moses &lt;em&gt;by God&lt;/em&gt; when prompted for His name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Maccaddeshem&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 31:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;13&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, [Jehovah-Maccaddeshem] sanctify you.'&quot;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The Lord thy sanctifier&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Rohi&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 23:1 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;1&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;The LORD [Jehovah-Rohi] is my shepherd; I shall not want.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Shammah&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 48:35 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;35&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;The circumference of the city shall be 18,000 cubits. And the name of the city from that time on shall be, The LORD Is There. [Jehovah-Shammah]&quot;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The Lord who is present&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Rapha&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 15:26 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;…I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, your healer. [Jehovah-Rapha]&quot;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The Lord our healer&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Tsidkenu&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 23:6 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;6&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The Lord our righteousness&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Jireh&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 22:14 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;14&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;So Abraham called the name of that place, &quot;The LORD will provide&quot;; as it is said to this day, &quot;On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.&quot;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The Lord will provide&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Nissi&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 17:15 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;15&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The LORD Is My Banner,&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means the &amp;quot;The Lord is my banner&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Shalom&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 6:24 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;24&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;Then Gideon built an altar there to the LORD [Jehovah-Shalom] and called it, The LORD Is Peace. To this day it still stands at Ophrah, which belongs to the Abiezrites.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The Lord is peace&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Sabbaoth&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 6:1-3 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;3&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;And one called to another and said:&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;    &quot;Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!&quot;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means the &amp;quot;Lord of hosts&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jehovah-Gmolah&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 51:6 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;6&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;…Be not cut off in her punishment,  &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;   &amp;nbsp;      for this is the time of the LORD’s [Jehovah-Gmolah] vengeance,    &amp;nbsp;   &amp;nbsp;   &amp;nbsp;   the repayment he is rendering her.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The God of Recompense&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;El-Elyon&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 14:17-20 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;19&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;And he blessed him and said,&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &quot;Blessed be Abram by God Most High,&#xA;    &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Possessor[a] of heaven and earth;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;20&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;and blessed be God Most High,&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;who has delivered your enemies into your hand!&quot;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 14:14 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;14&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;I will make myself like the Most High.'&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The most high God&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;El-Roi&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 16:13 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;13&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; So she called the name of the LORD [El-Roi] who spoke to her, &quot;You are a God of seeing,&quot; for she said, &quot;Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.&quot;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The strong one who sees&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;El-Shaddai&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 17:1 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;1&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, &quot;I am God Almighty [El Shaddai]; walk before me, and be blameless,&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 91:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;1&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High [El-Shaddai]&#xA;   will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The God of the mountains&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;God Almighty&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;El-Olam&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 40:31 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;31&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;they shall mount up with wings like eagles;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;they shall run and not be weary;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;they shall walk and not faint.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Means &amp;quot;The everlasting God&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but here are some other names of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;•   ABBA.............................Romans 8:15&#xA;•   ADVOCATE.........................I John 2:1 (kjv)&#xA;•   ALMIGHTY.........................Genesis 17:1&#xA;•   ALPHA............................Revelation 22:13&#xA;•   AMEN.............................Revelation 3:14&#xA;•   ANCIENT OF DAYS..................Daniel 7:9&#xA;•   ANOINTED ONE.....................Psalm 2:2&#xA;•   APOSTLE..........................Hebrews 3:1&#xA;•   ARM OF THE LORD..................Isaiah 53:1&#xA;•   AUTHOR OF LIFE...................Acts 3:15&#xA;•   AUTHOR OF OUR FAITH..............Hebrews 12:2&#xA;&#xA;•   BEGINNING.........................Revelation 21:6&#xA;•   BLESSED &amp;amp; HOLY RULER..............1 Timothy 6:15&#xA;•   BRANCH............................Jeremiah 33:15&#xA;•   BREAD OF GOD......................John 6:33&#xA;•   BREAD OF LIFE.....................John 6:35&#xA;•   BRIDEGROOM........................Isaiah 62:56&#xA;•   BRIGHT MORNING STAR...............Revelation 22:16&#xA;&#xA;•   CHIEF SHEPHERD.....................1 Peter 5:4&#xA;•   CHOSEN ONE.........................Isaiah 42:1&#xA;•   CHRIST.............................Matthew 22:42&#xA;•   CHRIST OF GOD......................Luke 9:20&#xA;•   CHRIST THE LORD....................Luke 2:11&#xA;•   CHRIST, SON OF LIVING GOD..........Matthew 16:16&#xA;•   COMFORTER..........................John 14:26(kjv)&#xA;•   COMMANDER..........................Isaiah 55:4&#xA;•   CONSOLATION OF ISRAEL...............Luke 2:25&#xA;•   CONSUMING FIRE......................Deut. 4:24, Heb. 12:29&#xA;•   CORNERSTONE.........................Isaiah 28:16&#xA;•   COUNSELOR...........................Isaiah 9:6&#xA;•   CREATOR.............................1 Peter 4:19&#xA;&#xA;•   DELIVERER..............................Romans 11:26&#xA;•   DESIRED OF ALL NATIONS.................Haggai 2:7&#xA;•   DOOR...................................John 10:7(kjv)&#xA;&#xA;•   END....................................Revelation 21:6&#xA;•   ETERNAL GOD............................Deut. 33:27&#xA;•   EVERLASTING FATHER.....................Isaiah 9:6&#xA;&#xA;•   FAITHFUL &amp;amp; TRUE........................Revelation 19:11&#xA;•   FAITHFUL WITNESS.......................Revelation 1:5&#xA;•   FATHER.................................Matthew 6:9&#xA;•   FIRSTBORN (3)........................................Rom.8:29,Rev.1:5,Col.1:15&#xA;•   FIRSTFRUITS............................1 Cor.15:20-23&#xA;•   FOUNDATION.............................1 Cor. 3:11&#xA;•   FRIEND OF TAX COLLECTORS &amp;amp; SINNERS.....Matthew 11:19&#xA;&#xA;•   GENTLE WHISPER.........................1 Kings 19:12&#xA;•   GIFT OF GOD............................John 4:10&#xA;•   GLORY OF THE LORD......................Isaiah 40:5&#xA;•   GOD....................................Genesis 1:1&#xA;•   GOD ALMIGHTY...........................Genesis 17:1&#xA;•   GOD OVER ALL...........................Romans 9:5&#xA;•   GOD WHO SEES ME........................Genesis 16:13&#xA;•   GOOD SHEPHERD..........................John 10:11&#xA;•   GREAT HIGH PRIEST......................Hebrews 4:14&#xA;•   GREAT SHEPHERD.........................Hebrews 13:20&#xA;•   GUIDE..................................Psalm 48:14&#xA;&#xA;•   HEAD OF THE BODY.......................Colossians 1:18&#xA;•   HEAD OF THE CHURCH.....................Ephesians 5:23&#xA;•   HEIR OF ALL THINGS.....................Hebrews 1:2&#xA;•   HIGH PRIEST............................Hebrews 3:1&#xA;•   HIGH PRIEST FOREVER....................Hebrews 6:20&#xA;•   HOLY ONE...............................Acts 2:27&#xA;•   HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.....................Isaiah 49:7&#xA;•   HOLY SPIRIT............................John 15:26&#xA;•   HOPE...................................Titus 2:13&#xA;•   HORN OF SALVATION......................Luke 1:69&#xA;&#xA;•   I AM....................................Exodus 3:14, John 8:58&#xA;•   IMAGE OF GOD............................2 Cor. 4:4&#xA;•   IMAGE OF HIS PERSON.....................Hebrews 1:3 (kjv)&#xA;•   IMMANUEL................................Isaiah 7:14&#xA;&#xA;•   JEALOUS..............................Exodus 34:14 (kjv)&#xA;•   JEHOVAH..............................Psalm 83:18 (kjv)&#xA;•   JESUS................................Matthew 1:21&#xA;•   JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD................Romans 6:23&#xA;•   JUDGE................................Isaiah 33:22, Acts 10:42&#xA;&#xA;•   KING.................................Zechariah 9:9&#xA;•   KING ETERNAL.........................1 Timothy 1:17&#xA;•   KING OF KINGS........................1 Timothy 6:15&#xA;•   KING OF THE AGES.....................Revelation 15:3&#xA;&#xA;•   LAMB OF GOD...........................John 1:29&#xA;•   LAST ADAM.............................1 Cor. 15:45&#xA;•   LAWGIVER..............................Isaiah 33:22&#xA;•   LEADER................................Isaiah 55:4&#xA;•   LIFE..................................John 14:6&#xA;•   LIGHT OF THE WORLD....................John 8:12&#xA;•   LIKE AN EAGLE.........................Deut. 32:11&#xA;•   LILY OF THE VALLEYS...................Song 2:1&#xA;•   LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH............Revelation 5:5&#xA;•   LIVING STONE..........................1 Peter 2:4&#xA;•   LIVING WATER..........................John 4:10&#xA;•   LORD..................................John 13:13&#xA;•   LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.....................Revelation 15:3&#xA;•   LORD JESUS CHRIST.....................1 Cor. 15:57&#xA;•   LORD OF ALL...........................Acts 10:36&#xA;•   LORD OF GLORY ........................1 Cor. 2:8&#xA;•   LORD OF HOSTS.........................Haggai 1:5&#xA;•   LORD OF LORDS.........................1 Tim. 6:15&#xA;•   LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS..............Jeremiah 23:6&#xA;•   LOVE.................................1 John 4:8&#xA;&#xA;•   MAN OF SORROWS.........................Isaiah 53:3&#xA;•   MASTER..................................Luke 5:5&#xA;•   MEDIATOR................................1 Timothy 2:5&#xA;•   MERCIFUL GOD............................Jeremiah 3:12&#xA;•   MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT................Malachi 3:1&#xA;•   MESSIAH................................. John 4:25&#xA;•   MIGHTY GOD...............................Isaiah 9:6&#xA;•   MIGHTY ONE...............................Isaiah 60:16&#xA;&#xA;•   NAZARENE.................................Matthew 2:23&#xA;&#xA;•   OFFSPRING OF DAVID.......................Revelation 22:16&#xA;•   OMEGA....................................Revelation 22:13&#xA;•   ONLY BEGOTTEN SON........................John 1:18(kjv)&#xA;•   OUR PASSOVER LAMB........................1 Cor. 5:7&#xA;•   OUR PEACE................................Ephesians 2:14&#xA;&#xA;•   POTTER...................................Isaiah 64:8&#xA;•   POWER OF GOD.............................1 Cor. 1:24&#xA;•   PRINCE OF PEACE..........................Isaiah 9:6&#xA;•   PROPHET..................................Acts 3:22&#xA;•   PURIFIER.................................Malachi 3:3&#xA;&#xA;•   RABBONI (TEACHER)........................John 20:16&#xA;•   RADIANCE OF GOD'S GLORY..................Heb.1:3&#xA;•   REDEEMER.................................Job 19:25&#xA;•   REFINER'S FIRE...........................Malachi 3:2&#xA;•   RESURRECTION.............................John 11:25&#xA;•   RIGHTEOUS ONE............................1 John 2:1&#xA;•   ROCK.....................................1 Cor.10:4&#xA;•   ROOT OF DAVID............................Rev. 22:16&#xA;•   ROSE OF SHARON...........................Song 2:1&#xA;•   RULER OF GOD'S CREATION..................Rev. 3:14&#xA;•   RULER OVER KINGS OF EARTH................Rev 1:5&#xA;•   RULER OVER ISRAEL........................Micah 5:2&#xA;&#xA;•   SAVIOR...................................Luke 2:11&#xA;•   SCEPTER OUT OF ISRAEL....................Numbers 24:17&#xA;•   SEED.....................................Genesis 3:15&#xA;•   SERVANT..................................Isaiah 42:1&#xA;•   SHEPHERD OF OUR SOULS....................1Peter 2:25&#xA;•   SHIELD...................................Genesis 15:1&#xA;•   SON OF DAVID.............................Matthew 1:1&#xA;•   SON OF GOD...............................Matthew 27:54&#xA;•   SON OF MAN...............................Matthew 8:20&#xA;•   SON OF THE MOST HIGH.....................Luke 1:32&#xA;•   SOURCE...................................Hebrews 5:9&#xA;•   SPIRIT OF GOD............................Genesis 1:2&#xA;•   STAR OUT OF JACOB........................Numbers 24:17&#xA;•   STONE....................................1 Peter 2:8&#xA;•   SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.....................Malachi 4:2&#xA;&#xA;•   TEACHER...................................John 13:13&#xA;•   TRUE LIGHT................................John 1:9&#xA;•   TRUE WITNESS..............................Revelation 3:14&#xA;•   TRUTH.....................................John 14:6&#xA;&#xA;•   VINE......................................John 15:5&#xA;&#xA;•   WAY........................................John 14:6&#xA;•   WISDOM OF GOD..............................1 Cor. 1:24&#xA;•   WITNESS....................................Isaiah 55:4&#xA;•   WONDERFUL..................................Isaiah 9:6&#xA;•   WORD.......................................John 1:1&#xA;•   WORD OF GOD................................Revelation 19:13&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T15:29:43.260" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="696" CreationDate="2011-08-26T16:08:35.770" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I take 'why do we have to tithe' a step further:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By requiring the tithe, God is teaching us to put our trust in Him over money. So &lt;strong&gt;HAVE TO&lt;/strong&gt; should be &lt;strong&gt;WANT TO&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T16:08:35.770" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="708" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="709" CreationDate="2011-08-26T16:39:02.007" Score="9" ViewCount="2091" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that sex is always a sin, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus had to be born of a virgin and not by traditional conception in order to be sinless. Is this true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any viewpoint is welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-19T02:52:23.983" LastActivityDate="2020-06-19T02:52:23.983" Title="Is Mary's virginity evidence that sex is always sinful?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;&lt;sex-acts&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-09-14T15:27:12.483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="708" CreationDate="2011-08-26T16:43:45.307" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;No no, it's not a sin. It could easily become a sin if we pervert that which was intended for good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that Mary's virgin Birth was a testification to the Truth of Christ. Could you imagine what the Catholic church would have done with the Husband? &quot;Father of God&quot; I'm sure that would have been completely chaotic. Who's really the father of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, we know through the virgin birth that only God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T18:21:44.703" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:21:44.703" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="708" CreationDate="2011-08-26T16:50:59.243" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can take an idea in Mosaic Law. There we find statutes concerning &lt;em&gt;uncleanness&lt;/em&gt;, and not sin, ascribed to seminal emissions, menstruation, and childbirth. (Leviticus 12:1-6; 15:16-24). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 12:1-6&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who&#xA;  becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean&#xA;  for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On&#xA;  the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must&#xA;  wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not&#xA;  touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her&#xA;  purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two&#xA;  weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must&#xA;  wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 “‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over,&#xA;  she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a&#xA;  year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a&#xA;  sin offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 15:16-24&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 “‘When a man&#xA;  has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and&#xA;  he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has&#xA;  semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till&#xA;  evening. 18 When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is&#xA;  an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they&#xA;  will be unclean till evening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her&#xA;  monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will&#xA;  be unclean till evening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and&#xA;  anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed&#xA;  will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water,&#xA;  and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything&#xA;  she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe&#xA;  with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is&#xA;  the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they&#xA;  will be unclean till evening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 “‘If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow&#xA;  touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on&#xA;  will be unclean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These statuses reminded the Israelites not only of their hereditary sinfulness but also of the need for a ransom sacrifice to cover sins (in general) and restore human perfection. Of course, the animal sacrifices they offered did not accomplish that. (Hebrews 10:3, 4). The only way was Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:3&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T17:00:42.097" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T17:00:42.097" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="609" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:04:06.287" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree 100% with Mason Wheeler, but I thought I could clarify something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The LDS faith does not claim to add to the Bible. The only additions in their version of the King James Version of the Bible is in the form of footnotes and reference information. If that is considered adding to the Bible, then most denominations are guilty.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon is a separate book taking place on a different continent. The story originates in Jerusalem, but the majority (after the first 50 pages or so) takes place in Ancient America. Just as the title of the book says, it is &quot;Another Testament of Jesus Christ&quot;, not a modification of the words of the apostles. The teachings in the Book of Mormon coincide with the teachings of the Bible. The teachings of the Bible are upheld and clarified.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Doctrine and Covenants are a collection of writings (revelations) given to Joseph Smith. Many of the revelations reference passages in the Bible (Old and New Testaments).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Pearl of Great Price is two books (Moses and Abraham) that replace missing scripture that was lost. There is evidence of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible&quot;&gt;missing books&lt;/a&gt; in the Bible. None of the books mentioned coincide with the two books of the Pearl of Great Price, but it is reasonable that they are valid.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Other religions have additions to the doctrines of the Bible. As a simple example, the Trinity was never mentioned by name, but because of the Nicene Creed (and other edicts), it has become commonplace. Arguably, these creeds and edicts only serve to explain the Bible, but they are, nonetheless, taken by many to be equal to scripture. These were decided by man, not prophets of God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The root of the question is whether Joseph Smith was a prophet. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that no more prophets will be called, and it is quite common for a called prophet to have some written work attributed to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the basis for the addition of scripture to the LDS canon. The LDS believes in an open canon, so long as it is given by God to one of His prophets.  The majority of the Christian community, however, believe in a closed canon. That's the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the accepted canon of the LDS faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bible (KJV, with translations by Joseph Smith)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Book of Mormon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doctrine and Covenants (and Official Declarations, Articles of Faith, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pearl of Great Price&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The words of prophets (and apostles) since Joseph Smith are also considered authoritative. These come monthly in magazines and biannually during General Conferences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T23:54:55.690" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T23:54:55.690" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="712" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="977" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:05:39.020" Score="15" ViewCount="12359" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does the Bible praise the effects of alcohol? How are we supposed to know when those effects have gone too far? I am mostly confused about this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto&#xA;  those that be of heavy hearts. &lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 31:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phrases like &quot;&lt;em&gt;wine that maketh glad the heart of man&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 104:15&lt;/strong&gt;) and &quot;&lt;em&gt;wine, which cheereth God and man&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (&lt;strong&gt;Judges 9:13&lt;/strong&gt;) seem to suggest that it's okay to seek the light pre-drunkenness that comes with alcohol. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean it is okay to get tipsy? How far is too far in the merry-making associated with wine in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="66" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T07:42:59.653" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T06:28:35.973" Title="How far is too far when it comes to drinking alcohol?" Tags="&lt;alcohol&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-05-22T10:55:13.770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="712" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:18:08.573" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Common English Bible (CEB) uses an interesting word when translating &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%205:8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 5:8&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be &lt;strong&gt;clearheaded&lt;/strong&gt;. Keep alert. Your accuser, the devil, is on the prowl&#xA;  like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This and other verses exhort us to be prudent even with alcohol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more pertinent verses are the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:6-9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:6-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be&#xA;  awake and sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who&#xA;  get drunk, get drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let&#xA;  us be sober, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope&#xA;  of salvation as a helmet. 9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath&#xA;  but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 4:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you, &lt;em&gt;keep your head in all situations&lt;/em&gt;, endure hardship, do the&#xA;  work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T13:30:30.017" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T13:30:30.017" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="708" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:28:20.327" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This address the second part of your question about Jesus being a born of a virgin in-particular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Adam was the first man, and everyone has descended from him, and because he sinned against God, everyone in the world has 'guilt by association' in essence. Please forgive me if this is an over simplification of the doctrine of the original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary, being a virgin, excluded Jesus from among the descendants of Adam and therefore not only did he not commit any sin while alive, but does not have Adam's original sin on his head either. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact he was born of a virgin is not an necessarily any kind of indication that sex is sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T17:28:20.327" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="48" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:33:38.347" Score="36" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; difficult issue.  And for someone trapped in the chains of sexual sin, there is no easy answer - but there is the stunning grace of God for freedom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/109/sex-outside-of-marriage-is-a-sin-but-what-about-less-than-sex/229#229&quot;&gt;other answer&lt;/a&gt;, for context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I would answer this question by starting with another question: Do you&#xA;  want to live your life seeing how close you can get to sin without&#xA;  actually crossing the line?  Are you motivated to be the most Godly&#xA;  person you can be (growing daily in Christ-likeness), or are you&#xA;  motivated to &quot;get away with&quot; as much as possible without actually&#xA;  going to hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Masturbation is a tricky question, since the Bible says little, if anything, about it specifically, and there's no other person involved.  But we can turn my aforementioned question on ourselves and arrive at &quot;is masturbating bringing me closer to God, respecting myself as a person and expressing pure Godly love?&quot;  (We can also direct the original question toward the naked object of our lust; I never did meet anyone who masturbated more than very occasionally without external &quot;assistance&quot; of a pornographic nature either in their head or their other hand).  If we answer that honestly, the conclusion seems apparent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, people engage in masturbation far more for emotional reasons and self-esteem issues than for physical needs.  The need for affection can be met healthily in many other ways than this.  The myriad of sayings and research about the benefits of physical contact (like hugs) did not originate in a vacuum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FWIW, the teaching by which God brought me freedom after many years of chains was &lt;em&gt;The Theology of the Body&lt;/em&gt; from John Paul II&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; for which Christopher West has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1932631011&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;introductory book&lt;/a&gt; and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.giftfoundation.org/products_naked.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CD series&lt;/a&gt; which may be downloaded &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.giftfoundationdownloads.com/nakedwithoutshame.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;in MP3 format&lt;/a&gt; at no cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[*] Full disclosure: I am not a Catholic, rather a Pentecostal protestant.  But I have a tremendous respect for the Catholic church and her people and consider them to be fellow believers.  Experiencing a tremendous victory in my life via JP II's teaching contributes greatly to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pacerier asked: &quot;&lt;em&gt;When it comes to God's view of sin, white is white and black is black. There's no gray areas. What I'm trying to say is that there's no such thing as being close to crossing the line. You either cross or you don't.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not that simple.  Based on what the bible says, engaging in sexual intercourse when unmarried seems to me to be clearly a sin, while kissing one's girlfriend seems equally clearly not, although refraining from kissing until marriage may be even better.  Somewhere in between there is the &quot;line&quot;.  Is masturbation a sin?  Some would argue &quot;yes&quot;, some &quot;no&quot;, and some &quot;it depends on the heart attitude and motivation&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point is that regardless of the answer, it is far better to desire to be like Christ, and have an attitude that avoids &quot;all appearance of evil&quot;.  The question becomes, not &quot;what action is &lt;em&gt;permissible&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, but rather &quot;what action is &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As St. Paul said, &quot;not all things are beneficial&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; “I have the right to do anything,” you say — but &lt;strong&gt;not everything is beneficial&lt;/strong&gt;. “I have the right to do anything” — but &lt;strong&gt;I will not be mastered by anything&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18 Flee from sexual immorality&lt;/strong&gt;. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; you were bought at a price. &lt;strong&gt;Therefore honor God with your bodies&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 6:12-18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For myself, personally, being free and remaining far away for the line of sexual immorality seems better than seeking to get as close to that line as I can.  Thus for me, having received real victory over masturbation such that it's simply a non-issue in my life, I have no desire to return to that bondage, even if it could be somehow done without sinning.  Other people may come to a different place, and I don't have a problem with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T21:09:18.213" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="102" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:35:35.873" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The new Jerusalem that comes from heaven in Rev 19 is &quot;prepared &lt;em&gt;as&lt;/em&gt; a bride adorned for her husband.&quot; (emphasis added) However, I would understand why some might think that Jerusalem is Christ's bride. In the Old Testament, Israel (or Judah or Jerusalem) is described as God's wife:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and&#xA;  thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall&#xA;  he be called. For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and&#xA;  grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith&#xA;  thy God.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Isa. 54:5-6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto&#xA;  you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I&#xA;  will bring you to Zion:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 3:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This comparison is the whole purpose of the book of Haggai as well. It's a beautiful way to render God's relationship with his people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrastingly, the imagery that we have with Christ and His Bride is that of a &lt;em&gt;coming&lt;/em&gt; Bridegroom and a bride in preparation. As the angel shouts in &lt;strong&gt;Revelation 19:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of&#xA;  the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul strengthens this image when he says in &lt;strong&gt;II Corinthians 11:2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you&#xA;  to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two metaphors are not contradictory. Jesus uses many contrasting &quot;I ams:&quot; Jesus is the Lamb, the Door, The Good Shepherd, etc. All of them are helpful, but they are only pictures. HOWEVER, this imagery of Christ and His bride persists through all the New Testament, especially in the Revelation. It is meant to typify how an engaged virgin would wait for her promised husband to come for her. That is what Christians are doing today. God was never married to a city. Jesus is not coming back for a city. The city always was a symbol for the collective people of the city, and the Bride is a metaphor for all the Christ's body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T17:35:35.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="717" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="740" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:42:44.647" Score="12" ViewCount="641" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The test of a prophet.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 18 NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the&#xA;LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the&#xA;LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing&#xA;which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it&#xA;presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith has brought new religious beliefs to the table. God has given us a simple test for all prophets. Has Joseph Smith given any prophecies that he said were from God but failed to come true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-16T20:36:36.217" Title="Does Joseph Smith fail the test of a prophet?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-08-16T21:05:43.127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="718" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="727" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:45:47.610" Score="12" ViewCount="13808" Body="&lt;p&gt;During the Last Supper, when Jesus told his disciples to drink the wine because it was his blood.  Which cup of wine was this?  Was it the third cup, or was it the cup of Elijah (or one of the other cups) in the Passover Seder meal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="13" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2016-04-04T22:35:21.267" LastActivityDate="2016-04-04T22:35:21.267" Title="Which cup of wine did Jesus tell his disciples to drink during the Last Supper?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" ClosedDate="2016-04-03T04:28:20.213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="708" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:51:04.497" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife and I are reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1932645349&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Theology of the Body for Beginners&lt;/a&gt; by Christopher West and it elaborates on the first part of Genesis in a way we don't quite understand, but I can at least explain it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the fall Adam and Eve loved each other, therefore they probably would have made love (the Bible doesn't say that, but it doesn't say how long they were together in the garden either, it may have been only a few hours!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only difference is, them making love would be 100% free from lust because they did not know sin at that point in time.  I'm not saying it would be passionless robotic utilitarian love making, but it would be free from 'the passions' which cause us to use each other in a less-than-respectful way.  It's something we can't quite get our heads around because original sin muddied the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, to answer your question directly, no it's not any sort of sin or grave matter to love your spouse in the way God determined you to do so.  This doesn't require biblical evidence other than &quot;Male and Female He created them&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you said the 'right circumstances' but it's more nuanced than that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Men (and women) are fully capable of raping their spouse within marriage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Women (and men) are fully capable of using sex to further their own selfish ends.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both the Man and Woman may be complicit in using some sort of contraception to separate the generative act of love making from the unitive act. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the circumstances may be right, but the object and intention may be wrong and those also need to be considered when making any sort of judgement to the gravity of any particular act. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T17:51:04.497" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="720" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="728" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:56:49.710" Score="33" ViewCount="23034" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.loveisfaithful.com/protect-your-family/5-shocking-statistics/9-shocking-statistics&quot;&gt;Eighty Three percent of college students&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php&quot;&gt;fifty five percent of pastors are said to be addicted to pornography. (link)&lt;/a&gt; Even the most Godly men, like David (OT) has been trapped by these desires. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that the more I try to fight these desires, the stronger that they become. It doesn't matter if I see a beautiful woman walking down the street or if I see an image on the internet, the passion inside of me begins to burn when I force myself to turn away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 10:13&lt;/strong&gt; NIV   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No temptation has overtaken you except what&#xA;  is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be&#xA;  tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will&#xA;  also provide a way out so that you can endure it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion it's very likely that masturbation is a sin that leads to death. In this next verse, I take it very literally, I see Jesus talking about our lusts and possibly even masturbation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 18:8&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw&#xA;  it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to&#xA;  have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do believe that if God says we are secure in our salvation, that nobody can change that. However I also believe that if God says we are no longer worthy of salvation because we have fallen away from the faith, then our security and salvation is lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just before this verse above, Jesus was talking about plucking out your eye if it causes you to sin. I believe that Jesus is literally telling us that if we continue to lust and to gratify ourselves that we need to purge that evil from amung us and literally cut off your hand. I don't see this as a metiphor at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those of you that will say you do not agree that cutting a part of your body off will solve this problem, keep in mind then that you call Jesus a liar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 12:4&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point&#xA;  of shedding your blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;He's right, I have not resisted to this point yet. So I want to know from the community, how do you resist temptation? How do you literally detoxify yourself from this poison?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T16:47:40.447" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T13:40:50.507" Title="How can one overcome lustful desires?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sanctification&gt;&lt;lifestyle&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="16" ClosedDate="2013-12-26T19:30:34.533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="708" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:57:31.677" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would argue that your thinking has gone awry because you infer that Jesus being born of a virgin means that sex is somehow sinful and results in sinful offspring.  This is a flawed premise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=adam%20all%20sinned&amp;amp;qs_version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12&lt;/a&gt; says &quot;Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned&quot;.  Therefore, it is necessary that Jesus, the second Adam, is not born of the bloodline of the first sinful Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All naturally born men are born into broken relationship with God and as a result of that broken relationship are subject to sin (subject as in a King's subject).  As slaves to sin, bound in sin, we can't help but sin - we are inherently sinful.  Which is not to say that we have entirely lost the image of God (I don't hold to the idea of total-depravity), but rather that the image has been damaged beyond any human ability to repair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, however, was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; naturally born, but was conceived of the Holy Spirit, free from a sin-nature, and therefore free to be perfectly obedient to the Father.  It was only in that perfect obedience that he was able to pay the price for our sin where we could not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When sex is expressed entirely free of lust, as a self-giving love for one's spouse, it is not only right and good, it is actually giving glory to God because it is imaging the love of the trinity.  Furthermore, it is imaging God's love in it's creative and live-giving power when offspring is produced.  Therefore, sexual relations are not in anyway inherently evil, but like anything God created good can be twisted by man's sinful nature to become imperfect (to varying degrees).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(As something of an aside, I have often wondered if sin-nature is passed on from one's father.  Such scriptural ideas as &quot;the sins of the father shall be visited upon the 3rd and 4th generation&quot;, yet the contrary idea that no man is held accountable for another's sins, make me wonder if the way of the sins being passed on is via sin-nature, with a particular affinity for sins which afflicted your forebears.  This, however, seems to be a modern idea, and one which theologians before the 20&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century do not raise.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T19:58:31.473" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:58:31.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="722" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="734" CreationDate="2011-08-26T17:59:20.190" Score="15" ViewCount="54578" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard the terms &lt;strong&gt;Roman Catholic&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Irish Catholic&lt;/strong&gt; since I was little, but I have never understood what, if any, are the differences between the two.  Why the differentiation of the two?  What makes them seperate?  How did they come to be seperate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-08T18:39:02.180" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T18:39:02.180" Title="What are the differences between Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:00:49.127" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Surround myself with good people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do good things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prayer -- lots of prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, make sure you are always worth of the companionship of the Holy Spirit and he will do a pretty good job of helping you resist (and I would even say avoid) temptation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:00:49.127" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1256" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:04:16.983" Score="18" ViewCount="922" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not everyone hates Christians, but it seems that most Christians have felt hated at some time by someone because of their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a specific reason behind the hatred I've seen towards Christians as a group? Is the reason different among former Christians than with those who never held the faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T02:06:57.447" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T04:01:26.580" Title="What is the source of hatred often perceived by Christians in western society?" Tags="&lt;non-christians&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T16:13:36.863" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:07:50.260" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, remember that God is the one who created our bodies the way they are.  The desires of the flesh are there for a reason.  Without hunger we could easily starve to death, for example. And if you were to really analyze it dispassionately, the act of sexual intercourse is kinda slimy and gross.  Without the sex drive in place being both strong (to attract us to it) and constant (to help form an enduring bond between two people) it would be a whole lot harder to get us to want to form families and &quot;be fruitful and multiply&quot; as God has commanded His children to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commandment is not to &quot;escape&quot; the desires of the flesh, but to master them.  To not let them control us, but to use them for the glory of God, such as by having children and raising them in righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:07:50.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="718" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:07:53.567" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Per &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:25 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 In the same way, &lt;strong&gt;after supper&lt;/strong&gt; he took the cup, saying, “This cup is&#xA;  the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in&#xA;  remembrance of me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis added, obviously) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to indicate that it was the third cup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://jewishroots.net/library/holiday-articles/last-supper.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a much larger article about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is presuming that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3310/was-the-last-supper-not-the-passover-meal&quot;&gt;it was the Passover meal at all&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T03:50:18.373" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:12:37.473" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had reached a point after decades of struggling with this sin where I had just resigned myself to this being part of who I am.  I honestly figured I would just struggle with this sin for the rest of my life - I would take it to my grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, freedom came through &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.giftfoundation.org/products_naked.cfm&quot;&gt;Christopher West's teaching on Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body&lt;/a&gt;.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.giftfoundationdownloads.com/nakedwithoutshame.html&quot;&gt;MP3 version&lt;/a&gt; is available for free download.  It's not possible to do justice to Chris' 12 hour summation of years of JP II's teaching, but I'll try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I have analysed what happened through that teaching, I conclude that among other nuances the change in my thinking was to see clearly what it means to be a person created in the image of God as a body &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; a spirit in one cohesive being.  Fundamental was the understanding that other people, being in the image of God, are worthy, nay fundamentally entitled, to be treated with the dignity commensurate with being in the image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heavily entwined in all of this is the idea that the incarnation was always part of God's plan.  That the incarnate Jesus (even post resurrection in his glorified state) is a mysterious combination of Spirit and Body.  This causes me to elevate my body away from the &quot;shell I am waiting to escape in the next life&quot; to being an integral part of who I am which will be glorified and redeemed in the next life, but not thrown away.  Thus my body needs to be treated with dignity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suddenly my body was not something &quot;bad&quot; from which I was waiting to be freed, but it was part of the image of God in which I was created as a person, which was created &quot;good&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somewhere in there, washed in the Word of God, my mind was renewed and my heart was changed in a dramatic way.  I no longer desired to be &quot;that man&quot; who used other people, including my wife, for his own selfish gratification.  I began to see people differently; I began to see myself differently; for the first time in my life I was comfortable in my own skin.  I just didn't want to do that any more.  One day, I realized that somewhere over the previous 6 months I had been set free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I finally realized what JP II was getting at when said words to the effect of: Freedom from the law is not freedom to break the law, but freedom to conform to the law in all it's meaning because I no longer desire in my heart that which is contrary to the law. (And with Paul I then concur, &quot;the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.&quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rom 7:12&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2012-05-23T18:40:53.530" LastActivityDate="2012-05-23T18:40:53.530" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:13:42.713" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the most part it comes down to plain old discrimination. Many people hate what they don't understand. Non-Christians don't have the market cornered on it either. As Christians it is important we respond with love an understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:13:42.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="730" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="739" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:17:22.383" Score="21" ViewCount="43218" Body="&lt;p&gt;Somewhere along the line I picked up the habit of capitalizing He, His, Him, etc. when they are referring to Jesus Christ as a form of respect. Likewise I always capitalize Christ, which is the title of Jesus of Nazareth. My question is if this is an appropriate or common practice among Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears this isn't a formal requirement, but I am not the only one to do it. I intend to continue to do so for now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T19:39:08.053" LastActivityDate="2014-08-28T01:03:14.590" Title="Is it appropriate to capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus Christ?" Tags="&lt;honor&gt;&lt;practice&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2014-08-29T01:18:24.140" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:17:41.087" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This answer is probably close to the Lutheran teaching.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Accept that there's no way to succeed.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing is, while we are already saved, we still fall. We are 100% holy because God has granted us righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, yet at the same time we're 100% sinners. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207:15-25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 7:15-25&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accept that you will not win sin. Christ already has done that for you. You don't need to. Christ has done it all. Accept that, receive grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Find that as you more see the greatness of God and His deeds, you see yourself ever smaller, ever more sinful. Find that as the sin becomes huge, the grace of God becomes enormous (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:20&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will see that as you look at yourself and God more openly and honestly day by day, you will receive help from God to overcome some of your problems. Some you might never overcome. But Christ still has died for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't accept the lists of tricks that people throw at you (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:2-4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 23:2-4&lt;/a&gt;). They can't help you, only God can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:17:41.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:17:42.797" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:18-19&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;John 15: 18-19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T01:23:33.983" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T01:23:33.983" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:20:28.660" Score="7" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If cutting off a body part will stop your sinning, then you should do it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But will that really work?  No!  The sin is not the fact that you have a hand, which allows you to masturbate.  The sin is that you are lusting after women. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;In my opinion it's very likely that masturbation is a sin that leads to death.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before you start making judgements on what is sin and what leads to death, you should really seek a biblical backing.  I would &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; simply presume that your &lt;em&gt;opinion&lt;/em&gt; is correct.  Find &lt;em&gt;biblical&lt;/em&gt; backing for this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48/is-masturbation-a-sin&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a good place to start.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God has provided us a way to avoid the sin of lust.  It's called marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:1-7&lt;/a&gt; addresses &lt;em&gt;this very issue&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 7:2 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:20:28.660" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="722" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:20:58.000" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Irish Catholic is just a cultural distinction.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an Anglican Church of Ireland which might consider itself truly Irish-Catholic in the sense that on England they'd call themselves Anglo-Catholic. But, that's not what people mean when they say Irish Catholic, they mean Roman Catholic or &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/78/regarding-roman-catholics-and-names-for-other-groups&quot;&gt;as Catholics prefer to say&lt;/a&gt;, Catholic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other countries/regions where having Catholic after the name is actually indicative of being another Rite of the church.  Assyrian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic etc... They are still in communion (subscribing to the same teachings) with the Church in Rome. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;American Catholic, on the other hand, is a schismatic group that is not in communion with the Church in Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:20:58.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="730" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:25:25.920" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that it is done out of some idea of respect, but personally, I think that for pronouns it is just bad grammar.  Capitalizing titles and proper names for God and Christ is, however, correct application of the rules of English grammar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the used of LORD in the Bible in all capitals is altogether different; this is used in many English translations to denote when the (transliterated) Hebrew name for God, YHWH, is used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-08-25T23:20:34.303" LastActivityDate="2014-08-25T23:20:34.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="736" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="745" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:30:35.893" Score="15" ViewCount="6871" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 16:13 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that God gave us the desire to pursue certain things for a reason to begin with, so being successful and enjoying your career isn't necessarily a sin in and of itself. Is this the correct attitude?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can a Christian keep God in the center of his or her life and properly enjoy worldly ambitions (such as a successful career)? Is there anything wrong with being focused on your career?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="120" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T13:20:22.220" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T10:29:47.473" Title="How ambitious should a Christian be?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;lifestyle&gt;&lt;wealth&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-09-16T02:11:43.903" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="661" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:30:58.907" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;With respect, I believe you're misreading this item.  Dr. Luther is sometimes hard to understand, but in my experience (having read the whole Book of Concord and a lot of his other writings) is that he's very rarely self-contradictory.  He is not self-contradictory in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the proposition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;71: Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences&#xA;be anathema and accursed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's try parsing it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;A   &amp;quot;the truth concerning papal indulgences&amp;quot;   &#xA;B   &amp;quot;against&amp;quot; A&#xA;C   &amp;quot;him who speaks&amp;quot; B&#xA;D   &amp;quot;Let&amp;quot; C &amp;quot;be anathema and accursed&amp;quot;.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this all hinges on the meaning of A -- the truth concerning papal indulgences.  The rest of this broadside makes the point, in many ways, that papal indulgences are evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a thesis: a proposition for debate. Dr. Luther is asserting that it is true, and inviting partners in discourse to support or refute it.  This thesis / antithesis mode of discourse is a late medieval academic methodology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something also hinges on the meaning of &amp;quot;sit ille anathema et maladictus.&amp;quot;  This is very specific, not just a general cussing out. Anathema means &amp;quot;excluded.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Maladictus&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;spoken against.&amp;quot;  In this thesis, Dr. Luther asserts that the church and the academy share a duty to restrain the speech of those people who defend papal indulgences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, this is late medieval discourse, not 21st-century discourse, so it sounds a little alien.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the claim that he wasn't speaking against papal indulgences, and only against their misuse, that's untrue.  He is speaking against the indulgence preachers' claim that they have the divine authority to sell these letters of indulgence.  At this point in history, he was not sure whether the indulgence preachers were acting with the knowledge of the pope, for what it's worth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20  Therefore by &amp;quot;full remission of all penalties” the pope means not&#xA;actually “of all,&amp;quot; but only of those imposed by himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21  Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say&#xA;that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and&#xA;saved;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26  The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in&#xA;purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess),&#xA;but by way of intercession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28  It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain&#xA;and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of&#xA;the Church is in the power of God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point Luther asserts is that the Pope may (indeed, ought to) pray for the forgiveness of people, but that the power to grant that forgiveness is God's alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:30:58.907" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="694" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:33:05.270" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Premarital (aka extramarital) sex is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;fornication&lt;/a&gt;, which is sometimes differentiated from adultery. While adultery is specifically forbidden in the 10 Commandments, it would appear the Bible has the same opinion of fornication. There are times when the two terms are used interchangeably as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All from the KJV:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 15:20&lt;/strong&gt; But that we write unto them, that they abstain from&#xA;pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled,&#xA;and from blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1st Corinthians 6:18&lt;/strong&gt; Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1st Corinthians 7:2&lt;/strong&gt; Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1st Thessalonians 4:3&lt;/strong&gt; For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it looks safe to say that &amp;quot;Thou shall not commit adultery&amp;quot; also applies to fornication. The colloquialism &amp;quot;living in sin&amp;quot; is accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't specifically say &amp;quot;Even if you plan to get married, fornication is still a sin.&amp;quot; But the 1st Corinthians 7:2 reference is pretty close. To avoid fornication, get married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T18:30:45.373" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="730" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:33:29.980" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic, I capitalize everything remotely concerning Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit out of respect and will always continue to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, curiously enough, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm&quot;&gt;official writings of my church&lt;/a&gt; do not, which leads me to believe that being scrupulous about it is not the end of the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:33:29.980" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="717" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:34:33.763" Score="23" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/jesus-return-within-56-years&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, he said &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was in 1891.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Prophecy that the temple would be built in Missouri within Smith's Generation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;_&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/doctrine-and-covenants-section-84&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All Nations would be involved in &lt;strike&gt;the American Civil War&lt;/strike&gt; war&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;_&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/doctrine-and-covenants-section-87&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That short list came from &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/false-prophecies-of-joseph-smith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the prophecy that David Patten would go on a mission (he died before he could)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that the US government would be overthrown if it didn't apologize (it didn't apologize and was never overthrown)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that Congress would dissolve if it didn't hear Joseph Smiths petition (it never heard it and it's still around)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;etc.  That list is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irr.org/mit/js-failed-prophecies.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A note to all would-be prophets... don't use exact dates. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-08-16T20:36:36.217" LastActivityDate="2012-08-16T20:36:36.217" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="730" CreationDate="2011-08-26T18:43:20.243" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been taught (in ELCA seminary) that the word LORD, presented in the Hebrew Bible in small caps, represents the ineffable four-letter holy name and so should be capitalized. I was also taught that God is a proper name, as are Jesus, Christ, and Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I've also been taught that pronouns referring to the unity or diversity of persons of the Trinity are not to be capitalized. @Peter Turner noticed the same in Roman Catholic writings.  It's the same for my church body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first New Testament paper came back with all the He and His words scribbled on in red ink. Being a good little grade-grubber, I changed my ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T18:43:20.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="736" CreationDate="2011-08-26T19:01:10.100" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proverbs is full of verses about how to become wealthy, such as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2010:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 10:4 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Lazy hands make for poverty, &#xA;     but diligent hands bring wealth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I think the focus is &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; on worldly ambitions, but on your character in how you achieve that wealth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What God doesn't want is for that to drive your focus. If you are &lt;strong&gt;too&lt;/strong&gt; focused on your career, you lose sight of what is really important (eg God, family, people around you)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, James does warn us against selfish-ambition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203:13-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 3:13-15 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="19" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T00:03:52.290" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T00:03:52.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="736" CreationDate="2011-08-26T19:04:37.123" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to maintain an eternal perspective.  Enjoy your career, sure, but keep in mind that your career is over once you're dead, but eternity lasts forever.  As long as you keep your priorities straight and you're willing to give up your career if God's plan calls for you to do something different, you'll probably be all right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember to keep &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018%3a%2029-30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Luke 18: 29-30&lt;/a&gt; in mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that&#xA;  hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for&#xA;  the kingdom of God's sake,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in&#xA;  the world to come life everlasting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T19:04:37.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="693" CreationDate="2011-08-26T19:35:36.083" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;a_hardin has it pretty well summed up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18-20%20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18-20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; that supports this notion quite well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the&#xA;  unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but&#xA;  made alive in the Spirit. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; After being made alive, he went and made&#xA;  proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; to those who were&#xA;  disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah&#xA;  while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all,&#xA;  were saved through water,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These &quot;imprisoned spirits&quot; had to be somewhere.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a stretch to make it from this verse to the Catholic concept of Purgatory.  However, this odd little section of scripture could easily be seen to support the concept of Purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T19:35:36.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="736" CreationDate="2011-08-26T20:02:52.160" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Charles Stanley said in his book &lt;em&gt;Success God’s Way&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In good times and bad times, on mediocre days and exhilarating days,&#xA;  in periods of joy and periods of heavy toil, our stance before the&#xA;  Lord must be, 'Heavenly Father, you’re in charge. I have no success&#xA;  other than what You help me achieve. I trust You to order my steps.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that this is the true attitude we need to seek.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We need to focus our hearts and minds on God and just do our best here in this life to glorify him.  WE can see this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2010:31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Cor 10:31 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, God does reward those who love him and seek him earnestly, per &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2028:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 28:20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A faithful person will be richly blessed, &#xA;     but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we have to be careful not to focus on the treasures here on Earth, per &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%206:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt 6:20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, we need do the work that God has given us to do here on Earth and focus our hearts and minds on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That will lead to true success without putting ambition as a &quot;second master&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T20:02:52.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-08-26T20:32:22.447" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you &lt;strong&gt;fight against sin&lt;/strong&gt; you rely on your &lt;em&gt;own strength&lt;/em&gt;. When we rely on our own strength we turn away from Christ. Instead we should focus on &lt;strong&gt;turning towards Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. Basically when you fight sin you focus on the sin instead of Christ. This explains why the more you fight it, the stronger it gets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead focus on what you want. Man cannot serve two masters. We sin in our lives when we are not focused on Christ and His teachings. It is typically harder to sin while humming a hymn or reciting scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More good comes from the study of Christ than the study of sin. It is logical if you think about it, but it is not our first impulse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The process is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find scriptures or hymns that mean a lot to you in your quest to turn away from sin and memorize them (or parts of them).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you feel yourself turning away from Christ then recite those scriptures and hymns.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Look for more opportunities to study Christ and His Teachings. Learn more of Him. (I think this site is a good way to do that too!) In learning more of Christ, try to be like Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pray for help and guidance. Pray for strength when you feel weak, pray for humility when you feel strong.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find a trusted adviser, friend, pastor, etc. you can talk with. When they are not present call them. When you cannot call them, imagine what they would say. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not trying to say you don't already do the above, but I would suggest that you make that your focus. Instead of counting the days since your last lustful desires, instead count how many days you have made prayerful scripture study a daily habit. When you find yourself overcome with lustful desires look at how you can improve your relationship with Christ, and how that improvement has made your life better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My dad always said &quot;When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.&quot; The same is true of wrestling with sin - when we engage in direct battle with sin we get dirty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also consider studying &lt;strong&gt;12 step support groups&lt;/strong&gt;. The 12 Steps from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-Step_Program#Twelve_Steps&quot;&gt;Alcoholics Anonymous&lt;/a&gt; can be adapted to any sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We admitted we were powerless over &lt;em&gt;lustful desires&lt;/em&gt;—that our lives had become unmanageable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few scriptures to back up what I am saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;KJV Bible - Ezekiel 33:19&lt;/strong&gt; But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't say &quot;stop being wicked&quot; but says &lt;strong&gt;turn form it&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;do that which is lawful&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;KJV Bible - 2nd Chronicles 7:14&lt;/strong&gt; If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be humble: acknowledge you cannot do it alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;KJV Bible Matthew 19:26&lt;/strong&gt; But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this&#xA;  is impossible; but with God all things are possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wasn't specifically referring to lust, but the meaning is the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Book of Mormon - Ether 12:27&lt;/strong&gt; And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all have weaknesses so we will turn to Christ. All he asks is that we are humble and come to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;KJV Bible - Matthew 5:6&lt;/strong&gt; Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are filled with righteousness then you will not be hungry for sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T20:53:25.720" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T20:53:25.720" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="112" CreationDate="2011-08-26T20:51:52.023" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aristotle (384-322 BC) talked about &lt;em&gt;zoe&lt;/em&gt; versus &lt;em&gt;psyche&lt;/em&gt; in his treatise &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Soul&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;De Anima&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;On the Soul&quot;)&lt;/a&gt;.  However, his concept of the mortal and immortal components of the complete human is a bit different than our current understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An excerpt from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; discusses this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Aristotle, in the case of living natural bodies the vital principle, &lt;em&gt;psyche&lt;/em&gt; is the form. His doctrine is embodied in his famous definition: &lt;em&gt;psyche estin entekexeia e prote somatos fysikou dynamei zoen exontos&lt;/em&gt;. (De Anima, II, i), i.e. the soul is therefore the first &lt;em&gt;entelechy&lt;/em&gt; (substantial form or perfect actualization) of a natural or organized body potentially possessing life. The definition applies to plants, animals, and man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That source goes on to say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The human soul, however, seems to be of a different kind (&lt;em&gt;genos etepron&lt;/em&gt;), and separable as the eternal from the perishable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it should be noted that while Aristotle considers the &lt;em&gt;zoe&lt;/em&gt; to be separable from the &lt;em&gt;psyche&lt;/em&gt;, it's the &lt;em&gt;psyche&lt;/em&gt; that is eternal, not the &lt;em&gt;zoe&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;per &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Soul&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Aristotle also argues that the mind (only the agent intellect) is immaterial, able to exist without the body, and immortal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He holds that the soul is the form, or essence of any living thing; that it is not a distinct substance from the body that it is in; that it is the possession of soul (of a specific kind) that makes an organism an organism at all, and thus that the notion of a body without a soul, or of a soul in the wrong kind of body, is simply unintelligible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;finally&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some commentators have suggested that Aristotle's term soul is better translated as &lt;em&gt;lifeforce&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this, I would have to say that yes, the concept that there is a mortal component and an eternal component to us all is an older concept the Christianity.  However, the concept isn't quite the same as our current understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T20:51:52.023" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="749" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="752" CreationDate="2011-08-26T21:42:16.733" Score="13" ViewCount="278" Body="&lt;p&gt;Orthodox Christianity is considered to be what comes from the Old and New Testament but many denominations/religions call themselves Christians without adhering strictly to the Bible as we know it today. I am specifically thinking of Mormons and by some perspectives, Jehovah's Witnesses. I am sure there are countless others as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there a definition of &quot;Christianity&quot; or for a &quot;Christian&quot; for which one can objectively compare and contrast against to determine if a belief or a person is &quot;Christian&quot;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, &lt;em&gt;(please don't argue for/against any of the points in this paragraph, it is mean purely as an illustration)&lt;/em&gt; one may say Roman Catholicism is Christian because they believe Jesus is God. Mormons believe Jesus was just a normal guy that became a god. Islam believes that Jesus was just a uniquely pious guy. Atheists believe that Jesus was just a guy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think most people would agree that Catholics are Christian and Atheists aren't. So then the question is this: Where is the line between &quot;Christian&quot; and &quot;non-Christian&quot;? Is it even possible to define one in an objective sense?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T22:15:58.597" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T22:15:58.597" Title="Can Christianity be objectively defined?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T00:30:42.443" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2011-08-26T21:43:38.600" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do people hate Christians?  That's a pretty broad question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some cultures, for example rural Hinduism, Christianity's message of favor for the poor is a real threat to the traditional caste system.  I know the caste system's outlawed in India, but it is still ingrained.  So Christianity catches some flak there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other cultures, like urban Alexandria in Egypt, Christians and Muslims fight each other and attack each others' houses of worship from tribal fear.  Each group believes (usually falsely) that the other group is getting unfair preferential treatment. There are also long-lived dehumanizing myths in each group about the other. (No, they DON'T eat babies for breakfast.  Seriously.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In American culture, there's an unfortunate history of coercion and abuse by various churches and their clergy.  People sometimes yell rude things at me when I'm visible in clergy clothing in public, especially in the company of my children or children of my parishioners.  I am quite sure that's because of the recent child-abuse scandals. Do I wish people would stop doing this? I'm not sure.  If that rude behavior prevents the abuse of even one child, it's worthwhile. Meantime, I have two cheeks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to avoid self-righteousness when reading &quot;blessed are you when people revile you on account of the Son of Man.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:22&quot;&gt;Luke 6:22&lt;/a&gt;)  It's NOT good to be hated and reviled.  It's not good when others dehumanize you, or when you dehumanize them. It is good to stick to your principles without caving to pressure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T01:27:25.617" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T01:27:25.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="751" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="787" CreationDate="2011-08-26T21:50:53.223" Score="8" ViewCount="1214" Body="&lt;p&gt;For what purpose did Michelangelo add each Sibyls or Prophetesses to the ceiling of the Sistine chapel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an explanation to why they're there in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latter, although belonging to the pagan world, are represented here because of their prophetic gifts, in this way extending the wait for Redemption from the chosen people to all mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd imagine they each have some sort of story - or at least represent some different part of the pre-redemption world and pointed in some vague way to Christ.  But what is the vague way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the Sibyls:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Erythrean Sibyl&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Persian Sibyl&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/cappella-sistina/volta/sibille-e-profeti/sibilla-libica.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Libyan Sibyl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cumaean Sibyl&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/cappella-sistina/volta/sibille-e-profeti/sibilla-delfica.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Delphic Sibyl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/cappella-sistina/volta/sibille-e-profeti.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="10672" LastEditDate="2020-12-08T22:41:43.620" LastActivityDate="2021-04-03T06:27:11.937" Title="Why are there Sibyls and Prophetesses in the Sistine Chapel?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;sibyls&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="749" CreationDate="2011-08-26T21:53:05.827" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As already discussed on meta.C.SE &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/101/what-is-the-definition-of-christian&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/132/christianity-se-vs-survivor&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, the short answer is probably &quot;no&quot;, except to say that one who identifies himself as a Christian is a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the long answer depends on the perspective of the person answering the question.  It is for this reason we have essentially decided this question is off-topic on this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as an aside, let me add what might be some consolation for anyone who does not like this answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:15 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this context, brother or sister means other Believer. Christians have a responsibility to hold all other Christians accountable for their actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer. &#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this &quot;this letter&quot; was written to Christians, we can also draw that the context here is other Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other verses say similar things, about holding other Christians accountable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What this means is, we, as Christians, have a responsibility to hold all other professing Christians (whether they pass &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; litmus test or not) accountable for their actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;David Koresh&lt;/a&gt; a Christian? I suspect he would not have passed the litmus test of many people on this site. However, the fact that he considered himself a Christian is enough that, if any of us had conversed with him, we could have done so in the context of two Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T22:04:59.863" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="759" CreationDate="2011-08-26T21:53:30.960" Score="8" ViewCount="3031" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sure that most of us agree that abortion is sinful and certainly not okay...&lt;em&gt;most of the time&lt;/em&gt;. However, I'm thinking of two rare circumstances that &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The mother would die but the baby would (probably) live if an abortion is not performed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The mother AND the (still-living) baby would die if an abortion is not performed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible (or some other significant work) provide any perspective on these questions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2014-12-03T17:32:48.340" Title="Is abortion okay if it is medically necessary?" Tags="&lt;abortion&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-12-03T18:37:04.933" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="736" CreationDate="2011-08-26T21:56:57.147" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some other great answers but I want to throw in Philippians 2:3 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(NIV)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in&#xA;  humility value others above yourselves,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this distinction of &lt;strong&gt;selfish&lt;/strong&gt; ambition and of vanity are important ones. Other translations phrase it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;strife or vainglory&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;conceit and empty arrogance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rivalry or conceit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;selfishness or empty conceit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When these are taken in context with some of the other answers, it seems clear to me that ambition is not bad in itself. When the goal of an action is to raise up oneself above God or above others, that action becomes sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T21:56:57.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="753" CreationDate="2011-08-26T21:59:02.823" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, and this isn't surprising considering the state of medical knowledge in Old Testament times. (And it really hadn't advanced all that much by NT times.)  There was no way to diagnose that carrying a pregnancy to term would put the mother's life in danger, the way we can today with electric-powered technologies such as ultrasound imaging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T21:59:02.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:04:20.940" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not utterly explain this. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/curse-Ham-Canaan.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some suggest theories&lt;/a&gt; that Ham did something evil during Noah's sleep and that was the reason for the curse, but it's all speculation. I'd rather think that the Bible would tell us if there was a good reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I see it, Noah was drunk and naked, i.e. in quite an inappropriate state -- of his own fault. When he awoke with a hangover, he was quite cranky and didn't want to take responsibility for his own actions, so he blamed Ham and cursed his grandson. This just goes to show that we people aren't always very righteous. (I personally can somehow relate to what Noah probably felt like.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that this passage has been used to promote abuse of other people, goes to show again the sinful, unrighteous ways of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T22:04:20.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="749" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:08:48.123" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer this you have to kick out your basic premise that Christianity is in fact a religion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always thought it was a religion until the Pope told me &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it wasn't&lt;/a&gt;.  He said it wasn't &lt;code&gt;a lofty idea&lt;/code&gt; or a &lt;code&gt;result of an ethical choice&lt;/code&gt;. Believe him or not, but the fact that the head of the biggest organized group of anything in the world would say this pretty amazing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, a Christian is one who seeks to encounter Christ and nothing else.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it this way, when you stand before God to be judged, will you be judged as a Methodist or a Catholic or a Mormon, or will you be judged as a follower of Christ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(maybe, because the measure by which you measure will be measured against you) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in heaven, we'll all be Christians.  Even the Hindus and the Muslims and the Pagans and the Atheists and the Buddhists who, through their actions (and through their ignorance of Christ) sought Him out in their daily lives even though they didn't know it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T22:08:48.123" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="753" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:09:51.790" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both situations described illustrate a lack of faith in God. I would imagine that a Christian pondering the situation would either (please pardon the generalizations)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;not believe that God knows or is able to save their lives or, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;not believe that the outcome of carrying the baby to term would ultimately be the best outcome for for both the baby and mother.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:28&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T22:16:44.290" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T22:16:44.290" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="753" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:10:56.437" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a difficult topic. Some biblical references would help to understand how God views an unborn child:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God views the life of a child as precious even during the very early stages of development after conception:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalms 139:13-16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For you created my inmost being;    &lt;strong&gt;you knit me together in my&#xA;  mother’s womb&lt;/strong&gt;. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully&#xA;  made;    your works are wonderful,    I know that full well. 15 My&#xA;  frame was not hidden from you    when I was made in the secret place, &#xA;  when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16 &lt;strong&gt;Your eyes saw&#xA;  my unformed body;    all the days ordained for me were written in your&#xA;  book    before one of them came to be.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God stated that a person would be called to account for injury to an unborn child:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 21:22,23&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth&#xA;  prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be&#xA;  fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a very serious sin to willfully take a human life for any reason not authorized by God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 9:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever sheds human blood,    by humans shall their blood be shed; for&#xA;  in the image of God    has God made mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You must not murder.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the &lt;em&gt;life&lt;/em&gt; of a child is very valuable in God's eyes. If a medical decision &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be taken between mother's or child's life, this is up to the couple. If the doctors inform the parents that the child will be born with medical problems, this is no reason to murder the child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T22:13:44.980" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T22:13:44.980" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:22:58.850" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I certainly think the clarify of the passage is a bit lacking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand verse 22, Ham &quot;saw&quot; the nakedness of his father...perhaps not just as in accidentally, but more of a deeper &quot;examination&quot; of his fathers nakedness? There is no mention of what Ham's thinking was...perverse or spiteful...disrespectful...but I think the difference between Ham's attitude and his brothers attitude in relation to their father's state is clearer given the rest of verse 22, and verse 23: Ham told his brothers...jokingly, mockingly, making fun of his father?...and his brothers in turn respectfully covered their father without looking at him at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is probably some facet of culture not included in biblical text here, but it does seem clear the difference between Ham's &quot;seeing&quot; and his brothers &quot;backing in, faces turned away, and covering their father&quot; that gave Noah reason to curse Ham's offspring, and bless Japheth and Shem. While it may not usually end up with a curse, I believe the same kind of behavior from a mans son's today would result in some kind of punishment for a son that showed a lack of respect to a father, regardless of whether that father's own choices resulted in a disappointing state. Children respecting their fathers is a fundamental teaching of the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="52" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T22:22:58.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="761" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:26:39.607" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ethanol (CH3CH2OH) or ethyl alcohol, often called just &lt;em&gt;alcohol&lt;/em&gt;, is a liquid substance. It is found in e.g. wine and beer. Causes drunkenness when used in excessive amounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alcohol isn't mentioned in the Bible as such, but many references to wine are made. The effects of alcohol are also noted several times, perhaps most prominently in Genesis where Noah builds the first vineyard and gets drunk from the wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T01:08:48.863" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T01:08:48.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="762" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:26:39.607" Score="0" Body="A substance found in e.g. wine, causing drunkenness when used in excess." OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T01:08:52.247" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T01:08:52.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="763" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="766" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:26:59.813" Score="11" ViewCount="40655" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine once said that, &quot;&lt;em&gt;God said he would never destroy the earth again.&lt;/em&gt;&quot; I assume she was referencing the time of Noah's Ark, where the Great Flood wiped out the entire world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was simply wondering if this was true, and if there were any other cases in the Bible (or elsewhere) in which God said something like this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-11-21T12:52:29.367" LastActivityDate="2014-11-23T13:56:28.217" Title="Will God destroy the earth again?" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T00:30:14.283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="764" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:31:05.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Atheism is literally the opposite of theism, the belief in God (or gods).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two major definitions for atheism, with atheists promoting either one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The belief that there is no God (or gods).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The absence of belief in a god.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for any questions relating to either of these beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T22:05:58.477" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T22:05:58.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="765" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:31:05.200" Score="0" Body="belief that there is no God or gods." OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditorDisplayName="user729" LastEditDate="2012-02-11T03:16:09.907" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T03:16:09.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="763" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:31:36.307" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, God did say something like that after the flood. You can find this in Genesis, however the reference is specifically to destruction by flood (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+9%3A8-17/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:8-17 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. I establish my covenant with you, that &lt;strong&gt;never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth&lt;/strong&gt;.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And &lt;strong&gt;the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh&lt;/strong&gt;. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There will be a time when the earth is destroyed again, this time by fire. You can find one (of many) references to this in the New Testament (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/2nd+Peter+3:4-10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2nd Peter 3:4-10 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word &lt;strong&gt;the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction&lt;/strong&gt; of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and &lt;strong&gt;the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-05-16T01:35:58.677" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T01:35:58.677" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="767" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="782" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:32:02.190" Score="15" ViewCount="2028" Body="&lt;p&gt;How did the practice of soliciting the prayers of dead saints originate? Did it start based on something in the bible? The apocrypha? A papal decree?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a side note, which groups practice this type of prayer?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am interested in the circumstances in which these types of prayers started. I do not intend to get answers regarding &lt;strong&gt;if&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;why/why not&lt;/strong&gt; it is acceptable. There are other &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/11/145&quot;&gt;questions for those topics&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T15:10:40.290" Title="How did the practice of soliciting the prayers of dead saints originate?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;intercession-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="768" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="770" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:48:19.400" Score="32" ViewCount="3894" Body="&lt;p&gt;Judas Iscariot committed suicide when he realized the evil that he had done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 27:3-5 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,&#xA;  &lt;br/&gt; &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.&#xA;  &lt;br/&gt; &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage in Matthew shows that Judas hanged himself, but Acts 1 says something else:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 1:18-19 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.&#xA;  &lt;br/&gt; &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are these two passages contradictory? How did Judas die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T14:31:58.187" LastActivityDate="2017-07-27T00:44:12.213" Title="How did Judas die?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;suicide&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="768" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:51:22.670" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's quite possible that both happened: he hanged himself, and when he was found and cut down, (which might have been some time later, long enough for the decay process to begin,) his body burst open with a predictable display of gore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-26T22:51:22.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="768" CreationDate="2011-08-26T22:51:45.960" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is generally explained as two different details of the same event being the emphisis of the record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both accounts tell of a suicide. One specifically mentions hanging, the other doesn't mention anything about cause of death but does mention his &quot;falling&quot;. These can readily be reconciled through natural causes either by something going wrong in the hanging process (a branch breaking) or his dead body hanging until it broke and he fell -- or through outside intervention such as being found and cut down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T04:46:59.160" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T04:46:59.160" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="771" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="797" CreationDate="2011-08-26T23:09:24.447" Score="8" ViewCount="893" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been told that John Wesley read the pre-Schism fathers a lot, and was influenced by them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this so, and if so, to what extent and how was his doctrine influenced by them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="88" LastEditDate="2011-08-26T23:14:40.043" LastActivityDate="2013-01-12T02:00:33.667" Title="John Wesley's influence by ancient fathers" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;wesley&gt;&lt;methodist&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="772" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-26T23:27:28.283" Score="13" ViewCount="6426" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different traditions seem to have different ideas about intercession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the major different types of &quot;intercessory prayer&quot; and which traditions employ them? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If applicable to the definition, how is human intercessory prayer different different from the intercession that Christ makes on behalf of believers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T11:57:55.643" Title="What is &quot;intercession&quot; and what kinds of &quot;intercessory prayer&quot; are there?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;intercession&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="774" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="788" CreationDate="2011-08-26T23:56:50.260" Score="19" ViewCount="23352" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know the Bible says not to let &quot;unwholesome talk&quot; come out of our mouths (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:29&lt;/a&gt;), but to my knowledge it doesn't speak specifically about &quot;bad words.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, to my knowledge, the English language (and especially American English) is somewhat unique in that it has words that are &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; considered bad, in any context. In my (limited) study of other languages (which is mostly Spanish), most &quot;bad words&quot; are perfectly good words, used in a specifically &quot;bad&quot; context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to use a &quot;bad&quot; word in a context that is not &quot;unwholesome?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a very close (Christian) friend, and he and I occasionally use &quot;bad&quot; words in our conversation, but always in a joking sense. Never out of anger or malice toward the other person. Is this okay, or should we change our behavior?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2016-04-30T21:32:12.183" Title="What does the Bible say about &quot;bad&quot; words?" Tags="&lt;cursing&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-05-01T02:14:23.850" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="72" CreationDate="2011-08-27T00:12:47.850" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add to the litany of proof-texts, may I suggest the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan (whereupon the Holy Spirit descended and lit on His shoulder, and God the Father spoke out of the heavens in affirmation of His Son) in Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:9-11, and Luke 3:21-22, and His transfiguration in Matthew 17:5 and Mark 9:7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, our Lord's command to baptize all nations was to &quot;baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.&quot; Matthew 28:19.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity took seven councils to reach what we have today, but it plainly is not foreign to the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T00:12:47.850" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="774" CreationDate="2011-08-27T00:17:52.167" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cf. 1 Corinthians 8, with &amp;quot;meat offered to idols&amp;quot; replaced by &amp;quot;speaking with bad language.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will transcribe it for your reading pleasure!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 1 Now as touching BAD WORDS, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 4 As concerning therefore BAD WORDS, we know that A BAD WORD is nothing in the world, and that STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES ETC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 5 For though there be that are called BAD WORDS, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be WORDS many, and BAD WORDS many,)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 6 But to us there is but one WORD, JESUS CHRIST, BY Whom are all things, and we in him; and one EPITHET Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the BAD WORD unto this hour HEAR IT AND SPEAK it as a thing offered unto DISSOLUTION; and their conscience being weak is defiled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 8 But BANDYING PHRASES commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we CURSE, are we the better; neither, if we HOLD OUR TONGUES, are we the worse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 9 &lt;em&gt;But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.&lt;/em&gt; (italics mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge IMITATE THE SAILOR, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to VITUPERATE LIKEWISE;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 13 Wherefore, if BAD WORDS make my brother to offend, I will CURSE NOT while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N.B. &amp;quot;Sticks and stones&amp;quot; is, to be self-referentially perverse, bulls***. Or, as C. S. Lewis put it, damned nonsense. The notion that words can't be bad is tantamount to denying the meaning of words, which as a more perspicuous answer has pointed out, is untenable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along these lines it is edifying to consider instead the vast power that language has for spreading the kingdom of God, and not only with regards to apostolic spreading of the Gospel. An Alaskan native who sang in the choir asked a priest if his book had been published yet. Upon an affirmative response, the lady told him that perhaps some people would read his book. But her voice projected the words of the gospel, which reverberate unto the ends of the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T03:00:21.093" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="774" CreationDate="2011-08-27T00:19:44.963" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even when they're spoken in a joking way, other people not in on the joke might think you're being vulgar.  Paul provides some good advice in 1 Thessalonians 5: 22:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Abstain from all appearance of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T00:19:44.963" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="778" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-27T00:52:10.717" Score="24" ViewCount="93983" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This question is pretty much a spinoff of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/694/what-does-the-bible-say-about-sex-before-marriage-premarital-sex&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex?&lt;/a&gt; because its current answer depends on the assumption that premarital sex is πορνεία (commonly translated &quot;fornication&quot;). Not all agree, so I think this assumption is better explicitly questioned.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard some liberal Christians dispute the definition of the Greek word &lt;em&gt;πορνεία&lt;/em&gt; (porneia), &lt;strong&gt;claiming it doesn't mean premarital sex at all&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.libchrist.com/bible/premaritalsex.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;An example of such an argument&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the major difficulties here is that just a dictionary definition doesn't cut it, because it's difficult to really know what the Greek word really meant 2000 years ago. The answer probably needs to either be a broad look at the Bible passages using the word, or an academic study on the word's meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Additional information 2011-09-21:&lt;/strong&gt; The following articles seem interesting, but I can't access the fulltexts. It seems from the publicly-available bits that Dr. Malina might actually have been the first to dispute the meaning of &lt;em&gt;porneia&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Malina, B. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560033&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does porneia mean fornication?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Novum Testamentum, 1972.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jensen, J. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560427&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Novum Testamentum, 1978.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2020-12-04T06:04:11.760" Title="What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?" Tags="&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;greek&gt;&lt;word-study&gt;&lt;liberal-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="667" CreationDate="2011-08-27T01:17:11.220" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:7-19&lt;/a&gt; gives us an idea, particularly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=god%20is%20love&amp;amp;searchtype=phrase&amp;amp;version1=31&amp;amp;spanbegin=1&amp;amp;spanend=73&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;verses 6 and 18&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; love, literally. I don't really know how to elaborate on that without corrupting it so I wont. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T01:17:11.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="778" CreationDate="2011-08-27T01:27:50.003" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;porneia&lt;/em&gt; is often translated as &quot;fornication&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:2&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 7:2 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;It's worth noting that more modern translations use &quot;sexual immorality&quot; here instead of &quot;fornication&quot; due to the confusion with that given word.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at the English definition of &quot;fornication&quot;, we see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  Fornication&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1.&#xA;  voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Premarital sex is fornication; adultery is fornication; any type of sex where the two people are not married or not married to each other is fornication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strong's Concordance gives us the original definition of &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4202&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;porneia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1) illicit sexual intercourse&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with&#xA;  animals etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This root word includes &lt;em&gt;all forms&lt;/em&gt; of sexual acts that are not within the confines of  marriage (a heterosexual one at that).  The study of the word itself shows that anything and everything &lt;em&gt;outside the realm of marriage&lt;/em&gt; is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also worth noting that this word is one of the root words for pornography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Regarding your link&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2697/why-is-rape-not-in-the-10-commandments/2716#2716&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, I point out the clear and obvious refutation to link that you provided above.  They claim that adultery was a property rights violation against the husband.  However, they ignore the fact that raping a virgin was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a property rights violation against the father&lt;/a&gt;.  Furthermore, if a woman became married and the husband found no proof of her virginity, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;he had a right to have her stoned for not being a virgin&lt;/a&gt;.  Clearly, premarital sex was explicitly forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T16:26:05.797" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="767" CreationDate="2011-08-27T01:29:11.750" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;A cursory search of the Internet brought me this list of quotations from various patristic sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summarized from this article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/invocationofsaints.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;On the Intercession and Invocation of the Saints&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Righteous Job the Long-Suffering (1000 – 300 BC)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there shall be an angel speaking for him . . . He shall have mercy&#xA;on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to&#xA;corruption&amp;quot; (Job xxxiii, 23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Book of Tobit (~ 200 – 100 BC)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When thou didst pray with tears… I [Archangel Raphael] offered thy&#xA;prayer to the Lord. (Tobit xii, 12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. John the Evangelist (+101)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden&#xA;censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer&#xA;of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before&#xA;the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the&#xA;saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel. (Apoc.,&#xA;viii, 3, 4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Cyprian of Carthage (+258), writing to Pope Cornelius of Rome&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us be mutually mindful of each other, let us ever pray for each&#xA;other, and if one of us shall, by the speediness of the Divine&#xA;vouchsafement, depart hence first, let our love continue in the&#xA;presence of the Lord, let not prayer for our brethren and sisters&#xA;cease in the presence of the mercy of the Father.[iv]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Hilary of Poitiers (+368)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To those who would fain stand, neither the guardianship of saints nor&#xA;the defences of angels are wanting.[v]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Ephraim the Syrian (+373)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember me, ye heirs of God, ye brethren of Christ, supplicate the&#xA;Saviour earnestly for me, that I may be freed though Christ from him&#xA;that fights against me day by day.[vi]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the&#xA;God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord&#xA;Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men,&#xA;full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and&#xA;enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him.[vii]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Athanasius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria (+373)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ became man that men might become gods[viii]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“In one of his letters, St. Basil [the Great] explicitly writes that&#xA;he accepts the intercession of the apostles, prophets and martyrs, and&#xA;he seeks their prayers to God. (Letter 360) Then, speaking about the&#xA;Forty Martyrs, who suffered martyrdom for Christ, he emphasizes that&#xA;they are common friends of the human race, strong ambassadors and&#xA;collaborators in fervent prayers. (Chapter 8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“St. Gregory of Nyssa asks St. Theodore the Martyr …to fervently pray&#xA;to our Common King, our God, for the country and the people (Encomium&#xA;to Martyr Theodore).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The same language is used by St. Gregory the Theologian in his&#xA;encomium to St. Cyprian. St. John Chrysostom says that we should seek&#xA;the intercession and the fervent prayers of the saints, because they&#xA;have special &amp;quot;boldness&amp;quot; (parresia), before God. (Gen. 44: 2 and&#xA;Encomium to Julian, Iuventinus and Maximinus, 3).”[ix]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Basil the Great, of Caesarea in Asia Minor (+379)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the blameless faith of the Christians which we have&#xA;obtained from God, I confess and agree that I believe in one God the&#xA;Father Almighty; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; I&#xA;adore and worship one God, the Three. I confess to the economy of the&#xA;Son in the flesh, and that the holy Mary, who gave birth to Him&#xA;according to the flesh, was Mother of God. I acknowledge also the holy&#xA;apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to&#xA;God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful&#xA;God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given&#xA;me for my sins. Wherefore also I honour and kiss the features of their&#xA;images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles,&#xA;and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches.[x]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We beseech you, O most holy martyrs, who cheerfully suffered torments&#xA;and death for his love, and are now more familiarly united to him,&#xA;that you intercede with God for us slothful and wretched sinners, that&#xA;he bestow on us the grace of Christ, by which we may be enlightened&#xA;and enabled to love him.[xi]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;O holy choir! O sacred band! O unbroken host of warriors! O common&#xA;guardians of the human race! Ye gracious sharers of our cares! Ye&#xA;co-operators in our prayer! Most powerful intercessors![xii] Liturgy&#xA;of St. Basil the Great&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the command of Thine only-begotten Son we communicate with the&#xA;memory of Thy saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have&#xA;mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of Thy holy name which&#xA;is invoked upon us.[xiii]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Cyril of Jerusalem (+386)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us,&#xA;first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God, by their&#xA;prayers and intercessions, may receive our petitions.[xiv]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Gregory the Theologian, Patriarch of Constantinople; of Nazianzus in Asia Minor (+389)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mayest thou [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and&#xA;guide our word and life; and shepherd [or shepherd with me] this&#xA;sacred flock . . . gladdening us with a more perfect and clear&#xA;illumination of the Holy Trinity, before Which thou standest.[xv]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Gregory of Nyssa in Lower Armenia (+395-400)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...I wish to commemorate one person who spoke of their noble testimony&#xA;because I am close to Ibora, the village and resting place of these&#xA;forty martyrs' remains. Here the Romans keep a register of soldiers,&#xA;one of whom was a guard ordered by his commander to protect against&#xA;invasions, a practice common to soldiers in such remote areas. This&#xA;man suffered from an injured foot which was later amputated. Being in&#xA;the martyrs' resting place, he earnestly beseeched God and the&#xA;intercession of the saints. One night there appeared a man of&#xA;venerable appearance in the company of others who said, &amp;quot;Oh soldier,&#xA;do you want to be healed [J.167] of your infirmity? Give me your foot&#xA;that I may touch it.&amp;quot; When he awoke from the dream, his foot was&#xA;completely healed. Once he awoke from this vision, his foot was&#xA;restored to health. He roused the other sleeping men because he was&#xA;immediately cured and made whole. This men then began to proclaim the&#xA;miracle performed by the martyrs and acknowledged the kindness&#xA;bestowed by these fellow soldiers…. We who freely and boldly enter&#xA;paradise are strengthened by the [martyrs'] intercession through a&#xA;noble confession in our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever&#xA;and ever. Amen.[xvii]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do thou, [St. Ephraim the Syrian] that art standing at the Divine&#xA;altar, and art ministering with angels to the life-giving and most&#xA;Holy Trinity, bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the&#xA;remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom.[xviii]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Ambrose of Milan (+397)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn&#xA;towards us Christ's benignant countenance.[xix]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Jerome, b. Dalmatia, d. Palestine (+419)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for&#xA;others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how&#xA;much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One&#xA;man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for six hundred thousand men in&#xA;arms; and Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in&#xA;Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be&#xA;less after having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares&#xA;that two hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were&#xA;freely given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with&#xA;Christ, shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in&#xA;behalf of those who throughout the whole world believed at his&#xA;preaching of the Gospel? And shall the living dog Vigilantius be&#xA;better than that dead lion?[xx]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople; b. Antioch, Syria (+407)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When thou perceivest that God is chastening thee, fly not to His&#xA;enemies . . . but to His friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those&#xA;who were pleasing to Him, and who have great power [parresian,&#xA;&amp;quot;boldness of speech&amp;quot;].[xxi]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He that wears the purple, laying aside his pomp, stands begging of the&#xA;saints to be his patrons with God; and he that wears the diadem begs&#xA;the Tent-maker and the Fisherman as patrons, even though they be&#xA;dead.[xxii]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Augustine of Hippo, in North Africa (+430)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that&#xA;we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that&#xA;they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps.[xxiii]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One would expect the Masoretic Old Testament to have little support for prayer requests &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; the dead, as opposed to prayer requests for the dead, since (is this correct?) the notion of resurrection was a later introduction to Judaism in preparation for the coming of Christ. Indeed, the Psalmist declares&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? (Psalm 6:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?&#xA;(Psalm 88:10-12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed death held illimitable dominion over all, even the righteous, before the glorious victory of our Lord Jesus. But now even (or especially) Christian children spit upon death as upon a miscreant pilloried, or better, a great foe vanquished and made impotent. Death is now (among other things) an entrance into new life, life in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect the main basis for this practice is that &amp;quot;it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.&amp;quot; After doing the work of God (viz. liturgy, specifically communing) at the tombs of the martyrs (or today, celebrating the liturgy upon the relics of saints), it is not farfetched to give death the finger by submitting prayer requests to these &amp;quot;dead,&amp;quot; now made alive in Christ Jesus (presuming they've made it there). Indeed, the revelation of John tells us that departed saints continue to pray; it is then not farfetched to hope that they might hear our petitions and pray for what we ask. Indeed, now that they are truly baptized with the baptism with which He has been baptized, it's that much more easy to ask them to intercede for us than it is to ask those still in the flesh to pray for us. Petitioning the saints comes from knowledge in the Spirit that they will know what we ask, and pray for us accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuredly, however, a more detailed and specifically history/archaeology-based answer to your question would be more appropriate than such speculation. I hope the list above is helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This all represents my understanding of the practice of veneration of and petitioning to the saints who have died, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T15:10:40.290" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="783" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-27T01:34:03.977" Score="20" ViewCount="4711" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's only in the King James and the New King James, but why is Jesus' name in all caps?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:&#xA;  for he shall save his people from their sins.&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 1:21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,&#xA;  and shalt call his name JESUS. &lt;strong&gt;Luke 1:31&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It isn't like this anywhere else in the Bible. The word in the Greek is the same as in other instances of the name. Why? And why only in the KJV?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-12T06:26:09.103" LastActivityDate="2021-05-06T17:10:01.053" Title="Why does the (N)KJV put Jesus' name in all caps in Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="204" CreationDate="2011-08-27T01:36:50.707" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, the Bible does have quite a direct answer to the question &lt;em&gt;What is God waiting for?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 24:14 (KJV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T01:36:50.707" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="751" CreationDate="2011-08-27T02:00:53.940" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a history to those Sibyl.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, the word Sibyl means Prophetess, and this word was originated from Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Erythrean Sibyl appears as the one who has prophesied the Redemption in arts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Persian Sibyl seems to be the priestess who occupied over Apollo Oracle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Libyan Sibyl was priestess who was the presiding over Zeus Ammon Oracle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cumaean Sibyl was the pristess who were the head of the Apollo Oracle at Cumae.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Delphic Sibyl was a figure who made prophecies at Delphi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, they are in a way not related to the Christianity. However, the reason for them to be depicted at the ceiling is because some of their prophecy was in a way related to the prophesying the coming of Christ. For example, Cumaean Sibyl was told to be declaring a new progeny of Heaven would bring about a return of the &amp;quot;Golden Age&amp;quot;. This was thought of prophesying the coming of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="10672" LastEditDate="2020-12-08T22:43:30.640" LastActivityDate="2020-12-08T22:43:30.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="774" CreationDate="2011-08-27T02:26:25.803" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4:29&amp;amp;version=31&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:29&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:4&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Language is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29#20th_century_theories&quot;&gt;collective memory or cultural history&lt;/a&gt;. In other words, the meaning of words are defined by society. Per Ephesians 5:4, there could be no obscenity, foolishness or joking apart from an audience to interpret the message. Just as words in English have no meaning to people that don't speak English, the words can have certain meanings in certain sub-cultures or circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If certain words are not interpreted as obscene in a given circle, then the use of these words do not violate the command in Ephesians 5:4 and they will not have the appearance of evil per 1 Thessalonians 5:22. Same thing with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:29&amp;amp;version=31&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:29&lt;/a&gt;. The words are not sinful in themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, in my experience it will be very tough for someone that incorporates this kind of language into their regular routine to refrain from using it around people that might not interpret it the same way. One way or another it always slips out. Furthermore, one has to be discerning enough not to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:9&amp;amp;version=31&quot;&gt;cause another Christian to stumble&lt;/a&gt; by using this language improperly. It's probably safest not to use it and not flirt with violating these commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T02:26:25.803" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2011-08-27T02:33:33.517" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the reasons posted in other answers here. (misunderstanding, threats to social systems, almost legitimate social stigma), we should add that the basic reason the gospel is not welcomed as good news throughout the world is our attachment to sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:19&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;John 3:19&lt;/a&gt; KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Misunderstandings are what happen when people haven't seen the light come into the world because it has been presented to them as darkness. The recent castigation of the priesthood is more and less legitimate, more because there is real darkness present in the allegations, but less legitimate because this darkness people use to excuse their own darkness. Instead of throwing light onto clergy and self alike, it is often more comfortable to point fingers, as though God were fooled by our misdirection. We fool ourselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A threat to a social system is even less legitimate, for the situation is that light has made people uncomfortable, and we instinctively squint our eyes when light is so bright as to be painful. But finally, at the root we all do things we know we ought not, and leave undone what was God's behest. Willingly we turn from the light and wish it would leave well enough alone while we perish in darkness. That in us which is of the world, the flesh, the carnal man within detests Christians because Christians are salt and light. Light reveals, and salt magnifies the true flavor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="219" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T20:12:38.600" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T20:12:38.600" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="790" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-27T02:33:39.943" Score="23" ViewCount="1153" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Young Earth Creationists&lt;/a&gt; believe in a young earth, followed by a literal global flood based on the belief that Scripture is written as history.  Often, in comments, discussion forums, and discussions in general, they will refer to &quot;overwhelming physical evidence&quot; that backs up their theological belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What phsyical evidence do they teach or believe can be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-10-28T20:33:15.967" LastActivityDate="2020-05-05T13:13:05.383" Title="What is the physical evidence for a global flood?" Tags="&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2011-08-27T03:17:32.607" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assignment to heaven and hell indeed imply certain states of mind. (Cf. the excellent novella by C. S. Lewis treating this very topic, &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce.&lt;/em&gt;) However, the traditional understanding of the afterlife is that those who have died experience a foretaste of what awaits them in the general resurrection occurring upon the second and glorious coming of Christ Jesus. Here are some thoughts that I hope clarify this issue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, upon Christ's death upon the Cross, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt; ...the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, &lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt; and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:52-53&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:52-53, KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presumably these had not exactly committed their lives to Christ, but only hoped on the Lord God and looked forward to the day that God would raise up a horn for His people, and died in this hope. It is thus not a stretch to envision God raising to life the righteous of cultures less privileged than the Hebrews, let alone less privileged than the church, Christ's very Body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, God is just, and not just by fiat. We know by experience that Christ is indeed the most fully qualified Judge, for he judges impartially, not following His own will, but that of His Father, the very Author of justice. Indeed, if we merely look at His life among us in the gospels, we see a just man. So we should not despair that God would do injustice, for that is not in His character. We also know God appoints all things for the benefit of those whom He loves, viz. those that He created. So if someone should perish outside the Gospel, then perhaps he would have resisted it had he heard it, and it would have been accounted to him as a greater condemnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, no one will be in Hell who has not chosen to be there. Even Christ, Who despoiled Hell, chose to be there for our salvation (for only He could leave it, having no sin). Furthermore, God respects the free will of His creatures, and He allows those who choose to live apart from Him do so, if indeed such existence can be called life. If someone consistently and unrepentantly refuses the love of God, then God help such a person, for he has torn down the very bridge to salvation that is repentance. One may very well imagine that such a condition could, like a black hole, collapse irreversibly and irredeemably upon itself, setting someone in a permanent condition of ever-growing antipathy to God. (There are positively terrifying examples of this in Lewis's aforementioned work.) This is hell, and a place is appointed for such, and the place is also hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to thinking about the eternality of heaven and hell, one would be a fool not to work for salvation &lt;em&gt;now,&lt;/em&gt; which, as Tolstoy puts it, is the only time in which we have any power to act. The gravity of what is at stake is so great that indulging in wishful thinking about what salvation may come later can be disastrous. If it is your own salvation you are thinking about, then yes, heaven and hell are eternal. And indeed they are eternal. Time ends when the resurrection comes, and with time goes all hope for work towards salvation. If ever you have opportunity for salvation, seize it now!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you are distressed about the eternal destination of a neighbor, then pray for that neighbor. Many stories (at least in Eastern Orthodoxy) tell of saints who foresaw perdition for the dead and earnestly prayed God that such a fate would be averted, and God answered their prayer and restored even the truly dead to true life. For example, I think one of the Sts. Gregory thought Emperor Trajan had misunderstood Christians and shouldn't be sent to hell, and earnestly prayed Christ that he would escape this. Also, more recently St. Silouan of Mt. Athos prayed to God that his incorrigibly vindictive elder would escape hell, and God answered his prayer too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, recall these eschatological verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203:13-15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 3:13-15, KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also recall the Lucan parable of the minas/pounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:12-27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 19:12-27, KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So some are saved comparatively handily; some are saved truly as if through fire; and yet some still spurn the love of God, even eternally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T19:29:52.127" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:29:52.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2011-08-27T06:40:24.543" Score="-1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Walt Brown&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has done a significant amount of research and study on this topic. He graduated from MIT and ended up retiring from the Air Force as a Colonel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that you'll find his theory incredibly compelling, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;His Website&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically he says that the earth was created relatively flat. Not flat in the sense of non-spherical, but flat in the sense of no mountains, valleys or oceans. Then the flood happened and caused some major devastation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It ends with the idea that the oceans are the evidence of the flood, the mountains are the evidence of the flood, the fossils, the tilt of the earth's axis, the seasons, all of this is evidence of what happened in Walts theory. It really explains everything in a very logical argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-08-03T20:36:25.953" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="771" CreationDate="2011-08-27T06:54:10.830" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting question. Wesley, as an Anglican, would have learned to understand Scripture through the lenses of Tradition and Reason. Tradition for him would have included everything from his contemporary Pietists back to the early church fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did a quick search and discovered that Wesley believed those closest to the beginning of the church had an advantage over modern Christians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can any who spend several years in those seats of learning, be excused if they do not add to that reading of the Fathers the most authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived, I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the council of Nicea. But who could not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them with St. Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/noncanonical-literature-the-fathers-of-the-church/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wesley's teaching on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.revempete.us/research/holiness/christianperfection.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christian Perfection&lt;/a&gt; was partly influenced by his reading of the fathers, and his doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crivoice.org/hhearlychurch.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prevenient Grace&lt;/a&gt; appears to have been derived from Chrysostom; beyond that, I'm not sure how much he drew from the ancient fathers. The primary influences on his theology would have been his contemporary Pietists as well as the writings of Jacobus Arminius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T06:54:10.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="783" CreationDate="2011-08-27T07:00:25.590" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having a closer look at the Greek lexicon and interlinear Bible shows that &lt;em&gt;Iesous&lt;/em&gt; is translated to JESUS and to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I have found is that Mathew puts more of an emphasis on Christ the child instead of the event of the birth itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could also very well be that the authors/translators are trying to convey importance by using uppercase letters. Here's a study done by a woman by the name of Suzanne McCarthy. &lt;a href=&quot;http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2008/03/upper-case.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T07:20:23.450" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T07:20:23.450" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="799" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="800" CreationDate="2011-08-27T07:00:35.133" Score="-2" ViewCount="613" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always wondered how this meme started.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="182" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T15:31:22.013" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T12:21:12.527" Title="What is the origin of &quot;Jesus H Christ&quot;?" Tags="&lt;phrase&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2011-08-27T17:39:29.983" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="799" CreationDate="2011-08-27T07:12:09.267" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The exact origin is unknown because it seems to have originated from slang. In the Autobiography of Mark Twain, Mark mentions that Jesus H Christ had old origins that were unknown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T07:12:09.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="802" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1045" CreationDate="2011-08-27T07:49:15.463" Score="10" ViewCount="741" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christians believe Noah's flood was a local event rather than a global flood. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What physical or geological evidence has been given by such Christians to support their position? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-13T23:42:20.860" LastActivityDate="2016-07-17T15:47:13.163" Title="What is the physical evidence for a local flood?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="802" CreationDate="2011-08-27T07:53:34.047" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lack of archaeological evidence for a global flood.&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;em&gt;(According to those who don't believe in a global flood.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T07:53:34.047" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="644" CreationDate="2011-08-27T08:05:39.777" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think what you are seeing is a reaction to a stereotype created by our culture and the popular media.  Much like the picture in the minds of many people of the Devil parading around in red tights with a pitch fork.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In actual fact, scripture teaches us that Lucifer, whose name means &quot;Light Bearer&quot;, was the &quot;Morning Star&quot; who fell from heaven in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa 14&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 28&lt;/a&gt; describes him as &quot;the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty&quot;.  He is understood to have been an archangel and a prince of heavenly worship.  Other scripture teaches that he comes as an &quot;angel of light&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Cor 11:14&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in actual fact, the devil is likely to present as someone visually and audibly beautiful.  Some allowance may need to be made for subsequent corruption after he fell, but since angels are purely spiritual beings, they likely can manifest in our realm in any form that serves their purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, while I personally don't care for grungy metal and don't find it either pleasing or uplifting, I find it unlikely that it's inherently demonic simply because it uses raspy metallic vocals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T23:40:40.017" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T23:40:40.017" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2011-08-27T08:15:58.293" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word &quot;Yom&quot; can be translated as meaning any finite and bounded period of time; how it should be translated in a given context is dependent on that context.  With reference to the creation account, one must also take into account the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/creation-passages-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;numerous other scriptures&lt;/a&gt; that speak of creation and their use of &quot;Yom&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With relationship to the days described in Genesis, Jewish theologian and physicist Gerald Schroeder comments on the words &quot;evening&quot; and &quot;morning&quot; in his book &quot;Genesis and the Big Bang&quot; that the same words can equally be translated &quot;disorder&quot; and &quot;order&quot;, respectively.  This derives from the fact the the Hebrews saw approaching night as bringing disorder and approaching morning as bringing order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Applying Gerald's ideas, one could possibly read Genesis 1 as along the lines of &quot;and there was disorder, and there was order, the first age&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just food for thought.  A more detailed treatment is available on my website: &lt;a href=&quot;http://softwaremonkey.org/Article/Religion/Old-Earth-Creation#Days&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://softwaremonkey.org/Article/Religion/Old-Earth-Creation#Days&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2015-04-03T17:35:15.470" LastActivityDate="2015-04-03T17:35:15.470" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="806" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="818" CreationDate="2011-08-27T08:22:45.570" Score="1" ViewCount="1299" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about ecology, or how we should relate to nature?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T12:14:59.377" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T12:14:59.377" Title="What does the Bible say about ecology?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-08-31T03:17:50.643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2011-08-27T08:23:12.780" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can provide evidence that suggests a global flood when taken together, but you can never really prove something that happened in the past. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fossils. The fact that so many fossils are found, and often in large collections, is kind of odd if you believe the flood didn't happen. Normally dead animals rot away, are eaten by other animals, or otherwise have their remains scattered by the elements. Flood conditions that bury the animals whole, are very desirable in producing fossils (you have to have the right minerals from soil and water encasing an object before it will fossilize).. Just think for a second how silly it would be to say that the larger fossil collections were not caused by a flood or simular catastrophe, that's how the arceologist explain allot of them, by some sort of local flood for each deposit. So why not accept the global Flood? That explanation was written well before anybody had a reason to explain them. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fossil_Parks&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fossil_Parks&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;History. While I know there are definitely exceptions, all around the world ancient civilizations record a global flood (but it of course is usually dismissed as part of their mythology). Interestingly enough many of them include a story about people in a boat with names very similar to Noah and his family. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/flood.html&quot;&gt;http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/flood.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The geologic column, and fossil record. It just happens that the order of materials in the geologic column, and the order fossils are generally* found, are the order those materials hydraulically sort into if mixed in flowing water and allowed to settle. (Don't take my word for it, try it!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Polystrate fossils. That is to say, fossils that that span multiple layers in the geologic column. All over the world entire forests of trees are found petrified joining multiple geologic era's, so either they stood still for millions of years while the layers formed around them so they could be petrified. (In the upright position, without rotting), or they were petrified by being buried in some catastrophic event. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To Be Continued later..... **&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*And don't be fooled, although I hear claims to the opposite all the time, fossils do end up in layers they supposedly shouldn't be in frequently. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**Also I am staying on topic and only talking about some of the evidence of a global flood, others may come and hijack this thread to talk about their old earth 'science', I'll address those in the appropriate threads. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T20:20:46.067" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T20:20:46.067" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2011-08-27T08:25:02.060" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/&quot;&gt;Answers in Genesis&lt;/a&gt; website has an article that covers historical records of the flood - &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/csgeg/comparison-secular-historical-records&quot;&gt;Comparison of secular historical records&lt;/a&gt;, where they look at 200 flood traditions from across the world.  95% of the traditions had common elements with the Genesis account and described a worldwide flood. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers in Genesis also provides a number of articles describing geological evidence for a worldwide flood: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/geology&quot;&gt;Geological Links&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastEditorUserId="179" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T11:54:59.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T11:54:59.883" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="809" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="813" CreationDate="2011-08-27T08:43:51.843" Score="10" ViewCount="520" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there continuing growth in Christianity around the world or has it stalled/declined?  I'm interested in worldwide stats rather than for individual countries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="179" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-13T19:05:18.767" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T19:05:18.767" Title="Is Christianity continuing to grow worldwide?" Tags="&lt;global-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="633" CreationDate="2011-08-27T08:56:12.660" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Frank Sheed gives the singularly best treatise on the Trinity that I have ever read in &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B004WPIXWG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Theology and Sanity&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;.  I &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;highly&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; recommend this book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his book he states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have seen the definition of sonship, the origin of a living thing from another living thing by communication of substance unto likeness of nature.  Where you have that, you have the relation of father and son.  In all this there is no question of a lapse of time between coming into existence and generating a son.  That lapse of time arises not for the nature of sonship but from the finitude of man, specifically from the fact that he does not come into existence in full possession of all his powers, but has to grow slowly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is no question of God's needing a little eternity before he is able to generate a son; there is no such thing as a little eternity - eternity is one indivisible thing; God simply is, and in the one act of being is all that he is, and simply by being himself is father of his son.  ... It is true that the Son receives his nature from the Father, but not as a result of a decision which the Father might just as well not have made.  By the same infinite necessity the Father both &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;is Father&lt;/em&gt;: that is to say, by the same infinite necessity, the Father is and the Son is. ... There is a second person, equal in all things to the first, God as he is God, infinite as he is infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same line of reasoning is applied to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key in understanding the Trinity (to the limited extent that we can understand what is a mystery) is to understand that God is one &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; and three &lt;em&gt;persons&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet here we come up against an apparently enormous difficulty; ... we seem to have established two gods, two infinities; ... The trouble is that the concept of human sonship brings us to &lt;em&gt;likeness&lt;/em&gt; of nature, but not &lt;em&gt;oneness&lt;/em&gt; of nature; a father and son are like in nature: both are human, but each has his own separate equipment as a man, his own separate human nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is described by John in scripture to be the Word of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that if God has a word, it will not be a vocal word, a thing out of thin air, shaped by lungs and throat and tongue and teeth.  God is not like that. God is a pure spirit, and his word must be a word in the mind, &lt;em&gt;verbum mentale&lt;/em&gt;; in other words, a thought or idea. ... But if God does, as we know from himself that he does, conceive and idea of himself, this idea must be totally adequate, in no way less that the being of which it is the idea, lacking nothing that the being has.  The idea must contain all the perfection of the being of which it is the idea. ... otherwise the thinker would be thinking of himself inadequately, which is impossible for the infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus it is that God conceives of the idea of himself in eternity, where time as we experience it does not apply, which begets a son in all ways equal to God, and together they express love in eternity from which proceeds the Holy Spirit in eternity.  Three persons, sharing one infinite and eternal nature, for all eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a mystery to our small minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T01:55:18.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="809" CreationDate="2011-08-27T09:22:41.473" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The numbers appear to be inconclusive, at least according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears the number of Christians is growing, but in terms of percentage of population, some studies show a slight growth, while others show a slight decline.  Of course the various studies are over different time periods, so it's impossible, with the given data, to draw any conclusive results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion#Christianity&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; estimates the 2007 growth rate of Christianity at 1.38%, which appears to be within the range of the various studies cited above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T09:32:36.870" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T09:32:36.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-08-27T10:15:49.740" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Paul said it best, &lt;em&gt;&quot;Flee from sexual immorality.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:18&lt;/a&gt;) I understand this, and Jesus' comments about cutting off hands (Matthew &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;5:30&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;18:8&lt;/a&gt;, etc.), to mean, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Take whatever steps you need to get away from temptation!&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, you won't make it on will power. You need to get away from temptation. Wth respect to pornography, that might require keeping your computer in a location where other people can see you (e.g. a downstairs room) or removing your home internet connection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T21:11:15.303" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T21:11:15.303" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="790" CreationDate="2011-08-27T10:37:07.680" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am no archaeologist even today, but even as an child I found one piece of evidence to contribute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was a kid my dad always used to complain that he could never find his tools. That's because half of them were strewn about in the woods where I had absconded with them. He never could keep a hatchet around, but one of the other tools I loved was a sledge hammer. Where we lived there wasn't much dirt, maybe 6&quot; if you were lucky, then you hit limestone bedrock. I used to smash every bit of rock I could get loose into bits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? Because inside every single sample were fossils ... specifically &lt;em&gt;fossils of sea creatures&lt;/em&gt;. I collected literally hundreds of sea-shell fossils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We lived on on the top of of a ridge at 7,500 feet elevation in the middle of the Rocky Mountains in the middle of a continent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T10:37:07.680" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="806" CreationDate="2011-08-27T11:02:54.240" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In advance: Neiter the Old nor the New Testament contains consistent statement regarding ecology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, three interesting passages:&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The &lt;em&gt;dominium terrae&lt;/em&gt; in Gen 1:28&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage in it's context (Gen 1:26-1:28):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ideal world in the first chapter can be called a &quot;Utopie of Nonviolence&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;The seeds, fruits and green plants are sufficient as a food base and neither a human nor an animal has to kill another creature for food procurement (cf. Gen 1:29). A harmony between human, animal and plant world is possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only in the eary modern period (Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes), the &quot;&lt;em&gt;subdue it&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (Vers 28) was interpreted as exploitation of the nature. Note that today's interpretations don't think of it as an invation for violent trampling but rather as a passage, that highlights the aspect of colonization and livestock&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;: The humans shall make the earth habitable by their work and tame the forces of nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The confrontation with the reality in Gen 9:1-7&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man' brother will I require the life of man.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Whoso sheddeth man' blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's blessing is still given. But here breaks through: The actual human experience of imperfection and the possibility of human error – the paradisical state of nonviolence is reduced. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Erich Zenger calls the force by which the man is equipped necessary to keep things in order. In order to prevent that the living space becomes a place of death, the man got the capability to protect threatened lives.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In conclusion we can say …&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;… that the humans, as the preservers of life, received the order to deal with that in a responsibile way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The sufferings of this present world (Rom 8:18-23)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these passage a new eschatological dimension is added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eary Christian community was familiar with the thought of the World's imperfection. Paulus names that the suffering which is by the people and in the creation. By the fall of men every human-being and the whole creation is subjected to futility. But by Jesus Christ the humans &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the world around is enlightend. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ofcourse eschatology isn't interesting for ecology at all. But nevertheless this passage is to be noted from an ecological view of point because it states the close relatedness between humans and the creation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*: Simone Birkle, &lt;em&gt;Zukunft wagen, Ökologisch handeln&lt;/em&gt; (2002)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: Erich Zenger, &lt;em&gt;Du liebst alles was ist&lt;/em&gt; (1989), 142&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2: Norbert Lohfink, &lt;em&gt;Macht die Erde euch untertan&lt;/em&gt; (1974), 138&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3: Erich Zenger, &lt;em&gt;Gottes Bogen in den Wolken&lt;/em&gt;, 118&lt;/sup&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="70" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T17:13:36.560" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T17:13:36.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="820" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="821" CreationDate="2011-08-27T11:34:19.237" Score="0" ViewCount="266" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/774/what-does-the-bible-say-about-bad-words&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; words?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that swearing and using obscenity is wrong, but I'm curious what exactly are the Scriptures that support this.  Is there any Scripture that clearly states that using obscenity is wrong? or is swearing/blaspheming/obscenity wrong because it violates key values and doctrines of Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T15:16:11.213" Title="Scripture against obscenity" Tags="&lt;cursing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-08-27T12:42:39.740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="820" CreationDate="2011-08-27T11:54:31.403" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible prevents obscenity in many cases. Keep in mind that speech is a gift from God, so we must ask ourselves how he use this gift. Also, using obscenity usually shows what is in heart. Here are some verses that support this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 5:3,4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or&#xA;  of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for&#xA;  God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or&#xA;  coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 4:31&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and &lt;strong&gt;slander&lt;/strong&gt;, along&#xA;  with every form of malice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalms 19:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart    be&#xA;  pleasing in your sight,    LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 6:45&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,&#xA;  and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his&#xA;  heart. &lt;strong&gt;For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T15:16:11.213" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T15:16:11.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="824" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="828" CreationDate="2011-08-27T12:42:43.737" Score="7" ViewCount="248" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Martin Luther's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Final_years_and_death&quot;&gt;Biography&lt;/a&gt;, In his final hour, Justus Jonas and Michael Coelius who were his companions shouted loudly and asked this question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Reverend father, are you ready to die trusting in your Lord Jesus Christ and to confess the doctrine which you have taught in his name?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther was known to say Yes to this question. How should I understand this situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T14:10:24.500" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T14:10:24.500" Title="What is the meaning of the question Luther's companions shouted on his deathbed?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="806" CreationDate="2011-08-27T12:50:49.657" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In regards to conservation, I believe there is a good warning in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 11:18&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; The nations were angry,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and your wrath has come.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The time has come for judging the dead,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and for rewarding your servants the&#xA;  prophets&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and your people who revere your name,&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;both great and&#xA;  small—&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;strong&gt;and for destroying those who destroy the earth&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis added by me)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T12:50:49.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="806" CreationDate="2011-08-27T13:28:13.583" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When this subject is raised, I always think of three passages.  First is mankind being given dominion over the Earth and everything that's in it, as cited by Karl von Moor already.  And the others are the Parable of the Pounds (Luke 19: 12-26), and the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25: 14-30).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These parables have slightly different setups and several details are different between the two, but in both, Jesus explains that we will be held responsible for what we do with what God gives us to take care of.  Remember that the Earth is not ours, it is His; we were given temporary stewardship over it just as the servants in the parables were given stewardship over their Master's money, and expected to take good care of it, and when the Judgment comes around, an accounting of our stewardship will be required at our hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T13:28:13.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="824" CreationDate="2011-08-27T13:28:44.460" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would read this simply as a verbal confession that showed how Luther persisted in his faith to the end. His heart did not waver nor did he abandon the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews%206:19/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hope that was an anchor for his soul&lt;/a&gt; when his body became frail and his hearing faded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T13:28:44.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="824" CreationDate="2011-08-27T13:35:40.513" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hard to be certain, but if I were to guess, I'd explain the reasoning like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther had done something unprecedented.  There was one Catholic (universal) Church, who claimed that they alone held the keys to salvation.  But Luther had dared to claim that salvation could be found outside the authority of the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously this gained him a great deal of notoriety, and some amount of power as well, as he ended up with followers and disciples.  And he could easily have imagined that this would end up happening when he started out.  This leaves the lingering question, did he do it all for the glory?  Or did he genuinely do it because he believed it was the right thing to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he was a fraud, his disciples are in big trouble and they'd better get back on the path as quickly as they can, and go back to the Catholic Church and seek forgiveness.  Otherwise, they end up damned for eternity!  So they ask him on his deathbed, when he knows his time is over and he has no more reason to lie, (if it was a lie) whether the whole thing was genuine.  And he affirmed, with no reason to lie, that yes, it was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T13:35:40.513" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="799" CreationDate="2011-08-27T15:43:11.080" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It could also be that on the Eucharist, in some depictions, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07649a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the letters IHS are spelled.&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T12:21:12.527" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T12:21:12.527" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="831" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="841" CreationDate="2011-08-27T15:47:10.560" Score="11" ViewCount="1326" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2013:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 13:24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; teaches us that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children, &#xA;     but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize child abuse is a serious matter, and spanking is in some areas considered child abuse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In US society and maybe others, it seems to be a real fear that if you spank your children, you could lose them to social services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how do Christians discipline their children as the Bible instructs in today's society?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T16:45:16.737" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T16:45:16.737" Title="How should Christians discipline their children today?" Tags="&lt;parenting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-12-26T19:33:50.107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="204" CreationDate="2011-08-27T15:51:23.287" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oh, there is still some stuff that sould be fufiled before the End of times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the Judgement Day could happen, there must be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;144,000 people sealed&lt;/a&gt; from all tribes of Israel who were the servents of God. 12,000 for the 12 Tribes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T15:51:23.287" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="783" CreationDate="2011-08-27T15:56:43.123" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;First some background&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many places in the bible you will see LORD used to refer to God. This is actually referring Jehovah. The KJV authors didn't want to write it all out so they just used LORD &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.matthewmcgee.org/deity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;instead&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I cannot seem to find any indication that this is the case in this passage. It seems to be a typesetting curiosity and nothing more. Its also not repeated in other English translations so its significance is relegated only to the KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T15:56:43.123" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="834" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="835" CreationDate="2011-08-27T16:33:36.157" Score="19" ViewCount="20359" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently while reading John 5 with my wife's family, we had a discussion about whether the pool of Bethesda really had healing powers. Some said the story is written as if the pool really could heal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:4&amp;amp;version=NIV;KJV&quot;&gt;John 5:4&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others said that perhaps John was just telling a story and the supposed healing powers of the pool made for great juxtaposition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a hard time believing a spring could have healing powers, and especially only after an angel made some ripples. But I guess some people still believe in healing mineral springs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the pool of Bethesda really have healing powers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2015-02-26T04:54:03.227" Title="Did the pool of Bethesda have healing powers?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-02-27T00:47:03.163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="834" CreationDate="2011-08-27T16:49:29.653" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe there is such a thing as a &quot;perfect&quot; translation of scripture, but there is an interesting thing to note about the verse you mention. One of the English translations I personally trust the most is the ESV. If you try to look this verse up in an ESV Bible you will find that it skips from verse 3 to 5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wait, what!?!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to their footnote and the Study Bible commentary there is a significant problem with the manuscripts for this passage in that the phrase in question is not found in the earliest known manuscripts. The translators made the following judgement call:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The statement in the ESV footnote about an angel of the Lord stirring the water and the first person who stepped in being healed is found in some early manuscripts, but not the earliest. Therefore the omitted verse 4 should not be considered part of Scripture, although v.7 (which is in all manuscripts) shows that people believed something like what this statement reports.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know much about this particular passage of scripture, but I think it's reasonable to interpret the whole business with the pool to be a folk tradition rather than a valid source of magic healing. I do not know of any recorded evidence of specific/significant/verifiable miracles stemming from the pool, although I don't know that we can rule out the possibility just on principle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it is important to note that in all cases of healing, the healing stems from God and the focus of our attention should always be on Him rather than whaver medium He chose to use to reveal that healing. One example of this can be seen here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew%209%3A21/&quot;&gt;Matthew 9:20-22 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; for she said to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I will be made well.” &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly1 the woman was made well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the important thing to note about this passage is that it was not Jesus garment that provided healing, but Jesus power to heal that He chose to bestow upon the woman on account of her faith in Him (not in His garment).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T16:49:29.653" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2011-08-27T17:03:02.197" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are few really clear contextual clues to the interpretation. The word can, and clearly does, mean either &quot;24 hours&quot; or &quot;a period of time&quot;, in other contexts, and biblical interpreters have disagreed over which one it means here for a very long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is perhaps significant to note that this disagreement has gone on for many centuries, and long before there was any scientific evidence to point to an old earth. What it is certainly not is an attempt to 'retrofit' an interpretation to Genesis in the light of new science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T17:03:02.197" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2011-08-27T17:27:30.373" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nobody takes the Bible 100% literally. Nobody should, because the Bible is not intended to be taken 100% literally. Even the most cursory examination will reveal parts of it that are clearly metaphors. I once saw picture drawn of a woman in which all the metaphors used for a woman in the Song of Songs (e.g. &quot;your breasts are like two fawns&quot;) were taken literally. Believe me, that's one strange and ugly woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The task of identifying which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are metaphorical is not an easy one, and Christians have come down in many different places. At one extreme a very few have considered almost everything to be metaphorical, and all the Bible to be simply uplifting and helpful stories. Some take the vast majority to be historical, and most fall somewhere in between. Virtually all will take the Gospels as non-negotiably historical, and almost all take the vast majority of the Old Testament as historical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I've answered your question. A more detailed treatment of 'which parts are metaphorical&quot; is worth of years of careful research, and can't be answered here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T16:51:16.007" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:51:16.007" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="778" CreationDate="2011-08-27T17:38:42.757" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are really two parts to an answer. One is that the word &quot;Fornication&quot; is clearly defined in English:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly pre-marital sex comes under that definition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second part is the Greek word. The evidence I will cite here is that many generations of Bible translators have chosen to translate the Greek as &quot;fornication&quot;, knowing full well what it means in English. This is true even of translators who have made non-orthodox word-choices in other areas. They obviously think that &quot;fornication&quot; is a good representation of the Greek word.  You're going to need some pretty solid evidence if you want to claim they are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T18:46:00.683" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T18:46:00.683" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="831" CreationDate="2011-08-27T17:54:16.507" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question about the practical feasibility about disciplining one's children &quot;as the Bible instructs&quot; assumes that the correct interpretation of Prov 13:24 is that we ought to physically discipline our children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I am not sure that this is the only good reading of this proverb. The text is not an unequivocal injunction for physical disciplinary measures (spanking, for example). If &quot;the rod&quot; was the common means of disciplining the child circa the time that the proverb came into general use, then &quot;whoever spares the rod hates their children&quot; effectively means &quot;he who fails to discipline his children hates his children.&quot; If the intent of this proverb were primarily to instruct the parent on the correct means of discipline, the contrast would not be between the parent who &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; discipline and who &lt;em&gt;does not&lt;/em&gt; discipline (&quot;whoever...but the one...&quot;), but between the parent who disciplines with the rod and the parent who uses some other means of discipline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I think the answer to your question -- how ought Christians to discipline their children as the Bible commands -- does not depend on whether the state permits parents to spank, or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll stop here, because I think there are two possible tacks that can be taken in trying to provide you with an answer, and I'm not sure which one you will be most interested in. They are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i) The practical question: &lt;em&gt;If&lt;/em&gt; spanking is the method by which a parent has chosen to discipline his child, what is the proper way to go about this, esp. given concerns about the State's policies on corporal punishment for children&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ii) The theological question: How ought the Christian parent who is concerned to abide by this proverb discipline his or her child? (And this is not a question only about the means of discipline, but about the nature of discipline itself.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="175" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T17:54:16.507" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-08-27T17:58:05.343" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Atheism is, at this point in history, becoming the default position, as you have pointed out. Again, as you have pointed out, it is not the natural position, since God indeed exists. Now, we Christians could regard our correctness as &quot;robbery&quot; (Phil. 2:6), as something to be used to our advantage against our atheist neighbors. But the way of love is to meet them where they are. &quot;Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.&quot; (Phil 2:3--4). The burden of proof is on the atheist, but we are called to bear one another's burdens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T17:58:05.343" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="831" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:05:40.713" Score="8" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Very good question.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way to live your life as a Christian, is to find out what the scripture says and conform to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I live in America and I spank my child. I have no fear of losing them to Social Services. I play by the rules, using an open hand on the butt. I normally only have to smack them once or twice to get my point across.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was raised by a 5'4&amp;quot; one hundred and ten pound mom that spanked me. When I get out of line today I still get hit, thanks mom...  I can tell you that she did it right, I have the utmost respect for my mother and rarely if ever talk back to any of  my elders because of it. The Bible is true folks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 29:17&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Discipline your children, and they will give you peace; they will&#xA;bring you the delights you desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very, very valid point here. When you discipline your child with persistence, they will learn to respect you when you ask them to do something. They will not always fight you and therefore you will not always have to spank them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spanking is not the only answer to this question either. There's some book out called Love and Logic, although the book has its many fallacies as it relies to heavily on the secular, it still has some valid points. This book has some interesting ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's good to have a specific discipline for different kinds of offenses.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cleaning up: 'till this day when I get mad I always start cleaning. It's a good technique to have your child go clean their room when they get into trouble or fights with each other. Probably not the most logical discipline if they're offense was not listening.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Timeout chair: although this is best used in tandem with spanking in my experience.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make them say their sorry: If one child hurts another child I ALWAYS make them show love before the punishment of timeout. &amp;quot;Go give your brother a hug and a kiss and tell him that you're sorry.&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go to your Room: This is much different then time-outs, which usually involve the corner. If my children throw themselves on the ground or begin crying to get their way I escort them to their room and let them know that they can come out when they're done. These days they stop immediately, but I will not talk to them until they have regained their composure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that no matter what you do &lt;strong&gt;consistency&lt;/strong&gt; is the key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Another thing that I have learned is to pick my battles.&lt;/strong&gt; There have been a few times in mine and my wives lives that we sat down, looked at each other and realized that we were yelling at the kids for every tiny offense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about what you're child is doing before you tell them to not do it. Seriously. One day my child was climbing up on the window sill, 20&amp;quot; of the ground and I had the urge to tell them no. Then I thought about it for a minute, what is it going to hurt? If they fall, they will not die, they're just going to learn why I would be telling them no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my child slipped off the window sill and bopped his chin, crying of course he came to me (20 months old). I told him, &amp;quot;That's why we don't climb on the window. So remember, the next time I tell you that you can get hurt, this is why.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T18:05:40.713" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="842" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:11:26.227" Score="11" ViewCount="1385" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never completely understood the purpose as to why God required that the Israelite's should kill an animal in order for God to forgive them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2015-03-28T22:36:55.190" Title="What was the purpose to animal sacrifices?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-09-29T18:14:48.530" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="843" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="857" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:16:19.650" Score="29" ViewCount="1030" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard many people state that it was the punishment inflicted by the Romans that allows God to forgive us. This just doesn't make any sense to me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can a man suffer for a short while here on earth in order that a divine being have the right to forgive sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the framework of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;substitutionary atonement&lt;/a&gt; that makes Christ's death effective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2015-01-01T16:22:26.473" LastActivityDate="2017-11-29T09:21:02.597" Title="What was it about the death of Jesus that allows God to forgive us?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="845" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:19:39.287" Score="2" ViewCount="787" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4/why-does-judaism-celebrate-sabbath-on-saturday-and-most-christians-celebrate-sabb&quot;&gt;Why does Judaism celebrate Sabbath on Saturday and most Christians celebrate Sabbath on Sunday?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We think that Sunday is the Sabath but the jews think that Saturday is the Sabath. If Saturday is the real Sabath, how did it get changed to monday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T20:21:20.887" Title="What day of the week IS the Sabath on?" Tags="&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-08-27T21:57:18.977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="842" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:24:59.870" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There were two main meanings to this.  The first was as a symbol of Christ, whose blood makes it possible for everyone to have their sins forgiven.  The second is as a sacrifice in the more traditional sense: willingly giving up something important and valuable.  And when your animals are both your livelihood and the food on your family's table, giving the best of your flocks to the Lord (and the sacrifices were required to be the best, not just any old animal) is quite a sacrifice indeed!  By the Law of Sacrifice, the Lord teaches us to have faith and trust in him instead of getting too attached to material possessions and trusting in them to bring us happiness and success in life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T18:24:59.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="847" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="854" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:30:34.120" Score="9" ViewCount="4111" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:28-30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:28-30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same commandment was also given later to Noah and his sons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:1-3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both cases the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is followed by a commandment to have dominion over the earth (perhaps the two are related, but that's for another discussion). I point that out because surely the commandment to have dominion over the earth is still applicable to us. Does that mean the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is still applicable? Its pretty significant if having a family is a commandment as opposed to being a suggestion or just optional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-01-01T16:22:57.217" Title="Is the commandment to multiply, and replenish the earth in effect today?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T15:41:28.127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:30:39.267" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never previously heard anyone claim that Sabbath is on Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, I think Sabbath is on Saturday and the reason (a lot of) Christians have Sunday as the holy day has to do with the early church. There are passages from which it could be deduced that the early church met on Sunday, the first day of the week, to remember Jesus's resurrection that happened on that day of the week:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 20:19&lt;/strong&gt; On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, &quot;Peace be with you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 20:7&lt;/strong&gt; On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T18:40:05.043" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T18:40:05.043" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="843" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:31:14.837" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let us look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 27 verse 27 through 31&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. 28 They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29 and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. 30 They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31 After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, let us look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53 verse 5&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But he was pierced for our transgressions, &#xA;     he was crushed for our iniquities; &#xA;  the punishment that brought us peace was on him, &#xA;     and by his wounds we are healed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this explaination, Jesus was pierced for our transgressions, and he was mocked for our iniquities. He was essentially the lamb who was punished instead of us being punished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T18:31:14.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:41:44.163" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The abortive Communist attempt to make the gates of Hell prevail against the Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe bled many martyrs and tortured many confessors, and subsequently many miracles have turned up. The books on Father Arseny follow an exemplary zek, and the miraculous comes to the fore every now and then. For instance, Fr. Arseny and a friend survived a night in deadly cold weather through a miraculous divine liturgy. The still incorrupt relics of saints also may constitute miracles for you, as well as the Holy Fire at Christ's Tomb. There was a recent saint in Alaska---not formally venerated yet, but the locals regard it as only a matter of time before Matushka Olga will be formally canonized. At least one person has had dreams of Mat. Olga treating her for illness, having never known of her beforehand. The real miracle in each of these stories, however, is the transformative power God manifested in them for bringing others closer to God, and their own personal holiness as well. For instance, if I remember correctly, Mat. Olga bore twelve children, and never rose her voice. Think about that. That is scary holy. Also, Fr. Dan Skvir of the Chapel of the Transfiguration at Princeton is married to (I think) the granddaughter of a miracle-worker. A blind woman came to Paschal liturgy, and upon communion regained her sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course God has seen fit to bless those outside the Orthodox Church with miracles. Princeton Faith &amp;amp; Action (the Princeton branch of Christian Union) has borne witness to miracles. Ask Mike Vincent about the time he fasted and saw a vision of light. Also ask the Knapkes about their visit to Fiji, and the healed land, specifically the river anomaly. Mike Vincent also has miracle stories originating from a Christian summer camp somewhere in California, I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T18:41:44.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="847" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:42:46.147" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%207&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 7&lt;/a&gt; says, pretty clearly, that getting married (let alone having a family) is no longer in effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%207:8-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 7:8-9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, if we want to (&lt;em&gt;need to&lt;/em&gt;) get married, we should.  However, it's good (&lt;em&gt;or even better&lt;/em&gt;) to stay unmarried!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many commands given to people back then that are commands &lt;em&gt;for that time&lt;/em&gt;.  Read Leviticus for examples of that.  That was the old covenant.  We, as recipients of the salvation of Jesus, are no longer under these old commandments.  These old commands no longer are required of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one such command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Further evidence!&quot;&lt;/em&gt; I hear you cry.  Fine, fine.  Here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:28-29&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:28-29 (NLT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the commands we have on us today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Not enough&quot;  &quot;We want more!&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  OK, fine.  Here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's been said that every command that we should follow is found in the New Testament.  If it's not in the New Testament, then it's a command that we no longer need to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;That makes no sense!&quot;&lt;/em&gt; I hear you say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with the Old Testament is that these commands were given &lt;em&gt;directly from God&lt;/em&gt; to his people so that they will know how to live until the coming of the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, he's come.  In the present time (since the Pentacost after his resurrection), we have his Holy Spirit.  This resource is available to all of us.  It's because of this that we have so few &lt;em&gt;commands&lt;/em&gt; placed on us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, if the Holy Spirit is moving you to have a family and multiply--&lt;strong&gt;then you better comply!&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But don't take Old Testament commands as commands that are currently in effect unless they've been repeated by Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T20:35:13.703" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T20:35:13.703" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="852" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="855" CreationDate="2011-08-27T18:45:09.550" Score="16" ViewCount="1177" Body="&lt;p&gt;During Creation, God created man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:7 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did God created such complexity - down to cellular level, with so many organs and fluid - into man? Wouldn't things be much simpler if we were created with less complexity - and probably with the chance of reducing all the medical problems that we face today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="122" LastActivityDate="2012-07-13T21:28:41.780" Title="Why did God create such complexity in man?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-09-29T22:53:14.823" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="843" CreationDate="2011-08-27T19:19:16.647" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to remember that there were two separate things happening here.  The Crucifixion was only the end of the Atonement, which needed to cover both aspects of the Fall: sin and death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ was taken by the Roman soldiers, he wasn't still at the scene of the Last Supper, where Judas had been before he left to go betray him.  He went up to the Mount of Olives, to the Garden of Gethsemane, and it was there that he took upon himself the sins of the world.  He had done everything the Father asked of him thus far, but it was at this one point alone that we ever see any hint of hesitation, when he pleaded, &quot;if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have the Perfect Man, who has literally never sinned in his life, being asked to take upon himself the spiritual punishment for all the sins of the world.  That's a pretty horrible thing, when you think about it, and it was difficult even for a God to bear.  &quot;And his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.&quot;  It's hard to imagine what that could possibly be like.  Some extreme ordeals, such as childbirth with complications, have been known to cause a very small amount of blood to leak through the skin like sweat.  To have it happen &lt;em&gt;generally&lt;/em&gt; surely means that something unprecedented is taking place, and to have the subject survive the experience is a miracle in itself!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he did survive it, paying the price for our sins that we would not have to if we would repent.  After that he was taken, betrayed and tried in a sham trial, condemned and sent off to his death on the cross.  This was necessary since, even though he had already paid for our sins, there was still death to deal with.  So he allowed them to crucify him, giving up his life voluntarily and not having it taken from him (John 10: 18) as evidenced by his sudden death while crying with a loud voice--most victims of crucifixion died slowly of exhaustion, and this would have been impossible ordinarily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He had to give up his life so that he could take it again, conquering death and unlocking the Resurrection for everyone.  It's important to remember that &quot;as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.&quot; (1 Corinthians 15: 22)  That part wasn't our fault, so it's paid for unconditionally, for everyone.  But our sins are our own choices, so we have to choose to have faith in him, repent of our sins and live according to the law of the Gospel to have them washed away in his blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T19:19:16.647" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="847" CreationDate="2011-08-27T19:22:39.093" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;A commandment is in effect until it is fulfilled. God has &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; told us it is fulfilled, so it is in effect unless we believe it to be fulfilled to &lt;em&gt;His&lt;/em&gt; satisfaction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I don't believe it to be fulfilled. All the &quot;over population&quot; we see is simply a mismanagement of resources. There is plenty of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density&quot;&gt;livable earth&lt;/a&gt; and resources available. Not that replenishment requires exhaustion of resources, but our level of waste is appalling, and better urban planning could improve the living conditions where population is high. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the commandment to have domion over the earth includes a stewardship to care for it, which clearly we can do better. Perhaps that is why the two commandments were given together. As we do better with our stewardship to care for the earth we can do better to replenish the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Searching around for any Christian statements on the commandment to multiple and replenish in modern times I found the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html&quot;&gt;The Family: A Proclamation to the World&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints&lt;/em&gt; September 23, 1995&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Catholic church&lt;/strong&gt; stance on birth control&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;. . . it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia summarizes other &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christian&lt;/strong&gt; views on birth control&lt;/a&gt;, which go both directions. Of course Birth control isn't exactly what you asked, but they are related.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No doubt someone could find links to contradict me. I guess it comes down to your personal beliefs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal belieft is we are each to have as many children as we can reasonably support and care for. I have four children. My wife an I believe any more and we would not be able raise and care for them effectively (but that may be a failing on our part). I have friends with 6 or even 8 children who do quite well as taking care of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As an aside:&lt;/strong&gt; It continues to be important that we specifically as Christians multiply and replenish the earth, and raise our children as good Christians to be a force of good in the Lord's work. To stop having children because one believes the world to be flawed is to give up hope of improving the world. Children raised up with good Christian values are the greatest hope for a better tomorrow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T20:11:34.007" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T20:11:34.007" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="852" CreationDate="2011-08-27T19:24:03.487" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;He created such complexity because it exists in Him as well, as we are explicitly created after His own image and in His likeness, as His children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:27&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for medical problems, those are inherently bound up with death and mortality, which weren't part of the original creation, but were introduced in the Fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T20:22:35.953" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T20:22:35.953" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2011-08-27T19:25:38.117" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;I second the answer of @mason-wheeler that &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Acts&amp;amp;verse=2:37-38&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Acts 2:37-38&lt;/a&gt; represents the basic Christian assumption that repentance and baptism, and indeed the entire Christian life that is &quot;the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers,&quot; is critical to salvation, and pursuit of salvation outside this life is perilous. Furthermore, resisting a known means of salvation is foolishness and approaching the mindset of the damned. If you are asking whether baptism is required of you, then the answer is almost certainly an emphatic &lt;em&gt;yes,&lt;/em&gt; unless you are severely ill or have some other similarly extenuating circumstance such that no one will consent to baptize you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, however, we ask whether baptism is required of our neighbors for their salvation, then we must examine our hearts, for then we are prying into their business.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, instead, this is a more abstract question, then the answer is that God saves Whom He will save, and we know that He is just. This categorically does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; mean that if you die outside of this life, specifically outside of traditional baptism, then you are not favored by God, or that then you are eternally consigned to hell. For Abraham was surely among those raised by Christ in His resurrection, and he was not baptized. Noah was not even circumcised. And surely Christ would not leave his &quot;very good&quot; creations Adam and Eve to languish in the grave! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is instructive to consider the case of the thief on Christ's right hand. For even if this thief were not baptized by water and the Spirit, he certainly was baptized with the baptism with which Christ was baptized (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Mark&amp;amp;verse=10:38&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Mark 10:38&lt;/a&gt;). Many seemingly unbaptized and uncircumcised-of-heart will certainly enter the kingdom of heaven ahead of many of us who are baptized and sell this birthright for bodily pleasure or, worse, spiritual delusion. There are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Luke&amp;amp;verse=13:30&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Luke 13:30&lt;/a&gt;). (By the way, the thief too is considered a saint of the Orthodox Church, and is celebrated in hymnody as the first man to come back to paradise. The last thing he stole was salvation!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not baptism that saves, but God Who saves. In His wisdom, God has appointed baptism, and anointing with oil, and communion, and marriage, and countless other wonderful mysteries to be effective tools in His inscrutable working-out of our salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="88" LastEditDate="2011-11-15T16:43:41.613" LastActivityDate="2011-11-15T16:43:41.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="843" CreationDate="2011-08-27T19:31:09.243" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's start with your question title. For the sake of argument let's turn it around and ask &quot;Why would God not be allowed for forgive us?&quot; The problem lies in God's idea of justice. We could spend a lot of time one this one, but let's keep it it simple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Isaiah%2061%3A8/&quot;&gt;Isaiah 61:8 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong &lt;em&gt;[...]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order for Him to actually be just, he has to administer justice. In order for justice to be adminstered the proper recompense has to be made for any wrong-doing. We know that the only way to pay for sin is death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%206%3A23/&quot;&gt;Romans 6:23 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For the wages of sin is death &lt;em&gt;[...]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we have to die. Or somebody has to die for us. The only person qualified to do that is Christ. The why is a subject for another question. Let's skip to what Christ did. When he was on the Cross he took upon himself the full wrath of God against all our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/isaiah%2B53%3A4-5/&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53:4-5 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God chose to crush Him. The pain inflicted by the Romans was nothing compared to the weight of that wrath. Even humans can endure the torture of crucifixion for the amount of time Christ did ... longer in fact. The difference was that while the physical act was in progress he also bore an infinite amount of punishment from His own Father. How does that work out for those who believe in Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%205%3A9/&quot;&gt;Romans 5:9 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To round this out I would point out that from a Reformed Protestant perspective, the notion that anything the hands of men could inflict upon Christ, no matter how brutal the Romans were could do anything to change God's ability to do or not do something is considered heretical. What Christ endured at the hands of the Romans an in crucifixion is both symbolic of a spiritual reality that was going on behinds the scenes, but also real in that that it put the rulers and authorities of this world to open shame while at the same time setting the stage for his physical resurrection to demonstrate his victory over death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians+2%3A14-15/&quot;&gt;Colossians 2:14-15 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  [God] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T19:31:09.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-27T19:48:02.437" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Old Testament times, the Jewish people observed the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week because God rested on the seventh day when He had created the earth. After the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which occurred on the first day of the week, the Lord's disciples began observing the Sabbath on the first day of the week, Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:7&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 20:7&lt;/a&gt; (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia talks about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday#Sunday_and_Sabbath&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sunday and the Sabbath&lt;/a&gt; and also references Acts 20:7 as a sign of the change. It cites in AD 363 a seventh-day Sabbath was prohibited by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.xxxiv.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judaism continues to celebrate on Saturday because they do not recognize the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-12-17T05:18:57.557" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T05:18:57.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="859" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="865" CreationDate="2011-08-27T19:55:00.010" Score="10" ViewCount="3033" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there an official Christian statement for or against the use of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;AD &amp;amp; BC&lt;/a&gt; vs &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CE &amp;amp; BCE&lt;/a&gt; when it comes to the identification of the time before and after the birth of Christ? What is the preferred Christian method of indicating dates? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-09-11T20:10:00.913" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T20:10:00.913" Title="&quot;AD &amp; BC&quot; vs &quot;CE &amp; BCE&quot;" Tags="&lt;calendar&gt;&lt;political-correctness&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-09-01T23:37:50.500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="860" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-27T19:57:44.120" Score="10" ViewCount="1883" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the end goal or purpose of church discipline and how is this defined in Scripture? What is the relation (if any) between church discipline and God's discipline?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets keep the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/861/30&quot;&gt;implementation details for another question&lt;/a&gt; and stick to just the &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; for now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T15:04:21.470" Title="What is the purpose of church discipline?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-discipline&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="861" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-27T19:57:56.803" Score="8" ViewCount="577" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term discipline conjures up a huge range of actions in most people's minds. A parent disciplining a child could mean time-outs in the corner or a swat on the rear, not getting to hang out with friends, or any number of other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Introducing the modifier 'church' probably doesn't do much to clarify. I can imagine the range of things brought to mind by the term &lt;em&gt;church discipline&lt;/em&gt; could range from being made to wear a dunce cap during service to 40 lashes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have asked about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/860/30&quot;&gt;the purpose and Scriptural basis&lt;/a&gt; of discipline, but what is an overview of how it is implemented? Is there a common definition for what consequences make up the 'discipline'? What is an overview of methods employed by different traditions? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2016-05-10T13:51:08.587" Title="What is an overview of methods used by Christian churches to discipline their members?" Tags="&lt;church-discipline&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="859" CreationDate="2011-08-27T20:47:51.093" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a direct logical progression of a post-modern agnostic/atheistic (mis-)interpretation of the ideal of separation of Church and State, which thinking is, for example, twisting the US constitution from &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to it's &quot;modern&quot; interpretation of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Government, and her officials, may in no way appear to be affiliated with nor by any means support any religious ideal or practice regardless of how beneficial to the people being governed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, to be &quot;politically correct&quot; (social politics, not governmental), we can't be seen to endorse any religious belief in any way shape or form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, regardless of what label they use, the calendar is still divided with Christ's historical appearance being the center of if.  While I find it a &lt;em&gt;little&lt;/em&gt; grating, I personally don't think it's going to make much difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T19:11:26.990" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T19:11:26.990" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="866" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="886" CreationDate="2011-08-27T20:53:34.093" Score="18" ViewCount="1624" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:7 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of this scripture it is better to speak from the heart when praying then to repeat a written prayer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt; has a slightly different take on that verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The chapter then goes on to give what I believed to be a model prayer, not a script.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question comes down to the correct nature of prayer. Is Matthew 6 a script or a model? Where else in the Bible are we encourage to repeat previously written prayers vs. pray from the heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T13:48:58.433" Title="Scripted Prayers" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T15:40:49.393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="867" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="874" CreationDate="2011-08-27T21:07:20.687" Score="14" ViewCount="323" Body="&lt;p&gt;Often times I see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;political correctness&lt;/a&gt; as an excuse to remove references to God. The excuse is that it is an effort to not offend those of different faiths. For example instead of &lt;em&gt;Christmas&lt;/em&gt; it is the &lt;em&gt;Holiday Season&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I often times find myself torn on this matter. I have friends of many faiths, and I do not want to offend them, but is being politically correct showing shame for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208:38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 8:38&lt;/a&gt; (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is there a middle ground were we can show respect for the faith of others where we are not softening the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course I am never offended to hear members of other faiths talk about or celebrate their beliefs. Is maybe the true political correctness to just accept the faith and beliefs of others? I wish my Jewish friends a Happy Hanukkah and they wish me a Merry Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-21T13:16:19.447" LastActivityDate="2015-09-22T18:16:09.397" Title="Is Political Correctness showing shame for our God?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;&lt;holidays&gt;&lt;political-correctness&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-09-22T19:12:18.077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-08-27T21:16:28.593" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see miracles all the time. there's a secret though: &quot;Without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to God must believe that HE is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.&quot; - Hebrews 11:6. Allot of people seem to think that faith is just believing God exists, and aren't quit sure that He will actually reward them for seeking Him, they think things like He'll only reward you if it's His will at the time. But having faith is defined as believing God will reward you for seeking Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the miracles I have personally seen: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cancer healed&lt;/strong&gt;. (prayed for a few people who were given an expiration date, they went back to the doctor and were cancer free)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Irreparable nerve damage healed (instantly).&lt;/strong&gt; There was a woman staying with my parents who had been shot in the leg. The bullet just missed one of her arteries, but it did do nerve damage. her specialist doctor said she would never have use of that leg again. When I came home to visit she started saying how she just can't take it any more. Me and her friend prayed, God instantly healed the nerve damage, she took of the brace and put down the crutches and started walking around praising God and dancing. My mom took her back to her doctor, while they were walking back to the office the woman ask the doctor if he noticed anything. He looked stunned for a moment and said, your off your crutches? that's not possible, he took her back an examined her and said, well I'm not sure what I can do for you, you're completely better.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Missing knuckle bone replaced and repaired.&lt;/strong&gt; I was out in the park with a group that feeds and ministers to the homeless. One guy started talking to me, and mentioned that his knuckle had been smashed when he was a child, and showed me that it was gone. I asked him if he wanted it to be healed. He looked at me puzzled and said 'There's nothing to heal, my knuckle is missing, there's nothing there!' I told him, well originally before God created the world there was nothing, and then God spoke everything into existence. He thought about and said well I guess your right. I prayed for him, he felt something, and then a few weeks later I see him again. He comes running up to me all excited and pointing to his brand new knuckle. I later found out he had several other problems, like a bad leg, a plate in is head, and severe dyslexia so that he could only read a page a in a day. Other people ministered to him, all those problems where solved. He got off the street, stopped using his 'medical marijuana' and started leading a bible study at the mission(when before he couldn't read more than a page of text all day).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Missing breastbone grown back.&lt;/strong&gt; A lady came up for prayer after a church service and explained that due to either a birth defect or childhood illness (I don't recall which) she did not have a breastbone, and that her ribs where stitched together with wire that needed to be checked and changed every few years. I prayed for her, next day she came back and reported the bone was there. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Met someone &lt;strong&gt;raised from the dead&lt;/strong&gt; after being dead  and locked in a morgue. I was with a group of people and God impressed upon us to stop at a certain house and ask if we could pray for the person. So we knocked on the door and asked and the lady that answered the door. She thought we had come for her to pray for us, she then explained that people from all over the world had been drawn to her house to hear her testimony. She explained how she had died, explained in great detail the sights of heaven, all matching Revelation's description, and how Jesus had sent her back because it wasn't her time yet. She then woke up in the morgue and started just as the coroner came in and saw her sitting up and of course was scared silly. She had been clinically dead since the day before.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mother of one of my classmates has seen a small pot of spaghetti multiplied to feed many hundreds of people on several occasions in Africa, when they didn't have enough to feed the people they were ministering to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who travel to 3rd world countries do tend to see more miracles than they do in the states mainly because people tend to be more hungry for supernatural activity there. There is usually a lot of blatant demonic activity in those countries so people are used to the supernatural. In the west there is hardly any demonic activity comparatively because the enemies strategy is to make people think he doesn't exist. and there are many churches in the west that claim God stopped doing miracles because we have the Bible, so we don't need them anymore. They think this is faith, just believing what the bible said happened and not needing any proof. Miracles aren't about needing proof, Miracles are about God demonstrating  His extravagant love.  That's why when Jesus was walking around doing mighty works, he didn't do them for the pharisees. The pharisees were questioning Jesus identity as the Son of God, when they said show us a sign, Jesus had been showing signs all along by healing people, but the pharisees where asking him to prove He was God. So Jesus didn't indulge there unbelief.  I see it all the time, God will allow someone demonstrating unbelief to be completely blind to something that really can't be argued with. So in closing, To me this is all about Hebrews 11:6. Faith is not just believing what God said, without any tangible proof(but that is a requirement), it's believing that God will reward you for seeking Him, if you don't meet both requirements, it's not pleasing to him. That doesn’t mean your damned for it, it just means your not fully trusting Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T13:18:06.687" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:18:06.687" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="869" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-27T21:27:05.897" Score="8" ViewCount="999" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has been the subject of many &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;numerological&lt;/a&gt; attempts at applying greater / different meaning. &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Bible Code&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; being a popular example resulting in a book and a movie (at least one movie). My step-mother (raised Catholic) was a big fan of &lt;em&gt;The Bible Code&lt;/em&gt;, but I never knew how to take it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't a reference to the meaning or symbology of the number 7 in the Bible, but instead to the practice of decoding the Bible by applying number patterns to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Code_de_la_Bible.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/69c9E.png&quot; alt=&quot;Bible Code example&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always considered Numerology to be a practice like Astrology. Is the application of it to the Bible accepted by Christians as another way that God speaks to man, or just more pop-theology? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2016-07-06T22:01:55.760" LastActivityDate="2016-07-06T22:01:55.760" Title="Numerology and the Bible" Tags="&lt;numerology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T15:40:59.173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="867" CreationDate="2011-08-27T21:27:30.777" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Turn the question around.  What if the Jews had conquered Europe and Britain instead of the Romans.  What if we celebrated Passover instead of Easter and Hanukkah instead of Christmas, and about 50 other public holidays on the Jewish calendar.  Would you find that offensive?  Would you demand that they change &quot;Passover&quot; to &quot;The Day of the Messiah&quot;, because you believe Jesus was and the vast majority of (this hypothetical) society don't?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are not offended when a Jewish friend wishes you &quot;Happy Hanukkah&quot;, why should anyone be offended if you wish them &quot;Merry Christmas&quot;.  Likewise, I am not at all offended if someone wishes me &quot;Happy Holidays&quot;, but I feel no compulsion to use the phrase myself - I happen to believe it's good for society to be reminded of the religious connection to the holidays we celebrate.  Much like Passover and other feasts were instituted to remind the Jewish people every year of the mighty works God had done for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, most political correctness is a disguised agenda to strip society of it's historic Christian moors with a goal of producing an atheistic or at least agnostic social culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T22:17:07.907" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T22:17:07.907" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="871" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="877" CreationDate="2011-08-27T21:33:19.973" Score="14" ViewCount="11905" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being on this site has given me an opportunity to reflect and investigate more my beliefs and gain a greater understanding of the beliefs of other Christians. I was raised being taught that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology&quot;&gt;astrology&lt;/a&gt; was a pagan practice that went against Christian beliefs. Is that a view that is widely held by other Christians? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard counter views that astrology is another way in which God speaks to man, while others say there is no validity to it at all, and it is just a harmless form of amusement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a Biblical point of view on astrology? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T21:32:23.120" LastActivityDate="2015-02-04T16:19:57.163" Title="What is the Bible and Christian view on Astrology?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;divination&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-02-04T23:25:47.000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="869" CreationDate="2011-08-27T21:37:05.480" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Numbers are wonderfully flexible things that can manipulated into nearly any end result that the manipulator wants to see.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I have read of some amazing inferences which the Jewish Cabalists have drawn from the numbers of words, letters and etc. associated with the OT scripture, including some scientific predictions only proved true one and a half millennia later in the 20th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I would approach the area with &lt;em&gt;extreme&lt;/em&gt; caution, but not necessarily discard it outright without looking closer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.word-gems.com/god&amp;amp;religion.science.gls.big.ink.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an excerpt&lt;/a&gt; from GL Schroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang online.  Note that I do no subscribe to Cabalist mysticism, but it's intriguing nonetheless.  Cabalism is but a small part of the argument that Schroeder makes too, so don't make the mistake of assuming he all about ancient Jewish mysticism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the Cabalists theorized that at the instant of creation, God, filling all eternity, contracted. Within that contraction, the universe expanded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Cabalists believed that only four of the ten dimensions are physically measurable within today's world. The other six contracted into submicroscopic dimensions during the six days of Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was more in the book, and specifically about the conclusion they drew from the numbers of letters, words, syllable and correlations between verses on this basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relevant books from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/Gerald-L.-Schroeder/e/B000APV1XA/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Schroeder&lt;/a&gt; are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(A word of caution, I have read one critique of Schroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang, stating he is a theistic evolutionist; I didn't see that, but it's been quite a few years since I read G&amp;amp;BB, so it could be his bent.  I am an old-earth creationist, and I still think he is interesting reading). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-03-03T17:15:01.783" LastActivityDate="2014-03-03T17:15:01.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="867" CreationDate="2011-08-27T21:39:40.910" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;My experience is that this form of political correctness is an over-reaction against something that isn't &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; a problem anyway, and is intended to appease people who &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; offended by Christianity--most likely a small minority of vocal athiests and those with similar political views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am never/would never be offended when a Jew wishes me a &quot;Happy Hanukkah,&quot; or for that matter if a Catholic wishes me a &quot;Happy X&quot; (where X is a holiday celebrated by Catholics, but not by protestants--and there are many).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is reasonable for Christians to wish &quot;Merry Christmas&quot; to non-Christian friends. After all, we &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; want non-Christians to have a merry Christmas, don't we?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if I know that it offends a friend for some reason, I would be happy to abstain from that greeting &lt;em&gt;for that friend&lt;/em&gt;.  In much the same way Christians who consume alcohol would (hopefully) abstain from consuming alcohol in the presence of those it would offend, or for whom it would be a &quot;stumbling block.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I'm not going to refuse to wish Merry Christmas to strangers (store clerks, waitresses, etc), or otherwise profess my faith, for fear of offending.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Christ &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; offensive, after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T00:40:58.730" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T00:40:58.730" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="875" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="881" CreationDate="2011-08-27T21:41:53.417" Score="6" ViewCount="309" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/712/how-far-is-too-far-when-it-comes-to-drinking-alcohol&quot;&gt;How far is too far when it comes to drinking alcohol?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians agree that getting drunk is wrong, and there's even a question about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/712/what-about-getting-tipsy&quot;&gt;getting tipsy&lt;/a&gt;.  But is it okay for Christians to consume alcohol at all?  I realize there are many views, and different (Christian) traditions and cultures have different takes on this question, so please provide Biblical (or other authoritative) evidence for your view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2014-03-03T17:27:01.820" Title="Is it wrong to consume alcohol?" Tags="&lt;alcohol&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2011-09-03T02:57:14.080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="859" CreationDate="2011-08-27T21:48:50.130" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the BCE is more to do with accurate representation of times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if (God forbid, literally) that Christianity was wiped out on Earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then AD/BC wouldn't have the same meaning to people, but BCE/CE still maintains its understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if we started using the Islamic calendar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It probably greatly offended Jews when people started using AD/BC instead of the Jewish year.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="41" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T21:48:50.130" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="871" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:07:00.560" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the Bible speaks strongly against the pagan practice of Astrology, which was recognized as divination and associated with magic and sorcery.  Divination is defined as &quot;the practice of attempting to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means&quot;, which would certainly include Astrology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A number of scriptures associate astrology with pagan magic arts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2047:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 47:13&lt;/a&gt;: Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Daniel 2:2&lt;/a&gt;: So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Daniel 2:10&lt;/a&gt;: The astrologers answered the king, “There is no one on earth who can do what the king asks! No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Leviticus 19:26&lt;/a&gt; forbids divination:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not practice divination or seek omens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as does and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 18:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and numerous other scriptures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2044&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 44:5&lt;/a&gt;: Isn’t this the cup my master drinks from and also uses for divination? This is a wicked thing you have done.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 18:10&lt;/a&gt;: Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Joshua 13:22&lt;/a&gt;: In addition to those slain in battle, the Israelites had put to the sword Balaam son of Beor, who practiced divination.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 15:23&lt;/a&gt;: For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2017&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Kings 17:17&lt;/a&gt;: They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sought omens and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2021&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Kings 21:6&lt;/a&gt;: He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2033&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Chronicles 33:6&lt;/a&gt;: He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 2:6&lt;/a&gt;: They are full of superstitions from the East; they practice divination like the Philistines and embrace pagan customs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 14:14&lt;/a&gt;: Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2012&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 12:24&lt;/a&gt;: For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 13:6&lt;/a&gt;: Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. Even though the LORD has not sent them, they say, “The LORD declares,” and expect him to fulfill their words.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you accept that Astrology is a subset of divination, it seems clearly abhorrent to God.  Given the ensnaring nature of the occult, I would be engaging the &quot;flee from all appearance&quot; tactic with Astrology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T21:50:36.140" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T21:50:36.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="878" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:12:02.557" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John the Apostle&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John was the son of Zebedee, and the brother of James, together called the &quot;sons of thunder.&quot; They originally were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. John was first a disciple of John the Baptist until he was called by Jesus to follow him. During Jesus' time on earth Peter, James, and John appeared to be part of Jesus' inner circle regularly experiencing things the other disciples did not. After Jesus' death John was one of the twelve disciples sent out as apostles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Writings&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of John, the three letters of John and the Book of Revelation are all attributed to John the Apostle, although there is a debate as to whether or not he actually wrote them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(original source)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="117" LastEditorUserId="117" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T22:12:02.557" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T22:12:02.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="879" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:12:02.557" Score="0" Body="John: a disciple of Jesus, later known as John the Apostle" OwnerUserId="117" LastEditorUserId="117" LastEditDate="2011-08-27T22:12:02.557" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T22:12:02.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="880" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:17:25.590" Score="10" ViewCount="3718" Body="&lt;p&gt;What would be defined as &quot;righteous anger&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4:26 (ESV) says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;26&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;So, is all anger justifiable if you don't sin? Or are there other verses that address this subject? When is anger justified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T01:49:57.973" LastActivityDate="2015-07-07T21:32:11.813" Title="What is the Biblical basis for &quot;righteous anger&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;anger&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="875" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:27:02.167" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it's drinking to excess that is wrong - Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:17-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eph 5:17-19&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, one needs to define &quot;excess&quot;.  Which is likely to more personal and will vary from believer to believer; one might draw the line at the legal limit for driving as a useful guideline.  It's widely recognized that a glass of red wine a day is healthful and beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there's the case of the wedding feast an Cana where Jesus made 120-180 &lt;em&gt;gallons&lt;/em&gt; (455-680 liters) of wine - and not just any wine, but wine of superlative quality. I find the argument that Jesus created non-alcoholic wine to be tortuous, at best. Then, too, there's the comment about the normal practice of serving the best wine first and the worst last - because after drinking the better wine people are too inebriated to notice the poorer quality of the latter wine; that's a clear indication the that what they were referring to as the &quot;best wine&quot; contained alcohol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was wine at the Last Supper, and every Passover Jesus celebrated in his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Paul instructs Timothy to &quot;Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205:22-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 5:22-24&lt;/a&gt;), probably because the alcohol in wine and the process of fermentation kills germs, where clean drinking water was harder to obtain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-03-03T17:27:01.820" LastActivityDate="2014-03-03T17:27:01.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="880" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:29:55.680" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is more info on the verse you gave us. The whole verse is this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 “In your anger do not sin”[a]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, it means that it is ok to be angry at times, but don't let it last longer then a day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T22:29:55.680" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="880" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:35:03.330" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is consistent with other verses like James 1:20. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically they are saying that you aren't going to do anything good when you are angry. One can be angry but one's actions will tend towards sin in these situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T22:35:03.330" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="884" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="889" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:37:32.717" Score="13" ViewCount="3037" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2013:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Judges 13 verse 7&lt;/a&gt;, There is an interesting passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 But he said to me, 'You will become pregnant and will have a son. Don't drink wine or beer or eat anything that is unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite to God from his birth until the day of his death.' &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not get the point here. I know what Nazirite  is, but what are they essentially?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T00:26:06.417" LastActivityDate="2014-06-01T13:20:50.447" Title="What is a Nazirite?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="875" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:43:08.223" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you said we are in agreement that getting drunk is wrong. My point of view is you can never get drunk if you never have a first drink. Alcohol is an addictive and habit forming substance. To take one drink is to begin the path of giving up free will to the possibility of addiction, drunkenness and sin. I am not saying that one drink leads to damnation, but one drink can lead to another. Why start down a road you don't want to follow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/875/is-it-wrong-to-consume-alcohol/881#881&quot;&gt;Software Monkey&lt;/a&gt; pointed out, the alcohol in wine and the process of fermentation killed germs during Jesus' time, when clean drinking water was hard to obtain. Today I believe the risks of drinking wine outweighs the benefits when I can easily get clean drinking water. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I abstain from drinking alcohol &lt;em&gt;recreationally&lt;/em&gt;, it is occasionally present in my cough syrup. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;: Yes, I believe drinking alcohol to be a sin. It should be avoided when possible. I would advocate that others avoid it as well, but understand if they have beliefs to the contrary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T23:09:32.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="866" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:43:34.127" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is my &lt;em&gt;personal opinion&lt;/em&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think there is anything wrong with scripted prayers, &lt;em&gt;as one method of prayer&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christianity is (according to most) above all, a relationship with Christ, then we ought to have relational conversations with Him.  As such, many of our prayers ought to &quot;come from the heart,&quot; to use your phrase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is clear that in other relationships, not &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; conversations are ad-lib.  Parents will sing songs to their children, or recite poems.  Friends quote topical movies or comedy sketches with each other.  Lovers will recite poetry or sing songs to each other (probably far less often than most women would like).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These &quot;recited&quot; forms of conversation are not invalid, and can do a lot to deepen the relationship--for both parties involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember fondly a poem both of my parents used to recite to me when I was 3-4 years old. The fact that they didn't write the words, or that they used the same words repeatedly did not detract from the love they were communicating to me in those words. And in fact, the repetitiveness served to ingrain the poem in my mind for many years to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if my parents &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; recited poems to me, I would consider that problematic. While it might be a meaningful form of communication, it's not a very flexible one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, if our only, or perhaps even primary, method of communication with God is through recited words, I would consider that to be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if when we recite words, it is simply acting out a formula, then it's not really communication.  The recited words must have meaning &lt;em&gt;that we understand&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;that we are attempting to communicate&lt;/em&gt; to be meaningful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T22:43:34.127" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="875" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:44:28.620" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I say yes, but each is entitled to his/her own opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 14&lt;/a&gt; (vs 19-21 specifically):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I take this to mean that if another will be offended by our partaking (whether that be alcohol or whatever), then we shouldn't do it.  Many people take &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians&lt;/a&gt; (vs 19-20) more literally than others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that our bodies are sacred. There are different interpretations of this, but I think nearly everyone can agree on that. If are bodies are sacred (and compared to God's holy temple), then we should take care of it. This means that we should put good things in and don't put bad things in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I take this to mean that anything that has a negative affect on my body (alcohol, tobacco, excessive caffeine/sugar) should be avoided. As such, I don't drink any alcohol and I don't smoke. I also don't drink soda very much in favor of juice (which I think tastes better anyway).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this can be taken to extremes. Sure, a little sugar is fine, and to some alcohol may be fine. My family happens to have a history of alcoholics (and other addictions), so that's even more reason for me personally to avoid these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;always remember&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 14&lt;/a&gt; (vs 17):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-27T22:44:28.620" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="884" CreationDate="2011-08-27T22:57:26.273" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;According to Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, a Nazirite had to make several vows. They are &quot;holy unto the LORD&quot; which is shown by their ascetic lifestyle. They must:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abstain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes, raisins, intoxicating liquors and vinegar distilled from such.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Refrain from cutting the hair on one's head.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid corpses and graves, even those of family members, and any structure which contains such.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second bullet explains why the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2016:15-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LORD left Samson after Delilah had his hair cut&lt;/a&gt;. Samson knew she was trying to capture him but he allowed his Nazirite vows to be compromised. One could probably make the argument that he became conceited and developed an attitude of irreverence toward his vows. (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judges 14:8&lt;/a&gt; when he had contact with a lion's corpse). This sin contributed to the LORD withdrawing from Samson, which in turn led to his eventual death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2014-06-01T13:20:50.447" LastActivityDate="2014-06-01T13:20:50.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="884" CreationDate="2011-08-27T23:19:08.800" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, Nazirites were people who vowed to set themselves apart to the Lord for a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;original definition&lt;/strong&gt; of Nazirites is the description Lord gives to Moses in Numbers 6. I think it makes sense to stick to the original, so I'll provide the relevant passage here, highlighting the points that set Nazirites apart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%206:1-12&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 6:1-12 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (emphases mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Then the Lord said to Moses, “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; “If any of the people, either men or women, take &lt;strong&gt;the special vow of a Nazirite&lt;/strong&gt;, setting themselves apart to the Lord in a special way, &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;they must give up wine and other alcoholic drinks&lt;/strong&gt;. They &lt;strong&gt;must not use vinegar&lt;/strong&gt; made from wine or from other alcoholic drinks, they &lt;strong&gt;must not drink fresh grape juice&lt;/strong&gt;, and they &lt;strong&gt;must not eat grapes or raisins&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; As long as they are bound by their Nazirite vow, they are &lt;strong&gt;not allowed to eat or drink anything that comes from a grapevine—not even the grape seeds or skins&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; “&lt;strong&gt;They must never cut their hair throughout the time of their vow&lt;/strong&gt;, for they are holy and set apart to the Lord. Until the time of their vow has been fulfilled, they must let their hair grow long. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; And &lt;strong&gt;they must not go near a dead body&lt;/strong&gt; during the entire period of their vow to the Lord. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Even if the dead person is their own father, mother, brother, or sister, they must not defile themselves, for the hair on their head is the symbol of their separation to God. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; This requirement applies as long as they are set apart to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; “&lt;strong&gt;If someone falls dead beside them&lt;/strong&gt;, the hair they have dedicated will be defiled. &lt;strong&gt;They must wait for seven days and then shave their heads&lt;/strong&gt;. Then they will be cleansed from their defilement. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; On the eighth day they must bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance of the Tabernacle. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; The priest will offer one of the birds for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way, he will purify them from the guilt they incurred through contact with the dead body. &lt;strong&gt;Then they must reaffirm their commitment and let their hair begin to grow again.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; The days of their vow that were completed before their defilement no longer count. &lt;strong&gt;They must rededicate themselves to the Lord as a Nazirite for the full term of their vow&lt;/strong&gt;, and each must bring a one-year-old male lamb for a guilt offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage goes on to lay ritual law for when the person's time as Nazirite ends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T15:56:24.807" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T15:56:24.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="860" CreationDate="2011-08-27T23:54:53.633" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This answer reflects my personal opinion, or rather results from my personal studies.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can see two main purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Salvation of the sinner&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first purpose is to help the person that is being disciplined. This is apparent from Paul's writing to the Corinthians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%205:4-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Cor 5:4-5 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's difficult to say what this exactly means, but clearly the goal is &lt;em&gt;that his spirit may be saved&lt;/em&gt;. In general, there can be multiple different ways that discipline helps a person turn from the road to destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Purity of the church&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ wants His bride pure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col%201:21-22%20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Col 1:21-22 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Continuing from the earlier passage, Paul writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%205:6-8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Cor 5:6-8 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Little leaven leavens the whole lump.&lt;/em&gt; Similarly, one person living in sin lures others in the community to live in sin, making the whole community impure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the relation between the two, church discipline should always be part of God's discipline. It should always happen in the guidance of God and according to principles set in the bible &lt;em&gt;(implementation details)&lt;/em&gt;. Anything other would be spiritual violence. God thankfully has a &lt;strong&gt;lot&lt;/strong&gt; of other means to discipline His children, so church discipline is just one detail of a big picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T15:04:21.470" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T15:04:21.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="880" CreationDate="2011-08-28T01:02:42.240" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To quote St. John Cassian,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our incensive power [our capacity for the emotion of anger] can be used in a way that is according to nature only when turned against our own impassioned or self-indulgent thoughts. This is what the Prophet [Psalmist] teaches us when he says: 'Be angry, and do not sin'---that is, be angry with your own passions and with your malicious thoughts and do not sin by carrying out their suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in his chapter on the vice of anger in his work &lt;em&gt;On the eight vices.&lt;/em&gt; He continues,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What follows clearly confirms this interpretation: 'As you lie in bed, repent of what you say in your heart'---that is, when malicious thoughts enter your heart, expel them with anger, and then turn to compunction and repentance as if your soul were resting in a bed of stillness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to anger towards others or even inanimate objects (e.g. road rage may combine these two), again, St. John writes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;we should remove the root of anger, its spark, so to speak, in whatever way we can, and not keep even a single pretext for anger in our hearts. Otherwise we will be stirred to anger initially for what appears to be a good reason and then find that our incensive power is totally out of control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So righteous anger towards malicious thoughts is just. Other uses of the incensive power are dangerous at best, and usually end up being destructive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T01:02:42.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="893" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="910" CreationDate="2011-08-28T01:17:42.510" Score="11" ViewCount="2006" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 6:1--4 tells about the &quot;sons of God&quot; marrying whomsoever they pleased, and the Nephilim---&quot;the heroes of old, men of renown&quot;---were begotten then. How is this to be interpreted?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-12-18T20:16:17.000" LastActivityDate="2014-05-27T20:46:41.390" Title="Who were the Sons of God who seem to have begat the Nephilim?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-07-18T05:19:24.397" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="895" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-28T01:32:17.620" Score="18" ViewCount="3036" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 21: 15-17 there's a post-Resurrection dialog between Peter and Jesus.  Here's the KJV translation of this dialog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of&#xA;  Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;&#xA;  thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest&#xA;  thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.&#xA;  He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?&#xA;  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou&#xA;  me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest&#xA;  that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other more recent translations basically say the same thing about this threefold dialog between Jesus and the guy who recently denied him.  It's good to read this passage as Jesus's threefold recommissioning of Peter after the three denials. But it does seem repetitive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, there's a strange thing about the translation. The Greek uses two different words for love here.  &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;philo&lt;/em&gt;.  Writing out the KJV again using &quot;like&quot; for philo and &quot;love&quot; for &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt;, we get this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of&#xA;  Jonas, &lt;strong&gt;lovest&lt;/strong&gt; thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;&#xA;  thou knowest that I &lt;strong&gt;like&lt;/strong&gt; thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, &lt;strong&gt;lovest&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I &lt;strong&gt;like&lt;/strong&gt; thee.&#xA;  He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, &lt;strong&gt;likest&lt;/strong&gt; thou me?&#xA;  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, &lt;strong&gt;Likest&lt;/strong&gt; thou&#xA;  me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest&#xA;  that I &lt;strong&gt;like&lt;/strong&gt; thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This difference in words gives the whole dialog a very different tone.  Is Peter holding out on Jesus? (If you're wondering about why this might be important, next time your spouse asks, &quot;do you love me?&quot; answer &quot;sweetheart, I like you.&quot; Let us know how that works out for you. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anybody know why the English translations erase this distinction in the words for love in this passage? Was it due to a translator's theological point of view? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-01-26T11:51:13.987" LastActivityDate="2019-01-26T13:11:31.287" Title="Dialog between Jesus and Peter in John 21: what's going on?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="893" CreationDate="2011-08-28T02:06:03.557" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Testament teaches us that the Sons of God are the righteous.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That last bit is instructive.  &quot;The world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.&quot;  It hearkens back to the Savior's words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15: 18-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that the Sons of God are chosen out of the world and are different from &quot;the world.&quot;  So if the Sons of God married daughters of men, (ordinary women &quot;of the world&quot; who were not living in righteousness,) the children born to them may have been great and powerful, but without a righteous mother to raise them in the truth they would have fallen away from God.  This was always a big deal in Old Testament times.  In the Law of Moses, marrying outside the covenant was forbidden, and Solomon choosing to ignore this prohibition is explicitly blamed for the decay and downfall of his kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T02:06:03.557" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="895" CreationDate="2011-08-28T02:10:12.037" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though not a Greek scholar, I would contend that translating &lt;em&gt;philo&lt;/em&gt; as &lt;em&gt;like&lt;/em&gt; is a poor translation.  &lt;em&gt;Agape&lt;/em&gt; typically connotes the perfect love that God has and to which we can only &lt;em&gt;aspire&lt;/em&gt; (though aspire to it we must, just as we aspire to imitate Christ though we can only do so imperfectly). On the other hand, &lt;em&gt;philo&lt;/em&gt; connotes the love between two persons which is not &lt;em&gt;eros&lt;/em&gt;, the sexual love between a man and a woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our language is inadequate to the task, having only one word for love, which takes on different connotations in different contexts - when I say &quot;I love my brother&quot; I mean quite different love than &quot;I loved my wife last night&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, why does Jesus &quot;labor the point&quot; three times? It is generally considered to correlate to Peter's three denials; for Peter it was thrice affirming the forgiveness for thrice denying our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T02:10:12.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="895" CreationDate="2011-08-28T02:23:30.000" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps one could read this as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon, son of Jonah, do you even like me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This interpolation is not in the English text and almost certainly not in the original, but do you think it might convey the right pacing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T02:23:30.000" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="901" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-28T02:42:35.970" Score="18" ViewCount="4141" Body="&lt;p&gt;To clarify the question - when I mention God here I am referring to God the Father and by free will, the best non-contradictory definition according to the Bible I have heard is &quot;the ability to act apart from one's nature&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I first came across this question it sounds almost absurd. Of course God has free will, He willed us into being. But maybe willing something and free will are two different things.  And maybe we have a hard time thinking about this because we personify God to have human traits and the ability to act apart from our nature is a human only trait. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T21:24:12.450" LastActivityDate="2015-01-23T18:12:56.513" Title="Does God have free will?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-24T04:40:27.363" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="901" CreationDate="2011-08-28T02:54:06.003" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to find Biblical doctrine on this point, you might want to start at Matthew 5:48.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This comes as part of the Sermon on the Mount, at the end of a long section of commandments about choices to make in order to live righteously.  After laying all of these on us, Jesus commands us to be &quot;therefore&quot; (related to this) perfect even as our Father in Heaven is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this, we can conclude that God does have free will, but, being perfect as we are told to be, He never chooses to abuse it by doing anything which would be sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T02:54:06.003" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="901" CreationDate="2011-08-28T06:05:30.857" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would argue that the premise that free will is &quot;the ability to act apart from one's nature&quot; is essentially flawed.  Free will is the ability to act within your power &lt;em&gt;according&lt;/em&gt; to your nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, regardless of your definition of free will, the question is also influenced by a finite viewpoint.  God is both infinite and perfect.  He has free will, and his will is perfect and his nature is infinite such that his will is perfectly executed.  Being both infinite and perfect in nature, it is not possible for any of the three persons of the Trinity to ever act contrary to their perfect nature - that's one of the reasons it's possible for God to be three persons without inter-relational conflict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We tend to over anthropomorphize God, and we must be very careful not to reconstruct God in our image, instead of the other way around.  We image God but imperfectly; we are &lt;em&gt;like&lt;/em&gt; him, but we are not &lt;em&gt;identical&lt;/em&gt; to him (as if that needs to be said).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a mysterious way, within this creation, God has created us sufficiently in his image such that we have free will; and we &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; according to our nature, which is fallen and corrupted.  Somehow, God has organized things in this dimension (or these 4 dimensions, if you like), such that we can exercise our free will without contravening his.  It's as if he has deliberately chosen to limit himself for the sake of our creation - how this resonates with his will I cannot explain... as I said, it's a mystery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T06:05:30.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="904" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-28T06:15:13.213" Score="17" ViewCount="12725" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+6%3A7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:7&lt;/a&gt;, we read, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have never understood how it is that God can experience regret.  Does this not imply that He made a mistake?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps it is only because as humans we experience regret frequently associated with a mistake; however, regret simply means &quot;to feel sorrow or remorse&quot;.  Remorse is defined as (1) deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction.&#xA;(2) (Obsolete) pity; compassion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't shake the sense that regret always entails &quot;I wish I hadn't done that&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-12-18T20:15:18.903" LastActivityDate="2013-12-18T20:15:18.903" Title="How is it that an unchanging and omniscient God can have &quot;regret&quot; as He did in Gen 6:7?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-01T08:02:08.747" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="901" CreationDate="2011-08-28T06:35:36.610" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with @Software Monkey that the question's premise is flawed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The definition in your answer is too narrow.  To properly define &quot;free will,&quot; I think we have to consider what the will is free &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt;.  Since the term, as used, is in a vacuum, we have no context, so we don't know &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; it is free from, without additional information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest that a better definition would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ability to choose and/or act apart from some external constraint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we accept this definition, then the definition you provide would be just a contextual version of this--in the context of &quot;nature.&quot;  In other words &quot;will free from one's nature.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, we could ask the question &quot;Do humans have free will?&quot; and the answer may depend on context--Humans have &quot;will free from the influence of other humans.&quot;  Do humans have &quot;will free from the influence of predestination?&quot; I'll leave that for another question.  But I hope my point is clear... The term &quot;free will&quot; doesn't work in a vacuum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, does God have &quot;free will?&quot;  Well, according to your definition, I would have to say no, since &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt; has &quot;will free from its own nature,&quot; apart from the possible exception of things that are able to escape this limitation by some supernatural means.  And since God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the supernatural means, and there is no means greater than Him, nothing can enable Him to act &lt;em&gt;apart from His nature&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is like asking &quot;Can God make a stone so large He can't move it?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T06:46:11.943" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T06:46:11.943" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="904" CreationDate="2011-08-28T07:10:30.050" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that God allowed humans the privilege of free will, knowing the consequences, because he trusted man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In an earlier verse, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+6%3A5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:5&lt;/a&gt;, the reason for God's regret is described:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every contention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the consequence of God's granting man free will was that man grew wicked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't think of it as a mistake--think of it as though God regretted creating man the &lt;em&gt;way he did&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T12:00:26.513" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T12:00:26.513" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="327" CreationDate="2011-08-28T07:16:07.263" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/327/under-what-conditions-does-the-bible-support-divorce/332#332&quot;&gt;Jonathon started with a great passage&lt;/a&gt; for this question, but stopped short of an interpretation that carries the full weight of the passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage has two different parts. One part addresses marriages between believers, the other mixed marriages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, let's take the part between believers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%2BCorinthians%2B7%3A10-11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1st Corinthians 7:10-11 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a clear mandate that believers should NOT divorce. There are no conditions given, no ifs, ands or buts. Now if we move on in the passage the group being addressed changes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%2BCorinthians%2B7%3A12-15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1st Corinthians 7:12-15 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here relationships between a believer and a non-believer are address. Still the charge is to stay together. If there is a divorce it is ONLY to be allowed at the insistence of the non-believer, the believer does not have the option of requesting a divorce, but neither does he have the authority to forbid the other party from leaving. The most peaceful thing to do if you can't convince them to stay is let them have their way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This should also be balanced with the warning in the next book about not marrying an unbeliever in the first place. It's a situation that should NEVER be entered into:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%2BCorinthians%2B7%3A10-11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2nd Corinthians 6:14-15 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leaves the passage in 1st Corinthians making an allowance for marriages where one partner came to faith after the marriage AND the non-believing party is insisting on a divorce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly I would like to point out that as a God ordained sacrament, all marriage is involves a covenant and God hates covenant breakers. I started out pointing out how the 1st Corinthians passage forbid divorce between believers, but one could also clearly show from Scripture that God hates ALL divorce. For example see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/+Malachi+2%3A10-16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Malachi 2:10-16&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR&lt;/strong&gt; Based on these and other passages I would say that the literal answer to your question is that the Bible does not &lt;em&gt;support&lt;/em&gt; divorce under ANY circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T15:05:50.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="443" CreationDate="2011-08-28T07:23:16.387" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Parts of this answer is taken directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) which carries the seal of &lt;em&gt;Imprimi Potest&lt;/em&gt;, by which the Catholic Church recognizes the publication to be free of doctrinal error (as I understand it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture, attesting to divine authorship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM#&quot;&gt;105&lt;/a&gt; God is the author of Sacred Scripture. &quot;The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And attesting to inerrancy of all, including the deuterocanonical books (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM#&quot;&gt;107&lt;/a&gt; The inspired books teach the truth. &quot;Since therefore all that&#xA;  the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as&#xA;  affirmed by the Holy Spirit, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;we must acknowledge that the books of&#xA;  Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; teach that truth&#xA;  which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to&#xA;  the Sacred Scriptures.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the books in question are viewed as inerrant and on the same level as the rest of the Biblical canon, old and new testaments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To speak to Irawan's point as to how Catholics view scripture, the relationship between scripture and &quot;tradition&quot; is as follows (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM&quot;&gt;CCC 80 ff&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One common source. . .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;80 &quot;Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely&#xA;  together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them,&#xA;  flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some&#xA;  fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.&quot;40 Each of&#xA;  them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ,&#xA;  who promised to remain with his own &quot;always, to the close of the&#xA;  age&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;. . . two distinct modes of transmission&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;81 &quot;Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing&#xA;  under the breath of the Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which&#xA;  has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy&#xA;  Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that,&#xA;  enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve,&#xA;  expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation&#xA;  of Revelation is entrusted, &quot;does not derive her certainty about all&#xA;  revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and&#xA;  Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of&#xA;  devotion and reverence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on&#xA;  what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they&#xA;  learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did&#xA;  not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself&#xA;  demonstrates the process of living Tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological,&#xA;  disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local&#xA;  churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to&#xA;  different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed.&#xA;  In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified&#xA;  or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The origins of the Catholic OT canon is rather a lengthy discussion, which can be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#3.%20Formation%20of%20the%20Christian%20Canon&quot;&gt;found here&lt;/a&gt;.  The gist of it is (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth,&#xA;  closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual&#xA;  form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of&#xA;  “Writings”, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in&#xA;  Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of&#xA;  books and their textual form. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Towards the end of the first century&#xA;  A.D., it seems that 22 books were generally accepted by Jews as&#xA;  sacred, but it is only much later that the list became exclusive&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical&#xA;  books were not included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the West, the use of a larger collection of sacred books was common&#xA;  and was defended by Augustine. When it came to selecting books to be&#xA;  included in the canon, Augustine (354-430) based his judgement on the&#xA;  constant practice of the Church. At the beginning of the fifth&#xA;  century, councils adopted his position in drawing up the Old Testament&#xA;  canon. Although these councils were regional, the unanimity expressed&#xA;  in their lists represents Church usage in the West.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this information, assuming it's in fact accurate, it could be argued that the reformers rejected an OT canon which the Christian Church had used for well over a millennia; I have read arguments by Catholic writers which suggest that the Jewish canon was altered (or perhaps finalized) well after the Christian church was established, but I cannot find references to support that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T08:06:38.827" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T08:06:38.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="893" CreationDate="2011-08-28T08:04:21.500" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dr John Millam, on the Reasons to Believe website, has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/theology/bible-difficulties/HistoricAgeDebateDependenceonTranslationsPart4of5&quot;&gt;this to say&lt;/a&gt; on the Nephilim (about 1/2 way through, the section entitled The Sons of God/Giants):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Historically, the most popular way of understanding this passage was&#xA;  that the &quot;sons of God&quot; refer to angels or to the descendents of the&#xA;  godly line of Seth, Adam's son. The translators of the Septuagint,&#xA;  however, biased interpretations toward one standpoint by substituting&#xA;  &quot;angels&quot; for &quot;sons of God&quot;. (The sons-of-God-as-angels view was&#xA;  fashionable in Jewish circles at that time. It appears in the&#xA;  apocryphal Book of Enoch, so the translators of the Septuagint were&#xA;  simply reflecting popular thinking.) This helps explain why the angel&#xA;  interpretation held exclusive dominance in the church for the first&#xA;  two centuries. A second example can be found in this same passage&#xA;  where the Septuagint translated Nephilim (literally &quot;fallen ones&quot;) as&#xA;  &quot;giants&quot; (Greek gigos). As a result, the view that the Nephilim were&#xA;  &quot;giants&quot; was rampant in the early church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people I have read on the matter agree that it is highly uncertain who these &quot;Nephilim&quot; actually were, and as a result, speculation abounds.  In my thinking it seems problematic to consider that angels, who are purely spirit beings could mate and produce offspring with humans who are a distinct creation of body into which God breathed spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim&quot;&gt;wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some individuals and groups, including St. Augustine, John Chrysostom,&#xA;  and John Calvin, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the &quot;Angels&quot; who&#xA;  fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage&#xA;  of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their&#xA;  being formerly in a covenantal relationship with Yahweh (cf.&#xA;  Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had&#xA;  begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters&#xA;  of men, e.g., those who were descended from Cain or from any people&#xA;  who did not worship God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the ca. 6th century &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_Adam_and_Eve_with_Satan&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (a Christian pseudepigraphical work found in Ge'ez) says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Certain wise men of old wrote concerning them, and say in their&#xA;  [sacred] books, that angels came down from heaven, and mingled with&#xA;  the daughters of Cain, who bare unto them these giants. But these&#xA;  [wise men] err in what they say. God forbid such a thing, that angels&#xA;  who are spirits, should be found committing sin with human beings.&#xA;  Never, that cannot be. And if such a thing were of the nature of&#xA;  angels, or Satans, that fell, they would not leave one woman on earth,&#xA;  undefiled... But many men say, that angels came down from heaven, and&#xA;  joined themselves to women, and had children by them. This cannot be&#xA;  true. But they were children of Seth, who were of the children of&#xA;  Adam, that dwelt on the mountain, high up, while they preserved their&#xA;  virginity, their innocence and their glory like angels; and were then&#xA;  called 'angels of God.' But when they transgressed and mingled with&#xA;  the children of Cain, and begat children, ill-informed men said, that&#xA;  angels had come down from heaven, and mingled with the daughters of&#xA;  men, who bare them giants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which seems to make sense to me.  Both wikipedia articles contain numerous references which may be of interest for further research and reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A second reference to Nephilim occurs in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2013:32-33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Numbers 13:32-33&lt;/a&gt;, but since all of mankind was destroyed in the flood of Gen 9 ff, I don't see how they could be of the same bloodline.  So that suggests that &lt;em&gt;Nephilim&lt;/em&gt; might be more of a general than specific descriptive term.  It may be significant that both groups of men are described as &quot;giants&quot; (note also that Goliath and his kin, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;descendants of Rapha in Gath&lt;/a&gt;&quot; were described as having six fingers and six toes, which indicates some sort of genetic deformity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T08:04:21.500" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="911" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-28T08:08:29.877" Score="12" ViewCount="648" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many comedians nowadays rely on the use of profanity to enhance their comedy. This is also present in movies and television (although limited).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know the bible says not to let &quot;unwholesome talk&quot; come out of our mouths, but does it say anything of listening to it? More specifically, for the purpose of entertainment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't get me wrong, I'm faithful, but I just don't see why we should let others' unwholesome talk get in the way of our own entertainment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T23:24:14.647" Title="Profanity in entertainment?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T16:10:54.130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="911" CreationDate="2011-08-28T09:29:04.040" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anything that anyone says has eternal implications. When &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt; speaks, His words go like the rain, they accomplish His work, and they return to Him (&lt;strong&gt;Isa. 55:10-11&lt;/strong&gt;). Our words can be like that, too, like Samuel, who &quot;let none of his words fall to the ground&quot; (&lt;strong&gt;1 Sam. 3:19&lt;/strong&gt;). Contrarily, James 3 speaks of the death that is in the tongue. It is impossible for man to tame it. Even the man who lies and then says he was joking throws around &quot;firebrands, arrows, and death&quot; (&lt;strong&gt;Pro. 26:18&lt;/strong&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God would not have us share in deathly things. Paul condemns a long list of characteristics (among which include &quot;disobedient to parents&quot; and &quot;inventors of evil&quot;) saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things&#xA;  are worthy of death, not only do the same, &lt;em&gt;but have pleasure in them&#xA;  that do them&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:21&lt;/strong&gt; (emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By being entertained with unwholesome things, we are taking pleasure in things that are worthy of death. Everything said has eternal implications. See &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:36-37&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, to the Ephesians Paul writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord:&#xA;  walk as children of light:... And &lt;em&gt;have no fellowship with the&#xA;  unfruitful works of darkness&lt;/em&gt;, but rather reprove them.For it is a&#xA;  shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. &lt;strong&gt;Eph 5:8,10-11&lt;/strong&gt; (emphasis added) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being entertained is not a Christian value, though it is not a bad thing at all. We should not let unwholesome talk get in the way of our walk with God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are&#xA;  noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure,&#xA;  whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if&#xA;  there is any virtue and if there is anything&#xA;  praiseworthy--meditate on these things. &lt;strong&gt;Philippians 4:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(related to this question/answer is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/774/what-does-the-bible-say-about-bad-words&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; words?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T16:20:28.903" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="904" CreationDate="2011-08-28T12:24:40.577" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is God completely unchanging in God's dealing with humankind?  The scriptural evidence about incidents of prophetic intercession suggests this is not always the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For just one example to the contrary, consider a couple of divine-prophetic dialogs.  One is the dialog with Abraham, where Abraham held out for mercy against the people of Sodom. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=147474699%20&quot;&gt;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=147474699%20&lt;/a&gt; (NRSV).  In this example Abraham prevailed in the dialog but the outcome did not change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For another example, here Moses recounts his dialog.  (NRSV, Deut 9:11-21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At the end of forty days and forty nights the LORD gave me the two&#xA;  stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant. Then the LORD said to me,&#xA;  &quot;Get up, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have&#xA;  brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have been quick to turn&#xA;  from the way that I commanded them; they have cast an image for&#xA;  themselves.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Furthermore the LORD said to me, &quot;I have seen that this people is&#xA;  indeed a stubborn people. Let me alone that I may destroy them and&#xA;  blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation&#xA;  mightier and more numerous than they.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So I turned and went down from the mountain, while the mountain was&#xA;  ablaze; the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands. Then I&#xA;  saw that you had indeed sinned against the LORD your God, by casting&#xA;  for yourselves an image of a calf; you had been quick to turn from the&#xA;  way that the LORD had commanded you. So I took hold of the two tablets&#xA;  and flung them from my two hands, smashing them before your eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I lay prostrate before the LORD as before, forty days and forty&#xA;  nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin&#xA;  you had committed, provoking the LORD by doing what was evil in his&#xA;  sight. For I was afraid that the anger that the LORD bore against you&#xA;  was so fierce that he would destroy you. But the LORD listened to me&#xA;  that time also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him, but&#xA;  I interceded also on behalf of Aaron at that same time. Then I took&#xA;  the sinful thing you had made, the calf, and burned it with fire and&#xA;  crushed it, grinding it thoroughly, until it was reduced to dust; and&#xA;  I threw the dust of it into the stream that runs down the mountain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here is recounted a change of the divine mind in response to prophetic intercession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has to be said, &quot;don't try this at home, kids.&quot; Moses was willing to place his own favor with God on the line to get God to relent against the Hebrew people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point: every time I think I've studied enough to make simple statements about the mind of God, something surprises me and brings me up short.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T12:24:40.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="904" CreationDate="2011-08-28T12:54:24.473" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is completely unlike us, so any attempts to describe God using human language are very limited. In this case an attempt is made to express the sorrow of God over the evil and pain introduced into the world, even though he knew it would happen, and he knows he will not only put it right, but make things even better than they were. This passage shows that God is not indifferent toward our problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T12:54:24.473" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="655" CreationDate="2011-08-28T13:33:04.690" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biblical basis for restricting communion to the baptized is indeed 1 Cor 11:27-28.  But, as @Richard pointed out, the interpretation of that passage isn't standardized.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a look, if you will, at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=181550469&quot;&gt;context of those two verses (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;.  Paul is addressing a controversy where it seems some of the Corinthians were coming together to stuff themselves, and excluding others. That too is the consumption of the Lord's Supper in a disrespectful manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate, at the supper that Thursday night long ago in the upper room, we have no clear words from Jesus about only serving the baptized.  Were all the ones present with Jesus baptized?  Who knows?  He did serve all of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an early church document that isn't in the canon called the Didache XII Apostolos (the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles).  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for example. That document spells out the requirement for baptism before partaking of Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now no one should either eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal,&#xA;  but those who have been baptized into the Lord's name. For about this&#xA;  also the Lord said, &quot;Do not give what is holy to the dogs.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is very likely that the reservation of Communion to the baptized is a matter of church tradition as much as it is of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T16:57:22.867" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T16:57:22.867" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="920" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="923" CreationDate="2011-08-28T15:48:06.657" Score="11" ViewCount="3891" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the modern context, we have many things to keep ourselves entertained and motivated to do work - music, videos, movies, games, magazines etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:31&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:31 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that in whatever we do we will do it for the glory of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I really wonder how does gaming, watching video and having self-entertainment would do to glorify God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="122" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-28T16:28:11.933" LastActivityDate="2014-12-12T19:32:07.857" Title="How does entertainment glorify God at all?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;glory&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-12-12T22:30:03.637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="911" CreationDate="2011-08-28T15:51:56.157" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 17:4 says that a wicked person listens to deceitful lips and a liar pays attention to a destructive tongue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is equating kinds of people that he does not like with listening to and paying attention to the unwholesome talk that you are asking about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's difficult to purge your lifestyle of the evil that is around you, but by doing so you allow the fruit of the spirit to flourish in the absence of bad fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T15:51:56.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="875" CreationDate="2011-08-28T16:08:38.580" Score="9" Body="&lt;h2&gt;No it is not wrong to consume alcohol.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You know that Christ would never convince or encourage a person to sin, let alone give them MORE of something to sin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's dissect Jesus' first miracle. Understand that these wedding goers drank all of the wine at the wedding. These people are drunk, some are probably tanked and yet Jesus turns water into wine so that they can continue to drink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was he just testing them? I think not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the Bible is very clear that you should stay sober in all things and not drink to the point that you become a fool. It also tells us that we should add wine to our diets for health reasons. I will provide verses later today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is said that it is not what goes into our bodies that makes us unclean, but what comes out of our mouths that does. This relates back to Gods command for us to love each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T18:51:21.230" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2011-08-28T16:27:38.703" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Entertainment is one way we relax, and the Bible does tell us to rest, in many places, including Exodus 20:8: &quot;Remember the Sabbath.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Entertainment can also be a community-building event, although not as much so in the context of &quot;self-entertainment,&quot; that you mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also say that many things are not &lt;em&gt;purely&lt;/em&gt; entertaining, but also educational or enlightening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said all of that, I think many of us take entertainment to extremes, to the point that it is no longer glorifying to God. I know I'm guilty of this at times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T16:27:38.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2011-08-28T18:16:35.827" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You glorify God through love for other people. When washing the dishes, show love for your family by washing them in joy and you will show glory for your father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When listening to music glorify your father by listening to music that is good and pure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When watching tv, show love and respect to your family by bringing them closer through communion and peace. Do not watch things that will defile you and your family, but things that will bring forth the fruit of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Glorify your father in all things by doing all things in joy, love and peace for your brothers and sisters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For these qualities of love are what bring glory to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T18:16:35.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="926" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="927" CreationDate="2011-08-28T18:20:37.053" Score="10" ViewCount="12642" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2011&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 11:5-8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have no food to offer him.’ &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; I tell you, even though he will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship, yet because of your shameless audacity he will surely get up and give you as much as you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean that even though he &amp;quot;will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship&amp;quot;, he &amp;quot;will surely get up and give you as much as you need&amp;quot; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why will the friend not give the bread because of friendship (shouldn't it be the other way round) ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2021-01-13T12:42:23.527" Title="What does Luke 11:5-8 mean?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2021-01-13T13:42:57.920" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="926" CreationDate="2011-08-28T18:32:51.060" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the King James Version, verse 8 doesn't say &quot;your audacity,&quot; but &quot;his importunity&quot; (literally: inconvenience from a persistent request.)  The basic idea is that he'll get up and do it just to get you to go away and quit keeping him awake with your banging on the door.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T18:32:51.060" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="930" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="938" CreationDate="2011-08-28T18:52:01.397" Score="5" ViewCount="2169" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a &amp;quot;version&amp;quot; of the bible that has it's sentence structure written in English, yet retaining most of the original untranslated &amp;quot;nouns/verbs/adjectives&amp;quot; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok this is quite hard to explain, I'm not sure if anyone knows what I'm trying to say, but for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-26064&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:19 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders[c] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[c]: The Greek term traditionally translated the Jews (hoi Ioudaioi) refers here and elsewhere in John’s Gospel to those Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-26096&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:51 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then added, “Very truly I tell you,[i] you[j] will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[i]: The Greek is plural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[j]: The Greek is plural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+11&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-25440&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 11:34 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy,[g] your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy,[h] your body also is full of darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[g]: The Greek for healthy here implies generous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[h]: The Greek for unhealthy here implies stingy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is somewhat like the information in &lt;strong&gt;[c]&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;[i]&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;[j]&lt;/strong&gt;. But now only certain words are annotated. I believe this information is useful for in-dept Bible studying and I was wondering if there is a resource which shows more of these information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, if &amp;quot;hard-core&amp;quot; makes sense, I would like a &amp;quot;hard-core&amp;quot; resource.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;++ Update: ++&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To add to the answers, I've found a pretty good interlinear at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phpbible.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.phpbible.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-25T03:51:41.100" Title="A &quot;version&quot; of the bible with sentence structure written in English but retaining most of the original untranslated &quot;nouns/verbs/adjectives&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="926" CreationDate="2011-08-28T18:54:23.347" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's easier to understand this when you compare it to the widow and the judge parable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The judge ignores the women, but she keeps pressing to get her way and finally the judge breaks down and gives the widow what she wants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, if you go to your friends house late at night asking for something, he will not give it to you just because you are friends. But if you shamefully continue to nag at his door at 3am, then your friend will eventually give in and give you what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are right, it should be the other way around, but the bible tells is that we are all selfish and wicked in our ways. Man does everything naturally, the opposite of good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T18:54:23.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2011-08-28T18:57:27.117" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;While most entertainment may not glorify God in itself, you can use that entertainment to glorify God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am reminded a story of someone who had a teenage daughter when 90210 was on.  Instead of her watching it on her own or just with her friends, he would watch it with them and interject comments throughout instilling his Christian values.  (Apparently he had a knack for doing this comically without teenage eye-rolling. :P)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Eldredge's books and talks have a lot of references to popular culture including The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, and Braveheart, but usually in light of the biblical battle between good and evil.  I think it's possible to keep a spiritual eye when viewing or playing non-spiritual material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also plenty of entertainment that glorifies God.  My wife is watching &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486420/&quot;&gt;Love's Long Journey&lt;/a&gt; right now.  We watched &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1468387/&quot;&gt;What If...&lt;/a&gt; last night.  I also spend a lot of time listening and playing music in &lt;a href=&quot;http://turntable.fm/christian_anything6&quot;&gt;a Christian room on turntable.fm&lt;/a&gt;.  I would classify all of these as entertainment, but they are all Christian entertainment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T18:57:27.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="930" CreationDate="2011-08-28T19:03:16.300" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have found Biblos Interlinear Bible to be an excellent resource.  There are also tabs across the top which can take you to other resources for a verse such as a listing of different translations or commentaries on the verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1-1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1-1.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New English Translation has a lot more of the in depth footnotes like you are describing which explain the translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a good side-by-side reader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Genesis+1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Genesis+1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to get hardcore with it, try out the Online Greek Interlinear Bible.  There's also a Hebrew one for the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T13:44:46.850" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T13:44:46.850" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="880" CreationDate="2011-08-28T20:24:08.320" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wholeheartedly disagree with Jeff's statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Basically they are saying that you aren't going to do anything good&#xA;  when you are angry. One can be angry but one's actions will tend&#xA;  towards sin in these situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately I don't have the references on me now, but I clearly remember from a particular bible study that being angry is good &lt;em&gt;if you use your anger for good&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of say, Erin Brockovich, who used her anger to help a community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also saying that being an angry is not an excuse to sin. If you're angry, you still have to strive to not sin. Hitting your wife because you're angry is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; an excuse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4 can also be about marriage. And in this case, never letting the sun go down on an argument is all about not going to bed angry with your husband/wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going to bed angry means that issues don't get resolved (I should know, I went to bed right after having an argument with my wife last night, and I woke up this morning feeling terrible after a bad nights sleep). Unresolved issues and a failure to communicate are at the core to a failed marriage, and it seems that nothing much in that regards has changed over the last 2000 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="98" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T20:24:08.320" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="880" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:06:50.733" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good example of righteous anger often referred to is when Jesus overturned the tables in the Jerusalem temple (see Matt 21 / Mark 11 / Luke 19) - although if you're feeling pedantic the word anger isn't explicitly mentioned. We know that Jesus led a sinless life so there was no sin in his actions. Some key points that may be extrapolated for anger in general:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He didn't let his anger last, and didn't direct it at anyone unfairly; his very next action was to heal others&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he justified his actions clearly and concisely, even quoting scripture. He remained rational in his anger and did not lose control&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was famously ridiculed throughout his life and did not take the bait, but in this instance the offence was not against him personally yet it caused a much stronger reaction. Righteous anger is usually when we are angry on someone else's behalf or defending the defenceless as opposed to taking personal offence at something. (that's not to say the latter is unrighteous though!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T21:06:50.733" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="930" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:13:52.503" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Amplified Bible is intended to do exactly what you're seeking. More information about it is available at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Amplified-Bible-AMP/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Amplified-Bible-AMP/&lt;/a&gt; and the actual text is available online via the same site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T21:13:52.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="930" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:26:17.863" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want &quot;hard-core&quot;, you might want to look into the &lt;a href=&quot;http://apostolicbible.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apostolic Bible&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/wRmJ8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a solid resource for the &lt;strong&gt;New Testament&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as @Ollie Jones mentioned, the Old Testament for this is based on the Septuagint--an ancient Greek translation--rather than the original Hebrew.  Because of that, it's not quite as reliable as going straight to the source.  (In some situations it can be quite a ways off.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the Old Testament, I like to use the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/8NXjx.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that there is a corresponding online version of the Greek for the New Testament, but I prefer the Apostolic Bible for the NT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T02:32:38.907" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T02:32:38.907" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="930" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:27:14.367" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Young's Literal Translation is very good to keep all the original tense and word usage found in the Greek and Hebrew text, but still contains a sentence structure quite similar to what we commonly use today. You will find some instance of slightly different sentence structure, but for someone seeking to do in-depth study would find it an invaluable resource.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Young's Literal Translation was compiled in 1898 by Robert Young. You can find it in almost any Bible Book Store or online at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Blue Letter Bible&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Youngs-Literal-Translation-YLT-Bible/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible Gateway&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://yltbible.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible.cc&lt;/a&gt;. You can also order it directly from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bakerbooks.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=0477683E4046471488BD7BAC8DCFB004&amp;amp;nm=&amp;amp;type=PubCom&amp;amp;mod=PubComProductCatalog&amp;amp;mid=BF1316AF9E334B7BA1C33CB61CF48A4E&amp;amp;tier=3&amp;amp;id=CACBF9441CD1495ABDDA05BA2D23926D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Baker Books&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T21:27:14.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="911" CreationDate="2011-08-28T21:49:36.483" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not going to defend profanity, I don't think it's necessary in entertainment, but equally I don't think we should go very far out of our way to avoid it when it's so ingrained into the culture around us, and here's why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our primary proposes are to worship God and to spread the good news about Jesus. To do the latter we need the ability to engage with those who don't know him yet. If we remove ourselves so far from them that they can no longer relate to us and vice versa then we're failing in our duty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many forms of &quot;unwholesomeness&quot; around other than profanity. You could argue that it's unwholesome to watch a disturbing news story on tv because it may be upsetting, or that it's unwholesome to submit yourself to advertising of any form in case it tempts you into greed/envy/covetousness. You could take it to such an extreme that you spend your entire life in some kind of monastic existence and completely fail in our shared quest to spread the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while I'm no fan of swearing and I control what I say carefully, I accept that hearing profanity is part of modern life. I strongly dislike it but I feel a responsiblity to bear it, not hide away from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T21:49:36.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="911" CreationDate="2011-08-28T23:24:14.647" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a saying that goes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Garbage in, garbage out.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since profanity/taking God's name in vain/coarse language is 'garbage', then it makes sense that &lt;em&gt;if we listen to it, it &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; impact our thinking&lt;/em&gt; and eventually come out of our mouth or we'll use it in our everyday thoughts and conversation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="100" LastActivityDate="2011-08-28T23:24:14.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="79" CreationDate="2011-08-28T23:32:34.630" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regulations are created for fallen mankind who are unable to live by Spirit and truth.  Furthermore, such regulations tend to be best expressed as &quot;thou shalt not&quot; and lend themselves to an end result of legislating every tiny little nuance.  Just look at both the Hebrew law and the US law by way of example.  That's because these laws are attempting to control behavior of a society that by and large is motivated to find the loopholes.  We live with the attitude of, if it's not specifically forbidden I can do it. This can lead to erroneously attempting to counter this attitude by insisting on only allowing that which has been specifically legislated &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, which leads to just the same problem from the opposite direction - now everything which is allowed must be spelled out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But God's word attempts neither of these devices.  The problem is that fully living up in spirit of God's law is much harder and more demanding that adhering to a bunch of regulations and rules (whether permissive or prohibitive, and no matter long winded the rule book is).  I mean harder in that there is no set of boxes you can tick to tell yourself - &quot;yep, nailed it&quot;.  When I drive to work in the morning, on any given day I fully adhere to the state's driving statutes; but with every muttering under my breath and every irritated thought towards another driver I fail miserably at living up to God's perfect standard.  So we legislate and regulate, in large part because it's comforting to have a standard against which we can be objectively measured and not found wanting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, however, summed up the entire Hebrew law and prophets in two profound instructions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mat 22:37-40&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt; This is the first and greatest commandment. &lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ &lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is not after conformity to a bunch of regulations and rules, but a conformity of principles and attitude of the heart.  Were it not for our brokenness, we would not need anything more than these two commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus &quot;flaunts&quot; a number of the laws that the Jews had on the books specifically, it seems, to make this point.  For example, healing people on the Sabbath because &quot;The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath&quot; (Mark 2:27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul weighs in on this idea of personal conscience and accountability when he addresses the Corinthians on the matter of meat offered to idols (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 8:4 ff&lt;/a&gt;, emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An&#xA;  idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but&#xA;  one.” &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on&#xA;  earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; yet for us&#xA;  there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for&#xA;  whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom&#xA;  all things came and through whom we live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so&#xA;  accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of&#xA;  it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is&#xA;  weak, it is defiled. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; But food does not bring us near to God; &lt;strong&gt;we are&#xA;  no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, Paul addresses the issue in the letter to the Colossians &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Col 2:16-17 and 20-23&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or&#xA;  with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a&#xA;  Sabbath day. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; These are a shadow of the things that were to come;&#xA;  the reality, however, is found in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of&#xA;  this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you&#xA;  submit to its rules: &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to&#xA;  perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their&#xA;  self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment&#xA;  of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual&#xA;  indulgence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know that it get's much clearer than this in scripture.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conclusion I've reached, and this is very much my opinion, is that the need for rules one way or the other reflects spiritual immaturity.  The inability to make the leap, without a specific command in the affirmative, from the Old Testament use of instruments in worship to their application under the new covenant in Christ seems, to me, particularly illustrative of such insufficiency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my TL;DR answer to your question is, &quot;yes, if something is not specifically permitted we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be able to do it; likewise if something is not specifically prohibited we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be able to do it&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(For more on the use of instruments in worship, see also &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/199/does-the-bible-give-any-rules-for-music/207#207&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T03:35:01.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="930" CreationDate="2011-08-29T00:18:18.457" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's an excellent resource that I use all the time:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onlinebible.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.onlinebible.net/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It really isn't &quot;online&quot; in the sense that it uses a web site.  It's a PC software package.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has the KJV with word by word references to Strong's lexicon.  Each Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic verb is parsed.  You can also get the Greek Testament with Strong's markup, as well as the Septaguint.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(If you are to understand the parsing, you probably need to know the names of the Greek tenses (aorist, perfect, etc) and the Hebrew voices (hitpael, etc).)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get many public domain translations in many languages for no fee.  For example, you can get the Vulgate, a Hebrew translation, and Luther's Bible (in German).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you pay a small amount, you can get several modern translations, including NIV, NRSV and even Eugene Peterson's paraphrase called The Message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blessings on your study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T00:18:18.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="946" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T00:19:39.507" Score="12" ViewCount="33348" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%208:16-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:16-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a lot implied/assumed in those two verses. I'll try to keep it focused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is meant by children of God being &amp;quot;heirs of God&amp;quot;? What does He have to give us besides salvation? If salvation is something to be inherited, then does it mean that God once inherited/was given salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for being joint-heirs with Christ, does that mean we can obtain the same glory as he has?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-08-16T22:07:47.713" Title="What does it mean to be an heir of God and a joint-heir with Christ?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T15:40:43.817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="947" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-29T00:26:43.753" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T00:26:43.753" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T00:26:43.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="948" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-29T00:26:43.753" Score="0" Body="The event in which Jesus Christ was placed and subsequently executed on the cross." OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T00:55:39.463" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T00:55:39.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="946" CreationDate="2011-08-29T00:40:01.097" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a really sticky bit of theology.  In Jewish custom, &quot;joint heirs&quot; has a very specific meaning: heirs who receive an identical inheritance.  There are only two churches I've seen who aren't completely unwilling to so much as touch this verse with a ten-foot pole, and both are well outside of mainstream Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Mormons claim that this is evidence that man can be exalted and become as God, like Christ did.  On the other hand, the Jehovah's Witnesses take a completely opposite interpretation: since man can receive exactly the same inheritance as Christ, and since man can obviously &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; become as God, this is evidence that Jesus was not divine either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T00:40:01.097" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="946" CreationDate="2011-08-29T00:59:40.843" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being a heir of God doesn't mean that whatever we inherit was inherited by God. For example, Bill Gates' children are each getting about 10 million dollars as their inheritance (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/what-will-gates-children-inherit/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;). Ignoring for now the fact that 10 million dollars is a really small portion of his wealth, it is certainly the case that Gates didn't inherit even that much from his parents. Thus, we can inherit salvation, eternal life in Heaven, and so on, even though God didn't get it first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the joint-heirs part, NIV phrases it a bit differently:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:16-17&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We share in Christ's suffering because the world hates us; &lt;em&gt;&quot;If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 15:18&lt;/a&gt;) However, we share in Christ's glory as implied by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 7:18&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 17:22&lt;/a&gt;, among other verses.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;However, this doesn't take into account the Jewish meaning of the word as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/946/what-does-it-mean-to-be-an-heir-of-god-and-a-joint-heir-with-christ/949#949&quot;&gt;Mason Wheeler&lt;/a&gt; pointed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A side note:&lt;/em&gt; the NLT version makes it even clearer and more direct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:16-17&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  16 For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children. 17 And since we are his children, we are his heirs. In fact, together with Christ we are heirs of God’s glory. But if we are to share his glory, we must also share his suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T00:59:40.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="951" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="955" CreationDate="2011-08-29T01:49:51.963" Score="8" ViewCount="11394" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many years ago, I heard someone say that the KJV came about because King James I wanted a version of the Bible that supported him getting a divorce. Nowadays, I can't help but wonder how true this is. Thus, I'm asking for the historical reasons the KJV came about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T01:58:58.563" LastActivityDate="2018-11-24T21:00:08.257" Title="What is the historical reason the King James Version was created?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="952" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T01:51:35.847" Score="50" ViewCount="143213" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's become habitual for me to say &quot;Oh my God&quot; in a situation where I am shocked or surprised, as I'm sure it's become for a lot of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I said &quot;Oh My God&quot; in the presence of a friend of mine once, a long time ago, and he said, &quot;Don't use God's name in vain&quot; or &quot;Don't use the Lord's name in vain.&quot; People have said this to me very often since then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This intrigued me, so I was just wondering...does the phrase &quot;Oh my God&quot; really use God's name in vain?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-01-25T21:46:16.877" LastActivityDate="2014-12-16T15:19:54.517" Title="Is saying &quot;Oh My God&quot; really using God's name in vain?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-07-29T19:24:44.527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="952" CreationDate="2011-08-29T02:06:31.193" Score="45" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vain&quot;&gt;definition&lt;/a&gt; of &quot;in vain&quot;, I'd say yes, it is in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in vain,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  a. without effect or avail; to no purpose: to apologize in&#xA;  vain.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  b. in an improper or irreverent manner: to take God's name in&#xA;  vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it may not be directly insulting or condemning God in any way, I would say that &quot;Oh my God&quot; is not using his name in a reverent manner, specifically one that may be bringing him glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to the habit, my wife had the same habit.  After realizing that it was taking his name in vain, she was able to quickly get over it.  While &quot;Oh my gosh&quot; has the same meaning (most likely in your case), it does remove the risk of trivializing God.  Maybe once you accept that it is taking God's name in vain, you'll be able to quickly get over your habit.  (I wouldn't expect anyone to get over it immediately unless you pray for God's help and he breaks it at once.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T03:12:39.717" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T03:12:39.717" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="951" CreationDate="2011-08-29T02:25:50.237" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To begin with, that statement is logically flawed as the Bible does not condone divorce — KJV or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as your actual question, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Considerations_for_a_new_version&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; it seems like a new English version was proposed &quot;[...] in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS:  There also seem to be a recent documentary on the subject, which I've been meaning to see.  It seems to be available on &lt;a href=&quot;http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/King-James-Bible-The-Book-That-Changed-The-World/70170566&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Netflix&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="121" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T02:35:01.453" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T02:35:01.453" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="951" CreationDate="2011-08-29T02:27:33.000" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; of the reasons for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Henry_VIII_of_England#Reformation&quot;&gt;English Reformation by King Henry VIII&lt;/a&gt; which lead to the creation of the Church of England was divorce, I doubt King James I would have needed a new translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Wikipedia, it sounds like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Considerations_for_a_new_version&quot;&gt;main reasons for the commissioning&lt;/a&gt; of the KJV 70 years after the reformation were around translation errors believed to be in the existing English translations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The newly crowned King James convened the Hampton Court Conference in&#xA;  1604. That gathering proposed a new English version in response to the&#xA;  perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan&#xA;  faction of the Church of England.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds to me like what you had heard may have just been history getting crossed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T02:27:33.000" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="958" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-29T03:26:46.750" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The King James version of the bible was a translated version of the Bible from the original languages into English by order of King James I of England. Started in 1605, it was completed in 1611 and eventually became the most read and published translation in history. Also known as the Authorized Version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-08-23T10:27:35.910" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T10:27:35.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="959" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-29T03:26:46.750" Score="0" Body="The King James Version of the bible. Also known as the Authorised Version." OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorUserId="5405" LastEditDate="2013-08-23T10:27:54.927" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T10:27:54.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="960" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T03:27:46.800" Score="10" ViewCount="749" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ending of the Gospel of Mark is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Mark_16:9.E2.80.9320_in_the_manuscripts_and_patristic_evidence&quot;&gt;disputed passage, because different manuscripts have a different ending:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some end at Mark 16:8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some include Mark 16:9-20, like most Bible translations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some include a &lt;em&gt;shorter ending&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/mark16.htm&quot;&gt;NAB&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter’s companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some include the &lt;em&gt;Freer Logion&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/mark16.htm&quot;&gt;NAB&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and&#xA;  unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God&#xA;  to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits [or, does&#xA;  not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the&#xA;  truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.’&#xA;  They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, ‘The limit of the&#xA;  years of Satan’s power is completed, but other terrible things draw&#xA;  near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they&#xA;  might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might&#xA;  inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of&#xA;  righteousness. But….’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many scholars have chosen the view that Mark 16:9-20 is a &lt;strong&gt;later addition&lt;/strong&gt;, while others support its authenticity. Most of my Bibles have at least a footnote noting that the passage is not found in all manuscripts, with some even suggesting that it's not an original part of Mark. I've yet to see a Bible translation that omits it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html&quot;&gt;an article on bible-researcher.com&lt;/a&gt; cites many commentaries on the passage, while the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Mark_16:9.E2.80.9320_in_the_manuscripts_and_patristic_evidence&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; has a good encyclopaedical overview of the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This will not be easy to answer properly, but I ask:&lt;/em&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is Mark 16:9-20 original or a later addition?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Should it be in the Bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T18:57:03.043" Title="Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;&lt;manuscript&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T00:35:30.987" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="843" CreationDate="2011-08-29T03:43:13.933" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recall that in the Old Testament, God gave instructions to Israel on how to atone for their sins through the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev%204&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sin offering&lt;/a&gt;.  No longer do we have to sacrifice a goat or a bull, as the price has been paid through Jesus Christ, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:29&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lamb of God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer,&#xA;sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14&#xA;how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal&#xA;Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience&#xA;from dead works to serve the living God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 9 (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What granted us God's forgiveness wasn't so much that Jesus endured through pain and suffering, but rather that He offered Himself up for sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="121" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T03:43:13.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="946" CreationDate="2011-08-29T04:39:52.690" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Jewish thinking, being an heir speaks to adoption into a family.  An adoption would make the adopted one legally eligible for an equal share in the father's estate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Jesus was intended to be the firstborn among many brethren:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:28-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we believers are adopted into the family of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:14-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all the entitlement to an inheritance in the Kingdom of God that that entails.  As joint-heirs with Christ, we have an equal share with him as Sons and Daughters of the living God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, consider this, in the garden Adam an Eve were created in the image of God, with free access to the tree of life, they would have life forever in perfect communion with God... had they not grasped after God-likeness, seeking equality with God on their own terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, when talking of the resurrection Paul makes some startling statements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20co%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 15:42-49&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;42&lt;/strong&gt; So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; &lt;strong&gt;43&lt;/strong&gt; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; &lt;strong&gt;44&lt;/strong&gt; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. &lt;strong&gt;45&lt;/strong&gt; So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. &lt;strong&gt;46&lt;/strong&gt; The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. &lt;strong&gt;47&lt;/strong&gt; The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. &lt;strong&gt;48&lt;/strong&gt; As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. &lt;strong&gt;49&lt;/strong&gt; And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall &lt;strong&gt;we bear the image of the heavenly man&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is that we will be raised in the image of the risen Christ, incorruptible, immortal, redeemed, with a body like to what we have now, yet as different as that of the risen Lord who walked through locked doors and appeared and disappeared at will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the Catholic church teaches, quite rightly I think, that we will be divinised with Christ in some mysterious way - &amp;quot;may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity&amp;quot; (words of the mass, and direct teaching of John Paul II).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the bible speaks of our adoption with Christ, it is speaking of the mystery that is God finally making us like him in a more wonderful and transcendent way after the resurrection than we ever dreamed possible when we grasped after it in the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20co%2015:24-26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 15:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. &lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; The last enemy to be destroyed is death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what else can be the case in a world where all evil, death and pain is removed but that every evil inclination of mans heart has been removed and we have perfect and eternal communion with the living God?  Not one of us will ever sin again - the idea will never even enter our heart.  Yet we will remain separate persons, but our nature will be so transformed as to be unable to sin.  Now imagine what kind of a nature can it be which can last for all eternity forward never self-seeking, never sinning and never having a single conception of so much as an idea in discord with Almighty God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's what it means to be an heir of God and joint-heir with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T04:39:52.690" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="952" CreationDate="2011-08-29T04:43:04.910" Score="42" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to a_hardin's analysis, it's important to consider the original meaning of the commandment.  To take God's name didn't mean swearing (profanity), it meant &lt;em&gt;swearing an oath&lt;/em&gt; in the name of the Lord.  Swearing falsely was an extremely serious matter and continues to be one today in Semitic cultures, but to swear falsely (in vain) in the name of God was not only oathbreaking, but blasphemy as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, today many of us have taken God's name in another way.  We call ourselves Christians, taking the name of Christ upon ourselves.  If we claim to be Christ's disciples, and yet we don't live as one who has taken the name of Christ should, then we're in violation of this commandment.  It's worth noting that the Savior's angriest and most passionate denunciation of the Jewish leaders of his day was &quot;hypocrites!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T04:43:04.910" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="967" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="987" CreationDate="2011-08-29T06:00:35.713" Score="9" ViewCount="437" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sabbath is important to every Christian, but everyone has varying ideas about what is appropriate.  Instead of opening up the question for debate, I was wondering what the Bible has to say about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all know the 10 commandments where it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A8-11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20: 8-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians believe that the 10 Commandments are still valid, so I figure this is a valid statement of the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these verses, we know that on the Sabbath, we should:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid work&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't require others to work&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Worship (hallowed the Sabbath)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What else has the Lord told us to do with respect to Sabbath-day worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T17:01:38.510" Title="What has the Bible said about appropriate Sabbath-day worship?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-12-03T07:14:27.687" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="968" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="970" CreationDate="2011-08-29T06:19:42.957" Score="15" ViewCount="623" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard particular denominations claim that although hell is definitely a real place and hell itself will burn forever, people who are condemned to hell don't actually exist forever in hell but instead are eventually destroyed, wiped out of existence. They claim that the soul being naturally immortal is a pagan idea, and that only those given eternal life will live forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know most mainline denominations affirm that if you are not saved then you will indeed exist forever in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, what is the biblical basis to support the doctrine that people who are condemned to hell will actually continue to exist in hell for eternity (as opposed to being annihilated)? Alternatively, what is the biblical support for the soul itself being naturally immortal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-04-14T12:01:41.213" LastActivityDate="2016-04-14T12:01:41.213" Title="What is the biblical basis for the eternal existence of the lost in hell?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;souls&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="968" CreationDate="2011-08-29T06:54:47.870" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are indeed many verses that speak of Hell as being eternal although there aren't so many that make the clear that the punishment is also eternal. Here are a couple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:31-46&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;“Then they will go away to &lt;strong&gt;eternal punishment&lt;/strong&gt;, but the righteous to eternal life.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Thessalonians 1:8-9&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with &lt;strong&gt;everlasting destruction&lt;/strong&gt; and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A look at Matthew 25:46 on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=25&amp;amp;v=46&amp;amp;t=NIV#conc/46&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Blue Letter Bible&lt;/a&gt; shows that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G166&amp;amp;t=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;same word&lt;/a&gt; is used for both usages of &amp;quot;eternal&amp;quot; (and for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Th&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=8&amp;amp;t=NIV#conc/9&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;everlasting&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;).  This word is also used in all the instances of &amp;quot;eternal life&amp;quot;, of which there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=eternal%20life&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;version1=31&amp;amp;spanbegin=1&amp;amp;spanend=73&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;about 40&lt;/a&gt;. Hence, one can safely infer that the two verses I referenced above make it clear that Hell is not a temporary suffering, but that anyone who is sent to Hell will burn forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T06:54:47.870" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="971" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-29T06:57:26.977" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for any question about New Testament and (early or modern) Christian attitudes to Old Testament or other Jewish rules and regulations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="12563" LastEditDate="2016-01-25T17:46:42.003" LastActivityDate="2016-01-25T17:46:42.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="972" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-29T06:57:26.977" Score="0" Body="Christian interpretations of the rules and regulations established in the Old Testament by God through Moses" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="12563" LastEditDate="2016-01-25T23:44:56.257" LastActivityDate="2016-01-25T23:44:56.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="974" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-29T07:02:39.513" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T07:02:39.513" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T07:02:39.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="975" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-29T07:02:39.513" Score="0" Body="a place of suffering and punishment in the afterlife" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T18:33:50.970" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T18:33:50.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="712" CreationDate="2011-08-29T08:18:11.883" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd advocate that it's at your own discretion. I don't think it can be set in stone what exact amount of alcohol intake would warrant drunkenness or tipsiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different people, I've learned, react differently to different amounts of alcohol in their system. Some can control themselves better than others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as a general rule of thumb, it would be appropriate to go with Sotiris' advice in his answer. So long as you are clearheaded, and it doesn't stand in the way of your worship, then you should be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T08:18:11.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="712" CreationDate="2011-08-29T08:30:32.987" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; You've gone too far when your drinking no longer glorifies God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:31&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Long answer:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This line can be crossed at different times for different people and in different situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A single sip, or even the presence of alcohol can be too much, if it causes another to stumble. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8:13&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Drinking for selfish reasons, regardless of how much, is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Drinking to the point of losing a clear head is wrong. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%205:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 5:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that some Christians don't necessarily think this means an absolute ban on drunkenness. The argument being that if you choose to get drunk (with a clear mind), and do it under responsible circumstances, it can be okay.  I don't necessarily hold this view, and would ask a person intending to get drunk to examine their motives. See #2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only example I can think of where the Bible &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be interpreted to specifically permit drunkenness is in the context of medicine. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2031:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 31:6&lt;/a&gt; suggests &quot;wine for those who are in anguish&quot; which seems to be advocating using wine for pain management, which probably indicates &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; level of intoxication (whether it's means full drunkenness, or simply &quot;tipsy&quot;, is subject to interpretation.)  Given that most of us live in societies where other forms of pain killers are available, it would be easy to avoid this use of wine in most cases, if it is an area of trouble on your conscience.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you drink enough to be harmful or dishonoring to your body, it is wrong. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:19-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthaians 6:19-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you think it's wrong to drink (at all, or in a given situation), then it is wrong.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 2:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T08:30:32.987" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="712" CreationDate="2011-08-29T09:35:02.380" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible have a lot of places where drinking wine is a natural thing, but often referenced in context of reduced self control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 9:21&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Esther 1:10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   On the seventh day, when King Xerxes was in high spirits from wine, he commanded the seven eunuchs who served him—Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Karkas—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have to remember that wine was a natural choice for drink to food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ecclesiastes 9:6-8&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  6 Their love, their hate &#xA;     and their jealousy have long since vanished; &#xA;  never again will they have a part &#xA;     in anything that happens under the sun.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is discouraged is not necessarily to NOT drink wine at all, but do not drink too much wine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Proverbs 23:19-21&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   19 Listen, my son, and be wise, &#xA;     and set your heart on the right path:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   20 Do not join those who drink too much wine &#xA;     or gorge themselves on meat,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor, &#xA;     and drowsiness clothes them in rags. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For people with high positions or meeting before God, there are often more strict rules:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Leviticus 10:8-10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   8 Then the LORD said to Aaron, 9 “You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the tent of meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, 10 so that you can distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Proverbs 31:4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   It is not for kings, Lemuel — it is not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But at the end, it is important to respect others view on this, no matter your own opinion. &#xA;The following verse applies more or less to all questions about food and drink for us Christians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 14:20-22&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I practice to never drink so much that I get drunk. If I am with people I know practice a total absense, I don't drink at all to show respect for their view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="129" LastEditorUserId="129" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T06:28:35.973" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T06:28:35.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="980" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T11:05:43.050" Score="23" ViewCount="2433" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously there is a lot decisions and elbow-grease that go into producing any Bible translation. I hear a lot of different terms used to describe the different methodologies that guide those decisions such as &lt;em&gt;literal&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;word-for-word&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;figurative&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;dynamic equivalence&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;formal equivalence&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;paraphrase&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;simplified&lt;/em&gt;, and at least a dozen others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can somebody unscramble these and try to bring some order to the relations between them. If it is possible to group an of them and gives specific examples of how different methodologies are compatible or at odds that would be lovely. If there is some kind of sliding scale between different ends of the spectrum, please describe what that spectrum is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Let's try to avoid preferences about what we think are the best kind of translation, but expand on the motivations for each. I have strong opinions but will try to make my choice of &quot;right&quot; answer based on how well different methodologies are represented, not based the priorities I use in choosing a translation.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T11:18:48.437" LastActivityDate="2014-11-29T22:04:28.303" Title="What distinctive kinds of Bible translations are there?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="960" CreationDate="2011-08-29T11:18:26.543" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Greek vocabulary and grammar of the so-called longer ending of Mark is subtly different from the part that concludes &quot;for they were afraid.&quot;  And it is indeed missing from some of the most ancient sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can speculate on why.  Without either of the two disputed endings (&quot;shorter&quot; or &quot;longer&quot;) the Gospel concludes with these words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had&#xA;  seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gulp. That's it?  Is it possible that a scribe sometime in history really wanted an ending with a more exhortatory flavor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A definitive answer to your first question is difficult, but the evidence points to &quot;yes, it's a later ending.&quot;  As to your second question, &quot;should it be in the Bible?&quot; with respect that's above your pay grade and mine.  It is in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T11:18:26.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="982" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T11:21:36.530" Score="18" ViewCount="1602" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who were the translators that created the venerate KJV translation and what guidelines did they use? &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/980/30&quot;&gt;What &quot;kind&quot; of translation&lt;/a&gt; was intended and how is it generally categorized today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that there is a separate question for the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/951/30&quot;&gt;historical motivation and context&lt;/a&gt; so this question is just about the linguistic style and translation methodology employed in the making of the text, not the historical context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Full disclosure: I believe the KJV was a landmark translation as far as quality and impact and am thankful for it, but don't believe it to be inerrant or more guided by the Spirit than other scholarly translations and that it is showing it's age because English is not the same as it was 400 years ago. I'm not asking if it &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/964/30&quot;&gt;should be revered or discredited&lt;/a&gt;, only what went into the making of the text.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2015-11-10T19:04:55.420" Title="What process was used to translate the KJV?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="960" CreationDate="2011-08-29T11:23:04.987" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The danger with this is that there may be teachings in there that don't correspond with other parts of the New Testament.  If there are &lt;em&gt;new doctrines&lt;/em&gt; introduced in text that is not found in all versions of the original manuscripts, then we have to be careful about completely basing our faith off of these doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regard to this specific passage, there's nothing in there that isn't found in any other place in the bible.  Truly, everything included there is echoed in other passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, even if we can't be sure of its &lt;strong&gt;authenticity&lt;/strong&gt;, we can be sure of its &lt;strong&gt;authority&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T11:23:04.987" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="596" CreationDate="2011-08-29T11:47:21.363" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Textually, to say that the Evangelist is one and the same with the disciple whom Jesus loved is an assumption.  The Evangelist doesn't make that claim explicitly. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It's possible that refraining from that claim is a sign of humility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Gospel made the transition from (presumably) oral history to the written word well over a generation after the Resurrection.  The original hearers of this Gospel were a community in exile, living on the margin of the Judean community.   From their point of view in exile it was likely a great comfort to them to know that their guy (John) enjoyed a special place in Jesus's favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most significant words of Jesus to this disciple is when he said &quot;Mother, behold your son. Son, behold your mother,&quot; while he was dying at Golgotha.  For each of us, to have a special place in Jesus's heart is to take PERSONALLY his commandment to &quot;love one another as I have loved you.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your place, and my place, in Jesus's heart are his gift to us.  To hold one another in our hearts are our response to that gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T11:47:21.363" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="772" CreationDate="2011-08-29T11:57:55.643" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Excellent question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From good ol' &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intercede&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt;, intercede means:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to act or interpose in behalf of someone in difficulty or trouble, as by pleading or petition: to intercede with the governor for a condemned man.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this general definition, we can come up with one that applies intercessory prayer.  Simply put, it's &amp;quot;someone praying on our behalf when we're in time of need&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Humans as our intercessor&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is said not only to be our intercessor, but also our &lt;strong&gt;mediator&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Tim 2:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this to say that others cannot intercede for us?  Certainly not!  However, if they pray to God on our behalf, they're actually using Jesus, our mediator to get to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, per this passage, is the one who talks to God on our behalf.  Because of that, any human prayer will go &lt;em&gt;through Jesus&lt;/em&gt; to get to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus as our intercessor&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, when Jesus prays on our behalf, it is going directly to God.  When we humans intercede, it goes directly to Jesus and then to God.  Clearly, this is one-step of removal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But can we say, then, that our prayers sometimes do not reach God, when Jesus prayers do?  I don't think we can go that far.  However, I do believe that Jesus, being the direct contact with God, knows how to intercede far better than we do.  (Granted, that's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;part of why we've been given the Holy Spirit&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit as our intercessor&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:26 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;states&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shows that the Holy Spirit is also interceding on our behalf, giving us the words to speak and praying for us when we don't know what to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Catholicism&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Up until now, that covers all Christianity.  All Christians believe (or should believe) in the above.  Humans, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit intercede for us--pray on our behalf--to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholicism has taken this one step further, claiming not only that living humans can pray for us, but also that saints can pray for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is exactly like asking for prayers from family members.  You go to your family and say &amp;quot;Please pray for me in this issue&amp;quot; and they will intercede on your behalf, praying to God through Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe (along with many other groups/denominations/sects) that saints &lt;em&gt;in heaven&lt;/em&gt; can hear our prayers &lt;em&gt;here on earth&lt;/em&gt;.  Therefore, since they can hear our prayers, they can intercede for us in our need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument behind that is an &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11/praying-to-people-outside-the-trinity&quot;&gt;entirely different question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;End Notes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any one type of interceding that is better than another?  Personally, I can't find any source saying anything like this.  I believe that the more people you have interceding for a particular issue, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it must be noted that all prayers from humans must go through Jesus, our one and only mediator.  Whether those prayers are from Aunt Claud or Mary, mother of Jesus.  All these prayers &lt;em&gt;from humans&lt;/em&gt; go &lt;em&gt;through Jesus&lt;/em&gt; or (in our own grumblings when we don't know what to say) through the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I couldn't make any solid, realistic arguments that one type of intercession is better than another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, those listed above are the only &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;types&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; of intercession that I've been able to find.  There might be other &amp;quot;types&amp;quot;, but this is all I could find (or all that I know about).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T11:57:55.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="980" CreationDate="2011-08-29T12:16:45.813" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical translation is a difficult task because you're trying to get words and meaning out of 1900+ year old text and make it intelligible to people today in their own native language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, translation kind of becomes a spectrum.  On one end, you have word-by-word translation while on the other end you have a paraphrase meant for everyone to understand.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the three broad categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Word-for-Word translation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This type of bible takes the original language and (word for word) translates it into the target language (for lack of a better term).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This type of translation is willing to move words around slightly to make the meaning clear in the target language.  For example, adjectives in some languages (Spanish, Latin, etc.) come &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the noun they modify instead of &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; (like in English, German, etc.).  So, when translating, they may move adjectives or other words around to make them conform to the target language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English Standard Version&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New American Standard Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thought-for-Thought translation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This type of translation tries to maintain the original intent of the text.  It takes a phrase or sentence or paragraph at a time and puts it into more modern terms.  Instead of translating each individual word, they translate larger chunks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea behind this is that it allows the text to be more easily understood by modern languages while still retaining the original meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Living Translation&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New International Version&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Paraphrase&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This type of translation is at the farthest extent of the spectrum.  This translation takes the original text and translates it into words that is super easy to understand.  This type of translation is also called &lt;em&gt;free-text translation&lt;/em&gt; because of the freedom that the translators have in converting the original manuscripts into modern language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Message&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1. This is a link to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/BibleType.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;primary source&lt;/a&gt; article.  2. All links above go to the respective translations of John 3:16&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That simply tells you the types of translations there are.  There are many different types of bibles, however, each of which may have multiple translations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lifeapplicationbible.com/bibles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Life Application Bible&lt;/a&gt; (which I heartily recommend, by the way) can be found using the NIV, NKJV, or NLT translations.  While the translation of the sacred text is common among bibles, the extra notes regarding the text vary greatly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's one specific translation that I want to use as an example.  It's called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apostolicbible.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apostolic Bible&lt;/a&gt;.  It's a type of &quot;polyglot&quot; bible (which literally means many tongues, or multiple languages) that contains both the original language and the English translation.  (It also contains the Strong's Concordance reference number for each word.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a fantastic example of a word-for-word translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/HDmfX.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T02:58:50.083" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T02:58:50.083" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="967" CreationDate="2011-08-29T12:27:00.043" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think some of the more telling things about our understanding of the Sabbath should be what Jesus said about the subject, and more importantly what Jesus did on the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus healed on the Sabbath several times Matt 12:9-14 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Earlier in this same passage Jesus' disciples had helped themselves to some grain in a field, also unlawful according to Jewish law. These things indicate a new understanding of Sabbath was underway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 2 (NIV) addresses this same event and has a different quotation here&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact all of the gospels depict Jesus doing at least one if not more healing miracles on the Sabbath. All of these gospels record the Pharisees challenging Jesus for doing what they considered work on the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This study would seem to indicate that the rules for the Sabbath have changed. It is a day to minister to those around us, to benefit our communities. It is still for sure a day of rest, however &amp;quot;The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath&amp;quot; should resonate with us, it's not a day that we should feel restricted by what we cannot do, it's a day for freedom and rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same freedom from the restriction of the law that is preached in the rest of the New Testament is present here as well. There is no set regulation for what we can do on the Sabbath or how it should be spent. We are free. It should be spent resting or doing things in our community, but what rests me is not what rests you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T13:09:22.187" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="982" CreationDate="2011-08-29T12:41:04.327" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version&quot;&gt;King James Version&lt;/a&gt; or Authorized Version as it was originally known, was translated by a group of 47 scholars. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was actually a thought-for-thought translation, rather than word-for-word translation.  The idea is that they tried to take the original meaning of the text (not just the individual word) and translate that into the (then) common language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compared to modern paraphrase translations, the King James version is &lt;em&gt;almost&lt;/em&gt; a word-for-word translation.  However, there were places where the scholars explicitly rejected the word-for-word translation in favor of wording that would make more sense to the contemporary English reader of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:2-3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Romans 5:2-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and &lt;strong&gt;rejoice&lt;/strong&gt; in hope of the glory of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; And not only so, but we &lt;strong&gt;glory&lt;/strong&gt; in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The words &quot;rejoice&quot; (in verse 2) and &quot;glory&quot; (in verse 3) are the same word in the original text.  A word-for-word translation would have given the same word for those in both cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said all of this and in light of today's translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation.  If you compare this, for example, to a thought-for-thought translation or a paraphrase, this translation is much closer to the original text (dramatically so in the case of a paraphrase).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the original scholars intentionally rejected word-for-word translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation when compared to thought-for-thought or paraphrase translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T12:41:04.327" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="989" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16533" CreationDate="2011-08-29T12:53:27.717" Score="56" ViewCount="5424" Body="&lt;p&gt;Muslims claim that they worship the same god as Christians do.  (Similarly, Christians claim to worship the same God as the Jews do.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any Christian denominations that accept this claim?  If so, what is the biblical basis for this claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-10-01T00:31:18.077" LastActivityDate="2018-12-08T15:32:41.990" Title="What is the basis for saying Christians and Muslims worship the same God?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;islam&gt;&lt;comparative-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="991" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1020" CreationDate="2011-08-29T13:11:35.173" Score="3" ViewCount="290" Body="&lt;p&gt;Or why do people here always ask &quot;What does the Bible say?&quot;... why not ask the proper &quot;What does God say?&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="169" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T20:37:36.083" Title="Are the Bible and God the same... thing/being?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T02:58:56.777" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="308" CreationDate="2011-08-29T13:15:23.660" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several scriptures that illustrate that God draws his elect to him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These were cribbed from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/irresistible-grace-compiled-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; site &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John 6:35-37 States that those the Father gives will come to him. Not that they might come. That they will come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Romans 8:28-30 Lay out the path to salvation quite clearly. He predestines us, calls us, justifies us and then glorifies us. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that those he predestines will be called, or that those he calls will be justified or those he justifies will be glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John 6:43-51 (emphasis mine). This quite clearly says no one comes to Christ except that the Father draws them. (Ref was cribbed from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. &lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;“&lt;em&gt;No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. &lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt; No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. &lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. &lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;I am the bread of life. &lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. &lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. &lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that the scriptural proof for needing to be drawn to Christ is pretty clear. However, the Irresistible nature of that drawing power could be questioned. The Romans 8 passage and John  6:37 are clear on this however. Those who are called will be drawn. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T19:35:37.767" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:35:37.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="989" CreationDate="2011-08-29T13:26:58.707" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;Muslims may not appreciate (or perhaps they would) this distinction.  But Hilare Belloc claims in The Great Heresies, that Islam is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chesterton.org/wordpress/2011/06/the-great-and-enduring-heresy-of-mohammed/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;heresy of Christianity&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if Mohammed had had a vague inkling of Christianity and claim the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/genesis25.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;inheritance of Ishmael&lt;/a&gt; then yeah, of course they worship the same God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we couldn't say they worship Him fully because they do not believe in the Trinity.  They do not believe that Jesus could be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to Caleb's answer wherein he says that no Christian sect, except liberal traditions embrace Muslims as believing in &lt;em&gt;the same&lt;/em&gt; God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the documents of Vatican II (not just something a talking head says):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. &lt;b&gt;They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,&lt;/b&gt; who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and &lt;b&gt;worship God&lt;/b&gt; especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nostra Aetae - From the Documents of Vatican II&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With reference to Muslims, it states these few things which are common to our faith and conveniently takes a distant reference from Abraham which is a common point on worshiping same God. It makes no reference to Mohammad though he is the epitome of this religion. Again, no recognition of Muhammad, the Qur'an, and the correctness of what Muhammad taught. So, as becomes clear in other Church documents, whatever truth there may be in what Muslims believe must come either from the universal truths that God has always made accessible to the minds and hearts of all people, or else by transmission from the divine revelation granted to the Jews and Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yeah, even though this questions wasn't directed at Catholics in particular, it is true that most Christians (and the entire Communion of Saints) believe that Muslims attempt to worship same God, but they do so in severe error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and, just so no one thinks this is out of context, the document says of Islam and other non-Christian religions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ &amp;quot;the way, the truth, and the life&amp;quot; (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My pastor explained it pretty succinctly to a Religious Ed. class who was doing some Q&amp;amp;A with him.  He said it's like a theatre where everyone's looking at the same play but quite a few people (non-Catholics and non-Christians) have for whatever reason decided to watch the play from awful seats instead of getting the front row seats that they could have had, had they only desired them.  That's why I said above, they do not worship Him fully, but they do worship Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T08:41:33.417" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="995" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1006" CreationDate="2011-08-29T13:33:28.633" Score="22" ViewCount="20757" Body="&lt;p&gt;The practice of a saying a &quot;Hail Mary&quot; is often referred to in colloquial speech, sometimes as a way to caricaturize Catholics. References to the practice instantly conjure up images of Catholicism, priests, and confessionals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, beyond these references with my Protestant background I don't actually know much about the practice. I don't even have the vocabulary to properly ask this question. What should a non-Catholic like myself understand about the practice? Where did it originate and what is the purpose? Do other traditions employ such a ritual? Is it fair to call them a ritual?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; If it's simply a prayer, what is the purpose of repeating it more than once? At least the pop-culture references often involve saying &quot;so-many&quot; Hail Mary's in the sense of more being somehow better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T03:38:29.260" LastActivityDate="2020-10-16T16:37:23.553" Title="What exactly is a &quot;Hail Mary&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="991" CreationDate="2011-08-29T13:35:14.370" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;By asking what the Bible says, you know what you get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you ask what God says, you hear what&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Bible says&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Pope says&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a prophet I know says&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a lunatic thinking they're God says&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Qur'an says&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T14:09:24.690" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T14:09:24.690" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="995" CreationDate="2011-08-29T13:50:35.277" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hail Mary&lt;/a&gt; is simply a prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prayer as I learned it is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou&#xA;  amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary,&#xA;  Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.&#xA;  Amen&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is common at our (Catholic) family gatherings for this to be said by everyone together as a part of the blessing over the meal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2019-12-11T17:44:24.700" LastActivityDate="2019-12-11T17:44:24.700" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="995" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:01:44.757" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, the Hail Mary comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:39-45&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 1:39-45 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;.  This is when Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth when both are pregnant.  You will notice that half of the prayer comes from here (the first half).  The second half adds on a supplication (&quot;pray for us sinners&quot;) and is further development of the prayer as opposed to direct Biblical reference&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="148" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T14:01:44.757" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="991" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:06:38.733" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's arguable that one could say &quot;What does the bible say?&quot; and &quot;What does God say?&quot; are interchangeable since the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is called by many the &quot;Written word of God&quot;. By saying &quot;What does the Bible say?&quot; we provide a common point of reference between individuals &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/485/how-does-god-speak-today&quot;&gt;who might hear from God differently&lt;/a&gt; or even interpret what He says differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T16:34:45.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="544" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:06:57.730" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;No you don't have to presume automatically that is of the Enemy.  Because, obviously, if you did so, said Enemy would use it.  &quot;Oh, I can't counter the message directly, but I know how I can make Rek doubt... Muahahahaha!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the rest, I refer you to Mason's answer... oh, and God may confirm his message even of his own will, even w/o you ask him to.  Remember, he &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; God, he is sovereign in all he does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="169" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T14:06:57.730" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="991" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:10:19.697" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is not God, but God breathed and God sustained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People are asking, &quot;What does the Bible say&quot;, because the underlying understanding is that we all know the Bible is real. However, the secular people visiting this website would/will argue the existence of God but not the existence of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people also take the Bible to be different levels of true. Some, like myself, believe that God said everything in the Bible, others don't believe that the bible is God speaking the whole time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This it is appropriate to just ask, &quot;what does the Bible say&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T14:10:19.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1004" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:21:37.680" Score="0" ViewCount="497" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know among some Christian groups (e.g. Laestadians) almost everyone smokes, while some other groups are very strict about it. However, the Bible doesn't have cigarettes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is smoking sinful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T16:17:14.303" Title="Is smoking sinful?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2011-08-29T18:52:01.877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="991" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:33:29.360" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;While one is a &lt;em&gt;book&lt;/em&gt; full of words and one is a &lt;em&gt;divine being&lt;/em&gt; (and thus are in no way the same thing), Christians believe the Bible to be God's inspired word. Thus asking &quot;What does the Bible say about x?&quot; is approximately the same thing as asking, &quot;What does God say about x&quot;? The Bible is the written record we have of God's proclamations to men, and the primary way we know who He is and what He stands for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T14:33:29.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="995" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:44:53.040" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Hail Mary is simply a prayer. It happens to be recited 53 times during the course of praying &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm&quot;&gt;the rosary&lt;/a&gt;. It is said in place of the psalms for the illiterate.  Since there are 150 or so psalms and traditionally the Rosary is split up into 15 decades to mediate on different events in the lives or Jesus and Mary, each decade consists of 10 Hail Mary prayers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the purpose is contemplating the life of Jesus and the original purpose was about as far as illiterate medieval's could grasp.  It was certainly a good prayer, shouldn't be construed with any biblical injunction on vain repetition - so long as there is no vanity involved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers of prayers are also often assigned by priests as penance during confession.  As far as I know, this is a relatively modern practice (1900's and later).  Easy (and private) penances might bring more people into confession while still conferring the same grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I pray the Rosary every day.  Sometimes it's not done very well, most of the time it is done in a distracted way - but that's my problem, not a problem with the prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing I do is pray 3 Hail Mary's (This is also known as the &quot;Little Office of Our Lady&quot;) before bed, asking for the grace of purity while remembering her as a model of purity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as extra-biblical prayers are concerned, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm&quot;&gt;the Our Father&lt;/a&gt; is straight out the didache (teaching of the 12 apostles).  So even though that's ancient and the Hail Mary is comparatively modern. Catholics continually pray new prayers and invoke the communion of Saints for intercession. We don't ask Mary to forgive our sins, but we do ask her for protection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hail Mary is one in a collection of Marian Antiphons found in the liturgy of the Hours (Book of Christian Prayer).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also prayed as part of the Angelus (a prayer traditionally prayed at 6:00 AM, Noon, and 6:00 PM).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="454" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T03:21:47.557" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T03:21:47.557" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="447" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:52:55.040" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Biblical Hebrew seems to have gone through three eras: Archaic Hebrew (1000 BC to 800 BC), Standard Biblical Hebrew (800 - 600 BC), and Late Biblical Hebrew (600 - 200ish BC). The Hebrews scribes preserved these different eras as they copied the Hebrew Bible in such a way that a trained person can see the different linguistic layers as they read through the ancient texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more reading: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Biblical Hebrew - WikiPedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T17:04:23.403" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T17:04:23.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1004" CreationDate="2011-08-29T14:54:30.313" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question! I enjoy a cigarette every once and a while, socially.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not forbid smoking &amp;quot;anything&amp;quot; directly, so we'll need to look and see if we can find any other qualities of smoking forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Generalized&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the most general level we can equate cigarettes with damage to your body, thus this verse stands to teach us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Cor 6:19-20&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is&#xA;in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you&#xA;were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this warning about gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eph 2:1-3&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which&#xA;you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the&#xA;ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in&#xA;those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one&#xA;time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its&#xA;desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of&#xA;wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the stand that I take: &amp;quot;In moderation&amp;quot; God did not come down to tell you that you cannot enjoy life, but instead He came down to teach you how to love others. I would say that smoking hurts nobody but yourself, thus you are not breaking the law of love. In moderation smoking will not kill you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 5:18 (TCN)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not drink wine to excess... but seek to be filled with the Spirit&#xA;of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T14:54:30.313" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1009" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6305" CreationDate="2011-08-29T15:16:45.780" Score="16" ViewCount="513" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question poses a conflict between two philosophies, but is not meant to necessarily compare their strengths.  Only if Love of Neighbor is indeed the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Libertarianism&lt;/a&gt; as I understand it (from reading lots and lots of Robert Heinlein Sci Fi) is the idea that laws should be crafted so that personal liberties are always acknowledged.  So long as you don't hurt anyone else, whatever you do is OK.  Drugs, Sex etc... are legally OK, but it's not advocated in any way leaving a person in a state to excercise their freewill and follow God in their own way. The other side of it is TANSTAAFL (Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch) which is pretty bibilical (If they will not work, neither shall they eat) in the end of 2 Thessalonians).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Personalism&lt;/a&gt; as I understand it (from listening to lots and lots of Catholic radio and reading John Paul II's Love and Responsibility) says that, &lt;code&gt;A person is an entity towards which the only reasonable attitude is love&lt;/code&gt;, as an extrapolation of the 2nd greatest commandment and the Golden Rule.  Therefore, if you consider yourself a person, then you ought treat others as you want to be treated and you shouldn't do things to yourself that you wouldn't do to others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as far as I can see it, it is pretty difficult to reconcile the two ethics.  According to personalism, is there some depth into libertarianism that a Christian can delve, and then they need to pull up and get a breath of fresh air, or should it just be totally avoided?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-16T19:01:14.093" LastActivityDate="2015-09-16T19:01:14.093" Title="According to personalism, is political libertarianism compatible with the Golden Rule?" Tags="&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;politics&gt;&lt;golden-rule&gt;&lt;personalism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1011" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T15:47:56.067" Score="14" ViewCount="977" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since they are directly addressed in the Ten Commandments, most people agree that committing adultery or murder is sin; yet this world is a complicated place full of things that are not so clearly addressed. Some traditions believe using electricity or wearing pants are sins, others do not go so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What guidelines can a Christian use to evaluate whether a specific action is sinful or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-04-07T17:36:32.373" LastActivityDate="2014-04-07T21:55:33.957" Title="How should a Christian evaluate whether a particular action a sin or not?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-08-12T21:54:05.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1004" CreationDate="2011-08-29T16:03:29.543" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some questions you can ask yourself about smoking. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does smoking show respect or disrespect for God's gift of life?? &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2017:24-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 17:24,25&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:10-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Philippians 1:10,11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it consistent with what God requires Christians to render to him? &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%2012:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 12:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it consistent for a person to present himself to God for sacred service and then deliberately to ruin his health?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does it violate the divine requirement that we love our neighbor? &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jas.%202:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;James 2:7&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does smoking contaminate the body? &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%207:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 7:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T16:17:14.303" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T16:17:14.303" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1009" CreationDate="2011-08-29T16:09:07.413" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I hear Libertarians talking about how each person's only responsibility is to themselves, I tend to think of Cain. When God asked him where his murdered brother was, he flippantly responded, &quot;Am I my brother's keeper?&quot; (It's not my responsibilty to look after him! He ought to take care of himself!) I don't think most Christians would consider him good company to be in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus's famous &quot;new commandment&quot; was to &quot;love one another as I have loved you,&quot; and the way he loved us was to give of himself at every opportunity, even unto laying down his life for us.  And James condemned those who saw others in need and did nothing to help them, saying that their faith was &quot;dead&quot; and could not save them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast this with the doctrine of Ayn Rand, probably the single most influential philosopher in Libertarian thought. She taught that the highest moral duty is rational egoism, and that altruism and social responsibility are not only not required, but actually evil and inherently harmful to society!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like any philosophy, libertarianism has some good points, but on the whole it's principles are strongly opposed to the teachings of the Gospel, and it ought to be avoided if not actively opposed by disciples of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T20:21:16.167" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T20:21:16.167" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1011" CreationDate="2011-08-29T16:09:19.923" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin as a condition is separation from God. A sin as an action is an action that brings about such separation from God; such an action &quot;misses the mark,&quot; which is the Greek word for the act of sinning. This is the general---very general---rule of thumb. The trick is to tell what separates us from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good rubric, for those who already know in their heart of hearts what is right and wrong, is that given by Mississippi comedian Jerry Clower in his album &lt;em&gt;Classic Clower Power,&lt;/em&gt; disc 2, track 25 &quot;You're Fixin' to Mess Up&quot; (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://jacksonianlawyer.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/some-sage-words-of-advice-from-the-legendary-jerry-clower/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://jacksonianlawyer.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/some-sage-words-of-advice-from-the-legendary-jerry-clower/&lt;/a&gt;). For the sake of those yet unable to endure heavy Southern accents, here is the rubric distilled:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you’re fixing to make a decision about what’s right and what’s wrong in your life, do you ask other people’s opinion about it? That’s a pretty good indication you're fixing to mess up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Number two: do you argue with yourself? ...if you’re arguing with yourself, [that's a] pretty good indication you should not do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Number three: do you feel uneasy when you do it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Number four: Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank You for providing this for me.’? The Bible says, give thanks for all things. So when you do it, can you say ‘Lord, thank You for providing this for me. [Indeed, I thank You] for [making things the way they are, so that] I can commit to what it is I’m doing.'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What is right or wrong? Do you ask other people? Do you argue with yourself? Do you feel uneasy when you do it? Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank You for providing this for me.’? If you can’t, you [had] better watch out…you’re fixin’ to mess up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N.B. in Southern dialect, to be fixing to do something is to be about to do something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the root of sin is self-will and insistence upon our own way at the expense of submitting ourselves to our Father in heaven Who knows better. The resulting cognitive dissonance brings about the signs 1--3 above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: as @Jürgen A. Erhard has pointed out, this rubric is insufficient on several counts. In my opinion, this is because it displays the signs of cognitive dissonance, which (thank God) accompany a struggle with temptation. These signs are useful in a sort of basic triage to call oneself to attention: if experiencing the signs in this triage (or quadriage), mustering all your dispassion, immediately ask yourself, &quot;Have I committed to doing something wrong, and am I now only trying to justify myself and my wrong actions?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, cognitive dissonance may also accompany any difficult decision, which is not necessarily a result of wrongdoing. Also, weighing both sides of a difficult decision is, presumably, an attempt at wisdom and not an attempt at self-justification; and furthermore, asking someone else (whom you respect as someone following the truth, not just someone whom you know will agree with you) is a manifestation of humility. So perhaps at the root of Clower's observation is that one must flee all appearance of sin: in particular, the self-justification that accompanies an assent to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a way to tell if you are doing wrong. It is another story to tell what is right, i.e. what is best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="88" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T18:08:17.123" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T18:08:17.123" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1011" CreationDate="2011-08-29T16:16:32.253" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Sin is lawlessness&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has given us commands based upon His nature. Meaning that the right thing to do is based upon what He would do and the wrong thing to do is against what God would do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:4&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new testament puts a spin on law, instead of us following the law, we are now to follow exactly by Jesus examples. Basically, living by faith has replaced the need to live by the law. So what is sin today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 14:23 NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat&#xA;from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever is not from faith is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of looking to the law we now look to Jesus. But remember, the law is based off of Jesus nature and Jesus followed the law to the letter. So sin is still to not follow the law, but it is also to not follow Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T16:26:19.303" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1017" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1023" CreationDate="2011-08-29T16:30:17.800" Score="22" ViewCount="1824" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not disputing that Hell exists, what I want to know is WHAT IS HELL?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion there are only two possible answers, but you might inform me of something else. Many people have argued that evil is the absence of God, hell must be evil, thus hell is the separation of us from God. As poetic as this sounds, I've never found the scripture to back this up. Maybe you have some that I haven't read yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second option in my understanding is that hell is the wrath of God against the disobedient. I have found one piece of scripture that debatable states that God is in Hell, but not what He is doing down there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you set me straight with the scripture that I need to understand the lake of fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T01:50:24.337" LastActivityDate="2014-01-12T01:26:30.190" Title="What exactly IS Hell?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-09-01T05:35:58.763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1011" CreationDate="2011-08-29T16:31:25.673" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin does require full knowledge that the particular action is sinful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whenever evaluating something as sinful you must take into account the&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Circumstances:&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Killing out of self defense&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Righteous Anger (not self directed, but in protection of others)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Had no way of grasping the moral/ethical reality. (this could be said of lots of cohabitating couples today)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Object: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the thing being acted on.  These are the 'Ends'.  If one does harm to a completely innocent creature, then you're committing a 'graver' sin than if you do something to a mostly innocent creature.  (Difference between exterminating rats in your basement and hitting them with baseball bats for fun)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intention:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ends cannot justify the means, but the intention is important.  If you start out with bad intentions, it really doesn't matter what good you do, although hopefully you'll learn that doing good is much better than doing evil! &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is what I taught to my 8th and 9th graders last year in Religious Ed. it comes out of a faith formation handbook for teenagers from St. Mary's Press.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T16:31:25.673" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="619" CreationDate="2011-08-29T16:48:47.410" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a better way to word your question is &quot;What traditions hold the most conservative view of 1 Corinthians 11. If any tradition or denomination stands by what you are saying, they would most certainly derive the Biblical basis from this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;the head of the woman is the man&lt;/em&gt;; and the head of Christ is God.Every&#xA;  man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his&#xA;  head.But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head&#xA;  uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she&#xA;  were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:&#xA;  but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be&#xA;  covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he&#xA;  is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the&#xA;  man... &lt;em&gt;For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  because of the angels. &lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:3-7,10&lt;/strong&gt; (emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think any present, mainline group would confirm that a woman's relationship with God &lt;strong&gt;must&lt;/strong&gt; go through a man. Even the most conservative denominations today would emphatically state that women participate equally in the priesthood of believers. What differs is the role that women play in the Church (at this point, I wonder what your sources are that brought up this question. Please see below for a commentary from Matthew Henry on this passage. Although your question does not necessarily warrent this, I think it's helpful to see a very traditional, mainline view from the 1600s.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I have met individuals, even pastors who stand by this &quot;must go through a man&quot; line of doctrine. It's spoken of as &quot;headship,&quot; that a women must have a male &quot;head&quot; that represents her. This can be a pastor, father, or husband that agrees to take responsibility for her spiritual growth. What ends up being the case however, is just a de facto acknowledgement of headship, almost like &quot;nearest of kin&quot; laws: If a woman has no husband, then her head is her father, if he's not a Christian, the her pastor, and so one. It really is not an active headship unless the women consents to it or it's forced. Again, it's not a commonview.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What this purported view of women sounds like, really, is the convention of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture&quot;&gt;coverture&lt;/a&gt;, a principle in English Common Law that subsumes a married woman completely under her husband. Under this law, a married woman could not own land or make legal agreements (even commite a crime) without her husband taking responsibility. As has been the case for centuries, religious and civil principles have been confused and and convoluted, so while it may seem like this is a current view, it's actually a relic from Medieval times. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The thing he reprehends is the woman’s praying or prophesying&#xA;  uncovered, or the man’s doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand&#xA;  this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame&#xA;  or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern&#xA;  countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed&#xA;  betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And&#xA;  this will help us the better to understand, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach,&#xA;  or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when&#xA;  under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or,&#xA;  though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is&#xA;  the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by&#xA;  inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any&#xA;  affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public&#xA;  worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the&#xA;  thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification&#xA;  either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in&#xA;  the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being&#xA;  bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and&#xA;  dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,  The reasons&#xA;  on which he [Paul] grounds his reprehension. 1. The man that prays or&#xA;  prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, namely,&#xA;  Christ, the head of every man (v. 3), by appearing in a habit&#xA;  unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should,&#xA;  even in our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour&#xA;  Christ. The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her&#xA;  head uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, v. 3. She&#xA;  appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her&#xA;  subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut&#xA;  it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be&#xA;  in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a&#xA;  manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on&#xA;  the other sex.&#xA;  Henry, Matthew. &quot;Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11.&quot; . Blue Letter Bible. 1 Mar 1996. 2011. 29 Aug 2011.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="66" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T16:54:31.790" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T16:54:31.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="991" CreationDate="2011-08-29T16:55:31.050" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hope it's obvious that the Bible (a book) and God (a divine being) are not the same thing. It has never been part of Christian theology that the Bible should be worshipped, or that believing the Bible is synonymous with Christianity. The Bible as we know it today did not exist at all for many decades after Jesus' death, and in its present form for hundreds of years, yet Christians certainly existed during that time. Almost all Christians take the Bible as a true and infallible word from God. But views on other communication from God differ. One area of difference is in Jesus statements about what is to happen after his death. He never states that his followers are to use the scriptures only, but &quot;I will be with you&quot; and &quot;My spirit I give to you&quot;. Interpretations of that differ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One view is that the scriptures are foundational, but the Spirit gives additional revelation to Christians. In the Catholic view, the Spirit does this through the Church, specifically the church leadership. In other traditions this can happen through the church in community: in still others, to individual people. In either case revelations though the Spirit cannot contradict the Scriptures, but they can add to them. Some denominations believe in the office of &quot;a prophet&quot;, who can convey commands from God for a specific time and place. Except for in some small denominations, and some specific cases in Catholicism, post-biblical revelations are not given the same 'infallibility' status that the Bible has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In another view the presence of the Spirit to guide the followers of Jesus like this only lasted for the Apostolic Age, and was replaced by the Bible. This is the view of much non-Charismatic Protestantism. For those people the question &quot;what does God say&quot; and &quot;what does the Bible say&quot; are essentially synonymous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However even the most ardent believer in a solely biblical authority will usually allow for the idea of personal guidance - i.e. that a person can pray to God and ask what to do in their specific circumstances, and receive an answer. In this case that is &quot;what God says&quot; to them. However what God says to one person doesn't necessarily apply to another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-11-10T18:40:34.207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T18:40:34.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="48" CreationDate="2011-08-29T17:00:04.350" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to masturbation, there are two types of guys: those who do it, and those who lie about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People errantly use passages of Scripture such as Genesis 38:7-10 and many others to say that it's sin. The simple fact is that the Bible doesn't say &quot;masturbation is a sin&quot;. Jesus said that to look on a woman with lust in your heart is the same as committing adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, according to Jesus, thinking about it is equal with the act itself. Is it wrong to lust after your wife? No. The physical act of masturbation is no sin, rather the state of the heart and mind are the determination of whether you are sinning or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. James Dobson I think put it best:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;It is my opinion that masturbation is not much of an issue with God. It is a normal part of adolescence which involves no one else. It does not cause disease. It does not produce babies, and Jesus did not mention it in the Bible. I'm not telling you to masturbate, and I hope you won't feel the need for it. But if you do, it is my opinion that you should not struggle with guilt over it. Why do I tell you this? Because I deal with so many Christian young people who are torn apart with guilt over masturbation; they want to stop and just can't. I would like to help you avoid that agony.&quot; -- Dr. James Dobson, &quot;Preparing for Adolescence - Straight talk to teens and parents,&quot; Regal (1979).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T17:00:04.350" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="114" CreationDate="2011-08-29T17:12:06.653" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question on which Christians disagree among themselves. Even those who hold the Bible as a sole source of authority reach contradictory conclusions on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the side of not permitting women pastors, the main passage is 1 Timothy 2:12-14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the side of those who permit women pastors is Galations 3:28:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are others of course. Each side has good arguments why their favorite verses are definitive, and the others are a matter of context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short this is a highly complicated issue, which cannot be resolved in a single answer. I strongly recommend further reading on both sides:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm&quot;&gt;NT Wright&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0882705849&quot;&gt;Who said Women Can't Teach?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830828346&quot;&gt;Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T01:08:54.673" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T01:08:54.673" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1017" CreationDate="2011-08-29T17:25:17.410" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what we know of &quot;Hell&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's a place of darkness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jude 1:13 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom &lt;strong&gt;blackest darkness&lt;/strong&gt; has been reserved forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's a place of torment&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 16:28 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this &lt;strong&gt;place of torment&lt;/strong&gt;.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's a place of fire&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:42&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:42 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They will throw them &lt;strong&gt;into the blazing furnace&lt;/strong&gt;, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is eternal&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%209:48&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 9:48 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is separation for God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%2025:41&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:41 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God does not want you to go to Hell&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 3:17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the highlights.  There are many other places that support each one of those facts.  I just picked a nice representative of each verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T17:25:17.410" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="991" CreationDate="2011-08-29T17:34:48.760" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two are not the same, but we often ask &quot;What does the Bible say&quot;, because &lt;strong&gt;we believe it's the best source for God's intentions.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Reformed tradition even goes so far as to have &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura&quot;&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/a&gt; as a core tenet.  This basically means that they believe that everything God thought we needed to know is available in the Bible, and no further writings are necessary to live a Christian life (though obviously they see it as beneficial, as the Reformed churches publish a lot of books).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other traditions may treat the Bible as less central, but it's still a core part of Christian belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T17:34:48.760" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="498" CreationDate="2011-08-29T17:42:15.467" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The historic roots of Baptists go back to the Reformation. A key belief was that baptism of infants was invalid. Since infant baptism was almost universal at the time, the new churches required that converts to it be re-baptised. This came to be a distinctive mark of Baptists churches, although other Reformation sects such as the Mennonites also practiced it, without adopoting the Baptist name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The complex history of Protestant denominations means that many denominations divided from the Baptist churches, and from the other Reformation churches that practiced adult baptism, many of which retained adult Baptism. The result is that while Baptist churches universally practice adult baptism, all churches that practice adult baptism are not necessarily Baptist churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; for a more detailed history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T17:42:15.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="991" CreationDate="2011-08-29T17:47:53.757" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is an anthology of books inspired by the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's Word (Gn 1, Jn 1) is the second person of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is His Word (Jesus).  God's words are not His written words, but they ideas they express.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike in Harry Potter 2, if you write a book, it doesn't become you.  If you write a book you stay you, your thoughts go into the book but remain with you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's Word is His thought (Jesus) and the act of thinking that thought is the Holy Spirit (Their mutual love). You can't separate any of this from the one Divine Entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T17:47:53.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1027" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1036" CreationDate="2011-08-29T18:59:29.613" Score="16" ViewCount="1174" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of us probably have a lot of vague ideas about Heaven, the place where the faithful are said to spend their afterlife. But when I really start to think about it, I can't back most of my ideas with the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do we actually know about Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T12:14:44.197" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T18:26:37.513" Title="What exactly do we know about Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T00:33:35.740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1029" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1032" CreationDate="2011-08-29T19:05:07.870" Score="11" ViewCount="9702" Body="&lt;p&gt;The expression &quot;hate the sin, love the sinner&quot; gets thrown about in both Christian and non-Christian circles, but it does not seem to be a bible verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Biblical concepts support this popular cliche? And what supports it being applied to men and not just God? Some say &quot;that's the way that Jesus lived&quot;. Are there examples of Jesus' conduct that demonstrate this one way or another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-04-14T16:08:02.483" LastActivityDate="2019-06-21T15:47:00.267" Title="What is the Biblical basis for &quot;hate the sin, love the sinner&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;hate&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1030" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1033" CreationDate="2011-08-29T19:08:19.607" Score="17" ViewCount="2240" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Jehovah Witness and I spoke the other day and he explained to me that JWs believe that we'll live on earth after we die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What scripture, if any, do they use to back this belief? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-04T05:12:25.033" LastActivityDate="2021-04-24T14:40:29.183" Title="How do Jehovah Witnesses support scripturely the idea that humans will live on earth after death?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;earth&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="554" CreationDate="2011-08-29T19:13:10.297" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it's a requirement... or better, a precondition.  In order to be saved, you have to accept Jesus sacrifice.  But for this, you have to realize that this sacrifice was necessary.  And for &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt;, you have to realize... your sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now... you could accept your sin (&quot;Yup, bad stuff&quot;)... without leaving it.  Makes sense?  Don't think so, but people &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be wanting to see it that way.  Here, the gospel (and that means, Jesus) is quite clear: you cannot accept the gift of life but keep to your old ways.  Doesn't work that way (and it should be quite obvious why... would you forgive someone if you knew he'd keep on doing what you just forgave him?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the second part of your question: it is both.  It is a single act, when you accept Jesus as your Savior and Lord.  And it's a sort-of ongoing process... because, being imperfect sinners, we always fall.  So, we have to pick ourselves up and continue (stumbling) on.  That means repentance every time we fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But beware: do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; dwell on sin.  No matter how big and nasty it was, it is &lt;strong&gt;already&lt;/strong&gt; forgiven.  Jesus died &lt;em&gt;once&lt;/em&gt;, he doesn't die again every time you need forgiveness.  The longer you dwell on it, the longer the enemy can keep you away from God.  Doing whatever it was is bad enough, but staying away from God because of it makes it worse.   He wants us close, and be close to us, &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Standard Disclaimer: I do not speak for any tradition, denomination, or what-have-you.  Authority?  Ask God to show you if what I say is true.  Then, either he confirms or he doesn't.  That's all.  (Dang, why doesn't this thing not have support for a signature or similar...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="169" LastEditorUserId="169" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T11:26:27.173" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T11:26:27.173" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1029" CreationDate="2011-08-29T19:18:38.327" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &quot;hate the sin, love the sinner&quot; is a very Christian concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God hates sin, and in fact he hates sinners.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 9:10-18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,&#xA;     and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see here that God chose to hate Esau before he was even born. He chose to harden Pharaoh in Egypt for his own purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However, we do not know who God has elected to save and so we should treat everyone with the love and respect that he has given to us.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matt 22:37-40&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are to love our neighbors (a pretty expansive group, potentially all we come into contact with) as we wish to be loved. This is a huge command. We are to love everyone in our lives as much as we love ourselves (be honest its a lot). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Loving others is our greatest command at this point &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 13:8&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's perfection cannot tolerate sinners. However, we are by no means perfect creatures and have little to no right to render judgement upon a creature god has created. Thus we should live as if each action we take and word we speak are towards each other and those outside of our circles are towards a brother in Christ, because we can not see who God has chosen and who he has not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T19:58:23.907" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T19:58:23.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1030" CreationDate="2011-08-29T19:19:32.680" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea comes from Revelation 21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:1 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with interpreting Revelation is that there's a lot of debate on what it actually means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will we live on a new earth?  &lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt; in the sense that God will give us a place to live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will it be identical to the old earth (with tornadoes, volcanoes, etc)?  Who knows!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/revelation/21/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New World Translation of this&lt;/a&gt; doesn't really vary.  You can read that if you'd like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="23657" LastEditDate="2021-04-24T14:40:29.183" LastActivityDate="2021-04-24T14:40:29.183" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1029" CreationDate="2011-08-29T19:23:42.520" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 8:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave&#xA;  your life of sin.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We'll there was the women caught in the very act of adultery. Jesus demonstrated his love to her and showed her mercy, but at the same time He commanded her to sin no longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There there was the time that Jesus drove out the money changers at the temple(with a whip I might add).Mark 11:15-19 So it's pretty clear he has a passion for disliking sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in Luke 19:1-10 Jesus shows love to Zacchaeus, who was abusing his position as tax collector, and it was because of Jesus showing love first that Zacchaeus repented, then Jesus said he came to save those who where lost.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 12:9 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to&#xA;  that which is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That says hate evil right there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1st John 4:7 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Beloved, let us love one another, For love is of God And everyone who&#xA;  loves Is born of God and knows God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:43-48&#xA;tells us to not only love our Neighbor, but love even our enemy. and then he commands us to be perfect, as God is perfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 1:9 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even&#xA;  thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrews it is commending people who love rightness, and hate sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:14-19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in other words, Jesus dosen't condemn people, people don't believe aren't condemned after the fact, they are already condemned because of their preexisting condition (just like the people in the wilderness, they didn't die from not looking at the on Moses' poll, they died from the snake bite before that(and the snakes were there because of their sin!), if they would choose to look at the snake on the poll they would have been saved), Jesus came to Save them from their preexisting condemnation IF they will choose him, If they don't choose to believe they stay as they were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:6-8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes God does love the sinner!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 97:10 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Hates the Sin!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T21:27:05.143" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T21:27:05.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1027" CreationDate="2011-08-29T19:36:56.907" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's the dwelling place of God the Father&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“This, then, is how you should pray: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘Our Father in heaven, &#xA;  hallowed be your name&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's a place of treasures that thieves can't steal.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It has many rooms&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 14:2 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's an actual place&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:2-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 14:2-4 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; You know the way to the place where I am going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's being prepared for us&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare this to the idea that it's just a &quot;state of being&quot;.  It's not.  It's a place that is being prepared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 14:2 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; supports this.  Also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:34 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's a place of reward&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in the middle of a parable that Jesus was telling regarding what heaven would be like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There won't be a need for marriage in heaven&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:34-36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 20:34-36 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;34&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. &lt;strong&gt;35&lt;/strong&gt; But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, &lt;strong&gt;36&lt;/strong&gt; and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is everlasting/eternal&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 3:16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T19:36:56.907" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1037" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2510" CreationDate="2011-08-29T20:06:38.293" Score="16" ViewCount="4224" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard reference in other questions on this site that seem to indicate a belief that Genesis was written by &quot;the same man.&quot;  What do we actually know about wrote Genesis (whether a single, or multiple authors)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-14T06:16:17.703" LastActivityDate="2016-08-05T08:46:14.150" Title="Who wrote the book of Genesis? (Overview)" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1038" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T20:11:14.913" Score="10" ViewCount="1176" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never heard of any verse more quoted and memorized than this one. Many people know it without knowing a single other thing about Christianity.* If there was one verse we don't need to quote in a post this would be it, but  here it is for reference anyway:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+3%3A16/&quot;&gt;John 3:16 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact you almost certainly didn't recognize those words since that's a new-ish translation. The one you memorized as a kid was probably &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt; or KJV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;John 3:16 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does it mean? Are there different interpretations or is the breadth of Christian tradition pretty much united on this one? Is the meaning so clear that people with no other context are able to understand it? Is it a secret code that you need a legend to understand?  Most specifically what is the scope of the concepts of &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;belief&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;the world&lt;/em&gt; in this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* True story. I asked a guy one time if he'd read the Bible. His answer was quote: &quot;Oh ya you mean like the John 3:16 thing? Ya I've heard of it.&quot; When pressed if he knew what what the three and the sixteen had to do with it, he was shocked to learn that it was just a fragment of a larger text.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T21:23:40.903" LastActivityDate="2015-06-14T08:02:04.033" Title="What is the scope of John 3:16?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-06-14T13:48:34.203" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1037" CreationDate="2011-08-29T20:16:17.483" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tradition says Moses compiled the book of Genesis, along with writing the rest of the Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past;[3] some traditions contained in Genesis are as old as the United Monarchy, but modern scholars increasingly see it as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC.[4]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is rather unclear who actually put the words to paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis&quot;&gt;Answers in Genesis&lt;/a&gt; article argues that Moses did indeed write Genesis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the author of Genesis was God, working through Moses. This does not mean that God used Moses as a ‘typewriter’. Rather, God prepared Moses for his task from the day he was born. When the time came, Moses had all the necessary data, and was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit as to what he included and what he left out. This is consistent with known history, and with the claims and principles of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answers in Genesis article claims to prove this conclusively. However, I think the best we cay say is that we are unsure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T20:24:39.560" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T20:24:39.560" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1038" CreationDate="2011-08-29T21:11:06.327" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK, you wanna go deep?  Here we go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apostolicbible.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apostolic Bible&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vhlrd.png&quot; alt=&quot;John 3:16 from the apostolic bible&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Love&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word being translated as &amp;quot;loved&amp;quot; here is ἀγαπάω (agapao).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definition from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greek-dictionary.net/agapa%C5%8D&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong's Concordance (25)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to love; in the NT usually the active love of God for his Son and his people, and the active love his people are to have for God, each other, and even enemies&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to love, value, esteem, feel or manifest generous concern for, be faithful towards; to delight in, to set store upon,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;World&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word being translated as &amp;quot;world&amp;quot; here is κόσμος (kosmos).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greek-dictionary.net/kosmos&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong's Concordance (2889)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;world: earth, world system, whole universe; adornment. In some contexts, the world is simply the place where people live, in other contexts (especially in John), the world is a system opposed to God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interesting points:  &lt;em&gt;kosmos&lt;/em&gt; can be translated as the &amp;quot;whole universe&amp;quot;.  Also, note that in John it's considered a &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;system opposed to God&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; in some contexts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Believe&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostolic Bible translates this as &amp;quot;trusting&amp;quot;, as you can see.  The actual word is πιστεύω (pisteuo).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greek-dictionary.net/pisteu%C5%8D&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strongs (4100)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to believe, put one's faith in, trust, &lt;strong&gt;with an implication that actions based on that trust may follow&lt;/strong&gt;; (pass.) entrust&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the key that I think you might be looking for.  This isn't just as simple as saying &amp;quot;Yeah, I believe that Jesus died for me.&amp;quot;  This is to &amp;quot;put one's faith in&amp;quot;.  This is a more active belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, I believe that if someone truly has faith in Jesus that their life will be impacted by it.  That's what separates out shallow &amp;quot;belief&amp;quot; from deep &amp;quot;belief&amp;quot;.  It's that deeper belief/faith/trust that is what God wants from us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T21:11:06.327" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1029" CreationDate="2011-08-29T21:11:07.743" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First we have to understand that all people are sinners according &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt;. But God still loves some sinners (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;) but hate other sinners (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%201:2-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Malachi 1:2,3&lt;/a&gt;). So there must be something that separates one group from the other. What plays a significant role in God's view is the motive of the sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, does a person understand that he is a sinner and repent from them? An excellent example of someone who recognized his fault is Job, who said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.&lt;sup&gt;Job &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2042:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;42:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also we have to recognize that someone may sin, but without knowing what God requires. This person is not a sinner to the same extent as someone who recognizes God's will (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 1:13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-%2048&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 12:47, 48&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone who understands God's will and wittingly does what God forbids then &quot;no sacrifice for sins is left&quot;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:26-31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:26-31&lt;/a&gt;). These are people that God doesn't accept and we must see them in the same way (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20139:21-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms 139:21,22&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Insight on the scriptures comments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This hate does not seek to inflict injury on others and is not&#xA;  synonymous with spite or malice. Rather, it finds expression in its&#xA;  utter abhorrence of what is wicked, avoiding what is bad and those&#xA;  intensely hating Jehovah. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:9,%2017,%2019&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 12:9, 17, 19&lt;/a&gt;) Christians rightly hate&#xA;  those who are confirmed enemies of God, such as the Devil and his&#xA;  demons, as well as men who have deliberately and knowingly taken their&#xA;  stand against Jehovah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Insight on the Scriptures vol.1, p. 1043: Hate&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T21:31:09.697" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T21:31:09.697" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1043" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T21:11:32.120" Score="5" ViewCount="2648" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that Jesus commanded his disciples to go to make disciples of all nations and to spread the word to the entire world (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28:19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:19&lt;/a&gt;), but we know little of what happened to the twelve disciples. We have some record about them in the Book of Acts, but it is not recorded where they lived, if they founded a community or not, where and how they died...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any historical evidence as to what happened to the twelve disciples? I'm restricting this question to Peter, John and James who can be regarded as the main disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some legends regarding the disciples, although I don't know how historically accurate they are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John lived and died in Ephesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;James preached in the actual territory of Spain&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peter went to Rome where he was also martyred&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are these legends true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T22:20:07.607" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T22:20:07.607" Title="What happened to the main disciples after Pentecost?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;&lt;legend&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="11" ClosedDate="2011-08-29T22:26:11.357" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1044" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T21:32:30.773" Score="10" ViewCount="1890" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember reading somewhere that the reason there are natural disasters on this earth is because of the evil which was allowed into it when Adam and Eve sinned.  I have not been able to find this reference, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone else seen this, and are there any biblical references saying that natural disasters are caused by evil?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T21:03:13.487" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T09:53:20.010" Title="Are natural disasters the result of evil being allowed into our world?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;natural-disasters&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T00:47:41.890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="802" CreationDate="2011-08-29T21:37:22.397" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two variants of the &quot;local flood&quot; view. One variant is that Genesis 6-9 refers to an actual flood that was large-scale but not global, and the other is that the Noah story is fiction, but derived from the memory of a large flood in the past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both variants point first to evidence found in the geological column. In particular:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) All of the early contributors to geology were Christians who believed in a global flood before they began studying rock columns. Buffon, Hutton, Lyell, Agassiz, and Kelvin all became convinced after seeing the rock layers that a single global flood could not have produced them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Some formations, such as the Grand Canyon, include layers of desert sandstone in between layers of marine sediments. Yet YECs claim the entire formation was laid down in one global flood. Grey Neyman of Old Earth Ministries &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oldearth.org/desertproblem.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;explains the problem&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The young earth scientist would have to explain how the water receded, then the sandstone formed, then the water came back and deposited the other layers.  However, in the Biblical Flood account, the waters rose, then fell.  There were no cyclic water levels, nor was there a massive amount of time during the flood for a desert environment to create a 315-foot thick rock layer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico, have thick layers of salt. Salt deposits are created when water evaporates. Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for BioLogos, &lt;a href=&quot;http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/davidson_wolgemuth_scholarly_essay.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;explain why this is a problem&lt;/a&gt; for flood geology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One might argue that the waters from the Flood could have evaporated to leave behind the salt deposits we see today, but there is a serious problem. The thousands of feet of sediment on top of the salt is also said to be from the Flood, meaning the flood waters cannot have evaporated to produce the salt and still be present and violent enough to transport thousands of feet of sediment to the same location. In other words, a single flood cannot be called upon to explain both the salt and the overlying sediment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) Among the deposits are layers of igneous rock, formed by volcanic eruptions. When volcanoes erupt, they release greenhouse gases. The number of eruptions necessary to produce all the igneous layers found in the geological column, if they all happened within the same year, would produce enough CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to kill Noah and his family. Glenn Morton, writing for Old Earth Ministries, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oldearth.org/morton/co2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;has the details&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How does this relate to the present atmosphere? Currently we are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; in the atmosphere, yet the YEC scenario would produce an atmosphere that had AS A MINIMUM a CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; level of 58,615 parts per million. Scientists are worried about a 600 ppm CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; world next century, the YEC post flood world would create such a hot climate that all life would be destroyed. Yet amazingly, Creationists like Austin, Baumgardner, Wise, Snelling, Vardiman, Humphreys and Oard think that the post flood world would be glacially cold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5) Industrial geologists looking for oil deposits use temperature differences in boreholes to determine the age of the sediment they're drilling through. It's kind of complicated, but Willy Fjeldskaar, writing for Age of Rocks, &lt;a href=&quot;http://ageofrocks.org/2014/09/08/the-sediments-of-the-earth-are-they-old/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;explains&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The temperature of the sediments is caused by the heat flow from the inner regions of the Earth. If you put a kettle with water on a hot plate, it will take some time for the water to be heated. A certain amount of time is also needed to heat sediments from the time they were deposited until today. The amount of time needed depends on the flow of heat from the inner regions of the Earth and on the thermal properties of the sediments. Both the heat flow and the thermal properties are relatively well known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the heat radiates up from the earth's core, the rocks in lower layers retain a certain percentage. The longer the rocks have been buried, the more heat they will have accumulated. In the short time span proposed by YECs, there's simply not enough time for the sediments to have reached the temperatures geologists find in the boreholes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have seen that it is not possible to explain the measured temperature in these sediments on the assumption that the sediments are only some thousands of years old. Using measured properties of the sediments and conventional values for the Earth’s heat flow, we realize that the sediments must be considerably older than 1 million years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6) The total amount of water on and in the earth is not nearly enough to produce a global flood. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-waters-of-the-flood&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;explains the problem&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's a sample of the evidence against a global flood. Some Christians take the idea of a local flood further, attempting to find evidence of a large local flood in the geological record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oldearth.org/articles/flood_location.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lays out the parameters&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The site of the flood would have to meet three requirements.  First, it would have to be capable of containing the waters of the flood.  In order to do this, we need a basin, with no outlet to the sea.  If there were an outlet, the water would simply run out of the area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second, the flood would have to fit the parameters mentioned in the Bible.  The source of the waters is not in question.  The only point that matters here is that Noah believed that the world was flooded, and that all the mountains were covered with water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neyman calculates that Noah, standing on the deck of the ark, would have been able to see a mountain 95 miles away. That gives us a ballpark estimate of how much area the flood would have to include to cover the highest mountains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The final requirement is this:  Does the proposed location agree with the geography mentioned in the Genesis account?  It would have to flood the areas populated by mankind.  We don't have many clues as to the extent of the geographic area.  However, it would appear to include the area around the Garden of Eden, and east of the Garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is some evidence of massive flooding in the Middle East in the distant past. One conjecture which has received a lot of attention recently is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Black Sea deluge hypothesis&lt;/a&gt;. Geologists have found some evidence of a massive flood following an inrush of water from the Mediterranean about 7600 years ago, causing the Black Sea to overflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's &lt;a href=&quot;http://paleogeo.org/flood_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some evidence&lt;/a&gt; that glacial melting caused the Caspian Sea to flood the surrounding area somewhere between 9000 and 17,000 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hugh Ross favors the Black Sea hypothesis, while Neyman favors the Caspian. Critics (including YECs) point out that there is no clear evidence that either flood could have produced enough water to cover the mountains and wipe out all of human civilization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2015-09-05T01:14:34.033" LastActivityDate="2015-09-05T01:14:34.033" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1044" CreationDate="2011-08-29T21:45:48.997" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think it will say natural disasters explicitly but think &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:18-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:18-21 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; can apply here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21thati the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It talks about creation being subjected to frustration by the will of the one who subjected it. God gave us authority over creation and then Adam sinned and gave the authority to satan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis after the fall God said the earth was cursed for the sake of Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus rebuked a storm, so if what you were really wondering was if God causes natural disasters the answer would be no, otherwise Jesus would be rebuking the will of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T22:08:47.360" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T22:08:47.360" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1030" CreationDate="2011-08-29T22:02:51.513" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses, as myself, believe in an earthly paradise.  This paradise will be the restoration of what Adam and Eve lost when they sinned. We view &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2037:11,%2029&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalms 37:11, 29&lt;/a&gt; as a prophecy of this restoration. Jesus will rule from heaven the humankind with 144000 corulers, including resurrected, for 1000 years. We believe that some prophecies for this time are the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 45:18&lt;/strong&gt; (all quotations from the NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this is what the LORD says— he who created the heavens,    he is&#xA;God; he who fashioned and made the earth,    he founded it; he did not&#xA;create it to be empty,    but formed it to be inhabited— he says: “I&#xA;am the LORD,    and there is no other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 72:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May grain abound throughout the land;    on the tops of the hills may&#xA;it sway. May the crops flourish like Lebanon    and thrive like the&#xA;grass of the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 33:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one living in Zion will say, “I am ill”;    and the sins of those&#xA;who dwell there will be forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 21:4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’&#xA;or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed&#xA;away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 65:17-24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 “See, I will create    new heavens and a new earth. The former&#xA;things will not be remembered,    nor will they come to mind. 18 But&#xA;be glad and rejoice forever    in what I will create, for I will&#xA;create Jerusalem to be a delight    and its people a joy. 19 I will&#xA;rejoice over Jerusalem    and take delight in my people; the sound of&#xA;weeping and of crying    will be heard in it no more.&#xA;20 “Never again will there be in it    an infant who lives but a few&#xA;days,    or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who&#xA;dies at a hundred    will be thought a mere child; the one who fails&#xA;to reach[a] a hundred    will be considered accursed. 21 They will&#xA;build houses and dwell in them;    they will plant vineyards and eat&#xA;their fruit. 22 No longer will they build houses and others live in&#xA;them,    or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree,    so&#xA;will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy    the&#xA;work of their hands. 23 They will not labor in vain,    nor will they&#xA;bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed&#xA;by the LORD,    they and their descendants with them. 24 Before they&#xA;call I will answer;    while they are still speaking I will hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information for JW view on this topic you can download the book &lt;em&gt;What Does the Bible Really Teach?&lt;/em&gt; and read chapter 8 from &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/?contentLanguageFilter=en&amp;amp;pubFilter=bh&amp;amp;sortBy=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; in pdf format or &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-teach/what-is-gods-kingdom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; in html.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-24T04:02:58.883" LastActivityDate="2021-04-24T04:02:58.883" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1048" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6104" CreationDate="2011-08-29T22:13:15.633" Score="21" ViewCount="6977" Body="&lt;p&gt;This cliche is usually &lt;em&gt;quoted&lt;/em&gt; in the context of &quot;the ends don't justify the means&quot;, but in &lt;em&gt;practice&lt;/em&gt; most folks seem to live as if the ends did justify the means even if the means involved sin. However sometimes people cannot see clearly what is sin and what isn't. An example might be with-holding information from a loved one so as not to upset them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While on clear situation of sin they might come down one way, given a predicament where the right choice isn't clear to a person, they often turn this cliche the other way around and tell themselves that the ends &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; justify the means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Biblical content that speaks to this cliche one way or another. Is there a good &quot;retort cliche&quot; that one could use as a reminder of the proper way to make a moral or ethical decision in light of Christian teachings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T20:10:24.553" Title="Is &quot;the ends justify the means&quot; compatible with Christianity?" Tags="&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:09:45.163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1044" CreationDate="2011-08-29T22:20:39.247" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I see ALL destruction as God breathed.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All destruction and decay is because sin entered the world, before sin, this world was perfect. So how did all of this decay, destruction, evil get into the world and where does it come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, to some extent it is true that without God these things will happen, the problem you have with that theology, is that EVERYTHING was/is created by God and EVERYTHING is sustained by Him. Literally nothing that is, exists outside of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:17&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is set against the wicked every day. He is constantly set against His enemies, He promises to never give them rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:18&lt;/strong&gt;  (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all&#xA;ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in&#xA;unrighteousness,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Israel's History&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look back at Israel and you'll see that every time the people were disobedient God sent destruction upon them in many fashions: plagues, famine, disease, war, earthly disaster and even miracles of disaster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Man is the source of unjust Evil&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the last section I mentioned evil for two purposes, one for just purposes, which is the evil from God and the other for unjust purposes, which is not from God. Men on the other hand are continuously creating evil for the sake of being evil. This is what the gospel is all about. We are a wicked and filthy people, literally enemies of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 6:45&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,&#xA;and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his&#xA;heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 13:41&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his&#xA;kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is the source of Wrath/Evil for a just cause&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's not discount God's ability to bring wrath and destruction onto/into the world. See in these next verses where God has actually promised to bring evil/destruction upon sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 45:7&lt;/strong&gt; KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Amos 3:6&lt;/strong&gt; KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?&#xA;shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joshua 23:15&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But just as all the good things the LORD your God has promised you&#xA;have come to you, so he will bring on you all the evil things he has&#xA;threatened, until the LORD your God has destroyed you from this good&#xA;land he has given you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 16:15&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is&#xA;tormenting you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understand that God does these evil acts as acts of Justice. He tells us that all of His ways are Just and He does these things because of the wickedness of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 34:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do&#xA;evil, from the Almighty to do wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Job it is referring to God doing evil for the sake of doing evil and not for a just purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Disasters are from God as a form of His justice.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T02:46:44.977" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1050" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1053" CreationDate="2011-08-29T22:21:17.700" Score="26" ViewCount="5644" Body="&lt;p&gt;This has been a popular topic of debate, at least where I live. As Armenians, we like to...&lt;em&gt;discourage&lt;/em&gt; marriages with spouses of a different ethnicity or nationality, simply in order to carry the culture and Armenian name for as many generations as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were there any mentions of interracial marriages or relationships in the bible, like whether it is condoned or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T22:26:34.010" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T17:47:08.267" Title="What does the bible say about interracial marriages?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-08-12T00:18:25.937" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1051" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T22:37:30.043" Score="23" ViewCount="5085" Body="&lt;p&gt;What, if anything, does the Bible say either supporting the theory of life on other planets, or suggesting that there is none?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-01-18T21:03:29.500" LastActivityDate="2015-01-18T21:03:29.500" Title="Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;extra-terrestrial-life&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-15T14:38:43.367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1050" CreationDate="2011-08-29T22:39:20.830" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Moses married an Ethiopian (descendant of Ham), and Miriam and Aaron didn't approve. The story is found in Numbers 12:1, and we don't find anything to say whether it was ok for him to have done so or not, only that he did it and some people didn't like it. To be honest, I used to have a problem with interracial marriage, and I made quite a lot of excuses as to why that was. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, people of every nationality are God's creations. He loves each and every one of them in a way that we cannot even begin to imagine or comprehend. I would think that it would please God very much for two of His beloved creations to find happiness and joy in the company of one another, despite race, or anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-29T22:39:20.830" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1050" CreationDate="2011-08-29T22:53:42.443" Score="33" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament the Jews are forbidden from marriage with non-Jews. See, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%207:3-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 7:3-4&lt;/a&gt;. However that was on the basis of religious rather than racial purity, as it was clearly stated that the reason was to prevent the Jews from &quot;following other Gods&quot;. It is also notable that in the Book of Ruth, Ruth is a non-Jew married to a Jew, and the Bible contains no commentary saying that this was a bad thing, although she clearly also becomes a follower of God. She is the ancestor of King David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament there is no equivalent restriction, since Christians are intended to be of every race: &quot;In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile&quot; and &quot;make disciples of all nations&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past some Christians have claimed a prohibition on interracial marriage, based on either the Old Testament prohibition or a false understanding of Acts 17:24-26: ( &quot;God ... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ...&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently there has been a strong movement away from such a prohibition. Even ultra-conservative Bob Jones university removed its prohibition on inter-racial dating in 2000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/06/opposition_to_i.html&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; gives more information on the history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:I originally said that Bob Jones University continued its ban on inter-racial dating until 2005. In fact it stopped in 2000, and apologized for it in 2005.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-07-01T03:09:19.387" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T03:09:19.387" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1054" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1059" CreationDate="2011-08-29T23:08:39.293" Score="18" ViewCount="14535" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to be an avid church-goer, but as of late I haven't had the chance. This is primarily because of my scouting activities, which take place Sunday mornings (the same time the church service takes place).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it's been stated in the bible that we as Christians should come together, but I am getting a chance to do that elsewhere, specifically at my youth group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would this lack of church attendance be unfaithful in the eyes of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T19:45:46.780" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T22:02:12.787" Title="Do I have to attend church every Sunday?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1055" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-29T23:53:00.573" Score="8" ViewCount="653" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Golden Rule, often stated as &quot;do unto others as you would have them do unto you&quot; originate from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus? If not where does it come from? If so how  was it originally used? How it is supposed to be applied today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider a case where the thing somebody would want you to do for them is to sin. As a simple example, many people will lie to keep their friends out of trouble. They expect their friends to do the same for them. If the Golden Rule was the only rule employed between them, their sin would just continue to multiply. What's to prevent this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-08-29T23:57:37.013" LastActivityDate="2014-12-28T21:05:20.167" Title="Is the Golden Rule really the Gold Standard?" Tags="&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;golden-rule&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-12-28T22:31:37.950" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1055" CreationDate="2011-08-30T00:51:15.537" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:12 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; sounds a lot like the Golden rule:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it also says it's only a summary of the Law and Prophets, not that it's actually a hard-and-fast rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with your example is it puts &quot;others&quot; at odds with each other... There are two &quot;theys&quot;--your friends, and those you would lie to.  The Golden Rule is not far-reaching enough to address these sorts of ethical situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the true &quot;Gold Standard&quot; is to love God and people (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 10:27&lt;/a&gt;). The Golden Rule is intended to provide a sort of definition of what it means to love others.  That doesn't mean it's air-tight in a logical sense.  But even so, if we all practiced the Golden Rule to the letter (even lying for our friends, as in your example), I suspect the world would be a much better place than it is now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T00:51:15.537" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1054" CreationDate="2011-08-30T01:28:23.080" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no direct order from God to attend church every Sunday - but the question should probably be asked why you feel that scouting activities are more important than God. Also, &quot;youth group&quot; is distinctly &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; &quot;church&quot;: it's probably a good thing, but it is no substitute for the gathering of the faithful in worship to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T01:28:23.080" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1055" CreationDate="2011-08-30T01:48:38.583" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Filmzy has identified where the Golden Rule is found in the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the 2nd part of your question, I would like to bring out this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:33&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes of course if following only the Golden rule sin may creep in. However if we do things in glory of God and following Golden rule, the scenario would probably be something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A group of friends are together. One sinned. The others advised him and brought him back to righteousness, for each of the others too want their friends to bring them back if they make mistakes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="122" LastEditorUserId="122" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T01:58:06.360" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T01:58:06.360" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1054" CreationDate="2011-08-30T01:57:26.923" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;After watching &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KD6PK7NX&quot;&gt;What is the Church&lt;/a&gt;?&quot; , I posed myself a question: &quot;What happens if my Church (the building) was taken down? Or my cell group being taken away? Would there still be Church?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer is simply Yes. For the Church exists in each and everyone who believes, trusts, and acknowledges our Saviour - simply because each of us is a part of Christ's body. Even if the building is gone, even if our cell group is taken away, even if there is no hymns or Sunday services, Church still exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why Church attendance is important is to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To meet and affirm our faiths together&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To study more about God's Word (through sermons and Bible studies)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To participate in healthy activities. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quoting from the one of the comments on the video written by Tom Smith, Pastor at Mt. View Southern Baptist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have a friend that has gone though the same problem as Stan. He say's he will never find a church to attend, so why try. However, every Sunday Morning he and his wife play a round of golf with the same group of people, and then retire to their home for a brunch and fellowship, which eventually comes around to studying The Bible. I recently told him that even though he doesn't realize it, he has a Home Church, and he is it's Pastor. All this time he thought they were just getting together to enlighten each other about God, Jesus, and The Bible. Don't look now, but that is what a church is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="122" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T03:05:46.223" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T03:05:46.223" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1051" CreationDate="2011-08-30T02:48:57.293" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible really doesn't have anything to say on the subject one way or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historical writings suggest that some of early Christians believed that this world is only one of many that God has created, and particularly among &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism&quot;&gt;Gnostic sects&lt;/a&gt; there were all sorts of interesting ideas on the subject, (for example, that the many worlds that God had created all had free interactions with each other, but not with us because this world was under quarantine, as no other people out of all God's creations were evil enough to murder their own Lord), but whatever the source of these ideas is, it's not found in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T07:03:08.097" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T07:03:08.097" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1054" CreationDate="2011-08-30T02:53:45.877" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes and no. Calvin said something to the effect of &quot;God cannot be your Father if the Church is not your mother,&quot; his point being that the church is very, very important to the spiritual life of the Christian. Most if not all New Testament letters are addressed to specific churches, in Acts orders are given as to the order of worship, and Hebrews 10:24 says &quot;not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near&quot;. &#xA;Here's some verses on the church pulled from my study bible (don't have to time to check them all)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:16; Eph 2:18, 3:15, 4:6; 1 Pet 5:2-4; Eph 1:22, 23; Gal 4:26; Heb 12:22-24; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and some on what it is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Cor 12:12-16; Eph 1:22,23; 1 Cor. 12:27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also important in this question is a reformed understanding of the Lord's Day (please forgive what's obviously a lot of controversy surrounding this): that the Lord's Day (Sunday) is set apart, as a continuation of OT Sabbath, which was to be kept holy (&quot;set apart&quot;). Isaiah 58 says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath,&#xA;  from doing your pleasure on my holy day,&#xA;  and call the Sabbath a delight&#xA;  and the holy day of the Lord honorable;&#xA;  if you honor it, not going your own ways,&#xA;  or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly;&#xA;  then you shall take delight in the Lord,&#xA;  yand I will make you ride on the heights of the earth;&#xA;  I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father,&#xA;  for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this definitely carries over to our observance of Sunday now. You obviously don't &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to go to church every Sunday, unqualified. The thief on the cross didn't. We certainly don't want to be legalistic about it - Christ's saving work has fulfilled the law for us, we don't earn our own salvation. But just like as God's adopted sons we have to obey him, in that sense we have to go to church. In light of the Isaiah 58 verses, think of it like this: why &lt;em&gt;wouldn't&lt;/em&gt; you want to go to church? Worshiping God in the splendor of holiness through singing, receiving his grace and instruction and care through the reading and preaching of his word, talking with him through prayer, and fellowshipping with brothers in Christ - this should all be very important to us, especially on a day that God has set apart for us. We have six other days to get the rest of our life out of the way so we can worship and rest in God on one (just like God did at creation). &#xA;Forgive me if this comes as harsh, but in your case i think church attendance is more important than scouts. Scouts (As I see it) isn't an &quot;ox in the ditch.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you could find another church to attend. As I see it, church is #1 for me on Sunday, above all else, but the least you can (and should) do is to use as much as your Sunday as possible with God (whether at church or not).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-03-19T14:25:25.657" LastActivityDate="2012-03-19T14:25:25.657" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1054" CreationDate="2011-08-30T02:55:52.740" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Going to Church is like a spiritual version of a meal.  While it won't kill you to miss one or two, you should do it regularly for best results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, a regularly scheduled event that you attend over Church is not a good idea.  If you don't eat for 6 months, you die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Missing Church for that length of time could potentially be that devastating (spiritually, not physically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, there is things you do at Church that you probably don't/couldn't do at a scout meeting, e.g. communion, confession and absolution, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T02:55:52.740" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1055" CreationDate="2011-08-30T03:30:56.717" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Golden Rule can indeed be found in the teachings of Jesus: Matthew 7:12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; claims that there are earlier antecedents for it, but they do not appear to be the same exact formulation; in particular they are all the 'negative' of it (&quot;don't do bad&quot; rather than &quot;do good&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T03:30:56.717" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="146" CreationDate="2011-08-30T03:41:07.933" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is vitally important that you look at the previous few verses in order to get context. Let's take the whole passage in the NIV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”  Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” Then the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus has pronounced forgiveness of the man's sins. The Pharisees object, saying that &quot;only God can forgive sins&quot;. The Pharisees would agree that forgiving sins is easier than having the man walk again, so Jesus makes him walk again as a clear demonstration that he has the power to do both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has nothing to do with the sickness being caused by sin. Jesus clearly breaks that connection elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T03:41:07.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1065" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1087" CreationDate="2011-08-30T04:18:51.630" Score="19" ViewCount="15370" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Leviticus 7 verse 30, This passage is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 With their own hands they are to present the food offering to the LORD; they are to bring the fat, together with the breast, and wave the breast before the LORD as a wave offering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On this passage, did they really wave the sacrifice before offering it? and what exactly was the point in waving it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T04:47:57.823" LastActivityDate="2015-02-23T19:46:56.993" Title="Wave offering; What exactly was the point?" Tags="&lt;leviticus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1066" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1133" CreationDate="2011-08-30T04:20:44.053" Score="6" ViewCount="324" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Orthodox understanding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T13:22:04.483" Title="What do Orthodox Christians mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1067" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1216" CreationDate="2011-08-30T04:26:14.000" Score="8" ViewCount="3639" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Lutheran Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all understand it the same way. The Lutheran understanding differs significantly from the Orthodox and Catholic positions; could someone explain the Lutheran understanding of this doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2020-03-14T03:34:18.897" LastActivityDate="2020-03-14T03:34:18.897" Title="What do Lutherans mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;real-presence&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1055" CreationDate="2011-08-30T04:37:24.630" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Golden Rule in its current form probably originated with Jesus. A similar saying is attributed to Rabbi Hillel, who lived in Jerusalem about a century before Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A Gentile came to Rabbi Hillel and said, &quot;I will convert to Judaism if you can teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.&quot; Hillel replied, &quot;That which is distasteful to you do not do unto another. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' version goes much further than Hillel's does, in requiring action from us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T04:37:24.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1066" CreationDate="2011-08-30T04:46:11.210" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_(Catholic_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_(Catholic_Church&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Orthodox and Catholics believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine are objectively transformed and become in a real sense the Body and Blood of Christ; and that after consecration they are no longer bread and wine: the consecrated elements retain the appearance and attributes of bread and wine but are in reality the body and blood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T04:46:11.210" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1071" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1072" CreationDate="2011-08-30T05:04:35.837" Score="17" ViewCount="7226" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+4:32-37&quot;&gt;Acts 4:32-37&lt;/a&gt;, the early Christians pooled all their possessions and had no private ownership. Is there any record of how long this lasted, and why it ended?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2019-04-03T14:28:32.500" Title="For how long did the early Christians share all their possessions?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1071" CreationDate="2011-08-30T05:20:59.827" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an excellent written words in this page on &quot;No one that lacked...&quot; section.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit: I took down the link above, as it now redirects to a potential scam site. I do apologize for this. For those who know how to access older versions of sites that has robot.txt, &lt;a href=&quot;http://makestraightpaths.com/communal_living.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here is the link.&lt;/a&gt; To the author of this question: I completely understand if you wish to accept another answer.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 4:34 says that “there was not a needy person among them” due to distribution of the proceeds of the sale of houses and land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as stated above, we don’t know how long this arrangement continued. However, by the end of the eleventh chapter, there were certainly many needy believers, many who lacked. In fact the church in Judea had become so impoverished due to a worldwide famine that the Christians in Antioch took a collection to help them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2016-09-08T03:15:25.437" LastActivityDate="2016-09-08T03:15:25.437" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1071" CreationDate="2011-08-30T06:12:03.347" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It continues to this day. There are still Christians in various traditions who practice some form of communal ownership. Many members of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Army&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Jesus Army&lt;/a&gt;, for example, share all their income and salary with the church (although reclaims can be made if individuals decide to leave the Church).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T06:12:03.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1071" CreationDate="2011-08-30T08:32:25.833" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look at the larger context of that account in Acts, it seems that it is referring to a specific group of Christians, and not necessarily &quot;all Christians, everywhere:&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;31&lt;/strong&gt; When they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness. &lt;strong&gt;32&lt;/strong&gt; Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/4.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 4 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least in the NRSV translation, it seems that verse 31 (and earlier) sets the stage for which group of Christians is being discussed.  Then verse 32 and 33 appear to be a continuation of this account, which is discussing the same group of Christians, and not Christians at large. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=drby&amp;amp;b=44&amp;amp;c=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Darby's commentary&lt;/a&gt; on Acts 4 also suggests that these verses are all in reference to a single account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is accurate, then we probably have no way of knowing when this specific group of Christians stopped sharing their possessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T08:32:25.833" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="952" CreationDate="2011-08-30T09:08:31.063" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;@a_hardin has a perfectly good explanation of why this expression usually &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; using the Lord's name in vain.  I would make this a comment to his answer, but it's too long.  There are only two ways in which I can imagine this phrase would &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be using the Lord's name in vain:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You are actually addressing or speaking about God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes &quot;Oh my God&quot; is appropriate in this context.  Maybe you receive a fantastic birthday gift, and exclaim &quot;Oh my God!&quot; out of gratitude to the Lord--in the same way you might say to a loved one &quot;Oh my dear [Insert name here], I can't believe you gave me this [whatever]!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe you're actually upset with God, and exclaiming &quot;Oh my God, (how could you let this happen)?&quot;  This wouldn't be using the Lord's name in vain, since it's (technically) a prayer.  Just make sure you don't cross the line into cursing the Lord. (I don't think there's anything wrong with being honest with God about your frustration with Him at times.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You're actually saying &quot;Oh my god.&quot; (Lowercase g, as opposed to capital G)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this isn't a name of God, but rather a description of a theoretical pagan god, I suppose it wouldn't actually be using the Lord's name in vain.  &lt;em&gt;However&lt;/em&gt;, in spoken Language, it's impossible to tell the difference, and in written language, one would always assume you mean a big G, and were just lazy or made a typo, or they don't even know the difference. Therefore I would avoid this phrase, too. To me, claiming &quot;But I meant a small g!&quot; is just like saying &quot;Gee!&quot; instead of &quot;Jesus.&quot; It's changing the pronunciation/spelling slightly, without changing the meaning in your heart.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-10-31T18:54:16.843" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T18:54:16.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1079" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1082" CreationDate="2011-08-30T10:12:17.917" Score="10" ViewCount="2786" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/774/what-does-the-bible-say-about-bad-words/788#788&quot;&gt;an answer&lt;/a&gt; to one of my other questions, what is the proper meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:22&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abstain from all appearance of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;reject every kind of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:22&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NKJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abstain from every form of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am most familiar with the first translation, as was the poster of the answer that inspired this question.  But is that an accurate translation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-12-16T15:18:54.957" Title="What is the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;1-thessalonians&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="544" CreationDate="2011-08-30T10:26:49.530" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is good to remember that God is consistent. He does not change. This works out to our benefit. For example:&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Malachi%203:6/&quot;&gt;Malachi 2:6 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the ways in which this is good for us is that we are not trying to hit a moving target when it comes to understanding His will. His character, what pleases Him, what He expects from men, and other like topics are fixed, not variable truths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This knowledge about God also allows us to say that He will not contradict Himself. If He has a message for you, you can easily check whether it's possibly true by checking it against a known corpus of teaching, His Word. He will never tell you anything inconsistent with the teachings he gave us in the Scriptures. This is why it is important to study and know them well so that as we are bombarded with messages from this world we will be able to discern which messages are an echo of His voice and which are crafts of the deceiver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the book of Jude tucked away at the end of the NT is a scathing warning against false teachers defined as any person or teaching that espoused any idea other than the Gospel as outlined by Christ and the early Apostles. It talks about people who see visions and follow them, reject the authority of the church, and fall into all manner of wrong roads. It ends with this call:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Jude+1%3A17-21/&quot;&gt;Jude 1:17-21 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are numerous other NT references to the importance of sticking to the early teachings, many of them clearer than this passage. The long an the short of it is that &lt;strong&gt;we are to discern whether any message is from God by comparing it against the rest of the Word&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Note that this example is in a different context of God keeping his covenants even when men are faithless, but the principle of God not changing is also found many other places in Scripture so I think it's a valid proof here.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of my favorite quotes in &lt;em&gt;The Lord of the Rings&lt;/em&gt; echos the idea of right and wrong and the basis for the decisions we have to make in our lives not being variable.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Faramir asks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;How shall a man judge what to do in such times?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;This is not a source text!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T10:37:00.497" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T10:37:00.497" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1081" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T10:41:18.943" Score="18" ViewCount="2332" Body="&lt;p&gt;My parents are both Christians. When we were kids they always took us to church. Does that make me a Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:10:06.653" Title="Is it possible to be a Christian by birth?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-12-14T18:57:28.280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1079" CreationDate="2011-08-30T10:45:01.710" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/g0dUp.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding &quot;appearance&quot;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1491b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong's Concordance&lt;/a&gt; has this defined as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;that which is seen, form&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we need to keep away from every [blank] of evil. I think both appearance and form are appropriate here. But I think that we need to take &quot;form&quot; as not just &quot;type&quot; (as in &quot;every type of evil&quot;) but also as &quot;formation&quot; (&quot;every formation seen of evil&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the English definition of &quot;form&quot; seems to back this up a bit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/form&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1.&#xA;  external appearance of a clearly defined area, as distinguished from color or material; configuration: a triangular form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2.&#xA;  the shape of a thing or person. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a sense of a physical formation, something seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;However&lt;/em&gt;, taking this in context we can see that &quot;appearance&quot; is a good word choice as well. If we change &quot;appearance&quot; or &quot;form&quot; to &quot;sighting&quot; (strongly indicating the physical aspect of sight), then it still makes sense to use other translations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Flee from every sighting of evil.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this would be just as valid translation. It's not just that you want to avoid the appearance within yourself, but also the appearance anywhere in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that's why other (more modern) translations have avoided &quot;appearance of&quot; in favor of &quot;type&quot; or &quot;form&quot;, since the idea is that we want to avoid the external evil that we find, not that we want to avoid &quot;appearing&quot; evil to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, this verse is about what &lt;strong&gt;we&lt;/strong&gt; see, not what &lt;strong&gt;others&lt;/strong&gt; see.  It's a command to us to avoid things that we see that are evil -- avoid things that &lt;em&gt;in our sight&lt;/em&gt; are evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My initial answer was answering the question, &quot;Is this a good translation&quot;.  However, I see that the title is &quot;What does this mean&quot;?  Those are two very distinct questions.  So, here I'll answer the other question, &quot;What does this mean?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can often be difficult to understand verses that are not in context so that if you take them out of context, they tend to lose their original intention.  I think it's important to look at the entire verse, in context, to get a full picture of what it's trying to say here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:19-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Thess 5:19-22 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; Do not quench the Spirit. &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; Do not treat prophecies with contempt &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; but test them all; hold on to what is good, &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; reject every kind of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, I encourage you to read the entire chapter of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonias 5&lt;/a&gt; to get even a better picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Paul is trying to say in this letter is to hold fast to good and reject evil--don't be like those around us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Thess 5:6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that permeates 1 Thessalonians is to stay strong in the Lord, to not turn aside towards evil ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In the context of this book&lt;/em&gt;, we can see more clearly that 1 Thess 5:22 is saying we should avoid evil in all its forms.  Just before that it says we should cling to that which is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the meaning of this verse: turn away from evil; cling to what is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T12:35:09.017" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T12:35:09.017" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1083" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T11:16:26.667" Score="16" ViewCount="2409" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Genesis account of the tower of Babel a bunch of guys got together to build a really tall tower somewhere in the desert. God gets wind of the affair but it doesn't sit well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+11:5-6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 11:5–6 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does He do? He scrambles all their language as a punishment and their plans are foiled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was the problem with building a tall tower? Are modern skyscrapers a problem for God? Should the guys in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Burj Khalifa&lt;/a&gt; be worried?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-06-07T17:54:30.443" LastActivityDate="2016-06-08T00:16:49.693" Title="What was the problem at Babel?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;babel&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1081" CreationDate="2011-08-30T11:26:18.850" Score="32" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knows each one of us as a person, not just part of a family. This is clear even in the Old Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2033:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 33:20 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at the Gospel in the New Testament, we see that again each of us is an individual to God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:16 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God saves &lt;strong&gt;whoever&lt;/strong&gt; believes in Jesus from perishing. Only by believing, yourself, can you be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:10:06.653" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:10:06.653" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1081" CreationDate="2011-08-30T11:44:19.157" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Gumbel&quot;&gt;Nicky Gumbel&lt;/a&gt; says on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_course&quot;&gt;Alpha course&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;em&gt;&quot;If you were born in a McDonalds, would that make you a hamburger?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the Bible makes clear that we are all judged on our &lt;em&gt;own&lt;/em&gt; standing with Jesus, e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 2:21&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;em&gt;&quot;... everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T11:44:19.157" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1086" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1097" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:13:10.207" Score="29" ViewCount="15914" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is quite common for people who identify themselves as homosexual to say that God created them this way. Some way even go so far as to say it was a misfortune that they were born into:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Unfortunately for me, God made me gay.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This line of reasoning usually continues with &#xA;- &quot;so I can't do anything about it&quot;&#xA;- &quot;it's not my fault, it's God's fault that I sin&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others claim that since they were created that way it must not be a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does Christianity hold about the way people were created? Does having something in our natures make it not a sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-11-30T16:33:53.227" LastActivityDate="2014-07-15T05:00:33.540" Title="Does God create some people Heterosexual and others Homosexual?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-07-15T01:03:22.843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1065" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:25:46.637" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the other references to the same action (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=wave+offering&amp;amp;qs_version=NASB&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), it &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; appear that part of one (or more) of the sacrifices was to be held high and displayed before the gathered and before God that the offering was being made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read further in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%207:30-33&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Leviticus&lt;/a&gt; passage, you get to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but the breast shall belong to Aaron and his sons&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the breast was the portion &quot;waved&quot; before the Lord, it appears that it was to be a public showing of what had been brought, and after it had been consecrated it was to be given to the Aaronic priests for their use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T12:25:46.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:32:03.013" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;To quote the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Westminster Shorter Catechism&lt;/a&gt; (Q 14, &amp;quot;What is sin?&amp;quot;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the references given (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Leviticus%205:17&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 5:17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=James%204:17&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 4:17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=1%20John%203:4&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 3:4&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T12:32:03.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1081" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:34:21.577" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends what you mean by &quot;Christian&quot;. The term has been used for millenia to refer to Christ's followers. However, one can follow Christ for a time, but never have truly believed in him, and eventually fall away. On the other hand, I typically associate &quot;Christian&quot; with someone who is truly saved. The term can mean different things to different people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, there have been some terms coined just for these types of discussions. One such distinction people have made is between the &quot;invisible church&quot; and the &quot;visible church&quot;. The visible church is made up of, essentially, people who self-identify as Christians. Those whose parents are Christians and take them to church every Sunday would fall into this category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would even go further to argue that there are certain privileges afforded children of believing parents. These children may have the opportunity to hear the gospel and scripture on a regular basis. The may see modeled how a Christian marriage and family should look. The may learn how to pray. They may have the loving support of a church body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these privileges are earthly privileges. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, is the invisible church. This is made up of all people who truly belong to the Lord, both living and dead, whether or not their parents are Christians, and whether or not they were in church this past Sunday. The privileges afforded these people is beyond compare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing you will find made clear in the New Testament time and time again is that salvation is through faith alone in Christ alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jesus' day, it was thought that being a descendent of Jacob was sufficient for salvation. Paul rejects this explicitly at several points in the book of Romans. In Romans 2-3, he argues that Jews are not automatically saved, and again in Romans 9, he says &quot;not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel&quot; and &quot;This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.&quot; (ESV). It is clear, then, that it is your own faith, not that of your parents, that causes you to be numbered among the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T12:34:21.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1083" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:39:29.230" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; with the &lt;strong&gt;building&lt;/strong&gt;, but with the &lt;strong&gt;intent&lt;/strong&gt; of the builders, as shown in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Genesis%2011&quot;&gt;verse 4&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They said, &quot;Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in direct opposition to what God had &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; commanded Noah a few years before (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis  9:7&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people in their journeyings found a place they liked, and decided to quit following God, and rather settle where they were comfortable. On top of this, they displayed the hubris to build a tower to &quot;reach heaven&quot; - ie, to find God on their own, rather than through His intended means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's judgement was not upon the &lt;strong&gt;tower&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, but on the &lt;strong&gt;people&lt;/strong&gt;. Nowhere else in scripture can I think of a place where towers are forbidden or condemned (indeed, almost all ancient city states had towers for protection - and Jesus references a tower that collapsed onto some people in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Siloam&lt;/a&gt; in a neutral fashion).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;problem at Babel&quot; was pride, arrogance, and an unwillingness to follow God's command to replenish the earth after the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T12:39:29.230" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1083" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:41:15.403" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue was mankind's basic disobedience.  Soon after the flood God repeated to Noah and his sons a command he had given mankind in the past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/seearch/Genesis+9:1/&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:1 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of following that command, mankind decided to settle down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+11:4/&quot;&gt;Genesis 11:4 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of worshipping God and seeking his glory, they sought to make a name for themselves.  Instead of obeying God by filling the earth, they worked to ensure that they would all stay in one place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Confusing their language helped ensure that mankind would obey the command to fill the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This episode from the Bible really has nothing to say about modern sky scrapers per se.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T12:41:15.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1092" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1112" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:51:26.387" Score="39" ViewCount="3709" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems confusing to have so many translations of the Bible.  Why isn't there just a single (English) one?  Or maybe a single &quot;modern&quot; one (given that KJV is hard to understand these days).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2018-11-11T12:00:14.357" Title="Why are there so many translations of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1086" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:54:31.387" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that since God finds homosexuality detestable, it would be safe to assume that God does not create people in a manner that he finds detestable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13%20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Leviticus 20:13&lt;/a&gt; that he finds it detestable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a&#xA;  woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put&#xA;  to death; their blood will be on their own heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 1:26-27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their&#xA;  women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the&#xA;  same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were&#xA;  inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with&#xA;  other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With those two in mind, I think it's safe to say that God would not create something that he finds &quot;detestable&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supporting this is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%201%20John%201%3a%205&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 1:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since there is no darkness or evil in God at all, he cannot create evil--he does not create that which is detestable to him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, (as warren pointed out), we are made in God's image (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26&lt;/a&gt;).  Since there is no darkness in God, it can be clear that we, created in His image, were not created with darkness in us.  God did not create us this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, no.  &lt;em&gt;Per the bible&lt;/em&gt;, God did not create some people as homosexual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T13:29:30.763" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:29:30.763" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="374" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:55:45.863" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prayer is communication to God, whereas reading His recorded Word (the Bible) is how He [most typically] communicates to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paul&lt;/a&gt;, we are to be &quot;praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints&quot;. As Christians in the world, we are engaged in a constant battle against evil. We are fighting daily to hold territory claimed for Christ, and to push a little further into Satan's strongholds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are not mimicking Jesus' life and examples of times in prayer to the Father (sometimes he would spend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;entire nights&lt;/a&gt; in prayer - and I can't see that being idle chitchat), I would say we have to ask ourselves if we're really being the &quot;little christs&quot; (Christians) that we claim to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;A few years ago I did a &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/2006/02/prayer-the-comm-link-to-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;short&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/2006/03/prayer-tactical-support-to-the-front-lines&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;personal&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/2006/03/prayer-the-nuclear-option&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;study&lt;/a&gt; on &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/2006/07/selfish-christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prayer&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/2006/08/praying-for-angels&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;published&lt;/a&gt; my study on my blog, from where I drew this answer&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T12:55:45.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1095" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="34671" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:56:52.523" Score="19" ViewCount="3576" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prosperity gospel, as I understand it, is the teaching that God wants to bless us with wealth and health. I can't really see this in the Bible. For example, Paul writes in &lt;strong&gt;2 Cor 12:7-10 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; But he said to me, &amp;quot;My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.&amp;quot; Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, looking at what Jesus has said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matt 22:10 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt; and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:20 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt; Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What arguments (biblical or otherwise) can be used to support prosperity gospel? What does prosperity theology say about passages such as the ones I cited?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-03-08T09:09:52.027" Title="What is the argument *for* prosperity gospel?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;wealth&gt;&lt;prosperity-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1096" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7340" CreationDate="2011-08-30T12:59:39.120" Score="14" ViewCount="63894" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:18&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:18 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I take it &quot;gates of hell&quot; is a metaphor (there are no literal gates to Hell, are there?), but what is it a metaphor &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2015-01-24T22:06:41.990" Title="What does &quot;gates of hell&quot; mean in Matthew 16:18?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-24T19:46:13.413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1086" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:06:24.310" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/why-do-some-christians-believe-it-is-moral-to-be-a-homosexual&quot;&gt;homosexuality&lt;/a&gt; is a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/121/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality&quot;&gt;sin&lt;/a&gt;, it is safe to conclude that God did not &quot;create them this way&quot;. Just like God didn't create thieves as such, murderers as such, liars as such, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is as a byproduct of the fallen world in which we live that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 1:26-27&lt;/a&gt; was written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether there are genetic mutations (errors resulting from Adam's first sin) that &lt;em&gt;contribute&lt;/em&gt; to some people's homosexual tendencies may be debated. But as to it being God's purpose, intent, or design? No - He did not create them that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26-27&lt;/a&gt; also indicates that it is not God's intent:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said, &quot;Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.&quot; God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:06:24.310" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1095" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:08:46.127" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some verses the prosperity gospel are built on are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 10:10 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%204:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 4:19 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=3%20John%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;3 John 1:2 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I believe these all do say that Christ's death does allow us to have good in this life, I don't believe they should be our only focus.  As mentioned in your question, there are many verses which say we will also face adversity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also believe that the life and prosperity God wants for us is most likely not the prosperity of riches and glory on this earth that is being offered in this movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not pay too much attention to those that preach only prosperity, because it often seems dry and lacking to me.  I am just guessing, but I would bet that they avoid the passages you provide.  It just wouldn't make people feel good to know that they might have problems.  And of course, when people don't feel good, then it just causes more problems, so that wouldn't be good, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T10:18:48.647" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1096" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:10:42.253" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I look to the Amplified version for questions like this. It says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:18&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:18 (AMP)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus is talking about the &lt;strong&gt;powers&lt;/strong&gt; of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T13:28:31.617" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:28:31.617" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1092" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:20:16.917" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Referencing the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;theological issues also drive Bible translations. Some translations of the Bible, produced by single churches or groups of churches, may be seen as subject to a point of view by the translation committee. Among these the New World Translation, produced by Jehovah's Witnesses, is seen as controversial by some because of the renderings of key verses. Especially verses, that in other Bible translations support the deity of Christ, are rendered differently in the NWT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main reason that multiple versions exist, in my opinion, is that when you translate from one language into another, you have to make choices and decisions as to the methods employed. Consider the translations of Homer, Beowulf, Sun Tzu, and countless others - are the English versions &lt;em&gt;identical&lt;/em&gt; to the originals? No. Are they as close as can be reasonably made? Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the different translation philosophies in use (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_equivalence&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;dynamic equivalence&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_equivalence&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;formal equivalence&lt;/a&gt; (similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_translation&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;literal translation&lt;/a&gt;), and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiomatic&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;idiomatic&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;paraphrastic&lt;/a&gt; translation), you are bound to get multiple &quot;versions&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other linguistic issues arise when there are multiple words that can be translated (properly) for a given original, or when there are multiple originals that can only be translated into one word (eg the Greek words for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;love&lt;/a&gt; - agape, philia, eros, storge : they are all translated &quot;love&quot; in English because we [tend to] prefer one word with multiple definitions over multiple words each with one definition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:20:16.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="305" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:25:28.457" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a debate going around some Protestant circles on whether certain types of birth control are within God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument is that some types of birth prevention measures (primarily &quot;the pill&quot;) are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient#Pharmaceutical_abortifacients&quot;&gt;abortifacients&lt;/a&gt;--that is, they cause an embryo to be aborted if it becomes implanted.  These abortifacients are causing embryo's--human life that has been implanted and is, up to that point, a viable pregnancy--to be aborted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Psalms 139:13 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this verse above, we know that God is an intricate part of life from the very beginning, embryonic stages.  It's because of this, that many (most? all? some?) Protestants believe that abortion is killing a living human and going against God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, with this belief in hand, when people learn that &lt;em&gt;chemical&lt;/em&gt; birth control (&quot;the pill&quot;) is actually an abortifacient, they begin to see that &lt;strong&gt;even this form of controlling pregnancy is abortion&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, there is an debate going around Protestant groups that taking &quot;the pill&quot; is wrong because it causes abortion whereas other forms of contraceptives are not wrong. (Primarily, barrier methods such as condoms.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:25:28.457" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1102" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2665" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:34:54.177" Score="37" ViewCount="29688" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus, when talking to his disciples in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16&lt;/a&gt; specifically instructed them not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did he do this?  Do we know his purpose in hiding this fact from everyone?  Is there any doctrinal relevancy or importance to this request of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additional passages similar to this include &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+1%3A43-44&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 1:43-44&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7%3A36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 7:36&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+9%3A30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 9:30&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2015-08-19T15:54:56.463" LastActivityDate="2015-08-19T15:54:56.463" Title="Why did Jesus not want to be known as the Messiah?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;messianic-secret&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-08-19T15:57:22.740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1083" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:36:47.343" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think they had the same problem as Satan: they wanted to elevate themselves to God's level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that &lt;strong&gt;reaches to the heavens&lt;/strong&gt;, so that we may &lt;strong&gt;make a name for ourselves&lt;/strong&gt;; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2011:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 11:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They wanted to &lt;em&gt;make a name for themselves&lt;/em&gt;, i.e. become powerful in their own right, apart from God. And they wanted to &lt;em&gt;reach the heavens&lt;/em&gt;. It was man's pride and arrogance, which started in Eden at Satan's prompting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:36:47.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2289" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:41:43.700" Score="30" ViewCount="27101" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:1-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 2:1-12&lt;/a&gt; we read of Christ's first miracle, turning water into wine.  Before he performs his miracle, though, he says to his mother:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He seems to be protesting his mother's request that he do something about the lack of wine, but then turns right around and makes wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did Jesus mean that his hour had not come?  Why do his actions seem to contradict his words?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-08-11T06:53:27.250" LastActivityDate="2014-08-11T06:53:27.250" Title="Why did Jesus protest before performing his first miracle?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1095" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:46:33.397" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One reference is from the Prayer of Jabez&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jabez was more honorable than his brothers. His mother had named him Jabez, saying, “I gave birth to him in pain.” Jabez cried out to the God of Israel, “Oh, that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain.” And God granted his request. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%204:9-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Chronicles 4:9-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Personal note:&lt;/strong&gt; I think it is quite a reach to go from &lt;strong&gt;asking&lt;/strong&gt; God for success to &lt;strong&gt;expecting&lt;/strong&gt; success, fame, fortune, etc. We should remember that we are &lt;em&gt;under Grace&lt;/em&gt;, so we can't demand from or trade with God for anything. When He answers prayer, that's a bonus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:46:33.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1086" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:48:36.840" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to examine the basic premise: does &quot;sexual orientation&quot; actually exist in the first place?  The concept has become ingrained enough in our culture that we take it for granted, but when you look at history, that wasn't always the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you see in ancient cultures is many different attitudes towards sexuality, and patterns of sexual behavior that strongly reflect their culture's beliefs about what's acceptable.  In ancient Rome, where a young boy was considered the sexual ideal, it was common for both men and women of means to take a much younger male lover.  (Younger female lovers, not so much.  It wasn't part of their culture.)  In cultures where women hold the bulk of political and economic power, female/female pairings, particularly involving a younger woman seeking the economic security a wealthy older woman can provide, were far more common than modern statistics on homosexuality would suggest you should see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not very politically correct, but historical evidence strongly suggests that there's no such thing as sexual orientation, only sexual &lt;em&gt;behavior&lt;/em&gt; and society's attitudes towards it.  So no, God does not create some people as homosexuals and others as heterosexuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:48:36.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1102" CreationDate="2011-08-30T13:53:34.960" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the next verse Jesus tells of how he will have to suffer, die, and rise again.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 16:21 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt; &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; From that time on Jesus began to&#xA;  explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many&#xA;  things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers&#xA;  of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised&#xA;  to life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps he did not want the people to know he was the messiah until after these things had happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He may also have known that he would not have much time left after people started calling him the messiah publicly.  He still had a lot of teaching left to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He may also wanted the people to come to the realization that he is the messiah on their own.  As it seems they did, even though he still does not state this directly at his trial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:63-64&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 26:63-64&#xA;  NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;63&lt;/strong&gt; But Jesus remained silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living&#xA;  God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;64&lt;/strong&gt; “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you:&#xA;  From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of&#xA;  the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T13:53:34.960" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1108" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:01:53.760" Score="17" ViewCount="208" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;Common Grace&quot; is often thrown around in reformed circles. What is this concept? What is the scriptural basis for the belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T14:20:41.780" LastActivityDate="2019-12-15T17:54:49.573" Title="What is Common Grace?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1067" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:02:54.167" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To get this, we have to start with the definition of &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;transsubstantiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of &quot;transubstantiation&quot; is that the bread and wine at the time of communion (after it has been blessed/consecrated) &lt;em&gt;actually becomes&lt;/em&gt; the blood of Jesus and body of Jesus (physical blood and body of Jesus, not just symbolic) .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you compare this with the Lutheran concept, it's kind of the reverse.  The idea here is that the bread and wine &lt;em&gt;become joined&lt;/em&gt; with the body and blood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it this way:  If you have a piece of clay and you take a bit of mud and add it to the clay, the mud becomes part of the clay.  This is the idea of Real Presence.  The idea of transubstantiation is that the mud turns into clay and is therefore joined to the clay--as opposed to the mud joining with the clay in order to become part of the clay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more reading for you &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence#Lutherans_.E2.80.93_the_Sacramental_Union%3a_.22in.2C_with.2C_and_under_the_forms_of_bread_and_wine.22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, and particularly &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; (start with that one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt; the theological term for this is &quot;Sacramental Unity&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology#Theories_of_the_real_presence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; lists all the different doctrines regarding communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T14:38:10.923" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T14:38:10.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1108" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:13:42.503" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace&quot;&gt;Common Grace&lt;/a&gt; is that the grace of God is accessible and granted to all people (ie &quot;common&quot; to all people).  This is different from &quot;special&quot; or &quot;saving&quot; grace in that special grace is extended only to the elect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More clearly, it's the idea that there is grace available and inside everyone.  It can be seen in such verses as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%207:9-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:9-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? &lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is common grace in that everyone (even pagans, idolaters, and abominations) still love their children and will try to take care of them.  These parents extend grace even though they are not Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, even though this grace comes &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; these &quot;evil&quot; parents, it actually comes &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;James 1:17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, God has given grace (and love and mercy) to all humans regardless of their state of salvation or their obedience to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just &quot;common&quot; grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has a lot more regarding it, but that's a simple definition of it and the biblical basis for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T14:13:42.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:13:45.007" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most likely because &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1102/why-did-jesus-not-want-to-be-known-as-the-messiah&quot;&gt;he didn't want to gain a lot of notoriety so early on&lt;/a&gt;, and doing something like this, especially in such a public setting, would cause a lot of people to notice.  But in the end, he did it, probably because it was his mother asking, and he was required by the Ten Commandments to honor his father and his mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T16:05:49.193" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1092" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:25:25.190" Score="47" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being a speaker of a minority language, I can state one &lt;strong&gt;good reason&lt;/strong&gt; and many -- well, not so good ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The good reason&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Language changes.&lt;/strong&gt; In some languages, you only have different Bible translations for this reason: the translations are temporally spaced maybe a hundred years apart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at &lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 2:15&lt;/strong&gt; in different English translations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&amp;amp;query=2+Timothy+2%3A15&amp;amp;translation=wyc&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Wycliffe Bible, 1395&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&amp;amp;query=2+Timothy+2%3A15&amp;amp;translation=tyn&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tyndale New Testament, 1526&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Study to shewe thy silfe laudable vnto god a workman yt nedeth not to be a shamed dividynge the worde of trueth iustly&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&amp;amp;query=2+Timothy+2%3A15&amp;amp;translation=kja&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version, 1611&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&amp;amp;query=2+Timothy+2%3A15&amp;amp;translation=kjv&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version, 1769&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&amp;amp;query=2+Timothy+2%3A15&amp;amp;translation=ylt&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Young's Literal Translation, 1862&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;be diligent to present thyself approved to God -- a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&amp;amp;query=2+Timothy+2%3A15&amp;amp;translation=nas&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The New American Standard Bible, 1995&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's quite necessary to renew the Bible translation time to time, so that people can understand it. The 1769 KJV is still quite understandable for the most part, but the reasons are cultural. The huge popularity of the KJV has kept its language alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The not-so-good reasons&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Translation philosophy&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other reasons, which vary from good to bad in different instances. First, there are the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/980/what-distinctive-kinds-of-bible-translations-are-there&quot;&gt;different translation philosophies already discussed in another question&lt;/a&gt; -- this amounts to multiple reasons.  Note that there &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; benefits to having different &lt;em&gt;types&lt;/em&gt; of translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Doctrinal reasons&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are the doctrinal reasons -- in my opinion, &lt;strong&gt;bad reasons&lt;/strong&gt;. I'll show just one example, the New World Translation's take on &lt;strong&gt;John 8:58&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_008.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New World Translation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208:58&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New American Standard Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Jesus said to them, &amp;quot;Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/8-58.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;other English translations of John 8:58&lt;/a&gt;, every one of them translates the end as &amp;quot;I am.&amp;quot; Looking at an interlinear version, one can be quite sure that the NWT translates the passage on a purely doctrinal basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/2WjgF.png&quot; alt=&quot;John 8:58 interlinear&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's very interesting is that the Watchtower Society has an interlinear of their own, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-858-abraham-came-existence-i-have-been&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;even that translates the phrase as &amp;quot;I am&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; while also showing the NWT &amp;quot;I have been&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/WKJnL.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Watchtower interlinear showing &amp;quot;I am&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;I have been&amp;quot; in John 8:58&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The bad reason turned good reason&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the NWT was the only available translation in English, it would almost force a new translation to be made. Take a bunch of errors such as the one shown above, and the translation gets too unreliable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the errors need not be especially crafted to suit some doctrine; they can be made of ignorance, disbelief in the original, etc. First translations in a new language (e.g. what the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wycliffe.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wycliffe Bible Translators&lt;/a&gt; are doing) almost necessarily contain errors, as many needed terms are very hard to find for a non-native speaker. Whatever the reasons are, a large amount of errors is a &lt;strong&gt;good reason&lt;/strong&gt; to create a new translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T08:53:49.457" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:28:21.130" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;First and foremost, Jesus told the woman (mother) that His time had not yet come. Keep in mind this is kind of like the &quot;Bruce Almighty&quot; effect, God is not a God that only uses His powers to further Himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there was somebody that needed to be healed, I'm sure that he would have done it without hesitation. But this miracle was only so that people could continue to party.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T14:28:21.130" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1114" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1137" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:29:33.873" Score="18" ViewCount="23161" Body="&lt;p&gt;How long did it take to collect all of the writings that eventually formed the first version of the Bible?  In other words, starting with when the first writing was created (I'll say when it was completed rather than started) to when it was first printed/published/etc., how long did it take?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-12T04:17:30.287" LastActivityDate="2014-12-19T20:04:17.250" Title="How long did it take to form the Biblical canon?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1102" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:31:31.000" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You continue to see this throughout all of Jesus time on earth. He tells the demons not to speak and say who He is, He tells the people that He heals to go and sin no more, but not to tell anybody that it was Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about this for a minute. What if Jesus wanted to advertise His presence? Each time the people grew to a mob, Jesus escaped and/or went to another city. The mob still chased Him. If He had advertised He would not have had time to heal as many people and present His testimony properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T14:31:31.000" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="374" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:35:56.263" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an awfully big question, but here are what I think are the key points from scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prayer is more than just asking for things.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/374/what-is-the-purpose-of-prayer/457#457&quot;&gt;Tom Duckering's answer&lt;/a&gt; does a good job outlining this, but to gloss it again, prayer is communication with God which involves both talking to God and listening to him.  As our primary form of communication with God, it reinforces in us our relationship with him in all its forms.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prayer does include asking for specific outcomes.&lt;/strong&gt;  There are far too many examples to ignore: Abraham conversing with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, David pleading for Bathsheba's son, Hannah praying for a child, even Jesus praying that the cup be taken from him.  God wants us to ask for things, even though he doesn't always give us what we ask for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Here's where it gets a bit controversial) &lt;strong&gt;God can and does &quot;change his mind&quot;†&lt;/strong&gt;.  My favorite example of this is Exodus 32, the story of the Golden Calf. Briefly, God tells Moses he is going to destroy the Israelites, but relents when Moses pleads with him not to. This is the classic definition of &lt;em&gt;intercession&lt;/em&gt;: Moses stands between Israel and God and intervenes on their behalf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems counter-intuitive, but God makes it quite clear that he wants people to intercede with him.  See Ezekiel 22:30:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I looked for someone among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found no one. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2022:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 22:30 NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse makes explicit what lots of stories in the Old Testament imply: God actively seeks people who will intercede with him.  So in the story of Golden Calf, it seems quite likely that God went to Moses hoping that Moses would react the way that he did.  Why?  Because as long as Moses was faithful there was still hope for Israel, and the rest of the story bears this out as Moses goes down to the camp and restores order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important point here is that God does not change, we do.  If Moses responds with apathy, then Israel is lost and the best that God can do is show his righteous wrath by destroying them.  But because Moses responds with prayer, God can take the better path of using Moses to lead them back to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about times when we intercede but we have no actual control over the situation, like praying for healing?  Our prayers affect what God does because our involvement changes the picture from God's perspective.  If we are indifferent and don't bother praying, then what he does will not have any great effect on us.  But if we are deeply involved in prayer, then our hearts are on the line.  If God comes through, we will be affected and we will give the glory to God.  Our prayers, then, factor into God's decision of what he will do, and maybe, just maybe, our involvement will be enough to tip the balance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If none of this made any sense, here's at least a great C. S. Lewis quote on the topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Praying for particular things,&quot; said I, &quot;always seems to me like&#xA;  advising God how to run the world. Wouldn't it be wiser to assume&#xA;  that He knows best?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;On the same principle&quot;, said he, &quot;I suppose you&#xA;  never ask a man next to you to pass the salt, because God knows best&#xA;  whether you ought to have salt or not. And I suppose you never take an&#xA;  umbrella, because God knows whether you ought to be wet or dry.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;That's quite different,&quot; I protested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I don't see why,&quot; said he. &quot;The odd thing is that He should let us influence the course of events&#xA;  at all. But since he lets us do it in one way I don't see why He&#xA;  shouldn't let us do it in the other.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(C. S. Lewis, &lt;em&gt;God in the Dock&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;† &lt;em&gt;God &quot;changes his mind&quot; perhaps only from our perspective inside of time.  God actually seems to exist outside of time entirely, and so perceives all points in time simultaneously.  It's hard to understand this without time words, but before (a time word!) the creation of the world God sees everything that will happen, and writes his entire plan around what he knows that we will do.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="50" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T14:35:56.263" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1066" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:36:25.107" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence#Roman_Catholic_and_Orthodox_views&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Real Presence&lt;/a&gt; in regards to Catholic and Orthodox views is, essentially, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;transubstantiation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea behind this is that the bread and wine &lt;em&gt;actually become&lt;/em&gt; the body and blood of Christ after it has been consecrated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is quit different from the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1067/what-do-lutherans-mean-when-they-talk-about-the-real-presence-in-the-eucharist/1109#1109&quot;&gt;Lutheran view&lt;/a&gt; of &quot;Real Presence&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T14:36:25.107" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1118" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:44:15.347" Score="24" ViewCount="18349" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand &lt;strong&gt;WHY&lt;/strong&gt; the cross became a symbol for Christianity, but &lt;strong&gt;HOW&lt;/strong&gt; did it become a symbol?  How did it start and how did it evolve into the symbol (or symbols since there are many variants) we all know today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T18:22:15.003" LastActivityDate="2018-04-09T15:58:05.653" Title="How did the cross come to be a symbol for Christianity?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;cross&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1119" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15463" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:51:13.003" Score="48" ViewCount="113708" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first three gospels are sometimes known as the &quot;synoptic&quot; gospels. What does this term mean, and how does it differentiate them from the gospel of John?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-03-25T08:38:32.027" LastActivityDate="2017-05-15T18:57:14.053" Title="Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called the synoptic gospels?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1120" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:52:38.547" Score="15" ViewCount="3065" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some legends that say that Peter traveled to Rome where he was martyred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this legend true? Are there any historical accounts that support the legend? Are there any other theories about the later life of apostle Peter? Is there any historical evidence that he was bishop of Rome?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-06-13T20:18:10.777" LastActivityDate="2021-04-07T23:25:15.653" Title="Was the apostle Peter martyred in Rome?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1121" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1451" CreationDate="2011-08-30T14:56:12.800" Score="6" ViewCount="4592" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some legends that say that the apostle James the Greater (brother of John) traveled to the actual territory of Spain where he spread the Word. Also there are some accounts that place his final days in Jerusalem where he was martyred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this legend true? Are there any historical accounts that support the legend? Are there any other theories about the later life of apostle James?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T02:53:41.980" LastActivityDate="2015-08-03T02:53:41.980" Title="Did the apostle James the Greater travel to Spain and was he martyred in Jerusalem?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;martyrdom&gt;&lt;james-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1119" CreationDate="2011-08-30T15:02:12.837" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Syn-&lt;/em&gt; means &lt;em&gt;same&lt;/em&gt; (as in synchronize, &lt;em&gt;same time&lt;/em&gt;), and &lt;em&gt;optic&lt;/em&gt; of course refers to sight.  The three first Gospels are &lt;em&gt;syn-optic&lt;/em&gt; because they see alike; they basically tell the same story as each other, covering many of the same events.  John, on the other hand, focuses on a lot of different material than the other authors, and has a very high percentage of unique content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T15:02:12.837" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1123" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1127" CreationDate="2011-08-30T15:03:12.867" Score="5" ViewCount="2167" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a legend that says that John traveled to Ephesus where he took care of Virgin Mary and that he lived there until the end of his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this legend true? Are there any historical accounts that support the legend? Are there any other theories about the later life of apostle John?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T15:27:08.943" LastActivityDate="2021-04-09T19:25:14.337" Title="What happened to the apostle John after the Biblical account of his life ends?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;john-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1125" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T15:33:29.377" Score="10" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 29 the Jewish Christian Elders in Jerusalem sent a letter to the gentile believers throughout the world, instructing them to be at peace, and stating that they were not required to follow Jewish tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:  that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:28-29&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 15:28-29 ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is obviously in response to the circumcision party, and it's fairly obvious that they're saying circumcision and the dietary laws were not required of gentiles, but it doesn't seem to saying anything about the laws we still consider core (murder, covetousness, stealing, etc).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Was there some implicit set of laws that was not referenced, but would be understood by both parties to be in effect?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-09-29T22:09:28.910" LastActivityDate="2020-10-05T15:30:20.823" Title="Were there implicit laws not referenced in the Acts 15 letter to gentile believers?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;gentile&gt;&lt;council-of-jerusalem&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2011-08-30T15:50:28.297" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The laws which they are saying do not apply to the gentiles were specifically laws which were a part of the old covenant between God and Israel.  Since the gentiles are accepted through Jesus' sacrifice and the new covenant, they no longer need the sign of the old covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the other laws which were mentioned by Jesus or still practiced by Jewish believers would still be understood to be in effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T15:50:28.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1123" CreationDate="2011-08-30T15:54:10.733" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know from scripture that he was exiled on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Revelation%201:9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isle of Patmos&lt;/a&gt; near the end of his life - reliable understandings of when his epistles and the book of Revelation were penned indicate it was around the year 90 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where he was between ~50AD and 90AD (with 50 being a plausible time for Paul's early writings, and the original disciples/apostles to still be in Jerusalem), I don't believe we're ever told.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Jesus' mother Mary would have been fairly old by then - she should have been at least mid 40s when Jesus began to preach (if she was ~15 when he was born). By the time of the early church and Paul's appearance on the scene (after his time out of the record when he was apparently studying and learning), she would have been at least in her mid 60s, if not older.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T16:52:24.083" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T16:52:24.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1125" CreationDate="2011-08-30T15:58:33.120" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The laws that were stated here are laws about ones self not pertaining to love. We know from the new testament that the thing we are commanded to do is to love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:34&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have&#xA;  loved you, that you also love one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We also know that it is love which fulfills the law.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 13:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of&#xA;  the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the letter that you're quoting in your question, the Elders are telling people about the laws that are not under the law of love. Thus you don't have to worry about those laws. For the law is fulfilled in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:37-40&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and&#xA;  with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first&#xA;  and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your&#xA;  neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on&#xA;  these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The laws that you're asking about: stealing, murder, covetousness we are still commanded to follow because those are under the law of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T15:58:33.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2011-08-30T16:59:50.620" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of the reasons Catholics pray to Mary for intercession:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our Lady of Lourdes, Mother of Christ, you had influence with your divine son while upon earth. You have the same influence now in Heaven. Pray for us; obtain for us from your Divine Son our special requests if it be the Divine Will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/novena/lourdes.htm#ixzz1WWzZ4nV7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;From Our Lady of Lourdes novena prayer&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is interceding on behalf of the couple getting married. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other half of the equation is the 'hour'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the other references to the hour coming in John's gospel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4:21, 4:23, 5:28, 7:30, 8:20, 12:23, 12:27, 13:1, 16:2, 16:4, 16:25, 16:32, 17:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/W2.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NAB intratext&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the beginning of Jesus's earthly ministry and in acknowledging that His hour had not yet come. Jesus states that His hour is indeed coming!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Mary, whose heart would be pierced at the Crucifixion, knows anything that Jesus knows about the fulfilment of Jesus's mission on earth, then she knows that her next line, &quot;do whatever he tells you to&quot; is an acceptance that her Son's ministry is about to start (and conclude). Jesus may be giving Mary an opportunity to put off the beginning of his work, which she courageously forgoes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note, I just made the last part of this up, but I do pray the rosary and mediate on the Wedding Feast at Cana every Thursday so it's not that I haven't given it any thought&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T16:59:50.620" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1118" CreationDate="2011-08-30T17:11:43.763" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if this is how it came about but it could have contributed to it.  This was told to me by a friend so I don't have sources for it right now.  I'll look for sources on this later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early church days Christians were persecuted by both Jews and Romans.  In order to keep their worship services safe and secure they needed to develop a signal to inform everyone that they were 'safe' and not there to harm everyone or be a spy.  So they used the hand gesture of making the sign of the cross on their bodies, the same sign that many Christian faiths use today while praying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were outside of the church and looked in, you couldn't see what was being done or what sign was made.  However, if you were inside the church, you could watch people as they came in to determine if they were a Christian or not.  Anyone coming in who did not know the sign would be noticed quite easily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="13" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T17:11:43.763" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1092" CreationDate="2011-08-30T17:34:54.827" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Translations are only approximations of the original text. Each translation of the Bible will vary on two levels: (1) The scholar's study and understanding of specific phrases and what they mean, and (2) the &lt;em&gt;purpose&lt;/em&gt; of the translation which can vary from a staunch adherence to the original phraseology to freely changing the text for the purpose of increasing mainstream understanding and clarity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you translate a work from times of antiquity, you have to make some tough choices between translating the original words (literal translation) and preserving the &lt;em&gt;meaning&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;intention&lt;/em&gt; of the original work for the modern ear. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;chair&quot; in ancient Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic is largely a chair in modern English; easy enough. But what about phrases and idioms that do not have a direct translation? Sometimes even entire &lt;em&gt;concepts&lt;/em&gt; and traditions don't even &lt;em&gt;exist&lt;/em&gt; in modern languages. How do you translate those? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example &amp;mdash; In ancient Egypt, wielding a name held great power. If you curried favor with a god (for example), it was believed that you could evoke their name and have them do your bidding at will. That practice was an abomination to the Hebrews and their teachings in that God's name was to be treated with utmost reverence and never evoked for such trivialities like mere mortal endeavors. So when the Hebrews read the original text of the Third Commandment &quot;taking of the Lord's name in vain,&quot; they new &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; what was being prohibited. Today, the concept is largely lost so there isn't even a colloquial phrase to describe the prohibition. So we're left with a bit of ambiguity in the &lt;em&gt;text&lt;/em&gt; of the Third Commandment which is  &lt;em&gt;interpreted&lt;/em&gt; to mean anything from &lt;em&gt;&quot;don't say 'bad' words&quot;&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;em&gt;&quot;you do NOT tell God what to do, He tells you what to do!&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same goes for the various nuances of what a passage means by &quot;love,&quot; or conveying the meaning of &quot;to kill&quot; vs. murder vs. slaughter. Even a single mention of the word &quot;manger&quot; evokes portrayals of Mary and Joseph traipsing out into the field to to stay in the little red building out back. So decisions are made to faithfully translate the words as written, or rewriting the passage to closer approximate the original &lt;em&gt;meaning&lt;/em&gt; of the text. Tough choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="10" LastEditDate="2016-12-22T14:42:14.763" LastActivityDate="2016-12-22T14:42:14.763" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1066" CreationDate="2011-08-30T17:37:29.427" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;We Eastern Orthodox take Christ at His word that &quot;if you do not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you.&quot; Indeed this is a hard saying---who can accept it? In my limited understanding as a babe in Orthodoxy (I entered the Orthodox Church but a year ago), we just accept it as a holy Mystery and try not to qualify it in philosophical terms. From my limited understanding and knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine, this distinguishes our dogmatic approach towards the Holy Mysteries from theirs. However, I think the Eucharist is a mystical experience for both of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First and foremost, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus are not objects to be understood cataphatically &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; apophatically, but instead they are our food, and God Himself in us. They are primarily to be experienced (insofar as one experiences food), and only secondarily to be understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T17:37:29.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1134" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T18:08:01.443" Score="6" ViewCount="371" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today the cross is the primary icon of Christianity, but I'm aware of a few others, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ichthys&lt;/a&gt;.  What symbols have represented the faith through the centuries?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T20:40:16.187" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T20:40:16.187" Title="What symbols have represented Christianity through the years?" Tags="&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2011-08-30T21:15:49.473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1114" CreationDate="2011-08-30T18:29:24.140" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The earliest Hebrew scripts (which were the written form of a long, long oral tradition) that eventually became the torah (the first five books of the bible) were written around 900BC, and the Tenakh (the earliest Hebrew bible) was compiled around 400BC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament was fully written by 150 AD and after much discussion was fully compiled between 500 - 600 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old testament and the new testament together were probably written and compiled over a span of 1600 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Torah&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tenakh&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Testament&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T18:55:40.497" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T18:55:40.497" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="502" CreationDate="2011-08-30T18:46:02.770" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason why different groups view the Ten Commandments differently is because each group assumes different priorities from the text. Some of the commandments are long because they include a justification or explanation, so it's natural to shorten those to a single phrase when compiling the list. It is these expanded commandments that leave room for different number orders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of Protestants say that Catholics lumped &quot;Thou shalt not make unto thyself graven images&quot; in with the first commandment in order to avoid the issue of venerating icons. This shouldn't be the case, since Jews have put &quot;Thou shalt have no other Gods before me&quot; with &quot;graven images&quot; since antiquity. During the time of Exodus, the Jewish worldview at the time stands out among it's Middle East peers. The first commandment in their version lays the basis for monotheism. It is the foundation of all the commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians see the Jewish first command as a preface. For a long time, Jewish understanding of the Scriptures was lost to the Christian world, whether by lack of contact or simple ignoring. Therefore, in Protestant and Catholic minds, there is no need to establish monotheism, and the division of ten can only be in the rest of the list. At the same time, there is a different wording near the end of the list in the Exodus/Deuteronomy versions: Catholic tradition emphasizes the latter, where coveting your neighbor's wife comes before coveting your neighbor's house, so from a Protestant perspective, which emphasises the earlier decalogue, it doesn't even enter the mind to split them, so they go to the most natural section. Furthermore, Protestants are &lt;em&gt;protesting,&lt;/em&gt; among other things, the veneration of icons, so they emphasize the commandment against graven images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if making carved idols is a sub-unit of the first commandment, then it still would seem apparent that the rest of the explanation and justification for that commandment is concerned primarily with making idols. For ancient Jewry this is understandable since false worship always included idols in the world around them. Catholics also know that they only worship one God, so they don't see the reason to separate two ideas that are so connected. Protestants are critical of Catholic practices after the Reformation period, and they don't have the option of making two different covets because of the way the text they use is worded. Protestants feel like this commandment of God (even as a sub-unit of one of the ten, it still is a command) has been understated, and they elevate its status.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The divisions are competing merely because of historical reasons. They don't actually contradict each other. The Law is summed up in &quot;Love the LORD your God&quot; and &quot;Love your neighbor.&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="66" LastEditDate="2015-07-11T16:17:22.893" LastActivityDate="2015-07-11T16:17:22.893" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1114" CreationDate="2011-08-30T18:56:25.330" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much of when the Old Testament was written is purely conjecture, but many modern scholars believe that it was written some time in the period when the Persians captured Babylon in 538 BC. Others believe Moses authored the Pentateuch, which is Genesis - Deuteronomy, which would mean that these books were authored some time around 1300 - 1500 BC. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also some conjecture that Job is the earliest written account in the Bible, and would predate Moses' writings, although those who hold this theory do not believe that the actual writing of the Book of Job predates the writing of the Pentateuch by much, even though they believe that the actual account of Job happened long before, and many believe Job lived before the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last book of the New Testament is believed to have been Revelations, written in approximately 68 AD, but yet others believe that this book was written around 95 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't know exactly when the books of the Bible were written, but we can, through cross-referencing external sources, determine when the historical figures in the Bible lived. Either way, the common consensus is that the writing of the books of the Bible began some time after 1500 BC, and concluded prior to 100 AD. This would be a period of about 1600 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first known &quot;canonization&quot; of the Scripture was proposed by Marcion of Sinope around 140 AD. Since then there have been multiple canons of Scripture proposed, with different ones accepted by various groups, containing anywhere from 66-81 books. Currently, the typical Protestant Bible is a 66 book canon, from the 4th century synod which listed 39 books of the Old Testament. The typical Catholic Bible has 73 or 74 books, from the 4th century synod which listed 46 books of the Old Testament (5 books were merged into other books in this list, making a total of 51 books), and some Catholic Bibles also contain 2 Esdras. Both the Protestant and the Catholic New Testaments are the same 27 books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;This information is compiled from a huge variety of sources, including many different pages from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibleresources.bible.com/afacts.php&quot;&gt;BibleResources.org&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://ichthys.com/mail-Bible%20chrono.htm&quot;&gt;ichthys.com&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T18:56:25.330" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="304" CreationDate="2011-08-30T19:11:24.080" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been told that the sense of the word &quot;gospel&quot; or &quot;glad tidings&quot; in the original is a message from the king or emperor that he has won victory over the enemies of the state, all the kingdom is now under his control, he is safely seated upon his throne, he has an heir to ensure a safe transition of the monarchy, and so on. The people were required to hear this message, and to hear it as good news indeed. Those who didn't were obviously regarded as seditious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Jesus's mouth, this news would be that the King has finally come to your province of His (Earth, and Judea specifically) to conquer the enemy (not Rome, but even Satan and death itself), so pledge your allegiance back to the King (repent and be baptized) if you have defected. After Christ's victory, the Good News would refer to all of the above: death is by death overcome, and Satan bound, all by Christ; all power in heaven and earth is under Christ's control; he is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven; He is the eternal Heir of the Father; and so on. We too are required to hear this message, and to hear it as good news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, Christ went so far in this analogy as to enter Jerusalem on a colt. This was (I have been told) traditional entrance for a conqueror. I am no scholar, though, so I can't verify this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T19:11:24.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1092" CreationDate="2011-08-30T19:17:20.290" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that dancek and warren covered the good reasons for the different versions: language changes.   Also the not-so-good reasons: philosophies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other reason that I think has come about recently is publisher fees.   The big houses like Lifeway and Crossway can save money on their products if they do not have to pay fees for the NIV and NASB translations.   From this you get ESV and HCSB.   You will see many of the Lifeway resources using the HCSB now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some translations are created so they can be free like the New English Translation (NET)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="171" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T19:17:20.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="614" CreationDate="2011-08-30T19:29:47.173" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Baptist churches do not generally follow an appointed set of readings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In small churches with only one pastor, it is most common for the pastor to decide the topic of each week's sermon.  Many pastors will structure a series of sermons on a given topic or from a specific book of the Bible, though some are more... ummm... haphazard than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In larger churches with multiple pastors the topic and structure of a sermon series can be determined by the pastors working together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no repetition cycle except for Easter and Christmas sermons being somewhat predictable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The length of a sermon series can be anywhere from a couple of weeks to multiple years.  A non-Baptist example is &lt;a href=&quot;http://marshill.com/markdriscoll&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pastor Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church in Seattle&lt;/a&gt; series on Luke that is over 2 years long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T19:29:47.173" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1081" CreationDate="2011-08-30T20:05:47.770" Score="5" Body="&lt;h2&gt;YES&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see that John the Baptist was a Christian from the time of his birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:66  (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;66 And all those who heard them kept them in their hearts, saying,&#xA;“What kind of child will this be?” And the hand of the Lord was with&#xA;him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it IS possible. But in reference to your question, your parents are Christian, so what does that make you? The answer is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;You're Holy&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the&#xA;unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children&#xA;would be unclean, but now they are holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christians children are Holy because the parents have been blessed as a believers. Does this mean that you have already been saved from God's judgement? Unfortunately not. Because we know that each person will be judged by their own actions and not the actions of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T20:23:24.590" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1134" CreationDate="2011-08-30T20:08:41.353" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;An anchor was used by the early christians as a symbol of faith. &quot;as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm&quot; (Hebrews 6:19-20). There are several variations some of them can be seen in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/anchor.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jesuswalk.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another very famous symbol is the chi and rho. Which was used by emperor Constantine as a heavenly divine symbol (coeleste signum dei) on the shields of his soldiers defeating Maxentius in the Battle of Milvian Bridge. For a depiction look at this brief &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rochester.edu/college/rel/symbols/chiro.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article of Rochester University&lt;/a&gt;. The chi and rho are also believed to be reference to the first letters of the word Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another beatiful symbol is the lamb of god, which makes reference to the imagery of the book of revelation. The meaning of this symbol is explained by John the Baptist himself. &quot;Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world&quot; in John 1:29. I think the most beautiful of this depictions can be seen in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This list does not pretend to be exhaustive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T20:08:41.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1143" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T20:22:49.253" Score="9" ViewCount="631" Body="&lt;p&gt;How can I figure out whether a given translation is &quot;accurate&quot; or not? Is there a site or list somewhere that has Bible-translation ratings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I am not asking for a list of what Bible translations are most accurate, only for a resource or way to judge this for myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Inspired by comments on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/121/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="169" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2018-12-25T07:05:02.847" Title="How can one judge how accurate a given Bible translation is?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1120" CreationDate="2011-08-30T20:23:25.493" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is generally accepted that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome.  Tertullian and Origen attest to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Death&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;WikiPedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Peter labored in Rome&#xA;  during the last portion of his life, and there ended his life by&#xA;  martyrdom.[17] The death of St. Peter is attested to by Tertullian at&#xA;  the end of the 2nd century, and by Origen in Eusebius, Church History&#xA;  III.1. Origen says: &quot;Peter was crucified at Rome with his head&#xA;  downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer.&quot;[17] This is why an&#xA;  upside down cross is generally accepted as a symbol of Peter, who&#xA;  would not have considered himself worthy enough to die the same way as&#xA;  his Savior.[35]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Connection_to_Rome&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Peter&lt;/a&gt; was bishop of Rome is still debated, although it is a belief held by the Catholic church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-08-21T14:48:57.520" LastActivityDate="2016-08-21T14:48:57.520" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1145" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-30T20:40:26.717" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;After Moses and his followers crossed the Red Sea and arrived in the Desert of Sinai, he was summoned by God to the top of Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:20).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses was instructed by God to return to the bottom of the mountain and warn the Israelites not to force their way to see the Lord, and to bring back with him his brother Aaron (Exodus 19:21-24). Moses did so, and then God spoke the ten commandments (Exodus 20:1-17):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You shall have no other gods before me.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You shall not make for yourself an idol.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not take the name of the Lord in vain.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Honor your father and mother.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You shall not murder.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You shall not commit adultery.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You shall not steal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses, Joshua (Moses' apprentice), Aaron and the seventy elders went up, but only Moses and Joshua went to the Lord. They received two stone tablets, upon which were inscribed the Ten Commandments by the finger of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tablets were put into an ark--the Ark of the Covenant--which God instructed the Israelites to construct of very specific conditions (Exodus 25:10-22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T20:45:55.870" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T20:45:55.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1146" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-30T20:40:26.717" Score="0" Body="Ten laws inscribed upon stone tablets by God atop Mount Sinai, which Moses presented to his followers." OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T20:45:51.470" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T20:45:51.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1147" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T20:43:48.300" Score="13" ViewCount="811" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in knowing if there are any conflicts between the Book of Mormon's Jesus and the Bible's Jesus. Are their natures different? Is what they commanded different? I'm looking for any supporting text that would reveal to me whether the the Book of Mormon does or does not speak about the same Jesus Christ that the Bible talks about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any denomination may answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T16:12:04.710" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T16:12:04.710" Title="Are there any conflicts between how Jesus is described in the Book of Mormon vs how He is described in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-04-30T02:01:25.023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1148" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T20:44:57.540" Score="11" ViewCount="8821" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously a lot of Christians want to have biblically based laws in the society, in effect requiring everybody to follow biblical morals. But the opposite is also a popular view among Christians: as non-believers are not saved either way, we shouldn't make it our problem whether they sin little or much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is it, and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2014-03-03T23:43:56.177" Title="Should biblical laws apply to non-Christians?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1143" CreationDate="2011-08-30T20:47:16.393" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the reason &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1092/30&quot;&gt;why so many translations exist&lt;/a&gt; is that different traditions do not always agree about what makes a translation good. You will probably not find a resource that takes the work out of picking for you, in part because &quot;accuracy&quot; is not in itself a metric with a purely objective standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When choosing a Bible translation, you should first decide what &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/980/30&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;kind&lt;/em&gt; of translation&lt;/a&gt; you are interested in. You might even choose to reference more than one kind for different purposes. Once you know what sort you need it narrows the list down quite a lot. Doing the background work on the exact translation philosophy and looking at how it is received from people with similar objectives should narrow your options pretty fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course if you have specific questions about individual translations you may always ask those here as well, as for example I did &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/982/30&quot;&gt;about the KJV&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-04-13T12:33:39.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:01:47.977" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In early America, it's said that the laws were completely based off of scripture. Harvard was originally a Christian founded school until it was taken over by atheists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical law has one common foundation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:37-40&lt;/strong&gt;  (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all&#xA;  your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is&#xA;  the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You&#xA;  shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments&#xA;  hang all the Law and the Prophets.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That foundation is love. It would make perfect sense to have biblical laws apply to non-Christians. As the biblical law states that love is the foundation and love does no harm to your neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that people reject God, thus rejecting His laws. I expect to see more and more laws contradicting the bible as time goes on and as our country drifts farther and farther from the Truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:01:47.977" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1143" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:04:31.597" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One approach which would work if you're looking at individual passages would be to take the passage concerned and examine it in a number of different translations. Give each translation a weighting according to popularity, critical acclaim and goal of the translators or similar properties and then compare each translation to see which ones differ significantly. Chances are, if there is a large difference, that translation may not be accurate for that passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:04:31.597" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1092" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:07:08.777" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two more reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some scholars make translations to develop their understanding of the Bible. An example of this is the &quot;Cassirer New Testament&quot;, translated by Heinz W. Cassirer as a the result of his need for personal clarity regarding the meaning of the New Testament texts. He did not care to have his translation published in his lifetime. Later, people saw something of value in his translations, and his work was published.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some translations are made to target a particular audience. &quot;Letters to Street Christians&quot;, for example, is a paraphrase written in the street language of the 1970s. Another example is the &quot;Contemporary English Version&quot;, which was translated with readability in mind, especially for those with a lower reading ability.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:07:08.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:14:28.500" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's unclear to me whether you're asking for an answer that relates to political or governmental policy, or how we ought to behave as individual Christians.  But to address the latter, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:12-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:12-13&lt;/a&gt; I believe is relevant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, regardless of whether Biblical laws would be helpful for non-Christians, as Christians it's not our place to pass judgment; we ought to leave that for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:14:28.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1155" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:17:27.940" Score="21" ViewCount="72491" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not Catholic and I am pretty sure the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosary&quot;&gt;Rosary&lt;/a&gt; is mainly a Catholic artifact, and in modern times devout Catholics seem to always have a Rosary (as in, you know they're Catholic because of the Rosary).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is what is the purpose of the Rosary? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And as a non-Catholic Christian, should I get one?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T22:27:36.083" LastActivityDate="2015-03-12T06:49:46.710" Title="What is the purpose of a Rosary?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;rosary&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:19:07.063" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very big question. Reams of paper and a lot of ink has been spilt over this issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My view, and I haven't read a lot of the content on the subject is that we should not expect non-christians to live under Christian laws since they simply do not believe these laws are valid. By doing this we are sending them a wrong message, that is that to be a Christian you need to obey a set of rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This goes against the gospel message of grace in that you can come to Jesus no matter what you've done or what kind of person you are - no matter how bad you are. What you've done doesn't matter...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that the whole world should live under God's law is known as Reconstructionism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't know if the opposite of that has a label.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:19:07.063" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1158" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:21:32.717" Score="91" ViewCount="9047" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most common explanation I heard from Christians for the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodicy&amp;amp;oldid=446219618&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;theodicy&lt;/a&gt; is that suffering is caused inevitably by the free will of humans. The argument is essentially that a world without suffering is impossible when you allow free will, as you can't prevent humans from causing harm to each other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In heaven, there is supposed to be no suffering at all. How can that notion be reconciled with the free will argument? Do the humans in heaven have no free will, and are therefore unable to cause harm to each other? Or is it possible to create a world without suffering even when granting free will to the humans living in it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="197" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-10-29T04:40:07.250" LastActivityDate="2017-10-29T04:40:07.250" Title="Can there be free will in heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="20" ClosedDate="2015-04-21T23:43:00.630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1159" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:23:13.273" Score="15" ViewCount="1705" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two seemingly contradictory accounts of creation in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1-2:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:1-2:3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:4-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:4-25&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why are there differences in the accounts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="200" LastEditDate="2021-05-14T16:58:35.240" LastActivityDate="2021-05-14T16:58:35.240" Title="Are there two different creation accounts in the bible?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:11:49.553" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="404" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:26:10.917" Score="8" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither&#xA;  beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;&#xA;  abideth a priest continually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he is still abiding as a priest, and has neither a beginning nor ending of days, how can he &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; be Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the answer is pretty clear (simple logic really) - He is Jesus, just in a pre-incarnate form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:26:10.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:26:40.423" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It very well is our problem. As children of God, it is a responsibility to continue to spread the faith and encourage others&amp;mdash;in this case, the non-believers&amp;mdash;to do the same, as in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:16-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:16-20&lt;/a&gt; (specifically verses 19-20):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Former non-believers always have a chance to become children of God&amp;mdash;and such would grant them salvation. However, to adhere to a biblical lifestyle would be meaningless, because there will always be those against God or already committed to another faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To advocate biblical morals in a society divided so largely by differing religious opinions would discourage any chance of welcoming new children of God, because those not currently accepting of God's word would be pushed even further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:26:40.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:26:58.960" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not know of any scripture that would back this up. However I can tell you that after you're reborn your nature changes. I believe that in heaven our core nature will not be to do evil, but instead to do good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We would have to fight against our good nature in order to do evil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:26:58.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:32:11.013" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the world was first created, humans (Adam and Eve) had free will and there was no suffering.  It was through their decision to disobey God that they allowed evil to enter the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that there will be free will in Heaven.  By trusting our souls to Jesus now, we are in the process of being changed.  I believe when the time comes I will be completely cleansed of my desire to do evil.  I also believe this is a part of why we must be faithful to Jesus and those who are not will not be admitted into Heaven.  God will not for you to abandon your evil desires if you do not want to; this would remove your free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do believe being cleansed of my evil desires does not negate the idea of free will since it is my heart's desire to be free of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:32:11.013" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:32:11.847" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is difficult to use specific scriptures off hand to answer this question. However, I will try to take an approach that takes into consideration that as it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning Adam and his wife (before being named as Eve) were without sin, and and still had free will, as we see demonstrated in God having Adam name the animals and reason that there was nothing suitable for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even after the introduction of sin, we see from Enoch, that man retained his free will to choose to turn back to God in the presence of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this concept, it make sense to me then to postulate that we will have free will in heaven, just this free will, will be a will &quot;free of sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(My apologies for the will, will, will)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastEditorUserId="81" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T21:57:28.563" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:57:28.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1086" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:32:17.980" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? -- Romans 9:19-24 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This goes quite hand-in-hand with &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/217/105&quot;&gt;Are some people created to go to Hell?&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, a question over which there is quite a bit of debate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than choosing to &quot;blame God&quot; for it though, let's look simply at the facts. The simple fact is that Paul said it was better not to marry at all (1 Corinthians 7:6-7, 38). What he says here is to go against your human nature, and follow God with your whole heart, regardless of your desires. He also concedes that if you cannot refrain from sexual immorality, that you should marry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two aspects of the homosexuality issue that have to be addressed in order to fully answer &quot;Does God make some people homosexual?&quot; The first issue that I would like to address is the mental aspect (psychological). I have quite a few homosexual friends and family members. In every case, each of these individuals has deep-rooted issues with their parents for one reason or another, rooted very specifically in the physical and emotional. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are loads of different things ranging from watching others be abused, being abused themselves (not necessarily sexually), or just an absolutely terrible relationship or complete lack of a loving relationship with a parent or parents. I have confirmed this theory in at least seven of my homosexual friends. Did God cause each of these confirmed circumstances that led to homosexual desires? Once again debatable, but the first fact here is that the homosexual tendency stems not from nature, but rather from nurture. It's an inability to cope with previous emotional distress brought on by parents and role models.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second aspect of homosexuality is the spiritual aspect. God's command was to be fruitful and multiply, and homosexual relationships are incapable of producing offspring. The human body is not designed for homosexual relationships physically. Thanks to a sin nature brought on by Adam's sin, we have desires that are outside of the scope that God created us for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are lots of things that we do that are harmful or just &quot;aren't good&quot; things to do, yet our sin nature leads to do those things, even to the point of our own destruction. One could just as easily say &quot;God made me an alcoholic.&quot; but the simple fact is the alcoholic wasn't born with a bottle in his mouth. Nor was the smoker born with a cigarette in his mouth. We all have strong desires that result from our sin nature that we have a &lt;em&gt;choice&lt;/em&gt; to either give in to or resist. As an example of this, I have a homosexual friend who after years of homosexuality came to Christ. He openly admits to still having those desires. However, he resists them, avoids situations that could lead to temptation, and does his best to live for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's no easier or harder for a homosexual to live for God than anyone else with a sin nature (all of us). We simply cannot give place to the Devil and blame God for our actions. In reality, does it &lt;em&gt;matter&lt;/em&gt; if God made you with homosexual desires? Does it &lt;em&gt;matter&lt;/em&gt; if God made you with the tendency to become an alcoholic? I posit that the only thing that matters is that you resist that temptation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:39:05.223" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:34:36.850" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, just as Adam and Eve and Jesus and Mary (New Adam and new Eve) had freewill yet were without original sin,  we'll have freewill. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as the good angels made their decision to stay with God and not fall, yet are totally compelled by their intellect, we'll have freewill&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference is, as Jonathan Byrd pointed out, that we don't have to fight against original sin to overcome our passions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FRWILL.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some more info from EWTN&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:34:36.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:35:07.740" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, people in Heaven will have true free will - but it will not be a free will that allows them to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People living under sin are described in the bible as being enslaved to sin. Thus true freedom is not freedom to sin but freedom to serve God and not sin. Be aware that freedom does not equal autonomy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does God have a free will? Yes, otherwise he would not be God. However, his character is such that he does not sin. It's like saying, that I don't have a free will because I cannot choose to swim in the sea and not drown. It is in my character such that I cannot do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you might say well if we have a free will in heaven then surely we'd be able to sin. The point here is that one becomes a Christian precisely because one does not want to sin and wants to be free from the power of sin to enslave us. One wants to be free to choose not to sin. Heaven will be where this desire is fully realised and we will no longer be enslaved to sin and thus have a truly free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another illustration I can use is that of a stray dog. Is the dog free while stray? If I take in the stray dog the dog would have certain constraints placed on it, the dog would have to listen to my commands. However, the dog would be well fed and warm at night. When it was a stray it was enslaved to finding food, that was its sole purpose in life. Now that it is no longer a slave, surely now it is truly free? Even though it is no longer allowed to do whatever it likes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T06:28:03.697" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T06:28:03.697" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:37:09.407" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question: Should Christians desire Biblically-based laws that require everyone to follow Biblical morals?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One place in Scripture from which we can take a cue (and I say &quot;a cue,&quot; and not &quot;explicit instruction&quot; for reasons that will be come clear) is Paul's epistle to the Corinthian church. In the 5th chapter of this letter, Paul instructs the church in how to deal with cases of unbiblical morals &lt;em&gt;within&lt;/em&gt; the church.  Paul instructs members of the church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not associate with the one who claims to be a brother or a sister (i.e. a member of the church) but continues to practice unbiblical morals. (v. 11)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, he is clear to point out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The above instruction does not apply to everyone; only to members of the church. (v. 9-10)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear from these two injunctions that the members of the church -- or more accurately, those who claim to be members of the church -- are to be held to a different standard than the world in general. They are to be held to a different standard &lt;em&gt;by the church&lt;/em&gt; (we can infer this from the fact that Paul's instructions are addressed to the church). But &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those who do not live according to Biblical morals are not to be held to a different standard by God. (Cf. v. 12: &quot;What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage explicitly instructs us, as Christians, how we ought to act towards professed members of the church, and towards those outside of the church, who are not living according to Biblical morals. It does not instruct explicitly on the topic of what laws governing general society we ought to desire, or attempt to bring into effect -- but perhaps we can take a cue from the general principles concerning different treatment for those within and outside of the church. Extrapolating from Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 5, we could use the principle &quot;do not judge those outside the church&quot; as a solid basis for advocating laws which do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; legislate uniquely Christian morals, &lt;em&gt;even&lt;/em&gt; if we passionately believe that everyone should live by those morals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="175" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:37:09.407" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1172" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:41:31.900" Score="36" ViewCount="4340" Body="&lt;p&gt;Islam considers the Qur'an to be authoritative only in its original language. Many teachings even claim it is a sin to read in any language but it's original, and while not all adhere to this belief, learning Arabic specifically to read or recite the Qur'an is common even in countries where it is of no other use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand Christians openly encourage translations into other languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does Christianity believe about the Bible that makes this possible? Are translations generally considered authoritative in their target languages in the same way that the original text was? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="26854" LastEditDate="2016-03-24T10:47:56.880" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T00:55:41.100" Title="How can we trust the Bible after it has been translated to another language?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1173" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:42:46.400" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Worship can vary depending on the denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many worship services include music, holy communion, fellowshipping, prayer and instructing in the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="41" LastEditorUserId="41" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:08:12.477" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:08:12.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1174" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:42:46.400" Score="0" Body="The act of glorifying God" OwnerUserId="41" LastEditorUserId="41" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:08:14.440" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:08:14.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1102" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:43:38.303" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem was their understanding of the Messiah... they did not understand that the Messiah must come and die for the sins of the world, on a cross. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were expecting a political messiah that would rescue the people from the hands of the Romans and rule the newly established Kingdom of Israel on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even after Jesus has risen the Apostles still did not quite understand when in Acts they ask:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201.6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 1:6&lt;/a&gt;  Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are&#xA;  you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They had not realised even then that Jesus was not about establishing the Kingdom of Israel on earth, but rather about saving the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastEditorUserId="102" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T02:50:55.463" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T02:50:55.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1147" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:45:17.257" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;One conflict is that the teachings of the Mormons differ from some verses in the Book of Mormon.  So, the question is not completely relevant.  The Mormons teaching about Jesus is that both Jesus and God the Father were once men on another planet who attained godhood by being good Mormons there.  This is the doctrine of eternal progression.  &quot;As man is, so God once was; as God is, so man can become.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon appears to be even more explicitly Trinitarian than the Bible.  However, Joseph Smith seems to have changed his doctrines after the publishing of the Book of Mormon, but perhaps embraced this earlier on.  Today, the Mormons do not believe anything close to the Trinity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Book of Mormon does have some things that appear to correspond to Trinitarian theology, yet the LDS church does not hold to the Trinity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Book of Mormon References&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is&#xA;  none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in&#xA;  the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ,&#xA;  and the only &lt;strong&gt;and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of&#xA;  the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end&lt;/strong&gt;. Amen.  2 Nephi 31:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that&#xA;  God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall&#xA;  redeem his people.And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called&#xA;  the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the&#xA;  Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was&#xA;  conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus&#xA;  becoming the Father and Son—&lt;strong&gt;And they are one God&lt;/strong&gt;, yea, the very&#xA;  Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming&#xA;  subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, &lt;strong&gt;being one God&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but&#xA;  suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and&#xA;  disowned by his people.  Mosiah 15:1-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond&#xA;  and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and&#xA;  even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but&#xA;  every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or&#xA;  in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God,&lt;/strong&gt; to be judged according to their works, whether they&#xA;  be good or whether they be evil.  Alma 11:44&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily&#xA;  I say unto you, that &lt;strong&gt;the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are&#xA;  one&lt;/strong&gt;; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father&#xA;  and I are one. . . . And thus will the Father bear record of me, and&#xA;  the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; &lt;strong&gt;for&#xA;  the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.&lt;/strong&gt;  3 Nephi 11:27, 36&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he&#xA;  that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given&#xA;  unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing&#xA;  ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto &lt;strong&gt;the Father, and unto the&#xA;  Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God&lt;/strong&gt;, in a state of&#xA;  happiness which hath no end.  Mormon 7:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As well as those who should come after, who should believe in the&#xA;  agifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which bbeareth record of&#xA;  the Father and of the Son;  &lt;strong&gt;Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are&#xA;  one God, infinite and eternal, without end&lt;/strong&gt;. Amen.  Doctrines and&#xA;  Covenants 20:27-28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-27T17:31:19.080" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T17:31:19.080" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1177" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:46:04.643" Score="36" ViewCount="12892" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Light&quot; was created on day 1 - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:3-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:3-5&lt;/a&gt;.  However the sun was created on day 4 - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:14-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:14-19&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T21:46:55.227" LastActivityDate="2020-10-26T14:09:53.840" Title="How can the sun be created after day and night?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2014-08-03T18:14:30.570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1178" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:46:22.807" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for any questions about Mary the mother of Jesus, or church teachings or doctrines concerning her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:08:38.220" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:08:38.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1179" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:46:22.807" Score="0" Body="Mary (the mother of Jesus)" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-01T00:49:14.503" LastActivityDate="2014-07-01T00:49:14.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1159" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:46:23.540" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;After even &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; study of Genesis, I think I may understand why the original question may have been asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, there are 2 different accounts here, but they are of the same creation event.  The first part is an account of God creating the universe and everything in it.  The second part begins with the creation of Adam (which was mentioned in the first account), but then continues on with the story of Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I did not understand earlier was why someone would say there were contradictions, but now I believe one thing which may be in question is Genesis 2:19.  I had been reading the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt; which says &quot;Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.&quot;  It says God &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; formed the animals, so it didn't seem contradictory.  Other translations do use verbiage which would suggest man was created before animals in this account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After searching a bit for information on the contradictions, I found that the Hebrew used in this verse does not specify an order.  It can be translated as now or as in the past.  I would think that people reading this in the original Hebrew language would understand that it was meant that God had already created the animals, since that was the order presented in chapter 1.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/15/contradictions-two-creation-accounts&quot;&gt;Reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:29:08.920" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:29:08.920" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="553" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:47:17.840" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading minds to my knowledge is solely something for God to do, as it is He who discerns the thoughts and the heart. However, that doesn't mean that satan doesn't do a good job of inference. he is also said to send fiery darts, which would of course be in various forms spiritually, including thoughts and temptations. That covers implanting thoughts, but not reading them, so I don't believe he can read thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:47:17.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:48:45.263" Score="56" Body="&lt;p&gt;Once we attain heaven, we will be given a new nature, purged of our old sinful nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Peter 1:4 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once we escape this corruption, we will gain the sinless state of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:5-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 3:5-6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%203:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 3:18 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, while Jesus was free from sin, he also had free will:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:17-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 10:17-18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there will be no sin in heaven.  This isn't because we don't have free will, but rather because we simply &lt;em&gt;won't sin&lt;/em&gt;.  It won't be in our nature.  Just like now, it's not in our nature to fly.  So then, it won't be in our nature to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there will be freedom in heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%203:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 3:17 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, there is freedom in the Lord.  We don't loose our freedom simply because we're in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final note is a simple call to logic:  How can heaven be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:43&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;paradise&lt;/a&gt; if we lose our freedom and free will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way to think about this is a world where sin isn't an option.  Partially because it's not in our nature and partially because it's not available to us.  Imagine, for example, life in the Garden of Eden, but without the snake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no reason to sin.  There is no need to sin.  There is no desire to sin.  Yet there is complete free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that I give this as a simple way to reconcile this in our minds, not as an actual answer.  Because in truth, free will allows for sin.  But, in heaven there will not be any sin--per my answer above.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T18:47:35.780" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T18:47:35.780" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1096" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:48:52.880" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The translation is literally, the &quot;Gates of Hades&quot;, i.e. Death will not prevail against it. As passing through the gates of Hades would imply Death. So what Jesus is saying is that this Church will never die, it will never go out of existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:48:52.880" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:50:21.833" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics have it easy in this respect.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We trust in the bible because we trust that the Holy Spirit guided the translations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html&quot;&gt;Dei Verbum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:50:21.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:51:55.090" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do I get a say in this, as a &quot;heathen&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, the answer is &quot;no&quot;. If only because there is no such thing as actually enforced &quot;biblical laws&quot; anywhere, not even amongst Christians, unless you want to pick some passages of the bible and ignore others - and there is no consensus on which passages to pick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saying &quot;[the] foundation is love&quot; does not make actual law enforcement any clearer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="204" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:51:55.090" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1187" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1192" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:52:29.147" Score="60" ViewCount="8276" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't want to set off any red flags here.  I am not pursuing a suicidal lifestyle, nor do I have the desire to end my life. That being said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perhaps the greatest thing a person can hope for is to enter the&#xA;Kingdom of Heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are told that if a person truly accepts God as their Saviour,&#xA;they promised an eternity in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this in mind, why not just accept Christ and then off yourself? We all want to go to heaven, don't we? Why prolong the wait and &quot;misery&quot; of living in a sinful world and just proceed to enter the pearly gates?  Strictly speaking in a logical sense this is the best thing a person could do for themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know in other faiths suicide nullifies a person's access to their promised land, but does the Bible say anything about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="anon" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2014-08-22T09:26:33.263" LastActivityDate="2017-10-11T04:37:07.243" Title="Will suicide keep me out of Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;suicide&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="10" ClosedDate="2014-07-17T23:46:33.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:54:04.153" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the instruction of Jesus is to take the gospel to all the world and to make disciples of every nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Followed by this, when the disciples gathered in the upper room, 3k people were able to experience them speaking in their own languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later on we see the apostle Paul in his writings using Roman concepts to reach the Romans (such as running the race).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, I believe that it is part of the universal reach of our faith for God's Word to be translated into what ever language needs to hear It.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does help to understand what the original text was trying to convey, but that is a job for translators and teachers. Also, it is notable that some concepts that are native to one language for cultural reasons are not easy to convey to another culture/language. For example, where the Bible refers to heaping coals on your enemy's head, it was referring to the act of heaping coals on the heads of those who need to keep warm (into a container of course) during cold months. (Sorry I do not have a direct reference for that, I heard it during a teaching).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:54:04.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1095" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:54:48.893" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main argument as I see it, for the &quot;Prosperity Gospel&quot;, comes from the Old Testament. So prayer of Jabez is an example - but this is a flawed application of the prayer of Jabez.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blessing in the Old Testament is physical. Faithfulness to God, by David, Solomon, Job, Abraham, Jacob etc were was rewarded by having many posessions. The old testament prophets speak of how much physical blessing will ensue if you following God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the New Testament redefines blessing to be spiritual, blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prayer of Jabez is a prayer calling on God to fulfil his promises - as they were then - That Jabez would enjoy blessing on earth and that the territory promised him would be given to him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The N.T extends God's promises beyond the mere physical to the eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T21:54:48.893" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1143" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:55:30.630" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;How accurate is translation X compared to translation Y?&quot; &lt;em&gt;sounds&lt;/em&gt; like a simple question, but it really isn't at all. There really can't be a single definitive translation, for a variety of reasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some questions to ask about any particular translation are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What source texts were being used?&lt;/em&gt; Newer translations aren't automatically better than older ones, but most scholars will agree (for instance) that the King James / Authorized Version must suffer from the fact that the translators only had access to relatively late copies of many texts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is the goal of this particular translation?&lt;/em&gt; The Good News Bible is more about accessibility than accuracy, so while it strives to be a faithful rendition, the need to use a compact vocabulary and keep sentences simple means that some nuances will be lost.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;*Are there footnotes showing, for instance, important variant readings?&quot; Translations that aim for high accuracy should also draw their readers' attention to issues such as doubt over the meaning of particular words, cases where there are rival ways of seeing where sentences and phrases start and end (there's no punctuation in all those Greek texts!) and significant differences between source texts that haven't been resolved by scholarship.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There really isn't - and couldn't be - such a thing as a definitive translation - even less a permanent one. Language just doesn't work like that. But it's well worth getting to know the aims, strengths and weaknesses of a few translations, particularly if you want to get to grips with the fine detail. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, I most often read &lt;em&gt;Today's New International Version,&lt;/em&gt; because I find it reads very naturally, if I'm studying more deeply I'll reach for the *New Revised Standard Version,&quot; and if I'm looking to freshen up my view I'll add in a reading with more of the translator's personality, such as Eugene Petersen's &lt;em&gt;The Message&lt;/em&gt; or J. B. Phillips (not a complete Bible translation). I have a host of others on shelves both actual and virtual, and I have at least enough rusty Greek to put an interlinear (Greek with English) to use if I want to try and see why translations differ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="161" LastEditorUserId="161" LastEditDate="2013-06-16T06:38:50.257" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T06:38:50.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1191" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1202" CreationDate="2011-08-30T21:57:16.253" Score="9" ViewCount="422" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be an apparent discrepancy in Mark 2:26, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for complaining that his disciples are picking the heads of grain on the Sabbath: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:26&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Mark 2:26&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story he is referring to is in 1 Samuel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2021:1-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 21:1-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?” &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.” &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.” &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem here is that Jesus when referencing the story says 'Abiathar', and in 1 Samuel 'Ahimelek' is the priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; a pretty clear cut case of a discrepancy, but can this be harmonized? Or did Mark just simply make a mistake?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T16:14:46.527" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T16:14:46.527" Title="Apparent Discrepancy in Mark 2:26" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1187" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:00:08.767" Score="50" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Protestant traditions I am familiar with suicide is not an automatic exclusion from Heaven. &lt;strong&gt;However it must be said that there is a logical incompatibility between suicide and faith.&lt;/strong&gt; A faith that aborts just when it has something to trust is no faith at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, suicide flies in the face of everything that we learn from Christ about what is good and true. &lt;strong&gt;Suicide is murder. It is taking a life that does not belong to you.&lt;/strong&gt; As Christians we believe that we are the property of another -- that we belong to Christ as a slave belongs to a master.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; We believe that the life that is in us belongs to him. We believe that those who commit suicide will only be in heaven on the same grounds that any of us will, by grace and forgiveness, even for murder.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; However faith in Christ demands action, those who love Him will obey his commands. His commands including not murdering.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;strong&gt;belief in Christ is the very thing that gives us hope for this life&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, not just the life to come. We are able to endure whatever sufferings we experience here&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; knowing that they will produce in us something even better&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;. To take your own life is to despair of life itself. This is fundamentally at odds with Christian belief. There would be no logic in believing and then killing yourself, because the later act would show that you really did not understand the former.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See the way the Apostles introduced themselves in letters as &quot;bond-servants&quot;, Parables such as in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+12:35/&quot;&gt;Luke 12&lt;/a&gt; were Jesus uses the servant/master analogy, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans/&quot;&gt;Romans&lt;/a&gt; (The whole book).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See the David in the OT, the thief on the cross in the NT.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See the commandment &quot;You shall not murder.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Exodus+20:13/&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:13&lt;/a&gt; (ESV)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews+6:19/&quot;&gt;Hebrews 6:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Peter+5:10/&quot;&gt;1 Peter 5:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/James+1:1-4/&quot;&gt;James 1:1-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-06-07T23:04:37.583" LastActivityDate="2012-06-07T23:04:37.583" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:02:22.803" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key to this question is to recognize the point of view from which the story is being told.  The point of view is established in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:2&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we read the rest of the account from the point of view of &amp;quot;hovering over the waters,&amp;quot; the order of creation makes perfect sense, according to a modern scientific understanding of the formation of planets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Day 0&lt;/strong&gt; -- Formless void&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Earth condensed out of the primordial disk, it appeared just as the Genesis writer says, &amp;quot;formless and void.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Day 1&lt;/strong&gt; -- Light&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The atmosphere of the Earth thinned and changed to the point that light from the sun could penetrate, and be visible from the surface of the Earth--although the atmosphere was not yet thin enough (transparent) for the sun to be seen directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Day 2&lt;/strong&gt; -- Separation of water&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the atmosphere continued to condense, water gathered &amp;quot;above&amp;quot; (clouds) and &amp;quot;below&amp;quot; (sea), leaving a &amp;quot;vault&amp;quot; (of air) between them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Day 3&lt;/strong&gt; -- Dry land and first plant life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the planet continued to take shape, masses of dry land began to appear as distinct from the oceans. At this point it finally becomes possible for basic plant life to exist, distinct land vegetation, as well as water vegetation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Day 4&lt;/strong&gt; -- Sun, moon, stars&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, as the atmosphere continued to develop and thin, heavenly bodies--the sun, moon and stars--became visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1 Taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/6669364/Genesis-1-A-Scientific-Perspective&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1: A Scientific Perspective&lt;/a&gt;, by Hugh Ross, Page 5.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T20:36:24.277" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1187" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:02:27.993" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;If suicide excluded someone from going to heaven, then Jesus words in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203.16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 3.16&lt;/a&gt; would not be true:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that&#xA;  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, I accept that suicide would lead one to question the individual's faith, and possibly even make a decision that the said person was not truly a Christian. We cannot know for sure what God's perspective on that individual is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even very damaged and broken people who have had a terrible life can come to Jesus. Faith in Christ does not immediately make an abused person who has a very poor self image suddenly &quot;well&quot; again, nor is it a guarantee that it they would free them from depression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T22:08:53.557" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T22:08:53.557" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1187" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:02:28.740" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I don't believe committing suicide excludes you from heaven, I &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; believe it's a sin (and one you can't repent from):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 3:16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 For where you have envy and &lt;strong&gt;selfish ambition&lt;/strong&gt;, there you find disorder and every evil practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What could be more selfish than learning about (and accepting) God's gift and then killing yourself without sharing that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:13 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the &lt;strong&gt;greatest of these is love.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What love are you sharing if you commit suicide, leaving behind people who love you in sorrow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also might be important to keep &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; in mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even though we are all forgiven (and since we're assuming the person committing suicide has accepted the Jesus as savior), there is still the judgment everyone will face for all their deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="19" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T23:32:02.613" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T23:32:02.613" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1155" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:02:43.690" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Rosary is a very old artifact indeed and has evolved in time, the actual form of the Rosary is not what it was in the very beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rosary is a style of mental prayer that is based on repetition. This has been a tradition for many centuries since the early ages of monasticism. &lt;em&gt;The emphasis upon repetition of brief, monologistic, prayer formulae laid the foundations for later monastic prayer traditions such as the Jesus Prayer and is the background for analogous forms of devotion in Latin Christianity such as the Hail Mary and Rosary.&lt;/em&gt;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://egypt.umn.edu/Egypt/1-pb%20pdfs/stewart.pdf&quot;&gt;Columba Stewart OSB&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The modern form of the Rosary may took its form when Domique de Guzman preached in favor of it. This also led to the story that the Virgin Mary delivered the Rosary to Dominique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In its actual form, the purpose of the rosary is to meditate in its mysteries while repeating Ave Maria etc… Repetition is useful to achieve concentration and focus. The Mysteries of the Rosary are essential facts in the life of Jesus, except for the Assumption of Mary and the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin which are related to very old church traditions. It is not the purpose of the question to explain all of the mysteries, but a full list can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosary&quot;&gt;wiki&lt;/a&gt;. Meditation in the mysteries of the rosary is something that most christians do but in different ways (reading/studying the Bible, public preaching etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably you should not get a Rosary. If you want one, or you are curious about this type of prayer I recommend you to read the article or Steward (link above) in order to have more insight in this form of prayer. Then you only need to pray the Rosary and get used to it. Maybe you'll notice how the grace sheds a new light upon the mysteries of our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditDate="2011-11-17T04:36:56.957" LastActivityDate="2011-11-17T04:36:56.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:03:32.437" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the cosmology of the &lt;em&gt;raquiyah&lt;/em&gt;, the dome separating the waters from the waters, it is perfectly comprehensible that the day could exist without the existence of the sun. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For us post-Enlightenment folks, it's interesting to think about our wondering and confusion about that.  We have an ingrained mental model of the solar system. It's fairly clear to you and me that the sun isn't just a light in the sky, but it's the source of the energy that warms the earth and makes the atmosphere glow blue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for you and me to wonder about the Genesis 1 cosmology, and how it could be so, is to get in touch with our ancestors who wondered how it could be so.  Watch the film &lt;em&gt;The Truman Show&lt;/em&gt; to get a sense of what this dome cosmology might have been like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another cosmological model besides the dome in the Bible: the circles-of-heaven model of antiquity.  St. Paul talks about ascending to the &quot;third heaven.&quot;  That's part of a cosmological model that puts God in the seventh heaven.  We have echos of that model in the hymn verse &quot;immortal, invisible God only wise, with light inaccessible hid from our eyes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a biblical take on all this that reminds us of our contingent and limited human perspective, I strongly recommend that you read Job Chapter 38.  Any translation will do.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Job+38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Job+38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T22:03:32.437" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1187" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:07:44.067" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Would someone want to kill themselves if they had the hope and love of Christ in their heart? Suicide is most commonly a result of hopelessness. Suicide is only self-serving. Suicide is the act of ending one's own life because that circumstances or emotions are overwhelming to the point of despair. Such despair cannot exist in a heart filled with the love of God and the hope of eternity with Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The taking on of the responsibility of one's own life and choosing to end it bears no regard to the consequences that the action will have on the living. Such selfishness is rejected by God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God — having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth — men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. -- 2 Timothy 3:2-8 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that most of the excuses anyone would use for committing suicide are covered in that passage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T22:07:44.067" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:11:53.630" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's look more closely at your linked verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (Genesis 1:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse implies the creation of light and the implementation of it to create the first day. Darkness already existed, so only light was needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; God made two great lights&amp;mdash;the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse implies the creation of the sun and moon&amp;mdash;notice the &quot;greater&quot; and &quot;lesser&quot; lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These lights&amp;mdash;the sun and the moon, which were created three days after light itself was&amp;mdash;are simply vessels to carry greater and lesser versions of the previously created light which govern the limits of the day and of the night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if we read a bit further:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16 cont.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; He also made the stars. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stars were created to be vessels for light as well, but to separate this greater light (the sun) from this lesser light (the moon), and to govern &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; day and night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before questioning the bible (and God, by extension), always look more closely at what is being said and you will understand. This is especially true for scripture, because many times we find it to be ambiguous, but upon closer examination it just comes to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T22:19:00.670" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T22:19:00.670" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:13:16.210" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is unfortunate that this concept is often used to make the Bible seem to contradict itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, contrary to popular belief, the Bible doesn't waste words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that God tells us how many days, also gives us time periods; in other words, God began to measure time cycles (such as day and night) before the sun ever appeared.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Furthermore, there is no need to try to explain it away as &quot;ancient philosophies&quot;. The Bible was written under inspiration of the one who created everything, therefore, it's kind of hard to argue with Him (no joke intended).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said first, let there be light. Then according to the Bible he separated darkness from the light. This doesn't have anything to do with a sun/moon cycle, but rather with light and darkness, and time periods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastEditorUserId="81" LastEditDate="2011-08-30T23:29:12.400" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T23:29:12.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1191" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:18:58.077" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The very next &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2022:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;chapter&lt;/a&gt; indicates that Ahimelek had a son named Abiathar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priestly duties were typically within a given family at one time (eg Aaron and his sons). The title of &quot;high priest&quot;, while alone at any given time, does not preclude there being other priests (otherwise Aaron and his sons would have all been &quot;high priests&quot; - whereas &quot;high priest&quot; indicates a specific level of duty to the Lord over and above that of a 'normal' priest).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T22:18:58.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:20:50.567" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The different between the Quran and the Christian Bible is that the Islam teaches that the Quran was dictated in Arabic and written down - in only one language and thus saying and reading it in this language is deemed more valuable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian bible was written by men, inspired by God, having their own style, grammar and vocabularly. i.e. the greek of Luke (who was an educated man) is quite different to the greek of Mark (who wasn't educated).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the bible was written in 3 languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new Testament writers quoted from a translation of the bible. The Septuagint is a greek translation of the old testament which the N.T writers used as their old testament scriptures, so they were already using a translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is more the message of what is being said rather than the words themselves that are important. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, some details and nuances of the original are lost in translation, the general gist and message can still be conveyed accurately and authoritatively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T22:20:50.567" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1191" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:22:15.407" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a good quesiton. However, the point here is that it is important to notice that Mark says he went to the house of God &quot;in the days of Abiathar the high priest.&quot; Ahimelek was the priest who was present at the House of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Warren has answered, there are multiple priests at the time. When Saul learned that Ahimelech helped David, he commanded to kill Ahimelech and his family (1 Sam. 22:18-19), leaving alive only one of his sons, Abiathar the priest who was lucky enough to escape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:08:24.800" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:08:24.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1159" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:28:39.203" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;These are definitely two different stories of God creating animals and plants. But understand that the first time God created these things, he created them in numbers. The second time that he created the animals He did so, so that Adam could name them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for the short answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T22:28:39.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="128" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:29:00.847" Score="35" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Throughout, I use the word &amp;quot;polygamy&amp;quot; in place of &amp;quot;polygyny&amp;quot;, even though I explicitly mean to polygyny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In short:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Polygamy is a sin because it goes against the law.  The law is in place because it is a carryover from the paganistic societies of ancient Rome.  Preventing polygamy was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a biblical concept, but one that came after Jesus, after authorship of the bible, and after the genesis of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Why Polygamy is a sin&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason that polygamy is no longer allowed by the church is because it's no longer allowed &lt;strong&gt;by society&lt;/strong&gt; and is, therefore, against the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We Christians are told to uphold the law and subject ourselves to the law&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 13:1-2 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, polygamy is a sin &lt;strong&gt;if&lt;/strong&gt; (and only if) it breaks the law.  Similarly, it is a sin in the same manner and degree that breaking a speed limit is a sin: it's something not forbidden by God and solely forbidden by the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Why it's illegal&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Polygamy was not uncommon among the Jews in biblical times.  It wasn't until the the Romans came in that polygamy became outlawed.  Even then, it was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Biblical_practice&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;still allowed&lt;/a&gt;; Josephus made notes explaining that polygamy was permitted to Herod because it was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Biblical_practice&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;permitted by Jewish custom&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Polygamy modelled by Jesus's parable&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see that polygamy was commonly accepted in the New Testament from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:1-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)&lt;/a&gt;.  In this parable, Jesus tells of a bridegroom that is preparing to marry ten women.  This parable was used by Jesus to describes himself.  The polygamous bridegroom in the parable is a reference to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fall of polygamy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was, in fact, the Greek and Roman rules against polygamy that spread (along with the Grecian and Roman empires) and became the culture, forcing out the practice of polygamy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Monogomy and polygyny&lt;/a&gt; by Walter Scheidel, Stanford University (2009)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, even though Greeks and Romans need not have been the first cultures to prescribe monogamy, these are the earliest securely attested cases and, moreover, established a paradigm for subsequent periods that eventually attained global dominance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The true historical significance of Greco-Roman [monogamy] may well lie in its impact on the&#xA;Christian tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was these two huge historical forces that established monogamy in our society--&lt;em&gt;not something born of God, but something born of Pagan societies&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Modern Society and Law&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity tied itself to the banner of the Roman empire &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;300 years after Christ&lt;/a&gt; (when Constantine established what would become &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_church_of_the_Roman_Empire&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Roman Catholic church&lt;/a&gt;).  This organization spread Christianity by using the power and authority of the Roman empire.  It was this Roman concept of monogamy (predating Christianity) that carried over from its paganistic roots into the Christian society.  It was at that time (&lt;em&gt;and not before&lt;/em&gt;) that Christianity became intertwined with the idea of monogamy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This pagan idea of monogamy from Rome slowly infused into the Christian culture (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;); and it was because association with Christianity (and the Roman Catholic Church) that the paganistic, Roman practice remains today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Roman practice has tangled itself into the Christian culture (via the early &lt;em&gt;Roman&lt;/em&gt; Catholic church) and therefore all &amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot; nations since (founded under Western culture) have adopted the laws prohibiting polygamy from their outset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, polygamy is illegal in most parts of the world.  Because it's illegal, it is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Catholicism Today&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Catholicism today still carries over this idea from ancient Rome.  In the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, it states &lt;code&gt;&amp;quot;However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law.&amp;quot;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, polygamy is solidly outlawed within Catholicism.  Granted, if you read the last section, this should not surprise anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Answering Aguments Against Polygamy&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God tolerated the sin for the time being&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%203:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Malachi 3:6&lt;/a&gt; says &lt;code&gt;The Lord does not change.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To presume that he would accept something during one time in history that he detests at a different point is crazy--heretical even.  It goes against the nature of God (both in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%203:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Old Testament&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2013:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The bible shows it only causes trouble in marriage&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is really a weak argument.  The problem is that the Bible only tells us stories that are either &lt;em&gt;edifying&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;interesting&lt;/em&gt;.  Yeah, it's going to talk about Abraham's difficulty with his wife and taking up a handmaiden as a wife.  But that story is both interesting and edifying.  The lesson here isn't against polygamy, but rather that we shouldn't marry a woman unless we marry her properly and with the right intentions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jacob's wives competed.  But the story there isn't to avoid polygamy, but to focus on God and make your marriages holy and godly.  If your marriages are focused on God instead of on selfish ambition, this won't happen!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each argument that says &amp;quot;polygamy is wrong because it leads to dischord&amp;quot; can also be used to say &amp;quot;marriage is wrong&amp;quot; for the same reasons.  Those are the marriages &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; focused on God--that is the source of their dischord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the contrary, if we look at the life of David, we see that he was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+13:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a man highly loved by God&lt;/a&gt; and yet &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;had multiple wives&lt;/a&gt;.  Some, however, use this very example to show how polygamy is wrong because his children fought (with each other and their parents).  However, can we blame this on David or his wives?  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2031:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Absolutely not.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God only created one Eve for Adam&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note that this was written by Moses, who had (at least) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%202:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;two&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2012:1-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also a weak argument.  When God created Eve, he created her as a helper.  Whether or not he intended for this to be a marriage situation is of secondary concern and something that we cannot know &lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2040:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the contrary, though, God &lt;strong&gt;has&lt;/strong&gt; given us a pattern to follow for marriage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:22-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:22-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. &lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are to model our marriages after the the relationship that Jesus has with the church, not after the helper relationship that Adam had with Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:1-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus describes himself using an analogy of a bridegroom that is preparing to marry ten women.  Why would Jesus really compare himself to a polygamist if it were detestable to him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;Elders should be men of one wife&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 1:6&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203:2,12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 3:2,12&lt;/a&gt; against polygamy.  They say that these verses talk about how deacons, overseers, and elders should be men of &amp;quot;one wife&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Point 1:  Simply because &lt;em&gt;elders&lt;/em&gt; should be a &amp;quot;man of one wife&amp;quot;, does not prevent polygamy among everyone else in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Point 2: translation of this &amp;quot;one wife&amp;quot; is not as cut-and-dry as it may seem&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To fully understand point 2, I want to compare these three passages to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 5:9&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The greek for the word &amp;quot;one&amp;quot; here is &lt;em&gt;heis&lt;/em&gt;. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greek-dictionary.net/heis&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strongs Concordance 1520&lt;/a&gt;, this word is translated as &lt;code&gt;one, single&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if we look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 1:6&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203:2,12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 3:2,12&lt;/a&gt;, the word we see for &amp;quot;one&amp;quot; is &lt;em&gt;mias&lt;/em&gt;.  This is the same word used in Matthew 28:1 for &amp;quot;first&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it's not definitive that &lt;em&gt;mias&lt;/em&gt; should be translated as &amp;quot;first&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;one&amp;quot;, it definitely shows that &amp;quot;a man of one wife&amp;quot; can have multiple translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, let's look at the NIV version of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 1:6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;faithful to his wife&amp;quot;?  Why did they translate it that way?  Is it because they're trying to &amp;quot;please the polygamy crowd&amp;quot;?  &lt;em&gt;Absolutely not!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of this passage is to indicate that the elders should be above reproach, faithful to his wife.  If you accept the &lt;em&gt;mias&lt;/em&gt; as &amp;quot;first&amp;quot;, it changes the translation of this passage to &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;man of his first wife&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;, which means someone who's never been divorced!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That&lt;/em&gt; is the purpose of this passage: not to exclude polygamist, but to find men who should be held up as models for the community.  Men who are faithful and can maintain a marriage faithfully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two become one flesh&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note that this was written by Moses, who had (at least) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%202:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;two&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2012:1-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several passages that show that a man becomes &amp;quot;one flesh&amp;quot; with a woman regardless if it is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;his wife&lt;/a&gt; or a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;prostitute&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of &amp;quot;one flesh&amp;quot; does not mean that the man is exclusive to that woman.  It means that they join themselves as if married.  This is true regardless of who the man does this with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also clear in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephisians 6:16-17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; believers can unite with the Lord as &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; prostitutes can unite with one man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in John Skinner's &lt;em&gt;Genesis: International Critical Commentary&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sub&gt;(T &amp;amp; T Clarke, Edinburgh, 1930) p. 70&lt;/sub&gt;, Skinner notes that the word for &amp;quot;flesh&amp;quot; here is synonymous for &amp;quot;clan&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;family group&amp;quot;--both in the Hebrew and Arabic.  This word for &amp;quot;flesh&amp;quot;, in fact, is the same word used here in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:49&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 25:49&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their &lt;strong&gt;clan&lt;/strong&gt; may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, there is no restriction of one man becoming an &lt;em&gt;exclusive&lt;/em&gt; single flesh with a woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other Arguments&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other arguments that can be heard and answered at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;BiblicalPolygamy.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-08-20T13:08:07.380" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1207" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1212" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:31:25.993" Score="18" ViewCount="6173" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2010/05/29/sex-money-part-1/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; presents the view that Christians should not charge interest on loans. As evidence, it cites &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%205:9-10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nehemiah 5:9-10&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of this, why do many Christians think it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a sin to charge interest?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-06-06T14:14:57.730" Title="Why do some Christians think it's not a sin to charge interest?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;money&gt;&lt;nehemiah&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1191" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:33:36.380" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're describing something that for example, the American president did before he was president you would still refer to him as President Obama would you not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark does not say that he was literally the high priest at the time. It was however, in his days - when he was alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T22:33:36.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1209" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1210" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:38:41.183" Score="11" ViewCount="28880" Body="&lt;p&gt;My family owns several charms&amp;mdash;such as necklaces, bracelets, and small stones&amp;mdash;with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Eye&quot;&gt;Evil Eye&lt;/a&gt; symbol on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My family is Christian, and if I remember correctly the Evil Eye is of Turkish origin. This would imply that the Evil Eye has Muslim roots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What could possibly explain why my Christian family owns items of Muslim origin? The artistry of the piece is indeed something that would warrant owning it, but my mom has spoken to me of it religiously, in that it &quot;wards off evil spirits.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2016-05-13T14:05:41.193" LastActivityDate="2016-05-13T14:05:41.193" Title="What is the origin of the Evil Eye in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;islam&gt;&lt;syncretism&gt;&lt;folk-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1209" CreationDate="2011-08-30T22:47:30.957" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;The so called &quot;Evil Eye&quot; is a classic example of spiritual syncretism. It's origin is neither Christian nor Muslim — yet the belief system that it stands for has through long proximity been partially assimilated by adherents to both of of those religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes several names, but for example in Turkey it is usually known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazar_%28amulet%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Nazar&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. It is simply a symbol, usually a concentric pattern of circles in blue and white, that is supposed to ward off evil spirits. The symbol is so universal in Turkey that it is almost impossible to avoid. Even as a Christian with no interest in having them around I am constantly finding the things floating around my house. They are printed on receipts, dropped as tokens into shopping bags and boxes, woven into clothing, left behind by wary guests, and generally come out of the woodwork like dust bunnies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/gn0ye.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Nazar Boncuğu&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nazar or Evil Eye symbol is actually just the most visible of many &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Animistic beliefs&lt;/a&gt;. The use of this symbol is actually fundamentally incompatible with Islam, but the two beliefs are widely practiced side by side and people are generally unaware of the conflict of interest they pose to each other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to being incompatible with Islam, belief in the Evil Eye to ward off evil spirits is almost universally seen as incompatible with the core doctrines of Christianity (as are almost all other incarnations of Animism). &lt;strong&gt;If some of our trust for safety is placed in something other than Christ, that thing becomes an idol that detracts from our focus on our Savior.&lt;/strong&gt; The one who is able to protect us from all evil Spirits is the one who Himself triumphed over them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 2:15 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt; He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-04T10:26:45.583" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T10:26:45.583" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1207" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:02:49.490" Score="35" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verse your article talks about is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%205:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Nehemiah 5:10&lt;/a&gt; which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some translations also say &quot;interest&quot; in place of &quot;usury.&quot;  This is an important distinction... A prohibition against usury is only a prohibition against &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Usury&quot;&gt;&quot;exorbitant interest&quot;&lt;/a&gt; in modern English.  This would be one reason the verse is not interpreted as forbidding the charging of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I think the more important thing is to take the verse in it's larger context.  The verse comes in the middle of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%205&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;story&lt;/a&gt; about a famine, where people were literally in danger of starvation.  They were mortgaging their &quot;fields, vineyards, and homes&quot; to be able to afford to buy grain. These people were hanging on by a thread, and in desperate need of help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The response of many of the Jews was to lend money, at an interest rate (of 1% according to verse 11, although 1% per what time period?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nehemiah's anger appears not to be at the specific fact that they were charging interest, but at the fact that these Jews were not being charitable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only did Nehemiah demand that they stop charging interest, but also that he give back their collateral--and with no mention of being repaid. The people's response is (verse 12) &quot;And we will not demand anything more from them.&quot; This also seems to indicate that they did not demand repayment of their loans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are to apply the principles of this story to every situation, then not only should Christians not charge interest, but they also should not even ask to be repaid when they make a loan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope it is apparent that this is not the intention of the story, but rather the intention is not to take advantage of people in need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T23:02:49.490" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1207" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:03:05.840" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The article cited is bogus when it claims: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Gospels weren't any help at all. Jesus did not merely reinforce the prohibition against usury, he reached past it — forbidding lending with the expectation of repayment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This sermon on the mount reference applies to the individual Christian who has someone approach him with a request for money. All the sermon on the mount instances are for personal application, just as with the 10 commandments. For instance, thou shalt not kill and turn the other cheek both apply to a personal situation and not for when one is fighting in an army. So, I can go to war and kill, but if I go to the chow hall and somebody hits me upside the head, I should turn the other cheek. Otherwise, all the wars the Israelites were in would be contradictions, but they aren't. You just have to rightly divide the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to apply that to usury, I can conduct a business lending money at interest. Yet, if some individual approaches me at home and has a need, I'm obligated to help. And just in case you don't believe me, there's always: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:27 KJV&lt;/a&gt; Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the&#xA;  exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with&#xA;  usury.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:23&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 19:23 KJV&lt;/a&gt;  Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that&#xA;  at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-31T07:31:20.320" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T07:31:20.320" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:03:16.980" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;People don't really hate Christians any more than they hate any other group. In much of the world, Christians have a place of privilege, embedded in society to such an extent that it's assumed that everyone you meet is a Christian, and Christian holidays and norms are part of the social calendar. (Witness the absurd nonsense spouted every year about the &quot;war on Christmas&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other parts of the world, Christians are a minority, but I've seen no evidence that they're discriminated against any more than any other minority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;hatred&quot; you're talking about is actually two (distinct, but related) things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In places where Christianity has long held sway over society, where non-Christians were distrusted, and Christian beliefs were enshrined in legislation forcing everyone else to follow them, Christians are now losing that power.There are fewer prayers in schools, Christian &quot;morality&quot; is not forced on the world at large. Non-discrimination acts are put in place. Christianity is moving from a place of privilege to a position of equality. That means it's losing power, but it's not actually being discriminated against, and it's far from being hated.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible says that Christians will be hated (see @Mason Wheeler's answer). That means that Christians have an investment in being persecuted. They want to be persecuted, so they'll take any small slight (or even loss of privilege) and interpret it as hatred. It's a persecution complex, and it's not healthy. This is most common among right wing authoritarian Christians, who feel that they have the right to run everyone else's life. (There is in fact good documented evidence that one of the most socially powerful groups in the modern USA, white evangelical Christians, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/28/do-white-evangelicals-have-a-delusional-persecution-complex-barna-says-yes-and-provides-quantifiable-proof/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;have a serious persecution complex&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most obvious example of both the above points in action together is the people who claim that use of the phrase &quot;Happy Holidays&quot; discriminates against Christians. What? So not assuming that everyone is a Christian is discriminating against Christians? Huh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T21:09:17.267" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T21:09:17.267" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1067" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:10:31.417" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a hard and subtle question.  I am here to tell you, this topic does not preach. If you wanna preach on this, get your hospitality krewe to serve coffee BEFORE your service, not after. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What DOES preach is the surpassing mystery of Holy Communion.  What DOES preach is the idea that we get the same thing those folks got that Thursday night long ago in the night in which Jesus was betrayed.  What DOES preach is the overwhelming spiritual power of those scraps of bread and drops of wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What DOES preach is the idea that we are seated all together at one great table, enjoying one great feast, with the whole church through the ages and around the world. We share that table with Peter, who would go on to deny Jesus.  We share it with Judas, who would go on to rat Jesus out to the cops.  We share it with the disciple whom Jesus loved, who would comfort his mother at the foot of the cross.  And, at the head of the table is Jesus, the one who gave of himself so we might have life.  Yes, he is present at the table. He is present in the meal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who cares what preaches? Because the Lutheran understanding of the sacrament of Holy Communion is this: Jesus Christ instituted it to give strength and comfort to us human beings (Peter, Judas, you, me) by nourishing our faith and feeding our souls. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a little history and doctrine.  I'm digging this out of my notes from Uncle Tim Wengert's class at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lutheran Book of Concord is the authoritative source for the doctrine of our strain of Christianity on this subject.  The important historical thing to keep in mind is that the 16th-century reformers who forged those documents (first among them the Augsburg Confession) were caught in a squeeze between two groups. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the jaws of that vise was the late-medieval Roman church, and their claim of the time that the Mass was a sacrifice, and that consuming the bread  &quot;worked&quot; on people &lt;em&gt;ex opere operato&lt;/em&gt;, that is, as if by magic just by doing it, without any need to touch their consciences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other jaw was the Zwinglians of Zürich and their claim that the Lord's Supper is a memorial and a remembrance of Christ.  (The Calvinists of Geneva weren't a factor at the time these documents were forged).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;in, with, and under&quot; theology of Jesus Christ's presence in the bread and wine is, practically, the way Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, and their colleagues dealt with the vise. The path they chose is effectively a middle way (even though they strenuously claimed it was the only faithful way).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, you can wake up now.  Enough church history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do Lutherans believe and teach that Jesus Christ is present in the bread and wine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He said so. &quot;I am the bread of life.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The idea that Communion is a human work must be refuted, and his presence does that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Communion must be powerful enough to be food for the soul.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He is present among us on earth in this moment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is the &quot;in, with, and under&quot; theology different from the Roman theology? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Augsburg Confession says, &quot;the true body and blood of  Christ are truly present under the &lt;em&gt;gestalt&lt;/em&gt; of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper and are distributed and received there.&quot;  The Apology of the AC says &quot;Christ commands that it be done in memory of him. The Mass, therefore, was instituted so that the faith of those who use the sacrament should recall what benefits are received through Christ and should encourage and console the anxious conscience.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing Luther said is that we need to take our rational selves prisoner in the face of mysteries like this, and simply allow the mysteries to be part of our lives.   So, to sum up my answer, &quot;I don't know.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T23:10:31.417" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1217" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1239" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:11:39.387" Score="15" ViewCount="2629" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the consequences of suicide according to the Roman Catholic church? Are there exceptions or special penalties?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="212" LastEditorUserId="212" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T00:03:21.423" LastActivityDate="2016-02-28T14:46:57.823" Title="What are the consequences of suicide according to the Roman Catholic church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;suicide&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1220" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1277" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:24:08.273" Score="7" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Southern Baptist Convention's stance on what salvation is and how it works? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there an official doctrine? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it challenged by prominent members? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="212" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:08:40.493" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:08:40.493" Title="What is the SBC's stance on what/how salvation is/works?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="806" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:30:29.823" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please see Job 38-41.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Job+38-41&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Job+38-41&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T23:30:29.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1225" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1226" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:38:40.897" Score="12" ViewCount="451" Body="&lt;p&gt;Referencing one or more passage of scripture, and any seconday external sources, what is the supportable, Biblical basis for the doctrine of the innerrancy of the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T21:08:04.297" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T21:08:04.297" Title="What is the basis for the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1225" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:45:08.720" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Off the top of my head the two verses that come to mind is &#xA;2 Tim 3:16(NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's clear that scripture is what God said and God cannot lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 6:18 says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, ...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T23:45:08.720" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="525" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:47:56.423" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Going back to the Greek translation of the passage, the phrase &quot;they will be punished with eternal destruction&quot; is somewhat disingenuous in it's English phrasing.  The word &quot;destruction&quot; in Greek is &quot;olethron&quot; - not annihilation, but destruction &quot;with a positive connotation, as in the destruction required for and preceding renewal.&quot; (via &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olethr&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A second issue with the English is the word &quot;eternal&quot; - in Greek, it's &quot;aionios,&quot; closer to the phrase &quot;age-to-come&quot; than to eternal or everlasting.  This makes sense, given the time this occurs is when &quot;Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven&quot; - a new age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Universalist interpretation suggests that the &quot;destruction&quot; referenced is the destruction of the essence of &quot;those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel.&quot; It is the destruction of their inability to know Him, the destruction of their imperfections, and their refinement into His likeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is merely a negation of 2 Thesselonians 1:7-9. As far as biblical arguments for universal salvation, some commonly-referred to passages include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Tim%204:10&quot;&gt;1 Tim 4:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:13&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12:13&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203:11&quot;&gt;Colossians 3:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:8-10&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:8-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user202" LastActivityDate="2011-08-30T23:47:56.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1229" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:54:04.170" Score="18" ViewCount="2936" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus came and died for our sins so that we may be forgiven and have salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 12:32 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; says there is at least one thing to prevent being forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;32&lt;/strong&gt; Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there unforgivable actions that would clash with Jesus' sacrifice (eg: an unbeliever 'speaks against the Holy Spirit', then later in life repents and turns to Christ.) Will that person be granted eternal life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-26T20:36:07.633" LastActivityDate="2015-08-26T20:36:07.633" Title="Are there unforgivable sins?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;unforgivable-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-08-26T22:49:51.843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2011-08-30T23:54:38.457" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;The ends justify the means&lt;/code&gt; is a succinct statement of utilitarian ethics.  Now, a utilitarian ethic can yield good and holy outcomes.  But it can also yield strikingly evil outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.(NRSV, John 15) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is a similarly succinct statement of agape ethics.  This kind of ethical approach recasts the means (&quot;laying down one's life&quot;) and the ends (&quot;for one's friends&quot;) in a way that makes even death a life-giving act.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorUserId="1168" LastEditDate="2012-02-15T12:15:47.553" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T12:15:47.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1229" CreationDate="2011-08-31T00:10:20.097" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let us look at Hebrews 6:4-8. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case — the things that have to do with salvation.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, for those people who have fallen away from God after all the mercy and forgiveness they have been given is simply trampling Son of god under their feet. There is similar passage in Hebrews 10:26-29.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As stated here, falling out of God after having knowledge of consequences is as same as insulting Spirit of Grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T00:20:37.337" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T00:20:37.337" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2011-08-31T00:11:42.343" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it is not compatible with Christianity. Consider this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 8:5  Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we do not do things according to the word, it isn't right no matter how much perceived good may come. We must do everything &quot;according to the pattern&quot; God has revealed in His word. Dr. Bob Jones Sr. used to say, &quot;It's never right to do wrong.&quot; That's a cliche we as Christian ought to have. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider those &quot;Christians&quot; out there who use the &quot;ends justify the means&quot; logic in evangelism. Instead of using the law to show them their need of Christ, they simply ask through the screen door, &quot;Do you want to go to Heaven? Ok, say this prayer... you're in.&quot; For many, many folks, a decision can justify any method, no matter how ungodly it might be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Results should never be a basis for judgement when it comes to our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T00:11:42.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2011-08-31T00:12:02.410" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another point to bring up is that &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:5&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;God is Light&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. This is told to us by the Apostle John in two places, with the second being in the book of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 22:5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T00:12:02.410" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1235" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T00:29:54.483" Score="11" ViewCount="1469" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the common tenets of Christian Universalism (as well as Annihilationism) is the non-existence of Hell as an eternal punishment for non-Christians, that everyone has been granted salvation through grace (regardless of actual belief).  This is often supported by referencing issues of translation in the creation of the word &quot;Hell&quot; altogether, in the form of the claims that all places that &quot;Hell&quot; occurs in translations of the Greek refer to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;Sheol/Hades&lt;/code&gt;: the unknown, afterlife, underworld, or a grave&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;Gehenna&lt;/code&gt;: either a physical place in Israel, or a representation of burning (referred to by Universalists as a place of spiritual purification - of the Greek &lt;code&gt;puros&lt;/code&gt;, a &quot;refining fire&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;Tartarus&lt;/code&gt;: warrants it's own discussion - a place where the fallen angels are kept, also present in Greek myth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Grave or pit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a reference, there's a chart of some words selected in various translations &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellStudy/HellCharts.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  Additionally, there are often challenges of the usage of the word &quot;eternal&quot; in translations, as well as the concept of fire (or the Lake of Fire) being synonymous with &quot;Hell.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a basis in scripture for the concept of an eternal &quot;Hell&quot; for non-Christians, and how do particular denominations and groups approach the idea of an eternal &quot;Hell&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user202" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-27T16:15:03.590" LastActivityDate="2015-07-27T16:15:03.590" Title="What is the Biblical support for Hell as a singular concept?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1217" CreationDate="2011-08-31T00:45:14.787" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the soul is in a state of mortal sin at the time of death for someone who commits suicide, it would seem that the consequence must necessarily be damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However here is what the &lt;a href=&quot;http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml&quot;&gt;catechism says:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Suicide&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it&#xA;  to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are&#xA;  obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and&#xA;  the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life&#xA;  God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to&#xA;  preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just&#xA;  love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly&#xA;  breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human&#xA;  societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is&#xA;  contrary to love for the living God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example,&#xA;  especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.&#xA;  Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship,&#xA;  suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one&#xA;  committing suicide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who&#xA;  have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can&#xA;  provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for&#xA;  persons who have taken their own lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="233" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T20:16:16.510" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T20:16:16.510" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1235" CreationDate="2011-08-31T00:48:58.880" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever folks don't like something in the Bible, there is the temptation to redefine it. History gives us so many examples of this. It is becoming quite the popular thing these days especially. I find that for those folks who are not trying to read something into the Bible, the Bible is plain on most topics. Hell is no exception:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat_25:46  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but&#xA;  the righteous into life eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev 21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and&#xA;  murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all&#xA;  liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and&#xA;  brimstone: which is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mar 9:43  And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for&#xA;  thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell,&#xA;  into the fire that never shall be quenched:  Mar 9:44  Where their&#xA;  worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  Mar 9:45  And if thy&#xA;  foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into&#xA;  life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that&#xA;  never shall be quenched:  Mar 9:46  Where their worm dieth not, and&#xA;  the fire is not quenched.  Mar 9:47  And if thine eye offend thee,&#xA;  pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God&#xA;  with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T00:48:58.880" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1235" CreationDate="2011-08-31T00:58:21.037" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what we know of &quot;Hell&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's a place of darkness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jude 1:13 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom &lt;strong&gt;blackest darkness&lt;/strong&gt; has been reserved forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's a place of torment&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 16:28 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this &lt;strong&gt;place of torment&lt;/strong&gt;.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's a place of fire&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:42&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:42 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They will throw them &lt;strong&gt;into the blazing furnace&lt;/strong&gt;, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is eternal&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%209:48&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 9:48 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is separation for God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%2025:41&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:41 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God does not want you to go to Hell&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 3:17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the highlights.  There are many other places that support each one of those facts.  I just picked a nice representative of each verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T00:58:21.037" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1245" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1359" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:01:25.723" Score="9" ViewCount="546" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are cultural Jews.  Are there cultural Christians who do not interpret the religion as factual?  Is this possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently it's also called a &quot;Nominal Christian&quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From the comments:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To my understanding there are people who call themselves Jewish but don't take the religion as factual. They just abide by the culture that coincides. I'm wondering if the same exists for Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am asking if someone can call themselves Christian and not believe the claims are factual but they abide by the messages as metaphors instead&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T20:02:43.183" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T16:36:16.997" Title="Is it possible to be Christian but not interpret the religion as fact?" Tags="&lt;belief&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2016-04-17T22:02:31.217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1245" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:09:41.500" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its a different story. Jewish people are a part of a nation. One can still be a Jew by birth and do not take their religion as factual. However, with Christians, its a different story. You do NOT become Christian by birth. You cannot be a Christian and don't take their (or our) religion as factual. You are either a Christian or you are not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T20:05:19.123" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T20:05:19.123" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:18:15.573" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Individuals &quot;in heaven&quot; are, by definition, perfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In perfection, one possesses the ability to do evil but no desire to do so; this is because one can plainly perceive Unity and sees that harming others is to harm one's own self. One lives the experience of Christ-consciousness, seeing Christ in everyone and everything. There is no lack, and therefore no cause to do evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free will remains, but the individual possessing it is no longer limited. Only those separated from God are capable of wrong action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="239" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T01:18:15.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1251" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1270" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:22:18.767" Score="10" ViewCount="2630" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/114/what-is-the-biblical-justification-for-permitting-female-pastors&quot;&gt;What is the biblical justification for permitting female pastors?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical justification for allowing &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; male pastors? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do churches excluding women from pastoral and teaching roles justify their stance as The Christian Way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:23:31.377" Title="What is the biblical justification for allowing only male pastors?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;ministry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-04-24T14:52:01.337" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1245" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:26:22.547" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There certainly are.  In fact, some Christian traditions make it far too easy to claim to be a Christian without actually caring about Gospel principles, due to an overly-literal and badly out of context interpretation of a few specific passages of scripture, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2010:9&quot;&gt;Romans 10: 9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking this overly simplistic theology at face value leads to many people who consider themselves to be &quot;saved&quot; or &quot;born again&quot; while living and behaving in ways that were explicitly and unambiguously condemned by the Savior.  (One of the more extreme examples is Larry Flynt.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T01:26:22.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1245" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:26:28.897" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it's called &quot;cultural Christianity.&quot; It merely means that you live in a culture that has Christian habits, such as celebrating Easter and Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you moved to India, you might - without converting to Hinduism - get into the habit of celebrating Holi or Onam or Diwali with your friends and neighbors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not believe in the tenants of the religion, however, you're not &quot;a Christian&quot; in the sense you mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="239" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T01:26:28.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1255" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1264" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:26:46.263" Score="0" ViewCount="8160" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do you define a Christian? How do you define what kind of person is your brother in Christ and what kind of person is not? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:05:54.653" Title="How do you define a Christian or a brother in Christ?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-08-31T02:11:45.520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:33:00.917" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think that Christians face any more bigotry than any other group.  As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/724/why-do-some-people-hate-christians/1214#1214&quot;&gt;TRiG pointed out in his answer&lt;/a&gt;, there are many American Christians who have chosen to interpret their loss of special privilege in our culture to be &quot;hatred against Christians&quot;, when in reality it results not from hatred, but from a desire for equality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are those who &lt;em&gt;fear&lt;/em&gt; Christians, and fear is easy to mistake for hatred. There was a time when I just didn't get the fear that some people showed toward Christians.  Then the military stationed my family in the Bible Belt...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A Christian neighbor found out that my family is not Christian.  She called a local Christian preacher, who tried to break into my house with the stated goal of beating me until I miscarried (I was 6.5 months pregnant).  The (apparently Christian) police refused to come to my aid.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;My (Jewish) friend's child innocently and accidentally outed himself to his Christian first grade classmates; they beat him so badly he spent three days in intensive care.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;My Catholic mother was harassed and kicked out of a quilt shop for not being the &quot;right&quot; kind of Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I spent time with a Red Cross worker who had come from trying to restore the economies in third-world communities where Christian missionaries had disrupted the food supply, local medical care, and more in their attempts to convert the locals.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I watched Christian babies in the NICU denied the breast milk that could have bolstered their immune systems because the local Christian sects taught that breastfeeding was a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I saw a Christian chaplain deny needed services to people who put their lives on the line for our country, because he did not believe that non-Christians were deserving of his time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because much of my extended family is Christian, I have exposure to Christians who aren't violent, destructive, sex offenders, or trying to force their religion on others through economic and/or political coercion.  The thing is, most non-Christians only run into Christians when they are doing these things, so they believe that such behavior is emblematic of mainstream Christianity.  To my knowledge, of these practices only missionary work is mainstream -- and the destruction caused is usually not intentional, but the result of ignorance about social and economic systems they are affecting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, most Christians seem to think that if they quietly ignore these problems, they will go away.  However, until the sane Christians publicly step in when the fringe gets out of control, the fringe will continue to be all that non-Christians see, and they'll have defined Christianity for most outsiders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T01:33:00.917" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1081" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:41:23.713" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic teaching is that you must be born again to be Christian, &quot;unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God&quot; (John 3:3-5). This second birth is the sacrament of baptism, where we are joined to Christ as members of his body (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism can be given to newborns, older children or adults. Baptism of little children is based on the faith of their parents, who promise to raise them in the faith. Baptism of older children and adults is based on their own profession of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible for those who have become Christian through baptism to later leave the faith by their own choice, thus becoming apostate, so baptism is no guarantee of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T01:41:23.713" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1259" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:44:26.933" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specific bible verses can be difficult to understand. Interpretation of these verses is a way to explore their meaning more closely and better understand them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:08:52.070" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:08:52.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1260" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:44:26.933" Score="0" Body="Examination of specific verse[s] in order to better understand their meaning." OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorDisplayName="user92" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:08:53.910" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:08:53.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1255" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:48:24.133" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 5:11  But now I have written unto you not to keep&#xA;  company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or&#xA;  covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an&#xA;  extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone professes faith in Christ AND is aligning their behavior with the Bible, they are my brother. As the verse indicates, they have to both be called a Christian and behave like one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T01:48:24.133" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="104" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:50:05.973" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Liberal&quot; Christians generally follow some of the traditional practices and morals of Christianity, but generally reject the notion of the inerrancy of Scripture.  As a result, their beliefs can be very diverse.  Their emphasis on doctrine is sometimes light, but sometimes very academic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Emergent&quot; Christians have adopted a &quot;postmodern&quot; mindset, seeking to synthesize what others regard as contradictory views.  Generally, they believe that God is bringing all people and indeed the universe to himself, and that people need to join that effort however they can. The emergent/emerging church is in some ways a reaction against the lack of the supernatural in Liberal theology, and in some ways a reaction against the alleged reliance on human logic in conservative evangelicalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Progressive&quot; Christians may also be &quot;liberal&quot; or &quot;emergent&quot;, and they seek to overcome what they think are bad or sub-optimal traditions or practices. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The liberal Christian's main concern is to live for God by participating in a moral church community, without an urgent need to understand the somewhat flawed but good Bible.  The emergent Christian's main goal is to live for God by joining God's kingdom wherever they can find it, aside from the supposed futile task of exegeting the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many variations and differences within these, and many of those who would identify as part of one of these might reject my broad strokes above.  Nevertheless, they are useful distinctions, and I think the most important difference is in how they regard the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have further questions about a specific area, practice, or belief, I could give my thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T01:50:05.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1255" CreationDate="2011-08-31T01:59:59.810" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anyone who believes in Christ as his personal Lord and Savior is my brother or sister in Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree that their actions must agree with their beliefs (i.e. &lt;em&gt;walk the talk&lt;/em&gt;), but that does not comprise at all the basis by which one decides whether they are my brother or sister in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; talks about &quot;Cultivating Good Relationships&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Welcome with open arms fellow believers &lt;em&gt;who don't see things&lt;/em&gt; the way you do.&lt;/strong&gt; And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with—even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For instance, a person who has been around for a while might well be convinced that he can eat anything on the table, while another, with a different background, might assume he should only be a vegetarian and eat accordingly. &lt;strong&gt;But since both are guests at Christ's table, wouldn't it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn't eat?&lt;/strong&gt; **God, after all, &lt;em&gt;invited them both&lt;/em&gt; to the table.** Do you have any business crossing people off the guest list or interfering with God's welcome? If there are corrections to be made or manners to be learned, God can handle that without your help. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not interpret this the wrong way, this is not an excuse to say that all denominations and religions are variations of the same thing, they are not.  My point is that we interpret the Bible differently, such as what we can eat and not eat, but we still believe in Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="100" LastEditorUserId="100" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T02:05:54.653" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:05:54.653" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:00:32.430" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think non-Christians even bother to separate the various Christian sects from each other, let alone crazy people from &quot;real&quot; Christians. Westboro Baptist Church, multiple Republican candidates who all say God told them to run for the presidency, and those countless pedophiles who are also priests or ministers: what's not to hate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity knowingly and publicly commits hateful atrocities on a daily basis as part of sanctioned doctrine. While we all know that evil done in the name of religion isn't religion's fault, Christianity's been screwing up since well before the Crusades. Christianity is practically rabid about its missionarying; outsiders probably think it should start missionarying to itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a sin to be gay? Fine, it's also a sin to eat shellfish. Non-Christians can read the bible as well as anyone and they know that hatred is deliberately encouraged by many Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="239" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:00:32.430" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:02:41.943" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;DeWaay, in &lt;em&gt;The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity&lt;/em&gt;, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0578009994&quot;&gt;on Amazon&lt;/a&gt; but in stock &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cicstore.org/servlet/the-61/The-Emergent-Church-dsh--dsh--Undefining/Detail&quot;&gt;on CICstore&lt;/a&gt;) asserts that Emergents believe in a hopeful view that &lt;strong&gt;&quot;the kingdom of God is emerging through the processes of history because God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the future, drawing everything into Himself&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (DeWaay 11).  See DeWaay's book for that case, but I think this is a fair assessment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How this looks in a few details:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Emergents usually reject final judgment, preferring to think God will &quot;save&quot; everyone in a tangible paradise here on earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Their mission is not first to spread the saving Gospel message of Jesus Christ to individuals, but instead to do good in society and make life better to all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They want to create coherent meaning specific to a church or other community, rather than seeking objective meaning and absolute truth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Truth and meaning are experienced, rather than known.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Conversely, experiences are more important than doctrine.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They seek spiritual growth in many various ways, usually rejecting that the biblical means of grace (Bible teachings, prayer, fellowship, the Lord's Supper) are paramount.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many even go so far as to reject basic logic as useless: they won't acknowledge the self-evident basic logic laws that all people follow every day, that &lt;em&gt;A is A&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;A is not non-A&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;A and non-A cannot be both true&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some identify themselves as Emergent or emerging; many followers or proponents of emergent thought do not identify themselves as such. One such self-identifying source is the Emergent Village.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think it should be regarded as a catch-all term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Emergents will try to avoid any straight, direct answers, and they may object to my broad strokes here.  Their beliefs also vary among each other, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastEditorUserId="240" LastEditDate="2013-08-26T14:13:56.707" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T14:13:56.707" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:03:00.990" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://video.pbs.org/video/1456944662/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MLK's stance against the Vietnam War&lt;/a&gt; and I think you'll learn a great deal about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;MLK went so far as to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/opinion/martin-luther-king-jr-would-want-a-revolution-not-a-memorial.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;give speeches&lt;/a&gt; that Militarism, Materialism, Racism, and Poverty were all bad things, and lived his life to his death pushing these sorts of ideas.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although this sort of life is a good Christian one, it really doesn't sit well especially with those in power that wield most of the Militarism, Materialism, and that cause most of the Poverty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:03:00.990" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1251" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:04:59.710" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/nasb95/1Ti2.12-14&quot;&gt;1Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; says pretty clearly that women shouldn't be pastors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a&#xA;  man, but to remain quiet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being&#xA;  deceived, fell into transgression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:04:59.710" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1271" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:10:31.873" Score="23" ViewCount="22033" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed some churches in my area that are titled things like:&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&quot;Greek&quot; Orthodox&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&quot;Russian&quot; Orthodox&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&quot;Serbian&quot; Orthodox&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&quot;Antiochian&quot; Orthodox&lt;br/&gt; etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are these all the same type of Christian Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-07-27T01:04:55.770" LastActivityDate="2018-04-05T15:54:35.763" Title="Are Orthodox Christians all the same faith?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;oriental-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1272" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1276" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:11:23.963" Score="18" ViewCount="13797" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I'm not misunderstanding anything, Jews usually follow the Tanakh (more or less the Old Testament) and the Talmud, but definitely not the New Testament, whereas Christians follow the Old and New Testaments but not the Talmud. So, among those who believe in the Old Testament, people usually follow the Talmud if and only if they do not believe in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is this? Are the Talmud and the New Testament incompatible, or is the combination simply unfashionable or something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user250" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-27T23:06:52.237" LastActivityDate="2019-12-10T21:04:02.613" Title="Why do most Christians not follow the Talmud?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1251" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:23:31.377" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verse I always was referred to on this subject is&#xA;I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;34 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;35 If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="242" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:23:31.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1272" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:24:02.343" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Talmud &quot;takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)  It was written by ancient Rabbis as discussions and interpretations of the scriptures of the Tanakh (Old Testament).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament teaches that Scripture must be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16&quot;&gt;given by inspiration of God&lt;/a&gt;.  As the Talmud was not, and does not claim to be, inspired writing, it is not considered authoritative by Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, many of the passages of the Talmud are dedicated to interpretations of various provisions of the Law of Moses, which Christians believe were fulfilled in Christ and no longer apply, which makes a great deal of the Talmud not only non-authoritative but also irrelevant, from a Christian perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:24:02.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1220" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:25:17.817" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Straight from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the source&lt;/a&gt;, at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is challenged by followers of liberal theology, who deride the leaders of the SBC as fundamentalists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:25:17.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1278" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1290" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:28:34.927" Score="12" ViewCount="469" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some take the position that some knowledge is the work of Satan.  Some take the position that critical analysis can strengthen good ideas and weaken bad ones.  Should Christians seek out information that is antithetical to their faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T18:54:34.457" Title="Can seeking arguments against Christianity strengthen Christianity?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-07-14T21:55:27.027" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1279" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1289" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:31:50.557" Score="6" ViewCount="18914" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my neighborhood there has been a Baptist Church for a while. I'm moderately aware of the history of Baptist Church in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very recently a temple of The First Baptist Church has been built. I´m wondering about two things: first, what is the history of the First Baptist Church? Second, what are the main differences between the First Baptist Church and the Baptist Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-07-14T05:31:45.667" LastActivityDate="2016-07-14T05:31:45.667" Title="What is the relation between the First Baptist Church and the Baptist Church?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:44:28.197" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I second that one...something tells me the answer has something to do with Faith...&lt;a href=&quot;http://leeand00.tiddlyspot.com/#%5B%5BHitchhikers%20Guide%20to%20The%20Galaxy%20and%20The%20Babel%20Fish...%5D%5D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here's a link to what I found that helped me (in my blog)&lt;/a&gt;: Religion is never the sort of thing you can narrow down by arguments, that's why it's based on Faith...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll have about as much luck proving that your wife loves you by arguments and logic as you will proving that God exists or that God loves you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll drive yourself crazy trying to do that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorUserId="241" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:06:15.883" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:06:15.883" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1271" CreationDate="2011-08-31T02:50:35.313" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, the Coptic Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox, there's also the Ethiopians, the Malankar (I think), and others who escape me at this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is incorrect to argue that the Orthodox are split into two sects.  The so-called &quot;Eastern&quot; Orthodox (which I am), would simply say that the Oriental Orthodox is another break away group, like Rome, but which retains much more of their Orthodox roots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="253" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T02:50:35.313" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1279" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:00:26.830" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;First Baptist&quot; church is not a denomination I know of.  Usually it's simply the name of the earliest (&quot;First&quot;) Baptist church built in an area.  Hence you sometimes see &quot;Second Baptist Church&quot; - that's not a weird denomination, it's the second one on the block.  Now, if there's an existing Baptist church and one is calling itself First Baptist, it could be the existing local F.B. moving locations, it could be a Baptist sub-denomination (American, Southern, etc.) that is the first of their type, or they could just be snaking the name to seem first/biggest if no one else was using it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:00:26.830" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1279" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:00:35.123" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some baptists have the tradition of naming the first Baptist church in a city or other area &quot;First Baptist Church&quot;.  Sometimes this numbering even continues; for example, in my area there is a &quot;Fourth Baptist Church&quot;.  I do not think there is a denomination or association called &quot;First Baptist&quot;, as it is merely a naming tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should also be aware that there are perhaps over a thousand Baptist denominations and associations. In the United States, two of the larger ones are the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Conference.  They have somewhat different beliefs and practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastEditorUserId="240" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T02:53:25.443" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T02:53:25.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:03:35.477" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I may, here is my idea of the scientific view: yes, it can. If you look for arguments against Christianity, thinking that you may find some, but you don't find any, this is evidence in favor of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidence, you see, is all about correlation. Whether or not your shoes are untied is strongly correlated to whether or not they &lt;em&gt;appear&lt;/em&gt; to be untied. So, when you see that your shoes appear to be untied, you can conclude, with great certainty, that they actually are untied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, Christianity is correlated with arguments. Whether or not Christianity is true is correlated with whether or not there are good arguments against it. If there are good arguments against it, this is evidence that it is false; if there are not good arguments against it, this is evidence that it is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user250" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:03:35.477" CommentCount="7" CommunityOwnedDate="2018-11-16T20:17:13.743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1294" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:05:43.670" Score="16" ViewCount="888" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:5 (ESV) states &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,&#xA;      “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,&#xA;      but a body have you prepared for me;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an apparent reference to Psalm 40:6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted,&#xA;  but you have given me an open ear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The footnote in my Bible on the Psalm mentions that literally this verse would be &quot;ears you have dug for me&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can understand an idiomatic translation; digging out ones ears is a Hebrew idiom roughly equivalent to having an &quot;open ear&quot; in English. But moving to &quot;a body have you prepared for me&quot; seems to be far beyond translating an idiom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looked at one of these sites that has a whole bunch (17) of translations; all translate that phrase in Hebrews fairly similar (mentioning preparation of a body). In the case of the Psalm, likewise, they all seem to mention something about ears. Whether &quot;you have made me listen&quot; or &quot;you have pierced my ears&quot; or one of the ESV translations I mentioned above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So most translations seem to point to the translation from Hebrew to Greek is a rather liberal one. Am I understanding this correctly? And if so, how does digging out an ear relate to preparing a body?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-04T18:08:15.580" LastActivityDate="2014-02-21T05:26:56.497" Title="Hebrew OT translation to Greek NT" Tags="&lt;translation&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1017" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:07:59.563" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ancients believed in Elysium for the good, the Asphodel Meadows for those neither good nor evil, and Tartarus for the wicked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout history it's been fairly common for Christian proselytizers to subvert ideas already in place and bend them over to a Christian interpretation, a good example being the winter solstice's rebranding to Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the early Church came up with Heaven, Purgatory/Limbo and Hell to make conversion more palatable for the pagans. These became ingrained within our culture, but are really pagan ideas and have no basis in Christianity. Artistic depictions of Hell in the middle ages really strengthened this mistaken view of Hell as a physical, burning place of torment underground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament speaks only of the resurrection, and when it refers to Heaven and Hell is in fact talking about inward states of mind. Hell is sometimes connected with fire in the New Testament because fire is used there as a symbol of bodily desire (e.g. greed - the more you feed your greed, the greedier you become, and the more you feed a fire, the stronger it burns).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Hell is the state of mind where you are a slave to your bodily passions of lust, power, greed, revenge, and hatred, and so are separated from God and from peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="257" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:07:59.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:11:30.910" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The truth should not hide from argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Truth is like an anvil: you should be able to take the biggest hammer you have and bang on it all day and not break it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="57" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:11:30.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1297" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1314" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:13:17.210" Score="9" ViewCount="6589" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Revelation, there were seven churches that were told of their actions and were told to repent of their sins or there will be consequenes. Are there any written words that told whether the seven churches actually repented?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-08-28T17:39:38.597" LastActivityDate="2018-12-06T08:06:36.337" Title="The seven churches that were condemned; did any of them repent?" Tags="&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="69" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:18:53.580" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer often brought this up (an example being in &lt;a href=&quot;http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/religion/chapter6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this essay&lt;/a&gt;), and I agree that the Old and New Testaments contradict each other. Christ, after all, was very careful to subvert or discard the teachings of the Old Testament. But they are contradictory for a very good reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see the Old Testament as being man's striving towards God but not reaching God, and going through each wrong philosophy in turn, until eventually Jesus (the second Adam) comes and reveals the truth in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament was written by man in his fallen state, so in it we get no real idea of prelapsarian times beyond allegory and bits of facts such as man ate herbs for meat, because man was fallen, and the capability to comprehend that earlier state had been lost. Next the Old Testament goes through each wrong philosophy in turn: the idea in Ecclesiastes that everything is vanity (to a Christian, what can be falser than this?), the sensuality of the Song of Solomon, the outward rituals, the unforgiving and harsh punishments, the idea that God speaks directly to man and so on and so on. Each wrong path to God is laid out, and the consequences quite clearly seen. There is no mention of a future state in the books of Moses, and Moses dies before seeing the Promised Land, which is quite significant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main idea of the Old Testament is that you should fear God, then along comes Jesus and the New Testament with the opposite: fear cannot love, you should love God, and God is love. The Old Testament is overturned, and the veil of Moses (as Paul puts it) is lifted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the Old Testament is important because it shows man’s failings, it is important as a book of human nature, and we learn through its mistakes and their striving towards God, but not by example, as it gives a distorted vision of God through the eyes of fallen man. So this is why God is seen to command evil (in the eyes of Christian) in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="257" LastEditorUserId="257" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:41:05.093" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:41:05.093" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1147" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:21:19.083" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are abundant sources on the internet about the Mormon Jesus.  I'd recommend starting with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/perspectives/what-is-the-difference-between-the-mormon-jesus-and-the-jesus-of-the-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this CRI page.&lt;/a&gt; An excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...The Bible teaches that Jesus has always existed as God (John 1:1), Mormons see Jesus as someone who worked His way up to godhood.  In fact, to Mormons, Jesus is merely one in purpose with God the Father; whereas the Bible declares that the Father and the Son are also one in essence (cf. Phil. 2:6) — that they are both equally God and members of the Holy Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastEditorUserId="240" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:31:13.357" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:31:13.357" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1308" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:32:25.510" Score="8" ViewCount="882" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm really terrible at faith.  I understand that it's a choice to have or not have faith, I'd really like to choose the former, but my very much neurotic nature often gets the best of me, and often holds me back I think...  So my question is &quot;How do I get more faith?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T11:19:52.943" Title="How do I get more faith?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-12-11T21:15:54.977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1309" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:36:03.453" Score="8" ViewCount="620" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 4:14-15 (NRSV) it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.’ &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; Then the Lord said to him, ‘Not so! Whoever  kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.’ And the Lord put a mark on Cain&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who could possibly kill Cain if Adam and Eve are the first people? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cain was not married at that time (suggesting he was young) and was the first born there doesn't seem to be a rational explanation that someone that was born of Adam could have grown up without knowing Cain and attack him while he was wandering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="256" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T03:57:43.080" LastActivityDate="2015-10-21T14:17:43.380" Title="Why was the mark of Cain necessary?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-10-25T00:47:50.020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:36:59.833" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, suppose that God exists. Will the world contain clear traces of God's existence? Suppose now that God does not exist. Will the world contain clear traces of God's &lt;em&gt;nonexistence&lt;/em&gt;? Many atheists would argue that God's existence would leave clear traces of existence, but God's nonexistence would simply leave no traces at all. Therefore, they would say, the best strategy is to start by assuming God does not exist, and change your mind if you find traces of existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that argument is... &lt;em&gt;reasonable&lt;/em&gt;, in a sense, but I don't put much weight in it myself. Perhaps God's existence can be justified using pure reason, making traces unnecessary; or perhaps there are traces after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another argument, however. Before I start, I believe that the idea of an uncaused cause is unescapable. (If the &quot;first cause&quot; caused itself, what caused it to cause itself? If there is an infinite chain of causation, what caused there to be one?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, supposing that there is an uncaused cause, the question is simply, &quot;what is it?&quot; Either the uncaused cause is God, and God caused humans to exist; or the uncaused cause is something else, and humans came into existence anyway. Which of these things is more likely? Really, the &quot;smash a watch, put it in a box, and shake it&quot; argument can be used against both of these. The question is whether it's more implausible that God exists for no reason and He created man, or that the universe exists for no reason and man evolved from scratch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user250" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:36:59.833" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1311" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:41:52.857" Score="18" ViewCount="2177" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible and Christians talk about faith a lot.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 12:32&lt;/a&gt; talks about &quot;faith as a mustard seed&quot; for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard many Christians say things like &quot;I don't have enough faith,&quot; or &quot;I want more faith,&quot; or &quot;If I only had more faith.&quot;  These phrases make faith sound like a tangible substance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is faith in the Christian context?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-11-18T09:56:28.830" LastActivityDate="2017-02-06T13:41:01.020" Title="What is &quot;faith?&quot;" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-11-18T06:48:32.830" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1311" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:47:18.267" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;NKJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is tangible in a certain sense of the word in that it is tangible to me and God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 11:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="243" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:47:18.267" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1313" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1687" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:49:33.733" Score="14" ViewCount="3535" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've thought all my life that demons (and evil spirits) were fallen angels, but I recently encountered the viewpoint that these demons are actually the souls of men who have already died but wouldn't go to Heaven. Hence, what does the Bible say about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, what biblical references speak to whether or not demons originate as human or as another species?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-20T01:23:53.290" LastActivityDate="2015-09-20T01:23:53.290" Title="Does the Bible say anything about what demons *are*?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-21T03:04:10.553" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1297" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:50:41.070" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, of the seven churches in Revelation individually addressed, not all are condemned/rebuked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church in Smyrna (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Rev 2:8-11&lt;/a&gt;) is not condemned. Likewise, the church in Philadelphia is not rebuked (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%203&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Rev 3:7-13&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do know that those churches no longer exist today, so at some point their candlestick &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; removed. Whether or not the 5 did repent at least to some degree, we are not told.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:50:41.070" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1315" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:54:45.900" Score="3" ViewCount="6295" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity teaches the forgiveness of sins by God, but Exodus 20:7, one of the Ten Commandments, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for &lt;strong&gt;the&#xA;  LORD will not hold him guiltless&lt;/strong&gt; that takes his name in vain.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that breaking the commandment should be taken as unforgivable by God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this sin is unforgivable what implications does that have at the time of judgement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="256" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-18T01:42:54.310" LastActivityDate="2014-12-18T01:42:54.310" Title="Does God forgive those who take his name in vain?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-12-19T16:07:41.473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1313" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:57:44.843" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I have answered &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/482/does-the-bible-support-the-idea-of-a-temporary-holding-place/505#505&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, I will repost it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were plenty of references of demons in the Bible if you look close enough. In Matt 8 verse 28 through 32, he heals two demon possessed men. In here, the demons begged Jesus and asked him if he came here to torture them before the appointed time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would that mean? Demons are not angels who have followed Lucifer when he turned against God. These demons are souls of people who did not believe in God. They are the reasons for all kinds of sickness and disabilities. In the appointed time, they will be condemned for their actions when they lived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The back up of this explanation is on Matt 12 verse 24. Here, Pharisees said that Jesus drives out demons with the power of the prince of demons. Note the word, drive out. Edit: Jesus has contridicted the Pharisees when they said that he was using the power of Devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of you will say that the bible verse I have used only proves that there are demons. However, there is no reference in the bible as far as I can see that says that angels can control a person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T05:42:06.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-08-31T03:59:56.687" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason why the non-existence of something should be the default position, is that the opposite (being able to assume that something exists just because nobody has been able to disprove it) allows one to prove that &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T03:59:56.687" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:03:46.650" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10:17&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot;&gt;Romans 10:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;NKJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith comes by reading and hearing the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally try to speak out loud the Word of God as often as i can so that i can hear it. I have also heard from others (but have not tried it yet myself) that they enjoy listening to the audio versions of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="243" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T04:03:46.650" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:10:18.380" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to this can be found in a solid understanding of what faith is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In three different places in his epistles, in different contexts, Paul quotes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Habakkuk%202:4&quot;&gt;Habakkuk 2: 4&lt;/a&gt;, that &quot;the just shall live by faith.&quot;  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%20%201:17&quot;&gt;Romans 1:17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%20%203:11&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:11&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%20%2010:38&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:38&lt;/a&gt;.)  So faith, to a just (righteous) person, is not simply mental &quot;belief,&quot; but something you &lt;strong&gt;live by&lt;/strong&gt;.  This is consistent with James's teaching that faith unaccompanied by genuine good works &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202%3a%2014-26&quot;&gt;&quot;is dead, being alone.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that faith is a principle of action, that impels a person to do good.  As a principle of action, a good way to develop stronger faith is to act upon it.  If you have a choice to make, and you're uncertain about it, but the Gospel teaches that a certain decision would be the right one to make, act on it.  Choose the decision that your faith guides you towards.  Then try to observe the results of your actions, and you will find your faith confirmed in some way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will help your faith to grow, as you now have experience to base future decisions on, instead of simply &quot;blind faith.&quot;  It doesn't come all at once.  It's a learning process, and you learn a little at a time, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2028%3a%2010&quot;&gt;precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little,&lt;/a&gt; until eventually your faith has grown and been confirmed and strengthened so much that you reach the answer to your other question, where you arrive at a point where you can honestly say, &quot;I do not fear death, because I know what awaits me.  Even though I haven't seen it, I have been told, and God has never steered me wrong in the past, so I have no reason to doubt.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T04:10:18.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1271" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:10:25.857" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;This kinda falls into general reference territory.  There are two major groups of &quot;Orthodox&quot; churches. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church&quot;&gt;Eastern Orthodox Church&lt;/a&gt; is one large group of churches that share a common theology. It separated from the Catholic Church (or vice versa, depending on your POV) in 1054 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus many Orthodox Churches adopt a national title (e.g. Albanian&#xA;  Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox,&#xA;  Russian Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Montenegrin Orthodox, Romanian&#xA;  Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox etc.) and this title&#xA;  serves to distinguish which language, which bishops, and which of the&#xA;  typica is followed by that particular congregation. In the Middle&#xA;  East, Orthodox Christians have also been often referred as Roman (or&#xA;  Rum) Orthodox, because of their historical connection with the Eastern&#xA;  Roman (Byzantine) Empire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are the &quot;same type&quot; of church in that they share a theology, but they tend to be ethnically tied - if you go into a Greek Orthodox Church in Texas, you'll still need to speak you some Greek. They don't have a pope, but the group of all their bishops are considered to be the ruling body of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches&quot;&gt;Oriental Orthodox Church&lt;/a&gt; split off earlier (451 AD) over the Council of Chalcedon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Despite the potentially confusing nomenclature (Oriental meaning&#xA;  Eastern), Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from those that are&#xA;  collectively referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Oriental&#xA;  Orthodox communion comprises six groups: Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian&#xA;  Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox&#xA;  Syrian Church (India) and Armenian Apostolic churches.&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; These six&#xA;  churches, while being in communion with one another, are&#xA;  hierarchically independent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty small group however; most Orthodox churches you'll see in the West tend to be of the Eastern Orthodox breed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These churches are all the same faith in the sense that they recognize each other are Christian, but the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox branches are not in communion with each other (or anyone else, I believe) and consider other branches to be schismatic and more-or-less heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of churches with similar names and variants. Of course they are mostly synonyms, a trivial canvas of local denomination names and sub-denominations indicates you have to be quite specific. A commenter asked about &quot;the Coptics;&quot; there is a Coptic Catholic Church and a Coptic Orthodox Church, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastEditorUserId="232" LastEditDate="2011-12-24T05:34:22.707" LastActivityDate="2011-12-24T05:34:22.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1315" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:14:19.997" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only place in the Bible where any sin is mentioned as being unforgivable is in Matthew 12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:31-32&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  31 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the question is if taking God's name in vain is blasphemy or speaking against the Holy Spirit. Personally, I say that it is not because you are not targeting the Holy Spirit, so to speak. I don't quite have Scriptural backup for that, but &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/952/is-saying-oh-my-god-really-using-gods-name-in-vain/953#953&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/952/is-saying-oh-my-god-really-using-gods-name-in-vain/966#966&quot;&gt;that answer&lt;/a&gt; on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/952/58&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; generally indicate that the answer to that new question is &quot;no&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T04:14:19.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1322" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1327" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:17:04.077" Score="9" ViewCount="6478" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the Christians I know do whatever they like on Sunday: working at home, paid employment etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any specific information in the New Testament that suggest what Christians should or should not do? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are we supposed to obey the Ten Commandments? What does that mean for Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5 NIV) tells us to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 &quot;Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God&#xA;  has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,&#xA;  14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you&#xA;  shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your&#xA;  manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your&#xA;  animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and&#xA;  maidservant may rest, as you do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="256" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T15:03:26.893" LastActivityDate="2015-11-30T14:35:46.290" Title="What does the Bible say Christians should or should not do on the Sabbath?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-12-01T00:34:51.877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1309" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:25:39.870" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, it doesn't necessarily say that Cain was the first born, only the first who did anything significant enough to be included in the record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, even if Cain was the first son, that doesn't preclude Adam being the one to hypothetically take vengeance.  For example, The Law of Moses included a passage requiring parents of incorrigible adult children to be the ones to bring the accusation before the elders of the city.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021%3a%2018-21&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 21: 18-21&lt;/a&gt;.  And as shocking as this may sound, consider the psychological effect: it makes an amazing motivator for parents to make sure their kids turn out well!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when you consider that Genesis tells of people living for centuries, there's no reason why someone born &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; Cain wouldn't have grown to adulthood, then run across him, recognized or found out who he was, and tried to take vengeance into their own hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T04:25:39.870" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1325" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1343" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:26:52.040" Score="11" ViewCount="1355" Body="&lt;p&gt;I mean I'd like to think so...and people communicate on this site about Christianity, but I was wondering if a virtual gathering counted as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse I'm referring to is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:20&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T03:09:30.657" LastActivityDate="2015-08-30T03:09:30.657" Title="Does &quot;Where ever there is more than one of you gathered in My name&quot; apply to the Internet?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;internet&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-07-01T22:44:16.050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1322" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:30:34.857" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+2%3A27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 2:27&lt;/a&gt; NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;   Then he [Jesus] said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new Testament does not specify that there is anything we , as Christians, should do/not do on the Sabbath.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The Sabbath was made for us to rest. In Genesis it says that God rested on the seventh day,   we should likewise also take a day to rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="243" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T04:30:34.857" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1322" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:30:45.680" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is mostly answered in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, but I will repost the relevant parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 15:28-29&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This combined with a part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount makes it even clearer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:17&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to &lt;strong&gt;fulfill&lt;/strong&gt; them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, Christians are no longer &lt;em&gt;required&lt;/em&gt; to keep the Sabbath holy. But, it's still a VERY good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T04:37:33.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="204" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:48:49.260" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is waiting for the fullness of time, a time when all the appointed righteous have been saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until that appointed time, God is being patient:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Pet 3:3 ff&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will&#xA;come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; They will say,&#xA;“Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died,&#xA;everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; But&#xA;they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came&#xA;into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; By&#xA;these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,&#xA;being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day&#xA;is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; The&#xA;Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.&#xA;Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but&#xA;everyone to come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T04:48:49.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1330" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T04:53:31.233" Score="4" ViewCount="74" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/847/is-the-commandment-to-multiply-and-replenish-the-earth-in-effect-today&quot;&gt;Is the commandment to multiply, and replenish the earth in effect today?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well mainly I'm talking about the multiply bit...there are 7 billion people on the planet, is there any Christian reasoning that states that at some point you should take in existing-orphans instead of making more people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T04:53:31.233" Title="Is there a point when &quot;be fruitful and multiply&quot; should no longer apply?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-08-31T05:04:40.460" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="696" CreationDate="2011-08-31T05:03:47.673" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this question has an accepted answer but it seems that one scripture has been missed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2023:23&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot;&gt;Matt 23:23&lt;/a&gt; NKJV&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the words of Jesus &quot;These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.&quot; In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2023:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt; translation it says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.&#xA;  So from that we can learn that Jesus was telling us to do both tithing and  justice/mercy/faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One argument for not tithing is that it is a jewish law and we are not bound by it any more. While it is true we are not bound by the law tithing came before and was made into law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7:2a&lt;/a&gt; NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything ... &lt;em&gt;*snip*&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(also read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+14:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 14:20&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The ten commandments and law were not around in the time of Abraham and therefore it was a principle known to Abraham (I assume from God) to give one tenth, a tithe, to the priest which in this case was Melchizedek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="243" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T05:03:47.673" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1332" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T05:04:02.587" Score="4" ViewCount="341" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2/what-is-the-basis-for-sola-scriptura&quot;&gt;What is the basis for Sola Scriptura?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anywhere in the Bible that says Christians should be Sola Scriptura?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T21:08:25.827" Title="What is the Biblical Basis for Sola Scriptura?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sola-scriptura&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2011-08-31T11:40:13.290" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1333" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1342" CreationDate="2011-08-31T05:17:25.010" Score="12" ViewCount="544" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exactly as the title says. What is the archaeological evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah existed and were destroyed by fire from the heavens (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 19:24&lt;/a&gt;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T02:31:38.097" Title="What is the archaeological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah?" Tags="&lt;archaeology&gt;&lt;sodom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1334" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T05:30:34.200" Score="22" ViewCount="1743" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; is Latin for &quot;by scripture alone&quot;. It is the slogan used by early Protestants to indicate their belief, against Catholicism, that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the basis of &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; believing &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt;? Answers from all perspectives which oppose &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; are appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorUserId="1787" LastEditDate="2017-05-24T01:42:56.050" LastActivityDate="2018-02-15T15:26:59.137" Title="What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sola-scriptura&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1334" CreationDate="2011-08-31T05:49:48.780" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basis is that you run into a self-referentiality problem trying to figure out what the Bible says about itself.  There was no such thing as &quot;the Bible&quot; when it was being written.  Not even the concept of &quot;writing the Bible&quot; existed, the way we think of writing books today, because the Bible isn't a book; it's &lt;em&gt;a collection of several individual books.&lt;/em&gt;  Each book was its own work that (originally) stood on its own, and they weren't compiled into a collection until centuries after the last of them was written.  So if you're looking for a biblical doctrine that says &quot;only the Bible can be considered authoritative,&quot; you won't find any such thing, because you &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T05:49:48.780" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-08-31T06:01:43.877" Score="33" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over the ages, many things have been written, and many things have been believed. I appreciate that the Bible has many believers, but that &lt;em&gt;by itself&lt;/em&gt; is evidence of only one thing: that the Bible has many believers. As noted in a previous answer - if we are not required to &lt;em&gt;reason&lt;/em&gt; a view, we can state &lt;strong&gt;anything&lt;/strong&gt; as fact. Thus there is a burden of proof &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;on both sides&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Atheism is approaching this burden of proof through scientific method, and it is astonishing the new insights it provides - I don't just mean re-interpreting words that have been written both others : I mean original research and ideas, researched, some found to be useful and iterated, some found to be incorrect and dismissed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The default position with any &lt;em&gt;fact based&lt;/em&gt; assessment is to look at a combination of factors, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;observation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;reason&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;historical evidence &lt;em&gt;in context&lt;/em&gt; (which I'll come back to)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(and many other points)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Observation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is nothing &lt;em&gt;verfiable&lt;/em&gt; about religious claims. No reliable, repeatable test can be made. We should here limit outselves to things that &lt;strong&gt;directly&lt;/strong&gt; provide evidence for some kind of deity, not simply the &quot;beauty of creation&quot;, etc, since that is not causal. The argument &quot;we exist and things are ok, thus God&quot; makes a huge presumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Reason&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not &lt;em&gt;reasonable&lt;/em&gt; to assume a God. By which, I mean in exactly the same way that if I said &quot;when I drop my pen, invisible pixies push it towards the ground; these magic pixies cannot be detected by any means&quot; - the above would fit with the observation (the pen falling), but:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there is no &lt;em&gt;requirement&lt;/em&gt; for the pixies in the theory&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;given the definition (cannot be detected by any means), there is no test that could &lt;em&gt;disprove&lt;/em&gt; the theory (this is actually very important in the scientific method)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the existence or non-existence of the pixies tells us nothing about the universe&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many attempts have been made (over the ages) to prove the existence of a deity through logic; they are all easy to dismiss as abuses of &quot;logic&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Historical Evidence&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might offend: &lt;em&gt;the Bible is not evidence&lt;/em&gt;; the sources are limited and biased, many accounts do not tally with other known records (or even similar accounts in the Bible); it has been &lt;em&gt;extensively&lt;/em&gt; edited and re-edited; most of it was written &lt;em&gt;centuries&lt;/em&gt; after the supposed accounts; it repeatedly shows &lt;em&gt;even from God&lt;/em&gt;, a perspective limited to the knowledge &lt;strong&gt;available at the time&lt;/strong&gt;. All we can prove from the Bible is that: these things have been said and believed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The modern age&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The common interpretation is that the Bible, along with much religion and philosophy, is the approach that relatively primitive cultures have used to explain the awesome fact that we exist. That we exist &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; amazing, and no attempt is made to devalue that - however, today we have more powerful tools to bring to this. Modern physics, biology, geology, astronomy, etc provide &lt;em&gt;much better&lt;/em&gt; explanations for everything in the Bible, that do not require a &quot;leap of faith&quot;, but instead have &lt;strong&gt;sound&lt;/strong&gt; reason. Each scientific development erodes our human ignorance, leaving any deity fewer and smaller holes to hide in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Carl Sagan wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A claim along religious lines &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; an extraordinary claim; no religious group has &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt; produced any compelling evidence for such. So yes: atheism is the reasonable &quot;default position&quot;, in the same way that our default position for things falling should not be &quot;pixies&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T12:18:07.213" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T12:18:07.213" CommentCount="29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1338" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1796" CreationDate="2011-08-31T06:06:49.847" Score="7" ViewCount="1677" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does the New Testament define a brother in Christ? According to the New Testament, what makes a human a brother in Christ? And also, according to the New Testament, which people are definitely not Christians, definitely not brothers in Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would want to have a set of key critical conditions-prerequisites (elicited from the New Testament) that would be necessary conditions for a person to be considered a Christian or a brother in Christ (I mean, if a person lacks at least one of those conditions, he is definitely not a Christian and definitely not a brother in Christ)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(I am not requesting here others' personal views. I really want to know how this very important matter is presented in the New Testament.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This matter is in fact a fundamental matter pertaining to Christian faith. It's not like &quot;Is smoking cigarettes good or bad according to the New Testament?&quot; While smoking may not be an important issue in Christianity, the matter that I am concerned about here definitely is)  &lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T11:41:21.910" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T16:40:12.087" Title="How does the New Testament define a Christian and a non-Christian, a brother in Christ and not a brother in Christ?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-12-04T15:21:46.907" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1334" CreationDate="2011-08-31T06:07:04.820" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The teachings of the Scripture of the time of Jesus (the Torah) was the only Scripture that they had then. All other teachings, by Jesus and by His disciples, were orally transmitted. The saints of the Church hadn't even started to write things down, compiling the Gospel accounts as we know it, until years after Jesus' death, when they realized that He wasn't returning within their lifetimes. And, before Jesus' time, back in the days of the Prophets, the Law was passed down orally, before ever getting written down by someone later on. In this way, adhering to a non-Sola Scriptura view (which actually predates Sola Scriptura, historically), is how Christianity (and Judaism before it) always operated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could say that in this way, there is a Biblical basis for operating non-Sola Scriptura, because the Bible clearly describes the faith being passed down in that manner. And if you believe that Jesus lives on through the Church, just as the Jews believed in the prophets, then I think it's pretty rational to do so in this manner. If you try and look, there isn't really a hard line or date where you can say &quot;OK, from here on out, no new insights can be gathered--all that could ever be True has been written, and there is nothing more for us to figure out&quot;. In fact, I believe that the Church will forever be learning and growing deeper in understanding of God. He has been slowly revealing Himself more and more throughout the millenia, and so there is no reason to think that God stopped at some point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, I guess you could say that it's traditional to not be Sola Scriptura, and that might sound like an odd reason at first glance, but I think it's precisely the point. The Church traditionally was not Sola Scriptura for centuries, and so that's why it might continue to this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="268" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T01:07:21.853" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T01:07:21.853" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1332" CreationDate="2011-08-31T06:07:58.873" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has trouble being self-referential, since the Bible did not exist as a collection until after the individual books were written.  Also, any time someone was writing a book that would later become scripture, the writer was generating new thoughts not seen in earlier books of scripture.    So, for any writer to say, &quot;Only trust scripture&quot; is disingenuous, since the writer was taking inspiration from other sources himself, even if that other source was a direct revelation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="271" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T06:07:58.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2011-08-31T06:08:05.323" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I think of death, I like to think of the &quot;Soul separating from the body&quot; image. What would it be like? Well, no ingoing or outgoing information since I no longer have a body to do these things with. With the exception of God, because He communicates through the soul, not the body. Once this exclusive connection to God has taken place, I can lose any desire for evil and I obtain true freedom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't exclude pain or suffering, but that depends on what God and I have to &quot;say to each other&quot;. If I have done Good all my life, my thoughts will be Good and I won't &quot;live&quot; with regret. I would have no desire to sin (nor the possibility). Also God will be happy and proud of me. This would be Paradise (Free will, no suffering). If I have done Bad all my life, I will spend eternity regretting it. Also, God might be kind of angry, hence the possible suffering (Hell: Forget the free will here, I suppose)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S I have absolutely no &quot;literature&quot; to back this up&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="266" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T06:08:05.323" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1333" CreationDate="2011-08-31T06:17:35.863" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The search for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have been a common archaeological pursuit over the years. There have been some proposals, and I do recall seeing a documentary about a couple such sites, near the Dead Sea, which may be very likely the Biblical cities stated. It is difficult to say for absolute certain whether these are the cities mentioned in the Bible or not, but there are some interesting arguments for their identification as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The documentary that I saw was on the History Channel, and mentioned the sites named &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab_edh-Dhra&quot;&gt;Bab edh-Dhra&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeira&quot;&gt;Numeira&lt;/a&gt; as candidates. They existed near each other and both were destroyed, somehow, around the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other cities that have been proposed, however. You can see a quick writeup on Wikipedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Historicity&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T06:17:35.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1325" CreationDate="2011-08-31T06:21:44.280" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Physicality is not specified at all. Although you could make a case that online, we are in some manner physically present to each other. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you are together, praying, but gathered over great distances, I don't think there's any technicality in play, here. God doesn't work in technicalities, but in what's in our heart. So, I figure that yes, virtual gatherings also do count.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of examples of people throughout the world using telecommunications to pray together. And I have never seen anyone question the idea that Jesus wasn't actually present. To the contrary, it always is understood that He is. So I would treat this as a common understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T06:21:44.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1344" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T06:29:48.157" Score="51" ViewCount="6841" Body="&lt;p&gt;During the great flood Noah was ordered by God to fetch two animals of each species and put them into his ark. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt;    And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of&#xA;  every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be&#xA;  male and female.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt;    Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals&#xA;  after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its&#xA;  kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt;    As&#xA;  for you, take for yourself some of all afood which is edible, and&#xA;  gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:19-21&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:19-21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species&quot;&gt;more than 1 million different species of animals&lt;/a&gt; in existence (that we know of), many of them are quite large or dangerous. How can all of those animals even fit into the ark, together with the vast amounts of food that would be needed? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="197" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T04:08:41.633" LastActivityDate="2016-10-05T13:03:58.150" Title="How did all the animals fit into Noah's ark?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;ark-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="9" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T02:02:30.287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1147" CreationDate="2011-08-31T06:49:03.430" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;By simply limiting this answer to the similarities of the Book of Mormon and the Bible here is what I've put together (note this is in no way a complete compilation of the similarities but rather a starting point):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;|   Doctrine                |      Book of Mormon   |      Bible (KJV)      |&#xA;-----------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;|                           |                       |                       |&#xA;|1. Jesus was born of Virgin|       Alma 7:9-10     |       Matthew 1:16    |&#xA;|   Mary                    |                       |                       |&#xA;|                           |                       |                       |&#xA;|2. He institued the        |     3 Nephi 18        |       Matthew 26      |&#xA;|   Sacrament for His       |                       |                       |&#xA;|   followers               |                       |                       |&#xA;|                           |                       |                       |&#xA;|3. The resurected Christ   |    3 Nephi 11:14-15   |       John 20: 26-27  |&#xA;|   had scars he showed his |                       |                       |&#xA;|   believers               |                       |                       |&#xA;|                           |                       |                       |&#xA;|4. Christ taught similar   |    3 Nephi 12         |       Matthew 5       |&#xA;|   doctrines               |                       |                       |&#xA;|                           |                       |                       |&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I will try to update as I find more&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="252" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T06:49:03.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1348" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T07:05:51.683" Score="10" ViewCount="663" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it enough for me to watch a sermon online every Sunday? I have some Christian friends that I spend time with and we pray together sometimes. I study the Bible on my own and listen to my favorite preacher online every week. What need would I have to get up and go to a brick and mortar church every Sunday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T20:30:57.550" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T20:30:57.550" Title="Can I go to church on the internet?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-02-06T18:15:49.457" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1348" CreationDate="2011-08-31T07:12:30.947" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;This depends on what your church services provide for you and your own life situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic, I can't really do that because I cannot receive Eucharist at home, unless a priest comes over, in which case I could. But this doesn't lend itself well to internet services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another common reason people go to a service is because of fellowship and community worship. You may fellowship via the internet with others but you don't get the day-to-day interaction online that you may in person. The dynamic is different. Also, it is a different experience worshiping in a group vs. alone. It is very important for a Christian to build relationships with other Christians because it provides some support and an avenue for growth in your faith. Church services are a major way to fill that need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that if you don't have any better options, or you physically are unable to make it to your service on Sunday, having an online service may fill that void. Many elderly even watch church services on TV if they are homebound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally do them in addition to going to a physical church. They can be worth it. But I would only replace a physical service with an online one out of necessity, myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="268" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T07:18:41.683" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T07:18:41.683" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1348" CreationDate="2011-08-31T07:15:09.057" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Searching what the Bible has to say about this, I came upon &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10 : 25&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 &lt;strong&gt;Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together&lt;/strong&gt;, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It depends on ,  does being on the internet qualify as &quot;assembling&quot;? Looking up the meaning of &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assembling&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;assembling&quot;,&lt;/a&gt; we get:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;bring together or gather &lt;strong&gt;into one place,&lt;/strong&gt; company, body, or whole. (Emphasis my own)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's pretty clear therefore, that going to a place where there are other believers is necessary. That doesn't necessarily mean a church, it could be a house, or a field, but as long as there are other believers gathered together at that location worshipping the Lord, that's fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looked this up on its Greek origin, that is, the Greek word behind &quot;assembling&quot;, and I &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1997&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;found it came from:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ἐπισυναγωγή  gathering together , assembling together &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the dictionary reference above would be quite dependable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T08:21:02.150" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T08:21:02.150" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1351" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-31T07:25:15.037" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized on the 6th of April 1830 in Fayette, New York. &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/joseph-smith/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph Smith&lt;/a&gt; is considered to be the instrument for the restoration of the church, and is revered as a modern day prophet of this dispensation (a period of time where the gospel is dispensed to mankind by revelation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate incarnate beings, making the LDS faith unique from the trinitarian belief.  Mormons thus &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=three%20distinct%20separate%20beings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;believe in three ontologically distinct and separate beings&lt;/a&gt;: God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  Joseph Smith also introduced new scripture through the translation of ancient holy writ given to him by an angel, and translated &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;by the gift and power of God.&lt;/a&gt;&quot;  The resulting &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/beliefs/book-of-mormon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt; is complementary to the Bible, and is the source of the common name for members of the church, &lt;em&gt;Mormons&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;though it is incorrect to call the Church the Mormon Church&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, and that salvation comes only through Him. They believe in continuing revelation, which includes the revelations given to Joseph Smith as well as to his successors in the office of the presidency of the church.  A collection of these revelations is published in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pearl of Great Price&lt;/a&gt;, both of which are also considered to be canonized scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons also believe in modern-day prophets and apostles.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;There are currently 12 apostles&lt;/a&gt; organized together with a prophet/president and his two counselors, who regularly communicate with the general membership of the church in messages which are also considered modern day revelation and inspired counsel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS belief places distinctive emphasis on &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/values/family&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the family unit&lt;/a&gt; as the basic organizational structure of the church and kingdom of heaven, and on the requirement that the individual disciple seek personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. Through the Holy Ghost, one can develop a personal relationship with Heavenly Father and greater understand the Plan of Salvation, by which families can remain forever, which is a primary focus of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/church/temples&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;temples&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sharing the gospel, doing service, teaching &amp;amp; learning, and family history are some of &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/values&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the special values&lt;/a&gt; of the Latter-day Saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information visit either the &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mormon.org&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lds.org&lt;/a&gt; websites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="252" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2014-10-15T16:12:20.053" LastActivityDate="2014-10-15T16:12:20.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1352" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-31T07:25:15.037" Score="0" Body="The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called Mormons" OwnerUserId="252" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-12-27T07:32:51.553" LastActivityDate="2013-12-27T07:32:51.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1344" CreationDate="2011-08-31T07:32:55.017" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose there is one other &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was a &lt;strong&gt;miracle&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That would put it in the &lt;em&gt;&quot;how did Jesus walk on water?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;&quot;how did Jesus feed thousands of people with a few fish sandwiches?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T07:18:14.573" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T07:18:14.573" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1355" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-31T07:53:19.787" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T07:53:19.787" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T07:53:19.787" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1356" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-31T07:53:19.787" Score="0" Body="The great flood recorded in the Genesis which Noah survived by building an Ark." OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T17:57:27.787" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T17:57:27.787" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1344" CreationDate="2011-08-31T08:15:30.423" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several factors that allows this. One of this, is the sheer size of the ark. According to the dimensions that the Bible gives, the Ark will have &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet high. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91.7 x 55 = &lt;strong&gt;2,773,925 cubic feet.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the amount of space available. That's approximately, 522 railroad cars, each carrying 240 sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about all those large animals, the elephants, mammoths, dinosaurs? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is, Noah could easily have taken the infants of these large animals. Even if he didn't, a proffessor estimated that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive &lt;em&gt;Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study,&lt;/em&gt; estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. &lt;strong&gt;This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals&lt;/strong&gt;, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even with all those large animals, there would still have been ample space:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...it has been calculated that a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925 cubic feet could store 125,000 sheep-sized animals, leaving over 1.5 million cubic feet of free space (see - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta42.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta42.html&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now concerning the sheer number of species, there is quite a simple explanation. Purmou has already taken that into consideration, and I would like to use an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In today's world, there are about 400 different types of dogs. But, they all have &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; common ancestor, the wolf. The way these dogs have been bred, is through the elucidation of certain DNA, so that only desired characteristics remained, and the DNA that isn't needed is not in these dogs. Basically, a loss of DNA.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Links : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/Noahs-ark-animals.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-10-05T12:48:43.963" LastActivityDate="2016-10-05T12:48:43.963" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1358" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T08:32:13.140" Score="20" ViewCount="31177" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is well known that on Easter we celebrate Jesus' resurrection, but every year it is held on a different date, whereas Jesus' birthday&amp;mdash;Christmas&amp;mdash;is celebrated on the same day every year. So why is the day we celebrate Jesus' resurrection different every year when Christmas is not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user275" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-12-23T03:45:17.520" LastActivityDate="2021-03-17T14:57:23.470" Title="Why is Easter celebrated on a different day every year and Christmas is not?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;easter&gt;&lt;calendar&gt;&lt;liturgical-calendar&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1245" CreationDate="2011-08-31T08:33:49.737" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;I am asking if someone can call themselves Christian and not believe the claims &#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, of course, who's going to stop them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe this applies to a large percentage of western Europeans, due to the fact that most still are members of the former state churches, pay their dues and go to church on christmas and easter, marry in the church etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="274" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T08:33:49.737" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1360" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T08:46:09.687" Score="17" ViewCount="3011" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most Christians celebrate the birth of Christ (Christmas) on December 25. But was this really the day of Christ's birth? &lt;strong&gt;What was the actual date of Christ's birth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-01-23T00:19:23.997" LastActivityDate="2018-01-23T00:19:23.997" Title="On which date was Christ born?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-25T00:54:50.930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1361" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T09:08:56.990" Score="52" ViewCount="9622" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the commandments states &quot;place no other gods before me&quot;. Does this mean God is implying the existence of other gods, or why is this explicitly stated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical universe also includes a varied cast of supernatural characters like Lucifer, Metatron, Archangels, Demons, Seraphim, etc. Some of these manifest with power in the world and represent the roles of messengers, warriors, healers, advisers, protectors, troublemakers, and so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why are these not acknowledged as &quot;gods&quot; or &quot;lesser gods&quot; like in the pantheons of other religions: how is the nature of their existence different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On what basis is Christianity classified as monotheistic given the existence of other powerful beings in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="272" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-17T11:16:44.977" LastActivityDate="2019-04-27T20:05:25.707" Title="Why is Christianity considered a monotheistic religion?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;monotheism&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1360" CreationDate="2011-08-31T09:11:58.300" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We Armenians &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; informally celebrate the birthday of Christ on December 25th, but to celebrate his birth on the 6th of January is religiously accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The historical reasoning behind this is that until the fourth century, Christ's birth was celebrated on January 6th across all Christian faiths, but for most was moved to December 25th in order to cleanse Christianity of all pagan traces (leftover from former pagan practices). Armenia was not included because as a nation it didn't adopt the pagan practice to begin with (and Armenia was the first to accept Christianity as a nation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christian faiths now recognize December 25th as Christ's birthday and January 6th as the Feast of Epiphany. However, both used to be celebrated&amp;mdash;and currently are, by most Armenian religions&amp;mdash;on January 6th.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.littlearmenia.com/html/little_armenia/armenian_christmas.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T09:11:58.300" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1363" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T09:15:44.850" Score="32" ViewCount="2326" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is a spin-off from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1360/when-was-christ-born&quot;&gt;On which date was Christ born?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are differing views on the birth year of Christ, which also affect the dating of the resurrection (as we know Jesus's age on death). Which years are possible, and what are the arguments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2020-03-27T10:04:42.753" Title="In which year was Christ born?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1364" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T09:27:56.623" Score="14" ViewCount="50698" Body="&lt;p&gt;The popular story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2017&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;David and Goliath&lt;/a&gt; describes Goliath as very tall (&quot;six cubits and a span&quot;--apparently roughly 9 feet 9 inches, or 297cm).  Most children are just told he was a &quot;giant&quot; in Sunday school.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where did he come from?&lt;/strong&gt;  Was he part of a now-extinct race of giants, or was it just some sort of genetic mutation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T13:34:14.997" LastActivityDate="2014-08-05T00:27:05.093" Title="Where did Goliath come from?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;david&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1360" CreationDate="2011-08-31T09:37:42.193" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know there is no proof of any certain date of Christ's birth. And it is only by tradition that we accept it as the 25th of December. Now I'm not one for following tradition for traditions sake, but according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibleserralta.com/JesusbornDecember.html&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt; a lot of the evidence that people provide to rule out December as Christ's birthday is not rooted in fact. I don't think the exact day is important to salvation myself, but the fact that He was born. According to the author of that site the movement to suggest he couldn't have been born in december was started by the Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't know if that's true but that's what he claims.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author dosen't claim that Jesus definitely was born on Dec. 25th. But claims that we just can't rule that out. Here are a couple of his points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those against the December date claim that it was too cold for&#xA;shepherds to be out in the field in winter; However it didn't seem to&#xA;actually get that cold in Bethlehem in December, and even if it did&#xA;shepherds would in fact stay out in the fields even in colder&#xA;weather.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Claims are made that tradition puts it in December beacause of the&#xA;pegan winter solstice, the problem with that argument is that the&#xA;winter solstice is on the 21st to the 22nd, not the 25th, and there&#xA;are thousands of pegan holidays so ANY day is some pegan celebration&#xA;in some part of the world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So can it be proved that it was the 25th of December? No. Can it be disproved? Probably not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it matter more that it happened on a certain day or just the fact that it happened? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T11:36:33.807" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T11:36:33.807" CommentCount="3" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-08-31T09:37:42.193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1361" CreationDate="2011-08-31T09:52:29.030" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is monotheistic as its adherents believe in only one God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first commandment speaks about the gods of other religions. Although Christians believe in only God, they do acknowledge that other gods are believed in by non-Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, there are many gods in which to believe, but you believe in only one if you are Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the same passage applies to Muslims and Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the third part of your question: the belief in the Christian God (i.e. the Trinity) is what defines Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Belief (or lack thereof) in the supernatural attributes of Satan, the Saints, Virgin Mary, angels vary by interpretation, but in general these figures are considered non-divine, and certainly subsidiary to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastEditorUserId="279" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T10:19:55.180" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T10:19:55.180" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1358" CreationDate="2011-08-31T10:43:12.787" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The date of Easter follows similar rules as the date of Passover, and is determined using those rules because of that tradition. (The death of Jesus on that day is significant because of his connection of his death to the sacrifice of the passover lamb.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the western church, Easter falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the nominal northern-hemisphere vernal equinox. (I call it nominal because it's considered to be on March 21, rather than at the moment of the astronomical equinox.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the eastern church, it's based on the old Julian calendar, and so sometimes is on a different date.  Hopefully somebody who understands this can contribute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Lutheran Christianity, the date chosen for celebrating Easter is the archetypal &lt;em&gt;adiaphoron&lt;/em&gt;, or a good example of a thing that doesn't matter.  The reformers considered that it was more important to go along with the rest of the Christendom of the time in choosing this date, than it was to somehow get the date &quot;right.&quot;    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T10:43:12.787" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1358" CreationDate="2011-08-31T10:45:21.370" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Easter was traditionally a fertility rite in spring among pagan cultures. The name even comes from a pagan goddess. Since fertility is connected to the cycle of the moon, when this festival was converted into the Christian tradition they followed the same lunar observances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Connections between fertility and Easter can also be seen in the symbolism of the rabbit, and the eggs. This seems to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html#8up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;widely&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg#Origin_and_folklore&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;acknowledged&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly, later Christian doctrines have established their own reasoning for the tradition, but the Easter festivals predate Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christmas being the birth of Jesus coincides with the winter solstice (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Yule&lt;/a&gt;), and most ancient cultures had a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Pre-Christian_background&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;winter solstice festival&lt;/a&gt;. This is the time when the sun begins its return and it's possible that this was adopted for its symbolic significance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="272" LastEditorUserId="272" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T11:42:38.683" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T11:42:38.683" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1344" CreationDate="2011-08-31T10:53:35.343" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The group &quot;Answers in Genesis&quot; will point out that the scripture is not bound by our understanding of species, but rather states the he should bring every &quot;kind&quot; or &quot;sort&quot; of animal. That is, rather than bring a cheetah, jaguar, lion, tiger, panther, leopard, puma, etc., he could have brought some sort of cat, and further speciation would have taken place after the fact. This understanding would vastly cut down on the number of animals required from millions to thousands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T20:46:15.473" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T20:46:15.473" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1245" CreationDate="2011-08-31T11:04:48.103" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course it's possible to be a cultural Christian without walking in the way of Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I claim it's impossible not to be a cultural Christian in the USA.  You can't go shopping during Advent (December, it's called in the cultural calendar) without being blasted by muzak versions of ancient Latin  plainsong -- O Come All Ye Faithful -- and Dr. Watts hymns -- Joy To the World -- about the birth of Christ.  Occasionally you even get blasted by a song that's appropriate to the Advent season -- O Come Emmanuel -- but Advent music is often in a minor key so doesn't promote the euphoria the shopkeepers need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you think of God as a old guy with a long beard and a white robe in the sky, you're culturally familiar with the &quot;Ancient of Days&quot; in Daniel's vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know the meaning of the cultural trope &quot;Good Samaritan&quot; you are familiar with one of the most culturally challenging teachings of Jesus.  If you've ever said &quot;my bad&quot; or &quot;forgive me&quot; to somebody about something you've done wrong, you're following Jesus's call for human beings to repent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you get a twinge of conscience when you read a news story about how a hospital tossed a homeless person out of the emergency department, this is why:  you live in a culture that has institutionalized the idea that God judges the nations by their treatment of the &quot;least of these my sisters and brothers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you be a cultural Christian and not believe the claims of Christianity? Obviously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This rant has ended.  Go in peace.   :-)  :-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T11:04:48.103" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="462" CreationDate="2011-08-31T11:21:33.987" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was a popular cosmology in neo-Platonist antiquity (the time of Jesus and St. Paul) that described circles of heaven.  St. Paul's cosmological view shows forth in a lot of his descriptions.  You mentioned the third circle reference in 2Co 12.  You also mentioned 1Co 15.  He also described &quot;principalities and powers, &quot; which are associated with circles of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an echo of this cosmology in the hymn &quot;Immortal, invisible, God only wise, with light inaccessible hid from our eyes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 8:38-39 invokes this cosmology (angels, rulers, powers, height, etc) and then says &quot;no&quot; to it. It is not the way God's presence and love for humanity is organized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor&#xA;  rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor&#xA;  height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to&#xA;  separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NRSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's helpful to distinguish St. Paul's culturally inculcated ideas of cosmology (and ours!) from the mysteries of God's creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T11:21:33.987" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1373" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T11:30:08.980" Score="4" ViewCount="3159" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story of Abraham is talking about a man, who is punished by God to victimize his son, to prove his faith (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2022:1%E2%80%9319&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen 22:1–19&lt;/a&gt;).  Abraham decides to follow his God by killing his own son. But at the last moment, God says 'Stop', and accepts an animal as sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blind obedience seems to be the main value, taught by this story. Do, what the authorities tell you! However, this is totally against our modern ethics: Killing a person, just to prove something, is considered evil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the victimization did not actually take place in the story, but Abraham is praised for doint, what he was told. So does blindly following God justify everything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could say that this is just a Jewish story, from the Old Testament, but the story is repeated later, whith different roles: God is victimizing his own son, Jesus, to prove his faith in man. For the parallels, see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 1:11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:23&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how can the sacrificing of a human be considered a moral behavior? I was taught that instrumenting a person, using somebody like a thing, exploiting somebody is the root of all evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do moral laws that apply to humans not apply to God (even though he created man after his own image)? Did he create moral laws for humans that he does not uphold? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main question is, as stated in the headline: Is it moral to sacrifice your son in order to grant favor with God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T15:01:20.687" LastActivityDate="2014-05-18T17:52:13.207" Title="Abraham tries to sacrifice his son. Is exploiting a human a moral behaviour?" Tags="&lt;killing&gt;&lt;obedience&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T00:11:44.420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1375" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T12:03:58.443" Score="14" ViewCount="2169" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible often makes references to the law being written on our hearts, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom,&#xA;           And his tongue talks of justice.  The law of his God is in&#xA;  his heart;&#xA;           None of his steps shall slide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 37:30-31 (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it's not being literal when it says the law (morals) are written on our hearts. &lt;strong&gt;So how do we get morals?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are we born knowing (genetic?).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it spiritual and morals are&#xA;transmitted to our brains from our spirits?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are they learned from reading the Bible?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are they passed down from generation to generation?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Something else?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background&lt;/strong&gt; (my justification for asking the question)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm an agnostic atheist and an emotivist. I enjoy watching debates between atheists and theists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theists frequently ask the atheists:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If god isn't real, then how do you know what is right and wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is a good question, but I rarely hear the reverse asked:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If god is real, then how do you know what is right and wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="277" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T12:14:13.277" LastActivityDate="2011-11-24T14:22:40.327" Title="How do we get morals?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T01:51:56.090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2011-08-31T12:07:42.837" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your basic premises was incorrect.  It is true that human free will causes suffering, but not in isolation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Normally, when we Christians talk of free will and suffering, we do so in context to the world in which we live.  It's like discussing chemistry and forgetting to mention the air because it's assumed to be there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A truer equation would be &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Free Will&lt;/strong&gt; + &lt;strong&gt;Sin&lt;/strong&gt;= &lt;strong&gt;Suffering&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In heaven, the sin will be gone, and thus free will will no longer cause suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="288" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T12:07:42.837" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1377" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T12:15:27.363" Score="11" ViewCount="2859" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was it the act of seducing Eve to eat the apple that was his downfall, was he already fallen before that, or was it after?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2015-04-17T06:03:43.033" Title="When did Lucifer's fall take place?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-04-20T15:19:16.493" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1378" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1397" CreationDate="2011-08-31T12:28:54.883" Score="51" ViewCount="49815" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve, when they were created in the Garden of Eden, were without sin.  Because of that, they were perfect and flawless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, with that theology in mind, I'm running up against a wall: &lt;em&gt;Why, if Adam and Eve were perfect, did they choose to sin?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Were they not perfect?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we presume that they weren't perfect, then we have to see that God created them with the imperfection.  If God created them as imperfect, would that mean that by creating us this way he caused us to sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Being omniscient, he knew full well that if he created us to sin then we would sin.  Therefore wouldn't his act of creation be the cause of the sin?)  Finally, if he created us to sin, can God be held accountable for this sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Were they perfect?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, rather, did God create them as perfect and they chose imperfection?  If Adam and Eve chose imperfection, how could they be considered perfect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;My question, in summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any doctrines that speak to the perfection or imperfection of Adam and Eve (particularly in regards to why they chose to sin)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the doctrine claims Adam and Eve were perfect, how do they reconcile this with them choosing imperfection (since that would indicate they were imperfect from creation)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the doctrine claims that Adam and Eve were imperfect, how do they reconcile this with the idea that God created imperfect beings?  Furthermore, does that doctrine hold that God is partially responsible for the sins that Adam and Eve committed since he knew that they would commit the sin and chose to create them anyways?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-10-20T16:30:14.637" Title="If Adam and Eve were perfect, why did they choose to sin?" Tags="&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="14" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T03:19:18.853" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1377" CreationDate="2011-08-31T12:37:51.757" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;That happened before the Garden of Eden incident.  Before then, he walked in heaven (on the holy mount of God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekial 28:14-15 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; You were anointed as a guardian cherub,     for so I ordained you. &#xA;  You were on the holy mount of God;     you walked among the fiery&#xA;  stones.  &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; You were blameless in your ways     from the day you were&#xA;  created     till wickedness was found in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was actually cast down because he became proud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekial 28:17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your heart became proud     on account of your beauty,  and you&#xA;  corrupted your wisdom     because of your splendor.  So I threw you to&#xA;  the earth;     I made a spectacle of you before kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he thought that he could be God, that he could take God's place in the universe as ruler of it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014:13-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:13-14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; You said in your heart,     “I will ascend to the heavens;  I will&#xA;  raise my throne     above the stars of God;  I will sit enthroned on&#xA;  the mount of assembly,     on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; &#xA;    I will make myself like the Most High.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was his downfal:  Pride--he thought he was as good as God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T12:44:09.020" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T12:44:09.020" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2011-08-31T12:44:45.567" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's lay some foundation from the start. (All scripture NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God and Abraham had quite the relationship. God promised Abraham a son who would become a great nation (Genesis 17:15) even when he was 100 years old and his wife was 90. Abraham believed God and God provided him a son who was named Isaac (Genesis 21:2). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaac was the son God has promised Abraham, but as a test of Abraham's faith God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar as an offering to God (child sacrifice was a common ritual among pagans in that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice#Ancient_Near_East&quot;&gt;time period&lt;/a&gt;). From the very beginning of the passage the author of Genesis tells us that this is a test of Abraham's faith (Genesis 22:1). This was an unusual thing to do; however, it allowed God to show his faithfulness and also Abraham to show his faith in God. It's unclear to me from the passage whether Abraham believed that God would provide the sacrifice or if he knew that God could raise the dead (Gen 22:8, Hebrews 11:19). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final verses in the passage say (Genesis 22:15-18):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is the key here, not blind obedience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much like Abraham was willing to give his own Son. God, the better Abraham, gave his own son to die for our sins. We see in the context of the New Testament that Abraham's sacrifice of his son was foreshadowing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins. The parallels are nicely illustrated in the following &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.centervilleroad.com/articles/isaac.html&quot;&gt;table&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Isaac (Genesis 22)                         Jesus&#xA;&#xA;Only son of promise (v. 2)                 Only begotten of Father (John 3:16)&#xA;&#xA;To be sacrificed in Moriah (v. 2)          Sacrificed in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 3:1)&#xA;&#xA;Considered dead by father for              Dead for three days (1 Cor. 15:3-4)&#xA;three days (v. 4)&#xA;&#xA;Carried wood for his own sacrifice (v. 6)  Bore his own cross (John 19:17-18)&#xA;&#xA;Submitted willingly to father (vv. 6, 8)   Submitted willingly to Father&#xA;                                           (Matt. 26:39)&#xA;&#xA;Raised from altar, his life spared by      Raised from the dead by&#xA;the power of God                           the power of God (Rom. 6:4)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, from the very beginning God's people has brought sacrifices as payment for their sins (Genesis 4:4 (Abel), 8:20 (Noah)). Later God mandated that Israel make sacrifices for atonement (Exodus 29:33,36).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately these were imperfect offerings and were not sufficient to cover the sins of the people. They needed a better sacrifice (Hebrews 9:9-10). Christ was a perfect sacrifice for our sins.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Hebrews 9:11-14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not about modern day morals about God keeping his promises to Abraham and his people. God promised Abraham that &quot;I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky&quot; and &quot;through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.&quot; The initial outpouring of this blessing was through the formation of the nation of Israel. However the perfection of this blessing was through the death of Christ and God granting us as Christians the status of Abraham's descendants.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Galatians 3:29:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why Christ died, so that we might be children of God. He was a perfect sacrifice for our sins as foretold in the life of Abraham and Isaac. In the same way that God is a better Abraham, Jesus is a better Isaac. In the same way that Israel were Abraham's (and God's) children through the line of Isaac, we are God's (and Abraham's) children through Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally you address a moral concern about human sacrifice. This is an interesting question. For one thing I think it's to let us know that God takes this seriously.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Romans 8:31-34:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second reason I have is this one, Isaiah 55:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA; &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,  &#xA;     neither are your ways my ways,”  &#xA;        declares the LORD.  &#xA; &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; “As the heavens are higher than the earth,  &#xA;    so are my ways higher than your ways  &#xA;    and my thoughts than your thoughts.  &#xA; &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; As the rain and the snow  &#xA;    come down from heaven,  &#xA;  and do not return to it  &#xA;    without watering the earth  &#xA;  and making it bud and flourish,  &#xA;    so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,  &#xA; &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; so is my word that goes out from my mouth:  &#xA;    It will not return to me empty,  &#xA; but will accomplish what I desire  &#xA;    and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.  &#xA; &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; You will go out in joy  &#xA;    and be led forth in peace;  &#xA; the mountains and hills  &#xA;    will burst into song before you,  &#xA; and all the trees of the field  &#xA;    will clap their hands.  &#xA; &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Instead of the thornbush will grow the juniper,  &#xA;    and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.  &#xA; This will be for the LORD’s renown,  &#xA;    for an everlasting sign,  &#xA;    that will endure forever.”   &#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, God is not bound by our human laws and morals; his ways are not our ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="306" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T20:49:15.350" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T20:49:15.350" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1375" CreationDate="2011-08-31T12:58:21.007" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;God has given us a set of guidelines in the Old Testament and solidified them into morals in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the OT we get things like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Do not commit adultery&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  But then along comes Jesus and he says something that completely throws the old rules on its head:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:27-28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit&#xA;  adultery.’ &lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman&#xA;  lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He completely topples the old regime and institutes a law of the heart: a law of morality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God actually told Israel that this would happen in the Old Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%208:8-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 8:8-10 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; But God found fault with the people and said:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“The days are coming, declares the Lord,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;when I will make a new covenant&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  with the people of Israel&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and with the people of Judah.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; It will not be like the covenant&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;I made with their ancestors&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  when I took them by the hand&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;to lead them out of Egypt,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and I turned away from them,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;declares the Lord.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;after that time, declares the Lord.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I will put my laws in their minds&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and write them on their hearts.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I will be their God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and they will be my people.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, he's saying that his old covenant will pass away and that the new covenant will be one that is written on the hearts of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is declaring that the day will come when his laws will not be ones of ink and stone, but ones of the heart: &lt;em&gt;moral&lt;/em&gt; laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how does God give us the ability to know right from wrong?  He has written those laws on our hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without God, there would be no morality.  The bible is quite clear on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T21:08:18.747" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T21:08:18.747" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1373" CreationDate="2011-08-31T12:58:50.257" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the sacrifice of another human is obviously not part of God's plan, this was a test of faith for Abraham.  Hebrews clarifies this action &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, &quot;Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.&quot; He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:17-19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 11:17-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This wasn't simply the killing of a son, as horrendous as that would be.  This is a test of Abraham's faith that God would fulfill his promises, and can be seen in contrast to Abram siring Ishmael (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 16&lt;/a&gt;), where he took God's plan into his own hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that the moral law was not revealed when this had taken place.  The ten commandments would not be given for at least another five hundred years, and the covenants of grace certainly weren't established.  Now when &quot;God tells us&quot; to do something, we have much more information to judge it against.  God's relationship with Moses was really different, and largely based on trust rather than morals or law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="80" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T14:12:38.263" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T14:12:38.263" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1384" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T13:13:55.360" Score="6" ViewCount="10617" Body="&lt;p&gt;People have been finding fossils for many years. Millions of fossils fill museums and storage vaults around the world, and we've yet to find a single one of a human. This suggests that the animals and plants that became fossilised are from a much earlier time than humans ever existed in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does creationism (and the timeline and events of the bible) explain the existence of fossils?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user290" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T21:03:45.963" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T21:16:28.750" Title="How does the Bible explain the existence of fossils that are millions of years old?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2011-08-31T22:41:36.600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="381" CreationDate="2011-08-31T13:14:29.660" Score="107" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question asks &amp;quot;Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?&amp;quot; Because clearly, some do. This is not the place to hold forth on your own beliefs on the matter, this is Stack Exchange, where we answer the question posed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Potentially Valid Reasons&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Many Christians (including the Catholic Church, &lt;a href=&quot;https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/04/pope-francis-says-homosexual-tendencies-are-not-a-sin/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;as recently restated by Pope Francis&lt;/a&gt;) believe that &amp;quot;being&amp;quot; homosexual (having homosexual sexual tendencies to some degree - remember bisexuals exist too) is not sinful in and of itself , but that &lt;em&gt;having&lt;/em&gt; sex with another same-sex person is a sinful act. So a chaste homosexual is as holy as anyone else who's not sinning. Homosexual (or sexual, in general) acts are simply a sin like any other, from gossip to lying, not in some special &amp;quot;worse&amp;quot; category in any mainstream theology; most of the current firestorm about homosexuality specifically is political and bigotry related, not religion related.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some Christians &lt;a href=&quot;http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;believe that the Biblical passages regarding homosexuality are misapplied/badly translated&lt;/a&gt; and therefore do not speak against what we would today regard as &amp;quot;otherwise moral&amp;quot; homosexual practice.  For more see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/121/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality&quot;&gt;What does the bible say about homosexuality?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this Human Rights Campaign article of the same name.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant in concept but not literally inerrant (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Wikipedia entry on biblical inerrancy&lt;/a&gt;), and that there is a lot of cultural baggage associated with it that has to be sifted out to correctly interpret it. There are a lot of things we do/don't do partially based on this understanding (rejection of slavery, for instance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Related to the previous point, some Christians believe that just as Jesus obsoleted/fulfilled the Law in favor of the love of God and the Golden Rule, we should look at the &amp;quot;big picture&amp;quot; and not focus on lists of sinful acts. Because, to be honest, the Bible says a lot of things. The OT says to not eat shrimp; that ban is not one most modern Christians recognize. If you love God and your neighbor, then the specifics which were intended to generally point you in that direction are not needed any more. Some Christians would say that the rejection of legalism and embrace of a more direct relationship with God (which is more complex than any set of rules) was the main point Jesus was trying to get across to us during his life and that Paul and other writers then also tried to get across in the other letters and such that became books of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The church I'm in has better theologians on staff than I, and they say it's OK. Some denominations officially accept homosexuality in whole or in part.  For a good overview of different Christian teachings on homosexuality, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;see wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;. This includes mainline Christian churches such as various Lutheran, Anglican, and United Churches of Christ denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mostly Invalid Reasons&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are probably other reasons; those previously listed are the ones I feel have a decent foundation.  The illogical/unfounded reasons one might hear are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;But they're born that way.&amp;quot; It's not known for certain that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexual inclinations, but even if there is one (and I think there probably is), that has no bearing on the morality of the act. Sin is about the choices we make, not our DNA. Whether from original sin, the Fall, or the human condition, we all have tendencies that point us towards sin, and though those tendencies may make it difficult to live moral lives, we are not bound by them, and they are never excuses for sin. This is an odd argument that is applied to no other sin; would anyone say that if they had a genetic disposition against monogamy that they could get a mulligan on adultery? Of course not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Oh, who cares what the Bible/church says?&amp;quot;  This of course is a difficult position to hold about anything for a Christian. And if you're of another/no faith, we love you and all, but our worldview is guided by those things you reject, so that opinion is of limited help to someone wrestling with this problem from our worldview. One can argue that the Holy Spirit has guided them to this understanding, which is fine, though in general we are asked to test our perception of the Spirit's guidance by the Scriptures and church to verify it's God speaking and not the product of our own creative minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I know a homosexual and they're not a bad person.&amp;quot; This is someone unclear on Christianity's teachings in general, unaware that even good people sin and require repentance. The demonization of homosexuals by the more hateful elements in society actually feed this one; once someone meets a homosexual and sees that they don't have little goat horns and rape babies, they assume they were probably lied to 100% and reject even honest Biblical critique. Understandable, but not logical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The polarization of society on this topic makes a lot of the usual Scriptural measuring sticks difficult to use. We are encouraged by culture and the media to think of things in terms of &amp;quot;right side/wrong side&amp;quot;, so when we try to apply, say, &amp;quot;By their fruits you will know them,&amp;quot; we see some homosexuals who clearly favor a licentious and ungodly lifestyle, but others who seem as normal as anyone's parents, just gay. And similarly we see some Christians with balanced views on the topic but plenty who are spouting hate and other clearly unchristian stuff as well. Which &amp;quot;side&amp;quot; is right? That's a false dichotomy that leads to confusion. My one contribution to this discussion is that I think we need to reject what the world is trying to tell us about which faction or football team we're on and, like God does, address it on an individual basis. There's a lot of judging around this topic based on the extreme activities of the exceptionally disturbed on one side or the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastEditorUserId="232" LastEditDate="2021-04-23T17:51:44.083" LastActivityDate="2021-04-23T17:51:44.083" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1387" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T13:22:33.907" Score="4" ViewCount="342" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many Christians will quote passages from the bible as proof or evidence when needed. However, given that it is a story written, translated, interpreted, re-written, re-translated and re-interpreted by humans over tens of generations and adapted for many of the monotheistic religions such as Christianity, how can we be sure that it still accurately represents the original material, even if it &lt;strong&gt;were&lt;/strong&gt; written by a monotheistic god?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A commenter has made a good point about there being very old manuscripts presumably containing similar information to modern interpretranslated bibles, though this raises more questions for me: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are those very old manuscripts written in God's handwriting?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there anyone alive who &lt;strong&gt;knows&lt;/strong&gt; the language they were written in, and hasn't needed to try and interpret what they say by cross-referencing various documents of a similar age to find patterns and derive meanings, essentially using a bit of detective work and some educated guesses?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user290" LastEditorDisplayName="user290" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T13:40:57.213" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T23:29:17.570" Title="How do we know the events described in the bible are true?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2011-08-31T14:53:55.730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1364" CreationDate="2011-08-31T13:22:54.847" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the beginning...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:4 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The descendants of these children of Nephilim were the giants that show up later in the bible.  When Moses sent the twelve spies into Canaan, the promised land (before the 40 years of wandering), they reported back of giants in the land:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2013:33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Numbers 13:33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another reference to them in 2 Samuel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 21:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Goliath, himself, was a Philistine.  He was also known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath&quot;&gt;&quot;Goliath of Gath&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  Gath was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gath_%28city%29&quot;&gt;one of the five city-states of Philistine&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samual%2017:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 17:23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because we know that Goliath was from Gath (from 1 Samuel) and that the giants in Gath were descendants of the Nephilim (from 2 Samuel) it's pretty safe to assume he was one of those.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also safe to assume some possible genetic issues (due to the six fingers and toes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T13:33:12.873" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T13:33:12.873" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1384" CreationDate="2011-08-31T13:34:35.523" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK, real answer for a real question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's revealed truth transcends time and space and doesn't have anything to do with the pursuit of scientific knowledge.  The account of the world's creation, the story of human creation, the details of our fall are told to drive a point about man's relationship with God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scriptures don't prove that dinosaurs exist.  But, God does say in His answer to Job that Job wouldn't want to tangle with any sea monsters.  There were creatures (nephilim) who were not quite human in Genesis (Gen 6:4).  So you can infer what you like,  I personally don't understand either of these passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, exists outside of time so we can't comprehend His mysterious ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only scientific truth in the Bible is that it rains on the just and the unjust.  That is, the only scientific truth in the Bible are tautologies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T13:34:35.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1387" CreationDate="2011-08-31T13:46:56.883" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll post an answer to one &lt;em&gt;aspect&lt;/em&gt; of your question &quot;How do we know that the Bible hasn't changed since it was written?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It all boils down to manuscripts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The number and age of the manuscripts that we have shows that nothing of significance has changed since the earliest Christian times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a list of some of the earliest manuscripts.  For reference on this site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Author  Date Written            Earliest Copy   Time Span   Copies (extent)&#xA;Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)       1st century     50-60 AD    co-existant (?)  &#xA;John Rylands (John)             90 AD           130 AD      40 years     &#xA;Bodmer Papyrus II (John)        90 AD           150-200 AD  60-110 years     &#xA;Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)    1st century     200 AD      150 years    &#xA;Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century     200 AD      150 years    &#xA;Codex Vaticanus (Bible)         1st century     325-350 AD  275-300 years    &#xA;Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)        1st century     350 AD      300 years    &#xA;Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)      1st century     400 AD      350 years    &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through these (and many other) manuscripts, we have been able to show that the Bible of today has not been altered at since its earliest manifestation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T23:29:17.570" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T23:29:17.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1322" CreationDate="2011-08-31T13:52:20.457" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament day of rest was a prefigure for the rest we have in Christ. As the author of Hebrews says, we &quot;cease from our own works&quot; every day (see Galatians 5:19-21), not just on a particular day of the week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 4:8-10&lt;/strong&gt; King James Version (KJV)&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have&#xA;  spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people&#xA;  of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from&#xA;  his own works, as God did from his.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T13:52:20.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1395" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T13:54:33.253" Score="9" ViewCount="2569" Body="&lt;p&gt;God cursed Cain to be an eternal wanderer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 4:12&lt;/strong&gt; King James Version&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee&#xA;  her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he went to a (probably figure-of-speech) land of wandering, the land of Nod, this much I understand. But then he builds the first city, Enoch. How is it compatible with being an eternal wanderer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="294" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-13T19:34:18.937" LastActivityDate="2019-02-22T13:39:50.907" Title="How could Cain have built Enoch?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;cain&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2011-08-31T14:12:11.733" Score="38" Body="&lt;p&gt;Existing in a perfect state did not deprive Adam and Eve of Free Will. Genesis 3:4-5 tells us that the serpent firstly modified God's Word by promising Eve that by taking of the forbidden fruit she would not &lt;em&gt;surely&lt;/em&gt; die. Second, he enticed her with the promise of knowledge (knowing good and evil).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:4-5&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God&#xA;  doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be&#xA;  opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might say that Eve was led into believing that the serpent was showing her a &quot;fast-track&quot; way to become closer to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T14:12:11.733" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2011-08-31T14:13:53.113" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll take a shot here, as I've thought about this quite a bit. Feel free to point out anything that doesn't mesh with the bible in some way!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As my current belief and understanding goes, God created Adam and Eve as perfect beings in His image, but also with free will. Without this crucial component, no human would have been choosing to love Him, and (to pull from a book I read*) love compelled is not love at all. The true way we glorify Him is, having been given the choice to rebel, we freely choose to submit to His rule and worship Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to exactly WHY Adam and Eve sinned, I'm not sure I can answer that specific beyond a &quot;they were tempted by Satan and made the wrong choice&quot;; Bob's answer covers this aspect quite well. You'll just have to wait for heaven to see if they're there to ask them! (which gives me an idea...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*=&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0849904889&quot;&gt;this is the book&lt;/a&gt; I was referring to (The Heart of the Chronicles of Narnia). I highly recommend it, as it helped explain to me several key concepts that should really have been obvious in retrospect but I was totally missing up to that point. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="251" LastEditorUserId="251" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T01:57:03.040" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T01:57:03.040" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1474" CreationDate="2011-08-31T14:17:30.393" Score="7" ViewCount="7887" Body="&lt;p&gt;After answering a recent question, it occurred to me to ask: Is there any biblical evidence regarding whether Adam and Eve have been redeemed in some fashion (and are thus going to Heaven/the New Earth)? (Someone to tweak the tags to fit better would be welcome!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="251" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-12T01:52:44.473" LastActivityDate="2015-10-12T01:52:44.473" Title="Did Adam and Eve end up getting saved?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-17T21:55:36.760" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1400" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1723" CreationDate="2011-08-31T14:30:16.550" Score="15" ViewCount="1952" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was raised Christadelphian, and after 17 years of education and reading the bible, I dismissed my faith and left the church. One of my main reasons for turning my back on God was this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is it that children are born in Africa, with HIV or AID's, these children die of starvation and disease before they even learn to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:16&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that&#xA;  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These children never have the chance to become baptised and give themselves to christ, they're minds never mature to an age where it's possible for them to understand this concept, nor in many places in the world, has the word of the christian god even reached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God is just, loving and merciful, why does he allow this to happen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="296" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T14:59:52.307" LastActivityDate="2014-12-28T10:51:51.710" Title="Why are some people born into famine and starvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-12-28T14:31:09.883" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2011-08-31T14:30:27.673" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The DNA in Adam and Eve was perfect.&lt;/strong&gt; (Think of the number of times dna has been copied from person to person, cell to cell before it has reached you. There is a lot of room for error.) Today it suffers from serious decay, thus our medical nightmares. In order to understand why Adam and Eve sinned we need to look to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:15-18&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all&#xA;  creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and&#xA;  that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions&#xA;  or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and&#xA;  for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things&#xA;  consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the&#xA;  beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have&#xA;  the preeminence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that Jesus is first in all things and that He was the only righteous man to ever live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans tells us that no man is righteous, we all fall short of the Glory of God. This is why God allowed the snake to enter the garden. Because if Adam had not been tested, he surely COULD have been righteous as Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But because Adam was tested, he showed that he was just a man and he fell short as we always do. They sinned because of their own desires, not because of any imperfection. &lt;strong&gt;They sinned so that Jesus could have preeminence in all things.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;edit for Richard:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not create sin, but He SURELY allows it for this very reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 7:47&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great&#xA;  love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's purpose for us is that we learn to trust Him (faith) and love Him (commanded to love). This is done by allowing us to sin, so that we may be forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T14:50:55.457" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T14:50:55.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1344" CreationDate="2011-08-31T14:43:51.287" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are assumptions that everybody makes when hearing about this story, so let's take another look at this specific verse in order to drop those assumptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 6&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every&#xA;  sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and&#xA;  female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This passage says take two of every SORT&lt;/strong&gt;, the NIV says take two of every KIND. It's clear that there were not 4 dogs on the ark, but only two dogs. We assume today that all dogs evolved from wolves. It's possible that only wolves had been taken onto the ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also keep in mind that a logical person is not going to take two full size elephants onto the ark. Instead, they'll take babies. Babies are healthier, they will live longer and more of an opportunity to breed more of their kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are only 2000 different TYPES of animal species on this planet. Let's be safe and double that number because some (dinosaurs) could have gone extinct. So 4000 species, and then double that number again because we're taking two of each. So we're at 8,0000 different kinds of animals on the ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;According to the sizes given the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet. Enough room to house 16,000 animals plus food and water supplies for twelve months.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T14:43:51.287" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1403" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1404" CreationDate="2011-08-31T14:51:00.267" Score="4" ViewCount="59" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this other question a &lt;strong&gt;Council&lt;/strong&gt; was mentioned - &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1271/are-orthodox-christians-all-the-same-faith&quot;&gt;Are Orthodox Christians all the same faith?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a council? Was it something in the early church?  What was its purpose and function?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:36:17.447" Title="What is a Council?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1403" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:12:00.757" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;A council is usually a gathering or conference of church (the body of Christ, not the building) leaders (or bishops) which decides on church doctrine and practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia on Ecumenical councils&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Major Councils of the Church&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T16:36:17.447" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:36:17.447" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1405" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1434" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:17:12.673" Score="15" ViewCount="2888" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am referring to 'Elders' in the sense of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 5:17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 The &lt;strong&gt;elders who direct the affairs of the church&lt;/strong&gt; well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As opposed to 'Respect your Elders'. Is there an age-requirement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-04-12T16:26:59.230" LastActivityDate="2015-10-20T22:40:06.020" Title="Can Elders of a church be young?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;elders&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-15T12:12:54.920" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1399" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:20:08.327" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the Genesis narrative is pretty sketchy about Adam and Eve after they were cast out of Eden, focusing more on their descendants.  We do know, however, that Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices to God.  It's reasonable to suppose that they were taught to do so by their parents, indicating a general attitude of piety.  Whether or not they actually repented and obtained forgiveness is left unclear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do remember reading the Apocrypha one time, and one of the books (I can't find it right now, does anyone have the reference?) contains a list of Old Testament characters and commentary on them, and it refers to Adam as &quot;the greatest of all,&quot; alongside the great prophets and patriarchs.  While the Apocrypha is not generally considered canonical or authoritative, it's informative at least...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T15:20:08.327" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1271" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:22:41.557" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Officially all the Eastern Orthodox Churches share &quot;one Lord, one faith, one baptism,&quot; and this is manifested by intercommunion among, say, the sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome (before the Schism, she received the highest honor among the sees at councils), Constantinople, Georgia, Kiev, Moscow, Athens, Washington DC, Paris, London, Tokyo, Bulgaria, and so on. One of the recent blessings the Lord bestowed upon the Orthodox Church was a restoration of intercommunion between the estranged sees of Moscow and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which separated due to the Bolshevik Revolution. We all believe (canonically/officially) the same thing, or rather, we all believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, in more or less the same way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to the answer of @mxyzplk: in America, due to the immigrant nature of our population, Orthodox parishes unfortunately can become ethnic enclaves rather than Eucharistic communities. This is a heresy condemned by the church: it is called ethnophyletism. This is not to say that ethnic communities dedicated to preserving a real culture in the midst of our consumerist so-called culture are bad; but they must be distinguished from the work of the church. I have never personally encountered this problem in my life in the Orthodox Church, thank God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other churches with the name Orthodox, among them notably the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Indian Orthodox Church. The Coptics, Syriacs, and Ethiopians do not accept the council of Chalcedon, so they are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox. Confusingly, they are collectively called &quot;Oriental&quot; Orthodox, as opposed to the &quot;Eastern&quot; Orthodox. There is nowadays an ongoing dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, in hopes that perhaps our separation is due merely to misunderstanding or language issues. (Cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org&quot;&gt;orthodoxwiki.org&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="144" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T22:10:27.490" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T22:10:27.490" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1361" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:28:52.613" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disciples of Christ believe in the existence of (powerful) invisible created beings such as those mentioned above. But none of them are worshiped; worship (in Greek, &lt;em&gt;latreia&lt;/em&gt;) is only to be given to the (uncreated) Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In that sense, Christianity is monotheistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question surprises me; the real issue of the monotheism of Christianity for me doesn't lie with the existence of the unseen realm, but instead with the notion of the Trinity as One God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T15:28:52.613" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:33:07.727" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The American philosopher Alvin Plantinga has done much work towards defending the position that not only belief in God, but belief in the Christian God, is an intellectually justified &quot;default&quot; position. (&quot;Default&quot; in quotation marks because he uses more technical language to describe it but it amounts essentially to how the word &quot;default&quot; is being used in this thread.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin's concept of the &quot;sensus divinitatis&quot; -- the capacity to encounter/perceive/recognize God that God has built into man -- significantly factors in to his position. (I believe Calvin himself bases the concept of the sensus divinitatis on Romans 1:20, quoted above). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For basic information on Plantinga's position check out wiki: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reformed epistemology.&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Or if you are committed to a greater time investment, Plantinga's books &quot;Reason and Belief in God&quot;, and &quot;Warranted Christian Belief&quot; are both highly recommended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="175" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-17T15:33:27.293" LastActivityDate="2016-07-17T15:33:27.293" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1410" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:33:26.587" Score="20" ViewCount="2046" Body="&lt;p&gt;In response to this question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1384/how-does-the-bible-explain-the-existence-of-fossils-that-are-millions-of-years-ol&quot;&gt;How does the Bible explain the existence of fossils that are millions of years old?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm curious to know if Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that the word &lt;em&gt;dinosaurs&lt;/em&gt; wasn't invented until 1841. So obviously we won't find them by that name. Are there references to animals with the same characteristics as dinosaurs and just known by a different name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2014-12-12T02:25:46.237" Title="Are Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-17T21:34:20.897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="995" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:35:17.727" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/995/what-exactly-is-a-hail-mary/999#999&quot;&gt;demongolem&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/995/what-exactly-is-a-hail-mary/998#998&quot;&gt;a_hardin&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/995/what-exactly-is-a-hail-mary/1006#1006&quot;&gt;Peter Turner&lt;/a&gt; did a good job explaining what a Hail Mary is, I won't try and answer that question.  Instead, I can give you my understanding of the use of repetitive prayer.  This answer is based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://whosoeverdesires.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/in-praise-of-repetitive-prayers-in-praise-of-repetitive-prayers/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a blog post&lt;/a&gt; I found quite informative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One reason for repetitive prayer is it is meditative.  It can be used to clear the mind of worldly things and focus on the Divine.  It is an aid towards arriving at a communion with God rather than just &quot;talking at&quot; Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A second reason for repetitive prayer is that it is all we can muster.  In times of trial, a simple repetitive prayer is often the deepest cries of our heart.  Take for instance when Jesus was in the garden of Gethsemane.  Three times he prayed &lt;em&gt;the same thing&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26%3A36-46&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:39-45&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (Emphasis Added)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, &lt;strong&gt;“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  42 He went away a second time and prayed, &lt;strong&gt;“My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and &lt;strong&gt;prayed the third time, saying the same thing.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="174" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T15:35:17.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1410" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:36:36.500" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, they aren't. The fossils were found later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of bible pages have search tools, where you can search for 'dinosaurs', the word, but you won't find anything. But now the question emphasises, that it does not deal about exactly that wording. This remark needs some investigation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the first work is, to investigate, whether that exact term is used in the bible, if we pretend to be unknowing in all directions. A knowingly position is, that the fossils where found later, and hence can't be mentioned in the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the scientists of the epoch of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Richard Owen, who invented the modern term 'dinosaurs'&lt;/a&gt; knew the bible very well, they could have used a term from the bible, if there was a term in the bible, which would fit the needs to describe the fossils. It is common practice, to name new and modern things after figures or events from the bible or other historic scriptures, like, for example &lt;code&gt;Oracle&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Delphi&lt;/code&gt; for databases and programming languages, since they are sold as tools for answering difficult questions, or &lt;code&gt;the return of the 7 plagues&lt;/code&gt; if 2 or 3 bad events occur in series, &lt;code&gt;Armageddon&lt;/code&gt; for big catastrophes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another idea could be, that in the time of the bible, dinosaurs were described, but forgotten, and got an independent name later, so we have to compare every single line of the bible with what we know as dinosaurs. Since the question does not give an criteria, &#xA;how similar the description in the bible needs to be, to fit our idea of dinosaurs, there are some possibilities to follow the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can surely not accept an description of a &quot;big animal&quot;, just because dinosaurs are known as big animals, if the animal in the bible might as well be an elephant or hippopotamus. What we know from science is, that the dinosaurs lived 65 million to 235 million years from now. There are strong evidences for this and our today picture of dinosaurs is based on these facts - disputing these facts, and claiming &lt;code&gt;big animals&lt;/code&gt; from the bible could be these animals, but from an age of 2000, 3000 or 4000 years before, is nonsense. This would not prove dinosaurs, but hippos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there is a second problem. The taxonomy of dinosaurs explains birds to be our nowadays followers from dinosaurs. And of course, birds are mentioned in the bible - the pigeon in the story of Noah, the Holy Ghost, which appears as pigeon, and birds which don't work for their food: (Mt 6,26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="282" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T22:46:27.587" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T22:46:27.587" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1410" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:52:27.990" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040:15-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Job 40:15-24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Look at Behemoth, &#xA;     which I made along with you &#xA;     and which feeds on grass like an ox. &#xA;  16 What strength it has in its loins, &#xA;     what power in the muscles of its belly! &#xA;  17 Its &lt;strong&gt;tail sways like a cedar&lt;/strong&gt;; &#xA;     the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. &#xA;  18 Its bones are tubes of bronze, &#xA;     its limbs like rods of iron. &#xA;  19 It ranks first among the works of God, &#xA;     yet its Maker can approach it with his sword. &#xA;  20 The hills bring it their produce, &#xA;     and all the wild animals play nearby. &#xA;  21 Under the lotus plants it lies, &#xA;     hidden among the reeds in the marsh. &#xA;  22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow; &#xA;     the poplars by the stream surround it. &#xA;  23 A raging river does not alarm it; &#xA;     it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth. &#xA;  24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes, &#xA;     or trap it and pierce its nose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tail the size of a cedar would be a huge creature and the only thing we know of that was that size were dinosaurs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs-humans-coexisted-behemoth.html&quot;&gt;Some more explaining of why it could only be a dinosaur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T15:52:27.990" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1384" CreationDate="2011-08-31T15:58:15.647" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2nd Peter 3:8&lt;/a&gt; KJV reads: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with&#xA;  the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is Peter writing to address the questions saying &quot;Where is the Lord?  He said he would return soon!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:13&lt;/a&gt; KJV reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not;&#xA;  and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:5&lt;/a&gt; KJV reads (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God &lt;em&gt;called&lt;/em&gt; the light Day, and the darkness he &lt;em&gt;called&lt;/em&gt; Night. And&#xA;  the evening and the morning were the first day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every man understands what a day is.  It's possible God revealed this using these words so that even the unlearned (us) could understand the basic ideas of his word throughout the ages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God speaks in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/130/can-i-believe-in-evolution-and-still-be-a-christian/145#145&quot;&gt;parables and metaphors&lt;/a&gt; (thanks, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/99/anthony-pegram&quot;&gt;Anthony&lt;/a&gt;!) because as mortal beings, we are stuck in our own little frames of reference.  I don't know exactly what it takes to build a planet from nothing, but from what I've learned in my life it would take a lot of matter, a lot of pressure, and a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could very well have taken billions of years, we don't know.  As they say, God works in mysterious ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T15:58:15.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:03:48.293" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The default position is neither; both Atheism and Theism are a mental construct. You must argue from experience, and it seems that some have not experienced God (or understood the experience of him in that way.) Whereas some have experienced God (or understood their experience in that way.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meister Eckhart had a controversial saying (which could be interpreted as Platonism) that addresses the problem of presuppositions. He said, 'In the beginning, before I was, I had no God and was just Myself.' Both Atheism and Theism are presuppositions about a world external from one's self, an experience that always arises in human beings from the infant experience of continuous and unbroken 'I'. It is implied in Eckhart's saying that the 'Myself' is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore you must argue from someone's presuppositions in all cases and cannot assume either is the the default position; the default position is not one any adult holds nor is one useful for making any arguments from, unless perhaps we get into forms of Eastern Mysticism (which by the way are still not identical to the default position.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:03:48.293" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1405" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:08:51.153" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;This all kind of depends on what you mean by &quot;young&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Titus 1:5 - 9 has a more detailed description of what an elder should be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%201&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Titus 1:5 - 9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; I left you on the island of Crete so you could complete our work&#xA;  there and appoint elders in each town as I instructed you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; An elder&#xA;  must live a blameless life. He must be faithful to his wife, and&#xA;  his children must be believers who don’t have a reputation for being&#xA;  wild or rebellious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; For an elder must live a blameless life. He&#xA;  must not be arrogant or quick-tempered; he must not be a heavy&#xA;  drinker, violent, or dishonest with money.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; Rather, he must enjoy&#xA;  having guests in his home, and he must love what is good. He must live&#xA;  wisely and be just. He must live a devout and disciplined life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; He&#xA;  must have a strong belief in the trustworthy message he was taught;&#xA;  then he will be able to encourage others with wholesome teaching and&#xA;  show those who oppose it where they are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see while this description does not explicitly give an age requirement, it gives the expectation that this person is established, and that they have a proven track record of being Godly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T14:01:40.353" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T14:01:40.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1384" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:09:12.143" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wouldn't a better question be &quot;how does anything other than the Bible explain the existence of the 'Millions of fossils'?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A global flood would bury millions of animals in mud and silt, including large animals like dinosaurs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as to fossils that are millions of years old, do they say that they are old because they have found evidence that they are(with no contradicting evidence) or because they expect the world to be that old in the first place(to support their other theories) and format their calculations to fit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="297" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:09:12.143" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1410" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:10:09.877" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;em&gt;Dinosaur&lt;/em&gt; was first used in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Name&quot;&gt;1842 by Richard Owen&lt;/a&gt; and means &quot;terrible, powerful, wondrous, potent&quot; + &quot;lizard&quot;. As we all know the Bible has been written before the 1800's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible mentioned creatures like a behemoth (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040:15-24&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Job 40:15-24&lt;/a&gt;), sea monsters (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2074:13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Psalm 74:13&lt;/a&gt;), and other beasts (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 43:20&lt;/a&gt;) that don't necessarily fit our description of a dinosaur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the first bones might have been found in China almost 2000 years ago, the first recognized thigh bone was found in 1676 and described as a species just in 1824. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/First.shtml&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The interpretation of those facts is up to one self, it doesn't prove or disprove the Bible itself.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:30:35.753" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:30:35.753" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1420" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:12:35.003" Score="11" ViewCount="2571" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some christians believe the Earth is only 6000 to 12,000 years old. Where does this age originate from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="303" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-05-20T02:58:52.427" LastActivityDate="2019-05-20T02:58:52.427" Title="Where does the belief that the Earth is relatively young (6000 years) come from?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1361" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:15:02.863" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is monotheistic in that it acknowledges only one spiritual entity as God. It then goes further to say that this is because there is only one Divinity, i.e. that the condition for someone or thing to be worthy of being worshiped and acknowledged as God includes the condition of singularity, inasmuch as things such as 'omnipotence' in any true sense must belong properly to only one. Thus divinity in the Christian conception presupposes a monotheism, instead of arriving at it from selecting a god among gods to be 'the true god'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history of the faith through its Jewish roots suggests that men came to understand the God among gods first, and then later began to understand that his divinity was singular and complete and absolute. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other spiritual entities, being separate from the divinity in nature, cannot therefore be the God, even if they have been worshiped in other places and times as gods by other human beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:15:02.863" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:16:21.220" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two levels of meaning here. First, what does &quot;day&quot; mean in the context of the story, and second, what is the meaning of the story itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose I asked, &quot;What does the word 'trees' mean in the following passage?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/judges/passage.aspx?q=judges+9:8-15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Judges 9:8-15 NRSV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The trees once went out to anoint a king over themselves. So they said to the olive tree, &quot;Reign over us.' The olive tree answered them, &quot;Shall I stop producing my rich oil by which gods and mortals are honored, and go to sway over the trees?' Then the trees said to the fig tree, &quot;You come and reign over us.' But the fig tree answered them, &quot;Shall I stop producing my sweetness and my delicious fruit, and go to sway over the trees?' Then the trees said to the vine, &quot;You come and reign over us.' But the vine said to them, &quot;Shall I stop producing my wine that cheers gods and mortals, and go to sway over the trees?' So all the trees said to the bramble, &quot;You come and reign over us.' And the bramble said to the trees, &quot;If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems clear to me that the word &quot;trees&quot;, within the context of the story, is not used allegorically. It refers to perennial woody plants. But that's not the main point. &lt;em&gt;The whole story is an allegory&lt;/em&gt;. There are clues to this: The trees can talk; they desire a king.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the word &quot;day&quot; &lt;em&gt;in the context of the story&lt;/em&gt; of Genesis 1 refers to &quot;evening and morning&quot;, not an unspecified time period. But what is the purpose of the story itself? That's the larger meaning that must be considered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the story of the trees in Judges 9, Genesis 1 gives us clues that the story itself is not meant as history. For example, the first three days pass without the sun. Most Christians even in ancient times caught that hint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if the story is not meant as history, then what does it mean? I think &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/642/what-is-the-specific-meaning-of-day-in-genesis-1/647#647&quot;&gt;dleyva3's answer&lt;/a&gt;, ironically, points us to the non-historical meaning. Genesis 1 is a liturgical story. Its purpose is to remind us, as we gather for worship every seventh day, that we are made in the image of God. The story reinforces that, not only by stating it outright, but by incorporating the sabbath day into the creation story itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:16:21.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1395" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:17:07.490" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nothing there says he was an &quot;eternal&quot; wanderer. It says he will be a &quot;fugitive&quot; and a &quot;vagabond&quot; - in other words, a criminal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you go on further you see that Cain was marked by God so no one would kill him (the appropriate punishment for murder, as seen later in the Law given to Israel through Moses). He subsequently left the &quot;Presence&quot; of God, and fled to the land of Nod to live there. No where does it say he would wander, and certainly not eternally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Genesis 4:12-&gt;16, KJV.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; ¶And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T19:53:20.743" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T19:53:20.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="653" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:17:10.483" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tldr version&lt;/strong&gt;: It is not normally permissible by canon law for you to participate in the Eucharist. However, you can still join the communion line and indicate you would like a blessing by placing your index finger over your lips (similar to shhing someone) or by crossing your arms over your chest in the shape of an 'X' when you approach the minister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon law regarding reception of Holy Communion is given below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can. 844&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;§1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§1 States that only Catholics may receive communion, with a few exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§2 deals with Catholics receiving sacraments from a non-catholic minister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§3 Allows members of certain specifically named Churches to receive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§4 Allows any non-Catholic Christian to receive Holy Communion under extraordinary circumstances, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;.  In respect to Holy Communion, the Catholic faith is that of transubstantiation, that is, the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, it appears that Christians who do not hold the belief of transubstantiation as the Catholic Faith teaches are not admitted to Holy Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, however, does not mean you cannot join in the worship and community of the Mass.  At communion time, you can participate in the community by requesting a blessing rather than reception of the Eucharist. This is done either by placing your index finger over your lips or by crossing your arms over your chest when you approach the Eucharistic Minister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="174" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-13T23:45:57.103" LastActivityDate="2020-11-13T23:45:57.103" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1420" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:17:48.693" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, this is not a universal belief. Some do not take the days in Genesis as literal, and some treat Paradise (as described in Genesis) as being a spiritual world rather than being the same 'world' which we measure with carbon dating and other physical measures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 6000 years is roughly discerned using clues from stories in the Bible, but there are other measures placing its age closer to 7500 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is generally used is the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Length of 'day' in Genesis 1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Length of time figures in Genesis lived&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ages are added by using 'and in so-and-so's xth year, so-and-so was born' (and variations thereof)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;History / chronicle books have king-dynasty lengths.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a lot of work to do, really.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Variations in measures can be explained by differing interpretations of 'day' in Genesis, whether 'in the xth year of y' means that x years preceeded it or x-1 years, and estimates of times not explicitly mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T16:33:08.903" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:33:08.903" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1420" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:24:15.153" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;young earth&quot; figure comes from treating the descriptions of the creation of the earth in Genesis as a literal, continuous, description of earth history. It's fairly simple to do the calculation, adding up the ages of each person described, and concluding how long ago Adam and Eve happened. It was most famously done by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_Ussher&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Archbishop James Ussher&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians do not believe that the earth is that age, but a substantial minority (mainly in the US) do. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Prevalence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The discussion of the evidences for and against is far too complex to give even a summary here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T18:06:50.370" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T18:06:50.370" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:25:57.183" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having trouble replying to comments here, but I'd also like to point out that some interpretations place us in the Eighth day, which begins on the Resurrection. Some that did this still interpreted the Genesis days as literal Earth Days, but others did not, which may show that the treatment of 'day' in Genesis as 24-hours is simply an interpretive choice and has never been so clear as to be open-and-shut.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:25:57.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1384" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:30:40.183" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You say in your question that we are yet to find a single human. This is not true.&#xA;&quot;Neanderthal man&quot; (men/women) are very human, despite what is often portrayed in popular culture, and for the large part, are fossils. Not all fossils are stone, actually. Many of them still contain tissue, genetic information etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is actually just an assumption (intentionally) that they are millions of years old. In reality, the evidence (continuous sedimentary rock layers spanning the entire earth, fossils of various species grouped in herding patterns yet apparently buried together, most fossils being disarticulated, and more) points toward the global flood described in Genesis, which in fact also mentions more than water (potential volcanic and tectonic activity is also inferred, because the fountains of the deep were broken up).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is actually more of a stretch to think that the fossils appear because they are millions of years before us. The very existence of &quot;living fossils&quot; which continue to be discovered over and over, helps to lend to the idea that the species are either contemporaries with mankind, or that we have gotten mixed up somewhere in our thinking to imagine them going extinct millions of years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to whether the Bible explains &quot;millions of years&quot; for fossils: no.&#xA;It does not indicate that the earth itself is yet that old, and the evidence we have before us actually fits that model (but this is not the place to go into the full details of that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the Bible is a book of science. Just to point out how much so; The original Hebrew scriptures contain not only prophetic codes, but also scientific information. (The Bible codes, much disputed, but very accurate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is also littered with scientific information: pathways in the sea, the store houses of snow and hail, etc. To cover all, or even a few, would take more time than I have, but of course - the main point is, the Bible is a well rounded book covering all disciplines, because it is the Word of God, and He created all things, and all you need to do, is seek and you will find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:30:40.183" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1384" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:30:48.013" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not explain anything about fossils. Fossils were unknown when the Bible was written. Fossils only become an issue if you interpret the Bible to believe that the Earth is younger than the fossil record shows. This is far from the only interpretation of the Bible. The question should be: How do people who believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old explain the existence of fossils. That is far too complicated a question to answer here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:30:48.013" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1405" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:36:58.623" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Paul's own writing to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=1%20Timothy%204&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Timothy&lt;/a&gt;, specifically verse 12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, there is no &quot;age requirement&quot;, but one must &lt;em&gt;at least&lt;/em&gt; fulfill the prerequisites listed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%201&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Titus 1&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;As a sidebar, Jesus did not start His ministry until he was about 30 - the typical age for a rabbi to be able to have his own disciples. Whether or not 30 should be normative in the church, all of His disciples would've been at least adults of taxable age (over 20) when He called them. Paul was most certainly over 30 when he was called, since he was already a well-established pharisee. I cannot speak with dogmatism on this, but I personally think that it's a good ballpark age :)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-04-12T16:11:26.433" LastActivityDate="2013-04-12T16:11:26.433" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1435" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1437" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:38:08.860" Score="21" ViewCount="2702" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed&quot;&gt;Apostles' Creed&lt;/a&gt; is perhaps the oldest statement of faith in the Christian tradition. Is there any evidence that it was used by Jesus' first followers? If not, when did it originate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-28T10:58:21.993" LastActivityDate="2016-01-14T23:06:10.083" Title="Did the Apostles' Creed originate with the Apostles?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;&lt;apostles-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1435" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:45:43.640" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was a creed that was developed by the early church.  It came into existence after the age of the apostles.  However, it finds its biblical basis in the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Apostles&amp;#39;_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Theopedia article&lt;/a&gt; says &quot;its current form&quot; is &quot;more likely post-Nicene Creed in the early 4th Century AD.&quot;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; indicates it was a later form of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Old Roman Creed&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Nicene_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt; (since that's the next question) was first formed at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, while the Old Roman Creed was probably formed before that (in the 2nd century).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, having said all of this, it seems the exact origins are unknown.  But it seems that this was definitely not something &lt;em&gt;directly&lt;/em&gt; from the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-01-14T18:36:56.243" LastActivityDate="2016-01-14T18:36:56.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:47:19.843" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a big difference between Christianity and Islam here. Islam treats the &lt;em&gt;text&lt;/em&gt; of the Quran as sacred, and it is truly sacred only in the original language. Translations are only an approximation. They also believe that the Quran was literally dictated by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians view the Bible differently. The &lt;em&gt;message contained in&lt;/em&gt; the Bible is sacred, not the specific text. Translation is not a problem, as long as the message is faithfully conveyed. The Bible texts were &lt;em&gt;inspired&lt;/em&gt; by God, not literally dictated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; gives the Catholic view of Biblical inspiration, and a summary of other Christian views, none of which differ much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T16:47:19.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1420" CreationDate="2011-08-31T16:57:42.247" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;I'm a young earth creationist.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, not all Christians maintain this belief. Christians can identify themselves with two different categories, Young Earth Creationist (YEC) or Old Earth Creationist (OEC).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a YEC believe that God is more then capable of creating everything in six days and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. As a YEC my argument originates from the following beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The flood event&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible talks about a huge flood about ~4,500 years ago. IF you look for the evidence of this flood you'll see that there's actually a lot of evidence. Walt Brown has done some great research on this topic. He holds true to scripture and does not deny any verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason that I mention this flood, is because the flood did some major devastation to this planet when it occurred. In young earth creationist POV we see that the sediment layers, massive fossil deposits and more where created because of this flood. The continental shelves and the oceans were also created because of the flood event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chemical dating&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only evidence that one has of an earth that's millions of years old is chemical dating. One thing that has recently been learned about chemical dating, is that if things are left in water then that thing's chemical dates will show the thing to be much older then it actually is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, if all fossilized animals that we're finding today were put there due to a large flood, then it would make sense that the chemical dating shows those fossils to be older then what they actually are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Population&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More evidence of young earth is given by our current population numbers. If we're the product of millions of years of evolution then we would see an obvious over population issue. But we don't see that, have you ever driven through Wyoming? We're not overpopulated. The entire human race could fit into the state of Virginia with room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do a backwards calculation of our current population you find a small group of people ~4k to 6k years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Planetary decay&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use the word decay very vagly here. The moon is drifting away from our planet. One million years ago and the moon would have been touching the earth. The sun is shrinking because of the constant amount of gases being burned. One million years ago and the sun would have been so hot that no life could have existed on earth. The planet is losing is magnetic field. People chalk this up to some kind of polar shift, which has never been seen or reproduced on any magnetic, ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have NEVER witnessed a single star forming, know of one that has recently formed or even know how it would be possible. Scientists calculate that it would be impossible for debris to crush together to form a planet. They have no idea how this could happen. Granite is the same way, there's no way to create granite, it's impossible to have formed from molten lava.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMHO, those of weak faith believe in man and those with stronger faith believe God. To answer your question, THIS IS WHY some Christians believe in young earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When voting&lt;/strong&gt; on this comment do not downvote because you disagree, as this is not an arguement as to whether or not I'm right. This is merely an answer to the question &amp;quot;Do I maintain a belief that the earth is young, and why.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;I'M NOT DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE FACTS.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Again.. I'm not stating these as facts, I'm stating them as my beliefs as a YEC.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T19:29:53.420" CommentCount="23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:05:52.623" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer depends on who is interpreting it. In general the answer is 'Absolutely Not.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest that the subtleties of this question are too complex to be answered directly, as different traditions exist on how to interpret the text, and variation exists within those traditions as to whether you can, if you wish, interpret something literally. A few points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The text cannot be entirely literal &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The text does not interpret itself &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The text contains a variety of genres with different interpretation styles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A given verse is not traditionally limited to one interpretation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes the text will say something that seems like it must be taken literally, but even then context is important. For instance, when an Epistle says that 'all scripture is good for teaching... (etc)' this refers to not all of our scripture, but to whatever collection of scripture the writer was referring to, most likely a collection of Old Testament texts (the Septuagint.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This then does not even begin to address the different 'Bibles' that exist, and how the addition of certain books (or their removal) could affect the context of the whole and therefore the interpretation of some verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:05:52.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1420" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:07:28.057" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As mentioned elsewhere, the Young Earth belief comes from a literal reading of Genesis.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Problems do arise when we try to insert the day-age theory.  Assume for a moment that one day is 100 million years.  The symbiotic relationships in creation would be separated by hundreds of millions of years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, if Adam was created on the sixth day, and the sixth day is 100 million years, if we trace down from his line, we would still be in the sixth day... or, if he was created on the last moment on the sixth day, we would still be early on the 7th day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, why would we ever read 'day' and think 'millions of years'.  The only reason would be what we have heard from scientists.  However, every person is biased and brings that to bear upon the conclusions they draw.  Darwinism is a theory based on assumptions that cannot be proven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several pieces of evidence for a young earth are based on the fact that things are wearing out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The distance of the moon from the earth.  It is gradually retreating from the earth, but if you extrapolate back 4 billion years, it would be inside the earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The length of a day - the rotation of the earth is slowing down.  In the past, it would have been faster.  If you go back 4 billion years, it's spinning so fast, that nothing could live.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Earth's Magnetic field is diminishing over time.  4.5 billion years ago, it would have been so strong that nothing could survive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list goes on and  on.  So, there is a biblical reason to believe in a young earth.  Science has failed to prove evolution or deal with the problems mentioned here as well as numerous others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:07:28.057" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1375" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:15:45.587" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't a complete answer, but I think that because humans have free will, certain parts of what is moral and immoral are situational. While we are provided guidelines from the old Law and then in the person of Christ, these guidelines do not form a complete moral law. The rest, provided it does not go against the basis, must be built by the Christians according to their situation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few thoughts are&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consequences of actions are important, and these include eternal consequences&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We do not always know the full consequence of an action&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Immoral acts are sometimes 'hand-waved' for the sake of mercy, but this does not make the act permissable&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a hierarchy of values, the highest of which seems to be 'obedience to God' (see the conflict that happens in the Garden of Gethsemane.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:15:45.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1399" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:19:27.140" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://freric.uwcatholic.org/?p=318&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good homily&lt;/a&gt; regarding Jesus meeting Adam when he descends to the dead, like a son meets a delinquent father.  There's no evidence in the homily to support Adam being saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, Catholics at least believe, that the righteous of the OT did indeed &quot;get saved&quot; when Jesus descended to the dead.  There's no evidence that Adam or Eve did any more wicked stuff after leaving the Garden.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's some bible exegesis I just thought up.  You'll just have to read the first few chapters of Genesis to follow along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God establishes the very first covenant with Adam and Eve (the protoevangelium, a promise of a redeemer)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If Adam and Eve had not passed their belief in God down to Seth, they would not have been a righteous; they would not have Seth &quot;Invoke the LORD by name&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The world does indeed turn wicked between the time of Adam and Eve and the time of Noah, but Enoch is clearly a righteous man (he walked with God) and there is no reason to suppose that God established another covenant with him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary, if the covenant passed successfully between generations down to Noah (and us), then there must be some semblance of righteousness between each generation and that righteousness (and faith) would hopefully save someone who doesn't know Jesus from the fires of Hell.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(full disclosure: I edit these homilies and upload them for the priest involved. I'm not spamming for the site, just thought it might be interesting to listen to - it's a good thing to meditate on and something I'd never thought about before)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T17:59:09.457" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:59:09.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1400" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:22:07.310" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;An Orthodox answer is that those who die outside of Christ go into the realm of the dead and await the preaching of John and the coming of Christ into Hades prior to his Resurrection -- recall the verse in which the dead are seen raised in Jerusalem. This seems temporally paradoxical (which is why it is not an answer usually offered) but we should understand that the realm of the dead and eternity are not 'in time'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, whether or not these unbaptized are saved is of course still the judgment of God, but it is also not unlike whether or not those who preceded Christ's coming were saved. To those who do not believe any were, this is an unanswerable question except to say that God is the ultimate judge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:22:07.310" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1450" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:22:59.290" Score="11" ViewCount="2901" Body="&lt;p&gt;From where does the idea that Christianity the only &lt;strong&gt;true&lt;/strong&gt; religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-10T18:27:01.330" LastActivityDate="2016-01-10T18:27:01.330" Title="Why does Christianity claim to be the only true religion?" Tags="&lt;other-religions&gt;&lt;truth&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-01-11T00:39:41.390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1121" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:25:46.007" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether or not James the Greater traveled to Spain is highly contested.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08279b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;entry on St. James the Greater in the Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; from newadvent.org lists some reasons why this is contested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With regard to the preaching of the Gospel in Spain by St. James the&#xA;  greater, several difficulties have been raised:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;St. James suffered martyrdom A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and, according to&#xA;  the tradition of the early Church, he had not yet left Jerusalem at&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  this time (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI; Apollonius, quoted &#xA;  by Eusebius, Church History VI.18).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58) expressed the&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  intention to visit Spain (Romans 15:24) just after he had mentioned&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (15:20) that he did not &quot;build upon another man's foundation.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The argument ex silentio: although the tradition that James founded&#xA;  an Apostolic see in Spain was current in the year 700, no certain&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  mention of such tradition is to be found in the genuine writings of&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  early writers nor in the early councils; the first certain mention we &#xA;  find in the ninth century, in Notker, a monk of St. Gall (Martyrol.,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  25 July), Walafried Strabo (Poema de XII Apost.), and others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The tradition was not unanimously admitted afterwards, while&#xA;  numerous    scholars reject it. The Bollandists however defended it&#xA;  (see Acta    Sanctorum, July, VI and VII, where other sources are&#xA;  given).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that James the Greater was martyred in Jerusalem is pretty widely accepted since it is mentioned in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2012:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 12:1-2 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt; &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to&#xA;  the church, intending to persecute them. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; He had James, the brother&#xA;  of John, put to death with the sword.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:25:46.007" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1463" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:26:20.047" Score="14" ViewCount="24173" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without Light, there is darkness. Darkness is not made, it is just there. However, before the creation there was nothing. Does that mean that darkness was also not there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us look at Genesis 1:5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; In the beginning God created the sky and the earth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's Spirit was moving over the water.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Then God said, &quot;Let there be light,&quot; and there was light.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; God saw that the light was good, so he divided the light from the darkness.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; God named the light &quot;day&quot; and the darkness &quot;night.&quot; Evening passed, and morning came. This was the first day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no mention in the Bible that suggests that God created the darkness. When exactly was Darkness created? Is Darkness a thing, or is it the same as nothingness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-12T18:18:28.117" LastActivityDate="2014-07-05T05:14:38.170" Title="Did God create darkness?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:40:55.600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1450" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:27:42.743" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Christ is indeed the &lt;strong&gt;Divine Human&lt;/strong&gt; (fully God and fully Man) there can be no other, and thus no other religion could lay claim to one who truly knows God and can bring us to him because he &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that Christianity is the cult of said Jesus Christ, it would follow that if Christians were true to him, they would have a genuine connection to God, and not merely man's reaching up toward him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:27:42.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1363" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:28:38.140" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because both the Gospel of Mathew and Luke agree that the birth took place before the death of Herod (who died in 4 BC), historians generally assume Jesus was born around 5 BC or slightly before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;WikiPedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:28:38.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1453" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:34:09.973" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is 'definitely', since that is what Genesis is saying. But I think what you want to know is whether darkness has a positive existence, as light is a photon, lack of the photon is described as 'darkness', but it has no associated particle, and thus no positive existence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:34:09.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1453" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:36:45.880" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One can assume that in the creation of earth that darkness followed it. One could also say that the absent of nothing is darkness if that make sense&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="308" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:36:45.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1399" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:37:49.623" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In accordance with Orthodox Christian teaching, the answer is yes. The icon of 'the descent into Hades' depicts Christ pulling Adam and Eve from their graves, and the tradition is that they, along with the righteous from before Christ were saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:37:49.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1361" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:42:38.630" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Ten Commandments were originally written for a band of desert wanderers who had recently escaped a polytheistic culture. They apparently brought some of the polytheistic beliefs with them, because even while Moses was up on the mountain, they were building an idol:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Aaron] took the gold from them, formed it in a mold, and cast an image of a calf; and they said, &amp;quot;These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!&amp;quot; —&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/exodus/32-4.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 32:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The subsequent history of Israel shows that polytheism never fully died out, and was practiced even by kings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Solomon followed Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. —&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-kings/11-5.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Kings 11:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Ahab] took as his wife Jezebel daughter of King Ethbaal of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshiped him. He erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria. Ahab also made a sacred pole. Ahab did more to provoke the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, than had all the kings of Israel who were before him. —&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-kings/passage.aspx?q=1-kings+16:31-33&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Kings 16:31b-33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For [Manasseh] rebuilt the high places that his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he erected altars for Baal, made a sacred pole, as King Ahab of Israel had done, worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them. —&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-kings/21-3.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Kings 21:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophets make it clear that these idols are not beings like God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their land is filled with idols; they bow down to the work of their hands, to what their own fingers have made. —&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/isaiah/2-8.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 2:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone is stupid and without knowledge; goldsmiths are all put to shame by their idols; for their images are false, and there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish. Not like these is the Lord, the portion of Jacob, for he is the one who formed all things, and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance; the Lord of hosts is his name. —&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/jeremiah/passage.aspx?q=jeremiah+51:17-19&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 51:17-19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the &amp;quot;no other gods before me&amp;quot; commandment is not an acknowledgement of the existence of other deities, but of the existence of other objects of worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:42:38.630" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1460" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:42:48.113" Score="4" ViewCount="649" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has been stated to me that Christianity is &quot;experiential&quot; meaning it is experienced and not necessarily understood.  Do I have that definition correct?  Is this true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T17:47:30.277" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:03:22.793" Title="Is Christianity an experiential practice?" Tags="&lt;practice&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-12-09T08:52:57.603" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="280" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:43:49.910" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll answer from the perspective of a member of one denomination within a larger church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are all part of one body, Christ's church. But not every part of the body has the same function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another. &amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/romans/passage.aspx?q=romans+12:4-5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 12:4-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as individual believers have different roles within the work of the Kingdom of God, individual congregations may be stronger in certain areas than others. But if we recognize that we are all part of the same body, we can each contribute our part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know who first said it&amp;mdash;I've seen it attributed to many Christian leaders from the past&amp;mdash;but this quote captures the ecumenical spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:43:49.910" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1453" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:53:47.567" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Darkness is a physical reality of the physical universe.  It should be noted that darkness is really the absence of light.  We have light bulbs that light a room, but there is no such thing as a dark bulb that brings dark into the room.  Darkness occurs in the absence of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the physical universe was created by God.  The physical universe is made up of time, space, and matter.  Science now shows (with the theory of relativity) that the universe had a beginning.  There was a &quot;time&quot; when time, space, and matter did not exist.  The creator of time, space, and matter must be an entity outside of time, space, and matter.  God is Spirit and thus exists apart from the physical universe.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, God is the &quot;Beginner&quot;, who created the physical universe, including the physical reality of darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-06-14T21:55:41.963" LastActivityDate="2012-06-14T21:55:41.963" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1361" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:57:53.937" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I feel that it should also be noted that there have been questions regarding the unity of Jesus with God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the time, these &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;non-trinitarians&lt;/a&gt; simply disagree upon the divinity (or more accurately, the deity) of Jesus.  However, some actually believe in the deity of Jesus as a &lt;em&gt;separate&lt;/em&gt;, but lesser god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One particular faith that believes this is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jehovah's Witness&lt;/a&gt; belief system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said all of this, the majority of Christianity believes in one, single God.  It actually comes from &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; passages throughout the bible.  Here's one I like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%206:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 6:4 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Other translations read &quot;The LORD is our God, the LORD alone&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pretty solid backing for monotheism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T17:57:53.937" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1460" CreationDate="2011-08-31T17:58:52.457" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Blessed Mother Teresa is a good Christian soldier, I would have to say no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She had faith, she loved and she hoped in her Redeemer, but for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655720,00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;almost 50 years she did not 'feel' Christ's presence in her life&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is a journey, it is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;encounter with our Creator and Redeemer&lt;/a&gt;, it is not primarily experiential, although there are charismatic movements within Christianity that focus on the experience and the gifts of the Holy Spirit which can be experienced. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co012.htm#vrs8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Paul says&lt;/a&gt;, there are many &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;charisms&lt;/a&gt;, but one Lord.  Since not every Christian is given the grace of experiencing the Spirit. If Christianity is indeed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;accessible to all&lt;/a&gt;, then it is not experiential. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T22:03:22.793" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:03:22.793" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1375" CreationDate="2011-08-31T18:04:41.873" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are asking how is morality defined, or &quot;who decides what is moral and immoral?&quot; then Christians believe that God decides that, and that He makes His will known to us through various means, like the Bible, tradition, revelation, prophets, etc. Various Christian religions dissent on the exact details here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are asking how people become moral, then a big, big part of morality comes from education, from family, society, etc. Morality is certainly &lt;em&gt;taught&lt;/em&gt; and Christ is described as a &lt;em&gt;teacher&lt;/em&gt; very clearly in the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its also quite evident if you look at different Faiths. Muslims truly consider immoral to eat pigs, whereas Christians wouldn't flinch. If morals were innate we would all share the same morality, which we clearly don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T18:04:41.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1470" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1587" CreationDate="2011-08-31T18:31:27.540" Score="15" ViewCount="31528" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe we have free will and that God has free will.  It would seem Lucifer also had free will.  Do all angels have free will as we do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T21:08:59.993" Title="Do angels have free will?" Tags="&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-07-28T00:53:29.167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1460" CreationDate="2011-08-31T18:40:11.940" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, I think it is.  Though, with an emphasis on &quot;necessarily&quot;.  Well, beyond the core tenants, anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are a Christian but have never experienced God's love, then something is missing.  I'm not talking about charismatic or pentecostal &quot;gifts of the Spirit&quot;, I'm just talking about... feeling that God loves you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Miguel de Unamuno: &quot;Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: this is my understanding, and probably mine only.  I do not speak for any congregation, demonination, or any other -ation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="169" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T18:40:11.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1400" CreationDate="2011-08-31T18:44:21.573" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that this might fall into the free will category of Christianity.  It is said that God loves everyone, but he also gives us free will.  It's our choice to let such tragedies happen (whether we're the parents or those that watch those around us starve).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T21:54:05.700" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T21:54:05.700" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1399" CreationDate="2011-08-31T18:50:21.000" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Genesis 3:21, God made the very first animal sacrifice to provide a covering for Adam and Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:21.&lt;/strong&gt; Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make&#xA;  coats of skins, and clothed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Hebrews 9:22 and Hebrews 10:10, the Old Testament animal sacrifice was a prefigure of the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross &quot;once for all&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 9:22&lt;/strong&gt; And almost all things are by the law purged with blood;&#xA;  and without shedding of blood is no remission. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:10&lt;/strong&gt; By the which will we are sanctified through the offering&#xA;  of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, Adam and Eve's sin of unbelief was covered (literally in this case, because they wore the animal skins to cover their nakedness) by an atoning sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T18:50:21.000" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1470" CreationDate="2011-08-31T18:56:35.187" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've quoted this from the King James Version, since that's the version most people know this passage from. Jesus says in His prayer that God's will &lt;em&gt;is done&lt;/em&gt; in Heaven. This would imply to me that nothing outside God's will is done in Heaven, and that therefore the angels do not have free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This position stems a larger debate, though, because if it was God's will for Lucifer to rebel, which led to the fall of man, then ultimately the fall of man was by God's design. I recognize that many disagree with that theory. Ultimately, I believe that one can only reasonably state that man has free will if you agree that the angels also have free will, otherwise you must agree that neither have free will. I do not see a meshing point where angels have free will and man does not, nor do I see a point where man has free will and angels do not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T18:56:35.187" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1477" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:01:51.123" Score="2" ViewCount="618" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the common arguments from Christians against the idea that God used evolution to create Earth over millions of years? This is not a place to argue. I'm interested in a rundown of the common response from Young Earth Creationists. Source your statements whenever possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="212" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-04-09T00:06:30.580" LastActivityDate="2017-04-09T00:06:30.580" Title="What are the common arguments against theistic evolution?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;&lt;theistic-evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-08-31T22:16:28.983" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1478" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1490" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:04:48.450" Score="10" ViewCount="3798" Body="&lt;p&gt;Researching whether &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1470/do-angels-have-free-will&quot;&gt;angels have free will&lt;/a&gt; and whether &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/901/does-god-have-free-will&quot;&gt;God has free will&lt;/a&gt;, I found myself in the midst of this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is free will an illusion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our &quot;choice&quot; is that we either follow God or we do not follow God.  However, God has clearly &lt;em&gt;chosen&lt;/em&gt; some people to be saved and some to not be saved:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  For many are invited, but few are chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%201:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, &#xA;     before you were born I set you apart; &#xA;     I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 1:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, if God chose us to either be saved or not saved, do we have free will in choosing to follow him?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T15:26:02.867" Title="Do we have free will to choose salvation or is our &quot;choice&quot; an illusion?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-10-20T15:27:18.027" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1479" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:10:13.187" Score="25" ViewCount="33919" Body="&lt;p&gt;This was originally part of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/do-we-have-free-will-or-is-it-an-illusion&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;  However, it's really a separate line of logic (and therefore a different question, imo).  If others prefer, I can remerge this into the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is omniscient.  He truly, literally knows everything.  God knows whether or not I will sin.  God can (and does) direct certain people to prevent them from choosing one way or another.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%204:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 4:21 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, this is an instance where God stepped in and prevent Pharaoh from making the decision.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since he controls decisions and knows what decisions I will make, do I truly have free will?  Or do I only have free will in the inconsequential things (which isn't really free will, after all)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-07-07T21:58:38.127" LastActivityDate="2017-07-07T21:58:38.127" Title="If God controls our decisions, does this mean we don't have free will?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="7" ClosedDate="2017-07-07T20:42:37.473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:12:41.417" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;At its most basic essence, &lt;strong&gt;sin is simply unbelief&lt;/strong&gt;. The actions that we normally associate with sin (see Galatians 5:19-21) are only products of unbelief (the opposite of faith).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 14:22-23&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV) Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before&#xA;  God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he&#xA;  alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth&#xA;  not of faith: for &lt;em&gt;whatsoever is not of faith is sin&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T19:12:41.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1481" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1530" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:17:12.923" Score="14" ViewCount="12830" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard before that Jesus was recorded on the census that is mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 2:1&lt;/a&gt;, and that his name was the last name recorded.  I've also heard that Herod would then use this census when he ordered the killing of the children (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mat 2:16&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any proof that has survived on this, and if it did, are we able to see his name still recorded on the census?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="13" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T00:56:46.530" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T00:56:46.530" Title="Was Jesus recorded on the census?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;extra-biblical&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1482" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1489" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:18:18.727" Score="17" ViewCount="16957" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure how to express the relationship that Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, so please excuse the word &quot;faith&quot; in the question title.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Giving Mary praise&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But, isn't Jesus God in human form? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He chose Mary to give birth to his human body, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if Mary was chosen by God, and we know that Mary is incapable of doing anything on her own, why give her so much praise? Is she not just another servant like the rest of us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Intercession&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When one asks the virgin Mary to intercede for us, I'm confused. Isn't that the role of Jesus, that the curtain to the Holy room was torn because Jesus is now our intercessor between us and God? We may now go directly to Jesus, so why have Mary do this for you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am seeking the Catholic viewpoint on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T17:29:59.760" LastActivityDate="2016-01-06T17:47:59.280" Title="Why do Catholics put so much faith in the Virgin Mary?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;mariology&gt;&lt;intercession-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:27:14.717" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Think of it this way. You are thinking that God's will is some kind of fate, and it may be or may be not.  But just because God knows what you are going to do, it does not mean that God controls you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a difference in being omniscient and being able to control your actions. God does not interfere with our will unless it is necessary. Why? Because He wanted to give us free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T19:30:51.813" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T19:30:51.813" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:28:20.007" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;God being omniscient typically is understood to mean that God knows the future, and so He knows what people will do and any choice we make is therefore, in some fashion, &quot;predetermined&quot;. I think this is more a misunderstanding of what it means when we say that God is all-knowing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true to say that God is omniscient (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20147:4-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms 147:4-5)&lt;/a&gt;. However, we also are given free will, and God gave us the ability to make choices. These don't necessarily contradict. Firstly, we understand that God exists outside time (as we know that God is eternal and created the universe, and therefore created time). That means He doesn't operate on our timeline. You may think of this in light that the fabric of the universe itself is composed of spacetime, and space and time are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;intertwined&lt;/a&gt;--you cannot have one without the other. God, existing outside of that, is not confined to the bounds of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can look at our timeline as if it was a path on a map. There is a clear starting point and path leading up to where we are right now (our history), but the future is less certain. There are clear paths on which we may take, and God can see all the possible choices and outcomes at the same time. He also knows our hearts, so He knows what path we may be inclined to take at the moment, but He doesn't necessarily know our ultimate choice. This is what is meant by God being all-knowing. He doesn't know what our future will be, but He knows all possibilities of what it may be, which includes the path we will ultimately choose to take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to Pharaoh, that is a tricky passage but God isn't affecting his free will. Pharaoh chose to refuse them from leaving, but because Pharaoh had sinned against God, God removed his protection from him. This is similar to what is stated in the New Testament, when it is said that when we sin, we are no longer under the auspices of God's protection. God is said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart, just as our hearts become hardened when we sin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:28&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:28)&lt;/a&gt;. He did not make Pharaoh sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This ultimately was to God's plan, though, as God works all things to good.. Through the signs that God performed through Moses, the Jewish people came to believe and it formed much of the foundation for the Jewish faith for years to come there and after (the Passover, of the 10th sign, and Moses' handing down of God's Law to the people of Israel). In some ways it foreshadowed Christ's coming, as well (Jesus being the sacrificial lamb, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_of_God#Christology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stated by St. Augustine in 435&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You would remember that Pharaoh eventually decided to let them leave. That shows that Pharaoh still had his free will. And later he eventually gave pursuit. But the term &quot;God hardened his heart&quot; is more a statement on what happens when we sin, instead of a description of God bypassing our free will. God is allowing us to harden our hearts, but it is not a direct action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="268" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T23:07:18.913" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T23:07:18.913" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1482" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:30:55.570" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Thomas Merton&lt;/a&gt; in &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0811217248&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;New Seeds of Contemplation&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; talks about the common protestant misconstrual of the Roman Catholic devotion to Mary the mother of Jesus. Mary is given praise &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; she is a servant. What is recorded in the Bible about her marks her as a perfect servant to the christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is often forgotten by Catholics themselves, and therefore it is&#xA;not surprising that those who are not Catholic often have a completely&#xA;wrong conception of Catholic devotion to the Mother of God. They&#xA;imagine, and sometimes we can understand their reasons for doing so,&#xA;that Catholics treat the Blessed Virgin as an almost divine being in&#xA;her own right [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mary is a saint&lt;/a&gt;, and because of her perfect servanthood in being the mother of God's human incarnation, is regarded as the highest saint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all the great mystery of Mary, then, one thing remains most clear: that of herself she is nothing, and that God has for our sakes delighted to manifest His glory and His love in her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is because she is, of all the saints, the most perfectly poor and the most perfectly hidden, the one who has absolutely nothing whatever that she attempts to possess as her own, that she can most fully communicate to the rest of us the grace of the infinitely selfless God. And we will most truly possess Him when we have emptied ourselves and become poor and hidden as she is, resembling Him by resembling her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T20:05:06.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1478" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:31:27.240" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe God just knows who will be willing to go to heaven, and who will not, and pre-decided to select who will go to eternal life or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T19:31:27.240" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1481" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:31:48.097" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is actually a curious question. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; actually suggests the existence of the census is in doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a &quot;worldwide census&quot; in which individuals had to return to their ancestral cities. Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David. No other record of such a census exists, and the idea of everyone in the Roman Empire returning to an ancestral city for a census is questioned by scholars.[3][4] The Gospel of Matthew has a different birth narrative, with Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died c. 4 BC. Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke,[5] thus casting doubt on the Historical reliability of the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus there is obviously no physical record of the census documents. Therefore it would be impossible to know if Jesus was counted among them, or was the last one mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T19:31:48.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1482" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:36:01.807" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our reverence for the Virgin Mary is greatly due to her response to God and her faith. When the angel appeared to her and stated that God was to have her give birth to the Christ, she didn't protest, but responded sincerely to God: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:38&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&quot;do unto me according to Your word&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. This is a model of how we should respond to God's requests of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, she is a saint and very close to God. When we pray to her, we praise her for her faith, acknowledging that and the child that she carried (as her cousin, Elizabeth, did). Much of the Hail Mary is taken from her &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:39-45&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;praise in greeting&lt;/a&gt; to Mary when she visited during her pregnancy. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:46-55&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Magnificat&lt;/a&gt;, Mary's response, is related and acknowledges her praise. But then, we pray that she will intercede and pray for us. This is no different than us asking the other saints to pray for us, or our friends and family to pray for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She is special in some ways though because of her role in Christ's birth and life, and her response to God. The Immaculate Conception is an acknowledgement of that--in order for her to be pure so that she may give birth to the Christ child, she was born without Original Sin, and was as perfect as a human could be, except for Jesus. You can read about it in a bit more depth in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="268" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T22:29:19.413" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:29:19.413" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1478" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:37:02.097" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have free will to chose salvation.  God created everything; The universe, our world, and even us. All of this is already his.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Our agency is the only thing that we are able to give God that he doesn't already have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example:  The President of the United States is chosen (by us) to be our Commander in Chief, though he can still choose to try to stay in bed and ignore his duties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're chosen (by God) for various things throughout our lives.  Whether we choose to obey him is entirely up to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:23-25&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:23-25 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou&#xA;  art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of&#xA;  God, but those that be of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me,&#xA;  let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will&#xA;  lose his life for my sake shall find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last line of that quote is in reference to people becoming martyrs.  It is a good example of someone having a choice regarding their salvation.  If someone chooses to deny Christ to save their life they will die spiritually, yet if they choose to die for Christ's sake, they will find their salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T19:37:02.097" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:38:17.100" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As each plague struck, Pharaoh was more than willing to let the Israelites to relieve the plague. But as each curse was lifted, his pride took hold and his heart was hardened out of stubbornness, not because of God deactivating his free moral agency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knew the type of man Pharaoh was, and what his reaction to the plagues (and the lifting of each plague) would be. Pharaoh's heart was hardened because of his reaction to God's signs and wonders (i.e. &quot;God hardened Pharaoh's heart&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few quotes from the Exodus story that illustrate why Pharaoh's heart was hardened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 8:15&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV) But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened&#xA;  his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 8:31-32&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV) And the LORD did according to the word of Moses; and he&#xA;  removed the swarms of flies from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from&#xA;  his people; there remained not one. And Pharaoh hardened his heart at&#xA;  this time also, neither would he let the people go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 9:6-7&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV) And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the&#xA;  cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died&#xA;  not one. And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the&#xA;  cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened,&#xA;  and he did not let the people go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T23:19:08.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T23:19:08.397" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1482" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:41:02.463" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=424&quot;&gt;4 Marian official dogmas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She is conceived without original sin &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She is the Mother of God  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She is perpetually a virgin &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She was assumed into Heaven at the end of her earthly life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This all leads up to the 5th (unofficial) Marian dogma, which is what you're talking about&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm&quot;&gt;mediatrix of all graces&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not doctrine, but it what many Catholics and popes (like Leo XIII) have proclaimed and believed.  It is a hard concept even for me, but I think it makes sense.  Mary is the Secondary Cause of our redemption. (See TAN Books &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/This-Is-Faith&quot;&gt;&quot;This is the Faith&quot;&lt;/a&gt;)  Certainly God made her special, only the most special human being in history could bear God. But God also chose her, she had &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PWK.HTM#I3&quot;&gt;found favor&lt;/a&gt; with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We Catholics are not obliged to pray to Mary at all, just believe the infallible doctrine.  But, by and large, we have a tradition of honoring her and believing that she has a strong intercessory power (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PXA.HTM#D&quot;&gt;wedding at Cana&lt;/a&gt;) and that we should take her into our house (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PXR.HTM#HV&quot;&gt;Like John the Apostle&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's tradition and in general you could leave it at that.  But the reformation broke with the tradition insisting on the bible as the sole source of God's truth, so we must defend our Blessed Mother and recapitulate what we already knew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the old testament she is prefigured by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P5.HTM#FY&quot;&gt;Eve&lt;/a&gt; (Mother of all the living), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PJ.HTM#CH&quot;&gt;Sarah&lt;/a&gt; (Bearer of the new covenant), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P6Q.HTM&quot;&gt;Ruth&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PQ9.HTM#BU&quot;&gt;Rachel&lt;/a&gt; (A sorrowful wife/mother). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She is the woman who's offspring would crush the serpent's head and she is the woman in Revelation clothed in a sun with a crown of stars. (Read the history and significance of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amm.org/aboutus/medal.asp&quot;&gt;miraculous medal&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She is the model of piety and the embodiment of the Church (she literally was a tabernacle). (See Mary as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/&quot;&gt;new Ark&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She has appeared in visions to mystics throughout the history of Christianity. Bringing messages of repentance and leading millions to worship to Jesus. (see Carl Anderson's, Head of Knights of Columbus, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/our-lady-of-guadalupe-carl-anderson/1102116229&quot;&gt;book on Our Lady of Guadalupe&lt;/a&gt; and all the converts)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She said yes to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She's my mother and yes, she took me from a child in the faith to a man when all my friends and relations strayed from the path. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T15:38:31.963" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T15:38:31.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1477" CreationDate="2011-08-31T19:53:03.820" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first would be the lack of death prior to the Fall - as recorded in the creation account in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Genesis%201-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1-2&lt;/a&gt;: God's creation was &quot;very good&quot;, and death was a result of the curse on Adam for sinning (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:17-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:17-19&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the written account of the Fall is correct (which I would argue it &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be for Paul's profuse arguments through Romans (eg &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5:12&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned&quot;) to be sound), then &quot;evolution&quot;, as commonly understood with a molecules-to-man transformation, cannot be right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:19-22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:19-22&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T19:53:03.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2011-08-31T20:03:28.700" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a comment to sidran32's answer you say: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, he would be able to manipulate every aspect of it so that&#xA;  our choices are not our own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, I believe he would be able to do that if he wanted to, but he won't.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as you would let your dog run into an electric fence so that it would learn to not try to attack the neighbor dogs through the regular fence, he won't control our lives to prevent us from making mistakes and, through them, learning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, regarding him blessing our lives when we're in a time of need: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you heard your dog yipping and it had gotten caught on the fence and is continually getting shocked; you'd go help it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He loves us and will help/comfort those who call on him in his own time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T20:03:28.700" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1217" CreationDate="2011-08-31T20:24:57.570" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A priest would answer that it is not possible to know and that we cannot presume to judge. All things being equal it is more probable that the person would be damned than not, but in the case of suicide all things are never equal. Often things such as mental illness come into play, in which case culpability really comes into question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T20:24:57.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1460" CreationDate="2011-08-31T20:30:44.147" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Experiential&quot; is inherent to all beliefs to some degree or other, not specific to Christianity. Religion's certainly not empirical if that's what you mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether can be understood without being experienced is up to the individual I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my view, in order to fully understand something we need to address its root cause. When the root cause is the mind of God, then it is unknowable and can't be understood. There is no &quot;obviously it's just a given that God exists&quot; axiom unless you approach it from inside the belief system, i.e. experience it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even science and philosophy have some &lt;em&gt;a priori&lt;/em&gt; axioms that we assume because they are either indeterminate or as yet unproven. So there is some degree of faith required for science to work as well, and when the axioms we accept fit with the rest of our experience then it makes sense. Take quantum mechanics or big bang cosmology as an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's understood in the sense that there is a working theory that explains how the system behaves, and it fits our models and experiments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's not experiential because it's very counterintuitive to our experience at human scale.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For most people these can't be understood through theory or experienced in nature. I think it's an interesting counterpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="272" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T20:30:44.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1395" CreationDate="2011-08-31T20:30:45.317" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the problem.  The translation you're using is not a very good translation.  This is the verse you're referring to (in a translation that actually supports your argument):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 4:12 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;, God tells Cain&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/LPm46.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase here, &quot;&lt;em&gt;then in&lt;/em&gt; moaning and trembling you will be upon the earth&quot;.  That is what is often translated as &quot;restless wanderer&quot; or &quot;fugitive and vagabond&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?  Well, let's dig in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;stenochōria&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4730&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strongs 2532&lt;/a&gt; dire calamity, extreme affliction&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;kaiv&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2532&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strongs 2532&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;em&gt;etc&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tremō&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5141&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strongs 5141&lt;/a&gt; tremble, to fear, be afraid&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;eimi&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1510&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strongs 1510&lt;/a&gt; to be, to exist, to happen, to be present&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;epi&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1909&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strongs 1909&lt;/a&gt; upon, on, at &lt;em&gt;etc&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ho&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3588&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong 3588&lt;/a&gt; this, that, these&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;gē&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1093&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strongs 1093&lt;/a&gt; arable land, ground, the earth as a whole, a country, region, &lt;em&gt;etc&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the idea is with &quot;[dire calamity/extreme affliction] and [trembling/fear] you [will exist/be present] upon [the earth/the land/the region]&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't really say anywhere that he will wander or that he will never stop wandering.  However, if you combine these two concepts:  fear and affliction, it's understandable that the translators could interpret that as someone who would wander.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I was full of fear and troubled with distress, I would probably wander as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, having said this, I have no idea why they chose that translation.  It seems to be a poor translation of this phrase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given a decent understanding of the curse, it should be easier to see that building a city and being fearful and in distress do not conflict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T20:30:45.317" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1384" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:16:28.750" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The existence of fossils is explained by the world-wide flood in Genesis. As for the existence of fossils that are &quot;millions of years old&quot;, the dating methods implied are in question by the scientific Christian community. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find more information about why Christians believe this at creationism sites like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://icr.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://icr.org&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="328" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T21:16:28.750" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1500" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1504" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:18:15.880" Score="2" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a verse that i remember that talks about a father with two sons.  The father gives money to both of his sons.  One son invests his money and returns it to his father after becoming wealthy, or something like that, and the other son squanders it.  If i remember correctly, even though the second son squandered his money the father still showed him compassion.  Does this sound familiar to anyone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="150" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-05T10:55:20.993" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T10:55:20.993" Title="Verse about two sons" Tags="&lt;money&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:22:15.247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="700" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:23:21.350" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Ray asserted, the crown was mockingly placed on Him because Jesus was charged with the crime of being &quot;the King of the Jews&quot;, while the Jews already had a king, at least according to the Romans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is, however, an important symbolism that is also present in this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 3, thorns and thistles are part of the curse of the first sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And to Adam he said,  “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife&#xA;      and have eaten of the tree&#xA;  of which I commanded you,&#xA;      ‘You shall not eat of it,’&#xA;  cursed is the ground because of you;&#xA;      in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;&#xA;  18 &lt;strong&gt;thorns and thistles&lt;/strong&gt; it shall bring forth for you;&#xA;      and you shall eat the plants of the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophet Isaiah specifically predicted that God would lay upon the Messiah the sin of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 53:6 says, &quot;We all, like sheep, have gone astray. Each of us&#xA;  has turned to his own way, and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity&#xA;  of us all.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, as the soldier placed a crown of thorns on the head of Jesus, this actually symbolized the spiritual reality that God was placing upon Jesus the curse of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-24T21:00:31.747" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T21:00:31.747" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1500" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:26:05.180" Score="5" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015:11-32;&amp;amp;version=NIV;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 15:11-32&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parable of the Prodigal Son&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T21:26:05.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1500" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:27:35.160" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you are scrambling two different parables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one with two sons, one of which squanders his inheratence but is welcomed back is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+15:11-31/&quot;&gt;Luke 15:11-32&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one about a master who lends money to his servants, and some of them give him a return on his investment but one does not is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+19:11-27/&quot;&gt;Luke 19:11-27&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T21:27:35.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1511" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:54:20.450" Score="12" ViewCount="528" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for the idea that it's okay to bring any doubts to God in prayer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-19T16:01:57.670" LastActivityDate="2017-07-20T18:51:54.303" Title="What is the biblical basis for it being acceptable to bring doubts to God?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1513" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:56:31.947" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 5 Points of Calvinism, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Total depravity&lt;/strong&gt;: This doctrine, also called &quot;total inability&quot;, asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term &quot;total&quot; in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.) This doctrine is borrowed from Augustine who was a member of a Manichaean sect in his youth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unconditional election&lt;/strong&gt;: This doctrine asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Limited atonement&lt;/strong&gt;: Also called &quot;particular redemption&quot; or &quot;definite atonement&quot;, this doctrine asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all. Hence, Calvinists hold that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect. The doctrine is driven by the Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and their understanding of the nature of the atonement.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Irresistible grace&lt;/strong&gt;: This doctrine, also called &quot;efficacious grace&quot;, asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, &quot;graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perseverance of the saints&lt;/strong&gt;: Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (the word &quot;saints&quot; is used in the Biblical sense to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven). The doctrine asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="768" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T20:56:11.370" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T20:56:11.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1514" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:56:31.947" Score="0" Body="Protestant theological system and an approach to the Christian life named after John Calvin" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T22:05:56.613" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:05:56.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1515" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:57:49.900" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T21:57:49.900" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T21:57:49.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1516" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-31T21:57:49.900" Score="0" Body="The assembly or association of followers of Jesus Christ" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T22:06:03.617" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:06:03.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1518" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:05:28.173" Score="12" ViewCount="1539" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean humans look like God, complete with hands, feet, and sexual organs?  Or is it referring to something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-10-22T12:22:12.420" LastActivityDate="2020-10-22T12:22:12.420" Title="What does &quot;in the image of God&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;image-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-12-12T05:05:20.997" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1519" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:09:09.383" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T22:09:09.383" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:09:09.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1520" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:09:09.383" Score="0" Body="The ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T22:15:56.347" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:15:56.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1522" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:13:59.670" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the New Testament writings in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T22:18:14.543" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T22:18:14.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1523" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:13:59.670" Score="0" Body="The second part of the Christian Biblical canon, dealing with the life of Jesus and the teachings and history of the early church. Could also refer to the new covenant." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="173" LastEditDate="2013-08-10T06:28:37.240" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T06:28:37.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1524" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:15:14.427" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T22:15:14.427" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:15:14.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1525" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:15:14.427" Score="0" Body="The doctrine that all events have been willed by God" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T22:16:08.063" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:16:08.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1526" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1540" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:22:12.310" Score="14" ViewCount="644" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is Young-Earth Creationism, and the Biblical basis for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-02-11T13:26:03.073" LastActivityDate="2018-02-11T13:26:03.073" Title="What is Young-Earth Creationism, and how is it argued for?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1526" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:27:08.007" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs051.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;An article on the Biblical basis for young earth creationism.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;1. Matter in the universe is bounded. &#xA;2. The universe has expanded. &#xA;3. The Earth is near the centre of the universe. &#xA;4. The universe is young as measured by clocks on Earth. &#xA;5. The original matter God created was ordinary liquid water. &#xA;6. God transformed the water into various elements by compaction.&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/7-the-age-of-the-earth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Another article:&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;(It's not just about the Biblical basis but these are the main headings for the Biblical basis.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;1. The Bible Places Man at the Beginning&#xA;2. The Scriptures Affirm a Brief History of Man&#xA;3. A Compromise with Evolutionary Chronology&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet &lt;a href=&quot;http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/creationism_young_earth.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;another webpage&lt;/a&gt; that links to several articles about the Biblical basis for young earth creationism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;1. The Age of Humanity&#xA;2. Creation According to the Bible&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/grand_canyon.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3. Evidence from the Grand Canyon&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;4. The findings of human and dinosaur footprints together&#xA;5. Evidence from the flood&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt; &#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditDate="2011-08-31T23:16:25.237" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T23:16:25.237" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1529" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:27:08.730" Score="11" ViewCount="418" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is old earth creationism? What support does it have from the Bible? What mainstream denominations or groups, if any, support it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="212" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-25T06:36:52.670" LastActivityDate="2014-07-25T06:36:52.670" Title="What is old earth creationism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1481" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:27:43.880" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, there's no record that Jesus (or Mary or Joseph) were actually counted in the census.  However, there is evidence that they fled the city:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:13-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 2:13-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guess is that they probably weren't part of the &amp;quot;head count&amp;quot;, but fled the city instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there is a recorded history of the census (in the Bible), there's no indication that Jesus or his parents were counted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:27:43.880" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1529" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:33:56.037" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Old Earth Creationism is the belief that the world was created but is contra Young Earth Creationism in terms of age. It does not specify an age, but instead assumes that current scientific dating is at least reasonably accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one does not literally interpret Genesis 1 in terms of days, we have an uncertain time since the creation of the world. If one does not interpret Paradise (which may have been created in 6 literal days) as the same world that we inhabit (consider other differences as well) then we do not have a certain date from the Bible other than the time at which Adam dwelled on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most mainstream Protestant denominations at least support it, and it has support in both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, though it is not considered dogmatic (you have Young Earth Creationists as well.) In general, groups which support Biblical Literalism will be more likely to consider Young Earth Creationism dogmatic or at least doctrinal, whereas other groups tend to leave it open to interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among Church Fathers you have some who interpreted Genesis literally and assigned a Young Earth friendly age, whereas others spiritualized the days. The spiritualization of the days as a pattern in interpretation seems to originate with Origen, but probably predates him. Note that Origen is condemned as a heretic in Eastern Orthodoxy, while not all of his interpretive devices are, since non-condemned Fathers supported them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:33:56.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1533" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1571" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:34:50.837" Score="9" ViewCount="468" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theistic evolution sounds similar to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1529/212&quot;&gt;Old Earth Creationism&lt;/a&gt;. Both ideas start with the premise that God created. After this, I've heard tale of wars fought between the two camps. What is the gist of the differences between these two ideas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T15:32:44.997" Title="What is theistic evolution?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1534" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:41:12.200" Score="14" ViewCount="1896" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to &quot;comment on a verse with a verse&quot; or &quot;only scripture can explain scripture&quot;? I see these kinds of comments popping up in comment threads that discuss the meaning of a verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly does this mean, and how is it useful for resolving disputes? Can you cite examples of this where it makes the difference between two different understandings? Are there times when it is not the best or most relevant method? What is the alternative?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T16:15:10.023" LastActivityDate="2018-09-21T06:19:41.017" Title="What does it mean to comment on scripture with scripture?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1535" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:42:08.517" Score="2" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Intelligent Design&lt;/a&gt; is a current brand of natural philosophy that at its simplest holds that the Universe (ie, everything) has been designed intelligently. It opposes ideas like a spontaneous beginning or an eternal universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the proponents of ID, eg &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Behe&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dembski&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Discovery Institute&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Center for Science and Culture&lt;/a&gt;.. all seem to be explicitly against any form of (macro) evolution, even if intelligently designed and executed. Why reject theistic evolution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="212" LastEditorUserId="212" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T00:35:51.907" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T00:35:51.907" Title="Why does Intelligent Design reject evolution, even intelligently designed and executed evolution?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;intelligent-design&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2011-09-01T23:40:18.500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1518" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:42:48.423" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are differing traditions about this. Only in Eastern Orthodoxy have I run into a very &lt;em&gt;specific&lt;/em&gt; definition, where 'Image of God' is treated like a term of art with a specific, well defined meaning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, most Christians interpret it to mean that we share in the spiritual reality with the spiritual beings, and traits specific to God (spiritual traits, since God is Spirit) belong to man. Such things then do not belong to other creatures, which may or may not include the angels. What traits these are vary from interpretation to interpretation, but they may include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ability to create&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reason&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Having a 'spirit'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being able to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Eastern Orthodoxy, there is a specific definition that is sometimes offered (though it does not exclude the above.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Each human is unique, as God is unique (being one!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Each human is relational, that is, he exists only in relation to others, as God is Trinity in himself and thus even if there is no other, God is 'in relation' via the persons of the Trinity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Each human has free will, as God has free will.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T22:42:48.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1538" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1546" CreationDate="2011-08-31T22:55:53.490" Score="15" ViewCount="1756" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to hear your response on this. In general, there exist a set of behaviors that Christians consider sinful, though these behaviors may not be observed to harm anybody (even the person doing the behavior.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why might this be? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am assuming that God is not simply making rules for the heck of it, but that there must be some consequence of some kind by which we may understand why such a behavior might be considered wrong or sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T20:36:15.303" LastActivityDate="2011-11-06T03:39:40.470" Title="Why are certain non-harmful behaviors considered sins?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-17T21:35:12.403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1526" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:00:40.050" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Young Earth Creationism is the belief that the Earth is between 6000 and 12000 years old (depending on the tradition.) The Biblical basis for it is taking the periods starting with Genesis 1 and adding them up. The variation in years depends on counting methods, the largest variation being that of considering Genesis 'days' to be 1000 years each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T23:00:40.050" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1541" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:01:46.233" Score="20" ViewCount="22886" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often hear Jesus referred to as the &quot;second Adam&quot; or sometimes as the &quot;last Adam&quot;. What meaning does this title carry? Does it mean that things didn't work out so well for Adam and so God had to try again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find a verse that uses &quot;second Adam&quot;, but this verse mentions the &quot;last Adam&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+15:45/&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:45 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this talking about Adam? Where else is this address used and why is it important?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-04T19:46:28.323" LastActivityDate="2017-05-04T19:46:28.323" Title="What does it mean that Jesus was the &quot;second Adam&quot;?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;adam&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:09:33.513" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;A simple answer given by the Orthodox seems to be that God foreknows, but that simply means he knows what we are going to choose before we choose it. This does not mean that he makes the choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example of this approach we have a few quotes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Methodius of Olympus ca.260-martyred 311 a.d.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now those who decide that man is not possessed of free-will, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate . . . are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Maximus ca. 580-662 a.d.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After quite some time, three men of high rank, Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, and the patricians Paul and Theodosius, were sent by Constans and Patriarch Peter to win over the saint. They were joined by the Bishop of Bizye, and alternately flattered and threatened Maximus, testing his faith and posing various questions. They began by introducing themselves, then requested Maximus to sit down. Bishop Theodosius asked, &quot;How are you faring, my lord Abba Maximus?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Exactly as God knew I would before the ages,&quot; replied the saint. &quot;He foreordained the circumstances of my life, which is guarded by providence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;How can that be?&quot; objected Theodosius. &quot;Did God foreknow and actually foreordain our deeds from eternity?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The saint said, &quot;He foreknew our thoughts, words, and deeds, which nevertheless remain within our power to control; and He foreordained what befalls us. The latter is not subject to our control, but to the divine will.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Explain more exactly what is in our power, and what is not,&quot; requested Bishop Theodosius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;My lord, you know all this,&quot; answered Saint Maximus. &quot;You only ask to try your servant.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bishop admitted, &quot;Truly, I do not know. I wish to understand what we can control and what we cannot, and how God foresaw one and foreordained the other.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The venerable Maximus explained, &quot;We do not directly control whether blessings will be showered upon us or chastisements will befall us, but our good and evil deeds most certainly depend on our will. It is not ours to choose whether we are in health or sickness, but we make determinations likely to lead to one or the other. Similarly, we cannot simply decide that we shall attain the kingdom of heaven or be plunged into the fire of Gehenna, but we can will to keep the commandments or transgress them.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The Life of Our Holy Monastic Father Maximus the Confessor and Martyr)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. John Damascene ca. 676-749 a.d.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things. For He knows beforehand those things that are in our power, but He does not predetermine them. For it is not His will that there should be wickedness nor does He choose to compel virtue. So that predetermination is the work of the divine command based on fore-knowledge. But on the other hand God predetermines those things which are not within our power in accordance with His prescience. For already God in His prescience has prejudged all things in accordance with His goodness and justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bear in mind, too, that virtue is a gift from God implanted in our nature, and that He Himself is the source and cause of all good, and without His co-operation and help we cannot will or do any good thing, But we have it in our power either to abide in virtue and follow God, Who calls us into ways of virtue, or to stray from paths of virtue, which is to dwell in wickedness, and to follow the devil who summons but cannot compel us. For wickedness is nothing else than the withdrawal of goodness, just as darkness is nothing else than the withdrawal of light While then we abide in the natural state we abide in virtue, but when we deviate from the natural state, that is from virtue, we come into an unnatural state and dwell in wickedness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chap XXX)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T19:27:43.763" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T19:27:43.763" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1543" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8622" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:15:28.140" Score="15" ViewCount="974" Body="&lt;p&gt;In spite of a prevalent cultural attitude towards sin that excuses misbehavior if a person had &quot;good intentions&quot;, most Christian traditions do not seem to include the persons feelings in the matter when defining an action as sin or not. However the converse does not seem to be as frequently addressed. &lt;strong&gt;Are there Christian traditions that have specific teachings about a &quot;good&quot; action being still sinful under some conditions?&lt;/strong&gt; If so, what are do these teachings consider the basis of sin and how would a worldly good dead not meet those conditions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets use an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where I live street beggars are common place. Just as common place is the act of fishing in ones pocket for a coin or two to leave with them. Where in any Christian traditions teaching would this be dealt with as a potential sin trap? How would these teachings define sin in such a way that even an act of deliberate charity could be considered sinful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note: For the purpose of this question we can rule out what the beggar chooses to do with the money. This isn't about unintended consequences of that action down the road. Likewise I would eliminate &quot;sins of omission&quot; from the discussion in so far as this isn't about what else I could have done with the money or what more good I could have done and didn't.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-09T11:09:03.170" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T14:33:58.633" Title="Under what conditions can a &quot;good&quot; or &quot;charitable&quot; act actually be sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T03:16:35.713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1541" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:19:08.053" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Cor. 15:22, 45&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;45&lt;/strong&gt; And so it is written, &amp;quot;The first man Adam became a living being.&amp;quot; The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The specific reference is to obedience; The first Adam was the father of all men through the Flesh and disobeyed, and through him all of his progeny learned disobedience and inherited death, whereas the 'second' or 'last' Adam becomes the father of all men through the Spirit, and was perfect in obedience. Through him, all his progeny learn to be obedient to the will of God and inherit life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also, related:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:12-21 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the One to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 But the gift is not like the trespass. &lt;strong&gt;For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!&lt;/strong&gt; 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 &lt;strong&gt;For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt; 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 &lt;strong&gt;For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.&lt;/strong&gt; 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe 'The Second Adam' is an interpolation, i.e, a term that is not explicitly in the scripture like 'Trinity' but enjoys common usage because of its descriptive faculty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T13:40:35.273" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1543" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:20:39.250" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I'd never be capable of judging this, we Orthodox do pray to be forgiven of both intentional and unintentional sins. This would imply that it is not only the intent of the act which is important but also the result. 'Sin' in our case means failing to be what we are intended to be, to literally 'miss the mark'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T23:20:39.250" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1538" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:24:15.953" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason that something may be considered a sin primarily because it hurts your relationship with God. When God has ordered the world in a certain way, or decrees that certain things are not to His will, then going against it is a sin. A sin isn't something that is bad for others. It's bad for ourselves. So to judge something as sinful because it hurts others isn't going to get the full picture (though it certainly is one aspect of a sin, as we are also called to love others, by God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there were certain laws that the Jews were told to keep in the Old Testament. As you mentioned Kosher dietary restrictions, I'll use that as an example. The Jewish people at the time were very much in danger of being annihilated by the various nations in the time. They were constantly at war, and they were nomadic, living simply off the land. God desired for them to flourish and prosper, and so certain laws were decreed that ultimately had the result of encouraging good health and hygiene. Kosher laws at the time were very useful in preventing food-born disease and healthy eating habits. Other things, like purification rituals, have a direct correlation to the modern guidance by our parents to wash our hands before we eat. You can imagine that at that time, it was even more important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are different kinds of decrees in the Bible. There are things considered outright sins, but also laws and regulations. Many of these (that aren't actually sins) were for certain peoples at certain times, but ultimately a sin is when we go against the will of God, through our own free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good read here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T23:24:15.953" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1541" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:30:37.630" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few places where Jesus and Adam are mentioned together. Two note-worthy passages are in 1 Corinthians and Romans:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12-21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general gist of these passages is that where Adam brought sin, suffering, and death to our world, Jesus Christ brought grace, peace, and life to our world. In essence, Jesus had the opposite effect of Adam, but they were both the first of their kind and both hugely influenced the spiritual situation of the world. Hence, Jesus could be considered a &amp;quot;second Adam&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T23:30:37.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:39:58.613" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the earliest example of pre-millennial belief is Justin Martyr, but he did not ascribe to it as dogma, and was aware that others interpreted differently than him. The other answers have dealt with the origin of the concept of 'Rapture' as we have it today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-08-31T23:39:58.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1533" CreationDate="2011-08-31T23:44:30.647" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that strictly speaking, Old Earth Creationism is the idea of an instant creation, albeit as old as perhaps &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;radiometric dating&lt;/a&gt; suggests, whereas Theistic Evolution posits that Evolution did occur (thus all life originated from a single cell, perhaps) and the individual kinds emerged over time, and that this process was either started by, or continually overseen and guided by, God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorUserId="301" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T13:00:04.097" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T13:00:04.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1361" CreationDate="2011-09-01T00:00:15.237" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find the Bible to display a bit of a broader perspective--or, perhaps, several different perspectives--than a simple term like monotheism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In one sense, as others have argued, the Bible makes clear that there really is only one God. Belief in other &quot;gods&quot; is a joke, because those would-be gods are made by the very people who worship them. This is the perspective in, for example, Jeremiah 5:7: &quot;Your children have forsaken me and have sworn by those who are no gods.&quot; (ESV) In this sense, the Bible displays a fundamentally monotheistic perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the Bible talks about other &quot;gods&quot; in more than one way. For example, I found 9 cases in which God either warns his people not to worship other gods, or is angry at them for doing so. In these cases, they are spoken of not as idols, but as gods. Likewise, there are over 100 references to &quot;my God&quot;, without denying that &quot;my God&quot; is the only god anyway. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or see Joshua 24:15 (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't hear me to be arguing that the Bible is claiming that these gods are the real deal, or that scripture is advocating henotheism--in none of these cases is the Bible claiming that other &quot;gods&quot; truly are gods. However, the perspective that seems apparent is that inasmuch as they are worshipped as such, they are de facto gods to the people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I would say that the Bible has a broader perspective than you might imagine. Ontologically, scripture is clear that God is the only God, and Christianity (and Judaism) is thus monotheistic. However, the perspective of some passages allows that, functionally speaking, men do worship many gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="44" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T02:48:02.173" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T02:48:02.173" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1526" CreationDate="2011-09-01T00:00:36.930" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Young Earth Creationism, abbreviated YEC, is the idea that the earth is relatively young (several thousand years old) compared to Old Earth Creationism (OEC) which agree with secular science that currently claims the earth is 4.55 Billion years old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there is a lot of good physical evidence for YEC discussed elsewhere the question at hand is what is the Biblical basis for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is my opinion on the Biblical basis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the earth was old that puts death in the world before sin.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis was as explicit as possible in putting the term day as we mean it without going to the absurd length to have to specify exactly 24 hours.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contrary to popular belief the bible does not state that the earth was flooded from rain alone, but instead states that the fountains of the deep broke open AND it rained for 40 days. which is the only way that it could have happened, and if truly global it explains quite a bit about geology.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the 10 commandments in Exodus it is explained why the Sabbath is holy: 'In six days did the Lord God create the heavens and earth, and all that is within them and on the seventh day He rested'. Exodus 20:11&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Peter 3, talks about scoffers in the last days who are willingly ignorant about the flood destroying the whole world. and talks about how the world will be destroyed again in fire (so if you claim the flood was local, then you would have to conclude that God destroying the world in fire at the end will also be local somehow too). It also warns about people twisting the scriptures, which is what it looks to me OEC's do when they try to get millions of years out of &quot;There was evening, there was morning, Day 1&quot;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mark 10:6, Jesus himself said 'From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female'.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is to get an Old Earth View, you have to change the standard interpretation of much of the scripture and take many words out individually nit picking at what their meaning could be, instead of looking at the passage as a whole. Also the main proponents of OEC such as Hugh Ross, for an example, have come from first from a secular background and tried to reconcile what they already believed with the bible. Look at his bio; he states clearly that he went looking for a religion that fit what he understood to be true about science. Instead of coming to Christ and trying to find out what is truth, they do the opposite; they say, &quot;This is true, now how can we make christianity agree with it?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Romans 5:12 states that death entered the world because of the sin of Adam.  Now some YEC's taken that to an extreme and say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics entered the world at that time, and that's a big stumbling block for OEC's like Hugh Ross. I don't make that claim and don't think the bible makes the claim that entropy = death. In fact in there is allot of chaos in genesis before man shows up. But while some will claim there is no biblical support for the idea that death means anything other than human death, I think it's very clear if you look throughout the bible you see the ideal that man's sin is the cause for animal suffering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God killed animals right after Adam sinned to cover his nakedness. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God didn't tell Adam he could eat animals before he sinned. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God instituted animal sacrifices because 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins'. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; It's true the Hebrew word &lt;code&gt;YOHM&lt;/code&gt; can mean anything from 12 hours to an indeterminate period, but so can our own English word day, but it's rare to mean something other than 24 hours. While there are other Hebrew words that only mean long periods of time that could have been used instead. God says he is not the author of confusion, so why would he say there was evening and morning, day 1(which OEC's claim should mean &quot;the was the dawn of an age, and a close of an age, age 1&quot;) when he could have just said this was the first age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; as stated in many arguments against a global flood, if it rained for 40 days enough to cover the current topography of earth it would rain so hard that the friction from the water would burn the atmosphere and also the rain would so much force as to brake the ark itself. But instead of saying the rain caused the flood it says he broke open the fountains of the deep, AND it rained. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="4412" LastEditDate="2013-08-28T15:43:12.880" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T15:43:12.880" CommentCount="14" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-09-01T00:00:36.930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1552" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T00:32:00.337" Score="10" ViewCount="12278" Body="&lt;p&gt;I steal money from someone. I ask for Jesus for forgiveness. I receive forgiveness (yet keep the money). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens to the person I took the money from?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do I make out with forgiveness from God, and money from the other person? Are they just out some money?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="331" LastEditorUserId="1481" LastEditDate="2012-09-29T00:53:38.840" LastActivityDate="2015-03-25T09:34:25.090" Title="If I steal money, what does the forgiveness of Jesus cover?" Tags="&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;justice&gt;&lt;money&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-03-26T03:47:02.250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1553" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1556" CreationDate="2011-09-01T00:36:13.547" Score="7" ViewCount="257" Body="&lt;p&gt;My question arose while pondering the answers to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11/praying-to-people-outside-the-trinity&quot;&gt;Praying to people outside the Trinity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is prayer &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; form of communication with God? Is it called prayer solely because its communication with God? Or is there a specific form and reverence that is necessary for communication with God to be a prayer? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I ask a friend for something and then ask God for the exact same thing, the former is a petition and the latter a prayer? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2018-12-06T09:02:54.140" Title="What is prayer?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1552" CreationDate="2011-09-01T00:53:05.900" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just because Jesus forgives you, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are no consequences in the social sense. Forgiveness from God is a purely spiritual condition, that removes the blight of sin from your soul. However, if you have wronged another through your sin, it would be expected that you make some recompense (in your example, you'd return the money and apologize, at the least). This is the difference between forgiveness and penance. Forgiveness rights your relationship with God, but in order to promote a healthy family on Earth, penance (or atonement, similarly) will right your relationship with the Church on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, forgiveness expects that we are truly sorry for our sins. If I stole something from someone, and came to realize how wrong it was and asked forgiveness, if I was true in heart about it, then I would desire to return what was stolen, or right the wrong in some way. If you lack that kind of desire in your heart, it's very likely that you aren't sincere in your repentance, and so while God may grant forgiveness, you still would have sinned in your heart by your lack of concern for how you wronged your brother or sister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T00:53:05.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1552" CreationDate="2011-09-01T01:01:06.550" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;True repentance involves repairing damages done (where possible). In this case, it would mean returning the money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%206:2-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Leviticus 6:2-7 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't return the money then you haven't truly repented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%205:7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Numbers 5:7&lt;/a&gt; even suggests you should return more than you take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2033:15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 33:15&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Luke 19:8&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T03:44:43.830" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T03:44:43.830" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1553" CreationDate="2011-09-01T01:19:54.110" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prayer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prayer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a devout petition to God or an object of worship.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a spiritual communion with God or an object of worship, as in supplication, thanksgiving, adoration, or confession.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prayer is, essentially, any type of communication directed to God, whether thoughts or vocal words.  It can also be, simply, the act of devoting your heart towards God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything that is, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prayer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt; put it, &quot;spiritual communion&quot; can be prayer, including acts that are not normally considered religious (driving a car, flying a kite, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-13T19:30:09.240" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T19:30:09.240" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1557" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T01:22:02.883" Score="7" ViewCount="12298" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is forgiveness and reconciliation the same thing?  What needs to happen for forgiveness to occur?  What needs to happen for reconciliation to take place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="337" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T04:38:30.773" LastActivityDate="2015-06-24T00:03:30.287" Title="What is the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;reconciliation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T03:16:53.107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1229" CreationDate="2011-09-01T01:34:05.303" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the gospels Jesus speaks, as your question points out, of the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Indeed it's true that blaspheming the Spirit of God is a grave sin. It's important to keep in mind that he was speaking not to his disciples or to the crowds following him, but to the Pharisees who accused him saying &quot;It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons.&quot;  Those Pharisees did not say what they said by carelessness or momentary anger. They said it intentionally and deliberately, in order to entrap Jesus.  And his response (&quot;unforgivable sin&quot;) was an explanation of the spiritual consequences of their actions.  I think he was inviting them to repent.  But what do I know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sisters and brothers, for pastoral reasons I urge you to be very VERY careful with speech about this unforgivable sin.  There are a surprising number of people in this broken world of ours who have become convinced that they have committed this sin and are beyond redemption.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ones I have spoken to are seriously seeking some kind of reconciliation, but have become convinced they're not worth it.  Some are struggling with intrusive thoughts of personal unworthiness, and others are struggling to repent of past angry thoughts or words.   Not one of these people seeking redemption from God can possibly be guilty of this sin of blasphemy against the Spirit:  it is that same Spirit that inhabits their hearts and turns them to seek God.  Jesus did not turn away ANYONE who sincerely sought healing or repentance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, let's you and I leave all judgement about this sin to God, OK? Please? For the life of the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T12:21:58.443" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T12:21:58.443" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1543" CreationDate="2011-09-01T01:35:45.460" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic position holds that for grave (mortal) sins, one must be fully aware of the sinful act and commit it with full intention of doing so. If you have not, then you aren't culpable. Venial (minor) sins, looking at the catechism, doesn't appear to be as clearly specified so I think it's reasonable to assume that these may be committed inadvertently. However, while social ramifications may occur despite your intentions and knowledge, they aren't necessarily incredibly serious offenses either. As mentioned in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1873 The root of all sins lies in man's heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if one commits an action that would be sinful, but has not sinned in one's heart (if it was unintentional or accidental through no fault of your own) then you are not culpable for the sin. Conversely, if one performs a good deed yet does so for reasons that are amoral, the person would have sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of this would be Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees. They acted according to the letter of the Law because they were commanded to uphold it. However, in their hearts, they harbored pride and greed, among other sinful thoughts. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/bible/mat023.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 23:27-28&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus describes this with a metaphor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful but within are full of dead men's bones and of all filthiness. 28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just: but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also states earlier in this chapter, in verse 23:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint and anise and cumin and have left the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and faith. These things you ought to have done and not to leave those undone.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here this shows that they have sinned in their attitudes, but even so, their works were good. So what Jesus is calling them to do is to reform their hearts, but continue to do good works as they have been.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="268" LastEditDate="2011-12-10T00:47:07.357" LastActivityDate="2011-12-10T00:47:07.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="631" CreationDate="2011-09-01T01:55:53.943" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several levels of judgement going on at this throne of the King:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, it's the nations, the tribes, of the world standing before the throne. Does this mean individual people of all nations? It might.  But does it mean the nations -- the collective cultures?  It might.  It is not possible to say whether it's individuals or whole tribes, that  the king is judging.  My New Testament prof used to say, &quot;I suggest you behave as if it could be either or both.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the nations who care for the &quot;least of these my brethren&quot; will inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, it is the nations who actually cared for the &quot;least of these&quot;, and didn't do it because they thought they were doing it for the King himself, that inherit the kingdom. It was not their desire to somehow earn points towards Salvation Bingo (or whatever) that motivated them.  Their behavior is beyond reciprocity. It is motivated by sacrificial love, not the expectation of earning a reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth, the nations inheriting the fire earned it because their excuse indicates that if the King had needed help, they would have helped. Their behavior is reciprocity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question of human behavior is this:  By what agency do we decide, individually and/or collectively, to care for each other with self-sacrificial love rather than the expectation of reward.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God does that for us, it's called grace. We didn't, and can't, earn that.  When we do it for one another, it is our response to that grace of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T01:55:53.943" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1518" CreationDate="2011-09-01T02:09:55.930" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word for image here (tzelem) is elsewhere translated &quot;shadow,&quot; for example &quot;even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death&quot; in Psalm 23.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A modern metaphor, then, might be this: image means &quot;projection.&quot;   (The geometric kind, not the psychological kind.)  Projection takes a multidimensional entity and renders it, incompletely but faithfully, with fewer dimensions.  A projection is a complete and whole entity, but entirely derived from and less complex than, the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Literally translating, &quot;in his image he made him, male and female he made them.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Continuing with the geometric metaphor, it is evident that God is great and complex enough to project the genders of humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-04-26T14:10:09.337" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T14:10:09.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1557" CreationDate="2011-09-01T02:22:54.007" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Forgiveness is a stage of reconciliation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To explain this, let's think of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission  (TRC) organized in part by Bishop Desmond Tutu.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reconciliation is a process that can only begin with knowing the need for truth.  1 John 1 says &quot;if we say we are without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The TRC invited people guilty of crimes in the apartheid era to come forward.  Some did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reconciliation then proceeds with the one who hopes for reconciliation speaking the truth.  Carrying on with 1 John:  &quot;But if we confess our sin...&quot;  People who appeared at TRC tribunals  described their crimes with as much detail as they could, often in the presence of their victims or the survivors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next step is forgiveness.  1 John: &quot;...God who is faithful and just forgives our sin...&quot;  At the TRC, the crimes described were forgiven.  The South African government actually forgave the crimes confessed, and waived the right to prosecute them.  But they did not forgive crimes that remained concealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final step is a return to wholeness:  1 John: &quot;... and frees us from all unrighteousness.&quot;  This last one can be very difficult. The lives of murdered people cannot be restored.  The personal equanimity of rape victims is extremely hard to restore.  The sense of guilt carried by perpetrators is likely to be lifelong.  Sometimes freedom from unrighteousness calls for restitution and other forms of penance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: forgiveness is a vital part of reconciliation, but not the only part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T02:22:54.007" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1534" CreationDate="2011-09-01T02:34:25.210" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This concept is actually quite simple: &lt;strong&gt;other Bible verses are very useful in helping us figure out what a certain passage in the Bible means&lt;/strong&gt;.  Since the Bible is one complete, coherent, interrelated revelation from God, we can use one part of the Bible to help us understand another.  There are several ways to do this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Context, context, context! So often the chapter or chapters surrounding a passage will give all kinds of obvious clues as to what that passage means if we just read more and think about it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use clear passages to show us the meaning of obscure passages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When trying to understand the meaning of a certain (Greek or Hebrew) word, use other usages that use the very same word (or root word) in an obvious way&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use detailed passages to help explain vague passages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use actual commentary found in the Bible to explain the original meaning.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Perhaps there is more that I can't recall right now.  Can anyone think of ways I have missed?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last item actually can happen more than you think.  For example, Hebrews 11:17-19 is Paul's commentary; we should rely on it in order to properly understand Genesis 22.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have to be careful not to take this too far; for example, a certain word could have had a range of meaning even when used by the same author.  Thus we should not always assume that just because two passages use the same word, that word must necessarily mean the same in both.  The same word used elsewhere is a good clue, not proof-positive of meaning.  (Note that the &quot;center column&quot; bible references in nearly all study Bibles are almost always made of key passages that use the identical words).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two good books that elaborate on this are &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/083083723X&quot;&gt;Sproul's &lt;em&gt;Knowing Scripture&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310246040&quot;&gt;Fee's &lt;em&gt;How To Read the Bible For All It's Worth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="240" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T02:34:25.210" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1565" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1578" CreationDate="2011-09-01T02:35:22.473" Score="50" ViewCount="2666" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has a couple of sections talking about responsibility to the &quot;weaker brother&quot;, primarily &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 14&lt;/a&gt;. Both ask someone stronger in their faith, who is not disturbed by something like eating food sacrificed to idols, to forgo it if it'll offend a brother or sister weaker in their faith.  I think it's fairly obvious to say that this concept applied past the scope of eating into general behavior, and it's a commonly accepted principle in most American mainline traditions.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, it's been my experience that there are some Christian somewhere who are offended by anything, as you are all probably realizing given the Q&amp;amp;A on this Stack Exchange. I've known Christians against Halloween, against Christmas, against instrumental music, against worship on Sunday, against evolution, against creationism and so on.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you deal with larger, more diverse groups, like you tend to meet in Internet-based Christian communities, there's always a weaker brother offended by some belief or practice of yours. Needless to say, there are also people &quot;offended&quot; by mutually contradictory beliefs or practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, many of them like to use the &lt;em&gt;weaker brother&lt;/em&gt; scriptures to justify why you should behave differently. It's effectively the &quot;you shouldn't do anything I don't like&quot; argument, or at least &quot;you shouldn't speak out about having a belief different than mine on this subject.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How does one handle the &quot;weaker brother&quot; issue?  How does it not become &lt;em&gt;carte blanche&lt;/em&gt; for people of a controlling mindset to not manipulate you into behaving the way they think you ought?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you deal with these attempts at bullying?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Example&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, in the spirit of how SE should work, I'll provide a specific time I faced this behavior, with the caveat that this question is &lt;em&gt;not about this specific issue&lt;/em&gt;;  please don't give your personal opinions on its morality (open another question for that if you really want to).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a Christian, and play role-playing games (and am a mod on RPG.SE).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had been involved in an online Christian RPG group, the Christian Gamers Guild, back in the day. There were no end of people coming by and saying that from a weaker brother perspective, that a) we shouldn't play those games, b) those games are OK but not if they have magic or various gods in them, c) are OK as long as they're not Dungeons &amp;amp; Dragons, d) are only OK if they have an explicitly Christian theme, e) are only OK if they don't have Christianity in them (because that puts the gamemaster in the place of God) and so on, in manifold and often contradictory glory.  Some were drive-bys, but others were group members who were offended by others' gaming preferences. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this and tolerance for other essentially insane behavior (e.g. tolerance for extremely disruptive and inappropriate behavior in the name of forgiveness), I decided that it was easiest to just not participate in the group, problem solved.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But of course it's against the spirit of Christian community to just avoid all churches and social groups, or, I think, to be seriously cagey about all details of your life and beliefs because someone in that group won't like it and be &quot;offended&quot; and &quot;stumble,&quot; right?    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2020-04-29T23:25:09.493" LastActivityDate="2020-04-29T23:25:09.493" Title="The Tyranny of the Weaker Brother" Tags="&lt;lifestyle&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="10" ClosedDate="2014-07-20T21:47:11.917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1535" CreationDate="2011-09-01T02:36:23.830" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Intelligent Design&lt;/a&gt; Debate is all about getting people to admit there is some creator of the universe rather than Evolution.  Its not about saying this creator is God or some other such deity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMHO it is used as a stepping stone as people who don't want to believe there is a God can swallow the idea easier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarise the ID theory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Irreducible Complexity&lt;/a&gt;: Even when you reduce biological organisms down to their most basic systems they are still too complex to happen randomly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Specified Complexity&lt;/a&gt;: Biological organisms are not just complex but they are specified or ordered complexity. Since the pattern (or order) specified to make biological organisms they can't happen randomly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Intelligent Designer&lt;/a&gt;: When both the above are true there must be an Intelligent designer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(&lt;strong&gt;DISCLIAMER:&lt;/strong&gt; I may have gotten parts of the ID thoery wrong in my attempt to simplify it please help correct me if I have.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:-&lt;/strong&gt; To address the (macro) Evolution stance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't say for certain as I am not associated with any ID organisation but my theory would be that if macro Evolution was the method that the Intelligent designer used to create organisms it would give rise to the ability that it could be done again (evolve). &lt;em&gt;(ID theory was brought out of an anti-evolution philosophy. Does that make it biased? I'm not sure but I like when we question long held blind-beliefs.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Keep in mind that both Evolution theory and the Intelligent Design theory are still theories.  Neither of which (no matter how many people believe it is true) have any substantial proof either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="243" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T23:33:06.580" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1553" CreationDate="2011-09-01T02:42:03.470" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prayer is defined by my (Lutheran) Church as being &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A heart to heart talk with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="56" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T02:42:03.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1279" CreationDate="2011-09-01T03:08:38.863" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It could be a mission -- a church plant -- of a congregation elsewhere called &quot;First Baptist.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why not ask them?  I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you what it's about, and you'd be honoring them with your interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T03:08:38.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1565" CreationDate="2011-09-01T03:10:18.143" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always read this passage as not causing brother to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2014:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stumble&lt;/a&gt; rather than offence though this seems to be a fairly fine line. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example a small group leader might not want to drink alcohol in public as it may cause a brother in his group to think that &quot;since my leader can drink then so can I&quot; and use this as justification to get drunk off his skull. Or maybe a Pastor might decide not to as there may be some of their congregation around who might be alcoholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example might be that a person might believe it is wrong to watch horror movies and another Christian brother/sister (knowing this) might tell them that they should watch a horror movie with them. In this example that would be causing them to stumble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though this shouldn't be taken to an extreme. It does say that if you know your brother is weaker then you should not &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flaunt&lt;/a&gt; your freedom in front of them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its the whole &quot;Love thy neighbour&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;idea&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:-&lt;/strong&gt; aftyer reading your update I'd like to add that what you do in your own private time is between you and God. (Assuming you are over the legal adult age etc. etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="243" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T03:10:18.143" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1570" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1579" CreationDate="2011-09-01T03:50:04.320" Score="8" ViewCount="22118" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think I can safely say that humans were designed not to operate as a single solitary person but as part of a unit of two -- both as referenced by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Gen 3:16-17&lt;/a&gt; (see mentions of husband and wife in said passages) and ingrained feelings that appear to be a part of every person I know of (near as I can tell anyway...). However, there also seems to be support for there being no marriage after we are resurrected in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:30&lt;/a&gt;. Can someone clear up my confusion on this topic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="251" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T06:29:40.333" LastActivityDate="2015-07-11T02:49:06.827" Title="What happens to marriage on the New Earth" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-07-12T06:04:14.373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1533" CreationDate="2011-09-01T03:52:17.043" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theistic evolution (TE) is the belief that we should look to the Bible to learn about God, and rely on scientists to inform us about science. As someone once put it, &quot;The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go. Science can give us the age of rocks; the Bible can give us the Rock of Ages.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view holds that there is no conflict between faith and science &lt;em&gt;regardless of the conclusions the scientists reach&lt;/em&gt;. This viewpoint has been labeled &quot;theistic evolution&quot; because about 98% or 99% of all scientists in the life science fields accept evolution as the best theory to explain the variety of life forms found on our planet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TE differs from old earth creationism (OEC) in that OEC generally accepts modern geology and cosmology but not evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TE differs from intelligent design (ID) in that ID proponents hold that science can uncover ways in which God is active in the creation process; TE proponents hold that God has been active, but can accept the &quot;how&quot; of God's involvement as a mystery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T16:26:51.430" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T16:26:51.430" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1565" CreationDate="2011-09-01T04:01:50.443" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are correct that for nearly everything you do, short of breathing and eating (and sometimes including eating) you can probably find some believer somewhere to object to it on some grounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when Paul says &quot;Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak&quot;, he is not saying to never exercise your freedom under any circumstance lest someone might be offended or stumble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, you should ensure that your involvement with something which would be sinful (as a matter of conscience) for another believer does entice that believer to participate in something they consider sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your context, you play RPGs; so do that in such a way so as not to cause someone who thinks it's sinful to take them up.  You don't have to hide it, but be &lt;em&gt;careful&lt;/em&gt; not to entice another for whom it would be sin to become involved with RPGs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to exercise judgment and care; no one's going to spell it out for you, because it's not black and white. If people at your church think it's sinful, don't advertise in the church bulletin; before inviting someone to join you, feel them out for where they stand, etc, etc. If rock music is seen as sinful, don't have band practice in the church basement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T07:04:09.350" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T07:04:09.350" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-09-01T04:07:45.783" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the doctrine you're looking for is &quot;Priesthood of all believers&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is derived from Martin Luther's understanding of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-peter/2-9.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 2:9&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther, and most Protestants following him, have understood this to mean that all Christians are capable of interpreting the Scriptures without a priest as an intermediary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T07:32:44.980" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T07:32:44.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1538" CreationDate="2011-09-01T04:11:44.873" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin is not defined as such by any level of hurt caused to a human being.  Sin is, in fact, &amp;quot;missing the mark&amp;quot;; the word has it's roots in the target-shooting of an archer - sin is, in effect, to miss the bulls-eye.  First and foremost sin is any failure to live up to the perfect law of God, including all it's moral statutes.  For the Jews, this included the social, moral and ceremonial statutes handed down from God through Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowhere is it stated that sin is sin by man's measure; it's sin by God's measure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that being said, the old testament law was fulfilled in Christ, and he gave a new measure.  It was one which was more about the heart than the head, and harder to live up to than simply following a bunch of regulations; it's a &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; of principled obedience:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:37-39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;37&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ &lt;strong&gt;38&lt;/strong&gt; This is the first and greatest commandment. &lt;strong&gt;39&lt;/strong&gt; And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2013:34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 13:34&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;34&lt;/strong&gt; “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this new code is a law of the Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 7:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is: Does X show love, honor and respect for My God, my neighbor and myself?  However, &lt;em&gt;living&lt;/em&gt; this principle, this new law of love, is a thing in which we grow day by day and we are more conformed to the image of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T21:20:22.150" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1576" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T04:13:24.280" Score="3" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Duplicate of:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1051/does-the-bible-make-any-allusions-to-life-on-other-planets&quot;&gt;Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created us in His own image, we can be proud that we are His privileged creations in this Earth. But are we unique in this universe? &#xA;I believe that God has kept rest of the Universe for us to praise His wisdom and wonders and to praise his creations which are limitless. We will not be able achieve/find anything beyond this fascination. Even if there are 'people' in some other galaxies, we do not have the privileges  to find them. &#xA;But I know my faith related to this has no base. &#xA;So, what does the Bible say about this? Any support to my belief? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2015-01-18T21:07:25.863" Title="What does the Bible say about aliens? Did God create any life outside Earth?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;extra-terrestrial-life&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-09-01T11:58:03.377" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1565" CreationDate="2011-09-01T04:27:47.453" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off... I think this is an excellent question, here's my try at an answer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 14:3, I believe, balances out both sides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know a person who thinks celebrating holidays or birthdays is wrong, and putting up Christmas trees is wrong, etc. I am cool with him, and he doesn't try to ever prove that I am wrong if I celebrate these things. And what I do in return is make sure I don't throw a birthday party for him, because that's me being sensitive to his beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I think it's key to denote the difference between offend and stumble. Because this scripture was used to make sure we don't flaunt our freedom to the point where it causes someone else to fall into sin... and it is sin for them because they may do it even though they think it is a sin. (But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a person clearly is NOT going to stumble, but is just being offended because they don't do something you do, then I am not so sure that &quot;weaker brother&quot; argument applies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example that I think applies... if my friend (who doesn't celebrate stuff) says, &quot;man when christmas comes I used to get so focused on the gifts, trees, etc, and I forgot about God, so I made a decision to remove it and not celebrate it.&quot; Then I would say... I understand Christmas became an idol to you, therefore it is good for you, if it helps you not to sin. Therefore, I can honor that. Basically, I am accommodating him, so that he won't stumble into sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do believe that's our job as Christians is to accommodate the person who may be weaker in an area that you're strong in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example in scripture....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at Acts 16:3 - Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul here circumcised Timothy because of the Jews in that area, which really meant Paul didn't want them getting hung up on circumcision, because he wanted them to hear the Gospel without them being offended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a choice made by Paul to &quot;be all things to all men so that some may be saved&quot; (1 Cor 9:22). Because Paul could have easily told them &quot;in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.&quot; Gal 5:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(In the spirit of Galatians, I do think at times people's law driven beliefs can be sinful, hence why Paul rebukes the Galatians)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't have to live in a box because of someone else's beliefs, but at the same time we can't merely enjoy our freedoms without consideration for others' true weaknesses either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastEditorUserId="223" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T21:09:34.260" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T21:09:34.260" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2011-09-01T04:31:25.113" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Putting the verse you just cited (Matthew 22:30) back into context will clear up a bit of your confusion. First of all, the question was posed by the Jewish leaders about tedious Jewish customs in an attempt to catch Jesus off guard, as they frequently tried to do. The chapter even goes as far as to specify that they were Sadducees, which did not even believe in the resurrection. Furthermore, Christ's answer that they will not be married nor given in marriage refers to this contrived example (if you look at the KJV translation, it says &quot;they&quot; rather than &quot;people&quot;) and not to couples in general. So this verse does not provide much support against marriage after the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experience is that most Christians agree that marriage between husband and wife is ordained by God...at least for this mortal life. The Bible does not say much else about marriage after death, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus among the various denominations as to the state of marriage after death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T05:09:02.363" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T05:09:02.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1580" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1592" CreationDate="2011-09-01T04:37:35.880" Score="15" ViewCount="25996" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard it said that Paul wrote other letters that didn't make it into the Bible, including at least one more letter to the church at Corinth, and a letter to the church at Laodicea. What is the source for these claims, and what might have happened to these letters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T04:57:34.353" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T15:38:16.817" Title="Did Paul write other letters that are not in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1557" CreationDate="2011-09-01T05:06:32.210" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reconciliation is a &lt;em&gt;process&lt;/em&gt; which involves several distinct phases, not necessarily in this order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Conviction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repentance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Confession&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Forgiveness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Restitution&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in my view, forgiveness is a part of an overall process of reconciliation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. &lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:8-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 1:8-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general terms, first we experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit, which leads us to repentance.  With a repentant heart we confess our sins one to another (or to a priest or minister, if that's your persuasion).  We then receive forgiveness and instruction on how to make restitution, as appropriate to the wrong doing (if our confessor is doing his job).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With God in regards to sin, forgiveness is dependent on true repentance (and, if you are Catholic or similar, confession to a priest).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between people, specifically as regards interpersonal relationships, it is possible to forgive but never be reconciled with the other person - if the other person does not repent, there may be no reconciliation.  It is also possible to make restitution with or without forgiveness and never be reconciled because of personal hurts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that until there's actual interpersonal reconciliation, and the whole process has occurred, that sin still remains for one or other party or both.  Though wounds are covered with a band-aid - they still remain unhealed, eventually to get infected and fester.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allowance should be made for when reconciliation is not possible, such as when one party has died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2015-06-24T00:03:30.287" LastActivityDate="2015-06-24T00:03:30.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-09-01T05:08:34.983" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea of Sola Scriptura is that we base our beliefs off of scripture alone. I wouldn't say it's talking about &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; we interpret the Bible versus &lt;em&gt;where&lt;/em&gt; we get our understanding about God from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think it is saying it is bad to be taught the correct interpretation by those who have spent their time studying the scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But at the same time, I think it mainly protects the believer from those who would try to add to scripture, or change it, or use it to manipulate. It protects in that way, because I can always pick up the Bible myself and see what it says for myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always ask my Pastor for help interpreting the scripture, but I can also read it and make sure what he is saying is true, so I am not led astray. And further more, I can be sure that he isn't adding his own doctrines and beliefs into the mix, because people do add their own beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary: &#xA;&quot;All Scripture is given by inspiration of God&quot;... we can't say that about individual men's interpretation. Our best bet is to have people skilled in doctrine to teach, AND have each individual study as well to make sure what they say, lines up with Scripture alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 3:16-17&#xA;All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T05:08:34.983" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1552" CreationDate="2011-09-01T05:29:11.803" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember this is not some game where you try to follow the rules or trick the system. &#xA;This is God we are dealing with. He will judge our actions and thoughts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, you have a chance to return the money and you are not. This is wrong.&#xA;I wish you make the right choice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="341" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T05:29:11.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1470" CreationDate="2011-09-01T06:00:08.443" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lucifer and his angels do indeed appear to have independent will.  Revelation 12 describes the fall of the angels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to my limited reasoning faculty, that it would not be possible for the &amp;quot;dragon&amp;quot; and his angels to make war on God and be cast out of heaven without them exercising their will independently of God's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Isaiah describes self-will as the cause of the devil's fall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 14:12 ff&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; How you have fallen from heaven,     morning star, son of the&#xA;dawn!   You have been cast down to the earth,     you who once laid&#xA;low the nations!  &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; You said in your heart,     “I will ascend to the&#xA;heavens;  I will raise my throne     above the stars of God;  I will&#xA;sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,     on the utmost heights of&#xA;Mount Zaphon.  &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;     I&#xA;will make myself like the Most High.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's a lot of &amp;quot;I will&amp;quot; statements, for someone without one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why some of the angels rebelled and others did not (and do not), is a mystery.  But you must be careful not to conflate independent will with a natural inclination to sin - for example, God has perfectly independent will, but it's not within his perfect nature to sin (indeed, since sin is fundamentally asserting your will over God's it's not possible by very definition for him to sin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T00:39:05.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1557" CreationDate="2011-09-01T06:57:46.167" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some definitions of &quot;forgiveness&quot; from the web:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the act of excusing a mistake or offense&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;stop blaming or grant forgiveness; &quot;I forgave him his infidelity&quot;; &quot;She cannot forgive him for forgetting her birthday&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;absolve from payment; &quot;I forgive you your debt&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To pardon, to waive any negative feeling or desire for punishment; To accord forgiveness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definitions of &quot;reconciliation&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The restoration of friendly relations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A process that encourages opposing groups to talk to each other again after an argument and settle their differences&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgiveness can be extended by one person even if the other person does not choose to forgive. Reconciliation can only happen if both parties act. We are required to forgive offences, and do our best to reconcile, but if the other party decides not to reconcile, it will not happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible acknowledges this and we are instructed: Rom 12:18 NIV  If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="345" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T06:57:46.167" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1589" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1707" CreationDate="2011-09-01T07:02:31.480" Score="20" ViewCount="10733" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:16-17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;KJV says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems clear that Adam and Eve did not die on the &lt;em&gt;day&lt;/em&gt; they ate from the tree. And even without the word &quot;day&quot; there, it seems they didn't die &quot;when&quot; they ate from the tree, either, but many many years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What gives?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T22:58:29.347" LastActivityDate="2016-05-24T18:39:58.340" Title="What is the specific meaning of &quot;die&quot; in Genesis 2?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2018-01-16T16:42:23.373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1589" CreationDate="2011-09-01T07:20:53.120" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is talking about physical death because when Adam disobeyed, God in his mercy had to cut him off from the tree of life so he would not live forever in his sin &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22-24&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:22-24 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God DID in fact cut him off from the tree of life that day, so Adam did start to die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T22:39:14.447" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1580" CreationDate="2011-09-01T07:25:00.180" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul certainly wrote other letters, but they were either lost or were not theological. For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2016:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 16:3&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then, when I arrive, &lt;strong&gt;I will give letters of introduction&lt;/strong&gt; to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding one more letter to Corinth, that is the implication in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:9&lt;/a&gt; when he refers to an earlier letter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I &lt;strong&gt;wrote to you in my letter&lt;/strong&gt; not to associate with sexually immoral people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is worth noting that all genuine letters by Paul could be identified by people at the time as he ended them in his own writing (rather than dictating). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Thessalonians 3:17&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T07:47:45.680" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T07:47:45.680" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1594" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1609" CreationDate="2011-09-01T07:49:06.693" Score="14" ViewCount="13380" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thomas More was canonized in 1935 by the Catholic Church. During his chancellorship between 1525-1529 in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Campaign_against_the_Reformation&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the campaign against the reformation&lt;/a&gt; people were killed and tortured in his name, for example, for the crime of owning an English Bible, something that is quite normal nowadays. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what reasons do the Catholic Church justify his canonization?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-15T22:28:57.763" LastActivityDate="2020-03-08T19:12:47.870" Title="Why was Thomas More canonized?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;canonization&gt;&lt;thomas-more&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1526" CreationDate="2011-09-01T08:12:03.893" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Young Earth Creationism is the view that the universe and all that is in it (including earth) was created by God in a 6 day period, not by unaided natural processes over billions of years. As a result, the earth is thousands of years old, not millions or billions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical basis is a straightforward reading of the creation account in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="345" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T08:12:03.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1594" CreationDate="2011-09-01T08:32:14.403" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One reason could be because he was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Trial_and_execution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;martyred&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;he steadfastly refused to take the oath of supremacy of the Crown in the relationship between the Kingdom and the Church in England. Holding fast to the ancient teaching of Papal supremacy, More refused to take the oath and furthermore publicly refused to uphold Henry's annulment from Catherine. John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, refused the oath along with More. The oath reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...By reason whereof the Bishop of Rome and See Apostolic, contrary to the great and inviolable grants of jurisdictions given by God immediately to emperors, kings and princes in succession to their heirs, hath presumed in times past to invest who should please them to inherit in other men's kingdoms and dominions, which thing we your most humble subjects, both spiritual and temporal, do most abhor and detest;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, he was then charged with high treason, and was convicted, and consequently, decapitated. I suppose, the Catholics believed this to be &amp;quot;martyrdom&amp;quot; as More stood for his beliefs rather than compromise, even on pain of death, and so, they canonized him. That, is a possible reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: This is not the sole reason he was canonized. This, can be combined with the fact that he had &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Influence_and_reputation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;great reputation:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The steadfastness and courage with which More held on to his religious convictions in the face of ruin and death and the dignity with which he conducted himself during his imprisonment, trial, and execution, contributed much to More's posthumous reputation, particularly among Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T12:28:22.457" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1338" CreationDate="2011-09-01T09:00:25.510" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in the New Testanment is there a clear, condensed definition of a Christian or a Brother in Christ. The definition is written throughout the new testament. But there are a few things which are stated that make it fairly clear. A Christian can be defined as someone who:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_john/5-10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Accepts Jesus Christ as the son of God and their Lord and Savior.&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_thessalonians/2-13.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Accepts and follows the Bible, as it's the infallible Word of God.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Has faith and trusts God with all his heart.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/mark/12-30.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Loves the Lord.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/15-2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bears fruit&lt;/a&gt; (produces positive results)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="107" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T09:00:25.510" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1598" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1708" CreationDate="2011-09-01T09:05:44.647" Score="18" ViewCount="2516" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I've heard, The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only representative authority of God on Earth. Does it indeed claim that, and if so what does it say happens to members of non-Catholic churches when they die? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2016-02-23T01:44:20.257" LastActivityDate="2016-02-23T01:48:40.207" Title="What does the Catholic church teach about fate of non-Catholic christians?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1600" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1607" CreationDate="2011-09-01T11:01:34.580" Score="11" ViewCount="10909" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can be quite certain that God didn't originally create us as sinners. Rather Adam and Eve chose sin in the Fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin&quot;&gt;original sin&lt;/a&gt; is widely held in Christian churches, but those opposing it are not a small minority, either. As original sin means that we inherit our sinfulness from the Fall, I think it might be equivalent to the question asked here: &lt;strong&gt;Are we born sinners?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please provide at least the biblical evidence for an answer -- non-biblical arguments are, of course, welcome as additional information. Also, I might be wrong, and some believers in original sin might not think we're &lt;em&gt;born&lt;/em&gt; sinners. If these notions are actually separate, please elaborate in the answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T12:26:53.257" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T20:28:28.417" Title="Are we born sinners?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-04-09T09:04:16.210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1535" CreationDate="2011-09-01T11:34:32.233" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the intelligent design proponents you are talking about are Christians who have a somewhat literal interpretation of genesis.&#xA;Because they consider genesis literal, for them to admit it's not correct would mean (to them) that there is a mistake in the Bible, and the rest of their faith (including the existence of God) would be up for debate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;tl;dr they are inflexible with their beliefs, so they must disregard any theory that contradicts their beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="277" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T11:34:32.233" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1325" CreationDate="2011-09-01T11:51:34.310" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;A small number of people may gather in a fancy building, on a street corner, in a coffee house or library, or on the telephone (or yes, on the internet) for worship, praise, and service. Of course, that's the promise of this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to take this verse from Mt 18 in context, though.  It comes right after the verses on church discipline, where Jesus urges people to use appropriate means to cope with disputes, avoiding making a big public deal about things that can be handled faithfully by a small number of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As is often the case with things Jesus says, there's a streak of radicalism here.  Jewish tradition and practice calls for a minyan -- a gathering of ten -- for prayers.  Here is Jesus, in the Gospel written for the Jewish community, saying two or three is plenty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, @Mason Wheeler made a good point.  Please don't mistake Christianity.SE for a congregation. If you don't have an in-the-flesh congregation, please consider finding one. Christianity is most definitely an in-the-flesh religion and spiritual path.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T11:51:34.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1086" CreationDate="2011-09-01T11:55:31.263" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This answer is based on the doctrine of original sin as held by at least Lutheranism. Related question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1600/are-we-born-sinners&quot;&gt;Are we born sinners?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are, in fact, &lt;strong&gt;two important questions&lt;/strong&gt; here.  One explicit, one implicit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The explicit question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does God create some people heterosexual and others homosexual?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As other answerers have meritoriously pointed out, the Bible depicts homosexual acts as an abomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-27&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:26-27 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 18:22 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember what God said when he looked at the creation, after creating man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:31&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:31 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, I don't believe God created anyone homosexual, triggered to do what he sees as an abomination. &lt;em&gt;But do read on...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The implicit question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are some people born heterosexual and others homosexual?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How God created us and how we were born are two entirely separate matters. God created us perfect, but in the Fall of Man, Adam and Eve chose sin and the entire humankind after that is born with original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2051:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 51:5 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;and in sin did my mother conceive me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We are born sinners&lt;/strong&gt;, even though God did not create us such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know how this actually works. It might be that all of us are born perverted in some way: one prone to murder, one to lie, one to steal, one to be proud, one to have extramarital sex, one to have homosexual sex. Being born in such a way wouldn't make the action right, though more understandable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Praise the Lord for carrying the burden of our sins, for we are indeed full of sin!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not create any of us sinners, yet we all are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of us might be born homosexual. The Bible doesn't clearly state either way, and we're &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;still waiting for conclusive scientific research&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T13:39:38.940" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="649" CreationDate="2011-09-01T11:57:27.000" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You make the assumption that there was a flood at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But maybe the flood is just a metaphor, a story. Which would lead to a different question: What does the story mean? It could be meant either way, without a real flood. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the ancient Jews didn't know the whole earth, how could they know whether the whole world was covered with water to begin with? Nobody knew Mt. Everest then, nobody in that region knew Japan, China, North or South America. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without modern information technology, and without witnesses to ask later, it is impossible to know what was covered with water. But witnesses would be a contradiction to the idea that the whole earth population was killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T12:08:15.533" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T12:08:15.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-09-01T11:59:48.400" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it depends on where you live and what you are taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were to look at an area such as Africa where not everyone is educated, and I imagine science isn't taught as strongly with textbooks etc then I believe you'll find there are many more who believe in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in a western country we are brought up with a lot of science, not just teaching us the processes involved in scientific experiments, but often &quot;facts&quot; from other conducted experiments and we often accept these. A simple example is erosion, you're taught about in geography commonly from a textbook, how many times do pupils actually do an experiment to conclude that water erodes materials?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for many, they are brought up with the big bang, evolution and the morals of their parents (who also have a significant effect on someone's default stance). Therefore someone is likely to come from an Atheist background to reach Christianity which contradicts some of the textbook teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="287" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T10:17:37.010" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T10:17:37.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1600" CreationDate="2011-09-01T12:13:21.763" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Since I had to find relevant Bible verses for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1086/does-god-create-some-people-heterosexual-and-others-homosexual/1603#1603&quot;&gt;another purpose&lt;/a&gt;, I'll answer my own question with them. I still expect someone to write a more full answer. This interpretation/selection of passages is close to the Lutheran view.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David does seem to state that we're born sinners:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2051:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 51:5 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  and in sin did my mother conceive me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also writes to the Romans, saying that &lt;em&gt;&quot;one trespass led to condemnation for all men&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%205:12-5:21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12-13,18 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also makes a similar statement when writing to the Corinthians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2015:22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:22 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does seem to say that we indeed are sinful from birth because of the Fall of Man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T13:41:24.723" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1594" CreationDate="2011-09-01T12:36:32.430" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The closest I can find to an answer to this question is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marys-touch.com/Saints/more.htm&quot;&gt;in the final paragraph of this article&lt;/a&gt;, which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;More was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in 1886, along with other English martyrs, and canonized in 1935.  &lt;strong&gt;Had he never met death for the faith he still would have been a candidate for canonization as a confessor.&lt;/strong&gt;  From first to last his life was singularly pure, lived in the spirit of his own prayer:  &quot;Give me, good Lord, a longing to be with Thee; not for the avoiding of the calamities of this wicked world, nor so much for the avoiding the pains of purgatory, nor the pains of Hell neither, nor so much for the attaining of the joys of Heaven in respect of mine own commodity, as even for a very love of Thee.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication here is that he was canonized because of his martyrdom, but that even if he had not been a martyr, he may still have been canonized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stthomasmore-sf.org/about.html&quot;&gt;This source&lt;/a&gt; also supports the theory that he was canonized for his martyrdom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;St. Thomas More ... [was] canonized for his unfailing devotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T19:09:49.817" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T19:09:49.817" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1610" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:00:59.437" Score="13" ViewCount="12478" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-25525&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 13:6-9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in&#xA;his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find&#xA;any. &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three&#xA;years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and&#xA;haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and&#xA;I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; If it bears fruit next year,&#xA;fine! If not, then cut it down.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could someone explain what the parable means?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-04-10T02:30:21.330" Title="What does the parable of the Fig Tree mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-10T06:22:03.403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1611" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1614" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:12:46.007" Score="22" ViewCount="8384" Body="&lt;p&gt;Setting aside marriages of couples from two different Christian denominations, what passages in the New Testament prohibit a Christian from marrying a non-Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the Old Testament prohibits Jews from marrying non-Jews, but I am interested in answers relating to Christians specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="226" LastEditorUserId="226" LastEditDate="2016-04-27T00:51:33.867" LastActivityDate="2017-12-20T00:44:00.940" Title="What is the Biblical basis against inter-faith marriages?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1611" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:21:47.380" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14-15&lt;/a&gt; is often understood to prohibit the marriage of Christians with non-Christians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.&lt;/strong&gt; For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T13:21:47.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1611" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:24:03.897" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;A verse which is used widely is 1 Corinthians 7:39&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her&#xA;  husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, &lt;strong&gt;but he must&#xA;  belong to the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse talks for a woman who wish to get married again but the principle is the same for anyone. &quot;Belong to the Lord&quot; means to be a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T13:24:03.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1611" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:26:34.533" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206:14-18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14-18&lt;/a&gt; is generally cited in such cases:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,&amp;quot; says the Lord.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And I will welcome you.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;And I will be a father to you,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Says the Lord Almighty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one member of an &amp;quot;interfaith&amp;quot; marriage were to be saved &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; getting married, then it would be that spouse's duty to continue to witness to their unbelieving mate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:12-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:12b-16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T13:26:34.533" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1615" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1622" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:40:21.593" Score="7" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/695&quot;&gt;God / Jesus has many names&lt;/a&gt; which reveal something of His nature / character, e.g.:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Son of God (reveals His divine nature)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Son of Man (reveals His human nature)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &quot;The Word&quot; is more puzzling to me. Why is Jesus called &quot;The Word&quot; and what does it reveal about Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-04-28T21:40:26.633" LastActivityDate="2017-07-23T05:40:24.507" Title="What is the significance of the name, &quot;The Word&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:46:25.293" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clearly Faith cannot be the default position if you ask whether God exists, because if your question is not rhetorical, but strives to be balanced, then you cannot start by assuming that God exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same applies to Atheism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So clearly the default position is &lt;strong&gt;agnosticism&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, a few points are also pretty obvious:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there is no factual evidence for the existence of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you approach the question via Faith, the answer is fundamentally quite simple. If you have Faith, you are quite sure that God exists. If you don't, then you think otherwise (very unsure, sure of the opposite).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you approach the question via science, then the default position is non-existence due to the null hypothesis (and the fact that the God hypothesis is not falsifiable and therefore invalid).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bit more on the last point: the null hypothesis is the conviction that when someone makes a statement, it's up to them to prove it. It may sound harsh, but that's exactly how science (medicine, technology, etc.) works. It's exactly the kind of thinking that let's us assert the falsehood of astrology, tarots, magic and so on...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the burden of proof does rely on who makes the assessment &lt;em&gt;according to scientific, rational principles&lt;/em&gt;. If you think scientific principle does not lead to the truth in all cases, you may disagree with the default position and use Faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, it's a matter of Faith, which means belief in something without (or in spite of!) factual proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastEditorUserId="279" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T07:01:42.973" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T07:01:42.973" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1618" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1626" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:52:12.320" Score="13" ViewCount="4700" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Biblical account, Eve is the first to eat the forbidden fruit. Yet still the blame gets put on Adam and later on in the Bible it states that sin entered the world through one man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is Adam considered the original sinner?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T19:10:49.590" LastActivityDate="2012-09-20T22:13:46.310" Title="Why is Adam considered the original sinner?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;adam&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-29T03:34:42.323" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1615" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:56:09.287" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the greek the word for &quot;Word&quot; there in John 1:1 is lógos and according to strongs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3056.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lógos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. 3056&#xA;  /lógos (&quot;word&quot;) is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing&#xA;  the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me this means that Jesus is the manifestation of the Father's heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T13:56:09.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1615" CreationDate="2011-09-01T13:56:13.920" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 1:1 begins the same way that Genesis 1:1 does.  In the Genesis passage, God speaks the world into existence.  This tie emphasizes that The Word was present in creation.  A Jewish reader would recall the plural collective name of Elohim used in that passage along with the &quot;Let &lt;strong&gt;us&lt;/strong&gt; make man in &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; image...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God the Son is co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit, so the name Jesus/Yeshua (The Lord saves) was given to Him when He became a man and entered into His own creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the One who reveals/discloses/unveils God.  In that sense, He is God's message/word/declaration.  &quot;No one has ever seen God (the Father), but the Monogenes/only begotten/one of a kind Son of God has declared Him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &quot;The Word&quot; ties back to Genesis 1 to indicate Jesus' presence in creation and also describes His role in revealing God to mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T13:56:13.920" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1615" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:05:08.493" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;By Greek word being translated to Word is &quot;Logos&quot;.  Both Jews and Gentiles would have taken significant meaning from this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Jewish readers, Logos is how God achieved his will and is the personification of God's revelation to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Gentile readers, Logos would have been understood as an intermediate entity through which God created and communicated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By calling Jesus &quot;the Word&quot; in John 1:1, he is saying Jesus is God's will and God is communicating through him.  He is also saying that Jesus is a part of God, therefore anything which comes through Jesus, even though it is through the flesh, is directly from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Word-God.html&quot;&gt;Reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T14:05:08.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1600" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:05:12.550" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hope this is a useful refinement. There is a non trivial distinction between being &quot;born sinners&quot; and &quot;born into sin&quot;. &quot;Born sinners&quot; appears to condemn the innocent. I think the biblical principle that we are &quot;born into sin&quot; is subtly but profoundly different. Being born into sin is a bit like being born into a family, a sex, a country or a race. There's nothing you can do about it .... the new testament position is clear in that Christ by his death has condemned &quot;sin in the flesh&quot;. Notice that it is sin which is condemned not sinners. So to say that we are born sinners implies condemnation/judgement for a sin which we haven't committed but which is &quot;implied&quot; - or that we are guilty of Adam's sin. I don't think this is the bible's line. I think that when the bible says we are &quot;born into sin&quot; it is saying that our nature (after the fall) is now a sin nature which is different to saying we are sinners, people who have and do habitually commit sin. The distinction is without difference in all cases except that of a new born baby; but that's the question here - because having this sin nature does in effect destine us to eventually consummate that relationship with sin, but critically we do have the choice. The kicker is that we are incapable of doing right. Paul says in Rom 7:20 .. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it,&#xA;  but it is sin living in me that does it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This apparent conundrum explains the distinction perfectly. The &lt;strong&gt;sin nature&lt;/strong&gt; in us causes us to &lt;strong&gt;actually commit sin&lt;/strong&gt;. The bible's position on us as having a sin nature is not one of condemnation (taking both NT and OT into consideration ... god was dealing with the issue via condemnation in the OT by by unmerited favour in the new ) rather one of pity. There is nothing we can do about our sin nature but to take take the medicine ( of Christs condemnation of sin rather than sinner ). Ultimately whether we are born into sin, born sinners or born holy it's not the question .... the question is about god's view of this his responsibility for his creation and ultimately love for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="351" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T14:05:12.550" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1618" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:09:37.050" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; reveals that Adam was with Eve when she took the fruit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and&#xA;  pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took&#xA;  some and ate it. She also gave some to &lt;strong&gt;her husband, who was with her&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  and he ate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam had the opportunity and &lt;em&gt;authority&lt;/em&gt; to stop Eve from eating the fruit.  While maybe not the best reason, I believe Adam could be considered the original sinner, because he did not act within his power to stop the sin from occuring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is something to remember when you are watching someone you have authority over entering into sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still believe Eve sinned, though.  1 Corinthians 8 indicates that even when another causes you to sin, you still own your own sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:9-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8:9-13 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not&#xA;  become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak&#xA;  conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s&#xA;  temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to&#xA;  idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is&#xA;  destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way&#xA;  and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,&#xA;  if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will&#xA;  never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a technical perspective, Adam did sin first since his sin was allowing Eve's sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, for more on causing others to sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18%3A6&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:6 NLT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  6 But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall&#xA;  into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied&#xA;  around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T14:38:44.447" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T14:38:44.447" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:19:18.703" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Free-will and choice are concepts that only make sense to us because we are bound to linear time and we travel time from past to future. There is nothing preventing a supernatural entity from seeing our whole life at once, including all our choices, and being all-knowing while preserving our free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course though, this only shows how mysterious and unknowable is the concept of God--but then again this should not be a problem for people approaching God through Faith (which absolutely does not depend on understanding an unknowable God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T14:19:18.703" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1229" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:20:25.233" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the holy spirit. Hebrews 6 and 10 are both referring to Jews who had became Christians but were now considering renouncing Christ because of fear of persecution and thought they could go back to animal sacrifices to cover their sin in the future. He is not talking about unforgivable sins, rather that having being enlightened to the true payment for sin there is now no way back. In short he is saying that if you are enlightened about true forgiveness and then choose to reject that : there is now nowhere else to go; because animal sacrifices were only a foreshadow of the Christ. It is not saying that your sin is unforgivable but rather that having rejected the true forgiveness there is no other (and never was).&#xA;People tend to confuse this with turning your back on god but that's not what it's about at all. It would fly in the face of the passages about the prodigal son and the teaching about &quot;forgive your brother seven times seventy seven&quot; ( so clearly god will always forgive us if we repent, no matter what the circumstances ). Blaspheming the HP is clearly in a class of it's own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="351" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T14:20:25.233" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1618" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:22:44.533" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adam was charged with a responsibility&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and he had an obligation to fulfill (which included protecting his wife). Yet he did nothing. The account of the fall in the garden includes the detail that he was at Eve's side&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; the whole time and failed to fulfill that responsibility. He broke a covenant&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Eve sin? Sure. Was Adam ultimately responsible? Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+2%3A15-17/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:15-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, &lt;strong&gt;but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+3%3A6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to &lt;strong&gt;her husband who was with her, and he ate.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hosea%206:7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hosea 6:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) But &lt;strong&gt;like Adam they transgressed the covenant&lt;/strong&gt;; there they dealt faithlessly with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="1168" LastEditDate="2012-09-20T02:13:55.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-20T02:13:55.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1630" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:23:25.063" Score="16" ViewCount="9384" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's name is written as the Tetragrammaton יהוה‎ (YHWH) in the Old Testament. The name is not vocalized in the manuscripts and it's considered ineffable, forbidden to say aloud, by Jews. For that reason, the original pronunciation hasn't been preserved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two most commonly suggested possible originals are &lt;em&gt;Yahweh&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt;. Long ago I heard it claimed that the vocalization &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt; is based on a misunderstanding, but I don't remember the reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is the probable vocalization, or is it some altogether different one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2014-10-27T20:50:30.687" Title="Is God's name Yahweh or Jehovah?" Tags="&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T01:53:13.830" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1631" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1716" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:26:47.007" Score="15" ViewCount="3496" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming that one believes in an almighty Lord, why should one choose a particular Christian congregation or denomination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, why should one choose to serve God by helping the poor through the Salvation Army instead of doing so through the Opus Dei, or through Baptists, or through the Catholics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as one lives in a moral fashion, why would God care that our money, faith, efforts and time go through a particular human congregation or another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that there is no particular reason for preferring one denomination over another, and most of them are quite similar, so maybe it's also OK to choose any church to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be more specific, I don't care why I should choose denomination or congregation A over B, but why I should choose one at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T14:44:02.250" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T01:36:36.197" Title="Why should I choose one particular congregation or denomination?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-24T03:21:16.030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="530" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:37:08.393" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, we can judge others. Christ said so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%207:24&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 7:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &amp;quot;righteous judgement&amp;quot; is usually used in the Bible to describe God (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22righteous%20judgments%22&amp;amp;qs_version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22righteous%20judgment%22&amp;amp;qs_version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). God's judgments are righteous. So if we are to judge righteously, perhaps we should judge as God would. That's a big responsibility. I think Nathan Wheeler's answer sheds a lot of light in this area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thought, if you are looking for a babysitter for your kids, certainly you're going to judge who's a good babysitter. You're not going to let a bum man off the street take care of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T14:37:08.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1633" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:53:46.777" Score="3" ViewCount="401" Body="&lt;p&gt;The christian god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent according to all christian denominations I know of. These attributes seem to be contradicted by all the suffering we observe here on earth. Why does God not intervene to prevent suffering if he knows of it (omniscience), has the means to prevent it (omnipotence) and is benevolent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common explanation I heard was that the free will of humans is responsible, but this questions is not about that. There is a lot of suffering caused by natural catastrophes, illnesses and so forth. I want to restrict the question to natural causes where we have no means to prevent them, such as e.g. incurable diseases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can one explain the presence of inevitable suffering not caused by other humans, but by natural means, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="197" LastEditorUserId="197" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T13:38:10.763" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T13:38:10.763" Title="How can suffering from natural causes be reconciled with an omnimax god?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T02:01:43.923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1634" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1638" CreationDate="2011-09-01T14:54:01.503" Score="5" ViewCount="857" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's pretty obvious to me that Paul was mentoring Timothy in the new testament, but what was Timothy's role within the church?  Was he an assistant to Paul, Paul's representative, or was he actually a young church leader such as a pastor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T15:23:15.933" Title="What is Timothy's role in the early church?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;timothy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="802" CreationDate="2011-09-01T15:07:00.513" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Black Sea deluge hypothesis suggests the Black Sea may have suddenly and violently flooded due to it being below sea level at one point, thus possibly providing material for the story of Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, and the latter story of Noah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Naturally if you lived in a little hut on the shores of the Black sea when this may have happened it would not be completely irrational for you believe the whole world has flooded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Archaeologists argue over whether it happened or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T16:57:38.290" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T16:57:38.290" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1636" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1648" CreationDate="2011-09-01T15:10:44.877" Score="7" ViewCount="434" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was at a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.madisondiocese.org/Ministry/EvangelizationandCatechesis/SeatofWisdomDiocesanInstitute.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechetical training seminar&lt;/a&gt; in my parish and the presenter on topic of the creed when touching on the Blessed Virgin Mary said that lots and lots of characters prefigure Mary in the old testament.  The same way that lots and lots of characters prefigure Our Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the criteria for 'prefigurement' is when it comes to Mary?  Clearly no one was all that great in the OT and still show us some aspect of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, do only women prefigure Mary?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-29T15:38:12.467" LastActivityDate="2020-03-29T15:38:12.467" Title="What criteria do Catholics use to determine if an old testament character prefigures Mary?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;typology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1633" CreationDate="2011-09-01T15:19:57.103" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the Christian god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent then suffering must be the will of the Christian god and that god, must feel the suffering is somehow good for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be seen if you have ever been to the Dentist, Doctor, or washed out a wound with soap or antiseptic: the pain your are suffering is actually a side effect of something good happening. Another example would be uncomfortable (even painful) exercise or diet being good for you in the long run.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly pain is an indicator that something is wrong and that you should seek medical attention. The more intense the pain the more apt people are to seek help. Think of it as an annoying alarm or warning indicator that is there to capture your attention for your own good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T15:19:57.103" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1634" CreationDate="2011-09-01T15:23:15.933" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently Timothy was a traveling preacher like Paul, who Paul mentioned in several of his epistles, as well as writing two epistles directly to Timothy.  Paul called Timothy his own &quot;son in the faith&quot; in both epistles to Timothy, and they did a lot of traveling together,  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://Acts%2020%3a%204&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 20: 4&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%201%3a%201&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 1: 1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%201%3a%201&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 1: 1&lt;/a&gt;), and he did a lot of traveling and preaching on his own.  He was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2013:23&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;imprisoned and released at least once&lt;/a&gt; (we're not told why), and Paul considered him &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202%3a%2019-23&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;his most capable and most trusted assistant&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T15:23:15.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1630" CreationDate="2011-09-01T15:30:44.470" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;When a word isn't spoken, all you have to go by is its written representation.  Unfortunately, the written representation is incomplete, as ancient Hebrews only wrote consonants.  You were supposed to be able to infer the rest of the word from context, and you'd be familiar with them because you used most of them in day to day speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oops!  Since the name of the Lord was not spoken aloud, the context needed for interpolation ended up being lost, and now we can only guess at it.  The theory is that &quot;Jehovah&quot; is the tetragrammaton with the vowels from &lt;em&gt;adonai&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;Lord&quot;, used in the place of the ineffable name) mixed in.  &quot;Yahweh&quot; is a guess based on trying to reverse-engineer the name into ancient Hebrew roots.  It may or may not be correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T15:30:44.470" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1636" CreationDate="2011-09-01T15:31:49.823" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few figures come to my mind immediately:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eve - &quot;mother of all living&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Genesis%203&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:20&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sarah - chosen to bear Abraham's special son&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Esther - put in a position to strategically influence the king regarding her people&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elizabeth - Mary's cousin and mother of John the Baptist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, no other figure ever had the Holy Spirit overshadow her and conceive the perfect God-man, Christ. However, the parallels between Sarah's and Esther's willingness to do what was called of them (and the miraculous nature of Sarah's old, barren womb being reopened) mimics Mary in some extents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The similarities between Mary and Elizabeth are more striking - while Elizabeth was obviously not a virgin, there was still a vision of an angel announcing their future offspring (the vision regarding Elizabeth came to her husband - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Luke%201&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 1&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't say for sure if &quot;only women prefigure Mary&quot; - but cannot think of any men who do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T15:53:23.470" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T15:53:23.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1618" CreationDate="2011-09-01T15:57:33.103" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I Timothy 2:13-15 clarifies that Eve was deceived (the serpent deceived her into thinking she could draw closer to God by gaining knowledge, etc), but Adam knew full well what he was doing was wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I Timothy 2:13-15&lt;/strong&gt; For Adam was first formed, then Eve. &lt;strong&gt;And Adam was&#xA;  not deceived&lt;/strong&gt;, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also II Corinthians 11 (on the deception of Eve)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;II Corinthians 11:2-3&lt;/strong&gt; For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy:&#xA;  for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a&#xA;  chaste virgin to Christ.  But I fear, lest by any means, as the&#xA;  serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be&#xA;  corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that Eve was deceived does not make her guiltless. After all, God had explicitly instructed both Adam and Eve not to partake of the forbidden fruit. However, I think this (that Adam with full knowledge, without being deceived, partook of the fruit) is in harmony with Paul's line of thought in Romans 5:12, as he compared Adam with Christ, the antidote for sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="292" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T17:48:54.003" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T17:48:54.003" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="385" CreationDate="2011-09-01T16:05:25.777" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Travels_of_Marco_Polo/Book_1/Chapter_10&quot;&gt;Marco Polo wrote in his diaries of a group of Christians&lt;/a&gt; who were challenged (by the local despot) to either cast a mountain into the sea or die. They prayed fervently and all present were amazed to see the mountain rise into the air and move to a designated location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not exactly &quot;documented&quot;, but I was also recently told a story of a group of believers in another country that ran a small school. The school had a small garden, which didn't get enough sunlight because of a mountain close by, so remembering this scripture they decided to challenge their faith with the school children and ask God to remove the mountain. Soon after a highway crew began building a road. The mountain was removed in the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2011-12-18T02:57:54.160" LastActivityDate="2011-12-18T02:57:54.160" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="296" CreationDate="2011-09-01T16:12:25.037" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Correct baptism would combine Mathew 28:19 and the referenced scriptures from Acts into a statement such as...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I baptize you in the &lt;strong&gt;name&lt;/strong&gt; of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: the Lord Jesus Christ&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see John 5:43&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 5:43 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall&#xA;  come in his own name, him ye will receive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T16:12:25.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1646" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1647" CreationDate="2011-09-01T16:36:18.450" Score="11" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;How is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/library/Resurrection_of_the_Body.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;resurrection of the body&lt;/a&gt; supposed to work in Catholicism? For example, if I die at 90, will I resurrect with the body of an old man? What about babies—will they simply resurrect as very young people or will they have a chance to grow into adults?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is a definite answer, how was it determined?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-22T18:59:21.593" LastActivityDate="2015-09-22T18:59:21.593" Title="According to Roman Catholicism, how old will our resurrection bodies be?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;resurrection-body&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1646" CreationDate="2011-09-01T16:44:33.313" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine said in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_City_of_God/Book_XXII/Chapter_16&quot;&gt;City of God&lt;/a&gt; that we'd all be about 33 (same age as Christ) at that time it was thought that unbaptized babies might go to limbo.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then, again, these words, “Predestinate to be conformed to the image of the Son of God,” may be understood of the inner man. So in another place He says to us, “Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed in the renewing of your mind.” In so far, then, as we are transformed so as not to be conformed to the world, we are conformed to the Son of God. It may also be understood thus, that as He was conformed to us by assuming mortality, we shall be conformed to Him by immortality; and this indeed is connected with the resurrection of the body. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;But if we are also taught in these words what form our bodies shall rise in, as the measure we spoke of before, so also this conformity is to be understood not of size, but of age. Accordingly all shall rise in the stature they either had attained or would have attained had they lived to their prime, although it will be no great disadvantage even if the form of the body be infantine or aged,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; while no infirmity shall remain in the mind nor in the body itself. So that even if any one contends that every person will rise again in the same bodily form in which he died, we need not spend much labor in disputing with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is though, we don't know for sure since no public revelation details heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T17:07:10.797" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T17:07:10.797" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1636" CreationDate="2011-09-01T16:45:04.460" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not only women prefigure Mary. One of the recurring analogies to Mary in Orthodox hymnody and theology is as the burning bush. As the burning bush was aflame with the light of God, yet not consumed, so also was the Theotokos filled with God, yet (a) not burst asunder, and (b) not only that, but her virginity remained even in giving birth to God. Another example, and a very good one too: the Ark of the Covenant. As the Ark carried the old covenant, so Mary carried within her womb the new covenant. Tradition carries this analogy so far as to give us the story that, upon arriving at the temple to stay (as the consecrated firstborn of Joachim and Anna), the high priest assigned her the Holy of Holies for living quarters (at that point, the Ark was lost).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One would presume that the closer one is to Mary, the more often the Holy Spirit will inspire us to see her prefigured in the Old Testament, just as the closer one is to Christ, the more illumined with His Light the Old Testament will shine for us. Does that answer your question? You will see Mary in the Old Testament if the Spirit leads you to find her there, just as Christ makes Himself known therefrom as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T16:45:04.460" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1650" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T17:02:40.150" Score="5" ViewCount="1230" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people assume that because Judaism is the super ancient religion and Christianity relatively modern, although ancient by any standards, that if someone wants to dig up some meaningful bit of Jewish history or Jewish tradition, even as it relates to Christianity, then the best source would be a Jewish scholar. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In one way at least, I know that Christians have preserved Jewish traditions in a way that the Jews were incapable of doing, because of the diaspora and the splits in their culture and heritage. Public sacrifice is an instance where the Jews have essentially lost a central part of their religion with the desecration of the temple.  I understand some have traditions that supplant the sacrifices mentioned in the Torah, but it's Christianity which preserved sacrifice as the central aspect of her liturgy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But would modern Jewish Scholars really have any reason for knowing how to pronounce (or translate) their own language any better than modern Christian Scholars and are Rabbinical interpretations of scripture more ancient or authoritative than Christian interpretations? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T00:24:24.223" LastActivityDate="2014-09-20T06:58:07.257" Title="Does Jewish tradition predate Christian tradition in any meaningful way?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2016-04-28T04:03:56.430" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1633" CreationDate="2011-09-01T17:06:19.683" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're looking at the question from a mortal perspective, whereas God has an eternal perspective.  He put us here not to be here as an end unto itself, but to prepare us for what comes after this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Sermon on the Mount, we are commanded to be perfect &quot;even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.&quot;  God is perfect because he never uses his power to do anything which would be wrong, no matter how tempting we might make it.  But we are imperfect and prone to physical and spiritual problems of every kind in this life.  In order to grow and attain a Godly level of perfection, we need practice.  We need for things to go wrong so that we can learn to deal with them correctly.  Otherwise, we can never become the kind of perfect people that the Gospel is supposed to lead us to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T17:06:19.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2011-09-01T17:13:36.260" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Admittedly, &quot;personal relationship&quot; is a modern idiom.  Even so, it's not &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; far from the gospel message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:12-13&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he&#xA;  gave the right to become children of God — children born not of&#xA;  natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born&#xA;  of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In common use, I think the speaker usually means something more like &quot;individual relationship&quot;, meaning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you didn't inherit the relationship from your ancestors or social group or church membership&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you didn't just decide your way into it without God's help&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you didn't marry into it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the relationship exists and can be summarized as:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you are the receiver of grace and believer in him,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he is the giver of grace and like a father to you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and that has implications for your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Now, 2½ years after writing the above, I'd like to add (borrowing from other answers nearby):&lt;/em&gt;  It's also an assertion that God is not an impersonal force, but rather has revealed himself to be someone with whom it is possible to have a relationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="358" LastEditorUserId="358" LastEditDate="2014-01-28T14:57:03.000" LastActivityDate="2014-01-28T14:57:03.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1650" CreationDate="2011-09-01T17:40:39.563" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Judaism predates Christianity in one overwhelmingly important way:  Jesus was a Jew, and is considered (by Christians at any rate) to be the realization of at least a couple of thousand years of Jewish prophetic promises.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In another dimension, Judaism has a long-standing ethic of accurate copying of scripture that Christianity sorely lacks.  See Bart Ehrman's book &lt;em&gt;Misquoting Jesus&lt;/em&gt; for some solid scholarship about the variation between ancient sources of the New Testament.  On the other hand, a scroll of Isaiah from around the time of Jesus that turned up among the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls is very close to the Masoretic orthographic one you'll find in your neighborhood synagogue today.  This is not so with the typical ancient Christian copy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The chain of teaching of the language and the scriptural traditions is also continuous, in a very similar way that we Christian clergy types claim a commission from Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why would one ask a Jewish scholar about the meaning of a Hebrew Bible text rather than a Christian scholar?  Well, they learn Hebrew when young.  They're most likely steeped in the Hebrew traditions of studying scripture.  They know the ancient and Talmudic traditions well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity both had the destruction of the second temple as a very early event in their development.  They share the idea that the Holy One may be addressed from anywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Holy Communion a sacrifice? Well, yes, it can be interpreted that way, but it's a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. It is nothing at all like the temple sacrifices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometime we'll get into Rene Girard's theological anthropology which makes a good case that the Resurrection was God's definitive statement &quot;NO!&quot; to sacrifice.  But that's a long story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Direct blunt answer to your question: Yes!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T17:40:39.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1656" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1660" CreationDate="2011-09-01T17:53:53.467" Score="22" ViewCount="139391" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/passage.aspx?q=john+1:46-50&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:46-50&lt;/a&gt;, Nathanael is introduced to Jesus for the first time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philip found Nathanael and said to him, &amp;quot;We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nathanael said to him, &amp;quot;Can anything good come out of Nazareth?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philip said to him, &amp;quot;Come and see.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him, &amp;quot;Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nathanael asked him, &amp;quot;Where did you get to know me?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &amp;quot;I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nathanael replied, &amp;quot;Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &amp;quot;Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the significance of Jesus seeing Nathanael under the fig tree, that this one short statement would turn Nathanael's skepticism to such reverence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-05-07T10:23:11.850" Title="What is the significance of Jesus seeing Nathanael under the fig tree?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1631" CreationDate="2011-09-01T17:59:47.470" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why should I choose [a congregation] at all?  you ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Walking in the way of Jesus is not a solitary activity. Christianity is an incarnational practice and religion.  The five marks of Christianity (Acts 2:42) are the Word of God, fellowship, service, teaching and learning, and worship.  Four of the five are very hard to do alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So part of the practice of Christianity is to find some congregation, and walk the way with those folks.  Any congregation will do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People choose A over B based on lots of things. Honestly, most of those reasons are social rather than doctrinal or theological.  But four of the five marks of the church are social too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T17:59:47.470" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="859" CreationDate="2011-09-01T18:02:11.663" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the actual date of Jesus' birth is in considerable dispute (I think 4 BCE is a commonly accepted date, but by no means certain), this terminology is more accurate. They're just labels for convinence: it doesn't really matter what event they're pinned on. The division of the calendar in this fashion was certainly derived from religious belief, but in common use nowadays the year number is fundamentally secular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Sotfware Monkey's contention that it has something to do with the separation of church and state strikes me as very odd. He's presented absoultely no evidence to back up this (to my mind) absurd claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally rather like AD/BC (and am careful to always write AD &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; the year number, not after), but that's just because my written English usage is conservative, even old fashioned. I'd say that this is merely matter of personal preference in writing style. It's not, really, a big deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T18:02:11.663" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1656" CreationDate="2011-09-01T18:06:36.347" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently Nathanael took it as evidence of some kind of supernatural knowledge on Jesus' part, but his reaction seems to be overblown - Maybe Jesus just happened to be passing by that tree and recognized him from earlier! I think his dramatic response tells us about Nathanael's personality - impulsive perhaps, certainly an all-or-nothing sort of guy. Someone who is very anxious for the Messiah to appear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus treats his response with a little bit of humor, it seems. My paraphrase: &quot;You believe all that just because I saw you sitting under a tree? Your going to see much better evidence than that!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, Nathanael's response is &lt;em&gt;correct&lt;/em&gt;, and one of the great confessions of faith, parallel to Thomas' later in the book - &quot;my Lord, and my God!&quot; John may be telling us that great confessions like that, coming from two doubters, are evidence that God chooses to work through the people we'd least expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T18:20:40.223" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T18:20:40.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1656" CreationDate="2011-09-01T18:15:17.430" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;How did Jesus know of Nathanael's character? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nathanael was doing something under the fig tree. What has he been doing, we do not know. What that was is not recorded. The best educated guess we can give is that Nath picked that particuler spot to pray in. it is common for Jews to search for peaceful place to pray in. Nath may have been in private devotion in that place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus said that he saw Nath under the fig tree, he obviously did not mean that physically; he saw inside the Nath's heart. let us look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%204:12-13&amp;amp;version=NCV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 4:12-13&lt;/a&gt;;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 God's word is alive and working and is sharper than a double-edged sword. It cuts all the way into us, where the soul and the spirit are joined, to the center of our joints and bones. And it judges the thoughts and feelings in our hearts.13 Nothing in all the world can be hidden from God. Everything is clear and lies open before him, and to him we must explain the way we have lived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nathanael understood what Jesus meant, and by that Nath knew that he was the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T18:29:10.670" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T18:29:10.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1656" CreationDate="2011-09-01T18:16:10.887" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The intratext notes in the New American Bible refer this passage to Jacob and Esau.  Jacob, (Israel) would not be a true Israelite although he got his inheritance through deceit (pretty much stealing it from his brother and tricking Isaac to give him his blessing). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may be indicative of the manner in which a follower of Christ must be a true Israelite, not a deceitful one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nathaniel may have followed Christ for other reasons, we never can tell what a person felt who met Him for the first time, but I'll bet it was tremendous. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T18:24:18.113" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T18:24:18.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1631" CreationDate="2011-09-01T18:30:02.907" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may find that a particular 'denomination' contains the fullness of truth.  It will contain the answers to all your questions and to all the questions you never even thought to ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you find that, you'll find that you are growing closer to Christ and putting on the new man, becoming who you were meant to be and actively seeking the kingdom and the will of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is good, keep it up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;This, therefore, is, in conclusion, my reason for accepting the religion and not merely the scattered and secular truths out of the religion. I do it because the thing has not merely told this truth or that truth, but has revealed itself as a truth-telling thing. All other philosophers say the things that plainly seem to be true; only this philosophy has again and again said the thing that does not seem to be true, but is true. Alone of all the creeds it is convincing where it is not attractive; it turns out to be right, like my father in the garden&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://librivox.org/orthodoxy-by-gk-chesterton/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/a&gt;, G.K. chesterton&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it's the philosophy and the creed that you want to hang on to, where you find it is up to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T18:30:02.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="859" CreationDate="2011-09-01T18:36:21.740" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply - you participate in a bigger population, many of whom do not accept Christ (or do so as a historical figure only). Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see it as sacrilege, but personally I also don't have an opinion on the change. I'm not a believer, but AD vs CE is of little significance to me. In reality, it is exceptionally rare that I refer to things outside the last few centuries, so I rarely use any suffix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T18:36:21.740" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1511" CreationDate="2011-09-01T18:41:37.537" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the Psalms are examples of this!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Psalms express deep doubts about God – &quot;where are you?&quot;, &quot;Why are you letting your faithful people be oppressed?&quot;, &quot;Why am I in such pain?&quot;, etc. You can find the full range of human emotion in the Psalms, expressed directly and honestly to God. If David can do it, we can do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-19T16:05:34.947" LastActivityDate="2017-07-19T16:05:34.947" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1294" CreationDate="2011-09-01T18:45:43.927" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The author of Hebrews is quoting from the Septuagint, which apparently mistranslated or poorly translated Psalm 40:6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings up issues of infallibility (e.g., is the mistranslation inspired because it's in an inspired book?). This doesn't totally resolve the problem, but I tend to look at issue like this as confirmation that the Holy Spirit is powerfully at work in us when we read the Scriptures, and that is more important than having the most accurate translation possible. Many centuries of Christians were without good translations of the Bible, and they got on remarkably well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; in response to comment:&#xA;As @cwallenpoole points out, there is an alternative interpretation. Perhaps the author of Hebrews was quoting from an earlier, more accurate Hebrew text that is no longer extant (or perhaps he was quoting from the septuagint, which was itself based on a more accurate Hebrew text), as discussed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/46.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="44" LastEditDate="2011-10-14T15:32:46.590" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T15:32:46.590" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="859" CreationDate="2011-09-01T18:48:25.503" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the AD term is the one that primarily prompted the division.  AD stands for &lt;em&gt;Anno Domini&lt;/em&gt;, which is medieval latin for &quot;In the Year of Our Lord&quot;.  That's pretty clearly exclusive to those who believe that Jesus Christ is the son of G-d.  Therefore, its widespread use ignores the beliefs of every non-Christian religion, as well as atheists and agnostics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use of BCE/CE is strictly a courtesy, out of respect for those whose beliefs differ from yours, and nothing more.  There is no disrespect, sacrilege, or attempt to censor the government intended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="226" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T18:48:25.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="859" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:25:10.240" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everything currently being published by the Catholic Church from Encyclicals to Baptism Certificates to University Diplomas has had in clear language &quot;Anno Domini&quot; and will do so forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason is clear, &quot;the church will not perish from the earth&quot;, &quot;the gates of Hell will not prevail against it&quot; we shouldn't &quot;conform ourselves to this age&quot; but remember that Jesus is with us in Spirit and Truth &quot;even to the end of an age&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T19:46:47.680" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T19:46:47.680" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1670" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1675" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:27:33.763" Score="11" ViewCount="3786" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just reading about eschatology and somebody was stating that this verse suggests that there will be a one world religion, a false religion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+17:1-18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 17:1–18 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said&#xA;  to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who&#xA;  is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have&#xA;  committed sexual immorality ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where is support for this concept found in other scriptures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-13T04:27:44.993" LastActivityDate="2016-01-13T04:33:33.427" Title="What is the biblical basis for a one world religion in the end times?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;signs-of-the-times&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1671" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:29:30.780" Score="6" ViewCount="10795" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that there is one sin that cannot be forgiven and that is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But beyond this, what is the greatest sin that a person can commit? Either voluntarily or involuntarily?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that we might be able to gain some insight into all other sin through the answer of this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2014-02-23T06:51:15.800" Title="What is the greatest sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-02-24T21:47:51.493" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1672" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1741" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:51:35.843" Score="14" ViewCount="263" Body="&lt;p&gt;As evidenced by this site, and the divisions between various Christian denominations, there seems to be a lot of different ways some passages in the bible can be interpreted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example is Chronicles 16:30: &quot;Tremble before him, all the earth!  The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.&quot; For hundreds of years (and still some today) some Christians interpreted this to mean the earth is the center universe and does not move.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is there anything in the Bible that clearly states why some passages are written in such a way as to potentiate interpretation? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, is there anything in the Bible that may even suggest or hint at why this is, or perhaps a story alluding to this like someone navigating a task though directed by unclear instructions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T17:24:59.800" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T17:24:59.800" Title="Does the Bible give any reason as to why its content is sometimes difficult to interpret?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-04-28T04:04:05.680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1673" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:52:25.487" Score="4" ViewCount="2483" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible say anything about there being a second chance for salvation after the time of rapture? I would assume that God is doing this rapture so that people would recognize Him and repent. But I don't have a Biblical basis for my assumptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2014-08-02T16:57:38.643" Title="Will there be a second chance for salvation after the Rapture?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-08-02T19:15:12.267" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1671" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:52:43.440" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The greatest commandment is given to us by Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A36-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:36-40 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and&#xA;  with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first&#xA;  and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your&#xA;  neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on&#xA;  these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it'd follow that the greatest &lt;em&gt;sin&lt;/em&gt; would be breaking this commandment.  So I would say acting in an unloving manner would be the greatest sin.  Being unloving towards God would be the greatest, followed by being unloving towards your neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, since the commandment is the action of loving, having a lack of love could also be considered a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Putting sin in that light is convicting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T19:52:43.440" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1670" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:53:01.010" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a lot of discussion and debate about this especially due to the nature of the end-time prophecies, but one verse that does back a one world religion at least implicitly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2013:8&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev 13:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They&#xA;  are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before&#xA;  the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was&#xA;  slaughtered&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If everyone is worshiping the &quot;beast&quot; then in essence the religion is the same, whether it is actually one religion or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T18:55:03.920" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T18:55:03.920" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1676" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2134" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:56:32.110" Score="8" ViewCount="192" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read a little bit about &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2011/09/01/lots-more-on-dominion-theology/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dominion theology&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, and don't feel I understand it. What distinguishes this movement from mainstream modern Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-11T01:44:10.607" LastActivityDate="2015-08-11T01:44:10.607" Title="What is &quot;dominion theology&quot;?" Tags="&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;dominion-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1677" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1934" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:57:03.870" Score="7" ViewCount="1143" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read tidbits about the two witnesses in the book of revelation. What I don't know is whether or not these are Angels, or Humans and what their purpose is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T18:40:15.263" LastActivityDate="2015-01-06T05:49:05.460" Title="Who are the two witnesses in the book of Revelation?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-23T18:27:14.873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1678" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1689" CreationDate="2011-09-01T19:57:50.813" Score="15" ViewCount="4708" Body="&lt;p&gt;What traditions espouse infant baptism and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In those traditions, why do parents often baptize their children at very young age, and why is this better than giving their children the opportunity to choose for themselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-06-13T21:09:18.187" LastActivityDate="2017-01-21T11:20:18.040" Title="What traditions espouse infant baptism and why?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-23T01:24:34.573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1679" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1743" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:04:11.183" Score="19" ViewCount="450" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that the question may seem a little bit self-referential but I ask it anyway:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is often great controversy among Christians what parts of the Bible are to be interpreted &lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt; and what parts are to be interpreted &lt;em&gt;symbolically&lt;/em&gt;. The most prominent one that comes to mind is of course creation vs. evolution but there are many issue more throughout the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My question:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Which parts of the Bible are relevant to give some clues or even guidance what should be interpreted literally and what symbolically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T03:00:11.887" LastActivityDate="2014-12-03T19:50:35.210" Title="Does the Bible itself give us clues about which parts to interpret literally and which figuratively?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-28T18:59:54.247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="859" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:04:46.807" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(This &lt;a href=&quot;https://english.stackexchange.com/q/32953/2512&quot;&gt;came up on English.SE&lt;/a&gt;, so part of my answer is a repost from there)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I can't speak for all faiths, the Roman Catholic Church uses AD/BC because the epoch for the AD era is universally accepted within the Church (that is, there is no set of Catholics who hold that AD doesn't mean anything or is offensive), despite the issue of A.D. not being the year of Jesus's birth. All dates from official Roman Catholic publications use A.D./B.C. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, the usage of the A.D. epoch is similar to the usage of the Hebrew calendar for religious purposes in Judaism, or the use of the Hijra as the epoch for the Islamic calendar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But while A.D. is generally used for Roman Catholics, it's not universally used with all Christian denominations, and what it signifies isn't exactly the same. For example, while A.D. 1 denotes the Christian epoch, different faiths use different calendars based on that epoch: Roman Catholics and most Protestants use the Gregorian calendar, but Eastern Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar to calculate holy days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So 1/1/1 for Roman Catholics isn't exactly the same day as 1/1/1 for the Eastern Orthodox Churches. One side effect of this is that Easter for Roman Catholics (and most Protestants) generally falls a week before Easter for the Eastern Orthodox Churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example of differing epochs comes from the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, which uses CE/BCE in its news publications (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ang-md.org/mcn/style_guide.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;PDF style guide&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going beyond who uses what, there are a few practical reasons CE/BCE is preferred in mixed company that don't have anything to do with political correctness or atheism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Miscalculation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A.D. 1 was first calculated in the first millenium based on available knowledge at the time. Later on, it was found Jesus likely &lt;em&gt;wasn't born that year&lt;/em&gt;, but a few years earlier (i.e., in the somewhat ironic 3–4 B.C. area). Marking it as the &quot;Christian Era&quot; (or more commonly, the &quot;Common Era&quot;) allows the same epoch to be used even though the best calculation for Jesus's birth has changed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Globalization and Ecumenism&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Christians make up a very large chunk of the world's population, they are no where near the majority. Most organizations and political entities, for the sake of convenience, have adopted the Western calendar, but &quot;Anno Domini&quot;/&quot;Before Christ&quot; are meaningless terms. Replacing it with &quot;Common Era&quot;/&quot;Before Common Era&quot; reinforces the notion of a global, common epoch starting at the height of the Roman Empire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, some have co-opted CE to mean &quot;Christian Era&quot; instead of &quot;Common Era&quot;. Even with this usage, it's still clear what epoch is being referred to (i.e. the Western one) without having to have some special knowledge about what &quot;anno domini&quot; means or who Christ is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Calendar confusion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the point above about the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Wikipedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#Usage&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;also mentions an issue&lt;/a&gt; with the Julian Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar historically both using AD/BC, leading to some confusion as to which calendar system is being referred to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The terms &quot;Common Era&quot;, &quot;Anno Domini&quot;, &quot;Before the Common Era&quot; and &quot;Before Christ&quot; can be applied to dates that rely on either the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar. Modern dates are understood in the Western world to be in the Gregorian calendar, but for older dates writers should specify the calendar used. Dates in the Gregorian calendar in the Western world have always used the era designated in English as Anno Domini or Common Era, but over the millennia a wide variety of eras have been used with the Julian calendar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Switching to CE/BCE makes it clear the Gregorian calendar is being used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this isn't particularly important from a general perspective, though: it's more important to use the version most likely be understood by the audience who hears it. For most Christians (and indeed most English-speaking people), A.D. is widely synonymous with CE. At the same time, most people understand what CE means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:38:10.840" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T20:22:52.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1673" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:07:24.197" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;For starters, the Bible doesn't contain the word &quot;rapture&quot; nor does it clearly state that such an event will happen. Different people have read between the lines to infer a rapture at different points in the book of Revelation, but it is not clearly stated anywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Bible doesn't clearly state that there will be a Rapture and those who believe that it &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; happen disagree significantly on &lt;strong&gt;when&lt;/strong&gt; it will happen, the only clear answer that can be given to your question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;No, the Bible does not make a clear statement about there being a second chance for salvation after the time of rapture.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T20:38:18.717" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T20:38:18.717" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1682" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1684" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:09:25.220" Score="40" ViewCount="2881" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the foundations of modern quantum mechanics is the Uncertainty Principle.  This principle is not an assumption, but rather is derived from assumptions made with regard to the structure of nature. The basic statement of the Uncertainty Principle, however, is that it is impossible to know the values of certain characteristics to within an arbitrary accuracy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental aspect of the universe, one could argue that God cannot be omniscient. So far, every experiment ever tested on matter has born out the practical implications of this principle and yielded the predicted results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does Christianity do with these results and how does their belief in an omniscient God fit into the picture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="363" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T09:34:15.087" LastActivityDate="2015-06-24T05:24:30.050" Title="How do Christians understand the omniscience of God in relation to the Uncertainty Principle?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="7" ClosedDate="2016-04-28T18:49:53.957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1682" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:17:33.853" Score="38" Body="&lt;p&gt;To date, every test science has been able to make has been done on the created universe&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. It is not possible to run the tests on the person or being of the creator directly. Thus what we know about God we derive from what He reveals to us&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. His creation still tells us something about Him, but they are deductions from nature. Nature itself is not God&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; and God is not bound to the rules of nature. On the contrary, rather than God existing somewhere inside the created universe and thus being bound to it's rules, the created universe exists IN him and thus is bound to obey the rules that He sets for it&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. Likewise all things continue in Him and he upholds those laws as He sees fit, every second&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews%2011:3&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%201:20&quot;&gt;Romans 1:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%201:25&quot;&gt;Romans 1:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) ...they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians%201:16&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians%201:16&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T09:17:59.637" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T09:17:59.637" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1682" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:20:40.483" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; &quot;square this fact&quot; with my &quot;belief in an omniscient God&quot;, is that since God created the universe, dimensions, time, etc, then He exists outside of them. What is uncertain to us is known to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Referencing an &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/2007/04/the-infiniteness-of-god/&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; I wrote a few years ago,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Perhaps God is infinite to us, and to all who interact with Him, because He exists above the dimensions we can experience. If a planar projection is the shadow of a three-dimensional object, could it be that we, as three-dimensional objects, are projections or shadows of the fourth dimension in which we exist, that of time? And perhaps, since God created time for us, He exists in a realm above that of time. Certainly, if He has existed – eternally – since before time began, and will continue to exists eternally into the future, He can’t be bound by time (which would be irrational since He made it: you can’t really be bound by something you create).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T20:20:40.483" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1313" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:24:13.080" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of fallen angels is based on the following scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MATTHEW 25:41&lt;/strong&gt; Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,&#xA;  Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the&#xA;  devil and his angels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 10:17-18&lt;/strong&gt; And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord,&#xA;  even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto&#xA;  them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jude 1:6 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; And the angels which kept not their first estate, but&#xA;  left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains&#xA;  under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 12:8-10 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; And there was war in heaven: Michael and his&#xA;  angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his&#xA;  angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in&#xA;  heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called&#xA;  the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out&#xA;  into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the belief that you become an angel when you die, the following scriptures come to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that&#xA;  we are the children of God: &lt;em&gt;And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,&#xA;  and joint-heirs with Christ&lt;/em&gt;; if so be that we suffer with him, that we&#xA;  may be also glorified together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are joint heirs with Christ, then one day we shall be like him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I John  3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet&#xA;  appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, &lt;strong&gt;we&#xA;  shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After his resurrection He was made &quot;better than the angels&quot;. If we are to be like Him, then we also will be &quot;better than the angels&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;HEBREWS 1:4-5 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by&#xA;  inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which&#xA;  of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I&#xA;  begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be&#xA;  to me a Son?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that we would become angels (either 'good' or 'fallen') when we die originated from a misinterpretation of Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:30 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor&#xA;  are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MARK 12:25&lt;/strong&gt; For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry,&#xA;  nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context of these verses is the subject of marriage. Angels do not have wedding ceremonies, and neither will we in heaven. Using these verses as the basis for the belief that we will one day &lt;em&gt;be angels&lt;/em&gt; is a bit of a stretch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T20:24:13.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1400" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:25:01.493" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible the answer to this question lies in the fall from grace. Before that there was no pain and no death but because of Adam eating of the tree humanity was cursed for ever:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, &quot;You shall not eat of it&quot;, cursed is the ground because of you;&lt;br&gt;in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;&lt;br&gt;thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;&lt;br&gt;and you shall eat the plants of the field.&lt;br&gt;By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken;&lt;br&gt;you are dust, and to dust you shall return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I agree: It doesn't seem like all-loving at all because it can also be argued that this very incident was kind of staged because God is also all-knowing (it was his creation and he must have seen it coming). But anyway: If one person failed thousands of years ago why do we all have to suffer and die up until today? So your reasoning is understandable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole discussion is very old. It is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;problem of evil&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Theodicy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Epicurus reasoned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;       Then he is not omnipotent.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Is he able, but not willing?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;       Then he is malevolent.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Is he both able and willing?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;       Then whence cometh evil?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Is he neither able nor willing?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;       Then why call him God?&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think these problems are one of the main reasons why many people become atheists. See e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_am_not_a_Christian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Why I Am Not a Christian&lt;/a&gt; by Bertrand Russell&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="355" LastEditDate="2011-09-01T21:03:05.373" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T21:03:05.373" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1678" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:25:44.423" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian churches do. A fairly comprehensive list is available on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism&quot;&gt;wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;, at least from the Presbyterian perspective, children of saints are viewed as being born into a covenantal relationship in similar vein to the males of ancient Israel being required to be circumcised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fuller paedobaptist theology is also covered on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism#Theology&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T20:25:44.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1682" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:36:37.520" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are limited by our perceptions.  Have you heard the old mathematical thought experiment about an existence where everything was restricted to a two-dimensional plane, and if a sphere were to pass through this plane, it would appear to be a circle that grows larger and smaller without any discernible cause for its change in size?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we keep this concept in mind and extrapolate a bit further out, it's not difficult to conceive of God as a being capable of measuring and understanding things that we, trapped as we are within our limited nature, are not capable of measuring and understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're also limited by our knowledge and our vocabulary.  The concept of infinity is not something that we have any consistent way to reason about, especially not when mixing it with finite concepts, without &lt;a href=&quot;https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/60766/what-is-the-result-of-infinity-minus-infinity&quot;&gt;arriving at bizarre contradictions&lt;/a&gt;.  So attributing infinite attributes to God and then attempting to analyze him with finite logic is an exercise in futility.  For all I know, maybe God &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; get around the Uncertainty Principle, but he knows enough about how the universe works that he doesn't need to.  Or maybe he understands some higher principle that we don't know about.  Either way, it's kind of pointless to speculate about; something like this doesn't affect our salvation one way or the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I understand omniscience and omnipotence is that God has all the knowledge and power necessary to fulfill his will and bring to pass his plan, and that's enough to serve as a foundation for my faith.  The details of exactly where the boundaries, if any, lie are irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:22:09.593" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T21:49:21.327" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1631" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:38:44.223" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of reasons to choose (or not choose) a specific particular denomination or congregation over another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why Go?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the reason to choose one at all is because it's generally considered important in Scripture and Christian practice to gather together with other Christians, and you have to choose some venue to do that, even if your criterion for deciding which one is just &quot;it was closest to my house, and I deliberately don't care what denomination it is.&quot; I'm not going to answer more in depth &quot;Why would I go to a church at all,&quot; that seems like a different question to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Selecting a denomination&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then there are a variety of criteria you can use to choose a denomination in general.  A congregation is slightly different and I'll get to that next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A given denomination might have specific theology or practice you like or disagree with.  If you are very against the idea of homosexual Christians, for example, you might steer away from denominations that validate that.  No denomination is likely to have 100% stuff you agree with, so this is a matter of degree.  Do you like everything about the Churches of Christ but think it's silly they don't allow instruments in church music?  Well, you'd decide whether that's a dealbreaker for you or not. Do you feel strongly about infant baptism, taking aspirin, divorce, contraception, etc? Well, various denominations are also for or against those things strongly, so you might decide to match up where there's meaningful parts to you.  Does a traditional liturgy make you feel warm and fulfilled while singing songs on an overhead and jumping around leaves you cold (or vice versa)?  Well, there's churches who practice each of those ways, so you'd probably decide on what you prefer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course there are non-denominations. There are independent churches, though I think in general these still end up having a lot of similarities - are all the &quot;independent Bible churches,&quot; if you visit them, more diverse than all the Catholic churches?  Not in my experience. But in this case you can effectively skip the denomination phase and go to the congregation selection phase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Selecting a congregation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When choosing a specific congregation, a given church home can vary more or less from the denomination's main theme. I went to a pretty conservative Epsicopal church for a time, for example. So the specific congregation's character may override the general denominational trends. One Catholic church can have very traditional services and another down the street can have a hippy-guitar-style kind of service. Maybe serving the poor is important to you, and that church downtown has a good soup kitchen ministry but the one closer to you spends the money mostly on youth outreach. So again you're back to some of the theology and practice questions. There are also a host of practical and social reasons.  There may not be any churches of a given denomination in your town! Fellowship is one of the goals of a church, so you may attend a congregation because family or friends (or someone who can give you a ride, etc.) do. Praying about it and letting the Spirit help lead you is also recommended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Choice, A Sticky Wicket&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people have strong &quot;brand loyalty&quot; - they really identify with one denomination's teaching or one church home and it gives them strength to have a history with them. Some people don't - I am of this stripe.  I was raised Methodist and in college was a Presbyterian youth minister, went to Episcopal and Lutheran churches regularly and visited others, so now when I move somewhere I visit churches from the set of denominations I find generally congruent with my understanding of doctrine and preference of practice to find good congregations (More conservative than normal Methodists or Episcopalians or more liberal than normal Lutherans, traditional with a bit of evangelical to them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard some argue that there is too much choice in churches in America today (similar to the paralyzing and polarizing amount of choice in consumer products).  If the capital-C Church of all the believers stratifies into sub-groups that all effectively believe the same, are you missing out on being challenged? Would the church be more functional overall if it had all the types/spiritual gifts represented?  Some denominations like the LDS and to a lesser extent the Catholics stress this by saying you really should attend your neighborhood church and not be such a picky shopper, which is a fair point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T20:38:44.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="99" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:43:51.533" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 3:15, Jesus stated that he must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 3:15 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so&#xA;  now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he&#xA;  suffered him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Christ was circumcised, and observed all the other ordinances of the law of Moses, not with a view to his own justification; but to fulfill the dispensation committed to him by the Lord, the God and Creator of all things.&quot; - Wakefield&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the ordination of a new priest the priest must be completely washed. And every year at the Day of Atonement the High Priest was ritually washed in water before fulfilling his duty for the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 8:6&lt;/strong&gt; And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them&#xA;  with water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 16:4&lt;/strong&gt; He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have&#xA;  the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen&#xA;  girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy&#xA;  garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them&#xA;  on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ 'fulfilled all righteousness' by being washed (baptized) and anointed (the Holy Ghost came upon Him like a dove) before atoning for the sins of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness - It becometh every messenger of God to observe all his righteous ordinances. But the particular meaning of our Lord seems to be, that it becometh us to do (me to receive baptism, and you to administer it) in order to fulfil, that is, that I may fully perform every part of the righteous law of God, and the commission he hath given me. - John Wesley&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T20:43:51.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1678" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:56:40.267" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; on the subject is very thorough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most Christians practise infant baptism. Denominations that practise infant baptism include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Armenian Apostolic Church, Assyrian Church of the East, the Anglican churches, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Church of the Nazarene, the Reformed Church in America, the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Continental Reformed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the reasons for doing it include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism of infants is extremely old, going back to at least the 1st Century and possibly New Testament times;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism is not merely symbolic, but actually a means of conveying the grace of God to the infant;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism is analogous to circumcision, which God mandated to be done to infants&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From the Book of Acts: &quot;Peter replied, &quot;Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you &lt;em&gt;and your children&lt;/em&gt; and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call.&quot; (Acts 2:38-39, NIV)&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Children are no less members of the church than adults, and should be welcomed into full membership.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, Wikipedia is helpful here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that many traditions that practice infant baptism have a secondary initiation, such as Confirmation, in which the person does get to &quot;choose for themselves&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T16:36:52.677" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T16:36:52.677" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1682" CreationDate="2011-09-01T20:56:56.877" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The apparent contradiction comes from the fact that you are misunderstanding the &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Uncertainty_principle&quot;&gt;Heisenberg uncertainty principle&lt;/a&gt;. From Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states precise inequalities that&#xA;  constrain certain pairs of physical properties, such as measuring the&#xA;  present position while determining future momentum of a particle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, God does not have to measure the present position of an atom, or its velocity, to know those values - precisely because he is omniscient!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T20:56:56.877" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1695" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1698" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:00:47.233" Score="20" ViewCount="2249" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that prayer should only be performed in private? If so, why do christians pray collectively in churches and at other gatherings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T01:29:33.200" LastActivityDate="2015-05-04T00:16:55.457" Title="Is it ok to pray in public?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-05-07T19:10:30.353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1682" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:02:36.587" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been several objections to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation&quot;&gt;Heisenberg and Bohr's interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle&lt;/a&gt;, most notably the work of Albert Einstein and Karl Popper. In the end it comes down to a question of belief - does the uncertainty principle only provide a mathematical description of a deterministic reality, or does reality really act that way? So even among prominent scientists, the question of what the Uncertainty Principle means at a metaphysical level is unresolved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I don't believe that deterministic reality vs non is the most important determinant of the answer to this question.  God created the universe and continually sustains it - there aren't waves and particles and whatnot apart from him, and there's no reason his reality can't be based on quantum formulae rather than just being a constant. He's not a &quot;big guy with a beard sitting on a mountain somewhere observing,&quot; with the parts of the universe being somehow separated from him. The universe is (not in origin, but every second of every day) because He is. If it's just a probability cloud, he provides and understands that probability cloud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T21:02:36.587" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1697" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="34512" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:07:40.980" Score="17" ViewCount="7675" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has been suggested to me that some Christians believe that rock music is inherently immoral, and as a result they believe that Christians would do well to avoid the entire genre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, several older Christians have told me that statements about the immorality of rock were more common back in the 60s and 70s. Apparently, American evangelist Bob Larson was against rock music, and that he was lampooned for these view by Larry Norman, a musician who wrote rock music with a gospel theme. If this perspective is widespread, are there denominations that are opposed to rock music? Is there a cross-denominational movement that objects to rock music on the grounds that the genre is in some way unholy? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I met someone in my previous church who held this view, but I was never able to get a straight answer from her as to why. Was this just a personal perspective, or is this a widespread perspective amongst Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is an anti-rock music movement amongst Christians, where did it originate? What is the basis for the belief? Are there particular Bible verses or doctrinal stances that underpin the anti-rock stance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answering the question, note that I'm not interested in debating whether or not rock music is &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; immoral. I just want to know if / why groups of Christians believe it to be so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-12T06:11:28.830" LastActivityDate="2014-11-12T17:14:13.753" Title="What is the basis for saying rock music is sinful?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1695" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:10:58.773" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;A bit of context (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206:5-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:5-6&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's primarily instructing us to not pray for the intent of showing people that we're praying, as hypocrites do (&quot;see, I'm praying! look how good I am!&quot;). It instead tells us to do what you can to keep it unobtrusive, and if possible, secret. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="251" LastEditorUserId="5497" LastEditDate="2013-08-26T11:02:34.117" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T11:02:34.117" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1670" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:12:53.780" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This chapter was actually the focus of our message this past weekend.  What I recall from the message was that the woman represents Babylon.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2017:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 17:5 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;BABYLON THE GREAT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe in this context, Babylon referred to large, conquering empires in the past, present (Rome), and future.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2017:15-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 17:15-16 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the&#xA;  prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.  16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 16 says these empires will be brought down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(If you're interested in the message, it's 08.28.11 in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://onlinecfc.com/weekend-service/message-archive-recent-messages-notes/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;archive&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T21:12:53.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:20:55.577" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Benjamin Dehkurdi broke his neck falling from a trampoline on May 23, 2005. On the way to the hospital, as Benjamin's father followed behind the ambulance to Langley Memorial Hospital in British Columbia, he phoned their pastor and they prayed together. When the extent of Benjamin's injuries was discovered he was transferred to Vancouver's Children's Hospital.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A photograph of the May 23rd x-ray showing what is known as a &quot;Jefferson Fracture&quot; is shown below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/1XHrD.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;May 23rd x-ray showing broken C1 vertabrae&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following day, May 24th, a CT scan was taken. In contrast to the previous day, it showed no break or fracture. Benjamin was discharged from the hospital with a normal spine, as indicated by the medical report.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gs6DL.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Mary 24th CT scan showing no breakage.&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Benjamin_Dehkurdi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="292" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T14:41:26.813" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T14:41:26.813" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1695" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:21:17.357" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the other answer says, if you read the preceding you may understand the context a bit more.  To answer your question more directly, however, let me refer to Matthew 18:19-20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning&#xA;  anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in&#xA;  heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I&#xA;  am there in the midst of them. (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How could humans agree on what to ask for, if not talking about it? If verse 19 were taken out of context, one could argue that we could agree on what to pray about before actually praying, and then have everyone go their separate ways and pray in private.  However, note that verse 20 starts with &quot;For...&quot; which explains why agreeing on something is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out how The Message reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18-20 Take this most seriously: A yes on earth is yes in heaven; a no on&#xA;  earth is no in heaven. What you say to one another is eternal. I mean&#xA;  this. When two of you get together on anything at all on earth and&#xA;  make a prayer of it, my Father in heaven goes into action. And when&#xA;  two or three of you are together because of me, you can be sure that&#xA;  I'll be there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'm not sure if these two verses alone are the entire basis for corporate worship and prayer, but it does give us the idea about praying together at least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="121" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T21:21:17.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1697" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:24:34.840" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because a lot of rock songs (not all of them, of course, and not just rock by any means) have a message that's contrary to the teachings of the Gospel in one way or another, and people understand the power that music can have to influence people's actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T21:24:34.840" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1682" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:25:23.853" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians don't hold a personal philosophy that revolves around which way an electron spins about its axis or doesn't spin or just disappears completely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If monks spent all day contemplating the electron instead of contemplating Christ they would by hard pressed to find any joy in their vocation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose for instance that 3 postulants at St. Therese of Lisieux priory in Chattanooga, TN were assigned the task of completing a 9 day novena starting on March 16th and ending on March 25th (The Feast of The Annunciation).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The novena was to consist of being assigned one freshly minted hydrogen atom (a New Atom, if you will) and contemplating it, mediating on its mysteries. Then they were to report their findings to the abbot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first postulant went to his chamber and got out his microscope, at first he didn't see anything but upon further inspection he noticed an electron that spun around in a normal and ordered way.  He concluded that God made the universe and set it in motion and knows all the possible outcomes.  &quot;God must be all knowing,&quot; he said to the abbot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second postulant went to his chamber and got out his microscope, he saw an electron right away but it was moving in a way he didn't expect.  He leaned over closer and the cross around his neck popped out of his robes and the electron popped off it and bonded to a radioactive cobalt isotope in his cross which was otherwise going to poison him and give him cancer. &quot;God must be all merciful,&quot; he said to the abbot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third postulant went to his chamber and got out his microscope, he didn't see anything at all.  Then his chamber exploded and he was put in the infirmary until the end of Lent. Somehow the first and second postulants managed to track down the atom and brought it to him after Holy Thursday Mass.  He examined it in the microscope and he saw 3 electrons spinning in perfect harmony around the atom.  &quot;God must be all powerful,&quot; he said to the abbot and his friends. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And that, my friend is why we call the three days before Easter the Tritium, or in some circles Triduum)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The abbot concluded that they were all of them correct, but felt there must be a deeper mystery connecting the three findings.  He never was able to find out what it was but he did come to a deeper understanding of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T14:15:12.977" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:15:12.977" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1589" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:35:39.683" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The death promised and that Adam experienced the moment he chose to sin was not a ceasing to exist or a physical stopping to breathe, it was a separation: a rending apart of two things that were once closely joined. On the day that Adam ate the fruit, he died&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. He was separated from God. The fellowship between them was broken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reverse of this death happens when we are 'born again'. The fellowship is restored, and we are born into &lt;em&gt;new life&lt;/em&gt; -- the power of the cross is that it reverses death!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The alternative, for those who are not born again into a new life, is that they will experience a 'second death'. This is partly a contrast between physical and spiritual death. It happens sequentially after physical death (making it second) but is also the point at which spiritual separation  becomes permanent (having died once with Adam, they will be judged to permanent death). The reverse is true for believers: we will be raised into life even though we die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an important doctrine to understand in light of many popular culture understandings of death as some kind of annihilation or ceasing to exist. Never in Scripture do we find an indications that any humans well cease to exist, but we do find lots of information about the change in our relationship before God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This understanding of death as a separation or rending apart of two things once joined is also the sense of 'death' that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%208:13&quot;&gt;Romans&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%202:24&quot;&gt;1st Peter&lt;/a&gt; use when they speak of believers being &lt;em&gt;dead to sin&lt;/em&gt;. We are no longer bound to it as a slave is to his master. Believers relationship with sin has been severed and we have been cleaved to a new master.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we physically die, our spirits are separated from the bodies that we have been one with&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Our bodies don't cease to exist nor do our spirits, but they part ways&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. Our bodies then decay and return to dust, but even the material in this world doesn't cease to exist. Our spirits meanwhile continue, either in eternal life (unity with Christ) or eternal death (separation from Him).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/gen+2%3A17/&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat1 of it you shall surely die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis%2035:18&quot;&gt;Genesis 35:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/James%202:26&quot;&gt;James 2:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Ecclesiastes%2012:7&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 12:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T14:47:32.963" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T14:47:32.963" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1598" CreationDate="2011-09-01T21:42:06.730" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church is very explicit in its teachings that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846&quot;&gt;&quot;all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church&quot; (CCC 846)&lt;/a&gt;.  The only way to enter the Church and become part of the Body of Christ is through baptism.  Thus, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1257&quot;&gt;baptism is necessary for salvation (CCC 1257)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not meant to be interpreted as only Catholics can attain salvation.  Rather, the Church teaches that &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1256&quot;&gt;anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula (CCC 1256)&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;  Thus, anyone baptized with water and &quot;in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit&quot; is part of the Mystical Body of Christ and can attain salvation. To the best of my knowledge, this includes most non-Catholic Christians. (Note there are other forms of baptism recognized, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1258&quot;&gt;baptism by blood&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1260&quot;&gt;baptism by desire&lt;/a&gt;, but those seem out of scope for this question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Baptism isn't the only requirement for salvation.  One must also die &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1033&quot;&gt;free from mortal sin (CCC 1033)&lt;/a&gt;. For a sin to be mortal, that is to be grave enough to cut us off from the life of God, three conditions must be met: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#1857&quot;&gt;&quot;Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.&quot; (CCC 1857)&lt;/a&gt;. This full knowledge includes both &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#1859&quot;&gt;knowledge that it is a sin, and that it is a grave matter (CCC 1859)&lt;/a&gt;.  Thus a sinner who through no fault of his own, believes he is not sinning does not commit a mortal sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one does fall into a state of mortal sin, then &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#1856&quot;&gt;normally the sacrament of reconciliation is necessary (CCC 1856)&lt;/a&gt; to restore or &quot;reconcile&quot; one with God.  However, it is recognized that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#1452&quot;&gt;a perfect contrition can also attain this forgiveness (CCC 1452)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In conclusion, the Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments of the Church are the surest and easiest way to reach salvation, but it is still possible for other members of the Body of Christ to enter Heaven.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="174" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2016-02-23T01:48:40.207" LastActivityDate="2016-02-23T01:48:40.207" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1709" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-01T22:06:50.810" Score="23" ViewCount="368" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that my question pokes at a sensitive area, but being a nonreligious person in a largely Christian region, I find it extremely dissatisfying to leave such a core aspect of my neighbor's lifestyles to mystery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is this: With the abundance of Biblical passages, in both the Old and New Testament, how do Christians rationalize the specific stress and emphasis on only certain sections of the Bible?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible contains loads of information, some of it pleasant, some of it frightening, some of it seeming to be downright silly.  For instance, people often quote Leviticus on denouncing homosexuality, and yet Leviticus also writes against eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing.  I'm also fairly certain the Judeo-Christian stance on women and slavery has changed over the past few millennia. Beyond that, the Bible has been translated by hand between multiple languages, and been reviewed, revised, cut, and supplemented by several religious authorities.  If the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable?  The aforementioned followers being of course, the Pope, translators (Monks, probably), Priests, but mostly everyday, normal Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="367" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T00:31:58.340" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T00:14:28.857" Title="Hand Picked Bible Applications" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;applications&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-11T19:06:04.823" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1709" CreationDate="2011-09-01T22:39:06.853" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are OT (old testament) laws that were ceremonial/ritual in nature. These were fulfilled in Christ. There are many proof texts for this. As to the moral laws, these are still binding. In fact, Christ amplified these, as in Matthew 5: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mat%205:27-28&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 5:27, 28&lt;/a&gt;  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are not sure whether or not some rule in the OT is ceremonial vs moral, see the NT (new testament). Such as with homosexuality, which is confirmed as sin in the NT (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corintians 6: 9-11&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any misunderstanding on this usually owes to a superficial study of the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T20:38:11.400" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T20:38:11.400" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1594" CreationDate="2011-09-01T23:03:18.937" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics argue that More was not guilty of the torture that he was accused of. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicinsight.com/online/saints/article_614.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; article, scroll down to the &quot;Smear Campaign&quot; section that speaks about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that most of the surviving historical records of the time, were written by More's enemies (and executioners) who would have been very much slanted in their accounts, dubious at best. And that the records that indicate that he killed and tortured in the name of the church were only recorded by a handful people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the entire political system being turned on it's head by Henry at that time, there would have been plenty of motive to falsely accuse someone seen as a martyr for the opposing side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T23:03:18.937" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1672" CreationDate="2011-09-01T23:22:33.257" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably the biggest thing is, you cannot rightly understand before you have been born of God. This is different from claiming to be a &quot;christian.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit&#xA;  of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,&#xA;  because they are spiritually discerned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will&#xA;  guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but&#xA;  whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you&#xA;  things to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are not willing to do God's will (give up sin and follow Christ), you cannot possibly know doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 7:17  If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,&#xA;  whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, basically sin is at the root of most, if not all, misinterpretations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastActivityDate="2011-09-01T23:22:33.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1631" CreationDate="2011-09-01T23:46:32.593" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be honest, you have a good point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're all here for the same reason, to glorify God and rejoice in his Son, our savior. For most intents and purposes, any denomination of Christianity will get you that much. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as being part of a body of Christians at all, I believe this to be essential. Time alone is also necessary, but good Christian fellowship can go a long way; there are those to help you in your walk with faith, those to keep you on your walk, those to share your experiences with, and those to encourage you. This site could even be called a good site for Christian fellowship. The body of Christ is ever growing, and can a finger or a toe be a part of the body if it doesn't want anything to do with the rest of the fingers or toes, or they eyes or the nose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as picking a denomination, this often happens because of very small, specific beliefs. I (being a Lutheran) selected my denomination because of how closely they keep to the original translation of the Bible (every pastor must learn Greek and Hebrew, and they cite the original languages often) and because of their focus on &lt;code&gt;Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone&lt;/code&gt;. I needed to be constantly reminded of the fact that nothing I do can get me to heaven, and that God is the only one that has the ability to save me, and I need to take every chance I get to further my relationship with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="374" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T00:29:20.277" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T00:29:20.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1709" CreationDate="2011-09-01T23:48:42.497" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to break down your questions into parts&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My question is this: With the abundance of Biblical passages, in both the Old and New Testament, how do Christians rationalize the specific stress and emphasis on only certain sections of the Bible? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is understood that the laws laid out in the old testament were part of the 'old covenant' or the old promise and that God through Jesus has made a 'new covenant' with mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter, in the book of Acts, see a vision of many of the foods that it is forbidden for a Jewish person to eat, and hears God telling him to eat it. Afterwards he is invited into the home of a Roman general, which pious Jewish person would never enter. Peter understand that this is God lifting many of the restrictions on Jewish law. This is later formalized in Acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For instance, people often quote Leviticus on denouncing homosexuality, and yet Leviticus also writes against eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the sins that Paul mentioned explicitly in the new testament in a couple of places (see The Preacher's answer). I am not sure why people quote the O.T. as much as the N.T.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Judeo-Christian stance on women and slavery has changed over the past few millennial. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/galatians/3-28.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a RADICAL shift in thinking about the nature of people's place in society, in particular the treatment of women and slaves. I believe that it has taken us this long to even get our heads around this concept and accept is as a larger concept (in the west). We still have a long way to go, if we really get this notion ingrained in us the world would be unimaginably better, closer to what God intended for us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Beyond that, the Bible has been translated by hand between multiple languages, and been reviewed, revised, cut, and supplemented by several religious authorities. If the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that their are many Christians who do not believe that the Bible is infallible. The infallibility doctrine is a very prominent belief among evangelicals in the United States, but please do not think this is necessarily the same among ALL Christians, especially those that would consider themselves 'Liberal'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is dangerous to rest your entire faith on something like the infallibility doctrine. Because many, when they go to college or investigate themselves learn things like, for instance the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:3-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;story of the adulterous woman in John&lt;/a&gt;, is probably &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a later addition&lt;/a&gt; to the text, and this shakes their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/7-7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read the text as it was intended you will find a consistent message of a loving God, who is asking us to seek after him in righteousness. I believe that if you earnestly seek after him, as Jesus said you will find what you are looking for.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="80" LastEditDate="2011-09-04T01:44:02.530" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T01:44:02.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1718" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1736" CreationDate="2011-09-01T23:54:32.940" Score="16" ViewCount="25842" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Adam and Eve were created perfect and without death (immortal), then what is the significance and purpose of the Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-16T19:09:20.600" LastActivityDate="2015-11-16T19:09:20.600" Title="What is the significance of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;tree-of-life&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-11-06T17:54:39.973" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1672" CreationDate="2011-09-02T00:56:12.460" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A large part of it is that the Bible wasn't written for us.  The various books were written by people thousands of years ago, for their own contemporaries.  There are a few passages about preserving knowledge and laws for posterity, but in general it was written by, to and for people of ancient cultures.  A lot of it is still 100% valid, since it deals with basic human nature, which doesn't change with time.  But a lot of it deals with &lt;em&gt;culture&lt;/em&gt;, which does change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give just one example, the Bible forbids the eating of blood in very specific and clear terms.  The council in Acts 15 makes it clear that this prohibition still applies to Christians.  But the Bible doesn't say anything about blood transfusions, for the very simple reason that the technology for it did not exist until recently.  So what to do about them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Christian churches are silent on the matter.  Others, placing a high value on healing and the preservation and improvement of human life, actively support and help to organize blood drives.  Others, though, interpret the prohibition against eating blood more broadly than what is literally written, stating that it is wrong to take blood that is not your own into your body, even through other means than eating/drinking, and therefore blood transfusions are a violation of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anywhere where the words of the Bible are not perfectly clear and completely applicable to some modern concept, people will find a need to interpret them.  And with so much interpretation going on, some people try to squeeze in even more reinterpreting to get otherwise-clear passages to fit their agenda.  (See for example the various &quot;is X a sin?&quot; questions, and count how many of them actually mean &quot;can I get away with doing X even though it's generally/frequently considered to be a sin?&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T00:56:12.460" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1695" CreationDate="2011-09-02T01:20:35.247" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some denominations that take that verse quite literally. The Quakers I believe are one faith that doesn't even pray together in their worship meetings. I've heard horror stories of faithful Christian children being practically run out of small towns for refusing to participate in &quot;optional&quot; public school prayers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others will tell you that this is just saying that you should be praying for the right reasons, and the letter of the verse can be completely ignored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found a good and relatively neutral discussion of the subject at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/prayer.htm&quot;&gt;ReligousTolerance&lt;/a&gt;. They do point out that generally in the Bible when it says Jesus was praying he was either off alone doing it, or it is ambiguous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think I come down more on the side of the former than the latter. If you feel you can kneel down and pray in public without a thought in your head towards the reaction this activity will bring out of others, then go for it. I personally don't have that much confidence in the purity of my own motives, so I only do it in private or at the designated times during worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="377" LastEditorUserId="377" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T01:33:03.260" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T01:33:03.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1594" CreationDate="2011-09-02T01:33:15.017" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quite simply, because he fulfilled the requirements of canonization, described &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0136.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that the main reason for them opening the canonization proceedings for More was his martyrdom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;More was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in 1886, along with other English martyrs, and canonized in 1935.  Had he never met death for the faith he still would have been a candidate for canonization as a confessor.  From first to last his life was singularly pure, lived in the spirit of his own prayer:  &quot;Give me, good Lord, a longing to be with Thee; not for the avoiding of the calamities of this wicked world, nor so much for the avoiding the pains of purgatory, nor the pains of Hell neither, nor so much for the attaining of the joys of Heaven in respect of mine own commodity, as even for a very love of Thee.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marys-touch.com/Saints/more.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Thomas More.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-18T00:33:14.707" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T00:33:14.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1400" CreationDate="2011-09-02T01:43:33.993" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe this is one of the most challenging questions to answer because it's so painful to see such terrible suffering in the world that occurs especially when it's at no fault of the suffering soul.  Therefore, this question requires a sincere answer in response to the emotions it invokes as well as the possible contradiction posed by Epicurus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to Epicurus; he makes a fatal error in his logic by not considering the possibility that God has a sufficient reason for allowing such suffering in the world.  If this is even possible it completely eliminates any logical contradiction concerning the existence of a good God and the existence of evil.  In God's omnipotence He can choose to allow terrible things to occur in order to bring about a greater good later.  Think about the story of Joseph (Gen 37-50),  or, most importantly, the betrayal of Christ which brought about atonement for our sins.  In this past century alone, our world has seen the most despicable dictators such as Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein to name a few.  Even in the face of the massive killings of China people are rushing to the Lord at a rate faster than any where else in the world.  In Pakistan you can receive the death penalty for conversion yet they still are unable to stomp out the forest fire of belief in Christ.  In Africa, from the early 1900's to date, the population has gone from less than 5% Christian to around 50%, in the face of famine, raping and brutal murders.  God exchanges the suffering of the world, not only for many good things, but also for His most cherished affection, which is us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some may say if God is Omnipotent (all powerful) then why not just eliminate evil altogether and let us live in happy harmony.  I suggest this premise has not been thought through very carefully for if God's standard is perfection He would ultimately have to either revoke our free will or eliminate all mankind since we have all fallen short of His glory (Rom 3:23) and deserve death (Rom 6:23).  Even the atheist must admit that he has committed some evil according to God's standards, thereby qualifying for elimination.  But as we have seen, God doesn't want to eliminate us but wants all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about the children who die before being baptized, where do they go.  I would first like to say that although Jesus commands a professing Christian to be baptized, he never requires it for salvation.  In fact, he tells the criminal on the cross next to him who had a repented heart, &quot;Truly, I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise&quot; (Luke 23:43).  This thief did not have the opportunity to be baptized yet Christ is telling him he will be in heaven.  I would also like to point out in contrast to the Christadelphian claim, that the bible indicates here and in Luke 16:22 that believers will indeed be in heaven immediately after dying.  Romans 10:9-13 tells us how to be saved and baptism is not part of it.  Furthermore the bible indicates that a child who dies goes to be with the Lord.  (2 Sam 12:23) When Davids son dies he says, &quot;I will go to him, but he will not return to me&quot;, meaning David will see him again in heaven.  And again in Ezekiel 16:21 God calls the young children of Israel who were being sacrificed by fire, His children, and we know from John 1 that to be a child of God is to be saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, about the people who are unreached by the gospel before there death.  Read Romans 1 and 2 very carefully and you will find that although a man may not have heard the gospel he still has the testimony of God's existence from creation and an inner conviction (also see John 16:8).  This conviction is the same conviction that drives any person to repentance.  Christ is not limited to just using people to share the gospel, he can do so by coming Himself to a believing and contrite soul, in a vision, as he has done for so many people already.  Many Muslims who have come to Christ will testify that they were met by Christ having never heard the gospel a day in there life, Amazing!! Read Acts 10 and you will see the story of a man who loved God but never heard the Gospel, and God sent Peter to him so that He may hear.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this makes sense, I know it's very long answer but these are questions that many have written entire books about.  I really hope and pray that you would reconsider your disbelief.  Think about this, you lost your faith because of all the injustice going on, meanwhile the people being treated unjustly are gaining such strong relationships with God.  James 1 was written just for these people to remain strong during trials, and I plead with you to do the same.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="335" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T01:43:33.993" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1724" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T01:47:10.450" Score="17" ViewCount="11699" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think many people assume that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sexual immortality, and this may at least be part of the reason. However, I recently read Ezekiel and in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49-50&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 16:49-50&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;49&lt;/strong&gt; Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. &lt;strong&gt;50&lt;/strong&gt; They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Ezekiel is turning the traditional interpretation on its head, although there is certainly room for argument in the phrase &quot;did detestable things before me&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any kind of doctrinal consensus or majority view on why exactly Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T01:57:59.153" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T19:41:12.460" Title="Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?" Tags="&lt;sodom&gt;&lt;ezekiel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-29T03:35:10.640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1400" CreationDate="2011-09-02T02:00:43.550" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;i believe it is to reinforce our trust in God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question has also been raised, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If it is a sin to worry about things, what will happen tomorrow and what we will wear, for example, why are some born with anxiety problems? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The essential question is: &lt;strong&gt;Why is anyone born into hardship?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i can only see that this is to strengthen our trust in our Lord, and to remind us that there is little that we can do without Him. We need to recognize, no matter what our situation, that God can handle anything that we might have to deal with, and that we need to trust Him fully to take care of these things. In my case, i have ADHD, and this makes somewhat simple tasks (like homework) difficult because i cannot stay focused for long (and i end up on stackexchange sites ;) ). But this issue is not for me to deal with. i can safely say that i can cast this on God, give this to Him, and trust Him to take care of me. Only then will i have realized my relationship with my Creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="374" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T02:00:43.550" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1333" CreationDate="2011-09-02T02:31:38.097" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that it would appear from the text that the Cities of the Plain (which include Sodom and Gomorrah) were destroyed by some type of meteor impact.  If so, it's not likely that there was much left behind for modern archaeologists to find, especially considering the primitive state of construction technology back then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a meteor were to wipe out a modern metropolis, full of reinforced concrete and steel, I'd expect to be able to come back a few thousand years later and find evidence that there was once a city there.  But a bunch of communities with buildings made of wood and clay wouldn't stand a chance of surviving an impact event with a kinetic yield measured in increments usually reserved only for describing nuclear weapons, even as ruins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T02:31:38.097" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2011-09-02T02:40:24.680" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the reason people remember Sodom &amp;amp; Gomorrah for the sexual immorality may be due to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The account in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:1-11&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 19&lt;/a&gt; where the men of the town wanted to have relations with the two angels that were spending the night at Lot's house.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;sodomy&lt;/em&gt; creates a huge link to Sodom &amp;amp; Gomorrah.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, the traditional interpretation as you say is focused on the sexual immorality, but Ezekiel reminds us of what the Lord tells Abraham in Genesis 18:20-21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 So the Lord told Abraham, &quot;I have heard a great outcry from Sodom&#xA;  and Gomorrah, because their sin is so flagrant. 21 I am going down to&#xA;  see if their actions are as wicked as I have heard. If not, I want to&#xA;  know.&quot; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018:32&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A few verses later&lt;/a&gt; God concedes to Abraham and says, &quot;For the sake of ten I will not destroy it,&quot;  which leads us to believe that not only were the people so wicked in Sodom, but not even 10 were found to be righteous. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="121" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-13T19:41:12.460" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T19:41:12.460" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1334" CreationDate="2011-09-02T02:41:52.857" Score="7" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt; is itself a heresy (i.e., a heterodox teaching condemned by the Catholic Church). To change from not believing in it, to believing in it, would make you a heretic. (not an argument, but a very important reason for not believing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible is the complete source of public revelation, but we are permitted to believe private revelation, which has the approval of a Bishop (apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, Kibeho, Akita, etc). Protestants would find this to be 'extra-scriptura' &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Papal / Magisterial infallibility is pretty pointless if nothing they teach on faith and morals could be extra-biblical. Two of the four Marian Dogmas are about events before and after the Gospels (Immaculate Conception of Mary and Assumption of Mary).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Natural Law, the philosophy of the Doctors of the Church (Augustine and Aquinas), mainly extends from the teaching of Aristotle. Catholics believe that we get to know God through reason alone and that we can know quite a bit more through reason alone too.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rev-know-it-all.com/2010/2010---08-01.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Church is the Mother of the Bible,&lt;/a&gt; We believe Jesus comes to us in the Eucharist, we can worship Him directly and commune with Him fully.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Besides the bible, we have 2 other pillars which make up the one Faith. Magisterial Teaching (The teaching of the Pope in communion with the Bishops) and Sacred Tradition (all the stuff nobody thinks anyone believes anymore)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are also the 7 Sacraments, which are the invisible realities made real with the help of the Clergy and the Faithful. Baptism, Matrimony, The Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick, and Reconcilliation (Confession). The sacraments are all thourghouly biblical but more an extension of traditional apostolic Christianity than detailed biblical edicts. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is no basis for contradicting the bible or any Divine Law. So the argument I'm trying to make here is not that 'Scriptura' is bad or wrong or even insufficient to gain salvation. I'm just saying that 'Sola Scriptura' is insufficient to understand what is meant by the 'Fullness of Truth', which can only be found in the Catholic Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-02-15T15:26:59.137" LastActivityDate="2018-02-15T15:26:59.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1724" CreationDate="2011-09-02T02:50:20.263" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a very good question, and the answer is, we really don't know.  We have a single reference in Genesis to widespread practice of sexual immorality, but remember that this is based on one single event that took place after God had already decided to destroy it.  What we do know is that not even ten righteous people could be found in the entire region.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear that Ezekiel had some source to draw on that's not available today.  And as Judah is being compared here not only with Sodom but also with Samaria (capital of the kingdom of the northern Ten Tribes before they were carried away captive into Assyria) in this chapter, it's being phrased as a reminder and a comparison to things that the reader should already be familiar with.  Apparently in Ezekiel's day, more detailed records about the Cities of the Plain and their culture were in circulation than we have available today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the title of your question, why were the cities destroyed?  Because there were no righteous people left in them.  (Even ten righteous would have been enough to save them, but ten were not found.)  Just like the Flood a few generations earlier, but on a smaller scale. When there is no righteousness left among a people, the Lord will destroy them, if for no other reason than that it would not be justifiable to allow them to bring any more new children into the world, into a scenario in which they would have zero chance of finding salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T02:50:20.263" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1733" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T03:21:13.007" Score="5" ViewCount="405" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does writing words such as &quot;hell&quot; and &quot;damn&quot; trigger internet filters that insert asterisks into my writing? What is it about these words that makes them offensive to the point that people use substitutes like &quot;heck&quot; and &quot;darn&quot;, sometimes in situations that sound very childish? (Double hockey sticks, anyone?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They're used in the bible as standard words.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They're not vulgar, sexual, or disgusting like other swear words.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They're not &quot;using the Lord's name in vain&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree they're strong words when wielded and not nice when directed at someone (&quot;damn you&quot;; &quot;go to hell&quot;), but on what basis do Christians consider them &quot;cussing&quot; in casual speech (&quot;I had a hell of a time&quot;, &quot;my damned car won't start&quot;) when used passively?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For people who are sensitive to these words, are other forms like &quot;hellish&quot; or &quot;damnable&quot; acceptable, or is it just the four-letter format? Is it less acceptable in speech than in writing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe I just need to be educated about what is the actual Christian definition of cursing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; There are 3 votes to close this and a suggestion to move it to a language site. I don't want to presume but I'm guessing it's because some are offended: Even the title has been sanitized! This is exactly what I want to understand... And I'm not asking about &quot;certain common words&quot;: I'm specifically asking about &quot;HELL&quot; and &quot;DAMN&quot; which are Christian terms, and I thought I was clear that I'm asking about it in the sense of regular usage, not when used as curses. Is there cause for offense in these words because they &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be used as curses or is it something inherent in them? Please believe me, I'm not trying to be confrontational, I genuinely want to understand the nature of these words in our common culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="272" LastEditorUserId="272" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T17:07:21.083" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T17:07:21.083" Title="Why is the use of certain common words offensive?" Tags="&lt;cursing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2011-09-02T17:20:51.707" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1733" CreationDate="2011-09-02T03:48:54.027" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Growing up in central Kansas in the 1980s, I was taught&amp;mdash;both by my Sunday School teacher and by the english teacher in public school&amp;mdash;that &quot;damn&quot; and &quot;hell&quot; were not &lt;em&gt;obscene&lt;/em&gt; but &lt;em&gt;vulgar&lt;/em&gt;, i.e., that they were only used by uneducated people. I remember being told that if we used them, people would think we weren't very smart. I can't remember ever hearing anyone say they were offensive. And plenty of people from church used these words in casual conversations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I recall C.S. Lewis using both words in the Narnia series. So I'm thinking the offense is cultural, not religious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T03:48:54.027" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-09-02T04:05:14.107" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although sola-scriptura principle sets up the boundaries as to which books should be considered as Scriptures and which books should not, the essence of this principle is not about books, but rather about the ideas that those books contain and whether or not the knowledge of and believing in those ideas is sufficient for humans to have eternal life, which is to be saved (sola-scriptura principle MUST NOT be taken in its literal sense, but rather should always be considered in its original intrinsic sense).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if any new idea &quot;pops up&quot; that is contradictory to the original ideas described and presented by the apostles in their books, then the sola-scriptura principle exempts people from following that new idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament there IS a basis for sola-scriptura principle (in its original sense!) :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel &lt;strong&gt;contrary to the one we preached to you&lt;/strong&gt;, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel &lt;strong&gt;contrary to the one you received&lt;/strong&gt;, let him be accursed&quot; (Gal. 1:8,9) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- Paul is explicitly saying here that no other new ideas that are contrary to the ones that have already been preached must be followed;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;...just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do &lt;strong&gt;the other Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (2 Pet. 3: 15, 16) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- Peter here puts Paul's writings on the same level with other Scriptures, which means that even though at that time the Bible hadn't yet been compiled what the early apostles were preaching and writing about was considered by them to be of equal importance as all the other Scriptures (The Old Testament);&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which &lt;strong&gt;are not written in this book; but these are WRITTEN&lt;/strong&gt; so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name ... Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written&quot; (John 20:30, 31; 21:25) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- while John recognized that no book will ever be able to give humans an exhaustive account of what Jesus had done, he still chose some of the acts performed by Jesus and put them on paper stating that the knowledge of those acts and believing into them would be sufficient for the readers of his book to have life (i.e. to be saved);&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2019-05-30T13:27:08.507" LastActivityDate="2019-05-30T13:27:08.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1718" CreationDate="2011-09-02T04:17:13.470" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here's the verse in question:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 2:16-17&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any&#xA;  tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the&#xA;  knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will&#xA;  certainly die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The opportunity to live forever&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I find most interesting is that God didn't command Adam to keep away from the tree of &lt;strike&gt;good and evil&lt;/strike&gt; life. When Adam did finally eat from the tree he was commanded not to eat from, here's what Jesus had to say to His Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:22&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing&#xA;  good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take&#xA;  also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse sheds some light on what's happening. Adam certainly had been allowed to eat from the tree of life and live forever prior to this sin event. But because God is a just and Righteous God, He could not allow Adam to go unpunished, therefore taking away the opportunity for Adam to live forever in eternal damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The fruit of righteousness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we continue reading we find that there is another way to experience the fruit from this tree of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 11:30&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and the one who is wise&#xA;  saves lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 15:4&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes&#xA;  the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The paradise of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 2:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.&#xA;  To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the&#xA;  tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wow, I absolutely love this last verse and I don't know why. We will actually once again have the opportunity to eat from this tree of life. Lastly this tree of life is displayed along the main street in the kingdom of God that leads from the entrance to the throne room. Signifying that everybody can freely eat of the tree of life and have it abundantly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 22:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the&#xA;  river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding&#xA;  its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing&#xA;  of the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The significance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that God, being a fair and Righteous God, had not deprived man of the opportunity to be righteous from day one. However, man chose his own path, to sin. I don't have any doubts that God knew man would do this, but I also know that God would have been subjected to accusations from creation if he had locked the mouse in the cage with cheese and told the mouse not to eat of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it is, no man can hold accusations against God, because God had given a fair opportunity to man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T18:32:57.310" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T18:32:57.310" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1737" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2281" CreationDate="2011-09-02T04:31:24.317" Score="37" ViewCount="48172" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've come across several verses in the Bible that speak of &amp;quot;giants&amp;quot;. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gen 6:4&lt;/strong&gt; There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Num 13:33&lt;/strong&gt; And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deu 2:10&lt;/strong&gt; The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Deu 2:11&lt;/strong&gt; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I haven't been able to understand who exactly the giants were. Does this just refer to a race of men who were unusually large? Or were they not men but actually a separate species, and if so do we know anything of their origins?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="384" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-07-10T18:35:06.027" Title="Who were the &quot;giants&quot; mentioned in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;giants&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2016-04-26T05:21:58.277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1678" CreationDate="2011-09-02T04:36:16.623" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Methodist tradition, baptism of infants is a holy sacrament, welcoming the child into the church family and into God's grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also involves a covenant by the parents and the congregation to teach and guide the child, to raise the child within a faith community, and to help lead the child to make a faith profession and become a disciple of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They don't &quot;choose for themselves&quot; because our sinful human nature does not give us the ability to make such a choice. We can only make that choice through the grace of God. The baptismal covenant is one way God imparts that grace to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The practice of baptizing one's children goes back to New Testament times (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/16-15.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 16:15&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/16-33.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 16:33&lt;/a&gt;). And baptism is analogous to circumcision (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/colossians/passage.aspx?q=colossians+2:11-14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 2:11-13&lt;/a&gt;), which was practiced on infants as far back as Abraham's son Isaac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone is older, and has not been baptized, and wishes to join the church, they can be baptized at that time. In fact, they &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be baptized before making a profession of faith in front of the church, again to indicate that it is God's grace and not our own righteousness that enables us to make that profession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T04:36:16.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1672" CreationDate="2011-09-02T04:51:08.193" Score="7" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes, absolutely&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First understand these premises, earthly wisdom and Godly wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 3:14-15&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts,&#xA;do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not&#xA;come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 3:17&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then&#xA;peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,&#xA;impartial and sincere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is the answer to your question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah was commissioned by God to go and rebuke a wicked people and deliver this curse to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 6:9-10&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 He said, “Go and tell this people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but&#xA;never perceiving.’  10 Make the heart of this people calloused;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they&#xA;might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand&#xA;with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wicked people and the wisdom of this world&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has purposely shut off the understanding of His word to the common man. Because of that mans wickedness he will never know the truth about God. But if that man turns from his wickedness, repents, and has faith in Jesus Christ, then God will open the flood gates of wisdom so that you may understand His word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life&#xA;of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening&#xA;of their hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Children of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God promises a wealth of understanding when He gives you the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 1:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 11:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of&#xA;understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the&#xA;knowledge and fear of the LORD—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colossians 1:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge&#xA;of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit&#xA;gives,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T04:51:08.193" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1737" CreationDate="2011-09-02T04:55:47.907" Score="7" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The Nephilim are fallen Angels, or descendants of such.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First we need to understand that the &amp;quot;sons of God&amp;quot; mentioned in Genesis are angels, and here's how we do that. The Hebrew words used here are &lt;em&gt;Ben 'elohiym&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ben&lt;/strong&gt; Literally means a 'descendant of'. So sons, grandsons, translated to son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;'elohiym&lt;/strong&gt; can be translated into a few different words. rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see that the scholars behind the NKJV have translated these words to say &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;sons of God&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;, while the new international version scholars have translated the meaning to say &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;the angels&lt;/strong&gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Satan presents himself with the other angels&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that Satan is an angel and we see him presenting himself with the other angels before God, in the book of Job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 2:1&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves&#xA;before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself&#xA;before the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 2:1&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On another day the angels came to present themselves before the&#xA;LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We shall be called sons of God, equal to Angels&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also expand on this understanding with the following verses, in order to know for sure that these sons of God are spiritual beings filled with the holy spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 20:36&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are&#xA;sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:14&lt;/strong&gt; KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;These particular angels in Genesis are fallen Angels&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 6:4&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and&#xA;also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans&#xA;and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word for Nephilim is &lt;strong&gt;N@phiyl&lt;/strong&gt; which originates from the word &lt;strong&gt;Naphal&lt;/strong&gt; which means &amp;quot;to fall, fallen.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see further connection and description of these fallen angels in Numbers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 13:33&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the&#xA;Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked&#xA;the same to them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These three men seemed to have lived for a long time, as we see their lives spanning past the exodus, when they were finally driven out of their land and we don't hear about them anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 1:20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had said. Then he expelled&#xA;from there the three sons of Anak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This gives us a lot of insight into Genesis 6:3, when God says that His spirit shall not strive with man forever. He will shorten the life of mortal men to 120 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 6:3&lt;/strong&gt;  (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for&#xA;he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty&#xA;years.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems clear to me that God is talking about these fallen angels when He says &amp;quot;My Spirit.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T21:25:13.130" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1672" CreationDate="2011-09-02T05:03:19.460" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Certainly the apostle Peter found Paul's letters hard to understand:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are &lt;strong&gt;hard to understand&lt;/strong&gt;, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%202%20Peter%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T05:03:19.460" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-09-02T05:13:31.907" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore the Bible is not used as the &lt;em&gt;sole&lt;/em&gt; source of knowledge but rather as the rule by which other sources (including common sense and Church tradition) are judged. So if someone in your church (or here) says, &quot;God says X&quot; (e.g. we don't have to pax taxes) you can check what the Bible says (in this example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:6-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 13:6-7&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T05:13:31.907" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1679" CreationDate="2011-09-02T05:41:23.277" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I take the Bible literally and here's how I discern.&lt;/strong&gt; First understand the premise that Jesus cannot lie. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 17:2&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Son of man, set forth an allegory and tell it to the Israelites as a&#xA;  parable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allegory is a theoretical representation of a spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is not lying in His parables, he's simply giving us a hypothetical. Jesus has also told hypotheticals through the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hosea 12:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables&#xA;  through them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Parables are the equivalent to a hypothetical story, told by Jesus and His prophets.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So strike any of those as such, not to be taken literally. The one instance that Jesus gives a parable that I do not believe to be hypothetical is the rich man in the lake of fire and lazarus in paradise. Because Jesus chose to use a specific name, I believe He was telling us the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is truth the situation or the statement?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's another area of discernment that you need to look for. But first, another premise: The Bible is the inerrant and/or inspired word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This discernment deals with testimonies of individuals. Lets take the three gospels that discuss Christ on the cross. We have three accounts, each of which give us a different interpretation of the sign above Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is true about this? Is the fact that the disciples stated what they saw, true, or is what they stated true? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is all about leaving witnesses and their testimonies about Him untouched. God would have no reason to modify a witnesses testimony. Therefore it can be concluded that what is true about these gospels, is that each disciple witnessed the events and testified to what they saw and remembered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that Mathew said the sign says X is true, but the sign actually saying X may not be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how do we take this? Well, just like we take the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife. The fact that She lied about Joseph was true, but what she said was not true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So when reading the bible, pay close attention to who is talking and decide whether or not you can trust that person.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some additional things to keep in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inerrancy allows for a 'wait and see' approach.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inerrancy allows for the ordinary language of everyday speech.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inerrancy allows for loose or free quotations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inerrancy allows for variety in details in explaining the same event.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T05:41:23.277" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2011-09-02T05:50:48.180" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible makes it pretty clear that this &quot;personal relationship&quot; is to be seen &lt;strong&gt;literally&lt;/strong&gt;. Just one example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas the Apostle speaks (John, 20, 25):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;I won't believe it unless&lt;/strong&gt; I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus endorses this attitude&lt;/strong&gt; and bothers to get back to Thomas to strengthen his personal relationship with him and give him proof (John, 20, 27):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally (John, 20, 29):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus told him, “You believe &lt;strong&gt;because&lt;/strong&gt; you have seen me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus wants us to have a personal relationship with him&lt;/strong&gt; and that we have to follow the Apostles neither of whom was prepared to believe without a direct proof and &lt;strong&gt;personal interaction with Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T05:50:48.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-09-02T06:41:22.623" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think from a theological perspective there can't be any doubt that Atheism is the default position. &lt;strong&gt;If belief and non-belief were on the same level that would degrade the incomprehensible wonder of Jesus' resurrection&lt;/strong&gt;, that God let him die for us and that he came back and will come back!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because there is no easy way out there is this old confession of faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Credo, quia absurdum est (I believe because it is absurd)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to see that Jesus himself endorses a critical stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas the Apostle speaks (John, 20, 25):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;I won't believe it unless&lt;/strong&gt; I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus endorses this attitude&lt;/strong&gt; and bothers to get back to Thomas to give him proof (John, 20, 27):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally (John, 20, 29):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus told him, “You believe &lt;strong&gt;because&lt;/strong&gt; you have seen me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So even the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus wants us to not just be gullible but to demand proof&lt;/strong&gt;. Neither of the Apostles was prepared to believe without a proof and Jesus respected that and had this very story been incorporated into the Bible for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about the phrase right after:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isn't Christ himself saying to believe on faith? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to be very careful here: &lt;strong&gt;Jesus is saying this after he gave proof and he is saying this only unto him, i.e. Thomas, who believes already because he has the evidence right before his eyes; Jesus is not saying this unto us or to anybody else or in general!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this part is one of the clearest and most unambiguous parts in the Bible. Christians have to take Jesus' word literally here and not try to interpret it as it seems convenient. I even think it is one of the most pivotal parts of the Bible! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="355" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T19:31:13.360" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:31:13.360" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1750" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T06:57:44.850" Score="8" ViewCount="15441" Body="&lt;p&gt;Would it be alright if I was to say &quot;Thank God?&quot; I'm not sure, as I'm quite a new Christian. This is the context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am late for the plane. I rush through the check-ins and stuff, and I reach the plane just in time. I say, &quot;Thank God!&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would that be counted as using God's name in vain? This comes from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/952/135&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about saying &quot;Thank the Lord!&quot; Would that be taking the Lord's name in vain?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T23:13:32.543" Title="Does saying &quot;Thank God!&quot; count as using God's name in vain?" Tags="&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-01-26T06:27:57.307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1682" CreationDate="2011-09-02T06:59:33.457" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you take the matter wave interpretation of quantum mechanics, the problem with the uncertainty principle is not that the &lt;em&gt;measurements&lt;/em&gt; are imprecise, but that the actual distribution of the position and wavelength of a particle cannot be reduced to zero at the same time. So it can be viewed not that the momentum is unknown if the position is exactly fixed, but that the momentum is actually &lt;em&gt;undetermined&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that case, the uncertainty of momentum might not be a failure of knowledge, but simply a property of the object (which itself might be well known and understood), and therefore not be a problem for omniscience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="389" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T06:59:33.457" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1682" CreationDate="2011-09-02T07:33:07.140" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;To state it simply, this question takes the presupposition that God, the author of creation, is bound by the laws he created for this universe.  And he simply is not so bound.  He is outside of this creation.  Not only that, but he sustains this creation by his will - were it not for his continuing upholding of it, it would pop out of existence, quite possibly with the same Big Bang with which it popped in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T07:33:07.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1754" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1758" CreationDate="2011-09-02T08:00:02.550" Score="15" ViewCount="4776" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/461/atheism-is-the-default-position-isnt-the-burden-of-proof-on-the-christian-to-as/478#478&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; I commented that Christians believe that &quot;God does not show himself as this would take away free will&quot;, to which I was answered &quot;The only reason he would not show himself is that it would utterly destroy us to behold him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which one is correct (if any)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of proof without doubt: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He could encode the Bible in the digits of π (making it a statistical, logical and mathematical miracle).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put His &quot;trademark&quot; in the rules of logic, or in our DNA. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Write Schroendiger's law in the Bible. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make an exact, impossible to forge, prediction or series of predictions, which are then correct, but impossible to make for a non omniscient human.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2015-10-26T18:01:43.533" Title="Why does God not show Himself beyond reasonable doubt?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;logic&gt;&lt;existence-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2011-10-28T21:20:04.920" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1754" CreationDate="2011-09-02T08:43:09.250" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess I'm going to have to expand on my little rant :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel we find in Scripture is all about the good news of God revealing Himself to and reconciling us to Himself. This is quite the opposite of hiding himself. We still have free will to reject the evidence -to turn our backs on his revelation- but this is not at all the same thing as not having been provided the evidence we need for to know and trust Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I said that to behold God would destroy us. There are numerous passages that show how imperfect limited men cannot behold God himself without being destroyed. One example would be Moses encounter with God&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, another would be what the prophet Isaiah experiences, even haven seen a vision rather than the real thing he feels he has been undone&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Because of His holiness and our unholiness there is a chasm between us. Think about this question: would God's perfect nature be tarnished if it came into contact with sinfulness or would the sinful thing be destroyed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although it is not part of your question, it would be unthinkable to touch this subject without mentioning Christ for although no-one has seen God, God has chosen to reveal himself through His Son&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. He is the image of the invisible God&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; and we have seen him&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;! Through Him we can be reconciled with God&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; and enter His presence&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, your example of &quot;proof without doubt&quot; is something that would specifically make me doubt ... it smacks of human tampering. However he has done much more than this -- His fingerprints are scattered all through creation&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;. He gave nature laws that govern it that point us directly to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Exodus+33:18-20/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 33:18-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&#xA;  Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “&lt;strong&gt;you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Isaiah+6:3-5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 6:3-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) And one called to another and said: “&lt;strong&gt;Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts&lt;/strong&gt;; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “&lt;strong&gt;Woe is me&lt;/strong&gt;! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; &lt;strong&gt;for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%201:18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 1:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/colossians+1:15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESv) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John+1:14/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 1:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians+1:21-22/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:21-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews%2010:19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%201:20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T08:43:09.250" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1754" CreationDate="2011-09-02T08:48:36.700" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer each part (see comment thread at question) of your question in turn:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Manifestation of God:&lt;/strong&gt; Christians believe Jesus was God on Earth in human form (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:1&lt;/a&gt;) as evidenced by His radical teaching, physical miracles and the witnesses to His resurrection. (Incidentally, these witnesses were prepared to be tortured and put to death, rather than admit He was not resurrected.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Logical proof of God:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/favourite-quotes.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CS Lewis&lt;/a&gt; provided this argument to explain why he rejected atheism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T08:48:36.700" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1750" CreationDate="2011-09-02T09:04:41.280" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In English, &amp;quot;Thank God&amp;quot; seems to be an established phrase that is used in certain kinds of situations, regardless of the actual meaning. I can easily see how this could be misused. Then again, there are phrases such as &amp;quot;goodbye&amp;quot;, originally meaning &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/goodbye#Etymology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;God be with ye&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;. You can't always avoid saying &lt;em&gt;goodbye&lt;/em&gt;, but you can &lt;strong&gt;mean what you say&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there's no reason you can't be thankful to God in such everyday circumstances as you describe. In fact, it's God's will:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:20&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 5:20 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;And give thanks for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:18&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:18 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Be thankful in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you who belong to Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So do thank God when you feel like it -- the words you use don't really matter much!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T23:13:32.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1754" CreationDate="2011-09-02T09:16:01.607" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because God decided faith was an absolute requirement in His kingdom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:6 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, Jesus is apparently frustrated with those who desire the type of &quot;sign&quot; you suggest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 8:12 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-31T06:53:45.463" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T06:53:45.463" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1750" CreationDate="2011-09-02T09:21:43.547" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on the intent of the speaker. Do they say it with gratitude and in recognition of God? Who could find fault with that? It would not be vain then. But, if it is said without such a sentiment, it is vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T09:21:43.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1754" CreationDate="2011-09-02T09:58:31.060" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you demand the same thing the Apostles demanded. It is important to see that Jesus himself endorses a critical stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas the Apostle speaks (John, 20, 25):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;I won't believe it unless&lt;/strong&gt; I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus endorses this attitude&lt;/strong&gt; and bothers to get back to Thomas to give him proof (John, 20, 27):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally (John, 20, 29):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus told him, “You believe &lt;strong&gt;because&lt;/strong&gt; you have seen me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus wants us to not just be gullible but to demand proof&lt;/strong&gt;. Neither of the Apostles was prepared to believe without a proof and Jesus respected that and had this very story been incorporated into the Bible for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about the phrase right after:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isn't Christ himself saying to believe on faith? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to be very careful here: &lt;strong&gt;Jesus is saying this after he gave proof and he is saying this only unto him, i.e. Thomas, who believes already because he has the evidence right before his eyes; Jesus is not saying this unto us or to anybody else or in general!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this part is one of the clearest and most unambiguous parts in the Bible. Christians have to take Jesus' word literally here and not try to interpret it as it seems convenient. I even think it is one of the most pivotal parts of the Bible! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="355" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T19:32:13.577" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:32:13.577" CommentCount="18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1511" CreationDate="2011-09-02T09:58:51.450" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's grace is such that you can just be honest. Consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 9:24&lt;/a&gt;, one of my favourite NT verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doubt mixed with faith is natural. Jesus' response is not recorded – so apparently He was neither surprised nor condemning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-19T16:02:45.697" LastActivityDate="2017-07-19T16:02:45.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1763" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5033" CreationDate="2011-09-02T10:03:03.160" Score="70" ViewCount="14297" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be general consensus inside Christianity that in order to be saved, you must have faith, and that this faith has to be in Jesus Christ. Here is one verse sometimes cited for the necessity of having faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews%2011:6&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also another verse that seems to indicate that this faith only comes from hearing specifically about Jesus Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%2010:17&quot;&gt;Romans 10:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isn't this kind of rough luck on your average illiterate jungle tribe without contact with the outside world? How is it fair of God to offer salvation only to a limited subset of people who happen to have access to this news? Are they to be dammed for something out of their control?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2019-11-14T18:53:34.820" Title="What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;&lt;missions&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="17" FavoriteCount="25" ClosedDate="2012-03-12T17:27:48.637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1511" CreationDate="2011-09-02T10:03:08.087" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, this is acceptable. It is not only in prayers and not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to see that Jesus himself endorses a critical stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas the Apostle speaks (John, 20, 25):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;I won't believe it unless&lt;/strong&gt; I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus endorses this attitude&lt;/strong&gt; and bothers to get back to Thomas to give him proof (John, 20, 27):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally (John, 20, 29):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus told him, “You believe &lt;strong&gt;because&lt;/strong&gt; you have seen me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus wants us to not just be gullible but to demand proof&lt;/strong&gt;. Neither of the Apostles was prepared to believe without a proof and Jesus respected that and had this very story been incorporated into the Bible for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-19T16:05:01.827" LastActivityDate="2017-07-19T16:05:01.827" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1338" CreationDate="2011-09-02T11:58:21.733" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:24-25 (NRSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus told his disciples, &quot;If any want to become my followers,&#xA;  let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For&#xA;  those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose&#xA;  their life for my sake will find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two imperatives are &quot;take up your cross&quot; and &quot;follow me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T11:58:21.733" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2011-09-02T12:14:35.953" Score="-5" Body="&lt;p&gt;They burn for all eternity, if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is some controversy here since many Christians would disagree with this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree it is rough luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, Evidently they are dammened for things out of their control. There are almost innumerable tragic deaths every day, and it fuels the passions of those of us that build systems that save lives and reduce suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few interesting articles about &quot;what constitutes a good Christian&quot; which may help with your question. There is information suggesting it may not be as simple and clear as &quot;You must accept Jesus...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T12:14:35.953" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2011-09-02T12:26:36.950" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  See 1 Peter 3 and 4.  Starting from the death of Jesus, the Gospel has been preached to the dead as well as the living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%204%3a%206&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 4:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bringing salvation to the dead who had passed away without being able to accept the Gospel was something that early Christians took very seriously.  According to Paul, they even held baptisms on their behalf, which Paul apparently approves of and even uses as a supporting argument in favor of the Resurrection.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:29&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:29&lt;/a&gt;, and the entire chapter for context.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, a word of warning to anyone who might see this doctrine and think that this gives them license to not try to live the Gospel in this life because they'll end up getting a second chance once they're dead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%206:7&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 6:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T12:26:36.950" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2011-09-02T12:33:30.857" Score="35" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the heart of this question (and many similar ones) is another question: Is God fair?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God requires acknowledgments of truths that people haven't had a chance to hear in order to be saved, then of course He is not fair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we begin with the assumption that God will never act unjustly or unfairly though, then we can assume that He will make Divine provision for everyone, including tribes in remote jungles, to respond to Christ. This provision does not need to be a human delivering a message, but can be angels, dreams, visions, or other unknown methods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the following quote from Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 5:24-25 NIV  &quot;I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and&#xA;  believes him who sent     me has eternal life and will not be&#xA;  condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (25)  I tell you&#xA;  the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear&#xA;  the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is meant by &quot;the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God&quot; can be understood different ways, but I think one of the ways we may possibly understand it is those who have died without the opportunity of receiving Christ will have that opportunity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However God offers this choice to people, if you assume He is good and will always act justly, whatever He needs to do to accomplish this (He is God after all) He will do. Believing in God's essential goodness is in itself a mark of faith (as you quoted in your question):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 11:6 NIV  And without faith it is impossible to please God,&#xA;  because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that&#xA;  he rewards those who earnestly seek him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="345" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T12:33:30.857" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1754" CreationDate="2011-09-02T12:53:58.857" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;God has revealed Himself beyond &lt;em&gt;reasonable&lt;/em&gt; doubt - otherwise requiring faith would be unjust. We can argue about what constitutes reasonable, but according to the Bible, there is enough evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 1:18-20 NIV  The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;suppress the truth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; by their wickedness,  (19)  since &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;what may be known about God is plain to them&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, because God has made it plain to them.  (20)  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;men are without excuse&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If creation weren't enough, what about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who was confirmed dead, sealed in a tomb, and yet appeared to more than 500 people after he was raised to life, and the eyewitnesses were willing to die horribly rather than renounce what they believed (would they have resisted to death for what they knew to be lies?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 15:4-8 NIV  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,  (5)  and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.  (6)  After that, he appeared to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;more than five hundred&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.  (7)  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,  (8)  and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally Thomas who refused to believe until he saw and touched the crucifixion scars, believed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I disagree with the proposition of the question that God has not provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="345" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T12:53:58.857" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1770" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T13:29:57.450" Score="18" ViewCount="6102" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw a witch a while back being mistreated, which deeply troubled me. I am strong proponent for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 6:31&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am familiar with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 22:18&lt;/a&gt; which usually translates to something like: Do not allow a sorceress/witch to live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings to mind one main question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything in the Bible suggesting a better way to interpret this? Are Christians expected to commit murder? I understand innumerable witches have been murdered over the millennia but this is just not acceptable to me. The society I live in deems this illegal as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I have two sub-questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there a biblical difference between witches and sorceresses? I know there are witches out there but I have not met a sorceress.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible is the word sorceress truly gender specific? e.g. male sorcerers are exempted from this?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am trying to reconcile this with other portions of the Bible that denounce the mistreatment of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers that cite more clear and easily understandable Bible passages will get preferential treatment for approval. The sub-questions are optional but will count towards approval should all other elements of the answer be deemed equal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T02:45:05.227" LastActivityDate="2015-08-30T02:45:05.227" Title="Do not allow a sorceress/witch to live?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;witchcraft&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-28T04:04:32.823" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1772" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-02T13:50:37.247" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T13:50:37.247" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T13:50:37.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1773" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-02T13:50:37.247" Score="0" Body="the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T23:03:32.947" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T23:03:32.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1770" CreationDate="2011-09-02T13:53:41.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Under the old testament law then that is what God commanded, yes; but Christ is the fulfillment of the law. The law was a tutor to bring us to christ. The law is not so much finished as fulfilled. When the pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery to jesus. He said .... &quot;fine, stone her then, in accordance with the law just let one who has committed no sin throw the first stone&quot;. Christ teaches that while technically all sin should be punished yet there is no one worthy of wielding the whip but a sinless one ..... and that single sinless one ( jesus ) doesnt condem us, and so we are in a new revelation, a new testament, the church age, the age of grace, not under condemnation.&#xA;There will come a day when every bit of evil will be punished, when the lord returns with a sword but meanwhile, no, he doesnt expect us ( or even allow us ) to exact punishment on the breaking of old testament laws which were for a previous generation. Read the book of romans for more information on this particularly chapters 6 to 8. This is a HUGE subject requiring a lot of study to understand, in essence it is a large part of the core of the gospel, but it does make an awful lot of sense and in retrospect it's actually quite simple, just that we are conditioned in this world to sin righteousness, judgement and the like and not to grace, which is an entirely different animal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="351" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T13:53:41.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1775" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T13:56:47.677" Score="16" ViewCount="5178" Body="&lt;p&gt;As if some people couldn't get far enough away from them on earth, several verses in the Bible seem to indicate that there will be preachers even in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Peter+4:6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 4:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that there will be a chance to repent and believe even after if I do not do so in this life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note: This is not a duplicate of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1673/30&quot;&gt;Will there be a second chance for salvation after the Rapture?&lt;/a&gt; which talk about people who are still living on earth after the rapture (if there is such a thing). I am also not asking about the eternal nature of Hell. Whether it is or not is not the same thing as whether there will be a way to repent and be saved from there, although it does make more sense if Hell is indeed enternal.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2014-10-29T19:38:54.780" Title="Do I get a second chance to believe in Jesus after I die?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-10-29T20:10:36.953" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1776" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1781" CreationDate="2011-09-02T13:56:49.293" Score="16" ViewCount="7431" Body="&lt;p&gt;For reference, here's the text of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205:27-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:27-30&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean literally? Aside from the obvious issue that you'd get locked up pretty fast for self-harm, I don't think anyone's limbs or eyes (or anything really) would survive very long under a literal interpretation of this...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="251" LastActivityDate="2015-06-29T08:26:17.200" Title="What does Matthew 5:27-30 (&quot;Cast off your eye/hand/etc&quot;) mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T00:12:01.670" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1770" CreationDate="2011-09-02T13:59:06.157" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The commands God gave to Ancient Israel are normally divided into three kinds: moral, civil and ceremonial. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply/494#494&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/154/what-is-the-origin-of-the-tripartite-division-of-the-law&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; have more information. This one, and any of the others invoking the death penalty, certainly fall into the 'civil' category. The state of Israel (loosely speaking) would have the authority to impose the death penalty for a variety of offences, as many states do now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians are no longer expected to obey &quot;the law&quot;, which includes this kind of law, though most would say that they are expected to follow the 'moral laws', of which this is not one. That's not to say that 'witchcraft' is now OK,and God approves of it, but the authority to punish with a specific penalty doesn't apply to Christians in these times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because 'the state' is given power to punish an offence that does not give a random mob of people the right to harass someone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T01:18:13.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1770" CreationDate="2011-09-02T13:59:49.197" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can reference &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply&quot;&gt;To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?&lt;/a&gt; to help determine if Exodus 22:18 is even still a command we should follow.  I believe that it does not, so I do not believe we should be killing witches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:1 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; Jesus says, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.&quot;  I know that if I were judged fairly, I would also be condemned to Hell as witches will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, we are told to love &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A36-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:36-40 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and&#xA;  with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first&#xA;  and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your&#xA;  neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on&#xA;  these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T13:59:49.197" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1775" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:10:28.197" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox teach that St. John the Baptist went to Hades and preached to the dead there, preceding the coming of Christ into Hades (The Descent into Hades after his death on the Cross.) This even occurred outside of time, so it is 'always happening' or, to those who die outside of Christ, they are ontologically prior to this occurrence, so there is a 'second chance' for them inasmuch as there could be. 'Being in Christ' means having already, in terms of 'being', died and been resurrected, since one's 'life is hid in Christ my God', who already died, conquered Hades, and rose again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This belief is pretty old, AFAIK, and reflects what the Apostles preached and this particular teaching has been handed down to us, like the ever-virginity of Mary, from perhaps even the Apostolic age. It makes sense of some of the scriptures as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it does require a non-&lt;strong&gt;Nominalist&lt;/strong&gt; approach to the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:10:28.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:14:12.590" Score="4" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a story of a saint whose eyes kept getting him into trouble with lust and fornication, so he blinded himself (I will have to find the reference, but good luck to anyone who wants to try!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;'Eye' and 'Hand' are firstly metaphorical, the eye being the means by which we see and know, eye may refer to knowledge, so primarily it means to cast off knowledge that may be your 'right eye', i.e, your 'best knowledge', but if it causes you to sin, get rid of it. Likewise for 'hand', which is the means by which we do work, 'hand' may refer to works or habits which we have. Even if these are our 'right hand', i.e, our best works and habits, if they are somehow causing us to sin, we need to stop them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of these principles are in the scripture. For instance, consider the Rich Young Ruler, for whom his wealth is causing him to forsake the Lord ('and he turned away sad, for he was very wealthy') - he would have done well to 'cut off his right hand'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise with Simon Magus and the young woman with the fortune telling spirit; their 'knowledge' may have been true and powerful, but it was causing them to sin. Traditionally it is said that Magus finally died trying to best the Apostles in Rome, but the young woman relinquished the spirit (her 'special knowledge') to receive the Spirit. In such a case, would not Simon burning his books be quite like 'gouging out his eye,' considering that by his power he allegedly could fly through the air! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But yet, that was what was needed. There are saints who were sorcerers and burned their books to 'gouge out their eye!' That knowledge would be gone, but also with it the sin that it brought them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T14:34:20.433" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:34:20.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:18:26.613" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think its meant to be interpreted literally. I take it as &quot;Do everything you possibly can to avoid sinning.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;relevant example: I have a co-worker of refuses to go to the beach since he would be tempted to engage in lust-related activities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether you agree with my coworker's interpretation and level of devotion to the literal word is not my point. My point is he is making some sacrifices to lead what he thinks is a good life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:18:26.613" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:18:27.403" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way to get interpretations of Bible passages is to look at a commentary. There are plenty to choose from, and any Christian bookstore will have a huge number available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For now I'm going to direct you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/matthew/5.html?p=7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew Henry's commentary&lt;/a&gt;, because he's free, well-known and online.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, it's intended as an indication of the seriousness of sin. If your only choice is between losing a limb, and being cast into hell for an eternity, lose the limb! Think &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/127_Hours&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aron Ralston&lt;/a&gt; here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:18:27.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:25:57.480" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I chose what I think. I stay away from places where I get tempted easily. Whenever a lustful desire comes up from my nature (my flesh), I deny it and I resist it and pray to God that He will help me not to give in to the temptation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.&#xA;  Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 4:15,16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, of course there is a way to succeed. Otherwise 1 Pet 2:21-23 would make no sense: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, &lt;strong&gt;leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps&lt;/strong&gt;:&#xA;  Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(One of these examples is also written in Heb 10:5-7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And 1 Cor 11:1 where Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="324" LastEditorUserId="324" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T14:37:57.980" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T14:37:57.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:28:12.987" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The origin of '&lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt;' as a formal term comes from the Reformation, and has only an &lt;strong&gt;a posteriori&lt;/strong&gt; justification in the scriptural text. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may mean any of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scripture is the only source for Christian teaching, morality, etc&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scripture is the only real 'words of God'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christians do not need outside sources to interpret scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther presented it as an argument when the Roman Church at the time used its position as &lt;em&gt;Magestierium&lt;/em&gt; to justify commanding things which at least ostensibly were against the words of scripture and quite frankly, against moral sensibility of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luther's time it simply meant that a believer did not need the Church's approval to read the scripture, that a properly trained believer needed only the scripture to understand the faith. This did not at the time presume that any person anywhere could just pick up a bible and instantly understand the faith and be a Christian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditionally, the Church was considered 'the Pillar and Ground of Truth', but also, 'All Scripture is God Breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting...' and you also had 'what we have handed down to you in &lt;em&gt;word&lt;/em&gt; and epistle.' (kergyma) Therefore, there were always multiple sources. &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt; emerges as an attempt to reposition the authority of scripture in an era in which Church had become really the only authority, at least in Luther's view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-12-17T05:13:32.960" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T05:13:32.960" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1775" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:30:21.127" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;John's revelation that he received while on the Isle of Patmos tells us that one day all of the dead that did not receive God while on earth must be judged &lt;em&gt;according to their works&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:11-15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;REVELATION 20:11-15, KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was  opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, &lt;strong&gt;according to their&#xA;  works&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what about the dead that &lt;strong&gt;did&lt;/strong&gt; receive God while on earth? Jump back up to verse 4 to read that they will not be judged (Christ having already been judged in their stead), but judgment will be given to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;REVELATION 20:4, KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and&#xA;  judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were&#xA;  beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which&#xA;  had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received&#xA;  his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and&#xA;  reigned with Christ a thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question by scripture, no, there are no second chances to believe God. You have one chance to accept grace, and if rejected you must be judged by your works, and not by grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T19:47:00.557" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:47:00.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:40:17.743" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As a Bible literalist I take this one literally.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you don't believe that your salvation can be taken, then this means nothing, because you don't fear God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 33:12&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“&lt;strong&gt;Therefore, son of man, say to your people&lt;/strong&gt;, ‘If someone who is&#xA;  righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for&#xA;  nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former&#xA;  wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins&#xA;  will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes this is old testament but God is unchanging and this is still true in the new testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:26-27&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the&#xA;  knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a&#xA;  fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume&#xA;  the enemies of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So understand that a true Christian is fighting against their flesh every day. Their flesh continues to want to sin but the spirit wars against it in order that you may not trample the precious blood of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 5:17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit&#xA;  what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other,&#xA;  so that you are not to do whatever you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During this war inside of you, you can literally be torn in a ball on the ground crying out to God, that He may come and save you from your flesh. This war is going on constantly and is difficult to persevere through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 12:4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point&#xA;  of shedding your blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And He's right, I have not resisted to this point. But Jesus tells us that if you cannot control yourself, then do whatever is possible in order to prevent yourself from sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is why I see this verse as a literal verse.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when people do not fear God and they do not know that they need to repent of their sin, then this verse means nothing to them. Because they are not at battle with their flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T14:47:19.867" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:47:19.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:40:29.973" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Eastern Tradition, we are told the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lust starts with thoughts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These thoughts should not in any case even be entertained, they must be ignored&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If they are entertained, one must do things to counteract the effects of them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Primary in this process is confession (which should be to God in the presence of a confessor) and praying for the grace of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will be tempted to your last breath. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first answer above also helps, as we should not understand the body as our enemy, nor as evil. The desire is natural, but when it becomes attached to images about others (fantasies) and is directed to an improper end (not to our significant other alone) it becomes sinful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:40:29.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:43:13.010" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;three uses of Law&lt;/em&gt;  in &lt;strong&gt;Reformed&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Lutheran&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; theology explains this very well. One very important purpose of Law is to let us see our own unrighteousness, so that we could understand how dependent we are on the grace of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was clear from the Old Testament that people couldn't strictly follow the Law of God. Here Jesus makes it even clearer. Consider what Jesus had said just before:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:22 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Law laid down by Jesus damns us all, showing that each one of us is utterly wicked and deserves Hell. Similarly the passage cited in the question will show that we cannot meet God's standards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what should we do about it? The passage is correct in saying that we'd be better off with only one eye in Heaven than in Hell with both eyes. But would cutting off just one body part stop us from sinning, or cure us from original sin? &lt;strong&gt;No, of course not!&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus is using these words to really strengthen the point: there is no way that we'll evade Hell by our own deeds. We desperately need God's grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;References:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Calvin's first use of Law, as stated in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.viii.html&quot;&gt;Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.7.6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God,—in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God,—it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Lutheran second use of Law, as stated in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VI.%20The%20Third%20Use%20of%20the%20Law.&quot;&gt;Formula of Concord VI.1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;secondly, that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:43:13.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:46:22.803" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are good answers already listed here, but I wanted to add a comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The putting off of the old self is only half the equation... or maybe even less than half.  We are not transformed by determination or self effort, but by the renewing of our minds.  Abiding in Christ--in His presence--is the key, I believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 6:45 says, &quot;The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart, for out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of us has both good and bad in our hearts.  Yet the thing that determines what comes out, or what produces actions and words, is what is in excess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we immerse ourselves in the Scriptures like a sponge in the ocean, if we commune with God in prayer and open ourselves up to Him, if we worship God daily, we will be so filled with that which is good that mastering the desires of the flesh would be much simpler.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person who is hungry is very susceptible to being tempted by food, but a person who has already eaten has much less chance of falling.  In the same way, if our souls and spirits are filled and satisfied and filled &quot;with greater joy than when their grain and new wine abounds&quot;, the temptations of this life that promise similar fulfillment will be less alluring to us, because we won't be hungry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if we are not in communion with God and are therefore starving for joy and fulfillment, then temptations that promise (but don't provide) those things will be overwhelming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:46:22.803" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1733" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:51:13.467" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul tells us in Ephesians 4:29 to not let &quot;corrupt communication&quot; come out of your mouth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EPHESIANS 4:29-32&lt;/strong&gt; Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your&#xA;  mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may&#xA;  minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of&#xA;  God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all&#xA;  bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be&#xA;  put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another,&#xA;  tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake&#xA;  hath forgiven you. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know&#xA;  not the man. And immediately the cock crew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Peter denied that he knew Jesus, he did so while cursing and swearing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MATTHEW 26:74&lt;/strong&gt; Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know&#xA;  not the man. And immediately the cock crew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in the books of Matthew and Luke, Jesus tells us that what is in your heart comes out of your mouth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:34 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak&#xA;  good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LUKE 6:45 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; A good man out of the good treasure of his heart&#xA;  bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil&#xA;  treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the&#xA;  abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Words have different meanings when used in different contexts. The word &quot;hell&quot; when read aloud from the Bible has a different emotional impact than when an angry spouse or coworker shouts &quot;What the h***!?&quot; from across the room. The difference should be obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:51:13.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1750" CreationDate="2011-09-02T14:59:55.137" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking his 'name in vain' refers to 'using his name without consideration for its meaning'. That is to say, using it like a common word, or just a noun without any specific meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In such a case 'Thank God' could be a case of using God's name in vain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also consider another viewpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'God' is not God's name, but rather, a title. The commandment refers to an actual name, which for the Jews of the time was 'Yahweh'. (But ultimately, this was just an evasive title God gave himself; later on Moses does learn his name, after the experience of 'seeing his back', but we never learn this name from the scripture.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this way, the better interpretation would be to be careful with your use of the name 'Jesus', since that is the only personal name we have for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T14:59:55.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1793" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1797" CreationDate="2011-09-02T15:03:42.320" Score="5" ViewCount="516" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that some Christians consider it the only sure sign of having received the Holy Spirit, which would seem quite important. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not generally, which groups hold to this belief, and in what way do they consider it necessary? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And secondly, does Christian tradition back up this belief? What evidence is there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-13T19:39:09.200" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T19:39:09.200" Title="Do Christians regard speaking in tongues as necessary?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;&lt;pentecost&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T03:17:03.840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1794" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1795" CreationDate="2011-09-02T15:04:39.450" Score="20" ViewCount="11026" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/774/what-does-the-bible-say-about-bad-words&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; words?&lt;/a&gt; a comment was made that &quot;I cuss in all the (two) languages I speak fluently. It's just my upbringing, and we should honor our parents, right?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:12 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  12 &quot;Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in&#xA;  the land the LORD your God is giving you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 6:4 tells us parents to not lead our children into sin, but to train and instruct them in the way of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 6:4 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in&#xA;  the training and instruction of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we disobey our parents and do not sin as they have taught us, are we sinning by disobeying them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T23:25:17.147" Title="Should we honor our parents even if it leads us to sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;parenting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-17T21:35:30.727" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1794" CreationDate="2011-09-02T15:13:49.217" Score="22" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Honor your parents? Yes absolutely.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sin? No never.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is trump? Don't sin!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it should be noted that the trump card will never need to be used because on closer inspection these two things are never actually in conflict. If your parents ask you to murder your neighbor (clearly sin) it would be no honor to them if you obeyed. The same principle can be extrapolated back to &quot;smaller&quot; sins. While your parents own sinfulness might cloud their perspective on what is or is not honoring, ultimately you are trying to honor God through honoring your parents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commandment to honor our parents does not say that we must obey every edict they may give us. However it is also clear that obedience is on of the primary ways that we can show honor and respect. Obey in so far as you are not being asked to sin. If in doubt, honor your parents. If something comes up that you understand to be sin and can Biblically demonstrate how something would be dishonoring to God, decline in an honorable way!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's your family's tradition to cuss (or to be bank robbers) there is nothing in the commandment that mandates that you also pursue that lifestyle. You can still act honorably towards someone as your parent even if they reject you as a child because of your choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is particularly evident in extreme cases. For example say your parents are Muslims. From their perspective that their offspring would believe in Jesus as God, go to a Christian church, pray, read the Bible and fellowship with other Christians is an unthinkable shame. In their mind nothing you do will be honoring as long as you persist in your beliefs. However is it really dishonoring them that you have chosen to follow the truth? Of course not. Can you still treat them respectfully and in an honorable way even if they reject you and ostricise you? Yes you can, and you should.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it doesn't take an extreme case for to apply this principle. It starts being applicable when they ask you to come finish the dishes but you feel like you ought to finish that great post you're working on for a Christian Q&amp;amp;A site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Peter+3:14-17/&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:14-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T05:32:07.950" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T05:32:07.950" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1338" CreationDate="2011-09-02T15:23:34.473" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Testament gives us a very clear picture of the difference between Christian and a non-Christian in the story below. Jesus here is being crucified and two criminals are being crucified at the same time, on either side of Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:39-43&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 23:39-43&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My reason for quoting this is that we read here the minimum requirement for becoming a Christian; and it is both &lt;strong&gt;necessary&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;sufficient&lt;/strong&gt;. It is repenting (being sorry for wrongdoing) and asking Jesus for His mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's it: that is the distinction. The other answers here describe the &lt;em&gt;fruit&lt;/em&gt; that comes &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the decision / change. This is fundamental - we're saved by what He (Jesus) has done, not by what we can do for Him. That's why the criminal here could turn to Jesus in his last moments of life and still enter the same paradise as the very best saint (The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020:1-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 20:1-16&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are interested, I have explained becoming a Christian in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/538/how-do-you-convert-somebody-to-christianity/578#578&quot;&gt;my answer to the question, How do you &amp;quot;Convert&amp;quot; somebody to Christianity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T15:23:34.473" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1793" CreationDate="2011-09-02T15:26:52.440" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, I do not believe that this is the only sure sign of the Holy Spirit.  Also, I would question if someone is truly speaking in tongues when they claim to be.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/379/can-people-speak-in-tongues-today&quot;&gt;Can people speak in tongues today?&lt;/a&gt;  I have seen people who would claim they were speaking in tongues, but there was no one there to interpret.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul lists speaking in tongues as one of the spiritual gifts, but he does say that they are distributed as God determines, not necessarily as we want them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:7-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12:7-11 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the&#xA;common good. &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; To one there is given through the Spirit a message of&#xA;wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by&#xA;that one Spirit, &lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy,&#xA;to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in&#xA;different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation&#xA;of tongues. &lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt; All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and &lt;strong&gt;he&#xA;distributes them to each one, just as he determines.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:27-30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12:27-30 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. &lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; And&#xA;God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets,&#xA;third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,&#xA;administrations, various kinds of tongues. &lt;strong&gt;29&lt;/strong&gt; All are not apostles,&#xA;are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are&#xA;they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? &lt;strong&gt;30&lt;/strong&gt; All do not have&#xA;gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they?&#xA;All do not interpret, do they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T16:54:23.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1794" CreationDate="2011-09-02T15:39:44.493" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that &quot;honor&quot; is not the same as obey.  Children are instructed to obey their parents, and all of us are commanded to honor them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I don't believe children should obey their parents by sinning either, but that's a separate question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One would wonder how it's possible for the honoring of one's parents to ever necessitate sin?  We can honor them in many different ways--none of which requires sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T15:39:44.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1803" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1911" CreationDate="2011-09-02T16:32:36.373" Score="10" ViewCount="11028" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always heard that the army described in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joel+2&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joel 2&lt;/a&gt; was some kind of end-time army, but reading about in the NLT (as in the link) the chapter subtitle is &quot;Locusts Invade like an Army&quot;. Is there a Biblical basis for either position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-06T00:09:41.353" LastActivityDate="2020-04-09T22:17:56.553" Title="What is the army in Joel 2?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;joel&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="967" CreationDate="2011-09-02T17:01:38.510" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament day of rest was a prefigure for the rest we have in Christ. As the author of Hebrews says, we &quot;cease from our own works&quot; every day (see Galatians 5:19-21), not just on a particular day of the week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 4:8-10&lt;/strong&gt; King James Version (KJV)&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have&#xA;  spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people&#xA;  of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from&#xA;  his own works, as God did from his.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament Sabbath was held on Saturday, the seventh day of the week. As Paul noted, Jesus didn't give us another &lt;em&gt;day&lt;/em&gt; to rest. Sunday worship services are held in commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus, which allowed us to enter into a permanent rest (Sabbath), ceasing from our own works. To a Christian, &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; day is the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T17:01:38.510" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1311" CreationDate="2011-09-02T17:29:49.790" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;(I know my answer is similar to James Khoury's, but a longer answer is needed.  Even this is not near enough, but here goes anyway...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is accurate, but maybe a little simplistic to say that faith is &quot;the belief that God means what He says.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the risk of sounding too mystical or weird, faith is the assurance of things we have no other assurance of.  It is the proof of things for which we have no other proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bulk of Hebrews 11 gives example after example of what people have done &quot;by faith&quot; eventually describing the people as &quot;&lt;em&gt;men&lt;/em&gt; of whom the world was not worthy&quot; (v. 38).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication is that faith leads people to do things that make no logical sense, yet are &lt;em&gt;Right&lt;/em&gt;.  I emphasized &quot;Right&quot; because I mean much more than the best or correct choice among several alternatives.  I'm using &quot;Right&quot; to mean perfect to the degree that any deviation from that would be a failure to follow God's Will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James is even clearer in his statement that faith always leads to action (works).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;James 2:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you continue reading through to the end of James 2, you get to the conclusion that &quot;faith without works is dead&quot; (v. 26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also important to note that while faith will lead us to do the things that God approves of, it is not a guarantee of anything in this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011:39&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T17:29:49.790" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1229" CreationDate="2011-09-02T17:30:33.657" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I strongly disagree with most of the answers given here: &lt;strong&gt;The answer to your question is an absolute No!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will also cite Matthew (5:43-48):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’&lt;br&gt;44 But I tell you, &lt;strong&gt;love your enemies&lt;/strong&gt; and pray &lt;strong&gt;for those who persecute you&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br&gt;45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. &lt;strong&gt;He causes his sun to rise on the evil&lt;/strong&gt; and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. &lt;br&gt;46 &lt;strong&gt;If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;47 &lt;strong&gt;And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;48 Be perfect, therefore, &lt;strong&gt;as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clearly written here that perfection encompasses &lt;strong&gt;total&lt;/strong&gt; forgivingness. Otherwise God would not be perfect which he is - &lt;strong&gt;he would be like a &quot;tax collector&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt; So he will &lt;strong&gt;forgive every sin&lt;/strong&gt; and that is the &lt;strong&gt;incomprehensibly great story about our Saviour Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It clearly encompasses &lt;strong&gt;&quot;those who persecute you&quot; which translates even to people that hate God and Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; (or don't believe in him) - they will be saved too, this is the &lt;strong&gt;overwhelmingly good message of Jesus!&lt;/strong&gt; He also gives the example of his &lt;strong&gt;causing the sun to rise on the evil!&lt;/strong&gt; There is obviously no room for interpretation here because &lt;strong&gt;&quot;the evil&quot; is explicitly addressed.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It could justly be said that people who believe that God doesn't forgive everything accuse God of not being perfect because he would only reward those that love him (= &quot;tax collector&quot;).&lt;/strong&gt; They don't understand the fantastic message Jesus is giving us here!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;strong&gt;Jesus had a point and it is no coincidence that he is so direct here and gives so many clear examples.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T02:14:44.187" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T02:14:44.187" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-09-02T17:46:07.720" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;One alternate view that I tend to lean toward, though I don't think understanding how God did what he did is critical, is what I like to call:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The birthday cake method of evolution.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is very vague in how he creates the universe, and there are verses that say one day to God is like many to us.  Essentially, I think the creation of the earth is like God creating a birthday cake and taking it to your house.  He then tells you, &quot;I spoke and created you this birthday cake&quot;.  Now, imagine you've never seen one before!  You take the cake, but wonder how it's made.  You take it apart, look at the different &quot;layers&quot; of the cake and find carbon date things and scientifically find that this cake was made from just plain old eggs and cake batter!  Oh no!  God said he spoke it into being, but you can clearly tell that this was a baked cake!  This is the predicament that I think many people are in.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example are humans and planets.  God created Adam and Eve as adults, but if a scientist was to meet them today, they would say they were once children, who were concieved by human parents.  However, just because the laws of physics/biology are in place and repeatable doesn't mean that couldn't be a starting point, and that God can't create something that is &quot;older&quot; than what we know to be a birth or beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="327" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T17:46:07.720" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1051" CreationDate="2011-09-02T18:19:52.890" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible makes no obvious reference to aliens, and most people (including myself) think it makes no reference &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt; to aliens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is unlikely that God created life outside Earth for two reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scientific:&lt;/strong&gt; because of the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fermi paradox&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; which says essentially that if there is extra terrestrial life we should have seen evidence of it by now.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Theological:&lt;/strong&gt; because Jesus died &lt;strong&gt;once only&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:10&lt;/a&gt;). So if there are aliens, would they need redemption? Apparently the answer is &quot;Yes&quot;, if they have freewill. However, since Jesus has already died here on Earth, He couldn't die again for them. Therefore aliens with freewill cannot exist (though animal life might).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T18:19:52.890" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1809" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:00:03.483" Score="26" ViewCount="8541" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question of who goes to heaven and who to hell seems to result in very different answers depending on which tradition the Christian answering belongs to. Some traditions, especially evangelical Christians, seem to hold belief in God/Jesus to be the only important factor, while other christians seem to also put value on the actions one has done in life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common answer I heard (from liberal Christians) is that we can't know for sure who goes to heaven and who to hell, and that hell hopefully is even empty. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the official positions of the major traditions on whether only faith can prevent one from going to hell, or if the deeds you perform in life might also get you into heaven, even if you don't believe in the Christian God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="197" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-07T17:16:45.703" LastActivityDate="2017-01-20T05:04:23.280" Title="Can an atheist go to heaven?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-08-01T01:14:36.420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1810" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:00:13.123" Score="20" ViewCount="6636" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:16 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Luke 3:23 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem here is that Matthew names Jacob Jesus's Grandfather and Luke names Heli. What is going one here? A mistake? A misunderstanding of Jewish genealogies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-22T09:01:32.103" LastActivityDate="2021-03-20T01:54:42.883" Title="Who was St. Joseph's Father? The New Testament seems to give two answers" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;&lt;joseph-husband-of-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:11:04.477" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, this passage can be taken literally.  But no, it is not a command.  Jesus is saying that you will be better off if you cut off a hand that makes you sin, but he does not command you to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T19:11:04.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1812" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:15:32.750" Score="20" ViewCount="23102" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is similar to another question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/768/how-did-judas-die&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;How did Judas Die&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;, but is specifically addressing another aspect of the story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew we have the priests purchasing the field:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:5-7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:5-7 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in Acts we have Judas purchasing it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:16-18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 1:16-18 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems a clear contradiction in the New Testament. What is going on here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-02-08T22:26:08.807" Title="Who bought the Field of Blood, Judas or the Priests?" Tags="&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1813" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1825" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:26:00.323" Score="26" ViewCount="2460" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic Church, priests are required to stay celibate. &lt;em&gt;(As far as I know, protestant priests that convert to Catholicism are allowed an exception -- they can become Catholic priests even if they already have family.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot understand how this fits with the Bible, as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peter was married (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%208:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matthew 8:14&lt;/a&gt;), and he still was (according to Catholics) the first Pope.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;According to Paul, &lt;em&gt;overseers&lt;/em&gt;  and &lt;em&gt;elders&lt;/em&gt; must be &quot;the husband of one wife&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 3:2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201:5-6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Titus 1:5-6&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul even seems to consider the ability to raise children as a criterion of &lt;em&gt;overseers&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203:4-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 3:4-5&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the biblical (or other) basis for clerical celibacy? How are the passages I mention consistent with this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2019-10-16T13:18:54.373" LastActivityDate="2020-01-04T18:23:26.273" Title="What is the scriptural basis for clerical celibacy?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;celibacy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1810" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:29:05.357" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The genealogy in the gospel of Matthew is definitely the genealogy of Joseph, and the genealogy in Luke's Gospel is most likely that of Mary. This coincides with the primary audiences of the two books (Mathew the Jews, and Luke the Gentiles). Mathew would want to show according to Jewish tradition that Jesus was both a Jew and a Son of David. Luke was trying to show that Jesus was the promised redeemer that would crush the serpent's head for all of Adam's children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/luke/3-23.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That St. Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T16:29:01.317" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T16:29:01.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1815" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1816" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:30:22.213" Score="8" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a certain level of intelligence required to get into heaven?  I would expect someone to be able to understand at least some of scripture to be saved, but how much intelligence is needed to understand what you need to be saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-17T00:01:10.157" LastActivityDate="2014-07-29T08:20:53.450" Title="Do you have to have a certain amount of intelligence to get into heaven?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-17T03:41:07.420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1815" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:37:29.273" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No intelligence is required.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible assures us that even a fool won't go astray on the Way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2035:8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 35:8 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  And a highway shall be there, &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; and it shall be called the Way of Holiness;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  the unclean shall not pass over it. &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; It shall belong to those who walk on the way; &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is this Way, then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:6 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Jesus said to him, &quot;I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even a fool following Jesus will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also states that the kingdom of God belongs to those such as children. Now, children &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be intelligent at times, but certainly this doesn't sound like there's an intelligence requirement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Mark 10:14 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, &quot;Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T19:43:11.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T19:43:11.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1809" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:38:42.077" Score="35" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is actually pretty cut and dry. At the core the main thing you ask is &quot;Can I go to heaven even rejecting Christian belief by substituting some set of actions?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. No amount of works of any kind will get you into heaven. There is no substitute for faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews%2011:6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact it is not even necessary to split this up by different traditions inside Christianity. All of us pretty much agree on this point. The disagreements about works only come in when you discuss whether you need some works IN ADDITION TO faith or whether it is possible to have faith but no works at all. Mainstream Christianity doesn't believe you can get into heaven if you reject faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, still speaking for the majority of Christianity and not just my tradition, I can say that this faith also has to be in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%2014:6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question about works should be asked in another question. Whether some kind of works are a requirement in addition to faith is the source of much debate in Christian circles. Yes some traditions &quot;put value on them&quot; that others do not, but those views have no bearing on your question because at the core none of those different views allow you to substitute faith with anything, only perhaps supplement (or legitimize) it. Since they are not relevant to the main question I will refrain from inserting them here. Also, questions about exactly what faith in Jesus needs to look like will turn up many variations. Save those for other questions. Also not in scope here is what happens to people who &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1763/30&quot;&gt;haven't heard&lt;/a&gt; or have heard and believed miss-information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2017-01-20T05:04:23.280" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:40:29.653" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Then there is the question of &quot;What about people who died before Jesus was crucified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the relevant standard is that everyone has to believe in God AS WAS REVEALED TO THEM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Christians, that means believing in Jesus. For people that never had a chance to know Jesus, that is believing in God, so far as he was revealed to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T19:40:29.653" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1820" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1822" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:50:47.567" Score="7" ViewCount="2879" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2020:23-25&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 20:23-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; &lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have God, speaking through Ezekiel, saying that he had given the people bad statutes (or laws in some translations) whereby they should not live (or by which they die, again depending on translation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing that I can figure is that Ezekiel, being from the priestly class, would have been more in favor of the stricter laws given Leviticus. He thought the laws given in Deuteronomy (like only having to sacrifice in the temple once a year, akin to Christians going to Church once a year) were leading the people to death. However, even given the interpretation, it is still a bit disturbing that we have God saying that he purposely gave the people bad laws that they could not live by. You get the picture of pious Jews, trying to live righteously, following the law, only they have been tricked by God himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is going on here? I am not able to understand or interpret this scripture.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T21:43:18.187" LastActivityDate="2016-04-08T13:08:43.047" Title="Why did Ezekiel say that God gave laws to the people that were not good?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;ezekiel&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-12-30T16:16:56.310" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1820" CreationDate="2011-09-02T19:59:14.320" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 20:25 is not referring to any laws which God had decreed, but the laws which the people had made on their own.  Since the people would not follow God's laws, he left them to their own laws.  For instance, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2020:25&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;NLT&lt;/a&gt; says &quot;I gave them over to worthless decrees and regulations that would not lead to life.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The laws he is referring to here are the ones from verse 18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2020:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 20:18 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  18 I said to their children in the wilderness, “Do not follow the&#xA;  statutes of your parents or keep their laws or defile yourselves with&#xA;  their idols.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T19:59:14.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1823" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:02:41.463" Score="40" ViewCount="35590" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/16-28.htm&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/mark/9-1.htm&quot;&gt;Mark 9:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he said to them, &quot;I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/luke/9-27.htm&quot;&gt;Luke 9:27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously everyone that heard Jesus say this is no longer living, so it &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; this prediction by Jesus did not take place. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the 'Kingdom of God' is. Or maybe Jesus is saying that salvation brings life, and physical death is not important. I think that is was the pervading belief among early Christians that they would live to see the second coming of Christ, as evidenced by some of the letters of Paul. How am I misinterpreting this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-02-26T08:19:33.693" LastActivityDate="2014-11-27T19:35:58.617" Title="Jesus predicts that some will not die until he comes in his kingdom, but did this occur?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;kingdom-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="10" ClosedDate="2016-04-17T22:04:01.013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1824" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:03:05.890" Score="96" ViewCount="10904" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1363/30&quot;&gt;exact date&lt;/a&gt; isn't important but at some point about 2000 years ago Christ died on a cross. Since that point Christians everywhere have put their faith in Him. He claimed to be the Way, the Truth and the Life and that nobody could get to the Father except through faith in Him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%2014:6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:6&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's great for everybody since then, but how were people saved before that? There are many more years of history before that date than after. Was there a different savior for them? Did they just believe in God but not in Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In very broad strokes, what does Christianity say on this matter (general doctrine) and more specifically, are there differing views on this held by major branches of Christianity? If so, what is a summary of the different doctrinal positions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-12-29T02:19:46.903" LastActivityDate="2020-12-29T02:19:46.903" Title="How were people saved prior to 33 AD?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="17" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1813" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:07:48.693" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;One good biblical argument for celibacy (for those called):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PVS.HTM#-35B&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:9-12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[His] disciples said to him, &amp;quot;If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He answered, &amp;quot;Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.&#xA;Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teaching of the Catholic Church would take a bit to unpack, but as I understand it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Priestly Celibacy is a teaching or instruction, not a doctrine or dogma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Deacons may be married, but are not allowed to remarry after their wives die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You're right that ministers of other Christian denominations can continue in their vocation as a priest, while married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's not an argument for anything. For one thing, priests need to be chaste in order to perform their duties at Mass.  They need to be free to perform their duties completely selflessly without needing to care for their families.  The top down structure of the Church means that a parish community will be assigned a priest, not a parish community will raise up a priest, like they might in another tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, for diocesan priests it wouldn't be fair to the wife to be subject to the Bishop with her husband.  It wouldn't be fair to the parishoners to come second to the wife and children.  For priests in various religious orders, they mostly take vows which include Chastity (which is not exactly the same as celibacy, but in this sense it is).  Those vows come out of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/benedict.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;monastic traditions&lt;/a&gt; reaching back to the 5th-6th Century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;More info from Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T20:07:48.693" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1824" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:09:27.723" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a partial answer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:52-53&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:52-53&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;52&lt;/strong&gt; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; &lt;strong&gt;53&lt;/strong&gt; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have &quot;saints&quot; rising up, who had already died. Presumably these are righteous Jewish people, who believed in God, and also believed that he would provide salvation to them though they had not yet seen Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/20-29.htm&quot;&gt;John 20:29&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus told him, &quot;Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some have speculated that this refers to people who came before Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T20:30:32.933" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T20:30:32.933" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1828" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1832" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:26:53.127" Score="9" ViewCount="2746" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard Christians say that an appropriate title for a Christian is, &quot;friend of God.&quot; I've also heard preachers (e.g. Beth Moore) say that this is inappropriate: only certain people (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Abraham&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Disciples&lt;/a&gt;) can be called friends of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for saying modern Christians are generally &quot;friends of God&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-04T16:54:07.690" LastActivityDate="2016-11-01T07:26:27.167" Title="What is the Biblical basis for saying Christians are &quot;friends of God&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;relationships&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1794" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:39:14.383" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You only do a disservice to yourself and others when you sin to &quot;appease&quot; them. God wants us to stand for Him, not for others. Sinning to you can &quot;honour&quot;/help/fix/appease others it telling them they're more important to you than Jesus - and that's not good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To honour your father and mother means to yes respect them, listen to them, help them, but if you see them doing something wrong, to talk to them about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="423" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T20:41:44.750" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T20:41:44.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1824" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:39:44.400" Score="44" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before Christ, people were saved by believing in God's promise of the Messiah who was to come, as we are saved by believing in the Messiah who has come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:39-40&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:39-40 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And all these [Old Testament saints], though commended through their&#xA;  faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided&#xA;  something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made&#xA;  perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is some speculation that because Jesus is the only way to the Father, OT saints were kept in a comfortable &quot;holding place&quot; (cf. Abraham's bosom in the parable of the rich man), and that when Jesus died he joined them and brought them with him to heaven &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:7-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Eph. 4:7-10 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of&#xA;  Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, &quot;When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,    and he&#xA;  gave gifts to men.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(In saying, &quot;He ascended,&quot; what does it mean but that he had also&#xA;  descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the&#xA;  one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill&#xA;  all things.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditDate="2011-09-02T20:45:21.817" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T20:45:21.817" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1824" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:39:58.610" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus. The verses &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:24-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 3:24,25&lt;/a&gt; can give insight in this issue, there we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that&#xA;  came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of&#xA;  atonement,[a] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by&#xA;  faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his&#xA;  forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 33CE &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:15&lt;/a&gt; fulfilled (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians.%203:13,%2016&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Galatians. 3:13, 16&lt;/a&gt;). But from the moment that God uttered that prophecy the ransom price was as good as paid from his viewpoint, for nothing can prevent God from fulfilling what he purposes. With that basis God could forgive the sins of people befor Jesus' death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T20:39:58.610" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1828" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:46:22.853" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe we can be friends of God.  (And not just because I'm a fan of the song)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus tells us if we do what he commands we are his friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:13-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 15:13-15 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  13 Greater love has no&#xA;  one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my&#xA;  friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants,&#xA;  because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have&#xA;  called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I&#xA;  have made known to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T20:46:22.853" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1828" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:48:59.860" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes we can; In the Old Testament Abraham was an exception. For example, Paul wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/romans/5-10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 5:10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through&#xA;the death of his Son, how much more, having been &lt;strong&gt;reconciled&lt;/strong&gt;, shall we&#xA;be saved through his life!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or another translation (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For since &lt;strong&gt;our friendship with God&lt;/strong&gt; was restored by the death of his&#xA;Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved&#xA;through the life of his Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, we can believe that Christians are God's friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-29T15:39:33.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1311" CreationDate="2011-09-02T20:52:23.740" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;My pastor has been discussing this lately and he paraphrases the definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1 as this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Faith is believing that God is who He says He is and will do what He&#xA;  has promised to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="408" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T20:52:23.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1823" CreationDate="2011-09-02T21:01:51.320" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;The very next story in each of those passages is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfiguration_of_Jesus&quot;&gt;transfiguration&lt;/a&gt;. My interpretation: The kingdom is here! Jesus is alive and reigning through his church and in the hearts of the saints. Because the Kingdom has an already/not-yet character, it has not yet come in its fullness, but it is here. And Peter/James/John saw in the transfiguration a preview of the fullness which is to come, Christ in his power and glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-02-26T05:53:43.867" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T05:53:43.867" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1824" CreationDate="2011-09-02T21:10:22.613" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Testament frequently states that Jesus rose from the dead. This presumes that, yes, Jesus was fully dead at some point. Before Jesus, of course there wasn't a heaven, just a place of the dead referred to &quot;Hades&quot; or &quot;hell&quot; (as you acknowledge). As Jesus had died, he went there. Jesus preached the Gospel to the dead (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P124.HTM#CATHL.1PET.4.6&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 4:6&lt;/a&gt;) and those that were saved rose and joined Jesus in heaven (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PW0.HTM#GOSP.MAT.27.52&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:52&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this is not necessarily the same as &quot;hell&quot; as we know it. The people here weren't damned. It was simply the place of the dead. &quot;Abraham's Bosom&quot;, as it was called. It was distinctly a temporary place where the dead lay in waiting, and as such, is not eternal, as opposed to the eternal damnation of &quot;hell&quot; as we typically refer to today as Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a link that discusses this topic specifically with more references and depth: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1R.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-18T03:38:43.603" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T03:38:43.603" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1793" CreationDate="2011-09-02T21:11:42.003" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sure sign of having the Holy Spirit is affirming the Lordship of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:3 NIV  Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, &quot;Jesus be cursed,&quot; and no one can say, &quot;Jesus is Lord,&quot; except by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the second part of your question regarding the justification for the belief that speaking in tongues is the sure sign of having the Holy Spirit, I can only speculate. Paul has a long discourse regarding this gift, and perhaps his emphasis has led some to believe it is the most important of the spiritual gifts, and give it undue status. I don't find any Scriptural basis for believing it is the definitive sign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="345" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T21:11:42.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1812" CreationDate="2011-09-02T21:35:37.913" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;They both did - it just depends on perspective for application of the word &quot;bought&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was Judas' money, and it was the priests who used the money he returned to them to buy the field.  They bought the field because they could not accept blood money and return it to the temple treasury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just like when my mother would give me money to go to the store to buy some groceries; we both bought the groceries - I did the physical act and she did through providing the financial resource (and, back in the day of single income families, so did my Dad in earning the income to begin with).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T16:29:58.880" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T16:29:58.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="319" CreationDate="2011-09-02T21:39:39.340" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Judaism religious maturity is celebrated when a young man reaches the age of 13 (bar mitzvah) or when a young woman reaches 12 (bat mitzvah). At that point they are said to become a son or daughter of the commandments; from then onward they are expected to follow the law and be responsible spiritually for their own actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Age of accountability' is not a phrase found in the Bible, but the concept can be seen in the following scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DEUTERONOMY 1:39 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; Moreover your little ones, which ye said&#xA;  should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no&#xA;  knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto&#xA;  them will I give it, and they shall possess it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ISAIAH 7:16 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; For before the child shall know to refuse the&#xA;  evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be&#xA;  forsaken of both her kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Realistically, some children mature quicker than others. The Jewish faith places the 'age of accountability' on a specific date (their 12th or 13th birthday), but God knows precisely when in a person's life they have reached the point when they can 'refuse the evil and choose the good'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-02T21:39:39.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2011-09-02T22:01:52.233" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's important to first note that the bible teaches that everyone is convicted of sin, righteousness and judgement by the Holy Spirit (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 16:8&lt;/a&gt;).  In other words, people have within them an intrinsic sense of whats right, wrong, and the fact that there is some ultimate accountability for the evil deeds they commit.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 1&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; indicate that people have a basic understanding that God exists simply by observing creation yet they suppress all these truths and exchange them for lies.  Paul even mentions the gentiles who do not have the law yet do instinctually the things of the law who thereby become a law unto themselves, for it is the doer's of the law who are justified before God.  Now, these scriptures convince me that God has equipped, even the person in a remote village with a knowledge of truth to which he can respond or reject.  To a person who choses to embrace such a conviction God is not limited to people or even the internet when it comes to delivering the gospel, as was already stated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something I find to be very interesting is the general belief by certain Native American tribes that sense the existence of a single personal creator, and there responsibility to love one another and take care of the creation.  Hopefully I am not sounding to strange, but I think that this is the result of that inner conviction that God has given to every person.  I'd like to say that I am not advocating any kind of universalism, after all, the bible says about Jesus, that there is salvation in no one else (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Acts 4:12&lt;/a&gt;).  I do however believe that the bible teaches that God has equipped all men with the knowledge of Truth to which we can I either embrace or reject.  Those who are willing to embrace and repent are God's beloved and God is not willing to allow any of them to perish but wants all to come to repentance (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:9&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="335" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T20:50:54.720" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T20:50:54.720" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1809" CreationDate="2011-09-02T22:15:23.863" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question that is not really cut and dried. There is a huge amount of very accurate information in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; summarising different beliefs on it. Summarizing the summary: One viewpoint is the Restrictivist Position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most Fundamentalists and many other Evangelicals continue the Restrictivist beliefs taught by traditional Christianity. They believe that each verse in the Bible is without error (as originally written). They are compelled to follow the writings of Paul and the author of the Gospel of John. Those authors appear to have written consistently that only believers reach Heaven. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The viewpoint has much Biblical justification, which you can read in the article. There are however some serious issues with the viewpoint, not really from a Biblical point of view, but from a moral point of view. The main one is: &lt;strong&gt;If someone has never heard of Jesus or been given an opportunity to become a Christian, is it fair to condemn them to Hell?&lt;/strong&gt; Whatever the Biblical justification for the position, it makes God sound like a capricious ogre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other positions include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Agnostic&lt;/strong&gt;: We have conflicting and/or inadequate information in the Bible and cannot reach a definitive belief about salvation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Inclusivism&lt;/strong&gt;: Non-Christian believers will avoid Hell if they worship a deity of some sort, because God works through all of the world's religious faiths. Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, etc. who do not believe in a God will go to Hell.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Middle Knowledge&lt;/strong&gt;: God, having infinite wisdom, knows who would have rejected the gospel if it had been presented to them. As a result, they never have had the opportunity to accept the Gospel. Those people will be transported to Hell when they die.     &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Post Mortem Evangelism&lt;/strong&gt;: those who have never heard the gospel will be exposed to it after death and thus given the opportunity to get to Heaven. This is sometimes called Divine Perseverance.   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unitive Pluralism&lt;/strong&gt;: All of the world's great religions offer salvation to their members in different ways. A knowledge and acceptance of Jesus, and the sacrifice of Jesus are not needed for a person to be saved.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Universalism&lt;/strong&gt;: All will eventually be accepted into Heaven by some process after death.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is however common to all of these that &lt;strong&gt;good works is not in anyway going to compensate for a knowing refusal to accept Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;. That in itself the sin of pride - the belief that you can somehow reject the path provided by the creator of the universe and make your own path instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-08-01T01:09:42.217" LastActivityDate="2014-08-01T01:09:42.217" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1823" CreationDate="2011-09-02T22:33:17.663" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When talking with Peter at the last supper Peter asks a question about John (John:21 v20-22).&#xA;The Lord responds by saying &quot;What is it to you [peter] if I will that he tarry till I come,...?&quot; (I paraphrased see verses for exact wording). Anyways people assume that after going to the island of Patmos that John wrote several letters and died there. But as far as I am aware there is no documented proof that John died there he just disappeared from the historical record. Now if you believe that Christ has all power and that he made this prediction then is it so hard to believe that He can't keep John the beloved disciple alive until he comes again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T21:07:19.847" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T21:07:19.847" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1809" CreationDate="2011-09-02T22:48:20.510" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What makes you think that it's an either/or answer? I believe that BOTH faith and works are required. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 2:17&lt;/a&gt; is pretty clear on the subject, however anyone who has spent some time in the Bible will realize that God requires faith and the actions that back up that faith to enter into His kingdom after judgements. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James uses the example in verse 16 that if there is a hungry and cold man, all the faith in the world will not profit, the true disciple of Christ would HELP that person instead of just believing. However, if he were to help that person out of anything other than faith in Christ, it would profit him nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="433" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T21:36:20.143" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T21:36:20.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1849" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1874" CreationDate="2011-09-02T23:48:07.257" Score="19" ViewCount="1663" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the argument that it is possible for someone to learn limited (non-salvific) information about God without learning about him from the Bible or another believer, such as from nature?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-04-25T02:58:20.787" LastActivityDate="2016-04-25T02:58:20.787" Title="What is the argument and Biblical basis that it is possible to know God from nature?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;general-revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1850" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1852" CreationDate="2011-09-03T00:25:08.883" Score="15" ViewCount="574" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus preached that the faithful should give up their wealth and worldly possessions and spend a humble existence in servitude of God. A church must have a certain amount of wealth in order to continue operating, serving its parishioners, and delivering the word to non-believers. However, churches of all denominations certainly amass wealth for its own sake. The canonical example of this is the Roman Catholic Church, whose ostentatious wealth I find shameful in the light of Jesus's teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does Christianity say about the wealth of a church? Its priests? Does wealth acquired in the name of the service of God have the same stigma as wealth acquired for ordinary reasons? Why or why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, merely a curious agnostic.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="198" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T16:13:17.350" Title="Is it right for a church to be wealthy?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-17T21:58:02.723" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1850" CreationDate="2011-09-03T00:55:36.307" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm unaware of Jesus preaching anywhere &quot;that the faithful should give up their wealth and worldly possessions and spend a humble existence in servitude of God.&quot;  In Luke chapter 18 we have the account of one person who Jesus said should divest himself of his worldly possessions and distribute his wealth to the poor if he would be perfect, but this is nowhere mentioned as a general commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theme that does come up again and again, both in Jesus's preaching and in the various apostolic letters later on, is to keep your priorities straight.  Wealth becomes sinful if you let the pursuit of wealth become more important to you than the pursuit of righteousness.  This is why we are told that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt; of money&lt;/em&gt;, not the money itself, is the root of all evil.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, having resources available gives you the power to do good with them.  Witness the impact that the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities have on disadvantaged communities, or the way the Mormons tend to always show up promptly at the scene of any major disaster with large amounts of supplies and volunteers to contribute to relief efforts.  These are people living their religion, actively giving of themselves to help those in need, as Jesus and his apostles did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking to grade religions on Christian living, a better question than &quot;how much money does church X have?&quot; is &quot;what do they do with their resources?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T04:49:30.297" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T04:49:30.297" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2011-09-03T01:20:56.553" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is your source for the word &quot;perfect&quot;?  Not all Christians necessarily believe this.  Here's an excerpt from &lt;em&gt;The Orthodox Church&lt;/em&gt;, by Timothy Ware:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Humans at their first creation were therefore perfect, not so much in an actual as in a potential sense.  Endowed with the image from the start, they were called to acquire the likeness by their own efforts (assisted of course by the grace of God).  Adam began in a state of innocence and simplicity.  &quot;He was a child, not yet having his understanding perfected,&quot; wrote Irenaeus.  &quot;It was necessary that he should grow and so come to his perfection.&quot;  God set Adam on the right path, but Adam had in front of him a long road to traverse in order to reach his final goal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He notes later that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to Augustine, humans in Paradise were endowed from the start with all possible wisdom and knowledge...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine has had an outsize influence in Western Christianity, but the idea that Adam and Eve were perfect beings wasn't universal in early Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the answer from an Eastern Orthodox perspective would be, I think, that Adam and Eve had free will and were far from perfect.  Adam and Eve were as likely to sin as any one of us is.  They were tempted by the serpent; they could have resisted; but they chose not to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T01:20:56.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1855" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1867" CreationDate="2011-09-03T01:42:04.630" Score="16" ViewCount="53902" Body="&lt;p&gt;I enjoy praying lying in bed just before I sleep ... until I fall asleep. In church I usually pray with my hands simply by my side or even with my hands in my pockets. I just let them stay wherever they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I have seen that many people change positions before they pray, often clasping their hands together or opening them towards something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything particularly wrong with praying lying in bed or with your hands in your pockets? Is there any particular reason one must change positions to begin praying?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T14:53:30.370" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T06:20:23.270" Title="Can we pray from any position?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T00:35:31.553" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1849" CreationDate="2011-09-03T01:53:26.790" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possible to envision the idea of God by looking to creation as you've said. It is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;How many are your works, LORD!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; In wisdom you made them all;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; the earth is full of your creatures.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;There is the sea, vast and spacious,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; teeming with creatures beyond number—&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; living things both large and small.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;There the ships go to and fro,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;All creatures look to you&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; to give them their food at the proper time.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;When you give it to them,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; they gather it up;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  when you open your hand,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; they are satisfied with good things.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;When you hide your face,&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; they are terrified;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; when you take away their breath,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; they die and return to the dust.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;When you send your Spirit,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; they are created,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; and you renew the face of the ground.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20104:24-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Psalms 104:24-30, NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you want a non-biblical argument there are also philosophical arguments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Aristotle in his works metaphysics explains about the absolute substance, the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nickny79.hubpages.com/hub/The-Unmoved-Mover-in-Aristotles-Metaphysics&quot;&gt;unmoved mover&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. He deduced this idea by observing the nature.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the substances he describes is that of an &quot;unmoved mover&quot;&#xA;  which, he argues, exists by necessity and is eternal. For something to&#xA;  be eternal, it is neither created nor destroyed, but always has and&#xA;  always will exist. For something to be a substance, it exists by&#xA;  virtue of itself (&quot;kath'auton&quot;) in the sense that its existence is not&#xA;  dependent on anything else&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another philosopher, Descartes, by observing that in nature there are different degrees of perfection in the created beings, he deduced that there must be one perfect being.  If that being could not exist, then that being could not be perfect. This is known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/&quot;&gt;Descartes ontological argument&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument goes like this (quotation from the article)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Necessary existence is a perfection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This philosophical idea has received criticism during the 20th century. But my point was to show that during the centuries, men have found themselves so amazed by nature that they could rationally conceive that God is the creator and that he is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although, by mere rational argumentation one cannot grasp important facts about our Lord such as his Love for mankind, or to experience his love embrace and his transforming power in our souls. I think of two reasons: the first is the imperfection of the human mind, as it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the&#xA;  weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1:25, NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the second, that there are clear limits to human understanding, and that most of it is vanity of vanities; as it is written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than&#xA;  anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much&#xA;  of wisdom and knowledge.” &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;Then I applied myself to the&#xA;  understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned&#xA;  that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; the more knowledge, the more grief. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201:16-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 1: 16-18, NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T20:21:19.163" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T20:21:19.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1860" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-03T02:19:19.623" Score="14" ViewCount="3111" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question of man's creation is addressed quite thoroughly in the Bible (whether you believe it is metaphorical or not).  Does the Bible (or other relevant references) in any way answer who created God, or how he was created?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is &lt;strong&gt;an overview of&lt;/strong&gt; the major common or prevalent Christian* teachings on this topic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note&lt;/strong&gt;, to the answers that say he was not created&amp;mdash;some explanation, reasoning, and, ideally, &lt;em&gt;references&lt;/em&gt; are what are being asked for here.  Without any of that, it is an answer that is simply &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;begging the question&lt;/a&gt; and not an answer that helps a questioning person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* Answers from any/all major denominations would be helpful.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="430" LastEditorUserId="12563" LastEditDate="2016-03-31T13:32:45.660" LastActivityDate="2018-08-26T11:49:11.977" Title="What are the main views on who created God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="16" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T02:29:38.137" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;God does not change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I the LORD do not change. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%203:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Malachi 3:6a&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God transcends time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:58&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 8:58&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first verse indicates that, since God is not an effect, no cause is necessary to explain His existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second verse strengthens the argument by demonstrating that God exists beyond the constraints of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-10T20:25:12.323" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T20:25:12.323" CommentCount="20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1630" CreationDate="2011-09-03T02:34:31.480" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fact is the very exact, original pronunciation or vocalization of God's name is lost. But the original name is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, each language have have their own translation of the name 'Jesus' but 'Jesus' is neither the original vocalization of Jesus' name, its not the way they described it in Hebrew or in Greek way back then, yet we &quot;accept&quot; the name 'Jesus' to pertain to Jesus. This is also true with the other characters in the Bible like 'Moises', 'Jeremiah' and 'Peter', these are 'translation' of their names in English, and this is also true with God's name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken from the Tetragrammaton, 'YHWH' which has also equivalent with 'JHVH', some early language scholars choose 'Jehovah' as the translation of God's name. They use 'Jehovah' to represent God's name in translating the Bible in other languages and this translation has been accepted and used for many centuries. Centuries after 'Jehovah' became the popular translation some Hebrew scholars then recommended that the name of God be translated to Hebrew as 'Yahweh'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the name 'Jesus' is 'accepted' to be the name of Jesus in English, why not use 'Jehovah', which has been 'accepted' and used for centuries to represent the God's name in English and other languages and Yahweh to represent God's name in Hebrew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings to the conclusion that although 'Jehovah' might be not the exact pronunciation of the name of God but it is the exact name of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, why others are not used to the name 'Jehovah' or even admit that God's name is Jehovah the fact that they know that it is really the name of God. Because it is already widely used by Jehovah's Witnesses around the world. That if they used it, this might prove that the Jehovah's Witnesses are right.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="437" LastEditorUserId="437" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T14:12:28.307" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T14:12:28.307" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T02:48:18.103" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is simply &quot;I AM&quot;.  He never started nor will end.  He has always been and always will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="100" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T02:48:18.103" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1855" CreationDate="2011-09-03T03:03:01.847" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, you don't have to put you hands together.  People usually put their hands together either as a sign of reverence or to help focus and get into a correct spiritual posture fir prayer or both. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can pray in just about any manner you see fit, though.  I'll often pray while driving (with my eyes open).  I often see people praying with their hands raised.  You can even lay flat on the floor with your hands spread out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think its import that you take a position that makes you comfortable, shows reverence to the Lord, and postures your heart to communicate with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T03:03:01.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T03:07:26.560" Score="43" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is not answerable from a Christian perspective; it presupposes God was created, but the Bible clearly teaches that God is eternal (in the truest sense of the word).  An eternal being has no creator, no beginning, no end, and no cause.  Rather he is the creator of all that is, the beginning and the end of all that is, and the cause of all that is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, don't confuse eternal (having no beginning or end) with everlasting (just having no end).  An eternal being is literally timeless, whereas an everlasting being exists in time and lasts from it's inception forever.  An eternal being is everlasting, but an everlasting being is not necessarily eternal.  Only God is eternal, though Christians will be raised to everlasting life in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also that when the Bible speaks of eternal life, it means the life that comes from Christ, which is itself eternal as Christ is; it is not speaking of those of us who &lt;em&gt;receive&lt;/em&gt; this life somehow becoming eternal, per se.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, Biblical teaching of God's eternal nature:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+21:33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 21:33&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA; Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the &lt;strong&gt;Eternal&lt;/strong&gt; God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+33:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 33:27&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA; The &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt; God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemies before you, saying, 'Destroy them!'&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+111:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 111:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA; The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt; praise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+119:89&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 119:89&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA; Your word, LORD, is &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt;; it stands firm in the heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+119:160&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 119:160&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA; All your words are true; all your righteous laws are &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+26:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 26:4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA; Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD himself, is the Rock &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-09-01T21:06:17.610" LastActivityDate="2014-09-01T21:06:17.610" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1870" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-03T03:51:15.300" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Questions on this site explore the belief systems of various Christian groups and &lt;em&gt;do not&lt;/em&gt; make &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3527/we-cant-handle-the-truth&quot;&gt;Truth our standard&lt;/a&gt;.  For some Christians from many denominations, the Scriptures define most or all their doctrine.  This tag is meant to represent their perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1438/914&quot;&gt;Is &quot;biblical-basis&quot; a de-facto denomination designation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2017-01-28T21:38:01.433" LastActivityDate="2017-01-28T21:38:01.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1871" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-03T03:51:15.300" Score="0" Body="&quot;Biblical basis&quot; is the way in which a practice or belief is derived from Scripture. Use this tag to ask how Christians use the Bible to derive a specific belief. " OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2017-01-28T21:38:14.907" LastActivityDate="2017-01-28T21:38:14.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1872" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-03T04:02:17.507" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the context of a &lt;em&gt;specific&lt;/em&gt; Christian denomination (eg Anglican), theology is the group of doctrinal stances upon which the specific branch rests is arguments regarding God, life, and the interpretation of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag to ask questions about theological study itself. If you are asking about the theology of some other subject, such as the 'theology of baptism', use the 'baptism' tag instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:49:07.243" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:49:07.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1873" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-03T04:02:17.507" Score="0" Body="the academic study of God and religion" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:13:40.320" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:13:40.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1849" CreationDate="2011-09-03T04:13:45.063" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well you have two questions here and there are opposite answers for each.&#xA;Can you know about God without the Bible or other believer? Yes according to the Bible you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Romans 1:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2019:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Psalms 19:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 The heavens declare the glory of God; &#xA;     the skies proclaim the work of his hands. &#xA;  2 Day after day they pour forth speech; &#xA;     night after night they reveal knowledge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then comes the title question. Is it possible to KNOW God from nature? The answer is no.   Just like you can learn some things about my intelligence by looking at the way I code programs, you could never KNOW me just by looking at my code. In fact you could get the wrong idea about me completely if you only look at the actual code and don't read the comments in it! You've got to come to where I am if you want to know me. That's just logic, but what does the Bible say about that? How would we 'come' to God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;John 14:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &quot;I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you can know about God without help from the bible, but I don't think you can say you could KNOW God without either the Bible, or others who know Him, because in order to KNOW God you have to have faith in Jesus, and while the heavens openly and obviously declare the glory of God, they don't obviously announce the person of Jesus Christ.  However, that doesn't mean that if no Bible or christian is available you can't ever know Him, God said in several places those who seek Him will find Him.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%204:29&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 4:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if from there you seek the LORD your God, &#xA;  you will find him if you look for him with all your heart &#xA;  and with all your soul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if there is scripture or other christians available and you don't consult them, how could you claim to be seeking God with all your heart and soul?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T16:14:34.010" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T16:14:34.010" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T04:25:36.153" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question has been the subject of much philosophical and metaphysical enquiry. It belongs to the philosophical category of cosmology. Briefly, every thing, every action (or reaction), every event in the universe has a cause. There is an unbroken chain of causes going back in time. How far back? Most philosophers came to the conclusion that eventually there would be a &lt;em&gt;First Cause&lt;/em&gt;, before which there were no prior causes, and this First Cause occurred (by definition) at the creation (beginning) of the universe.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument&quot;&gt;Cosmological Argument&lt;/a&gt; is one of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God&quot;&gt;arguments&lt;/a&gt; for the existence of God, and it identifies God as the First Cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So by this reasoning, by definition, God could not be created. If he was created, then God would not be the First Cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T04:25:36.153" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="587" CreationDate="2011-09-03T04:31:04.693" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tongues used in any other context refers to a different language not babbling that makes no sense to anyone. In this case the injunction against speaking in more then a few tongues and keeping quiet if no one could translate for you makes complete sense. How confusing would it be to walk into a church and hear 20 different languages or dialects being spoken (something that could of happened easily in that day around the Mediterranean sea) or in the latter case have someone get up in church to speak but he is the only one speaking the language so no one else can understand? Personally I think that the gift of tongues is a gift from God and should be understood to be the ability to comprehend or understand languages other then one's own. Wither spontaneously (a miracle) or through hard work and study.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T04:31:04.693" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20" CreationDate="2011-09-03T04:41:03.167" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Nathan said, before you are able to distinguish not just right from wrong (a four year old can do that if you tell him to do this but not do that) but actually comprehend why doing something is either good or bad. You are incapable of sin and so can't therefore go to hell. As an aside to some of your comments where in the bible does it say that babies should be baptized? And can anyone give an example from the New or Old Testament saying that a baby was baptized so that it could be saved? The first documented cases of infant baptism that I am aware of happen well after the death of Christ and the apostles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T04:41:03.167" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1878" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="46599" CreationDate="2011-09-03T05:03:41.443" Score="21" ViewCount="2811" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given the triune God, one nature and three persons, do they experience their will in their singular nature or in their separate persons?  That is, do they share one will, or does each have a separate will which is in perfect harmony with the others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What have published commentaries said on this subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-30T15:35:36.290" LastActivityDate="2017-02-09T08:29:34.663" Title="Does the triune God have will by nature, or by persons?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;will-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2017-02-10T00:53:30.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1878" CreationDate="2011-09-03T05:26:57.537" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I'm not 100% certain I understand your question. If you're asking what I think; Jesus implied that the will of the Father, Son, and Spirit are separate, as He spoke a lot about the Father's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 6:40, NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:42&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:42, NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 6:39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think Jesus clearly implied that He had the ability to disagree, but He chose to do the will of the Father. &#xA;I think the clearest statement of this is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:27-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 8:27-29, NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T06:40:40.237" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T06:40:40.237" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T05:36:03.790" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everything that we experience here on earth comes from something and goes somewhere. It's hard for us to even begin to consider something with life that did not have a beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not a material being, he's a spiritual being. We understand matter, the growth and the decay and the cycles which are in place. Just as it's impossible for us to comprehend a fourth and fifth dimension, it is also impossible for us to comprehend life without a beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God where to tell us, through the Bible, how he exists, it would be impossible for us to understand it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that said, God has always been. God will always be. He is the life and the life giver. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has not been created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T05:36:03.790" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1775" CreationDate="2011-09-03T06:11:35.640" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The scripture from 1 Peter is pretty solid, there is also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:19-20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:19-20 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; By which also [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffereing of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So according to this the people who were wicked during the days of Noah (almost everyone as you can see only 8 were saved) were given a second chance to hear the gospel from Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:29&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is talking about the resurrection for most of the chapter and the fact that because Christ was resurrected all men will be resurrected but here he talks about baptism for the dead like its an accepted practice of the time (I know there are a few other references in the Bible to baptism for the dead I just don't remember them off the top of my head.) So if people have no chance to be taught after they die but baptism is a saving ordnance of the kingdom why then would people be baptized for the dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also it seems awfully strange to me that so many Christians believe that if you die with out knowledge of Christ then you are dammed for eternity. That does not seem like the doctrine of Christ in the New Testament who came &quot;that all might live through Him&quot;. I think from these examples and others that people who have no chance to accept Christ in this life (which if you think about it is 90% of all the humans that have lived on this earth) will have a chance to hear the gospel in the next life and accept Christ as their savior.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T19:49:19.053" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:49:19.053" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T06:22:40.623" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;We get the idea that God is not created throughout the Bible, some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelations 22:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah God tells us that there is no other god besides Him. So no one to create Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 45:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 2:4 it states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word LORD is Jehovah, which the definition is &quot;the self-Existent or Eternal&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in Genesis 1:1 we see: In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth.&#xA;So that means he by nature had to exist before the beging of time. &#xA;We also see in &#xA;2 Peter 3:8—‘one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day’ also making it clear that God is completely outside of time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also see in 1 Kings 8:27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Heaven of Heavens cannot contain the Glory of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it makes it pretty clear before there was such an idea of space-time, the Bible said using other words, God is outside of the fabric of space-time. and speaking of fabric it says He &quot;stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:&#xA;- Isaiah 40:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in closing, Even though it's hard to comprehend for some. God is outside of time, so He dosen't need to have a beginning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-11T17:54:26.800" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T17:54:26.800" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1824" CreationDate="2011-09-03T06:22:48.130" Score="35" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1824/who-saved-people-before-33ad/1826#1826&quot;&gt;answer from aceinthehole&lt;/a&gt; is on the right track, but here is the key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:4&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Caleb, you are definitely onto something, because this verse clearly tells us that nobody in the old testament was actually saved through the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:1&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the&#xA;realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same&#xA;sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who&#xA;draw near to worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nobody can deny that the law given in the old testament is based off of something other then God's nature. The law was only a shadow of Christ Himself, in which, all of the fullness of God dwelled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:5-6&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared&#xA;for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not&#xA;pleased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Here's the key to God's Vindication&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 3:25-26&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the&#xA;shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to&#xA;demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left&#xA;the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate&#xA;his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one&#xA;who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, the saints of the old testament were also saved through Faith in Christ and Love for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which&#xA;you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you&#xA;have heard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 John 1:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you&#xA;have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The command to love was given to us from the old testament and is given to us again in the new testament. Remember Genesis, Hebrews, Romans and James where it talks about Abraham's great Faith in God? The law was not given to Abraham! Abraham was saved through Faith in God. And love for God, that Abraham would obey when he was commanded to sacrifice Isaac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abraham was saved through Faith and Love, just as we are today.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T19:01:00.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1775" CreationDate="2011-09-03T06:35:39.653" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's talking about all human beings on the planet. Even though these people that you speak with on a daily basis seem very alive, they are dead in their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 2:13&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your&#xA;  flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 2:1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And the key to this is here.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 2:4-5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5&#xA;  made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it&#xA;  is by grace you have been saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now take a look at your verse again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Peter 4:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are&#xA;  now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in&#xA;  regard to the body, &lt;strong&gt;but live according to God in regard to the spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, these people were once dead, but are now alive in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T06:35:39.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T06:45:37.767" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question assumes the existence of time, i.e. that there was a time &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; God. However, the first four words in the Bible are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God was there at the start of time, it implies to me that He must have created time. This is another way of saying that He has always been in existence. Ever since time existed, God has been there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also why God can be considered the First Cause: there was nothing before Him, because there was no time before Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2018-08-26T11:49:11.977" LastActivityDate="2018-08-26T11:49:11.977" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T07:14:58.247" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-26046&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:1-18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Word Became Flesh&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; He was with God in the beginning. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome&lt;sup&gt;[a]&lt;/sup&gt; it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; There was a man sent from God whose name was John. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and&lt;sup&gt;[b]&lt;/sup&gt; is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[a]&lt;/sup&gt; Or &lt;i&gt;understood&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[b]&lt;/sup&gt; Some manuscripts &lt;i&gt;but the only Son, who&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This scripture deals with the existence of God from eternity past.  Technically it is recursive..  God and the Son of God are one.  That is why in Genesis it says,  &amp;quot;And God said Let us make man in our image.&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;Us&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;our&amp;quot; is plural but then God is a spirit and one God he is...  obviously since God and the existence of God from eternity past  Transcends everything we would classify as Aristotelian or Platonian logic.it is hard to grasp..   This is okay though since God created Plato and Aristotle and their logic (which we have been indoctrinated to use) is simply a apprehension of the truth and not a full comprehension of truth.  I like many and there are many scriptures that deal with God's everlasting existence.  I like this one above the most because it explains that God and the Word of God(Jesus Christ) has always existed...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="456" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T13:45:56.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1809" CreationDate="2011-09-03T08:28:14.040" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.&#xA;To think an atheist can get into heaven via works is an upside down perspective. It's not &quot;act right, etc.&quot; It's grace. It's not the love of self or the actions of a believer that deliver them from separation from their creator. It's the lack of selflessness and pride. The inability to let go and think or love anything above itself. To think that it (the creation) is the end all be all. What biblical Christianity calls for is a release of self. The service and love of God completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9 -&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 2:3 -&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="107" LastEditorUserId="107" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T17:59:34.713" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T17:59:34.713" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1809" CreationDate="2011-09-03T09:10:34.020" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is quite a clear question. Let me define both sides of this question first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An atheist, is  a person who doesn't believe in God, Heaven, or Hell.  He doesn't believe in Jesus, the Holy Ghost, or the need for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the Bible, states in I John 5 : 11-12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this means that we &lt;strong&gt;have&lt;/strong&gt; to believe on the Son of God, in order to have salvation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye BELIEVE not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.(John 8:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An atheist, &lt;strong&gt;does not&lt;/strong&gt; believe in Jesus Christ! Therefore, it is &lt;strong&gt;impossible&lt;/strong&gt; for an atheist to go to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T10:22:40.057" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1338" CreationDate="2011-09-03T09:21:11.750" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer lies in the soul of each person n particular, so we cannot distinguish between a Christian and a non-Christian. Only God thoroughly knows each person, and is the only Judge. We probably should not try to identify certain people as non-Christians.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="463" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T09:21:11.750" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T10:29:56.577" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas showed the existance of God using 5 ways. The second way deals with your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nothing exists prior to itself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that first efficient cause was not created. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="469" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T11:54:09.747" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T11:54:09.747" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T13:26:20.430" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most mainline (most protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) Christians believe that God has always existed, has no source, and no end, and that &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; things were created by Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shortercatechism.com/resources/wsc/wsc_004.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;fourth question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism&lt;/a&gt; is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q:&lt;/strong&gt; What is God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A:&lt;/strong&gt; God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a view that is certainly supported by the Bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the mountains were brought forth,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or ever you had formed the earth and the world,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;from everlasting to everlasting you are God.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2090:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 90:2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first chapter of the Gospel of John also lends credence to this belief, indicating that all things were created through God/Jesus.  If everything that was made was made through Him, He Himself could not be made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1-3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:1-3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other sects may have other beliefs with regard to the nature of God and His origins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T20:16:28.730" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1903" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-03T14:42:13.630" Score="7" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it a requirement of the faith that all adherents must believe in the literal flow of events as conveyed by the Bible surrounding the life of Jesus Christ?  Is it possible for someone to accept his teachings as presented, while still doubting or even disbelieving entirely some or all of the events presented therein?  Is it necessary to be fully convinced in the events of the Passion, the betrayal of Judas, and all of the events contained therein to be a Christian?  If not, were is the line drawn?  Is it necessary to believe that Jesus actually walked on water, or can that tale be accepted as a morality tale without accepting that it literally happened?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="480" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T13:29:58.627" Title="Is Belief in the Historical Accuracy of Gospels a prerequisite to Christianity?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T15:25:57.293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1903" CreationDate="2011-09-03T14:53:11.737" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; believe all events portrayed actually happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I &lt;em&gt;do not&lt;/em&gt; think there is any requirement in Christianity that you understand or even believe everything just perfectly so -- cross your t's and dot your i's -- in order to be saved. You can not be convinced of the exact details in the gospel accounts and still believe in Jesus as savior. Do you or do you not believe that He is Lord, the only way to the Father, the one who secured God's forgiveness for your sins? If so then there is lots of grace for our doubts and confusions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question in return would be: Why? What is the point? Also, how did you get there? Let's take the walk-on-water example. If you believe Jesus is who he said he is, something had to convince you of that. If the accounts we have of His miracles are to be distrusted and discarded, how are we to trust the accounts of His teachings about being the only savior of men? If his disciples fabricated the story of His walking on water, what business have we to trust the teachings they spread throughout the area in the years following?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is room in Christianity for all manner of mis-directed beliefs. Our salvation depends on the person and works of someone else, not our own. We would all be damned if we had to get every detail right. However, if we HAVE been saved, I think it is part of our calling to learn as much about Him as we can as rightly as we can. There is no excuse for deliberate disbelief or being picky-choosy just because you don't LIKE something that He taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T14:53:11.737" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1903" CreationDate="2011-09-03T15:52:01.753" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once had a deacon say to me &quot;Everything in the Bible is true. And some of it actually happened.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically I believe most of what is in the New Testament happened, or something close to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, I believe some of the historical stuff like where they are talking about which kings did this and that (it seems as believable as any other history), but in the earlier books like Genesis where they talk about Noah and the Ark and Jonah and the whale and those stories, not so much. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="481" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T15:52:01.753" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1850" CreationDate="2011-09-03T16:13:17.350" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The value of a church's resources are based on market value. They don't necessarily have huge bank accounts. Churches have the same expenses any company would have, such as utilities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, older organizations, such as the Catholic Church, have large collections of art or relics that have value. But their value is only that to collectors, it's not like they are going to destroy valuable pieces to melt down and sell gold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the land they own, again that's market value. They need a certain amount of land in specific places to serve the people in their communities. So does a certain church sit on a multi-million dollar property? Maybe they do, but so what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, most churches have programs to benefit their communities. That's their point. And I've seen churches with large quantities of electronics that must have cost thousands. I would presume their technology budgets are self-supporting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I think the churches with excess budgets, that is, taking in much more than they are spending, are probably in the minority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="481" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T16:13:17.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1908" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-03T16:25:50.137" Score="11" ViewCount="90412" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen many conflicting biblical statements that have been interpreted as condemning psychics and others that promote using &quot;gifts from God&quot;. How can a psychic reconcile such a gift without conflicting with biblical teachings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that matter, if one is psychic, how can you tell if it's a gift from God or somewhere else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="481" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-31T23:33:02.647" LastActivityDate="2014-10-31T23:33:02.647" Title="Is it possible to be a good Christian and be psychic at the same time?" Tags="&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;divination&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-03-12T06:38:11.340" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1908" CreationDate="2011-09-03T17:05:43.740" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;If by psychic you mean somehow able to foretell the future or discern secret things in someone's life, we could examine what the Bible said about prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;JEREMIAH 28:9&lt;/strong&gt; The prophet which prophesieth of peace, &lt;strong&gt;when the word of&#xA;  the prophet shall come to pass&lt;/strong&gt;, then shall the prophet be known, that&#xA;  the LORD hath truly sent him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 18:20-22&lt;/strong&gt; But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a&#xA;  word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that&#xA;  shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.&#xA;  And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the&#xA;  LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the&#xA;  LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously:&#xA;  thou shalt not be afraid of him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize, if it is from the Lord, it will always be 100% correct, without error, no mistakes at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also important to note that the prophets of old were very specific. It was easy to tell if they had made a mistake or not. For example, Jeremiah prophesied that Hananiah would be dead within a year. It was very easy to tell if the prophecy was true (from the Lord) or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T17:05:43.740" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1812" CreationDate="2011-09-03T17:11:25.380" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ESV Study Bible includes this note about the purchase of the property in the Acts account:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That is, the field was acquired indirectly by Judas, through the agency of the chief priests. As Matt. 27:3–7 records, Judas brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders. The chief priests then purchased the potter’s field with Judas’s money, with the same effect as if Judas had himself made the purchase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse in Matthew uses the word &lt;code&gt;ἀγοράζω&lt;/code&gt; (transliterated &lt;code&gt;agorazō&lt;/code&gt;, strongs #59) which is translated consistently as &quot;buy&quot; or &quot;purchase&quot; through 27 places in the NT. 3 more instances in Revelation are translated &quot;redeem&quot; or &quot;ransom&quot; which certainly carries the same general idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A further examination of the verse in Acts shows that the Greek word used is &lt;code&gt;κτάομαι&lt;/code&gt; (transliterated &lt;code&gt;ktaomai&lt;/code&gt;, strongs #2932). The other places it occurs in scripture are translated in the ESV as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/esv/passage/Matthew%2010:9/&quot;&gt;acquire&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/esv/passage/Luke%2018:12/&quot;&gt;get&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/esv/passage/Luke%2021:19/&quot;&gt;gain&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/esv/passage/Acts%208:20/&quot;&gt;obtain&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/esv/passage/Acts%2022:28/&quot;&gt;bought&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and even &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/esv/passage/1%20Thessalonians%204:4/&quot;&gt;control&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. It seems quite likely that the word &lt;em&gt;could be used&lt;/em&gt; for something acquired through a transaction in which you used your own money, but it &lt;em&gt;quite often used&lt;/em&gt; for other ways of coming into possession or control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems quite probably that the two verses can be indeed be reconciled as the note above suggests. The Chief Priests did the buying but somehow Judas came to use the land. Whether the Priests deeded it to him as part of the purchase or he was only squatting on it out of some morbid interest in seeing what happened to his money -- or some other explanation -- is not stated. There does not appear to be a real conflict between these two statements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T17:11:25.380" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1803" CreationDate="2011-09-03T17:24:02.200" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; very similar imagery in Revelation to particular verses in Joel. A comparison is shown below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joel 2:4-5&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;4 They have the appearance of horses;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;they gallop along like cavalry.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;5 With a noise like that of chariots&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;they leap over the mountaintops,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;like a crackling fire consuming stubble,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;like a mighty army drawn up for battle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 9:7-8&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is support for the idea that Joel's Army is an end-times army. But wait! Shortly after that bit in Joel, there's these few verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joel 2:25-26&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;25 “I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten—&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;the great locust and the young locust,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;the other locusts and the locust swarm[b]—&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;my great army that I sent among you.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;26 You will have plenty to eat, until you are full,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and you will praise the name of the LORD your God,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;who has worked wonders for you;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;never again will my people be shamed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This sounds more literal, and as such, it makes it seem like the earlier passages may have been metaphors. However, immediately after that, it's back into end-timey talk:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joel 2:28-32&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;28 “And afterward,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;I will pour out my Spirit on all people.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Your sons and daughters will prophesy,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;your old men will dream dreams,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;your young men will see visions.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it doesn't really make sense that Joel/God would insert a short literal passage in a chapter of symbolism, I'm going to say that Joel's Army appears to be an end-times army.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T17:24:02.200" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1803" CreationDate="2011-09-03T17:24:30.423" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joel 1 tells of an invasion of locusts which eats everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joel%201:4-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joel 1:4-7 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4 What the locust swarm has left&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the great locusts have eaten; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  what the great locusts have left &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the young locusts have eaten; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  what the young locusts have left &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;other locusts[a] have eaten.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  5 Wake up, you drunkards, and weep! &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Wail, all you drinkers of wine; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  wail because of the new wine, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for it has been snatched from your lips. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  6 A nation has invaded my land, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;a mighty army without number; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  it has the teeth of a lion, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the fangs of a lioness. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  7 It has laid waste my vines &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and ruined my fig trees. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  It has stripped off their bark &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and thrown it away, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;leaving their branches white.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joel 2 describes what the appearance of the locusts will be like.  They will block out the sun like clouds and making a loud noise like an army.  After they devour a field, it will be like it has been devoured by fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joel%202:2-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joel 2:2-5 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2 a day of darkness and gloom, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;a day of clouds and blackness. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Like dawn spreading across the mountains &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;a large and mighty army comes, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  such as never was in ancient times &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nor ever will be in ages to come.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;&#xA;   3 Before them fire devours, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;behind them a flame blazes. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Before them the land is like the garden of Eden, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;behind them, a desert waste— &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;nothing escapes them. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4 They have the appearance of horses; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;they gallop along like cavalry. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  5 With a noise like that of chariots &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;they leap over the mountaintops, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  like a crackling fire consuming stubble, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;like a mighty army drawn up for battle.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T17:24:30.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1718" CreationDate="2011-09-03T17:54:11.257" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GENESIS 2:9&lt;/strong&gt; And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree&#xA;  that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life&#xA;  also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and&#xA;  evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Tree of Life represented Christ, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represented Satan. The two trees represented two choices that we all have, to choose the right, or the wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of Genesis Chapter 3 Adam and Eve are driven from the garden to keep them away from the &lt;strong&gt;way&lt;/strong&gt; of the Tree of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:22-23&lt;/strong&gt; And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become&#xA;  as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his&#xA;  hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:&#xA;  Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till&#xA;  the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he&#xA;  placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming&#xA;  sword which turned every way, &lt;strong&gt;to keep the way of the tree of life&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 35:8 speaks of the return of this &quot;way&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ISAIAH 35:8&lt;/strong&gt; And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be&#xA;  called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it&#xA;  shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err&#xA;  therein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation, we learn that overcomers can once again partake of the Tree of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 2:8 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit&#xA;  saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of&#xA;  the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Tree of Life produces fruit, which can be found in Galatians 5:22-24.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 5:22-24&lt;/strong&gt; But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,&#xA;  longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,  Meekness, temperance:&#xA;  against such there is no law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eve (figuratively) ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil by disbelieving His Word. She literally ate from the Tree by participating in an act that is subject to much debate, and is outside of the scope of this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T17:54:11.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1855" CreationDate="2011-09-03T18:25:46.153" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though you can pray in any position, physical position does matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the subject of why it might matter a monk wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Be conscious of physical position as well as soul&lt;/strong&gt; During prayer&#xA;  one should stand straight with ones eyes fixed on the icon or lowered&#xA;  to the ground, while, at the same time, the eyes of the soul, together&#xA;  with one's soulful aspirations, should be lifted up to God. This&#xA;  outward attitude of piety in prayer is both necessary and beneficial,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;for the disposition of the soul is in conformity with the&#xA;  disposition of the body.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Eastern Christians pray in front of icons, usually.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To further the point, kneeling and clasping hands, as well as standing upright seem to be try to achieve the same thing; matching the proper disposition of soul with that of body, with the idea in mind that they are connected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wished to beseech, say, your best friend to help you, what position would you speak to them in? And what about someone far greater than they? This is the reasoning behind selecting a physical position, whether it be standing up straight or kneeling reverently. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final point is that it is considered that the position of the body will affect the disposition of the soul, and thus while it is better to pray than to not pray, it is better to pray in a position which reflects the disposition you'd wish your soul to have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Standing upright reflects alertness, vigilance, readiness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Kneeling reflects devotion, reverence, acceptance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;etc.,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To conclude I would say there is nothing wrong with praying supine, but that your position will affect the way you pray, and that there may be a better way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T18:35:58.323" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T18:35:58.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1908" CreationDate="2011-09-03T18:45:51.147" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;That would depend on the source of the power and how it is being used. In the scripture, those who are what we'd traditionally call 'psychics' are depicted as having congress with some kind of spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the more important question is how it is being used; it is not uncommon for a person to claim to be a Christian psychic but fall into the trap of using their gift to attract followers and magnify themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recall that Paul admonishes the Christians to accept no other Gospel than what they received from him, even if it comes from an angel. Therefore wisdom acquired even from a good spirit is suspect according to tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common use of psychic abilities (alleged or otherwise) is to predict the future; and the truth of the prediction may be irrelevant. Consider this story from St. Antony the Great's sayings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sayings of the Fathers: Anthony&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12.&lt;/strong&gt; Some of the brothers came to Abba Anthony to tell him the dreams&#xA;  they had seen, and to learn from him if they are true, or from demons.&#xA;  Now they had a donkey, and it died on the way. When they finally came&#xA;  to the elder, he said to them first, How did the little donkey die on&#xA;  the way? They said to him, How did you know that, Abba? And he said to&#xA;  them, The demons showed me. And they said to him, That is why we came&#xA;  to ask you, lest we be led astray, because we have seen dreams, and&#xA;  many times they are true. And the elder fully convinced them by the&#xA;  example of the donkey, that they are from demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lesson here is that a demon could give a true prediction to a certain extent, and this may be utilized to mislead the psychic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T18:45:51.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-03T18:56:51.940" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Basic Christian teaching on this is as Genesis puts it (and as John echoes in his Gospel) 'in the Beginning, God...' All things start with God and proceed from there. Some other answers have talked about the eternal, which is just a way to say if God has a sort of beginning, it is not a temporal beginning and the word 'created' would not be the proper term as Christians use the term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God has some kind of Genesis of his own, it is beyond the scope of our knowledge. The only thing I have heard on the subject that comes close to answering this question comes from the Serbian Saint Nikolai :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prayers By the Lake, XI&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Eternity exists in eternity just as duration exists in time. In one&#xA;  eternity, O Lord, You were in ineffable sameness and Your vesperal&#xA;  blessedness. At that time Your hypostases were the truth within You,&#xA;  for it was impossible for them not to be in You. But they did not&#xA;  recognize one another, for they were unconscious of their diversity.&#xA;  In a second eternity You were in Your matinal blessedness, and the&#xA;  three hypostases recognized themselves as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Father was not before the Son, nor was the Son before the Father,&#xA;  nor was the All-Holy Spirit before or after the Father and the Son. As&#xA;  a man while waking suddenly opens both eyes at the same time, so did&#xA;  the three hypostases within You suddenly open at the same time. There&#xA;  is no Father without the Son and no Son without the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to the question, the Christian answer could very well be, God himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T18:56:51.940" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2011-09-03T19:10:21.883" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't confuse sinlessness( innocent, free from moral wrong) with perfection.  Adam and Eve were sinless as newborn children are sinless, innocent and without understanding, not having ever actually committed any sins.  But perfection implies more than simply flawlessness; it also requires &lt;em&gt;completion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus commanded us to be perfect, he said even as the Father is perfect, not as Adam and Eve had been before the Fall.  What's the essential difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We get at least one part of it from the Serpent's temptation of Eve:  God is not like them because God has knowledge of good and evil, and gaining this knowledge was supposed to make them like God.  But he neglected to mention the whole &quot;losing your state of sinlessness (innocent)&quot; part, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2014-10-20T16:30:14.637" LastActivityDate="2014-10-20T16:30:14.637" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1709" CreationDate="2011-09-03T20:48:19.010" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to remember is that a large part of any religion is cultural. And some of that is a response to outside culture. For example, no one reasonably could read the Bible and say that &quot;God hates gay people&quot; is the fundamental message of the text. Plenty of people have found that message in the text (and many others haven't), but no one could call it the most important message there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet social surveys have shown that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2011/07/09/from-the-archives-the-gay-hatin-gospel/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the most defining characteristic of American Evangelical Christianity is an &quot;excessive contempt&quot; of homosexuality&lt;/a&gt;. We could speculate as to why, but that's somewhat off topic for this question. It does show, though, that the culture of the time plays a large factor in which portions of the Bible are prioritised (see linked article (by an Evangelical Christian) for more details).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For another example, the Bible strongly supported the institution slavery until the abolitionists got going, and nowadays the Bible is strongly against slavery. And yet the Bible text hasn't changed. People read it differently according to their cultural background and the other assumptions they bring to the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T20:48:19.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1923" CreationDate="2011-09-03T21:15:26.220" Score="4" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;I brought up &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2013:44&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:44&lt;/a&gt; (see below for text) as related to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1850/is-it-right-for-a-church-to-be-wealthy/1852#1852&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, though it was only tangentially related. I brought up the question &lt;code&gt;Is that not a literal passage?&lt;/code&gt; along with the verse, and decided to spin it off into it's own question. Is it? Specifically, the part about selling one's possessions. Are we actually meant to sell all we have to &quot;buy the field containing that treasure&quot; (i.e. do what good we can with it)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="251" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T21:56:02.637" Title="Literality of Matthew 13:44?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T00:28:41.117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1920" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1924" CreationDate="2011-09-03T21:20:08.350" Score="0" ViewCount="19917" Body="&lt;p&gt;How old is the Old Testament and, like the New Testament, are there multiple versions (i.e. - according to Matthew, Mark, Luke &amp;amp; John)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="419" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-03T22:52:14.617" LastActivityDate="2017-05-24T16:25:54.787" Title="How old is the Old Testament?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1908" CreationDate="2011-09-03T21:21:36.633" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends what you mean by &quot;psychic.&quot;  Do you mean a prophet - someone who sees the future just kinda unprovoked, as in &quot;I had a dream that the plane would crash and it did?&quot; Or do you mean a fortuneteller, as in crystal balls/Tarot cards? Or do you mean having other psychic kinds of powers like telekinesis or others? Those are three fundamentally different things, Biblically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Small Medium At Large&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is extremely against spiritists.  Here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/fortune_tellers_and_psychics&quot;&gt;a collection of verses about mediums, necromancers, sorcerers, etc&lt;/a&gt;. Probably most to the point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put&#xA;  to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon&#xA;  them.” &#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Leviticus 20:27 (ESV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is because they are seeking answers not from God, but from other supernatural beings.  This is one of those basic &quot;Ten Commandment no-no's.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Prophecy&lt;/em&gt;, Starring Christopher Walken&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-three-what-prophet&quot;&gt;prophet&lt;/a&gt; is different. God has told them to go do something and/or carry some message to someone. They are sometimes (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/prophets.htm&quot;&gt;but less commonly&lt;/a&gt;) told of (e.g. Abraham re: Sodom)/granted visions of (e.g. Revelation) the future by God. Those who are posing as prophets but aren't (lying, or getting it from somewhere naughtier but in God's name) are false prophets. Needless to say, discerning between the two is &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm&quot;&gt;a big deal&lt;/a&gt; in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ego Whip&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about a more sci-fi psychic, like Stephen King's &lt;em&gt;Carrie&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Firestarter&lt;/em&gt;?  Well, not that telepathy/telekinesis/etc. have been shown to exist, but if they do, I imagine Christian opinion would be split since it's not really spoken to in the Bible. If it was simply some physiological/scientific process, then it would be fine, or at least morally neutral, no different from being good at math. If it were truly supernatural power, then the question would become what its source is, and is that source good or evil from a Biblical perspective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T21:21:36.633" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1919" CreationDate="2011-09-03T21:25:10.933" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Too often parts of the Bible are taken literally when in their context they are figurative.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is necessary to look at these verses in context; in reference to this specific &quot;teaching moment&quot; we read (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;34&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not&#xA;  say anything to them without using a parable&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;35&lt;/strong&gt; So was fulfilled what&#xA;  was spoken through the prophet:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I will open my mouth in parables,     I will utter things hidden&#xA;  since the creation of the world.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;44&lt;/strong&gt; “The kingdom of heaven is &lt;strong&gt;like&lt;/strong&gt; treasure hidden in a field. When&#xA;  a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all&#xA;  he had and bought that field.    &lt;strong&gt;45&lt;/strong&gt; “Again, the kingdom of heaven is&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;like&lt;/strong&gt; a merchant looking for fine pearls. &lt;strong&gt;46&lt;/strong&gt; When he found one of great&#xA;  value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;51&lt;/strong&gt; “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Yes,” they replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;52&lt;/strong&gt; He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has&#xA;  become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is &lt;strong&gt;like&lt;/strong&gt; the owner of a&#xA;  house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;53&lt;/strong&gt; When Jesus had finished these &lt;strong&gt;parables&lt;/strong&gt;, he moved on from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary point Jesus is making is that the Kingdom of God is so incredibly valuable it would be worth paying any price to obtain a place within it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, this account is &lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt; what Jesus taught, but no, he did not teach using a &lt;em&gt;literal&lt;/em&gt; form on this occasion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T21:25:10.933" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1920" CreationDate="2011-09-03T21:31:54.997" Score="9" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are not multiple versions of the new Testament. There is one version. The first four books happen to be four different accounts of the the same series of events but there are 27 books in total.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8/30&quot;&gt;How were the books of the New Testament chosen?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;No, there is nothing equivalent to the four perspectives of the Gospel books in the Old testament, there is just one collection of books, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/451/30&quot;&gt;accepted by both Christianity and Judaism&lt;/a&gt;, compiled in their present form in about 450BC then canonized in about 200BC but was written over a period of several thousand years before that and having gone through several redactions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/450/when-was-the-protestant-ot-canon-finalized&quot;&gt;When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few passages where the same story is told more than once for the purpose of recording it from a different perspective, such as in the books of Kings and Chronicals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On another note, the Old Testament is devoted to foreshadowing Christ. In that sense all the stories, all the crazy history of Israel and all the prophets are all telling the same story.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really the best way to get your head around this is to read it through, then ask more questions about what it all means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T22:56:42.383" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1908" CreationDate="2011-09-03T21:33:17.517" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible speaks strongly against the pagan practice of divination, of which so-called psychic ability is part.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Divination is defined as &quot;the practice of attempting to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means&quot;, which would certainly include Psychic fortune-telling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A number of scriptures associate astrology with pagan magic arts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2047:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 47:13&lt;/a&gt;: Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 2:2&lt;/a&gt;: So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 2:10&lt;/a&gt;: The astrologers answered the king, “There is no one on earth who can do what the king asks! No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 19:26&lt;/a&gt; forbids divination:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not practice divination or seek omens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as does and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 18:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and numerous other scriptures can be found in my &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/871/what-is-the-bible-and-christian-view-on-astrology/877#877&quot;&gt;answer for Astrology&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, like Astrology, if you accept that psychic abilities are a subset of divination, it seems clearly abhorrent to God.  Given the ensnaring nature of the occult, I would be engaging the &quot;flee from all appearance&quot; tactic with this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that being a psychic and being a Christian are mutually exclusive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2014-10-27T16:04:06.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1927" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1939" CreationDate="2011-09-03T21:45:10.597" Score="15" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although it is a theoretical question, it is still very interesting for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a system of beliefs or at least a name for people who believe in the existence of God and that events described in the Bible did take place, but refuse to obey God and his commandments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="489" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-04-24T00:30:30.693" LastActivityDate="2016-04-24T00:30:30.693" Title="Is there a name for believing but not obeying?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;obedience&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1919" CreationDate="2011-09-03T21:56:02.637" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passage appears to be quite literal even in the English quote you give. &quot;&lt;em&gt;The kingdom of heaven is &lt;strong&gt;like&lt;/strong&gt; treasure hidden in a field&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. It doesn't say that it literally is, it says that it is literally LIKE it. He's about to make an analogy and everything after that should be understood as such. We do the same thing in our every day speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other passages that do not so clearly identify what type of speech is being used or how we should read them. For ones like this that have an an obvious clue about how they were intended to be read ... well just read it that way!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the real question here ... what is the cost of faith? It will literally cost you everything, but you will gain everything in return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Mark+8:35-37/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 8:35-37&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)  For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T21:56:02.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1932" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1935" CreationDate="2011-09-03T22:33:46.117" Score="10" ViewCount="1826" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like I asked in the title, what's the name and origin of a staff with a crucifix on top? Like the one depicted in the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/E5YN1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-02-24T05:32:25.580" LastActivityDate="2019-02-24T05:36:00.487" Title="What's the origin of the Catholic object that is a staff with a crucifix on top?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;origin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="1934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1677" CreationDate="2011-09-03T22:54:14.490" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that they are literal men. With that in mind, there are two different schools of thought that I have come across on whom these men could be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These are just two &quot;normal&quot; men who have been called out (like the 144,000 witnesses in Rev. 7:1-9) to perform signs to the unbelievers during the Tribulation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These are two men that have lived before on earth, and are sent back by God for this special mission. The three most often mentioned are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Elijah - A great and powerful prophet from the Kingdom period of Israel. He called down fire from Heaven, as do these two witnesses (cf. 2 Kings 1:10, Rev. 11:5). There was a great drought during part of his ministry, similar to the two witnesses in Revelation (cf. 1 Kings 17:1, Rev.11:6). He also appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses (Mat. 17:1-9), after which Christ stated that he would come back to the earth before the end (Mat.17:11). Last, he was taken up to heaven without dying (2 Kings 2:11); some believe this was so he could come back to earth in the last days.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Moses - Also a great prophet who did many miracles. Against the Egyptians he caused water to turn to blood, along with many other plagues, similar to the two witnesses in Revelation (cf. Ex. 7:20, Rev.11:6). Also, apparently God sent Michael the Archangel to take Moses' body after he died, possibly to preserve it for this future mission (Jude 9). He also appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Enoch - A mysterious prophet that we know very little about. Enoch, like Elijah, never died (Ge. 5:24), this being taken by some to indicate that he and Elijah will someday return.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: We don't know who they are, but they could be two future prophets, or two prophets from the past God has sent back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastActivityDate="2011-09-03T22:54:14.490" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1932" CreationDate="2011-09-03T22:56:23.973" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;That, in fact is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Cross&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Papal Cross&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ferula&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ferula&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has been used since Pope Paul VI, designed by the Italian artist Lello Scorzelli. It is used in the same manner as a crozier. However, the cross bar is bent much like the paterissa. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2014-07-17T13:26:16.130" LastActivityDate="2014-07-17T13:26:16.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="871" CreationDate="2011-09-03T22:56:38.530" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Software Monkey has lots of references to the old testament, the new testament tells the story of Jesus Christ, who was foreseen by &quot;Three Kings&quot;, or &quot;(Three) Wise Men from the East&quot; who read the sky and observed the comet. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:1%E2%80%9312&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 2:1–12&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is a prove that astrology works, and that it is in the spirit of the Christian God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the old Testament is of minor importance for the Christians, and the only important source for the Jews ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="18" LastEditDate="2011-09-11T20:07:39.680" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T20:07:39.680" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1927" CreationDate="2011-09-04T00:50:08.573" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the closest fit would appear to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deism (i/ˈdiːɪzəm/ US dict: dē′·ĭzm) in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or &quot;the Supreme Architect&quot;) does not alter the universe by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life. This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. &lt;strong&gt;Deists believe in the existence of a god without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books&lt;/strong&gt;. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I think the OP is asking for is a scholarly term to describe someone who believes that God exists, but denies that God is actively involved with his creation in any meaningful way.  Such a disinterested God would not issue any &quot;rules&quot; for his created beings to obey.  Further, such a person would deny that the Bible (or any religious text) is in any way a communication from God and would feel, therefore, no obligation to it's moral, ethical or sociopolitical code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The definition of Deist seems to fit that rather well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-04T02:43:35.783" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T02:43:35.783" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1927" CreationDate="2011-09-04T01:00:13.160" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Uncomfortable? &#xA;Jesus offers a relationship (think major upgrade from belief system). See Rev 3:20&#xA;See Roman 3:23 &#xA;If you stop at belief system its like owning a car and never using it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="492" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T01:00:13.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1646" CreationDate="2011-09-04T01:09:57.500" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &amp;quot;flesh&amp;quot; refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality. The &amp;quot;resurrection of the flesh&amp;quot; (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our &amp;quot;mortal body&amp;quot; will come to life again. [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How [do the dead rise]? Christ is raised with his own body: &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;; but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear,&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; but Christ &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body,&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; into a &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;spiritual body&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;But someone will ask, &amp;quot;How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?&amp;quot; You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel. . . . What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable... The dead will be raised imperishable...For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This &amp;quot;how&amp;quot; exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a11.htm#999&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Cathecism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_04111998_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;audience&lt;/a&gt; from late pope John Paul II can also be of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="493" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T01:09:57.500" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1942" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-04T01:31:22.520" Score="19" ViewCount="1719" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been in a debate online with another Christian of a different tradition (I'm Catholic, he is Baptist, I think) regarding mysticism, specifically Christian mysticism. He stated that mysticism is inherently pagan and non-Christian, and attempts to use the term Christian mysticism are essentially modern attempts to take a pagan concept and &quot;Christianize&quot; it. I believe that it is not necessarily unChristian, if it is done in a Christian manner. Christian mysticism and pagan mysticism may not be the same thing in practice, though similar in concept, where a Christian is experiencing a fuller communion with Christ but through Christ working in him, and a pagan using ritual to try and attain some deeper sense of the supernatural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there such a thing as Christian mysticism? I've heard the term &quot;mystic&quot; used to describe some saints of the Church. Is this a fluke or is it legitimate? Or is it referring to something other than mysticism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T16:27:31.200" LastActivityDate="2016-08-25T22:41:30.720" Title="Is Christian mysticism an oxymoron or is it a legitimate path for a Christian?" Tags="&lt;mysticism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-22T03:43:02.213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1809" CreationDate="2011-09-04T02:14:29.470" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Disclaimer: I'm Catholic, speaking for me, but I think that this agrees with the main official/majoritarian catholic belief)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if we could read into the mind of person, to know his most sincere and precise beliefs, we could never deduce from that he will be saved or not. In principle, it's perfectly possible - as long as the atheism of the atheist consists in non-believing in a &quot;wrong&quot; God (which, I'd say, is quite frequent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we just don't know.  All we (speaking for christians) know in this respect, is &quot;practical knowledge&quot;, not &quot;theoric knowledge&quot;: it is directed to our acting (in the broad sense of the word, see below) and not to our speculating. I know that my belief in Christ is necessary for my salvation, and that's all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that your dychotomy is flawed: &lt;em&gt;&quot;if the deeds you perform in life might also get you into heaven, even if you don't believe in the Christian God&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;You seem to assume that faith is just one intelectual act (like an opinion), and your other human acts can be put apart. The &quot;belief&quot; of what Jesus speaks is surely something more deep that an intelectual assertion (which is out of reach of lot of people who haven't heard a word of Jesus, or that have heard inept words; not to speak of dements, babies, etc), it's rather more akin to some cosmic attitude, a sense of reverence at the Goodness/Truth/Beauty, and the sense of sacrifice, the active will of &quot;working&quot; for them. This &quot;belief&quot; is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21-27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&quot;doing the will of the Father&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, and it's not some bunch of intelectual assumptions that a person has in his mind, while his acts can go their own ways: it's inseparable from acts (in the broad sense: external and internal; including perhaps religious acts; and  including above all loving your neighbours -charity), it's almost immanent to them. Of course, believing in Christ, and in general the religous faith (more precisely, in catholic terms, the three theological virtues: faith, hope and love), is both the higher &quot;act&quot; and also can well be a necessary act... depending on the circumstances of each person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="493" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T02:14:29.470" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1942" CreationDate="2011-09-04T02:27:32.660" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a matter of definition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of Christians are confused by the term because it is very much misused today. They are right to condemn it the way that they mean it, as quite a few people call themselves mystics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian mysticism is the belief that you can be closer to God by meditating on His word, but other people mean it a different way then they call themselves mystics.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://unionwithgod.info/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Union With God &lt;/a&gt; for a brief overview. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2016-08-25T22:41:30.720" LastActivityDate="2016-08-25T22:41:30.720" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1677" CreationDate="2011-09-04T02:52:15.613" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe these are literally Moses and Elijah, by comparing what Revelation says about the two witnesses with the Old Testament accounts of Moses and Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 11:3-5&lt;/strong&gt; And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and&#xA;  they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days,&#xA;  clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two&#xA;  candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. And if any man will&#xA;  hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their&#xA;  enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be&#xA;  killed. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days&#xA;  of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood,&#xA;  and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First, &quot;fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only person in the Bible with this unique characteristic, of calling down fire upon their enemies, was Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;II King 1:9-12&lt;/strong&gt; Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his&#xA;  fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an&#xA;  hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come&#xA;  down. And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a&#xA;  man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and&#xA;  thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and&#xA;  his fifty. Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with&#xA;  his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath&#xA;  the king said, Come down quickly. And Elijah answered and said unto&#xA;  them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and&#xA;  consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven,&#xA;  and consumed him and his fifty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Next, &quot;These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days&#xA;of their prophecy&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elijah also caused rain to cease when he was on the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I Kings 17:1&lt;/strong&gt; And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of&#xA;  Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom&#xA;  I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to&#xA;  my word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I Kings 18:1&lt;/strong&gt; And it came to pass after many days, that the word of the&#xA;  LORD came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go, shew thyself unto&#xA;  Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I Kings 18:41&lt;/strong&gt; And Elijah said unto Ahab, Get thee up, eat and drink;&#xA;  for there is a sound of abundance of rain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &quot;and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who does this sound like? Turning the water into blood? Smiting the earth with plagues?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 7:19-20&lt;/strong&gt; And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy&#xA;  rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their&#xA;  streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their&#xA;  pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be&#xA;  blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and&#xA;  in vessels of stone. And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD&#xA;  commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in&#xA;  the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants;&#xA;  and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of the plagues in Egypt would take up a lot of space, but most people are already familiar enough with that story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Elijah and Moses were taken from the earth&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah went to heaven in a fiery chariot and did not see death. Jude verse 9 tells of a conflict between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses (also see the apocryphal Book of Enoch), indicating that his body was removed from the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Both Elijah and Moses appeared at the Mount Transfiguration scene&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 9:28-31&lt;/strong&gt; And it came to pass about an eight days after these&#xA;  sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain&#xA;  to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered,&#xA;  and his raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked&#xA;  with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory,&#xA;  and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T02:52:15.613" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1946" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1948" CreationDate="2011-09-04T03:21:49.473" Score="11" ViewCount="6676" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that Martin Luther believed in the redemption of the will to serve God as part of  God's redemptive work. Can someone clarify how this differed from Erasmus' viewpoint? I know I could figure this out through self-research, but I'm looking for an abridged version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2015-01-20T21:36:59.607" Title="How did Martin Luther's views on Free Will differ from those of Erasmus?" Tags="&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1947" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2199" CreationDate="2011-09-04T03:32:20.820" Score="10" ViewCount="3846" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 1:19, Paul writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%201:19&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1:19-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How has God destroyed the wisdom of the wise and made foolish the wisdom of the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ironically, much of the world seems to think that science has done the same to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-03-30T19:55:33.980" Title="How has God destroyed the wisdom of the wise?" Tags="&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1946" CreationDate="2011-09-04T03:50:32.643" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know how abridged a version can be, since it is a very subtle topic. If you really want to understand it in depth, I recommend &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0806609036&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luther: Right or Wrong&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Harry J. McSorley; I consider it one of the best works in the English language on this topic and soteriology in general.  This was a topic that affected me greatly in college and reading this book really revolutionized my understanding of justification and salvation, so I really recommend it. If you want a couple-page overview of the debate, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1550381/posts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here is a link&lt;/a&gt; that provides a lot of the context. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a summary that is so general that people will take immediate exception to it (alas), Erasmus believed that free will played more of a role in salvation than did Luther; Erasmus said free will and God's will played a synergistic role and Luther totally rejected that and said our will is in complete bondage to sin or God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will happily add that the different perspectives on salvation were eventually reconciled in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joint Declaration On The Doctrine of Justification&lt;/a&gt;, which heals a lot of this huge theological divide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastEditorUserId="232" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T01:01:34.520" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T01:01:34.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1932" CreationDate="2011-09-04T03:55:50.857" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Those are crosiers, which have their origin in a shepherd's crook and are a symbol of a bishop being a &quot;shepherd of men.&quot; Many have become more ornate than just a simple shepherd's crook and have crosses or other stuff on them; check out the pictures on the wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosier&quot;&gt;crosier&lt;/a&gt;. Here, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.matthewfsheehan.net/index.cfm?event=ProductDetails&amp;amp;CategoryID=442&amp;amp;ProductID=5044&quot;&gt;you can buy one yourself&lt;/a&gt; and smite some heathen. The one in the picture is specifically the Papal Cross, which is, like, the Pope's one of those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Edit] Actually, unless you really are rubbing shoulders with bishops a lot, it came to me as I lay in bed last night that you might mean the &quot;cross on a staff&quot; that Catholics and other high church denominations commonly use in church services.  This is a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processional_cross&quot;&gt;processional cross&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and are available &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.concordiasupply.com/Church-Supplies/Processional-Cross&quot;&gt;from church supply stores&lt;/a&gt; everywhere. They were used very early in the church's history to head up processions, it being the equivalent of a flag or banner (which similarly, you put on a big stick for visibility and because it's a pain to carry a big ol' cross or flag in your paws for long). Here's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Processional_Cross&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia article on them&lt;/a&gt;. Today, they are regularly used to precede the priests and Bible down the aisle to the altar to kick off a church service, and similarly out during the recessional. Episcopalians use them, Lutherans might too I believe. I'm not Catholic but stick to the high church end of the spectrum and see them a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastEditorUserId="232" LastEditDate="2011-09-04T12:59:35.147" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T12:59:35.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1809" CreationDate="2011-09-04T04:19:34.793" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you have said, different Christian denominations have different teachings. Lately, I've been conducting a study of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:31-46&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:31-46&lt;/a&gt;, in which Christ himself describes the final judgement, and makes no mention of faith or belief in his decision making.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Truth be told, the bible is a rich and complex library of texts, and each denomination if not each reader weighs and evaluates them differently, reaching different conclusions. What a given Christian denomination teaches is a valid question. Asking which of them is the &quot;real&quot; teaching is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="497" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T04:19:34.793" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="708" CreationDate="2011-09-04T07:39:51.117" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your question no sex is not a sin as long as you follow the laws of God i.e get married first. If you look in the Bible, contrary to popular belief, Christ has brothers and sisters, born of Marry from Joseph - I know crazy right? So obviously she did not stay a virgin for the rest of her life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also look at all the times the Lord blesses someone through their seed, Abraham, and Isaac to name a few. Do you really think that the Lord would bless people in this manner if sex inside the bonds of marriage were a bad thing? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to original sin and whether it's passed from the father or mother - well according to the scriptures while we need Christ to atone for our sins (since we all sin since we live in a fallen state) we are only held responsible for our own sins and not for the sins of our parents going back to Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Chronicles 25:4&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;...but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses,where the &#xA;  Lord commanded, saying, the fathers shall not die for the children, neither &#xA;  shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin,&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 18:20&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity &#xA;  of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 6:7&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth that &#xA;  shall he reap.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we are all responsible for ourselves and what we do, not for what our fathers did or what Adam did (that's why Christ came to earth to free us from our sins because we can sin ever since Adam committed the first sin, removing man from the presence of God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-01-20T20:10:59.437" LastActivityDate="2014-01-20T20:10:59.437" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1954" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-04T09:47:32.710" Score="20" ViewCount="21173" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the flood seems implausible to me due to this detail. How could animals accustomed to thriving in extreme temperatures be found in a common place for preservation aboard the ark?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="503" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T00:29:42.033" LastActivityDate="2015-01-19T00:29:42.033" Title="Where did Noah find polar bears and penguins in Palestine?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;noah&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T00:30:53.493" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1955" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-04T09:53:43.810" Score="27" ViewCount="45980" Body="&lt;p&gt;There a number of biblical passages (such as 1 Corinthians 4:9) that are worded as such indicating angels were created separately from and and are different from humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. (1 Corinthians 4:9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From time to time I hear someone talking about their deceased love-one being an angel in heaven. I see this in works of fiction on TV and the like too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything in the Bible that suggests humans can become angels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="326" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-15T01:47:44.600" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T01:47:44.600" Title="What Bible verses suggest that humans can become angels?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-04-15T19:45:31.407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1927" CreationDate="2011-09-04T11:31:54.410" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;They're normally referred to as religious moderates. They like to claim to be more &quot;sophisticated&quot; than religious fundamentalists (and atheists). But how does one become a sophisticated believer? By acknowledging just how dubious many of the claims of scripture are, and thereafter reading it selectively, bowdlerizing it if need be, and allowing its assertions about reality to be continually trumped by fresh insights? Scientific: &quot;You mean the earth isn't 6,000 years old? Okay.&quot; Medical: &quot;I should take my daughter to a neurologist and not to an exorcist? Seems reasonable.&quot; Moral: &quot;I can't beat my slaves? I can't even KEEP slaves? Hmm...&quot;&#xA;There is a pattern here, and it is undeniable. Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously. So why not take it less seriously still? Why not admit that the Bible is merely a collection of imperfect books written by highly fallible human beings? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="503" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T11:31:54.410" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1961" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1967" CreationDate="2011-09-04T11:50:54.660" Score="10" ViewCount="10011" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the meaning of the word &lt;em&gt;holy&lt;/em&gt; from a Christian viewpoint?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I observed that the term is used for&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the gods, especially the Holy God (Father) and Holy Ghost;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;persons, such as the holy apostles, Holy St. Florian, etc.;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;buildings like churches;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;organisations (the holy church);&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;relics and fetishes, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamless_robe_of_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Holy Coat of Trier&lt;/a&gt;;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cities, such as the holy city (this title is used for both Rome and Jerusalem).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since holiness is nothing which can be identified with a scientific instrument, what is it? Is it just an attribute, awarded by a higher priest, which you then believe in? But what is it? Do you have to believe, that it can, for example, have healing effects? Does it just mean that you have to treat something with extra respect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what I found in an encyclopedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Heilig&lt;/strong&gt;, von Heil, also soviel wie in seiner Vollkommenheit nicht nur noch unverletzt, sondern auch unverletzlich, unantastbar, dann soviel wie schlechthin gut, sittlich vollkommen, makellos. Seine Wurzeln hat dieser Begriff teils im römischen Kultus, wo er das dem gemeinen Gebrauch Entzogene, höhern Zwecken Gewidmete (&lt;em&gt;sacer&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;sanctus&lt;/em&gt;), teils im Alttestamentlichen, wo der Ausdruck (&lt;em&gt;kadosch&lt;/em&gt;), von Gott ausgesagt, dessen Unterschiedenheit von allem Irdischen, seine Unvergleichlichkeit und Erhabenheit, von Irdischem ausgesagt, dessen Zugehörigkeit zu Gott, Gottgeweihtheit bedeutet. Vgl. Baudissin, Studien zur Religionsgeschichte, Bd. 2 (Leipz. 1878); Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament (Leiden 1887).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://woerterbuchnetz.de/Meyers/?sigle=Meyers&amp;amp;mode=Vernetzung&amp;amp;lemid=IH02915&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Meyers Großes Konversationslexikon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those of you who don’t speak German, I’ll try a translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Holy, from ‘intact, complete’, not only undamaged, but invulnerable, untouchable, but also completely good, ethical and morally perfect. The roots of the term reach to the Roman cult, where it means “taken away from common usage”, used for higher purpose (&lt;em&gt;sacer&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;sanctus&lt;/em&gt;), partly in the Old Testament, where the term (&lt;em&gt;kadosch&lt;/em&gt;), spoken of God, means his difference from anything terrestrial, his uncomparabliness and loftiness, and means “belonging to God” or antlared (? maybe not. -else: holiness, which is tautological. - remark by me, u.u.). Vgl. Baudissin, Studien zur Religionsgeschichte, Bd. 2 (Leipz. 1878); Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament (Leiden 1887).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe we can agree that a building can’t be morally good. Nor can bones, or cities, or weekdays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isn’t it fetishism to pray to dead objects made by men, to bones without spirit and clothes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is holiness something like bacteria, which spread from God to a Saint, from the Saint to his clothes, from the clothes to a prayer? Is there evidence in the new Testament that touching such things is helpful, is something you should do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-04-24T19:27:03.067" Title="What do Christians mean by &quot;holy&quot;?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;holiness&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T02:36:48.983" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1809" CreationDate="2011-09-04T13:47:44.503" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I strongly disagree with most of the answers given here: &lt;strong&gt;The answer to your question is an absolute Yes!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will cite Metthew (5:43-48):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’&lt;br&gt;44 But I tell you, &lt;strong&gt;love your enemies&lt;/strong&gt; and pray &lt;strong&gt;for those who persecute you&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br&gt;45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. &lt;strong&gt;He causes his sun to rise on the evil&lt;/strong&gt; and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. &lt;br&gt;46 &lt;strong&gt;If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;47 &lt;strong&gt;And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;48 Be perfect, therefore, &lt;strong&gt;as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clearly written here that perfection encompasses &lt;strong&gt;total&lt;/strong&gt; forgivingness. Otherwise God would not be perfect which he is - &lt;strong&gt;he would be like a &quot;tax collector&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt; So he will &lt;strong&gt;forgive every sin&lt;/strong&gt; and that is the &lt;strong&gt;incomprehensibly great story about our Saviour Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It clearly encompasses &lt;strong&gt;&quot;those who persecute you&quot; which translates even to people that hate God and Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; or don't believe in him - they will be saved too, this is the &lt;strong&gt;overwhelmingly good message of Jesus!&lt;/strong&gt; He also gives this example: &lt;strong&gt;And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?&lt;/strong&gt; There is obviously no room for interpretation here because &lt;strong&gt;&quot;pagans&quot; are explicitly addressed.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It could justly be said that people who believe that God doesn't forgive everything accuse God of not being perfect because he would only reward those that love him (= &quot;tax collector&quot;).&lt;/strong&gt; They don't understand the fantastic message Jesus is giving us here!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;strong&gt;Jesus had a point and it is no coincidence that he is so direct here and gives so many clear examples.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T13:47:44.503" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1961" CreationDate="2011-09-04T14:16:22.523" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The progression in your list is actually somewhat (although not exactly) representative of the decreasing level of weight carried by the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's start with this: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Revelation%2015:4&quot;&gt;Only God is holy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Holy means to be set apart, &lt;em&gt;entirely-other&lt;/em&gt;. Untouched by any imperfection. Unmarred by any fault. God is the only one that matches these criteria. And boy is he Holy. The angels in heaven cry out in eternal accord that he is thrice holy. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Revelation%204:8&quot;&gt;Holy. Holy. Holy.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that things go down hill fast. &lt;strong&gt;Absolutely nothing else exists or ever will exist apart from God that is holy in the way that he is.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet there is one crazy exception: Those who through faith in Christ are adopted to be joint heirs with Christ and inherit his very holiness. Over and over through the Old and New testaments we see God calling his chosen people to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/be+holy+i+am/&quot;&gt;be holy, as I am holy&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; This is an absurd thing to ask of a degenerate created being -- except that he also makes us this way by covering us with his own holiness. At the cost of the life of His own holy son God provided a way to make &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/2%20Timothy%203:2&quot;&gt;un-holy people&lt;/a&gt; holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more interesting powerful uses of the word holy involve things like the temple (both the tent tabernacle and the permanent temple) where the sanctuary was holy because it was dedicated to a certain use, but the inner chamber was the _holy of holies because that is where Gods very presence would dwell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moving on down the line, the word has some common usages that only involve being set apart or dedicated for a certain use. Church buildings are only holy not in that they are physically sacred but that they are reserved for certain uses ... they are dedicated to the work of God through his body the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cities such as Jerusalem can be considered holy in the sense that they play a special role or enjoy a unique identity or history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T14:16:22.523" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-04T14:52:29.250" Score="-9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we can only speculate here but one thing is for sure: &lt;strong&gt;God, being perfect, is obviously the most complex being one can imagine.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the &lt;strong&gt;theological discussion&lt;/strong&gt; goes there are only two mechanisms with which you can create complexity out of simplicity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;evolution&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;creation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God cannot have been created&lt;/strong&gt;: One would need a Super-God, above that another Super-Super-God and so on which would create an infinity regress and we wouldn't know to whom to pray - and additionally &lt;strong&gt;it is written in the Holy Bible that there is only One God!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it must have been an evolutionary process where at the end our Loving Father evolved. This is the only possible conclusion. &lt;strong&gt;How&lt;/strong&gt; that happened exactly: Nobody knows an answer to this question - but we should all be grateful &lt;strong&gt;that&lt;/strong&gt; it happend in the end!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="355" LastEditDate="2011-09-04T15:07:07.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T15:07:07.883" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1969" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2022" CreationDate="2011-09-04T14:56:38.370" Score="7" ViewCount="4492" Body="&lt;p&gt;In T. S. Eliot's poem &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ishk.org/school/poem/poem_013.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Journey of the Magi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; he's offering a imaginative view into the interior experience of one of the wise men from the East who came to Jesus's birthplace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last few lines of that poem are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      But had thought they were different; this Birth was&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      With an alien people clutching their gods.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      I should be glad of another death.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does he mean by &lt;em&gt;old dispensation&lt;/em&gt; here?  Does this come from the Bible (I can't find it there)?  Does it come from church history?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-13T19:55:05.947" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T19:55:05.947" Title="What does TS Eliot mean by &quot;old dispensation&quot; in The Journey of the Magi?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1971" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1972" CreationDate="2011-09-04T15:18:41.140" Score="1" ViewCount="138" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many possibilities how to twist the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example: assumptions, prejudices, misinterpretation, unintentional deception, projecting wishes... These things can twist the spiritual way, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I find out if someone's faith was twisted?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user508" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T19:56:03.057" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T15:35:43.357" Title="How to discover mistakes in faith?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2012-04-24T15:01:15.757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1971" CreationDate="2011-09-04T15:32:27.920" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very valid concern. Here are some suggestions that come to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Study the word regularly. Pray that God would teach it to you and approach it as something that will shape you, not something you need to find support for your cause in. Systematic reading really aides this rather than following along with whatever verses somebody else quotes for whatever cause.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keep your eye on other traditions. This doesn't mean church hop and float between belief systems, but it does mean keeping up on some reading, listening to some preachers you don't agree with just to make sure the ones you do are really saying something, studying different bible translations to help you get a full grasp of the word.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stay in fellowship with other believers. Find a community that is both well grounded and diverse. The discussions, interactions and iron sharpening iron is what will keep you on the right track. A community where questioning something and examining the basis for things is not welcomed is not a safe place to be. Likewise a community that does not value truth or place any guards on itself at all is also a dangerous place to be. Use lots of discretion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't be stubborn willed when you learn you're wrong about some little thing. Keep an attitude of humility and and pray regularly about what areas you need to learn and grow in. If God is trying to show you something through any of the things you need to be ready to hear it. Don't be blown around by every wave of teaching that comes along but do keep.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly and most importantly, don't stop &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews%2012:2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T15:35:43.357" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T15:35:43.357" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1954" CreationDate="2011-09-04T16:48:05.263" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all I live in the Middle East in the same country as Mt. Ararat where the ark landed. Note this is not in Palestine nor do we know where Noah started from. The problem could just as well have been that he was starting from the Siberian tundra and needed some African wildebeests. You're trying to solve a specific problem that you don't have enough scenario data to build a case for or against.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However back to the plausibility argument. Here in the neighborhood of Mt Ararat there is a zoo here that has penguins. They are kept out of doors and, with the exception of having free access to a small pond, cope with the same baking heat the rest of us deal with. They may not like it but they survive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly I grew up in the Southwest high desert. The zoo where I grew up had a polar bear exhibit, again out of doors. In more recent years it has acquired some shade and a larger (very fun looking) series of pools but the one I remember as a kid wasn't much more than a concrete box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As if that wasn't enough to at least cast doubt on the argument against the plausibility of such a thing, let's consider the other implications of the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hand in hand with the flood come a host of other radical global changes. The arrangement of dry land vs ocean has likely radically changed as tectonic plates rose and fell in order for the water to cover the whole land. How high mountains were, where they were located and even the divides between contents are likely very different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same vein, global climate would have been radically different. Many believe from the Genesis account that there were changes in the atmosphere and that likely post-flood earth has a lot more extremes of hot and cold in different areas than pre-flood earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, it's not always alleged that every variation of species we have today was on the Ark. It's possible a representative of the bear family was all that God required to cover the basis for both polar bears and black bears.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And most importantly, don't you think the God who created the animals in the first place and gives them the instincts that make them what they are could not manipulate the system in a miraculous way to lead a couple of stray bears on a long walk? Similar wild and seemingly impossible journeys by strangely motivated animals have been documented&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, the specific allegations you bring up are small items in the big picture. If you really have a problem with the science, you need to start at the other end of the spectrum and work backwards. Those little details sort themselves out in the big picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T16:48:05.263" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1737" CreationDate="2011-09-04T17:02:34.233" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Hebrew speaker, I may have a chance to contribute here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word used to describe the giants is Nephilim, spelled נפילים, which comes from the verb נפל - which means &quot;to fall&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common explanation in the Jewish tradition is that those are either fallen angels, or the sons of such angels, born to human wives. &#xA;In both cases they are referred to as evil, and unlike in many other ancient mythologies (e.g. the Greek Mythology), those fallen angels do not have any supernatural powers except their size. It is mentioned that they lived for 120 years - maybe in order to show that they are not immortal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="510" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T17:02:34.233" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1977" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-04T17:03:30.690" Score="18" ViewCount="5843" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently someone informed me that it was hypocritical to call myself Christian, and to be against many progressive/liberal policies (the specific argument was about US-run welfare)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question: is it hypocritical to call myself a Christian and not support welfare programs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2012-07-04T02:42:08.850" Title="Is it hypocritical to be a Christian and also be against welfare?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-11-25T07:03:37.510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2011-09-04T17:15:30.857" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many times in the Bible we as Christians are called to give to the poor such as &quot;If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:17-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 3:17-18 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while it is said that we  must be willing to serve and give to the poor, it does not say it is the government's job to serve and give to the poor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I won't say if I am for or against government welfare, I do not believe the Bible tells us we must support &lt;strong&gt;government&lt;/strong&gt; welfare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T17:15:30.857" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2011-09-04T17:21:44.047" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;It really depends on the policy.  The general idea--helping those in need when they cannot help themselves--is certainly compatible with the Gospel.  But a lot of welfare programs go beyond simply helping people.  By the way they're implemented, they cause recipients to grow dependent on welfare and have a greater incentive to continue participating in the program than to use it as temporary support until they're able to get back on their feet again.  This is a direct contradiction of Paul's direction that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&quot;if any would not work, [&lt;strong&gt;would&lt;/strong&gt; not, not &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; not,] neither should he eat.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would not be hypocritical for a Christian to oppose a corrupt welfare system.  But the focus should be on reforming it and trying to establish a working system, not on doing away with the concept altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T17:21:44.047" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2011-09-04T17:41:08.587" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general accounts of men, angels and the interaction between the two makes a pretty clear distinction that they are different KINDS of beings. Both are created by God but each has a different purpose and different destiny. We understand &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%201:12&quot;&gt;some things they do not&lt;/a&gt;. They are not bound by some of the physical limitations we are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One interesting note is that angels were never offered salvation. The 1/3 of the angels that sided with Satan in his rebellion were cast out of Heaven and every indication is made that they will never see it again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T08:49:36.137" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T08:49:36.137" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1982" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-04T17:42:24.857" Score="16" ViewCount="47241" Body="&lt;p&gt;Twice in the bible, God makes reference to &quot;seventy times seven&quot; (or &quot;seventy-seven times&quot;). Once in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+4:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 4:24&lt;/a&gt; (dealing with Cain's punishment for his murder of Abel), and the other in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:22&lt;/a&gt; (in an answer to Peter's question of how many times he should forgive a brother or sister that sins against him). Is there any significance to this phrase, and if so, what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="251" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-06T11:36:19.060" LastActivityDate="2015-12-06T11:36:19.060" Title="What is the significance of &quot;seventy times seven&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;numerology&gt;&lt;phrase&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2011-09-04T17:47:06.110" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are at least two verses in the Bible where humans and angels are directly compared:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 2:6b-7,9a&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6b what is mankind that you are mindful of them,&#xA;     human beings that you care for them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 You have made them a little lower than the angels&#xA;     and crowned them with glory and honor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 What we do see is Jesus, who was given a position “a little lower than the angels”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If men and Jesus Himself were (a little) lower than angels, then I don't think they become angels. And then you have the points raised by Caleb, so the answer is &quot;No&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T02:04:29.693" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T02:04:29.693" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2011-09-04T17:55:10.140" Score="-2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:8-9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelations 22: 8-9:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looks like a pretty clear &quot;yes&quot; to me: the angel sent from heaven to John to deliver the message identifies himself as a (most likely post-mortal) prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T17:55:10.140" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1982" CreationDate="2011-09-04T18:08:27.247" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your two examples are two different numbers.  Lamech speaks of seventy-seven times (77), while Jesus says seventy times seven (490).  It's hard to say exactly what Lamech meant, as his story is badly incomplete--it doesn't say who he killed or why, or what happened after that.  So it's difficult to draw any conclusions here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Jesus's answer to Peter, let's read it in context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:21-22&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:21-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think the exact number matters as much as the principle.  Peter asked, should I forgive my brother some fixed, easily-countable number of times?  And Jesus said no, forgive him an arbitrarily large number of times, too high to easily keep track of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T04:41:51.623" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T04:41:51.623" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1986" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="1990" CreationDate="2011-09-04T18:12:22.263" Score="13" ViewCount="27477" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Christian art, angels are often depicted as winged human-like creatures. However, I'm curious if there is any justification for this in the Bible? I've sometimes heard that there isn't, so that's why I'm asking you as experts in the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any descriptions of the appearance of angels in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Biblical reason to assume that angels look like the ones in the picture on the left rather than the picture on the right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/wICul.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Public doman image&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZqOhK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Image from the video game Bayonetta&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-04T18:28:56.340" LastActivityDate="2015-02-12T17:26:25.097" Title="What does the Bible say about the appearance of angels?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:30:39.073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1027" CreationDate="2011-09-04T18:26:37.513" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Richard made an excellent &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1027/what-exactly-do-we-know-about-heaven/1036#1036&quot;&gt;list of various details that we know about heaven&lt;/a&gt;, however I feel he made one oversight -- perhaps like missing the forest through the trees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would just like to zoom in on one detail: the centerpiece -- or zoom way out if you will for this detail is the &lt;em&gt;magnum opus of heaven&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Heaven is where Christ is. Seated in victory at the right hand of God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there was one single thing that we should be expecting to find when we get to heaven, it is Jesus. Over and over in the NT when heaven is mentioned, it is frequently paired with the detail that Jesus will be there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are hoping for anything else, your hopes are mis-directed. If you are longing for his presence more than anything you will not be disappointed!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Colossians+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 3:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, &lt;em&gt;where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews%2012:2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 12:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;looking to &lt;em&gt;Jesus&lt;/em&gt;, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and &lt;em&gt;is seated at the right hand of the throne of God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke%2022:69&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22:69&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;But from now on the &lt;em&gt;Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God&lt;/em&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Mark%2014:62&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 14:62&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the &lt;em&gt;Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power&lt;/em&gt;, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further reading on how the heavenly hosts focus Christ's presence, read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Revelation%205:1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelations 5&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T18:26:37.513" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1989" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2012" CreationDate="2011-09-04T18:48:12.673" Score="5" ViewCount="213" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a unique concept of God (within Christianity)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If so, since different people probably have their own interpretation on Bible/Christianity/God (albeit the differences between different interpretations could be subtle), how can you (i.e. the Christian community) know that the God you have in mind are the same?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="513" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T00:23:49.753" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T05:39:09.420" Title="How do you know you are perceiving the same God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1986" CreationDate="2011-09-04T18:56:32.697" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has many descriptions of angels, and in some cases they obviously appear as men, because they are mistaken for men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.” “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%206:11-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 6:11-13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared. &lt;em&gt;When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD&lt;/em&gt;, he exclaimed, “Alas, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%206:21-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 6:21-22&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;emphasis mine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other passages describe angels in a variety of different ways.  Ezekiel presents one of the stranger&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looked, and I saw beside the cherubim four wheels, one beside each of the cherubim; the wheels sparkled like topaz. As for their appearance, the four of them looked alike; each was like a wheel intersecting a wheel. As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the cherubim faced; the wheels did not turn about as the cherubim went. The cherubim went in whatever direction the head faced, without turning as they went. Their entire bodies, including their backs, their hands and their wings, were completely full of eyes, as were their four wheels. I heard the wheels being called “the whirling wheels.” Each of the cherubim had four faces: One face was that of a cherub, the second the face of a human being, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2010:9-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 10:9-14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't recall (and a quick search doesn't turn up) any biblical description of an angel that actually includes the elements of most of their art, a human form with wings and a halo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T18:56:32.697" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1991" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-04T19:09:04.870" Score="15" ViewCount="1556" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: This is in NO way a troll or a poke at any faith that believes in the doctrine of the Trinity but rather is simply a question for clarity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several passages within the bible that refers to Jesus Christ as the &quot;Son of God&quot; or where He Himself refers to a &quot;Father&quot; who was in Heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:35 (Mary inquires of an angel how it's possible for her to ear a child while being a virgin)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the &lt;strong&gt;Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luke 2:49 (Joesph and Mary share their concern of Christ leaving them at the age of 12. This is His response)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my &lt;strong&gt;Father's&lt;/strong&gt; business?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 3:17 (The baptism of Christ)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved &lt;strong&gt;Son&lt;/strong&gt;, in whom I am well pleased. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 26:39 (while suffering in the Garden of Gethsamane, Christ prays to the Father)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and prayed saying, &lt;strong&gt;O my Father&lt;/strong&gt;, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless &lt;strong&gt;not as I will, but as thou &lt;em&gt;wilt&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these passages, and many others, it appears that God and Jesus Christ are separate being. My limited understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity&quot;&gt;God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are &quot;One&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. How does this doctrine fit with these scriptures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="252" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-05-05T02:26:42.987" LastActivityDate="2019-02-08T14:25:05.963" Title="If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1961" CreationDate="2011-09-04T19:47:29.283" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would affirm and add that &quot;holy&quot; is also important for understanding the vocation of God's people, not simply individual moral virtue.  To be holy, as mentioned, means &quot;to be set apart.&quot;  God's purpose for Israel was to be set apart for upholding God's covenant - to ultimately be the agents of peace and healing for the rest of the world (Is. 49:6 - a type that is reworked in Mat. 5:14-16). This vocation, this calling to be the covenant-keepers that would allow God's justice to be administered, was of course impossible for Israel to keep (Rom. 3 attests to how the law itself testified to Israel's inability to keep it - a product of being 'in Adam'). Thus the necessity for a messiah, a christ, was needed to allow God's plan for whole-creation salvation to happen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon Jesus' death and resurrection, he was vindicated as the true messiah, the one who had been obedient to the calling of Israel, thus enabling the covenant to be fulfilled and, indeed, to be the ultimate light-bearer to the world. The Christian, too, takes up this vocation, now transferred to all those who are &quot;in Christ,&quot; meaning they are a part of God's family, the new &quot;God's chosen people.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It remains the Christian's calling to be holy, even as God is holy (Mat. 5:48), not in order to be &quot;better than&quot; anyone else, but in order to be agents of God's grace and reconciliation as his rule and reign become more pervasive in the creation he is restoring. This has nothing to do with a superior attitude, as evidenced by the colloquialism &quot;holier-than-thou&quot;; rather it refers to something God is doing, God's intended use for a people he has called to bring about healing through. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting use of this word is found in Paul's writings to the various churches - almost all of which he refers to as &quot;saints&quot; (the Greek word is 'hagios' - the same word used for &quot;Holy Spirit&quot; as well as &quot;all the saints at Philippi).  In contrast to the &quot;holier-than-thou&quot; religious types, these whom the New Testament writers referred to were sometimes (but not always) in serious theological and ethical error (the Corinthians and Galatians especially) and in need of stern correction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Holiness, then, refers not to their actions, or even their attitudes, but to the unique calling God has placed on them to be the body of Christ, hands of healing pressed against the wounds of a bleeding world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="515" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T19:47:29.283" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1754" CreationDate="2011-09-04T20:20:39.230" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anyone who's served on a jury knows that the range of what constitutes &quot;reasonable doubt&quot; is pretty huge with only 12 people in the room. Make it a (much) bigger room, expand the pool to 6 billion, and you'll have a range from total credulity to solipsism.&#xA;If your definition of God includes some sort of fairness, then the requisite self-disclosure should include all 6 billion, including those who thoroughly doubt their own existence. If He clears the bar for the most stringent standard, the credulous will be deafened by the roar (how cruel is that?) and if He falls short of the standard for the last one, it will be terribly unfair to that last one.&#xA;IMO this question is a much subtler version of the &quot;rock that's too big to lift&quot; question -- since an assertion and a negation are included in the question, &quot;Yes&quot; and &quot;No&quot; can never simultaneously answer both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="517" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T20:20:39.230" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1998" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-04T20:49:02.227" Score="4" ViewCount="1898" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/326/jenny-thomson&quot;&gt;Jenny Thompson&lt;/a&gt; generalized this question from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1951/why-is-it-easier-to-make-children-than-to-be-a-father&quot;&gt;another that I asked earlier&lt;/a&gt;, so I thought I'd ask it here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a few suggested answers on this: &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;(But they're probably all wrong)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people have more brain power (frontal lobes) than others &lt;br/&gt; (but this kind of relays me back to God in this case for why that would be the case)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Somebody is probably going to say &quot;because the devil is the ruler of this world&quot;, in which  case I still have to ask, &quot;well why Did God create him then?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Commercialism / Greed has made unethical thought more appealing because of the &quot;short term gains&quot; it provides.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2016-07-24T22:38:35.770" Title="Why is it usually easier to do things the wrong or unethical way than to do things the right way?" Tags="&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-07-25T07:18:39.277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1998" CreationDate="2011-09-04T20:54:31.530" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God allows temptations like this because if it didn't require effort to do what is right, if it was always easy, then we would always do what is right out of simple expediency and never actually learn to live by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T20:54:31.530" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2001" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2160" CreationDate="2011-09-04T21:06:59.810" Score="16" ViewCount="6404" Body="&lt;p&gt;God seems to favor the number seven and I'm not sure why. Is there a reason, or is this just His favorite number? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll notice that God not only uses the number seven, but multiplies other numbers by seven as well. Please provide scripture and let me know if there are other numbers that God uses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T21:43:53.240" LastActivityDate="2015-12-07T17:52:39.920" Title="Why is the number seven special?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;numerology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1998" CreationDate="2011-09-04T21:39:20.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because adding arbitrary external constraints on any task makes it more difficult.  Doing it ethically is harder, doing it standing on your head is harder, doing it in multiple languages is harder. Automatic property of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T21:39:20.200" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2003" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2032" CreationDate="2011-09-04T21:56:19.783" Score="16" ViewCount="2758" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God is truly omniscient as in &quot;all knowing&quot;, then God knows everything including the future.  But doesn't this then remove his choice to do something other than the choices he takes in the future he knows of?  In which case he is not omnipotent?  Or conversely, if he can truly do anything because he is &quot;all powerful&quot;, this has to make the future uncertain even to himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can these two common claims about God be reconciled?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(There are definitely different ways to interpret &quot;omniscience&quot; and &quot;omnipotence&quot;, and not all of them are going to be biblically relevant or logically reasonable.  I imagine that these claims represent formalized, philosophical representations of God which might not have an &lt;em&gt;exact&lt;/em&gt; biblical basis (like I suspect the Trinity does) -- not meaning they are biblically &lt;em&gt;incorrect&lt;/em&gt; but just not necessarily &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; correct in the way a human might understand them.  Still, I think this is a relevant question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T07:35:21.607" LastActivityDate="2020-10-07T16:13:34.863" Title="How do Christians reconcile God's omnipotence with his omniscience?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2003" CreationDate="2011-09-04T22:11:17.380" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a third &quot;omni&quot; that reconciles the two: omnibenevolent.  God has the power to make any choice he feels like, but because he has a perfect moral code, he always knows which choice is the best one to make, and so he can know the future, even concerning his own actions, without losing free will: he will make the correct choice for each choice he is given.  It's not that he &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; make any other choice, but that he &lt;em&gt;won't&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T22:11:17.380" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2007" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2088" CreationDate="2011-09-04T22:50:40.910" Score="22" ViewCount="89023" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was taught in Sunday school to pray hands folded. On the other hand, there's no biblical mention of the practice (as far as I know). It actually doesn't seem to matter &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1855/can-we-pray-from-any-position&quot;&gt;which position we pray in&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did folding hands come to be a common practice? Is there some reasoning behind it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogodoun/2046594413/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/iLnkQm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Gevouwen handen by Rob van Hilten, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogodoun/2046594413/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gevouwen handen by Rob van Hilten (CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2017-03-07T18:50:06.243" Title="What is the origin of praying hands folded?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2008" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2015" CreationDate="2011-09-04T22:51:49.303" Score="9" ViewCount="322" Body="&lt;p&gt;Going back to original Hebrew texts where possible, what is the most basic understanding of the firmament (the substance/realm/space that God supposedly stuck between heaven from earth)?  I've read a lot of literature theorizing about the antediluvian world, creationist texts and such, postulating (guessing about) different natures for the &quot;firmament&quot;.  But looking only at the texts, what could be learned about the Biblical/ancient-Hebrew understanding of the stuff?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-13T19:49:54.493" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T19:49:54.493" Title="What is the most basic Biblical understanding of the nature of the firmament?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2011-09-04T22:55:28.197" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I perused the entire Bible today looking at verses that mention angels. The strongest one I found was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:34-36&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 20:34-36&lt;/a&gt; (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus said to them, &quot;The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because &lt;strong&gt;they are equal to angels&lt;/strong&gt; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ said that in the resurrection we will be equal to the angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T22:55:28.197" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2010" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3638" CreationDate="2011-09-04T23:19:36.607" Score="16" ViewCount="7092" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are some verses &lt;strong&gt;from the Bible&lt;/strong&gt; which instructs us on our attire when attending church worship services and activies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is &quot;formal&quot; dress good / bad / required / optional / recommended?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="102" LastEditDate="2015-02-27T07:12:09.013" LastActivityDate="2015-02-27T07:12:09.013" Title="How should we dress when attending church?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;clothing&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-02-28T17:08:56.917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2003" CreationDate="2011-09-04T23:41:06.330" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer to your two questions is &quot;no&quot;. These things do not limit God. That's what makes Him omnipotent. Omnipotent doesn't mean an unlimited amount of power similar to human power. It means power that is fundamentally unlimited. Where you think you see a conflict, &quot;If God does X, doesn't that mean he cannot do Y&quot; -- no, it does not. Such conflicts pose no limit for God because he is omnipotent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say, &quot;If God does X, he cannot do Y&quot; would require God's decision to do X to limit him in some way. But nothing limits him. That is the definition of &quot;omnipotent&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;[I]f he can truly do anything because he is 'all powerful', this has to make the future uncertain even to himself.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distinction between past and future doesn't apply to an omnipotent, omniscient being. He can change the past as easily as the future and neither the past nor the future are uncertain. Even the idea of &quot;he can truly do anything&quot; isn't really well-formed, because it implies a time before he does something and a time after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are trying to understand that which cannot be understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="520" LastActivityDate="2011-09-04T23:41:06.330" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1989" CreationDate="2011-09-04T23:44:37.977" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sure you're familiar of the story of the three blind men and the elephant. One of them finds the tail and concludes the elephant is soft, long and round. One of them finds the tusk and concludes the elephant is hard. One finds the side and concludes the elephant is like a wall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are all describing the same elephant, but they have caught on to different aspects of it. There is truth in each description of the elephant, but there is error if they assume their description is complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the trick is not to assume your understanding is complete, and this explains the disagreements over the details. But you are all &quot;pointing to&quot; the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="520" LastEditorUserId="520" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T05:39:09.420" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T05:39:09.420" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2011-09-05T00:06:02.160" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Angels are pure spiritual beings. That is, they are pure intellect with no physical bodies. However, they have the ability to somehow form a manifestation so that we can see them when it is necessary for them to communicate with us. Humans are composite beings. We share a physical nature with the animals, but we also have a spiritual and intellectual nature like the angels. So although we have some things in common with the angels, we are different from them because of our physical bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we die, our spiritual component is temporarily separated from our physical body, which usually undergoes decay. During this time, we are spirits without bodies, and in a way more like the angels. However, at the end of this age, at the resurrection, we will be reunited with our resurrected bodies, and will maintain this composite physical/spiritual form for eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that even Jesus, who is God, has a physical body because he permanently united himself with human nature, and he has already undergone resurrection. He somehow has a physical body, although it is different in nature from the body he had before his death. Similarly, our future bodies will be of a different nature than what we have in this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angels never had and never will have bodies, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T00:06:02.160" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2008" CreationDate="2011-09-05T00:11:57.013" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;firmament&quot; denotes something firm and strong, referring to the &quot;dome of the heavens&quot; that was believed to make up the top of the sky in King James's day.  It's a rather poor translation of the Hebrew &lt;em&gt;raqiya&lt;/em&gt;, meaning &quot;expanse&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Raqiya&lt;/em&gt; is derived from the root &lt;em&gt;raqa&lt;/em&gt;, which refers to stretching or spreading something out; the term was used in reference to the creation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_leaf&quot;&gt;gold leaf&lt;/a&gt;, for example.  The idea is that God put something thin and spread out (the atmosphere) over the surface of the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T00:11:57.013" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1991" CreationDate="2011-09-05T00:20:11.670" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a fairly detailed explanation of the Trinity, see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/2049#2049&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;.  But the gist of it is that God is three in &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; and one in &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since then, there are three persons in God, they exist in relationship.  The terms Father and Son express the &lt;em&gt;relationship&lt;/em&gt; between two of the &lt;em&gt;persons&lt;/em&gt;; these terms do not speak in any way to the &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question of how the relationship of Father and Son makes sense in the divine eternity is somewhat complex.  Begetting is a concept which we are less in tune with in our modern western culture, but it speaks to an idea of bringing into existence by the process of reproduction, giving rise to; bringing about.  It is the act of reproducing something of the same &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; as the original being.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In our experience, begetting is temporally limited; a Father must be born and then mature &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; he begets.  But when he begets it's another person of like nature (note that a person begets of &lt;em&gt;similar&lt;/em&gt; nature, but God, being inifinite, necessarily begets of perfectly identical nature).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in God's eternal present, begetting occurs in the immediate eternal such that there never was a time when the Son was not, but yet the Son is a second person in eternity arising from the nature of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my thinking, and this is just my thought, it's as if the nature of God &lt;em&gt;necessitates&lt;/em&gt; from all eternity that there be three persons for relationship and communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As something of an aside, a further point of confusion that arises is because Jesus &quot;put off&quot; his divine nature in order to be incarnate as a man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Phil 2:6-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; Who, being in very nature God, &#xA;     did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; rather, he made himself nothing &#xA;     by taking the very nature of a servant, &#xA;     being made in human likeness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; And being found in appearance as a man, &#xA;     he humbled himself &#xA;     by becoming obedient to death— &#xA;        even death on a cross!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and again:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 2:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; But we do see Jesus, who &lt;strong&gt;was made lower than the angels for a little while&lt;/strong&gt;, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to properly be able to redress the disobedience of Adam, it was necessary for Christ to enter our dimensions of time and space and to function in obedience &lt;em&gt;as a man&lt;/em&gt;. To this end, scripture teaches he emptied himself of his divine nature; he was the same person, but with a &lt;em&gt;temporarily&lt;/em&gt; (that is, within the dimensions of our temporal existence) diminished nature. He chose not to exercise his God-nature except via the Holy Spirit as a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while on earth, Jesus functioned in a limited capacity, as a man invested with the Holy Spirit.  Thus he said, &quot;the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 5:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus gave them this answer: “&lt;strong&gt;Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing&lt;/strong&gt;, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note there is a duality of sorts here; Jesus is still God in person, but has emptied himself of his divine attributes in order to become man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2014-05-23T16:52:19.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1989" CreationDate="2011-09-05T00:20:47.613" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;My experience when I talk to others who are serious followers of Jesus, is that we both know the same person. Even if we are in different denominations and have disagreements about peripheral things, I can just tell after talking to a person for a while that we have something in common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now some Christians may disagree with me on this, but I have even experienced this to a lesser extent when it comes to people in other religions. Some of their beliefs will be very strange to me, but I have had conversations where I suspect that at the core of their experience there is an element of a real encounter with the same God I encounter. Theologically, I believe this is possible because the Holy Spirit draws all men to Christ, no matter what their religious background. Some people may respond to that drawing in a gradual manner, and may have some experience with God in the context of a religion which is flawed in its doctrines. They may convert to Christ in this life, or maybe it won't be until the end of their lives that they realize that the one they were following was really Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is only through Jesus that any human can approach God because Jesus is the only one who is God and man, bridging the human and divine in his own person. So when anyone has an encounter with God, I believe it takes place through Jesus, whether the person knows that or not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T00:20:47.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-09-05T00:42:24.380" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The scripture is silent on the matter (to the best of my knowledge).  As far as I know it's an idea that came about as showing respect for God and the place where he is worshiped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, these kinds of things are purely man-made legalistic things that serve to do little except create problems and division.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just my two cents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T00:42:24.380" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1969" CreationDate="2011-09-05T00:56:51.720" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;He means the same thing as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_covenant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the old covenant&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (Judaism), but stated in the language of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dispensationalism&lt;/a&gt;, which classifies the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;different timeline &quot;slices&quot;&lt;/a&gt; of God's plan. We tend to think of it as old covenant/new covenant but if you start getting really anal about it and analyzing &quot;what about before Moses&quot; and &quot;what about after the Rapture&quot; you get a bit more of a complicated set of salvation schemes over time, or &quot;dispensations.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I guess I'm surprised that this is a contentious or misunderstood point, has no one heard of dispensationalism? I provided the links above for a reason. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=7yYyY_2KufYC&amp;amp;lpg=PA7&amp;amp;ots=uAVU2Nm4xN&amp;amp;dq=t.s.%20eliot%20dispensationalism&amp;amp;pg=PA24#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=dispensationalism&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mastery and escape: T.S. Eliot and the dialectic of modernism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; discusses Eliot's dispensationalism specifically and how he uses this term in much of his writing. He was, you know, into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastEditorUserId="232" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2012-03-01T03:50:54.477" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T03:50:54.477" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2011-09-05T01:22:37.710" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, you're not a hypocrite, for two reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible instructs us to be charitable (James, chapter 2, verses 14-17 says that if faith &quot;does not lead to action, it is in itself a lifeless thing&quot; and Proverbs, chapter 11, verses 24-25 says that &quot;A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed&quot;). But it does not say that it has to be organized, let alone organized in so specific a way as to necessitate a government program.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not everyone else is a Christian, and it's reasonable for Christians to support something, but not support mandating that thing for all of society.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an extension of point #1: charity is a significant part of Christian teaching, but by definition charity ceases to exist when it is at all coerced or compelled. True charity is only possible when it is given voluntarily. Whether one supports government welfare programs or not, they remove the possibility of real charity by their very nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="523" LastEditorUserId="523" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T17:12:09.100" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T17:12:09.100" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2026" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2070" CreationDate="2011-09-05T01:55:55.613" Score="16" ViewCount="35788" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God created everything in the world then did he also create the serpent who tempted Eve?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why would he do this? Why would he create something to contended with himself and tempt others to disobey God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not how did the serpent get there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="256" LastActivityDate="2015-03-12T07:11:32.073" Title="Did God create the serpent in the Garden of Eden?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:35:13.743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2026" CreationDate="2011-09-05T02:07:20.890" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with a lot of things in the early chapters, Genesis isn't very clear on the details.  It doesn't even specifically say that Satan had anything to do with it, but that's generally accepted as true, that Satan was working through the serpent in some way.  But we do see that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The serpent tempted Eve, and she partook of the fruit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eve didn't see anything particularly strange about a serpent talking to her.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God cursed the serpent for its participation in the event.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that Satan was Lucifer, a great and powerful angel who was cast out of heaven for rebellion, and has been trying to get God back for it ever since by screwing up His plan.  It stands to reason that if Satan was able to tempt people, he would also be able to tempt animals that can communicate with people.  He picked the serpent for being &quot;the most subtle.&quot;  Why?  it doesn't say.  Maybe he simply wanted to get every advantage he could to make sure that his first attempt to derail God's plan worked.  In any event, he picked the most subtle of the animals and convinced it to tempt the humans into eating the forbidden fruit, and it worked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T02:07:20.890" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2028" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T02:38:57.747" Score="14" ViewCount="1116" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that there are many different reasons to pray: confessing your sins, thanking God for daily provisions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, many people pray for intercession and believe in the possibility that God will intervene on their behalf. There are also examples of this in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any evidence to suggest that God intervenes on our behalf (in the modern world). There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but are there any studies demonstrating proof of the effectiveness of intercessory prayer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God intervenes on our behalf surely this can easily be proved, reproducible, and should be statistically greater than chance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is no evidence to suggest this type of prayer is effective, is there any purpose for praying for intercession?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="256" LastActivityDate="2019-05-30T23:21:47.497" Title="Effectiveness of prayers of intercession" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;intercession&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-09-05T03:05:39.950" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dress affects behavior. In our culture formal dress indicates respect, hence the reason why its commonplace at weddings, funerals, and other events or situations where respect is expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will &lt;strong&gt;act&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;feel&lt;/strong&gt; differently in a room full of people in rags vs a room full of people in dresses and tuxedos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no commandment to wear formal dress at church services, but I feel most respectful when dressed formally and I like to afford others the same opportunity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T03:16:51.070" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T03:16:51.070" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2028" CreationDate="2011-09-05T03:17:28.447" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best analysis/meta-analysis I know of regarding intercessory prayer has been conducted by the Templeton Institute, &lt;a href=&quot;https://web.archive.org/web/20110729021628/https://www.templeton.org/newsroom/press_releases/060407step.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;with a negative result&lt;/a&gt;.  Thus, there is presently no statistical support for the belief that prayer will be answered in an obvious or measurable way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, praying for intercession need not necessarily be done because you think God will listen to your individual plea and change outcomes accordingly.  It could also be done because you have hopes for how things will turn out and want to express those hopes in a meaningful way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2019-05-30T23:21:47.497" LastActivityDate="2019-05-30T23:21:47.497" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-09-05T03:20:37.040" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;You &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; dress however you want to, just go. If the church makes you feel unwelcome because of how you are dressed, how you look or any other reason related to your appearance please find a new church, these folks are hypocrites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you may be more comfortable if you find a church that the expected dress fits your lifestyle and how you typically dress. If you enjoy getting dressed up you can find a more traditional church where folks tend to wear suits and ties. However, if you'd rather wear jeans and tees to church there are plenty out there where even the pastor shows up in jeans (I go to one :)). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, let me be very clear. How we dress for church is really a terrible criteria for choosing a church (however it is an element to consider). Good doctrine, Quality of preaching, the kind of worship, and finally whether you feel welcome and comfortable in the community are all things that are far more important in choosing a church than the dress code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T11:43:23.520" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T11:43:23.520" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2003" CreationDate="2011-09-05T03:35:24.800" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;In historic theology, there are three primary attributes of God, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. (I have never heard of omnibenevolence until today, and while we surely &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; postulate many novel omni-x combinations, they would be just that &lt;em&gt;novel&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Omnipotence is the lack of limitation to cause a desired effect. Omniscience is the lack of limitation on knowledge. Omnipresence is the lack of dimensional limitations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that we are now dealing with infinite qualities, things which finite men cannot fully grasp - we can only meditate on them, ponder them and &amp;quot;see things dimly&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 13:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common thought-puzzle raised in objection to the omnipotence of God is the question, &lt;em&gt;can God create a weight he cannot lift?&lt;/em&gt; However, this question actually postulates a logical contradiction. There are some things God cannot do because they are, to put it plainly, nonsense. For example: God cannot act contrary to his nature; this is not a limitation of his power but a simple fact of his being. It is simply a contradiction to postulate an infinite being acting contrary to his nature; he has no such limitation that would make it possible to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On to the specific difficulty posed in the question. The question fails to recognize the third of God's primary attributes, omnipresence and also misrepresents the attribute of omniscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's omnipresence applies not only to space but also to time. God created time at the same point that he created space (and science also concludes that time began with the material universe, FWIW). God is &lt;em&gt;outside&lt;/em&gt; of time; he is not temporally limited in any way. For God, all time is &lt;em&gt;present&lt;/em&gt; - he is the great &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I AM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore God's omniscience is therefore not constrained to temporal thinking; he knows everything in the present. He has no conflict with what will happen in the future, and the future does not limit him, because for him there is no future - all of existence is &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's choices happen in the eternal-present and in no way limit him because they are made according to his perfect and infinite nature. Whatever God does he does in this capacity and doing something other than what he has done is not within his nature because what God &lt;em&gt;wills&lt;/em&gt; simply &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;. &amp;quot;And God &lt;em&gt;said&lt;/em&gt;, let their be light, and there was&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, God quite literally defines all of reality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit 2012-01-04&lt;/strong&gt;: In response to Indigo's comment, which is a common misconception:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, if GOD is bound by the laws of logic, then one would have to explain how HE can be bound by something he HIMSELF created (or, if HE didn't, who did it then).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mistake here is in assuming God &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; the &amp;quot;laws&amp;quot; of logic, instead of recognizing that logical coherence &lt;em&gt;derives&lt;/em&gt; from God's nature as an inherent characteristic. In fact, our capacity for coherent logical reasoning reflects the image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Interestingly, but as something of an aside, the Bible calls the second person of the Trinity (Jesus) the &amp;quot;Word&amp;quot; of God, from the Greek &lt;em&gt;logos&lt;/em&gt;, the same root as our word logic. The Word was not created, but rather &amp;quot;proceeds&amp;quot; from the essence of God by his nature. In other words (pun not intended) the person of Jesus is a natural consequence of the being of God, as are the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit 2012-01-06&lt;/strong&gt;: In response to Indigo's subsequent comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ahh, now you make a differnece between &amp;quot;created by God&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;derived from God&amp;quot;. Yet this doesn't help with the dilemma, unless you define &amp;quot;almighty&amp;quot; by &amp;quot;bound by its natures inherent characteristics&amp;quot; or something like that. As soon as you do that, I am with you. [sic]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any being is bound by their nature; God is by nature infinite, which is to say, unlimited. That does not mean he can act contrary to his nature; no being can - it means that anything contrary to his nature is by definition nonsensical, or as I put it in my answer, a logical contradiction. Not even God can make something be black and white at once, not because his power is &amp;quot;limited&amp;quot;, but because that's a contradiction in the definitions of the terms. In other words the only way that something can be black and white simultaneously is to alter the definitions of the terms or use abstractions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-01-15T21:39:25.737" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2033" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2037" CreationDate="2011-09-05T03:35:56.390" Score="11" ViewCount="9617" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard the term &quot;flat earthers&quot; mentioned in regards to Christians. Does the Bible suggest that the earth is flat or that the earth is round?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What scripture is there that suggest a round earth or flat earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-04-14T19:35:11.020" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T05:53:01.840" Title="Does the Bible suggest that the earth is round?" Tags="&lt;earth&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-04-15T05:18:48.050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2033" CreationDate="2011-09-05T03:43:21.853" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a verse in Isaiah that suggests that the earth is round.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2040:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 40:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He sits enthroned above the &lt;strong&gt;circle of the earth&lt;/strong&gt;, &#xA;    and its people are like grasshoppers. &#xA;  He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, &#xA;    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The debate about whether this proves the bible taught the earth is round, seems to hinge on the hebrew word here used for circle &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2329.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;חוּג&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (chug), the opposition argues that the Hebrew means a specific geometrical shape. While the pro side argues that the Hebrews at the time didn't have a proper word for sphere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately I believe God revealed things to his people within the context of what they were able to understand and at that time it was a simple circle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T04:03:51.413" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T04:03:51.413" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2003" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:09:56.580" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, you are assuming that God is bound by time.  God is a being outside of time.  &lt;em&gt;He created time.&lt;/em&gt;  Concepts like &quot;future&quot; and &quot;past&quot; would look totally different to him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, turn your order around. Rather than trying to understand how a being that is first omniscient (regarding the future) can also be omnipotent, rather think how easy it would be for a being that is first omnipotent to control outcomes so that the future becomes what he already knows. But again, that is irrelevant as God is outside time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T04:09:56.580" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2033" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:14:27.030" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to Isaiah 40:22, which Ashansky pointed out, there's also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2026:7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Job 26: 7&lt;/a&gt;, which states that the earth is hung &quot;upon nothing&quot;.  This is quite a difference from, for example, the Greek idea of Earth supported upon Atlas's shoulders, or the Hindu notion of Earth resting upon the back of an elephant which stands on the back of a turtle which swims in a vast ocean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:31-36%20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Luke 17:31-36&lt;/a&gt; speaks of people being taken away into heaven at (or before, but that's a matter for a different question) the time of the Second Coming, and states that some will be taken at night, and some in the daytime, even though it's supposed to happen all at once.  That's not possible on a flat earth model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of a flat earth is not found in the Bible or in ancient Christian thought.  The notion that people thought it was was invented almost simultaneously, but apparently independently, by two 19th-century authors. One came up with the idea for dramatic purposes; the other did so quite maliciously for the specific purpose of slandering and discrediting Christianity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a &quot;simple mariner,&quot; appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was &quot;pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene,&quot; created a fictitious account of this &quot;nonexistent university council&quot; and &quot;let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- Jeffrey Burton Russell, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html&quot;&gt;The Myth of the Flat Earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, from an extrabliblical source, it seems that Clement, bishop of Rome from the early Christian period, had correct knowledge of the earth.  He spoke of &lt;em&gt;antichthones&lt;/em&gt; (Greek, literally &quot;people on the other side of the world&quot;) and stated that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ocean is impassable to men; and those are worlds which are on the other side of it, which are governed by these same arrangements of the ruling God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- cited &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/origen/principia.asp?pg=81&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; with the rather indecipherable &quot;Clemens Rom., Ep. i., ad Cor., c. 20.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T04:36:42.127" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T04:36:42.127" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2038" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2061" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:16:01.223" Score="15" ViewCount="21586" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know it sounds like a silly or weird question, but I'm serious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2024:2&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Genesis 24:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my &lt;strong&gt;thigh&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2047:29&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Genesis 47:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As the time of his death drew near, Jacob called for his son Joseph and said to him, “Please do me this favor. Put your hand under my &lt;strong&gt;thigh&lt;/strong&gt; and swear that you will treat me with unfailing love by honoring this last request: Do not bury me in Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%207:33&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Leviticus 7:33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The right &lt;strong&gt;thigh&lt;/strong&gt; must always be given to the priest who offers the blood and the fat of the peace offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:16&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Revelation 19:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On his robe at his &lt;strong&gt;thigh&lt;/strong&gt; was written this title: King of all kings and Lord of all &gt;lords.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is the thigh important?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-03-29T18:25:47.850" LastActivityDate="2017-10-16T02:35:48.733" Title="Why are thighs important?" Tags="&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;oaths&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:39:47.130" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a visitor, you should dress however you feel comfortable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a member, you have a duty in the worship service, as in everything, to act (and dress) in manner that first honors and respects God, secondly honors and respects others, and lastly honors and respects yourself. God is very specific in the ways he expects us to honor and respect Him, but &amp;mdash; aside from modesty &amp;mdash; the matter of dress is left open &amp;mdash; even in the worship. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It falls then to honor and respect for others. Here, the &quot;others&quot; in question should &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; be those visiting the worship service from outside. It is my personal belief that formal dress by all members is therefore &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; in line with what should be expected of us.  Rather, we should dress so that a visitor will be comfortable, no matter what they show up wearing.  That means some should wear suits or dresses, but others should wear a ratty old t-shirt. Not every congregation needs both extremes, but if an entire congregation is all to one side or the other, they aren't doing their job properly to create an atmosphere where anyone would feel welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T04:39:47.130" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1770" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:44:05.037" Score="4" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I seriously doubt that the &quot;witch&quot; you saw would qualify as the same type of &quot;witch&quot; referred to by that passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The groups that call themselves &quot;witches&quot; today in America* were derived from a neopagan movement started by Gardener and Alexander in the mid 20th century.  Despite what some of them claim, none of their paths even existed when the Bible was written (note the &quot;neo&quot; as in &quot;new&quot; -- pagan traditions that pre-dated the Bible or were contemporary with it did not describe themselves as witchcraft, though outsiders sometimes did). I don't know what the Bible was referring to, but it wasn't modern &quot;witchcraft&quot;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;em&gt;with the exception of Louisiana Hoodoo, Hatian Vodou, and American Vodun, which were derived from a combination of Roman Catholicism, Native American practices, and West African Vodun -- of these, only Native American traditions might pre-date the old-testament, and they were half a world away from Israel, never described themselves as &quot;witches&quot;, and were unlikely to have been a matter of concern in writing the Bible.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The command was given specifically to the nation of Israel rather than to all believers, that such things should be against the law within their borders. Since Believers are now spread among the nations, rather than a nation set apart, such a law no longer makes sense.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="27" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T13:16:34.813" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T13:16:34.813" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2041" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:45:40.050" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T04:45:40.050" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T04:45:40.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2042" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:45:40.050" Score="0" Body="A time of tribulation that precedes the Second Coming of Jesus, the Christian Messiah, who will usher in the fullness of the Kingdom of God" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T04:47:05.777" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T04:47:05.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2043" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:46:58.130" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hermeneutics refers to the study of the interpretation of written texts, especially texts in the areas of literature, religion and law. Biblical hermeneutics is the same studies applied to the canon of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A hermeneutic (singular) refers to one particular method or strand of interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The terms exegesis and hermeneutics are sometimes used interchangeably because exegesis focuses primarily on the written text. Hermeneutics however is a more widely defined discipline of interpretation theory including the entire framework of the interpretive process and, encompassing all forms of communication and expression; written, verbal, artistic, geo-political, physiological, sociological etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Biblical hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1817/biblical-hermeneutics&quot;&gt;Biblical hermeneutics Stack Exchange site proposal&lt;/a&gt; over on Area 51.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-11T19:12:49.747" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T19:12:49.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2044" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:46:58.130" Score="0" Body="Hermeneutics is the study of the interpretation of written texts." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-11T19:12:49.747" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T19:12:49.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2045" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:48:42.293" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Matthew is usually the first book of the New Testament. Use this tag for any questions about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T18:02:30.273" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T18:02:30.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2046" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:48:42.293" Score="0" Body="The book of the Bible describing Jesus' life, usually attributed to Matthew." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T18:02:41.693" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T18:02:41.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2047" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:51:25.393" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The marriage tag has been through several revisions in an effort to be the most useful &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the least polarizing. There are two specific meta posts that should be reviewed and considered first before making suggested edits:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4073/proposal-for-tagging-questions-that-concern-marriage-both-traditional-and-non-t&quot;&gt;Proposal for tagging questions that concern marriage, both traditional and non-traditional forms&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5843/suggestion-for-a-minor-change-to-the-marriage-tag-excerpt&quot;&gt;Suggestion for a minor change to the marriage tag excerpt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Tag Wiki&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marriage is defined differently by various Christian faiths:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/catholic&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;catholic&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;catholic&lt;/a&gt; Church teaches that Marriage is the lifelong union between a man and woman with openness to children&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/orthodox&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;orthodox&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;orthodox&lt;/a&gt; Church teaching is similar to the Catholic Church makes provisions for divorce over and above the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/annulment&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;annulment&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;annulment&lt;/a&gt; process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most Mainline &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/protestant&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;protestant&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;protestant&lt;/a&gt; Denominations and Evangelical Churches teach that marriage is a covenant between a man and a women, but allow for divorce and, in some cases, remarriage as well as limiting family size (but still believe that marriage is the foundation of the family unit)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/lds&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;lds&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;lds&lt;/a&gt; Church recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. The LDS Church  also believes in the covenant of eternal marriage, called a sealing, between a man, a woman, and God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Still other Christians have other practices and beliefs concerning what they consider to be marriage which may be discussed here. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some questions on this site explore the boundaries of the term &quot;marriage&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/128/the-bible-seems-to-allow-polygamy-why-doesnt-the-church&quot;&gt;The Bible seems to allow polygamy. Why doesn&amp;#39;t the church?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4488/when-did-the-prohibition-of-marriage-for-priests-in-the-catholic-church-originat&quot;&gt;When did the prohibition of marriage for priests in the Catholic church originate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1050/what-does-the-bible-say-about-interracial-marriages&quot;&gt;What does the bible say about interracial marriages?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17815/how-do-christians-in-support-of-gay-marriage-interpret-anti-gay-bible-verses&quot;&gt;How do Christians in support of gay marriage interpret anti-gay Bible verses?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6724/does-the-act-of-sex-constitute-marriage-in-gods-eyes&quot;&gt;Does the act of sex constitute marriage in God&amp;#39;s eyes?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Genesis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;“This at last is bone of my bones  &#xA;    and flesh of my flesh;  &#xA;she shall be called Woman,  &#xA;    because she was taken out of Man.”  &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Genesis+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Genesis 2:18-25 ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul, in the New Testament, often compares the relationship between the Church and Christ to the marriage covenant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Ephesians+5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Ephesians 5:25-33 ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2016-02-02T06:52:20.223" LastActivityDate="2016-02-02T06:52:20.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2048" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-05T04:51:25.393" Score="0" Body="Use this tag for questions about attitudes and doctrines regarding marriage. For questions relating specifically to same-sex marriage and polygamy, use the appropriate tags." OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2016-02-02T06:51:53.183" LastActivityDate="2016-02-02T06:51:53.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="72" CreationDate="2011-09-05T05:01:09.743" Score="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the word Trinity does not occur in scripture, the concept and idea of the Trinity does, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.  A detailed treatment of the Trinity with linked references can be found on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/godhead_trinity.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;GodAndScience.org&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the following scriptural quotes, all bold text is my emphasis (in fact, there is no use of italics or bold in scripture), and note I tend to link to the whole chapter so it's easy to see the verses in context).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fair warning: This going to be long, and even so it is only scratching the surface of an understanding that typically seems to take &lt;em&gt;decades&lt;/em&gt; for most Christians to grow into in their understanding of God.  The TL;DR answer begins with the heading for &amp;quot;God is Trinity&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;God Is Plural&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's examine the scriptures to speak to God's plurality, and then see if we can understand the way that &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; God can also be &lt;em&gt;three&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first hint you can see is in Genesis 1, at the end of Day 6 when God creates man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:26-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; Then God said, “Let &lt;strong&gt;us&lt;/strong&gt; make mankind in &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; image, in&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; likeness, so that &lt;strong&gt;they&lt;/strong&gt; may rule over the fish in the sea&#xA;and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,&#xA;and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; So God created mankind in &lt;strong&gt;his&lt;/strong&gt; own image,     in the image&#xA;of God &lt;strong&gt;he&lt;/strong&gt; created &lt;strong&gt;them&lt;/strong&gt;; male and female he created &lt;strong&gt;them&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this passage we could deduce that in some way, God is in some manner plural.  (We can also see that the image of God is both male and female, even though scripture consistently refers to the Godhead in the male gender).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, though it's not obvious from the English, the first indication of plurality in God is in the very first verse in the Hebrew word for God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word translated &amp;quot;God&amp;quot; is the word El or Elohim. Elohim is&#xA;the plural form of El. The plural form is used 2607 of the 2845 times&#xA;the word &amp;quot;God&amp;quot; is used in the Old Testament. Not only is the word for&#xA;God usually used in the plural form, but several verses refer to God&#xA;as &amp;quot;Us&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of how the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the plural is that&#xA;it is translated &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot; (referring to idols) 235 times in the Old&#xA;Testament. It is exactly the same word that is translated &amp;quot;God,&amp;quot;&#xA;referring to the Almighty. An example is given below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I am the LORD your God [Elohim], who brought you out of the land of&#xA;Egypt, out of the house of slavery. &amp;quot;You shall have no other gods&#xA;[Elohim] before Me. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:2-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:2-3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rich Deem (God and Science.org)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Son is God&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a huge number of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/songod.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;verses in scripture&lt;/a&gt; that ascribe the same divine attributes to both the Father and the Son.  But to me, more &amp;quot;obvious&amp;quot; are the scriptures which state Jesus is God, outright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mat%201:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mat 1:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him &lt;strong&gt;Immanuel&lt;/strong&gt;” (which means &lt;strong&gt;“God with us”&lt;/strong&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1 speaks not only to Jesus (the Word) being God, but that all that was created was created through him (Jesus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; He was with God in the beginning. &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through &lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, &lt;strong&gt;who is himself God&lt;/strong&gt; and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the letter to the Colossians gives us to know that Jesus is &lt;em&gt;fully&lt;/em&gt; God, speaking of the risen Lord (notice the present tense):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Col 2:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; For &lt;strong&gt;in Christ&lt;/strong&gt; all the fullness of the &lt;strong&gt;Deity&lt;/strong&gt; lives in bodily form&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many more scriptures that speak to the deity of Jesus can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/songod.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Holy Spirit is God&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as a person, on equal footing with himself and his Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:25-27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; “All this I have spoken while still with you. &lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. &lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(by the way, in case you have ever wondered, this &amp;quot;remind[ing] you of everything I have said to you&amp;quot; is how the disciples recalled and recorded the Gospels so accurately and in such detail; it was through the Holy Spirit.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, in the following chapters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 15:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. &lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 16:12-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a fuller treatment of the Holy Spirit's deity and person, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/spiritgod.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;see here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;God Is One&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, having now seen that there are three persons in this God we serve, why do Christians then claim that there is but &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; God?  Again, it's because this is what God has revealed in the scriptures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deut 6:4-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse from Deuteronomy is especially interesting because the same plural-form word for God is used: Yahweh &lt;em&gt;Elohim&lt;/em&gt;, followed immediately by the declaration that he is one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 8:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, more references can be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/onegod.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;found here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;But God is Trinity&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the word &amp;quot;trinity&amp;quot; is not used, scripture does seem to teach three distinct persons who are identified as &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt;, such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mat 28:18-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, scripture teaches us that God is both &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt;, and at the same time &lt;em&gt;three&lt;/em&gt;.  How can this be?  First you must accept that finite man cannot fully comprehend the nature and being of an infinite God.  The Trinity is a &lt;em&gt;mystery&lt;/em&gt; - we can wrestle with it, we can approach it, we can apprehend it in our &lt;em&gt;hearts&lt;/em&gt;, but ultimately our mind ends up only loosely understanding, like trying to wrap your mind around the concept of infinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of particular concern is trying to explain God by use of analogy, these always break down, and I have never heard one to even remotely adequate to fully picture of the Trinity as alluded to in scripture (they give us a &lt;em&gt;glimpse&lt;/em&gt;, but taken alone the picture is nearly always of a heretical understanding).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have struggled with the idea of the Trinity all my journey, but recently I read Frank Sheed's &lt;em&gt;Theology and Sanity&lt;/em&gt;, which I found very helpful.  He does not attempt to explain by analogy, but describes God as being &lt;em&gt;one nature&lt;/em&gt; shared by &lt;em&gt;three persons&lt;/em&gt;.  I will end with some quotes from his book (emphasis Sheed's):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The notion is unfortunately widespread that the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is a mystery of mathematics, that is to say, of how one can equal three.  The plain Christian accepts the doctrine of the Trinity; the &amp;quot;advanced&amp;quot; Christian rejects it; but too often what is being accepted by one and rejected by the other is that one equals three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short statement of the doctrine is, as we have heard it all our lives, that there are three persons in one nature. But if we attach no meaning to the word &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt;, and no meaning to the word &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt;, then both the nouns have dropped out of our definition, and we are left of with the numbers three and one, and get by as best we can with these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine may be set out in four statements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the one divine nature, there are three persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father: no one of the persons is the either of the others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are not three Gods, but one God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not saying three persons in one person, or three natures in one nature; we are saying three persons in one nature.  There is not even the appearance of an arithmetical problem.  It is for us to see what person is and what nature is, and the to consider what meaning there can be in a nature totally possessed by three distinct persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nature answers the question &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; we are; person answers the question &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; we are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-10-21T17:48:02.743" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-09-05T05:06:13.450" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to take the contrarian position and offer the question: why would you &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt; dress formally? Some plausible reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to symbolize the significance of an occasion (wedding, anniversary dinner)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to show honor (funeral, graduation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to give your best (first date)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These all seem applicable to corporate worship. Granted, some are rich/poor, stylish/fashion-challenged, etc., but the idea is giving your best, which varies by individual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="369" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T05:06:13.450" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-09-05T05:14:02.890" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have dress-codes for every occasions, correct? We do not go to a party in Swim suits. We give respects to the places if the place expects how we need to be, which was set by tradition even-though culture influences our dress-codes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have traditions in churches, and we have respect to the church. If we think our dress reflects respect to the church and if the church accepts the dress, you can wear that dress. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At one occasion in the Bible, where our Lord asks Moses to remove his footwear at His holy place. At another occasion, Peter identified Jesus and put on his outer Garment (Jn 21:7) while he was working without dresses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no need for writers to mention about the Dress code for the synagogues due to the culture of Jews; their dresses raised no question of wearing something objectionable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T05:14:02.890" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2052" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T05:28:33.633" Score="3" ViewCount="96" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/410/blood-transfusions-and-christianity&quot;&gt;Blood transfusions and Christianity?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible makes it known that blood is Holy, it is what gives us life. The Jehovah's Witnesses seem to think that a person should not accept another living creature's blood; I am aware that they use scripture to back up this claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any scripture to suggest the contrary of this idea? Is it more important that we reject a blood transfusion to give God glory, or should we fight for life in order to give God glory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T16:03:31.870" Title="Should we accept blood transfusions?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;healing&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-09-05T06:08:54.917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2033" CreationDate="2011-09-05T05:31:43.237" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passages that most suggest a flat earth are those that describe something geometrically impossible if interpreted literally for a spherical earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Daniel 4:10-11 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the tree that is everywhere-visible due to height is repeated in Daniel 4:20 (by Daniel), it's a dream, so could be metaphorical, and anyway is just the opinion of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, who are probably not authorities on celestial geometry and are really talking about Nebuchadnezzar's impending fall due to unrighteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 4:8 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This certainly implies that the reason to go to a very high mountain is that you can see all the kingdoms of the world from a sufficiently tall mountain, but it doesn't flat-out say so.  Perhaps it's just to gain an impressive if not worldwide perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="519" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T05:55:33.557" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T05:55:33.557" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2011-09-05T06:25:11.340" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would argue that supporting government-run welfare programs and being Christian is hypocritical, not the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that the Bible does call for Christians to give to the poor. However, this is a &lt;em&gt;moral&lt;/em&gt; decision. Putting this in the hands of the government essentially makes it mandatory. You've lost the ability to make this moral judgement - instead giving becomes &lt;em&gt;expected&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;enforced&lt;/em&gt;, and is meaningless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a similar, but perhaps more contrived example, what if a law was considered that made holding non-Christian beliefs a crime? Would be be hypocritical to protest against this bill because it shows that you hold non-Christian beliefs? If the government legislated all good Christian practices, would every citizen be perfectly Christian? As Chris Bowyer put it, charity (and by extension, any moral decision) is only possible when undertaken voluntarily. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="527" LastEditorUserId="527" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T06:32:30.597" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T06:32:30.597" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1998" CreationDate="2011-09-05T06:38:23.440" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's only easier at first to do the wrong thing; but consequences follow and make the way more difficult afterwards. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs has a lot to say about wisdom and not going the easy, enticing way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;There is a way that seems right to a man, &#xA;but in the end it leads to death. (Prov. 14:12).&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;In the paths of the wicked lie thorns and snares, &#xA;but he who guards his soul stays far from them.&quot; (Prov. 22:5)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, &#xA;shining ever brighter till the full light of day. (Prov. 4:18).&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why it is easier for us to do the wrong thing, Paul speaks of the death that reigns over all mankind because of the sinful nature we inherited from Adam:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;...sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, &#xA;and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our inherited propensity to sin makes it harder to do the right thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="494" LastEditorUserId="494" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T06:45:04.013" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T06:45:04.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2028" CreationDate="2011-09-05T06:40:44.407" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is, fundamentally, a problem in attempting to analyse results as evidence of intercession: correlation is not the same as causality; stating that &quot;we prayed for him, and he recovered&quot; is not the same as demonstrating &quot;we prayed for him and this is what &lt;em&gt;caused&lt;/em&gt; him to recover&quot;. He could have recovered through any number of routes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;natural body recovery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;medical help (I've heard that can help)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, there is no &quot;control group&quot; in an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;individual&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; scenario such as this to provide any meaningful way of interpreting the result. Additionally, a single event has &lt;em&gt;absolutely&lt;/em&gt; no statistical relevance; at the individual level, all bets are off. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2028/effectiveness-of-prayers-of-intercession/2030#2030&quot;&gt;As Rex Kerr has already noted&lt;/a&gt;, attempts to &lt;em&gt;scientifically&lt;/em&gt; study this (with proper control groups, etc) have not gone so well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another issue here is the human mind's ability to celebrate success and forget failure (similar to the way in which a gambler forgets all the many times he has lost, and uses the fewer number of wins to justify their habit):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when the desire of the prayer works, it is often shouted from the rooftops, used in headlines as evidential proof, etc&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when it doesn't, people are reasonably sad (quite often it means somebody has died), but it is not given the same announcement; I really can't envisage a headline &quot;Alleluia! Our prayers for Tony's illness have been answered! God has spoken! He died.&quot; (please forgive the morbid tone)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point in the above is not to say &quot;prayer is useless&quot;, but rather: the &lt;em&gt;anecdotal&lt;/em&gt; evidence is itself naturally biased towards to positive; since the negative is dismissed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my view; if you feel that prayer helps, pray. A good friend of mine had these sage words to say on the effectiveness of prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In my view, God's already with this newly growing family, and is looking after them and loving them. That's what God does. I waver greatly in terms of what prayer does, what it can accomplish etc, but I think I'm generally of the opinion that it's more to influence &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; actions than God's. If praying makes me more aware of their needs, even just by giving me space to consciously think of what they might be going through and how I could help, how is that a bad thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are not my words, so please don't interpret &quot;more ... than God's&quot; as me saying prayer doesn't work - but if prayer causes &lt;em&gt;the praying person&lt;/em&gt; (the pray-er?) to act more towards the goal, then &lt;em&gt;in that sense&lt;/em&gt; it might demonstratively work (to the non-theist: reflection may achieve a similar aim).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T10:34:55.140" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2058" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2062" CreationDate="2011-09-05T07:39:36.163" Score="4" ViewCount="18585" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently had some things stolen out of my car, and I vaguely remember reading somewhere in the New Testament that you shouldn't desire to get stolen items back. I've been searching for it, but I can't seem to find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know the verse?&#xA;Also, is there any other encouraging scripture you could recommend on the topic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="107" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T12:42:47.173" LastActivityDate="2015-03-22T14:00:03.823" Title="What is some relevent scripture regarding having something stolen?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-03-26T03:43:54.923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2038" CreationDate="2011-09-05T09:59:14.360" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In ancient Israel putting right your hand on your inner thigh while giving an oath was the equivalent of how people put their right hand on a bible in modern times. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for the thigh was that there was a basic belief that the thigh equalized your walk and represented a well-balanced, just point of view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="107" LastEditorUserId="107" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T12:02:43.060" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T12:02:43.060" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2058" CreationDate="2011-09-05T10:30:29.560" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as the verse you are looking for, it's sure to be this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+6%3A29-30/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 6:29-30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember this is advice to YOU, not to the thief. We also know from Scripture that theft is wrong and there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with the thief being brought to justice. This verse is advice to you to guard your attitude. Worldly possessions will pass away anyway, they are not worth carrying a grudge over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as your situation goes, I would recommend simply remembering that God takes care of his people. Though we may be sorely tried in this life, we know that God cares for us as a Father and not a hair falls from our head but that he knows it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T10:30:29.560" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2038" CreationDate="2011-09-05T10:50:45.110" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The usages you give here are varied and not necessarily related. In today's English would could use the word hand as in to 'offer a helping hand' or to 'hand something over' or 'hand something out' or any number of other expressions. In the same way not every instance of the word 'thigh' necessarily refers to the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first two cases you give in Genesis have to do with oaths. Placing a hand on the thigh of someone while you made a promise was a sign of submission and the seriousness of the oath. Such an action could also be taken on ones self as a sign of remorse. There several other examples of these two usages throughout the OT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your Leviticus passage the meaning is entirely different and you need look no farther than the prices of different cuts in your local butchers shop for an explanation. Some cuts of meat are considered more valuable. Breast and thighs were considered the best portions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know what the significance in Revelation is. For this one the suggestion to ask on Judaism.SE might be a good one because It think it has to do with a specific piece of clothing, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallit&quot;&gt;Tallit&lt;/a&gt;. The tassels have significance and where on the garment the name is inscribed corresponds to something about the tassels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T10:50:45.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1754" CreationDate="2011-09-05T11:16:31.613" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it is important to consider how you would react if God did exactly what you asked for, in an unmistakable way.  While doing so consider the many times in the Bible where Jesus healed people. The Pharisees saw this and knew (or should have known) they were dealing with the Christ. Yet they plotted to kill Him. They would have seen the evidence for Christ's resurrection, but continued to persecute the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The human heart has a natural tendency to want to get away from God. Jeremiah 17:9 says it is &quot;deceitful above all things, desperately wicked.&quot;  Will you suddenly love Him and want to dedicate your life to serving Him if you get what you asked for?  If not, why should God bother?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, I pray that you &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; receive what you are looking for.  Indeed God did just that to Saul/Paul, a Pharisee who became His greatest servant in the church age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="537" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T11:16:31.613" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2065" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2068" CreationDate="2011-09-05T12:05:12.557" Score="12" ViewCount="2237" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most churches and many Christians I know are strongly against gambling, but I can't recall any passage in the Bible that declares that we shouldn't gamble. Does such a passage exist?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify I'm not asking about whether it's &lt;em&gt;wise&lt;/em&gt; to gamble, but whether it's a sin to gamble according to the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-10T16:31:26.860" LastActivityDate="2015-04-10T16:31:26.860" Title="Is there a Biblical ban on gambling?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;money&gt;&lt;gambling&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-04-14T19:35:41.193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2011-09-05T12:33:10.117" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your friend suffers from a misconception that in order to identify yourself as a Christian means you are implying you are morally perfect, desire and believe in all the right things, and never act or believe inconsistently. There is not a Christian on the planet who would meet this standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole point of believing in Christ is that we don't meet a perfect standard, and trust Jesus to allow us to know God in spite of these shortcomings, and that once we believe this, He graciously starts the process of transforming our desires, thoughts, and behaviours. However even with His grace operating in our lives, perfection will only be achieved when we die or Christ returns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is that it is not inconsistent to be hypocritical or wrong about something (not my opinion on welfare) and identify yourself as a Christian, so long as your hope is in Christ and not your own goodness. Otherwise the gospel would not be good news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Php 3:8-14 NIV  What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ  (9)  and be found in him, &lt;strong&gt;not having a righteousness of my own&lt;/strong&gt; that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the &lt;strong&gt;righteousness that comes from God&lt;/strong&gt; and is by faith.  (10)  I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,  (11)  and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.  (12)  Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.  (13)  &lt;strong&gt;Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it&lt;/strong&gt;. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead,  (14)  I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="345" LastEditorUserId="345" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T12:39:55.923" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T12:39:55.923" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-09-05T12:41:43.183" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says that you should dress &lt;em&gt;modestly&lt;/em&gt; in and out of church.  While this doesn't indicate that you should wear formal wear, it does indicate that we should dress such that we don't attract attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I also want the women to dress &lt;em&gt;modestly, with decency and propriety&lt;/em&gt;, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, &#xA;  but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:9-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 2:9-10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no requirement that people should wear formal wear, but I tend to think of it in terms of walking down the street in your local community.  Would people look at you funny if you were wearing pajamas?  Then it's probably not appropriate to wear it to church.  If you wouldn't get a second glance in blue jeans and a t-shirt, then it's probably OK to wear that to church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally go to a fairly formal church, where most of the men wear suits.  I've been wearing jeans and a collared shirt there for years, and have no comments made on it and no strange looks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T12:41:43.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2065" CreationDate="2011-09-05T12:48:11.480" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not mention the word &lt;code&gt;Gamble&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;Gambling&lt;/code&gt;. It does however, have a lot to say about money and the love of money. While I'm not a fan of posting a link and saying, &quot;Hey, just go read this&quot;, the article below is well written and I believe it does a much better job of answering this question than I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/f/isgamblingasin.htm&quot;&gt;http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/f/isgamblingasin.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a small quote from the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does the Bible Mention Gambling?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although the words &quot;gambling&quot; and &quot;gamble&quot; do not appear in the Bible,&#xA;  we cannot assume that an activity is not a sin simply because it is&#xA;  not mentioned. Looking at pornography on the Internet and using&#xA;  illegal drugs are not mentioned either, but both violate God's laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While casinos and lotteries promise thrills and excitement, obviously&#xA;  people gamble to try to win money. Scripture gives very specific&#xA;  instructions about what our attitude should be toward money:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is&#xA;  never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.&#xA;  (Ecclesiastes 5:10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;No servant can serve two masters. [Jesus said.] Either he will hate&#xA;  the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and&#xA;  despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.&quot; (Luke 16:13,&#xA;  NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people,&#xA;  eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves&#xA;  with many griefs. (1 Timothy 6:10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gambling is a way to bypass work, but the Bible counsels us to&#xA;  persevere and work hard:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. (Proverbs&#xA;  10:4, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;About casting lots&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does mention &quot;Casting Lots&quot; but I wouldn't define this as gambling. Proverbs 16:33 says: &lt;code&gt;The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.&lt;/code&gt; Also, in Acts, the disciples prayed and then cast lots: &lt;code&gt;And they prayed and said, &quot;You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.&quot; And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.&lt;/code&gt; (Acts 1:24-26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always understood that when lots were cast among believers, it was as if they were asking God a question. I believe that it's important to note that lots were cast by the disciples &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; Pentecost. After Pentecost, casting lots was not mentioned again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you have the Spirit, who needs to cast lots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.&lt;/code&gt; John 16:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="539" LastEditorUserId="539" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T13:08:18.827" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T13:08:18.827" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2069" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2074" CreationDate="2011-09-05T13:18:54.100" Score="9" ViewCount="17104" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have trouble understanding what John 2:24 and John 2:25 mean. Does anyone know what it means for Jesus to not &quot;commit himself unto them&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202&amp;amp;version=KJV#en-KJV-26118&quot;&gt;John 2:22-25 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. &lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; But &lt;strong&gt;Jesus did not commit himself unto them&lt;/strong&gt;, because he knew all men, &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-13T19:48:56.957" LastActivityDate="2016-06-26T19:55:07.493" Title="What does &quot;Jesus did not commit himself unto them&quot; (John 2:24) mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-27T13:48:19.393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2026" CreationDate="2011-09-05T13:21:39.840" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unequivocally YES.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One does not need to delve into the garden account or unravel whether it was a talking snake or a manifestation of Satan or any of that in order to say for certain that God created it. Everything outside the person of God himself was created by him. This includes every physical object and creature in the universe, the universe itself, angels, and any other spiritual beings that exist. If it exists and is not God, God created it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;if ( THING &amp;amp;&amp;amp; THING !== GOD ) { Assert(THING.creator == GOD) }&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians+1:16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So did God make the snake? Yes he did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why would he create something that would contend with himself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that Satan himself is nothing but a fallen angel, originally created by God but as an angel of light. It is in this sense that Martin Luther is quoted as having said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Satan is God's satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is a good reminder not to give credit for any power or authority he does not have. Nothing he is or does is done outside the sphere of God's sovereignty and in due time God will reign him in and show his works for the lies that they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why God would create some being and give it free will (man) or the power/choice to rebel against him (angels) is an intricate topic. Perhaps he knew the best way to demonstrate his authority and power was to have some stage on which it could be demonstrated. Perhaps because having creatures that serve you as robots that have no other option does not satisfy an intrinsic need to be honored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/585/30&quot;&gt;Does God need our praise and glory?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T13:57:30.073" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2071" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T13:29:32.160" Score="16" ViewCount="355" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the significance of the father-son relationship between God and Christ in the Trinity? Non-trinitarians believe that Christ is literally the son of God, but that doesn't quite work with the Trinity. Why is Christ called the Son if he isn't God's son but is God himself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;The doctrinal and biblical basis for the Trinity has been discussed &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/2049#2049&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1991/if-christ-is-considered-the-son-of-god-then-how-is-he-a-part-of-a-trinity/2016#2016&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. I'm not looking for biblical support of the Trinity itself. This question carries with it the basic premise that the doctrine of the Trinity is true.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2017-04-27T19:11:10.550" LastActivityDate="2017-04-27T19:11:10.550" Title="According to Protestant trinitarians, what is the significance of the father-son relationship between God and Christ?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2072" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2080" CreationDate="2011-09-05T13:32:21.073" Score="4" ViewCount="509" Body="&lt;p&gt;Almost every Christian I meet believes in something a bit different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there an official set of things you are supposed to believe in order to be considered a Christian? If so, who decides what goes on that list list and what doesn't?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="540" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T20:29:39.690" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T20:29:39.690" Title="What defines official Christian belief?" Tags="&lt;belief&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2011-09-09T16:35:24.630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2069" CreationDate="2011-09-05T13:35:32.637" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is some fun linguistic gymnastics going on there and two things are being played off of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, remember that Jesus was fully God and he was omniscient* and knew the hearts of men. He knew what people were thinking even when they didn't say it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now note that while your question is in 24, the play here starts in verse 23. Let's look at these two verses again:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John+2:24-25/&quot;&gt;John 2:24-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, &lt;strong&gt;many believed in his name&lt;/strong&gt; when they saw the signs that he was doing. But &lt;strong&gt;Jesus on his part did not entrust himself&lt;/strong&gt; to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we believe in Christ and choose to follow Him, we &lt;em&gt;entrust ourselves to him&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though our English translations usually use different wording for thse two verses, in the Greek original both &quot;believed&quot; in verse 23 and &quot;commit&quot; (KVJ) or &quot;entrust&quot; (ESV) in verse 24 are the same root word &lt;code&gt;πιστεύω&lt;/code&gt; (&lt;code&gt;pisteuō&lt;/code&gt;) that is widely translated as 'believe'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Jesus knew that something was wrong in their hearts in spite of their profession of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;sub&gt;Actually in his role as the Son there were things he chose not to know because there were rights that he voluntarily surrendered in order to fulfill his calling, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he knew mens hearts.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T13:41:00.633" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T13:41:00.633" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2069" CreationDate="2011-09-05T13:37:32.770" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The important thing here is context. Lets look at the broader passage in a slightly more clear translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 2:18-25 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 Some of his people said to Jesus, &amp;quot;Show us a miracle to prove you have the right to do these things.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 Jesus answered them, &amp;quot;Destroy this temple, and I will build it again in three days.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 They answered, &amp;quot;It took forty-six years to build this Temple! Do you really believe you can build it again in three days?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21 (But the temple Jesus meant was his own body.22 After Jesus was raised from the dead, his followers remembered that Jesus had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the words Jesus had said.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 When Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Passover Feast, many people believed in him because they saw the miracles he did. 24 But Jesus did not believe in them because he knew them all. 25 He did not need anyone to tell him about people, because he knew what was in people's minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was asked to perform a miracle and told the folks there that they could destroy the temple and he would rebuild it in 3 days. John here, with the advantage of having seen the events that followed, gives us a parenthetical telling us the he meant his death and resurrection by this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think what the part of this passage you are questioning is saying is that these are the very people who will be calling for his death in just a few short years. He knows their hearts, and even if they appear to be listening and believing they will turn into an angry mob looking to crucify him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc5.John.iii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew Henry's&lt;/a&gt; commentary on the passage seems to support this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Henry asserts that Christ, knowing that these were his enemies and the people who would later crucify him, did not trust them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;III. That yet Jesus did not commit himself unto them (v. 24): ouk episteuen heauton autois—He did not trust himself with them. It is the same word that is used for believing in him. So that to believe in Christ is to commit ourselves to him and to his guidance. Christ did not see cause to repose any confidence in these new converts at Jerusalem, where he had many enemies that sought to destroy him, either,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And later&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IV. That the reason why he did not commit himself to them was because he knew them (v. 25), knew the wickedness of some and the weakness of others. The evangelist takes this occasion to assert Christ's omniscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T13:42:03.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2076" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T14:05:14.990" Score="37" ViewCount="23244" Body="&lt;p&gt;God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden because Eve ate the fruit that God told her not to. And this let evil into the world. If God loves everyone, so much so that he let his son die for us, then why has every subsequent human and animal had to live and deal with the result of evil?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How does the Bible explain this, given that it says God is just?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="541" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-24T21:26:24.607" LastActivityDate="2016-10-11T17:42:00.493" Title="Why has God punished every human for one person's sin?" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;punishment&gt;&lt;theodicy&gt;&lt;original-guilt&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="10" ClosedDate="2015-09-01T04:57:43.733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2077" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T14:24:01.883" Score="3" ViewCount="2998" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible it is said many times that homosexuality is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also said that love is the most important thing, and compassion is important as well; love your neighbor as yourself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This appears to be a contradiction - in calling something a sin and yet being called to love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Christians explain what seems to be a contradiction here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="541" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-05T10:53:10.130" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T10:53:10.130" Title="How would a Christian explain the contradiction of loving but calling homosexuality a sin?" Tags="&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-02T20:07:32.903" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2077" CreationDate="2011-09-05T14:39:21.333" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Such &quot;contradictions&quot; are often alleged. In order to really understand them you should take them one at a time. You can see how a few of these have been approached in the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/contradiction&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;contradiction&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;contradiction&lt;/a&gt; tag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes these take the form of textual issues such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/768&quot;&gt;How did Judas die?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1812&quot;&gt;Who bought the Field of Blood, Judas or the Priests?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/46/30&quot;&gt;1 John Chapter 1 &amp;amp; 3 - Is there an apparent contradiction?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes they take on more doctrinal forms such as the how the OT laws are to be understood in light of Jesus NT teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Christians hold that there are no legitimate contradictions either in the text or doctrines. There are some paradoxes, but that's a different question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Holding that homosexual acts are sinful is not incomparable with love being the greatest commandment. See: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1029/30&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for &amp;quot;hate the sin, love the sinner&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue of woman being silent is the topic for another question. There is an explanation for why Paul gave that instruction and why it is not implemented the way people &quot;expect&quot; today. See: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2083/30&quot;&gt;Why don&amp;#39;t many churches obey Paul&amp;#39;s command that women must be silent in church?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T21:18:36.110" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2011-09-05T14:41:03.573" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve were made perfect, but with free will. They &lt;em&gt;chose&lt;/em&gt; to sin. Would we not make the same choice, if we were in their place? Since we've all chosen to sin at some point (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203:10-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:10-12&lt;/a&gt;) in our lives, I think the answer must be &lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T14:41:03.573" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2072" CreationDate="2011-09-05T14:41:21.553" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is not a single group, it is a diverse set of beliefs.  Even though it originated with the teachings of Jesus back 2000 years ago, difference sects/denominations have their own sets of rules and &quot;official&quot; teachings and many individuals determine the rules for themselves.  There is no global trademark owner of &quot;Christian&quot; so you can call whatever it is you believe Christian and though other Christians may disagree and not form a church group with you, in the end God is the only arbiter of that, and he tends to not send rulings via email.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some churches, like the Catholic church, have a large body of teachings they consider &quot;official&quot; and will hassle you more or less officially if you deviate from them/teach deviations from them.  Other churches stress personal interpretation of the Bible and therefore don't have official teachings (though often have unofficial ones, that you may be ostracized from deviating from).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are certain sets of belief that large swaths of these groups consider to be normative.  For example, many mainline churches consider the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apostle's Creed&lt;/a&gt; to be the minimal acceptable set of Christian beliefs. Outside that, they'd say that you're using the brand name, but probably inappropriately. But even the creeds like this leave a whole lot out; it's a couple of paragraphs compared to a whole belief system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is augmented by a lot of folks not really having any rigorous thought process behind their own personal theology - when asked a question they just come up with an analogy that sounds good to them at the time, whether their church would say, upon sober review, that it was accurate or not.  So if you ask a variety of folks self-identifying as Christians about stuff, you are likely to get a variety of answers - there will be more consensus closer to core matters of the faith, and from people who belong to a church that has a stronger stance on having a corpus of official teaching, but in the end it's a big batch of folks with a big set of beliefs, guided by a lot of group and personal history. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result this SE says &quot;hey, if you self identify as a Christian, you're in scope here,&quot; even though some of those groups don't fit into some of the traditional creed sorts of definitions, because in the end no one knows for sure who was right till we get to heaven...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T21:13:54.960" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T21:13:54.960" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2011-09-05T14:47:27.667" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an assumption in this question that is actually the very problem that the question addresses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question assumes that in the exact same situation you would act differently than Adam and Eve would. However, why would you? Would a loving God not have placed the people in the garden that gave humanity the best chance at continuing at sinless existence? Adam and Eve were representatives of all of humanity. Do you think that if a better representative existed God would not have chosen them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes Adam and Eve sinned, but the basic reason is that any human being placed in that situation would have done exactly the same thing. The temptation was very strong and they fell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was God's plan. He intended for Adam and Eve to sin so that he could work out his plan and glorify himself all the more. The story of Adam and Eve points to Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If sin entered through one man so salvation has also entered by way of one man. If we cannot acknowledge sin came through Adam then we cannot acknowledge the the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T17:47:07.123" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T17:47:07.123" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2011-09-05T14:55:54.360" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically anyone that is born, is born of the world, so the act of being conceived brings brings the stain of original sin upon each and every person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.2i_21McMahon.pdf&quot;&gt;interesting article (pdf)&lt;/a&gt; that goes through some of the thoughts of the early church fathers that relate to this subject. This is one of the more relevant portions of the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What had remained implied in his letter to Simplician, Augustine now&#xA;  states outright, that each of us born into the world is born in guilt.&#xA;  Furthermore, having come to see in his earlier writings that to&#xA;  suppose the preexistence of souls introduces an  insuperable dualism&#xA;  into the person, Augustine at this  point is convinced that the guilt&#xA;  present at birth could not have been contracted by one’s personal&#xA;  choice, and so it must be attributable to the first man.  Finally, the&#xA;  agent said to involve us in the first sin is concupiscence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going down the path of this question, and doubting original sin was a major controversy 1500 years ago, but St. Augustine fought against it, and for an introduction to what the Pelagian controversy is and why it is still controversial today you can look at major parts (2) and (3) in this page:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ritchies.net/p2wk6.htm&quot;&gt;Here is what Pelagius taught&lt;/a&gt;, from the FAQ above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this time he had several disciples in different areas. His teachings were identified as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Denial of original sin (i.e. depravity or corruption) inherited from&#xA;Adam. Each person is born as a new, free agent with the same powers&#xA;of choice and responsibilities as Adam.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Denial of original guilt received from Adam's sin. Among other&#xA;things, this called into question the necessity of infant baptism,&#xA;since there was nothing an infant needed to be baptized for.&#xA;However, Pelagius himself held that infant baptism was good and&#xA;should continue, though not for the remission of infant sins.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Affirmation of the ability of men to be free from sin. Consequently,&#xA;the denial of the necessity of God's working in order to accomplish&#xA;freedom from sin. The power is in us, even if God helps.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mentioned Pelagius and gave some references to an article that references what was written from people at the beginning of a heresy where this topic can lead you.  This is not a simple topic, and the debate has been going on for 1500 years.  Because we can die and because we are not automatically granted access to Heaven is how we are being punished for the introduction of sin.  God sent Jesus to pay the price, and that allowed us to have the ability to get into Heaven, so, the all-loving God sent his only Son to pay a price for a sin that he didn't commit, nor suffer from.  Anselm wrote about this in &lt;em&gt;Cur Deus Homo&lt;/em&gt; (Why God became man), and the basic explanation of his approach is found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tonyfinlay.co.uk/Anselm.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.tonyfinlay.co.uk/Anselm.htm&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to get more into this subject then the best starting point, if reason is important, is St. Thomas Aquinas' &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; (Summary of Theology), found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm&lt;/a&gt;.  I linked to where he starts to specifically talk about Original Sin, and Article 4 may be of particular interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="543" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T19:23:07.547" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T19:23:07.547" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2083" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T15:13:04.660" Score="51" ViewCount="75955" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul says that women must be silent in churches and ask questions to their husbands when they get home:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is completely ignored in many churches today, with many women being leaders and singers on stage, and many women in the congregation not keeping silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also seems to contradict the passages which say that we are made in the image of God and are equals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this explained, and why do people seemingly pick and choose parts of the Bible to follow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was this just Paul's opinion rather than the word of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, what would unmarried women do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="541" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-21T07:28:31.527" LastActivityDate="2018-07-06T22:58:56.683" Title="Why don't many churches obey Paul's command that women must be silent in church?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="7" ClosedDate="2014-12-14T03:09:22.537" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1338" CreationDate="2011-09-05T15:17:03.093" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Apostle's Creed should be a basic guideline for what Christians believe, and just because a group chooses to disagree with part doesn't invalidate this, as there are many groups that claimed to be following Jesus but would disagree with some major teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an interesting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;page on the Apostle's Creed&lt;/a&gt;, as it shows it in different languages, and if the page is correct the earliest version of this was written before 300AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an example of groups that differed from the accepted early teachings you can look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Great Heresies&lt;/a&gt;. On that page there is an explanation how people can differ from traditional teaching and not be a heresy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements&#xA;  that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that&#xA;  do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not&#xA;  heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not&#xA;  practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid&#xA;  baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to be Christian you must believe in the Apostle's Creed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an almost line by line discussion of the Apostle's Creed you can look at the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; as it will reference not just the Bible but writings of the Early Church Fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People will disagree with each other on some teachings, but there are certain core beliefs all should have, but there are also areas that I think should be cut and dried, such as the non-violence teachings of Christ that many people seem to disagree with.  Bill Maher &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/maher-bin-laden-gandhi-christian-hypocrisy/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;summed up this quite well&lt;/a&gt; pointing out how some will disagree with what Jesus taught, even though it isn't what I considered core beliefs to be Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T16:40:12.087" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T16:40:12.087" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2083" CreationDate="2011-09-05T15:42:02.700" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard two explanations for this. I tend to think the second one is much more sound in the context given but I will offer them both for reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, the passage in question is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+14:34/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:34&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first explanation I've heard is that at the time, most women were poorly educated and had a difficult time participating in the discussions at the church and were holding the men back from delving into the teachings because of the amount of background that constantly had to be given and unrelated questions that had to be fielded. Paul was trying to encourage getting as much teaching out to the men as possible leaving the men to help communicate and teach all the needed background to their wives. I suppose there is some legitimacy to the idea. I've certainly been involved in meetings where some subset of the audience wasn't fully with the program and having to stop for off topic questions all the times really puts a damper on things. My historical knowledge is not good enough to know if this was an issue in the early church but I don't think this is what was going on in the passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second explanation &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1534/30&quot;&gt;takes into account&lt;/a&gt; some other aspects of Scripture including the larger context of the passage at hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The immediate context is about orderly worship, but the larger scope of the passage in chapter 14 is talking about prophecy in the church. When someone in the church had a teaching or message to give to the church it was a word of prophecy. Any time some such message was given it had to be tested and evaluated against Scripture to make sure that it was valid. When it was validated it would be considered authoritative and in a sense binding to those who heard it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible explains in several places are marriages are to work in loving submission to each-other, but with the husband having the responsibility of headship. While a husband may consult his wife and reach a decision together, ultimately he has the burden of being responsible for the final choices made (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1618/30&quot;&gt;Why is Adam considered the original sinner?&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the context of this church, this means that men have the responsibility of evaluating, approving and delivering teaching to the whole body. Since women do not bear the burden of responsibility in such matters, they are asked not to be the ones voicing concerns or pronouncing judgement when such matters came up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One must also note that Paul did not restrict women from praying or even prophesying themselves. (See 3 chapters earlier in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+11.5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:5&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+2.17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:17&lt;/a&gt;) This is purely an issue of headship and authority, which the Law also spoke to rather than an edict against speaking in a church building and participating in other ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unmarried women are still expected to have some sort of structure around them. This would primarily be the father who is responsible for daughters until they are given over to a husband, but a brother or other family relation could play a similar role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T14:57:25.010" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2087" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2090" CreationDate="2011-09-05T16:05:01.737" Score="10" ViewCount="12522" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question struck me last Sunday at church.  People usually talk about the abstract benefits of prayer and proving things etc, but I'm asking this question because over the many years I've been attending the same church I have realized a few things that aren't obvious if you aren't in the practise of going to church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some of the things that you find are benefits from going to church regularly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="531" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T19:44:46.847" LastActivityDate="2016-06-30T14:08:55.710" Title="What are some of the benefits of going to church?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-06-30T14:21:48.963" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2007" CreationDate="2011-09-05T16:13:31.113" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very interesting question. I did some browsing and came up with the following information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, this link has some content on the topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/271624.html&quot;&gt;http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/271624.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one quote from that thread, but I recommend reading it and judging the content for yourself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Talmud relates how the Babylonian Sage, Rabba (Abba ben&#xA;  Joseph, C. 280-352), used to pray with his hands folded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &quot;folding hands&quot; could have come down from the Jewish heritage of Christians. Others also distinguish between &quot;praying hands&quot; and &quot;folding hands&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for the meaning of it, I came across the following web page:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stjosephsite.com/SJS_Articles_prayinghands.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.stjosephsite.com/SJS_Articles_prayinghands.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It mentions the following information (pasted in fragments):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Such a prayer gesture is a symbol of obedience, submission, sincerity and repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nathan Ausubel, in his book &quot;Book of Jewish Knowledge said that this prayer gesture is not exclusive to Christians alone. He said the Jews even before the time of Jesus Christ, practiced it: &quot;It has also been commonly assumed that folding the hands in prayer is exclusively a Christian custom. This is not the historical fact at all. As early as the post-Exilic period, when Jews prayed, they folded their hands, and they observed this custom for several centuries even after it had been adopted by Christians.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus, being a Jew, also prayed with clasped hands. You must have seen pictures or images of Him in the garden of Gethsemani in this prayer gesture. In other art works, you can also see the Virgin Mary and angels with their hands clasped as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Pope mentioned the custom during feudal times of placing one's joined hands into the hands of his ruling lord as a sign of his fidelity and loyalty. So when we fold our hands in prayer, we are symbolically pledging to God our fidelity and loyalty and placing our hands in His.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another viewpoint here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trivia-library.com/a/why-does-a-person-join-his-hands-when-praying.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.trivia-library.com/a/why-does-a-person-join-his-hands-when-praying.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The joining of hands &quot;leads back to men's early desire to subjugate each other and developed out of the shackling of hands of prisoners!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Though the handcuffs eventually disappeared, the joining of hands remained as a symbol of man's servitude and submission and his inability (or even lack of inclination) to grasp a weapon.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christianity adopted &quot;the gesture representing shackled hands as a sign of man's total obedience to divine power.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reference (and a selective quote from it):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/421928&quot;&gt;http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/421928&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Religious historians trace the gesture back to the act of shackling a prisoner’s hands with vine or rope: joined hands came to symbolize submission. In ancient Rome, a captured soldier could avoid immediate death by joining the hands together. Just as waving a white flag today, the message was clear. “I surrender.”&#xA;  Centuries later, subjects demonstrated their loyalty and paid homage to their rulers by joining their hands. In time, clasping the hands together communicated both an acknowledgement of another’s authority and one’s own submission to that authority.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Books by Nathan Ausubel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&amp;amp;sort=relevancerank&amp;amp;search-alias=books&amp;amp;field-author=Nathan%20Ausubel&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&amp;amp;sort=relevancerank&amp;amp;search-alias=books&amp;amp;field-author=Nathan%20Ausubel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="502" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T16:13:31.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2089" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2092" CreationDate="2011-09-05T16:30:58.413" Score="22" ViewCount="19558" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different churches celebrate the Eucharist (Communion, Lord's Supper, ...) with different frequency. At one extreme, Catholic and high Anglican churches tend to celebrate it at least daily. Many Protestant churches offer it only once a month, though they will have a Sunday service each week. Some churches have Communion even less often - quarterly or annually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What factors have caused the divergence in practice (between Catholics and Protestants) and how does each modern model compare to the frequency of its celebration in the early Church?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-14T03:30:53.240" LastActivityDate="2020-03-14T03:30:53.240" Title="Why does communion frequency vary in different denominations?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2087" CreationDate="2011-09-05T16:32:57.710" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Benefits of going to church regularly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;During Holy Mass, receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord regularly, brings us into continuous reminder that God is with us and in us. If we believe that, then it has a huge affect on our behavior and mind set.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being with a community of believers is extremely encouraging. When I see fellow believers humble themselves by kneeling or going to receive the Eucharist or giving each other the sign of peace, I feel immense joy and peace. And experiencing this on a regular basis must surely be good for your soul.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hearing the Word of God on a regular basis helps us to obtain the mind of Christ and a healthy Christian worldview.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Regular attendance (especially when you don't feel like it) is like spiritual exercise, training to submit your will to Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consistent attendance makes you more comfortable with the local community of believers and makes it easier for you to fellowship with them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is a benefit to others because they might find joy in seeing you there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The grace of God trains us to &quot;live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It brings peace and guidance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Regular church, means regular worship, and regular communal prayer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there is much more to say here. Can't wait to hear what others have to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="502" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T16:32:57.710" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2091" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T16:43:51.173" Score="7" ViewCount="284" Body="&lt;p&gt;When did we begin to exist? I suppose there are really only two options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We were created before we were born (our spirits existed in some state similar to our state after death, without a body)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our spirits were created at the time of conception or birth (I'm not interested in a discussion about whether it was conception or birth; that can be another question)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T21:38:30.887" Title="When did we begin to exist?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T13:48:20.287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2089" CreationDate="2011-09-05T16:50:44.200" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you note, there are lots of different traditions here. My ancestry is Scottish and some old Scottish churches only celebrate communion once a year. I've looked through the some liturgies for these services that basically run all day, and it's quite an affair. I have even heard it advocated that once in a life-time ought to do the job, sort of like baptism. I don't think this is at all the spirit of the thing we find in the NT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other end of the spectrum are those who say that every meal we eat together as believers counts, so basically we do it a couple times a day. For several reasons I don't think this argument holds much water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By personal background growing up was the &quot;traditional&quot; once a month celebrations. I wouldn't argue that this practice is inherently wrong or sinful, but I think it is arbitrary and not the best representation of what the Lord's Supper is supposed to be about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the best representation and celebration of the Lords Supper is to do it once a week during the normal Sunday gatherings. This is consistent with the description we have of the early church gathering together (we know they did this specifically in celebration of the resurrection on the first day of each week) and the description we have of them celebrating the sacrament whenever they were gathered together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T16:50:44.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2093" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2140" CreationDate="2011-09-05T17:01:12.267" Score="9" ViewCount="1141" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%204:24-26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 4:24-26&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have 2 questions about these passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who was the person referred to as &quot;The LORD&quot;? Was it The Holy Spirit Himself appearing in human form? Was it Jesus? Or someone else?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why did the circumcision and touching of foreskin to Moses' feet apparently satisfy Him? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="251" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-25T00:25:43.307" LastActivityDate="2021-02-27T21:53:08.213" Title="Who represented &quot;the Lord&quot; in Exodus 4:24-26, and what's the deal with the foreskin?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;theophany&gt;&lt;circumcision&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2095" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T17:42:50.513" Score="12" ViewCount="5576" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very interesting and very edgy question. The mention of Church in the Bible is often referring to the multitudes of Christians and not just the building. I'm curious about the building in this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that these days most churches are designed to be seeker-friendly, in a way that their doors are &quot;open&quot; to all individuals during all hours, including service. What I'm curious about, is why some Christians believe that their church should not be opened to the non-believing population during service hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More specifically J.H. Skelly and his street preaching ministries believes that non-believers should not be allowed inside of the church during the service hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for this kind of thinking?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T17:49:02.893" LastActivityDate="2014-03-10T02:28:23.760" Title="Should non-believers be allowed in church?" Tags="&lt;church-discipline&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2097" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2101" CreationDate="2011-09-05T17:59:28.027" Score="14" ViewCount="5125" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eating a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fruit&lt;/a&gt;* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-11-14T08:23:48.870" LastActivityDate="2019-11-17T19:23:40.593" Title="Why did God make it a sin to eat an apple?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;eden&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2099" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2102" CreationDate="2011-09-05T18:11:28.300" Score="2" ViewCount="740" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading and came across an article stating:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A recent archaeological expedition to Israel uncovered scrolls that&#xA;  appear to depict the story of Jesus’ crucifixion. On one of the&#xA;  scrolls is a sketch that shows a man, thought to be Jesus, smoking&#xA;  from a pipe. Below the drawing is the Hebrew word “kineboisin”, which&#xA;  translates to cannabis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dr. Isaac Cohen, president of the South Israel Archaeological Society,&#xA;  believes that this is an extremely significant discovery for the&#xA;  theological community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for the original study and cannot find it. I cannot even find a South Israel Archaeological Society nor can I find a Dr. Isaac Cohen. I only find references to this little blurb that I posted here. I am not here looking for a debate on whether this is true or false I am looking only to see if others know where I can find this original study or information on this to backup these claims. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is considered off-topic or offensive to some I apologize. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for any help ion tracking this information down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="551" LastEditorUserId="282" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T00:18:53.657" LastActivityDate="2014-09-01T14:14:37.877" Title="Looking for a study" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-05-08T22:05:05.597" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2100" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2103" CreationDate="2011-09-05T18:12:44.520" Score="8" ViewCount="5048" Body="&lt;p&gt;How long has Christianity been around? Not how or why -- just when did it start:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As a religion?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As a name?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-06T02:44:32.773" LastActivityDate="2012-04-06T02:44:32.773" Title="When did Christianity originate?" Tags="&lt;origin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2097" CreationDate="2011-09-05T18:13:54.063" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was probably no power at all in the fruit. The issue was that God gave them a choice and they chose to disobey Him. And so sin, in this case disobedience, entered the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that it could just as easily have been a, &quot;Wet paint, do not touch!&quot; sign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T18:48:17.597" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T18:48:17.597" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2099" CreationDate="2011-09-05T18:39:16.693" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering that the only references to this text are on websites attempting to campaign for the legalization of marijuana, I would say that this particular person and institution are complete fabrications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has no reference for this particular Archaeological society. On the other hand there was a prominent Jewish Rabbi named &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Cohen&quot;&gt;Dr. Isaac Cohen&lt;/a&gt;, but he was the chief Rabbi of Ireland not an archaeologist .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These facts seem to continue the confirmation that this story is a complete fabrication to attempt to show some evidence of cannabis use in the life of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T18:39:16.693" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2100" CreationDate="2011-09-05T18:41:05.407" Score="18" Body="&lt;h2&gt;1. Christianity as a religion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;central point&lt;/em&gt; of the whole Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:19-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 15:19-20 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This happened ~30 AD, that is 33 years after &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1363/in-which-year-was-christ-born&quot;&gt;Jesus's birth, the exact year of which isn't certain&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;But the central point is not the same as the beginning.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Hebrews 11 tells us that the patriarchs of the Old Testament era were already waiting for Christ, living in the hope of the promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%2011:24-26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 11:24-26 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament era was building up for the coming of Christ (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:1-18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%205&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;). When Adam and Eve originally rebelled against God, the plan to save humankind began. What we call Christianity is really that plan. Adam, the first man, already is a symbol of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%205:14-15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:14-15 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[&lt;strong&gt;emphasis&lt;/strong&gt; mine]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of &lt;strong&gt;Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It makes sense to say that Christianity began at the Resurrection, ~30 AD, but it makes even more sense that &lt;strong&gt;Christianity began at the Fall of man&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;Christianity&lt;/em&gt; as a name&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first mention of Christians was of the group of believers in Antioch:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2011:25-26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 11:25-26 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was obviously after Jesus's resurrection, but also during the reign of king &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_I&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Herod Agrippa&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2012&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 12:1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; mentions this). From Herod Agrippa's period of reign we know this was probably between &lt;strong&gt;41-44 AD&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T21:24:25.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2099" CreationDate="2011-09-05T18:41:53.603" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quite honestly I think you should submit this to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snopes.com/&quot;&gt;Snopes&lt;/a&gt;. Every single last references to such an organization are found on websites of people trying to promote the legalization of marijuana, and they all follow almost the same format. No further linking is every provided and the wording is always the same. It sounds like an hoax that somebody made up and threw out there for humor and then folks took it and ran with it until it became a legend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T18:41:53.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2097" CreationDate="2011-09-05T18:45:39.540" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sin wasn't in eating the fruit, but in what it represented.  It's interesting to examine &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202%3a%2016-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;the exact text of the commandment&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that verse 17 does not say &quot;if&quot; anywhere.  &quot;In the day that thou eatest thereof&quot; is the language of certainty, not of possibility; it was part of the plan that it would happen.  Why did he forbid it, then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hard to say.  Maybe they weren't meant to eat of it &lt;em&gt;yet&lt;/em&gt; and there were other things that were supposed to happen first to prepare them.  Maybe that's why this world turned out such a mess.  (This is pure conjecture, of course.)  But it's clear from the text that eating the fruit at some point, and thereby becoming mortal, was a part of the overall plan.  The sin lay in disobeying God, not in eating the fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T18:45:39.540" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2100" CreationDate="2011-09-05T19:08:11.997" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis tells us of Abraham's dealings with Melchizedek:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2014%3a%2018-20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 14: 18-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that Melchizedek was a priest of God, and him bringing out bread and wine in conjunction with being a priest of God. (Sound familiar?)  And also that he blessed Abraham and Abraham paid tithes to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%207&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7&lt;/a&gt;, we see that Melchizedek was not just any priest, but a priest after the same order of priesthood as Christ himself!  Verse 12 is particularly interesting, as it establishes a solid connection between priesthood orders and the laws they administer.  The Aaronic order administered the Law of Moses, but the order of Melchizedek is the order of Jesus, and the law associated with him is the law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that priests authorized to administer the law of the Gospel have existed at least as far back as Melchizedek, and probably much further.  We don't have any record of any other priesthood order and its associated law, and the Law of Moses and its priesthood did not exist until the time of Moses, and yet we have records of humanity's dealings with God since the time of Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The title &quot;Christians&quot; may have originated at Antioch in the first century AD, but the knowledge of the Gospel is much, much older than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T19:08:11.997" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2095" CreationDate="2011-09-05T19:09:35.470" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is also the case among the Eastern Orthodox - if you're not Orthodox you get as far as the narthex but no further. Their practice is not based solely on scripture, but also on tradition. The basic idea is that the Church is unified as the Body of Christ, and this unity is expressed and sanctified by common participation in the Eucharist; it is therefore wrong to allow people who are not part of the Church to take part in the service. It is a more extreme version than, say, the Catholic position that you can be physically present in the church building, but not go up to receive the sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scriptural support for unity through the Eucharist is found principally in 1 Corinthians 10-12 and in John 6:25-59, though there are other passages (like Acts 2:42-47) that speak about unity of the community of believers in a general way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.&#xA;  (1 Cor 10:16-17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The inference is that believers are united, but believers+unbelievers are not, and so there is no true &lt;em&gt;koinonia&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;participation&quot; above, also translatable as &quot;fellowship&quot; or &quot;community&quot;) if the celebration of the Eucharist does not reflect the unity of Church membership.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T19:09:35.470" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2109" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2121" CreationDate="2011-09-05T20:00:55.043" Score="30" ViewCount="26040" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Jehovah's Witnesses state that Jesus was not nailed on a cross, but on a torture stake. The New World Translation of the Bible is phrased accordingly. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/10/#v40010038&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 10:38 (NWT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(All the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/10-38.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;other translations&lt;/a&gt; (that I know of) translate &lt;em&gt;cross&lt;/em&gt; instead.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is significant about the difference between a &lt;strong&gt;torture stake&lt;/strong&gt; and a &lt;strong&gt;cross&lt;/strong&gt;, and on which one was Jesus crucified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An illustration of what might be a &lt;em&gt;torture stake:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/smU1X.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Crux Simplex by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606). Wikimedia Commons.&quot; /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justus_Lipsius_Crux_Simplex_1629.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Crux Simplex by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606). Wikimedia Commons.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-24T04:03:13.207" LastActivityDate="2021-04-24T04:03:13.207" Title="Crucifixion -- torture stake or cross?" Tags="&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1991" CreationDate="2011-09-05T20:01:03.600" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simplest way I have to explain this is to look at an intrinsic quality of God (a quality that doesn't depend on anything else, or being compared to anyone) is Love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, good or powerful is not an intrinsic quality as that is a relative quality, in that God is good compared to Satan but perhaps not compared to Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, Love requires three things: a lover, a receiver of the love and the relationship between them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God the Father is the lover, Jesus is the recipient (the beloved) and the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of their love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, though they are three distinct beings, they are one God also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a simple way to explain something that is beyond our ability to understand based on reason alone, as explained by Thomas Aquinas in &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt;, and a good starting point is Book 1, Question 32, Article 1: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To look at what Aquinas wrote regarding the Son and the Father you can look at Question 33: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1033.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The person of the Father&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I reference Thomas Aquinas often as he has a fantastic approach to using reason to look at these. This question in his book deals with your question: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1093.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The person of the Father&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An image is not equal to the original, as, if you look at a mirror, you seen an image, but it is flat, and the original person is not, so you just see a small part of the person.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, anything I can write to answer this will go back to Aquinas, as his answer is probably the most complete starting point, as he looks at not only the image of God in man, but whether image and likeness are different and in between he looks at other issues on this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-24T14:59:33.680" LastActivityDate="2016-07-24T14:59:33.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2111" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2132" CreationDate="2011-09-05T20:01:04.503" Score="16" ViewCount="924" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a pretty well-known fact that Latter-Day Saint members (aka Mormons) do not believe in the Holy Trinity, i.e., that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are 'one'.  So what exactly do they believe in, when it comes to the nature of God?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along these lines, how can they understand scriptures that state &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/10.30?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christ and God are one&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="252" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-04-21T18:36:54.423" LastActivityDate="2019-12-18T01:45:26.670" Title="If Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) don't believe in a Holy Trinity, then who do they believe is God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2201" CreationDate="2011-09-05T20:24:28.977" Score="10" ViewCount="3356" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is reported as having said that his kingdom was &amp;quot;no part of this world&amp;quot;, and further of assuring Pontius Pilate that his followers posed no risk to the secular authorities. Given that, should Christians be involved in politics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this&#xA;world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered&#xA;up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/18/#v43018036&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 18:36&lt;/a&gt;. NWT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-22T18:33:01.870" LastActivityDate="2021-04-22T18:33:01.870" Title="Does &quot;no part of this world&quot; mean no involvement in politics?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;politics&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:27:26.367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2113" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T21:23:36.170" Score="5" ViewCount="269" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/160/what-is-the-essence-of-sin&quot;&gt;What is the essence of sin?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2097/why-is-it-a-sin-to-eat-an-apple&quot;&gt;the question about why eating an apple is a sin&lt;/a&gt; and some of its answers and comments made me think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden was a sin just because Adam and Eve were told not to do it, that becoming the prototypical and defining act of sin, then how are we to resolve this with the general perception that certain things are sins because they are bad or evil or immoral acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do all sins come down to disobedience? Are there two types of sins? Why make the original sin based on seemingly arbitrary test of obedience rather than an act of &quot;doing something bad&quot;? Are sins of disobeying god worse, equal, or not as bad as sins of the bad/evil/immoral type?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="302" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T21:46:53.357" Title="Are sins sinful because they are inherently acts of badness or because they are acts of disobedience against god?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;obedience&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-09-06T18:57:09.957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2114" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T21:45:27.413" Score="7" ViewCount="1819" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answers to the question on the essence of sin seem to form a consensus that sins are acts of disobedience against things God specifically told us not to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since sin is defined as disobedience and not related to evil, are there evil acts which are not sins?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Sins which are not acts of evil might also be considered with the special exception of course for the disobedience itself being the only evil)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="302" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T01:38:41.427" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T01:38:41.427" Title="Are there evil acts which are not sins?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-14T11:47:00.453" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2113" CreationDate="2011-09-05T21:46:53.357" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;All sin is such not because the act it's self is inherently evil (although it could be) but because it is something other than what is perfect. The definition of the word sin is missing the mark. meaning the goal is perfection and you didn't achieve this. We see this in Romans 3:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also see in James 4:17 if anyone knows to do good, and does not do it, it is sin. We also see in Isaiah 64:4-9  the righteousness of man is like filthy rags (or more graphically, used tolite paper). Meaning  the very best man can achieve without God, is still grotesque  in comparison with God's standard of perfection. So in that since all sin is equal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it stands to reason that disobedience is really the archetype for destructive sin, since it moves sin away from falling short of good to willingly doing the oposite, Since God is telling us that something is not perfect and we decide to do it anyway. I would say that yes that sin is worse because it is the embodiment of sin. But all sin is still falling short of the glory of God, so in that since all sin is equal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T21:46:53.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2114" CreationDate="2011-09-05T21:51:23.603" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Since&lt;/strong&gt; sin &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/160/30&quot;&gt;is in essence&lt;/a&gt; any act of disobedience towards God or disbelief &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; we know that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20John%201:5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God is good&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;we can conclude&lt;/strong&gt; that there are no evil acts which are not sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;In fact good and evil are defined by and measured against His nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T22:29:10.623" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2117" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T21:51:51.793" Score="11" ViewCount="2258" Body="&lt;p&gt;Must something be unprovable to permit faith in it? Is it possible to have faith in something which is certain provable fact? If something is proven beyond any doubt can you still have faith in it? How?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="302" LastActivityDate="2014-11-23T16:30:37.487" Title="Are faith and proof mutually exclusive?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-11-26T17:20:51.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2118" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2198" CreationDate="2011-09-05T21:59:25.453" Score="16" ViewCount="170508" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since all evil acts come down to disobedience against god, are all evil acts equivalent? Is no sin worse than any other sin? If one sin is worse than another sin does that imply that one act can be more disobedient than another act? Is sin and/or disobedience absolute or does it have degree?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="302" LastEditorUserId="302" LastEditDate="2013-03-27T04:08:22.570" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T15:44:58.823" Title="Can one sin be worse than another sin, or are all sins equal?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;obedience&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-10-29T14:22:36.943" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2118" CreationDate="2011-09-05T22:04:17.387" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two major Bible passages that I can think of, which some use to suggest not all sins are equally bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:16-18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:16-18 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I see it, verse 18 makes the distinction between &lt;em&gt;sin&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;keeping on sinning&lt;/em&gt;, also known as &lt;em&gt;living in sin&lt;/em&gt;. Which is not a difference between sins, but other circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%203:28-29&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 3:28-29 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin&quot;—   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/are-there-unforgivable-sins&quot;&gt;a matter of another question&lt;/a&gt;. I tend to interpret it as ultimately refusing salvation, which would quite obviously make a person unsalvageable. Using that interpretation, I wouldn't say there's a difference between graveness of sins here, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from these passages, I wouldn't draw any big conclusions. Generally, the Bible shows sin as just sin, not in different levels of wickedness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, for purposes of human relationships, there certainly are different severities of sins. What I say above focuses on the relationship between us and God: we deserve to be damned for our sins, everybody. It doesn't matter which sins we commit. Only Christ matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T22:25:01.690" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2117" CreationDate="2011-09-05T22:04:44.857" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The much used ode to faith in the NT book of Hebrews tells us a little bit about what faith is. Here are the first couple verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews+11:1-3/&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage goes on to give many examples, but this bit helps us scope out a definition of faith that is somewhere between the two extremes you suggest in your question. First of all we see that there is assurance. True faith is not blind, it is based on evidence and knowledge. It is a kind of trust. Trust between two parties is established in past encounters but looks forward to the future knowing what to expect from the other party. Secondly it is a conviction. This doesn't have to be without any doubt (in fact many of the people listed as examples in the passage experienced doubt) but it does have to come to a conclusion and really believe/trust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is built on evidence and knowledge as well as a trust that enables us to be sure the parts we don't fully understand will work out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith and proof are not mutually exclusive -- faith projects evidence of past events into the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-05T22:18:15.077" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T22:18:15.077" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2109" CreationDate="2011-09-05T22:24:15.060" Score="57" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is comparatively little evidence in the NT for the shape of the object. There is not much etymological help from the Greek words σταυρός or ξύλον, which do not clearly indicate either shape.&#xA;Some of the textual hints we do have are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But [Thomas] said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This suggests that there was more than one nail placed through the hands, which is more likely on a cross than on a stake - though I could imagine a nail through each hand, with the hands side by side. But the JWs assert that the plural is referring to two nails, one through both hands and the other through both feet. The Greek reads &quot;ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων&quot;, which is &quot;in his hands the imprint of the nails&quot;, clearly linking multiple nails to the hands specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE  JEWS. (Matthew 27:37, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus were crucified as in the picture, the sign would be obscured by his arms. If it were also placed above his hands, Matthew could have written &quot;Above his hands...&quot; - but he didn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. (John 19:17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several different crucifixion methods were used by the Romans, including the traditional cross and the simple vertical stake. But the reference to &lt;em&gt;carrying&lt;/em&gt; suggests that Jesus carried the crossbeam or &lt;em&gt;patibulum&lt;/em&gt; of his cross - contemporary sources indicated that condemned people could be made to carry their own &lt;em&gt;patibulum&lt;/em&gt;, but not the entire cross or stake, and of course a stake has no crossbeam at all. (Now-familiar depictions of Jesus carrying the whole cross come along later.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is common ground between Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest of us that for most of Christian history, Christ's crucifixion has almost always been regarded as being on a cross. The problem that the JWs have with it is that they think that the cross is a pagan symbol which was mistakenly (or maliciously) adopted early on in Christian history, as Christian belief and practice departed from its original form. As a restorationist group, they believe that in rejecting the cross shape they are returning to Christianity as it was meant to be. Insistence on the 'torture stake' is not particularly important in itself, but it is a prominent reminder of their distinctiveness, and of the error into which they think others have fallen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T22:24:15.060" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2111" CreationDate="2011-09-05T22:37:02.037" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer:I am not a Mormon, so this may be inaccurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first place to read is what Mormons say about this themselves. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_%28Mormonism%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; is a good place to start and has references. In essence they believe that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are separate &quot;personages&quot;, and together form &quot;The Godhead&quot;, which is a council of the three personages. The scriptures that refer to the distinct personages &quot;being one&quot; are taken to mean &quot;of one mind&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is based on Joseph Smith's &quot;Lectures on Faith&quot;. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/lectures_on_faith.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T22:37:02.037" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2124" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-05T22:46:48.453" Score="-1" ViewCount="481" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1543/is-it-possible-to-sin-while-intending-to-do-good&quot;&gt;Is it possible to sin while intending to do good?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are selfless acts where we are harmed by our actions to help others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ultimate kind of harm for a Christian is of course eternal damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a selfless act by one person to help or save other people involves disobedience to one of god's commandments, will it surely result in the doer's damnation? If so, in the balance, has good been done in the world, or evil?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has become clear to me that my question is quite possibly a duplicate of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1543/is-it-possible-to-sin-while-intending-to-do-good&quot;&gt;&quot;Is it possible to sin while intending to do good?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, perhaps dependent on interpretation of damnation and sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="302" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T08:56:10.557" Title="What would be the implications of a selfless act that saved others but resulted in damnation for the doer?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-09-09T16:43:32.293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2124" CreationDate="2011-09-05T22:58:56.603" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No act of sin (however selfless it appears) will ever result in saving or helping another person. There is no question of &quot;balance&quot; here. The long term good outcome from another person will never be the result of someone else having done evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1543/30&quot;&gt;Under what conditions can a &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;charitable&amp;quot; act actually be sin?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T22:58:56.603" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2124" CreationDate="2011-09-05T23:05:45.380" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This whole question is based on a wrong understanding of Christianity and sin; it imagines God as a cosmic traffic cop, letting people into heaven only if they haven't done anything on a hard-and-fast list. In fact that's not the case. God loves his creations - all of them - and wants everyone to be with him in heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgiveness is key to Chrstianity, and the central act of God - the crucifixion - was carried out to obtain forgiveness for all people. It goes without saying that forgiveness would be applied to anyone who broke a command for a truly self-sacrificing reason, and they wouldn't therefore receive eternal damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus sums up the law as &quot;Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself.&quot; A truly loving act would not be against the law. (I should warn you against trying to take that argument too far, outside the immediate context of this question, though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T00:19:22.947" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T00:19:22.947" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2128" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2129" CreationDate="2011-09-05T23:13:44.980" Score="6" ViewCount="1166" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus returns, or the rapture,etc, and we having the events surrounding it, the bible says the whole earth will see it, day or night. Does the bible mention what happens to humans not on Earth, from space stations to the Moon and Mars (as current plans want to see humans on the Moon and on Mars before 2050.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke%2021:35&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 31:35&lt;/a&gt; (ESV) &quot;For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="541" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T09:07:45.867" LastActivityDate="2012-01-27T05:06:55.847" Title="What happens to people outside Earth on the second coming?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T11:48:40.467" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2128" CreationDate="2011-09-05T23:27:33.113" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't worry you aren't going too miss it even if you are on Mars! &quot;The whole earth&quot; here refers to all of creation. The one who created those places is hardly going to forget to check for inhabitants. He knows the hairs on our head by number and every star by name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-05T23:27:33.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2131" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2194" CreationDate="2011-09-05T23:38:42.647" Score="5" ViewCount="282" Body="&lt;p&gt;At one point in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianbook.com/reason-for-god-belief-age-skepticism/timothy-keller/9781594483493/pd/483493?kw=the%20reason%20for%20god&amp;amp;event=PPCSRC&amp;amp;p=1018818&amp;amp;cm_mmc=Google-_-Authors-_-timothy%20keller-_-the%20reason%20for%20god&amp;amp;gclid=CKGIuOmZh6sCFR9y5QodhBiG0g&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Reason For God&lt;/a&gt;, Timothy Keller talks about how to pick which action to choose in a tough dilemma. He gave the example of a man having borrowed tools from another guy...and said guy wants them back so he can beat his wife with them. Keeping the tools is practically stealing, but giving them back would be worse. Keller gives two options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do Least Harm:&lt;/strong&gt; Out of the actions you have available to you, do the one that does the least overall damage and hurt.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do Greatest Good:&lt;/strong&gt; Out of the actions you have available to you, do the one that has the greatest overall benefit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, these two decision paths will select the same choice in a great majority of cases, so I'm not asking for which one the Bible says is better. Rather, I'm asking for any Biblical justification for &lt;em&gt;either&lt;/em&gt; of these decision paths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-15T18:22:35.653" LastActivityDate="2015-08-15T18:22:35.653" Title="What is the Biblical basis for &quot;Do Least Harm&quot; or &quot;Do Greatest Good&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2111" CreationDate="2011-09-06T00:03:27.910" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;LDS understanding of the nature of the Father and the Son is drawn from &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.5-20?lang=eng#5&quot;&gt;the First Vision&lt;/a&gt;, Joseph Smith's first-hand account of an encounter with them as an answer to his prayer to learn the truth about God and religion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. ... When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—&lt;em&gt;This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father and the Son reveal themselves as distinct individuals.  And if this is not in harmony with the traditional description passed down in various creeds,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that ... “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng#21&quot;&gt;later clarified that&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS understanding of the Father and the Son being &quot;one&quot; is more in keeping with the literal meaning of the original text than of the interpretations that arose from it.  It kind of gets lost in translation, but it's a lot more clear in Greek that the Father and Christ are not one (the same being); they are one (united, the same in purpose.)  Further clarification can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;John 17&lt;/a&gt;, where Jesus asks four separate times in his great intercessory prayer to the Father that his disciples may be one &quot;even as we are.&quot;  To interpret this as a desire for the disciples to somehow merge into a composite being would be strange, to say the least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T00:03:27.910" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2133" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2922" CreationDate="2011-09-06T00:08:06.497" Score="32" ViewCount="16267" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church considers the Pope infallible, but only in limited circumstances. The Pope is a human being like the rest of us, and capable of sinning. However, when the Pope speaks &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, i.e. with papal authority, he is infallible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Catholics know when the Pope speaks &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2019-02-09T11:04:17.347" Title="When does the Pope speak ex cathedra?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;ex-cathedra&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1676" CreationDate="2011-09-06T00:15:13.947" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dominion Theology is the belief that society should be governed exclusively by Christian Laws, whether or not all of the people in that society are Christians. It is very much a minority view within Christianity, which has traditionally believed in dual secular and ecclesiatical authorities, even in times and places where Christianity has been the dominant or state religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, even at the height of Christian dominance in Europe, Kings were permitted and expected to make laws for their subjects and enforce them, apart from church law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name &quot;Dominion Theology&quot; is derived from Genesis 1:28, where God grants humanity &quot;dominion&quot; over the Earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; and its references for more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T00:47:12.687" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T00:47:12.687" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1810" CreationDate="2011-09-06T00:18:59.397" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can be seen to present Christ as King, Servant, Man, and God (in that order). See E.W. Bullinger's wonderful book &lt;em&gt;Number in Scriptures&lt;/em&gt; for more on this topic (the chapter on the number seven).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Bullinger puts it, a king &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; have a genealogy, and a man &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; have one. You'll notice that Matthew's genealogy starts with Abraham and goes &lt;em&gt;down&lt;/em&gt; to Joseph, while Luke's genealogy proceeds &lt;em&gt;up&lt;/em&gt; from Joseph to Adam and God. Matthews lineage describes the &lt;em&gt;royal lineage&lt;/em&gt; through Solomon, while Luke's lineage describes the &lt;em&gt;natural line&lt;/em&gt; through Nathan (Solomon's older brother, the third of four sons to David and Bathsheba - see I Chronicles 3:5). The first (Matthew's) is &lt;em&gt;legal&lt;/em&gt;, the latter (Luke's) is &lt;em&gt;natural&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both lines eventually meet when Joseph, the son of Jacob (Matthew) marries Mary, the daughter of Heli (Luke). Luke 3:23 refers to Joseph as being the son of Heli out of the Jewish legal sanction and customary practice to refer to the son-in-law as son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize, Matthew's is the genealogy of Joseph, son of Jacob. Luke's is the genealogy of Mary, daughter of Heli.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-nis/seven.htm&quot;&gt;EW Bullinger's Number in Scriptures&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="292" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T14:25:17.507" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T14:25:17.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2136" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-06T00:28:17.587" Score="22" ViewCount="20654" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;first chapter of Job&lt;/a&gt; describes a man who was favored by God (Job).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. 2 He had seven sons and three daughters, 3 and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For whatever reason, I'm assuming he was pre-flood period, but was wondering if there's an estimated time-period he was alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking for potential years (6000BC or something) but also any correction to my assumption it was pre-flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-17T02:14:51.603" LastActivityDate="2015-12-23T16:00:11.230" Title="When was Job alive?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;job&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2138" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-06T00:34:30.513" Score="11" ViewCount="4434" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the explanations when I was first coming to understand why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary was something along the lines of: Sin separates us from God. God can not be around sinners, so with Jesus' sacrifice wiping away our sin, we can be with God once more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if God cannot be around sin, how is it that Satan was able to go before him in the book of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Job&lt;/a&gt; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-14T20:06:20.530" LastActivityDate="2015-10-14T20:06:20.530" Title="How could God be around Satan?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;job&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-14T21:39:29.107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2139" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2146" CreationDate="2011-09-06T00:44:25.127" Score="4" ViewCount="9042" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a &quot;cure&quot; for leprosy that involves taking two birds, killing one and dipping the other in the blood of the first, then sprinkling the blood in a particular fashion, multiple times.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken literally, I can't see any explanation except that it is some shamanic recipe dating from the bronze age, and medically completely bogus if not downright dangerous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it have an interpreted meaning? How do Bible literalists justify this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Small excerpt, there are pages and pages of ritual...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-12T13:17:01.930" LastActivityDate="2015-11-09T20:32:21.087" Title="Is Leviticus 14 describing a cure for leprosy?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;&lt;leviticus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2093" CreationDate="2011-09-06T00:49:50.307" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand these verses it's helpful to read them in context. I'm using the King James Version, which seems a bit easier to understand (in particular the part about &amp;quot;touching&amp;quot; Moses' feet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EXODUS 4:22-26 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD,&#xA;Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son&#xA;go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I&#xA;will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. And it came to pass by the way&#xA;in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then&#xA;Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and&#xA;cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.&#xA;So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of&#xA;the circumcision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses was on his way to tell Pharaoh that this time, if he didn't let Israel go, he would slay Pharaoh's firstborn. On the way, the Lord met Moses () to take his life for not fulfilling His commandment to Abraham to circumcise every male. The statement &amp;quot;the LORD met Moses&amp;quot; may have been spiritual: perhaps Moses suddenly became very sick and Zipporah discerned the cause. At any rate, the LORD was there to take Moses' life. (Note that the KJV renders LORD in all caps when referring to Jehovah, {God Above Us}, and Lord when referring to Adonai, {God With Us}).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the King James Version reads, Zipporah cast the foreskin at Moses' feet because she was a bit of a fireball (in the best sense), and wasn't too happy with Moses at the moment. &amp;quot;A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2021-02-27T21:53:08.213" LastActivityDate="2021-02-27T21:53:08.213" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2133" CreationDate="2011-09-06T01:10:20.483" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of papal infallibility was formally accepted at the First Vatican Council in 1870. This is not to say that it did not exist previously to that date: only that 1870 is when it became dogma - a teaching which all Catholics are required to believe. Exercises of infallibility are more difficult to identify when occurring prior to 1870. There have been some official rulings but there is no definitive list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Council, Popes have tried to be clear about precisely when they are speaking &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;, with reference to the description in the Council text (the Dogmatic Constitution &lt;em&gt;Pastor aeternus&lt;/em&gt;). This kind of statement is a Big Deal, because it is declaring something that Catholics &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; believe. The Pope and the rest of the Church leadership will want it to be widely understood that an infallible statement has been made - in the text of the declaration and by means of accompanying documents and public statements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Paul II said in an audience &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Holy Spirit Assists the Roman Pontiff&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (24 March 1993):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conciliar texts also indicate the conditions for the Roman Pontiff's exercise of the infallible Magisterium. They can be summarized in this way: the Pope must act as &amp;quot;the shepherd and teacher of all Christians,&amp;quot; pronouncing on truths regarding &amp;quot;faith and morals,&amp;quot; in terms clearly showing his intention to define a certain truth and to require definitive assent of all Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quoted phrases are from the Dogmatic Constitution: &lt;em&gt;omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;de fide vel moribus&lt;/em&gt;. He gave the example of &lt;em&gt;Munificentissimus Deus&lt;/em&gt;, in which Pius XII wrote (44-45):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, John Paul noted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conciliar texts also point out how serious is the Roman Pontiff's responsibility in exercising both his extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium. He thus feels the need, one could say even the duty, to explore the sensus ecclesiae before defining a truth of faith, in the clear awareness that his definition &amp;quot;expounds or defends the teaching of the Catholic faith&amp;quot; ... The Pope (who not only plays a role as head of the college of bishops in the definitions on faith and morals that the latter make, or as the notary of their thoughts, but also a more personal role both in the ordinary Magisterium and in his definitions) carries out his task by applying himself personally and encouraging study on the part of pastors, theologians, experts in different areas of doctrine, experts in pastoral care, spirituality, social life, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This suggests that even when the Pope does speak infallibly, he doesn't do so out of the blue, but after wide consultation. This is another way in which news of an infallible statement could become commonly known, before it is even made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T01:10:20.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2144" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-06T01:20:26.200" Score="10" ViewCount="5950" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus was teaching of eternal life (Rich man and Lazarus, also Martha and Mary's brother Lazarus being raised from death) the people listening didn't think it was a new and novel idea: your soul lasts forever and you shall be judged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where is this taught in the Old Testament?  I find Jesus telling the Saducees that &quot;I am the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob&quot;, which is suggesting that Abraham, Issac and Jacob are not dead and gone (I was the God of Abraham, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there other places where it's made plain?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="557" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-05-06T18:44:18.283" LastActivityDate="2020-02-02T02:16:26.913" Title="Old testament: where is Eternal Life and Judgement discussed?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2020-02-03T00:41:06.263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2139" CreationDate="2011-09-06T01:47:21.140" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew Henry Explains this passage with the following in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1.Lev.xv.html?scrBook=Lev&amp;amp;scrCh=14&amp;amp;scrV=0#Lev.xv-p1.5&quot;&gt;Commentary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some make the slain bird to typify Christ dying for our sins, and the living bird Christ rising again for our justification. The dipping of the living bird in the blood of the slain bird intimated that the merit of Christ's death was that which made his resurrection effectual for our justification. He took his blood with him into the holy place, and there appeared a lamb as it had been slain. The cedar, scarlet wool, and hyssop, must all be dipped in the blood; for the word and ordinances, and all the operations of the Spirit, receive their efficacy for our cleansing from the blood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that if you read the &lt;em&gt;entire&lt;/em&gt; passage you will see that this is a cleansing ceremony after someone previously diagnosed with leprosy had been pronounced free of the disease:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 14:3 (NIV) (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they &lt;strong&gt;have been&lt;/strong&gt; healed of their defiling skin disease, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus this is not a cure, but a purification ritual following a cure. As Henry says some people see this as pointing to the cleansing blood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T18:17:13.237" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T18:17:13.237" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2136" CreationDate="2011-09-06T02:16:23.200" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Job 1:15 and 1:17 refer to raids by the Sabeans and Chaldeans respectively. The Sabeans are a bit tricky to identify, but the Chaldeans (Hebrew &lt;em&gt;kasdim&lt;/em&gt;) are definitely a Babylonian tribe. They were one of the groups to sack Nineveh after the death of Ashurbanipal. The Chaldeans were around for quite a while before that - Genesis 11:28, 11:31 has &quot;Ur of the Chaldees&quot; being Abra(ha)m's home city. In that case it would not make sense to place the Job story before the Flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Chaldeans were most prominent in the 8th-6th centuries BC, this is a plausible date range for the Job story to take place - and probably towards the more recent end, since it coincides with their period of greatest military success, and the rise of their dynasty in Babylon before it too was conquered by the Persians. Mind you, it could be pushed back another thousand years to the time of Abraham, given the lack of other clues about the setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T02:16:23.200" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2144" CreationDate="2011-09-06T02:25:52.420" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=salvation&amp;amp;qs_version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Salvation&lt;/a&gt; is often mentioned, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%209&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalms 9&lt;/a&gt; carries the idea that the soul lives on after death, but the most direct teaching I could find is in Daniel 12:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012:2&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 12:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some of the more obvious teachings about the judgement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%209:7&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ps. 9:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the LORD shall endure forever; He has prepared His throne for judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%2050:4&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ps. 50:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He shall call to the heavens from above, And to the earth, that He may judge His people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eccl.%203:17&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eccl. 3:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I said in my heart, “God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, For there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eccl.%2011:9&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eccl. 11:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... But know that for all these God will bring you into judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eccl.%2012:14&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eccl. 12:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T02:38:52.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2124" CreationDate="2011-09-06T03:25:42.617" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think before you can come up with an example scenario, you need an example of a sin that would &quot;result in damnation for the doer.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no such sin, since everyone is already deserving of damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for a Christian who has accepted Christ's forgiveness, there either is no possibility to lose the forgiveness, or the only way to lose the forgiveness is to choose to reject it (depending on your interpretation). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; leave room for &quot;Choosing to reject Christ's forgiveness&quot; as a possible sin that would lead to damnation of the doer. But I cannot imagine how this sin could ever be done as a selfless act.  So even if it is possible to lose your salvation, it is impossible to it selflessly, or in a way that would save others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T03:25:42.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2011-09-06T03:52:24.947" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story of Adam and Eve is not about God punishing us for the sin of one man. God punishes us for our own sins, which we have all committed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23 NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anything, the story of Adam and Eve is there not to explain why are punished, but to explain why each person individually chooses to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T03:52:24.947" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2011-09-06T04:04:07.813" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question. The question revolves around the fact that Satan was around God. The point here is that Satan was not legally condemed, because there was no proof that he was the one doing all the bad actions. Sure, God knows that he did it. But in order to properly condemn Satan of his sins, which came to the sacrifice of his only son, Jesus. This is where crucifixion comes from. In order to be a witness of Satan's sins, he had to be crucified. Why do you think Jesus was hesitated in prospect of being crucified? It is not because of pain, but the prospect of having to face the revolting hatred and sins of Satan, directed towards Jesus. Think, Jesus is repulsed by the sins. When he was hung on the cross, and when God turned away from Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;46 About three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, &quot;Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?&quot; This means, &quot;My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this, Satan took the chance and took his hatred out on Jesus. Since nobody was looking, he took at as a chance. However, what he had not expected was for Jesus resurrecting. Since he was resurrected, Jesus became witness for Satan's sins, and was able to fully condemn him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is certain that Job was written before this, however there is no exact pin-pointed location of when. But looking that the original text, it is safe to assume that story of Job occured at the time of Abraham, if not Isaac and Jacob. From there it seems to be that it occured during Jacob's generation. Satan was officialy rebelled, but he was still at the point able to condemn us through the Laws of God, him being not condemned through it before the crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T08:27:12.127" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T08:27:12.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2001" CreationDate="2011-09-06T04:31:27.017" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;seven&quot; occurs 461 times in 390 verses in the NKJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The number seven is used many times throughout the Bible. It usually is significant of something being whole, complete or perfected. There are other numbers that are prevalent in the Bible as well. Someone above mentioned the number twelve, which usually signifies government (12 tribes, 12 apostles). Six is said to be the number of man, and three sixes the number of the beast. While it's all very interesting the truth of the matter is that Jesus died for our sins, ANYTHING else is insignificant in comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="559" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T07:17:57.583" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T07:17:57.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2157" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2159" CreationDate="2011-09-06T05:49:10.740" Score="16" ViewCount="5957" Body="&lt;p&gt;While praying how should we pray? Should we praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and to whom should we ask? To the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2014:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 14:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) says&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that mean we should ask only to Jesus. Or is that not a matter if we ask any one of them, since they act together?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I afraid we should not bypass any one of them. Or, is just closing the prayer by saying &quot;In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit I ask&quot; fine? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-11-25T16:44:47.053" LastActivityDate="2014-12-10T00:03:52.300" Title="To whom should we pray? To the Father or the son Jesus or the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-12-10T02:35:24.567" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2087" CreationDate="2011-09-06T06:04:26.167" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some of my points, without trying to sound &quot;correct&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From the poorest to the richest all have to kneel next to each other so you get exposure to all walks of life, helping you to be more understanding of people's differences in your daily life (work/school).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The routine helps your life feel less pointless during those really low times.  People are creatures of habit so to speak.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The quiet time is something that a lot of people just don't do during their week, it goes from Work (PC) to Car (radio/driving) to Home (tv), with no &quot;meditation&quot; for the mind.  I find this weekly practise of going to church helps a lot for when you are a student because you are already accustomed to being still for an hour and can concentrate longer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Listening skills are improved, also good for when you have to attend meetings/lectures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you help with the readings in church, your confidence goes up and its much easier to stand and speak at work in meetings etc.  Not everyone does this but if you do your public speaking is automatically improved.  So it's not just a spiritual benefit in this regard.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It gives you a reason to make sure you have showered (not a strong point of some single guys, esp if you spend a lot of time 'online', talking from experience) because you know you will most likely interact with people.  Going to church is something of your own choice and it's one of the few things you have to get up for that doesn't benefit anyone (or yourself) but just to give thanks and praise.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You can more easily do business with someone you recognize from church because you know they have been there for a long time and probably won't just disappear or be a fly-by-night. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where else can you look in a strangers eyes, take their hand and say &quot;Peace be with you&quot; or &quot;Shalom&quot;?  It unifies humans, and removes us from our egos to say, there's someone else except yourself who might need you.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your immunity is increased by being exposed to many people from your local community, thereby strengthening your immune system for anything that might be festering.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="531" LastEditorUserId="531" LastEditDate="2013-12-16T02:45:34.560" LastActivityDate="2013-12-16T02:45:34.560" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2011-09-06T06:17:58.530" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jesus&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This, then, is how you should pray: &quot;Our Father...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is clear that we pray &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; the father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I am personally convinced that if we get God's name wrong he still hears us. If my son occasionally calls me &quot;mum&quot; when he asks for my help I still help him (and it makes me smile, to be honest). I don't think a heavenly father would do any less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T06:17:58.530" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2001" CreationDate="2011-09-06T06:31:35.533" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7389/a-natural-explanation-for-the-significance-of-the-numbers-7-and-40/7393#7393&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; from the Judaism site sums it up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 is the length of time for a natural cycle to transpire, often ending&#xA;  with holiness/sanctification of some sort (the pattern set by&#xA;  creation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 is special because it was set down by God as the natural cycle in creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same question above is &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7389/a-natural-explanation-for-the-significance-of-the-numbers-7-and-40/7710#7710&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; about other numbers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It mentions the numbers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1, (2?), 4, (5?), (6?), 7, 8, 10, 12, 40, and 70 all have&#xA;  significance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See that answer for full details of their importance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also important is the number 50 for Jubilee (&lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7389/a-natural-explanation-for-the-significance-of-the-numbers-7-and-40/7467#7467&quot;&gt;from this answer&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Toward the end of the book of Leviticus the 7 day measure that is most&#xA;  familiarly the Sabbath is unrolled across years to be the sabbatical&#xA;  year, and across decades to be the Jubilee. The Jubilee is the 50th&#xA;  year - the crown of the 7th 7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="256" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:05.287" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T06:31:35.533" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2161" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2163" CreationDate="2011-09-06T07:25:33.457" Score="19" ViewCount="49294" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we all descended from one man and one woman then it's quite apparent that a third generation was not possible without the sexual union of close relatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible (or other Christian source) specifically address incest? Is it a sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is not a sin then does it follow that it is not practiced in Christianity for purely secular reasons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is a sin should the children of Adam and Eve not have reproduced?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="302" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T12:54:01.743" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T12:54:01.743" Title="Is incest a sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;incest&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-09-27T01:05:06.777" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2161" CreationDate="2011-09-06T07:56:02.947" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is written in &lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 18:6&lt;/strong&gt; that it is a sin -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and in &lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 5:1&lt;/strong&gt; -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason that it was not a sin for the children of Adam and Eve was at the time, the law had not yet been established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="107" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T07:56:02.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2161" CreationDate="2011-09-06T07:56:43.150" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The OT clearly condemns in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Lev+18:6-18;+20:11-21/&quot;&gt;Leviticus 18 and 20&lt;/a&gt; (&quot;&lt;em&gt;If a man takes his sister [...] and sees her nakedness [...] it is a disgrace [...] and he shall bear his iniquity.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;). This is reinforced at other later points, but we do not find record or such a prohibition earlier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly there is no way that the line from Adam and Eve continued for at least the first few generations without some in-marrying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know from science today that in-breeding makes for bad genes. Perhaps in the early days when things were a little bit less degenerate physically (and people were living to their 900's) God allowed such a practice, but as the gene pool grew and there was no need for it, he introduced a prohibition for our own good. Clearly today it would be a sin of disobedience against God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T07:56:43.150" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2011-09-06T08:08:45.183" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2157/to-whom-should-we-pray-to-the-father-or-the-son-jesus-or-the-holy-spirit/2159#2159&quot;&gt;Kramii pointed out&lt;/a&gt; we have a clear model of praying to &quot;our father&quot; to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it is not part of the Lords prayer model, I think the tradional way many Christians close their prayers &quot;in Jesus name&quot; has Scriptural basis as an acknowledgement that we know whe can only aproach the Father by means of the Son (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews%2010:19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:19&lt;/a&gt;) and the sacrificial work that he did on our behalf reconciling us to to Father (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians+1:20/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:20&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other things we do such as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/296/into-whose-name-should-christians-be-baptised&quot;&gt;baptism are done in the name of all three persons of the Trinity&lt;/a&gt;, but prayer we typically understand to be part of the intercessory work of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T15:00:30.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2165" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-06T08:20:54.253" Score="5" ViewCount="318" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed in some answers and comments the sentiment that whether an act is sinful or not is always cut-and-dried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that in all the ways the various denominations of Christianity differ that their interpretation of sins is not among them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or what would some examples be where something is not a sin in one branch of Christianity but is a sin in another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="302" LastEditorUserId="40418" LastEditDate="2020-01-01T15:14:38.287" LastActivityDate="2020-01-01T15:14:38.287" Title="Do Christian denominations vary in interpreting whether an act is sinful or not?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2165" CreationDate="2011-09-06T08:31:47.317" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, actually there is at least one significant variance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some hold that you must have full knowledge of the law that you are breaking (that something is a sin) in order for such an act to be sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others hold that sin, whether you know it as such or not, it always sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A third view says that sin is a state of being that we are born with, not specific actions. Actions maybe sinful insofar as they carry out the will of the sinful nature -- and perhaps how punishable those actions are might depend on our knowledge of right and wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T08:31:47.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2167" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2168" CreationDate="2011-09-06T08:51:05.653" Score="3" ViewCount="273" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar_k8JjVWQA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Bible In a Minute&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; video by &lt;em&gt;Barats and Bereta&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; has been enormously popular on YouTube, with 3.6 million viewers. The video quite literally goes through the Bible in less than a minute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, the video leaves out a lot. But as &lt;strong&gt;for what is included&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it accurate?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it enough?&lt;/strong&gt; Consider someone who knows nothing of the Bible but watches the video carefully over and over, even frame by frame. Can they learn enough of the Bible to become a Christian?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar_k8JjVWQA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/VsUYy.png&quot; alt=&quot;A screenshot of the Bible In a Minute video by Barats and Bereta&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T08:59:07.590" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T09:18:52.080" Title="Is &quot;Bible In a Minute&quot; accurate?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T11:47:38.907" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2167" CreationDate="2011-09-06T09:18:52.080" Score="13" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For a &amp;lt;60 second list of excerpted chapter titles, sure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Without any mention of what the &quot;blood&quot; mentioned at the cross acomplished or why Jesus was for sake -- without any mention of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1311/30&quot;&gt;faith&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/554/30&quot;&gt;repentence&lt;/a&gt;? No not hardly. Of course our salvation is not based on knowledge or amount of information we have anyway and God could choose to convict somebody of their sin and instill in them a faith that the things mentioned (resurrection was in there) were somehow on their behalf, but it's a bit of a stretch.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a Bible presentation, not a Gospel presentation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T09:18:52.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2011-09-06T10:46:09.043" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;As has been pointed out, you can pray to the Father as Jesus did and taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is a Biblical precedent for praying to Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%207:59-60&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 7:59-60&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any Biblical precedent for praying to The Holy Spirit. However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://gospelyrics.blogspot.com/2007/09/spirit-of-living-god.html&quot;&gt;prayers to The Holy Spirit do occur in songs&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T12:56:26.540" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T12:56:26.540" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2170" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2172" CreationDate="2011-09-06T11:07:25.247" Score="29" ViewCount="2530" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over and over I hear people pronouncing in one way or another that God is &quot;not fair&quot;*. Sometimes this is stated directly, other times indirectly as in &quot;that doesn't seem fair, therefore God must not be that way.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, are we humans in a position to judge whether God is fair or not? If so what standard do we use to define fair? How should Christians handle issues of &quot;fairness&quot; and how should we respond to these accusations against God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;sub&gt;Often with the conclusion: therefore I will not believe in him.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-28T15:28:31.820" LastActivityDate="2015-10-28T15:28:31.820" Title="Can man judge whether God is fair?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T11:48:26.017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2170" CreationDate="2011-09-06T11:13:13.200" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. God's ways and thoughts are so much above ours it's difficult to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2055:8-9&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 55:8-9 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; “My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;so my ways are higher than your ways&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T11:13:13.200" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2170" CreationDate="2011-09-06T11:59:38.367" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2055:8-9&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah reference&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2170/can-man-judge-whether-god-is-fair/2171#2171&quot;&gt;listed by Dancek&lt;/a&gt;, the end of Job asks powerful questions of a mortal who dared to question God's motives:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 38 1-3 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:&#xA;   2 “Who is this that obscures my plans &#xA;     with words without knowledge? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, humans cannot judge whether God is fair from our vantage (up close).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how to respond to issues of fairness? Trust in God's plan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+20:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 20:7 &lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Some trust in chariots and some in horses,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;but we trust in the name of the LORD our God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But sometimes, with some people, it's probably best to ignore them. They are not seeking truth, but just to mock you and try to make you look foolish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs offers some insight on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%209:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 9:7 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  7 Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults; &#xA;     whoever rebukes the wicked incurs abuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T12:15:53.987" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2165" CreationDate="2011-09-06T12:48:57.223" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a tremendous amount of agreement across all denominations that certain actions are always sinful: murder, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also a number of actions that are viewed differently by the various Christian traditions.  (This list is nowhere near complete...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptist denominations generally believe it is wrong to drink alcohol except for medicinal purposes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Roman Catholic church teaches that birth control is wrong.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have heard some individual pastors teach that &quot;rock music&quot; is always sinful.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There's a song titled &lt;em&gt;If Your Hair’s Too Long, There’s Sin in Your Heart&lt;/em&gt;.  While it's intended to be comedy, all good comedy is funny because it's based in truth (not that I personally think long hair is a sin, but I have known people who did).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seventh Day Adventist hold church services on Saturday instead of Sunday.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many Church of Christ churches do not use musical instruments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure all of those things are considered &quot;sin&quot; by the groups that avoid them, but if you look at the differences between traditions, you'll be able to find more areas where they differ on their understanding of what is considered sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T12:48:57.223" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2170" CreationDate="2011-09-06T13:08:17.720" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;One concrete example from the Bible of a prophet judging God is from the book of Habakkuk.&#xA;The book begins with the prophet Habakkuk judging God for His inaction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Habakkuk%201&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Habakkuk 1:2-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; 2 How long, O LORD, will I call for help, &#xA;  And You will not hear? &#xA;  I cry out to You, “Violence!” &#xA;  Yet You do not save. &#xA;  3 Why do You make me see iniquity, &#xA;  And cause me to look on wickedness? &#xA;  Yes, destruction and violence are before me; &#xA;  Strife exists and contention arises. &#xA;  4 Therefore the law is ignored &#xA;  And justice is never upheld. &#xA;  For the wicked surround the righteous; &#xA;  Therefore justice comes out perverted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very quickly God responds that Habakkuk doesn't have a clue what God is up to and what God is about to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Habakkuk%201&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Habakkuk 1:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; 5 “Look among the nations! Observe! &#xA;  Be astonished! Wonder! &#xA;  Because I am doing something in your days— &#xA;  You would not believe if you were told. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bulk of the book is a dialog between Habakkuk and God over whether or not God really knows what He is doing.  The conculsion is that God knows a whole lot more about what's going on that Habakkuk realizes and that renders Habakkuk's attempts at judging God meaningless.  In the end, Habakkuk realizes that his only proper response is to rejoice in God regardless of the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T13:08:17.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2175" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2177" CreationDate="2011-09-06T13:16:41.357" Score="14" ViewCount="531" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2170/36&quot;&gt;Can man judge whether God is fair?&lt;/a&gt;, I gave an example of the prophet Habakkuk questioning God in a judgmental way. God dealt with Habakkuk patiently, answering his questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, as that question points out, there are people who judge God by deciding He is not fair that therefore should not be worshipped or trusted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you draw the line between judging and questioning God?  Is it ok to question God, but not to judge Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-10-28T15:29:40.917" Title="What's the difference between judging God and questioning God?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T11:45:30.373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2087" CreationDate="2011-09-06T13:22:54.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, going to church has to do with having fellowship with other Christians.  We are parts of the Body of Christ, and without one part the Body suffers.  I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.associatedcontent.com/shared/print.shtml?content_type=article&amp;amp;content_type_id=2225535&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an article&lt;/a&gt; that lists a few verses related to this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pastor Bob Coy from Calvary Chapel Ft. Lauderdale recently also talked about fellowship and what it means in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://media.calvaryftl.org/player/?fn=T1454&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sermon about Fellowship&lt;/a&gt;, if you are interested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="121" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T13:22:54.317" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2175" CreationDate="2011-09-06T13:27:59.113" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes. In questioning God, we are admitting that his knowledge and wisdom is superior to ours:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Why are you doing this?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“This doesn’t make sense to me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“When will you rescue me from this situation?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas to judge him would be to assume that our knowledge and wisdom is superior:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You are wrong to do this.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You’ve forgotten about ....”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a very thin line, but there is a line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T11:58:01.903" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2178" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2192" CreationDate="2011-09-06T13:30:04.663" Score="14" ViewCount="2104" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a small town, the height of ecumenism is a joint Christmas choir concert.  We certainly tolerate each other enough not to throw our respective clerics/elders out of our steeples.  But we don't really come to any sort of understanding of each other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've learned more about protestantism in 2 weeks of this website than I have in the last 20 years of parish life.  Which raises the question, what is the overarching goal of ecumenism?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem to me that there are two natural ends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reconciliation, where we acknowledge our differences and proceed on our different courses towards salvation in harmony with one another or &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reunification, where we acknowledge our differences and proceed with our one course toward salvation in a sonorous melody. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;perhaps there are more goals, but are there any ecumenical documents to show that we're making any progress toward these goals?  Also, are they polar opposites, if we proceed toward Reconciliation do we throw out Reunification?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T13:51:42.897" LastActivityDate="2014-08-12T17:43:46.843" Title="What's the goal of Catholic/Protestant ecumenism?" Tags="&lt;ecumenism&gt;&lt;reconciliation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2170" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:07:53.103" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never read a line that claimed God or life in general was &quot;fair&quot;.  Fairness seems to be a concept that we have developed to evaluate our interactions with each other. In addition fairness is largely subjective and relative.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a need for fairness in our dealings with God?  I suspect that if you consider what God offers for devotion and following His directions for living our mortal lives, we are getting the better end of the deal.  So I would say no, God is not fair.  In fact He is quite generous from our mortal standpoint in that we make a few sacrifices and choose to live a live by the laws set out by God for a limited time and then we are rewarded for eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; we make that judgement about the fairness of God?  Certainly, He has granted us free will and the ability to ask questions and discover their answers.  He has also allowed for us to choose to deviate from the path He has set for us.  But we must remember that God has never made a claim to be fair from our mortal standpoint.  So when we deviate we risk the judgement of God.  But Jesus Christ has also offered forgiveness when we realize our sins and return to the path.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="565" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T18:18:23.527" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T18:18:23.527" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2178" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:08:51.970" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To my knowledge, while both 1. and 2. of your hypothetical are indeed both implicit and expressed purposes for Protestant/Catholic ecumenism, the primary purpose is to ensure that Christian witness itself is not diminished because of Christian infighting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reconciliation tends to be the goal of Protestants in ecumenism,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reunification tends to be the goal of Catholics in ecumenism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Catholics to really accept Reconciliation would require a different understanding of salvation (which is in the church) given that Protestants reject the papacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Reunification, given that Protestantism is a protest against certain aspects of Catholicism, one of which is the papacy, considered the unifying organ of the church, this view would have to change for it to happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems unlikely that either goal will be meaningfully achieved unless one side changes their mind about issues regarding church governance, theology, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as I said at the beginning, ecumenism continues to prevent or reduce infighting, which dampens the Christian witness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T14:08:51.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2170" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:28:03.623" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Judging God to be fair is akin to judging God to be good. Fairness is one of the key attributes of goodness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you believe God is good, it can only be because you have judged him so. Compare these two positions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Joe is good, but I cannot judge him to be good.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Joe is evil, but I cannot judge him to be evil.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they really even different? They both contain a claim but they are then followed by disclaiming any means to establish the validity of that claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are not in a position to judge something, then how can we reach the conclusion that it is good? It is simply incoherent to concurrently maintain that you believe God is good but that you also cannot judge God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="520" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T14:28:03.623" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:29:29.143" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the passage, 'Name' signifies not so much the utterance of a word, but the invocation of a power. &lt;em&gt;To know someone's name&lt;/em&gt; in ancient parlance meant to be able to call upon them. You did not give your name to strangers. What this statement then means is that whatever is requested &lt;strong&gt;in his power&lt;/strong&gt; he will grant. Another passage specifies that these things &lt;strong&gt;must be asked in obedience to him&lt;/strong&gt;, which in other places we find is what reveals those who love God; &lt;em&gt;those who love him keep his commandments.&lt;/em&gt; And given that St. John says, '&lt;strong&gt;God is Love&lt;/strong&gt;', we can then infer that it is &lt;em&gt;the love of God&lt;/em&gt; that makes such prayers be fulfilled, for if God is love, then certainly to ask in his power is to ask in the love of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, '&lt;em&gt;The Name&lt;/em&gt; of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' is &lt;em&gt;Jesus Christ&lt;/em&gt;. But he and the Father and the Spirit are One, and &lt;em&gt;Jesus&lt;/em&gt; is the only personal name for God that we have, that I am aware of. However, given what I wrote above, this passage is talking about asking in the power of God, not so much invoking him by a personal name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditionally, most written prayers have either addressed &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Father&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Son&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Holy Spirit, or&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Trinity in common&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Orthodox Christians have a very ancient set of prayers called &lt;strong&gt;The Trisagion Prayers&lt;/strong&gt; (The prayers of the thrice-holy) which address different persons of the Trinity, as well as the Trinity in common;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Lord's Prayer&lt;/strong&gt; addresses the Father,&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;'O Heavenly King'&lt;/strong&gt; addresses the Holy Spirit,&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;All Holy Trinity..&lt;/strong&gt; addresses all of the three Persons. &lt;strong&gt;The Prayer of the Hours&lt;/strong&gt; (another common prayer) addresses the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The text of the prayers follows to exemplify that Christ's statement has not been interpreted to deter us from praying except only to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To the Spirit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who art in all places and fillest all things; Treasury of good things and Giver of life: Come and dwell in us and cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls, O gracious Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To the Trinity in common&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All-holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, cleanse us from our sins. Master, pardon our iniquities. Holy God, visit and heal our infirmities for thy Name's sake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To the Father&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To the Son&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O Christ our God, who at all times and in every hour, in heaven and on earth, art worshipped and glorified; who art long-suffering, merciful and compassionate; who lovest the just and showest mercy upon the sinner; who callest all to salvation through the promise of blessings to come; O Lord, in this hour receive our supplications, and direct our lives according to thy commandments. Sanctify our souls, hallow our bodies, correct our thoughts, cleanse our minds; deliver us from all tribulation, evil and distress. Encompass us with thy holy Angels, that guided and guarded by them, we may attain to the unity of the faith and to the knowledge of thine unapproachable glory, for thou art blessed unto ages of ages. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T14:29:29.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2183" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15376" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:35:18.783" Score="18" ViewCount="15051" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the books of the New Testament&amp;mdash;all the letters except Hebrews, plus the Revelation&amp;mdash;give the author's name at the beginning. The gospels do not. Only one gospel identifies its author (&quot;This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/21-24.html&quot;&gt;John 21:24&lt;/a&gt;), and even then it does not state his name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how did we get the names for the four gospel writers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2021-04-16T02:55:38.093" Title="When and how did the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John get attached to the gospels?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2184" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:35:43.433" Score="2" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;Estimates vary widely of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_Viable_Population&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;minimum viable population&lt;/a&gt; for humans to stably reproduce without being subject to significant detrimental effects of inbreeding. Minimum estimates (e.g., for space colonisation) usually range in the dozens to hundreds, but most general estimates for Earth repopulation err on the safe side and choose numbers well into the thousands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of the fact that the MVP of humans is certainly greater than two, we cannot interpret the story of Adam and Eve as a literal account, unless other divine provisions were made after the Fall in order for humans to be able to make it on their own. Is there consensus among Biblical scholars about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="198" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T15:09:16.380" Title="Adam and Eve versus ecology" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T05:03:01.980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2114" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:41:08.387" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow, this is an excellent question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, there are some things that are unethical from the viewpoints of some societies that are not immoral.  Polygamy and slavery are two examples of this.  However, anything that is immoral is, &lt;em&gt;by definition&lt;/em&gt;, a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Definitions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two approaches I can see to answering this question.  And these two appraoches really boil down to two definitions of &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dictionary.com on &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;evil&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;harmful; injurious&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you come from the direction of &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; meaning &amp;quot;morally wrong or bad&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;immoral&amp;quot;, then the very definition of &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; implies that something goes against God.  In this sense, the question becomes tautology and is merely asking the definition of a word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are acts that some people consider &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; that others do not consider a evil.  This is the second perspective (from the second definition listed above): the perspective that &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; is something that is harmful.  And &lt;strong&gt;this&lt;/strong&gt; argument boils down to &lt;em&gt;ethics&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is (from this second perspective): is there anything that is &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; (in the sense that it is not ethical) that is not a &amp;quot;sin&amp;quot; (in that it is not immoral).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that, I need to clarify two words.  For our purposes, please accept these definitions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unethical&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;unwilling to adhere to proper rules of conduct for the given society&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Immoral&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;violating principles guiding the distinction of good and bad&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Support for these definitions can be found here: [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;], [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.buzzle.com/articles/difference-between-ethics-and-morality.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;], and especially [&lt;a href=&quot;http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/types.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;].  &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Distinction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the distinction is very academic, it's actually critical for the understanding of how something can be &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; without being a sin.  So, I continue...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The essence of these two definitions is that something is &amp;quot;unethical&amp;quot; if it violates what society accepts as normal, acceptable behavior.  Because of this, something that violates ethics of one culture (and therefore be considered &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot;) may not violate the ethics of another.  By contrast, an act is considered &amp;quot;immoral&amp;quot; if it violates the sense of what is right and wrong (good and evil).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in this sense, &lt;em&gt;immorality is a sin&lt;/em&gt;.  In fact, immorality is the definition of sin.  Since God has laid down what is right and wrong, good and evil, we know without a doubt what is sin and what isn't.  Determining whether something is moral or immoral is exactly the same as determining whether something is a sin or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Contrast&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, can something be &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; in the sense that it's unethical and still be moral?  To answer this, we need to find something that may be considered harmful in one society (and therefore &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot;) while it's considered normal and acceptable in another--all while being allowed by God (and therefore moral).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that, I point to three examples: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/128/the-bible-seems-to-allow-polygamy-why-doesnt-the-church/1206#1206&quot;&gt;polygamy&lt;/a&gt;, slavery, and garments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at our first example, polygamy has been an acceptable part of societies throughout history.  In fact, the vast majority of known societies have been polygamous (&lt;a href=&quot;http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/%7Edrwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;).  And there are societies that are both Christian and polygamous (Kenya, for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Kenya&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya#Religion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;).  Because of this, we can see that polygamy is a value that has been accepted by some societies and not others.  It is, therefore ethical in some societies and not in others.  However, since there is no &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/128/the-bible-seems-to-allow-polygamy-why-doesnt-the-church/1206#1206&quot;&gt;solid biblical basis&lt;/a&gt; for declaring polygamy immoral, it remains moral, but unethical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our second example, slavery, follows the same reasoning.  I'll leave those explanations to these sources: [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;], [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;], and [&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;].  Essentially, though, it's been viewed as &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; by societies that do not accept it and acceptable within societies that do accept it, making it an ethic, rather than a moral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't site any sources for this one, but rather appeal to the common sense:  In many cultures, wearing certain garments is considered &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; (such as wearing a bikini in Iran or women being topless in the United States).  However, other societies find these completely acceptable and normal.  Because of this, these societies may find wearing certain clothing &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot;, although it violates no sin (per Christianity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer your question:  If something is immoral, it is &lt;em&gt;by definition&lt;/em&gt; a sin.  If something is unethical, however, it may or may not be a sin.  Usually, however, it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T14:41:08.387" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:42:30.263" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that God is able to do as he wishes, the question is more whether sinners can be around God. The text is pretty clear that God permits Satan into his presence so he can show the faithfulness of his servant, Job. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the scriptures and in other places we find that God can 'reveal' himself or be 'in the presence of' sinners in some fashion; and that he is able to mediate that experience to allow communication. If this was not so, there would be no faith at all!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Orthodox theology, what is at stake is not God being able to be around sinners, but the experience of sinners in the presence of God. Hence, we see it does not tell us in the text what Satan's experience of being around God was, but we can only assume it was not pleasant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T14:42:30.263" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2183" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:47:37.540" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tradition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Writers in the apostolic era such as St. Ignatius and others give identification of the writers of the Gospels. These are our earliest witnesses and where we get the original naming from. Later on, some textual analysis was done to examine the accuracy of those claims, but I do not think they have been successfully contested, expect to say that it is obvious that 'the Gospel according to N' did not necessarily mean that 'N' wrote the text by hand, by himself. Instead, it is merely the Gospel according to them; with Luke it is fairly certain it was written by him, but with John even the text suggests that he is merely the witness and not the writer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T14:47:37.540" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2184" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:57:47.993" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that Adam and Eve were created in a perfect state (albeit one that didn't preclude their ability to choose to sin), and given that God told them to &quot;Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth&quot; {&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:28&lt;/a&gt;}, why would we presume that those two were not a &quot;minimum viable population&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The population post-Flood was only 8 (and two of them are not recorded as having more children), and yet today we have a global population of ~7 billion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T14:57:47.993" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1697" CreationDate="2011-09-06T14:59:16.603" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;After reading several of the comments, it appears that many are taking the original question, &quot;Is rock music sinful / immoral&quot; and rewriting it in their heads as &quot;If I listen to rock music, does that make me a rank sinner?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul put it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I Corinthians 6:11-13&lt;/strong&gt; And such were some of you: but ye are washed,&#xA;  but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord&#xA;  Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. &lt;strong&gt;All things are lawful unto me,&#xA;  but all things are not expedient&lt;/strong&gt;: all things are lawful for me, but I&#xA;  will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and&#xA;  the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the&#xA;  body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the&#xA;  body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it &lt;em&gt;expedient&lt;/em&gt; to listen to a song that contains lyrics about traveling down the Highway to Hell? As one commenter noted, this song may be theologically accurate, but the lyrics are that &quot;&lt;strong&gt;I'm&lt;/strong&gt; on the highway to hell&quot;. No thanks. That's not expedient for me to sing along to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus admonished us to remember Lot's wife, who was so in love with the things of the world (Sodom) that, as fire fell from heaven, she had to turn back around to get one last look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LUKE 17:32&lt;/strong&gt; Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life&#xA;  shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GENESIS 19:24&lt;/strong&gt; Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah&#xA;  brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those&#xA;  cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and&#xA;  that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind&#xA;  him, and she became a pillar of salt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul said, &quot;but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.&quot; Sanctification brings separation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe true sanctification produces a difference between what you used to be, and what you are today in Christ. The difference between what you used to do, and what you do now, should be so obvious that anyone can see it, and you become a living testimony to all men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I Corinthians 3:1-2&lt;/strong&gt; Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need&#xA;  we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of&#xA;  commendation from you? &lt;strong&gt;Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known&#xA;  and read of all men:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;To say that listening to rock music makes you a sinner is legalism. On the other hand, make sure you are washed, sanctified, and set apart, and aren't turning back like Lot's wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T14:59:16.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2184" CreationDate="2011-09-06T15:09:16.380" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally. What you're attempting to do is what all scientists do, assume that the situation today has always been the same and estimate incorrectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you fail to realize is that DNA has probably been copied a few trillion times from cell to cell to cell to human to cell to human. All things copied tend to break down, become unstable and begin to produce error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the DNA was perfect (containing not a single error), as we can expect it to be, in Adam and Eve's time, or even in Noah's time, then this would not be a problem. Modern science has already learned that every human being on the planet contains genes from one dominant male and one dominant female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New DNA studies suggest that all humans descended from a single&#xA;  African ancestor who lived some 60,000 years ago. To uncover the paths&#xA;  that lead from him to every living human, the National Geographic&#xA;  Society launched the Genographic Project, headed by Spencer Wells. &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells.html&quot;&gt;(link)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The particulars could very easily be up for debate, but the premise that a single male and single female were the start of it all, is truly the only evidence that we have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T15:09:16.380" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2178" CreationDate="2011-09-06T15:12:55.607" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very interesting question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, what &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be the goal of ecumenism? I believe it has to be reunification. Pardon my translation of choice (NIV) (added own emphasis)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul talks about our differences in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12:12-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the broader context of the passage, this is talking about gifts and each of us are called to do different things for the body of the Church. But it does highlight that we are not all the same, we have our differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the overall goal of the true church should be unity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:4-5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, &lt;strong&gt;one faith&lt;/strong&gt;, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But why not reconciliation? When I hear that word, I think of the definition &lt;em&gt;to compose or settle (a quarrel, dispute, etc.).&lt;/em&gt; Given that there has been millenia for people to offend each other and great chasms in the different denominations, it seems unreasonable to believe we can work through all that history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, it is a christian command to &lt;strong&gt;forgive&lt;/strong&gt; one another. But it has to be our prayer to be united in Christ so the world will know he is from God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 17:22-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be &lt;strong&gt;brought to complete unity&lt;/strong&gt;. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer the question &lt;em&gt;Also, are they polar opposites, if we proceed toward Reconciliation do we throw out Reunification?&lt;/em&gt;: I don't believe they are polar opposites, but using the above definition of reconciliation, I don't think it's necessary to reconcile in order to reunify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the official progress of ecumenism, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has some history on it from a (mostly) Catholic point of view. Focusing on the section of 'recent' progress:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mutual anathemas (excommunications) of 1054, marking the Great Schism between Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity, a process spanning several centuries, were revoked in 1965 by the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find it interesting that ecumenism between Catholics and Protestants don't seem to be a main focus. It seems to be between Catholics and Orthodox, and the various denominations of Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Organizations such as the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches USA, Churches Uniting in Christ, Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship and Christian Churches Together continue to encourage ecumenical cooperation among Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and, at times, Roman Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most recently, the US Episcopal Church seems to have made a blunder in uniting the beliefs (also from that wikipedia article):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The decision by the U.S. Episcopal Church to ordain Gene Robinson, an openly gay, non-celibate priest who advocates same-sex blessings, as bishop led the Russian Orthodox Church to suspend its cooperation with the Episcopal Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the American denominations are making some progress by remaking an organization to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_Uniting_in_Christ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;unite the churches&lt;/a&gt; in 2002.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T16:53:40.947" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2131" CreationDate="2011-09-06T15:33:45.760" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you're asking about is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Situational Ethics&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people arguing for situational ethics use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:1-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 12:1-8&lt;/a&gt; as an example.  Key verses from that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:3-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 12:3-6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, it shows that in some situations, we need to apply the laws with consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of situational ethics is that we should do whatever results in the &lt;em&gt;greatest amount of love&lt;/em&gt;.  That idea comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:35-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:35-40&lt;/a&gt; where Jesus says that the second greatest command is to love your neighbor as yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more reading, &lt;a href=&quot;http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/ChristianSituationEthics.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a long article.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T15:33:45.760" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2112" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:01:03.567" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on what you mean by &quot;involved in politics&quot; - perhaps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly if you look at the history of both Israel and the early church you will see many examples of those &quot;in politics&quot; who were also redeemed (Paul writes that the household of Caesar greets those to whom he is writing in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%204:22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philippians&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, Nehemiah was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cupbearer&lt;/a&gt; to the king, and Daniel had a high rank in Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; interesting to note that neither Daniel nor Nehemiah seemed to have &lt;em&gt;aspired&lt;/em&gt; to a political rank, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:25-40&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ethiopian Eunuch&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cornelius&lt;/a&gt; (a centurion of the Italian cohort - high enough in military ranking to have at least &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; political influence).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T20:08:27.550" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T20:08:27.550" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2197" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2209" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:10:26.280" Score="5" ViewCount="1529" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's pretty clear that we shouldn't put God to the test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 4:12&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the&#xA;  test.’ ”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 7:10-12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a&#xA;  sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the&#xA;  test.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God clearly wanted Ahaz to ask him for the answer, but Ahaz assumed that this was a test. We know from other faithful people in the Bible that they all went to God and asked God for answers to their questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where should we not test God and when/where is it ok to test Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T21:05:23.060" Title="Where do we draw the line when questioning/testing God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-09-02T20:20:47.250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2118" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:17:49.357" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two primary views of this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are different levels of sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All sin is equal in God's eyes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, they're both pretty sound beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;All sins are not equal&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many verses to back up this belief that all sins are not equal.  Here are some of them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:31-32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 12:31-32 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 6:18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 19:11 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:3 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;All sins are equal&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that &amp;quot;all sins are equal in God's eyes&amp;quot; comes from the idea that any &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; sin will lead to death.  If we commit a single sin, we are as guilty (in God's eyes) as if we had committed the worst sin--regardless of which sin we committed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's based on the idea that God's holiness is so extreme, that even one transgression is greater than he can accept.  This idea is supported with two key verses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 2:10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument goes, therefore, that if even the smallest sin prevents us from attaining the perfection that God calls us to seek, then that one single sin is as great as the worst sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can reconcile these two seemingly opposing viewpoints: we can clearly see that some sins are greater than others, but that &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; sin will prevent us from going to heaven without the saving grace and sacrifice of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, any one sin is sufficient to keep us from God, but all sins are not the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T16:17:49.357" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1947" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:19:13.313" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul explains what he means when read in context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I Corinthians 1:18-27 For the preaching of the cross is to them that&#xA;  perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of&#xA;  God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and&#xA;  will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the&#xA;  wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath&#xA;  not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? &lt;strong&gt;For after that in the&#xA;  wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the&#xA;  foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.&lt;/strong&gt; For the Jews&#xA;  require a sign, and &lt;strong&gt;the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach&#xA;  Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks&#xA;  foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks,&#xA;  Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.&lt;/strong&gt; *&lt;em&gt;Because the&#xA;  foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is&#xA;  stronger than men.&lt;/em&gt;* For ye see your calling, brethren, how that &lt;strong&gt;not&#xA;  many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are&#xA;  called&lt;/strong&gt;: But &lt;strong&gt;God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to&#xA;  confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to&#xA;  confound the things which are mighty;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the world believes that 'Christ crucified' is foolishness, when it is in fact the wisdom of God. By their wisdom (their learning and reasoning) they reject the wisdom of God, which is so simple that it confounds supposedly learned men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scribes, being the few that could actually read the Old Testament scrolls, should have been the ones to recognize Jesus. But instead it was simple fishermen (not many noble, not many wise) that recognized who He was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's point is that the approach to God is not found through intellectual reasoning and man's wisdom, but &lt;strong&gt;God is revealed in such simplicity that the wise of the world stumble&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T16:19:13.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2118" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:19:23.100" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;No, all sins are not equal.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You as a human being understand that killing somebody is more of a sin then stealing $5 from their wallet. So could you ever assume that God sees all sin as being equal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God clearly states in more then one instance, that He will repay the people according to what they have done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 25:14&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They themselves will be enslaved by many nations and great kings; I&#xA;will repay them according to their deeds and the work of their hands.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is perfect, God is just, therefore God is a perfect judge that will repay all people exactly according to what they have done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes all sin is equal in our relationship with God, because &lt;strong&gt;not a single sin that you have done has ever affected God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 35:6-8&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many,&#xA;what does that do to him?  7 If you are righteous, what do you give to&#xA;him, or what does he receive from your hand?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 Your wickedness&#xA;only affects humans like yourself, and your righteousness only&#xA;other people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As @dancek pointed out, there are also references in the bible that suggest that not all sin is equal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:16-18&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16If anyone sees his brother committing a sin&#xA;not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to&#xA;those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that&#xA;leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 17 All&#xA;wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.  18We&#xA;know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning,&#xA;but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not&#xA;touch him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;No, not all sin is equal in God's eyes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a cop-out. This premise suggests that God is not perfect and that you don't have to worry about your sin because it's all the same to God. Instead, God clearly states again and again that He will judge you accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 18:30&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your&#xA;own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your&#xA;offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Kings 8:39&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal with&#xA;everyone according to all they do, since you know their hearts (for&#xA;you alone know every human heart),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up&#xA;the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to&#xA;what they had done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And more! &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:12&amp;amp;version=31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:12&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2036:19&amp;amp;version=31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 36:19&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2033:20&amp;amp;version=31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 33:20&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2024:14&amp;amp;version=31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 24:14&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%207:8&amp;amp;version=31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 7:8&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all sin was equal in God's eyes, then God would surely pass down the same judgement to all people, regardless of their iniquity. But as it is said, God will judge the people according to what they had done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Richard, Yes a single sin makes you unrighteous and a single sin will submit you to the subjection of God's judgement, but that does not mean that all sin is equal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T16:28:20.027" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2112" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:33:00.810" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The charges being brought against Jesus was that he was &quot;King of the Jews&quot;, meaning that he claimed earthly authority over the Jews.  The charges, therefore, were charges against the authority of Rome. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see this more clearly if you read the full passage (using your source translation):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_018.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 18:33 (NWT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So Pilate entered into the governor’s palace again and called Jesus and said to Him: &quot;Are you the king of the Jews?&quot; Jesus answered: &quot;Is it of your own originality that you say this, or did others tell you about me?&quot; Pilate answered: &quot;I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered you up to me. What did you do?&quot; Jesus answered: &quot;My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.&quot; Therefore Pilate said to him: &quot;Well, then, are you a king?&quot; Jesus answered: &quot;You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.&quot; Pilate said to him: &quot;What is truth?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And after saying this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them: &quot;I find no fault in Him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus said this, he wasn't saying that his kingdom was not currently populating the Earth, but rather that he is bringing about a spiritual kingdom.  He was, essentially, denying an earthly rulership that the Jews were accusing him of.  He was not saying that his people should avoid politics or that they should not become rulers through appropriate means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, there's nothing from this passage that suggests we should stay out of politics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-01-28T13:45:30.343" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T13:45:30.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2087" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:36:08.497" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One benefit was what I heard at Mass this weekend (which incidentally, I wouldn't have heard had I not been at Mass this weekend).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again, [amen,] I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/matthew18.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 18:19-20 NAB&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it is important for us to gather in one place and pray together.  We could do this with informal prayer groups, but tradition has given us a formalized system for praying. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I pray the Rosary nearly every day, I'd like to say I pray it every day but I miss a day or two here or there, the reason I do it every day is mainly out of fear that if I miss a week, that week may become a month and that month may become a year, etc... So in the end, it's better that I do it every day.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attendance at your church is the same way,  make it a habit and it'll stick, lose the habit and you'll lose your desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T16:36:08.497" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2091" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:37:55.567" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's clear that God formed our bodies in our mothers' wombs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 31:15&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one&#xA;  form us both within our mothers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 44:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the&#xA;  womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the&#xA;  heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 139:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s&#xA;  womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There really is no more scripture other then this one mention of God knowing us prior to our earthly state. Here is the one mention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 1:5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Before I formed you in the womb &lt;strong&gt;I knew you&lt;/strong&gt;, before you were born I&#xA;  set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This mention could easily be interpreted that God is not limited by time, thus could very well have known exactly how He wanted to create you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that it boils down to this. God created mankind on earth, thus He created their souls at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 45:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands&#xA;  stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T16:52:57.173" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T16:52:57.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2112" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:46:02.147" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;For one, Catholic Priest are bound by canon law not to participate in politics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They are not to play an active role in political parties or in directing trade unions unless, in the judgement of the competent ecclesiastical authority, this is required for the defence of the rights of the Church or to promote the common good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_PX.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard, from a Jehovah's Witness, that they are not able to participate in politics either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it seems to me that the laity, has a duty to his neighbor to participate in politics.  To seek political office if necessary for the purpose of upholding the common good.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Politics should not become an occasion of sin, as it often does through graft and sexual impropriety.  Seeking political office doesn't need to be about ambition, as it often is.  Running for office doesn't need to be about smearing your opponent, but it often is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in essence, most of politics is dirty, that's what Jesus refers to quite often as 'the world'.  That is 'the world' that you're supposed to hate.  But, we have a duty to build up the kingdom on earth as much as possible, we have a duty to protect and defend the babies in the womb, children in poverty, drug abusers etc.. and very occasionally, laws need to be passed, or more often repealed, for us to carry out our mission as Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T16:46:02.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2077" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:48:38.667" Score="8" Body="&lt;h2&gt;There is no contradiction with homosexuality.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be homosexual is to pervert the things that God has made for Good and to do wicked with them. To love God is to obey his commandments. Notice the order of importance in the commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:35-39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:35-39 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;  One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;  “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;  Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;  This is the first and greatest commandment. &lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Your first priority&lt;/strong&gt; is to show love for God, by doing as He has commanded you to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:3 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Your second priority&lt;/strong&gt; is to love your neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:2 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But remember that there is no line, when you pervert the good that God has made, you are not a child of God, but instead you are a child of the Devil. Sounds harsh, but it's biblical...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2013:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 13:10 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;“You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T22:19:56.823" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2206" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-06T16:55:21.730" Score="14" ViewCount="37413" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is easy to recognize the body as the physical matter that makes up a person.  The body is clearly distinct from the soul and spirit in several ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The body is visible to others.  (When I see you, I am seeing your body.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The body is recognizable by others.  (I know who you are when I look at you.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The body has a beginning and an end.  (Our bodies experience conception/birth and death/decay.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The body directly interacts with the rest of creation.  (We touch, eat, move things around, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there similar comparisons that help describe the distinction between the soul and spirit?  I'm specifically interested in the viewpoints of those who believe in the tripartite nature of man, that is, that the body, soul, and spirit are the three distinct components of a person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-07T22:07:02.277" LastActivityDate="2015-09-08T12:39:12.843" Title="What is the difference between man's soul and spirit?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;souls&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T06:51:07.530" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2091" CreationDate="2011-09-06T17:11:09.623" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to Jeremiah 1:5, already quoted by Jonathon, we have the case of the man blind from birth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209%3a%201-3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 9: 1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the man was born blind, and did not become blind later on, the implicit assumption here is that it's possible for a premortal sin to cause a congenital defect as punishment.  Jesus didn't correct them by saying that there's no such thing as premortal existence, but instead said that the man's blindness wasn't punishment for any sin at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken together with Jeremiah 1: 5, we've got a fair amount of support for the spirit of man existing before mortality begins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T17:11:09.623" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2083" CreationDate="2011-09-06T17:16:29.560" Score="14" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Order, Authority and Peace&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would you ever dare to mention that the Holy Spirit is subject to the authority and/or control of a Man? If you cannot fathom that the Holy Spirit would ever be subjected to man then you do not understand order and peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 14:32-33&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33&#xA;For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the&#xA;congregations of the Lord’s people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, to be subject to something does not mean that you are worth less, it does not mean that you are not equal, it does not mean that you are dishonored. God is a God of Peace, He is a God of Order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Woman were created for men, to be their glory!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:7-9&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory&#xA;of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from&#xA;woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but&#xA;woman for man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, women are the glory of man. Yes, woman were created for man. You will never see a man preaching to God, because this is not the order of it's creation. Jesus Christ was first, and from Christ came everything else after Him. This is the nature of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is why no woman should have authority over man&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea is not only in corinthians, it is spread throughout the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 2:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;&#xA;she must be quiet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and&#xA;the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 5:22&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 3:5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in&#xA;God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own&#xA;husbands,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understand that woman was created to be man's &amp;quot;helper&amp;quot;, to be his companion, that a man may rely on his woman for support. This is not a dishonoring role for a woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why is this a source of contention for women?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now we ask the question, why is this even an area of debate? Why do women refuse to be the glory and support of a man, but instead wish to rule over men?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 To the woman he said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with&#xA;painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be&#xA;for your husband, and he will rule over you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God made it clear from the beginning that a men will rule over women, but the women will desire the mans position of authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I feel that mans job is more difficult&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God commands that women should submit to their husbands, but then turns around and tells the men that they need to love their wives like Christ loves the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To love my wife as Christ loves the church is the most difficult command that I have ever received. I must be strong in my position as husband to &lt;strong&gt;retain&lt;/strong&gt; the respect of my wife and of this household, but I should also be gentle, peaceful, understanding and always loving to my wife. Which is not the easiest thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember one thing, girls; if a man did not stand firm in their position of authority, EVEN YOU would look on them with disrespect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-07-06T22:58:56.683" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2197" CreationDate="2011-09-06T17:32:43.713" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The commandment against putting God to the test comes from Deuteronomy 6:16, as part of a series of instructions relating to loyalty to the one true God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not put the Lord your God to the test as you tested him at Massah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reference to Massah is from the events of Exodus 17:1-7, also recounted in Numbers 20:1-13. This is the story where the Israelites have come out of Egypt, have been wandering in the desert, and are getting fed up with the harsh conditions and lack of water - they have lost their trust in God's promise. Moses, at God's command, strikes the rock with his staff to let out a stream of water. Exodus 7:7 explains: &amp;quot;He gave the place the names Massah and Meribah because of the Israelites' contentiousness and because they put the Lord to the test by saying, 'Is the Lord with us or not?'&amp;quot;. 'Massah' means 'trial' and 'Meribah' means 'contention'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The account in Numbers is a little more colourful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was no water for the community, so they banded together against Moses and Aaron. The people laid the blame on Moses. &amp;quot;We would rather have died,&amp;quot; they said, &amp;quot;as our brothers died before the Lord! Why have you brought the Lord's community into this desert, for us and our livestock to die here? Why did you lead us out of Egypt, only to bring us to this wretched place? It is a place unfit sowing, it has no figs, no pomegranates, and there is not even water to drink!&amp;quot; (Nb 20:2-5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord then said to Moses and Aaron, &amp;quot;Because you did not believe that I could assert my holiness before the Israelites' eyes, you will not lead this assembly into the country which I am giving them.&amp;quot; These were the Waters of Meribah, where the Israelites laid the blame on the Lord and where, by their means, he asserted his holiness. (Nb 20:12-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This context shows that 'putting God to the test' is strongly connected to one of the major themes of the exodus - that despite God's continual promises, people are still doubtful, resentful, unsatisfied, and disobedient. We demand more and more evidence of God's love for us (sweetening the foul water, raining manna, making water spring from the rock, ...) rather than  accepting and returning it. This is what is going on in the passage from Luke - the devil is suggesting that God's unconditional love is a resource to be exploited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The statement of Ahaz in Isaiah 7:12 should be seen in the context of his reign, which is described in 2 Kings 16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Ahaz] did not do what the Lord his God regards as right, as his ancestor David had done. He followed the example of the kings of Israel, even causing his son to pass through the fire of sacrifice, also copying the disgusting practices of the nations whom the Lord had dispossessed for the Israelites. (2 Kings 16:2-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ahaz was no true follower of God. As a king, besieged by Razon and Pekah (2 Kings 16:5 and Isaiah 7:1), his response was to offer his kingdom as a vassal state to Assyria. He sent treasures from the Temple to Assyria's king (2 Kings 16:8), and made other changes to the Temple structure (16:17-18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Jerusalem Bible has this to say in a footnote to Isaiah 7:7-9 :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the prophets, faith is not so much a theoretical belief in the existence and uniqueness of God as an attitude of confidence based on God's choice of Israel: he has chosen Israel, he is Israel's God, he alone has the power to save his people. This unconditional trust, a guarantee of salvation, excludes all reliance not only on human beings but still more on false gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when Ahaz says, &amp;quot;I will not put God to the test,&amp;quot; he is showing a lack of faith in God. He would rather trust in the mighty Assyrian empire, or in foreign gods, than accept the sign that God has just promised to give him. God demonstrates his patient love &lt;em&gt;yet again&lt;/em&gt; by giving the sign anyway - a young woman (or virgin) is &amp;quot;with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel&amp;quot; (Isaiah 7:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T17:32:43.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2206" CreationDate="2011-09-06T17:33:24.970" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your soul is who you are; the essence of your being. Your spirit is given to connect with God. When the soul is used in the Bible, it can refer to the whole person: in its most basic sense, the word soul means &quot;life&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul explained, we are triune beings made up of body, spirit and soul. A good analogy would be the three temple courts: outer, inner, and the Holy of Holies. The outer court represents your body, the inner court represents your spirit, and the center of man, the soul, represented by the Holy of Holies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I THESSALONIANS 5:23&lt;/strong&gt; And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly;&#xA;  and I pray God your whole &lt;strong&gt;spirit&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;soul&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;body&lt;/strong&gt; be preserved&#xA;  blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some scripture references to put things into context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Soul:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 2:7&lt;/strong&gt; And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and&#xA;  breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living&#xA;  soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 35:18&lt;/strong&gt; And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for&#xA;  she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him&#xA;  Benjamin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I Corinthians 2:11-12&lt;/strong&gt; For what man knoweth the things of a man, save&#xA;  the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth&#xA;  no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of&#xA;  the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the&#xA;  things that are freely given to us of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 36 explains the born again experience. First, God gives you a new heart to believe him. Then a new spirit that cleanses you and sets you aside for service. Finally, He puts His spirit in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 36:26-27&lt;/strong&gt; A &lt;strong&gt;new heart&lt;/strong&gt; also will I give you, and &lt;strong&gt;a new&#xA;  spirit&lt;/strong&gt; will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart&#xA;  out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will&#xA;  put &lt;strong&gt;my spirit&lt;/strong&gt; within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes,&#xA;  and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The born again experience is also mirrored in the Old Testament temple worship. First, you approach God through the outer court, where the Word was taught (under Solomon's Porch). Next, you enter into fellowship with God in the inner court, by offering sacrifices and through worship with God's people. Finally, the veil having been rent by our Christ's sacrifice, we are able to enter into the Holy of Holies as &quot;kings and priests&quot; (Revelation 1:6) and enter into true fellowship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Viewpoints on the Triune Nature of Man&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early 1900 teachers such as Lehman Strauss and William Branham taught that the body consisted of 5 natural senses (sight, taste, etc), and the middle realm (spirit) consisted of 5 senses (memory, reason, consciousness, affection, imagination). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lehman Strauss taught that the center realm (soul) consisted of an additional five senses:  faith, hope, reverence, prayer and worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;William Branham on the other hand, taught that the center realm consisted of &lt;em&gt;only one&lt;/em&gt; sense, either faith or doubt, depending on the person's state of salvation (if you had been filled with the Holy Ghost, you believed God's Word).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;William Branham's viewpoint is consistent with the &quot;floor plan&quot; of Solomon and Herod's temples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Alfred Edersheim's &quot;Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The priests kept watch in the Temple in three places: in the house&#xA;  Avtinas, and in the house Nitsuts, and in the house of Moked; and the&#xA;  Levites in twenty-one places: &lt;strong&gt;5 at the five gates&lt;/strong&gt; leading into the&#xA;  Temple (the Mountain of the House), 4 in the four angles within, &lt;strong&gt;5 at&#xA;  the five gates of the court&lt;/strong&gt;, 4 in its four angles without, &lt;strong&gt;and 1 in&#xA;  the chamber of offering, and 1 in the chamber of the vail, and 1&#xA;  behind the Most Holy Place (the House of Atonement).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were obviously more than just five gates into each court of the temple complex. But the order of approach, and the symbolism, was maintained by the way that the Levites guarded the gates. They guarded five gates of the body, five gates of the spirit, and one gate into the Holy of Holies (soul).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="292" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T14:21:49.400" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T14:21:49.400" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2197" CreationDate="2011-09-06T19:11:30.463" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;When fastening in the desert, the devil asks Jesus, according to the bible, to commit a miracle, but Jesus says, that you shall not test God. (Mt 4,1-11²).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, when Thomas does not believe in him, he shows his wounds to him, with the sound of a mild dispraise, but Thomas isn't banned or send to hell or excluded from his community. (Joh, 20²). And his skepticism might look like his fault, but the other follower where present, when Jesus appeared before, so they didn't show more faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small problem with this rule, to not test god, is, that every prayer, where you ask god for something - health, food, freedom, luck for your relatives and support for your friends in trouble, all this can be seen as an implicit test. If you believe that God helped to heal a disease, you implicitly believe, that God has proven his existence that way. It is a fine line to balance on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;²) I guess you prefer to read the part in your own translation, and have a link ready, so I don't search for an English link. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="282" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T19:29:15.893" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T19:29:15.893" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2011-09-06T19:12:28.533" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus first miracle was to turn water into wine.  The guest of the party responds to the host, saying that most people serve bad wine after the guests are drunk:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_002.htm&quot;&gt;John 2:10 (NWT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and said to him: “Every other man puts out the fine wine first, and when people are intoxicated, the inferior. You have reserved the fine wine until now.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we go further back in the bible, we see Noah getting drunk on wine directly after getting off the ark:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/ge/chapter_009.htm&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:20-21 (NWT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Now Noah started off as a farmer and proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 And he began drinking of the wine and became intoxicated, and so he uncovered himself in the midst of his tent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know about you, but drinking a bunch of grape juice generally doesn't make me run around naked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very safe to say that wine from back then would get you drunk.  (And that's not even mentioning the multitude of verses telling you not to get drunk on wine!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T19:12:28.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2215" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2216" CreationDate="2011-09-06T19:20:31.727" Score="17" ViewCount="33322" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is just one verse in the New Testament that refers to hyssop and is not referring to the Old Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 19:29&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  A jar of sour wine was sitting there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it up to [Jesus'] lips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is the fact that a hyssop branch was used significant enough to mention it by name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-09-24T11:25:48.097" LastActivityDate="2016-09-24T11:25:48.097" Title="What's the significance of hyssop in John 19:29?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-09-24T23:05:59.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2215" CreationDate="2011-09-06T19:28:15.980" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hyssop represents common faith. Hyssop was a weed that grew practically anywhere. The blood is applied by common faith in God's word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EXODUS 12:22&lt;/strong&gt; And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the&#xA;  blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side&#xA;  posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go&#xA;  out at the door of his house until the morning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many of the Old Testament sacrifices (the two turtle doves for the cleansing of the leper, and especially the sacrifice of the red heifer), hyssop was burned in the fire, with the sacrifice, along with scarlet and cedar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 19:6&lt;/strong&gt; And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and&#xA;  scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hyssop represents the first step of salvation, believing on the Lord through common faith (justification).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scarlet represents the blood sacrifice which atones for our sins, and being set aside for service (sanctification).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cedar represents a Holy God coming to dwell in our hearts (baptism of the Holy Ghost).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reference to hyssop in John 19:29 ties together the Old Testament prefigure of the red heifer (who died for the sins of the people) with the death of Christ (who died &quot;once for all&quot;). There on Golgotha was Hyssop, the Blood Sacrifice (Scarlet), and Emmanuel (God with Us, Cedar).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="292" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T23:04:28.937" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T23:04:28.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2217" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2228" CreationDate="2011-09-06T20:02:46.963" Score="14" ViewCount="33542" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ran across the KJV translation of Jeremiah 29:11 on Facebook today and was struck by a seeming contradiction in the way the last part was translated. Here is the verse alongside other modern translations for comparison:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 29:11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2029:11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;KJV&lt;/a&gt;: For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2029:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;: For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2029:11&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NLT&lt;/a&gt;: For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord. “They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2029:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;: For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2029:11&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NKJV&lt;/a&gt;: For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I found odd was that the KJV translates the last few words as &amp;quot;an expected end&amp;quot; which, to me, implies an actual end, not a non-end as the other translations imply. Especially notable is how the KJV and NKJV have near-identical phrasings except for that last bit. Thus, my question is: why is it translated that way in the King James Version?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-02-28T11:48:00.680" Title="Why did the KJV translate Jeremiah 29:11 as &quot;to give you an expected end&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;jeremiah&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2218" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2234" CreationDate="2011-09-06T20:05:07.793" Score="6" ViewCount="5976" Body="&lt;p&gt;At first I was thinking the only requirement to be canonized was to be killed for your faith. Is this accurate? How is someone deemed a Saint as opposed to a martyr in Catholicism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-19T01:07:34.593" LastActivityDate="2020-06-19T01:07:34.593" Title="Do Catholics refer to all martyrs as Saints?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;canonization&gt;&lt;martyrdom&gt;&lt;sainthood&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2217" CreationDate="2011-09-06T20:12:06.503" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best answer I can think of is that when you look at the &lt;em&gt;usage&lt;/em&gt; of those words ~400 years ago, they had [somewhat] different connotations than they do now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excepting someone finding the translators' crib notes for the passage in question, it will most likely remain a point of speculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T20:12:06.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2220" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-06T20:29:15.973" Score="28" ViewCount="32674" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (full text below) is perhaps one of the hardest parables to interpret. At first glance it seems to be about rewarding dishonesty!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What lesson is Jesus teaching His followers with this parable?&lt;/strong&gt; Has any prominent theologian (eg Matthew Henry, NT Wright) explained this parable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016:1-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 16:1-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg. I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“‘Nine hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-10-23T10:51:52.753" Title="Prominent Theologians' answer to: What is &quot;The Parable of the Shrewd Manager&quot; about?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="20" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2218" CreationDate="2011-09-06T20:34:00.397" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; loads of good info, I'll just answer the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How is someone deemed a saint (in 2011)?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pope canonizes a dead person who has lived a life of heroic virtue and has performed a posthumous miracle in addition to the miracle required for beatification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What about martyrdom?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martyrdom circumvents the normal requirement of a posthumous miracle for beatification, but it not instant qualification for sainthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other saintly terminology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone who has been beatified is referred to as Blessed, someone who is canonized is referred to as Saint. You may also see Venerable and Servant of God, these are mile markers on the path to sainthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T21:26:55.007" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T21:26:55.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2218" CreationDate="2011-09-06T20:37:16.323" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a path to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization#Roman_Catholic_procedure_since_1983&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Servant of God&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The local bishop recognizes that someone holy has died and starts gathering evidence that they were holy.  When they have enough evidence, they give the evidence to the Roman Curia.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Declaration 'Non Cultus'&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At some point, they dig up the body and gathers a few relics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Venerable/Heroic in Virtue&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When there's enough evidence that they were actually holy, the Pope (at the recommendation of the Roman Curia) declares them as Venerable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Blessed&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The person, at this point, is declared that they are actually, truly in heaven &quot;looking at God&quot;.  If they were a martyr, the Pope gives it the rubber stamp.  Otherwise, there has to be a proven miracle tied to the person.  This is called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_Vision&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Beatific Vision&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Saint&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To become a saint, there has to be two proven miracles.  Once there are two miracles, the Pope may proclaim that person a saint.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer your question, martyrdom is not a requirement for sainthood.  Nor is it a guarantee.  You have to have associated miracles to achieve Sainthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T21:06:05.597" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T21:06:05.597" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="708" CreationDate="2011-09-06T20:46:37.663" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first spoken words of God to humans in the Bible is the command to &lt;em&gt;have sex&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it cannot possibly be a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Also, as Nicky Gumbel says on the Alpha course, God is not looking down and thinking, &amp;quot;What ever are they up to?! I didn't intend that at all!&amp;quot;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T13:56:11.847" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2011-09-06T21:00:45.610" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Mathew Henry's Concise Commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever we have, the property of it is God's; we have only the use of it, according to the direction of our great Lord, and for his honour. This steward wasted his lord's goods. And we are all liable to the same charge; we have not made due improvement of what God has trusted us with. The steward cannot deny it; he must make up his accounts, and be gone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may teach us that death will come, and deprive us of the opportunities we now have. The steward will make friends of his lord's debtors or tenants, by striking off a considerable part of their debt to his lord. The lord referred to in this parable commended not the fraud, but the policy of the steward. In that respect alone is it so noticed. Worldly men, in the choice of their object, are foolish; but in their activity, and perseverance, they are often wiser than believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The unjust steward is not set before us as an example in cheating his master, or to justify any dishonesty, but to point out the careful ways of worldly men. It would be well if the children of light would learn wisdom from the men of the world, and would as earnestly pursue their better object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The true riches signify spiritual blessings; and if a man spends upon himself, or hoards up what God has trusted to him, as to outward things, what evidence can he have, that he is an heir of God through Christ? The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain. Let us be convinced that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich toward God, rich in Christ, in the promises; let us then lay up our treasure in heaven, and expect our portion from thence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding from this commentary is that the manager's goal didn't change - he wanted a comfortable lifestyle without working too hard - and used his Master's resources for his own purposes. Even when he was caught - and was about to lose the position that enabled him to achieve his nefarious goal easily, he made another plan, a very clever plan, and tried to win the affections of his master's debtors by slashing their debts - probably guaranteeing that someone would give him free board and lodging for a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is certainly not holding this man up as a shining example of morality, but of using his brains to try every possible method of achieving his aim. The aim was not noble, but his persistence and shrewdness in pursuing the aim was. What should we take from this then? We should learn from anyone - even those we want to label as &amp;quot;worldly&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;sinful&amp;quot; - to work hard and be shrewd in how we pursue God's aims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other aspect of this parable is using the stuff of this world for eternal purposes - In the first fraudulent scheme the manager was simply skimming the master's funds and putting them in his own pocket. His thinking was entirely in the pleasures of the here and now. Once he saw his cushy position coming to an end he started using the money to make friends to provide for him at the end of his present &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; when he no longer had any control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="345" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T21:50:49.790" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2197" CreationDate="2011-09-06T21:05:23.060" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Testing&lt;/em&gt; God is trying carry out experiments. &lt;em&gt;&quot;How will God react to this stimulus?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; That's forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Questioning&lt;/em&gt; God is when you want an answer. That's allowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference? The first is not based on faith, trust or relationship; the second is. It's like, you can ask your spouse, &lt;em&gt;&quot;Where were you last night?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; because you don't trust them, or because you are genuinely interested in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two exceptions to this rule:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the example you give, if God says, &quot;Test Me&quot;, you can; even &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%203:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Malachi 3:10&lt;/a&gt;, God says that He can be tested on His faithfulness to those who bring Him the full tithe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T21:05:23.060" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2217" CreationDate="2011-09-06T21:39:35.430" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not be the best answer, but, as @warrend &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2217/why-did-the-kjv-translate-jeremiah-2911-the-way-it-did/2219#2219&quot;&gt;pointed out&lt;/a&gt;, I don't think that there's any definitive reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, looking at the original Hebrew for the passage, we see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/4eY9y.png&quot; alt=&quot;Jeremiah 29:11&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/jer29.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original Hebrew here for that phrase &quot;expected end&quot; is &lt;em&gt;achrith uthque&lt;/em&gt;.  The original wording appears to have two words associated with the one concept.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found some &lt;a href=&quot;http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&amp;amp;PagePosition=847&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;margin notes&lt;/a&gt; in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&amp;amp;PagePosition=847&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Geneva Bible (1611)&lt;/a&gt; that shows that the translators had some trouble interpreting this.  They decided on &quot;expected end&quot;, however they realized that the Hebrew would be better translated as &lt;em&gt;&quot;ende and expadation&quot;&lt;/em&gt; (in King James English).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, we don't know why they chose &quot;expected end&quot; over &quot;end and expectations&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[pure speculation]&lt;/strong&gt; I suspect that in English at that time &quot;to give an end&quot; and &quot;to give a future&quot; were probably similar in meaning.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of modern translations, it seems pretty clear that &quot;a future and hope&quot; is a much better translation then &quot;an end and expectation&quot; (or even &quot;expected end&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, we won't be able to know the minds of the translators and, without serious historical searching, we probably won't understand their usage of these words.  However, there's some idea of where it might have come from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T21:51:49.910" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2229" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-06T21:49:08.480" Score="11" ViewCount="1525" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing that is consistently odd, yet consistent among most English translations is that the name of the mother of Our Lord, Mary, and Our Lord Himself, Jesus, are translated that way (as well as the author of Sirach, Jesus ben Sirach) while the sister of Moses, Miriam, and his chief, Joshua, are translated that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a subtle distinction between the two ways of saying the name or is it just an easier way of referring to characters in the Bible?  Do other languages have similar distinctions in their translations or is this an English only thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-09-06T21:53:42.820" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T20:38:55.697" Title="Jesus and Mary / Joshua and Miriam" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2217" CreationDate="2011-09-06T22:08:20.693" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;English has a long and venerable history as a language. Over time the meaning of words shifts. Different words come into common usage for the same meanings. Words can in fact &lt;strong&gt;reverse&lt;/strong&gt; meanings. The King James Version, originally translated some 400 years ago, has seen all of these things happen to its words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One commonly cited example is the word &quot;charity&quot;. Today we would think of benevolence or giving to needy folks (or charities!), but in King James English it meant &quot;love&quot;. Another one that has come up already on this site is that &quot;kill&quot; in the KJV means what we would today call &quot;murder&quot; and uses another word, &quot;slay&quot; for what we would call &quot;kill&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of &quot;end&quot; I can tell you just from having read other old English literature that the word did not always imply a terminal point as we might use it today. In fact today if we are careful we can even use it in this sense. The end of a book is not the end of most stories. If something comes to a good end it means they lived happily every after. &quot;The ends don't justify the means.&quot; isn't referring to a terminal case, it's talking about results or final outcomes that live on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise the word &quot;expect&quot; wasn't used in the ambiguous sense that it is today where you could just as easily &quot;expect the worse&quot; as expect something positive. Think about Dickens and his famous book &lt;em&gt;Great Expectations&lt;/em&gt;. That is a reference to a hopeful future, things were looking up. Somebody in those times with expectations had an inheritance or a profession waiting for them!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again in modern usage, although we can use the term more versatility the default implication is positive. If you ask a woman or family if they &quot;are expecting&quot; and ... well expect them to smile if the answer is yes!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;an expected end&quot; does conjure up in my mind a much anticipated positive future, a story that gets set straight just as today's phrasing of &quot;hope and a future&quot; does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing with the KJV is that you have to remember that the vocabulary is 400 years (or in some updated cases 242) years old! You need to know how &lt;strong&gt;that&lt;/strong&gt; language worked, not just the English you know today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps there could have been a better way to translate it at the time, but many issues like this can be explained purely on the evolution of English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1092/why-are-there-so-many-translations-of-the-bible/1112#1112&quot;&gt;Why are there so many translations of the Bible?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-06-01T19:29:19.157" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2229" CreationDate="2011-09-06T22:13:31.700" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;They are transliterated from two different languages: Hebrew and Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;מִרְיָם&lt;/strong&gt;  -- Miriam&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Μαρία&lt;/strong&gt; -- Maria&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎‎&lt;/strong&gt; -- Joshua&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ἰησοῦς&lt;/strong&gt; -- Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The transliterations make sense when compared to the original pronunciations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course Mary and Jesus must actually have had Hebrew/Aramaic names instead of Greek ones. Quite probably their names actually were &lt;strong&gt;מִרְיָם&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎‎&lt;/strong&gt;. However, they still are only mentioned with the Greek translated versions, so by transliterating from &lt;strong&gt;Μαρία&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Ἰησοῦς&lt;/strong&gt; the translators are keeping closest to the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T20:38:55.697" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T20:38:55.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2011-09-06T22:17:02.197" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a purely practical standpoint, ie removing all theological considerations for a moment, we have free will. I can decide to get up and have a glass of water right now. I can flex and relax the muscles in my fingers to make a fist or open my hand. Perceptually I am controlling my body, my thoughts, and making decisions. When I interact with other people, I perceive an ability to formulate my responses independently of their interaction with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether I have complete free will, limited free will, or all my actions are predetermined, I cannot perceive anything beyond this immediate moment, and I cannot perceive active outside interference with my free will, and therefore the only logical way to act is as if I have free will. The many verses in Scripture instructing us to behave, choose, and think certain ways seems to back this up - for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jos 24:15 NIV  But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then &lt;strong&gt;choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve&lt;/strong&gt;, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pro 1:10 NIV  My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes, I am aware of other passages which support predestination and would seem to contra-indicate free will. My only point is regardless of the flow of time and causality from God's perspective, we don't have this eternal or future perspective available to us and must practice making the best choices assuming that we do have free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="345" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T22:17:02.197" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2218" CreationDate="2011-09-06T22:42:33.947" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The process is called canonization.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization#Roman_Catholic_procedure_since_1983&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia's article on canonization&lt;/a&gt; describes the process.  Martyrdom is not a requirement for sainthood, although being martyred does suggest that a person may very well be a saint (think John 15:13, &lt;em&gt;Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.&lt;/em&gt;).  Mother Theresa is a great example of a non-martyred saint, canonized because of the great witness of her life of love and compassion for the poor in India.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, a person is recognized by a bishop or other church person with sufficient authority as a possible candidate for sainthood, and an investigation is started.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Causes_of_Saints&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Congregation for the Causes of the Saints&lt;/a&gt; investigates this information, and eventually may make a recommendation that the pope make a declaration that the Servant of God is 'heroic in virtue'.  At this point, the potential saint becomes known as 'Venerable', meaning that Catholic may encourage veneration of this person, such as prayers for intercession, but the church has made no official statement on whether or not it is believed that the person is in Heaven.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next step is where martyrdom matters.  If the Pope makes a declaration of martyrdom, then the martyr can be canonized, as the Catholic church teaches that all martyrs go to Heaven, and being in Heaven is the definition of a 'capital-S' Saint.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the person was not a martyr, then the person is considered a 'confessor', a person who bore witness to Christ (confessed Christ) through the way they lived their life.  A miracle achieved through the intercession of the venerable must be documented before a confessor can be beatified, and can be called &quot;Blessed&quot; (but still not a saint yet!).  There are strict guidelines in evaluating miracles to determine their authenticity.  For a confessor to be canonized, and declared a saint, two miracles are required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this is a summary, and I am leaving details out - such as requirements for time to pass before canonization.  Also, I am not an expert in Catholic canon law; while the general information is accurate, I could have details wrong.  If you want to hear from an expert, you could go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.catholic.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Forum's&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.catholic.com/forumdisplay.php?s=cb7e5108faa7561253097f3ba5d6385d&amp;amp;f=4&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ask an Apologist subforum&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.catholic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;send in your question.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="574" LastActivityDate="2011-09-06T22:42:33.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2215" CreationDate="2011-09-06T23:56:57.433" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Psalm 51:7 says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Wikipedia, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hyssop is also antibacterial, anticapillary fragility, antiinflamatory, etc., and can help with about 81 different medical conditions including cancer, bronchitis, insomnia, edema, colds, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=fSb9mIgS-fYC&amp;amp;pg=PA210&amp;amp;lpg=PA210&amp;amp;dq=hyssop%20crucifixion&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=sMEEXAwwio&amp;amp;sig=qdJKoti-Ru_l93H-U_NiwlBDEd4&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=1q9mTuOPBOTg0QG26cy3Cg&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=5&amp;amp;ved=0CE8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=hyssop%20crucifixion&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cleansing and medicinal agent&lt;/a&gt;, it has clear allegorical meaning. In the Old Testament, it is often associated with salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have never read or explored the presence of hyssop in the crucifixion so I am going to venture a guess as to its significance in this circumstance. The first two things that come to mind are that,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the hyssop foreshadows the cleansing that comes through Christ's death and resurrection, or,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that the fact that hyssop was offered by fallible humans represented a &lt;em&gt;salvation through works&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;salvation offered by men&lt;/em&gt;. Jesus' rejection of the sponge would then mean Jesus' rejected the notion of salvation by works or by man in favor of salvation through faith in Jesus and his resurrection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, those last two points are my &quot;off-the-hip&quot; speculation. +1 for a good, thought-provoking question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="145" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T01:05:23.003" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T01:05:23.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2237" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T00:59:52.163" Score="-3" ViewCount="2248" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that in order to understand the New Testament you need to Read the Old Testament...so why do some Protestants not read it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T01:51:33.717" Title="Why do some Protestants not read the Old Testament?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2011-09-07T01:54:19.047" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2238" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T01:12:31.520" Score="9" ViewCount="12058" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 3:22 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 4:1-2 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; “When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John's account in chapter 3 we have Jesus baptizing whereas not long afterward John explicitly mentions that Jesus did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; baptize. Why is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T01:29:25.517" LastActivityDate="2017-08-22T13:54:14.707" Title="Did Jesus baptize or not in St. John's account?" Tags="&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2238" CreationDate="2011-09-07T01:32:35.417" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus' disciples were taking converts into the water and baptizing them, but it was counted as though they were Jesus' converts (as opposed to John's).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is probable that after Jesus preached for some time, many converts came forward to be baptized, and the disciples met them and took them to the water. Even though Jesus did not physically baptize anyone, they were still counted to him when comparing with how many John had baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T01:32:35.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2238" CreationDate="2011-09-07T01:34:48.690" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is obvious from the text of John 3:22 that Jesus was not the one actually performing the dipping, but his apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea here is that the apostles were baptizing on his behalf.  Because they were baptizing in his name, it was, in essence, Jesus baptizing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We, today, have the power to do the same thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2028:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:19 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2017-08-22T13:54:14.707" LastActivityDate="2017-08-22T13:54:14.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2237" CreationDate="2011-09-07T01:51:33.717" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the reasoning is two-fold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, most people don't read the Old Testament because most protestant preachers rarely teach from the Old Testament.  Because of that, they don't see the need to go over it.  (Sad, but I've heard this argument before.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, there's the concept that Jesus fulfilled the law and we, therefore, are no longer under the law.  This comes from (among other places) here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galations%203:23-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galations 3:23-25 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, since we are no longer the old law, most people find it difficult to directly apply to our lives.  If you compare this to the New Testament (particularly the epistles), the utility seems to be dramatically greater in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A correlation to the second part is that anything that we &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; follow is in the New Testament.  The idea is that if it was repeated by the apostles or Jesus, then it is worthy of study; otherwise, it's just extra words to try to absorb that no longer apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:28-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:28-29 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Paul repeats some commands from the OT.  Since they're in the NT, they should be learned.  Anything that's not in the NT, can safely be ignored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, don't stone me.  I'm not saying this is a valid justification.  It's just what I've learned about &quot;some Protestants&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T01:51:33.717" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2243" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2245" CreationDate="2011-09-07T02:08:10.273" Score="18" ViewCount="14193" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 5:16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. &lt;strong&gt;There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis obviously added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that passage, it says that &lt;code&gt;there is a sin that leads to death.&lt;/code&gt;  What sin is he referring to here? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I'm seeking a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant&quot;&gt;mainstream Protestant&lt;/a&gt; exegesis of this scripture.  I suspect that all denominations and doctrines that fall in this category will have similar understanding of this text.  If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll refine my scope.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T16:25:15.857" LastActivityDate="2017-04-07T09:54:59.623" Title="What is &quot;sin that leads to death&quot; in 1 John 5:16?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;1-john&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2243" CreationDate="2011-09-07T02:18:16.057" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is likely the unforgivable sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 12:32 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;32&lt;/strong&gt; Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but &lt;strong&gt;anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis added here, too)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read more about this in the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/are-there-unforgivable-sins&quot;&gt;Are there unforgivable sins?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T02:18:16.057" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2243" CreationDate="2011-09-07T02:26:32.210" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sin unto death is the sin that the sinner willfully, habitually and unrepentantly continues in. It may be any type of sin, that doesn't matter. What matters is that they refuse to change course. It is likely that the church has gone to them and warned them to repent, but they have not. The church is to withdraw from these, so that they will loose the protections normally afforded to the members (such as fellowship and prayer support). This lost, the unrepentant sinner is open to the devil's attack and the hope is that he/she will repent as a result of being &quot;delivered to Satan,&quot; as was the case in 1 Corintians 5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1Co 5:5 KJV&lt;/a&gt; To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-31T07:31:49.430" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T07:31:49.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2246" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2253" CreationDate="2011-09-07T02:47:13.890" Score="13" ViewCount="2139" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/JEDP_theory&quot;&gt;JEDP theory&lt;/a&gt; basically states that the first five books of the bible (the Pentatauch) were not written by a single person, but rather by four different people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to understand if this theory is even remotely valid or if it is complete nonsense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically (to avoid this being closed as argumentative), what are the most reasonable supporting arguments for this theory?  Also, what are the major criticisms against this theory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2018-04-28T04:28:29.417" Title="How valid is the JEDP theory?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;torah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2248" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2250" CreationDate="2011-09-07T02:58:20.533" Score="18" ViewCount="2720" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've previously used the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apostolicbible.com/&quot;&gt;Apostolic Bible&lt;/a&gt; for digging deeper into the meanings of passages.  However, I've found that some passages in the Old Testament make no sense compared to the modern translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I figured out that the problem was that the Apostolic Bible was using the Septuagint (&quot;LXX&quot;) version for the Old Testament.  (The Septuagint, for those who don't know, is an ancient translation from the original Hebrew into Greek.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once I realized this, I stopped using the Apostolic Bible out of fear that it would lead me down the wrong path.  Now I'm curious how valid is this fear?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is:  Can we trust the Septuagint as a valid translation of the original Hebrew?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, what can we learn by using the Septuagint compared to going straight to the current Hebrew editions of the Old Testament (such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm&quot;&gt;Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible&lt;/a&gt;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T06:22:46.377" LastActivityDate="2015-01-29T03:41:18.990" Title="Can we trust the Septuagint?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;septuagint&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T11:42:20.793" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2117" CreationDate="2011-09-07T04:06:10.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something need not be unprovable for a person to have faith in it. For one thing, something might be provable but a person may not have access to the evidence. For example, if you flip a coin, I may have faith that it came up heads. This is certainly not unprovable -- someone can look at the coin. But if I haven't looked at the coin, then I can certainly have faith that it came up heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But even if something is provably true and a person has access to that proof, he could still believe the claim on the basis of faith as an independent source of belief. That is, the faith itself is not based on proof, but there is no reason the two sources of belief could not exist concurrently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if I have faith that a coin came up heads and then I look at it and see that it came up heads, nothing stops me from continuing to have that faith as well. Thus, if I found some error or defect in the proof, the belief would remain, sustained only by the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we say faith is &quot;in the absence of evidence&quot;, we mean that evidence is not required for faith. But &quot;independent of evidence&quot; would perhaps be a more accurate term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can argue there is no need for faith if one has evidence. And it is true there is no need for faith to have the belief if one has evidence. But sometimes having the belief is not the only thing that's important. Sometimes the route is as important as the destination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="520" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T04:06:10.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2248" CreationDate="2011-09-07T05:33:36.223" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Masoretic (Hebrew) text is closer to the Bible Jesus used, but Septuagint (LXX) was the one used by the New Testament writers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most of the Old Testament, the differences are not very significant. However, in a few places the Masoretic and LXX have sharp differences. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/isaiah/7-14.html&quot;&gt;Isaiah 7:14 NRSV&lt;/a&gt; from Masoretic Text: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many modern Bible translations prefer the LXX in passages that are quoted in the New Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/isaiah/7-14.html&quot;&gt;Isaiah 7:14 ESV&lt;/a&gt; from Septuagint: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When this verse is quoted in the gospel of Matthew, it is clearly the Septuagint version:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/1-23.html&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:23 NRSV&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,&quot; which means, &quot;God is with us.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that reason alone, I'd be reluctant to dismiss the Septuagint entirely. The ideal (short of learning Hebrew and Greek) would be a translation with lots of footnotes to indicate where the Hebrew and the LXX disagree, and explanations of why the translators prefer one or the other. Failing that, it's beneficial to have several translations available to see how different translators handled these passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T05:33:36.223" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2251" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2274" CreationDate="2011-09-07T05:46:30.343" Score="7" ViewCount="901" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is currently split into several denominations due to differences in doctrine. It seems that these denominations consider their doctrinal differences more important than Christian unity. That is, they are unwilling to merge with other denominations if that means compromises in their doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any good Biblical passages that relate to this issue? Specifically, passages that either talk about the importance of Christian unity or about the importance of doctrinal purity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible say that God wants Christians to unite? Or does the Bible says that it is more important that Christians do what they think God has asked them to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the extent that there are denominations who do not have doctrinal differences, what Biblical passages address this issue? Are there passages that suggest there should be separate organizations despite doctrinal agreement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="520" LastEditorUserId="520" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T06:08:50.447" LastActivityDate="2013-12-02T02:54:06.843" Title="Biblical passages that relate to Christian unity versus doctrinal accuracy" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T18:12:39.000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2252" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T06:44:34.140" Score="20" ViewCount="41619" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first stone tablets with the ten commandments were smashed by Moses, so God created a second set of stone tablets that were supposed to contain the same commandments as the smashed tablets. But the actual text of the second set of commandments that follows in Exodus 34 is different from the original commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is this second set different from the original ten commandments? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034&amp;amp;version=KJ21&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 34  (KJ21)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;And the LORD said unto Moses, &quot;Hew thee two tablets of stone like unto the first, and I will write upon these tablets the words that were in the first tablets which thou brokest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;Observe thou that which I command thee this day. Behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite and the Canaanite, and the Hittite and the Perizzite, and the Hivite and the Jebusite.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their Asherah poles.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;For thou shalt worship no other god; for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee and thou eat of his sacrifice,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;and thou take their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;The Feast of Unleavened Bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib thou camest out from Egypt.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;All that openeth the womb is Mine, and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before Me empty.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; in plowing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;And thou shalt observe the Feast of Weeks of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the year's end.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;For I will cast out the nations before thee and enlarge thy borders; neither shall any man desire thy land when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;Thou shalt not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leaven, neither shall the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover be left until the morning.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not boil a kid in his mother's milk.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;And the LORD said unto Moses, &quot;Write thou these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="197" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-27T23:02:22.183" LastActivityDate="2014-11-12T02:58:35.787" Title="Why are the ten commandments in Exodus 34 different?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2246" CreationDate="2011-09-07T06:55:20.740" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The JEPD theory was developed in three stages, which I summarized in my answer to &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/603/what-was-the-reasons-for-documentary-hypothesis/646#646&quot;&gt;What was the reasons for documentary hypothesis?&lt;/a&gt;. It isn't complete nonsense; it's the culmination of several centuries of Bible scholarship. Whether it is a giant leap forward or a brilliant mistake, I'm not certain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the one hand, it's rational, and it fits different types of writing into neat categories. It has a ready answer for things that might be hard to explain otherwise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, it's highly speculative. I've found that it is trivially easy to look at any source text and find inconsistency. I myself have tried this method and &quot;discovered&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brucealderman.info/blog/2007/03/god-delusion-source-criticism.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;evidence of multiple sources in Richard Dawkins' &lt;em&gt;The God Delusion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most serious scholarly argument against the JEPD hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why a later editor would bring all these sources together, if the traditions had kept them separate. The more likely scenario, according to this argument, is that the doublets and stylistic differences were part of a tradition that began with Moses and accumulated over the years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-07-16T01:56:21.727" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2252" CreationDate="2011-09-07T08:54:01.017" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Those aren't the words written on the second stone tablets.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original tablets were written by the Lord:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2024:12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 24:12 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The LORD said to Moses, &quot;Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare to the passage referred to in the question. The Lord says he will write the tablets, but the commandments cited in the question are left for Moses to write:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 34:1 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[&lt;strong&gt;emphases&lt;/strong&gt; mine]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The LORD said to Moses, &quot;Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and &lt;strong&gt;I will write on the tablets&lt;/strong&gt; the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:27&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 34:27 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[&lt;strong&gt;emphases&lt;/strong&gt; mine]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And the &lt;strong&gt;LORD said to Moses, &quot;Write these words,&lt;/strong&gt; for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the Lord gave the original ten commandments (Exodus 20), he also gave other commandments (Exodus 20:23-23:33). A similar thing happened here: there were other things that the Lord said to Moses, besides just writing the new tablets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quite logical explanation is, then, that the Lord wrote the new tablets and gave them to Moses. Then the Lord spoke other words and told Moses to write them down. The content of the tablets is not recorded in Exodus for a second time, since the content was the same as originally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T08:54:01.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2255" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T09:29:05.260" Score="5" ViewCount="1066" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2259/are-christians-bound-to-the-laws-of-their-country&quot;&gt;Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Making illegal copies of films, music, books and games &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Downloading and seeding torrents &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using someone else's program code without license&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Plagiarism (which is like breaking 9th Commandment)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are the things listed above sinful? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it depend on whether we're making money from it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T07:35:57.887" Title="Is breaking copyright law a sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2011-09-07T11:51:54.160" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2255" CreationDate="2011-09-07T09:43:33.343" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This issue is really just a sub-set of a much larger issue. See my answer on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2259/are-christians-bound-to-the-laws-of-their-country/2261#2261&quot;&gt;Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?&lt;/a&gt; for a defense of why Christians are bound to follow the laws of their countries whether or not they agree or disagree with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not some of the items you list would or would not fall under a biblical definition of &quot;theft&quot; and thus run afoul of one of the ten commandments, breaking a civil law is still something we're instructed against according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%2013:1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 13:1&lt;/a&gt;. Hence breaking civil laws and ethical standards is also &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/160/30&quot;&gt;disobedience to God, which is sin&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T10:23:56.477" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2258" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2263" CreationDate="2011-09-07T10:12:05.843" Score="8" ViewCount="987" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am referring to this fascinating (and accepted) &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/69/is-god-of-anger-or-of-love/86#86&quot;&gt;answer of Jonathon Byrd&lt;/a&gt; where he proves by the Bible that God is also the God of hate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 5:5&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 7:11&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 11:5&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 15:4&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;In whose eyes a vile person is despised, But he honors those who fear the LORD; He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My question:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this hate in a harmonious balance with love comparable to Eastern religions, e.g. Taoism with their concept of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Yin and Yang&lt;/a&gt;? Or how do both interrelate? Could this hate of God even be the explanation for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the problem of evil&lt;/a&gt; in the world and why God gives Satan free rein?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T12:13:59.320" Title="Are love and hate in a harmonious balance within God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;hate&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T06:48:14.233" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2259" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7803" CreationDate="2011-09-07T10:13:57.890" Score="27" ViewCount="4916" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clearly not all governments are based on Christian principles. Should Christians be bound to obey the civil laws of their respective countries (states, cities, whatever) even if they disagree with the basis for the laws?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please answer in general about how Christians fit into civil law and worldly authority structures, but feel free to use specific examples if they help to clarify. For example, do we have to pay fines, obey speed limits or submit to curfews?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-10-29T02:48:10.963" LastActivityDate="2014-11-17T09:21:03.050" Title="Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?" Tags="&lt;obedience&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-06-16T19:59:19.463" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="195" CreationDate="2011-09-07T10:16:18.200" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;official&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; position other than at conception (i know individuals who disagree though), but I haven't heard any body defend that position in detail. Before you asked this, I didn't really think I needed a reason to accept that other than the fact that when a human egg is fertilized the result is always going to be human and not some other animal. So interfering in a pregnancy that will otherwise continue as normal is always the same as murdering a human being, because it's not going to be something else. Now interfering in a pregnancy that definitely(and not just possibly) would lead to death for mother and/or child may be a different matter. However given some of my other resent research, I just couldn't sleep until I had the answer to this fundamental question of when a soul comes into being. So this is my opinion on defending at conception. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all Genesis 2:7 (KJV + Strong's numbers) says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD&amp;lt;03068&gt; God&amp;lt;0430&gt; formed&amp;lt;03335&gt; man&amp;lt;0120&gt; of the dust&amp;lt;06083&gt; of&amp;lt;04480&gt; the ground&amp;lt;0127&gt;, and breathed&amp;lt;05301&gt; into his nostrils&amp;lt;0639&gt; the breath&amp;lt;05397&gt; of life&amp;lt;02416&gt;; and man&amp;lt;0120&gt; became a living&amp;lt;02416&gt; soul&amp;lt;05315&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now some take this to mean that the soul enteres when a babe is born and takes his first breath. However we have to remember this is hebrew, not english, the second breath&amp;lt;05397&gt; here is actually nshamah , wich also means spirit. So a better understanding may be that the spirit of life was what was breathed into him. Now that was talking about Adam who was not born by a woman but was formed out of the dust by God. So he was getting a soul at his conception, but to find out about the soul of anyone else we may need to look elsewhere. I point you t'ward Genesis 9:4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But&amp;lt;0389&gt; flesh&amp;lt;01320&gt; with the life&amp;lt;05315&gt; thereof, which is the blood&amp;lt;01818&gt; thereof, shall ye not eat&amp;lt;0398&gt;.&#xA;  I realize this is talking about animals, but you may have noticed this already that the world life there is the same word as soul (nephesh) in the first verse. So here we see that the life/soul is in the blood. &#xA;  It also states this in Leviticus 17:11:&#xA;  For the life&amp;lt;05315&gt; of the flesh&amp;lt;01320&gt; is in the blood&amp;lt;01818&gt;: and I have given&amp;lt;05414&gt; it to you upon the altar&amp;lt;04196&gt; to make an atonement&amp;lt;03722&gt; for your souls&amp;lt;05315&gt;: for it is the blood&amp;lt;01818&gt; that maketh an atonement&amp;lt;03722&gt; for the soul&amp;lt;05315&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the while my original statement, about interrupting a pregnancy at any point is human murder, still stands. The question now becomes if the life = soul and the life is in the blood; when does a fertilized human egg have blood? Well I'm no medical doctor, but if I'm reading this correcting according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_hemoglobin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; there is a type of hemoglobin(blood) present at the very first week of pregnancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while I'm sure you'll find people who would disagree, I wouldn't say it's much of a stretch to say the soul is present no latter than the first week of pregnancy if not at conception itself. Of course the people, who want to believe babies don't have souls until a specific date, will usually not take the bible literally anyway; so this isn't likely to be of any value to them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T10:41:17.990" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T10:41:17.990" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2259" CreationDate="2011-09-07T10:20:43.110" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Christians we are first and foremost subject to God's commandments for us. However one of the instructions he gave us for life on this earth is that we be &quot;subject to the governing authorities&quot;. In fact we learn that government itself, however secular and/or corrupt, is itself an institution that God places over us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%2013:1&quot;&gt;Romans 13:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In so far as the civil laws of a country do not cause us to violate the moral and other obligations we have to our maker, we are submit to them. This means: paying your taxes, not running red lights and yes, not breaking copyright law, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T10:20:43.110" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2259" CreationDate="2011-09-07T10:56:00.257" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I strongly believe that should the governing body within the country be corrupt and in conflict with God's Word, we should keep to our own ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%206:12&amp;amp;version=ASV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Daniel 6:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (ASV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king's interdict: Hast thou not signed an interdict, that every man that shall make petition unto any god or man within thirty days, save unto thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And God shall protect us should our motives be pure and our hearts remain faithful. Paying taxes and living a law-abiding life is of course necessary if we are able to do so without breaking God's Law. I do not however believe that people can just go around saying &quot;what the government is doing is right, because it is Gods Will&quot;. who are we to speak for God? We must pray upon this and look within ourselves. If fear is the reason why we are not standing up to a corrupt system then that is NOT okay.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="578" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T11:29:59.600" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T11:29:59.600" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2258" CreationDate="2011-09-07T11:10:51.693" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jonathan already explained from a Biblical perspective &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/69/is-god-of-anger-or-of-love/86#86&quot;&gt;how God is a God of hate&lt;/a&gt; as well as love. I will try not to duplicate that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 'problem of evil' is utterly unrelated to the attribute of hate. Evil and hate are not at all the same thing. God is good: 100% pure good. He is, in fact, the only standard of what good is; we measure whether something is good or not by comparing it to the character and decrees of God. &lt;em&gt;God is not evil!&lt;/em&gt; The fact that part of his character demands that he hate does not make him evil, it makes him fully good! Evil, note hate, is the correct opposite of good. Evil could even be defined by its hate of good: good hates that which is evil, evil hates that which is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is logically impossible to be good and love good without hating the opposite of good.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; One must hate evil in order to love good. If you love Jews, you must hate the holocaust. If you love unborn babies, you must hate when they are aborted. If you love women, you must hate when they are abused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The character of God is utterly different than what Eastern religions teach about balance. The standard of good that he demonstrates is not 'a little bit of good and a little bit of bad keeping each other at bay' or some mystic balance between forces. God is FULL of love just as he is FULL of hatred. Both attributes are taken to their full EXTREMES, not balanced in the middle. They are complementary characteristics, not opposites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good and evil are opposites. There is no evil in God and he will not permit evil to continue.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Our world is but a temporary stage&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; on which his final and decisive defeat of evil&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; is played out (to demonstrate his glory not because it was ever in doubt) and he demonstrates how good he is in that he can even redeem evil and use it for good.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But do not be deceived: evil is never in itself a good. Its defeat and destruction are good and that God both can and chooses to redeemed &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; from the kingdom of darkness is purely astounding.&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Isaiah%2061:8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 61:8a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For I the Lord love justice;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I hate robbery and wrong&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Ezekiel%2035:6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 35:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  ... therefore, as I live, declares the Lord God, I will prepare you for blood, and blood shall pursue you; because you did not hate bloodshed, therefore blood shall pursue you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%205:10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 5:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&#xA;  And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Acts%202:24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&#xA;  God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Peter+1:6-7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:6-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&#xA;  In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%203:26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T12:13:59.320" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="930" CreationDate="2011-09-07T12:04:37.253" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I use e-Sword which gives me KJV with Strong's Concordance as well as the Greek with Strong's.  So, you can just click on the Strong's numbers beside the words, look at the KJV Concordance to see how it's translated in the KJV, also get Strong's definition and other helps as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;e-Sword is the best Bible software money can't buy.  (It's free.)  e-sword.net.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also suggest the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament.  We basically used it as the answer key when we were translating Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an interesting chart that compares word-for-word to thought-for-thought translations:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T18:33:20.897" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T18:33:20.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2265" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2267" CreationDate="2011-09-07T12:10:53.077" Score="20" ViewCount="1306" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is one of the central questions concerning moral values in Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am referring to an answer Caleb gave earlier on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2258/are-love-and-hate-in-a-harmonious-balance-within-god/2263#2263&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. There he says, and I believe this is the standard stance Christianity holds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is good, 100% pure good. He is, in fact, the only standard of what&#xA;  good is; we measure whether something is good or not by comparing it&#xA;  to the character and decrees of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the comments he writes (bold style added by me):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;because he IS the standard (rather than being measured against it)&#xA;  there are certain things &lt;strong&gt;that are good for God but sin for men.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: How can this be the case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if God sees the big picture and has knowledge of all the ramifications of all potential actions the point where you can call something &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; ends when &lt;strong&gt;real suffering by sentient human beings over extended periods of time&lt;/strong&gt; is involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as one example see the following citation about things to come when Jesus will return to us from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%209:1-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 9:1-5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%209:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 9:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five&#xA;  months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a&#xA;  scorpion when it strikes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By all moral standards I have ever heard of this deed alone (extensive torturing of people) would be considered an outrageous atrocity, so the direct opposite of &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt;. How can something like this be considered good when done by God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T03:52:04.330" Title="How can things considered bad when done by humans become good when God does them?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T15:18:38.337" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2265" CreationDate="2011-09-07T12:40:39.283" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Requoting your example and adding emphasis and the previous verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, &lt;strong&gt;but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads.&lt;/strong&gt; 5 They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes. 6 During those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul speaks to this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old testament is full of God's wrath against 'sentient human beings' who disobeyed and turned away from his law. How can we expect it to be lesser after he sent is own son to suffer so that we may be with him once more, and we &lt;strong&gt;still&lt;/strong&gt; reject him? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is justice immoral? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T12:40:39.283" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2265" CreationDate="2011-09-07T12:52:39.280" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, my &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2258/are-love-and-hate-in-a-harmonious-balance-within-god/2263#comment-5069&quot;&gt;original comment&lt;/a&gt; about some things being sin for men that are good for God was specifically &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/585/does-god-need-our-praise-and-glory/591#591&quot;&gt;linked to this answer&lt;/a&gt; in which I outline how I think men are required to worship God and it would be sinful for them to worship themselves, but God demands that all things be focused on himself. I did not at all mean to imply that God is somehow allowed to do things which are inherently evil (or unjust).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how DOES one reconcile the apparent cruel state of men on earth now with a good God? Forgive me the liberty of taking a clip out of context from your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the point where you can call something good ends when real suffering by sentient human beings over extended periods of time is involved&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem I see is that you are approaching this from the assumption that sentient human beings are inherently good and have a right to a comfortable existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity asserts the opposite, that we are inherently bad and have no right to anything less than eternal damnation, destruction, torture, you name it. We as humans by nature fall under the wrath of God, not the love of God, because we have chosen to hate God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+3:9-12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:9b-12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God is good and hates evil, and evil hates good and men hate God, God hates men. They are therefore objects of his wrath. The systematic punishment of evil is GOOD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%202:8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 2:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If what humans (all of them) deserve is an outpouring of wrath (hell), then the troubled existence with mixed good and bad we experience here on earth is really an undeserved grace that overflows from an abundantly good God, not the result of divine injustice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew%205:45&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:45b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real problem with God being unjust is this: that with all men being evil ANY of them should be justified. That God would take beings who hated good and choose to love them rather than hate them is an unfathomable injustice. Rather than complaining about the troubles of this world we should be marveling at how a righteous and just God could POSSIBLY justify the unrighteous.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%203:26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2277/30&quot;&gt;This would make a good next question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T15:13:07.583" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2258" CreationDate="2011-09-07T12:58:44.783" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is Good.&#xA;Good doesn't need Evil to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as Warm doesn't need Cold to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as light doesn't need shadow to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If something has temperature of absolute zero, it cannot be colder. But it can be infinitly hotter. Because what we call cold, is just lack of temperature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If something is in the shadow, we cant see it, we name this lack of light &quot;shadow&quot;. That doesn't mean that shadow exists. Shadow does not exist, its a phenomenon of lacking the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as what we call evil is lack of Good, lack of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is wrong in dualism, that nowadays christian understand, is that it compares something that actually exist, with phenomenon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This dualism is wrong, and considered heresy, at least by catholic church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is light, as in gospel of John, doesn't need shadow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="579" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T12:58:44.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2265" CreationDate="2011-09-07T13:24:19.570" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will answer this in the context of the scripture reference you provided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 9:4-5&lt;/strong&gt; And it was commanded them that they should not hurt&#xA;  the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; &lt;strong&gt;but&#xA;  only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads&lt;/strong&gt;.  And&#xA;  to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they&#xA;  should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment&#xA;  of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because God is &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sin in the garden required a blood sacrifice. Either we had to die, or someone would have to die in our place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EZEKIEL 18:4&lt;/strong&gt; Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so&#xA;  also the soul of the son is mine: &lt;strong&gt;the soul that sinneth, it shall die&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To explain the atonement, imagine that your good friend was guilty of a crime, and &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; were the judge. You might think it would be &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; to simply rip up the charges and tell your friend to go home, but in God's economy that doesn't work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What crime did we commit against God? We were born wrong (through unbelief of God's Word), as a result of Adam and Eve's fall in the garden. Everyone on earth is guilty, even if you have lived a life as pure and clean as a Pharisee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PSALM 51:5&lt;/strong&gt; Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother&#xA;  conceive me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God can't simply rip up the charges and let you go free, because that would not be &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt;. The sin debt must be paid. So He came Himself and paid it by giving His own life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now to your question...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if you turn down such marvelous grace? In the context of the scripture provided, the men with the seal of God had accepted the grace of God, and been sealed away (they were *&lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt;*ified). What would be the just thing to do with a sinner who rejects the grace of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I must dissent from the proposition that God is full of both love and hate. God is so full of love, that He came and died to redeem us back to Him. &lt;strong&gt;But God is also just&lt;/strong&gt;, so righteous that rejecting His love and grace seals you away from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Revelation 9:5 unjust? How about this question: Is it &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; for a righteous God to send a sinner who has knowingly turned down His grace to hell? From what I understand, hell makes all other torture and torments seem like a toothache.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T13:24:19.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2259" CreationDate="2011-09-07T13:47:53.257" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer is not from a Biblical context, and applies equally to &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; sector:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are [insert group here] bound to the laws of their country?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. Yes they are. If they break those laws, they are accountable to the clauses of those laws. If they find those laws incorrect (as indeed laws evolve and change), then due process should be sought to question those laws, but keep in mind that in a multi-cultural society arguing the &quot;because&quot; from a &lt;em&gt;Biblical&lt;/em&gt; basis is probably not your best route - arguing the benefits and costs to society and individuals might be better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes civil disobedience is a very positive force, but remember that if your defined morality is fixed, it may disagree with the morality/ethics of significant parts of the rest of the population. There is a fine line between civil disobedience &lt;em&gt;for the right reasons&lt;/em&gt;, and flagrant disregard of laws that you don't like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No group should get a free pass here, at least in any society that values equality. You are, of course, free to exercise your activities &lt;em&gt;even more&lt;/em&gt; within the laws than most - for example choosing not to gamble/drink/flirt/etc in societies where that is perfectly permissible. These are simply examples which tend to crop up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T16:55:24.220" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T16:55:24.220" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2271" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2279" CreationDate="2011-09-07T13:54:21.753" Score="3" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now it is really getting interesting - this is the third question in a row (after &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2258/are-love-and-hate-in-a-harmonious-balance-within-god&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2265/how-can-things-considered-bad-when-done-by-humans-become-good-when-god-does-them&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;). So please make sure you read those two to understand this one in context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caleb wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;human rights is another issue! That is another example of something&#xA;  that is not wrong for God but very much wrong for humans. I do believe&#xA;  in human rights (by virtue of being created in God's image AND being&#xA;  his property that man should not dare to trespass and abuse) but that&#xA;  might be the topic for another question in itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Continuing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However I would still assert that Christianity is not in conflict with&#xA;  undeniable human rights. In fact they are absolute in so far as they&#xA;  are granted by an absolute God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My question is:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is God allowed to breach these undeniable human rights for example by extensive torturing people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Again: Please make sure you read the other questions and especially &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2258/are-love-and-hate-in-a-harmonious-balance-within-god/2263#2263&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2265/how-can-things-considered-bad-when-done-by-humans-become-good-when-god-does-them/2267#2267&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; answer and the comments to make sure that you understand the context of this question! Thank you!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="355" LastEditorUserId="34561" LastEditDate="2018-10-19T11:02:43.517" LastActivityDate="2018-10-19T11:02:43.517" Title="How do human rights and Christianity relate to each other?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;&lt;human-rights&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-09-07T15:40:56.483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2258" CreationDate="2011-09-07T14:20:36.130" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Possibly not an answer, but I tried to come up with a comparison for you. I think that it is relevant to your question, even tho it's probably not answer material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine that you have a favorite little white mouse that you enjoy taking outside and letting roam in the grass. The mouse is completely innocent, loves to snuggle with you and actually obeys commands that you have taught it. Much like a dog would.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Letting the mouse roam in the yard is not only good for the mouse's health, it also provides you with a chance to teach the mouse more commands. But most of all, you're allowing the mouse exposure to the ant hive. Not so that the mouse can get hurt, but instead so that you can show the mouse that you love it, by protecting it from the ants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ants are just plain mean. Whenever they get the chance they'll climb onto your mouse and bite it. So as your mouse is roaming, you're squishing the little red ants with your finger. Ultimately you can't stand the red ants, the only purpose that the ants have, is so that you can teach your white mouse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If any ant comes up to you and asks to be a mouse, you'll immediately love that ant and give it a chance to be a mouse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry, not the best story teller, but hopefully it might get you thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T14:20:36.130" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="708" CreationDate="2011-09-07T14:41:58.137" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus' birth has nothing to do with whether or not intercourse is sinful or not.  It has everything to do with the uniqueness and divinity of Jesus.  God incarnate could not be born in a normal way.  He was both the Son of God and the Son of Man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting note is that Jeconiah's line (the last king) was cursed and prohibited from the throne.  Joseph's lineage still traces from that line, but Mary's takes a different path around Jeconiah.  Through Joseph, Jesus had title, but escaped the curse by not being biologically tied to him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph married Mary prior to her giving birth, but he had no union with her &lt;strong&gt;until Jesus' birth.&lt;/strong&gt;  This is important.  Some teach that Joseph never had sexual union with Mary, but this is supported only by certain traditions and not by the Scriptures.  The Scriptures do refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters and James and Jude as such by name.  So, Joseph and Mary had intercourse just like any other couple would, and they had children by that union as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created sexual union and even commanded it, as noted in Genesis 1:28.  God also speaks of children as being a blessing from God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Mary's virginity has to do with the uniqueness and divinity of Jesus--not anything sinful with biblical sexual union.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T14:41:58.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2251" CreationDate="2011-09-07T14:44:47.943" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's will is that we Christians would &lt;em&gt;be one&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;love one another&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2017:20-22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 17:20-22 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2013:34-35&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:34-35 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, even if we should be one, we should not be the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2012:12-21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 12:12-21 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;For the body does not consist of one member but of many. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;If the foot should say, &quot;Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,&quot; that would not make it any less a part of the body. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;And if the ear should say, &quot;Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,&quot; that would not make it any less a part of the body. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;If all were a single member, where would the body be? &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;The eye cannot say to the hand, &quot;I have no need of you,&quot; nor again the head to the feet, &quot;I have no need of you.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage above makes hints that as we are different, we might start fighting and   excluding different members. This actually &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; happened in Corinth, and this was one topic in 1 Corinthians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:12-13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 1:12-13 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;What I mean is that each one of you says, &quot;I follow Paul,&quot; or &quot;I follow Apollos,&quot; or &quot;I follow Cephas,&quot; or &quot;I follow Christ.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To me it looks as though unity is very important.&lt;/strong&gt; Of course there is still need for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/860/60&quot;&gt;church discipline&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T14:44:47.943" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2275" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T14:53:23.473" Score="18" ViewCount="30447" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who is the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15 ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was thinking Moses was talking about Jesus, but Jesus is not considered a prophet is he ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-5399&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 18:14-16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2020-08-01T04:03:55.957" Title="Who is the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;&lt;deuteronomy&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2275" CreationDate="2011-09-07T15:04:16.087" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are three key positions in ancient Israel, that of Prophet, Priest, and King.  A prophet would hear from God and speak to the people.  A priest would hear from the people and intercede for them to God.  A king would, of course, rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus fulfills all of these positions.  He spoke of His own death and even of future events, like when He spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem (see Mark 13:2) and of end times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was most certainly a priest, though not of the Levitical (and especially not the Aaronic) priesthood, but the Melchizedek priesthood. (see, e.g., Hebrews 7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also is the King of Kings (Revelation 19:16), and heir to David's throne (2 Samuel 7:12-16, Mark 10:47, et. al.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, this is speaking of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be more precise about how exactly Jesus was a prophet like Moses, note the following similarities from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/islam2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Both Moses and Jesus were born when Israel was under bondage (Moses in Egypt Ex.1:8,10, and Jesus during Israel's Roman bondage. Mt.2:1,Lk.2:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Edicts were issued by the gentile powers of both Pharaoh and Herod for their death at birth. (Ex.2:3, Mt.2:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 Both were miraculously delivered from death during their infancy from their enemies of Israel (Ex.2:3, Lk.2:7;Mt 2:14,15)  and were preserved in childhood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 Both had been born and found in unusual places. Moses was found in the water floating in a basket of bulrushes (Ex.2:3) Jesus in a manger (cave) wrapped in burial cloths (Lk.2:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 Both Moses and Jesus were protected and preserved by the faith of their parent. Moses was hidden by faith (Ex.2:2-3 and Heb.11:23) Jesus’ life was preserved by his parents obeying the message in a dream. (Mt.2:13-14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 Both Moses and Jesus stayed safely in Egypt for a time. Moses (Ex.2:10) Jesus dwelt safely in Egypt (Mt.2:14-15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 Both had their brethren and family speak against them. Moses had Mariam and Aaron speak against him taking a Cushite wife (Numb.12:1) Jesus had his family criticize and reject him (Mt.13:54-57, Jn.7:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 Both Moses and Jesus were reared in the house that was not their natural parents. (Moses in the house of Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) Jesus by Mary the mother of his humanity and his stepfather Joseph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 Both predicted Israel's history (Deut.28:15-28; Mt.23:34,24:1,2,8,34)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 Both spoke out against Israel's enemies and persecutors. (Deut.23:3-4; Mt.25:41-48)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 Both were considered a snare to Israel (Ex10:7; 1Pt.2:8=Isa.8:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 Both cleansed leprosy. From Moses’ time no one that was Jewish was cleansed until Jesus came (Numb.12:10-16, Mk.1:40-41). This is a very significant factor that proves Jesus was the prophet Moses spoke of, since no other cured one of the brethren of this disease from Moses' time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 Both were used of God to feed Israel miraculously, Moses with manna in the wilderness (Ex.16:14-17) Jesus with the five loaves and two fish fed four and five thousand two times. (Mt.14:19-21) Jesus also called himself the true manna that came from heaven in Jn.6, comparing himself to the miracle that sustained Israel alive through the desert.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 Both had the forces of nature obey them (the seas) Moses (Ex.14:21-22) Jesus (Mt.8:26-27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 Each had seventy helpers Moses (Num.11:16-17) Jesus ( Lk.10:1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 Both fasted 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness to bring a covenant to Israel. Moses on the top of Mt. Sinai (Ex.24:18, 34:28, Deut.9:9) Jesus in the desert as the Son of God (Mt.4:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 Both had a face to face relationship with God unlike any other person. Moses (Ex.33:9-11, Deut.34:10; Numb.12:7-8) Jesus was with God=face to face from eternity (Jn.1:1,18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 God spoke audibly and directly from heaven to both Moses and Jesus. Moses (Ex.20:22, 24:12-16) Jesus (Mt.3:17; Jn.12:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 Both were God's spokesman to and for the people. Moses (Ex.9:35; Numb.12:2) Jesus (Heb.1:1-3). They Spoke as oracles of God (Moses Deut. 18:18) Jesus (Jn.14:24, 5:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 Both Moses and Jesus reflected and shown the glory of God. Moses reflected his glory temporarily. (Ex.34:29-35; 2 Cor.3:7-14) Jesus at the transfiguration, his face shown brighter than the sun revealing his true nature (Mt.17:2; Jn.1:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21 Both were known for their humility and meekness as God's servants. Moses (Numb.12:3) Jesus (Mt.11:29; Phil.2:3-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 Both contended with masters of deception and darkness Moses with Pharaohs magicians (Ex 7:11, 1 Tim.3:8) Jesus with the Devil (Mt 4:1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 Both prayed for the people intercessory prayers and were willing to bear the consequences of the people's sins. Moses asked to be blotted out of the book of life for the peoples sake (Ex.32:32-33).  Jesus asked for them to be kept from falling away (Jn. 17:9-17). Jesus asked for those to be forgiven while he bore the consequences in their stead. (Lk.23:34, 2 Cor.5:19, 1 Pt.2:21-24, Isa.53:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 Both Moses and Jesus were rejected by their own brethren for a time and accepted by the gentiles. Moses (Ex.2:14-22, 32:1) Jesus was rejected by his own people and received by another who were not his own. (Isa.53:3; Mt.12:21; Mk.6:4; Lk.20:9-17, Rom.11:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25 Both Moses and Jesus established a priesthood. Moses began the Aaronic priesthood which was temporary under the law (Lev.9; Numb.8:20-26; Heb.9:19-22). Jesus established a eternal priesthood under the new covenant of grace which He alone functions as the high priest forever. (Heb.7:17,19,23,25-28; 9:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 Both sprinkled the blood of the covenant on the altar and the people. Moses (Ex.24:7-8; Lev.8:19) Jesus (Heb.9,12:24; 1Pt.1:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 Both were sent by God to reveal His name, person and law to the people. To Moses God said to tell them I Am sent you. (Ex.3:13-14) Jesus said God sent him as his exact representative revealing his name (I Am) and nature to the people. (Jn.8:42; 17:6,11-12; Col.2:9; Heb.1:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 Both were involved in giving the covenant to the people Jn.1:17 the law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” At the feast of Pentecost Moses gave the law. At the feast (Pentecost) in the new covenant Jesus gave the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 Both brought deliverance to the Jewish people. Those who followed Moses out of the bondage of slavery to Egypt. (Ex.3:7-8,10;12:31-33,42) Jesus brought people out of a greater bondage, slavery to sin. (Rom.3:24-25,6:6-7,8:2-4; Eph.1:7;Heb.9:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 Both had an angel guard their graves. After Moses died Michael the Arch-angel guarded his body. (Jude 9) And when Jesus rose an angel guarded his tomb. (Mt.26:2-6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 Both re-appeared after they died, Moses ( Mt 17:3 with Jesus before his death) Jesus (Acts 1:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T19:55:20.367" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2277" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T15:07:17.027" Score="17" ViewCount="1017" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to ask this, let me set a stage. This is just a scenario that will be recast in a second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians we believe that God is good. We trumpet his justice, rightness, holiness, and so on and so forth. We say that he is the true standard of what goodness and justice are. When we make judgement calls we claim to use his character as the standard of right and wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet ... we ascribe to him something so wicked that it should make us shiver to think of it! If an earthly judge --charged by the state to uphold the laws of the state in a fair manner and himself known to be a good and upright judge-- were to knowingly acquit a guilty party we would rage against him. If a criminal proven to have committed every crime in the book from common theft to rape and murder of children, not just once but over and over and over every day of their lives, were to stand before a bench and say &quot;your honor, guilty as charged&quot; -- and the judge were to say &quot;Why thank you, since you know you're guilty you are free to go and here is some money for dinner,&quot; how would we react?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say that your child was one of those that were abused and killed by this criminal. Would you not cry out and scream about the injustice of it all and then write to the papers and get interviewed and do everything in your power to have the evil judge himself brought to justice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you get the picture? We somehow inherently know that what was done was un-just. We also say that our standard of justice is God himself. And yet as Christians, instead of protesting this scenario when the scenario is cast with God as the judge, we celebrate it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us recast the story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to our own doctrines we claim that all men are indeed guilty (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+3:10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:10&lt;/a&gt;). We also claim to that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2302/30&quot;&gt;God is a perfectly just judge&lt;/a&gt;. When we go on to say that he has indeed acquitted some wicked men (us) we don't even blink, as if there was no problem with this scenario. Yet according to our own inherent sense of justice, this should make him an evil judge worse than the criminals he acquits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here is the question: &lt;strong&gt;How is it that God can be truly just and yet justify wicked men?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is in the dock. Is he defensible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2015-09-14T10:01:18.800" Title="What is the verdict on an unjust judge?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;justice&gt;&lt;justification&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T15:20:53.517" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2271" CreationDate="2011-09-07T15:33:17.850" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll take a shot at answering this one.  Most of my answer will be taken from my readings of C.S. Lewis.&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that we are God's creation and He is allowed to do with us as He likes.  In the flood He wiped out all of humanity save for eight people, but since we are His creation this was OK.&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assume that you were an artist and you created a painting.  Now this painting is your creation; it belongs to you.  You may do with it what you choose.  You may display the painting for all to see, you can restrict who is allowed to see it.  You can alter it as you see fit, you can leave it alone, you can even wipe it out and start all over again.  You can turn it over to someone else so that they can do with it as they like.&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these things are acceptable, but no one else may touch your creation, at least not without your permission.  No one else may harm it or destroy it because it is not theirs, it is yours.&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same can be said about God, people, and human rights.  God may do with us as He chooses because we are His.  We as humans cannot do whatever we like to other humans because we do not own them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="13" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T15:33:17.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2259" CreationDate="2011-09-07T15:54:36.537" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians are obliged to oppose governments that enforce &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html&quot;&gt;legal positivism&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html&quot;&gt;moral relativism&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html&quot;&gt;eugenic policies&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way we weigh the relative weight of laws is the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Eternal Law&#xA;Divine Law&#xA;----------&#xA;Natural Law&#xA;Human Law&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if a human law contradicts with natural law, then follow natural law.  Everything else should be perfectly ordered with creation, with the exception of miracles which are natural law circumvented by divine law.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have only a vague notion of what the difference is between eternal law and divine law, fortunately that's not part of the question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0898707501&quot;&gt;Source: 50 Questions for the Natural Law&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T15:54:36.537" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1737" CreationDate="2011-09-07T16:00:11.460" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over the years, there have been many theories to explain these Nephilim.  I'm not fond of list answers, but unfortunately, there's no better way to represent all of these wildly varying theories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Possible theories:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Giants (giantism)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, there have been people who have been over eight feet tall.  Archaeologists have uncovered tombs of these people who were probably in that height range &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/338083/the_nephilim_did_they_exist.html&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even a glance at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, shows people solidly over eight feet tall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This theory holds that these people were simply giants--either particularly tall or had giantism.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Offspring of women and fallen angels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:1-2&lt;/a&gt; says &lt;code&gt;the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose&lt;/code&gt; (NIV).  If we look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:1-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Gen 6:1-4&lt;/a&gt;, we see that Nephilim were the children of these &quot;sons of God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%202:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Job 2:1&lt;/a&gt; shows that these &lt;code&gt;sons of God&lt;/code&gt; were definitely of the spiritual realm.  In fact, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%202:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;other translations&lt;/a&gt; interpret &lt;code&gt;sons of God&lt;/code&gt; as &lt;code&gt;angels&lt;/code&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Final support of this (as others have mentioned) is that the Hebrew word that &quot;Nephilim&quot; is based off the Hebrew word &quot;fall&quot; (as in &quot;to fall&quot; or &quot;fallen&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These concepts put together give strong support that Nephilim were children of fallen angels that had sex with human women.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nephilim were descendants of Cain/Seth (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea behind this is that godly men--ie &quot;sons of God&quot;--(probably descending from Seth) married descendants of Cain (more specifically, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+4:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;of Enoch&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enoch was a paganistic society and so the idea that the children of the offspring were &quot;fallen&quot; kind of fits with this as well (per the Hebrew argument above).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other support for this is based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:9&lt;/a&gt; where Jesus says &lt;code&gt;Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.&lt;/code&gt;  This, the theory goes, shows that &quot;sons of God&quot; is a good thing and therefore, the children of Seth were righteous men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this theory, however, the Nephilim would have been simply &quot;heroes&quot;, not necessarily &quot;giants&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They're completely fictional&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take the Pentateuch as a history of legends, then clearly the Nephilim are just another part of the legend. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Other theories that are too far-fetched&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nephilim were descendants of Kings (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since &quot;sons of God&quot; can equally be translated as &quot;sons of kings&quot;, this theory holds that kings were philandering with common women, creating &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&quot;heroes of old, men of renown&quot; (Gen 6:4)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nephilim were extra-terrestrials&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, some people believe this.  Yet there is absolutely no biblical or archeological basis for this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nephilim were Neanderthals (&lt;a href=&quot;http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/theory-nephilim-were-neanderthal-man/&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea here is that the Neanderthals were stronger than humans and therefore &quot;giants&quot;.  This is a clearly unbiblical theory (we seemed like grasshoppers in their eyes).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/338083/the_nephilim_did_they_exist.html&quot;&gt;Primary Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are some of the theories that have been used throughout time to explain these Nephilim.  The most popular is probably that the &quot;sons of God&quot; were fallen angels, although there are some problems with this theory. (Job seems to indicate that &quot;sons of God&quot; are good, not fallen; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew&lt;/a&gt; state that angels don't marry, etc. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, this is something we'll probably &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor.%2013:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;not know for sure until the end of the world&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T16:00:11.460" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2277" CreationDate="2011-09-07T16:41:39.147" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, we must remember that we and any other human judge can only observe a person's deeds, and we can end up not seeing some of those, either because we didn't notice or weren't around, or because someone actively worked to hide them from us.  But God sees everything that people do, and he can know the thoughts of their heart, which gives him a much better perspective and makes him the only one qualified to render a truly objective judgment.  What does not appear fair to us from our limited perspective may indeed be something we would agree was fair if we truly had all the information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, God's forgiveness isn't some instant and painless thing.  It requires repentance.  There are two different terms in the Bible translated as &quot;repent,&quot; which is kind of unfortunate because they're very different words.  In the Old Testament, the original word refers to sorrow, and is often applied to God himself, who of course has no sins to repent of.  But the New Testament word, used in the context of the Gospel, refers to &lt;em&gt;change&lt;/em&gt;: A change of heart, a change of one's ways, and when possible finding some way to make up for the damage that was done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why murder, harm to innocent children and certain sexual sins are considered particularly grievous: once done, they cannot be undone!  If I steal from my neighbor, I can give back what I stole, but if I kill him, that's &lt;strong&gt;final&lt;/strong&gt;, and so very difficult to repent of and find forgiveness for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once a person has sincerely repented of their sins, then it is possible for them to be forgiven, through faith in Jesus Christ and the power of his Atonement.  Jesus took our sins upon himself and suffered the just punishment of the laws of God, so that those who would believe in him and repent could find forgiveness and reconciliation with God, as explained in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans chapter 3&lt;/a&gt;.  So the basic answer to the question, &quot;how can God forgive a sinner without being unjust&quot; is that the sin has already been paid for and the law of justice satisfied, thus making it possible for Christ to show mercy on those who have faith in him and repent of their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T18:23:26.313" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T18:23:26.313" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2277" CreationDate="2011-09-07T16:42:48.023" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Alright, here's the non-trivial answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that we are all guilty.  It's pretty hard to deny this one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, while we are all guilty of sin, the punishment for this sin is death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 6:23a (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the wages of sin is death&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we go on in Romans 3, we see that the Jesus was the atonement for our sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 3:25 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definition of &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atonement&quot;&gt;atonement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we can see from Romans 3:25 above that Christ was the sacrifice of atonement for our sins.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, we are guilty of the sins that we commit (Romans 3:23 at top).  Because of those sins, a price has to be paid (Romans 6:23a).  Since the price had to be paid, Jesus was presented as the atonement sacrifice. (Romans 3:25).  We can receive this atonement by faith (Romans 3:25 again).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, this debt had to be paid to show that he is just.  God is both just and righteous--being the one who deals the justice as well as the one who justifies (through the atonement for the sin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 3:26 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is a just God; He requires a penalty be paid for the sins we commit; and Jesus is that atonement for those sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tying this in to my trivial answer, our sins create a debt that must be paid (just as our breaking the law creates a debt to society).  However, this debt has been paid already if we have faith to accept the grace given to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T16:42:48.023" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2277" CreationDate="2011-09-07T16:43:22.933" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The trivial answer is the correct one according to the Christian view. Under the correct circumstances, the price has been paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the premise of your question is a bit off though. When someone or something has to judge something, they also have to judge it for a particular purpose. When a criminal court judge decides whether someone committed murder, it is for a particular purpose and to a particular standard adapted to that purpose. If you had to judge whether a person committed murder for some reason (maybe to decide whether or not to trust them with your life), you are judging for a different purpose and there is no reason you need to use the same standard. You don't have to swear in witnesses, follow written rules of evidence, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I don't think it's sensible to just compare the kind of judging that goes on in a court with the kind of judging Christians hold that God does without taking into account the vastly different natures of the judges and purposes of the judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="520" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T16:43:22.933" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2275" CreationDate="2011-09-07T17:04:51.013" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy begins with God telling Moses that it is time for them to enter the Promised Land.  It ends with the death of Moses.  The bulk of the book inbetween is mostly a reminder to the people of what they have already been told.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a generic explanation of how God will continue to guide the nation after Moses dies.  As those verses say, the people are not supposed to practice sorcery or divination when they are seeking direction.  When they need to hear from God, He will raise up a prophet from among them.  The prophet will speak to the people on God's behalf and the people are to obey the prophet's words as if they had heard them straight from God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The immediately following verses back this up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-5399&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 18:17-20 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; The LORD said to me: “What they say is good. &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This prophecy (of God sending prophets) was fulfilled multiple times throughout the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T17:04:51.013" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2259" CreationDate="2011-09-07T18:24:53.793" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does instruct us to be subject to the ruling authorities.  However, being subject does not necessarily mean obeying.  If worship of God is forbidden or worship of idols is commanded, we are under obligation to disobey those laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Daniel defied the king's edict and prayed with his windows open toward Jerusalem.  Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego defied the king and proclaimed that they would not bow down to idols.  Peter and John told the religious leaders, &quot;We must obey God rather than men.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, even when we disobey the authorities, we are still subject to them and will bear the consequences.  Daniel was thrown into the lion's den.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were throw into the fiery furnace.  Peter and John were beaten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, don't cheat on your taxes but don't commit adultery just because it's legal either.  Live a holy life, no matter what the cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T18:24:53.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2288" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2292" CreationDate="2011-09-07T18:35:37.180" Score="8" ViewCount="14578" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201-2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 1:26-26&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, &lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many other Bible verses talk about Mary's virginity, even to the point that the Catholic church teaches she was a virgin her entire life*.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What evidence exists (either Biblical or extra-Biblical) to support the claim that she was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*This question is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; asking whether Mary was a perpetual virgin; only for evidence that she was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived.&lt;/sub&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T18:54:40.627" LastActivityDate="2021-01-19T20:47:20.830" Title="How do we know Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2011-09-07T18:42:27.937" Score="11" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Part 1: The secret&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This phrase is actually recorded in a couple places in the gospel of John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 7, Jesus' disciples are going up to the festival.  Jesus, however, did not want to appear publicly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 7:6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, it says, he decides to go in secret:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 7:10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This theme plays out more than once in the gospel of John.  The idea that seems pretty clear is that Jesus is trying delay the timing of these events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This topic is also known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Messianic Secret&lt;/a&gt;, which is addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1102/why-did-jesus-not-want-to-be-known-as-the-messiah&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Part 2: The revealing&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later in the gospel of John, we see that Jesus says the time &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; come:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Jesus replied, &amp;quot;The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we read this entire section (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:20-36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:20-36&lt;/a&gt;), we see that Jesus is saying that the time has come from him to be crucified.  Indeed, directly after this, he says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this (during the same event), Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:27 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He's clearly speaking of the crucifixion and the suffering that he must endure.  These were the events that it seems he was attempting to delay&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Part 3: The completion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John records the final words of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 19:30 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see here the theme that has played out through the entire gospel of John.  Jesus wanted to delay the events of the crucifixion and suffering until the time has come.  Once the events were in place, Jesus declares that the hour has come.  After the crucifixion was complete and his life was over, the events that were the purpose of his life (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:27 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; above) are complete.  This was the time that Jesus was referring to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was clearly (and understandably) troubled by the thought of his own crucifixion and death (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:27 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; above).  However, the reason that he delayed the events wasn't out of fear, but because he knew the correct timing and knew that it shouldn't begin too early.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Jesus tried to delay some of the early events in order to make sure the timing was correct and perfect.  This includes the first miracle of the wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T18:05:33.790" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2288" CreationDate="2011-09-07T18:59:56.577" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the following verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 1:24-25&lt;/strong&gt; Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel&#xA;  of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: &lt;strong&gt;And knew her&#xA;  not&lt;/strong&gt; till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his&#xA;  name JESUS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;knew her&quot; is the Biblical way of saying &quot;had sex with&quot;. Consider the following verses...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 38:26&lt;/strong&gt; And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been&#xA;  more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son.&#xA;  And he &lt;strong&gt;knew her again&lt;/strong&gt; no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;JUDGES 19:25&lt;/strong&gt; But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his&#xA;  concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and &lt;strong&gt;they knew her&lt;/strong&gt;, and&#xA;  abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to&#xA;  spring, they let her go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in other words, Joseph did not have intercourse with Mary until after Jesus was born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That proves her virginity &lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Her virginity &lt;strong&gt;before&lt;/strong&gt; marriage is proven by her profession to the angel Gabriel...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LUKE 1:34&lt;/strong&gt; Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I&#xA;  know not a man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...and also by Joseph's concern to take her as wife (he was afraid she was not a virgin). The angel Gabriel appeared to Joseph in a dream to dispel his fears (that she was indeed a virgin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 1:19-20&lt;/strong&gt; Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not&#xA;  willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away&#xA;  privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of&#xA;  the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of&#xA;  David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is&#xA;  conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="292" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T19:14:07.087" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:14:07.087" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2288" CreationDate="2011-09-07T18:59:57.657" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:25 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shows that she didn't have sex with Joseph until she had given birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, it fulfilled prophecy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:22-23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:22-23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the prophecy of Isaiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%207:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 7:14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a different gospel, we have this account:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:30-35&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 1:30-35 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want, we can get into the Greek and Hebrew here, but it's pretty clear &lt;em&gt;all over&lt;/em&gt; that she had not had sex with anyone and yet she became pregnant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T19:15:43.947" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:15:43.947" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2277" CreationDate="2011-09-07T19:10:32.380" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key consideration is the definition of justice.  Does justice necessitate punishment or restoration?  If I steal $100 from someone, I don't need to be physically beaten.  If I repay the amount--or even 7 times the amount--the offended party is restored.  If another person pays that amount on my behalf, the offended party is still restored and would have no right to demand further punishment of the one who stole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we stand before God, it is God who is the offended party.  God's holiness is restored through the infinite, matchless, all-encompassing payment of Jesus on the Cross.  The death of Jesus was more than 7 times the payment in retribution to the offended party.  Though this payment is made on our behalf, the offended party is restored, and God lays no further claim on our sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God is, indeed, just in His requirement of a payment.  The debt is fully paid and then some.  He would be unjust if He still laid any claim of sin on those for whom the payment has been made and received.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The holiness and justice of God is so infinite that the smallest infraction demands restitution.  However, the death of Christ on the Cross is such an infinite payment that it can completely cover all the offenses of the worst sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:10:32.380" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1737" CreationDate="2011-09-07T19:10:46.280" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another theory that I've heard is that &quot;sons of God&quot; refers to those who were members of the primordial religion, and that &quot;sons/daughters of man&quot; refers to those who had apostatized and turned to a false religion.  This would yield the interpretation of men were marrying those not of their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I apologize for a lack of citation, but I thought it was an interesting idea that hadn't been put forward yet.  I'll try to find a reference and will update my answer if I do&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="560" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T19:17:24.850" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:17:24.850" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2295" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T19:19:59.323" Score="13" ViewCount="497" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah 7:13-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name Immanuel is used here to refer, ostensibly, to Jesus. However, Jesus is only confirmed by Matthew indirectly in Matthew 1:23-24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there another reference that makes this illusion more clear (possibly with historical significance)? Do the other gospel accounts support this conclusion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HT: Sklivvz for asking this in a comment on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2288/how-do-we-know-mary-was-a-virgin-at-the-time-of-jesus-conception/2292#2292&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T20:37:43.953" Title="Who is Immanuel?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2296" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T19:24:15.557" Score="12" ViewCount="2199" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the 4th Century there was a strong monastic tradition, which usually involved living in solitude or small groups in the wilderness. By the 12th Century the monastic life was being lived in large groups, and generally close to large communities. How did one tradition evolve into the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-04-11T18:44:12.393" LastActivityDate="2017-04-11T18:44:12.393" Title="How did the monastic tradition evolve?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;monasticism&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2295" CreationDate="2011-09-07T19:35:29.717" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Immanuel is a title that means &quot;God with us&quot;.  Some people have suggested that since Jesus was named &quot;Jesus&quot;, then &quot;Immanuel&quot; does not refer to Him.  This is akin to claiming that the titles &quot;King of Kings&quot; and &quot;Lord of Lords&quot; don't apply to Jesus, because He was named &quot;Jesus&quot; and not &quot;King of Kings&quot; or &quot;Lord of Lords&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, is co-eternal and co-existent with the Father and the Spirit.  When God the Son (The Word) entered into His creation, He was given the name Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew).  &quot;Yeshua&quot; means, &quot;The Lord (God) saves&quot; because Jesus (God the Son) was saving His people from their sins.  The name Jesus indicates His mission.  The title &quot;Immanuel&quot; indicates that He was God &quot;with us&quot; and walked among us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:35:29.717" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1754" CreationDate="2011-09-07T19:43:12.047" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Hebrews says, &quot;Anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  That God is not seen visibly does not mean there is no evidence for His existence.  There is ample evidence for His existence, and as the alternative, atheism fails to explain the origin of time, space, and matter along with a ton of other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question actually assumes that God does not show Himself beyond a reasonable doubt, but I believe He actually does.  &lt;strong&gt;God does show Himself to mankind beyond a reasonable doubt--just not beyond an unreasonable doubt.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reasonable doubts are satisfied by creation, fulfilled prophecy, the resurrection of Jesus, and many other things.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unreasonable doubts will one day be answered as well when every knee will bow and every tongue confess, yet God does not show Himself completely to allow people to reject Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T19:43:12.047" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2300" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2305" CreationDate="2011-09-07T19:57:42.973" Score="14" ViewCount="20262" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that, to an omnipotent and omnipresent being, the concept of rest would be academic. Why did God rest then? How is this traditionally understood? What would have happened if he hadn't rested?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="585" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-07-01T21:53:42.517" LastActivityDate="2015-04-18T00:43:25.830" Title="How is God's rest on the 7th day traditionally understood?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T05:26:58.597" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2300" CreationDate="2011-09-07T20:04:20.717" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;God resting on the seventh day is not an indication that He was &quot;tired&quot; or somehow needed rest, but is just a way of expressing that He had completed His work of creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many (probably mainly &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1529/what-is-old-earth-creationism&quot;&gt;old earth creationists&lt;/a&gt;) believe that we are now living in that &quot;seventh day&quot;, since the Genesis account never says the seventh day ended (as it does with the other 6 days). In this view, clearly God is not resting, in the sense of doing nothing--He is still active throughout human history, including the work of sending Christ, etc.  He is simply resting from the work of creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T20:04:20.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2302" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2307" CreationDate="2011-09-07T20:37:59.227" Score="5" ViewCount="330" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about the justice of God? Is He just?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T20:53:35.660" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T19:03:36.300" Title="Is the God of Christianity a just God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-11-21T18:01:17.443" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2302" CreationDate="2011-09-07T20:42:46.333" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;He's most definitely just. See the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:4&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Deut 32:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect.&#xA;        Everything he does is just and fair.&#xA;     He is a faithful God who does no wrong;&#xA;        how just and upright he is!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2019:2&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Revelation 19:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;His judgments are true and just.&#xA;        He has punished the great prostitute&#xA;     who corrupted the earth with her immorality.&#xA;        He has avenged the murder of his servants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T20:42:46.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2302" CreationDate="2011-09-07T20:43:43.480" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the New Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%201:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Thess 1:6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T20:43:43.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2300" CreationDate="2011-09-07T20:44:52.770" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you imply, God did not need to rest. But He chose to, apparently as a pattern for us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:8-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:8-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. &lt;strong&gt;For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not the only time God has done something He didn't need to, to set an example for us. Another was when Jesus was baptised (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%203:13-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 3:13-15&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T20:44:52.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2306" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T20:48:00.817" Score="17" ViewCount="3457" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2 indicates that on the 7th day after creation God rested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:1-3 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast&#xA;  array.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so&#xA;  on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the&#xA;  seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the&#xA;  work of creating that he had done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any indication that he has created anything since then?  Will he create again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2015-05-13T17:22:52.567" Title="Has God created anything since he rested on the 7th day?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-05-19T00:35:00.717" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2302" CreationDate="2011-09-07T20:58:28.587" Score="14" Body="&lt;h1&gt;YES&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically what you're asking has been asked throughout history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 8:3&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does God pervert justice? Does the Almighty pervert what is right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Saints defend God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the ages of biblical times, the saints have declared with trumpets the Justice of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 34:12&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would&#xA;pervert justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 32:4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A&#xA;faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Thessalonians 1:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 30:18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to&#xA;show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all&#xA;who wait for him!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 5:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the LORD Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God&#xA;will be proved holy by his righteous acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why isn't God doing anything about the evil?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may then ask, why is there evil in this world? Why are there murders and why are there evil people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God declares that He will judge every deed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ecclesiastes 3:17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I said to myself, “God will bring into judgment both the righteous and&#xA;the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to&#xA;judge every deed.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up&#xA;the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to&#xA;what they had done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can God forgive us, if He is Just?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has declared all people wicked, so how can He forgive anybody?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well.. isn't that what this entire story is about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 3:25-26&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the&#xA;shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to&#xA;demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left&#xA;the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate&#xA;his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one&#xA;who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T20:58:28.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2300" CreationDate="2011-09-07T20:59:29.283" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think God's resting on the seventh day was in part to give us an example to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested. &lt;em&gt;- Exodus 3:17, NIV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting to note that research over the years has shown that we human beings need time to rest and re-create.  We are not created to go full-out, 24/7.  The psychological literature often talks about taking breaks as a good way to reduce stress.  Taking time to rest gives our body time to re-create itself.  Even in weight training and body building the concept of rest appears:  don't work the same muscle group every day (&lt;a href=&quot;http://exercise.about.com/cs/exerciseworkouts/a/weight101.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Weight Training 101&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our minds also need time to rest.  For many people, just setting aside a difficult problem is the key to finding the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's interesting to consider that by setting aside a special, Holy day for God, we also are given a chance to recreate ourselves in His image.  It gives us a day to stop, and be washed by the water of the Word.  It gives us a chance to see things in God's perspective, not our own limited view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another interesting thing is to look at the variations in the theme of 7 periods of rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This theme of rest in terms of groups of seven is not limited to just a Sabboth rest.  It also is found in the ancient rules for planting fields.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. &lt;em&gt;- Exodus 23:11, NIV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Israel matured, it forgot about giving the fields a rest every seventh year.  Eventually, it caught up to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah. &lt;em&gt;- 2 Chronicles 36:21, NIV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="360" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T20:59:29.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2310" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2333" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:05:10.757" Score="34" ViewCount="14626" Body="&lt;p&gt;Compare the twelve tribes of Israel, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2035:23-26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 35:23-26&lt;/a&gt; (left column) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207:5-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 7:5-8&lt;/a&gt; (right):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Asher : Asher&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Benjamin : Benjamin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dan : Gad&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gad : Issachar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Issachar : Joseph&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joseph : Judah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judah : Levi&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Levi : Manasseh&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Naphtali : Naphtali&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reuben : Reuben&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simeon : Simeon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zebulun : Zebulun&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Sorted into alphabetical order.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is &lt;strong&gt;Dan&lt;/strong&gt; replaced by &lt;strong&gt;Manasseh&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Background info: I know that Manasseh and Ephraim were Joseph's sons. I also know that the tribe of Joseph was split into two half-tribes: Manasseh and Ephraim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note on answer: I know the topic of Revelation can easily turn speculative but if at all possible I'm looking for a fact based answer (e.g. the tribe of Dan no longer exists and Manasseh is now twice as big).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-06-06T18:38:23.597" LastActivityDate="2016-06-06T18:38:23.597" Title="What happened to the tribe of Dan in Revelation?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-06-06T18:39:10.137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2311" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2319" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:07:46.340" Score="6" ViewCount="4692" Body="&lt;p&gt;Multiple times in the Bible Jesus declares that He is the Truth, or that He is on the side of Truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:6&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes&#xA;  to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 18:37&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I&#xA;  am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is&#xA;  to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is Jesus referring to with this word, Truth? Pilate then asks Jesus this same question. But I don't think that Pilate was actually looking for an answer, this is more of a sarcastic rhetorical question to in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 18:38&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;“What is truth?”&lt;/strong&gt; retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the&#xA;  Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against&#xA;  him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you answer that for me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2014-07-25T17:12:42.977" Title="Why is Jesus called the Truth?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-07-26T17:48:40.150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2314" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2422" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:14:18.150" Score="8" ViewCount="1073" Body="&lt;p&gt;In physics, the quantity of energy is the most fundamental aspect of existence.  All &quot;entities&quot; have a some sort of energy (either kinetic or potential) as an intrinsic aspect of their being.  Though people often use language that suggests that concepts or phenomena exist (e.g. &quot;a signal propagates...&quot;), such language is actually just short-hand for descriptions of a collection of entities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quantity, energy, is a measure of the ability of an entity to perform work on (i.e. to cause something to happen to) another entity.  Christians clearly believe that God causes things to happen.  Do Christians believe that the concept of energy (as understood by physics) can be applied to God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="363" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T23:19:40.303" Title="How do Christians understand the existence of God in relation to the scientific concept of energy?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T03:17:15.203" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2315" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2406" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:17:50.923" Score="19" ViewCount="1519" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is an overview of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Church Fathers&lt;/a&gt;' views on celibacy? Did they see celibacy as a higher or more spiritual calling than marriage? Did they see marriage as incompatible with a spiritual life? Was there general consensus or was opinion split?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2016-04-18T20:47:43.213" LastActivityDate="2016-04-18T20:47:43.213" Title="Did the Church Fathers advocate celibacy?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;celibacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2314" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:24:41.973" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Energy is merely matter in another form (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;). Matter and energy are both part of the created universe, made by God (see Book of Genesis). Energy, like matter, was &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; by God. It is not an attribute of God, any more than height, weight or hair colour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obvious exception for the incarnated Jesus, who would have had energy, height and hair colour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T21:24:41.973" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2306" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:25:11.067" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This depends a lot on your interpretation of &quot;create,&quot; as well as &quot;day.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As my &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2300/why-did-god-rest-on-the-7th-day/2301#2301&quot;&gt;answer to another question&lt;/a&gt; explains, some believe the seventh day has not yet ended. If you take this view, the answer to your question might be &quot;no, God has not created anything since the seventh day, because nothing has happened since the seventh day.&quot;  I think that probably misses the real point of your question, though... I think you're really asking, did creation end after the sixth day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you hold to the views of most &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1529/what-is-old-earth-creationism&quot;&gt;old earth creationist&lt;/a&gt;, the substance of the universe was created instantaneously at the event of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Big Bang&lt;/a&gt;.  Since then, God has created various life forms, humans being the last one mentioned on the sixth creation &quot;day.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly God has caused certain things (both physical, and non-physical things) to come into existence after the end of the sixth day.  Many people have been born, new rivers have formed, the Church was created (a non-physical thing), etc.  It's even possible/likely that micro-evolution has occurred (although there is debate whether the result can be considered new species or not).  Would you consider that to be &quot;creation?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The view I would hold is that after the 6th day, God ceased to create new species of plants and animals.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this is hard to prove scientifically, because not enough time has passed since the end of the 6th day (possibly as much as 10,000 years, depending on your estimates).  And according to geologists, the fossil record goes back hundreds of millions of years.  There simply aren't enough data points in the last 10,000 years to prove that life isn't continuing to be &quot;created.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in a nutshell... without further clarification in your question, I think the answer is &quot;It's impossible to say.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T21:25:11.067" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2318" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2320" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:38:34.883" Score="3" ViewCount="266" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it wrong to lie to my children about the existence of Santa? When they get older how do I explain to them that I was lying? How can I expect them not to lie when I confess to them that I had been lying about Santa's existence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="473" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T21:49:23.960" Title="What should I tell my children about Santa?" Tags="&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-09-07T21:58:01.593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2311" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:44:32.613" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;A partial answer is that I understand that the Greek word for &lt;em&gt;truth&lt;/em&gt; is also the same as &lt;em&gt;reality&lt;/em&gt;. So Jesus is making a profound statement similar to Paul's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 17:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is referring to God. When Jesus (earlier) referred to Himself as Truth / Reality, it was probably to His listeners a claim to divinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, He claimed to be The Way, The Truth and The Life. In other words, He said, &amp;quot;I'm the Path to God, I'm God and I'm what you experience when you're with God.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Footnote: He is certainly not claiming to be just a moral teacher...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T21:44:32.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2318" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:46:43.810" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the question really is, &quot;Should I lie to my children?&quot; or &quot;Should I lie?&quot;  The answer to both of those is, of course, &quot;No.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly it is culturally normative to tell children about Santa.  However, right and wrong in Christianity are not determined by how acceptable it is to a culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My parents told me the gifts were from them, and I appreciated them for it--not some mythical being.  Christmas for devout Christians is a remembrance of Jesus and not the celebration of fairy tales.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T21:46:43.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2318" CreationDate="2011-09-07T21:49:23.960" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tell them about St. Nicholas the Bishop of Myra and then tell them that it's an old tradition. Then have more traditions so this one tradition doesn't end up being the only thing they remember from their childhood. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T21:49:23.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2311" CreationDate="2011-09-07T22:03:16.750" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at Blue Letter Bible didn't really help, so I think that Jesus is speaking in such a way as to capture the purest essence of the word, like in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 1:1&lt;/a&gt;. There, &quot;Word&quot; is not being used in a typical way, but in a fuller sense, so to speak. Similarly, I think Jesus is making the point that He is entirely True when He says &quot;I am...the Truth&quot;. Kind of a counter-point to Satan being the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:44&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Father of Lies&lt;/a&gt;, if you will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T22:03:16.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2314" CreationDate="2011-09-07T22:27:01.513" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  God existed &quot;before&quot; the universe, time, and space and is entirely beyond the laws of physics.  If you accept multiple universes, he is beyond all of them as well.  He created the laws of physics.  This is professed in most major Christian Creeds in some form, e.g., &quot;I believe in God the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of &lt;em&gt;all that is seen and unseen&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; (emphasis mine), and is generally accepted by Christians.  There are some exceptions, but all Catholics, Orthodox, and to the best of my knowledge all Protestants accept this as truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="574" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T22:27:01.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2325" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2327" CreationDate="2011-09-07T22:34:17.033" Score="19" ViewCount="10478" Body="&lt;p&gt;I confess my knowledge of church history branches at about the Reformation. I know a quite a bit about Catholicism today, and I have an idea of what it was before the Reformation. These are not at all the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What changes inside the Roman Catholic church, either in practice or doctrine, are directly attributed to the events of the Reformation? How soon after the reformation was this change visible/acknowledged?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-04T23:28:09.910" LastActivityDate="2020-06-09T11:05:18.170" Title="What effect did the Reformation have inside the Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;counter-reformation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2326" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-07T22:46:00.643" Score="67" ViewCount="12609" Body="&lt;p&gt;(the question title isn't quite right; I welcome any better phrasing - it is not intended to sound inflammatory)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a genuine question, that regularly occurred to me during my youth, and was recently reminded to me by an answer fragment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... However, the death of Christ on the Cross is such an infinite payment...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; had trouble with this. It is &lt;em&gt;honestly&lt;/em&gt; not intended to dismiss the suffering of someone being tortured to death, but in the context of Christ as an infinite being in the trinity, capable of miracles, healing, resurrection and immortal heavenly life, this seems... quite a minor event. And indeed, many many people have suffered similar treatment on all sides of religious quarrel (or non-religious, for that matter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the sacrifice of God in &quot;giving up&quot; the Son - again, in the context of a being that is either many thousands of years, or ageless (in that time cannot be applied),  a 30-something year stint on the earth (where God is omnipresent anyway) before re-ascending seems... an inconvenient errand rather than truly &lt;em&gt;giving something up&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is probably way too late to save my wondering, but what is (/was) the reasoning that I missed on this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T23:00:35.250" LastActivityDate="2015-05-07T15:52:29.057" Title="How is Christ's death so significant?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2325" CreationDate="2011-09-07T22:48:19.433" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation&quot;&gt;this Wikipedia article on the Counter-Reformation&lt;/a&gt;.  Which is apparently a useful phrase to Google for, if you want more information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary of the link:  The biggest responses of the Catholic church to the Reformation were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Council of Trent, which was &quot;a commission of cardinals tasked with institutional reform, addressing contentious issues such as corrupt bishops and priests, indulgences, and other financial abuses&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The institution of new Orders of the religious; notably, this includes the Jesuits.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="574" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T22:48:19.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2326" CreationDate="2011-09-07T22:56:29.060" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest reason the death of Christ is so significant is because he absolutely did not deserve to die.  If the first Adam had remained free of sin, he also would not have died, but by sinning he allowed death into our world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus came into our world as fully human, he still remained sin free (despite temptations).  There was no reason for him to die since he was as God had intended for men to be.  Even though he did not need to die from sin, he still offered himself as a sacrifice.  Even though he knew he was to come again, he still had to endure punishment for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing I've considered is that since God exists outside of time, anything which happens to him (death on a cross, punishment for our sins), happens to him for eternity.  If one day is like a thousand years to him (and I'd argue it would be more), how long has he been suffering for every sin I've committed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T22:56:29.060" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2326" CreationDate="2011-09-07T23:09:18.190" Score="82" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are exactly right. The conclusion you have drawn is based on a commonly made premise. Far too many Christians do not even realize the non sequitur on which they based their understanding of Jesus's time on earth. It is however, a false premise. I hope I can explain why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For someone with the power and strength that we claim Jesus commanded, the actual process of death on the cross was a small thing. Even ordinary men could and did endure that. It was a particularly arduous and painful death, but some of Christ's later followers were fed to lions or burned alive and did it with a song on their lips. Yet Jesus sweat blood just THINKING about the ordeal he was going to go through on the cross&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Does this mean that Christ's followers had more stamina than he did? That the creator of the universe was scared of a little physical pain? No. There was something else at work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What made Christ's death different was what happened behind the scenes. While the Romans were busy crucifying his body to a cross, something much more serious was going on. As he hung there, God measured out on him the full force of his collected wrath against sin and sinners. This was the infinite wrath of an infinitely holy God against an infinitely great offence. With this wrath God CRUSHED his own Son&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. No mere mortal could ever bear that wrath even pared down to the punishment for his own deeds, much less those of another. And another and another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's a lot of infinites I just used. The infinitely holy part is hard to even fathom, but that's what we say God is. Just as he is pure, holy, and 100% loving, he must be 100% hating of anything that is not worthy of love. We have committed an infinite sin because our offense in refusing to obey God is an offence against an infinitely good being, hence deserving the ultimate consequence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the value of the sacrifice offered was also infinite. The person that who bore the infinite wrath was himself of infinite value, making his death valuable enough to pay the debt. The very person of God himself give himself up to death. That death was not just a physical terminating of his bodily functions either. That part happened as well at the hands of the Romans, but much more importantly he was separated from the Father. On the cross he cried out that he had been forsaken&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. In that moment he experienced the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1589/what-is-the-specific-meaning-of-die-in-genesis-2/1707#1707&quot;&gt;death (separation from God)&lt;/a&gt; we deserve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In doing so he conquered it and in rising he demonstrated his power over it.&lt;sup&gt;4,5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the second part of your question, it wasn't the measly 30 something years that made it a big deal, it was his position and stature. If I give you an hour of my time that's not much to you. If a friend gives you an hour that's something more. If some celebrity gives you an hour that might mean something more. If the President of the US gives you an hour (however not hard that is for him) that becomes a significant event -- even if you don't like that president.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now who this God is -- is nothing less than the King of kings and LORD of lords&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;. His time and attention are of infinite value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke%2022:44&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22:44&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Isaiah+53:10/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53:10a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt,...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew%2027:46&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%206:9&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 6:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+2:24/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Revelation%2019:16&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 19:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T18:46:27.967" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2326" CreationDate="2011-09-07T23:09:33.020" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is significant because He personally took the punishment you deserved. Suppose He just waved his hand and said, &quot;be forgiven.&quot; If that could have worked (it could not, because sin absolutely must be punished - Ezekiel 18:4), it would have made the whole affair a bit less personal. No, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus paid it all &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  All to Him I owe&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sin had left a crimson stain &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He washed it white as snow&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053:5-6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isa 53:5-6 KJV&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised&#xA;  for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and&#xA;  with his stripes we are healed. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;All we like sheep have gone&#xA;  astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath&#xA;  laid on him the iniquity of us all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only that, but consider this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isa 53:10 KJV&lt;/a&gt; Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a concept I find difficult to understand. Yet, apparently God the Father understood that in order to communicate His love for the sinner (Romans 5:8), this Sacrifice was the only way. Though it cost Him so much, He was happy to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-31T07:33:11.130" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T07:33:11.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2331" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-07T23:20:29.413" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-07T23:20:29.413" LastActivityDate="2011-09-07T23:20:29.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2332" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-07T23:20:29.413" Score="0" Body="Science is used to tag questions that are about the relationship between Christianity and Science." OwnerUserId="363" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T00:25:46.797" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T00:25:46.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2310" CreationDate="2011-09-07T23:49:04.530" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an excellent question! Consider the following argument, posited in the seventh chapter of &lt;em&gt;An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages&lt;/em&gt; by William Marrion Branham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of Exodus tells the story of how the tribe of Levi was separated to serve the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 32:26-29&lt;/strong&gt; Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said,&#xA;  Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of&#xA;  Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them,&#xA;  Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his&#xA;  side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and&#xA;  slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man&#xA;  his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of&#xA;  Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of their stand for God, God chose the Levites to serve Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NUMBERS 18:6&lt;/strong&gt; And I, behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites&#xA;  from among the children of Israel: to you they are given as a gift for&#xA;  the LORD, to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers 10:11-28 lists the twelve tribes as Reuben, Simeon, Issachar, Judah, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim and Manasseh. Levi ministered to the twelve tribes, and so was treated separately. When the twelve tribes encamped, they always camped three tribes to a side, surrounding the Levites and the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll notice that Ephraim, in Revelation, is also removed from this list of tribes in Numbers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to the question of &quot;what happened to Dan and Ephraim?&quot; lies in Deuteronomy 29:16-20.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DEUTERONOMY 29:16&lt;/strong&gt; (For ye know how we have dwelt in the land of Egypt;&#xA;  and how we came through the nations which ye passed by; And ye have&#xA;  seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and&#xA;  gold, which were among them:) Lest there should be among you man, or&#xA;  woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the&#xA;  LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there&#xA;  should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; And it come&#xA;  to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless&#xA;  himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the&#xA;  imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: The LORD will&#xA;  not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall&#xA;  smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this&#xA;  book shall lie upon him, and &lt;strong&gt;the LORD shall blot out his name from&#xA;  under heaven.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The curse of idolatry (or spiritual fornication) was to have your name blotted out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, let's see how this applied to the tribe of Dan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I Kings 12:25-30&lt;/strong&gt; Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and&#xA;  dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel. And&#xA;  Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house&#xA;  of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the&#xA;  LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto&#xA;  their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me,&#xA;  and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took&#xA;  counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too&#xA;  much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which&#xA;  brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. &lt;strong&gt;And he set the one in&#xA;  Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for&#xA;  the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now Ephraim...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hosea 4:17&lt;/strong&gt; Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus said...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MATTHEW 24:35&lt;/strong&gt; Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not&#xA;  pass away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God remembered His Word in Deuteronomy by removing Dan and Ephraim from the final list of the tribes sealed in the 144,000 of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="13767" LastEditDate="2016-06-06T15:52:01.943" LastActivityDate="2016-06-06T15:52:01.943" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="264" CreationDate="2011-09-08T00:00:29.550" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As soon as you start to think about prayer as a set of rules, you have missed the point. God listens to prayers, but doesn't necessarily grant them. You may be asking for something that will be bad for you, or bad for someone else. God may have other, probably better, plans for you. Trying to work out the &quot;magic formula&quot; for getting your prayers granted is approaching it a whole wrong way - like a toddler trying to work out what way of asking her parents for a pony will actually get her one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some guidelines given: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%205&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;James chapter 5&lt;/a&gt; is often quoted in this context. But there are also many, many books on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T00:00:29.550" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2314" CreationDate="2011-09-08T00:14:56.777" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Energy can be defined in physics as the ability to perform work, as you say, and measured in joules or equivalent units. You ask whether we can ascribe energy to God in this sense. The ability of God to act in the world is a different question - I think you are asking about being able to measure God's own energy in some sense, whether this is kinetic energy or potential energy or anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To calculate such a quantity, we would need to take measurements of some kind and somehow end up with a value in units of kg.m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.s&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt; = J. This effort is stymied since there is no way to measure God's mass, length, etc., as these kind of measurements cannot apply to God. That is, we cannot measure God's energy for the same reason that we cannot measure his size - there is nothing special about energy in this regard. Can we measure his kinetic energy (= energy that depends on mass and velocity)? No, because God has neither. Potential energy (= energy that depends on position within a gravitational field)? No, because God is not located in a gravitational field, and indeed is not located at any point in space. Moreover, there is no particular reason to believe that even if he had energy, he would be subject to conservation of energy (we're not going to get very far trying to apply Noether's theorem).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This goes beyond a mere practical difficulty (I mean, it is not true to say that God has mass but we just can't calculate it). Theologically, attributes like &quot;mass&quot; cannot be applied to God, because God is an altogether different kind of thing than ordinary people or objects. The argument goes something like this. God's existence is pure (in scholastic terminology, he is &lt;em&gt;actus purus&lt;/em&gt;, pure action) because his existence is (1) not dependent on anything else, (2) unchanging, and (3) he has no potential to be different from what he is. Hence it is a category error to apply any contingent attribute to God - any quality or quantity that we could imagine varying over time or in different circumstances. Mass is this kind of quantity. See Aquinas, &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt;, Part 1 Q3 for the classic exposition. He talks about height, depth, colour and temperature being inapplicable concepts but it's the same idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Admittedly, some people have &lt;em&gt;tried&lt;/em&gt; to apply concepts like &quot;energy&quot; to God. Teilhard de Chardin continually used the language of physics, in a dubious way, and in particular talked about humans having &quot;spiritual energy&quot; which would increase and merge with God's spiritual energy. But:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...he uses in metaphor words like energy, tension, force, impetus and dimension as if they retained the weight and thrust of their specific scientific usages. Consciousness, for example, is a matter upon which Teilhard has been said to have illuminating views. For the most part consciousness is treated as a manifestation of energy, though this does not help us very much because the word 'energy' is itself debauched; but elsewhere we learn that consciousness is a dimension, or is something with mass, or is something corpuscular and particulate which can exist in various degrees of concentration, being sometimes infinitely diffuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's from the famous &lt;a href=&quot;http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/phenomenon-of-man.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;critical review&lt;/a&gt; by Peter Medawar of &lt;em&gt;The Phenomenon of Man&lt;/em&gt;. It is a great reminder to be very careful about overinterpreting or misapplying concepts from physics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T00:14:56.777" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2337" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3579" CreationDate="2011-09-08T00:25:17.467" Score="22" ViewCount="5296" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews&lt;/a&gt; is an open question. The common scholarly opinion is that the author certainly wasn't Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most modern Bible translations make no mention of the author, but some older ones such as the King James Version do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/xMOPq.png&quot; alt=&quot;KJV: THE EPISTLE OF PAVL the Apostle to the Hebrewes&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I find it hard to believe that Paul would have written Heb 2:3-4. In his other letters, he always highlights himself as one of the apostles; here the writer has a very humble attitude and certainly doesn't count himself an apostle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:3-4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 2:3-4 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was Paul the author of Hebrews? What supports Pauline authorship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2017-09-05T15:26:51.067" Title="Did Paul write the Epistle to the Hebrews?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1565" CreationDate="2011-09-08T00:31:00.070" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe it is important to emphasize the importance of identifying an idol in this case.  Idols are not something that exist of their own accord, but are something created by man which they worship or place as higher importance than God.  This is why Paul can say, &amp;quot;We know that 'An idol is nothing at all in the world' and that 'There is no God but one.'&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8:4 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that sacrificing meat to an idol means nothing since an idol is nothing.  Now if someone who is still trying to understand God, that idol may still have a deeply rooted meaning to them.  If they see us in that idol's shrine eating the food sacrificed to it, what would keep them from thinking that we are not making our own sacrifices to the idol?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if we shift that idea of an idol to the modern day, some people definitely idolize RPGs (and everything else in existence).  Playing RPGs can become their life, and they may not even have Christ in their life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You, on the other hand, do not idolize RPGs (which is obvious from the fact that you were able to walk away from it).  You understand that the RPGs do not give you life, but you receive life through God.  As long as that RPG isn't something you hold on to and believe you require to survive, you are fine pretending to slay trolls in the name of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; always be on guard that it does not become more than that for you or the people you play with (which it sounds like it may have).  If it does, that's when it's time to step away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, maybe I can finally get to &lt;strong&gt;answering your question&lt;/strong&gt;.  The believers who are playing the weaker brother card are &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; not the ones who are the weaker brother.  If they are saying you might be leading them to sin, then they obviously know that playing RPGs/listening to rock music/watching Teletubbies can lead to sin.  The weaker brother in John's example would not even understand when they are participating in idolization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you can use this knowledge of their knowledge to help them.  &amp;quot;Yes, you are correct that playing this game can become a problem when you stop honoring God and elevate the game over him.  Since you understand that, as long as you keep God in sight, you will likely not fall into the sin of idolization.  Why don't you join us and help us to ensure we are praising God with our game?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:  I am not saying completely disregard the weaker brother passage.  I think you just need to be able to identify the weaker brother.  If someone knows fully well themselves that worshiping an idol is sinning, but fall into that worship anyways, they have themselves to blame.  However, there are those who are still learning of Christ, and they are the true weaker brother.  If by your actions you lead someone who does not have a full understanding into worshiping an idol, you are to blame for their sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T12:15:42.563" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2339" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2344" CreationDate="2011-09-08T00:52:55.097" Score="16" ViewCount="4907" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading how Jesus called his disciples, I am always perplexed at how they just leave everything and start following him. An example passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%204:18-22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 4:18-22 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;And he said to them, &quot;Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;Immediately they left their nets and followed him. &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's really amazing that anyone in their right minds would act like that. Now, one might think that Jesus does some miracles that just aren't mentioned. However, his first sign was at Cana and he already had disciples at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%202:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 2:11 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why were the disciples so eager to start following Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2017-01-03T18:21:19.980" Title="How could Jesus get followers so easily?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2017-01-04T00:00:58.137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2314" CreationDate="2011-09-08T01:22:12.583" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:1-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 3:2-14 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The angel of the LORD appeared to [Moses] in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed... God called to him from the midst of the bush and said... the place on which you are standing is holy ground... God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fire is normally the result of a release of energy in the form of light and heat caused by a chemical change in something that is burning. In normal burning, there is a change in state but the total amount of energy / matter in the universe remains constant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this passage, however, Moses witnesses something strange. He sees flames that exists without any visible means of support, ie. a release of energy without a corresponding change in the chemistry of the material universe. This violates his expectations, so naturally he wants a closer look. In doing so he perceives that God is present. According to Moses understanding, the bush is not the source of the energy being released, but rather God is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is consistent with the description in Genesis (a book often associated with Moses) which describes God as the source of all energy and matter in the universe. God needs nothing outside Himself to sustain Him, but rather is the source of everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, then, we see that God has the capacity to do work (ie. influence the universe) not because the concept of energy applies to Him, but because He is able to apply the concept of energy to the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T01:22:12.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2314" CreationDate="2011-09-08T01:45:40.953" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are too many different ideas about the relationship between God and the Universe to cover them all.  Here's an attempt to explain one fairly common view (which seems to have been offered in other answers):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have any background in programming: Suppose the entire universe that we are aware of is actually a simulation running as a program on a computer.  Now suppose the programmer opens up a debugger and starts fiddling with variables.  He or she might mess up invariants or relations that the program would originally obey, but you wouldn't call the programmer and the debugger &lt;em&gt;part of&lt;/em&gt; the program.  The debugger wouldn't have simulated energy, nor would the programmer (unless they specifically programmed it to work that way)--they're outside of the program (presumably with &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; energy).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Analogously, one can envision God as the programmer who can intervene as desired or not; He isn't really part of the simulation, so to speak, so even though everything that is being simulated has simulated energy, He does not intrinsically, and His interventions may or may not depending on the details of what happens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T01:45:40.953" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2337" CreationDate="2011-09-08T01:46:30.610" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most hold that Hebrews was not authored by Paul because the style and form of the Greek is so good and fine, compared with the style of Paul's other, non-anonymous, writings. The style of Hebrews is almost as if it were a prepared sermon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it would be hard to disagree that the &lt;em&gt;contents&lt;/em&gt; (the theology and doctrine) agree perfectly with that of Paul's teachings. Hebrews sounds like something Paul would say, but the original Greek doesn't read like Paul usually wrote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, had this to say...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, &lt;strong&gt;I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said&lt;/strong&gt;. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal feeling is, because the theology and doctrine matches Paul's other writings so perfectly, coupled with his knowledge of scripture gained by sitting at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), that Paul was the author of Hebrews. Perhaps he had someone to assist him as he dictated, or perhaps he simply spent more time grammatically fine-tuning this particular epistle. But the &lt;em&gt;spirit&lt;/em&gt; of the letter feels Pauline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T09:25:31.653" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T09:25:31.653" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2339" CreationDate="2011-09-08T01:50:50.120" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%205&amp;amp;version=CEB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 5 (CEV)&lt;/a&gt; tells a little more of the story:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One day Jesus was standing beside Lake Gennesaret (Galilee) when the crowd pressed in around him to hear God’s word. Jesus saw two boats sitting by the lake. The fishermen had gone ashore and were washing their nets. Jesus boarded one of the boats, the one that belonged to Simon, then asked him to row out a little distance from the shore. Jesus sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. When he finished speaking to the crowds, he said to Simon, “Row out farther, into the deep water, and drop your nets for a catch.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simon replied, “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and caught nothing. But because you say so, I’ll drop the nets.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So they dropped the nets and their catch was so huge that their nets were splitting. They signaled for their partners in the other boat to come and help them. They filled both boats so full that they were about to sink. When Simon Peter saw the catch, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Leave me, Lord, for I’m a sinner!” Peter and those with him were overcome with amazement because of the number of fish they caught. James and John, Zebedee’s sons, were Simon’s partners and they were amazed too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid. From now on, you will be fishing for people.” As soon as they brought the boats to the shore, they left everything and followed Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there was a miracle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(One explanation for the apparent contradiction with John is that the disciples encountered Jesus on more than one occasion. At the wedding the disciples believed, and at the lake they started to follow)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T09:12:00.007" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2339" CreationDate="2011-09-08T01:52:36.083" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the Apostle John said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2021:25&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 21:25 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we know that not everything from Jesus' life was recorded. Luke does record an account of Jesus reading the scriptures in the synagogue, saying it was Jesus' custom to do so (&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%204:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 4:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;). So it is possible that Jesus was already known, at least as a godly leader, when he approached these men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal belief is that Jesus already knew each of these men before he called them to leave their professions and follow him. Some think that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.forerunner.com/blog/jesus-cousins-were-the-apostles-james-and-john&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James and John were Jesus' cousins&lt;/a&gt;, which would almost certainly mean that they had know Jesus for most of their lives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would point out though, that even if these men knew him their entire lives, it was still a huge step for them to leave everything behind to follow Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T09:14:57.210" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T09:14:57.210" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2337" CreationDate="2011-09-08T02:03:18.320" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Albrecht_Bengel&quot;&gt;Johann Albrecht Bengel&lt;/a&gt; (1687-1752), a Lutheran clergyman and scholar, attributed Hebrews to Paul. He is one of few writers to do so on the basis of something other than tradition or similarity of ideas.&#xA;In his &lt;em&gt;Gnomon Novi Testamenti&lt;/em&gt;, his annotation to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Peter 3:15 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;says that &quot;unto you&quot; means the Epistle to the Hebrews. The assumption is that 2 Peter is written to the same people as 1 Peter (since 2 Peter 3:1 says &quot;This second epistle ... I now write unto you&quot;), and 1 Peter was written to the &quot;exiles&quot; in Pontus, Galatia, etc. (1 Peter 1:1). These are assumed by Bengel to mean dispersed Hebrews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This argument is outlined and rejected by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes in his &lt;em&gt;A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews&lt;/em&gt; (1988, p26), who says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apart from the consideration, however, that those to whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was sent were apparently a compact group in a particular locality rather than a scattering of Christians over an extensive geographical area, the likelihood is that the &quot;Dispersion&quot; addressed by Peter was a dispersion of Christians generally, comprising Gentile as well as Jewish believers. The letter of Paul to which Peter refers could well be his Epistle to the Galatians (especially if the North Galatian theory of its destination is correct).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, it seems that few commentators find significant theological, as opposed to linguistic, differences between Hebrews and the Pauline epistles. A popular theory is that the letter was either dictated in outline by Paul, but with a form of words chosen by the scribe, or was originally written by him in Hebrew and then translated by somebody else into Greek. In those cases, the book could still legitimately be considered to be &quot;by Paul&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T10:50:50.357" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T10:50:50.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2351" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2353" CreationDate="2011-09-08T02:51:47.547" Score="12" ViewCount="13938" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1%3A6-8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Jude 1:6&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the angels which kept not their &lt;strong&gt;first estate&lt;/strong&gt;, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse references a topics that are not thoroughly covered in the Bible (Enoch, Michael, etc). I haven't found the term 'first estate' in the Bible anywhere else, and other translations don't provide much clarity for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are we to understand by the phrase, 'first estate', and who are those angels that did not keep it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just so there's no speculation, I come from an LDS background.  My motivation for asking this question is to know how those outside of my faith understand by this verse, but answers consistent with LDS theology are also welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-30T22:33:03.363" LastActivityDate="2015-02-21T07:54:02.433" Title="What does 'first estate' mean in Jude 1:6 (KJV)?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;jude&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2351" CreationDate="2011-09-08T03:01:26.650" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Strong's for this is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;archē&lt;BR&gt;&#xA;  ar-khay'&lt;BR&gt;&#xA;  From G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sounds like it means they gave up their rank or position, in addition to their &quot;habitation&quot; (residence) in exchange for some wicked thing they desired. Now, as a result, they are enjoying their 2nd estate--in chains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T03:01:26.650" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="249" CreationDate="2011-09-08T03:05:54.880" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Should we, Christians meditate?&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;Yes, We should meditate. Another word used is contemplation.&#xA;Let us see if people meditated as per the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119:97&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 119:97&lt;/a&gt; - &quot;Oh, how I love your law!&#xA;   I meditate on it all day long. &quot; about the Psalmist himself&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2024:63&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 24:63&lt;/a&gt; - &quot;He went out to the field one evening to meditate&quot; about Issac&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other references: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119:148&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 119:148&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;Jesus meditated while withdrawing to a lonely place - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2014:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 14:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Church Age:&#xA;Jeremy Taylor  : Meditation is duty of all.&#xA;Dietrich Bonhoeffer: He says He meditated since he is a christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per 'Celebration of Disciple' by Richard Foster, the two Hebrew words used for meditation, together used 58  times in Bible. He defines meditation as ability to hear God's voice and obey His word and adds that 'it is that simple'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;what should we do while meditating?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is to detach from the disturbances from the world around us and attach to God during the time of meditation and listen to Him. We should meditate upon  a small portion of the scripture, not exegesis, but internalizing and personalizing it. 'Just as  you do not analyse the words of some one you love, but accept them as they are said to you, accept the word of Scripture and ponder it in heart as Mary did, That is all, That is meditation&quot; Dietrich Bonhoeffer. To avoid superficially going over many passages, take one small passage, single event, or a parable or a single sentence.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book Celebration of Discipline gives a whole chapter on meditation and I recommend you to read it for complete understanding. Q&amp;amp;A site will not give option to describe all of it. This  book gives multiple forms of meditation apart from biblical basis, difference between eastern meditation and related topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T17:17:33.443" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T17:17:33.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2351" CreationDate="2011-09-08T03:10:05.407" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at Blue Letter Bible, here &quot;first estate&quot; is written as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G746&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot;&gt;archē&lt;/a&gt; (Strong's G746). The fifth definition is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  a) of angels and demons&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, it would seem that the angels left where they were supposed to be, and as such, were cast out. This is made clear by the NLT version of the same verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:6&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Jude 1:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but &lt;em&gt;left the place where they belonged&lt;/em&gt;. God has kept them securely chained in prisons of darkness, waiting for the great day of judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, these angels were told by God where to be, but they rebelled against God's authority and as such were put into Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T03:10:05.407" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2358" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2369" CreationDate="2011-09-08T03:20:39.880" Score="20" ViewCount="767" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, I do not mean for this question to sound as an attack on the Catholic Church. I would like to know the stance of the church regarding this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; resource, which documents the succession of the Pope, but there appear to be some significant holes (258 AD, 304 AD, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess some related questions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who is St. Linus and why did He succeed St. Peter when St. John was still alive?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the basis for voting for a pope when the only documented evidence of choosing a successor is election by casting lots (Acts 1:26, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy#In_Christian_culture&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why don't popes do the same thing as Peter (heal people, write epistles, etc)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is there a pope if it isn't mentioned in the Bible (while apostles, pastors, etc. are)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, the Catholic Church holds edicts and creeds to be of equal or similar weight as the Bible, and there are books in the Catholic canon that do not exist in most other churches' canon (considered to be part of Apocrypha).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not looking for a debate, and I do not mean for this question to be inflammatory. I only want to know the Catholic position and the basis for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-08-22T17:57:41.800" LastActivityDate="2014-08-22T17:57:41.800" Title="What is the argument for papal succession?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2351" CreationDate="2011-09-08T03:29:53.247" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;These verses looks like refer to fall of angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NIV renders the verse like this: Jude 1:6 &quot;And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.&quot;.  So it is clear that it is describing those angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So i think, &quot;first estate&quot; in  KJV is the position of authority God granted to a group of angels who misused it and was thrown out. &#xA;I believe the same thing referred here in  Isaiah 14:12-15. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;How you have fallen from heaven,&#xA;   morning star, son of the dawn!&#xA;You have been cast down to the earth,&#xA;   you who once laid low the nations!&#xA; You said in your heart,&#xA;   “I will ascend to the heavens;&#xA;I will raise my throne&#xA;   above the stars of God;&#xA;I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,&#xA;   on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.[a]&#xA; I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;&#xA;   I will make myself like the Most High.”&#xA;But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,&#xA;   to the depths of the pit. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;KJV uses &quot;O Lucifer, Son of the morning&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T03:29:53.247" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="462" CreationDate="2011-09-08T04:55:37.477" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Judaism, and in some subsequent Christian cosmologies (specifically &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefoggiestnotion.com/seventh_heaven.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gnostic&lt;/a&gt;), there is the concept of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Heavens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;seven heavens&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; Most modern Christian groups only believe in one and discourage speculation since there is very little Scriptural information on Heaven and so you verge into &quot;just making it up&quot; territory very quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T04:55:37.477" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2363" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2391" CreationDate="2011-09-08T05:02:47.447" Score="4" ViewCount="625" Body="&lt;p&gt;The four Gospels each cover roughly the same events, but the details differ, as illustrated &lt;a href=&quot;http://redmondfamily.com/Cancy-and-Craig/Church/Four-Gospels-Comparison&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leaving aside the difference in similarity between the Synoptic Gospels and John, is there significance to which events are described multiple times?  Are multiply-described events more important in some way, or are they areas where multiple tellings are more important to understand the relevant doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T14:14:31.377" Title="What is the doctrinal significance of repetition between the Gospels?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T05:31:29.180" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2365" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-08T06:00:34.800" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T06:00:34.800" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T06:00:34.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2366" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-08T06:00:34.800" Score="0" Body="Theologians and church leaders of the post-apostolic period up to the 7th century." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-06-06T18:58:57.547" LastActivityDate="2016-06-06T18:58:57.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2367" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T06:06:47.977" Score="13" ViewCount="371" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the New World was discovered, slavery was virtually unknown in Europe. Soon after the discovery of the New World, European powers began to make slaves there, and to transport slaves from Africa to the Americas. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What part did the church (mainly the Roman Catholic church, which dominated Europe) play in this? Did it discourage or encourage the slavery of native peoples?  What were their beliefs and teachings at that time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T14:13:25.127" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T22:00:19.950" Title="What were the beliefs, teachings, and practices of the church regarding slavery in the New World?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;slavery&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2368" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T06:07:59.113" Score="7" ViewCount="2409" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the principal differences between the Southern Baptist and American Baptist denominations in the US?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T15:55:39.640" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T03:23:45.800" Title="American and Southern Baptists" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2358" CreationDate="2011-09-08T06:44:38.110" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue here is Apostolicity and the succession thereof; from the Nicene creed (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We believe in one holy catholic and &lt;strong&gt;apostolic&lt;/strong&gt; church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine rests on the central tenants that in Matthew 16:18-20 Jesus invested apostolic leadership and kingdom authority in Peter and the apostles and Matthew 18:18 via the &amp;quot;keys of the kingdom of heaven&amp;quot; and the power to &amp;quot;bind&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;loose&amp;quot;, and finally that Peter ended his ministry in Rome, bringing the principle seat of the church's authority to Rome when he died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Peter came finally to Rome appears to be a settled question, according to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apostolic_Succession&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As soon as the problem of St. Peter's coming to Rome passed from theologians writing pro domo sua into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e. within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to contradict; the researches of German professors like A, Harnack and Weiasticker, of the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani, of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and die in Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Peter's martyrdom in Rome seems to be upheld by the early church fathers and it forms their own claim for apostolic authority; from the above linked article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome; Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece, Irenaeus for Gaul, Clement and Origen for Alexandria, Tertullian for Africa. In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counterclaim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's seems, at least in my reading of early church writings, that the Roman church may have reached a place of significance within the wider church body by the 3rd or 4th century.  The church in Rome is either called on or preemptively steps in to arbitrate disputes in other churches.  The council of Sardica, 343, agreed that to &amp;quot;honor the memory of the Apostle Peter&amp;quot; they should &amp;quot;provide that letters be sent to Julius, Bishop of Rome&amp;quot; regarding any legal case involving a Bishop which is in dispute, for the Bishop of Rome to possibly hear the appeal. In 376 St. Jerome calls the &amp;quot;chair of Peter&amp;quot; the &amp;quot;Rock on which the Church is built&amp;quot;.  And in about 401 Pp. Innocent I claims the authority of the Roman See such that &amp;quot;any just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of [the Roman] See&amp;quot;.  (&lt;em&gt;Documents of the Christian Church&lt;/em&gt;, in the section entitled The Authority of the Holy See).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Who is St. Linus and why did He succeed St. Peter when St. John was still alive?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bishop Linus who succeeded Peter is believed to be the one mentioned in the letter to Timothy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:20-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 4:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus. 21 Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers and sisters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Linus would have succeeded Peter as the bishop of the Roman congregation; John's responsibility was another church body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that much of what we understand about the happenings of this time were lost in antiquity with only church traditions passing on details from one generation to the next.  Several of the Roman persecutions made concerted efforts to wipe out Christianity, including burning as much of her writings as they could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What is the basis for voting for a Pope?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The process by which the Pope is selected by the conclave of bishops has its roots in a simple consensus of church leadership which is believed to reflect the will of the Holy Spirit.  It is based on the idea of wise counsel, the idea being that with many seeking the will of God on a particular matter, some might miss it but the majority will not.  It is not supposed to be a political or popularity contest, but a genuine seeking of the Holy Spirit's leading.  What actually happens in practice is hard to say (but I would certainly not base my perceptions on Hollywood depictions like &lt;em&gt;Angels and Demons&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Why don't Popes do the same things as Peter (heal people, write epistles, etc)?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the miracles, the question of why they are so relatively rare in the modern church is a separate issue, for a separate question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for epistles, this is precisely the big bone of contention between Catholic and Protestant Christians.  The Catholic church teaches that the apostolic authority to teach with authority via the Holy Spirit continues to this day, via the Papal letters and encyclicals and exercise of the church's &amp;quot;magesterium&amp;quot; to pronounce doctrines as being infallible, making them dogmas (the latter being the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; time, contrary to popular misconception, which the Pope is considered infallible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Why is there a Pope if it isn't mentioned in the Bible (while apostles, pastors, etc. are)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope is simply the Latin word for &amp;quot;father&amp;quot;, similar to and root of &amp;quot;papa&amp;quot; in other modern Romantic languages.  Judeo-Christian culture has a long established history of referring to respected elders and teachers as &amp;quot;father&amp;quot;, as a term of simple endearment and respect (actually, Asian cultures do this also).  The moniker &amp;quot;Pope&amp;quot; simply stuck, over time, as the title for the Bishop of Rome.  In fact, it's not clear to me if there is any difference in Italian for the general title for a priest, bishop or the Pope, other than perhaps capitalizing the 'P'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T01:19:13.740" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2370" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2373" CreationDate="2011-09-08T07:27:16.113" Score="15" ViewCount="3207" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians use the terms &lt;em&gt;justification&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;sanctification&lt;/em&gt; a lot, but it's not always clear where one concept leaves off and the other picks up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do Protestants generally say is the difference between these two ideas? What is the Biblical justification* for having two distinct terms?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* Sorry, I couldn't help myself&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-08T05:13:06.170" LastActivityDate="2015-08-08T05:13:06.170" Title="What is the difference between justification and sanctification?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;sanctification&gt;&lt;justification&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2371" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2372" CreationDate="2011-09-08T07:51:27.563" Score="4" ViewCount="4011" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the old testament days, God asked Moses to construct a place for Him to reside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 25:8 (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in New testament, We read that our own body is the Temple of Holy Spirit.  We read it in a number of places when Paul writes to the Corinthians,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 6:19 (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 3:17 (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians-6:16&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;For you are the temple of the living God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in Hebrews we have Assembly should not be forsaken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:25 (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;..not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If our body is the Church, What is the place when we gather on the Sabbath day, as we call it too as Church? Is that just an assembly? Is that just enough to keep our body Holy and ignore the gathering? If God lives in the Church, our Body, Is the congregation is needed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2020-04-26T11:17:47.357" Title="If our body is the church, why should we go to a place called church?" Tags="&lt;sabbath&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2371" CreationDate="2011-09-08T08:00:41.187" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our bodies are not the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse in 2 Corinthians that you quote says that our bodies are &lt;em&gt;temples&lt;/em&gt;. In context this is saying that we (rather than a building) are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. In the OT his presence would rest in the temple and that was considered his dwelling among his chosen people. In the NT this took a new form -- the vail in the temple was torn asunder -- and his spirit actually lives within those who have been called according to his purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is only together in fellowship that we make up the church. Believers collectively are a body: the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T08:00:41.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2370" CreationDate="2011-09-08T08:44:05.450" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In nuce: The sanctification is the divine &lt;em&gt;imperative&lt;/em&gt; &quot;Ye shall be my people&quot; while justification is the divine &lt;em&gt;indicative&lt;/em&gt; &quot;I want to be your God&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Luther&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther and later the Lutherans focus on the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;justification by faith alone&lt;/em&gt;. Is that all? &quot;No&quot; they say – there's also sanctification: true faith is manifested in the works. But as soon as having said that, they are in a hurry to come back to the justification.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Luther also talks of works, but immediately, when he does, he takes a step back and insists on: &quot;The works do nothing for justification&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: Eberhard Busch, &lt;em&gt;Meine Zeit mit Karl Barth: Tagebuch 1965-1968&lt;/em&gt; (2011), 325&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Calvin&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peculiar to Calvin is the narrowness of entanglement between justification and sanctification: Against the contempt of work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From God's perspective, justification and sanctification are the &lt;em&gt;duplex gratia&lt;/em&gt; and will be given only together – but nevertheless they have to be clearly seperated.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his &quot;Institutio&quot;, Calvin deals first with sanctification and then with justification. This doesn't say that justification is in any way less worth, but it highlights that there won't be a &lt;em&gt;iustificatio&lt;/em&gt; without a &lt;em&gt;sanctificatio&lt;/em&gt;. The justification has to be believed and held in faith, while the sanctification is the &lt;em&gt;real life issue&lt;/em&gt; which permeates the daily experience.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin doesn't think of the Christ as a sinner, but rather as a reborn, who's already unter the sanctification of God – given by the Holy Spirit. The grace of justification &lt;em&gt;accompanies&lt;/em&gt; the reborns fight against the flesh on the way to his sanctification until death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: Inst.III,16,1: &lt;em&gt;Nullum ergo Christus iustificat quem non simul sanctificat. Sunt enim perpetuo et individuo nexu coniuncta haec benificia … Inter se distinguamus licet, inseperabiliter tamen utranque Christus in se continet&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2: Karin Bornkamm, &lt;em&gt;Christus – König und Priester&lt;/em&gt;, 1998 J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen, 319ff.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Biblical Evidence&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The ethical passage Gal 5:13 – 6:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5:13&lt;/sup&gt;You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. [...] &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; gentleness and self-control. [...] &lt;sup&gt;6:8&lt;/sup&gt;The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes clear: The freedom from the law (i.e. justification) doesn't mean freedom for the flesh, but rather a calling to charity. The faith &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be active in charity.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sanctification as the goal of new life: Rom 6:19 and 22&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. [...]&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both verses an εἰς ἀγιάσμος (to holiness) can be found as the goal of this &quot;new life&quot; (Rom 6:4).&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;and so on&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Thess 2:10&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Kor 1:30; 6:11&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Kor 6:14ff.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please note that in all those passages, the terminology of sanctification and righteousness is used parallel.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: Cilliers Breytenbach (ed.), ''Paulus, die Evangelien und das Urchristentum'', 2004 BRILL, 170f.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2: Martin Vahrenhorst, &lt;em&gt;Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen&lt;/em&gt;, 2009 J.C.B. Mohr, 279&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="70" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T16:33:52.697" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T16:33:52.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2011-09-08T08:58:52.537" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pertinent Bible verses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208:12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 8:12 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;  Again Jesus spoke to them, saying,  &quot;I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:24-26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 16:24-26 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; Then Jesus told his disciples, &quot;If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 2 is also important as is practically the whole book of Romans but in detail Romans 3 and 4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion a faith in Jesus is core to the accepting of Christian truths, but also the bible makes it clear that their is definitely a Christian lifestyle. A accepting of certain morals and ethics that go hand in hand with a healthy Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your lifestyle in the end becomes your life through Christ. You do not fit Christianity to your lifestyle as I'm afraid too many people do nowadays. It has to be the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helped&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here as some more bible verses that are important to people asking if Jesus is al I need to be a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:14-26&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:14-26 (NKJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;  What &lt;i&gt;does it&lt;/i&gt; profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;  If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;  and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what &lt;i&gt;does it&lt;/i&gt; profit? &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;  Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;  But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;  You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;  But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;  Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;  Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;  And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, &lt;i&gt; “Abraham believed God, and it was&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt; accounted to him for righteousness.”&lt;/i&gt;And he was called the friend of God. &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;  You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;  Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent &lt;i&gt;them&lt;/i&gt; out another way?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;  For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21-23&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:21-23 (NKJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;  “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;  Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;  And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T23:33:52.830" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T23:33:52.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2326" CreationDate="2011-09-08T09:10:26.697" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think his resurrection is a lot more important than the mere fact that he died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Death proved his humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Resurrection proved his divinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T12:18:48.373" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T12:18:48.373" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2367" CreationDate="2011-09-08T09:14:24.273" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quakers were one of the first groups who condemned slavery. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The anti-slavery sentiment started back in the 1600s.  By the 1750s, they were actively trying to have the slavery laws changed in Britain (which ruled Colonial America at that time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://trilogy.brynmawr.edu/speccoll/quakersandslavery/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, clearly there was at least one group of Christians during the Colonial America times who were opposed to slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T22:00:19.950" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T22:00:19.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2378" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T09:30:28.913" Score="12" ViewCount="431" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to attend one church which felt quite weird for me. Here are a few things that I don't agree with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everybody can speak in tongues. The steps are, first you need somebody to pray with you so you are being baptized by spirit, after that, you can just speak gibberish as long as it make some sounds that will be called as speaking in tongues. They have a session during the worship for speaking in tongues only and they also speak in tongues after prayer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;According to them, church leaders must be rich. There was once the preacher speaking about a  poor pastor and he said that God didn't anoint him to become a pastor and that's why he's poor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are things that bothered me and I stopped going to that church. But my question is, should I condemn them? Or could it be another method that God uses to reach out to more believers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T19:43:38.003" LastActivityDate="2015-03-24T12:46:53.360" Title="Should I condemn a church that might be teaching wrong doctrine?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-03-26T03:44:42.650" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2385" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2393" CreationDate="2011-09-08T11:07:29.130" Score="9" ViewCount="690" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realise there's always a level of interpretation neccesary when reading anything, but the level of interpretation needed to understand the Bible is very high when compared to everyday reading - &lt;em&gt;some people spend their entire lives trying to understand what it means.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Example&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a friend says to me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to the shop, I will be back before 1PM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have a reason to interpret this statement as meaning 1PM tomorrow, or 1PM next week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We could compare this to Luke 21:32:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away&#xA;till all things take place&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This to me means that all the prophecies described in the bible would happen while the generation that Jesus spoke to was still alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it's often interpreted to mean something entirely different. Here is one Christian interpretation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This refers) to a future generation that sees the events He spoke of&#xA;prophetically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: I'm not asking specifically about this interpretation it's just an example - I'm asking in general why it is subject to a high level of interpretation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it because the Bible was written in another language, and we can't&#xA;assume it has been translated properly?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it because the Bible states&#xA;that it's not always to be taken literally?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Something else?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="277" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-03-07T08:21:59.723" Title="Why is the Bible subject to a high level of interpretation?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2385" CreationDate="2011-09-08T11:16:10.100" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most common Christian viewpoint is that the Bible is the infallible word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a particular part of it seems to contradict reality or another part of the Bible it must be the interpretation that is incorrect ergo there has to be an interpretation that makes sense (regardless of how obvious that interpretation is).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="277" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T11:16:10.100" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2385" CreationDate="2011-09-08T11:32:58.963" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible consists of many books from different times, in different languages. Every one of these books is very old, and comes from a culture very different from ours. Thus there are many reasons why the communication could fail -- i.e. we might misunderstand what a given passage was &lt;em&gt;meant&lt;/em&gt; to communicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare to the U.S. legislation, written in plain English quite recently. How many people make a living off of interpreting it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's more, Christians consider the Bible the Word of God. That makes it very interesting and gives a strong motivation for trying to understand it. That alone is enough for someone to commit their life to studying the Bible. Moreover, like &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2385/why-is-the-bible-subject-to-a-high-level-of-interpretation/2386#2386&quot;&gt;CiscoIPPhone's answer&lt;/a&gt; explains, those considering the Bible infallible don't believe there are any contradictions in the Bible -- so some will work &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; hard to explain any claimed contradictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T11:32:58.963" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2367" CreationDate="2011-09-08T11:34:18.193" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery#Revival_of_slavery_in_the_Early_Modern_Period&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery#Revival_of_slavery_in_the_Early_Modern_Period&lt;/a&gt;) (empasis is mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Before Columbus&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Portuguese sought confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a crusade. In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: &lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. In 1454 Pope Nicholas explicitly confirmed the rights granted to King Alfonso V in Dum Diversas in Romanus Pontifex by which he granted to Alfonso &amp;quot;...the rights of conquest and permissions previously granted not only to the territories already acquired but also those that might be acquired in the future&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In 1456, Pope Calixtus III confirmed these grants to the Kings of Portugal and they were renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481; and finally in 1514 Pope Leo repeated verbatim all these documents and approved, renewed and confirmed them.&#xA;These papal bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and European colonialism.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Spanish New World&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slavery was part of the indigenous cultures much before the landfall of the Europeans in America. After the Europeans made landfall in America in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella saw that, if Spain did not receive from the Pope in regard to the American &amp;quot;Indies&amp;quot; the same authority and permissions which Portugal had received in regard of West Africa, then Spain would be at a disadvantage in making use of her newly discovered territories. Accordingly &lt;strong&gt;Pope Alexander VI was approached and already on May 3, 1493 he issued two bulls on the same day in both of which he extended the identical favours, permissions, etc. granted to the Monarchy of Portugal in respect of West Africa to the Monarchy of Spain in respect of America.....and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery...wherever they may be&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the church was excited by the potential for huge numbers of conversions in the New World, &lt;strong&gt;the clergy sent there were often horrified by the methods used by the conquerors&lt;/strong&gt;, and tensions between church and state in the new lands grew rapidly&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;16th century - Slavery in Europe&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slavery in Europe, mainly around the Mediterranean, continued, and was increased by the increased size of Mediterranean navies to combat the powerful Ottoman navy. The main type of naval ship in the Mediterranean, unlike the Atlantic and Northern seas, was the galley, rowed by galley-slaves; use of the galley only declines from about 1600. The navy of the Papal States was no different from that of Venice, France, Genoa and other naval powers. Galley-slaves were recruited by criminal sentencing, usually for a term of years many never survived, as well as capture in war, mostly of Muslims, and sometimes the African slave-trade. Some of the Popes were personally involved in the purchase and use of galley-slaves.[86] The Ottoman admiral Turgut Reis was captured and made a Genoan galley-slave for nearly four years before being imprisoned and eventually ransomed in 1544. After the battle of Lepanto approximately 12,000 Christian galley slaves were freed from the Turks.[87]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1535 Pope Paul III removed the ability of slaves in Rome to claim freedom by reaching the Capitol Hill, although this was restored some years later. He &amp;quot;declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome&amp;quot;.[88]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In 1639 Pope Urban VIII forbade the slavery of the Indians of Brazil, Paraguay, and the West Indies, yet he purchased non-Indian slaves for himself&lt;/strong&gt; from the Knights of Malta,[89] probably for the Papal galleys. The Knights of Malta attacked pirates and Muslim shipping, and their base became a centre for slave trading, selling captured North Africans and Turks. Malta remained a slave market until well into the late 18th century. It required a thousand slaves to equip merely the galleys of the Order.[90][91]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that the Catholic Church certainly approved of mass slavery and even participated in it. Some clergymen who were sent to those countries were shocked by what they saw and did not really approve of it. But as far I can tell, the Church played a big role in slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might want to read the complete article on Wikipedia though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="293" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T13:18:34.427" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2363" CreationDate="2011-09-08T11:35:22.533" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2019:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 19:15(NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or&#xA;  offense they may have committed. &lt;strong&gt;A matter must be established by the&#xA;  testimony of two or three witnesses.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above verse is a biblical basis to understand a reason for the different gospels. Also the three first gospels were written with different audience in mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew&lt;/em&gt; wrote with Jews in mind, in Hebraic with Eusebius, Origen and scholar Jerome to testify this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mark&lt;/em&gt; wrote with non-Jews in mind. For example Latin terms are used, contains explanations that would not have been necessary for Jewish readers and also explain Semitic terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Luke&lt;/em&gt; wrote it for Theophilus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 1:1-3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John&lt;/em&gt; provide more information for events that the other Evangelizers don't say something. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorDisplayName="user14" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T14:14:31.377" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T14:14:31.377" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2368" CreationDate="2011-09-08T11:45:19.710" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Southern Baptist Convention is a formal denomination. They have a web site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is the American Baptist Convention.  Is that who you mean when you say Northen Baptists?  There's also the National Baptist Convention which happens to be a primarily African-American association. ABC and NBC also have web sites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please keep in mind that the Baptist traditions are free church traditions.  They got started in the USA when Roger Williams bailed out of theocratic Massachusetts to found Rhode Island with a driving principle of soul freedom.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free church?  Specifically, each congregation establishes their own covenant (statement of beliefs and practices).  Therefore, generalizing is quite difficult, and may lead you to unfaithful conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any congregation I've ever heard of is honored to talk to a visitor about their covenant. So ask!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to your question: Here is one little tidbit of difference between the SBC and the ABC.  A seminary teacher of mine, Prof. Mark Heim, is a member of the American Baptist Convention, and has represented them on the World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He taught very clearly that Holy Baptism is a universal rite for the whole church (across denominations, traditions, languages, and customs) according to Ephesians 4:4-6 (&quot;one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.&quot;)  He taught that when one congregation honors baptism administered in another congregation it's good for Christian unity. And the ABC suggests that for their congregations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the SBC, at least according to an answer here on this site, recommends that congregations sometimes rebaptize.  See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/203/do-any-major-denominations-refuse-to-recognize-holy-baptism-in-other-denomination/555#555&quot;&gt;Do any major denominations refuse to recognize Holy Baptism in other denominations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that is a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T11:45:19.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2385" CreationDate="2011-09-08T11:47:27.813" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is subject to several different types of interpretation and criticism. This is for various reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was originally written in languages that are no longer spoken. The ancient Greek and Hebrew that it was written in are similar but dramatically different than the current forms of those languages (languages morph and change over time).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Translation from one language into another is not a lossless conversion process. You can lose some of the meaning and significance in the translation from the source material. You can also introduce noise into the new copy through lingual nuance. This is why so many different English translations of the Bible exist; reading several translations will often give a clearer picture, but sometimes you just have to go back to the original language.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was written for and by ancient cultures that we share very little cultural reference with.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was written over a great deal of time by a variety of people in a variety of places on a changing cultural landscape.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's a piece of historical literature and thus subject to the same interpretation and criticism as all historical literature is subject to. Pages and volumes of ink has been spilled on Chaucer and Shakespeare, in more recent times, and Plato, Aristotle and Josephus in more ancient ones.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is considered to be the word of God. If God spoke it then it should be examined carefully to see what it says.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is considered to be &quot;living&quot; meaning that it is constantly applicable to our daily lives, even though it was written ages ago. To emphasize this Hebrews 4:12-13(NIV) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T11:58:44.710" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T11:58:44.710" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2385" CreationDate="2011-09-08T12:13:33.753" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every text is subject to interpretation at some level. The deeper the subject matter, the more this is true. The Constitution of the United States has been interpreted many different ways, and people argue about its meaning even today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other answers regarding language, culture, and time all contribute to the problem. The fact that the text is considered by many interpreters to be infallible adds another dynamic: an interpretation of one part of the Bible cannot contradict the meaning of another part. Actually, I find this to be a help in interpretation. A difficult passage may be explained by other parts of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T12:13:33.753" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2370" CreationDate="2011-09-08T12:17:04.457" Score="10" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Justification&lt;/strong&gt; - being &lt;em&gt;declared&lt;/em&gt; perfect, a single act of Grace by God to the repentant sinner&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sanctification&lt;/strong&gt; - the process of &lt;em&gt;being made&lt;/em&gt; perfect, a day by day activity of God and the Christian working in partnership&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Glorification&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;em&gt;becoming&lt;/em&gt; perfect, the moment when the struggle is over, heaven is entered and God completes his masterpiece: You.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Relevant Biblical verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2012:2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 12:2&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;emphasis mine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the &lt;strong&gt;author&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;perfecter&lt;/strong&gt; of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;author&lt;/strong&gt; means He started and continued it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;perfecter&lt;/strong&gt; means He finished it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T12:17:04.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2396" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4924" CreationDate="2011-09-08T12:46:09.973" Score="19" ViewCount="9604" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mark 10:8 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this mean for a marriage?  What are the practical applications of this?  Obviously, this is an analogy, but what is it trying to signify?  Does sex play a role in this &quot;becoming one flesh&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;a hint:&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that the needs of one will become the needs of the other?  Or that the happiness or sadness of one will become the happiness and sadness of the other? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T14:10:55.433" LastActivityDate="2012-11-12T06:18:05.303" Title="What are the practical applications of &quot;two will become one flesh&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-06-02T05:14:24.697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2339" CreationDate="2011-09-08T12:55:24.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once heard a preacher claim that this was one of the miracles of Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly there's no biblical basis for this, but the idea that a man would drop everything, leave his father's house and family business (possibly putting his family in hardship), and follow someone who just walked up and said &quot;follow me&quot; seems pretty miraculous to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T12:55:24.227" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2396" CreationDate="2011-09-08T13:41:28.967" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my view, this is saying that husband and wife should work together for the same goals.&#xA;This goes back to the very beginning when God made Eve from Adam's flesh as a helper&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:20-24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 The man said,&#xA;      “This is now bone of my bones &#xA;     and flesh of my flesh; &#xA;  she shall be called ‘woman,’ &#xA;     for she was taken out of man.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God didn't create us to labor alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%204:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 4:9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Two are better than one, &#xA;     because they have a good return for their labor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when we get married, we have to merge our goals and work through life together. This doesn't mean that the married couple will always see eye-to-eye. That's the beauty of God's design: we see things in different ways to accomplish the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when we disagree on something, we don't go to our friends and complain about the other spouse. A married couple should always having each others' interests in mind. Agree on which path to take together and present a unified front to the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way I've found to agree on a chosen course is to talk it through, then pray about it with each other. Listen for God's response. Don't dismiss the other's misgivings as trivial, for it could be God's answer to your prayer (even if you don't like the answer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes, I believe if you work together long enough towards the same ends, then yes, your happiness and sadness are linked (though I doubt my wife will be sad if Alabama doesn't do well this year).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="19" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T13:46:46.760" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T13:46:46.760" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2415" CreationDate="2011-09-08T13:53:49.293" Score="20" ViewCount="1807" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that early in the formation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, polygamy was common.  It's my understanding that it was an &lt;strong&gt;everlasting&lt;/strong&gt; command from God to Joseph Smith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng&quot;&gt;Doctrine &amp;amp; Covenants 132&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the covenant is everlasting, why did the Mormons stop practicing polygamy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T19:53:24.523" LastActivityDate="2015-05-28T20:29:13.500" Title="Why did Mormons stop practicing polygamy?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;doctrine-and-covenants&gt;&lt;polygamy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2405" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2419" CreationDate="2011-09-08T14:35:34.763" Score="9" ViewCount="11434" Body="&lt;p&gt;I thought that God once walked on the earth as we do now, but I can't find that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;in the bible&lt;/a&gt;, offhand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought that Joseph Smith taught that he walked with us and was once a man.  What bible verses did he use to show this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where does that teaching come from?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="384" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T04:58:03.743" LastActivityDate="2014-01-06T06:28:57.157" Title="What passages support that God once walked the earth as a man?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2315" CreationDate="2011-09-08T14:39:29.667" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The general consensus, following Paul's teaching, seems to be that marriage is good but celibacy is better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tertullian may have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.v.i.iii.html&quot;&gt;the first to write about it&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In short, there is no place at all where we read that nuptials are prohibited; of course on the ground that they are “a good thing.”  What, however, is better than this “good,” we learn from the apostle, who permits marrying indeed, but prefers abstinence; the former on account of the insidiousnesses of temptations, the latter on account of the straits of the times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chrysostom, in his homily on 1 Timothy 3, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.xi.html&quot;&gt;explains the biblical rules for bishops&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“A Bishop then,” he says, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He later elaborates:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If then “he who is married cares for the things of the world”, and a Bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say the husband of one wife? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that hath a wife may be as though he had none. For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, so to regulate his conduct. For as riches make it difficult to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, yet rich men have often entered in, so it is with marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He adds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh”; and Christ again says, “Whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath, he is not worthy of Me.” Why are not these things required by Paul? Plainly because few could be found of such a character, and there was need of many Bishops, that one might preside in every city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Chrysostom agrees that celibacy is better, but regards monogamous marriage as a practical alternative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidently in Augustine's time, a monk named Jovinian wrote that celibacy was no better than marriage. Augustine responded with a treatise, &lt;em&gt;On Holy Virginity&lt;/em&gt;, then, fearing he might be misunderstood, wrote another, &lt;em&gt;On the Good of Marriage&lt;/em&gt;. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.augnet.org/default.asp?ipageid=1352&quot;&gt;secondary source, can't find link to originals&lt;/a&gt;.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T14:39:29.667" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2405" CreationDate="2011-09-08T14:45:17.837" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:1&lt;/a&gt; we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus is God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then reading this a bit further, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:14&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us&lt;/strong&gt;. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarise: Jesus (God) became flesh and made his dwelling among us (walked on Earth).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, however, you are referring to &lt;em&gt;God the Father&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;The Holy Spirit&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;on Earth, please add a comment and I will add those verses (but then He is not described, &quot;as a man&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't accept Jesus was God, please see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/82&quot;&gt;Was Jesus a separate god?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78&quot;&gt;How do we know Jesus is God incarnate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T15:13:51.317" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2405" CreationDate="2011-09-08T14:54:37.803" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not familiar with Mormon doctrine, so I'm not sure where you're going with your line of questioning, but I'll try to answer the two questions you posed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is God Eternal?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following scriptures describe God as eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 33:27&lt;/strong&gt; The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are&#xA;  the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before&#xA;  thee; and shall say, Destroy them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I Timothy 1:17&lt;/strong&gt; Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the&#xA;  only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did God Walk on the Earth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Genesis, God came and walked with Adam in the cool of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:8&lt;/strong&gt; And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the&#xA;  garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves&#xA;  from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Exodus God revealed Himself to Moses as a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 33:22-23&lt;/strong&gt; And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by,&#xA;  that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with&#xA;  my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou&#xA;  shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T14:54:37.803" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2326" CreationDate="2011-09-08T14:56:20.470" Score="9" Body="&lt;h2&gt;You are nothing&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have been created for Christ, a gift from the Father to the Son. And you have turned your back on your creator and become His enemy. You would rather love this world and everything in it then even show respect to your creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 4:4&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world&#xA;means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend&#xA;of the world becomes an enemy of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are a filthy. You drink down iniquity like it was water. Spitting your filthy language at every passer by. You stink of iniquity like one who has just soiled himself. You are nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 64:6&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous&#xA;acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the&#xA;wind our sins sweep us away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 15:16&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How much less man, who is abominable and filthy, Who drinks iniquity&#xA;like water!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Christ is Everything&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the Word of God. From the depths of ones heart comes the language to show who that person really is. God is Love and so from the depths of God's heart, He has spoken Jesus to the World.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all&#xA;creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and&#xA;that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions&#xA;or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and&#xA;for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things&#xA;consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the&#xA;beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have&#xA;the preeminence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 147:5&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great is our Lord, and mighty in power;His understanding is infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You cannot begin to fathom the supremacy and the value that Christ has over all of creation. Everything that has been created does not stand up to the value of Christ. As all of creation is a mere gift from the father to the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;And Yet Christ Died&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You being worth nothing and Christ being worth everything, and yet, Christ died for you. As a King would throw himself to wolves in order to save a slave. As the Holiest of Hollies would even consider to think of your existence, Christ has humbled Himself and was lead to the cross to die for a filthy people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:12&lt;/strong&gt; KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat&#xA;down at the right hand of God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You were on a path to destruction, having stored up Gods wrath for yourself on the day of judgement. Yet Christ died for you. He took your law-place and stands at the foot of God being subjected to all of the curses and all of the damnation and all of the full wrath of God. For you. An unclean man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ died and was subjected to the punishment that you were doomed to receive. He shed tears of blood knowing the kind of wrath that He was to bear on your behalf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;..And yet you continue to sin, as if Christ died in vain, as if what Christ did was worth nothing. As if you had a chance to discharge the wrath of God yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are worth nothing, but Christ stood under the pillar of God and was crushed in your place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T07:33:59.083" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2410" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T14:56:48.517" Score="15" ViewCount="7043" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find this wording interesting in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 5:24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; (my emphasis)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, &lt;strong&gt;because God took him away.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, this means God took Enoch to heaven. So, because &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2138/how-could-god-be-around-satan/2186#2186&quot;&gt;sinful mortals can't be around God&lt;/a&gt; does this imply that Enoch was sinless?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="19" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2016-09-30T23:08:29.703" Title="Was Enoch sinless?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;enoch&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-10-03T20:20:17.533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2314" CreationDate="2011-09-08T14:57:25.557" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) differs substantially from the other answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The differences start at the very beginning.  The LDS faith teaches that creation &lt;em&gt;ex nihilo&lt;/em&gt; is a false concept, and that God instead organized the world out of matter that was &quot;without form&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/1.2?lang=eng#1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen 1:2&lt;/a&gt;, more &lt;a href=&quot;http://fairmormon.org/Mormon_view_of_the_creation/Creatio_ex_nihilo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;info and discussion here&lt;/a&gt;).  This is understood to be matter that was unorganized, chaotic, etc of which there is an &lt;em&gt;infinite&lt;/em&gt; amount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along the same lines, the Doctrine and Covenants, which is regarded as canon in the LDS Church, teaches that &quot;the elements are eternal&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.33?lang=eng#32&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 93:33&lt;/a&gt;), and that matter &quot;was not created or made, neither indeed can be&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.29?lang=eng#28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 93:29&lt;/a&gt;) (in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how this applies to God, the Doctrine and Covenants teach that &quot;The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng#21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 130:22&lt;/a&gt;).  Bodies are made of matter, and matter is energy, thus God is made of energy, just like you and I are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T14:57:25.557" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2410" CreationDate="2011-09-08T15:00:51.710" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. Enoch sinned just like the rest of us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was taken to heaven because Christ's righteousness was imputed to him, just like it is imputed to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ's death and resurrection saved all believers past and present, there is no need for any other explanation of righteousness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T15:00:51.710" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2371" CreationDate="2011-09-08T15:06:50.280" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:24-25&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and&#xA;  good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the&#xA;  habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you&#xA;  see the Day approaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of meeting together is so that we can learn as Iron sharpens Iron, and spur one another toward love and good deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:44-46&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45&#xA;  They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46&#xA;  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They&#xA;  broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere&#xA;  hearts,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Live not as if you are a part of this world, but commune together with other believers so that the love of God can flourish among you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T15:06:50.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2414" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2416" CreationDate="2011-09-08T15:09:42.270" Score="12" ViewCount="9317" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of emphasis seems to be placed on the virginity of Mary.  (For discussion on that, see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2288/how-do-we-know-mary-was-a-virgin-at-the-time-of-jesus-conception&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a theological reason why Jesus's birth had to be a virgin birth?  Obviously God could have chosen a non-virgin to be the mother of Christ, so why did God choose a virgin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2015-07-21T00:17:15.610" Title="Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-05-08T22:21:45.257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2399" CreationDate="2011-09-08T15:13:50.130" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look further through the chapter, every place where the words &quot;everlasting covenant&quot; are used, it's speaking of marriage in general, and not specifically of plural marriage.  The idea is that marriage itself is an everlasting covenant, not &quot;until death do you part,&quot; but for all eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for why the practice of plural marriage was discontinued, an explanation can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng&quot;&gt;here,&lt;/a&gt; given directly by Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the Church, under whose leadership the practice was ended.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first part is a formal announcement to the world that the Mormons are done with polygamy; the second part, given some time later, was an explanation for church members of the rationale behind it.  He explains that the Lord revealed to him that political opposition would end up driving the church underground and cause the temples to be closed by force.  This would put an end to the work therein, which the LDS regard as sacred and of great importance.  Also, it would have forced an end to the practice of plural marriage as understood by the LDS anyway, as plural marriages were required to be performed in the temple.  In order to preserve the rest of the work, which the Lord saw as more important than continuing the practice of plural marriage, he instructed the church to stop practicing plural marriage and comply with the laws of the land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T17:45:45.943" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T17:45:45.943" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2414" CreationDate="2011-09-08T15:15:48.160" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems as if my answer on this post would also answer your question here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/708/is-marys-virginity-evidence-that-sex-is-always-sinful/709#709&quot;&gt;Is Mary&amp;#39;s virginity evidence that sex is always sinful?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe that Mary's virgin Birth was a testification to the Truth of&#xA;  Christ. Could you imagine what the Catholic church would have done&#xA;  with the Husband? &quot;Father of God&quot; I'm sure that would have been&#xA;  completely chaotic. Who's really the father of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Well, we know through the virgin birth that only God the Father is the&#xA;  Father of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T15:31:06.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2405" CreationDate="2011-09-08T15:27:29.547" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;LDS doctrine is not very clear on this point.  The general idea is that scriptures and revelations given to us pertain to us, to this world and the history and the future of its inhabitants, and not the broader aspects of eternity, whatever they may be.  That knowledge  is sufficient to guide us to our salvation, while going beyond that, especially when we don't even have a proper vocabulary to express infinite concepts, would only serve to distract and confuse us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith taught that God once walked with man, just as it says in the first few chapters of Genesis.  There's nothing particularly unusual there.  He also taught that God was once a man as we are, but the two points are separate.  There's very little doctrine available on that point, but it's safe to assume that whenever that happened was long before the creation of this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T15:27:29.547" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2405" CreationDate="2011-09-08T15:37:47.673" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a preface, this doctrine is considered relatively &amp;quot;deep doctrine&amp;quot;, which is a term in LDS theology that describes doctrines that are held to be true, but have no impact on our salvation. Other doctrines (not deep) include baptism, faith, repentance, remission of sins, etc as outlined by the 13 articles of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS canon consists of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Bible (Old Testament and New Testament)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Book of Mormon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doctrine and Covenants&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pearl of Great Price- books of Abraham and Moses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Doctrine and Covenants gives the clearest explanation of some of these matters, and I've also referenced the words of past leaders of the LDS Church, which are held to be authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Assumptions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer this question, a few assumptions must be made:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God progresses eternally (other answers show scriptures about the eternal nature of God)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Man is the literal offspring of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Man can progress eternally&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To prove the first, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/god-eternal-nature-of?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this guide on God's eternal nature&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.33-35?lang=eng#32&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moses 1:33-35&lt;/a&gt;, which is part of the Pearl of Great Price:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this creation is His progression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To prove the second two, &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/8.17?lang=eng#16&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:17&lt;/a&gt; is very helpful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-potential-to-become-like-heavenly-father?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;guide for Man's potential to be like God&lt;/a&gt; is also very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God has a physical body, as tangible as man's&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we must assert that God has a body.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-body-of-corporeal-nature?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;guide concerning God's body&lt;/a&gt; details a lot of evidences, both in the Bible and in other books in the LDS canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most clear manifestation of God's physical body comes in a revelation to &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng#21&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Joseph Smith in 1843&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, there are other verses that hint at God's physical body, but this is the most clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you know, God the Father is rarely mentioned. The classic mention of God being a spirit is &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/4.24?lang=eng#23&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 4:24&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse should be coupled with &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.33?lang=eng#32&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a revelation to Joseph Smith&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see that spirit is not meant literally. We consist of two parts, body and spirit. The spirit is the literal child of God, and the body is the created vessel that we inherited from our parents. In this sense we are spirits inhabiting a physical body, and in this sense God is technically a spirit.  But God is also a soul, consisting of a spirit and a body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ &amp;quot;gives up the ghost&amp;quot;, that means that his spirit is leaving his physical body. Many other churches don't believe this way, but this is standard doctrine, itself defensible, that does not fit the scope of the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God was once as man&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we get to dive into deeper doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple passages taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irr.org/mit/finessing-god-once-a-man.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;another site&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us.... (“King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol. 6, 305-307, emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing (The Gospel Through the Ages, 1945, p 104).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These were given by different prophets (or LDS leaders) att different times (separated by 100 or so years). The words of living prophets is accepted as doctrine and scripture, just like the words in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also makes logical sense. Our eternal nature is to become &amp;quot;like God&amp;quot;. How can we be &amp;quot;like God&amp;quot; without having our own worlds and children? That is the aim of every LDS. This does not mean that man can ever become greater than or equal to God. God is always progressing, and we have the ability to eternally progress, so long as we are diligent in this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to God's position as a man, we have no idea, only speculation. The foremost theories are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God was as Adam, created by a different God on a different world&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God was as Christ, the savior for his time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God was as us, a regular person who attained perfection&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is difficult to defend, because Christ's Atonement is considered Eternal, but this may be the same sense in which God is Eternal. Eternal may not mean &amp;quot;forever&amp;quot;; it may just mean a really long time (like millions of years or something). Eternal is generally accepted as meaning the opposite of temporal, or lasting beyond the grave.  This definition is also debated, with some scholars giving figures as to what Eternal represents, and is more fitting for a separate question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T16:46:44.280" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="305" CreationDate="2011-09-08T15:45:07.267" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Anglican church, in 1930, was the first protestant church to officially condone birth control, and the others followed quickly thereafter. Probably that is due to the lack of any explicit Biblical condemnation. The Catholic argument against birth control is based on natural law, which tends to be much less persuasive to protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, Protestants do have a long pre-modern history of opposing attempts to avoid the procreative aspect of sex. The primary biblical example that is used to support the view that contraception is sinful is the sin of Onan:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 38:8-10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill&#xA;  your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your&#xA;  brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever&#xA;  he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground&#xA;  to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was&#xA;  wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most modern protestants question whether Onan's sin was birth control &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, or his refusal to fulfill his obligation to his brother's wife. But here are Luther, Calvin, and Wesley on Onan:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-01-040-f&quot;&gt;Luther&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Onan... must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is&#xA;  a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and&#xA;  adultery. We call it unchastity, yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in&#xA;  to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to&#xA;  the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-01-040-f&quot;&gt;Calvin&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and&#xA;  woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in&#xA;  order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this&#xA;  is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born&#xA;  the hoped-for offspring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp&quot;&gt;Wesley&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the&#xA;  evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did&#xA;  displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of&#xA;  single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and&#xA;  destroy their own souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T15:50:42.390" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T15:50:42.390" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2314" CreationDate="2011-09-08T16:06:04.003" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I concur with most of the answers here: fundamentally, God is not a part of the universe, nor is He subject to its laws. His interaction is at-will and in any way that he chooses. Such interaction will involve energy of some kind, but it is not necessarily energy that is transformed from one form to another. By its nature, divine interaction with the universe involves external modification, so energy is being either added or removed from the system. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bigger question is whether or not Christianity and science stand apart, linked, or in opposition. Your statement in a comment to another answer was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have only within the last year or so come to realize the truth of your statement. I was raised to believe that Christians were very interested in the truth and that they thought science supported their beliefs. I now see that it is much more a matter of their beliefs standing in contrast to science and taking from science only when forced to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can understand the source of this belief, but its premise is flawed. &quot;Truth&quot; is an abstract concept, and one that science does not deal with directly. Science gives us the means to measure and, using those measurements, extrapolate conclusions, but these measurements (and certainly the conclusions) are always subject to refinement. &quot;Truth&quot;, if your philosophy permits such a thing, is immutable. It represents the state of things as they &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt;, not as we can observe them to be. This goes back to your other question regarding omnicience vs. the HUP; God has &lt;em&gt;truth&lt;/em&gt;, we have observation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our beliefs do not stand in opposition or in contrast to science. Yes, you'll certainly find Christians (or groups of them) that believe some things that are scientifically improbable, implausible, or even downright provably false. Some of these Christians hold these items to be doctrinally essential and will go to the grave fighting against you. Others will recognize the context in which they were written and reconcile their beliefs with our best intellectual efforts. God has given us intellect, and it behooves us to use it. That being said, things like miracles stand, by definition, &lt;em&gt;outside&lt;/em&gt; of the realm of science. It's not that they're in opposition, but rather that they deal with two different things. Miracles are God interacting with the universe directly, and all bets are off when it comes to explaining them from a scientific basis &lt;em&gt;because they aren't&lt;/em&gt;. Asking a Christian to explain the nature of miracles in a scientific context is a strawman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="298" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T16:06:04.003" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2410" CreationDate="2011-09-08T16:08:56.687" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best answer that I've ever heard was from Paul Washer who said this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Enoch walked with God for so long that when it was time to go home, God said: &quot;You know what Enoch, you've been walking with me for so long, look we're closer to my home then yours. Why don't you just come home with me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that All men have sinned and all men fall short of the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But faith (trust) in Christ and love for others is what pleases the lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-11T06:14:23.413" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T06:14:23.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2206" CreationDate="2011-09-08T16:44:55.470" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I figure I'd chime in with another perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;body- physical body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;spirit- spiritual body (same form as physical, but not tangible)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;soul- union of body/spirit or a synonym with spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical basis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:7&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many cases in the Bible, this idea is not clear. I believe that in many cases, usage of the word &quot;soul&quot; actually means &quot;spirit&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know we have a spirit (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:16&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know we have a spirit that the Lord can commune with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, only LDS theology accepts the word soul to mean the union of spirit and body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many other congregations teach that the word soul is synonymous with spirit.  Essentially, many Christian denominations believe in a bipartite view of man, spirit/soul and body. While not authoritative, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/tripartite-bipartite-44280/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; can be helpful in seeing what others believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T16:44:55.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="633" CreationDate="2011-09-08T16:52:51.587" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Arians were very good at using the same (Biblical) language as orthodox Christians, but meaning entirely different things by them. The language in the Creed had to be so specific that it removes all wiggle room. I think I can hear, in the creed, the frustration of someone so upset with Arian double-speak that they pound orthodoxy home with some conceptual overlap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, the two statements do affirm different things about Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;eternally begotten of the Father&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, the Son is eternal. He was not begotten at some point in time, and there was not a time when he did not exist. But this does not mean, by itself, that Jesus was the same type of being as God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;begotten, not made&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I think your C.S. Lewis quote applies. Jesus is not a creature, he is not part of the creation. Contra the Arians, &lt;em&gt;begotten&lt;/em&gt; does not mean &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt;. The other clauses (&lt;em&gt;true God from true God&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;one in Being with the Father&lt;/em&gt;, etc.) explain what it means to be begotten as distinct from created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T16:52:51.587" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-08T16:56:20.880" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament day of rest was a prefigure for the rest we have in Christ. As the author of Hebrews says, we &quot;cease from our own works&quot; every day (see Galatians 5:19-21), not just on a particular day of the week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 4:8-10&lt;/strong&gt; King James Version (KJV)&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have&#xA;  spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people&#xA;  of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from&#xA;  his own works, as God did from his.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians do not worship on the Sabbath, we live in the Sabbath, because every day in Christ is a day of rest. Christians hold worship services on Sunday in honor of the resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MARK 16:9&lt;/strong&gt; Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he&#xA;  appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven&#xA;  devils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I spend Sunday mornings and evenings at church, and the rest of the day in fellowship with other Christians. There isn't time to mow the lawn, clean the car, etc. The Pharisees around the time of Christ had strict laws against, for example, carrying a stick too far on the Sabbath. They even accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath laws for healing people! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LUKE 6:7&lt;/strong&gt; And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would&#xA;  heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against&#xA;  him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should you work on Sundays? I defer to Paul...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 14:5-7&lt;/strong&gt; One man esteemeth one day above another: another&#xA;  esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own&#xA;  mind.  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he&#xA;  that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that&#xA;  eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that&#xA;  eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.  For&#xA;  none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="292" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T15:26:41.543" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T15:26:41.543" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2429" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T17:09:05.803" Score="12" ViewCount="494" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible guide us to break into denominations? There are plenty of verses about unity and the church but then there's the 12 tribes of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a biblical standpoint, are denominations our way of making Christianity fit our needs or are they options that are meant to attract more people to different parts of Christianity? Does the Bible approve of denominations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user77" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T00:50:09.937" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T00:50:09.937" Title="Was Christianity intended to have denominations?" Tags="&lt;denomination&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2018-12-02T00:49:55.960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2430" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T17:12:23.473" Score="10" ViewCount="1285" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I can understand it, Paul directly contradicts the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation in Romans 3 &amp;amp; 4 (see verses 3:21-22, 3:28, 4:4-6 in particular, but I'm referring to the broad argument of the whole section).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Roman Catholics interpret what Paul is saying here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For clarification, I understand that Catholic doctrine is nothing if not nuanced, and it's not accurate to just dismiss it as &quot;works salvation&quot;. Salvation on that view is &quot;by grace alone&quot;, but (as far as I understand) not &quot;by faith alone&quot; - rather, God gives us grace to perform the meritorious works that earn our salvation. It's the &quot;faith alone&quot; part that I think Paul is hammering home here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T17:27:16.273" LastActivityDate="2015-03-14T19:47:04.013" Title="How do Roman Catholics understand salvation in light of Romans 3&amp;4?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;justification&gt;&lt;grace&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2325" CreationDate="2011-09-08T17:22:03.803" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think the reformation really had any effect on Church doctrine, except for defining private interpretation more concretely as the heresy that it is.  It had relatively no effect on parish life until relatively recently (with the exception of those tossed out of church steeples during the 30 years war and in honor of it).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic I can point to a few 'fruits of the reformation' that actually improved the spiritual lives of Catholics.  We read the bible more, and appreciate Protestant scholarship.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in America, much of our worship is indirectly influenced by Protestant traditions culminating with our loose interpretations of the outcomes of the Second Vatican council (1960's).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestantism gave a home to lapsed Catholics who didn't want to abandon Our Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY6.TXT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A good read&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T17:22:03.803" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2430" CreationDate="2011-09-08T17:31:30.790" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially it boils down to that we are saved by grace alone, but that salvation results in such a change of heart that good works must result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Salvation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (all emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27.The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. &lt;strong&gt;Persons are justified through baptism as hearers of the word and believers in it&lt;/strong&gt;. The justification of sinners is &lt;strong&gt;forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace&lt;/strong&gt;, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him. This new personal relation to God is &lt;strong&gt;grounded totally on God's graciousness and remains constantly dependent on the salvific and creative working of this gracious God&lt;/strong&gt;, who remains true to himself, so that one can rely upon him. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal over against God. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the renewal of life by justifying grace, this renewal in faith, hope, and love is always dependent on God's unfathomable grace and contributes nothing to justification about which one could boast before God (Rom 3:27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and later in the same document:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;37.We confess together that &lt;strong&gt;good works&lt;/strong&gt; - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - &lt;strong&gt;follow justification and are its fruits&lt;/strong&gt;. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;38.According to Catholic understanding, &lt;strong&gt;good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace&lt;/strong&gt;, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the &amp;quot;meritorious&amp;quot; character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their &lt;strong&gt;intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions&lt;/strong&gt;, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T22:19:02.960" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2429" CreationDate="2011-09-08T17:46:57.783" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 12 tribes of Israel were separate but still part of God's one people, and part of the family of God. I would consider them more analogous to different traditions in a church (different cultural practices under the same theology), but not denominations (which remain separate because of theological differences, primarily).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus prayed that we may be one (John 17:20-23). The analogy of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) and being one, as well as the analogy of the vine and the branches (John 15:5) also indicate that we are to be together, and not separated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Denominations have split off because of human sin in general (with culpability on all sides), and not because it was Biblically appropriate. There was one church in the first centuries. It is because of human sin that people broke away. That is why we pray for unity and encourage interdenominational dialogue and reconciliation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="268" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T18:45:02.927" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T18:45:02.927" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2435" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-08T18:06:16.337" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6956/10672&quot;&gt;this Meta discussion&lt;/a&gt; for more guidance on when to use this tag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10672" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-20T00:22:11.767" LastActivityDate="2020-06-20T00:22:11.767" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2436" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-08T18:06:16.337" Score="0" Body="The differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).  Use this tag for questions which focus on the APPLICATION of an ethical standard to particular situations.  Use this tag when it's the parameters of the SITUATION rather than the standard itself that prompted the question.  Use the &quot;ethics&quot; tag instead for questions on the standard itself, rather than the situation." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="10672" LastEditDate="2020-06-20T00:22:38.373" LastActivityDate="2020-06-20T00:22:38.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2414" CreationDate="2011-09-08T18:06:40.313" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception Proclaimed infallibly by Pope Pius IX in 1854 sums up the theological reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin, it was necessary for her to be free from the stain of original sin.  If she was not a virgin, she would have sinned in some way on account of the fact that she was espoused to Joseph, but had not yet known him.  She didn't 'know' him for a reason.  It's reasonable to suppose that they were in some sort of period of betrothal before an official marriage, when sexual relations would have been an occasion of sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why we know she was sinless:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She is often referred to as the new Eve by the early church fathers.  Eve was made free from original sin and it was through her and Adam that sin entered the world. Mary likewise would have to be free from original sin to be the Mother of God in order for redemption to enter the world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She is a living tabernacle, the holy of holies, when Jesus was within her.  Nothing impure could contain Him and live. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She is told she is 'full of grace' by an angelic witness who would not lie or mince words before the Incarnation of Jesus. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More info&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T18:06:40.313" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2438" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T18:18:24.957" Score="12" ViewCount="2304" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lots of Christian Rock songs have a curious metaphor about &quot;Lifting Your Name&quot;.  Is this a direct reference to the words of St. Paul, &lt;code&gt;that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend&lt;/code&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/philippians/philippians2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phil 2:10&lt;/a&gt;)?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, is it said in reference to the previous line, that Jesus died on the cross and because of that God exalted him?  I'm thinking since exalted = &quot;lift&quot; and the next line mentions Jesus's Holy Name, so put 'em together and you have a nice exhortation for all believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, is &quot;Lifting Your Name&quot; a prayer of blessing to God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-21T02:13:10.867" LastActivityDate="2016-08-18T13:51:40.777" Title="&quot;I will lift Your Name&quot;" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2438" CreationDate="2011-09-08T18:21:26.233" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;In history, a name has far more significance than in modern western culture, where it has been relegated to simple a &quot;handle&quot; by which you identify someone.  It used to be significant of the &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt;, and their character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of lifting someone's name is to exalt that person.  So when we lift the name of Jesus, we are exalting him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider also, the idea of acting in someone else's name - that is acting with their authority by proxy, as if that other person were actually present.  &quot;Open up, in the name of the King!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, consider too, &quot;Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the &lt;strong&gt;name&lt;/strong&gt; of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2012-02-22T08:26:08.770" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T08:26:08.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2011-09-08T18:31:49.087" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I ask this a bit tongue in cheek. But why do Christians have to make arguments starting from atheism? &lt;strong&gt;It seems obvious to me that God exists. However,&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rationalists' view of argumentation is that one presents statements that logically cohere and are backed up by evidence that anyone can, in principle, confirm.  That something &quot;seems obvious&quot; is not always sufficient for justified belief; after all, it might seem obvious that the Earth is not moving, when in fact it is rotating at 1,000 mph.  I mention this point because it helps set up the answer to your question...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those with a rationalist view (e.g. Bertrand Russell) would say that for &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; claim, the burden of proof of that claim is on the person who makes it.  If I were to say there is a dragon living in my basement, if I wish to be believed, the burden would be on me to show evidence for that.  But the same would be true if I claimed it were merely my Aunt Tilly living in my (furnished) basement.  The only difference here is that in the second case, others would be much more willing to give me the benefit of the doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, a rationalist would say, it is sensible for the burden of proof to be on the claimant.  Whether that claim is for the existence of a god, space aliens, magic, the virtues of whole life insurance, the health giving properties of vitamin D, or whatever.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, atheism is the default position.  But keep in mind, &quot;atheism&quot; can mean, depending on who you ask, either:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Absence of a belief in any god(s).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Presence of a belief that there is no god(s)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those two aren't the same.  Russell and other rationalists would say that the only the first sort of atheists escape the burden of proof and thus the burden is on the Christian claimant to give them reason to have a belief in a god(s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastEditorUserId="361" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T01:15:55.843" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T01:15:55.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1630" CreationDate="2011-09-08T18:41:51.707" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eliyah.com/proof.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Why the Heavenly Father's name is pronounced, &quot;Yahweh&quot;&lt;/a&gt; supports &quot;Yahweh&quot; as the correct name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eliyah.com/jhovah.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What about Jehovah?&lt;/a&gt; has reasons why &quot;Jehovah&quot; is incorrect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrew doesn't have a J sound.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Masoretes replaced vowels.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Names have Yah and not Jeh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hovah means ruin and mischief.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a quote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some Christians, especially Jehovah's witnesses, use this name for the&#xA;  Heavenly Father. However, every scholar and every reference book I&#xA;  have ever checked on &quot;Jehovah&quot; (including Jehovah's witness tracts)&#xA;  has said that this is not the way you pronounce His name! First of all&#xA;  it is impossible because of the fact that the Hebrew language has no&#xA;  &quot;J&quot; sound! According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1991 under the&#xA;  heading &quot;Yahweh&quot;, here is how this name came into being:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to&#xA;  reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels&#xA;  of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew word Adonai or&#xA;  Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So we see here one of many confirmations that the name Jehovah is not&#xA;  really His name at all! But it is a artificial name that was invented&#xA;  by man. Does man have the right to change the name of the one who&#xA;  created him? I think not! But that is exactly what has happened here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now let's look a little more deeply into this name Jehovah. Notice&#xA;  that many Hebrew names contain the first part of Yahweh's name which&#xA;  is Yah. This is true in the name Isa-YAH (Hebrew: YeshaYAH), which&#xA;  means &quot;Yah is Salvation&quot;. Also in Jeremi-Yah (Hebrew: YermeYAH),&#xA;  Obadiah, Zechariah, and so on. Taking this knowledge, apply this to&#xA;  the name Je-hovah with Jeh being the first part of His name. First of&#xA;  all it doesn't add up when it comes to the names of these prophets.&#xA;  (Isaiah's name isn't IsaJEH) Second, the Hovah part of Je-hovah means&#xA;  RUIN and MISCHIEF in Hebrew according to Strong's Concordance #1943:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;#1943 Hovah, another form for 1942; RUIN:-MISCHIEF&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yaim.org/web/literature/sacred-names/themissingj.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;THE MISSING J&lt;/a&gt; has more about the letter J and the J sound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-10-27T20:50:30.687" LastActivityDate="2014-10-27T20:50:30.687" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1942" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:06:10.163" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mysticism leads one to union or unity. There are many ways to achieve this union. Remember Jesus said,&quot;I and the Lord are One.&quot; If one uses Christian symbols and the teachings of Jesus to achieve this spiritual state then it is called Christian mysticism. For more information visit: &lt;a href=&quot;http://thinkunity.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christian Mysticism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="597" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-08-25T22:39:11.127" LastActivityDate="2016-08-25T22:39:11.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2446" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:20:41.423" Score="17" ViewCount="483" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize that Catholics believe in apostolic succession, and that they were explicitly given authority by Jesus himself.  In other denominations, what, if anything, other than the choice made by its members gives the church authority over them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am speaking here not of &quot;church&quot; meaning a community of Christians, but &quot;church&quot; meaning a specific entity that owns property and instructs its members on what they may or may not do (such as tithing, indulgences, sexual practices, marriage, musical choices, etc.), led by a specific human individual or group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to think that non-Catholics dedicated themselves to a church conditionally -- that is, they stay as long as the church seems to be serving God's will, and leave or seek to change the church if it doesn't.  However, in practice that doesn't seem to happen much.  I know many Christians who have never even read the Bible directly -- they pray and live solely according to the directions of their pastor and his/her interpretation of God's will, their only direct contact with the Bible is in small quotations strewn about a sermon completely out of context.  These particular individuals feel that only a pastor can know what is true, and that as laypeople they are required to follow without question.  Is this a mainstream belief, and if so, from what does it stem?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="27" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T20:10:34.293" LastActivityDate="2019-06-24T16:26:10.293" Title="Absent apostolic succession, what is the argument for the authority of the church?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2447" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2495" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:23:58.877" Score="17" ViewCount="4216" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Scripture, we should pay tithe from increase from our land and cattle. I don't find anything about tithing monetary income, so why do you pay from income or salary? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if the income you receive has already been tithed, should you tithe again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, someone tithes $100 on $1,000 income and is left with $900. From $900, that person pays $500 to another person for some work. Should the other person pay tithe for receiving $500?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastEditorUserId="596" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T15:25:30.820" LastActivityDate="2014-08-27T21:32:32.310" Title="What do you tithe from? Why tithe income?" Tags="&lt;tithe&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-08-28T03:47:45.997" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2447" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:31:23.060" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tithing income is an application of the Old Testament tithe principle - it's giving back 10% of what God has given you. If that is cows, great! If it is money (as it is in modern society), then tithe comes out of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 10% number is not actually mentioned in the New Testament, where the principle is just &quot;give generously!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on the above, I tithe on all my &quot;income&quot;. If I receive $500 from someone else for work done, yes I would tithe on it. On the other hand, I don't tithe my tax refund&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other thing - I believe that tithing should be done on gross (before-tax) and not net income. This is an application of the &quot;firstfruits&quot; principle from the OT - our tithe is to be &quot;off the top&quot;. Tithing on your net income is letting the government have the first cut and tithing on what is left over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T19:31:23.060" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2446" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:32:53.807" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a great question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Presbyterian churches I have participated in they have had the following structure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Denomination - An organization (often national) that oversees many different regional bodies (in my denomination called Presbyteries). It is a representative democracy, where each Presbytery has a representative and they vote to determine policy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presbytery - A regional group of churches. This is also a democracy, each church has representatives (typically elders) who are elected or hired by the members of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Church - A church is a local congregation of consisting of voting members and non-voting attendees (there are vows etc for members). The Members vote for people to become elders and deacons, and pastors.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus in the Presbyterian system, much like the government of the United States the power of the church and its officials is derived directly from the members of the congregation. If the members are unhappy with their pastor or elders there are procedures in place to remove them from their positions. The congregation is considered to be the &quot;Body of Christ&quot; and thus the source of the Church's operational authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Presbyterian church accepts only the Bible as an infallible doctrinal standard, but also points to the Westminster Confession of faith as a concise statement of their beliefs. The Bible is not amendable, however there are circumstances under which the confession can be amended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T19:32:53.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:35:30.327" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%204:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 4:3 KJV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how the Popes have weighed in on this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the&#xA;      apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear&#xA;      who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of&#xA;      any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself&#xA;      that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they&#xA;      disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt,&#xA;      they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and&#xA;      inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2019-11-14T18:53:34.820" LastActivityDate="2019-11-14T18:53:34.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2452" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:39:04.187" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/church-local&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'church-local'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;church-local&lt;/a&gt; should be used for questions about 'church', where church means an organized group of believers that gather together or congregations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/denomination&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'denomination'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;denomination&lt;/a&gt; for questions about denominations, sects, or groupings of congregations&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/church-universal&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'church-universal'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;church-universal&lt;/a&gt; for questions about all believers, the &quot;Universal Church&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/church-building&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'church-building'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;church-building&lt;/a&gt; for questions about buildings used for worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T19:13:16.240" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:13:16.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2453" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:39:04.187" Score="0" Body="an organized group of believers that gather together or congregations" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T19:13:21.107" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:13:21.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2454" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:43:04.553" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This tag is for questions about concept and doctrine of the fellowship of all believers, in all places and times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/church-local&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'church-local'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;church-local&lt;/a&gt; should be used for questions about 'church', where church means an organized group of believers that gather together or congregations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/denomination&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'denomination'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;denomination&lt;/a&gt; for questions about denominations, sects, or groupings of congregations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/church-building&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'church-building'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;church-building&lt;/a&gt; for questions about buildings used for worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T19:16:23.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:16:23.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2455" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:43:04.553" Score="0" Body="questions about concept and doctrine of the fellowship of all believers, in all places and times" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T19:16:26.860" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:16:26.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2456" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:43:31.963" Score="11" ViewCount="6553" Body="&lt;p&gt;I noticed in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2446/4&quot;&gt;a comment&lt;/a&gt; that &lt;code&gt;Lutherans have apostolic succession&lt;/code&gt; I figured this was a purely Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox thing is there a comparable Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Lutheran world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2019-07-23T04:01:02.037" Title="How is Lutheran apostolic succession conferred?" Tags="&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;holy-orders&gt;&lt;apostolic-succession&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1824" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:43:51.957" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to traditional Catholic doctrine, no one.  Righteous Old Testament people went to the Limbo of the Fathers.  Then Jesus descended to that part of Hell, then he raised them from the dead, they were baptized, and then they went to Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 3:18‐19‐ “Christ also died once for our sins… In which also coming he&#xA;preached to those spirits that were in prison…”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: What is here meant by hell? A: Hell here means the Limbo of the holy Fathers, that is, the place where the souls of the just were detained, in expectation of redemption through Jesus Christ&quot; Catechism of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article of the Creed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2017-10-25T15:58:44.307" LastActivityDate="2017-10-25T15:58:44.307" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2399" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:44:50.700" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is more of an addendum to Mason's answer, but is too long to fit in a comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree that the logical interpretation of &amp;quot;everlasting&amp;quot; is usually &amp;quot;something which persists forever&amp;quot;, but that isn't always the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, we general consider the terms &amp;quot;eternal&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;endless&amp;quot; to be synonymous with &amp;quot;everlasting&amp;quot;.  The Doctrine and Covenants (part of the LDS canon) gives an alternate interpretation of these words that doesn't mean &amp;quot;unending&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19.10-12?lang=eng#9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 19:10-12&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this we can see that &amp;quot;Eternal&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Endless&amp;quot; are variations of God's name.  It's reasonable to extend this to include &amp;quot;Everlasting&amp;quot; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this in mind an &amp;quot;everlasting covenant&amp;quot; doesn't necessarily mean &amp;quot;a covenant which lasts forever&amp;quot;, but rather &amp;quot;a covenant that is made with God&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question of &amp;quot;why did Mormons stop practicing polygamy&amp;quot; is definitely an interesting one, but I just wanted to point out that an &amp;quot;everlasting covenant&amp;quot; can mean something other than &amp;quot;a covenant which never ends&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T19:44:50.700" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1054" CreationDate="2011-09-08T19:51:45.163" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics are obliged to attend Mass every &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04154a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sunday and on Holy Days of Obligatiom&lt;/a&gt;.  It is one of the precepts of our Church.  Violating this precept is &lt;a href=&quot;http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/01/grave_matter.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Grave Matter&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T19:51:45.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2414" CreationDate="2011-09-08T20:11:39.873" Score="8" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It fulfilled prophecy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the prophecy of&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%207:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 7:14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It provided us a sign so that we will know the Messiah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Isaiah verse above illustrates that God gave us this gift of a virgin birth as a sign that Jesus was the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It illuminates his sinless nature&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is pure without sin.  The virgin birth illuminates this sinless nature.  Had he been born of a man, he would have been born fallen, like the rest of humanity, therefore carrying sin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It allows for the Trinity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus had been born of a man, how could he be the &quot;Son of God&quot;?  He could be in the same sense that we all are &quot;sons of God&quot;.  However, the virgin birth allows for the understanding that God himself came down to Earth to be the perfect sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This opens up a whole realm of doctrine.  If he was just a man, how could his sacrifice been an atonement for everyone's sin?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T22:22:39.973" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T22:22:39.973" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2462" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T20:15:50.023" Score="-2" ViewCount="276" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the news I saw an American politician praying for growing stock market prices. Isn't this considered blasphemy, according to Christian beliefs, like praying to the golden calf? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T01:03:16.673" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T01:03:16.673" Title="Is praying for the wealth of the Stocks Exchange blasphemy?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;blasphemy&gt;&lt;economics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2011-09-08T20:39:30.580" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2462" CreationDate="2011-09-08T20:21:48.960" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Praying TO something is different than praying FOR something, so I don't think there is a good way to make a connection to the golden calf issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, that seems like a very selfish prayer to make. It is quite possible that such a prayer shows that that money and success (individual or corporate) has become an idol. The example prayer we have to follow in the Lords prayer directs us to pray for just what we need ... our daily bread ... and that God's will be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/+Matthew+6:9%E2%80%9313/&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:9–13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Pray then like this:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T20:21:48.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2464" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-08T20:34:33.147" Score="15" ViewCount="5820" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know from the Bible that devils are fallen angels, once created good but who chose to join Lucifer's rebel uprising and consequently lost their place in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can those angels ever be saved? Can the angels that remain choose to change sides? Is there such a thing as salvation for an angel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2016-07-16T03:08:26.753" LastActivityDate="2016-07-16T03:08:26.753" Title="Can fallen angels be redeemed?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-12-05T10:36:47.083" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2447" CreationDate="2011-09-08T20:38:35.883" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The tithe does come from the Old Testament.  We as New Testament Christians are not under the covenant that God made with the people of Israel, so the tithe does not specifically apply to us (nor does avoiding pork and a host of other ceremonial laws).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &quot;each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give&quot; and &quot;God loves a cheerful giver.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has been said that some measure a person's wealth by how much they have, but the true measure of wealth is in how much we give.  I think this is a proper perspective.  If we ask the question, &quot;What is the least amount of money I can give and be ok?&quot;, that seems to miss the point.  It is almost asking how much can we possibly keep to spend ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better question could be, &quot;Since God has given me so much, how can I steward all of my money for His glory and how much can I give to His work?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some people, 10 percent may be very difficult.  For others, 10% may be far less than they are able.  I personally give a little more than 10% of my income and hope to be able to continue increasing that as God blesses my financially.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I would say to have a right heart and then give generously for the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T20:38:35.883" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2464" CreationDate="2011-09-08T20:58:22.450" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on the following scriptures, I would say the answer is no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jude 1:6&lt;/strong&gt; And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left&#xA;  their own habitation, &lt;strong&gt;he hath reserved in everlasting chains under&#xA;  darkness&lt;/strong&gt; unto the judgment of the great day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MATTHEW 25:41&lt;/strong&gt; Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,&#xA;  Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, &lt;strong&gt;prepared for the&#xA;  devil and his angels&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T20:58:22.450" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2011-09-08T21:02:19.690" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is incorrect to assume that God is punishing us, simply because of Adam &amp;amp; Eve's sin. Rather, the story of Adam and Eve teaches us how sin entered the world. Adam and Eve were created and, like children, were innocent. As the first people, their sin is the first sin to blemish this world (hence the term &quot;original sin&quot;). They were punished, but it forever marked the Earth, as well. At the beginning, as they were innocent, God protected them and provided all things for them (similar to how you raise a child). But when they freely chose to sin, they removed themselves from God's protection. The sin was a decision that they did not require God. And so they were left to fend for themselves. Hence our need to till the earth and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we have free will, as they did, sin is something we all may choose. Original sin acknowledges that in this world, sin exists, and by being born in this world, we are born with the stain of the original sin. We are not culpable, and so are not condemned for it, but it is a mark on our soul by virtue of the fact that we were born out of this history, or if you want to look at it differently, born in this world with this separation from God evident.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism removes the stain of original sin by repairing this separation. As we are born into this world with this separation, Baptism is a physical act of grace which brings us back into the family of God, and under His auspices. We may still sin, but it has returned us to this original innocence that Adam and Eve were formed in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY&lt;/a&gt; from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (specifically VII. THE GRACE OF BAPTISM).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-18T03:09:30.800" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T03:09:30.800" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2468" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2475" CreationDate="2011-09-08T21:12:31.307" Score="12" ViewCount="2258" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm remembering back to a conversation that I had with an individual who was adamant about the fact that Satan was a made up Angel. That instead of Satan being a singular object, satan was actually the term for an angel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was claiming that there is more then one satan in existence and they did the bidding of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you know what this theory is called or if there is any evidence being it, please let me know.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:26&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will&#xA;  his kingdom stand?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-04-18T07:45:26.520" LastActivityDate="2016-04-18T12:39:58.780" Title="What is the theory that there is more than one &quot;Satan&quot; called, and what is its basis?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2011-09-08T21:29:44.783" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Monasticism was unknown until the end of the third century. Paul expressed that he preferred celibacy, but there was no &quot;command from the Lord&quot; to remain unmarried. (Simon) Peter, according to Catholic tradition the first Pope, was himself married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 4:38&lt;/strong&gt; And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's&#xA;  house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and&#xA;  they besought him for her. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MATTHEW 8:14&lt;/strong&gt; And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his&#xA;  wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Widows were treated with special respect, but encouraged to remarry and bear children if still within child bearing age. More emphasis was placed on missionary and charity work than meditation or spiritual development.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over time, the custom developed of going into the desert (or otherwise being alone), when faced with an important life decision, a desire to commune with God, etc. These people were called hermits, a term which means &quot;desert dwellers&quot;. The most famous of these early hermits was Anthony of Egypt (251-356). Athanasius' &lt;em&gt;Life of St. Anthony&lt;/em&gt; began to make the hermit life popular, both because it portrayed it as a path to eternal life, and because Anthony was portrayed as an athlete for Christ, a heroic figure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there were so many hermits that it was starting to get crowded. A hermit named Pachomius (290-346) instituted some rules; that the monks should live in isolated huts, produce their own food and clothing, and should never speak to one another. Because they were no longer dependent on public charity, their growth was unlimited, and monasteries and monks began to spread rapidly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T21:29:44.783" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2464" CreationDate="2011-09-08T21:30:01.117" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aquinas asks: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1064.htm&quot;&gt;Whether the will of the demons is obstinate in evil?&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 1.64.2). He considers several arguments in favour:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That demons have intellect and could therefore choose to be good again.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That God's infinite mercy exceeds the finite malice of the demons.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That the demons' chief sin was pride, but they no longer have anything to be proud about.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Human sin is pardonable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The demons are not wholly evil, since they are capable of stating divine truths (example: &quot;You [Jesus] are the holy one of God&quot;, Mark 1:24).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he comes down against the proposition, quoting Psalm 73:23 (a.k.a 74:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The pride of them that hate thee ascendeth continually&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and also refers to the Biblical assertions of everlasting punishment for &quot;the devil and his angels&quot;. The five arguments are rejected as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They do not have free will, as we do.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's pardon requires that they repent, but they will not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The devil still has the will or desire to replace God, even though he does not have the power (and never did).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The reasons why human sin can be pardoned are different.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even if the devil does something apparently &quot;good&quot;, such as quoting Scripture, he is doing it to serve an evil purpose.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elsewhere in 1.50-64 he discusses the nature of angelic/demonic intellect and will. For the question of whether they can change sides, his answer is no. The reason is that the angels do not learn and grow as we do; all their knowledge and inclinations are fixed from the moment of their creation, and they cannot change that. Good angels will remain good and bad ones (demons) will remain bad. He says that Satan must have fallen immediately after his creation (1.63.6), causing all the other devils to fall in the same instant (1.63.8), and that the remaining good angels have been made blessed by their meritorious deeds and therefore are blessed forever, incapable of sinning (1.62.8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the bigger picture, the reasons why humans &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be saved are bound up in the nature of who we are - made in God's image, sinners but beloved, and redeemed through God becoming incarnate as one of us. That is not true of fallen angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T21:30:01.117" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2468" CreationDate="2011-09-08T21:51:33.640" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word &lt;em&gt;satan&lt;/em&gt; means &quot;accuser&quot; or &quot;adversary&quot;. It can be used in a general sense rather than as a proper noun. This does not mean that &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; occurrences of the word refer to a generic accuser. For example, Luke 10:18,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is clearly referring to a specific individual. But in 1 Kings 11:14,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord raised up against Solomon an adversary, Hadad the Edomite, from the royal line of Edom,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the English &quot;adversary&quot; is translating Hebrew &quot;satan&quot;. Clearly Hadad is not the actual devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Job, &quot;Satan&quot; appears in heaven and is instructed by God to torment Job. This matches the idea that &quot;satan&quot; can be a job title of an angel, who works for God but whose task is to tempt people and cause suffering. In particular, such a &quot;satan&quot; is not opposed to God. In the Hebrew, it is actually &quot;ha-Satan&quot;, &quot;the satan&quot; or &quot;the accuser&quot; (eg in Job 1:6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, Jewish ideas about Satan changed significantly during and after the Exile, perhaps due to their exposure to Babylonian mythology. The idea that Satan is in active rebellion against God is certainly much more prevalent after this time, whatever the cause. Previously, the dominant view was against an independent adversary, and in favour of God controlling everything, good or bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T21:51:33.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2430" CreationDate="2011-09-08T22:34:23.013" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to have the New American Bible sourced, that's our defacto bible, although it's not always as flowery and scholars don't really use it, it contains what we believe. It could give you a concise answer without me elaborating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Romans 3:21-22 - NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:28&lt;/a&gt; - NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A worker’s wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.  So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/romans4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 4:4-6&lt;/a&gt; - NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people Paul was admonishing were those who those who felt justified by works of the law, he's echoing Jesus's lament about the Pharisees who felt that washing their hands was more important than taking care of their parents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe there is a distinction, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Protestant bibles don't mention &lt;code&gt;works of the law&lt;/code&gt; just &lt;code&gt;works&lt;/code&gt; right?  I think that's one of the fundamental differences between our confessions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-11T06:08:53.813" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T06:08:53.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2447" CreationDate="2011-09-08T22:36:02.340" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tithe as per Old Testament is 10% of  your income. This was apart from offering first fruits and many other offerings from the income. As others answered already, New Testament follows Grace not Law (Romans). It follows spirit not letter. We can draw principles from New testament on tithing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of them are below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus:  &quot;For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.&quot; Mathew 5:20 (NKJV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scribes and Pharisees were trying to obey law to the letter, so they surely paid 10% tithe. (In practice this was 20-30%, A historical reference would be Book of Tobit - Apocrypha for many christians, part of Bible which says He given 30%). We are to exceed them !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John the Baptist: &quot;He answered and said to them, 'He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.' &quot; (Luke 3:11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John says about  willingness to give half of what you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor&quot; Luke 19:8 (NKJV).&#xA;Jesus did not rebuke him, but commended him, He given 50%&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus : “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; 4 for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.” Mark 12:44 (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given all she had to God. That is 100%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem:  &quot;sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.&quot;Acts 2:44.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was all sharing everything. Nothing considered belong to them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So what is the Principle&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything belong to God. Our income, time and life belongs to him before He given to us. So we should consider it as God's and should be willing to share/shed any to another in need around us. Once we consider everything belong to Him and we are just stewards/care takers we can cheerfully give 20%, 30% or 50%. That way we can obey Jesus here and &lt;em&gt;store up treasures in heaven.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;  but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. &quot; Mathew 5:19-20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T22:36:02.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2464" CreationDate="2011-09-08T22:48:01.010" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the means of salvation is via God sending His Son as one of &quot;us&quot;, then He would have to do the same for them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has not been told us whether or not He would do such a thing, but in light of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/292/bob-black&quot;&gt;Bob Black&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2464/can-angels-be-saved/2466#2466&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt;, I'd think not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T22:48:01.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2456" CreationDate="2011-09-08T22:52:32.623" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently different Lutheran churches have different practices, with two Scandinavian state churches being the most notable proponents of apostolic succession (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nestorian.org/unofficial_home_page_of_the_on.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Church of Sweden&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These churches don't have the &lt;em&gt;Sacrament&lt;/em&gt; of Holy Orders, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Orders#Lutheranism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luther rejected it&lt;/a&gt;. Still, bishops, priests and deacons are &lt;em&gt;ordained&lt;/em&gt;, thus retaining apostolic succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianallianceministries.com/APOSTOLICSUCCESSION.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chart of the succession&lt;/a&gt; shows how Luther (an ordained Catholic priest) passed the succession to Mikael Agricola, the bishop of Turku, Finland.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that not all Lutheran churches hold the doctrine of apostolic succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T23:27:57.980" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T23:27:57.980" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1737" CreationDate="2011-09-08T22:53:24.687" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew term Nephilium does mean &quot;fallen ones&quot;, but I see no particular reason why this indicates that they are/were angels rather than fallen men. Rendering them fallen angels seems inconsistent with everything else we know about the nature of angels vs men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scholarship is widely divided on this issue reading many different things into the very few verses we have that refer to them directly. When in doubt, I believe we need to use our understanding from other parts of scripture and even of the world in general to make sense out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We generally know that even among the created order here on earth things don't just change species. Species can't inter-breed. In the heavenly realms we have spirit beings that do not have associated matter in the created universe. They are allowed to manifest themselves in a way that interacts with men, but we also know that such things fall generally under the sovereignty of God. Even Satan is not allowed to take specific action on earth without God's express permission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking these into consideration I find it inconsistent with what we know of God to have given fallen angels such permissions. If such a thing really were to have happened it would seem likely that we would have more references to it than two verse with an obscure word that can be translated &quot;giants&quot; just easily as &quot;angels&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several other propositions about how these could be a race of men with an exceptional strand of gene (very much inside the realm of what we know of creation) that gave them exceptional size and stature. There are also explanations for where they lived (I've heard explanations about a mountain region) that can explain the language about them having 'come down'.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken as a whole I think it is a better hermeneutic to not assume something that goes against our established understandings of both our world and the rest of Scripture without a much more explicit text that says they must be spirit beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find the references &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1737/what-are-the-giants-mentioned-in-the-bible/1740#1740&quot;&gt;cited by Jonathan&lt;/a&gt; unconvincing. That we will be LIKE the angels in specific attributes does not mean that we will actually be angels. Humans, even as souls in heaven, have specifically different properties than angels. Lifespan issues extend well beyond the scope of just the Nephilim and are explained other ways. God didn't just change the lifespan of said Nephilim, we know that he did that for humans. The connections to God's spirit I find be speculative at best. They COULD fit, but add nothing to drive the argument that they MUST be angels because it would fit just as well if the scope was only humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;sub&gt;I plan on finding these but it's too late tonight, saving for an edit.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T23:35:27.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2314" CreationDate="2011-09-08T23:19:40.303" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is pure Spirit if you had a spiritual scale, He would fill it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this idea quite a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This error seems to have originated from two statements of the ancients. For those who first began to observe the nature of things, being unable to rise above their imagination, supposed that nothing but bodies existed. Therefore they said that God was a body, which they considered to be the principle of other bodies. And since they held that the soul was of the same nature as that body which they regarded as the first principle, as is stated De Anima i, 2, it followed that the soul was of the nature of God Himself. According to this supposition, also, the Manichaeans, thinking that God was corporeal light, held that the soul was part of that light bound up with the body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1090.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1090.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like other answers state, your premise is that nothing else can exist.  But consider those people whom you admire and look up to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there something about them that makes you go towards them?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does their reasoning impress you?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do they have a knack for rationality?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider what you feel to be excellent qualities in other human beings and then consider where their source is.  What is the source of our rationality and moreover our desire to reason?  It's not merely self-preservation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it's our soul and if we have a soul which animates our rationality, we must have a Creator who animates our soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T23:19:40.303" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2456" CreationDate="2011-09-08T23:35:04.583" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America embraces apostolic succession.  This has been true since &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Office-of-the-Presiding-Bishop/Ecumenical-and-Inter-Religious-Relations/Full-Communion-Partners/The-Episcopal-Church/Called-to-Common-Mission.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Called to Common Mission&lt;/a&gt;, an agreement of full communion with the Episcopal Church of the USA, took effect a decade ago. When our bishops are installed (only pastors are ordained) a bishop who holds apostolic succession (often an Episcopal bishop) is present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Agreeing to this was not simple, because North American Lutherans have long rejected it. But the churchwide assembly accepted the argument that full communion was more important than staying divided from the Episcopalians over this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user116" LastEditorDisplayName="user116" LastEditDate="2011-09-08T23:49:22.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T23:49:22.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2446" CreationDate="2011-09-08T23:44:51.007" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Latter-Day Saints, apostolic succession and an unbroken line of Priesthood authority is necessary in order to maintain the church, to lead it by the light of revelation and keep it from straying into apostasy.  They maintain that due to a combination of persecution from without and apostasy from within, the line of true Priesthood succession was completely lost within a few centuries after the time of Christ, sending the church into a dark age in which there was no divine revelation and no divine authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS claim that the Reformation, though noble in its efforts, could not be fully successful, because it was founded on the efforts of man and not on divine revelation and divine authority.  The authority had been lost, and could only be restored by direct intervention from Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This authority was restored to earth by being conferred upon the prophet Joseph Smith by the ancient apostles Peter, James and John, who received it directly from Jesus.  Joseph Smith later ordained others to the Priesthood, who ordained others and so on, and records have been kept scrupulously, so that today any LDS Priesthood holder can trace their &quot;line of authority,&quot; as it's called, back to that event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-08T23:44:51.007" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1709" CreationDate="2011-09-09T00:14:28.857" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic teaching holds that private interpretation is not a good thing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic, I have no idea what this means.  Which is unfortunate, because I teach Religious Ed to kids who want to know what the bible is talking about.  So, I tell them what I think it's talking about based on what the Church tells me it's talking about and pray that I'm not leading them into error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem you're seeing is largely what Catholics have been fighting against since the reformation.  That is, people taking the bible out of context and using it for their own ends;  Not seeing it as a whole.  Not interpreting it based on the assumption that everything in it points to Christ and not their own ideology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible does condone Slavery, but Christianity, is better than slavery so once Christendom really took hold, the ancient slavery was a thing of the past.  It came up again when corporatists (merchants, etc..) took hold in the 15th century.  For instance, no one ever uses Philemon to justify slavery, even though St. Paul is clearly telling the person he's writing to to accept his slave back into his house, as a slave, not a freedman.   People use Old Testament laws mentioning slavery to justify slavery. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is too many people looking to further their own agenda through religion and not enough folks actively seeking the kingdom and the will of God. However, I don't think a majority of Christians are those people seeking to further their own agenda, but you never can tell for sure when you're following one until they make it blisteringly obvious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T00:14:28.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2485" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2487" CreationDate="2011-09-09T00:22:32.243" Score="18" ViewCount="2421" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think most, if not all of us, agree that Jesus did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; sin.  However, the devil tempted Jesus, at least in the wilderness, prior to Jesus' public ministry (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2041:1-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:1-11&lt;/a&gt;).  Does this mean it would have been possible for Jesus to sin?  Or was the devil just too stupid to realize his efforts were futile?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2014-06-23T16:22:03.740" Title="Would it have been possible for Jesus to sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-06-23T15:59:56.253" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2486" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-09T00:25:51.457" Score="7" ViewCount="306" Body="&lt;p&gt;Legitimate, not in the fact that He died, but in how specifically his blood was shed. It is said that Jesus' death was the final fulfillment of the old testament requirements. If this is true, then shouldn't the blood of Jesus, along with water, be sprinkled onto the ark of the covenant?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus' blood was not sprinkled onto the ark, how did it fulfill the very specific sacrificial requirement of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 16:15&lt;/strong&gt;  (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, &lt;strong&gt;which is for the&#xA;  people&lt;/strong&gt;, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did&#xA;  with the blood of the bull, and &lt;strong&gt;sprinkle it on the mercy seat&lt;/strong&gt; and&#xA;  before the mercy seat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T19:59:59.270" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T18:34:05.167" Title="Was Jesus' death legitimate?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T15:12:32.027" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2485" CreationDate="2011-09-09T00:39:10.813" Score="24" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2010:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 10:18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, in this verse, says that he has the ability to choose whether he laid down his life or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, he had the free will to choose to follow God's wishes or not.  Therefore, yes, he had the ability to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wow, I thought this was a pretty obvious answer.  Some more concepts to back up this idea:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1378/if-adam-and-eve-were-perfect-why-did-they-choose-to-sin&quot;&gt;Perfection does not preclude sin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve were perfect and sinless in the Garden of Eden.  However, they, who knew no sin, were tempted and succumbed to sin.  Clearly, perfection and not having previously knowing sin is not a preclusion to actually sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Divinity does not preclude sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others claim that because of his divinity--more specifically, his part of the trinity--that he was incapable of sin.  However, John 10:18 (shown above), clearly shows that Jesus himself (not the other members of the trinity) had the &lt;em&gt;authority&lt;/em&gt; to choose to sin and go against his Father.  Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane&lt;/a&gt; shows that his will and his father's will were separate.  Since their wills were separate and since he had the ability to choose to sin, it would have been possible for Jesus to have put his will first and chose to go against his father's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Jesus had true and complete free will and the ability to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T12:39:17.423" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="693" CreationDate="2011-09-09T00:39:34.260" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've also heard &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 16:19-31&lt;/a&gt; (the story of the rich man and Lazarus) used to explain Purgatory. Specifically Verse 23 &quot;In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham had to be somewhere as he wasn't in Hades and couldn't be in Heaven yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="47" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T00:39:34.260" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2485" CreationDate="2011-09-09T00:52:05.347" Score="0" Body="&lt;h1&gt;No&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was like us in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19880203en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;all things but sin&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was free from original sin, and free to follow His Divine Intellect in a way that we are not.  No one in that state would choose to sin.  I'm not saying it's impossible, as Jesus, Mary, Adam and Eve had freewill.  I'm just saying that it was not possible. (that may seem like a contradiction, but that's par for the course with Jesus)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe &quot;because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 156&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T00:52:05.347" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2486" CreationDate="2011-09-09T00:54:28.480" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are conflating, I think, the &lt;em&gt;manner and location&lt;/em&gt; of the shedding of the blood with the &lt;em&gt;fact&lt;/em&gt; of the shedding of the blood.  Put simply, Jesus was the perfect spotless Lamb of God whose blood is shed for the remission of sins; there was no requirement that his blood be shed on the Jewish altar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the archetype of this sacrifice in God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son.  That was to be valid, even though there was no temple or altar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen 22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love — Isaac — and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and &lt;strong&gt;took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son&lt;/strong&gt;. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T00:54:28.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2486" CreationDate="2011-09-09T00:55:26.173" Score="10" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%2010&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:1 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you can say from Hebrews 10 that the Old Testament sacrifices were a picture of Christ's sacrifice more than that his death was a fulfillment of Old Testament requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Here are the verses I wanted (emphasis on verse 23):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%209:19-24&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 9:19-24 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,&#xA;  Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.&#xA;  Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.&#xA;  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastEditorUserId="491" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T01:35:28.977" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T01:35:28.977" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2485" CreationDate="2011-09-09T01:25:07.257" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;No&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201:35&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 1:35 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the angel answered and said unto her [Mary], The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also &lt;em&gt;that holy thing&lt;/em&gt; [emphasis mine] which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Christ was God, he was perfectly holy, and therefore &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impeccable&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;impeccable&lt;/a&gt; (unable to sin). [Re-Edit: I used &amp;quot;impeccable&amp;quot; purposely; the doctrine we are discussing is that of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeccability&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;impeccability&lt;/a&gt;.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2014:30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:30 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that Satan could find nothing in himself, by which he meant Satan could find no hold at all, for Christ has no sin nature and was wholly opposed to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T01:55:56.933" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2486" CreationDate="2011-09-09T01:26:13.683" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also keep in mind that,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In 586 BC, the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple. There is no record of what became of the Ark. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So most likely in Jesus' day the ark was not in the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.%2011:19&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelations 11:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  Then, in heaven, the Temple of God was opened and the Ark of his covenant could be seen inside the Temple&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not trying to solve the mystery of the ark here but merely point out that it's entirely possible that the law could have been fulfilled with the ark in heaven after Jesus arose and ascended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T01:26:13.683" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2447" CreationDate="2011-09-09T01:44:42.403" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The beginning of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%207:1-6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7&lt;/a&gt; discusses Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek. He paid one tenth, which is the only amount mentioned in the Bible related to tithing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%207:1-6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 7:1-6 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  ...&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; But he whose descent is not counted from them (Melchisedec) received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing to consider is that the blessings promised for paying tithing are enormous. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%203:8-12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Malachi 3&lt;/a&gt; we learn that God will &quot;open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.&quot; In that same passage we learn that the consequences of &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; paying tithing are just as large as the blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%203:8-12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Malachi 3:8-12 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T01:50:52.210" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T01:50:52.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2447" CreationDate="2011-09-09T03:41:25.413" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Malachi 3:7 (KJV)  “Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ORDINANCES, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ORDINANCES NAILED TO THE CROSS:&#xA;Colossians 2:14 (KJV)  “Blotting out the handwriting of ORDINANCES that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Hebrews 7:5,12,18, the tithe was disannulled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, the blessings referred to in Malachi 3 is RAIN:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Malachi 3:10&#xA;10 , and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this refer to money or financial blessing, or does it mean something else according to scriptures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 7:11-12&#xA;11 The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.&#xA;12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 8:2&#xA;2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NO CURSE TODAY:&#xA;Galatians 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us…”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seems a few pastors need to study their Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let’s look closely at Abram’s tithe.  First, the goods that Abram gave the tenth from didn’t even belong to Abram:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 14:21 (KJV) - And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice in verse 21 the king of Sodom didn’t ask Abram if he would give back to him the people, but rather said GIVE ME the people and keep the goods for yourself.  The way that is worded indicates that the king of Sodom was claiming that the people and the goods belonged to him, but he offered the goods to Abram.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would normally have been the custom that the victor owns the spoils, but normally the spoils would have belonged to the enemy.  In this case, Abram was RECOVERING goods belonging to the King of Sodom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE:  The king of Sodom had an original right both to the persons and to the goods, and it would bear a debate whether Abram’s acquired right by rescue would supersede his title and extinguish it; but, to prevent all quarrels, the king of Sodom makes this fair proposal (v. 21).&#xA;--Should the Church Teach Tithing by Dr. Russell Earl Kelly, pages 24-25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 14:22-24 (KJV)&#xA;22And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, &#xA;23That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: &#xA;24Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice in verses 23 and 24 Abram also acknowledges that the goods belonged to the king of Sodom.  But the king of Sodam offered that Abram could keep the goods for himself. Abram declined the offer.  He didn’t want man to take credit for his wealth.  By not accepting any of the goods for himself, Abram was putting all his faith in God to provide for him rather than man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it is clear that both the king of Sodom and Abram acknowledged that the spoils of war did NOT belong to Abram, yet he gave a tenth of the spoils to King Melchizedek.  This would seem that Abram did something wrong, if not even illegal, but Biblical historians agree that it was custom in Abram's day to give the king a tenth of the war spoils.  Had Abram not given the tenth, he would have gone against custom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion:  Abram did NOT give a tenth of his income, or his wealth.  Abram gave a tenth of the spoils of war that didn’t belong to him and declined to keep the goods offered to him.  That is NOT an example of tithing for Christians to follow today.  By declining to keep any of the goods for himself, Abram showed his faith that God would provide.  That is the example of faith that Christians should be following.  Furthermore, the law did NOT require a tenth of war spoils to be given, so to say that tithing was before the law and then in the law is not true.  What Abram did was NOT even codified into the later law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament teaches generous, sacrificial giving, from the heart, according to our means. For some, $1 might be a sacrifice, while for others, even giving 50% of their income might not induce a sacrifice. In the Old Testament, ONLY the farmers tithed, and it was equal percentage (a tenth). The New Testament teaches the principle of equal sacrifice instead of equal percentage. Equal sacrifice is much harder to achieve, if not impossible, than giving ten percent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="603" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T03:41:25.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2485" CreationDate="2011-09-09T03:41:34.417" Score="0" Body="&lt;h2&gt;No.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was also God (remember, him being one of the three persons in the Trinity), so how would He be able to choose to disobey God if He was God? That'd be like going against your own will, which is a logical impossibility. Jesus was also fully human, but that means he experienced temptation and suffering like us. But His will was God's will as they were one in the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 22:39-46 indicates a difference in will between God the Father and God the Son, however, ultimately whatever will is followed is the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the simple answer is &quot;No, because of the Trinity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T03:41:34.417" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2485" CreationDate="2011-09-09T04:30:27.563" Score="10" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; No&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes in the sense that Jesus was tempted and had a free choice in the matter, but no in that it was against his nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Heb 4:14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a paradox, but our own experience shadows that of the Master. We have each of us been tempted, but at one time or another have resisted temptation. The temptation is &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; in that we &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; have said or done something to hurt another, but &lt;em&gt;ineffective&lt;/em&gt; in that something within us held us back from doing so. Under those circumstances, could we have committed sin? The answer is the same for Jesus (but obviously far more so).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T04:30:27.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2498" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2500" CreationDate="2011-09-09T05:37:25.520" Score="11" ViewCount="1277" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 15, a letter was written to the beliving Gentiles. I can understand why they have to abstain from sexual immorality. However, I was wondering&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What's the point of the law which state that they must not eat the meat or blood of strangled animals, nor should they eat food offered to idols?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it a sin to eat the meat or blood of strangled animals, or to eat food offered to idols?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does the law (not to eat the meat or blood of strangled animals / not to eat food offered to idols) still apply to us today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&amp;amp;version=NLT#en-NLT-27429&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 15:23-29 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; This is the letter they took with them: “This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; “We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but we did not send them! &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; So we decided, having come to complete agreement, to send you official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; We are sending Judas and Silas to confirm what we have decided concerning your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-05-03T20:54:44.977" Title="What was the point of the laws written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;gentile&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-05-04T11:51:11.020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2498" CreationDate="2011-09-09T07:57:12.003" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let us try to see the whole passage in context. (All scripture quotation in NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 15: 20-21 - Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain&#xA;  from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating&#xA;  the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. 21 For these&#xA;  laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on&#xA;  every Sabbath for many generations.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 21 says the reason for the some of them/or all of the restrictions was &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city&#xA;  on every Sabbath for many generations&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;. Also from verse 7,  we can see this happened after &quot;At the meeting, after a long discussion&quot;, so it is clear that this was a topic of intense debate. Other biblical evidences point to that the leadership wanted a consensus which will respect those who seek more freedom (like Paul and even Peter at Jerusalem) and those who felt much more strongly about some of Jewish Traditions (James). So it is clear that last two was added considering there are large number of Jews  and Jewish Christians around in those cities and church needed to be sensitive to their strong reservations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more biblical evidences says to &quot;abstain from eating food offered to idols and from sexual immorality&quot;. So Epistles and other part of new testament re-inforces them. But I believe the other two requirements to abstain &quot;from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals&quot; is applicable to the situation &lt;strong&gt;ONLY&lt;/strong&gt; at the time of Acts 15, not binding now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This line of argument  can be illustrated further from Galatians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 2:12 explains the struggle the church had in those days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were&#xA;  not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter&#xA;  wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism&#xA;  from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So correct interpretation of what laws applicable to us is given next to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 2:15-16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. 16 Yet&#xA;  we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ,&#xA;  not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that&#xA;  we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not&#xA;  because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right&#xA;  with God by obeying the law.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="140" LastEditDate="2011-09-12T02:56:38.503" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T02:56:38.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2485" CreationDate="2011-09-09T11:05:49.617" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not if you believe in Orthodox Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was God incarnate and had a perfect moral character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was because of his human side tempted and this attests to his humanity (Something that most Christian should affirm), but he overcame that temptation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity as one of it's core doctrine holds that the one who was perfect and sinless would take on the whole burden of humanities sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T11:05:49.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="79" CreationDate="2011-09-09T11:34:24.187" Score="9" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My school has tried to teach that since we are not instructed to use&#xA;  instruments, we CANNOT use instruments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same holds for automobiles, drugs and medicine, tractors, refrigerators, computers and so on. Ironically, nobody was told to live in America, as far as I know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, by the same logic, you mustn't use all that and much much more. In effect, it turns out one must live the life of a nomad, who wanders around with his cattle like Abraham did a few thousands of years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you feel like this is sensible, then please do it. But the fact that you used a service you were not told to use (i.e. stack exchange) makes it clear that you've already decided the matter for yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="581" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2013-09-06T05:36:33.287" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T05:36:33.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="79" CreationDate="2011-09-09T12:02:08.603" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add to what &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/79/if-were-not-instructed-to-do-something-can-we/978#978&quot;&gt;Tyles Gillies&lt;/a&gt; says, and in contradiction of your school's teaching, we &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; instructed to praise God with instruments. It's worth quoting in full:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20150&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 150&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Praise the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Praise God in his sanctuary;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;praise him in his mighty heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Praise him for his acts of power;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;praise him for his surpassing greatness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;praise him with the harp and lyre,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;praise him with timbrel and dancing,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;praise him with the strings and pipe,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;praise him with the clash of cymbals,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;praise him with resounding cymbals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Praise the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I especially love the idea of people taking the &lt;em&gt;clashing&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;resounding cymbals&lt;/em&gt; literally. =:-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T12:02:08.603" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1037" CreationDate="2011-09-09T13:30:15.680" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two theories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Traditionalists&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tradition says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, including the book of Genesis.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a lengthy argument for this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;JEDP Theory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some modern scholars believe that Genesis (along with the rest of the Pentateuch) was written by a series of authors.  The idea comes from the fact that God is referred to using multiple names (such as Yahweh, Elohim, Yahweh Eloheinu, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is controversial based on (1) the fact that it goes against tradition and (2) the fact that even today we use multiple names for God (&quot;our Heavenly Father&quot;, &quot;God the Father&quot;, &quot;God&quot;, &quot;Jehovah&quot;, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the two main theories.  Unfortunately, we don't have any way of truly knowing who wrote Genesis.  That's the reason for the varying theories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T15:45:47.547" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T15:45:47.547" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2003" CreationDate="2011-09-09T13:50:19.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we may very well abstain from ascribing omnipotence and omniscience in the strong sense to GOD and were it only to avoid the well known paradoxies that make it impossible to understand what this even means. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allowing such paradoxies can gravely affect faith, especially among logical thinking men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible does not give any accounts where GOD actually demonstrated his omnipotence (emphasis on OMNI - I am not saying that GOD didn't demonstrate great power). While we are at it, can you think of a way HE could demonstrate omnipotence? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, there is no reason to ascribe a logically impossible attribute to GOD. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="581" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T13:50:19.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2512" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-09T14:10:47.020" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions regarding the Christian understanding of the Jewish Sabbath, and for similar Christian practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:17:09.037" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:17:09.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2513" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-09T14:10:47.020" Score="0" Body="A weekly day of rest and/or time of worship." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T14:11:48.390" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T14:11:48.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2514" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-09T14:12:17.500" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T14:12:17.500" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T14:12:17.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2515" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-09T14:12:17.500" Score="0" Body="An account of the public ministry of Jesus according to his disciple/apostle John" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T14:14:28.607" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T14:14:28.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2516" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-09T14:23:39.060" Score="12" ViewCount="2244" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading up on an article that was talking about rewards in heavens. Then it struck me, is it a sin to do &quot;works&quot; for the sake of &quot;rewards&quot; in heaven ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible have to say regarding doing works for the sake of rewards in heaven ?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;==&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Side question: What is the difference between &quot;seeking personal gain&quot; and &quot;selfish ambition&quot; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="102" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T18:28:11.983" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T18:28:11.983" Title="Is it a sin to do &quot;works&quot; for the sake of &quot;rewards&quot; in heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;works&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-02-18T20:13:34.750" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2517" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2522" CreationDate="2011-09-09T14:24:19.940" Score="10" ViewCount="502" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any verse in the Bible or a logical construction disproving the &quot;physical&quot; position on Christ's being the Only Begotten Son?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had a conversation with a Mormon and he told me that Lucifer was a brother of Christ. When I referred him to these verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God&#xA;  sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through&#xA;  him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:9, KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that&#xA;  whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16, NKJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;he said that when the Bible says that Christ is the Only Begotten Son, it must be understood in terms of His physical birth, however both Lucifer and Christ had been born of God spiritually even prior to Christ's physical birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-04-27T19:08:05.727" LastActivityDate="2017-04-27T19:08:05.727" Title="What is the biblical/logical basis for rejecting the &quot;physical&quot; interpretation of Christ's being the Only Begotten Son?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2516" CreationDate="2011-09-09T14:27:59.717" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would have to say &lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, he indicates that you &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; work towards heavenly treasures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, he encouraged here, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:21 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:16-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;the entire passage&lt;/a&gt;, the motivation for the rich man was to attain eternal life: &lt;code&gt;“Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”&lt;/code&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:16&lt;/a&gt;).  The motivation was clearly selfish and self motivated.  However, Jesus did not respond saying that the motivation was wrong, but merely that his acts needed to be changed in order to gain treasures in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's pretty clear that Jesus wants us to work towards heavenly treasures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As sidran32 pointed out, while works will get you treasures in heaven, they will not provide salvation.  Of course, that's not what you asked, though, is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T17:35:31.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T17:35:31.803" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2516" CreationDate="2011-09-09T14:55:36.277" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt; It would not be a sin, necessarily, but simply an incorrect assumption. It may be a sin to teach this, however, because it is contrary to the teachings of Scripture, and you would be leading your brothers and sisters astray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider what is said in &lt;em&gt;Romans 3:27-28&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one has not faith, but only has works, it does not count for their salvation. That isn't to say that works are not important, as you can look at &lt;em&gt;James 2:26&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one has faith, works will naturally follow. If one's faith does not produce works, then what is that faith? Our faith should be fruitful and produce works. This is actually analogous to the story of Jesus and the fig tree in &lt;em&gt;Mark 11:12-14&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are the tree, and we have no faith, it will not produce fruit (works). If we are a tree producing fruit, however, God will bless us and we will feed many (figuratively or literally, depending on the work) with the fruit of our works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="268" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T18:21:42.437" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T18:21:42.437" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-09-09T15:04:41.690" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;William David Upshaw was born on October 15, 1866, near Atlanta, Georgia. He served in Congress during the late 1910's and throughout the 1920's, and ran for the office of the President for the Prohibition Party in 1932.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hNlFp.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;William Upshaw&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When he was 18 years old he fell onto the crosspiece of a wagon frame and fractured his spine. He spent 7 years in bed, and was a cripple until the age of 66, when he could stand for only minutes at a time. At the age of 66 he was miraculously healed in a healing campaign and was able to walk perfectly for the rest of his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shortly before his death at age 86, William Upshaw published his testimony in a tract which he sent to every Senator and member of the House of Representatives, as well as President Truman, Winston Churchill, King George, and Joseph Stalin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Upshaw_tract&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;William Upshaw Testimony Tract&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godsgenerals.com/pdf/1951_APRIL-MAY.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Voice of Healing 1951  (see Page 2)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T15:04:41.690" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2517" CreationDate="2011-09-09T15:26:50.297" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ is God's begotten son, which to relate it to human terms means he was born of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lucifer, on the other hand, is a fallen angel who was created by God as were the other angels, just as man was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:15-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:15-17 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all&#xA;  creation. 16 For in him &lt;strong&gt;all things were created: things in heaven&lt;/strong&gt; and&#xA;  on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers&#xA;  or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.&#xA;  17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses tell us that Christ was the firstborn, and all things were created through him.  This includes all things in heaven such as the angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2012-01-04T21:27:06.420" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T21:27:06.420" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-09T15:28:42.290" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This objection is what the populariser Richard Dawkins brings up in his book the God delusion. Their he tells us that Aquinas is wrong because if everything has a cause it just raises like he puts it &quot;The unanswerable question of who designed the designer or who created the creator.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end he does what philosophers like to call a strawman of the argument. It is when you misrepresent a position and then critique the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Aquinas actually says is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Objects do not come into existence without a cuase (Which forms the basis of science ie cause and effect)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The universe came into existence (Affirmed by physicist like Stephen Hawkins)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore the universe has to have a cause&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever the cause it had to exist outside of time and space to create the universe ie timeless and materialness &#xA;It had to be all powerful&#xA;It had to be all knowing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And before you know it you got yourself something resembling a God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument is perfectly logical and the points all clearly follow. So for the atheist to escape the conclusion he has to either prove a eternal universe or show things can come into existence without a cause &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice though that saying the universe has a cause ans say everything has a cause is not the same. He in fact criticises a argument that no one makes. Especially not those who talk about the cosmological argument for God's existance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the response in a nutshell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T15:28:42.290" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1770" CreationDate="2011-09-09T15:31:04.207" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;During the medieval European persecution of witches, there were a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of arguments about this topic: what is a witch, and what should the church or state do about them? Of course, there were plenty of writers that found Biblical justification from Exodus 22:18, and other passages. There was also an opposing side. One of the most important works from that time is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoverie_of_Witchcraft&quot;&gt;Discoverie of Witchcraft&lt;/a&gt; by Reginald Scot (1584), which comes out very strongly &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; witch trials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His main argument is that witchcraft does not exist, but he also says that even if witches could do all the things that witchfinders claimed, that does not mean that they deserve death. He goes at some length through the claimed abilities and practices of witches; it's difficult to summarize, but some of the examples are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Controlling the weather&lt;/strong&gt;: Scot says that only God can do this, citing a great many passages from Scripture (such as Psalm 148:8, &quot;lightning and hail, snow and clouds, stormy winds that do his bidding&quot;, and Job 37:12, &quot;[the clouds] are turned around by [God's] counsels, that they may do whatever he commands&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Killing people&lt;/strong&gt;: He says that if they do, then they can answer to the civil authority, just like anybody else who kills somebody.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Curing disease&lt;/strong&gt;: Again, only God can do this; Scot cites John 10:21, &quot;Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?&quot;. He also says that if witches cure with herbs or other plants, they are only using the natural resources that God has given humanity, and should not be condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Renouncing Christ&lt;/strong&gt;: Scot believes that they would be wrong to do so, but that impiety does not mean they should be executed. He also mentions that &quot;Peter the apostle renounced, curssed, and forsware his maister and Peters apostacie our Saviour Jesus Christ&quot; (for which see Matthew 26:71-75, Mark 14:69-72, Luke 22:58-62, John 18:15-18). In general, someone who sins should be allowed to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scot also opposes torture, saying &quot;I doubt not but that the pope ... with lesse compulsion would have renounced the trinitie, and have worshipped the divell upon his knees.&quot; This is part of his argument that Biblically-derived principles of justice demand that suspected witches should have a fair trial. This would argue against the kind of harassment that you saw, motivated by simple superstition and ignorance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T15:31:04.207" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2011-09-09T15:39:39.843" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima in Portugal is a good example.  The Sun danced around and plummeted toward earth in front of 70,000 people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T15:45:26.880" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T15:45:26.880" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2517" CreationDate="2011-09-09T15:54:03.050" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible clearly says that Jesus is God's only begotten son. You've quoted some of the main passages in your question. However you should note that more modern translations render &quot;only begotten&quot; as &quot;one and only&quot;, so not too much evidence should be placed on the 'begotten' aspect. It is of course true that all Christians are &lt;em&gt;adopted&lt;/em&gt; sons of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the real question is about Lucifer being a son of God. That's essentially a Mormon belief, and it's sole justification is from the Mormon scriptures. There is nothing in the Bible to support it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T15:54:03.050" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2536" CreationDate="2011-09-09T16:09:10.523" Score="9" ViewCount="9853" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians believe that Jesus saved us by His blood. Since God is the only true God and through Jesus we have victory over Satan, it is claimed that we do not have to fear on curses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I hear many others says and even written books saying curses have effect on our lives and we need to deal with it. Is that correct in the New Testament era?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am looking for answers based on biblical references.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-08T06:26:08.623" LastActivityDate="2015-04-08T06:26:08.623" Title="Do curses have any impact or effect on Christians?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;curses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T19:58:03.787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1363" CreationDate="2011-09-09T16:10:31.107" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;One theory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not the easiest thing to follow, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://bethlehemstar.net&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Star of Bethlehem&lt;/a&gt; has a very interesting hypothesis on the subject.  The information is all there, especially in footnotes, but unfortunately it's not presented very clearly on the site itself... they want you to get the video.&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; The upshot is that the date is most likely 3BC, and maybe 2BC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You get around the Herod problem because of a recent study that found a typesetting error made in 1544 for the manuscripts used to date Herod's death. It is now believed he died in 1BC, rather than 4BC:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible recounts that Herod learned of the Messiah's birth from astronomers who had seen the Star of Bethlehem. He tried to kill the child, so, obviously, the Bible records that Herod was alive at Jesus' birth. Remember that this mattered to Kepler, because historians of his time apparently inferred from Josephus' history that Herod died in 4 BC (9). Necessarily, Kepler assumed Christ was born before that date, perhaps 5 BC or earlier...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But modern scholarship has deepened our understanding of Josephus' manuscripts. A recent study was made of the earliest manuscripts of Josephus' writings held by the British Library in London, and the American Library of Congress. It revealed a surprise that allows us to target our mathematical telescopes better than could Kepler (10). It turns out that a ... printer typesetting the manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities messed up in the year 1544. Every single Josephus manuscript in these libraries dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC.  Strong recent scholarship confirms that date (11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* As a side note, the video is well worth your time. It's just a shame that they charge for it; this is something that would be good to see spread more widely.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T00:19:14.860" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2517" CreationDate="2011-09-09T16:15:44.650" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you &lt;a href=&quot;http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/the-only-true-god/video/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;listen&lt;/a&gt; to LDS teachers or read their doctrines you will see the very conscientiously worded phrase &amp;quot;the only God and his Son&amp;quot; rather than &amp;quot;God and his only Son.&amp;quot; It's the same set of words but the dots are connected differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference seems to hang on the word &amp;quot;only&amp;quot;. What does it connect to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that the operative phrase in John 3:16 is &lt;code&gt;τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ&lt;/code&gt; (&lt;code&gt;ton huion ton monogenē&lt;/code&gt;). Perhpas somebody with some real Greek knowledge could expound on this specific verse, but the the &amp;quot;only&amp;quot; bit seems to really indicate that he was an only son Son, not just  by that method. In fact many translations&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; don't even addd the word &amp;quot;begotten&amp;quot; although the original word is a compound that includes something about being a child, presumably in order to clarify in modern language what the adjective only is modifying. The meaning of the phrase in &amp;quot;King James English&amp;quot; which is retained in many English translations does not help us understand exactly what the verse is emphasizing. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2217/why-did-the-kjv-translate-jeremiah-2911-the-way-it-did/2230#2230&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; for another example.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+3:16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some English &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/3-16.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;translations&lt;/a&gt; go so far as to add extra emphasis to the fact that he is an only son by stating that bit twice without using the word 'begat'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it looks like we need to look farther than just this verse. So let's follow that word to some other usages in the Bible. In the following verses (and also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/esv/passage/Luke%209:38/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 9:38&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/luke+7:12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 7:12a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Luke%208:42/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 8:42a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... the context is quite clearly that of an only child, not an only child &amp;quot;that had a physical birth&amp;quot; rather than some other means. The word is also used by the same author earlier in John to refer, not to a child at all, but just to emphasis the &amp;quot;only&amp;quot; bit. In fact is used used of God himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/John%201:18/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;No one has ever seen God; the &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way to approach this issue is to show the other aspects of the relationship between Jesus and God. In John just a few chapters later we find Jesus making this statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%2010:30/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 10:30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;I and the Father are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This (and a myriad of other verses indicating this unity of identity (see proof texts for Jesus being God)) lead us to a special understanding of who Jesus was in relation to God. We also find that this relationship between the three persons of the trinity is exclusive of other persons. When it comes to Lucifer, we find no similar references of a unity relationship with the father. In fact he is referenced as an angel, a created being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+3:16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;HCSB&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NLT&lt;/a&gt;, ISV, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=GW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;GW&lt;/a&gt;, BBE, WEB, and others...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T21:55:16.140" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2117" CreationDate="2011-09-09T16:24:06.507" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are buying into atheist ideology if you think that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Must something be unprovable to permit faith in it? Is it possible to have faith in something which is certain provable fact?.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No I do not think so. When New Testament scholars decide on the validity of Jesus' resurrection they do so on the basis of historical facts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are these facts I can imagine someone ask?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Well the first fact is that Jesus was crucified around around 30 AD. (This is probably the most uncontroversial fact about Jesus.) There are various 1st century historians like Josephus that attest to this and of course all the eye witness accounts in the NT.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then after a few days his tomb was found empty by some of his woman followers. The account of which we find in Luke 23:55-24:11 .&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we are left with an event that needs explaining.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did the tomb become empty?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many New Testament scholars posit then the idea that his bodily resurrection was the best explanation for this empty tomb. Now not everyone might believe this and it does not prove the resurrection to everyone, but it definitely gives sound and rational basis for a belief in Christ's divinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are very privileged as Christians to have a religion that makes historical claims that are not ambiguous by nature but can be verified on a historical basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in closing. No I do not think faith and proof are mutually exclusive. I think you need proof to have any conviction in the miraculous and I think we have that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="302" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T16:47:19.613" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T16:47:19.613" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2011-09-09T16:40:24.810" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because God gave us free will. He is not interested in puppets on a string who just hop to his commands. He is interested in followers who of their own free will accept the knowledge of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free will cannot (Without being internally coherent) exist and the choice to do evil not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it looks like God could either have created a puppet humanity with no free will with which he make sure their is no evil in the world or he can give humanity free will and with it the option to do evil (Even though he prohibits it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems he has chosen the latter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T16:40:24.810" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2530" CreationDate="2011-09-09T16:45:45.357" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many kinds of curses, and Christians are certainly affected by some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first curse against any humans is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Cursed is the ground because of you; &#xA;     through painful toil you will eat food from it &#xA;     all the days of your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly all humans, including Christians, live under this curse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another type of curse is the so-called &quot;Generational Curse:&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our ancestors sinned and are no more, &#xA;     and we bear their punishment. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations%205:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Lamentations 5:7 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's clear that this affects Christians, too.  Not only in the way scripture talks about these generational curses, but in every-day life.  Drug-addicted parents tend to have children with drug addictions--or other related social problems.  And the cycle is &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; hard to break!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the question you're really getting at is, are curses &quot;cast&quot; by one person on another, effectual against Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2026:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 26:2&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, &#xA;     an undeserved curse does not come to rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs is not always considered to be &quot;hard and fast truths,&quot; though, and more &quot;words to live by,&quot; so this may not mean that &quot;undeserved curses&quot; are never effectual. It's also unclear (at least to me) what &lt;em&gt;type&lt;/em&gt; of curse this is actually referring to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.net-burst.net/bible/curse.htm&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; contends that Christians &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be affected by curses (or other demonic/occult practices, such as fortune telling), especially when they open themselves up to such influences.  But that through Christ, we can always overcome these attacks and negative influences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a personal side note, for which I have no references yet (I'll try to add some later):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians believe in spiritual warfare in one form or another.  If spiritual warfare is a reality, then surely calling upon demons to harm Christians would be an act of spiritual warfare.  And while I believe Christ can always overcome these attacks, I don't believe that always means Christians will never experience the effects of these attacks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T16:51:16.190" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T16:51:16.190" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2538" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2559" CreationDate="2011-09-09T17:17:22.117" Score="22" ViewCount="21055" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mystudybible.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Holman Christian Standard Bible&lt;/a&gt; and I saw that &lt;em&gt;Elohim&lt;/em&gt; is plural. Were it to be translated plural it would read something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In the beginning, &lt;strong&gt;gods&lt;/strong&gt; created the heavens and the earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But our English translations all show that &quot;God&quot; created the heavens and the earth, not &quot;gods&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This made me think of a later passage in Genesis (same chapter, though):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sub&gt;(emphasis obviously added)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Then God said, “&lt;strong&gt;Let us&lt;/strong&gt; make mankind in &lt;strong&gt;our image&lt;/strong&gt;, in &lt;strong&gt;our likeness&lt;/strong&gt;, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both the NIV and HCSB translations, &lt;em&gt;Elohim&lt;/em&gt; (plural) says &quot;Let us&quot; in the English translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't imagine that the entire translation of &quot;God&quot; throughout the bible has been wrong for thousands of years.  Yet, the word is &lt;strong&gt;plural!!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why is the plural &lt;em&gt;&quot;elohim&quot;&lt;/em&gt; translated as the singular &quot;God&quot;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T18:04:53.710" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T18:04:53.710" Title="Why is &quot;elohim&quot; translated as &quot;God&quot; and not &quot;gods&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-10-17T17:20:56.497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2538" CreationDate="2011-09-09T17:24:11.643" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is because God is triune; three persons with one nature.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/2049#2049&quot;&gt;My answer&lt;/a&gt; on the doctrine of the trinity explains this in detail, but the relevant excerpt for  Genesis is as follows.  See the other answer for how this leads to an understanding of a triune God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;God Is Plural&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's examine the scriptures to speak to God's plurality, and then see if we can understand the way that &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; God can also be &lt;em&gt;three&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first hint you can see is in Genesis 1, at the end of Day 6 when God creates man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen 1:26-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; Then God said, “Let &lt;strong&gt;us&lt;/strong&gt; make mankind in &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; image, in&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; likeness, so that &lt;strong&gt;they&lt;/strong&gt; may rule over the fish in the sea&#xA;  and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,&#xA;  and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; So God created mankind in &lt;strong&gt;his&lt;/strong&gt; own image,     in the image&#xA;  of God &lt;strong&gt;he&lt;/strong&gt; created &lt;strong&gt;them&lt;/strong&gt;; male and female he created &lt;strong&gt;them&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this passage we could deduce that in some way, God is in some manner plural.  (We can also see that the image of God is both male and female, even though scripture consistently refers to the Godhead in the male gender).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, though it's not obvious from the English, the first indication of plurality in God is in the very first verse in the Hebrew word for God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word translated &quot;God&quot; is the word El or Elohim. Elohim is&#xA;  the plural form of El. The plural form is used 2607 of the 2845 times&#xA;  the word &quot;God&quot; is used in the Old Testament. Not only is the word for&#xA;  God usually used in the plural form, but several verses refer to God&#xA;  as &quot;Us&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An example of how the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the plural is that&#xA;  it is translated &quot;gods&quot; (referring to idols) 235 times in the Old&#xA;  Testament. It is exactly the same word that is translated &quot;God,&quot;&#xA;  referring to the Almighty. An example is given below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I am the LORD your God [Elohim], who brought you out of the land of&#xA;  Egypt, out of the house of slavery. &quot;You shall have no other gods&#xA;  [Elohim] before Me. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:2-3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rich Deem (God and Science.org)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T17:24:11.643" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2540" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-09T17:40:51.587" Score="24" ViewCount="1903" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas's seminal work the &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; was an attempt to catalog all the theological arguments ever conceived. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of the reasoning is rooted in the Natural Law and it's what Catholics believe today. It's the reason we've got such strong opinions on abortion, birth control, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual &quot;marriage&quot; and more even though private interpretation of the Bible could potentially lead one to believe otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I wonder, is how much of a common ground is the Natural Law (specifically as it relates to the &lt;em&gt;Summa&lt;/em&gt;) and how did the reformers (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.) decide whether or not to accept it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-10T19:21:26.397" LastActivityDate="2019-03-30T08:23:24.997" Title="Did reformation leaders throw out the Summa Theologica?" Tags="&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2538" CreationDate="2011-09-09T17:54:17.397" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is very emphatic that God is one, that there is One God, and there is no other.  It is true that Elohim is a plural form.  While this does not explicitly teach the Trinity, it is consistent with it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's revelation of Himself is progressive.  Every bit of theology is not contained in the first sentence of the Bible.  We have to read the rest of it.  The Spirit of God is actually mentioned in verse 2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something that we see is that every creation bears the image of its Creator.  A painting reflects the mind and abilities of the painter.  Time, space, and matter also bear the image of their Creator.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Time is seen as past, present, and future, but all those are time.&#xA;Space is measured in three-dimensions--length, width, and height--but it's all space.&#xA;Matter coexists in solid, liquid, and gas, but it's the same substance.  A person has a body, soul, and spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are correct in saying &quot;Time is money&quot; rather than saying &quot;Times are money.&quot;  Dihydrogen oxide may be liquid, solid, or gas, but it's H20 nonetheless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while God is in His essence Father, Son, and Spirit, it is God who created the heavens and the earth--not gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T17:54:17.397" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2516" CreationDate="2011-09-09T17:59:37.890" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say a definite, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;It depends&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I decide to live for eternal things and &quot;fix my eyes not on what is seen but on what is unseen&quot;, and I live my life for eternal rewards, then that is commendable.  Rewards are definitely an incentive.  There is a reward in probably almost everything we choose to do in this life, and God certainly lets us know that He will give rewards for how we live here on earth (provided we trust Christ's atonement for our sins).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I can also seek eternal rewards with a corrupt heart, seeking to be seen and known as a spiritual person.  In that case, my reward is received here on earth by the acclaim I receive.  Matthew 6 speaks of this.  Giving is wonderful.  If you do it for God in secret, God rewards that.  If you give to the work of Christ and secretly harbor the desire to receive acclaim here on earth for it, then that is not commendable and would be considered a sin for having a heart attitude of pride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T17:59:37.890" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2540" CreationDate="2011-09-09T18:08:20.683" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can only speak for Calvin. AFAIK, he never explicitly interacts with Aquinas or the &lt;em&gt;Summa&lt;/em&gt;. In &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; he does reference &quot;The Schoolmen&quot; many times, but he seems to have in mind mostly later-medieval theologians rather than the angelic doctor himself. That's a shame, because Aquinas would have been a much more worthy opponent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants in general tend to be skeptical of natural-law arguments. Calvin himself believed that our only reliable knowledge about God comes from special revelation and he is very hard on the &quot;Papists&quot; for making stuff up (i.e., the incredible detail some writers claim to know about the kinds and hierarchies of the angels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I believe Calvin would have come down on the same side as the Catholic Church on the issues you mentioned. He certainly would have &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/305/why-do-protestants-allow-contraception/2421#2421&quot;&gt;opposed contraception&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few google results, suggesting that Calvin probably did not have access to the Summa: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/calvin-aquinas-16103/#3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Calvin on Aquinas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://vocatum.blogspot.com/2007/06/luther-calvin-and-aquinas-on-grace.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luther, Calvin and Aquinas: On Grace&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T03:58:36.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2538" CreationDate="2011-09-09T18:38:30.077" Score="-1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Jesus Christ Created the Earth and the Heavens&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you're seeing is Christ speaking with His father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:14-16&lt;/strong&gt;  (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of&#xA;sins.  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all&#xA;creation. 16 &lt;strong&gt;For by Him all things were created&lt;/strong&gt; that are in heaven and&#xA;that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions&#xA;or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and&#xA;for Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T18:38:30.077" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2117" CreationDate="2011-09-09T18:41:26.320" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends what you mean by &quot;faith&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When regarding religious matters, the most typical definition of &quot;faith&quot;, used by religious and non-religious alike--and I'd argue this is the most &lt;em&gt;useful&lt;/em&gt; definition in these cases--is: belief in the absence of evidence (and I mean the post-Enlightenment understanding of evidence:  independently confirmed by high quality sources, objective, fits into a successful model of the way nature works, reproducible or repeatedly observed, stands up to testing, etc.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under this definition, then, the answers to your questions would be:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Must something be unprovable to permit faith in it? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either unprovable or as yet unproved.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it possible to have faith in something which is certain provable fact? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this definition, no; then it is no longer an act of holding faith, it is an act of &lt;em&gt;knowing&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If something is proven beyond any doubt can you still have faith in it? How?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, not with this definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T18:41:26.320" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2547" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2553" CreationDate="2011-09-09T18:56:56.507" Score="23" ViewCount="1636" Body="&lt;p&gt;(This is a followup to the various answers for the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The specific concept of 'trinity' isn't specifically spelled out in the Bible.  Instead, we have deduced from various scripture verses that there are three distinct persons within the Godhead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical evidence that there are &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; three persons in the Godhead?  Why don't trinitarians believe that there could be others that are not revealed specifically through scripture, or that we can attribute multiple &quot;persons&quot; to a single concept of Father or Holy Spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2020-05-03T20:35:52.993" Title="What is the Biblical evidence that there are ONLY three persons in the &quot;Trinity&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;persons-of-the-trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2548" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:02:42.197" Score="27" ViewCount="5657" Body="&lt;p&gt;Curious what Christian theologians or the Bible may have said about this.  It seems like Jesus speaks in terms of his father's will as if it is not quite his own, which suggests separate minded-ness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what of the Holy Spirit ?  Is the Holy Spirit thought to have a mind in the same way Jesus and God the father are thought to (since they are considered &quot;persons&quot; in some sense of the word).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe there are ways it could be a bit of both shared and separate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be no obvious answer on this and it could be just up for speculation, and if so, I'd be interested in learning that fact at least.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T20:11:08.907" LastActivityDate="2013-04-26T00:35:16.383" Title="Does the Trinity share one mind or are there three separate minds?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="9" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T00:34:23.453" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2538" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:03:10.280" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This could be one of two things (or both).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God is referring to Himself in a way that is consistent with the idea of the Trinity: God being made of three persons (with one nature). See the answers on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; for more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This could also be analogous to the so-called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Majestic plural&lt;/a&gt;. In essence, similar to how kings and queens referred to themselves in the plural, God refers to Himself in the plural.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think the primary reason is that God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; plural, as per the concept of the Trinity, but the majestic plural part adds to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T19:03:10.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2547" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:05:04.030" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based off of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We know that there is only one God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We know that Jesus was the visible image of God in all of the Fathers fullness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We know that the Holy Spirit is also God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We know that we are all like Jesus, in that the Holy Spirit dwells within (some of) us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture makes no mention of any other part of the Godhead other than the four premises above. I cannot see how anybody would accept that we are any significant portion of that Godhead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I would say that we do know there are only three persons in the trinity.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T05:45:55.420" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2446" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:14:20.293" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is something that is answered differently by nearly every denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in the churches of Christ we believe that any organizational structure larger than the individual congregation is not well-supported from scripture. Separate congregations can and do work together and recognize a commonality, but none has authority over the others; congregations are led by their own elders, and there is no body, synod, convention, presbyter, diocese, or any other structure than Christ and scripture that has authority over the congregation.  We generally do not believe in the use of creeds, and in general strongly oppose any distinction between layperson and clergy, and do not ordain ministers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say we do not have ministers or that they are not trained, but we do not &quot;ordain&quot; them, and there is no specific qualification for a minister. I know a few who have not even completed college, but this is the exception and not the rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does happen is that individual members are encouraged to study the bible directly. A congregation will have bible classes for adults as well as children at each worship service, where members will work together to increase their understanding of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, congregations and the church do not have authority over members; Christ has authority over all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T19:53:36.033" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T19:53:36.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2552" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2557" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:18:38.743" Score="8" ViewCount="850" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:13-18&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 6:13–17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, put on every piece of God’s armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will still be standing firm. &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; Stand your ground, putting on the belt of truth and the body armor of God’s righteousness. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News so that you will be fully prepared. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; In addition to all of these, hold up the shield of faith to stop the &lt;strong&gt;fiery arrows&lt;/strong&gt; of the devil. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the fact that these arrows are on fire of any significance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-12-16T03:16:22.627" LastActivityDate="2015-12-16T14:53:36.433" Title="What is the significance of adding &quot;fiery&quot; to Ephesians 6:16?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;ephesians&gt;&lt;spiritual-warfare&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2547" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:21:41.340" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our biggest clue is from this scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:19 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, I know of no other verses that limit the Godhead to three persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T19:21:41.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2547" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:22:09.377" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are baptized into the name of 1) the Father, 2) the Son, and 3) the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's revelation of Himself was progressive.  After Genesis 1 was written, that was not the complete revelation of God to man.  There was more to reveal.  The &quot;mystery&quot; was revealed in Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.  Hebrews 1:1-2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, after God the Son Himself came to earth and revealed God to us, it would seem that this revelation is complete.  What greater thing could God do to reveal Himself than to come to us Himself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while the Bible does not explicitly say &quot;Three in One&quot;, it does reveal God as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T19:26:21.340" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T19:26:21.340" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2555" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:27:32.613" Score="0" ViewCount="199" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/109/sex-outside-of-marriage-is-a-sin-but-what-about-less-than-sex&quot;&gt;Sex outside of marriage is a sin. But what about &amp;quot;less than sex&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pre-marital sex is generally considered part of sexual immorality, &lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt; as such we should abstain from it as we do other sexually-immoral acts. &lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what does the Bible say about other levels of physical intimacy between unmarried partners?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&#xA;[1] 1 Corinthians 7:2&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&#xA;[2] Acts 15:20, 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 1 Corinthians 18; 1 Corinthians 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="313" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T19:32:09.750" Title="What level of intimacy is generally acceptable for unmarried couples from the standpoint of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-09-09T19:44:54.690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2548" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:29:54.747" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have all the references, but I'm quite certain that the Scriptures reveal that the Father, Son and Spirit each have mind, will, and emotions.  We can &quot;grieve the Spirit&quot;, Jesus was &quot;willing&quot; to make people clean, the Father &quot;has compassion&quot;, God's &quot;thoughts are higher than our thoughts&quot;, the Father has a will (as you mentioned), Jesus exhibited emotion when He wept...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, each is a Person with mind, will and emotions, yet they are One (John 17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At one point, the Scriptures do speak of the mind of the Lord, specifically Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For who has known &lt;strong&gt;the mind of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;, that he will instruct Him? But we have &lt;strong&gt;the mind of Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;  1 Corinthians 2:16 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-23T20:35:20.667" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T20:35:20.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2552" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:35:30.633" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I learned from my pastor a while ago, archers of the time would light their arrows on fire in an attempt to set wooden shields on fire and thus rob soldiers of any significant protection. In response to this, the Romans developed shields that had a gap in between the outer and inner plates. As such, flaming arrows would actually be extinguished by the lack of oxygen in between the wooden plates. Similarly, our faith should be like that; extinguishing the flaming arrows of the evil one and preventing continual damage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T19:35:30.633" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="109" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:38:29.030" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are asking the wrong question. Even tempting your mind to follow that line of reasoning will leave you open to temptation and making mistakes that need not have been made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't imagine that there is a line in the sand that you magically cross if you do one action too much. &lt;strong&gt;Don't see how far you can go.&lt;/strong&gt; Instead, flee. Run the other way. See how far you can get from the 'line', how far away from temptation you can place yourself. A man is told to stand against many things, and when all is done to stand firm still&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;. Yet when it comes to sexual temptations the Bible says to flee&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible counsels us over and over to be above reproach&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;. It instructs us to avoid anything even resembling evil. It calls us to be holy even as God is holy&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The right question is, &lt;em&gt;&quot;How can I best keep myself and my partner as pure as possible?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; When you find answers to that question, act on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Ephesians%206:13&quot;&gt;Ephesians 6:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Corinthians%2016:13&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 16:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Corinthians+6:18/&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+39:12/&quot;&gt;Genesis 39:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) she caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me.” But he left his garment in her hand and fled and got out of the house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians%201:22&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%201:16&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="219" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T19:32:09.750" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T19:32:09.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2538" CreationDate="2011-09-09T19:45:38.993" Score="32" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason this &lt;em&gt;plural&lt;/em&gt; noun is translated into other languages as a &lt;em&gt;singular&lt;/em&gt; noun is because it's being used with a singular verb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be comparable to saying &amp;quot;Ants is here to stay&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;Ants are here to stay&amp;quot;.  It turns this plural word (&amp;quot;ants&amp;quot;) into a proper noun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Example with singular verb&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 1:1 (referenced in the question), we see a great example of the plural &lt;em&gt;elohim&lt;/em&gt; being used with a singular verb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RIeos.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this text, &lt;em&gt;elohim&lt;/em&gt; is being matched with the singular verb &lt;em&gt;bra&lt;/em&gt;.  This indicates &lt;em&gt;elohim&lt;/em&gt; is the proper noun and it's translated as &amp;quot;God&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;King James Version&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Example with plural verb&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when &lt;em&gt;Elohim&lt;/em&gt; is used with a plural verb, it's translated as &lt;strong&gt;plural&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XypQE.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, &lt;em&gt;elohim&lt;/em&gt; is used with &lt;em&gt;olim&lt;/em&gt;, which is also plural.  This is, therefore, translated as &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot; (or sometimes &amp;quot;spirits&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2028:13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;King James Translation&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sub&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw &lt;strong&gt;gods&lt;/strong&gt; ascending out of the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Plural as Singular&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dori pointed me to &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8859/why-is-the-word-for-g-d-in-genesis-plural&quot;&gt;a question on Judaism.se&lt;/a&gt; discussing this point.  Their answers show that there are some words in Hebrew that, although they end in the &lt;em&gt;im&lt;/em&gt; (making them plural), are not actually plural. The Hebrew word for &amp;quot;sky&amp;quot; (&lt;em&gt;shamayim&lt;/em&gt;) also ends in &lt;em&gt;im&lt;/em&gt;, making it plural in some cases, singular in others: based on the verb.  (Also, this makes the translation &amp;quot;heavens&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;sky&amp;quot; based on the plurality, for what that's worth.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This accounts for why a word that appears to be plural--indeed many reference sites indicate that it indeed &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; plural--but is actually used as a singular word.  When we read the original Hebrew, we presume that because it ends in &lt;em&gt;im&lt;/em&gt;, it is plural.  The truth is, though, that this may or may not be a plural word; we have to look at the verb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(There are a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural#Defective_nouns&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;couple of analogues&lt;/a&gt; to this in English:  For example news, clothes, species, panties, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of the &lt;em&gt;verb&lt;/em&gt; that is being used is singular, we can be confident in our assessment that this is a singular god that is performing all these tasks.  Also, the use of the singular verb converts this plural noun into a proper name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T15:43:57.053" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2561" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2566" CreationDate="2011-09-09T20:12:29.237" Score="17" ViewCount="18939" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:4-9 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He&#xA;  loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive&#xA;  together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up&#xA;  with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ&#xA;  Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches&#xA;  of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you&#xA;  have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the&#xA;  gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.&#xA;  (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage along with various others in the Bible lead us to believe that only by grace we are saved.  Therefore, we are saved when we put our faith in Christ alone, realizing that it was by His blood alone that we have forgiveness of all our past, present, and future sins.  This is known as being &quot;baptized in the Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in John 3:1-5, we see this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the&#xA;  Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know&#xA;  that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these&#xA;  signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to&#xA;  him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot&#xA;  see the kingdom of God.”  Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be&#xA;  born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s&#xA;  womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to&#xA;  you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into&#xA;  the kingdom of God. (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in this passage, Jesus is saying that we must be &quot;born of the spirit&quot; (putting our faith in Jesus alone, as mentioned above) &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; &quot;born of water&quot; (physically immersed in water as a public profession of your faith)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe--and have seen plenty of strong evidence that supports--that it is by your faith in Jesus alone that saves you, and therefore allows you to live eternally in Heaven when you die or the Lord comes back.  However, this verse has always given me trouble with my previously stated belief, and I can't seem to mesh the two together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So ultimately I am asking this: &lt;strong&gt;How do the above two verses correlate with one another in teaching, and why did Jesus say what He did in the Gospel of John if it is only by our faith in Him that allows us to enter into Heaven?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="608" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-11-07T10:17:14.240" LastActivityDate="2020-04-10T15:39:47.777" Title="If we are saved by grace, then why does Jesus say we must be baptized in both spirit and water?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;ephesians&gt;" AnswerCount="16" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2326" CreationDate="2011-09-09T20:22:43.990" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is holy, God is perfect, and will not suffer to be associated with sin (imperfection), in any form. This is something that is hard to express accurately, but is at the core of what happened: sin &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be paid for, and the price is death, or, more accurately, complete and final separation from God. Doing good does not make up for the sin (bad) that is done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have sinned, and someone has to die for it. Your body will die anyway, whether you sin or not, and because you &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; sinned you would be an imperfect sacrifice. You're own death isn't good enough to avoid the final separation from God.  Without intervention, your soul will be demanded of you at judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only a completely sinless person could choose to die and intervene for you.  Only an eternal being could choose to die for everyone.  So Jesus Christ is the only possible sacrifice... unless you know another sinless, eternal being available to do the job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a perspective more directly from scripture, a careful reading of the first 6 or 8 chapters of Romans is great, and can be done in 15 minutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T21:08:16.680" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T21:08:16.680" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2011-09-09T20:38:01.497" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You also see passages like I Peter 3:21:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, baptism is directly mentioned more than 80 times in the New Testament, but is strangely absent from the teachings of many modern Protestant denominations.  Instead, what you will commonly find is a construct known as the &quot;Sinner's Prayer&quot;.  Nowhere in the bible is any such prayer ever mentioned, referred to, or shown by example, but many denominations use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I put it to you baptism is merely the way Gods wants us to ask Him for salvation. There is no power in baptism, just as there is no power in faith or prayer, but rather in the one in whom you place that faith or to whom you pray. Baptism would not then be a &quot;work&quot; to subvert grace, any more than the sinners prayer would be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is Sovereign. He can choose to save whomever he wants. If you choose not to be baptized, it is possible that God will still save you. But if you want to be certain, baptism seems to me (and the fellowship I belong to) to be the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; proscribed way in which Gods wants you to ask for that Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2019-11-06T17:08:36.910" LastActivityDate="2019-11-06T17:08:36.910" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2011-09-09T20:51:09.063" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of &quot;salvation by faith alone&quot; is quite incorrect.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/631/how-does-matthew-2531-46-the-sheep-and-the-goats-reconcile-with-salvation-by/635#635&quot;&gt;It comes from taking a few specific passages badly out of context, and it leads to some very scary places on the moral landscape.&lt;/a&gt;  It also flatly contradicts pretty much everything that Jesus personally had to say on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you read Jesus's own teachings, as well as Acts and the writings of Peter and James to help keep Paul in context, a very different picture emerges: salvation comes through sincere repentance and obedience to the laws of the Gospel, virtuous acts which are motivated by our faith.  Without faith, these are simply useless works, but without obedience and good works, our faith is dead and has no power to save us.  (See James chapter 2 for a clear explanation of the principle.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If salvation comes by faithful obedience to God's commandments, and God has spoken saying that baptism is a requirement for salvation, as he did in John 3, (see also the Day of Pentecost, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:37-38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:37-38,&lt;/a&gt;) then that's about as clear as it gets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T20:51:09.063" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2011-09-09T20:59:29.750" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a difficult question - not the question are we saved by grace, because we are - but the question of why does Jesus say &quot;water and spirit&quot;.  I am not sure an answer can have any finality to it, because of the nature of deep study that is required, and many top theologians disagree on the meaning of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what does Jesus mean when he says &quot;born of water&quot;. Does he mean necessarily mean baptism? Its important to have the right interpretation so we can know if Jesus is saying we nee to be baptized to be saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I get three different interpretations from this scripture (I know there are more).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is referring to a believers baptism. I am not sure if he would make baptism a requirement, because then it would be a direct contradiction to the thief on the cross going to heaven (there was no time for baptism there)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is referring to the baptism of John. I think this is plausible because Nicodemus would have known about John's baptism as all teachers of the law. And some thought that baptism of the water is what redeemed them. But of course John just came to prepare the way for Christ, so therefore the statement paraphrased this way, you see John baptizing with water you can't just be baptized with water, but also by the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is referring to natural birth. I think this is also possible, considering we are all in a water sack (placenta) in our mother's womb. This can make sense because Nicodemus says, how can I be born again, can I go back into my mother's womb?, and then Jesus answers (in this interpretations perspective) you must be born naturally (of course you have to be alive first) and born spiritually in order to enter the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the verses 7 - 8 Jesus says - 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus drops the born of the water here and just says &quot;So is everyone who is born of the Spirit&quot;. So that could provide context to what He said earlier. Meaning that ultimately it is those who are born of the Spirit, and the water is referring to maybe one of the interpretations above, meaning the water is only a start, but the Spirit is what does it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last quick note: Mark 16:16 Jesus says - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says here that you should believe and be baptized, but only those who don't believe will be condemned. I personally believe you should be baptized if you're a believer, because Jesus commands it and he says those who obey Him are those that love Him. And I also believe the thief on the cross disproves the belief that you &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to be baptized in order to be saved. But again... if you are able to be baptized I believe you should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 23:42-43 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” &#xA;43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course that is all just studying this from my perspective, there are probably holes in it, but hopefully that helps a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastEditorUserId="223" LastEditDate="2011-09-10T18:46:33.210" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T18:46:33.210" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2567" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2569" CreationDate="2011-09-09T20:59:45.883" Score="0" ViewCount="233" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible is there any mention of how smart or stupid large groups of people are?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="609" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-08T01:44:31.500" LastActivityDate="2016-01-08T01:44:31.500" Title="Is there a mentioning about the wisdom of a crowd in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;wisdom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-01-08T02:53:25.007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2567" CreationDate="2011-09-09T21:09:38.907" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, not really. Half the time 'crowds' are mentioned the word is basically synonymous with 'mob' and the other half it's just a big group of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is advice about seeking counsel from wise friends. The company you keep is important, and there are lots of stories (both good and bad) to show that. Most importantly, the Bible says that true wisdom always starts with knowing and rightly fearing the Lord, and that any understanding comes after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Proverbs%209:10&quot;&gt;Proverbs 9:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians our source of wisdom should always be first and foremost God's word, and having a few sound counselors to help us in understanding it rightly. If we do not know and fear God it cannot be said that we are wise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T21:09:38.907" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2567" CreationDate="2011-09-09T21:22:30.120" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2011:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 11:14&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure I would really use this to make a case for 'crowdsourcing' though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T21:22:30.120" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2570" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-09T21:33:35.577" Score="15" ViewCount="422" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Proverbs, and several other places in the Bible, mention the &quot;fear of the Lord&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Proverbs%209:10&quot;&gt;Proverbs 9:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The &lt;strong&gt;fear of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt; is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other contexts, such as when God spoke to Abraham, he said &quot;fear not&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis%2015:1&quot;&gt;Genesis 15:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “&lt;strong&gt;Fear not&lt;/strong&gt;, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In yet other contexts, the &quot;fear of the Lord&quot; is praised as a great thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Isaiah%2033:6&quot;&gt;Isaiah 33:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and he will be the stability of your times,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  the &lt;strong&gt;fear of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt; is Zion's treasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference in these context and in what sense are Christians supposed to &quot;fear&quot; the Lord?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-08T01:41:30.833" LastActivityDate="2016-01-08T17:50:16.367" Title="What is the &quot;fear&quot; of God?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;&lt;wisdom&gt;&lt;emotions&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-01-09T10:43:30.823" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2011-09-09T21:34:42.130" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;You are Saved by Grace Alone.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, you are saved by grace alone. There is nothing that you could do in order to get into heaven without God's grace. It is by God's Grace that He will save you and give you all of the things that He promises He will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because God is so faithful, we can rely on the fact that He has said something, therefor if we follow His command then we will be saved. But this is all because of God's Faithfulness and His Grace. It can often seem like we have to DO something in order to get into heaven, but you must understand that we are only DOING what God expects of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You are saved by Faith&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul in Romans puts it, it is by Faith that we are saved. Look to the thief on the cross, the only thing that we can see is that he had faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 7:50&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This kind of idea echos through the Bible. If you're happy with thinking that you have enough faith/belief in Jesus, then go on your way and don't worry about anything else in the Bible. Most of these people didn't have the new testament and still got saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Confidence in your salvation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are saved by Faith, but as James puts it, not by faith alone. There is more to it then that. It's no wonder why 80% of America preaches faith alone, and Jesus says that the wide road leads to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:24&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not&#xA;by faith alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is what most people believe, but when you keep reading you'll begin to find verses that talk about something more that is required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:26-27&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the&#xA;knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a&#xA;fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume&#xA;the enemies of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 2:19&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this&#xA;inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who&#xA;confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 6:46&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;There is something that means more to God than Faith.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. &lt;strong&gt;But the greatest of&#xA;these is love.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greater than your faith, is your Love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“If you love me, keep my commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=love%20command&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;version1=31&amp;amp;spanbegin=1&amp;amp;spanend=73&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Love command is profound! Click to see!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Baptism for repentance&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting baptized is your outward confession of repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 3:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who&#xA;is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He&#xA;will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Repentance is to turn from your wicked ways and learn how to Love people!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/554/is-repentance-required-for-salvation&quot;&gt;See what Repentance is!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/631/how-does-matthew-2531-46-the-sheep-and-the-goats-reconcile-with-salvation-by/636#636&quot;&gt;See how you will be judged!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17/does-believing-in-jesus-christ-make-me-a-christian-or-do-i-have-to-do-something/601#601&quot;&gt;Is Believing enough or do you have to do something else?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T21:36:49.380" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2570" CreationDate="2011-09-09T21:40:56.457" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 9:10 and Isaiah 33:6 are referring to the fear of offending the Lord or sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe in Genesis 15:1 God is telling Abraham that he does not need to have fear, because he did a good thing by rejecting the king of Sodom's reward in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2014:21-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 14:21-24&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Bible states&lt;/a&gt; it pretty well when it says, &quot;Lastly, the gift of fear fills us with a sovereign respect for God, and makes us dread, above all things, to offend Him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is saying that we should have so much respect for God that we should fear ever offending him.  While the source is Catholic, I don't necessarily take it as a Catholic only stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some say we should fear the Lord's wrath, but I believe the wrath alone should not be why we fear sinning.  It should also be out of love and respect for the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T21:51:12.820" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T21:51:12.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2573" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2578" CreationDate="2011-09-09T22:17:55.337" Score="18" ViewCount="24655" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2026:39&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:39 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did Christ mean by &quot;the cup&quot;? Was it &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Death on the cross&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The intense suffering He endured&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's wrath&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His taking the sins of the world upon Himself&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All of these, the whole process&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Something else?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastEditorUserId="491" LastEditDate="2011-09-09T22:45:14.097" LastActivityDate="2012-10-11T02:17:48.390" Title="&quot;Let this cup pass from me&quot; - What is the cup?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2548" CreationDate="2011-09-09T22:26:32.303" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I asked a similar question pertaining to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1878/32&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; within the Trinity&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that the Triune God is one in &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; and three in &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt;, and that I consider the mind to be a part of the person, I would conclude that each of the three persons has their own separate mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, because they share the same perfect and infinite &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt;, their is never any dissent or discord among the persons of God.  In a sense, though they are of separate persons each with their own mind, they are of &amp;quot;one mind&amp;quot;, in unity of purpose and being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, scripture talks in different places about the &amp;quot;mind of Christ&amp;quot; (e.g. 1 Cor 2:16) and the &amp;quot;mind of the Spirit&amp;quot; (e.g. Rom 8:27), quite distinctly at least implying two distinct minds for those two of the Holy Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor:2:14-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. &lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%208&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rom 8:26-27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T18:56:31.847" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2573" CreationDate="2011-09-09T22:32:30.630" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interestingly enough, the NLT has the answer right there in the verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26:39&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 26:39&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; He went on a little farther and bowed with his face to the ground, praying, “My Father! If it is possible, let this cup of &lt;strong&gt;suffering&lt;/strong&gt; be taken away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other verses that reference the same cup also say &quot;suffering&quot; in the NLT. However, I don't specifically know where the translators got that from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T22:32:30.630" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2573" CreationDate="2011-09-09T22:37:27.207" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;He was speaking of the entire process that was about to begin.  Here was Jesus, the Perfect Man, who had never known sin, and he was about to have the all sins of the world laid upon him, and suffer God's punishment for all of them, in order to make it possible for all the rest of us to find salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the horrific levels of physical and spiritual agony this must have involved, (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:40-44&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke's account&lt;/a&gt; of the event,) there is also another factor to consider: the deepest of all human fears is said to be the fear of the unknown, and this was truly unknown territory to Jesus, who had never had even the slightest personal experience with sin and the separation from God that sin brings!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see a bit of the Savior's human side: when he was about to take it all upon himself, he was afraid, like anyone would be.  But he didn't let that stop him from fulfilling the mission that the Father had given him.  He said &quot;nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt,&quot; and went through with it, even until the end, and opened up the doorway to salvation for all of us!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-09T22:37:27.207" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2577" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-09T23:11:32.497" Score="11" ViewCount="4040" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many cultures in many ages have practiced arranged marriages. I understand that in Jewish culture --at about the time of Christ-- arranged marriages were considered a normal way of life. Obviously if this was a religious value at the time Christianity probably had an opinion about it. Somehow today, many 'Christian' cultures do NOT practice arranged marriages (none in the west, only a few scattered ones elsewhere).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did this happen? Is it a cultural issue that Christianity never held a position on or did the early Christian church take a stand against the Jewish custom? Was it Christianity and some doctrine that instigated this change, or just coincidence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-10T20:11:22.827" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T01:55:18.390" Title="Has Christianity ever come down in opposition of arranged marriages?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2573" CreationDate="2011-09-10T00:26:17.933" Score="15" Body="&lt;h2&gt;It's the Cup of God's Wrath&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 51:17+ NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Cup of the LORD’s Wrath&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 Awake, awake!     Rise up, Jerusalem,  you who have drunk from the&#xA;hand of the LORD     the cup of his wrath,  you who have drained to&#xA;its dregs     the goblet that makes people stagger.&#xA;21 Therefore hear this, you afflicted one,     made drunk, but not&#xA;with wine.  22 This is what your Sovereign LORD says,     your God,&#xA;who defends his people:  “See, I have taken out of your hand     the&#xA;cup that made you stagger;  from that cup, the goblet of my wrath,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;you will never drink again.  23 I will put it into the hands of your&#xA;tormentors,     who said to you,     ‘Fall prostrate that we may walk&#xA;on you.’  And you made your back like the ground,     like a street to&#xA;be walked on.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again in Jeremiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 25+&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Cup of God’s Wrath&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from&#xA;my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the&#xA;nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 When they drink it, they will&#xA;stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 “Then tell them, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel,&#xA;says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of&#xA;the sword I will send among you.’ 28 But if they refuse to take the&#xA;cup from your hand and drink, tell them, ‘This is what the LORD&#xA;Almighty says: You must drink it! 29 See, I am beginning to bring&#xA;disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go&#xA;unpunished? You will not go unpunished, for I am calling down a sword&#xA;on all who live on the earth, declares the LORD Almighty.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes on and on in Jeremiah. Of course, Revelation makes the last mention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 14:10&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured&#xA;full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with&#xA;burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 16:19&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the&#xA;nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the&#xA;cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Edit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your condemnation was to suffer God's wrath in hell for all of eternity. Jesus took your law place and was subjected to God's wrath on your behalf. There's nothing else in all of existence that God the Son would have so much stress over that He would sweat blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T00:38:21.393" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2579" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2590" CreationDate="2011-09-10T02:12:23.143" Score="38" ViewCount="10425" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 7, Jesus tells his brothers that he is not going up to the festival. Then he goes up in secret. This sounds to me like a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-26330&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 7:6-10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; You go to the festival. I am not&lt;sup&gt;[b]&lt;/sup&gt; going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[b]&lt;/sup&gt; Some manuscripts &lt;i&gt;not yet&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians believe in Jesus' sinlessness, while believing that lying is a sin. Given those beliefs, how do such Christians explain his words in John 7?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-11-30T01:11:54.220" Title="How is Jesus not lying in John 7?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;&lt;deception&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2548" CreationDate="2011-09-10T02:27:01.043" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said He only did the things He saw His Father do, and that the Holy Spirit would speak of Him, so it would indicate that they have one will, even if separate minds. However it is important to remember: the Trinity is a mystery - but we are given an example within ourselves. We have a body, soul and spirit, and all think with the same mind. Unfortunately in our fallen state, our three parts don't agree (body and spirit war against each other), but if we take this on principle, the idea of the Trinity having one Mind becomes a bit clearer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T02:27:01.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="693" CreationDate="2011-09-10T03:20:12.157" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus speaks about repaying a debt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you you will not get out till you have paid the last penny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A26&amp;amp;version=RSVCE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:26&lt;/a&gt; / &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A59&amp;amp;version=RSVCE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 12:59&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is evidence that there is a place you go, after you are judged where a payment is collected. That's the purification that happens in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm#Purgatory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;state of purgatory&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2014-09-23T00:57:19.180" LastActivityDate="2014-09-23T00:57:19.180" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2579" CreationDate="2011-09-10T03:40:05.387" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a little easier to understand using the KJV translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up &lt;strong&gt;yet&lt;/strong&gt; unto this feast; for my time&#xA;  is not yet full come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He didn't say he wasn't going. He said He wasn't going yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, for comparison, Young's Literal Transation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ye -- go ye up to this feast; I do not yet go up to this feast,&#xA;  because my time hath not yet been fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see the original greek, shown below...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/DS5R0.png&quot; alt=&quot;Original Greek&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T03:40:05.387" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2011-09-10T03:55:07.267" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe Jesus is talking about His public ministry, not about any miracle. A closer reading of John 2:1-12 can bring out some possibilities as follows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mary knew about Jesus's power and His calling. (Events in  His childhood described in Gospel of Mathew and Luke points to that). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;She would have probably witnessed His power in events which happened in family circles which may not be recorded in Gospels (Inferred from John 21:25 - And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This marriage party being a public event with probably many from the locality and around, Jesus did not want to do a public miracle since it was not yet time for His public ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above reasons would explain the answer Jesus give to His mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we can see Mary's response to those known in need (here servants who were handling store). She says to them to 'do whatever He says'. I find it consistent, since it appears now Mary understood that Jesus power cannot be controlled by any body else.  We can see Jesus did the miracle in private where only servants, His  disciples who were with him that time and probably Mary only knew about it. This can be inferred from verse 9 where it says master 'did not know where it came from'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in summary,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What did Jesus mean that his hour had not come?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus means that the time of His public ministry not come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why do his actions seem to contradict his words?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His action did not contract His words. He did it in private without the group assembled there knowing it, not even the master of ceremonies. He ensured that it was known only to a very private circle (need to know basis in modern parlance). The verse 11 says, disciples believed in Him. Servants might not have known who He is and others did not even know about it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trust this helps us to understand this passage and Jesus's words better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="140" LastEditDate="2011-09-10T08:30:07.023" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T08:30:07.023" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2517" CreationDate="2011-09-10T04:27:19.503" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question seems to hinge on the source of Jesus' begotten-ness. Is he the only son of God who was begotten by Mary, or is he the only son of God, who was begotten by God himself? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Caleb points out, the Greek word in question is &lt;code&gt;μονογενῆ&lt;/code&gt;, which is a compound word from &lt;code&gt;μόνος&lt;/code&gt; (only) and &lt;code&gt;γένος&lt;/code&gt; (child), and modern translations do not use the word 'begotten'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is already a problem for the LDS interpretation, I think. It relyies on a distinction between the source of Jesus' sonship (God) and his begotten-ness (Mary), when the Greek does not really allow for that distinction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But let's press on. We still need to ask: what is the source of Jesus' uniqueness, his one-and-only-ness? Consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 1:14 NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his&#xA;  glory, the glory of &lt;strong&gt;the one and only Son, who came from the Father&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty straightforward rendering of the Greek (&lt;code&gt;μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός&lt;/code&gt;, literally &quot;only son from the father&quot;). It seems clear to me from this verse that Jesus' uniqueness comes from his relationship to the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the most convincing argument, to me, is what is not said. Mary is not mentioned by John until chapter 2, and is not mentioned in the surrounding context of any of John's only-son passages - which seem to emphasize (1:14 in particular) Jesus' divinity rather than his humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-24T09:10:05.883" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T09:10:05.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2011-09-10T07:08:26.633" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I myself has always been partial to the line from the movie &amp;quot;Constantine:&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angela Dodson: I guess God has a plan for all of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Constantine: God's a kid with an ant farm, lady. He's not planning anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now John's a cynic, and not a believer. In fact, at this point in the film he's about as un-sympathetic as possible without actually being the bad guy, with that line as one of the &amp;quot;cappers.&amp;quot; But that doesn't mean it's not my answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created us and gave us this place. It's ours, and we do with it what we like. If we build an interstate, it stays built; if we discover a vaccine, it keeps working; if we execute an innocent man, with one notable exception, he stays dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people stop there and claim then that there's no need for God, or even no room for God. But that isn't true. For starters, God isn't a child and this isn't an ant farm. He works on this planet, but not by stepping in and fixing it for us, but by working through us. Like a loving father, just because he &amp;quot;gave&amp;quot; it to us doesn't mean that he doesn't want to see us make the best of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so we have the prophets, and the Incarnation, and the Spirit. Not to take it out of our hands and &amp;quot;fix it,&amp;quot; but to show us the ways to make it better and to enable us to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, ultimately, I do believe God has a plan. A big one, bigger than we can possibly imagine. But I've sat through too many funerals and tragedies where &amp;quot;it's God will&amp;quot; was repeated to the point of desperate chanting, or poems read about why he sometimes picks the youngest flowers to pretty up his home, a phenomenon Rick Diamond calls &amp;quot;God the Monster.&amp;quot; And I'm with him in saying: please stop saying that: &amp;quot;Just tell them you love them and your sorry this happened. That's enough.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After my mom's friend drowned in a riptide, there much of that. He was a well-beloved missionary and family man who was known for his kindness. And there was much &amp;quot;we don't know why this happened.&amp;quot; And during that, I realized I did: loving God and ones family doesn't give someone the ability to breathe underwater. That's what makes riptides dangerous to everyone. And &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; I could start to mourn him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that, I stopped blaming God for not saving us from ourselves. The problems we have as a world, we have because we haven't solved them yet. The evil is that we let our own short-sighted self-interest and fear keep us from solving them. God is at work within us to correct that, if we will let him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that's how I would respond, but that's just my answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="497" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T07:08:26.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2011-09-10T07:35:57.753" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two basic approaches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. Blame Mankind&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evil and suffering exist because of mankind's disobedience to God. Exactly how this works is more difficult to comprehend. Certainly a lot of suffering is the &lt;strong&gt;direct&lt;/strong&gt; result of man's actions, but other types of suffering - things like natural disasters - can't be justified quite so easily. They may be understood as the &lt;strong&gt;indirect&lt;/strong&gt; result of man's actions, but demonstrating this brings its difficulties (a literal interpretation of Genesis makes this easier to explain but brings its own challanges).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Glorify God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't understand everything about &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; people suffer, but we can say what God's response is to it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus came into the world and suffered along side us&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus worked tirelessly to reduce the suffering of others&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus died to free us from the sin that causes so much of our suffering&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus rose again with the promise of a life to come that is free of suffering&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T07:35:57.753" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-09-10T09:20:23.510" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theistic evolution is certainly possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theistic evolutionist in the bible finds some problems&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 10:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also find a problem when confronted with the idea that God made us humans in his image and now we introduce evolution who says we have a common ancestry with apes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as the passage mentions Genesis teaches us that the plants bring forth their own kind. Which is in stark contras to the theory of evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1 - 11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing that I think is the most Un-Christian about the theory of evolution is that is assumes naturalism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a good article about the subject for anyone interested in some extra reading&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibleworld.com/balesteg.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bibleworld.com/balesteg.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T09:20:23.510" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2011-09-10T10:55:39.017" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tim Keller in his book, Reason for God dedicates a chapter to this very issue. I'll provide a preview of what he says...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He states it this way:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a good and powerful God exists, he would not allow pointless evil,&#xA;  but because there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; much unjustifiable pointless evil in the world,&#xA;  the traditional good and powerful God could not exist. ... Tucked away&#xA;  within this assertion that the world is filled with pointless evil is&#xA;  a hidden premise, namely, that if evil appears pointless to me, then&#xA;  it must be pointless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then goes on to point out that just because you can't see a good reason why God might allow something to happen does not mean there can't be one. Beneath this skepticism is an enormous faith in one's own cognitive faculties. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If our minds can't plumb the depths of the universe for good answers&#xA;  to suffering, well, then, there can't be any! This is blind faith of a&#xA;  high order&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tim Keller, The Reason for God, Chapter 2 &quot;How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T10:55:39.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-10T11:03:08.100" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Surely, if we define &quot;God&quot; as the supreme being... if that supreme being was created, then that which created it is the supreme being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot really fathom God, he does not subscribe to our laws. It's like an ant asking who created humans?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T11:03:08.100" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2579" CreationDate="2011-09-10T11:35:21.643" Score="42" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2582/30&quot;&gt;Bob's answer&lt;/a&gt; about the intended meaning of 'not yet going' is on the right track but it leaves out a couple of important details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more than one set of Greek manuscripts and there are actually quite a number of one and two character type differences between them. Usually, these involve punctuation or spelling differences and have no affect on the text; but sometimes a snippet can be a little bit different and it's unclear which set of manuscripts to go by.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that NONE of these differences in the manuscripts used to produce our translations touch on ANY doctrinal issue so there is no need to fret about that. Even when a word is dropped, the meaning can be matched with the same doctrine in other places in the text. However, sometimes odd linguistic issues like the one in this question do come up. There are at least a dozen or so that I've read about and probably more that I haven't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, the real trouble is not actually in verse 6 which was [originally] quoted by the OP. In verse 6 Jesus is talking his final hour and time to go to the cross. That is is what he means when he said his time has not fully come, but the disciples completely misunderstand this. Not just this time either: he often references his death and they don't really get the picture. In verse 6 there is no particular problem with the translation, 'not yet' is appropriate, but the subject matter is not understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real issue comes in verse 8 where Jesus actually IS talking about physically walking to the feast. This is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2579/is-jesus-lying-in-john-7/2582#2582&quot;&gt;the verse that Bob quotes&lt;/a&gt; and contains the word issue.  In quite a number of the older manuscripts, the word in question is 'oupō' as quoted and is correctly translated 'not yet', but this word is found in other manuscripts as 'ouk' meaning simply 'not'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So which is it? The answer is it doesn't matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In English, the use of present continuous tense &quot;&lt;em&gt;I am not going&lt;/em&gt;&quot; can and often does apply to a events in the future. That would mean the same thing as &quot;&lt;em&gt;I am not going to go at all&lt;/em&gt;&quot; However the verb tense used in Greek here simply meant &quot;&lt;em&gt;I am not now going&lt;/em&gt;&quot; ... as in he wasn't going to budge that moment and go like they wanted. It wasn't an indication that he didn't maybe plan on going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, whichever set of manuscripts you choose to go by, whether you use 'not' or 'not yet' in verse 8 is a matter of discretion of the translators. It is not necessarily a mistake in the NIV or any other translation to use simply 'not' because the best manuscripts have it written that way in Greek, however because of the verb tense we also know that whether the alternate 'not yet' Greek version is original or not, that sense is indeed intended by the original author of the text. You will find many translations that use 'not yet' because it gives us a clue about what is being said that is lost in our English verb tense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And no -- any way you add it up, Jesus was not lying. He did not jump up and do what the disciples wanted him to do (verse 8) nor had his final time come (verse 6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T21:40:06.840" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2530" CreationDate="2011-09-10T14:57:07.077" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, Satan cannot touch a true believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:18&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I John 5:18 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he&#xA;  that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and &lt;em&gt;that wicked one toucheth&#xA;  him not.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that the Holy Ghost in us is greater than the one that is in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I John 4:4 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them:&#xA;  because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if God were to 'curse us' Himself (Genesis 3:17, etc.), we have the promise that it would be for our good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:28&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:28 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; And we know that all things work together for good to them&#xA;  that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-24T09:21:44.453" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T09:21:44.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2517" CreationDate="2011-09-10T16:36:47.553" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS belief goes beyond just Christ and Lucifer being brothers; they believe that all of us are spiritually siblings of Christ too. Their doctrine isn't restricted to the Bible, but there is a supporting passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%208:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:16 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Christ is the only son of God, then how are we also children of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2517/is-there-any-place-in-the-bible-or-any-logical-argument-disproving-the-physical/2522#2522&quot;&gt;a_hardin&lt;/a&gt; quoted &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:15-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:15-17&lt;/a&gt; to show that Christ was created differently than Lucifer and we were, however a passage in Revelations seems to say otherwise:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelations%203:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 3:14 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-10-16T00:17:35.263" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2594" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2597" CreationDate="2011-09-10T17:33:32.443" Score="12" ViewCount="738" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are exorcisms considered, in the various Christian Professions, an effective remedy for possession?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought they were just a curiosity from the past, but here's what I found on Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gabriele Amorth (born 1 May 1925) is an Italian Roman Catholic priest and an exorcist of the Diocese of Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_Amorth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gabriele Amorth (Wikipedia)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are exorcisms actually supported, encouraged, and, well, considered official catechism by the various Christian religions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-09T16:07:23.310" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T16:07:23.310" Title="Exorcisms: effective remedy or historical curiosity?" Tags="&lt;demons&gt;&lt;exorcism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T05:29:02.223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2577" CreationDate="2011-09-10T17:34:05.773" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, there's no biblical or traditional Christian doctrine about whether a person should pick their own spouse or have it arranged by someone else.  In the absence of this, it generally gets left to culture, and so you see almost none of it in Western cultures, where arranged marriages are considered a silly, antiquated concept, and a bit more acceptance of the practice among Eastern Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that you'll see the same pattern among Jews.  You're not likely to find many (if any at all) American Jews whose marriage was arranged by their parents, for example, not because that is or is not the Jewish way, but because it's a highly un-American thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T17:34:05.773" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2594" CreationDate="2011-09-10T18:08:31.853" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholicism, it is practised today. It isn't talked much about it, since it is criticised from scientists and medical doctors, which often are Christians themselves, but don't believe in exorcism. To avoid debate, it is a taboo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is dangerous for those, performing the miracle, because if there is serious damage on the client side, it might result in a court case about nonassistance of a person in danger, bodily harm or involuntary manslaughter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some references: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump.fcgi/2003/0828/vermischtes/0110/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is a 8 years old story&lt;/a&gt; from a German newspaper. It talks about a case from Milwaukee, where a protestant [to my surprise] priest accidentally killed a boy, suffering from autism, in kneeing and laying himself on top of the boy while praying. The boy died from suffocation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a case &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;from the catholic church&lt;/a&gt; which shows, that  Epilepsy might be for us, what former times thought to be possession. It is interesting, in that a higher, catholic official, Joseph Kardinal Höffner, chairman of the Deutschen Bischofskonferenz in 1978 stated, that daemons are in principal somehing, which his church thinks, are true. They are a sort of angels, build by God, who created them, but some of them turned bad, and then may join humans. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The German version of Wikipedia is more detailed in that respect, so give it a try, if you can read it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="282" LastEditDate="2014-06-19T08:03:52.140" LastActivityDate="2014-06-19T08:03:52.140" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2594" CreationDate="2011-09-10T19:08:51.523" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer wants to be objective and won't give a plaidoyer pro or contra exorcism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First some words about the &lt;strong&gt;biblical foundation&lt;/strong&gt; of exorcism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;OT&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of an &lt;em&gt;evil power&lt;/em&gt; didn't actually play a role in ancient Israel because of the sole and universal power of JHWH – except for two pericopes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Sam 16:14-23&lt;/strong&gt;: Talks of the expulsion of a demonic power that tortures King Saul&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Tob 8:1-9&lt;/strong&gt;: Talks of a ritual expulsion of demons&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evil doesn't lay in any demonic power but rather in the weakness of man … until in the postexilic period a belief in demonic power develops (but still they don't have any dualistic principle which assumes an equivalent power beside God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical passages are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ijob 1:6 – 2:7&lt;/strong&gt;: Describes Satan as a man at the court of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sach 3:1-7&lt;/strong&gt;: Satan as an adversary and accuser of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Chr 21,1&lt;/strong&gt;: The Hebraic word for Satan evolves to a name which represents God's wrath but is not God himself&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wis 2:24&lt;/strong&gt;: Satan as the adversary of Israel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But nevertheless – the appearance of Satan in the OT is a marginal phenomenon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today's image of Satan as a spirit being of divine power is later developed in the non-biblical Jewish literature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;NT&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things are different in the NT – e.g. in the Gospel of Mark: Here we find four exorcistic traditions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1,23–27&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5:1-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7:24-30&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9:14-27&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They all say: Jesus had the ability to heal from illness and possession. Similar passages can also be found in the other synoptic Gospels (of Matthew and Luke).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the three summaries in Mark's Gospel &lt;strong&gt;1:34&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;1:39&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;3:11&lt;/strong&gt; we know that Jesus did perform exorcism and gave this ability the twelve apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alright, enough Biblical evidence – what about exorcism &lt;em&gt;today&lt;/em&gt;? What do say …&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;… Catholics?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic authors (Dr. Holböck, Pater Rodewyk, J.M. Hartmann, Corrado Balducci, a Bishop of Trier (Franz Rudolf Bornewasser), Pope Benedict XVI.) emphasize that there are cases of real possession that cannot be explained by medical doctors and psychologists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I quote Joseph Ratzinger:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evil is not only a psychic component, it's rather an oncoming, independent power that accrues humans. [...] Where HE [God] is, appears he [the devil] as void.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exorcism is still an official doctrine of the Catholic church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what do say …&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;… Protestants?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther developed – as part of his Christology – a massive idea of the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But nevertheless an idea of exorcism is practically not present&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; in the Protestant Church – there's also no ritual like the Catholic &amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;Rituale Romanum&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are even some who want to erase an idea of an evil demonic power saying it's superstition, like Rudolf Bultmann:&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church shall hurry up to exterminate it [the idea of demons]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: With some exceptions, e.g. Christoph Blumhardt&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2: Rudolf Bultmann, ''Kerygma und Mythos'' (1948), p.150&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-06-19T08:19:52.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2598" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2603" CreationDate="2011-09-10T19:24:16.320" Score="14" ViewCount="426" Body="&lt;p&gt;I feel that whatever Jesus did, if it is because He is &lt;em&gt;special&lt;/em&gt; (the son of God in a way that I am not - because aren't we all God's children?) then it holds little relevance to my life - because it is something I can not strive for or live by because I am not &lt;em&gt;special&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if He was a man not unlike me, and He knew the way to live, and led by example, so that I can emulate Him, and strive for His loving approach to everything He faced, uncompromisingly, and with the moral strength and conviction to carry out the orders of the heart, then His story holds the utmost relevance to my life, as it can give me inspiration, and direction, to know that if He was like me, I can also be like Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="614" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-16T15:40:27.850" LastActivityDate="2012-07-16T15:40:27.850" Title="Would the story of Jesus hold more significance if he were a man like us?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T15:52:45.497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2598" CreationDate="2011-09-10T19:39:53.613" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;The beautiful thing about Jesus is that he &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; a man, not unlike ourselves. Christians believe that Jesus was fully, 100%, human just like you or I. He walked, talked, had friends, slept, ate fish, wept, bled, hungered, was tempted, and basically lived through all the kinds of things you and I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact this belief is one of the basic tests of orthodox belief among Christians. Do you believe that Jesus was a real flesh and blood man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+John+4:2/&quot;&gt;1 John 4:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He even had to grow up physically and mentally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+2:52/&quot;&gt;Luke 2:52&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is just these attributes of his being fully man that make him able to be OUR high priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews+4:15/&quot;&gt;Hebrews 4:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where Jesus was different is that he had a dual nature. He was also fully God, and although he laid aside many of his rights he still did not sin. This does not negate the fact that he was a real man, but he had to not sin in order to be able to make a propitiation for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews+2:17/&quot;&gt;Hebrews 2:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he had NOT also been God and able to keep himself perfect, he couldn't have have won our salvation for his because he wouldn't have been a perfect sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is still the example we follow. He is model of a life lived to the glory of the Father. Just because we will always fall short of the mark (sin) doesn't invalidate the example. &lt;strong&gt;In fact his success as a perfect man gives us all all the more reason to rejoice that he did not fail.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus were just a really good moral teacher who lived a pretty good life, he would be nothing of note to us. &lt;em&gt;Faith in him would have no power to save.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing is Christianity is not about living a good life and making your best effort to emulate some good role model. Christianity is the story of man that ALWAYS fail and needed something more. &lt;em&gt;We needed a savior who could do it for us&lt;/em&gt; because we NEVER could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-10T19:45:03.437" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T19:45:03.437" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2598" CreationDate="2011-09-10T19:42:38.470" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's the important part of Jesus being the Son of God.  He &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; a man like us, a human being who had to eat and sleep, who suffered pain, experienced happiness, and got frustrated at people doing stupid things.  He was the Perfect Man and the perfect example of how to live a virtuous life, and that should inspire us to live better and emulate his example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he was also more than a man; he was God the Son, capable of forgiving sins, knowing the thoughts in the hearts of the people around him, and in the end, taking the penalty for all our sins upon him, dying and being resurrected to make salvation possible for all of us.  That aspect of his life is intertwined with the Jesus-the-man parts, but they're unique and separate.  As long as we understand that and don't try to emulate &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; part of his life as an example, we can certainly draw inspiration and direction from the rest of it, as you put it, and strive to be more like him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2011-09-10T21:35:40.453" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T21:35:40.453" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2577" CreationDate="2011-09-10T23:03:39.817" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, in general Christianity has worked against arranged marriages historically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on marriage&lt;/a&gt; notes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties... As Christianity spread during the Roman period and the Middle Ages,&#xA;  the idea of free choice in selecting marriage partners increased and&#xA;  spread with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html&quot;&gt;A History of Marriage in Western Civilization&lt;/a&gt; contends that the previous Greek, Roman, and Jewish traditions of arranged marriage were eroded by the Church's role - first, the focus on asceticism and not always being married, and then by the Church's view of marriage as a sacrament and wanting more say in the process (for example by saying they had the power to annul marriages illicit in some way).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is of course not universal; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.everyculture.com/Cr-Ga/Ethiopia.html&quot;&gt;despite Ethiopia adopting Christianity in 333 AD they are still moving out of the practice&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes sense; arranged marriage tends to depend on two things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Women being seen as undesirable/commodities by the society&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Marriage being seen as an economic transaction between two groups&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity has eroded the &quot;women are lesser&quot; argument historically (though imperfect in practice, Christianity's view of women is WAY higher than many other culture/religions) because of the insertion of both the concept of the individual's relationship with God resulting in marriage necessarily being a matter of individual choice - &quot;if they want to stay chaste, they don't have to marry&quot; - and the Church as a cultural force wanting part of the say in marriage for both religious and, frankly, political reasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that there is also a major difference between &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage&quot;&gt;arranged marriages&lt;/a&gt; that still (technically) require the assent of those being married, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage&quot;&gt;forced marriages&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church deems forced marriage grounds for granting&#xA;  an annulment — for a marriage to be valid both parties must give their&#xA;  consent freely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was reiterated at the Council of Trent but &lt;a href=&quot;http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm&quot;&gt;dates from much earlier&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, &quot;If the&#xA;  consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should&#xA;  the union be consummated, are rendered void&quot;, shows the importance of&#xA;  a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of&#xA;  church teaching through the years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read an extended dance remix of all this in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5.htm&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason forced marriage is largely constrained to parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East that have not had enough Christian influence to affect their laws. So yes, it is a cultural issue, but one that the Christian Church usually strives to influence, and has done so successfully in many cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastEditorUserId="232" LastEditDate="2011-09-10T23:14:33.403" LastActivityDate="2011-09-10T23:14:33.403" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2598" CreationDate="2011-09-11T01:14:04.673" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I appreciate the question because for me... I used to try to be like Christ before I understood that He was God, and before I understood the gospel message. The reason I am bringing up my experience is because I actually understood Christ to be the Son of God &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; because of His divinity, but because of how He lived. In other words that He wasn't any more special than I could be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found myself trying to live up to the standard of Christ, and I failed miserably. My attempts to live like Christ had no power, meaning I had no strength in me on a day to day basis to live up to the standard. I was tired of failing and always felt guilty because of my weakness to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then the question was how/where do I get the strength to do the things that God requires of me. That's when the Gospel became clear. Because I needed someone to do it for me, which couldn't be another sinful man like myself, but it had to be a sinless man, and what man is sinless? Only God could be sinless, so therefore Jesus being the Son of God, could be the perfect Man, and could do what I couldn't. And once He did it for me, all I could do is believe on Him and His finished work. Then once I had faith in Him, I was now enabled to do the things I couldn't do before because I had Christ living within me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, actually what you desire to do, which is to emulate Christ, is possible because of His divinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the&#xA;  works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than&#xA;  these&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul explains here the impossibility of doing good in our own strength, and that the only one to deliver us from this is Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 7:19:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 7:24-25:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;Wretched man that I am! &gt; Who will deliver me from this body of death? &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is Christ living in you that enables you to live for Him. If Christ wasn't God He couldn't dwell in us, allow us to live for Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 2:20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I  who live, but Christ lives in me...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we could live sinless lives by our own strength, then Christ would not have had to die for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 2:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are created in Christ (if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=1+Corinthians&amp;amp;verse=5:17&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 5:17&lt;/a&gt;) for good works, but we must be in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8-10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;For by grace you have been &lt;em&gt;saved through faith&lt;/em&gt;, and&#xA;  that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;not of works, lest&#xA;  anyone should boast. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;For we are His workmanship, created in Christ&#xA;  Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should&#xA;  walk in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T23:00:39.060" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T23:00:39.060" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2577" CreationDate="2011-09-11T01:55:18.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Calvin had a complex set of views about marriage, matchmaking and consent. In short, Calvin is opposed to any marriage where the couple do not consent, but is in favour of parental help in finding a partner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His Marriage Ordinance of 1546 envisages that parents will play a matchmaking role, but that consent to marriage is ultimately up to the individuals involved. Section 8 says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let no father compel his children to such a marriage as seems good to him except with their goodwill and consent, but let him or her who does not want to accept the partner his father wants to give be excused, always preserving modesty and respect, without the father imposing any punishment for such a refusal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin was absolutely opposed to marriage of children, since they lack the ability to consent, and are also sexually immature. This applies whether or not the marriage was arranged. Child betrothal could be permitted; in such cases, the child could freely decide on reaching maturity whether to go through with the marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Calvin also believed that parental consent was an important part of contracting a marriage. Lack of parental consent does not prevent a marriage from taking place, assuming that the couple are otherwise able to marry, but he does argue that parental consent is highly desirable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also wrote at length about the manner and purpose of courtship, including the criteria that should be held in mind when deciding whether to marry someone. These are based around the couple and their potential for mutual love and support, as well as the possibility of procreation - in other words, generally excluding considerations of money or prestige.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This answer is based on the book &lt;em&gt;Sex, marriage and family in John Calvin's Geneva&lt;/em&gt;, volume 1, &lt;em&gt;Courtship, engagement and marriage&lt;/em&gt;, by John Witte Jr. and Robert M. Kingdon; Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T01:55:18.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1878" CreationDate="2011-09-11T01:58:00.040" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the answer from WhatAboutJohn3_17 is fantastic, I thought I would at least add some more resources, to help give more depth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the difficulty is trying to think of the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit as existing separately from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be related to the question about the person of God, in relation to the Trinity, as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#article3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Article 3. Whether the word &quot;person&quot; should be said of God?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is a self-subsistant person that embodies all that is perfect, so though we label them separately, they are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see if they have equality and what their likeness is like you can look at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Article 1. Whether there is equality in God?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, basically, they are co-equal in all respects, so the Father is not over the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you may want to look at the essence of the three persons: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Question 39. The persons in relation to the essence.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though it isn't spelled out in Scripture that God and the Son have the same essence Jesus did state &quot;The Father and I and the Father are one (John 10:30)&quot;, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the God is a person and has the same essence, and the person and property of God is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1040.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;same&lt;/a&gt; then, though this is a bit long-winded, but since God is a single person then we can see that though the Trinity may be separate, we can't differentiate between the will of each and the Will of God, as our sense of three does not force God to be that way (as explained more below).  To see more about the Will of God you can read: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Question 19. The will of God.&lt;/a&gt; You may want to read about the plurality of God in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1030.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Question 30. The plurality of persons in God&lt;/a&gt;, especially Article 3, where this comment is made:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Multitude, which denotes something real in creatures, is a species of&#xA;  quantity, and cannot be used when speaking of God: unlike&#xA;  transcendental multitude, which adds only indivision to those of which&#xA;  it is predicated. Such a kind of multitude is applicable to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the idea is that when we talk about three persons, that does not signify anything about God in reality.  We have one God, and though, for our sake we express God as three persons, that is still for our simplicity, it does not mean that we have three gods that are one God, so, God will have one will from God, as, just because we think of God as three person doesn't mean that that changes what God is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-18T03:33:10.757" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T03:33:10.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="154" CreationDate="2011-09-11T03:22:41.373" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more information about equating the moral law with the Ten Commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here you can read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#brief&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a nice summary&lt;/a&gt; of this section. But, to break it up into some parts to help explain, you may want to look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the definition of a moral law&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning&#xA;can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes&#xA;for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised&#xA;beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from&#xA;God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its&#xA;promises, worthy of love.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them&#xA;interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural&#xA;law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of&#xA;the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus&#xA;Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law,&#xA;for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: &quot;For Christ is&#xA;the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the first stage of revealed law is the Ten Commandments, but these were perfected by the New Law (the grace of the Holy Spirit), so we can see by the CCC that moral law is more than just the Ten Commandments, but, also covers the New Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as much as I am a huge fan of Aquinas, I tend to think that there can be problems with his divisions, but they can also be useful for explanation, but the problems should also be understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article does a good job of explaining &lt;a href=&quot;http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/subdividing-the-law-moral-civil-ceremonial/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;problems with dividing them&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should not decide which is critical to obey and which can be ignored, safely.  I like this quote from the link above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If God says it, it is immoral to disobey. Morality is not a standard independent of God. God decides what is right and what is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a likely reason for the three-part division, taken from this &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-end-times-observer.blogspot.com/2006/05/which-law-ceremonial-civil-or-moral.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;historical background&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why were the dogmatical terms of Moral, Civil and Ceremonial developed&#xA;  if there is no division in the Bible and the Jews never considered the&#xA;  Law as threefold? The division probably was developed because there&#xA;  are 3 natural parts to the Mosaic Law. It also makes for easier&#xA;  teaching when we study the Old Testament Law in a threefold sense. The&#xA;  Law of Moses is massive in scope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you are correct that it appears to have started with Aquinas, as far as I can tell, but there does seem to be a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sdarm.org/questions/faq_laws.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;natural split&lt;/a&gt; of the Law into two parts, a moral and ceremonial, as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-04-13T18:10:07.653" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T18:10:07.653" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-09-11T06:41:12.977" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer will repeat some of what is already covered in other answers for purposes of flow and completeness, and so I'll try to keep those segments brief, but I'll cover some new ground as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has the power to &quot;fake&quot; the evolution evidence if he wants to, but that would be completely outside his nature. Most Christians understand the creation account in Genesis to originate with God, through Moses, from God's point of view. To discount God's own account of things undermines essential points of His nature: namely, that he does not lie. It therefore speaks to the core of Christianity, and can only have a negative impact on the faith of an individual Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, through a combination of carefully reading the account and critically examining the science surrounding evolution, it may be possible to reconcile the literal Creation account with the scientific evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own opinion based on my personal studies is that the &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; scientific evidence for macro-Evolution itself is incredibly weak, and instead what we often see in reported media and among scientists is a sort of group-think, where scientists in individual fields have something, but they know it's weak. Each assumes that the other guy has the really good stuff because anything else would fall utterly outside their world view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say there is no evidence in favor of Evolution at all anywhere, but rather that it's not as conclusive as some would have us believe.  Personally, I think &lt;em&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;geologic&lt;/strong&gt; evidence for an Old-Earth is far more compelling and challenging,&lt;/em&gt; but this a separate thing from Evolution, and again: my personal opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you allow for an Old Earth, Evolution is not that bad or contrary to biblical teachings.  It can then be taken as one tool God used in creating the diverse species we have today. It even follows the general progression of species described in Genesis 1 (ie: starting with plants, then fish, and ending with Man). You can allow that many species have evolved over time... &lt;em&gt;under God's direction&lt;/em&gt;.  Some species may have evolved, others (like man) may have been designed directly, or several &quot;root&quot; species may have been prepared and a form of natural selection allowed to take over from there, with perhaps a &quot;bump&quot; or two in the right places. This fits with my personal findings that evidence for Evolution is there, but generally weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the Genesis 1 passage can easily be taken as using an allegorical 6 days, there are other references to the six days (quoted in other answers here) that may ask us to interpret it more literally.  However, his needs to be reconciled with the Old-Earth geologic evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be easily done when you remember three things. The first is how a day is really defined. A day is not 24 hours; a day is one rotation of the Earth. The second is that the sun is not created until it's already the third day, with the purpose of marking &quot;sacred times, and &lt;strong&gt;days&lt;/strong&gt; and years&quot;. The third is that God is a being outside of time, even created time, and in at least two recorded biblical incidents directly manipulated time and/or the movements of planets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put those three things together, and it's clear that it was likely a lot longer than 24 hours for each &quot;day&quot;, especially for those first three days. It could also be that God manipulated time itself, so that a millennium of development happened in what would appear to an outsider as a 24 hour span. Plants and animals could live and die and experience much longer spans, but an observer might see it as watching an old vhs tape fast forward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, as a personal matter I find this at not something worth getting worked up over. God has the power to do it either way, including the manipulation of time. I expect the creation of an entire universe to be something outside of what man can understand, anything else is laughable; man is smart, but we're not that smart. The important thing to understand is that God is the instigator and creator, he remains in control of the process to this day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads to the problem of Man's dominion over other species. If man evolved, he is not &quot;special&quot;.  I believe this is best explained in Genesis 2. Man (the beast) has first been created, likely in a direct way that supersedes Evolution, and &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; (in a sequence) a &quot;special life&quot; is breathed into him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I think it is useful to pare this whole thing down to what is &lt;strong&gt;necessary&lt;/strong&gt;. I believe in a Sovereign God, and so it is not my job to say what is and what is not, so I will use &quot;probably&quot; and &quot;probably not&quot; in my responses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it necessary to believe that God created the universe?   Probably&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is it necessary to believe He did it in a literal six-days? Probably not.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is it necessary to believe he &lt;em&gt;could have&lt;/em&gt; done it in a literal six days? Probably&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is it necessary to believe that God created each species individually in one go? Probably not&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is it necessary to believe that God guides the creation of all species? Probably&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is it necessary to believe that God set man apart from other species? Probably  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-06-20T22:01:56.520" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T22:01:56.520" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2277" CreationDate="2011-09-11T06:57:49.763" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If an earthly judge --charged by the state to uphold the laws of the state in a fair manner and himself known to be a good and upright judge-- were to knowingly acquit a guilty party we would rage against him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key here is that God is not only the judicial branch, but also the executive and legislative.  When a judge presides over a criminal trial, he is hearing evidence of crimes not against individuals, but the state. Murder is horrible to the individual and family of the victim, but the perpetrator goes before a judge because the state also outlawed it and decided to take it personally.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The state, in the person of the executive, has a similar power of pardon that is sometimes used.  Now, if God were to go pardoning everyone willy nilly that would be one thing, but thankfully it does not happen this way.  We have an intercessor in the person of Jesus Christ. He gives evidence on our behalf, that we have repented and that price for our sins have been paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T06:57:49.763" CommentCount="0" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-09-11T06:57:49.763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2609" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2612" CreationDate="2011-09-11T08:47:07.983" Score="29" ViewCount="206443" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where in the Bible does it say that Lucifer was one of the angels or an archangel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-07-18T21:31:20.120" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T21:31:20.120" Title="What is the Biblical basis for saying Lucifer is an angel?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2609" CreationDate="2011-09-11T12:20:11.870" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting question. In the Bible, this is strongly hinted at rather than directly stated. Here is the evidence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1:6&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Job 1:6&lt;/a&gt; we learn that &lt;strong&gt;Satan was in heaven with other angels&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Satan is (was) in heaven is also seen in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%203:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Zechariah 3:1-2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:18&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Luke 10:18&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Revelation 12:9&lt;/a&gt;. Revelation 12:9 gives a further clue to Satan's identity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and &lt;strong&gt;his angels with him&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This thought is also stated by Jesus in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:41&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:41&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for &lt;strong&gt;the devil and his angels&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That he has his own angels, is a further clue to him being a (former) angel. (And incidentally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014:12-15&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:12-15&lt;/a&gt; is often used to show &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; Satan fell, because he wanted to ascend to God's throne).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:14&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 11:14&lt;/a&gt;, which says that Satan can &lt;em&gt;&quot;masquerade as an angel of light.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; we know that Satan lives / has lived in heaven, with other angels (some of which are his own), that he was (or will be) cast out of heaven. From this we infer that he is a &lt;em&gt;&quot;fallen angel&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; In my answer above I assembled evidence for Satan being an angel. But it's not &lt;strong&gt;proof&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;(see comments below)&lt;/em&gt;. Which leads me to consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_exhaustion&quot;&gt;proof by exhaustion&lt;/a&gt;: if Satan was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; an angel, what could he be? I know of only three types of sentient beings in the Bible: God, man and angels. He's clearly &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; God, nor man. That only leaves one other option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update on &lt;em&gt;Lucifer&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; @Dan asks where Lucifer is named as such. The answer is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:12 KJV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse and the wider passage are historically interpreted as referring to Satan, though it is not directly stated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Footnote: there are only two &lt;em&gt;named&lt;/em&gt; angels in the Bible. &lt;strong&gt;Michael&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%2010:13&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Daniel 10:13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%2010:21&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Daniel 10:21&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%2012:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Daniel 12:1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Jude 1:9&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:7&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Revelation 12:7&lt;/a&gt;) &amp;amp; &lt;strong&gt;Gabriel&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%208:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Daniel 8:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%209:21&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Daniel 9:21&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Luke 1:19&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:26&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Luke 1:26&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-09-08T05:48:45.053" LastActivityDate="2013-09-08T05:48:45.053" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2614" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-11T16:45:46.177" Score="10" ViewCount="8063" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus repeatedly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;casts out demons&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;speaks to them&lt;/a&gt;, etc. He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;tells&lt;/a&gt; his disciples to do the same. There are so many references it would be difficult to put them all here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not a topic that is very frequently mentioned (if at all) in my experience in the modern church (here in the USA at least). But reading the New Testament it cannot be easily glossed over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the church's view on demonic possession today, especially in light of modern psychology and drug therapy? Where people possessed by demons in ancient times but not today? Are people with certain types of psychological disorders (or in certain times/cases) actually possessed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2015-07-20T14:57:31.083" Title="Are people possessed by demons today? What is the modern Christian perspective?" Tags="&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T11:46:30.670" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2615" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2616" CreationDate="2011-09-11T16:49:55.093" Score="15" ViewCount="2044" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%208:5-10&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 8:5-10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a Roman officer came and pleaded with him, &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; “Lord, my young servant lies in bed, paralyzed and in terrible pain.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus said, “I will come and heal him.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; But the officer said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come into my home. Just say the word from where you are, and my servant will be healed. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; I know this because I am under the authority of my superior officers, and I have authority over my soldiers. I only need to say, ‘Go,’ and they go, or ‘Come,’ and they come. And if I say to my slaves, ‘Do this,’ they do it.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; When Jesus heard this, &lt;strong&gt;he was amazed&lt;/strong&gt;. Turning to those who were following him, he said, “I tell you the truth, I haven’t seen faith like this in all Israel!    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus is God and therefore omniscient, how could He possibly be surprised by the Roman officer's words?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-10-12T02:33:58.870" LastActivityDate="2016-10-12T02:33:58.870" Title="How could Jesus be surprised?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2615" CreationDate="2011-09-11T17:08:02.053" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have a definitive answer, but here are a few things to keep in mind about the text. When I consider some combination of these, it doesn't bother me that an omniscient God is &quot;surprised&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The word in the text is not usually translated &quot;surprised&quot; as if it was an unexpected event. The sense is one of wonder or awe or marvel or (as in your translation) amazement. God being omniscient had to have known this ahead of time, but that doesn't preclude a sense of wonder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was fully man. This means he felt and knew the things that men and know feel in addition to the things that God feels and knows. This could just the the human side of him expressing wonder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The narrator of the story is NOT omniscient and, in spite of being guided by the Holy Spirit in the authoring of the text, is unable to know what was in Jesus mind and exactly how it worked. He described things as they appeared.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was deliberate communicator. If having a visible physical/emotional reaction to something would help his audience understand the situation better, I'm sure he could manage that. If &lt;em&gt;we needed to know&lt;/em&gt; that that kind of faith was a wonderful thing, his marveling at it is a great way to mark it's importance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T17:08:02.053" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2614" CreationDate="2011-09-11T17:33:29.817" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, people can be possessed by demons today. There is no particular Scripture to indicate that anything changed form the time that Jesus pronounced certain people as possessed to now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very important to remember that &lt;strong&gt;Jesus is always trump&lt;/strong&gt;. The disciples were amazed to find that even the spirit world (however that manifest itself) was subject to the the authority of Christ and his teachings&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, not just when he gave them but when they went out to proclaim them&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it's not something focus on or draw our attention from the main message of the Gospel&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. It's sort of an incidental problem that we overcome just like any other problem in this world. &lt;strong&gt;Undue focus on the realms of evil, spirit or physical, is unhealthy&lt;/strong&gt;. In fact many things are often mistaken for spirit world problems that are just the fruits of our flesh. Sorcery is one example&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2618/can-christians-be-demon-possessed&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christians cannot be possessed&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. The enemy has no authority over the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christians have been raised into life with Christ and are temples of the Holy Spirit. Those temples are are off limits to the enemy because the victory has already been won&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; and we have been transferred from the kingdom of darkness to that of light&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Mark%201:27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 1:27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) &#xA;And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+10:17-19/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 10:17-19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) &#xA;The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+10:20/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 10:17-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) &#xA;Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Galatians+5:19-21/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 5:19-21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) &#xA;Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians+2:15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 2:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) &#xA;He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians+1:13/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) &#xA;He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T02:02:53.427" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2618" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2624" CreationDate="2011-09-11T17:45:00.337" Score="11" ViewCount="3213" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can somebody who is a born-again, saved Christian through faith in Jesus Christ be possessed, controlled, or otherwise manipulated by the devil, demons or any other spiritual force of evil? Are there specific limits in place when it comes to Christians that are not in effect for the rest of the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; Note: this is a subquestion of whether &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2614/30&quot;&gt;demon possession itself is legitimate&lt;/a&gt; but a significant issue on it's own.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T13:49:28.930" Title="Can Christians be demon possessed?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-05-19T00:42:41.350" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2619" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2626" CreationDate="2011-09-11T17:54:46.230" Score="6" ViewCount="556" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the ordinances Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 11:2?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2011:2&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I figure baptism ought to be one of them. Is he also referring to Eucharist/Communion/Sacrament? Eating bread and drinking is mentioned later in the chapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-09-11T18:13:52.453" LastActivityDate="2014-12-26T02:21:59.873" Title="What are the ordinances Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 11:2?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2620" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2742" CreationDate="2011-09-11T18:07:07.817" Score="15" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2010:30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 10:30 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  is often quoted to support the doctrine of the Trinity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; I and my Father are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But during the great intercessory prayer, Christ asks God for his disciples to also be one with them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:20-21&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 17:20-21 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Non-trinitarians often quote that scripture to show how John 10:30 (and other scriptures like it) is being misinterpreted. They say, &quot;If God and Christ are literally one, then is Christ praying for us to become part of their nature too?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tons has been written about the Trinity, so surely a reasonable explanation for this exists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can John 17:20-21 be reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-10-22T21:33:21.570" LastActivityDate="2011-10-23T18:31:06.797" Title="How do Catholics reconcile Christ's intercessory prayer with the doctrine of the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2620" CreationDate="2011-09-11T18:15:44.540" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It really can't be.  Everything we have about Jesus's interactions with the Father shows them as separate, distinct beings.  Even the example given here, John 10:30, describes them as distinct; it just gets lost in translation.  In the original manuscripts, the word &quot;one&quot; used here means &quot;united,&quot; just like you would describe a group of people today working together with the same purpose as being &quot;one&quot; or &quot;as one.&quot;  Saying that they are &lt;em&gt;literally the same&lt;/em&gt; would be a different word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T18:15:44.540" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2622" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2634" CreationDate="2011-09-11T20:04:09.527" Score="21" ViewCount="2535" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ask this mostly in reaction to this question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I've seen, the majority of Christians believe in &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Trinitarianism&lt;/a&gt;, but some believe in Unitarianism instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of Unitarianism is that, in this view of God, only the Father (as referenced by Christ) is called God. Christ is just a man, created by God and given certain powers/privileges that aren't afforded to most men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical foundation for Unitarianism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not asking for a debate on the truthfulness of this position, but I am looking for an argument that defends its &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;soundness&lt;/a&gt; with Bible verses, preferably not limited to a single translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a single translation is to be favored, I would like to know why (references to the original Greek/Hebrew used in translation if possible).  I only ask this because it doesn't seem to be a very common position to hold, so I assume there is valid evidence to support it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2021-04-10T04:38:43.380" Title="What is the Biblical basis for unitarianism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;non-trinitarian&gt;&lt;unitarianism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2618" CreationDate="2011-09-11T20:07:04.443" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in the Bible is a Christian demon possessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard someone say that a Christian cannot be demon possessed because they are possessed (filled) with The Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since we don't appear to have any Biblical reference, I think that's that best answer we can give (unless anyone had a clear counter example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T20:07:04.443" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2618" CreationDate="2011-09-11T20:34:00.330" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul writes (Romans 8:38-39, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and again (Ephesians 6:11-12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All people, including Christians, are continually subjected to temptation (demonic assault) but Christians are uniquely able to resist because of the Spirit dwelling within them. This does not mean that Christians always &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; resist - otherwise Paul would have no need to continually remind people to refrain from sin - but only that they have a special capacity to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine says (&lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt;, 10.22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the devil cannot conquer or subdue any but those who are in league with sin, and therefore he is conquered in the name of Him who assumed humanity [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But also, discussing the Apocalypse and the idea that the devil will be chained and then loosed, writes (20.7, 20.8 respectively)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let no one be dismayed by the circumstance that the devil often seduces even those who have been regenerated in Christ, and begun to walk in God's way. For &amp;quot;the Lord knoweth them that are His,&amp;quot; and of these the devil seduces none to eternal damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Almighty does not absolutely seclude the saints from his temptation, but shelters only their inner man, where faith resides, that by outward temptation they may grow in grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of this extends to &amp;quot;possession&amp;quot;, if regarded as the total subjugation of the human will to demonic influence. That would mean that the possessed person no longer had the capacity to turn towards Christ, whereas Christian belief is that anyone may be saved, even at the moment of death. Augustine's view is that the devil being in you does not mean that he has control, but rather that you are suffering a kind of spiritual contamination which creates a tendency to sin. You are the devil's captive but Christ can always release you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dante famously included in the &lt;em&gt;Divine Comedy&lt;/em&gt; a region of Hell where souls may go even before the death of the body (&lt;em&gt;Inferno&lt;/em&gt; 33:124-132, Longfellow translation):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such an advantage has this Ptolomaea,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;That oftentimes the soul descendeth here&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sooner than Atropos in motion sets it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And, that thou mayest more willingly remove&lt;br&gt;&#xA;From off my countenance these glassy tears,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Know that as soon as any soul betrays&lt;br&gt;&#xA;As I have done, his body by a demon&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Is taken from him, who thereafter rules it,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Until his time has wholly been revolved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commentaries I have read on the &lt;em&gt;Comedy&lt;/em&gt; regard this as an innovation of Dante's own. That would suggest that complete demonic control of the living was not previously believed to be possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T20:34:00.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2625" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2630" CreationDate="2011-09-11T20:41:11.783" Score="9" ViewCount="7648" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Metatron&lt;/a&gt; is believed by some to be Enoch transformed into an angel. &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/1167?m=1742355#1742355&quot;&gt;Some time ago on chat&lt;/a&gt; someone said that he is part of official Catholic dogma. However, I couldn't really confirm this with a cursory Google search as I keep running into stuff talking about &lt;em&gt;Jewish&lt;/em&gt; beliefs. Thus, I'm wondering just how official Metatron is within Catholicism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-22T02:28:57.403" LastActivityDate="2021-03-18T05:34:44.113" Title="Is Metatron actually part of Catholic dogma?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;enoch&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2619" CreationDate="2011-09-11T20:42:18.653" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard to say for certain exactly what Paul was referring to.  All he said was, &quot;keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.&quot;  What ordinances?  The ones he delivered, of course.  The people he was writing to already know what he was talking about, because they're the ones he delivered them to, so he doesn't need to explain it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a well-understood convention that writers tend to interrupt the main body of whatever they're writing in order to explain things that the audience would not be familiar with, but of course they don't usually bother when covering familiar subject matter.  Unfortunately, we're not the Corinthians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T20:42:18.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="866" CreationDate="2011-09-11T21:49:32.700" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Puts on JW hat&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Model Prayer given in Matthew 6 is also given in Luke 11, but in slightly different words, which is clear evidence that it was not intended to be repeated verbatim, but to serve as a model for the sorts of concerns which should be prayed about (and the priorities to give to those concerns). Jehovah's Witnesses don't ever write and repeat prayers, though you will find that many people have set phrases they tend to drop into their public (and, one assumes, their private) prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T21:49:32.700" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2011-09-11T22:12:04.180" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer is based on LDS theology. Note that the 'Logical Reasoning' portion is my own interpretation of official doctrine, and should not be accepted as official by any means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;From the accepted canon:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All man has the potential to progress and be like God- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A16-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:16-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The course of God is one eternal round: &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=one+eternal+round&amp;amp;x=0&amp;amp;y=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;References in LDS canon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Logical Reasoning:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If man can become as God now is, logic dictates that God was once like man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God was once like man, then he was created and had a God of his own.  This gives us an endless chain of Gods and creations.  I will use the term &quot;Time&quot; to mean that frame of reference where God was God (not man). The beginning of Time could refer to when God was changed from a disembodied spirit (died as a mortal man, spirit went to God) to a resurrected being (as the Atonement provides). The end of Time doesn't exist, because God will remain God forever (will always be our Father).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the explanation of &quot;the course of God is one eternal round&quot;. God creates a world, populates it, and then judges it. After that, He starts over with a new world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God creates man -&gt; man becomes as God -&gt; God creates man&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus we have an eternal chain backwards of God's creating man, and an eternal chain of man becoming gods. This is like the revolution of the earth around the Sun. We start at Winter (nothing), go to Spring (creation), which leads to Summer (history of the earth), which leads to Fall (harvest, millennial reign of Christ), which returns to Winter (man becomes as God, but hasn't started creating worlds).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS theology claims that man can become like God. What that means isn't entirely described by current Revelation. The logical reasoning I provided may not be official Church doctrine, but it goes to show one possible explanation of where God came from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T22:12:04.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2625" CreationDate="2011-09-11T22:32:37.883" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not a Catholic but I will try to answer anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;em&gt;dogma&lt;/em&gt; has a specific technical meaning: it refers to a belief that Catholics are required by the Church to accept. There are many beliefs which are not dogmas, even if they are widely held to be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book &lt;em&gt;Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma&lt;/em&gt; by Ludwig Ott (1952) is a standard reference. He lists ten beliefs under angelology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The nature of angels is spiritual.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The angels are by nature immortal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God set a supernatural final end for the angels, the immediate vision of God, and endowed them with sanctifying grace in order that they might achieve this end.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The angels were subjected to a moral testing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The evil spirits (demons) were created good by God; they became evil through their own fault.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The primary task of the good angels is the glorification and the service of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Every one of the faithful has his own special guardian angel from baptism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam's sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among these, 1, 2, 8 and 10 are listed as &quot;de fide&quot;, meaning true by reason of divine revelation; 4, 7 and 9 are &quot;sententia certa&quot;, meaning theologically certain; 3 is &quot;sententia communis&quot;, meaning commonly believed but not necessarily certain; and 5 is &quot;certa&quot; for the fallen angels and &quot;communis&quot; for the rest. No mention here of Metatron, or anything of the sort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/em&gt; says under &quot;Angels&quot; that &quot;no proposition touching the angelic hierarchies is binding on our faith&quot;. It refers to &lt;em&gt;De Coelesti Hierarchia&lt;/em&gt; by Pseudo-Dionysus, and the &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; by Thomas Aquinas, as containing commonly accepted beliefs about the different types of angel; neither of these mention Metatron, or any figure fulfilling that role. All such writings are seen as speculative, and within the domain that theologians can legitimately argue about. Metatron crops up only in the encyclopedia entry for &quot;Kabbala&quot;, but the context is explaining that it is a belief held within Judaism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, it seems that Metatron is very far from being Catholic dogma, or even a belief that many Catholics hold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T22:32:37.883" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2618" CreationDate="2011-09-11T22:52:09.340" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;That really depends on the definition of what a Christian is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my understanding, a demon cannot possess someone who has the companionship of the Holy Ghost.  Determining whether someone has the companionship of the Holy Ghost differs between denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a distinction between being a believer and having the companionship of the Holy Ghost. Receiving the Holy Ghost is distinct from baptism, and occurs afterwards.  Here is some evidence to support that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202%3a%2038&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2: 38&lt;/a&gt;- the Holy Ghost comes after Baptism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Apostles received the companionship of the Holy Ghost after Christ's ascension&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207%3a%2039&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 7: 39&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 16:7&lt;/a&gt;- The Holy Ghost was not present during Christ's ministry&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Note that the Gift of the Holy Ghost != the power of the Holy Ghost, otherwise nobody could have received a testimony (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 12:3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:16-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 16:16-17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202%3a%201-4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2: 1-4&lt;/a&gt;- the Holy Ghost poured out on the Christians on the Day of Pentacost after Christ's ascension&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:12-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:12-17&lt;/a&gt;- The Holy Ghost is conferred through the laying on of hands&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:18-20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8: 18-20&lt;/a&gt;- To give the gift of the Holy Ghost, one must have power given to them (the method by which this is done is debated)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If having the gift of the Holy Ghost is necessary in being &quot;Christian&quot;, then no, Christians cannot be possessed. But if just having a belief in Christ is necessary in being Christian, then Christians without the gift of the Holy Ghost are still susceptible, provided they are too weak to defend themselves against the adversary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2011-09-11T22:52:09.340" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2632" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-12T00:13:30.563" Score="24" ViewCount="8493" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church derives much of its claim to legitimacy from the teaching of &quot;apostolic succession&quot;. Other churches also believe that their priests derive their authority in an unbroken chain of succession. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges this of some other churches, accepting that the Eastern Orthodox priests and bishops have apostolic succession. Is this true? And which other churches would have their claims to apostolic succession recognized by the Roman Catholic Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2014-06-24T02:30:56.070" LastActivityDate="2017-01-26T11:46:09.430" Title="In which other churches do Roman Catholics recognize apostolic succession?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;apostolic-succession&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2632" CreationDate="2011-09-12T00:48:07.753" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some groups from the Eastern Catholic churches that are recognized, and in communion with Rome, but for much of the Eastern Orthodox churches this is not the case, and the issue of apostolic succession is a sticking point on full communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this link I will paste what is most likely the complete answer.  There are some Episcopalean churches that have left their faith and converted to be Catholic, and those priests are allowed to be married, but they are now in communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, for any head of the church (the Pope) the RCC only recognizes the current Pope as being the successor of Peter, no other leader is seen as having that mantle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=421289&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Answers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Eastern Catholics are the 22 Churches sui iuris that are in full&#xA;  communion with the pope, and act as part of the synod of the Catholic&#xA;  Church, while retaining self governing status as churches, called&#xA;  Churches Sui Iuris.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Byzantine Rite Catholics and Greek Catholics (14 churches sui iuris)&#xA;  (the terms are synonyms, as is Greek Rite Catholic) are generally&#xA;  portions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches which left the Eastern&#xA;  Orthodox communion and joined the Catholic Communion. 1 has no&#xA;  orthodox counterpart (Italo-Albanian GCC), 1 has an orthodox&#xA;  counterpart that is a schism from the Catholic (The ACROD split from&#xA;  the Ruthenian GCC); the rest have parallels from the time of their&#xA;  split. Two have no hierarchs (Russian and one other).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Other Eastern Catholics (7 churches sui iuris) are of other Eastern&#xA;  Rites, and most have non-Catholic Parallel churches. Some, the&#xA;  majority synod is the Catholic; others the majority synod is the&#xA;  non-catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Chaldeans (Catholic Communion) are parallel to the Assyrian Church&#xA;  of the East (Oriental Orthodox Communion)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankar Catholic Churches have parallel&#xA;  Syriac churches and protestant churches using the same liturgical&#xA;  rites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Syrian Catholic and Syrian Orthodox churches parallel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Coptic Catholic Church split off from the Coptic Orthodox Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Ethiopian Catholic Church parallels the Ethiopian Tehwado Orthodox&#xA;  and the Eritrean Orthodox. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Armenian Catholics and the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox have an&#xA;  unusual relationship; the Armenian Catholics are in full communion&#xA;  with the other Catholic Churches, but are, as a practical matter,&#xA;  still in communion with their parent Armenian Apostolic Orthodox.&#xA;  Deacons assisting across church boundaries are common; priestly&#xA;  concelebration happens with patriarchal tacit approval. Hierarchical&#xA;  concelebration doesn't seem to happen... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Maronite Catholics have no parallel church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-08T17:51:59.330" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T17:51:59.330" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2622" CreationDate="2011-09-12T00:57:41.630" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 17:3&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Jesus is speaking of God as the only true God and Jesus as being sent by God, not being God incarnate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:10&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus himself says to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other verses seem to emphasis this:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 10:18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, they take the following verse (Phillippians 2:6-8) and use this to say that Jesus had the &lt;em&gt;form&lt;/em&gt; of God (outer appearance), but took on the &lt;em&gt;form&lt;/em&gt; of man.  So, (ironically) while it's  central to the concept of the Trinity, it's also used in Unitarianism to show how Jesus was not God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phillippians%202:6-8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Phillippians 2:6-8 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sub&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  [... Christ Jesus,] &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; who, although He existed in the form of God, &lt;strong&gt;did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These concepts make people think that Jesus was not actually God and that only God the Father is actually God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-12T13:49:45.170" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T13:49:45.170" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2635" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2636" CreationDate="2011-09-12T02:34:05.683" Score="6" ViewCount="1249" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for the biblical references to Michael the angel ? And what are/were his/her role? There are some christian groups that attributes  Michael same with Jesus. Is there any biblical reference to it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-01-26T12:48:48.930" LastActivityDate="2020-01-26T12:48:48.930" Title="Is there biblical reference to Michael, the archangel’s role and being?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;michael&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2635" CreationDate="2011-09-12T02:42:48.620" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Jude 9&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, &quot;The Lord rebuke you!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that verse, it would seem to be hard to equate Michael and Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only other reference to &quot;archangel&quot; I know of is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians+4:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That verse seems to indicate the &quot;voice of the archangel&quot; will announce Christ's (&#xA;the Lord Himself) return - again listed as a separate being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T02:42:48.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2637" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2639" CreationDate="2011-09-12T02:58:34.567" Score="16" ViewCount="4903" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 20 Paul is saying his farewell to the elders of Ephesus. He is bringing to their memory the manner, in which he had spent all that time with them - in humility (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:19&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 20:19&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:26&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 20:26 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood&#xA;  of all men&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why on earth did Paul need to mention this?  Was there a possibility that during his ministry he might've killed someone?  Was it not clear that Paul didn't kill anyone and didn't even intend to kill anyone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-07-15T11:28:17.893" LastActivityDate="2020-08-18T22:42:54.853" Title="Why did Paul say &quot;I am pure from the blood of all men&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;acts&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2637" CreationDate="2011-09-12T03:23:26.770" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the NLT, it's quite straightforward:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2020:26&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 20:26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; I declare today that I have been faithful. If anyone suffers eternal death, it’s not my fault,    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was actually amused by the &quot;it's not my fault&quot; part; reminds me of a child. :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, other more-literal translations give variations of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2020:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 20:26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NIV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, we can see where the &quot;it's not my fault&quot; part comes from; &quot;innocent&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With more context, the meaning becomes clearer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2020:25-27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 20:25-27&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NIV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; “Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jews would have recognized the reference to (at least) Ezekiel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2033:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 33:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NIV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, Paul was saying that because he had been preaching God's word to everyone, he couldn't be held accountable for failing to warn someone about their sins and its consequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T03:23:26.770" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="866" CreationDate="2011-09-12T04:11:34.660" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is my understanding that the issue is not the repetitions, but that they are &lt;em&gt;vain&lt;/em&gt; repetitions spoken in the false belief that the more words you use the more responsive God will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, this does not speak to much-beloved prayers that people turn to again and again out of preference, such as the Lord's Prayer, or prayers that intentionally repeat for the benefit of the person praying, such as the Rosary or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_prayer&quot;&gt;Jesus Prayer&lt;/a&gt;, but rather repeating and embellishing prayers in the hope that a longer and showier prayer would result in more favorable attention from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="497" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T04:11:34.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2641" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2642" CreationDate="2011-09-12T04:11:55.033" Score="11" ViewCount="10422" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 28&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; speaks of the &lt;em&gt;king of Tyre&lt;/em&gt;. I've heard it both taught and refuted that this refers to Satan. I also just recently saw &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2609/where-in-the-bible-does-it-say-that-lucifer-is-an-angel/2610#2610&quot;&gt;an answer&lt;/a&gt; making this assumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the passage refer to Satan?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2014-10-16T13:48:56.707" Title="Does Ezekiel 28 speak of Satan (as &quot;king of Tyre&quot;)?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;ezekiel&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-05-19T00:41:42.573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2641" CreationDate="2011-09-12T05:17:35.270" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's actually both. Bear with me; I'll explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first half of Ezekiel 28:1-19, Ezekiel seems to be referring to a human man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:1-19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 28:1-10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (ESV)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;The word of the LORD came to me: &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &quot;Because your heart is proud,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and you have said, 'I am a god,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I sit in the seat of the gods,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;in the heart of the seas,'&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;yet you are but a man&lt;/strong&gt;, and no god,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; though you make your heart like the heart of a god—&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; you are indeed wiser than Daniel;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;no secret is hidden from you;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;by your wisdom and your understanding&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; you have made wealth for yourself,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and have gathered gold and silver&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;into your treasuries;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;by your great wisdom in your trade&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;you have increased your wealth,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and your heart has become proud in your wealth—&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because you make your heart&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;like the heart of a god,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;therefore, behold, I will bring foreigners upon you,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the most ruthless of the nations;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and defile your splendor.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; They shall thrust you down into the pit,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; and you shall die the death of the slain&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;in the heart of the seas.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Will you still say, 'I am a god,'&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;in the presence of those who kill you,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;though you are but a man&lt;/strong&gt;, and no god,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;in the hands of those who slay you?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;You shall die the death of the uncircumcised&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;by the hand of foreigners;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; for I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I doubt that Satan (Lucifer) would be called a man or would he be able to die at the hands of humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But...the second half seems to refer to a spiritual being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:1-19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 28:11-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (ESV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me: &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&quot;You were the signet of perfection,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You were in Eden&lt;/strong&gt;, the garden of God;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; every precious stone was your covering,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   sardius, topaz, and diamond,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;beryl, onyx, and jasper,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and crafted in gold were your settings&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and your engravings.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  On the day that you were created&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;they were prepared.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You were an anointed guardian cherub&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;strong&gt;I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God&lt;/strong&gt;;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You were blameless in your ways&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;strong&gt;from the day you were created&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;strong&gt;till unrighteousness was found in you&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;In the abundance of your trade&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  so &lt;strong&gt;I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and &lt;strong&gt;I destroyed you, O guardian cherub&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;from the midst of the stones of fire.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; Your heart was proud because of your beauty;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I cast you to the ground;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;I exposed you before kings,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;to feast their eyes on you.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;By the multitude of your iniquities,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;in the unrighteousness of your trade&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;you profaned your sanctuaries;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  so I brought fire out from your midst;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;it consumed you,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and I turned you to ashes on the earth&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; in the sight of all who saw you.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;All who know you among the peoples&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;are appalled at you;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   you have come to a dreadful end&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and shall be no more forever.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third line of verse 16 in particular is similar to a verse in Revelation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 12:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (ESV)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— &lt;strong&gt;he was thrown down to the earth&lt;/strong&gt;, and his angels were thrown down with him.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we have here two passages referring to the king of Tyre that seem to be contradictory as to whether this king is a man or Satan. I'll bet that this is similar to when Jesus rebukes Peter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 16:23&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (ESV)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;But he turned and said to Peter,  &quot;Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+8:33&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 8:33&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (ESV)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said,  &quot;Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, Peter is not Lucifer, but he certainly could have been greatly influenced by Satan. Similarly, the king of Tyre may have been a man AND been possessed or greatly influenced by Satan. Thus, the &quot;king of Tyre&quot; just might be &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; a regular human king and Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T05:17:35.270" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2643" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2645" CreationDate="2011-09-12T08:35:01.130" Score="9" ViewCount="4554" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does God tell us in the bible he is omnipotent and omniscient, or are these attributes which (Greek?) philosophers and theologians merely ascribed to him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="581" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-02-05T05:46:15.160" LastActivityDate="2020-04-16T15:13:03.587" Title="What is the biblical evidence for God's omnipotence and omniscience?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;&lt;omnipotence&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2643" CreationDate="2011-09-12T09:19:40.977" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;He is definitely almighty. There are many psalms that praise his power, and say that there is no one like God.  Revelations states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?cx=partner-pub-3004108712154911%3Ac4rrh3xku7n&amp;amp;cof=FORID%3A10&amp;amp;ie=ISO-8859-1&amp;amp;safe=on&amp;amp;q=omnipotent&amp;amp;sa=Search&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 19:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God &lt;strong&gt;OMNIPOTENT&lt;/strong&gt; reigneth.(Emphasis my own)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, is definitely all-knowing. He knows the hearts and intents of men. He knows what they are going to do. In Matthew, it shows that Jesus is able to discern the thoughts of people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 9:4&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others can provide a more comprehensive list of Scripture, but time and time again in the Bible, it has been made quite clear that God is supreme and divine, knowing all, having power over all, and is everywhere. He is infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T09:19:40.977" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2643" CreationDate="2011-09-12T09:26:16.317" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;A simple &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=almighty&amp;amp;qs_version=ESV&quot;&gt;Bible search for 'almighty'&lt;/a&gt; would have given you &lt;em&gt;more than enough&lt;/em&gt; passages about omnipotence. The first mention, for example, is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:1-2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 17:1-2 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, &quot;I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For omniscience, similarly many, &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; passages exist -- the combination of them shows quite strongly that God is omniscient. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%202:3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 2:3 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Talk no more so very proudly,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;let not arrogance come from your mouth;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  for the LORD is a God of knowledge,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and by him actions are weighed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%2016:7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 16:7 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; But the LORD said to Samuel, &quot;Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206:4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:4 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:23 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T09:26:16.317" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="866" CreationDate="2011-09-12T13:48:58.433" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Either it is a scripted prayer or a model prayer.  If it were intended to be a scripted prayer, it seems we would expect to find people praying that scripted prayer somewhere else in the Scriptures and perhaps many times throughout the Scriptures.  This we do not find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other option is that it is a model prayer.  If this were true, then we should expect to find prayers in the Scriptures that reflect elements of that.  I believe this is what we find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many prayers recorded in the Scriptures, including Daniel 9 and many of the Psalms in the Old Testament.  So, one might wonder why the disciples needed to know how to pray when there were already examples of this available to them.  Jesus addresses the hypocrisy of praying to be heard by people rather than God, so things like this may have given rise to the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting to note that Jesus' own prayers are not repetitions of Matthew 6.  In John 17, He does refer to God as Father, which is like Matthew 6.  He does pray that God's Name would be glorified, which is akin to &quot;hallowed be Your Name.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Paul's letters, he tells specifically what he prays for the churches, but never once recites Matthew 6.  Psalm 62:8 implores us to &quot;pour out our hearts&quot; to God.  This seems difficult to do with a scripted prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are encouraged to pray in the Spirit with all kinds of requests, to present our request to God with thanksgiving, and many other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the examples of prayer in the Scriptures--both prior to Matthew 6 and after--do not support the idea that it should be considered a scripted prayer.  So, it seems the more likely purpose is to be a model prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, then our prayers should perhaps consist of things like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Addressing God as Father&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Coming to God in reverence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Submission to His Will and His plan&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Confession and the seeking of both forgiveness and deliverance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dependence upon God and requests for His provision&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T13:48:58.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2485" CreationDate="2011-09-12T14:07:28.217" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Could Jesus have sinned?  Either he could have sinned or he could not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If He could have sinned, what are the implications?  God's nature is holy, but if He could sin, then He would either be acting outside of His nature, or His nature must not be holy.  Yet, how could He act contrary to His nature?  If Jesus could have sinned after His incarnation, then why would it not be possible for Him to have sinned prior to His incarnation or afterwards?  If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then it would seem that any culpability He had while on the earth would not be new or unique to that time.  If God can be unholy, then it seems that He cannot be God, so the implications here seem implausible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other alternative is that Jesus could not have sinned.  This begs the question, then, of what meaning His temptations had.  He experienced the frailty of the flesh and the weakness to temptation.  We can at least relieve temptation by giving in to it when we weary from the fight (though this is certainly sinful to do).  He, however, did not have that as an outlet.  He had to continue resisting.  So, He did perhaps experience all of the power of draw of temptation, yet never gave in to it--nor could He.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T14:07:28.217" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2485" CreationDate="2011-09-12T14:34:45.177" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of those questions where our understanding is not sufficient to truly get to grips with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible, as has already been stated, says that Jesus was able to sin. And Christians thus respect those words as being the inspired, infallible word of God, and thus appropriately ascertain that Jesus was able to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, at the same time we know that Jesus was perfect and holy in every way. He was, and is, God and how can God sin? or even be able to sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if we say that Jesus was not able to sin, we contradict the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the problems stems from an ability to understand what sinless perfection actually means or looks like, since we don't experience it and no human does (except Jesus) so we can't really study it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="138" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T14:34:45.177" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2651" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2661" CreationDate="2011-09-12T14:41:00.450" Score="14" ViewCount="95583" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Exodus 3, God reveals himself to Moses through the sign of a burning bush, which miraculously is not consumed by the flames. Here is Exodus 3:1-6 in the NRSV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian; he led his flock beyond the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush; he looked, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed. Then Moses said, &quot;I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up.&quot; When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, &quot;Moses, Moses!&quot; And he said, &quot;Here I am.&quot; Then he said, &quot;Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.&quot; He said further, &quot;I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.&quot; And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does God choose to use the sign of the burning bush, as opposed to any other miracle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that there should be some reason why a blazing (but not consumed) bush in the middle of the wilderness is particularly appropriate for the message that God was delivering to Moses. I was also wondering whether there is a specifically Christian interpretation of this event, given the other parallels between the Exodus and the work of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2014-06-07T01:45:45.470" Title="What is the significance of the burning bush?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;theophany&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-01T05:21:38.987" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2622" CreationDate="2011-09-12T14:58:33.390" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many scriptures are used to establish a Unitarian position, check the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus was created&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:15-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:15-16&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son is &lt;strong&gt;the image of the invisible God&lt;/strong&gt;, the &lt;strong&gt;firstborn over all&#xA;creation&lt;/strong&gt;. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and&#xA;on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers&#xA;or authorities; all things have been created &lt;strong&gt;through&lt;/strong&gt; him and for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:1,3:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 1:1, 3:14&lt;/a&gt; (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The revelation of Jesus Christ, which &lt;strong&gt;God gave him&lt;/strong&gt; to show to his&#xA;servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by&#xA;sending his angel to his servant John...14&amp;quot;And to the angel of the&#xA;church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and&#xA;true witness, &lt;strong&gt;the beginning of God’s creation&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%208:22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 8:22 &lt;sup&gt;footnote: a&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;). According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus was/is inferior to God and Father&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 20:23&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup,&#xA;but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places&#xA;belong to those for whom they &lt;strong&gt;have been prepared by my Father&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 1:1&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The revelation from Jesus Christ, &lt;strong&gt;which God gave him&lt;/strong&gt; to show his&#xA;servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his&#xA;angel to his servant John&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20John%2014:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:28&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If&#xA;you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for &lt;strong&gt;the&#xA;Father is greater than I&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8:6&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;yet for us there is but &lt;strong&gt;one God, the Father&lt;/strong&gt;, from whom all things came&#xA;and for whom we live; and there is but &lt;strong&gt;one Lord, Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;, through&#xA;whom all things came and through whom we live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 3:23&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and you are of Christ, and &lt;strong&gt;Christ is of God&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:24,28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:24,28&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the end will come, when &lt;strong&gt;he hands over the kingdom to God&lt;/strong&gt; the&#xA;Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power...When he has done this, then the Son himself &lt;strong&gt;will be made subject to him who put everything under him&lt;/strong&gt;, so that God may be all in all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:3&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and&#xA;the head of the woman is man,[a] and &lt;strong&gt;the head of Christ is God&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:38&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6:38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I have come down from heaven &lt;strong&gt;not to do my will but to do the will&#xA;of him who sent me&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 13:32&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in&#xA;heaven, &lt;strong&gt;nor the Son, but only the Father&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 2:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore God exalted him to the highest place    and &lt;strong&gt;gave him the&#xA;name that is above every name&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus isn't Almighty God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:17 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the&#xA;Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my&#xA;Father and your Father, &lt;strong&gt;to my God and your God&lt;/strong&gt;.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 17:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this is eternal life: that they know you, &lt;strong&gt;the only true God&lt;/strong&gt;, and&#xA;Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:10&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘&lt;strong&gt;Worship&#xA;the Lord your God, and serve him only&lt;/strong&gt;.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Holy Spirit is not a person&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:41&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 1:41&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and&#xA;Elizabeth was &lt;strong&gt;filled with the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%203:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 3:11&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one&#xA;who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; and fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:38&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 10:38&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;how &lt;strong&gt;God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; and power, and&#xA;how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power&#xA;of the devil, because God was with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user14" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T13:12:26.220" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2653" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2656" CreationDate="2011-09-12T15:03:15.403" Score="8" ViewCount="4272" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick search on Google will come up with several Christian holidays including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Valentine's Day&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good Friday&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thanksgiving&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christmas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in many multi-cultural countries, there are often holidays which are from other religions, other beliefs or even tradition itself. For example a Chinese Christian celebrating &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Autumn_Festival&quot;&gt;Mid-Autumn Festival&lt;/a&gt;. Is that allowed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Today is Mid-Autumn Festival, the 15th day of the 8th Month on the Lunar Calendar. Chinese celebrate this day by bring out laterns, eating mooncakes, and reciting poems. It's kind of a tradition to me personally, but there are beliefs and myths behind the festival.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="122" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-12T15:21:49.873" LastActivityDate="2014-04-20T20:49:47.347" Title="Does Christianity allow Christians to celebrate other holidays?" Tags="&lt;holidays&gt;&lt;celebrations&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-22T03:45:52.073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2632" CreationDate="2011-09-12T15:05:58.930" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;James Black's answer was a good, but a tad confusing.  The apostolic succession is authority behind the teaching office of the bishop.  The Churches in communion with Rome are various rites of the Universal Church.  That is why it's such a fallacy to even use the term Roman Catholic. It's really the just the Latin Rite and the Pope is the leader of all the churches who acknowledge the Chair of Peter, those Churches lack nothing in their distinct liturgies and traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, Bl. John Paul II called the eastern and western churches the 'two lungs' of the church.  Suffice it to say, if you're in one of those lungs, your Bishops are recognized as legit - that's the churches that are in communion with Rome and the Eastern Orthodox schismatic churches who broke off in 1052. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T15:05:58.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2653" CreationDate="2011-09-12T15:14:47.717" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nature worship is considered grave matter (i.e. sinful) because of the first commandment &lt;code&gt;no gods before Me&lt;/code&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barring that traditions, patriotism and culture are compatible with Christian living.  Christianity grew up out of tradition and takes its form in the various parts of the earth because of the local traditions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, follow your conscience, intemperate celebration is a good way to forget about God.  If you are required to attend Mass or your services on a holiday, put God first and attend.  We've always worked to Christianize pagan holidays in the past, there's no reason we can't continue to do it in the 'multi-cultural' world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T15:14:47.717" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2653" CreationDate="2011-09-12T15:18:26.060" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thanksgiving is actually an American holiday, not a Christian one. Valentine's Day is also American (but there is a Saint Valentine sometimes associated with the holiday, though I don't often see him associated with the day at Church very often).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, Christianity certainly allows people to celebrate secular holidays, so long as it does not conflict with Christian teaching. It also allows should allow nominal celebration of non-Christian, non-Secular (in origin) holidays so long as there is nothing in the celebration that conflicts with Christian beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are allowed to do anything so long as it is for the glory of God, and we do it with clear conscience that it does not express devotion to anyone other than God and does not cause our brothers and sisters in Christ to stumble from being scandalized (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:23-33&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T15:18:26.060" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2651" CreationDate="2011-09-12T16:51:52.907" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a concept found throughout the Old Testament that God is a consuming fire:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%204:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 4:24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea behind this &lt;em&gt;consuming fire&lt;/em&gt; is that it is the fire of God's judgment.  Just before that verse in Deuteronomy, it says not to make idols (starting in verse 24) &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; the God is a consuming fire.  We can see pretty clearly that this fire is a picture of God's judgment and wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By comparison, one thing that is striking about the image of the burning bush is that there is fire that does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; consume.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is showing us that the imagery of the burning bush is one of mercy.  The &lt;em&gt;consuming fire&lt;/em&gt; engulfs the bush, but the bush is not consumed.  The judgment is brought, but mercy is shown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Exodus/exodus_04.htm&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another theory is that the burning bush indicates that Israel will not be consumed by the upcoming plagues in Egypt.  It was, the theory goes, a way to indicate to Moses that there will be fires and judgments but the nation will not be consumed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BUSH,+BURNING/&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A final, simpler theory is simply that God used an item that was present at that time in that location (a bush in the desert) to indicate his glory.  The fire that burned was simply his glory illuminating the bush.  (Fire, at that time, was the only known source of light besides the sun.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BUSH,+BURNING/&quot;&gt;Source (same as previous)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T16:51:52.907" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2662" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6894" CreationDate="2011-09-12T17:26:08.860" Score="39" ViewCount="6708" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:1-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 19:1-20&lt;/a&gt; tells the famous story of Soddom and Gomorrah.  In the story, the men of Sodom come to Lot's house, and demand that Lot release his visitors to be raped by the men of the town.  Lot refuses, and instead offers his virgin daughters (verse 8) to appease the crowd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing else is ever mentioned about Lot offering his daughters to be gang-raped by a crowd of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of this, why is Lot considered &quot;righteous?&quot; (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Peter 2:7&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we draw any other conclusions from Lot's actions here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess I don't really know what question to ask... I'm just kind of dumb-struck by the situation... What in the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-03-29T18:04:59.093" LastActivityDate="2019-12-21T14:51:43.057" Title="Why was Lot &quot;let off the hook&quot; for offering his daughters to be raped?" Tags="&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;righteousness&gt;&lt;lot&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2663" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-12T17:30:21.380" Score="17" ViewCount="7196" Body="&lt;p&gt;The christian morality derives from God, and God is benevolent so whatever he commands is morally good. Does that mean that anything God does or commands is morally right? Or does God only act and command that which is morally good? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is the former, would any act, no matter how despicable it would be to our current moral standards, be morally good, because God commands it? Or is there a moral standard independent from God, and God only commands what is morally good according to that independent standard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="197" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-12T18:26:51.753" LastActivityDate="2015-03-11T03:14:58.727" Title="Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-03-12T05:50:20.243" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2651" CreationDate="2011-09-12T17:32:05.023" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fire is symbolic of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's glory&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A source of illumination&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An indication of power&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A source of cleansing (the environment was made holy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A source of warmth and comfort in cold and dark places&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's wrath against uncleanliness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That the bush was not consumed is a sign that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That the fire was not sustained by the bush. God's existence doesn't depend on anything nor anyone else. He is self-sustaining, and the source of all energy in the universe (I assume that this is related to God calling Himself I AM).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is able to cleanse a living thing without destroying it - relating Moses experience to the work of Christ who makes us clean without destroying us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T17:32:05.023" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1102" CreationDate="2011-09-12T18:10:45.783" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; attempting to hide the fact that he was the Messiah.  But, it's not because he was afraid of the local authority.  Rather, he was trying to delay the events of his death.  He knew that the timing had to be perfect and these events recorded in Matthew were &amp;quot;too soon&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Part 1: The secret&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 7, Jesus' disciples are going up to the festival.  Jesus, however, did not want to appear publicly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 7:6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, it says, he decides to go in secret:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 7:10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This theme plays out multiple times.  The idea that seems pretty clear is that Jesus is trying delay the timing of these events.  (This is clear in the phrasing &amp;quot;My time is &lt;strong&gt;not yet&lt;/strong&gt; here&amp;quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Part 2: The revealing&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, we see that Jesus says the time &lt;strong&gt;has&lt;/strong&gt; come:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Jesus replied, &amp;quot;The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we read this entire section (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:20-36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:20-36&lt;/a&gt;), we see that Jesus is saying that the time has come from him to be crucified.  Indeed, directly after this, he says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this (during the same event), Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:27 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He's clearly speaking of the crucifixion and the suffering that he must endure.  These were the events that it seems he was attempting to delay&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Part 3: The completion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John records the final words of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 19:30 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see here the theme that has played out through the entire gospel of John.  Jesus wanted to delay the events of the crucifixion and suffering until the time has come.  Once the events were in place, Jesus declares that the hour has come.  After the crucifixion was complete and his life was over, the events that were the purpose of his life (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:27 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; above) are complete.  This was the time that Jesus was referring to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was clearly (and understandably) troubled by the thought of his own crucifixion and death (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:27 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; above).  However, the reason that he was hiding and delaying the events wasn't out of fear, but because he knew the correct timing and knew that it shouldn't begin too early.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Jesus tried to delay some of the early events in order to make sure the timing was correct and perfect.  This includes hiding the fact that he was the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T18:10:45.783" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2666" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-12T18:15:08.373" Score="11" ViewCount="5090" Body="&lt;p&gt;It came to my attention from living, driving around and listening to Christian radio that many Protestants do not have any services on what Catholics would consider solemnities (Christmas and Easter in particular) and even the most lax Catholic will attend if only to appease their mother. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the precepts of the Catholic Church is to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, another is to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, particularly during Lent. That's why Mass attendance ought to peak around Easter.  But it would seem that some non-catholic congregations in the United States have adopted an opposite position.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you asked any given pastor what the reasoning behind this is, what might they say?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2014-10-31T16:58:48.540" LastActivityDate="2017-01-08T21:39:06.830" Title="Why do many Protestant congregations not require attendance at services on Christmas and Easter?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2668" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-12T18:28:38.097" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-12T18:28:38.097" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T18:28:38.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2669" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-12T18:28:38.097" Score="0" Body="The appearance of God to man" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-12T18:29:06.370" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T18:29:06.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2662" CreationDate="2011-09-12T18:28:55.793" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard a variety of theories on this topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He &quot;knew&quot; (or hoped) the crowd wouldn't accept them (they &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; asking for men, after all)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Females were considered a sub-class of society, and therefore were his &quot;possession&quot; wherewith to do as he pleased&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was the offer of a desperate man trying to save the guests whom he suspected of being more than just &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:1-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;visitors&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (but did not know were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018:22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;messengers of God&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, the &quot;righteousness of Lot&quot; does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; indicate he was perfect, or even the &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt; representation of a God-truster of the day - Abraham was &quot;righteous&quot;, and yet on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2012:19,%20genesis%2020:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;two occasions&lt;/a&gt; tried to save his own skin by telling his wife to say she was his sister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lot &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2013&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;elected&lt;/a&gt; to go towards the greener pastures near the cities when Abraham offered him the choice of land on which to graze his flocks - and he continually migrated closer and closer to sin until he was &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2014:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;living in Sodom&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;: a phenomenal shift from being with Abraham and away from such obviously-evil influences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T18:28:55.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2666" CreationDate="2011-09-12T18:33:43.227" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; the reasons are quite practical. Many people are visiting family on holidays, and some of them prefer family time (which is rare) over going to church (which is possible all the time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants have no &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html&quot;&gt;Sunday obligation,&lt;/a&gt; so missing church sometimes is not an issue to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T18:33:43.227" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2666" CreationDate="2011-09-12T19:02:19.543" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the main point of confusion in your question is the following phrase:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;at least once a year&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many protestants take that to a whole new level, and turn it completely on its head; if you're &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; going to church once or twice a year, something is seriously wrong.  You should be at worship services more often than not. Protestants don't need to &lt;em&gt;require&lt;/em&gt; attendance at this time, because members attend regularly anyway. Even when travelling, many will find a local place of worship and attend with the local congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it another way, regularly missing worship service can be seen as an act of &lt;strong&gt;profanity.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me explain: The basic definition of the word &quot;holy&quot; is something that is set apart. Worship time is set apart for God &amp;mdash; and so qualifies as holy.  The definition of profanity is to take something that is holy and to make it common. Since worship time happens often, it is easy to allow other things to get in the way. Nevertheless, that is the very definition of profanity; something that is holy was made common.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A place where you can see this often is with school schedules. Events like band/choir concerts, theatre productions, and sports schedules can conflict with worship schedules.  These school events seem special, but they are still common relative to worship, in that they are not dedicated to God; allowing them to take precedence over worship is nothing less than profanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This principle &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; includes &quot;special&quot; days; for a protestant to not attend on Christmas or Easter would be profanity... just as it would be to miss other occasions for less-than-holy reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another point of confusion as well, and that is the relationship between individuals, Christ, and the Church; protestants tend to view this very different than do Catholics. Protestants often simply do not believe the church has authority over them, to require anything like attendance on specific days. Rather, we are a &quot;nation of priests&quot;, and are responsible directly to Christ alone.  The church acts more like a support group &amp;mdash; a &lt;em&gt;commanded&lt;/em&gt; support group, but that's still a reduced role compared to Catholicism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I present Romans 14:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some consider one day more sacred than another; others consider every day alike. Everyone should be fully convinced in their own mind. (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I normally hesitate to bring Romans 14 into these discussions, but this particular example from the chapter matches so directly with the question. I think it's obvious here that both opinions on the matter are expressly permitted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2014-10-31T17:00:06.063" LastActivityDate="2014-10-31T17:00:06.063" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2011-09-12T19:16:40.707" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard (but cannot at this time back up) that the wine of biblical times &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; have alcohol. However, the alcohol content was typically much lower than that of wine, liquor, or beer we have today. Stronger stuff was very hard to come by. This is part of what makes Jesus' first miracle so significant.  This however, is not the main part of my answer: I just wanted to get that out of the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important thing here is to understand what the bible does say about alcohol, and when you look there it comes down pretty hard, not against alcohol, but against &lt;strong&gt;drunkeness&lt;/strong&gt;, especially in Proverbs. It should be noted, though, that the book of Proverbs is more about truisms than absolute doctrinal decrees.  Still, it's more than just &quot;don't be an alcoholic&quot;, but also, &quot;don't ever drink to get drunk.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T19:16:40.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2675" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-12T19:21:12.570" Score="14" ViewCount="3011" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:19-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 15:19-21 (NIV, Emph mine)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. &lt;strong&gt;21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.&lt;/strong&gt;” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse is used for and against observing law. Seems like this could mean either, &quot;There are enough people following Moses and observing the law, so no need for more people to follow the law.&quot; or &quot;The law is repeated in synagogues and new believers will go to synagogues, so they'll learn and follow them later.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-23T16:14:28.873" LastActivityDate="2020-12-05T00:57:47.393" Title="Does Acts 15:21 assume new believers would learn and follow the law from synagogues on sabbath?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2675" CreationDate="2011-09-12T20:19:33.537" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think this is saying the Gentiles should have to learn the law of Moses.  Quite the contrary, I believe it is saying they should not have to be burdened with the law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Earlier in Acts 15 Peter asks why should the Gentiles be required to follow the law the Jews have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:10-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:10-11 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of&#xA;  Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to&#xA;  bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that&#xA;  we are saved, just as they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When contrasted with this, I would understand James response in verses 19-21 to be saying most of the law of Moses would be an extreme burden on the Gentiles, considering even the Jews who heard the law weekly were not able to uphold it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T20:19:33.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2679" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2681" CreationDate="2011-09-12T20:29:05.087" Score="16" ViewCount="1024" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: &quot;This is my body&quot;, what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these &quot;accidents&quot; remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration, the underlying reality (the &quot;substance&quot;) of the bread was converted to that of his body. &lt;strong&gt;In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how can the Eucharist change from bread to body if it is not measurably altered in any way? How is it different from saying that &lt;em&gt;it doesn't change at all&lt;/em&gt;? Is it an allegory? If not, how does it change &lt;em&gt;in practical terms&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="279" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-20T22:07:42.883" LastActivityDate="2016-06-01T17:15:30.297" Title="What is transubstantiation?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;transubstantiation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2679" CreationDate="2011-09-12T20:38:13.973" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Transubstantiation relies on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28philosophy%29&quot;&gt;Aristotelian distinction&lt;/a&gt; between essence and accidents. From the linked Wikipedia article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the&#xA;  Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the&#xA;  theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of&#xA;  bread and wine into body and blood. According to this tradition, the&#xA;  accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but their substances&#xA;  change from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;measurable&quot; properties you are referring to (taste, feel, etc.) are accidental properties, not the substance of the bread/wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T20:38:13.973" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2679" CreationDate="2011-09-12T20:40:43.173" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Practically, it changes because the Eucharist is Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity made present before you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Previous to consecration it required no faith to believe that bread and wine were bread and wine. After consecration it requires absolute faith to see Our Lord before us (although the reality of the Real Presence is there whether one believes it or not).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Transubstantiation is a miracle and like most miracles your freewill and liberty are sublimely preserved even when it happens in front of your eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2016-06-01T17:15:30.297" LastActivityDate="2016-06-01T17:15:30.297" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2653" CreationDate="2011-09-12T20:58:21.940" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Pius IX has condemned such activity if it is religious in nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings.  They should shun their writings and all contact with them.  They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-12T21:10:08.600" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T21:10:08.600" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2686" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-12T21:22:42.793" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions regarding forgiveness of sin by God, and forgiveness between people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:35:37.003" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:35:37.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2687" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-12T21:22:42.793" Score="0" Body="The release from guilt, obligation or punishment that was due because of sin." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-11-08T14:45:36.140" LastActivityDate="2011-11-08T14:45:36.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2688" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-12T21:22:59.703" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-12T21:22:59.703" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T21:22:59.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2689" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-12T21:22:59.703" Score="0" Body="The restoration of friendly relations" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-12T21:24:21.287" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T21:24:21.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2653" CreationDate="2011-09-12T21:42:03.373" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first Christians were Jewish.  In fact, Christianity is really &quot;fulfilled&quot; Judaism, in that the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies are found in Jesus.  So, Jewish Christians (or Messianic Jews) celebrate Jewish holidays today and always have--even from the time of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no prohibition to non-Jewish believers regarding the celebration of other holidays, and Christianity is not about prohibitions anyway, but about forgiveness and redemption through faith in Jesus.  It is true that we are called to holy living, so as long as the celebration of holidays does not impede holiness, there really isn't any problem with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the celebration of other deities would be prohibited whether or not it is done on a holiday or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could be considered an area where it depends on individual conscience, like eating meat sacrificed to idols that Paul mentions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a footnote, Christmas and Easter can be celebrated in completely secular ways, which I would say is not wrong, but definitely not Christian.  If Christmas is focused on getting gifts and a fat man in a red suit, there's really nothing Christian about that.  And rabbits and eggs certainly do not qualify for a celebration of the single most important event in all Christendom.  So, even celebrating religious holidays does not mean that those are sacred observances, if they are done in a secular manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-12T21:42:03.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1565" CreationDate="2011-09-12T23:25:03.107" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is clear about a lot of sin areas and about how Christians should act around each other (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5&lt;/a&gt;) that I don't feel the need to think, &quot;how will some random person interpret my actions?&quot;  Who can live with that level of forethought and the resulting guilt thereof? Not me.  People who suggest this is at all possible haven't thought through the logic of it all.  We can never truly predict how someone will respond to our actions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said I do think we should exercise due care when interacting with friends who have particular problems (e.g. alcoholism) and tempering our freedoms in Christ around them to accommodate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.&quot; -- GK Chesterton&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="629" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T15:03:27.633" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T15:03:27.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2675" CreationDate="2011-09-13T05:03:16.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is related to the question  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2498/what-was-the-point-of-the-laws-written-to-the-gentile-believers-in-antioch-syria/2500#2500&quot;&gt;discussed here&lt;/a&gt;. Both question discuss the same passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quoting from the verse given by user &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who&#xA;  are turning to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was difficult for gentiles turning to God ?&#xA;Difficulty was following the Law as we can see in verse 5 (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;some of the believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood&#xA;  up and insisted, “The Gentile converts must be circumcised and&#xA;  required to follow the law of Moses.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conclusion was that gentiles should not be burdened by the Law of Moses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers with&#xA;  a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then as I explained in question quoted, leaders given some concessions considering that complete disregard of Law should not be a stumbling block to Jewish Christians.  Considering &quot;For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from&#xA;the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath&quot;, they asked Gentile believers to observe just four things, two which are affirmed elsewhere in the New Testament: food offered to idols and sexual immorality. So I believe those principles are binding to us even today, and another two (eating the meat of strangled animals, and consuming blood), which appear more to the situation at hand (strong views of Jewish Christians). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I believe in summary, &lt;strong&gt;this  do not call  for observing the law, but re-affirming that salvation is not by Law, but by Grace&lt;/strong&gt; as pointed out already by a_hardin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T19:55:50.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2594" CreationDate="2011-09-13T06:02:26.283" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer may not be &quot;objective&quot;, but it's a question about exorcism, it's hard to be objective. But I'm a protestant with &quot;exorcism&quot; training (now it's called &quot;Freedom in Christ&quot; to avoid association with pop culture). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Effectiveness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exorcisms are often not effective, here's why: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said if you cast out one demon and the person isn't then filled with the Spirit of God, 7 other demons will return to take it's place, Matthew 12:45. So a good &quot;exorcist&quot; won't exercise someone who isn't going to accept Christ shortly after the exorcism. And, although it's not impossible, demons don't take conversion attempts &quot;lying down&quot; (sometimes they do lie down, but normally kicking and screaming). That said, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow and success exorcism result in converts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Support in churches: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience exorcism is supported in some charismatic protestant churches, but they don't often talk about it, because, let's face it, it scares the pants off most believers let alone heathens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="558" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T06:02:26.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2663" CreationDate="2011-09-13T06:51:05.720" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God certainly does what is morally right, but he certainly has the freedom to do what is not good. Even a person with no ethical training has a notion of what is fair and what is not (moral standard of the conscience). Hence I am of the opinion that God only acts and commands that which is morally good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="635" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T14:53:43.587" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T14:53:43.587" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2663" CreationDate="2011-09-13T07:31:44.097" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no moral standard apart from the person of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not Himself subjected to some outside standard of reference, He is the standard that we reference. Since we also know that He is good, we can be certain that nothing He commands will ever bee morally despicable. @Joel Coehoorn nailed in in a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2663/is-an-action-morally-good-because-god-commands-it-or-does-god-command-it-because#comment-6276&quot;&gt;comment&lt;/a&gt;. Yes, actions are morally good because God commands them and what God commands is morally good because it was Him that commanded it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If something comes up that bothers our consciences we have several possibilities to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our own &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2706/30&quot;&gt;moral compases may be corrupt&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are too limited in our experience &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2170/30&quot;&gt;to judge Him&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We mis-heard Him or were deceived; the thing that bothers us wasn't a command from God at all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:16:19.747" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2696" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-13T07:36:18.567" Score="2" ViewCount="343" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example, some Creationists will explain dinosaur bones as &quot;God placed them there to test us&quot; - even if God did place them there, isn't it presumptuous to speculate what the motivations were?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="585" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-04-13T12:43:24.407" LastActivityDate="2013-04-13T12:43:24.407" Title="On what basis do Christians sometimes claim to know what God's intentions are?" Tags="&lt;wisdom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2011-09-25T08:40:07.693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2697" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2716" CreationDate="2011-09-13T07:44:17.650" Score="12" ViewCount="18763" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seems like a good one to touch on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there could have been room in there somewhere if he wanted it. Why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="585" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T18:44:31.383" LastActivityDate="2014-07-15T03:38:13.757" Title="Why is rape not in the 10 commandments?" Tags="&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-06-06T08:55:11.160" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2697" CreationDate="2011-09-13T07:58:45.580" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. 7&#xA;Thou shalt no commit adultery &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rape is a form of adultery (unless you're married).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="558" LastEditorUserId="558" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T08:22:50.017" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T08:22:50.017" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2697" CreationDate="2011-09-13T09:52:29.980" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not every sinful act is spelled out in the ten commandments, but every possible sinful act does fall under one or more of the umbrellas. Rape is &lt;em&gt;adultery&lt;/em&gt; as well as &lt;em&gt;theft&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;envy&lt;/em&gt; and does &lt;em&gt;not honor the Lord&lt;/em&gt;. That's at least four &quot;counts&quot;. How much does one need to know that it's wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the NT we find the ten commandments expounded to include thoughts about the action and heart attitudes as well as the spelled out actions. In short, not having the act of rape spelled out in a commandment is not an oversight, the topic is well covered. I have never heard it alleged that Christianity allowed rape based on it not being the 11th commandment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T12:29:55.590" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T12:29:55.590" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2696" CreationDate="2011-09-13T10:08:29.720" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what Luther calls the &lt;em&gt;theologia gloriae&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most obvious way to the cognition of God is to follow the footsteps of creation. The creation speaks a powerful language.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Scholasticism has understood the natural cognition as a way of salvation.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scholastics think of God and man from the same viewpoint of natural causality and connect the cognition of God &lt;em&gt;per ea, quae facta sunt&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; with a particular ethical view of man and his works.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This connection builds the base, upon which Luther critisizes the theologia gloriae: &lt;strong&gt;That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened«&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For him, real cognition does only happen by cognition of Cross of Christ: &lt;em&gt;theologia crucis&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally a biblical quote (found this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2711/how-can-the-son-not-know-what-the-father-knows&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:36&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;    (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 13:32&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: See Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 19&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2: Walther von Loewenich, ''Luthers theologia crucis'', p.19&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3: About the question what scholastics say about Rom 1:20, see Pierre Bühler, ''Kreuz und Eschatologie'', p.106&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4: literal translation: ''by the things that have been made''&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5: Theodor Dieter, ''Der junge Luther und Aristoteles'', p.109&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;suP&gt;6: WA 5,388,5f.: Non ille digne Theologus dicitur, qui invisibilia Dei per ea, quae facta sunt intellecta conspicit&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T14:42:01.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2697" CreationDate="2011-09-13T12:20:24.477" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because the 10 Commandments have little to do with ethics and everything to do with (a) creating an orderly society and (b) distinguising the Jewish community from its neightbours. Women were generally regarded as property by the culture of the time, which wrote the commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T12:20:24.477" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2666" CreationDate="2011-09-13T12:23:02.073" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I'm aware there's no biblical basis for requiring the church to gather at those specific times. For example there's no mention of Jesus' birth being explicitly celebrated as an occasion in Acts as far as I'm aware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The congregation I belong to used to meet in a school as we didn't have our own building. We felt it was important to give the school caretakers a break at these times, so our church didn't meet during the school holidays (although we were encouraged to visit other churches or arrange other activities).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T12:23:02.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2704" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-13T12:52:46.087" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T12:52:46.087" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T12:52:46.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2705" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-13T12:52:46.087" Score="0" Body="The nature of God includes all aspects and characteristics attributed directly to the person of God, possibly including all the omni- aspects (e.g. omniscience), love, hate, persons (e.g. the Trinity) or other attributes." OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T08:54:07.490" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T08:54:07.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2706" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-13T13:11:14.413" Score="17" ViewCount="1550" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Romans there are a couple verses that indicate that the law has not only been given in written form through the ten commandments, but written &quot;on our hearts.&quot; It also says that this law will bear witness against us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%202:14&quot;&gt;Romans 2:14-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, is this our conscience? Secondly, is this &quot;law written on our hearts&quot; corrupted by our sin natures or pure and trustworthy? In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%203:9/&quot;&gt;next chapter&lt;/a&gt; goes on to say that there is no one who does right or understands. Particularly in light of those verses and the doctrines of original sin and total depravity, what does should Christians believe about the purity and trustworthiness of our consciences?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-04T16:05:22.890" LastActivityDate="2015-08-04T16:05:22.890" Title="Are our consciences trustworthy?" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;total-depravity&gt;&lt;conscience&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-22T03:43:09.917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1903" CreationDate="2011-09-13T13:29:58.627" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess you can take the bible on blind faith. It is not the most potent witnessing tool though (Blind faith that is). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The historical basis should be the starting point for any talks with non believers as the take a logical stance on these matters of facts. Something that usually garners respect from the naturalist in the crowd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are lucky that we have a religion that intersects with the physical world in a very real way. It does give it a great deal of credibility. So it should be every Christians ace up his sleeve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T13:29:58.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2711" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-13T13:38:31.967" Score="38" ViewCount="9708" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:36&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;    (NLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 13:32&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now hold on a minute here... in according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God the Father and God the Son are the same God, yet the Father knows something the Son doesn't? What's going on here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-09-01T00:14:14.677" LastActivityDate="2020-07-04T03:40:49.847" Title="How can the Son not know what the Father knows?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2714" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-13T13:52:28.357" Score="4" ViewCount="2408" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply&quot;&gt;To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1011/how-should-a-christian-evaluate-whether-a-particular-action-a-sin-or-not&quot;&gt;How should a christian evaluate whether a particular action a sin or not?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hear Leviticus 19:19 brought up from time to time, mainly because it's one in a laundry list of sins. It states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a sin is a sin is a sin, where does wearing mixed fibers fall in the grand scheme? Is this something that all Christians should honor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="637" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T14:04:04.233" Title="Should a Christian wear clothing of mixed fibers?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;leviticus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-09-13T17:10:47.267" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="59" CreationDate="2011-09-13T13:53:21.397" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has it's origins in the reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One German legend claims that Martin Luther was responsible for introducing the use of Christmas trees in the home, in Germany. According to the legend, on his way home one evening, Martin Luther was so overcome by the beauty of a fir tree and stars in the sky, he wanted to tell his family about it. However, upon returning home, words failed him, so he went out and chopped the down and brought it home to share with his family. To mimic the stars that hung over the manger where Christ was born, Martin Luther decorated the tree with candle tapers. This was thought to be the first traditional Christmas tree in Germany.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lorribrown.suite101.com/martin-luther-and-christmas-a34679&quot;&gt;http://lorribrown.suite101.com/martin-luther-and-christmas-a34679&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T13:53:21.397" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2697" CreationDate="2011-09-13T13:54:46.533" Score="32" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: This answer comes from the perspective of the Old Testament alone, since the question was in regard to the Ten Commandments and gives no indication that it's seeking a &amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot; perspective, but &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; give indication that it's seeking a historical perspective (since it references the Ten Commandments).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;History of the ten Commandments&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is rape not included among the these commandments?  Because there are many things (including homosexuality, having sex with your fathers wife, not wearing clothes made of both wool and cotton, etc.) that are not in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ten Commandments were originally written on stone tablets after Moses ascended Mount Sinai.  Their purpose was to provide a set of basic, simple laws that would hold the nation of Israel over until they got the full Levitical law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Levitical law was not given until the book of Leviticus, &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the Ten Commandments had been given.  These commandments were &lt;strong&gt;not meant to be all-encompassing&lt;/strong&gt;, but simply meant to give them the top-ten basic laws that God wanted the Israelites to obey until they could get the complete Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rape defined&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that &amp;quot;rape&amp;quot; during those days was not a crime against a woman, but rather a crime against the head of the household (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rape#Pagan_and_Christian_conceptions&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;History of Rape&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To understand how rape plays out in the Old Testament, it is important to understand adultery.  Adultery was a sin that had the death-penalty associated with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 22:22 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if the man were to &lt;em&gt;rape&lt;/em&gt; another man's wife, only the man would die, since he is the one that committed the act of adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 22:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note that in Old Testament times, betrothal came &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the marriage price had been paid.  The groom and the bride at that point were &lt;em&gt;effectively married&lt;/em&gt;, although there was a waiting period before they could live together.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if a man rapes a woman who is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; pledged to be married, then he has not committed adultery and did not deserve death.  Instead, he was forced to pay the marriage price, taking the girl/woman &lt;em&gt;as his wife&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What these laws are showing is that &lt;em&gt;rape&lt;/em&gt; is not &amp;quot;non-consensual&amp;quot; sex as we think of it today.  It's actually a crime against the man who &amp;quot;owns&amp;quot; the woman (for lack of a better term).  The crime committed in the case of a betrothed or married girl is the crime of adultery.  The crime committed in the case of a non-betrothed, unwed girl is the crime of &lt;strong&gt;not paying for something that you've taken&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The punishment for rape back then was the same as the punishment for either adultery or stealing, based on the marital status of the girl.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also means... there is &lt;strong&gt;nothing&lt;/strong&gt; in the Old Testament saying that non-consensual sex &lt;em&gt;with your wife&lt;/em&gt; is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rape as Adultery/Theft&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the definition above, we see that rape carried the punishment of either adultery or theft, based on the marital status of the girl/woman.  &lt;strong&gt;With that in mind&lt;/strong&gt;, the laws of adultery and stealing &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; in the Ten Commandments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:14-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; You shall not commit adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; You shall not steal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we compare these laws established in the Ten Commandments with the rules established in Deuteronomy, we see that rape was considered &lt;em&gt;either&lt;/em&gt; stealing or adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, the &lt;em&gt;root law&lt;/em&gt; that is being violated is actually covered in the these commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rape, from the Old Testament perspective, is either considered adultery or thievery (based on the marital status of the woman).  Those two root laws are specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments.  Therefore, the two laws that might be broken from a given rape are actually written there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T07:44:52.180" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2714" CreationDate="2011-09-13T14:04:04.233" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As has been stated in answer to other such questions, God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel, etc.  The Mosaic Law is a specific covenant between God and the Jewish people.  This covenant included many things, including the prohibition of wearing clothing with mixed fibers.  This covenant was enacted about 3500 years ago, I think.  Isaiah spoke of a new covenant that was enacted when Jesus died and rose again.  So, the Mosaic covenant was in effect between God and the Jewish nation for about 1500 years, but it is in effect no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly, animal sacrifices are no longer required in the new covenant, because Jesus was offered once for all time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for Jewish people living  between 1500 B.C. and about 30 A.D., it was applicable.  But not today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, there are still sins to avoid, because all sin is to our destruction.  While momentary pleasure may be derived from sin, true fulfillment comes as we live in the presence of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, wear whatever fabrics you want, but seek to know God.  That is what the Scriptures call us to today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T14:04:04.233" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2720" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2723" CreationDate="2011-09-13T14:34:28.863" Score="6" ViewCount="210" Body="&lt;p&gt;Until this year have used the New American Bible (NAB) for my Religious Ed. class. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, we've got a New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How long is a bible New and how long is a bible Revised and can this continue for ever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will Bible translators ever just break down and use the Google Chrome incremental versioning system or will bible quotes require more and more ubiquitous bytes to signify the translation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I'm wondering if it is necessary to call the New American Bible Revised Edition published in 2011 AD the NABRE or if we'll just go back to calling it the New American Bible.  Or futhermore if we'll ever just call it the American Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T01:00:42.197" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T01:00:42.197" Title="How many years are Bible translations usually called New or Revised for?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2697" CreationDate="2011-09-13T14:44:23.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus tells us how to interpret the commandment not to kill, namely that it is even a sin to call your brother stupid. I think it is fair to say that Jesus generalized that commandment to one that absolutely forbids violence against persons, be it physical or &quot;only&quot; verbal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this would also cover rape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="581" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T14:44:23.137" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2720" CreationDate="2011-09-13T15:00:23.580" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's basically a marketing term, like anywhere else &quot;new and improved (revised)&quot; is used.  It doesn't signify anything meaningful about the translation itself, at least not beyond a few months. IMO a better naming convention is to name the translation after something actually unique to the translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T15:00:23.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2720" CreationDate="2011-09-13T15:04:05.400" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The name given to a version of the Bible is just that, a name. It's a bit like asking how long New York will stay New for - it's not going to be dropped because it's what the city is called, rather than a description of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some versions of the Bible are referred to by year, or sometimes by century, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;21st Century King James Version&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;New International Version 1984&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes that's officially part of the name when published (such as the first item on that list) and sometimes the year is added later to disambiguate it from more modern editions of the same version. I think that's as close to the Google Chrome analogy as we're likely to get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T15:04:05.400" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2724" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:04:30.510" Score="11" ViewCount="4377" Body="&lt;p&gt;How should Christians act toward non-Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example I have found is 2 Corinthians 6:14 [KJV].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what&#xA;  fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion&#xA;  hath light with darkness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe this is saying not to marry non-Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other instructions on how to behave towards non-Christians in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="277" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T22:45:23.313" LastActivityDate="2014-04-01T14:52:24.290" Title="How should Christians act toward non-Christians?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-10-07T19:28:59.857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2724" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:22:35.587" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;They are our neighbors and we should love them as ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+13%3A34-35&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:34-35 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it turns out that they are our enemies then we should love them all them more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A43-44&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:43-44 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ &lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-23T13:55:33.043" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T13:55:33.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2727" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:42:37.140" Score="9" ViewCount="1987" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might be a meta question, but I really mean it in a scholarly way.  Does paraphrasing the Bible for conversational use make Sola Scriptura folks cringe?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not even sure what my Church thinks about it, other than improperly quoting the New American Bible too much is a copyright violation. But as for Bible Only Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and are of the mentality that the Bible is the Mother of the Church rather than the other way around, should I take the extra effort and state what the Bible says correctly, or is it OK to paraphrase or change words around to draw out a particular meaning or just make it more readable or conversational?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, not that there are a lot of Protestants in my Catechism class, but if I were to just say, without a bible open to the chapter and verse, &quot;Jesus says, Love one another as I have loved you&quot;.  I've got no idea if that's exactly what Jesus said, but I know he said something like that.  So, if in conversation with a Bible Christian, if I don't have the Bible open, can I say anything to them without pointing out the chapter and verse? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T20:38:54.147" LastActivityDate="2018-09-27T05:21:35.570" Title="Do 'Bible Christians' find paraphrasing the Bible distasteful?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sola-scriptura&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2728" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:51:43.723" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tag Usage&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The history of Bible translation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Methodologies of Bible translation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Types of Bible translations (e.g. word-for-word, dynamic equivalence, paraphrase)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;History, politics, or controversies surrounding specific Bible translations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Official recognition of or condemnation of Bible translations by Christian groups&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Features of specific Bible translations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Methods of comparison between Bible translations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The differences between certain Bible translations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The existence or effect of bias in Bible translations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not use this tag to ask questions about the following, as they are  opinion questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recommendations on what Bible to read (&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;off-topic&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Requests for authoritative interpretation of the Bible, or any specific passage in the Bible (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3527/we-cant-handle-the-truth&quot;&gt;off-topic&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="31636" LastEditorUserId="31636" LastEditDate="2017-04-11T12:01:42.247" LastActivityDate="2017-04-11T12:01:42.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2729" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:51:43.723" Score="0" Body="Questions regarding different translations of the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek texts." OwnerUserId="306" LastEditorUserId="306" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T16:53:55.427" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T16:53:55.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:51:45.113" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many people out there who will paraphrase the bible to line up with their own beliefs, either maliciously or ignorantly, that does not specifically line up with what the bible actually says. To see the bible quoted with the version noted gives us a baseline for our discussion, across the myriad of beliefs that will be represented here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T16:51:45.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2731" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:55:09.490" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T16:55:09.490" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T16:55:09.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2732" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:55:09.490" Score="0" Body="Questions about apparent contradictions within the Bible." OwnerUserId="306" LastEditorUserId="306" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T17:00:27.357" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T17:00:27.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:58:26.653" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's impossible to say that &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; people of any one group believe a specific thing or feel a specific way.  Any question like this will find at least one person that identifies themselves as a member of a group but doesn't follow a given aspect of that group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in that sense...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;, not all Sola Scriptura believers feel that paraphrasing is bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&amp;quot;Real Life&amp;quot;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my experience, paraphrasing isn't--&lt;em&gt;in and of itself&lt;/em&gt;--a bad thing.  There are many times (pretty much all the time) that I can't remember a verse word for word.  So, I paraphrase.  The important point is that the content is valid and relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Meta&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a site like this, though, it seems that paraphrasing might be a bit dangerous because it could invite arguments and misunderstanding (&lt;a href=&quot;http://xkcd.com/386/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;see here&lt;/a&gt;).  Also, for the non-believers or the people who don't know their Bible well enough, it's nice to be able to point them to the actual verses.  Finally, it gives more support to answers so that the answers can be believed conclusively and other questions can be closed as off-topic more easily.  Having hard scripture is just nice to have within a post for those reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T00:05:37.057" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2011-09-13T16:59:26.753" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe there is a problem with paraphrasing the Bible in conversational, or even teaching use.  The important thing is that what is being paraphrased can be &lt;strong&gt;verified&lt;/strong&gt; against the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of a pastor's message is likely to be paraphrasing or expounding on a Bible verse.  There is nothing wrong with this, as long as it is being &lt;strong&gt;verified&lt;/strong&gt; against the original Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why there are so many different translations.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1092/why-are-there-so-many-translations-of-the-bible&quot;&gt;Why are there so many translations of the Bible?&lt;/a&gt;  There are a lot of ways to convey a message in English, and some may understand one method versus another better.  Even then, when using 1 or more translations as the verification, these translations can be further verified against the original Hebrew or Greek, such as with an &lt;a href=&quot;http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;interlinear Bible&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as it applies to this site, I think it'd be nice to provide the base scripture for any direct paraphrasing, either directly quoted or just as a link.  This would make it easier for those who are new to the Bible or who would like to read more into what you are saying to access the scripture.  For a comparison, would you ever expect to have a church leader teaching on the Bible without actually being able to reference it directly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T16:59:26.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2724" CreationDate="2011-09-13T17:08:14.133" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right, from a strictly Biblical perspective, marriage to non-Christians should be off the table. Personally, I've even witnessed relationships between denominations deteriorate due to theological differences, but in an inter-religion marriage there can be some serious issues -- either faith is watered down, or it is a source of contention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are also cautioned not to give that which is holy to those who are not baptized:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. (Mat. 7:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ancient Church (the Catholics only ended this recently and my understanding is that the Orthodox continue to do this to today) took this to mean that the outsider was welcome through the preaching and recitation and exposition on the religious texts, but that the holy meal was reserved to the initiated (read up on mystagogy for good stuff on this)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some can be read into the admonitions related to what later became excommunication. Here is a pertinent text about those who have fallen into habitual (in this case sexual) immorality:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.(1 Cor. 5:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, according to the Johannine texts these should not be considered part of the congregation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. (2 John 9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said the story of the Good Samaritan would suggest that love crosses all bounds (and if you want a fascinating history, read about Israel, Judah, and the origin of the Samaritans). Further, the Old Testament is full of admonitions to defend the foreigners:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a stranger dwell in your land, and abide among you, do not upbraid hin: But let him be among you as one of the same country. And you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. (Lev. 19:33-34)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems, all considered, that the admonition to love (cf. Mt. 7:12, Lk. 6:31) is universal and should be universally applied, but the alien is still an alien. It is fine to fellowship with those in the world, but spiritual communion should be reserved to those who are among the flock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T18:18:46.047" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T18:18:46.047" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2736" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-13T17:13:56.107" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T17:13:56.107" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T17:13:56.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2737" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-13T17:13:56.107" Score="0" Body="Questions about interpretation of the Bible, usually specific passages or words." OwnerUserId="306" LastEditorUserId="306" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T17:17:27.247" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T17:17:27.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2011-09-13T17:16:10.143" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whatever we feel, Christians shouldn't find paraphrases of the Bible distasteful, as long as they are accurate paraphrases. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is not a text-based religion. Islam believes that the Quran was literally dictated by God in Arabic, and the actual text is sacred. Christianity believes that the Bible was 'inspired' by God, but written down by the human authors in their own words. This means that the &lt;em&gt;message&lt;/em&gt; and not the text is sacred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this the Bible can be freely translated (unlike the Quran) and paraphrased, and the end result is just as sacred as the original (provided it is done truly).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T16:45:35.177" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T16:45:35.177" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2724" CreationDate="2011-09-13T17:17:54.960" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the [obvious] exclusion of marriage, it would seem to indicate (in my understanding) that we should not become unduly-bound to an unbeliever in other relationships, as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is [likely] impossible for one to only work with and for another christian. However, intentionally going &lt;em&gt;into&lt;/em&gt; business with an unbeliever could be considered an unequal yoking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T17:17:54.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2011-09-13T17:20:30.620" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While it is impossible to avoid paraphrasing something which is translated, when I was more of a &quot;Bible Christian&quot; (first 21 years of my life I was an Evangelical attending a PCUSA church), paraphrasing the Bible was something which was common and often indistinguishable from biblical allusion, and neither was considered a bad thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I recall correctly (and this is both from personal experience as well as from religious discussions I had with friends in college), the only thing which was found offensive were bad translations. The &lt;code&gt;New Living Translation&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;The Message&lt;/code&gt; came up frequently as abysmal, and some considered them abominations. I also recall one translation which had &quot;Peter&quot; translated as &quot;Rocky&quot; as making blood curdle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T17:20:30.620" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2011-09-13T17:26:15.477" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never heard the term 'Bible Christian' before, but I'll roll with this one. It's a really interesting question. Because of the generally vague nature of the question I don't think it's fair to answer on behalf of anybody but myself and a handful of others that I know personal. Lets start with a couple statements of what I believe:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I do believe in &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt;, meaning that God's word in the form of our written Scriptures is the only and final authority on doctrine. Not nearly enough Christians take the word seriously from beginning to end, examine how it fits together as a whole, and apply it as written to their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I do not believe in &lt;em&gt;personal interpretation&lt;/em&gt;, meaning that humans are not allowed to take the scriptures and squash them around like spineless jelly until they fit whatever mold they aproached them with. Far too many Christians treat reading their Bible as an exercise in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumptyism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Humpty Dumptyism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With those in mind, the issue of paraphrasing is a complex one. I would suggest that the example you gave of quoting a bit of a verse in the closest form that came to mind is acceptable, and even desirable. We should seek to communicate on a natural level with people, and the more scripture that is laced into our conversation, the sounder it is likely to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the danger exists that we are misleading folks, pulling things out of context and construing them to mean something they don't. Because of this I think it is important we give references and encourage people to read the real thing. The end goal should always be directing people to God's words, not ours. They should never just take our words for anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If/when we do paraphrase, we must make a  good-faith effort to be faithful to the meaning and context of the original text and have the intent of funneling people to God's word rather than to our words. We must be open to correction: if a paraphrase we use is demonstrated by a brother to not be an accurate representation of the Word, we must repent and fix our phrasing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly comes the issue of paraphrase translations. These, I think, can be bad. They serve a purpose certainly, and are interesting to have around to read and inspire thought and application, but they should be approached in the same way that you listen to somebody's sermon: as one persons interpretation of a text that you then need to study and apply yourself. While purely paraphrased translations may have their purpose, they are far too often used as an excuse to put less effort into studying the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it distasteful? It can be beautiful and it can be ugly. It depends on the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-18T01:32:11.673" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T01:32:11.673" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2620" CreationDate="2011-09-13T17:39:01.697" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fundamental thing you have to remember about the Trinity is that God is both One and Three. It's really easy to find quotes that support Jesus and the Father as separate, and the response of the Christian is &quot;yes, they are&quot;. It's also really easy to find verses that completely support the idea that God is One, and that Jesus is God. And the response of the Christian is &quot;yes, they are&quot;. It is precisely the combination of those that gave rise to the doctrine of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good reference for this is the Athenasian Creed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-10-23T18:31:06.797" LastActivityDate="2011-10-23T18:31:06.797" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2743" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5684" CreationDate="2011-09-13T18:22:31.860" Score="10" ViewCount="8526" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_letter_edition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Red letter edition&lt;/a&gt; Bibles seem to be popular in the US. The difference to a plain Bible is that words of Jesus are printed in red. The first red-letter Bible was published in 1900, and the practice still seems mostly limited to the most major languages. I've only ever seen red letter editions in English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand the benefits of a new Bible &lt;em&gt;feature&lt;/em&gt; for the publisher, but I fail to see the benefits for the reader. It's usually very easy to find what is spoken by Christ and what by someone else, just by reading. The red letters &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; make it still a bit easier, but I don't understand why we would be optimizing for finding Jesus' words. Not all passages of Jesus' speech are very central to our faith. The important ones still aren't &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; important than some other passages in the New Testament, I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What then are the benefits of a red letter edition Bible supposed to be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-06T12:08:27.190" LastActivityDate="2016-02-26T21:43:56.353" Title="What are the benefits of a red letter edition Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2744" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2747" CreationDate="2011-09-13T18:28:04.517" Score="20" ViewCount="7027" Body="&lt;p&gt;People always make jokes about the number 666 and how it's evil and such. What is the basis of this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-11-24T23:33:33.317" LastActivityDate="2017-01-08T13:52:28.470" Title="Why is the number 666 considered evil?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;numerology&gt;&lt;666&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2743" CreationDate="2011-09-13T18:32:09.487" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the Synoptic Gospels, it is more clear who is speaking immediately. It is just like why we have chapter and verse numbers -- they are easy references which were added later for clarity (I actually own a Bible which pre-dates the inclusion of verse numbers, it is very hard to find quotes in it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Gospel of John, however, the words of Christ and the words of the narrator are so intermingled, that the red letters are somewhere between worthless and deceptive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T18:32:09.487" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2746" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2775" CreationDate="2011-09-13T18:33:05.183" Score="49" ViewCount="117768" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a concept that I heard used many times throughout my life in regards to idolatry.  The idea is that inside each of us is a &quot;God-shaped hole&quot;--a place inside of our hearts that only God can fill.  If we try to put anything else in there, it won't fit (meaning, it won't fill the need we have inside of our heart/soul).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where does this concept originate?  Is it a biblical concept or just a fanciful rhetoric?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-24T17:17:47.580" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T15:20:01.887" Title="Where does the concept of a &quot;God-shaped hole&quot; originate?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2744" CreationDate="2011-09-13T18:53:13.073" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is the &lt;em&gt;number of the Beast&lt;/em&gt; in Revelation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13:18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 13:18 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;  This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its significance is often &lt;strong&gt;claimed&lt;/strong&gt; to be that the Emperor Nero, during whose reign Revelation was written, has a name with the numerical value 666. Citing &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_beast#Nero&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Greek spelling, &quot;Nerōn Kaisar&quot;, transliterates into Aramaic as &quot;נרון קסר&quot;, nrwn qsr. The Aramaic spelling is attested in a scroll from Murabba'at dated to &quot;the second year of emperor Nero.&quot; Adding the corresponding values yields 666.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'm not really satisfied with this explanation at all and am waiting for other answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T18:53:13.073" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2746" CreationDate="2011-09-13T19:08:17.917" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a great question, as in the fact that trying to trace these bibical origins are hard. First, let us look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017%3a%2022-27&amp;amp;version=NCV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 17: 22-27&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Then Paul stood before the meeting of the Areopagus and said, &quot;People of Athens, I can see you are very religious in all things. 23 As I was going through your city, I saw the objects you worship. I found an altar that had these words written on it: TO A GOD WHO IS NOT KNOWN. You worship a god that you don't know, and this is the God I am telling you about! 24 The God who made the whole world and everything in it is the Lord of the land and the sky. He does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 This God is the One who gives life, breath, and everything else to people. He does not need any help from them; he has everything he needs. 26 God began by making one person, and from him came all the different people who live everywhere in the world. God decided exactly when and where they must live. 27 God wanted them to look for him and perhaps search all around for him and find him, though he is not far from any of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, when God created humans, he wanted them to look around for him and search for him. This is one of God's plans, and in doing so, he created this &quot;hole&quot; that cannot be filled by any other: in short, that &quot;God-shaped hole&quot; was created by God for us to look for him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have another verse as example; let us look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecc+3%3A10-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 3:10-12&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. 12 I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="10298" LastEditDate="2014-03-08T18:02:34.363" LastActivityDate="2014-03-08T18:02:34.363" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2744" CreationDate="2011-09-13T19:17:50.723" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Revelation&amp;amp;verse=13:18&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 13:18&lt;/a&gt;, as cited by Dancek, it is the number of &quot;the Beast&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse indicates that is the number of man as well.  A possible reason for this is that mankind was created on the 6th day, so 666 is a three-fold repetition of that.  I understand in Hebrew that repetition signifies degree, so God is called &quot;holy, holy, holy&quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Isiah&amp;amp;verse=6&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 6&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T21:52:19.220" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T21:52:19.220" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2746" CreationDate="2011-09-13T19:39:40.533" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It may have actually come from a C.S. Lewis quote in Mere Christianity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This speaks of the inner desire within us that is unsatisfied by everything in this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T19:42:40.637" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T19:42:40.637" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2746" CreationDate="2011-09-13T19:47:22.423" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the notion goes back to St. Augustine of Hippo who wrote in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://librivox.org/confessions-by-saint-augustine-of-hippo/&quot;&gt;Confessions&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine was a very rebellious man who took a long time to come around to Christianity and became a Doctor of the Church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T19:47:22.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2744" CreationDate="2011-09-13T19:50:55.960" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;666&lt;/code&gt; has several possible meanings. The most prominent answer is that, as it is the &quot;number of a name&quot; that it would be Nero. Since there are early manuscripts which have the number as &lt;code&gt;616&lt;/code&gt; instead and this &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; can reference Nero (I believe it is in Aramaic as opposed to the Greek). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are others who have stated that it has to do with the fact that it is &lt;code&gt;DCLXVI&lt;/code&gt; in Roman numerals, something which is supposed to have been of special note in ancient Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I find the Nero answer the most convincing with a caveat -- it is the symbolic future Nero. Most Biblical numerology, in my reading, is similarly future driven (and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;ALL&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Apacolyptic literature of that era -- Daniel, Revelation, Enoch, Hermas) -- it has a historical meaning, with an implication for the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T19:57:55.557" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T19:57:55.557" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="410" CreationDate="2011-09-13T20:07:52.360" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;ACTS 15:19-20 (KJV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just remember that this was not the life that was meant for us. Sin came into the world and along with it death, disease and imperfection. We need to prove we are worthy of eternal life here on earth as perfect human beings by following Jehovah's word the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="641" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-13T20:24:57.103" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T20:24:57.103" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2720" CreationDate="2011-09-13T20:12:41.523" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a_hardin commented, the &lt;em&gt;original&lt;/em&gt; NIV is now the NIV 1984.  (No obvious Orwellian connection... I think :D).  I remember it as, well, NIV (I happen to have found God in... 1984 :D.  And I remember the original NIV well.  I had two English-language bibles back then, NIV and KJV).  So, the name, being its name, stays.  Forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the &quot;why not name Bible translation revisions like software&quot;, there actually is a German-language Bible that is thusly (sub-)named: the &quot;Volxbibel&quot; (from &quot;Volksbibel&quot;, which means &quot;People's Bible&quot; in English).  Current version is 3.0, and they're working on a 4.0.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And interesting project, and an interesting result.  It's not very traditional or &quot;orthodox&quot;.  Instead, everyone can work on it (it's a wiki :D).  And the result is a very... &quot;modern&quot; Bible.  Sadly, everything is in German, and this is not the place to wax philosophically about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="169" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T20:12:41.523" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2011-09-13T20:55:06.387" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only way that I have ever had this explained to me which has made any sense was by my Biblical Hebrew professor. Basically, &quot;Unjust manager&quot; can mean, in Aramaic, &quot;manager of the unjust.&quot; Basically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He wasn't unjust, he governed the unjust.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He got caught up in one of his subordinate's scandals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He cut out his commission (the top 20%) of the debt from one merchant (gave everything which was rightfully his)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He forgave half of one merchant's debt (he covenanted himself to the servant)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The merchant then becomes a prototype for the Christian. The admonition to make friends with dishonest wealth. The entire story, then, is another place where Christ is admonishing us to be charitable and disregard the wealth of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T20:55:06.387" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2757" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-13T21:08:03.240" Score="69" ViewCount="12854" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might seem like a weird question if you're a Protestant and really like &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis&quot;&gt;C.S. Lewis&lt;/a&gt;. But as a Catholic, I don't see him as ever espousing particularly non-Catholic positions, and he is very well read at Catholic universities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His faith journey closely parallels &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton&quot;&gt;G.K. Chesterton&lt;/a&gt;, although Lewis came from a more intellectual background. Chesterton converted from nothing to Anglicanism to Catholicism, but Lewis never made the final jump. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read Lewis's book &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pilgrim%27s_Regress&quot;&gt;The Pilgrim's Regress&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/em&gt; and understand that he had a few things to say about Catholics. But in general, we like him, so why didn't he like us? One of his best friends, &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien&quot;&gt;J.R.R. Tolkien&lt;/a&gt; (who was largely responsible for his conversion), was Catholic, so what made Lewis not Catholic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-08-19T21:29:18.613" LastActivityDate="2019-04-26T16:46:08.607" Title="Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2077" CreationDate="2011-09-13T21:09:18.000" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every &quot;contradiction&quot; in the Bible can be explained either by adopting an explanation of the text that resolves the contradiction or by accepting that the Bible is imperfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that the apparent &quot;contradiction of homosexuality&quot; can be approached in one of three ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The first approach is to view the Bible is an imperfect text, and accept that it does indeed contain contradictions. Some Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God, but that the text was written down by imperfect humans. However, &lt;strong&gt;many other Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The majority of Christians who believe in that the Bible is inerrant do recognize that our interpretation of it can be (and often is) faulty - either as a result of mistranslation or misapplication. Some Christians believe that this has been the case with the texts about homosexuality, and that it was never actually God's intention to outlaw homosexual acts. However, &lt;em&gt;this view is highly controversial&lt;/em&gt;. If you want to explore it further, please do ask additional questions on this site as a full discussion of the arguments is beyond the scope of this answer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The other alternative is to &lt;strong&gt;re-evaluate your understanding of the word &quot;love&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; as it is used in the Bible. In English we use the word &quot;love&quot; to mean a wide variety of different things, including our emotional response to certain people, acts of kindness, bonds of kinship, sexual desire, appreciation and so on. However, when the Bible talks about God's love, it generally means sacrificial love that seeks the good of loved one over the interests of the lover. Many Christians who believe that the Bible speaks clearly against homosexual acts recognize that they may involve giving pleasure to someone else, but believe that homosexual activity is ultimately founded on a person's own physical gratification. As such, it is viewed as absolutely contrary to Christian love.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditDate="2015-01-05T10:37:50.807" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T10:37:50.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2759" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9641" CreationDate="2011-09-13T21:18:31.793" Score="10" ViewCount="725" Body="&lt;p&gt;In days of yore, tradesman and guilds had patron saints.  These days patrons seem to only be attributed to profession in vague ways via papal declaration (i.e. St. John Vianney is the Patron of all priests as of 2010), not from the ground up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a computer programmer, I'd like to have a patron, but Catholic programmers seem few and far between.  I'm not specifically asking as a programmer, but as a person who has a noble trade, how can I get Rome to acknowledge that me and my cohort say a particular saint should be the patron of our work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-05-09T00:02:35.563" LastActivityDate="2017-05-09T00:02:35.563" Title="How can a particular trade of modern times get a patron saint?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2777" CreationDate="2011-09-13T21:28:03.073" Score="23" ViewCount="12714" Body="&lt;p&gt;G.K. Chesterton is one of my favorite authors. On a lot of subjects, his way of looking at things really astonishes me. He can still show things in a fresh perspective, though his books are about a hundred years old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his later writings, he quite strongly scoffs at Protestants at times. This is disturbing, as I haven't quite figured why. I probably would find information about his conversion in some of his books, but frankly there's a lot to read. And with none of his books available where I live, it's also troublesome to get them -- call me old-fashioned, but I only read books on paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to get an overview of the reasons G.K. left the Anglican church for the Catholic, possibly along with some further reading recommendations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This question was partly inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2757/60&quot;&gt;Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism?&lt;/a&gt; I've wondered about G.K.'s conversion for some time. I haven't dared ask about it here before, as I've been afraid it would be off-topic.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2020-04-19T15:55:32.833" Title="Why did G.K. Chesterton convert to Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;&lt;g-k-chesterton&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2759" CreationDate="2011-09-13T21:33:06.720" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patron_saint&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Patron saints tend to be associated with a given profession.  They could have performed that profession in life or have been associated with some miracle that can (in some way) be associated with the profession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Veronica&quot;&gt;Saint Veronica&lt;/a&gt;, for example was associate the profession of Photography once that profession became popular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as computer programming, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/11/65184&quot;&gt;this article might interest you&lt;/a&gt;.  However, it appears that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Seville&quot;&gt;St. Isidore of Seville&lt;/a&gt; is the patron saint of computer people (and the internet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T21:33:06.720" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2757" CreationDate="2011-09-13T21:39:01.257" Score="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;C. S. Lewis wrote in &lt;em&gt;Christian Reunion&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real reason, I take it, why you cannot be in communion with us is not your disagreement with this or that particular Protestant doctrine, so much as the absence of any real &amp;quot;Doctrine&amp;quot;, in your sense of the word, at all. It is, you feel, like asking a man to say he agrees not with a speaker but with a debating society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he's going to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To you the real vice of Protestantism is the formless drift which seems unable to retain the Catholic truths, which loses them one by one and ends in a &amp;quot;modernism&amp;quot; which cannot be classified as Christian by any tolerable stretch of the word. To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the &lt;em&gt;depositum fidei&lt;/em&gt; - the tropical fertility, the proliferation, of credenda. You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert: we see in Rome the Faith smothered in a jungle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know no way of bridging this gulf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, Lewis usually takes great pains to avoid sectarian division (perhaps influenced by growing up in Northern Ireland), and is often sympathetic to Catholic viewpoints. For example, he received advice on &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; from Catholics as well as Protestants before its publication, to ensure that it expressed sentiments that were universally agreeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book &lt;em&gt;C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church&lt;/em&gt; by Joseph Pearce (Ignatius Press, 2003) explores the development of Lewis's thought on this matter. The foreword by Thomas Howard summarises as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lewis wishes us to accept his identity as a &amp;quot;mere&amp;quot; Christian; but we find the truth of the matter is that he is a mere Protestant. [...] But there are more anomalies. Although he loathed the whole business of &amp;quot;High&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Broad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Low&amp;quot; churchmanship in the Church of England, he could not avoid it all. He had nothing but contempt for the Broad churchmen who diluted the Faith until it was a mere sickly gruel (see his Anglican bishop in &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/em&gt;). And he detested the &amp;quot;smells-and-bells&amp;quot;, lace-cotta, biretta sort of thing that one finds at Anglo-Catholic shrines, and which formed the metier of T. S. Eliot. He just wanted to be left alone, to go to church and be done with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it was not so simple. In spite of himself, Lewis moved more and more toward what can only be called a &amp;quot;catholic&amp;quot; Anglicanism. Again - he hated the epicene punctilio of the Anglo-Catholic &lt;em&gt;party&lt;/em&gt;: but his faith came to embrace all sorts of doctrines and practices that his evangelical readers (who are his most enthusiastic clientele) must sedulously ignore. He spoke of &amp;quot;the Blessed Virgin&amp;quot;, and made his confession to his priest regularly, and believed in purgatory, and even came to refer to the Eucharist as - heaven help us all - &lt;em&gt;the Mass!&lt;/em&gt;  Lewis's anti-Romanism remained with him until his death, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T21:39:01.257" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2077" CreationDate="2011-09-13T22:03:44.637" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;No contradiction at all.  We are, indeed, commanded to love our neighbors.  We are also told that homosexuality is a sin.  How is there any contradiction in that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Loving our neighbors does not require us to approve of everything they do.  Lying, stealing, adultery, profanity and greed are also defined as sins in the Bible.  If loving our neighbor demands we approve of everything they do, then we would need to approve of all of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We could go farther and include more heinous sins as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that a biblical understanding of sin is that all sin is to our destruction and loss.  Loving someone would then require us to dislike anything that threatens to harm them, whether it be greed, pride, adultery, homosexuality or anything.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't allow our children to play in the streets because we love them and don't want them to be harmed.  It would only be if we hated someone that we would want them to experience harm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T22:03:44.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2764" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-13T22:17:22.907" Score="12" ViewCount="2160" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he talks about (among other things) how God's promise to Abraham was fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 3:16 reads (in the NRSV; other translations may say &amp;quot;seed&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;progeny&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;descendants&amp;quot;, etc.):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, &amp;quot;And to offsprings&amp;quot;, as of many; but it says, &amp;quot;And to your offspring&amp;quot;, that is, to one person, who is Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elsewhere he says that &amp;quot;those who believe are the descendants of Abraham&amp;quot; (3:7) and &amp;quot;if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise&amp;quot; (3:29).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis, there are several promises (or repetitions of a promise) made to Abraham, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the Lord appeared to Abram, and said, &amp;quot;To your offspring I will give this land.&amp;quot; (12:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, &amp;quot;To your descendants I give this land&amp;quot; (15:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God.&amp;quot; God said to Abraham, &amp;quot;As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.&amp;quot; (17:7-9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore.&amp;quot; (22:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that in Genesis, the promises are actually speaking about many descendants and not just one person, regardless of the grammatical detail. Certainly the appearances in chapters 17 and 22 are talking about many people in many generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So isn't Paul just making a totally unsupported argument? And why does he make it at all, given that a few verses before and after, he is happy to consider plural offspring (all believers)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-03-03T19:16:04.677" Title="Paul's analysis of Abraham's &quot;offspring(s)&quot; in Galatians 3" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-03-04T02:12:09.960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2764" CreationDate="2011-09-13T22:32:43.983" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because Paul is referencing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 22:18&lt;/a&gt; in speaking of the fulfillment in specific:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant made to Abraham, though there have been mini-fulfillments throughout history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;See some cross-references to that verse, including the one you intially cited - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen12:3;18:18;Acts3:25;Gal3:8,16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen12:3;18:18;Acts3:25;Gal3:8,16&amp;amp;version=NASB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T22:32:43.983" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1344" CreationDate="2011-09-13T23:30:40.893" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other possible answer, one that most Christians would likely not accept is that the flood was not as global as assumed. The events of the flood predate the Tower of Babel, which is when humanity is said to have been scattered across the globe. So one could assume that the human population was very localized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God would not need to flood the entire planet to wipe out humanity. It would be more logical to just flood the region where humans resided and not have to worry about getting every species onto a wooden ship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then Noah could focus on getting local wildlife that shared the region with humans onto the ship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone in another answer mentioned the stability of a wooden vessel of this size. I don't see that as being a tremendous problem as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it was a one-time use vessel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God probably wouldn't let it sink.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="634" LastActivityDate="2011-09-13T23:30:40.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2077" CreationDate="2011-09-13T23:40:17.953" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Homosexuality is not about love, it's about sex. There is nothing wrong with a man loving another man, we are supposed to love each other, but love is NOT equal to sex! That goes for heterosexuals as well. Sexual intercourse is designed for 1 male and 1 female who are in the covenant of marriage. The Bible is very clear on that one. Anything else is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is the dictionary definition of perversion.&lt;br&gt;&#xA; And the Bible is also very clear on what Love means, both in the specific words it uses and the meaning of the texts describing it. When the bible speaks of love in a positive manner it uses the word &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; which is the perfect love of God, of which Christ said : &quot;Greater love has no man than to lay down his life for a friend.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 15:13&lt;/a&gt;) and it is the &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; love that is spoke of in 1 John 4:7-8:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:7-8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:7-8 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; look like?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:4-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;  Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;  It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now compare that description of real love with sexual contact. They are miles apart. This is not to say that sex is bad, but it is to say that sex has nothing to do with &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt;. Now the bible does talk about sex elsewhere:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:6-9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 10:6-9 (NIV1984)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;  “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;  ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;  and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now comes the next issue, what about christians loving homosexuals? We are supposed to love them as ourselves, but that doesn't mean we accept the sin. See this question on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1029/is-hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner-a-christian-idea/1035#1035&quot;&gt;loving the sinner but hating the sin&lt;/a&gt;.  Jesus will take you as you are, but you don't get to stay that way! That applies to all sin not just homosexuality, I'm an equal opportunity sin hater. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T22:14:41.570" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2771" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2774" CreationDate="2011-09-14T00:26:06.073" Score="11" ViewCount="632" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been hearing a lot about Templars in movies such as &lt;em&gt;Ironclad&lt;/em&gt; and games like &lt;em&gt;Assassin's Creed&lt;/em&gt;. I did a quick look up on Google about &quot;Templars&quot; and still haven't got any clue on what is it about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who are the Templars? What does Soldier of Christ mean? How are the Templars linked to Soldiers of Christ? And are all Christians soldiers of Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="122" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-07T19:55:17.850" LastActivityDate="2015-09-07T19:55:17.850" Title="What do &quot;Templar&quot; and &quot;Soldiers of Christ&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="195" CreationDate="2011-09-14T00:53:55.953" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to David, he was sinful at conception.  Surely to be sinful, we must have a soul to place the sin on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2051:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 51:5 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt; &#xA;  5 Surely I was sinful at birth,     sinful from the time my mother&#xA;  conceived me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T00:53:55.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2771" CreationDate="2011-09-14T01:39:51.313" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The official name of the Knights Templar is &quot;Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon&quot;.  So the &quot;Soldiers of Christ&quot; you mention is probably just another name for the same group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has an excellent article on the Knights Templar.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A biblical reference to us being soldiers of Christ is in 2 Timothy 2.  I believe here we are being told to try to please Christ rather than others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:3-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 2:3-4 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (emphasis mine)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  3 Join with me in suffering, like a good &lt;strong&gt;soldier of Christ Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;. 4 No&#xA;  one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but&#xA;  rather tries to please his commanding officer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T01:39:51.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2746" CreationDate="2011-09-14T01:55:59.670" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1670, Blaise Pascal published &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es&quot;&gt;Pensées&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, which was a defense of the Christian religion.  (It should be noted that this book was published after his death in 1662.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that book, he has a quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?  This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.” &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  - Blaise Pascal, &lt;em&gt;Pensées&lt;/em&gt; VII(425)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since then, the concept has taken on a life of its own and the phrase &quot;God-shaped hole,&quot; a close approximation of the concept, has been found throughout many Christian circles.  (Recently, in 2002, a book was published with the title &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1570719586&quot;&gt;'God-Shaped Hole'&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While other answers show that the concept can be &lt;em&gt;supported&lt;/em&gt; biblically, the concept that there is a void/vacuum/hole is actually a non-biblical one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2014-08-25T06:04:51.250" LastActivityDate="2014-08-25T06:04:51.250" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2760" CreationDate="2011-09-14T04:02:36.900" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chesterton probably wrote more than anyone ever so I'm sure he can tell you in his own words why he converted from Atheism to Anglicanism and from Anglicanism to Catholicism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CONVERSI.TXT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Church and Conversion&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2645606/posts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Why I am A Catholic&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chesterton.org/wordpress/2011/09/the-god-with-the-golden-key/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The God With the Golden Key&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an avid reader of Chesterton, I'm often perplexed at how much love he gives to Catholics even before he became one himself.  He converted to Catholicism in 1922 and only spent 14 years on earth as a Catholic. But starting in 1908 with &lt;em&gt;The Man who was Thursday&lt;/em&gt; the heroes of his books and stories have been predominantly Catholics (Father Brown, Gabriel Syme, Ian Maclan). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When reading &lt;em&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt;, he makes an incredible defense of Catholicism; he defends priests and Catholic doctrine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the view that priests darken and embitter the world. I look at the world and simply discover that they don't. Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he wasn't talking about the same Catholic Church which he would convert to eighteen years later at the time, I sure as heck couldn't pick up on it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Books to read with religion in it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Everlasting Man&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About Jesus, I read it a while ago, don't remember much&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chesterton's account of discovering that the religion he set out to found was in fact orthodoxy&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Ball and the Cross&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A novel with an atheist and a catholic looking for a place to kill each other.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2020-04-11T18:08:48.267" LastActivityDate="2020-04-11T18:08:48.267" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2779" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-14T10:15:53.703" Score="8" ViewCount="22387" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jude 1:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he&#xA;  disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a&#xA;  reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What!? Michael and Satan are disputing about the body of Moses? What does this mean? Did Moses go to hell because he hit the rock twice and not just once as was ordered? What's going on here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-08T10:58:12.923" LastActivityDate="2015-05-11T03:34:09.233" Title="Does Jude 1:9 mean that Moses went to hell?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;jude&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-05-11T03:39:17.407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2780" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-14T10:20:32.167" Score="4" ViewCount="26981" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:34&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:34 NKJV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘ The&#xA;  LORD said to my Lord,“ Sit at My right&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why didn't David ascend to heaven? Is this past tense? Is David in heaven now, or has he just never ascended into heaven all at? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T22:46:51.097" LastActivityDate="2014-12-10T17:02:17.917" Title="Why didn't David ascend into Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;david&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-12-10T18:00:23.793" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2779" CreationDate="2011-09-14T10:25:06.620" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;They were possibly disputing about where the body of Moses is, not whether or not he went to Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible says that no one knows where the body is. Maybe Satan claimed that he knew, and Michael was arguing against him, but didn't dare to bring against him a reviling accusation, (such as, &quot;You are such a fool!&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T10:25:06.620" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2780" CreationDate="2011-09-14T10:34:54.140" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;This verse is contrasting Jesus and David. Jesus ascended:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024:51&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 24:51&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David went to heaven the old fashioned way: by dying first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is evidenced by David's body being buried:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:29&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, Jesus was not &amp;quot;abandoned&amp;quot; (left) in the grave:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:31&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That David is in heaven is clear from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011:32-40&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:32-40&lt;/a&gt;. David is named in verse 32 with other faith heroes. Then in verse 40 it says, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;together with us would they be made perfect&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; (since they can only be perfected in heaven).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T13:47:11.947" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2785" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2813" CreationDate="2011-09-14T12:28:08.747" Score="14" ViewCount="2983" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can you serve in a military service and not violate the will of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-03-29T18:24:32.813" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T11:40:33.967" Title="Can you be a Christian and serve in the Military?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;killing&gt;&lt;murder&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-11-08T18:45:22.763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2663" CreationDate="2011-09-14T13:28:35.737" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what is commonly known as the Euthyphro's dilemma&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can show everyone to the excellent podcast on Dr. William Lane Craig's podcast on it on his website.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a common objection that atheist have against the moral argument for his existence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the link to the podcast&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Euthyphro_Argument_Revisited.mp3&quot;&gt;http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Euthyphro_Argument_Revisited.mp3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dilemma in the end is not really a dilemma because the Christian can posit a third option that defeats the horn of the dilemma. It is in the end a false dilemma&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can people say that philosophy is dead when people still talk about a 2500 year old philosophical problem?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Euthyphro dilemma is actually a false dichotomy.  That is, it proposes only two options when another is possible.  The third option is that good is based on God’s nature.  God appeals to nothing other than his own character for the standard of what is good, and then reveals what is good to us.  It is wrong to lie because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), not because God had to discover lying was wrong or that he arbitrarily declared it to be wrong.  Therefore, for the Christian, there is no dilemma since neither position in Euthyphro’s dilemma represents Christian theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="3426" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T14:48:21.113" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T14:48:21.113" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="181" CreationDate="2011-09-14T13:30:25.610" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple answer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's physical manifestation in the world through a mortal body&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not let anyone tell you anything else. To deny Christ's divinity is to deny Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible texts that speak about his divinity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isa. 9:6; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 For to us a child is born,&#xA;     to us a son is given,&#xA;     and the government will be on his shoulders.&#xA;  And he will be called&#xA;     Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,&#xA;     Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 11:27; 16:16; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 11:27&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&#xA;  27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:16&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&#xA;   16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 2:5-7; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 2:5-7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 5:20-22; 9:20; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in &gt;your hearts? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 9:20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter answered, “God’s Messiah.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:1; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Word Became Flesh&#xA;   1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1:14; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2:19,21;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fully human &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 1:1, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 1&#xA;  The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah&#xA;   1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18-25; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son&#xA;   18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[a]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[b] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[d] (which means “God with us”).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4:2; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 4:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26:38; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 26:38&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 9:58; 22:44;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;58 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 22:44&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.[a] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:14; 11:33-35; 19:28, 34; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 11:33-35&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 Jesus wept. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 19:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Death of Jesus&#xA;  28 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 19:34&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="3426" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T20:06:43.403" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T20:06:43.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2779" CreationDate="2011-09-14T13:32:31.950" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question presumes that the devil only exists in hell, which is clearly a false presumption.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:1-11&lt;/a&gt;), we see that Satan exists here on earth as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:1-3 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear and obvious that the devil exists here on Earth from the above passage.  However, if you read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;the full passage&lt;/a&gt;, it's even more clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, this verse does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; indicate that Moses went to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T13:32:31.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="119" CreationDate="2011-09-14T13:37:46.300" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a few beautiful bible verses I think pertinent&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ROMANS%205:6-8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:6-8 (NKJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;  For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;  But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JOHN%203:16-18&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:16-18 (NKJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;  For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;  “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20CORINTHIANS%205:17-21&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 5:17-21 (NKJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;  Therefore, if anyone &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; in Christ, &lt;i&gt;he is&lt;/i&gt; a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;  Now all things &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;  that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;  Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore &lt;i&gt;you&lt;/i&gt; on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;  For He made Him who knew no sin &lt;i&gt;to be&lt;/i&gt; sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not hate the sinners. We are all sinners by our nature and he definitely does not hate us all. The verse in the OP seems to be a bit out of context me thinks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T23:29:09.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2793" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-14T13:42:03.453" Score="12" ViewCount="259" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the answers to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2769/36&quot;&gt;Why do many Christians object to same-sex civil marriage?&lt;/a&gt; got me thinking.  If we work to make the common morals of our society more in line with Biblical morality does that make the members of our society more open to the gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no doubt that an immoral society is more likely to be antagonistic or even hostile to the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We could argue that a moral society is more likely to be tolerant of the gospel, but then again that could turn into a real argument.  The Jewish society of Jesus's day was very moral, but it was the religious leaders (presumably with strong morals) that had Him killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, wouldn't our lives present a greater contrast to an immoral society? Wouldn't we stand out more in that setting and thereby attract more attention to the gospel as a real alternative to the status quo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Members of a society with basically Christian morals won't see much difference between themselves and Christians.  Does that lack of contrast make them more or less likely to accept the gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that by &quot;accept the gospel&quot;, I'm thinking in evangelical terms of accepting by faith and being a &quot;new creature&quot; as Paul describes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T15:58:03.263" Title="Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;society&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2011-09-14T20:36:48.300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="445" CreationDate="2011-09-14T13:57:44.113" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet. A man of God so to speak. They also believe he was born of a virgin and did miracles, but take the Gnostic Gospels take on his crucifixion and somehow think that it was just a big hoax and some even think that it was Judas who died on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is one of the greatest ironies of Islam that the one thing they differ from Christians about Jesus is the thing that is most uncontroversial about him. That he died on the cross. It is the one thing that almost all of the New Testament scholars believe is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the some of the radical New Testament Historians are willing to believe that he died on the cross (although the differ on other issues regarding him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus&amp;#39;_death&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source 1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="3426" LastEditDate="2014-08-03T09:51:36.697" LastActivityDate="2014-08-03T09:51:36.697" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2796" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2802" CreationDate="2011-09-14T14:03:17.320" Score="7" ViewCount="1510" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Inspired by the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2793/is-a-moral-society-more-open-to-the-gospel-than-an-immoral-one&quot;&gt;Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are people, by nature, good?  Or are people evil by nature?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To define these in terms of the world (as opposed to this being rephrased version of &quot;Are people born into sin?&quot;), a &quot;good&quot; person would be someone who does good things for others, considers others above themselves (or at least is considerate of other people's feelings), and generally wants to do things to benefit or help others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evil, by comparison would be people who are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egoistical&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;egoistical&lt;/a&gt;, to the point of being willing to do harm to others for their own benefit.  This covers a range of &quot;evil&quot; actions (from manipulative people all the way up to murderous people.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way to view this:  &quot;good&quot; could be correlated to &quot;love&quot;, and &quot;evil&quot; could be correlated to &quot;hate&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard that some &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;humanists&lt;/a&gt; believe that people are, by nature, good people.  That people, in general, want to help others, support each other's causes, and do things to benefit others over themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about this?  Are there other extra-biblical Christian documents/doctrine to support one way or the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T14:47:53.847" Title="Are people by nature good or are they inherently evil?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-10-20T15:55:15.297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2793" CreationDate="2011-09-14T14:10:20.880" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;My counter question: what would be the source of the morals for a &quot;moral&quot; society?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People don't--&lt;em&gt;on their own&lt;/em&gt;--behave in a moral manner.  I would contend that a moral society is one &lt;em&gt;driven by&lt;/em&gt; a moral standard outlined by a specific religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To break this down even more clearly:  a moral society is driven by a set of morals.  Sets of morals are driving by a particular religion.  I don't believe that you can have a good, solid set of universal morals that are commonly accepted by a wide group of people unless it has a religious backing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to the heart of the matter:  &lt;strong&gt;What religion is this theoretical, moral society driven by?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this theoretical society is driven by Christianity, then clearly the society will be more open to the gospel.  However, if this moral society is driven by, for arguments sake, Buddhism, then the society will be less open to the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I contend that you cannot have a &lt;em&gt;moral&lt;/em&gt; society without having a &lt;em&gt;religious&lt;/em&gt; society.  The religion of the society will determine the openness to the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T14:10:20.880" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2793" CreationDate="2011-09-14T14:26:16.033" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Jews of Jesus's time were not particularly moral; they were particularly &lt;em&gt;moralistic.&lt;/em&gt;  They went to great lengths to put on outward appearances of piety, which repeatedly earned them the condemnatory epithet of &quot;hypocrites!&quot; from the Savior.  We get a pretty good sense of what they were like from the Gospels.  For example, using legalistic tricks to get out of caring for their parents by instead being able to (very visibly) donate the money to the temple, &quot;and many such like things&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:8-13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 7:8-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that by the end of Jesus's life, he'd become such an annoyance to the political rule of the various factions of Rabbis that they paid off a traitor to help apprehend him, explicitly sought for false witnesses to find a way to charge him, convicted him of blasphemy in a trial in which practically every point of procedure was illegal under Jewish law. Once he had been convicted of blasphemy, they wanted to put him to death, but only the Romans could enforce capital punishment, and as polytheists they didn't really have much of a concept of &quot;blasphemy,&quot; so they had no compunction against hauling him before Roman authorities and changing his charge to the highest crime that Rome accepted: treason.  When he was interviewed by the Roman authority (Pilate) and found not guilty, they pressured him and even threatened to have &lt;em&gt;him&lt;/em&gt; charged with treason by higher Roman authorities if he wouldn't play along.  (And historians suggest they'd have had a good chance of making the charges stick, so he had to give in to save his own hide.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These were the people in charge of the &quot;moral society&quot; of Jews ~30 AD, making the rules and setting the example for the common people to follow.  Not a particularly good example of moral people, in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for standing out as an alternative to the status quo, yes, that's true, but the other side of that is that Christianity requires repentance, which involves changing one's ways.  It's one thing to say &quot;wow, those Christians are really cool, I wish I could be like them,&quot; and another to actually sincerely try to give up all your sins, especially when it impacts your relationship with your friends and family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus didn't say this just to sound cool; he said it because it was a very real possibility of what might be required in order to truly live the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T14:26:16.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2796" CreationDate="2011-09-14T14:27:05.313" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Deriving from the topics of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/search?q=original+sin&quot;&gt;Original Sin&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/search?q=common+grace&quot;&gt;Common Grace&lt;/a&gt;, I would argue that the answer is &quot;both&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me expand. Our born nature is that of a sinner - one who cannot obtain God's favor on his own. However, we also have natural tendencies to take care of immediate family (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:47&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:47&lt;/a&gt; &quot;If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?&quot; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2011:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 11:11&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In so far as it benefits &lt;em&gt;US&lt;/em&gt;, we are &quot;basically good&quot;. But since we tend to epitomize selfishness, when the benefits for &lt;em&gt;US&lt;/em&gt; no longer exceed the cost, we will tend to be &quot;basically evil&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the extreme examples of that (theft, murder, etc etc), the cost-benefit analysis was either never made, or is highly skewed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T14:47:53.847" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2793" CreationDate="2011-09-14T14:41:06.947" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is particularly difficult to answer because it is not clear who should evaluate what is moral.  If Biblical morality is the standard, then I strongly suspect that it would &quot;encourage&quot; openness to the Gospel for the trivial reason that there isn't much reason to adopt those features of Biblical morality that are not found in other moral systems unless you're already predisposed to the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the society gets to self-define what is moral, as long as it doesn't radically violate moral norms that are shared across most religious and ethnic groups, then we might look instead to things like crime rates, self-reported happiness, and so on.  These measures do not paint a clear picture, although it is clear at least that there are non-Christian societies that have relatively low crime and reasonably high happiness (e.g. Japan) which do not seem to be massively adopting Christianity.  So I think tentatively the answer might be &lt;em&gt;not necessarily&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T14:41:06.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2793" CreationDate="2011-09-14T14:51:56.083" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Romans, Paul mentions that the Gentiles can do good, because the morals are written on their heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 2:14-15 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature&#xA;  things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though&#xA;  they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the&#xA;  law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing&#xA;  witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times&#xA;  even defending them.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that a society which follows these morals &lt;strong&gt;written by God&lt;/strong&gt; on their hearts are more likely to accept the Gospel.  When introduced to the Gospel, they are likely to see it as the truth since they have already accepted the morals it teaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before they accept the Gospel, though, they are not judged by these laws, but will perish as all others who do not follow God's law. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 2:12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T14:51:56.083" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2793" CreationDate="2011-09-14T14:52:08.503" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is, it could go either way. A moral society could relate more easily to the message of the gospel, understand it better than an immoral one, and therefore be more open to it. Or a moral society could believe itself to be self sufficient and adopt the &quot;we have our morals, we don't need God&quot; attitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately though you do have to question, as Richard does, where the morals in this hypothetical moral society originate from, and what you mean by moral. There are some societies in which it is seen as immoral to eat the meat from certain animals, but other societies that self-identify as moral would have no issue with that. Most of us would think of cannibalism as immoral yet there are tribes which have a moral code that allows them to eat other humans. So which set of morals are we using to define what is moral and immoral?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this is Christianity.SE, we can take morality in this case too mean &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; morality. In which case it is moral to accept the gospel and immoral to reject God - so a moral society will have already accepted the gospel or at least be fully open to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T14:52:08.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2785" CreationDate="2011-09-14T15:36:36.370" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, absolutely. In fact, in countries that have National Service, it is precisely the will of God that we do so (see other questions about obeying national laws). Military service does not always involve killing. In the instances where it does, your issue is addressed in this question:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/49/if-the-ten-commandments-say-thou-shalt-not-kill-how-can-a-christian-fight-in-a&quot;&gt;If the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not kill” how can a Christian fight in a war?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my country (the UK), search-and-rescue helicopter services are run by the military, occasionally people are given military titles and membership as honorary rights, military personnel work in our civilian healthcare system, and until recently the army stepped in when our civilian firefighters went on strike - so there are many roles in the military that are little to do with armed conflict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there's another scenario to consider. Often when joining the military one does so for a fixed period of time, and &quot;belongs&quot; to the service until that time expires, unless they buy themselves out. It's arguably a voluntary form of slavery, and the Bible specifically deals with what to happen when you become a Christian while a slave in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:20-21&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:20-21&lt;/a&gt; - you stay a slave until you can become free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T15:36:36.370" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2785" CreationDate="2011-09-14T15:42:08.640" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no consensus among pacifist Christians about whether particular actions in support of the military are unacceptable. As Wolf Mendl notes in &lt;em&gt;Prophets and Reconcilers: Reflections on the Quaker Peace Testimony&lt;/em&gt; (1974):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The emphasis on personal action, which in the case of war means abstention, inevitably raises the problem of where one draws the line. In the total wars of the first half of this century, Quakers accepted non-combatant service with the armed forces, served in an independent but uniformed Friends Ambulance Unit, relieved the sufferings of civilian war victims, did alternative civilian service of 'national importance' at home, went to prison for refusing any service which might assist the war effort, even fire-watching. Some refused to pay taxes. There are no formal rules laid down for Quaker conduct in such circumstances, other than to follow the Light of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He does not mention that some Quakers actually did decide to serve in the armed forces, but that happened too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, most Christians have found no conflict between their faith and active military service. Those who would not be soldiers may still find it acceptable to be involved in some other way (the classic example being service in the medical corps) though other Christians hold that any kind of participation in warlike activity is wrong, including even paying taxes that will go towards the armed forces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T15:42:08.640" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2011-09-14T16:09:28.217" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Luke's gospel, this parable is preceded by the parable of &lt;em&gt;The Lost Son&lt;/em&gt;, and in both stories Jesus presents us with a character who has &quot;squandered&quot; money (Squandered - Gk: diaskorpizo appears in both parables). It is worth noting that both characters find mercy, despite their initial actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas in &lt;em&gt;The Lost Son&lt;/em&gt; parable, it is the warm forgiveness of a father toward his son, our main character [&lt;strong&gt;the Manager&lt;/strong&gt;] in the present parable surely cannot expect such grace from an employer - and he'd be right: he get's fired!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in an act of shrewd &quot;wheeling and dealing&quot; he earns back the respect of his &lt;strong&gt;master&lt;/strong&gt;, and earns a decent reference in the process! The discounts he offers to the debtors could possibly be a result of the &lt;strong&gt;Manager&lt;/strong&gt; foregoing his commission, or perhaps removing interest. Of course, he could also be undercutting his &lt;strong&gt;master&lt;/strong&gt; but that makes no sense considering he is subsequently commended for his actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever discount he applies, we are left to presume it is at his own expense. The &lt;strong&gt;master&lt;/strong&gt; is suitably impressed and commends him for his actions. This can only be so if the &lt;strong&gt;Manager&lt;/strong&gt; takes the financial hit himself. He had already been fired, and could simply have walked away from the job, albeit disliked and disgraced. However, he is shrewd and supplies his &lt;strong&gt;master&lt;/strong&gt; with some form of payment. He takes the decision to right his wrong, in a very shrewd and clever way (hopefully earning some points with the debtors along the way).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus makes the insight that the unrighteous are much better at dealing with each other than the righteous - notably, however, he doesn't delve into the motives behind this! Being shrewd with finances is something Jesus wishes his disciples do, and surely the unrighteous should not be better at this than the people of God!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians ought to be wise with what they do with their money. Though the Prodigal Son, and the Shrewd Manager (and indeed the sinner) end up as the beneficiaries of grace, their initial actions are condemned in both stories. The charge to Christians stands: be shrewd and wise with your money. If you have not been, you should put it right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following lesson (vv10-13) show that it is indeed a requirement that God's people do not serve money. In the context of this parable, we can conclude however, that money may serve God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="647" LastEditorUserId="647" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T10:29:06.363" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T10:29:06.363" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2396" CreationDate="2011-09-14T16:15:14.683" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#1605&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been &quot;in the beginning&quot;: &quot;So they are no longer two, but one flesh.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This excerpt contains a footnote pointing to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/19-6.htm&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:6&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, according the Roman Catholic Church, the phrase &quot;no longer two, but one flesh&quot; refers to the indissolubility of marriage. Once God joins a man and a woman in marriage, this marriage can only be undone by the death of one of the spouses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, there are many other truths and lessons that can be gathered from the phrase, but this is how the Catholic Church interprets the phrase's intended meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="174" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T16:15:14.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1942" CreationDate="2011-09-14T16:40:52.457" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christian Mysticism has a long and honourable tradition. You can read the histories of many holy Christian mystics. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; will give you a good starting point. Meditation is only one aspect. For a working definition, try: &quot;&quot;that part, or element, or Christian belief and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of [...] a direct and transformative presence of [the Christian] God&quot; (Bernard McGinn). In effect mystics are those who make real and experience for themselves things that many Christians take as theoretical or abstract - e.g. the presence of God, union with God, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some well-know people and practices that form part of the Christian Mystic tradition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Meister Eckhart&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Brother Lawrence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Julian of Norwich&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teresa of Avila&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;St John of the Cross&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thomas Merton&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T16:40:52.457" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2724" CreationDate="2011-09-14T16:43:49.827" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way Jesus treated each and every one of the people he encountered; with love, compassion and mercy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love your neighbor as yourself. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 22:39&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:44&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:44&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (&quot;Golden Rule&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's all there in the Gospels and Paul's letters to the churches, Jesus is who we should aim to emulate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T15:09:51.890" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T15:09:51.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2706" CreationDate="2011-09-14T16:46:34.083" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;No&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not trust your conscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding this verse above, our &lt;em&gt;hearts&lt;/em&gt; and our &lt;em&gt;consciences&lt;/em&gt; are the same thing, biblically speaking.  They are part of our &quot;soul&quot; (in biblical terms). (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2206/what-is-the-difference-between-mans-soul-and-spirit&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; for distinction between the soul and the spirit.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To show that these are the same, I'll go back to the original Greek, so that we can understand the original intention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conscience defined&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2023:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 2:14&lt;/a&gt; (from the question) and examine the Greek, we find the word for &quot;conscience&quot; is &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4893&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;syneidesis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.  However, the definition is a bit foggy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1) the consciousness of anything&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  2) the soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;   &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;a) the conscience&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, we see that the word can mean either our &quot;consciousness&quot; &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; our &quot;conscience&quot; (our sense of right and wrong).  In context, we can determine that it is the second definition that Paul is intending to use.  He's comparing this to a man's &lt;em&gt;heart&lt;/em&gt;, so we can safely translate this word as conscience, meaning the second definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Heart defined&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 2:14&lt;/a&gt; (from the question) uses the word &quot;heart&quot; (as in the laws are written on our &lt;em&gt;hearts&lt;/em&gt;).  The Greek word for this is &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2588&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;kardia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This word clearly references the physical organ.  However, it also has a bit of a metaphorical use (which is comparable to its use in English).  Ignoring the &quot;organ&quot; definitions, we see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1) the vigour and sense of physical life&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  2) the centre and seat of spiritual life&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;a) the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;b) of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;c) of the will and character&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;d) of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Paul uses the words &quot;heart&quot;, he seems to be talking about the second definition: &quot;the center and seat of spiritual life&quot;.  More specifically, he's referring to the soul as it's affected by morals, emotions, desires, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conscience = Heart&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With these two words defined, we can clearly see that he's using two separate words (one literally and one metaphorically) to illustrate a concept:  God's laws are inside of us, written on our hearts, implanted in our conscience.  (Note the three &quot;places&quot; in that sentence are really the same concept.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same sense as above...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Do Not Trust Your conscience!&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse you show in your question is a great example of people who &lt;em&gt;do not have the law&lt;/em&gt;.  In context of the scripture, this means that they are not Jews.  The Law (Old Testament rules and regulations) were not given to the Gentiles, so they do not have any guiding standard to determine right from wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Instead&lt;/strong&gt;, God has given them their conscience as a guide.  He has written the laws on their hearts--implanted them in their consciences.  Does this mean that their conscience are infallable?  Absolutely not!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While they have the laws written on their hearts, in their humanity, they are fallible (All have sinned, etc.).  However, these non-Jews / non-Christians who &lt;em&gt;do not have the law&lt;/em&gt; are subject to their consciences instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 2:15b (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  ...their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that they will be free from sin.  However, if they earnestly sought to do what is right in God's eyes, they will be justified even though they &lt;em&gt;did not know&lt;/em&gt; what was &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot; (per the Law).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean we can trust our conscience?  I would say a huge, incredible &lt;strong&gt;No!!&lt;/strong&gt; The reason is because we have been given explicit guidance on what is right and wrong:  specifically, &lt;strong&gt;the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;.  The Gentiles in your verse did not know right from wrong, but we do.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why we're commanded to test the spirits:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%204:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 4:1a (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the Heart/Conscience metaphor above, here Paul tells us to test the &lt;em&gt;&quot;spirits&quot;&lt;/em&gt; to determine whether they are from God.  We are to determine whether the internal pullings and tugs we hear inside of us (either as self-talk or as emotional affects) are &lt;em&gt;in accordance with God's will&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/224/how-does-one-know-if-god-is-talking-to-him&quot;&gt;How do we determine God's will?&lt;/a&gt; By reading the bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a &quot;spirit&quot; telling you to do something contradictory to the Bible, that thought or emotional tug is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Our hearts are deceitful&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final verse I'll throw in here for all the naysayers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2017:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 17:9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The heart is deceitful above all things &#xA;    and beyond cure. &#xA;    Who can understand it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; trust your heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%204:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 4:1a (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea with this verse is that we should question what goes on inside of us.  If we hear something that is telling us that we should go one way or do a given deed, we need to test that guidance to determine &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/224/how-does-one-know-if-god-is-talking-to-him&quot;&gt;whether or not it is from God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T19:41:56.897" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2785" CreationDate="2011-09-14T16:54:49.313" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question on which Christians are divided. The vast majority adhere to the belief that fighting in a war is entirely justifiable for a Christian. They draw on several biblical sources for this, including Paul's writings in Romans that the State is a legitimate authority charged with preserving order, that Christians should submit to; and also the fact that Jesus interacted with several soldiers and yet never commanded them to leave their profession. Most Christians would place limits on what kind of war is allowable, and what conduct is allowable within war, gathered together under the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war&quot;&gt;Just War&lt;/a&gt; theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A significant minority of Christians believe that fighting and killing are entirely incompatible with Christianity. Their basis is that commands such as &quot;love your neighbour as yourself&quot; and &quot;turn the other cheek&quot; cannot be compatible with attempting to kill your neighbour. While acknowleging that the State has the right and power to defend itself, they would say that Christians should play no part in such a war. Denominations that espouse this belief includes the Quakers and the Mennonites. Many of these have refused the draft and gone to jail for their beliefs; others have volunteered for non-combatant (but often still dangerous) war tasks such as stretcher bearers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T16:54:49.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2706" CreationDate="2011-09-14T17:02:29.927" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yeah, our consciences are trustworthy.  Our conscience will always tell us the truth.  It is our passions which cloud our ability to follow our conscience. Original sin is that which clouds our conscience, makes us follow our passions (like answering questions on StackExchange when we should be working). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I asked my religious ed. class (7th and 8th graders) last year, &quot;what is your conscience?&quot; lots of them say &quot;it's the little angel and devil who sit on your shoulders and tell you what to do.&quot;  But no, that's not your conscience, your conscience is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1776&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total Depravity, however, is a concept that runs contrary to Catholic doctrine so I can't comment on it as a proof of anything and well if you manage to test everything and find that you still have something (1 Thessalonians 5:21) then you couldn't be totally depraved, eh? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total Depravity idea hearkens back to those old heresies that say one thing is bad and another thing is good.  Original sin just says, we started out good and now we're bad but at least we have something to aspire to. Which is why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception matters.  Mary is a type of the Church as it should be, the spotless bride of Christ, in imitation of her, we become more perfect disciples.  If she was free from original sin, conceived without sin, it was because it was possible for a human body to be sinless.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We on the other hand, have got the yoke of sin on our shoulders and our consciences will lead us to cast it off and to strive for sinlessness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T18:56:25.620" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T18:56:25.620" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2011-09-14T18:01:24.580" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (John 3:5) The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2019-11-06T16:19:37.513" LastActivityDate="2019-11-06T16:19:37.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2826" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-14T18:19:51.313" Score="8" ViewCount="227" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was watching &quot;Crossing the Threshold&quot; with Fr. Mitch Pacwa last night and he was saying that when starting a bible study it is good for each member of the bible study to get their own commentaries.  He mentioned a good one being St. John Chrystostom. But I've never seen a whole lot in the book store coming from other Catholic sources. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This however, isn't a Catholic question specifically (although pointing me in the right direction is an instant +1). The main point is, what to look for in a bible commentary, especially when the New American Bible's footnotes just aren't quite cutting the mustard (not that they were intended to).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T02:26:00.123" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T02:26:00.123" Title="What criteria are used to denote one commentary as &quot;better&quot; than another? What are the hallmarks of a good commentary?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T05:31:50.840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2827" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2862" CreationDate="2011-09-14T18:38:45.510" Score="12" ViewCount="3040" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2676/when-the-church-allows-a-marriage-the-state-does-not-closed&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, I'm left wondering how Christians ought to respond to laws that are unjust, but not overtly immoral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think most of us will agree that Christians ought to disregard laws that mandate immorality, or that prohibit morality.  The cliche examples of the first would be laws requiring turning over Jews to the Nazis to be murdered, or turning over protestants to Catholics to be burned as heretics, etc.  And examples of the latter would be laws prohibiting Christian worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about laws that are viewed as clearly unjust, but don't overtly require immorality or prohibit morality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Laws such as the one mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.h-net.org/~south/archives/threads/slmarriage.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that forbade blacks in Pennsylvania from marrying from 1870 until 1973 when the law was changed.  Or racial segregation laws like those challenged by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rosa Parks&lt;/a&gt;.  For a Christian, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;civil disobedience&lt;/a&gt; an appropriate response to these types of laws?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;EDIT&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, I am asking about laws that neither mandate immoral behavior, nor prohibit behavior required by the Bible.  In my two examples:  A black person remaining single (and celibate) is not immoral, nor does the Bible require anyone (black or otherwise) to marry.  Also, it is not immoral for a black person to sit in the back of a bus, nor does the Bible require anyone (black or otherwise) to sit in the front of a bus.  So it is quite possible to adhere by both of these laws without violating any Christian principle--and indeed many Christians to this day do live in (unwitting) compliance with both of these laws.  Many black Christians in Pennsylvania never marry, and many black Christians ride in the backs of buses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My phrasing in the title is not intended to imply that I think &quot;unjust&quot; laws are &quot;moral.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A law that prohibits Christianity does not fall into the scope of this question, since the Bible requires that of us.  Nor would a law that requires someone to kill or torture another person, since that is prohibited by the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T08:38:10.647" Title="Should Christians uphold unjust laws that are not overtly immoral?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-04-24T14:19:37.180" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2828" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-14T19:18:11.193" Score="13" ViewCount="14336" Body="&lt;p&gt;There has been a lot of &lt;a href=&quot;http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/15/your-take-bachmann-on-wifely-submission/&quot;&gt;discussion in the news&lt;/a&gt; lately about the passage in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:22&lt;/a&gt; instructing wives to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. But no one ever seems to bring Ephesians 5:21 into the discussion which tells us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do we reconcile the two? Doesn't Ephesians 5:21 apply to husbands and wives?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="78" LastActivityDate="2014-07-21T01:55:35.937" Title="Should husbands submit to wives?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-21T02:57:20.910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2828" CreationDate="2011-09-14T19:36:52.737" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, husbands should also submit to their wives.  This verse is often taken out of context and should not be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verses 25-33 also always seem to be left out.  How hard would it be for a wife to submit to a husband that loves her as he should love Christ?  I'd say a husband who holds Ephesians 5:22 over his wife probably has not read past it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:25-33&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 5:25-33 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; because we are members of his body. &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;  &quot;Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T22:56:43.607" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T22:56:43.607" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2832" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-14T19:54:13.330" Score="14" ViewCount="492" Body="&lt;p&gt;If one were to accept that God has a plan and that His will is to be honored, isn't hoping to sway God's plan for the future disrespectful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-- Update --&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of these answers are across the board, so here's an example to help refine the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Someone's wife is gravely ill and in the hospital, and her church's&#xA;  parishioners say they will &quot;keep her in their prayers&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's safe to assume that they will pray for God to reverse his direction regarding her health and make her better, and it's also fair to say they're not asking him to show them the way to do it themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just making a request for him to rethink the matter, it seems. Where does that fall?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="585" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T13:49:21.990" LastActivityDate="2014-11-25T19:22:21.663" Title="Is prayer effectively second-guessing God?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-11-27T05:07:35.230" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2833" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2854" CreationDate="2011-09-14T20:02:53.323" Score="7" ViewCount="4121" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2793/is-a-moral-society-more-open-to-the-gospel-than-an-immoral-one&quot;&gt;Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There have been many debates going around regarding what constitutes moral or immoral actions; moral or immoral society; etc.  This set of questions is in regards to society and how morality can be measured.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First and foremost, is it possible for a society to be moral or immoral?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, what does morality mean in regards to a society?  Meaning, what's the difference between a moral society and an immoral one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, I tend to define morality based on the Bible.  Can this same gauge be used for societies?  How can I apply this metric to societies that are undeniably non-Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately: &lt;strong&gt;What does morality mean in the context of a society?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T13:59:16.363" Title="What does it mean for a society to be moral?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;&lt;society&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-10-20T16:38:27.860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2832" CreationDate="2011-09-14T20:10:33.223" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe that prayer should be considered questioning God's will. Prayer can be many things, praying for blessings is in the Bible as well many times. Praying for good fortune and mercy aren't necessarily going against God's will. God gives us free will for a reason. If it were against God then Jesus wouldn't have prayed to God nor would his disciples and fellow Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically prayer isn't necessarily questioning God or asking for something. It is talking to God asking for the best and asking what your duty should be to live in his image. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T20:15:36.973" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T20:15:36.973" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2833" CreationDate="2011-09-14T20:28:42.507" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without morals being somehow based on a common rule of law, such as the Bible, then there can be no true rule for morality unless leaders of a society set the guidelines for morality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most modern day societies, morals are basically the same as in the Bible. Thou shalt not kill and steal are just two examples. But without a true basic morality structure such as the Bible, then no one can truly say one thing or the other if something is moral or not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Basically, if one society has a different set of morals than another one, each society will always believe the other society is immoral.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the comments below ~Richard&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, only members of the society can actually declare a society as moral or immoral, since people who are not part of that society do not have enough perspective to determine the morals of the given society.  Even minor differences in geography or religious separation can lead to huge moral gaps.  Therefore, no one can validly judge the morality of a society unless one is a member of that society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T22:21:51.173" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T22:21:51.173" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2836" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2841" CreationDate="2011-09-14T20:40:08.500" Score="7" ViewCount="1068" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based solely on recollection from my childhood religious education, I understand that by Christian doctrine (regarding a vision/revelation Peter had), Jesus fulfilled the law and so the Jewish dietary laws (kosher) are not required to be followed anymore.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How fully does this apply?  Do Christians get any &quot;kudos&quot; by eating kosher?  I understand that salvation would have nothing to do with it, but is it considered a &quot;good work&quot; anyway for whatever that's worth?  Do any other dietary suggestions/guidelines/laws apply to Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastEditorUserId="425" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T23:18:15.663" LastActivityDate="2016-01-16T15:27:09.027" Title="Does Christianity have any dietary guidelines?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-01-17T02:16:46.263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2837" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2845" CreationDate="2011-09-14T20:40:34.767" Score="23" ViewCount="71696" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passage below raises two questions in my mind but I suspect they both have the same answer. My questions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why did Jesus at first refuse to speak to the Canaanite woman? We know He had no problem crossing gender and racial barriers, as seen e.g. in The Woman at the Well (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%204:1-42&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 4:1-42&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why did He refer to her (and presumably all Canaanites and probably all Gentiles) as &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;dogs&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;? I say that He was referring to all Gentiles because He contrasted helping her with Israel, when He said, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:21-28&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 15:21-28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(This story is also related in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%207:24-30&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 7:24-30&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-09-20T17:02:14.623" Title="Why did Jesus refer to Gentiles as dogs?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;gentile&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2826" CreationDate="2011-09-14T20:44:49.923" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianbook.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;christianbook.com&lt;/a&gt; has a commentary page that lets you &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianbook.com/commentaries&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;refine by &quot;theological tradition&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, among other criteria. That is probably a good start, and will at least let you find commentaries written by Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, you could look a commentary up on &lt;a href=&quot;http://bestcommentaries.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bestcommentaries.com&lt;/a&gt; and read what reviewers have to say about it. That might not tell you whether the commentary is &quot;safe&quot; or not, but it should at least tell you what perspective the author has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T22:38:53.747" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T22:38:53.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2827" CreationDate="2011-09-14T20:45:18.597" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like you said yourself, the fact of the matter is if the law is just unjust but not immoral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible and Christianity rarely touches on this subject. I believe that it is up to the person, but as a good Christian you are, or by at least my definition, and way of life required to be good and just. However, if it is against the law you should do what is in your power to help, but that would be up the individual person. I don't think Christianity defines this exact sort of question, but in the end it would be your duty as a good person to do what is in your power to help or to prevent an unjust act from happening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T08:38:10.647" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T08:38:10.647" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2178" CreationDate="2011-09-14T21:00:02.150" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word ecumenical has changed over time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Originally, it meant a general council of the Catholic Church, where the Pope and Bishops would get together and condemn heresies, or clarify some point of Dogma.  For example the Council of Trent was convened to condemn what they called Protestant heresies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today the word ecumenical means to &quot;The principle or aim of promoting unity among the world's Christian churches&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Practically what it means for the modern 'Catholic' Church is to retract their earlier condemnations of Protestantism: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 202: “It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.”[41]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2014-08-12T17:43:46.843" LastActivityDate="2014-08-12T17:43:46.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2836" CreationDate="2011-09-14T21:02:04.207" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nope.  There are no restrictions.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can &lt;em&gt;even&lt;/em&gt; eat food sacrificed to idols.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:1-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;This passage&lt;/a&gt; in 1 Corinthians talks about that.  The passage ends with the verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8:8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this, the author continues with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:9-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8:9-10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, we can eat anything that we can keep down that doesn't kill us.  However, this is providing that we do not cause others to sin.  (Though this is primarily in reference to food sacrificed to idols.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T21:02:04.207" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2836" CreationDate="2011-09-14T21:02:21.267" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a precept of the Catholic Church, in America, we are obliged to fast from meat on Fridays in Lent and fast completely on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Bishops in the U.K. are re-adopting this guideline starting Advent 2011 for all fridays.  In America we're supposed to maintain some sort of penitential observance, although we get to choose what.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But on the whole, there are no dietary restrictions, except as Richard says rightly, in eating food sacrificed to Idols or cannibalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T21:02:21.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="119" CreationDate="2011-09-14T21:37:48.603" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that the Bible is the Word of God, but it may be important to remember that that particular verse was written by David; &quot;To the Chief Musician&quot;.  David did not say that he was writing a prophetic word from the Father. It was meant as a song of worship and it was written by man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the most outstanding proof that our Father loves us, sinners all, was shown by his amazing sacrifice through His Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T21:37:48.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2836" CreationDate="2011-09-14T21:58:56.317" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;And some Christians (notably the Witnesses) refuse to eat blood because of the restriction in &lt;a href=&quot;http://ebible.org/web/ACT15.htm#C15V29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:29&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T21:58:56.317" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2837" CreationDate="2011-09-14T21:59:45.183" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the king of metaphors. This reference was not meant as an insult. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Application_Study_Bible&quot;&gt;Life Application Study Bible&lt;/a&gt; in reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:24&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Matthew 15:24&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus' words do not contradict the truth that God's message is for all people. After all, when Jesus said these words, He was in Gentile territory on a mission to Gentile people. He ministered to Gentiles on many other occasions also. Jesus was simply telling the woman that Jews were to have the first opportunity to accept Him as the Messiah because God wanted them to present the message of salvation to the rest of the world. Jesus was not rejecting the Gentile woman. He may have wanted to test her faith, or He may have wanted to use the situation as another opportunity to teach that faith is available to all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Had she taken what He said as an insult, as it may sound to us today, her faith would have been damaged and her daughter would not have been healed. It is obvious that she understood His reference as nothing more than a metaphor. Much the same as we are referred to as sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T05:58:40.033" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T05:58:40.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2785" CreationDate="2011-09-14T22:21:37.673" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've personally gone through a year of military service. National service is compulsory here for every male citizen. There's an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siviilipalvelus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;alternative, non-military service&lt;/a&gt; that's also available for those that have &lt;em&gt;ethical or religious objections to military service&lt;/em&gt;. So I definitely had to think a lot about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A credible defense is important for probably any country, but especially mine. We cannot prevent an invasion no matter what, but we can make it too costly to be practical. The only effective way for a small country to do that is to have a large proportion of the population receive some basic military training. If someone marched in, they'd get all over the country in no time. But then there'd be a million armed men in the forests, just waiting to rid the new overlords of their lives, and to get their fatherland back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Having a system that actually prevents war is a good thing, even the will of God.&lt;/strong&gt; I would not fight a war outside our borders. I wouldn't have enlisted to any non-compulsory army. But I certainly am glad to be one of the millions of trained men that make any prospective enemy think twice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2029:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 29:7 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take the circumstances I describe as a case study of how a person can practically &lt;em&gt;seek the peace&lt;/em&gt;. Note that circumstances vary, and this idea doesn't fit with a war-waging military.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do understand if someone feels being a soldier is wrong. &lt;strong&gt;Any possible enemy still consists of human beings, created and loved by God.&lt;/strong&gt; But there's a great difference between a soldier that fights on a distant front and one that only exists &lt;em&gt;in order not to fight at all&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; I live in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Finland&lt;/a&gt;, a small country neighboring Sweden, Norway, Estonia and Russia. Finland's only been independent since 1917, and was attacked in WWII -- but my grandfather and other Finnish men of that time fought back, and Finland kept its independence. That, I think, was a miracle of God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;seriously&lt;/a&gt;). They say that each and every man prayed in the trenches. Finland certainly was quite a Christian country back then; nowadays it's very secular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Cold War was politically a difficult time for us, too. Maybe you can imagine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/EQU2C.png&quot; alt=&quot;A map showing Finland.&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EU-Finland.svg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Map by NuclearVacuum&lt;/a&gt;. CC-BY-SA 3.0&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T02:33:36.157" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T02:33:36.157" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2832" CreationDate="2011-09-14T22:47:38.607" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the following explanation of prayer is very helpful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/prayer?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=p&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prayer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we don't pray to change God's will, we pray to learn about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:7&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But yes, trying to change God's will is disrespectful. You're essentially saying that you are wiser than God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11:34&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 11:34&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or &lt;em&gt;who hath been his counsellor?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-09-14T23:43:35.553" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T23:43:35.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2826" CreationDate="2011-09-14T23:04:38.353" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There really are only two possible ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Read the commentary enough to know for sure. Assuming some biblical knowledge, by comparing different commentaries on same passages it'll be easy to weed out some of the not-so-good ones.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Get a recommendation from someone you &lt;strong&gt;really trust&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If these aren't practical, you can always just use a commentary with a skeptical attitude. If the commentary says anything unexpected that doesn't immediately make sense, beware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-14T23:04:38.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2832" CreationDate="2011-09-15T00:30:42.977" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prayer is about partnering with God to see his will be done. See how Jesus taught us to pray in  &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Matthew&amp;amp;verse=+6:9%E2%80%9313&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:9–13&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pray in this way &quot;Our Father in heaven,&#xA;  hallowed be your name.&#xA;  Your kingdom come,&#xA;  your will be done,&#xA;  on earth as it is in heaven.&#xA;  Give us this day our daily bread,&#xA;  and forgive us our debts,&#xA;  as we also have forgiven our debtors.&#xA;  And lead us not into temptation,&#xA;  but deliver us from evil.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fist and formost prayer recognizes who God is, our holy Father in Heaven, and that we are to ask him to bring His will to be done on earth, just like it is in heaven.     So if your praying correctly you aren't questioing God's will, your asking that it be done. So then you should ask yourself, what has God said about heaven? His will is done perfectly there, so what's that like? Do His children go hungry or get sick there? Is there any lack in Heaven? Is there any evil in Heaven? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T22:34:18.980" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T22:34:18.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2851" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2858" CreationDate="2011-09-15T00:36:05.297" Score="19" ViewCount="539" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always heard of guardian angels and have probably even prayed to them, but never really knew anything about them.  What is the purpose of guardian angels and where does the belief in them come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T02:14:48.023" LastActivityDate="2015-02-13T19:48:22.503" Title="What is a guardian angel?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;guardian-angels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2826" CreationDate="2011-09-15T01:07:44.160" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  You can think of a hermeneutic as the lens you use to view and interpret scripture and come to doctrinal conclusions. Having an explicit, clear hermeneutic in mind as you study will help you build interpretations that are consistent. It provides a measuring stick by which specific interpretations of passages can be evaluated and helps avoid the problem of finding the conclusion first, and the scriptural support second.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most commentaries will have an introduction or preface, and in the preface the author should declare something of the hermeneutic used in that commentary. This will help you decide if the commentary is a good selection for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T01:07:44.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2011-09-15T01:47:07.317" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let us look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 16:8&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I think the parable is really saying is that we should take example of how an even a dishonest manager was able to prepare for future. Look at what he did for the people who loaned things. By lowering their pay, he would be insured of being accepted into their household for a time after he was fired. Jesus was telling us to take example of his wisdom for preparing for the future. In short, saying that we should prepare for our afterlife like that too. When we know that our days are numbered, we should follow the dishonest manager's wisdom from here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T01:47:07.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2833" CreationDate="2011-09-15T02:45:39.010" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many religions and societies have a shared core of moral precepts.  For example, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/a-human-approach-to-peace&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dalai Lama writes on this topic&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech. All teach us not to lie or steal or take others' lives, and so on. The common goal of all moral precepts laid down by the great teachers of humanity is unselfishness. The great teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common moral intuition has been posited (with some decent evidence) by some researchers; see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/books/review/Rorty.t.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Marc Hauser's Moral Minds&lt;/a&gt; for an example.  You may not agree with his interpretation of his data, but it is at least clear that a certain subset of morality is widespread (hereafter &quot;common-morality&quot;) even among people who profess different beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this commonality, there is a sense in which we can judge societies as moral or immoral without having to adopt any particular religion (which will unsurprisingly judge societies where different religions are prevalent as relatively less moral).  You can ask--at least vaguely--whether a society promotes as a matter of course and achieves in practice broad adherence to common-morality.  Furthermore, one can ask whether the society (including government institutions) treats its members as if it were an entity that followed common-morality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, one can make a pretty strong case that the sub-societies of Somali pirates or Mexican drug gangs are not particularly moral (obviously: they induce people to kill and steal).  Fine distinctions are probably difficult (is Japanese society more or less moral than Finnish society?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="519" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T13:59:16.363" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T13:59:16.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2855" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2859" CreationDate="2011-09-15T04:36:14.150" Score="8" ViewCount="483" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:8-9&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:8-9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;    (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; When the cool evening breezes were blowing, &lt;strong&gt;the man and his wife heard the Lord God walking about&lt;/strong&gt; in the garden. So they hid from the Lord God among the trees. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Then the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this generally understood to be a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany&quot;&gt;theophany&lt;/a&gt;? The Wikipedia article mentions that Catholics believe that this is a theophany, but doesn't say anything about Protestant denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, a very related question (that doesn't deserve its own question) is: does this mean that Jesus had a human body before He was born?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="140" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T08:12:03.737" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T10:23:52.597" Title="Does Genesis 3 tell of a theophany?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;theophany&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T06:49:02.753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="78" CreationDate="2011-09-15T05:32:23.730" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The chapter below is titled &quot;The Government of the Promised Son&quot; and seems to answer your question regarding Jesus, the Son, being God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 9:6 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For unto us a Child  is born, &lt;strong&gt;Unto us a Son is given&lt;/strong&gt;; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And the government will be upon His shoulder. &lt;strong&gt;And His name will be called&lt;/strong&gt; Wonderful, Counselor, &lt;strong&gt;Mighty God&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;Everlasting Father&lt;/strong&gt;, Prince of Peace.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in prophetic ministry, Hosea speaks out the word of the Lord in 13:4;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Yet I am the Lord your God ever since the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but Me. For there is &lt;strong&gt;no Savior besides Me&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, in Luke 2:11 God sent an angel to announce to shepherds, &quot;For there is born to you this day in the city of David &lt;strong&gt;a Savior, who is Christ the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since our Father said to Hosea, &quot;For there is &lt;strong&gt;no Savior besides Me&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;, and He also sent His angel to announce the birth of the &lt;strong&gt;a Savior&lt;/strong&gt;, one has to conclude that the Father and the Son are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T11:48:08.800" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T11:48:08.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2833" CreationDate="2011-09-15T06:46:39.397" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As a Christian, I tend to define morality based on the Bible. Can this same gauge be used for societies? How can I apply this metric to societies that are undeniably non-Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In almost all societies, it can't. Perhaps the only societies where this can be used is those where &lt;em&gt;by definition&lt;/em&gt; those &lt;strong&gt;societies&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;genuinely&lt;/em&gt; use the Bible as their moral compass, for example in a monastery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most other scenarios, perhaps it is more meaningful to look at the law (in comparison to international / &lt;strong&gt;humane&lt;/strong&gt; law), and how that law is applied (for example: is the application of the law &lt;em&gt;itself&lt;/em&gt; horribly corrupt). Now, law (and it's application) vs morality are slightly different topics, but it is perhaps the best indicator we have. You can of course look beyond that into the zeitgeist of the population, but that is much harder to measure accurately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coming back to the Bible in the context of morality; the point I would make here is that in many cases, a significant portion of &lt;strong&gt;both&lt;/strong&gt; the in-group and out-group do &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; accept the morality of the Bible; the most obvious glaring holes here would be things like the Bible's aggressive stance on homosexuality and gender issues (I know that record is old, but they &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; important). I know very many Christians who have &lt;em&gt;absolutely&lt;/em&gt; no issue with homosexuality, and know of others that are fire-brand &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; homosexuality. To me this simply proves: if different people &lt;strong&gt;in the in-group&lt;/strong&gt; can't agree which way that moral-compass points, then that moral-compass is broken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To borrow from another answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In most modern day societies, morals are basically the same as in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I would turn this around: In most modern day societies, the Bible happens to be (give-or-take) basically the same as those in the society. One does not need the Bible to know that stealing and murder is a &lt;em&gt;bad thing&lt;/em&gt;, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T08:15:18.957" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T08:15:18.957" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2851" CreationDate="2011-09-15T06:53:19.370" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of guardian angels  and praying to them to protect one is deep rooted in the Catholic Church. &#xA;Many other churches and Christians also believe in existence of guardian angels based on the following Bible references:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2091:11&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Psalms 91:11 (NLT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For he will order his angels&#xA;        to protect you wherever you go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This gives the idea that God will ask His angels to protect each person who trusts in Him on his/her way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:10&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:10 (NLT)&lt;/a&gt; Jesus says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Beware that you don’t look down on any of these little ones. For I&#xA;  tell you that in heaven their angels are always in the presence of my&#xA;  heavenly Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse is often taken to mean that there is an assigned angel for each of the follower of God and those angels are in the presence of God. Many take both references cited above to mean that a single angel is assigned for a single believer. I believe rather it implies there is an assigned angel for each believer and that angel may be assigned for one or more living persons who trusts in the God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More indirect references can be found else where in Bible. Like for instance, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:14&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Hebrews 1:14 (NLT)&lt;/a&gt; implies that one role of angels is to care for people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, angels are only servants—spirits sent to care for people&#xA;  who will inherit salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T22:26:29.257" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T22:26:29.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2855" CreationDate="2011-09-15T08:43:47.553" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not very familiar with the idea of theophany, but using &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany&quot;&gt;the definition given by Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, this is obviously one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Theophany] refers to the appearance of a deity to a human or other being, or to a divine disclosure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Warning:&lt;/strong&gt; The rest is speculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at just this passage, Jesus didn't need to have a human body. God did appear in non-human form to Moses, too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exo%2033:17-23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 33:17-23 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; And the LORD said to Moses, &quot;This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; Moses said, &quot;Please show me your glory.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; And he said, &quot;I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; But,&quot; he said, &quot;you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; And the LORD said, &quot;Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why would anyone die if they saw the Lord's face? This isn't a permanent condition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+13:12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:12 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:3-4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 22:3-4 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;  No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;  They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason a human being can't see God's face is their own sin. In the Paradise, Adam and Eve were originally not sinful, and so they could see God face to face. After eating the forbidden fruit, they had only yet chosen sin, but weren't yet full of sin. They did go into hiding of their own accord, but seeing God was not yet deathly at that point, and so God didn't need a human form to appear to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T08:43:47.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2836" CreationDate="2011-09-15T08:56:25.723" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disclaimer:&lt;/strong&gt; I'm not a Mormon. If I misportrayed something, please edit.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Mormons, the following are forbidden:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;wine(except for sacraments)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;strong drinks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;tobacco&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;hot drinks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These commandments arise from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_and_Covenants/Section_89&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (which is Mormon-specific scripture):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T08:56:25.723" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2855" CreationDate="2011-09-15T10:23:52.597" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an example of a theophany. People often make the mistake of equating the descriptions of God with human form. Just because God is said to have a face, shoulders, a right hand etc. does not make him human. The same could be said of a koala bear [or enter arbitrary animal here!]. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many, many references throughout the bible to God's &quot;body&quot;, however it is unwise to assume we know what God looks like. We shall, ultimately, see His face and know Him fully as He is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The incarnation is different. That is the phenomenal notion of God becoming a human being, fixed in time and space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="647" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T10:23:52.597" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2827" CreationDate="2011-09-15T14:02:59.667" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that a law can be 'unjust but not immoral' is entirely foreign to Christianity. Anyone who has read significantly in the Old Testament prophets (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=justice&amp;amp;qs_version=NIV&quot;&gt;see here&lt;/a&gt;) realizes that injustice is something that God condemns very strongly, and the people of Israel are frequently admonished for failing to deliver justice (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Isiah&amp;amp;verse=10:2&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Isaiah 10:2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Ezekiel&amp;amp;verse=22:29&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 22:29&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Amos&amp;amp;verse=2:7&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Amos 2:7&lt;/a&gt; and literally hundreds more). Jesus picks up on this theme (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Matthew&amp;amp;verse=23:23&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Matthew 23:23&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Luke&amp;amp;verse=11:42&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Luke 11:42&lt;/a&gt;). Something that God condemns in such strong terms is 'immoral' by definition, and a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between &quot;immoral&quot; and &quot;overtly immoral&quot; doesn't help. One of the things Jesus most strongly condemned was hypocrisy - being &quot;overtly moral&quot; while &quot;covertly immoral&quot;. Following Jesus' example, exposing the &quot;covertly immoral&quot; is something his followers should do. Opposing injustice is something any follower of God should have high on their agenda.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T22:37:10.440" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T22:37:10.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2863" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2864" CreationDate="2011-09-15T14:32:37.240" Score="22" ViewCount="9974" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious what the Bible says about Luck.  Is this something that is a real occurrence or is every little detail ordained and controlled by God (fate)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I searched &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=luck&amp;amp;qs_version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;biblegateway&lt;/a&gt; and did not find &quot;luck&quot; under NIV. Then I tried NASB.  The closest thing I've found comes out the of Good News Translation (which I don't trust at all) and out of the book of Sirach (which I've never heard of).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+20:9&amp;amp;version=GNT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sirach 20:9 (GNT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Bad luck can sometimes lead to success, and a stroke of good luck can sometimes lead to loss&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more sayings in that book and translation, however, this really doesn't satisfy me, since I've never heard of the book of Sirach (and I really don't trust the Good News translation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the biblical case against the concept of Luck?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to be clear, I'm referring to Luck as the random chance—coincidence—that brings good or bad fortune.  I'm not referring to an external force that influences the good or bad that happens in our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, if there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; an external force that brings us good or bad fortune, that could be directly attributed to God, Satan, demons, or angels from a biblical/Christian stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scope:&lt;/strong&gt; Just to be clear, I'm interested primarily in the Protestant Bible, but I'm willing to accept Catholic translations and Deuterocanonical books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-11-16T20:19:03.730" LastActivityDate="2015-11-16T20:19:03.730" Title="What is the biblical basis against the idea of luck?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;fate&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2863" CreationDate="2011-09-15T14:51:07.830" Score="28" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2016:33&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 16:33 (New Living Translation)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may throw the dice, but the Lord determines how they fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2016:33&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, therefore, luck as such does not exist but &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_providence&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;providence&lt;/a&gt; does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T14:51:07.830" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2863" CreationDate="2011-09-15T15:04:00.507" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;In both the Old and the New Testaments, drawing of lots is used as a means of discerning the will of God - he controls events that appear random to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Urim and Thummim&lt;/a&gt; were (probably) two objects kept inside the clothing of the high priest, who would draw one out &amp;quot;at random&amp;quot; to get a yes-or-no answer to some question. This happens, for example, in 1 Samuel 14 to see who had broken Saul's order not to eat any food on a particular day; here are verses 40-42 in the NIV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saul then said to all the Israelites, &amp;quot;You stand over there; I and Jonathan my son will stand over here.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Do what seems best to you,&amp;quot; they replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Saul prayed to the LORD, the God of Israel, &amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;Why have you not answered your servant today? If the fault is in me or my son Jonathan, respond with Urim, but if the men of Israel are at fault, respond with Thummim.&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot; Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot, and the men were cleared. Saul said, &amp;quot;Cast the lot between me and Jonathan my son.&amp;quot; And Jonathan was taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The part I have put in italics above is in the Greek version (the Septuagint) but not in  the Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, the disciples draw lots to determine who is to succeed Judas. This happens in Acts 1:23-26:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, &amp;quot;Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.&amp;quot; Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T15:04:00.507" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="256" CreationDate="2011-09-15T15:15:43.053" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the supporting scripture for the &lt;em&gt;salvation requires baptism&lt;/em&gt; doctrine is this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse is saying that forgiveness of sins requires repentance &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; baptism.  However, the very foundation is that those are required for &lt;em&gt;the forgiveness of sins&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The essence of this question is this:  &lt;strong&gt;Are unborn children guilty of sin?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that, you have to ask &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/160/what-is-the-essence-of-sin&quot;&gt;What is the essence of sin?&lt;/a&gt;  To answer that question, sin is the turning away from God's will.  It's knowing God's desires for you--his &lt;em&gt;rules&lt;/em&gt; if you prefer--and intentionally doing otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My argument is that these children &lt;em&gt;can not know&lt;/em&gt; sin because they cannot know right from wrong.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Children that cannot understand sin cannot commit sin.  Therefore they do not need baptism and cannot repent of their sins.  Therefore unborn children (along with other very young children) gain immediate acceptance into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T16:29:57.543" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2867" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2868" CreationDate="2011-09-15T15:19:10.170" Score="4" ViewCount="532" Body="&lt;p&gt;Science suggests that the earth is millions of years old, and many Christians accept this premise. Instead of accepting that God created everything in six days, they accept the finding of scientists based on &quot;scientific evidence&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a literal interpretation Christian, and I have strong faith that God created the world in six days, less than ten thousand years ago. I believe that when Christians accept science, they do not trust God's Word as much as they trust Man's word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it fair to make the statement that scientific findings are a test of faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="1795" LastEditDate="2012-06-26T11:00:09.597" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T11:00:09.597" Title="Are scientific findings a test to Christians' Faith?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-09-15T22:27:04.827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2867" CreationDate="2011-09-15T15:38:00.390" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think the world was created in such a complex way that there are always new discoveries to be made just to test our faith.  I would say that God can &lt;em&gt;use&lt;/em&gt; scientific discoveries to help us test and fortify our own faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Proverbs 25:2 can be applied here.  I believe scientific discoveries are really just discovering what God has hidden.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it really a surprise that God would create the universe with order in a way that it can be discovered?  While the scientists are undeniably intelligent, God is infinitely more intelligent.  I believe as long as we have this universe there will also be something new to discover, either smaller than the smallest or greater than the greatest.  I'm sure God can create the universe to operate beyond our comprehension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+25%3A2&amp;amp;version=&quot;&gt;Proverbs 25:2 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;to search out a matter is the glory of kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T16:03:06.953" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T16:03:06.953" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2785" CreationDate="2011-09-15T15:44:59.940" Score="2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes you can serve in the military&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How many times did God send Israel to war? Could anybody say that those men are not men of God? Sure Israel has many times, fallen away from God's love, but when have you not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 3:1-2&lt;/strong&gt; (New International Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 These are the nations the LORD left to test all those Israelites who&#xA;had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 (he did this only to teach warfare to the descendants of the&#xA;Israelites who had not had previous battle experience):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did you catch that? &lt;strong&gt;God left nations near Israel to teach the Israelites about war&lt;/strong&gt;. God is not a weak God, His will is that wicked people are put to shame. If you go to war then you are doing His will, in one way or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See my answer here as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/49/if-the-ten-commandments-say-thou-shalt-not-kill-how-can-a-christian-fight-in-a/54#54&quot;&gt;If the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not kill” how can a Christian fight in a war?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T15:44:59.940" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2871" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-15T15:46:51.740" Score="-1" ViewCount="475" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a lot of discussion about whether or not what we do conforms to the will of God. But have we ever defined exactly what that will is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you provide scripture to show exactly what the will of God is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T17:36:17.147" Title="What is the will of God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-11-29T18:35:32.307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2867" CreationDate="2011-09-15T16:13:16.363" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a good question but one you already know the answer to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD then answered Job and said: Will one who argues with the Almighty be corrected?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/job/job40.htm&quot;&gt;Job 40 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no sense arguing with God and His Creation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said: Gird up your loins now, like a man. I will question you, and you tell me the answers! Would you refuse to acknowledge my right? Would you condemn me that you may be justified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore man has no right or justification for questioning God's creation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let creation be a mystery and leave it at that, it should still be compatible with your faith to say to say, &quot;I don't fully understand the biblical account of creation&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scientists plumbing the depths of what it is possible to know seem to be consistently finding that there is more stuff that they didn't even know that it was possible to know even while they prove that they now know things they previously said were impossible to know in the first place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T16:13:16.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2867" CreationDate="2011-09-15T16:23:41.480" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;One should be mindful of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:20-21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;Do not despise prophecies, &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;but test everything; hold fast what is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2014:15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 14:15 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%204:5-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 4:5-7 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;Get wisdom; get insight; do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth.  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;Do not forsake her, and she will keep you; love her, and she will guard you.  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These provides some support for the idea that faith is not meant to replace evidence or common sense entirely.  Thus, if you read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2014:7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 14:7, ESV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and you go find that hares neither chew cud &lt;em&gt;nor&lt;/em&gt; do they have cloven hooves, you don't assert that hares do actually chew cud but don't when anyone is looking in order to test us, but instead decide that you were perhaps interpreting the passage wrong; maybe &quot;chew cud&quot; was intended just to mean &quot;eat grass&quot;, or was a more poetic way of getting the point across: don't eat hares, even if you think they fall under the earlier rule of allowed animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So do not be too sure that the test, if there is one, is to believe one interpretation of, say, Genesis 1, in the face of massive, overwhelming evidence.  Maybe instead the test, to the extent that there is one, is to pay attention to the overwhelming evidence and think more deeply about why Genesis 1 is written the way it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T16:23:41.480" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2871" CreationDate="2011-09-15T16:25:49.323" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's will is a goal which Jesus tell us to seek (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Matthew&amp;amp;verse=6:33&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 6:33&lt;/a&gt;).  It is the Divine Intellect, set apart from yourself, you can't know it completely.  To know it you would have to be God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Matthew&amp;amp;verse=11:27&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 11:27&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you philosophize about it you'll come to that arduous conclusion that God has two definable wills. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We must distinguish between God's positive will, and His permissive will. He positively wills all the good that happens. Suffering He permits to occur, and this only when he foresees that good can result from it. He positively wills that I should be holy. If He foresees that I will make use of good health to sin and to lose my soul, He may mercifully permit my health to be ruined, and thus lead me to Him where He would otherwise lose me. There would have been no diseases had men not sinned. God did not will sin, but having made men free, He permitted it and its consequences. This permission was a less serious thing than would have been the depriving us of our freedom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_rumble.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, God wills that you follow the Ten Commandments and God wills that you love Him and your neighbor (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Mark&amp;amp;verse=12:30-31&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 12:30-31&lt;/a&gt;). God does not will that you break the commandments or hate your neighbor or Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T21:56:56.387" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T21:56:56.387" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2867" CreationDate="2011-09-15T16:27:10.007" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I take the general approach that, &quot;The honest pursuit of truth will always lead you to God&quot;. We are living in the creation of God, after all. The problem is, we are not smart enough to understand and interpret what we find, and we fill in the blanks with our own agenda.  Old earth, young earth, or somewhere in between... I don't know, but as our understanding of HONEST science increases, I believe it will undoubtedly point to the God we have faith in.  I do not believe that science as a rule should be disregarded whenever it challenges our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the meantime, this is a hard question to answer and not offend someone's belief.  I have a scientific mind, and tend to think that our Earth is probably older than the &quot;young&quot; earth theory holds.  I don't believe we have all the evidence to conclude one way or the other. Perhaps the nature of time has changed since the creation; things were happening very fast in the beginning, and it's plausible that a human perception/understanding of time has changed. Perhaps there are nuances in the language in the Old Testament regarding figurative or concrete interpretations that may have some relevance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do know that God is not afraid of our questions, and it is not a sign of weak faith to ask God for answers.  You may even argue that asking God for answers is a sign of strong faith.  It could possibly be there are answers and hints in the world He created. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="662" LastEditorUserId="306" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T17:07:24.023" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T17:07:24.023" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="256" CreationDate="2011-09-15T16:46:35.517" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics used to believe that they went to the Limbo of the Children (a part of Hell where there is no fire)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Eugene IV, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439&lt;/a&gt;, ex&#xA;cathedra:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or &lt;strong&gt;in original sin alone&lt;/strong&gt;, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However Benedict XVI abolished the concept of Limbo, claiming that it was never defined.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T09:23:35.703" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T09:23:35.703" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2879" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-15T17:47:17.117" Score="15" ViewCount="1472" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that early Christians were generally pacifists.  Today (at least in the U.S.) Christian pacifists are a bit hard to come by.  Many quote &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 13:1-3&lt;/a&gt; to support Christian involvement in war:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of this verse, and other Biblical or historical evidence, &lt;em&gt;what is the case to be made for Christian pacifism?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-03T12:15:05.210" LastActivityDate="2014-11-03T12:15:05.210" Title="What is the Biblical and historical basis for Christian pacifism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;pacifism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2896" CreationDate="2011-09-15T18:05:00.193" Score="10" ViewCount="959" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:10&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 18:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; Then Simon Peter drew a sword and slashed off the right ear of Malchus, the high priest’s slave. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pastor at a church I used to go to once said&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that Peter was part of a militant sect of Judaism that felt like it was their duty to kill Roman soldiers as often as possible/prudent. This would explain why Peter had the sword with him and why his first instinct was to attack. However, I don't know either the name of this sect or whether he &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; involved in one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: If absolutely needed, I can dig up the sermon transcript online.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-06-13T20:18:38.653" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T20:18:38.653" Title="Was Peter part of a militant sect?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2881" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2893" CreationDate="2011-09-15T18:13:57.980" Score="20" ViewCount="4909" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that there is some form of hierarchy within the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, these passages seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:26 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 15:26 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it seems that the Father has control over Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:39 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the Trinity is three persons in one God.  Therefore, each person in the Trinity is equal to the other two.  Yet, the verses above seem to indicate that there's a hierarchy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a hierarchy (and my previous understanding flawed) or is there a deeper understanding of what's going on in those verses above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm seeking a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mainstream Protestant&lt;/a&gt; exegesis and viewpoint on this issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-10-11T03:29:18.000" Title="Is there a hierarchy in the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-10-11T08:44:02.770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2880" CreationDate="2011-09-15T18:27:02.413" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we go back to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Luke&amp;amp;verse=22:36-38&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:36-38&lt;/a&gt;, it indicates that Jesus had them acquire swords before they went up to pray before Jesus' arrest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not indicate the intent of having the swords, however, it appears that their use was specific to this instance, likely to protect themselves against undue violence and arrest (but not Jesus, as He allowed Himself to be arrested). Jesus did want them to survive so that they could continue spreading His message and to create the Church on Earth. This is a bit of interpretation, however, I don't see any indication of there being some violent Jewish sect. Many Jews of the time did expect the Messiah to be a great military leader who would release them from the Romans in a revolt, but that is simply an expectation of the day, and not one of a sect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T21:53:40.573" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T21:53:40.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2883" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2892" CreationDate="2011-09-15T18:28:47.523" Score="6" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;I &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/1167?m=1936256#1936256&quot;&gt;recently&lt;/a&gt; learned that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Augustine&lt;/a&gt; held an extremely literal view of a particular verse in Romans...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:14&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  (NLT)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, Augustine taught that deaf people (without today's cochlear implants) wouldn't be able to be saved merely because they wouldn't be able to hear people telling them about the Gospel.  This raises the following question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;How literally should this verse be interpreted?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T19:23:02.587" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T04:51:27.420" Title="How literally is Romans 10:14 supposed to be taken?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;ministry&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2884" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2890" CreationDate="2011-09-15T18:31:51.610" Score="7" ViewCount="2819" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 1:13 NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the significance of calling Simon &quot;the Zealot?&quot; Is this some proper Jewish title, or what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-08T15:56:35.350" LastActivityDate="2015-08-08T15:56:35.350" Title="What is the significance of &quot;Zealot&quot; in Acts 1:13?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2885" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2895" CreationDate="2011-09-15T18:32:28.493" Score="20" ViewCount="858" Body="&lt;p&gt;Per the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, it seems that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2405/what-passages-support-that-god-once-walked-the-earth-as-a-man&quot;&gt;God was once a man&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following this out just one step further leads me to the idea that it may be possible for other men to be come a god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god?  (Or is my initial understanding wrong?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2017-01-21T03:29:14.283" Title="What is the Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2880" CreationDate="2011-09-15T18:45:49.730" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus actually told his disciples to acquire swords, and they had 2 on them at the Last Supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:36-38&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22:36-38 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a&#xA;  bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It&#xA;  is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I&#xA;  tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about&#xA;  me is reaching its fulfillment.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“That’s enough!” he replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Jesus does tell Peter to put his sword away, so it is likely Peter was carrying the sword on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26:52&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:52 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  52 “Put &lt;strong&gt;your&lt;/strong&gt; sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who&#xA;  draw the sword will die by the sword.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T20:59:35.800" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T20:59:35.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-09-15T19:11:08.650" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;He was another one of the apostles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:14-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 6:14-16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were two apostles named &quot;Simon&quot;, one is &quot;Simon Peter&quot; and the other is &quot;Simon the Zealot&quot;.  The name was a way to distinguish him from the &quot;other&quot; Simon and possibly referred to a character trait.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's not much else known about him other than his name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the_Zealot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T19:11:08.650" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2883" CreationDate="2011-09-15T19:22:44.443" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011:13-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 11:13-15 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. &lt;strong&gt;Whoever has ears, let them hear.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the trick with reading the bible and considering things in context: &lt;strong&gt;You have to keep in mind the time that the bible was written!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two thousand years ago if a person was deaf, they were deaf.  There was nothing that could be done about it:  no sign language, no cochlear implants, &lt;em&gt;minimal literacy&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being deaf back then was a completely debilitating state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However with &quot;modern&quot; innovations like literacy and sign language, we can actually communicate with people who may not be able to actually &lt;em&gt;hear&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when we read verses like the one in the question or the one at the top of this answer, they &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; very literal--for that day and age.  However, today we are able to communicate with deaf people as easily as I'm communicating with you right now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should we take it literally?  &lt;strong&gt;Yes and No&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept is &quot;if someone can hear, they should listen and learn&quot;.  In today's modern age (ya know, the past few hundred years), there is no reason that deafness excludes someone from salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as you, right now, are not hearing my voice (I'm not even speaking!), so you do not need to &quot;hear&quot; literally to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T19:22:44.443" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-09-15T19:23:56.250" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/greek/2207.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong's Concordance&lt;/a&gt;, the definition of the greek used here is &quot;one who is eagerly devoted to a person or a thing, a zealot.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/greek/2207.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Helps Word-studies&lt;/a&gt; says a zealot is one &quot;who (literally) 'boils over with passion'&quot;.  (Here &quot;boils over&quot; is the literal translation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/greek/2204.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;zeó&lt;/a&gt;, which figuratively means &quot;to be earnest, to set one's heart on, to be completely intent upon&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say in addition to distinguish him from Simon Peter (as Richard said), it signifies that he was extremely passionate about following Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(aside: I'd like to be called a zealot for Jesus)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T19:49:52.900" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T19:49:52.900" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2884" CreationDate="2011-09-15T19:37:20.437" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Wikipedia: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry&lt;/a&gt; I'll quote an interesting part here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Zealots objected to Roman rule and violently sought to eradicate it by &#xA;  generally targeting Romans and Greeks. Zealots engaged in violence against &#xA;  other Jews were called the Sicarii.[9] They raided Jewish habitations and &#xA;  killed Jews they considered apostate and collaborators, while also urging &#xA;  Jews to fight Romans and other Jews for the cause. Josephus paints a very &#xA;  bleak picture of their activities as they instituted what he characterized &#xA;  as a murderous &quot;reign of terror&quot; prior to the Jewish Temple's destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This says A LOT about what Jesus was able to accomplish in assembling his 12.  Considering he had a tax collector, and a Zealot, who under other circumstances would target such a tax collector as a &quot;collaborator&quot;.  Consider the teachings of Jesus, and imagine how much of a life change that this Simon had undergone.  Things like &quot;Love your enemy&quot;, and &quot;Give to Caesar what is Caesar's&quot;. It doesn't say that Simon was a Sicarii, but there were probably some shared core beliefs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not a Bible scholar, but I think Zealot means more then just being zealous for Jesus.  It is capitalized in the passage you shared. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="662" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T19:37:20.437" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2883" CreationDate="2011-09-15T20:02:15.860" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The letters to the seven churches in Revelation have a recurring theme, &quot;he who has ears, let him hear&quot; - and yet they were &lt;em&gt;written letters&lt;/em&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Literally believing a deaf person cannot be saved, I believe with the larger context of scripture, is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible was &lt;em&gt;written&lt;/em&gt; - yes, if you had been born deaf, you may have only been minimally literate 2000 years ago. However, there were also many cases of folks becoming deaf with age, who earlier were not, and who were still at least somewhat literate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, in the introduction of Revelation a blessing is pronounced upon the reader and the hearer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The message of the gospel does not &lt;em&gt;require&lt;/em&gt; hearing, it requires being delivered, processed, understood, affirmed, and believed-in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T04:51:27.420" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T04:51:27.420" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2881" CreationDate="2011-09-15T20:16:19.950" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a role-delineation, not a &quot;hierarchy&quot; (at least, not in the way it is used in common English).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has distinct persons making up His one self - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They have distinct roles, as revealed in the Bible (more I'm sure can be added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Father&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creator (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:25&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 1:25&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judge (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2012:1-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 15:14&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018:25&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 18:25&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%202:10&amp;amp;version=49&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 2:10&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2021:22&amp;amp;version=49&quot;&gt;Job 21:22&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%207:8&amp;amp;version=49&quot;&gt;Psalm 7:8&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Luke 18:7&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Initiator of Covenants (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:15&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208:21-22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 8:21-12&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208:21-22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:9-17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2012:1-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 12:1-3&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elector of the those who will be Saved (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Luke 18:7&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206:65&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 6:65&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:33&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 8:33&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 9:13&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Son&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Instrument of Creation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 1:3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:16&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Way to the Father (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 10:9&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 14:6&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 John 5:20&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Propitiatory Sacrifice for Salvation of Man (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:25&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 3:25&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Hebrews 2:17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 John 2:2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 John 4:10&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Spirit&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enabler of Creation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20104:30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Psalm 104:30&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Comforter (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 14:16-17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 14:26&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 15:26&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 16:7&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 8:26&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Component&quot; of God who lives in the Elect (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John14:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 14:17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:12-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Philippians 2:12-13&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revealer of Truth (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 16:13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%202:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 2:14&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%202:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 2:16&lt;/a&gt;, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T02:38:17.040" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T02:38:17.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2871" CreationDate="2011-09-15T20:23:19.523" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always understood God's will to be made of multiple parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Decreetive&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is God's as-yet-unrevealed (ie, being-revealed) decree of the universe&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Preceptive&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is God's descriptive will as expressed in His Word, the Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Application&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; what God's hidden purposes and plans are. However, we can analyze every act of human action and of divine providence against what He has revealed in His Word, and see how either a) it falls short of His glory/will, or b) proceeds towards His glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T17:36:17.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2885" CreationDate="2011-09-15T20:38:34.167" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The core idea behind this doctrine (usually referred to as &amp;quot;Exaltation&amp;quot;) is that the LDS church teaches that our spirits are literal children of God.  Offspring are the same species as the parent, and can thus grow and develop to become like the parent.  The idea of God once being a man, or man becoming a god, are extensions of this doctrine.  This is often summarized (as @Narian quotes) via the quip &amp;quot;As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are requirements that must be met before this can happen.  They are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;having faith in Jesus Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;repenting of your sins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;being baptized by those holding His authority&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(for men) receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;being &amp;quot;sealed&amp;quot; to your spouse&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;adhering faithfully to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the rest of your life (which includes paying tithing, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all those requirements are met, then the LDS church teaches that such people will inherit the highest degree of glory God can offer.  The Doctrine and Covenants (part of the LDS canon) describe this inheritance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19-20?lang=eng#18&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 132:19-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(updated)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are places where this doctrine is alluded to in the Bible.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/3.21?lang=eng#20&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rev 3:21 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Jesus Christ is saying that those who overcome the tribulations of the world will be seated with Him on His throne, just as He received that same blessing from the Father.  A throne here can be symbolic of kingship, government, godhood, power, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/8.16-17?lang=eng#15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rom 8:16-17 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As children of God, we have the potential to inherit everything that Jesus Christ inherited, namely godhood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of polygamy in Heaven was mentioned in another answer.  This is not official doctrine.  I'm not aware of anywhere it's taught in the LDS &amp;quot;Standard Works&amp;quot; (OT, NT, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price).  I do know that early church leaders (Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? perhaps others) may have taught this, but &lt;em&gt;it is no longer taught&lt;/em&gt; and is no longer considered official doctrine (to my knowledge).  The primary answer given to questions like that is &amp;quot;we'll find out when we get there.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T20:54:47.900" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2880" CreationDate="2011-09-15T20:42:20.597" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was a militant sect in the first century known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot_%28Judaism%29#Kanaim_of_the_1st_century&quot;&gt;Kanai&lt;/a&gt; or Zealots. One of Jesus' apostles was named &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the_Zealot&quot;&gt;Simon the Zealot&lt;/a&gt;. Some scholars think he might have been associated with this group, but the best evidence seems to suggest the Zealots as a political organization did not exist until decades after Jesus' time. In any case, he was not the same person as Simon Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A splinter group known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii&quot;&gt;Sicarii&lt;/a&gt; carried concealed daggers to kill Romans and Roman sympathizers. Some scholars have tried to suggest that Judas' second name Iscariot is a Hellenized version of Sicarii, but again the best evidence suggests they were not active until much later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Peter's drawing the sword, the most plausible suggestion I've heard is that he was impulsive and often spoke or acted before considering the consequences, just like when:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he tried to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+14:28-30&quot;&gt;walk on water&lt;/a&gt; following Jesus example, but couldn't&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+16:21-23&quot;&gt;rebuked Jesus&lt;/a&gt; for talking about suffering and dying&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/passage.aspx?q=luke+22:33-34&quot;&gt;promised Jesus that he would never deny him&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2011-09-15T21:21:58.490" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T21:21:58.490" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2879" CreationDate="2011-09-15T20:48:00.250" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Biblical pacifist argument is usually founded in the Sermon on the Mount, which is held to prohibit any kind of violence (going beyond the law of Moses):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I tell you, &amp;quot;Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.&amp;quot; (Matthew 5:39, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quaker philosopher Robert Barclay wrote in his &lt;em&gt;Apology for the True Christian Divinity&lt;/em&gt; (1675), ch. 15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever can reconcile this, &amp;quot;Resist not evil&amp;quot;, with &amp;quot;Resist violence by force&amp;quot;, again, &amp;quot;Give also thy other cheek&amp;quot;, with &amp;quot;Strike again&amp;quot;; also &amp;quot;Love thine enemies&amp;quot;, with &amp;quot;Spoil them, make a prey of them, pursue them with fire and the sword&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Pray for those that persecute you, and those that calumniate you&amp;quot;, with &amp;quot;Persecute them by fines, imprisonments and death itself&amp;quot;, whoever, I say, can find a means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Antichrist, Light with Darkness, and good with evil. But if this be impossible, as indeed it is impossible, so will also the other be impossible, and men do but deceive both themselves and others, while they boldly adventure to establish such absurd and impossible things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also appeals to John 18:36 (&amp;quot;My kingdom is not of this world&amp;quot;) and 2 Corinthians 10:4 (&amp;quot;The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world&amp;quot;) among other passages from the Bible, as well as from the Church Fathers (like Jerome: &amp;quot;The Church was founded by shedding of blood, and by suffering, and not in doing of hurt. The Church increased by persecutions, and was crowned by martyrdom&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding Paul's words in Romans 13, Barclay argues (in ch. 14) that the state has no authority over matters of Christian conscience. This is justified in that Paul was writing about Nero, who was not Christian, and therefore incapable of being a proper judge of what it is right for Christians to do. If Nero had unlimited authority then &amp;quot;in doing thereof he was not to be blamed; which is enough to justify him in his persecuting of the apostles, and murdering the Christians&amp;quot;. If Nero had asked Paul to stop preaching the gospel, and to worship the Roman gods instead, would he really have done so? In fact, Paul was imprisoned and executed instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Equally, in the text, Paul was advising Christians what to do when governmental authority is brought to bear against them. He is not giving &lt;em&gt;carte blanche&lt;/em&gt; to Christians in government to do whatever they like. Barclay says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the magistrate be truly a Christian, or desires to be so, he ought himself in the first place to obey the command of his Master, saying, &amp;quot;Love your enemies,&amp;quot; &amp;amp;c., and then he could not command us to kill them: but if he be not a true Christian, then ought we to obey our Lord and King Jesus Christ, to whom he ought also to obey: for in the Kingdom of Christ all ought to submit to his laws, from the highest to the lowest, that is, from the king to the beggar, and from Caesar to the clown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One argument among pacifists is whether one is obliged to submit to the government's punishment for refusing to take up arms, or whether it is acceptable to, say, flee to another country. Paul's words here are sometimes quoted in support of the former position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T20:48:00.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2900" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2923" CreationDate="2011-09-15T21:29:50.380" Score="32" ViewCount="13634" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mental illness is a fairly recent idea (in terms of human history).  As far as I know, the concept did not exist at all at the time the Bible was written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard some Christians speculate that some of the instances of demon possession recorded in the Bible may have been cases of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses. For example (many others exist):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%208:16-17&amp;amp;version=ASV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 8:16-17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; And when even was come, they brought unto him many possessed with demons: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible that some/all &amp;quot;demon possessions&amp;quot; in the Bible were simply cases of curing mental illnesses?  If the answer is &amp;quot;some,&amp;quot; can we know the difference, and if so how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-09-06T01:14:25.937" Title="Mental Illness vs. Demon Possession" Tags="&lt;demons&gt;&lt;mental-illness&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="7" ClosedDate="2014-08-11T13:44:41.740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2901" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2902" CreationDate="2011-09-15T21:44:28.703" Score="22" ViewCount="847" Body="&lt;p&gt;A follow-up to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2885/what-is-the-mormon-doctrine-regarding-becoming-a-god&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, if the LDS church teaches that men can become gods, how does it reconcile this with the concept that there is only one God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 45:5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the LORD, and there is no other; &#xA;     apart from me there is no God. &#xA;  I will strengthen you, &#xA;     though you have not acknowledged me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:3&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You shall have no other gods before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2016-03-21T04:52:50.773" Title="How does LDS doctrine reconcile monotheism with men becoming gods?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2901" CreationDate="2011-09-15T22:00:33.020" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose if you wanted to split hairs, you could &lt;em&gt;technically&lt;/em&gt; consider the LDS faith to be polytheistic, since Mormons believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost to be separate and distinct individuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of that, it's pretty simple.  Mormons worship God the Father, through the Son.  While we believe that there are other gods out there, they are not our God.  I find that an analogy helps me think about this clearly: At work, I have one boss.  He is my boss and no one else is.  There are other bosses, but I do not report to them, they do not affect my quarterly reviews, and I don't really interact with them in any sort of manager-underling relationship.  The same goes for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2011-09-15T22:00:33.020" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2904" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-16T00:27:45.167" Score="21" ViewCount="1152" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is to rephrase the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2867/are-scientific-findings-a-test-to-christians-faith&quot;&gt;Are scientific findings a test to Christians&amp;#39; Faith?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that, without any outside interference, the Bible itself gives no suggestion that the Book of Genesis should be taken any other way than how it's written. There are many places in the Bible that quote the book of Genesis literally (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016:26,29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 16:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 31:17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016:26,29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 23:3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%205:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 5:13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 13:14&lt;/a&gt;, etc). Conversely, there is no Scripture that &quot;gives us the meaning&quot;, or interprets the book of Genesis in any other way, except literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why is it that Old Earth Creationists (OEC) do not believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers regarding scientific &quot;evidence&quot; are not the kind of answers that I'm looking for. I'm looking for the approach to the Bible that yields an Old Earth interpretation...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2014-02-07T09:40:49.163" Title="Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2904" CreationDate="2011-09-16T01:22:11.613" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason that many would discount a literal interpretation (in the sense of a historical reading) of the books of the Bible is more to do with an acknowledgement that they weren't primarily written with intent to convey history, but to teach us something about God's relationship with us. There's a lot of literary study involved in fleshing out all the various points, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; is one that I find to have a good description of this reasoning. It is all the Catholic perspective, of course, as the Catholic Church does not tend to hold to such a strict style of interpretation of the writings in the Bible at the effort of creating a timeline of events in history for the sake of a history lesson.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, this is the section entitled &lt;strong&gt;Creation of the world&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In an article on Biblical chronology it is hardly necessary in these days to discuss the date of the Creation. At least 200 dates have been suggested, varying from 3483 to 6934 years B.C., all based on the supposition that the Bible enables us to settle the point. But it does nothing of the sort. It was natural that in the early days of the Church, the Fathers, writing with little scientific knowledge, should have had a tendency to explain the days of Genesis, i, as natural days of twenty-four hours. Still, they by no means all did so. Thus the Alexandrian Fathers (St. Clement, Origen, St. Athanasius, and St. Cyril) interpreted the days of Creation ideally, and held that God created all things simultaneously. So did St. Augustine; and St. Thomas Aquinas hesitated between idealism and literalism. The literal interpretation has now been entirely abandoned; and the world is admitted to be of immense antiquity. Professor Dana declares its age to be fifty millions of years; others suggest figures still more startling (cf. Buibert, &quot;In the Beginning&quot;; Molloy, &quot;Geology and Revelation&quot;; Hummelauer, &quot;Genesis&quot;; Hastings, &quot;Dictionary of the Bible&quot;; Mangenot in Vig., &quot;Dict. de la Bible&quot;; Driver, &quot;Genesis&quot;. Perhaps the words of Genesis (i, 2): &quot;The earth was void and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep&quot;, refer to the first phase of the Creation, the astronomical, before the geological period began. On such questions we have no Biblical evidence, and the Catholic is quite free to follow the teaching of science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I, myself, primarily as a person with a scientific inclination in thought, and one who desires to understand Scripture in the way that I understand it was treated historically, and in the effort to obtain the truth in its purest form, whatever my preconceptions, I share this interpretation of the Bible. While I'm a Catholic, that is more of a happy coincidence, as I formed my approach before learning how the Church at large does it. I accept the disciplines of science to be a part of this quest for the truth, and as such, truth of God passed down by Scriptures, properly understood, should not contradict with the knowledge gained from scientific discoveries, properly deduced. And so I will accept the prevailing view of the scientific community regarding evolution and the formation of the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting side point is that the theory of the Big Bang actually was first proposed by a Catholic priest (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Georges Lemaître&lt;/a&gt;) and at its proposal, was initially met with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Religious_interpretations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;skepticism&lt;/a&gt; in part because of its perceived relationship with theological ideas such as creation &lt;em&gt;ex nihilo&lt;/em&gt;. However, it now is the dominant theory, and through this model (and other techniques) scientists have been able to extrapolate an estimated age of the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR version&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my New American Bible, a paragraph in the preface to the book of Genesis addresses this issue very succinctly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The interpreter of Genesis will recognize at once the distinct object that sets chapters 1-11 apart: the recounting of the origin of the world and of man (primeval history). To make the truths contained in these chapters intelligible to the Israelite people destined to preserve them, they needed to be expressed through elements prevailing among that people at that time. For this reason, the truths themselves must therefore be clearly distinguished from their literary garb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="268" LastEditorUserId="268" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T23:40:54.127" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T23:40:54.127" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2904" CreationDate="2011-09-16T01:25:58.293" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue is not that OECs have a &quot;weak faith,&quot; but we believe we are taking a more appropriate view of the scripture. Indeed, if the text is written metaphorically (as we believe), then reading it literally is the weaker position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't want to read my rather long (yet still way too short to pay true justice to this topic) answer, I suggest jumping down to my &lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt; section, for a summary of why I believe the OEC view pays proper respect to scripture, and is the logical view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic arguments (that I'm aware of) to support the OEC interpretation of Genesis, are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;1. Character of God&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I touched on in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/130/can-i-believe-in-evolution-and-still-be-a-christian/150#150&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, an important Biblical principle is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 19:1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens declare the glory of God;&#xA;     the skies proclaim the work of his hands. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is revealed through His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 6:18&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...it is impossible for God to lie...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Together, I take this to mean that God's creation, and his scripture must be reconcilable.  Any (good) science will not contradict any (good) interpretation of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an important backdrop when reading the rest of this answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;2. Contextual&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several clues directly in Genesis that the creation account is not meant to be taken literally.  Some good examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Morning&quot; and &quot;evening&quot; pass before the sun is created.  Either the sun literally existed before it was described in Genesis, or there were no literal days until the sun was created. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1177/20&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;. A third hypothesis is that the early days of creation meant &quot;24 hour periods,&quot; and not specifically &quot;days&quot; as we know them now.  But then why refer to &quot;evening&quot; and &quot;morning&quot;?  Either the word &quot;day&quot; is metaphor, or &quot;evening&quot; and &quot;morning&quot; are metaphor. In any case, this aspect of the creation account &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; be taken completely literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At minimum &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; of the key words (&quot;sun&quot;, &quot;day&quot;, and/or &quot;morning/evening&quot;) cannot have the same literal meaning it has today.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The seventh day never ended. This seems to be an indication that the days are metaphorical, and that we are presently living in the seventh &quot;day.&quot; At the very least, it indicates that the 7th day was somehow distinct and special from the 6 others.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Genesis 2 account of creation doesn't precisely agree with the Genesis 1 account of creation, in terms of order of creation. Man appears to be created before plants, then later placed in &quot;the garden.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2 describes a number of events that happened between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God planted a garden in Eden&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam worked in and cared for the garden&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam named all of the animals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Working and caring for a garden is clearly not a one-day task.  Nor is naming all of the animals, nor discovering, in this process, that none of the animals are suitable helpers for Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;3. Textual&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I discussed some of this in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/642/what-is-the-specific-meaning-of-day-in-genesis-1/648#648&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, but will elaborate further here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word for day (Yom) used in Genesis 1 has many meanings: (a) Some portion of the daylight (hours), (b) Sunrise to sunset, (c) Sunset to sunset, (d) A segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch) &lt;em&gt;[i.e. &quot;In my grandfather's day&quot; or &quot;in the day of the dinosaurs]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YECs have several arguments for why Yom in this context means 24-hour day, but they all fall short.  I'll discuss two here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Claim:&lt;/strong&gt; The phrase &quot;evening and morning&quot; &lt;em&gt;&quot;is used 38 times in the Old testament, not counting Genesis 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24-hour-type day.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Response:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the word &quot;day&quot; (or yom) appears in none of these examples. The word's plural form occurs only in 1 Samuel 7:16. In only a few of the 38 examples do the words &quot;evening&quot; and &quot;morning&quot; appear in the same sentence or verse. The phrase &quot;evening and morning&quot; appears only one time, in Psalm 55:17. David said, &quot;Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray&quot; (KJV). However, even this occurrence is of little relevance. The expression being considered--&quot;and there was evening, and there was morning&quot;--appears only in Genesis 1.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Claim:&lt;/strong&gt; 358 out of 359 times Yom is used in the Bible, outside of Genesis 1 and with an ordinal modifier, it represents a 24-hour day.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Response:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only 249 of these uses use the singular form of 'Yom', and all 249 are in the context of human activity.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Genesis 1 is clearly referring to divine activity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Morning to morning&quot; or &quot;evening to evening&quot; are common ways of denoting days in Hebrew, however the phrasing &quot;and was evening, and was morning&quot; is unique to Genesis 1, which seems to indicate that these days were unique in some special way.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;4. History&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, the church has had a very &lt;em&gt;non&lt;/em&gt;-dogmatic view on this issue.  Most recorded commentary on this issue has approached the matter mostly as a matter of idle musings, and of little or no real spiritual significance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The portion of Genesis 1 that describes the six creation days receives more commentary from early church scholars than does any other text in the Bible. However, of the approximately 2,000 pages they wrote (a commentary called the Hexameron), only about two pages address the duration of the creation days. Clearly, the early church fathers did not consider the length of these days a major doctrinal point.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, Jewish and Christian scholars have not considered the creation account to mean a 6 literal day creation. The earliest scholars to even address the issue (around 13 B.C) believed that God instantaneously created everything, and that the 6 days were purely figurative of order and completeness.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine spoke the most strongly on the matter, saying: &quot;As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think--let alone explain in words--what they mean.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; and &quot;But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;5. Science&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a plethora of scientific evidence that suggests the world appears to be much older than YECs claim. Although YECs naturally dispute much of this evidence as weak science, but many of these claims require distorting science.  I openly admit that science does not have all the answers about the creation of the world yet, and never will.  However, that does not change that many of the scientific principles used to date the earth and/or the universe are very hard to dispute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You specifically asked not for scientific evidence in support of the OEC view, so I won't go into any detail here.  That would be well beyond the scope of this site anyway.  I'll only mention one example briefly, and further reiterate my point made above about the Character of God--that God does not lie, and that creation reveals Him.  Therefore, whatever &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; science says about the Universe must, IMO, be true, as a true reflection of God through his creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one example I want to mention, is the simple deductive reasoning that gives astronomers an approximate age for the universe of somewhere around 14 billion years. Read the full details &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, but the nutshell version is that by using red/blue-shifting, we are able to observe how quickly the universe is expanding. By doing some backwards math, we can calculate that the universe was all at a single point ~14 billion years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard some YECs argue against this by suggesting that light must have traveled faster in the past, giving the universe the appearance of greater age (due to greater distance between galaxies). However, if the speed of light was not constant, the formation of our life-sustaining sun would not be possible.  As the 'c' in E=mc&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; stands for the speed of light, if that changes, then either the E (energy) or m (mass), or both, must also change accordingly. If this theory was right then &quot;either Adam and Eve would have been incinerated by the Sun's trillionfold increase in heat or the elements essential for building their human bodies would not exist.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another theory is that light travels faster (or takes a short cut) over vast distances in space.  This theory came out before much work on Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has since proven this theory implausible.&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believing in an old earth does not at all detract from the authority one believes the Bible holds.  It's not a matter of believing that the bible is &quot;wrong&quot;--it's a matter of believing that that prose ought to be interpreted as prose, and that scientific literature ought to be interpreted as scientific literature--and swapping those in either direction &lt;em&gt;detracts&lt;/em&gt; from a proper understanding of the thoughts the author intended to communicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interpreting anything &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; literally is NOT doing it a service, no matter how pure the intentions of the interpretor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, from a scientific perspective, I think it's easy to forgive the early church scholars for interpreting the Genesis creation account without any (meaningful--from a modern perspective) scientific perspective.  However, if the YEC position held any weight in terms of literature or hermeneutics, surely these scholars would have picked up on &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To believe either of the overarching views, a few &quot;concessions&quot; must be made:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To believe in an Old-Earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Genesis creation account is metaphorical, and not written as a scientific text.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The flood account is told from the perspective of those writing it, for whom the entire known earth did flood, but not necessarily the entire literal earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To believe in a Young-Earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God arbitrarily chooses use words that have practically no meaning (&quot;day,&quot; &quot;morning,&quot; and &quot;evening&quot; prior to the sun existing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God gave Adam super-human powers, or made the 6th day extremely long, or performed some other miracle to allow Adam to name all of the animals in a single day.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God created the earth with the appearance of age&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God teleported animals to and from the Ark from/to multiple continents&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Well established scientific principles are flatly wrong, despite independent verification by many people (both religions and non-religious) over many years, in some cases over centuries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reconcile personally that these apparent contradictions don't make God a liar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, the first set of &quot;concessions&quot; is much easier to make.  It only asks me to read literature in the context it was written.  It doesn't ask me to believe what would appear, to an external observer, to be a bunch of fairy tales.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Postscript&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a final note, an observation that doesn't necessarily add any weight to the OEC position--so I mention it here, and not in my main arguments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OEC is much less of a stumbling block for most non-Christians, because it doesn't require them to make what can easily be considered an &quot;absurd&quot; leap of faith, to believe that science is flatly wrong, etc.  In the words of Dr. Joshua Zorn:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The worst aspect of YECS teaching is that it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor, &lt;em&gt;Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross&lt;/em&gt; p. 73&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Hugh Ross, &lt;em&gt;A Matter of Days&lt;/em&gt;, p. 74&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Ross, p. 76&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;Dr. Joshua Zorn, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://paleo.cc/paluxy/joshzorn.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;Ross, p. 42&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;Aurelius Augustinus, &lt;em&gt;The City of God, Book XI, Chapter 6&lt;/em&gt;, 14:196&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;Aurelius Augustinus, &lt;em&gt;The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book Five, Chapter 2&lt;/em&gt;, as translated and anotated by John Hammond Taylor, vol. 1, books 1-6 p. 148&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;Ross, p. 165&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;Ross, p. 166&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2014-01-19T05:33:17.960" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2907" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2909" CreationDate="2011-09-16T02:09:10.570" Score="13" ViewCount="367" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:51-52&amp;amp;version=NCV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 14:51-52&lt;/a&gt;, there is this reference to a man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;51&lt;/strong&gt; A young man, wearing only a linen cloth, was following Jesus, and the people also grabbed him. &lt;strong&gt;52&lt;/strong&gt; But the cloth he was wearing came off, and he ran away naked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who is this guy? Why is he mentioned? Does he have anything to do with the current situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2013-03-07T15:29:11.897" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T15:29:11.897" Title="Who is the young man mentioned in Mark 14:51?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2883" CreationDate="2011-09-16T02:10:41.967" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Claim:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Augustine taught that deaf people (without today's cochlear implants) wouldn't be able to be saved merely because they wouldn't be able to hear people telling them about the Gospel.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The claim is just false.&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Granted, Augustine did call deafness a &quot;hindrance to faith&quot; -- but in the sense of making faith difficult, but not entirely preventing it. Remarkably Augustine saw the potential of deaf people to learn and thus receive faith. In &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.augustinus.it/latino/grandezza_anima/grandezza_anima.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;De quantitate animae liber unus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, chapter 18, he notes the ability of deaf people to communicate by signs, and indicates that the signs pertain to the soul just as speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=eP-nI-saITYC&amp;amp;lpg=PA4&amp;amp;ots=3ySGxxn0P6&amp;amp;dq=augustine%20faith%20hearing%20deaf&amp;amp;pg=PA4#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Van Cleve, J.V., Crouch, B.A. &lt;em&gt;A place of their own: creating the deaf community in America.&lt;/em&gt; p. 4-6.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the verse, common sense is a good guideline for interpretation, unless someone can show a new reason to take it ultra-literally. You can &quot;hear&quot; about someone by reading their letter, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T02:58:32.697" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T02:58:32.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2907" CreationDate="2011-09-16T02:17:21.477" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of only a very few incidents in the Gospel of Mark that does not appear anywhere else in the other three Gospels.  Some commentators have speculated, based on that, that the young man &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; Mark, referring to himself in the third person much as John did.  But that's just speculation; as far as I know there are no other passages that refer to our unfortunate anonymous disciple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T02:17:21.477" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2901" CreationDate="2011-09-16T02:28:31.397" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;LDS doctrine reconciles the two concepts quite easily, in fact.  From &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.35?lang=eng#35&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moses 1:35&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The revelations we are given are limited in scope to this world and the people living on it, and how they can find salvation.  And &lt;em&gt;within that scope, they are correct.&lt;/em&gt;  Any knowledge beyond that does not affect us, nor does it have any bearing on where we'll end up spending eternity, so we don't really need to worry about it; we've already got our hands full with trying to live up to the basics!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T02:28:31.397" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2911" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2942" CreationDate="2011-09-16T03:00:51.483" Score="13" ViewCount="4084" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians believe Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Isaiah&amp;amp;verse=7:14&amp;amp;src=1000&quot;&gt;Isaiah 7:14&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore Christians believe that the only Son of God is Our Lord Jesus Christ. (Apostles Creed)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And since Christ = Messiah and Lord = Elohim, Christians believe the Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity with two natures, fully man and fully divine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the Jews, who are still in expectation of a Messiah, expect that when He came that the Messiah would also be God, or were they expecting someone less magnificent? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T05:47:52.827" LastActivityDate="2015-09-20T03:00:25.317" Title="Were the Jews expecting God Incarnate?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2912" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2918" CreationDate="2011-09-16T03:04:29.080" Score="15" ViewCount="399" Body="&lt;p&gt;For that matter, &lt;strong&gt;why aren't we annihilated if we reject Jesus?&lt;/strong&gt;  Particularly if there is no posthumous &quot;second chance?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the record, I resonate with C.S. Lewis' notion that, perhaps, the &quot;&lt;strong&gt;doors of hell are locked from the inside&lt;/strong&gt;,&quot; but I would love to know more about scripture and other works that explore this territory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="665" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T04:42:19.183" Title="Is there any scripture or literature exploring why God chose not to annihilate Satan?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-21T03:03:45.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2883" CreationDate="2011-09-16T03:48:06.820" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can take that verse as literally as you want, so long as you understand what all of the words mean. I believe that the key to it all is &quot;&lt;strong&gt;unless someone tells them?&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tell by definition means to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;give a full account of; to narrate; to make know; to communicate; to give instructions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you can do that to a deaf person, then Scripture stands firm. You must always understand the Scripture and not always use it for quote mining.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="100" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T04:10:04.860" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T04:10:04.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2911" CreationDate="2011-09-16T03:55:42.720" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes and No&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were some spiritually aware individuals among the Jews who were expecting the Messiah: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/mary-simeon-anna.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Simeon and Anna&lt;/a&gt;. However, most Jews were almost certainly anticipating what Christians call the second coming: what is mentioned in Isaiah 2:1-4, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and&#xA;  Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the&#xA;  mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the&#xA;  mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall&#xA;  flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go&#xA;  up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and&#xA;  he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out&#xA;  of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from&#xA;  Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many&#xA;  people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their&#xA;  spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against&#xA;  nation, neither shall they learn war any more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="666" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-21T14:54:20.083" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T14:54:20.083" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2900" CreationDate="2011-09-16T04:09:30.483" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's definitely two ways of looking at things when it comes to this premise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The first point of view&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Demons are real and they can cause distortion of mental abilities as well as seizures and other illness'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The second point of view&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Demons are not real. Mental illnesses are a type of demon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that in either case, it is possible that &lt;strong&gt;some&lt;/strong&gt; mental illnesses are just an illness without a demon behind them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T04:09:30.483" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2832" CreationDate="2011-09-16T04:28:08.783" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not praying would be second guessing God.  He says, &quot;Ask and you will receive.&quot;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=luke&amp;amp;verse=11:9&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 11:9&lt;/a&gt; / Mat 7:7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the other half of the equation would be to, &quot;Seek first the kingdom and the will of God, and all these things will be given to you&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=matthew&amp;amp;verse=6:33&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 6:33&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't mean that you have to over-analyze your prayer, God knows what is happening in your hearts and he knows how people think. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=john&amp;amp;verse=2:24&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 2:24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He directs all things and nothing happens that was not His will. But, as said he would do for Abraham, He can relent in His just punishments. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Genesis%20&amp;amp;verse=18:16-33&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 18:16-33&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as St. Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1thessalonians/1thessalonians5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Thes 5:17-18 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key is to be thankful in your prayer, even if the woman doesn't get any better, God's will is done. How could God's will not be done?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T04:35:28.177" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T04:35:28.177" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2912" CreationDate="2011-09-16T04:40:30.323" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a notion, I think it may only be a Catholic notion, that God loves us even in Hell.  It is we who choose not to be with Him and He loves us so much that He respects our freewill to choose darkness over light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't even want to do a Google on &quot;God loves us in Hell&quot; for fear of what I might find, but suffice it to say, I heard a priest on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.relevantradio.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;relevant radio&lt;/a&gt; talking about this two weeks ago and it stood out in my mind as a little strange, but in light of your question, it makes sense as an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem as though God does not totally annihilate any of His creation out of love for us, although how any of us can know such a thing is beyond human reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T04:40:30.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2912" CreationDate="2011-09-16T04:42:19.183" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What happens to Satan?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament is the story of Christ's victory over sin and death. This happened with his death and resurrection, but the final accomplishment of his victory is delayed until the end of time. Matthew 25:31-46 quotes Jesus saying that at that time, he will return to judge all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15:22-26 explains (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of Revelation covers this topic in detail. Towards the end (20:10) we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the final end of the devil (and of hell and death, 20:14, and &amp;quot;anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life&amp;quot;, 20:15). God's choice for Satan is not annihilation, but eternal suffering, and that only begins once the &amp;quot;heavens and earth pass away&amp;quot; (21:1). Until then, Satan remains active in the world and retains the ability to tempt people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can God annihilate Satan, or anything else?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The glib answer is &amp;quot;Sure, why not?&amp;quot;. Aquinas taught that God certainly &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; annihilate anything (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1104.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 104.3&lt;/a&gt;) on the grounds that God is omnipotent. But he then (104.4) quotes Ecclesiastes 3:14,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to say that he chooses not to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why eternal torment, not just annihilation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine discusses this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120121.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt; 21.11&lt;/a&gt;. His basic argument is that our sin (equally, the devil's) is deserving of infinite punishment because it is an offence against God, and therefore infinitely severe. Aquinas (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5099.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 99.1&lt;/a&gt;) expounds some other reasons as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For he who falls into mortal sin of his own will puts himself in a state whence he cannot be rescued, except God help him: wherefore from the very fact that he is willing to sin, he is willing to remain in sin for ever. [...] Thus if a man were to throw himself into a pit whence he could not get out without help, one might say that he wished to remain there for ever, whatever else he may have thought himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another and a better answer is that from the very fact that he commits a mortal sin, he places his end in a creature; and since the whole of life is directed to its end, it follows that for this very reason he directs the whole of his life to that sin, and is willing to remain in sin forever, if he could do so with impunity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aquinas also says that since, once you have died, you no longer have the ability to choose, you are equally deserving of punishment or reward at any future point after your death. Some people do think that God's mercy will extend to forgiving all people, and even Satan himself, or that we will get another chance after death to accept God. Augustine doesn't have a very good argument against it - he just calls them &amp;quot;tender-hearted&amp;quot; and moves on. This area is highly contested even today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a sense, then, in which being in hell forever is a fitting end for those who choose it (as Judas is called &amp;quot;the one who chose to be lost&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the son of perdition&amp;quot; in John 17:12). Under the interpretation of hell as eternal separation from God, those who have chosen to be separated from God (by remaining in sin) get exactly what they wanted, except it turns out not be as nice as they had hoped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is pretty much exactly what Dante describes in the &lt;em&gt;Divine Comedy&lt;/em&gt;. In his Hell, the punishment sinners receive isn't some ironically appropriate retribution - it is the sin itself, but without any comforting illusion. It's also what Lewis writes about in &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/em&gt;, except that he imagines people being able to choose even after death. Lewis's grey city is just what its inhabitants want it to be, unfortunately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T04:42:19.183" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2911" CreationDate="2011-09-16T05:07:05.350" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes they were, in fact the problem was not that they were expecting something less than God in the flesh, the problem was they were not expecting a lowly appearance. They expected his return in glory and judgment when he establishes peace forever -- what we now understand will happen at his second coming. It was his humanity, not his divinity, that tripped them up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T17:32:28.477" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T17:32:28.477" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2306" CreationDate="2011-09-16T09:19:57.437" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, He will create a New Heaven and a New Earth. He will recreate &lt;strong&gt;everything&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2021:1-5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:1-5&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;emphasis mine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I saw a &lt;strong&gt;new heaven&lt;/strong&gt; and a &lt;strong&gt;new earth&lt;/strong&gt;, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making &lt;strong&gt;everything new&lt;/strong&gt;!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T09:19:57.437" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="256" CreationDate="2011-09-16T10:12:06.170" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I cannot provide a better answer then the answer provided by the LCMS (The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod). This is taken from the LCMS FAQ:&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&amp;amp;id=537&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt; Doctrinal Issues - Baptism.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the role of infant baptism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q: How does faith play a role in infant Baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates the gift of faith in a person's heart. Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about Baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim.3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: Lutherans believe that through infant baptism God creates faith in the heart of the infant, this faith is present though it cannot be shown outwardly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about unbaptized babies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;There is some basis for the hope that God has a method, not revealed to us, by which He works faith in the children of Christians dying without Baptism (Mark 10:13-16). For children of unbelievers we do not venture to hold out such hope. We are here entering the field of the unsearchable judgments of God&amp;quot; (Romans 11:33).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the basis of such hope? It is this, that God is not Himself bound by the means to the use of which He has bound us. That is to say that while Christ has commanded us to baptize all nations, God can save sinners without Baptism. He did so throughout the entire Old Testament. During the first 2,000 years we know of no special means of grace for little children. At the time of Abraham He instituted circumcision, but He did not thereby provide for little girls. It is for God to determine under what conditions He will receive children into His kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A most encouraging instance for the Holy Spirit's power to influence even unborn infants in a spiritual way is found in Luke 1:15, 41, 44, where it is stated that the unborn John the Baptist leaped for joy within his mother's womb when the unborn Jesus was brought into his presence by His mother Mary. Behind all this is the all-encompassing Gospel pronouncement that &amp;quot;God was in Christ, reconciling the world [including the little children] unto Himself&amp;quot; (2 Cor. 5:19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the second point we might say: Whether individual Lutheran pastors have ever baptized stillborn children immediately upon their arrival, we do not know, and to our knowledge such practice has never been sanctioned by our church. Nor should it be sanctioned. The means of grace, including Baptism, are for the living only (Heb. 9:27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion. Published by: LCMS Church Information Center&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: Lutherans believe that Baptism is for the living only, however, God may have created a means to save those who were not baptized or not able to be baptized (stillborn, or died quickly and unexpectedly shortly after childbirth). This hope is based on the fact that God has shown himself capable of saving without baptism and may still continue to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="577" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-07-17T15:00:04.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2133" CreationDate="2011-09-16T14:43:14.660" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%204.%20On%20the%20infallible%20teaching%20authority%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Vatican I&lt;/a&gt; defined it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A true pope (not an antipope or heretic claiming to be the pope), when speaking on a matter of faith or morals (not economics or science) when speaking to the universal Church (not a letter to a friend) is guided by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;when the Roman pontiff speaks &lt;strong&gt;EX CATHEDRA&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;that is, when,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he defines a &lt;strong&gt;doctrine concerning faith or morals&lt;/strong&gt; to be held by the &lt;strong&gt;whole church&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-09-06T16:09:33.503" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="2923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2900" CreationDate="2011-09-16T14:58:27.997" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there are four ways one can look at this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Medical perspective&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are no well-documented cases of demon possession today among vast numbers of illnesses; various mental health problems have been tracked down often to a physical cause (even if we don't understand all the details of how the flaws work).  (See Wikipedia articles on epilepsy, schizophrenia, and so on.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historical accounts of people acting weirdly are generally consistent with the illnesses diagnosed (and treated, to some extent) today.  Since there is no evidence for demon possession, and a quite satisfactory alternative hypothesis (allowing for some exaggerations during telling), we should conclude that there never was any demon possession; that the Bible mentions possession is just a historical artifact of how mental illness symptoms were viewed at the time of the New Testament (note that the Old Testament is curiously free of cases of demonic possession).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Orthodox perspective&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible says there were demons, for example in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%208:28-8:34&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 8:28-29&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Jesus Heals Two Men with Demons&lt;/b&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;And behold, they cried out, &amp;quot;What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there were certainly demons then.  No one group can lay completely exclusive undisputed claim to the title &amp;quot;Orthodox&amp;quot;, but that this was the historical view seems reasonably clear just from reading the Gospels.  Modern groups that take the title Orthodox also tend to take this view: there are also demons now, even if they're more discreet than they used to be.  Nonetheless, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwayoflife.blogspot.com/2009/10/spiritual-deception-do-demons-exist.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;demons still affect us and need to be battled&lt;/a&gt;, and they &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7079&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;still possess people&lt;/a&gt; (and can be exorcised).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Unification perspective&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Demonic possession and mental illnesses are two different ways to look at the same thing.  When we say someone is &lt;em&gt;possessed by jealousy&lt;/em&gt;, we don't mean that there is an evil spirit called Jealousy that is taking control of our actions.  Instead, we mean that they are in a particular mood, one which induces them to do things that they might sorely regret were they in a calmer state of mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this view, &amp;quot;demonic possession&amp;quot; is a spiritual perspective on mental illness: mental illness is a flaw ultimately enabled by evil, and so without the perspective of modern medicine, it is entirely reasonable to call states of mental dysfunction &amp;quot;demonic possession&amp;quot; (in the possessed by jealousy sense).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Diversification perspective&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some mental illnesses and some demon possessions, and if something was called a &amp;quot;demon possession&amp;quot; in the New Testament but sounds like a mental illness, it was probably a mental illness.  (This view blends into the Orthodox view, depending on whether &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; Biblical accounts of possession can be attributed to non-demonic mental illness instead.  Many Orthodox churches recognize mental illness as a phenomenon.  The Catholic Church in particular &lt;a href=&quot;http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/01/31/how-priests-tell-between-demonic-possession-and-mental-illness/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;clearly recognizes mental illness as well as demonic possession&lt;/a&gt;, and I do not know whether doctrine indicates that some apparent cases of demonic possession should be understood as mental illness instead.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given a perspective, one can answer whether some/all cases of demon possession were actually mental illness.  In the first and third views, they all were; in the fourth, some were, but picking out which was which is hard to do reliably (would require scriptural support, of which there is none that I am aware).  In the second, no, demon possession was really the problem, just like it says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-09-06T01:14:25.937" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2306" CreationDate="2011-09-16T15:15:01.387" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are instances where God created a few things, but nothing like the original creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He created the languages at the Tower of Babel.  He created the manna in the desert, along with the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night.  He created food for 5,000+ from a small lunch.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T15:15:01.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2925" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3060" CreationDate="2011-09-16T15:40:18.457" Score="6" ViewCount="2648" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is particularly confusing and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Office_of_Our_Lady&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; entry is not helpful.  I've worn a scapular since going to World Youth Day in 2005, but I've never asked a priest to consecrate my devotion.  The reason is, I don't know what the &quot;Little Office of Our Lady&quot; is in connection with the Scapular, it appears to be both a psalter (a book that repeats a lot) or 3 Hail Marys to pray daily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hail Mary's I can handle, another prayer book would be a stretch and I'd rather just pray the Liturgy of the Hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Handbook of Prayers, which contains the rite of consecration, it says that the devotion requires devotees to pray the Little Office of Our Lady daily, but it doesn't specifically say what it is and I've heard priests say it's just 3 Hail Marys.  Some times these devotions let distracted laymen like myself off the hook easy, so maybe it's both.  But if I had a definite answer I'd be a happy dude. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T20:00:05.250" Title="What is the Little Office of Our Lady in connection to the Scapular Devotion?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;devotion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2926" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-16T16:57:47.887" Score="16" ViewCount="1466" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to a comment by another user in this question &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2904/why-do-oec-discount-the-literal-interpretation-of-the-book-of-genesis&quot;&gt;Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, apparently there's &lt;strong&gt;Biblical evidence for an Old Earth&lt;/strong&gt;. As a Young Earth/Literal Christian I have never been introduced to this theory before. Thus my question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have never come across any scripture that talks about the earth being old in a literal sense. Can you tell me what the literal evidence of Old Earth Creation is in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2014-10-16T07:31:11.293" Title="What is the Biblical basis for an Old Earth?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2926" CreationDate="2011-09-16T17:33:13.750" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a idea, known as Gap Theory, that says that the first few verses of Genesis should be translated as the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; And the earth [became]* without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;sub&gt;Brackets denote what some believe is a more accurate translation of the word is.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is due the the different translations for the Hebrew word &quot;hayah&quot;. So, this understanding would indicate that there was an arbitrary amount of time between when God created the earth and when the rest of the creation story occurred. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I am not an expert in Hebrew, so I cannot offer a more technical information this particular word. But here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&amp;amp;isindex=hayah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strong's Hebrew Lexicon definition&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the beginning of the second verse in Hebrew:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;וְהָאָ֗רֶץ - ve·ha·'a·retz - the earth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;הָיְתָ֥ה - ha·ye·tahm - was (or become)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;תֹ֙הוּ֙ - to·hu - (formless)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T16:03:18.957" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T16:03:18.957" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="248" CreationDate="2011-09-16T17:41:40.367" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/news/item/id/10899/t/three-days-and-three-nights&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Three Days and Three Nights&lt;/a&gt;&quot; on amazingfacts.org (an SDA resource site) says being in the heart of the earth doesn't mean being dead in the grave, but rather being controlled by the world, so the three days and three nights began when the Son of Man was betrayed into the hands of sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Heart of the Earth&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the phrase “in the heart of the earth” can easily be translated as “in the midst of the world”--or in the grip of this lost planet—-that Jesus came to save!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In other words, in Matthew 12:40, the Lord is telling His disciples that just as Jonah was in the belly of a great fish, so the Son of Man would be in the central clutches of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Hour of Truth&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are five Bible verses in which Jesus refers to Thursday evening&#xA;  as “the hour,” meaning a pivotal transition time in His ministry:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;“Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now,&#xA;  and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is&#xA;  betrayed into the hands of sinners” (Matthew 26:45).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;“Then He came the third time and said to them, ‘Are you still&#xA;  sleeping and resting? It is enough! The hour has come; behold, the Son&#xA;  of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners’” (Mark 14:41&#xA;  NKJV).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles&#xA;  with him” (Luke 22:14).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;“Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be&#xA;  scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone” (John&#xA;  16:32).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;“Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may&#xA;  glorify thee” (John 17:1).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-24T21:39:04.033" LastActivityDate="2017-07-24T21:39:04.033" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="256" CreationDate="2011-09-16T19:09:53.540" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One verse I have heard in support of salvation of infants is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2012:22-23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 12:22-23&lt;/a&gt;, after King David's young child (not sure how young) dies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I&#xA;  said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may&#xA;  live.’ 23 But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back&#xA;  again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea presented from this is that &quot;I will go to him&quot; indicates that David plans to see his child in heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize this doesn't specifically address unborn babies, but I think the same logic would hold.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="364" LastEditorUserId="364" LastEditDate="2011-09-16T19:16:03.137" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T19:16:03.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2932" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-16T20:25:01.020" Score="50" ViewCount="10601" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not trying to be argumentative, this is an earnest question, as this question got me in huge trouble when I was growing up attending a southern baptist Christian middle school. This question (and people's reactions to it) is actually one of the things that lead my away from the church as a teenager (which I later came back to).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the speed of light is constant and we can see distant objects (stars,  galaxies, etc) that are millions or billions of light years away how can we account for a young age of the universe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;My father, at that time, was convinced that the speed of light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe. Although, I have never seen any credible evidence of this, and it would seem that measurements taken at CERN (and elsewhere) would be seriously affected if the speed of light was not a constant. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;My 8th grade science teacher said it was because objects used to be closer than they are now, and have moved away from each other over time. However, if the universe was only 10k years old, and two objects started next to each other and traveled away from each other at nearly the speed of light, the most distant objects in the universe would still only appear to be a little less then 10k light years away.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God creating the universe with photons in flight, making the distant universe (and therefore past events) only &lt;em&gt;appear&lt;/em&gt; to be taking places (or even existing), is certainly deceptive and I cannot accept it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do YEC consider the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth two separate questions?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question isn't 'how old is the universe?', or 'did the big bang happen?', or 'creation vs evolution'. It is simply this: how do Christians, who are YEC, reconcile this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some have asked, why I cannot accept that God created photons in midflight giving the appearance of age? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/distant-starlight&quot;&gt;video series&lt;/a&gt; @SeanDowney posted below, the presenter speaking against this argument shows a star that is 150k light years away that we observed blowing up. So, if God created photons in midflight then for 8k years God has been showing us a star that never existed and showed us an event (the start being destroyed) that never took place.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is a specious argument in general, because I can make the same argument that God created the universe 5 minutes ago and all the evidence to the contrary (physical evidence, our memories of the past, etc.) were all put in place to give the appearance of age.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both these cases, God making the universe appear to be billions of years old, instead of 5 minutes old, or the universe appearing to be billions of years old instead of 10k years, involves deception on the part of God that I cannot accept God (or my conception of him) would perpetrate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T18:49:12.533" LastActivityDate="2019-05-13T00:35:58.413" Title="How do young earth creationists reconcile the age of the universe with the speed of light, and visible distant objects?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2933" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-16T20:34:05.543" Score="15" ViewCount="47107" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the significance to the number 3 in the Bible? There is already a question about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2001/why-is-the-number-seven-special&quot;&gt;the number seven&lt;/a&gt;, but no one said anything about 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few 3's I came up with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Trinity (Godhead) is 3 in one&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peter denies knowing Jesus 3 times and later says he loves him 3 times&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus rose on the 3rd day&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both 777 and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2744/what-is-the-significance-of-the-number-666&quot;&gt;666&lt;/a&gt; consist of 3 digits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;holy, holy, holy&quot; is the Lord God Almighty (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Isaiah&amp;amp;verse=6:3&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 6:3&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibref.hebtools.com/bibref.php?book=Revalation&amp;amp;verse=4:8&amp;amp;src=1000&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 4:8&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are probably more that I can't think of right now. I just looked up 777 and it's not even in the Bible, so I don't know where that came from but I heard it somehow represents God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is the significance to the number 3?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="157" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2016-02-21T03:09:24.717" Title="Why is the number three special?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;numerology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2016-04-23T18:04:39.397" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2396" CreationDate="2011-09-16T20:38:14.220" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that &quot;the two shall become one flesh&quot; is regarding sex, although it could have other connotations as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:15-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:15-17&lt;/a&gt;, it says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall&#xA;  I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a&#xA;  prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one&#xA;  who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says,&#xA;  “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” 17 But the one who joins himself&#xA;  to the Lord is one spirit with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, it obviously refers to a sexual context, as it refers to joining with a prostitute.  However, the fact that it refers to sex should not down-weight the significance of &quot;becoming one flesh&quot;, but &quot;becoming one flesh&quot; should up-weight the significance of the sex act, considering that the term &quot;the two shall become one flesh&quot; is used in the context of marriage.  The fact that it is also used in reference to engaging with a prostitute means that the act of sex is a very significant thing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="364" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T20:38:14.220" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2933" CreationDate="2011-09-16T21:18:52.507" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can answer one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;holy, holy, holy&quot; is the Lord God Almighty (Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In ancient Greek and Aramaic, to repeat a word multiple times is to emphasis it. For instance, Jesus would often times say &quot;verily verily i say unto you&quot;. He repeated 'verily' twice for emphases. In English we are more inclined to use adjectives (like very or super, etc.) to emphasis a word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say it three times is simply to emphasis 'holy' great deal. Though, IMHO, there is no meaning to '3' beyond that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T21:18:52.507" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2306" CreationDate="2011-09-16T21:36:31.190" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God created man.  As it turns out, babies are created every single day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yeah, I'd say God is still creating things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T21:36:31.190" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2932" CreationDate="2011-09-16T21:37:03.563" Score="42" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you accept that God could create the universe out of nothing and create it any way He desired, then the explanation of God creating the universe with photons in flight has to be taken as a possiblity.  I realize you have discounted it as deceptive and therefore unacceptable, but consider the following...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God created trees, did He create only seeds that grew into trees or did He create full grown trees complete with rings?  I assume that He created full grown trees that had an apparent age greater than their literal age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, was Adam created as a baby (or embryo) or was he created as an adult?  Again, I assume that he was created as an adult with an apparent age greater than his literal age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In those examples, would anyone assume that God was being deceptive?  Probably not because we are not looking at the apparent age of trees or Adam to determine how long ago God created the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a YEC, I don't look to my surroundings to guide me in how to make sense of the Bible, I look to the Bible to guide me in how to make sense of my surroundings (to include the entire universe).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think God created the universe with the goal of us being able to examine it to determine how long ago He created it.  I believe it is more accurate to assume He created the universe as huge as it is so that we would be impressed and glorify Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a MSEE degree, I minored in Physics when I got my BSEE.  I know this answer does not present a scientific view.  Science can neither prove nor disprove God's creation of the universe.  If it could, then there would be less need for faith &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;and without faith it is impossible to please Him...&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T21:37:03.563" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2932" CreationDate="2011-09-16T21:52:49.973" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a video series to address the issue:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/distant-starlight&quot;&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/distant-starlight&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AIG, is young earth and they have lots of resources to check out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would agree with Jim in saying it's possible for God to create stuff with age. It sounds like you don't like that in the 3rd point of your question, since it makes God look deceptive. But I could argue to say that God needs stuff with age to create a functional world, which is not deceptive, but necessary. Was creating Adam full grown deceptive? What about eve, his wife? The intent of these things was not to deceive but to create a fully functional world&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="670" LastActivityDate="2011-09-16T21:52:49.973" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2939" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-16T22:40:17.033" Score="20" ViewCount="1805" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we can all agree that the entire Bible is not meant to be taken literally.  Consider the Song of Solomon (what would his lover look like if we take it literally?) or the book of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I would like to understand the case for believing the Genesis creation account, among all Biblical texts, is one that is intended to be interpreted literally. I'm not interested in scientific evidence for a young-earth in these answers. I'm interested in Biblical or historical reasons why this &lt;em&gt;text, as a whole&lt;/em&gt; (as opposed to individual words), should be considered literal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also discourage answers that address specific words in the Genesis account (such as the Hebrew 'yom'), but if that is the strongest evidence you have, then I won't consider it an invalid answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-05-14T13:03:51.900" LastActivityDate="2016-05-14T13:03:51.900" Title="What is the case for interpreting the Genesis creation account literally?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2939" CreationDate="2011-09-16T23:25:04.310" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short version is that there are many places in the Bible that quote/reference the creation account in the book of Genesis literally (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016:26,29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Exodus 16:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Exodus 31:17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016:26,29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Leviticus 23:3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%205:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 5:13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Luke 13:14&lt;/a&gt;, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most obvious is the &quot;reasoning&quot; given for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:8-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;4th Commandment&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God .. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, death was not introduced into creation until Adam sinned (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:17-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:17-19&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:20-22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;8:20-22&lt;/a&gt;). Without death, you cannot have fossils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;first&lt;/a&gt; of the genealogies of the Bible, which starts with the first man (Adam) and goes through Noah, is given in &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/chronology.xls&quot;&gt;concrete years&lt;/a&gt; of the age of the father when the son was born. While I &lt;em&gt;suppose&lt;/em&gt; you could elect to say that the first 5 days of creation were figurative, certainly from day 6 on is distinctly &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; figurative - otherwise the reckoning of Adam's age at the birth of Seth would be irrational.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T18:20:58.090" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T18:20:58.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2933" CreationDate="2011-09-17T02:05:29.073" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always understood the number three to have a connection with divinity (in Jewish culture). &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_symbolism#The_symbolic_values_of_numbers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; confirms my impression:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The number three was the symbol of holiness.&lt;/strong&gt; The Holy of Holies occupied one-third, and the Holy Place two-thirds, of the entire Temple. The tapestries were ten times three ells in length, and there were three vessels each for the altar of burnt offering, the altar of incense, and the Ark. The candlestick had twice three arms (besides the shaft, which also held a lamp), and each arm had three knobs. The blessing of the priest consisted of three sections, and in the invocation of God the word &quot;holy&quot; was repeated thrice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T02:05:29.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2911" CreationDate="2011-09-17T03:24:22.843" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Extra-biblical sources give us a better perspective on the matter.  I just ran across this while researching something unrelated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is now certain--and this is one of the most important revelations of the Dead Sea discoveries--that Judaism in the first century B.C. saw a whole theology of the suffering Messiah, of a Messiah who should be the redeemer of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- Andre Dupont-Sommner, &lt;em&gt;The Dead Sea Scrolls&lt;/em&gt;, 96&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Dead Sea Scrolls, and various other similar documents that have come to light since the 1940s, reveal the surprising truth that many concepts and teachings that are today thought of as uniquely Christian were taught among late BC-era Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As user8077 pointed out, there were some spiritually aware individuals among the Jews who were expecting the Messiah, but they were in the minority.  This is consistent with the story told by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which describe their authors as members of a community of exiles who left mainstream Jewish society after a religious schism.  If so, it's possible that the reason there were so few among the mainstream Jews who understood what Jesus was there for was because most of the ones who &quot;got it&quot; had already left or been driven out.  (It's also worth noting that many scholars equate the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) community with the Essenes, which tradition tells us was the sect of Jews that John the Baptist came from.  Very interesting, if it's true...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T03:24:22.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2097" CreationDate="2011-09-17T04:00:24.243" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people take the narrative about the eating of the fruit, and indeed both trees (that of 'life', and that of 'knowledge of good and evil') as figurative.  Some, including as C.S. Lewis, go farther and say that Adam and Eve may not have been literal people, either.  The point they take from this narrative is simply &quot;Humans chose to rebel against God.&quot;  And I think all can agree that this is the most important point to be gleaned from this narrative, literal or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T05:24:26.813" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T05:24:26.813" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2706" CreationDate="2011-09-17T10:42:19.550" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word conscience comes from the Latin conscire, a compound of con (with) and&#xA;scire (to know), meaning “to know together with,” “joint knowledge with another.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your conscience is your ability to know right and wrong in connection with the laws of God that have been written upon your heart at your new birth of the Holy Spirit. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb.%208:10-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Heb. 8:10-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your conscience is the result of God's breath and life within you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 2:7&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 Then the LORD God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and&#xA;breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a&#xA;living being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 32:8&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 But it is the spirit in a person,     the breath of the Almighty,&#xA;that gives them understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 20:27&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 The human spirit is the lamp of the LORD     that sheds light on&#xA;one’s inmost being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The prophets relied on their consciences&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 2:14-15&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature&#xA;things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though&#xA;they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the&#xA;law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing&#xA;witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times&#xA;even defending them.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 9:1&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it&#xA;through the Holy Spirit—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 1:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted&#xA;ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with&#xA;integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly&#xA;wisdom but on God’s grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Weak consciences&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your conscience can become weak and defiled if you do not keep it clean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 8:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so&#xA;accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of&#xA;it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is&#xA;weak, it is defiled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Titus 1:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and&#xA;do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and&#xA;consciences are corrupted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a great article if you want to get into some really deep reading regarding &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bsmi.org/download/lin/VoiceOfGod.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;your conscience&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T15:52:40.027" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2945" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2949" CreationDate="2011-09-17T16:50:54.173" Score="8" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much of the Bible is historical narrative. Other parts, such as many of Psalms, are poems - rife with figurative phrases (often surrounding a specific event or need or desire). Other parts are instructive (eg most of Paul's writings). Lastly there are prophetic segments - figurative language interwoven with historical narrative and directly-instructive passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is the reader to determine which parts are figurative, which are historical fact, etc?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T03:25:15.207" Title="Determining literary types in the Bible" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;word-study&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2948" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-17T18:52:37.727" Score="4" ViewCount="375" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people say that the Bible is just a book, others say that its 100% accurate. The statistics might lie, so what I want to know is how the Bible compares to other books. Books like the encyclopedia, known historical writings and other books. The comparisons can definitely use statistics, but I definitely am looking for other books that the Bible does, or does not compare with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;edit:&lt;/em&gt; What I'm really curious about is if the premise: &quot;The Bible is as accurate as an encyclopedia.&quot; is true, or if this premise could be true for any other history book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T21:40:43.053" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T22:32:17.150" Title="Just how accurate is the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2011-09-18T14:02:31.673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2945" CreationDate="2011-09-17T18:58:33.423" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It can be very difficult, in general. An example is the book of Jonah. Taken literally, he spends three days and nights inside the belly of a fish or whale. Other readers believe that the book is not meant to be read historically, but is a kind of fable that carries a moral lesson. How are we to determine which is the case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Read the book and find out what it says about itself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Compare it to other writings, prophetic or historical or literary.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See how it is used elsewhere in the Bible (such as Luke 11:29-32).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Examine the language and history - When did Jonah live (2 Kings 14:25)? Did he write the book, or is it only attributed to him? Is the language characteristic of that era? Is Nineveh as large as Jonah says? Did Assyrian kings behave in the way suggested? Can a person live inside a whale?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find out what experts have written about the book. Consider their evidence and arguments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Think about: What would the implications be if this were historical? What if it were not historical? Either way, how does that fit with any other aspect of my faith?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, while some passages are clear, there are many that have multiple meanings. I decided to find an example by opening my nearest Bible (NJB) at random. It came open at the first page of Hosea, where we read (1:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yahweh said to Hosea, &quot;Go, marry a whore, and get children with a whore; for the country itself has become nothing but a whore by abandoning Yahweh.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The family life of Hosea (literal, historical) has an additional layer of meaning (allegorical, figurative) explained in the text: it mirrors the relationship between God and his faithless people. Equally, Hosea was speaking to Israel at a particular time, but his theme is applicable to us in general, as individuals and as a church. This more general interpretation may also be justified in terms of the Bible text as a whole: Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7, clearly validating the wider application of that passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This kind of thing is very common; it does not necessarily make sense to make a clean demarcation between &quot;historical&quot; and &quot;figurative&quot; passages, when there are so many instances of the Bible saying &quot;X happened, and this is what X means&quot;. The circumstances of the Fall, the Exodus, the Exile, etc., are continually being referred to in newer writings, and used to draw moral or theological lessons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The really difficult part comes with passages like Joshua 10:12-15. This is the part where &quot;the sun stood still in the middle of the sky and delayed its setting for almost a whole day&quot; (10:13). The literal meaning is, of course, that the sun did just that (and the moon too). It is presented in the text as genuinely happening, as a historical event. We can draw wider lessons, like - the sun is subject to God, God protects his people, and so on. It's not hard to believe that this passage is figuratively true in that regard, but many people have difficulty believing in its literal truth. So this question goes right to the heart of how one reads the Bible, and whether it is possible to believe in the wider message without believing in its historical grounding. In short, the determining of literary types implies also being able to settle many other controversies of Biblical interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T18:58:33.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2950" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2952" CreationDate="2011-09-17T19:06:09.233" Score="16" ViewCount="19598" Body="&lt;p&gt;After reading &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2133/when-does-the-pope-speak-ex-cathedra&quot;&gt;When does the Pope speak ex cathedra?&lt;/a&gt; I became curious and searched for a list of statements, but couldn't find one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does such list exist and if not, why is this the case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2020-04-29T16:28:08.700" Title="List of papal teachings considered infallible" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;ex-cathedra&gt;&lt;papal-infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2011-09-17T19:11:32.797" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a proper answer to this question requires that we (re-)examine many of the verses used to form the opinion &quot;Faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What it says:&lt;/strong&gt; Anyone who believes in God's son will not perish.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;What it doesn't say:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Only&lt;/em&gt; those who believe will not perish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:6&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.“&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What it says:&lt;/strong&gt; It is impossible to get to the Father, except by way of Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;What it doesn't say:&lt;/strong&gt; That understanding this, or knowing the name of Jesus is necessary to get to the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 6:23&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What it says:&lt;/strong&gt; The gift of eternal life is made possible by/through Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;What it doesn't say:&lt;/strong&gt; Again, it doesn't say that understanding this is necessary to receive eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:36&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What it says:&lt;/strong&gt; Whoever believes in God's son has eternal life; Whoever rejects God's son will not &quot;see life.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;What it doesn't say:&lt;/strong&gt; It says nothing about those who have neither believed in God's son, nor rejected His son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 10:27&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What it says:&lt;/strong&gt; Loving God and our neighbors is necessary to inherit eternal life.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;What it doesn't say:&lt;/strong&gt; Knowing the name of Christ, or understanding his work of salvation on the cross is necessary to inherit eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:15-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dialog between Jesus and Peter&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus repeats the phrase &quot;Feed my lambs,&quot; but never once talks about a requirement for understanding salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what I believe we're left with here is two solid truths:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those who believe in Christ (which requires knowing of him) are saved.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those who reject Christ (which also requires knowledge of him) are not saved.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a big gap between these, though.  To help fill that gap, we can consider that we know many people were saved before Christ's coming. (see this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1824/who-saved-people-before-33ad&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this, we see that the requirement for salvation is not actually knowledge of Christ, but rather a faith in God to save us from ourselves.  Prior to Christ's coming, nobody knew the mechanism of salvation; they only knew that God could save them, and their faith in Him to save them is what counted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve didn't even know the term &quot;messiah,&quot; they just knew of a (to them) vague promise for retribution against sin (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:15&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Adam and Even can have faith in this promise, without knowing of Jesus, then surely anyone can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are even told in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%203:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 3:11&lt;/a&gt; that God has revealed Himself to all humanity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;A silly analogy&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I call my grandmother, who lives in Montana, I pick up the telephone, I dial her 10-digit phone number, I listen to a few ringing sounds, then I hear &quot;Hello?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've worked in IT and telecommunications long enough that I understand the basics of how touch-tone dialing works, telephone switches, and even how microphones and speakers work in my handset and hers.  One could easily make a statement such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The telephone switch at the CO in Denver is the way to call your grandmother. Nobody makes telephone calls to Montana, except through this switch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... or ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever believes in the telephone switch will be able to make phone calls; but whoever rejects the telephone switch will be denied the ability to make phone calls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I fall into the category of people who understand these telephone switches, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; believe in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a far greater number of people, though, who have never even thought about a telephone switch.  But they still pick up the telephone to call their grandmother, having faith that the call will go through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is &lt;em&gt;knowledge of&lt;/em&gt; the telephone switch necessary?  No. Is faith in the telephone switch necessary to make a phone call?  Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the evidence of this faith?  People picking up the phone and dialing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the evidence of faith in God?  &quot;Feed my sheep.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any person can respond to the revelation of God they have experienced, and understand that they are imperfect and sinful, and that only God's forgiveness is sufficient for them to be &quot;right with God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe a knowledge of Christ, or understanding of His sacrifice, or even an understanding of the concept of &quot;Heaven&quot; or &quot;eternal life&quot; is necessary for someone to be saved.  What &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; necessary is that a person recognize that they are powerless on their own to be right with God, and that only through God's gift of compassion and grace, can they experience that right communion with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T19:11:32.797" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2950" CreationDate="2011-09-17T19:14:48.737" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no canonical list of infallible statements made by the Pontiffs: while there are only a few instances where a Pontiff spoke infallibly &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; (an extraordinary action), there are many times where he is speaking about things known to be infallible of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the extraordinary sense—when a Pontiff speaks infallibly &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;—there two &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;officially recognized cases&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p9ineff.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Immaculate Conception by Pius IX&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: &amp;quot;We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p12munif.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;second about the Assumption of Mary by Pius XII&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there may be other instances before Pius IX's pronouncement in 1854 about the Immaculate Conception, not officially mentioned as infallible &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; pronouncements, that count: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia has one possible list&lt;/a&gt;. As Wikipedia notes, because of the scrutiny an &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; statement would get, the Vatican has taken to clarifying when a statement made by the Holy Father is, in fact, is an infallible statement done &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;, and it hasn't happened since Pius XII's pronouncement about the Assumption of Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the ordinary sense—when a Pontiff speaks about things that are known to be infallible by the ordinary and universal Magisterium—it gets a little tricky. Then Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now Pope Benedict XVI) mentions in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the &lt;em&gt;Professio Fidei&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; about the case of euthanasia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine on the illicitness of euthanasia, taught in the Encyclical Letter &lt;em&gt;Evangelium Vitae&lt;/em&gt;, can also be recalled. Confirming that euthanasia is &amp;quot;a grave violation of the law of God,&amp;quot; the Pope declares that &amp;quot;this doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium&amp;quot;.&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; It could seem that there is only a logical element in the doctrine on euthanasia, since Scripture does not seem to be aware of the concept. In this case, however, the interrelationship between the orders of faith and reason becomes apparent: Scripture, in fact, clearly excludes every form of the kind of self-determination of human existence that is presupposed in the theory and practice of euthanasia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, the ordinary and universal Magisterium teaches us certain things are evil, and while there may be no mention of a new issue (because it hasn't come up before), the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium can still guide infallible teachings about the new issue &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; speaking infallibly &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this happens pretty often: one of the main roles of the clergy, including the Holy Father, is to help guide and instruct based on the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T04:53:47.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2948" CreationDate="2011-09-17T20:46:05.090" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the Bible is 100% accurate, it is accurate in a different sense than we would apply to other books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Studies of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica found an average of one serious error per ten articles (each)--this number is not stated but can be calculated from numbers given &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  An article is usually a few hundred words (exactly how many &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3aSize_comparisons#Comparison_of_encyclopedias&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;depends on the edition&lt;/a&gt;), so that's a serious error every few thousand words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, most of the events described in the Bible are hard to rigorously validate, unlike encyclopedias where most every statement can be validated.  Nonetheless, we can attempt to validate the Bible &lt;em&gt;against itself&lt;/em&gt; by comparing a straightforward interpretation (as one would use with an encyclopedia) of different passages in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best opportunity to do this is with the Gospels since they all describe the same period of time.  Thus, we can use them for cross-validation (when interpreted plainly as a historical account).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:16 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt; explains:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;But Luke 3:23 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt; instead says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph is presumably not the son of both Heli &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; Jacob, so at least by the standards used with encyclopedias*, this is an error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:13-15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 2:13-15 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus spent some time in Egypt (immediately following a visit by the wise men):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, &quot;Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, &quot;Out of Egypt I called my son.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke, on the other hand, seems to indicate that Jesus never left (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:21-42&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 2:21-42&lt;/a&gt; are all relevant, in but brief):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So within about 5000 words, we have one assuredly contradictory account and one probable contradiction--no better than encyclopedias (and perhaps worse, since this is not an exhaustive survey, and many accounts cannot be confirmed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, claims that the Bible is 100% accurate, if correct, cannot mean that it's 100% accurate in the way you would expect an encyclopedia to be 100% accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;sup&gt;There is a &quot;Levirate marriage&quot; explanation for the discrepancy, but we generally don't expect encyclopedias to require us to go to so much trouble to figure out what is being said.  Also, there's Ram vs. Arni and Admin in the Abraham to David line; Ruth agrees with Matthew, not Luke on this.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-17T22:32:17.150" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T22:32:17.150" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2954" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2956" CreationDate="2011-09-17T23:19:28.300" Score="13" ViewCount="19936" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17:37&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 17:37&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; “Where will this happen, Lord?” the disciples asked.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Jesus replied, “Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that &lt;strong&gt;the end is near&lt;/strong&gt;.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24:28&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:28&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the &lt;strong&gt;end is near&lt;/strong&gt;.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3:11&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 3:11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;I am coming soon&lt;/strong&gt;. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take away your crown.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22:7&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 22:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; “Look, &lt;strong&gt;I am coming soon&lt;/strong&gt;! Blessed are those who obey the words of prophecy written in this book.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22:12&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 22:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; “Look, &lt;strong&gt;I am coming soon&lt;/strong&gt;, bringing my reward with me to repay all people according to their deeds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22:20&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 22:20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; He who is the faithful witness to all these things says, “Yes, &lt;strong&gt;I am coming soon&lt;/strong&gt;!”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+4:5&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 4:5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Let everyone see that you are considerate in all you do. Remember, &lt;strong&gt;the Lord is coming soon&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter+4:7&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 4:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;The end of the world is coming soon.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, be earnest and disciplined in your prayers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Emphasis all mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, looking at the calendar, I see it's at least 1,800 years after these scriptures were written. Clearly, this is not &quot;soon&quot; in any modern sense of the word. Thus, I'm asking:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;What does &quot;soon&quot; mean in these verses?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2019-10-30T18:26:43.697" Title="What exactly did Jesus mean when He said &quot;I am coming soon&quot; and similar phrases?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-12-02T23:40:37.053" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2954" CreationDate="2011-09-17T23:55:15.017" Score="8" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Some translation details&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passages from Revelation you refer to (&lt;a href=&quot;http://interlinearbible.org/revelation/3-11.htm&quot;&gt;3:11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://interlinearbible.org/revelation/22-7.htm&quot;&gt;22:7&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://interlinearbible.org/revelation/22-12.htm&quot;&gt;22:12&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://interlinearbible.org/revelation/22-20.htm&quot;&gt;22:20&lt;/a&gt;) all contain the same Greek phrase:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;ἔρχομαι ταχύ&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase is translated &quot;I come quickly&quot; or &quot;I am coming soon&quot; in most English translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strong's Concordance has the following &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/greek/5035.htm&quot;&gt;definition for &lt;code&gt;ταχύ&lt;/code&gt;:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Neuter singular of G5036 (as adverb); shortly, i.e. Without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication, of ease) readily -- lightly, quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some claim the correct translation would rather be &lt;em&gt;suddenly.&lt;/em&gt; This would be in line with the following three passages, at least:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:8-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Peter 3:8-10 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;  The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2024:44&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:44 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+5%3A2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:2 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the other passages, I cannot answer. I suspect the all-encompassing answer isn't just a bunch of translation notes but will require some theology, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-17T23:55:15.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2957" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2959" CreationDate="2011-09-18T00:12:05.587" Score="20" ViewCount="2982" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Judges 11, Jephthah vows to give whatever comes out of the door of his house as a burnt offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011:30-&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 11:30-40 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[emphases mine]&lt;/sup&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, &quot;If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; then &lt;strong&gt;whatever comes out from the doors of my house&lt;/strong&gt; to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the LORD’s, and &lt;strong&gt;I will offer it up for a burnt offering&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, &lt;strong&gt;his daughter came out&lt;/strong&gt; to meet him with tambourines and with dances. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; And at the end of two months, &lt;strong&gt;she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did Jephthah really sacrifice his daughter? This clearly couldn't be&#xA;the will of God (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%207:31&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 7:31&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2019:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;19:5&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2032:35&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;32:35&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What did Jephthah mean by his vow?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Surely he knew who lived in his house, and had some expectations on what could come out of the door?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-07-16T08:19:51.460" LastActivityDate="2017-11-09T17:00:00.483" Title="Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;&lt;book-of-judges&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2954" CreationDate="2011-09-18T00:35:24.937" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The KJV renders the Revelation quotes as &quot;coming &lt;em&gt;quickly&lt;/em&gt;,&quot; not &quot;coming &lt;em&gt;soon&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.  This can be understood as arriving suddenly, without warning, and brings to mind a passage in Matthew 24 a bit later than the one quoted in the example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024%3a%2043-44&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24: 43-44&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the parallel verses in Matthew and Luke, they don't say that the end is near &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt;; they clearly say that when &quot;these signs&quot; come to pass, then we will know that the end is near.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not sure about the other two, though...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T00:35:24.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2957" CreationDate="2011-09-18T00:46:17.070" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an odd passage, since, as you noted, he would certainly have known his household.  Also, the Law of Moses strictly forbade human sacrifice, particularly the sacrifice of one's own children, categorizing it as an abomination before the Lord, so such an offering would never have been acceptable to God anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's interesting to note that the mourning of Jephthah's daughter and her companions was not for her life, but for her virginity; she would never have the blessing (it was still unequivocally considered a blessing back then) of having children.  And verse 39 says &quot;she had never known a man&quot; in the ESV, but the KJV renders it in present tense: &quot;[Jephthah] did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she &lt;strong&gt;knew&lt;/strong&gt; no man&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken together, these points suggest that she may have been &quot;offered to the Lord&quot; in a different way: as a consecrated servant of God of some sort which would preclude her getting married and having children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T00:46:17.070" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1803" CreationDate="2011-09-18T01:33:42.570" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Compare Joel ch 1 with Matthew ch 13 - and understand that what is taken away in both cases, is the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joel is an Old Testament book, but it tells us of the &quot;new wine,&quot; being cut off, which I believe to mean the New Testament Gospel; and the one who steals away God's Word, is of course Satan, the Devil - God's opponent, and our opponent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear from Joel, that the effect of the locusts (which is believe are false prophets and teachers), is one of destruction, and leads to much fear, corruption, and loss, among what started out as the product, and fruit, of God's Word, the Gospel of Jesus Christ - the love of the great body (church) will grow cold - the falling away of the body of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It culminates in what could perhaps be described as the very worst of the 'locusts,' &quot;a people come, great and strong&quot; - (but NOT a righteous people), the &quot;northern army.&quot; (which I believe could be North America - home to the 'Toronto Blessing' - a powerful deception, that is corrupting the true Church of God - that being the baptized Church - the Holy Spirit filled Church - God's temple here on Earth - clothed with Power from on High to be a witness to God - doing His Will. See Matthew 13 v 37 - 43. This Scripture also relates to the Northern Army being destroyed - Joel 2 v 16 - 32.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joel 2 v 25, relates to 2 THESSALONIANS 2, and DEUTERONOMY 13. &quot;He who endures to the end shall be saved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joel 2 v 20, can be related to Matthew 13 v 37 - 43, and also Jeremiah 25 v 29 - 38. &#xA;Satan masquerades as an angel of light - false Christian prophets, and false Christian teachers, operate within churches, where they can influence people, fleece, and mislead them, feeding from them as wolves in the sheepfold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God permits Satan to 'test' us, but God still destroys Satan in the end -2 Thessalonians 2.&#xA;God can tempt no man, so Satan has to be allowed to, just as he did with Job, just as he will be permitted to after the thousand years when he was shut away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Joel's army' as it is referred to, God's army as Scripture refers to it, is NOT made up of God's people, but they will present themselves as being God's people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please relate Jeremiah 25 v 29 - 38, to being 'slain in the spirit.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And please also relate people hopping around their churches with Revelation 16 v 13 - 14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is much more to the manifestations of the 'Toronto Blessing,' than we may know, every manifestation, has a negative connotation - howling - like wolves, roaring - Satan roams around like a lion, looking for someone to devour, (see Joel 1 v 5 - 7), even the laughter, is it just Satan laughing at us, as he laughs through us - the manifestations are simply temptations, and operate in the same way as any other temptation (tongues is a God given GIFT, but should never be taken as evidence of a continued love and obedience towards God, only our doctrine, behaviour, opinions, and beliefs are evidence of our love and obedience towards God, for they indicate which spirit/Spirit has got our attention - test the spirits - test the doctrine, behaviour, opinions, beliefs.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="674" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T01:50:42.490" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T01:50:42.490" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2950" CreationDate="2011-09-18T02:24:25.180" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yeah, you want: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://archive.org/details/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/LXBKS.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Fundementals of Catholic Dogma&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;from &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/Fundamentals-of-Catholic-Dogma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;TAN Books&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://archive.org/details/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;online here&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://catho.org/9.php?d=g1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;in Latin&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's got a pretty well sourced index.  Mark Trapp speaks truth about the Marian Dogmas, there are four of 'em but only the last two are the products of papal statements, the other two were pronounced as result of ecumenical councils. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, Bl. John Paul II spoke on an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;infallible teaching about women in the priesthood&lt;/a&gt;, that's pretty new so it may not have made the cut for the book.  Also, infallibility is defined as the Pope in Communion with the Bishops. So, magisterial teachings are just as infallible as the Popes.  Which is why you'll find a lot more stuff in that book than just papal decrees. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1787" LastEditDate="2018-03-26T00:08:32.890" LastActivityDate="2018-03-26T00:08:32.890" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2625" CreationDate="2011-09-18T02:57:30.423" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Michael, St. Gabriel and St. Raphael are the only named Archangels on the feast of the Archangels on September 29th.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have no named angels except those three and no public revelation except the Bible, therefore no angel named Metatron.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T02:57:30.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2964" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-18T04:02:40.433" Score="7" ViewCount="1564" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there churches outside of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions that use a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix&quot;&gt;crucifix&lt;/a&gt; as opposed to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross&quot;&gt;cross&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just watched a movie in which the main character is in a church that has a crucifix on the wall, but the service looked neither Catholic nor Orthodox. I have heard that perhaps Lutheran and Anglicans do this as well, but I don't know how to verify this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="47" LastEditorUserId="34561" LastEditDate="2018-10-19T12:58:27.153" LastActivityDate="2018-10-19T12:58:27.153" Title="Are there non Catholic/Orthodox churches that use a Crucifix?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;&lt;cross&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="249" CreationDate="2011-09-18T08:16:43.190" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please excuse me for a large answer, in my opinion this question is really hard to answer in several words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Althought there are many references to &quot;meditation&quot; in Bible, however, word &quot;meditation&quot; should be used very carefully here, to be not confused with meditation practice in eastern religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We Christians should listen to the Church, the only authority of faith on the Earth. And both Catholic and Orthodox Church warns about mixing prayer with any New Age practicies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Catholic Church about meditation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfmed.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of Christian meditation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;This document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith&#xA;  stresses the differences between Christian and eastern meditative&#xA;  approaches. It warns of the &lt;strong&gt;dangers of attempting to mix Christian&#xA;  meditation with eastern approaches since that could be both confusing&#xA;  and misleading&lt;/strong&gt;, and may result in the loss of the essential&#xA;  Christocentric nature of Christian meditation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The letter warns that &quot;euphoric states&quot; obtained through Eastern&#xA;  meditation should not be confused with prayer or assumed to be signs&#xA;  of the presence of God, a state that should always result in loving&#xA;  service to others. Without these truths, the letter said, meditation,&#xA;  which should be a flight from the self, can degenerate into a form of&#xA;  self-absorption. The letter warns &lt;strong&gt;against concentration on the self,&#xA;  rather than on Christ&lt;/strong&gt;, and states that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christian prayer, ..., the communion of redeemed creatures with the&#xA;  intimate life of the Persons of the Trinity, based on Baptism and the&#xA;  Eucharist, source and summit of the life of the Church, implies an&#xA;  attitude of conversion, a flight from &quot;self&quot; to the &quot;You&quot; of God. Thus&#xA;  Christian prayer is at the same time always authentically personal and&#xA;  communitarian. It flees from impersonal techniques or from&#xA;  concentrating on oneself, which can create a kind of rut.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The letter also warns that &lt;strong&gt;concentration on the physical aspects of&#xA;  meditation &quot;can degenerate into a cult of the body&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; and that equating&#xA;  bodily states with mysticism &quot;could also lead to psychic disturbance&#xA;  and, at times, to moral deviations.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Christian reflection on the New Age, a six year study by the Roman Catholic Church on the New Age movement&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The document states that for Christians, the spiritual life is a&#xA;  relationship with God. It criticizes Eastern meditation and states&#xA;  that all meditation techniques need to be purged of presumption and&#xA;  pretentiousness. It states that &lt;strong&gt;Christian prayer is not an exercise in&#xA;  self-contemplation, stillness and self-emptying, but a dialogue of&#xA;  love, one which &quot;implies an attitude of conversion, a flight from&#xA;  'self' to the 'you' of God&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Orthodox Church about meditation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/medit1/main.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Easter meditation from the point of Orthodoxy and Science&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;pursuit of imaginary grace of peace leads to irreparable spiritual&#xA;  losses&lt;/strong&gt;: &quot;painlessness of a heart dazzles the mind&quot; (St. John of the&#xA;  Ladder, &lt;em&gt;The ladder of divine ascent 7:13&lt;/em&gt;). We can find a confirmation&#xA;  of this idea in the words of St. Peter of Damascus: &quot;Lowliness of mind&#xA;  is a product of intellect, and intellect is a product of temptations&quot;.&#xA;  Optina elder Hieroschemamonk Makarios said that if &lt;strong&gt;we want to be&#xA;  glorified with the Lord, then we must suffer with Him, we must suffer&#xA;  with everything that He wills send to us.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/biblio/rose_prb/rose15.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Orthodoxy and the Faith of Future, monk-priest Seraphim&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Exposes that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation_technique&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Transcendental meditation&lt;/a&gt;, introduced in USA by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Maharishi&lt;/a&gt;, contains secret initiation as a pagan Guru worshipping cult&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Christian meditation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_meditation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A great article on that point in Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; lists several practical approaches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Exercises_of_Ignatius_of_Loyola&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Within the Exercises, daily instructions include various meditations&#xA;  and contemplations on the nature of the world, of human psychology as&#xA;  Ignatius understood it, and of man's relationship to God through Jesus&#xA;  Christ. The Exercises is divided into &quot;four weeks&quot; of varying lengths&#xA;  with four major themes: sin, the life of Jesus, the Passion of Jesus&#xA;  and the Resurrection of Jesus. During each day of the Exercises, a&#xA;  typical retreatant prays with a particular exercise, as assigned by&#xA;  the director, reviews each prayer, and, following four or five periods&#xA;  of prayer, reports back to the spiritual director of the retreat who&#xA;  helps them to understand what these experiences of prayer might mean&#xA;  to the retreatant. The goal of the Exercises is to reflect upon their&#xA;  experiences and to understand how these same experiences might apply&#xA;  to the retreatant's life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_of_Perfection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Camino de Perfección (The Way of Perfection) of St. Teresa of Avila&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Her starting point was the practice of &quot;recollection&quot;, i.e. keeping&#xA;  the senses and the intellect in check and not allowing them to stray.&#xA;  In her meditations, one generally restricts attention to a single&#xA;  subject, principally the love of God. In The Way of Perfection she&#xA;  wrote: &quot;It is called recollection because the soul collects together&#xA;  all the faculties and enters within itself to be with God&quot;. She would&#xA;  use devices such as short readings, a scene of natural beauty or a&#xA;  religious statue or picture to remind her to keep her focus. She wrote&#xA;  that in due course, the mind naturally learns to maintain focus on God&#xA;  almost effortlessly. St. Theresa viewed Christian meditation as the&#xA;  first of four steps in achieving &quot;union with God&quot;, and used the&#xA;  analogy of watering the garden. She compared basic meditation to&#xA;  watering a garden with a bucket, Recollection to the water wheel,&#xA;  Quiet (contemplation) to a spring of water and Union to drenching&#xA;  rain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Francis_de_Sales&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Francis de Sales&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the &lt;em&gt;preparation&lt;/em&gt; part, one places oneself in the presence of God&#xA;  and asks the Holy Spirit to direct the prayer, as in the Epistle to&#xA;  the Romans[8:26]: &quot;The Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not&#xA;  know what to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with&#xA;  sighs too deep for words.&quot;  In the &lt;em&gt;consideration&lt;/em&gt; part, one focuses&#xA;  on a specific topic, e.g. a passage from the Bible.  In the&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;affections&lt;/em&gt; and resolutions part, one focuses on feelings and makes a&#xA;  resolution or decision. For instance, when meditating on the Parable&#xA;  of the Good Samaritan one may decide to visit someone sick and be kind&#xA;  to them.  In the &lt;em&gt;conclusion&lt;/em&gt; part, one gives thanks and praise to God&#xA;  for the considerations and asks for the grace to stand by the&#xA;  resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20th century&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The 20th century has also witnessed a new focus on Biblical&#xA;  meditation. These may be defined as: &quot;the devotional practice of&#xA;  pondering the words of a verse or verses of Scripture with a receptive&#xA;  heart.&quot; &#xA;  Modern Biblical meditations may be designed to relate and connect the&#xA;  Biblical message to the modern world.&#xA;  Such Biblical meditations may correspond to specific seasons such as&#xA;  Lent with the meditation topic selected to interact with two or three&#xA;  readings of the Bible during weekdays or Sundays of Lent.&#xA;  The meditation sequence may begin by a summary of the Bible reading,&#xA;  then suggest specific ideas for meditation, then conclude with an&#xA;  appropriat prayer.&#xA;  Such meditations may also be designed not just for &quot;strong seasons&quot;&#xA;  such as Lent or Easter, but also for Ordinary Time.&#xA;  In the 20th century methods of Christian meditations have been taught&#xA;  using relatively new devotions such as the Divine Mercy devotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2015-09-08T08:33:15.603" LastActivityDate="2015-09-08T08:33:15.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2966" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2967" CreationDate="2011-09-18T13:47:23.837" Score="16" ViewCount="2721" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today, we have Catholic and Orthodox churches (and a few others) using the crucifix, whereas most Protestant denominations use an empty cross in their symbolism. Did this difference in symbolism arise around the time Martin Luther &quot;created&quot; the Protestant church, or did it happen at a different time? Also, what caused the change of symbol?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-03-17T19:30:16.380" LastActivityDate="2017-07-06T10:39:34.863" Title="When did the split in crufix/empty-cross sybolism occur and why did it happen?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;cross&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2966" CreationDate="2011-09-18T14:54:21.563" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In history there have always been reasons to show a crucifix without a corpus.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Especially in the first four centuries of Christianity it was – because of theological reservations – not possible to illustrate the suffering servant figure of Jesus Christ: They thought that it was not beneficial for the majesty of Christ's divinity.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another trail leads us to Calvinism: Also there led a sovereign, bordering to the abstract image of God to a sober view of the cross without a corpus.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: Burkard Porzelt, &lt;em&gt;Empirische Religionspädagogik&lt;/em&gt;, 175&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2: Baudler, 1997, 289&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3: Baudler, 1997, 57&lt;/sup&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="70" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T15:00:18.253" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T15:00:18.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2968" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2971" CreationDate="2011-09-18T15:12:45.473" Score="19" ViewCount="3527" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard many stories of people who abandoned their role-playing hobby, or burned their fantasy book collections, on the grounds that these were opposed to their Christian faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is it that causes some Christians to be concerned about fantasy and role-playing? What are the sources** for these concerns?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**Not just Biblical sources, but also the people that promoted the concern within the Christian community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="675" LastEditorUserId="630" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T03:02:13.820" LastActivityDate="2015-01-28T00:36:11.217" Title="Source of Christian attitudes towards fantasy and role playing games" Tags="&lt;culture&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2968" CreationDate="2011-09-18T16:18:10.933" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;On one hand, fantasy world is based on magic. In fantasy there are daemons, witches, sorcerers, spells etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But on the other hand, real magic is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibleplus.org/witchcraft/witchcraft.htm&quot;&gt;sin against God's Will&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 18:9 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  9 &quot;When you come into the land that the&#xA;  LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the&#xA;  abominable practices of those nations. 10 There shall not be found&#xA;  among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, &lt;strong&gt;anyone&#xA;   who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a&#xA;  sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who&#xA;  inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an&#xA;  abomination to the LORD.&lt;/strong&gt; And because of these abominations the LORD&#xA;  your God is driving them out before you. 13 You shall be blameless&#xA;  before the LORD your God, 14for these nations, which you are about to&#xA;  dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you,&#xA;  the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:5 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  5 And he who was seated on the throne&#xA;  said, &quot;Behold, I am making all things new.&quot; Also he said, &quot;Write this&#xA;  down, for these words are trustworthy and true.&quot; 6 And he said to me,&#xA;  &quot;It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.&#xA;  To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life&#xA;  without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I&#xA;  will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But &lt;strong&gt;as for the&lt;/strong&gt; cowardly, the&#xA;  faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;sorcerers&lt;/strong&gt;, idolaters, and all liars, &lt;strong&gt;their portion will be in the lake&#xA;  that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While fantasy magic may be not the same as real magic, as far as people keep it fantasy, it may lead someone to the thoughts that magic is fine, and furthermore, that it would be cool to learn some real magic. Remember that fantasy is mostly for kids and that is a real danger if they don't have enough knowledge of God's Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is an other side also, many believe that Tolkien's &lt;em&gt;Lord of The Rings&lt;/em&gt; has a Biblical background (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.be-ready.org/tolkien.html&quot;&gt;The Gospel According to J.R.R. Tolkien by William D. Brehm&lt;/a&gt;), as well as C.S. Lewis in &lt;em&gt;Chronicles of Narnia&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_debates_over_Harry_Potter&quot;&gt;Religious debates over the Harry Potter series&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T18:03:42.503" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T18:03:42.503" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2968" CreationDate="2011-09-18T16:39:22.130" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never been heavily involved in fantasy or role playing games, but I've had plenty of friends who were. A couple of them have given it up for one reason or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most applicable of these cases was somebody who was convicted about the usage of their time spent in the gaming world not being productive or glorifying to God. There was no objection on principle to the activities, but they were convinced that there were better things to be doing with their time. Besides ... in light of the grace they received from Christ, they wanted to spend their sharing that grace with others. The real world is hardly a boring place, and the way it comes alive in light of the Gospel is enough to inspire and drive even the most active imagination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also have friends (who I respect) that think their time spent in role playing games or fantasy worlds is well balanced and the interaction with people a valuable investment. I don't know enough about the culture of gaming to know how easy/hard/valid/invalid this is, but I have to imagine as a past-time and social activity it doesn't have to be a bad thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the content of what you are participating in needs to be considered. Considering movies as a whole one might conclude that watching films is permissible, but then if all you watch is trash, obviously you've twisted some truth into a lie. If the content of the world you are participating in is not wholesome, as a Christian you would have no business continuing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this might fall under the umbrella of Paul's admonition about meat sacrificed to idols. All things are permissible but not all things are beneficial. That's a judgement call you'll have to make. Is your time spent in gaming or role playing giving the most glory to God that you can give with your life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T16:39:22.130" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2968" CreationDate="2011-09-18T18:11:32.073" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know when I was growing up my mom didn't let me play D&amp;amp;D (I did anyway) partly because of the magic/demons/occult stuff, but also because (according to Focus on the Family at least) role playing is supposedly all consuming with a cult like aspect of sucking you into it's world and not letting you go.  That was at least the common wisdom of James Dobson in the early 90s.  I wonder how that has adapted to video games and the like?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T18:11:32.073" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2972" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2980" CreationDate="2011-09-18T18:52:30.697" Score="30" ViewCount="27976" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Genesis 5&lt;/a&gt;, some of the descendants of Adam are listed with their ages. The people listed lived very much longer than anybody does today. For example, Adam lived to be 930. The oldest age, 969 years, is listed for Methuselah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did these people live so long? Does the Bible explain this at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-05T04:44:49.250" LastActivityDate="2015-09-05T04:44:49.250" Title="Why did people live so long before the Flood?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;adam&gt;&lt;human-body&gt;&lt;methuselah&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2972" CreationDate="2011-09-18T19:06:00.427" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because God said so :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can think of several practical reasons but they are mostly speculation. In order to not let the natural process of decay and corruption mess up the gene pool too much he may have let people live longer early on. See: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2161/30&quot;&gt;Is incest a sin?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally this would have helped with the minimum number of people needed for a stand-alone society to survive problem. As the world got harder to live in after the fall, this number would have gone up faster than the population growth. With a low death rate, the system got a kind of jump-start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could go on, but that's enough speculation for one answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we do know is why he shortened it. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis%206:3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:3&lt;/a&gt; we find God abruptly shortening man's lifespan to 120 years. I think we can think of this about like the SE rep-cap. There is no promise that we will live that long, just that's the upper limit. There are exceptions (bonuses, accepted answer points) that get you a little over the line too, but it's a pretty solid rule of thumb. As for why it happened, apparently man wasn't getting smarter and holier with more time on his hands, only more evil and God didn't think that was healthy for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T20:02:13.013" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2974" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-18T19:21:17.587" Score="17" ViewCount="2909" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a lecturer who wanted me to attend a seminar. However, the seminar is on Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't study on Sundays so I declined this offer. My lecturer is, however, a Jew and he understands the Sabbath as well as the Lord's Day. He says that Jews have been considering this problem for many years and that &lt;em&gt;study&lt;/em&gt; is not considered &lt;em&gt;work&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand there is a difference between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day. What is the difference, what constitutes as work, and what should/shouldn't I do on Sunday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T19:29:58.923" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T19:37:33.833" Title="What qualifies as work on Sunday?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sunday&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2018-07-29T23:49:09.957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2975" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-18T19:06:53.797" Score="15" ViewCount="692" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am told, repeatedly, with great intensity and sincerity that YHVH / the LORD is kind and merciful, forgiving of all sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I read the Bible enough. God's main demonstrations of power seem to be, in chronological order,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Smiting the enemies of israel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Smiting those who offend his prophets (in one case, a bunch of kids who made fun of Elijah's bald spot)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Smiting those who worship other gods&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often after a natural or man-made disaster, we get a major evangelical religious figure saying that this is the Lord smiting us 'cause we made Him mad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this behavior in which God partakes would not be permissible for a human being:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If an army officer did this he'd be court-martialed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a politician did this he'd be voted out/impeached&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a civilian did this he'd be arrested&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is it about the LORD that justifies actions that aren't justifiable for humans?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="677" OwnerDisplayName="Joe Stavitsky" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T11:12:10.170" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T03:17:11.967" Title="Is God just and/or merciful?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2975" CreationDate="2011-09-18T19:38:22.497" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was raised in an Evangelical family, but my reply isn't necessarily restricted to this particular line of thought. I would say the biggest justification offered by apologists (say, my Mother and Father) for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Problem of Evil&lt;/a&gt; (also &lt;a href=&quot;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SEP&lt;/a&gt;) is that evil is needed for good to be recognized. Both philosophically (if everything is &quot;good&quot;, then there would be no basis of comparison for non-good things, so everything would simply just &quot;be&quot;), and from a free-will perspective (humans need strife in order to cultivate those who are honorable (deserving to go to Heaven) from those who are not (who should go to hell). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to specifically answer your question, the justification is that &lt;strong&gt;what God is doing is actually better for us in the long run&lt;/strong&gt;; a little bad makes the good stand out, and it provides the grounds for free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Polkinghorne&lt;/a&gt; is one advocate of the view that the current natural laws (having evil as a natural occurrence) are necessary for free will. See his book, &lt;em&gt;Belief in God in an Age of Science&lt;/em&gt; (2003).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Richard Swinburne&lt;/a&gt; in &quot;Is There a God?&quot; writes that &quot;the operation of natural laws producing evils gives humans knowledge (if they choose to seek it) of how to bring about such evils themselves.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian pastor and theologian, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_A._Boyd&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gregory A. Boyd&lt;/a&gt; claims that God's all-powerful nature does not mean that God exercises all power, and instead allows free agents to act against his own wishes. He argues that since love must be chosen, love cannot exist without true free will. He also maintains that God does not plan or will evil in people's lives, but that evil is a result of a combination of free choices and the interconnectedness and complexity of life in a sinful and fallen world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Hick&lt;/a&gt; writes about &quot;The 'Soul-Making Theodicy' in &lt;em&gt;Evil and the God of Love&lt;/em&gt; how evil and suffering may be necessary for spiritual growth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could cite more, but the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SEP&lt;/a&gt; articles cover this pretty well, so you might consider just starting there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="676" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T22:31:51.053" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T22:31:51.053" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2974" CreationDate="2011-09-18T19:46:29.253" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians are no longer held to the strict laws of Sabbath (an argument can actually be made that Jews were never held to this &lt;em&gt;strict&lt;/em&gt; law, either, but that they made it stricter than necessary--but that's beside the point).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have had jobs in the past where I was required to work on Sunday.  To ensure that I still had a &quot;Sabbath day&quot; (day of rest), I chose some other day of the week as my rest day.  I think this practice is well within the intention of Sabbath rest, as outlined in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you're asking specifically about a certain task, whether it is work or not.  I think Jesus demonstrated that the standard for Sabbath day activity should not be &quot;work,&quot;--as he did several acts of &quot;work&quot; (including harvesting grain, and healing) on the Sabbath.  Rather, I think the more important principle is &quot;Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy&quot;--that is, use the day for God's glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, for you, that means no studying, then don't study.  If for you, studying includes attending a lecture, then don't attend that lecture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For many people, studying is very stressful, and &lt;em&gt;distracting&lt;/em&gt;... for those people, I would think choosing to avoid study as part of their Sabbath ritual is a good idea.  For others, studying may be a relaxing thing.  I'm not in school, but I find it relaxing to read--and I rarely ever read fiction.  That means that almost all of my reading is &quot;study&quot; of some form.  If I therefore never &quot;studied&quot; on Sabbath, I would be avoiding one of the most relaxing activities I know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What it boils down to, I think, is your own personal conviction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You did the right thing to refuse the lecture, which would have gone against your convictions.  If you decide that your convictions should change, I'd say you're also doing the right thing, as there is no &quot;right&quot; answer in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-18T23:13:43.480" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T23:13:43.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2975" CreationDate="2011-09-18T21:06:29.997" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;bunch of kids who made fun of Elijah's bald spot&quot; were not a bunch of kids, (the KJV's translation is quite unfortunate here,) but a bunch of &lt;em&gt;youths&lt;/em&gt; (meaning teens or young men.) It was &lt;em&gt;Elisha,&lt;/em&gt; not Elijah, that they were making fun of, and laughing at him for being bald wasn't their offense.  This incident took place soon after Elijah's ascension into heaven, and they were telling him to &quot;go up, thou bald head.&quot;  In other words, &quot;hey baldie, if your master could go up to heaven, why can't you do it too?&quot;  Insinuating that God's chosen servant didn't have the power of God with him as his predecessor did was their sin, and it was a pretty serious sin indeed, because it can lead others around them away from the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it says that there were over 40 youths involved in the incident.  That's not &quot;a bunch of kids,&quot; it's a small mob, and &quot;mocking&quot; in Old Testament times was not always confined to simple verbal taunting.  They could very well have been putting the prophet in physical danger.  One man, old enough to be going bald, against 40 strong young men isn't good odds, so why shouldn't he call upon the Lord for some help with his predicament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the more general cases of &quot;smiting the wicked,&quot; your &quot;most superficial ethical level&quot; is superficial indeed, as it only looks at the situation from a mortal perspective.  To understand these actions, we need to look at it from an eternal perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scriptures make it clear that we will be judged according to our works, and that salvation comes by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, whose power we can apply to ourselves through faith and repentance.  We have free will, to choose good or evil, for as long as that's a meaningful choice.  But when a person or a civilization reaches the point where they've sunk so low that there are no good choices to make, and no faith or desire to repent in their hearts, then there's no point in keeping them around any longer, especially if doing so would harm others.  (For example, by allowing them to live long enough to bring children into the world that would never end up having a chance to live righteously due to the environment they were raised in.)  At that point, God destroys them to prevent greater harm to the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's an act of love, done by an all-knowing God who understands the consequences, which makes it fundamentally different from a murder committed by a sociopath who doesn't know (or most likely even care) what his victims might have done had they continued to live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T21:06:29.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2979" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-18T21:08:52.943" Score="10" ViewCount="7518" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by this question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2974/60&quot;&gt;What qualifies as work on Sunday?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know some churches are very specific that we should commit one weekday to the Lord (Saturday or Sunday). Much like Jews celebrate the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The need to rest one day a week is very real for me. I really find it necessary to take one day off work, studies and all that. I &lt;em&gt;usually&lt;/em&gt; do this on Sunday, as it's usually practical. However, if I need to do something on Sunday, I have no problem with instead taking the following Tuesday off, resting, reading and praying. This seems to work well for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never found a reason to specify the &lt;strong&gt;weekday&lt;/strong&gt; I should spend like Lord's day. Are there any?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T21:48:03.467" Title="Does it matter which day I celebrate Sabbath / Lord's day on?" Tags="&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-24T04:42:29.387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2972" CreationDate="2011-09-18T21:13:53.000" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;The accuracy of the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11 has been greatly debated. People have proposed various means of adjusting the figures to more realistic values, on the assumption that there has been some textual error. (This is partly motivated by differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, suggesting some confusion on the part of translators and editors.) Others are happy to assume that the text we have received is essentially correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine discusses some such schemes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt; 15.9-15&lt;/a&gt;; he believes that the patriarchs did indeed live to the stated ages (basically, because stranger things have happened). The basic problem he finds with trying to rescale the figures (he discusses several alternatives, such as that one &quot;year&quot; in the text should really be one month, or that all the numbers are inflated by a factor of ten) is that the Genesis account also gives the ages at which each man fathered his son. Enosh was 90 when he had his son (Genesis 5:9) and 905 when he died (5:11). Rescaling either gives him a long lifespan in any case, or has him fathering Kenan at an unusually young age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Julius Wellhausen in &lt;em&gt;Prolegomena to the History of Israel&lt;/em&gt; (1882) suggested a complicated scheme based on a &quot;Great Year&quot; of 4000 years in total from Adam to the rededication of the Temple in 164BC. He puts the Exodus at 2666 years after the creation, with the 26 generations from Adam to Aaron each representing a century (the remaining 66 years are assigned to Eleazar). Many other scholars have since refined this idea, suggesting tweaks and trying to understand the textual influences. Under this family of interpretations, the ages of the patriarchs are purely notional - there may be some symbolic reason for the particular numbers being as they are, but the purpose is simply to express generational decline. This is analogous to documents from surrounding cultures, such as the Sumerian King List, which also feature enormous but decreasing lifespans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther assumes in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27978/27978-h/27978-h.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Commentaries on Genesis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (vol. 2, ch. 5, paragraphs 34-43) that the ages are as stated. He attributes their long lifespans to better diet, and to their righteousness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35) Though the body was sounder than at present, yet the general vigor and strength of limb which men had in paradise before the advent of sin, had passed away. It is true, however, that their bodily well-being was enhanced when, after the fall, they were renewed and regenerated through faith in the promised seed. For the same reason, also, sin was weakened through faith in the seed. As for us, we have lost their strength and vigor just in proportion as we have departed from their righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36) With reference to food, who cannot easily believe that one apple, in that primeval age, was more excellent and afforded a greater degree of nourishment than a thousand in our time? The roots, also, on which they fed, contained infinitely more fragrance, virtue and savor, than they possess now. All these conditions, but notably holiness and righteousness, the exercise of moderation, then the excellence of the fruit and the salubrity of the atmosphere - all these tended to produce longevity till the time came for the establishment of a new order by God which resulted in a decided reduction of the length of man's life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther also points out that the chronology has many of the patriarchs alive at the same time, with Adam dying not long before Noah was born:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43) Truly that primeval time was a &quot;golden age,&quot; in comparison with which our present age is scarcely worthy of being called the age of mud. During those primeval centuries, there lived at the same time nine patriarchs, together with their posterities, and all of them in harmony concerning the faith in the blessed seed! All these glorious things Moses just mentions, but does not explain; otherwise this would be the history of histories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-18T21:13:53.000" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2981" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-18T21:19:36.690" Score="28" ViewCount="1593" Body="&lt;p&gt;In evangelical churches the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner%27s_prayer&quot;&gt;sinner's prayer&lt;/a&gt; is a very much emphasized aspect for someone to become or convert to being a Christian. In fact, most church services I attended growing up ended with the pastor inviting anyone in the congregation who wanted to be saved to pray it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, when I was very young, my parents actually compelled me to pray the prayer, thereby  defeating the purpose of the prayer. For years I struggled with the question of whether or not I was actually 'saved' or not, since I had not actually prayed it under my own volition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the meaning or purpose of this prayer in the context of becoming or being a Christian? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should I (or those in a similar situation) pray it again? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What about people that pray it earnestly, then reject their faith and then come back to it again? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-01-31T14:36:11.177" LastActivityDate="2017-01-31T19:27:42.717" Title="Is the &quot;sinner's prayer&quot; important for salvation and why?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-01-31T17:07:00.867" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2981" CreationDate="2011-09-18T21:50:25.243" Score="12" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The sinners prayer has no place in Christ's Gospel&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Christ die? Have you thought about that? If Christ was somebody that everybody loved, why was the entire town chanting that He be killed? Have you thought about that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:25&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in&#xA;their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;WAIT A MINUTE! I thought that everybody loved Christ??  Read further.... you must always read further...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 7:7&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it&#xA;that its works are evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, the world &lt;strong&gt;HATED&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus Christ, because Christ came and told them that they were sinners and then He told them that they had to repent or they would go to Hell. We learned more about Hell from our Lord Christ than we did from all of the other prophets put together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus Commanded!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 1:14-15&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee,&#xA;preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, “The time&#xA;is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. &lt;strong&gt;Repent, and believe&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;in the gospel.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isn't it funny that you never hear Jesus taking people aside and having them repeat a prayer..? Ever thought about that? Don't you think that somebody would have been smart enough to ask Jesus how to be saved? What do you think He said to them? &amp;quot;Say this prayer?&amp;quot; haha! Never!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 10:25-28&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying,&#xA;“Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 He said to&#xA;him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”  27 So&#xA;he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all&#xA;your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all&#xA;your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 And He said to&#xA;him, &lt;strong&gt;“You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered that we needed to obey the commandments....  But I thought that was work? Let's keep reading..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 13:8&lt;/strong&gt; NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves&#xA;another has fulfilled the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 13:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of&#xA;the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 5:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall&#xA;love your neighbor as yourself.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:38-40&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like&#xA;it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two&#xA;commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 12:31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as&#xA;yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;LOVE LOVE LOVE!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's all about loving people. Not by just telling people that you love them though! It's about actually going out and DOING. Going out and taking care of the widows and the orphans, not cursing people on the road, turning the other cheek and showing your enemy that you forgive them even after they spit in your face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These things I command you, that you love one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have&#xA;kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And&#xA;he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and&#xA;manifest Myself to him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“If you love Me, keep My commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For this is the love of God,&lt;/strong&gt; that we keep His commandments. And&#xA;His commandments are not burdensome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are you beginning to see?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sinner's prayer wraps all of the mentions of salvation into a thirty second &amp;quot;repeat after me&amp;quot; that is all about yourself! The sinners prayer has nothing to do with this command to love it completely throws it out the window.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul Washer IS your man on this one. Here's a clip from one of his sermons: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc5lY9YP_bE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Declaring War on The Sinner's Prayer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;THIS IS THE GOSPEL&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understand that people DO NOT want to love one another. This is why they keep throwing the idea out! Go listen to your pastor next weekend and I guarantee that his message will be about &amp;quot;a better life now&amp;quot; or some other BS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is here to tell us how much we HATE one another and how much we HATE GOD. It's no wonder that God has been transformed into Santa Claus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Go to God now and fall on your face and ask for forgiveness, because of your wickedness!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What about faith?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 5:6&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails&#xA;anything, but faith working through love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:24&lt;/strong&gt;  (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith&#xA;only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of&#xA;these is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;This is not an option&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's get one thing clear. This is not an option. You MUST turn from your wickedness and if you do not then you will be sent to Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 2:19&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal:&#xA;“The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the&#xA;name of Christ depart from iniquity.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:22-23&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not&#xA;prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many&#xA;wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never&#xA;knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 6:46&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I&#xA;say?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the last days this is exactly how you will be judged&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books&#xA;were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.&#xA;And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which&#xA;were written in the books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered&#xA;up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according&#xA;to his works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will never find in the gospel of Christ that you need to repeat a prayer in order to be saved. Know that the only place in the Bible that mentions &amp;quot;faith alone&amp;quot; was in James 2 when James said that it is not by faith alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throw out that prayer and call out to God to be saved! When God grants you repentance He will take you under His authority and HE will teach you Himself, about Himself. Your eyes will be opened and you will WANT to obey Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:46:24.930" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2979" CreationDate="2011-09-18T22:43:01.960" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a situation where honoring the Sabbath would be difficult to do on any day besides Sunday. The conditions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You believe that partaking of the Eucharist/Communion/Sacrament is an important part of Sabbath worship. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your church only offers Communion on Sundays.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't fit those two conditions then its difficult to find biblical support against moving the Sabbath day around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I would never personally do it. Besides the fact that I fit the two conditions described above, I would feel like I was saying, &quot;The happenings of my life are of a higher priority than the Kingdom of God&quot; (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:33&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:33&lt;/a&gt;). But that's just me. I know that's not your intention and its great that you strive to honor the Sabbath once a week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T04:08:55.750" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T04:08:55.750" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2981" CreationDate="2011-09-19T01:26:39.053" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the problem with the sinner's prayer is what it claims to do, once you have said it you are saved forevermore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that the NT disagrees with this idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the bible quotes I will use this: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/&lt;/a&gt;, but just about any Bible translation will be similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, see James 2:24, where we are saved by grace, not by faith, so our salvation is a gift from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you have James 2:17:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a bit long, but if you start with Matt 25:34 and read on for a bit, basically, if you didn't help those that needed it, then you will burn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other parts of the New Testament that would apply, but basically, salvation is given by Grace, we cannot earn it, as we are all born sinners, but we work with the hope that we will be graced with seeing God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more on this you can look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR258.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR258.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9 may be applicable, as this prayer is a work, of which people are proud that they said, so they boast, whether verbally or not, as they ignore the homeless or infirmed around them, their actions are enough of a boast to state that they are assured salvation, they don't need to do anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the danger of this prayer, if there is no risk of burning in Hell then why continue to do what Jesus taught, about loving those that hate us, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will end with one of my favorite verses, Rev 3:16, where, if you are lukewarm, you are to be spit out of God's mouth. I don't care if it is holy spit, it is still bad, I believe.  So be on fire or be cold, there is no middle ground, according to this part of Revelations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T18:17:12.723" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T18:17:12.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2979" CreationDate="2011-09-19T03:06:01.173" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%202:2-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:2-3 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; it says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;  By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;  Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem to indicate only the existence of 'a day of rest', but there is no reference to a certain day of the week being more deserving of said title. I only see evidence that we should observe 'a day of rest'; though whatever day of the week that might happen to be is of little to no consequence really. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="160" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T09:27:26.993" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T09:27:26.993" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2987" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-19T04:52:36.660" Score="9" ViewCount="2605" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:2-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 8:2-11&lt;/a&gt; tells us the story of the woman caught in adultery:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;At dawn [Jesus] appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;“No one, sir,” she said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a wonderful story of Christ's compassion on an obvious sinner... as well as a story of Christ's cleverness when dealing with the Pharisees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;what is the practical application of this story?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-08-13T03:42:49.167" Title="What is the practical application of the story of the woman caught in adultery?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;adultery&gt;&lt;judging-others&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-04-17T14:21:21.300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2964" CreationDate="2011-09-19T08:32:36.260" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you suggest in your question, the use of a Crucifix with a model of the crucified Jesus on it is typically something you find in Catholic and Orthodox traditions. There is quite a big of variance on the design and usage of these, but the practice is fairly restricted to those traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In places with heavy Catholic or Orthodox influence (such as Italy) you will find crucifixes in other places outside of the church including businesses and even government institutions such as law courts. It is also quite common to have these icons in homes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know of any modern Protestant tradition that uses the crucifix as opposed to an empty cross. There might be individual cases where a local church, for whatever reason, makes a choice to do something out of the normal, but as a whole most non-Catholic/Orthodox traditions do not use a crucifix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue of what you see in the movies is entirely separate. They are less worried about being faithful to represent some specific tradition and more worried about giving a general impression. They tend to put together whatever they can find and mix and match traditions in order to have &quot;something for everyone&quot; on screen. What you see represented on the silver screen should be discarded when actually examining what makes up a given church tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T08:32:36.260" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2987" CreationDate="2011-09-19T08:36:35.730" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the story, everyone there recognised that they were sinners, including the top religious leaders. We should recognise that in ourselves also, no matter how 'good' we try to be. Jesus' compassion is not just for the woman but also for all of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This comes to the heart of Christianity and is the whole point of John's Gospel: everyone has sinned/rebelled against God and faces his just judgement. But God sent his Son Jesus to come and save such sinners, and we're invited to trust in him so that we're no longer condemned by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T08:36:35.730" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2964" CreationDate="2011-09-19T08:47:59.753" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Lutherans&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lutherans consider the crucifix to be a powerful reminder of the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation. The Apostle Paul says in 1st Corinthians, chapter 1: “We preach Christ and Him crucified.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history of Lutheranism demonstrates that the crucifix was a regular and routine feature of Lutheran worship and devotional life during Luther’s lifetime and during the period of Lutheran Orthdoxy. It was also the case among the founding fathers of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was a good practice to hold a wooden crucifix before the eyes of the dying or to press it into their hands.40 This brought the suffering and death of Christ to mind and comforted the dying. But the others, who haughtily relied on their good works, entered a heaven that contained a sizzling fire. For they were drawn away from Christ and failed to impress His life-giving passion and death upon their hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Luther's works, vol. 23 : Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 6-8&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I say at the outset that according to the law of Moses no other images are forbidden than an image of God which one worships. A crucifix, on the other hand, or any other holy image is not forbidden. Heigh now! you breakers of images, I defy you to prove the opposite!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Luther's Works. Vol. 40 (Vol. 40, Page 85-86)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Lutherans began to move away from crucifixes during the age of Lutheran &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism&quot;&gt;Pietism&lt;/a&gt;, which rejected much of Lutheran doctrine and consequently many Lutheran worship practices. At the time, Lutheran Pietists, contrary to the clear postion of Luther and the earlier Lutherns, held that symbols such as the crucifix were wrong. This was never the view of historic Lutheranism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T08:47:59.753" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1982" CreationDate="2011-09-19T09:05:50.810" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many ancient cultures, Hebrew included, the number seven often signifies &lt;strong&gt;completeness&lt;/strong&gt; and/or &lt;strong&gt;perfection&lt;/strong&gt; (for more information see either &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/9004023364&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Numerical Sayings in the OT&lt;/em&gt;, W. Roth&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830814396&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;IVP New Bible Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;, ed. Marshall, Miller, Packer, Wiseman, p834&lt;/a&gt;). Therefore, it is often used in an emphatic sense. This is seen in Peter's question: &quot;should I forgive &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;seven&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; times?&quot; (possibly thinking he was being a good disciple in making the point that he should always forgive) - Jesus' reply is to be emphatically emphatic! That is, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;seventy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; times &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;seven&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;! Jesus often uses hyperbole (overstatement to make a point) in his teaching style, such as the &lt;em&gt;Camel and the eye of a needle&lt;/em&gt; in &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 19:24&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lamech's use, again, is to show he is being emphatic. His use of &lt;strong&gt;seventy-seven&lt;/strong&gt; is to make a point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Edit)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also interesting to note that Jesus' contemporary rabbis would teach that a man should forgive a sin 3 times. (See Carson's commentary on Matthew, p.405). This makes Peter's statement of &quot;forgiving an infinite amount of times&quot; even more impressive, though Jesus is not outdone, of course!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="647" LastEditorUserId="647" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T12:21:33.357" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T12:21:33.357" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2987" CreationDate="2011-09-19T10:12:47.047" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many possible practical applications. In fact, I think this is one of the most commonly used sermon texts. Everyone from ultra-liberals to ultra-conservatives seems to love the passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it's textually &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3506/was-jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultery-in-st-john-a-later-addition-and-doe&quot;&gt;one of the two most disputed passages&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; in the New Testament, along with Mark 16:9-20 (see: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/960/60&quot;&gt;Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?&lt;/a&gt;). The passage is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Manuscript_evidence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;missing from many, including the earliest manuscripts&lt;/a&gt;, and marked as questionable content (e.g. with a ÷ in the margin) in many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the passage is beautiful and I believe it and value it. But given its disputedness, I prefer not to use it for practical applications nor teaching others. For any of the major points, there are other passages that can be used just as well. Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't judge others. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everyone is a sinner. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus forgives sins. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:36-50&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 7:36-50&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus commands to repent. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T09:19:40.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2981" CreationDate="2011-09-19T11:01:25.207" Score="9" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Support For It&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The foundational &lt;em&gt;support&lt;/em&gt; (not the source) for the sinners prayer is found in these three concepts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Confess with your mouth&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:9-10;&amp;amp;version=ESV;&quot;&gt;Romans 10:9-10 ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Emphasis added&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and &lt;strong&gt;with the mouth one confesses and is saved&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Humble yourself&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:13-14;&amp;amp;version=ESV;&quot;&gt;Luke 18:13-14 ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Emphasis added&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;   But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but &lt;strong&gt;the one who humbles himself will be exalted&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ask and you will receive&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:7;&amp;amp;version=ESV;&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:7 ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Emphasis added&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Ask, and it will be given to you&lt;/strong&gt;; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sinner's prayer &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; a formula, but it is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; something that will grant immediate salvation.  I know no preacher who believes this.  They see it as a &lt;strong&gt;tool&lt;/strong&gt; to help guide people to know what to say.  They believe that the words said in the sinner's prayer are foundational to Christianity (belief that we have all sinned and that only through Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son, may we be saved).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the sinner's prayer in the bible?  No!  Absolutely not!  But neither is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle%27s_Creed&quot;&gt;Apostle's Creed&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it important for salvation?  Yes and no!  A formula will not save you, but confession of some sort &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The formula simply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;makes sure that your heart is in line with the truth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;makes sure that you truly confess that Jesus is Lord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It won't &lt;strong&gt;justify&lt;/strong&gt; you, but confession with the mouth (any confession, not a formula) will &lt;strong&gt;save&lt;/strong&gt; you (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:9-10;&amp;amp;version=ESV;&quot;&gt;Romans 10:9-10&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T17:53:30.163" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T17:53:30.163" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2994" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2995" CreationDate="2011-09-19T12:54:15.707" Score="8" ViewCount="313" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it is possible to create beings like Jesus - or to recreate humans as sinless versions of themselves - Was all of creation a mistake?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A mistake that all of History in the Bible attempts to correct? From the initial mistake of not giving Adam and Eve the knowledge to prevent their own mistakes. Through to Jesus coming to correct the initial mistake, only to be the subject of further mistakes. Through to the ultimate correction of the mistake. The destruction of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doesn't this imply that we are God's mistake?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, I'm looking for a scripture-based explanation for how the universe was/wasn't a mistake. And by extension if the first, how that can be reconciled with a perfect God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;The wonderful answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1158/673&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; by @Richard inspired this question.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="673" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T04:42:07.427" Title="If Jesus was Sinless and had Free Will, how is the rest of creation not a mistake?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2994" CreationDate="2011-09-19T13:05:23.123" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all you start with a false premise. Jesus was not created! He is the creator. What is possible for him to be and become is not necessarily possible to create.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, something created in such a fashion that it would remain sinless would make it a very different kind of being than a sinful being that has been redeemed and made perfect out of imperfection. The latter is a MUCH HARDER feat and shows off the glory and the power of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is no mistake.&lt;/strong&gt; From the beginning God set out to do something hard to demonstrate the power of his Son. &lt;em&gt;The history of salvation begins not at the fall of man (as if something went unexpectedly wrong) but before creation itself.&lt;/em&gt; Jesus is knows as the Lamb who was slain before the foundations of the world. How salvation would work was decided and implemented and the results written down before man came along to test the plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Revelation%2013:8&quot;&gt;Revelation 13:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T13:05:23.123" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2996" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="2999" CreationDate="2011-09-19T13:07:21.313" Score="6" ViewCount="919" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2643/biblical-evidence-for-omnipotence-omniscience&quot;&gt;Biblical evidence for omnipotence/omniscience&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always thought of God as all-knowing (omniscient).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when formulating another question, I realized that my assumption to that question was that God actually &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; omniscient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for the omniscience of God?  How do we know that he really knows everything? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my stance, it's not possible for us to know that God really knows everything, given the fact that &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; don't know everything!  Has He told us that he's omniscient somewhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T13:32:27.213" Title="Is God omniscient?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-09-19T14:02:10.237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2997" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-19T13:17:19.353" Score="5" ViewCount="265" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2643/biblical-evidence-for-omnipotence-omniscience&quot;&gt;Biblical evidence for omnipotence/omniscience&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Next in my &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2996/is-god-omniscient&quot;&gt;line of questions&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always heard silly questions like &quot;Could God create a rock so big he couldn't lift it?&quot;  Obviously there's multiple mistaken assumptions in there.  However, there is one assumption in there that fits with my understanding of God:  &lt;strong&gt;that He is omnipotent.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I realized that I've been believing this without any biblical backing for this.  So, I pose the question here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for the omnipotence of God?  Is God truly all-powerful or are there limits to his abilities?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, he parted the Red Sea, stopped the waters of the Jordan River when it was at flood stage, and stopped the spinning of the earth so that a war could wage on.  However, what are the limitations of this power?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is he truly omnipotent?  (And does that even mean that he can do absolutely anything he wants?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T13:22:29.210" Title="Is God omnipotent?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-09-19T14:01:50.860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2996" CreationDate="2011-09-19T13:17:31.730" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says God is perfect in knowledge, knows all thoughts, all secrets, sees all and no-one can hide from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Talk no more so very proudly;&#xA;        Let no arrogance come from your mouth, &#xA;        For the LORD is the God of knowledge; &#xA;        And by Him actions are weighed. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%202:3&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 2:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for he views the ends of the earth &#xA;     and sees everything under the heavens. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2028:24&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 28:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you know how the clouds are balanced,&#xA;        Those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge? &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2037:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 37:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know that you can do all things; &#xA;     no plan of yours can be thwarted. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2042:2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 42:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;would not God have discovered it, &#xA;     since he knows the secrets of the heart? &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2044:21&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 44:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there is not a word on my tongue,&#xA;           But behold, O LORD, You know it altogether &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20139:4,7-8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 139:4,7-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Where can I go from Your Spirit?&#xA;           Or where can I flee from Your presence?&#xA;   8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;&#xA;           If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20139:4,7-8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 139:7-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Great is our Lord, and mighty in power;&#xA;           His understanding is infinite.&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20147:5&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 147:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The eyes of the LORD are in every place, &#xA;        Keeping watch on the evil and the good. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2015:3&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 15:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from My face, nor is their iniquity hidden from My eyes. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2016:17&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 16:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can anyone hide himself in secret places, &#xA;        So I shall not see him?” says the LORD; &#xA;  “ Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the LORD. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2023:24&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 23:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:24&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 1:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:13&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 4:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And by this we know[a] that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%201%20John%203:19-20&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 3:19-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;There are some epistemological problems with an omniscient god, but I don't know if it's in the scope of this site and it certainly is not written in the bible.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="301" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T13:32:27.213" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T13:32:27.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2996" CreationDate="2011-09-19T13:17:37.330" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God knows everything:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%203:20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 3:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For God is greater than our hearts, and &lt;strong&gt;he knows everything&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But He chooses to forget one thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:25&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 43:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and &lt;strong&gt;remembers your sins no more&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, God knows everything except that which He &lt;em&gt;chooses&lt;/em&gt; to forget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T13:24:18.333" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2996" CreationDate="2011-09-19T13:18:41.917" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospels make it pretty clear that omniscience is a trait that God alone enjoys.  Consider the science behind omniscience. He literally knows when the neurons fire in the brains of people all over the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus would not trust himself to them, for he knew all men&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 2:24 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Come and see a man who told me everything I ever did! Could he possibly be the Messiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 4:29&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, &quot;Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 9:4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're asking whether God knows if a tree falling in the woods makes any sound:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who makes the rain fall on barren land, in a desert where no one lives?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 38:26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T13:18:41.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2997" CreationDate="2011-09-19T13:22:29.210" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God Himself asks this question, apparently rhetorically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2032:27&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 32:27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. &lt;strong&gt;Is anything too hard for me?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Implication: yes, God is all powerful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T13:22:29.210" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3002" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-19T13:33:04.490" Score="13" ViewCount="1189" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the laity, when praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private, is it more in keeping with tradition to you pray out loud or silently or does it matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, do you change the way you repeat antiphons and responses when praying in private or praying silently as opposed to praying out loud or singing/chanting it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2018-11-30T22:27:35.423" LastActivityDate="2019-10-28T03:28:25.300" Title="Should praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private be out loud or silent?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;liturgy-of-the-hours&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="3003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="212" CreationDate="2011-09-19T13:54:22.933" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Intelligent Design &lt;em&gt;allows for&lt;/em&gt; creation, but does not &lt;em&gt;presume&lt;/em&gt; it. What it says is that for any &lt;strong&gt;set&lt;/strong&gt; of complex designs (one design is not enough, but many designs as a variation on a theme, such as with evolution, can be), you can learn something about their origin &amp;mdash; the designer.  This is true whether that designer might turn out to be an intelligence or a natural process.  ID also hypothesizes that if the the designer is intelligent, rather than the solely the action of natural processes, the designs should bear evidence of that intelligence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ID has applications outside of the evolution vs creation debate. For example, let's say there's a new bird flu/SARS virus going around. ID research could eventually provide the basis to determine whether the epidemic is natural or engineered by terrorists, and perhaps even where it came from. By examining the virus and comparing traits from known natural and engineered sources, the theory says that you should be able to distinguish it as one or the other with a more exact degree of probability than current methods, and in some cases even which kind of engineered source or technique was used: whether the design of the virus was natural or backed by an intelligence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There have been extreme reactions to ID on both sides. Evolutionists often see it &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; as a wedge for allowing creationism in classrooms, and react accordingly. They miss the larger view of the field. In their defense, some (prominent) creationists have tried to use it that way, though I think (my opinion) for the most part creationists are just as wary of it because it also makes allowances for evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T14:25:44.363" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T14:25:44.363" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3004" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3006" CreationDate="2011-09-19T14:05:41.870" Score="21" ViewCount="4773" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2996/is-god-omniscient&quot;&gt;Is God omniscient?&lt;/a&gt; lists all the passages were it is written that God is omniscient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading other passages, I found a few things that seemingly contradict this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:8-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 3:8-13&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; God asks Adam and Eve where they are and if they have eaten from the tree&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018:20-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 18:20-21&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; he apparently does not know what they have done&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032:22-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 32:22-30&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; God wrestles in his bodily form with Jacob, but asks Him about His name&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2022:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Numbers 22:9&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; He asks “Who are these men with you?”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%208:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 8:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; and other instances, God tests people, but wouldn't He know beforehand what they would do?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2019-06-23T15:39:01.770" Title="Why is God asking questions or appearing uncertain in the Bible if He's omniscient?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3004" CreationDate="2011-09-19T14:23:00.137" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gaining information is not the only reason for asking questions.  Asking questions is a very powerful teaching device--not because the teacher does not know the answer, but because in the answering of the questions the students learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam was hiding from an omniscient God.  He had never felt the need to hide from God before.  The question helped Adam understand and confess what he had done.  &quot;I'm hiding... I've never hid before... this is the consequences of my sinful choice...&quot;  Adam even had a choice of whether to answer or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to the question of whether he had eaten of the fruit, Adam blames Eve and even tries to implicate God in it, since He brought her to him.  He had a chance to take responsibility, but he failed in that and reverted to the blame game.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God also asks rhetorical questions, as He did to Job.  &quot;Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the fact that God asks questions does not mean He lacks knowledge or information and must gain it from the minds of men.  He asks questions for other reasons, just like you and I do in our conversations with other people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the question about when God wasn't asking questions (2 and 5)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God doesn't say He doesn't know what's going in in Sodom.  He just says that He is going to go there to observe it.  He doesn't just observe either--He also takes Lot out of the city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Testing is another issue.  Like questions, God is not gaining information by it.  It actually does a lot for us, as we build up a history of learning from both the right and wrong decisions we make.  If we are tested and fail, we deal with the guilt and the understanding of what we ought to have done.  If we are tested and succeed, we set a pattern for future testings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T17:12:48.710" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T17:12:48.710" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="249" CreationDate="2011-09-19T14:40:51.987" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the confusion is that, for many, the idea of meditation is to &lt;strong&gt;clear&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;empty&lt;/strong&gt; your mind in an effort to find peace or tranquility.  Christian meditation is the opposite: &lt;strong&gt;filling&lt;/strong&gt; your mind and &lt;strong&gt;focusing or concentrating&lt;/strong&gt; on a specific subject.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible uses the word &quot;meditation&quot; in three places in the New Testament (Luke 21, Philippians 4, and I Timothy 4, KJV), and every one of those mentions it in the context of meditating on a specific subject or subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T16:10:53.200" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T16:10:53.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3004" CreationDate="2011-09-19T14:46:25.053" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Allow me to caveat my answer with the following Bible reference before I even attempt an explanation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2011:34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 11:34 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a branch of Theology Proper (i.e. theology about God) called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Open Theology&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, made popular by Clark Pinnock's book &lt;em&gt;The Openness of God&lt;/em&gt;. In it, the traditional understanding of God's attributes are questioned; including His omniscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are numerous biblical texts that support God's omniscience, such as those found &lt;a href=&quot;http://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/ten-bible-verses-god-is-omniscient/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;here&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the question is more about what to do with the above verses. The fact remains that God has always intended to be relational with His creation, and while He may know the answer to such questions, the people God is interacting with in these passages will be changed in some way through answering them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's questions are for our benefit, not His.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="647" LastEditorUserId="647" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T08:00:54.210" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T08:00:54.210" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1533" CreationDate="2011-09-19T15:08:36.040" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the title question, Theistic Evolution is the belief that God guides the evolutionary process, and that this guidance better explains weaknesses in current evolutionary theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theistic Evolution presumes an Old Earth, but Old Earth Creationism does not presume Theistic Evolution, as OEC also allows both for traditional evolution (that God is more of a watch-maker, and did not intervene in the natural selection process after creation) and for no evolution at all (that individual species were created by God at the appropriate times in history) depending on who you talk to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T15:08:36.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1533" CreationDate="2011-09-19T15:32:44.997" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theistic Evolution is the belief that God created life via the evolutionary process as it is understood today by modern science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few ways in which Evolution might be understood &quot;theistically&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God might have worked via guided evolution, ensuring that the appropriate mutations and/or environments arose to reach a particular end.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God might have created the first life, and then &quot;set it loose&quot;, with random mutation doing the rest.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's work might have simply been to create the world in such a way that life itself would arise (and evolve, adapt, etc.) according to chance and the laws of nature.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that most people who call themselves &quot;Theistic Evolutionists&quot; would go with #3 (Howard Van Till calls this &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods-hvt.htm&quot;&gt;Fully gifted creation&lt;/a&gt;&quot;), although I don't see any reason the term couldn't be applied to those who believe in #1 or #2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T15:32:44.997" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2785" CreationDate="2011-09-19T15:57:19.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;John the Baptist, when asked effectively the same question by a group of soldiers during the transition from Old to New Covenants, answered in the following way (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 3:14&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, &quot;And what about us, what shall we do?&quot; And he said to them, &quot;Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; tell them to quit their jobs - he told them to be content and not abuse their positions of authority/power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told his disciples to make sure they had a sword (they had two) before they went to the Garden of Gethsemane (immediately following the establishment of the New Covenant in the upper room) (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:35-38&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:35-38&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And He said to them, &quot;When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?&quot; They said, &quot;No, nothing.&quot; And He said to them, &quot;But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.&quot; They said, &quot;Lord, look, here are two swords.&quot; And He said to them, &quot;It is enough.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T15:57:19.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3013" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3908" CreationDate="2011-09-19T16:26:33.090" Score="14" ViewCount="10854" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been some questions and answers which discuss the strength of one's faith such as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2904/why-do-oec-discount-the-literal-interpretation-of-the-book-of-genesis/2906#2906&quot;&gt;Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a question which asks &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1311/what-is-faith&quot;&gt;What is &amp;quot;faith?&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; and another which asks &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith&quot;&gt;How do I get more faith?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you measure faith, and how can you identify when someone is &quot;weaker&quot; in it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2016-10-09T05:14:25.930" Title="What does it mean to be &quot;weak in faith&quot;?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-10-10T14:26:18.257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1311" CreationDate="2011-09-19T16:56:04.330" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faith is a species of belief.  I'll list what I think the various species are (I'd argue this list is not subjective):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief based on day-to-day experience (normal belief)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief based on rigorous evidence (scientific belief)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief based on internal mental content (intuitive belief)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief based on religious texts/traditions/community/mystical experience (faith)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians make use of all of these to some degree, but a pillar of Christianity (and other religions) is that the last one is key to appropriate participation in the religion.  Of course, how could it be otherwise?  (It wouldn't be religion for a person if it weren't believed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T16:56:04.330" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3013" CreationDate="2011-09-19T17:12:22.023" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In psychology, surveys to assess personal values or beliefs often make use of some kind of ratings scale delivered via a questionnaire, such as, &lt;em&gt;&quot;On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being totally uncertain and 10 being absolutely certain, how certain are you that the miracle of the loaves and the fishes occurred as described in the Bible?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  (You could also have the scale extend to negative values to indicate that you actively &lt;em&gt;don't believe&lt;/em&gt; a particular item.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These sorts of questionnaires are currently used, in fact.  One is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=1&amp;amp;ved=0CBwQFjAA&amp;amp;url=http://www.scu.edu/cas/psychology/faculty/upload/Strength-of-Religious-Faith-Questionnaire.pdf&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=Santa%20Clara%20Strength%20of%20Religious%20Faith%20Questionnaire&amp;amp;ei=vHZ3ToPnIOnV0QGnu_XcDQ&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFamTkQvhQ6_yjsaEHNizsldw604A&amp;amp;sig2=HgUKJrwhNgA-iaU9XLSG6A&amp;amp;cad=rja&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire&lt;/a&gt;, which only has 10 questions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being &quot;weak in faith&quot; could then be defined as below some minimum cut-off.  For example, if a battery of 1,000 such questions like the one above, asking about many different tenets of Christianity, were given to a person, he/she would then get an overall average &quot;faith score&quot;.  Let's say it were 8.  This person would then have a &quot;stronger faith&quot; than someone with a score of 2.  Perhaps the &quot;weak in faith&quot; cutoff would be 7, and so the first person would not be weak and the other person would be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's interesting to consider is whether the cut-off can be set at some number other than 10.  That is, if one has &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; doubts about the 1,000 questions, is that person therefore weak in faith?  I don't think this is addressed within the Bible itself, but likely is within the history of theology.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T17:12:22.023" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3016" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3065" CreationDate="2011-09-19T17:47:12.757" Score="7" ViewCount="2669" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is one that hasn't been hit (although it's been &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1809/can-an-atheist-go-to-heaven&quot;&gt;approached&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible for a person to not believe in God but live according to a moral standard?  Or is belief in God a prerequisite for morality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Morality, defined&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;In order to help refine this question a bit, we'll have to define morality as the parts of the Bible that tell us what is &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot;, excluding the parts that talk about how we should worship God.  (I know that practically invalidates the Bible, Christianity, and almost all doctrines on morality, but I can't think of a better way to make sense of this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to point out that I am seeking a Christian perspective on this.  This does refine the question to deal with morality of the Bible more so than the broader definition of morality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T07:47:20.907" Title="Is it possible for an atheist to be moral?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-09-26T07:47:38.440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3016" CreationDate="2011-09-19T18:05:58.700" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we define the moral standard as following God's laws other than the parts which require a belief in God, then yes, it is theoretically possible for an atheist to follow God's law and be moral.  I say &quot;theoretically&quot;, though, because it is likely not possible for any man to follow God's law.  In this sense, an atheist can be just as moral as a believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as being moral to the point of &lt;em&gt;being accepted by God&lt;/em&gt;, no, an atheist cannot be moral enough to be accepted by God.  Jesus tells us, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-38&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:37-38 NIV&lt;/a&gt;)  An atheist obviously cannot follow this commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T19:52:01.630" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:52:01.630" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="327" CreationDate="2011-09-19T18:08:18.523" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:1-12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus seems to indicate&lt;/a&gt; that sexual immorality is a valid reason for divorce.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for&#xA;  immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking in the footnotes, immorality can be translated fornication.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible also mentions abandonment as a reason for divorce, which @Jonathon covers, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some scholars&lt;/a&gt; believe that valid reasons for divorce also include neglect, which would including withholding of &quot;food, clothing, and love.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although the church forgot the other cause for divorce, every Jew in&#xA;  Jesus' day knew about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 21:10-11&lt;/a&gt;, which allowed divorce for&#xA;  neglect. Before rabbis introduced the &quot;any cause&quot; divorce, this was&#xA;  probably the most common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave&#xA;  wife, had three rights within marriage—the rights to food, clothing,&#xA;  and love. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse had the right to&#xA;  seek freedom from that marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 21:10-11 states&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her [j]food,&#xA;  her clothing, or (F)her conjugal rights. 11 If he will not do these&#xA;  three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without&#xA;  payment of money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many believe that abuse is included in this allowance in Exodus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="364" LastEditorUserId="364" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T18:17:25.063" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T18:17:25.063" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3016" CreationDate="2011-09-19T18:23:21.227" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;An Atheist has access to the Natural Law because it is written on their heart the same as it is on any Christian.  Therefore, they have no excuse for not being moral, other than the fact that they (and us) often ignore the truths inherent in our humanity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By virtue of baptism, we are freed from the punishment due to use because of original sin, we certainly are not freed from the inclination to sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one is moral enough to merit entrance into Heaven, and according to Catholicism at least, someone totally ignorant of the Gospel is still saved by Jesus through a baptism by desire if they lived a moral life and under other circumstances would have accepted the Gospel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's my opinion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The previous paragraph was about a person who is totally ignorant of the Gospel.  But, in this day and age, we have a curse of violent distortions of Christianity throughout the world and it is perfectly conceivable in a way previously unknown that anyone could become an atheist merely by virtue of being presented with a distorted version of Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you'll know whether anyone is acting morally by their fruits (Mat 7:16).  There's nothing magical about Christianity, but there is something special about being open to God's grace. So, Christians have a larger responsibility and a bigger task, by virtue of being given more graces.  Atheists who can prove that they kept their heads above water are commendable (and moral).  So go commend them to Our Lady, so they will be all the more moral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T18:23:21.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1998" CreationDate="2011-09-19T18:42:47.250" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK, to really answer this, I need to define what &amp;quot;the ethical way&amp;quot; means.  My answer here is going to be based on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Ethics, Defined&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:36-40 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, if you love God above yourself and love other people above yourself, you're following God's commandments, and therefore, acting morally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything that would be considered &amp;quot;unethical&amp;quot; would go against one or both of these commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note that this is not the best definition, sociologically speaking, but it will suffice.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Why do something Unethical?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next we need to determine motivation for doing anything unethical at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on our definition, anything that is not done with (a) love toward God or (b) love toward someone else, would be unethical.  Lying for your own benefit would be a good example of this.  Manipulating someone towards your own gain is another example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to show that any action chosen that does not show love toward God or others would be unethical.  Also, I'd put forth that we won't perform these actions &lt;em&gt;unless they benefit us&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the motive to do something unethical is so that it may benefit us (either in the short term or the long term).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Making the choice&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we come to a decision that has either an ethical choice or an unethical choice.  The ethical choice is going to be one that tends to benefit &lt;em&gt;others&lt;/em&gt; rather than &lt;em&gt;ourselves&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, it makes it difficult to choose the ethical road when there's no motivation for choosing the ethical path over the unethical path.  Oftentimes, the &amp;quot;correct&amp;quot; choice is made due to social coercion or guilt.  But lacking these external forces, most people will, given the option, choose the thing that benefits them rather than something that does not benefit themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We chose the unethical/immoral path because it is the path that has the most obvious and most personal gain. It often appears &amp;quot;easier&amp;quot; to chose this path because the personal gain of the unethical choice is such an large positive compared to the personal sacrifice of the ethical choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since we see gain towards the unethical and sacrifice towards the ethical, we are immediately, automatically drawn towards the unethical choice (making it appear &amp;quot;easier&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T18:42:47.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3016" CreationDate="2011-09-19T18:56:05.100" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Atheists certainly argue that they can live according to a moral standard (here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutethics/p/GodlessMorality.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;one summary&lt;/a&gt; of many--since atheism isn't one belief, there are many viewpoints).  Indeed, some atheists (Sam Harris being one of the most prominent and vocal of these) argue that Christianity leads people to abandon common-sense morality in certain instances and thus, at least given an otherwise affluent society where morality is prized, atheists have an easier time being moral.  Of course, Christians and Muslims and others have their own arguments as to why they are more moral than anyone else.  My impression is that for the most part different faiths start with different background assumptions from each other and from atheists, so it's very difficult to reach any sort of agreement between all groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We could ask whether it is possible for atheists simply to abide by standard moral precepts--don't kill, lying is bad, etc..  Here--and this should go almost without saying--the answer is a resounding &lt;em&gt;yes&lt;/em&gt;.  In addition to numerous personal anecdotes that could be told, according to an article in the Journal of Religion and Society (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;summarized here&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So not only do they manage, but they might even manage to do a better job of it than believers (in Western democracies, anyway).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But should we expect believers to be more moral (in this sense) than atheists?  Not necessarily; the parable of the Good Samaritan summarizes the situation nicely (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:25-37&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 10:30-37 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus replied, &amp;quot;A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. [...] &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?&amp;quot; &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;He said, &amp;quot;The one who showed him mercy.&amp;quot; And Jesus said to him, &amp;quot;You go, and do likewise.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The compassion shown to neighbors is something to seek to emulate--and neighbors do it independent of belief.  Though &amp;quot;love thy neighbor&amp;quot; is important (and actually mentioned in the Good Samaritan parable), is not the most strongly emphasized requirement for being a Christian (quotes taken more or less at random out of a very large number with a similar message):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2010:5-13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 10:9-10 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203:21-26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:21-34 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—-&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:05:02.593" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2981" CreationDate="2011-09-19T19:07:43.370" Score="1" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Saved by Faith vs Works&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible in multiple places teaches that we are saved by Grace, through Faith. Ephesians 2:8 comes to mind, but much of Romans communicates the same message.  This is often expressly contrasted to being saved by Works (or sacraments), especially in light of the book of James.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christians resolve the two by understanding that the result of saving Faith is works.  It's like cause and effect, where works are the effect, and faith is the cause. If the works are not there, one must ask if the cause (a saving faith) is there also. Lack of works does not always prove lack of faith — recent converts, converted prisoners, handicapped individuals, and many other situations can provide examples of individuals who's faith far outstrips their works — but generally you expect Christians are showing their faith by their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Isn't the Sinner's Prayer a &amp;quot;Work&amp;quot;?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. The Sinner's Prayer, done appropriately, is the result (effect) of a faithful and repentant heart.  It is an appeal to God for salvation by a broken and repentant sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What is the scriptural basis for the Sinner's Prayer?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest example we have in scripture is in Luke 18, where the Tax Collector &amp;quot;went home justified&amp;quot; for his prayer.  Aside from this, there is no mention of The Sinner's Prayer.  It is not mentioned, alluded to, shown by content only, or shown by example anywhere else in all of scripture, and even this one example is weak, as it takes place before the death and resurrection of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What about another way to appeal to God for salvation with more scriptural support?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm glad you asked ;)  To contrast the Sinner's Prayer, &lt;strong&gt;baptism&lt;/strong&gt; is mentioned more than 80 times in the New Testament alone.  Some of those are in reference to John's baptism, but most are post-John examples like Philip and the Eunuch (Acts 8), direct commands to baptize or be baptized (Matt 28:19, Acts 2:38, others), and commentary such as 1 Peter 3:21 (&amp;quot;and baptism, which now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but an appeal to God for a clean conscious&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That last passage is especially appropriate here, as it shows that baptism is also not a work, in the same way that the Sinner's Prayer is not a work, and it shows that baptism is a proscribed way to appeal to God for salvation.  There is also Mark 16:16: &amp;quot;Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned&amp;quot;.  This tells us that baptism is the only &lt;em&gt;sure&lt;/em&gt; way to make this appeal, but it leaves room for God to choose to save those who do not choose to be baptized and declare their repentance through alternate means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism has the same caveat as the Sinner's Prayer. Done appropriately, it is the result (effect) of a faithful and repentant heart, rather than the act of repentance itself; an outward sign of an inward change. The primary difference is the repeated direct commands by scripture that we should be baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-01-31T19:27:42.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3024" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T19:15:35.187" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T19:15:35.187" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:15:35.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3025" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T19:15:35.187" Score="0" Body="questions about buildings used for worship" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T19:16:28.437" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:16:28.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2987" CreationDate="2011-09-19T19:47:17.643" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Notice the order in which Jesus does things in this passage.  He covers the sinner in love and grace, then he addresses the sin.  We can learn a lot about lovingly correcting someone from this passage.  Jesus does not require us to have everything together, for Him to offer His love and grace. Why should we treat others any differently?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="662" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T19:47:17.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3028" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3030" CreationDate="2011-09-19T20:07:51.970" Score="8" ViewCount="247" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question may appear brief, but I think it is simple enough to not need much background. Basically, I'm curious about the nature of God and His desires. Does He &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; things? What are some of the things He wants, and how did we find out about these things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Citations from specific literature (Bible or otherwise) where you have evidence of His wants would be particularly helpful. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="676" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T20:13:58.310" LastActivityDate="2014-07-29T20:24:58.473" Title="Does God want things? What are some of the things He wants, and how did we find out?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T15:18:45.453" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3016" CreationDate="2011-09-19T20:22:19.143" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oh, for sure. As long as &quot;morality&quot; can be defined as adherence to a code other than that defined by the Bible and Christian teachings. Some fundamentalists teach that adherence to God's law is the only morality; &quot;the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom&quot;. However, many of the most well-known and well-studied moral theorists of history were Christians who endeavored to explain the morality of the Bible in ways that didn't depend on the divine authority, so to convince nonbelievers that the Law should be followed. Others were those who rejected Christianity, or theology outright, and attempted to solve the problem of the source of morality in the absence of divine authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hedonism, for example, is a moral code stating that the action that causes the most pleasure and the least pain for all involved is the right one. It was originally posited by Democritius, who developed these principles based on the fundamental tenet that there is no afterlife; what we have here is all there is, so we should make it the most pleasurable existence possible for all. Although the term is now more often used to refer to what is more accurately &quot;Moral Nihilism&quot; (&quot;if it feels good, do it&quot;), the concepts of &quot;net pleasure&quot; and &quot;net pain&quot;, when applied to the collective, would result in several fundamental corollaries that mirror Christian teaching regarding our interactions with one another, such as &quot;treat others as you yourself would want to be treated&quot; (because to do so would, in the overwhelming norm, result in the greatest pleasure and least pain, because you would want pleasure and not pain). Common arguments against Hedonism, such that it only concerns itself with physical pleasure and pain, are patently false; when deciding what is moral, all types of pleasure, including mental and emotional, should be considered, and the long-term should also be considered; using drugs, for example, provides some pleasure now, but much more pain in the long term in the form of addiction, health issues, and emotional pain inflicted upon family and friends. However, there are some valid contradictions with &quot;commonsense morality&quot;, such as the imperative to save the greater number of people from harm at the expense of those with whom you have the greater emotional tie (most people would reject the idea of sacrificing their perfectly healthy mother in some way to save five strangers; though some Christian scholars would say that's exactly what Jesus taught).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even outside the bounds of Moral Relativism (which includes Nihilism, Hedonism and Utilitarianism, most of which examine an act by its consequences), moral codes can exist that would result in societies in which we would generally want to live, without relying on imperatives found in any holy text. Kantian moral theory (Immanuel Kant was a devout Christian who sought to logically justify Biblical morality) describes the Categorical Imperative; there are some actions that are categorically moral and others that are categorically immoral. The process for deciding these is not necessarily to consult the Bible, but instead to formulate the imperative, universalize it, and then reason logically to find any contradictions or to reach a conclusion that society as we know it could not exist. For instance, lying is immoral because of a logical contradiction; lying requires meaningful language in order to exist (you have to be able to communicate in order to communicate a falsehood), however if everyone lied, then nobody could tell whether a statement were true or false, and so language would lose its meaning (as the statement could mean what it says or the exact opposite). Murder is immoral for two reasons; first, if everyone murdered at will, humanity would likely die out, and second, there is a logical contradiction that you would not want yourself or your acquaintances to be murdered, but you would want to murder others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="690" LastEditorUserId="690" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T20:28:09.277" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T20:28:09.277" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3028" CreationDate="2011-09-19T20:29:55.317" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;God wants us to be humble, follow his rules, act right, love mercy, and have faith in him.  That is what pleases God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Micah%206:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Micah 6:8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. &#xA;    And what does the LORD require of you? &#xA;  To act justly and to love mercy &#xA;    and to walk humbly with your God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:6 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 14:21 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T20:48:04.583" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T20:48:04.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2011-09-19T20:36:01.547" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the gift of speaking in tongues still exists today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul speaks about gifts of the Spirit in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2012&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12&lt;/a&gt;, and in the next chapter writes the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2013:8-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[emphases mine]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; &lt;strong&gt;as for tongues, they will cease&lt;/strong&gt;; as for knowledge, it will pass away. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; For we know in part and we prophesy in part, &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; but &lt;strong&gt;when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away&lt;/strong&gt;.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gifts of prophesying and speaking in tongues and knowledge will eventually pass away. When does that happen? When &lt;em&gt;the perfect comes&lt;/em&gt; (the gifts are an instance of &lt;em&gt;the partial&lt;/em&gt;). I think this is referring to the second coming of Christ. We can be quite sure that the perfect has not yet come. Therefore, tongues have not yet ceased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for whether speaking in tongues that you hear is legitimate,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As noted by others, Paul requires interpreting if someone speaks in tongues in a gathering (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2014:26-33&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:26-33&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;strong&gt;But&lt;/strong&gt; this doesn't mean the speaking in tongues is fake; it might just be that the person is misusing the gift.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Speaking in tongues, or &lt;em&gt;glossolalia&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia&quot;&gt;happens outside Christianity&lt;/a&gt;, too. A person can willfully speak with nonsense syllables. It's difficult for an outsider to know whether speaking in tongues is genuine, then. If the person speaks in a real language that they don't know, they obviously really have the gift.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T20:51:46.750" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T20:51:46.750" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3028" CreationDate="2011-09-19T20:45:12.470" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a passage that answers the question even if it also perplexes me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%204:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 4:5 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, &quot;He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us&quot;?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looks like &lt;strong&gt;God really wants us to come back to him&lt;/strong&gt;. I don't understand why it's said this way, nor do I know &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3033/60&quot;&gt;what scripture James is referring to&lt;/a&gt; but it does seem clear that one thing he wants from us is that we abide in Him!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T12:40:36.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3033" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3073" CreationDate="2011-09-19T20:47:56.450" Score="22" ViewCount="34461" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%204:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 4:5 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, &quot;He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us&quot;?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know of an Old Testament passage similar to James's quote. What is he referring to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T21:43:07.220" LastActivityDate="2016-07-02T05:39:16.153" Title="What scripture is James 4:5 referring to?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;book-of-james&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3034" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-19T20:49:44.737" Score="8" ViewCount="20251" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a follow-up to my other question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/379/can-people-speak-in-tongues-today&quot;&gt;Can people speak in tongues today?&lt;/a&gt;, and specifically, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/379/can-people-speak-in-tongues-today/3031#3031&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;When a person speaks in tongues&lt;/b&gt; (either historically, or today), &lt;b&gt;do they understand what they're saying?&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as a logical extension, I suppose if they &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; know what they're saying, then asking a person who has (allegedly) spoken in tongues what they said would be a test for the legitimacy of their having spoken in tongues... or no?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2018-07-31T16:57:28.840" Title="When a person speaks in tongues, do they understand what they are saying?" Tags="&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-04-10T06:12:26.187" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3034" CreationDate="2011-09-19T20:56:02.707" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most relevant passage I can find in the Bible is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2014:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 14:2 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd venture a &lt;em&gt;guess&lt;/em&gt; that if a person is &quot;uttering mysteries in the Spirit&quot;, they don't understand what they're saying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T20:56:02.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3036" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:45:18.527" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for all questions concerning the 'end times', the final events of history. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-24T20:54:33.783" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T20:54:33.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3037" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:45:18.527" Score="0" Body="the part of theology concerned with the final events in history" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:46:15.610" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:46:15.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3038" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:47:19.977" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:47:19.977" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:47:19.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3039" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:47:19.977" Score="0" Body="Apparent contradictions between or within passages of the Bible" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="21239" LastEditDate="2015-05-12T15:15:41.230" LastActivityDate="2015-05-12T15:15:41.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3040" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:50:16.430" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-08T17:06:49.277" LastActivityDate="2015-04-08T17:06:49.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3041" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:50:16.430" Score="0" Body="The act of transferring meaning between languages, including the Bible and works of the church fathers. Please use the bible-translation tag for questions on translation of the Bible." OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-08T17:06:46.190" LastActivityDate="2015-04-08T17:06:46.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3042" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:52:07.957" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:52:07.957" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:52:07.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3043" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:52:07.957" Score="0" Body="the patriarch that lead the people of Israel from Egypt to the Promised Land" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:54:39.250" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:54:39.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3044" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:54:21.527" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:54:21.527" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:54:21.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3045" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:54:21.527" Score="0" Body="the theory explaining how lifeforms develop from simpler, different lifeforms" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:54:45.567" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:54:45.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3046" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:55:54.893" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:55:54.893" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:55:54.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3047" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:55:54.893" Score="0" Body="The religion, philosophy, and culture of Jewish people, based on the Hebrew Bible, especially the Torah, and on other ancient Jewish texts and traditions." OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-11-05T01:12:30.453" LastActivityDate="2015-11-05T01:12:30.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3048" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:56:53.583" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Book of Revelation is the last book of the New Testament. Written by the Apostle John from the island of Patmos around 95 A.D (some date it at ~70 A.D) having been given a vision, the book has special relevance for &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/eschatology&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'eschatology'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;eschatology&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/ecclesiology&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'ecclesiology'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;ecclesiology&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the general concept of divine revelation see &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/general-revelation&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'general-revelation'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;general-revelation&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/special-revelation&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'special-revelation'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;special-revelation&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/inspiration&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'inspiration'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;inspiration&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/prophecy&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'prophecy'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;prophecy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T11:59:31.750" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T11:59:31.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3049" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:56:53.583" Score="0" Body="The Book of Revelation is the last book of the New Testament, a record of the apocalyptic vision given to the Apostle John." OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T11:59:31.750" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T11:59:31.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3050" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:58:09.620" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:58:09.620" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:58:09.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3051" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:58:09.620" Score="0" Body="Apostle Paul, the writer of many Epistles in the New Testament" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:58:25.067" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:58:25.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3052" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:59:44.047" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:59:44.047" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:59:44.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3053" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T21:59:44.047" Score="0" Body="The separation of Catholic and Protestant churches in the 16th century" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T21:59:52.280" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T21:59:52.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3054" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T22:00:26.560" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T22:00:26.560" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T22:00:26.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3055" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T22:00:26.560" Score="0" Body="the act of proselytizing to Christianity" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-19T22:01:02.053" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T22:01:02.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3056" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-19T22:02:35.573" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for the teachings and practices of the Lutheran church and movement. Use &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/martin-luther&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;martin-luther&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;martin-luther&lt;/a&gt; for questions about the life and teachings of the man himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2014-06-22T14:09:29.330" LastActivityDate="2014-06-22T14:09:29.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3057" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-19T22:02:35.573" Score="0" Body="The church that follows the teachings of Martin Luther, the founder" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2014-06-22T14:09:22.470" LastActivityDate="2014-06-22T14:09:22.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3058" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3062" CreationDate="2011-09-19T23:18:46.790" Score="8" ViewCount="928" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there is some debate over whether God is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/69/is-god-of-anger-or-of-love&quot;&gt;angry or loving&lt;/a&gt; (or both), it is clear that God sometimes acts on His anger with wrath and vengeance, and other times He does not. Do we know the criterion by which He makes these calls? Can we even pretend to know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because if we can't, then we have no way of knowing whether He is a God of love or anger. For example, maybe He's letting people He's angry with live so as to teach us a lesson, or to test our faith in Him. So it would be for the greater good, and thus an act of love. But maybe He's letting those people He's angry with—and other sinners—live as punishment to us, such that we have to endure them. &lt;strong&gt;Simply put, if we cannot speak to &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; He smites some and not others, if we don't have &lt;em&gt;any idea&lt;/em&gt; of the criterion He uses, it's impossible to know if He is completely loving or completely hating, or somewhere in between.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2017-02-05T23:23:57.870" Title="Under what circumstances does God act on His anger?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-02-06T03:13:23.830" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1589" CreationDate="2011-09-19T23:47:43.990" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps a more superficial answer might be that if one day for God is 1,000 years for man, and Adam lived to be 930 years old (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 5:5&lt;/a&gt;), then Adam really did die on the same &quot;day&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2090:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms 90:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2011-09-19T23:47:43.990" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2925" CreationDate="2011-09-20T00:53:52.307" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Brown Scapular devotion is one thing, and the Little Office of Our Lady another. To practise the Brown Scapular devotion, and benefit from Our Lady's magnificent promise, one must be enrolled in the Scapular by a priest and persevere in wearing it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://olrl.org/pray/rosary.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;On this website&lt;/a&gt; you will see the difference between the Scapular promise and the Sabbatine Privilege. It is with regard to the latter that the condition of praying the Little Office comes in as one of several possibilities, including abstaining from meat on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By far the most common way to gain the Sabbatine Privilege, however, is to have that condition commuted (changed) to praying the Holy Rosary daily - that is to say, the five decades we all should pray daily anyhow - by your confessor. So I hope that you will now become enrolled in the Brown Scapular without worrying about taking on the added burden of the Little Office.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God bless you, a Catholic Priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="695" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T09:20:32.120" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T09:20:32.120" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3016" CreationDate="2011-09-20T01:02:17.077" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an Atheist, I'd like to think I'm leading a Moral life. Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I give copious amounts of my income to charity, most recently via &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.humblebundle.com/&quot;&gt;Humble Bundle 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I have a job that affords me many chances to make a difference in people's lives for the better, within the limits of my own physical means.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When I drive; I let other drivers into my lane, don't cut people off, am understanding when people make mistakes, and let others go first at stops.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When I date, I try to be mindful of the other person's feelings and not take advantage of them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't steal or murder.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to be educated about other cultures and respect them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm a feminist.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm socially liberal. (which I consider moral, since this means I don't care what others do by themselves or with other like-minded individuals)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I genuinely am trying to leave the world a better place than I found it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I pick up litter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are just things I can think of now. It really depends on your definition of Morals, I guess. But if you define being Moral as not hurting people intentionally. I definitely fit the bill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="673" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T01:02:17.077" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3058" CreationDate="2011-09-20T01:35:10.747" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;By definition God is love, but sometimes you have to punish if you love, and when God is angry it isn't a sense of passion that drives Him, but judgement of justice, as explained in Objection 1 of Summa Theologica, Q47 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2047.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2047.htm&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the difficulty is that you are trying to relate your anger to God's anger, and making His anger to be similar, or comparable, to ours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a problem as God is angry at the sin and the sinner, but, He understands perfectly what is going on, what the motives are, and at times may need to punish in order to help try to rectify the actions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is nothing wrong with being angry.  Jesus was angry, for example.  It is an emotion, but why someone gets angry and what is done with the anger is the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can't judge why God chooses to get angry at one and not at another, as, much like a mosaic, you see only a tiny bit of the picture, so the best we can do is to have faith that God has a reason for what He chooses to do or not do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a longer discussion on &lt;em&gt;Is God Angry Anymore?&lt;/em&gt;, you can read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccwtoday.org/article_view.asp?article_id=18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ccwtoday.org/article_view.asp?article_id=18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T02:32:28.853" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T02:32:28.853" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3063" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-20T03:31:31.160" Score="16" ViewCount="3104" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had any effect on which Old Testament books should be considered canonical by Protestants?  I didn't know this until yesterday, but the dead sea scrolls contained every book of the Bible in Hebrew, including fragments of Deuterocanonical books (except Esther, although most of that is in the Protestant Bible anyway) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I may be operating under the hazy assumption that Protestants only discount the Septuagint because it has its basis in Greek instead of having its basis in Hebrew so correct me if I'm wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That Sirach was originally written in Hebrew may be of some significance for the biblical canon. The book was accepted into the canon of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible by Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy but not by Judaism or Protestantism, apparently on the basis that no Hebrew original was thought to exist at the time the Jewish Canon was closed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirach#Texts_and_manuscripts&quot;&gt;Wikipedia - Sirach&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just wonder if this is a source of consternation for any Protestant groups or how/if they justify the texts with their own assumptions and scholarship into what the Jews themselves considered scripture at the time of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd hope that an answer would include a scholarly refutation of the idea that the original books (at least Sirach and Tobit), being composed in Greek, lacked canonical authority for that reason and no other reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T15:48:22.607" LastActivityDate="2018-06-15T15:54:38.937" Title="The Dead Sea Scrolls and Protestant canon" Tags="&lt;dead-sea-scrolls&gt;&lt;protestant-bible&gt;&lt;deuterocanonical-books&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3064" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-20T04:13:48.347" Score="11" ViewCount="2265" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the importance of Fasting? I've felt compelled at times to fast, but I'm not quite sure what the purpose is. I went online and found that it's very healthy for your body, it's something that a lot of secular people do as well as spiritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I'm not quite sure that I fully understand the spiritual reasons for fasting. Does anybody have any insight into this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T04:18:53.737" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T21:33:37.883" Title="What's the importance of Fasting?" Tags="&lt;fasting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-02-19T14:31:26.433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3016" CreationDate="2011-09-20T04:16:32.570" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it is impossible for Atheists to be moral because they don't acknowledge the same source of morality that Christians recognize, then I would argue that it is also impossible for Christians to be moral, because neither do they fully understand the source of morality that they claim to attempt to adhere to.  And without full understanding, it is impossible to fully acknowledge the source of the morality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps Christians can be &quot;more&quot; moral than Atheists (since they have a greater understanding of the source of morality), but since the question is asked in binary terms, I believe the binary answer is the same for both groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If on the other hand, morality is simply acting in accordance to a moral code, then it is certainly possible, if only in isolated incidents, for either Atheists or Christians to behave according to any given moral code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone is likely to behave according to any &quot;code of conduct&quot; occasionally, even by accident.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my elevator answer would be: &lt;b&gt;It is just as possible for Atheists to be moral as it is for Christians to be moral.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T04:16:32.570" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3058" CreationDate="2011-09-20T05:00:21.017" Score="0" Body="&lt;h2&gt;God is Love and God is Hate&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok first off...  Don't think that God is sitting up in heaven chanting about the fact that He hates people. God Hate's one thing and one thing only: Evil. If you are an evil person, then yes, God is angry with you and yes, God even hates you for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's understand why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Understanding the two sides&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's anger is actually VERY easy to understand. But before you can understand His anger you must understand what God sees. There ARE TWO SIDES. The Bible touches on this point many times without specifically defining that there are two sides, so I will show you the verses and you can put them together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 18:37&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I&#xA;  was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone&#xA;  on &lt;strong&gt;the side of truth listens to me&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus tells us that there is a &quot;side of truth&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:6&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is&#xA;  not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the&#xA;  Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John tells us that there is a spirit of Truth and a spirit of falsehood. Dr. Del Tacket does a phenomenal job showing you how these two sides play a role in our society in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thetruthproject.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Truth Project series&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is that there is a side of truth, which those people are referred to as righteous, and then there's the side of falsehood and these people are referred to as sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God draws the line&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:8&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were&#xA;  still sinners, Christ died for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this mean? Why is this called love, that while you were still a sinner that Christ died for you? It's easy, but probably not in the sense that you're familiar with. Sinners are enemies of God and of God's children. But while you were still an enemy of God, He showed great compassion and love for you, even tho you were a rebellious enemy, He died for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is true love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God Hate's Evil People With a Passion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People get angry when they hear that God is hate. Why? I love God and God loves me and God hates it when sinners are evil to me. God hates me when I'm evil to people also. People don't want to accept that this is a possibility because it's a scary thing to think that God could actually be angry with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll make this perfectly clear to you. God is an angry God that HATES sinners and here's how I know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 7:11&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is a just judge,And God is angry with the wicked every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 5:5&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence.  You hate all who do&#xA;  wrong;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 11:5&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 The LORD examines the righteous,     but the wicked, those who love&#xA;  violence,     he hates with a passion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 20:23&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am&#xA;  going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I&#xA;  abhorred them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 6:16-19&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 There are six things the LORD hates,     seven that are detestable&#xA;  to him: &#xA;      17 haughty eyes, &#xA;        a lying tongue, &#xA;        hands that shed innocent blood, &#xA;      18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, &#xA;        feet that are quick to rush into evil, &#xA;      19 a false witness who pours out lies &#xA;        and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hosea 9:15&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,     I hated them&#xA;  there.  Because of their sinful deeds,     I will drive them out of my&#xA;  house.  I will no longer love them;     all their leaders are&#xA;  rebellious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;This is why Repentance is Required&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why in 2 Timothy 2:19 God seals a contract and requires that all people turn from wickedness. It is not an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This book: &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=qYlAAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=practice%20faith%20scripture&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=FkwFpaBB3K&amp;amp;sig=0R14oQxdE6LBTZAG6wDs3yTSGa4&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=Wo0MTLKXCIfMNL3HkbYE&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=4&amp;amp;ved=0CCEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Scriptural Account of Faith&lt;/a&gt; is a book that categorizes scripture into premises. It's a very good book that shows you all of the anger and curses that God has against wicked people. It also shows you all of the love, compassion, patience and mercy that God has for the righteous people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Misunderstandings&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BE CAREFUL that you do not equate God's love to and blessings to sinful people. God has nothing but hate towards sinful people. If you do not understand what side that a person is on, do not tell them that Jesus loves them, because honestly, YOU DON'T KNOW! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Bible tells us nothing but curses against wicked people that trample the blood of Christ, why would you ever open your mouth and lie to a sinner, telling them that Jesus Loves them. It's better stated that Jesus has shown them great compassion by giving them the opportunity to &quot;Repent and Believe&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if they refuse to &quot;Repent and Believe&quot; then that does not qualify them for God's Love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just by reading the old testament you can see that when Israel got out of line, God would chasten them. Then when Israel repented of their sins, God would love them, BUT not without disciplining them for their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true today, with you. If you disobey God, He will set himself against you, but if you repent and come to God, He too, will draw near to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 26:21-28&lt;/strong&gt;  (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; ‘Then, if you&#xA;  walk contrary to Me, and are not willing to obey Me, I will bring on&#xA;  you seven times more plagues, according to your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of&#xA;  your children, destroy your livestock, and make you few in number; and&#xA;  your highways shall be desolate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; ‘And if by these things you are not reformed by Me, but walk&#xA;  contrary to Me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; then I also will walk contrary to you, and I will punish you yet&#xA;  seven times for your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; And I will bring a sword against you that will execute the&#xA;  vengeance of the covenant; when you are gathered together within your&#xA;  cities I will send pestilence among you;  and you shall be delivered&#xA;  into the hand of the enemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; When I have cut off your supply of bread, ten women shall bake&#xA;  your bread in one oven, and they shall bring back your bread by&#xA;  weight, and you shall eat and not be satisfied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; ‘And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to&#xA;  Me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; then I also will walk contrary to you in fury; and I, even I, will&#xA;  chastise you seven times for your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T05:00:21.017" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3064" CreationDate="2011-09-20T08:56:50.483" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Biblical teaching and accounts&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2058:3-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 58:3-11&lt;/a&gt; taught the Isrealites of their false motives to fast, clarified some of the best reasons for fasting and listed both physical and spiritual benefits that would result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus himself teaches fasting in private in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:16-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:16-18&lt;/a&gt; and that you'll be rewarded by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was questioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:18-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 2:18-21&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other instances of fasting in the Bible are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%209:7-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Moses&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%28Psalm%2035:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;David&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting#Biblical_accounts&quot;&gt;others&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="647" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T12:32:26.000" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T12:32:26.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3069" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-20T09:22:49.427" Score="14" ViewCount="3851" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are people and organisations that state that copyright is wrong, and that copyright law should be &lt;em&gt;deprecated&lt;/em&gt;. I think the same way but as a Christian I want to be sure that such thought is not be against the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would being an advocate for the deprecation or abolition of copyright law run contrary to any Biblical or Christian principals? Is there any &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_copyright#Justifications_for_copyright&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;justification for copyright&lt;/a&gt; stated in Bible or other Christian sources?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-05-10T16:03:40.823" LastActivityDate="2014-09-16T08:03:55.503" Title="Is there any biblical support for copyright law?" Tags="&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-27T07:18:58.740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3070" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3091" CreationDate="2011-09-20T09:30:25.750" Score="13" ViewCount="5681" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the official opinion of the Catholic Church on works of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Emanuel Swedenborg&lt;/a&gt;, especially &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Hell_%28Swedenborg%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Heaven and Hell&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-12-20T00:10:55.110" LastActivityDate="2017-05-12T18:12:29.417" Title="What is the official Roman Catholic opinion on Swedenborg?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;swedenborg&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3069" CreationDate="2011-09-20T10:02:53.700" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rightly or wrongly, copyright is something that someone owns. To breach that copyright is essentially to steal from them, and I'm sure you know what the Bible has to say about stealing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of something more specific about copyright itself, you could look at passages like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:4-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 12:4-8&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:1-31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12:1-31&lt;/a&gt;. Copyright is usually applied to something that an individual or organisation has created through their own gifts and expertise. These passages say that different people have different gifts - we do not all have the same function and therefore don't have the right or ability to reproduce what others can whenever we want to. So if you're good at writing songs (say) and I'm not, I shouldn't expect to have lots of good songs to my name that I can do whatever I want with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you could interpret that same passage the other way, by heeding the very clear message in verse 5 of the Romans passage: &quot;we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others&quot;. So although we all do different things, we do these different things for one another and with one another because we belong to one another. So the songs you write are my songs too because we belong to the same body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the body that Paul is talking about in Romans and 1 Corinthians is the body of Christ (&quot;in Christ  we, though many, form one body...&quot;) and this is an instruction to share gifts and resources within the church. It doesn't say that we, as one body, can take parts or functions from another body. So within the church we should share what we have freely, but in a wider context we don't have the right to own the fruits of other people's gifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T10:12:27.247" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T10:12:27.247" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3033" CreationDate="2011-09-20T10:22:06.360" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is indeed no Old Testament passage that contains those words, but there are a number of theories regarding what James was referring to. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.preceptaustin.org/james_45_commentary.htm&quot;&gt;Precept Austin&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ideas include (1) James quoted from some unknown apocryphal work (2)&#xA;  The quote is an unrecorded statement of James' half brother Jesus. (3)&#xA;  James quotes from some NT passage. (4) James was paraphrasing an OT&#xA;  passage. (5) James was not quoting a specific single passage, but is&#xA;  summarizing truths found in several OT passages. (6) Finally, some&#xA;  commentators (and Bible translations) do not treat the first half of&#xA;  verse 5 as a &quot;formula&quot; introducing a quotation but as a sentence which&#xA;  stands by itself. Several of the translations emphasize this latter&#xA;  view by dividing verse 5 into two separate sentences...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which&#xA;  he made to dwell in us long unto envying? (ASV)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Think ye that the scripture speaks in vain? Does the Spirit which has&#xA;  taken his abode in us desire enviously? (Darby)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do you think what the scriptures have to say about this is a mere&#xA;  formality? Or do you imagine that this spirit of passionate jealousy&#xA;  is the Spirit he has caused to live in us? (Phillips)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or think ye that, in vain, the scripture speaketh? Is it, for envying,&#xA;  that the spirit which hath taken an abode within us doth crave?&#xA;  (Rotherdam)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T13:30:10.097" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T13:30:10.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3033" CreationDate="2011-09-20T12:10:42.060" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is, unfortunately, a passage where there are many options and no real consensus over a definitive translation. Perhaps the most popular assertion is that James is merely alluding to &quot;Scripture&quot; as a whole. There is, of course, no requirement to expect James to quote a specific verse having said that &quot;the Scripture says&quot; (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0877842922&quot;&gt;Motyer's commentary on James&lt;/a&gt; p148).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other scholars who see this &quot;quotation&quot; as evidence that some early Christian writers believed that not every inspired word from God had to be incorporated into the canon (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1592442560&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Old Testament in Early Christianity&lt;/em&gt;, E. Ellis, p4-5&lt;/a&gt;). Personally, I find this explanation weak as New Testament writers are usually fairly conservative in what they quote - none ever quote the Apocrypha. There are a couple of quotes from other Jewish texts that were considered to have some &quot;religious weight&quot; (the most well-known being &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jude's quote of 1 Enoch 1:9&lt;/a&gt;), but they are very rare (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1894667417&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Models for Scripture&lt;/em&gt;, J. Goldingay, p145&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To conclude, I support Motyer's claim that James is referring to Scripture as a whole (or rather, numerous passages from the Old Testament concerning the jealousy of God), and that putting quotemarks after &quot;the Scripture says&quot; is somewhat unwise. Though other options are not to be entirely discounted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="647" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T13:50:15.977" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T13:50:15.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3069" CreationDate="2011-09-20T12:18:20.170" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a very good question, and not one which is easy to answer. But we are all called to make use of our talents, which I think may vary from gifts. Information is not necessarily subject to copyright - only literary / dramatic / musical works, films, broadcasts and sound recordings - basically, works where the author/creator has expended skill and effort to create it. And surely we as Christians should support those authors and musicians who clearly have a talent and a gift for their area to continue to write/create so that the greater Church benefits? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, personally I feel that copyright should not be abolished, though I do feel the term of protection is rather too long. I would be upset if Christians got into copyright court battles, as it is right if we want something to buy it through the correct and lawful channels, but not if we download it free from a torrent site or similar. There are of course flaws in copyright law - the exceptions, for example, should be wider and allow for non-profit institutions to do more with copyright works, but the general principle of others being remunerated for their work I think fits with the Christian faith insofar as it is not exploited. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="698" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T12:18:20.170" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3063" CreationDate="2011-09-20T13:57:49.273" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, the Dead Sea Scrolls have no effect on the Protestant view of Old Testament canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls#Survey_of_Scrolls&quot;&gt;what different books are included&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Old Testament (protocanonical) books&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deuterocanonical books&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom of Sirach etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other writings&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Book of Noah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Book of Giants&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Testament of Naphtali&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Community Rule&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;War Scroll&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis Apocryphon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cairo Geniza Testament of Levi&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Book of Jubilees&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Words of Moses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rule of the Congregation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;and many, many more.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering that the Dead Sea Scrolls include a very random selection of books, nothing about canonicity can be reliably deducted from them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T14:13:13.147" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T14:13:13.147" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3063" CreationDate="2011-09-20T14:34:11.333" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Dead Sea Scroll find was not so much finding a copy of a book as it was finding a library. The texts found included canonical, deuterocanonical,  apocraphal and other unrelated works from the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The find had significant implications for dating other texts and verifying the integrity of some manuscripts, but did not hold any implications for the scope of the canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T14:34:11.333" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3078" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3083" CreationDate="2011-09-20T14:41:02.077" Score="11" ViewCount="330" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every year, &quot;end times&quot; and apocalyptic films, books, and articles are produced in both the wider popular culture, and in religious contexts. In almost every post-disaster scenario as typically portrayed in media productions, riots, mobs, and an every-man-for-himself setting is typically envisaged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, we &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; God will take care of us and that whatever happens is for His glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those of us who are married or have children, we have been entrusted, as husbands, to care for our wives, and, as parents, to guard, train, and raise our children in a God-honoring way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From another &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2785/69&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;, I believe it has been established that a Christian is free to serve in the military to the limit of their conscience (ie, the Bible neither proscribes, nor prescribes the activity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just before He was betrayed, Jesus told his disciples to make sure they had &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:35-38&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;swords&lt;/a&gt; to bring with them (they had two).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the broader context of scripture, what should make up a Christian response to self-defense, and of defending the defenseless?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What passages of the Bible support (or preclude) such action? and to what limit (if any) is that action to not exceed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T18:09:49.763" Title="Christian response(s) to disaster survival, or Christian self-defense" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;self-defense&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3064" CreationDate="2011-09-20T15:27:46.153" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fasting facilitates entry into low level non-ordinary states of consciousness. It allows the person fasting to connect to the world around them differently than an average day of eating. Fasting shows restraint, and when an adherent couples that restraint with devotion it is a powerful symbol of one's dedication in spite of the limitations and exigencies of the physical, material world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fasting is a practice observed by religions the world over. for some it is a mater of devotion by protesting the flash, for others it is an exercise in humility. Both serve to humble the flesh to elevate the mind. In other religions water fasting is utilized along with other spiritual technologies to accommodate advanced meditative techniques like vision quests or rites of passage. Dating has also served as a method of political protest in the context of oppression of minorities (frequently religious ones; i.e. Catholic, Bobby Sands in Maize Prison was protesting for political prisoner status as a member of a sectarian minority engaged in terrorist activity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Physiologically, the non-ordinary states are initially derived from subjects experiencing many of the side effects initially of hypo-glycemia (low blood-sugar):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hypoglycemia causes symptoms such as hunger, shakiness, nervousness, sweating, dizziness or light-headedness, sleepiness, confusion, difficulty speaking, anxiety, weakness (&lt;a href=&quot;http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/hypoglycemia/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIH&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are different formats to fasting, in/excluding water, food after sunset. However, in any situation where you alter the fuel you are feeding your metabolism, it will need to adjust to accomodate; this can cause psychological effects as well as physical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would caution against charging into fasting without consulting a physician as, in contradiction of whatever that online source said, fasting is not always healthy for your body. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ans/psychology/health_psychology/fast.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See here for a run down that lays out some of the benefits, some of the complications, and some of the controversy surrounding both.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="237" LastEditorUserId="237" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T21:33:37.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T21:33:37.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2932" CreationDate="2011-09-20T16:28:06.723" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The big bang has some significant evidence to it. So we cannot discount the fact that a big bang happened. However, nobody knows how it happened, they just know it did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read through Genesis quite a few times in order to understand this situation with the stars. I've discerned quite a few things that have not been considered in this argument yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Little Big Bangs&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God first created our earth, then He created the sun, then on day four He looks into the night and goes to work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:14-19&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to&#xA;separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark&#xA;sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the&#xA;vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God&#xA;made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the&#xA;lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set&#xA;them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern&#xA;the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God&#xA;saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was&#xA;morning—the fourth day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Let's gather some premises from this statement above:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The stars were created after the earth and the sun.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They will serve as signs for sacred times and years.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They will give light on the earth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the three premises that were made on the fourth day. So if we break these down and add a little science we can understand what exactly that God did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First Premise.&lt;/strong&gt; Because God created the stars after the earth, we have to acknowledge that there were multiple big bangs. We know that massive amounts of energy were needed in order to create mass, thus the bangs. So for God to energize massive amounts of energy to bang out a bunch of new universes all over the sky is not against science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second Premise.&lt;/strong&gt; Obviously the moon doesn't really stand for years. It stands for days and for months, but not years and sacred times, such as decades or centuries. The stars tell us about the decade, the century and the age that we are currently in. The difference here, is how far away the stars would need to have been created, from us, in order that they would stand for decades and ages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They had to be created far enough away, in their orbits so that they would seem to stay in the same location, but still have some movement. So God did create the planets far away, not during one single big bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(fallacy in star distance measurements) There have been plenty of arguments against the red shift theory. So it cannot be entirely counted on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also think about the way that the stars are measured. They take an angle between the sun and the star, then six months later they take another angle between the sun and the star. The scientists are assuming that the star itself does not move. But they're assumption is wrong. Because we know that all stars are in orbits of their own and there's no telling how far the star they are measuring, has moved. They do not use this measurement on close planets for this very reason, why would they do it on distant planets? This is just simply not a true triangle and thus, the measurement cannot be trusted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closer the stars are, the more exaggerated that this triangle is going to be and the farther away the star is going to look, with this method of measurement. They state billions of light years, but nobody can measure the age of the light. These numbers I fear have been grossly exaggerated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Premise Three.&lt;/strong&gt; The stars instantly gave light onto the earth after God created them. So the stars have to be within range to do just this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very possible that the stars are not as far away as you think. Alternatively, God did create the stars a long ways away, who knows how far. Alternatively, if God created them close and the stars are moving farther away, there's no knowing just how fast they're moving and how far that they've traveled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a lot of ways to reconcile the age of the universe. We just need more accurate information from the scientists to determine which conclusion is right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-30T09:43:26.120" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3063" CreationDate="2011-09-20T16:45:14.393" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the other answers so far are missing the force of the question. Obviously we wouldn't include something in the canon just because it was found in the dead sea scrolls, or because it was written in Hebrew. But finding older, Hebrew-language copies of a text (Sirach, for example) whose canonicity is already in dispute could be an argument in its favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example - suppose the Dead Sea scrolls provided convincing manuscript evidence that the deuterocanonical portions of Esther and Daniel were present in the original. That would be (to me) a good reason for including those portions in the Protestant Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to Sirach: if this statement from your article is true:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;apparently on the basis that no Hebrew original was thought to exist&#xA;  at the time the Jewish Canon was closed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you are right and Protestants should accept Sirach into the canon. But I doubt that most protestants would agree. There is no reason to think that Jews of the first century (when the Jewish canon was closed) were unaware of the Hebrew version of Sirach, just because we only recently found out about it. Also, Sirach is a much later work than the accepted books of the Old Testament (assuming a traditional early date for Daniel), which makes it an outlier for other reasons than the language it was written in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wikipedia article &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirach#cite_note-12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cites&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;The Sisters of Sinai&lt;/em&gt; as it's sources for the claim in this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 See for example the account of Schechter's work in Soskice,&#xA;  Janet (2010) Sisters of Sinai: How Two Lady Adventurers Found the&#xA;  Hidden Gospels. London: Vintage, 241&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is no reference to Sirach on &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=RU_nrKh5QKgC&amp;amp;lpg=PA306&amp;amp;dq=Sisters%20of%20Sinai%3a%20How%20Two%20Lady%20Adventurers%20Found%20the%20Hidden%20Gospels%20pg%20241&amp;amp;pg=PA241#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;page 241&lt;/a&gt;, or indeed anywhere in the book. I have not read it, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=RU_nrKh5QKgC&amp;amp;dq=Sisters%20of%20Sinai%3a%20How%20Two%20Lady%20Adventurers%20Found%20the%20Hidden%20Gospels%20pg%20241&amp;amp;sitesec=reviews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;judging by the reviews&lt;/a&gt; it is not the sort of book that would have anything authoritative to say about the formation of the protestant or Jewish canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;edit 2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aha! The source must be referring to &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=RU_nrKh5QKgC&amp;amp;lpg=PA306&amp;amp;dq=Sisters%20of%20Sinai%3a%20How%20Two%20Lady%20Adventurers%20Found%20the%20Hidden%20Gospels%20pg%20241&amp;amp;pg=PA222#v=snippet&amp;amp;q=canon&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;page 222&lt;/a&gt;, which contains this paragraph:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Decisive for Schechter, however, was the fact that Ben Sira, while not&#xA;  included in the later canon of the Jewish Bible, was cited extensively&#xA;  by rabbis in the classic period of rabbinic Judaism (circa AD 200-500)&#xA;  and was often quoted in the Talmud and in medieval Jewish writings.&#xA;  The rabbis would not, Schechter was convinced, give reference to a&#xA;  book not initially written in Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was a fun bit of detective work, but it should be clear that the claim in that article is unsubstantiated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T18:09:15.053" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T18:09:15.053" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3078" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:09:49.763" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/&quot;&gt;an article&lt;/a&gt; that goes into this topic far better than I could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relevant summary is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Though we see sanction and even a qualified directive from Christ to possess personal weapons, we must remember three points. First, in the remainder of the New Testament, we have no further examples of believers taking up the sword. Secondly, the emphasis in the remainder of the New Testament is decidedly not geared toward the issues of physical self-defense or righteous use of lethal force. Rather, we see more emphasis on Godly living, suffering affliction and persecution for Christ, and grasping the precious doctrines of Christ and the Gospel.  Thirdly, possession of weapons and acquiring the skill to use them in self-defense is permitted but not &lt;em&gt;required&lt;/em&gt; by Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And a few choice quotes (see the article for many more) are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2082:1-4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Psalm 82:4 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20144:1-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Psalm 144:1 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs%203:31-32&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 3:32 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not envy a man of violence, And do not choose any of his ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:27-29&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Luke 6:27-29 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T18:09:49.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3069" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:12:42.943" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Copyright laws are written to protect the author (or translator, artist, etc, but I'll stick to authors for my discussion).  Without copyright laws, it would be easy for a very skillful author to write a wonderful book, but for some wealthy publisher to come along and take their book and publish it for their own profit.  The author then goes un-recognized and more importantly, un-paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Copyright, just like patent law, is designed to protect &quot;the little guy,&quot; and to make sure that someone who spends a year writing a novel, or researching a particular area to write about it, or spends decades translating the Bible to their own language, etc, has the opportunity to be rewarded for their work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, copyright laws can be used as tools for greed, too, but I don't think that invalidates the reason for the laws, any more than it invalidates the need for banks or supermarkets.  Just because something can be abused does not make the thing inherently evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a Christian author does not approve of copyright laws, he is free to release his book to the public domain (or with some other non-traditional copyright, as has become popular the last few decades).  And in fact, if his purpose for writing a book is to enlighten others, and not to earn a royalty, he may well feel the desire to do this. This practice is especially common in certain areas of software development.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I don't think a strong Biblical argument can be made that copyright is inherently immoral or unethical, nor that Christians ought to copyright their works.  I think we can glean from scripture, though, that Christians are bound by copyright laws. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1-2&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 13:1-2&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, copyright is an important way to protect the rights of the &quot;little guy.&quot; It clearly can be abused, but practically anything good &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be abused, so the possibility of abuse is not a good enough reason to do away with something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because I view copyright as an important way to protect the rights of the otherwise powerless, I would could not in good conscience fight to abolish copyright law, as I would see it as violating the principles laid out in scripture, of caring for &quot;the least of these,&quot; etc. &lt;em&gt;For me, this would be a sin.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I cannot say that a Christian who feels copyright is wrong would be sinning to fight to abolish copyright.  I would ask a Christian who feels it's wrong to explain why, based on scripture, they think it's wrong.  If their reasons are purely selfish (&quot;I want to download MP3s&quot;), I would say they are behaving sinfully, and I would urge them re-examine their motives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, on the other hand, their motives are selfless (&quot;I feel copyright victimizes people&quot;), then, while I might disagree with their conclusion, I would see their motives as pure, and I would not consider it a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; support certain copyright reforms... as I think certain aspects of copyright law are in place only to protect large corporations--and that is not why I support copyright law.  But doing away with copyright law entirely, to me, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-01-06T23:59:41.970" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T23:59:41.970" CommentCount="23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3085" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3092" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:22:23.790" Score="11" ViewCount="1883" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was researching a different question and saw that some people find that In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is something that should be avoided on the basis of religious grounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know what these reasons are?  I'd like to know if these religious arguments against IVF are biblically based.  If so, what passages do they use to support this argument? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This seems especially strange to me since pregnancy wasn't fully understood back then, let alone IVF.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I would like the Catholic stance on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T15:38:36.747" LastActivityDate="2014-08-18T05:05:46.410" Title="What is the Catholic stance against In Vitro Fertilization?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3086" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3094" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:24:37.733" Score="9" ViewCount="782" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_screening&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Embryo Screening&lt;/a&gt; is the process of fertilizing multiple eggs, checking their DNA makeup, and then screening out the eggs that do not meet the requirements.  These requirements can be anything from potential health issues (genetic diseases) to gender preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, the Bible doesn't have much to say about this directly.  Still, I'm curious what the Catholic stance is for or against this and what Bible verses support this stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T15:36:43.050" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T15:36:43.050" Title="What is the Catholic stance on Embryo Screening?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3087" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:27:04.983" Score="11" ViewCount="966" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard some people speak against cremation for Christians, because of the ties it has to some eastern religions.  But what does the Bible actually say about cremation, or any other burial practices?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-21T13:07:29.100" LastActivityDate="2015-09-21T17:19:41.230" Title="According to the Bible, is cremation an acceptable Christian practice?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;human-body&gt;&lt;burial&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3085" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:34:47.393" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article_475.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;objects to IVF&lt;/a&gt;, primarily on grounds that it comes from reasoning from natural law rather than grounded by a teaching from the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is common practice in IVF to fertilize several eggs to increase the likelihood that one of them will survive for implantation and then selectively abort or cryogenically freeze the &quot;extra&quot; babies. The Roman Catholic position is that Christians should oppose that practice for the same reasons they oppose abortion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2014-08-18T05:05:46.410" LastActivityDate="2014-08-18T05:05:46.410" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3069" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:35:04.767" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible mentions nothing about copyright because it didn't yet exist. At a time when most people were illiterate, the concept of protecting ideas was absurd. That means to answer this question we have to find verses and try to make them apply, which gets dangerous. I will make my case for my beliefs, but to say &quot;the Bible supports copyrights&quot; or &quot;the Bible says copyrights are wrong&quot; would be flawed. However, I believe the FOUNDATION FOR copyrights is found in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus sends out the seventy-two in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 10&lt;/a&gt; he said, &quot;7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Copyrights protect intellectual property because we live in an age where ideas are very valuable. Copyrights allow musicians to make money, and therefore allow us to have a vast amount of entertainment. Copyrights allow authors to spend time writing excellent books. Like the men Jesus sent out, these people need to be able to eat, drink, and have a place to live. Without copyrights today, the people who create these songs, books, speeches, etc., would never get the money they deserve and therefore wouldn't be able to create them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get that music or book or whatever for free, or for someone else to make money off it would be stealing. Not necessarily stealing a physical object, but stealing the harvest of the work. The Bible says not to steal (Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, Deuteronomy 5:19) and copyrights are one way to help prevent people from stealing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument comes down to whether you think intellectual property is something that should be free or if it can be stolen. However, if you think it should be free you are saying it has no value, it is worthless. If it has no value, why would you listen to/read it? If it is worth paying attention to, it is worth protecting. If it has value, the Bible says not to steal and that the worker deserves his wages...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T18:35:04.767" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3087" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:48:31.447" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is nothing in the Bible that specifically deals with what to do with the bodies of the deceased.  Cremation does not appear to be a part of any burial customs of God's people in biblical times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph (Jacob's son), in faith, gave instructions to the Israelites to carry his bones back to the Promised Land when God would give Israel that land centuries after he died.  With his role in Egypt, he may have even been mummified according to Egyptian customs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that Jesus was not cremated, and His body did not see corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that the biggest issue with cremation is that it actively destroys the body rather than passively surrendering it to natural processes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T18:48:31.447" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3070" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:48:34.147" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church directly contradicts many of the teachings of Swedenborg, but as best I can tell has not directly addressed Swedenborg himself. I am unaware of any documents from the Magisterium directly addressing Swedenborg. Thus, in that sense, the Catholic Church does not have an official position on Swedenborg. However, many of Swedenborg's teachings directly contradict the doctrines of the Catholic Church and so would be condemned as heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to state it a different way, we cannot talk about the Catholic position on Swedenborg as a whole (because one has not been taken), but we &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; talk about the Catholic position on his individual teachings. It is completely possible that some of his teachings are in direct alignment with the Catholic Church while others are heretical according to the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's take a look specifically at the teachings listed in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Hell_%28Swedenborg%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Heaven and Hell article&lt;/a&gt;.  I've attempted to be brief and so only touched on the major points.  Please feel free to ask questions on anything I didn't cover and I will do my best to answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trinity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Teaching is that God is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;three distinct persons in one nature&lt;/a&gt;.  Swedenborg contradicts this teaching, claiming that there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg#Trinity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;only one person&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Angels&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Swedenborg teaches that angels used to be men and women and still live quite a bit like humans on earth.  This, again, is a direct contradiction to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p5.htm#328&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic teaching&lt;/a&gt;.  The Catholic teaching is that Angels are pure spirits (no corporeal bodies whatsoever) and are a separate nature from human nature.  Angels were created separately from humans and humans never become angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Marriage&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Swedenborg and the Catholic Church agree that marriage is between one man and one woman and &quot;what God has joined, let no man put asunder.&quot; However, they disagree on the nature the marriage bond.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Swedenborg taught that marriage continues after death. Catholic teaching is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;marriage is for &lt;em&gt;life&lt;/em&gt;, not afterlife.&lt;/a&gt; This is witnessed by the marriage vows, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_vows#Roman_Catholic&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;till death do us part.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Heaven and Hell&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;(Thanks to &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/22802/swedenborg-v-catholics&quot;&gt;Lee Woofenden&lt;/a&gt; for helping write this section)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first difference between Swedenborg and the Catholic Church is the nature of judgment after death. Swedenborg teaches the concept of a &quot;World of Spirits&quot; in which a person's &quot;true nature&quot; is revealed over time after they die. Everyone enters this World of Spirits at death and over time whether or not Heaven or Hell is a better match for their nature is revealed to them. They then naturally choose the better match. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1020&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic teaching&lt;/a&gt; is that when we die we are immediately judged and enter Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory.  There is no reveal over time of our &quot;true nature&quot; but a direct judgment.  Those who have rejected God are sent to Hell and those who have not attain Heaven. (Possibly going through Purgatory on the way to Heaven. Purgatory is a place for those who have gained Heaven, but first need to purge a remaining attachment to some earthly thing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an interesting distinction between these two viewpoints.  In Swedenborg's teachings, those in hell don't want to be in heaven. In the Catholic teaching, the desires of those in hell are completely irrelevant, they simply cannot enter heaven. They have rejected God and so cannot attain the beatific vision (see below).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other major difference appears to be in the definition of heaven and hell itself.  The Catholic Church defines Heaven and Hell primarily in terms of the gaining or the deprivation of the beatific vision. That is, the beholding of God's glory and seeing him face to face. Heaven is the attainment of the beatific vision, Hell is the deprivation of this glory. While the Catholic Church does teach that we will be active and doing &quot;stuff&quot; in heaven, the focus and definition is on the beatific vision as that is the greatest glory and dwarfs all other occupations of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Swedenborg thought of heaven, not as a beatific vision of God, but as a realm in which people live in community and engage in acts of love and service toward one another. His vision of heaven was closer to that of a good society here on earth, though in a spiritual rather than a material way.&#xA;He described various occupations in heaven, most of which today would be considered &quot;service industries,&quot; such as education, child-raising, preaching, and so on. Though he did describe periodic worship services in heaven, he rejected the idea that angels spend eternity in unceasing worship, praise, and contemplation of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="174" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-12-19T17:24:04.900" LastActivityDate="2016-12-19T17:24:04.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3085" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:50:13.270" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Read article 4 of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html&quot;&gt;Humane Vitae&lt;/a&gt; for the biblical basis for the Catholic Church interpreting the moral law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html#%241L&quot;&gt;Evangelium Vitae&lt;/a&gt; may begin to make sense. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human embryos and fetuses-sometimes specifically &quot;produced&quot; for this purpose by in vitro fertilization-either to be used as &quot;biological material&quot; or as providers of organs or tissue for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases. The killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the sanctity of every human person, known before they were formed in their mother's womb, the secondary effects of in vitro fertilization certainly fall under &quot;Thou Shall not Kill&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of course falls under the natural moral law as gmoothart says, which is, you ask &quot;where ought a person be conceived&quot; and the answer is &quot;whereever the egg is hanging out during the marital act&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T18:50:13.270" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3002" CreationDate="2011-09-20T18:58:28.297" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The liturgy of hours, as I understand it, was traditionally a form of public prayer.  The religious communities would pray this together.  Thus I'm not sure if there is a &quot;traditional&quot; way to pray it privately.  If pressed, I would say it's to sing/chant it as the religious communities did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="174" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T18:58:28.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3086" CreationDate="2011-09-20T19:03:03.533" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This looks like a case for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html&quot;&gt;Evangelium Vitae&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favour a serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born, these techniques are morally licit. But since the possibilities of prenatal therapy are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these techniques are used with a eugenic intention which accepts selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies. Such an attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of &quot;normality&quot; and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and euthanasia as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It applies specifically to already implanted/natural conceived children, but ought to be widened to your case given today's technology.  We'd consider those children to be just as fit for life regardless of their genetic defects.  In fact, the very idea that they have genetic defects when barely conceived should make it more obvious that they are fully human!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a biblical basis try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is I who bring both death and life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Dt 32:39)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is to say, don't play God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T19:03:03.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="778" CreationDate="2011-09-20T19:09:49.547" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;When discussing pre-marital sex I think we can even throw out the debate over the translation porneia to fornication. We can look at what the Bible says about sex, which makes the definition of porneia irrelevant because I agree that it isn't a solid case in itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible states that if a man sleeps with a virgin he is to take her as his wife (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Exodus 22:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 22:28-29&lt;/a&gt;). This comes from the article you linked to. The problem with the article is it assumes rape even though there is nothing showing it to be rape at all. It is an assumption that ruins their argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:20-21&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 22:20-21&lt;/a&gt; states that if a woman wasn't a virgin when married (if the husband brought the charges and she was found guilty by not having the sackcloth to prove it) she is to be stoned for doing a &quot;disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the original definition of porneia can be debated for hours on end, I believe these verses show the severe consequences of sex outside of marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-04-03T14:32:59.163" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T14:32:59.163" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3096" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3113" CreationDate="2011-09-20T19:18:52.390" Score="14" ViewCount="443" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis?&lt;/strong&gt; Stated another way: Is there room for understanding God and/or His will that does not come from the Bible? Perhaps through revelations from God Himself, or secondary sources (Angels, Saints, etc). I would wager the answer to this question depends on the denomination being discussed. But, for example, do the words of the Pope always hold true in Catholicism even if there is no strict biblical basis for them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T01:43:13.203" Title="Do all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-03-16T05:41:48.753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3002" CreationDate="2011-09-20T19:57:37.190" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Liturgy in the strict sense is a public activity, so as such it should be prayed out loud, either recited in less formal settings or chanted with a melody, as monastic communities still do, or somewhere in between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you are praying the hours privately it's enough to just read the prayers, psalms and collects to yourself, though of course you are free to do whatever helps you to pray more devoutly, so if that means whispering the words outwardly then so be it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="593" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T19:57:37.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3096" CreationDate="2011-09-20T20:07:10.473" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clearly not all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis.  I'm a Christian, and I have the view that the square of 2 is 4, and that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, however these view are not explained in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the closest Christians have to a principle similar to that about which you're asking, is the concept that all Christian views must be &lt;em&gt;consistent&lt;/em&gt; with the Bible.  And I believe that all Christian traditions can agree with this--to the extent that they believe the Bible can be accurately interpreted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics hold Tradition in high esteem, but (to my understanding), they believe that Tradition never conflicts with the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS church has other scriptures they use, but again, these, at least in their view, never conflict with the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in my examples, the Bible doesn't say anything about the square of 2 not being 4, nor that Neil Armstrong did not walk on the moon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-20T21:11:25.387" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T21:11:25.387" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3099" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-20T20:22:21.690" Score="13" ViewCount="2583" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:4-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelations 20:4-6 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) &lt;strong&gt;This is the first resurrection.&lt;/strong&gt; 6 &lt;strong&gt;Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection.&lt;/strong&gt; The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like this is referring to the rapture.  However, it sounds like there will be more than one of these resurrections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How many will there be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-01T23:49:16.197" LastActivityDate="2014-11-01T23:49:16.197" Title="How many resurrections (raptures) will there be?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-11-01T22:45:14.710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2932" CreationDate="2011-09-20T21:40:30.327" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0890512027&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D. Russell Humphreys&lt;/a&gt; makes an interesting case for reconciling a young earth and distant stars using the generally accepted big-bang model with modified starting assumptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's been a while since I read it and I don't want to erroneously summarise his theory but I seem to recall that if the earth is actually relatively near the center of the universe, time on earth would progress very slowly relative to the rapidly expanding universe around us. This &quot;event horizon&quot;-like effect would allow a universe of far greater age than the earth without requiring a non-constant speed of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="704" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T21:40:30.327" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2932" CreationDate="2011-09-20T21:59:01.207" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two main theories creationists used to explain it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 1857 Philip Goose wrote the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_%28book%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Omphalos&lt;/a&gt; which proposes the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;omphalos hypothesis&lt;/a&gt; and argues, that &lt;strong&gt;God must have created the earth as it is today, with mountains, canyons, tree rings, and thus with the light of stars.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This theory, of course, raises the question of when the &quot;false history&quot; began exactly. It could have been a few thousand years ago, but of course God might have created us a few seconds ago. His hypothesis is impossible to verify and unfalsifiable, therefore it's widely rejected. Even other Creationists reject that hypothesis on philosophical grounds, as it would lead to a deceptive and inconsistent creator.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1987 Barry Setterfield proposes&lt;/a&gt; the hypothetis, that &lt;strong&gt;the speed of light (and other physical constants) has changed over time and is exponentially slowing down from the moment of creation.&lt;/strong&gt; Based on this, light from distant galaxies would have covered most of it's journey to earth in the recent past. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Setterfield used a series of measurements that started in 1667 (Roemer 307,600) and argues that they fit into an exponential curve, resulting in todays accepted figure of 299,792.4358 km/s. That method is highly dependend on the first measurements, which is the outlier that defines the curve. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The credibility is questioned because he discarded 3 of the 41 data points in an earlier table resulting in a &quot;near perfect fit of the data&quot; (altough not a single data point lay on the curve, even after adjusting it). Other measurements, made only a few decades later then the first and were much more reliable, were not included in his statistical analysis. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another issue the observed explosion of Supernova SN1987A. Its 177000 light-years away and every possible decay curve &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;is ruled out by simple observations&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#History&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Recent measures&lt;/a&gt; of the speed of light have not shown any decay and thus his theory is rejected scientifically.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="301" LastEditDate="2012-12-30T22:50:24.583" LastActivityDate="2012-12-30T22:50:24.583" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-20T22:05:00.353" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there are references in the Bible to disciples meeting on a Sunday, I compiled a quick (non-authoritative) list to demonstrate that there's no strong argument to claim from the Bible that the early church met exclusively on Sunday. Bear in mind that the very early church met in people's homes and worshiped in the temple up until it was destroyed in AD70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that the gradual move from every-day to Sunday worship coincided with the Jewish proportion of believers becoming a minority and the (related) adoption of Christianity as the official religion of Rome which removed the 'underground' element and resulted in church buildings for worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References to worshiping/meeting daily:&#xA;Acts 2:46&#xA;Acts 2:47&#xA;Acts 5:42&#xA;Acts 16:5&#xA;Acts 17:11&#xA;Acts 17:17&#xA;Acts 19:9&#xA;Heb 3:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References to worshiping/meeting on Sabbath (Fri eve/Saturday):&#xA;Acts 13:14&#xA;Acts 13:42&#xA;Acts 13:44&#xA;Acts 16:13&#xA;Acts 17:2&#xA;Acts 18:4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References to worship/meeting on a Sunday&#xA;John 20:19&#xA;Acts 20:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="704" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T22:05:00.353" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3099" CreationDate="2011-09-20T22:05:37.280" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at the passage you quoted, it seems pretty clear that there are two resurrections.  The first resurrection is the resurrection of the righteous, while &quot;the rest of the dead (the wicked) did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't look to me like it's saying anything about the Rapture; merely that those who were righteous in life will be resurrected quickly and be able to &quot;be priests of God and of Christ and... reign with him for a thousand years,&quot; while the wicked remain dead until the second resurrection, at the end of the Millennium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T22:05:37.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3104" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-20T22:14:47.990" Score="4" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3106/what-is-the-difference-between-the-doctrines-of-perseverance-of-the-saints-and&quot;&gt;What is the difference between the doctrines of &amp;ldquo;Perseverance of the Saints&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Eternal Security?&amp;rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that Calvinists believe in &quot;Eternal Security&quot;, or &quot;Perseverance of the Saints&quot; as it's called in the TULIP acronym.  But are there other Christian groups that also believe in the concept of &quot;once saved, always saved&quot;, without accepting the other four points of Calvinist theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;em&gt;And if I'm inappropriately equating &quot;Eternal Security&quot;, &quot;Perseverance of the Saints&quot; and &quot;Once saved, always saved&quot; terms, please correct me on this.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T22:14:47.990" Title="Is &quot;once saved, always saved&quot; strictly a Calvinist view?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2011-09-20T22:44:10.910" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2979" CreationDate="2011-09-20T22:20:14.817" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sabbath will always be Friday evening to Saturday evening since it is defined by being the seventh day (the very root of the word is seven).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Lord's day&quot; is almost certainly Sunday (based on the day of the resurrection) though it is not exclusively so in all sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4/why-does-judaism-celebrate-sabbath-on-saturday-and-most-christians-celebrate-sabb/3102#3102&quot;&gt;my answer&lt;/a&gt; to the related question but it is a bit simplistic to say that the disciples started meeting on Sundays, since they met every day! See the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4/why-does-judaism-celebrate-sabbath-on-saturday-and-most-christians-celebrate-sabb/2427#2427&quot;&gt;other answer&lt;/a&gt; of that question for scriptural evidence that it is not important what you choose to do on which days, but &quot;let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="704" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-20T22:20:14.817" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3106" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3120" CreationDate="2011-09-20T22:34:56.327" Score="17" ViewCount="1002" Body="&lt;p&gt;The terms &quot;Perseverance of the Saints,&quot; &quot;Eternal Security,&quot; and the phrase &quot;once saved, always saved&quot; are a bit fuzzy in my head.  I understand the general concept behind them, but what are the differences between these various views or doctrines?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-07-13T02:17:51.973" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T02:17:51.973" Title="What is the difference between the doctrines of &quot;Perseverance of the Saints&quot; and &quot;Eternal Security?&quot;" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;perseverance-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="248" CreationDate="2011-09-20T22:39:26.150" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that Biblically the Good Friday tradition doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The traditional view tends to forget that since it was Passover there would be an additional Sabbath in the chronology. We can see a hint of this in the difference between &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 16:1&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:55&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 23:55&lt;/a&gt; regarding the purchasing of spices by the women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tgm.org/3DaysN3Nites.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this website&lt;/a&gt; for a detailed breakdown of the timeline of the crucifixion and resurrection, but in summary Jesus was buried on Wednesday night and rose on Saturday night and the Thursday in between was a high holy day (extra Sabbath). I'd be very interested to hear any Biblical arguments against this timeline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="704" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T15:41:29.833" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T15:41:29.833" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3108" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3109" CreationDate="2011-09-20T22:42:29.547" Score="22" ViewCount="4372" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't really decided what to think about the creation of the world. I'm very familiar with the concept of evolution, scientifically, and if I didn't believe in God I'd certainly believe in evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I'm not sure about the theological aspects of evolution. I consider the Fall of Man to be very important in Christianity. If man didn't fall, the &quot;sinful&quot; behavior would have actually been built into us by God (or God's mechanism). It would be difficult to explain how we're responsible for our actions, then. At least that's the way it feels to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'd like to know a few things from a theistic evolutionism point of view. If there are many different views, please tell all that fit with the assumption of evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was the Fall of Man a historical event?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the description of the Fall in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%203&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Genesis 3&lt;/a&gt; literal?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(*) How come we are accountable for our deeds?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(*) Where did original sin come from? (or does it not fit with theistic evolution)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(*) &lt;em&gt;If you think the Fall wasn't historical&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; question number 4 was added afterwards.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T20:57:36.610" LastActivityDate="2018-10-02T14:18:47.777" Title="How do theistic evolutionists view the Fall of Man?" Tags="&lt;evolution&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3108" CreationDate="2011-09-21T00:14:21.613" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;My view is 1) in a way, 2) no, 3) read on!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider two snapshots in time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No humans around yet, just plants, animals and so forth. Lacking free will, they have no &#xA;moral responsibility, and the concept of &quot;sin&quot; makes no sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Humans exist. We have free will, moral responsibility, and conflicting tendencies: we are born to trouble (as sure as sparks fly upward, Job 5:7), but we are also loved by God and are drawn to him, since we are formed in his image.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The creationist viewpoint is that between 1 and 2 came the events of Genesis 1:26 through 3:24, as literally described. Evolutionarily, what took place is that humans evolved from our animal ancestors, gaining self-awareness and the ability to make moral choices. Unfortunately for us, that means that we can choose poorly. I read the story of Eden as a narrative exposition of this basic problem of the human condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for your question 1, I think of the Fall as historical in that between step 1 and step 2, we fell; but not strictly as described in the Genesis story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our tendency to be tempted (Genesis 3:1), the resulting disobedience to God's will (3:3) and the desire to take his place (3:6) have resulted in our shame (3:7), alienation from God (3:10, &quot;I was afraid&quot;), from his creation (3:17-19), and from one another (3:12, Adam blames Eve). We had to wait for the promised seed, Christ, to defeat sin (3:15). By following him, we can regain the eternal paradise that had been denied (3:22-24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These facts do not depend on there being a specific couple, Adam and Eve. Now, it's possible to counter this by pointing to passages like 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, which in the NIV reads&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we view Christ as the new Adam, if there was never an old Adam? Actually, the literal interpretation has a problem in that Genesis 3 doesn't pin all the blame on Adam: Eve was tempted first, and they both ate the fruit. So I think that Paul has to be speaking figuratively in any case, using Adam as the stand-in for all of humanity. In the same way, there is Romans 5:12-21, saying that after the first sin of the first man, we are all sinners, but now we can all be redeemed through Christ. This redemption doesn't come about through physical descent, so I don't see a reason to say that we sin only because we are descended from a sinner. To me, it makes more sense to believe that Paul was speaking in a midrashic way about Adam, and that sinfulness is inherent to our (present) human nature, than to impose a literalist view on the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But whether or not the Genesis account is taken literally, from step 2 onwards, we are in the same spiritual and moral position. As Don Marquis put it in &lt;em&gt;archy hears from mars&lt;/em&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[earth] is in charge of a &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  two legged animal called &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  man who is genuinely &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  puzzled as to whether &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  his grandfather was a god &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  or a monkey&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  i should think said mars&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  that what he is himself &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  would make more difference&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  than what his grandfather was&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  not to this animal i replied &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  he is the great alibi ike of &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  the cosmos when he raises hell&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  just because he feels like&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  raising hell&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  he wants somebody to blame it on&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T00:14:21.613" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3096" CreationDate="2011-09-21T01:42:31.560" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good reference on the reformed, evangelical position on this is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/&quot;&gt;chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We speak of the Bible as God's &lt;em&gt;Word&lt;/em&gt; because in it he speaks to us (2 Tim 3:16). He speaks to us personally in the Bible through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:12). Because the Bible is considered as God's Word it is his definitive words to us, the only &lt;em&gt;infallible&lt;/em&gt; source of knowing him. It is also &lt;em&gt;sufficient&lt;/em&gt; for everything we need to know about him. This means that in theory we don't need to look anywhere else to know God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some points to note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible won't tell us about absolutely everything that there is to know. It isn't particularly concerned about things like mathematics. The Bible is the final authority on &lt;em&gt;matters of faith&lt;/em&gt;. Often it may not even answer your personal questions about God and his will. In this situation, either it means that we need further reflection, or that we're asking the wrong questions which means we may need to realign our concerns with the Bible's.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible won't state everything down explicitly. Often our understanding of God is derived as a consequence of what we read in the Bible. E.g. the Bible doesn't mention the Trinity, but we can certainly see the ideas (e.g. John 17). This has implications on contemporary issues or things which we think the Bible doesn't deal with. We can draw principles and doctrines and apply them to different contexts. But you likely won't find specific answers to decisions in your own context such as whether you should do X or Y.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not everything in the Bible is easy to understand. Often the difficulty in understanding lies in our own hardness against God, which is why God has given us the Holy Spirit to help us. Often it is because of the difficulty in understanding the actual meaning. The reformers also derived the principle that Scripture should interpret Scripture, which upholds the authority of the Bible while recognising its difficulties. Often the difficulty in understanding is not in individual statements but in the message as a whole and in the emphases. E.g. many parts of the Bible teaches us to love, but it is not the biggest teaching. The biggest teaching is that we need God's salvation because without it we cannot love anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's commonly recognised that there are at least 3 other sources: reason, tradition, experience. These are part of God's &lt;em&gt;common grace&lt;/em&gt; to everyone. They can be helpful, but these should only be considered as secondary sources. They are ultimately flawed because people are flawed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reason. We use reason in deducing a lot of things, even reading the Bible. But we know that our capabilities to reason are limited, and people contradict themselves anyway. From a philosophical perspective, we can't know God by sheer reason. Our senses have limited scope, and by nature we deny God anyway (Rom 1:19f). God needs to reveal himself to us and tell us about himself and what he desires. E.g. he needs to tell us that there is only 1 of him. Anything else is just a guessing game. E.g. &quot;I think God is like ...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Experience. Can we know God from experiencing a vision? We don't particularly need it if the Bible is his revelation to us. A vision doesn't make us more anointed. Neither do we need such a vision or revelation to supplement the Bible since the Bible is sufficient. But if we do get such a vision, it should still be weighed up against Scripture (e.g. 1 Jn 4:1-3). Besides, the Holy Spirit is the important subjective, experience of God. I don't mean speaking in tongues, and it doesn't need to 'feel' particularly spiritual. The fact that we can repent and believe in Jesus is evidence of it already.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tradition. Can an individual (such as the Pope) have more authority to give a special revelation from God? People may have particular gifts from God, e.g. Eph 4:11. The Apostles carried a unique authority because they were eyewitnesses to Jesus (Acts 1:21). But no one has a special phone line to God. All Christians have the same direct line to God, i.e. the Holy Spirit. Even the Apostles needed that before they could start preaching (Acts 2). Having said that, the teaching of church leaders, books or each other can be helpful. Even non-Christian teachings/writings can be helpful. But that's not to say that they're always right. Neither can they carry the same authority as the Bible, because they are ultimately man's words. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we can have secondary sources to help us know God, but the ultimate authority is the Bible because of the special authority that the Bible carries as the Word of God. The implication is that everything else is either wrong or inadequate, which means that we do need to come back to the Bible in the end. And because of the difficulty of understanding the Bible sometimes, we need to continually be going back to Scripture. You may even be surprised by what you find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastEditorUserId="682" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T05:07:46.387" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T05:07:46.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3096" CreationDate="2011-09-21T03:05:43.287" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was going to write a nuanced answer, but upon reflection, I think I'll come down firmly on the side of: &lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize many will disagree, but I'd like to offer several reasons for my view, as food for thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Not all churches that are commonly regarded as Christian believe that all Christian beliefs must have a biblical basis&lt;/strong&gt;.  Most Protestant churches do, but Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox give Tradition a strong role.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallistos_Ware&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Timothy Ware (aka Metropolitan Kallistos)&lt;/a&gt;, in his book &lt;em&gt;The Orthodox Church&lt;/em&gt;, gives the Bible the principal place &lt;em&gt;within&lt;/em&gt; Holy Tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The list of books of the New Testament was not definitively settled until the late fourth century.&lt;/strong&gt;  See, for instance, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon#Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Development of the New Testament canon&lt;/a&gt; on Wikipedia.  There were some books that weren't included until very late, while some books were included in early versions of the New Testament that no longer are.  For instance, the 5th century &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Codex Alexandrinus&lt;/a&gt; (in the British Museum) contains 1 and 2 Clement, even though the canon was supposedly closed prior to that date.  For a long time there wasn't a strict separation between &amp;quot;inspired&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;unspired&amp;quot; books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Until the invention of the printing press, it wasn't possible for most Christians to possess a Bible.&lt;/strong&gt;  Until Gutenberg, making a copy of a book was a laborious process, potentially a work of months, done entirely by hand.  In the past I was told tales of Bibles chained to pulpits in Catholic churches, lest the faithful find out what they &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; said.  In fact, though, Bibles were chained to pulpits because they were so hard to create, and therefore were extremely expensive.  Further, the faithful had a chance to hear Scripture at every service; all of the ancient churches had a lectionary, which prescribed readings of the Gospels, Epistles, and in some cases the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this was a far cry from every man having his own Bible.  If Christianity were dependent on that, it could not have come about until the fifteenth century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T03:05:43.287" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3116" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3118" CreationDate="2011-09-21T04:56:30.897" Score="1" ViewCount="3886" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen a few people casually write about how they know God's character—the features and traits that make up His person or existence—yet I've always been taught the opposite (that we can't possibly comprehend his true nature), and upon thinking about it myself I don't see how anyone can really claim otherwise. Yes, we have the Bible, but the Bible only suggests how God &lt;em&gt;wants&lt;/em&gt; us to see him as; it does not necessarily show how He &lt;em&gt;truly is&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;God is the totality of everything&lt;/strong&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;His awesome magnificence is beyond everything our puny minds can comprehend&lt;/strong&gt;. I find it an insult to God to suggest that we can begin to define him. Specifically, to attribute characteristics to God is to say He is one thing but not another, which in effect is trying to make God human. I like to think of God as more complete than the universe itself, not some bearded guy in the clouds; something that cannot be named or defined, shaped or molded by mere words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say this is a common view in my area (Boston, MA, USA). Are we just a minority who thinks this way? Can we really know anything about God's character?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: To be clear, you can use Biblical sources but I'm not sure they will be of great use here; even if the Bible was written directly by God, we could never really prove that it was more than what He wanted us to think about him, rather than how He really is. This is more of a philosophical question pertaining to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;epistemology&lt;/a&gt; — the source and scope of knowledge in general. In theory, it could be placed in Philosophy.SE, but being about the Christian God it's certainly relevant here, and also I'm particularly interested in what other Christian's have to say on this topic, and why they might think they can conclude anything &lt;em&gt;certain&lt;/em&gt; about the nature of God's character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="676" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T18:47:48.630" LastActivityDate="2014-09-24T13:30:27.183" Title="Can we truly know anything about God's character?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-09-25T20:08:22.670" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3116" CreationDate="2011-09-21T05:12:23.123" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, you are talking about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism&quot;&gt;Strong Agnosticism&lt;/a&gt; (or similar).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this contains an inherent inconsistency. If we say, &lt;em&gt;&quot;it is impossible to know anything about God&quot;&lt;/em&gt; we are actually &lt;em&gt;making a statement about God&lt;/em&gt;. In other words, to be consistent, we would have to say, &lt;em&gt;&quot;it is impossible to know anything about God &lt;strong&gt;excluding this statement&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we can learn at least some qualities about God. And, as Christians, we believe He &lt;em&gt;wants us to learn about Him&lt;/em&gt; and has given us plenty of information in the form of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T05:33:22.100" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T05:33:22.100" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3116" CreationDate="2011-09-21T05:14:43.783" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, the concept that &quot;God is the universe itself&quot; is a decidedly &lt;em&gt;non-Christian&lt;/em&gt; view.  But if it were true that God were the universe, this would answer your question before you even finish asking it.  We &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; know certain characteristics of the universe.  It may be arrogant, or an insult to god/the universe to say we fully comprehend the universe, but we certainly do know &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; things about the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, disregarding this non-Christian concept that God is the universe... I believe we are extremely limited in our ability to comprehend God.  We are essentially left at His mercy to reveal Himself to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say otherwise (which you imply), I would say is a greater insult:  God is incapable (or perhaps unwilling) to reveal Himself to humanity.  Of course this would be &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt; of God's character in and of itself (as @WikiAtArea51's answer points out).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians do believe that God reveals himself, in part, through his creation--which includes the universe and everything within it.  Some of God's characteristics made evident through His creation would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is creative&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God values order&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God appreciates beauty (as evidenced by His creating creatures that are capable of appreciating beauty)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if we go one step further, Christians believe God can, and does, reveal Himself through other means as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity believes that God revealed some of His characteristics to the Israelites by way of the Ten Commandants, for instance.  We believe that He revealed much more of Himself through the person, life, and teachings of Jesus, who we believe is his Son (fully God, and fully man).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We believe that God has revealed much about Himself through the events recorded in the Bible, and that this was His attempt to reveal Himself to us--not humanity's attempt to glean understanding from a vacuum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T07:13:44.323" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T07:13:44.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3106" CreationDate="2011-09-21T07:49:38.213" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Put simply, perseverance of the saints refers to the Calvinistic view that since Christians are chosen (or &quot;elect&quot;) by God prior to conception, it is impossible to lose salvation - if we have it, we've always had it, if we &quot;lose it,&quot; we never had it to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eternal Security (Also known as &quot;Free Grace&quot;) is the view that once someone believes in Jesus Christ as the their Lord and savior, they have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Once saved, always saved&quot; is generally attributed to the former view, as it has to do with Calvinistic predestination, whereas the latter view says that once you make the &quot;decision&quot; to believe, you can't lose your promise of eternal life regardless of subsequent actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="34" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T07:49:38.213" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3121" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-21T07:57:32.753" Score="16" ViewCount="838" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, this question makes two assumptions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For a person to be saved today, they must hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, and accept the gift of His death on the cross as penance for their sin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Before the death of Christ, the requirement for salvation was faith in God's future redemptive work (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1824/who-saved-people-before-33ad/1830#1830&quot;&gt;How were people saved before ~33AD?&lt;/a&gt; ).  This is what saved Abraham, the thief on the cross, and anyone else who was saved up to this point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two premises are commonly held by many Christians, including many very close friends of mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is, given this understanding of saving faith, &lt;strong&gt;when, precisely, did the requirement cease to be &quot;faith in future redemptive work&quot; and instead become &quot;faith in past redemptive work?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easy answer would of course be &quot;The instant Christ died,&quot; but that has unfortunate implications for anyone who died 5 minutes after Christ did but did not know of Christ's death because the obituary had not yet been published.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2014-10-27T02:13:08.780" Title="When did knowledge of Christ's sacrifice become necessary for salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-26T05:22:55.687" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3122" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3133" CreationDate="2011-09-21T12:00:53.107" Score="10" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that some attributes of God are said to be communicable, meaning that they can, in some measure, be attributes of men as well. For example, God's holiness is said to be communicable because our holiness is derived from his, as in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Leviticus%2011:45&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lev 11:45&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;Be holy, for I am holy.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; (ESV). God's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;aseity&lt;/a&gt;, on the other hand, could not be attributed to humans, as we are created by him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many other attributes, however, seem to be more of a gray area for me. For example, one might mark &quot;knowledge&quot; as communicable, or perhaps omniscience as incommunicable. How does one determine whether an attribute of God is communicable or incommunicable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T13:03:38.700" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T13:41:18.883" Title="What test is used to determine communicability of an attribute of God" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3122" CreationDate="2011-09-21T12:07:59.637" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that absolute attributes can't be communicable, and non-absolute can be communicable. &#xA;Ex. personal holiness of a man is not the same as holiness of God, Who is absolute in every attribute. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we should distinct absoluteness of value and absoluteness of attribute. I think that absolute attribute is attribute which cannot have non-absolute value. This way absolute attribute is like boolean Yes/No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But maybe this test has no value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T13:41:18.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T13:41:18.883" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3124" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-21T13:37:43.833" Score="19" ViewCount="13704" Body="&lt;p&gt;I thought of this when I was researching &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3121/when-did-knowledge-of-christs-sacrifice-become-necessary-for-salvation&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 4&lt;/a&gt; goes into great detail about the sacrifice that must be made in order for a sin to be forgiven.  However, we see here that God actually provided a way for these sins to be forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, Leviticus 16 shows that this sacrifice and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Day of Atonement&lt;/a&gt; did provide forgiveness of sins:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Emphasis added&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. &lt;strong&gt;Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, Jews no longer provide sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, however God has still provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8862/why-dont-jews-sacrifice-animals-anymore&quot;&gt;Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore?&lt;/a&gt; for more information.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if God has previously given us a way to have forgiveness of our sins, why did he send Jesus to be our ultimate sacrifice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Edit:&lt;/em&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;I believe that there is some doctrinal basis for this.  I'm not sure which specific doctrine would best be applied to this, but I am seeking a mainstream Protestant doctrine on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2018-11-02T01:17:17.807" Title="Since God provided for the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament, why do we need Jesus?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3124" CreationDate="2011-09-21T13:41:50.710" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, it never worked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews%2010:4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the OT sacrifices were useless in an of themselves. What they did all along was not actually solve something but point people to the idea that something needed to be solved and the way that had to happen was through sacrifice. All the OT sacrificial rules only served to point us to Christ, who was already arranged as the Lamb to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the forgiveness for sins that God &quot;provided&quot; in the Old Testament was through Jesus from day one, so you can't just take him out of the picture. There isn't another way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1824/who-saved-people-before-33ad&quot;&gt;How were people saved before ~33AD?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T13:41:50.710" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3121" CreationDate="2011-09-21T13:52:30.280" Score="5" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Pre-Christianity Salvation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept of &amp;quot;salvation&amp;quot; before Christ was not the same concept as we see today.  The idea of salvation back then was that God would come and save us from whatever affliction we were dealing with.  God brought salvation from the Egyptians;  He brought salvation from the giants that controlled Canaan; He brought salvation from lions and from being thrown in a fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the idea that &amp;quot;salvation&amp;quot; before Christ was brought from the hope of &amp;quot;future redemptive work&amp;quot; is very much invalid.  &amp;quot;Salvation&amp;quot; before Christ was brought from following God and obeying his commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For illustrative purposes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+28:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 28:1 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation#Hebrew_bible.2FOld_Testament&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a secular source&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a non-secular source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Pre-Christianity Remission of Sins&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in the context of Christianity, if we say &amp;quot;salvation&amp;quot;, we mean that Christ has saved us &lt;em&gt;from the bondage of sin&lt;/em&gt;.  When a Christian says &amp;quot;I am saved&amp;quot;, he means that God has forgiven his sin and that he's been freed from that bondage.  &lt;em&gt;The debt has been paid; the sin is forgiven.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept of remission of Sins pre-Christ was that of animal sacrifice.  The sacrifice of the animal was performed for the atonement of sins. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 4&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 16&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To show that sins were forgiven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once the Isrealites were scattered from the promised land, the animal sacrifices stopped and prayers from the forgiveness of sins began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't go into that too deep.  But here's a post on Judaism.SE that explains why they are not required to sacrifice animals: &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8862/why-dont-jews-sacrifice-animals-anymore&quot;&gt;Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point, though, is that the Jews (pre-Jesus and currently) are not expecting &lt;em&gt;future redemption&lt;/em&gt; to be forgiven of sins.  They are (rightly so) expecting their sins to be forgiven at the time when they ask for forgiveness and truly repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Salvation of Jesus&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross has brought about a new type of salvation:  salvation from sins.  He has provided us a way to gain access to God directly; he has become our mediator, our savior, and our redeemer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When people hear of Jesus, his story, his resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins that we have through his sacrifice, it is at that point that they become culpable for believing or disbelieving his sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to hearing of Jesus and learning of his sacrifice and his grace and mercy, people are still under the old ways and the old rules.  (See also &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1763/what-happens-to-people-who-have-never-heard-about-jesus&quot;&gt;What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The requirement was never &amp;quot;faith in future redemptive work&amp;quot;.  The requirement was sacrifice of atonement and repentance.  This requirement is still around today, but the atonement was the perfect atonement made on the cross.  Prior to learning about Jesus, we must make atonement in other ways.  After learning about Jesus, we can accept his amazing gift of his sacrifice as the perfect atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The burden lies on the heart, not on the timing.  It's learning about Jesus that changes the &amp;quot;salvation&amp;quot; (forgiveness) from atonement through animal sacrifice to atonement through messianic sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sacrifice of Jesus completely changed the concepts of &amp;quot;salvation&amp;quot; and forgiveness of sins.  His sacrifice allows people to be forgiven of their sins without the sacrifice of animals.  He has become the perfect sacrifice for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The requirement for forgiveness was never &amp;quot;faith in future redemptive work&amp;quot;.  The requirement has always been faith in God and following his laws.  (Remember, Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the point of learning of Jesus and accepting him as the Messiah that allows us to turn from other atonement to the perfect atonement.  Once we accept Jesus, we can rest on his perfect sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T14:32:40.013" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3127" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-21T14:03:46.587" Score="17" ViewCount="1830" Body="&lt;p&gt;When did the pronunciation of &lt;code&gt;Jesus&lt;/code&gt; change from &lt;code&gt;Yeh-sus&lt;/code&gt; to &lt;code&gt;Gee-zus&lt;/code&gt;? Why did the name change? How? Where?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: how did the name pronunciation change? Wouldn't there be people to correct mispronouncing the name? Did English speaking regions that pronounced J as a soft G take over educational institutions? What happened to English speakers that read J as Y?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-15T00:28:10.627" LastActivityDate="2018-12-15T00:28:10.627" Title="When did the pronunciation of &quot;Jesus&quot; change?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;greek&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3127" CreationDate="2011-09-21T14:13:42.880" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was a mispronunciation of a European (i.e. German/Old English) spelling of Jesus. Before the 1600s &quot;Js&quot; were pronounced &quot;Y&quot; - as in the name Jürgen. In fact, the letter &quot;J&quot; is extant in no alphabet until the 14th Century. The Greek Ίησους (Yeh-sus) was written &quot;Jesus&quot;, but pronounced the same (that is, with a &quot;Y&quot;) until after the 1630s when the letter J was generally pronounced &quot;dje&quot;. This accounts for the change in pronunciation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also accounts for why in the 1611 KJV, all the &quot;J - names&quot; (e.g. Jesus, James) were written with an &quot;I&quot; (e.g. Iesus, Iames).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're interested, the English/German form is actually taken from the Latin Iesus, hence the &quot;us&quot; ending, rather than a &quot;ous&quot; ending. The name in Hebrew is ישוע (Yeshua, a shortened form of Yehoshua), which is where we get the name Joshua from. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="647" LastEditorUserId="647" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T15:27:07.063" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T15:27:07.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1824" CreationDate="2011-09-21T14:29:21.327" Score="10" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Forgiveness&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being &quot;saved&quot; is a Christian concept related to the forgiveness of sins.  Prior to Christ, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom2.htm&quot;&gt;Salvation was being saved from Earthly (temporal) grief&lt;/a&gt;.  So, the question, from a pre-Christ perspective, is more appropriately worded as &lt;em&gt;&quot;Who forgave sins before ~33AD?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like today, sin was forgiven through &lt;strong&gt;sacrifice&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;repentance&lt;/strong&gt;.  The people &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;were not made perfect&lt;/a&gt;, but they were forgiven of their sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Sacrifice&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that, we look at Leviticus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  ...because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who forgave sins?  God did, of course.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it was the sacrifices made &lt;em&gt;by the priest&lt;/em&gt; and provided &lt;em&gt;by the sinner(s)&lt;/em&gt; that allows for the forgiveness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Leviticus 16&lt;/a&gt; outlines the Day of Atonement that God created to allow for the sins of the nation of Israel to be forgiven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Leviticus 4&lt;/a&gt; outlines the offerings that must be made for the atonement of an individual's sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Repentance&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, without repentance, the sin was not forgiven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 15:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  To obey is better than sacrifice, &#xA;     and to heed is better than the fat of rams.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%201:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Isaih 1:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Stop bringing meaningless offerings! &#xA;     Your incense is detestable to me. &#xA;  New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— &#xA;     I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there was no repentance, then the offerings were in vain.  If the person/people continued to sin and simply threw an offering at it, claiming it would be forgiven, the offering was considered detestable and not accepted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God set forth a very clear plan and path to allow for the forgiveness of sins.  These sins could be forgiven on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;a personal level&lt;/a&gt; or on a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;national level&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these offerings had to be made repeatedly.  Jesus came and made a perfect sacrifice that allowed for us to become perfect in Him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T14:29:21.327" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3116" CreationDate="2011-09-21T14:44:28.490" Score="7" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Yes&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we know anything about God?  Yes!  We can know whatever he tells us about himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 34:14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;No&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we know &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; about God or &lt;em&gt;fully understand&lt;/em&gt; his nature?  No, absolutely not!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 55:8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&amp;quot;For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,&amp;quot; declares the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's perfectly acceptable to talk about the traits and characteristics of God that we know--the ones that he tells us.  However, we have to approach God with respect, reverence and honor.  We have to make sure that we don't presume to fully understand God or fully understand any one aspect of his character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T15:01:44.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3131" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3774" CreationDate="2011-09-21T14:48:04.920" Score="24" ViewCount="3629" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:1-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:1-6&lt;/a&gt; tells of 1000 years in which Christ will reign.  I've heard there are different views on this 1000 years, mainly premillenialism, postmillenialism, and amillenialism.  What are the differences between these views of the millenium in Rev 20:1-6?  (Especially concerning the different timelines)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:1-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:1-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the&#xA;  Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;He seized the dragon,&#xA;  that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a&#xA;  thousand years. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed&#xA;  it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the&#xA;  thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short&#xA;  time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given&#xA;  authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded&#xA;  because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.&#xA;  They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received&#xA;  its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and&#xA;  reigned with Christ a thousand years. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;(The rest of the dead did not&#xA;  come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first&#xA;  resurrection. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;Blessed and holy are those who share in the first&#xA;  resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will&#xA;  be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand&#xA;  years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2015-06-25T20:39:12.220" LastActivityDate="2015-06-25T20:39:12.220" Title="What are the differences between the different millenialisms?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;premillennialism&gt;&lt;amillennialism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="843" CreationDate="2011-09-21T14:52:22.290" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus provided forgiveness of sins &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; his crucifixion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%205:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 5:20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; his suffering that cause the forgiveness, but the sacrifice.  Had he been beheaded, all the scriptures regarding his sacrifice would be just as valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However&lt;/strong&gt; the way that he died was to fulfill prophecy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:36-37&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 19:36-37 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The method of the death itself is not significant (outside of it fulfilling prophecy and allowing him a chance to forgive the thief on the cross).  It is the sacrifice he made that allows for the sins to be forgiven&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:30:27.130" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:30:27.130" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3122" CreationDate="2011-09-21T15:10:51.790" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The attributes that are speaking of his deity are clearly not communicable.  You mention his aseity.  I also point to his &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity#God_and_eternity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;eternal nature&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the attributes that are bound to his personality are communicalbe.  For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_(Christianity)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;grace&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;love&lt;/a&gt; can be &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1108/what-is-common-grace&quot;&gt;found in us&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have to be careful though to note that while these attributes of God's can be transferred to us, it is actually &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God &lt;em&gt;in us&lt;/em&gt; that brings about these attributes&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;See also:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Attributes of God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T15:10:51.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3131" CreationDate="2011-09-21T15:15:40.213" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if a picture is a valid answer, but I think it shows a pretty good comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/uelgS.gif&quot; alt=&quot;http://www.drjpdawson.com/REVELATI/milviewz.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.drjpdawson.com/REVELATI/milview.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-01-30T22:39:36.710" LastActivityDate="2014-01-30T22:39:36.710" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2011-09-21T15:20:19.113" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the &lt;em&gt;doctrine&lt;/em&gt; may have not been created until the 17th century, the &lt;em&gt;idea&lt;/em&gt; came about probably quite shortly after Revelations was first created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea comes directly from a literal interpretation of Revelations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:4-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelations 20:4-6 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. &lt;strong&gt;They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)&lt;/strong&gt; This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T15:20:19.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3087" CreationDate="2011-09-21T15:28:56.237" Score="0" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Don't cremate&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea comes from the concept that whatever happens to our bodies &lt;em&gt;in this life&lt;/em&gt; will impact our bodies &lt;em&gt;for eternity&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Jesus clearly states that if we are blinded, we will be blinded once we enter heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Cremate, if you want&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; cremation says that Jesus was probably using hyperbole when he said this, since other passages show that there will be no blindness in heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2035:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 35:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Then will the eyes of the blind be opened &#xA;     and the ears of the deaf unstopped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, even though this &lt;em&gt;body&lt;/em&gt; is completely destroyed, we will be given an eternal one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20corinthians%205:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T15:28:56.237" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3143" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3203" CreationDate="2011-09-21T18:21:47.600" Score="14" ViewCount="2295" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;James 2:24 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In James we are told that a person would be considered righteous by their deeds and not just their faith.  Is righteousness a prerequisite for salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-09T01:04:58.027" LastActivityDate="2015-08-09T01:04:58.027" Title="Is righteousness a prerequisite for salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;works&gt;&lt;righteousness&gt;&lt;book-of-james&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:45:42.330" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3144" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3146" CreationDate="2011-09-21T18:26:09.700" Score="14" ViewCount="30182" Body="&lt;p&gt;What happens (according to Christians) to people who specificially rejected the idea of God, the Bible and the christian teachings after they die? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a difference to people who believed in another deity, maybe even several deities?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;We have seen questions what &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1763/what-happens-to-people-who-have-never-heard-about-jesus&quot;&gt;happens to people who have never heard about Jesus&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/256/what-happens-to-unborn-unbaptized-babies-who-die&quot;&gt;unborn babies&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/126/do-children-go-to-heaven&quot;&gt;children&lt;/a&gt;. I did not see that question before, so I asked right away. Additionally I don't ask &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1809/can-an-atheist-go-to-heaven&quot;&gt;if we can go to heaven&lt;/a&gt;, but simply what happens after our life has ended.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-03-18T15:31:18.280" Title="What happens to non-believers or believers of other religions after death?" Tags="&lt;atheism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:29:52.247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3145" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-21T18:26:39.683" Score="9" ViewCount="1839" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I've read 1 John alot and I understand that I cannot continue to sin if I want to be a child of God's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 1:6&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the&#xA;  darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then at the same time, if we accomplish the call to be holy and to be righteous and to be free of sin then we are not children of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 1:8&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth&#xA;  is not in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm personally struggling with this very line in my own life. I don't hate people, because I know that I'm commanded to love. But when it comes to my own desires of the flesh I continually fail. I have no self control, I cannot even get out of bed when my alarm goes off lol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where does God draw this line? does He give us any more insight into the battle with sin through scripture? So I ask again, where does God draw the line when it comes to Sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2014-03-12T21:59:08.043" Title="Where does God draw the line when it comes to Sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-03-12T22:43:11.707" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3144" CreationDate="2011-09-21T18:31:01.040" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is very clear that all atheists and non-believers will be sent to the Lake of Fire after they die.  It even goes further than that by specifying a list of people that are not accepted (which covers more than your question!):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2021:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelations 21:8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question, it's pretty clear that the Bible does not distinguish between &quot;non-believers&quot; (atheist, agnostic, or what have you) and &quot;believers of other religions&quot;.  When it says &quot;the unbelieving&quot; it refers to all non-Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, it's the &lt;em&gt;belief&lt;/em&gt; in God that brings salvation, not the works.  We can see from this verse that it's what's in a man's heart that determines his salvation.  Every one of these evils can be directly related to a problem in the person's heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2016:31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 16:31 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, works are an outpouring &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 14:15 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  If you love me, keep my commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And without the faith that produces works, there is no actual faith behind it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;James 2:14-18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, to answer the question, all non-believers (people who do not believe in any god, the Christian God, or who believe in another God) along with all people who claim to believe in God but do not have a solid faith will end up in the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="44" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T00:55:52.803" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T00:55:52.803" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3145" CreationDate="2011-09-21T18:46:05.330" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, taking advntage of the God's mercy and forgivness is certainy not a right thing. In my opinion, unless we compeletly sway out of God's way, we should not worry to much about what kind of sins we do everyday; unless it is serious. We are humans, after all, we all make mistakes. Like Jesus said in the bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:41&amp;amp;version=NCV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:41:&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  41 Stay awake and pray for strength against temptation. The spirit wants to do what is right, but the body is weak.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, it is not how we can avoid sinning, but it is how we can be more like Christ. We will always have transgressions, but we should be trying to make it better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T18:46:05.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3148" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3241" CreationDate="2011-09-21T18:59:22.407" Score="4" ViewCount="430" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a continuance of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3116/can-we-truly-know-anything-about-gods-character&quot;&gt;whether we can truly know anything about God's affairs&lt;/a&gt; and also &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3096/do-all-christian-views-need-to-have-a-biblical-basis&quot;&gt;whether all Christian views need a Biblical basis&lt;/a&gt;, I was curious if there were any instances of God's influence on humanity that are not mentioned in the Bible. On a basic level, many people like to believe that God intervenes from time to time in answering prayers; surely all the ones post-Bible aren't documented in the Bible (like, if you had a prayer answered yesterday, obviously it's not in the Bible). I'm looking for something a bit more substantive than small answered prayers though, like God revealing himself to a group of people or something of that nature, which isn't strictly found in the Bible but most/many/some Christians hold the event to be true in the Christian lore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are some of the situations accepted by Christians in which God performed some act, or revealed himself, or otherwise influenced mankind in some way that is not mentioned in the Bible (if any)?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T22:55:08.277" Title="What are some situations documented outside of the Bible in which God intervened in human affairs?" Tags="&lt;intervention&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-04-24T15:03:06.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3149" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3151" CreationDate="2011-09-21T19:07:01.347" Score="21" ViewCount="2337" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:9, NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that people who are (or become) blind in this life will be blind in Heaven as well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logical extension of this idea would be, if you're in a car accident, and your legs are lost, and you become blind... then you die from complications a day later, you'll be a blind paraplegic in Heaven. Is this a fair understanding of the verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-03T09:13:26.043" LastActivityDate="2014-09-03T09:13:26.043" Title="Will blind people be blind in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3150" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3495" CreationDate="2011-09-21T19:10:01.237" Score="18" ViewCount="9569" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading &lt;em&gt;The God Delusion&lt;/em&gt; by Richard Dawkins and he mentions a study regarding the percentages of believers in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences&quot;&gt;National Academy of Sciences&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society&quot;&gt;Royal Society&lt;/a&gt;. I was wondering if these figures mirrored the numbers for all other scientists, not merely those elected to prestigious societies. Unfortunately, googling &quot;number of christian scientists&quot; doesn't get me the kind of christian scientists I'm looking for...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does anyone have any statistics on the number of scientists (Ph.D.-level researchers) who are Christian?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-21T19:14:25.970" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T12:00:33.493" Title="Are there any statistics that show how many scientists are Christians or otherwise believe in a personal God?" Tags="&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-08-28T03:46:46.010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3149" CreationDate="2011-09-21T19:33:02.293" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2035:5-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 35:5-6a,10 NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then will the eyes of the blind be opened&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; and the ears of the deaf unstopped.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;Then will the lame leap like a deer,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; and the mute tongue shout for joy.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;(verse 10 shows context of Zion)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; and those the LORD has rescued will return.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  They will enter Zion with singing;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; everlasting joy will crown their heads.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Gladness and joy will overtake them,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; and sorrow and sighing will flee away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just because you enter one way, doesn't mean you will stay that way. As the language of Isaiah is written you will be made whole. Besides Jesus wasn't stating you WOULD enter eternal life mamed, He was saying even if you were to enter heaven mamed, Wouldn't that be better than all of you being thrown in the fire of hell? Check out this link for other scriptures related to getting a new body in heaven, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crossroad.to/heaven/contents/new_bodies.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.crossroad.to/heaven/contents/new_bodies.htm&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-09-03T08:07:19.127" LastActivityDate="2014-09-03T08:07:19.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3152" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-21T19:43:43.053" Score="16" ViewCount="8626" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although there are some who celebrate the feast of Tabernacles they are definitely in a minority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A prophecy in Zechariah speaks of a time when &lt;em&gt;all nations&lt;/em&gt; will have to keep the feast:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Zech 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. 18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that Jesus celebrated it (John 7:2) and if we believe the prophecies then we will keep the feast again in the future. The current period of not celebrating appears anomalous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why don't Christians generally celebrate Tabernacles now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="704" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-05-15T13:07:11.360" LastActivityDate="2017-05-15T13:07:11.360" Title="Why don't Christians celebrate the feast of tabernacles?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;feasts&gt;&lt;zechariah&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3154" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-21T20:12:42.927" Score="12" ViewCount="3949" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Death as Judgement&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the well known commandments is &quot;Thou shalt not kill.&quot; However, it seems that death is the single most used judgement for violations of the Leviticus law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only is killing sanctioned as an act of punishment for egregious violations, being put to death is also commanded for less abhorrent crimes, as in Leviticus 20:11;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://scripturetext.com/leviticus/20-11.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NASB&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Death for seemingly unknown reasons&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the Exodus God commanded that Israel slaughter nation after nation. Thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of people were put to death as Israel came in and took over the promised land. Why did God tell Israel to do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can you explain why God commanded Israel to slaughter nation after nation?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T20:17:01.183" LastActivityDate="2012-06-21T15:24:03.523" Title="Why is 'putting to death' condoned in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-02-19T14:32:17.530" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-09-22T20:17:01.183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3156" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-21T20:22:14.423" Score="16" ViewCount="1009" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to incorporate some information from this site in my Religious Ed. class. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I teach a weekly class to 8th and 9th graders and none of them really understand what the difference is between us and Protestants.  I live in a small town in Wisconsin which is pretty much devoid of religious tension, so I don't want to stir the pot and tell them about the gruesome details 30 years war or the martyrs of Queen Elizabeth from a completely Catholic perspective, nor do I want to sugar coat the way Catholics have treated Protestants over the past 500 years (i.e. the Tudors).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, how does one present children with an accurate depiction of Reformation history without wavering (and losing all credibility) or covering up the truth while still maintaining the children's innocence and not instil any prejudices in them? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T11:51:59.073" Title="What should a Catholic Religious Ed. class be taught about the Reformation?" Tags="&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;religious-education&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-12-19T01:55:58.787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3145" CreationDate="2011-09-21T20:33:24.440" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to understand the context of the bible always states that man is sinful in nature. The scripture is stating that if you choose to walk around saying that you are without sin, then you are in fact lieing to yourself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every person struggles with some form of sin in their life. Whether it being judgemental of your siblings or neighbors, an addiction to an earthly object (i.e. pizza/mountain dew/video games =D), or lusting over someone whom you may or may not know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He's just saying don't lie to yourself and saying you are without sin because no person is without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="710" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T20:33:24.440" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3145" CreationDate="2011-09-21T21:22:33.490" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our life here on earth is a process.  If we've accepted Christ as our Savior, then we're supposed to be striving for the life he lived.  Think of it like an onion.  Each time we learn something new about ourselves, another layer is pealed away.  If you're continuously sinning in the same way, then perhaps you've not gotten to the root of why you sin in that particular way.  Obviously, we know the end.  God has already forgiven all our sins, but we still will give an account for all we did here on Earth.  There will be days where we're &quot;better&quot; than others, but ultimately, I think God looks at the condition of our heart while we're doing the things we do.  Whatever they may be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T21:22:33.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3160" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="41418" CreationDate="2011-09-21T21:34:08.190" Score="15" ViewCount="1663" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#Historicity&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; explains three archaeological studies of the Jericho site, and concludes that the city was abandoned at the time the supposed Biblical battle took place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Christians reconcile the Biblical account with this science?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-08-06T00:33:30.740" LastActivityDate="2019-10-23T10:54:53.120" Title="How do Christians reconcile archeology with the Bible in the account of the Battle of Jericho?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;&lt;joshua&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3143" CreationDate="2011-09-21T22:12:27.877" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You say &quot;a person would be considered righteous by their deeds and not just their faith&quot;.  I'm not sure this is a necessary reading of the Biblical passage. You quote 2.24: I think verse 18 is more useful for interpreting James' account of the relationship between faith and works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=183642380&quot;&gt;James 2.18 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It isn't that faith &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; works are separately required – prerequisites, if you like – for salvation. It's much more that James sees them as inseperable.  You can't go round saying &quot;I have faith, so ignore what I do: I've saved.&quot;  What you do, for James, &lt;em&gt;demonstrates&lt;/em&gt; your faith.  If you have faith, you &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; do good works.  If you have faith in Jesus Christ, that faith will transform you and it will transform the way you act. A genuine faith is shown by the fact that the person does good works.  A faith that isn't seen in works is, as far as James is concerned, dead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=183642598&quot;&gt;James 2.26 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, as Martin Luther would have it (despite his well known views on the Book of James...):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Faith cannot help doing good works constantly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans (1522)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James is reacting against a tendency – which has come up time and time again in Christianity – to ignore how Christians act because in Christ all sin is forgiven, or because salvation is predestined.  The tendency – commonly known as &lt;em&gt;antinomianism&lt;/em&gt; (ἀντί against + νόμος law) – has been seen as heretical pretty much by all Christian groups throughout history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think James is undermining the significance of faith, but he is saying that it doesn't exist in a moral vacuum where it has no effects in a Christian's behaviour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T22:12:27.877" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="217" CreationDate="2011-09-21T22:38:17.383" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that people in certain ROLES are created to go to hell. And the way for them to be saved is to abandon that role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, Pontius Pilate seemed to be one step away from believing in Jesus. Suppose he had taken the last step and said, &quot;I believe in Jesus, he is a righteous man, I will not let you crucify him&quot; (as he came close to doing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the Jews would have retorted, &quot;You are not a friend of Caesar,&quot; got him kicked out of his position of authority, and had him replaced with someone that would crucify Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But PONTIUS PILATE would have been saved, and the other man would have gone to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The same might be true for Pharoah, if he had let the Israelites go free. But then he might have been overthrown by another, more ruthless ruler. On the other hand, Pharoah's DAUGHTER protected Moses and probably earned a place in heaven.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the jailer of Paul and Silas set them free, and invited them to his home, and was saved. Essentially, he had abandoned his earlier role of being their jailer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T22:38:17.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3163" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-21T22:41:58.713" Score="8" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2011/07/what-spiritual-warfare-looks-like.html&quot;&gt;spiritual warfare&lt;/a&gt;? And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/community/paganportal/2011/07/25/spiritual-warfare-is-essentially-black-magic/&quot;&gt;how is it different from malefic (&quot;black&quot;) magic&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One Evangelical Christian &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2011/03/19/i-spend-a-lot-of-time-studying-this-stuff/&quot;&gt;sums it up&lt;/a&gt; with, &lt;em&gt;Prayer should not be spellcasting. God is not your djinni.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T03:31:58.803" Title="What is &quot;Spiritual Warfare&quot;?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;spiritual-warfare&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1650" CreationDate="2011-09-21T22:52:45.447" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a strong argument that Jewish tradition has been preserved with far less external influence than modern Christianity. Much of the liturgy was formalised after the destruction of the temple and has very likely remained unchanged since. As user116 alludes to, the religious Jewish practice of diligently preserving texts throughout history is unmatched.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Western Christianity, however, has been through a syncretistic period of adopting pagan practices (cf. Christmas and Easter) and was constrained to a relatively unrelated language (latin) for about a millennium before being rocked by the reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Christian scholars may be capable of expounding exegetical commentaries with understanding of the historical Jewish perspective, it is only by studying Jewish sources that they will be able to do so!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="704" LastActivityDate="2011-09-21T22:52:45.447" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3152" CreationDate="2011-09-21T23:13:35.473" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The prophecy has yet come to pass. I wouldn't say the current period is &lt;em&gt;anomalous&lt;/em&gt; at all. Up until now, the feast has been celebrated by Jews only (ok, a few Christians). That's a very small minority of people. The prophecy talks about &lt;em&gt;all nations&lt;/em&gt;, which is something very different from history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You mention Jesus going to the feast in John 7, but notice what Jesus says about the feast:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 7:8 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Granted, Jesus eventually went in secret. But it doesn't seem to bother anyone that Jesus would not go. If it wasn't necessary for even Jesus to go, why should we, gentiles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T14:50:48.810" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T14:50:48.810" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3163" CreationDate="2011-09-21T23:15:27.167" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%205:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Pet 5:8, KJV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%206:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eph 6:12, KJV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thess%205:17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Thess 5:17, KJV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pray without ceasing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the NT believers are encouraged to always remember that we are fighting a battle against the forces of evil. The term &quot;Spiritual Warfare&quot; is generally used by those who acknowledge and undertake to accept this calling, &quot;enduring hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding comparisons to &quot;black magic&quot;, I would lovingly wish to draw your attention to Jesus' response to similar accusations He faced in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2012:22-32&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 12:22-32&lt;/a&gt;. In light of these words from Jesus such terms should not be bandied about since the implications are so very severe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="704" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T03:31:58.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T03:31:58.803" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3167" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-22T01:18:52.823" Score="25" ViewCount="24372" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus asked us to love our enemy &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A43-44&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mat 5:43-44&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ &lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, should we love Satan?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-10T07:58:26.847" LastActivityDate="2016-10-02T14:21:23.490" Title="Should we love Satan since he is our greatest enemy?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-10-03T20:19:04.470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3169" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-22T03:04:38.223" Score="9" ViewCount="2566" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%202:11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 2:11 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is very confusing to read &quot;he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one&quot;.&#xA;What is the meaning of this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T07:44:15.357" LastActivityDate="2014-04-27T19:55:51.247" Title="What is the Meaning of Hebrews 2:11 - he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-03-24T19:10:49.273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3169" CreationDate="2011-09-22T03:26:52.477" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It means Jesus and Christians are on the same team.  It might make a little more sense in the NIV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of that section of Hebrews is talking about how Jesus is like us, in His humanity, which allows us to be part of the same &quot;family.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T03:26:52.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3169" CreationDate="2011-09-22T04:42:29.883" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personal preference is always the RSV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying, &quot;I will proclaim thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 9 (and, indeed, the verses which precede it) speaks of the incarnation. Contextually, that necessarily implies that the origin needs be that self-same act. To me, this passage speaks of how Christ came down and became man, dwelt among us, and through that life entered death that he might raise us from glory into glory. And it is meet and just that Christ is this truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the humanity of Christ which makes it so that the savior might elevate us. It is his life and death as a man which makes it so that we might be considered &quot;brothers&quot;, and &quot;sons&quot;. It is the flesh and blood of Christ which makes it possible for God to consider human beings as &quot;brethren&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T04:42:29.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3172" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-22T04:52:35.410" Score="8" ViewCount="25101" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rape is not a judgment that's commanded upon those that violate the law, whether in the new testament or the old. So why does God choose to use rape as a means of judgement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In america we have a bill of rights that prevents cruelty to criminals. We feel that this is a moral thing to do, why does God not have moral standards that would prevent him from using rape as a means of judgement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is rape condoned in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 13:15-18&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;     all who are caught&#xA;  will fall by the sword.  16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces&#xA;  before their eyes;     their houses will be looted and their &lt;strong&gt;wives&#xA;  violated.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,     who do not care&#xA;  for silver     and have no delight in gold.  18 Their bows will strike&#xA;  down the young men;     they will have no mercy on infants,     nor&#xA;  will they look with compassion on children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Zechariah 14:1-2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 A day of the LORD is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will&#xA;  be plundered and divided up within your very walls.  2 I will gather&#xA;  all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be&#xA;  captured, the houses ransacked, and the &lt;strong&gt;women raped&lt;/strong&gt;. Half of the city&#xA;  will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from&#xA;  the city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Samuel 12:11&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 “This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going&#xA;  to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives&#xA;  and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your&#xA;  wives in broad daylight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please feel free to target any of the suggested rape events that are listed here. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T11:52:11.133" LastActivityDate="2013-12-25T18:15:37.303" Title="Is rape condoned in the Bible? If so, why?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T19:51:58.527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3167" CreationDate="2011-09-22T04:55:31.167" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our command to love our enemies is intended for our human enemies, whom God also loves.  God's love for us is shown through His sacrifice on the cross, and also in the statement that it is His desire that every man come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan, on the other hand, cannot come to repentance, and there is no hope for his redemption.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good answer with scripture references can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/lovesatan.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Should We Love Satan?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following is copied directly from the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A young girl asked me this question: &quot;Should we love Satan?&quot; She&#xA;  clarified her question by saying Jesus taught us to love our enemies&#xA;  (Matthew 5:44-45) and that Satan is our enemy (1 Peter 5:8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After careful consideration of the question, I answered something like&#xA;  this. All of mankind has hope; the apostle Paul said he had a goal or&#xA;  an aim to &quot;... present every man perfect in Christ Jesus&quot; (Colossians&#xA;  1:28). We are to seek every man's highest good -- that is to love him&#xA;  that he might be saved. On the other hand, Satan's eternity has been&#xA;  sealed, there is not anything that man can do or should do to change&#xA;  that. We are told that Satan has gone forth with great wrath because&#xA;  he knows that he has but a short time (Revelation 12:12). Jesus tells&#xA;  us that he has prepared a lake of fire for the devil and his angels&#xA;  (Matthew 25:41).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What should be our attitude towards Satan? We should follow the&#xA;  example of Michael the archangel who refused to get involved with&#xA;  Satan, even in a discussion. Michael was willing to leave Satan in&#xA;  God's hands. He said, &quot;The Lord rebuke thee&quot; (Jude 9). Our attitude&#xA;  towards Satan should be to resist him. God said, &quot;Resist the devil,&#xA;  and he will flee from you&quot; (James 4:7). We are to be on guard and&#xA;  watchful because Satan is our enemy trying to devour us (1 Peter 5:8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Satan has many devices; he is tricky. He is trying to lead us to the&#xA;  grave separated from God (2 Corinthians 2:11). He is trying to blind&#xA;  our minds to the word of God through unbelief (2 Corinthians 4:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are not instructed in the inspired scripture to love Satan, but to&#xA;  overcome him. The only way we can do this is to fill our hearts with&#xA;  the word of God (1 John 2:14). Jesus is our example; Satan threw&#xA;  everything he had at Jesus -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the&#xA;  eyes, and the pride of life -- and each time Jesus would answer, &quot;It&#xA;  is written.&quot; He defeated Satan with the word of God, and He did not&#xA;  try to convert him (Matthew 4:1-11) because Satan's eternity in the&#xA;  lake of fire had already been sealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the context of Matthew 5, when Jesus said, &quot;Love your enemies,&quot; He&#xA;  was discussing our relationship with our fellow man and not with&#xA;  Satan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Roy Dunavin West-Ark Church of Christ, Fort Smith, AR&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In addition to the above, your question ignores the context.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse is in the midst of a series of &quot;You have heard it said&quot; statements that show that the Old Testament law is the bare minimum of what is required for righteousness, and in this example, the statement that we should love our enemy was &quot;You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'&quot;  The essence of the verse is (like the surrounding verses) that the law says to &lt;em&gt;do this&lt;/em&gt;, but the true requirement for perfect love and righteousness is to &lt;em&gt;do this more perfect fulfillment of the law of love&lt;/em&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the context of this verse, &quot;thy neighbor&quot; was clearly meant to denote human relationships.  There is no reason, &lt;em&gt;other than to set up a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;straw-man argument&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, to believe that &quot;your enemy&quot; is meant to be viewed in a different context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-10-02T14:21:23.490" LastActivityDate="2016-10-02T14:21:23.490" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3156" CreationDate="2011-09-22T05:08:25.493" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have lead a middle school (6th, 7th, and 8th grade) Catholic religious education class for three years and this question often comes up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What's the difference between Christians and Catholics? My friends say they are Christian, but I thought we were too. What's the difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for their question is because their friends simply say they are &quot;christian&quot;, not &quot;non-denominational christian&quot;, &quot;baptist christian&quot;, or &quot;protestant&quot; for example. Often, they don't even know which denomination they belong to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Introducing them to the Reformation is a good idea, but be careful not to overload them with more information than they care to know about. It's important to simplify the subject enough that they get the gist of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I usually take it as an opportunity to give a brief overview of church history, including a few interesting facts that you might not otherwise get a chance to talk about. I usually summarize it like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the beginning, there was Judaism. The Jews were God's chosen people, but were awaiting a Messiah to save them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then God became human and died on a cross for the salvation of everyone.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus organized a special group of 12 followers (the apostles) to lead his church, making Peter the first Pope. The other apostles became the first bishops.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The apostles went on to ordain priests. For the next 1,500 years there was only one church, the Catholic church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then in the 16th century, some people decided to &quot;protest&quot; the way the church was being run at the time, split off and start denominations of their own. Then over the next 500 years, more and more denominations have formed. Now there are thousands of denominations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm simplifying a bit there, obviously, but this gets the point across. Then you'll be able to add in a few other factoids:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The word &quot;Catholic&quot; means &quot;universal&quot;. The early christians used the word to describe the church because it is open to everyone (not just the Jews like Judaism was before).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is why, in the creed, we say that &quot;We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church&quot; because we believe that Jesus started one church and that he wanted us to be one, it's holy because Jesus said he would protect it (&quot;the gates of hell would not prevail against it&quot;), it's Catholic because it's open to everyone, and it's apostolic because our priests can trace their succession back to the first apostles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, just use it as an opportunity to clear up some confusion and use it as a teaching moment. You don't need to go into the gritty details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="454" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T05:08:25.493" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3175" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-22T05:20:47.470" Score="11" ViewCount="942" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the proportion of Christians in a population directly (positively) impacts national prosperity. In other words, the more Christians in a nation, the richer the nation becomes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possible current examples include India and China which are apparently seeing both an increase in the proportion of Christians (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India#Demographics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;India&lt;/a&gt; / &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China#Demographics_and_geography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;China&lt;/a&gt;) and in prosperity (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_economy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;India&lt;/a&gt; / &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;China&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would seem to follow the Biblical pattern, see e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=haggai%201&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Haggai 1&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;is this a real phenomena&lt;/strong&gt;? Can we see a genuine correlation? And if so, what is its cause?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; in light of comments and answers so far, this question is about &lt;em&gt;Christianity&lt;/em&gt;, not &lt;em&gt;religion generally&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other resources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christianity by country&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christian population growth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T07:25:12.333" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T13:44:18.397" Title="Is there any correlation between national prosperity and percentage of Christians?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;politics&gt;&lt;wealth&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3176" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3210" CreationDate="2011-09-22T05:27:33.703" Score="11" ViewCount="1537" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus talks about the coming of the Kingdom of God in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:20-37&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 17:20-37&lt;/a&gt;. This passage raises four related questions for me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this talking about the Rapture?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where is &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;a dead body&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;, that Jesus mentions at the end?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who are the vultures? Those taken?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this talking about a world wide event? That one group is asleep and the other is awake would appear to imply this involves multiple time zones.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the full text from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:20-37&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 17:20-37&lt;/a&gt; (with my emphasis) (there is a similar story in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36-40&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:36-40&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.  People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. &lt;strong&gt;I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Where, Lord?” they asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He replied, &lt;strong&gt;“Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-11-04T01:01:24.577" Title="Where is the dead body in Luke 17?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-11-04T16:37:47.453" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3172" CreationDate="2011-09-22T05:51:57.417" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;God does &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; condone rape in the Bible.  This is a commonly raised objection to Christianity that's been answered ad-nauseum on apologetics websites, such as this one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html&quot;&gt;http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote from the linked post:&#xA;Weren't the virgin women raped?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the&#xA;  soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women,&#xA;  but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the&#xA;  Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt&#xA;  22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin&#xA;  women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their&#xA;  captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have&#xA;  violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the&#xA;  women are usually referred to as people (using the masculine adam),&#xA;  not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as&#xA;  captives rather than sexual objects.1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women,&#xA;  but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would&#xA;  have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the&#xA;  instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen&#xA;  God punish such violations with death during their travels in the&#xA;  desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions&#xA;  resulting from their relations with Midianite women (25:1-9), as Moses&#xA;  reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with&#xA;  the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers&#xA;  would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women&#xA;  given this context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So what did happen to the women (and children)? God gave the&#xA;  Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were&#xA;  to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to&#xA;  mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt&#xA;  21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but&#xA;  there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt&#xA;  23:15-16). See the article on slavery laws for more on the treatment&#xA;  of female slaves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with most &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rationalchristianity.net/apol_index.html&quot;&gt;commonly cited objections to Christianity&lt;/a&gt;, the idea that God condones rape is based on a mis-reading of scripture (intentional or unintentional), and taking verses out of context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edited to address the changes to the question since I originally answered.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses that are there now are not condoning rape, they are warning that this is what is to come. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were to say &quot;If you spend more than you earn you're going to go into debt and will suffer financially&quot; I'm not condoning going into debt, I'm warning you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'd have to be &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;intentionally&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; mis-reading the verses posted to interpret them as &quot;condoning&quot; rape. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T22:27:11.773" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T22:27:11.773" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3175" CreationDate="2011-09-22T05:54:36.820" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There isn't much evidence to support this hypothesis.  The countries with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joshuakennon.com/does-god-reward-nations-economically-based-upon-their-religious-beliefs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;top ten incomes per capita&lt;/a&gt; are a mix of Islamic, Atheist (at least trending that way now; historically Christian), Christian, and Buddhist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/12/religious-identity-vs-religious.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;broader trend across countries&lt;/a&gt;, the U.S. is a highly-religious outlier, but basically the trend is downwards; the more religious a country is, the lower it's GDP per capita.  (This isn't split out by Christian vs. non-Christian religions, but if you look at the data points, you don't find the predominantly Christian countries dramatically farther to the right (i.e. higher income) at the same level of religiosity except for the U.S..)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T05:54:36.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3172" CreationDate="2011-09-22T08:05:20.067" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does not seem like condoning it at all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may not be in the passage marked 10 commandments, but that is hardly the only place in the bible where God tells us of things we should not do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="3426" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T13:07:48.970" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T13:07:48.970" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3175" CreationDate="2011-09-22T08:06:40.003" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually it's the other way round:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/GFGES.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/br2EW.gif&quot; alt=&quot;http://pewforum.org/uploadedimages/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/income.gif&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/q0Hbo.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More studies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/02/18/poorest-countries-are-the-most-religious/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/02/18/poorest-countries-are-the-most-religious/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zahablog.com/?page_id=782&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.zahablog.com/?page_id=782&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T08:06:40.003" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3154" CreationDate="2011-09-22T08:12:50.553" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You must remember that God as the author of life has some rights that we as humans do not have. If he should decide to end my life than he has the right where us mere mortals have not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think in the biblical context the Israeli's who where commanded to kill where doing the bidding of God and not murdering of their own will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I have mentioned in a similar thread when God gives you a command it becomes your moral duty to perform the action and to go against it would be sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hasten to add that we should not easily accept it when people do bad things and say &quot;God told me to do x, y and z.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These where isolated events in the Old Testament and where not the common way for God to operate. These events where always in tune with God's nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting to note that God postpone his people's return to their holy land for the inequity of the Canaanites was not complete. He sent his people into slavery for 400 years because the Canaanites where not yet wholly corrupt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few quotes from this article&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://preacherstudy.com/members/canaanite.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://preacherstudy.com/members/canaanite.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And God said to Abram, &quot;Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. 14 But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve; and afterward they will come out with many possessions. 15 And as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. 16 Then in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Just How Bad Were The Canaanites?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Until about 1930 most of what was known of the ancient Canaanites was what could be gleaned from the Bible. This is when archeologists discovered the Ras Shamra religious epic literature from Ugarit in North Syria. Thousands of clay tablets stored in what seems to be a library between two great Canaanite temples dating from the fourteenth or fifteenth century B.C. give a full description of the Canaanite religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Much of what was unearthed in this library would be &quot;X-rated&quot; even by today’s standards. The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary gives a sanitized description of &quot;lewd nature worship with immoral gods, prostitute goddesses, serpents, cultic doves, and bulls. El, the head of the pantheon, was the hero of sordid escapades and crimes. He was a bloody tyrant who dethroned his father, murdered his favorite son, and decapitated his daughter. Despite these enormities, El was styled &quot;father of years&quot; (abu shanima), &quot;the father of man&quot; (abu adami, &quot;father bull&quot;), i.e., the progenitor of the gods. Baal, the widely revered Canaanite deity, was the son of El and dominated the Canaanite pantheon. He was the god of thunder, whose voice reverberated through the heavens in the storm. He is pictured on a Ras Shamra stela brandishing a mace in his right hand and holding in his left hand a stylized thunderbolt. The three goddesses were Anath, Astarte, and Ashera, who were all three patronesses of sex and war. All were sacred courtesans. Other Canaanite deities were Mot (death); Reshep, the god of pestilence; Shulman, the god of health; Koshar, the god of arts and crafts. These Canaanite cults were utterly immoral, decadent, and corrupt, dangerously contaminating and thoroughly justifying the divine command to destroy their devotees.&quot;(3)    &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Cannanites where bad and it was God's prerogative to judge them. The only problem is that we have God using humans to enact his judgement, but as divine law theory teaches when God gives you a command it becomes your moral duty to do said thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is not being morally unjust becuase he has the right to take the life of humans as he sees fit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="3426" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T11:53:23.590" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T11:53:23.590" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3184" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3306" CreationDate="2011-09-22T10:22:14.697" Score="9" ViewCount="3863" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did God create a world?&#xA;Was the act of creation for some profit, or did God in His grace create world only because it was good?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the&#xA;  waters called he Seas: and God saw that &lt;strong&gt;it was good&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T05:35:12.670" LastActivityDate="2015-06-05T16:34:09.277" Title="What was the purpose of creating the world?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-06-09T06:54:05.560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="530" CreationDate="2011-09-22T10:31:52.230" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, we are expected to judge the &lt;strong&gt;actions&lt;/strong&gt; of those &lt;strong&gt;inside the church&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:16-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;, we are not expected to judge the &lt;strong&gt;actions&lt;/strong&gt; of those &lt;strong&gt;outside the church&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:12-13&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:12-13a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;, we are not expected to judge the &lt;strong&gt;character&lt;/strong&gt; of those inside or outside the church, only the &lt;strong&gt;actions&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, we can accuse a Christian of (e.g.) lying if we have evidence, but we can't say, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;You lied, &lt;strong&gt;therefore you're a bad person&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;.&lt;/em&gt; This is what Paul implies when he writes (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014:4&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 14:4a&lt;/a&gt;): &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; The context (the weak and strong) clearly implies he is talking about character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And&lt;/strong&gt; we should always first look at our &lt;strong&gt;own&lt;/strong&gt; conduct. Perhaps the reason we so easily spot a particular sin in other people is that it also exists in ourselves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:3-5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:3-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T14:05:31.073" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3186" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3187" CreationDate="2011-09-22T10:34:55.643" Score="12" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;We humans have a significant ability to create using our fantasy. Was this ability given to us by God, a Creator as He created man in His image, according to His likeness, or was this ability developed itself while world became more complex?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T14:02:08.203" Title="Is it given by God in human nature to be a creator too?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3186" CreationDate="2011-09-22T10:38:36.040" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's part of our character since we were made in His likeness. He's our Heavenly Dad - it's logical that we inherit some of His characteristics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, creativity is unique to humans. If your second explanation were true, animals would also be creating art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T10:38:36.040" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3156" CreationDate="2011-09-22T11:42:54.857" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Andrew has laid out a fantastic outline for the general scope of the Church's development.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To note, when you start to drill down past the overview above, you might cite &quot;We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church&quot; in the Nicene Creed and begin teaching about splits from the Church beginning with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;East-West Schism&lt;/a&gt; in the Church, then move forward and explain the Reformation and subsequent sectarian developments in the context of the Church as a living Institution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try to maintain a focus on the concept of the Church being a living, dynamic institution;  frame the sectarian developments not as fragmenting of the Church, but rather as ways groups within the Church took ownership. Be clear in laying out the difference between Reformation and Heresies within the Church, and you will have taught them an effective, critical framework for understanding groups that are apparently different, but actually part of a family. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than impose uncritical descriptive, historical facts &lt;em&gt;about&lt;/em&gt; the Reformation, teach it as a living arm of the Church;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A civilization is a heritage of beliefs, customs, and knowledge slowly accumulated in the course of centuries, elements difficult at times to justify by logic, but justifying themselves as paths when they lead somewhere, since they open up for man his inner distance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="237" LastEditorUserId="237" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T11:51:59.073" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T11:51:59.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3189" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3282" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:14:29.597" Score="24" ViewCount="9282" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Deuterocanonical books&lt;/em&gt; were included in the Septuagint, but not the Hebrew Bible. They are mostly included in the Catholic Old Testament, but not in the Protestant one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand the choice was made by Luther, who &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon#Deuterocanonical_books&quot;&gt;called the deuterocanonical books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why weren't the deuterocanonical books considered equal to the Holy Scriptures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2018-06-15T16:14:05.547" Title="Why were Deuterocanonical books rejected in the Reformation?" Tags="&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;deuterocanonical-books&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3190" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3225" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:34:41.050" Score="24" ViewCount="7055" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Bible (as opposed to the Protestant Bible) includes the so-called deuterocanonical books. It's commonly simply stated that the books in Septuagint are included in the Catholic canon. However, some parts are not:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Esdras&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Esdras&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;3 Maccabees&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;4 Maccabees&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Psalm 151&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prayer of Manasseh&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Table_of_books&quot;&gt;list of books in Septuagint&lt;/a&gt; from Wikipedia. Many of these are included in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament&quot;&gt;the Orthodox canons&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why were these books of the Septuagint omitted from the Catholic Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T13:03:23.383" Title="Why doesn't the Catholic Bible include all books from Septuagint?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;deuterocanonical-books&gt;&lt;septuagint&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3191" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:54:00.970" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T12:54:00.970" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T12:54:00.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3192" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:54:00.970" Score="0" Body="the first day of the week" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T12:54:00.970" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T12:54:00.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3193" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:54:57.707" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;These are the books of Tobit, Esdras, Macabees, Judith, Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon. Some Chalcedonian churches accept other books also. Use this tag for questions about any of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T13:33:45.937" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T13:33:45.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3194" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:54:57.707" Score="0" Body="The books included in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible." OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T13:33:27.903" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T13:33:27.903" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3195" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:55:43.930" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T12:55:43.930" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T12:55:43.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3196" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:55:43.930" Score="0" Body="the oldest person mentioned in the Bible (969 years)" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T12:55:43.930" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T12:55:43.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3197" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:56:54.523" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Young Earth creationism&lt;/a&gt; is the belief that all the universe was created by the direct act of God sometime in the last five to ten thousand years.  It is typically held by those who literally translate the Genesis creation narrative.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for all questions about belief in a young Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related tags: &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/old-earth-creation&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;old-earth-creation&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;old-earth-creation&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/creation&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;creation&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;creation&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/genesis&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;genesis&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;genesis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-10T20:58:11.990" LastActivityDate="2015-09-10T20:58:11.990" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3198" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:56:54.523" Score="0" Body="Belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old, typically based on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1." OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-10T20:57:54.837" LastActivityDate="2015-09-10T20:57:54.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3199" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:57:15.473" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T12:57:15.473" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T12:57:15.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3200" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:57:15.473" Score="0" Body="the belief in creation, with the earth being millions of years old" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T12:57:15.473" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T12:57:15.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3201" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:58:20.090" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T12:58:20.090" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T12:58:20.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3202" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T12:58:20.090" Score="0" Body="the Epistle of James" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T12:58:20.090" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T12:58:20.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3143" CreationDate="2011-09-22T13:04:45.550" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is NO. The reason we need salvation in the first place is because we can't be righteous; by nature we are law-breakers (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:10f&lt;/a&gt;). The only God way we can be righteous is if God gives it to us. Salvation involves us being 'justified' (i.e. we are declared to be &quot;not guilty&quot;) before God thus making us righteous (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%201:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%203:20-26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3:20-26&lt;/a&gt;). We receive this righteousness by faith, just as it always was from the beginning with Abraham (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%204:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 4:2&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 2:24&lt;/a&gt;? It is not a contradiction. Note James' wisdom-like teaching, not unlike Proverbs, which deals with everyday life with its complexities and paradoxes - very different from the precision of Paul's treatise. James is not dealing specifically with a theology of salvation as Paul was. Rather he wants to emphasise that faith is not a licence to sin (see lonesomeday's answer) which Paul himself also deals with in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%206&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just wanted to emphasise that salvation is wholly God's work, and that there is nothing in us or in what we do that will change that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS. The reason Luther rejected the book of James was because he wanted to protect this doctrine of salvation and over-reacted. However, he firmly believed in obedience to God as a Christian, and didn't see that salvation should be a reason not to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T14:38:29.710" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T14:38:29.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3028" CreationDate="2011-09-22T13:09:29.217" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does God want? Certainly not &lt;em&gt;things&lt;/em&gt; since,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2024:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 24:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does He want? For me, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hybels&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bill Hybels&lt;/a&gt; said it best:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If you think about it, you realize God has only one kind of treasure. It's people.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bill Hybels, pastor of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.willowcreek.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Willow Creek Community Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T13:09:29.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3143" CreationDate="2011-09-22T13:20:37.100" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quite the opposite.  It is &lt;strong&gt;unrighteousness&lt;/strong&gt; is the only prerequisite for salvation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered them, &quot;It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.&quot; (Luke 5:31-32)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point that James makes is that &quot;faith without works is dead.&quot;  A faith that prompts no actions is not genuine faith.  Saying you love your children when you take no action to provide, protect, teach or enjoy them is not genuine love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A genuine faith will always prompt actions, just as a genuine love will do the same.  Salvation has the effect of giving us a new heart that will prompt new actions.  If there is no difference in a life after salvation, then it is likely that no new heart was received and the faith was not genuine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T13:56:23.757" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T13:56:23.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3143" CreationDate="2011-09-22T13:31:30.303" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;. Righteousness is absolutely a prerequisite for salvation. However, no one is righteous (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:10&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one, that is, except Jesus. And He offers to give us His righteousness in exchange for our sins:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/538/how-do-you-convert-somebody-to-christianity/578#578&quot;&gt;Click here for more info&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T13:31:30.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3184" CreationDate="2011-09-22T13:53:14.893" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We don't know!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't tell us &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; he created the world, simply that he did create it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lonely&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;One speculation (and it is pure speculation) is that he created the world in order to have other beings with free will that would love him.  We can see this in the fact that there are &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3028/does-god-want-things-what-are-some-of-the-things-he-wants-and-how-did-we-find-o&quot;&gt;things we can do to please God&lt;/a&gt;. From that concept, we can expand it a bit to assume that the things he finds pleasing is the reason that he actually created us.  So, in essence, the speculation is that he created us so that we could love him and choose to follow him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Self-glorification&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Another theory (eg speculation) is that he wanted to bring glory to himself.  The argument goes that all created things reflect God's glory (per &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 19:1&lt;/a&gt; for example), in particular &lt;em&gt;mankind&lt;/em&gt; (per &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26&lt;/a&gt;);  since the creation reflects His glory, then he must have created them &lt;em&gt;for the purpose&lt;/em&gt; of reflecting his glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with these theories is that they use the process of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;logical induction&lt;/a&gt; to come to these conclusions.  In fact these thoughts are a very &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Weak_induction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;weak induction&lt;/a&gt;.  It's like saying &quot;I've only seen a green frog, therefore all frogs must be green.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These theories &lt;strong&gt;attempt to attribute thoughts to God based on our understanding of his creation&lt;/strong&gt;. This, in my opinion, is a very dangerous road.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;  (TL;DR)&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;We don't know &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; God created the world because he never told us.  We do have ideas including the two I mentioned above. However, these ideas, as I mentioned, are &lt;em&gt;pure speculation&lt;/em&gt; and we must be careful not to presume that we know the mind of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/isa/chapter_055.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 55:8 NWT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  “For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T15:56:18.670" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3176" CreationDate="2011-09-22T14:20:03.670" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This one line &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; is parable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be the equivalent of saying, &amp;quot;Where there's smoke, there's fire.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where, Lord?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;The question that Jesus is responding to is also a bit confusing (particularly given our modern understanding of the rapture).  However, the question of &amp;quot;Where, Lord?&amp;quot; seems to be addressing the last thing Jesus says.  He just finished saying that the &amp;quot;Son of Man&amp;quot; will come and gather his people.  The disciples' question seems to ask &amp;quot;Where will they be gathered to.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This very much is a reference to what we call the &amp;quot;rapture&amp;quot;.  This is the &amp;quot;gathering up&amp;quot; of people that Jesus will perform in the last days.  Just before this he talks about how the world is turning evil and then he says that he will come back and gather his people.  This is definitely what we modernly call the &amp;quot;rapture&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus replies&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;His reply to the question of &amp;quot;Where, Lord?&amp;quot; is a parable.  He's basically saying, &amp;quot;Where there's smoke, there's fire.&amp;quot;  The meaning behind this is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;That should be pretty obvious to you.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was saying that his kingdom was coming, the world was about to end, he was about to gather his people.  The disciples ask a stupid question: &amp;quot;Where will you gather them?&amp;quot;  Jesus doesn't even bother giving a straight answer because the answer is obvious:  He's gathering them to heaven to be with him forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why use a parable?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;The reason that the answer is obvious is because, he's already answered that question.  Just previously in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:20-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 17:20-21&lt;/a&gt; the passage begins Jesus' speech with &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire speech is about the Kingdom of God.  So when they ask, &amp;quot;Where will they be gathered.&amp;quot;  He just replies in parables, since he's already made it obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This phrase about vultures and a dead body is just Jesus way of saying, &amp;quot;Hey, it should be obvious&amp;quot;.  He's not trying to imply anything with vultures or dead bodies.  Just like the phrase &amp;quot;Where there's smoke there's fire&amp;quot; today does not imply smoke, fire, or anything related to smoke or fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T09:40:21.283" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3213" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3216" CreationDate="2011-09-22T14:31:39.290" Score="14" ViewCount="1536" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know a lot of people who claim to be Christian but practice Yoga.  I always thought (and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; seems to back me up on this) that Yoga was about meditation in Hinduism or Buddhism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is practicing Yoga a sin since you're actually following another religion?  Or is it possible to practice Yoga in a Christian manner?  Also, if you are able to practice Yoga in a Christian manner, is there a conflict with that and the problem with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:9-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the weaker brother&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I'm seeking a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;mainstream Protestant&lt;/a&gt; viewpoint on this.  I suspect that they will all be the same, but if they differ, let me know so that I can refine the scope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-06-09T22:44:54.847" LastActivityDate="2019-08-17T07:00:09.453" Title="According to Protestants, is it sinful to practice Yoga?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;other-religions&gt;&lt;meditation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3213" CreationDate="2011-09-22T15:13:17.640" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say it's impossible to do so without first acknowledging that the historic grounding in and modern implementation of pagan spirituality is real. The next step would be identifying how both Hinduism (or spiritual Indian wisdom or whatever moniker you give it) and Christianity see the intrinsic relation between the spiritual and physical realms. If someone is able to paint at least a general picture of the differences, I would start asking what the purpose of trying to separate them would be. Personally I fail to see any advantages in continuing to dwell in a Dorothy-house removed clean away from it's foundations and now situated on someone else's land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before I rant on this, let me start by giving a little ground here. I do think that is possible to have physical exercises perhaps physically modelled after those of some other religions ritual without it necessarily making us participants in a false religion. However several objections remain. Certainly not all situations are equal and I have limited experience in the matter, mostly dating to quite a few years ago and discussions I had with folks who were involved. These included some who embraced the conjunction of spiritual and physical exercise, and some who could care less what religion it came from as long as it left them with better digestion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now for my rants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all let us address the often forwarded notion of being able to retain the religious elements, but merely in name not in fact. This seems preposterous to me, sort of like trying to use the gutter language of crime to speak of things fair and beautiful. Without the right diction you are stuck in a little box of your own making. Speaking of boxes, it's also like taking the engine out of a car because it ran on the wrong kind of fuel. Without putting another engine in, it make a really useless vehicle, although I suppose it would be good exercise.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the idea that the religious connection can be lost altogether doesn't sit well with me. My initial objection in the first paragraph was that this discussion does not get past square one until we have come to some agreement about there being a connection. The first things I would bring into the discussion is the historical connection, but I think we then need to continue into a discussion about what modern spirituality is like and what kind of world view thinks there is no connection between the spiritual and physical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think false religions should have all the best exercises any more than I think we should let them have all the best music. However I don't think our best option is to start a bunch of &quot;christian&quot; bands flooding the market with half baked goods but rather to bring back a theological understanding that we are artistic and creative because we are ourselves made in the image of an artistic and creative God. Those who produce anything good or beautiful do so only use a grace given them on loan and it is our job to point out the source and through an understanding and acknowledgement of that grace turn it into worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think something similar ought to be done for exercise. Instead of trying to separate the physical from the spiritual at all, I think it would behove us to develop a biblical understanding of how these things actually relate, then modeling our exercise lives around this. While the things we do with our bodies might resemble Yoga or Tai Chi, it should be carefully delineated what we believe about our bodies being temples of the Spirit so that it is entirely clear to the world what makes us different than them. It seems to be that this is best done at the instructor level and that an individual participating under an instructor with a different world view who is not actively identifying his spiritual beliefs to himself and those he interacts with runs a great risk of not only muddling his own spiritual life but misleading others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our sensibilities and sensitivities ought to lead us to actions and words distinct enough that no-one, whether from Hindu, humanistic, christian or undecided world view, could mistake our participation for tacit acceptance of either the premises of a false religion or the decoupling of physical and spiritual realms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes it is suggested that such ritual meditations pre-date Christianity and as such might be able to be considered separately from it rather than in competition with it. I think there is a fallacy here in that Christianity did not begin 2k years ago with Jesus or Paul or John the baptist or anyone else, it began with Christ before he created man. And, since the first Adam, Christianity has always looked forward to the coming of the Christ. Thus I think it is silly to claim that anything is pre-christian in the sense of time. Certainly there are sources and influences so we be careful to consider whether the things we include in our lives and practice of Christianity conforms to the Word. I think some pagan rights are actually perversions of things that originated with us. For example ceremonial washings in Islam do not originate there but are actually adaptions of Mosaic law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;sub&gt;Forgive the pun.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="42957" LastEditDate="2019-08-17T07:00:09.453" LastActivityDate="2019-08-17T07:00:09.453" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="3217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3160" CreationDate="2011-09-22T15:17:56.443" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is there to 'reconcile'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God's word is true (a presuppositional point I take because &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%201:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;God cannot lie&lt;/a&gt; and scripture &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:14-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;comes from God&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%206&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;'battle' record itself&lt;/a&gt; starts with &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%206:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The LORD said to Joshua&lt;/a&gt;&quot;), then the science will conform to the Bible, and not the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to &lt;em&gt;precise&lt;/em&gt; dates - we have several plausible timelines. Starting from the creation of the world, I charted [almost] all of the Bible's characters and lives (that we have years on) through &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/chronology.xls&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jacob&lt;/a&gt;. Based on a whole-years reckoning of lives, Jacob died ~2255AA (After Adam). Based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0890515050&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;several&lt;/a&gt; other people's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;work&lt;/a&gt;, I agree that the earth was created in about 4004 BC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That places Jacob's death (in Egypt) at approximately 1749 BC. From a chronological study of Exodus through Joshua I am currently engaged in, but have not published yet, from Moses' birth to the destruction of Jericho is ~121 years (he dies at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2034:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;age 120&lt;/a&gt;, and Jericho is conquered within the next several weeks).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Israelites were in Egypt for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/09/16/feedback-promise-to-exodus&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;between&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uDijjc_D5P0C&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA59#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;215&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&amp;amp;article=796&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;530&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/moses&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;years&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That puts the conquest of Jericho approximately between 1534 and 1219 BC - right in the range as shown in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#Historicity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; article cited for when Jericho was abandoned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;As a sidebar, wouldn't a city appear to be &quot;abandoned&quot; if it had just been completely destroyed?&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T15:17:56.443" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3213" CreationDate="2011-09-22T15:26:20.087" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally believe this to be a matter of conscience and Christian liberty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The introduction to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; article on yoga reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yoga (Sanskrit, Pāli: योग yóga) is a physical, mental, and spiritual discipline, originating in ancient India. The goal of yoga, or of the person practicing yoga, is the attainment of a state of perfect spiritual insight and tranquility. The word is associated with meditative practices in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within Hindu philosophy, the word yoga is used to refer to one of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Hindu philosophy. Yoga in this sense is based on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, and is also known as Rāja Yoga to distinguish it from later schools. Patanjali's system is discussed and elaborated upon in many classical Hindu texts, and has also been influential in Buddhism and Jainism. The Bhagavadgita introduces distinctions such as Jnana Yoga (&amp;quot;yoga based on knowledge&amp;quot;) vs. Karma Yoga (&amp;quot;yoga based on action&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on its stated goals, I also personally believe that practicing &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;true&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; yoga is incompatible with being a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all one wanted were the health benefits (eg flexibility and stretching), then it should not be termed &amp;quot;yoga&amp;quot;, but a &amp;quot;flexibility class&amp;quot; or similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T15:26:20.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="530" CreationDate="2011-09-22T15:48:29.520" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Do not judge&quot; I believe is for someone's motivations. We should not judge one's actions based on his past, as only God knows the real conditions of ones heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user723" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T15:48:29.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3221" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3222" CreationDate="2011-09-22T17:21:32.937" Score="11" ViewCount="393" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like the title, does God love forever, unconditionally? I can't think of a being who is supposed to be more loving than God, so this is kind of a big question for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="689" LastActivityDate="2014-03-05T15:53:33.637" Title="Does God love unconditionally?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-27T16:52:33.877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3221" CreationDate="2011-09-22T17:44:55.707" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, God does not love unconditionally.  In fact, God hates the wicked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+9%3A15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hosea 9:15 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;I hated them there. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Because of their sinful deeds, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;I will drive them out of my house. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I will no longer love them; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;all their leaders are rebellious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, those who have faith in Christ and accept him as their savior are loved unconditionally for eternity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 3:36 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects&#xA;  the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remeber that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/a&gt; tells us that God is love.  I'll just give you all of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; with some highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have&#xA;  love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; If I have&#xA;  the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,&#xA;  and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I&#xA;  am nothing. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my&#xA;  body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain&#xA;  nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,&#xA;  it is not proud. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; It does not dishonor others, it is not&#xA;  self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Love does not delight in evil&lt;/strong&gt; but rejoices with the truth. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; It&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; protects, &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; trusts, &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; hopes, &lt;strong&gt;always perseveres&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Love never fails&lt;/strong&gt;. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;&#xA;  where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is&#xA;  knowledge, it will pass away. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; For we know in part and we prophesy in&#xA;  part, &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I&#xA;  reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of&#xA;  childhood behind me. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; For now we see only a reflection as in a&#xA;  mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I&#xA;  shall know fully, even as I am fully known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. &lt;strong&gt;But the greatest&#xA;  of these is love&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T17:44:55.707" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3172" CreationDate="2011-09-22T17:47:33.130" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The various prophetic references are just that: prophecies.  God is saying that if the people don't live right, they will be weakened as a nation and calamities will come upon them, including invasion by foreign nations that will do horrible things to them.  God isn't saying that it's good or that it's right, simply that that is what will end up happening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for some of the other passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forcing a man who has raped a woman to marry her doesn't sound like it makes much sense in a modern context, but keep in mind that this wasn't written for our civilization.  He would be required to marry the victim and maintain her and provide for her and their children for the rest of his life, without being allowed to divorce her.  Also, their culture placed a lot of importance on the ownership of land.  When you lived somewhere, on your family's land, you tended to stay there, which meant you'd most likely be stuck living in the same place, around a bunch of people who knew the circumstances of your rather sudden marriage.  All in all, it provides a pretty strong &lt;em&gt;disincentive&lt;/em&gt; to commit rape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the more interesting listings from the linked site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5) Death to the Rape Victim   (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim.  He is only concerned about the violation of another mans &quot;property&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, this is completely wrong.  This law exists to &lt;em&gt;protect&lt;/em&gt; everyone involved, and it actually demonstrates a rather impressive knowledge of human behavior and human nature.  The key words here are &quot;because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city,&quot; under the assumption that if she went along with it willingly, it wasn't actually rape.  First, it protects the man from false accusations--if a malicious woman makes an accusation like that, she's on the hook too.  And second, it protects the woman.  If she knows that if she plays along, she's guilty under the law, then he can't use the best-known of intimidation tactics employed by rapists, &quot;play along or I'll kill you!&quot;  It gives her a strong incentive to struggle, fight him off, and scream for help, which &lt;em&gt;makes it less likely that she will actually end up being raped.&lt;/em&gt;  All in all, this demonstrates the brilliance of God's law, not the cruelty and immorality of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T17:47:33.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3190" CreationDate="2011-09-22T18:02:07.287" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the great things about the Roman Catholic Church is that they document &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt;, including decisions made 1,600 years ago. So we actually &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; know what happened to each book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early Christian Church used the Septuagint as the principle work to use because it was considered to be based off of older Hebrew texts, and thus more accurate to the original Hebrew. However, over time that view fell out of favor from both Jews and the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When St. Jerome first compiled the Vulgate in the 5th century, he compared the Septuagint to other Hebrew translations and found the Hebrew translations to be more accurate. As far as I understand, in the intervening years, the Jews came to the same conclusion independently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when the first Vulgate in 405 was compiled, decisions were made as to what was accurate and what wasn't. Works that had some basis in the Hebrew translations available at the time were kept, and others that were called into doubt were dropped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this respect, it's no different than the Protestant omissions a thousand years later: when new information comes to light that substantively challenges the authenticity of the work, they're removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Eastern Orthodox Churchs continue to rely on the Septuagint as the main translation, in contrast with Jerome and the editions that came thereafter in the Roman Catholic and Protestant faiths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the specific works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;1 and 2 Esdras&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two are easy. The Roman Catholic Church calls these books &lt;em&gt;Ezra&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Nehemiah&lt;/em&gt; and they are part of canon, appearing after &lt;em&gt;2 Chronicles&lt;/em&gt; and before &lt;em&gt;Tobit&lt;/em&gt;. As far as I understand, the principle differences between the two are that &lt;em&gt;1&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;2 Esdras&lt;/em&gt; contain a fair amount of restructuring and reordering from the original work (the Jewish single volume &lt;em&gt;Ezra&lt;/em&gt;) and are from the Septuagint, whereas &lt;em&gt;Ezra&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Nehemiah&lt;/em&gt; are from the Hebrew tranlsation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;3 and 4 Maccabees&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These were never considered to have any claim to canonicity, and have never appeared in any Roman Catholic canon. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09495a.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;III Mach. is the story of a persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 B. C.), and therefore has no right to its title. Though the work contains much that is historical, the story is a fiction. IV Mach. is a Jewish-Stoic philosophical treatise on the supremacy of pious reason, that is religious principles, over the passions. The martyrdom of Eleazar and of the seven brothers (2 Maccabees 6:18-7) is introduced to illustrate the author's thesis. Neither book has any claim to canonicity, though the first for a while received favourable consideration in some Churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Psalm 151&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 151 isn't part for the Roman Catholic (or Protestant or Jewish) canon because most scholars of those faiths believe it to have been written after the rest of the Psalter, making it not part of the original work. It didn't make it into the original Vulgate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Prayer of Manasseh&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the Prayer of Manasseh, it was relegated to the Appendix of the Roman Catholic Bible (until recently, the Clementine Vulgate) in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII after appearing in the original Vulgate. Originally, it appeared at the end of 2 Chronicles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, at the time, most people, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, viewed the Prayer as apocryphal, namely because there were no reliable Greek or Hebrew translations (a fact overlooked in 405, where an Old Latin translation was added). However, because it's appeared in the Bible for so long, it was relegated to the appendix as a means to preserve it without having it disappear entirely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T18:54:50.740" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T18:54:50.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3226" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-22T18:36:31.840" Score="11" ViewCount="399" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can an individual live according to Christian morals taught by Jesus, but not live according to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&quot;greatest command&quot;&lt;/a&gt; (to &quot;love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.&quot;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, is it possible to not love God, not follow God, and not believe in Jesus but still keep all the other commands?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I'm thinking of commands like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&quot;honor one another more highly than yourself&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-47&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;love those who hate you&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;do not conform to the pattern of this world&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;do not take revenge&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to keep these types of &lt;em&gt;high&lt;/em&gt; moral commands and maintain a separation from God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, what distinctions could be made between someone ignorant of the Bible and someone who has outright rejected God's Word?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T12:18:52.283" Title="Is morality possible apart from God?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-10-18T14:24:34.133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3221" CreationDate="2011-09-22T19:05:05.750" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible presents God as One who does not merely choose to love, but One who &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; love (1 John 4:16).  It is a defining attribute of His.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It follows, then, that God always loves.  He loved those about whom the Scriptures say, &quot;every inclination of their hearts was only evil all the time.&quot;  That's why it grieved God--because He loved them.  If He hadn't loved those people, then we are left to wonder how they could grieve Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, God hates wickedness, and it's appropriate for God to hate that which hurts those He loves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this is not to say that God's love makes God unjust.  He is simultaneously both just and loving.  His justice demands that all sin be punished, while His love compelled Him to offer Himself as a substitute to pay the penalty of those sins.  For those who accept His offer, God credits the meritorious payment of Christ to their accounts.  For those who reject this, He is left to administer justice on those He loves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T19:05:05.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3152" CreationDate="2011-09-22T19:18:05.663" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Orthodox tradition holds that the current Feast of the Transfiguration of Christ replaces the Hebrew Feast of Booths, and we are a significant minority, if not a majority, in many countries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this guise, one could interpret this passage to mean that those who do not celebrate the Transfiguration, i.e. through Christ become transfigured themselves, in That Day will experience severe suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T19:18:05.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3226" CreationDate="2011-09-22T20:09:47.050" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find questions like this perplexing, in that they strike me as as obvious as &amp;quot;is it possible for a leaf to be red instead of green?&amp;quot;.  What is the motivation to ask this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case... Thomas Jefferson found the New Testament to be an excellent guide to morals, but excised the supernatural elements (thereby &amp;quot;not loving God&amp;quot;) and created his own version, now known as the &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jefferson Bible&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the moral teachings of Christianity are shared in common with other faiths or practices.  For example, being &amp;quot;apart from the ways of the world&amp;quot; and not striving for earthly pleasures is a component of some strains of Buddhism.  The same could be said for the ancient orphics, Indian sadhus, and probably a great many other ascetic traditions.  Buddhism also embraces compassion (loving one's neighbor).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T20:09:47.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3226" CreationDate="2011-09-22T20:12:23.247" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is certainly possible for someone to follow various commandments by sheer will power.  The Pharisees are a great example of this, following the letter of the law as closely as possible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, morality is more than just adherence to a certain set of rules.  Morality is not merely a matter of the will, but of the heart and mind as well, because we are more than just a will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would also be presumably easier for a follower of Jesus to follow the law, since that person is a new creation with a new heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, the Bible is pretty clear that there is none righteous, no not one, so even though it is theoretically possible for someone to be moral--Christian or not--in reality it is impossible, with or without God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T20:12:23.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3226" CreationDate="2011-09-22T20:15:43.463" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As is common, it largely comes down to how you define morality. If (as per the question) one doesn't believe in God or follow God, then there is no reason to accept some of the things that are only declared &quot;moral&quot; due to being divinely stated. We all know the obvious ones... they have come up here often enough, so I won't get distracted mentioning them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But yes: one &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; choose to adopt the same morals as the Bible, but I think everyone should be able to qualify the reasons for their morals; and if you don't have a divine crutch to support them, then there are a few Biblical morals that are pretty hard to justify otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Re the examples: I would wager that those things are equally challenging for people of all creeds and none, but both &lt;em&gt;society&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;law&lt;/em&gt; generally cover most of them - for example, we don't act in a vigilante way. Likewise &quot;honour one another&quot; and &quot;love those who hate you&quot; generally fit very well with a Humanist outlook, which places emphasis on the rights, human value, and equality of all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;do not conform to the pattern&quot; one cited is interesting, though; if I understand your explanation (comments), then this is &quot;don't worry about earthly things&quot;. Now, if we put aside the notion of God (as per the question), completely denying earthly things is... Stupid. The view is &quot;this world (this wonderful, amazing, beautiful world) is all we have&quot;. If we don't take the time to enjoy it (with our friends and families etc), then we are missing &lt;strong&gt;all that we have&lt;/strong&gt;. So: while I do not support overt materialism, I absolutely &lt;strong&gt;am&lt;/strong&gt; going to try and enjoy this world and my time on it (but hopefully not to the exclusion of others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T20:15:43.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3226" CreationDate="2011-09-22T20:37:02.690" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's certainly theoretically possible to come up with an independent system of morals that closely matches revealed morality, but it's highly unlikely that anyone will get it right on their own, for reasons that ought to be intuitively obvious to any engineer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the simplest mistakes for an inexperienced engineer to make is to attempt to design something from scratch to solve a problem that's already been solved, with a well-known and understood solution, one that's been around long enough for people to have found the problems with it and fixed them.  This error is generally known as &quot;reinventing the wheel,&quot; and it's a good way to bring the ridicule of other engineers down upon oneself, because the reinvented &quot;wheel&quot; does not have the polish of a mature solution and is likely to be full of problems, some minor, some not-so-minor, that have already been found and fixed by more experienced engineers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet people continue to attempt to reinvent solutions to one of the oldest, and most important, and most widely-studied problems in human history: the question of how people should behave in order to ensure a stable society, a subject generally called &quot;morality.&quot;  This despite the fact that a mature, well-tested, proven solution exists with thousands of years of successful history behind it: the revealed morality of God.  When followed, it has historically ensured a stable, smoothly-functioning society as long as people hold to it.  When abandoned or distorted too far, the civilization decays and weakens, until the people in question end up meeting a violent end and being replaced by others who live in a more moral fashion.  This is a clear, repeating pattern throughout human history that those who attempt to reinvent morality ignore at their own peril.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, to a certain degree, it's possible to come up with a working moral code in the absence of God.  But it will almost certainly not have the details right, which puts those who follow it at risk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T20:37:02.690" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3154" CreationDate="2011-09-22T21:14:04.837" Score="7" Body="&lt;h2&gt;To preserve the sanctity of life&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 9:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord commands that those who commit certain sins must die because they have despised those made in His own image. It's also worth noting that one of the reasons for the flood (where all but 8 were killed) was the attempt to pollute mankind and introduce a demonic likeness (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nephilim&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;As punishment for a nation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see. 2 Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles. 3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness. 4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. 5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a nation ignores warnings from God of impending judgment if they fail to repent of their wicked ways then God &lt;strong&gt;must&lt;/strong&gt; then act in judgment, otherwise how could we believe that any of His promises would stand?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the passage above we also see evidence the God can use a pagan or unrighteous nation as an instrument of judgment. He also used Israel as an instrument of judgment against the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites because of the abominations they had committed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rejection of God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the physical death might seem severe, the real punishment is reserved until the dead are judged. This is still the case regardless of whether capital punishment is still in occurring. Though &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;God is not willing that any should perish&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;, those who have rejected His offer of mercy will not only die but be cast into the place &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Because He is Sovereign&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God allowed the sons and daughters of Job to be killed. Our natural inclination might be to protest that God is unjust (like Job's wife), however Job understood that the Lord is sovereign. Despite restoring a larger number of possessions, God blesses Job with exactly the same number of sons and daughters. When we grasp that our existence on this earth is fleeting we may, like Paul, look forward to the day when we can put off this tent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="704" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T21:14:04.837" CommentCount="0" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-09-22T21:14:04.837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-09-22T21:16:27.987" Score="1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Selfishness.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The essence of sin is selfishness. Let me explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first of the Ten Commandments tells us not to have other gods beside God &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. God is God, and man is man. There's a huge difference. God deserves all the glory (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 38-40&lt;/a&gt;); man &lt;em&gt;deserves&lt;/em&gt; nothing but death (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:23&lt;/a&gt;). God will not give his glory away, either &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What originally tempted humans to choose sin was the promise to be like God &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. This is selfishness; instead of giving glory to God, wanting to be as glorious as God is.&#xA;Like Adam and Eve, we often want glory for ourselves instead of giving it to God, who deserves it &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. This is selfishness, and it is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now, here's an important passage:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%2022:37%E2%80%9340&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:37-40 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; And he said to him,  &quot;You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt; This is the great and first commandment. &lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. &lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Jesus tells us what the &lt;em&gt;essence of the Law and the Prophets&lt;/em&gt; is. It is to love God and other people. The neglect of loving others is selfishness; the neglect of Law is sin.&#xA;What, then, is the ultimate selfishness? It's being so self-righteous that we don't even confess that we need help &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;. That's also the ultimate sin; refusing salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:2-3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:2-3 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;  &quot;I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;  &quot;You shall have &lt;strong&gt;no other gods&lt;/strong&gt; before me.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%2048:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 48:11 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for how should my name be profaned?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;strong&gt;My glory I will not give to another.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%203:4-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:4-5 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;  But the serpent said to the woman, &quot;You will not surely die. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 7:18 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 2:17 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, &quot;Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T07:10:54.643" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T07:10:54.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3236" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3284" CreationDate="2011-09-22T21:53:07.383" Score="13" ViewCount="8617" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache&quot;&gt;Didache&lt;/a&gt;, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (an early Christian text not part of the New Testament) says of baptism (chapter 7):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the subject of baptism, baptise thus: after having taught all that precedes, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If for some reason you do not have living water, baptize in other water; and if you are not able to in cold water, in warm water. If you do not have enough of one or the other, pour out water three times on the head, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, let the baptizer, the baptized and others who can, observe first a fast; as for the baptized, you must enforce a fast beforehand for one or two days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Living water&quot; is usually assumed to mean &quot;running water&quot;, like the river Jordan in which Jesus was baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reason for preferring running water over still water, and cold water over warm water?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know some people who were baptized in the sea; would that count as living water, or does the term only refer to rivers? (It certainly met the preference for cold water, by all accounts.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-17T20:45:26.083" LastActivityDate="2016-04-10T12:47:19.193" Title="Why would cold running water be preferred for baptism?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;didache&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3237" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3238" CreationDate="2011-09-22T22:21:16.890" Score="15" ViewCount="37437" Body="&lt;p&gt;This concept seems to show up in a few places:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20110:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms 110:1 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The LORD says to my lord:&#xA;     “Sit at my right hand &#xA;     until I make your enemies &#xA;     a footstool for your feet.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:19-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 1:19–20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  ...and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted &lt;strong&gt;when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms&lt;/strong&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:34 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—&lt;strong&gt;is at the right hand of God&lt;/strong&gt; and is also interceding for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, undeniably Jesus is at the &quot;right hand of God&quot;.  But what does that mean or signify?  Would being at the left hand of God be a bad thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scope: I'm specifically seeking a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mainstream Protestant&lt;/a&gt; exegesis of this text, although I suspect the understanding will be universal across all denominations and doctrines (although I could be wrong).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-11-03T20:32:28.447" LastActivityDate="2016-09-09T01:17:53.033" Title="What is so special about sitting at God's &quot;right hand&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;romans&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;&lt;ephesians&gt;&lt;session-of-christ&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3237" CreationDate="2011-09-22T22:36:25.397" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;It simply means that Christ is uniquely special to God and has his authority.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sit at the right hand of an earthly king was a place of honor, denoting special trust, authority from, and relationship with the king.  It was something that was understood without needing explanation at the time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were to sit at the right hand of the King meant that you acted with his authority.  Those who came to you would treat you with respect and obedience, as if you were the king yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's one of the many demonstrations in the Bible, which is not readily understood by us in our time that made perfect sense to the culture as it was then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an article that explains it a bit differently, with more detail here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/onenes10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.letusreason.org/onenes10.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To sit at ones right hand means a place of authority, it was a place&#xA;  of honor it meant dignity and rulership. Throughout the O.T there are&#xA;  used what are called anthropomorphism to describe God in some function&#xA;  or characteristic. this is figurative language describing a certain&#xA;  characteristic of God it is describing his divine actions from a human&#xA;  view point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The term at the right hand of God points to his exalted position he&#xA;  now is active on. There are numerous things that need to be considered&#xA;  to understand this phrase. The phrase right hand is a metaphor, God&#xA;  exercises his authority by his right hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Right after Peter writes of the resurrection he says 1 Pt.3:22 Who has&#xA;  gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and&#xA;  authorities and powers having made subject to him&quot;. If he is God the&#xA;  Father then they are already subjected to him, If he is only a man,&#xA;  then the ruling of the universe is in a humans hands. So it is as in&#xA;  Mt.28:18 all authority was given to him in both heaven and earth. This&#xA;  is something he did not have as he came to earth in a state of&#xA;  humility Phil.2:5-8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several other ways of stating the same basic thing here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Right_hand.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Right_hand.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2016-09-09T01:17:53.033" LastActivityDate="2016-09-09T01:17:53.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3239" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3286" CreationDate="2011-09-22T22:36:44.350" Score="16" ViewCount="53903" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was working on a different question and I found that I couldn't actually find anywhere that shows that God actually tests us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2026:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Psalms 26:2 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Test me, LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, asking for tests is acceptable, per the Psalm above.  Also, it seems that God &lt;em&gt;allows&lt;/em&gt; us to be tested:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Job 1:12 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another verse that shows that God &lt;em&gt;allows&lt;/em&gt; temptation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:13 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does God ever intentionally put things in our way &lt;em&gt;himself&lt;/em&gt; to allow us to be tested (as the Psalms says)?&lt;/strong&gt;  Or does God merely allow Satan to give us trials and temptations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, what does the mainstream Protestant doctrines say towards this end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I'd really like Biblical support for any answer, please.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T14:28:26.060" LastActivityDate="2015-05-13T18:12:15.773" Title="Does God test us?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3239" CreationDate="2011-09-22T22:44:56.743" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;If by &amp;quot;test&amp;quot; you mean &amp;quot;Tempt&amp;quot; then no.  God will not tempt us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 1:13-16 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this is not the only meaning of the word &amp;quot;test&amp;quot;.  Like the word &amp;quot;love&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;test&amp;quot; is a word that has different connotations based on the context and/or the original word that was translated as &amp;quot;test&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in several translations, the word &amp;quot;test&amp;quot; is used where &amp;quot;examine&amp;quot; is a better translation of the word.  (Sometimes it's translated as &amp;quot;prove&amp;quot; as well.)  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 Thess 2:4 (NKJV) &amp;quot;We speak as men Approved by God to be entrusted with the Gospel. We are Not trying to Please men but GOD, who TESTS our HEARTS.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jer 17:10 (NASB) &amp;quot;I, the Lord, search (EXAMINE) the HEART, I TEST the MIND&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these cases, God does &amp;quot;test&amp;quot; our hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get to whether or not God actually &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;causes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; bad things to happen to you to test you (which is, I believe, a re-phrasing of your main question - correct me if I'm wrong.)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have yet to run across a scripture that indicates that God places evil, pain, or suffering in our way in order to test us.  As you've pointed out, there are many verses where it is &lt;em&gt;allowed&lt;/em&gt;, but none where He actually places the suffering in our paths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only places in the Scriptures where God &lt;em&gt;causes&lt;/em&gt; what we might, in our finite wisdom consider &amp;quot;bad things&amp;quot; to happen is as a punishment for sin, which is a completely different matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T23:59:46.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3148" CreationDate="2011-09-22T22:55:08.277" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is challenging to get &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Christians to believe in anything &lt;em&gt;together&lt;/em&gt;; with all the different denominations each has their own particular views of God, of the Trinity, of the validity of each of the various stories in the Bible. Did the flood actually happen? Or is an anecdote, simply there to teach us a lesson? Can a man really live inside of a really big fish? Or was it a whale? Which translation is most accurate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The learned Christian finds that although all Christian men of faith believe in the same God, they vary in the &lt;strong&gt;extent&lt;/strong&gt; of their beliefs. That said, some &lt;em&gt;particular&lt;/em&gt; beliefs may be shared more widely than others; for example, the idea that God is &lt;em&gt;all-powerful&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;all-knowing&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;all-loving&lt;/em&gt; is a belief that is probably shared among the great majority of Christians, regardless of denomination. Regarding the question being asked here—&lt;strong&gt;whether there is any generally shared belief involving God's intervention in human affairs that is outside Biblical documentation&lt;/strong&gt;—the simple answer is &quot;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. There is no widely shared belief in any event in which God revealed himself or otherwise intervened in human affairs that is documented outside the Bible. There are some denominations, however, that do profess such beliefs, but they make up a relatively small minority of the Christian whole and as such cannot be taken as representative of the &quot;average&quot; person of Christian faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;source: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/60/dancek&quot;&gt;dancek&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T22:55:08.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3242" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:15:09.360" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:15:09.360" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:15:09.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3243" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:15:09.360" Score="0" Body="the oldest surviving catechism, from around 100AD" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:15:09.360" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:15:09.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3245" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:16:30.980" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dead Sea Scrolls&lt;/a&gt; are some 972 texts found in Qumran between 1947-1956. The scrolls date mostly between 150BC and 70AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The manuscripts include biblical, apocryphal and sectarian writings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:16:30.980" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:16:30.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3246" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:16:30.980" Score="0" Body="a large collection of manuscripts found near Qumran in 1947-1956" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:16:30.980" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:16:30.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3247" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:24:39.627" Score="0" Body="&lt;h1&gt;The Protestant Canon&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Old Testament&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exodus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leviticus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Numbers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deuteronomy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joshua&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judges&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ruth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1-2 Samuel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1-2 Kings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1-2 Chronicles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ezra&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nehemiah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Esther&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Psalms&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Proverbs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ecclesiastes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Song&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isaiah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jeremiah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lamentations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ezekiel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Daniel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hosea&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Amos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Obadiah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jonah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Micah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nahum&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Habakkuk&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zephaniah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Haggai&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zechariah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Malachi&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;New Testament&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Corinthians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Corinthians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Galatians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Philippians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Colossians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Thessalonians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Thessalonians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Timothy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Timothy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Titus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Philemon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrews&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;James&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Peter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Peter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 John&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 John&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;3 John&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jude&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revelation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:24:39.627" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:24:39.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3248" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:24:39.627" Score="0" Body="the biblical canon containing 66 books (39 OT, 27 NT)" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:24:39.627" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:24:39.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3249" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:28:05.740" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:28:05.740" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:28:05.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3250" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:28:05.740" Score="0" Body="relief from work and activity" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:28:05.740" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:28:05.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3251" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:28:43.197" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:28:43.197" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:28:43.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3252" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:28:43.197" Score="0" Body="The doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-12-16T00:00:38.313" LastActivityDate="2016-12-16T00:00:38.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3253" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:29:23.163" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:29:23.163" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:29:23.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3254" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:29:23.163" Score="0" Body="the Book of Judges in the Old Testament" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:29:23.163" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:29:23.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3255" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:31:03.207" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:31:03.207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:31:03.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3256" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:31:03.207" Score="0" Body="the act of putting a dead person or animal under ground" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:31:03.207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:31:03.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3257" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:32:18.277" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:32:18.277" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:32:18.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3258" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:32:18.277" Score="0" Body="an alternative to burial, burning the dead body and reducing it to ashes" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:32:18.277" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:32:18.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3259" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:34:13.920" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:34:13.920" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:34:13.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3260" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:34:13.920" Score="0" Body="a city near the Jordan River, that Joshua destroyed" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:34:13.920" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:34:13.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3261" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:35:06.823" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:35:06.823" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:35:06.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3262" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:35:06.823" Score="0" Body="the one to come; literally &quot;anointed&quot;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:35:06.823" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:35:06.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3263" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:35:46.260" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:35:46.260" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:35:46.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3264" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:35:46.260" Score="0" Body="the event of Adam and Eve rebelling against God" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:35:46.260" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:35:46.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3265" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:37:54.620" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:37:54.620" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:37:54.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3266" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:37:54.620" Score="0" Body="a (self-proclaimedly) scientific framework for deciding if something is probably designed or has otherwise come into being" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:37:54.620" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:37:54.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3267" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:39:49.780" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:39:49.780" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:39:49.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3268" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:39:49.780" Score="0" Body="Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936), an English writer" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:39:49.780" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:39:49.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3269" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:40:39.403" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:40:39.403" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:40:39.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3270" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:40:39.403" Score="0" Body="Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963), a British author" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:40:39.403" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:40:39.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3271" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:42:06.593" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:42:06.593" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:42:06.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3272" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:42:06.593" Score="0" Body="Lot, Abraham's nephew" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:42:06.593" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:42:06.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3273" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:43:01.010" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:43:01.010" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:43:01.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3274" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:43:01.010" Score="0" Body="a Christian movement rejecting Trinity" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:43:01.010" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:43:01.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3275" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:44:18.667" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:44:18.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:44:18.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3276" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:44:18.667" Score="0" Body="Summa Theologica, the main work of Thomas Aquinas" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:44:18.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:44:18.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3277" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:45:55.420" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:45:55.420" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:45:55.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3278" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:45:55.420" Score="0" Body="the opposition to warfare" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:45:55.420" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:45:55.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3279" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:46:33.500" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:46:33.500" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:46:33.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3280" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-22T23:46:33.500" Score="0" Body="the Catholic view of Christ's presence in the eucharist" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-22T23:46:33.500" LastActivityDate="2011-09-22T23:46:33.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3281" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3283" CreationDate="2011-09-23T00:09:59.510" Score="11" ViewCount="1959" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I was raised: God is &lt;strong&gt;all-loving&lt;/strong&gt;, and He wants us to be all-loving too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as you may know, homosexuals—particularly in America—have been shown hatred, and even violence &lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110830023018AAfSQUr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(1)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesusneedsnewpr.net/wtf-christian-talk-show-host-praises-countries-who-executepunish-gays-lesbians-unreal/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(2)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110830023018AAfSQUr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flynews.com/2011/01/24/ga-man-attacked-for-being-gay.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(4)&lt;/a&gt; from some members of the Christian community. The Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christianity and homosexuality&lt;/a&gt; suggests some of the views from various denominations, but it's largest claim remains unsupported (i.e. that &quot;most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex, but teach that homosexual relationships and sexual acts are sinful.&quot; Check the references, they are broken links or only refer to the Methodist Church, so they don't speak for &quot;most Christian denominations&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I dug deeper into &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_Hebrew_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Hebrew Bible&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the New Testament&lt;/a&gt;, I saw some passages which indicated that homosexuality might be a sin, but the articles are poorly written and lack verifiable citations. Either way, I wasn't able to find any indication that God condones violence by mankind towards homosexuals. You would think that those who so vehemently hate homosexuals would also think that homosexuals are going to Hell when they die; that their fate will be gruesome enough such that anything a human does to add to it prematurely would be like kicking someone who's already dead. Maybe they really haven't thought that one through?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'm curious &lt;strong&gt;if there is any Biblical support for the idea that God wants us to be cruel to homosexuals&lt;/strong&gt; (or anyone for that matter). Please carefully note that I'm not merely asking if the Bible is against homosexuality; I'm asking if there is a basis for &lt;strong&gt;showing hatred towards others&lt;/strong&gt;, particularly gays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-02-09T18:22:14.260" LastActivityDate="2016-02-09T18:22:14.260" Title="Is there any Biblical basis for hating homosexuals?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;hate&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;&lt;violence&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="20" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-02-13T04:07:00.040" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3189" CreationDate="2011-09-23T00:27:02.300" Score="15" Body="&lt;h2&gt;A more ecumenical answer:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They weren't considered equal because they had been considered of dubious origin for quite some time. Back when the Vulgate was being put together Jerome made the points that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The original Hebrew for those texts could no longer be found*&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jews of the late first century onward did not consider them canonical.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others in the Church countered:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church had been using the Greek copies for centuries (clearly evidenced in the New Testament and through the Apostolic Fathers)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Since the Septuagint included those books and the Septuagint was popular among the Apostles, it follows that these books should be on equal footing &amp;mdash; whether the Hebrew copies existed or not. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem was that there had never really been an official ruling &amp;mdash; the prevailing mindset was inclusion (especially since the Patriarchs all seemed to agree to their worthiness), but because the books were never challenged there had never been a need to define their proper place in the canon to begin with. When the early Protestants came along, their priority to get back to an earlier idea of the Church necessarily caused these texts to come into question.&lt;sup&gt;+&lt;/sup&gt; You can read more about that on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena#Reformation&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;It was not about Luther&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some who have said that this is a decision which was made because Luther did not feel that the were consistent with his view of the Gospel, and there is a modicum of truth in that &amp;mdash; he most certainly did not view them as entirely consistent with his theology &amp;mdash; but that was not his justification or even his primary impetus. It is best to be wary of the stories about Luther in this context &amp;mdash; many of them are apocryphal inserts by later apologists of one side or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* It should be noted that the Hebrew of Sirach has since been found (and it is fascinating to compare the Greek and Hebrew texts, my Biblical Hebrew professor gave a wonderful lecture on it).&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;+&lt;/sup&gt; It should be noted that Luther was only one of the many early Protestants who included the Deuterocanonical texts but placed them at a diminished stature, and he certainly is not responsible for their exclusion from the modern Protestant Bible. I believe credit with their removal from the English Bibles was the 1611 Authorized Version (the third(?) edition of what we in the US call the King James Bible)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T00:27:02.300" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3281" CreationDate="2011-09-23T00:31:36.923" Score="32" Body="&lt;h3&gt;In general&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2012:16-21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 12:16-21 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;  Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;  Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, &quot;Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; To the contrary, &quot;if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; Do not be overcome by evil, but &lt;strong&gt;overcome evil with good&lt;/strong&gt;.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we have the choice, we should live in peace with all and be good to everyone. Even if they're evil. Even if they're our enemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Specifically regarding homosexuals&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible condemns homosexual &lt;strong&gt;acts&lt;/strong&gt;, not having homosexual temptations. We can't judge anyone for what they didn't choose -- even Jesus was tempted, so temptations are not sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't know for sure if &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1086/does-god-create-some-people-heterosexual-and-others-homosexual/1603#1603&quot;&gt;you can be born a homosexual&lt;/a&gt;, but it's certainly possible (even probable, science seems to tell us). That's all the more reason to try and be understanding with homosexual people. Do note that being born one way or another is no excuse for sinning, and we shouldn't act like the Bible approves of homosexual relationships and activities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T00:39:45.150" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3236" CreationDate="2011-09-23T00:32:16.370" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may find this link of interest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theropps.com/papers/Winter1998/regeneration.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.theropps.com/papers/Winter1998/regeneration.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is the significant part, where they talk about the significance of running water and cold water:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The main points here related to the topic of regeneration are (as in&#xA;  Ignatius' works) implicit, in a discussion primarily centered around&#xA;  the baptismal mode. There is a stress on baptism in living and cold&#xA;  water. Living water is likely preferred because rivers had symbolic&#xA;  significance as boundaries of transition in the ancient world. The&#xA;  living water emphasis also has Jewish parallels. Water which was&#xA;  running is also still connected to its natural source (J. Draper. The&#xA;  Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1996:46,218). Cold&#xA;  water may have been prescribed because of the shocking nature, which&#xA;  would make baptism a memorable event. Interestingly, however, if these&#xA;  types of water are not available, or even if enough water is not&#xA;  available to immerse, the great importance of baptism is seen in the&#xA;  admonition to do so in at least some fashion regardless of the&#xA;  resources at hand. The emphasis of living water is especially&#xA;  consistent with concepts of a change in the baptized person's life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found this quote of interest, if you search for the word 'leper', in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christian-history.org/water-baptism-quotes.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.christian-history.org/water-baptism-quotes.html&lt;/a&gt;, as it would seem that running water would also be better if we are to be cleansed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred&#xA;  water and the invocation of the Lord from our old transgressions,&#xA;  being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other thoughts that this is based also on the Jewish traditions, but I think that is getting into a different area than the question was intended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T00:32:16.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3281" CreationDate="2011-09-23T00:45:41.100" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, a point of terminology.  There is no Biblical (or historical, for that matter) basis for the &lt;em&gt;existence&lt;/em&gt; of &quot;homosexual people&quot; in the first place.  The concept of &quot;sexual orientation&quot; as an inherent trait seems to be a modern concept, invented for political purposes and unsupported by objective facts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible condemns &lt;em&gt;homosexual acts&lt;/em&gt; in very strong terms.  However, it does not condone taking the punishment for even the most sinful of acts into one's own hands, nor is violence or hatred against others permitted.  The Sermon on the Mount makes it quite clear that, as even such small bits of hate as angry words can lead to sins as great as murder, that they should be avoided entirely in order to follow the principles of the Gospel.  In fact, Jesus places such strong importance on this principle that he places reconciliation and the avoidance of anger and conflict even above such weighty matters as bringing an offering/donation to the house of the Lord:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-24&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:21-24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also worth noting that, while violence against &quot;homosexual people&quot; by religious people tends to get a lot of coverage in the media, government statistics show that the greatest source of violence against homosexuals by far is &lt;em&gt;domestic&lt;/em&gt; violence, perpetrated by their own partners.  Why this is, and why it is not covered more widely by the media, is the subject of a different question, most likely for a different site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T00:45:41.100" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3239" CreationDate="2011-09-23T02:38:07.693" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;One well-known example of God specifically testing someone is when he commanded Abraham to offer his son Isaac as an offering unto him. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&quot;&gt;Genesis chapter 22&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the Bible contains several references to God testing people in general to see if they will obey.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016:4&quot;&gt;Exodus 16: 4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I [will] prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016:4&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 13: 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer a question from the comments, we can turn to James for a pretty solid &lt;strong&gt;NO&lt;/strong&gt;; God does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; put temptation in our path:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:12-14&quot;&gt;James 1:12-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T13:51:14.970" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T13:51:14.970" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3237" CreationDate="2011-09-23T02:49:08.187" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Right&quot; in many cultures signify more importantly than the &quot;Left&quot;. This is probably associated with the population of right handed is more than the left handed. Hence, people use right hand to do important things more than their left hand. &quot;Right hand man&quot; also means the trusted one, or the most important one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my culture (Indonesia), it's consider rude to do something with left hand. i.e passing an object (such as money) to somebody else using left hand is considered as an insult; and eating with left hand is disgusting for some people. This habit is based on the habit that we use our left hand to clean, so it's not good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness#Negative_associations_of_language&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Latin word sinistra originally meant &quot;left&quot; but took on meanings of &quot;evil&quot; or &quot;unlucky&quot; by the Classical Latin era&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T02:49:08.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3226" CreationDate="2011-09-23T03:28:38.107" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sceptical about your premises: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;honor one another more highly than yourself&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;love those who hate you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;do not conform to the pattern of this world&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;do not take revenge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think that Christians in reality reach goal one and two, nor, that it would be a goal to reach at all. Why should anybody love somebody more than himself? Yes - of course parents often sacrifice themselves for their children, but this is a pattern, common to all people, and even animals do it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In it's broad vagueness, I don't see a goal in point 3. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To not take revenge is a necessity in a society to stop violence, and every human society has rules, to stop revenge. Most societies move the judgement to a third party, which searches for a solution without being a party of the dispute. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are rational reasons to act in some way, the society should try to reach a special behaviour. A lot of the rules which are rationalised by religion are a consequence of our ability, to feel empathy, to understand each other. To make advantages towards a society of less violence and more welfare we should study ourselves on a scientific basis, and not be hindered by dogmatic writings, 2000 years old and more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your premise is, that it is impossible to find intelligent answers outside the bible, and maybe in dissent to the bible, your discussion here is senseless - what are you looking for? If you look at some of the most controversial discussions here, you will see, how human progress, including moral progress, is more hindered by Christian Religion, and not lead by it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T03:28:38.107" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3289" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="45370" CreationDate="2011-09-23T03:35:28.287" Score="13" ViewCount="953" Body="&lt;p&gt;I very frequently hear repeated that there are three Greek words (or word-groups, more precisely) that are translated into the same English word &quot;love&quot;; the words being &lt;em&gt;ἀγάπη&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;φιλíα&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;ἔρως&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;ἔρως&lt;/em&gt; is said to refer to sexual love, &lt;em&gt;φιλíα&lt;/em&gt; to a non-sexual &quot;brotherly love&quot; that is not specific to Christians and &lt;em&gt;ἀγάπη&lt;/em&gt; to the highest form of love that only a Christian can know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I've never heard any backing for this claim and have a sneaking suspicion that this is one of those things that gets passed around pastoral circles without getting checked out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem lies, of course, when one imports the distinction into his/her exegesis and extracts a meaning that may not be present. For example, if &lt;em&gt;φιλíα&lt;/em&gt; is used rather than &lt;em&gt;ἀγάπη&lt;/em&gt; in a particular passage, one might conclude that less is being required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is, are the semantic ranges of these words as rigid as is claimed, and are the definitions consistent with what is intended in scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-25T18:51:58.507" LastActivityDate="2019-08-04T23:40:25.823" Title="Is this distinction of biblical &quot;love&quot; terminology compatible with scripture?" Tags="&lt;love&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;greek&gt;&lt;word-study&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="160" CreationDate="2011-09-23T03:35:35.837" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The essence of sin is a rejection of God. We broke off our relationship with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is the center of everything. He deserves all glory and honour as our creator and sustainer (Rev 4:11). He has the authority to say what we should do. Yet we think we know better and disobey his Word thinking we can be like him (Gen 3:5-6), we ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist (Rom 1:19), we prostitute ourselves with other gods (Ex 32, Mat 6:24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why the gospel is primarily about being reconciled with God. It's not about getting into heaven, or finding meaning in life by finding God, or learning how to love one another. With these, there is still the problem of our broken relationship with God. Christ's death was to bring us forgiveness from God; redemption so we're no longer slaves to sin, but adopted to be his treasured children (Eph 1:1-14). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T03:35:35.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3291" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-23T03:48:33.557" Score="8" ViewCount="1274" Body="&lt;p&gt;The title is a bit broader than what I really intend to ask. More precisely, I am interested in whether Dr. Eggerichs's understanding of the terms &quot;love&quot; and &quot;respect&quot; in &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=JNQvil4oSkEC&amp;amp;dq=%22Love%20and%20Respect%22&amp;amp;source=gbs_navlinks_s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Love and Respect&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is consistent with the verse from which he argues, Eph 5:33 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More specifically still, Dr. Eggerichs seems to assume that &quot;love&quot; and &quot;respect&quot; are &quot;felt love&quot; and &quot;felt respect&quot;; that is, that this verse is fulfilled if and only if the woman feels loved and the man feels respected. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not a scholar and don't have all of the knowledge of the various uses of these words throughout scripture, but from the knowledge that I do have, this strikes me as off. Then again, scripture often does challenge my assumptions, so I am willing to hear what scripture says on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is, can anyone show whether this is or is not what Paul (and God!) has in mind in this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T20:12:27.330" Title="Is &quot;Love and Respect&quot; consistent with Eph 5:33" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3292" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-23T07:50:25.227" Score="12" ViewCount="6912" Body="&lt;p&gt;Often times when I cite a particularly egregious passage from the Bible in an argument with a Christian, they just shrug and say it's not meant be taken literally, that it's parable, or worse - that they don't follow it because &lt;em&gt;they&lt;/em&gt; consider it outright wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If scripture can have multiple, and possibly conflicting interpretations, how does one know which one is the right one? And why did this happen in the first place? ie: why does His word need to be interpreted? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user729" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T13:49:20.833" LastActivityDate="2014-07-22T19:41:07.180" Title="If the Bible is open to interpretation, how does one know which one is right?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-07-22T21:19:19.507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3291" CreationDate="2011-09-23T08:02:07.747" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would look at passages like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:46&amp;amp;version=64&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:46&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015:34&amp;amp;version=64&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 15:34&lt;/a&gt; (where Jesus asked God &quot;why have you forsaken me?&quot;) and the many psalms that speak of anguish or being forgotten as examples of situations where someone might not &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt; loved by God, but they are nonetheless &lt;em&gt;very much&lt;/em&gt; loved by God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2013&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 13&lt;/a&gt; expresses this sentiment nicely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I agree with you - love and respect don't have to be felt to be real and present, and the Bible seems to back up our view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T08:02:07.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3292" CreationDate="2011-09-23T08:40:01.103" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have asked at least three distinct questions in your question... I'm going to answer the one that I think is the most directly answerable, and hope that it satisfies the others as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Why does the Bible need to be interpreted?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every written work must be interpreted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When most people I know ask questions like this, what they're really asking is, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Why wasn't the Bible written in clear, easy-to-understand language, for someone living in my modern, Western culture to understand without any special effort?&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when phrased that way, the answer becomes rather obvious:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bible was not written with modern, Western culture in mind.&lt;/strong&gt;  Nor was any other ancient text, religious or otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, neither was any of Mark Twain's work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we read any literature, we must consider the culture in which it was written, and the audience to whom it was written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, we have to recognize the various genres of literature contained within the Bible.  It contains poetry, prose, letters, history, law, genealogies, and likely other categories I'm forgetting at the moment.  Each of these must be interpreted differently as well--and always with a mind toward the culture that wrote it, and the audience it was written to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T08:40:01.103" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3226" CreationDate="2011-09-23T08:47:24.233" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I may be wrong, but I think that while someone may not know about God or not believe in God, still this person have a God's law written in heart, thus may follow a law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:14-16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 2:14-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For when the Gentiles, which have not the&#xA;  law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not&#xA;  the law, are a law unto themselves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their&#xA;  conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while&#xA;  accusing or else excusing one another;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ&#xA;  according to my gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I'm not sure about &lt;em&gt;high moral&lt;/em&gt; commands from question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T08:47:24.233" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3292" CreationDate="2011-09-23T08:49:49.590" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll answer the second part of your question first. Why does God's word need to be interpreted? All communication is interpreted. Think about a face to face conversation with a friend. When you are listening to them you are watching them for non-verbal cues, looking at their gestures, watching their eyes and facial expressions, and combining all this information with the actual words they are saying to interpret what they really mean to communicate with you. Also informing your understanding is your whole past relationship with this person and their previous communications with you. And this is all with someone you share a language, have the same contemporary culture references, and a genuine interest in hearing what they have to say with no ulterior intention to misunderstand them. Even in this context, misunderstandings can happen. Friends can take offence where it wasn't intended - all because of misinterpreting what was said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As humans we can be misinterpreted even when we are communicating excellently and we can also flub our communication and make it hard for our hearers to understand. Bearing this in mind we could draw two conclusions about the difficult passages: they are miscommunicated, or our understanding of them is off - because we lack the context or other information. I hold to the second explanation. I would also posit that the Bible is not merely about communicating facts or history, but just like our interpersonal communication, it reveals God's character, personality, and intent to us. If we assume someone has a bad intent towards us, it colors how we listen to them. We are more likely to be offended or angered by them, regardless of their actual intent. The same applies to our friends. We tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when listening to them - and if we can interpret something they say in an offensive way or a benign way, we will usually pick the benign way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bearing all that in mind - no Christian you argue with will have a perfect understanding of the Bible - and perhaps they have not engaged the passages you want to argue about. If your question is how can you know without a shadow of a doubt what any particular piece of Scripture is about, then I cannot help. But the real answer to understanding the bits of the Bible that seem outlandish or egregious to you is to make an effort to understand the whole, which will usually put the other pieces in context. Many problem passages are resolved with a better understanding of the whole. Also as you learn about God's character and nature, you begin to form a better understanding of His communication. As a commenter above stated, you can pose the specific examples you are battling with as separate questions, and the community here will do their best to help you understand them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="345" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T08:49:49.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3292" CreationDate="2011-09-23T11:41:39.797" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is wide in scope because the Bible is a relatively big book and is very diverse within itself. You may need to deal with each one case by case. But here are some tips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, just apply the normal rules of reading as you would with any piece of literature.  If an interpretation feels stretched, then it most likely is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Read the passage in context of its place within the section, within the Testament, within the whole Bible. Don't randomly pick verses and read them in isolation. Beware of building a major doctrine out of an individual verse (proof-texting).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Understand the section in terms of its own genre. The Bible is made up of many genres and sub-genres. Don't read a narrative or poem as a science text book, or a parable as history. Don't automatically put yourself in the narrative when it doesn't intend to talk about you (it could be leading up to Jesus, e.g. various people like Moses or King David are to be seen as predecessors to him - whether positive or negative).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Try to understand the author's intended meaning. It is a mistake to take the post-modern approach where the meaning lies within each individual reader. E.g. the Gospels were intended by the authors to be historical accounts (Luke 1, Jn 20:30) and they also intended to paint a particular picture of Jesus. E.g. The feeding of the 5000. A modern interpretation of this wanted to explain away the miracle and saw that the boy's act of producing his 5 barley loaves and 2 fish set off an example where everyone else produced their own food - enough to feed everyone. But the author's intention was to show a supernatural sign by Jesus (Jn 6:11, 14).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Understand that the Bible is an historical document written in a particular time, place, and circumstance. E.g. the epistles are personal letters, but they are not directly addressed to us. You may or may not draw timeless doctrines and principles from them. It depends on how the point is made or the nature of what is being said. E.g. John 3:36 (&quot;Whoever believes&quot;) is a general sweeping statement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look for clues within the text on the actual historical context. Understanding this will often help you understand the meaning of the passage. E.g. in Jn 6:15 they wanted to make Jesus king because of Roman occupation of their land, which is the reason why Jesus goes away - they misunderstood what type of king Jesus would be. Often external references may help but be cautious where modern references want to place a text in a different historical context from what the text itself claims. E.g. Paul did not really write 1 Tim. it often comes from a presupposition that the text is unreliable as an historical document (in which case, why bother reading it at all).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is usually a mistake to read any part of the Bible allegorically (where there is a moral lesson to the story). Don't read into parables too much. E.g. the parable of the Good Samaritan was famously interpreted by Augustine that the good Samaritan is Jesus, the robbers are the devil, we are the ones being robbed by the devil. This interpretation was arbitrary. There was nothing in the text to indicate this. Otherwise anyone could come up with any interpretation. In this particular case, you need to see why Jesus told this story in response to the lawyer (Lk 10:29). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can often tell when things are meant to link. It's like when you watch a movie and the characters do/say something that makes you think of something that was hinted at earlier. Use cross-references to help find these links. Sometimes it tells us explicitly E.g. For Lev 16 on temples, priests, sacrifices, see Heb 9. But it's not as simple as looking out the for same word being used.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Recognise that the Bible has an overarching story that spans the entire Bible, a bit like a TV series with individual episodes but with developments throughout the series. Don't expect that if you pick a small section in the middle that you can know what the whole thing is about. The Bible has a beginning and an end with plot development throughout. God set off a grand plan from the very beginning which finally found its climax and fulfilment in Jesus (Lk 24:13-27). You may need a book to help you see the forest from the trees. I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830853642&quot;&gt;God's Big Picture&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1842270362&quot;&gt;The Goldsworthy Trilogy&lt;/a&gt; as a starter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T11:41:39.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3175" CreationDate="2011-09-23T13:11:02.947" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there is a direct correlation, In the words of St. Ambrose relating the story of the 3rd century martyr St. Lawrence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such gold the holy martyr Lawrence preserved for the Lord. For when the treasures of the Church were demanded from him, he promised that he would show them. On the following day he brought the poor together. When asked where the treasures were which he had promised, he pointed to the poor, saying: &amp;quot;These are the treasures of the Church.&amp;quot; And truly they were treasures, in whom Christ lives, in whom there is faith in Him. So, too, the Apostle says: &amp;quot;We have this treasure in earthen vessels.&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2corinthians/4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 4:7&lt;/a&gt;) What greater treasures has Christ than those in whom He says He Himself lives? For thus it is written: &amp;quot;I was hungry and you gave Me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in.&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:35&lt;/a&gt;) And again: &amp;quot;What you did to one of these, you did it unto Me.&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:40&lt;/a&gt;) What better treasures has Jesus than those in which He loves to be seen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These treasures Lawrence pointed out, and prevailed, for the persecutors could not take them away. Jehoiachim, who preserved his gold during the siege and spent it not in providing food, saw his gold carried off, and himself led into captivity. Lawrence, who preferred to spend the gold of the Church on the poor, rather than to keep it in hand for the persecutor, received the sacred crown of martyrdom for the unique and deep-sighted vigour of his meaning. Or was it perhaps said to holy Lawrence: &amp;quot;Thou should not spend the treasures of the Church, or sell the sacred vessels&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34012.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;On the Duties of the Clergy (Book II)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, these are the treasures of the Church and they are increasing at a great rate, while worms and moths eat at the treasures many of the &amp;quot;1st world&amp;quot; Christians have stored up for themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer is meant as a rebuttal to the the premises of your question and a counter point to the other, in my opinion, meaningless answers. The answer is yes, national prosperity abounds where Christ is made present.  You just need to be calculating in terms of the right kind of prosperity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T13:44:18.397" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3292" CreationDate="2011-09-23T13:24:22.197" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is true that some parts of the Bible can be interpreted differently by different people.  However, it must be noted that just because some things are not abundantly clear, this doesn't mean that nothing is abundantly clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many things, and perhaps even most things, that are really not open to interpretation, because the Scriptures are quite clear on them.  Such things would include the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is the Creator.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is the eternal Son of God who became a Man, died on the Cross and rose again from the dead.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lying, stealing, adultery, murder, envy, jealousy, and pride are all sins.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All have sinned.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The wages of sin is death.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation is found in no one else [besides Jesus], for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things that do have some degree of uncertainty may include the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the gift of tongues something that ceased after the the time of the apostles or is it something that continues to this day?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should baptism be by immersion or by sprinkling?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should a tithe be given strictly to the local church or to any Christian ministry?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key thing with interpretation is to seek to understand what the intent of the Scriptures is.  Too often we try to use the Scriptures to justify our preconceived notions, and that is unfruitful.  When we truly seek the meaning of the Scriptures, the variance in interpretations is certainly minimized.  Study of the Scriptures should center on exegesis--not eisegesis (reading into the Scriptures).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are certainly many who try to read into the Scriptures what they think it ought to teach.  This accounts for the vast majority of disparate interpretations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T13:24:22.197" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3289" CreationDate="2011-09-23T14:11:35.243" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of the three types of love you mention, &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/greek/26.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/greek/5368.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;phileo&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; are found in the Bible. The third one, &lt;em&gt;eros&lt;/em&gt;, is not in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's one often-cited passage that nicely displays both &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; (ἀγαπᾷς) and &lt;em&gt;phileo&lt;/em&gt; (φιλῶ, φιλεῖς). I'll show it in both English and Greek, highlighting the words meaning love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2021:15-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 21:15-17 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,  &quot;Simon, son of John, do you &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt; me more than these?&quot; He said to him, &quot;Yes, Lord; you know that I &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt; you.&quot; He said to him, &quot;Feed my lambs.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; He said to him a second time, &quot;Simon, son of John, do you &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt; me?&quot; He said to him, &quot;Yes, Lord; you know that I &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt; you.&quot; He said to him,  &quot;Tend my sheep.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; He said to him the third time, &quot;Simon, son of John, do you &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt; me?&quot; Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, &quot;Do you love me?&quot; and he said to him, &quot;Lord, you know everything; you know that I &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt; you.&quot; Jesus said to him, &quot;Feed my sheep.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2021:15-17&amp;amp;version=SBLGNT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 21:15-17 (SBLGNT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;  Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, &lt;strong&gt;ἀγαπᾷς&lt;/strong&gt; με πλέον τούτων; λέγει αὐτῷ· Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι &lt;strong&gt;φιλῶ&lt;/strong&gt; σε. λέγει αὐτῷ· Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;  λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, &lt;strong&gt;ἀγαπᾷς&lt;/strong&gt; με; λέγει αὐτῷ· Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι &lt;strong&gt;φιλῶ&lt;/strong&gt; σε. λέγει αὐτῷ· Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;  λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, &lt;strong&gt;φιλεῖς&lt;/strong&gt; με; ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Φιλεῖς με; καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι &lt;strong&gt;φιλῶ&lt;/strong&gt; σε. λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note how Jesus uses &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; the first two times, and &lt;em&gt;phileo&lt;/em&gt; the third time (after which Peter is grieved). Peter uses &lt;em&gt;phileo&lt;/em&gt; each and every time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I'll admit that I'm a hacker, not a Greek scholar. But it indeed does seem like these words could have separate meanings. There's probably quite a lot of research done (so room for better answers), but the quick and simple way to get at the differences is just to trust &lt;em&gt;Strong's Concordance&lt;/em&gt; and see what it has to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/greek/26.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;agape&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; charity, love.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  From agapao; love, i.e. Affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast -- (feast of) charity(-ably), dear, love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/greek/5368.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;phileo&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; to love&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  From philos; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. Have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while agapao is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as ethelo and boulomai, or as thumos and nous respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specially, to kiss (as a mark of tenderness) -- kiss, love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The words &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;phileo&lt;/em&gt; are indeed distinct.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T15:26:03.540" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T15:26:03.540" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3304" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-23T14:38:29.517" Score="40" ViewCount="15309" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always heard &quot;God must have a sense of humor because he created X&quot;.  Usually X is &quot;the platypus&quot; or &quot;me&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it should be evident that Jesus, being human, had a sense of humor.  It's part of the human experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, is there anywhere in the Bible where humor on the part of God is actually recorded?  Furthermore, is there any doctrinal stance supported by extra-biblical (yet inspired) text that indicates God's sense of humor?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I'm interested in both humor from Jesus (as I don't know of any) as well as humor from the heavens (either God while Jesus was here on Earth or anything before or after that point).&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-17T23:12:32.567" LastActivityDate="2019-01-04T18:24:44.737" Title="Does God have a sense of humor? Does he laugh?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="15" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2011-09-23T14:59:59.410" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was incredibly cheeky with the parables he told. Of course they make very serious points, but often Jesus stretched them further than he needs to to make those points. The Good Samaritan is a good example of this - the notion that a Samaritan should trump a priest and Levite in his goodness would have raised a chuckle or two I'm sure from an audience that was largely under the thumb of the last two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly in the Prodigal Son, the fact that he ended up tending pigs (a very unclean animal in Judaism) and sleeping in the sty with them before returning home pretty much stretches the story as far as it could go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there are probably lots of other cultural references that would have been shocking or amusing at the time but are lost on us today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T14:59:59.410" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3184" CreationDate="2011-09-23T16:41:22.887" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've got to read into the deeper meaning of things in order to understand why the world was created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:16%20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:16 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,&#xA;  visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or&#xA;  authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011:36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 11:36 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the&#xA;  glory forever! Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All things, in heaven and on earth were created for Christ. I like to think of this as gifts. We are literally gifts from God the Father to God the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We were made to serve Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 1:6 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and&#xA;  Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus created this world complete with all of it's suffering so that He could show us how much that He loved us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:47&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 7:47 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great&#xA;  love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also learn from the commandments why this world was created. As the first commandment is to Love God. And the second is like it, to love everybody around us, all of the law and all of the prophets hang on these two commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that God created this world and allowed us to fall so that we could learn to Love, because He first showed His love for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T10:53:01.733" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T10:53:01.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3307" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3605" CreationDate="2011-09-23T16:45:41.680" Score="22" ViewCount="2093" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please excuse my ignorance I'm new to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been looking through the Q&amp;amp;A on the site and I've noticed scripture and especially passages from the Bible are cited as evidence for one argument or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the theological argument that the Bible should form the basis of the Christian belief system?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;EDIT&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whilst Mason's &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3307/why-is-the-bible-a-foundation-of-theological-evidence/3309#3309&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; gives a good description of the ways, in which, the Bible is a good guide to commonly held Christian beliefs, the answer is, as Mason hints, a tautology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm still a bit confused. There must have been a time after Jesus when some parts of the Bible had not been written and the Bible had not been gathered into one. Why is the Bible or, why has the Bible become the central text of the Christian faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="731" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-05-07T14:14:58.273" Title="Why is the Bible a foundation of theological evidence?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;bible&gt;&lt;epistemology&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2011-09-23T16:59:46.493" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Sermon on the mount:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:41-42&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 6:41-42 (NASB)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? &lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you try to visualize that, it's hard to argue that the hyperbole wasn't intended to be humorous.  How is it possible to have a log in your eye and still see anything?  You couldn't even turn your head without the log banging into something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This example is a little more subtle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:35-37&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 12:35-37 (NASB)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; David himself said in the Holy Spirit, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;&#xA;     ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET.”’ &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;&#xA;     &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; so in what sense is He his son?” And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus presented the scribes with a riddle they couldn't answer, but why did Mark point out that the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him?  It sounds to me like Jesus was making fun of the scribes.  The scribes thought they had all the answers and they wanted everyone else to think that too, but they couldn't answer this question.  The crowed had a good laugh at the scribe's expense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T23:01:30.183" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T23:01:30.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3307" CreationDate="2011-09-23T17:01:05.777" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow, this is a really fundamental question.  And the basic answer is, &lt;em&gt;because the Bible is the foundation of Christian theology.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that doesn't sound like a tautology.  What I mean by that is that the Bible is where we find the description of what Christianity is and what it's about.  The first few chapters of Genesis give us the creation of the world, the introduction to God and mankind, and the fundamental problems of our existence: sin and death.  The rest of the Old Testament teaches us about God's chosen people, his relationship with them and the covenants he made with them, and their history.  It places particular emphasis on how things worked out for them when they did and when they didn't live according to God's commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then we come to the New Testament, where the solution to the fundamental problems introduced in Genesis is given.  God sent his son, Jesus, to earth to pay the price of sin and overcome death, to make it possible for mankind to be restored to a perfect state through faith in him and his atonement.  It explains how Jesus did that, and what he taught us about how to live in order to make the atonement apply to us.  Then it continues on, showing the founding and early growth of the church that Jesus organized, based on the writings and the travels of the apostles that he ordained as leaders of the church.  They went around teaching people, organizing and building up the church, and clarifying various points of doctrine for people who didn't understand all the details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This content makes the Bible a solid foundation for understanding the basis of Christianity and Christian doctrine, and the first authoritative place to look when searching for theological evidence on questions related to Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T17:01:05.777" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3310" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-23T17:12:46.313" Score="17" ViewCount="1876" Body="&lt;p&gt;The accepted answer on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/248/how-long-was-jesus-in-the-tomb/3107#3107&quot;&gt;How long was Jesus in the tomb?&lt;/a&gt; would only have been possible if the Last Supper was not the Passover meal, which I had always thought it was.  Was the Last Supper in fact not the Passover meal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2019-05-27T21:03:33.647" Title="Was the Last Supper not the Passover meal?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;passover&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3310" CreationDate="2011-09-23T17:30:22.557" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;My new understanding of the Last Supper is mostly based on the information at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.therefinersfire.org/celebrating_passover.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.therefinersfire.org/celebrating_passover.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key verses which indicate that Christ was actually crucified on the day before the Passover feast are John 18:28 and John 19:14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 18:28 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 19:14 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The day of preparation would be when they slaughter the Passover lamb, which would then be eaten that night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T17:30:22.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3312" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3315" CreationDate="2011-09-23T17:32:55.060" Score="11" ViewCount="6888" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM#-2DU&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2352&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So does this mean I need to buy extra gold bond medicated powder to avoid jock itch (and mortal sin), or is that just excessive scrupulosity? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real question is, is the 'grave matter' involved in masturbation always involve ejaculation or does the offense against chastity lie in your intentions?  And the source of consternation in this is that in conjugal sex,  ejaculating outside of your wife is considered the 'grave matter' so I'd have to imagine the rationale for that being bad is totally different than the rationale for masturbation being sinful but I don't know why. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T02:22:43.827" LastActivityDate="2020-06-17T02:22:43.827" Title="What is masturbation, according to the Catholic Catechism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;catholic-catechism&gt;&lt;sex-acts&gt;&lt;masturbation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3307" CreationDate="2011-09-23T17:55:01.550" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Think of it like this.  When you purchase a car, you get a manual from the manufacturer.  Christians believe the Bible is God's instruction manual for how to live the way He thinks best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T17:55:01.550" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3291" CreationDate="2011-09-23T18:24:33.903" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not read the book, but am participating in the Love and Respect DVD study with my small group.  From what others who have read the book in the group have said, it sounds like the content is similar enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. Eggerichs tells us that he believes that Ephesians 5:33 is one of the biblical proofs that men have a core need to be respected and women have a core need to be loved.  He also uses other bible verses throughout that actually show examples of men wanting respect or women wanting love.  I do believe that his understanding of this verse is in line with the intended meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of this answer is actually addressing your observation that there is a large emphasis on &quot;felt&quot; love and respect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. Eggerichs does place a lot of emphasis on &quot;feeling&quot; loved or respected.  He encourages us to say to our spouse &quot;That felt unloving, did I say something disrespectful?&quot; (wife to husband) or &quot;That felt disrespectful, did I say something unloving?&quot; (husband to wife).  This is because how we feel is the only way to express how our spouse is coming across to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, he does spend a large portion of the study teaching how to love/respect your spouse, with a lot of emphasis on communicating it.  As he starts out early and continues teaching us, men and women don't communicate in the same way.  I like how he points out that while we may feel unloved/disrespected, the other person does not necessarily mean to be showing a lack of love or disrespect.  He gives us tips on how we can communicate in a loving or respectful way that our spouse will translate correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the DVD he mentions multiple times that while a wife may feel unloved, it is likely the husband is just not expressing his love.  Or if the husband feels disrespected, it's like the wife is not communicating her respect in a way that the husband understands as respectful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while there is emphasis on telling your spouse how you &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt;, I don't think that's the purpose of the Love and Respect.  I think the purpose of his book/studies is to teach us how to express our love or respect for our spouse in a way that they will feel it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T18:24:33.903" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3312" CreationDate="2011-09-23T18:37:08.923" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I must preface this with the fact that I'm not an expert on this subject (meaning the Catechism, not masturbation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the text itself seems to show very clearly that it's the intention that matters (&lt;em&gt;&quot;in order to derive sexual pleasure.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;). Clearly, ejaculation isn't required, merely the act of beginning (or continuing) something that is pleasurable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems clear that &quot;deliberate stimulation&quot; is the sin.  Meaning that it has to be deliberate and it has to be stimulating.  If you &lt;em&gt;unintentionally&lt;/em&gt; stimulate yourself, it's not a sin.  Also, if you intentionally do something but it's not stimulating, that's also not a sin  (that would just be weird).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The definition seems obvious to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this, the  culminating sentence of this section states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while the definition is obvious and clear (per the question), there is some leniency given to this situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T20:19:18.883" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T20:19:18.883" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2011-09-23T19:03:26.883" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was a teen, I asked the current group leader this very question because I didn't want to follow a God that couldn't laugh.  His answer was that he didn't think Jesus would have &quot;wasted a breath of air on a joke.&quot;  Yet, I can't help but go back to the very basic idea that since we are created in his image, he must enjoy things, and part of enjoyment is laughter.  If God were &quot;all business&quot; I don't think the world would have color or character or much variety.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or the platypus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was encouraged to expand my answer, so I googled this question and happened upon Jim Daly's, current president of Focus on the Family, blog.  In it, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/blogs/Finding_Home/2009/11/24/did-jesus-laugh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;he expressed&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Somebody recently pointed out to me that in classic Greek comedy, the play ends with the actors crying and the audience laughing. In contrast, in Shakespearean comedy, the play ends with both the actors and audience laughing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The moral of the story?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the classic Greek model, the audience is left to feel superior to the individuals on stage. Their laughter is a form of mockery. Yet in the English model, both actors and audience are relating to one another, seeing the same thing and finding the same humor in it. In this model, there is no smugness, only a shared sense of joy. Modern comedy all too often seems to revolve around trying to have fun by making fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That’s not the type of laughter Jesus shared with His disciples. I suspect He was only inclined to laugh with—not at—others. He didn’t put people down; &lt;strong&gt;He only lifted them up.&lt;/strong&gt; [emphasis mine]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we believe Jesus was who he said he was, and God is love, then it seems only logical that he would indeed want to encourage and lift us up.  Laughter is a great way to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastEditorUserId="626" LastEditDate="2012-07-03T18:36:33.503" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T18:36:33.503" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3317" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3318" CreationDate="2011-09-23T19:09:07.420" Score="14" ViewCount="457" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1828/are-christians-friends-of-god&quot;&gt;Acts 1:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In my former book, &lt;strong&gt;Theophilus&lt;/strong&gt;, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who was he?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it also possible that, since Theophilus means, &lt;em&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1828/are-christians-friends-of-god&quot;&gt;friend of God&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, as Richard states, that Acts is written to &lt;strong&gt;all believers&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-03-18T22:02:59.647" Title="Who was Theophilus?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;acts&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3317" CreationDate="2011-09-23T19:10:16.540" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theophilus was the person addressed in both the Gospel of Luke and in the Acts of the Apostles (ie &quot;Luke&quot; and &quot;Acts&quot;).  The identity of Theophilus is unknown.  Per &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_%28biblical%29&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; there are multiple possible options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He was a specific individual &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theories say that it could have possibly referred to a Jewish priest, a Roman official, or a lawyer friend of Luke's.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They were a group of people&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, it would be addressed to a generic group of academics (since it was an honorary title, it would apply to anyone reading it--academics of the day).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was a generic person &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea is that Luke was writing to someone unknown to him, or just writing to a generic person so that the letter could be used for anyone and everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, we don't really know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we do know, however, is that &lt;em&gt;Theophilus&lt;/em&gt;, in the original Greek, means &quot;friend of God&quot;, &quot;loved by God&quot;, or &quot;loving God&quot;.  This was a common name back then, but it was also an honorary title used among the academics of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_%28biblical%29&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has much more info on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-23T19:15:27.503" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T19:15:27.503" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2011-09-23T19:11:54.657" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sadly, there is no record of Jesus laughing. The closest is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:21&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Luke 10:21&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd imagine that, when He was &lt;em&gt;full of joy&lt;/em&gt;, at the very least He had a big smile on His face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; apparently Jesus thinks laughing is a blessing; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:21&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Luke 6:21b&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:23&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Two verses further&lt;/a&gt;, He even commends jumping for joy!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-03-18T19:41:56.413" LastActivityDate="2012-03-18T19:41:56.413" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2011-09-23T23:08:12.473" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think baptism by water is more of an analogy for the people of the time, who were used to the idea of salvation by works, rather than a true requirement.  Reproducing John chapter 3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 Jesus replied, &amp;quot;Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 &amp;quot;How can someone be born when they are old?&amp;quot; Nicodemus asked. &amp;quot;Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 Jesus answered, &amp;quot;Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Jesus is essentially conflating baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit.  From his references to wind and spirit, and due to the omnipotence of God, I find it very strange that anyone believes physical baptism is necessary for salvation.  Baptism is spiritual, and water merely a symbol.  The act of purposefully undergoing baptism is purposefully inviting the Holy Spirit to act on you.  That purposeful invitation is what is important, not the ceremony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is even more clear if you focus on Matthew chapter 22:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;36 &amp;quot;Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;37 Jesus replied: &amp;quot;'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under the new covenant, works don't matter.  God simply does not care if you get dunked in a pool at church on Sunday, he cares whether your heart is true.  Luke 13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, &amp;quot;There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 The Lord answered him, &amp;quot;You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus broke the laws of the Old Testament but it didn't matter because he did the right thing.  Jesus makes clear over and over that doing the right thing involves helping people and honoring God.  It never involves silly rituals like slaughtering goats at the altar or sprinkling water on a baby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus walked around Israel forgiving sins with no mention of baptism.  Salvation and forgiveness do not come from baptism.  With death imminent and no chance of a following baptism, Jesus saves a criminal on the cross in Luke 23:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: &amp;quot;Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;40 But the other criminal rebuked him. &amp;quot;Don’t you fear God,&amp;quot; he said, &amp;quot;since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;42 Then he said, &amp;quot;Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;43 Jesus answered him, &amp;quot;Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that is required for Jesus to make you blameless before God is sincere belief.  Baptism is irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="733" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-23T23:08:12.473" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3322" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-23T23:48:35.600" Score="15" ViewCount="783" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is currently a debate in my country, Australia, about gay marriage. Amongst those who believe homosexual sex is wrong, there is a split with regards the correct approach. Some say that Christians should not seek to legislate their values onto non-Christians. Others say that Christians, as members of a democracy, have every right to seek to have their values legislated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which approach is correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="734" LastEditorUserId="6520" LastEditDate="2020-05-27T11:38:54.753" LastActivityDate="2020-05-27T11:38:54.753" Title="How should Christians participate in a democracy?" Tags="&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;politics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-06-03T06:23:32.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="3323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3322" CreationDate="2011-09-24T00:00:06.820" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I look at it from a different point-of-view.  Should another religious group, perhaps animists, or we could go with a non-religious group such as vegans, push their views, if they had the majority?  So, if the majority of those in power were vegans, and they passed a law banning any meat or products from animals not willingly given (so honey for example would be banned), would that be right of them to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can comfortably feel that it would be right then you can continue with this thought, if you think it is wrong, then it would be wrong for Christians also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, so, it is right, now we can look at Jesus' examples and the apostles.  I would like someone to point out where Jesus or the Apostles ever forced their beliefs on anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus didn't feel it was necessary, but if you can argue that he was wrong to not do that, that he should have attacked people that weren't going to live as He felt they should, then perhaps forcing your beliefs on others is acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think stating that Jesus was wrong, and we will correct it is risky, so I believe that people will choose to come to God on their own, perhaps based on the examples of extreme love shown by Christians, but if Christians are seen as hate-filled, intolerant and ramming beliefs down the throats of others, then that will push people away from God, and we will be held accountable for our actions, as our non-Christlike example may have been an influence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, you do have every right to express your opinion, as long as you do it with love.  So, read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 13&lt;/a&gt;, then think about what you were saying, and see if what you stated was done with love. If it wasn't then immediately apologize for the mistake you made, as that was a commandment by Christ.  We should always be holding Christ up for everyone to see His love by how we love those that hate us and those that live in ways that we feel are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T05:46:14.913" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T05:46:14.913" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3150" CreationDate="2011-09-24T00:05:28.843" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can look at this article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm&lt;/a&gt;, and get a rough idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I expect that the numbers will be lower now, in terms of those believing, since so many vocal Christians are so anti-science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature&#xA;  by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: &quot;Leading Scientists Still Reject&#xA;  God.&quot; Nature, 1998; 394, 313.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and&#xA;  1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a&#xA;  questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in &quot;a&#xA;  God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind&quot; and in&#xA;  &quot;personal immortality&quot;. Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in&#xA;  the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the&#xA;  [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical&#xA;  sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and&#xA;  astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The results were as follows (figures in %):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD          1914   1933    1998&#xA;&#xA; Personal belief                 27.7    15       7.0&#xA; Personal disbelief              52.7    68      72.2&#xA; Doubt or agnosticism            20.9    17      20.8&#xA;&#xA; BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY           1914    1933    1998&#xA;&#xA; Personal belief                 35.2    18       7.9&#xA; Personal disbelief              25.4    53      76.7&#xA; Doubt or agnosticism            43.7    29      23.3 &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Note: The&#xA;  1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in&#xA;  the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T00:05:28.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3322" CreationDate="2011-09-24T01:28:02.103" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we believed that Christianity was &lt;em&gt;merely&lt;/em&gt; a good way to live, then there might be a justification for simply adhering to a &amp;quot;live and let live&amp;quot; philosophy such as it pertains to society and social issues.  But it's not; rather Christianity is the expression of God's plan of salvation for a fallen creation, and our moral code is the expression of God's &lt;em&gt;perfect&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;absolute&lt;/em&gt; moral law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, we are called to be the &amp;quot;salt of the earth&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;light of the world&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:13-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salt is a natural preservative, slowing down the spoiling of food - it's not about changing the taste of the food it's about inhibiting the speed at which it rots.  Additionally, a light dispels darkness - where there is light, darkness ceases to reign and dominate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The effect of Christians on society as a whole should be to improve society as a whole.  This mandate is, therefore, a command to have an impact on society, drawing general society to be a better reflection of God and his law, not simply a call to evangelize.  Part of that is to have a social and political impact on society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, there is ample evidence in scripture that entirely reprobate societies are subject to God's judgement (witness Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noahdic flood, the Canaanites, etc).  It is also worthwhile to examine the rise and fall of all empires in history; nearly all mark the end of their influence with reprobate societies, in particular of a sexual nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from that, Christians have historically been deeply involved in society and social issues.  This is because Christians &amp;quot;impose&amp;quot; their &amp;quot;values&amp;quot; onto those around them - specifically that all humans have inherent dignity and inherent &amp;quot;God-given&amp;quot; rights in keeping with that dignity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I would say that Christians have a moral duty and obligation to have an impact on their society.  Being involved in social-political issues, including law-making, is a part of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that being said, we do have to be careful of exactly what stand to take and how we go about taking it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-06-02T20:52:37.900" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3326" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-24T02:09:11.693" Score="8" ViewCount="3912" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2076:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalms 76:11 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Make vows to the LORD your God and fulfill them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many other passages in the old testament as well we hear about vows and fulfilling it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In New testament we read in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2018:18%20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 18:18 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae &lt;em&gt;because of a vow he had taken&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also we read in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%205:33-34%20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mathew 5:33-35 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; we see reference of vow: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are vows? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are they  relevant even today? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For what, we need to make a vow? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why would have Paul vowed to cut his hair? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why we do not hear about such vows these days in churches?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T10:53:18.583" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T02:53:46.137" Title="What are vows? Are they relevant even today?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T15:26:13.123" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3150" CreationDate="2011-09-24T02:49:33.780" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't accept this information as 100% accurate as it was taken from Wikipedia; &quot;Level_of_support_for_evolution&quot;, as follows;&#xA;'One 1987 estimate found that &quot;700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science&quot;.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More generally, the following statistic was interesting, as was the accompanying article, &#xA;&quot;16% of US Science Teachers are Creationists&quot;. This article can be found at the following website;&#xA;www.newscientist.com/.../dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.html&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you are searching for some fascinating scientific debate for creationism, I suggest viewing Ben Steins's &quot;Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed&quot; dvd. There are many interviews with respected scientists who believe in Intelligent Design; two of which I have named below and have added a brief biology for each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;David Berlinski&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recent articles by Dr. Berlinski have been featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. Two of his articles, &quot;On the Origins of the Mind&quot; (November 2004) and &quot;What Brings a World into Being&quot; (March 2001) have been anthologized in The Best American Science Writing 2005 , edited by Alan Lightman (Harper Perennial), and The Best American Science Writing 2002, edited by Jesse Cohen, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Doug Axe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Received his Ph.D from Caltech and did post-doc research at Cambridge University, and published some of his findings in the peer-reviewed Journal of Molecular Biology. He was trying to see whether it is easy or hard to shuffle amino acids randomly in order to make functional proteins. Those JMB publications show that the number of functional amino acid sequences is tiny, compared to the number of possible sequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doug Axe’s research likewise studies genes that it turns out show great evidence of design. Axe studied the sensitivities of protein function to mutations. In these “mutational sensitivity” tests, Dr. Axe mutated certain amino acids in various proteins, or studied the differences between similar proteins, to see how mutations or changes affected their ability to function properly. He found that protein function was highly sensitive to mutation, and that proteins are not very tolerant to changes in their amino acid sequences. In other words, when you mutate, tweak, or change these proteins slightly, they stopped working. In one of his papers, he thus concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences,” and that functional protein folds “may be as low as 1 in 10^77.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T02:49:33.780" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2136" CreationDate="2011-09-24T03:56:14.617" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic Tradition treats Job as an inspired parable and, like lots of the Bible, take this and the assumption that it has multiple authors for granted (not at the expense of its divine inspiration). So... I think it's not a particularly impious statement to say that Job probably wasn't a written story until well after the dynastic period and into the time of exile and since it has the air of historical fiction, certainly wasn't set in the future.  Job was also was referred to in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PNF.HTM#4O&quot;&gt;Sirach&lt;/a&gt; and by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PRM.HTM#BL&quot;&gt;Ezekiel&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There two things that make it likely that Job was intended to take place in the time of the post-flood Patriarchs (Abraham and Isaac).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job lived in the land of Uz who was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/genesis/10-23.htm&quot;&gt;grandson of Shem&lt;/a&gt; (therefore after the flood)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job's wealth and lands closely resembled Abraham's (tons of sheep and oxen), so he's need to be a similar sort of man occupying a similar sort of space.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See Karel Van Der Toorn - The Ancient Near Eastern Literary Dialogue for more information than I care to repeat and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08413a.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Enyclopedia's entry on Job&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T03:56:14.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2136" CreationDate="2011-09-24T04:01:06.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;On Job 1:1, it is said: &quot;There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job.&quot; Uz may have been refering to The Uz, who was the son of Aram and a direct descendent of Shem. Or, Uz might have been a variation to the word Oz, which means east. In Job 1:3, it is said that Job was the greatest man of all East.&#xA;Most scholars will date Job in 4th and 6th BCE/BC. However, I look at it differently. If you look at the verses close enough, then the Historical background would be that it is sometime at Patriarchal Age, which is at the time of Abraham, Issiac and Jacob, and the generation of Jacob seems to be most close. In BCE/BC of 1800.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Creation of the World - ????&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Noah's Era - ????&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Abraham's birth - BC 2166&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jacob's birth - BC 2006&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Story of Job - ????(most likely BC 1800)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Birth of Joseph - BC 1915&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Birth of Moses - BC 1527&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exodus - BC 1446&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;David crowned as the King - BC 1010&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T04:06:27.213" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T04:06:27.213" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3326" CreationDate="2011-09-24T04:08:51.250" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I suggest you read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12245/12245-h/12245-h.htm#A_DEFENCE_OF_RASH_VOWS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Defense of Rash Vows&lt;/a&gt; by G.K. Chesterton for more enlightement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Modern sages offer to the lover, with an ill-flavoured grin, the largest liberties and the fullest irresponsibility; but they do not respect him as the old Church respected him; they do not write his oath upon the heavens, as the record of his highest moment. They give him every liberty except the liberty to sell his liberty, which is the only one that he wants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But here's the gist of it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Married couples make a vow to each other, with Christ as their witness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Priests and others make vows to the Catholic Church or consecrate themselves to Mary &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.consecration.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(as I have)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Other vows can be of a more mundane purpose (I promise to eat my weight in kelp), but still important to keep if for no other reason than, 'to thine own self be true'&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The man who makes a vow makes an appointment with himself at some distant time or place. The danger of it is that himself should not keep the appointment. And in modern times this terror of one's self, of the weakness and mutability of one's self, has perilously increased, and is the real basis of the objection to vows of any kind. A modern man refrains from swearing to count the leaves on every third tree in Holland Walk, not because it is silly to do so (he does many sillier things), but because he has a profound conviction that before he had got to the three hundred and seventy-ninth leaf on the first tree he would be excessively tired of the subject and want to go home to tea. In other words, we fear that by that time he will be, in the common but hideously significant phrase, another man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Making a vow gives an individual the liberty to constrain themselves.  Modernity rejects this notion because it rejects obedience (even to yourself) and it rejects truth (even being honest with yourself).  So, in the sense that no one will take your vow seriously, yes they're irrelevant today.   But to the Christian, who does not live in accord with the age, vows are very important and they can help us to be obedient to the Church and to Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good vows will keep our wills as closely aligned to God's as possible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T02:53:46.137" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T02:53:46.137" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3326" CreationDate="2011-09-24T04:50:30.807" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to dictionary in the NKJ Bible, Vine's Expository Reference Edition,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A. Verb nadar&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;to vow,&quot; i.e., to make a promise to another, with sanctions for not completing the promise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;B. Noun neder,&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;vow; votive offering.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vow has two basic forms, the unconditional and the conditional.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The unconditional is an &quot;oath&quot; where someone binds himself without expecting anything in return, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20116:14&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 116:14&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The conditional &quot;vow&quot; generally had a preceding clause before the oath giving the conditions which had to come to pass before the &quot;vow&quot; became valid, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2028:20-22&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 28:20-22&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2030&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Numbers 30&lt;/a&gt; deals with the law concerning vows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2018:18&amp;amp;version=NKJ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 18:18 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt; which states &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Life Application Study Bible, KJV, gives the following explanation for this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This vow Paul took was probably a temporary Nazarite vow that ended with shaving of the head and offering the hair as a sarifice (Numbers 6:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%206:18&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Numbers 6:18 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt; reads; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the tabernacle of meeting, and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Old Testament allows for &quot;redeeming&quot; the &quot;vow&quot;; by payment of an equal amount in silver, a person, a field, or a house dedicated by &quot;vow&quot; to the Lord could be redeemed, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2027:1-25&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leviticus 27:1-25&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This practice declined in Jesus' time. The &quot;votive offering,&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%207:16&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezra 7:16&lt;/a&gt;, is also a kind of thank offering, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nah%201:15&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nahum 1:15&lt;/a&gt;. Here even Gentiles expressed their thanks to God presumably with a gift promised upon condition of deliverance, cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2021:1-3&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Numbers 21:1-3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one chooses to take a vow before God to promise to &quot;love and cherish&quot; during a wedding ceremony, for instance, this is not a conditional vow. One isn't asking for something in return, but simply making a promise before and to God. These types of vows do have a place these days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Jesus warns against oaths in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:33-36&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew  5:33-36&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conditional vows and/or oaths, those vows made expecting something in return would seem contrary to a true heart of worship and love for God. My belief is that God does not want conditional praise, conditional worship, conditional love or conditional promises. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastEditorUserId="146" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T10:53:29.610" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T10:53:29.610" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3332" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-24T06:15:49.000" Score="10" ViewCount="403" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone give me a concise summary of Martin Luther's &quot;Two Kingdoms&quot; theology, and also provide some references back to his original works on the subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_kingdoms_doctrine&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Two kingdoms doctrine&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="734" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-01-01T15:38:07.760" LastActivityDate="2020-01-01T15:42:10.650" Title="Luther's &quot;Two Kingdoms&quot; Theology" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;politics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="3333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="378" CreationDate="2011-09-24T06:25:17.147" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;CARM has a good article on this topic, &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/what-baptism-holy-spirit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What is baptism in the Holy Spirit?&lt;/a&gt;, wherein Matt states that many claim a secondary experience of the Holy Spirit after conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many charismatic denominations believe in such a secondary experience, while other denominations claim you receive the Holy Spirit at salvation, and there is no such secondary experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="736" LastEditorUserId="736" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T06:43:41.600" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T06:43:41.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3334" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-24T06:42:26.190" Score="13" ViewCount="3438" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people,&#xA;  but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever&#xA;  speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever&#xA;  speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this&#xA;  age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the KJV, this is called &quot;blasphemy against the Holy Ghost&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this refer to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: I have taken a look at a related question(&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/are-there-unforgivable-sins&quot;&gt;Are there unforgivable sins?&lt;/a&gt;), but I would like more answers to this specific question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="736" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2019-02-10T03:01:31.680" Title="What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;blasphemy&gt;&lt;unforgivable-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-07-21T06:09:53.513" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3334" CreationDate="2011-09-24T07:18:13.560" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand &lt;em&gt;blasphemy against the Spirit&lt;/em&gt;, one first needs to understand what &lt;em&gt;blasphemy&lt;/em&gt; is. The Catechism of the Catholic Church &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a2.htm#2148&quot;&gt;defines it thusly&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Blasphemy&lt;/em&gt; is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those &quot;who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.&quot; The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, it's going against God's will and treating Him with anything less than the respect and love He deserves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit, being one part of the Holy Trinity, is what confers the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm&quot;&gt;gift of grace&lt;/a&gt; upon people. So, to blaspheme against the Spirit is to willfully reject God's grace and forgiveness. Or as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm#1864&quot;&gt;the Catechism puts it&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.&quot; There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The analogy I've heard is that it's to know God exists and know His power, but to believe you can do better. If you're familiar with the story of the fall of Lucifer/Satan, it's essentially his actions in a nutshell: he knew God exists and he knew God's divine grace, yet he openly rejected it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And thats why it's so unforgivable: God can't forgive you or save you if you reject His ability to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T18:30:55.957" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T18:30:55.957" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="378" CreationDate="2011-09-24T07:29:23.607" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 3:11&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who&#xA;is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He&#xA;will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three experiences that you receive from the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Stage One: Guidance&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is guiding you, but is not within you. This can be considered like a conscience or something. Notice the words of this passage. You first come to know the Truth. This is prior to receiving the promise, you must first know what the promise is. This is the first step in your growth with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:17&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither&#xA;sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and&#xA;will be in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Stage Two: Indwelling&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second stage with the Holy Spirit is actually when the Spirit of Truth makes His home within you. This is the point of your salvation, that you are marked with the promise from the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imagine that this stage is going to be a very debatable topic for most. As this is the reason for the separation between congregations IMO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it. When you begin to Obey Christ, is when you begin to accept Him as your Lord. At this stage in your life, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit begin to indwell in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:23&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father&#xA;will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:16&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love.&#xA;Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:15&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[ Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit ] “If you love me, keep my commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you can see, to obey God is the beginning of true love and joy. These are also fruits of the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Stage Three: The Baptism of the Spirit&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last stage of the Holy Spirit &amp;quot;experience&amp;quot; (for lack of a better word) is the baptism. This is not the same baptism as you received with water, as Mathew 3:11 points out. The baptism with water was the baptism for repentance. But the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the fire. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 3:16&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:33&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 1:5&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2011:16&amp;amp;version=31&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 11:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 1:8&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy&#xA;Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many scholars believe that you must wait until you are baptized with the Holy Spirit before you should begin to go out and preach the word of God. This understanding comes from the following verse. Keep in mind that Jesus disciples had received the Holy Spirit prior to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;read it in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;context here&lt;/a&gt;, but I'm going to shorten it up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 1&lt;/strong&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for&#xA;the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5&#xA;For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized&#xA;with the Holy Spirit.”...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you;&#xA;and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and&#xA;Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see how we can come to the conclusion that we will not receive power and authority from God until He has baptized us with the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T07:29:23.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3322" CreationDate="2011-09-24T08:01:49.007" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this has to do with &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1148/60&quot;&gt;whether biblical laws should apply to non-Christians or not&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:12-13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; God judges those outside. &quot;Purge the evil person from among you.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we should not seek to judge outsiders. Not even by democratically passing laws that aren't meaningful to non-believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we should seek the good of our country.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jer%2029:7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 29:7 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it comes down to a personal interpretation of which biblical laws are good for the country as a whole, and which are just for the edification of Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it makes sense to democratically uphold Christian morals as long as we have them. But once they're lost, there's not much sense to try and bring them back. In the process we'd judge a million people that don't believe in Christ either way and are not saved no matter what laws they have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, we should democratically seek the good of our country. So the questions for each individual matter are,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What effect would this have on the country as a whole?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Would we be judging non-believers? How much?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;very important&lt;/strong&gt; point to remember in our actions is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%206:12&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 6:12 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not to fight against other people, but the forces that keep them separated from God. God is our father, and theirs too -- they just don't know it. So our main objective should be to bring these people to God rather than pass judgement on their lifestyle. As &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/2019520#2019520&quot;&gt;@Flimzy put it&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;em&gt;it's far more effective to love our gay friends than it is to pass laws about them&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T10:27:38.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3332" CreationDate="2011-09-24T08:23:37.307" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without having understood the doctrine of the two kingdoms, it's not possible to understand Luther's theology in its full extent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a misunderstanding to think that by the &lt;em&gt;justification by faith alone&lt;/em&gt; all laws have lost their importance. As short as possible: a Christian lives under two completly different kingdoms, where the one is &quot;God's kingdom under Christ&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; – here he lives by faith in the righteousness &lt;em&gt;coram Deo&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; – and the other is the world's kingdom – here he is man or woman, young or old, lord, servant, peasant, citizen etc.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; and has to do good works. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the human being is both: Christian person and secular person. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see: the accusation, that Luther's justification by faith alone shrinks the room for the works that have to be done by us, is a misunderstanding. Especially Luther's theology shows people, how overfull of opportunities for good works the world and the way, which they follow in the world by faith, is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: &quot;Gottes Reich unter Christo&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2: before God&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3: WA 32, 440, 2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4: &quot;Christperson&quot; and &quot;Weltperson&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="70" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T15:05:59.980" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T15:05:59.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3339" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-24T13:07:11.390" Score="2" ViewCount="896" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible (particularly the Old Testament) makes many predictions about the future, often regarding nations or peoples quite distant from those making the prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we ignore any arguments about the date of authorship and assume that the prophecy is genuine and predated the event it is describing, which prophecies have been fulfilled according to the generally accepted historical record?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example would be in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/ezekiel/26-12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 26:12&lt;/a&gt; regarding the city of Tyre:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is an uncontroversial statement to say that Alexander the Great &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;threw the houses of mainland Tyre into the sea&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="704" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T13:32:50.893" Title="Which prophecies have definitely been fulfilled?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2011-09-24T14:19:14.770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3339" CreationDate="2011-09-24T13:32:50.893" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several are listed at this site: &lt;a href=&quot;http://100prophecies.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://100prophecies.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The site does include several prophecies that are supported primarily by the Biblical record, but several include events that meet the criteria you asked for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed Bible prophecy:&#xA;  Matthew 24:1-2 Prophecy written: During the first century Prophecy&#xA;  fulfilled: 70 AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Matthew 24:1-2, Jesus prophesied that the Temple of Jerusalem would&#xA;  be destroyed and that its destruction would be so complete that not&#xA;  one stone would be left standing on top of another. His prophecy was&#xA;  fulfilled about 40 years later when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and&#xA;  tore down the Temple. The destruction was so complete that even the&#xA;  foundations of the Temple were dug up, according to Josephus, an&#xA;  historian who wrote about the destruction&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus prophesied that the Jews would be exiled Bible prophecy: Luke&#xA;  21:24 Prophecy written: During the first century Prophecy fulfilled:&#xA;  70 AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Luke 21:24, Jesus said that Jerusalem would be trampled upon by&#xA;  foreigners and that the people of Israel would be forced into exile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;About 40 years after Jesus delivered that prophecy, it began to find&#xA;  fulfillment. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70, and again&#xA;  in the year 135.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During the first destruction, Josephus, an historian who lived during&#xA;  the first century, claimed that 1.1 million Jews died and that&#xA;  hundreds of thousands were forced out of the country and into exile&#xA;  and slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During the second destruction, Cassius Dio, an historian who lived&#xA;  during the second century, claimed that 580,000 Jews were killed, and&#xA;  that 50 fortified towns and 985 villages were destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The exiled Jews were taken to countries throughout the Roman Empire&#xA;  and eventually scattered and re-scattered throughout the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Daniel foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple Bible&#xA;  prophecy: Daniel 9:24-26 Prophecy written: About 530 BC Prophecy&#xA;  fulfilled: 70 AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During the time of Daniel, who lived about 2600 years ago, the&#xA;  Babylonians invaded Judah (the southern part of the land of Israel)&#xA;  and took many Jews, including Daniel, as captives to Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Babylonians also destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the Temple,&#xA;  in 586 B.C.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Daniel 9:24-26, Daniel delivers a prophecy that Jerusalem and the&#xA;  Temple would be destroyed, again. Within these verses, Daniel provides&#xA;  a chronology by which certain events would occur. First, the Jews&#xA;  would return from captivity and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple.&#xA;  Afterwards, an &quot;anointed one,&quot; or Messiah, would appear, but he would&#xA;  be rejected. Then, Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These events later played out during the century in which Jesus had&#xA;  announced that he was the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Edom would be toppled and humbled Bible prophecy: Jeremiah 49:16&#xA;  Prophecy written: Sometime between 626-586 BC Prophecy fulfilled:&#xA;  About 100 BC&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Jeremiah 49:16, the prophet said that Edom, a long-time enemy of&#xA;  Israel, would be destroyed. Edom's capital city, Petra, was carved out&#xA;  of a mountain side and had great natural defenses. Nonetheless, it was&#xA;  destroyed and the kingdom of Edom no longer exists. Today, Petra is&#xA;  part of Jordan. The city was conquered by the Romans in the year 106&#xA;  AD but flourished again shortly after that. A rival city, Palmyra,&#xA;  eventually took most of the trade away from Petra and Petra began to&#xA;  decline. Petra gradually fell into ruin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also this site: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which lists some more, such as...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy&#xA;  seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the&#xA;  rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to&#xA;  let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of&#xA;  ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150&#xA;  years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of&#xA;  these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years&#xA;  before the Jews were taken into exile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine&#xA;  suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to&#xA;  the time of this building project as &quot;the last days,&quot; that is, the&#xA;  time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of&#xA;  Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948,&#xA;  and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in&#xA;  the locations and in the sequence predicted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T13:32:50.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3341" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3342" CreationDate="2011-09-24T16:08:16.190" Score="6" ViewCount="55503" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look carefully at the scripture, there are instances were some people fast to pray and/or to express their sorrow. However, the length of the fast seems to be  astronomical; some people like Moses has fasted for about 40 days:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 34:28: 28 Moses stayed there with the Lord forty days and forty nights, and during that time he did not eat food or drink water. And Moses wrote the words of the Agreement—the Ten Commandments—on the stone tablets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Jesus also fasted for about same length of time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 4:1-2:  1 Then the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2 Jesus fasted for forty days and nights. After this, he was very hungry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it physically possible for us to do the same? I sincerely doubt that most people would die before 25 days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T19:24:40.143" LastActivityDate="2014-09-25T01:30:26.137" Title="Should  we be able fast like the fasts described in Bible?" Tags="&lt;fasting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-09-25T02:18:47.400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3341" CreationDate="2011-09-24T16:14:51.160" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Strictly medically speaking... Depending on your health, and the amount of stored body fat/muscle mass that you have when beginning to fast, it is physically possible to fast for more than 40 days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per this article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/live-without-food-and-water1.htm&quot;&gt;http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/live-without-food-and-water1.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Medically speaking, most doctors agree that healthy humans can go up&#xA;  to eight weeks without food as long as they have water. People have&#xA;  gone longer and been fine, and people have starved to death in less&#xA;  time. Being strong and in good physical shape can help you survive&#xA;  longer, but so does having extra body fat. The body stores energy&#xA;  needed to live in the form of fat, carbohydrates and proteins. The&#xA;  carbs are the first thing to be used up without more food coming in.&#xA;  The fat goes next, which explains why people with more of it can&#xA;  survive longer. Then the proteins go. If you get to the point that&#xA;  your body is using up proteins, basically the body itself, then you're&#xA;  in bad shape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eight weeks comes out to 56 days, of course, which is above and beyone even the 40 days you mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for going without water for this time period, medical science says no, we can't live nearly that long.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same article says this on the next page:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Assuming you're in reasonable shape and in ideal conditions -- that&#xA;  is, not in the heat or cold and not exerting, a human can probably&#xA;  live for about 3 to 5 days without any water. Healthier humans can&#xA;  live another day or so longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Moses likely had divine intervention.  Of course, that can't be proved outside of the Biblical account, so that would make the question unanswerable using objective criteria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T16:20:11.980" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T16:20:11.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3343" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3347" CreationDate="2011-09-24T16:23:48.490" Score="8" ViewCount="233" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Christians stop the practice of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bris&quot;&gt;Berith&lt;/a&gt; (Brith, Bris?) immediately and based on which scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T11:00:43.487" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T22:07:38.757" Title="Did Christians stop the practice of Berith (Brith, Bris?) immediately?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;circumcision&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3341" CreationDate="2011-09-24T17:05:43.283" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No. It is not possible for us to fast without food and water for fourty days in normal circumstances.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will explain the answer as below. I base my answer on 'Celebration of Discipline' by Richard Foster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Bible the normal means of fasting involves abstaining from all food, solid or liquid, but not from water.  In the forty day fast of Jesus (Luke 4), we are told  that '&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He ate nothing during those days&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 4:2a (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and toward the end of fast, he was hungry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and at the end of them he was hungry. Luke 4:2b (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This indicates that he was abstaining from food, not water. I believe this is what usually involved in a fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see partial fasts as well &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no&#xA;  lotions at all until the three weeks were over. Daniel 10:3 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also we can see some instances of absolute fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do&#xA;  not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants&#xA;  will fast as you do. Esther 4:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see fast as 3 days and nights without even water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also fasted this way immediately after his encounter with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. Acts 9:9 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally it is accepted that human body cannot go without water much more than three days. That would mean both Moses and Elijah would have engaged in supernatural fast in their fast as  described in Due 9:9 and 1 King 19:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I went up on the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets&#xA;  of the covenant that the LORD had made with you, I stayed on the&#xA;  mountain forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank no&#xA;  water. (Due 9:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled&#xA;  forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of&#xA;  God. 1 King 19:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both these cases we can see that a divine intervention in their life. So I believe we also should not undertake any supernatural fast, without clear command from God personally to us. So you are right, we should not undertake absolute fasts for more than 3 days unless God asks you to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now many who practiced fasting regularly starting with a meal or two and extended over time, say that fasting from food for fourty days is possible. (Source: Celebration of Discipline)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="140" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T19:27:03.760" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T19:27:03.760" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3343" CreationDate="2011-09-24T17:15:06.763" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This was a topic of dispute in early Christianity, between believers who had come from the Jewish faith, and gentiles. The issue relates to whether Christianity is part of Judaism - which would mean that converts had to be circumcised - or whether it is an independent faith. If it is not needed for adult converts, then it would not be applicable for children either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 15:1-21 records a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;council, held in Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt;, to decide. This probably took place in 50 or 51AD. Peter said (v7-11, NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the council agreed to write to Gentile believers, saying (v28-29):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That did not entirely settle the issue, since it says nothing about whether &lt;em&gt;Jewish&lt;/em&gt; converts could or should observe the law of Moses, and in addition there continued to be many &amp;quot;Judaizing&amp;quot; Christians that required converts to be circumcised and follow the Torah. Historically speaking, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, and the Roman slaughter and dispersal of Jews, dramatically reduced their numbers and influence. Though groups such as the Ebionites continued to exist for several centuries after that, &amp;quot;mainstream&amp;quot; Christianity no longer required circumcision at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul writes about circumcision at great length in his letters, especially in Galatians but also in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and elsewhere. For example, Romans 2:25-29 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His theological case is that circumcision is a sign of faith, but it is not the same as actually having faith. For Paul, the outward symbol is unnecessary. More generally, one of his major themes is that adherence to the Law does not guarantee salvation (see Galatians 5, for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T22:07:38.757" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3348" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3360" CreationDate="2011-09-24T19:41:30.957" Score="16" ViewCount="3342" Body="&lt;p&gt;They don't have churches: they have Kingdom Halls (though it's not wrong to refer to a Kingdom Hall as a type of church).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They don't have hymns: they have Kingdom Songs (though it's not wrong to refer to a Kingdom Song as a hymn).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They don't have priests; they have elders (maybe this one is more understandable: they're not alone in having elders, and not having priests is a theological point).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They divide the Bible into the &quot;Hebrew (and Aramaic) Scriptures&quot; and the &quot;Christian Greek Scriptures&quot; (not just the &quot;Greek Scriptures&quot;, to prevent possible confusion with the &lt;em&gt;Septuagint&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are any of these differences actually theologically meaningful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-03-13T04:08:16.747" LastActivityDate="2018-03-31T20:13:32.400" Title="Do Jehovah's Witnesses use different language for theological reasons?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3349" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-24T19:44:31.110" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The group known as the Jehovah's Witnesses was founded in the 1870s. They originally called themselves Bible Students, but they changed to their current name in 1931.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-06-28T12:55:40.170" LastActivityDate="2014-06-28T12:55:40.170" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3350" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-24T19:44:31.110" Score="0" Body="The group known as the Jehovah's Witnesses was founded in the 1870s. They originally called themselves Bible Students, but they changed to their current name in 1931." OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-06-28T12:55:32.650" LastActivityDate="2014-06-28T12:55:32.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3351" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-24T20:51:36.883" Score="5" ViewCount="6199" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/374/what-is-the-purpose-of-prayer&quot;&gt;What is the purpose of Prayer?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the question says, why do people pray if God knows everything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user729" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T09:35:06.050" Title="Why pray if God is omniscient?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-09-25T22:13:38.643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3352" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3359" CreationDate="2011-09-24T21:20:21.073" Score="3" ViewCount="374" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some laws don't evolve or change, some laws are just objectively wrong&#xA;  to begin with. Laws and court rulings providing for abortion, same sex&#xA;  'marriage' and no fault divorce are laws that require immediate action&#xA;  and can never be followed by any Christian if it forces them to&#xA;  violate their conscience. We should prefer martyrdom. – &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2259/are-christians-bound-to-the-laws-of-their-country/2270#2270&quot;&gt;Comment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can understand the concept of civil disobedience to laws you disagree with (and such civil disobedience appeared to be the context of this discussion), but in what sense can that apply here? You can express your disapproval of marriage equality by the act of civil disobedience of ... not marrying someone of the same sex? I'm confused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make a serious question out of my genuine bemusement, I'll ask, &lt;strong&gt;What should a Christian do when the state permits something the church does not?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the state prohibits something the church permits, the answer seems to be, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/128/the-bible-seems-to-allow-polygamy-why-doesnt-the-church/1206#1206&quot;&gt;Don't do it&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the state prohibits something the church mandates (such as proselytism), there's probably a clear case for civil disobedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ditto when the church prohibits something the state mandates (such as serving in the armed forces).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when the church prohibits something the state permits, it's less obvious to me. My answer when I was religious would have been the same as above (though for different reasons): &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2112/does-no-part-of-this-world-mean-no-involvement-in-politics&quot;&gt;Don't do it&lt;/a&gt;. But others seem to recommend civil disobedience in this area. I'm not sure what form such civil disobedience is imagined to take. How can one civilly disobey being &lt;em&gt;allowed&lt;/em&gt; to do something? By stopping other people doing it? By force?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; This question is similar to, &lt;em&gt;but not the same as&lt;/em&gt; the question which triggered it. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3322/how-should-christians-participate-in-a-democracy&quot;&gt;That question&lt;/a&gt; was assuming that all action would be within the democratic process (political campaigning, pressure groups, and, ultimately, voting at the ballot box). However, the comment which sparked this question arose within a context of civil disobedience, and I simply can't understand how civil disobedience is supposed to apply in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T09:54:39.507" Title="What should a Christian do when the state permits something the church does not?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T15:26:25.907" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3334" CreationDate="2011-09-24T21:28:30.273" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mark's answer is certainly true, but there is more to the story.&#xA;To find out, we really need to read this passage in context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 12:22-37(NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;     29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;     30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;     33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if we look at the context of this, we can clearly see what provoked Jesus to say this. It was when the Pharisees were calling the work of the Spirit the work of beelzebul. When Jesus performed the miracle, they denied it as being from God. Jesus explained that 1. it was really stupid to say that the devil would cure somebody since he's the one that cursed them. and 2. The Holy Spirit is the one who was giving Him the power to drive out the deamons, and calling the work of the Holy Spirit evil, is the worst thing you could ever do and you will be held accountable for it.  He was making it clear that they had crossed the line from just discrediting Him (they thought he was only a man, so it was nothing for them to speak against Him), to blaspheming the Spirit of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in context, we see that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is when the Holy Spirit is doing something miraculous and you turn around and say that it is of the devil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorDisplayName="user37553" LastEditDate="2019-02-10T03:01:31.680" LastActivityDate="2019-02-10T03:01:31.680" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="3354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3351" CreationDate="2011-09-24T21:39:49.700" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is kind of like asking, &quot;Why should you tell your Dad you love him if he already knows?&quot; It's not about conveying information, it's about fellowship. God created us for fellowship with Him. We don't pray because God needs to be reminded of our needs, we are supposed to pray because we are to partner with Him to see His will be done. He choose not to force us to do His will, but that we are to choose to seek His will. Jesus told us to pray in this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pray in this way &quot;Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prayer recognizes God as our Father, who is holy, and seeks to put our mindset in alignment with His. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2011-09-24T21:49:55.480" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T21:49:55.480" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3351" CreationDate="2011-09-24T22:45:33.403" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why pray if God knows everything... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Well, think about what it is like when a child is growing up. Children ask their parents all sorts of questions. Would a child says &quot;I know my parents know everything, so I don't need to ask them.&quot; That wouldn't make sense. In order for the parent to guide the child and pass along wisdom, the child often asks questions. It's the same for us. We want God's help, we can't see where we are going, but He can. Just because He knows doesn't mean we will somehow get His wisdom. We must ask.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Prayer is not like a magic system, where we put in a prayer, and out pops an answer. Prayer is relationship. Think again about the child and the parent. The parent longs for the child to love him/her and spend time together. It's the same with God. You know in a conversation you talk, you wait for a response, then you respond. It's give and take. When you first start praying, you may feel like you are doing all the talking. But, keep at it...as you pray day after day and get into a relationship with our Father, you will begin to &quot;hear&quot; Him. Not really like an audible voice, but, a small quiet voice inside. If you get confused, remember, if the voice puts you down, it's not God. God encourages and loves us. Even when He corrects us, it's in a loving way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="738" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T09:35:06.050" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T09:35:06.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3351" CreationDate="2011-09-24T22:52:28.187" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Definitions first... Omniscience means &amp;quot;all knowing&amp;quot;, and this is how the Bible describes God. For example, consider the following Bible verses -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our Lord is great, vast in power; His understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For He looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (Job 28:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. (1 John 3:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So perhaps I can paraphrase your question like this... &amp;quot;Since God already knows what everyone needs, why do we need to ask Him for things in prayer?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's definitely true that God already knows all our needs. Jesus says exactly that -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;When you pray, don't babble like the idolaters, since they imagine they'll be heard for their many words. Don't be like them, because your Father knows the things you need before you ask Him.&amp;quot; (Matthew 6:7-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, Jesus goes on to teach the disciples how to pray, so He still thought it was vital. And James also points out the necessity of prayer when he tells Christians that -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;You do not have because you do not ask.&amp;quot; (James 4:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems that the Bible teaches that God knows all we need, yet He (sometimes at least) doesn't give us what we need until we ask. Why is that? I'm not sure if the Bible tells us exactly, but I believe it is because the act of praying, and then receiving answers to our prayers, actually increases our faith, and strengthens our relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="734" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-24T22:52:28.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3357" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-24T23:45:13.670" Score="10" ViewCount="8252" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is recorded in the Bible as doing many things directly: causing floods, making humans, etc. etc. - but chose to have his word written through people instead of imparting his wisdom directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like this opens the door for questioning authenticity, fidelity and so on, but I'm not seeing a benefit to counter that - what's the upside in going about it the way he did?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="585" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-05T11:03:41.240" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T11:03:41.240" Title="Why did God use humans to write the Bible?" Tags="&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:18:56.800" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3357" CreationDate="2011-09-24T23:54:14.187" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It all goes back to fellowship, God is a relational God. He does what is impossible for man, but he also asks us to do all that we are able to do. God planted a garden, but he had Adam take care of it, because it was within the abilities God gave him to accomplish that. Man couldn't create himself, so God did( but then he gave them the ability to reproduce, so they did). Man couldn't flood the world, so God did (but man could build a boat, so man did). Man could write down what God spoke, so God let man do that. We are expected to do everthing we can to the best of our abilities, and God steps in to do the things we can't do, not the things we won't do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible wasn't written at one time, it was written by many men writting about the times they were living in and what God was doing at the time. If God would have written everything ahead of time, then man probably would have choose not to follow the historical events. If God would have written it all after Christ, there would be no Jewish nation for Christ to be born into. So we are left exactly as God had planed it. Each writer, inspired by the Spirit of God, wrote the events they lived, in the times they lived in.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T00:01:03.493" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T00:01:03.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3352" CreationDate="2011-09-25T01:24:42.347" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with your assessment.  You really answered your own question - don't do it.  That's as far as the civil disobedience can go in that case - not participating yourself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything else (speaking out against the activity, protesting, etc) isn't civil disobedience, it's merely exercising your first amendment rights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only way that I can see such activity turning into civil disobedience is if the police show up and demand you stop protesting.  If you continue to speak out or protest at that point, you're exercising civil disobedience, not to the original law you're protesting, but to the attack on your first amendment rights.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not the same as exercising civil disobedience by refusing to partake in an unjust law, so it really doesn't apply to your question and we're back to just &quot;don't partake&quot; as the only possible act of civil disobedience, which isn't civil disobedience at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:  Drinking is legal in the U.S. as long as you're over 21 years old.  However, some Christians view drinking as sinful (or at least not profitable).  Not drinking isn't civil disobedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I ramble on here, I can only come to the conclusion that the answer to this question isn't so much based on logic or Christianity, but on the proper use of the English language, and the definition of the term &quot;disobedience&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put simply, to refuse to partake in something isn't disobedience unless an authority is attempting to force you to partake.  Therefore, when the law &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;allows&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; something, but does not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;require&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; it, then refusing to take part is not disobedience, civil or otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T01:31:33.180" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T01:31:33.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3348" CreationDate="2011-09-25T02:26:58.663" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't verify the accuracy of this post, but the origin of &quot;Kingdom Hall&quot; is given &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.answers.com/Q/First_Jehovah%27s_Witness_kingdon_hall_establish_in_America&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; (and I would imagine that the phrase &quot;Kingdom Songs&quot; has a similar origin). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The name Kingdom Hall was suggested in 1935 by J. F. Rutherford, who&#xA;  was then president of the Watch Tower Society. In connection with the&#xA;  Society's branch facilities in Honolulu, Hawaii, [...] When James&#xA;  Harrub asked what Brother Rutherford was going to call the building,&#xA;  he replied: &quot;Don't you think we should call it 'Kingdom Hall,' since&#xA;  that is what we are doing, preaching the good news of the Kingdom?&quot;&#xA;  Thereafter, where possible, halls regularly being used by the&#xA;  Witnesses gradually began to be identified by signs that said &quot;Kingdom&#xA;  Hall.&quot; -- Proclaimers Chap 20, p. 319&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the &quot;Hebrew (and Aramaic) Scriptures&quot; and the &quot;Christian Greek Scriptures&quot; , again, I'm not sure of the accuracy of the Wikipedia article I'm about to quote, but the citations point to the original Watchtower publication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia offers this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The translators use the terms &quot;Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures&quot; and&#xA;  &quot;Christian Greek Scriptures&quot; rather than &quot;Old Testament&quot; and &quot;New&#xA;  Testament&quot;, stating that the use of &quot;testament&quot; was based on a&#xA;  misunderstanding of 2 Corinthians 3:14.[29] When referring to dates in&#xA;  the supplemental material, the abbreviations &quot;B.C.E.&quot; (Before the&#xA;  Common Era) and &quot;C.E.&quot; (Common Era) are used rather than BC and AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You've already answered the question of &quot;Elders&quot; yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="5165" LastEditDate="2013-07-24T02:28:32.923" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T02:28:32.923" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3361" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-25T02:50:44.550" Score="1" ViewCount="2106" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/696/what-does-the-bible-say-about-tithing&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about tithing?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before you answer please remember that tithing and giving are not the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="739" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T04:10:35.070" Title="Is tithing something necessary under the new covenant?" Tags="&lt;tithe&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-09-25T04:24:09.607" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2696" CreationDate="2011-09-25T02:52:56.713" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I may be wrong, but this doesn't so much sound like a question about Christianity as it is about human nature.  I can think of four scenarios where I've heard people speak as if they know the mind of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When we are asked a question, we feel compelled to give an answer. If we don't know the answer for sure, we tend to give an answer that we think SOUNDS good.  (Hey, I'm doing  it now!)  We don't like to feel stupid, and when we can't answer a question or defend our beliefs with good, solid facts, we make up the best answer we can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the example you pointed out, the answer being given is obviously along these lines. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that this was a well-intentioned creationist that was confronted with a question he or she did not know the answer to.  Instead of admitting ignorance, he or she gave the answer that made the most sense to him/her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the comment to the question, Kristof Claes gave another very good example about the natural disaster as a punishment for sin.  In those situations, I agree with you 100%.  It is presumptuous to assume to know the mind of God.  We, unlike God, are finite in our intelligence and understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When going through suffering or trials ourselves, we tend to try to figure out why God is allowing this to happen to us.  I have two relatives, for example, who prayed for patience, and ended up with broken legs shortly thereafter.  (True story.)  They assumed that the broken legs were an answer to prayer (although not in the way they had envisioned when praying.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, along the same lines, I've also had friends that were going through trials and assumed that God is testing them, or wants them to learn something, etc.  In these cases, they tend to say &amp;quot;I don't know why God is allowing this, but I assume it's because... &amp;quot; or &amp;quot;God must want me to learn something from this.&amp;quot;  these types of statements are based on what the Bible teaches us about why God allows us to go through trials.  (I'll provide verses if necessary, but I don't think they are in this case.)  They are saying that they know that god has a reason (assuming to know something about the mind of God), but not exactly what, which puts these in a different category from what I believe you were getting at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T02:52:56.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3361" CreationDate="2011-09-25T03:48:13.977" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Skip to the last two paragraphs before the caveat for the final answer.  The rest is the basis of the answer I gave.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tithing is mentioned only three or four times in the New Testament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The  Pharisees were very careful about tithing (Luke 18:12), &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He said that they (the Pharisees) should not leave it undone (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tithing is mentioned in Hebrews  7 in he context of stating that Abraham payed a tenth to Melchizedek.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that salvation is by grace, through faith, and not of good works (Eph. 2:8), so tithing (or not) can neither add to nor take away from your salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tithing is little different than circumcision, which was also something demanded in Mosaic law.  Acts 15 clearly puts to death the idea that we cannot be saved without following Mosaic law by using the issue of circumcision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which&#xA;  believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to&#xA;  command them to keep the law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this&#xA;  matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After considering the matter, they came to this conclusion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 15: 19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among&#xA;  the Gentiles are turned to God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of&#xA;  idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from&#xA;  blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,&#xA;  being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to&#xA;  send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and&#xA;  Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among&#xA;  the brethren:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and&#xA;  elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the&#xA;  Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us&#xA;  have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must&#xA;  be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, Jesus frees Israel from the law, and a new law is written on our hearts.    (Hebrews 8:8-10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith&#xA;  the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and&#xA;  with the house of Judah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the&#xA;  day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of&#xA;  Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them&#xA;  not, saith the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel&#xA;  after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind,&#xA;  and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they&#xA;  shall be to me a people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This coincides beautifully with Hosea 6:6, which tells us, even in the Old Testament that God is more concerned with us loving Him and the condition of our hearts than in what we &lt;em&gt;give&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, pulling it all together, we have 2 Corinthians 9:7, where giving is addressed in the New testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not&#xA;  grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Based on all of this, no we are not required to tithe under the New Testament, any more than we are required to be circumcised, sacrifice lambs, or the Mosaic law.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't forget what Jesus told us in Matthew 22:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy&#xA;  heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 This is the first and great commandment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as&#xA;  thyself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the&#xA;  prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, we are under the law of Love, not the law of Moses.  The Law of love fulfills all of the requirements of the Mosaic law.  (If we love God, we will have no other gods before Him.  If we love our neighbor, we will not steal, bear false witness, covet, etc.  If we love our parents, we will honor them, and so on.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Giving of a cheerful heart, freely and because you want to is the &lt;em&gt;replacement&lt;/em&gt; of the original tithe, and fulfills the requirement of the tithe, just as the law of Love fulfills the original Mosaic law.  Not to mention that freely giving is a demonstration of love toward God, and a fulfillment of the New Testament law of Love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit - added - Now for the caveat&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; required, in the new Testament to obey and submit to authority. (Hebrews 13:17, , Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and many others)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your Church may require tithing, at which point, New Testament law WOULD require tithing as obedience to the authority.  If this is the case, you're in a position where you need  to make a decision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stay in the Church, and obey the authority of the Pastor/Leaders of the Church (fulfilling the requirement to  submit to authority, which God has placed over us.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stay in the Church and do not tithe, refusing to submit to the authority as commanded.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Find a Church that does not teach that tithing is required.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cringe to even state the last once, because these days, people will leave a Church any  time they hear something they don't like preached.  (2 Timothy 4:3)  IMHO, you should only leave a Church if doctrine is unsound, and you know this Biblically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T04:10:35.070" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T04:10:35.070" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3357" CreationDate="2011-09-25T04:39:43.030" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you created a universe, and you wanted to communicate some important message to the people who lived there, how would you choose to do it?  I can see two possible scenarios:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Give your entire message to one &amp;quot;prophet&amp;quot; to relay the message to the rest of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious problem with this option is that the one &amp;quot;prophet&amp;quot; looks like a lunatic to everyone else, and is impossible to authenticate.  We have such claimed prophets all the time, leading cults, or other sects.  And they are usually considered lunatics, and impossible to authenticate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Give the message to numerous people, over centuries, and have them each write part of it, in agreement with each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This scenario adds a lot of credibility.  If hundreds of authors, spread over geography and time, all share parts of the same message, and all agree with each other, then this is far more credible than a single prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there are a few other options, too, that I can think of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Go in person, and deliver the message.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make the message appear miraculously, so that it was unmistakably from you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then, the Christian Bible contains both of these, as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question suggests that this method lacks authenticity, but I can't think of any other way to deliver a divine message that could carry any greater weight of authenticity. How else would you have done it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-20T21:08:29.467" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3366" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3367" CreationDate="2011-09-25T09:54:07.493" Score="10" ViewCount="968" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the biggest time gap between authorship of two books of the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honestly, I don't even know the order in which the books of the Bible were written, but I am quite interested in what the longest period of time that elapsed between two authorship of two books of the Scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-02-20T08:44:20.807" LastActivityDate="2016-02-20T08:44:20.807" Title="What's the biggest time gap between authorship of two books of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3366" CreationDate="2011-09-25T10:21:48.807" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, was written about 443 B.C.  The first book of the New Testament, Matthew, was written about 40 A.D. leaving a 500 year gap between the Old and New Testament books. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second would be Joshua (~1450 BC) and Judges (written by Samuel ~1100 BC)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T10:21:48.807" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3372" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-25T11:57:46.863" Score="7" ViewCount="138" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have my doubts of the motivations, as we only ever hear of how great it was to fight enemy X and take their women, sheep and gold. Is this a fair statement? Why don't the Hebrews ever attack neighbours just for being evil, but always remember to take some bounty?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="743" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T12:22:23.070" LastActivityDate="2017-11-16T04:51:32.017" Title="Why do the Jews in the OT in Joshua, Kings, Chronicles always list their war spoils after each battle?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-11-21T23:15:17.270" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3372" CreationDate="2011-09-25T12:49:43.063" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just going for the obvious answer here, but even if you do attack someone just for being evil, and you end up killing them, they've left a lot of stuff behind that they don't have any use for anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, particularly in the early years of Israel, these spoils were not used for personal enrichment, but for providing for the Tabernacle and funding the Lord's work, and the Lord took that pretty seriously. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%207&quot;&gt;Joshua chapter 7&lt;/a&gt;, which takes place immediately after the battle of Jericho, for an example of what happened when someone broke the commandment to bring the spoils to the house of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T12:49:43.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="450" CreationDate="2011-09-25T14:11:16.623" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a short answer to the question, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in 1647 the Westminster Confession of Faith was issued which decreed a&#xA;  39-book OT and 27-book NT, the others commonly labelled as &quot;Apocrypha&quot;&#xA;  were excluded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see the statement in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html&quot;&gt;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the long explanation, you can look at this wiki article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jesus' time there was no one universal canon for all Jews, but two competing ones, which I list below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Masoretic Text (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text&lt;/a&gt;) formed the basis for the Protestant Bible, for example, and is what the Jews use as authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Septuagint (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint&lt;/a&gt;) includes the deuterocanonical books, and was quoted by the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers, but that does not imply they they took it as being inspired, but they were familiar with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During Luther's time there were disagreements as to what to include in the OT, and this continued until 1647 when it appears the final change to the OT canon for the Protestant church was put to rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T14:11:16.623" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3381" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5445" CreationDate="2011-09-25T14:20:46.767" Score="22" ViewCount="9612" Body="&lt;p&gt;David was a murderer and an adulterer. Both crimes were punishable by death under the law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Solomon had . . . how many wives and concubines? I don't even remember.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was neither David nor Solomon stoned to death? Was there any provision in the law for special cases when the one who commits a crime is the king of Israel? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-08-19T16:44:01.113" LastActivityDate="2017-05-21T21:17:34.463" Title="Why was neither David nor Solomon stoned to death?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;david&gt;&lt;solomon&gt;&lt;capital-punishment&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3382" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-25T17:56:51.737" Score="10" ViewCount="6164" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using the 'separation from God' concept of hell - how can God be in all places yet still place a soul into a chasm of separation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="739" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T18:16:53.713" Title="If God is omnipresent, is he also in hell?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-03-25T22:57:37.827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3382" CreationDate="2011-09-25T18:06:37.467" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, God is also in hell. The separation is not from his presence as if there was a place where his power was in effect, it's a severing of the relationship with him. The thing that will be experienced in hell is the wrath of God against sin rather than the grace of God towards his Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard this quip from several preachers so I don't know who originated it, but there is a poignant quote about heaven and hell:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heaven is heaven because God is there. Hell is hell because God is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see over and over again that Heaven is defined by the presence of God, his holy purifying presence. Unfortunately hell will also see some aspects of his presence as he stands in utter severity against those who would defy his holiness. Those there will be separated from his grace and any relationship with him other than being objects of wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T20:34:51.770" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T20:34:51.770" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3384" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3386" CreationDate="2011-09-25T18:25:53.237" Score="20" ViewCount="515" Body="&lt;p&gt;For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (or those who understand the positions of those who do), how can the Bible have this status given all the opportunities for any message delivered by God to be corrupted by human failings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, humans have free will and thus fell; but a being with free will may choose to convey a different message than one they have been given, and even without such will, imperfect beings make mistakes.  Did God suspend the exercise of free will and ability to err (at least without catching it later) of those who wrote the Bible and those who transcribed it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T20:21:03.890" LastActivityDate="2014-07-29T20:06:10.927" Title="By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3381" CreationDate="2011-09-25T18:28:51.630" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there was a special provision. God personally enacted a punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of David, God caused his son to die and did not permit him to be the one to build the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/2%20Samuel%2012:14&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 12:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Chronicles%2028:3&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Chronicles 28:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;But God said to me, ‘You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T19:05:16.810" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3384" CreationDate="2011-09-25T19:59:10.110" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;By the mechanism of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - that is the supernatural power of God.  The human authors of the Bible wrote under the direct inspiration of the Spirit, writing exactly and precisely what God wanted them to write in their native language.  They willed to submit to God and his will was done, so neither the author's will nor God's was violated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that inerrancy applies &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; to the original manuscripts, not subsequent translations, nor even copies of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to H. C. Thiessen, giving the Evangelical Pentecostal point of view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only is Scripture inspired and authoritative, it is also inerrant and infallible. By this we mean that it is without error &lt;em&gt;in the original manuscripts&lt;/em&gt;. It is inerrant in all that it affirms, whether in historical, scientific, moral, or doctrinal matters. Inerrancy extends to all of Scripture and is not limited to certain teachings of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;Lectures in Systematic Theology&lt;/em&gt;, Thiessen &amp;amp; Doerksen, William B. Eerdmans, 1979. [Emphasis mine.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic position is similar, though worded less concretely, probably to protect the duality of scripture and tradition within that body:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;105&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;God is the author of Sacred Scripture&lt;/em&gt;. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;106&lt;/strong&gt; God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;107&lt;/strong&gt; The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- Catholic Catechism. [Emphasis original.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most salient section being the last bit: &amp;quot;firmly, faithfully, and &lt;strong&gt;without error&lt;/strong&gt; teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-07-29T20:06:10.927" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3387" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3407" CreationDate="2011-09-25T20:31:57.703" Score="12" ViewCount="25101" Body="&lt;p&gt;As suggested by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3310/was-the-last-supper-not-the-passover-meal&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/248/how-long-was-jesus-in-the-tomb/3107#3107&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, it seems possible that Jesus actually died on a Wednesday, not on a Friday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of these competing theories, what is the origin of the Good Friday tradition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-10-01T16:39:38.300" Title="What is the origin of the Good Friday tradition?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;good-friday&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3388" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3393" CreationDate="2011-09-25T20:53:22.737" Score="8" ViewCount="3854" Body="&lt;p&gt;While this question is similar to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8/how-were-the-books-of-the-new-testament-chosen&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, I'm certain the answer will be very different, and far more complex....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How was the Old Testament compiled?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T07:26:36.133" Title="How was the Old Testament compiled?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3384" CreationDate="2011-09-25T20:56:00.300" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a full answer to your question requires clarifying a few main points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In what &lt;em&gt;sense&lt;/em&gt; is the Bible inerrant?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some say that literally every word in the Bible was dictated by God to man.  This in itself implies the mechanism by which God made the Bible inerrant.  However, I don't necessarily hold this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, it is much more accurate to use the term &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;infallible&lt;/a&gt; rather than &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;inerrant&lt;/a&gt;.  The distinction, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#Limitations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What are the implications of &lt;em&gt;infallibility&lt;/em&gt; on the Authors of the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free will, and the fact that men are fallible, does not mean that all men fail all the time.  There are many writings by many Biblical authors that are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; included in the Bible as we know it today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A fallible author can still write good (accurate/infallible) texts on occasion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What are the implications of &lt;em&gt;infallibility&lt;/em&gt; on the process of compiling the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This process is further addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8/20&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3388/20&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if the original authors of the Bible wrote works that contained errors, it is possible these works were weeded out in the compilation of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For any work of significant size to be completely infallible &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; inerrant, something supernatural must occur, and Christians believe God played a significant part.  At minimum, God would have had to have been involved in the compilation phase, to weed out fallible documents.  Although I think most Christians believe He was also involved in the writing phase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T21:01:30.227" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3388" CreationDate="2011-09-25T22:51:15.987" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is taken from a section of the Introduction in the &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Complete Jewish Bible&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;, English Version by David Stern, entitled &lt;strong&gt;The Canon&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Scholars agree that the canon of the Torah achieved its present form before the time of 'Ezra (around 445 B.C.E.), the Prophets later and the Writings last. But the final review of the canon was made by the Council of Yavneh (Jamnia) convened around 90 C.E. by Rabbi Yochanan Ben-Zakkai in the wake of the destruction of the temple by Romans twenty years earlier. Several books now included in the Tanakh were questioned—Daniel and Ezekiel, because of their startling visions and experiences; Esther, because God is not mentioned in it; Song of Songs, because of its overtly sexual character; and Ecclesiastes, because of its depressed world-viewpoint (except for the last two verses, which redeemed it). Ecclesiasticus (not the same as Ecclesiates) was rejected by the rabbis of Yavneh but is found in the Apocrypha, a collection of fifteen ancient Jewish books that include Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon. Catholic and Anglican Bibles include the Apocrypha. Some sixty other ancient books are collectively called the Pseudepigrapha. English language editions of the Apocrypha and the Pseudipigrapha are available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several more pages of history regarding the formation of newer versions, New King James, etc. and the attribution of writings (who wrote which book) for the books of the Tanakh (Old Testament) in the Introduction I've sighted above. However, the passage above seems to best answer the question about the actual &quot;compiling&quot; of the Old Testament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-25T23:20:28.430" LastActivityDate="2011-09-25T23:20:28.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="590" CreationDate="2011-09-26T00:39:47.753" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is along the lines of &quot;because it pleased him.&quot; God is creative -- that's reason enough to create, even for us humans!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/why-did-God-create-us.html&quot;&gt;an answer on GotQuestions.org&lt;/a&gt; that's more elaborate and includes some relevant Bible passages, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T00:39:47.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="590" CreationDate="2011-09-26T01:51:36.633" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two ways to look at this, and there are arguments to both, so there isn't a correct answer that can be proven as it depends on how you want to interpret Scripture, since we are trying to understand God's motivation for creation, which is similar to an ant trying to understand our motivation for doing something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may want to read through this article, as I think this author did a fantastic job of explaining some of the relatively early church fathers thoughts on this, with references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.2j_11Rogers.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.2j_11Rogers.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this paper does such a fantastic job, I will show three sections that may help to at least show the two sides, but start with the fact that God is necessary, and perfect, so he doesn't have to create in order to be perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine had one side, which was that God could not fail to create, but Thomas Aquinas took the other side that God had the freedom to create or not create, so the freedom of indifference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God himself is a necessary being.  In his perfect being and&#xA;  simplicity, he just is an act, and that act is necessarily perfectly&#xA;  and infinitely good.   The question is not, “Does creation involve any&#xA;  necessity?”  Obviously it does.  The question is whether or not the&#xA;  necessarily perfect divine action inevitably produces one best&#xA;  creation, our world, which is the position I have attributed to&#xA;  Anselm, or might it have ended in some entirely different creation, or&#xA;  no creation at all, as Thomas holds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Augustine repeats the standard Neoplatonic line that the absolute&#xA;  Good cannot fail to create. In De Genesi ad litteram IV, 16, 27 he&#xA;  discusses the seventh day of creation, and holds that we are told of&#xA;  God’s rest so that we may understand that God has no need of creation.&#xA;  As perfect already He is not made happier or more complete by&#xA;  creation.  Nonetheless, it would be inconsistent with His goodness to&#xA;  fail to create&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thomas holds that, having once chosen to create a given world, God’s&#xA;  goodness requires that he see to it that that world is perfectly&#xA;  ordered internally.  So God does not have the freedom to produce an&#xA;  inherently badly ordered creation.  But with regard to creation&#xA;  itself, God has freedom of indifference.  He is perfect in himself and&#xA;  does not need any creation, so it is indifferent whether his perfect&#xA;  act should terminate in our world, some other world, or not end in any&#xA;  creation at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God chose not to create, would that make him any less that He is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God is perfect, why does He need our worship/love/adoration (whatever He gets from us)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of God's reason for creating us, the end result is that we exist because of God's Love and Greatness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I do enjoy the simplicity that was in this blog:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://michellewui.blog.co.uk/2011/03/23/the-reason-that-god-created-man-10877315/&quot;&gt;http://michellewui.blog.co.uk/2011/03/23/the-reason-that-god-created-man-10877315/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Ezekial 18:4 we have: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, all souls are Mine . . . The soul who sins shall die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created us so we can have an eternal relationship with him, though, as seen in Genesis, with the Trinity already existing, God was not alone, so He didn't do it because He was lonely, but the idea that we were created to be able to know Him and by knowing Him deeply we can spend all of eternity with him is a fantastic idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Her simplicity is very nice, and since the OT asked about Bible verses I thought this would at least meet that requirement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T01:51:36.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3382" CreationDate="2011-09-26T03:15:09.200" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In searching for scripture to answer this question, I found the following commentary and supporting scripture that would indicate that, yes, God is also in hell. This information was found at; www.ovrlnd.com/Teaching/omnipresence_hell.html (and the Bible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difficulty of grasping the Lord's presence in hell can be understood by realizing how God is described by Scripture to be present throughout His creation. By witness of the Scripture, God is said to be present to bless, to sustain, or to punish. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;King David speaks of God's presence to bless: &quot;Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore&quot; &lt;strong&gt;Psalm 16:11&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet all things are sustained by the Lord's presence so that they both exist and function as the Lord allows. &quot;And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist&quot; &lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:17&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense the Lord our God is everywhere present and to this the author of Hebrews agrees, writing of Christ that He is &quot;upholding all things by the word of His power&quot; &lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 1:3&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third way the Lord is present is described by this unsettling passage delivered through the prophet Amos:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Amos 9:1-4&lt;/strong&gt; I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and He said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them:&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly &lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 59:2&lt;/strong&gt; reports that &quot;your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear,&quot; as well as &lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 15:29&lt;/strong&gt; which declares: &quot;The LORD is far from the wicked: but He heareth the prayer of the righteous.&quot; Within the context of God's omnipresence, this doesn't say that God is not present whatsoever, but that He is not making His presence known by delivering blessings upon His people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore to summarize: God is present in every part of his creation—hell included.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T03:15:09.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3398" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3410" CreationDate="2011-09-26T05:01:12.753" Score="5" ViewCount="4856" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:5 (NIV)::&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My pastor included this verse in his sermon today, and after reading it, he added his own emphasis, &quot;And this means &lt;strong&gt;ev-ery-thing!&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But does it really?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What &quot;everything&quot; is being made new?  My car won't be new again, will it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is this verse &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; saying?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T12:18:35.227" Title="What does Revelation 21:5 mean by &quot;everything&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3398" CreationDate="2011-09-26T05:40:15.680" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the book of Genesis God created the heavens and the earth. God gave form to the universe. God filled the earth with living beings. God created light. God created us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture doesn't state that He will duplicate his children's toys.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;That which &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt; has created, He will create anew&lt;/strong&gt; (including us). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 21 it continues with a thorough description of the new Jerusalem. In verses 22-23 it describes;&#xA;22)No temple could be seen in the city, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23)And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Doesn't sound like headlights will be necessary.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T05:40:15.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2011-09-26T05:47:31.290" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that Jesus died on a Wednesday is a fabrication. It is nothing more than an attempt to force a modernistic interpretation onto Matthew 12:40. In the early church the common understanding of &amp;quot;three days and three nights&amp;quot; did not require &amp;quot;three full days and also three full nights&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth century scholar/priest St. Jerome explains in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/St.+Jerome+Jonah+Commentary&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Commentary on Jonah&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we ask ourselves this: how was he three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. Some scholars take the view according to &lt;em&gt;paraskeuen&lt;/em&gt;, because of the solar eclipse from the sixth to the ninth hour when night followed day, this would be two days and nights, and adding the Sabbath, believe that we should count this as three days and three nights. But I prefer to understand this by reason of synecdoche, seeing the whole as a part: where he is dead in &lt;em&gt;paraskeuen&lt;/em&gt;, let us count one day and one night; two with the Sabbath; the third night which arises from the day of the Lord, let us take that as the beginning of the next day, for, in Genesis the night is not of the preceding day, but of the following day, that is to say the beginning of the next day, not the end of the previous. To understand this better I will say it more simply: if a man leaves his house at nine and the next day he arrives at his other house at three. And if I say that he has been two days in travelling, I will not be reprimanded as a liar, because he has not used all the hours of two days, but only a part for his journey. Nonetheless this seems to me to be the interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sixteenth century reformer Martin Luther agrees in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/of-christs-resurrection-martin-luther-sermon-on-atonement-157481.asp&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;sermon on the resurrection&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question now arises: How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that be was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true Sabbath. On the third day, which we commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that he rose on the third day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, this view ignores the testimony of the rest of the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark, in fact, describes Jesus' activities every day of the week leading up to his arrest and crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Day 1 (Mark 10:32) &amp;quot;They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem...&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Day 2 (Mark 11:12) &amp;quot;On the following day...&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Day 3 (Mark 11:20) &amp;quot;The next morning as they passed by the fig tree...&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Day 4 (Mark 14:1) &amp;quot;Two days before the Passover...&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Day 5 (Mark 14:12) &amp;quot;On the first day of Unleavened Bread...&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Day 6 (Mark 15:1) &amp;quot;As soon as it was morning...&amp;quot; &lt;strong&gt;&amp;gt;&amp;gt;This is the day of the crucifixion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Day 7 (not mentioned) &lt;strong&gt;&amp;gt;&amp;gt;This is the sabbath&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Day 8 (Mark 16:1) &amp;quot;When the sabbath was over...&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was active on each day up to and including the day of the crucifixion. Jesus fulfilled the law; he did not violate the sabbath rest except to follow a higher law such as healing the blind, so none of these six days could have been a weekly sabbath. There is simply no way to squeeze six consecutive non-sabbath days into the calendar without the final one being a Friday, so that puts Palm Sunday on a Sunday, the crucifixion on a Friday, and the resurrection on the next Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian Tradition, going back to New Testament times, consistently testifies that Jesus would be raised, not &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; three days&amp;quot;, but &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;on&lt;/strong&gt; the third day&amp;quot;. Here are some examples from the New Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/16-21.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:21&lt;/a&gt; ...and on the third day be raised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/17-23.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 17:32&lt;/a&gt; ...and on the third day he will be raised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/9-22.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 9:22&lt;/a&gt; ...and on the third day be raised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/18-33.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 18:33&lt;/a&gt; ...and on the third day he will rise again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/10-40.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 10:40&lt;/a&gt; ...but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-corinthians/15-4.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:4&lt;/a&gt; ...and that he was raised on the third day&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the gospel consisted of nothing but Matthew 12:40, we might be able to interpret the &amp;quot;three days and three nights&amp;quot; differently, but against the weight of the rest of the New Testament and the history of Christianity, it's hard to argue for a Wednesday crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T17:34:25.913" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3401" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3402" CreationDate="2011-09-26T07:29:14.907" Score="15" ViewCount="316" Body="&lt;p&gt;How are Bible verses referenced? For example what is the meaning of: &lt;code&gt;Revelation 21:5 (NIV)&lt;/code&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other methods to reference a verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(I am not a Christian and this should be treated like a novice question.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="453" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T07:36:11.283" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T02:47:21.557" Title="How are verses referenced?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3401" CreationDate="2011-09-26T07:34:52.033" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is made up of many different &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible&quot;&gt;books&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, or documents, compiled into a single volume. The traditional Protestant Bible has 66 books.  The Catholic Bible uses 73.  Some other Christian groups also use a few other religious texts, that are usually referenced in the same way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each book is divided into chapters (apart from the very short ones, where there is only one chapter) and each chapter is divided into verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;strong&gt;Revelation 21:5 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt; refers to the book of &lt;strong&gt;Revelation&lt;/strong&gt;, the &lt;strong&gt;21st&lt;/strong&gt; chapter, the &lt;strong&gt;5th&lt;/strong&gt; verse, in the &lt;strong&gt;NIV&lt;/strong&gt; (New International Version) translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will most commonly (at least in the U.S.) see verses referenced as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[Book] [chapter]:[verse]&lt;/strong&gt; for a single verse&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[Book] [chapter]:[verse]-[verse]&lt;/strong&gt; for multiple verses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[Book] [chapter]&lt;/strong&gt; for an entire chapter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[Book] [chapter]:[verse]-[chapter]:[verse]&lt;/strong&gt; for a selection spanning multiple chapters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small number of books in the Bible have only a single chapter, so then the convention is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[Book] [verse]&lt;/strong&gt; for a single verse&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[Book] [verse]-[verse]&lt;/strong&gt; for multiple verses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often, the name or abbreviation of the translation used will follow, often in parenthesis. This is most customary when quoting the verse that is referenced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few other less commonly used notations are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[Book] [chapter]:[verse],[verse]&lt;/strong&gt; to reference multiple, non-consecutive verses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[Book] [chapter]:[verse][a,b,c..]&lt;/strong&gt; to reference the first (&lt;strong&gt;a&lt;/strong&gt;), second (&lt;strong&gt;b&lt;/strong&gt;), etc, sentence of the verse. This addition can be imprecise, as the original greek and hebrew lack punction, so sentence breaks must be inferred by translators, with varying results.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[Book] [chapter]:[verse]ff&lt;/strong&gt; to indicate &quot;this verse, and following&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that you will occasionally see, in place of a colon (:), a period (.) or the lowercase letter v.  As in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 21.5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 21v5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-19T02:47:21.557" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T02:47:21.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3401" CreationDate="2011-09-26T07:43:30.477" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verse reference you show as an example is made up of three parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The book name&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The chapter and verse&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The translation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is made up of 66 books (for the Protestant canon, a few other books are included by Catholics). The first one is &lt;code&gt;Genesis&lt;/code&gt; and the last one is &lt;code&gt;Revelation&lt;/code&gt;. Thus to find the verse you show, you would turn to the last section of your bible and find the book of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next up is the chapter and verse, usually delineated with a semicolon. In your example, you would be looking for the 21st chapter, 5th verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly in parenthesis you have the translation. NIV is the standard abbreviation for &lt;em&gt;New International Version&lt;/em&gt;, a fairly commonly English translation. You will often see verses referenced without this and you can look it up in your own preferred translation. When a verse is quoted, it is customary to include a note about which translation was quoted so that it can be can be looked up and examined in context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T07:43:30.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3404" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3405" CreationDate="2011-09-26T07:56:54.133" Score="23" ViewCount="29454" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where does the name of each book come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I am not a Christian and this should be treated like a novice question.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="453" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T09:52:03.450" LastActivityDate="2020-08-21T16:51:52.763" Title="Where do the names of books of Bible come from?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3404" CreationDate="2011-09-26T08:21:46.483" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The various books get their names in different ways.  Most of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_testament&quot;&gt;Old Testament&lt;/a&gt; books are named for their theme.  For example, the book of &lt;strong&gt;Genesis&lt;/strong&gt; tells of the beginning (or genesis) of the world, and human history.  The book of &lt;strong&gt;Exodus&lt;/strong&gt; tells of the story of the Israelites' exodus out of Egypt.  &lt;strong&gt;Psalms&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Proverbs&lt;/strong&gt;, are collections of, respectively, psalms (songs) and proverbs (wise sayings).  The books of &lt;strong&gt;Samuel&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;Ruth&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;Job&lt;/strong&gt;, and many others, tell the stories of the people after which they are named.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament&quot;&gt;New Testament&lt;/a&gt;, there are three main naming conventions.  Many books are named after their authors, such as the Gospels of &lt;strong&gt;Matthew&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;Mark&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;Luke&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;John&lt;/strong&gt;, along with a few other letters (also called Epistles), which are named after their authors, such as &lt;strong&gt;James&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;First Peter&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Second Peter&lt;/strong&gt; (he wrote two letters that are in the Bible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the other books in the New Testament are also letters, and are named after the recipient.  &lt;strong&gt;First Corinithians&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Second Corinthians&lt;/strong&gt; are the first and second letters written to the church in Corinith, for instance.  And &lt;strong&gt;Romans&lt;/strong&gt; is a letter written to the church in Rome.  &lt;strong&gt;First Timothy&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Second Timothy&lt;/strong&gt; are both letters written to Timothy (who was a church leader at the time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, a few of the New Testament books are also named after their theme.  &lt;strong&gt;Acts&lt;/strong&gt; portrays the &quot;acts of the Apostles&quot;, and &lt;strong&gt;Revelation&lt;/strong&gt; is a revelation of new insight (although the exact theme of Revelation is somewhat of a disputed issue--some say it's a revelation about the future, others say it's historical in content).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-08-25T05:25:04.443" LastActivityDate="2012-08-25T05:25:04.443" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3404" CreationDate="2011-09-26T08:23:43.473" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book names take a variety of formats, largely related to the kind of book they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first set of books in the Bible are historical books (although the first 5 are usually considered as a separate set from the rest) - they give accounts of events that have happened - and they are usually named after key events they describe: Genesis includes the story about the genesis of the universe, Exodus includes the story of the Jews' exodus form Egypt. Later on, the two books of Kings (referred to as 1 Kings and 2 Kings) tell of various kings of Israel. Then there are several books that are named after the key people in them, such as 1 and 2 Samuel, Ruth, Esther, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these histories overlap considerably, so the books aren't in exact chronological order in the sense of each one following on from the next, but they are &lt;em&gt;roughly&lt;/em&gt; in chronological order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the histories come a set of &quot;wisdom&quot; books, generally named after the nature of their contents (Psalms = poetry/songs, Proverbs). Then come the prophets - these read as histories but instead of concentrating on recording historical events as such, the focus is on revelations God made to key people. These books are named after the prophets they relate to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we enter the New Testament, starting off with the four gospels. These are contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus, named after the person who wrote each one - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Then comes effectively a sequel to the book of Luke, which details events that happened after the life of Jesus - the book of Acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Acts come a series of letters, which are either named after the people they were addressed to (often the church in a whole city rather than individual people) or the person who wrote them. Then, finally, there's the book of Revelation, which is effectively a New Testament prophecy, &quot;revealing&quot; much about Heaven and how the world as we know it will end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T08:23:43.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2011-09-26T09:39:52.533" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is that &lt;strong&gt;the theory that Christ died on a Wednesday is only about 300 years old, whereas the Good Friday tradition is nearly 2000 years old.&lt;/strong&gt;  So at the time Good Friday was established as tradition, the Wednesday crucification theory hadn't been considered yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Wednesday crucifixion theory seems to have originated in the early 1700s, and was motivated by an attempt to demonstrate that Christ's resurrection occurred on Saturday, rather than on Sunday.  The reasoning was to demonstrate that worshiping on Saturday was still appropriate for Christians, as opposed to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4/why-does-judaism-celebrate-sabbath-on-saturday-and-most-christians-celebrate-sabb&quot;&gt;worshiping on Sunday&lt;/a&gt;, as most Christians do.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.giveshare.org/HolyDay/satreshistory.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the motivation behind the Wednesday theory, and indeed its truth (or lack thereof), has little to do with the answer to this specific question, if the theory had not yet been conceived at the time that the Good Friday tradition began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T19:27:00.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3408" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3409" CreationDate="2011-09-26T11:33:20.537" Score="9" ViewCount="343" Body="&lt;p&gt;While we usually refer to Exodus 20 as the Ten Commandments, and many versions of the Bible add the heading &lt;em&gt;&quot;The Ten Commandments&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, the phrase is not actually used there in the text of the Bible. (It does, however, appear later on, in Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 10:4). Also, while we know that the original ten commandments were written in stone, the commandments in Exodus 20 are not written in stone. This happens in Exodus 24:12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do we know that these were the Ten Commandments&lt;/strong&gt; given that the &quot;Ten Commandments&quot; were not referenced as such until later on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/502/why-are-there-different-divisions-of-the-ten-commandments&quot;&gt;This question (and its accepted answer)&lt;/a&gt; nicely addresses the differences in interpretations of Exodus 20 as the Ten Commandments, but how can we be sure that the Ten Commandments are what's listed in Exodus 20?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, I once heard it suggested that what's written in Exodus 20 - the &quot;you shall not&quot;s - are promises, not commandments. This makes sense, especially as there follow some instructions that definitely &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; commandments (Exodus 20:23 onwards) - &quot;do not&quot;s instead of &quot;you shall not&quot;s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why the difference in language (&quot;you shall not / do not&quot;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T12:03:39.670" Title="Do we have the right ten commandments?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;moses&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3408" CreationDate="2011-09-26T11:45:07.043" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think one good way we can look at this and understand that that section was commandments instead of promises is by letting &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1534/30&quot;&gt;other parts of Scripture that either reference or comment on it&lt;/a&gt; help define it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example in the NT we find Jesus giving a sermon and instructing people on the way they should live. In several cases he clearly references the statements we find in Exodus 20 and expounds on them to show the scope of the commandments is even larger than sometimes understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew%205:27/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mathew 5:27-28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is clearly a reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Exodus+20.14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:14&lt;/a&gt;, and using Jesus understanding of it and how other people in Scripture used that passage in their own teaching, we can understand that it was indeed a command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T11:45:07.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3398" CreationDate="2011-09-26T12:18:35.227" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yikes!  This is the danger of taking verses out of context!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at Revelations 21:5 in context, this is what we see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2021&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelations 21:1-5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What God has done in this passage is to &lt;em&gt;destroy&lt;/em&gt; the old and create things new.  There will be a &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; heaven and a &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; earth.  Will there be new cars?  Probably not.  Will there be new pornography?  Definitely not.  Will there be new guns?  Again, probably not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for the old order of things has passed away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &quot;New Heaven and a New Earth&quot; cannot be taken as &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; like the old heaven and old earth.  The reason is (as listed in Revelations 21:1 above), the old heaven and old earth has passed away.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has taken away the sins of the world.  He has given us a new earth: a place without sin, without death and decay;  a place like the original Garden of Eden.  We can be pretty sure that not &lt;strong&gt;everything&lt;/strong&gt; will be made new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2021:7-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelations 21:7-8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T12:18:35.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3372" CreationDate="2011-09-26T13:36:34.647" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the books of the Old Testament were written as an ancient near east war narrative. While reading these books it is helpful to understand them in the context of them being a part of this genre of literature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are elements of the narrative which are common across the genre such as claiming utter and complete victory over the enemy, even if the battle was ambiguous. Or, claiming the enemy has been completely destroyed regardless of the fact that this took place or not. Now this may or may not be the case in the Old Testament, however the important thing is that listing out the spoils was common and expected, and it would have been confusing for someone consuming this literature at the time, if this element has been excluded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, as Mason mentioned, the spoils were sometimes an important element to the story. Another example is the account in exodus, where over and over God promises not only to free the children of Israel but promises that they will take their treasure as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T13:36:34.647" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3413" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-26T14:03:16.513" Score="4" ViewCount="1320" Body="&lt;p&gt;Except for the Exodus story, im having serious doubts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrews never seem to win against any of the bigger enemies which would be seriously impressive, because they are outnumbered by many factors. Looking at the figures of their victories they seem to have won because they outnumbered their opponent or simply due to better battle tactics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all if God really wanted to show his power why didn't he ever defeat Rome, Greece, Egypt or Babylon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a fair comment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="743" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T14:13:27.640" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T13:48:05.623" Title="Did God ever really help the Hebrews in battle?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;war&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-11-22T00:52:55.903" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3413" CreationDate="2011-09-26T14:17:06.730" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the battles in which God's people won against the odds is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 30&lt;/a&gt;.  David pursued a raiding party, and ended up battling them for around 24 hours with only 400 men.  I'm not sure of the size of the raiding party, but 400 men from the raiding party survived, so I'd assume it was much larger than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T14:17:06.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3419" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-26T14:40:38.050" Score="8" ViewCount="1571" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:7&lt;/strong&gt;  NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever&#xA;  loves has been born of God and knows God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever loves has been born of God? I'm pretty confident that the majority of people, religious or not, would argue that they know how to Love and that they show their love for people on a daily basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does Love mean to God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T01:35:52.490" LastActivityDate="2014-07-15T11:14:00.497" Title="What does Love Mean?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-15T12:52:35.050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3433" CreationDate="2011-09-26T14:44:40.897" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God had created Christianity first, people would not have known their need for a Saviour. &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;What do &lt;strong&gt;we&lt;/strong&gt; need to be saved from?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God first sets up a do-it-yourself religion; by which I mean that if the Jews followed all the laws they could save themselves earning their right to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That didn't work. Worse, some people became more interested in the laws than the purpose of the laws:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:23-24&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 23:23-24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/538/how-do-you-convert-somebody-to-christianity/578#578&quot;&gt;a brief summary of how salvation works&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now people could at least compare their standards to God's and realise the gap between themselves and God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to read more about this, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;book of Hebrews&lt;/a&gt; explains more about how Judaism (and particularly the law) was a shadow of the forthcoming revelation. For example, the animal sacrifices in Judaism teach us that a sacrifice is required for the forgiveness of sins. This is how we can understand passages like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:23-28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 9:23-28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was necessary, then, for the &lt;strong&gt;copies of the heavenly things&lt;/strong&gt; to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; &lt;strong&gt;he entered heaven itself&lt;/strong&gt;, now to appear for us in God’s presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so &lt;strong&gt;Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many&lt;/strong&gt;; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T16:55:02.557" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3413" CreationDate="2011-09-26T14:51:17.063" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a list of several events just off the top of my head:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;capture/destruction of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Joshua%206&quot;&gt;Jericho&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%203:9-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Othniel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gideon's 300 men against the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%207&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Midianites&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Samson's final crush of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2016:26-30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Philistines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elijah and the prophets of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018:30-40&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Baal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God didn't save them from some oppressors, one of the myriad instances of a single phrase in Judges shows why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, so that the LORD gave them into the hands of the &lt;code&gt;{nation}&lt;/code&gt; for &lt;code&gt;{number}&lt;/code&gt; of years*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;sub&gt;note &quot;nation&quot; and &quot;number&quot; can be substituted for any oppressor and duration&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T13:48:05.623" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T13:48:05.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3524" CreationDate="2011-09-26T14:52:50.523" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, God &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; protect Abraham:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  --Gen 12:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the rest of it, it was a matter of Faith on Abraham's part. His faith wavered, and he so he acted in this instance out of fear of man, rather than fear of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T14:52:50.523" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3419" CreationDate="2011-09-26T14:54:05.887" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Love is of course a central theme to the Bible and examples of it can be found throughout - but arguably the most well known descriptions of it can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have&#xA;  love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have&#xA;  the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,&#xA;  and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I&#xA;  am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my&#xA;  body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain&#xA;  nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,&#xA;  it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not&#xA;  self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.&#xA;  6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It&#xA;  always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8 Love never fails.&lt;/strong&gt; But where there are prophecies, they will cease;&#xA;  where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is&#xA;  knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in&#xA;  part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11&#xA;  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I&#xA;  reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of&#xA;  childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a&#xA;  mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I&#xA;  shall know fully, even as I am fully known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest&#xA;  of these is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T14:54:05.887" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3413" CreationDate="2011-09-26T14:56:34.203" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few other instances of God's direct intervention (as opposed to, say, the Gideon story, which can be attributed to clever tactics).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At Jericho, the priests with the Ark of the Covenant circled the city walls several times, blew their trumpets, and then the walls collapsed (Joshua 6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, in the battle against the Amorites, God rains hailstones down on the enemy army (10:11). Then Joshua asks God to delay the sunset, and he does (10:14, NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a human being. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, God does not grant military victory to Israel all the time. As you note, the nation was defeated many times. An enormous part of the Old Testament is dedicated to understanding why. A key concept is that the people often fall away from God, and he causes military defeat as a punishment or to encourage them to return to faith. God's plan for his people does not necessarily mean that they will win every battle: military victory would be pointless if the people are not faithful. Isaiah speaks about the righteous &quot;remnant&quot; that is left after conquest (eg in 37:31-32). Jeremiah develops the idea in Lamentations. For example, here is 4:12-13 :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The kings of the earth did not believe, nor did any of the peoples of the world, that enemies and foes could enter the gates of Jerusalem. But it happened because of the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed within her the blood of the righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet the people are not completely destroyed (3:22-26),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because of the LORD's great love we are not consumed,  for his compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. I say to myself, &quot;The LORD is my portion; therefore I will wait for him.&quot; The LORD is good to those whose hope is in him, to the one who seeks him; it is good to wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and there is a chance to return to the way that things should be (3:40)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us examine our ways and test them,  and let us return to the LORD. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put a New Testament spin on it: God's victory is in a different category from mere strength of arms, and his kingdom is not the same thing as the Roman/Babylonian/Assyrian/etc. empires. John 18:36 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said, &quot;My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The devil tempted Jesus with a vision of temporal power (Matthew 4:8-9 and its parallels) but he refused this kind of dominion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T14:56:34.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3524" CreationDate="2011-09-26T15:01:29.533" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regardless of his faith, Abraham was still a man - he had not yet been perfected: he was still on his walk of progressive sanctification. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same question could be asked as to why David sinned with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2011&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Bathsheba&lt;/a&gt;, or why Samson fell for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2016&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Delilah&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And any of countless more examples - the men and women portrayed in the Bible were &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; perfect (excepting Christ). Even Peter, who had been with Jesus since the earliest days of His &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:40-42&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;ministry&lt;/a&gt;, denied him &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:75&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;three&lt;/a&gt; times during the trial before the Sanhedrin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every instance is an opportunity to showcase God's faithfulness, mercy, and grace - even when his chosen ones fail Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even those with the stoutest faith in God can forget or become fearful: while backsliding or temporarily turning from God to our own wisdom is never promoted, it is the &lt;em&gt;entire&lt;/em&gt; life story that must be examined. When doing that with Abraham, it is obvious that though he was not perfect, he was following God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T13:17:38.523" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T13:17:38.523" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3430" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3470" CreationDate="2011-09-26T15:16:30.317" Score="15" ViewCount="11280" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with many others I know, I believe in &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; the &lt;code&gt;infallibility&lt;/code&gt; &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; &lt;code&gt;inerrancy&lt;/code&gt; of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what is the difference between these two important terms?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If something has no errors (inerrant), then must it not also be free from fabrications (infallible)? And isn't the inverse statement also true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I asked about the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1225/69&quot;&gt;Biblical basis for inerrancy&lt;/a&gt; previously.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2016-04-03T13:52:22.473" Title="What is the difference between &quot;infallible&quot; and &quot;inerrant&quot;?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3430" CreationDate="2011-09-26T15:41:36.640" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Wikipedia article on Biblical inerrancy&lt;/a&gt; says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another often used adjective to characterize the Bible is&#xA;  &quot;infallible&quot;. From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that&#xA;  this is a stronger term than &quot;inerrant.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;&quot;'Inerrant' means there are&#xA;  no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; Yet, he agrees&#xA;  that &quot;modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that&#xA;  it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'&quot; Lindsell (1978) states that&#xA;  &quot;The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which&#xA;  means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not&#xA;  false, mistaken, or defective.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...which to me is as clear as mud. Wikipedia has a separate article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Biblical infallibility&lt;/a&gt; so evidently the Wikipedia community think the two are different concepts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can make out, inerrancy is purely about the lack of errors; infallibility also speaks about usefulness. Perhaps software is a good analogy to use; a piece of software can be bug free (inerrant) but utterly useless (not infallible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T12:27:28.247" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T12:27:28.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8" CreationDate="2011-09-26T16:17:39.637" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me give you the original document of Council Of Carthage AD 419 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Exodus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Leviticus.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Numbers.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Deuteronomy.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Joshua the Son of Nun.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Judges.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Ruth.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Kings, iv. books.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Chronicles, ij. books.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Job.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Psalter.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Five books of Solomon.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Twelve Books of the Prophets.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Isaiah.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Jeremiah.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Ezechiel.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Daniel.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Tobit.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Judith.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Esther.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Ezra, ij. books.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Macchabees, ij. books.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The New Testament.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Gospels, iv. books.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Epistles of Paul, xiv.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The Revelation of John, j. book.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the council take a decision to send the list to BONIFACE bishop of Rome, again in the council of Hippo, it was mentioned that &quot;send the list to Rome and ratify it&quot; It was the Roman Church who decided the canon, based on apostolic tradition..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="754" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T17:14:50.527" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T17:14:50.527" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3433" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-26T16:44:48.750" Score="8" ViewCount="11797" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did God create a new covenant?  It seems as if he had a covenant set in place in the Old Testament and provided a means for Israel to follow the covenant and offer sacrifices to atone for their sins.  Why did he create a new covenant in the New Testament which is the basis of Christianity?  Did mankind or God change in a way that a new covenant needed to be set up?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-01-21T01:43:51.880" LastActivityDate="2019-01-21T01:43:51.880" Title="Why did God create a new covenant?" Tags="&lt;covenants&gt;&lt;new-covenant&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-06-19T19:24:35.253" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="590" CreationDate="2011-09-26T22:39:42.947" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the interested reader, I dug out my trusty copy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.booksforcatholics.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&amp;amp;Store_Code=B&amp;amp;Product_Code=SR&amp;amp;Category_Code=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scriptural References for the Baltimore Catechism&lt;/a&gt;. For &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson01.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lesson 1&lt;/a&gt; (The Purpose of Man's Existence), Question 3 (Why did God make us?  Answer: God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.), the references are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach%2017:1-10&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecclesiasticus 17:1-10&lt;/a&gt; After a description of God's creation of man the author states that God &quot;set His eyes upon their hearts to show them the greatness of His works.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:34-35&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:34-35&lt;/a&gt; The just are called to posses the kingdom prepared for them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:8-12&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8:8-12&lt;/a&gt; St. Paul points out that after this life we shall see God &quot;face to face&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;d. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:3-4,%2022:3-5&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:3-4, 22:3-5&lt;/a&gt; John describes the Heavenly Jerusalem where the servants of God will see His face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastEditorUserId="443" LastEditDate="2011-09-26T22:59:22.667" LastActivityDate="2011-09-26T22:59:22.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="871" CreationDate="2011-09-26T23:00:59.450" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is only against going to other astrologers, it never says Jews can't practice astrology. Reading the scriptures one can see its all about control, the where is almost as important as the what. Jews can only offer sacrifice in one place the holy temple in Jerusalem, all other locations are not permitted or acceptable&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(merged w/ deleted answer)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a look the long list of scriptures&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 44:5: Isn’t this the cup my master drinks from and also uses for divination? This is a wicked thing you have done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Divination is not condemned here, but rather the discussion is about misuse of property belonging to the master&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 18:10: Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Reading the scripture in context shows this scripture is concerned with works that promote or  acknowledge other gods other than YHWY&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joshua 13:22: In addition to those slain in battle, the Israelites had put to the sword Balaam son of Beor, who practiced divination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This scripture only notes that Balaam practices divination it never says it was bad.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Samuel 15:23: For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Another example where the practice is wrong because it is to another God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Kings 17:17: They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sought omens and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Kings 21:6: He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Chronicles 33:6: He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced &#xA;  divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 2:6: They are full of superstitions from the East; they practice divination like the Philistines and embrace pagan customs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;And yet we have the quandry where Jesus accepts the magi from the East. THey are accepted because they acknowledge the majesty of Jesus. If they had directed their worship or respect in another direction the commentary would be different.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 14:14: Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;em&gt;This scripture only condemns the others because they are in competition with the establishment. It also condemns visions from the false prophets and other worshippers. It does not condemn visiions from Jeremiah.&#xA;*&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 12:24: For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 13:6: Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. Even though the LORD has not sent them, they say, “The LORD declares,” and expect him to fulfill their words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This scripture is an example that their failings are because they derice strength from a false god. The practices themselves are not condemned.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets not forget that Jewish worship includes many of the customs others used to worship their gods - such as animal sacrifice. This is only a problem if done to honor the wrong God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="743" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T05:38:34.077" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T05:38:34.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3433" CreationDate="2011-09-27T01:52:22.103" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've actually got it inside out.  There's a lot of evidence, both from biblical and extrabiblical sources, that the basic ideas of Christianity were around from the beginning.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2100/when-did-christianity-originate&quot;&gt;When did Christianity originate?&lt;/a&gt; for just a few examples.)  The &quot;new&quot; covenant was the Law of Moses, which was given to the people of Israel--at the time a rowdy group of recently-freed slaves--after they demonstrated that Moses literally could not leave them alone for long enough to go up Mt. Sinai, get some commandments from God and come back down without them falling into degenerate heathen fertility-worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These were people with no chance of successfully living the high principles of the Gospel, so God gave them a lesser law that focused strongly on physical, tangible things, as a &quot;schoolmaster&quot; to point their minds towards Christ and his atoning sacrifice. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:24-25&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:24-25&lt;/a&gt;)  Christ fulfilled the Law, and it was no longer needed, so they went back to the original covenant and the original Law of the Gospel.  (And by this time the observation of the Law of Moses had been twisted by Jewish leaders to the point where it was a lot closer to &quot;worship of the Law&quot; than &quot;worship of the Lord&quot; anyway.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T01:52:22.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3419" CreationDate="2011-09-27T02:11:38.217" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would be best here to start from how love is defined in 1 John itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the gospel we have the ultimate display of love. We hate God, and yet God loves us so much that he sent his Son to die for us. In 4:9-11:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his&#xA;  only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is&#xA;  love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son&#xA;  to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we&#xA;  also ought to love one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a similar verse in Rom 5:6-10 which raises the point that people would hardly even die for a good/righteous person, let alone sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the&#xA;  ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though&#xA;  perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- but God shows&#xA;  his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for&#xA;  us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much&#xA;  more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we&#xA;  were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much&#xA;  more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is the kind of love we are to practise. You may say that Christians and non-Christians alike practise love on a daily basis. But often it stops where it becomes difficult and you must love someone who does not love you, or where you've been offended and you must forgive. Generally speaking, I think the world's standard of love today is to love as long as it feels good or where we get something back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this is not to say that Christians always truly love. In reality I think we often fail. Otherwise, 1 John would not need to teach and exhort his readers: 'let us love' (4:7). But the difference for Christians is that we have a reason to love others, even when it is not easy, because God loved us first. If you don't, then it is likely because you don't appreciate what God has done for us (Mat 18:23-35). To learn to love we need to begin with and continue in the gospel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: Eph 5:1-2. Phil 2:1-8. 1 Pet 2:21-25.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastEditorUserId="682" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T02:27:30.300" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T02:27:30.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3442" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3690" CreationDate="2011-09-27T02:55:44.697" Score="18" ViewCount="5220" Body="&lt;p&gt;People can be canonized (declared to be saints) and these official declarations are held to be infallible. Some people might be considered saints because of popular devotion, without being actually canonized - they could be &quot;grandfathered in,&quot; rather than going through the modern process. I am aware of instances where the Church has decided that some of these people are of dubious historicity and therefore are not actually saints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Guinefort&quot;&gt;St Guinefort&lt;/a&gt;, who was not only fictional, but was also a dog. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat&quot;&gt;St Josaphat&lt;/a&gt;, whose story is a fanciful version of the life of Buddha (Josaphat = Boddhisatva). Yes, Buddha existed, but the Josaphat story is not historical. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Has the Church ever declared &quot;X should no longer be considered a saint&quot; where the reason &lt;em&gt;isn't&lt;/em&gt; &quot;because X never existed&quot;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1: It's like the end of &lt;em&gt;Lady and the Tramp&lt;/em&gt;, but seven centuries ago.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2: Also, Wikipedia is wrong to say that he was canonized: he appeared in the Baronius &lt;em&gt;Martyrologium Romanum&lt;/em&gt; but Benedict XVI's &lt;em&gt;De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione&lt;/em&gt; says that doesn't imply canonization.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-24T00:38:09.810" LastActivityDate="2021-03-22T03:45:33.653" Title="Have any real people been de-canonized?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;canonization&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3443" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3447" CreationDate="2011-09-27T04:22:43.140" Score="6" ViewCount="4154" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know the best Book we have is the Bible, which has everything for life that we need to live a perfect life. I would like to know should we stop with Bible and Books that are based on Bible, or may Christians read non-Bible based books that teach good things such as &quot;The Power of positive thinking&quot; etc. They seems harmless written by well known authors like Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T05:19:05.790" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T14:33:35.700" Title="May Christians read self improvement books?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-10-22T02:36:40.840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3443" CreationDate="2011-09-27T05:37:15.807" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is opinion only, but I'll throw my two cents in.  I'm also not going to add in supporting Bible verses as I'll stick to commonly accepted, cross-denominational concepts that any Christian should be familiar with.  (If comments ask for verses, I will come back and edit them in.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the self-help books that I've read &lt;em&gt;personally&lt;/em&gt; are, in retrospect, based on very humanistic concepts, or the popular psychology of the day.    However, many of them contain very good ideas mixed in with the psychobabble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal opinion is that there is nothing inherently wrong with reading self-help books, provided that you've got a solid foundation in Biblical doctrine, and are able to discern the good from the concepts that are anti-Biblical.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of these books have value, and follow along with Christian teachings.  Books on success often advocate following the golden rule - treating your peers, employees, customers, etc, as you'd like to be treated.  Or the teach the value of honesty, integrity, etc.  None of these are anti-Christian, and all are examples of how God would have us behave anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest pitfall that I an see with these books is that they can further the illusion among the unsaved that following the advice in the books makes them a &quot;good person&quot;.  Of course, a person has to realize that he or she is lost before they can turn to the Savior for salvation.  We can all be better people, but we can never be good enough to earn our own salvation.  (If we could, the Cross would not have been necessary.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are the books that teach outright contradictions to the word of God.  Humanistic, or spiritual growth books that point to one new age theology or another.  Again, these can be dangerous for obvious reasons.  However, I still believe that someone with a grounding in doctrine with the gift of discernment can still read these books and use the knowledge for God's will. the people who fall for these lies need the Savior just as much as anyone else, and you can't refute something you don't know about.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a parallel to this last once, many Christians study the beliefs of various cults and non-Christian religions in order to learn how to more effectively witness to those involved.  It helps to provide a common starting point.  Being aware of what's being taught in these &quot;new-agey&quot; books can be valuable for the same purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line comes down to whether or not you're grounded enough in the Word to understand and discern the truth from the lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T05:37:15.807" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3443" CreationDate="2011-09-27T09:59:25.107" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sure, we &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; read them.&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2010:23&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:23&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But really, why read a &lt;strong&gt;productivity&lt;/strong&gt; self-help book when &lt;a href=&quot;http://productiveblog.tumblr.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Ultimate Productivity blog&lt;/a&gt; says it all? And which is a better use of time: reading self-help books on &lt;strong&gt;becoming a better person&lt;/strong&gt;, or actually helping the needy like the Bible tells us to? (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201:27&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 1:27&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Self&lt;/strong&gt;-help was suggested to Jesus in the moment of crucifixion.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus chose to help others instead.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015:29-30&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 15:29-30 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, &quot;Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;save yourself&lt;/strong&gt;, and come down from the cross!&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T09:59:25.107" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1656" CreationDate="2011-09-27T10:26:43.773" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's an off-the-wall take on the whole event. I'm not sure what to make of it but I'll throw it out there to get community reaction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, the story s a funny scenario consisting of a humourous exchange between Jesus and Nathanael. Here's the text, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1165/are-there-any-jokes-in-the-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;from a reader of The Straight Dope&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Philip found Nathanael and said unto him, &quot;We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.&quot; Nathanael said to him, &quot;Can anything good come out of Nazareth?&quot; [Joke!] Philip said to him, &quot;Come and see!&quot; [Boom!] Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, &quot;Behold, an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile&quot; [&quot;Hey, here's an honest Jew&quot; — joke]. Nathanael [not getting it] said to him, &quot;How do you know me?&quot; Jesus answered him, &quot;Before Philip called you, I saw you yesterday, standing under a fig tree.&quot; Nathanael said [losing his cool], &quot;Rabbi, you are the son of God! You are the king of Israel!&quot; Jesus answered him, &quot;Because I said I saw you standing under a fig tree, believest thou?&quot; [Big joke! Gets laughs!] &quot;You shall see greater things than these.&quot; [Release.] And he said to him, &quot;Truly, truly I say unto you, you shall see the heavens opened and the angels of the Lord ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.&quot; [Boom!]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T11:46:53.640" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T11:46:53.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2011-09-27T10:43:49.093" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read a while ago (I think it was in the NIV Study Bible, sorry, can't find an online reference) that the &lt;strong&gt;Ostrich&lt;/strong&gt; in Job 39 is an example of humour. First the text, then the explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2039:13-18&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 39:13-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wings of the ostrich &lt;strong&gt;flap joyfully&lt;/strong&gt;, but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She lays her eggs on the ground and lets them warm in the sand, unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers; she cares not that her labor was in vain,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for &lt;strong&gt;God did not endow her with wisdom&lt;/strong&gt; or give her a share of good sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet when she spreads her feathers to run, &lt;strong&gt;she laughs at horse and rider&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we read a comical description of the ostrich: flapping her wings &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;joyfully&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; but without any common sense (&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;wisdom&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;) - she does stupid things; and yet she herself laughs at horse and rider (presumably by outrunning them). This in itself makes a series of comical images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then the source stated that at all the other times in this passage God asks Job questions. However, for the Ostrich, God just states the situation. It's almost as if it is too funny for God to pause and ask a question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T10:43:49.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2131" CreationDate="2011-09-27T10:46:36.860" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I read &lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;Do Greatest Good&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;, I was reminded of &lt;strong&gt;The Golden Rule&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in everything, &lt;strong&gt;do to others what you would have them do to you&lt;/strong&gt;, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T10:46:36.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2011-09-27T12:28:48.950" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This doesn't totally answer the question, since it doesn't show God's humor, necessarily, but it does show a humorous situation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Balaam's donkey:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/nu/chapter_022.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Numbers 22:26-30 (NWT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  26 Jehovah’s angel now passed by again and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside to the right or the left. 27 When the ass got to see Jehovah’s angel she now lay down under Ba´laam; so that Ba´laam’s anger blazed, and he kept beating the ass with his staff. 28 Finally Jehovah opened the mouth of the ass and she said to Ba´laam: “What have I done to you so that you have beaten me these three times?” 29 At this Ba´laam said to the ass: “It is because you have dealt ruthlessly with me. If only there were a sword in my hand, for now I should have killed you!” 30 Then the she-ass said to Ba´laam: “Am I not your she-ass that you have ridden upon all your life long until this day? Have I ever been used to do to you this way?” To which he said: “No!” 31 And Jehovah proceeded to uncover Ba´laam’s eyes, so that he saw Jehovah’s angel stationed in the road with his drawn sword in his hand. At once he bowed low and prostrated himself on his face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just thinking about God's thought process there, I can see humor in it.  (&quot;Hey, let's make his donkey talk back to him after he beats it.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I think is funny about it is that Balaam doesn't appear shocked by this, but simply responds to the donkey as if it had been speaking all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T12:28:48.950" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3442" CreationDate="2011-09-27T12:59:00.857" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some papal appointed saints are also removed from the calendar, but sometimes veneration is &lt;em&gt;officially forbidden&lt;/em&gt; - for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://saints.sqpn.com/simon-of-trent/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Simon of Trent&lt;/a&gt; (his cult was confirmed by Pope Sixtus V). I don't claim to understand the full implications of this. It would seem in this case that he remains a martyr saint, but without veneration. I welcome edits or corrections (and if I have the wrong end of this stick, just let me know).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2021-03-22T03:45:33.653" LastActivityDate="2021-03-22T03:45:33.653" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="3456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3443" CreationDate="2011-09-27T13:35:50.720" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to come from a different perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary:  You can read whatever you want, provided it doesn't take you away from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Self-help&lt;/em&gt; is a very broad category.  You have everything from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1402749317&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pleasuring: The Secrets of Sexual Satisfaction &lt;/a&gt; (PG-13 link there) all the way down to &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310200350&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Boundaries for kids&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with saying &quot;All X is bad&quot; is that not everything can be categorized as either &quot;bad&quot; &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; &quot;good&quot;.   Also, we, as Christians, basically have the right to do whatever we want, provided that God permits us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then the question is: Does God permit us to read X?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In General, yes!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we have to make sure to try to have a pure heart--a heart for God.  If a book is going to draw us away from God, we should leave it alone.  Otherwise, it will be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For example:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;I'm sure that the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1402749317&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pleasuring: The Secrets of Sexual Satisfaction &lt;/a&gt; is a fine book. (I couldn't say on my own authority, I haven't read it!)  However, if you have problems with lust, that's probably &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the book for you.  However, in the confines of marriage where lust is not a problem, this book can be helpful and instructional.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, we just have to make sure that if we do anything, it brings glory to God.  Avoid the books that will pull you away from God (whether Self-Help, Fiction, or Historical) and focus on the books that will actually help you out!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another side note is that there are actually Christian self-help books out there.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310200350&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Boundaries for kids&lt;/a&gt; is an excellent book to help parents learn to raise children and it is written by two Christians and from a Christian perspective (although not explicitly a &quot;Christian&quot; book).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T13:35:50.720" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3413" CreationDate="2011-09-27T13:55:40.170" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;How about more recent history?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War&quot;&gt;Yom Kippur War&lt;/a&gt;, they were attacked by a coalition of states led by Egypt and Syria. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The coalition had almost three times the manpower (over 1 million troops against around 400,000 Israeli troops), plus they had anti-air missiles, 20% more armored carriers, 30% more artillery, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, Israel lost only around 2,500 lives compared to around 10-18,000 lives of the enemy.  (Not to mention the 2200 tanks lost compared to 400 of the Israelis, 300-500 aircraft lost compared to 100 of the Israelis, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The coalition got the jump on Israel and attacked when they were not expecting it.  It removed their sense of invulnerability (from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War&quot;&gt;Six-Day War&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_War_of_Independence&quot;&gt;War of Independence&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, God gave them strength to overpower a force dramatically greater than they were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2026:3-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Leviticus 26:3-8&lt;/a&gt;  shows that if Israel follows God, they will have military victory.  This example above, as with all things God related, boils down to faith.  God said he'd give them victory and he did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T17:14:06.833" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T17:14:06.833" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3458" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3460" CreationDate="2011-09-27T14:00:39.340" Score="23" ViewCount="7444" Body="&lt;p&gt;Growing up in the church, silent prayers are pretty much part of how I pray.  However, challenging assumptions, I'm curious to know how biblical this is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every prayer I've found in the Bible is spoken out loud.  So, what is the biblical basis for praying silently?  Is there any biblical indication that praying silently is just as effective and beneficial as praying out loud?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-11-12T16:11:58.497" LastActivityDate="2015-11-12T16:11:58.497" Title="Are silent prayers heard?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3458" CreationDate="2011-09-27T14:11:31.717" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:5&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2028:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Chronicles 28:9&lt;/a&gt; (and myriad other passages) indicate God can understand our thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, can God &quot;hear&quot; our silent prayers? Of course!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it better to pray out loud than to pray silently? Since there seem to be no instances in the Bible of a recorded silent prayer (other than in the Epistles where Paul writes &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; he prays for people, or even writes a prayer to the Lord) - I don't think you could make the argument that praying silently is &quot;better&quot; than praying out loud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I also think that since God looks at our motives, and we are told to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;pray in secret&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, that silent prayers are going to be as effective if they are of the same heart as our aloud ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T14:11:31.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3458" CreationDate="2011-09-27T14:15:53.727" Score="14" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://watchtower.org/e/bible/ne/chapter_002.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nehemiah 2:4&lt;/strong&gt; (NWT)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  In turn the king said to me: “What is this that you are seeking to&#xA;  secure?” At once I prayed to the God of the heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not expected that Nehemiah prayed out loud to God in front of king Artaxerxes, but he probably made silent prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="763" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T14:15:53.727" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1855" CreationDate="2011-09-27T14:56:13.490" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just read this in the new &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ignatius.com/Products/YOUCAT-P/youcat.aspx&quot;&gt;YouCat&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sitting, Standing, Kneeling and Prostrating yourself each, through your body indicate different ways of relating to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easier to practice &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_Divina&quot;&gt;lectio divina&lt;/a&gt; while sitting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easier to stand together in a group and pray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easier to worship on your knees, and requires more patience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easier to submit yourself with your face on the ground. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=soVf9Q1h-esC&amp;amp;lpg=PT135&amp;amp;ots=lchE8mzP49&amp;amp;dq=youcat%20prayer%20postures&amp;amp;pg=PT135#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;Check it out!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T14:56:13.490" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3466" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3484" CreationDate="2011-09-27T14:59:09.413" Score="7" ViewCount="81" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism#Beliefs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia's article on Montanism&lt;/a&gt; and saw this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Montanist prophets did not speak as messengers of God but were described as possessed by God while being unable to resist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This (and other text in the article) seems to reverberate of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_at_Delphi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;oracles given at Delphi&lt;/a&gt; and at other pagan sites that were occurring during the same time frame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was Montanistic prophecy a reflection of this culture of oracles or was it something born out of its own right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T16:52:52.483" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T16:52:52.483" Title="Were the &quot;prophecies&quot; in Montanism related to the pagan oracles?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3467" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="59377" CreationDate="2011-09-27T15:09:23.800" Score="15" ViewCount="1594" Body="&lt;p&gt;Often the apostles are referred to as &quot;the twelve apostles&quot; - the twelve disciples called by name by Jesus. But Paul called himself and Barnabus apostles. Were Paul and Barnabus really apostles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-09T01:07:29.733" LastActivityDate="2017-08-16T17:15:37.767" Title="What is an apostle?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1855" CreationDate="2011-09-27T15:11:07.827" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A variety of positions are described in the Bible - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20123:1&amp;amp;version=49&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lifting one's eyes&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%208:6&amp;amp;version=49&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lifting hands&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%208:6&amp;amp;version=49&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prostrate on the ground&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:6&amp;amp;version=49&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in secret&lt;/a&gt;, etc&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no &quot;right&quot; way to pray (outside of our attitude) - but there are &lt;em&gt;MANY&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wrong&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; ways to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T18:25:08.627" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T18:25:08.627" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3469" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-27T15:11:40.947" Score="6" ViewCount="2153" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading about Renovaré and came across the &quot;twelve spiritual disciplines&quot;: meditation, prayer, fasting, study, simplicity, solitude, submission, service, confession, worship, guidance, and celebration&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first thought is that the list almost sounds contrived (being exactly 12).  However, when I look at each one, I can see how each of these things &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be able to help us grow spiritually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this list found in the Bible somewhere or was a contrived list?  Is this the only twelve items that can help you grow (or even the &quot;top twelve&quot;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any one of the twelve items that may be contentious or can they all truly be ways to grow in faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.renovare.us/SPIRITUALRENEWAL/PracticingLikeJesus/WhyPracticeLikeJesus/tabid/2518/Default.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More info at their website&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:46:53.087" LastActivityDate="2014-10-11T14:16:11.820" Title="Are the twelve spiritual disciplines biblically sound?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3430" CreationDate="2011-09-27T16:32:57.440" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; is a really good site that discusses the two topics. Follow the links at the bottom to find the corresponding article on Infallibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short summary &lt;em&gt;inerrant&lt;/em&gt; means &quot;without error&quot; and &lt;em&gt;infallible&lt;/em&gt; means &quot;incapable of error. The reason why those seem very similar is that, with respect to the Bible, they are. The word &lt;em&gt;infallible&lt;/em&gt; is normally applied to the church, and is a key part of Roman Catholic theology. It means that the church has not only promulgated no errors in the past, but will not do so in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants (who mostly do not recognize the infallibility of the church) have tended to apply the word to the Bible, which they take as their source of ultimate authority. However the word is not nearly as applicable to the Bible, as the Bible is a &lt;em&gt;closed canon&lt;/em&gt;, and cannot make any statements &quot;in the future&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Biblical infallibility&lt;/a&gt; quotes a theological as saying that 'infallibility' is used by some theologians to refer to the doctrine that the Bible is correct in &lt;em&gt;matters of faith and practice&lt;/em&gt; only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in short, when applied to the Bible, the two words are virtually synonymous. When applied to other authorities, like the church, they can mean very different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T13:14:34.130" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T13:14:34.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3469" CreationDate="2011-09-27T16:52:40.083" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The twelve items you mention are not found as a list anywhere in the Bible. However that does not mean they are contrived. They are, I believe, very ancient and proven over a long period. I don't believe that they were ever intended to be an exhaustive list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of the disciplines can be justified with biblical references, and they are definitely &quot;biblically sound&quot;. I can provide references if necessary, but the Renovare site you link to, or Richard Foster's book, will give a foundation much better than I could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T16:52:40.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3310" CreationDate="2011-09-27T17:15:36.483" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two things are clear from scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;last supper&quot; was in fact a passover meal. Multiple references in Mark 14, Matthew 26 and Luke 22 make it clear that the disciples prepared a passover meal. In Matthew Jesus says &quot;I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.&quot; In Luke it reads &quot;So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.&quot;. Other elements of the meal are drawn directly from Passover practice. Clearly this was a Passover meal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is also clear that this was done on the day before Passover. John 18 and 19 indicate that it was &quot;the day of preparation for the Passover&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of possible reconciliations of this. Some speculate that Jesus was a part of a minority Jewish sect that celebrated Passover on a different day. Others that he celebrated Passover a day early because he knew he wouldn't be able to do it on the right day (I don't know what Jewish Law would have said about that, but Jesus was never one to get hung up on legal technicalities).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T17:20:48.933" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T17:20:48.933" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3467" CreationDate="2011-09-27T17:40:06.047" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;apostle&lt;/em&gt; is a straight transliteration of the Greek &lt;em&gt;apostolos&lt;/em&gt;, literally meaning &quot;one who is sent forth.&quot;  It implies an ambassador or messenger bearing an official message by the authority of someone more powerful than himself.  Jesus called twelve Apostles to be his special messengers to all the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we know, Judas, one of the twelve, betrayed him and committed suicide soon after.  Matthias was called to replace Judas, which made it clear that the intention was to continue as twelve apostles, replacing the original members as they died.  While the Bible doesn't record exactly when or under what circumstances Paul and Barnabas were called as apostles, we do know that there was a lot of persecution of Christians in general and Christian leaders in particular going on at the time.  It's reasonable to suppose that they were called as replacements for others of the original twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T17:40:06.047" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3467" CreationDate="2011-09-27T17:45:06.070" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically, the word Apostle comes from the greek word 'apostolos' which literally means messenger, envoy, or one sent. Apostle essentially means &quot;teacher&quot; as opposed to disciple which means &quot;student&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically in Christianity the Apostles were the 11 disciples who went on to spread the Gospel of Christ after His death and resurrection. Paul and some other 1st generation Christians are included in this term. For most Protestants using the word Apostle as a title only applies to those first generation leaders, although some denominations and schools of theological thought may differ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can not speak authoritatively to the use of the word in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="768" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T20:02:51.507" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T20:02:51.507" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3458" CreationDate="2011-09-27T17:58:45.157" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find it curious that no one mentions the one instance where a prayer is explicitly mentioned as being silent &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; it was answered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:9-19&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 1:9-19 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Once after a sacrificial meal at Shiloh, Hannah got up and went to pray. Eli the priest was sitting at his customary place beside the entrance of the Tabernacle. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; Hannah was in deep anguish, crying bitterly as she prayed to the Lord. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; And she made this vow: “O Lord of Heaven’s Armies, if you will look upon my sorrow and answer my prayer and give me a son, then I will give him back to you. He will be yours for his entire lifetime, and as a sign that he has been dedicated to the Lord, his hair will never be cut.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;As she was praying to the Lord, Eli watched her.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Seeing her lips moving but hearing no sound&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, he thought she had been drinking. &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; “Must you come here drunk?” he demanded. “Throw away your wine!”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; “Oh no, sir!” she replied. “I haven’t been drinking wine or anything stronger. But I am very discouraged, and I was pouring out my heart to the Lord. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; Don’t think I am a wicked woman! For I have been praying out of great anguish and sorrow.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; “In that case,” Eli said, “go in peace! &lt;strong&gt;May the God of Israel grant the request you have asked of him.&lt;/strong&gt;”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; “Oh, thank you, sir!” she exclaimed. Then she went back and began to eat again, and she was no longer sad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; The entire family got up early the next morning and went to worship the Lord once more. Then they returned home to Ramah. When Elkanah slept with Hannah, &lt;strong&gt;the Lord remembered her plea&lt;/strong&gt;,  &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;and in due time she gave birth to a son&lt;/strong&gt;. She named him Samuel, for she said, “&lt;strong&gt;I asked the Lord for him.&lt;/strong&gt;”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hannah's prayer was silent, but the Lord answered her with the birth of Samuel. Considering warren's answer, there is no reason not to believe that silent prayers are answered in modern times as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T17:58:45.157" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3469" CreationDate="2011-09-27T18:06:20.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When asking if a discipline or practice is biblically sound the key question is not about the name of the discipline, but rather how that discipline is carried out or implemented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible speaks to many of these directly so the best test would be to identify the applicable passages and test the practice under consideration against the principles identified. A basic example I can relate is prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 11:1-13 the 12 disciples ask Jesus to teach them to pray. Here is the passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of&#xA;  his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his&#xA;  disciples.” 2 And he said to them, “When you pray, say: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread, 4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 And he said to them, “Which of you who has a friend will go to him&#xA;  at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, 6 for a&#xA;  friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set&#xA;  before him’; 7 and he will answer from within, ‘Do not bother me; the&#xA;  door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up&#xA;  and give you anything’? 8 I tell you, though he will not get up and&#xA;  give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his&#xA;  impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs. 9 And I tell&#xA;  you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock,&#xA;  and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and&#xA;  the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.&#xA;  11 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of&#xA;  a fish give him a serpent; 12 or if he asks for an egg, will give him&#xA;  a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts&#xA;  to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy&#xA;  Spirit to those who ask him!” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Lk 11:1–13). Wheaton:&#xA;  Standard Bible Society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After reading this passage we now have one biblical standard by which to examine a person's praying practice. In Jesus' model prayer we see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Praise and worship&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Asking for God's will to be done&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Asking the Lord for what we need to live&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask for forgiveness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask for the ability to forgive others&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask for protection from temptation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus then goes to speak about the reasoning behind the prayer, why we are to ask for God to grant us certain things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a prime passage to use to determine if you are praying properly and in a way that pleases the Lord. Now, as a word of warning as in most things covered in the Bible this is not the only place a topic is addressed. We must consider the Bible's commentary on a topic wholly and consistently. In trying to answer questions like these we cannot simply pick a choose what passages we use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T18:06:20.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3467" CreationDate="2011-09-27T18:25:33.073" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apostle does come from the Greek word &lt;em&gt;&lt;code&gt;apostolos&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/em&gt; / &lt;em&gt;&lt;code&gt;apostello&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, as noted by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/3473/69&quot;&gt;Mason Wheeler&lt;/a&gt;, and it does indicate one who is sent out.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Gospels, the Twelve are most commonly referred to as disciples.  They were following the Teacher, learning from Him as His students.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 17:18 and Matthew 28:18-20, among other verses, Jesus specifically &lt;strong&gt;sends them out&lt;/strong&gt; and commissions them with the Great Commission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, those who were once followers of Jesus became those who were no longer bid to come and follow, but also to go out and proclaim a message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in Matthew 4:19, the pattern for this was established.  Jesus said, &quot;Come follow me [be disciples], and I will make you fishers of men [apostles].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also the call of everyone who comes to Jesus. We must first and foremost follow Him, but we are also sent out with the Great Commission. Every disciple is called to be an apostle - a &lt;em&gt;sent one&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T16:29:41.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3478" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3481" CreationDate="2011-09-27T18:27:12.463" Score="6" ViewCount="2143" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;henotheism&lt;/a&gt; and it hinted at the fact that some Christians believe that angels are intercessors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quite simply, do angels pray for us?  Can we ask angels for intercession?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T14:56:44.610" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T14:56:44.610" Title="Do angels pray for us?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;intercession&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-10-20T16:33:27.760" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3478" CreationDate="2011-09-27T18:39:06.863" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with Wayne Grudem who cites 1 Tim. 2:5 in answering this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men,&#xA;  the man Christ Jesus, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Ti 2:5). Wheaton:&#xA;  Standard Bible Society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this we see clearly that Christ is the only mediator between Christians and God the Father. Additionally, Paul calls out the worship of angels as false doctrine in &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Col2.18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Col. 2:18&lt;/a&gt;. While praying to angels arguably may not be worship, in my mind the line is far too fine to mess around with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T18:39:06.863" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3478" CreationDate="2011-09-27T18:39:23.960" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the St. Michael prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Glorious St. Michael the archangel protect us in battle be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil, may God rebuke him we humbly pray and do thou oh prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the earth seeking the ruin of souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Leo XIII added it to the end of one of the old liturgies around the turn of the 20th century.  Catholics don't pray it after Mass any more, but the prayer is still a very popular (and efficacious) one, should you need a demon cast into Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is the Guardian Angel prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Angel of God, my guardian dear, to whom God's love commits me near, ever this day/night be at my side to light to guard to rule and guide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Catholics ask angels to protect us, but we know we're asking them to do what Jesus (the One Mediator) committed them to do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T18:55:51.210" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T18:55:51.210" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3482" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3489" CreationDate="2011-09-27T18:45:03.587" Score="7" ViewCount="1775" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several times in the New Testament, we are told not to make oaths but to make simple statements of affirmation or denial. For example...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:33-37&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:33-37 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 5:12 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, near the beginning of Paul's letter to the Galatians, he seems to make an oath himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%201:20&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 1:20 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, no reference to a cake, but anyway, it seems like Paul is making an oath based on God Himself. How can these passages be reconciled?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2020-06-26T13:41:45.630" Title="Is Paul making an oath in Galatians 1?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;&lt;oaths&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3466" CreationDate="2011-09-27T18:58:10.740" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the few reference texts (Moody Handbook of Theology, Hodges Systematic Theology &amp;amp; Eckman's Exploring Church History) that I looked at all references to Montanist prophecies stated that they claimed to be speaking for the Holy Spirit. The line you reference seems to be based on third party observation, and the first party claim contradicts that. I could not find an answer to whether or not they were influenced by that tradition, the only documentation I could find refers to their beliefs in the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T18:58:10.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2011-09-27T19:31:09.797" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a vast difference between an infant baptism and the baptism of a child.  An infant is baptized as the result of someone else's belief, not their own.  At age 5 1/2, I had a true understanding that Christ was the Son of God, lived, died and arose for me, and was asking for my repentance and a home in my life, my heart. That is when I accepted Him as my personal Savior.  It took much more growth in understanding to give Him His place as Lord.  I was baptized at age 7 as a result of my own faith and obedience to Him. I believe that, according to the Scriptures, the only true baptism by water must stem from one's own faith, not that of another.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To expand:&#xA;Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, &quot;Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. . .&quot;  Repentance was to precede baptism. Belief in Christ came first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corintians, hearing believed and were baptized.&quot;  Again believing in Christ Jesus came first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although Acts 16:33 as pointed out says &quot;. . .he and his family were baptized.&quot; however, this too is prefaced by believe as stated in Acts 16:31 &quot;So they (Paul and Silas) said, &quot;Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.&quot;  For each, believing was the prequisite to being baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An infant is simply not capable of his/her own belief. Infant baptism in one denomination is much the same as infant dedication in another.  It is a public committment made by the parent(s) to &quot;train up a child in the way he should go&quot;.  It is not a guarantee of that child's salvation or acceptance into heaven.  That must come from the child's own confession of need and acceptance of Christ gift of the sacrificial spanning of the gap between man and God. Thus, although it may be a physical re-baptism, spiritually this would be the initial baptism, the outward profession of an inward committment to Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="769" LastEditorUserId="769" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T19:34:03.110" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T19:34:03.110" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3482" CreationDate="2011-09-27T19:41:48.920" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oaths generally refer to something you will/won't do. We are unable to control what will happen in the future, and therefore don't know if we will be able to keep that oath (&quot;you cannot make even one hair white or black&quot;). Paul, in this situation, was writing about what already happened. He already experienced it so he knows it is true. He doesn't need to have control over anything but his hand (or the hand of his scribe) so he can know he is keeping his &quot;oath.&quot; This is why I believe there is nothing wrong with Paul's statement, but it still may very well go against Jesus' teaching because Paul wasn't perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In applying it to our lives, I believe we should avoid making statements such as Paul's even if we know it to be true since we are to give God our best rather than flirt with the line of right and wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T19:41:48.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2635" CreationDate="2011-09-27T20:24:13.953" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other than the reference that @warren has given.  The other passage believed to refer to him is in Daniel 10.  Note that the word angel isn't used here - he is called a prince - but context &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; imply it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="688" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T20:24:13.953" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3150" CreationDate="2011-09-27T21:19:30.370" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1998, Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham published an article in the leading scientific journal, &lt;em&gt;Nature&lt;/em&gt;, their findings on the percent of believers among scientists in the National Academy of Sciences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We found the highest percentage of belief [in God] among NAS mathematicians&#xA;  (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the&#xA;  lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with&#xA;  physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in&#xA;  immortality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to the question being asked, however, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pew Survey&lt;/a&gt; in mid-2009 found that 33% of &lt;strong&gt;all scientists in America&lt;/strong&gt; (not just those elected to NAS) believe in God, compared to 83% the American public. 18% believed in some sort of &quot;higher power&quot; (unaffiliated with any religion) and 41% are atheist. This suggests that the &quot;average&quot; scientist is more likely to believe in God than the most esteemed scientists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3HUYL.png&quot; alt=&quot;Religious affliation among scientists&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5csBq.png&quot; alt=&quot;Religious beliefs&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;This interesting article&lt;/a&gt; summarizes some of the findings from the Pew data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="676" LastEditDate="2011-09-27T21:44:11.023" LastActivityDate="2011-09-27T21:44:11.023" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3498" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3500" CreationDate="2011-09-27T23:06:18.833" Score="9" ViewCount="402" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 5:5 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have Paul referring to a man that was sleeping with 'his father's wife'. It seems from the way the phrase reads that Paul would see this man's flesh destroyed, if not directly by the members of the Corinthian church then indirectly, through the agency of Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the meaning of the phrase 'destruction of the flesh'? If Paul is advocating killing him then what are the ramifications? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-04-05T11:06:22.587" LastActivityDate="2017-04-05T11:06:22.587" Title="Was Paul advocating killing a man because of sexual immorality?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;church-discipline&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3498" CreationDate="2011-09-27T23:55:19.893" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  Paul was advocating kicking him out of the Church, not killing him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that it means to kick the person out of the Church is clarified in verse 12: (Emphasis added.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are&#xA;  you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Expel&#xA;  the wicked person from among you.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I understand it is this: The idea is to not turn a blind eye to sin, but to confront it and deal with it, particularly within the body of the Church.  To turn a blind eye to sin does nothing but encourage it.  To confront it and make it clear that it is not to be tolerated within the Church is better, because it forces the sinner to either acknowledge the sin and repent, or leave the Church, where they will not pollute it further. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person cannot repent if they are put to death, so this clearly cannot be stating that we are to put the sinner to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a nice version of this verse here that clarifies the meaning of the original Greek word that is translated as &quot;the flesh&quot;.  Due to language difference and cultural differences, the original meaning often gets lost in translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+5&amp;amp;version=NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Footnote below: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 5:5 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh&#xA;  (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as&#xA;  a power in opposition to the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-10T04:06:16.860" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T04:06:16.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3502" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3504" CreationDate="2011-09-28T01:14:05.323" Score="9" ViewCount="1798" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/278/biblical-basis-for-the-separation-of-church-and-state&quot;&gt;Biblical basis for the separation of church and state&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/278/biblical-basis-for-the-separation-of-church-and-state/295#295&quot;&gt;@Richard's answer&lt;/a&gt; on the provided link, he mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 12:17&lt;/a&gt; as foundation for Christ teaching separation of church and state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if this is to be taken as doctrine (meaning that the government should always be separated from the Church), or if it should be taken as advice on what to do if government is not united with the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all know that power corrupts. We've seen it many times in the Old Testament; One particular example of this (off the top of my head) is David, who was a prophet, and a very strong spiritual leader at that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for the actual question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are we to understand that Jesus taught separation of Church and state as part of His new Gospel? If not, are we to understand that unification of the Church and the state government is a desirable thing (like in some Islamic states)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have, of course, seen the Catholic Church act as (or have a strong influence on) the government in pre-Protestant times; as we all know, the Catholic Church dealt with a lot of corruption in the leadership, so I don't think this can be taken as evidence of a formal declaration of doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T09:53:54.733" Title="Did Jesus teach separation of church and state?" Tags="&lt;church-universal&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-27T07:19:36.257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3502" CreationDate="2011-09-28T01:27:09.110" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interpretation of @Richard's previous answer aside I know of nothing in the New Testament that either endorses or condemns the concept of the separation of church and state. However, in Romans Paul instructs Christians to submit to the authorities that we are subject to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is&#xA;  no authority except from God, and those that exist have been&#xA;  instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists&#xA;  what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.&#xA;  3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you&#xA;  have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and&#xA;  you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your&#xA;  good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword&#xA;  in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out&#xA;  God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection,&#xA;  not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.&#xA;  6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are&#xA;  ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is&#xA;  owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is&#xA;  owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ro 13:1–7). Wheaton:&#xA;  Standard Bible Society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would conclude that the Bible takes the view that God sovereignly ordains whatever earthly authorities are in place, regardless of how we as humans conceive and structure them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T01:27:09.110" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3502" CreationDate="2011-09-28T01:46:54.567" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Richard's answer isn't really teaching for separation of church and state, but rather evidence against fighting it. It shows we are to obey the authorities, but it doesn't say the government cannot be a specific religion. Jesus never taught to keep it separated (that is recorded at least), so it cannot be taken as doctrine. At the same time, he also never preached that the unification is desired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To have a government that has Christian values would, of course, be desirable (the Bible is considered to be the greatest book of morals ever written by a lot of non-Christians). However, Christianity is about choosing to have a relationship with Jesus. To have a government that forces everyone to be Christian could easily cause a lot of people to conform publicly, but resent Jesus privately. This is why I believe He never tried to make that unification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T01:46:54.567" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3505" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3507" CreationDate="2011-09-28T01:56:11.973" Score="12" ViewCount="2712" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Inspired by: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3443/60&quot;&gt;May Christians read self improvement books?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May we read un-Christian books? Should we?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In what circumstances?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;What guidelines should be used to decide on this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples of books that I consider relevant for the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The God Delusion&lt;/a&gt; by Richard Dawkins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God is not Great&lt;/a&gt; by Christopher Hitchens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Quran&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Dark_Materials&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;His Dark Materials&lt;/a&gt; by Philip Pullman&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Judas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_120_Days_of_Sodom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The 120 Days of Sodom&lt;/a&gt; by Marquis de Sade&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Da Vinci Code&lt;/a&gt; by Dan Brown&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Satanic Bible&lt;/a&gt; by Anton LaVey&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I have read some of the mentioned and would not read some. But I can't say what my guidelines would exactly be. Of course, I only know the ones I've read to be heretical/blasphemous/anti-Christian. Others I put on the list based on hearsay.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T03:00:40.013" Title="Should a Christian read books known to be heretical / blasphemous / against Christianity?" Tags="&lt;atheism&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;blasphemy&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-04-08T23:19:52.070" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3506" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-28T02:12:15.900" Score="12" ViewCount="1396" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:53-8:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;7:53-8:11&lt;/a&gt; we have the account of 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;53&lt;/strong&gt; Then they all went home, &lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. &lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” &lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt; “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many modern translation include notes like this one (NIV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And some translations print the entire passage in italics to indicate that it is most probably not an original passage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; article for more full explanation for and against. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; this is a later addition then what implications does this have? Does is invalidate biblical infallibility? Does it change any &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2987/what-is-the-practical-application-of-the-story-of-the-woman-caught-in-adultery&quot;&gt;moral or religious applications&lt;/a&gt; to this passage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2021-05-22T05:43:02.843" Title="Was 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery' in St. John a later addition, and does this invalidate infallibility?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3505" CreationDate="2011-09-28T02:23:19.960" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd give a similar answer to this question as I did the other one, except that having read some of these books already, I doubt I could read them now without being nauseated by what I'm reading.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are certain things that, once you read them, you can't get them out of your head.  (pornography, for example).  I've read some very anti-Christian books and articles (in print and on the web) that sound very good on the surface.  (So again, the same caution I gave in the answer on that question applies.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, some of the books on your list are full of the type of information we need to be armed against.  God calls each of us into a different ministry.  I tend to come across people of a certain mindset - atheists, agnostics, people who have serious and real objections to the very core concepts of Christianity.  In order to talk to these people and reach out to them, it is absolutely essential that I know where they are coming from.  Others (my Pastor, for example) would argue that this stuff isn't important because he tends to run across people who are open and seeking God, rather than those who oppose Him.  He'd probably tell you not to even look at this stuff, and to concentrate on the Word instead.  I guess if I knew less atheists, I might agree.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I just keep going back to the fact that if I hadn't been influenced by people who were educated and prepared for someone like me, I might not have ever been saved.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A while back, &lt;a href=&quot;http://paranoidrants.blogspot.com/2011/05/10-books-that-screwed-up-world.html&quot;&gt;I blogged about a book I'd read called &quot;10 Books that Screwed Up the World&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  It contains several books not on your list that should be.  I think that if you are one of the people that God has called to reach those that have been corrupted by these teachings, then not only is reading these books OK, it is, in some ways, necessary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is this:  You can't fight the enemy if you don't know the enemy.  the enemy is not the people who hold these beliefs, they are the beliefs themselves.  You can't hope to make a case against an idea if you don't understand the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you're reading these books because you simply enjoy them, I guess I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for doing so, but I know that I, personally, wouldn't be able to do it.  Walking with the Lord means being in agreement with Him, and obviously, you can't be in agreement with Him if you're in agreement with those who stand against him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One final point that should really be a separate answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to my statement about being nauseated. I figured out how to verbalize it:  I love God, and to read materials that purposely distort Him and cast Him in a negative light make me furious.  I would be just as furious if someone wrote a pornographic story about my wife or children.  It's offensive.  That's why I'd have a hard time reading these books, even if it does help me to be better prepared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T02:29:12.853" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T02:29:12.853" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3505" CreationDate="2011-09-28T02:23:44.890" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;You must read any of these books the same way you would read the Bible and any other work for that matter: &lt;strong&gt;in context&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any deeper examination of your faith by asking question or reading arguments counter to your beliefs, if read earnestly, and in the spirit of truly wanting more understand should only draw you closer to your faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance &quot;The God Delusion&quot; is a great book for Christians to read, since it can reveal many of the arguments that Atheist have against Christianity and religion in general. It can certainly challenge you BUT if you make a careful examination for and against its arguments it can give you better understanding of the beliefs you have already, or you might change your mind on certain things. In either event you are more enlightened and better informed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, context is important. If you picked up the Gospel of Judas, thinking it was a canonized text of the New Testament, you may come away with a different meaning than if you understood that it was a Gnostic text written probably in the 2nd century. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T02:23:44.890" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3506" CreationDate="2011-09-28T02:25:28.537" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Forgive me for answering my own question…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several scenarios I can think of regarding this passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John himself added this passage later on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John told this story enough that later his followers thought it appropriate to add this passage to John’s account.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This account was so common among early Christians and fit so well at this point in John’s gospel that the early Christians felt is appropriate to add this story here. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John himself had written this account elsewhere, and his followers later combined it with the rest of his Gospel. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If any of these explanations are true, or something similar happened, it would not invalidate the truth of the account historically, or otherwise. Likewise, just because the very earliest manuscripts do not contain these words exactly it does not necessarily follow that it is not true or any less inspired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T02:25:28.537" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3510" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3518" CreationDate="2011-09-28T02:44:22.977" Score="33" ViewCount="17229" Body="&lt;p&gt;I quite don't understand this whole thing. Jesus and his disciples are hanging around the city all the time. Why can't the Pharisees arrest him at their leisure? Why do they need Judas to tell the soldiers which one Jesus is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-04T15:20:39.753" LastActivityDate="2016-12-16T15:13:22.823" Title="Why did the Pharisees need Judas to betray Jesus?" Tags="&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;&lt;pharisees&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3510" CreationDate="2011-09-28T02:49:35.447" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to remember the time period.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back then they didn't have photographs.  In fact, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_technologies&quot;&gt;paper and horseshoes&lt;/a&gt; were still new inventions. The soldiers that were sent to capture him weren't his disciples, so they wouldn't know his face, only his reputation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to how he betrayed him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon coming up to Jesus with the soldiers he kissed him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:49&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:49 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed&#xA;  him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="89" LastEditorUserId="89" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T02:54:43.973" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T02:54:43.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3512" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-28T02:56:18.937" Score="18" ViewCount="2312" Body="&lt;p&gt;In comment discussion of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3505/60&quot;&gt;another question&lt;/a&gt;, these mentions about the Qur'an were made:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Qur'an teaches that Christ is a Prophet in Islam. In that sense I wouldn't say it's &quot;Anti-Christian&quot; or even heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I merely made this distinction because it doesn't directly teach against Christian theology, and some Christians have a similar view to the Qur'an with respect to the divinity of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had never before heard of Christians that see the Qur'an as compatible with Christianity. I think this has a lot to do with what doctrines a Christian holds onto. &lt;em&gt;For the purpose of this question, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3/what-about-groups-that-are-not-considered-by-some-to-be-christian-who-consider-t&quot;&gt;anyone self-identifying as a Christian is a Christian&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What Christian doctrines is the Qur'an incompatible with?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the Qur'an generally compatible with Christianity? (i.e. other than being incompatible with the specific doctrines)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2014-07-19T03:50:01.233" Title="Is the Qur'an compatible with Christianity?" Tags="&lt;islam&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T00:36:12.950" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3512" CreationDate="2011-09-28T03:05:27.893" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll start with what Christian views I know the Qur'an explicitly denies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Trinity&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://quran.com/4/171&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Qur'an 4:171&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, &quot;Three&quot;; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Jesus, the son of God&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://quran.com/9/30&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Qur'an 9:30&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; The Jews say, &quot;Ezra is the son of Allah &quot;; and the Christians say, &quot;The Messiah is the son of Allah .&quot; That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't really say anything about how the Qur'an relates to Christianity other than for these points. Feel free to edit this answer or copy content to your own answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Jesus died on a cross&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://quran.com/4/157-158&quot;&gt;Qur'an 4:157-158&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: [157] And [for] their saying, &quot;Indeed, we have&#xA;  killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .&quot;&#xA;  And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was&#xA;  made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are&#xA;  in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following&#xA;  of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. [158] Rather,&#xA;  Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and&#xA;  Wise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="1248" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T01:09:36.787" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T01:09:36.787" CommentCount="7" CommunityOwnedDate="2011-09-28T03:05:27.893" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3505" CreationDate="2011-09-28T03:14:01.503" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not suggesting that we are not to guard our hearts and minds. It is important to remember &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 12:2&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV) which begins;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When operating in the world it seems important to not go blindly. When faced with debate about evolution, for example, it would be difficult to debate the issue intelligently &#xA;without having studied Darwin's theory, and more importantly, read his books and papers. There are some extremely important points Darwin made regarding evolution that most people are unfamiliar with. His own criteria for proving evolution valid has dashed Darwin's theory to pieces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When faced with this debate with a non-believer, it is amazing to watch God reaching someone by using Darwin's own criteria as a debate point against evolution. This couldn't have been known during his time but, the window of time he gave archeologists to find the millions of shape-shifting fossils he predicted would be found has come and gone by decades. He said that without these, his theory would be without merit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 12:2&lt;/strong&gt; continues;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...thay ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowledge about the enemy, coupled with God's wisdom and timing, may just be what God needs from us to be there to help lead an unbeliever to our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T03:17:12.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T03:17:12.513" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3515" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3519" CreationDate="2011-09-28T03:22:38.513" Score="13" ViewCount="718" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some that teach that Christ was married (usually to Mary Magdalene), yet there are others that teach that Christ was not married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible teach anything about Christ or His mission that would make it very unlikely that he was married?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything in the culture of Jesus' time that would shed light on the subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not looking for traditions passed down (statements by Popes, Apocryphal writings, etc), but those would certainly be acceptable (and interesting) to quote as secondary sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am more interested in direct Bible verses or customs of Jesus' time that would give an indication one way or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, none of the Apostles or other writers taught either case directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="130" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T04:04:43.827" LastActivityDate="2020-08-27T08:29:19.067" Title="Could Jesus have been married?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3510" CreationDate="2011-09-28T03:28:36.743" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus makes the same point when he is being arrested. He certainly could have been seized anytime without Judas's help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:48-49&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 14:48-49 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt; And Jesus said to them, &quot;Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? &lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;  Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scripture had to be fulfilled, and that's why the arrest had to happen this way. I think this might refer to Isaiah's prophecy on the Messiah being counted a criminal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%2053:12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 53:12 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  because he poured out his soul to death&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and was numbered with the transgressors;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   yet he bore the sin of many,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and makes intercession for the transgressors.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T03:28:36.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3515" CreationDate="2011-09-28T03:42:31.647" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One rather telling bit of culture:  When Jesus got up to preach in the synagogues, we never hear of him causing any outrage before he actually delivered his message.  But by the customs of the time, only a married man was allowed to preach in the synagogues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to who this hypothetical wife might have been, we can only guess, and IMO speculation is kind of pointless.  But it seems to me that if Jesus did have a wife, there would be good reason for not mentioning her, especially if the people who wrote the scriptures truly had the gift of prophecy: they would know the way anything and everything sacred ends up getting dragged through the dirt by the world.  Simple respect for what must have been a truly remarkable woman would be enough to allow her the peace of obscurity and anonymity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T03:42:31.647" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3510" CreationDate="2011-09-28T03:55:58.710" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's something you probably don't think about much, but we have reason to believe that Jesus really wasn't all that distinctive in his appearance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:58-59&quot;&gt;John 8:58-59&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204:28-30&quot;&gt;Luke 4:28-30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were&#xA;  filled with wrath,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the&#xA;  brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast&#xA;  him down headlong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the act of someone who is very ordinary-looking and able to blend in with a crowd at will.  See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053:2&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53:2&lt;/a&gt;.  The context makes it clear that he's prophesying about the Messiah here, and he clearly states that he does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; look like what you'd expect of a powerful, charismatic leader:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Dancek pointed out, Jesus reminded them that they could have come for him any time he was in the temple teaching.  It's not hard to find him then: look for the one who's the center of attention!  But looking for him at night, when you don't really know what he looks like and even if you did, that description might match any of thousands of Jews? (And this was Passover season, so there were a lot of extra Jews in Jerusalem at the moment.)  The only way to make sure you've got the right guy in a situation like that is to get someone who personally knows your target to identify him.  And so that's exactly what they did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T03:55:58.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3515" CreationDate="2011-09-28T04:12:37.903" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church is continually referred to as the 'Bride of Christ' in the NT, Revelation goes so far as to cast the final redemption of the church as the &quot;Marriage Supper of the Lamb&quot;. While as an analogy it could have still been valid if Christ was married, I think that a married Christ would lessen the impact of the image and cause confusion amongst His followers. Additionally, many theologians agree that earthly marriage is actually the analogy, and that it represents Christ's relationship with His church as the 'real' marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T04:12:37.903" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3512" CreationDate="2011-09-28T04:15:35.577" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it is not compatible. The Qur'an explicitly denies the divinity of Christ, which is one of the absolute bedrock tenets of the Christian faith. Without His divinity and associated sinlessness Christ's sacrifice and resurrection would carry no meaning or effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One additional note:&lt;/strong&gt; I ran across &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/09/28/the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-no-christianity-without-it/&quot;&gt;this article today&lt;/a&gt; and I thought it would round out this answer well. In it the author explains the doctrine of the Trinity and why it matters so much. The fact that Christ was divine and one part of a triune Godhead is critical to Christianity, and as I said the Qur'an denies it outright. A great summary of the Trinity from the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in seven statements. (1)&#xA;  There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4)&#xA;  The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is&#xA;  the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father. All of&#xA;  the creedal formulations and theological jargon and philosophical&#xA;  apologetics have to do with safeguarding each one of these statements&#xA;  and doing so without denying any of the other six.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without a Trinity there is no Christianity, therein lies the direct conflict with the Qur'an.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T21:12:40.127" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T21:12:40.127" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3521" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-28T04:21:29.900" Score="9" ViewCount="1749" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original text can be found on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Near the end of the creed, there is this phrase:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe in... the communion of saints...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this exactly mean? I understand that communion means a 'sharing in common', but I'm not entirely sure of the meaning and implications of this statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle's Creed is not unique to the Roman Catholic Church, and is accepted by many other denominations. I expect to hear the perspectives of all churches where the creed is accepted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2016-06-06T16:03:54.497" Title="What does &quot;communion of saints&quot; mean in the Apostle's Creed?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;apostles-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3515" CreationDate="2011-09-28T04:22:52.183" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The setting aside, slaughtering, and eating of the paschal lamb was introductory to the celebration of the festival. According to &lt;strong&gt;Exodus 12:5&lt;/strong&gt; this rite was instituted by Moses in Egypt, in anticipation of the judgment about to be visited on Pharaoh and his people. On the tenth of the month—ever thereafter to be the first month of the year—the Hebrews were to take a lamb for each household, without blemish, &lt;strong&gt;a male of the first year&lt;/strong&gt;, from the sheep or from the goats.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above information was found under the heading of &lt;strong&gt;Paschal Lamb&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;at www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=98&amp;amp;letter=P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A male of the first year would not be considered breeding stock yet. It was insignificant whether it was taken from a flock or sheep or goats. It was, however, significant that it be without blemish...and hadn't mated. This was the only scriptural clue I could find. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T04:22:52.183" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2011-09-28T05:06:50.840" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're concerned about whether you'll offend/annoy people, it will probably depend on the individual. It might also depend how you say it, e.g. if you think Jesus &quot;said something like that&quot; but you have &quot;no idea exactly what&quot;, but it means that X is absolutely what we should do, then...I think it's probably time to open your Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, I don't mind as long as you don't mind if I then pull out the Bible to check if it reflects what it actually says. Anyway, I myself often paraphrase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T05:06:50.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3524" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-28T05:09:45.857" Score="15" ViewCount="24349" Body="&lt;p&gt;It says that Abraham feared for his life (Gen 12:12). Does this mean Abraham didn't trust God in spite of the NT view that Abraham was a man of faith (Heb 11:8-12, Gal 3:9)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is the repeated mistake with Abimilech then recorded in Gen 20?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastActivityDate="2015-07-19T15:12:54.717" Title="Why did Abraham lie to Pharaoh about Sarah being his sister in Gen 12?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3521" CreationDate="2011-09-28T05:18:08.287" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_of_saints&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a good article on the concept&lt;/a&gt;. The phrase means that Christians are united in the Body of Christ, a teaching based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2012&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12&lt;/a&gt; (and some other passages).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T05:18:08.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3526" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3529" CreationDate="2011-09-28T06:27:19.157" Score="11" ViewCount="20434" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke5:27-28&quot;&gt;Luke 5:27&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark2:14&quot;&gt;Mark 2:14&lt;/a&gt; mention a tax collector named Levi:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name&#xA;  of Levi sitting at his tax booth. &quot;Follow me,&quot; Jesus said to him,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the&#xA;  tax collector's booth. &quot;Follow me,&quot; Jesus told him, and Levi got up&#xA;  and followed him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like these could be referring to Matthew and I've seen some footnotes that offer that as a possibility (or even as likely) but are there any good reasons to believe that this &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;is not&lt;/em&gt; referring to Matthew?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="187" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-16T07:35:56.450" LastActivityDate="2020-09-14T03:25:08.827" Title="Is Levi from Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 referring to the apostle Matthew" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3528" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3537" CreationDate="2011-09-28T10:35:33.953" Score="8" ViewCount="2472" Body="&lt;p&gt;We had the question about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2932/how-do-young-earth-creationists-reconcile-the-age-of-the-universe-with-the-speed&quot;&gt;the speed of light&lt;/a&gt;. But why do Creationists agree with microevolution and disagree with the idea of macroevolution at the same time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macroevolution, as I understand, is nothing more than a lot of microevolutions chained together and is fundamentally the same. If you agree with one, how can you disagree with the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good example, why both are the same is for example our own live. If we had pictures of each day in our life, look at one of it, both the picture of the day before and day after would seem to look the same. But if we skip a few years between the pictures, the difference would be remarkable. Altough we have only small changes each day, if we observe a longer timeframe the change is huge. And noone can say at what day we stopped being a baby and are a toddler now or went from adulescent to adult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its the same with species, there are a lot of different transitional states, but you can't say where it stopped to be one species and starts to be another. This seems obvious to me, but Creationists disagree with it. What are their arguments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T12:56:07.683" Title="Why and how do Creationists agree with microevolution but disagree with the idea of macroevolution" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2012-03-28T23:27:42.747" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3526" CreationDate="2011-09-28T10:40:11.280" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is almost certain that this person is Matthew. In the parallel account of this narrative in the &lt;em&gt;Gospel of Matthew&lt;/em&gt;, we see that Levi appears to be &quot;renamed&quot; &lt;strong&gt;Matthew&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%209:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 9:9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is unknown why Levi is called Matthew in this gospel. Like all the gospels, &lt;em&gt;Matthew&lt;/em&gt; is actually an anonymous document, and our attribution of it to Matthew is based on the consensus of Church Fathers in the 2nd century. However, it appears that whoever wrote the gospel (hereafter called &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the evangelist&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;) wants to show that &lt;em&gt;Levi&lt;/em&gt; is the &lt;em&gt;Matthew&lt;/em&gt; listed in the Twelve (cf &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 10:3&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could be &quot;...because the writer believed that Levi was or should have been one of the twelve, or is it perhaps because in writing of himself he preferred the name Matthew to his own pre-conversion name, Levi?&quot; [Hagner, &lt;em&gt;Introduction&lt;/em&gt;, lxxvi].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though there are theories that claim the evangelist is playing with names, it must be said that it is very unlikely that he would get away with substituting the name Levi for Matthew if they were not the same person. It is not unusual for individuals in 1st century Israel to have more than one name. For example, it seems that another member of the twelve is known by two names: &lt;em&gt;Jude&lt;/em&gt;, was also known by the name &lt;em&gt;Thaddeus&lt;/em&gt;. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%203:16-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 3:16-19&lt;/a&gt; vs &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:14-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 6:14-16&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suffice it to say, that the vast majority of scholars suggest that the &quot;Levi&quot; of &lt;strong&gt;Mark 2&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Luke 5&lt;/strong&gt; is indeed the &lt;em&gt;Matthew&lt;/em&gt; of &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 9&lt;/strong&gt;. Why the evangelist sought to enlighten his readers to this is speculative.&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;Sources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0849902320&quot;&gt;Hagner, D. A., &lt;em&gt;Word Biblical Commentary - Matthew 1-13&lt;/em&gt;, Nelson, 1993&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830842322&quot;&gt;Cole, A., &lt;em&gt;Mark&lt;/em&gt;, IVP, 2008&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0849902347&quot;&gt;Nolland, J., &lt;em&gt;Word Biblical Commentary - Luke 1-9:20&lt;/em&gt;, Nelson, 1989&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="647" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T10:40:11.280" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3528" CreationDate="2011-09-28T10:52:40.957" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that a main facet of the Creationist argument is based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is stated that entropy poses a huge problem to &lt;em&gt;macro&lt;/em&gt; evolution in that all systems over time decay and move from order to disorder. Creationists thus claim that the genetic code of a species will, over time, lose information - not gain information. Therefore, to move from single celled organisms to Human Beings is impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Micro&lt;/em&gt; evolution is accepted in the case of &lt;em&gt;natural selection &lt;strong&gt;within a species&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, providing these changes come about by the &lt;strong&gt;loss&lt;/strong&gt; of genetic information. This loss of information, by necessity, has to be beneficial to the survival of said species.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least, I believe that is the argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="647" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T10:52:40.957" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3534" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-28T11:52:25.403" Score="0" ViewCount="5689" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Question:&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading Genesis, there seem to be quite a few references to some 'other' humans. How do scholars interpret those passages (and more importantly, why do they interpret them a certain way)? Are Biblical scholars sure Adam and Eve were the first humans?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Details:&lt;/em&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26-29&lt;/a&gt; it is first described how God created man and woman, without giving specific details: no mention of them being named Adam or Eve, for example, or if there were only two humans that he created.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2 starts by describing the seventh day, which suggests the events are a continuation of those in Genesis 1. However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:4-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:4-7&lt;/a&gt; describes how the plants were not growing because there was no man to work the ground, which suggests that Genesis 2 is a retelling in greater detail of the events in Genesis 1.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, that to me is unclear if it's a right interpretation since the events are described in a different order. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 4:14&lt;/a&gt;, Cain fears that if he leaves the presence of God, &quot;&lt;i&gt;who&lt;/i&gt;ever&quot; finds him will kill him. Who?   &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:17-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 4:17-18&lt;/a&gt; lists descendants of Cain. Now, Cain might have had kids with his own mother, but it's interesting to note that all named descendants are male. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 4:19&lt;/a&gt;, Lameh (the last descendant of Cain) is said to marry &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; wives: Ada and Zillah. Where did these come from? Are the the descendants of Cain as well? Why are they not mentioned in Genesis 4:17-18, then?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And one last interesting bit, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:2&lt;/a&gt; mentions how the &quot;sons of God&quot; found the &quot;daughters of humans&quot; attractive. Who are the sons of God? Who are the daughters of humans? Why the distinction? My own uneducated interpretation would be that the 'sons of God' are the descendants of Adam and Eve, while the 'humans' are the &lt;em&gt;others&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="779" LastEditorUserId="779" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T11:59:25.673" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T12:11:18.237" Title="Were Adam and Eve the first?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="11" ClosedDate="2011-09-28T12:30:28.727" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3505" CreationDate="2011-09-28T11:54:34.280" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to quote the apologetic mandate verse&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (New International Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new atheist movements books as hard as they are to swallow is good books to have under your belt as a Christian. They seem to be the material that lay skeptics most often go to to defend their skepticism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good responses will do you well in your own witnessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T11:54:34.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3534" CreationDate="2011-09-28T12:11:18.237" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's true that Genesis 1 does not name Adam and Eve, but Genesis 2 does.  Genesis 5 mentions Adam as the first man as well, and the New Testament confirms this.  Genesis 3 ends with Eve being names as such because she would become the mother of all the living.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 5 starts with God creating man &quot;in the image of God&quot; and then states that Adam had a son &quot;in his own likeness&quot;.  So, Adam was created in the image of God, then the image was a bit marred in Genesis 3, and then Adam had a son in his own likeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Bible is in pretty strong agreement that Adam and Eve were the first people created. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first son of Adam mentioned in Genesis 5, however, is Seth.  We are told that Cain and Abel were sons earlier than that.  The Bible does not explicitly mention any other sons or daughters of Adam and Eve, although we are told in Genesis 5 that they had other sons and daughters.  The question is, &quot;how many did they have?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recalling that their command was to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth, it seems reasonable to conclude that they had a large family.  It is also reasonable to assume that by the time Cain killed Abel, they had already had other sons and daughters.  We don't know how old Cain and Abel were when the first murder occurred, but if they were 16, then there could have been quite a few other children around.  After Abel's death, Adam and Eve have Seth, so it seems they are still having children that many years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ages given for those who lived before the flood are quite large, so many conclude that the earth was better suited to life prior to the flood.  Indeed, a cataclysmic flood would certainly have a dire impact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when the Bible mentions Cain's fear of other people, it is referring to other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and perhaps their grandchildren if Cain and Abel were older.  Adam and Eve were 130 years old when Seth was born, so it's possible that they had been having children for quite a long time (100 years).  This could allow for not only grandchildren, but great grandchildren and even more generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;sons of God&quot; could refer to the line of Seth or others who lived righteously, and the daughters of men could refer to the line of Cain and Lamech, although we can't know for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting that a genealogy is given from Adam through Noah, Abraham, David and on down 4,000 years or so to Jesus.  This is more evidence that Adam is a real person, because fictitious characters don't have lineages that trace to real people.  So, the Bible presents Adam as a real person who existed in time and to whom all lineages trace back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T12:11:18.237" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3528" CreationDate="2011-09-28T12:56:07.683" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Micro-evolution is variation within a kind and macro-evolution is said to result from a lot of micro-evolution, but it is really a change of &quot;kind&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Variations within a kind indicate that all the genetic information is already available within the species, but through isolation of features, certain characteristics become more prominent.  With the breeding of dogs, this is what takes place--not the creation of new genetic material, but the isolation and selection of the information that is already there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 1, the phrase &quot;according to their own kind&quot; comes up quite a bit.  The word kind, I've heard somewhere, could encompass all members of the dog family, including wolves, coyotes, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macro-evolution requires new information, a change in the chromosome count (at some point), and is by definition different from variations within a kind.  So, macro-evolution is definitely not a bunch of variations within a kind.  Macro-evolution demands that it break outside of its own kind.  No matter how many variations within a kind occur, with the same chromosome count and isolation or selection of information that exists, no new information is ever created and the chromosome counts never change.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything we have ever observed falls into variations within a kind, with no chromosome count change and no new information.  Fruit flies may have extra wings, but the information for wings was already there.  It was just replicated in the wrong spot.  The scientific method of observation and replication confirms that things do reproduce after their own kinds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Macro-evolution has never been observed.  What we do observe is different kinds in the fossil record.  The assumption that one kind evolved into another is just that--an assumption.  The only evidence is similarity, which is circumstantial evidence at best.  Finding the bones of a species only tells us that the species existed.  It does not tell us it evolved from another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, all observable, repeatable, scientific experimentation confirms that species reproduce after their own kinds.  To blindly accept that species reproduce after other kinds just because other kinds exist is certainly not science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The creation model says that all kinds were created and reproduce after themselves.  If we ask whether or not the evidence fits this model, it seems pretty clear that it does.  We see &quot;kinds&quot; reproducing after their own kind all the time.  Some variations within a kind go extinct, like the dodo bird and others, but they all reproduce after their own kinds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evolution model rests on something that has never been observed despite much experimentation, so it rests on something that is presumed to occur despite science's inability to replicate it.  When all experimentation fails to support a theory, it usually results in the discarding of that theory.  In the case of evolution, however, the philosophical implications appear to be too significant for that to take place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T12:56:07.683" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3538" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3539" CreationDate="2011-09-28T13:14:35.207" Score="6" ViewCount="7902" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:1-2 accounts what was before God gave form to the Earth, and that is water:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. &lt;br&gt; &amp;mdash; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that might be interpreted as a metaphor for &quot;vastness&quot;, maybe, but other verses in Genesis also seem to assert the same thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. &lt;br&gt; &amp;mdash; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:6-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:6-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In those verses it is described how God separates water. &lt;strong&gt;The separation is called &quot;sky&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (this will be relevant later, that's why I made it bold). It also says there is water both under the sky (on Earth) and also above the sky (in space?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in the account of Noah's Flood, it is described how God &lt;strong&gt;opened up the &quot;sky&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (among other means of flooding the planet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. &lt;br&gt; &amp;mdash; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:11-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 7:11-12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Obviously it makes no sense to say the universe is full of water. What does the word mean then, in those passages? What is it used as a metaphor for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="779" LastEditorUserId="779" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T13:32:52.137" LastActivityDate="2014-06-23T14:17:51.470" Title="Universe made of water?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3538" CreationDate="2011-09-28T13:47:37.073" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2008/what-is-the-most-basic-biblical-understanding-of-the-nature-of-the-firmament/2015#2015&quot;&gt;my answer to the question about the firmament.&lt;/a&gt;  Calling it a &quot;vault&quot; is a bad translation of the Hebrew word, which connotes something thin and stretched out to cover a wide area.  God placed an &lt;em&gt;expanse&lt;/em&gt; between the waters that were on the Earth (rivers, oceans, lakes, etc) and the waters that were above the earth (clouds).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Flood came, all we know is that all the water that was necessary to do the job was employed to flood the Earth.  we aren't told where it came from. I've heard speculation that, as this was a miraculous and unique event, God could have brought in extra water that doesn't ordinarily belong to Earth and then sent it away again. But that's just speculation, and we don't really have any way of knowing for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T13:47:37.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="778" CreationDate="2011-09-28T13:48:39.023" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Fornication%20rev%20%282%29.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This document&lt;/a&gt; should shed some light on the usage of the word porneia and the Greek word family it belongs to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an excerpt from the conclusion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this study we have looked at the word family -porn- in&#xA;  extra-biblical Greek literature, in the OT, and in the NT. In all&#xA;  sources, porneia and the related terms refer to sexual acts only. Both&#xA;  OT and NT correspond largely when it comes to the word family. Though&#xA;  the OT favors the figurative sense and the NT the literal meaning, the&#xA;  different aspects of porneia are found in both testaments. They&#xA;  include prostitution, premarital sexual relations, adultery, incest,&#xA;  and homosexuality, in short, sexual relations outside of the marriage.&#xA;  Thus, OT and NT enlarge the understanding of fornication as found in&#xA;  the Greek world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is that the Septuagint and the NT have close agreement on the term. If you recall that the Septuagint dates back to the 3rd century BC, giving us an idea of how Greek was used and translated in relation to Hebrew. The agreement between the usage of this word in the NT and the Septuagint provides strong evidence to the colloquial use in those times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="3837" LastEditDate="2013-01-25T02:09:34.997" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T02:09:34.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3541" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-28T14:28:47.103" Score="8" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;p&gt;Art (particularly Christian art, it seems) is filled with halos.  There's halos on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Venice%20&amp;amp;%20N%20Italy/Venice/Images/Last_Suppers/7-900/Tintoretto-LastS-SGMag-BR900.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus at the Last Supper&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/TINqtsWV-bI/AAAAAAAAUHA/U8MXHPS9ZrQ/s1600/Transfiguation+with+Moses+and+Elijah.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus, Moses, and Elijah at the transfiguration&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1788/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1788-12955.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on angels&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://viz.cwrl.utexas.edu/files/mary_halo.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the virgin Mary&lt;/a&gt;; etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly is a halo?  Is it biblically based?  And did Jesus (or anyone else) walk around with a halo all the time like it's depicted?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T10:34:54.930" Title="What are halos?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3541" CreationDate="2011-09-28T15:04:36.817" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Haloes are not limited to Christian art but have been used in depictions of key figures from lots of religions and cultures, including Ancient Greece, Buddhism, Islam and others. They don't have a Biblical basis and aren't intended to suggest there was a visible halo around the  actual people depicted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_%28religious_iconography%29#In_Christian_art&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; Wikipedia article on the subject&lt;/a&gt; is quite comprehensive and contains some interesting information on embellishments that were added to the halos at different times to depict different things (such as members the Trinity, Beatified figures, etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T15:04:36.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3544" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3553" CreationDate="2011-09-28T16:20:22.830" Score="9" ViewCount="292" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are different &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth&quot;&gt;flood legends&lt;/a&gt; among several civilizations that are similiar to the flood in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A flood myth or deluge myth is a mythical or religious story of a great flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution. It is a theme widespread among many cultures, though it is perhaps best known in modern times through the biblical and Quranic account of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark&quot;&gt;Noah's Ark&lt;/a&gt;, the Hindu puranic story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_%28Hinduism%29&quot;&gt;Manu&lt;/a&gt;, through &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_flood_myths&quot;&gt;Deucalion in Greek mythology&lt;/a&gt; or Utnapishtim in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth&quot;&gt;Epic of Gilgamesh&lt;/a&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are these &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths&quot;&gt;other stories&lt;/a&gt; relevant to Christianity?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do they describe the same event?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why are they so similar and at the same time different (reasons and causes)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How can a valid exhaustive list of flood legends exist if it supposedly killed every man on earth besides the ones that were saved&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-05T01:10:27.427" LastActivityDate="2014-11-05T01:10:27.427" Title="Are other flood legends relevant to Christians?" Tags="&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;legend&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2011-11-15T16:08:20.710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3433" CreationDate="2011-09-28T16:31:01.607" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God made several covenants throughout time with different people or groups of people, including Adam, Noah, and Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, after the initial covenant with Adam, we could ask why a new covenant was made.  The answer is that the first covenant was broken by Adam.  With Noah, it wasn't that a previous covenant was broken, but that God made it clear that He would never destroy the earth with water again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The covenant with Moses and the nation of Israel was in effect for around 1500 years, from the time of Moses to the time of Christ.  Now it could be argued that it is still in effect with the nation of Israel, I know.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This covenant involved the obedience of the people of Israel to the Mosaic Law and God's blessing or curse based on that obedience.  However, the covenant never achieved righteousness in the blood of bulls and goats (as Hebrews states).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During this covenant, an new covenant was spoken of.  The New Covenant was initiated with the resurrection of Jesus and replaces the old covenant.  This is a better Covenant in that it does impute righteousness to mankind and brings forgiveness and redemption.  The old covenant was put in place as a tutor to bring us to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God created several &quot;new&quot; covenants throughout history for various reasons.  The newest of them is the New Covenant in the shed blood of Jesus, as He indicated at the last supper.  It's a better covenant in that it is eternal and in that is brings redemption to mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T16:31:01.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3547" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3556" CreationDate="2011-09-28T16:31:30.940" Score="10" ViewCount="8168" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do the crusades impact modern day Christianity own sense of morality and spirituality? What do these things mean to a person of faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Crusades&lt;/a&gt;, from Wikipedia&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land. The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291; historians have given them numbers, later unnumbered crusades were also taken up for a variety of reasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Related Question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3555/how-did-the-inquisition-impact-modern-christianity&quot;&gt;How did the Inquisition impact modern Christianity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-08-03T02:14:59.127" LastActivityDate="2017-08-03T02:14:59.127" Title="How did the Crusades impact modern Christianity?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;crusades&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-05-17T00:57:25.963" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3515" CreationDate="2011-09-28T16:36:57.670" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't teach anything about Jesus or his mission that makes it very unlikely he was married (without stretching scripture). The fact that it is never explicitly stated whether he was married or not leads me to believe it is insignificant to Christianity. I believe he was not married because from my experience having a wife tends to get mentioned. When I was single, my marital status was rarely brought up, but now that I am married it seems my wife is mentioned for every other thing I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T16:36:57.670" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3549" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3554" CreationDate="2011-09-28T16:42:05.290" Score="19" ViewCount="22783" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church (and apparently Lutheran, Anglican and Episcopalian churches) have clergy with the title of &quot;priest&quot;, as did Old Testament Judaism.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5596/what-is-the-difference-between-a-pastor-a-priest-and-a-minister&quot;&gt;Are Protestant &quot;preachers&quot;, &quot;reverends&quot;, &quot;pastors&quot;, &quot;ministers&quot;, etc. all essentially &quot;priests&quot;, or is there some difference between these two systems of clergy titles?&lt;/a&gt;  Why didn't Protestants just keep on with the title &quot;priest&quot; for it's clergy?  Why does Catholicism not follow the same logic and avoid that title?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2016-11-07T17:34:13.227" Title="Why does Catholicism have priests but Protestantism does not?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;clergy&gt;&lt;priests&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3512" CreationDate="2011-09-28T16:54:47.157" Score="4" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Big picture, very few. Small picture, a bit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Generally compatible, yes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is &quot;generally&quot; isn't good enough. I'm going to explain in pretty general terms to avoid over complicating this answer, so please don't attack me for not being precise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Muslims and Christians both originate from Judaism, all believe in God the Father (Christian term). The difference (a major one) is the belief about Jesus. When Jesus came, Christianity split off from Judaism over the belief of whether Jesus was the Son of God or a heretic. The doctrines of the two are pretty compatible since it all has the same origin, but the disagreement about Jesus is enough to start a new religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Muslims split off saying Jesus was a prophet/good teacher, but not Son of God. Again, significant disagreement making it incompatible overall. Mohammed also claimed the Bible was inaccurate and retold the stories the way they &quot;actually&quot; happened. After his death, his followers wrote his versions down into what is now known as the Qur'an. Mostly the same stories Christians have, with mostly the same morals, but different details and different belief about Jesus. It also includes things beyond the New Testament era, which are incompatible with Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, if you are a Christian you should stick with the Bible rather than trying to separate Christian truth and heresy while attempting to learn from the Qur'an&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastEditorUserId="702" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T12:15:05.093" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T12:15:05.093" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3544" CreationDate="2011-09-28T16:55:01.780" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The exhaustive list of other flood legends from around the world are relevant as supporting evidence to the story of the Bible.  If there were no other mention of the flood in any other culture, we would wonder how such a significant event was not remembered, when the dispersion on of people occurred a relatively short time after the flood in the biblical account.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that so many cultures retain stories of the flood suggests that the biblical account is at least tenable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T18:32:12.163" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T18:32:12.163" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3549" CreationDate="2011-09-28T16:58:21.853" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestants believe in a concept called the &quot;priesthood of all believers&quot;. Check out Wikipedia's article on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Universal priesthood&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic belief is that each Christian has the authority to preach and teach, read and interpret the Bible, and confess their own sins directly to Jesus. We still have professional clergy, but without formal sacraments to administer and with the authority individual lay-people have their functions are essentially to oversee the teaching of the church and run its ministries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is Protestants do not believe in a priesthood in the sense that the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or OT Jews do/did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-07T17:23:06.840" LastActivityDate="2016-11-07T17:23:06.840" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3544" CreationDate="2011-09-28T17:03:26.357" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Relevant? Yes. Universally viewed as supportive? No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scholars disagree on this. Some use those other accounts to lend credence to the Biblical account. Other scholars say that it is evidence that the author of Genesis stole from those accounts to make up the flood. Either way, it is a relevant discussion without universal agreement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(In my personal opinion I think the other accounts give the Biblical account credibility)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T17:03:26.357" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3549" CreationDate="2011-09-28T17:34:19.047" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, priests would appeal to God on behalf on sinful men through sacrifices.  Jesus is the Great High Priest who 1) offered Himself as a sacrifice once for all and 2) who ever lives to intercede for us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old priesthood order was of the line of Aaron, but in 70 A.D. in the destruction of Jerusalem, the ancestral records were destroyed, I believe.  Therefore, there is no current Aaronic Priesthood.  Jesus was of the greater Melchizedek Priesthood that preceded the Aaronic Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, there is no need for a man to intercede on our behalf to God, since Jesus does that.  Indeed, the New Testament states that there is &quot;one mediator between man and God--the Man Christ Jesus&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament also states that all believers are priests (a chosen priesthood) to worship God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The role of priest is not mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Protestant church has the office of pastor and teacher and evangelists.  Missionaries could be considered apostles, since that word means &quot;one who is sent out&quot;.  Teaching pastors could be considered prophets--not necessarily in foretelling the future, in proclaim the message of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Protestants reject the notion that there is the need for any other mediator between us and God.  We confess our sins to God--not to any man.  (Only one place in the New Testament are we commanded to confess sins to another person, and it states there that is &quot;to one another&quot;--not to a priest.  So, confessing to a &quot;priest&quot; is valid if the &quot;priest&quot; confesses to you as well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T18:21:30.690" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T18:21:30.690" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3555" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4055" CreationDate="2011-09-28T17:38:00.847" Score="6" ViewCount="9218" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Related Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3547/how-did-the-crusades-impact-modern-christianity&quot;&gt;How did the Crusades impact modern Christianity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How did the Inquisition impact modern day Christianity own sense of morality and spirituality?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What do these things mean to a person of faith?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Inquisition, &lt;em&gt;Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis&lt;/em&gt; (inquiry on heretical perversity), was the &quot;fight against heretics&quot; by several institutions within the justice-system of the Roman Catholic Church. It started in the 12th century, with the introduction of torture in the persecution of heresy. Inquisition practices were used also on offences against canon law other than heresy. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-08-03T02:15:20.270" LastActivityDate="2017-08-14T17:35:48.707" Title="How did the Inquisition impact modern Christianity?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;inquisition&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3547" CreationDate="2011-09-28T18:11:51.860" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, only the Catholic and Orthodox churches existed during the times of the crusade.  So, most major Protestant groups tend to wash their hands of the whole matter since they didn't exist at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic church specifically, has apologized for the Crusades (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/apologyforthecrusades.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;back in 2000&lt;/a&gt;) and seems to carry a sense of shame about the whole event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The event itself seems to be a bit of a dark mark in Christian history--a time when people were willing to kill other people for their religious beliefs.  Most Christians seem to take the fact of the Crusades at face value and see it as a historical event (and something to avoid).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since these events aren't preached upon or taught in churches, it seems that there is minimal impact on modern Christianity, except for possibly the preclusivity of mounting another Crusade/holy war from a Christian stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;sources &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_Crusades_impact_modern_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T20:18:37.677" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T20:18:37.677" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3549" CreationDate="2011-09-28T18:49:21.903" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition, according to the instructions of God to the priesthood of the lineage of Aaron, their was a veil in the temple seperateing the &quot;Holy of Holies&quot; where only the priest was allowed to enter into the presence of God.  As stated, he did this on behalf of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 27: 51 tells us that immediately following Christ yielding His spirit to death on the cross, &quot;Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom;. . .&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants believe that this was an act of God, as the veil was extremely thick and extremely tall thus the tearing was not possible by man. We believe this act to symbolize the new access to every believer granted by Christ's sacrifice of Himself on our behalf.  He then became the ultimate and only Priest or go-between or mediator for each of us and God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Hebrews 4:15-16 &quot;For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.&quot;  Again, because Christ understands and sacrificed Himself for our weaknesses and has already made the believer's acceptance known to God, we can boldly access God's throne, no earthly middleman requrired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way Christ took the place the priest, He took the place of the blood of the sacrifice and the sacraments of the OT.  Thus, the pastors, spiritual leaders, of most Protestant churches duties are substantially different from those of the priest; no requirement for the hearing of confessions, although confession one to another, parishioner and pastor alike, for accountability sake is oft times good for the soul and beneficial to ones growth; no dictating retribution, sins are confessed directly to God and reconciliation between God and the believer a personal path God and he/she take together, without dictation from, or most often even involvment with the pastor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, as is noted, priest is not listed in Ephesians 4 as a spiritual leader title. Pastor and teacher are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="769" LastEditorUserId="769" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T19:16:35.347" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T19:16:35.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3558" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3560" CreationDate="2011-09-28T18:52:12.230" Score="16" ViewCount="15235" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Peter, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:7 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect &lt;strong&gt;as the weaker partner&lt;/strong&gt; and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly does &quot;the weaker partner&quot; mean?  Does the Bible state what ways are they weaker?  How do Protestants interpret this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, does this still hold true today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-05T03:07:00.803" LastActivityDate="2015-10-05T03:07:00.803" Title="Why are wives considered the &quot;weaker partner&quot;? (1 Peter 3:7)" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;gender&gt;&lt;1-peter&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-08-07T17:33:04.427" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3558" CreationDate="2011-09-28T19:04:02.563" Score="-5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Heh, finally found a good reason for Choosing NLT over NIV. The version you gave us was the NIV. Here is NLT version of it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:7&amp;amp;version=NCV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:7 :&lt;/a&gt; 7 In the same way, you husbands should live with your wives in an understanding way, since they are weaker than you. But show them respect, because God gives them the same blessing he gives you—the grace that gives true life. Do this so that nothing will stop your prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, what Peter is saying is that we should treat women which &lt;strong&gt;most&lt;/strong&gt; of them are weaker then us with same respect and understanding, because God gives them same blessing as men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T19:04:02.563" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3558" CreationDate="2011-09-28T19:16:25.673" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not think the NIV does the original Greek justice in this case. The English Standard Version (a respected relatively new essentially literal translation) renders the verse this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,&#xA;  showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs&#xA;  with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be&#xA;  hindered.&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1Pe3.7&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Calvin's commentary on this verse his translation supports this choice in translation as well. A few other resources I checked seem to align with this as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the word &lt;em&gt;weaker&lt;/em&gt; is still there. So what does this mean? Commentators seem to agree that in this passage that the use of the word weaker was used to prompt the husband to act in a gentle and gracious manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moreover, he employs a twofold argument, in order to persuade husbands&#xA;  to treat their wives honourably and kindly. The first is derived from&#xA;  the weakness of the sex; the other, from the honour with which God&#xA;  favours them. These things seem indeed to be in a manner&#xA;  contrary,—that honour ought to be given to wives, because they are&#xA;  weak, and because they excel; but these things well agree together&#xA;  where love exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Both husband and wife are vessels in God’s hand, and of God’s making,&#xA;  to fulfil His gracious purposes. Both weak, the woman the weaker. The&#xA;  sense of his own weakness, and that she, like himself, is God’s vessel&#xA;  and fabric, ought to lead him to act with tender and wise&#xA;  consideration towards her who is the weaker fabric&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christians ought to do their duty to one another, from a willing mind,&#xA;  and in obedience to the command of God. Wives should be subject to&#xA;  their husbands, not from dread and amazement, but from desire to do&#xA;  well, and please God. The husband’s duty to the wife implies giving&#xA;  due respect unto her, and maintaining her authority, protecting her,&#xA;  and placing trust in her. They are heirs together of all the blessings&#xA;  of this life and that which is to come, and should live peaceably one&#xA;  with another. Prayer sweetens their converse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument that &quot;weaker vessel&quot; implies care and gentleness carries a lot of weight in my opinion. If you have a fragile, beautiful vase are you going to knock it around and treat it roughly? Not if you care about it. Taking a good literal translation into account and viewing this as an illustrative analogy will help a lot in interpreting this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T19:26:10.717" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T19:26:10.717" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3561" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3562" CreationDate="2011-09-28T20:09:18.683" Score="9" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of Christian traditions that involve some level of separation from the world - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monasticism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;monasticism&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mennonites&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Amish&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Shakers&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Quakers&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; told in the New Testament to be &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;separate from the world&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and to be &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;unstained by the world&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are also told to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Matthew%2028:20&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;go and make disciples&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the Bible does not contradict itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do the &quot;separation traditions&quot; (for lack of a better phrase) support their [sometimes full] separation from the world with the other (sometimes apparently contradictory) commands given to Christ's followers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T22:00:18.780" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T15:11:18.027" Title="What Biblical basis do &quot;separation traditions&quot; have to support their beliefs?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3561" CreationDate="2011-09-28T20:15:38.350" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It comes from the idea of sanctification.  Sanctification is from the Latin &lt;em&gt;sanctificio&lt;/em&gt;, which means &quot;set apart&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This concept is also reflected in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 17:16-17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These groups take this (along with other verses) as an indication that they should separate themselves from the world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other verses supports this concept:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 12:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 15:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T20:15:38.350" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3563" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3574" CreationDate="2011-09-28T20:38:16.867" Score="16" ViewCount="1887" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Arminian view of salvation posits that man has free will and the choice to accept salvation is purely on our own free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The total sovereignty of God (while disputed in some theological circles) carries a lot of Biblical evidence with it. Just two examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20135:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Psalms 135:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20115:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Psalm 115:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of those two statements, here is my question. How do Arminians reconcile the concept of a God who is in total command of the universe with the idea that humans can choose whether or not to accept His offer of salvation? Or do they not recognize God's sovereignty as total? Can a human being through His free will reject God even though God desires their salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify: I am not asking for judgement on the correctness of Arminianism, just how those who adhere to the school of thought would answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T21:44:37.807" LastActivityDate="2014-07-14T02:38:12.273" Title="How does the Arminian view of salvation account for God's sovereignty?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3564" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-28T20:42:42.587" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Arminianism is a school of soteriological thought within Protestant&#xA;  Christianity based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed&#xA;  theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic followers,&#xA;  the Remonstrants. The doctrine's acceptance stretches through much of&#xA;  Christianity from the early arguments between Athanasius and Origen,&#xA;  to Augustine of Hippo's defense of &quot;original sin.&quot; Dutch Arminianism&#xA;  was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological&#xA;  statement signed by 45 ministers and submitted to the Dutch states&#xA;  general. The Synod of Dort (1618–19) was called by the states general&#xA;  to pass upon the Remonstrance. The five points of the Remonstrance&#xA;  asserted that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned&#xA;  by the rational faith or nonfaith of man&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, was&#xA;  efficacious only for the man of faith&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s&#xA;  will; grace is not irresistible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the&#xA;  possibility of falling from grace.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The crux of Remonstrant Arminianism lay in the assertion that human&#xA;  dignity requires an unimpaired freedom of the will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="768" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T20:43:17.250" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T20:43:17.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3565" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-28T20:42:42.587" Score="0" Body="View of salvation based on the teaching of Jacob Arminius. The free will of mankind is emphasized in this view." OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="768" LastEditDate="2011-09-28T20:43:21.557" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T20:43:21.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3563" CreationDate="2011-09-28T21:16:29.100" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say your argument is entirely backwards. If the Lord has total sovereignty, then he can choose to let humans decide for themselves whether to accept salvation if that is what He wishes. Saying that God cannot possibly let humans freely choose whether or not to accept salvation is saying that God does not have total sovereignty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is merely what God wishes. Nothing limits him from arranging things as he wishes. His sovereignty is not a limit on what he can do or not do. If he wishes to let humans decide whether to accept salvation, then that is what will happen. If he does not wish to let us do that, then that will not happen. That is what it means to be sovereign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, as Bruce Alderman points out, the Bible says God &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-timothy/2-4.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;desires everyone to be saved&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. So if God didn't leave the decision to us, everyone would be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="520" LastEditorUserId="520" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T09:35:52.293" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T09:35:52.293" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3563" CreationDate="2011-09-28T21:44:15.513" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that yes, through free will a man can accept God's offer of grace and salvation.  I believe God gives us the freedom to choose so that when we do choose to accept His grace, it is a conscious, humble, obedient choice.  That does not mean that God cannot force someone to accept his grace, but I'm not sure there is any evidence of God doing that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Titus 2:11 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; says &quot;For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.&quot;  If God's grace is offered to all people, then why haven't all people who know of God's grace accepted it?  How many atheist biblical scholars are there that despite knowledge of His grace will still spend eternity in Hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God values our obedience.  Throughout the Bible we are also called to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=walk%20in%20obedience&amp;amp;version1=NIV&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;limit=none&amp;amp;wholewordsonly=no&quot;&gt;&quot;walk in obedience&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  We are not made to obey, but asked to obey in the same way we are asked to believe in Jesus Christ and accept salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 15:22 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  22 But Samuel replied:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;as much as in obeying the LORD? &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To obey is better than sacrifice, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and to heed is better than the fat of rams.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T21:44:15.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3555" CreationDate="2011-09-28T22:57:48.960" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The impact on the Spanish Inquisition on Christianity is more of an example when people use religion as a way to gain more political power.  Unfortunately we see this same behavior, the justification of following God's will in various parts of the world, such as the problems in Nigeria and the atrocities in the Sudan.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When leaders, or political activists seek to gain power, and the ministers provide the religious backing, by stating this is God's will, then we have abuses such as in Guantanamo prisons, as American's torture and denigrate people of other religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we also have some people in Europe and the US that continue to talk about killing Muslims because of their religion, when the goal is financial gain, under the cover of religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Spanish Inquisition was a very dark period, and should never have happened, but as long as Christians idly stand by and don't stand up for those that believe differently, showing God's Love to the world by our willingness to die for those that may hate us, or those that are different than we are, we are all guilty of the atrocities committed, and even listening to ministers espouse such hatred, and saying nothing is just as bad as doing the action, as words not only damage our relationships with others, but also what we say, or listen to and say nothing, reflects on whether Christ is truly within us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a brief talk about the politics behind the Inquisition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/inquisition.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/inquisition.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an essay on Words healing or hurting:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/view/words-can-heal-or-hurt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/view/words-can-heal-or-hurt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple of quotes on what we say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2010:18-19&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 10:18-19 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, And whoever&#xA;  spreads slander is a fool. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;In the multitude of words sin is not&#xA;  lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20141:3&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 141:3 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; Keep watch over the door of my lips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-12T05:46:46.103" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T05:46:46.103" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3561" CreationDate="2011-09-28T23:06:01.433" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Satan is the god of this world, so if you are of this world then you place yourself under Satan. Jesus talked about the wealth we gain in Heaven, and how what we have on Earth is rust, turn to dust, etc, so material wealth to a Christian should be of a very low priority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get an idea of the importance you can look at the first 4 chapters or so of Acts, and see how the early church members gave up their material wealth, to help each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also look at how the one rich man walked away sad when Jesus told him to give up what he had and follow Jesus, as he couldn't separate himself from this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding some Scriptural references, but you may want to read the verses around these for more context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 12:31 (ESV)&#xA;31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 4:4 (ESV)&#xA;4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 10:&#xA;21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.&#xA;22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 4:32&#xA;Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2:45&#xA;And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="543" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T00:51:44.360" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T00:51:44.360" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3388" CreationDate="2011-09-28T23:50:11.817" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since there is only one answer at the moment, I will add mine, which is from my comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, for Christians the OT canon was still in flux until 1647 when a final decision was made as to which books would be in the Episcopalian Bible, so the OT wasn't compiled until then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the Jews didn't have a unified canon until after the death of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as books are being added/removed/rearranged, it is in the process of being compiled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For links to explain these dates you can look at &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/450/when-was-the-protestant-ot-canon-finalized/3380#3380&quot;&gt;When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it was compiled by people coming together to determine which books should be where, and in some cases decisions to rename or split a book was made.  Each group had their own reasons for their decisions, and these could be debated, but basically, long ago these decisions were argued and made, and then other groups would re-debate and make some modifications, based perhaps on newer information or better understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-09-28T23:50:11.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2011-09-29T02:16:30.823" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two different ways to look at this.  I've lived in both: I grew up in the Campbell-Stone &quot;Restoration&quot; Movement, which practices believers' baptism, and I was baptized as a teenager.  Now I'm Eastern Orthodox, which practices infant baptism, and I had both of my children baptized as infants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider these two verses (taken from the NKJV in both cases)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:38&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Peter said to them, &quot;Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;anabaptist&lt;/strong&gt; side would say, looking at scriptures like Acts 2:38, that it makes no sense to baptize infants because infants can't repent.  Of course, scriptures like Romans 3:23 say that &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  Anabaptists would say that &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; scripture obviously doesn't refer to infants, because infants can't sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;paedobaptist&lt;/strong&gt; side would turn the logic the other way.  &lt;em&gt;All&lt;/em&gt; have sinned, as Romans 3:23 says, and therefore all are in need of baptism for the forgiveness of sin.  But when Acts 2:38 says to repent, it's obviously not referring to infants, since infants can't repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Anabaptists&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts 2:38 means &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; must repent&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans 3:23 means only those who &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; have sinned, have sinned&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paedobaptists&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans 3:23 means &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; have sinned&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts 2:38 means only those who &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; repent, must repent&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly this is something of a simplification and only looks at two verses, but I hope it helps to explain how Christians of good will can hold two such contradictory positions.  It's not always possible to determine one clear theological position on an issue using scripture.  This is why, throughout history, there have been other means for settling these matters, from the Pope to the ecumenical councils to confessional documents to the &quot;brotherhood journals&quot; that were popular in the Campbell-Stone Movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastEditorUserId="429" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T02:55:59.793" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T02:55:59.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3563" CreationDate="2011-09-29T02:29:25.710" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can only speak from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective. A classical Arminian may have a slightly different understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is both creator and ruler of the universe. As creator he has exercised complete sovereignty; God made all the decisions in setting everything up (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/genesis/1.html&quot;&gt;Genesis 1&lt;/a&gt;), including setting up the means by which we could be saved (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/romans/passage.aspx?q=romans+3:21-26&quot;&gt;Romans 3:21-26&lt;/a&gt;). God created everything according to his good pleasure. Out of the whole universe he picked this planet for us to live on. He chose the times and places in which each of us would live, so that we could seek him wherever we are (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+17:26-27&quot;&gt;Acts 17:26-27&lt;/a&gt;). In his role as creator, God is completely sovereign.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God created a world that was very good (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/genesis/1-31.html&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:31&lt;/a&gt;). However, God created humans with the ability to act in ways that were not according to God's will (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/genesis/passage.aspx?q=genesis+2:16-17&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:16-17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/genesis/passage.aspx?q=genesis+3:6-7&quot;&gt;3:6-7&lt;/a&gt;). Rather than following God's will, we follow our own. This is what we mean by free will.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As ruler and judge, God is both just and merciful. Sometimes God may be more merciful than we deserve (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/ephesians/passage.aspx?q=ephesians+2:4-7&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:4-7&lt;/a&gt;), but he will never treat us unjustly (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/hebrews/6-10.html&quot;&gt;Hebrews 6:10&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God has made his grace available to all (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/titus/2-11.html&quot;&gt;Titus 2:11&lt;/a&gt;), and desires everyone to be saved (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-timothy/2-4.html&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:4&lt;/a&gt;). But God does not force us into submission; rather, God leads us to repentance through his kindness (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/romans/2-4.html&quot;&gt;Romans 2:4&lt;/a&gt;) and gives us many chances to turn to him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/ezekiel/33-11.html&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 33:11&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR:&lt;/strong&gt; God is sovereign in that he sets all the boundaries, both in putting each of us in a particular time and place, and in making a way that we might be saved and enjoy eternity with him. But God also gives us the freedom to turn away from him and the grace to turn toward him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T02:29:25.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3575" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3583" CreationDate="2011-09-29T03:08:50.717" Score="7" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Hebrews chapter 1, the author notes several Old Testament verses as references to Jesus. I have read these Old Testament verses and some don't actually sound like they are about Jesus at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Heb 1:5 says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For to which of the angels did God ever say, &quot;You are my Son; today I&#xA;  have become your Father&quot;? Psalm 2:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how do you actually know that Psalm 2:7 is pointing to Jesus? How do you actually justify these references to OT as &quot;pointers&quot; to Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="784" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T05:48:56.583" Title="Are OT verses in Hebrews 1 actually verses about Jesus?" Tags="&lt;hebrews&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3576" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3580" CreationDate="2011-09-29T03:10:49.967" Score="25" ViewCount="19532" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul refers to Satan as &quot;god of this world&quot;.  What does it mean that Satan is god of this world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%204:4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 4:4 ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the&#xA;  unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the&#xA;  glory of Christ, who is the image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-13T01:33:12.607" LastActivityDate="2014-11-14T19:52:25.907" Title="What does it mean that Satan is &quot;god of this world&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;2-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3576" CreationDate="2011-09-29T03:48:52.377" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Look at the major people of this world. What do they care about? Money, Glory, Power, Fame, etc... These are the influences Satan has on people of this world. That's right; influence. Think of the contrast between Pop-stars and People of major companies of the world. Who do you think influences the most? Pop-stars, of course! This just goes to show you how much people are fixated on the image, not the reality. Sure, God is God, but basically when he banished Satan to this world, he basically gave control of this world to Satan for a period of time. Satan is not the ultimate power, but he basically influences unbelievers to an extent, and uses them for his bidding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T13:12:28.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T13:12:28.513" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3578" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-29T04:39:14.137" Score="7" ViewCount="3626" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010:25&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen. 10:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through some simple math, we know that Peleg was born 101 years after the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had assumed that this verse meant a demographic division, but I don't think there could be that many people on the earth yet (assuming only 8 survived the flood). I got this idea from v. 32:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that the name Peleg has some relation to division, but I'm not too well-versed on the original Hebrew meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this verse signify a physical division (like breakup of Pangaea), or something more like a demographic division?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-02-01T21:44:13.320" Title="How was the earth divided? (Gen. 10:25)" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;division&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2337" CreationDate="2011-09-29T04:40:53.260" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;First you would have to look at the beginning and the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there is no salutation. This is unlike Paul, who has wrote all of his letters with some kind of salutation. What does this tell us? It tells us that there is a possibility of this not being a letter. Sure, it is epistle, but if it is, why is there no salutation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the letter does close with the &quot;Grace be with you all&quot;, which is normal closing for Paul. However, similar wordings to close Peter's letters in Peter One and Two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will list the reasons why Paul cannot be the writer of Hebrews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the writing piece is sophisticated. Paul may have been a sophisticated talker, but he was certainly not a sophisticated writer. Paul specifically states that he is not a sophisticated writer. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Citings are extensively uses verses from the OT, while Paul, Pharisee as he is, would have been familiar with original Hebrew verses from the Bible. Paul uses original Hebrew text or Paraphrases it. However, Hebrew uses Greek OT, or Septuagint. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, Paul claims to have these revelations directly from Jesus. The author of Hebrews says that he was taught by a Apostle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 2:3: 3 So surely we also will be punished if we ignore this great salvation. The Lord himself first told about this salvation, and those who heard him testified it was true. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  Based on these facts, I doubt that Paul himself was either not the author at all or an indirect author. There are several author suspect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke may have translated sermon Paul may have gave into his own words.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Barnabas, who was Levite and knew much about the stuff spoken on Hebrew.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apollos, who had education to match the education the author has.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2012-04-24T21:46:52.133" LastActivityDate="2012-04-24T21:46:52.133" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3576" CreationDate="2011-09-29T04:57:42.030" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;You know, this is a good question.  Even though I understand the concept instinctively, I wasn't able to put it into words myself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest I can come in my own words is to give a bullet list of concepts that tie together to answer the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible speaks of several &quot;gods&quot;, none of whom are the true God  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A god (idol) is anything (a being, a concept) who is worshiped and obeyed instead of the one true God.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In this sense, your god could be your money, the television, the Internet - anything you count to be more important than God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;This world&quot; is largely anti-God. We are more concerned with earthly pleasures than we are in God and what He wants from us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When we disobey God, we are obeying and following Satan, wittingly or unwittingly.  We are, in effect, worshiping him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, that looks completely unsatisfying when I look at it on the screen, so I cheated. I found a better answer elsewhere.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How is Satan god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)? | GotQuestions.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article says everything I was trying to articulate but couldn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are two excerpts that say it MUCH better than I did:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age” [NKJV]) indicates&#xA;  that Satan is the major influence on the mind-set expressed by the&#xA;  ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and views of the majority of people.&#xA;  His areas of influence also encompass the world’s philosophies,&#xA;  education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas, speculations and false&#xA;  religions of the world are under his control and have sprung from his&#xA;  lies and deceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, when the Bible says that Satan is the &quot;god of this world,&quot; it is&#xA;  not saying that he has ultimate authority. It is conveying the idea&#xA;  that Satan rules over the unbelieving world in a specific way. In the&#xA;  case of 2 Corinthians 4:4, the unbeliever follows Satan's agenda.&#xA;  According to 2 Corinthians 4:4, the &quot;god of this world has blinded the&#xA;  minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel&#xA;  of the glory of Christ.&quot; Satan's agenda includes pushing a false&#xA;  philosophy onto the unbelieving world—a false philosophy that blinds&#xA;  the unbeliever from the truth of the Gospel. Satan’s philosophies are&#xA;  the fortresses in which people are imprisoned, needing to be set free&#xA;  and brought captive to Christ in obedience to the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2014-11-12T22:41:19.177" LastActivityDate="2014-11-12T22:41:19.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3578" CreationDate="2011-09-29T05:02:03.477" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The explanation that I'm familiar with would indicate that this is referring to the division of cultures and tongues at the time of the Tower of Babel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't take credit for the answer on my own.  The explanation that makes the most sense to me is the one found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/peleg&quot;&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/peleg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Four generations after Noah, Genesis 10:25 records the birth of Peleg&#xA;  (meaning division) ‘for in his days was the earth divided’. Some&#xA;  suggest the continents of the earth were divided at this time.&#xA;  However, this seems unlikely, as such a process would have had to&#xA;  occur within a very confined time period. The resultant geological&#xA;  violence would be overwhelmingly catastrophic—like another Noahic&#xA;  Flood all over again. Any continental separation thus likely occurred&#xA;  during the Flood. 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The traditional interpretation, which seems more reasonable, relates&#xA;  this verse to the division of people/nations at the Tower of Babel&#xA;  event in Genesis 11. (Just like the English ‘earth’ can have a variety&#xA;  of meanings, the Hebrew erets can also mean nation(s)—thus erets&#xA;  Yisrael, the land (nation, people) of Israel.) According to the&#xA;  biblical chronology as deduced by Archbishop Ussher, the Flood&#xA;  occurred in 2349–2348 BC, and Peleg was born in 2247 BC about a&#xA;  hundred years later. Do ancient writers shed any light on when this&#xA;  happened? The answer is a resounding yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Much more follows - visit the link for the full article).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T05:02:03.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3515" CreationDate="2011-09-29T05:45:07.433" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus never wanted to develop an earthly bond. His intention was to prepare everyone for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, and even other relationships with His mother, father and brothers didn't cross his way. His concern to his Mother and Brother was revealed by Him even at Golgotha. He only taked to His mother and brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. - John 19:26,27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think He would have ignored His wife, if He was married. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T05:45:07.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3575" CreationDate="2011-09-29T05:48:56.583" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 2:7 along with 2 Samuel 7:14. These two passages have been linked together as a Messianic reference since before the time of the NT. From the ESV Study Bible notes on the text we can see how to view these two references in regards to David and the Messiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the context of Samuel, the reader might assume this refers to&#xA;  David’s son Solomon, but Solomon failed to follow the law and was not&#xA;  “established forever” (2 Sam. 7:16); hence, the promise can only be&#xA;  fulfilled by the Davidic Messiah. Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 are linked by&#xA;  the special designation “Son,” and by their messianic theology (a link&#xA;  also assumed in NT-era Judaism, e.g., 4QFlorilegium in the Dead Sea&#xA;  Scrolls). 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Christian commentators since then have seen this specific verse a direct pointer to Christ, that David as the Israelites best king was foreshadowing the Messiah and that the full kingdom of God would go beyond what David had done. Calvin states it this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It cannot be denied that this was spoken of David, but in so far as&#xA;  Christ was in him; therefore, the things we find in this psalm were&#xA;  foreshadowed in David, but manifested in Christ. When David conquered&#xA;  the many enemies surrounding his kingdom and enlarged its borders,&#xA;  there was a foreshadowing of the fulfillment of the promise, I shall&#xA;  give the nations for thine inheritance. But how little this was&#xA;  compared with the Kingdom of Christ, which extends from East to West! 2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that this was an established interpretation in Judaism (not Christianity, but the Jewish expectation for a Messiah) it is then clear to see why the author of Hebrews used these two passages to reinforce to his audience (1st century Jews) the position of the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, although there are other topics here that address Jesus identity as the Christ, I will cite one way in which there is a direct link to the Jesus of the gospels. There are 4 instances in the gospel in which the audible voice of God uses the same title, “Son” to apply to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and behold, a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with&#xA;  whom I am well pleased.'”  Matthew 3:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and&#xA;  a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well&#xA;  pleased.'”  Luke 3:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them,&#xA;  and a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I&#xA;  am well pleased; listen to him.'” Matthew 17:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud,&#xA;  'This is my beloved Son; listen to him.'” Mark 9:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (2362). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;2 Calvin, J., &amp;amp; Anderson, J. (2010). Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Ps 2:7–8). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T05:48:56.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2011-09-29T07:42:01.467" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was surprised to find that nobody here mentioned authority. In many denominations, authority is not a big deal, mostly because they believe that the faith/action of the individual being baptized is enough to validate the baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, many denominations accept baptisms from other religions based on this assumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For other denominations, however, authority is all-important. They will ask you from whom the person who baptized you received their authority. If this is brought into question, then proper baptism is necessary (assuming you believe that the next baptism will be done with the proper authority).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a reason certain people baptized while others did not.  John was chosen to baptize, so we can assume that he was given authority (the present Bible doesn't make this absolutely clear). Because of this, Christ went to him to get baptized before He started His ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ himself brought up this point with the scribes: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011:30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark: 10:30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it depends on the interpretation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One Lord, one faith, one baptism,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we can ascertain that a person has authority (by whatever means we feel is sound), then we must make sure that it is done in the correct way. Someone with true authority will surely perform the ordinance correctly, and this is another way to tell if someone holds the authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some resources that detail &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; we should be baptized:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ's baptism- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%203:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt. 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism of the Eunuch- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37-39&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:37-39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism as symbol of death (support for immersion)- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:1-6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:1-6&lt;/a&gt; (see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 2:12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we feel we were baptized improperly, then we should seek to be baptized again, because a baptism is of no worth if not done properly. For example, a person has the authority to arrest you if and only if they have jurisdiction in that area as a legal officer of the peace, and if they do it properly (in the US, this means reading of rights for normal arrests).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all know that we need to be baptized to be saved, so it is our responsibility to ensure that we are baptized correctly, under the correct authority and in the correct manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T07:42:01.467" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3585" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-29T07:58:55.030" Score="6" ViewCount="1133" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Related question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3430/what-is-the-difference-between-infallible-and-inerrant&quot;&gt;What is the difference between &amp;quot;infallible&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;inerrant&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard lists of requirements to be considered Christian; among those, I find these the most prevalent:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief in the Trinity- very common&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief in the Apostolic Creed- pretty universal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Belief in the infallibility/inerrancy of the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this third point belong as an essential condition to be considered Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to fit the format of this site, I expect answers to be well-defended and present both sides, articulating the points that make the most sense to a Christian point of view. I will pick the one that I find the most defensible, regardless of my personal opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if major religions denounce the view that the Bible may be imperfect as heresy, then this would be a very important note to make. I mostly grew up in a single Church, so I don't know the finer points of many other religions, only broad generalizations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T14:59:33.953" Title="Must a Christian accept the Bible to be infallible and/or inerrant?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;&lt;septuagint&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-04-13T09:51:49.237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3585" CreationDate="2011-09-29T08:50:00.217" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;[Note: this answer was posted *before* the question was edited and refers to two questions that were in the original, paraphrased here: (1) what does the Bible itself say on the subject and (2) must someone accept that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in order to be considered a Christian]&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people take the warning at the end of Revelation to apply to the whole Bible, and interpret it as saying &quot;this is complete and correct&quot; - in other words, inerrant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:18-19&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If&#xA;  anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues&#xA;  described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book&#xA;  of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life&#xA;  and in the holy city, which are described in this book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your second question, people define &quot;Christian&quot; in many different ways. Often that does include a requirement to accept the Bible or at the very least to acknowledge its authority - in fact I think that's probably true in the majority of cases, but I'm not aware of any firm statistics to back that up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own view is that it's healthy for everyone to question their own beliefs from time to time and certainly Christians with questions and queries about Biblical content are no less Christians. Christianity is first and foremost about a relationship with God, and while an understanding and acceptance of scripture is very important it is secondary to that relationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T09:32:41.553" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T09:32:41.553" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1410" CreationDate="2011-09-29T09:04:25.763" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Surprised nobody has quoted &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2041&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Job 41&lt;/a&gt; about the Leviathan (see below). It might not be literal (the text appears to mention fire breathing), but it &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be a reference to e.g. a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stegosaurus&quot;&gt;stegosaurus&lt;/a&gt;, or it might only be a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile&quot;&gt;crocodile&lt;/a&gt;! (Though neither has plates on its back &lt;em&gt;&quot;so close to the next that no air can pass between&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook&#xA;     or tie down its tongue with a rope?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Can you put a cord through its nose&#xA;     or pierce its jaw with a hook?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?&#xA;     Will it speak to you with gentle words?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Will it make an agreement with you&#xA;     for you to take it as your slave for life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird&#xA;     or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Will traders barter for it?&#xA;     Will they divide it up among the merchants?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons&#xA;     or its head with fishing spears?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 If you lay a hand on it,&#xA;     you will remember the struggle and never do it again!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Any hope of subduing it is false;&#xA;     the mere sight of it is overpowering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.&#xA;     Who then is able to stand against me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?&#xA;     Everything under heaven belongs to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,&#xA;     its strength and its graceful form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Who can strip off its outer coat?&#xA;     Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,&#xA;     ringed about with fearsome teeth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 &lt;strong&gt;Its back has rows of shields&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;     tightly sealed together;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 each is so close to the next&#xA;     that no air can pass between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 They are joined fast to one another;&#xA;     they cling together and cannot be parted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;&#xA;     its eyes are like the rays of dawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Flames stream from its mouth;&#xA;     sparks of fire shoot out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Smoke pours from its nostrils&#xA;     as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,&#xA;     and flames dart from its mouth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Strength resides in its neck;&#xA;     dismay goes before it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;&#xA;     they are firm and immovable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Its chest is hard as rock,&#xA;     hard as a lower millstone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;&#xA;     they retreat before its thrashing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,&#xA;     nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Iron it treats like straw&#xA;     and bronze like rotten wood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 Arrows do not make it flee;&#xA;     slingstones are like chaff to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;&#xA;     it laughs at the rattling of the lance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,&#xA;     leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron&#xA;     and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;&#xA;     one would think the deep had white hair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 &lt;strong&gt;Nothing on earth is its equal&lt;/strong&gt;—&#xA;     a creature without fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 It looks down on all that are haughty;&#xA;     it is king over all that are proud.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T09:04:25.763" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1534" CreationDate="2011-09-29T10:56:20.510" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's take an example of using Scripture to explain Scripture, and how it can help us understand what a given text means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's start with an often puzzling little passage in Revelation (only an illustrative example, not full explanation of a point of doctrine, so just two sentences). Revelation is tricky; even when using a very literal hermeneutic, and taking as much as possible at face value, there are parts that clearly must be only imagery. Sometimes, it's not obvious what an allegory/image refers to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Revelation+12:4b-6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 12:4b-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We want to know who the &quot;woman&quot; in this passage is. We could start guessing: Eve? Mary? Elisabeth? An angel? With just &quot;a woman&quot;, a non-Christian probably couldn't make any sense of it at all. Some people with exposure to Christian culture might start naming the most popular Biblical females known to have born children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what does Scripture say on the matter? We need to start digging for something about a woman, and a child who rules with a rod of iron. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At first glance, Mary seems to fit the bill; she bore a child who became a King. But notice that when the child was born, he was caught up to God's throne (that didn't happen when Christ was born!). Here's our first clue that the birth imagery may be more than just Christ's physical birth from Mary. Next: this child is to rule with a rod of iron -- not newborn child's play, not a manger scene; he has an iron rod, sits on a throne, and rules over the dragon. These are clues that show we need a wider perspective. Also, after he is caught up and rules, the woman flees to the wilderness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what Scripture can we use to help explain this? It turns out the Revelation bit uses the same wording as a bit of a Psalm (as well as many other texts).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Psalm+2:9/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 2:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  You shall break them with a rod of iron&#xA;  and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the context of the rest of the Psalm, we can learn that this king with an iron rod is the Christ who rules not just the nations at the BC/AD switch, but all nations of the earth at all times. His authority stands as a warning to all kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage helps us understand who this king is, but what about the woman? For that, we need more information on the 'being caught up to heaven'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Acts+2:32-36/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:32-36&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, &lt;em&gt;“‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’&lt;/em&gt; Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;In the bit I &lt;em&gt;italicised&lt;/em&gt;, Peter himself quotes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Psalms+110:1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms 110:1&lt;/a&gt;, a verse Jesus Himself used to describe Himself in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew+22:44/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:44&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Acts+2:14-36/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Peter's sermon in Acts&lt;/a&gt; and the Gospels' narratives, we can easily piece together that the time when Christ came into his inheritance as King was... when God raised him from the dead, and caught him up into heaven, and sat him down on the throne. This event is also described as a birth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians+1:18/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:18b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the &quot;birth&quot; referred to in our Revelation verse is not really a manger scene, but when Jesus is raised from the dead, caught up to heaven, and commences his rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we can begin to understand that the woman referred to here is the Church. While Mary was also in her own way a representative of the Church, she is just one more member of that body -- and the big picture isn't about her, it's about the entire body of believers who have been waiting for this child to be born since the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+3:15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;promise was given to Eve in Genesis 3:15&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without other passages of Scripture to connect it to, the scope of our sample verse in Revelation would not be clear. Where does the symbolism end, and reality begin? Is this a legend about a female human and a dragon? Are we looking for a Messiah who was supernaturally abducted as a child -- or does a man of 33, who was raised from the dead and disappeared into the clouds, fit the bill? Only using other passages of Scripture to elucidate are we able to make sense of the scene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is true for nearly any passage of Scripture. We saw that Peter understood the prophecy in Psalms to have been fulfilled in Christ's resurrection. Knowing how NT authors used OT passages helps us understand how we too should use them -- and when in doubt about NT passages, finding other passages that quote each other helps us accurately paint the larger picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="1795" LastEditDate="2012-06-25T15:17:31.773" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T15:17:31.773" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3589" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3590" CreationDate="2011-09-29T11:09:12.003" Score="15" ViewCount="3316" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Exodus 21, God is telling Moses what the laws should be concerning slaves and servants among the Israelites.  If this is the same God who made all of mankind in His own image, then why would he abet slavery in this way among his own people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also the chapter that says punishment should be administered on an &quot;eye for eye&quot; basis (v23-26).  Why would God instruct Moses to introduce this law and yet come to earth later on as Jesus and teach that we should always forgive others when they sin against us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, it just seems that the law concerning the Israelites, despite being given to Moses directly from God, is not in the same spirit as the messages that Jesus gives in the new testament.  Is this God of ours really never-changing?  If so, then why do we have this apparent double standard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="785" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T13:43:01.427" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T10:34:27.100" Title="Why Do Moses' Laws About Slavery and Punishment Not Align with the Teachings of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;slavery&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3589" CreationDate="2011-09-29T11:59:36.213" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The letters of Paul tell us that the law was given to show us that we do not measure up. It is impossible to live a God pleasing life by works. So failing was an expected part of the laws. So things would exist that were humane, and God gave guidelines on how to go about all this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even more, we live in a fallen world, and God gives us means to survive in a doomed world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like God never intended poverty. Yet he gave laws on how to treat poor people: let them work themselves. Don't hand out, but let some crop stand in the edges of the field and do not glean what fell to the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the new testament God made it possible to please Him - He has done that in the OT too, granted, as you find the principle saved by faith in the OT too. Or just look at what David did: ask for forgiveness and trust the Lord. Jesus fulfilled the law, he did both parts of the covenant: give the rules and fulfill them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And still Jesus did not address slavery. Paul even told slaves to honor and obey their masters. God new that following the ten commandments or the commands and example of Jesus, led by the Holy Spirit, would lead to a God pleasing lifestyle with His saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gives us opportunity to follow Him and change (back) into His image, while giving us guidelines and rules to go about it in the meantime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastEditorUserId="765" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T07:10:29.333" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T07:10:29.333" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3591" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3592" CreationDate="2011-09-29T12:14:34.220" Score="9" ViewCount="1750" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any manuscript among the Dead Sea scrolls, which foretold something that happened after the manuscript was written?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user314" LastActivityDate="2018-10-10T07:49:18.143" Title="Do the Dead Sea scrolls describe any prophecy which was fulfilled after they were written?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;dead-sea-scrolls&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3591" CreationDate="2011-09-29T12:23:53.853" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Dead Sea Scrolls are not themselves a unique set of content, but rather a collection --rather like someone's private library-- of various texts from the time period that were all preserved together and help us understand the state of those texts at a specific point in time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example would be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah scroll&lt;/a&gt;, a basically complete copy of the entire book of Isaiah in one place. The book of Isiah was written ~750 years before Christ and includes many specific descriptions of what is life, dead and resurrection would be like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Isaiah+53:7-9/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53:7-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  yet he opened not his mouth;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  so he opened not his mouth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  By oppression and judgment he was taken away;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and as for his generation, who considered&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  that he was cut off out of the land of the living,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  stricken for the transgression of my people?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And they made his grave with the wicked&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and with a rich man in his death,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  although he had done no violence,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and there was no deceit in his mouth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see these verses &lt;a href=&quot;http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#53:7&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;on the scroll here&lt;/a&gt;. If you are interested there are lots of commentaries available on the hundreds of specific things Isaiah foretold about the Messiah that were fulfilled in the person of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also be aware that other works besides canonical scriptural texts were among the scrolls found. There are other works from the time period. The find has no particular affect on what text are or are not considered scripture any more than looking at the titles in a pastor's library today would prove one way or another what he believed, but the quality and quantity of texts found together do provide collaborative evidence for the integrity of other copies of the texts that were found elsewhere and in smaller chunks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T13:34:47.967" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T13:34:47.967" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="585" CreationDate="2011-09-29T12:40:26.617" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;God does not need our praise as He is self-sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I want to add another glitch to the discussion: We do need to glorify and honor Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who do you believe the most? Yourself. So if you hear and see yourself glorifying and uplifting God, it helps changing your conception of God: He in your eyes becomes even more worthy of praise. This keeps you in a close relationship with Him and gives you the power to follow through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in His command God mostly thought about us, not Himself. What a great God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T12:40:26.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3595" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3597" CreationDate="2011-09-29T13:14:25.783" Score="15" ViewCount="38966" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is something I noted once when reading Genesis, and am still wondering if there's any meaning to it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis tells us that Noah was 599-600 years old&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; when the flood came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 7:11 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also find the age difference of Methuselah and Noah in Genesis 5, and it's &lt;code&gt;187 + 182 = 369&lt;/code&gt; years&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205:25-29&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 5:25-29 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech. &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters. &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; and called his name Noah, saying, &quot;Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if Noah was 600 when the flood happened, Methuselah was &lt;code&gt;600 + 369 = 969&lt;/code&gt;. That is, he died around the time of flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Methuselah die in the flood? Does the Bible refer to this anywhere else? Is this in any way significant?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I don't know Hebrew, so I'm not gonna guess. The &lt;em&gt;tenth year of my life&lt;/em&gt; was technically when I was 9 years old. But even in English the phrase might also mean being 10 years old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; More precisely, the age difference is in the range of [369 years; 370 years + 364 days] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2016-12-22T03:08:05.683" Title="Significance of Methuselah's death year" Tags="&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;methuselah&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3595" CreationDate="2011-09-29T13:22:11.590" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that he was around up until the time of the flood, and that he didn't end up on the Ark with Noah.  Beyond that, we don't know.  But there are a few possibilities that are consistent with what we do know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He could have fallen spiritually and become wicked like the rest of the earth. Or he could have finally died soon before the flood, leaving no one righteous on the earth aside from Noah's family, which left God no reason not to proceed with it.  (See Lot's family for a parallel.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without more information than we have now, though, choosing one over the other would be purely a matter of speculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T14:30:39.077" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T14:30:39.077" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3595" CreationDate="2011-09-29T13:22:22.023" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is relevant that Methuselah died just before the flood. Just have a look at the names of the first 10 generations leading up to Noah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam - &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/120.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Man&lt;/a&gt; (CJBPG)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/8352.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Seth&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/7896.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Appointed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enosh - &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/582.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mortal, weak&lt;/a&gt; (Smith's, Hitchcock's, Nave's)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/7018.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kenan&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/6969.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sorrow&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/4111.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mahalelel&lt;/a&gt; - The Praise of Lord (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jared - &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/3382.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Descend&lt;/a&gt;  (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's, Hitchcock's, ISBE)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/2585.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Enoch&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/2596.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dedicated&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/4968.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Methuselah&lt;/a&gt; - His death shall bring (Fausset's)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/3929.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lamech&lt;/a&gt; - Lamentator, the poor, brought low (Hitchcock)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/5146.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Noah&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/5117.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Comfort&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Putting this together:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man is appointed to be mortal and sorrowful. But the Praise of the Lord will descend, dedicated that His death shall bring the desparing, low, and poor comfort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imaging that every time Methuselah had a cold, everybody worried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what a prophecy into God's plan for humanity! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, based on this it is my believe that Methuselah died before the flood. There is no prove for that, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish counting works different from ours: When Jesus was dead for 3 days, that means that he died on one, was dead the next, and rose the third. (which would make it possible for him to be dead for only 27 hours: He died at 3pm, and the third day started at around 6pm the next evening.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore Methuselah could have died on his 968th birthday and still have lived 969 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastEditorUserId="765" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T07:33:14.730" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T07:33:14.730" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3595" CreationDate="2011-09-29T13:23:04.680" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christconnections.com/Word/Methuselah.pdf&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;, Methuselah can mean a few things, one of which is, &quot;when he is dead, it shall be sent.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Methuselah was of the line of Noah, of course, so it's quite possible that Noah followed in the footsteps of his father and grandfather.  His father Lamech died earlier, as indicated in Genesis 5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if Methuselah was a righteous man like his grandson Noah, then Methuselah died the year of the flood.  If he was not a righteous man, it's possible that the cause of his death was drowning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T13:23:04.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3307" CreationDate="2011-09-29T13:44:44.500" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK, the Christian believe system, God's existence, and the Bible as God's Word cannot be proven outside the Bible - it is by faith and not by knowing that we are saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, yes, its is kind of a tautology when I say that the Bible calls itself the Word of God, and Paul calls it all inspired. Therefore it is the basis of our believe system, otherwise you might not be called a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, the Word of God as a phrase can be interpreted as a name of Jesus. John makes that very clear. Therefore the Bible is not the complete word of God, as Jesus is alive and still talks through His Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That leads to the second part of your question: if I have my should from God, are impressions not  valid guide? Romans tells us that we have to change our mind set to conform with God. The Bible also tells us that we are saved, will be saved, and work out our salvation daily. Our spirit is saved, our body will be saved, and we work on our soul (mind, soul, emotions) to conform more and more to God's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have been coined or molded by the world for so long, and still are, that I would not trust my own impressions, emotions, and opinions as much as I do the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This said, I want to add that if my emotions or leading of the soul does not contradict the Word of God, why not go for it? Especially if it contradicts common sense ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as the Bible shows us a relational God, ask some friends that you trust hear from God and have good biblical foundations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T13:44:44.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3589" CreationDate="2011-09-29T13:58:19.840" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been egregious applications of slavery throughout history which have dehumanized people (often through racist justification) by arbitrarily deeming them property of another person.  From my understanding, slavery in OT Jerusalem was not like that.   It wasn't ethnically-based (Jews were often slaves of Jews), and it was temporary.   It was more of an indentured service-type arrangement in which the slave settled his real debt to his slave master.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the laws of Isreal, I think it's important to realize that there are three categories of law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) the moral laws being a sort of universal trascendent set of standards (summarized by Christ as first, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and secondly, love others as you love yourself...once we have those down pat, we should be good to go ;) )  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) The civil laws in many ways were application of moral standards, but in some ways were not nec. so.   These, I think, are what set the nation of Israel apart.   As God's chosen nation, they were the standard-bearers of his Word and were to set an example as an (imperfect) version of a holy nation.  In the old testament, converts became Jews and so they were expected to uphold the civil law of Israel.   In the New Testament, though, the gospel went forth to all nations; instead of bringing people into Judaism, the Gospel transcended national identity (there is neither Jew nor Greek).  So gentiles were not expected to behave as Jews -- though there was some considerable strife amongst the apostles here in the begining.  (To be fair, they weren't expected to behave as Gentiles, etiher)   The civil laws of Israel were not longer applicable, &lt;strong&gt;per se.&lt;/strong&gt; to the Christian.  Civil law is still an applicable concept, but we can't expect secular nations to adopt the same codes as ancient Isreal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I would note here, too, that there is a distinction between an individual application of the law, and the State's.  The State had authority to mete out justice in ways the individual did not.   For example, I would contend (though honest arguments can be had regarding this) that the death penalty is a perfectly valid application of state justice which is consistent with Bibilical teachings, becasue the State has the authority to &quot;wield the sword&quot; in ways in which the individual does not.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) The ceremonial law was the law of the temple and the rituals of sacrifice for atonement (see: Leviticus).   The book of Hebrews addresses the cessation of sacrifices.   (esp: Hebrews 10:17-18), but basically, as moral laws were inevitably broken, the priests had been instructed to perform sacrifices on behalf of the people.   Some of these were rather complex and precise, and there was a good deal of instruction surrounding these processes.   When Jesus -- referred to as the Lamb of God -- died as the ultimate atoning sacrifice, these practices were identified as &quot;shadows&quot; which had not offered atonement in and of themselves, but rather pointed to a coming atonement found in Jesus. These prepared the people's minds for the signficance of what Jesus had come to do.   Once he atoned for the sins of the world, the cermonial sacrifices were not only no longer needed, but also borderline blasphemous (at least by my reading) as they suggested a certain need for continued atonement beyond Christ's shed blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many ways the civil law and the ceremonial law went hand-in-hand as specifics of Israel.   As a nation, they were  particularly shown two things with these laws which prepared them for Jesus.  1) Ultimately the standard for holiness is not going to be achieved by giving man a law...no matter how simple the law was (see: Garden of Eden) or how complicated and nuanced it might be (see: Deutoronomy) people managed to break it...the law reveals how deeply sinful man, but it does not save him (see: Romans 3:19-21 esp.) 2) also, the consequences of sin against God -- the Lord of all --are not trifling.  Atonement requires the shedding of blood...either the blood of the lawbreaker or a substitute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once Jesus came and both upheld the law and died for those of us who didn't, the presentation changed a bit, though the story and flow remains necessary to set the stage.   Ironically (maybe?), Jesus actually revealed a stricter moral law (see: Sermon on the Mount) which challenges man to weigh his thoughts and desires more than just his outward actions, but he also revealed a grace that saves inspite of our trangression from the law.   Our disobedience isn't simply swept under the rug, but, instead justice was served when &quot;[f]or our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.&quot; (2 Corinthians 5:20-21 ESV)   As we come to understand the grace that is offered to us as sinners, it becomes natural to extend that grace towards those who wrong us.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bearing in mind the distinction between individual application and corporate application, and understanding our universal need to grace, I think that's how things like &quot;eye for an eye&quot; (state, civil law) can be compatible with things like &quot;turn the other cheek&quot; (individual, moral application).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T13:58:19.840" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3601" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3606" CreationDate="2011-09-29T14:26:40.903" Score="4" ViewCount="662" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1054/do-i-have-to-attend-church-every-sunday&quot;&gt;Do I have to attend church every Sunday?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, can you be a true christian and not go to church? Or is it a mandate to go to church on Sundays? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T21:18:56.440" Title="Can you be a Christian and not go to church?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-09-29T18:10:36.400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3602" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-29T14:28:46.283" Score="3" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1322/what-does-the-bible-say-christians-should-or-should-not-do-on-the-sabbath&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say Christians should or should not do on the Sabbath?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible it says that the 7th day should be set aside and be holy. It is the day of rest. Does this simply mean that we are not allowed to do any work? What will happen if you do? Is this going against God's will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T14:35:01.707" Title="What does the bible say about sundays?" Tags="&lt;sabbath&gt;&lt;sunday&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-09-29T16:10:13.100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3603" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3618" CreationDate="2011-09-29T14:31:23.693" Score="19" ViewCount="72533" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is generally accepted that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Abraham lived 175 years&lt;/a&gt;. However, the dates when he lived are rather fuzzy and hotly debated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When was he alive and what reasons would you give for your conclusion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What methods have gone into determining the dates in which Abraham (and perhaps other early biblical figures) lived and died?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T18:14:29.557" LastActivityDate="2020-01-17T23:23:16.043" Title="When was Abraham alive?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3307" CreationDate="2011-09-29T14:40:12.323" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;theology&lt;/em&gt; literally means &lt;em&gt;discourse on God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Theology translates into English from the Greek theologia (θεολογία) which derived from theos (θεός), meaning God, and logia (λόγια), meaning utterances, sayings, or oracles (a word related to logos [λόγος], meaning word, discourse, or reasoning) which had passed into Latin as theologia and into French as théologie.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sub&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology#History_of_the_term&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the Christian understanding of God is indeed &lt;em&gt;founded&lt;/em&gt; on the Bible. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2/60&quot;&gt;Not only on the Bible for all Christians&lt;/a&gt;, but the Bible is the most authoritative source. Another way to say this is that those who believe in the God that announces himself in the Bible, are Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, when having &lt;em&gt;discourse&lt;/em&gt; on the &lt;em&gt;Christian God&lt;/em&gt; (i.e. the definition of Christian theology), it makes sense to use the Bible (which defines the Christian God). This is no tautology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; want some other basis than just the strict definitions for using the Bible as a foundation, you're asking for a tautology. There are really two cases. The possible authorities are, in the two possible cases:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2/60&quot;&gt;(Sola Scriptura)&lt;/a&gt;: the church that teaches Sola Scriptura, and the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(Non-Sola Scriptura): the church (which teaches the Bible is an authority), and the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you either have the Bible passages telling about teaching in the Bible itself (2 Tim. 3:15-17, Mat. 22:29, 2 Pet. 3:15-16, Gal. 1:8-9, etc.), or the church teaching. This is much more a tautology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your assumption of the soul working as a &lt;em&gt;moral compass&lt;/em&gt;, see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2706/60&quot;&gt;Are our consciences trustworthy?&lt;/a&gt; (Hint: they aren't.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T14:40:12.323" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3307" CreationDate="2011-09-29T14:58:21.630" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am going to assume that since you asked the question to Christians that an aceptable answer will be rooted in our worldview. For reasons that I will lay out we have to look to the Bible for what it says about itself. While this may appear to be circular, and I guess in one regard it is, we are claiming that ultimately the Bible is &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; authoritative revelation of God's truth and character. In the Christian worldview there is no other place to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question of use is a great one. Practically the Bible has one purpose, to tell the story of the fall of man, the inability for us to live up to God's standard, His plan of salvation for us through His Son, and the final restoration and redemption of this world. Within that though we have commands from God in the OT, Christ and the Apostles (Law), poetry and proverbs that give us wisdom and show us how to worship, and instruction on how to live out our faith in practice. So I guess the answer is &quot;All of the above&quot;. For specific reasons why the Bible is the source for all of this, read on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is the foundational theological text for Christians for 4 reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible is the inerrant authoritative Word of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible is clear&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible is necessary for the Christian faith&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible is sufficient for the Christian faith&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With these 4 reasons in mind Christians look to the Bible as the revealed Word of God that tells His great story of redemption for this world, shows us how to seek Him for ourselves and trust Him for our eternal lives. Academic study aside, this is the point of Christian theology, to know and love God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I’ll offer brief summaries of these points and point to sites or books on the topic if you want deeper insight&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bible is the Inerrant Authoritative Word of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off the Bible claims clearly to be the direct Word of God. In the Old Testament verses like &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Je1.9&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 1:9&lt;/a&gt; show this explicitly how God spoke to His prophets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord&#xA;  said to me,”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally the Bible states that God “spoke through” the prophets, who words and teachings are the primary source for the Old Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But neither he nor his servants nor the people of the land listened&#xA;  to the words of the Lord that he spoke through Jeremiah the prophet.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Je1.9&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 37:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, in the New Testament in Timothy we see the endorsement of the whole Old Testament as the direct Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for&#xA;  reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that&#xA;  the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2Ti3.16&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word for scripture here in the original Greek is &lt;em&gt;graphe&lt;/em&gt;. In every occurrence of this word in the New Testament (51 of them) this word is used to refer directly to the OT. Also, note the phrase, “breathed out by God”. This is a claim that all of the scriptures come direct from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally in the New Testament we also have internal attestation to it’s nature as the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom&#xA;  given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of&#xA;  these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to&#xA;  understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own&#xA;  destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1Pe3.15-16&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:15-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key thing to note here is that Peter uses the same Greek word we talked about above when he says “other scriptures”. Peter here directly places the letters of Paul alongside the Old Testament as &lt;em&gt;graphe&lt;/em&gt;, or scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the Bible is inerrant. But what does this really mean? Quoting Wayne Grudem, “The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just one note on a very plain explanation. Note the insistence upon the original documents being inerrant. My ESV translation is not inerrant, your KJV is not inerrant and the RSV is not inerrant. The Bible is fully true in the original documents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following Biblical claims to it’s own truthfulness build upon the statement that scripture is the direct word of God. The Bible is pure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a&#xA;  furnace on the ground, purified seven times.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ps12.6&quot;&gt;Psalm 12:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is perfect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I have seen a limit to all perfection, but your commandment is&#xA;  exceedingly broad.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ps119.96&quot;&gt;Psalm 119:96&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is true:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take&#xA;  refuge in him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Pr30.5&quot;&gt;Proverbs 30:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bible is Clear&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may seem odd given the amount of confusion and discussion that goes on, but the Bible claims to be clear and that every man can understand what the Bible says about God. The whole nation of Israel was expected to know and understand the scriptures. As Moses instructed the people: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.&#xA;  7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of&#xA;  them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and&#xA;  when you lie down, and when you rise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Dt6.6-7&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 6:6-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David states that Word of God makes things understandable to us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to&#xA;  the simple.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ps119.130&quot;&gt;Psalm 119:130&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is true, why do people misinterpret or disagree on what the Bible says? It is because of our own shortcomings. If the Bible is inerrant and the revealed Word of God then it is our standard, not our own understanding. This is a tough teaching to take, but we are instructed to approach God and His Word humbly, and that is certainly a counter-cultural idea these days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bible is Necessary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is necessary for our faith; we cannot know God apart from the Bible. As Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ &#xA;  14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And&#xA;  how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how&#xA;  are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to&#xA;  preach unless they are sent? ... 17 So faith comes from hearing, and&#xA;  hearing through the word of Christ.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ro10.13&quot;&gt;Romans 10:13-15 &amp;amp; 17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul nailed this one on the head, so I will leave it there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bible is Sufficient&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This point is disputed often in its meaning, so I will do my best to be clear. When we says the Bible is sufficient we are saying that God has given us everything we needed to know for our salvation, for trusting Him perfectly, and for obeying Him perfectly. We do not need anything outside of the Bible to know who He is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this could be a whole topic on its own I will just cover a few references to back this up. Paul tells Timothy that, “from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” in &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2Ti3.15&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:15&lt;/a&gt;. Additionally in verses 16 &amp;amp; 17 Paul goes on to state that the scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an affirmation that the scripture contains the knowledge we need for salvation, and to be fully equipped for the good works that Christ called us to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a closing note, I will state that I think you will get a small, but varying, group of different answers. Different Christian school of thought view the Bible in slightly different ways. I do not think there is universal consensus in the broader Christian church on this question when you get down to the details, so I would expect to see that reflected in the answers here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My main source for this summary is Wayne Grudem’s excellent book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310222338&quot;&gt;Bible Doctrine&lt;/a&gt;. I highly recommend it for an even further study on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T01:07:26.400" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T01:07:26.400" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3601" CreationDate="2011-09-29T15:00:02.610" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually &lt;strong&gt;yes&lt;/strong&gt; it is of course quite &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt;, but if someone is asking this question at all, it is likely that there is some other issue. Fellowship and the community of saints is such a basic part of the Christian faith that someone who wants to avoid that part on purpose has probably not understood the purpose of church at all and may not have the kind of regenerated heart that would want such a thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting note on this issue is that it is usually those who for whatever reason cannot easily fellowship that understand it's value the most. Christians living in areas where they are persecuted for their faith believe so strongly in their need to meet together that they are often willing to risk their lives for it. It is primarily in affluent secular cultures were the desire to NOT attend creeps into circles of professing Christians. Anybody asking this question should be challenged to re-consider whether they know what being a Christian is all about in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One starting point is to review what scriptures say about the matter. A vast number of the instructions given to Christians for implementing their faith have to do with our treatment of one another, and the Lord's day is given lots of treatment in the Scriptures as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-07-25T21:18:56.440" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T21:18:56.440" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3607" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3611" CreationDate="2011-09-29T15:08:48.453" Score="9" ViewCount="977" Body="&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Messe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Deutsche Messe&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; was first celebrated on October 29, 1525, and the text was published the following year. I was surprised to see that for the consecration and distribution of the sacrament, he uses the order&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consecrate the bread&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Distribute the Body of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consecrate the wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Distribute the Blood of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as opposed to the more familiar (at least to me) 1, 3, 2, 4. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He writes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/lo_ProcServ/dbpage=page&amp;amp;mode=display&amp;amp;pg=20053304374519596101111555&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the preface&lt;/a&gt; that he is trying to emulate the order of events described in the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Office and Consecration proceeds, as follows: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same night' (i Cor. xi. 23 ff). &lt;strong&gt;I think that it would be in accordance with the Last Supper if the sacrament were distributed immediately after the consecration of the bread before the blessing of the cup. So say, both Luke and Paul: 'Likewise also the cup after supper.'&lt;/strong&gt; Meanwhile, there might be sung the Sanctus in German or the hymn 'Gott sei gelobet', or the hymn of John Huss, 'Jesus Christus unser Heiland.' &lt;strong&gt;And after this should come the consecration of the chalice and its delivery&lt;/strong&gt;, with the singing of whatever remains of the above-mentioned hymns, or of the Agnus Dei in German.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that there are quite a few variations among Christians about what sequence is to be used. How should a church determine which order to follow? And, in particular, is there any reason to object to Luther's method here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T21:52:42.030" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T23:13:49.760" Title="Distributing the bread before consecrating the wine" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3603" CreationDate="2011-09-29T15:19:29.350" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I, along with others, have done studies on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/2010/10/chronology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chronology&lt;/a&gt; of the Old Testament genealogies - which puts Abraham being born ~&lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/chronology.xls&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1950&lt;/a&gt; years after Adam, and about 300 years after the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that the earth is approximately &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3160/how-do-christians-reconcile-archeology-with-the-bible-in-the-account-of-the-battl/3217#3217&quot;&gt;6000&lt;/a&gt; years old, that makes Abraham's birth about 2050BC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T18:47:05.327" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3607" CreationDate="2011-09-29T15:25:32.127" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;My church background is from the Baptist denomination in the UK and when they celebrate communion it's nearly always in the manner described (ie bless &amp;amp; distribute the bread, then bless &amp;amp; distribute the wine). Nowadays I'm part of a congregation where bread and grape juice (there's a no alcohol policy in the building we meet in) are provided and people can take it in any manner, and any order, they see fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen communion celebrated in many different ways, formal and informal, with a large variation of what's done when. While some churches dictate a set order for these things, I don't think many would find a slight adjustment objectionable (although as with any group of people there are always some who will kick up a fuss!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T15:25:32.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3607" CreationDate="2011-09-29T15:27:24.723" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there is any problem with the order Martin Luther used, as it is the same as the order used by Christ in the Last Supper.  I do believe the 1324 order is likely used due to it scaling a little better when the bread and wine are distributed after consecrating them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Last Supper was only a few people, compared to a Sunday service which could be hundreds of people.  By receiving the bread and the wine at the same time, you can cut the time needed for communion to nearly half.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As @warren mentioned in his answer, my current church actually distributes the bread and wine/juice, then the pastor will say a blessing over the bread and we will consume it.  Then the pastor says a blessing over the wine and we consume that.  I believe this is similar to Martin Luther's method, except it is distributed (to hundreds) before the blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a smaller scale, I believe Martin Luther's ordering would be wonderful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T15:44:01.873" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T15:44:01.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3607" CreationDate="2011-09-29T15:29:37.780" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have &lt;em&gt;ONLY&lt;/em&gt; (but in many churches [baptist (several versions), presbyterian (several versions), &amp;amp; non-denominational]) ever seen the order done as described above and one other method:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bless bread&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;distribute bread&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;consume bread&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bless wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;distribute wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;consume wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OR (and only in the context of large congregations in awkward facilities)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;distribute bread &amp;amp; wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bless bread&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;consume bread&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bless wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;consume wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first method is as described in both Luke and 1 Corinthians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is a variation to accommodate unusual crowds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T23:13:49.760" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T23:13:49.760" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3613" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3619" CreationDate="2011-09-29T16:42:33.230" Score="10" ViewCount="2210" Body="&lt;p&gt;At Mass during the recitation of the Nicene Creed and when praying the Angelus, it is common (or required?) for the congregation to bow or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuflection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;genuflect&lt;/a&gt; (bend one knee) during these lines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven: By the power of the Holy Spirit, He was incarnate (born) of the Virgin Mary, and became man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do we genuflect during those lines and not do anything special when other very important aspects of our faith are mentioned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-05-04T00:37:16.237" Title="What is the reason to genuflect when the Incarnation is mentioned?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;&lt;genuflection&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1051" CreationDate="2011-09-29T17:35:34.137" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, the Bible is silent on the question of life that lives somewhere other than earth, with one exception -- angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several passages in the Bible refer to the stars of heaven and the angels interchangeably, and other passages discuss angels in heaven or cast out of heaven to the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2028:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 28:12&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%205:20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Judges 5:20&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038:7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 38:7&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%208:4-5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 8:4-5&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20147:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 147:4&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:10&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:30&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:29-30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:29-30&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:25-26&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 13:25-26&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 1:20&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 12:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 12:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and &lt;strong&gt;Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that such passages have led to a popular belief that every star (especially the &quot;morning star&quot; and similar stars later redefined as &quot;planets&quot;) has an associated angel, much like Matthew 18:10 leads to the popular belief that every child has a guardian angel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This idea -- that each planet has at least one angel associated with it -- and other ideas that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1060/30&quot;&gt;Mason Wheeler mentions&lt;/a&gt; -- is a big part of C. S. Lewis's fictional trilogy beginning with &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Silent_Planet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Out of the Silent Planet&lt;/a&gt;&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="790" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T07:10:45.657" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3601" CreationDate="2011-09-29T18:04:42.767" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:25&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:25&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another — and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believers are encouraged to fellowship as members of the Body of Christ. Without this, it is inevitable that one would grow cold in the faith. We need support and encouragement from fellow believers in order to grow in our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian faith is not about rules and laws. Hence, there is no law that says one has to go to church. We are at liberty to worship God in spirit and in truth (read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 4&lt;/a&gt;), but if we are truly walking with Him, then His Spirit living in us leads us to do His will. Thus, going to church is not a must, but the true Christian will &lt;em&gt;naturally&lt;/em&gt; seek fellowship with other believers. For many, this involves becoming faithful members of a church. Christians are also called to serve the Body of Christ, and church is often a great place to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will close by saying one can be a churchgoer and not a true Christian, while another can be a true Christian and not a churchgoer. There are many sold-out Christians in today's world who live in countries where public Christian worship is against the law, and they have to secretly meet in each other's homes. This is just one example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="792" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T18:57:25.370" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T18:57:25.370" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3585" CreationDate="2011-09-29T18:24:46.967" Score="3" Body="&lt;h1&gt;No.&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On this site, a Christian is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/101/what-is-the-definition-of-christian&quot;&gt;defined&lt;/a&gt; as someone who self-identifies as a Christian.  Also, from a cultural standpoint, this is the only useful definition in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And clearly, according to this definition, you don't even need to know the Bible exists to be a Christian.  Early first-century Christians didn't have the Bible (to the extent that it talks about Christ), yet they called themselves Christian.  Consider the Christians in the book of Acts, or Apostle Paul for examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A far more interesting question, in my opinion--and possibly the one intended by the OP, would be &lt;strong&gt;Is accepting the Bible as infallible and/or inerrant necessary for salvation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To demonstrate that these questions are quite different, consider many who call themselves &quot;Christians&quot; do not &quot;bear fruit&quot; that would indicate that their lives have honestly been changed by God.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;David Koresh&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Crusaders&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Anders Behring Breivik&lt;/a&gt; all self-identify(ied) as Christians.  However, by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:44&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;judging by their fruit&lt;/a&gt;, I think we can really wonder if following Christ's example was the most important thing in their lives.  Now, I'm not saying it's impossible that any of these people were saved, but I think it's fair to save that the memorable parts of their lives were not a reflection of God's love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the Bible gives us examples of people who were saved, but never heard the name of Christ, and therefore could not possibly have been Christians.  Abraham is perhaps the most obvious example of this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T21:12:45.587" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3585" CreationDate="2011-09-29T18:34:00.483" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; How you view the Bible is not the determining factor in your salvation. One can also certainly belong to a Christian church or denomination and deny inerrancy. However how you view the Bibles truth claims will in large part shape your own personal faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vast majority of those who espouse this view specifically state that the inerrant nature of the scriptures only apply to original documents. In regard to translations they are only inerrant to the extent to which they faithfully reproduce the original document.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would however say-- and this is just my opinion-- that the decision to claim Christianity as your personal faith while denying the full truthfulness of its sole sacred text is a shaky foundation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Long answer:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the key to understanding this question is to fully understand how the people who believe in an inerrant Bible define that belief. We are operating in a culture that is moving from modern views of language which emphasize concrete and defined meanings for words to a post-modern view that allows for the re-defining of terms and an acceptance that the same words can represent different things depending on individual perception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that long preface out of the way, here is what those who espouse the view of inerrancy say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the&#xA;  authographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be&#xA;  ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further&#xA;  affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God&#xA;  to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected&#xA;  by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence&#xA;  renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This statement is taken from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (background and participants) which is held by many Evangelicals as the most comprehensive view of Evangelical doctrine on this topic. This is only an excerpt, this is only one of 19 articles regarding this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When someone says they believe in biblical inerrancy the odds are great that they hold to this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastEditorUserId="768" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T21:31:57.687" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T21:31:57.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3603" CreationDate="2011-09-29T18:51:47.870" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best way to find this estimate is to take known historical dates and work backwards from there using dates and durations in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele&quot;&gt;Mesha Stele&lt;/a&gt; has been dated to about 840-850 BCE, and seems to pretty clearly describe the time of Omri.  If we assume it was written when the events happened, not long afterwards, we can use it to work backwards.  Omri's reign began in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20kings%2016:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;31st year&lt;/a&gt; of Asa and lasted twelve years, which means that Asa's reign began around 870-890.  Previously, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20kings%2015:1-2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rehoboam ruled for 17 and Abijah for three&lt;/a&gt;.  Although the transition is not entirely clear to me, the prior ruler was apparently &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20kings%2011:42&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Solomon for 40 years&lt;/a&gt;.  In his fourth year, he &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20kings%206:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;started to build the temple, which was 480 years&lt;/a&gt; after leaving Egypt.  So that takes us back 20+36+480 = 536 years further, to 1406-1426 BCE as the dates for the exodus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we come to a difficult stretch because there are, to my knowledge, no clear chronological links between Moses and, say, Joseph.  Moses' grandfather Kehat was with Jacob on the way into Egypt, and if you add up all the ages that's a maximum of 350 years (actually surely less, since Kehat was not an infant), but it's not clear what the minimum was.  The most direct statement is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2015:13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Genesis 15:13&lt;/a&gt;, which puts four hundred years between Abraham's offspring and the exodus.  Since the phrase is &quot;in a land that is not theirs&quot;, and Ishmael and Isaac did not start off owning the land, it seems that the most harmonious interpretation is that this was 400 years from Ishmael's birth.  We find that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2016:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Abraham was 86 years old&lt;/a&gt; at the time.  The 400 years probably didn't end until after &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2016:35&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;wandering in the wilderness for 40 years&lt;/a&gt;, so that's 360 years from Ishmael's birth to the exodus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, according to historical and Biblical evidence, Abraham was born somewhere in the range of 1852-1872 BCE and died 175 years later (1677-1697).  If the 400 years are accounted for differently, these dates could change significantly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, other people have studied the matter and come up with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.matthewmcgee.org/ottimlin.html&quot;&gt;different timelines&lt;/a&gt;; it's complicated by the lack of accurately-dated historical evidence for events prior to David upon which to anchor the timeline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(Beware of lots of little edits to fix up small mathematical errors and other details.)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="519" LastEditDate="2011-09-29T18:56:50.457" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T18:56:50.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3613" CreationDate="2011-09-29T19:18:24.643" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) wrote about this article of the creed for the Mariological Congress in March 1995. The essay is reprinted in &lt;em&gt;Mary: the church at the source&lt;/em&gt; by him and  Hans Urs von Balthasar (Ignatius Press, 2005). He speaks about the centrality of the incarnation to Christian faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In manifesting himself, God shows that he is our Lord, not just our idea. His self-manifestation is rightly at the heart of the Creed. The confession of God's history in the heart of man's history is not a departure from the simple profession of faith in God: rather, it is its intrinsic condition. For this reason, the center of all our creeds is a Yes to Jesus Christ: &quot;By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.&quot; At this article of the Creed we genuflect, because now heaven, the veil surrounding the hidden God, is torn open, and the Mystery comes into immediate contact with us. The distant God becomes our God, Emmanuel - &quot;God with us&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would imagine that there is also some link with genuflecting to the consecrated Host, for the same reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Latimer&quot;&gt;Hugh Latimer&lt;/a&gt; expressed a similar opinion in &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=eAgOAQAAMAAJ&amp;amp;lpg=PA109&amp;amp;ots=GuJj1sM9FH&amp;amp;pg=PA109#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;a sermon of 26 December 1552&lt;/a&gt;, though in more &quot;English Reformation&quot; terms:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We read a story, (take it as you will, though it be not a true story:) The devil came once into the church whilst the priest was saying mass; and when he was at these words, &lt;em&gt;Et homo factus est&lt;/em&gt;, the devil looked about him, and seeing no man kneel down, or bow his knees, he strake one of them in the face, saying, &quot;What! will you not reverence him for this great benefit which he hath done unto you? I tell you, if he had taken upon him our nature, as he hath taken upon him yours, we would more reverence him than ye do.&quot; This story is prettily devised; for we should reverence him; we should honour him, and shew ourselves thankful for his inestimable benefits that he hath shewed upon us miserable wretched sinners, in taking upon him our nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The footnote says that the story appears in the &lt;em&gt;Vita Christi&lt;/em&gt; by Ludolph of Saxony. This was written in 1374, so there is some history to the idea that it is particularly important to show reverence at this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T19:18:24.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3576" CreationDate="2011-09-29T20:06:09.203" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we seek to give glory to God, to hold God up so others can see by the light that shines from God, through us, and we work to love God and others as Jesus commanded, then if we are concerned with earthly concerns, such as amassing wealth or having fashionable clothes, we have chosen to conform to the world.  We are not in a place where we can stand apart from the world, and talk about how great God is, as there is no real difference between us and everyone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if we choose to conform then we are not going to be following God, and if we are not listening to what God is saying to us, then what voice are we following? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't have to explicitly choose to be part of this world, by just standing by and watching brothers and sisters in Christ do actions that would pierce Jesus' heart is enough to show that we are conforming. This is probably what most Christians are guilty of, when we listen to ministers speak in ways that Christ would not agree with. For example, when persecution of any particular group, especially those that hate you and would be happy to see you dead, is espoused, rather than laughing, or just standing silently by, we should show what it means to be willing to die for that person, and speak up, even though it costs us friendships, or isolates us, as, we are moving toward God.  If we choose to value our friendships, then we have turned away from God, and conformed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Satan does not want to be alone in Hell, he wants as much company as possible, so he will work to ensure that we are thinking more about earthly issues than thinking about God, which is his role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see how strong he can be in the story of Job, as he made Job's life miserable, took everything away from him, but Job continued to lean on God, regardless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the terrestrial bonds may keep us away from our heavenly Father, and that is what Satan, as the chief tempter, works to do, to keep us grounded, as we may not explicitly worship him, but the Bible stated that we can only follow one god, so if we are not keeping our eyes on God, and shining as a beacon for others, then we are following Satan, and we have covered up the light.  Satan is the examples used as the opposite of God, in that we follow God in heaven or the god of this world, and when it comes down to it, that is what is meant by Satan being the god of this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-09-29T20:06:09.203" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3307" CreationDate="2011-09-30T00:04:26.657" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I cannot answer this fully, but I noticed this has not been touched on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is currently considered theological evidence because it is a canon, that is, a rule of books that should not be changed. In this way, it has a greater reliability than what a person could tell you, much the same way that written laws are more reliable than fiat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The deeper question is difficult, which is to say, we know the canon of scripture was created because the books were considered theological evidence. But why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems from evidence that the Council of Nicaea did not actually discuss the canon of scripture, but the council of Carthage (the 'supposed third')  in August of 397 simply established the list itself. The reasoning appears to emerge from a consensus over the centuries about which books are reliable (as theological evidence) and which are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just to say, the main criteria seem to have been:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was not pseudopigraphia, such as the Book of Enoch (though some do include this in the number) but is a genuine book&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For old Testament books, it is either history of Israel (thus salvation history) or it prophetically witnesses to Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was a book in common use, such as the Psalms, in temple service prior to Pentecost&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It could be traced in origin to the original twelve and their followers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It did not contain superfluous or local instructions regarding the faith&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was written / authored (dictated) by the Apostle John, who was the one surviving of the Twelve and a great hero of the faith to those in the early centuries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was considered fit to be read publicly before all Christians, or all people in general as representing the teaching of Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: also, techincal manuals were excluded such as the Didache. In similar fashion, we Orthodox would not include the Liturgicon, the Horologion, the Menaion or the Book of Hours in the canon if it were composed today. You could say that 'meta books' - commentary or instructional - were not canonized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T00:04:26.657" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3624" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3628" CreationDate="2011-09-30T02:06:15.307" Score="23" ViewCount="38303" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Chronicles, David took a census on the people of Israel. However, God became angry at this, and he proceeded to destroy about 70,000 people in result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2021:1-16&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Chronicles 21:1-16&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Take a census of all the people of Israel—from Beersheba in the south to Dan in the north—and bring me a report so I may know how many there are.”&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;But Joab replied, “May the Lord increase the number of his people a hundred times over! But why, my lord the king, do you want to do this? Are they not all your servants? Why must you cause Israel to sin?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;But the king insisted that they take the census, so Joab traveled throughout all Israel to count the people. Then he returned to Jerusalem &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;and reported the number of people to David. There were 1,100,000 warriors in all Israel who could handle a sword, and 470,000 in Judah. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;But Joab did not include the tribes of Levi and Benjamin in the census because he was so distressed at what the king had made him do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judgment for David’s Sin&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; God was very displeased with the census, and he punished Israel for it. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by taking this census. Please forgive my guilt for doing this foolish thing.”&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;Then the Lord spoke to Gad, David’s seer. This was the message: &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;“Go and say to David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I will give you three choices. Choose one of these punishments, and I will inflict it on you.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;So Gad came to David and said, “These are the choices the Lord has given you. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;You may choose three years of famine, three months of destruction by the sword of your enemies, or three days of severe plague as the angel of the Lord brings devastation throughout the land of Israel. Decide what answer I should give the Lord who sent me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;“I’m in a desperate situation!” David replied to Gad. “But let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great. Do not let me fall into human hands.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel, and 70,000 people died as a result. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But just as the angel was preparing to destroy it, the Lord relented and said to the death angel, “Stop! That is enough!” At that moment the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with his sword drawn, reaching out over Jerusalem. So David and the leaders of Israel put on burlap to show their deep distress and fell face down on the ground. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this passage does not state the reason for God doing this. What was so wrong about taking census of people of Israel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-06-11T08:18:56.767" LastActivityDate="2019-04-06T11:04:37.857" Title="Why was taking census a bad thing?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;israel&gt;&lt;david&gt;&lt;1-chronicles&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="3628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3624" CreationDate="2011-09-30T03:05:55.663" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right in that the Bible does not state why it was a sin, so we won't be able to cite verses to support any answer to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the one thing  that is clear is that Satan provoked David to take the census. The Bible doesn't explain why this is, and the there are several theories, but no Biblical statement on the matter. Clearly, however, it was Satan that provoked David to take the census, and following Satan's leading is almost certainly a sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The explanations that I've heard on why it was bad had to do with the motivation of David's heart in the matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One theory is that he was taking the census to determine the might of his army, because he was counting on this, rather than God to provide military victory and strength.  (I'm not sure I buy that one.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Another says that it may have been pride.  David wanted to know how mighty a kingdom he had.  (Knowing how God hates pride, this is at least feasible to me.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the Scriptures don't give an answer, so in all honesty, I don't think this question is answerable in the usual sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T03:24:49.803" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T03:24:49.803" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3630" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-30T04:02:20.040" Score="4" ViewCount="81" Body="&lt;p&gt;Questions that begin &quot;Is it ok to &lt;em&gt;_&lt;/em&gt;&quot; are often asked and I believe it is helpful to ask &quot;how now shall we live?&quot;.  However, from a theological standpoint are these questions of primary importance when considering the whole of and heart of Christian doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="29" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T06:51:28.243" Title="Are questions that begin &quot;Is it ok to ___&quot; of primary theological importance?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;works&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:45:56.580" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3631" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-30T04:15:18.100" Score="9" ViewCount="12289" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm preparing a class on the institution of the Eucharist and my text says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Gospel of John includes no mention of the institution of the Eucharist&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it goes on to give the account, for reasons unknown to me, of Jesus washing His disciple's feet.  Which incidentally would have happened at about the same time as the institution of the Eucharist in the other Gospels.  The thing I noticed here is that in the same way that Jesus says we should consume His Body and Blood in remembrance of Him, He also says that we should wash each others feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do washing feet and the Eucharist have anything to do with each other?  What could have made John write about washing feet and not what so certainly stuck out in the minds of the other Gospel authors and St. Paul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T00:10:19.447" LastActivityDate="2018-03-08T12:27:06.220" Title="What does it mean that John's Gospel does not have an account of the institution of the Eucharist?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3632" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-09-30T04:24:03.530" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Communion&lt;/strong&gt;: From the Latin &lt;em&gt;communia&lt;/em&gt;, meaning 'fellowship'. 'Communion' or 'The Lord's Supper' are two names for the sacrament where Jesus' followers remember his death on the cross by eating bread and drinking wine. There is a lot of debate among different Christian denominations as to what exactly communion means and how it should be carried out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eucharist&lt;/strong&gt;:  From the Greek &lt;em&gt;Eucharistia&lt;/em&gt;, meaning 'thanksgiving'. Eucharist originally referred to the prayer of thanksgiving that preceded communion, but now is often used for the whole event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-06-30T23:33:19.530" LastActivityDate="2014-06-30T23:33:19.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3633" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-09-30T04:24:03.530" Score="0" Body="A sacrament initiated by Jesus where his followers remember his death on the cross by eating bread and wine" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-01T00:49:04.547" LastActivityDate="2014-07-01T00:49:04.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3634" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3637" CreationDate="2011-09-30T04:24:21.510" Score="13" ViewCount="12483" Body="&lt;p&gt;After the Flood abates, God reassures Noah that it was a one time event:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:12-15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:13 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most obvious interpretation is that this is a rainbow, and that it was something new.  But rainbows are a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.myuniversalfacts.com/2006/04/how-rainbows-are-formed-what-causes.html&quot;&gt;physical consequence of having rain and sun&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God spells out the significance of the sight: the earth will not be flooded again.  But should we interpret this as an already-familiar sight being used as a reminder, or did He somehow change things then, and rainbows had not appeared before the Flood?  Or was it not actually a rainbow at all, but some other phenomenon with which we are no longer familiar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-03T09:12:24.247" LastActivityDate="2014-11-04T22:01:27.163" Title="What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3630" CreationDate="2011-09-30T04:30:11.290" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We ask &quot;is it okay to &lt;em&gt;_&lt;/em&gt;&quot; because many Christians were raised on moral religiosity instead of principles of Christian decision making.  Based on the second greatest commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39), Jesus calls everyone to love every human being they come into contact with (including themselves).  And to love means to seek what is best for myself and to ask what is best for the other, and to be honest if we are lying to ourselves about what we say is &quot;best&quot;, while not being intellectually lazy and not examining from as many angles as is possible what is best in any given situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And no, these ethical questions may not be the most important because they may be more founded in &quot;how far can I go in this one act before GOD is angry/disappointed?&quot;. But the truth is that GOD is not offended by anything that doesn't first hurt us, and that if we really allow a pure love of GOD, self and neighbor to be our new ethic then we might be closer to actually living how we were supposed to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a really good discussion of this read Thomas aquinas' summa theogica or kierkegaard's works of love (where he contrasts doing works of the law with doing works of love) or even augustine's comments on how Christians ought to live by the spirit and not by the letter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="29" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T04:54:43.683" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T04:54:43.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3636" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3719" CreationDate="2011-09-30T04:31:20.850" Score="12" ViewCount="1024" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ignatius.com/Products/YOUCAT-P/youcat.aspx&quot;&gt;Youcat&lt;/a&gt; that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Communion only under the species of bread is also a full communion with Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was always under the impression that both the bread and the wine when consecrated were both the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus, therefore it was valid and acceptable to receive Our Lord one way or the other or both.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My gluten intolerant mother-in-law told me this so I'm not entirely sure if it's just true or not.  I for sure that Christ is fully present in both, but I don't know if it is valid or acceptable to only receive Him in the wine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage in the Youcat may have been in reference to bringing Communion to the sick, so in that case, it's not normal for an Extraordinary Minister to carry around a chalice to bring to shut-ins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T22:28:03.097" Title="Is Communion still Communion under only the species of wine?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3634" CreationDate="2011-09-30T04:58:58.933" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus spoke in parables that were full of very familiar imagery to his hearers, turning them into spiritual lessons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord commanded Abraham to circumcise all his male descendants, a custom which was already being practiced before the time of Abraham, but God made it a token of his covenant with Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, there's no reason to believe that rainbows, being a natural phenomenon, did not exist before the Flood.  But as a part of God's covenant with Noah, he gave them a new, special significance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T04:58:58.933" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-09-30T05:39:07.673" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are not commanded to dress a certain way in Scripture, other than that it should be modest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I have a strong &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;personal conviction - one I would not try to force on anyone else&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; - that you should dress up for Church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God appeared to Moses as a burning bush, He commanded Moses to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.&lt;/a&gt;&quot;  To me, this implies that God expects us to respect Him, and approach Him with reverence, as one who is Holy and worthy of our best.  Therefore, I dress up, not to look good to others, but because it's such a small thing for the God who created me and saved me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I do not look down on anyone who doesn't feel the same.  Not everyone thinks the same way, and it's not for me to try to force them.  Christianity isn't about a bunch of rules and regulations, it's about our hearts, and our relationship with God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-01T23:51:49.023" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T23:51:49.023" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3636" CreationDate="2011-09-30T06:21:58.983" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;(wider Christianity perspective, not Catholicism specific...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will vary from denomination to denomination, and much hangs on what the &quot;this&quot; is referring to in Jesus' instruction &quot;do this in remembrance of me&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One view is that he was referring to eating together. He happened to have bread and wine handy but these days it could as easily be chips and Coke (although I haven't come across a church where bread and wine aren't &lt;em&gt;preferred&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other churches will be much stricter and won't recognise Communion as Communion unless it involves both bread and wine and a set ritual that never changes, along with words of consecration, with only certain people allowed to preside over the ceremony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can probably tell by the way I've worded this answer, my own leanings are towards the former position. But the most freeform of churches will still have at least some kind of regular routine, and even the most strict will allow a degree of flexibility, so i'm sure any church will find a way to accommodate those who are gluten intolerant or have other dietary requirements, health issues or special needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T18:17:51.430" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T18:17:51.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3630" CreationDate="2011-09-30T06:51:28.243" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think these kind of questions often betray a deeper problem: a lack of understanding of the primary importance questions of doctrine that you mention. They often stem from an understanding of Christianity as a set of cultural norms or a rulebook of right and wrongs instead of hearts that have been remade from stone to flesh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do think it is valid that we field them but our emphasis should always be on pointing people to the more foundational truths that enable us to discern the answers to lodes endless trivia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T06:51:28.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3634" CreationDate="2011-09-30T06:59:29.547" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several theories about major differences in climate pre and post flood. There is some reason to believe that our atmosphere had a rather different makeup before the flood: perhaps along the lines of perpetual heavy cloud cover. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these scenarios it is entirely possible that a natural phenomenon like a rainbow had actually never been observed before and that it was burned across the sky in all its glory when they climbed out of the ark. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T06:59:29.547" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3642" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3656" CreationDate="2011-09-30T07:30:15.520" Score="5" ViewCount="612" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a continuation from the previous question, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3307/why-is-the-bible-a-foundation-of-theological-evidence&quot;&gt;&quot;Why is the Bible a foundation of theological evidence?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this time I'd like the question to focus on the issue of what looks like a circular argument, which was an issue that was raised but looks like it needed further discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the issue is: it is said that the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so. But who is to say that the Bible is right in saying so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T14:22:39.727" Title="How do we resolve the issue with the circular argument that the Bible is the basis for its own authority?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;authority&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2011-09-30T16:35:16.510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3642" CreationDate="2011-09-30T08:33:51.167" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think it's quite accurate to say that the argument is circular. There are actually many ways to approach the issue of whether the Bible is authoritative as it claims to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way to do this would be to realize that the Bible text itself is not the only thing vouching for it's veracity. People through the ages have done the same. If any of those people have themselves done so with authority, we can point to them instead of to the text itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best example of this is Jesus himself. Apart from the Bible itself there is historical evidence for his life, death and resurrection. We know without having to look at the Bible at all that a man named Jesus from Galilee lived, was crucified, and then appeared to many people after that. We also know from non Biblical sources that he claimed to be God in the flesh. Non Christian historians corroborate this story. His miracles and in particular his resurrection and ascension testify to him being who he claimed to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this Jesus also read the OT Scriptures and quoted them as authoritative. If Jesus was God in the flesh as he demonstrated himself to be, taking his word for it that the OT as compiled at the time was a reliable account of God's words to men, it's pretty safe to take them as such ourselves. He didn't start debates about the validity of some of the redaction that had happened through the centuries or write a new set of books, he quoted the books verbatim saying &quot;as it is written....&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be extended to the NT because the NT is a record of Jesus words (in which he testifies that the OT account is about himself) and then the apostles that he authorized to teach in his name and who's teachings are consistent with his own. The testimony of the NT is simply that of the OT being fulfilled in the person of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T08:33:51.167" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3644" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-30T09:38:52.347" Score="8" ViewCount="639" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people can specify the day and hour when they became Christians. Others were brought up Christians and say that, though they are Christian now, they cannot specify exactly &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; the change took place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it important to be able to specify &lt;strong&gt;the moment&lt;/strong&gt; of conversion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; this is not about remembering the date and time but about being able to specify the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T19:16:02.497" LastActivityDate="2016-02-14T17:56:25.440" Title="How important is a &quot;moment&quot; of conversion?" Tags="&lt;conversion&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-02-15T07:27:50.133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3642" CreationDate="2011-09-30T10:15:42.390" Score="9" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;it is said that the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have yet to hear this from a Christian. Does not seem like anything a apologist would say. Can you quote someone who says this because I suspect this is a strawman of the arguments that Christian make.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it would be better to say that the basis for the authority of the new testament is that the New Testament was written for the most part by people who knew Jesus. They where his first followers. His Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you want to go against the teachings of the bible regarding Jesus you would need to have 1st century Judean author who knew Jesus personally and attests to things in contradiction with the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think such a testimony exist. You have the Gnostic gospels written three-and-a-half centuries after Christ or the Quran that was written six centuries after Christ, but the New Testament stands alone among the world religion's holy books as being the only one that had intimate personal knowledge of who Jesus was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament is rife with eye witness accounts of Jesus. Jesus even made post mortem appearances to almost 500 people as 1 Corinthians 15v6 tells us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a common misconception that unbelievers have of Christians that we are all taking religion on some sort of blind faith. As you investigate the ancient evidences for Jesus's resurrection you come to realize that Jesus interacted with the world in a very real way and we can prove that using nothing more than general historical analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We as Christian are very lucky in that way&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could say more, but I'd leave it there &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T10:15:42.390" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3649" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3653" CreationDate="2011-09-30T12:03:22.643" Score="16" ViewCount="4359" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians as well as Jews believe that God made the Israelites as his &quot;Chosen People.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does God need a Chosen People at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="779" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-05T06:29:26.660" LastActivityDate="2016-01-05T07:27:10.117" Title="Why does God have a chosen people?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-01-05T09:03:14.533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3650" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3658" CreationDate="2011-09-30T12:13:54.580" Score="7" ViewCount="429" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that both the humans who actually penned the Bible and the later humans who translated it all had free will, the issue of Biblical inerrancy is a tricky one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3384/by-what-mechanism-could-the-bible-be-inerrant&quot;&gt;By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is usually claimed that those transcribing and translating the text were working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While this may be true of some, it is also clear that not every translation project has even approached the work in good faith, much less under supernatural guidance. Some 'translations' are clearly contradictory with others, and others show obvious signs of a specific agenda being brought to the text. Others specifically state having a political bias going into the project (e.g. the Conservative Bible Project). Of course nearly every group or individual that produces a translation then goes on to claim that theirs is the &quot;true&quot; rendition of the text or meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since clearly not &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; that works on the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit, &lt;strong&gt;how are we to know which translations &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; reliable?&lt;/strong&gt; Are modern and ancient mainstream translations considered to be free from political agendas and personal bias? If so, how do we know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="779" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2018-08-28T05:09:40.847" Title="How should we judge the trustworthiness of a given Bible translation?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3176" CreationDate="2011-09-30T12:29:23.763" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a common view that this part is talking about the rapture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that case the ones taken would be raptured while the left ones were in troubles, or tribulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other views too. Kingdom Theology for example looks at this like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Noah's time, the people that were left on the earth were the people after God's heart, while the ones taken were in fault. This teaching is started by likening the times with Jesus is talking about to the times of Noah. If we follow that analogy, to be taken has to be translated as to die (a valid translation from the Greek). According to Kingdom Theology there is no rapture, as both accepted and not accepted will live on earth until the ones that are not accepted are done away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view is supported by the parable of the wheat and the tares, where the tares are kept until harvest and then burned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This interpretation can be argued pointing out that both Noah and Lot left the place of destruction, while the others stayed and died. Yet leaving and staying are active decisions on the part of the people, while being taken and being left are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both views are within the local context valid interpretations and can be used to support both Rapture and Kingdom Theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T12:29:23.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3631" CreationDate="2011-09-30T12:34:17.040" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;John's Gospel does not contain many of the things recorded in the Synoptics, including the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration, the virgin birth, the Great Commission, and the Ascension.  In fact, the only miracle outside of the Resurrection that appears in both the Synoptic gospels and John's gospel is the feeding of the 5,000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean that John considered these things as unimportant at all.  If John were, in fact, written much later than the other gospels, then perhaps John did not feel the need to replicate material that was already well established.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John writes for a very specific purpose, asserting that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing we may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)  So, the material he selects is done so for the purpose of supporting that premise.  All the miracles and all the teachings center around that premise.  The Eucharist appears to have not fit into that selection criteria for him, since it doesn't appear in the book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T12:34:17.040" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3649" CreationDate="2011-09-30T12:41:03.847" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scripture isn't clear on why, but here are a few suggestions that make sense to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choosing a specific people allowed God to demonstrate His power through all of the military battles, and possibly most dramatically via the release if His people from Egypt.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choosing a specific people demonstrates His sovereignty - The fact that He can choose Whom he pleases to accomplish great things.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It demonstrates what He values.  He chose the descendants of Abraham because Abraham had faith, and obeyed Him, even to the risk of losing his beloved son.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choosing one nation allows God to show clearly, through a well-documented, historically verifiable history, His hand moving to guide a nation.  Summing up the history of His people, you can learn a great deal about God and his relationship to man that may not have been as apparent if He had scattered his miracles among the many nations.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He chose a nation and gave them special privileged and assistance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They chose to reject Him and go after other gods&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He withdrew His blessing and allowed judgement to come on even those that He chose initially because of their rejection&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He forgave them and healed them when the repented of their sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T12:41:03.847" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3642" CreationDate="2011-09-30T14:22:39.727" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is circular in a sense, but all philosophical starting points are.   I would contend that authority begets authority, and our philosophical foundations appeal to an authoritative source of truth and knowledge, whether we realize it or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to be the authoritative source of all things true, however, something either needs to authoritatively declare itself as the authority of all things true (If all things known are known via X; then that knowledge must also come from X…but this is circular) or a higher authority must identify it as the source of all things true.   The latter scenario, though, simply moves the bump in the rug (as it were), because then the onus shifts to that higher authority to then go through the same motions that the previous one did (i.e. either {circularly} establish itself as the authority of all things true, or establish its credentials…by ultimately appealing to a {circularly} affirmed higher authority).   Ultimately, we do have to start with some sort of tautological starting point, but the key is to be willing to honestly evaluate the consistency of our starting points and judge the aseity of our ultimate authority (can that authority stand on its own?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take a simple, and all too common (pun not intended), example, many people -- whether they fully realize it or not -- ultimately appeal to their understanding of &quot;common sense&quot; as their authoritative source of knowledge and reality.   The problem is that -- aside from being a very subjective starting point -- &quot;Common sense&quot; doesn't definitively identify itself as the starting point of all things knowable and known.   In fact, I would say &quot;common sense&quot; actually says that &quot;common sense&quot; is limited in its grasp of objective reality because it's so intrinsically dependent on personal interpretation and sensory stimuli.  If common sense tells us there's a reality beyond that which we perceive and understand intuitively, on the one hand, then it's absolutely inconsistent to then appeal to common sense as our ultimate source of understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while someone's free to appeal to their &quot;Common sense&quot; superficially, they're left lacking when it comes to establishing the basis for doing so in deeper philosophical contexts, because &quot;Common Sense&quot; is not a clear authority (even by its own right) of reality and there is no clear higher authority that grants it such authority by proxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better (though, perhaps more controversial) example might be &quot;science&quot;   Empirical science is a wonderful means of learning about the world around us, and it's an important discipline to nurture in order to refine our understanding of the physical realm, but some people appeal to it as &lt;strong&gt;final&lt;/strong&gt; authority.   The problem is that science itself doesn't stake such a claim, so if someone comes to that conclusion, it's based on something contra-science, which makes that philosophy immediately inconsistent (since it supposedly relies ultimately on scientific revelation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example might be the &quot;Flying Spaghetti Monster,&quot; Which as I understand it is a pretty good attempt at a reductio ad absurdum against the whole appeal to dogma, but the problem is that (assuming, for a moment, it's not meant tongue in cheek) the FSM never establishes himself as a final authority (AFAIK), so in order to appeal to him in good faith, one must still appeal to a higher authority which then inherits the onus of establishing itself as authority....otherwise, as a joke, it's kind of cute, but as a legitimate counter-offer, it doesn't really solve the problem it's so intent on identifying.  (it's sometimes easier to mock people providing answers, it seems than to offer substantial answers on one's own)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the Christian Bible is never going to be &lt;strong&gt;irrefutably&lt;/strong&gt; proven as a final authority, because, I think, it's philosophically impossible to do so, but I think it does satisfy this in some significant ways: It appeals to itself as the word of God who is identified as a God of revelation who does not lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philosophically, it establishes that God is the source of creation who then grants man a portion of rationality (by creating him in His image).   He then communicates to man through His word (revelation).  These pieces together provide an objective framework against which we can justify deductive reasoning (which requires communicable true knowledge and a means of applying that knowledge to reach sound conclusions -- e.g. it presupposes a rational mind, and it presupposes rationality as a transcendent quality) as well as a basis for a healthy understanding of inductive empiricism (which presupposes a transcendent rule of order but acknowledges that our observations are influenced by imperfect sensory interpretations).  It also accounts for an objective and qualitatively measurable morality (by contending that morality not &quot;owned&quot; by societies, but rather by the Author of all things, we actually are in a position to judge certain societal standards as lacking), it establishes consequences for man's transgression from the law of the Lawgiver, and provides the means of reconciliation, and does so on God's (not man’s) terms (e.g. the wages of sin is death; all have sinned; Jesus -- who knew no sin -- died for the sins of others that they may live)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that it's &lt;strong&gt;provable&lt;/strong&gt; beyond that, and all of those premises require a bit of faith to accept.  BUT, I think it does provide a very solid, objective foundation (and I would say uniquely so) for a consistent philosophical/moral framework.   When the philosophical-reductionist conclusion is pointed out that it’s ultimately circular, I think we can accept that and challenge other frameworks to the same standard to see if they don't, indeed, have the same philosophical limitations (and I would say even more so).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;tl;dr version:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible asserts itself as God's word and also establishes God as authoritative, which does seem to beg the question a bit.  To the Christian, It reveals His role as Creator and Redeemer and defines Him as the source of all things knowable and known; it reveals His plan for man and gives man an objective standard by which to orient his life.  We &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; have to start somewhere philosophically, and as Christians, we think that this is a pretty good place to start.  When the question is raised, I would challenge someone to offer a contrary philosophy that provides a more comprehensive “solution” without falling into the same &quot;traps&quot; they see of circular presuppositions… I don’t think it can be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T14:22:39.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3649" CreationDate="2011-09-30T14:39:53.653" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;God made a lot of choices throughout history and it helps to understand the broader perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The First Man and Woman&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He created Adam and Eve 1) in His image, 2) to populate the earth.  The results were to be a world full of people in the image of God, worshiping Him, exercising dominion, ruling and bringing things to fruitfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Adam and Eve fell, so the image of God in them was now marred to some extent.  This culminated at the time of Noah when God was grieved with the evil in the world and that &quot;every inclination of the thoughts of men were only evil all the time.&quot;  Even though the population had increased significantly and was filling the earth, it was with the wrong kind of people--evil people.  God indicates in the judgment of Adam and Eve that an ultimate solution will one day come--the Seed of the woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Man of Favor&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, Noah chose Noah--a righteous man, blameless among the people of his day.  That is the kind of people God wanted to populate the earth.  So, God judged the wickedness and started over with Noah, the man of favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This failed at Babel when the people refused to be &quot;scattered over the face of the earth&quot;, which is specifically what God had commanded.  So, God confused their languages to force them to fulfill His command.  This fulfilled one part of His divine plan--people were scattering over the earth, but they were people who had to be forced to do so because of their rebellion.  So, in order to have a world full of people in the image of God with whom God could enjoy relations, God had to have a plan to reach all people all over the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Man of Faith&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enter Abraham.  Although it took many years for Abraham to develop into the man of faith, that was precisely God's plan--that Abraham and his descendants (the chosen people) would ultimately be a blessing to all people (who were now scattered over the whole face of the earth).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel also failed to do this fully, although there were considerable successes.  Through the Exodus, the Egyptians would know that there was a God in Israel as God answered Pharaoh's question, &quot;Who is the Lord?&quot;  Through Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar recognized the God of Israel and even wrote a letter to his entire kingdom proclaiming the greatness of God Most High.  Many other examples could be cited.  However, ultimately Israel continued to reject God again and again and failed to be His messengers to the whole world.  The House of Prayer for all nations became a place restricted to Israelites only, and Jesus Himself cleared the court of the Gentiles that was being used as a market rather than a place for the Gentiles to worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, in the lineage of Jesus, mention is made of several Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel (and the world), including Rahab of Jericho and Ruth of Moab.  Even Bathsheeba was the wife of Urriah the Hittite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Messiah&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's ultimate plan, mentioned in the curse of Adam and the blessing of Abraham (as well as many other places) culminated in the Messiah, as God the Son entered the world through the Virgin Birth, paid the penalty for sins so that men could be forgiven and be indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  This would enable men to live more righteously through the power of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Church&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus final words were a commission to the disciples (now apostles--ones sent out with a message).  Their task--to take the gospel to &quot;all the nations of the earth&quot;, so that all men may know the one true God and live righteously in relationship with Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church--now the &quot;chosen people&quot; of God based on faith rather than ethnicity--has certainly had its own share of failures.  However, according to Wycliffe, the Word of God will become available to all the languages of the world probably by the end of this century.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gospel will indeed soon reach all people of the earth.  This was the commission to 11 common, ordinary men who dealt with extreme persecution by their own people as well as the Romans.  It was quite a bold prediction that one day people from &quot;every tribe, language and people&quot; would recognize Jesus as Messiah in those early days (Revelation 5:9; 7:9).  Yet, that is a very probably reality within the next 50-100 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God chose the people of Israel for a time (about 2000 years) to fulfill His ultimate purpose for all time.  Israel succeeded in part, but the ultimate plan was for them to be the people from whom the Messiah would come.  The Church was born by the people of Israel.  Even now, many Jewish people are recognizing Jesus as their Messiah.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T14:39:53.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3650" CreationDate="2011-09-30T15:01:07.200" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cliche Christian answer: pray about it. I'm guessing that isn't the answer you're looking for though, so I will say &quot;research.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, looking at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia you can see the New International Version&lt;/a&gt; &quot;translation took ten years and involved a team of up to 100 scholars from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian.&quot; Also, &quot;Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries helped in understanding traditionally difficult passages to translate.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having a large team of international, inter-denominational scholars helps quite a bit to remove bias and helps to ensure an accurate translation. Then, using different discoveries gives further insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can easily do this research (and more in depth research) for the other translations as well. I only used NIV as an example because it is what I see quoted most often. With so many scholars using so many different translations, it is usually pretty easy to find out when a translation is inaccurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If worried about bias, consider purchasing a parallel Bible so you can always compare two or three translations&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T15:01:07.200" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2832" CreationDate="2011-09-30T15:27:41.970" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question would imply several things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there is no enemy or at least he does not try to interfere with God's plan&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there is no free will&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's plan comes about automatically&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bad things that happen to us are in God's plan and will&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God uses things that were introduced by the fall within His plans (sickness)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prayer is communication with God. Jesus tells us that when He is in us and we stay in Him, we ask and it is given to us. God values the relationship between Him and us so much that he likes it if we ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it change His plan? No, but His plan includes our actions. So praying for the healing of the woman you use in your example might just be in His plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your example would by the way imply that the schemes of the enemy are in God's plan but not our prayers. Sickness is not of God. And prayer is a mighty weapon against the schemes of the enemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God foresaw both our and the enemies actions and built them into His plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T15:27:41.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3660" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3661" CreationDate="2011-09-30T16:04:25.543" Score="16" ViewCount="1457" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every so often, I read about Christian parents choosing faith healing over conventional medicine for their sick children, in some cases with lethal results. This usually results in the parents being convicted of either severe neglect or manslaughter. (Rightfully so, in my opinion)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know there are several accounts of miraculous healing mentioned in the Bible, and I don't see a problem with prayer &lt;em&gt;in addition&lt;/em&gt; to medicine, but &lt;strong&gt;what is the justification for opting to rely on prayer alone?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the answer different when it's an adult making the choice for themselves rather than for their child?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-30T14:20:26.423" LastActivityDate="2018-10-10T10:15:31.257" Title="What is the justification for relying on faith healing over conventional medicine?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;parenting&gt;&lt;faith-healing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3660" CreationDate="2011-09-30T16:34:57.300" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;While most, or at least many, Christians believe that healing by faith still happens today to some extent, this goes beyond that &amp;mdash; to a belief that visiting the doctor at all is somehow wrong, or a lack of faith. So it's not just a question of &quot;Can faith healing work&quot;, but &quot;What prevents you from doing something else also?&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simple answer might be that seeking other treatment is a sign of doubt, and could therefore undermine the &lt;em&gt;faith&lt;/em&gt; portion of faith healing, but I find that explanation unsatisfying, from both a biblical perspective and from the eyes of a parent. By not visiting the doctor, I would only be denying God an agent He might use to either effect the healing or show his power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a better explanation from biblical study. It comes to an interpretation of how we understand the &lt;em&gt;silence&lt;/em&gt; of scripture (things that are not explicitly discussed), and whether silence is permissive or prohibitive. The bible never explicitly permits or prohibits visiting a doctor, so how are you to decide on this? In the general case (not just scripture), we often think of silence as permissive. However, it is easy to show that this is not always true.  I'll provide an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let's say you send your teenage child to the store for milk and eggs, and give him/her a $20 bill to cover the expense.  The child comes back with milk, eggs, &lt;em&gt;ice cream,&lt;/em&gt; and less change than you hoped for.  You didn't tell him/her &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to buy the ice cream, but you're probably not going to be happy. Here, the silence is prohibitive. You also didn't specify which store to go to.  You may have expected the local grocery store, but if the child knew of a sale at a nearer convenience store they may have chosen that instead. Here, the silence is permissive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Applied to scripture, there is a common (not universal) interpretation that when we are given instructions in an area, silence on other aspects of the area is prohibitive.  For example, God told Noah to use gopher wood when building the ark. He didn't mention other kinds of wood (he was silent), but his specific instruction for gopher wood excludes/prohibited them.  What if Noah wanted to use gopher wood for the hull, but thought a little bit of maple trim might have looked nice around the window and door?  This interpretation system would not allow for that.  Going back to the shopping example, ice cream was not on the list, and so was prohibited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is all this relevant to the faith healing question?  Well, it just so happens that the bible is not entirely silent on the subject.  We are told to &quot;pray for the sick and annoint them with oil.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%205:13-16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 5:13-16&lt;/a&gt;).  Using the above interpretation system, this excludes the use of doctors and medicines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It comes down to hermeneutics. Hermeneutics are the lens you use to study scripture. As an example, they are how you know what to do when you come upon &quot;Do not judge, or you too will be judged.&quot; in one place, and &quot;Do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world?&quot; in another.  Hermeneutics help ensure that you interpret scripture consistently; that you not hear only what you &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; to hear from the passages you want to read. A perfect hermeneutic, perfectly applied, would lead to a perfect understanding of scripture. Unfortunately, man is far from perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most good hermeneutics will at some point need to deal with the silence of scripture, in some way or another. Most fail to handle it adequately.  &lt;em&gt;The hermeneutic described above actually handles the subject pretty well,&lt;/em&gt; but hermeneutics are a creation of man, and so are not flawless or perfect. Our application of them also often leaves something to be desired. What we have in these tragic cases is a strict hermeneutic, strictly applied (neither of which is bad on it's own), and a lapse in judgement about it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, if you're studying the bible without a good hermeneutic close at hand, you're probably not getting what you should out of your study. Sadly, this is all too common. It's just important to remember that the hermeneutic is a starting point or measuring rod for your interpretation. It's not the whole interpretation, but one tool you should use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-07-23T18:35:16.033" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T18:35:16.033" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3660" CreationDate="2011-09-30T17:55:42.973" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The justification for it lies in maintaining a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross.  Many of us christians are taught a theology of glory, a theology that God must be my benefefactor in every sense of the word in this life, it is a theology that denies or at least does not give decent ear to the fact that it may be God's will for us to suffer (and thus complete what was lacking in Christ's suffering, see Colossians 1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, to deny modern medicine's help is a roundabout statement that God could not also heal us through modern science.  After all, who gave those scientists and doctors the mental capacity to develop such cures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Denying modern medicine is assuming that God must listen to your demands, which can set you up for a faith crisis if He chooses not to heal you.  I would just say to be careful when you make demands upon God, that might be coming close to breaking the first commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T17:55:42.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3665" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3670" CreationDate="2011-09-30T18:24:26.033" Score="13" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;A number of very good questions and answers on this site refer to specifically Catholic doctrine or terminology.  I've been one to ask for clarification on these terms at times, however I think it's clear that asking for clarification every time I see a Catholic term I'm not familiar with will drag this site down rather quickly (as well as make me look like I have nothing better to do than ask the same type of question repeatedly).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone (hopefully a Catholic!) recommend a good resource (preferably online) that explains common Catholic terminology in an accurate and respectful manner, to someone from a non-Catholic background?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we get some good answers, I'll probably suggest this question for site FAQ inclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T22:23:03.603" Title="Where can I learn about Catholic terms and phrases?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3650" CreationDate="2011-09-30T18:27:17.037" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A bible translation is deemed &quot;trustworthy&quot; according to how well it can translate the concepts described in one language into the vocabulary of another.  The NIV does not do this well in a few cases.  Every instance where it says &quot;sinful nature,&quot; should really be translated as &quot;flesh.&quot;  &quot;Sinful nature&quot; denotes that sin can be a part of our human nature, whereas actually sin makes us less and less human (and therefore cannot be dubbed as a part of our human nature).  A good bible translation is one that can convey timeless Gospel truths as best as possible.  &lt;em&gt;However, we must remember that translation is interpretation.&lt;/em&gt;  And that in any translation it is impossible to not do some amount of interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;People can denounce a translation as not being very accurate, but the real question at root is whether or not God can use a poor translation to bring about transformative change in a person and community's collective soul.&lt;/em&gt;  So maybe instead of asking what is our basis for a good translation, we could be asking, is there any medium that God is not content to use in order to reach who he wants?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only that, but all text has an agenda.  Scripture definitely has an agenda, to point us towards Christ.  The real issue is trusting that the Holy Spirit has and does continue to guide the Church universal through means that we might deem &quot;not good enough&quot; if we were God.  But then again, thanks be to God that God can work through any and everything to his glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T18:27:17.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2011-09-30T18:44:48.247" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; looks like a really good place to go to learn about Catholicism and it looks rather expansive. I would imagine that it would also be a really good and useful tool for looking up a lot of generic religious terms. The articles seem to be rather expansive and exhaustive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T18:44:48.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2011-09-30T18:46:39.023" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; is a public domain Encyclopedia compiled in the early 20th century.  Since not a lot has changed in the last hundred years, it's a pretty excellent resource.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, if you want something that'll overload your senses, you can check out the intratext search of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_FA.HTM&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing that might come up (and hopefully not here) is that we'll use awful acronyms like LG (Lumen Gentium), DV (Dei Verbum) and CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) or CCCC (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) to reference some important texts or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33320&quot;&gt;encyclicals.&lt;/a&gt;   For these I've only seen good glossaries for these in the backs of print books, like the Catechism, and not a complete list, just the ones referenced within, but in the Catechism that's like everything from the Apostolic Father's on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I just found this site &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicreference.net/&quot;&gt;http://www.catholicreference.net/&lt;/a&gt; so I'm super glad you asked because I'm going to link to it all the time from now on!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T22:23:03.603" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T22:23:03.603" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3665" CreationDate="2011-09-30T20:34:16.447" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/&quot;&gt;Catholic Answers&lt;/a&gt; is a great reference site as well. I have found many answers in their public forums. They are usually moderated by well-known apologists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="800" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T20:34:16.447" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3674" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-30T20:36:57.360" Score="13" ViewCount="485" Body="&lt;p&gt;*note: please do not mistake this question as necessarily reflective of my personal option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where this question comes from may not be obvious to some depending on where you live, so let me explain. Here in the Southern part of the United States of America, my parents' church (evangelical, Assemblies of God) will hold, from time to time, a pro-Israel rally. At these rallies, up on stage, as well as members of the audience will wave American and Israeli flags together during a worship service. Prayers are offered up supporting Israel and afterwards a sermon is delivered explaining why it is so important for Christians to support Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not typical, as far as I know, to actually hold rallies in support of Israel, but the general feeling among Christians here is that they should be in full support of Israel (and by extension, support policies of the USA that support Israel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument generally goes something along these lines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God has blessed Israel and therefore is guiding them, in general, in the correct direction, and we should support this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Based on the Old Testament, God has promised this land to the Israelis, so it is their right to have it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The modern state of Israel is the embodiment of many of the end-times prophesies (see Hal Lindsey’s &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late,_Great_Planet_Earth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Late, Great Planet Earth&lt;/a&gt;&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That Israel is the only true democracy in the region, and as Christians we should support democracy, especially in a region such as this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That Israel is surrounded by Muslim dictatorships/extremist who would like to see it destroyed. As Christians we are against Muslim dictatorships/extremist (esp. here in the last 10 years) and therefore should support Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question: is this a legitimate viewpoint? Should we as Christians support the modern state of Israel? If you think these are legitimate reasons, then please expand. Otherwise, why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2014-07-16T22:19:44.537" LastActivityDate="2014-07-16T22:19:44.537" Title="If I am a Christian does this mean I need to support the modern state of Israel?" Tags="&lt;politics&gt;&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-07-17T04:43:33.997" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3675" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-30T20:54:19.203" Score="15" ViewCount="370" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Israel talked about throughout the Old Testament is fairly clearly a specific people group and later a country. The New Testament also makes references to Israel. Are these references comparable? Are they still talking about the Jewish people group and modern nation of Israel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any reason to believe that the NT mentions of Israel are to be understood differently?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, consider this verse fragment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%2011:26&quot;&gt;Romans 11:26a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And in this way all Israel will be saved...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should this verse be understood to mean that all the citizens of the modern country of Israel will be saved or is the sense different? If different, where does this difference start and how is one to know when a reference to 'Israel' carries which meaning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-09-30T21:15:05.860" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T09:18:37.833" Title="Is the Israel of the NT the modern country?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T15:26:39.847" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3674" CreationDate="2011-09-30T20:59:34.463" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I believe there are political reasons to support or not support Israel, I don't feel any of those are &quot;Christian&quot; reasons to support Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;God has blessed Israel and therefore is guiding them, in general, in the correct direction, and we should support this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel is a Jewish state.  Unless God is guiding the people to follow Jesus, I'm not sure what the correct direction would be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Based on the Old Testament, God has promised this land to the Israelis, so it is their right to have it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is still their right to have it by God's will, then they will have it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The modern state of Israel is the embodiment of many of the end-times prophecies (see Hal Lindsey’s &quot;[Late, Great Planet Earth][1]&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure I know of any end time prophecies that require Israel to be held by Jewish (or any other) government.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;That Israel is the only true democracy in the region, and as Christians we should support democracy, especially in a region such as this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While politically many will say we should support democracies, I don't think the Bible tells us to support democracies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;That Israel is surrounded by Muslim dictatorships/extremist who would like to see it destroyed. As Christians we are against Muslim dictatorships/extremist (esp. here in the last 10 years) and therefore should support Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think we should be declaring war on Islam.  As Christians we are called to be peaceful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:32:34.107" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:32:34.107" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3674" CreationDate="2011-09-30T21:02:28.757" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a host of &quot;end times&quot; prophecies that cover Israel, in both figurative and literal senses, and that God is not &quot;done with her&quot; yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clear list, along with debated lists, would be far too long enumerate herein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that Israel as God's chosen people was fulfilled in the coming of Christ, and that as a nation &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, they do not hold the same preferential status from God that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:15-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;church&lt;/a&gt; now does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I don't think Christians should &quot;support&quot; any particular state over another - our job is not political, but evangelical and social (in the respects of seasoning and influencing society via our lives and our witness). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do believe that Christians should &lt;strong&gt;oppose&lt;/strong&gt; many states because of their harsh treatments of believers and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, personally, I think that the modern statehood of Israel is a Good Thing&amp;trade; in its region, and that many/most of the nations that surround it are to greater and lesser extents Bad Things&amp;trade;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to generalizing my personal beliefs and thoughts on the matter to the entirety of christendom, however - I believe that would be an imposition against Christian liberty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;see this quick &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?qisrael+end+times+prophecy&quot;&gt;google search&lt;/a&gt; for a start&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-09-30T21:02:28.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3679" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-30T22:13:00.090" Score="15" ViewCount="4387" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Deuteronomy 7:6, the Israelites are called the &quot;chosen people&quot;. Who in fact are the chosen people, and does this include Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What sets the chosen people apart, are there special rights or honors that go with this title?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="272" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-05T18:20:58.257" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T18:20:58.257" Title="Who, and what, are the &quot;chosen people&quot;?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3682" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-09-30T22:35:35.487" Score="6" ViewCount="660" Body="&lt;p&gt;If god wants everybody to be Christian and the Bible is the central text of Christianity, what were people supposed to do before it was completed, much less started?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is there anything on record speaking to reasons why the particular era that the Bible was written was chosen (specifically OT)? It was a gradual roll-out, so were there parts that weren't needed until they came up, or did they perhaps correlate to certain events?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="585" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T00:50:01.310" Title="What were people supposed to do with an incomplete or nonexistent Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3650" CreationDate="2011-09-30T23:08:58.567" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can view this in different ways. I think the three viewpoints I'm going to tell about all have their merits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The optimistic answer&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Warning: &lt;strong&gt;don't&lt;/strong&gt; apply the following reasoning to sectarian translations, e.g. the New World Translation. Seriously.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All (notable) Bible translations are very carefully created. Every one of them is trustworthy on all of the more important points. Any minor translation errors will be minor enough not to matter too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The realistic answer (in other words, what I recommend!)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All translations have errors. You should &lt;strong&gt;read different translations side-by-side&lt;/strong&gt; (eg. using an online &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;parallel Bible&lt;/a&gt;), and be careful with any translation choices that are found in only a few versions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Practically, it's slow to do this for everything you read. It might suffice to do it only when in doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The ultra-cynical answer&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All translations have errors. Read the original, then. But some of the manuscripts have errors, too. And many things don't make sense to us, in a very different culture than which the texts were written in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So become a Greek and Hebrew scholar, a historian, an archaeologist, a theologian, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or the less cynical variation: realize that sometimes a non-expert will need to do a lot of research. And they might still be wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-10-01T08:37:12.670" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T08:37:12.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3682" CreationDate="2011-10-01T00:18:50.870" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The entire old testament was available and written before Jesus' time.  The new testament, as we have it is the collected writings of the apostles.  Before all the writings were complete, the apostles taught directly.  After their death, their immediate successors taught what they had learned and during that time the writings were collected, copied and distributed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Creeds and hymns formed a big part of conveying biblical doctrine before a printed bible was widely available to all, as did the church teaching and structure.  The documents themselves were available to clergy from very early times, soon after the apostolic day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So at first, there was the testimony of direct witnesses.  Then there was teaching from those taught by the apostles and the apostles written records.  Finally those records were compiled into the bible, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;between the mid 300s and late 600s AD the canon of authoritative scripture was considered closed by most traditions&lt;/a&gt;, although the Catholic church did not formally declare the bible canons closed until the council of Trent in 1546 with the only disagreement with other traditions being the OT &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;deuterocanonical books&lt;/a&gt; (and bear in mind, too, that the Catholic church (and perhaps others), holds to a continued revelation through the church's magisterial office and authority).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-10-01T00:45:58.490" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T00:45:58.490" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3682" CreationDate="2011-10-01T00:39:16.250" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;incomplete&quot; in your question implies that the Bible today is the complete word of God, that we have a closed canon.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2/what-is-the-basis-for-sola-scriptura/50#50&quot;&gt;I've written about that elsewhere;&lt;/a&gt; it's really bad theology, and a concept that historically has always been associated with apostate groups, not with God's true disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you understand that, the rest of the question is simple to answer, by breaking it down into its parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We turn to the Bible today to find God's word and his will for us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The writings in the Bible that contain God's word and his will were given by prophets and apostles, with new teachings and concepts being given when they were needed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So where did people turn in ancient times when they needed to know God's will and existing scriptures did not suffice?  To the currently-living prophets and apostles, of course.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T00:39:16.250" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3682" CreationDate="2011-10-01T00:50:01.310" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though the Bible was nonexistent immediately after Jesus died, and it was decades before all the books we now have were written, the early church was following the teachings of Christ, as taught not only by Jesus to the Apostles, but also passed on by other disciples of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of only using the Bible as the source of Christ's teachings is not supported by the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the teachings that were passed on orally were supported here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Thessalonians 2:15 New International Version (NIV)  15 So then,&#xA;  brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we&#xA;  passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All Scripture does not mean just the Bible, as the Bible wasn't written yet, though some parts were, so this must also mean the oral teachings, which the Roman Catholic Church refers to as Sacred Tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 3:15-17 New International Version (NIV) &#xA;  15 and how from&#xA;  infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you&#xA;  wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is&#xA;  God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and&#xA;  training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be&#xA;  thoroughly equipped for every good work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for more on whether we should follow Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture or both:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a031.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a031.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is interesting is that the early church had many writings to refer to, many of which we don't include as being inspired, but it is assumed that many people felt they were worth keeping, as they survived over the centuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a good list of these books you can look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I don't know if God wants everyone to be Christian, but for all to have a relationship with Him and with others, as He commanded.  If we focus more on religion and listen to what our ministers tell us, instead of listening to God and following His commandments, then any miracles they may have done, anything they did to appear righteous is for naught.  You can look at 1 Cor 13 and this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Matthew 7:21-23&#xA;New International Version (NIV)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom&#xA;  of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in&#xA;  heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not&#xA;  prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your&#xA;  name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I&#xA;  never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T00:50:01.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3688" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3691" CreationDate="2011-10-01T02:26:16.213" Score="10" ViewCount="11595" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my (norwegian) Bible, the first five books are titled the first through fifth books of Moses, instead of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc., which appear to be the common English names. The names of the remaining books are straightforward translations from the English names, so it seems like there's something special about the first five books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any reason for this difference? Are the first five books also named differently in other languages/translations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T04:37:26.343" Title="Why are the first five books of the old testament named differently in some translations?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3689" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-01T02:28:43.300" Score="4" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that Noah had to rescue 2 of a kind of every animal and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1344/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-into-noahs-ark&quot;&gt;fit them all in the ark&lt;/a&gt;, and given that he would've had to feed them while they were in his captivity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If after the flood there were only mating pairs of each species in existence, what did the predators eat? If they ate &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; of their natural prey, the prey wouldn't survive, to be followed shortly by starving predators.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So once he set them free, what did they eat?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="272" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T02:28:43.300" Title="What did the animals eat when they emerged from the ark?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2011-10-01T03:47:03.090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3442" CreationDate="2011-10-01T02:35:42.873" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically&amp;hellip; no. The Catholic Church has never &lt;em&gt;decanonized&lt;/em&gt; a saint in the sense of saying, &quot;This guy used to be a saint, and now he's not.&quot; But the reason is actually quite fascinating. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canonization doesn't actually &lt;em&gt;make&lt;/em&gt; someone a saint, per se. A Catholic &quot;canonization&quot; is the process by which the Church ultimately &lt;strong&gt;recognizes something God has already done.&lt;/strong&gt; The Catholic Church does not claim that all &quot;saints&quot; (in the eyes of God) have been canonized, but they do say that an authentic canonization is both infallible and irrevocable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early 1980s, the Catholic Church made some huge changes to shore up the canonization process. In centuries past (starting in about the 10th century), many of the claims of sainthood were adopted from ancient times, largely through public acclaim and popular stories passed through long-standing tradition and legend. Finally, higher authorities (and eventually the Vatican) took over the process of formally authenticating sainthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's been going on in the last several decades is the Catholic Church as been meticulously examining the authenticity of some 10,000&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(?)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; named saints spread through official sources, local martyrologies, and other historical archives to authenticate if a canonization ever actually took place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over the centuries, there were a lot of claims of sainthood without any verifiable authenticity. Several stories of sainthood turned out to be multiple references to a single person. There were mistaken identities, and in many cases, historical figures simply could not be separated from local folk tales and legends. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more rigorous authentication does not imply a &lt;em&gt;lack&lt;/em&gt; of veneration. After 2,000 years, the Church is simply saying that they cannot authenticate the events of veneration, or even if the person actually existed &amp;mdash; thus, claims of canonization cannot be authenticated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But no one has ever been &quot;decanonized&quot;, even if such a word could exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10" LastEditorUserId="10" LastEditDate="2016-09-07T13:28:52.513" LastActivityDate="2016-09-07T13:28:52.513" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3688" CreationDate="2011-10-01T04:37:26.343" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first five books are closely linked together - they are the &quot;Torah&quot; (Hebrew for &quot;teaching&quot; or &quot;instruction&quot;) traditionally attributed to Moses. This explains why they can be called &quot;The Five Books of Moses&quot;; the Greek &quot;Pentateuch&quot; means &quot;five books&quot; and is another title for this section of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calling the books after Moses makes sense, and avoids some awkwardness with the more specific titles - Genesis and Exodus are good names, but Numbers really isn't, given that most of the book isn't about the census. Another reason is to stress the unity of these five books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrew, the books are named after the first words in the text (the &quot;incipit&quot;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bereshit - &quot;&lt;strong&gt;In the beginning&lt;/strong&gt; God created the heavens and the earth&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shemot - &quot;These are the &lt;strong&gt;names&lt;/strong&gt; of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vayikra - &quot;&lt;strong&gt;And&lt;/strong&gt; the LORD &lt;strong&gt;called&lt;/strong&gt; to Moses&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bamidbar - &quot;The LORD spoke to Moses in the tent of meeting &lt;strong&gt;in the desert&lt;/strong&gt; of Sinai&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Devarim - &quot;These are the &lt;strong&gt;words&lt;/strong&gt; Moses spoke to all Israel&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a common practice in many languages, for texts that don't come with their own titles. However, I don't think that languages other than Hebrew use these titles for the Bible books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard names used in English derive from the Greek titles in the Septuagint. These are based on the content of each book:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis - How it all began&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exodus - Leaving Egypt&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leviticus - Concerning the Levitical priesthood&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Numbers - Starts with a census&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deuteronomy - &quot;Second law&quot;, or &quot;a copy of the law&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know why they did this as opposed to using the Greek incipits. That would have given us Arche (&quot;the beginning&quot;) for Genesis, Onomata (&quot;the names&quot;) for Exodus, and so on, matching the Hebrew. Nevertheless, these are the traditional titles that have come down to us, and which many translations have followed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most other Old Testament books have basically the same name in translation, since they tend to be named after people - Isaiah is Isaiah in any language. But there are differences too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Psalms is called Tehillim (&quot;praises&quot;) in Hebrew; the Greek &quot;Psalmoi&quot; means &quot;pieces of music&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ezra and Nehemiah used to be called 1 Ezra and 2 Ezra; even earlier, they were a single book of Ezra&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings are called 1 Basileion through 4 Basileion in the Septuagint. Hebrew formerly just had a single book of Samuel (Sh'muel) and a single book of Kings (M'lakhim).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 and 2 Chronicles are called the Paraleipomena in the Septuagint, which means &quot;supplementary&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; there is much more cross-language agreement about what to call the books. The only one that looks different is Revelation, which in many languages (including Greek) is called Apocalypse. But this means just the same thing as the English word &quot;revelation&quot; (and is &quot;Offenbarung&quot; in German, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T04:37:26.343" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3701" PostTypeId="7" CreationDate="2011-10-01T12:49:55.510" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity - Stack Exchange is for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. You may ask questions about any area of Christianity. Your own beliefs do not not preclude you from asking questions, but &lt;em&gt;all questions must be directly related to Christianity&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You've come to the right place if you have questions about: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;specific doctrines or doctrinal traditions (Catholicism, Young Earth Creationism, Calvinism, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint (like those listed above)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the history of Christianity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/779/84&quot;&gt;More examples&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are questions that are not constructive for the format of this site.  These include questions asking for:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a survey of all Christian views on a particular subject &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what the Bible says about a subject (unless you specify a doctrine/tradition)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;advice on how to handle certain situations (pastoral advice questions)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;whether some group or person is &quot;Christian&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/777/84&quot;&gt;More examples here&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These types of questions have too many possible answers (many of which will be pure opinion).  Because of that, these types of questions are not constructive for this site and will be closed as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/816/84&quot;&gt;What about my other questions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Who are considered Christians here?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the scope of this site is concerned, &lt;em&gt;any group that identifies themselves as Christian are to be considered on-topic&lt;/em&gt; and allowed to label themselves Christian. &lt;strong&gt;Answers are to be judged based on how well they represent the specific view or tradition they claim to speak for, not whether or not you agree with that position.&lt;/strong&gt; Good answers thoroughly defend a specific viewpoint or accurately describe a broad range of views. Bad answers wrongly represent the view they claim to speak for, are offensive in their demeanor towards other views, or don't stick to answering the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please see the meta post &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/132/30&quot;&gt;Christianity.SE vs. Survivor&lt;/a&gt; for further discussion of this issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This site is not a church! &lt;em&gt;It is neither sanctioned by any church nor sponsored as a ministry site.&lt;/em&gt; It is a secular site for asking and answering questions about Christianity. If you are more inclined to resent rather than celebrate the differences between different Christian traditions, then this may not be the site for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please see the meta post &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/193/30&quot;&gt;Brothers, we are not Christians&lt;/a&gt; for further discussion of this issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can I use comments to discuss the topic of a post?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comments are useful for getting clarifications, but extended discussions detract from the question and its answers. If you'd like to discuss anything related to Christianity, please use &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/1167/christianity&quot;&gt;our chat room&lt;/a&gt;. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/614/30&quot;&gt;this meta post&lt;/a&gt; for more on comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T14:01:42.050" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T14:01:42.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3704" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-01T16:26:44.810" Score="3" ViewCount="1996" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, I assume that everybody should have some sort of justification for his beliefs. Secondly, I assume that Christians are interested in convincing others to join them as evangelisation seems to be promoted in the bible. Lastly, I assume that Christians respect the laws of logic and therefore their justifications must also follow these laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question, based on these assumptions, is as follows: How do Christians justify their beliefs to themselves as well as to others and how do they convince others of their belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I am aware that this question is very fundamental. I tried to find an answer on the site, however, I couldn't find any. Please point me to any questions with good answers regarding this topic that I couldn't find!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="722" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T19:23:04.787" Title="How do Christians justify their belief and how do they convince others of their belief?" Tags="&lt;justification&gt;&lt;proselytizing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2011-10-01T20:19:59.937" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3705" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3716" CreationDate="2011-10-01T17:06:39.013" Score="8" ViewCount="1242" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This chart from Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; quite nicely explains what pseudoscience is: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/nLjoF.png&quot; alt=&quot;chart from Wikipedia&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's quite clear from the Bible that we Christians shouldn't give room to superstitions. As pseudoscience is close to superstition, should we treat it the same? What guidelines should be used when deciding whether to believe what some call pseudoscience?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, some examples of claimed pseudoscience (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Pseudoscientific_concepts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Examples of pseudoscience concepts, proposed as scientific when they are not scientific, are creation science, intelligent design, orgone energy, N-rays, ch'i, L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory, enneagram, iridology, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, New Age psychotherapies (e.g., rebirthing therapy), reflexology, applied kinesiology, astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, extrasensory perception (ESP), Velikovsky's ideas, von Däniken's ideas, Sitchen's ideas, anthropometry, post-normal science, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, physiognomy, acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, Rolfing, therapeutic touch, ayurvedic medicine, and homeopathy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(You may assume that creation science and intelligent design are in fact &lt;em&gt;protoscience&lt;/em&gt;, if you want to avoid focusing on them.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-28T16:35:54.993" LastActivityDate="2015-10-28T16:35:54.993" Title="How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;superstition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-29T16:10:00.813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3704" CreationDate="2011-10-01T17:16:19.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lastly, I assume that Christians respect the laws of logic and therefore their justifications must also follow these laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you're not really going to get very far.  Yes, Christians respect the laws of logic, but we do not respect &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; the laws of logic.  The basis of Christian belief isn't grounded in logic, but in &lt;em&gt;testimony, faith and experience&lt;/em&gt;.  We know that God is there because he makes his presence known through the witness of the Holy Ghost, and we know that he is good and worthy of obedience and worship because of the history of our relationship with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we follow God's commandments faithfully, we can see the results in our lives. We see that living the principles of the Gospel &lt;em&gt;works&lt;/em&gt;, that it produces positive results, helping us to resolve or avoid problems in our lives.  That increases our faith, making us better-able to trust in God, so that when we need to do something truly difficult, even if it seems to contradict what we think is logical, we can say, &quot;God has never led me wrong before, so I can trust in him now.&quot;  Those who don't understand this principle say that Christians live by &quot;blind faith,&quot; but that is far from the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how Christians convince others of their belief, we don't.  While it's possible to convince another person that our viewpoint makes sense, actual faith, the kind I'm talking about in the previous paragraphs, comes from God, not from another person.  What proselyting Christians attempt to do is convince others to open their hearts, to be willing to accept that the Gospel &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be true, and to be willing to pray to God to seek their own testimony and establish their own relationship with him.  Conversion is a highly personal matter between oneself and the Lord; anyone else's involvement is secondary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T17:16:19.317" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3704" CreationDate="2011-10-01T17:47:31.643" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I could tell you how I justify &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; belief (and it is based on logic, which is based on assumptions), but it wouldn't provide a universal answer worthy of a StackExchange site.  What makes sense to me may resonate with a lot of Christians, or very few, or none.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all honesty, I probably sound like a fool to the majority of people, yet to me, my &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;reason&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; for believing is as solid as the belief itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to  this question is unique to every Christian.  We can't give an answer that applies universally.  Not only are we all individuals, with different ways of viewing the world around us, we are also all called by God in a specific way, unique to each of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T17:47:31.643" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3704" CreationDate="2011-10-01T18:37:00.620" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The formulation of this question is broad as has been noted, but I will answer this as best I can. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We justify our beliefs based on a series of foundational beliefs that require faith, but then have logical outcomes and structures that follow. The book of Romans does an excellent job laying out these basics and their implications. As such, I have found that you can logically justify the Christian faith and its beliefs, as long as you have faith and believe (accept as factually true) the basic foundational beliefs. If you believe there is a God, and if you believe that the Bible is what it says it is then you can logically form (a VERY long) argument for all facets of the Christian faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this would still just be head knowledge. Let's forget labels for just one second as they tend confuse things. To be a follower of Christ, to be &quot;saved&quot; or within His elect, you must believe that Christ was real, historical, bodily resurrected and alive today, just not with us here on this earth. You also must &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;trust&lt;/em&gt; Jesus to fulfill His promises and show you grace and mercy. This is the essence of being a Christian, and in a very real way I cannot justify or prove this to you anymore than I can &quot;prove&quot; why I love my fiancee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="768" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T18:37:00.620" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3705" CreationDate="2011-10-01T18:51:39.533" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As this question is based on things which are not generally accepted as sound science, we should first look for a solid answer as to how Christians should relate to things which &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; generally accepted as sound science.  And that's a bit of a tricky question, because &quot;sound science&quot; is not even well-settled by the scientists themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give a dramatic example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;just last week some new experiments called into question the principle of the speed of light as the Absolute Speed Limit,&lt;/a&gt; which is one of the cornerstones of modern physics.  They're still working on verifying the data, but if it's right, they might need to rethink a huge amount of what was previously considered to be settled, non-controversial &quot;sound science.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, remember that a lot of things that are today considered sound science were once derided and mocked as pseudoscientific nonsense. (Plate Tectonics is the most famous example, but certainly not the only one.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keeping that in mind, Christians should deal with &quot;pseudoscientific&quot; claims in basically the same way as we deal with &quot;scientific&quot; claims: review the evidence for and against them as impartially as we can and come to our own conclusions based on their validity.  And remember that, when necessary, we can take these questions to a higher source, whose views won't end up changing or being invalidated by the discovery of new, previously-unknown evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 1:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Peter 1:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T18:51:39.533" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3711" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3718" CreationDate="2011-10-01T18:58:54.800" Score="6" ViewCount="427" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been thinking about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3281/is-there-any-biblical-basis-for-hating-homosexuals&quot;&gt;the actions of people under the guise of religions&lt;/a&gt;. It is clear to me that &lt;strong&gt;there are extremists in any religion, under any denomination, just as there are more liberal people&lt;/strong&gt;. My question is whether it is appropriate to categorize certain religious denominations as &quot;extreme&quot; &lt;em&gt;intrinsically&lt;/em&gt;, as opposed to merely the followers being extreme. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are only people &quot;extreme&quot;? Or are there aspects of certain denominations that foster extremism in their followers by the nature of the views they preach?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If religious denominations can be weighed by differing amounts of extremism, are there any resources which list each denomination in order of &quot;magnitudes of extremism&quot;? Stated differently, if you agree that there are differences in &quot;extremeness&quot; among religious denominations, you must also (logically) agree that some are more extreme than others, and thus ultimately believe in one that is not extreme; i.e. the &quot;true&quot; base religious standpoint (whether it exists as a denomination today is irrelevant, you &lt;em&gt;have to believe such a standpoint exists&lt;/em&gt; if you hold such a position).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Has there been any writing by Christian believers on this subject?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T01:12:57.427" Title="Is it appropriate to say that some denominations are more &quot;extreme&quot; than others?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3712" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3715" CreationDate="2011-10-01T19:02:49.180" Score="7" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there any talk of differing religious denominations (of Christianity) in the Bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specific references to passages would be quite useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="100" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T00:47:34.973" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T00:47:34.973" Title="Does the Bible talk about denominations?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3713" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3717" CreationDate="2011-10-01T19:14:26.170" Score="9" ViewCount="1673" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously, &lt;strong&gt;there are people who are on both sides of this issue&lt;/strong&gt;, within and without the various denominations, and some denominations which might be more exclusive than others. But when it comes down to it, the fact that two there are two different denominations under the same heading of &quot;Christianity&quot; suggests that—at some point—there was some serious conflict. My question is two-fold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Whether some people of a particular denomination belief that those of other denominations will go to hell, why some people don't agree, and why there is a split there.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Whether the split between denominations always occurs because of a differing opinion on some interpretation of the Bible, or could have occurred simply because of a power struggle.&lt;/strong&gt; For example, I view the split of Protestantism from Catholicism as one of viewpoint difference (sola scriptura/sola fide) as opposed to a desire for power by some group of people. On the other hand, I see other denominations as having formed because of a desire for separation and recognition, as well as status/power. I won't name any particular denominations, but I can use the outside (non-Christian) example of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology&quot;&gt;Scientology&lt;/a&gt; as such a case.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any information on this would be great. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-08T19:48:39.653" LastActivityDate="2015-12-08T20:40:47.810" Title="Do people of different denominations think that the others are going to go to hell for holding false views?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-12-09T04:26:50.313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3704" CreationDate="2011-10-01T19:23:04.787" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Not everything that is true can be logically proven.&lt;/strong&gt;  Think about interpersonal relationships and your feelings for another person.  If you contend that all of your feelings for other people can be based on or explained by the laws of logic, I would assume you've never been in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't really speak for other traditions, but the Evangelical Protestant view is that &lt;strong&gt;Christianity is a relationship, not a religion&lt;/strong&gt;.  (I can't really speak for other traditions.)  Christians are those who have responded to God's invitation to a personal relationship with Him.  Like human relationships, there are aspects of this that cannot be logically proven, yet are true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T19:23:04.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3712" CreationDate="2011-10-01T19:29:58.950" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the situation in Corinth is comparable to there being different denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:10-13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; What I mean is that each one of you says, &quot;I follow Paul,&quot; or &quot;I follow Apollos,&quot; or &quot;I follow Cephas,&quot; or &quot;I follow Christ.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;  Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage also quite clearly shows what Paul thinks of the situation. He talks more in-depth about this in chapters &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T19:29:58.950" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3705" CreationDate="2011-10-01T19:38:46.093" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible advises wisdom, not naiveté: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thessalonians%205:20-21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;Do not despise prophecies, &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;but test everything; hold fast what is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs%202:9-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Proverbs 2:9-11 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;Then you will understand what is right and just and fair—every good path. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the scientific method, properly applied, is simply a rigorous way to test everything and hold fast what is true (note: not &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; good, but similar in spirit), one can decorate all sorts of whims and falsehoods with the appearance of science.  Pseudoscience delivers no more wisdom and knowledge than superstition simply because it pretends to be science; you have to &lt;em&gt;actually rigorously apply the scientific method&lt;/em&gt; for it to work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, Christians should adopt the same stance towards pseudoscience--that it is not knowledge, not wisdom, and not to be held fast--as they do towards superstition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T19:38:46.093" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3713" CreationDate="2011-10-01T19:38:59.057" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently belong to an Independent Baptist church, and my answer is one that my Pastor would echo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not believe that Christians from other denominations are going to Hell because of their denominational affiliation.  We do not believe that all Baptists will go to heaven, either.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we believe is what the Bible teaches, which is that ANYONE who does not receive Christ and accept His &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;free gift&lt;/a&gt; of salvation are going to hell. Not because of what they believe, but because of their rejection of the free gift. (John 3:18) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The split between denominations primarily appears to be differences in interpretation of the Bible.  The book &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0687069831&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Handbook of Denominations in the United States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; does a fair and unbiased job of examining the differences.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, of course, there are splits that are caused by a struggle for power.  The Church of England comes to mind.  (Quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; below:)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Prompted by a dispute over the annulment of the marriage of Henry&#xA;  VIII, the Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church&#xA;  in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy, beginning a series of events known&#xA;  as the English Reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-01T20:14:21.353" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T20:14:21.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3711" CreationDate="2011-10-01T22:23:58.397" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to take a risk with an initial assumption:  Since it's hard to find non-hostile documentation referring to specific denominations as &quot;extreme&quot; or &quot;extremists, I'm going to offer the next best thing:  Denominations that are widely accepted as &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Fundamentalists&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The assumption is that by &quot;extreme&quot; you mean &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;fiercely attached to a core set of beliefs, and less likely to compromise on those positions.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; This somewhat fits, because of your comparison with &quot;more liberal&quot; people, and Fundamentalism emerged as a counter-force to liberal movements within the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do realize that there are other ways the term &quot;Extreme&quot; could be interpreted.  It could mean &quot;dangerous&quot; as in those that would kill to defend their beliefs, or the ones that would hole up on a compound somewhere, arming themselves against the invasion of Satan's armies.  My answer doesn't address that type of &quot;extreme&quot;.  I'm shooting for what I THINK you're looking for.  Forgive me if I'm wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fundamentalist Christians are defined as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian Fundamentalism or&#xA;  Fundamentalist Evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within&#xA;  British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th&#xA;  centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a&#xA;  reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of&#xA;  Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the&#xA;  virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the&#xA;  bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of&#xA;  Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Various sources can be found that compare Fundamentalists with Mainline Christianity, and Pentecostals.  Of course, all of these are relative terms, but I think the closes you can get to the list you're asking for - a list of denominations that are more extreme would be to look at a list of denominations that are accepted as Fundamentalist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are such lists on the Internet, but (oddly enough) the best I found was at Wikipedia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fundamentalist_denominations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fundamentalist_denominations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My denomination is listed there, and I'd agree - I fit that definition of Fundamentalist, as to my fellow Church members.  However, nobody in my church (by that, I mean my local &lt;a href=&quot;http://westsalembaptist.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;West Salem Baptist Church&lt;/a&gt;, not Baptists as a whole) would dream of using our devotion to the &quot;old fashioned&quot; positions as an excuse for hostility toward others, as hinted at in the question you linked to.  We take the commandment to love our enemies as seriously as we do the Trinity, or any of the other beliefs that define Fundamentalists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0687069831&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Handbook of Denominations in the United States&lt;/a&gt; gives information similar to what you're looking for - the core beliefs and tenets of each denomination, but not with a chart or ranking in order of Fundamentalism.  You can look at each denomination on your own and use your own definition of Extremism to determine which you think are extreme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T01:12:57.427" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T01:12:57.427" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3636" CreationDate="2011-10-01T22:28:03.097" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, but receiving the species of consecrated wine alone is not common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During Mass, the celebrant(s) separately consecrates the Bread to the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ, and the Wine to the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ. Each is equally divine, and each is the Eucharist. The priest signifies this by taking a piece of the host and placing it into the chalice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is recommended that, when available, the communicant receive both forms, but it not required. It is recommended that, whenever feasible, that communion be offered in both forms.  But it is not required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: when presenting the consecrated host the minister says &quot;The Body of Christ&quot; to the communicant, and when presenting the chalice the minister says &quot;The Blood of Christ&quot;. This describes the physical form only and references back to the Last Supper.  Each form of communion is the Body, Blood, Spirit and Divinity of Christ.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reference:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-1.cfm&quot;&gt;The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Chapter 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="448" LastActivityDate="2011-10-01T22:28:03.097" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3720" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3806" CreationDate="2011-10-01T22:48:35.410" Score="17" ViewCount="13139" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804119.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;news article&lt;/a&gt; by Catholic News Service tells of the removal of the Tetragrammaton from Catholic masses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Yahweh&quot; -- a name of God that the Vatican has ruled must not &quot;be used or pronounced&quot; in songs and prayers during Catholic Masses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might be related to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton (God's name, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1630/60&quot;&gt;possibly pronounced like &lt;em&gt;Yahweh&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Yehovah&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;). Which I think is based on an overtly careful application of the commandment not to pronounce God's name &lt;em&gt;in vain&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reasoning for this directive? Is it just to follow the Jewish example?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this mean for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/bible/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Jerusalem Bible&lt;/a&gt;, a widely used Catholic translation that consistently translates the Tetragrammaton as &quot;Yahweh&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-07-04T09:25:28.090" Title="Why does Vatican require &quot;Yahweh&quot; not to be used?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3721" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3728" CreationDate="2011-10-01T23:37:18.487" Score="4" ViewCount="586" Body="&lt;p&gt;In recent readings I've found some (informal) quotes to puritan sayings like: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Pray for the gift of tears&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...meaning that a puritan should pray to ask for true repentance of his sins to the point of tears.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Our first duty as Christians is to get ourselves happy in God&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...which is pretty obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is which can be regarded as puritan spiritual classics? And my extra bonus question is: where can I find the quotes listed above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-01-06T19:13:04.847" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T19:13:04.847" Title="Which books are regarded as puritan spiritual classics?" Tags="&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-10-02T00:39:14.783" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We dress up for church &lt;strong&gt;to show respect for God&lt;/strong&gt;, to show that we are making a conscious effort to say that church is &lt;em&gt;important&lt;/em&gt; to us, that we &lt;em&gt;value&lt;/em&gt; it, that church is something out of the ordinary, because when we dress up (at least a lot of the time), it is for events that we deem important or worthy of dressing up for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it this way.  If you show up to a job interview, and you dress casually, what does it say about your desire to get the job?  What does it say about how important you think the occasion is?  &lt;em&gt;Everyone agrees that dressing up for a job interview&lt;/em&gt;, even if it is not required for actual on-the-job duties, &lt;em&gt;shows respect and value for the position/occasion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;strong&gt;why shouldn't it be any different for church?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="100" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T00:39:14.783" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3725" CreationDate="2011-10-02T02:13:33.653" Score="9" ViewCount="7539" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an American on 9/11 I wanted death to come to all who planned or contributed to the attacks. As a Christian, I felt conflicted. Should I be feeling this anger? Am I right in thinking that Osama bin Laden should be killed? As well as brought to justice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian should I have these views? Or should I leave it up to God to handle, to decide whether he should die or live?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T02:22:16.127" LastActivityDate="2015-10-31T13:42:26.177" Title="Can you be Christian while wishing death upon another?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-11-01T14:43:30.533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3724" CreationDate="2011-10-02T02:43:50.103" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, this is definitely something that should be left to God. A great example is in Jude:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1:9&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jude 1:9 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; But even Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels, did not dare accuse the devil of blasphemy, but simply said, “The Lord rebuke you!” (This took place when Michael was arguing with the devil about Moses’ body.)    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is certainly the evilest being in existence, but even Michael left Satan's punishment up to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, consider these verses in Romans:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:19-20&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 12:19-20 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God. For the Scriptures say,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“I will take revenge;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;I will pay them back,”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;says the Lord.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Instead,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“If your enemies are hungry, feed them.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;If they are thirsty, give them something to drink.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;In doing this, you will heap&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;burning coals of shame on their heads.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, leave it to God. He can do it way better than we can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, instead of hating our enemies, we are called to love them instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:44&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:44 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt; But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said...when the current event was Osama's death, a few of my Christian friends (and I) said that while they had not wished for Osama's death nor were they happy about the death itself, they &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; glad that Osama had been removed from his position at the head of Al Qaeda.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T02:43:50.103" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3724" CreationDate="2011-10-02T03:09:00.093" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard a good comment after Osama bin Laden was killed.  They were commenting how people were celebrating his death, but he said that as a Christian he didn't feel like he should be happy.  He would have rather that bin Laden had become a follower of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agreed with him, and believe it applies to this question.  As a true follower of Christ, we should wish for others to believe in him and repent of their sins, rather than wishing for their death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should also remember that we will be judged as we judge others.  Since we are not perfect, we should not be judging others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T03:09:00.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3724" CreationDate="2011-10-02T03:25:29.953" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many Christians that wish for the death of particular politicians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These Christians unfortunately don't understand what Jesus taught about loving others, being willing to die for those that hate you, or following the example of Jesus when he healed the ear of the soldier that was arresting Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These Christians are choosing to follow the teachings of other ministers that have chosen to ignore what Jesus taught, and re-interpret it with their corrections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, since 1 Cor 13 is quite clear on this, in that if you don't have love then what you say is like a clanging gong.  Without love nothing you do means anything to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately there is no way to really sugar-coat this response, as these Christians are damaging the teachings of Christ by preaching a doctrine of hatred and intolerance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One book that heavily influenced me, in that it showed me that there are others like me was &quot;Jesus Freaks&quot;, both vol 1 and 2 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesusfreaks.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jesusfreaks.net/&lt;/a&gt;), to see not only stories about people willing to die for Christ, but those that made the huge risk to be willing to live for Christ, risking a great deal while they do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Osama bin Laden was killed I was actually torn, as I felt guilty for being happy he was killed, and I struggled with how I should feel.  If he was captured it would lead to more deaths, so I don't see any good solution other than what was done, but being happy seems to be wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T13:18:14.057" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T13:18:14.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3721" CreationDate="2011-10-02T03:59:00.097" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ultimate Puritan spiritual classic is &lt;em&gt;The Pilgrim's Progress&lt;/em&gt; (1678, 1684) by John Bunyan. It is an allegory for the journey of the individual Christian to God's kingdom, beset by characters like &quot;Mr Worldly Wiseman&quot; and &quot;Lord Hate-good&quot;, travelling through places like &quot;Vanity Fair&quot; and &quot;the Slough of Despond&quot;. It has had enormous influence in literature and culture. Apparently, it was said that any Puritan household would always possess at least two books: this and the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bonus question #1: The idea of 'Praying for the gift of tears' is not original to Puritanism. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evagrius_Ponticus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Evagrius Ponticus&lt;/a&gt;, a monk of the fourth century, wrote in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ldysinger.com/Evagrius/03_Prayer/00a_start.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On Prayer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (s. 5, trans. Luke Dysinger):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First of all pray that you may receive tears, so that by means of sorrow you may be able to calm the wildness within your soul; and by confessing your iniquity to the Lord, obtain forgiveness from him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know the answer to bonus question #2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T03:59:00.097" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="653" CreationDate="2011-10-02T06:29:24.087" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;, it is not permissible for one who does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to receive Communion.  You surely do not, or you wouldn't refer to is as the &quot;bread and wine&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; at Catholic Answers is very clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="448" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T16:54:40.307" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T16:54:40.307" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3730" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-02T07:56:47.240" Score="22" ViewCount="2687" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that in court if you don't believe in God you are allowed to simply give an &quot;Affirmation&quot; instead of an Oath. But what I want to know is why any Christian would swear an Oath to tell the truth &quot;So help me God&quot;? Where did the idea that this is OK come from? I think the words of Christ were pretty clear, but as far as I know only a few denominations such as Quakers and Mennonites agree with that position (and I certainly don't see eye to eye with them on many key issues). Has there been any justification presented for doing this, or are people just doing what is expected of them from the government?  Here is a relevant passage on the subject: Matthew 5:33-37&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-15T00:01:31.410" LastActivityDate="2015-12-15T16:07:10.937" Title="Swear to tell the truth 'so help me God'?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;oaths&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2011-10-02T08:23:00.523" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;God sees me naked. He sees me at my very worst. He is with me all the time and loves me all the time. And the best way to honour him is to be  completely open and honest with him, to allow him to be my closest friend without pretence. There's no need to put on special airs and graces, use different language, or wear different clothes when we come before God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible there are several places where we are told not to make a big show of praying, giving, and other activities that we do as church. Instead we are told to &quot;worship in Spirit and truth&quot; - so if we try to pretend to be something we're not by dressing differently for worship than we would for any other activity, I believe we're failing to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not to say we should &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; dress up; in the same way as I dressed smartly for my wedding and sometimes dress more smartly when we go out for dinner, even though my wife has also seen me in much less formal attire. But failing to dress smartly every time I know i'm going to see her does not amount to a lack of respect or a failure to honour her; instead it is an indication of the same kind of barrierless honesty that God wants of us when we come before him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T08:23:00.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3732" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11524" CreationDate="2011-10-02T08:38:41.197" Score="11" ViewCount="27891" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a Catholic, but I've been aware since I was little that Catholics will &quot;Cross&quot; themselves. Early on I felt like I shouldn't copy it as it always had been portrayed in tv/film as something ritualistic or superstitious. But now that I understand some of the Catholic's reasoning, I'm wondering if there is any doctrine in protestantism that addresses why you shouldn't do it, or is it simply because we don't want to imitate Catholicism? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic brethren please feel free to talk about the reasons why it should be done, in the comments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T18:49:07.693" LastActivityDate="2015-07-16T12:39:45.643" Title="Should protestants not make the sign of the Cross?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;cross&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-07-16T21:13:57.813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3733" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3736" CreationDate="2011-10-02T10:29:50.273" Score="14" ViewCount="110530" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throughout the Old Testament there have been many laws laid down by the Lord, that are perhaps more harsh then we, as Christians, follow today. Many times in the New Testament it has been found to change the laws of the Old Testament. My question is does the New Testament override the Old Testament in creating laws, that we as Christians should follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Old Testament:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/exodus/21-24.htm&quot;&gt;Exodus 21:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then later in the New Testament: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:38-48&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two obviously conflict each other. So I ask again. &#xA;Does the New Testament override the old?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastEditorUserId="648" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T10:52:04.053" LastActivityDate="2015-09-12T02:27:30.847" Title="Does the New Testament override the Old Testament?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-27T16:53:10.157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3734" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3738" CreationDate="2011-10-02T12:46:33.257" Score="11" ViewCount="1204" Body="&lt;p&gt;At what line do Christians stop at self defense? Take a look here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/5-39.htm&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So where do we draw the line to defend ourselves? Or are we supposed to let them go as far to seriously hurt us or even to kill us? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T17:55:03.870" Title="When do we as Christians draw the line on self-defense?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;self-defense&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-23T17:35:42.030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3733" CreationDate="2011-10-02T13:18:19.240" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are differing views on this, including&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;all laws of the Old Testament are still binding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;some OT laws remain, some don't (this is the most common view)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;OT laws aren't meant for Christians at all&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more thorough explanation of these views, who supports them and on what basis, see my answer on:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15/do-we-have-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-bible-if-so-what-laws/506#506&quot;&gt;Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T13:18:19.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3733" CreationDate="2011-10-02T13:19:17.020" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can find your answer a few verses earlier in the same chapter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law of Moses was given to point people's minds forward to Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah-to-come.  Once he did come, the Law's purpose was fulfilled, and it became obsolete.  It was not destroyed, but superseded by a higher law, the law of the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T13:19:17.020" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3724" CreationDate="2011-10-02T13:50:14.330" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 John 4:11-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt; Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. &lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and again 1 John 4:19-21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; We love because he first loved us. &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, here 'brother or sister' may be referring specifically to members of the church but I think that the take away can be applied here. Remember that &quot;... While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.&quot; Romans 5:8. The same applies to everyone, including ObL. I do not believe that Jesus would want us hating or wishing ill will on those that he died for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time God also loves those who ObL might have killed, so wishing that he be brought to justice, not for revenge, but for law and order, peace, etc. I warranted. My view on him as well anyone who commits crime was (and is) 'I hope that he finds Christ  soon, though one day he may need to face man's justice.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T13:50:14.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3734" CreationDate="2011-10-02T13:53:00.957" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;This verse is easy to misunderstand without an understanding of the culture that produced it.  It helps to read it very literally: If someone strikes you &lt;strong&gt;on the right cheek&lt;/strong&gt;, turn to him the other also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is that significant?  Think back to the Old Testament, where it would explicitly point out anytime someone was left-handed, because that was thought to be really weird.  Being right-handed was the norm, and that's an important part of this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be very awkward for a right-handed person bent on doing harm to attack someone standing in front of them by striking them on the right side of their face.  The only convenient strike that works this way is a backhanded slap, which is very different in nature: an insult, not an assault.  Understanding this changes the meaning of the verse greatly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not let evil men provoke you.  If someone insults you with a backhanded slap, do not respond to the provocation, but turn your other cheek instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in the same character as the other verses around it, particularly the one about being forced to go a mile with someone (which a Roman citizen could legally force a Jew to do).  There were Jews at that time who thought their religious duty was to resist Roman occupation in any way they could, including by killing Romans.  If the followers of Christ got mixed up in that, they would have ended up sharing his fate, execution at Roman hands, which would have seriously impeded the church's ability to grow.  So the message is, make it absolutely clear that you're going along with the law, so no one has any excuse to try to use the law to make even more trouble for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, keep in mind that when they were actually in real danger from people who were determined not to let the law get in the way of what they wanted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:35-36&quot;&gt;Luke 22: 35-36&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two different directives for two different points in time, but both with the same objective: to keep his disciples safe from harm.  These two principles should provide a firm foundation for a Christian to base his understanding of self-defense on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T13:53:00.957" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3740" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3743" CreationDate="2011-10-02T16:14:51.227" Score="14" ViewCount="8445" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did God need to plant the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden in the first place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mean Mormons say that God was in fact having a hidden desire for Adam and Eve to disobey His words and partake of that tree so that they could later be tested in the midst of sinful world whether they would seek God or merely enjoy the worldly pleasures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I confronted one Mormon on this point by saying that it seems a bit contradictory for God to have forbidden Adam and Eve to do something that He in fact wanted them to do, he confronted me with this question: otherwise, why do you think God planted that tree in the garden of Eden while He didn't want Adam and Eve to partake of that tree? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2014-09-27T07:31:39.913" Title="Why did God need to plant the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden in the first place?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;eden&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2014-09-27T16:38:49.420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3740" CreationDate="2011-10-02T17:46:46.157" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question really about the tree (to which I think screams being a metaphor) or is it about the nature of GOD and what his motives were/are?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very basic tenet of Christian theology and of what we know of GOD through the self revelation in Jesus is that GOD is love and knows how to love without showing favoritism or with any dubious motive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would we who are evil set up our own children for such a fall and thus kick them out?  No, of course not.  Therefore, if we who are evil know how to be good to our children, then how much more so will GOD who is perfectly good and perfectly loving.  Let's not bring GOD down to our level, or worse, make Him out to be more of a monster than we are.  I am certain that the father in the parable of the prodigal son did not set his child up to be rebellious, and so I dont think Christian theology would say that GOD did the same to Adam and eve in the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T08:39:35.930" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T08:39:35.930" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3734" CreationDate="2011-10-02T17:55:03.870" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do not break the command to love your neighbor as yourself, and to love yourself and the other one needs to want and strive towards what is best for you and for you assailant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian ethics is difficult.  Only Christians tend to interpret Jesus as not wanting pacifism.  Sometimes these gray matters are strenuous to think on.  But I really like augustine's interpretation of Pauline ethics: love and do what you will.  Just love others as best as you can and live your life without trying to get too mixed up in all the ethical red tape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all, what would Jesus do?  He would forgive you for not always doing what he would do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T17:55:03.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3740" CreationDate="2011-10-02T18:30:32.427" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that your question is very closely related to the one of &quot;How could an omnipotent God who hates sin allow sin?  If He's omnipotent, couldn't He have prevented us from sinning?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to that, of course, is that God gave us free will because He loves us, and because He wants to be loved in return.  Our love for Him wouldn't be real love if it were forced.  We'd be little better than robots, programmed to behave a certain way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the tree was planted there because without it, Adam and Eve wouldn't have had the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;choice&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to obey or disobey Him, and without choice, there can be no true obedience, or true love, only mindless followers with no will of their own.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe He wanted them to eat it at all, but He knew that they would.  He knows all of history; past, present, and future.  We may not understand why He did certain things, but we can be sure that He has His reasons, and that His wisdom is far higher than ours.  (1 Corintians 1:25, 1 Corinthians 2: 16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-06T14:03:31.223" LastActivityDate="2013-11-06T14:03:31.223" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3733" CreationDate="2011-10-02T18:49:23.073" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This should be considered &lt;em&gt;additive&lt;/em&gt; to what @Mason Wheeler said.  He beat me to that part of it, and his answer was good, but I think it can be expanded on just a little bit more to bring it into focus and clear up all doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law of Love (Matthew 22:34-40) in the New Testament actually &lt;em&gt;fulfills&lt;/em&gt; all of the points of the Old testament law, it does not do away with them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you love God, you will not have any other gods before Him, you won't take his name in vain, you will keep his Sabbath, etc. If you love your neighbor, you won't lie, cheat, steal, covet, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-12T02:27:30.847" LastActivityDate="2015-09-12T02:27:30.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3745" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3764" CreationDate="2011-10-02T19:38:20.000" Score="4" ViewCount="2572" Body="&lt;p&gt;How could Adam and Eve have known not to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil? As it was said that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/genesis/3-22.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:22&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD God said, &quot;The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that said God also said that if they were to eat from the Tree than they would surely die:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/genesis/2-17.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was told by God not to eat from it or he shall die. But, without the knowledge of what is Good and what is Bad how would have have known that disobeying God was bad?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="648" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-31T23:34:37.360" LastActivityDate="2014-10-31T23:34:37.360" Title="How could Adam and Eve have known not to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-06-29T17:26:48.460" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3746" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3750" CreationDate="2011-10-02T19:59:18.507" Score="13" ViewCount="5481" Body="&lt;p&gt;The character Lilith, while not mentioned in the Bible, turns up in Christian mythology as Adam&amp;rsquo;s first wife. (She&amp;rsquo;s mentioned, for example, in CS Lewis&amp;rsquo; &lt;em&gt;Chronicles of Narnia&lt;/em&gt;.) Where does this myth originate? And does any major Christian denomination teach the Lilith story as true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-04-25T14:09:55.300" LastActivityDate="2013-04-25T14:09:55.300" Title="Who is Lillith?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3747" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-02T19:59:45.353" Score="15" ViewCount="3659" Body="&lt;p&gt;Often times I hear the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman, God made them male and female, (adam and eve not adam and steve ..etc).&#xA;My question is for those who do not fit into the gender boxes we like people to fit into.&#xA;In fact there are many variations of gender between the poles xmale, heterosexual, masculine &#xA;and xfemale, heterosexual, feminine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sake of specificness we will drop the heterosexual part and look a little closer at just the gender aspect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens when a physical check shows one sex/gender and a chromosome test shows another?&#xA;&quot;it would seem a simple case of checking for XX vs. XY chromosomes to determine whether an athlete is a woman or a man, it is not that simple. Fetuses start out as female, and the Y chromosome turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate the baby as a male. Sometimes this does not occur, and XX people with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally as a male, and XY people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally as a female.&quot;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html?em&quot;&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html?em&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stories like Santhi Soundaragjan, who after gender testing failed as a female and was stripped of her Olympic medal. Her condition was possibly &quot;Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). This condition includes the existence of a 'Y' chromosome in phenotypic females (typically only associated with a male genotype) and results in an inability to respond to Androgens. This unresponsiveness leads to a female body without female internal sex organs. Although the body produces testosterone, it does not react to the hormone.&quot; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/sport/archives/2009/06/11/2003445882&quot;&gt;http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/sport/archives/2009/06/11/2003445882&lt;/a&gt; (The failed test even led to a suicide attempt) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is more...amidst the many varying conditions that fall somewhere inbetween, there are those who are born with both genders, the hermaphrodite. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where do these people fit into normal Christian male/female scenarios? Do they have room for them? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="810" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-05-10T18:52:03.103" LastActivityDate="2014-05-21T03:28:36.543" Title="God created male and female.... What about those who do not fit in the box?" Tags="&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;gender&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-07-31T06:23:49.800" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="349" CreationDate="2011-10-02T20:26:35.403" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My original answer (below the line) no longer addresses the question, as the OP has clarified to be about a person raised Catholic who is not confirmed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will answer for the LA Archdiocese in the USA. I expect (but am not certain) that it is similar throughout the USA.  I know it differs in other parts of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Teenagers are typically confirmed during the Easter season of their 10th grade year. It is the culmination of a 2 academic year process, started during their 9th grade year. There are lots of curricula for the Confirmation process. It is done at the parish level, even for students of Catholic high schools. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first year is typically basic faith formation, finding a sponsor, filling in the education and information gaps, getting the preparatory paperwork done, and building the cohesion of the group. It is generally pretty easy, and many kids consider it a waste of time. The second year is about Confirmation itself, the ethical and moral obligations of adult Catholics, discernment, and applying Catholic principles to life in the secular world, and personal preparation for the sacrament itself. It is challenging, and often personally difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For baptized adults who received the Eucharist but were never confirmed, most parishes have an &quot;Adult Confirmation&quot; process, which may be similar to the &quot;RCIA&quot; process (see below) or may be different. The parish priests have wide latitude with respect to adults. The only real answer is to talk to the priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I am answering here about an unbaptized adult convert, or a baptized adult who has not received the Eucharist and seeks to join the Church. Those who are baptized and have received the Eucharist but are not confirmed should see their pastor, the process and the conditions can vary widely.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, the requirements for Confirmation are honest belief in the Catholic faith, a free choice to be confirmed, a period of education and discernment, and that the person is not otherwise prohibited from participating in the Eucharist.  Marriage problems are the biggest impediment to the last item.  I have no citation for this; it is a recollection from my training as a Confirmation Catechist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, the local bishops have wide latitude, particularly for converts and non-typical situations. Different dioceses give standard confirmation at different ages, have different requirements for preparation, and have different programs for initiation outside of the standard process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The RCIA (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_Christian_Initiation_of_Adults&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults&lt;/a&gt;) process, of which I am a &quot;graduate&quot;, is outlined by the Vatican but the specifics vary between dioceses and sometimes even between parishes within a diocese. The Wikipedia article has a good description of the process.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the parish where I was confirmed, there was a single program for baptized and unbaptized, it started in September, we were confirmed at the Easter Vigil, and the program continued until Pentecost. We went to Mass on Sunday, stayed until the Profession of Faith (right after the homily), and left together (with some fanfare and a blessing from the Priest) to have class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation are the &quot;Sacraments of Initiation&quot;, and one is not &quot;fully initiated&quot; into the Church until one is confirmed. However, Confirmation is &lt;strong&gt;not required&lt;/strong&gt; for adult membership in the Church, for reception of the Eucharist, or for marriage in the Church. It is, however, strongly encouraged, and is usually a requirement for participation in a lay ministry with the Church, to be a godparent at a Baptism, to sponsor Confirmation for someone else, or to formally witness a Marriage in the Church. Again the local bishops and pastors do have discretion.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P30.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Law starting at Canon 879&lt;/a&gt; for the specifics of Confirmation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3W.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Law starting at Canon 1065&lt;/a&gt; for how Confirmation relates to Marriage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="448" LastEditorUserId="448" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T18:27:03.117" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T18:27:03.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3747" CreationDate="2011-10-02T20:30:08.080" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for hermaphrodites, the Bible isn't clear.  it's simply not addressed.  My wife and I have discussed this a few times, and my personal answer is &quot;I don't know.  But I know they can be saved, just like anyone else. so I'm not going to focus on their sexuality, but rather on whether or not they've accepted Christ.  Once saved, they will have their own relationship with God, and their own indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide them.  I would have the same response for those who show one sex/gender based on physical attributes, but a different result based on chromosomes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for varying of degrees on gender based on whether a person &quot;feels&quot; male or female, the idea of &quot;gender boxes&quot; is a very new concept. I don't buy it.  Just thinking something is true or wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;again&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, whether you're on my side of the fence or the other, their sexuality &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;isn't the important thing&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  Homosexuality may be a sin, but the Bible is clear that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;no one sin is any more serious than another&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:19&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;James 2:10&lt;/a&gt;)  Everyone is damned whether straight, gay, black, white, kind, mean, giving, greedy, because all of us have sinned in one way or another. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EVERYONE is condemned (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 3:18&lt;/a&gt;) unless we accept the free gift of salvation, which comes through the Grace of God, by faith in our Lord, Jesus Christ.  The free gift is available to all of the people in all of the situations you gave.  It's simply up to them to accept or reject it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T21:44:43.183" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T21:44:43.183" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3746" CreationDate="2011-10-02T20:43:22.760" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lillith was a figure in Jewish legend.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;There's a good answer to your question here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/Lilith/&quot;&gt;http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/Lilith/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While it is true that there was a rabbinic tradition that Adam briefly&#xA;  had another wife before the creation of Eve (Genesis Rabbah), there is&#xA;  a great deal of doubt as to whether Lilith had any connection at all&#xA;  to this first wife of Adam story prior the publication of the&#xA;  Alphabet. The satirical nature of the Alphabet casts further doubt on&#xA;  the authenticity of this Lilith connection. But whatever its origins,&#xA;  the connection between Lilith and the first Eve seems to have struck a&#xA;  chord with Jewish folk imagination and it is now an inexorable part of&#xA;  those traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T20:57:01.930" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T20:57:01.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3747" CreationDate="2011-10-02T20:50:57.540" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with many of these questions, some of the answer is already in the question. You've termed occurrences like this &quot;conditions&quot; - in other words, deviations from the general norm. As with other medical conditions they are a result of The Fall. So the line you quote is correct, God created male and female, very clearly and distinctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how do people affected by these conditions fit into the &quot;normal Christian scenarios&quot; of male and female? Well firstly there's nothing explicitly Christian about recognising that the norm is to be male or female. Secondly, as we both have already pointed out, these are medical conditions, so I would suggest they warrant expert medical attention. Thirdly my understanding is that in most cases there is a &quot;leaning&quot; towards one gender or the other that can help to establish which gender a person really is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, your last question, &quot;do they [Christians] have room for them [people with these type of conditions]?&quot; Of course. Anyone and everyone has the potential to become a Christian and should be welcome in Church. There should be a note of caution taken here though. Many people, inside and outside the church, find these issues very confusing and may struggle to react in the way they perhaps should. Some may be overly curious, others may find such a condition distasteful and not want to confront it. Nobody is unwelcome but not everyone will necessarily be able to express that. And that's ok, the church is made up of all kinds of people, not all of whom will see eye to eye all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2011-10-02T22:18:52.890" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T22:18:52.890" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3745" CreationDate="2011-10-02T21:23:25.620" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, be careful not to conflate the Tree of Life with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The Genesis narrative makes it clear that they are two different trees, and are in fact in opposition to each other:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take &lt;strong&gt;also&lt;/strong&gt; from the Tree of Life and eat, and live forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the answer to the question, the tree of knowledge could give Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil &lt;em&gt;in general&lt;/em&gt;, but that doesn't mean that they had no concept beforehand that there was something wrong with disobeying God in matters in which they had been given a direct commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T21:23:25.620" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2430" CreationDate="2011-10-02T21:25:55.820" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see no contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through the Grace of God we learn of God, and receive faith in God. This faith is our path to salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When one is blessed with faith, one seeks to live according to that faith. Living according to the faith is what we refer to as &quot;works.&quot; Salvation is not earned by living a good life; it is given to us by God, is forfeited through sin, and given back to us through redemption and forgiveness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God tells us what it means for us to live according to our faith. For some it means a consecrated life as a priest, monk or nun. For some it means charitable works. For some it means other kinds of ministry. For some it means &quot;standard&quot; family and community life. And so on ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Temptation abounds, and when we stray we seek forgiveness and seek to return to life according to the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;One note:  Catholics (and most other Christians??) believe that Scripture is internally consistent. Any apparent inconsistency is because we do not fully understand, not because the Scripture is inconsistent or incorrect. Individual verses or passages, while often powerful and illustrative, don't stand alone.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="448" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T21:25:55.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3730" CreationDate="2011-10-02T23:01:31.230" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the passage quoted does not forbid all oaths in general, but in specific was addressing the practice of the Scribes and Pharisees, who were invoking the name of God, or heaven in their oaths, and breaking them.  I don't see myself where the Scribes or Pharisees are mentioned specifically.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd have to study it out further, but I do believe that he was teaching based on a general lack of reverence for the name of God.  Taking an oath made in God's name is serious, which is why Jesus warned us to let our yes be yes and our no be no.  It is better not to swear on the name of God than to swear and break it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an excellent article on this here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n1/ant_v1n1_oaths.html&quot;&gt;http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n1/ant_v1n1_oaths.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In it, the author explains how and why this applied to the Scribes and Pharisees, not to all oaths in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes on to cite scriptures in the bible where we are expected, and even commanded to swear oaths in the name of God in certain occasions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following is a small excerpt from the articles, where this is explained, with scripture references:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The general context of Scripture, when studied carefully, reveals that&#xA;  God does not forbid all oaths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, Scripture commands us to swear by the name of God on certain&#xA;  occasions. In Deuteronomy 6:13, for example, Scripture commands God's&#xA;  people &quot;You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship&#xA;  Him, and swear by His name.&quot; Far from prohibiting all oaths, Isaiah&#xA;  tells us that &quot;he who swears in the earth shall swear by the name of&#xA;  God&quot; (Is. 65:16). God sanctions lawful oaths to such an extent that He&#xA;  promises to build up those who swear by His name (Jer. 12:16). Even in&#xA;  the mundane affairs of life, such as confirming the truth between&#xA;  disputing neighbors, God commands His people to swear before Him (Ex.&#xA;  22:10-11). Because Scripture commands God's people to swear by His&#xA;  name, it cannot forbid all oaths. God does not command what He&#xA;  simultaneously condemns!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second, Scripture also teaches us that swearing is an act of&#xA;  confession and religious worship. We already saw in Deuteronomy 6:13&#xA;  that God commands us to swear in His name precisely because swearing&#xA;  in God's name is but one way to worship and fear Him (cf Deut.10:20).&#xA;  Isaiah confirms this connection between swearing and worship; when he&#xA;  prophesies about the Assyrians and Egyptians coming into a covenantal&#xA;  relationship with God, he says that they will swear in the name of&#xA;  God. (Is. 19:18). Calvin explains that &quot;by swearing in the Lord's name&#xA;  they will profess his religion.&quot;[6]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But exactly how is swearing an act of confession and worship? When we&#xA;  duly swear in God's name, we confess several things about God. To&#xA;  begin with, we confess that God exists. Moreover, we confess several&#xA;  of God's attributes as revealed to us in Scripture: we testify that He&#xA;  is omnipresent and omniscient, that He is eternal and immutable, that&#xA;  He is just and true, that He is powerful and wrathful. By confessing&#xA;  His existence and attributes, we also confess that He is the Supreme&#xA;  Judge over all the earth and that we are accountable to Him for all&#xA;  that we do and say. Though the word of men may fail, the word of God&#xA;  never fails. Though men may fail, God never fails. By taking oaths in&#xA;  God's name, we confess God to be the ultimate arbiter of truth, and we&#xA;  worship the God of truth in spirit and in truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in the context of swearing in in court, or an oath of office, the practice started when more people understood and respected the gravity of swearing such an oath.  It was meant to be binding.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They believed, correctly, that an oath sworn in God's name should carry more weight, and that it is a serious thing to break it.  Whether or not people still see it that way, or if we're merely repeating words these days, is open to debate, and likely as individual as those taking the oaths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-10-02T23:01:31.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3755" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3757" CreationDate="2011-10-03T01:31:05.910" Score="37" ViewCount="23358" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to preface this by saying I don't believe Paul was a false Apostle.  I must either view his Apostleship as authentic, or throw away everything I believe.  Removing Paul's writings and influence from the New Testament would change the message completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I ask is that every so often, I have doubts about whether Paul was authentic, or an insidious infiltrator.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I have these doubts, they arise from several points.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Saul (his name before his conversion for those few that don't know) &lt;strong&gt;hated&lt;/strong&gt; Christianity.  He had been doing his best (or worst) to eliminate it.  He wasn't having much success with direct opposition.  Maybe he thought that if he got to be an insider with influence, he could corrupt the teachings from the inside?  (He wouldn't be the first or the last.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Next, nobody witnessed his conversion.  He was on the road alone, and we have only his word for it.  Nobody can verify his claims.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Third, his teachings on salvation apart from works &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; to contradict other clear teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kingjbible.com/james/1.htm&quot;&gt;James 1:22-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/15-10.htm&quot;&gt;John 15:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kingjbible.com/james/2.htm&quot;&gt;James 2:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kingjbible.com/matthew/5.htm&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before posting this question, I did a quick Google search, and I did run across some who hold this position and make arguments for it.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm&quot;&gt;Here's one&lt;/a&gt;.  The arguments are, at the very least, well-reasoned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I don't hold the position that he is a false Apostle, but if he is, then it has serious implications for my own beliefs, and for the validity of mainstream Christianity.  I understand just how &quot;heretical&quot; and &quot;blasphemous&quot; it must seem to even ask such a question, and just how deep the implications of what I'm asking go.  I'm hoping to find answers from others who have studied this out, or who have at least heard the arguments for and against such a view.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-11-11T05:54:16.913" LastActivityDate="2020-11-11T05:54:16.913" Title="How do traditional Christians defend the teaching that Paul is an authentic apostle?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;authority&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="3757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3755" CreationDate="2011-10-03T01:47:26.403" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 9&lt;/a&gt; there were witnesses when Jesus Christ spoke to Saul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven&#xA;  flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to&#xA;  him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”  5 “Who are you, Lord?”&#xA;  Saul asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up&#xA;  and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the&#xA;  sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when&#xA;  he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand&#xA;  into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink&#xA;  anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, we have from another disciple, Ananias, whom God told Saul was His chosen instrument to proclaim His name to the Gentiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument&#xA;  to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people&#xA;  of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul did not act completely on his own, either.  He had the full support of the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:22-27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 15:22-27 NIV&lt;br&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to&#xA;  choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and&#xA;  Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were&#xA;  leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following&#xA;  letter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The apostles and elders, your brothers,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Greetings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization&#xA;  and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we&#xA;  all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear&#xA;  friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the&#xA;  name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and&#xA;  Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I trust the original apostles were acting on Christs behalf, I also trust that Paul was.  As you said, if Paul was a false apostle, then it would hold serious implications for our beliefs.  It would seem that if he was false and also supported by the apostles, the truth of the apostles would also be called into question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T01:47:26.403" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2011-10-03T01:47:38.867" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think that Adam and Eve's act of believing Satan automatically means that they were imperfect. In fact, as paradoxical as it is, it may even prove that they were perfect. In 1 Corinthians 13:7 Paul is giving us a description of love and among other things he says that love &quot;believes all things&quot;, however it doesn't, of course, mean that love is imperfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps, the right way of putting it would be this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve were perfect in that state, in which God created them, which is the state of innocence. However, with the partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they died, as far as the original state is concerned (&quot;... for on that day when you eat the fruits of that tree, you will surely die&quot; - Gen 2:17), and now Adam and Eve in their new state - the one, in which God did not create them - were found imperfect because of the poison that they had within them from the poisonous tree.      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T01:47:38.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3755" CreationDate="2011-10-03T02:22:13.550" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Peter believed him to be &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:14-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;authentic&lt;/a&gt;&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On top of this, we also have the direct revelation to Ananias of Damascus regarding Paul's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%209:10-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;conversion&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, &quot;Ananias.&quot; And he said, &quot;Here I am, Lord.&quot; And the Lord said to him, &quot;Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.&quot; But Ananias answered, &quot;Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.&quot; But the Lord said to him, &quot;Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake.&quot; So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, &quot;Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.&quot; And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-27T14:32:44.913" LastActivityDate="2012-09-27T14:32:44.913" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3131" CreationDate="2011-10-03T02:50:03.307" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Postmillennialism and premillennialism are both based on a literal &quot;millennial kingdom&quot; in which Satan will be sealed in the Abyss and there will be peace on earth for 1000 years.  After the 1000 years there will be a final judgment.  However, they differ in when Christ will return.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In premillennialism, it is believed that Christ will return before the millennium and will rule from an earthly throne.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In postmillennialism, it is believed that Christ will rule from a heavenly throne, and will not return until after the millennium for the final judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Amillennialism it is believed that the 1000 year period is symbolic and that we are currently in the millennium and Christ will return at the end of the current age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T02:50:03.307" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3732" CreationDate="2011-10-03T03:08:41.757" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's any harm in making the sign of the cross.  I don't think we could equate it with the type of superstition that equates to idolatry or occultism.  (I'm sorry if that sounds offensive to anyone who practices it.  Please read on, and you'll see I don't mean to offend.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's definitely &lt;em&gt;meant&lt;/em&gt; as a Christian gesture for the Catholics and the other denominations that did or still do practice it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that if you're a protestant that is not in a denomination that practices it, you should not practice it.  Not because it's wrong, or for Scriptural reasons but because there's really no good motive to do so and because it just plain shows common decency to respect the traditions of others, so long as they are not anti-Christian, or anti-God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To do it flippantly would seem to dishonor it and could prove offensive to those who hold it as important.  As a Baptist, I imagine I'd get annoyed if a bunch of Catholics went down to the beach and held dunking-style baptisms just to do it.  To me, baptism is very symbolic, and an important rite. Not that it saves you or anything, but it's not something to be made fun of.  For those that make the sign of the cross, I'd imagine it's the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since there is no scriptural prohibition against it, and it's important to some, I'd say that we should just keep our silence, and show respect for their beliefs and practices, as we'd hope they'd have respect for ours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T03:15:23.957" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T03:15:23.957" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2011-10-03T03:29:54.827" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in the bible does it say that adam and eve were perfect.  The bible does call them good, and even very good.  But nowhere does it say they were perfect, perfection belongs to GOD alone.  Apparently to be good or even very good does not deprive one of the possibility of choosing to rebel against GOD.  I think the whole issue with how is it that Adam and eve sinned is because we wrongfully attribute them as being perfect, but let us not then call them imperfect either, they were deemed good and very good by GOD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T20:41:52.200" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T20:41:52.200" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3745" CreationDate="2011-10-03T03:42:58.120" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it comes down not to the fact that they didn't know what was bad for them, but more that they did not trust GOD and his words to them.  Faith can be better translated as trust, and this is the first case where humans do not trust GOD, hence why it was such a monumental moment in history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T03:42:58.120" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3766" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3773" CreationDate="2011-10-03T04:25:24.807" Score="4" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recall hearing an argument for God (or, really, that being a non-Christian was equivalent to being a nihilist) that in order for logic to be valid, one could not have circular arguments, but since you can't prove your premises, all arguments had to be unfounded or circular &lt;em&gt;unless&lt;/em&gt; you introduced God as some sort of self-proving entity (both premise and proof thereof).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is anyone familiar with this argument?  I have forgotten the details (e.g. why it is okay for God to effectively be a circular argument but not for anything else to be) and have not yet been able to find it anywhere.  Does this argument have a name, and is it (or at least a summary) written somewhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T19:14:04.640" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T22:15:40.617" Title="Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;logic&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3770" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-03T07:14:46.367" Score="8" ViewCount="387" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it would be fairly well agreed among this audience that one's allegiance to God comes before all others.  Aside from that, does the Bible have anything to say about &quot;all others&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where, in relation to one another, does the Bible put one's duties to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Family&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Parents&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Siblings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spouse(s)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Child(ren)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extended Family&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Close Friends&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Country&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="43" LastActivityDate="2014-11-02T09:31:56.510" Title="Does the Bible stipulate priorities among personal allegiances?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3766" CreationDate="2011-10-03T08:15:34.303" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;that in order for logic to be valid, one could not have circular arguments...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bad Logic does not prove that logic does not exist. At the very least all it proves is that bad logic exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but since you can't prove your premises, all arguments had to be unfounded or circular unless you introduced God as some sort of self-proving entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very broad generalization. Why can't the theist prove their arguments. Kalaam Cosmological argument seems like good proof to me. It is a in depth discussion, but to think Christian notion of God is circular would need quiet a bit of explaining. (to say the least)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(e.g. why it is okay for God to effectively be a circular argument but not for anything else to be)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would not be good for it to be circular, but where has the Christian God committed circular logic? The skeptic needs some argument to support that view because I'm not aware of any argument for God's existence that is circular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does this argument have a name, and is it (or at least a summary) written somewhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that I'm aware of. It is the first time I have heard of someone thinking the notion of a God commits circular logic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not quiet sure how to answer this objection because the OP makes some assertions but does not back it up with something substantial to support the claim&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that some strawmanning of arguments are to blame for this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T08:15:34.303" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3733" CreationDate="2011-10-03T08:28:37.723" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it pertinent to quote more from Matthew 5 because it in essence answer the question. I have added emphasis where it comes applicable to the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Fulfillment of the Law&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19*&lt;em&gt;Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/em&gt;* 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Murder&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ &lt;strong&gt;22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb will be subject to judgment&lt;/strong&gt;. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,c’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.d&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adultery&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’e 28But &lt;strong&gt;I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&lt;/strong&gt; 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Divorce&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’f 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Oaths&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An Eye for an Eye&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38“You have heard that it was said, &lt;strong&gt;‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’g 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.&lt;/strong&gt; If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love for Enemies&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighborh and hate your enemy.’ 44*&lt;em&gt;But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you&lt;/em&gt;*, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It becomes clear in these passages that Jesus Law did not override the Old Testament, but in fact where just like clarifications or additions. Amendments if you will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ did not simply do away with the law, he ended or fulfilled it. Jesus is the substance of the shadows, the anti type of the types, and the very epitome of all the moral enunciation of the law. Jesus said, &quot;Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill&quot; (Matt. 5: 17). Notice the next verse, &quot;For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled&quot; (vs. 18). Jesus fulfilled the law and inaugurated his system or testament (Lk. 24: 44, 47). Christ's system is not without law, but the onerous system of Moses was nailed to Jesus' cross (Gal. 6: 2, Col. 2: 14, see addendum). Jesus' apostles are &quot;able ministers of the new testament&quot; (2 Cor. 3: 6). The Law of Moses could not impart life (2 Cor. 3: 7-18). The law was only a &quot;schoolmaster to bring us (Jew, dm) unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith&quot; (Gal. 3: 24). &quot;But after that faith is come,&quot; Paul continued, &quot;we are no longer under a schoolmaster&quot; (vs. 25). Paul warned regarding any who would attempt justification by the Law of Moses. Hear him: &quot;Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace&quot; (Gal. 5: 4). One cannot be saved by a system of meritorious works that seek to earn salvation and by grace at the same time (Rom. 11: 6). John said, &quot;For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ&quot; (Jn. 1: 17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="3426" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T14:45:45.880" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T14:45:45.880" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3766" CreationDate="2011-10-03T08:34:40.033" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you're referring to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God&quot;&gt;The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG)&lt;/a&gt;. It was first formulated by Immanuel Kant, but has been refined, disputed and defended over the years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The argument&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One formulation of the argument is,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prove A&lt;/strong&gt;: The Christian God exists.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Step 1 ~A&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;em&gt;(Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove):&lt;/em&gt; The Christian God does not exist.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Step 2 (~A--&gt; B)&lt;/strong&gt;: If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Step 3 (~B)&lt;/strong&gt;: There is intelligible experience &lt;em&gt;(Contradiction!)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Step 4 (~ ~A)&lt;/strong&gt;: It is not the case that God does not exist &lt;em&gt;(Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Step 5 (A)&lt;/strong&gt;: --&gt; God does exist &lt;em&gt;(Law of negation.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2006/03/impropriety-of-trying-to-prove.html&quot;&gt;Reformed Apologist&lt;/a&gt; (blog)&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The finer details of whether this argument actually is valid, of course, need a more thorough explanation. The argument isn't fundamentally based on inductive nor deductive, but  transcendental reasoning. Kant describes &lt;em&gt;transcendental&lt;/em&gt; as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I entitle transcendental all knowledge which is occupied not so much with objects as with the mode of our knowledge of objects insofar as this mode of knowledge is to be possible a priori.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus to properly examine and understand the argument, I suspect a more in-depth studying is required. I'm not a philosopher and don't claim to understand TAG, so I'll just point you elsewhere:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Further reading&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Butler, Michael R. &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.butler-harris.org/tag/&quot;&gt;The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T08:34:40.033" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3131" CreationDate="2011-10-03T09:12:34.130" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you note, the different &quot;millennialisms&quot; are based on different interpretations of the &quot;thousand year reign&quot; mentioned towards the end of Revelation. Unfortunately, answering this question is not as easy as simply stating the different views on the millennium itself. Each of the different views only make sense inside their respective theological frameworks. For example, you cannot transplant the amillennial view of the thousand years and into a dispensational theological framework. Thus, in order to properly answer this, we must include bits of subjects other than just the millennium itself and one must be aware that you cannot simply choose one of these views on their own, you must arrive at one of these understandings based on your hermeneutic for understanding the rest of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you noted, there are several main views on eschatology. Your question mentioned three. While no set of boxes will suffice to accurately categorize these views, I think it's unfair to not include a fourth, namely historic-premillennialism. The modern view called premillennialism is radically different from what was known as premillennialism just a few hundred years ago. The radical shift of views under the same name makes it confusing, so one must delineate.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How each of these views addresses the what and when of the millennium is also tied up in their views of the church, what the kingdom of God is and the timelines of both world history and individual lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Postmillennialism&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Postmillennialism identifies the millennium as a future event in this world where Christians triumph over this world and the Kingdom of God is visible (as opposed to the church-invisible). Of all the views I understand this one the least, but I believe there is some variance of opinion on when the millennium starts. Some say it will be a gradual event where the church sets right all the wrongs of the world step by step until eventually we reach a golden age. Another view is that Christ will dramatically intervene at some point in the future to bring this about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thousand years of the millennium are generally considered to be figurative -- meaning a long period of time but not necessarily exactly 1000 years as we know them. Satan is bound during the millennium both spiritually and physically so he can't wreak his normal havoc. After the thousand years, Jesus will return. Those believers living will be caught up to be with Him in heaven and the dead will be raised, either to life with him or eternal death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Amillennialism&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like post-millennialism, amillennialism believes that the thousand years is a figurative number indicating a long period of time and that Jesus will return after the thousand years is over. Unlike the other views, amillennialism believes that the thousand years has already started. Beginning with the first coming of Jesus and the establishment of the NT church the reign of Christ in victory through the invisible church has already begun. Satan is currently bound in that his power to stop the spread of the Gospel is limited. The kingdom is growing and reigning victoriously through true believers in the world today. However the world as a whole is also still inhabited by evil and good and evil grow side by side and in contrast to each other until Jesus returns for his own. This is the period of tribulation, and the church experiences but is preserved through it. Jesus second returning ends the millennium and marks the second judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Premillennialism&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The modern iteration of premillennialism is based on dispensational theology and is sometimes knows as Dispensational Premillennialism, although if someone gives no qualification as to which premillennialism is being referenced, it is is generally assumed to be this one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dispensational premillennial timeline is the hardest to describe. The millennium is a future event in which the nation of Israel is restored and all the promises about her are fulfilled. Before the millennium starts however, Jesus returns two more times, once privately to rapture the gentile believers out of the world and again publicly at the start of the millennium. In between these two returns is the tribulation, a 7 year period of disaster and judgement on earth. There are three views on when the church is raptured in relation to the tribulation, pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation and post-tribulation. Evil in the world will generally increase until the start of the tribulation, at which point all hell breaks loose in a time of satanic dominance. After that time is over and Jesus has come (the third time if you are counting from time he came for the cross) Satan's power will be entirely bound and a new kingdom will be established on earth where the Jewish people are restored to their place as God's chosen people and reign on earth. When that's over eventually the church already raptured out of the world and the restored faithful remnant of Israel will be reconciled in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Historic Premillennialism&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also known as &quot;Classic Premillennialism&quot;, is actually more similar to Amillenialism than it's modern name-sake. The period of tribulation for the church began with its establishment after the resurrection and will end when Christ returns to earth a second time. Evil will increase in the world along side of good. The church invisible will be sorely tried but always be victorious as protected and strengthened by Christ along the way. There are different views on the great tribulation and whether all of the prophecies are spread out throughout this church age or whether some of them are concentrated into a special great-tribulation period during the last seven (literal or figurative) years at the end. Either way, Christ returns once when the tribulation period is over both to collect his church out of the world, resurrect the dead, and to judge evil. Where historic pre-millennialism differs from amillennialism is what happens after that. Amillennialism sees the thousand years as overlaid on top of the tribulation, parallel tracks as it were or different perspectives on the same event. Historic pre-millennialism believes that the tribulation is now but that after the second return there will be a time of earthly reign in which all things are made new, Christs power to restore is demonstrated on the same turf on which the rest of history was played out but with him physically present and Satan bound. This time can be interpreted as either figurative for a long period of time or a literal thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;sub&gt;For full disclosure in case my bias comes through somewhere: I am historic-premil.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T13:16:03.523" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T13:16:03.523" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3720" CreationDate="2011-10-03T09:35:07.480" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may want to read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.romancatholicresources.com/2009/08/no-more-yahweh-to-the-catholic-mass/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;. Basically we shouldn't pronounce the name of God, but there is more in the answers in the link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I may add more later, but I need to head to work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-10-03T04:51:08.710" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T04:51:08.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3740" CreationDate="2011-10-03T12:30:02.823" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God planted the tree for the same reason he has done everything else on this planet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that he might be glorified all the more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is an intensely selfish God. He demands worship and honor and glory. He has created this world as a vessel so that he might be worshiped. He ordained the rebellion of Satan so that he might have an enemy and show his power in victory over it. He planted the tree in the garden so that he might have an imperfect people that he could redeem and show his power all the more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not make mistakes, his creation was perfect by design, he allowed it to be corrupted by design, he has redeemed his people by design, and he will glorify his chosen people by design. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tree existed to kick off the events so that God could show how much he loved his people and in that be glorified all the more. It allowed him to show his mercy and love to a fallen creation. He was gracious to them by not destroying them, and poured out his love by sacrificing his son. And in the future so that his son may return triumphant and bind Satan once and for all. The tree existed so that God would be glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T12:30:02.823" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3770" CreationDate="2011-10-03T13:39:44.607" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you know enough about the rest of Scripture to know what kinds of things are NOT found, I think you can base an answer almost entirely on this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew+22:34-40/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mathew 22:34-40&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important thing is loving, honoring and submitting to God. That trumps everything. As far as prioritizing things, that will always be at the top of the list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moving down on the list to number two, you find your &quot;all others&quot; lumped together in one big group. The other people and relations you mention are of course mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. You will find instructions to children to honor their parents, slaves to obey their masters, wives to submit to their husbands, citizens to obey the law, and a laundry list of other reminders. However all of these are summarized in this: &quot;Love your neighbor as yourself.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Scripture does not do is pit these other things against each other. I believe this is because if you really start digging, the only times they will be in conflict are also times when you would also have a conflict of interest with God, and then the choice again becomes clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets try a scenario where there is an apparent conflict. The country I live in has mandatory military service. Every male has to do their time. Yet many families aren't happy about their children being taken away to war or same other duty. It's generally understood that like it or not it's just a part of life that has to be dealt with and they celebrate that they are honorably serving their country. Every once in a while a child might run into a situation where family and friends advocate not going and doing something to hide from this law. At first glance this may seem like a conflict of interest where you have to prioritize honoring your parents wish for you to go underground or obeying the laws of your country.  However if you look at what is expected of you in God's eyes in both cases, it becomes clear that honoring your parents does not always mean obeying them. It would be a dishonor to the family to be dishonest even if that is their wish, so obeying the law is the best way to bring them honor even if they think they are not happy about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you re-approach any apparent conflicts from a good understanding of what loving God requires, the need to prioritize them melts away in favor of the need to do the thing in any given scenario that best reflects your status as a child, servant and ambassador of Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T13:39:44.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3770" CreationDate="2011-10-03T13:50:24.570" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It looks more like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everyone Else&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yourself&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the greatest and second greatest commandment&lt;/a&gt; and on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phillipians%202:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the command to value others above ourselves&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what you're asking is in regards to &quot;Everyone Else&quot;.  In other words, should we love some people more than we love others.  &lt;strong&gt;Do we have duties to family &lt;em&gt;over&lt;/em&gt; friends &lt;em&gt;over&lt;/em&gt; enemies?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Bible is clear that we should &lt;strong&gt;love everyone alike&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-48&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:43-48&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that &quot;Everyone Else&quot; category really does include everyone else.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;There is no hierarchy&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Side note&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Jesus does mention that his family are the ones who do his will.  However, we are also told above that we are to love everyone the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:47-50&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 12:47-50&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T13:50:24.570" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3004" CreationDate="2011-10-03T13:58:29.847" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passages you quote could have been written by up to four different individuals who each were bringing their own understandings of GOD to the written Word.  Some of the interpretational issues we have with the bible is due to the fact that the bible actually presents multiple theologies about the character of GOD, and that they are all intended to be held in tension with each other rather than fit our non-rabbinic post-enlightentment Aristotelian and non-Hebraic western understandings of logic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, the bible was not written in order to give us a systematic theology of GOD, but rather to be a written testimony to the fact that Jesus is the christ through whom all things will be remade in the power of the holy spirit by the love of the father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T13:58:29.847" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3004" CreationDate="2011-10-03T14:03:07.507" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gave us free will.  He allows us to follow or turn away from him.  God knows what we will do.  However, we have the power to control our responses.  If God &lt;em&gt;forced&lt;/em&gt; our hand, we would not have free will!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Some examples&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God allowed Abraham to go up to the point of sacrificing his child, but not to actually do it.  It was a test of Abraham's.  And &lt;strong&gt;Abraham was better because of the test&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did God know that Adam and Eve would fall?  Yes, he knew but &lt;strong&gt;Adam and Even weren't perfect&lt;/strong&gt;.  God allowed them to suffer the consequences of their choices.  If he &lt;em&gt;prevented&lt;/em&gt; them from suffering for their choices, they would not have free will!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God allows us to either reap the benefits of following him or suffer the consequences of turning away form him.  He knows beforehand what we will do, but &lt;strong&gt;we don't&lt;/strong&gt;.  So, he allows us to fail or succeed for our benefit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting (old) story about this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Maximus ca. 580-662 a.d.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;(The Life of Our Holy Monastic Father Maximus the Confessor and Martyr)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After quite some time, three men of high rank, Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, and the patricians Paul and Theodosius, were sent by Constans and Patriarch Peter to win over the saint. They were joined by the Bishop of Bizye, and alternately flattered and threatened Maximus, testing his faith and posing various questions. They began by introducing themselves, then requested Maximus to sit down. Bishop Theodosius asked, &quot;How are you faring, my lord Abba Maximus?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Exactly as God knew I would before the ages,&quot; replied the saint. &quot;He foreordained the circumstances of my life, which is guarded by providence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;How can that be?&quot; objected Theodosius. &quot;Did God foreknow and actually foreordain our deeds from eternity?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The saint said, &quot;He foreknew our thoughts, words, and deeds, which nevertheless remain within our power to control; and He foreordained what befalls us. The latter is not subject to our control, but to the divine will.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Explain more exactly what is in our power, and what is not,&quot; requested Bishop Theodosius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;My lord, you know all this,&quot; answered Saint Maximus. &quot;You only ask to try your servant.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bishop admitted, &quot;Truly, I do not know. I wish to understand what we can control and what we cannot, and how God foresaw one and foreordained the other.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The venerable Maximus explained, &quot;We do not directly control whether blessings will be showered upon us or chastisements will befall us, but our good and evil deeds most certainly depend on our will. It is not ours to choose whether we are in health or sickness, but we make determinations likely to lead to one or the other. Similarly, we cannot simply decide that we shall attain the kingdom of heaven or be plunged into the fire of Gehenna, but we can will to keep the commandments or transgress them.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T14:21:45.680" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T14:21:45.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3740" CreationDate="2011-10-03T15:18:32.217" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wood did not have any mystical powers, It was a symbol of God's sovereignty. Something similar as is flag of one country at the embassy or government building.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that tree, God told the people: &quot;Earth and everything else that I have provided you is mine and only if you obey me you will live forever. Otherwise, in the day you refuse to show obedience, you will start to die.&quot; (read Genesis chapter 2, paragraphs 15-17) It was a reasonable request - Adam &amp;amp; Eve could eat fruits from any other tree, eat to satisfaction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not want them to take the fruit from the tree, he is not contradictory to himself. He wanted the people and their children see the tree every day and to remember that they must be obedient to God because he knows what is best for our own good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is simple and not complicated. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="820" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T15:18:32.217" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3783" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-03T15:19:04.213" Score="24" ViewCount="81484" Body="&lt;p&gt;We hear that we are no longer under the law.  It even says so in Galatians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galations%203:23-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:23-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.  So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;It seems &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:23&lt;/a&gt; also supports this.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But yet, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What did Jesus mean that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it&lt;/strong&gt;, especially since it seems from later in the Bible that he &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; abolish the law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2015-04-15T16:13:26.590" LastActivityDate="2015-04-17T07:14:18.717" Title="What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law but did not abolish it?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3784" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3787" CreationDate="2011-10-03T15:31:53.890" Score="15" ViewCount="13924" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Revelation, we see God along with the &amp;quot;Seven Spirits before his throne&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 1:4&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;To the seven churches in the province of Asia:&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, &lt;strong&gt;and from the seven spirits before his throne,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see it again later in Revelation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+5:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 5:6&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who/what are these seven spirits?  How are they &amp;quot;before the throne&amp;quot; and also &amp;quot;part of the lamb&amp;quot;?  (Or are these seven &lt;em&gt;different&lt;/em&gt; spirits?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm seeking the answers from the view that &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_(Christian_eschatology)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation should not be taken literally--that it is somewhat metaphorical&lt;/a&gt;.  I presume these seven spirits to be a metaphor, but for what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-08-29T13:58:22.497" Title="From an idealist perspective, what are the &quot;seven spirits of God&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3785" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3786" CreationDate="2011-10-03T15:41:58.593" Score="12" ViewCount="1187" Body="&lt;p&gt;The stigmata is sores or wounds in the places that Jesus suffered wounds during the crucifixion. That's about as much as I know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions, to be answered from a Catholic perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What's the purpose of the stigmata?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis, if any, for the stigmata?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How does the stigmata not indicate Christ's suffering was insufficient?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How do we know that the stigmata reflects Christ's crucifixion and not someone else that was crucified?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-08-12T12:54:48.033" LastActivityDate="2020-08-12T12:54:48.033" Title="What is the purpose and basis of the stigmata?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;stigmata&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3785" CreationDate="2011-10-03T16:35:32.630" Score="8" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stigmata is a grace given to a follower of Christ₁, meaning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stigmata is not public revelation, nor could it be. So it's not biblical in the way the 7 Sacraments (Baptism, Marriage, the Eucharist, Reconciliation, Holy Orders, Last Rites and Confirmation) are.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These private revelations often come directly from Christ Himself.  It is contingent on the authority of the Church ₂ to quash belief in a particular private revelation or allow it to continue.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;₁ &lt;code&gt;do all work miracles?&lt;/code&gt; (1 Cor 12:29)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;₂ &lt;code&gt;thou art peter&lt;/code&gt; (Matt 16:18))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T19:37:39.470" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T19:37:39.470" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3784" CreationDate="2011-10-03T16:56:47.907" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The seven spirits referenced in Revelation may refer to the spirits mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2011&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 11&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spirit of the Lord&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spirit of wisdom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spirit of understanding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spirit of counsel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spirit of might&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spirit of knowledge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spirit of fear of the LORD&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2 The &lt;strong&gt;Spirit of the LORD&lt;/strong&gt; will rest on him— &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit of wisdom&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;of understanding&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit of counsel&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;of might&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit of the knowledge&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;fear of the LORD&lt;/strong&gt;—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may also refer to the seven qualities mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:5-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Peter 1:5-7&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;goodness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;knowledge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;self-control&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;perseverence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;godliness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mutual affection&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;love&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;goodness&lt;/strong&gt;; and to goodness, &lt;strong&gt;knowledge&lt;/strong&gt;; 6 and to knowledge,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;self-control&lt;/strong&gt;; and to self-control, &lt;strong&gt;perseverance&lt;/strong&gt;; and to perseverance,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;godliness&lt;/strong&gt;; 7 and to godliness, &lt;strong&gt;mutual affection&lt;/strong&gt;; and to mutual&#xA;  affection, &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As is the case with a lot of Revelation, I take the different references to the seven spirits of God as figurative representations of the spirits.  I do not believe there are physical manifestations of His spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the 7 spirits represent communicable attributes of God.  When they are sent out over the earth, we will receive these attributes fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-04-06T21:14:22.360" LastActivityDate="2015-04-06T21:14:22.360" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3783" CreationDate="2011-10-03T18:54:38.223" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think part of the difficulty comes as a bit of confusion as to what is meant by the law and its application.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the law was introduced, it was never intended to be the instrument by which man would save himself, but it was the instrument through which man was to be saved.   In a very real sense, man is saved through the fulfilment (keeping) of the law.   When Christ fulfilled the law, he earned the privilege of life.  Those who are in Christ, likewise, share in his righteousness and are delcared righteous right along side him.   In that sense, the law has always stood and and will continue to stand.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, though, it's important to realize that we basically choose whether the law applies to us individually or not -- through grace, we can choose to be in Christ, or we can choose to stand on our own merits when we're judged.   In that sense, too, the law still stands.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul talks a good deal about this in the book of Romans, and the whole book gives a much more complete (and competent :) ) version of an explanation that I'm about to...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's important to realize the role of the law.  I'm going to jump arount a bit, but if we start with Romans 7:7-12, I think we can make a little more sense of this (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 7:7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means!&#xA;  Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I&#xA;  would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, &quot;You&#xA;  shall not covet.&quot; 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the&#xA;  commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from&#xA;  the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when&#xA;  the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. &lt;strong&gt;10The very&#xA;  commandment that promised life&lt;/strong&gt; proved to be death to me. 11For sin,&#xA;  seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and&#xA;  through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is&#xA;  holy and righteous and good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a certain bit of irony when the law is introduced to human nature.   Being rebellious and sinful that we are, we latch on to the specifics as a means to found outlet for our repressed frustrated rebellions.   The law was never meant to save man, but rather was a contrast between the holiness of God and the depravity of man. The law offered life through its fulfilment and death through its violation.   This is a subtle but significant key, I think we somehow overlook when discussing grace, as this seems to be &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; how Jesus came to be our savior offering us hope for life...He earned that right by fulfiling the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, there's still hope for us wretched sinners:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 7:4Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through&#xA;  the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has&#xA;  been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.&#xA;  5For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused&#xA;  by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But&#xA;  now &lt;strong&gt;we are released from the law, having died to that which held us&#xA;  captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the&#xA;  old way of the written code.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at the block starting with v.7 we see that the law is not bad (in fact it's good) just because we use it as a springboard for badness.   The law is good, and it's been fulfilled by Christ.   He was the one who fulfilled it; not us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look on the Romams 8, Paul clarifies a bit more (Emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8: 1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are&#xA;  in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has &lt;strong&gt;set you free&#xA;  in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death&lt;/strong&gt;. 3For God has done what&#xA;  the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son&#xA;  in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the&#xA;  flesh, &lt;strong&gt;4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be&#xA;  fulfilled in us&lt;/strong&gt;, who walk not according to the flesh but according to&#xA;  the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds&#xA;  on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit&#xA;  set their minds on the things of the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The righteous requirement of the law has been fulfilled in us (those who are in Christ Jesus) &lt;em&gt;by virutue of us being in Christ.&lt;/em&gt;   The law has been fulfilled, there is, therefore no condemnation for those who are clothed with Christ's righteousness, but we should remember that those who live according to the spirit set their minds on spiritual things and will see to live in accordance with God's moral law.  Romans 6:15 reminds us of this, but note, (Paul does suggest again that we're not under the law, per se):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 6:15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but&#xA;  under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present&#xA;  yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one&#xA;  whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience,&#xA;  which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who&#xA;  were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the&#xA;  standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been&#xA;  set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am&#xA;  speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just&#xA;  as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to&#xA;  lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members&#xA;  as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With his blood, Jesus purchased us from death.   Jesus was the fulfilment of the law; not us.  Because of that, we are bound as slaves of righteousness.   We're not going to fulfill the law in our own lives, and we're not expected to; but lest we use this as an excuse to sin without rein, we are supposed to set our sights on righteousness out of gratitude and duty to our Savior.  Those who understand the Gospel (the goodness of God, the wickedness of sin, the graciousness of God to provide a savior) will, naturally seek to please the God who save them and whom they serve, and the best way we can know what this is it to look to the law He's given us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ETA: TL;DR:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus came to fulfil the law (i.e. obedience leads to life; disobedience leads to death) he did just that.   Notice He didn't say, that old law's no good, don't worry about it (i.e. abolish it); what he did, instead, was to come saying the law &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; good, and he is &lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; fulfulment of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="701" LastEditDate="2011-10-03T19:18:49.873" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T19:18:49.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3789" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3809" CreationDate="2011-10-03T20:21:18.257" Score="12" ViewCount="34058" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible talks all about joy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+15:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 15:13 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it seems that joy is something we can attain by having the Holy Spirit in our lives:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galations+5%3A22-23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galations 5:22-23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, &lt;strong&gt;joy&lt;/strong&gt;, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if we look at the dictionary, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/joy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;joy&lt;/a&gt; seems to mean &quot;happiness&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, it sounds like we're not promised happiness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 16:33 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is being promised to us when the Bible speaks of joy?&lt;/strong&gt;  And how is joy different from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/joy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;happiness&lt;/a&gt;?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, is the word &quot;joy&quot; a bad translation of the original Greek there?  Or should we expect intense happiness (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/joy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;per the meaning of the word in English&lt;/a&gt;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;If there is a difference, I'm seeking a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;mainline protestant&lt;/a&gt; viewpoint and exegesis of this text&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T16:29:05.800" LastActivityDate="2017-12-22T13:25:43.757" Title="What is joy? How is it different from happiness (or is it)?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3755" CreationDate="2011-10-03T20:21:22.003" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3755/how-do-we-know-paul-wasnt-a-false-apostle/3759#3759&quot;&gt;Warren has already noted&lt;/a&gt; that the apostle Peter vouched for Paul's authenticity and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3755/how-do-we-know-paul-wasnt-a-false-apostle/3757#3757&quot;&gt;a_hardin noted&lt;/a&gt; that there were other witnesses to his conversion and life before and after. We could continue with these references of people that vouched for him personally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another approach can also be taken. An interesting thought experiment can be played by taking Paul and all his writings out of the Bible. While it's true he penned large chunks of the New Testament, he didn't pen it all. The four gospels and not a few letters were from other authors, some of them Jesus' original disciples. In fact, for the sake of this experiment, you could set aside things like Revelation and the other late letters and just work with the historical accounts of Jesus. The Gospels make little attempt to teach what the church should look like (or teach anything at all) they are primarily a historical narrative of Jesus' life and teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now step back to the Old Testament for a minute. Think about all the things we learn about God and His plan of salvation from it. From Genesis we find the fall of man and the promise of a Savior, then through every generation we have a record of how God interacted with His people and what He required of them. Through the prophets we get a picture of what the savior was to look like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Admittedly this wasn't very well understood: the Jews didn't instantly recognize Jesus as fulfilling these. Yet through the account of the Gospels we come to an understanding that He did. We know from Him what salvation looks like, what it looks like to follow Him. We know about the sacrifice He made, the propitiation that His death was, what repentance and grace look like, that He came to fulfill the law not abolish it, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without continuing on to Paul's letters, we already have everything we need to know for Christianity to be what it is. If we believe the testimony about what Jesus taught, we have the basics solidified. Continuing on to Paul and the teachings of the other apostles after He left, we don't learn anything new or different, we only get an expounded view and implementation of the things we already learned. We get their (inspired) commentary and interpretation, but we don't get any changes. Nothing taught by Paul contradicts the OT or Jesus' teachings or even goes so far beyond them that we couldn't reason out the same conclusions from other material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we owe Paul a huge debt for his faithful contribution. He was a tool used by God to communicate timeless truths to the early NT church and to us today, but our faith is not built on Paul. We are Christians, not Paulinians. I believe that his written testimonies in Scripture carry unique authority as an Apostle writing at a time when other living disciples of Christ vouched for him as a specially chosen and anointed apostle, still we don't have to depend on him alone for any of our major doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T15:20:32.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3789" CreationDate="2011-10-03T20:53:05.343" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think joy can be equated to happiness, but the problem as you pointed out may be what we consider to be happiness.  I like to think of joy as spiritual happiness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The world views happiness as having what you &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt;.  Joy as used in the verses you referenced means being happy in having what you &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; spiritually.  In a spiritual sense, what we need is to be in a relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By pursuing worldly needs, we may be able to make ourselves happy for a time, but we won't be fulfilling our spiritual needs.  By pursuing God we will fulfill our spiritual needs and can experience true joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From another perspective, when someone is unhappy, it's usually because they are lacking something they want.  When you stop wanting the worldly goods, you will have no reason to be unhappy!  You can be filled with perfect joy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T20:53:05.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3679" CreationDate="2011-10-03T21:31:12.877" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;chosen people&quot; are, as you mention the Israelites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Deuteronomy%207:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 7:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This simply means that God has chosen these people and set them aside to be holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;History&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It all began with Abraham:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2012:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 12:1-3 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The LORD had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; &#xA;  I will make your name great, &#xA;    and you will be a blessing.&#xA;  3 I will bless those who bless you, &#xA;    and whoever curses you I will curse; &#xA;  and all peoples on earth &#xA;    will be blessed through you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was the original &quot;chosing&quot;, if you will.  After that came Isaac and Jacob, who was called Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With Israel (Jacob), God &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2028:13-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;renewed the blessing above (in Genesis 28)&lt;/a&gt;, saying specifically (in that passage):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2028:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 28:15a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A man becomes a nation (more history)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God was faithful to his promise to Abraham and Jacob.  He made a great nation out of the Israelites and turned them into a nation while they were enslaved in Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When he freed them from Egypt, he lead them to the base of a mountain and established a few ground rules (the 10 commandments).  Later (not much later), he established an entire set of rules that can be found in Leviticus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These set of rules were the original covenant.  The essence of it can be seen in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2026&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Leviticus 26&lt;/a&gt;, but it basically says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If you follow my decrees and obey my commands, I will bless you.  If you turn away from me, I will curse you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary (What it means to be chosen)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God set the nation of Israel aside.  They would be his people and he would be their God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they followed him, they would be blessed.  If they turned from him, they would be cursed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians are not the Israelites.  Christians are not the &quot;chosen people&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christians are chosen&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, Christians are, undoubtedly, chosen (although we are not &quot;The Chosen People&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:15-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 14:15-24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read through that, what you'll see is that Jesus has set us aside and given us the same type of covenant that you see mirrored in Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, for that matter).  Specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 14:15&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &quot;If you love me, keep my commands.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to say that he will be part of us and we will be part of him.  Clearly, we are &quot;chosen&quot; in this sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary #2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians are &quot;chosen&quot;.  This means we live in Jesus and we are a part of Jesus and we will inherit eternal life.  He has &lt;em&gt;chosen us for eternal life&lt;/em&gt;.  However, we are not the &quot;chosen people&quot;.  (See the first half of this answer for that.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-10-03T21:31:12.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2011-10-03T21:39:30.407" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &quot;perfect&quot; is the wrong word choice here.  I think it's important that Adam -- as the first man -- came as a sort of &lt;em&gt;tabula rasa&lt;/em&gt; with regards to guilt and sin, but still blew it (so to speak).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's significant that Jesus is described as a second Adam (1 Cor. 15, Romans 5:14).  The implication here, I think, being that given the opportunity, Adam set the tone for mankind by choosing sin, and Christ set the tone righteousness by choosing obedience -- even an obedience that led to death.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul goes on to explain how death is found in the representation of Adam (i.e. by choosing to disobey God, and rely on one's own understanding; defining one's own moral standard), but life is found in Christ (i.e. by trusting in God's goodness and His gracious provisions for forgiveness).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as &quot;why&quot; this happened, I think this was all part of the grand story of God's grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:20 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  He [Jesus] was foreknown &lt;em&gt;before the foundation of the&#xA;  world&lt;/em&gt; but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21&#xA;  who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and&#xA;  gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2013:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 13:8b (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  ... everyone whose name has not been written &lt;em&gt;from&#xA;  the foundation of the world&lt;/em&gt; in the book of life of the Lamb who was&#xA;  slain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[ETA: the ESV translation aligns a bit better]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2013:8b&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 13:8b (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  ...everyone whose name has not been written &lt;em&gt;before the foundation of&#xA;  the world&lt;/em&gt; in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gracious provision of Jesus was was the plan all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="701" LastEditDate="2013-12-12T21:14:21.500" LastActivityDate="2013-12-12T21:14:21.500" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3796" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-03T22:37:07.247" Score="13" ViewCount="4009" Body="&lt;p&gt;How is life going to be once you get to Heaven? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ie: What activities are you going to perform every day, for all eternity? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am interested in responses that are backed up by verses from the Bible, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(question inspired by this video: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZELBTxUB_4&quot;&gt;Why Would Anyone Want To Go To Heaven?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user729" LastEditorDisplayName="user729" LastEditDate="2011-10-05T15:48:35.687" LastActivityDate="2017-02-06T13:39:24.520" Title="What is life in Heaven going to be like?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-07-30T01:35:37.080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3785" CreationDate="2011-10-04T00:36:11.613" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can pick a few verses from here to show some Biblical backing on the stigmata: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/stigmata&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;What does the bible say about the stigmata?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 6:17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 4:13 ESV &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Wikipedia's article on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Stigmata&lt;/a&gt; you can read more on the origin, but St. Francis of Assisi was the first recorded example of someone have a stigmata, but, as is mentioned, Padre Pio (I believe he is now a saint) endured this for 50 years and it could be investigated by modern doctors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that there are some examples of non-Christian stigmata was interesting, but when someone is close to God and they are blessed with the stigmata, and it brings them closer, it appears to be from God.  But, as when someone does miracle healings, we have no idea if these are truly from God, we have to take it on faith, and look at the fruits from that tree (does that person bring Glory to God for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-08T21:41:46.897" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T21:41:46.897" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3801" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3802" CreationDate="2011-10-04T01:17:21.667" Score="9" ViewCount="4891" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A20-26&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 1:20–26&lt;/a&gt;, the Apostles are choosing the 12th Apostle who will replace Judas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Peter continued, “This was written in the book of Psalms, where it says, ‘Let his home become desolate, with no one living in it.’ It also says, ‘Let someone else take his position.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus—&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; Then they all prayed, “O Lord, you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.” &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven. [NLT]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does bible say anything about the choice of the new Apostle? What did Matthias have that Judas did not? Does the Bible explain this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-02-05T17:19:27.597" LastActivityDate="2019-05-22T15:22:43.863" Title="Reason for the choice of new 12th Apostle?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;matthias&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3801" CreationDate="2011-10-04T02:47:21.310" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know the answer will be extremely unsatisfying, but the answer is right there in the question.  Verses 24-26.  They didn't know which to pick, so they prayed and asked God to show them by directing the outcome of casting lots, then they trusted Him to do so.  There's really nothing more said, and really no reason to say more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, they threw up their hands and said &quot;We don't know who to choose, God.  We're just going to cast lots and trust you to pick the right man.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Casting lots, if you're not familiar with the term, is similar to drawing straws, or flipping a coin.  It's mentioned elsewhere in Scripture as well.  There's an article here about it:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-is-casting-lots.html&quot;&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-is-casting-lots.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T02:47:21.310" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3789" CreationDate="2011-10-04T03:07:43.683" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joy and Happiness can mean the same thing.  In the verses you linked to, joy is linked to spiritual happiness, not happiness here on earth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are most definitely not promised an easy life once we become a Christian.  Quite the opposite, we're promised trials and tribulation. (John 16:33, James 1:2-8)  Yet in Romans 8:18, Paul says (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy&#xA;  [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our joy comes in our expectation of what the next life will be like, when we will dwell with God in Glory, and in knowing that we are saved from eternal damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've never heard it, Ray Comfort has a teaching called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livingwaters.com/learn/hellsbestkeptsecret.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hell's Best Kept Secret&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  In it, he uses an illustration of two passengers being given a parachute on a plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The first is told to put it on because it would improve his flight. (Akin to telling people that becoming a Christian will bring you happiness here on earth.)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The second is told to put it on because any minute, he'd be jumping feet from the plane.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In it, the first one eventually takes it off because it does nothing to improve his flight.  It's uncomfortable, heavy, and the other passengers laugh at him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second one barely notices the weight of the parachute, or the uncomfortableness.  Instead, his mind is consumed with the thought of what would happen if he had to jump without it, and as a result he barely notices the other passengers mocking him, and he has a deep rooted sense of joy and peace, knowing that he's safe from sure death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I read of Joy in the new Testament, I think of that second passenger.  The joy comes from gratefulness to God for salvation, not a lack of trials or an &quot;easy&quot; live here and now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T13:31:15.337" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T13:31:15.337" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3746" CreationDate="2011-10-04T05:45:21.453" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on the translation, Lilith &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; appear in the Bible at Isaiah 34:14. In that verse, there's a word לִּילִית which is transliterated to lilit and translated to a variety of different things including Lilith, Lamia, and screech owl.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notably, the New American Bible—used prominently by us American Roman Catholics—translates Isaiah 34:14 as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wildcats shall meet with desert beasts, satyrs shall call to one another; There shall the &lt;strong&gt;lilith&lt;/strong&gt; repose, and find for herself a place to rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's understood by the context that lilith is some kind of demon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the myth of Lilith being Adam's first wife dates from the Medieval period, specifically a story within the second alphabet of of Jesus ben Sirach. Wikipedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_of_Ben_Sira#Lilith&quot;&gt;has the full textual mention&lt;/a&gt; of Lilith from the Alphabet, but it's not a Christian story: it's Jewish in origin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because it dates from the Medieval period, no mainstream Christian denomination teaches it as even remotely true or divinely inspired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T05:50:32.007" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T05:50:32.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3720" CreationDate="2011-10-04T06:23:02.920" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;removal&quot; of it is actually a reminder of Roman Catholic tradition. That is, uttering the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; has &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; been prohibited, mostly for the same reasons it's prohibited in Jewish traditions. The usage of it has crept into recent usage unintentionally in attempts to be more modern with translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To combat this (and other translation issues), the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Liturgiam Authenticam&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; in 2001, which provided guidance on how to translate the Bible based on Church teaching, and provided instructions specifically about the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[I]n accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2008, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/upload/name-of-god.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a letter was sent to all the Bishops' conferences&lt;/a&gt; (PDF) intended to remind them of this instruction. This letter again provided reasons why the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; ought not be uttered and reiterated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Avoiding pronouncing the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; of the name of God on the part of the Church has therefore its own grounds. Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The letter then specified three directives which serve to remind the conferences about the prohibition on the use of the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; in prayers, songs, and Biblical translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible were published in 1966 and 1985, respectively: as mentioned above, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Bible#Yahweh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia suggests&lt;/a&gt; the use of Yahweh in them was an attempt to modernize the translations. They are mostly unique in this respect: other translations like the New American Bible and the Douey-Rheims Bible translate it to &quot;God&quot; or &quot;Lord&quot; in accordance with Church teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the 2001 and 2008 instructions provided by the Holy See, any future editions based on the Jerusalem Bible should and likely would avoid the use of the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; in favor of &quot;Lord&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2015-07-04T09:25:28.090" LastActivityDate="2015-07-04T09:25:28.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3807" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3810" CreationDate="2011-10-04T10:44:18.913" Score="1" ViewCount="475" Body="&lt;p&gt;Okay, before asking this question I want to establish the audience that I am about to address: people who consider themselves Christians and don't associate themselves with Mormons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here is the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the main points of Mormon teaching that a majority of those who consider themselves Christians, and not associate themselves with Mormons, consider contradictory to the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please, refrain from mentioning here those points that did not originate from the Bible, but can't be either supported or disproved by the Bible - my question is not about that kind of points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T16:21:58.263" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T16:21:58.263" Title="What are the main points of Mormons' teaching that this group of people consider contradictory to the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-10-04T12:39:25.863" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3807" CreationDate="2011-10-04T11:47:13.960" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a simple chart answers this best, so you can look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://contenderministries.org/mormonism/comparison.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://contenderministries.org/mormonism/comparison.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple of Mormon beliefs and their reference. I believe D&amp;amp;C is &lt;em&gt;Doctrines and Covenant&lt;/em&gt;, not certain what book &lt;em&gt;Mormon Doctrine&lt;/em&gt; is, but this could give at least a small sample of teachings the run smack against what mainstream Christianity teaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God the Father has a wife, through whom he procreates spirit children.&#xA;&amp;quot;Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children&#xA;of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also&#xA;the offspring of an Eternal Mother.  An exalted and glorified Man of&#xA;Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like&#xA;glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother&amp;quot;&#xA;(Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed., p. 516)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man was also in the beginning with God.  Intelligence, or the light of&#xA;truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be&amp;quot;  (D&amp;amp;C 93:29)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;If there had been no atonement, temporal death would have remained&#xA;forever, and there never would have remained forever, and there never&#xA;would have been a resurrection.  The body would have remained forever&#xA;in the grave&amp;quot; (Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed., p.63)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Redemption from death, through the sufferings of Christ, is for all&#xA;men, both the righteous and the wicked&amp;quot; (Ibid., p. 65)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T11:47:13.960" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3789" CreationDate="2011-10-04T12:32:30.160" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Joy&quot; is not an ideal translation of the original Greek here because it doesn't quite cover the original meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better translation would be &quot;rejoice&quot; or &quot;rejoicefullness&quot; (if that were a word).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's take a look...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Greek&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word used in these passages is &lt;em&gt;chara&lt;/em&gt; (also transliterated &lt;em&gt;khara&lt;/em&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5479&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Vines Expository Dictionary of the New Testament&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, we see that this word means &quot;gladness&quot;.  While &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5479&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Strong's Concordance&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; shows that this word is often translated (in the KJV) as &quot;joy&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/NK20O.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if we look at the root word, we see word &lt;em&gt;chairō&lt;/em&gt; (or &lt;em&gt;khiro&lt;/em&gt;).  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5463&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Vines&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; has this word meaning &quot;rejoice, be glad&quot;.  Also, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5463&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong's Concordance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; shows that (in the KJV) the word is usually translated as &quot;rejoice&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;English&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The translation of this word as &quot;joy&quot; is not a poor choice, by any means.  However, the English definition falls short:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/joy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;joy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  1.&#xA;      a. Intense and especially ecstatic or exultant happiness.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      b. The expression or manifestation of such feeling.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2. A source or an object of pleasure or satisfaction: &lt;em&gt;their child was their pride and joy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This definition falls short of the original meaning of &lt;strong&gt;&quot;rejoice, be glad&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;.  A more accurate translation of this would be &quot;gladness&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/glad&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;glad&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;   1. a.  Experiencing or exhibiting joy and pleasure.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      b.  Appreciative&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see that there is definitely a component of happiness here, but there's also a sense of appreciation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we compare this to the Greek root &quot;rejoice&quot;, we can clearly see that a better translation would not be &quot;joy&quot; as in happiness, but &quot;joy&quot; as in appreciation, thanksgiving, and rejoicing (or more accurately, a combination of those words).  &quot;Rejoicefullness&quot;, if that were a word, would be the best translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also see this word being used here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:11-12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:11-12 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sub&gt;emphases added&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 &lt;strong&gt;Rejoice&lt;/strong&gt; and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verse 12 there, we see the word translated as &quot;Rejoice&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This very clearly shows that while we may not be &lt;em&gt;happy&lt;/em&gt;, we can still &lt;em&gt;rejoice&lt;/em&gt;.  The &quot;joy&quot; that God will give us is not entirely based on happiness, but it is based on rejoicing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original Greek word used here does not always mean that we will be happy.  Rather, it means that we will find appreciation and rejoicing.  &quot;Rejoicefullness&quot; would be a better, more accurate translation, if that were even a word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, it means that the fruit of the spirit will be a &lt;strong&gt;spirit of rejoicing&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T12:32:30.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3807" CreationDate="2011-10-04T12:38:39.397" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are hordes of essays and other resources on this subject available on the internet and elsewhere. The following comparison of beliefs, specifically about Jesus, comes from an organisation called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/mormon-objections-answered&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormonism: Jesus is created (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p.&#xA;192, 589).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bible / conventional Christianity: Jesus is not created (John&#xA;1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormonism: Jesus is the brother of the devil&#xA;(Mormon Doctrine by&#xA;Bruce McConkie, p. 192, 589).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bible / conventional Christianity: Jesus is not the brother of the devil.&#xA;The devil is a fallen created angel.&#xA;Jesus created all things (Col. 1:16-17).&#xA;Therefore, Jesus is not the brother of the devil.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormonism: Jesus is one of three gods&#xA;(Mormon Doctrine by&#xA;Bruce McConkie, p. 319).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bible/conventional Christianity: Jesus is prayed to&#xA;(Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Zech. 13:9).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormonism: Jesus did not pay for all sins&#xA;(Doctrines of Salvation by&#xA;Joseph F. Smith, vol. 1, p. 135).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bible/conventional Christianity: Jesus did pay for all sins&#xA;(1 John 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:24).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T12:44:23.133" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T12:44:23.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3811" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-04T12:48:37.457" Score="1" ViewCount="1938" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know some people, Christians, who study Eastern martial arts. They explain this by saying that they do not practice the spiritual aspects of karate or kung-fu; but they use only the physical component of martial arts (i.e., they study it as gymnastics). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spiritual component of Eastern martial arts can be substituted with prayer to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="822" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T12:58:37.677" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T17:29:03.077" Title="Are Christians allowed to practice Eastern martial arts?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-04-18T16:12:58.313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3815" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-04T14:21:40.567" Score="11" ViewCount="559" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;strong&gt;omnibenevolance&lt;/strong&gt; is not used in my quarter of Protestantism, and after reading the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; it is entirely unclear to me what the term means and how it relates to the God of Christianity. I quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word &quot;omnibenevolence&quot; may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how &quot;good&quot; is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an &quot;omnibenevolent&quot; being would behave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After stating that the term is basically meaningless, it goes on to note that the attribute is considered by some to be a &quot;&lt;em&gt;an essential foundation in traditional Christianity&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, then calls out a specific group as depending on this attribute for their other ideas about God's character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is two-fold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First, is this claim about it being a primary-attribute true or those quotes a poor representation of 'traditional' Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, how is this attribute defined in light of the common usage of the word being so ambiguous?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers may be specific to the Wesleyan tradition or delineated as belonging to any other tradition that holds this as an important attribute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:56:23.183" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:56:23.183" Title="How do Wesleyan theologians define omnibenevolence?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;omnibenevolence&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3816" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-04T14:23:03.683" Score="7" ViewCount="408" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be instances when God tolerates sin, since it is an improvement over the cultural conditions of the time. For instance, the laws regarding the treatment of slaves some have argued were encouraging people to treat slaves as human, and thereby eventually leading to the world we have today, in large part, which sees slavery as a great moral crime. Or requiring a rapist to marry the woman he raped is progressive. The argument goes that during this time in history, if a woman was raped she was essentially soiled for life; no one would want to marry her afterwards. This law is essentially forcing the rapist to take responsibility for his crime, and see that the woman is taken care of (materially at least, or in some sense, though it is hard to imagine today).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other times where God is incapable of tolerating sin, there are examples of the death penalty being used in punishment of transgression of the Sabbath, keeping spoils of war, striking your parents, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How then can God be seen as a consistent moral law giver given these seeming contradictions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;For context, this is a question that I hear a lot from atheists as to why it is not rational to believe Christianity (or Judaism) in a particular. It is one I have a hard time answering. I am wondering what the Christian reply is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T16:26:20.350" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T03:56:35.530" Title="Can the God of the Old Testament be seen as a consistent moral law giver?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3817" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3821" CreationDate="2011-10-04T14:30:40.927" Score="10" ViewCount="26407" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:19-20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:19-20&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does Jesus mean? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a surface understanding, it &lt;em&gt;sounds like&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;any prayer request&lt;/strong&gt; will be granted if two people agree? However, I know from experience that is not the case - Bob and Sue agree that a new car would be a good thing, but they do not get one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should this directive be applied?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-17T00:52:05.410" LastActivityDate="2015-09-17T00:52:05.410" Title="What is the meaning of &quot;anything&quot; in Matthew 18:19-20?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-09-21T17:23:56.260" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3585" CreationDate="2011-10-04T14:37:44.487" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a general sense, &lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. Christians believe that the Bible is Holy and is the revealed Word of God. Beyond that, the specifics vary, sometimes widely, between denominations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe the Bible is literal truth, and that every verse is accurately and precisely true.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Others believe the Bible contains truth, but also contains mystery and allegory, and must be prayed upon and interpreted.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe that each of us must read and interpret the Bible ourselves.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe that Biblical interpretation should primarily be done by those educated and immersed in the faith.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are differences among denominations about which books are included in the Bible, and about which translations are authoritative.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe that the Bible is the final authority for knowing God, whereas others believe that the Bible informs but is not the only authority.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the mainstream Protestant (Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian) denominations hold a similar view. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3585/must-a-christian-accept-the-bible-to-be-infallible-and-or-inerrant/3617#3617&quot;&gt;Blundin's answer&lt;/a&gt; summarized beliefs of most Evangelical Christian demoninations. I am not sure about the Baptists and others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a Roman Catholic. We believe that the Bible was given to us by God to help us know him, that it must be interpreted as a whole rather than by individual verse or story, and that it is part but not all of the revealed truth. We also believe in the teaching authority of the Church known as the Magisterium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="448" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T14:59:33.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3819" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3824" CreationDate="2011-10-04T14:55:46.310" Score="8" ViewCount="23819" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 17, Jesus prays and says of his disciples,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but &lt;strong&gt;the son of perdition&lt;/strong&gt;, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was the New American Standard Bible. The phrase there is a literal translation from the Greek, &quot;ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας&quot;; &quot;the son of X&quot; is an idiom for &quot;one who personifies the nature of X&quot;, and &quot;ἀπωλείας&quot; (Strong 684) can mean &quot;perdition&quot;, &quot;loss&quot;, &quot;destruction&quot;, &quot;ruin&quot;, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Translations differ in how they render this reference to Judas (though they often have a footnote saying that &quot;son of perdition&quot; is the word-for-word equivalent). Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the son of perdition&lt;/strong&gt;: King James and many of its derivatives; also Douay-Rheims, from the Vulgate's &lt;em&gt;filius perditionis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the son of destruction&lt;/strong&gt;: English Standard Version, World English Bible, New American Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the one doomed to destruction&lt;/strong&gt;: New International Version&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the one destined to be lost&lt;/strong&gt;: New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the man who was bound to be lost&lt;/strong&gt;: Good News Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the one who chose to be lost&lt;/strong&gt;: Jerusalem Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the one who was already lost&lt;/strong&gt;: Christian Community Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that there are differences in how much agency is assigned to Judas here. If he is &quot;doomed to destruction&quot; or &quot;destined to be lost&quot; then he is being painted as a victim of fate. If he is &quot;the one who chose to be lost&quot; or &quot;the son of perdition/destruction&quot;, then he could be a more active participant in his own downfall. The &quot;son of perdition/destruction&quot; seems like an obvious translation, but it's not clear to me whether (in Greek or English) it should connote that he is a destroyer, or the one who is destroyed, or both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do these English translations faithfully express the meaning of &quot;son of perdition&quot; in Greek? Related to that, is there any real doctrinal difference between the phrases above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2014-01-27T02:03:55.203" Title="What is a faithful translation for &quot;the son of perdition&quot; in John 17:12?" Tags="&lt;translation&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3817" CreationDate="2011-10-04T14:57:05.453" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It helps to have the context of the previous verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes it clear that he's talking to the Apostles here (see Matthew 16:19) and not to the disciples in general.  It's because of the authority to bind in heaven what they bind on earth and loose in heaven what they loose on earth that they can make requests of God and have them granted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T14:57:05.453" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3817" CreationDate="2011-10-04T15:05:44.210" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another verse that supports this concept:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 11:24 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why doesn't this work?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's look at things a bit more in context (of Mark):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011:22-24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 11:22-24 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  22 And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. 24 Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very clear that God will answer any prayer you have.  However, if you don't have faith, your prayers won't be answered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Furthermore&lt;/strong&gt;, we should pray continuously for something we want!  We see this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:1-8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the parable of the widow and the unjust judge&lt;/a&gt;.  The widow constantly bothers the judge and he finally relents even though he is neither godly nor just.  He basically says &quot;Fine, you can have it, go away.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Finally&lt;/strong&gt;, we need to make sure that we're asking for the right motives.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%204:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 4:1-3&lt;/a&gt; shows that if we're asking for things for our own &lt;em&gt;earthly pleasure&lt;/em&gt;, then that's the wrong motive.  Like Jesus, we should try to keep &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:42&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;God's will in mind when we pray&lt;/a&gt; for something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;why doesn't it always work to pray for something&lt;/strong&gt;?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here seem to be the biblical criteria:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You must have more than one person agreeing on the need&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You must believe that it will be granted&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You must pray continually about it and make your prayers constant until it is granted&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You must ask with the right motives &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, you will be able to move mountains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A word study&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't really necessary for the answer (once I re-read the question), but I'd already written it up, so I'll include it here:&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;This gets a bit more interesting in the Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/yYxo8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Matthew 18:19 in Greek Interlinear&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again, [I-am-saying] [to-you] that [if-ever] two [of you] [should-be-agreeing] on the earth concerning [any/every] [practice/matter] which [if-ever] [theys-shoud-be-requesting] [it-shall-be-becoming] [to-them] beside the father [of-me] [the-one] in heavens&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The translation in question &quot;anything&quot; actually comes from two words:  &lt;em&gt;pantos&lt;/em&gt; [any/every] and &lt;em&gt;pragmatos&lt;/em&gt; [practice/matter].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;pantos&lt;/em&gt; is pretty self-explanatory, if you simply accept that it means &quot;each thing, all, or every&quot;.  The word &lt;em&gt;pragmatos&lt;/em&gt; is a bit more interesting, though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vines lexicon shows:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the root &lt;em&gt;pragma&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4229&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Strong / Vines entry)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  1. that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2. what is done or being accomplished&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      a. spec. business, a commercial transaction&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  3. a matter, question, affair  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in essence, the verse is saying that if ever two of you agree on the earth about &lt;em&gt;any practice&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;every deed&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;any question&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;that they are requesting&lt;/strong&gt;, it will be given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Word definition summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, if two or more people agree to ask for any deed to be done or any question to be answered, God will do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T15:59:26.597" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T15:59:26.597" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3817" CreationDate="2011-10-04T15:06:28.937" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difficulty is when you take a couple of quotes out of context and try to make sense of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I am using verses from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18 NIV&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their&#xA;  fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have&#xA;  won them over. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; But if they will not listen, take one or two others&#xA;  along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of&#xA;  two or three witnesses.’ &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; If they still refuse to listen, tell it&#xA;  to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat&#xA;  them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.    &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; “Truly I tell you,&#xA;  whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever&#xA;  you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about&#xA;  anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in&#xA;  heaven. &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with&#xA;  them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this is about someone that has sinned, so, in verse 16 you take 1 or 2 people with you.  These are the two or three discussed in verse 19 and 20, so it is people from within the church, but not the church, nor even leaders in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is dealing with the church discipline, and if these people are in agreement then God is with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T16:55:44.357" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T16:55:44.357" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3819" CreationDate="2011-10-04T15:15:42.507" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main doctrinal difference between the various interpretations is the one already mentioned: the question of free will.  I think some perspective on the matter can be found in Luke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2017:1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 17:1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(See also Matthew 18: 7.)  This is a warning: even though it's inevitable that &quot;offenses&quot; will happen, do not be the offender!  It was necessary that one of the Apostles would become a Son of Perdition and betray Jesus, and it's likely that the Pharisees would have accepted (and even tried to solicit) help from several of the members of their hated rival's inner circle, but Judas was the one who accepted the job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that, it looks like the closest translation into plain English is the one given by the Jerusalem Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T15:15:42.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3819" CreationDate="2011-10-04T15:21:41.123" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/m5v2c.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek words used here are &lt;em&gt;huois tes apoleias&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;houis&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;The Strongs number for this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5207&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;G5207&lt;/a&gt;.  Looking at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5207&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Vines entry&lt;/a&gt;, this definitely means &amp;quot;son&amp;quot;.  This can mean both &amp;quot;male offspring&amp;quot; or, more generically, &amp;quot;descendant&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;tes&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3588&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong G3588&lt;/a&gt;.  This word means &amp;quot;of the&amp;quot;.  It's just a very simple word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;apoleias&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G684&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong G684&lt;/a&gt;.  This means &amp;quot;destruction&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;perishing&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;ruin&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Translation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The literal translation of this phrase would be &amp;quot;son of destruction&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;son of ruin&amp;quot;.  The choice of using the word &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perdition&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;perdition&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; is acceptable in the old form of the word (&amp;quot;utter destruction&amp;quot;), however it has taken on the connotation of &amp;quot;eternal damnation&amp;quot; and so it's no longer an appropriate translation, in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In Context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at what Jesus is saying here, he's saying that he saved and protected all of his disciples except for Judas.  He refers to Judas as the &amp;quot;son of perdition&amp;quot; saying that he was the only one who he did not protect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at this in light of Luke, we find this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22:3 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, we see that Satan entered Judas.  After that point (in John 17), Jesus calls Judas the &amp;quot;son of destruction&amp;quot;.  What he's referring to here is clearly that Judas was of Satan and not of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Was Judas innocent?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with looking at things too closely is that we often lose sight of the bigger picture.  The question being asked was, essentially, was Judas a product of circunstances or did he play an active role in betraying Jesus.  If we read further in Luke we see this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:4-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22:4-6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Emphasis added&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard &lt;strong&gt;and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 &lt;strong&gt;He consented&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;watched for an opportunity&lt;/strong&gt; to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, there was plotting involved, a conscious effort to betray Jesus, and a choice that Judas made.  While, yes, he was a &amp;quot;son of destruction&amp;quot; this was due to his actions and his choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was protecting the twelve apostles, except for Judas.  &lt;strong&gt;But what was he protecting them from?&lt;/strong&gt;  He was protecting them from &lt;strong&gt;Satan&lt;/strong&gt;!  Once he stopped protecting Judas, the temptations and desires of Satan entered into him and he was overtaken by the overwhelming temptations, to which he succumbed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus allowed Judas to be tempted--he withdrew his protection from Judas so that Satan could enter into his heart--and Judas chose to turn away from God and from Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was protecting the apostles from being tempted by Satan.  With Judas, he withdrew that protection so that Satan could enter into his heart and tempt him.  With that temptation, Judas was allowed to choose to betray Jesus--which he did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judas intentionally plotted against Jesus and consented to the betrayal.  Therefore was fully guilty of the betrayal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T15:36:14.230" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3825" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3826" CreationDate="2011-10-04T15:33:33.483" Score="6" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;The news recently had a case of a pastor and two deacons who beat up the pastor's nephew and the nephew's boyfriend on church property in order to prevent the homosexual couple from entering. This pastor may or may not preach love (we're not told) but his actions demonstrate that hatred is what is in his heart. According &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3817/what-is-the-meaning-of-anything-in-matthew-1819-20/3822#3822&quot;&gt;my understanding of&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2018:16-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:16-20&lt;/a&gt;,  church members should now approach this minister, and the deacons, and probably ask them to leave. If the church doesn't do that, then it would imply the members agree with this pastor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides the several NT verses from Jesus about loving others, here is one from the same OT book often quoted to attack homosexuality:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:18&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 19:18&lt;/a&gt;: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would appear that this pastor may be case study for this principle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:15&lt;/a&gt;: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that churches like this are damaging the body of Christ, as this minister will attract people that want to feel righteous about hatred toward others. Like a poison, it continues to spread to the world-wide church. Unfortunately this is not an isolated phenomena, but in many countries we can find examples where ministers are preaching and practicing such hatred, and so the members act on this, in the name of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Given the damaging/contrary witness this provides for the Gospel of love we claim to represent and...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Given the no-action tacit approval this church has shown towards the actions of it's leaders and...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Since we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and thus one Church under God...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should all the members of this church be treated as we would treat tax collectors or lepers (ostracized)? &lt;strong&gt;Can/should church discipline be extended to an entire church by the larger body of Christ?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T21:32:56.583" Title="How should other churches respond to a  pastor and congregation who live contrary to the Gospel?" Tags="&lt;hate&gt;&lt;church-discipline&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3825" CreationDate="2011-10-04T15:43:35.987" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the words of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if they won't listen to your reproach, just treat them like any other pagan: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, &lt;strong&gt;pray for them and love them like you love everyone else&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-48&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:43-48 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T15:43:35.987" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1155" CreationDate="2011-10-04T16:15:18.760" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;Rosary&quot; refers to a set of prayer beads in a particular configuration, and also to the structured set of prayers which is guided by the beads. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual, physical Rosary is a string of beads or knots constructed so as to guide the holder through praying the Rosary prayer. The loop part has 5 sections, separated by larger beads, each containing 10 small beads. Hanging from the loop is a string of 5 beads and a cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the person prays, they start at the Cross and move through the beads up and around the loop. At each bead the appropriate prayer is said. One (of many) online guides to praying the Rosary is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. When moving around the loop, each of the small beads represents a Hail Mary, and the large beads represent a meditation on a particular &quot;mystery&quot; in the life of Jesus or Mary.  There are 4 sets of &quot;Mysteries&quot;. Some will also use the Rosary structure to pray for other things .. for instance one might pray for one's family on the meditation bead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics give special significance to the Rosary prayer, for many reasons, including our devotion to Mary. We say it alone, and we say it in groups. Praying a Rosary for the dead is part of our funeral tradition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also place strong importance to our actual Rosary beads, which are often among our most prized possessions. I was given a Rosary when I was initiated into the Knights of Columbus. My wife has a Rosary made in the Holy Land that was blessed by the Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think there is anything inappropriate about a non-Catholic having a Rosary or praying the Rosary. If I am wrong I presume I will be corrected!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="448" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T16:15:18.760" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1927" CreationDate="2011-10-04T16:29:08.180" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antinomian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Antinomian&lt;/a&gt; would be pretty close, I would think.   Basically, it's the belief that since grace is applied in spite of a person's obedience, then the person is no longer obliged to be obedient.  (Paul alludes to this attitude in Romans 6:15 as it does seem a logical conclusion of the Gospel, but he quickly dismisses it as a viable appreach with an unequivocal &quot;By no means!&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T16:29:08.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3829" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5821" CreationDate="2011-10-04T17:15:50.173" Score="8" ViewCount="1337" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have any of the old heresies (i.e. Manichean, Arian, Nestorian, Iconoclasm) been resurrected and repackaged by main-line denominations&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-or-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do Protestants, in general, still accept the pre-reformation doctrine which was formulated specifically to denounce such heresies? (i.e. Hypostatic union, Consubstantiation)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...I'm pretty sure that heresies and doctrine I mentioned are widely denounced and accepted respectively among Protestants, so I'm not asking about those in particular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-10-04T18:04:39.240" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T14:25:13.940" Title="How do Protestants deal with pre-Reformation heresies?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3811" CreationDate="2011-10-04T17:29:03.077" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, yes, it is allowed.  However, I want to point out this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse comes right before a passage talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols.  In general, this is allowed for us.  However we have to be careful to make sure that what we are doing does not take us away from God, but brings us closer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we follow God and do everything for his Glory, we're doing things the right way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're feeling like God is calling you to not participate in any activity, you should avoid that activity in order to glorify God.  Otherwise, feel free to participate in that activity so long as you do it for God's glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T17:29:03.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3825" CreationDate="2011-10-04T17:37:32.783" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 19:18: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would appear that this pastor may be an example of this quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 7:15: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should always be Jesus like in our actions towards sinners. It makes it difficult if the person is a pastor but studying theology or working at a church does not make one a good Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church should allow a minister to do such things. It is very Un-Christian and sends a very bad message to unbelievers and skeptics alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are after all wanting a higher moral standard from ministers than is the norm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T17:49:38.730" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3829" CreationDate="2011-10-04T17:40:46.033" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes there are a few, at least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/heresies&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this list of heresies&lt;/a&gt;.  However, it seems that some aren't &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; old.  Tritheism, for example seems to have originated in the 10th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the Reformation, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Arianism_resurfaces_after_the_Reformation.2C_16th_century&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Arianism&lt;/a&gt; began popping back up.  Jehovah's Witnesses even practice a form of it.  (Although the disagree with Arius' views in many respects, they follow the idea that Jesus was a created being.)  Also, the Church of God (7th Day) believes in Arianism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism#Epithet&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Donatism&lt;/a&gt; also seems to have somewhat of a resurgance with Anabaptists or Confessional Lutherans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis#Protestantism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Kenosis&lt;/a&gt; may be accepted by some (no idea which denominations, though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism#Theosophy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Theosophy&lt;/a&gt; was preached as recently as the early 20th century.  It should be noted that it was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._W._Leadbeater&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic bishop&lt;/a&gt; (for the Liberal Catholic Church) who preached this doctrine though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also been argued that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism#Mormonism_.28The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints.29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pelagianism&lt;/a&gt; is being taught in the Mormon church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism#Current_Views&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Subordinationism&lt;/a&gt; is alive and well in many denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritheism#Historical_uses_of_the_term_in_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tritheism&lt;/a&gt; seems to be present in the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Edit to modify for the moving target.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Regarding how a given &amp;quot;denomination&amp;quot; deals with heresies&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, each heresy is a big topic on its own.  Arguing &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; Tritheism, for example, (or Arianism, or Subordinationism, etc.) would lead to huge answer and a debate topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it is, some people believe in some of these heresies, some do not.  Debating each side of each heresy would be beyond the scope of a single answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T18:18:13.160" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3834" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-04T19:55:18.723" Score="18" ViewCount="626" Body="&lt;p&gt;The assertion that all of humanity &quot;sinned&quot; when Adam sinned, or &quot;through Adam&quot; is often made as a foundation to other Christian doctrines. &lt;strong&gt;What specific doctrine points to Adam being a representative of all of humanity?&lt;/strong&gt; According to those who hold this doctrine, &lt;strong&gt;by what mechanism can Adam be considered &lt;em&gt;my representative&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/strong&gt; I never voted for him nor was offered a choice to participate in his blood line. How is it logical that the choices he made should be held against me and the rest of humanity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, are my other blood ancestors such as my father and grandfather also my representatives in the same sense? If not how is their role different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tag &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/original-sin&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'original-sin'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;original-sin&lt;/a&gt; has some interesting related questions, but nothing dealing just with the mechanism by which Adam is considered a &quot;representative&quot;, a common phrase used by Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-16T20:29:24.933" LastActivityDate="2012-03-03T06:59:40.173" Title="How is it that someone who lived thousands of years ago can &quot;represent&quot; me?" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;adam&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3834" CreationDate="2011-10-04T20:22:27.763" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I didn't get to vote or have any say in my forebears leaving their homelands and emigrating to the United States (or, The New World, as it was then known in Europe); nor did I have any say in whether or not to participate in their bloodline. Yet they represented me when they did it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we take the Bible to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;God's word&lt;/a&gt;, and we believe that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;God cannot lie&lt;/a&gt;, then we also have to believe that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26-31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Adam and Eve&lt;/a&gt; were the first people on earth, and that they had the &lt;em&gt;choice&lt;/em&gt; to not sin - but of their own free will &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;chose to disobey&lt;/a&gt; God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not &quot;Christianity&quot; which says we are sinners because of Adam's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;sin&lt;/a&gt;, it is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Bible&lt;/a&gt; that says such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-10-04T20:22:27.763" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3834" CreationDate="2011-10-04T20:23:51.773" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul outlines this a bit in Romans 5 in constrasting the role of Adam as representative vs. Christ as representative (emphasis mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:12-21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and&#xA;  death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—&#xA;  13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is&#xA;  not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to&#xA;  Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died&#xA;  through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the&#xA;  free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.&#xA;  16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For&#xA;  the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free&#xA;  gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if,&#xA;  because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man,&#xA;  much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free&#xA;  gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one&#xA;  act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.&#xA;  19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so&#xA;  by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.&lt;/em&gt; 20Now&#xA;  the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased,&#xA;  grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace&#xA;  also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through&#xA;  Jesus Christ our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as fairness goes, the short answer, I think, is that it's just as fair counting (presumably, sinless?) men as sinners under the representation of Adam as is it counting (presumably, sinful) men righteous under the represenation of Christ :)   For a long answer, I think there's a bit of a clever twist in there, in that Adam's representation seems to be the very embodiment of the attitude that God's design is not just or fair and the presumption that man knows of a better way...IOW, the irony is that even if we weren't represented collectively by Adam; the representation he represents actually seems pretty fair and accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;even&lt;/em&gt; longer answer is related to covenental therology which includes the notion of &quot;federal headship&quot; (FH). I think an important key to the idea of FH is a distinction between an intrinsic &quot;is&quot; and a forensic (or legal) one. The FH view is that humanity is forensically linked to Adam (note that the curse in Genesis was applied to all of creation; not just him), &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;** As a bit of an aside, doctrine of &quot;original sin&quot; deals more with intrinsic inheritence whereas &quot;federal headship&quot; deals more with forensic inheritence....it's a somewhat subtle difference, and many folks hold to both, but it's not logically necessary to hold to (or reject) them in tandem.&#xA;**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Convental theologians would argue that the theme of covenent and federal headship permeates the entire narrative of Scripture: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, priests, kings (esp. David), Christ...and maybe even more generally husbands/fathers...all of these were, in some ways identified as particular representative &quot;heads&quot; of a larger community.   As the head of the community rose/fell, so, too, did the community itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the clearest example for Christians is probably found in an analysis of the double imputation of Christ--our (intrinsic) sins were imputed (forensically) to him, and his (intrinsic) obedience is imputed (forensically) to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ was intrinsically righteous (he was perfectly obedient), and through his headship, his people are declared (forensically) righteous. Even though we're not obedient by our own right, we are &lt;em&gt;deemed&lt;/em&gt; as such by virtue of being found &quot;in Christ.&quot; It's important to note that our justification is not found in our personal obedience or works (lest any man should boast); the mechanism for this is the federal headship of Christ--i.e. he's our representative; we are his people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, our sins are still atoned through that same mechanism, but in reverse; Christ is not intrinsically sinful (&quot;He who knew no sin...&quot;), but by being our representative, he is forensically cursed through the sins of his people (&quot;...became sin&quot;). In a very real sense the sins of the redeemed have carried with them the penalty of death in the same way the sins of the condemened have...it's just that Jesus--as head of the redeemed/as our represenative-- paid the price of his people. We are his sinful people; he's our represenative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam, as a type of Christ played a similar role. As first man, he was a representative who specifically and instrinsically broke the original commandment. Through his disobedience, we're all (forensically) condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A modern day parallel would be something like a diplomat/ambassador and/or national leader, who, though he is an individual, speaks on behalf of his nation. The corporate nation is bound to the promises and treaties that its leaders make even if, as individuals, we would never make some of those promises to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/covenant_illustrated.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; link which explains this &quot;federal headship&quot; in relation to covenant theology.   It's an interesting read, and summarizes thusly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Importance of Covenant&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Covenant is the fabric of the whole Bible. Once this fundamental&#xA;  schema of covenant in the Scriptures comes clear, all the patterns of&#xA;  God's relations with the sons and daughters of Adam unfolds into a&#xA;  rich tapestry unifying the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have seen that Adam in Romans 5:12-21 was the federal&#xA;  representative of his race under the covenant of works. Some&#xA;  theologians reject this understanding of Paul's teaching outright,&#xA;  because it &quot;violates all sense of justice.&quot;20 But if we are to use our&#xA;  &quot;sense of justice&quot; as an ultimate criterion for judging the truths of&#xA;  Scripture, then shouldn't we deny all covenant imputation as well? If&#xA;  sin cannot be imputed from one to many, conversely it cannot be&#xA;  imputed from many to one. Under this method, how can we maintain that&#xA;  &quot;He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree&quot; &quot;the righteous for&#xA;  the unrighteous&quot; (1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; cf. Isa. 53)? Shouldn't this&#xA;  violate our sense of justice, too? And if our sins were not imputed to&#xA;  Christ, neither can his righteousness become ours (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:30;&#xA;  2 Cor. 5:21). Then we would all be cut off from Christ and personally&#xA;  obligated (as was Adam), to keep all of God's holy law ourselves (Gal.&#xA;  5:2-3 again).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In contrast to this grim prospect, Covenant theology offers a&#xA;  fresh restatement of classic Protestant insights into the essential&#xA;  truths of justification as the imputed righteousness of Christ by&#xA;  grace alone and received by faith alone. What makes imputation work is&#xA;  covenant, for covenant is the forensic instrument by which God&#xA;  faithfully extends his blessings to the heirs of the covenant of&#xA;  grace. The curse on Adam was not the last word on covenant in the&#xA;  Bible. This is what excites Paul in Romans 5:12-21 and what excites&#xA;  covenant theologians as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus&#xA;  Christ, overflow to the many (v. 15) ... the gift followed many&#xA;  trespasses and brought justification (v. 16) ... those who receive&#xA;  God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness&#xA;  reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ (v. 17) ... the result&#xA;  of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all&#xA;  men (v. 18) ... through the obedience of the one man the many will be&#xA;  made righteous (v. 19) ... grace might reign through righteousness to&#xA;  bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (v. 21; NIV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="701" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T16:41:39.120" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T16:41:39.120" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3837" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3842" CreationDate="2011-10-04T23:41:58.873" Score="13" ViewCount="2399" Body="&lt;p&gt;God can grant an amazing peace of mind to a person. Many Christians have been totally calm and prayed for their persecutors while being tortured and killed -- like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Stephen&lt;/a&gt;, the first martyr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But do all Christians (I mean those who are saved) have the same kind of peace, or any kind of peace at all? I'd thought a Christian can be completely desperate and hopeless, even to the point of committing suicide. I came across &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1187/does-suicide-exclude-someone-from-going-to-heaven/1199#1199&quot;&gt;an answer&lt;/a&gt; with another point of view, which made me question first the answer, then my own views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about this, and what do churches teach?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Can a Christian be desperate and hopeless?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;What about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;clinically depressed&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-04-21T18:13:05.170" Title="Can a Christian have clinical depression?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3837" CreationDate="2011-10-05T01:20:26.590" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, Christians can be clinically depressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who are mentally ill can be saved, I know of someone who is a severe schizophrenic, and has delusions that are contradictory to the Bible (such as he believes he is or soon will be king of the world), but at the same time, he believes in God as his personal Lord and Savior... God knows and understands, He looks at the heart...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can a Christian be desperate and hopeless?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.  Following Christ is a spiritual &lt;strong&gt;journey&lt;/strong&gt;, so we have ups and downs, times of &quot;drought&quot; and times of &quot;blessing&quot;, where things are going well and not so well... In our spiritual lives, we grow and learn, that's the very nature of a spiritual journey...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="100" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T01:20:26.590" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3840" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-05T02:02:01.847" Score="8" ViewCount="1440" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering if there is any historical information or biblical references that describe the ability to write and record information around the time of Jesus and his disciples.  I.e. to what extent were they able to record what happened at that time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="825" LastEditorUserId="23657" LastEditDate="2018-04-16T17:46:54.957" LastActivityDate="2018-04-16T17:46:54.957" Title="What biblical basis is there for written records being kept around Jesus's time" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-04-20T20:03:01.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3840" CreationDate="2011-10-05T02:57:20.693" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first thing that comes to mind is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls&quot;&gt;Dead Sea Scrolls&lt;/a&gt;, which were hidden away before the end of the first century AD.  The basic technology for writing was definitely present, as the scrolls were written on parchment and papyrus, with two different kinds of ink.  Inkwells have been found among the ruins of the Qumran settlement that the Dead Sea Scrolls are connected with.  So there's really no question that the notion of writing on paper-like materials with ink and some pen-like implement was familiar to the Jews of Jesus's day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T02:57:20.693" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3837" CreationDate="2011-10-05T03:14:46.403" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has anyone thought about Job?&#xA;Anyway...Paul wrote to Corinthians; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%201:8-11&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 1:8-11 (NKJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;  For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were &lt;strong&gt;burdened beyond measure, above strength&lt;/strong&gt;, so that &lt;strong&gt;we despaired even of life&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;  Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;  who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver &lt;i&gt;us,&lt;/i&gt; &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;  you also helping together in prayer for us, that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the gift &lt;i&gt;granted&lt;/i&gt; to us through many.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly Paul was expressing a sense of depression when he wrote that he was &quot;burdened beyond measure&quot; and &quot;above strength&quot;. So it would seem that, yes, Christians can be depressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We won't know why many of us are burdened to the limits of our endurance until God chooses to enlighten us. There is one scripture, however, that has helped me during dark times. Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:22;&#xA;...&quot;&lt;strong&gt;But he who endures to the end will be saved.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-10-05T07:00:44.587" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T07:00:44.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3816" CreationDate="2011-10-05T03:31:00.283" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't have answered this had you not added the context.  However, with the context added....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like what you're looking for is an answer that will sound reasonable to an atheist that's asking this question.  As a former atheist and anti-theist, who thought that the Christian God was not only made-up, but that the (Please forgive me, Lord) &quot;God that these Christians made up&quot; was cruel, evil, and unjust, I'm sorry to say that there is no argument that can be given to someone with this mindset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some things that God has commanded that are very hard to understand without the proper understanding of God's nature.  Understanding God's nature, and his view of sin is necessary to answer questions, such as &quot;How could a moral God command the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the various lands they took in Deuteronomy?&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer these questions alone sound hollow.  The answers are completely unsatisfying to an atheist that doesn't even believe that God exists, much less is wiser than us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For  samples question and Christian answer, see this link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html&quot;&gt;http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first question and answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why were the cities destroyed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of&#xA;  the destroyed cities had long histories of grievous sins (Gen 15:16,&#xA;  Dt 25:17-19), which often included sacrificing their children to false&#xA;  gods (Dt 12:29-31). Their consciences should have told these people&#xA;  they were doing wrong. Had they listened and changed their ways, they&#xA;  would not have been destroyed. God has said that if any nation is&#xA;  about to be destroyed as punishment but repents, he will forgive them&#xA;  and not destroy them (Jer 18:7-8). In fact, this occurred in the city&#xA;  of Ninevah (Jonah 3:4-10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the cities that were given to the Israelites as their inheritance,&#xA;  there was a secondary reason: totally depraved cultures were destroyed&#xA;  so that they would not corrupt the Israelites into committing the same&#xA;  evil acts (Dt 7:1-4, 20:16-18). This did in fact occur: when the&#xA;  Israelites didn't obey God and destroy cities, they too began&#xA;  practicing child sacrifice (Ps 106:34-40).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Additionally, the destruction of wicked nations served as an&#xA;  instructive warning to contemporaries (Josh 2:1-11) and future&#xA;  generations (1 Cor 10:1-11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above answer is completely unsatisfying to an atheist, who believes that the God of the Bible is made up.  In order for the explanation to sound reasonable, we ahve to first accept that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God exists&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He is the God described in the Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He knows better than us&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He is righteous and incapable of doing wrong, therefore his actions were righteous.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An atheist, particularly, and anti-theist believes none of that.  Pretty much every answer to the questions about God's apparent &quot;immorality&quot; are based on an initial assumption.  That God exists and is good.   That becomes  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning&quot;&gt;circular reasoning&lt;/a&gt;, and an atheist can recognize it.  To satisfy an atheist, you would have to first convince them that God exists and that He is the God of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, when confronted with this type of question while witnessing, I answer honestly and say, &quot;If you can accept that God &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; exist, I can answer this question, and it probably won't satisfy you.  If you believe firmly that He doesn't exist, then nothing I can say will answer this for you...&quot;  and move on to something else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-05T04:02:07.297" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T04:02:07.297" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3845" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-05T04:08:29.130" Score="-4" ViewCount="474" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the gospels were written several hundred years A.D.  Given the way people pass around information even within one lifetime, and the apparent ability to record information during the time of Jesus, what historical evidence is there of miracles being done, outside the gospels and perhaps Paul's writings (if he wasn't a first hand witness, or  if those writings were recorded later)?  (If the previous statements aren't correct/accurate, please comment.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I.e. what was written and recorded during the time of Jesus, that described the miracles that Jesus performed.  Making eyeballs, limbs, walking on water -- all the &quot;beyond-physics&quot; kind of stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="825" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T10:53:27.673" Title="Take away the gospels, and how do we know that Jesus did what he was recorded to have done in terms of miracles?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3846" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3847" CreationDate="2011-10-05T04:17:48.753" Score="6" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;If any of you have more than one &amp;lt;some-thing&amp;gt; give that to another&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure there's a Bible verse that reads something like this, I'm not sure what the &amp;lt;some-thing&amp;gt; is there, I keep thinking that Jesus said this, but I'm not entirely sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can somebody help me out on what the verse is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-01-02T20:03:23.743" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T20:03:23.743" Title="Looking for the Bible Verse: &quot;If any of you have more than one &lt;some-thing&gt; give that to another&quot;" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-02T20:06:56.900" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3846" CreationDate="2011-10-05T04:35:01.827" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds like you're thinking of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%203:11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 3: 11&lt;/a&gt; to me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is part of John the Baptist's preaching to the people who came to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T04:35:01.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3852" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3856" CreationDate="2011-10-05T13:33:44.743" Score="12" ViewCount="1357" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible seems to indicate that Jesus died before the others that were being crucified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:31-33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 19:31-33 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that the guards were attempting to speed up the process of crucifixion to appease the Jewish leaders.  But then they found that Jesus was already dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus die &quot;prematurely&quot; (in the eyes of the Romans, that is)?  In other words, was his death shorter than the Romans intended it to be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T14:49:48.933" Title="Did Jesus die earlier than expected?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-10-18T14:13:41.780" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3853" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-05T13:39:41.930" Score="13" ViewCount="8826" Body="&lt;p&gt;I seem to remember that Jesus having already died and not needing his legs broken fulfilled an OT prophecy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where was this prophecy recorded and what did it say?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2015-03-23T02:55:12.993" Title="Did the Romans not breaking Jesus' legs fulfill a prophecy?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3853" CreationDate="2011-10-05T13:41:42.973" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you're absolutely right!  Jesus never broke any bones.  That's a fulfillment of the prophecy from Old Testament and it's written about in John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 19:36 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophecy that John refers to is found in Psalms 34:20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2034&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Psalms 34:19-20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  19 The righteous person may have many troubles,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    but the LORD delivers him from them all;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  20 he protects all his bones,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    not one of them will be broken.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also related to this is the regulations regarding the passover lamb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012:46&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 12:46 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those were the regulations for the lamb that was slain for the passover feast.  There are many passages that relate Jesus to the passover lamb.  This lack of broken bones is one of these connections.  (This regulation can also be seen in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num.%209:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Numbers 9:12&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-05T13:47:22.733" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T13:47:22.733" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3852" CreationDate="2011-10-05T13:44:33.647" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's an interesting question.  The typical death by crucifixion, as I recall, could last a few days, as death occurred as the individual's muscles gave out in exhaustion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jesus' case, He had already been flogged at the order of Pilate, seemingly to appease the crowds by that.  This was apparently uncommon for those who were to be crucified, since the stronger they were going into it, the more painful and prolonged their death would be.  Jesus starts out very weakened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it probably wasn't too much of a shock under those circumstances.  After all, flogging was one step down from a death sentence anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, the Scripture is very clear that Jesus laid down His own life.  &quot;No one took it from Him&quot;, but He laid it down of His own accord.  He had authority to lay it down and take it up again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T13:44:33.647" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3852" CreationDate="2011-10-05T13:48:17.847" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, he did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Romans were experts at this and knew exactly what it took to kill someone and what it took to make that process slow. Crucifixion was designed to drag the act of dying out over a long period of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you note in the John passage, Jesus died more quickly than they expected. The trial and execution had been rushed into an abnormal timeline already, the Sabbath was coming&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, there had been an earthquake&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and they had other things they needed to attend to. In order to be sure that the death sentence was carried out without any chance of a criminal being revived after a &quot;mostly dead all day&quot;* experience the soldiers were ordered to break their legs&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. This would accelerate the process from long hours and even days to a matter of a few minutes as the victims would suffocate: unable to pull push themselves up to catch a breath of air.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When they came to Jesus they didn't bother because he was already dead.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Just to be sure they checked with a spear in his side (probably just under his rib-cage piercing a lung) and blood and water came out&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;. The fact that liquids has begun to separate is a sure medical indication of death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This whole process fulfilled several prophecies. First of all he was pierced, something that was prophesied about his death&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;. Secondly not a bone was broken. Crucifixion didn't usually break any bones unless they did the little acceleration trick, which was ordered for him, but it was also prophesied that he would not suffer broken bones&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;. See also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3853/30&quot;&gt;Did the Romans not breaking Jesus&amp;#39; legs fulfill a prophecy?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly his unexpected early death shows that it was likely not actually the process of crucifixion that killed him, but that even at the very end he willingly surrendered his own life after having born the wrath of his father and completing the course of punishment that he had to endure. Once that was over, he willingly spent his last breath and surrendered his life just as he said he was going to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%2010:17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 10:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;sub&gt;I need to ask on our meta &lt;em&gt;The Princess Bride&lt;/em&gt; is an acceptable reference work.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://Since%20it%20was%20the%20day%20of%20Preparation,%20and%20so%20that%20the%20bodies%20would%20not%20remain%20on%20the%20cross%20on%20the%20Sabbath%20%28for%20that%20Sabbath%20was%20a%20high%20day%29,%20the%20Jews%20asked%20Pilate%20that%20their%20legs%20might%20be%20broken%20and%20that%20they%20might%20be%20taken%20away.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 19:31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew%2027:54&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:54&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son1 of God!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%2019:33&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 19:33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%2019:34&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 19:34&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Isaiah%2053:5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But he was pierced for our transgressions;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  he was crushed for our iniquities;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and with his wounds we are healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%2019:36&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 19:36&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV) (This verse in turn quotes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Psalm%2034:20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalms 34:20&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T14:16:01.950" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3852" CreationDate="2011-10-05T14:49:48.933" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on who is doing the expecting. Earlier than the Jew or Romans expected? Probably. Earlier than Jesus expected? Probably not.  Earlier than a modern believer would expect? Maybe, but you have to remember that just prior to the crucifixion he had been up all night, walked nearly 10 miles, and was brutally whipped. His body was already weakened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T14:49:48.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3840" CreationDate="2011-10-05T14:57:31.183" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Luke 4, Jesus read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.  Jesus had not received the training of a priest or Pharisee.  He was the son of a carpenter.  So, it seems that this would indicate that literacy was not restricted to the ruling class of the priestly class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus challenged the Pharisees at one point, saying, &quot;Have you never read...?&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus may also have been writing actual words in the dirt in John 8 and the woman caught in adultery, though this is admittedly speculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also indicates that he wrote letters with his own hand.  Of course he had been a Pharisee.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In older times, Moses commanded the people in Deuteronomy 6 to observe the law and to write it on the door frames of your houses.  This seems to assume the ability to write.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The king of Israel was commanded to write for himself a copy of the law and read it all the days of his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could go on, but it seems there is significant evidence to support the idea that literacy was not uncommon among the Jewish people at the time of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T14:57:31.183" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3796" CreationDate="2011-10-05T16:21:11.013" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm reminded of the story of two twins inside a mother's womb.  They are discussing what things might be like on the other side of &quot;birth&quot;.  One wonders if there really is a &quot;Mom&quot;.  Neither can conceive of what life will be like, though, since neither has ever been there.  They've heard that it's a painful trip, but that there's a wonderful world of adventure and excitement beyond their wildest dreams just waiting for them.  After birth, they find that what they were told was, indeed, true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are parallels as we discuss what things could be like after &quot;death&quot;.  We know it may be a painful trip, and we read of wonderful things on the other side.  Some may wonder if there really is a &quot;God&quot;.  However, none of us can really perceive what heaven will be like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, we are told a few things in the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We will reign with Christ (2 Timothy 2:12)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We will have eternal pleasures (Psalm 16:11)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We will have eternal possessions (Matthew 6:19-21)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We will live in perfect communion and relationship with God, no longer separated (1 Thessalonians 4:17)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be sure, the effects of the Fall will be destroyed as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No more death (1 Corinthians 15:26)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No more tears (Revelation 21:4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No more shame (2 Corinthians 5:1-4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, eternal pleasures (beauty and joy), possessions (joint heirs with Christ), prominence (a kingdom of priests, sons and daughters of the King).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &quot;No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.&quot;  1 Corinthians 2:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T16:21:11.013" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3845" CreationDate="2011-10-05T17:01:14.583" Score="11" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the gospels were written several hundred years A.D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is plainly erroneous. We have manuscripts of the New Testament dating from within the first century AD. Seeing as Jesus died around 30 AD it is very early accounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus the first century Jewish historian says about Jesus the following&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; &lt;strong&gt;for he was a doer of wonderful works&lt;/strong&gt;, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.  He was [the] Christ.  And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.  And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find the full accounts of 1st century historians attesting to Jesus in the following link&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also curious to note that if you take away the extant manuscript of the New Testament then you can still deduce the content of the bible from the early church correspondence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One church would write to another and quote a bible verse and warn the other church about possible heresies. This gives us another early sources to compare manuscripts with to deduce the authenticity of the message&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are interested in a more intense account of these matter I should recommend to you the book &amp;quot;Evidence that demands a verdict.&amp;quot; By Josh McDowell. Really a excellent resource for anyone who wants to know the truth about these matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T18:17:29.870" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3837" CreationDate="2011-10-05T19:22:35.247" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some churches that teach that depression and other mental illness are not possible for a Christian - they are sinful or demonic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most churches accept that mental illness is a part of life in a fallen world, something which Christains are not immune from. The likes of Job and Elijah are examples of Biblical characters who may have suffered from depression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can Christians be Hopeless? Yes, like anyone else. There are examples of Christians who have shown great fortitude in the face of difficulties, although, TBH, they are often when facing death, which may hold less fear for Christians than some others. The truth is that in the face of death fortitude is sometimes easier than in the face of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="823" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T19:22:35.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1051" CreationDate="2011-10-05T21:24:10.040" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only verse I have ever heard being taken to mean this is John 10:16 - and that was humorously, not seriously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must&#xA;  bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and&#xA;  one shepherd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="688" LastActivityDate="2011-10-05T21:24:10.040" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3871" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-05T23:03:35.103" Score="16" ViewCount="10221" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we believe in the Trinity, in essense that the Holy Spirit is God, and we believe that God can not be in the presence of sin, then how can the Holy Spirit dwell within me a sinner?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="831" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-17T21:43:10.733" LastActivityDate="2014-02-08T04:51:10.793" Title="If the Holy Spirit is God, and God can not be in the presence of sin, then how can the Holy Spirit dwell in me a sinner?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-11-22T00:51:15.770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3874" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3878" CreationDate="2011-10-06T00:00:55.660" Score="2" ViewCount="1714" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical definition of &quot;disciple&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you be &quot;merely&quot; a 'follower of Christ' or a 'Christian' and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be a 'disciple'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T21:21:20.817" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T22:47:44.677" Title="Is there any specific difference between a &quot;Christian&quot; and a 'true' disciple of Christ?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2013-07-13T00:34:18.333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2265" CreationDate="2011-10-06T03:52:04.330" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some might accuse God of being hypocritical or tyrannical when he applies a certain moral law on man that He, Himself, is not obliged to keep, but, I think we all know that to not necessarily be the case when we consider certain human examples.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with all metaphors, this one's not perfect, and there will be ways to pick it apart, but hopefully the message will get through.   The place I see this most clearly demonstrated is in how I relate to my children.   There are certain things that they are most definitely not allowed to do (like mess with the lawnmower...or fire up the grill), and as an authoritative head over them, I am not only in a position to break those laws (the very ones I demand of them!) without necessarily being immoral, but in some cases, where I'm actually remiss in my duties if I &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; do those things from time to time (like messing with the lawnmower and firing up the grill :) ).   I think we all agree that, even limited to the human scope, there is a certain hierarchy in which certain authorities supersede laws imposed on...for a lack of a better term...underlings.   Sure, this premise can, and often is, abused, but the abuse of it does not necessarily negate its validity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible, God is supreme authority, and Creator of all things.   He gets to set the rules of the game,as it were, so as Caleb suggested, He, is, by definition, the moral standard.   We can argue that that's not fair, and that things are stacked in His favor because of this, but our pleadings and desires don't change the nature of this scheme.  That's to say, even if God were cruel or capricious, it's His right to be so.   Fortunately, the Word He gives us assures us He's not, and He demonstrates His love for His creation through profound displays.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of things that have helped me come to grips with this are presented as illustrations in scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several places God is referred to as an author of creation and of our life stories.   If we consider the role of an author w/r/t his narrative--his created universe--then I think most people will agree that the morality of the author is transcendent (as it were) over the morality of the universe within the pages of his story...by that, I mean, that a certain morality exists within the story, but the author is not bound to that same morality...especially as it impacts the characters he created.  He owns his characters and supplies their very existence, so if he kills off characters (even the likable ones) in horrific and seemingly unfair ways, his readers and fans might get upset, but there's no real moral injustice being committed...From that perspective, he's simply woven a tale that some deem unfortunate or unpleasant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In another place God is referred to as the potter, and us his wares.  Once more, this illustration reminds us that God's supreme eminence over his creation means there is no moral culpability to his creatures.   If a potter wishes to make a fine vase designed for the very purpose of being elevated and pampered, and then the next day make an ash tray, designed for the very purpose of catching and containing burning refuse throughout its &quot;life,&quot; then that's the potter's prerogative, and no one can really fault him for that inequitable design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things get a bit tricky -- as they should (lest we become cold sociopaths) -- when these &quot;pots&quot;, and &quot;characters&quot; are our fellow man.   We should be troubled when we see injustice, and we should weep with out friends and neighbors when tragedy strikes...and we should seek answers from the Great Author to see what it is we're to learn from these harsh events.   But we should also understand that these things are His prerogative, and He's not immoral when these things -- even of they are the results of men behaving badly -- happen on His watch (as it were).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a somewhat difficult philosophical paradigm, but it's a fundamental one to the Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T03:52:04.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3874" CreationDate="2011-10-06T04:13:21.660" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your definition of a Christian seems a bit arbitrary, but one thing I notice is that the whole thing is based on beliefs.  But the word &lt;em&gt;disciple&lt;/em&gt; comes from the same root as &lt;em&gt;discipline,&lt;/em&gt; which suggests a few things as to its meaning.  Discipleship is not about belief, it's about what you do with that belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of the Sermon on the Mount, which lays out many of the core principles of the Law of the Gospel, is about self-discipline: controlling not only one's actions but one's very &lt;em&gt;thoughts&lt;/em&gt;, not allowing anger to take over even when you've been wronged, etc.  And in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 16: 24&lt;/a&gt; (and this is also mentioned in Mark and Luke) we see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that following Christ requires &lt;em&gt;denying oneself,&lt;/em&gt; (again with the self-discipline theme,) and &lt;em&gt;taking up their own cross.&lt;/em&gt;  And this doesn't mean wearing a cross on a necklace!  To someone living under Roman rule, carrying your own cross was something that a prisoner condemned to death had to do, and the meaning here is clear. It's an extension of denying yourself: you need to be willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary, even your own life, in service to God's plan in order to be a true disciple of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 10:21&lt;/a&gt;, when talking to a righteous youth who professes a desire to follow him, Jesus gives a slightly different perspective on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see the theme of sacrifice associated even more explicitly with discipleship and taking up one's own cross.  It's repeated even more strongly in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014:27-33&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 14:27-33&lt;/a&gt;, with a warning attached:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus makes it clear that he never meant for being a true disciple to be something easy.  It's much more than simple belief; it requires full commitment, self-discipline, and a willingness to sacrifice all that we have for his sake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T04:13:21.660" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3879" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-06T04:56:38.173" Score="3" ViewCount="525" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/124/once-saved-always-saved-is-eternal-security-biblical&quot;&gt;Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, I had a conversation with a (new) friend that started off with him telling me how he had been a devout Christian, perhaps even a believer (to use some Christianese), but had lost his faith due to later events. This struck me as a bit odd, because I had always thought that once you had put your faith in Christ, then you could never lose it. I went hunting for the verse that I was thinking of (and that he confirmed as existing), but couldn't find it. So...was I right? Is it true that once you put your faith in God and Jesus, then you can never lose it, especially under persecution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, I'm more interested in whether &lt;em&gt;someone else&lt;/em&gt; can cause you to lose your faith as opposed to &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; turning away from God. The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/124/58&quot;&gt;Once saved always saved.&lt;/a&gt;&quot; question deals with people turning away from God, but does not deal with &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; people &quot;causing&quot; a deconversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Biblically-based answers are prefered.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T14:31:33.817" Title="Once a believer, always a believer?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-10-06T14:48:42.097" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3879" CreationDate="2011-10-06T05:17:44.490" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are numerous stories of strongly religious Christians &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/book1001.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;converting&lt;/a&gt; to &lt;a href=&quot;http://andrewtheatheistsblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-happens-to-former-believers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;atheism&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.islamfortoday.com/webmaster.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;various&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/05/film_looks_at_c.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;non-Christian&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hvk.org/articles/0704/170.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;religions&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazingbible.org/Documents/Doctrines/Faith_can_it_be_lost_part3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;whole slew of Bible quotes about losing faith listed here&lt;/a&gt;.  Here's one in particular from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%203:1-6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 3:5-6 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us the good news of your faith and love and reported that you always remember us kindly and long to see us, as we long to see you—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say it's very possible to lose faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: though people are not mostly given credit for making others fall from faith, there are a few passages in the link above.  For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:16-18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 2:16-18 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="519" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T14:31:33.817" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T14:31:33.817" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3874" CreationDate="2011-10-06T05:55:10.517" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to be a true disciple you must be called. It is the masters role to pick his disciples, call them to follow him and equip them for that role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Mark%201:17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 1:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those so called and equipped will go on to do the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3874/is-there-any-specific-difference-between-a-christian-and-a-true-disciple-of-chris/3878#3878&quot;&gt;things @Mason outlined&lt;/a&gt;. However just doing those things without having been called and equipped is a) impossible anyway and b) wouldn't make you a &quot;true&quot; disciple, just a mimic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T06:50:41.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3882" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3885" CreationDate="2011-10-06T10:01:53.200" Score="8" ViewCount="784" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a simple question: is the biblical idea of being born again compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-05-24T14:27:10.857" LastActivityDate="2021-04-22T14:09:43.060" Title="Is the biblical idea of being &quot;born again&quot; compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;reincarnation&gt;&lt;born-again&gt;&lt;reborn&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3882" CreationDate="2011-10-06T11:11:30.070" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being born again in Christianity is being born of the Spirit. Triune man, consisting of body, soul, and spirit at creation, died spiritually at the fall. Being born again revives the spirit, but body and soul stay the same. This is shown too when Paul says that we have been saved, are saved, and will be saved. This can be interpreted like: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the spirit was saved when reborn by accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the soul is being saved as we work out our salvation daily, change our mindset, and become more like Christ,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and the body will be changed in an instance at the sound of the last trumpet or when the dead are resurrected.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In eastern religions, the spirit never died, but is reborn into new bodies until it has changed enough to earn Nirvana for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T11:11:30.070" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3871" CreationDate="2011-10-06T12:23:37.643" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin may come from the prayer in Habakkuk 1:13.  In the NIV it says, &quot;Your eyes are too pure to look upon evil.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, then, is, &quot;Is this teaching the God is unable to look at evil?&quot;  If it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; teaching that, then this would need to fit with the whole of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 139 expressly states that God knows and sees everything that occurs, which would include evil.  God also came to Adam and Eve after their sin.  He visited Sodom to see the evil that was there.  He observed the Israelites fashioning a golden calf and worshiping it.  In Job, Satan comes into God's presence and has discussions with Him.  Jesus, too, walked among us and certainly was in the presence of evil His whole life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it seems clear that God does see evil and He does allow sin to come into His presence.  Indeed, if all have sinned (and continue to do so), God must be able to be in the presence of sin to indwell those who have placed their trust in the redemption of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key point here is that those who have trusted Christ are, according to the Scriptures, declared righteous in His sight--forgiven.  The debt is fully paid.  No charge can be entertained against us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now God's work of redemption will be fully complete when He fully removed that which He hates (sin) from that which He loves (His people).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T12:23:37.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3882" CreationDate="2011-10-06T12:49:09.677" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being &quot;Born again&quot; and being reincarnated are completely different concepts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept of being born again comes from this Bible passage below.  I know it's long but the theological and doctrinal implications found in this passage are profound and critical to understanding what it means to be &quot;born again&quot; and what salvation requires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:3-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 3:3-21 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;If you balked at reading all of that, it basically says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You must be born again, which means born of water (from your mother) and born of the Spirit (from God)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In order to be born of the Spirit, you must believe in Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You must live your life according to Jesus and follow him in order to truly believe in him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the essence of being &quot;born again&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T13:32:23.647" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T13:32:23.647" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3886" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-06T13:04:56.373" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also known as the study of salvation, soteriology encompasses such issues as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is salvation a free will choice of the person or strictly of God?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is salvation fundamentally a legal (substitutionary atonement) metaphor or appeasement (satsifaction theory) &quot;thing&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why does God allow humans to be put in a situation where &quot;saving&quot; was needed?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T21:36:22.707" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T21:36:22.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3887" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-06T13:04:56.373" Score="0" Body="The study of the mechanisms by which an individual is saved." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-11-03T15:51:00.267" LastActivityDate="2019-11-03T15:51:00.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="3888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3784" CreationDate="2011-10-06T13:34:35.800" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians of a Christian group that is known as &quot;Local churches&quot; or &quot;Recovery&quot; hold the view interpreting these seven spirits as nothing less than the Spirit of God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They make this case by putting together the following four verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 1:4 + Rev. 4:5 + Rev. 5:6 + Zech. 4:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Rev. 1:4 and 5 the seven spirits that are in front of the throne of God are ranked among the Triune God – the grace is equally coming “from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come” (which is interpreted as God the Father), from “the seven spirits” (which is interpreted as the Holy Spirit), and “from Jesus Christ” (the Son):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John to the seven churches which are in Asia: &lt;strong&gt;Grace be unto you, and&#xA;  peace, from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and&#xA;  from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus&#xA;  Christ&lt;/strong&gt;, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the&#xA;  dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:4-5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 1:4-5 KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 4:5 there is another mention of the Seven Spirits of God that are identified with seven lamps likewise located in front of the throne: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And out of the throne preceded lightnings and thunders and voices: and&#xA;  there were &lt;strong&gt;seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are&#xA;  the seven Spirits of God&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%204:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 4:5 KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is believed that the seven Spirits of God here are the ones mentioned in Rev. 1:4. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Rev. 5:6 there is another mention of the seven Spirits of God, which are now identified with seven eyes of the Lamb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four&#xA;  beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood &lt;strong&gt;a Lamb&lt;/strong&gt; as it had been&#xA;  slain, &lt;strong&gt;having&lt;/strong&gt; seven horns and &lt;strong&gt;seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits&#xA;  of God&lt;/strong&gt; sent forth into all the earth. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%205:6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 5:6 KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is believed that these seven Spirits of God are the ones mentioned in Rev. 1:4 and Rev 4:5. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the seven Spirits of God are identified with Lamb’s eyes, which may be distinct from the Lamb, but are hardly separable from Him, is taken as another indication that the seven Spirits of God are nothing less than the Third Person of the Trinity, i.e. the Holy Spirit – He is also distinct from the Son, however, He is not separated from the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the seven Spirits of God are interpreted as the Spirit of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the Spirit of God is represented here as seven spirits and as seven lamps is explained as the Spirit of God being shown here more in His functioning/work/operation, rather than in His essence. The similarity with a lampstand which is mentioned in the book of Zechariah is brought up as a supporting point:             &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And said unto me, What do you see? And I said, I have looked, and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;behold a lampstand, all of gold&lt;/strong&gt;, with a bowl upon the top of it, &lt;strong&gt;and&#xA;  its seven lamps thereon&lt;/strong&gt;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zech%204:2&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zech. 4:2 KJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though there are seven lamps on the lampstand, there is still only one golden lampstand (which is understood as a prototype of the Holy Spirit), which functions by means of seven lamps on it burning at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the seven Spirits of God are spoken of in Revelation 5:6 as the ones sent forth into all the earth is taken as another point supporting the idea of the Holy Spirit being shown here with a primary emphasis on His functioning/work/operation, rather than on His essence or nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The functioning of the Spirit as seven Spirits of God or as seven shining lamps is believed to be especially needed for the Church since it had entered into the dark age of degradation of the Church, which is believed to have started around the time when all the Christians of Asia turned away from apostle Paul (2 Tim. 1:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-24T09:18:39.647" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T09:18:39.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3889" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3892" CreationDate="2011-10-06T14:30:22.437" Score="4" ViewCount="494" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible, will those who have heard about Jesus (and, perhaps, even believed that Jesus existed or that he had a special role) and yet have never &lt;em&gt;prayed&lt;/em&gt; directly to Him (i.e. never addressed Him in prayer by using the name &quot;Jesus&quot;) go to hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T20:45:54.703" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T03:11:53.287" Title="Is prayer to Jesus required for salvation?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:47:17.230" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3889" CreationDate="2011-10-06T15:17:58.937" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No; arguably the most famous verse in the Bible tells us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that&#xA;  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would, however, be rather odd to believe in Jesus and never talk to him. But if someone accepts Jesus as their saviour and then dies suddenly without the opportunity to pray, there's no reason to suspect their salvation is in jeopardy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T22:47:01.070" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T22:47:01.070" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3889" CreationDate="2011-10-06T15:42:07.630" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an old saying (more or less) in Christianity that it's not a religion, but a relationship.  There is &lt;em&gt;biblical&lt;/em&gt; support for this coming from this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21-23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:21-23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;   “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very simply, it's not just what about is in our hearts; nor is it about what we do; it's about having the &lt;strong&gt;relationship&lt;/strong&gt; with Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without prayer, there is no relationship (and can be no relationship).  Without prayer, we cannot make ourselves known to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phillipians%204:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Phillipians 4:6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phillipians shows that if we do not pray, our requests won't be presented to God and so he will (as stated in Matthew) not know us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T15:42:07.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3124" CreationDate="2011-10-06T16:28:40.690" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One indicator that the Levitical sacrifices were insufficient is that they had to be offered each year for the nation and more often for individuals, depending really on the frequency of offenses.  In essence, they were only effective for past offenses.  The next time a sin was committed, the person and nation were susceptible to judgment if a sacrifice was not offered at the appropriate time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, there was nothing in the sacrificial system for some sins, including adultery and murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Levitical Law only existed from the time of Moses as well, while Abraham lived 400-500 years before that.  &quot;Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.&quot;  Salvation has always been through faith in God's provision rather than through our own works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve's attempts to cover their own shame with the fig leaves in the garden were insufficient.  They needed the clothing that God provided (and the promise of a Deliverer who would crush the work of Satan that brought death to the world).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah, God actually tells the nation of Israel to &quot;stop bringing meaningless sacrifices&quot;.  The issue was that they were &quot;honoring God with their mouths while their hearts were far from Him.&quot;  Dutifully carrying out rituals was never a means of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judaism may believe that God no longer requires animal sacrifices and that there is forgiveness apart from those and apart from Jesus, but the Bible is very clear that this is not the case.  The sacrifices were an act of faith in God, and the sacrifice of Jesus is the only thing that has ever provided atonement for sins, &quot;For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.&quot; (Hebrews 10:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.  (Acts 4:12)  Christianity is very clear that Judaism without Christ cannot provide forgiveness of sins.  In fact, nothing else can provide forgiveness of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 3 states the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under&#xA;  the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held&#xA;  accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in&#xA;  God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become&#xA;  conscious of our sin.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made&#xA;  known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This&#xA;  righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who&#xA;  believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all&#xA;  have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are&#xA;  justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by&#xA;  Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,&#xA;  through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this&#xA;  to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had&#xA;  left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to&#xA;  demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just&#xA;  and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that it says, &quot;He had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished&quot;.  God's justice requires that all sins be punished.  No sin was punished until Jesus died and endured the righteous punishment of God for sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, neither Levitical Law nor good deeds nor being religious can achieve forgiveness of sins.  Forgiveness comes by faith in Christ and in His work of atonement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T16:28:40.690" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3124" CreationDate="2011-10-06T17:07:09.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Caleb is pretty close to the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that the greatest of all commandments is to love God &quot;with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:37&lt;/a&gt;) that Jesus said, &quot;If ye love me, keep my commandments,&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:15&lt;/a&gt;) and that at the final judgment, everyone is judged according to their works. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Hebrews 10:4 points out, the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament had no intrinsic value for redemption or remission of sins; all forgiveness comes through the Atonement of Christ and in no other way.  But the sacrifices provided two important things: they served as a way to point people's minds forward to Christ, which helped them to have faith, and they were a commandment of God to obey, giving them an opportunity to show their devotion.  (And remember that these sacrifices were &lt;em&gt;sacrifices&lt;/em&gt;; to a nation of shepherds, giving up the best of their flocks did indeed require an act of faith!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply because the blood sacrifices did not provide forgiveness of sins in and of themselves did not make them worthless.  It was &lt;strong&gt;the people's faith and their acts of obedience&lt;/strong&gt; that allowed them to have claim on the cleansing power of the Atonement, the same as in modern times.  That's the missing link here.  This is why various Old Testament prophets (Isaiah and Samuel come to mind immediately, and I know there were a few others) talked about how the sacrifices themselves were worthless and abhorrent to the Lord when the people were disobedient, unrighteous, and unfaithful.  This was not a new concept that Paul came up with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T17:07:09.227" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3896" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4062" CreationDate="2011-10-06T17:09:23.917" Score="5" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do we pray &quot;&lt;code&gt;Our Father&lt;/code&gt; who art in Heaven&quot; and &quot;Pray for &lt;code&gt;us&lt;/code&gt; sinners now and at the hour of &lt;code&gt;our&lt;/code&gt; death&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should we instead pray &lt;code&gt;My Father&lt;/code&gt; and &quot;Pray for &lt;code&gt;me, a sinner&lt;/code&gt; now and at the hour of &lt;code&gt;my&lt;/code&gt; death&quot;?  Or is there a reason to always use the same words in those prayers? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know there is some conflict in the Nicene creed where both &lt;code&gt;I believe&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;We believe&lt;/code&gt; is used, but specifically in prayers, and not creeds, what is the reason for using the plural pronoun when you're the only person in the room, does this have something to do with the communion of saints or is it just convention?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T12:56:57.543" Title="Should the words to prayers said in private be changed to fit the company?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;communion-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3896" CreationDate="2011-10-06T18:09:31.350" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 6:18&lt;/a&gt; &quot;And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T18:09:31.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3013" CreationDate="2011-10-06T18:10:17.713" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; addresses this question in a practical way.  It largely assumes that the reader already understands what is meant by weak faith, but the chapter still gives insight into what Paul meant by &quot;weak faith&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(All quotes below are NASB.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul mentions the specific case of dietary laws, but a generalization of his view presented here is that the person with weaker faith has a bigger tendency to be legalistic and the person with stronger faith is comfortable with a larger variety of activities.  The bottom line though is that &lt;strong&gt;neither brother should allow difference in faith to affect their view of the other&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both in verse 3 above and verse 10 below Paul points out that &lt;strong&gt;the person with weaker faith tends to judge others&lt;/strong&gt; (for their &quot;improper&quot; behavior) while in contrast &lt;strong&gt;the person with stronger faith tends to view others with contempt&lt;/strong&gt; (for their lack of understanding of their freedom).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have a tendency to judge others or if you have a tendency to view others with contempt, you need to consider who the ultimate judge is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt; For it is written, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, &#xA;  AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; So then each one of us will give an account of himself &lt;strong&gt;to God&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sub&gt;(Emphasis added.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's the practical application/result of this understanding of &quot;weak faith&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Live your life according to the convictions God has given you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not judge the convictions of a brother in Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Always be willing to yield your behavior to the stronger convictions of a brother so that you will not cause him to stumble.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T18:10:17.713" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3896" CreationDate="2011-10-06T18:47:52.493" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't get hung up on words; prayer should come from the heart.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that prayer needs to originate from the heart.  Because of that, we shouldn't get hung up on words.  I believe that rote prayers and repeated prayers can be just as effective and just as &quot;heard by God&quot; as prayers that are unscripted.  It's about the state of your heart whether God hears you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of that, I don't think that words in and of themselves should be the primary concern of prayer.  Clearly, you need the words to communicate what's in your heart (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:45&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot;&gt;&quot;Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks&quot;&lt;/a&gt; and all that), but it's more about the state of your heart than the singularity/plurality of the words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the prayer feels awkward to you, change it.  Use the words that are most comfortable to you.  The worst thing you can do is to use words that distract you from the prayer of your heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T20:44:04.797" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T20:44:04.797" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3902" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3907" CreationDate="2011-10-06T19:08:56.153" Score="11" ViewCount="1366" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was teaching Catechism last night, going over 'Revelation'.  I asked, &quot;what's revelation?&quot; and one girl answered, &quot;It's the last book in the Bible&quot;. and I was like, &quot;um yeah...&quot; Well I wanted to say, it's also the entire Bible and I was kind of stumbling over my words there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I was wondering was, what was the Revelation/Apocalypse of John originally called? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eusebius &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm&quot;&gt;called it&lt;/a&gt; the 'so-called Apocalypse of John', but if it was 'so-called' then what else might have it been called and when did it begin to go by the name 'Revelation'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T21:49:31.840" Title="What is the earliest name ascribed to the book of Revelation?" Tags="&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3896" CreationDate="2011-10-06T20:07:47.047" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Lord's Prayer (actually the disciples prayer) is a pattern of prayer, so just because it says &quot;Our Father&quot; there doesn't mean that all prayers for all times by all people should use that address.  That could indeed fall into the category of vain repetitions that Jesus warned about in Matthew 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's instructive to look at the other prayers in the Bible.  The Psalms are full of prayers that do not have the &quot;Our Father&quot;.  David says (or sings) &quot;O God You are &lt;strong&gt;my&lt;/strong&gt; God&quot;.  I believe that God is honored by that.  He is certainly our God, but for every follower of Christ, He is &quot;my God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly the atonement has ushered in a new and greater relationship with God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 17, Jesus addresses God the Father as &quot;Righteous Father&quot;, &quot;Holy Father&quot;, and &quot;Father&quot;.  Since believers are joint heirs with Christ and sons and daughters of God, it seems very appropriate to address God as &quot;Father&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T20:07:47.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="113" CreationDate="2011-10-06T20:10:46.123" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two ways that I can come up with to answer this question:-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1st way to know that you have received the holy spirit(i.e reborn of spirit) is by trusting what the bible says. When you accept the bible to be the word of God and repent for your sins and believe that you are saved by believing in Jesus, you also must have faith in what the bible promises. there are verses where Jesus promises the gift of the Holy Sprit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:15-16&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 16:7&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a promise to us that on believing (i.e loving him and following his commands) &amp;quot;in the name of Jesus&amp;quot; (explicitly mentioned in John 14:26) we will receive the Holy Spirit for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2nd way actually makes you believe in the promise that Jesus gives, by your experiences. As also rightly put by olskeevi, Holy Spirit lives in you and communicates through your heart (my belief).  Holy Spirit does change you and the change can be in many aspects, may be physical, your priorities may change, your longings for things may change, your attitude/behavior may change etc. But there will be change which must be noticeable atleast to you! (coz many changes in my life were evident to me and not to people around me, coz they don't know everything about me.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly when I read&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:5-6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I come to know that, to know whether I am a Christian (meaning I have the Holy Spirit living in me) or not, I will have to do what Jesus did (i.e, live like him by doing God's will). By doing god's will I will come closer to him an love him even more. Also 1 thing that we must remember is that &amp;quot;the will of the God also must be in accordance to the teachings of the bible!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="799" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user729" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-24T05:04:36.380" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3896" CreationDate="2011-10-06T20:23:38.213" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a strong argument that praying a plural inclusive version of the prayers ( or the creed ) is about acknowledging the many others who are also praying the same thing - so saying &quot;our father&quot; includes the many others who are also praying the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there is a place for private prayer that is personal and first person, and there is a place for personal corporate prayer - that is prayer that engages with the others who are part of the worldwide community. I am not sure why I would use, for example, the Lords Prayer as personal prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="823" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T20:23:38.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3902" CreationDate="2011-10-06T20:54:24.633" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many languages, the book is called &quot;Apocalypse&quot;, which is Greek for &quot;Revelation&quot;. It seems that the modern English convention is to use a translated, rather than transliterated, title. &#xA;I am not aware of any title &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; than &quot;Apocalypse&quot;, or a translation of &quot;Apocalypse&quot;, for this book, in any language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early English translations, there is some dissent about what to call it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wycliffe's Bible (1382-1395) used &quot;Apocalips&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tyndale's Bible (1525) used &quot;Revelation&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Coverdale's (1535) called it &quot;The apocalips or revelacion of S. John&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Douay-Rheims (1582) uses just &quot;Apocalypse&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The King James (1611) called it &lt;a href=&quot;http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&amp;amp;PagePosition=1487&quot;&gt;&quot;The Revelation of S. John the Divine&quot;&lt;/a&gt; and, as the legally authorized English version, its usage seems to have stuck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I checked &lt;a href=&quot;http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/history/eysebios_ecclesia_historia.htm&quot;&gt;the Koine text of Eusebius&lt;/a&gt; - he says &quot;τῇ Ἰωάννου λεγομένῃ Ἀποκαλύψει&quot;, the relevant word being that middle &quot;legomene&quot;. This often means just &quot;called&quot;, without a negative slant, as in Luke 22:1 &quot;the Festival of Unleavened Bread, &lt;em&gt;which is called&lt;/em&gt; (legomene) Passover&quot;, or Matthew 2:23 &quot;in a city &lt;em&gt;called&lt;/em&gt; (legomenen) Nazareth&quot;. So I am not convinced that Eusebius is doing anything other than giving the name by which the book is known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later in the book (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250107.htm&quot;&gt;7.25&lt;/a&gt;) he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity. [...]  But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension, and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in every part. For if I do not understand I suspect that a deeper sense lies beneath the words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He does not mention what these others call the book instead, though he does say they attribute it to the heretic &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539a.htm&quot;&gt;Cerinthus&lt;/a&gt;. He says that the John who wrote this book was not the same John who wrote the gospel, but he is happy to say on the basis of the text that &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; John wrote it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2011-10-06T21:49:31.840" LastActivityDate="2011-10-06T21:49:31.840" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3013" CreationDate="2011-10-06T21:41:29.817" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I mentioned in my answer to the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith/1319#1319&quot;&gt;How do I get more faith?&lt;/a&gt; question, faith is not simply belief; it's a principle of action, and it's closely related to obedience to God.  It's easier to think about in this case if we replace the word &quot;faith&quot; with &quot;trust.&quot;  So what does it mean to be weak in one's trust in God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much like with another human being, the more we trust God, the more willing we are to go along with what he wants us to do, even when we can see reasons to not want to do it.  And this is an important thing to keep in mind in today's world, where society's standards of conduct are steadily drifting further and further away from the Lord's!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One simple example would be tithing.  A natural reaction to being asked to pay tithing is &quot;but I need that money!&quot;  For a person with weak faith, that's the end of the discussion.  For someone with more trust in God--or for someone with personal experience with tithing, which implies past obedience, which helps build faith; it's all part of a cycle--they might say &quot;I need that money, but I know that God won't let me falter,&quot; and so they pay their tithing, do what they can with the money they have left, and trust in the Lord to make up the difference.  And when he does, that helps them increase their faith in the principle, and in God in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;So the strength of faith is measured by a person's actions, &lt;strong&gt;by how obedient they're able to be even in the face of adversity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  Be careful, though, not to attempt to gauge the strength of someone else's faith this way, since all you can see is an outward appearance, while the Lord sees a person's heart (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2016:7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 16:7&lt;/a&gt;) and there may well be details you're missing.  But if someone comes to you asking for help because they believe that their own faith is weak, you can use this understanding to help them find ways to strengthen it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T15:40:03.557" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1631" CreationDate="2011-10-06T22:42:56.677" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the same way that everyone needs food to survive but we all have different culinary tastes and therefore might prefer different restaurants, the range of congregations provides a choice of styles and philosophies. There's more than a difference in style, just as one restaurant might only serve organic food and another may be strictly vegetarian - different churches may have slightly different belief sets. The analogy continues with dress code and etiquette, opening times, and much more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, all these differences are secondary to the central aims of receiving nourishment and contributing to the establishment and that all churches are working towards the same objectives. And of course, at the risk of stretching the analogy too far, there are some restaurants with poor hygiene that sell food that can kill you, just as there are some groups that may appear Christian but on further examination offer a contaminated version of the Truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final vaguely food related sentence: sorry if this answer is a bit cheesy, but I think it's a good analogy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T13:55:27.483" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T13:55:27.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1823" CreationDate="2011-10-06T23:30:58.157" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a possible explanation would be that some of the disciples did see the heavenly Kingdom of God through visions they received during their lifetimes. John's account in Revelation is probably the best example, as he vividly describes a kingdom - including Jesus' ascension to the throne.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;some&quot; here would suggest that more than one disciple would see this kingdom during their lifetimes, though, and the only thing that comes to my mind is Peter's vision of the heavens opening up and the sheet of animals being lowered down. I'm not sure that this was directly a view of the Kingdom of God, &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, as the records focus mainly on the animals and not the vivid description of heaven that John seems to offer, but I would think such vision would satisfy what Jesus was saying would happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another explanation may be one that kind of cuts it kind of close, so to speak, but along the same vein. I've been taught that through their martyrdom the countenance of early Christians was remarkable. It might be that before they &quot;tasted death,&quot; these Christians were shown the kingdom that awaited them. Stephen's last words in Acts don't show this definitively (they could have been a &quot;simple&quot; prayer), but they do seem to imply a certain immediate intimacy (accompanied with a certain, remarkable peace in the midst of such pain and hostility) that could suggest he was seeing heaven prior to experiencing death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-12-31T14:45:57.330" LastActivityDate="2012-12-31T14:45:57.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3889" CreationDate="2011-10-06T23:34:30.643" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible tells us of many who were saved prior to the birth of Jesus, so they clearly did not pray to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And nowhere does the Bible indicate that the requirements for salvation are different for those who have heard the name of Christ, than for those who haven't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T00:59:25.980" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T00:59:25.980" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3914" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3919" CreationDate="2011-10-07T01:59:41.303" Score="9" ViewCount="4521" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2485/would-it-have-been-possible-for-jesus-to-sin/2487#2487&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus talks about this authority in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2010:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 10:18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In precisely what sense does Jesus have this &quot;authority?&quot;  @Richard's answer (linked above), suggests that this means Christ had the authority to either lay down his life or not...  But that's not the only way we use the phrase &quot;authority.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider a police officer with a warrant to arrest a suspect.  He knocks on the door and says &quot;I have the authority to arrest you.&quot;  This doesn't imply that the officer has a choice in the matter.  He does have the authority to make the arrest, but he also has the &lt;em&gt;obligation&lt;/em&gt; to make the arrest.  A failure to make the arrest (except for extenuating circumstances) would result in disciplinary action against the officer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Christ really have &quot;free will&quot; in this matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, Christ even says it's a command from His Father; which suggests that he did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have authority &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to give up his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:33:54.803" Title="Did Christ have the freedom to choose to avoid crucifixion?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-25T01:52:44.983" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3889" CreationDate="2011-10-07T03:11:53.287" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A very powerful example of someone not needing to pray to Jesus to have salvation and enter the kingdom appears in Luke 23: 41-43.&#xA;Three men, two criminals and Jesus were crucified on crosses, side-by-side. One of the two criminals said to the other, in reference to Jesus, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;41 &quot;And we indeed (are crucified) justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man (Jesus) has done nothing wrong.&quot; &#xA;42) Then he said to Jesus, &quot;Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.&quot;&#xA;43) And Jesus said to him, &quot;Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The criminal Jesus was speaking to wasn't required to pray to Him to receive this promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T03:11:53.287" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3840" CreationDate="2011-10-07T04:17:01.930" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without repeating what others have said, I note that you've asked about writing or &lt;em&gt;recording&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the ancient world (and quite unlike today), a lot of attention was paid to memorization.  Not only were people &lt;em&gt;expected&lt;/em&gt; to memorize, but there were specific techniques for memorizing large amounts of information, techniques which today have been all but forgotten.  (You can learn more about this by reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/159420229X&quot;&gt;Moonwalking with Einstein&lt;/a&gt;, a recent book about memorization techniques and history.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those ancient memorization techniques are strongly tied to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci&quot;&gt;sense of place, or of spatial relationships&lt;/a&gt;.  Things are better remembered if those things are tied to certain locations, as the human brain is optimized for remembering locations.  With that in mind, read through the Gospel of Mark (for instance), and note how often the author calls attention to geographic locations in the text.  Here are some examples from the first ten or so chapters of Mark:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And as He walked by the Sea of Galilee...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then they went into Capernaum...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then He went out again by the sea...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And He entered the synagogue again...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And He went up on the mountain...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Now when Jesus had crossed over again by boat to the other side, a great multitude gathered to Him; and He was by the sea.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then He went out from there and came to His own country...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret and anchored there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From there He arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Again, departing from the region of Tyre and Sidon, He came through the midst of the region of Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then He came to Bethsaida...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Now Jesus and His disciples went out to the towns of Caesarea Philippi...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then they departed from there and passed through Galilee...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then He came to Capernaum.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Now as He was going out on the road...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did the author of the Gospel of Mark give such attention to place?  I would put forth that this was probably a significant part of his, or his sources', technique for remembering parables that were told and things that took place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T04:17:01.930" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1823" CreationDate="2011-10-07T05:27:30.883" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;If one doesn't think about these scriptures as indicating the second coming, but perhaps events directly following His crucifixion one possible interpretation of “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” could be the appearance of Christ at resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And “see the kingdom of God come with power” could be the awesome power of God tearing the veil of the temple, causing the earth to quake, rocks to split, and graves to open when His son died on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &quot;see the kingdom of God&quot;; the kingdom being made accessible to us through Jesus' sacrifice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These scriptures make sense if you think of them as directly following the crucifixion. These events having taken place while many who were with Jesus when he said “some who are standing here” were still living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T05:27:30.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3914" CreationDate="2011-10-07T07:58:03.800" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;He did have a choice, since &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t005.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;He is God&lt;/a&gt;.  Since &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;all things were created by Him&lt;/a&gt;, He is God the Father.  As God, He has all authority in the same manner that God the Father does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As God, He chose to lay down His life on the cross before the creation of the universe. He knew that we would rebel against Him, and that His sacrifice would be necessary for our redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the last part of the question, a good explanation for why He prayed to the Father, and why He spoke of &quot;His Father&quot; being greater than Him is answered &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/if-jesus-god-then-why-did-he-say-father-was-greater-he&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T07:58:03.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3914" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:23:47.780" Score="8" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' own words to Peter are relevant here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2026:52-54&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 26:52-54 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt; Then Jesus said to him, &quot;Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. &lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Do you think that I cannot&lt;/strong&gt; appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than &lt;strong&gt;twelve legions of angels&lt;/strong&gt;? &lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;  But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I read it, Jesus genuinely had a choice to call out an army of angels that would have been enough for world domination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T08:23:47.780" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3675" CreationDate="2011-10-07T08:36:14.797" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not at all. Israel itself has many meanings in the OT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Israel = Jacob, son of Isaac  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Israel = The nation of Israel (all 12 tribes of Israel)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Israel = The northern tribes of Israel (as opposed to Judah)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Israel = The people of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common usage in the Old Testament is that it's referring to the nation of Israel (the full nation until Northern Israel went into Exile and then Judah). But although Israel were the people of God, many of them weren't really. We see this because of their sinful rebellion and God punishes them through two exiles. Their hearts were hard and they frequently chased after foreign gods.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet, we do find a portion of Israel, called the remnant or True Israel, who serve God as the nation were supposed to. We see this when Elijah is hiding after having slayed the priests of Baal and God tells him that he has preserved 7000 people faithful to him (1 Kings 19:18). In fact, all through the Old Testament, the idea of the faithful remnant is present. The remnant is really what the whole nation was supposed to be (a people who loved God and devoted themselves to honouring Him).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so we come to the new Testament. Paul gives a great teaching on this in Romans: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:6-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 9:6-8 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He makes the distinction I've explained above - not all Israel are Israel, i.e. not all of the nation of Israel are God's people (see one meaning of Israel applied to the first reference and another to the second). God has always kept Himself a faithful remnant and indeed, this is how it is for us as Christians. God's People (the New Israel) who are defined as people who accept God by faith, regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:21-31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 3:21-31&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So returning to your verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011:25-26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 11:25-26a (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; and in this way all Israel will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians everywhere are the new Israel, the People of God, and they comprise Jews and Gentiles. It has nothing to do with the modern country of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T09:18:37.833" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T09:18:37.833" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3914" CreationDate="2011-10-07T09:02:07.310" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the same way that all of us have the free will to disobey commands from the Father, Jesus had that same opportunity. I think your police office analogy is good: if the office fails to make the arrest, disciplinary action follows. That's the same in Jesus' case: if Jesus had chosen to avoid crucifixion, there would have been dire consequences: we would receive the full punishment that our sins merit, and Jesus would suffer in the knowledge that we, his loved ones, were lost to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane indicates that if there was any other way of achieving our salvation other than betrayal and crucifixion, Jesus would have taken it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a counter-argument here though, and we stray here into a discussion about &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/predestination&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'predestination'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;predestination&lt;/a&gt;. Jesus came to fulfill a prophecy. It was clear from what the angels said to Mary, Joseph and the shepherds, and indeed to John the Baptist's parents, and from other events through Jesus' life, that he was the Messiah. The whole point of his earthly life was to lead us to salvation, and so (since there was no other way, as just mentioned) his crucifixion &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; to happen. So Jesus had a choice, but it was inevitable that he would choose to save us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:33:54.803" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:33:54.803" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2138" CreationDate="2011-10-07T13:53:44.540" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering the omnipresence of God, a good question to ask would be, &quot;How could God &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; be around Satan?&quot;  Psalm 139 as well as other places describe how God is everywhere and fills heaven and earth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is, however, a distinction in the impact of His presence.  For instance, if the police show up while a crime is taking place, how can they tell the difference between the criminal and the victim?  The answer, of course, is that the criminal runs in fear, while the victim is relieved.  Two people with two very different responses to the presence of the police.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, Adam and Eve hide from God, Cain tries to excuse his responsibility, many people try their best to convince themselves that God does not exist.  Adam said it well, &quot;I heard You in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked &lt;em&gt;(shame)&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;so I hid&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two people can be in the same room, and a married couple can even sleep in the same bed, but they can be completely isolated from each other--not physically, but emotionally and spiritually.  So, it's possible for God and Satan to be in close proximity, yet be completely isolated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God's presence does fill heaven and earth, but the response to His presence varies greatly.  The response can be joy or terror, acceptance or condemnation, communion or isolation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T13:58:57.667" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T13:58:57.667" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3924" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4198" CreationDate="2011-10-07T13:56:32.230" Score="7" ViewCount="11324" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a video/workbook series on prayer by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.philipyancey.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Phillip Yancey&lt;/a&gt;  (which I &lt;em&gt;highly&lt;/em&gt; recommend) (and &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0310271053&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;based on one of his books&lt;/a&gt;) that talks about how we should pray openly about all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It even says that we should tell God when we are frustrated with God himself.  After all, (a) God wants to be part of our lives, (b) God already knows what we're going through and (c) if we reach out to him, he may answer our prayers or comfort us to reaffirm that he is our God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All very valid and very useful points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate this, he uses the illustration from Habakkuk.  In chapter 1, Habakkuk prays to God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=habakkuk%201:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Habakkuk 1:2 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;How long, LORD, must I call for help,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;but you do not listen?&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Or cry out to you, “Violence!”&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;but you do not save?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God seems to respond favorably to this prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=habakkuk%201:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Habakkuk 1:5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Look at the nations and watch—&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and be utterly amazed.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;For I am going to do something in your days&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;that you would not believe,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;even if you were told.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another example of this type of prayer (praying a complaint about God) in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2012&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 12&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However&lt;/strong&gt;, if we look at the book of Job, we see God respond unfavorably to Job's complaining.  Job goes on for 37 chapters to complain while his friends chide him for brining it on himself (when really, as we see in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 1&lt;/a&gt;, God allowed Satan to do this to Job &lt;em&gt;unprovoked&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in Job 38, God answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 38:1-3 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 “Who is this that obscures my plans&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;with words without knowledge?&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;3 Brace yourself like a man;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;I will question you,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and you shall answer me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God goes on for four more chapters to rebuke Job to show how powerless and foolish Job is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;My question (finally):&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we reconcile God's angry response to Job's complaining with God's favorable response to Habakkuk and Jeremiah's complaining?  What did Job do that was so wrong to bring on God's anger (in his response)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, how should we pray to avoid committing the sin that Job committed (in order to avoid God's wrath)?  I'm seeking the Protestant viewpoint, excluding the doctrine of reciting prayers.  This is more a question regarding open-ended prayer.  (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livingbiblestudies.org/study/TT30/007.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;doctrine of prayer&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-09-21T20:57:18.617" Title="Why did God come down so hard on Job?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;job&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-09-22T03:41:20.817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3914" CreationDate="2011-10-07T14:07:14.963" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that I want to open too much of a wormcan here (maybe too late), but some of this depends on how we define &quot;free will.&quot;   If we consider it to mean &lt;em&gt;the unrestricted freedom to act on our desires in as much as we have the ability to do so&lt;/em&gt;, then Jesus had complete free will...as do we all, generally speaking.  (well, there might be times when our freedom might be restricted by outside forces, but those are more environmental than philosophical, and I guess those could very well be considered as part ot the &quot;ability&quot; part of my definition...e.g. if there's something heavy sitting in my lap, then that's what's denying me my &quot;free will&quot; to go the the bathroom; not God).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is some caveat here that I think is sometimes missed in that, assuming my definition is accurate, then with complete and perfect freedom (and ability), people will freely act &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; in perfect accordance to their nature.   I don't like olives, so even though I have the freedom (generally) to eat olives (i.e. they're freely available to me), what's more important to me is that I also have the freedom not to do so.    So while, theoretically and hypothetically, I &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; choose to eat olives, I won't (it goes against my character), so in the event that I &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; eat an olive, it actually doesn't support my &quot;free will,&quot; but would rather be evidence to suggest that my &quot;will&quot; is not so free after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is significant, because it places reasonable limits to avoid potential absurdity with the hypothetical element of &quot;what could he (theoretically) choose...&quot; to the more practical element of &quot;what can/will he reasonably choose if given the freedom to do so...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take, perhaps, a silly example.   In scripture, God tells us He does not lie.  Assuming that He said so in good faith, then we could ask: well, does He have the &quot;free will,&quot; to lie?  At first glance, it might be tempting to say &quot;yes,&quot; because God is omnipotent, and has complete freedom, but if we understand that question to be synonymous with &quot;Could He lie if He wanted to?,&quot; then it becomes a loaded question [it's explicitly based on a questionable  premise (&quot;if He wanted to&quot;)], which makes the question become somewhat inane, because in revealing His character, He's told us He does not want to.   The practical answer, then, would seem, to be &quot;no,&quot; He does't have the &quot;free will&quot; to lie, because he doesn't have the &quot;will&quot; to lie....IOW, what's actually been asked in this case is &quot;Does God have the free will to act contray to His nature?&quot; but -- assuming again that my definition of free will is reasonable -- this is a nonsense, contradictory question (i.e. &quot;Does God have [the freedom to act in accordance with His nature] in a manner contrary to His nature?&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, I would say that the Bible does affirm that Jesus did have the complete unbridled freedom (e.g. He could have overcome any sort of opposing forces with a legion of angels) to act according to his character, which was destined (from before the foundation of the world) to die on the cross for the sins of his people.   He did so freely, but there really was never any uncertainty that he would (as it was planned and determined before the foundation of the world).   I think what Jesus is actually highlighting here is not so much that He could choose not to do this (though, theoretically, I guess, it could be argued he could), but, rather, that this was all happening according to His plan and on His terms.  The divine plan was playing out here; he was not being killed against his will as it might seem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ETA: TL;DR version:&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus was free and able to avoid execution (i.e. he was not foricbly killed against his will), but to ask if he had the &quot;free will&quot; to avoid it seems a contradictory question by my understanding of &quot;free will,&quot; because he revealed his &quot;free will&quot; to do so in the fact that he did so and did so freely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="701" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T14:39:20.367" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T14:39:20.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3926" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3928" CreationDate="2011-10-07T14:11:45.587" Score="27" ViewCount="1939" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on your tradition, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt; may or may not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Greek) τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον - who from the Father proceeds &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  (Latin) qui ex Patre &lt;strong&gt;Filioque&lt;/strong&gt; procedit - who from the Father &lt;strong&gt;and the Son&lt;/strong&gt; proceeds&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has been a point of contention between the Orthodox and Western churches, the latter category including both Catholics and Protestants, for at least a thousand years, contributing to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism&quot;&gt;Great Schism&lt;/a&gt;. I have read about the history of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque&quot;&gt;filioque&lt;/a&gt;&quot; but I have basically no idea what the theological difference is meant to be. I understand that there is some doubt about whether &quot;ἐκπορευόμενον&quot; means the same thing as &quot;procedit&quot;, so both versions could be right (and apparently we all agree it would be wrong to insert &quot;and the Son&quot; into the Greek) but I don't see what either version of &quot;proceeding&quot; is meant to imply about the nature of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father alone, what does that actually mean for our understanding of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditDate="2011-10-26T15:37:38.000" LastActivityDate="2020-07-18T07:04:25.030" Title="What are the theological implications of &quot;filioque&quot;?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;nicene-creed&gt;&lt;filioque&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3924" CreationDate="2011-10-07T16:06:05.783" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe it is because Job's complaining went beyond merely complaining and went into self-justification and questioning God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040:1-5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 40:1-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the LORD said to Job,&#xA;  &quot;Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? &#xA;  Let him who reproves God answer it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Job answered the LORD and said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? &#xA;  I lay my hand on my mouth. &#xA;  &quot;Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; &#xA;  Even twice, and I will add nothing more.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;verse 8&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Will you really annul My judgment? &#xA;  Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and finally, Job's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2042:1-6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;confession&lt;/a&gt; of his own wrong-doing in his over-complaining:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Job answered the LORD and said,&#xA;  &quot;I know that You can do all things, &#xA;  And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. &#xA;  'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?'&#xA;  Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, &#xA;  Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.&quot;&#xA;  'Hear, now, and I will speak; &#xA;  I will ask You, and You instruct me.'&#xA;  &quot;I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; &#xA;  But now my eye sees You; &#xA;  Therefore I retract, &#xA;  And I repent in dust and ashes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is also angry at Job's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2042:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;friends&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (sidebar - with friends like those, who needs enemies?). And yes, God &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; say Job has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040:10-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;spoken rightly&lt;/a&gt; about him as well - but there's some point beyond the right speaking that Job &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2032:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exceeded&lt;/a&gt;, too - as I understand it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T20:01:00.640" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T20:01:00.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3926" CreationDate="2011-10-07T17:12:47.690" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;filioque&lt;/em&gt; is meant as a theological explanation of the relationship between the Spirit and the Son. The Bible tells us that the Son is begotten from the Father, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but any curious Trinitarian is going to wonder what the Spirit-Son relationship is. And the West, as a rule, is much more interested in nailing down theological specifics than the East.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as theology following from it, the &lt;em&gt;filioque&lt;/em&gt; has led some western theologians to suggest that the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son, a love so strong that it is an actual &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt;, which is an interesting thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox have some &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque#Objections_on_doctrinal_grounds&quot;&gt;doctrinal objections&lt;/a&gt; to it, largely that it makes the Holy Spirit a subordinate or less important member of the Trinity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a&#xA;  subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in&#xA;  the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all&#xA;  Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is&#xA;  unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and&#xA;  procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all,&#xA;  as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something&#xA;  can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's&#xA;  procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the&#xA;  expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is&#xA;  destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, though, the contention has been at least as much about church authority as it has been about theology. The original creed (from the ecumenical councils at Nicea and Constantinople) did not include the &lt;em&gt;filioque&lt;/em&gt;, and when the bishop of Rome unilaterally sanctioned its use, Eastern bishops saw that as something totally outside his authority to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="75" LastEditorUserId="75" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T17:18:41.990" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T17:18:41.990" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3013" CreationDate="2011-10-07T19:42:40.593" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will try to answer your two questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To your first inquiry of how do we measure faith: we do not, only GOD can do that.  It is the Lord's job to judge, we as humans have an insufficient perspective of all things, including ourselves.  Therefore, to take it upon ourselves to measure faith as if it could be placed on a scale might be to take the place of God, and thus potentially break the first commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To your second of how do we know if someone is weaker in faith we could still fall back on what I already said, but for Paul in Romans 14 (which is listed in another answer) someone is weaker in faith if their conscience is bound and they therefore do not partake in an activity even though it would not be sinful for them.  In Romans 14 this is in reference to eating certain foods, and I am sure there are some cultural equivalents today (such as wine, cigars, tattoos, piercings, the cutting of ones hair, not kissing before a wedding night).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently for Paul, the Christian life is intended to be a life of freedom, a life free to live in the love of God and neighbor and less about living under the strict confines of an uber pious morality.  Perhaps for Paul, the person who is more free to enjoy every bit of creation is the one who has a &quot;stronger faith.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-11T19:04:43.057" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T19:04:43.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3930" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3933" CreationDate="2011-10-07T20:15:34.760" Score="10" ViewCount="706" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no question that Christianity believes in heaven.  We have a tag here &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/heaven&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;heaven&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;heaven&lt;/a&gt; filled with questions about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this, there are many places in the Old Testament that speak of the futility of life and show that death is merely nothingness (Sheol).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's on place in particular:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%209:3-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 9:3-6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Emphasis added&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  3 This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of people, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. 4 Anyone who is among the living has hope—even a live dog is better off than a dead lion! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 For the living know that they will die,  but the dead know nothing;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;they have no further reward,  and even their name is forgotten.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  6 Their love, their hate  and their jealousy have long since vanished;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's another verse that shows that there won't be a reward or punishment after death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%209:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 9:2 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As it is with the good,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    so with the sinful;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  as it is with those who take oaths,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    so with those who are afraid to take them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all this in mind, how do we reconcile the passages in the Old Testament with this understanding of heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm seeking a Protestant viewpoint on this and am interested in any Protestant exegesis or doctrine or any historical facts regarding this issue.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/692/what-makes-a-good-supported-answer&quot;&gt;Please support your answers.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T14:32:47.893" Title="How do we reconcile the futility of Ecclesiastes with the reward of heaven?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-22T11:36:33.660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3930" CreationDate="2011-10-07T20:26:58.307" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;We reconcile the two by keeping in mind that the &quot;vanity&quot; of Ecclesiastes is being told from the perspective of the world (&quot;under the sun&quot;), and not as a declaration of theological truth.  Ecclesiastes reaches its conclusion in the last two chapters, where we see that, in contrast to all the pursuits of the world which in the end don't amount to anything, lasting value can be found in righteous living, culminating in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%2012:13-14&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 12:13-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This ending makes it clear that the author does believe in the final judgment, which would be kind of pointless if death was the end of everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T20:26:58.307" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3930" CreationDate="2011-10-07T21:13:25.960" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the beginning, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God made it clear that we are from dust and to dust we will return&lt;/a&gt;.  This concept remained the dominant theology prior to the revelations of the prophets.&lt;/strong&gt;  With the revelations from the prophets (Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc.), Judaism moved into the realization of eternal life.  With Jesus came a much fuller understanding of what happens to us after death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Sheol&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that persisted throughout early Judaism is that when people died, they went to a place called &lt;em&gt;Sheol&lt;/em&gt;.  Modern translations sometimes translate this original Hebrew word as &quot;pit&quot; or &quot;grave&quot;.  However, it's clear from Ecclesiastes that this falls far short of the true answer.  It's very clear that it exists as a place of &lt;em&gt;nothingness&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Sheol, there is no&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;activity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;planning &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;knowledge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;wisdom&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above four are supported by this verse&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%209:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 9:10 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;reward&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;punishment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;love&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;hate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;zeal&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are supported by&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%209:5-6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6 Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear from these verses that &lt;em&gt;Sheol&lt;/em&gt; is a place of &lt;em&gt;nothingness&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is further supported by the following passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:19 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  By the sweat of your face You will eat bread,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; &#xA;  For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's further supported that this place is a place where all people go, regardless of their deeds (in support of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%209:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 9:2&lt;/a&gt; from the question):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%203:11%E2%80%9319&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 3:11, 17-19 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  11 “Why did I not die [a]at birth, Come forth from the womb and expire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 “There the wicked cease from raging, And there the weary are at rest.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  18 “The prisoners are at ease together; They do not hear the voice of the taskmaster.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  19 “The small and the great are there, And the slave is free from his master.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%206:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms 6:5 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  For there is no mention of You in death; In Sheol who will give You thanks?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also see this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2088:3-12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms 88:3-12&lt;/a&gt; (although too long to quote here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In Essence&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;The idea that existed back then (when Ecclesiastes was written) is that &lt;em&gt;Sheol&lt;/em&gt; is essentially a place of nothingness, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2088:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;shade of an existence&lt;/a&gt; where there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%209:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;no memory and no reward&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rise of the Prophets&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It wasn't until God gave us revelations through prophets like Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel that the idea of true life after death came to be understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, revelations to Daniel showed that there will be a place of eternal reward established:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%202:44&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 2:44 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it wasn't &lt;strong&gt;until&lt;/strong&gt; these revelations &lt;em&gt;by God&lt;/em&gt; that we understood that there was more to life after death than simply &lt;em&gt;Sheol&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_eschatology#The_Messiah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia: Jewish eschatology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Christianity and Heaven&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Judaism slowly moved from these ideas of &lt;em&gt;Sheol&lt;/em&gt; (nothingness after death) into an understanding of &lt;em&gt;life&lt;/em&gt; after death, Jesus came on the scene and established his kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't bother rehashing all the details there.  However, Jesus fulfilled many of the prophecies of Isiah.  Now he's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:2-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;off, preparing a place for us&lt;/a&gt;.  Since that time, God revealed even more about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:3-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;heaven&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2021:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hell&lt;/a&gt; in the Book of Revelations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to the prophets, the idea of eternal existence beyond life simply boiled down to nothingness.  It wasn't until God revealed the truth to us through his prophets that we understood the realities of heaven and hell.  At the time of Jesus, these ideas of eternal life were somewhat present, but still vague.  Jesus, who had come from heaven, told us many things about heaven and hell.  Even more was revealed to us through the Holy Spirit and through the Revelation of John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T23:11:57.350" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T23:11:57.350" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3935" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3936" CreationDate="2011-10-07T22:37:37.383" Score="7" ViewCount="3708" Body="&lt;p&gt;Door to door Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons, people preaching in town centres, posters outside churches, alpha course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do  Christians have to promote their beliefs to other people? What difference does it make to believers if other people do not believe the same as them? Do they not think they may offend atheists?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am interested to hear from people who actively promote their religion to non-believers and what drives them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="847" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-23T03:34:32.510" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T08:10:48.390" Title="Why do Christians need to promote their religion to non-believers?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;proselytizing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-10-24T07:11:26.053" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3935" CreationDate="2011-10-07T23:05:02.757" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;You basically have three sub-questions here, so let me attempt to answer them in order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why do christians have to promote their beliefs to other people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For two principal reasons: because we were commanded to at several different places in the Bible, and as an act of love.  The Gospel improves the lives of those who live its principles, and we want to share that with those who don't have those blessings in their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What difference does it make to believers if other people do not believe the same as them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, aside from what I posted above about loving others and wanting them to experience the same blessings we have, it makes a &lt;em&gt;huge&lt;/em&gt; difference when the other people are not content to simply &quot;not believe the same&quot; and leave it at that, but actively attempt to use force--of either the physical, political or legal variety--to interfere with our ability to live our religion.  And one of the simplest ways to counter that is to turn an enemy into a believer.  (Sometimes it can have a very dramatic result; just look at Paul!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do they not think they may offend atheists?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps, but that only matters if you think that avoiding hurting someone's feelings is more important than sincerely trying to help them improve their lives.  The Gospel encourages an eternal perspective, which tends to give us a different ordering of priorities than the strong short-term focus so prevalent in the world today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2011-10-07T23:24:38.997" LastActivityDate="2011-10-07T23:24:38.997" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3937" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-07T23:55:42.450" Score="11" ViewCount="2090" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many belief systems share common themes; an afterlife, rebirth, bodily mutilation and sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me this suggests a shared origin either in history or storytelling (Abrahamic faiths) or that they were all &quot;made up&quot; to appease basic human fears or death and to cope with grief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking these similarities into account how do Christians dismiss other beliefs and accept their own as the one true religion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="847" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T12:03:32.170" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T12:03:32.170" Title="How do Christians explain commonalities between their religion, other major faiths and obscure isolated tribal belief systems?" Tags="&lt;belief&gt;&lt;comparative-religion&gt;&lt;general-revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3938" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4193" CreationDate="2011-10-08T00:00:52.163" Score="5" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;The local Presbyterian Church has a sign outside offering an Alpha Course. I'm sure I've heard of the same course being offered by the Roman Catholic Church. So is the Alpha Course a very general &lt;em&gt;Mere-Christianity&lt;/em&gt;-type thing, or is it customised to each denomination, or are the two Alpha courses completely unrelated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T15:17:24.433" Title="What is the Alpha Course?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;proselytizing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3937" CreationDate="2011-10-08T00:22:09.010" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question, but it's not about how do we justify our being right and everyone else being wrong. It all comes down to absolute truth. There may be common threads between various religions but they cannot all be true. For example:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there one God or many? Christians, Jews and Muslims all say 1, Hindus say many. Both parties cannot be right - either there is one God or many (or none, for the atheists)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did Jesus exist? Either He did definitely exist or He didn't, but there is evidence from non-Christian sources (like the Jewish historian Josephus) that Jesus did exist.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did Jesus die on a cross? Christians say Yes, Muslims say No. We cannot both be right. What's important is to know that it's not about believing whatever you like as long as you're sincere. You can believe a lie with all sincerity, but it is still a lie.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God exists, wants to be relationship with us and expects us to meet a standard of some sort, then what does it take to meet His standard? Does He expect perfection or is He OK with us obeying him some of the time only? If he wants perfect obedience, then what happens when we're not obedient and how do we come right with God? For me, Christianity answers these questions best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Christianity is NOT about &quot;coping&quot; and appeasing human fears. Does deciding to wait until marriage before having sex sound like a crutch? Does believing in spite of persecution (as many Christians do in China, Philippines, Nigeria, etc.) sound like they do it to cope? No, their lives would be easier if they were NOT Christians. They get additional fears (beatings, prison, death) but they also get God's help in enduring them because God is glorified by their continuing faith in spite of the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastEditorUserId="224" LastEditDate="2011-10-08T05:31:00.433" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T05:31:00.433" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3937" CreationDate="2011-10-08T00:57:06.140" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dismissing other religions is a bit harsh, I believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there are common beliefs, which makes sense if there was an event that actually happened, for example, if you look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden&lt;/a&gt; and read about &lt;code&gt;Sumer&lt;/code&gt; you will see that there is another story with parallels to the Garden of Eden.  If you look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Sumerian&quot;&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Sumerian&lt;/a&gt; you will see a story about the Great Flood, similar to Noah's Ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it helps show that Genesis may not just be stories to help people cope with loss or fear, but actual events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as people moved, cultures change, new gods are encountered, stories are re-interpreted to fit the new culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, we come to Jesus, where there is more non-Christian evidence close to that period about him than about Julius Caesar being in Ireland.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, all but one of the original Apostles were martyred, so they either believed what they shared or were hiding a lie. It is unlikely all of them would have held to a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at how the early church dealt with other religions, it wasn't dimissive, but trying to show common ground, for examples &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:16-34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 17:16-34&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul understood their beliefs, then used that to help explain about God and Jesus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:22-23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 17:22-23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said:&#xA;  “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;&gt; For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of&#xA;  worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN&#xA;  GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is&#xA;  what I am going to proclaim to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are dismissive then that will just harden hearts, as people become defensive, so look for common ground.  I think the best example was the woman at the well (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:1-30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;John 4:1-30&lt;/a&gt;), where Jesus was not dismissive of her beliefs, but found a common ground (she and He drink water) and through that found a way to share with her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We hold our beliefs to be true, the hope is that God will help us understand how to share that with others, so that they can see the hope we have due to the Gospel of Christ, so we are sowers of seeds, we can till the soil, remove some stones, but ultimately only God can make the seed that is planted grow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, dismissing beliefs would be adding more stones to rocky soil and taking away any shade, to ensure that any seed planted will not grow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-08T01:42:53.573" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T01:42:53.573" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3935" CreationDate="2011-10-08T01:24:43.807" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Early Christians had a particular vision, and that vision needed to spread, so the mechanism was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Accept Jesus, then get others to accept him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is similar to the vision of our form of agriculture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Grow, then get more land, increase food production, then grow some&#xA;  more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two quotes came from &lt;em&gt;Beyond Civilization&lt;/em&gt;, by Daniel Quinn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we start with the fact that we want our vision of God to spread.  You can see this in a similar way with other religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, do you have to buy into any one particular religious belief, so should Catholics try to convert Baptists?  I think that as long as the vision is similar to Jesus' then we should focus on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two greatest commandments&lt;/a&gt; which is on how to properly relate to God and each other, with love.  So, some people want to force their views on others that don't have their own narrow view of the world, but that seems geared more toward personal glory (bragging rights) than trying to help share Jesus' vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you mention in a comment why try to convert people that are happy.  Some people feel that they are happy as drug users, or skipping school.  If I truly love someone then I would like to see them happy for eternity, and Jesus is doorway to this, then I should share my beliefs, but, as I mentioned in another of your questions, being pushy will just drive people to put up walls and become more resistant.  Being pushy wasn't the way that Jesus nor the early Apostles approached this, and using them as a guideline would show that being pushy is probably for the wrong motives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why not share our view on relationships with God and others, and show how it can help them, but that starts with understanding that person, not just trying to use a one-size fits all approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can share our beliefs without annoying people, if we go slow, let God direct us, and understand the person we are talking with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the best books to help show how this works is Dale Carnegie's &lt;em&gt;How to Make Friends and Influence People&lt;/em&gt;, btw, if you don't want to use a religious writing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T01:24:43.807" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3937" CreationDate="2011-10-08T01:38:33.640" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is likely to be the correct one, and such commonalities are generally explained by Christians by appealing to the simplest solution: when two separate entities share several common traits, it's generally because they derive from a shared origin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament gives a few tantalizing glimpses of things that make a lot more sense in the context of Christianity, especially in the account of events that predate the Law of Moses, but the record is rather sketchy, and mostly limited in scope to the people of Israel and their predecessors.  But from extrabliblical historical and religious works of similar antiquity we get a picture of the rest of the world, and of striking similarities in the details of their worship customs, and the further back you go, the more things converge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give just one example, we typically think of ancient Greece as the birthplace of Western thought, but religiously they were anything but!  If you were to mention to an ancient Israelite the notion of a God of thunder and lightning and fertility, who is the leader of the pantheon and lives on top of a mystical mountain, he would immediately recognize the concept: you're talking about Baal, the chief god of the Caananites!  (And in fact Zeus's consort's name is only one syllable different from Baal's &lt;em&gt;Asherah&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the name &lt;em&gt;Baal&lt;/em&gt; is a Hebraicized version of the Babylonian &lt;em&gt;Bel&lt;/em&gt;, and Babylon was built at the site of &lt;em&gt;Babel&lt;/em&gt;, where humanity was once gathered together before dispersing from that point.  (There's been some very interesting research into ancient Babylonian history that identifies the legendary Tower of Babel with the Ziggurat of Babylon, for example.)  And one of the high points of Baal's legend was a resurrection tale involving him being murdered by his enemies and coming back to life a few days later, imagery that should be immediately familiar to any Christian.  Where did this notion come from?  From when a good portion (all?) of humanity, including true worshipers of the Lord, lived in and around the land of Babel, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These sorts of convergences show up all over the place when you start looking at the details of ancient religious systems, and they only really make sense if you assume a common origin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T01:38:33.640" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2486" CreationDate="2011-10-08T02:03:51.520" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Archaeologist Ron Wyatt claimed before his death to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant buried under several meters of rock and dirt, just outside the city of Jerusalem. He believed the Ark had somehow been buried directly under the site of the crucifixion. Part of his discovery was the presence of a dark substance that had dripped onto the mercy seat, and which appeared to be blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was at this time, as Ron recalls, as the instant realization of&#xA;  what had happened here dawned on him, that he passed out. When he&#xA;  realized that the crack in the ceiling was the end of the crack he had&#xA;  found in the elevated cross-hole many feet above him, and the black&#xA;  substance was blood which had fallen through the crack and into the&#xA;  stone case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ron then knew that the Ark of the Covenant was in the stone case:  But&#xA;  the most overwhelming realization was that Christ's Blood had actually&#xA;  fallen onto the Mercy Seat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wyattmuseum.com/arkofthecovenant.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is widely rumored that the nation of Israel has the Ark of the Covenant in its possession in an undisclosed location, awaiting the rebuilding of the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T02:03:51.520" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2933" CreationDate="2011-10-08T02:29:57.290" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Three is the number of perfection, or completion. This number is repeated throughout the Bible as a symbol of completeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's attributes are three: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Time is divided in three: past, present and future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three is the first of four perfect numbers...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three denotes &lt;em&gt;divine&lt;/em&gt; perfection;&#xA;Seven denotes &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; perfection;&#xA;Ten denotes &lt;em&gt;ordinal&lt;/em&gt; perfection; and&#xA;Twelve denotes &lt;em&gt;governmental&lt;/em&gt; perfection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham offered three measures of meal to his guest(s), showing the perfection of God's divine nature. In Numbers 15:9, the instructions to offer with a burn offering read, &quot;Then shall he bring with the bullock a meal offering of THREE tenth deals of flour.&quot;, as were the instructions for the cleansing of a leper in Lev 14:10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third book in the Bible, where we learn about true worship, is Leviticus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During His ministry Jesus raised three persons from the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the third day, the earth rose from the water, symbolic of resurrection life. He was crucified at the third hour, was on the cross from 3 hours, rose from the grave on the third day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The inscription above His cross, in three languages, showed the completeness of His rejection by man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He fulfilled the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King (Deut 177:15, 18:3-5, and 18:15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more on the number three, please reference EW Bullinger's excellent book &lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-nis/three.htm&quot;&gt;Number in Scripture&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T02:29:57.290" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3937" CreationDate="2011-10-08T03:47:18.317" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Romans 12:3 the Bible tells us that we have all been given a certain “measure of faith” by God. I believe that this is true for every human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spiritually, this measure drives us to seek the truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of cultural variances, what is ultimate truth to some will not be to others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since we are searching to understand what has been placed in us (that measure of faith) by God himself, it seems more likely than not that there would be many commonalities between Christians, other faiths, even to remote tribal cultures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are all truth seekers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T03:47:18.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2933" CreationDate="2011-10-08T07:15:14.237" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have I not written to thee three times with counsels and knowledge? (Pro 22:20 YLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, (Pro 22:20 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have written you worthwhile things full of good counsel and knowledge, (Pro 22:20 CJB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that God a lot of times communicates to us in groups of three things with one thing in common: growth. It's interesting that the word Young translates &quot;three times&quot; in other translations is rendered &quot;excellent things&quot;. A few examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The good, acceptable, perfect (Rom 12:2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nepios (toddler), Teknon (technically a son), Huios (a mature son) (Gal 4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Child, Youngster, Father (1Jo 2:12-14)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Outer Court, Holy Place, Holy of Holies&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Water Baptism, Baptism in the Spirit, Baptism by Fire&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;30, 60, 100-fold&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God himself is triune, just like man (body, soul, and spirit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter denying Christ 3 times shows his growth into deception, while being restored through being asked 3 times and expressing his love 3 times his growth back into perfection (in the sense of the Bible: maturity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a footnote, 7 represents the perfection of God. And 6, the number of man (created on the 6th day, can be repeated as many times as you want, it never becomes seven. 7 is the addition of 3 (the perfect triune God) and 4 (the 4 corners of the earth) and therefore encompasses everything. It is also 6 (man) plus 1 (the one or united God Deu 6:4), the only way that 6 can become 7 - in relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T07:15:14.237" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3947" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3955" CreationDate="2011-10-08T09:28:15.100" Score="15" ViewCount="436" Body="&lt;p&gt;My community recently found out that one of our local priests is also a &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Freemason&lt;/a&gt;. I'm not entirely sure of what Freemasonry is about and how it relates to Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly can outsiders know using publicly available sources about what Freemasonry teaches about the relationship between itself and Christianity? Does it teach that they overlap with, are a subset of, or are unrelated with the Christian faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Since one of our local priests is one, there must be others who profess Christianity and practice Freemasonry. How do they view the practice in relation to their faith? Where do ultimate allegiances lie for practitioners of both?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-28T11:16:13.640" LastActivityDate="2015-09-28T11:16:13.640" Title="How is Freemasonry related to Christianity?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;freemasonry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3947" CreationDate="2011-10-08T12:47:18.863" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How is Freemasonry related to Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Freemasonry is promotes indifferentism. Indifferentism is the heretical belief that all religions are equally legitimate attempts to explain the truth about God which, but for the truth of His existence, are unexplainable. Such a view makes all truths relative and holds that God can be equally pleased with truth and error. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Freemasonry's teachings and practices also result in syncretism which is the blending of different religious beliefs into a unified whole. This is evidenced most especially by Masonry's religious rituals which gather men of all faiths around a common altar, and place all religious writings along side the Bible on the Masonic altar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="3426" LastEditDate="2011-10-09T05:34:54.317" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T05:34:54.317" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3949" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-08T14:19:36.937" Score="7" ViewCount="1116" Body="&lt;p&gt;What was Jesus' own personal view on the nature of the Scripture as far as the divine authority of the OT? Can his view on this issue be determined through his own use of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-08T18:11:28.360" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T17:05:19.567" Title="What was Jesus' view on the authority of Scripture?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-25T13:57:48.660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3950" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-08T14:23:12.177" Score="5" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus consider the historic references in the OT to be literal in the sense that people and events where historical as recorded or did he view them as symbolic/figurative or did he pick and choose? Can we construct what his view must have been on the literal historicity of the OT based on his own usage of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2011-10-08T18:01:15.090" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T22:11:13.813" Title="Did Jesus consider OT events to be literal history?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-25T13:55:47.927" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3951" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-08T14:25:59.943" Score="10" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible give us any indication about what Satan's own view of the Scriptures and their authority as divine testimony is? Does the way he uses it or the way he responds to those who use it tell us anything about his understanding of their inspiration/authority?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-10-08T16:26:05.117" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T17:57:26.673" Title="What was Satan's view on the authority of Scripture?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3935" CreationDate="2011-10-08T14:39:45.297" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me put it to you this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you saw someone about to walk off a cliff, wouldn't you try to stop them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is asking about a Christian's motives, so it's fair to evaluate this from the Christian's point of view. Perhaps the atheist about to walk off the cliff is only trying to reach a ledge just below top of the cliff, but if all the Christian can see is someone about to take a jump, making an effort to save this person is perfectly appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2011-10-08T15:52:59.057" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T15:52:59.057" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3951" CreationDate="2011-10-08T17:57:26.673" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the oft-cited adage that &quot;the Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes&quot; is not, as some think, an actual Biblical quotation, support for the idea is definitely found in the Bible.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew chapter 4&lt;/a&gt;, for example.)  This doesn't really demonstrate anything either way about Satan's willingness to accept the scriptures as authoritative or authentic, but simply a cynical tendency to use any rhetorical tool that he thinks will be effective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do know that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;the devils believe [in God] and tremble&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, and that they acknowledge the power of his authorized servants but not his name alone (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019:13-16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 19: 13-16&lt;/a&gt;,) but very little is said of Satan or his servants and their relationship with the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T17:57:26.673" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3013" CreationDate="2011-10-08T18:52:31.597" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just another possible approach —&#xA;Being “weak in faith” may not mean the same thing as having less faith than another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps being “weak in faith” isn’t a measure of belief, but of spiritual strength in the moment. In some cases, simply feeling weakened by the burdens of what is going on in the world around us (relationships, etc.), though still filled with faith. One could be “weak”, but still be “in faith”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:27&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1:27 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2012:7-9&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 12:7-9 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Paul was told that he was displaying weakness. Was this weakness - though still in faith – a sign that he had less faith than another? Or, was he being asked to rely on Christ for his strength. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul goes on to say in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2012:10&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 12:10 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-10-10T12:37:53.513" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T12:37:53.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3947" CreationDate="2011-10-08T19:24:41.303" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Freemasonry is not a religious order, and therefore as long as a freemason believes they are a Christian, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/132/christianity-se-vs-survivor&quot;&gt;they are Christian for the purposes of this site&lt;/a&gt;. Freemasons can also be Jewish, Muslim, Deist, or of any other faith as long as they believe in a Supreme Being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nhgrandlodge.org/becoming-a-mason&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Hampshire Grand Lodge website&lt;/a&gt;, although nearly every Lodge has a similar blurb (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h3&gt;Is Freemasonry a Religion?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Categorically, not. Freemasonry is not a religion, although there is a religious aspect of every Freemason. Those who claim that it is a religion either do not understand our tenets, are confused as to what constitutes a religion, or have simply made an error of judgement without basis of fact. &lt;strong&gt;Freemasonry does require that a man profess a sincere belief in God, but not as to how he practices it, or what else he might believe spiritually. It does not take the place of religion, nor does it supplant the teachings of any religion.&lt;/strong&gt; If anything, it reinforces those moral teachings of religions that form the basis of all good societies.&#xA;  Finally, it is one of the ancient landmarks of Freemasonry that there is never any secular or political discussion in any legally constituted Lodge. So seriously do all regular Lodges take this principle, that the penalty for such discussion is severe and could result in expulsion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Except for the requirement that they believe in God, nothing about masonic teachings is intended to supersede or override Christian teachings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not without &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; controversy, as there have been allegations (particularly from the Roman Catholic Church) that because Freemasonry doesn't explicitly prefer one faith over another, it is incompatible with the true Catholic faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is codified in 1738 by Pope Clement XII's papal bull, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/papal/in_eminenti.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;In eminenti apostolatus specula&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now it has come to Our ears, and common gossip has made clear, that certain Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles called in the popular tongue Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons or by other names according to the various languages, are spreading far and wide and daily growing in strength; &lt;strong&gt;and men of any Religion or sect, satisfied with the appearance of natural probity, are joined together,&lt;/strong&gt; according to their laws and the statutes laid down for them, by a strict and unbreakable bond which obliges them, both by an oath upon the Holy Bible and by a host of grievous punishment, to an inviolable silence about all that they do in secret together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Via this bull, the charge for joining a Masonic order is excommunication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was again reiterated in 1983 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Declaration on Masonic Associations&lt;/a&gt;:&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol [sic] in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T21:35:53.037" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3956" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4209" CreationDate="2011-10-08T19:41:42.190" Score="17" ViewCount="10110" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've got the idea from somewhere that Mormons aren't allowed to be freemasons. Is this true? If so, what is the reasoning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I've heard allegations of similarity between Freemasonry and some Mormon temple activities (neither familiar to me). How are such claims answered by the LDS church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3947/is-freemasonry-appropriate-for-a-christian&quot;&gt;How is Freemasonry related to Christianity?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-07-19T04:32:39.717" Title="What's the Mormon view of Freemasonry?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;freemasonry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3950" CreationDate="2011-10-08T20:04:16.233" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is &quot;Yes.&quot;  Jesus quoted from the Old Testament scriptures as if they were authoritative, and as if they were the very words of God.  The passages of the OT that are historical were regarded by Him as historical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus affirmed the historical existence of Jonah (Matt. 12:40), Noah (Matt. 24:37-38), and Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-08T22:11:13.813" LastActivityDate="2011-10-08T22:11:13.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3949" CreationDate="2011-10-08T21:32:36.577" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;My own personal answer would be no different than the one found here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_06/default.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_06/default.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some excerpts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;He considered it to be divinely inspired:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, &quot;The Scripture cannot be broken&quot; (John&#xA;  10:35). He referred to Scripture as &quot;the commandment of God&quot; (Matthew&#xA;  15:3) and as the &quot;Word of God&quot; (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that&#xA;  it was indestructible: &quot;Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the&#xA;  smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is&#xA;  accomplished&quot; (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words&#xA;  and letters!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Since He considered it to be inspired by God, He considered it authoritative.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old&#xA;  Testament: &quot;Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?&quot;&#xA;  (Matthew 22:31); &quot;Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of&#xA;  infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?&quot;&#xA;  (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and &quot;Have you not read what David&#xA;  did?&quot; (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that&#xA;  Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted&#xA;  from it often and He trusted it totally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When confronted by Satan, Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as a&#xA;  source of authority by stating, &quot;It is written,&quot; (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating,&#xA;  &quot;You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of&#xA;  God,&quot; (NASB, Matt. 22:29).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-09T17:05:19.567" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T17:05:19.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3949" CreationDate="2011-10-09T02:18:58.450" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus felt that Isaiah was authoritative:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread&#xA;  alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”&#xA;  (Matthew 4:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the&#xA;  Lord thy God.” (Matthew 4:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,&#xA;  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”&#xA;  (Matthew 4:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have him quoting from Deuteronomy, compared to Matt 4:4 above, so he felt that it was authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 8:3 (ESV) &#xA;  And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed&#xA;  you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know,&#xA;  that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but&#xA;  man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have the Jesus seemed to believe that Isaiah was written by only one author:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet,&#xA;  saying Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”&#xA;  (Matthew 8:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which related to &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Isaiah 53:4 (ESV)&#xA;4   Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him&#xA;stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and then compare  Matthew 1:22-23 with Isaiah 7:14, about the prophecy regarding the birth of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matt 12:1-8 we see Jesus affirming the truthfulness and reliability of  1Samuel 2:16, Exodus 25:30, Leviticus 24:5-9, Numbers 28:9-10, Hosea 6:6, Genesis 2:3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we have Matt 19:1-6 where Jesus reaffirms the Genesis creation account, about God creating man and woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we have Matthew 22:41–46 where Jesus is stating that David was inspired &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, &#xA;42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”&#xA;43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,&#xA;44  “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord,&#xA;“Sit at my right hand,&#xA;until I put your enemies under your feet” ’?&#xA;45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.&#xA;and in Matt 27:35 where Jesus sees David as a prophet.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it&#xA;  might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my&#xA;  garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So by going by just one Gospel we can see that Jesus felt the OT was authoritative, at least a representative sample of the OT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T02:18:58.450" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2486" CreationDate="2011-10-09T02:56:38.923" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ Himself seems to be the new mercy seat, according to Romans 3:25, wherein Christ is referred to (in the original Greek) as the One &quot;Whom God hath set forth to be an &lt;em&gt;hilasterion&lt;/em&gt; through faith in His blood.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Hilasterion&lt;/em&gt; refers clearly to the mercy seat of old in Hebrews 9:5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may also be edifying to note that upon the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, the veil into the Holy of Holies in the temple was rent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: User @Ray has correctly pointed out that the interpretation of the word &lt;em&gt;hilasterion&lt;/em&gt; in Romans 3:25 is debatable. Indeed, a quick search of the word yields multiple forum questions. At least one PhD dissertation is focused on this tricky word (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20000221/001675.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). My apologies for not realizing the deep hermeneutical territory into which I have transgressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="88" LastEditDate="2011-10-17T18:34:05.167" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T18:34:05.167" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3961" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-09T03:10:51.883" Score="17" ViewCount="42452" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was wondering why did Joab take hold of the horns of the altar in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%202&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-8799&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Kings 2:28&lt;/a&gt;? Or rather, what is the significance of him doing that? What is he trying to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%202&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-8799&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Kings 2:28-29 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; When the news reached Joab, who had conspired with Adonijah though not with Absalom, he fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar. &lt;strong&gt;29&lt;/strong&gt; King Solomon was told that Joab had fled to the tent of the LORD and was beside the altar. Then Solomon ordered Benaiah son of Jehoiada, “Go, strike him down!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when Adonijah learned that Solomon was made king, he took hold of the horns of the altar :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%201&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-8767&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Kings 1:49-51 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;49&lt;/strong&gt; At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. &lt;strong&gt;50&lt;/strong&gt; But Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar. &lt;strong&gt;51&lt;/strong&gt; Then Solomon was told, “Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon and is clinging to the horns of the altar. He says, ‘Let King Solomon swear to me today that he will not put his servant to death with the sword.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T14:47:59.977" Title="What is the significance of taking hold of the horns of the altar?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;temple&gt;&lt;1-kings&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3388" CreationDate="2011-10-09T04:03:01.587" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Authors like Joachim Jeremias and Gerard von Rad had shown that the origins of the OT began circa 1200-900 B.C. in the David King's dynasty, probably with the Wise Solomon. They and others are in agreement that the &quot;David King's dynasty&quot; text in I Kg was the first in the creation of the OT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="518" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-09T07:26:36.133" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T07:26:36.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3965" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3970" CreationDate="2011-10-09T04:22:47.007" Score="6" ViewCount="352" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have frequently heard the argument that various human frailties, such as dying of old age, are the result of corruption after the original sin; less frequently, but often enough to get my attention, I hear the extended lifespans in Genesis were a result of reduced corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I take this literally, though, I end up puzzled by what this perfection could have looked like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if there were no diseases or parasites before sin, then we wouldn't really have needed immune systems.  However, our immune system is impressively complex, including specialized organs that randomly shuffle the genes in immune cells until they make antibodies that accurately recognize invaders (so they can be destroyed).  However, if there were diseases and parasites but we were supposed to be perfectly immune, our immune system's design cannot do the job: all the machinery devoted to random shuffling necessarily requires time, during which we are sick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another example, cancer always eventually kills everyone if they escape every other malady.  There is no way to escape this fate because potassium, which is an essential element, is also occasionally radioactive; this radioactivity damages our DNA, which eventually will cause enough mutations to make cells misbehave and become cancerous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should we think about the initial state of perfection, given the physical barriers to it, and the sophistication of our bodies in dealing with imperfection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T04:54:21.077" Title="If humans are now genetically tainted by corruption, what was perfection like?" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-21T03:06:27.737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3961" CreationDate="2011-10-09T04:33:31.887" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This looks like a reference to the manslaughter provision in Exodus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:12-14&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 21:12-14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By fleeing to the tabernacle and taking ahold of the altar, Joab was claiming that he was not guilty of murdering Absalom (see 2 Samuel 18) and deserved mercy.  Apparently Solomon disagreed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T04:33:31.887" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2011-10-09T05:38:58.910" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple Answer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is how Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell came to Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read their books it is very good at explaining their story&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A case for Christ &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidence that demands a verdict&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They both where skeptics who did not believe in Christianity, but they investigated the evidence and found out that Christianity has a lot going for it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="3426" LastEditDate="2011-10-10T16:15:33.757" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T16:15:33.757" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3965" CreationDate="2011-10-09T12:08:29.700" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1 never calls humans or human bodies &quot;perfect&quot;, it does near the end of the chapter call all of creation &quot;very good.&quot; We also have no indication from scripture about increasing amounts of genetic imperfections as humanity survived though the ages, so that might infer that we are trying to read into the scripture something it never set out for or was intended to answer, namely what human perfection was like (because it never existed in anyone except Jesus, who also died) and genetics (the bible was written in times when people had no concept for it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="29" LastEditDate="2011-10-09T18:39:20.520" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T18:39:20.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3965" CreationDate="2011-10-09T12:42:07.500" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul distinguishes between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. He says that the first Adam &amp;quot;was of the dust of the earth&amp;quot;, so he and we have ordinary bodies; whereas the body of our resurrection, brought about by Christ as the new Adam, will be immortal and incorruptible. This suggests that even before Adam's sin, he was mortal and his body was corruptible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verses 40-53 in the NIV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. &lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. &lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; &lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; &lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. &lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt; So it is written: &amp;quot;The first man Adam became a living being&amp;quot;; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. &lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt; The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. &lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt; The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. &lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt; As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. &lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt; And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt; I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. &lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt; Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed: &lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt; in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. &lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt; For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T12:42:07.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3971" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3978" CreationDate="2011-10-09T13:58:06.980" Score="12" ViewCount="5686" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain me these passages about the effect of poison? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who is immune to poison?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why do they have this trait?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why isn't anyone today immune to poison?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016%3A17-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 16:17-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;they will pick up snakes with their hands; &lt;strong&gt;and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all&lt;/strong&gt;; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010%3A19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 10:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2028:3-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 28:3-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.” &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="301" LastEditDate="2011-10-09T17:35:26.477" LastActivityDate="2015-06-21T00:02:06.417" Title="The effect of poison on Christians" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-06-24T15:35:28.767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3972" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-09T14:21:34.693" Score="4" ViewCount="3906" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has many parts (in both the Old and New Testaments) that shows the inferior status of women. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does this come from status in ancient times or does it have another basis?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why do woman today have almost equal rights not only in society, but also within Christianity? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Burn the daughter (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2021:9%29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leviticus 21:9&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Genesis%2038:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 38:24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rape the daughter (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2019:24-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judges 19:24-25&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Virgins worth (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 22:28-29&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;General female inferiority (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I Corinthians 11:3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:8-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I Corinthians 11:8-9&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Cor.%2014:34-36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I Cor. 14:34-36&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%202:8-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I Timothy 2:8-15&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Peter%203:1-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I Peter 3:1-7&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:22-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:22-24&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col.%203:18-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Col. 3:18-19&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-10-09T17:24:09.503" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T20:09:32.290" Title="Why do women have inferior rights in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;women&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-10-09T20:50:07.200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2410" CreationDate="2011-10-09T16:20:18.873" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 5:24 tell us a brief narration of a patriarch. Details are not available because the historical rigor was not important in the OT. Life and acts of Enoch were not mentioned by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:5), who notes only the faith of the Patriarch the price to pay to &quot;not see death&quot;. We can take the example of Eliah in 2 Kings chapter two: he was a man with fears and human deffects, but &quot;God took him&quot; (i.e. Genesis 5:22-29).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="518" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-12T17:20:56.590" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T17:20:56.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3975" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3977" CreationDate="2011-10-09T16:34:52.363" Score="9" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus tells us in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:24&lt;/a&gt; that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today the process of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germination&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;germination&lt;/a&gt; is explained in a different way and certainly seeds do not have to 'die'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does Jesus use the word &lt;em&gt;die&lt;/em&gt; in a different context?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T17:54:09.167" Title="Jesus on how seeds germinate" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3972" CreationDate="2011-10-09T16:42:57.647" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is easy to take a few verses and try to draw a conclusion about women being inferior, but there are so many verses that run counter to this common understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We start near the beginning of the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD God said, &quot;It is not good for the man to be alone. I will&#xA;  make a helper suitable for him.&quot; (NIV, Genesis 2:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word for helper, &lt;em&gt;ezer&lt;/em&gt;, is also used to describe God himself in  Psalms 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we have that women were made to be a helper, not a servant to men, and, don't remember where this came from but, God didn't pick a bone from his feet to be under man, nor from his head to be over him, but from his rib to be equal with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then in Genesis 2:27-28 and Genesis 5:1-2 they were created in the likeness of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 3:16-19, when they were both booted out of the Garden, both were punished by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the OT we have writings and examples of influential women, such as:  Deborah, Esther, Hannah, Huldah, Jochebed, Miriam, Noadiah, Rachel, Rebekah, Rahab, Ruth and Sarah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 10 Commandments we also see that we need to honor both of our parents: Exodus 20:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the NT Mary and Elizabeth were models of virtue and faithfulness as both put their trust in God: Luke 1:26-45.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus allowed women to travel with him and the Apostles, Luke 8:1-3, though women were normally relegated to just staying at home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Proper&quot; Jews didn't talk with Samaritans, and especially the women, but Jesus had a long talk with the woman at the well: John 4:4-30, 39-42.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Women were generally not well educated, nor given roles in religion, but a lady named Mary sat at the feet of Jesus while he taught, and he suggested her sister Martha do the same: Luke 10:38-42.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early church women were held as near-equals and given positions of authority: Acts 1:12-14, 9:36, 16:14, 18:24-26, 21:7-9, Romans 16:1-16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have that there is no difference based on gender, status or wealth, for example, in the early Christian church: Galatians 3:26-29.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, so we see in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 that women shouldn't speak in church, but in  1 Corinthians 11:5  we see that women were allowed to pray and prophecy, so if we look at 1 Cor 14 there was some problem in the church in Corinth, as this was about some disruptive practices, so it may be that some women were causing issues based on talking too loud or often, but 1 Cor 14:33-35 was not to be taken as a church norm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see in Ephesians 5:21-30 that though men should be in charge of the family, women are not slaves, but should be treated with honor by the husbands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if we remember to love each other as we see in 1 Cor 13, and treat our wives with the same respect as Jesus showed to the church by willingly being crucified, then we should see that women are treated carefully, with love and respect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see how modern times change the role of women we can look at Mary Magdalene (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marypages.com/MaryMagdalene.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.marypages.com/MaryMagdalene.htm&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She was not a prostitute, but was a vital part of Jesus' ministry, as is evident as the first person He appeared to when He was resurrected was her, not Peter.  It was in the middle ages I believe that the story that she was a prostitute was created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She was called the Apostle to the Apostles,and was seen to have been held in high regard by the early Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would have been unusual for a woman to be seen this way, but the early Church, and Jesus, were not always bound by cultural mores, but there were times when they did give in, such as telling women to wear veils, as they were focused on spiritual issues and not on worldly ones (2 Corinthians 5:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="543" LastEditDate="2011-10-09T20:09:32.290" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T20:09:32.290" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3975" CreationDate="2011-10-09T16:44:55.823" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember who he was talking to.  This was certainly not intended to be understood in the context of modern science, which hadn't been invented yet, but to be understood as his listeners understood it.  When the seed is still part of the living plant, it is alive, but when it is detached from the living plant (to fall into the ground) it is no longer connected to the life-giving roots, and therefore is thought of as being without life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T16:44:55.823" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3971" CreationDate="2011-10-09T17:54:19.287" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't answer this definitively, but I can tell you what I've come to as a conclusion. The community can vote as to whether or not they agree, and I'm sure someone else would have a different answer, but here goes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at how God's method of communication has changed over time, it should not be surprising that such &quot;gifts&quot; are not as common as they were.  When it came to the Apostles and the early Church, God was specifically working  to establish His Church. These signs and wonders were accompanied by preaching of the Gospel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, if you look at the miracles performed by Jesus Himself, you'll see that He performed them as a demonstration of His authority, and if you look at them in total, they display that He is God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/miracles.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/miracles.htm&lt;/a&gt;  In other words, He didn't perform them merely to amaze people, He did them to support His teaching, authority, and claims about Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the Apostolic miracles, and those of the early Church, the pattern is similar.  The miracles accompany the preaching of the Gospel, or serve to establish the authority of the Apostles, and early Church.  Once the authority has been established, there is no further need for God to &quot;prove Himself&quot;.  He's already done so.  He had already revealed Himself, and He did say specifically that if we don't believe in the Scriptures, why would we believe Him. (John 5:46).  How many times does He have to prove Himself before we believe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar pattern can be seen throughout Scripture.  In the beginning, He walked with Adam and Eve and spoke to them personally.  With Moses, He spoke from a burning bush.  Later, He spoke to the people through Moses, and then through the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, God had shown anger several times throughout Scripture towards them that seek after signs, when He had already revealed Himself.  He tolerates it at first, even though He recognizes it for what it is (temping God) (Exodus 17:7) but He is still angered by it.  (Psalm 78:18-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees for the same thing.  (Matthew 16:4) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there are still those around today who believe that these verses are to be taken literally, and that they still apply today.  These would be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling&quot;&gt;snake handlers in a few Pentecostal denominations and sub-groups&lt;/a&gt; that so many people love to make fun of.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for me, personally, I don't dare practice these rituals.  It's not that I don't think that God could protect me from snakes and poisons.  It's more that I know that this would be, to me, a test of whether or not He truly would.  In other words, my actions would be a deliberate tempting of God.  I fully believe that He could do it, but I don't want to make Him angry because He could just as well let me die simply because I had the audacity to test Him.  Who am I to test Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2011-10-09T18:05:10.983" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T18:05:10.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3980" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3983" CreationDate="2011-10-09T19:05:50.397" Score="43" ViewCount="7000" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by this question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3937/how-do-christians-explain-to-commonalities-between-their-religion-other-major-fa&quot;&gt;How do Christians explain commonalities between their religion, other major faiths and obscure isolated tribal belief systems?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is &lt;em&gt;fundamentally&lt;/em&gt; unique about Christianity?  Obviously there are different stories, texts, and traditions associated with Christianity than with other religions.  But if we cut away all the fluff from all the world religions...  Is there anything that stands out as unique about the core of Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify what I'm asking:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many religions have prophets that claim to speak on behalf of god(s).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many religions have scriptures, often claimed to be inspired by their god(s).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many religions report miracles, or other supernatural phenomena.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many religions claim to be the only &quot;true&quot; religion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many religions claim to offer forgiveness of sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many religions claim to be historically based and accurate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many religions claim to improve society.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Christianity just has a &quot;better version&quot; of all of these points, it sounds like Christianity is fundamentally the same as most/all other religions, it's just &quot;more completely evolved.&quot;  So what I'm asking for is any characteristics of Christianity that are &lt;strong&gt;fundamentally unique and important&lt;/strong&gt;, and not just improvements on existing ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-02-27T09:18:58.503" Title="What is unique about Christianity?" Tags="&lt;comparative-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="16" ClosedDate="2015-01-06T03:24:58.977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3980" CreationDate="2011-10-09T19:41:45.623" Score="37" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is unique in being the only religion in the history of the world to turn the tables on man (in every sense). It stands apart in its claim to reconcile a perfectly just God as being both just and the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2277/30&quot;&gt;justifier of unjust men&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity stands alone in being the only religion whose God gave up his rights –and very life– on behalf of his constituents. It alone is not a system whereby men, through any contrivance at all, is ever able to reach God but only ever demonstrates his utter failure to do so. Instead, God came to men—to the point of surrendering himself to death at the hands of the very people he purposed to save—in order to show just how backwards this religion was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The legions of men who blithely assert that all religions lead to God in the end are right in this: that the many varied roads mapped and traveled by men in their attempt to reach God merely merge into one wide way. The exception invariably overlooked is Christ: the narrow road that God mapped and traveled to reach lost men. — &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.alerque.com/archives/491&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Myself&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is without parallel in its claim that men can do &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt; good apart from God's intervention. And yet this is still one of the single largest struggles inside Christianity as men wrestle with the idea that they still, through some power of their will or collection of deeds, effect their own salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A man's 'free'-will cannot cure him even of the tooth ache, or of a sore finger; and yet he madly thinks it is in its power to cure his soul. — Augustus Toplady&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, Christianity has a key feature in the Resurrection. No-one else in history has had the authority to lay down their life and take it up again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-02-27T09:18:58.503" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3965" CreationDate="2011-10-09T19:44:39.847" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This understanding, I believe, grows out of an overly literal reading of the word &quot;die&quot; in Genesis 2 (see related question here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1589/what-is-the-specific-meaning-of-die-in-genesis-2&quot;&gt;What is the specific meaning of &amp;quot;die&amp;quot; in Genesis 2?&lt;/a&gt;).  Couple this with an overly-literal reading of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12&lt;/a&gt;, which says that death entered the world (not just humanity) at the same time, we come to the belief that nothing died prior to the fall of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1589/what-is-the-specific-meaning-of-die-in-genesis-2/1707#1707&quot;&gt;accepted answer&lt;/a&gt; to the question I referenced above points out, a better reading of these verses is that &quot;die&quot; means a spiritual death.  At the fall of man, spiritual death entered the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading this &quot;die&quot; to mean physical death is simply nonsensical, even if the earth was only 6 literal days old, as many life forms have lifespans shorter than one day. Furthermore, if &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt; died prior to the fall of man, the how were Adam and Eve able to live prior to the fall?  Life requires death.  When we eat, things die--including the eating of the fruit itself (although maybe one would argue that the sin occurred when they chose to eat the fruit, immediately before picking it and taking a bite--two actions which would cause death of cells, at least.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T04:54:21.077" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3980" CreationDate="2011-10-09T19:53:47.707" Score="54" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many religions are attempts to please a god or &quot;gods&quot; in order to gain their favor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many religions focus on becoming more like a god ourselves, elevating man in some way or another &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Others deny God or the Supernatural at all (often viewing man as already being the ultimate being)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many focus on using or harnessing powers of the universe to improve our lives (Wicca, and other new-age religions)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary difference between Christianity and other religions that I've either &quot;dabbled in&quot; or studied is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is unique in stating that we cannot possibly hope to please God by being &quot;good enough&quot;, and that God reached down and made the ultimate sacrifice for us.  Our good works can do nothing to please Him.  All we can do to please Him is to accept His gift and love Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, all of the other religions that I'm aware of are man-centered, focusing on improving or glorifying man, whereas Christianity is about glorifying God alone.  Instead of trying to appease Him in some way or other, which encourages pride, we are grateful to a God that loves us in spite of our own unrighteousness.  Christianity gives &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the glory to God, and leaves no room for us to take any credit on our own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-11-01T12:31:15.017" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T12:31:15.017" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3984" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3985" CreationDate="2011-10-09T19:56:16.077" Score="9" ViewCount="2928" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember that while Jesus was being tempted in the desert by the devil, the devil had asked Him to jump down from a height, because the angels would be sure to rescue Him. But Jesus answered that &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/luke/4-12.htm&quot;&gt;one should not test God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to &quot;test&quot; God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="853" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T23:47:22.873" Title="What does it mean to test God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3984" CreationDate="2011-10-09T23:37:38.897" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this context, it meant to demand that God prove Himself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3971/the-effect-of-poison-on-christians&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; address this, as does the one on the link @Caleb provided in the note above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short version of it is that throughout Biblical history, from the Exodus on, God has shown little patience with people demanding He prove that He exist, particularly the Israelites, who had seen His miracles time and time again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this context, the conversation could be paraphrased as this, (and this is a rough paraphrase, reading in my understanding of the context):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is tempting Jesus to prove who God is, and who He is.  Satan already knew who He is, so the essence of Satan's asking Jesus to do this is &quot;Oh, yeah, if you're God's son, and God is so powerful, then prove it.&quot;  Christ, recognizing Satan's goading as a mockery of God, refused.  In doing so, He showed not only His obedience to God the Father, but also His perfection and inability to be goaded and tempted by Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan's temptation was no different than the mocking given to Jesus in Matthew 27:37-42.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-10-09T23:47:22.873" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3986" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-09T23:44:36.623" Score="10" ViewCount="2274" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today in church I mentioned that I think living according to the gospel makes life easy. Immediately someone kindly disagreed with me. Then I remembered that I used to think living a Christian life was hard, and I bet many other people feel it is hard also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If living a Christian life is hard, then how can we explain the following scriptures that seem to be saying it is easy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Matthew%2011:28%E2%80%9330&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 11:28-30 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:3 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-07-08T13:12:00.537" Title="Is it easy to live a Christian life?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;righteousness&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-07-10T02:53:04.703" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3986" CreationDate="2011-10-10T00:54:50.307" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;These people are likely thinking of verses like these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:18-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:18-20 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:10 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rightousness and persecution are linked together in these two. However, there is a verse that makes the link explicit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy+3:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:12 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses you referenced talk about interaction between God and Christians, but if you say something like &quot;following Christ's Gospel (being righteous) makes life easy&quot;, then people will assume you mean the interaction between Christians and the world, which is indeed not an easy life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T00:54:50.307" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3986" CreationDate="2011-10-10T01:20:46.427" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not believe that the verses cited mean that it is easy to live a Godly life, and to abstain from sin simply because we're saved.  No less than Paul himself, who wrote a good portion of the New Testament struggled against his sin nature.  He wrote about it often, but I think that the most raw and honest writing, which dealt directly with his struggle is found in Romans 7.  (Quoted from the KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 For that which I do I know not: for what I would, that do I not;&#xA;  but what I hate, that do I.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that&#xA;  it is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwells no good&#xA;  thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which&#xA;  is good I find not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would&#xA;  not, that I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Now if I do that which I would not, it is no more I that do it,&#xA;  but sin that dwells in me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present&#xA;  with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my&#xA;  mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my&#xA;  members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of&#xA;  this death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I&#xA;  myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, Paul is saying &quot;I want to do good, but I don't do it, and I HATE it!&quot; (verse 15).  Then he goes on to tell about how in his flesh, his earthly nature, there is no good thing, but he also delights in the Law of the Lord, and there is a war going on inside him, constantly, with his flesh warring against his spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Paul, who was willing to suffer imprisonment, torture, and death for the cause of Christ had problems living Godly, then who are we to expect to just sail through it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my personal life, I can answer this way (admitting up front that this is subjective, and personal).  I had a lot of things in my life that were sinful.  I won't list them here, but there was a list.  I didn't give them up immediately when I was saved, and when I tried to give them up under my own power, using my own willpower and determination, I was unable to escape the bondage of my sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually, I learned how to simply give up and ask God to make the changes in me.  Being a proud, stubborn, willfull person, this was a very hard lesson to learn.  But the truth is, once I asked God to take away my desire to do certain things, He did it.  Not immediately, but He did.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking just one example, I was into pornography from the time I was 15 or so.  Giving that up, especially with the Internet at my fingertips was difficult.  Like Paul, I knew what it was like to want to live one way, but keep getting sucked into sin.  It was like quicksand with tentacles that reaches out and grabs you.  Finally, I learned to give up and stop trying to do it under my own power, and just gave it over to Him, asking Him to remove the desire, and as I said, He did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I read about the load being light, and finding rest, I think about that struggle and others like it.  Once I turned it over to Him, it was easy, and the internal warring eventually ceased.  He took away the desire, so that I was no longer sucked in as easily.  I learned to flee temptation immediately, get on  my knees and pray for help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is &lt;em&gt;infinitely&lt;/em&gt; easier than doing it on my own.  His spirit is able, while I am in submission to Him, to take away the temptation and allow me to see sin as God sees it - wretched and vile, which removes the temptation completely.  The load is lightened, and it is easier than struggling on my own.  To me, that is what those verses mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-10T22:51:38.830" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T22:51:38.830" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3816" CreationDate="2011-10-10T03:28:25.707" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question has been burning in my mind for days now, and I'm sad to see that nobody gave another answer.  I have another one that I think may be true, even though it contradicts my other one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In thinking back about how I got saved, one of the things that happened was a breaking down of my preconceptions.  One of those preconceptions was this one - that the God of the Bible is inconsistent and amoral.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My mind &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; changed on this subject before I did finally give in and turn to Christ.  My mind &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; to have been changed, or &lt;em&gt;I wouldn't have turned to Christ at all&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, personally, the breakdown became as I looked at children and their parents.  Parents often give their children restrictions that the children think are &quot;mean&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: My son, Joseph, once called me a big meanie because I spanked him for running out into the highway.  He'd snuck out of the house and I saw him just as he was walking up the ditch to the highway and by the time I got the four feet from the window out to the door, he was actually in the road.  I was &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;terrified&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, say what you will about spanking, he got one because I would rather have him afraid of another spanking than to have him &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; remember the lesson that he is not to go onto the road.  That may be mean, and plenty of people may think that spanking is cruel, but I love him and I would rather be cruel and save his life than be gentle and lose him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also teach my kids not to fight, to turn the other cheek, and all of the things we are supposed to teach our kids.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I also tell my children that if they are being attacked, and they have to fight to defend themselves, that they need to fight back, and fights as hard and as dirty as necessary to protect themselves.  They're young, but they understand the difference between punching someone because they said &quot;Star Wars is for babies&quot; and fighting back when retreat isn't an option, or if you're facing a bully that must not be submitted to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some might say that this is inconsistent.  I'm teaching them not to fight in one situation, and I'm teaching them to fight in another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see it as inconsistent at all.  I see it as teaching my kids to be kind, patient, forgiving, and loving, while not expecting them to risk serious harm to themselves.  In other words, it's about protecting them while ensuring they are not someone the world needs to be protected from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at God's &quot;inconsistency&quot; and &quot;cruelty&quot; in the Bible (as defined by these people) I see a God who sees the nation of Israel the same way I see my children.  When God told them to kill each and every person (in my other answer) He was aware of the fact that the people from these other nations would corrupt His chosen people.  He was acting out of love for His children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He, unlike me, is omniscient.  He did what was necessary to protect not only Israel, but everyone who would later be saved through Israel.  And He acts towards them (and us) the way a loving father does to his children.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as an amendment to my original answer, &lt;em&gt;if you can get past some basic objections, and you have someone whose heart is not dead-set against the God of the Bible&lt;/em&gt;, then it probably is possible to show that God is a consistent moral lawgiver.  (Because He is.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And you'll have a easier time doing it if that person has children. It's so easy to show how God's love (and anger) is similar to the love and anger a parent feels for a child.  It's something any parent can relate to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-10T03:56:35.530" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T03:56:35.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3980" CreationDate="2011-10-10T04:01:50.687" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One aspect of Christianity that seems small but important is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 6:31&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt; Do to others as you would have them do to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other religions (that I know about) say something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Don't do to others what you don't want them to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(A nice list of a few &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neatorama.com/2008/05/20/8-golden-rules-and-1-not-so-golden-one/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;teachings&lt;/a&gt; shows us this &quot;Inverse Golden Rule&quot; or I remember hearing it called &quot;the Silver rule&quot;.)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;EDIT:-&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; as this seems to be an issue that people are not quite understanding what I initially intended to say I will elaborate: The Christian &quot;Golden Rule&quot; is to do good to others and the inverse of this is not to do harm to others.  If you know of a religious text that is not Christian and states the Golden Rule then please correct me.  With the Golden Rule one would look for opportunities to do good in peoples lives as a proactive approach. The Inverse Golden Rule makes us stop and think &quot;Is this going to harm?&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this may not seem like a big difference but it ties into the second greatest commandment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 22:39&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt; Love your neighbour as yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT 2:-&lt;/strong&gt; At this point the post is -4 so I understand most people won't even look this far down but I still think the distinction needs to be made. The difference from Jesus's teaching compare to others is a permissive (or pro-active) command: &quot;Go do good&quot; is different to the don't do/wish harm on others. In this I Haven't taken in Judaism as a separate religion as Jesus, being a rabbi, would have taught from this point.&#xA;Taoism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not the Pro-active position Jesus taught from, is is a passive one. (Passive as in there is no action here other than to &quot;regard&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a broader look of the Bible you see it as the only &lt;em&gt;(Someone correct me if I am wrong)&lt;/em&gt; religious text that tells of what God &lt;em&gt;(or whatever deity)&lt;/em&gt; did to reconcile man to himself rather than what man needs to do to reconcile himself to his deity. The core of what Christianity is: Jesus died for us, rather than what we have to do to be made right. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="243" LastEditorUserId="243" LastEditDate="2011-10-10T06:06:28.103" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T06:06:28.103" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3965" CreationDate="2011-10-10T04:24:54.407" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What was perfection like?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perfection was being able to walk with God in Eden.&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;Following the fall; Genesis 3:8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perfection was childbirth without pain.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Following the fall; Genesis 4:16 “In pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perfection was provision without sweat and toil.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Following the fall; Genesis 4:17 “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. 18) Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, …19) In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread…”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following the fall, God made specific alterations to the world He had created. He caused the serpent to have to crawl on its belly. He added thorns and thistles to the landscape. He caused the fields to not yield to Adam without sweat and toil. He caused both physical and psychological changes in Eve. Altering her physical make-up to include pain in childbirth and her psychological make-up, changing her desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, God created us and said it was good – but subsequently He made some changes. With these changes, and out of love for us, perhaps it was then that He found the need to alter our immune systems, etc. since we were no longer welcome in Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T04:24:54.407" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2994" CreationDate="2011-10-10T04:42:07.427" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;@Caleb hit some very important points.  I think that this question, however, is an offshoot of a common objection to Christianity: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;How could an omnipotent God who hates sin allow sin. If He's omnipotent, couldn't He have prevented us from sinning?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to that, of course, is that God gave us free will because He loves us, and because He wants to be loved in return. Our love for Him wouldn't be real love if it were forced. We'd be little better than robots, programmed to behave a certain way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is so simple and so obvious that people gloss over it looking for a more &quot;meaningful&quot; answer, but the simple fact is that throughout scripture, love is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; defining aspect of goodness.  Jesus Himself said this.  (Matthew 22:36-40)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in our limited human mental capacity we can understand this without giving it much thought at all.  If you have children, think about this:  They are disobedient, stress-causing, wallet draining beings, but would you trade them for a mindless robot programmed to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;act&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; like the perfect child?  Unless  you're inhuman (or having one of those days with them), the answer is no.  And the reason is because you love them in their imperfection, and they love you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their love is worth all of the hassles they cause for you. When they obey willingly and cheerfully, it brings you pleasure, it brings them pleasure to know they've please you, and brings you closer together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why God gave us free will and gave us the capacity to sin.  So that when we obey willingly and love Him of our own free will, it brings Him and us true joy, and is the ultimate definition of &quot;good&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T04:42:07.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3996" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="3998" CreationDate="2011-10-10T06:31:04.667" Score="14" ViewCount="31988" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always been told that when Jesus died on the cross, he ultimately defeated Satan and won victory over death. Satan was not aware of the secret plan and thought that he had defeated Jesus until Jesus died and he realized what had really been going on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't find that so hard to believe, but I've been thinking about it lately ... Since there are a lot of prophecies about the son of God in the Old Testament -- and Jesus fulfilled them all -- shouldn't it have been quite clear for the Devil that God's plan was to sacrifice his only son, namely Jesus, on the cross to cleanse all of our sins? I figure that he should have the necessary intelligence to come to that conclusion. Or is it something along the lines that he's not able to understand the ways of love and truth, since he hates love and truth and all that is good, and has nothing to do with any of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is: Was Satan really taken by surprise when Jesus died on the cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T15:02:50.473" Title="Did Satan really not understand God's salvation plan?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-09-05T02:17:18.267" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3997" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-10T06:52:32.743" Score="1" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicates:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1763/what-happens-to-people-who-have-never-heard-about-jesus&quot;&gt;What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1824/30&quot;&gt;Who saved people before ~33AD?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1775/30&quot;&gt;Do I get a second chance to believe in Jesus after I die?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3999/30&quot;&gt;Were there provisions for salvation for non-Jews in the OT?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You know, there's always the question about what happens to those that have not heard the gospel and therefore can neither accept nor decline the offer of God. Some say that they get a chance somehow and that Jesus may show himeself to them, and Paul writes something along the lines that some fulfill the requirements of the law by their heart (if I remember it correctly). I don't know what God's plan is for them, but I think that a sligtly bigger and more interesting question, is &lt;strong&gt;what happened to those that lived before Christ and long outside the reach of Israel&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess you can say that one of God's plans for Israel, is that it should present God to the world. Those who lived close to Israel and could see Israel and the works of God in that land could choose whether to accept that, but those who lived far away from it didn't have that choice. Take, for instance, the aborigines of Australia or the Inuits of North America. Did they have any chance for salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I talked to my wife about this and she said that she had heard that -- but this could as likely be wishful preaching -- Jesus went down to realm of death and gave them a choice to follow him, or something like that. I failed to find a passage in the Bible giving an account for this, but it seems kind of plausible to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T12:09:26.397" Title="What about those who lived before Christ long outside the reach of Israel?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-10-10T07:46:08.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3996" CreationDate="2011-10-10T07:13:07.110" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;No I don't think he was surprised at all. But that doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed. I'm sure he held out a false hope that things might go his way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is not omnipotent and could not have known exactly what God was planning, but he would have known and been able to understand the prophecies as well or better than men and it was never any secret that he was going to be crushed. However we must remember how he got to be Satan in the first place. His pride blinded him to think that he could rise and challenge the living God. That kid of pride is debilitating to comprehension and it deludes one into thinking an outcome could be  different than the obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this can stand as a warning to Christians because we have the same root of pride in our nature. If we willfully object to the sovereignty of God in our personal lives we will be blinded by this pride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2011-10-10T12:08:25.260" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T12:08:25.260" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3999" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-10T08:05:14.997" Score="8" ViewCount="633" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the significant points of Jesus ministry and the evangelism done by the early apostles seems to be their going to &quot;gentile&quot; nations and preaching that they too were recipients of God's plan of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any provisions for (or examples of) non-Hebrews in the OT? Was salvation strictly limited to a specific nation and race or was there a way in other than birth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-10T12:17:03.703" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T06:56:23.037" Title="Were there provisions for salvation for non-Hebrews in the OT?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4000" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-10T08:13:06.903" Score="22" ViewCount="10682" Body="&lt;p&gt;Particularly among Protestant traditions, it is common to classify books and classes that cover broad looks at theological issues as either 'Biblical' or 'Systematic'. Sometimes this is even extended to categorize theologians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between these arrangements or systems? Are they in conflict or competition with each-other, or are they complimentary in some way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-11-10T01:05:33.733" LastActivityDate="2019-10-24T06:51:31.357" Title="What is the difference between 'Biblical' and 'Systematic' theology?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;theological-frameworks&gt;&lt;systematic-theology&gt;&lt;biblical-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3999" CreationDate="2011-10-10T11:42:50.043" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the main way God used to lead people to himself was to use the people of Israel as an example, to show his glory, power and love through them, so that the surrounding peoples could see and accept that he is the only God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing you could do, as a heathen of that time, was to convert and implant yourself in the state and people of Israel, just like we do today (though we are not referring to the state of Israel per se).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, there are a number of people that were definitely people of God, although they were not Israelites. Four of them are Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and Ruth. Let's examine them, one by one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Melchizedek was a priest of God&lt;/strong&gt; and king in the city of Salem. Abra(ha)m was greeted and blessed by Melchizedek when they met. Melchizedek is mentioned in Genesis chapter 14. There is no mentioning of how Melchizedek had heard about God and there are many theories about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jethro&lt;/strong&gt; is introduced in Exodus 2:16, as a priest in the land of Midian. As far as I know, it is not explicitly stated that he was a priest of God, but in the 18th chapter, we can read that &lt;strong&gt;Jethro heard about what God had done for the people of Israel and praised him&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rahab&lt;/strong&gt; was a prostitute that lived in the city of Jericho. Before the siege, Joshua sent two spies to the city. For some reason they ended up in Rahab's house and she protected them from their enemies. She believed in God, for &lt;strong&gt;she had heard about what God had done for the people of Israel and put her faith in him&lt;/strong&gt;. She asked the spies to protect her and her family and not let them perish with the rest of the people of Jericho and so they became a part of the Israelites, and Rahab became an ancestor to Jesus, our Savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ruth&lt;/strong&gt; was married to one of the sons of Naomi, a woman of the Israelites. She is mentioned in the book of Ruth. I think it is fair to assume that &lt;strong&gt;she heard about God from her mother- and father-in-law, and her husband&lt;/strong&gt;. Later, she followed her mother-in-law back to the land of Israel and became a part of the Israelites, and ancestor to Jesus, our Savior, just like Rahab.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="85" LastEditDate="2011-10-11T06:56:23.037" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T06:56:23.037" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3986" CreationDate="2011-10-10T12:32:05.707" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it is not easy; it is completely &lt;strong&gt;impossible&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:48&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:48&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Be perfect&lt;/strong&gt;, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the Gospel's standard, according to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what should we do? As David Stratton's answer states, even Paul had this problem. However (following on from the verses David quotes) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%208&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8&lt;/a&gt; answers this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First, we're not under condemnation for not achieving this standard (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:1&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We can actually be set free from sin and helped by God to get ever closer to perfection (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:9&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the record, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the whole chapter&lt;/a&gt; is worth a read...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T12:32:05.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4003" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4007" CreationDate="2011-10-10T12:56:15.513" Score="13" ViewCount="8752" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read both the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New American Standard Bible&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;English Standard Version&lt;/a&gt; for some time now. I frankly can't tell which one I'm reading; they're that close. Many passages are translated with the exact same wording.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the two?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-23T00:17:42.577" LastActivityDate="2015-01-23T00:17:42.577" Title="What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the NASB and ESV?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;esv&gt;&lt;nasb&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4005" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-10T15:13:57.120" Score="14" ViewCount="562" Body="&lt;p&gt;In chapter 18 of Exodus, Moses' father-in-law Jethro instructs him on how to set up a fairly ordered society where Moses doesn't have to burn himself out by answering everyone's questions all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard that this is the basis for a form of government and economics known as subsidiarity and distributism respectively.  Is this the only place in the Bible where these ideas come up, or do other books build on or recapitulate Jethro's scheme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-10-10T19:12:45.293" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T16:39:05.483" Title="Distributism and Subsidiarity beyond the counsel of Jethro in the Bible" Tags="&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4003" CreationDate="2011-10-10T15:31:34.220" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the ESV Wikipedia link &lt;em&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/em&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The result is a translation that is &lt;strong&gt;more literal&lt;/strong&gt; than the popular New International Version, but &lt;strong&gt;more idiomatic&lt;/strong&gt; than the New American Standard Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's probably the main difference. So ESV is going to be more literal, less figurative and free from exaggeration/embellishment in it's translations and is going to &quot;use, contain or denote expressions that are natural to the native speaker&quot; &lt;em&gt;(idiomatic as defined by dictionary.com)&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(My opinion)&lt;/em&gt; From what I've read from each of them, the NASB seems to be smoother and more easily understood in modern English. However, with the ESV, it's nice sometimes to get a more clear look at the original meanings/translation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most updated version of the NASB was 1995* and the most recent version of ESV is a 2011 edition*.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;[...] on occasion the ESV translates 'person' or 'one' where previous translations used 'man' [however] it keeps gender specific language [as-is] in the original [text].&quot;*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;em&gt;from Wikipedia links provided.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good question, I learned a bit through this short bit of research :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="845" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T15:31:34.220" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3980" CreationDate="2011-10-10T15:35:42.770" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question that requires a long quote to be read, in context, from Chesterton's Orthodoxy, you really should read the entire book, but you may be able to pick up a few chestnuts here or there from this excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The things said most confidently by advanced persons to crowded audiences are generally those quite opposite to the fact; it is actually our truisms that are untrue. Here is a case. There is a phrase of facile liberality uttered again and again at ethical societies and parliaments of religion: &quot;the religions of the earth differ in rites and forms, but they are the same in what they teach.&quot; &lt;code&gt;It is false; it is the opposite of the fact. The religions of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do greatly differ in what they teach.&lt;/code&gt; It is as if a man were to say, &quot;Do not be misled by the fact that the CHURCH TIMES and the FREETHINKER look utterly different, that one is painted on vellum and the other carved on marble, that one is triangular and the other hectagonal; read them and you will see that they say the same thing.&quot; The truth is, of course, that they are alike in everything except in the fact that they don't say the same thing. An atheist stockbroker in Surbiton looks exactly like a Swedenborgian stockbroker in Wimbledon. You may walk round and round them and subject them to the most personal and offensive study without seeing anything Swedenborgian in the hat or anything particularly godless in the umbrella. It is exactly in their souls that they are divided. So the truth is that the difficulty of all the creeds of the earth is not as alleged in this cheap maxim: that they agree in meaning, but differ in machinery. It is exactly the opposite. They agree in machinery; almost every great religion on earth works with the same external methods, with priests, scriptures, altars, sworn brotherhoods, special feasts. They agree in the mode of teaching; what they differ about is the thing to be taught. Pagan optimists and Eastern pessimists would both have temples, just as Liberals and Tories would both have newspapers. &lt;code&gt;Creeds that exist to destroy each other both have scriptures, just as armies that exist to destroy each other both have guns.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the surface religions looks the same, just as on the surface people look the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The great example of this alleged identity of all human religions is the alleged spiritual identity of Buddhism and Christianity. &lt;code&gt;Those who adopt this theory generally avoid the ethics of most other creeds&lt;/code&gt;, except, indeed, Confucianism, which they like because it is not a creed. But they are cautious in their praises of Mahommedanism, generally confining themselves to imposing its morality only upon the refreshment of the lower classes. They seldom suggest the Mahommedan view of marriage (for which there is a great deal to be said), and towards Thugs and fetish worshippers their attitude may even be called cold. But in the case of the great religion of Gautama they feel sincerely a similarity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People often make a thesis statement saying, 'all religions are the same' but follow up with 100 reasons they're different or they pick and choose the parts that are 'all the same'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Students of popular science, like Mr. Blatchford, are always insisting that Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike, especially Buddhism. This is generally believed, and I believed it myself until I read a book giving the reasons for it. The reasons were of two kinds: resemblances that meant nothing because they were common to all humanity, and resemblances which were not resemblances at all. The author solemnly explained that &lt;code&gt;the two creeds were alike in things in which all creeds are alike, or else he described them as alike in some point in which they are quite obviously different.&lt;/code&gt; Thus, as a case of the first class, he said that both Christ and Buddha were called by the divine voice coming out of the sky, as if you would expect the divine voice to come out of the coal-cellar. Or, again, it was gravely urged that these two Eastern teachers, by a singular coincidence, both had to do with the washing of feet. You might as well say that it was a remarkable coincidence that they both had feet to wash. And the other class of similarities were those which simply were not similar. &lt;code&gt;Thus this reconciler of the two religions draws earnest attention to the fact that at certain religious feasts the robe of the Lama is rent in pieces out of respect, and the remnants highly valued. But this is the reverse of a resemblance, for the garments of Christ were not rent in pieces out of respect, but out of derision; and the remnants were not highly valued except for what they would fetch in the rag shops.&lt;/code&gt; It is rather like alluding to the obvious connection between the two ceremonies of the sword: when it taps a man's shoulder, and when it cuts off his head. It is not at all similar for the man. These scraps of puerile pedantry would indeed matter little if it were not also true that the alleged philosophical resemblances are also of these two kinds, either proving too much or not proving anything. That Buddhism approves of mercy or of self-restraint is not to say that it is specially like Christianity; it is only to say that it is not utterly unlike all human existence. Buddhists disapprove in theory of cruelty or excess because all sane human beings disapprove in theory of cruelty or excess. But to say that Buddhism and Christianity give the same philosophy of these things is simply false. All humanity does agree that we are in a net of sin. Most of humanity agrees that there is some way out. But as to what is the way out, I do not think that there are two institutions in the universe which contradict each other so flatly as Buddhism and Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others just stretch the truth to the point that both religions resemble each other because they're seen so dimly that they don't really resemble anything&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even when I thought, with most other well-informed, though unscholarly, people, that Buddhism and Christianity were alike, there was one thing about them that always perplexed me; I mean the startling difference in their type of religious art. I do not mean in its technical style of representation, but in the things that it was manifestly meant to represent. No two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple. &lt;code&gt;The opposition exists at every point; but perhaps the shortest statement of it is that the Buddhist saint always has his eyes shut, while the Christian saint always has them very wide open.&lt;/code&gt; The Buddhist saint has a sleek and harmonious body, but his eyes are heavy and sealed with sleep. The mediaeval saint's body is wasted to its crazy bones, but his eyes are frightfully alive. There cannot be any real community of spirit between forces that produced symbols so different as that. &lt;code&gt;Granted that both images are extravagances, are perversions of the pure creed, it must be a real divergence which could produce such opposite extravagances.&lt;/code&gt; The Buddhist is looking with a peculiar intentness inwards. The Christian is staring with a frantic intentness outwards. If we follow that clue steadily we shall find some interesting things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The uniqueness of Christianity is the perspective that a Christian has! Other religions are inward facing, Christianity is the only one that is completely outward facing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is just here that Buddhism is on the side of modern pantheism and immanence. And it is just here that Christianity is on the side of humanity and liberty and love. &lt;code&gt;Love desires personality; therefore love desires division.&lt;/code&gt; It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces, because they are living pieces. It is her instinct to say &quot;little children love one another&quot; rather than to tell one large person to love himself. This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; &lt;code&gt;that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea.&lt;/code&gt; The world-soul of the Theosophists asks man to love it only in order that man may throw himself into it. But the divine centre of Christianity actually threw man out of it in order that he might love it. The oriental deity is like a giant who should have lost his leg or hand and be always seeking to find it; but the Christian power is like some giant who in a strange generosity should cut off his right hand, so that it might of its own accord shake hands with him. &lt;code&gt;We come back to the same tireless note touching the nature of Christianity; all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls.&lt;/code&gt; But according to orthodox Christianity this separation between God and man is sacred, because this is eternal. That a man may love God it is necessary that there should be not only a God to be loved, but a man to love him. All those vague theosophical minds for whom the universe is an immense melting-pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword. The saying rings entirely true even considered as what it obviously is; the statement that any man who preaches real love is bound to beget hate. It is as true of democratic fraternity as a divine love; sham love ends in compromise and common philosophy; but real love has always ended in bloodshed. Yet there is another and yet more awful truth behind the obvious meaning of this utterance of our Lord. According to Himself the Son was a sword separating brother and brother that they should for an aeon hate each other. But the Father also was a sword, which in the black beginning separated brother and brother, so that they should love each other at last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Christianity is the only thing that can say this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/130/pg130.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Orthodoxy - Chapter 8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there are two points you should take away, and I apologize for the long quote, but you're reading for your own wisdom so it would be fruitless to take away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Point 1&lt;/strong&gt;. That Christianity is sacrificial outwardly, I think other answers have touched on this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Point 2&lt;/strong&gt;. That Christ would be a sign which would be contradicted.  Other gods test their progeny, but I don't think any set them up to fail and die on a cross. Other gods unite households under their protection, only Christianity specifically sets out to turn father against son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4158" LastEditDate="2014-07-01T20:11:41.707" LastActivityDate="2014-07-01T20:11:41.707" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4000" CreationDate="2011-10-10T17:40:56.957" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Biblical and systematic theology are two different ways of studying the Bible.  The main difference is what the theologies study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical theology is focused on studying a portion of the Bible and how that relates to the rest of the Bible.  An example may be specifically studying a portion of Isaiah.  The person studying may look back at what led up to one of Isaiah's prophecies and how that prophecy is fulfilled in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Systematic theology focuses on different topics and studies what the Bible says about that topic.  An example here may be studying the attributes of God.  A person studying the attributes would start by finding all the scripture which mentions the attributes of God.  After having all the scriptural references, they could then build a doctrine based on that scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These methods of theological study are complimentary.  While biblical theology may give you insight into a specific portion of scripture, it may not be the best way of building a doctrine since it may not give you all that scripture says on a specific topic.  On the other hand, systematic theology can give you a very detailed view on a topic, but that view can be enhanced by providing even more context to the specific scripture which discusses a view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T17:40:56.957" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3975" CreationDate="2011-10-10T17:54:09.167" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we continue reading Jesus says &quot;25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:25-26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is not asking us to physically die, but to give up life as it currently exists to follow him.  In this context, I don't believe he meant the seed physically dies, but it stops being a seed and becomes a plant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this way we must stop being what we are, and become a follower and servant of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T17:54:09.167" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3980" CreationDate="2011-10-10T18:06:53.423" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with comments made by David Stratton, Caleb, Peter Turner, and Neil Meyer. But let me add one more point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question says that Christianity is like many other religions in that &quot;CLAIMS to speak on behalf of God&quot;, &quot;CLAIMS to be historically accurate&quot;, &quot;CLAIMS to be the one true religion&quot;, etc. This may well be true, but the important question is not who CLAIMS to be telling the truth, but who IS telling the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one person who calls himself a doctor says that he thinks the way to cure cancer is with radiation therapy, and another says that the proper treatment is with changes to diet, and a third says that the right way is by dying your hair blue and bathing in motor oil, would you say that because all of them CLAIM that their treatment is scientific and effective that therefore all are basically the same and should be given the same credence? Surely not. Surely what is important is what evidence they can produce to back up their claims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T18:06:53.423" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4015" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4019" CreationDate="2011-10-10T18:22:57.367" Score="7" ViewCount="6505" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always thought that in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/revelation/6-12.htm&quot;&gt;Revelation 6:12&lt;/a&gt; where it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... that the sun would actually turn black. But about a week ago I found in Genesis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.&quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/genesis/8-22.htm&quot;&gt;Genesis 8:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I guess that won't happen. What does it mean, then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="173" LastActivityDate="2015-04-06T01:37:01.430" Title="What does Revelation 6:12 mean?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T19:55:54.557" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1104" CreationDate="2011-10-10T18:24:49.737" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;People debate this endlessly. It seems to me that the plain reading is that in Jesus' &quot;original&quot; plan, it was not yet time for him to reveal his divine nature by performing a miracle. And yet, he modified his plan to accommodate the desires of a believing woman. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard some Bible teachers say that this does not mean that Jesus altered his plans to satisfy Mary. But I don't see how else you can read it. That's the plain meaning of the words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lesson I take from this is that God modifies his plans in response to human requests, i.e. prayer. If this were not so, then prayer would be pointless. That is, if God devised a perfect plan independent of human desires, and he will not change it to accommodate human desires because it is perfect, then prayer would be a meaningless and pointless exercise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that God acts in ways that are less than perfect to accommodate people? Not really, because his plan is presumably perfect AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT what people want. Of course it doesn't follow that God will alter his plans to give people whatever they ask for -- there have been plenty of discussions about when and why God grants some prayers and not others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="1015" LastEditDate="2011-12-01T16:58:12.053" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T16:58:12.053" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3980" CreationDate="2011-10-10T20:31:57.457" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible, God was in the beginning and was the only God worshiped as such.  He revealed Himself to Adam and Noah specifically.  At Babel, the people of the earth were divided by language, yet all of them retained some history and understanding of God's interactions with mankind in the world that is recorded in Genesis 1-11.  From this, we should expect to find similar rituals that match up to those accounts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, we find just that.  In his book, &lt;em&gt;Eternity in their Hearts&lt;/em&gt;, Don Richardson records peoples all over the world with &quot;strange traditions&quot; that mirror the concepts of sacrifice, atonement, etc.  The Chinese alphabet also has remarkable ties back to Genesis.  So, cultures scattered all over the world do share some commonalities with Christianity and Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the similarities of religion are quite small.  To quote Malcolm Muggeridge:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe that all religions are basically the same– at least the one&#xA;  that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only&#xA;  differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religions do often have very close similarities when it comes to ideas of morality, and the Bible indicates that God's law is written on our hearts.  So, that makes sense.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religions, however, differ greatly on a number of things, including the nature of God, the Person of Jesus, and what man must do with his sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Nature of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity has a unique concept of God, which is shared in part by Judaism and to a much lesser degree by Islam.  In Christianity, man is created in the image of God, whereas in many other religions, God is created in the image of man.  An example of this is Greek mythology, which attributed sexuality and such to divine beings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Person of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another very significant distinction that makes Christianity unique is its answer to the question, &quot;Who is Jesus?&quot;  In some religions, men may become gods, but in Christianity, God became a Man and entered into His own creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What Man Must Do With His Sin&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, what man must do with his sin is perhaps the most unique aspect of Christianity.  In Christianity, we have committed sins, and God is just.  Sins must be paid for.  However, man may not ever pay his own debt for his own sins.  In all other religions, a man must do penance of some sort.  The idea that if your good outweighs your bad, then you're heaven bound.  This idea, though, leaves sins unpunished, and it's based on man making amends for his own sin--just like Adam and Eve trying to cover over the shame of their own sin in the garden.  Just as it was in the garden, so it is now that man may not cover over his own sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is based on God reaching down to man and making a complete payment for man's sins once for all through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  It is based on a free gift that makes no demands of penance on the individual.  A Christian is expected to do good deeds not out of his own will, but out of the transformation that God has worked in his heart upon his faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way to put it is that all other religions bid the lame man walk, whereas Christianity heals the lame man so that he can walk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, the Bible is quite unique as it is the only sacred text that dares to set forth many specific predictive prophecies that come true hundreds of years later.  The year that Messiah was to come was even specified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the answers to the three questions are what make Christianity unique:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who is God?&lt;/strong&gt;  He is the transcendent creator of the universe, one God in Three Person, whose image we bear (one person with body, soul and spirit).  Men are made in the image of God, but God is not in the image of man.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who is Jesus?&lt;/strong&gt;  He is the eternal Son of God who entered into creation about 2,000 years ago to fulfill the prophecies recorded in the Old Testament. He died on the cross, rose on the third day, and ascended into heaven as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  Men do not become gods, but God did become a man.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What must man do with this sin?&lt;/strong&gt;  Rather than having to work our own way to heaven in order for our sins to not be paid for, but outweighed by good deeds, Christianity teaches that God reaches down to man and provides a complete payment for his sins.  We, therefore, stand before God as sinners who are declared righteous.  With our debt paid, no one may lay any claim against us, because the debt is fully satisfied.  Christians can have complete confidence in this, whereas followers of other religions seldom have any confidence that their good outweighs their bad.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T20:31:57.457" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4015" CreationDate="2011-10-10T21:18:54.767" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The darkening of the sun (and the other signs) are repeatedly emphasised as heralding the day of judgement, by the prophets and in the New Testament, including by Jesus himself.&#xA;Regarding your Genesis 8:22 reference, I think an important part of that verse is the first bit: &amp;quot;As long as the earth endures&amp;quot;. All of these prophecies are about the end of the world, so the condition no longer holds. (Admittedly, the Revelation chronology does not have the actual end of the world occurring at this precise moment - but I would tend to see the end of the world as a single &amp;quot;event&amp;quot; regardless of how long it takes to accomplish.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This section of Revelation draws heavily from Isaiah, who prophesied that on &amp;quot;the Day of the Lord&amp;quot;, (13:4, NJB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will no longer give its light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, Ezekiel 32:7 prophesied against Pharaoh, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I extinguish you I shall cover the skies and darken the stars. I shall cover the sun with clouds and the moon will not give its light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joel (2:10, 4:15) uses language similar to Isaiah above, and specifically (3:4 or 2:31 depending on your Bible) says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the Day comes, that great and terrible Day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter quotes this passage in Acts 2:20. Most importantly, Jesus himself said (Matthew 24:29, also Mark 13:24):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These signs demonstrate the sovereignty of God over the heavens, and show that his Day is literally a universe-changing event. It is not confined to any one group of people, but affects the entire world. Here, the reference to sackcloth brings to mind mourning garments, a poignant reference for what is about to happen: the sun itself is in mourning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;After&lt;/em&gt; the judgement, there will be no need for the sun and moon in any case. Their transformation or disappearance at this time shows us that the New Jerusalem is on its way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No more will the sun give you daylight, nor moonlight shine on you, but Yahweh will be your everlasting light, your God will be your splendour. Your sun will set no more, nor will your moon wane, for Yahweh will be your everlasting light and your days of mourning will be over. (Isaiah 60:19-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could not see any temple in the city since the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb were themselves the temple, and the city did not need the sun or the moon for light, since it was lit by the radiant glory of God, and the Lamb was a lighted torch for it. (Revelation 21:22-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T21:18:54.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3986" CreationDate="2011-10-10T22:22:44.537" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Karl Barth answers this question quite well in a piece he wrote called The Call of Discipleship.  He says that the gospel is not easy to live by, but that if we will not take upon ourselves the yoke (the teaching of Jesus) we will wear a yoke 10,000 times heavier, the world's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-10-10T22:22:44.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2011-10-10T23:04:55.877" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Truth does not blush.&quot; - Tertullian&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The fear of scholarship is the mark of a false prophet.&quot; - Karl Barth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians should never be afraid of searching for the truth, and that if a Christian fears scholarly discussion of the faith, be careful because GOD wishes us to love him with all of our minds as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just be careful, &quot;the message of the cross is foolishness&quot; (1 cor 1:18), apologetics may have their place but you really can't &quot;convince&quot; or argue someone into the Kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeking arguments against Christianity may be helpful to know what types of questions one might be asked.  But if you are honestly seeking Truth, you need not worry about your faith, as Christians we believe that Jesus is Truth (He has said that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to finish with another quote from Karl Barth,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="794" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T17:59:29.050" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T17:59:29.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3815" CreationDate="2011-10-10T23:48:57.620" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The all encompassing goodness of GOD and his desire to lavish good things on all people is a very important tenet of Christianity, despite the fact that omnibenevolence is a word that has been used less and less since the Wesleyan movement used it.  However, the goodness of GOD is certainly a tenet of &quot;traditional&quot; Christianity, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Wesleys all hold that GOD is inherently Good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a paragraph way down on the wikipedia page for &quot;omnibenevolence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute. As such, God's other attributes should be understood in light of omnibenevolence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, for Wesleyans, all of God's attributes flow out of His goodness.  But the truth might be that the love, goodness, and holiness of GOD are so intermingled that it could be difficult to separate them and to define which receives pre-eminence.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a very very good book on this subject check out Church Dogmatics Vol 2 Section 1 by Karl Barth, he addresses this area of theology with so much depth that it would be hard to copy and paste it here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However, the difficulty of the word has less to do with the word and more to do with individuals' understanding of what it means that GOD is good.  But I would rest upon the statement that Jesus makes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:11 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your&#xA;  children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good&#xA;  things to those who ask him!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That God is good is a very important aspect of the Christian faith, but it must always be held in tension with the fact that we, as humans, do not know how to accurately discern what is &quot;good&quot; in every situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many ways the Wesleyan movement was dead on accurate and orthodox, and in the sense of how the Wesleyans view the goodness of GOD they are only echoing what has been said for thousands of years, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;GOD IS GOOD, ALL THE TIME; ALL THE TIME, GOD IS GOOD.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="794" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T18:29:11.867" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T18:29:11.867" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4032" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-11T06:54:12.807" Score="14" ViewCount="1868" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think everyone knows that the name Jesus is Greek, but why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses use his Hebrew name, which is closer to &lt;em&gt;Joshua&lt;/em&gt; than to &lt;em&gt;Jesus&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="867" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-12T06:39:18.483" LastActivityDate="2021-04-22T23:39:21.103" Title="If Jehovah's Witnesses believe they should use Jehovah to be accurate why don't they use Jesus' real Hebrew name?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2028" CreationDate="2011-10-11T08:25:48.887" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61047/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;randomized controlled experiment by Leibovici (2001)&lt;/a&gt; shows not only that remote intercessory prayer yields statistically significant results, but that it does so &lt;em&gt;retroactively&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The experiment studied the effects of prayer on 3393 people that had been in &lt;em&gt;years before&lt;/em&gt; the experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As we cannot assume a priori that time is linear, as we perceive it, or that God is limited by a linear time, as we are, the intervention was carried out 4-10 years after the patients' infection and hospitalisation. The hypothesis was that remote, retroactive intercessory prayer reduces mortality and shortens the length of stay in hospital and duration of fever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the three measures (mortality, length of stay in hospital and duration of fever), two were significantly enhanced by prayer (and one not significantly):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mortality was 28.1% (475/1691) in the intervention group and 30.2% (514/1702) in the control group (P for difference=0.4). Length of stay in hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (P=0.01 and P=0.04, respectively).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Leibovici L (2001). &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61047/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. BMJ 323 (7327): 1450–1. doi:&lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7327.1450&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10.1136/bmj.323.7327.1450&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7344/1037.long&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;letters to the publisher about the article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; are an interesting read (and not very long, either). Probably the most important point is to have caution with conclusions. Some points to consider about the experiment are&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's not specified who prayed and to whom. If Baal was prayed to, the results don't say anything about the Judeo-Christian God. (But Leibovici is a Jewish name and the experiment was conducted in Israel, so it's possible it wasn't Baal.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The result might be a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;type I statistical error&lt;/a&gt; (rejecting a true null hypothesis). Given the large sample size, it's improbable, but by definition possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The author states the purpose of the article was not to study religion, but to show that empirical methods shouldn't be used for testing questions &quot;completely outside the scientific model of the physical world.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The purpose of the article was to ask the following question: Would you believe in a study that looks methodologically correct but tests something that is completely out of people's frame (or model) of the physical world—for example, retroactive intervention or badly distilled water for asthma?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...]  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The article has nothing to do with religion. I believe that prayer is a real comfort and help to a believer. I do not believe it should be tested in controlled trials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T08:25:48.887" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4032" CreationDate="2011-10-11T12:06:23.003" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a problem with one of your assumptions: Jehovah's Witnesses don't use &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt; &amp;quot;to be accurate&amp;quot;. They use &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt; because they think it's important to call God by name, and because &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt; is the traditional rendering in English. They accept that the original pronunciation has been lost, and argue that were it important, Jehovah God would not have allowed it to be lost. They do make linguistic arguments in favour of a trisyllabic pronunciation, but these are lesser considerations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also remark that many names contain elements of the divine name: &lt;em&gt;Jeremiah&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Jehoshaphat&lt;/em&gt;, for example. They argue that if you were to change &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;em&gt;Yahweh&lt;/em&gt;, you should, for the sake of consistency, change these names too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information, see their official publication &lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/brochures-and-booklets/divine-name-na&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-22T23:39:21.103" LastActivityDate="2021-04-22T23:39:21.103" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3996" CreationDate="2011-10-11T18:45:50.163" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, we are never told in Scripture whether or not Satan knew exactly God's plan of redemption was.  But we might have an inference in 1 Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:12 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things into which angels long to look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently the angels have wanted to look into what the gospel plan was, but were unable.  Hence, if the angels did not know, then I feel pretty safe in saying that Satan did not know either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-11T19:08:01.540" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T19:08:01.540" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3980" CreationDate="2011-10-11T18:59:38.150" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is the only religion that is not a religion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is an encounter with the Person of Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deus Caritas Est&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T18:59:38.150" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3121" CreationDate="2011-10-11T19:20:35.610" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your question sufficiently, we must come to an understanding of when was the redemptive work of Christ finished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently, many people hold that the redemptive work of Christ was His crucifixion.  However, that is only one aspect of the redemptive work of Christ.  Classical Christian thought since Augustine, and then Aquinas, and down through the ages has held that it was through the LIFE, DEATH, and RESURRECTION of Jesus that the redemptive work of Christ was finished and not merely through the death of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther, who was one of the strongest supporters of being a &quot;theologian of the cross,&quot; (see the Heidelberg Disputation for more on that theology) had a incredibly solid place in his faith for the death of Christ.  But for Luther, the empty tomb was the other side of the bloodied cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;However, to focus on the crucifixion of Christ is to ignore or overlook His life lived in perfect love and the resurrection where God vindicated Jesus.  Plus, we must remember that no one had faith in Jesus when He was crucified, everyone abandoned Him assuming that the Jesus movement was wrong.  The disciples were gathered behind locked doors in fear when Jesus was crucified, it wasn't until the resurrection that they realized something completely else was going on.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that being said, the &quot;moment&quot; when people had to start having faith in the &quot;already accomplished reconciliation of the world&quot; might be more accurately applied to when Jesus was resurrected (and arguably ascended too) than merely to the crucifixion of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T19:20:35.610" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3124" CreationDate="2011-10-11T19:34:47.347" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To try and answer your question with brevity instead of wordiness, I will just say that the OT sacrifices were sufficient for a time seeing as they were instituted by God.  However, they were to forshadow the day when instead of us making sacrifices, God would provide the unlimited and infinite sacrifice, Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as there was finite sacrifices, only finite forgiveness was achieved.  But once there was an infinite sacrifice, then, infinite forgiveness was achieved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, when there was the sacrifice of small animals, there was small forgiveness.  But when an infinite being, the incarnate creator God of the cosmos is sacrificed so much more is acheived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is Colossians 1:19-20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and&#xA;through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on&#xA;earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on&#xA;the cross.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, through Christ, God reconciled to Himself &quot;ALL THINGS,&quot; which interestingly enough includes things in heaven that apparently needed reconciliation.  The self-sacrifice of an infinitely good, holy, and loving God can acheive far more than we could ever imagine!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="794" LastEditDate="2011-10-11T20:04:43.337" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T20:04:43.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4041" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-11T19:46:31.930" Score="9" ViewCount="1163" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard* that the book of revelation was written to provide comfort to persecuted Christians in the early days during persecution from Rome. And that the contents are best understood as metaphors for the the end of that persecution, the imagery as evocative of certain persons/institutions of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a commonly held belief, or a doctrine of any churches or movements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*My grandfather was a minister in the United Church of Christ. He discussed this topic with my mother, when she asked him about it. She then related it to me many years later when I asked her about it. (Personal story included to ward off claims of unsourced opinion.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="675" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-10-11T20:22:09.903" LastActivityDate="2017-01-23T15:52:27.663" Title="The book of revelation as comfort to persecuted early Christians" Tags="&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4042" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4044" CreationDate="2011-10-11T20:00:33.317" Score="1" ViewCount="4442" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply&quot;&gt;To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus contains many laws that modern-day Christians do not follow. From what I've understood, this is because they consider this law to have been fulfilled through the death of Christ. However, they also often tout the ten commandments as a source of morality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were the ten commandments not part of the law that was fulfilled? Or is there some other reason why Christians still adhere to them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T07:42:56.803" Title="Are the ten commandments considered part of the old testament law?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-10-11T23:41:26.723" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4041" CreationDate="2011-10-11T20:16:54.403" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sounds like you are talking about &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism&quot;&gt;Preterism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, this is that all the events described in Revelation have already happened, in the first century. Since Revelation was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Dating&quot;&gt;written towards the end of the first century&lt;/a&gt;, if this view is true then its readers would have been reading about events that had already happened. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T20:16:54.403" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4042" CreationDate="2011-10-11T20:17:31.787" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Ten Commandments are also refered to as the decalogue.  However, Christians do not believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus were the fulfillment of the Ten Commandments, it was the life of Jesus Christ that was because He alone was able to live a holy life within the parameters of the Ten Commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Christians today often &quot;tout&quot; the Ten Commandments because they have more or less become an icon of Judeo-Christian morality seeing as the 613 commandments in the OT are built upon them.  &lt;em&gt;But according to the first half of Romans 8, the Christian life is less about living by the Law of God and more about living by the Spirit of God.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet an even more concise manner of living by the Ten Commandments can be seen as following the two greatest commandments, to love God and neighbor seen here in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:36-40 NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt; This is the first and greatest commandment. &lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ &lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; All the Law and the Prophets hang on&#xA;     these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T07:42:56.803" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T07:42:56.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4041" CreationDate="2011-10-11T20:28:36.900" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a commonly held interpretation that parts of Revelation are to be understood in light of 1st century persecution.  Often this interpretation is done by people who do not buy into dispensationalism and what might be seen as an overspiritualzed attempt to interpret a symbolic book literally instead of in the context in which it was written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, preterism does not fully do justice to the passages of Daniel and Revelation, the idea that all prophecy has already been fulfilled does not do justice to the fact that Daniel and Revelation talk about the full judgement of God and the complete vindication of the righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information, feel free to consult these commentaries that pay a good amount of attention to the context of the book as well as the eschatological emphasis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Book of Revelation by Craig Keener&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The NT Background Commentary by Craig Keener&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revelation by Kenneth Maahs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-11T21:56:13.140" LastActivityDate="2011-10-11T21:56:13.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4047" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-11T23:07:34.690" Score="17" ViewCount="3335" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm quite sure I understand the concept of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/27/60&quot;&gt;Total Depravity&lt;/a&gt;, but I'm not sure it's viewed exactly the same in different doctrinal frameworks that support it. I've spent a lot of time among Lutherans, and while I'm sure they support Total Depravity, they usually rather talk about &lt;em&gt;Original Sin&lt;/em&gt;. Is this because &lt;em&gt;Total Depravity&lt;/em&gt; as a term originates in Calvinism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I came upon &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity#Comparison_between_Protestants&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a table comparing the Lutheran, Calvinist and Arminian ideas of Total Depravity&lt;/a&gt;, but I don't quite understand it. Can you explain the main differences in the three views to me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2017-11-11T00:15:07.577" Title="How are the Calvinist, Arminian and Lutheran conceptions of Total Depravity different?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;total-depravity&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4048" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-12T01:23:37.053" Score="11" ViewCount="502" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that few Christians deliberatly use the term 'Yahweh', yet it is a cultural norm that using peoples real names shows some level of appreciation and honor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any Christian traditions that do take the standard cultural view and use 'Yahweh' specifically in order to better honor the name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also are there any Christian traditions that specifically forbid its use and how do their doctrines on the use of his name relate to respecting God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="871" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-12T09:00:56.207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T11:31:21.270" Title="Do any Christian traditions intentionally use the name  'Yahweh'?" Tags="&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4048" CreationDate="2011-10-12T01:47:30.443" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Jewish tradition, speaking the name was forbidden because it was so holy that people didn't dare speak it.   This has been the case for centuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, the idea has two aspects.  First, it was a sign of respect, and reverence for the word, that it should not pass through unclean lips.  Second, it was a fear of accidentally taking the Lord's name in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a related question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3720/why-does-vatican-require-yahweh-not-to-be-used&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that sheds more light on this in greater detail.  it covers a question from the Catholic perspective, but traces back to the Jewish traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=165&amp;amp;letter=T&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; states it nicely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The avoidance of the original name of God both in speech and, to a&#xA;  certain extent, in the Bible was due, according to Geiger&#xA;  (&quot;Urschrift,&quot; p. 262), to a reverence which shrank from the utterance&#xA;  of the Sublime Name; and it may well be that such a reluctance first&#xA;  arose in a foreign, and hence in an &quot;unclean&quot; land, very possibly,&#xA;  therefore, in Babylonia. According to Dalman (l.c. pp. 66 et seq.),&#xA;  the Rabbis forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard&#xA;  against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could&#xA;  not have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read more: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=165&amp;amp;letter=T#ixzz1aWpOisHS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=165&amp;amp;letter=T#ixzz1aWpOisHS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the traditional view is that using the name is &lt;em&gt;less respectful&lt;/em&gt;.  This would be the view I'd take, given the reverence that God expects from us when approaching Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly, there are Christian groups that feel the opposite.  A Google search for &quot;don't speak the name Yahweh&quot; returned a plethora of sites from various groups that hold that not using the name is disrespectful, and even sinful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some prefer to use the name because they believe out of a fear that using the words &quot;God&quot; and &quot;Jesus&quot; mean that we're referring to someone else, and almost equate using any name other than the originals at idolatry.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://newlifeonahomestead.com/2011/02/why-say-yahweh-instead-of-god-and-why-yeshua-instead-of-jesus/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://newlifeonahomestead.com/2011/02/why-say-yahweh-instead-of-god-and-why-yeshua-instead-of-jesus/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others (like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yhwh.com/gingn/gingn.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;) come to the conclusion that the meaning of God's name indicates that we are God. (That's sort of the opposite of Christianity, thought, so I don't think it counts as a &quot;Christian&quot; perspective.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T11:31:21.270" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4047" CreationDate="2011-10-12T01:57:33.660" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seeing as I used to go to a Lutheran seminary but now find myself at a Presbyterian church, I hope I can help!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists do in fact prefer the term total depravity, however it really only dIfferentiates from Lutheran concepts of original sin in name.  Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, and so is very influenced by his understanding of original sin that human beings are &quot;in curvatus in se&quot; or &quot;turned in upon oneself&quot;.  That is, both Calvinist and Lutheran understandings hold that we were intended to point towards GOD yet are now directing all of our beings back into ourselves and that only GOD can set our gaze back upon Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Arminian sense, human beings are not fully turned in upon themselves and still have an amount of goodness that was not tainted by original sin or depravity and therefore are capable of turning themselves back to GOD if they so choose.  Thus meaning that there is depravity but perhaps not total depravity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be happy to put some references in if someone wishes but for now I am writing from a mobile device.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T01:57:33.660" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3555" CreationDate="2011-10-12T03:19:51.140" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm addressing &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of the inquisitions, not merely the Spanish Inquisition here.  Several were perpetrated by kings, not the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with the other answers that state that the Inquisition is a stain and an evil that should never have happened.  None of what I'm posting here should be taken in any way that detracts from @James Black's answer, or @Apocatastasis.  I'm merely listing some impacts not listed in their answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Impacts include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A tendency to view Church authority with skepticism, particularly when we smell an abuse of power&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For me, personally, this is why I tend to lean on the words of Scripture, which never changes, as opposed to religious teachings of any one denomination.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A cadre of anti-theists, who object to Christianity, among other reasons, on the basis of the fact that the Inquisition happened. Examples:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://exposingchristianity.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A rise in atheism, anti-theism, antireligion, and other beliefs based on the assumption that since the Inquisition(s) were perpetrated by &quot;Christians&quot; that Christianity supports such atrocities. (see previous references)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It doesn't.  At least not if you believe that Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies as well as our neighbors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I also personally think that  just because these officials were self-described Christians, their actions show that they had &lt;em&gt;no idea&lt;/em&gt; what it means to &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; a Christian.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christians that are stronger in their views of the importance of God's commandment to love our neighbors (and our enemies) because we have such a stellar (if horrific) example of how &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to treat those who disagree with us. examples: &lt;a href=&quot;http://tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesustheboss.com/crusades.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christians and non-Christians alike that are better educated and on guard against such abuses, because as long as human nature is what it it, it &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; happen again if we're not vigilant. example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godweb.org/inquisition.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unfortunately, this isn't the majority.  Just like all other generations, we think we're so much more enlightened than they were in the past.  We're not.  The Germans refused to believe what the Nazis were doing because they thought it couldn't happen in their society.  If we can't learn the lesson that people are corrupt and it can happen as soon as we let our guard down, it will happen.  Time and time again. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if my understanding of the history and timelines is correct, then at least &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; of the Inquisitions happened before or during the Protestant Reformation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition#Medieval_Inquisition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Medieval Inquisition - 1184&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spanish Inquisition - 1480&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Protestant Reformation - 1517&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Reformation was as much about rebelling against abuses by the Church (See several of the points, including but not limited to  #10, 24, 27... &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) as it was about differences in doctrine, you might be able to argue that the widespread existence of protestant denominations is at least partially due to the Inquisition.  Certainly, Church-sponsored torture and murder of those who simply believe differently are examples of corruption and abuse of power. If not a direct cause, the Inquisitions certainly would have added fuel to the fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T03:51:04.637" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T03:51:04.637" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4056" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4057" CreationDate="2011-10-12T04:13:57.343" Score="10" ViewCount="1178" Body="&lt;p&gt;In almost every case I've heard Isaiah 14:12-15 quoted or preached about, I'm told that these are the words of Satan in his rebellion against God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014:12-15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:12-15 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the&#xA;  morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the&#xA;  nations! &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into&#xA;  heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also&#xA;  upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;I&#xA;  will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most&#xA;  High. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the&#xA;  pit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibleprophesy.org/ascendheaven.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet if you jump up to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;verse 4&lt;/a&gt;, it says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and&#xA;  say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and continues on through the previously cited verses.  So to me, a clear reading indicates that this it the Kind of Babylon saying in his heart,&quot;I will ascend...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that the prophetical books are often open to interpretation, but I believe I'm missing something.  Why are these quotes attributed to Satan, when it appears that they're meant to be attributed to the king of Babylon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-05-29T03:29:17.233" LastActivityDate="2020-12-31T17:19:47.513" Title="Why do people interpret &quot;Lucifer&quot; as being Satan in Isaiah 14?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4056" CreationDate="2011-10-12T04:25:26.640" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a case of parallelism.  Isaiah is using the story of Lucifer (Satan) the fallen angel who was once mighty in heaven, which is familiar imagery to his audience, and applying it to the king of Babylon as an analogy.  The king of Babylon is powerful and makes the world tremble in fear, as Satan does, but he will be overthrown and humbled and treated with contempt by those he used to oppress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T04:25:26.640" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4058" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4085" CreationDate="2011-10-12T04:58:57.960" Score="11" ViewCount="225" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first variety seemed to be without need for interpretation because all those who heard it heard their own language being spoken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:8 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second one the church is warned not to utter without interpretation. Paul said in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:28&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:28 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:23&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;14:23&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or un-believers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes the initial event different from the subsequent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-12T05:40:40.527" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T12:15:40.473" Title="Why do there appear to be two very different variations of “tongues” in the New Testament?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T19:23:36.997" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4059" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4060" CreationDate="2011-10-12T07:23:49.647" Score="14" ViewCount="16962" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of places where Jesus refers to himself in the third person.  The most common is when he uses the title 'Son of Man' (by my count, there are some 78 times Jesus uses that title in the gospels!).  For example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:13&lt;/a&gt; (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his&#xA;  disciples, &quot;Who do people say the Son of Man is?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand the significance of that title (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%207:13-14&quot;&gt;Daniel 7:13-14&lt;/a&gt;) but why does Jesus use it so often to describe himself?  Complicating matters in my mind is the fact that the various gospels seem to use 'Son of Man' and 'I' interchangably.  For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark8:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 8:27&lt;/a&gt; is a parallel passage to the one above but it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea&#xA;  Philippi. On the way he asked them, &quot;Who do people say I am?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other major case of third person titles that intrigues me is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 17&lt;/a&gt; where Jesus is praying and refers to himself as God's son and 'Jesus Christ':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp; &quot;Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may&#xA;  glorify you. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;For you granted him authority over all people that he&#xA;  might give eternal life to all those you have given him. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Now this is&#xA;  eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,&#xA;  whom you have sent. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;I have brought you glory on earth by finishing&#xA;  the work you gave me to do. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;And now, Father, glorify me in your&#xA;  presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does he suddenly refer to himself as Jesus Christ here but nowhere else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="187" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-07T03:31:15.007" LastActivityDate="2019-08-29T12:00:39.633" Title="Why does Jesus speak of himself in the third person?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4059" CreationDate="2011-10-12T12:39:12.510" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is also known as the &quot;Messianic Secret,&quot; that Jesus was not ready to fully disclose His identity until later on in His mministry.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ben witherington III (a well known conservative NT scholar) holds that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;if Jesus were to let on too early who He was He would have been crucified before being able to get done whatever preaching and teaching and miracles He did get done.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;if Jesus' own followers didn't understand fully what He meant by calling Himself the son of man and the son of God, then how much more so everyone else?  The full disclosure of who He was came after the resurrection (because no one understood that the Messiah would have to be crucified and then raised) when in John 21 Thomas calls Him &quot;my Lord and my God!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-12T17:07:16.783" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T17:07:16.783" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4056" CreationDate="2011-10-12T12:50:17.863" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Isaiah did not have the understanding of Satan that is commonly held today.  You are correct that in the original context the passage is actually about the king of Babylon.  Demonology really did not rise up until the Maccabean era, so to say that Isaiah was first writing with Satan in mind would be inaccurate (seeing as the language is more referencing the Tower of Babel).  Isaiah 14 is a passage that has been looked back upon and interpreted in light of people's views of Satan to the loss of remembering the original context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more on the subject check out the Isaiah commentary put out by Westminster press!  I hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T12:50:17.863" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3896" CreationDate="2011-10-12T12:56:57.543" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Checked out the notes on the side of the YouCat.  Probably more in the Catechism, but since I'm studying the YouCat now, that's what I'll roll with for an answer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian does not say &amp;quot;My Father&amp;quot; but &amp;quot;Our Father&amp;quot;. Even in the secrecy of a closed room, because he knows that in every place, on every occasion, he is a member of one in the same Body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=soVf9Q1h-esC&amp;amp;pg=PT142&amp;amp;lpg=PT142&amp;amp;dq=youcat%20%22our%20father%22%20%22My%20father%22&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=lchFblzO5a&amp;amp;sig=1l2LdrOy0IpXP1uSvdMXaUVqV3I&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=aIyVTtDIL-LL0QGn7sTgBw&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Benedict XVI, June 6, 2007&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's a little broader than just talking about the Lord's Prayer.  I think the pope is saying that we're praying each prayer as the Body of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We still say the Creed, &amp;quot;I believe&amp;quot; though, because believing is something we can't do for each other.  Praying in supplication and for intercession is something we do in communion.  Especially in communion with the Church Triumphant in Heaven and for the Church Suffering in Purgatory, but also with the Church Militant here on earth in some mystical way we can't really understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Lord's Prayer, we say all together &amp;quot;Our Father&amp;quot;. So says the Emperor, the beggar the slave, the master.  They are all brothers because they have one Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=soVf9Q1h-esC&amp;amp;pg=PT142&amp;amp;lpg=PT142&amp;amp;dq=youcat%20%22our%20father%22%20%22My%20father%22&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=lchFblzO5a&amp;amp;sig=1l2LdrOy0IpXP1uSvdMXaUVqV3I&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=aIyVTtDIL-LL0QGn7sTgBw&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1&amp;amp;ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Augustine of Hippo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And St. Augustine, as always, puts things very succinctly.  We also pray with our brothers and sisters here on earth, together.  We pray for our brothers even when they're not with us because unlike Cain, we should be about our brother's business.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T12:56:57.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4056" CreationDate="2011-10-12T13:34:50.040" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is commonly believed to be Satan.  &amp;quot;Lucifer&amp;quot;, however, is a transliteration of the word in the Latin Vulgate.  So, basically, it's a transliteration of a translation.  Many more modern translations render the original word rather than following the traditional transliteration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How you are fallen from heaven,    O &lt;strong&gt;Day Star&lt;/strong&gt;, son of Dawn! How you&#xA;are cut down to the ground,    you who laid the nations low! (Isaiah 14:12, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;quomodo cecidisti de caelo &lt;strong&gt;lucifer&lt;/strong&gt; qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes (Isaiah 14:12, Biblia Sacra Vulgata).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T13:34:50.040" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4059" CreationDate="2011-10-12T14:17:53.090" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a large part of His reason for doing this is to make shed more light on His identity. The title used reflects additional information about the person using it. So, to look at a few of Jesus's many titles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;son of man&quot; -&gt; associates Jesus with the glorious figure seen in Daniel 7  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;son of David&quot; -&gt; associates Jesus with the promise God made to David about a descendant who would sit on the throne forever  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;son of God&quot; -&gt; describes Jesus as a king (since some of the kings of Israel were called &quot;sons of God&quot;) although it is sometimes used in other ways by other people (&quot;Son of the living God&quot;, &quot;the Son of God&quot;) to refer to Jesus's divine nature.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;messiah&quot; / &quot;Christ&quot; -&gt; associates Jesus with prophecies about a prophet from God who would rescue Israel  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when Jesus used a particular title, it would evoke a particular image and bring to mind different ideas, even though they were all correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short example of how this makes a difference. Say I'm trying to get into a fancy restaurant and the guy at the front is looking doubtful that I &quot;fit in&quot;. I could say (assuming it was true):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm Richard, let me in.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm the son of the owner of this restaurant, let me in.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm cousin to the President, let me in.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They might all be true, but I'd be gaining something from the use of different titles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, Jesus used different titles to show different aspects of Himself. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_and_titles_of_Jesus_in_the_New_Testament#Christ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a great article on some of them (although it does miss a bit theologically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-12T17:06:40.137" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T17:06:40.137" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4032" CreationDate="2011-10-12T14:45:05.707" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is my understanding from studying with a JW who visited my home and became a weekly visitor over the course of several months. (I am not JW, but am not opposed to study.) During the course of this study, I was informed that they (JW) do not believe in the trinity. They are not concerned with honoring Jesus in the same way that God should be honored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Also, the correct name for Jesus, according to Jewish tradition is Yeshua.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T14:45:05.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4059" CreationDate="2011-10-12T15:09:44.963" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add just one more thought to the answers already posted. Jesus didn’t seem to be about the business of glorifying himself. Not only in the verses quoted here, but throughout the New Testament, when Jesus spoke about himself it appears that he was deliberately taking the focus away from himself and directing the listener’s attention back toward God, the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T15:09:44.963" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4067" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-12T15:15:51.653" Score="11" ViewCount="718" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;documentary hypothesis&lt;/a&gt;, or JEPD view of Scripture, states that the Pentatuech was &lt;em&gt;potentially&lt;/em&gt; compiled from four different sources: the Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomical. It is widely denied &lt;em&gt;a priori&lt;/em&gt; by many Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What reasoning do those who reject the JEPD point to (scholarly or theological)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-10-30T02:48:36.290" LastActivityDate="2015-10-30T02:48:36.290" Title="What reasons do those who reject the JEPD view of Scripture provide?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;&lt;torah&gt;&lt;documentary-hypothesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4068" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4075" CreationDate="2011-10-12T15:47:34.583" Score="16" ViewCount="470" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Muscular Christianity&lt;/a&gt; is a movement, originating in nineteenth-century Britain, associated with promoting physical health, athleticism, and active evangelism.  Many critics say that C. S. Lewis, particularly in his fiction, drew from this tradition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... Lewis's creed of clean-living, muscular Christianity, pipe-smoking, misogyny, racism, and the most vulgar snobbery. (Philip Hensher, &lt;em&gt;The Independent&lt;/em&gt; column of 4 December 1998)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not surprisingly, some readers embrace Narnia's pagan flavor in preference to its muscular Christianity. (Naomi Wood, &lt;em&gt;God in the Details&lt;/em&gt;, in &lt;em&gt;Revisiting Narnia&lt;/em&gt;, ed. Shanna Caughey, 2005)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... his polemical, somewhat muscular, orthodox Anglican Christianity ... (Terence Brown, &lt;em&gt;C. S. Lewis: Irishman?&lt;/em&gt;, chapter in &lt;em&gt;Ireland's literature&lt;/em&gt;, 1988)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Lewis have anything to say about &amp;quot;muscular Christianity&amp;quot; as an idea, and did he associate himself with the concept? I would certainly count him as a forceful defender of Christian ideas, but not as someone particularly interested in physical fitness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T20:29:59.963" Title="Was C. S. Lewis a &quot;muscular&quot; Christian?" Tags="&lt;cs-lewis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3971" CreationDate="2011-10-12T16:28:29.583" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to your question is exactly analogous to asking &quot;who has the gift of healing?&quot;. We know that it is not everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We only have one story of survival of snakes/poison, and it is significant that it is accidental. Paul did not say &quot;I'm telling you the truth, and to prove it I'll pick up this deadly snake&quot;. He picked it up by accident, and God used that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the likely answer is that God gives the gift of poison immunity to people who need it because they have involuntarily taken poison and who he wants to survive it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-10-03T13:33:35.670" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T13:33:35.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4047" CreationDate="2011-10-12T16:44:38.020" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak much to the Lutheran or Calvinist view, but I can give my own perspective (Wesleyan Arminian):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Arminian understanding, human beings were created by God as part of God's good creation, but we were given free will which enabled us to turn away from God's will. In order to bring us back, God provided the means of grace that enables us to be saved. This grace is known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prevenient grace&lt;/a&gt; because God has given it to us before we were capable of making a decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arminians believe in total depravity in the sense that our own sinful human nature does not allow us to respond to God's offer of salvation. However, the prevenient grace that God has given us &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; enable us to accept that offer. So although we do have free will and are capable of making choices, it is only God's grace that allows us to choose to follow him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T16:44:38.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3555" CreationDate="2011-10-12T18:15:33.317" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Understanding the Inquisition only in the Christianity (or Spanish context) is a biased and reduced conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, when the concept of laicism has evolved sufficent to create a neat distinction between religious identity and national membership in Western societies, the Inquisition is seen as a mounstruosity, but in old ages that distiction was more diffuse. Religous identity was important enough to determine national loyalty.  Heresy was also a betrayal to the nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, prosecution for religious disense was not privative of Spain.  We must remember the execution of Miguel Servet by French Calvinists.  Muslims had a similar mechanism too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another important fact is the gross exaggeration of the Inquisition victims.  Only by the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I in England had more Catholics died than heretics were burned by the Spanish Inquisition in its whole existence.  Torture wasn't invented by the Church: it existed before she and was used ordinarily by civil powers to get &quot;the truth&quot;.  In fact, Inquisition courts were the first to supress torture in their processes.  The jails of the Inquisition were better than the civil ones too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary: brutality and violence were an epochal characteristic and not a consecuence of Inquisition.  Those methods were somoothed gradually precisely thanks to Christianism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="874" LastEditorUserId="35304" LastEditDate="2017-08-14T17:35:48.707" LastActivityDate="2017-08-14T17:35:48.707" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3547" CreationDate="2011-10-12T20:13:10.687" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to Christianity, we know that all the denominations hold one single view in terms of character of Jesus of Nazareth, him being the risen Christ and his teachings of love and many other things. So, irrespective of who is responsible of the crusades,  it does leave a &quot;dark mark&quot; in the history of Christianity as a whole, which whether we like it or not, we cannot run from it but have to accept it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, when a question is raised about the immorality of the crusades, it is important here to understand that &quot;IT IS NOT THE LOGICAL OUTWORKING OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH&quot;. what I mean is, the crusades, though they were carried in the name of Jesus(Christianity as a whole), never conformed to the teachings of Jesus, but in fact were opposite to that of what Jesus taught. I could give many citations from the verses where Jesus insisted on his followers to love one another, but it is very evident from the bible itself. One such verse that comes to my mind is where Jesus tells his disciples to love one another, this way the world will know that they(his disciples which means even we) are his and he lives in them.(John 13:34-35)&lt;p&gt; &#xA;         Now, we know that we believe in Jesus because he is the truth, the way and the life. We believe in what the bible describes about Jesus. So, though these crusades which we cannot deny, happened in the name of Jesus, it in no way undermines our belief in Jesus of Nazareth described in the NT. And this must be kept in mind &quot;WHETHER THE ACTIONS CONFORM WITH THE BELIEF THAT IS HELD&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to me, these Crusades should not impact much on modern Christianity!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="799" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2014-08-13T02:33:17.420" LastActivityDate="2014-08-13T02:33:17.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4068" CreationDate="2011-10-12T20:29:59.963" Score="16" Body="&lt;h2&gt;No.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C.S. Lewis &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#Conversion_to_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;converted to Christianity in 1931&lt;/a&gt;.  While there is no doubt that Muscular Christianity, as a movement, was still around at that time, the largest proponents for muscular Christianity, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kingsley&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Charles Kingsley&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hughes&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Thomas Hughes&lt;/a&gt;, died before 1900.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, of course, does not preclude C.S. Lewis from adhering to these views.  However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_C._S._Lewis&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;his corpus&lt;/a&gt; does not include any significant writings regarding Muscular Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can presume that even if he held these beliefs (as your quotes suggest), he was not a vehement supporter of this movement, due to his lack of writing on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-12T20:29:59.963" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4076" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4077" CreationDate="2011-10-12T21:36:15.937" Score="11" ViewCount="1470" Body="&lt;p&gt;In our school, in one of my periods, one of my teachers told us the important things late Steve Jobs has done for the world and encouraged us to have a moment of silence for him for about 10 seconds. When I got home and told Dad about it, he said that it was a good thing. However when I told my Mom, she flipped out and said that it was anti-Christian and basically in the line of idol worshiping and told me to ask for forgiveness.&#xA;I do not get it. How is having a moment of silence for someone a bad thing? IS it a bad thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. our family is Puritanish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T13:17:21.470" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T09:51:32.553" Title="Is having a moment of silence for someone anti-Christian?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4076" CreationDate="2011-10-12T23:52:00.930" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there's nothing anti-Christian about a moment of silence.  Asking us to pray to another god would be anti-Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the moment of silence is to allow those who are Christian to pray to our God, while allowing others to pray to theirs, without annoying people with opposing religious (or anti-religious) viewpoints.  In short, it's a politically correct way of allowing prayer in public places, while trying to maintain a &quot;separation of Church and State&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One possible explanation for the reaction is a a gut reaction to what's perceived as a violation of our first amendment rights by those who are working to remove all references to Christianity in public places.  That's more of a political issue, however, and I don't want to expand on it here, other than to say that this is one reason she &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; have said it's anti-Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For clarification as to why &lt;em&gt;she&lt;/em&gt; found it offensive, you'd be better off asking her when she cools down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T00:55:08.180" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T00:55:08.180" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2011-10-13T00:19:14.227" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you seek out knowledge that doesn't agree with what you believe, without having a sufficiently strong understanding of the foundations for your beliefs, then it would be easy to be led astray, as other beliefs also have some backing, otherwise they wouldn't be believed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you need to be careful about what evidence you are considering, as it is easy to read something that may appear true but is actually wrong, so your research will be flawed, without knowing that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you read the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0875520928&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Roman Catholicism&lt;/a&gt;, you may think it is legit in it's attacks, but when you research you will find that it isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you truly want to look at other beliefs, your best bet is to be able to explain those beliefs to someone who does believe them, in a way that they agree that you understand what they believe. Once you can do that, then you can consider why are their beliefs not correct, but this is much harder than you may expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find many misconceptions spread about Muslims, for example, by people that claim to understand their beliefs, but are being less than truthful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your best bet is to read the &lt;strong&gt;primary sources&lt;/strong&gt; these beliefs are based on, then, make certain you understand their beliefs, then critically analyze.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that want to defend Boattner can look at this for a rough idea:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canapologetics.net/inventions.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.canapologetics.net/inventions.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T01:20:48.783" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T01:20:48.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4076" CreationDate="2011-10-13T01:25:59.170" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's anything religious at all about a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_silence&quot;&gt;moment of silence&lt;/a&gt; for somebody who died. It is supposed to be a moment to remember those persons and to show our respect for them.. If someone wishes to use the opportunity to pray, then that is their own business.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The political issues brought up in David Stratton's answer seem to be more concerned with a moment of silence where it is not held in connection to some deceased person or tragic event. For example, a daily moment of silence in schools are seen by some as an endorsement of prayer in conflict with the separation between church and state, but that is a different matter and not really relevant to this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I agree that it would be best to ask her once she has cooled down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T01:25:59.170" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4076" CreationDate="2011-10-13T02:16:14.157" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with the others.  There is nothing anti-Christian about a moment of silence.  I'd hope that you don't feel you or your classmates have done anything wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe your mother got upset not about that there was a moment of silence, but &lt;em&gt;who it was for&lt;/em&gt; in this case.  Steve Jobs apparently (I don't watch TV) got a huge amount of coverage regarding his death, and perhaps your mother was fed up with so much attention being paid to a billionaire's death, when there is almost no attention in the popular media regarding the many deaths of average people or people who are dying in parts of the world the U.S. media doesn't care about.  Maybe &lt;em&gt;in that sense&lt;/em&gt; she felt that bothering to honor Steve Jobs was misplaced, and, after all the attention in the media, approaching an almost worshipful reverence of the man (which, in her view, should of course only be paid to God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(For what it's worth, I tend to think that, despite any person's death being sad--particularly for a young man like Jobs--there may well have been so much coverage that it bordered on poor taste.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T13:28:08.637" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T13:28:08.637" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4082" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4083" CreationDate="2011-10-13T03:02:14.530" Score="26" ViewCount="100448" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sorry for asking a question kid in my Catechism class asked, but I didn't know the answer and she is an expert level 7th grader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why did God wrestle with Jacob if they're both good?  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was God actually trying to kill Jacob?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was there some reason Jacob needed to be injured and was he seriously injured?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2014-01-17T09:40:37.460" Title="Why did God wrestle with Jacob?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;theophany&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-05-17T11:46:11.807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4082" CreationDate="2011-10-13T03:16:48.580" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is &quot;To teach Jacob an important lesson.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This all takes place, of course, in Genesis 32.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, to your first question: Jacob wasn't &quot;good&quot; by any means.  If you look at Jacob before this, he has stolen the blessing that was Esau's birthright. (Genesis 27).  He had several children with women he didn't love, and was certainly no great father to them.  (Genesis 30-31).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the time he wrestled with this angel (or with God depending on the translation - I'm going to stick with God) in chapter 32 starting in verse 24, he'd pretty much shown that he was not a &quot;good&quot; man at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, God chose him to the the father of the nation of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the second question:  was God trying to kill Jacob?  In the wrestling match, Jacob wrestles with God until daybreak (verse 24).  Then God touches the hollow of Jacob's thigh and dislocates it, demonstrating that He could have easily defeated Jacob at any time.  This was a lesson in humility - showing Jacob that compared to God, he was nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That also answers the third question.  Jacob was injured - he was disabled by a mere touch, to show that God is powerful and compared to God, he is nothing.  Whether he was &quot;seriously injured&quot; depends on whether or not you consider a dislocated hip &quot;seriously injured&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, knowing full well that he was nothing, Jacob did something brave and remarkable. He refused to give up until God gave him a blessing.  He continued to fight, but now it was &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; God, not &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the reason for the encounter was to ensure that Jacob, who became Israel afterward, had the correct motivation, heart, and attitude toward God.  it was a lesson in humility, and Jacob responded by a show of faith and longing for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T03:33:17.153" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T03:33:17.153" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4082" CreationDate="2011-10-13T13:53:04.207" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am sorry to say it, but we don't know why GOD chose to wrestle Jacob.  Maybe Jacob needed to wrestle GOD, maybe it was a dream, symbolic of all humanity, the Scriptures leave the event open to a lot of interpretation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that is completely due to Genesis not giving us a reason for GOD wrestling Jacob, I know this may not be the answer you were looking for but the fact is that we don't know why, and that is the honest truth.  I would give a biblical reference, but I don't know how to give a reference for something that is not in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than to step out on a limb and say something speculative rather than factual, I would have to say to rest in the mystery of it like thousands of years of Jews and Christians have.  Perhaps we are simply meant to wrestle with the mystery of GOD in this event recorded in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="794" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T17:26:17.733" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T17:26:17.733" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4058" CreationDate="2011-10-13T14:13:25.763" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In reference to the Acts passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The believers speaking in native tongues is a throwback to a Midrash on the Sinai event when the Law was received.  The rabbinic retelling has Israel speaking in all the tongues of the world, meaning that this is a monumental act of GOD happening.  The gospel is here, guided by the spirit and is intended for all peoples of the world, thereby undoing the judgement of the tower of babel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The midrash is from Midrash Tanhuma 26c, as referenced in the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=10PrS-7X2SMC&amp;amp;pg=PA85&amp;amp;lpg=PA85&amp;amp;dq=speaking+in+tongues+at+sinai&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=h-EHQxiMXE&amp;amp;sig=Rr1EW-zCgjDJmkKxRV8taANMuAk&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=_RyXTuG0GuH00gGw6LGtBA&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=2&amp;amp;ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=speaking%20in%20tongues%20at%20sinai&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speaking in tongues: the New Testament evidence in context&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in respect to the Corinthians passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are In respect to the spirit of GOD speaking through someone for the building up and edification of the local church and therefore not necessarily with the intention of evangelism.  The Corinthians used to fake speaking in tounges because they wanted to be seen as spiritual but here Paul is putting an end to that by saying don't speak in tongues in church unless there is an interpreter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Craig keener, a Pentecostal evangelical conservative scholar has a great commentary on this called 1 + 2 Corinthians, it's totally worth the money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T07:48:12.800" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T07:48:12.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2011-10-13T15:25:36.460" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Should Christians seek out information that is antithetical to their faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.  But sometimes it's painful information.  Here's one example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.barna.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Barna Group&lt;/a&gt; is widely considered to be the leading research organization focused on the intersection of faith and culture.  Their surveys are quoted in various opinion pieces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's one of the more recent surveys done by the Barna Group: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/524-self-described-christians-dominate-america-but-wrestle-with-four-aspects-of-spiritual-depth?q=america%2C+people+experience+accidental+spiritual+growth.+generally+plan+proces&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Self-Described Christians Dominate America but Wrestle with Four Aspects of Spiritual Depth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're a church leader or pastor, this is some depressing reading.  Here's one sentence from the survey:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the evidence is quite clear that relatively few self-identified Christians are serious about abandoning the lure of sin and handing total control of their life to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read this survey and be pessimistic about what you're doing and whether or not you're helping people.  You can read this survey and see that you have your work cut out for you as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not so much the information, as what you do with the information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T15:25:36.460" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1278" CreationDate="2011-10-13T18:54:34.457" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proverbs advises to &quot;seek wisdom&quot;. Knowledge as &lt;em&gt;Wisdom&lt;/em&gt; is not &quot;of the Devil&quot;. But it does suggest a practicality or a direction to that knowledge, in developing us as a mature disciple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 26 also gives &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; counsels about arguments with fools. It says &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; argue a fool on their own terms to show them their folly, and &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; argue a fool on their own terms to avoid becoming as big a fool. This is not the textbook &quot;contradiction&quot; atheists make it out to be but illustrative of a &lt;em&gt;tension&lt;/em&gt; on the principle upon which you should decide these things. &lt;em&gt;You&lt;/em&gt; need the wisdom to know what end you're likely to achieve and to assess the pitfalls. And you have to be wise enough to know the gain and the risk of doing so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you over-judge your capacity to solve the God-level complex issues, you may be as big a fool. &quot;Lean not unto your own understanding&quot; is not counsel to not try to understand anything, but to not rely on your own capacity to know how successful an argument is. Regardless of which way you go, you will have expressed your character in humility or pride in honest assessment or overstepping. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt; created the Tree of Knowledge; God holds all knowledge and wished not to burden us with the knowledge of Evil. I don't respect the reading ability of anybody who says that the Bible says knowledge is Evil. They're just people who find the lack of tensions simpler.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said, I have found it &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; valuable to find out what opponents of Christ say against Christianity, and I have either found godly rebuke or arguments to tear down strongholds. But if God has not given you those tools, be at peace. The richness of the Spirit means that not everybody has to have the same analytical capacity. That everybody needs the capacity to answer for their beliefs is an &lt;em&gt;idol&lt;/em&gt; from the atheists of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that everything is permissible, but not everything is profitable. Don't fear &quot;knowledge&quot;, just realize that what can be regarded as &quot;knowledge&quot; does not necessarily get you to your destination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="880" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T18:54:34.457" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4090" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-13T18:57:08.883" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T18:57:08.883" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T18:57:08.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4091" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-13T18:57:08.883" Score="0" Body="The tetragrammation is the four letter name of God, יהוה (&quot;YHWH&quot;).  This tag is for questions regarding the tetragrammation and the usage thereof." OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T18:57:08.883" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T18:57:08.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3121" CreationDate="2011-10-13T20:17:54.383" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Richard's answer is basically right but allow me to simplify it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way in which people have been saved has always been faith in God to forgive their sins and accept them. Take &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 4:16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As has been stated, in the OT, people sacrificed animals and were forgiven their sins not because they sacrificed an animal, but because they trusted in God to forgive them. Even though Christ hadn't yet died, by trusting in God, they were nevertheless allowed to share in Christ's redemptive work. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:25-26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 9:25-26 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Christ died just once for everyone. Christians are saved in the exact same way - faith in God now, means that Christ's death is effective for us too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this solves your basic question - when did the change-over occur? There was no change-over - there were simply people who trusted in the God of the Bible and accepted the message of Christ as soon as they heard it. Jews like Simeon and Anna (Luke 2: 25 - 28), who got to see the baby Jesus, died as faithful Jews and I suspect the same must be true for all Jews who died waiting for Jesus (even if, unknown to them, Jesus had died some time ago without their hearing about it). Being saved as a Jew under the OT wouldn't have suddenly have made you &lt;strong&gt;unsaved&lt;/strong&gt; the moment Jesus died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Jews today are saved if they haven't heard the Gospel. I'm just saying that for this period of transition, there were true believers of God who, being saved, never got to hear about Jesus' death before their died. Jews today aren't in the same situation, being fully saved and then having the object of faith change. We don't believe a Jew can be saved today without accepting Christ and so whether out of ignorance or rebellion, rejection of Jesus by ancient or modern Jews would show they weren't saved at all (and so my explanation above doesn't apply to them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this help?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-13T20:21:07.187" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T20:21:07.187" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2011-10-13T20:44:01.370" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like to think like these verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rom 2:12-15 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;  For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish&#xA;  without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by&#xA;  the law;  &lt;strong&gt;(13)&lt;/strong&gt;  (For not the hearers of the law are just before God,&#xA;  but the doers of the law shall be justified.  &lt;strong&gt;(14)&lt;/strong&gt;  For when the&#xA;  Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in&#xA;  the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:  &lt;strong&gt;(15)&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their&#xA;  conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while&#xA;  accusing or else excusing one another;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how &quot;rare&quot; is someone to be salved like this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eze 14:20 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;  Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith&#xA;  the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall&#xA;  but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...or...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gen 5:24 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;  And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even for &quot;Salvation Rule&quot;, there are RARE exceptions (like the thief that wasn't baptized and was salved). Remember that word: RARE! Now, stand up and...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(...) Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't rely on exceptions!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T20:44:01.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4096" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4121" CreationDate="2011-10-13T21:06:30.720" Score="19" ViewCount="17036" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to think nothing of it until someone said, &lt;em&gt;&quot;it makes you wonder what he was saying the rest of the time&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I don't believe for one moment Jesus was a liar, but why did He use that strange expression?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22very+truly+I+tell+you%22&amp;amp;qs_version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;26 examples&lt;/a&gt; exists here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16%3A7&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 16:7 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  But &lt;strong&gt;very truly I tell you&lt;/strong&gt;, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2019-10-04T10:33:30.410" LastActivityDate="2019-10-17T16:54:54.190" Title="Why did Jesus use the expression, &quot;very truly I tell you&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4096" CreationDate="2011-10-13T21:10:45.513" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus says &quot;I tell you the truth&quot; the Greek word &quot;amen&quot; is being used.  Amen can be translated as &quot;I tell you the truth,&quot; &quot;verily,&quot; and &quot;so be it&quot; or &quot;let it be.&quot;. We have difficulty translating it into English, and the reason it is so odd is because we don't use those phrases colloqioully today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T21:10:45.513" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4098" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4102" CreationDate="2011-10-13T21:29:57.443" Score="9" ViewCount="3107" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have many Calvinist friends, and when we discuss matters of theology or doctrine, almost inevitably, the conversation turns to them saying something like &quot;That's because of God's sovereignty,&quot; or &quot;That undermines God's sovereignty.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, most (if not all) of the 5 points of 5-point Calvinism hinge on the sovereignty of God as their cornerstone, either directly, or as they build on the other points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have my own idea of what God's sovereignty means, but it must be quite different than what Calvinists mean by this phrase, because when they throw that phrase at me to support their views, I usually see my concept of God's sovereignty contradicting their view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... what is the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty, and where is it based in scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-07-13T02:19:16.320" LastActivityDate="2017-11-18T23:36:38.493" Title="What is the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;sovereignty&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4099" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-13T21:38:44.983" Score="16" ViewCount="709" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:18-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 18:18-30 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; tells the story of the &amp;quot;rich young ruler&amp;quot; who asked Christ what he must do to inherit eternal life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; ...[Jesus] said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of Calvinism is that salvation (from the Calvinist perspective) is entirely a work of God, and no human can do anything, even including &amp;quot;accepting&amp;quot; the gift of salvation, to affect their salvation.  These instructions from Jesus appear to contradict this concept.  Jesus seems to be offering to the ruler some concrete actions he could take to ensure his salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Granted, based on the ruler's reaction, his heart was in the wrong place, as he was unwilling to do what Christ commanded.  So really, Christ's commandment was not about the act of giving away possessions, but about the state of the man's heart.  But if the truth is that the man was powerless to affect his salvation, wasn't Christ in effect lying by suggesting the ruler &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; do these actions (and change his heart) in order to achieve eternal life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Calvinist interpretation of this (and other similar) stories?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-04-26T15:12:13.200" Title="Calvinist perspective on Luke 18:18-30" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4096" CreationDate="2011-10-13T22:14:29.057" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus says &quot;I tell you the truth&quot;, he does it to indicate that what he is telling is the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:42-43&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 23:42-43 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often times, Jesus speaks and replies using parables&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:25-37&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 10:25-37&lt;/a&gt;, a Pharisee asked him “&lt;em&gt;Who is my neighbor?&lt;/em&gt;”  Jesus replied with the parable of the Good Samaritan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when Jesus said &quot;I tell you the truth&quot;, he was indicating that he was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; speaking in parables, but &lt;strong&gt;telling the truth&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;Obviously he wasn't lying at other times.  He was just trying to illustrate the point that he was actually telling the truth.  It's something that gets your attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2019-10-04T12:36:20.487" LastActivityDate="2019-10-04T12:36:20.487" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4098" CreationDate="2011-10-13T23:51:15.357" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Calvinist, I believe God's Sovereignty to mean God has actively decreed all that will come to pass, and has done so for His glory in all things. God knows all that will come to pass because He has determined it, however not in the passive sense like I determine the temperature of water by touching it. Rather, God has actively determined all that will come to pass, and nothing occurs outside of God's decree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, God's decree does not strive against man's will, in that man is forced into doing all that God decrees man will do, but instead man's will is determined by the decree. We willingly do that which God has decreed we will do (yet not necessarily that which God has prescribed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to Salvation, our view is that man is depraved and incapable of doing anything that pleases the LORD. In this state of depravity man will always despise the things of God, and will never seek them. It is only when God, in an act of grace, replaces the sinners heart of stone with a heart of flesh that the sinner will then will to do the things of God, and will come to God in obedience and belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's not God's choice vs man's choice. God doesn't coerce man into becoming saved. Rather, God's power radically changes man's heart so that man will willingly seek the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many very clear passages regarding this, however one very popular text is John 6 where we can read the following statements from Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.&amp;quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:37&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6:37 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists read here that anybody the Father gives to the Son will indeed come to the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.&amp;quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:39&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6:39 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we read further that Christ came to do the Fathe'rs will, and that will is that all of those whom the Father gave to the Son, the Son will lose none of them, but will raise them up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.&amp;quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:44&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6:44 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.&amp;quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:65&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6:65 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no man has the ability or desire to come to Christ outside of the affectionate drawing by the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is by no means exhaustive. If I might suggest a book on the topic, I would suggest &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=48&amp;amp;osCsid=0tqc9d8nevt9so143n1qts1cs4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Potter's Freedom&lt;/a&gt;, by Dr. James White.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="885" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-13T23:55:03.783" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4099" CreationDate="2011-10-14T00:07:41.580" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Salvation is absolutely of the LORD. In this text we see Christ revealing the true affection of this young ruler. While the ruler is convinced he's kept the law since his youth, Jesus reveals the true object of this man's affection, his possessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinism, specifically the depravity of man, states only that man (left to his natural desires) will not favor the things of God above those personal affections of his heart. This is what we see taking place here. If the man were to abandon his idol(s) and follow Christ, he would have been saved that day. However, God did not change that man's heart that particular day, so the man went away sad, loving his possessions more than the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may very well be the case that God opened the man's eyes soon thereafter and the man came to know Christ as Lord and Savior, we aren't told in the text. However, this text (from what I can tell) doesn't offer any particular challenge to the Calvinist. We see God's decree active, and the depravity of man active here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man is presented with the light, but flees from it out of fear that his deeds would be exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:19-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:19-20&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;...the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important thing to keep in mind here is that men choose according to their nature. Without a changed nature, man will not choose the things of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="885" LastEditorUserId="885" LastEditDate="2011-10-14T00:13:57.083" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T00:13:57.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4104" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-14T00:12:25.400" Score="15" ViewCount="1055" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053:4-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53:4-6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;, which is commonly interpreted as a prophecy that the Messiah would die for the sins of the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;Surely he took up our pain&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; and bore our suffering,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  yet we considered him punished by God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; stricken by him, and afflicted.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;But he was pierced for our transgressions,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; he was crushed for our iniquities;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  the punishment that brought us peace was on him,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; and by his wounds we are healed.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;We all, like sheep, have gone astray,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; each of us has turned to our own way;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and the LORD has laid on him&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; the iniquity of us all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems apparent that the majority of Jews at the time, did not interpret this passage (and others) to mean that Jesus was the Messiah, until after Christ died.  This seems to be common with many (maybe most or all) Biblical prophecies: There is sufficient detail to identify once an event has occurred, but not sufficient detail to predict when a prophesied event will occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question:  &lt;strong&gt;Did Isaiah understand his own prophecies, in the sense that we do today?&lt;/strong&gt;  Would Isaiah, for instance, have known that the Messiah would die for the sins of the world? If Isaiah had met Christ before His death, would he have realized he was the Messiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or were Isaiah's own words enigmatic to him as they were to the rest of the world, prior to the fulfillment of the prophecies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T23:02:03.217" LastActivityDate="2015-08-30T23:02:03.217" Title="To what extent did Isaiah understand his own prophecies?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;&lt;suffering-servant&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4099" CreationDate="2011-10-14T00:46:05.167" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;On free will, Calvin says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by&#xA;  grace; indeed, the special grace which the elect alone receive through regeneration.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For him, there is such a thing as free will, but it is not necessarily the same thing as what others mean by the term. This quotation says that our theoretical ability to choose is marred by our total depravity, and only through God's prior, irresistible grace do we gain the ability to choose well. Without that, we &quot;cannot conceive, design or desire any thing but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, there is the idea of predestination, which for Calvin is primarily a matter of us being unable to frustrate God's will. The idea of &quot;regeneration&quot; here is that God will &quot;guide, turn and govern our heart by his Spirit&quot;, and our free will is thereby reoriented without being destroyed. This doctrine is well-matched by the principle that salvation is not brought about by good works, or any human action for that matter: rather, it is something that God wills for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his &lt;em&gt;Institutes of the Christian Religion&lt;/em&gt;, Calvin examined this passage (and the parallel one in Matthew 19:16-22). In summary, he says that Jesus is trying to warn or reprimand the man, by directing him to his sin under the Law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We also distinctly declare, that if life is sought in works, the commandments are to be observed. And the knowledge of this doctrine is necessary to Christians; for how should they retake themselves to Christ, unless they perceived that they had fallen from the path of life over the precipice of death? [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wherefore, as a teacher of the law, whom our Lord knew to be&#xA;  puffed up with a vain confidence in works, was here directed by&#xA;  him to the law, that he might learn he was a sinner exposed to&#xA;  the fearful sentence of eternal death; so others, who were&#xA;  already humbled with this knowledge, he elsewhere solaces with&#xA;  the promise of grace, without making any mention of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Book III, Chapter 18, Section 9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and by pointing out his attachment to wealth, which indicates his hypocrisy in assuming himself to be following the Law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To show him how little progress he had made in that righteousness&#xA;  which he too boldly answered that he had fulfilled, it was right&#xA;  to bring before him his besetting sin. Now, while he abounded in&#xA;  riches, he had his heart set upon them. Therefore, because he did&#xA;  not feel this secret wound, it is probed by Christ - &quot;Go,&quot; says&#xA;  he, &quot;and sell that thou hast.&quot; Had he been as good a keeper of&#xA;  the law as he supposed, he would not have gone away sorrowful on&#xA;  hearing these words. For he who loves God with his whole heart,&#xA;  not only regards everything which wars with his love as dross,&#xA;  but hates it as destruction (Phil. 3:8). Therefore, when Christ&#xA;  orders a rich miser to leave all that he has, it is the same as&#xA;  if he had ordered the ambitious to renounce all his honours, the&#xA;  voluptuous all his luxuries, the unchaste all the instruments of&#xA;  his lust. Thus consciences, which are not reached by any general&#xA;  admonition, are to be recalled to a particular feeling of their&#xA;  particular sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Book IV, Chapter 13, Section 13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is therefore trying to prick the man's conscience: he's not saying that salvation automatically follows from giving up material possessions. In addition, he is speaking to a wider audience (including us right now!), regardless of the status of this particular individual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Quotations are from the 1845 translation by Henry Beveridge of the 1599 Latin edition of the &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt;, available online &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-14T23:16:00.203" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T23:16:00.203" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4108" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4131" CreationDate="2011-10-14T02:22:40.867" Score="13" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was telling the kids in my Catechism class yesterday that we &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3720/why-does-vatican-require-yahweh-not-to-be-used&quot;&gt;don't pronounce God's name anymore&lt;/a&gt; in hymns during Mass.  They were a tad taken aback, especially since apparently they're supposed to sing some song at their school containing the Holy Name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, how scrupulous does one need to be about this? I can't imagine that the only place you may not utter God's name with the vowels is the very space where he is worshiped most abundantly.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, should they sing along, or just hum to themselves?  I'd really appreciate a good sound Catholic answer to this as it is ostensibly binding on us for the rest of our lives!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T18:28:04.340" Title="Should Catholics silently hum the Tetragrammaton when they're supposed to sing it?'" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4109" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4122" CreationDate="2011-10-14T03:05:12.733" Score="8" ViewCount="3744" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been struggling with this passage for a while:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:13-14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 4:13-14 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How does one drink of the water from Jesus?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="736" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-17T14:43:50.320" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T14:43:50.320" Title="Question on John 4:13-14 - How do we drink of the water from Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2879" CreationDate="2011-10-14T04:23:24.547" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In light of &quot;Rom 13&quot;...the historical and textual context support the Christian pacifist stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Key to Understanding: Historical Context&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;586 BC&lt;/strong&gt; Solomon’s Temple destroyed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After the Babylonian captivity ended, Judea survived under the succeeding Empires.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;323 BC&lt;/strong&gt;  Death of Alexander the Great. Kingdom divided among the generals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judea comes under the Ptolemies, who also rule Eygpt&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;198 BC&lt;/strong&gt; Judea annexed by the Seleucids, under Antiochus III, who rules Syria&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;During this period, Jews under no government edicts to change customs [though many fell under the spell of the Hellenistic spirit of the times]. Antiochus strengthened the High Priesthood, made Torah official law for Jews and exempted Jews from taxes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Judea was still a theocratic/Temple State.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Internal strife precipitated a crisis under the next king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  High Priestly faction, the House of Zaddock, was pro-Ptolemaic.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Another artistocratic family, the Tobiads, was pro-Seleucid.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Complaints against High Priest Onias III led to removal.  Office was sold to his brother, Jason, who received permission from Antiochus “to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis…”&#xA;“For the first time in Jewish History, the office of high priest had changed from heritage to a privileged position…” to be bought.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Later, Jason refused to surrender that office.  Civil war broke out.  Besides the political factions, the scribal class, to whom the common people looked, produced the Hassidim who attacked Jews who were Hellenizers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;168 BC&lt;/strong&gt; Antiochus Intervenes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This led to the events described in Maccabees: Desecration of the Temple; the Abomination of Desolation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This then led to Revolt of the Maccabees, joined by the Hassidim&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;164 BC&lt;/strong&gt; “On December 25…Temple was purified and rededicated to Yahweh.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Annual observance—Hanukkah,  Festival of Lights&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Judea gains autonomy.  Simon, one of the Maccabees, rules from 140-135. Holds Offices of High Priest [first of the Hasmonean Dynasty], Ethnarch, military and civil Governor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intervening Years till reign of Herod.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Battles  continue between factions and enemies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;63 BC&lt;/strong&gt; Pompey Captures Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Antipater, father of Herod, honored by Julius Caesar.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;40 BC&lt;/strong&gt;  After Rome’s Civil War, under Octavian Caesar, Antony and Roman Senate confer title on Herod: “King of the Jews”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4 BC&lt;/strong&gt; Death of Herod The Great&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revolts put down&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Kingdom divided among sons&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Archelaus rules over Judea…strife continues&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jewish delegation to Rome: complaints about Archelaus’ rule; asks for Roman rule&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AD 6&lt;/strong&gt; Archelaus’ rule ends.  Judea Becomes Roman Province.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Change in government calls for census—taken for purpose of taxation. To devout Jews, this was a symbol of subjugation to Rome, foreign, pagan power&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Judas the Galilean [Acts 5:37], with Zadock the Pharisee, leads Revolt&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Judas recruits his band around Sepphoris, the capitol [a short distance from Nazareth]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Three Roman Legions under Varus, crush revolt.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;2000 Jews Crucified [Josephus, Ant.17:295]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;[From this period until the outbreak of the final Jewish War in AD 66, Zealots and assassins would continue to foment rebellion and violent outbreaks.  Josephus, The Jewish War, is great background reading for understanding NT times.]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;c. AD 29&lt;/strong&gt; “Barrabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had       committed murder in the insurrection.” [Mark 15]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AD 46-48&lt;/strong&gt; Insurrections: Two Sons of Judas the Galilean executed by Rome&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;c.AD 49&lt;/strong&gt; Edict of Claudius&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jews expelled from Rome for disturbances [Acts 18:2]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AD 54&lt;/strong&gt; Claudius Dies&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jews begin return to Rome&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AD 57&lt;/strong&gt; Paul Writes Letter to Romans&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;AD 66&lt;/strong&gt; Jewish War begins. Temple Destroyed in 70&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;New Testament Had NO Chapter numbers for over 1000 years&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read IN CONTEXT: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012-13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom 12-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: &quot;It is mine to avenge; I will repay,&quot;says the Lord. &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;On the contrary: &quot;If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.&#xA;     In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just want to note that now, Christian Pacifism: Fruit of the Narrow Way [originally pub. Friends United Press] is in E-Book format for Kindle, Nook, and PC. With the 'Look Inside&quot; feature, you can read the table of contents and the first chapter, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B005RIKH62&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It interacts with key passages in the Old and New Testaments, as well as early Church history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Re: Historical evidence for Christian Pacifism, see the classic by C. John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War. Free, online. Search or available &lt;a href=&quot;http://compassionatespirit.com/Cadoux/Cadoux-home.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="887" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T05:20:34.107" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T05:20:34.107" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4104" CreationDate="2011-10-14T04:56:31.363" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's do one question at a time!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did Isaiah understand his own prophecies, in the sense that we do today?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A NT Scripture can answer this pretty well for you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. (2 Peter 1:20&#xA;  NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This NT passage tells us that what Isaiah was writing he did not know&#xA;was going to be interpreted in light of the messiah instead of a&#xA;suffering nation of israel in exile.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Would Isaiah, for instance, have known that the Messiah would die for the sins of the world?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perhaps.  This prophecy was written through Isaiah, but no one realized that the Messiah was going to die for the sins of the world.  Even John the Baptist who called Jesus the Lamb of God in John 1 did not think Jesus was going about as the Messiah in the way he thought He would.  Jesus' approach towards being the Messiah caught everyone off-guard but in hindsight we see that was how it was always meant to be!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If Isaiah had met Christ before His death, would he have realized he was the Messiah?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We don't know!  The answer could go either way.  But one could ask,&#xA;how does it edify the church to know that Isaiah would have&#xA;recognized the Messiah?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Or were Isaiah's own words enigmatic to him as they were to the rest of the world, prior to the fulfillment of the prophecies?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To answer this question, I will refer to the 2 Peter passage above. &#xA;Apparently the prophet's own interpretation of things (events&#xA;happening around him, remember, Isaiah was writing about the time of&#xA;the exile) was not how the prophecy came about.  Isaiah was writing&#xA;about the suffering of the nation of Israel in exile, not knowing&#xA;that it was also about the Messiah to come!  I say this because&#xA;Isaiah does not make mention in Isaiah 53 that he was telling a&#xA;prophecy, plus he makes no official mention of a Messiah.  Which&#xA;means that what GOD was saying through Isaiah at one point GOD also&#xA;used to point towards the Messiah!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Case in point, no where in that chapter does Isaiah actually use the&#xA;word &quot;messiah.&quot;.  This doesn't mean the passage isn't about the&#xA;messiah, but just that Isaiah wasn't writing thinking &quot;one day people&#xA;are going to figure out that I am writing about the messiah.&quot;. No, he&#xA;was a prophet trying to explain the suffering of his own people in&#xA;exile.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some exerpts from the wikipedia page on Is 53...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jewish commentator Rashi believed Isaiah 53 referred to Israel.[7]&#xA;Rashi, writing in the 11th century, did have some historical&#xA;precedent for this interpretation, as his commentary became one of&#xA;the best popular commentaries on the Tanakh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eliyahu Rabbah, which scholars agree was written in the end of the&#xA;tenth century[8], (Tana Devei Eliyahu) has 3 citations referenced&#xA;below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first book of the Talmud - Brachot page 5a (compiled between app&#xA;220 and 300 CE) applies Is 53 to the people of Israel and those who&#xA;study Torah...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Furthermore, the Midrash known as Tana Devei Eliyahu contains three&#xA;references to Isaiah 53, applying them to the righteous of Israel&#xA;(chapters 6, 13, 27).[12]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another Midrash, Aleph Beitot (final chapter) quotes Isaiah 53 in&#xA;reference to the nation of Israel as a whole.[12]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Midrash Psalms 94:2 applies Isaiah 53:10 to the righteous in general&#xA;(also in other earlier writings - Mechilta De Rabbi Ishmael)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kuzari also identifies Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel.[12]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chovot ha-Levavot also identifies Isaiah 53 as the nation of&#xA;Israel.[12]&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But all of this goes to say that what man thought was only about one thing, GOD also intended it to point towards the Messiah to come.  Which is how most of the prophecies in the OT were found out, after the event of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="794" LastEditDate="2011-10-14T14:00:26.877" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T14:00:26.877" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4113" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4119" CreationDate="2011-10-14T11:00:56.617" Score="4" ViewCount="2849" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11/praying-to-people-outside-the-trinity&quot;&gt;Praying to people outside the Trinity&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several denominations and traditions that believe in the doctrine of intercession of the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:3&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  You shall have no other gods before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the doctrine regarding praying to Saints and how does this relate to praying to God? &#xA;If there is only one God and prayer is petitioning him, how does praying to people other than God not run afoul of the commandment to have no other Gods?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T14:39:41.607" Title="How does intercession of saints and Exodus 20:3 not clash?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;intercession&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-10-18T12:25:00.280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4109" CreationDate="2011-10-14T12:23:14.970" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;John records many stories where Jesus is talking about something physical with spiritual undertones.  Jesus calls Himself the Bread of Life, the Good Shepherd, and the Gate for the sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This really speaks to the fact that mankind is not purely physical, but are also spiritual beings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can identify with physical hunger for physical bread.  Jesus indicates that there is a spiritual hunger and that He Himself is the only thing that can satisfy that as the Bread of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this passage, Jesus identifies that there is a physical thirst with which all of us can identify.  He uses that to show the woman at the well that her own needs were not merely physical.  She had a spiritual thirst that could only be satisfied by spiritual water, and Jesus was the only source of such water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a hunger that food cannot satisfy.  There is a thirst that water cannot quench.  There is a longing that nothing in this world can satisfy.  The hunger, the thirst, and the longing are not for physical things, but are for spiritual fulfillment which is found in God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T12:23:14.970" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4113" CreationDate="2011-10-14T12:34:37.313" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a Methodist now, so praying to Saints in a group setting is not done. I grew up Catholic, so I don't find asking saints to intercede on my or someone else's behalf unusual, for the reasons given on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php#do-catholics-pray-to-saints&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;catholic.org&lt;/a&gt;. Here is one relevant bit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do Catholics pray to saints?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;We pray with saints, not to them. Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you when you were having a hard time? Why did you choose to ask that person?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may have chosen someone you could trust, or someone who understood your problem, or someone who was close to God. Those are all reasons we ask saints to pray for us in times of trouble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since saints led holy lives and are close to God in heaven, we feel that their prayers are particularly effective. Often we ask particular saints to pray for us if we feel they have a particular interest in our problem. For example, many people ask Saint Monica to pray for them if they have trouble with unanswered prayers, because Monica prayed for twenty years for her son to be converted. Finally her prayers were answered in a way she never dreamed of -- her son, Augustine, became a canonized saint and a Doctor of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Biblical references for this belief, take your pick from this article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Saints and Intercessory Prayer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edited again:  Here's Exodus 20:1-3 (NRSV) to provide some context to verse 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then God spoke all these words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is telling Moses that the people should worship God and not anything else, like a golden calf.  As the catholic.org reference says, people pray with saints, not to saints.  So those people aren't setting another god before God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T17:08:02.617" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4104" CreationDate="2011-10-14T13:19:01.670" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Peter gives us some insight into this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace&#xA;  that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care,&#xA;  11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit&#xA;  of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the&#xA;  Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them&#xA;  that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the&#xA;  things that have now been told you by those who have preached the&#xA;  gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to&#xA;  look into these things.  1 Peter 1:10-12 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many passages in the Old Testament were considered to be Messianic well before the time of Christ. One theory was that there would actual be two Messiahs.  This arose out of an attempt to reconcile what appeared to be both a suffering Messiah and a conquering Messiah.  These were known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_Joseph&quot;&gt;Messiah Ben Joseph&lt;/a&gt; (or Ephraim) and Messiah Ben David.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Messiah Ben Joseph (son of Joseph) indicated the sufferings that Joseph, the son of Jacob, endured at the hands of his brothers and during the first part of his time in Egypt.  Interestingly enough, Joseph became as Pharaoh in Egypt, much like Jesus, who did suffer at the hands of His brothers and the forces of another country, but who now reigns as King of Kings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Messiah Ben David would be a king.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Isaiah, like Peter reveals, likely searched intently and with the greatest care trying to find out the time and circumstances when Messiah would come.  He likely did not understand everything about it, but more than likely understand a good bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T13:19:01.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4113" CreationDate="2011-10-14T13:26:20.943" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic understanding of 1st commandment as it relates to that passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2110&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can tell that passage from Exodus is not connected to intercessory prayer.  As noted &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/11&quot;&gt;elsewhere&lt;/a&gt;, there's nothing idolatrous or polytheistic about belief in the Communion of Saints.  There is a Church in Heaven since the gates of hell will not prevail against it, therefore, there are folks in Heaven who can intercede on our behalf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the LORD says He is the God of the living, not of the dead therefore all who die in Christ also live with Him and will not cease to do His will in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Therese the Little Flower said she wanted to spend her heaven doing good on earth. There's nothing idolatrous about accepting the help of a friend in a high place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument that Tradition corrupts Scripture is simply Protestant nonsense, Scripture is Tradition written down. Just as you can't fault billions of well meaning Christians for being illiterate, you can't fault Christian farmers for thinking St. Isadore might know more about drought than Our Lord. It's untrue, but the argument against it only comes from cultural relativism. (that it is good for them, but not for us since we're so much smarter) If it were really idolatrous, the Church would have done away with it long long ago just as it has done away with all heresies, even ones that are very very popular&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-16T01:48:25.553" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4096" CreationDate="2011-10-14T13:42:01.440" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was likely a common expression in that day to emphasize the importance of what would be spoken immediately after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, &lt;strong&gt;to tell you the truth&lt;/strong&gt;, we have a similar phrase in English.  We don't mean that we weren't telling the truth before and are only now beginning to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;can I be honest with you?&lt;/strong&gt;  I wasn't being dishonest with you before, but now my degree of openness is greater and I'm being more transparent than I would otherwise be in the course of conversations with acquaintances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T13:42:01.440" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4109" CreationDate="2011-10-14T13:48:10.683" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Calvin's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc34/cc34009.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;commentary&lt;/a&gt; on this passage affirms that &amp;quot;water&amp;quot; means the Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though the name &lt;em&gt;Water&lt;/em&gt; is borrowed from the present occurrence, and applied to &lt;em&gt;the Spirit&lt;/em&gt;, yet this metaphor is very frequent in Scripture, and rests on the best grounds. For we are like a dry and barren soil; there is no sap and no rigour in us, until the Lord water us by his Spirit. In another passage, the Spirit is likewise called &lt;em&gt;clean water&lt;/em&gt;, (Heb 10:22,) but in a different sense; namely, because he washes and cleanses us from the pollutions with which we are entirely covered. But in this and similar passages, the subject treated of is the secret energy by which he restores life in us, and maintains and brings it to perfection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some who explain this as referring to the doctrine of the Gospel, to which I own that this appellation is fully applicable; but I think that Christ includes here the whole grace of our renewal; for we know that he was sent for the purpose of bringing to us a new life. In my opinion, therefore, he intended to contrast &lt;em&gt;water&lt;/em&gt; with that destitution of all blessings under which mankind groan and labor. Again, &lt;em&gt;living water&lt;/em&gt; is not so called from its effect, as &lt;em&gt;life-giving&lt;/em&gt;, but the allusion is to different kinds of waters. It is called &lt;em&gt;living&lt;/em&gt;, because it flows from a &lt;em&gt;living&lt;/em&gt; fountain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He finds that the reference to the spring or fountain has a particular significance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For he does not say that, from the very first day, we drink so as to be fully satisfied, but only means that the Holy Spirit is a continually flowing fountain; and that, therefore, there is no danger that they who have been renewed by spiritual grace shall be dried up. And, therefore, although we thirst throughout our whole life, yet it is certain that we have not received the Holy Spirit for a single day, or for any short period, but as a perennial fountain, which will never fail us. Thus believers thirst, and keenly thirst, throughout their whole life; and yet they have abundance of quickening moisture; for however small may have been the measure of grace which they have received, it gives them perpetual vigor, so that they are never entirely dry. When, therefore, he says that they shall be satisfied, he contrasts not with &lt;em&gt;Desire&lt;/em&gt; but only with &lt;em&gt;Drought&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Shall be a fountain of water springing up into eternal life.&lt;/em&gt; These words express still more clearly the preceding statement; for they denote a continual watering, which maintains in them a heavenly eternity during this mortal and perishing life. The grace of Christ, therefore, does not flow to us for a short time, but overflows into a blessed immortality; for it does not cease to flow until the incorruptible life which it commences be brought to perfection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final paragraph shows the relevance of this passage to Calvinist ideas of irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, this text brings to mind Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40, where Jesus asks his disciples &amp;quot;Can you drink the cup that I am to drink?&amp;quot;. This question has been variously interpreted as referring to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Martyrdom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;General troubles and pains of life, not necessarily martyrdom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Eucharist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Receiving the Holy Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Living a Christ-like life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may not be possible or desirable to separate these meanings. Calvin's commentary is happy to assign multiple interpretations to the cup, since they are all bound up in the same idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T13:48:10.683" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4124" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4175" CreationDate="2011-10-14T14:28:09.790" Score="19" ViewCount="8732" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus highlights Deuteronomy 6:5 as the greatest commandment in the law.  This commandment highlights three aspects of loving God, specifically with our hearts, our souls, and our strengths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and&#xA;  with all your strength.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%206:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 6:5 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is distinct about each of these?  Specifically, what does it look like to love God with all our hearts?  What does it mean to love God with all our souls?  What does it mean to love God with all our strengths?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-15T06:58:36.393" LastActivityDate="2016-07-06T11:08:17.630" Title="The Greatest Commandment - Loving God with all our 1) heart, 2) soul, and 3) strength" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;souls&gt;&lt;deuteronomy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-07-07T20:51:43.963" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4125" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4173" CreationDate="2011-10-14T14:41:53.550" Score="14" ViewCount="17646" Body="&lt;p&gt;After sinning, Adam and Eve &quot;sewed fig leaves together&quot; and made clothing for themselves.  However, when God comes into the garden and calls to Adam, Adam responds by claiming that he was afraid and that his fear came from his own nakedness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:7-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:7-10 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were&#xA;  naked. &lt;strong&gt;And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves&#xA;  loincloths.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the&#xA;  garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid&#xA;  themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the&#xA;  garden. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, &quot;Where&#xA;  are you?&quot; &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;And he said, &quot;I heard the sound of you in the garden,&#xA;  and I was afraid, &lt;strong&gt;because I was naked&lt;/strong&gt;, and I hid myself.&quot;  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does Adam claim he is still naked, even after clothing himself with the fig leaves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-10T01:51:50.803" LastActivityDate="2015-08-10T01:51:50.803" Title="Why did Adam claim he was &quot;naked&quot; before God when he and Eve had clothed themselves with fig leaves?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;nakedness&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4126" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4129" CreationDate="2011-10-14T15:05:05.923" Score="14" ViewCount="10033" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a &quot;trap&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people&#xA;  gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of&#xA;  the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They&#xA;  made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this&#xA;  woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded&#xA;  us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 &lt;strong&gt;They were using this&#xA;  question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:2-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 8:2-6 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-04T15:22:37.903" LastActivityDate="2021-05-01T13:08:32.213" Title="What was the specific trap being set for Jesus by the Pharisees in John 8?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;pharisees&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4126" CreationDate="2011-10-14T15:15:06.787" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This seems like a good place to start: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/NewTestament/John8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/NewTestament/John8.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Christ’s mission was a mission of mercy and not judgment.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus tells them to carry out the law and stone her, he is not being merciful. If he shows mercy, he is construed to be disobeying the law God handed down in Leviticus. Whichever action he chose, in the Pharisees' minds, would enable them to accuse him of doing wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="104" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T15:15:06.787" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4126" CreationDate="2011-10-14T15:16:21.173" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;At this time in history Israel was under the rule of the Romans. The Jewish law required that a woman caught in adultery was to be stoned to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 20:10 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of&#xA;  his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to&#xA;  death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But under Roman law a person could only be put to death by the judge, otherwise it was murder. Much like our law today. Christ did not have the &quot;authority&quot; as a man under Roman law to sentence anybody to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, if Christ had answered that the woman was to be stoned He would have be breaking the Roman law. Not only this, but the act of stoning this woman would have gone against the mercy, grace and forgiveness that He had been preaching about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if He answered to let the woman go, then He would not have been upholding the Jewish law. Christ himself had been teaching the people that whoever loves God will obey God. So to not Stone this woman would mean that Christ was not in obedience to God, which is also a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T15:16:21.173" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4108" CreationDate="2011-10-14T17:51:36.880" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the liturgical context, I think the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Liturgiam Authenticam&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, which provided guidance on how to conduct translations, is pretty clear on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[I]n accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In English, the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; should be replaced with &quot;LORD&quot;, although I've seen &quot;God&quot; used as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, outside of that context, the Church is less strict. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://nccbuscc.org/liturgy/NameOfGod.pdf&quot;&gt;the follow-up letter&lt;/a&gt;, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a strong case that the use of the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammatron&lt;/em&gt; is philologically misguided:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the so-called &lt;em&gt;Septuagint&lt;/em&gt;, dating back to the last centuries prior to the Christian era, had regularly rendered the Hebrew &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; with the Greek word &lt;em&gt;Kyrios&lt;/em&gt;, which means &quot;Lord.&quot; Since the text of the &lt;em&gt;Septuagint&lt;/em&gt; constituted the Bible of the first generation of Greek-speaking Christians, in which language all the books of the New Testament were also written, these Christians, too, from the beginning never pronounced the divine &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt;. Something similar happened likewise for Latin-speaking Christians [...] in these translations, too, the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; was regularly replaced with the Latin word &quot;&lt;em&gt;Dominus&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, corresponding both to the Hebrew &lt;em&gt;Adonai&lt;/em&gt; and to the Greek &lt;em&gt;Kyrios&lt;/em&gt;. [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This fact has had important implications for the New Testament Christology itself. When in fact St. Paul, with regard to the Crucifixion, writes that &quot;God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Phil&lt;/em&gt; 2:9), he does not mean any other name than &quot;Lord&quot; [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but it issued no guidance about whether it should be used elsewhere, stating only (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Avoiding pronouncing the &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; of the name of God &lt;strong&gt;on the part of the Church&lt;/strong&gt; has therefore its own grounds. Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred &lt;em&gt;tetragrammaton&lt;/em&gt; was never pronounced &lt;strong&gt;in the Christian context&lt;/strong&gt; nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of a Christian context, it may be like nails on the chalkboard for someone who perhaps gets annoyed when people talk about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm&quot;&gt;Brontosaurus&lt;/a&gt;, but there is no direct prohibition about using it. Of course, it would be a sign of respect to hum it or replace it the word Lord if at all possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-10-14T18:28:04.340" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T18:28:04.340" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4124" CreationDate="2011-10-14T22:43:24.710" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could try and break it down, i.e. soul = makes Godly choices, heart = serving God with emotional commitment, strength = using your actual body to serve God and mind = using your intelligence govern your actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Scriptures don't support any such breakdown as far as I'm aware and I think both in Deuteronomy and when Jesus said it, the intention was merely that you devote the &lt;strong&gt;WHOLE&lt;/strong&gt; of yourself to God, whether it is your thinking, your sentiment or your physical activity. Note that he could've gone further saying: loving God with your eyes (only seeing what is appropriate and good), loving God with your mouth (only speaking what is holy and encouraging), etc., but you already get the idea that it's included under this broad instruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastActivityDate="2011-10-14T22:43:24.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4098" CreationDate="2011-10-15T00:07:37.787" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with Jonathan, but here's a more comprehensive answer:&#xA;Total depravity teaches that we are so corrupted in nature that we are unable to come to God in faith (since that would count as a good work, which we're unable to do):  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 8:7, 8 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Titus 1: 15, 16 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 6:44 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unconditional Election teaches us that God chooses us before we do anything to merit being chosen (i.e. nobody ever deserves it, but God chooses some people anyway):  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ephesians 1: 4-6 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he[b] predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ephesians 1:11 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  11 In him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 9: 11-13 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Limited Atonment teaches that Christ didn't effectively die for everyone but only for Christians (i.e. those who would accept) - as opposed to the Arminian view that Christ's death had potential effectiveness for everyone although few benefit from it because not everyone believes in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 1:21 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.” &lt;em&gt;(note that He can't be saving everyone from their sins - just His people)&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 8:30 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. &lt;em&gt;(note that he would not have justified those he know wouldn't accept Him)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 17:9 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irristable Grace teaches us that when God chooses, He enlightens the unregenerate man and that person, understanding the Gospel, &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; accepts it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 6:37 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Acts 13:48 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Acts 16:14 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perseverance of the Saints is sometimes incorrectly understood as Once Saved Always Saved. The sentiment is correct but the tone is not. Calvinists believe that true Christians will always persevere - they cannot fall away from faith if they're true Christians.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 6:38 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ephesians 1:13, 14 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  13b When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Philippians 1:4-6 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 10: 28, 29 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there are good arguments for the both sides of the debate (based in Scripture) but I personally favour Calvinism. You'll note how beautifully Calvinism fits together (indeed, that integration is required) - if we're too corrupt to accept God, then God must choose us, which means He only has to die for the ones that He knows He'll save knowing that he can save them with irrisistable grace at the right time, and knowing that the ones he chooses will always stay Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastActivityDate="2011-10-15T00:07:37.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4047" CreationDate="2011-10-15T00:31:40.387" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;That linked Wikipedia article is incorrect in it's description of free will. Both of the main views (Calvinism and Arminianism) assert a free will of sorts - man is not as bad as he could possibly be and we recognise that non-Christians can make good and bad decisions. Furthermore, both sides agree that an unregenerate sinner cannot do anything to please God in terms of his works toward obtaining salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big point of division comes in when trying to decide if choosing to submit to God constitutes a work or not. The Arminian says that a person can choose to make a good decision and if this decision (under prevenient grace) is accepting Jesus' death for his sins, he can respond accordingly, &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; earning his salavation but accepting Jesus' offer of salvation. The Calvinist says that a person cannot come to this conclusion unless God has already done ALL the persuasive work in his mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's only two options, not three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastActivityDate="2011-10-15T00:31:40.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2011-10-15T12:53:32.627" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an interesting theory expressed in Appendix Note 4 of J. B. Phillip's translation &lt;em&gt;The Gospels in Modern English&lt;/em&gt; (1957). I'll quote some short extracts and summarise the rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, he says that the passage is &quot;well-known for its difficulty of interpretation&quot;, then he offers the standard interpretation that the Christian should be &quot;as shrewd about his spiritual future&quot; as the steward was about his own &quot;immediate security&quot;. He then says that he is unsatisfied with this interpretation because it &quot;introduces a note of careful calculation for the future which is quite at variance with Christ's teachings elsewhere&quot;. Further, the passage goes on to say that minor dishonesty leads to greater dishonesty, which is an odd lesson to draw from that interpretation. (I'm somewhat paraphrasing here, as I don't want to quote massive chunks.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then offers a suggestion from Professor CC Torrey, a specialist in Semitic languages at Yale, that the original words were in Aramaic, and &quot;suffered some alteration when written down in Greek&quot;. Under that assumption, you could make the difficult statements into questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Professor Torrey, in his own translation, makes the two difficult remarks in verses 8 and 9 into questions, viz. &quot;Did the lord of the estate praise his faithless manager ...? and do &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; say to &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; ...?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a nice suggestion, and certainly makes the parable easier to interpret: the lesson is faithfulness, &quot;illustrating the fact that since even in worldly matters men cannot 'get away with it' &amp;mdash; how much more essential is faithfulness in spiritual matters&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then, in the appendix, offers a translation along those lines. In the main text itself, however, he follows the Greek text he actually has, and not the Greek text as he might like it to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have therefore tried to make the best of it by suggesting that our Lord says, in effect, that the Christian must &quot;outsmart&quot; the &quot;smart&quot; by turning money, which has so many potentialities for evil, into a spiritual opportunity. But this still leaves the following verses about faithfulness rather &quot;in the air&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2011-10-15T12:53:32.627" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4143" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-15T14:29:30.380" Score="7" ViewCount="255" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3281/is-there-any-biblical-basis-for-hating-homosexuals&quot;&gt;Is there any Biblical basis for hating homosexuals?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This week marks the 13th anniversary of Matthew Shepherd's torture and murder, a crime which appears to be motivated by disgust for who he was as a homosexual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christians read the Bible to prohibit homosexual acts. Does the scripture advocate or justify violence against people who commit sexual sins?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-10-15T17:01:03.200" Title="Is violence against LGBT people warranted by scripture?" Tags="&lt;violence&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-10-15T17:46:29.323" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4143" CreationDate="2011-10-15T14:51:24.020" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, as little as it advocates violence against any other sinner. The story in John 8 holds for homosexuals as well: He who is without sin throw the first stone. And when nobody did: Go therefore and don't sin no more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2011-10-15T14:51:24.020" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4145" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4147" CreationDate="2011-10-15T16:13:46.387" Score="11" ViewCount="1536" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do Mormons put so much more emphasis on the family than most other denominations do? What about their doctrine causes this? Or is it more because of culture/tradition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-10-15T16:51:26.657" LastActivityDate="2015-12-09T18:22:05.967" Title="Why does the LDS church  (Mormon) put so much more emphasis on the family than most other denominations do?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;family&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4143" CreationDate="2011-10-15T16:19:31.693" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus advocates using means other than violence (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mt. 5:38-48&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2026:51-52&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mt. 26:51-52&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Paul, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3281/60&quot;&gt;we shouldn't even be cruel nor hateful&lt;/a&gt; towards others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2012:16-21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 12:16-21 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;  Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;  Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, &quot;Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; To the contrary, &quot;if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; Do not be overcome by evil, but &lt;strong&gt;overcome evil with good&lt;/strong&gt;.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we have the choice, we should live in peace with all and be good to everyone. Even if they're evil. Even if they're our enemy. Even if they're sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, the Bible doesn't advocate violence towards sinners&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2646/60&quot;&gt;which we all are&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-10-15T16:19:31.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4145" CreationDate="2011-10-15T16:47:56.807" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm answering this only because of the year I spent in a Mormon (LDS) church.  If anyone who is LDS would like to post a different answer, please do.  This is based only on what I observed and learned during that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are actually a few reasons for the emphasis on family.  The first section below is presented to add emphasis to the &quot;meat&quot; of the answer found later on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first has to do with the fact that LDS doctrine teaches that you have to add works on top of the free salvation presented by Jesus' sacrifice if you want to attain to the highest level of Heaven (also referred to as the highest &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_glory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;degree of glory&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This underlies a lot of why members of the LDS Church are such stellar examples of how to behave, or at least why so much emphasis is put on &quot;being good&quot;.  Doing the will of God and actually following the commandments is seen as necessary to achieve the highest level of glory.  One of the basic principles of the LDS Church is that other denominations are false, because Christianity went into full apostasy.  They view the concept of salvation by grace through faith apart from works as a false doctrine that encourages people to continue sinning while believing they are saved.  I can't tell you how many times I heard &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/15-8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 15:8&lt;/a&gt; quoted in Sunday Schools and in services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The emphasis on being a good person springs from this belief.  This is, from what I've experienced, the most crucial aspect of LDS doctrine, and the belief that good works are necessary to future glory underlies a great deal of the emphasis on goodness.  &lt;em&gt;Part&lt;/em&gt; of the emphasis on family springs from this.  Quite obviously, it is good to love your family and to have a close family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their teachings also include the idea that your family life continues on in heaven, and they want to be able to spend eternity with their families. This  feeds the emphasis on family, because close families are less likely to drift away from the Church. Since the view is that a person who leaves the Church is going to attain a lower level of glory, they want very much to maintain close ties to keep their children and loved ones in the fold.  The best way to do this is to encourage family time, and closeness in the family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;official LDS statement on the importance of family&lt;/a&gt;  while a more &quot;evangelical&quot; and less &quot;doctrinal&quot; explanation &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/faq/#Family%7Cquestion=/faq/mormon-families/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;can be found here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T09:24:42.150" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T09:24:42.150" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4143" CreationDate="2011-10-15T17:01:03.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Violence is certainly not permissible against any immoral acts.  However, in the Law of Moses that detailed the covenant relationship between God and Israel, God did command certain punishments for various crimes, including robbery, adultery, etc.  This is a function of community governance, though, and not personal violence.  Furthermore, it only applies within the context of God's covenant relationship with Israel.  It is how Israel was supposed to govern themselves as a nation--not how individuals should respond to others.  The punishments did include capital punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sermon on the Mount, by contrast, specifies behavior for individual people and not the government.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we do unto others how we want them to do to us, but we don't make that the rule of government.  This would result in absolute lawlessness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-15T17:01:03.200" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4149" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-15T18:08:11.013" Score="4" ViewCount="3038" Body="&lt;p&gt;It appears that this passage in Luke allows for the diversity of denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 9:49-50 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one&#xA;  casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he&#xA;  followeth not with us.   And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not:&#xA;  for he that is not against us is for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this passage, spoken by Jesus, allow for differing denominations?  If it doesn't, what does the verse mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-17T14:22:33.460" LastActivityDate="2014-07-17T11:04:29.270" Title="Does the passage in Luke 9:49-50 support the diversity of denominations?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4149" CreationDate="2011-10-15T19:09:29.690" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a good sermon that was given on this subject actually:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianuniverse.com/sermons/forbidnot.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.christianuniverse.com/sermons/forbidnot.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, basically, Jesus didn't want the in-fighting, which may be similar to having more denominations, it depends on how you define denominations, as you will see that there may be disagreements within the same denomination so we have fighting within, even within the same physical church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, there are people that claim to be following Jesus but then opening profess hatred of others.  This we need to stand against, as that violates what Jesus taught, and invalidates his entire message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, we shouldn't be fighting against each other, and using valuable resources/time, when there are so many things in this world that could be helped if we focused on our mission of sharing Christ with the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if someone is claiming to be doing work in Jesus' name, and you feel that there is some teaching that is suspect, then go by yourself, first, and try to share your concerns with them, but in all things it should be done with love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This follows the teachings in Matthew 18:16-20.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By going by yourself, your ego is less involved, if you haven't told anyone what you are going to do, but just do it in a way so that only God is the other witness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-15T23:52:56.863" LastActivityDate="2011-10-15T23:52:56.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4145" CreationDate="2011-10-15T23:18:54.450" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/ensign/2003/05/the-importance-of-the-family?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article from 5/2003&lt;/a&gt; explains the LDS position quite clearly, as to why they believe in the importance of family ties. Family members that have died before the could be brought within the Mormon fold can also be given the &lt;em&gt;saving ordinances&lt;/em&gt; by having someone stand in for them. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonmissionprep.com/basic-doctrines/saving-ordinances/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This Mormon missionary prep guide&lt;/a&gt; may help explain this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By stressing close family ties it helps to bind the religious community together, and serves as an example of how being Mormon can help society as a whole.  There is also more pressure on trying to stay together because the families will try to convince couples to persevere, all to keep the family together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also makes is harder to leave the Mormon faith because these close relationships will be at risk, so when people choose to leave they will leave everything they hold dear behind them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exmormon.org/whylft84.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This story&lt;/a&gt; was interesting, I don't know how legit it is, but it can give some idea about what happens when people leave the Mormon church.  I am not trying to attack the Mormon faith by this last link, but to some idea as to how family will work to try to keep people in the faith.  If more religions cared as much about close family ties I doubt we would have so many divorces, in the US.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T09:21:58.857" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T09:21:58.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4152" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4153" CreationDate="2011-10-15T23:40:54.277" Score="15" ViewCount="10317" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that a certain amount of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_%28Catholic_Church%29#Education&quot;&gt;education&lt;/a&gt; is necessary before men can be ordained as a Catholic priest. But are all men that received the necessary education ordained as priests? If not, what is the selection process? And how are they assigned to a specific parish?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2011-10-16T02:51:43.897" Title="How are Catholic priests chosen and assigned to specific parishes?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4152" CreationDate="2011-10-16T02:08:31.440" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many vocational offices explain this process in detail (the Diocese of Fall River has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fallrivervocations.org/ministries/application.htm&quot;&gt;a good explanation&lt;/a&gt;, for example), but I'll try to explain it as best I know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before that, there are a few things to keep in mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are two different &quot;tracks&quot;: the diocesan track, where you are ordained as part of a diocese, and the religious track, where you are ordained as part of a religious order. You seem to be interested in the former, so this answer mostly answers to that. The processes are similar, it's just a question of where you end up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Priests are, to put it somewhat bluntly, proxies for the bishop. A bishop cannot perform all the duties required of him for everyone, so the priests act as surrogates, performing many of the functions that are needed to successfully tend to the flock. In many ways, the process is about finding suitable matches for the bishops who need more priests: &lt;strong&gt;this is sort of the short answer to your question (the bishop decides).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One way to understand the full Ordination process and how the bishop makes his selection is to think of it like a very long, very structured introspection. Accepting the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a huge deal, one that will shape the rest of a person's life. The time in Seminary Formation and up to the Rite of Ordination into the Priesthood is basically the trial run period to see whether a person really, truly wants to commit to the life of a priest: committing one's life to the Church, taking a vow of celibacy, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Process&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The process starts off something like a Ph.D. track education in academia: when you go towards getting your Ph.D., you usually find out that you're interested in it during undergraduate school, then you go through an application process, then a core education (Master's) process, then you move into the meat of actually getting a Ph.D. (doctoral thesis).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, the path to ordination starts off with talking to a priest or other members of one's parish about being interested Holy Orders. The person will then apply to the diocese &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;amp;rls=en&amp;amp;q=office+of+vocations-8&quot;&gt;office of vocations&lt;/a&gt;, usually answering some basic questions about why they want to begin the process (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archdpdxvocations.org/Vocations/Vocations_Office_files/vocation-Questionnaire-English-fillin.pdf&quot;&gt;example from the Archdiocese of Portland&lt;/a&gt;, PDF).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vocation director will then make contact to begin the application process. This usually consists of a series of interviews, getting letters of recommendation, background checks, and other vetting processes to make sure the person has a high likelihood of succeeding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once accepted, the Bishop assigns the person to a seminary (with the recommendation of the vocations director) where they begin the process of Seminary Formation: they'll learn everything they need to know to begin the transition into the clergy. Simultaneously (if they don't already have it), they'll be receive the education to get a Master's Degree in Divinity (generally a requirement to receive Holy Orders).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They'll also begin the process of introspection and guidance to determine whether or not this is something really want to do and whether or not God is calling them to Holy Orders. This is done under the guidance of the vocation director who recruited them.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Towards the end of Seminary Formation, men are ordained to the diaconate&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_diaconate&quot;&gt;transitional deacon&lt;/a&gt;: similar to a permanent deacon, but with the understanding that they will soon be ordained a priest (usually in about 6 months).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's at this point the bishop assigns them to a parish. This is sort of a &quot;last chance&quot; period to change one's mind and to start helping with the Liturgy in a real-world setting. The person is still in Seminary, but it's something like a &quot;work-study&quot; or &quot;student teacher&quot; program: he'll split his time between completing Seminary and doing the duties of a deacon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of Seminary, successful candidates undergo the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fallrivervocations.org/ministries/ordination_rite.htm&quot;&gt;Rite of Ordination&lt;/a&gt; into the Priesthood. Amongst other activities, the bishop will ask them a series of questions to make certain they'll ready to undergo the call of Holy Orders, but this is largely a formality: the Seminary Formation process was intended to weed out the candidates who would not make a good fit long before this moment. Think of it like a &quot;swearing in&quot; ceremony: candidates are going to know beforehand the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, &quot;I do&quot;, or &quot;I will&quot; to every question asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After which, the bishop will consecrate the candidates via the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laying_on_of_hands&quot;&gt;Laying on of Hands&lt;/a&gt; and ordain them into the Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once Ordained, priests serve under the bishop. The bishop can work with other bishops to transfer priests between dioceses depending on the needs of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Notes&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; It's important to note here that not everyone who goes through this process becomes a priest: many are never called by the Holy Spirit to receive Holy Orders and withdraw from the process within the first couple of years of Seminary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; If you're not familiar with the term, a Deacon is someone who is able to perform many sacraments one usually associates with a Priest: conduct sermons, baptize, and oversee marriages. But they can't do things like confer Holy Orders themselves or consecrate the bread and the wine used in the Eucharist (but they can help administer it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-10-16T02:19:20.533" LastActivityDate="2011-10-16T02:19:20.533" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4152" CreationDate="2011-10-16T02:51:43.897" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mark's answer was exceptional an complete so I'll just add an anecdote I heard a few weeks ago relating to the way priests are formed and trained. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While they're going through schooling (seminary) they're consistently being tested in ways they're not used to being tested. For instance, man who doesn't do well with death is put in a hospital and a man who doesn't do well with kids is put in a school. So the positions they have later in their priesthood are probably informed by their performance in priestly formation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when a priest (diocesan priest) is starting out he's usually not the one left in charge all by himself, so more than likely he's going to go to a place where there both is a need for another priest and that need doesn't need to be filled by an experienced priest. So new priests don't usually get sent out to Podunk Ohio until they're a few years into it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, it's a crapshoot and only the Bishop (who is the head of quite a number of parishes generally covering a geographic area) gets to decide based on his preferences. Often times stellar priests are given the more challenging assignments (and bigger parishes) but you can't really judge a priest by the size of his congregation. If a Bishop really likes a priest he'll make him a Monsignor (which has a slightly ironic meaning). From what I can tell, and this is speculation because it can't really be documented anywhere, Bishops favor obedience, prayer and managerial skills. So, in general those factors will determine the direction and duration of a given priest's stay. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-16T02:51:43.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4155" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4156" CreationDate="2011-10-16T04:07:19.913" Score="8" ViewCount="1864" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was readIng an ad for a movie about blessed Duns Scotus which said he was debated and won against the Dominicans in the 13th century about the special privilege given to Mary, her Immaculate Conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I don't know (and don't really want to buy the movie to find out is) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For what reason did they doubt her Immaculate Conception? (and)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this why the Rosary starts with the Annunciation and not the&#xA;Immaculate Conception?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2018-02-09T13:42:45.177" LastActivityDate="2018-02-12T17:00:31.890" Title="What did the Dominicans have against the immaculate conception?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;rosary&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4155" CreationDate="2011-10-16T11:22:00.763" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a little bit of medieval politics centered around St. Thomas Aquinas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas had a strong connection to the Dominicans, having received the habit of St. Dominic twice (it's a long, unrelated story) and defending them in a dispute between the friars and the University at which he received his Doctorate of Theology. His works became part of the core teachings of the Dominican order, especially after his death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, St. Thomas was commonly believed to have opposed the idea of the Immaculate Conception, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;stating in the &lt;em&gt;Summa&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a &quot;perfect cleansing,&quot; as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fast-forward a few years later to when Bl. Duns Scotus starts to formulate the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as we know it today. He provided the biggest defense of the Immaculate Conception to date; or as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia puts it&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gradually, all the universities and orders began to adopt Scotus's position. The Dominicans, on the other hand, were obliged to follow their brother Thomas (who formed much of their order's early theology), rejecting Scotus's &quot;workaround.&quot; It took a few hundred more years of interpreting St. Thomas's works until they eventually came around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In hindsight, it appears that people were working off of different terms, or as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight into the subject in dispute. The word &quot;conception&quot; was used in different senses, which had not been separated by careful definition. If St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being its opponents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-10-17T19:47:18.123" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T19:47:18.123" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4157" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-16T16:34:23.820" Score="9" ViewCount="9871" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&amp;amp;version=NLT#en-NLT-28428&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 6:1-4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; Don’t you realize that someday we believers will &lt;strong&gt;judge the world&lt;/strong&gt;? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Don’t you realize that &lt;strong&gt;we will judge angels&lt;/strong&gt;? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the passage above mean when it says &amp;quot;believers will judge the world and the angels&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-10-28T15:33:05.927" Title="What does Paul's &quot;we will judge the world and the angels&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-12-17T23:18:07.830" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4157" CreationDate="2011-10-16T16:45:35.823" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Judges are not merely for the purpose of dispensing punishments, one tenet of being a judge is to restore order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_judges&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A biblical judge (Hebrew: shôphatîm or shoftim שופטים) is &quot;a ruler or a military leader, as well as someone who presided over legal hearings.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Legal hearings&quot; could include sentencing punishment but also establishing one's innocence, and thereby attempting to reestablish the order to that of before an offense was commited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for Paul, we are more of partners with GOD recreating and redeeming the world.  Of course He started that work and even is working through us as we become vessels of redemption in our own lives, but the passage is referencing how believers will be called upon to help restore order to this broken world, we will be vessels of reestablishing SHALOM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NT scholar Craig Keener says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in many Jewish traditions, the righteous would judge the nations; this judging could also imply judging the angels who were believed to rule the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:19-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:19-20 ESV&lt;/a&gt; says...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;and&#xA;     through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things,&#xA;     whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of&#xA;     his cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Whether on earth or in heaven,&quot; seems to infer that there were things that needed reconciliation not only on earth, but also in heaven.  That may be Paul's referencing how there may have been defective angels who needed reconciliation for their rebellion.  However, we don't know much more about what Paul thinks of that because he doesn't make many mentions of such things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps that is a roundabout way of saying that believers will be charged with the joy of reestablishing justice in heaven also!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from that, the passage means exactly what you think it does!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a good commentary on this see 1 + 2 Corinthians by Craig Keener.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T07:38:09.103" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T07:38:09.103" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4159" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-16T22:08:49.487" Score="27" ViewCount="50691" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is this a contradiction? Or am I missing something. It seems strange to think one can &quot;wrestle&quot; with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 32:30 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2033:18-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 33:18-20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="872" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T23:26:01.203" LastActivityDate="2018-08-09T01:18:07.570" Title="How could Jacob wrestle with God if no one can see God and live?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1294" CreationDate="2011-10-17T02:38:55.753" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Hebrews&amp;amp;ch=10#66010005-1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;footnote for Hebrews 10:5-7&lt;/a&gt; in the New American Bible mentions the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A passage from Ps 40:7–9 is placed in the mouth of the Son at his incarnation. As usual, the author follows the Septuagint text. There is a notable difference in Heb 10:5 (Ps 40:6), where the Masoretic text reads “ears you have dug for me” (“ears open to obedience you gave me,” NAB), but most Septuagint manuscripts have “a body you prepared for me,” a reading obviously more suited to the interpretation of Hebrews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original and ostensibly mistranslated passage appears in the Septuagint. Why this translation appears in the Septuagint and not the Masorectic text is something of a mystery, but there are a few different conjectures that discount the Masorectic text's translation. Notably by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kennicott&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Benjamin Kennicott&lt;/a&gt; as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=heb&amp;amp;chapter=010&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;descibed&lt;/a&gt; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clarke&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Adam Clarke&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dr. Kennicott has a very ingenious conjecture here: he supposes that the Septuagint and apostle express the meaning of the words as they stood in the copy from which the Greek translation was made; and that the present Hebrew text is corrupted in the word oznayim, ears, which has been written through carelessness for az gevah, THEN A BODY. The first syllable THEN, is the same in both; and the latter which joined to makes oznayim, might have been easily mistaken for gevah, BODY; nun, being very like gimel; yod, like vau; and he, like final mem; especially if the line on which the letters were written in the MS. happened to be blacker than ordinary, which has often been a cause of mistake, it might have been easily taken for the under stroke of the mem, and thus give rise to a corrupt reading: add to this the root carah, signifies as well to prepare as to open, bore, Septuagint, and followed by the apostle, must have read the text thus: az gevah caritha li, σωμαδεκατηρτισωμοι, then a body thou hast prepared me: thus the Hebrew text, the version of the Septuagint, and the apostle, will agree in what is known to be an indisputable fact in Christianity, namely, that Christ was incarnated for the sin of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, Psalms 40 in the Masorectic text has a transcription error that was not present in the translations upon which the Septaguint manuscripts were based.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T18:02:38.737" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T18:02:38.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4162" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4237" CreationDate="2011-10-17T06:26:38.927" Score="7" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;I noticed that these two passages are rather similar:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 8:35-36&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;For whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life and obtains favor&#xA;from the Lord, 36 but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who&#xA;hate me love death.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:12&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God&#xA;does not have life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of &lt;code&gt;life&lt;/code&gt; is being taught about in these two passages? Are they the same thing or how are they different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any church doctrines speak directly to the issue of these two usages of &lt;code&gt;life&lt;/code&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="666" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T06:44:12.703" Title="What is the difference between the Life that Christ gives and the Life that Wisdom brings?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;wisdom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4163" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4164" CreationDate="2011-10-17T06:58:12.083" Score="25" ViewCount="120540" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the time of Noah, God said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 6:3 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans&#xA;  forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and&#xA;  twenty years.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, later on, we have the account of Jacob and his sons. When Jacob moves to Joseph in Egypt, the pharaoh of asks him of his age, to which he replies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 47:9 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my pilgrimage are a hundred&#xA;  and thirty. My years have been few and difficult, and they do not&#xA;  equal the years of the pilgrimage of my fathers.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any explanation for this? I guess that either you can interpret this as Jacob referring to something else then his true physical age (e.g. &quot;the years of my pilgrimage&quot; having some kind of special meaning), or he might have miscalculated, or God's rule of the maximum age of man might not apply to all, like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and other distinguished men of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-01T12:28:22.217" LastActivityDate="2019-01-03T14:01:53.990" Title="If God set the maximum age to 120, then how could Jacob be 130 years old?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4163" CreationDate="2011-10-17T08:34:50.383" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of different theories as to the meaning of Genesis 6:3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;120 years to the flood&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One common interpretation is that it's not talking about lifespan, but the amount of time humanity has to repent before the coming of the Flood.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ponderingscripture.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/genesis-63-continued-the-120-years/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/append24.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside: Genesis 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came, placing the flood 1656 years after the creation of Adam according to the dates in Genesis 5, thus placing the Genesis 6:3 statement at 1536 years after Adam's creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;120 years left of Adam's life&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another argument is that many versions have slightly mistranslated this verse. If you compare translations you'll see that some have the passage relating to &quot;humans&quot; - all humanity (such as the NIV, which you've quoted), many others use the term &quot;man&quot;. This is because the word that's interpreted here as &quot;humans&quot; can also mean &quot;the man&quot;; or, more specifically, &quot;the man Adam&quot;. So this argument states that Gen 6:3 is not talking about everyone, but specifically that Adam had 120 years left to live at the time God made this statement.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/append24.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside: Genesis 5 tells us that Adam lived for 930 years, so this statement would have happened when he was 810 years old. According to the chronology in chapter 5, this places the statement after the birth of Methusela (Noah's grandfather) but 64 years before the birth of Lamech (Noah's father).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Human lifespan of 120 years&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the way many versions of the Bible are translated, and of course the meaning you have taken from the passage. But as you say, there are several people recorded in the Bible that have lived longer than 120 years since then. It's worth noting of course that we don't know what methods were used for recording the passing of time in those days, and how accurate or otherwise those methods were. Moreover, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&amp;amp;task=view&amp;amp;id=4695&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dr John Oakes tells us&lt;/a&gt; that it's really only a Western culture thing that puts such an emphasis on the exact-ness of numbers. A common example of not using time literally would be the phase “just a minute” or “in a second”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick note on my asides above - here's a footnote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 5:31 in the Amplified Bible:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is now well known that the age of mankind cannot be&#xA;  reckoned in years from the facts listed in genealogies, for there are&#xA;  numerous known intentional gaps in them. For example, as B. B.&#xA;  Warfield (Studies in Theology) points out, the genealogy in Matt.&#xA;  1:1-17 omits the three kings, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, and&#xA;  indicates that Joram (Matt. 1:8) begat Uzziah, who was his&#xA;  great-great-grandson. The mistaking of compressed genealogies as bases&#xA;  for chronology has been very misleading. So far, the dates in years of&#xA;  very early Old Testament events are altogether speculative and&#xA;  relative, and the tendency is to put them farther and farther back&#xA;  into antiquity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2019-01-03T14:01:53.990" LastActivityDate="2019-01-03T14:01:53.990" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4163" CreationDate="2011-10-17T14:32:21.277" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In entire bible, there are factors that changes the &quot;default&quot; man's lifespan:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:12 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may&#xA;  be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 25:15 KJV&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight,&#xA;  a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be&#xA;  lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 17:22 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a&#xA;  broken spirit drieth the bones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 65:20 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  There shall be no more thence an infant of days,&#xA;  nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die&#xA;  an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall&#xA;  be accursed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 12:19-20 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much&#xA;  goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be&#xA;  merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul&#xA;  shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which&#xA;  thou hast provided?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And you read in the patriarchs endings, each ends &quot;full of years&quot; and Jacob states that their years are &quot;few and difficult&quot;. It makes me think about &lt;em&gt;quality&lt;/em&gt; of years over &lt;em&gt;quantity&lt;/em&gt; of days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T14:32:21.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4166" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-17T15:01:35.167" Score="19" ViewCount="682" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:29&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Else what shall they do which are baptized&#xA;  for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?  Why are they then baptized&#xA;  for the dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the LDS Church interprets that verse literally. How do other Protestant traditions interpret this passage? What specific doctrines are derived from or reference this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-02T23:02:38.623" LastActivityDate="2020-06-02T23:02:38.623" Title="How do Protestants interpret &quot;baptized for the dead&quot; in 1 Corinthians 15:29?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4169" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4174" CreationDate="2011-10-17T15:58:11.427" Score="8" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dei Filius sayeth this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the Catechism quoteth it and sayeth this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is something I heardeth a priest say a few days ago in reference to 4th graders asking whether God can make a rock so big he can't lift it.  The Catholic answer is actually no, because God can't change His nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the Catholic Church's teaching on this is indeed based in Scripture.  But, since the references in the Catechism point to a Vatican I document, I'm not entirely sure which scripture (sounds like something St. Paul would say) or if it is just a teaching that is consistent with scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is asked in regards to the documents (Dei Filius and CCC 156) and Catholic or Catholic leaning answers would be most appreciated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2014-03-13T03:50:16.003" Title="What is the Biblical basis the for Immutable Nature of God?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;catholic-catechism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4169" CreationDate="2011-10-17T16:08:33.003" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that Mal 3:6 answer this question straight forward:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But because I, Adonai, do not change, you sons of Ya`akov will not be&#xA;  destroyed.  (Mal 3:6 CJB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not&#xA;  consumed.  (Mal 3:6 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Barnes says in his commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the Lord, I change not - , better, more concisely, “I, the Lord &#xA;  I change not - . The proper name of God, “He who Is,” involves His&#xA;  unchangeableness. For change implies imperfection; it changes to that&#xA;  which is either more perfect or less perfect: to somewhat which that&#xA;  being, who changes, is not or has not. But God has everything in&#xA;  Himself perfectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="765" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T16:08:33.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4159" CreationDate="2011-10-17T16:23:34.127" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The same thing could be asked about Moses being in God's presence and talking with Him face to face. What you need to understand is that Jacob was wrestling with Jesus, not with God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nobody has ever seen God the Father in His spiritual Beauty. Nobody, Ever. But many people have and will continue to see Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:15-17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Supremacy of the Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all&#xA;  creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and&#xA;  on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers&#xA;  or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.&#xA;  17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T16:23:34.127" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4172" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4552" CreationDate="2011-10-17T16:29:13.180" Score="1" ViewCount="1113" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-corinthians/passage.aspx?q=2-corinthians+10:3-5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 10:3-5&lt;/a&gt; Paul makes a contrast between spiritual warfare and war &quot;according to human standards&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In using the phrase &quot;we do not wage war according to human standards&quot;, is Paul assuming or expecting Christians will all be pacifists, or is he merely highlighting the contrast between physical and spiritual warfare?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2011-11-12T00:25:20.613" LastActivityDate="2011-11-12T00:25:20.613" Title="Does 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 assume Christian pacifism?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;war&gt;&lt;spiritual-warfare&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4125" CreationDate="2011-10-17T16:30:18.250" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Nakedness was not merely physical in nature&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to note that this is Adam's claim--not God's.  Adam and Eve had indeed taken measures to clothe their nakedness after their sin.  Before sin, when they were both in a state of innocence, it seems they felt no need for clothing.  This is akin to a young child who experiences no shame in being unclothed, much to the chagrin of his parents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve's clothing appears to have been sufficient in relation to one another.  However, as soon as God enters the picture, the insufficiency of their own efforts becomes apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems, then, that mankind's efforts to cover over their own sin may be sufficient among others who have sinned, but it is insufficient in the presence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Adam's nakedness had merely been physical, then physical clothing would have been sufficient to cover over his shame.  The shame, however, was not merely physical and neither was his sin.  It was also a spiritual act of defiance toward God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God's Provision&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's interesting to note that later in the chapter, God makes clothing for Adam and Eve.  We must wonder what the fig leaves were insufficient and why God considered other clothing to be superior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nature of the clothing provided by God is that they were from the skins of an animal.  Although this is not explicitly stated, it seems reasonable to conclude that this was the first substitutionary sacrifice.  An animal had to die to provide the animal skins for that clothing.  The death of the innocent animal was sufficient to cover the shame of sin, yet it was insufficient to atone for the guilt, since Adam and Eve were still banished from the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the sacrifice of the innocent covered over the shame of sin, it would require the sacrifice of the Righteous One (Jesus) to atone for the guilt.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The physical clothing made by God is then a picture of the spiritual clothing that would be provided through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament speaks of a type of clothing that comes to followers of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of&#xA;  you who were baptized into Christ have &lt;strong&gt;clothed&lt;/strong&gt; yourselves with Christ. Galatians 3:26-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have&#xA;  a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human&#xA;  hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be &lt;strong&gt;clothed&lt;/strong&gt; with our heavenly&#xA;  dwelling, because when we are &lt;strong&gt;clothed&lt;/strong&gt;, we will not be found naked. For&#xA;  while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do&#xA;  not wish to be unclothed but to be &lt;strong&gt;clothed&lt;/strong&gt; with our heavenly dwelling,&#xA;  so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.  2 Corinthians&#xA;  5:1-2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Adam was not naked at that time in a physical sense, but he was still naked (exposed, in a state of shame) in a spiritual sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T13:53:22.983" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T13:53:22.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4169" CreationDate="2011-10-17T16:34:18.870" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are a few verses that support this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Hebrews 13:8 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the&#xA;work of your hands.  They will perish, but you will remain; they will&#xA;all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and&#xA;they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end.&#xA;Psalm 102:25-27 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. Malachi 3:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.  James 1:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T16:34:18.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4124" CreationDate="2011-10-17T16:43:39.360" Score="8" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:37-38&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and&#xA;with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first&#xA;and greatest commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the first and greatest commandment. I think that it's pretty ironic that nobody can answer what this means, considering the biggest forgivable sin is probably breaking the first and most important commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:3&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands&#xA;are not burdensome,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible tells us that Love for God is obedience to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;With all your heart&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 2:15&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They show that the requirements of the law are written on their&#xA;hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts&#xA;sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commandments and laws of God are no longer obeyed by one nation, but instead these things are written on the individual believers hearts. So that each believer may be governed by the spirit and not by the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To love God with all of your heart is to allow all of His laws to govern you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:28&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already&#xA;committed adultery with her in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;With all of your mind&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:6&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the&#xA;Spirit is life and peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are also told that we need to think about good things and not evil things. We are to focus our entire mind on the things that please God. Not planning evil against a brother or doing things in private.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;With all of your Strength&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:18&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions&#xA;and in truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God tells us that we need not just SAY that we are Christian, but actually BE Christian. The parable of the two farmers sons is the perfect example of this. Jesus gives two examples of Children that were told to go work in the field. On said ok but didn't go. The other said no, but then eventually went.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus asks the people, Who actually obeyed? The one that DID or the one that DIDN'T? It's an obvious answer, the son that DID is the son that DID.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To love God with all of your strength is to DO as He has asked you to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T16:43:39.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4176" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4186" CreationDate="2011-10-17T17:47:32.490" Score="10" ViewCount="515" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few times on this site, I've mentioned Jesus' commands that we should take Mary into our home when he tells John to 'behold his mother'.  This is based on the idea that much of scripture can also be interpreted for its 'eternal significance', not to say that John didn't know exactly what he was writing, but that the Spirit was moving him to write something that would be applicable to us today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;The senses of Scripture&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, &amp;quot;leading&amp;quot;). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 115,117.3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't want to make any incendiary comments because I don't want this question picked apart as much I desire a historical analysis of Protestants either denying or affirming an anagogical understanding of Sacred Scripture. But, it seems to me as if Sola Scriptura presents only the literal and allegorical senses, but doesn't really lead anywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore it seems Sola Scriptura is opposed to the anagogical sense, because it is more of an understanding based on the application of the scriptures. This is what makes the rapture and Young Earth Creationism the only rational application of the scriptures to some who rely on literalism. Conversely it makes the gnostic understanding or 'bible code' understanding the only rational application to others who go rely on allegory.  But, I believe, these strict interpretations are not the norm for a majority of Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what I would like to know is, to those who believe in Sola Scriptura, when do you decide whether or not to exclude interpretations based on the anagogical sense of scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T04:09:05.333" Title="How does Sola Scriptura understanding of the Bible affect the anagogical sense of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;sola-scriptura&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4172" CreationDate="2011-10-17T17:58:27.797" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The text you sited refers specifically to a spiritual battle in which Christians engage because they are Christians.  There are spiritual forces that impact people as spiritual beings.  So, you confront such things with spiritual warfare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has nothing to do with any conflict that a person's nation of birth may engage in and require the services of that individual.  We are bound to submit to the authority of our governments.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted&#xA;  among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to&#xA;  governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to&#xA;  commend those who do right.  1 Peter 2:13-14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if we are drafted into war, we submit to that.  We submit until it draws us into specific sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-17T18:46:51.390" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T18:46:51.390" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1294" CreationDate="2011-10-17T19:22:49.947" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The author is quoting the Septuagint:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/2aGuJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is apparently, a poor translation from the original Hebrew to the Greek.  There are several examples of translation issues in the Septuagint.  This is another example of such a translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-10-17T19:22:49.947" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4181" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6587" CreationDate="2011-10-17T21:12:25.270" Score="16" ViewCount="121617" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christian denominations allow their members to marry whomever they please, others discourage it, and others just don't allow it (you are either disfellowshipped or the church refuses to perform the marriage). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What position do Jehovah's Witnesses hold on interfaith marriage? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it is allowed, is the ceremony different in any way?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it is discouraged, is it for social reasons (interfaith marriage&#xA;is hard) or doctrinal reasons (the Bible says...)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2019-06-19T19:01:14.883" LastActivityDate="2019-06-19T19:01:14.883" Title="Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to marry outside the faith?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4181" CreationDate="2011-10-17T21:40:20.133" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are they allowed to marry is a bit tricky, but the answer is most likely no, only because, if a person is dating a non-believer then their belief is probably weak, and will be suspect. Also, the church elders can step in and order that the couple break up, else the JW member will be disfellowshipped, which is more extreme than just being excommunicated, more like being kicked out of an extended family and given the silent treatment for life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These links will not be official answers from the JW, but I expect that they won't be too forthcoming on much of this (see source at end of answer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/friends.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See here&lt;/a&gt; for an idea on what the rules are on being friends with a JW member.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/disfellowship-shunning.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See here&lt;/a&gt; to get an idea on disfellowship you can look at:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://[http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/things-jehovahs-witnesses-cant-do.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See here&lt;/a&gt; for 141 things JW can't do, and look at #4 for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Here are &lt;a href=&quot;http://4witness.org/jwhelp/jw_engaged.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://4jehovah.org/help-jw-girlfriend-leavewt.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;questions&lt;/a&gt; where people are dating or engaged to a JW.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a person is a member of good standing with the JW then where is the free time to date outside of their religion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I would guess that the ceremony won't be any different since it probably wouldn't be recognized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2015-01-26T17:06:40.503" LastActivityDate="2015-01-26T17:06:40.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4183" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-18T00:58:52.287" Score="2" ViewCount="132" Body="&lt;p&gt;I finally found a safe way to ask this question.  There is a Christian army called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/january/18.30.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lords Army&lt;/a&gt;, that is doing evil in Africa, after twisting Christian teachings, yet this group is supported by some Americans, such as  &lt;a href=&quot;http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110140018&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rush Limbaugh&lt;/a&gt;, and for those that want to read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians?utm_source=twitterfeed&amp;amp;utm_medium=twitter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;transcript&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when a group is demonstrating very anti-Christian teachings while purporting to be Christian, I realize we can pray for them.  These people are evil, so how strongly should Christians not only try to stop these people, but then are we beholden to go into these regions to serve the people and try to show Christ's teachings, such as when he washed the feet of his apostles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other examples of people doing evil in Jesus' name would be subjective, but this group I hope is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T03:35:15.393" Title="Should Christians come out strongly against groups that do evil in Christ's name?" Tags="&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2011-10-18T08:01:23.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4183" CreationDate="2011-10-18T02:58:31.587" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There may be better or more applicable teachings, but this reminds me of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Acts&amp;amp;ch=5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 4:32-5:11&lt;/a&gt; wherein the Christians were living and sharing their things yet a couple was hording for themselves.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, it didn't turn out too well for those folks, so if the LRA is as bad as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10421&amp;amp;utm_source=feedburner&amp;amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3a%20CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories%20%28Catholic%20World%20News%20%28on%20CatholicCulture.org%29%29&amp;amp;utm_content=Google%20Reader&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it's purported to be&lt;/a&gt;, it won't turn out well for them etheir.  There's no basis for accepting acts of Christians who have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=9177&amp;amp;utm_source=feedburner&amp;amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3a%20CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories%20%28Catholic%20World%20News%20%28on%20CatholicCulture.org%29%29&amp;amp;utm_content=Google%20Reader&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;proven themselves anti-Christian&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, is it up to our church leaders to denounce them?  I think so to some extent, and to some extent they do. But pastors are often more concerned with their flock than ones half a world away. It's really up to us all to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth as best we can.  Run for office, vote for good people, give money to good charities, raise good children, there's more you can do if your vocation allows for it, but that's all most of us can do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T03:15:03.120" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T03:15:03.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4183" CreationDate="2011-10-18T03:35:15.393" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, Christians should come out strongly (boldly) against groups that do evil in Christ's name..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, thank you for bringing this to my attention. &#xA;Second, there is provision for speaking boldly to rebuke, exhort, and convince. Not only to speak, but to do so boldly. To preach the Word! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:13-17, 4:1-2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14) But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15) and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17) that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4:1&lt;/strong&gt; I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2) Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 6:19-20&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;And for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20) for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears, from the article you’ve referenced and what I found doing follow-up research, that Joseph Koney is a false teacher. It seems that this is a case where we are to &lt;strong&gt;speak boldly, to convince, rebuke, reproof and correct&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T03:35:15.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4176" CreationDate="2011-10-18T04:09:05.333" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is true that &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; is in some sense a reactionary doctrine. It's largely set against extra-Biblical revelation, rather than &quot;wrongly&quot; interpreting the Bible itself. In itself, a &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; position does not necessarily oppose an allegorical or anagogical meaning, though it would resist interpreting an otherwise historical-looking passage in &lt;em&gt;solely&lt;/em&gt; metaphorical terms. The original reformers were not shy about using anagogical interpretation for homilectic purposes, provided the anagogical meaning is also found in Scripture. So the basic suspicion is about finding &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; beliefs from non-literal reading. This comes from the &quot;clarity of Scripture&quot; doctrine more than from &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; itself, though the two are closely related. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My favourite example of the &quot;four senses&quot; is Dante's exposition of Psalm 113:1-2 (aka 114:1-2) in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.english.udel.edu/dean/cangrand.html&quot;&gt;letter to Can Grande della Scala&lt;/a&gt;. The Psalm text reads, in the Douay-Rheims:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a barbarous people, &lt;br/&gt;Judea was made his sanctuary, Israel his dominion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dante explains how the text supports multiple simultaneous meanings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we look at it from the letter alone it means to us the exit of the Children of Israel from Egypt at the time of Moses; if from allegory, it means for us our redemption done by Christ; if from the moral sense, it means to us the conversion of the soul from the struggle and misery of sin to the status of grace; if from the anagogical, it means the leave taking of the blessed soul from the slavery of this corruption to the freedom of eternal glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None other than John Calvin writes (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Institutes of the Christian Religion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; II.8.15, edition of 1559, translated by Henry Beveridge in 1845):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We again, instead of supposing that the matter has no reference to us, should reflect that the bondage of Israel in Egypt was a type of that spiritual bondage, in the fetters of which we are all bound, until the heavenly avenger delivers us by the power of his own arm, and transports us into his free kingdom. Therefore, as in old times, when he would gather together the scattered Israelites to the worship of his name, he rescued them from the intolerable tyranny of Pharaoh, so all who profess him now are delivered from the fatal tyranny of the devil, of which that of Egypt was only a type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would count this as an anagogical interpretation of the Exodus, along the same lines as Dante, and even using substantially the same terminology of spiritual slavery and freedom. More specifically, this is an example of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_%28theology%29&quot;&gt;typology&lt;/a&gt;, where historical Biblical events are interpreted as prefiguring the nature, life and teaching of Christ. The nice feature of typology from a Protestant perspective is that it adds to the plain reading of the text, rather than replacing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, Calvin does not seem to mind adding a meaning to the text, when it's a matter of finding &quot;the moral of the story&quot; (so long as that moral is consistent with what the Bible says elsewhere). What he doesn't like is any attempt to use a symbolic meaning in opposition to the literal meaning, especially if he suspects someone of trying to &quot;explain away&quot; moral precepts. Also, these readings are used to illuminate pre-existing doctrine, rather than to justify beliefs that aren't otherwise founded in Scripture. This is where the &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; comes in: from the beliefs that nothing essential to salvation can be found outside the Bible, and that Scripture is perspicuous, it would follow that nothing new can be discovered by anagogical interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same pattern holds for Martin Luther, who explicitly uses the term &quot;anagogical&quot; in his &lt;em&gt;Dictata super Psalterium&lt;/em&gt; (1514), and often employs typological interpretation. Luther also argues for the perspicuity of Scripture; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bow_toc.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On the Bondage of the Will&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (1525) he says &quot;I will have no one part of it called obscure&quot; (Sec. 37) and objects to the idea that special help is required to extract meaning from the Bible. But this does not stop him from using anagogical reading to &lt;em&gt;further explain&lt;/em&gt; any point of Christian belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Final example: Philipp Melanchthon wrote in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_of_the_Augsburg_Confession&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Apology of the Augsburg Confession&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (1530), &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/defense_23_mass.php&quot;&gt;commenting on&lt;/a&gt; Numbers 28:4, &quot;The Law had pictures or shadows of future things. Accordingly, in this spectacle Christ and the entire worship of the New Testament are portrayed.&quot; His commentary on John's gospel also makes use of allegory, where for example Mary is seen as sometimes representing the Church, and sometimes the individual believer, in addition to being literally Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later Protestants have often resisted overly &quot;fanciful&quot; allegorical interpretations, under which the literal meaning is lost, and one has to resort to complex and obscure symbolism. They would all still accept those interpretations that are explicitly stated in the New Testament (such as the &quot;sign of Jonah&quot; in Matthew 12:39), however. Modern Biblical literalism is partly a reaction against this kind of reading, and goes further than the original reformers did. The &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; and clarity motivations are the same, just more strongly expressed, about whether there can be anything in the non-literal meaning of the Bible that is not also in the literal sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T04:09:05.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4187" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4211" CreationDate="2011-10-18T09:38:26.160" Score="11" ViewCount="669" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does the LDS Church define their practice of performing baptisms on behalf of people who have died? I realize there is the following verse, but there seems to be few other Biblical references to the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:29&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the Mormon practice of baptising on behalf of people who have died derived from this verse and on what sources do they base their interpretation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note: I am specifically looking for LDS doctrine and references used to interpret this verse. There is a related question here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4166/30&quot;&gt;How do Protestants interpret &amp;quot;baptized for the dead&amp;quot; in 1 Corinthians 15:29?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2014-07-02T17:18:32.713" Title="On what do Mormons base their practice of proxy-baptisms on behalf of the dead?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4181" CreationDate="2011-10-18T09:44:39.200" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible highly discourages an interfaith marriage (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%207:39&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:39)&lt;/a&gt;. This is a logical thing, because JW beliefs are very different than Christendom. For example JW don't celebrate Christmas or Easter. If the other spouse celebrates, then there is no unity in very basic views in the marriage, something very important for JW. Also if there is a child how will they grow up? With what teachings? JW also have a very &quot;heavy&quot; theoretical week (meeting, preaching, study, family worship).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a JW chooses to have an interfaith political marriage they are not disfellowshipped, but if the ceremony takes place in a place of another religion, then it is more possible (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2018:4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 18:4&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14" LastEditorUserId="770" LastEditDate="2012-03-14T12:50:27.713" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T12:50:27.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4166" CreationDate="2011-10-18T11:29:35.557" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few interpretations that I have come across regarding the specific meaning of this verse, but all agree that this is a small argument in a wider context, not a change of direction from the verses before and after it: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/js.html&quot;&gt;John Stevenson&lt;/a&gt; (a Presbyterian theologian) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/1co15-29.html&quot;&gt;argues that &quot;for&quot; in this case means &quot;in the place of&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. This was a time when Chrisitans were heavily persecuted and frequently killed, yet the gospel message was spreading and more believers were being baptised. So Stevenson asserts that this verse is asking (rhetorically), &quot;why, when so many Christians are being killed for their faith, are people still becoming Christians and being baptised, replacing those who were killed?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/matt-slick&quot;&gt;Matt Slick&lt;/a&gt; of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29&quot;&gt;concentrates on the meaning of the word &quot;they&quot;&lt;/a&gt; as opposed to &quot;we&quot;. He asserts that Paul is talking not about Christians, but about a pagan religion from Eleusis, north of Corinth, who believed that baptising in the sea guaranteed a good afterlife. Slick's interpretation is that Paul is saying &quot;if even the pagans believe in the resurrection and the importance of baptism, why can't you?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thercg.org/questions/p108.a.html&quot;&gt;The Restored Church of God teaches&lt;/a&gt; that the word &quot;for&quot; should be translated as &quot;in the hope of&quot; and asserts that the meaning is much more straightforward: if there is no bodily resurrection, we have no hope after we die. We therefore believe and are baptised because we &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; have hope that the dead will rise again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While these interpretations vary in their conclusions regarding what Paul was specifically referring to, they all make the point that the verse must be taken in context. Stevenson explains, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The context of this passage is one in which Paul is arguing on behalf&#xA;  of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection. The Greeks as a rule did&#xA;  not hold to a bodily resurrection. It was a new concept to them. Their&#xA;  religion taught that the afterlife consisted of a disembodied&#xA;  existence. Throughout this chapter, Paul gives one argument after&#xA;  another showing that Christians legitimately believe in a&#xA;  resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the verse itself doesn't result in specific doctrines in protestant churches outside of LDS, because the verse is part of a much wider set of arguments for the doctrines of baptism and the bodily resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I've picked on a few particular resources that address this issue but there are several others that also support the argument that the verse should be taken in the context described above and not as an indication of support for baptism on behalf of those that have already died. In addition, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gospelway.com/salvation/baptism-dead.php&quot;&gt;here's a specific rebuttal of the Mormon view&lt;/a&gt; from David Pratte's gospelway.com website.&lt;/sub&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T11:29:35.557" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4190" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-18T13:06:38.520" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T13:06:38.520" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T13:06:38.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4191" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-18T13:06:38.520" Score="0" Body="Trinitarianism is the doctrine that God exists in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost).  This tag is for questions related to Trinitarian beliefs." OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T13:06:38.520" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T13:06:38.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4192" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6092" CreationDate="2011-10-18T13:36:45.960" Score="11" ViewCount="70698" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible speaks of the &quot;Judgment Seat of Christ&quot; as well as the &quot;Great White Throne&quot; judgment.  What is the difference between these two judgments and who will be at each?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we must all appear before &lt;strong&gt;the judgment seat of Christ&lt;/strong&gt;, so that&#xA;  each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body,&#xA;  whether good or evil.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:10 ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And I saw a &lt;strong&gt;great white throne&lt;/strong&gt;, and him that sat on it, from&#xA;  whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no&#xA;  place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God;&#xA;  and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the&#xA;  book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were&#xA;  written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up&#xA;  the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead&#xA;  which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their&#xA;  works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the&#xA;  second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life&#xA;  was cast into the lake of fire&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:11-15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:11-15 ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-01-27T15:52:28.233" LastActivityDate="2016-01-27T15:52:28.233" Title="What's the difference between the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;throne-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-11-27T22:03:02.323" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3938" CreationDate="2011-10-18T13:37:10.330" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The UK website for the Alpha Course can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://uk.alpha.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. There are others for each country, so use Google to find yours. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_course&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia entry&lt;/a&gt; can also be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Alpha course is extremely popular across the world and in many denominations. It originated in the Church of England, and it is exactly what you expect - an introduction to the core of Christian belief, &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; style. It is not specific to Anglican beliefs, and has been used by a huge number of churches of many denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the key things about Alpha though is that it is intended to be more than a lecture series. It is key to the course (assuming it is being done properly) that it is done in a discussion framework. The lectures should be followed by a discussion in a small group, to which Christians and seekers are free to contribute. Ideally there should be food as well - the guidelines for running the course recommend it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only slightly controversial aspect of the course is that it does teach that the Holy Spirit &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; give supernatural gifts, such as speaking in tongues, to Christians. It doesn't claim that those gifts are essential, and it doesn't talk about more controversial gifts. Some churches choose to omit those parts of the course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some churches choose to modify the course in other ways, but the one you see is unlikely to be a different course. Ask whether it includes lectures by Nicky Gumbel - if so then you are getting the real deal. I would personally make sure that there is an opportunity for discussion as part of the course. In my experience omitting that misses the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T15:17:24.433" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T15:17:24.433" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4192" CreationDate="2011-10-18T13:40:44.647" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;They are both speaking of the same thing, it is just that the &quot;Judgment Seat of Christ&quot; is how Paul refers to it while the &quot;Great White Throne&quot; is how John the Revelator refers to it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NT scholar Craig Keener says of 2 Corinthians 5:10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul's allusion here is directly to the standard OT and Jewish image of the day of judgment, in which GOD's throne became the ultimate judgment seat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of Revelation 20:11:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although many writers also stressed a judgment of souls at death, Judaism had much to say about the day of judgment before GOD's throne at the end of the age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus meaning that both Paul and John the Revelator were heavily influenced by their own Jewish understanding of the throne of GOD being where judgment would happen but also influenced by their belief in Christ being that GOD AND KING who sits on the throne!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T21:29:23.123" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T21:29:23.123" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4195" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-18T13:44:31.473" Score="11" ViewCount="23188" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible speaks about the &quot;Book of Life&quot;.  It seems that those whose names are written in it will have life and spend eternity in heaven whereas those whose names are not written in it will be cast into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose&#xA;  face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place&#xA;  for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and&#xA;  the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is &lt;strong&gt;[the&#xA;  book] of life&lt;/strong&gt;: and the dead were judged out of those things which&#xA;  were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave&#xA;  up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead&#xA;  which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their&#xA;  works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the&#xA;  second death. &lt;strong&gt;And whosoever was not found written in the book of&#xA;  life was cast into the lake of fire&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Bible also talks about &lt;strong&gt;not blotting&lt;/strong&gt; people's names out of the book of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I&#xA;  will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his&#xA;  name before my Father and before his angels.  Revelation 3:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, are the names of all people originally in the Book of Life?  And then are the names of those who reject Christ blotted out of it later?  If so, what are the implications of this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible also speaks of those whose names have not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them.&#xA;  And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language&#xA;  and nation, 8and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in&#xA;  the book of life&lt;/strong&gt; of the Lamb who was slain.  Revelation 13:7-8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, which is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T18:43:14.983" LastActivityDate="2015-03-01T22:48:43.007" Title="Are the names of all people originally written in the Book of Life?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-03-04T07:26:58.190" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4196" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4208" CreationDate="2011-10-18T13:47:38.857" Score="5" ViewCount="2672" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading about Lutheran doctrine regarding the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Law and Gospel&lt;/a&gt;, however, I'm having a hard time understanding to what the &quot;Law&quot; is referring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found this quote by Martin Luther:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Hence, whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between Law and Gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sub&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften&lt;/em&gt;, St. Louis ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), vol. 9, col. 802.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like the Law and the Gospel are taken separately and both enforced equally.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of my confusion with this is that when I hear &quot;Law&quot; in relationship to the &quot;Gospel&quot;, I think it is referring to the Old Testament laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this &quot;Law&quot; of (&quot;Law and Gospel&quot;) referring to the Old Testament law?  If so, do Lutherans believe that these Old Testament laws should be enforced as equally as the rules set forth in the New Testament?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T20:06:17.970" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T20:08:30.273" Title="What is the Lutheran doctrine of &quot;Law and Gospel&quot;?" Tags="&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="553" CreationDate="2011-10-18T14:22:07.960" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Only God can know what is in our minds. Even the saints and the Virgin Mary cannot know what's going inside our inner thoughts if we don't let them know (in our prayers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same rule applies to our guardian angel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the devil cannot know what goes in our minds. But we should consider Satan is very intelligent and he can read clues, as we can read in other people corporal language, and infer something about what are we thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="901" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T14:22:07.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3924" CreationDate="2011-10-18T14:42:16.570" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that the reason that God was so angry with Job was because of Job's pride and arrogance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038-39&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapters 38 and 39&lt;/a&gt; where God displays his omnipresence and omnipotence to Job, God confronts Job saying, showing that Job's wisdom is power is limited and finite:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040:8-9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 40:8-9 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;8 “Will you really annul My judgment?&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;9 “Or do you have an arm like God,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And can you thunder with a voice like His?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to say that in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040:10-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;40:10-14&lt;/a&gt; that if Job can do these mighty things, then God will actually admit that Job can save himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040:10-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 40:10-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;10 “Adorn yourself with eminence and dignity,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And clothe yourself with honor and majesty.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;11 “Pour out the overflowings of your anger,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And look on everyone who is proud, and make him low.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;12 “Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And tread down the wicked where they stand.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;13 “Hide them in the dust together;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Bind them in the hidden place.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;14 “Then I will also confess to you,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;That your own right hand can save you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's this pride and arrogance of Job that God is angry with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We need to feel free to question God and bring all things before him.  However, we need to be mindful to speak truly about God's nature and also be humble enough to realize our own limited natures.  If we can keep these two things in mind, then we should take all things to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T14:42:16.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4199" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4494" CreationDate="2011-10-18T15:28:38.363" Score="8" ViewCount="994" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2368/american-and-southern-baptists&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; examines the difference between the American Baptists and Southern Baptists in the USA. In the UK, there is one formal Baptist denomination, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baptist.org.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Baptist Union of Great Britain&lt;/a&gt; (BUGB).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does BUGB doctrine compare with the American equivalents? Which is it closer to? (The principle difference between the American denominations seems to be that the Southern Baptists encourage re-baptism while the American Baptists don't; the BUGB website doesn't seem to comment on this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-06-02T05:50:01.130" Title="How does the doctrine of British Baptists compare with their American cousins?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;&lt;united-kingdom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4200" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4213" CreationDate="2011-10-18T15:39:21.860" Score="7" ViewCount="3173" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia lists these denominations as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;mainline protestant&lt;/a&gt;&quot; churches in the United States:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;American Baptists&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Disciples of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Congregationalists / United Church of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Episcopalians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lutherans&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Methodists&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Presbyterians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in the UK some of those denominations don't exist; I've always understood the &lt;em&gt;British&lt;/em&gt; mainstream protestant denominations to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anglican&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Methodist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;United Reformed Church (The Congregationalists and Presbyterians merged a few decades ago to form this denomination).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does such a definitive list exist anywhere? Is there a way in which some denominations are &quot;officially recognised&quot; in the UK while others aren't?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T04:56:07.227" Title="Which denominations are considered mainstream in the UK?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;united-kingdom&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4201" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4203" CreationDate="2011-10-18T15:47:28.200" Score="9" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Paradise Lost, Milton describes how Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast into Hell as a result. I've always wondered about the origin of this account since as far as I know, it's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Is it part of the Catholic creed (or the creed of any Christian denomination?) If so, what is the basis for it? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="902" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T18:02:53.387" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T18:02:53.387" Title="What is the origin of the account of Lucifer found in Milton's Paradise Lost?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4202" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-18T15:58:30.827" Score="1" ViewCount="3168" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious what the Bible states about the soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many different places, especially Deuteronomy, we're told to love or believe &quot;with all our soul.&quot; Many people have opinions over what a soul is, what it means to have one, and other properties of the soul, but I'm looking for supporting details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where and how does the Bible describe the soul? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user77" LastEditorDisplayName="user77" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T02:25:10.167" LastActivityDate="2014-11-02T23:18:36.320" Title="What does the Bible say about the soul?" Tags="&lt;souls&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-11-05T08:01:45.220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4201" CreationDate="2011-10-18T16:00:50.930" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;A partial answer may be found in Isaiah 14:12-15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!&#xA;  You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!&#xA;  You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens;&#xA;  I will raise my throne above the stars of God;&#xA;  I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.&#xA;  I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”&#xA;  But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some interpret the fallen one as Lucifer, since in this passage he rebelled against God and attempted to set himself above God. He was cast down and thrown into the realm of the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="568" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T16:00:50.930" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4200" CreationDate="2011-10-18T16:53:08.103" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;'Mainstream' is not a word with a clear definition, so there is never going to be a definitive list of such things. You can always make arguments for including/excluding different groups. You have made an obvious omission: you've only listed &lt;em&gt;English&lt;/em&gt; denominations, although you talked about British ones. If you want to include all UK mainstream denominations you should certiaily include the Scottish ones, especially the Church of Scotland (and assuming you count the  Episcopal Church of Scotland as Anglican for your purposes), and also Northern Irish ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from that the list you've made is a pretty good one, and I can't think of others with obvious cases to include them. The others listed in the US list have very small presences in the UK. You might also consider that Baptists come in different flavours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answer to your second question, the only form of official recognition is the special privileges granted to the Church of England as the state church. These days these are largely ceremonial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-10-19T01:18:35.007" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T01:18:35.007" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4205" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4223" CreationDate="2011-10-18T18:24:13.167" Score="9" ViewCount="3157" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clarence Larkin projects a 7,000 year timeline of human history with each 1,000 years tied to a day of creation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/pVfMU.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/pVfMUm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;The Seven Thousand Years of Human History&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the doctrinal or biblical basis for this theory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-05-22T06:00:21.360" LastActivityDate="2021-01-11T20:05:05.967" Title="What is the basis for the idea of 7,000 years of human history, expressed by Larkin and others?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4196" CreationDate="2011-10-18T19:57:15.593" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Speaking as someone who went to a lutheran seminary, let's attack these questions one at a time, shall we?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is this &quot;Law&quot; of (&quot;Law and Gospel&quot;) referring to the Old Testament law?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord says in Section V &quot;Law and Gospel&quot;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Anything that preaches concerning our sins and God's wrath, let it be&#xA;     done how or when it will, that is all a preaching of the Law. Again,&#xA;     the Gospel is such a preaching as shows and gives nothing else than&#xA;     grace and forgiveness in Christ, although it is true and right that&#xA;     the apostles and preachers of the Gospel (as Christ Himself also did)&#xA;     confirm the preaching of the Law, and begin it with those who do not&#xA;     yet acknowledge their sins nor are terrified at [by the sense of]&#xA;     God's wrath; as He says, John 16:8: 13] &quot;The Holy Ghost will reprove&#xA;     the world of sin because they believe not on Me.&quot; Yea, what more&#xA;     forcible, more terrible declaration and preaching of God's wrath&#xA;     against sin is there than just the suffering and death of Christ, His&#xA;     Son? But as long as all this preaches God's wrath and terrifies men,&#xA;     it is not yet the preaching of the Gospel nor Christ's own preaching,&#xA;     but that of Moses and the Law against the impenitent. For the Gospel&#xA;     and Christ were never ordained and given for the purpose of&#xA;     terrifying and condemning, but of comforting and cheering those who&#xA;     are terrified and timid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Luther, the &quot;Law&quot; was anything that stung the conscience of its own sins against GOD and neighbor, while &quot;Gospel&quot; or &quot;Grace&quot; was anything that communicated the love and forgiveness of GOD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If so, do Lutherans believe that these Old Testament laws should be enforced as equally as the rules set forth in the New Testament?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lutherans believe that not all Old Testament laws should be enforced equally, but that there is a timeless truth behind each of the laws that can be applied to today's context.  For further information on this please see...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Epitome of the Formula of Concord section VI entitled &quot;The Third Use of the Law&quot;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;VI. The Third Use of the Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1] Since the Law was given to men for three reasons: first, that&#xA;     thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild,&#xA;     disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be&#xA;     restrained, as though by certain bars]; secondly, that men thereby&#xA;     may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they&#xA;     are regenerate and [much of] the flesh notwithstanding cleaves to&#xA;     them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which&#xA;     they are to regulate and direct their whole life, a dissension has&#xA;     occurred between some few theologians concerning the third use of the&#xA;     Law, namely, whether it is to be urged or not upon regenerate&#xA;     Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for Lutherans the Law has three purposes, 1) restrain evil 2) show humanity its evil and 3) as a guidebook for how Christians ought to live in grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-18T20:08:30.273" LastActivityDate="2011-10-18T20:08:30.273" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3956" CreationDate="2011-10-18T21:48:08.110" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;First question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons can be Masons, and in fact many early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were Masons. In the early days of restoration, political control of the local Masonic lodge was part of the contention between Mormons in Nauvoo, Illinois and their neighbors. The political role that Masonry played at that time contributed to the assassination of church leaders Joseph and Hyrum Smith. When the next church president Brigham Young led the Saints to settle the Mountain West of the United States, they did not immediately establish a Masonic lodge. Rather, the lodge was established by the first groups of non-Mormon settlers, and played a part in the political establishment of Salt Lake City as a counter-point to the Mormon majority. That Masonic lodge excluded Mormons from joining until the mid-twentieth century. In this environment, some Church leaders saw the Masonic groups as being anti-Mormon and discouraged members from joining. As far as I know, this was never official Church policy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As stated earlier, many early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were Freemasons. When Joseph Smith introduced the temple endowment in Nauvoo, one leader referred to the practice by letter as a restoration of &quot;True Masonry&quot;. Though early Mormons used Masonry as a template for restored temple worship, there are significant differences between the two sets of ordinances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a teenager active in the Mormon faith, I was interested in joining the local Masonic lodge. My father encouraged me to wait until after I had attended the Mormon Temple to see if I still felt like I needed anything more. I still have an interest in Masonry, but don't have much time for additional fraternal organizations outside of my service in the LDS Church, professional groups, kids sports teams, etc. However, I know faithful Mormons who are Masons. They find that both ceremonies share some common metaphors, but play very different roles in their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two really good articles on this topic in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, available here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Freemasonry_in_Nauvoo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freemasonry in Nauvoo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Freemasonry_and_the_Temple&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freemasonry and the Temple&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="903" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2014-10-03T18:30:43.797" LastActivityDate="2014-10-03T18:30:43.797" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4187" CreationDate="2011-10-19T03:20:55.950" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is the only clear reference in the Bible that I am aware of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two key concepts to understanding the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If God is no respector of persons, and if mortal baptism is essential for salvation, then a way must be prepared to provide baptism for those that never had the opportunity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mormons believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is lead by a prophet of God the same as the Church was lead anciently. The doctrine of baptism for the dead was restored by Joseph Smith in a revelation recorded in a modern book of scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants. You can read the revelation here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/128?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/128?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few points of clarification that were made by other modern prophets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Baptisms will eventually need to be performed for everyone who did not receive the opportunity for baptism during mortal life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The spirits of the dead have the choice to accept or reject baptism--they do not automatically become Mormons.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More background on the Mormon understanding of the state of those who have died is recorded here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/138?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/138?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="903" LastEditorUserId="4158" LastEditDate="2014-07-02T17:18:32.713" LastActivityDate="2014-07-02T17:18:32.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4187" CreationDate="2011-10-19T04:13:06.330" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The practice is based on revelations given to the prophet Joseph Smith on the subject, explaining how it should be carried out.  The practice of baptism for the dead is not based directly on 1 Corinthians 15:29, since the biblical verse only alludes to the practice but explains nothing about the details of how it should be performed, but Latter-Day Saints use the verse as evidence that the practice did exist among early Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The revelations explaining the practice are recorded today in various places, but the most important are found in sections &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/124.29-30?lang=eng#28&quot;&gt;124&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/127.5-10?lang=eng#4&quot;&gt;127&lt;/a&gt; of the Doctrine and Covenants, where it's explained:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that the ordinance belongs to the House of the Lord and is to be performed in temples&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that all baptisms must be witnessed and recorded to be valid&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that it must be performed by someone with Priesthood authority&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and that the practice is related to the concept of &quot;that... whatsoever you bind on earth may be bound in heaven, [and] whatsoever you loose on earth may be loosed in heaven.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the basis of official LDS doctrine on the subject.  With regards to non-doctrinal references, several LDS scholars have done a lot of research on the historical basis for baptism (and salvation in general) for the dead, and the findings are interesting: not only did the practice clearly exist, but it just as clearly deviates and fades in people's understanding over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Paul's time, it was familiar and uncontroversial enough to his audience that he saw no need to explain the practice, and was able to use it as a supporting argument in favor of something that his audience did find controversial: the literal resurrection of the body.  (See 1 Corinthians 15 for context.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tertullian, who lived a bit more than a century after Paul, knew about the practice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But inasmuch as some are also baptized for the dead, we will see whether there be a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice) with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection; for unless it were a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. Why are they then baptized for the dead, he asks, unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 48&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, he did not seem to think that it should be interpreted literally, though he didn't really know what it &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; mean instead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What, asks he, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? Now, never mind that practice, &lt;strong&gt;(whatever it may have been.)&lt;/strong&gt; The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;Against Marcion, book 5, chapter 10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Marcionites, who Tertullian was writing against in the second quote, were a splinter group of Christians whose doctrine about the nature of God had gotten mixed with a bunch of weird Gnostic ideas.  However, they seem to have preserved the doctrine of baptism for the dead intact to this point.  A couple centuries later, however, we find John Chrysostom going after them and he brings up the practice again, which seems to have picked up a strange element of ritual along the way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...will you that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath says in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;Homily 40 on First Corinthians&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the introduction: Chrysostom is explicitly writing this in mockery of the Marcionites, (to &quot;excite much laughter&quot;), before an audience that is potentially unfamiliar with them and their beliefs.  Human nature being what it is, it's possible that his description may have been exaggerated for greater effectiveness. Nevertheless, the example is instructive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in 393 AD, not long after Chrysostom, the synod of Hippo came out with a declaration which, among other things, expressly forbade performing the rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper for &lt;em&gt;dead bodies&lt;/em&gt;, showing that by that time there were people around--and in large enough numbers to make it worth the notice of an official council--who still had some concept of the original idea, but had apparently lost the notion that it was supposed to be performed by proxy!  Four years later, the Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed the earlier synod's ruling on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The progression shows that the doctrine was gradually lost over time without apostles receiving revelation from God to keep the church on track, and demonstrated why it was necessary for the doctrine to be restored in purity through revelation and not simply interpreted from sparse Biblical references through the wisdom of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T04:13:06.330" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4212" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-19T05:13:11.387" Score="7" ViewCount="1466" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus teaching on marriage said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:9&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet regarding divorce Paul writes says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:15&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such &lt;i&gt;cases.&lt;/i&gt; But God has called us to peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What church doctrines touch on the issue of divorce and take into consideration both of these verses? Specifically, how would each doctrine apply to a case where one partner gets saved after being married?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are different interpretations of these text, what would each doctrine say about my case? I was saved after I was married. My husband was not happy with my Christian faith. He decided to file for divorce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What teachings need to be considered in order to determine whether I am no longer “under bondage” as it states in the 1 Corinthians reference or if I would be committing adultery if I wanted to, at some point, marry again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T22:00:56.393" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T17:48:27.823" Title="If one divorces is it considered adultery to marry again no matter what the circumstances were for this decision?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2014-12-15T02:11:15.467" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4200" CreationDate="2011-10-19T09:21:30.420" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no &lt;em&gt;definitive&lt;/em&gt; list of &quot;mainstream&quot; denominations in the UK - indeed the term is largely subjective - but there are a number of official and semi-official ways in which denominations are recognised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/data_dictionary/attributes/r/red/religious_or_other_belief_system_affiliation_code_de.asp?shownav=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The NHS Data Dictionary&lt;/a&gt;, based on the international Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), lists some 80 possible values for Christian religious affiliation - but since this is an international list it is not specific to Britain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some denominations self-identify as being mainstream; the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urc.org.uk/about/about_us&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;URC website&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although one of the smaller mainstream denominations, the United&#xA;  Reformed Church plays a dynamic and challenging part in the British&#xA;  Christian community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia provides a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3aDenominations_of_the_United_Kingdom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comprehensive list of denominations in the UK&lt;/a&gt;, categorised into 12 groups (including &quot;interchurch&quot; - ie pan-denominational groups, and Catholicism) but does not indicate which are &quot;mainstream&quot;. The twelve groups are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Interchurch&#xA;Anglican&#xA;Baptist&#xA;Catholic&#xA;Holiness &amp;amp; Pietist&#xA;Lutheran&#xA;Methodist &amp;amp; Wesleyan&#xA;New Church Movement&#xA;Orthodox&#xA;Penticostal&#xA;Presbyterian &amp;amp; Reformed&#xA;Other&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Methodist Church website contains a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.content&amp;amp;cmid=2079&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;basic introduction to Christian denominations&lt;/a&gt; which contains some links to some other useful resources. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches/regions/europe/united-kingdom.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;World Council of Churches lists 11 member churches that are based in the UK&lt;/a&gt; while &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ctbi.org.uk/24/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Churches Together in Britain and Ireland lists several more member churches&lt;/a&gt;. Since none of these lists are an exact match for one another it is fairly clear that no definitive list exists, but that lots of denominations are &quot;recognised&quot; by some larger organisations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What constitutes &quot;official&quot; could also be somewhat subjective. It is well known that the Church of England is &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; officially established church in England. The Church of Scotland, Church in Wales and Church of Ireland are not, however, officially established. (The Church of Scotland is an unusual case where some official documentation implies the church is officially established, but the church themselves disclaim this.) (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#United_Kingdom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source: good old Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless there have been a number of Acts of Parliament relating to individual denominations; this does not of course make them official state churches, but does at least show that they are recognised by the state. Examples include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Methodist Church Union Act 1929 / Methodist Church Act 1939 / Methodist Church Funds Act 1960 / Methodist Church Act 1976&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation Army Act 1931 / Salvation Army Property Trust Act 1934&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T09:21:30.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4214" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-19T12:31:19.193" Score="10" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure of the exact definition, but a doxology seems to be a prayer tagged at the end which consists of some sort of invocation of the Blessed Trinity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just wondering if the actual words in a given doxology are important or if in prayer books, like the Book of Common Prayer (for the Liturgy of the Hours) the doxology given is just the most common one used, but shortened for some reason. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and shall be forever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prayer we teach in Religious Ed. is similar, and the one used in praying the Rosary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and shall be forever world without end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this is a three part question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why do we pray a particular version of the 'Glory Be' during the Rosary and another during the Liturgy of the Hours&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the prayer interchangeable (especially when said in private)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the translation likely to resemble the Latin more closely in the future, with the changes to the Mass?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-10-19T18:48:10.237" LastActivityDate="2019-03-06T09:28:35.967" Title="How are doxologies formed for common prayers?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4215" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-19T13:17:51.630" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-10-19T13:17:51.630" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T13:17:51.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4216" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-19T13:17:51.630" Score="0" Body="the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-10-19T13:37:20.607" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T13:37:20.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4217" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-19T13:23:17.020" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about Christian teaching and practice on matters related to sexual identity and practice and sexual attraction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use the tag 'homosexuality' for questions relating to this topic specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:12:58.090" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:12:58.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4218" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-19T13:23:17.020" Score="0" Body="This tag refers to both sexual intercourse and gender identity and expression.  " OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:13:16.717" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:13:16.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4219" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-19T13:28:40.370" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-10-19T13:28:40.370" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T13:28:40.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4220" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-19T13:28:40.370" Score="0" Body="For the majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit is a person of the Holy Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - and is Almighty God. The theology of the Holy Spirit is called pneumatology." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-10-19T13:37:05.727" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T13:37:05.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4221" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-19T13:30:11.723" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-10-19T13:30:11.723" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T13:30:11.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4222" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-19T13:30:11.723" Score="0" Body="The theology, or doctrine, of the Holy Spirit. For the majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit is a person of the Holy Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and is Almighty God." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-05T19:00:38.100" LastActivityDate="2017-05-05T19:00:38.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4205" CreationDate="2011-10-19T13:37:26.780" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you don't have any other answers at this point, I'll go ahead and throw out the ideas that I'm seeing play into this graph:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_Creationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Young Earth Creationism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be hard to look at this chart written in 1919 and not start out with the realization that the author undeniably believes in Young Earth Creationism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Young Earth Creationism is (essentially) the doctrine that states that the earth was (a) created and that it is (b) quite a young Earth (6,000 years old, or so).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1526/what-is-young-earth-creationism&quot;&gt;What is Young-Earth Creationism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Anagogical interpretation of Genesis 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a clearly less mainstream viewpoint.  The idea with anagogical interpretation is that we take events in the Bible and apply them towards eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/314/what-is-an-anagogical-interpretation-and-when-should-it-be-considered&quot;&gt;What is anagogical interpretation and when should it be considered?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this graph, Genesis 1 (the creation of the world in seven days) is being interpreted anagogically.  This interpretation is applying these seven days to seven millennia in human history.  (The six thousand years that Young Earth Creationism says the Earth has already seen and the millennium found in Revelations 21.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Millennialism&lt;/a&gt; (compared to amillennialism)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doctrine states that the one thousand years in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelations 20&lt;/a&gt; is a literal &lt;em&gt;millennia&lt;/em&gt; (1,000 earthly years), rather than a metaphor or allusion to a time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism#Dispensational_premillennialism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dispensational Premillennialism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the idea that (1) Christians will be raptured (2) a seven year tribulation will occur (3) Jesus and the saints will return to Earth after the tribulation and (4) the literal one thousand year reign of Jesus on Earth will begin.  In that order and with those exact lengths of time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, there are definitely many, many more doctrines at play in this.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bible is the word of God and should be taken literally &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revelations should be taken literally and all timeframes found in it are actual, earthly timeframes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was resurrected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus ascended into heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;et cetera.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, those above are the &quot;big ticket&quot; items that are not necessarily common or are potentially debatable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Closing thoughts&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of these doctrines were popular at the turn of the 20th century and many are popular now as well. The one that stood out to me as somewhat surprising was the anagogical interpretation of Genesis 1.  Outside of that, this really seems to be a pretty straight-forward conglomeration of many prominent doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T13:37:26.780" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4212" CreationDate="2011-10-19T14:58:18.073" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;An important consideration is the audience to which each of these statements was made.  Jesus was speaking to Jewish people living under the Law of Moses prior to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.  Paul, however, was speaking to believers in Jesus Christ, who may have been Jewish, but had a spouse who was not a believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a purely biblical perspective and very strict adherence to biblical standards, a Christian is bound to the marriage vows until they are dissolved, either by death or marital unfaithfulness--whether before or after divorce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key thing to note is that once a couple is divorced, the departing spouse commits marital unfaithfulness upon either remarriage or a sexual relationship with a new partner.  At that point, the requirement of marital faithfulness has been met, and the other partner would then be free to remarry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, a believing spouse whose partner departs is freed after a divorce when the departing spouse engages in marital unfaithfulness with another partner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul adds the exemption of a departing unbelieving spouse as well.  This condition would not have existed at the time of Jesus' word.  The New Covenant went into effect upon the resurrection of Jesus, which then gave rise to divisions between believing and unbelieving partners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-19T14:58:18.073" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4225" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4232" CreationDate="2011-10-19T18:20:59.803" Score="5" ViewCount="6567" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible appears to indicate that there was a specific purpose in the creation of Eve, from Adam, to be a helper fit for him.  It seems, then, that the design of Adam and Eve may be distinct, while they both bear the image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the LORD God said, &amp;quot;It is not good that the man should be alone;&#xA;I will make him &lt;strong&gt;a helper fit for him&lt;/strong&gt;...&amp;quot;   But for Adam there was not&#xA;found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to&#xA;fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed&#xA;up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from&#xA;the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.  Then the man said,&#xA;&amp;quot;This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,&#xA;because &lt;strong&gt;she was taken out of Man&lt;/strong&gt;.&amp;quot;  Genesis 2:18, 20b-23 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God created man in his own image, &lt;strong&gt;in the image of God&lt;/strong&gt; he created him;&#xA;male and female he created them.  Genesis 1:27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what specifically is the significance of Eve's being created as &amp;quot;a helper fit for [Adam]&amp;quot; in the doctrines of Young-Earth Creationists, or those who take a literal interpretation of Genesis?  What does that mean about her specifically or the inner being of a woman?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand there can be some pretty emotional responses to this question, but I'm concerned with specific exegetical interpretations of this rather than reactionary or biased opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-05-12T12:19:46.580" Title="What is the significance of Eve being created as a &quot;helper fit for [Adam]?&quot;" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4202" CreationDate="2011-10-20T00:53:01.597" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is what we see as &lt;em&gt;soul&lt;/em&gt; has different meanings based on when in history you are looking at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the Hebrews didn't see the soul as immortal, as shown here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The soul [nephesh] who sins shall die&quot; (Ezekiel 18:4, 20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the soul (word was &lt;em&gt;nephesh&lt;/em&gt;) was not immortal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then in the first century AD, Philo introduced the immortal soul to the Jews as they interacted more with the Greeks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The death of a man is the separation of his soul from his body ...&quot;&#xA;  (The Works of Philo, translated by C.D. Yonge, 1993, p. 37).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in Greek the work &lt;em&gt;psuche&lt;/em&gt; is translated as soul or life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus stated that God can destroy the soul (Matt 10:28):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.&#xA;  Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in&#xA;  hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul described death as &lt;em&gt;sleep&lt;/em&gt;, as shown in this sample:&#xA;1 Corinthians 15:51-58&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed —&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the&#xA;  last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised&#xA;  imperishable, and we will be changed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the&#xA;  mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come&#xA;  true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”[a]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”[b]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus&#xA;  Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the&#xA;  Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:13-18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who&#xA;  are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no&#xA;  hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God&#xA;  will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep [a]in Jesus. 15 For&#xA;  this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive&#xA;  [b]and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who&#xA;  have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven&#xA;  with a [c]shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet&#xA;  of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are&#xA;  alive [d]and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds&#xA;  to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.&#xA;  18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An immortal soul isn't mentioned in the Bible, but immortality is mentioned, such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the&#xA;  Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise&#xA;  him up at the last day&quot; (John 6:40).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Origen wrote about the immortal soul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Origen De Principiis he wrote: &quot;... The soul, having a substance&#xA;  and life of its own, shall after its departure from the world, be&#xA;  rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an&#xA;  inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have&#xA;  procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and&#xA;  punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to&#xA;  this ...&quot; (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the Augustine wrote more on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In The City of God he wrote that the soul &quot;is therefore called&#xA;  immortal, because in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel;&#xA;  while the body is called mortal because it can be forsaken of all&#xA;  life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul,&#xA;  takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the&#xA;  soul forsakes it&quot; (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, 1995, p. 245.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas Aquinas probably wrote the most on the subject of the soul, and you can read various issues about the soul here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm&lt;/a&gt;, and starting at Question 75.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In various places the Book of Mormon talks about the immortal soul, and this page is a good reference, as it also shows where the Bible doesn't agree on the immortality of the soul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/a02mormon/basicapproacha02.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/a02mormon/basicapproacha02.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&#xA;Mosiah 2:38&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 Therefore if that man arepenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an&#xA;  enemy to God, the demands of divine bjustice do awaken his immortal&#xA;  soul to a lively sense of his own cguilt, which doth cause him to&#xA;  shrink from the dpresence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with&#xA;  guilt, and epain, and fanguish, which is like an unquenchable gfire,&#xA;  whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Due to the complexity, you may want to narrow down the focus of your question, perhaps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="122" LastEditDate="2011-10-27T04:03:47.317" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T04:03:47.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4229" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4233" CreationDate="2011-10-20T01:06:46.137" Score="8" ViewCount="179" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Institutes of the Christian Religion&lt;/em&gt;, John Calvin accuses his scholastic opponents of considering the commandment &quot;Love your enemies&quot; to be optional. Specifically, he says that they call it an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04435a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;evangelical counsel&lt;/a&gt;, to be kept by monastics but not Christians in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The scholastic doctors made simple &quot;counsels&quot; of the commandments in which our Lord told us not to seek revenge and to love your enemies; they say one is free to obey these counsels or not. They have said that it is only monks who are obliged of necessity to keep them - monks to whom they have ascribed a more perfect righteousness than to other Christians - because monks are obligated to keep the &quot;evangelical counsels&quot;, as they call them.  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar language had appeared in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Confession&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Augsburg Confession&lt;/a&gt; (1530), &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article27.54&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article XXVII.54&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They hear that it is an evangelical counsel not to seek revenge; therefore some in private life are not afraid to take revenge, for they hear that it is but a counsel, and not a commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Audit consilium Evangelicum esse de non vindicando: ideo alii in privata vita non verentur ulcisci, audiunt enim consilium esse, non præceptum.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought that the evangelical counsels were limited to chastity, poverty and obedience. This is certainly the case today, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canons 598-601&lt;/a&gt; of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/cdc/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Code of Canon Law&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the whole topic of &quot;precept vs. counsel&quot;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supererogation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;supererogation&lt;/a&gt;, has been a divisive topic, I am curious about the specific example, rather than whether it's a valid distinction at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was there a contemporary group of scholastics that taught this, or were Calvin and the others simply incorrect about Catholic doctrine? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If they were wrong, did anybody point that out at the time? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; This is from the 1541 French edition, translated by Elsie Anne McKee (Eerdmans, 2009), in chapter 3, &quot;On the law&quot;, p161. In the 1599 Latin edition, the corresponding text is in Book II, Chapter 8, paragraph 56; the Latin uses just &lt;em&gt;consilia&lt;/em&gt; instead of &lt;em&gt;consilia evangelica&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-28T18:05:04.803" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T18:05:04.803" Title="Was &quot;love your enemies&quot; ever included among the evangelical counsels?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;evangelical-counsel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4230" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-20T01:33:19.960" Score="9" ViewCount="16771" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Abraham, David and Solomon think having many wives and concubines was sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="736" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T20:41:17.247" LastActivityDate="2016-10-30T12:47:03.983" Title="Did Abraham, David and Solomon think having many wives was sin?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;&lt;david&gt;&lt;solomon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-11-01T00:35:27.930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4200" CreationDate="2011-10-20T04:56:07.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This 2007 report entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/03_04_07_tearfundchurch.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Churchgoing in the UK&lt;/a&gt; has a vast array of demographic data on churchgoers in the UK. It even differentiates between regular churchgoers and those who just state affiliation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, among regular churchgoers surveyed, the denominational breakdown is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Church of England 31%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Roman Catholic 29%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Church of Scotland/Presbyterian 9%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Methodist 6%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptist 4%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentecostal/New churches 7%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other 7%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non-trinitarian 3%&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these are defined in the report (especially Appendix 1 Figure 10). This should answer mainstream as in &quot;most common.&quot; Mainline is defined as a specific doctrinal stance in the Wikipedia article you link, so denominations on that list would be &quot;mainline Protestant&quot; there too. Though some don't exist there, I think there aren't any that exist there that aren't here/in that master list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T04:56:07.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4225" CreationDate="2011-10-20T05:28:20.617" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is taken from a wonderful book called &lt;strong&gt;Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin R. Wilson&lt;/strong&gt;. It explains that an understanding of early Jewish culture helps to understand how they understood scripture. With this understanding, some scripture takes on a different meaning than we would expect today. Just as some phrases we understand to mean certain things during our time, like “I can dig it,” “That’s groovy,” “That’s fly,” etc. may not be recognized, or translated, to have the same meaning they had in the ‘70s, 2,000 years from now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;“Genesis 2:18, 20 state that the woman is created to be ezer kenegdo. Rabbi David Freedman has pointed out that the word ezer, often translated “helper,” actually means “power” (or “strength”), as demonstrated by its use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, he takes kenegdo, an expression rendered “suitable for him” (NIV), as meaning one “equal to him,” a rendering based on later Mishnaic Hebrew. Thus, when God says he will make a “helper suitable for him (i.e., the man),” he likely means that woman is a power equal to a man; she is his match; she corresponds to him in every way. Indeed, “woman was not intended to be merely man’s helper. She was to be instead his partner.” Man and woman are symbolically matched to one another in a mutually dependent relationship — hence the expression “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure what you mean by significance of Eve being created “as a helper…” However, with an understanding of the original Hebrew text, the role of “helper” is significantly deeper than it seems on the surface. It appears, using the Hebrew text, that Eve was created to lift Adam up during times of weakness, or need, bringing him strength (or power), as an equal partner rather than taking the role of a servant as many interpret this passage today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If “by the inner being of a woman” you are asking about her receiving the “breath of life”, or the ability to receive the Holy Spirit, I would have to respond that if she were not able to have full understanding, or receive these, then God would not have bothered to throw her out of the garden with Adam. She would have been treated like any other animal in creation. (You know, hit her with a rolled up newspaper, or something.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do accept literal interpretation (correct interpretation). I believe Eve was made a “power (or strength) equal to him” (ezer kenegdo).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="655" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T05:28:20.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4229" CreationDate="2011-10-20T09:19:49.393" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvin is right, in a sense: certain types of vengeance are allowed by the Roman Catholic Church, and have been since at least the time of St. Thomas Acquinas. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm&quot;&gt;states&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Anger is a desire for revenge. &quot;To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,&quot; but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution &quot;to correct vices and maintain justice.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;95&lt;/sup&gt; If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, &quot;Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;96&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which references &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3158.htm#article1&quot;&gt;the &lt;em&gt;Summa&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God's work, since he who has power to punish &quot;is God's minister,&quot; as stated in Romans 13:4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not that &quot;love your enemies&quot; in the broad sense is an evangelical counsel, but that vengeance done to correct a wrong is a Good Thing, whereas vengeance out of anger is absolutely wrong. As I understand it, when Calvin refers to the scholastics (I've seen it translated as the dismissive &quot;schoolmen&quot;) in the Institutes, he's referring to people like St. Thomas (and others, like Duns Scotus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it's also important to take the Augsburg Confession in context: the part you quote from it is an expansion of the premise of the article, which starts a little bit before:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the precepts of God and the true service of God are obscured when men hear that only monks are in a state of perfection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The charge isn't so much that love your neighbors is an evangelical counsel, but that only monks can ever do right by God, so regular men don't even bother because it's pointless. The issue of &quot;love your enemies&quot; is just one thing mentioned that normal men don't even bother to do because they believe only the perfect monks can do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This charge was refuted in 1530 by &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php&quot;&gt;the &lt;em&gt;Confutatio Pontificia&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, which stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moreover, the malicious charge that is still further added, that those in religious orders claim to be in a state of perfection, has never been heard of by them; for those in these orders claim not for themselves a state of perfection, but only a state in which to acquire perfection - because their regulations are instruments of perfection, and not perfection itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T10:30:28.720" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T10:30:28.720" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4235" CreationDate="2011-10-20T12:22:55.890" Score="4" ViewCount="4396" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4229/was-love-your-enemies-ever-included-among-the-evangelical-counsels&quot;&gt;Was &amp;quot;love your enemies&amp;quot; ever included among the evangelical counsels?&lt;/a&gt; mentions evangelical counsels.  In the question James T mentions that they are something to be kept by monastics but not Christians in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the basis for evangelical counsels and what are some examples?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T15:29:23.950" Title="What are the &quot;evangelical counsels&quot;?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;evangelical-counsel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4234" CreationDate="2011-10-20T15:07:23.053" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_counsels&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Per Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;), the evangelical counsels are three counsels (or pieces of wisdom that we should follow) in order to be &amp;quot;perfect&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:21 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three counsels that are considered &amp;quot;evangelical counsels&amp;quot;:  chastity, poverty (or perfect charity), and obedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Salvation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evangelical counsels are not considered part of the requirement for salvation.  As James T mentioned, these are often counsels kept by monks, but not by the general population.  A great quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia sums this up well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sum up: it is possible to be rich, and married, and held in honour by all men, and yet keep the Commandments and to enter heaven. Christ's advice is, if we would make sure of everlasting life and desire to conform ourselves perfectly to the Divine will, that we should sell our possessions and give the proceeds to others who are in need, that we should live a life of chastity for the Gospel's sake, and, finally, should not seek honours or commands, but place ourselves under obedience. These are the Evangelical Counsels, and the things which are counselled are not set forward so much as good in themselves, as in the light of means to an end and as the surest and quickest way of obtaining everlasting life.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04435a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Biblical Basis&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical basis for these are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Chastity&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:1 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Poverty/Perfect Charity&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:21 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Obedience&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;The idea with this is that we should be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11182a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;obedient to the Catholic church and the people who God has put in authority over us&lt;/a&gt;. This is based somewhat on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 10:16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the people who have been put in place to teach are teaching as if from Jesus himself.  Therefore, we should be obedient to them and their spiritual authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Desires of this world -vs- Evangelical Counsels&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, there are three &amp;quot;good things&amp;quot; of this world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Riches&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pleasures of the flesh and of the appetites (sexual appetite, food appetite, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Honors and positions of authority, which increases self love&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These three things are not, in themselves, bad.  These three things will not deny you heaven.  However, these three things are what the evangelical counsels are attempting to address.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04435a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source: Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T15:07:23.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4236" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4274" CreationDate="2011-10-20T15:34:23.740" Score="21" ViewCount="24210" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Calvinistic doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_%28Calvinism%29&quot;&gt;predestination&lt;/a&gt; states that God has chosen who will live and who will die.  That Christians are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_election&quot;&gt;unconditionally elected&lt;/a&gt; for salvation or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprobation&quot;&gt;damnation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, how does this fit the idea of Free Will?  If it's God that is choosing whether we turn to him or not, do we not really have free will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Please, Calvinistic views only.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-07T16:00:09.417" LastActivityDate="2017-07-10T16:06:48.543" Title="How does free will fit with the doctrine of predestination?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;unconditional-election&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4162" CreationDate="2011-10-20T16:38:09.333" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The hebrew word for life in Proverbs is &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/2416.htm&quot;&gt;chay&lt;/a&gt; (חָי) and means life or alive (which doesn't seem to imply anything spiritual). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 John the word used is the greek word &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/greek/2222.htm&quot;&gt;zóé&lt;/a&gt; (ζωήν) which means: life, both of physical (present) and of spiritual (particularly future) existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in the literal sense the verse 1 John is talking about more than just physical life, true spritual life. True spiritual life wasn't something that was possible prior to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a less literal sense they are both talking about the same thing and that is that true life is only found in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T16:38:09.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4225" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:19:48.173" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics are not bound to not take a literal view of Genesis so I think I can reasonably take a stab at this one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And personally, I do believe this part to be oh so very true since it explains humanity so well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Bl. Pope John Paul II's addresses known as the Theology of the Body (TOB), he elaborates on this part of Genesis in light of what Our Lord says about marriage and the meaning of the sexes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a TOB standpoint, regardless of how literal or allegorical you take Genesis 2:23, the fact the Eve was taken from Adam means that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They're made of the same stuff.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;But, man, through God's plan creates, by giving of himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each man is the first man (the adam) of his progeny&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Woman is the receiver, through God's plan for her life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each woman is mother of all the living (the eve) of her progeny.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The TOB in a nutshell is that man (or the masculine) is the giver and woman (the feminine) is the receiver.  And if that relationship is to be good, as God created it, it is to be a loving relationship.  It doesn't mean subjugation for women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of Genesis 2:18, you may be led to believe the Eve is the perfect helper of Adam.  But, if God had created woman first, she would have been in a similar predicament in the company of all the beasts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This “man” refers to the human person, and not just to the male.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicpreaching.com/content/docs/TOB.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T17:19:48.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4239" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4244" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:23:43.137" Score="19" ViewCount="55023" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this is kind of an odd question.  However, there is a question that has popped into my mind while considering these &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/690/what-makes-a-good-focused-question&quot;&gt;quality standards&lt;/a&gt; that we've been starting to implement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My thoughts are that the Catholic Bible includes books that are not part of the Protestant canon.  Furthermore, I know the translations aren't identical between the translation used in Protestant churches and those used in Catholic churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, do Catholics consider the NIV (and other translations that do not include the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuterocanonical books&lt;/a&gt;) as &quot;Protestant&quot; translations?  If so, is there any doctrine or tradition that excludes Catholics from reading these translations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2014-01-11T01:25:23.433" Title="Are Catholics allowed to read the NIV translation?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4240" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4241" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:26:03.767" Score="18" ViewCount="3506" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any passages in the Holy Bible or any Catholic doctrine saying that it is a sin to be an atheist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please, don't refer to me any Biblical assertion where it is stated that you should follow God, but one that addresses people who don't follow any religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="907" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-27T05:31:29.743" LastActivityDate="2020-05-19T23:35:12.160" Title="Do Catholics view atheism as a sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4240" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:30:32.860" Score="34" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholicism states quite clearly that atheism is a sin.  Disbelieving God means that you are rebelling against God's commands and therefore sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Bible&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Atheism, throughout the Bible, is considered &amp;quot;disbelief&amp;quot;.  The idea is either that you &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt; in God, or you don't.  If you don't believe in the one true God (such as atheism), it's categorized as &amp;quot;disbelief&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, we can see the results of not believing in God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2021:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelations 21:8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Emphasis added&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;But the cowardly, &lt;strong&gt;the unbelieving,&lt;/strong&gt; the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disbelief being a sin can also be seen in the Old Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+14:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Numbers 14:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The LORD said to Moses, “How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 16:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:18&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:36&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 14:23b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Catholicism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholicism also shows that atheism is a sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. &amp;quot;Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2125&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It uses this bible passage for support of this doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 1:18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Atheism is one of the gravest sins.  It is all throughout the Bible and Catholic church dedicated a section entirely to dealing with the subject (CCC 2123-2126).  It is undeniably a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T21:59:53.093" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2863" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:31:46.973" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;James says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=James&amp;amp;ch=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 2:15-16 NABRE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which I thought I recalled being translated, &quot;good luck, see ya later, hope you don't starve to death and die of exposure!&quot;  But still has the same connotation as wishing someone luck while not providing for their needs.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly depending on luck is a bad idea and having an expectation of good fortune for others when you could be providing form them rather than merely wishing them good luck is useless, and is not true faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T17:31:46.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4239" CreationDate="2011-10-20T17:50:41.177" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a very tricky question which deserves some bullet points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The scripture used during Mass and liturgical events and prayers (Benediction, Liturgy of the Hours) should always come from the Vulgate (Latin) Bible. In the United States we use the older New American Bible, with the revised edition waiting in the wings to be implemented at some future date (we'll be able to walk in the valley of the shadow of death again, yay!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dei Verbum&lt;/em&gt; (the dogmatic constitution on sacred scripture, which came out of Vatican II (the big 1960's Catholic get together)) printed at the beginning of many Catholic Bibles says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;(Source)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there's a Catholic edition of all sorts of Protestant Bibles. I've got a &amp;quot;The Way&amp;quot; Catholic Edition and a &amp;quot;Good News&amp;quot; Catholic Edition and an Oxford Study Bible (With Apocrypha).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What a Catholic would look for at the start of any book is a &lt;em&gt;nihil obstat&lt;/em&gt; (nothing stands in the way) and &lt;em&gt;Imprimatur&lt;/em&gt; (let it be printed), meaning there is nothing in book that goes against Catholic doctrine.  &amp;quot;Make Way for Ducklings&amp;quot; could qualify for a nihil obstat. It's not sign of approval, but of non-disapproval.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly the translation doesn't mean a lot to Catholics since we're not the ones who are supposed to interpret the Bible, and interpretation and translation are totally different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on,  has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;(Ibid)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we don't need to shield our eyes when someone gives us a verse from the NIV or anything, we just can't assume that we know what anything means unless it's been explained authoritatively to us through the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the explanation is the eternal unchanged explanation, in the context of the entirety of scripture and in line with the consistent teaching of the Bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if we read that Mary was the happiest of women, we know that that happiness is the happiness that can only come from knowing that she is to be the Mother of God and that the term happiness is synonymous with blessed - even though in general happiness and blessedness don't mean exactly the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-15T00:25:06.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3789" CreationDate="2011-10-20T18:45:49.830" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Happiness can come and go based on our circumstances.  However, biblical joy does not depend on circumstances and should be experienced at all times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts&#xA;  will rejoice, and &lt;strong&gt;no one will take your joy from you&lt;/strong&gt;.  John 16:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The joy spoken of by Jesus here is a joy based on the fact that they would see Him again after He had &quot;gone away&quot;.  He was going away to die on the Cross.  The significance of them seeing Him again was that it would be after His resurrection.  Then they would know that death had been defeated, the sacrifice was complete, Jesus would reign, and men and women could truly be declared righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why Paul could say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;More than that, we &lt;strong&gt;rejoice in our sufferings&lt;/strong&gt;, knowing that&#xA;  suffering produces endurance and endurance produces character, and&#xA;  character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because&#xA;  God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who&#xA;  has been given to us.  Romans 5:3-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joy (or rejoicing) is still present in the midst of suffering, even when you're not happy about your circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T18:45:49.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4230" CreationDate="2011-10-20T20:43:43.077" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;No&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having multiple wives was not a sin back then, as it is not a sin now (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/128/the-bible-seems-to-allow-polygamy-why-doesnt-the-church/1206#1206&quot;&gt;outside if it being illegal&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;History&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the time of Abraham, David, Solomon, and Jesus, polygamy was part of the culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in Jesus' times, polygamy was allowed and part of the customs of the Israeli people.  The historian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Josephus&lt;/a&gt; noted that Herod was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Biblical_practice&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;allowed to have multiple wives&lt;/a&gt;, because it was the custom in Israel at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, it was allowed per the Bible.  When God gave the commands to Moses, he gave special instructions for the situations of multiple wives:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:15-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 21:15-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Had God detested polygamy, there would have been a command against polygamy.  By comparison, God said that Kings &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2017:17;&amp;amp;version=NIV;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;shouldn't take too many wives&lt;/a&gt; so that his heart isn't lead astray, which is a further command showing that polygamy was allowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Side Note&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;That laws preventing polygamy began with the pagan traditions of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Roman Empire&lt;/a&gt;.  It wasn't until &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;300 years after Christ&lt;/a&gt; that Christianity united itself with the Roman traditions.  It was then that polygamy became outlawed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historical and biblical evidence shows that polygamy was common practice and acceptable in the site of God and the people during the time of Abraham, David, and Solomon.  Their polygamy was not a sin, just as it is not now..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T21:20:15.077" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4230" CreationDate="2011-10-20T20:53:13.820" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There were specific instructions for the king of Israel to not acquire many wives for himself, since that could have the effect of turning his heart away from the Lord.  This text predates the first king of Israel, so I would say that David and Solomon should have known that this was forbidden.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Note:  the Bible did not actually forbid them from polygamy, but from having a whole bunch of wives.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and&#xA;  you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over&#xA;  me, like all the nations that are around me,' you may indeed set a&#xA;  king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your&#xA;  brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner&#xA;  over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many&#xA;  horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to&#xA;  acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never&#xA;  return that way again.' &lt;strong&gt;And he shall not acquire many wives for&#xA;  himself&lt;/strong&gt;, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself&#xA;  excessive silver and gold.  Deuteronomy 17:14-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Abraham specifically, aside from the affair with Hagar, he stayed married to one wife (Sarah) until she passed, after which he married Keturah and had children with her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not explicitly state that polygamy was forbidden, yet it would have been instructive to note that God created Adam and Eve--not Adam and Eve and Shirley and Tina and...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-20T21:38:36.977" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T21:38:36.977" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4250" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="32648" CreationDate="2011-10-20T22:03:04.187" Score="12" ViewCount="21600" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 6, Jesus states that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, &lt;strong&gt;unless you eat the flesh of&#xA;  the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Whoever&#xA;  eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life&lt;/strong&gt;, and I will raise&#xA;  him up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is&#xA;  real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me,&#xA;  and I in him.  Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of&#xA;  the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.  This&#xA;  is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna&#xA;  and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.  (John 6:53-58 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could this have been a reference to the Passover Lamb of which the Israelites were supposed to eat all of it?  What  is the common Protestant understanding of this?  Do some traditions associate this with Communion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-22T17:02:46.143" LastActivityDate="2017-03-22T17:24:34.963" Title="What did Jesus mean when He said we must &quot;eat His flesh and drink His blood&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;passover&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-18T18:06:18.353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2011-10-20T22:14:21.857" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Calvinism, it's a paradox. God absolutely chooses whether a person can be saved, but a person is also responsible for his choice to serve and obey God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, it's crazy to deny any free will at all - Christian or Non-Christian, we make choices every day, some good and some bad. Total Depravity tells us that we will always (and effectively this means we can can only) make bad choices left to our own devices. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:5-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:5-8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we do have a sort of free-will (a limited free will, really, that limits us to doing evil). Calvinism differs from Arminianism in that Arminianism holds that the decision to serve Christ isn't a work but a choice, and hence the above passage doesn't preclude people from choosing Christ, even though they do have sinful inclinations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, once God has enlightened our minds with the Gospel and given us His Spirit, we have more free will - to do good and to do evil - but we are to remind ourselves that we ARE God's children and should limit ourselves to doing good only (as we were limited to doing evil before we believed): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:16%20-%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:16 - 18&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary for your question, we can't use what free will we have to turn to God (according to Calvinism), since we're using all of our free will to rebel against God. God must do all of the work. If this seems unfair, consider that all deserve God's Wrath and yet God chooses to save any at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-10-21T12:32:19.133" LastActivityDate="2011-10-21T12:32:19.133" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4214" CreationDate="2011-10-20T22:31:59.640" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Protestants, and I suspect Catholics too, a doxology (or &quot;word of glory&quot;) is often used as a prayer that we can read together as Christians, as opposed to a prayer that one person is making for the group. The Bible has a few famous doxologies:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jude 1: 24, 25:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 3: 20, 21:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I know the Church of England has doxologies in it's prayer book, as it appears that Catholics have their own books. I can't answer your question in the form of the three questions you've posed, but it appears that at it's heart, a doxology is just a prayer that we can use or not, as we choose. Whether we use a doxology or not, our heart's condition must surely be more important before God than the choice of Words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastActivityDate="2011-10-20T22:31:59.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4255" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4256" CreationDate="2011-10-21T09:51:50.127" Score="15" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;I originally asked this question on October 21, 2011. I had received a link to an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article on the eBibleFellowship&lt;/a&gt; page explaining how we'd been living the Day of Judgment since May 21, and today (ie. Oct 21, 2011) was the End of the World!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are living in a most unusual time. On May 21, of 2011, mankind entered into the Day of Judgment. This “day” will last for 5 months (153 days) until October 21, 2011. The Bible is teaching us that this period of time is Judgment Day!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article links to similar teachings of Family Radio (which eBibleFellowship is not affiliated with).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the origin of this teaching? Do other Christian groups besides Family Radio and eBibleFellowship teach this? How do they explain the predictions after the date has passed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in March 2012 Harold Camping of Family Radio &lt;a href=&quot;http://global.christianpost.com/news/harold-camping-admits-hes-wrong-about-doomsday-predictions-full-statement-71008/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;admitted they were wrong and the statements they made were sinful&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2012-03-09T08:08:53.973" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T17:51:03.950" Title="What doctrine does Family Radio have of the End of the World?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-03-12T00:26:37.063" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4255" CreationDate="2011-10-21T11:50:20.957" Score="16" Body="&lt;h3&gt;The claim&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, the underlying doctrine behind this is the idea of the rapture.  &lt;em&gt;That&lt;/em&gt; idea comes out of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;dispensation premillennialism&lt;/a&gt;.  This doctrine states that Jesus will have all the Christians pulled out of the world &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; the tribulation occurs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This particular prediction was made by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Harold Camping&lt;/a&gt;.  He claims that the Bible was his source for this.  However, he also claims to have used &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping#End_times_calculations&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a set of cycles&lt;/a&gt; to determine this including the Jewish feast days, the lunar calendar, and a close approximation to the Gregorian calendar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no support for this claim outside of his own predictions.  The claim has been spread widely due to him being the president for the radio company that is spreading these claims.  Furthermore, it should be noted that his background is in radio ministry and not as a pastor, priest, or other doctrinal/biblical expert.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Validity&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the validity of this claim,&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:10&lt;/a&gt; says that Jesus will return like a thief in the night.  This indicates that there won't be people &lt;em&gt;predicting&lt;/em&gt; his return and attempting to prepare others for it.  Furthermore, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus said in Matthew 24:36&lt;/a&gt; that no one knows the day or the hour that these events will occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the &lt;em&gt;strong&lt;/em&gt; biblical argument against someone predicting his return, I strongly discourage anyone from believing his methods and following this prediction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_end_times_prediction&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;More information here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-21T12:06:27.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4240" CreationDate="2011-10-21T12:10:26.840" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Thessalonians 2:12 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; says, &quot;and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe an atheist would be one who has not believed the truth.  All people have delighted in wickedness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-10-21T12:10:26.840" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4258" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4268" CreationDate="2011-10-21T13:15:57.097" Score="9" ViewCount="1969" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard of the Seven Church Ages interpretation of the seven churches of Revelation, specifically that each church identified there also represents ages of the church since that time.  I've also heard people specify that we are now in the Laodicean church age, as we look around and see the church &quot;rich, increased with goods, having need of nothing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, this appears to me to possibly be true of some elements of the church in America, but I can't see how the church in Iran or Vietnam would ever come to the same conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I see three possibilities, of which one or more may be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The churches in Revelation are just churches that existed at that time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They not only refer to churches that existed then, but are symbolic of church ages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They not only refer to churches that existed then, but are representative of churches that have existed in different places since then.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing any possibilities?  What reasons are there to support each interpretation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-22T04:01:15.727" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T13:07:09.600" Title="To what do the seven churches of Revelation refer?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-02-19T14:38:20.750" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4259" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-21T13:21:21.147" Score="14" ViewCount="689" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historical Protestantism (particularly in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions) have since the Magisterial Reformation held to two doctrines relating what is required of an individual for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first is the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;Sola Fide&lt;/em&gt;, meaning &quot;by faith alone&quot;. This principle states that salvation is not by works of man, but by faith in Christ. In fact, not only are works insufficient to merit salvation on their own, they account for not even a portion of our salvation--it is, rather, &lt;em&gt;wholly&lt;/em&gt; through faith in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second doctrine was worked out by Luther and put into its present form by his collaborator and successor, Melancthon. This doctrine is simply a definition of faith, or sometimes known as the three aspects of faith--as such, it is intended to explain what is required of the &quot;faith&quot; for salvation &quot;by faith alone&quot;. The doctrine has three steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;notitia&lt;/em&gt; One must know the basic information (or &quot;content&quot;) such as Christ's death and resurrection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;assensus&lt;/em&gt; One must agree that the basic information is correct. In other words, he/she must not only have heard that Christ died and rose again, but they must believe that he did do that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;fiducia&lt;/em&gt; One must trust in Christ, and rest on the knowledge that the content to which he/she assented is sufficient to save.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is this last piece--fiducia--that I struggle with reconciling with the concept of Sola Fide. Scripture makes clear that these first two points are insufficient (&lt;a href=&quot;http://esv.to/Jm2.19&quot;&gt;James 2:19&lt;/a&gt;), and on the face of it, it makes sense that we must trust in Christ for our salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where I struggle is that &lt;em&gt;fiducia&lt;/em&gt; puts faith in functional terms. This means that, although in theory, I trust in Christ for my salvation, I don't always do so in practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example: I'm can be a bit of a control freak, and sometimes yell at my wife in trying to assert my control. I am not loving her as I'm commanded to do so, and it stems from my pride. Although I think I trust in Christ for my salvation, my actions show that I am considering another functional 'gospel' (control) of 'salvation' and another function 'god' (myself) that will effect that 'salvation'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I stop and think about it, I know that I am no god, and that my gospel is no gospel, but I do stumble and my actions reveal my heart. In fact, I would argue (and Luther has) that every sin follows such a pattern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To come at the problem more directly, this notion of &lt;em&gt;fiducia&lt;/em&gt; makes my faith dependent upon my works, whereas &quot;Sola Fide&quot; asserts that salvation is through faith and not works. How does this puzzle fit together?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2018-11-21T02:35:08.840" Title="How do &quot;Sola Fide&quot; adherents reconcile with the three aspects of faith?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4260" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4306" CreationDate="2011-10-21T15:24:51.967" Score="12" ViewCount="13459" Body="&lt;p&gt;During Paul's second missionary journey, he meets Timothy and wants to take him along on the rest of his journey.  The Bible makes a special point about Timothy being circumcised to avoid offending the Jews:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 16:1-3 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Jews who knew Timothy would assume that he wasn't circumcised because his father wasn't Jewish.  How would they know that he had been circumcised?  Would Paul and Timothy just announce it?  Would the Jews insist on verifying it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T21:16:01.140" LastActivityDate="2020-04-04T21:51:07.407" Title="How would they know if Timothy was circumcised or not?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;circumcision&gt;&lt;timothy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4261" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-21T15:26:58.467" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-10-21T15:26:58.467" LastActivityDate="2011-10-21T15:26:58.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4262" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-21T15:26:58.467" Score="0" Body="Questions about the Greek, Roman, or Jewish culture during New Testament days." OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-10-21T15:29:42.143" LastActivityDate="2011-10-21T15:29:42.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4259" CreationDate="2011-10-21T15:46:45.323" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The apparent contradiction stems from a misunderstanding of &quot;works,&quot; and specifically of what Paul wrote about them.  Two passages in particular tend to cause a lot of confusion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:48&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 10:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt&#xA;  believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou&#xA;  shalt be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:48&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2: 8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people have taken this to mean that salvation comes by some simple act of claiming faith and that after this, the person is saved and salvation is not affected by a person's works.  This is a very bad notion, because of what you get when you take it to its logical conclusion: &quot;I have free license to sin because I'm saved and what I do doesn't matter!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't a hypothetical problem, either.  Here's what Richard Hill, an 18th century Wesleyan theologian, had to say on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;God sees no sin in believers whatever sin they commit... adultery, incest and murder shall, upon the whole, make me holier on earth and merrier in heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This notion is in direct contradiction to the words of the Savior, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, where he taught that not only do sinful actions put us in spiritual danger, but also sinful thoughts.  Of particular interest are his words at the conclusion of the sermon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3a%2021-23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 7: 21-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verses 22 and 23, the Savior reaffirms that works of righteousness do not bring salvation if the person's heart is not in the right place and they do not truly know Jesus, but in verse 21, we see what appears to be a direct contradiction of Romans 10: 9.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 2, which has already been quoted, states that faith without works is dead and cannot bring salvation.  Peter &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:15-17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;warned his readers about misinterpreting Paul and wresting the scriptures to their own destruction&lt;/a&gt;.  And John, in Revelation, makes it clear that in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:12-13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the resurrection we will all be judged according to our works.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here we have Jesus himself, and also Peter, James and John, the three most trusted of his apostles, all contradicting the simplistic notion of salvation by faith alone and without works.  Faced with this, we must either condemn Paul as a heretic, or seek an alternate interpretation, and I don't particularly think Paul was a heretic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's look at Romans 10: 9 first.  Remember that he was writing to Roman Christians, subject to Roman law, which wasn't all that favorable to Christianity at that point, to put it mildly.  Being willing to confess belief in Christ with your lips was no simple thing the way it is today; it was exposing yourself to persecution and possibly even death simply for the sake of your religion. That's quite a difficult thing to do, even for someone with a lot of faith!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we have the passage from Ephesians, where Paul states that salvation comes from faith and the grace of God, and &quot;not of works, lest any man should boast.&quot;  Reading the context makes it clear that the works he is talking about are the works of the Law of Moses, through which Jews could find a focus for their faith and obtain salvation before it was fulfilled in Christ.  The explanation in verse 9 can be understood in that context by reading Luke 18:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018%3a%209-14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 18: 9-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee,&#xA;  that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or&#xA;  even as this publican.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as&#xA;  his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be&#xA;  merciful to me a sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than&#xA;  the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he&#xA;  that humbleth himself shall be exalted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were those in Jewish society then, as there have always been and still are in every civilization, who boasted of their piety and outward good works and thought that what they did made them better than others.  Paul is making it clear that that attitude will score you zero points with the Lord, that even with good works and acts of righteousness, you are still a sinner and nothing you do can undo your past.  Only through God's grace can you find forgiveness for your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that good works do not bring salvation in and of themselves, but also that professions of faith that are not backed up with actual righteous living &quot;is dead, being alone,&quot; as James put it.  &lt;em&gt;Fiducia&lt;/em&gt; is a principle that bridges the gap, basically equivalent to the Savior's exhortation, &quot;if you love me, keep my commandments,&quot; or James's explanation that we show our faith &lt;em&gt;by&lt;/em&gt; our works.  A person with true faith will not simply sit around believing that they believe, but will go out and live the Gospel, doing good works out of love for God and love for their fellow men and striving to come always a little bit closer to fulfilling the ultimate commandment, &quot;Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:48&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:48&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-21T15:46:45.323" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4258" CreationDate="2011-10-21T18:11:18.603" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The seven churches are described in Revelation 2 and 3.  My opinion is that the seven churches not only refer to churches that existed then, but are representative of churches that have existed in different places since then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.revelationcommentary.org/02_chapter.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation Commentary&lt;/a&gt; says about the seven churches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With two thousand years separating the seven churches of Asia and the modern churches of the world, the question of relevance is critical. What is the relationship between the seven churches mentioned in Revelation and modern churches? Some commentators have tried to make the case that the seven churches of Revelation depict seven periods of church history. This view is woefully inadequate. First, there is no explicit scriptural support for this view. Second, the seven periods of church history must be subjectively determined, which undermines credibility and fosters date setting. Third, such an approach deprives the first century churches of any application for their time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the messages, themselves, yield the necessary clues to answer the question of relevancy. For believers of all ages the issue is the same in connection with the Son of Man: forgiveness or judgment. The Lord instructs six of the seven churches that there are both immediate and long-term consequences to their deeds. The threat of immediate discipline for a lack of repentance is given to the churches of Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Laodicea. Equally, each church is also warned about the possible rewards and punishments to be experienced at the Lord’s coming (parousia). This indicates that the messages to the seven churches have both a &amp;quot;near&amp;quot; application and a &amp;quot;far&amp;quot; application--both a temporal and an eternal application. The fact that each message ends with the same trademark: &amp;quot;He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches,&amp;quot; is compelling. That the term church is plural extends the message and application to the church universal. Believers in two thousand AD can claim the same promises and fear the same warnings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a link to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.revelationcommentary.org/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;contributors&lt;/a&gt; of Revelation Commentary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-21T18:11:18.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="248" CreationDate="2011-10-21T18:54:12.340" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The phrasing of Matthew 12:40 is an anomaly. The bulk of the New Testament testimony is that Jesus was resurrected, not &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; three days but &lt;em&gt;on&lt;/em&gt; the third day:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/16-21.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:21&lt;/a&gt; ...and on the third day be raised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/17-23.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 17:32&lt;/a&gt; ...and on the third day he will be raised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/9-22.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 9:22&lt;/a&gt; ...and on the third day be raised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/18-33.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 18:33&lt;/a&gt; ...and on the third day he will rise again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/10-40.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 10:40&lt;/a&gt; ...but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-corinthians/15-4.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:4&lt;/a&gt; ...and that he was raised on the third day&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if we assume Matthew 12:40 is compatible with the rest of the New Testament, &amp;quot;three days and three nights&amp;quot; cannot mean &amp;quot;three whole days and also three whole nights&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth century scholar/priest St. Jerome explains in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/St.+Jerome+Jonah+Commentary&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Commentary on Jonah&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we ask ourselves this: how was he three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. Some scholars take the view according to &lt;em&gt;paraskeuen&lt;/em&gt;, because of the solar eclipse from the sixth to the ninth hour when night followed day, this would be two days and nights, and adding the Sabbath, believe that we should count this as three days and three nights. But I prefer to understand this by reason of synecdoche, seeing the whole as a part: where he is dead in &lt;em&gt;paraskeuen&lt;/em&gt;, let us count one day and one night; two with the Sabbath; the third night which arises from the day of the Lord, let us take that as the beginning of the next day, for, in Genesis the night is not of the preceding day, but of the following day, that is to say the beginning of the next day, not the end of the previous. To understand this better I will say it more simply: if a man leaves his house at nine and the next day he arrives at his other house at three. And if I say that he has been two days in travelling, I will not be reprimanded as a liar, because he has not used all the hours of two days, but only a part for his journey. Nonetheless this seems to me to be the interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sixteenth century reformer Martin Luther, in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/of-christs-resurrection-martin-luther-sermon-on-atonement-157481.asp&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;sermon on the resurrection&lt;/a&gt;, takes a similar approach:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question now arises: How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that be was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true Sabbath. On the third day, which we commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that he rose on the third day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &amp;quot;three days and three nights&amp;quot; is an idiom meaning Friday, Saturday, Sunday, but not necessarily meaning the whole 24 hours of each day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-16T17:43:11.990" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3108" CreationDate="2011-10-21T20:58:32.950" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak for all theistic evolutionists, but I can give my own perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, I want to provide some background. As an Arminian Christian I believe God created everything in a state of goodness, but gave humans free will that enables us to turn away from his perfect will. It is this following of our own will rather than God's that makes us sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I think Arminianism is compatible with theistic evolution, it does not &lt;em&gt;require&lt;/em&gt; theistic evolution. My acceptance of evolution does not stem from my theology, but from my understanding of biological sciences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason mention this is to clarify that &quot;theistic evolution&quot; is not a theological system in itself. It can inform our theology but cannot be the foundation of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, with that out of the way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Was the Fall of Man a historical event?&lt;/strong&gt; No, &quot;the fall&quot; is a euphemism to explain the distance between the goodness of God's creation and the mess we've made of things.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is the description of the Fall in Genesis 3 literal?&lt;/strong&gt; No, it is an archetypal story that illustrates how every one of us has turned from God's will at the first opportunity. By extension, this must go back as far as there were beings capable of knowing what was right and choosing instead to do something else. Whoever those beings were, they would be considered the first humans.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How come we are accountable for our deeds?&lt;/strong&gt; We are accountable because God created us to be in relationship with him, and it is only our willfulness that breaks that relationship. Or to put it another way, we are accountable because sin means choosing our own will over God's.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where did original sin come from? (or does it not fit with theistic evolution)&lt;/strong&gt; In the Arminian tradition, &quot;original sin&quot; comes from the exercise of our free will to turn away from God. This is not incompatible with theistic evolution, except to the extent that evolutionary science may deny the existence of free will.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-10-21T20:58:32.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4272" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-22T02:19:27.463" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-10-22T02:19:27.463" LastActivityDate="2011-10-22T02:19:27.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4273" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-22T02:19:27.463" Score="0" Body="They are spiritual beings often depicted as messengers of God in the Old Testament and New Testament. There are also fallen angels, who chose to follow Satan." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="10665" LastEditDate="2015-11-26T01:27:00.993" LastActivityDate="2015-11-26T01:27:00.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2011-10-22T10:12:10.077" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, &lt;strong&gt;Calvinists do believe in free will&lt;/strong&gt;. This point is often mis-understood by non-Calvinists; but the position that men don't actually have free will and control over their own choices is not Calvinism but hyper-Calvinism -- a deterministic view that goes far beyond that of it's namesake Calvin and the general constituency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that out of the way, the most important thing about the Calvinistic understanding of free will is that &lt;strong&gt;men are free to make choices, but only capable of making choices &lt;em&gt;according to their nature&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. We can make any choice we like inside the scope of the kind of beings that we are but cannot make choices outside the scope of that nature or that defy it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is essentially the same sense in which we are limited physically. As humans we have finite power. The ability to levitate or spontaneously generate fire is reserved for the heroes of the Silver Screen. As humans we can affect our surroundings only insofar as we have the power to do so. But that power cannot change our nature. We can choose to eat healthy and exercise and not jump in front of moving trains -- and thus possibly extend our lives -- but we are still mortal and we cannot prevent our own eventual death. Whether through old age or sickness, we will die. Statistics are clear on this point. Our free will &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; allow us to live longer than if we had made other choices, but it will not allow us to not die at all. It is according to our nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a similar sense, Calvinists believe that man has free will and is sovereign over the aspects of his life insofar as he has been granted these rights by God. However, we believe that man is, by nature, dead in sin. This means that it is not within the realm of possibility to &quot;choose&quot; salvation. A sick man may choose to take medicine and thus affect his own healing, but a dead man can do nothing to change his fate. This is the doctrine of total depravity and outside the scope of this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists believe that God is sovereign over salvation. That is his domain and for him alone to choose. The &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; that God chose to use, however, is quite interesting. First he extends us Grace. He sent his Son, he paid the price, he made a propitiation, he died for the ungodly, he ... he ... he. Then he holds all this out in front of us and he calls us. This call may be heard by many but only those who have been chosen are given the grace to respond to it, and through the hearing of the call are given faith and literally made into new beings -- resurrected from death to life -- born again as spiritual sons. This birth process isn't something we choose, it's something that is done for us. It's grace: unmerited favor. Something we could not do and would not choose to do had not God done something on our behalf first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists may believe that God predestines people to be saved but they believe that man's limited scope means that &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; don't know who those people are. Furthermore as recipients of Grace we are called to share this news -- this free grace -- the Gospel, with all. We don't only preach to some. We preach it to all. Who God chooses to change into people that respond to the call is his business, but our business is inform &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; of the choice. Jesus called people to make choices, so do we.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-10-22T10:12:10.077" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1538" CreationDate="2011-10-22T14:48:20.017" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sidran's reply was nice, just more one point is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 10:11 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Now all these things happened unto them for&#xA;  examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends&#xA;  of the world are come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some commands are decreed as &quot;&lt;em&gt;a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10.1&lt;/strong&gt;). Look at that verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalms 34:20 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Exodus 12:21,46 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and&#xA;  said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your&#xA;  families, and kill the passover. (...) In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of &#xA;  the flesh abroad out of the house; &lt;em&gt;neither shall ye break a bone thereof.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Huh?&quot; (you think,) &quot;What the problem with breaking a lamb's bones?&quot;. The answer comes in form of a prophecy accomplished, centuries later, when the perfect lamb is in the cross:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 19:32-36 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the&#xA;  first, and of the other which was crucified with him.  But when&#xA;  they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not&#xA;  his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his&#xA;  side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that&#xA;  saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he&#xA;  saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done,&#xA;  that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be&#xA;  broken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did you understand? &quot;Don't break the lamb's bone&quot; commandment is &quot;non-harmful&quot; but, God decreed it to Hebrews in form of prophecy. We learn to trust God in that kind of commandment, HE really KNOWS what he does! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2011-11-04T00:30:39.433" LastActivityDate="2011-11-04T00:30:39.433" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4259" CreationDate="2011-10-22T23:34:53.900" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question of whether the act of having faith constitutes a &amp;quot;work&amp;quot; in opposition to &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt; was considered by Karl Barth. He firmly identifies &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt; as &amp;quot;the opposition of faith to all and every work [...]  no human work as such either is or includes man's justification (not even the work of faith as such).&amp;quot; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He explicitly disclaims the idea that we can &amp;quot;self-justify&amp;quot; by possessing faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Justification by faith&amp;quot; cannot mean that instead of his customary evil works and in place of all kinds of supposed good works man chooses and accomplishes the work of faith, in this way pardoning and therefore justifying himself. As his action, the action of sinful man, faith cannot do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nor does it make any odds whether a man means by faith a mere knowledge and intellectual understanding of the divine work and judgement and revelation and pardon (&lt;em&gt;notitia&lt;/em&gt;), or an assent of the mind and will to it, the acceptance as true of that which is proclaimed as the truth of this work of God (&lt;em&gt;assensus&lt;/em&gt;), or finally a heart's trust in the significance of this work for him (&lt;em&gt;fiducia&lt;/em&gt;). It is not in and with all this that a man justifies himself, that he pardons himself, that he sets himself in that transition from wrong to right, from death to life, that he makes himself the subject of that history, the history of redemption. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The language of &amp;quot;subject&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;object&amp;quot; is important here. The object of faith - Jesus Christ - already exists, and having faith does not change the fact of his existence, nor the saving work that he has already accomplished. We are the &amp;quot;subjects&amp;quot; who do the believing, but that faith is always to be understood as coming from above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[The believer] has not created his own faith; the Word has created it. He has not come to faith; faith has come to him through the Word. He has not adopted faith; faith has been granted to him through the Word. [...] Man acts as he believes, but the fact that he believes as he acts is God's act. Man is the subject of faith. Man believes, not God. But the fact that man is this subject in faith is bracketed as a predicate of the subject God, bracketed in the way that the Creator encloses the creature and the merciful God sinful man. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we thought that we were achieving justification (or even sanctification) under our own power, that would deny the necessary &lt;em&gt;humility&lt;/em&gt; which is a component of true Christian faith: &amp;quot;Man can glory neither in his faith nor in his works.&amp;quot; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In becoming the &amp;quot;subject&amp;quot; of faith, we are reinvented or regenerated by God, in a &amp;quot;mutual indwelling&amp;quot;. This process will not be accomplished instantaneously, and &lt;em&gt;fiducia&lt;/em&gt; is not seen as the cause so much as it is one of the means by which it takes place:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trustful faith is the appropriate counterpart to the fidelity of God as actualized and revealed in His judgement and verdict, and it is particularly an &lt;em&gt;imitatio Christi&lt;/em&gt; insofar as the obedience of humility is a true reflection of divine condescension, a human re-enactment, a human mimesis and imitation. Not as if this human re-enactment itself justifies man, since all of this is merely &lt;em&gt;man's&lt;/em&gt; doing, yet without this re-enactment faith would not be justifying faith, and would not be a concrete response to Christ. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, there is a real problem to be reconciled. Barth achieves the reconciliation by a strong commitment to &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt;; he uses the three aspects of &amp;quot;realization&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;acknowledgement&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;acceptance&amp;quot; but does not believe that they can cause justification independently of God's choice. Rather, they are part of the means of the working out of our salvation: by them, we respond to God's call, and through the process of achieving faith we are regenerated according to God's design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Karl Barth, &lt;em&gt;Church Dogmatics&lt;/em&gt; IV.1, &amp;quot;Justification by faith alone&amp;quot;. &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Karl Barth, &lt;em&gt;Church Dogmatics&lt;/em&gt; I.1, &amp;quot;The Word of God and faith&amp;quot;. &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Hans Küng, &lt;em&gt;Justification: the doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic reflection&lt;/em&gt;, ch. 15 &amp;quot;Through faith alone&amp;quot;, 1964 (translation of Collins, Tolk and Granskou).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-22T23:34:53.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2620" CreationDate="2011-10-23T00:30:13.623" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As this question is tagged as catholic. I think I'll approach the catholic view (which certainly relates to all Trinitarian churches) but I will also bring up some doctrine of the eastern orthodox churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Caleb puts it, this question is related with the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;Biblical basis for the doctrine of Trinity&lt;/a&gt;. Byrd and Software monkey answered outstandingly. The answers should be reviewed prior to this answer. Certainly there is a similarity amongst the questions, but JustinY's question seems to be more concerned with the relation that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The core of the question relies in the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That they also may be one in us&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the first point it is important to bring back the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;doctrine of Trinity&lt;/a&gt; that explains that there is One God in three persons(ὑποστάσεις), with the same substance(οὐσία). To explain the difference between hypostasis and ousia is clearly stated by Basil of Caesare:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...] ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to&#xA;  the particular.   Every one of us both shares in existence by the&#xA;  common term of ousia, and, by his  properties, is such an one and such&#xA;  an one.  In the same manner...the term ousia is  common, like&#xA;  goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute, while hypostasis is &#xA;  contemplated in the property of Fatherhood, Sonship or the power of&#xA;  Sanctification. St. Basil, Basil: Letters and Select Works. Quoted in &#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.allsaints-stl.org/Trinitarian%20Theology%20of%20St.%20Basil%20of%20Caesarea%20-%20Web%20Version%202008.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Trinitarian Theology of St. Basil of Caesare by John Behr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Father and Son are the same ousia. Jesus himself teaches that there is One God in Mark 12: 28-31.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second part of the question is how are the faithful are one in Christ. The answer may be found in John 15:4-5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Remain in me&lt;/strong&gt;, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by&#xA;  itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless&#xA;  you remain in me. “I am the vine; you are the branches. &lt;strong&gt;If you remain&#xA;  in me and I in you&lt;/strong&gt;, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do&#xA;  nothing. (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And may be expanded by recalling that the church is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12: 12-31) and it is Spouse of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To support this point one may use the following verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.&#xA;  (NIV 1 Corinthians 12: 27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and also de article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P28.HTM#$11T&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;796 of the Catechism of Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;, of which I extract one excellent quote of St. Agustine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . .&#xA;  whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks&#xA;  in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body&#xA;  (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? &quot;The two will become one&#xA;  flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the&#xA;  Church.&quot;240 and the Lord himself says in the Gospel: &quot;So they are no&#xA;  longer two, but one flesh.&quot;241 They are, in fact, two different&#xA;  persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he&#xA;  calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself &quot;bride&quot;. (St.&#xA;  Agustine. Enarratio in Psalmum 74, 4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In few words, it is explained that the Church and Christ are one in a similar way in which husband and wife are one flesh. Because the Church is the wife that Christ loved for whom he gave himself up (Ephesians 5:25).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this answers your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-10-23T00:30:13.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4279" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5758" CreationDate="2011-10-23T02:06:01.980" Score="9" ViewCount="560" Body="&lt;p&gt;So I was trying to sync my iPod to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://isportsweb.com/wp-content/uploads//2010/11/watchmen14.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;doomsday clock&lt;/a&gt; when I realized that I don't know what is meant by:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You will hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for these things must happen, but it will not yet be the end. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/24/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:6 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do recall that being said as &quot;rumors of war,&quot; but that must be in another Bible translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, even if it's not the end, it's still important.  My conception of rumors of war is all wrapped up in George Orwell, but since he didn't write for quite a few years after Matthew perhaps it's not the right notion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here's my two parter, which is really a four parter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What to Jesus and His disciples, what constituted a &quot;Report of war&quot;?  Was it the result of deliberate misinformation campaigns by the Romans?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was the Cold War a &quot;Rumor of a war&quot;? In reading the signs of the times, was the confluence of wars (i.e. Vietnam) and rumors of war (i.e. Cold War) anything to get worked up about, as a harbinger bringing about the end times?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-16T18:50:55.153" LastActivityDate="2015-09-16T18:50:55.153" Title="Was the Cold War a &quot;rumor of a war&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;war&gt;&lt;signs-of-the-times&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-21T03:02:14.150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4279" CreationDate="2011-10-23T03:35:14.750" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think that we can say for sure.  I think that this particular verse could apply to just about any time in history.  Rumors of wars could mean any fear of a coming war, including the cold war.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact most of the things foretold in Matthew 24 have happened since His time - false messiahs, nation rising against nation, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, Christians being persecuted, killed, and hated for their faith, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general consensus among pastors that I have spoken to (and sites that you can find by Googling this verse) is that these signs will increase as we get nearer to the end times. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that there is not a definitive answer to this question, and that it could apply to any time in history is perfectly within Biblical teaching, since &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/24-36.htm&quot;&gt;Jesus Himself said that no man would know when the coming of these times are&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-23T03:40:37.377" LastActivityDate="2011-10-23T03:40:37.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4281" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4283" CreationDate="2011-10-23T12:23:56.907" Score="2" ViewCount="314" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there some of the Old Testament commandments of God that have been cancelled with the coming of Christ, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the New Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New Testament says that some of God-given commandments were abolished or cancelled with the coming, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. For example, circumcision or keeping the Sabbath. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some parts of the New Testament clearly state that and point to those particular commandments that had been cancelled, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Circumcision:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor&#xA;  uncircumcision, but a new creature (&lt;a href=&quot;http://kjv.us/galatians/6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gal. 6:15 AKJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sacrifices:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7:11&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under&#xA;  it the people received the law,) what further need [was there then]&#xA;  that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and&#xA;  not be called after the order of Aaron?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7:15&lt;/sup&gt;[yet] there arises another&#xA;  Priest,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7:16&lt;/sup&gt;who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but&#xA;  after the power of an endless life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7:18&lt;/sup&gt;For there is verily a&#xA;  disannulling of the commandment going before for its weakness and&#xA;  unprofitableness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7:19&lt;/sup&gt;For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing&#xA;  in of a better hope [did]; by which we draw nigh unto God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7:28&lt;/sup&gt;For the&#xA;  law makes men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the&#xA;  oath, which was since the law, [makes] the Son, who is consecrated for&#xA;  ever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8:6&lt;/sup&gt;[He] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also&#xA;  He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon&#xA;  better promises. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8:7&lt;/sup&gt;For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then&#xA;  should no place have been sought for the second. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8:8&lt;/sup&gt;For finding fault&#xA;  with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I&#xA;  will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house&#xA;  of Judah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8:13&lt;/sup&gt;In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first&#xA;  old. Now that which decays and waxes old [is] ready to vanish away&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10:1&lt;/sup&gt;For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very&#xA;  image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they&#xA;  offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10:2&lt;/sup&gt;For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the&#xA;  worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10:3&lt;/sup&gt;But&#xA;  in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins&#xA;  every year. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10:4&lt;/sup&gt;For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of&#xA;  goats should take away sins&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10:14&lt;/sup&gt;by one offering He has perfected&#xA;  for ever them that are sanctified&quot;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://kjv.us/hebrews/7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 7:11, 15-16, 18-19, 28&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://kjv.us/hebrews/8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;8:6-8, 13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://kjv.us/hebrews/10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10:1-4, 14 AKJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I wonder if there are some of the Old Testament commandments of God that have also been cancelled, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the New Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-10T16:37:45.523" LastActivityDate="2015-10-10T16:37:45.523" Title="Are there any of the OT commandments of God that have been cancelled, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the NT?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;&lt;commandments&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-11T19:17:22.193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4282" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4287" CreationDate="2011-10-23T14:43:41.263" Score="8" ViewCount="1160" Body="&lt;p&gt;Were some parts of the law cancelled or the whole law in its completeness should continue untill the heaven and the earth disappear? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some parts of the New Testament clearly state that some portions of the law have been abolished with the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ (see examples in the end of this question). How does it go along with the following words of the Savior:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the&#xA;  smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means&#xA;  disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished (&lt;a href=&quot;http://kjv.us/matthew/5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:18 AKJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of some portions of the law that are pronounced as cancelled in the New Testament: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Circumcision:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor&#xA;  uncircumcision, but a new creature (&lt;a href=&quot;http://kjv.us/galatians/6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gal. 6:15 AKJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sacrifices:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7:11&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under&#xA;  it the people received the law,) what further need [was there then]&#xA;  that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and&#xA;  not be called after the order of Aaron?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;[yet] there arises another&#xA;  Priest,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but&#xA;  after the power of an endless life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;For there is verily a&#xA;  disannulling of the commandment going before for its weakness and&#xA;  unprofitableness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing&#xA;  in of a better hope [did]; by which we draw nigh unto God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;For the&#xA;  law makes men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the&#xA;  oath, which was since the law, [makes] the Son, who is consecrated for&#xA;  ever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8:6&lt;/sup&gt;[He] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also&#xA;  He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon&#xA;  better promises. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then&#xA;  should no place have been sought for the second. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;For finding fault&#xA;  with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I&#xA;  will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house&#xA;  of Judah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first&#xA;  old. Now that which decays and waxes old [is] ready to vanish away&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10:1&lt;/sup&gt;For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very&#xA;  image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they&#xA;  offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the&#xA;  worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;But&#xA;  in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins&#xA;  every year. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of&#xA;  goats should take away sins&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;by one offering He has perfected&#xA;  for ever them that are sanctified&quot;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://kjv.us/hebrews/7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 7:11, 15-16, 18-19, 28&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://kjv.us/hebrews/8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;8:6-8, 13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://kjv.us/hebrews/10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;10:1-4, 14 AKJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-06-01T13:22:22.307" LastActivityDate="2019-05-13T15:27:37.570" Title="Were some parts of the law abolished or &quot;not one jot will by any means pass from the law&quot;?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4281" CreationDate="2011-10-23T18:59:10.437" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way I understand these passages, they do not mean that the OT law was canceled.  Rather they refer to the fact that keeping the law cannot save us from Hell. We are saved by Grace alone through faith.  (Ephesians 2:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Circumcision was a sign that God gave to the people of Israel to signify that they were His.  It did nothing to save them, but rather it was a physical, external sign that they belonged to Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Animal sacrifices, likewise, were a temporary atonement for sins, but they never could save fully until Jesus became the perfect sacrifice.  As the verses you cited state, &quot;it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other OT laws had to do with cleanliness and hygiene, and were clearly given to protect the people.  (These would be the laws about what to do with an &quot;unclean&quot; person, and include measures such as quarantine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus stated, &quot;not one jot nor tittle of the Law should pass away&quot; (Matthew 5:15).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major point of Christianity, compared to Judaism, is this:  Judaism is still &quot;under the law&quot;.  In other words, they are trying to earn their salvation by keeping the Law.  Christianity states that we &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; keep the law.  Everyone has failed, and &lt;em&gt;none&lt;/em&gt; of us are righteous. (Romans 3:10, 23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law still stands, but it cannot save us.  We cannot be saved by obedience to the law or &quot;works of righteousness&quot;.  Therefore, none of the law was cancelled.  What is good is still good.  What is wrong is still wrong.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law, as it applies to us now exists to show us what sin is (Romans 7:7), so that we can see that we are lost and cannot save ourselves.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also serves to stop sinners from justifying themselves.  How many people believe that they're really not a bad person and can get to heaven simply by being &quot;good.&quot;  If we look at even the Ten commandments, we can see that we've all broken at least one.  As the bible states in James 2:10 (KJV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,&#xA;  he is guilty of all.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, as we look at the perfect Law of God, the law shows us that we're not really &quot;good&quot; at all.  It stops the mouth of those who claim that they are good, and shows them that they &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; guilty by showing them what sin is. (Romans 3:19-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the question is based on a false belief that certain laws were abolished.  The laws have never been abolished.  They also never had the power to save anyone by obedience to them.  The laws still exists, but through the redeeming blood of Christ, we are no longer held guilty.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading on in Romans, Paul continues in verse 31: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we&#xA;  establish the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of the book of Romans goes on to explain this far better than I ever could by paraphrasing, so I'll just leave it to yo to go through it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-23T19:40:59.683" LastActivityDate="2011-10-23T19:40:59.683" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4284" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-23T19:25:38.273" Score="26" ViewCount="8988" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many Christians believe that there are three kinds of law in the Old Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;moral law&lt;/em&gt; that declares how man should live.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;civil law&lt;/em&gt; that was the legal structures for the ancient nation of Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;ceremonial law&lt;/em&gt; that declared how ancient Israel was to worship.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Covenant theology teaches that the &lt;em&gt;moral law&lt;/em&gt; still applies to Christians.  How can I tell the difference between the moral, civil, and ceremonial law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-06-01T03:11:20.990" LastActivityDate="2016-06-01T03:11:20.990" Title="How can I tell the difference between the Moral law and other laws in the old testament?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;covenant-theology&gt;&lt;tripartite-law-division&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4282" CreationDate="2011-10-23T19:43:58.070" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Forgive me for using almost the same answer to both of your recent questions.  This one is slightly different than the answer there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I understand these passages, they do not mean that the OT law was canceled. Rather they refer to the fact that keeping the law cannot save us from Hell. We are saved by Grace alone through faith. (Ephesians 2:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Circumcision was a sign that God gave to the people of Israel to signify that they were His. It did nothing to save them, but rather it was a physical, external sign that they belonged to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Animal sacrifices, likewise, were a temporary atonement for sins, but they never could save fully until Jesus became the perfect sacrifice. As the verses you cited state, &quot;it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.&quot;  Animal sacrifices were rendered unnecessary by the perfect sacrifice of the sinless Christ.  His sacrifice fulfilled the law more completely than an animal sacrifice ever could, so it's not abolishing that law, it's performing the ultimate fulfillment Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other OT laws had to do with cleanliness and hygiene, and were clearly given to protect the people. (These would be the laws about what to do with an &quot;unclean&quot; person, and include measures such as quarantine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you already quoted, Jesus stated, &quot;not one jot nor tittle of the Law should pass away&quot; (Matthew 5:15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major point of Christianity, compared to Judaism, is this: Judaism is still &quot;under the law&quot;. In other words, they are trying to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;earn&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; their salvation by keeping the Law. Christianity states that we cannot keep the law. Everyone has failed, and none of us are righteous. (Romans 3:10, 23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law still stands, but it cannot save us. We cannot be saved by obedience to the law or &quot;works of righteousness&quot;. Therefore, none of the law was cancelled. What is good is still good. What is wrong is still wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law, as it applies to us now exists to show us what sin is (Romans 7:7), so that we can see that we are lost and cannot save ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also serves to stop sinners from justifying themselves. How many people believe that they're really not a bad person and can get to heaven simply by being &quot;good.&quot; If we look at even the Ten commandments, we can see that we've all broken at least one. As the Bible states in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;James 2:10 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, as we look at the perfect Law of God, the law shows us that we're not really &quot;good&quot; at all. It stops the mouth of those who claim that they are good, and shows them that they are guilty by showing them what sin is. (Romans 3:19-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question directly, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the laws have never been abolished&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. They also never had the power to save anyone by obedience to them. The laws still exists, but through the redeeming blood of Christ, we are no longer held guilty of breaking it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading on in Romans, Paul continues in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:31&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;verse 31&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to explain this in more detail, but by Romans 6, we get back to the fact that just because we are free from the &lt;em&gt;guilt&lt;/em&gt; of the law, doesn't mean that we should not &lt;em&gt;obey&lt;/em&gt; the law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than doing so to try to earn our salvation, we are doing so because we are grateful to have been freed from it, and if we've truly repented, we should see our own sin as God sees it - disgusting, and an abomination.  To go back and sin willingly is a slap in the face of God.  We do it because we also should now hate sin, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; our own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Romans 7, Paul goes on to talk about the difference between living in the Flesh and in the Spirit - the only two choices we really have.  If we walk in the Flesh, we are obeying our sinful nature.  Walking in the Spirit, we are walking in agreement with God, and that means obeying the Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-23T21:23:27.220" LastActivityDate="2011-10-23T21:23:27.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4284" CreationDate="2011-10-23T20:02:54.513" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may be an oversimplification, but truly, it's the best answer I have for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Moral Law&lt;/strong&gt; deals with our relationship to God and to our fellow man.  Moral law can all be traced back to Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV quoted below)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and&#xA;  with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first&#xA;  and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your&#xA;  neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on&#xA;  these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take any of the laws and trace it back to the obvious purpose, and you can see what is moral law, what is civil law, and what is ceremonial law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Ten commandments, including thou shalt not Kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet...  All of these have to do with showing love toward our fellow people.  If we love someone we will not kill them, steal from them, or covet their things.  If we love God, we will have no other gods before Him, we will not bow down to idols.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Civil law&lt;/strong&gt; deals with things like establishment of guilt, proper punishment for offenses.  It's easily recognizable as similar to our own civil laws.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ceremonial law&lt;/strong&gt; would include such things as the dimensions of the temple, the colors of the robes for certain priests, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-10-23T20:02:54.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4282" CreationDate="2011-10-23T21:32:22.297" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many Christians agree that there are three distinct kinds of laws in the old testament, and that one of them is eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;moral law&lt;/em&gt; that declares how man should live.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;civil law&lt;/em&gt; that was the legal structures for the ancient nation of Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;ceremonial law&lt;/em&gt; that declared how ancient Israel was to worship.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moral law is believed to be eternal.  While it's not perfectly clear what's in the moral law and what is in the other two categories the Ten Commandments as well as passages like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%206:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 6:5&lt;/a&gt; are in the moral law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both the examples in your question would fall into the ceremonial law.  Many Christians believe that the ceremonial law was either abolished at the death of Christ or completely fulfilled at the death of Christ.  Obviously Christ was and is the eternal sacrifice.  The specific sacrifices of the Old Testament are no longer needed.  As for circumcision it too is fulfilled in a different way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+3:3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 3:3 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—  &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the &lt;em&gt;civil law&lt;/em&gt; which would include the punishments specified for crimes and the like, it obviously ended when ancient Israel as a nation-state ended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, while some of the laws in the Old Testament don't hold direct sway over our lives any more, remember:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.  &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastActivityDate="2011-10-23T21:32:22.297" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4288" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4289" CreationDate="2011-10-24T01:00:16.067" Score="10" ViewCount="290" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_Fide&quot;&gt;Sola fide&lt;/a&gt; says that works play no part in our salvation. For sola fide adherents, what is the purpose of baptism? Is baptism necessary?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-10-24T02:17:32.807" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T06:14:45.137" Title="What is the purpose of baptism for sola fide adherents?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4288" CreationDate="2011-10-24T01:18:42.387" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Speaking as an adherent of the belief that salvation is by faith alone, and not of works (lest any man should boast - Ephesians 2:8-10):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is an external symbol of obedience.  It doesn't gain you anything.  It is an outward show and demonstration that symbolizes our death to our old selves, and resurrection into the new life as a Christian.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider a secular comparison - graduating from school.  The graduation ceremony does not educate us.  Receiving the diploma does not educate us. Both are a sign that we have completed our education and are moving on to the next step, and both are largely ceremonial and serve as a rite of passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To those of us that believe in sola fide believe that (obviously) only the saving grace  of God is responsible for our salvation, and baptism no more saves us than a diploma educates us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, for those of us that believe in baptism by immersion, rather than sprinkling, this is a part of why we believe in this form of baptism.  In addition to it being how John the Baptist did it, we also see the going under water as symbolic of Christs death, and coming back out of the water as symbolic of His resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To those of us who hold my views, baptism is not &lt;em&gt;necessary for salvation&lt;/em&gt;.  However, we also realize that there are plenty of opposing views.  It all hinges on whether or not you count baptism as a &quot;work&quot;.  I've seen arguments for both sides, and all seem to have merit but for me, personally, and most of the people in my Church it comes down to one verse - Ephesians 2:10, not of works &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lest any man should boast&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In giving all glory to God, we refuse to try to take any credit for our own salvation.  Even the tiniest hint of pride in the matter is not acceptable to us, and whether baptism is a &quot;work&quot; or not, if we feel that we have contributed to our salvation in obedience, then it is not of God alone, and the glory is not His.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I know there are opposing views, but the question appears to be geared to how those with this &lt;em&gt;particular&lt;/em&gt; view see the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that baptism is necessary on &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; level, though -not as an act of salvation, but as an outward sign that we're really &quot;giving up our cross to follow Him&quot;.  If we can't obey such a simple thing, how on earth would we expect to claim that we live for Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-24T06:14:45.137" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T06:14:45.137" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2071" CreationDate="2011-10-24T02:27:34.260" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the logical place is to start with John 8:42, and I picked this translation: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.), because they use the term &lt;code&gt;proceeded&lt;/code&gt;.  In others Jesus stated that he was sent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I&#xA;  proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he&#xA;  sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus states that he proceeded from God, which is why God is referred to as the Father, as he is the principle (the first one) and the Holy Spirit and the Son proceeded from him, in eternity, not proceeded in terms of time, since all three exist before and outside of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Thomas Aquinas covers this well, in these links: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1027.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Procession of the divine persons.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How the three relate to each other: http: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The divine relations.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this one actually covers the Father being called the Father and the Son also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1033.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The person of the Father.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have the Lord's Prayer where Jesus refers to God as &quot;Our Father ...&quot;, and in various places He refers to God as His Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have Psalm 88:27 - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He shall cry out to me: Thou art my Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not certain if you actually want to ask about the relationship between The Father and The Son, but Aquinas dealt with that in: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#article4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Whether the word &quot;person&quot; signifies relation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Article 1 in this part: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1040.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Whether relation is the same as person) &lt;/a&gt;, Aquinas deals with whether relation is the same as person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can try to sum up that, in that the three persons of God are in substance God, their relationship is only in how the proceeded from the Father, but each is still fully God, with all the properties of God, so one is not inferior to any other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-04-19T01:04:04.020" LastActivityDate="2016-04-19T01:04:04.020" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="525" CreationDate="2011-10-24T05:06:13.470" Score="17" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to &lt;strong&gt;justification and life for all men.&lt;/strong&gt; —Romans 5:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to &lt;strong&gt;reconcile to himself all things&lt;/strong&gt;, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. —Colossians 1:19-20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and &lt;strong&gt;every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord&lt;/strong&gt;, to the glory of God the Father. —Philippians 2:10-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For God has consigned all to disobedience, &lt;strong&gt;that he may have mercy on all.&lt;/strong&gt; —Romans 11:32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;English Standard Version (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thomastalbott.com/pdf/chapter5.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Paul's Universalism&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;.  This is the fifth chapter of &lt;em&gt;The Inescapable Love of God&lt;/em&gt; by eminent Christian Universalist and Philosopher Tom Talbott.  In this chapter, he makes a case for Universalism from Paul's writings, especially Romans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find more free chapters from Talbott's book &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thomastalbott.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; (scroll to the bottom).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for 2 Thessalonians 1:9, a universalist would probably translate it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They will be punished with destruction of the age to come — destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word for &amp;quot;from&amp;quot; here (&lt;em&gt;apo&lt;/em&gt;) is ambiguous.  It can mean that those punished are punished away from the Lord, or simply that the punishment comes from the Lord; that is, it is administered by Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There has been some controversy over the meaning of the terms translated as &amp;quot;eternal punishment&amp;quot; (&lt;em&gt;aionios kolasin&lt;/em&gt;).  For this I would point you &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=ezURAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA36#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. In summary, the terms used by the biblical authors to describe eschatological punishment are different from the terms used by those who believed in never-ending torment/imprisonment (the pharisees).  There is a discussion of the contemporary usage of &lt;em&gt;aionios&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;kolasin&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;em&gt;Aionios&lt;/em&gt; is often used to describe a period of time of finite length (though it could be very long), and &lt;em&gt;kolasin&lt;/em&gt; is typically used to describe punishments administered for corrective purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I just noticed that the word used in the 2 Thessalonians verse is &lt;em&gt;olethron&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;em&gt;Kolasin&lt;/em&gt; is used elsewhere, like in the parable of the sheep and the goats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One last thing. Pithy arguments posted on a Q&amp;amp;A site hardly do an entire theological viewpoint justice, so you should probably look into reading a book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if you are looking to buy just one book on biblical universalism, I would highly recommend Gregory MacDonald(a.k.a. Robin Parry)'s &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://wipfandstock.com/store/The_Evangelical_Universalist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Evangelical Universalist&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, which gives a universalistic exegesis of the Bible as a whole. And it has a whole chapter on Revelation!  Unfortunately, it doesn't have free chapters like Talbott's book (which I consider second best choice), but you can read reviews &lt;a href=&quot;http://amzn.to/srQSoc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; (Also see Amazon sneak peek).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I am not affiliated with any of the books I have referenced/recommended here)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="909" LastEditorUserId="47145" LastEditDate="2021-01-28T22:47:05.477" LastActivityDate="2021-01-28T22:47:05.477" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4294" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4296" CreationDate="2011-10-24T05:45:03.140" Score="9" ViewCount="3342" Body="&lt;p&gt;I only recently figured out that some Catholic doctrines are required for a Catholic to accept, while the denial of others doesn't prevent being a Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of both cases:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mark Trapp, in his answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/list-of-papal-teachings-considered-infallible/2952#2952&quot;&gt;List of papal teachings considered infallible&lt;/a&gt;, quotes two instances of &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;, both of which contain a judgment of those who don't accept the doctrine. The declaration of Immaculate Conception, for example, ends with&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of papal infallibility was not a strictly required one in 1860, as &lt;em&gt;Keenan's Catechism&lt;/em&gt; used in British Catholic schools included the following: (as quoted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_papal_infallibility&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the distinctions between these two kinds of doctrines? Is there a list of required doctrines somewhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T11:23:06.950" Title="Which doctrines are Catholics required to accept?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4294" CreationDate="2011-10-24T08:06:13.283" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The degree to which Roman Catholics need to accept doctrines as required is directly related to how certain they are known to be true. There is a range of levels of certitude, from immediately revealed truths (&lt;em&gt;fides divina&lt;/em&gt;) and the infallible teachings of the Church (&lt;em&gt;fides ecclesiastica&lt;/em&gt;) as the most certain to things commonly believed to be true by most theologians (&lt;em&gt;sententia communis&lt;/em&gt;) down to things tolerated by the Church but not really well founded (&lt;em&gt;opinio tolerata&lt;/em&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To wit, there are three classes of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dogma&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;truths formally and explicitly revealed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;truths revealed formally but not explicitly revealed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;truths known through their connection to other truths, but not revealed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first two are what generally constitutes necessary dogma: things every person needs to believe in order to be considered in communion with the Church. These are well-known and binding: things like the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the primacy of the Pope and the Apostolic succession, and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third category is where there is some leeway in what is necessary to believe. These are open for debate amongst theologians, and include things like whether the existence of a proof for God exists, whether we can have knowledge of Heaven, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The part which you quote from the pronouncements made &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; is actually procedural and is meant to classify the teaching as formally revealed; the First Vatical Council &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;laid out conditions&lt;/a&gt; that need to be met for a teaching to be considered made &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, the formula is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Holy Father speaks in his official capacity&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He speaks definitively   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;we declare, pronounce, and define&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who doesn't believe what was taught has left the Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so to reconcile with the question and answer pair in the &lt;em&gt;Keenan's Catechism&lt;/em&gt;, it's important to note that the pope himself is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; infallible: he only has the ability to &lt;em&gt;speak&lt;/em&gt; infallibly, and only when he speaks &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;. This doesn't happen all the time: it's a very rare occurrence used only in very specific situations (to date, only about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/list-of-papal-teachings-considered-infallible/2952#2952&quot;&gt;the Marian dogmas mentioned in my answer&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, most of the dogma Roman Catholics believe comes directly from the Magisterial teachings of the Church. The pope can speak about those infallible teachings, but he speaks about them in a fallible manner (i.e. he can misunderstand or misinterpret them, as he's only human).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for lists of necessary dogmata, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; is the formal collection of what the Church believes. Peter Turner in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/list-of-papal-teachings-considered-infallible/2962#2962&quot;&gt;his answer to the question about the list of teachings considered infallible&lt;/a&gt; mentioned another great resource, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/Fundamentals-of-Catholic-Dogma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma&lt;/a&gt;, which summarizes nearly every dogmatic teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T11:23:06.950" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4297" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-24T11:02:33.310" Score="28" ViewCount="59460" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is Jesus' genealogy in Matthew and Luke traced back to David through Joseph if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="920" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T11:19:51.037" LastActivityDate="2019-05-20T04:31:44.847" Title="Why is Jesus' genealogy traced through Joseph?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;&lt;joseph-husband-of-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4297" CreationDate="2011-10-24T11:41:46.227" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, Joseph was not Jesus biological father in &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; understanding since Mary conceived by a miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit before she was joined to Joseph and the text tells us they refrained from intercourse until after Jesus birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in the eyes of the law of the time, Joseph was the father. More than just a legal guardian, &lt;strong&gt;by later taking Mary as his wife, he also claimed Jesus as his son&lt;/strong&gt;. This gave him a standing in relation to the child that -in the eyes of the Jews at least- must be accounted for. The fact that he was himself of the line of David would put many doubts about the validity of Jesus' claims to rest. The excuse that there was no blood relation would have been overshadowed by the fact that he was the lawful father and not himself of the prophesied linage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing that Joseph was himself of the line of David &lt;strong&gt;makes Jesus the rightful legal heir to the throne of David&lt;/strong&gt; even though he wasn't biologically related to his earthly father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, there is actually a huge difference between the genealogies found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%201:1-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matthew&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:23-38&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Luke&lt;/a&gt;. If you read them, there are only a couple names in common from David to Jesus. One possibility for this is that Joseph had two fathers: one legal and one biological through a Levirate marriage (where the brother of a man with no offspring would step in to provide one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the other idea that many scholars agree on is that &lt;strong&gt;the record found in Luke is actually a trace of Mary's family tree&lt;/strong&gt;. It wasn't common to trace the maternal side, but then again the virgin birth was hardly a normal occurrence! This would mean we have both the paternal and maternal genealogies and all the bases are covered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-10-25T19:53:47.493" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T19:53:47.493" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3510" CreationDate="2011-10-24T12:54:40.900" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:2-6 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And the chief priests and scribes sought how they&#xA;  might kill him; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;for they feared the people&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  Then entered Satan&#xA;  into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains,&#xA;  how he might betray him unto them.  And they were glad, and&#xA;  covenanted to give him money.  And he promised, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and sought&#xA;  opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus meet with the disciples in reservated separated places, &quot;in the absence of the multitude&quot; to explain better doctrines, to pray, to rest, etc. The chief priests and scribes expected that opportunity to arrest Jesus and Judas help them...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastEditorUserId="881" LastEditDate="2011-10-24T13:00:09.017" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T13:00:09.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2901" CreationDate="2011-10-24T13:25:43.637" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have time for a well researched answer right now, but I want to offer two quick thoughts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;LDS doctrine refers to a &quot;Godhead&quot; consisting of three distinct individuals: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Because they are perfectly united in purpose and goodness, we refer to them as one God. Jesus taught this concept by saying that all who know him know the Father and by saying that he only does what the Father sent him to do. We follow Jesus' example and only pray to the Father and only worship the Father. There is no other God outside of His power and authority.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God the Father is the ruler of the universe. As His children, He is willing to share His power with us and make us like Him should we prove our willingness to obey His will. But we will always recognize Him as our Lord and Father just as Jesus does. In this way we wholeheartedly accept the commandment that we shall have no Gods before him.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to quickly contribute to the discussion even though I don't have time to find these concepts explained anywhere authoritative. Hopefully someone else can fill in the gap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="903" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T13:25:43.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4005" CreationDate="2011-10-24T16:39:05.483" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jethro very plainly is advocating &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity&quot;&gt;subsidiarity&lt;/a&gt; for Moses.  I don't see any reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism&quot;&gt;distributism&lt;/a&gt; in that chapter though.  Jethro is addressing organization/governance, not economics/ownership.  (However, both terms are relatively new to me so I could be misunderstanding.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several New Testament passages that assume subsidiarity without explicitly promoting it as Jethro does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%206:1-6&quot;&gt;Acts 6:1-6&lt;/a&gt; the apostles realized that they were becoming overwhelmed with their responsibilities and directed the church to select the first deacons to take over some of the hands-on ministry responsibilities so that the apostles could devote themselves to prayer and to the  ministry of the word (v4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2013:1-3&quot;&gt;Acts 13:1-3&lt;/a&gt; the church at Antioch is functioning without direct oversight by the apostles in Jerusalem.  Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and without consulting the apostles, they send Barnabas and Saul on the first missionary journey.  Later on, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2015&quot;&gt;Acts 15&lt;/a&gt; there is a theological dispute that leads the church at Antioch to send Barnabas and Paul to consult directly with the apostles in Jerusalem for a decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the main purposes of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%201&quot;&gt;the letter that Paul wrote to Titus&lt;/a&gt; was to instruct him in appointing elders/overseers in the churches that had already been established in Crete so that the churches could better function without the need for oversight from Paul or the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T16:39:05.483" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3815" CreationDate="2011-10-24T20:28:16.623" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, this needs to be taken in the context of Arminian/Calvinist debate. Calvin held that God's primary attribute was his sovereignty. All other attributes of God, including his love, must be understood in light of his sovereignty. From this idea springs the entire TULIP paradigm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arminius (and Wesley following him) disagreed and held that God's primary attribute was his goodness. All other attributes of God, including his sovereignty, must be understood in light of his goodness. Because God is perfectly good, he can never sin or cause anyone to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This led Arminius and Wesley to reject the &quot;U&quot; (&quot;Unconditional election&quot;) of TULIP on the grounds that it implies God is the author of sin. That, in turn, caused them to reject the &quot;I&quot; (&quot;Irresistible grace&quot;) because if God doesn't foreordain people to hell, there must be a way for people to reject God's grace and separate themselves from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, to the extend that Arminian/Wesleyan theology differs from Calvinist teaching, it is due to being grounded in the belief that God's primary attribute is his goodness rather than his sovereignty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-10-24T20:28:16.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4195" CreationDate="2011-10-25T00:09:44.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with many issues I start with the Summa Theologica (Summary of Theology), by Thomas Aquinas.  Here is one section of use:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm#article3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm#article3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an interesting quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Let them be blotted out from the book of the living&quot; (Psalm 68:29).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, people can be blotted out of the Book of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may think we know who should be in that book, as we feel that person is achieved a particular level of holiness, but, God knows all, so there is information He will have that we don't.  So, we may feel someone is definitely going to Heaven, but later they do something that casts doubt on that, so we say they may have been removed from the Book, when they may never have been in there in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also leads to the idea of predestination, that Aquinas covers in two parts that help here, but that goes beyond the answer to this question, so I will just give references.&#xA;This one deals with whether the Book of Life is predestination&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm#article1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm#article1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And whether those predestined for Heaven are chosen by God.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T00:09:44.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4067" CreationDate="2011-10-25T02:49:44.500" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think that it is a matter of &quot;limiting&quot; God.  I guess I've never heard anyone say that the theory is invalid because it &quot;limits God&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary reason for rejecting the view is, for many, simply a matter of the traditional method of understanding Scripture, and it's origins.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put simply (perhaps too simply), it is more likely that the people who actually lived in ancient times and lived through the events of those times had a better understanding of those times and the events of those times than someone who lived hundreds of years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on that reasoning, it's simply more plausible to accept the traditional view of the authorship of the Pentateuch than it is to believe a theory derived hundreds of years after the fact.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether the tradition started at the time of Moses, with those who were actually in the wilderness with him, or if the authorship was attributed to him later, the argument still remains that Mosaic authorship had been accepted by those who were much closer in time to the actual events than the later critics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason for rejecting the theory include the fact that it is only one of many theories.   (I know it's not the best source, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis#After_Wellhausen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia has some good information on these&lt;/a&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may be a bad basis for faith, but on some level it is simply easier to reject all of the competing recent theories and hold fast to tradition.  (The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gordian Knot&lt;/a&gt; approach.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes down to it, for me anyway, whether Moses wrote the books or not isn't of the utmost importance. What is important is whether or not I trust that the Scriptures are actually &quot;God-breathed&quot;.  Since Jesus Himself quoted from the books of Moses, He clearly accepted them as Scriptural.  That's good enough for me, so I don't worry about such issues.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking the next step, I personally reject the theory simply for the reasons above, but I wouldn't get into an argument over it.  I reject the idea, but accept that I could be wrong, and that God could have easily given us exactly the Bible He meant to give us in any way He chose. If I'm wrong about the authorship it doesn't really matter so I don't worry about it, so it's really a non-issue to me but if pressed I'd say I believe the Mosaic authorship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that many who reject the theory do so for the same reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-25T03:31:08.740" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T03:31:08.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4260" CreationDate="2011-10-25T03:04:51.560" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The physical circumcision alone would not have been sufficient for the Jews.  The Bris ceremony would have had to have been observed, so there would have been a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mohel&lt;/a&gt; to testify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same traditions are still carried out in Judaism today.  Supporting references:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Circumcision.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Circumcision.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Item #1 covers the basics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1.Mohel: Who Is A Qualified Mohel?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A mohel is an expert in the surgical aspects of circumcision as well&#xA;  as knowledgeable in the laws and customs pertaining to a traditional&#xA;  circumcision and ceremony. A mohel is a person who is certified to be&#xA;  capable and knowledgeable in both the surgical aspects of performing&#xA;  circumcision as well as the traditional aspects of performing a kosher&#xA;  circumcision and the traditional ceremony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Item #10 covers an adult circumcision with a link:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;10. Mohel: Can A Mohel Do Adult Circumcision?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are experienced mohels who do perform adult circumcision. Aside&#xA;  from performing traditional circumcision on newborn children, Rabbi&#xA;  Mozes can also be a mohel for older children and adults. For more&#xA;  information on an adult Bris by Rabbi Mozes, please &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britpro.com/default.asp?p=adult_bris&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-25T03:58:24.247" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T03:58:24.247" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4307" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4308" CreationDate="2011-10-25T07:47:30.410" Score="12" ViewCount="1742" Body="&lt;p&gt;I came across an article on the FAIR Mormon wiki that &lt;a href=&quot;http://fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_prophetic_test_in_Deuteronomy_18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;discusses the prophetic test (Deut. 18)&lt;/a&gt;. It applies the test on some Biblical prophets, and shows how someone could claim these prophets fail the test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one I find interesting is Jonah's prophecy against Nineveh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah%203&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jonah 3 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in breadth. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, &quot;Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did happen was that the people of Nineveh repented and God did not destroy the city:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in the Protestant answers to the following questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How does this fit with Deut. 18, where God says that if the word of a prophet doesn't come to pass, it's not from the Lord?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should the inhabitants of Nineveh have considered Jonah as a false prophet?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should we consider Jonah as a false prophet?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, the passage from Deuteronomy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:20-22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;  But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'— &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;  when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2012-12-26T22:07:14.390" LastActivityDate="2021-02-09T19:36:23.660" Title="Did Jonah fail the test of a prophet?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;jonah&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4307" CreationDate="2011-10-25T09:38:08.053" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's clear from the account of Jonah is that God would have destroyed the city if it were not for the people's repentance. Jonah's prophecy was accurate in that it articulated what God was going to do, but God relented. There was no failing in Jonah's ability to discern and communicate the will of God prior to the people's repentance, but that remarkable repentance was a hugely significant event that altered the subsequent history of that city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a bit of chicken-and-egg here. God could of course have prevented Jonah from making this prophecy since he knew the people would repent, in which case the people of Nineveh wouldn't have heard about what God had in store for them. They therefore might not have repented, and the city would have been destroyed... it's similar to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox&quot;&gt;liar paradox&lt;/a&gt;. In other words, the people needed to hear Jonah tell them what was in store if they didn't repent in order to repent: the prophecy was &lt;em&gt;conditional&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could also argue that Jonah's prophecy holds true: the city &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; overthrown within 40 days, but in a spiritual sense rather than a physical one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Joseph Smith, those who maintain he was a false prophet argue there were no such events that altered history in the same way yet still his prophecies did not come to pass; this isn't a case of God relenting, it's simply a case of getting it wrong in the first place. (Mormons of course disagree and maintain that some of his prophecies were later cancelled and others came to pass to a certain degree).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;There are several supporting online resources... these are from a Google search, so  may not all be representative of mainstream Christianity: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp17.htm&quot;&gt;Let Us Reason Ministries&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/perspectives/the-prophet-jonah-jonah-s-false-prophecy&quot;&gt;Christian Research Institute&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99791.qna/category/ot/page/questions/site/iiim&quot;&gt;Third Millennium Ministries&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mrm.org/comparison-with-jonah&quot;&gt;Mormonism Research Ministry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-10-25T10:02:54.240" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T10:02:54.240" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4309" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4310" CreationDate="2011-10-25T10:44:43.637" Score="15" ViewCount="27323" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mark 13, Jesus tells about the last days and the tribulation. In this context, he says in verse &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;30 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming Jesus was not wrong, what did he mean then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="922" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-02-16T12:19:40.743" LastActivityDate="2016-02-16T12:19:40.743" Title="What does Jesus mean by &quot;this generation&quot; and &quot;all these things&quot; in Mark 13:30" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-02-19T16:06:32.610" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4309" CreationDate="2011-10-25T11:36:53.273" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the matter of some debate, and there are at least three theories about it that I'm familiar with. I actually found a study online that explains all of them &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-jesus-wrong-about-his-second-coming.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some relevant sections (copied and pasted since the author explains it better than I would):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one that is popular in my denomination:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One explanation that is popular among conservative evangelical or&#xA;  fundamentalist Christians might be termed the Futurist interpretation.&#xA;  In this interpretation, Jesus is said to have been talking about the&#xA;  generation alive at the very time of the end, not the generation alive&#xA;  in the middle of the first century A.D. Thus, the generation that sees&#xA;  the beginning of the fulfillment of end-time prophecies would live to&#xA;  see the Second Coming as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, as Gleason Archer has explained,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;This interpretation . . . suffers from the disadvantage of predicting what would normally be expected to happen anyway. Whether&#xA;  the Tribulation will last for seven years or for a mere three and a&#xA;  half years, it would not be unusual for most people to survive that&#xA;  long. Seven years is not a very long time to live through, even in the&#xA;  face of bloody persecution.'' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another that also has difficulties:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another explanation is called the Preterist (&quot;past'') interpretation,&#xA;  which asserts that the Olivet prophecies were all fulfilled in the&#xA;  first century A.D. This interpretation is more popular among mainline&#xA;  Protestant scholars, and is also championed by a handful of Catholic&#xA;  scholars as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The explanation that, IMO has the fewest difficulties:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since there are unsolvable difficulties with both the Futurist and&#xA;  Preterist approaches to this conundrum, we shall have to seek a&#xA;  solution in a third approach. What if when Jesus used the word&#xA;  &quot;generation'' (Greek genea), He didn't mean the same thing that we&#xA;  mean? What if He wasn't using &quot;generation'' to refer to a group of&#xA;  people all living at the same period of history?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to Archer, sometimes genea (&quot;generation'') was used as a&#xA;  synonym of genos (&quot;race,'' &quot;stock,'' &quot;nation,'' &quot;people''). Archer&#xA;  writes,&#xA;  ...&#xA;  Thus, Jesus' words might be rendered, &quot;This people shall not pass away&#xA;  until all these things are fulfilled.'' In that rendering, He could&#xA;  have been referring to the Jewish people (which is the most likely&#xA;  given the context) or to the Church - for both Israel and the Church&#xA;  are given divine promises that they would remain in existence until&#xA;  the end of time (Jeremiah 31:35-37; Matthew 16:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last one seems the most likely to me for several reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's the most simple.  It allows the text to be understood without chronological distortions, and it lets the phrase &quot;All these things&quot; really mean &quot;All these things&quot; - all of the end-time events He had been discussing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It also makes sense because many of the misunderstandings and disagreements in Scripture seem to come from our tendency to use the current English version without understanding the nuances of the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.  Quite a few of the Bible &quot;discrepancies&quot; can be cleared up by studying the original language.  This appears to me to be one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T03:33:21.240" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T03:33:21.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4311" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-25T13:27:20.173" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6956/10672&quot;&gt;this Meta discussion&lt;/a&gt; for more guidance on when to use this tag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="10672" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-20T00:22:29.013" LastActivityDate="2020-06-20T00:22:29.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4312" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-25T13:27:20.173" Score="0" Body="A branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.  Use this tag for questions which focus on the STANDARD rather than application of the standard to situations.  Use this tag for integration of Christian theology to ethics.  Use the &quot;morality&quot; tag instead for questions focusing on the APPLICATION." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="10672" LastEditDate="2020-06-20T00:22:42.117" LastActivityDate="2020-06-20T00:22:42.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4313" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-10-25T13:28:29.253" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-10-25T13:28:29.253" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T13:28:29.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4314" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-10-25T13:28:29.253" Score="0" Body="The doctrinal position that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error, especially (but not only) as applied to the Bible or the Church." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-14T20:02:10.877" LastActivityDate="2014-02-14T20:02:10.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4195" CreationDate="2011-10-25T14:36:00.623" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like to think about this as matter of perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything agree that God is omniscient, so He knows everything in the space and time. &quot;Before the foundation of the world&quot;, God knows and write in the book of life the names of the saints. But that names are no reveleated to anyone, men or angels. Note the verse that you cited:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and another book was &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;opened&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, which is [the book] of life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;opened = the contents were revealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's obvious that God knows the contents, but all creation don't know it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From our viewpoint the names are writen and erased over time, just because we don't know the original contents... And it is the better (and safer) thought that we need:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:13 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, from &lt;strong&gt;God's viewpoint&lt;/strong&gt; the book is immutable; from &lt;strong&gt;creature's viewpoint&lt;/strong&gt;, the names can be added (on salvation proccess) or removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T14:36:00.623" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4316" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4321" CreationDate="2011-10-25T14:46:26.567" Score="12" ViewCount="7654" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 3 indicates that there were three distinct aspects of the temptation of Eve:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So when the woman saw that the tree was &lt;strong&gt;good for food&lt;/strong&gt;, and that it was&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;a delight to the eyes&lt;/strong&gt;, and that the tree was to be desired &lt;strong&gt;to make one&#xA;  wise&lt;/strong&gt;, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her&#xA;  husband who was with her, and he ate.  Genesis 3:6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was also tempted in three ways in Matthew 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted&#xA;  by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was&#xA;  hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;If you are the Son of&#xA;  God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; But he answered,&#xA;  &quot;It is written, &quot;'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word&#xA;  that comes from the mouth of God.'&quot;  Then the devil took him to the&#xA;  holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&quot;If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down,&lt;/strong&gt; for it is written,&#xA;  &quot;'He will command his angels concerning you,' and &quot;'On their hands&#xA;  they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'&quot; &#xA;  Jesus said to him, &quot;Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord&#xA;  your God to the test.'&quot; Again, the devil took him to a very high&#xA;  mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.&#xA;  And he said to him, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;All these I will give you, if you will fall down&#xA;  and worship me.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; Then Jesus said to him, &quot;Be gone, Satan! For it is&#xA;  written, &quot;'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you&#xA;  serve.'&quot; Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were&#xA;  ministering to him.  Matthew 4:1-11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Jeremiah 9:23-24 speaks of three different things of which men must not boast:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus says the LORD: &quot;Let not the wise man boast in his &lt;strong&gt;wisdom&lt;/strong&gt;, let not&#xA;  the mighty man boast in his &lt;strong&gt;might&lt;/strong&gt;, let not the rich man boast in his&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;riches&lt;/strong&gt;, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and&#xA;  knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice,&#xA;  and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight,&#xA;  declares the LORD.&quot;  Jeremiah 9:23-24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 2:15-17 also speaks of three things not to love in the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves&#xA;  the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in&#xA;  the world— &lt;strong&gt;the desires of the flesh&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;the desires of the eyes&lt;/strong&gt; and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;pride in possessions&lt;/strong&gt;—is not from the Father but is from the world.&#xA;  And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever&#xA;  does the will of God abides forever.  1 John 2:15-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in the parable of the sower, there are three things that choke the word and make it unfruitful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the&#xA;  desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves&#xA;  unfruitful.  Mark 4:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, each of these identifies three things.  I've wondered if they are all speaking of the same three things, perhaps 1) What I have, 2) What I do, and 3) Who I am.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any historical perspective from church history or any modern commentaries on these three specific aspects of temptation or sin?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2011-10-25T17:55:55.890" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T22:48:07.253" Title="What is the significance of the three distinct aspects of the temptation of Eve in the garden?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-19T15:18:31.233" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="55" CreationDate="2011-10-25T21:40:06.477" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not explicitly stated whether or not this was a Christophany.  Nebuchadnezzar's description that the Fourth was like &quot;a son of the gods&quot; without any commentary by the writer himself is circumstantial evidence that this was a legitimate conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does promise to be with us in the fires as He said through the prophet Isaiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed&#xA;  you, O Israel:  &quot;Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you&#xA;  by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be&#xA;  with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; &lt;strong&gt;when&#xA;  you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not&#xA;  consume you&lt;/strong&gt;. For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your&#xA;  Savior.  I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in exchange for&#xA;  you.  Isaiah 43:1-3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There doesn't appear to be any problems with believing that it was, indeed, a Christophany.  I do hold to this view, though not all that strongly.  I like the idea, but if it's not, it's no big deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fortunately, if it were critical for us to know whether or not it was, the Bible would have made it clear.  Since it doesn't, we can enjoy the consideration and probing without being too worried about falling into heresy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T21:40:06.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2011-10-25T21:53:06.773" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Important Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What purpose could the prohibition against drunkenness possibly have to a group of people who were unable to get drunk?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the wine wasn't really wine, then how could they get drunk?  Noah certainly got drunk and appears to have passed out from wine.  This could be the result of wine fermenting faster in the post-flood environment than it did prior to that.  Nonetheless, he certainly became drunk on wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard.  He&#xA;  drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. &#xA;  Genesis 9:20-21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, there is proverb that prescribes wine and strong drink for those who are in misery.  It seems to reach a level of absurity if you think grape juice will help people forget their misery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in&#xA;  bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember&#xA;  their misery no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that &quot;dry&quot; Christians as you call them are fearful that some people among them (in their church or even their children) will become alcoholics if they don't think any alcohol at all is absolutely sinful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also an issue of &quot;the weaker brother&quot;.  If you're around a group of devout Christians who believe it's wrong to drink alcohol, it would certainly be wrong for you to do so in their midst and be a stumbling block to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there are those whose consciences bother them about things that aren't sin.  Eating meat sacrificed to idols was the issue addressed by Paul.  People who came out of idolatry had a genuine problem with that.  For that reason, Paul was willing to honor them by his own personal choices, lest he make them stumble.  Those who have come from backgrounds where alcohol was a vice often have similar reactions against alcohol.  For such people, it is best to honor them and not be a stumbling block to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We live as free men--free from the law--yet it is wrong to exercise our freedom to the detriment of our brothers and sisters in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T21:53:06.773" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2011-10-25T22:23:28.433" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The three virtues of the tree are an instance of what is called the “rule of three”, a literary device which engages the hearer using a pattern that is easy to commit to memory. The significance of three seems to be that the hearer cannot be expected to see a pattern in fewer things. You will find the rule of three used heavily not just throughout the Bible but in any kind of storytelling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=qHJj9gOl0j8C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christopher Booker points out&lt;/a&gt; that there are four basic variations on the rule of three: simple, progressive, contrasting, and dialectical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using Booker’s organizing principle, we can call the virtues of the tree a progressive three because of the pattern – each is more valuable than the last. This makes it easy to remember the tree and how tempting it was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The temptations of Christ are another progressive three; the three virtues in Jeremiah and the three worldly desires in 1 John are simple threes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="925" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T22:23:28.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4316" CreationDate="2011-10-25T22:48:07.253" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And the very God of peace sanctify you&#xA;  wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be&#xA;  preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shameless &quot;copy and paste&quot; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kjvbible.org/body.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1: The &lt;strong&gt;BODY&lt;/strong&gt;. This is your PHYSICAL component of being. It is flesh&#xA;  made from a collection of unremarkable mineral elements (but is mostly&#xA;  water) and is in harmony with the nature and spirit of this world. It&#xA;  grows, matures, begins to deteriorate, eventually dies, and then&#xA;  decomposes back into its constituent elements and remains a part of&#xA;  the dust of the world. The body is a part of you but is NOT ALL of&#xA;  what defines who YOU are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 5:11 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;    And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed,&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2: The &lt;strong&gt;SOUL&lt;/strong&gt;. This is who YOU are; it is a part of your SPIRITUAL&#xA;  component. This is your individuality, your &quot;I AM&quot; so to speak (made&#xA;  in God’s image), your &quot;heart.&quot; Although your individual soul did not&#xA;  exist before your mother and father procreated you, it will exist&#xA;  forever. It cannot be killed by man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matt. 10:28 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;    And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul&#xA;    and body in hell.&quot;         &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When your body dies your soul (YOU) will leave the body of flesh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 35:18 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;    And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.&quot;         &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3: The &lt;strong&gt;SPIRIT&lt;/strong&gt;. This is the source of power and control for both your&#xA;  body and soul; it is either evil or good, darkness or light, unholy or&#xA;  Holy, unclean or clean, of Satan or of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 9:55 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;    But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why all that explanation? Well, the Eve's temptation and Jesus temptation are similar:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;         Eve                        Jesus&#xA;Body   - good for food            - stones to become loaves of bread&#xA;Soul   - delight to the eyes      - all these I will give you&#xA;Spirit - desired to make one wise - If you are the Son of God...&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Sorry the formatting, Markdown has not tables)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan tempted in all aspects possible both Jesus and Eve - Body, Soul and Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, not all scholars accept that kind of theory, because consider &quot;Soul&quot; and &quot;Spirit&quot; to be equivalent, or different terms that refers to same subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastActivityDate="2011-10-25T22:48:07.253" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4322" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4327" CreationDate="2011-10-25T23:18:16.973" Score="4" ViewCount="12237" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24/does-wine-really-mean-wine-in-the-bible&quot;&gt;Does wine really mean wine in the Bible?&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and I thought, The Last Supper was during the Passover, where the jewish was forbidden to use ferment in recipes: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 12:15 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the&#xA;  first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever&#xA;  eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that&#xA;  soul shall be cut off from Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This implies that the wine used in the The Last Supper was just grape juice, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2014-11-25T10:16:03.500" Title="Was the wine in The Last Supper fermented?" Tags="&lt;wine&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;passover&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-11-26T04:07:19.687" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4323" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-25T23:20:42.200" Score="3" ViewCount="2594" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do any Christian traditions have doctrines that cover the issue of lucid dreaming? In particular, do any of these cover whether we control our minds at all times or if God can/does sometimes control them? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any examples in the Bible of lucid dreaming? If so does doctrine/tradition interpret these as something controlled by divine intervention or by the dreamers own subconscious?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many religions acknowledge lucid dreaming as a spiritual gateway. I am not a Christian and I am just curious as to what Christianity views there are on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user928" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-18T23:50:23.193" LastActivityDate="2017-01-11T08:22:53.973" Title="Are there any Christian doctrines that cover lucid dreaming?" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-12T21:00:02.800" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4322" CreationDate="2011-10-26T03:12:38.570" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prior to the advent of pasteurization, fermentation was something which happened in all grape juice whether a fermenting agent was consciously introduced or not (and it happened with relative immediacy). The last supper, then, would have had wine and not plain grape juice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also noteworthy to point out that wine, unless something bizarre has occurred, is not leavened bread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T03:12:38.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4322" CreationDate="2011-10-26T04:19:49.313" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;To expand on my comment a bit, there are hundreds of speices of yeast. During Passover five of those are prohibited, and they are the yeasts that come from grains called chametz. Yeasts that come from grapes or its sugars are not prohibited. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prohibited yeasts are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;wheat&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;barley&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;spelt&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rye &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;oats&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*note these are the European grains for more information on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chametz&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chametz&lt;/a&gt; see wikipedia&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/508672/jewish/Why-is-it-permitted-to-drink-wine-on-Passover-when-it-is-fermented-with-yeast.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Detailed information from Chabad.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T04:19:49.313" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4323" CreationDate="2011-10-26T04:58:31.610" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the Bible part of your question, the closest Biblical example I could think of was when (apparently) Paul had a dream (or vision) which he says may have been not a dream but a genuine experience. I think that is pretty lucid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2012:2-4&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 12:2-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know — God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows — was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-10-26T17:54:46.107" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T17:54:46.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4329" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4330" CreationDate="2011-10-26T05:11:36.663" Score="23" ViewCount="10299" Body="&lt;p&gt;I cannot find in the New Testament an obligation on Christians to tithe 10% of their income. Instead I read that it is up the individual to decide:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%209:7&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 9:7 (NIV1984)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a church tradition established by the early church to encourage everyone to tithe 10%?  What was the early church's view on tithing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-18T08:23:46.340" LastActivityDate="2020-01-07T15:50:17.500" Title="Was tithing 10% required or encouraged by the early church?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;tithe&gt;&lt;2-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4329" CreationDate="2011-10-26T08:21:13.023" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word tithe itself &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe&quot;&gt;comes from the Old English &lt;em&gt;teogoþa&lt;/em&gt;, meaning &quot;tenth&quot;&lt;/a&gt; - so technically, tithing is the giving of a tenth by definition. But of course that's not what you're asking!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of giving a tenth comes from the Old Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2027:30&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot;&gt;Leviticus 27:30-33 (MSG):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;A tenth of the land's produce, whether grain from the ground or fruit&#xA;  from the trees, is God's. It is holy to God. If a man buys back any of&#xA;  the tenth he has given, he must add twenty percent to it. A tenth of&#xA;  the entire herd and flock, every tenth animal that passes under the&#xA;  shepherd's rod, is holy to God. He is not permitted to pick out the&#xA;  good from the bad or make a substitution. If he dishonestly makes a&#xA;  substitution, both animals, the original and the substitute, become&#xA;  the possession of the Sanctuary and cannot be redeemed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2014:22-29&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 14:22-29:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Make an offering of ten percent, a tithe, of all the produce&#xA;  which grows in your fields year after year. Bring this into the&#xA;  Presence of God, your God, at the place he designates for worship and&#xA;  there eat the tithe from your grain, wine, and oil and the firstborn&#xA;  from your herds and flocks. In this way you will learn to live in deep&#xA;  reverence before God, your God, as long as you live. But if the place&#xA;  God, your God, designates for worship is too far away and you can't&#xA;  carry your tithe that far, God, your God, will still bless you:&#xA;  exchange your tithe for money and take the money to the place God,&#xA;  your God, has chosen to be worshiped. Use the money to buy anything&#xA;  you want: cattle, sheep, wine, or beer—anything that looks good to&#xA;  you. You and your family can then feast in the Presence of God, your&#xA;  God, and have a good time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, don't forget to take good care of the Levites who live&#xA;  in your towns; they won't get any property or inheritance of their own&#xA;  as you will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At the end of every third year, gather the tithe from all your&#xA;  produce of that year and put it aside in storage. Keep it in reserve&#xA;  for the Levite who won't get any property or inheritance as you will,&#xA;  and for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow who live in your&#xA;  neighborhood. That way they'll have plenty to eat and God, your God,&#xA;  will bless you in all your work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as you rightly say, in the New Testament we are instructed to give what we can, or to give whatever we feel is the right amount. Working out what that right amount is, is of course different for each person and therefore many have sought guidance on what the correct amount should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy don't just give an instruction but give some reasoning too; by giving ten per cent of everything in worship to God, we still have enough left over to live comfortably on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look at Jesus' teaching on giving, he calls us to give much more than 10 per cent:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:21&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:21 (MSG)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If you want to give it all you've got,&quot; Jesus replied, &quot;go sell your&#xA;  possessions; give everything to the poor. All your wealth will then be&#xA;  in heaven. Then come follow me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:40-42&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot;&gt;Mark 12:40-42 (MSG)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sitting across from the offering box, he was observing how the crowd&#xA;  tossed money in for the collection. Many of the rich were making large&#xA;  contributions. One poor widow came up and put in two small coins—a&#xA;  measly two cents. Jesus called his disciples over and said, &quot;The truth&#xA;  is that this poor widow gave more to the collection than all the&#xA;  others put together. All the others gave what they'll never miss; she&#xA;  gave extravagantly what she couldn't afford—she gave her all.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On that basis, we might view ten per cent as the &lt;em&gt;minimum&lt;/em&gt; we should be giving. The church I attend (a &quot;New Church&quot;) teaches that we should give what we feel is the right amount, 2 Corinthians 9:7 indicates - but as a guideline 10% should be a starting point. (My church also practices what it preaches - 30% of income is given away to other projects and charities).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-10-26T13:27:54.323" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T13:27:54.323" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4329" CreationDate="2011-10-26T10:25:06.107" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here Jesus confirm the tithe in the NT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 23:23 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!&#xA;  for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the&#xA;  weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: &lt;em&gt;these ought&#xA;  ye &lt;strong&gt;to have done&lt;/strong&gt;, and not to leave the other undone&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here, author of Hebrews explains whom receives that tithe:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 7:8 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And here men that die receive tithes; but there &lt;strong&gt;he&#xA;  receiveth them&lt;/strong&gt;, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another aspect is, in the Melchizedek era, &lt;strong&gt;before the law&lt;/strong&gt;, Abraham gave the tithe Melchizedek, impling that that &quot;rule&quot; is transcending from laws. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastEditorUserId="881" LastEditDate="2011-10-26T12:03:48.727" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T12:03:48.727" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4329" CreationDate="2011-10-26T11:33:12.970" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Giving everything (or even 10%) is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04435a.htm&quot;&gt;evangelical counsel&lt;/a&gt;: it's not required for salvation. As you quote, the early Church only directed its members to give what they could, not a minimum amount (much less everything). Paul even writes, just before the passage you quote, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2corinthians/9:5&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So I thought it necessary to encourage the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance for your promised gift, so that in this way it might be ready as a bountiful gift and not as an exaction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And while I'm no Biblical scholar, Matthew 19:21 ought to be read in context. Just preceding this verse is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/19:16&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:16-17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's it: the only thing &lt;em&gt;required&lt;/em&gt; for salvation is to keep God's commandments, which Jesus enumerates in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/19:18&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:18-19&lt;/a&gt;: poverty or charity is not listed among them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then taking the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/19:21&quot;&gt;verses &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; and including Matthew 19:21&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is saying in verse 21 that if you &lt;em&gt;wish to be perfect&lt;/em&gt;, you ought to sell everything and give to the poor, but the verses that proceed from verse 21 explain how impossible that is for people without God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples' astonishment and query to Jesus in verse 25 speaks to this, essentially saying, &quot;whoa, nobody's going to do that: does this mean nobody will be saved?&quot; Jesus in verse 26 then specifically states that God will save human beings by performing the impossible task: saving those who couldn't normally be saved because they aren't perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/19:23#48019023-1&quot;&gt;New American Bible explains&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Riches are an obstacle to entering the kingdom that cannot be overcome by human power. The comparison with the impossibility of a camel’s passing through the eye of a needle should not be mitigated by such suppositions as that the eye of a needle means a low or narrow gate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm&quot;&gt;Didache&lt;/a&gt;, an early Christian writing that dates to around the same time as Paul, mentions one of the ways you could tell a false Apostle from a real one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It wasn't until much later that justifications for tithing were formulated: the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14741b.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia mentions&lt;/a&gt; the first serious attempts to tithe dated to around 567 CE and 585 CE with the Councils of Tours and the Maçon, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-10-26T12:15:29.220" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T12:15:29.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4322" CreationDate="2011-10-26T13:46:56.843" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no reason to think that the wine of the Last Supper was unfermented. The prohibition is explicitly made against &quot;leavened bread&quot;, and there no indication that it is against other products of yeast. It's not clear to me that wine was thought of in Biblical times as containing 'leaven'. Fermentation of wine largely happened without added yeast. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T13:46:56.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2011-10-26T13:52:06.853" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot is made, by Christians opposed to the drinking of wine, of the idea that the same word in NT Greek might have been used to describe unfermented grape juice and alcoholic wine. While it gives an 'out' for the interpreters opposed to wine to interpret all the passages in favour of wine as meaning 'grape juice' while interpreting all the passage opposed to it as 'wine', the very idea actually indicates the insigificance of the problem. If it was really important in the early church that believers abstain from alcohol, the bible writers would certainly have made the distinction clear - otherwise they would be just opening themselves to misinterpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T13:52:06.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4337" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-26T15:37:21.807" Score="9" ViewCount="2791" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to contextualize the question I add the following quote from the wikipedia article &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque&quot;&gt;concerning Filioque&lt;/a&gt; clause:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Filioque, Latin for &quot;and (from) the Son&quot;, is a phrase found in the&#xA;  form of Nicene Creed in use in the Latin Church. It is not present in&#xA;  the Greek text of the Nicene Creed as originally formulated at the&#xA;  First Council of Constantinople, which says only that the Holy Spirit&#xA;  proceeds &quot;from the Father&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been reading about this issue and cannot find a clear biblical basis either for or against the Filioque clause. However, I think there are some verses that can be applied either for or against. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, John 20:22 can be applied for by saying that the Spirit is proceeding from Christ. On the other hand, it can be applied against by saying that the Spirit is actually proceeding from the Father but &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that reason I am asking if somebody knows more biblical arguments for and against the Filioque.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-12-22T23:53:38.690" Title="What is the biblical basis for and against the &quot;filioque&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;filioque&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T19:57:27.237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4338" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4342" CreationDate="2011-10-26T17:52:43.767" Score="9" ViewCount="1570" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do Evangelical (by which I mean, taking the Bible as the ultimate earthly source of authority) Christians believe giving 10% of your income is a law for Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: this question is related to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4329/&quot;&gt;Was tithing 10% required or encouraged by the early church?&lt;/a&gt; After asking that question, a moderator said it was too broad and made it specifically about the early church (which I agreed with). This question is intended to be a more specific version of what I really want to ask. See that question for more details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2015-02-14T13:38:12.777" Title="What is the Evangelical view on tithing?" Tags="&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;tithe&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-08T18:02:47.080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4307" CreationDate="2011-10-26T18:19:52.790" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider this: If the only words that Jonah spoke were &quot;Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.&quot; the Ninevites would not &quot;have believed God and repented&quot;. This is because they would not have known upon what authority Jonah was speaking, nor would they have known what to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear from the actions of the Ninevites and the unchanging nature of God, that Jonah preached: &quot;This is what the Lord your God says: 'Repent of your wickedness or in forty more days Nineveh will be overthrown.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author of this story explained the context surrounding what Jonah was to do, which gives him plenty of reason to leave out the exact phrase that Jonah spoke and instead paraphrase it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How does this fit with Deut. 18, where God says that if the word of a prophet doesn't come to pass, it's not from the Lord?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ninevites believed that God would overthrow them in forty days if they had not repented, why is it that we would not believe that God would have done this? To say that God would not have done this, thus Jonah spoke presumptuously, even though the author makes it clear that God commanded Jonah to say something, is ignorant and scoffing of this story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Should the inhabitants of Nineveh have considered Jonah a false prophet?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the inhabitants of Nineveh hadn't believed Jonah in any way shape or form, then they would have been given plenty of evidence that Jonah was a true prophet, as they would have been overthrown. That is clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The inhabitants of Nineveh believed that Jonah was a true prophet, because Jonah preached that they should repent of their wickedness, or else perish. This warning is in complete coherence with the nature and the will of God, therefore the Ninevites believed that he was a prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jonah had preached that the Ninevites should become Holy by their own standards and Lord it over each other in order to become Gods themselves, well, this is not in coherence with anything that God has ever told us. Therefore Jonah would have died a false prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Should we consider Jonah a false prophet?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Bible story gives us a complete context to this situation that Jonah was placed in. If you compare the message that Jonah spoke with the actions of God and the actions of the Ninevites, then it's clear that Jonah was a prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, the Ninevites believed Jonah and God relented of His destruction against Nineveh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What Jonah preached was exactly what happened, therefore this story gives us every reason to believe that Jonah was a true prophet of God.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-10-27T07:26:55.423" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T07:26:55.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4340" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4341" CreationDate="2011-10-26T18:57:25.207" Score="11" ViewCount="902" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always heard people say that when you die and haven't accepted Christ and go to hell, that you're going to be punished by Satan, and we have this great plethora of contemporary culture showing a red horned devil with a trident forcing people to punishment in hell, but where does the Protestant Bible say that this is the case? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it doesn't say this, where did this belief originate amongst Protestant faiths?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="571" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2014-11-03T12:16:42.230" LastActivityDate="2014-11-03T12:16:42.230" Title="Does the Protestant Bible mention Satan punishing non-believers after death?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;origin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4340" CreationDate="2011-10-26T19:09:05.103" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Put simply, it doesn't.  Satan will not be the &lt;strong&gt;punisher&lt;/strong&gt; in hell, but among the &lt;strong&gt;punished&lt;/strong&gt;.  Satan is not any any sense the king of hell&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his&#xA;  prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four&#xA;  corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their&#xA;  number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad&#xA;  plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the&#xA;  beloved city, but fire came down from heaven[b] and consumed them, and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur&lt;/strong&gt; where the beast and the false prophet were, and &lt;strong&gt;they will&#xA;  be tormented day and night forever and ever.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:7-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 20:7-10 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the idea is a misconception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="845" LastEditDate="2011-10-27T16:09:48.123" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T16:09:48.123" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4338" CreationDate="2011-10-26T19:56:58.810" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is at least one modern evangelical view...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that the New Testament really does not prescribe tithing, that is, giving 10% of your income.  It does, however, prescribe giving:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or&#xA;  under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.  2 Corinthians 9:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church at Phillip specifically financially supported the ministry of Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.  Philippians 4:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another aspect is to consider that, as believers, we understand that everything we have comes from God, so we must honor God with &lt;strong&gt;100% of our income&lt;/strong&gt;, time, talents, and possessions--not just 10% of our income.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, since there is a prescription to give, but not specific amount prescribed, it is common to use the tithe (10%) as a great pattern to follow.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in most biblically oriented circles that I've been involved with, the tithe is a great benchmark.  That means we are free to give whatever amount and should cheerfully give generously to the work of Christ all over the world.  Generosity may mean 5% for some, but others may be able to comfortably give 15%-20%.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, for people with very high income levels, 10% could be considered hardly generous.  The point is to be as generous as we can and to enjoy the pleasure of giving.  My personal hope is to continue increasing my percentage as my income grows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It really is more blessed to give than to receive, and this is true in many different ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-26T20:04:47.857" LastActivityDate="2011-10-26T20:04:47.857" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4337" CreationDate="2011-10-26T23:01:34.797" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;So Jesus sent the Holy Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 15:26 NIV&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from&#xA;  the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will&#xA;  testify about me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here you see that Jesus needs to go away before the Holy Spirit can come:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 16:7 NIV&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am&#xA;  going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but&#xA;  if I go, I will send him to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus received the Holy Spirit from God the Father and then gave it to us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:32-33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 2:32-33 NIV&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all&#xA;  witnesses of it. &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received&#xA;  from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you&#xA;  now see and hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here the Holy Spirit came to us through Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203:5-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Titus 3:5-7 NIV&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;he saved us, not because of righteous things we had&#xA;  done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of&#xA;  rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;whom he poured out on us&#xA;  generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;so that, having been&#xA;  justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of&#xA;  eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, some of the early fathers, such as Augustine, took these and other threads, and started to weave a tapestry, to make it into a coherent belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-27T05:23:00.683" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T05:23:00.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2548" CreationDate="2011-10-27T00:26:40.233" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have three minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father knows something that the son does not:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 13:32 KJV&lt;/a&gt; But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the&#xA;  angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus  had a will different than the Father. He did not want to die. At Gethsemane and through his tribulation he learned obedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:42&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:42 KJV&lt;/a&gt; Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:&#xA;  nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%205:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 5:8 KJV&lt;/a&gt; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things&#xA;  which he suffered;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The love God commands us is defined as putting another ahead of yourself. If the wills of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were identical, then Love could not have been expressed before creation. This would make God a needy God, rather than self-sufficient. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus recognizes our dual nature of flesh and spirit.  When he command us to love others as we  love ourselves [1], he  is not giving merit to self-love.  He is commanding us, in the same way that Paul did, to put off the old man and put on the new[2]. He has told us that we cannot serve two masters [3], therefore we cannot have two loves. We are to replace the self-centeredness of the flesh with the love of the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1]&#xA;Mt 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. &#xA;Mt 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. &#xA;Mr 12:31  And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[2]&#xA;Ro 6:6  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.&#xA;Eph 4:22  That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;&#xA;Col 3:9  Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[3]&#xA;Mt 6:24  No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.&#xA;Lu 16:13  No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="932" LastEditorUserId="932" LastEditDate="2011-11-27T15:28:27.127" LastActivityDate="2011-11-27T15:28:27.127" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4345" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4349" CreationDate="2011-10-27T03:16:41.507" Score="0" ViewCount="1453" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the actual words used for Isaiah 44:28 to describe his anointed? Why do most Bible translation translate that as shepherd? I've heard the Masoretic Text uses &quot;messiah&quot; and the Septuagint uses &quot;Christ&quot;.  The English translation uses the word &quot;shepherd,&quot; which seems like lying or filtering.  Why the discrepancy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I stumbled upon some atheist sites and found this. Translating a word like Christ into shepherd seems very misleading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also came across &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/187/Cyrus-Gods-Anointed.htm#ixzz1bwlcvoIQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this discussion&lt;/a&gt; about this on the web.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-27T12:36:30.150" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T14:12:06.367" Title="Is Cyrus the Messiah?" Tags="&lt;messiah&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2911" CreationDate="2011-10-27T03:19:46.010" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hang out asking questions to Jews in their Jewish stack over flow. Neo Judaism is very opposed to the idea of God incarnate or take any human form. To them, God is spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10349/if-god-never-incarnate-how-come-he-sat-in-front-of-abrahams-tent-and-appeared&quot;&gt;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10349/if-god-never-incarnate-how-come-he-sat-in-front-of-abrahams-tent-and-appeared&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/9187/does-g-d-get-incarnated&quot;&gt;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/9187/does-g-d-get-incarnated&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To Jews, God the almighty is not human and CANNOT take human form, which is strange given that he's almighty and all. I guess He can do anything that doesn't include taking human form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I got tons of downvotes there for even asking who Jacob wrestled with, or who did Abraham see under the oak of Mamre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the answer is no. Jews do not expect God to ever be incarnate and if you don't believe me, go ahead ask the same question in Jewish stack overflow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, why ask questions on what Jews believe here? It's not fair to them I think. Why not ask them themselves on their forum?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NB: They seems to be pretty pissed that I even asked that in their forum. I do not know whether I am wrong because I don't know hebrew or because they too, like us, have their own religious filter they don't want to change. My impression is, I don't know hebrew, I won't understand that anyway, and well Torah is not for me anyway because I am not jewish so don't worry about it. Maybe I just don't get along with people well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:05.287" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T11:02:03.487" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4345" CreationDate="2011-10-27T08:43:08.353" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original Hebrew word being used here is רֹעִי (ro·'i),&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblos.com/isaiah/44-28.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/isaiah/44.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;, which does indeed translate as &quot;shepherd&quot; according to Strong's Concordance.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/7473.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;[3]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/7473.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;[4]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T08:43:08.353" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4322" CreationDate="2011-10-27T11:12:42.017" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've given this more thought over the last few days, and spoke to a few people from different backgrounds. My original answer was flawed, and I'd like to take another crack at this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short answer is &quot;We don't know for sure.&quot;  The original Greek recorded as Jesus' words is &quot;gennema ampelos&quot;, which means  &quot;fruit of the vine.&quot; This can be taken to mean either fermented or unfermented grape juice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This topic is the matter of quite a bit of debate, and any answer you get other than &quot;we're not sure&quot; (including my original) is going to be based on conjecture, logic based on un-provable assumptions, and bias, rather that provable fact.  (Assuming that &quot;provable fact&quot; on this site would include a clear Biblical statement on the matter.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My original statement included my opinion that this is really a non-issue.  it is a non-issue for me, but in speaking with several friends from different backgrounds. (Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical free, and Lutheran) over the last few days, I've seen that it's important to them &#xA;for other reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &quot;non-alcoholic&quot; camp the issue seems to center around whether or not drinking is allowed for a Christian at all.  The bias is that drinking is an outright sin, and since Jesus was sinless, then it couldn't have been alcoholic.  If it were, then Jesus was a sinner.  For that camp, there is no compromise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &quot;alcoholic&quot; camp, I was surprised to find that the issue was a matter of credibility of Church authority.  More than a few of the people I talked to stated (and I don't know if this is true, I just know what they told me) that their Church taught that it's alcoholic, and that they believed the Church.  When pressed, one of them got really irate and said &quot;Are you calling the Pope a liar?&quot;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Now I don't know what the Pope says about this, not being Catholic myself, but&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; clearly this issue for &lt;em&gt;her&lt;/em&gt; was a matter of importance.  Believing otherwise would undermine her rock-solid faith in the Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I can't stress enough here that I am &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; saying that the Pope or the Catholic church says anything on the subject. I really don't know.  I'm relating her experience to illustrate a point.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on the fact that the original Greek is unclear, and the arguments on either side are based on un-provable assumptions and bias, my final answer is still &quot;We don't know for sure.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;personally&lt;/em&gt; still think that it was unfermented, but I wouldn't state dogmatically that it's unfermented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-10-27T11:54:49.267" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T11:54:49.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4345" CreationDate="2011-10-27T14:12:06.367" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take this answer as a complement. As Waggers said, the word being used is  רֹעִי (ro·'i) and it means shepherd. (This is in Isaiah 44:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Jewish commentary sheds light on this issue, because &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15975/showrashi/true&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rashi comments&lt;/a&gt; that shepherd is used as a metaphor for king. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Isaiah 45:1, it is said that Cyrus is the anointed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The words used are לִמְשִׁיחוֹ לְכוֹרֶשׁ, which according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/4899.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong's concordance&lt;/a&gt; is &quot;anointed&quot; or &quot;messiah&quot;; but in general it refers to a consecrated person with a special mission.  In this case it is being said that Cyrus will be an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moellerhaus.com/40-45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;instrument&lt;/a&gt; of God to facilitate the return to Zion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15976/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rashi's commentary&lt;/a&gt; complements it remembering how the word anointed is used as a title:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every title of greatness is called anointing. Comp. (Num. 18:8) “To&#xA;  you I have given them for greatness (לְמָשְׁחָה).” [greatness=portion (NIV); greatness=by the reason of the anointing (KJV); pro oficio sacerdotali legitima (vulgate)]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T14:12:06.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4352" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-27T16:35:56.933" Score="3" ViewCount="369" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was playing my homemade Catholic Jeopardy with the Faith Formation class last night and I asked.  &quot;What is the 2nd greatest commandment&quot;.  The kids were all like,  &quot;umm obey your parents&quot;, &quot;Don't swear&quot;, etc... and I just said.  &quot;Love your neighbor&quot;.  Well, just then the Director of Religious Ed. walks in and she just wanted to make sure I added the ...&quot;as yourself&quot; part.  I didn't think that was terribly important, she said it was important because teenagers have a hard time seeing themselves as someone loveable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I've got a notion that the following three precious words of Jesus are pretty much the same thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Matt 7:12 NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(John 13:34 NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall love your neighbor as yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Mark 12:31 NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I want to know is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is is the commandment itself just to love or is the description of how to love wrapped up in the commandment. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do we love each other as Jesus loves us and love our neighbor as we love ourselves. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does 'Do Unto' mean 'Love in this way'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If not how does 'Do unto others' fit into the way we're supposed to treat each other? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How could I phrase what I meant to say so it encapsulates all three aspects of how we're supposed to love and treat each other and ourselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Pope John Paul II (before he was Pope) wrote in Love and Responsibility something about love your neighbor being more than just 'do unto others', but I'm not sure how.  That might be a good starting point though.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this question is about love, and love is eternal, I'd gladly accept any answer that makes sense from any perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="36" LastEditDate="2011-10-28T12:12:43.690" LastActivityDate="2015-01-06T12:29:52.483" Title="Can these three &quot;2nd greatest commandments&quot; be put into one sentence?" Tags="&lt;love&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;personalism&gt;&lt;golden-rule&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-06T13:07:05.530" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4340" CreationDate="2011-10-27T18:38:13.457" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In reference to your comment on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4340/does-the-protestant-bible-mention-satan-punishing-non-believers-after-death/4341#4341&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Narnian's answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, my guess is that since Satan is referred to as the &quot;prince of this world&quot; (John &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/John12.31.NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;12:31&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/John14.30.NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;14:30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;), it's been misconstrued over the years to mean &quot;ruler&quot; &amp;amp;/or &quot;king&quot;. Along the same lines, since we understand he'll &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; in Hell for eternity, people have associated the &quot;prince of this world&quot; and &lt;em&gt;&quot;will be in hell&quot;&lt;/em&gt; together and, voila, you have a &quot;King.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Job.27s_Satan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wikipedia states&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God therefore grants [Satan] the chance to test Job. Due to this,&#xA;  it has been interpreted that [Satan] is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;under God's control and&#xA;  cannot act without God's permission.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; This is further shown in the&#xA;  epilogue of Job in which God is speaking to Job, [Satan] is absent&#xA;  from these dialogues. &quot;For Job, for [Job's] friends, and for the&#xA;  narrator, it is ultimately [God] himself who is responsible for Job's&#xA;  suffering; as [God] says to the 'satan', 'You have incited me against&#xA;  him, to destroy him for no reason.'&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say from observation that a &lt;em&gt;King&lt;/em&gt; usually does not need permission to do such things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is mostly an educated guess, though :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="845" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T18:38:13.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="895" CreationDate="2011-10-27T19:24:13.057" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Difficulty of Translation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NIV does attempt to give us a hint at this, using &quot;love&quot; and &quot;truly love&quot; for phileo and agape, respectively.  Young's Literal translation uses &quot;dearly love&quot; and &quot;love&quot; (with &quot;dearly love for phileo).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with translating to English is we just don't have a good way to distinguish between the two without rendering too wooden of a translation.  I think the NIV does make a pretty good attempt here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why Peter Responds Differently&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Peter holding out on Jesus?  Perhaps, so.  Peter, after all, was the one who told Jesus that he would never fall away even if everyone else did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will&#xA;  never fall away.”  Matthew 26:33 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also boldly claims that he will even lay down his life for Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter said to him, &quot;Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay&#xA;  down my life for you.&quot;  John 13:37 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem Peter had was that his mouth proclaimed a level of commitment for which he fell short.  It seems likely, then, that Peter, now knowing his own weakness all too well, is just too hesitant to proclaim the fortitude of his resolve with his mouth again.  &lt;strong&gt;Better to live a life of resolve without proclaiming so, than to proclaim a life of resolve and not live one.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-10-27T21:01:40.877" LastActivityDate="2011-10-27T21:01:40.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4356" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4403" CreationDate="2011-10-28T13:26:50.787" Score="4" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=6617&amp;amp;lvid=6617&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1st Timothy 4:14 (Recovery Version)&lt;/a&gt; some elders laid hands on Timothy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not neglect the gift which is in you, which was given to you by means of prophecy with the laying on of hands of the presbytery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the different views on why mentioning the action of laying on of hands was significant? What are the different things the action could have conferred to the recipient? Is the same &quot;gift given to you&quot; found other places in Scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-10-31T16:34:37.357" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:42:15.653" Title="What doctrines are based on 1st Timothy 4:14 when hands are laid on a believer?" Tags="&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;authority&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4358" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4363" CreationDate="2011-10-28T14:08:19.270" Score="9" ViewCount="19641" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christian traditions use the term &quot;apostolic authority&quot;. What is meant by this phrase? Does it have more than one meaning depending on which doctrinal tradition it is coming from? Are there any traditions that don't hold it has a meaning at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do groups that hold such a view think that some things can only be carried out by apostles with specifically granted authority?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-10-28T14:25:50.243" LastActivityDate="2018-03-02T23:58:41.453" Title="What is &quot;apostolic authority&quot;?" Tags="&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;authority&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4358" CreationDate="2011-10-28T15:01:36.643" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the question of &amp;quot;apostolic authority&amp;quot;, you must first define &amp;quot;apostolic succession&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;apostolic succession&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apostolic succession (Hebrew: הירושה האפיפיורית‎, Greek: Αποστολική διαδοχή) is a doctrine, held by some Christian denominations, which asserts that the chosen successors (properly ordained bishops) of the Twelve Apostles, from the first century to the present day, have inherited the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon them by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion and some Lutheran churches are the predominant proponents of this doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll add the Mormon church to this list.  They believe they have apostolic succession directly from Peter, James, and John, as these 3 apostles appeared in a vision and ordained Joseph Smith and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apostolic authority is the authority granted by apostolic succession, usually by some form of ordination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slm.org/prophetc/articles/apostolic.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Steven Lambert, ThD&lt;/a&gt;, apostolic authority has been lost&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the problem is, since the church fell into apostasy in the third and fourth centuries, it has not been recognizing these offices, and erroneous cessation theories purporting that the apostolic and prophetic offices ceased with the death of the Apostles of the Lamb have been prevalent, especially in mainline denominational doctrine. And then, somewhere along the line, primarily, as I said, within the last hundred years or so, local churches began calling the chief minister &amp;quot;the pastor,&amp;quot; even though that office, according to Scripture, does not entail government, per se.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-28T15:01:36.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4361" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4377" CreationDate="2011-10-28T15:07:13.707" Score="28" ViewCount="1108" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she neither had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man) either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Biblical evidence does the Catholic Church cite in support of this doctrine? Is there any other non-Biblical evidence for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2016-11-07T15:24:04.370" LastActivityDate="2018-03-20T11:32:17.993" Title="On what do Catholics base their doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4362" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4366" CreationDate="2011-10-28T15:11:38.873" Score="23" ViewCount="5983" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Catholic Doctrine, the Immaculate Conception refers to the teaching that Mary's own conception (not that of Jesus) was without the stain of original sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for this? And if this is true, did Mary not need to be saved from her sin? Was she also sinless? If she were sinless, then why would she have suffered the consequences of sin--that of death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-15T03:53:04.073" LastActivityDate="2019-05-27T02:38:54.110" Title="What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;immaculate-conception&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4358" CreationDate="2011-10-28T15:30:24.530" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In broad terms there are two schools of thought on this. One concerns &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession&quot;&gt;apostolic &lt;em&gt;succession&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; - the idea that the authority of the original 12 apostles has been passed down through the generations, relay-race style. For those who follow the doctrine of apostolic succession, apostolic authority belongs only to those who have inherited it from a predecessor, which in theory can be traced back to the original twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second notion of apostolic authority is that anyone can be ordained (I use the word in a very loose sense here) by God to have an apostolic ministry. In it's broadest interpretation it could include all Christians, because we're all called to act the way apostles do - but more often than not it's applied to individuals who demonstrate the characteristics of an apostle in a very clear way that is recognised by their peers and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. Martin Schmaltz provides &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.squidoo.com/spiritualauthority&quot;&gt;this succinct definition&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apostolic Authority is being sent by Jesus Christ with an&#xA;  authorization to use His inherent power to fulfill His purpose. This&#xA;  apostolic sending has four parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;First, the source of authority comes from outside the one operating in authority.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Second, authority has a specific area or place to operate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Third, there is usually a specific mission or purpose for the use of authority.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Finally, it requires obedience and complete follow-through for authority to be effective&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apostolic Authority is acting as Jesus' representative to this world&#xA;  to accomplish His purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;while Dr Steven Lambert offers &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slm.org/prophetc/articles/apostolic.html&quot;&gt;a much more lengthy answer to the question&lt;/a&gt;, which also deals with people who self-identify as having apostolic authority. He points out that different churches will recognise different people as having apostolic authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-10-28T15:30:24.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4364" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4365" CreationDate="2011-10-28T15:30:58.943" Score="25" ViewCount="3548" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she never had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man)--either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Biblical evidence is there that contradicts this doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-10T15:28:08.613" LastActivityDate="2018-03-20T11:35:16.437" Title="What is the Biblical evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4364" CreationDate="2011-10-28T16:02:42.383" Score="32" Body="&lt;p&gt;One such passage is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:55&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:55&lt;/a&gt;, where Jesus is identified thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and&#xA;  aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some would quibble over the definition and translation of the word &quot;brother&quot; here, taking it to mean that the brothers listed weren't the offspring of Mary but spiritual brothers (with no genetic link) or perhaps half-brothers (which would require Joseph to have had another wife - there's no evidence of this) or other relations. But much more definitive is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:56&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:56&lt;/a&gt;, where Mary is described as the mother of those first two brothers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and&#xA;  Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly Mary here isn't identified as the mother of Jesus as well as James and Joseph, so one possible rebuttal to this verse is that Mary the mother of James and Joseph is a different Mary from Mary the mother of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are similar passages elsewhere in the New Testament that refer to Jesus' mother and his brothers, the context and normal processes of hermeneutics would lead to the conclusion that Mary (Jesus' mother) did indeed have these other offspring - but, to defend the Catholics a little bit, none of those passages state unambiguously that his brothers were born of his mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One further argument that Mary had further children after Jesus is that Jesus is referred in the Bible as Mary and Joseph's &quot;&lt;em&gt;firstborn&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, and never as their only child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:25&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:25 (AMP):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her&#xA;  firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to be pedantic, an only child is also a firstborn, so this too could be argued against.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, there is very strong Biblical evidence that Mary went on to have other children and therefore did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus; certainly that is the natural conclusion to be drawn from what is written in the Bible. However there are ways  of challenging the wording and interpretation of each of the verses above in order to form an argument to the contrary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Reference/further reading: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/sisters.html&quot;&gt;&quot;Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters?&quot; by Tony Warren&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-10-28T19:43:40.610" LastActivityDate="2011-10-28T19:43:40.610" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4362" CreationDate="2011-10-28T16:18:28.793" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Q. Biblical Basis for Biblical literalists:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. None.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe that Mary is a type prefigured in the Old Testament of the Ark of the Covenant.  The basis for this belief is rooted in scripture as firmly as Mary is rooted in scripture.  God created His mother, and in so doing He created His mother as a fit dwelling place, like the Holy of Holies.  And like the Holy of Holies the dwelling place would bear the effects of the perfect priest, the perfect prophet and the perfect king. That is why the ark contained Aaron's Rod, Manna from Heaven and the Ten Commandments. That is why Jesus is priest prophet and king. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q. Did Mary need to be redeemed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Yes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But her redemption was pre-conception. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q. Was she sinless?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Yes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through a singular grace, she was able to avoid sin.  In a way she lived on earth as we will live in Heaven.  Furthermore she experienced Christ as fully as any human is able to this side of the grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q. Did she suffer the consequences of sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. No&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was not as a consequence of sin. She chose death (or dormition as it's called in the East) in imitation of Jesus and was subsequently assumed body and soul into Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll leave you with one piece of Biblical basis for Mary being sanctified. Used in the dogmatic text defining the Assumption&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Old Translation of Psalm 131(132):8) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum_en.html&quot;&gt;More Info&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-28T16:18:28.793" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4364" CreationDate="2011-10-28T17:28:19.970" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the first question: Yes, there is evidence that may lead to contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, however this evidence is not conclusive. To answer the second question is also to complement the first: Catholic and Orthodox traditions have adhered to this belief, this belief does not contradict the scriptures (so, these churches are not reacting against the evidence).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are numerous references to the brothers of Jesus: Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact meaning of those verses is still debated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three main theories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That those &quot;brothers&quot; are actually sons of Mary and Joseph.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That they are stepbrothers of Jesus, i.e. sons of Joseph of a previous marriage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, that by &quot;brothers&quot; they mean cousins or other relatives&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The adherents of the first theory understand naturally the references to these brothers as sons of Mary. According to the theory, this is the intent of the evangelist in Matthew 1:25 and in Luke 2:7. More information could be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/content/did-jesus-have-any-brothers-andor-sisters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Did Jesus have any brothers and/or sisters?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There has been a debate on the translation of &quot;until&quot; in Matthew 1:25 and on the implications of the word &quot;firstborn&quot; in Luke 2:7 and in Matthew 1:25. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Until&quot; has clearly many meanings trhough the scripture. There are extensive examples and some of them can be read in the article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/jesbrs.txt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Brothers and Sisters of Jesus&lt;/a&gt;, under Objection 4. I will only point one example to explain that &quot;until&quot; has no clear meaning. In 1 Timothy 4:13 Paul is instructing Timothy to teach &quot;until&quot; he returns, but it is not meant that Timothy should stop doing that after Paul's visit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clear the point, the word until is εως. The Septuagint says in Matthew 1:25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως [οὗ] ἔτεκεν υἱόν [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Stephanus' New Testament&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν τον υιον&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which can mean that he [Joshep] had not consummated the marriage until she gave birth to a son, or that he had not consummated the marriage when she gave birth to a son. In other words, this verse can be interpreted in two ways: Joseph had not consummated the marriage when Jesus was born and he consummated it afterwards or that he hadn't consummated the marriage when Jesus was born (and nothing is inferred about the future consummation of the marriage).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;firstborn&quot; refers to the privileged position of the firstborn, and it is almost impossible to conclude from there that Mary had other sons, as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4365/69&quot;&gt;@Waggers&lt;/a&gt; already pointed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In favor of the second theory I quote bibleinfo again:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Oriental family ethics would not permit younger brothers to taunt or&#xA;  otherwise meddle with an older brother as Jesus' brothers taunted Him&#xA;  (see Mark 3:31; John 7:3-4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In favor of the third theory there is the conjecture that &quot;brothers&quot; actually mean close relatives becase the word used in Matthew 27:56 is αδελφοι. The septuagint uses exactly the same word for Lot in Gen 13:18 and Gen 14:14-16. Abraham and Lot are not brothers (sons of the same mother), so the argument is non-conclusive, it is unclear if &quot;brothers&quot; means sons of Mary or relatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Mary indeed could have remained a virgin. Peter Turner has already stated that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jesus is dying on the Cross (in John's gospel), He instructs His&#xA;  beloved disciple and he takes to take Mary into his house. If she&#xA;  truly had other sons, that would be moot point for the other sons&#xA;  would have been there to take care of her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this should be even more strange taking into account that James, the brother of the Lord was still alive (Gal 1:19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And one more logical argument from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/zipporah-midrash-and-aggadah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jewish sages&lt;/a&gt;: it is held that a life of sexual abstinence was imposed on Moses after receiving the Torah. If Moses abstained from knowing his wife after an external encounter with God, is it strange to expect abstinence from a young lady that was filled with the Spirit of God as to conceive a son of Him(Luke 1:35)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T15:22:34.677" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4373" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4374" CreationDate="2011-10-28T18:43:06.617" Score="8" ViewCount="707" Body="&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholics believe that Mary the mother of Jesus remained a virgin for her whole life. Mary the mother of Jesus is sometimes seen in the gospels with men referred to as Jesus' brothers, with names including James and Joseph. Then there's this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 27:56 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and&#xA;  Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who does the Roman Catholic Church say this Mary (mother of James and Joseph) was? Were James and Joseph step-children (and therefore Jesus' step-brothers) or perhaps this is a different Mary altogether?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-09T01:04:42.177" LastActivityDate="2018-03-20T11:34:30.200" Title="Who do Catholics say the Mary in Matthew 27:56 is?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;james-brother-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4373" CreationDate="2011-10-28T19:17:13.407" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different Mary, although James and Joseph were considered especially close to Jesus. They were called &amp;quot;brothers of Jesus&amp;quot; in the same vein as the word &amp;quot;brother&amp;quot; is used figuratively today: a bond of friendship close to that of family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Mary's perpetual virginity, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church states&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth &amp;quot;did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it.&amp;quot; And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the &amp;quot;Ever-virgin&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;500 &lt;strong&gt;Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, &amp;quot;brothers of Jesus&amp;quot;, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls &amp;quot;the other Mary&amp;quot;. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: &amp;quot;The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-28T19:17:13.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4364" CreationDate="2011-10-28T19:33:59.387" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; acknowledges the apparent Biblical objections found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/13:55&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:55&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/27:56&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:56&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/3:31&quot;&gt;Mark 3:31-35&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;A crowd seated around him told him, “Your mother and your brothers* [and your sisters] are outside asking for you.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;But he said to them in reply, “Who are my mother and [my] brothers?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;And looking around at those seated in the circle he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;[For] whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/6:3&quot;&gt;Mark 6:3&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/9:5&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 9:5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/1:19&quot;&gt;Galatians 1:19&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm&quot;&gt;responds to it&lt;/a&gt; in paragraph 500:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Against this doctrine [of the perpetual virginity of Mary] the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, &quot;brothers of Jesus&quot;, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls &quot;the other Mary&quot;. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mention of &quot;the other Mary&quot; is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/28:1&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-10-28T19:39:40.457" LastActivityDate="2011-10-28T19:39:40.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1754" CreationDate="2011-10-28T20:21:28.080" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me the key to the answer is that there is only exactly one person to whom God can show Himself so that I have no reasonable doubt left: that's me.&#xA;There are people who bear witness that He did so to themselves. This is good to know, but couldn't possibly solve &lt;strong&gt;my&lt;/strong&gt; doubt[1] I take it as quite too serious and consequential a difficulty to judge on hearsay (of strangers) only. So if you happen to be one to whom God did not (yet?) reveal himself there possibly isn't anything else you can do but doubt His existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the only one who'd be able to answer the question is God himself. (By which he'd reveal himself to the OP &quot;beyond reasonable doubt&quot; I think...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not aware of a promise that He'd do so to a given person at (before) a given point of time (before the end of the world). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes me wary about some points that came up in the discussion above: &#xA;&lt;em&gt;(Disclaimer: really comments would be more appropriate for the following, but I'm new here and not yet able to comment).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to pick up Bork's quote and emphasize two further half-sentences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 1:18-20 NIV The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of &lt;strong&gt;men who suppress the truth by their wickedness&lt;/strong&gt;, (19) since what may be known about God is plain to them, &lt;strong&gt;because God has made it plain to them&lt;/strong&gt;. (20) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seems to me, only someone who knows the truth can suppress it. In other words, this is about consciously rejecting God. Also the 2nd part makes statements about people to whom God has made plain what can be known about him by humans. As I understand that it simply doesn't apply to people who did not yet find God (as I see it, it would be more preciset to say: whom God did not make find himself / let himself be found). I do not suspect the OP of posting a misleading question, so I assume that he didn't experience anything like God revealing Himself to the OP. So IMHO these verses don't help answering the question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, I take a similar view about the blessings: If Jesus states that if you believe in God without having seen him, you are blessed, that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;doesn't say you cannot be blessed if you didn't see him&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;neither does it say that you forfeit the blessing if you ask for a personal proof&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;neither that you won't eventually get your personal convincing proof &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;but neither is there a promise of such a proof.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;actually, I think the blessing by God (grace/mercy) produces the faith  (necessary condition!) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So taking up the coffee metaphor from above, people tell of cups of coffee being handed out, but it looks like the OP didn't get one so far. Which may be encouraging the OP to ask for one for himself, but unless he gets it that is not all that helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally don't even know whether I ever did get one (if I didn't I do reasonably well without the coffeine, if I did, I didn't realize it was coffee), but iff you ask me to I could try to pass on the word of your asking for your personal cup of coffee. I don't think that is necessary anyways because I believe they know if you'd like to have one - whether or when they serve you is a completely different question, though. You'd need to tell me, though: trying to get a coffee for someone who doesn't like it in my opinion is not only  useless but positively rude - so I'd never do it. ;-) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1] Personally, I happen not to doubt His existence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="939" LastActivityDate="2011-10-28T20:21:28.080" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4361" CreationDate="2011-10-28T20:30:59.037" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;paragraph 499 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth &quot;did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it.&quot;And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as &lt;em&gt;Aeiparthenos&lt;/em&gt;, the &quot;Ever-virgin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The direct precedent is Canon 6 from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Second Council of Constantinople&lt;/a&gt; in 553 CE. The only source of this I know of is Denzinger's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchiridion_symbolorum,_definitionum_et_declarationum_de_rebus_fidei_et_morum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sources of Catholic Dogma&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, a compilation of a ton of loose documents. Unfortunately, this is not available online in English, so you'll have to bear with the Latin. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://catho.org/9.php?d=bxp#bfk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;paragraph 427&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Si quis abusive et non vere Dei genitricem dicit sanctam gloriosam semper Virginem Mariam, vel secundum relationem, quasi homine puro nato, sed non Deo Verbo incarnato et nato ex ipsa, referenda autem, sicut illi dicunt, hominis nativitate ad Deum Verbum, eo quod cum homine erat nascente, et calumniatur sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum, tamquam secundum istum impium intellectum, quem Theodorus exsecrandus adinvenit, Dei genitricem Virginem dicentem, vel qui hominis genitricem vocat, aut Christotocon, id est, Christi genitricem, tamquam si Christus Deus non esset, et non proprie et vere Dei genitricem ipsam confitetur, eo quod ipse qui ante saecula ex Patre natus est Deus Verbum, in ultimis diebus ex ipsa incarnatus et natus est, et sic pie et sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum eam esse confessam, talis an. s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the council decrees that anyone speaking against the Holy and Glorious ever-virgin Mary shall be anathema.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was again affirmed in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Council_of_649&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lateran Council of 649&lt;/a&gt;, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://catho.org/9.php?d=bxq#bhj&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;paragraph 503&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Si quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem Dei genitricem sanctam semperque Virginem et immaculatam Mariam, utpote ipsum Deum Verbum specialiter et veraciter, qui a Deo Patre ante omnia saecula natus est, in ultimis saeculorum absque semine concepisse ex Spiritu Sancto, et incorruptibiliter eam (eum?) genuisse, indissolubili permanente et post partum eiusdem virginitate, condemnatus sit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mentions several Church Fathers&lt;/a&gt; who spoke of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the time of the early Church, the burden of proof was on those to show that Mary was not ever-virgin, as it was commonly held to be true. Just for the sheer theatrical aspect of it, I particularly like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Jerome's response to Helvidius&lt;/a&gt;, one who shared many of the objections held today about the perpetual virginity of Mary. In his response, he dissected the argument word by word and found the conclusion that Mary was not perpetually virgin did not necessarily follow from Biblical evidence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of direct Biblical evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary, St. Jerome and later St. Augustine used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201:34&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 1:34&lt;/a&gt; as evidence of a pledge by Mary to never &quot;know&quot; a man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia explains&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As to Mary, St. Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the birth of Jesus Christ: &quot;how shall this be done, because I know not man&quot;. These words can hardly be understood, unless we assume that Mary had made a vow of virginity; for, when she spoke them, she was betrothed to St. Joseph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please see also: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Dr. Robert Schihl | EWTN&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="10999" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2015-10-15T08:40:35.310" LastActivityDate="2015-10-15T08:40:35.310" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4378" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4379" CreationDate="2011-10-28T23:44:58.107" Score="3" ViewCount="34907" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several times, I have heard a phrase along the lines of &quot;It is better to plant thy seed in the belly of a whore than to be cast upon the ground.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a biblical reference for this phrase? I can't find it in the protestant Bible...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="941" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-10-29T07:45:09.343" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T22:59:54.320" Title="Is the &quot;belly of a whore&quot; phrase from the Bible?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;protestant-bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4378" CreationDate="2011-10-29T00:09:29.390" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no such verse in the Bible. The reference to spilling one's seed on the ground comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 38:9 NASB&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to&#xA;  his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not give&#xA;  offspring to his brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222913/k.7BE/Is_There_A_Verse_About_Casting_Ones_Seed_in_the_Belly_of_a_Whore.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a fuller explanation from the site I linked to as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is usually a saying that comes up in reference to masturbation.  That's not really what the verse is talking about, but that subject has been discussed on this site &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48/is-masturbation-a-sin&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-10-29T12:27:40.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4352" CreationDate="2011-10-29T01:29:34.133" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will try to answer this, but how to love is shown in various parts of the NT, but I think the best description of what is not love is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor 13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find that love is not a feeling, but an action. For example, Jesus ordered that we love one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;JOHN 13:34 NKJ  34 &quot;A new commandment I give to you, that you love one&#xA;  another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it was a feeling you can't command people to feel a certain way, but you can command that they act a certain way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when we are ordered to love our neighbor, and we know from the story of the Good Samaritan that everyone is our neighbor, and Jesus talked about how we should love our enemies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt 5:44  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who&#xA;  persecute you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, love is more encompassing that just feeling or pretending to love by being nice to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, perhaps something along the lines of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love everyone, especially those that hate you, where you are willing to die for them, just as Jesus was willing to die for us, but start with loving yourself, as Jesus loved us enough to die for each of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am trying to show is that Jesus valued us enough to die, so we should reciprocate by loving ourself, as, if we can't love ourselves, then how can we truly love anyone else.  The Holy Spirit isn't going to hang out in a place that is filled with hate, and if you hate yourself, then that is not a hospitable home for the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-10-29T01:29:34.133" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4382" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-29T14:00:51.567" Score="2" ViewCount="374" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 2 Corinthians, Paul mentioned that it was the third time he was going to visit the people there, and he added that &amp;quot;As the scriptures say, the facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2013&amp;amp;version=NLT#en-NLT-29004&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 13:1-2 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; This is the third time I am coming to visit you (and as the Scriptures say, “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”). &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; I have already warned those who had been sinning when I was there on my second visit. Now I again warn them and all others, just as I did before, that next time I will not spare them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was trying to understand what Paul is trying to say when he mentioned “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” in 2 Corinthians 13:1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the significance of the message “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="102" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-10-17T03:17:05.730" Title="What is the significance of the message “every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” in 2 Corinthians 13:1?" Tags="&lt;church-discipline&gt;&lt;2-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4382" CreationDate="2011-10-29T14:15:23.307" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there is any reason to draw any connection at all other than coincidence. If I told you I had four eggs for breakfast this morning and then later told you that at four my sister was coming over for a visit would you try to draw some meaningful connection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul talked about his pending visit back in 12:14-15 as well. Each of his trips were accompanied by a different situation. The first one was the original church plant. We hear from chapter two that his second visit was painful. For his third trip he's set out his intention not to be a burden while there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However his coming was a warning. He knew there were problems in the church and that they needed to be dealt with. In some senses he is calling them to get their act together before he gets there. In chapter 13 he reminds them that he's coming again, then gives them an outline of some of the things they need to work on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember the grammatical layout of our Bibles is contrived as best the translators were able to because the Greek doesn't have the same punctuation or formatting that we use. You could easily use the first bit of verse 1 as a subject heading, then start the paragraph with the second phrase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, there is no particular connection to this being his third visit and the fact that charges against a sinning brother should be established by two or three witnesses. True his presence might have contributed &lt;em&gt;one more&lt;/em&gt; witness (presumably there was one there already aware of the issues and reporting them to Paul) but there is not some magical numerical significance here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I was trying to draw some link...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be careful about trying to draw links where the text doesn't actually indicate them. You can make a lot of wacky mistakes in understanding the Bible if you set out trying to find connections that aren't specified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-10-29T14:15:23.307" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4384" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4391" CreationDate="2011-10-29T16:22:52.293" Score="8" ViewCount="319" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on antinomianism&lt;/a&gt;, some Christian traditions have been charged with antinomianism, but are there any that actually claim to be antinomian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Antinomianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Definition&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;an·ti·no·mi·an&lt;/strong&gt;  [an-ti-&lt;strong&gt;noh&lt;/strong&gt;-mee-uhn]&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;noun&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:46:07.423" LastActivityDate="2016-08-15T17:45:33.990" Title="Do any Christian traditions claim to be antinomian?" Tags="&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4385" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-29T16:34:37.287" Score="15" ViewCount="2822" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to think that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;sola fide&lt;/a&gt; meant salvation by faith irrespective of works. Then I started reading about it and realized it means salvation by faith &lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt; works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life. -- Martin Luther&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. -- Martin Luther&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my view, its a very subtle and insignificant distinction from salvation by faith &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; works. Take a look at these pictures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/9oOVX.png&quot; alt=&quot;Faith with works&quot; /&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/m2fVc.png&quot; alt=&quot;Faith and works&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, both doctrinal traditions will save the exact same group of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I correct? Is the difference inconsequential? If so, why is so much effort put forth to distinguish the two?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-03-24T19:27:14.447" Title="Is there a significant difference between salvation by faith with works and salvation by faith and works?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;works&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-03-31T00:03:47.083" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4385" CreationDate="2011-10-29T17:51:47.903" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;First a disclaimer, I come from the camp that salvation is by faith alone.  The answer will be coming from my perspective, since the question seems to be geared toward those who hold this view.  It also &lt;em&gt;intentionally&lt;/em&gt; goes against the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/faq#who-are-considered-christians-here&quot;&gt;definition of Christianity as accepted for the sake of this community&lt;/a&gt; because I think that it's the only way to address the question.  I fully expect opposing answers and down-votes, but I'm also attempting to answer the question to the best of my ability because it's important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; important.  It's not inconsequential &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason it is important comes down to three things (in addition to what I read in the Scriptures):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pride&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Giving the glory to God, who deserves it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The command to worship God in spirit and in &lt;em&gt;truth&lt;/em&gt;. (Emphasis mine.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man&#xA;  should boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To my view, and those who hold it, if we are attempting to add works to faith, then we are not depending solely on God or the saving grace of Jesus.  We are depending at least somewhat on ourselves.  Since we're told that we are saved by faith along apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28) if we try to add our own works on top of it, we're not obeying in faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're placing part of the faith in ourselves, and (this may be harsh) we're calling God a liar by rejecting His clear word on the subject.  In essence, we're worshiping a &quot;god&quot; of our own making - one we've created in our mind, which is, by definition, idolatry.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that works aren't &lt;em&gt;important&lt;/em&gt;.  Works are a &lt;em&gt;sign&lt;/em&gt; that we have already been saved by faith, and something we do out of gratitude.  I personally would argue that someone who is not showing good works is probably not truly saved because they are not showing the fruit of salvation.  But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it because I don't know the heart or state of salvation of anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a good article on the subject &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm adding this later as an illustration that may make the answer of whether it's a &quot;minor detail&quot; more precise.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Expanding on what I said about taking credit for our own salvation as being pride.  Pride is in and of itself a sin.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.believers.org/believe/bel147.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;hates&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; pride&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even a little bit of taking credit for our owns salvation is like having a &quot;little bit&quot; of sin. It's not something that can be seen in shades of gray.  It really is an all-or-nothing black-or-white issue.  Our pastor often uses an illustration in which he holds up a clear glass of water and asks if anyone would object to drinking it.  Then he asks, &quot;OK, let's add just one drop of urine to it.  How many of you would drink it then?&quot;  It's gross, yes. Disgusting.  But that's the point.  God's holiness is so supreme that even the smallest hint of sin is sickening to Him.  Adding the least bit of our own &quot;works&quot; to His gift pollutes the gift.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah 64:6, we read that all of our &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;righteousness&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is as filthy rags.  Not our sin, our righteousness - the very best we are capable of is worthless to Him.  How could we &lt;em&gt;possibly&lt;/em&gt; hope to add to our own salvation when the best we can do is no good at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-10-30T18:28:18.027" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4387" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4546" CreationDate="2011-10-29T18:50:08.610" Score="10" ViewCount="354" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic church has a long monastic history, and there are excellent exponents of spiritual progress whose concepts are used even today. Take Theresa of Avila's &quot;interior castle&quot; or Juan de la Cruz' &quot;dark night of the soul&quot; which describe specific and well defined spiritual stages in which a person may live. Another example may be Therese de Lisieux' &quot;little way&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read excepts from some spiritual books of the east like &quot;The ladder of divine ascent&quot; or &quot;Philokalia&quot;, but I found them excessively cryptic and hard to understand. I'm actually asking about any spiritual concept or rule of spiritual progress that comes from orthodox churches that is still used today; of course I'm also interested in the explanation of such concepts and if possible to know the author and source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I appreciate your help in understanding the eastern monastic spirituality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt; After researching, I've figured out the deepness of eastern spirituality. I would like to limit my question to the explanation of Hesychasm (whose practices I don't understand) and Imiaslavie practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="149" LastEditDate="2011-11-06T17:03:51.460" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T18:44:25.177" Title="How is spiritual progress described in eastern monastic traditions?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;monasticism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4390" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-30T08:03:12.407" Score="10" ViewCount="9402" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just trying to find some theological or philosophical discussion of why God hasn't stopped Satan and his demons. Why not imprison them? Why not take away their free will? Why not annihilate them? Why allow them what dominion they have over us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recognize that, according to traditional Christianity, God will subject them to eternal punishment at some point in the future. But this seems on the face of it to be a far less desirable alternative: i.e., the courses of action I mention above seem better for everyone. I've looked in a few thinkers (Aquinas, Leibniz, ...), but I can't find anyone addressing this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="945" LastEditorUserId="945" LastEditDate="2011-10-30T08:12:31.660" LastActivityDate="2014-06-25T22:25:24.387" Title="Theology question: why hasn't God stopped Satan and his demons?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-06-25T22:43:15.643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4384" CreationDate="2011-10-30T11:59:19.020" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Antinomian&lt;/em&gt; is quite a negative word. The kind hardly anyone likes to call themselves, even if it was factually correct. Try comparing to &lt;em&gt;bastard&lt;/em&gt;, which has a factual meaning (an illegitimate child). Even though being born out of wedlock isn't very shameful nowadays, it's very rare that anyone calls themselves a &lt;em&gt;bastard&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may find individuals like the blogger Dr. White, who &lt;a href=&quot;http://askdrwhite.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-i-am-proud-antinomian.html&quot;&gt;profess to be antinomian&lt;/a&gt; -- but even he begins by telling how insulting the word is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word “antinomian” is a curse word of the highest degree in the church today.  To be charged as an antinomian is to be branded a libertine, careless in morality and one who cheapens the precious blood of our Savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly there are antinomian churches, but they avoid using that unpleasant term of themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-10-30T11:59:19.020" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4390" CreationDate="2011-10-30T14:39:21.183" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;It makes more sense when you look at it from an eternal perspective.  Yes, Satan and his followers cause us a lot of trouble in this life, but &lt;em&gt;our life on Earth is not about our life on Earth.&lt;/em&gt;  It's essentially a test, to see if we will be faithful and obedient to God's commandments.  But that would be a meaningless question without opposition to provide a (seemingly) good reason to not want to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's Satan's role in the plan.  (See the first 2 chapters of Job, for example.  See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:13&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:13&lt;/a&gt;, which explicitly reiterates the point demonstrated in Job, that God does not allow Satan to do certain things that we would not be able to bear.)  He rebelled against God and sought to destroy God's work, but God is still able to find a useful purpose for Satan to serve.  But we are assured that after the end of this world, when the time of testing and mortality is over, that Satan will be cast into hell for all eternity. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:10&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:10&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-30T14:39:21.183" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4390" CreationDate="2011-10-30T15:49:02.377" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aquinas covers this to an extent, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1064.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1064.htm&lt;/a&gt;, article 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angels stand between us and God.  Through God's order of things the superior (angels/God) help to improve the welfare of the inferior (us), and this can be done in one of two ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we can just be good, and with the help of angels be protected, but there is also that some will wrestle with demons, and through these trials will become better people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the demons did not serve this purpose then they would have no place in the natural order, and so could be destroyed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since they have a purpose, destroying them, or imprisoning all of them is counter to the natural order, so is something that God won't do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are interested in what Augustine wrote about why demons are in our atmosphere you can look at &lt;em&gt;The literal meaning of Genesis, Volume 1&lt;/em&gt;, reflections on the fifth and sixth days, chapter 10.  If you look on this page, you can find the Google Books version:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Penteteuch&quot;&gt;http://litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Penteteuch&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-10-30T15:49:02.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4398" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4405" CreationDate="2011-10-31T04:21:22.220" Score="4" ViewCount="1085" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just bought a new Rosary, and I haven't asked our priest in the locality to bless it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any danger when I pray the Rosary (or use of any &quot;not-yet-blessed&quot; sacramental for this matter) using this one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for answering! =)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="166" LastEditorUserId="166" LastEditDate="2011-10-31T13:30:12.610" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T21:38:05.117" Title="Any dangers for the usage of sacramentals that are not-yet-blessed-by-a-priest?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;rosary&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4402" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-10-31T09:39:09.590" Score="8" ViewCount="932" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus&quot;&gt;Viruses&lt;/a&gt; are quite nasty germs. Whereas bacteria serve many useful purposes and we need them, I wonder what the purpose of viruses in God's creation could be. Does Young Earth Creationism address what role viruses have in the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to hear the YEC view on the following points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where did viruses come from?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is their purpose?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were viruses created? If so, by whom?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does the Bible say anything applicable?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Old Earth Creationist view is significantly different, please notify me. I expect them to be similar, but might ask another question focused on OEC if relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-10-31T15:00:37.597" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T09:10:44.427" Title="Where did viruses come from, according to Young Earth Creationists?" Tags="&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;&lt;biology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4356" CreationDate="2011-10-31T09:55:35.790" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As ever, context is all important when trying to understand this verse. The gift in question is not the laying on of hands itself, but Timothy's ability to teach and preach:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 4:11-14 (New International Version):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an&#xA;  example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and&#xA;  in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of&#xA;  Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift,&#xA;  which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid&#xA;  their hands on you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Message puts it even more clearly:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Get the word out. Teach all these things. And don't let anyone put you&#xA;  down because you're young. Teach believers with your life: by word, by&#xA;  demeanor, by love, by faith, by integrity. Stay at your post reading&#xA;  Scripture, giving counsel, teaching. And that special gift of ministry&#xA;  you were given when the leaders of the church laid hands on you and&#xA;  prayed—keep that dusted off and in use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your last question first, references to the same gift given to Timothy (a teaching/preaching ministry) can be found in many places in the Bible. I won't list them here as any decent concordance (or a search of an online Bible) can do that for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the main thrust of your question concerns the laying on of hands. The main principle behind this is a channelling of (for want of a better phrase) spiritual power through touch. Often in new churches you can see someone with one hand raised in the air (towards God) and the other laying on someone's head, shoulder or back while they pray for them - symbolising that the person praying is acting as a conduit, a link between God and the person being prayed for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well as the laying on of hands to confer a prophecy as in this case, it's often used in prayers of healing. There are numerous examples in the gospels of Jesus healing people by touching them physically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%208&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 8:43-56 (MSG):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the crowd that day there was a woman who for twelve years had&#xA;  been afflicted with hemorrhages. She had spent every penny she had on&#xA;  doctors but not one had been able to help her. She slipped in from&#xA;  behind and touched the edge of Jesus' robe. At that very moment her&#xA;  hemorrhaging stopped. Jesus said, &quot;Who touched me?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When no one stepped forward, Peter said, &quot;But Master, we've got&#xA;  crowds of people on our hands. Dozens have touched you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus insisted, &quot;Someone touched me. I felt power discharging from&#xA;  me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the woman realized that she couldn't remain hidden, she knelt&#xA;  trembling before him. In front of all the people, she blurted out her&#xA;  story—why she touched him and how at that same moment she was healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said, &quot;Daughter, you took a risk trusting me, and now you're&#xA;  healed and whole. Live well, live blessed!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While he was still talking, someone from the leader's house came up&#xA;  and told him, &quot;Your daughter died. No need now to bother the Teacher.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus overheard and said, &quot;Don't be upset. Just trust me and&#xA;  everything will be all right.&quot; Going into the house, he wouldn't let&#xA;  anyone enter with him except Peter, John, James, and the child's&#xA;  parents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Everyone was crying and carrying on over her. Jesus said, &quot;Don't&#xA;  cry. She didn't die; she's sleeping.&quot; They laughed at him. They knew&#xA;  she was dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus, gripping her hand, called, &quot;My dear child, get up.&quot;&#xA;  She was up in an instant, up and breathing again! He told them to give&#xA;  her something to eat. Her parents were ecstatic, but Jesus warned them&#xA;  to keep quiet. &quot;Don't tell a soul what happened in this room.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The laying on of hands is not &lt;em&gt;essential&lt;/em&gt; for God to bless the recipient (as shown when Jesus heal's a woman's daughter without the daughter being present, as outlined in Matthew 15:21-28) but the passage above shows how powerful and effective physical touch can be,and the laying on of hands is simply an expression/extension of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:42:15.653" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:42:15.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4402" CreationDate="2011-10-31T11:03:04.410" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The notion that all viruses are bad is worth challenging. In 2008 paediatrician &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thewholechild.us/integrative_/dr-lawrence-d-rosen-moder.html&quot;&gt;Dr Lawrence D. Rosen, MD&lt;/a&gt; published a blog post entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thewholechild.us/integrative_/2008/03/viruses-and-hea.html&quot;&gt;Viruses and Health: Not all bad?&lt;/a&gt; which looked at two interesting cases and concluded:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In both of these cases, it appears that viral infections may indeed&#xA;  confer some sort of protection or health benefit to the host.  Is this&#xA;  true in all circumstances?  Of course not.  But the converse - that&#xA;  these viruses are always a health threat in all people, is equally&#xA;  unlikely.  It behooves us to be very, very careful when considering&#xA;  eradicating viruses from our bodies, particularly when the cure is&#xA;  potentially worse than the infection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, cancer research scientists are now looking at using (modified) viruses in order to combat this disease.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644605034835&quot;&gt;ScienceDirect&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://eu.montana.edu/pdf/outreach/msuscizone3.pdf&quot;&gt;Montana State University&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Viruses are not mentioned in the Bible and whether they are technically living things is subject to continued discussion. In terms of their origin, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Origins&quot;&gt;regressive and cellular hypotheses&lt;/a&gt; therefore don't entirely conflict with the Christian view; however the predominant view among creationists is that viruses are part of the original creation. Along with the rest of Creation, viruses were subject to The Fall, corrupting their original intended nature. The examples above show that viruses may be (or may have been) beneficial to health. In addition there is a theory called the Horizontal Gene Transfer (or horizontal gene flow) which may explain to some degree a purpose for viruses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;that genes picked up from somewhere in the environment rather than&#xA;  inherited from parents may help to explain rapid adaptation and the&#xA;  interesting pattern of DNA in animals.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/why-did-god-make-viruses&quot;&gt;Answers in Genesis: Why Did God Make Viruses?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-11-01T09:10:44.427" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T09:10:44.427" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4398" CreationDate="2011-10-31T13:09:54.397" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a priest would tell you that the danger is in not praying it, they're usually pragmatic like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like some sacraments (Confession, Baptism) the intent is perhaps as important the action&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot;&gt;CCC 1259&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Always remember that God exists outside of time and your prayers, in communion with the Saints are holy. Also, consider the fact that you could pray the Rosary nearly as easily without the aid of a rosary by counting your fingers and toes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T13:09:54.397" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4382" CreationDate="2011-10-31T13:29:12.597" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since Paul was coming to deal with a sinning church member, he is back referencing Jesus' command on dealing with sins in the church in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15-18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is itself a reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Deuteronomy%2019:15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 19:15&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is reiterating that while he &quot;knows&quot; there is sin in the church, even as an Apostle of Jesus, he won't cast a man out on hearsay: it must be confirmed in the proper process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T13:29:12.597" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4407" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4415" CreationDate="2011-10-31T13:54:08.743" Score="29" ViewCount="26534" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah 9:6, the child to be born will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, &lt;strong&gt;Prince of Peace.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government&#xA;  shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful&#xA;  Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Isaiah&#xA;  9:6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A prince is one who will one day be king, but does not currently hold that position.  Why doesn't Isaiah say that Jesus will be the King of Peace?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-19T23:17:15.270" LastActivityDate="2019-09-18T23:15:07.533" Title="Why is Jesus named the Prince of Peace instead of the King of Peace?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4408" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4410" CreationDate="2011-10-31T14:39:59.480" Score="11" ViewCount="20426" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few times in the book of John, Jesus instructs us to pray &quot;in His Name&quot;.  What does this mean?  How do we know if we are praying in His name?  How would we not be praying in His name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe this is using &quot;In Jesus' Name, Amen&quot; as the closing line of our prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whatever you ask &lt;strong&gt;in my name&lt;/strong&gt;, this I will do, that the Father may&#xA;  be glorified in the Son.  If you ask me anything &lt;strong&gt;in my name&lt;/strong&gt;, I&#xA;  will do it.  John 14:13-14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you&#xA;  should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that&#xA;  whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.  John&#xA;  15:16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you,&#xA;  whatever you ask of the Father &lt;strong&gt;in my name&lt;/strong&gt;, he will give it to you.&#xA;  Until now you have asked nothing &lt;strong&gt;in my name&lt;/strong&gt;. Ask, and you will&#xA;  receive, that your joy may be full.  &quot;I have said these things to you&#xA;  in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak&#xA;  to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the&#xA;  Father. In that day you will ask &lt;strong&gt;in my name&lt;/strong&gt;, and I do not say to&#xA;  you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself&#xA;  loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came&#xA;  from God.  John 16:23-27 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, there are other things that refer to &quot;in Jesus' name':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me  Matthew 18:5&#xA;  ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.&#xA;  Matthew 18:20 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many&#xA;  astray.  Mark 13:6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-03-19T06:25:52.050" LastActivityDate="2016-06-14T18:17:10.083" Title="What does it mean to pray in Jesus' Name?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-06-15T20:20:30.857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4409" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4411" CreationDate="2011-10-31T17:10:20.997" Score="29" ViewCount="4067" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 23:9, Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 23:9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Roman Catholic view on this? In the Roman Catholic Church there are at least two titles that are based on the word father: abbot (head of a monastery) and pope (head of the Church). In addition to this, it is common to address a priest with the title father (at least in fiction). How do the Roman Catholic Church reconcile these two facts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2020-05-18T00:33:41.050" Title="What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4408" CreationDate="2011-10-31T17:12:06.323" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;This can be answered by answering a more general question: what does &quot;in someone's (anyone's) name&quot; mean?  It means to act by proxy, on the authority of something or someone greater than yourself. It's a concept that our culture has kind of lost, though it still exists as a storytelling trope.  When a medieval herald reads a proclamation &quot;in the name of the king,&quot; or a cop yells at a fleeing thief to &quot;stop in the name of the law!&quot; this is what they mean.  It's a convenient shorthand for &quot;I'm not just saying this of myself; I'm speaking with the authority of a higher power.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how does this apply to acting (and praying) in the name of Christ?  It means to act in his place.  To pray in the name of Jesus is to pray what Jesus would pray if he were in your position.  When we understand this in the context of Christ as the Perfect Man and our Exemplar, it means to pray for the right things, to seek the will of God and not our own desires.  And whatever we ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, that will be given to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T17:12:06.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4409" CreationDate="2011-10-31T18:15:36.873" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's pretty blatant hyperbole, evidenced by the fact that St. Peter and St. Paul both used the term &amp;quot;father&amp;quot; in their letters freely and repeatedly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/4:11&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 4:11-12&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so that to them [also] righteousness might be credited,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;as well as the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but also follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked while still uncircumcised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/9:10&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 9:10&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/4:15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 4:15&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1thessalonians/2:11&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 2:11&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1timothy/5:1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 5:1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not rebuke an older man, but appeal to him as a father. Treat younger men as brothers,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/12:9&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 12:9&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not [then] submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/james/2:21&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 2:21&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1john/2:13&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 2:13&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Paul also used it in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/22:1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 22:1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“My brothers and fathers, listen to what I am about to say to you in my defense.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well as St. Stephen in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/7:2&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 7:2&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list of references to the apostles calling people (or themselves) fathers continues on from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dead giveaway though is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/19:18&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:18-19&lt;/a&gt;, when Jesus himself makes mention of worldly fathers in his recitation of the commandments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was known for using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. Consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/5:29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:29-30&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.s It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, Jesus doesn't mean for you to pluck your eye out or cut your hand off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if it's not meant to be taken literally, what was the point Jesus was trying to convey? For that, I turn to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;an essay on Catholic Answers&lt;/a&gt;, which was declared &lt;em&gt;nihil obstat&lt;/em&gt; by the Censor Librorum of the Archdiocese of San Diego:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is not forbidding us to call men &amp;quot;fathers&amp;quot; who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. [...] To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a &amp;quot;cult of personality&amp;quot; around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T18:15:36.873" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4409" CreationDate="2011-10-31T18:19:24.557" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;'Father' in this context refers to calling Abraham 'Father Abraham' ala John 8:39.  Not calling any particular individual father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They answered and said to him, “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/john8.htm&quot;&gt;John 8:39 NABRE&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus statement is in connection with the Pharisees who take pride in exulting themselves.  They call themselves Abraham's Children, take their place on the seat of Moses, make up new laws purely for self gratification.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The title 'Father' is in regards to the relationship a priest may have with his flock.  It's not an honorific in that sense, any more than calling your own dad father is.  Priests are Reverend, Bishops are Most Reverend.  Priests don't assert their spiritual fatherhood for self gratification, but as a gift of self, the way natural parents do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the commentary in the NABRE acknowledges a discrepancy in the historical practice, so make of it what you will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These verses, warning against the use of various titles, are addressed to the disciples alone. While only the title ‘Rabbi’ has been said to be used in addressing the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:7), the implication is that Father and ‘Master’ also were. The prohibition of these titles to the disciples suggests that their use was present in Matthew’s church. The Matthean Jesus forbids not only the titles but the spirit of superiority and pride that is shown by their acceptance. Whoever exalts…will be exalted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&amp;amp;ch=23&amp;amp;v=48023001#48023008-1&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-10-31T18:19:24.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2161" CreationDate="2011-11-01T05:26:11.547" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As regards the children of Adam and Eve, the narrative of Cain suggests in at least three places that there were other people on Earth at his time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, in Genesis 4:14-15, he worries that he will encounter people who will want to kill him, and God gives him a mark of protection.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, he then moves to Nod, at which point he has a wife (Gen. 4:16-17). The wife is presumably not a child of Adam and Eve, as we do not hear of any other children being born after Abel until Seth, which is mentioned after six generations from Cain (Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech, and Lamech's sons, Gen. 4:17-25). The birth of Seth comes when Adam is 130 years old, and daughters and other sons followed on after that (Gen. 5:3-4), while Cain is implied to be born very shortly after the Fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, Cain builds a city in Nod (Gen. 4:17), which assumes a community of some size already existing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only place in the creation narrative where it suggests only two humans were ever created is Genesis 3:20, &quot;Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living&quot;—and this in itself does not look like a literal statement, as at that point she had not yet, in fact, given birth to anyone.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Certainly it looks like only two humans were put &lt;em&gt;in Eden&lt;/em&gt;; in the Elohist account, though, we have that male and female humans were created on the sixth day (Gen. 1:27) and their number is not specified, at least in the usual English translations.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T05:26:11.547" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4407" CreationDate="2011-11-01T06:16:54.620" Score="36" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before it meant the son of a king, or someone who was not yet king, the original sense of the word 'prince' was &lt;a href=&quot;http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=prince&quot;&gt;someone of the highest rank&lt;/a&gt;.  (It's related to the word 'principal'.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://concordances.org/hebrew/8269.htm&quot;&gt;Hebrew word שָׂר&lt;/a&gt; used in the original seems to have the same idea in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T06:16:54.620" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4416" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-01T14:14:42.453" Score="10" ViewCount="1115" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read several books that identify archaeological evidence in support of hundreds and hundreds of biblical places, cultures, and historical events.  What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2015-03-13T09:03:24.140" LastActivityDate="2015-03-13T09:03:24.140" Title="What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4417" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4436" CreationDate="2011-11-01T17:39:29.327" Score="8" ViewCount="576" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before anything in our world was created, God was already there.  Also, there is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2643/biblical-evidence-for-omnipotence-omniscience&quot;&gt;biblical evidence for omniscience&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, did God, prior to the creation of everything, already know the events that would unfold in our world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the different viewpoints regarding God's foreknowledge of the events of this world?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="955" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2015-03-11T04:06:11.283" Title="Before anything was created, did God already know the events that would unfold?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T20:41:49.630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="809" CreationDate="2011-11-01T21:24:47.767" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to this question really depends on how you measure the growth.  One way to do so would be to measure the languages to which Christianity is becoming available.  Bible translation is probably a lagging indicator, as missionaries often precede the work of translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wycliffe.org/About/Statistics.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wycliffe Translation Statistics&lt;/a&gt;, the number of people win the world who speak languages where no translation work has been either begun or completed is 340 million (slightly more than the population of the United States).  This is 5% of the World's population.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Christianity is, indeed, continuing to spread across more and more language groups.  This is a fulfillment of the prophecies in the book of Revelation that spoke of people from every nation, tribe, and tongue.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find where I saw estimates of when the last language would get a Bible translation, but it's quite feasible to reach that goal in the next hundred years, maybe even 50.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T21:24:47.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4421" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-01T21:48:00.437" Score="0" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a vague notion of a quote that says something about offering everything freely, but reserving some small part as absolutely off-limits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I seem to recall the phrasing was short and sweet. I can't put my finger on it, but I'm quite sure I've seen allusions to this used as a literary device, perhaps humorously. Is there something like that in the Bible? How does it go and what was it about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="272" LastActivityDate="2011-11-02T16:25:04.577" Title="All this is yours, but this one is mine" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T00:36:06.090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4421" CreationDate="2011-11-01T21:57:43.373" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:16-17&lt;/a&gt; is the closest that comes immediately to my mind. (quoted from NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T21:57:43.373" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4423" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4425" CreationDate="2011-11-01T22:00:43.290" Score="21" ViewCount="2020" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Catholic Church (and perhaps the Orthodox church as well) teaches that Mary is &quot;the eternal virgin&quot; Mary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this were an important doctrine, it seems there would be fairly clear reference to it in the Scriptures.  However, the Bible is incredibly silent on it and even seems to indicate that Joseph had no union with here &lt;strong&gt;until&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus was born.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded&#xA;  him: he took his wife, but knew her not &lt;strong&gt;until&lt;/strong&gt; she had given birth&#xA;  to a son. And he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Admittedly, I don't believe Mary is the eternal virgin, and it seems by implication that Joseph would need to be an eternal virgin as well since he was married to her.  Nonetheless, in my understanding, it seems to me to be such a minute issue that it's hardly worth the effort to invest any significant amount of energy debating it.  Other things seem to be of far greater importance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, here's the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What importance does the eternal virginity of Mary have?  What does it matter?  A what would have been so horrible about her and Joseph enjoying the intimacy God provided for a married couple? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2018-10-15T15:50:23.537" Title="What significance, if any, does the doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary have?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4423" CreationDate="2011-11-01T22:58:30.053" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are interested in what some of the early Church Fathers wrote on this you can look at &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the significance is that Mary had trusted in God when she was young, and told that a miracle had happened.  So, she serves as an example of devotion, obedience and purity to Catholics.  So, her special place in the Church is based not only on her ever-virginity, but also on the fact that she was taken wholly to Heaven, to be with God, so her perpetual virginity is just part of how she was treated by God as being special.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see more of what the RCC teaches on this you can look at number 499 on in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-11-01T22:58:30.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4423" CreationDate="2011-11-02T01:06:42.700" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The importance of the perpetual virginity of Mary lies in the scriptural parallelism between Mary and the Ark of Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ark:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Journeys to a town in the hills of Judah (II Samuel 6:2) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is greeted with awe “How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?”&#xA;(II    Samuel 6:9 KJV) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It remains at the house of Obed-Edom for three months (II Samuel 6:11)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way Mary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Journeys to a town in the hills of Judah (Luke 1:39) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is greeted with awe &quot;And whence is this to me, that the mother of&#xA;my Lord should    come to me?&quot; (Luke 1:43)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It remains with Elizabeth for three months: &quot;And Mary abode with her&#xA;about three months,  and returned to her own    house&quot; (Luke 1:56 KJV)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I quote orthodox wiki:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Ark of the Covenant and the Mother of our Lord are in a sense two&#xA;  ways of looking at the same reality [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because both are different manifestations of the presence of the Lord. Mary --who is a limited being-- carried in her womb the uncontainable --who is God incarnate: Jesus Christ. And in the same way that Jesus chose to lay his dead corpse in a new sepulcher (John 19:41), it is natural to believe that he also chose a &quot;new&quot; womb to come to this world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The belief in ever-virginity of Mary has been a long held tradition, even the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/320/protestant-arguments-for-perpetual-virginity-of-mary&quot;&gt;protestant reformers&lt;/a&gt; held such belief. I won't go deep into the testimonies of the early fathers or the protestant reformers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more extensive article can be read at &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos#Ever-Virginity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;orthodox wiki&lt;/a&gt; and at &lt;a href=&quot;http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Newman Catholic Apologetics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer would have been incomplete without addressing virgin birth. As article 499 of the Catechism explains, virgin birth and perpetual virginity are intertwined doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To gain some insight on perpetual virginity I'll decided to add an excerpt from an homily of St. Josemaria Escriva in which he explains the importance of the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You don't have to wait to be old or lifeless to practice the virtue of&#xA;  chastity. Purity comes from love; and the strength and gaiety of youth&#xA;  are no obstacle for noble love. Joseph had a young heart and a young&#xA;  body when he married Mary, when he learned of the mystery of her&#xA;  divine motherhood, &lt;strong&gt;when he lived in her company, respecting the&#xA;  integrity God wished to give the world as one more sign that he had&#xA;  come to share the life of his creatures.&lt;/strong&gt; Anyone who cannot understand&#xA;  a love like that knows very little of true love and is a complete&#xA;  stranger to the christian meaning of chastity (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.piercedhearts.org/theology_heart/writings_on_saints/st_joseph_workshop_escriva.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Is Christ passing by, In St. Joseph Workshop&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paraphrasing, Joseph decided not to know Mary as a sign that God had &lt;em&gt;touched&lt;/em&gt; her.  I'll try to explain: Mary's perpetual virginity is important because it leaves a material imprint, an evidence of his coming to us. If we think that Mary was not ever-virgin, how are we so sure that Mary's first son is indeed the Son of God? On the other hand, if Mary is ever-virgin (as has been held for many centuries) we can readily admit that her first and only son was conceived by divine intervention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Catholic doctrine, Mary's perpetual virginity is a sign that God has come to us indeed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T22:33:21.400" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4032" CreationDate="2011-11-02T01:22:04.210" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its the same reason why Jehovah's Witnesses use Jehovah which is not Hebrew or Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What matter most is that you are using the accepted equivalent translation in your own language or dialect to pertain to God or to his son, Jesus, and you are not constraint of using their names because of their original pronunciation is lost through time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="437" LastActivityDate="2011-11-02T01:22:04.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4421" CreationDate="2011-11-02T03:04:44.403" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 17:10 is similar:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to&#xA;  me through them. John 17:10 NIV84&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-02T03:04:44.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4416" CreationDate="2011-11-02T15:22:17.090" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on the scope of this question, it can be very difficult to give any satisfactory answer to.  Archaeology primarily concerns itself with artifacts that have been left behind from ancient days, whereas the Book of Mormon deliberately avoids going into too much detail on the culture of its people and explaining details that might aid archaeological research, preferring to focus on more sacred matters.  Also, it appears that their preferred method of construction was in wood, which doesn't lend itself well to the generation of archaeological ruins:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/3?lang=eng#3&quot;&gt;Helaman chapter 3&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 And it came to pass in the forty and sixth [year], ... there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that they considered timber to be the preferred method of construction.  When it was unavailable, they developed new techniques for constructing houses and buildings of cement, and eventually became &quot;exceedingly expert in the working of cement,&quot; but still placed a high value on wood as a construction material.  (Having lived in South America, where many modern homes are built of cement and bricks, I can certainly understand this attitude.  Cement is a rather good conductor of heat, which is an undesirable quality at low latitudes!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cement settlements are interesting.  This was once derided as a hopeless anachronism in the Book of Mormon: the working of cement was an Old World art that never existed in pre-Colombian America! Right up until the mid-twentieth century, that is, when archaeologists started finding cement settlements in the vicinity of modern-day Mexico City, built with an extremely high degree of skill (&quot;exceedingly expert&quot;) dating back to approximately the same time as the Book of Mormon states that these colonists moved in. (As reported in &lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&amp;amp;chapid=827&quot;&gt;Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this settlement is an exception rather than a general rule.  The people in question preferred construction in wood or simply living in tents, neither of which generates much in the way of ruins.  Also, Book of Mormon archaeology is at a second disadvantage when compared to Biblical archaeology: on the Biblical side, we know exactly where to start looking!  Modern-day Jerusalem is located on the side of the same mountain it's been on since at least the days of Melchizedek, to give just one example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will not be surprising, if you understand this, to hear that much of the truly interesting archaeological and historical evidence to arise in support of the Book of Mormon actually comes from discoveries in the Old World.  To continue the earlier theme of Book of Mormon details once thought to be ridiculous, the book mentions two different men by the name of Alma.  This was once held up as proof of Joseph Smith's hopeless inexperience: Alma is a Latin name, not a Jewish name, and a &lt;em&gt;feminine&lt;/em&gt; Latin name at that!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, more than a century after the publication of the Book of Mormon, that is. One of the scrolls contains a reference to one &quot;Alma, son of Judah.&quot; Oops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we have the Lachish Letters, a group of clay tablets found in the ruins of an ancient Jewish city, dating back to just a few years after the start of the Book of Mormon. They describe several non-Biblical details of the local political climate which fit hand-in-hand with the corresponding Book of Mormon narrative.  LDS scholar Hugh Nibley wrote a very detailed article on the letters, summarizing it at the end with 18 points of remarkable similarity between the two, and concluding that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Other parallels may be added to taste, but this should be enough to show that Joseph Smith was either extravagantly lucky in the opening episodes of his Book of Mormon—that should be demonstrated by computer—or else he had help from someone who knew a great deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=110&amp;amp;chapid=1279&quot;&gt;Two Shots in the Dark&lt;/a&gt;, first half)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Entire volumes have been written, and then, sadly, largely ignored, regarding the authenticity of the introductory chapters of the Book of Mormon, the ones that deal with travels in the Old World.  To give just one example which is freely available online, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=59&quot;&gt;Lehi in the Desert&lt;/a&gt;, again by Dr. Nibley.  He examines cultural details, religious and dream imagery, historical background, and even the names used, and shows that it is all remarkably consistent with the time and place it purports to originate from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stronger than any external evidence for or against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, though, is internal evidence.  There is a word for a literary work that claims a certain authorship but does not actually originate the way it claims to: &lt;em&gt;forgery&lt;/em&gt;.  And there are well-established tools and techniques for the detection of literary forgery, and they do not require the support of external evidence.  But strangely enough, these formal methods don't tend to get applied in adversarial analyses of the Book of Mormon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the surface of it, there's no good reason not to; the Book of Mormon is a forger's nightmare!  A fairly large work, claiming to be historical in nature, disseminated as widely as possible and inviting all to read and critically examine it?  What is the forger &lt;em&gt;thinking?!?&lt;/em&gt;  This violates every rule of producing a successful forgery!  But the two most important principles in the detection of literary forger tend to be consistently ignored:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Begin with the assumption that the work is genuine, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;no external evidence is required to expose a forgery of any significant size; internal inconsistencies alone will do that every time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the formal, scientific techniques for detecting forgery are applied to the Book of Mormon, instead of emotionally-driven attempts to reach a predetermined conclusion, the book is shown to be genuine. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=11&quot;&gt;Dr. Hugh Nibley, New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could go on, (and on and on and on; as I said before, there have been entire volumes written on the subject,) but this answer is getting to be too long as it is.  Suffice it to say that a large corpus of evidence exists which, while not enough to conclusively prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, (they haven't even managed to do that with the Bible, so it would be unfair to hold another work that claims to be scripture to such a high standard,) definitely demonstrates that the book is worthy of serious attention and consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2011-11-02T16:19:54.787" LastActivityDate="2011-11-02T16:19:54.787" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4431" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4432" CreationDate="2011-11-02T15:25:06.057" Score="15" ViewCount="6110" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;I Timothy 2:4 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;, God &quot;...wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But since we have free will, God cannot make us choose to accept the salvation that is available through his Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I believe that God loves others more than I can, and he desires them to be saved. I think it's logical to conclude that he's going to do everything He can to draw them to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then what is the point of praying for someone's salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="959" LastEditorUserId="959" LastEditDate="2014-09-24T14:55:03.787" LastActivityDate="2014-09-24T14:55:03.787" Title="Praying for someone's salvation. Is there a point?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-09-28T14:20:58.083" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4431" CreationDate="2011-11-02T16:14:44.543" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even if we can't pray away someone else's free will or convince God to bend the rules regarding the requirements of salvation, there can still be merit in praying on behalf of others with a slightly different attitude.  Perhaps &quot;let them have experiences that will lead them to the truth,&quot; or &quot;let their hearts be softened, that they may give heed to the Holy Spirit and accept the truth when it is presented to them&quot; would be more appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, as JustinY pointed out in his comment, praying for the welfare of others can be beneficial to us.  Simply because we pray to God for something to happen doesn't mean we can't directly take part in bringing such a prayer to fruition.  If we seek to truly &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4408/what-does-it-mean-to-pray-in-jesus-name/4410#4410&quot;&gt;pray in Jesus's name&lt;/a&gt; and harmonize our will with his, it will lead us to be more conscious of the spiritual needs of others in our day-to-day lives, and to find effective ways to bring others to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-11-02T16:14:44.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4421" CreationDate="2011-11-02T16:25:04.577" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Abraham's dealings with the King of Sodom come to mind.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2014:21-24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 14:21-24&lt;/a&gt;; see the whole chapter for context.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-11-02T16:25:04.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4434" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4435" CreationDate="2011-11-02T17:28:22.250" Score="8" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ideally, one would both be able to be honorable (i.e. to do the right thing especially with regard to others) and be in solidarity with relatives and friends (i.e. to support them, especially when they come into conflict with others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Biblical advice—according to Protestant interpretations and accepted texts, and a modern translation like NIV or ESV, if there is not a common view on this matter—is there for situations when these two virtues are at odds: when someone with whom you would normally be in solidarity does something dishonorable?  Does it make a difference how serious the offense is (e.g. allegations of abuse vs. going back on the spirit of but not the exact letter of an agreement about some mundane matter)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2017-11-02T15:03:37.640" LastActivityDate="2017-11-02T15:03:37.640" Title="What does one do when morality and honor conflicts with solidarity?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;honor&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4434" CreationDate="2011-11-02T19:20:26.463" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Honor is not a particularly Christian virtue. It is mentioned biblically, but not nearly as often as other virtues we are expected to follow, particularly the most important one, Love. You haven't defined honor particularly clearly, but where your definition conflicts with Love,  a Christian should be loving rather than honorable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for solidarity with friends and relatives, the Bible (the New Testament) explicitly says  it is forbidden to favour your friends and relatives over other people. While there are certainly commands to honor those close to you (&quot;Honor your father and mother&quot;) that does not imply that you should take their side just because they are related to you. &quot;Honor&quot; is not the same as the unthinking solidarity you seem to be talking about. If your father or mother do something terrible you are not expected to shield them from justice. Matthew 5:43-47:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-11-28T17:57:34.517" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T17:57:34.517" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4417" CreationDate="2011-11-02T20:43:19.247" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible indicates that God is eternal and outside of time.  As we understand from science, time, space, and matter all came into existence at once.  The Creator of time, space, and matter must of necessity be outside of time, space, and matter.  God reveals in the Scriptures that He is eternal (outside of time) and He is spirit (outside of space and matter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Learning or growing in knowledge takes place inside of time, so, in a way, this concept is irrelevant to a Being who is outside of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 139 seems to indicate that God's knowledge includes what we will do in the future:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it&#xA;  altogether.  Psalm 139:4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also indicates that God was able to see what was yet unformed, and that every one of our days was written in a book before we were born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every&#xA;  one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was&#xA;  none of them.  Psalm 139:16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, a very common position is that God has always known everything.  His knowledge has never grown, but has always been complete and infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As one person questioned, &quot;Has it ever occurred to you that nothing has ever occurred to God?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doctrine is one that provides us with exceedlingly abundant comfort, because it means that God will never be surprised at our failures.  There will never be a time when God gets buyer's remorse when our sins become greater than he originally anticipated.  His salvation accounts for all of our sins that we will ever commit--even sins we didn't know we would commit--from the very beginning.  He drew us to Himself knowing full well how frequently and how great we would fail and continue in our sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-12T18:21:38.350" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T18:21:38.350" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4409" CreationDate="2011-11-02T23:18:48.093" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rather than answering in comments, let me answer here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, if you look at the rest of the verses: Matt 23: 8-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher,&#xA;  and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’&#xA;  for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be&#xA;  called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The&#xA;  greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt&#xA;  themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be&#xA;  exalted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would appear we shouldn't call anyone instructor or teacher, if we shouldn't call anyone father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as pointed out by others, the prohibition isn't on the word, itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue is that the Pharisees would expect the best seats, and the best treatment, as they held themselves as father figures as well as teachers, so, they were arrogant, rather than being humble before God, they put themselves above God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should strive to be humble before others and before God, rather than holding ourselves up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the entire question can be put into context by reading the rest of the verses, and see that just taking one verse out of context can be misleading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for an interesting article on the word used in this verse you can look at:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.voiceofjesus.org/Q-A_Files/q20nomanfather.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CALL NO MAN FATHER (Mat. 23:9)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2018-10-07T04:40:34.360" LastActivityDate="2018-10-07T04:40:34.360" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4438" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-03T02:30:04.580" Score="4" ViewCount="64" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christians take every situation and claim &quot;God did this&quot; or &quot;the holy spirit is moving in this place&quot; when something good happens, and &quot;Satan did this&quot; or &quot;this place has evil spirits&quot;  when something bad happens. Sometimes you even hear &quot;God did this out of anger/jealousy&quot; when something bad happens (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/natural-disasters&quot;&gt;natural disasters&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible shows countless times where God intervenes (see the plagues in Exodus) and also where evil spirits intervene (see demon-possession in Matthew). Ultimately God is in control, but how can one determine if a situation occurred due to divine intervention?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="157" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T05:21:56.833" Title="When to attribute things in this world to things not of this world" Tags="&lt;intervention&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-11-03T19:00:16.513" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4431" CreationDate="2011-11-03T03:34:37.297" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Luke's gospel, Jesus informs Simon (Peter) that Satan had desired to try his faith to the verge of overthrow, but that, through the prayers of Jesus, his faith would be strengthened. He was further admonished to do the same for his brethren (strengthen them) once he had been converted (see Acts Chapter 2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:31-32&lt;/strong&gt; And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed&#xA;  for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted,&#xA;  strengthen thy brethren.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that God, being &quot;a gentleman&quot;, will not force someone to do something they don't want to do (i.e. override their free will). But prayer will thwart the plans of Satan and pave the way for a wayward one's heart to be turned home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T03:34:37.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4441" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-03T05:54:57.027" Score="9" ViewCount="1307" Body="&lt;p&gt;I currently live in Mexico, where the Catholic church is quite different than the Catholic church I'm accustomed to in the U.S.  This is most obvious to me by the hostility often shown by Catholics (especially clergy) against non-Catholic Christians.  As an anecdotal example, some good friends of mine were actually ex-communicated from the Catholic church in Mexico for refusing to end a Bible study they held in their home with non-Catholic Christians. Stories like this in turn mean that many non-Catholic Christians in Mexico have a very negative view of the Catholic church here, as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I've tried to explore and understand the various differences between the U.S. Catholic church and the Mexican Catholic church, I'm left not really knowing where to start asking questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my first question here is:  &lt;strong&gt;How are the Catholic churches in various countries related, and how do they differ?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T14:32:45.617" Title="What is the relationship between the Catholic churches of various countries?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4443" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-03T11:59:18.927" Score="6" ViewCount="1094" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2023:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 23:8 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  These be the names of the mighty men whom David had:&#xA;  The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the&#xA;  same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred,&#xA;  whom he slew at one time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't understand about warfare in that epoch, but did Adino alone fight and win eight hundred literally or he commanded an army and did that prowess?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-11-03T22:17:22.000" LastActivityDate="2016-04-17T16:29:56.167" Title="Was it Adino or his army that killed eight hundred at one time?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4441" CreationDate="2011-11-03T12:24:03.420" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Roman Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;, both in the United States and in Mexico, is led by the Pope.  The current Pope is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Benedict XVI&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church defines its mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments, and exercising charity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Individual countries, regions, or major cities are served by local particular churches known as dioceses or eparchies, each overseen by a Catholic bishop. Each diocese is united with one of the worldwide &amp;quot;sui iuris&amp;quot; particular churches, such as the Latin Church, or one of the many Eastern Catholic Churches. As of 2008, the Catholic Church (both East and West) comprised 2,795 dioceses. The bishops in a particular country or region are often organized into an episcopal conference, which aids in maintaining a uniform style of worship and co-ordination of social justice programs within the areas served by member bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dioceses are further divided into numerous individual communities called parishes, each staffed by one or more priests, deacons, and/or lay ecclesial ministers. Parishes are responsible for the day to day celebration of the sacraments and pastoral care of the Catholic laity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as you've observed, any particular Roman Catholic Church parish will emphasize one of the three missions.  Either the congregation will follow the lead of the local Priest, or the local Priest will follow the lead of the congregation.  In the United States, in general, congregations lead.  In Mexico, in general, Priests lead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edited to add:  What I mean by lead in the previous paragraph is that United States Catholic congregants will quit going to church if the Priest tries to stray too far from what the congregation wants.  Unless there's only one Catholic church in town, congregants have choices.  In Mexico, because of the culture, it's not as easy to change churches.  Therefore, the Priest is given more latitude by the congregants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, as you observed, the Priests in Mexico thought differently about exercising charity than the Priests in the United States.  Part of the reason is culture, and part of the reason is who leads, as I mentioned in the previous 2 paragraphs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T14:32:45.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4441" CreationDate="2011-11-03T13:38:27.510" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Countries or regions each have their own bishops conference. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cem.org.mx/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;United States Conference of Catholic Bishops&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that is as much as they differ.  A bishop, acting as a successor of the apostles (like James as Bishop of Jerusalem) is the leader of his diocese.  Then the priest is the leader of his congregation and establishes the norms for conduct within his parish (i.e. if he doesn't want a bible study to be held there, then there shouldn't be a bible study held there).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To your anecdote, I'm not a canon law expert, but it strikes me as odd if it were a priest telling someone that they're excommunicated.  He may tell them to take a hike, but I don't believe that he has authority to excommunicate someone.  There are offenses, like abortion or helping someone get/perform an abortion that are in themselves &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;automatic excommunication&lt;/a&gt;, but what you're describing sounds like disobedience which would require a Bishop's intervention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my diocese, we had a similar thing happen with a Religious Ed. teacher who refused to deny things she had written in her master's thesis which were contrary to Catholic Teaching.  To my knowledge, she wasn't even excommunicated for that, just fired (you can read more info than you'd ever want &lt;a href=&quot;http://ebookbrowse.com/kolpack-faqs-for-web-5-0-pdf-d104425226&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, but I think it should clarify a few things about the way a diocese is governed). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Gilbert wrote is perhaps the way things look, but in truth, it is not the congregation who leads things in their parish.  Throughout the Universal Church, priests are the heads of their parishes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;documents of Vatican II&lt;/a&gt;, the Church provided for additional lay leadership from within the parish in establishing ministries and financial councils but not complete authority and those documents cover the entire Church, not just Mexico or the United States. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T13:38:27.510" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4446" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-03T13:44:53.217" Score="4" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2023:1-8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 23:1-8&lt;/a&gt; lists some people that are forbidden to &quot;enter the assembly of the LORD&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 23:1-8 (NKJ)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those Excluded from the Congregation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter&#xA;  the assembly of the LORD. 2 “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter&#xA;  the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his&#xA;  descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.  3 “An Ammonite or&#xA;  Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth&#xA;  generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the&#xA;  LORD forever, 4 because they did not meet you with bread and water on&#xA;  the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against&#xA;  you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse&#xA;  you. 5 Nevertheless the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam, but&#xA;  the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because&#xA;  the LORD your God loves you. 6 You shall not seek their peace nor&#xA;  their prosperity all your days forever.  7 “You shall not abhor an&#xA;  Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian,&#xA;  because you were an alien in his land. 8 The children of the third&#xA;  generation born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the meaning of this? How should it be interpreted? Should this be applied today? If so, how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-11-03T15:26:23.130" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T15:26:23.130" Title="&quot;Those excluded from the Congregation&quot;" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4447" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4451" CreationDate="2011-11-03T13:52:20.690" Score="5" ViewCount="6628" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Protestant Biblical Literalists:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who is Satan?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where did he come from?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where is he going or what will happen to him?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in answers with citations from the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-13T00:40:06.207" LastActivityDate="2015-10-13T00:40:06.207" Title="According to Biblical Literalists, who is Satan? Where did he come from? What is he? And what will happen to him?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4446" CreationDate="2011-11-03T14:49:44.050" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to go all the way back to Deuteronomy 12 to get to the beginning of the &amp;quot;statutes and judgments&amp;quot; given by God to the Israelites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 12:1-7(NKJ)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Prescribed Place of Worship&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 “These are the statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe &lt;strong&gt;in the land&lt;/strong&gt; which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. 2 You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. 3 And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place. 4 You shall not worship the LORD your God with such things.&#xA;5 “But you shall seek the place where the LORD your God chooses, out of all your tribes, to put His name for His dwelling place; and there you shall go. 6 There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 7 And there you shall eat before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you have put your hand, you and your households, in which the LORD your God has blessed you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Emphasis mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is giving instruction appropriate for the time and the place.  Not everything in Deuteronomy is appropriate for our time and our place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As J. Daniel Hays writes in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Applying the Old Testament Law Today&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The narrative setting for the Book of Deuteronomy is the eleventh month of the fortieth year of the Exodus (Deut. 1:3), just before Israel entered Canaan. The place is specified—just east of the Jordan River (1:1, 5). Israel had completed the forty years of wandering as a punishment for refusing to enter the land. Now a new generation had grown up and God gave them a restatement of the covenant that He had made with their parents forty years earlier. Most of Deuteronomy consists of a series of speeches that Moses delivered to the Israelites on God’s behalf. These speeches are connected to the narrative because they refer to the same time, place, and main characters as the narrative does. Also the end of the book contains some nonlegal, narrative material: the appointment of Joshua as leader (31:1–8), the song of Moses (32:1–47), a blessing of Moses on the tribes (33:1–29), and the death of Moses (34:1–12). Furthermore the events of Deuteronomy flow into the Book of Joshua, where the story continues without interruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T14:49:44.050" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4449" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4450" CreationDate="2011-11-03T17:38:30.737" Score="13" ViewCount="28373" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed recently on this site there is a push to enforce the rule that, in one's questions, one ought to state &quot;which Bible&quot; one is interested in learning about—whether that is the &quot;Catholic Bible&quot;, &quot;Protestant Bible&quot;, &quot;Mormon Bible&quot;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Although I knew there were many &lt;em&gt;translations&lt;/em&gt; of &quot;the&quot; Bible, I didn't realize that the various denominations of Christianity were using &lt;em&gt;different books&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;  Sure, there must be appreciable overlap among them, but there must also be appreciable differences, too, for this rule to be in place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, questions in this vein might be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How many different Bibles do experts tend to agree there are?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do they differ? (provide a summary or key differences)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In what ways do those differences matter to the adherents to those denominations?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, I would not count &lt;em&gt;The Book of Mormon&lt;/em&gt; as &quot;part of&quot; the Mormon Bible; I would see it as its own book in that denomination (but maybe that is wrongheaded in the Mormon tradition?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-09-02T12:12:10.697" LastActivityDate="2017-09-02T12:12:10.697" Title="How many distinct Biblical canons are there?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-09-08T21:44:21.087" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4449" CreationDate="2011-11-03T17:57:32.707" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two major variations in the Bible which has caused rifts over time:  translation and canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Translation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to not underestimate the value of translation.  The &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New World Translation&lt;/a&gt;, for example, is a translation used exclusively by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  This &amp;quot;Bible&amp;quot; can be considered the Jehovah's Witness Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other denominations have exclusive translations as well, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Inspired Version&lt;/a&gt;, which is a partial translation exclusive to Mormonism (although, being a partial translation, is not their primary Bible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Canonization&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also many, many canons of the Bible.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;See here for a list&lt;/a&gt;.  Some of these were for doctrinal purposes, such as Luther's attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations from the canon.  Others were from political reasons, such as the Ethiopian Christians accepting a different canon from the Roman Catholics.  Then there's the authentic reasons for excluding particular books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless how you come at it, these different canons have resulted in differences in Bibles.  The Bible as used by Roman Catholics, for example, contains the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuterocanonical books&lt;/a&gt;, which are not part of the Protestant Bible.  The varying Orthodox canons include text that are not found in the Roman Catholic canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, there are many different &amp;quot;Bibles&amp;quot;--a separation caused by both the translation and canonization processes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historical translations and canons also broaden the spectrum to an extreme (such as Luther's canon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you're looking for a raw list&lt;/em&gt;, start with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a list of canons&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations#Complete_Bibles&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a list of English translations&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-06-30T19:34:44.107" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4447" CreationDate="2011-11-03T18:02:57.380" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;#1 &amp;amp; #2: Who is he? Where did he come from?&lt;/strong&gt; Satan was/is the highest created angel, with God from the beginning, along with the other angels (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Ez. 28:13&lt;/a&gt;). Sometime before the creation of mankind, Satan convinced 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God, ultimately with God and the remaining angels winning (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:3-9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rev. 12:3-9&lt;/a&gt;). After this occurs, we know that Satan takes the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden and convinces Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Life (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:3-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Gen. 3:3-5&lt;/a&gt;), thus starting &quot;The Fall&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;#3:Where is he going or what will happen to him?&lt;/strong&gt; Satan will always be in rebellion to God. Near the end of the days, a false prophet and a beast will be given authority to rule for forty-two months (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013:1-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rev. 13:1-5&lt;/a&gt;), who will convince &quot;the kings of the earth&quot; to fight against God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rev. 19:19&lt;/a&gt;) in the &quot;Battle of Armageddon&quot;. God and his angels will defeat them, and they will be &quot;thrown into the lake of fire&quot;; Satan will be chained for 1000 years, and Jesus Christ will rule the Earth for this time (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:2-3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rev. 20:2-3&lt;/a&gt;). Satan will again be released for a short time, for one more attack against God, but &quot;fire from Heaven will consume the rebels&quot;. Finally, at this point, Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, to be tormented day and night, forever and ever (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:7-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rev. 20:7-10&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T18:02:57.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4449" CreationDate="2011-11-03T18:12:47.480" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to ignore the part about the book of Mormon because I know absolutely nothing about it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as a short answer to a very big question, there are two ancient sources of scripture and the scripture tradition of all Christians are more or less built around them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Septuagint  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The translation of the Hebrew Bible in Greek which is the source informing the earliest Bibles (which incidentally would be Catholic Bible and once the Great Schism happened, the Orthodox Bible).  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Masoretic &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew Old Testament, the canon of which apparently was approved at the council of Jamnia (a Jewish council which took place a few years after the Resurrection of Our Lord). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, you probably want to know which Bibles apply to which confessions.  Well, the modern Catholic Bible which is approved by the Bishops relies on the Septuagint for its structure and canon (hence it is bigger).  Translations of the Catholic Bible generally use both the Masoretic, Septuagint as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls for context and accuracy.  But, approved translations for Mass (Like the New American Bible) reflect what's in the Latin (Vulgate) Bible (originally translated by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04086a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Jerome in the 4th century&lt;/a&gt;).  Protestants use the Masoretic text for the OT, but most translations include a bit of help from the dead sea scrolls I'd imagine (unless your a KJV only person).  Orthodox on the other hand, use only the Septuagint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T18:12:47.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4454" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4455" CreationDate="2011-11-03T19:56:35.340" Score="6" ViewCount="2496" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there Protestants in Italy today and what became of the Protestants reformers from the peninsula during the reformation?  The reason I ask is that I've never heard of any particular persecution either way in the old nations surrounding the Rome, all the fighting and carrying on seemed to happen in German nations or England, but the absence of hearing about something doesn't mean nothing happened, it just means worse things happened in other places so I'd just like to know what became of the Protestants in what is now Italy and how they're carrying on today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-11-14T16:44:10.367" LastActivityDate="2012-09-03T08:56:48.993" Title="Are there Protestants in Italy today?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4454" CreationDate="2011-11-03T20:26:55.017" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently, protestantism used to gather some heat there in Italy.  However, with the Vatican Council II, relations improved and protestants aren't as persecuted as much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That was two decades ago. These days, a more relaxed Vatican and an&#xA;  unprecedented influx of immigrants has nudged open the doors of acceptance&#xA;  for Protestant Christianity.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wfn.org/2000/09/msg00064.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Note #6186 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Italy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;total of about 725,000 protestants in Italy&lt;/a&gt;, most of whom are Assemblies of God (400,000).  There are also about 175,000 mainline Protestants, the largest and oldest of which are the Waldensians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Waldensian church &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;has roots dating back to the 12th century&lt;/a&gt;, but they aligned themselves with Calvinism in the 16th, which transformed the denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wfn.org/2000/09/msg00064.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fascinating article&lt;/a&gt; that I think you might find interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-11-03T20:39:14.037" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T20:39:14.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3149" CreationDate="2011-11-03T23:06:55.403" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also could this be somewhat of a theoretical question?&#xA;Maybe it's not saying that you would actual enter heaven blind, but more along the lines of making the point that, even if that were the case, wouldn't that be better than the alternative?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="959" LastActivityDate="2011-11-03T23:06:55.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4356" CreationDate="2011-11-04T00:37:58.213" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Orthodox Tradition, Timothy was a presbyter (and a young one if we are to take seriously Paul's words) and part of the ritual of becoming a presbyter involved the laying on of hands by all the elders present. In the early days, there was in some cases no specific distinction between the Bishop and the Elders, especially when the Apostles were alive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, this could, again according to Orthodox Tradition, be a reference to his Chrismation (the receiving of the Holy Spirit) but it seems more likely that it would have been his ordination given it was not simply one presbyter but 'the presbytery' (we would assume, all or most of the elders present.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this, I would say that the gift or 'charism' being granted was that of the priesthood. Keep in mind that the Greek word for priest is simply elder, that word 'presbyteros'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2011-11-04T00:37:58.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4443" CreationDate="2011-11-04T02:32:16.140" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering that the three generals listed each did fantastic things, it would appear that Andino killed 800 by himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more about the other generals, and the men following them you can read this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.southernspiritonline.org/inspirational-stories/the-original-%E2%80%98band-of-brothers%E2%80%99/&quot;&gt;http://www.southernspiritonline.org/inspirational-stories/the-original-band-of-brothers/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-11-04T02:32:16.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4461" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4462" CreationDate="2011-11-04T03:07:50.743" Score="11" ViewCount="331" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_election&quot;&gt;Unconditional Election&lt;/a&gt; means that God has already chosen who will be saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unconditional election is God's choice to save people regardless of their sin or any condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why then is it necessary for the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints&quot;&gt;Perseverance of the Saints&lt;/a&gt; to reiterate that salvation cannot be lost? Isn't that already part of Unconditional Election? It seems to be repetitive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-11-04T08:25:13.990" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T14:50:54.840" Title="Why does Calvinism need the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints if it believes in Unconditional Election?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;unconditional-election&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4461" CreationDate="2011-11-04T13:54:08.957" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the five points of Calvinism are looked at as distinct entities, then there does seem to be a bit of redundancy in there.   Part of the reason, though, for that is that the five points are emphasizing bullet-point highlights of a comprehensive theology, and they were done so as a retort to the five points of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Arminianism&lt;/a&gt;, which follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crivoice.org/creedremonstrants.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Five Articles of Remonstrance&lt;/a&gt; (summarized)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God has elected to save any person who responds to his grace.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God's saving grace is offered freely to all, but is only sufficient for those who respond.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All humans are sinful and incapable of being righteous. However, God has provided grace to enable them to respond to him.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God's grace enables all good works, but human beings have the capacity to resist God and choose evil.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God's grace and the power of the Holy Spirit enable believers to overcome sin if they are willing to persevere.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it's presented in a fashion that aims to address specific issues, its presentation is naturally going to appeal to certain &quot;common themes&quot; while framing the underlying theology with certain key points in primary focus.  The perserverence of the saints specifically counters the fifth point of Arminianism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinism contends that because the saints are neccessarily new creatures (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Total Depravity/Total Inability&lt;/a&gt;), who have been elected solely according to God's will and not their own worthiness (see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_election&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;unconditional election&lt;/a&gt;), and saved definitively by the shed blood the Christ (see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Particular/Limited Atonement&lt;/a&gt;) and effectively through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (see : &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Irrisistible Grace&lt;/a&gt;), then those saints will &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt;, perservere to the end of their lives.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you're right, on first pass it does kind of seem redundant or unnecessary, but it's more of an extension of the preceeding points, and it specifically addresses a contrasting view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-08-15T14:50:54.840" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T14:50:54.840" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4431" CreationDate="2011-11-04T14:33:16.507" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John Piper's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/seminars/tulip-part-9&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;talks on Calvinism&lt;/a&gt;, he addresses this very point - why pray or even evangelise the non-saved since God has already elected who will be saved and who not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His answer is that our action is the means by which God often achieves His will. So if God has ordained that Bob will be saved through the witness of Jim, then Jim &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; witness and Bob will be saved. However, if Jim decides out of fear not to share the Gospel with Bob, this doesn't necessary mean that Bob will not be saved - just that Jim has decided to neglect His Christian responsibility to witness and God may or may not have someone else planned to witness and still bring Bob to salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please note that this answer is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are puppets that God forces to do His will (we know that our failing to be the best Christians we can be is not God's fault)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our actions are irrelevant (that God's salvation planning works regardless of our actions)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a tremendous opportunity to be a part of God's saving work, and our actions do have very real consequences. Unconditional Election teaches that God chooses the person unconditionally (that is, the person himself/herself has not merit), but this doesn't mean that God doesn't use our actions/choices in determining who will be reached and ultimately, saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, it is obedience on our part - we're told to preach the Gospel and pray for unbelievers, regardless of whether we understand the behind-the-scenes work that God does in reaction to our prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="848" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-04T14:33:16.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4464" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4467" CreationDate="2011-11-04T16:46:57.370" Score="65" ViewCount="102391" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean &quot;anointed&quot;), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He &lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt; claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say &quot;literally&quot; which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me &quot;literally&quot; is read to mean &quot;literally stated, or inferred without interpretation&quot;. So &quot;I intend to put on foot coverings&quot; does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but &quot;I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England&quot; means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="970" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-06-13T03:05:38.513" LastActivityDate="2021-04-10T06:14:27.083" Title="Does Jesus ever claim to be God, or the son of God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4464" CreationDate="2011-11-04T19:00:10.540" Score="59" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many occasions on which Jesus states his identity with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:51-59&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 8:51-59&lt;/a&gt; Jesus says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:58&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 8:58 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;  &quot;Before Abraham was, I am&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a clear&#xA;reference to the name of God. Even if there were any doubt that this&#xA;is the reference the reaction of the Pharisees clearly indicates&#xA;that (in their eyes) this is a blasphemous claim.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%209:1-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 9:1-7&lt;/a&gt; Jesus claims to forgive sins, which the local officials (correctly) believed to be the perogative of God only.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thomas the apostle &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;calls Jesus &quot;My Lord and My God&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, which Jesus does not correct or deny.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also, we see this in John&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:9-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 14:9b, 10a (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  ... Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father... Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 26:63-64 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(There is a certain amount of dispute over the last item.  Many interpreters take Jesus statement as a colloquial affirmative, though some take it as meaning &quot;so you say&quot;).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Insisting that statements by Jesus be 'literal' is missing the point. If Jesus made a statement that equated himself with God in a way that was clearly understood as such by his hearers, then that is what he did. The fact that it requires a little interpretation to our twenty-first century minds doesn't make it any less a claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2013-02-23T05:13:43.087" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T05:13:43.087" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2011-11-04T21:06:44.333" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the contrary.  Salvation is a prerequisite for baptism.  Have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2010:44-10:48&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Acts 10:44-48 NASB&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;While Peter was still speaking these words&lt;/strong&gt;, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the &lt;strong&gt;Gentiles also&lt;/strong&gt;. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, &lt;strong&gt;“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”&lt;/strong&gt; And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice from the passage that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) The listeners had not been baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) The Holy Spirit fell upon the listeners &lt;strong&gt;as Peter was still speaking&lt;/strong&gt;.  Not during baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(3) The circumsized believers were amazed that the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles &lt;strong&gt;also&lt;/strong&gt;.  Some proponents of baptism-for-salvation claim that the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles in a special manner, not indicative of true salvation.  This seems unlikely, considering the presence of spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues), and the use of the word &quot;also&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(4) The circumcised believers were amazed that the Gentiles were able to be saved, because they were &lt;strong&gt;Gentiles&lt;/strong&gt; (it is more clear, if you read the context around this passage, that this is the source of their amazement).  However, if baptism was the means of salvation, wouldn't the circumcised believers have been equally amazed that the Gentiles were saved without baptism?  Yet there is no mention of this incident being an anomaly &lt;em&gt;with respect to baptism&lt;/em&gt; (it is an anomaly only because they were Gentiles).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(5) Peter seems to consider receiving the Holy Spirit a prerequisite for baptism.  If Peter had believed that water baptism was the means of salvation, why would he see a need for their baptism?  This indicates that Peter saw baptism as a command for believers, and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; as a means of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is not a part of our salvation, but it is an important command that, as believers, we should follow.  It symbolizes the inward change that has already taken place in our lives: our death to ourselves, and resurrection in Christ. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:3-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 6:3-4 NASB&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-07-02T19:27:32.573" LastActivityDate="2012-07-02T19:27:32.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2011-11-05T03:29:53.887" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One passage I look to here is I Peter 3:21:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And baptism, which now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but an appeal to God for a clean conscience&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea here is that baptism does nothing to &quot;wash away sins&quot;. However, baptism is the method by which God proscribes that we ask Him to wash away the sins.  If you choose another route to ask for salvation, God may still choose to save you; that is his sovereign right. But if you want to be sure your request is heard, baptism is the way to do it. That baptism is really the more appropriate choice in place of what is often referred to as &quot;The sinner's prayer&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2011-11-20T04:24:14.363" LastActivityDate="2011-11-20T04:24:14.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4470" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4472" CreationDate="2011-11-05T16:34:45.547" Score="7" ViewCount="3055" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe we are judged immediately after we die (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Particular Judgement&lt;/a&gt;). Some of us will go to heaven. Then there is still the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Last Judgement&lt;/a&gt; (or Final Judgement). What effect does the Last Judgement have on those who are already in heaven? Will anything about their existence change? The only thing I could find in the article I linked to says that their sins will be made known. Is that all that happens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-07T14:06:39.437" LastActivityDate="2015-10-07T14:08:52.867" Title="According to Catholic doctrine, what effect does the Last Judgment have on those who are already in heaven?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4471" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4473" CreationDate="2011-11-05T17:32:46.643" Score="18" ViewCount="4121" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the Roman Catholic church teach about those who die having never heard of Christ? Is there any possibility of salvation for them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Related&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1763/what-happens-to-people-who-have-never-heard-about-jesus&quot;&gt;What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?&lt;/a&gt; This question has too broad of a scope according to the new guidelines, and it doesn't have a good answer from the Roman Catholic point of view.&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1598/what-does-the-catholic-church-teach-about-fate-of-non-catholic-christians&quot;&gt;What does the Catholic church teach about fate of non-Catholic christians?&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-12-24T01:08:50.627" Title="What does the Roman Catholic church teach about those who die having never heard of Christ?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4470" CreationDate="2011-11-05T18:39:34.813" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, when you die, your soul goes to a place prepared for it, but your body is still here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as was shown with Lazarus and the rich man, you may be in Abraham's bosom, which is a good place, or in Hell, suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, this is just your soul suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the final judgement your body will also be with your soul, and you will be judged for the final time, and your body and soul will have the reward or punishment for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether the place that was prepared for the soul is actually in Hell is not necessarily a closed discussion, as Aquinas states that until the final judgement we will be in Hell, but Abraham's bosom won't involve the suffering that the part in Hell would be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, there is also a possibility that our soul will be in Heaven.  Either way can be argued, you can read the links below and come to your own conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/EightLastThings/ELT_Final_Judgment.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;An easier to read description of what is going to happen&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The official teaching on the Particular Judgement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The official teaching on the Final Judgement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5069.htm#article1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thomas Aquinas on where souls go after death&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-07T14:08:52.867" LastActivityDate="2015-10-07T14:08:52.867" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4471" CreationDate="2011-11-05T18:44:54.167" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic doctrine is &amp;quot;Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus:&amp;quot; outside the Church there is no salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is formulated by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Cyprian&lt;/a&gt; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxii.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Epistle 72&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation, because &lt;strong&gt;there is no salvation out of the Church&lt;/strong&gt;, how much less shall it be of advantage to him, if in a hiding-place and a cave of robbers, stained with the contagion of adulterous water, he has not only not put off his old sins, but rather heaped up still newer and greater ones!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And affirmed by about a dozen Popes in the form of ecumenical councils, encyclicals, and papal bulls. But the line has been prone to misinterpretation, and it's a lot more complicated than it appears.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; says this on the matter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;846&lt;/sup&gt;How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;847&lt;/sup&gt; This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue is something called &amp;quot;inculpable ignorance.&amp;quot; The Catholic Church is the only path to salvation, but those who do not know its dogmata through no fault of their own are to be held blameless: they will not be punished for that which they do not know is wrong, and can still be saved through the Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;848&lt;/sup&gt;&amp;quot;Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But those that &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; know the Catholic faith and reject it cannot be saved: there is no alternate path to salvation. From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lumen Gentium&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (LG), paragraph 14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, it's still a little more complicated than &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt;. This doctrine, as explained above, might be interpreted to mean that only non-Christians that are also ignorant of the Catholic faith are held blameless. But it also applies to Christians. From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Unitatis Redintegratio&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, paragraph 3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, what's interesting about this doctrine is that it essentially puts nearly every Christian denomination in partial communion with the Church: nearly all Christians agree with the Roman Catholic Church on some things. If they never learn anything about the things with which they disagree (to give a basic example, the prohibition on the priestly ordination of women), they would be held blameless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's only when a Christian is faced with both the Catholic position and the non-Catholic position—and chooses the latter—that it becomes a problem of heresy. They could do this for any number of reasons: misinformation, misinterpretation, reliance on bad actors, etc. It's then the mission of the Church to bring those people back into the fold. From LG., paragraph 16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, &amp;quot;Preach the Gospel to every creature&amp;quot;, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-24T01:08:50.627" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4474" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4476" CreationDate="2011-11-05T19:34:39.493" Score="20" ViewCount="2218" Body="&lt;p&gt;While researching an answer to a different question, I found that &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther&amp;#39;s_canon#Hebrews.2C_James.2C_Jude_and_Revelation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Martin Luther attempted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the Bible&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was his purpose in removing these four books? Was it a doctrinal stance against these four books? Do these four books contain doctrines that we should, per Martin Luther, not believe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-06-30T18:12:25.447" LastActivityDate="2017-02-12T01:09:04.453" Title="Why was Martin Luther attempting to change the canon?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1538" CreationDate="2011-11-06T03:39:40.470" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think too often we look at God's laws as things we shouldn't do to protect ourselves. Actually sometimes those things are there to bring us pleasure as well. For instance the Holy days and the sabbath. I think God understood that sometimes as people we need to stop what we are doing and take a moment to look at all the things that God has done for us. The Holy days and the sabbath were justo for that. Sometimes God's laws are not just chains, but often provide freedom in a different way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="242" LastActivityDate="2011-11-06T03:39:40.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4474" CreationDate="2011-11-06T08:23:58.547" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key point of Luther's biblical exegesis was his conviction of Christ's being the &lt;em&gt;rex scripturae&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; There is a famous passage from his preface to the &quot;Epistel S. Jacobi und Judas&quot; saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the right touchstone to criticize all the books: See if they preach Christ or not. […] What Christ did not teach, that is not apostolic, may it have been taught by St. Peter or Paul. And what Christ did teach, that is apostolic, may it have been taught by Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herode.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this key exegetical principle, that the doctrine of justification is paramount,&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Luther found a critical standard for the individual biblical writings. The Epistle of James,&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Second Maccabees, Revelation, and Esther did not meet that standard in his eyes. He was so hostile to them that he wished they didn't even exist: he wanted to &quot;almost put them out of the bible.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1: 40 I, 421&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2: &quot;&lt;em&gt;Auch ist das der rechte prufsteyn, alle bucher zu tadelln, wenn man sihet, ob sie Christum treyben odder nit. […] Was Christum nicht lehret, das ist noch nicht apostolisch, wenns gleich S. Petrus oder Paulus lehret. Wiederum, was Christum prediget, das wäre aposolisch, wenns gleich Judas, Hannas, Pilatus oder Herodes tät&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, WADB 7, 384&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3: And mainly the things that are taught in the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle of Peter.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4: There's a dinner speech where he once said: &quot;&lt;em&gt;I'm going to heat up the oven with Jeckel [=Jakob=James].&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (&quot;&lt;em&gt;Ich werdem einmal mit dem Jeckel den Ofen heizen.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;), Ti. 5,382,17&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5: &quot;&lt;em&gt;schier aus der Bibel stoßen&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, Ti. 5,414&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-06-30T18:10:31.257" LastActivityDate="2015-06-30T18:10:31.257" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4477" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4482" CreationDate="2011-11-06T17:51:24.470" Score="11" ViewCount="4190" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the purpose of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_basilica&quot;&gt;minor basilicas&lt;/a&gt;? What is the difference between them and a normal cathedral? As far as I can tell its purely ceremonial. If that is true, what aren't all cathedrals designated basilicas? Is it just a tradition to have hierarchy of cathedrals?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2015-07-14T13:00:39.867" Title="What is the purpose of minor basilicas?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4479" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4480" CreationDate="2011-11-06T18:43:50.240" Score="8" ViewCount="926" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lutherans, Methodists, and Calvinists believe that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29#Comparison_of_traditions&quot;&gt;justification&lt;/a&gt; is an event (as opposed to the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church who believe it is a process). If justification is an event, when does it happen? Is it at the moment of conversion, at baptism, or at some other time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T23:17:52.000" Title="If justification is an event, when does it happen?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;justification&gt;&lt;methodist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4479" CreationDate="2011-11-06T19:57:14.713" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to most independent, fundamentalist Baptists, (and to the best of my knowledge, the groups that you mentioned) justification is a one-time event that happens at the moment of conversion, when a sinner repents on his or her sins and puts their faith in Christ for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be in line with a Calvinist view.  Justification is a result of salvation, and is something granted freely as the gift of salvation, apart from any works of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very same Wikipedia article that you linked to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29#Sola_fide&quot;&gt;outlines the relationship between Justification and Sola Fide&lt;/a&gt;, for those denominations that subscribe to the view that salvation is by faith alone.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Justification&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; covers more groups independently, rather than lumping protestants entirely into a group, and may provide more clarity on how different denominations view the topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-11-06T20:15:02.260" LastActivityDate="2011-11-06T20:15:02.260" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="695" CreationDate="2011-11-06T20:28:43.693" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for the proper noun name of God, then there is only one name. Some of the said above are titles, except for one name JEHOVAH. When Moises ask God what is his name God said in Exodus 3:15, Then God said once more to Moses: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation - Exodus 3:15 (New World Translation) So God has only one personal name, like you, you have only one personal name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below are some verses which are proof that God's proper noun name is Jehovah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth. Psalm 83:18 (King James Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.&#xA;Isaiah 12:2 (King James Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:&#xA;Isaiah 26:4 (King James Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Divine Name that Will Endure Forever.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="437" LastActivityDate="2011-11-06T20:28:43.693" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4477" CreationDate="2011-11-06T21:01:30.707" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;em&gt;cathedral&lt;/em&gt; is the seat of the diocese, where the bishop conducts mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cathedrals are given the precedence of the diocese: more important or influential dioceses have more precedence, with the Diocese of Rome (the seat of the Pope) having the highest precedence. Like getting a particularly influential ambassadorship or corporate title, it's a mark of honor to be assigned to a diocese with higher precedence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to keep in mind is that there is no higher ecclesiastical rank than bishop: even the Pope is a bishop. But as with most bodies of equals there is a pecking order, as it were: the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is essentially the first among equals. The precedence of the bishops and their diocese is meant to provide some amount of order and structure to a large number of bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're familiar with the United States Senate, another way to look at it is how seniority is established there. Even though they're both duly elected senators, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer&quot;&gt;Sen. Chuck Schumer&lt;/a&gt; has more seniority and influence than Sen. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand&quot;&gt;Kirsten Gillabrand&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;em&gt;minor basilica&lt;/em&gt; is the formal designation of a church that is more notable than regular churches, but does not act as the seat of any bishop. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of designating a church a minor basilica is the recognize the historic nature and importance of the church; essentially it's an honorific that can be bestowed for a variety of reasons as long as the church has demonstrated its notability or magnificence to the Sacred Congregation of Rites. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=244&quot;&gt;Robert F. McNamara mentions&lt;/a&gt; a few different ways a church can do that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The petition must show that the church in question is ancient, at least in a relative sense. Or if it has not the dignity of age, it must at least be truly &quot;basilican,&quot; that is, &quot;regal&quot; in character. It must, of course, be a permanent church, and solemnly consecrated; and it must be large, spacious, and rich in its appointments. From a devotional standpoint, it must be in some way or other a notable religious center. If it is a shrine by reason of its possession of the body of a saint, so much the better. If it is not distinguished for its relics, it should at least be distinguished for its paintings, images, etc. The staff of the church should be large enough to permit the frequent and splendid performance of solemn rites. All this implies that it should have an ample and stable income; and, as a matter of fact, the Congregation insists that it be informed of the source of the income. In addition to satisfying the Roman authorities on these points, the bishop is requested to send along books or pamphlets containing a description of the exterior and interior of the church, together with photographs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of its notability, minor basilicas have higher precedence than other churches, but they are outside of the cathedral hierarchy: a basilica that is not also a cathedral is not given precedence over a diocese's cathedral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sake of completion, there's also the &lt;em&gt;major basilicas&lt;/em&gt;, also known as the &lt;em&gt;Papal basilicas&lt;/em&gt;, of which there are four (all in Rome):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_St._John_Lateran&quot;&gt;Basilica of St. John Lateran&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter%27s_Basilica&quot;&gt;St. Peter's Basilica&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Saint_Paul_Outside_the_Walls&quot;&gt;Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_di_Santa_Maria_Maggiore&quot;&gt;Basilica of St. Mary Major&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are given the highest precedence, and only the Holy Father and his delegates are allowed to conduct mass in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2011-11-07T22:58:25.057" LastActivityDate="2011-11-07T22:58:25.057" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4483" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4490" CreationDate="2011-11-07T00:45:30.383" Score="25" ViewCount="63904" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that Peter was married because &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%208:14-15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Christ healed his mother-in-law&lt;/a&gt;. Do we know if he had children? Do we know whether any of the other apostles were married and if they had children?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-02-05T17:29:34.270" LastActivityDate="2016-02-05T17:29:34.270" Title="Did Christ's original twelve apostles have families?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;peter&gt;&lt;family&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4484" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-07T05:11:41.143" Score="14" ViewCount="1268" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most Christians believe God and man are different types of being (Mormons are a notable exception). What passages in the Bible support this? Or is it inferred by the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of only one God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-07T15:13:54.577" LastActivityDate="2012-03-28T16:30:26.077" Title="What does the Bible say about God being a different type of being than man?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4484" CreationDate="2011-11-07T09:19:29.163" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is certainly &lt;strong&gt;higher&lt;/strong&gt; than man. This passage from Isaiah spells it out quite clearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2055:8-9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; For my thoughts are not your thoughts,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;  For as the heavens are higher than the earth,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;so are my ways higher than your ways&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and my thoughts than your thoughts.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, being higher doesn't necessarily imply being &lt;strong&gt;different&lt;/strong&gt;. But we have further proof in that God is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2643/biblical-evidence-for-omnipotence-omniscience/2645#2645&quot;&gt;omnipotent and omniscient&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 17:1 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, &quot;I am God &lt;strong&gt;Almighty&lt;/strong&gt;; walk before me, and be blameless,   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206:4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:4 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who &lt;strong&gt;sees in secret&lt;/strong&gt; will reward you.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:23 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and &lt;strong&gt;foreknowledge&lt;/strong&gt; of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One might still nitpick that omnipotence and omniscience are &lt;em&gt;attributes&lt;/em&gt; and don't require being a different type of being. The final point is that God was &lt;strong&gt;the first one&lt;/strong&gt; (as He was before the world and there is only one God). But, one could argue, does the order of existence imply being a different &lt;em&gt;type&lt;/em&gt; of being?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's quite &lt;strong&gt;obvious&lt;/strong&gt; that God is a different type of being than man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's arguable—it depends on how the types of beings are defined, i.e. the chosen taxonomy. Similarly, men and natural satellites are quite different, but you could come up with a  classification that puts them into the same class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-11-07T09:26:18.373" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22" CreationDate="2011-11-07T12:56:55.743" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ultimate purpose of man must not, it seems, be tied to that which is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; ultimate.  It is true that God does give mankind commands such as &quot;Be fruitful and increase in number&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is important to note that mankind's fulfillment of this command did not prompt God's greatest act.  It was rather the separation of mankind from God through sin that prompted God to become incarnate, die and rise again.  The entire Bible focuses on the redemption of mankind through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  So, it is instructive to note what this accomplished.  The key thing, it seems, is the restored relationship.  God wanted mankind to be in fellowship/union/relationship with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this is eternal life, that &lt;strong&gt;they know you&lt;/strong&gt; the only true God, and&#xA;  Jesus Christ whom you have sent.  John 17:3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, &lt;strong&gt;may be with&#xA;  me where I am,&lt;/strong&gt; to see my glory that you have given me because you&#xA;  loved me before the foundation of the world.   John 17:24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the&#xA;  right to &lt;strong&gt;become children of God&lt;/strong&gt;...  John 1:12 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with&#xA;  them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so &lt;strong&gt;we will always&#xA;  be with the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;.  1 Thessalonians 4:17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have&#xA;  told you that I go to &lt;strong&gt;prepare a place for you&lt;/strong&gt;? And if I go and&#xA;  prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to&#xA;  myself, that &lt;strong&gt;where I am you may be also&lt;/strong&gt;.  John 14:2-3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if we look at the greatest act of God in all time--the atonement through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ--it becomes apparent that all of this was done to restore a relationship between God and mankind.  So, we were created to know Him, to abide in Him, and to be with Him forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-07T12:56:55.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4488" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4495" CreationDate="2011-11-07T13:10:59.097" Score="44" ViewCount="16072" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible mentions that one of the miracles Jesus performed was the healing of Peter's mother-in-law.  This makes it quite clear that Peter himself was married, and Peter is the considered the first Pope by Roman Catholics.  I've also heard that many if not all of the first popes were married and had families.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When was it that marriage first became prohibited for priests and popes in the Catholic church (for Latin Rite priests)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house of&#xA;  Simon and Andrew, with James and John.  Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay&#xA;  ill with a fever, and immediately they told him about her.  Mark&#xA;  1:29-30 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-13T04:48:04.380" LastActivityDate="2020-03-13T18:07:23.107" Title="When did the prohibition of marriage for priests in the Catholic church originate?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;priests&gt;&lt;clergy&gt;&lt;celibacy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4483" CreationDate="2011-11-07T13:29:30.367" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;There’s nothing that I know of in &lt;strong&gt;the Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt; that indicate whether or not they did, aside from the mention of Peter’s mother-in-law.  So, it seems we can’t know for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the norm was that men would have wives and children.  When things conform to the norm, it isn’t necessary to mention that.  It is only notable if something goes against the norm.  So, one reason to conclude that the apostles did have families was that this would have been the norm, and we have no mention of them being different from this norm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do understand that this is an argument from silence, but either side would need to be that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another consideration is that if the marital status of the apostles had been in any way significant or important for us to know, then there would have been ample mention of it.  We do know that Peter had a wife.  The normal occurrence would be that they were all married and that they all had children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-08-28T12:42:23.093" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T12:42:23.093" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4483" CreationDate="2011-11-07T15:38:56.930" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eusebius of Caesarea's Church History talks a bit about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He says St. Philip, at least, had 4 daughters and Sts. Peter and Paul had wives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. &quot;Or will they,&quot; says he, &quot;reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm&quot;&gt;Church History Book III&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding St. Paul (although not one of the 12):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul was obviously unmarried when he wrote this verse. Some interpreters believe that he had previously been married and widowed; there is no clear evidence either for or against this view, which was expressed already at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1cor/7:8#54007008-1&quot;&gt;NABRE - Commentary on 1 Cor 7:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-11-07T18:50:53.367" LastActivityDate="2011-11-07T18:50:53.367" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4491" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4493" CreationDate="2011-11-07T18:25:32.493" Score="12" ViewCount="1254" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Catholic Churches teaches the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.  How does that account for the Scripture that references Peter's error?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he&#xA;  stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating&#xA;  with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated&#xA;  himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews&#xA;  acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led&#xA;  astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not&#xA;  in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them&#xA;  all, &quot;If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew,&#xA;  how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?&quot;  Galatians 2:11-14&#xA;  (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T05:31:53.937" LastActivityDate="2015-08-02T05:31:53.937" Title="How does the doctrine of Papal Infallibility account for Peter's error?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;peter&gt;&lt;papal-infallibility&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4491" CreationDate="2011-11-07T18:45:12.500" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2133/when-does-the-pope-speak-ex-cathedra&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; explains, the Pope is not considered infallible every time he speaks, but only when he speaks &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;. Essentially this means only when he makes a deliberately definitive pronouncement on a matter of doctrine. The quote you give is therefore not relevant. Even if Peter were considered a Pope at this point, the incident described would not invalidate papal infallibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of papal infallibility is not founded on biblical texts specifically. It is founded on the (biblically supported) doctrine that the church is the custodian of truth, and that St. Peter was appointed by Christ as head of it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#III&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; gives much more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T16:29:47.510" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4199" CreationDate="2011-11-07T22:25:55.683" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The BUGB is pretty liberal and there are many things on which it does not have a clear view. To that extent, I would guess it's a bit more like the American Baptists than the Southern Baptists who, from my transatlantic vantage point, appear to be more evangelical in their doctrine, generally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though there are some evangelical Baptist churches still within the BUGB, a large proportion of UK churches which bear the name &quot;Baptist&quot; are in fact either independent (in some cases affiliated with other independent churches through organisations such as Affinity, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches [FIEC] or the Evangelical Movement of Wales) or part of other Baptist denominations such as the Grace Baptists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="976" LastActivityDate="2011-11-07T22:25:55.683" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4488" CreationDate="2011-11-08T02:35:02.617" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The important thing to consider is that celibacy, or practicing non-marriage, was practiced far before Christianity. Druid priests, Aztec Priests, etc were told to have been mandated to be pure and have no marriage with women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the first written mandate that states that priests should be celibate was made around AD 300. The Council of Elvira stated that all &quot;bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics were to abstain completely from their wives and not to have children&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This practice of celibacy began spreading in the Middle Ages. Around the 11th century Pope Benedict VIII issued a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Kings have used this as a weapon against the church's power. Since they could not have children, they could not pass the power to someone else. So it was the job of the king to decide who should be the next Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why, maybe it was to make the people at the church to have a standing out quality that few other men had. It represented a paradigm of separation from the sinful world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-30T19:09:35.147" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T19:09:35.147" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4496" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-08T03:35:56.207" Score="10" ViewCount="449" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/bd?lang=eng&quot;&gt;LDS Bible Dictionary&lt;/a&gt; entry on &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/faith?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=f&quot;&gt;faith&lt;/a&gt; states that one of the effects of true faith in Christ is &quot;an assurance of personal salvation in the world to come.&quot; How does this assurance compare to the Methodist doctrine on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_%28theology%29#John_Wesley_and_Methodism&quot;&gt;assurance&lt;/a&gt;? What do they have in common and what is distinct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-08T15:07:34.620" LastActivityDate="2011-11-08T20:25:38.633" Title="How does the LDS doctrine of assurance compare to the Methodist doctrine of assurance?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;methodist&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4498" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-11-08T14:24:20.397" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about which books are included in the biblical canon, or how those books came to be chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T14:00:45.807" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T14:00:45.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4499" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-11-08T14:24:20.397" Score="0" Body="A biblical canon is a list of books considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community. " OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-11-08T14:24:43.180" LastActivityDate="2011-11-08T14:24:43.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4484" CreationDate="2011-11-08T16:44:15.453" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Along with what dancek posted, I would suggest that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2023:19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Numbers 23:19&lt;/a&gt; speaks pretty clearly that God is not man, but something greater: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 God is not man, that he should lie,&#xA;         or a son of man, that he should change his mind.&#xA;      Has he said, and will he not do it?&#xA;         Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastEditorUserId="967" LastEditDate="2011-12-19T20:44:03.790" LastActivityDate="2011-12-19T20:44:03.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="809" CreationDate="2011-11-08T17:01:24.073" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is directly copied from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pew Forum Survey&lt;/a&gt; under the title &quot;Religious Affiliation&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Compared with their elders today, young people are much less likely to affiliate with any religious tradition or to identify themselves as part of a Christian denomination. Fully one-in-four adults under age 30 (25%) are unaffiliated, describing their religion as &quot;atheist,&quot; &quot;agnostic&quot; or &quot;nothing in particular.&quot; This compares with less than one-fifth of people in their 30s (19%), 15% of those in their 40s, 14% of those in their 50s and 10% or less among those 60 and older. About two-thirds of young people (68%) say they are members of a Christian denomination and 43% describe themselves as Protestants, compared with 81% of adults ages 30 and older who associate with Christian faiths and 53% who are Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this information, as well as the other graphs and questions in that survey, I would venture to say that Christianity is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; growing, but rather declining. Of course, for every survey that says it's declining, there is probably one that says it's growing...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastActivityDate="2011-11-08T17:01:24.073" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4502" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4503" CreationDate="2011-11-08T17:16:14.017" Score="13" ViewCount="1353" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading in Matthew and saw a fascinating command, directly from Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_023.htm&quot;&gt;Matthew 23:9 (NWT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any Christian doctrines or denominations that currently practice this doctrine of not calling anyone on Earth a &quot;father&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-28T18:01:37.793" LastActivityDate="2017-05-13T23:20:21.657" Title="Are there any Christian groups that follow Matthew 23:9?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4502" CreationDate="2011-11-08T18:02:01.220" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aside from the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=Father%20Abraham%20%20site:jewsforjesus.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jews for Jesus&lt;/a&gt;, I think all Christians take this the way Jesus meant it whether they know it or not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't copy and paste my answer from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4409/what-is-the-roman-catholic-view-on-matthew-239/4412#4412&quot;&gt;What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?&lt;/a&gt;, but the gist of it is, the Pharisees took pride in calling Abraham their Father, and the pride is what Jesus is doing away with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that the Gospels should necessarily be intertwined in such a manner, but if you read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A48-58&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 8:48-58 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;  The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;  “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. &lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;  I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. &lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;  Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;  At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. &lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;  Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;  Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. &lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;  Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. &lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;  Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;  “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;  “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus calls Abraham 'your father' because the Jews about Him called Abraham 'our father'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the Gospels, Jesus stresses that God is Our Father and that's what's really important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T14:08:06.390" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4464" CreationDate="2011-11-08T19:52:17.290" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus explicitly calls himself the Son of God here in Matthew 26:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 26:63a-64b&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus replied “What you have said is true.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think it gets much more clear than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;I have to note that this is a paraphrase version, so the actual wording may be somewhat contentious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-11-08T20:36:08.197" LastActivityDate="2011-11-08T20:36:08.197" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4496" CreationDate="2011-11-08T20:16:14.307" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was a member of the LDS church for 20 years.  I've been a Methodist for 2 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LDS Assurance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sentence from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/faith?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=f&quot;&gt;LDS Bible Dictionary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The effects of true faith in Jesus Christ include (1) an actual knowledge that the course of life one is pursuing is acceptable to the Lord (see Heb. 11:4); (2) a reception of the blessings of the Lord that are available to man in this life; and (3) an assurance of personal salvation in the world to come.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In LDS church doctrine, all people will be saved.  What this means is that all people will be resurrected, and as spirits, regain a perfected body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, your place in the kingdoms of God is determined by how you lived your life.  Mormons work so that they will be worthy of the highest kingdom of God, the celestial kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS church has an obscure ordinance called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_anointing&quot;&gt;second anointing&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Latter Day Saint movement, the second anointing, also known historically and in Latter Day Saint scripture as the fulness of the priesthood, is an obscure and relatively rare ordinance usually conducted in temples as extension of the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony. Founder Joseph Smith, Jr. cited the &quot;fulness of the priesthood&quot; as one of the reasons for building the Nauvoo Temple (D&amp;amp;C 124:28). In the ordinance, a participant is anointed as a &quot;priest and king&quot; or a &quot;priestess and queen&quot;, and is sealed to the highest degree of salvation available in Mormon theology. Those who participate in this ordinance are said to have their &quot;calling and election made sure&quot;,...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, according to LDS doctrine, you can have an assurance of personal salvation.  However, a member of the LDS church has to work very hard to be worthy of a second anointing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS church doctrine is based on salvation by works.  Many, many works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methodist Assurance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sentence from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_%28theology%29#John_Wesley_and_Methodism&quot;&gt;Methodist doctrine of assurance&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John Wesley believed that all Christians have a faith which implies an assurance of God's forgiving love, and that one would feel that assurance, or the &quot;witness of the Spirit&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This comes from Romans 8:16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Wesley delivered a sermon entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/10/&quot;&gt;&quot;The Witness of the Spirit&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the pertinent line from the sermon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, it's God assuring us that God loves us and is with us, no matter what we did or didn't do.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Methodist doctrine is based on salvation by grace.  Works do not earn you a place in heaven, but rather strengthen our character and serve others through God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="583" LastEditDate="2011-11-08T20:25:38.633" LastActivityDate="2011-11-08T20:25:38.633" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4464" CreationDate="2011-11-08T20:17:57.027" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:13-17&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus says &lt;strong&gt;my&lt;/strong&gt; father, meaning that He is the Son of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, &quot;Who do people say that the Son of Man is?&quot; And they said, &quot;Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.&quot; He said to them, &quot;But who do you say that I am?&quot; Simon Peter replied, &quot;You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.&quot; And Jesus answered him, &quot;Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, a high priest asks Jesus if He is indeed the &quot;Son of the Blessed&quot;, in which He replies &lt;strong&gt;&quot;I am&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:61-62&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 14:61-62&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, &quot;Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?&quot; And Jesus said, &quot;I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a big reason of why Jesus never &lt;strong&gt;directly&lt;/strong&gt; said that He was the Son of God (unless He was asked to say it) was because He wanted the people to exercise &lt;em&gt;faith&lt;/em&gt; in Him, rather than seeing miracles and the like to prove to them that He was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-05-24T16:06:58.683" LastActivityDate="2013-05-24T16:06:58.683" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4507" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-08T21:17:11.693" Score="10" ViewCount="766" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 2, we read of how the apostles received the gift of tongues so that people heard the gospel in their own languages. Is the gift of tongues, then, specifically evangelistic or does it have a purpose in a congregation where there are only believers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was under the impression that only Charismatics currently practice this gift. What do they consider the purpose to be and are there others who actually practice the gift that consider the purpose to be different? How are these purposes defended using either Old or New Testaments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-22T22:15:06.917" LastActivityDate="2017-02-22T15:42:52.007" Title="What do those who practice the gift of 'tongues' consider the purpose to be?" Tags="&lt;acts&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4508" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="46525" CreationDate="2011-11-08T21:48:13.260" Score="8" ViewCount="1922" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Maximilian Kolbe was known for printing his pamphlets in the years leading up to World War II.  Reportedly, he had some very interesting musings on relativity, the speed of light  and Christ's redemptive power. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find any of his works in English (or Polish for that matter), although I read his quotes now and again.  I've never seen an actual book or collection of writings written by him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a published collection of his works available anywhere? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2018-01-24T06:00:04.460" LastActivityDate="2018-01-24T06:00:04.460" Title="Are St. Maximilian Kolbe's writings available in English?" Tags="&lt;resource-request&gt;&lt;maximilian-kolbe&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4508" CreationDate="2011-11-09T14:15:56.620" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.missiomariae.net/&quot;&gt;This site&lt;/a&gt; appears to be down at the moment, but they claim, &quot;There is no complete English edition of his writings at the present moment in one collected volumes.  Hence, we offer our readers and missionaries the following materials that can be used as supplement for meditation, and/or instruction on Kolbe's Total consecration to the the Immaculate.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.missiomariae.net/religious-life/spirituality/216-excerpts-from-kolbes-wrtings-on-total-consecration-to-mary.html&quot;&gt;Excerpts from Kolbe's Writings on Total Consecration to Mary&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ahttp://www.missiomariae.net/religious-life/spirituality/216-excerpts-from-kolbes-wrtings-on-total-consecration-to-mary.html&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;strip=1&quot;&gt;Google Cache&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="25" LastActivityDate="2011-11-09T14:15:56.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4511" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-09T16:00:30.410" Score="5" ViewCount="411" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Hermeneutics course I am taking, a definition of &quot;Regula Fidei&quot; was posed that seemed different from the way my Catholic acquaintances use the term. How is the term &lt;em&gt;Rule of Faith&lt;/em&gt;  used differently by Catholics than by Protestants? Specifically how is the practical application different even if the concept is similar in definition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-09T17:01:30.857" LastActivityDate="2019-12-10T07:48:28.337" Title="How do the Catholic and Protestant understandings of &quot;Regula Fidei&quot; differ?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4512" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-09T17:18:52.617" Score="7" ViewCount="2615" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the parable of the sower, four types of soil are mentioned.  It seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the first two types of soils represent unbelievers or &quot;make believers&quot;.  The fourth type of soil is held to be true believers that are living fruitful lives.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The debate appears to come in when considering what the third type of soil is--the seed that fell among the thorns.  What exegetical reasons are there to accept that this type of soil does refer to genuine believers who are living apart from the abiding life to which we are called rather than a third type of unbeliever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:1-8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 4: 1-8 ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Again he began to teach beside the sea. And a very large crowd gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on the sea, and the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And he was teaching them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 &quot;Listen! A sower went out to sow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. **&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain**.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-14T10:12:24.107" LastActivityDate="2014-07-14T10:12:24.107" Title="In the parable of the sower, what exegetical reasons are there to interpret the third type of soil to be genuine Christians?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;parables&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4507" CreationDate="2011-11-09T18:19:23.677" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are there others who actually practice the gift that consider the purpose to be different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gift of tongues has a minor, though important, role in Mormon theology.  In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Articles of Faith&lt;/a&gt;, a simple, short enumeration of basic LDS beliefs written by Joseph Smith, the seventh article mentions spiritual gifts, and the first one listed is the gift of tongues.  However, Latter-Day Saints do not see the gift of tongues as something to be actively &quot;practiced&quot;, but rather as a gift which can come to a person when it is needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is chiefly used as in Acts 2, to communicate with people with whom one does not share a common language, usually for the purpose of teaching and testifying.  As such, it's commonly found among missionaries, generally ones who are still fairly &quot;green&quot; and haven't learned the language yet, but still have a message that they need to deliver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who have experienced it frequently describe it as having their tongue loosed (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:64&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 1:64&lt;/a&gt;); where they were previously unable to speak, (or speak well, at least,) suddenly it becomes natural and they're able to communicate freely and clearly.  This is frequently followed by a certain degree of disappointment afterwards, upon realizing that this is a temporary, as-needed gift only, and they have not been magically handed the knowledge of a foreign language without legitimately learning it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-11-09T18:19:23.677" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4502" CreationDate="2011-11-09T21:14:40.873" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Protestants are against calling clergy &quot;Father&quot; like Roman Catholics call their priests, but some Protestant pastors think of themselves as spiritual fathers. A RC replied when asked about this and said you shouldn't call people Mister since it means Master, the word comes from the word Meister in German which means Master.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Seventh-day Adventist brought up the RCC practice while talking about RCC being a beast or something in prophecy, so they are against it. (Some SDA are against being called Reverend citing Psalm 111:9. Psa 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend [is] his name.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some verses and reasoning against calling someone Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your&#xA;  Father, which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 10:29 mentions father, but Mark 10:30 doesn't while it's missing in Mat 19:29.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or&#xA;  sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my&#xA;  name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit&#xA;  everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is&#xA;  no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or&#xA;  mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mar 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time,&#xA;  houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and&#xA;  lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the&#xA;  world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name&#xA;  those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastActivityDate="2011-11-09T21:14:40.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4512" CreationDate="2011-11-09T21:30:31.807" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%204:10-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 4:10-20&lt;/a&gt; explains in a little more detail what 4:1-8 recorded. Jesus is explaining to the disciples the purpose of parables as a whole, and we see that he uses the Parable of the Sower again to describe the people that the disciples will encounter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, &lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Initially, the person is hearing the Word (v 18), but desires of the flesh and worldly things make their way in, causing that person to not produce fruit (v 19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastActivityDate="2011-11-09T21:30:31.807" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4521" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-10T05:22:31.333" Score="12" ViewCount="53747" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people with mental illness might do lots of things that are unpredictable and considered sin, up to killing themselves, or possibly forget anything about Jesus and salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what does the Bible say about them as in will they still be saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-08-02T14:05:49.327" LastActivityDate="2013-01-12T18:31:41.320" Title="What does the Bible say about people with mental illness?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;mental-illness&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T13:47:06.193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4522" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-10T05:41:59.020" Score="7" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:1-3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those verses are commonly interpreted to mean that charity is also necessary for salvation, even &quot;though I have all faith.&quot; That interpretation opposes the doctrine of Sola Fide. How then do Sola Fide adherents interpret this passage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T13:08:54.270" Title="How do Sola Fide adherents interpret 1 Corinthians 13:2?" Tags="&lt;sola-fide&gt;&lt;charity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4522" CreationDate="2011-11-10T09:31:47.013" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;The KJV is in the minority, if not unique, in its use of &quot;charity&quot; as opposed to &quot;love&quot; in its translation of that passage. In particular there are two forms of love being talked about here; in verse one the Amplified Version defines it as &quot;that reasoning, intentional, spiritual devotion such as is inspired by God's love for and in us&quot; and in the latter verses simply as &quot;God's love in me&quot;. So in this answer I talk about &quot;love&quot; as opposed to &quot;charity&quot; - particularly to avoid confusion as verse 3 talks about both the practice of charity (the practice of benevolent giving and caring) and the virtue of charity (the Christian theological concept of unlimited love and kindness).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first two verses are talking about what a person contributes through particular actions, and the third is concerned with what a person gains through particular actions. The important thing here from a Sola Fide perspective is that these are three distinct sentences. They are related to one another, but they do &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; say &quot;If I have faith and not love, I gain nothing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 1 is self explanatory: speaking various languages, including the tongues of angels, without love is just noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 2: A person is useless without love, even if they have the ability to prophesy, a deep understanding of mysteries, encyclopaedic knowledge of everything, and sufficient faith to move mountains. Note that it doesn't say such a person is not saved; it just says they contribute nothing of use. This is the only verse that talks about faith, but it doesn't talk about salvation; it says that it's possible to have faith and not contribute anything of use, but it doesn't say that you need more than faith to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 3 is the only one that relates to salvation, because it talks about what a person gains. It says that without love, giving away all our possessions and even giving our lives, gives us nothing. In other words we are not saved by good works. Note that verse 3 does not mention faith in God; it does not say &quot;if you have faith but not love, you are not saved&quot; it says &quot; if you do good works without love, you don't gain anything&quot;. Therefore it doesn't negate the notion that faith is sufficient for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-11-10T09:37:34.243" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T09:37:34.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1229" CreationDate="2011-11-10T12:29:52.927" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that the default condition of the world is that of being under condemnation, according to John 3:18: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but &lt;strong&gt;whoever does not believe is condemned already&lt;/strong&gt;, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt;) and are already dead in their trespasses and sins (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 2:13&lt;/a&gt;).    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, the question is not so much if there is there any unforgivable sin that a Christian can commit that will result in his losing salvation.  Rather, it is what an unbeliever does that precludes him from being made alive, forgiven, and given eternal life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is his failure to recognize Jesus as the Messiah and trust in His substitionary atonement on the Cross and His resurrection from the dead.  The sin of the Pharisees was, when seeing the evidence of the Messiahship and Deity of Jesus, they rejected it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We must understand that it is the Holy Spirit who &quot;convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment&quot; to draw them to faith.&lt;/strong&gt;  So, it seems that people can blaspheme the Father and the Son and be forgiven, yet blaspheming the Holy Spirit may result in the Holy Spirit ceasing to draw the person to faith in Christ, rendering that person unforgivable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Forgiveness comes through faith in Christ, and faith in Christ comes at the beckoning of the Holy Spirit.  So, once again, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit may result in the cessation of His drawing of a person to faith in Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:8-11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 16:8-11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, there is an unforgivable sin, but this isn't something a Christian can commit.  It's something an unbeliever can commit by quenching the One who draws him to faith in Christ, through which forgiveness is received.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-05-14T04:02:22.150" LastActivityDate="2012-05-14T04:02:22.150" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1518" CreationDate="2011-11-10T12:37:55.267" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that God, the Creator of they physical universe, exists outside of the physical universe--time, space, and matter.  So, God's image is not physical, so the image of God in us does not indicate that God has hands, feet, sexual organs, a stomach, liver, tonsils, etc.  We are not replicas of God, but we bear His image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is spirit (John 4:23), so that is the part of mankind that retains His image.  Humans are the only thing on earth that are not merely physical beings, but which are also spiritual beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T12:37:55.267" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1770" CreationDate="2011-11-10T12:48:09.077" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to note the context of the command in Exodus 22:18 to not permit a witch to live.  It was part of God's covenant with the nation of Israel.  There were specific laws given by God to Israel as part of His covenant with them.  This covenant began with Abraham, but these laws date from the time of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel speaks of a new covenant that was to come (and has come now in Jesus).  So, the old covenant with Israel was in effect from around 1500 B.C. to about 30 A.D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this never applied to Gentiles or any Gentile nation, and it hasn't been in effect for the past 2,000 years anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no, we don't have to worry about keeping a covenant that was with the nation of Israel and hasn't been in effect for 2,000 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-09T14:26:14.733" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T14:26:14.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1920" CreationDate="2011-11-10T13:05:30.570" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament (or Old Covenant) dates was written over a period of at least 1,000 years, beginning possibly around 1500 B.C.  Genesis may be the compilation of writings dating back much further, and that could increase the age to the time of Abraham (2000 B.C.), or even Noah (2500 B.C.) or even Adam (4,000 B.C.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last Old Testament writings occurred close to 500 B.C.  (This is excluding aprocryphal or inter-testamental works).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there multiple versions?  No.  I would say, though, that some retelling of stories does occur in 1 &amp;amp; 2 Chronicles of events that are recorded in 1 &amp;amp; 2 Samuel and 1 &amp;amp; 2 Kings.  Deuteronomy is a summary of the exodus of the Israelites throughout Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.  Psalm 78 retells a brief history of the Jewish people as well.  &lt;strong&gt;These &quot;retellings&quot; are all complementary and not contradictory.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it's necessary to mention that these are not four contradictory version, but four complementary accounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We need to ask the question of what it would be like if they were all identical.  In that case, there would be only one account and not four, so four identical accounts is of no value.  Four accounts that tell contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus (i.e. one says He was stoned, another says He was beaten to death, a third says He was crucified, and the fourth says He never died) would render at least three of the accounts false.  However, four complementary accounts give corroboratory evidence to the events recorded therein.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again if four eyewitnesses in a court of law say precisely the same thing and remember everything each other does, we would conclude they got together to get their story straight.  If their stories recount contradictory facts, then they are lying.  Yet, if they include different details from each other, but all of their stories fit together, then this is strong evidence that the story is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Old Testament is like this in its retelling, and the New Testament is like that as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T13:05:30.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4512" CreationDate="2011-11-10T13:06:37.557" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the problem is the initial understanding of what the soil and seeds are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Gospel&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 4:14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The farmer sows the word&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse implies that the seeds are the gospel.  However, if we look at the next sentence, there appears to be a contradiction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 4:15a (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, that contradiction is clarified in the next sentence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 4:15b (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, Satan can't come and take away the people; he's taking away the word that was sown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, it appears clear that the gospel are the seeds.  This makes it seem clear that the soil is the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The People&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, can we really accept the soil as people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 4:16-17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is showing that the people are like the seeds that are attempting to grow roots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Heart&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think that &amp;quot;the soil&amp;quot; can be equated to people any more than the seed can be directly equated to the gospel (due to verses 16-17).  This is an analogy and Jesus isn't trying to make a perfect analogy here, but simply trying to illustrate a point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If&lt;/em&gt; the soil could be equated with anything, however, I believe that it would be equated with the heart, not with the person who owns it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2012:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 12:25a (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Anxiety weighs down the heart&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 12:34 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with ... the anxieties of life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;True Believers?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is:  Is the third type of soil a true believer?  My answer: No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galations%205:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galations 5:22 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;But the fruit of the Spirit is ... peace ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;True believers have the Holy Spirit living within them.  One of the results of having the Holy Spirit is peace--not anxiety.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also see this here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%204:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 4:7 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses show a very direct contrast to the &amp;quot;third soil&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:18-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 4:18-19 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This third type of people that we see in the parable of the sower are people who are so burdened with the cares of this world, that they don't nourish their spirit.  These people allow the world and the cares of this world to choke out their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are not true believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One last item that you might find interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:2 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the will of God when it comes to worrying?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%206:33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:33 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T13:06:37.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2826" CreationDate="2011-11-10T13:36:41.467" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to evaluate the spiritual value of anything, we have to apply the &amp;quot;Regula Fidei&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Rule of Faith&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Regula Fidei&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick definition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, the Rule of Faith is the ultimate authority that is used to measure doctrines, practices, or beliefs (or other items in Christianity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Ultimate Authority&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Applying the Rule of Faith is much more tricky since it depends on what you consider the &amp;quot;ultimate authority&amp;quot;.  &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt; adherents, for example, consider the Bible to be the ultimate authority;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Catholicism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Applying Regula Fide for Commentaries&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, when examining commentaries, we have to use the &lt;em&gt;Regula Fidei&lt;/em&gt; to determine if a commentary is valid.  For &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt; adherents, this means that we have to use the Bible to determine if a commentary is valid or not (which is often not easy).  Fortunately, in Catholicism, there is a bit larger body of work to draw upon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All commentaries come from a certain doctrinal standpoint.  Often, a commentary (as others have mentioned) will note their doctrinal standpoint, but sometimes they will not.  In these cases, it's most important to examine the Bible and Divine traditions to see if the commentary contradicts anything within the Bible or Divine traditions.  If it does, then clearly the commentary should be avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T15:38:38.193" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4530" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-10T16:12:43.767" Score="6" ViewCount="4705" Body="&lt;p&gt;It might sound like a stupid question at first, because obviously humans and angels are quite different in many ways... but bear with me a moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/what-does-in-the-image-of-god-mean/1536#1536&quot;&gt;one of the answers&lt;/a&gt; to my question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1518/20&quot;&gt;What does &amp;quot;in the image of God&amp;quot; mean?&lt;/a&gt;, the poster says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[M]ost Christians interpret it to mean that we share in the spiritual reality with the spiritual beings, and traits specific to God (spiritual traits, since God is Spirit) belong to man. Such things then do not belong to other creatures, which may or may not include the angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It then lists four specific traits that humans share with God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Ability to create&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Reason&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Having a 'spirit'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Being able to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes me wonder: How are humans and angels different, in essence?  Of these four traits, angels seem to clearly posses a spirit, and likely have reason.  Are they able to create? Are angels 'indwelt' by the Holy Spirit? (Is it possible for a non-physical being to be indwelt anyway?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other traits do angels and humans share, and how else do they differ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To provide a doctrinal scope, let me say I'm seeking views from an evangelical protestant&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; view, although I would still entertain answers from other views so long as they are labeled so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;I realize that even &quot;evangelical&quot; may be too broad on this topic, as even if I specified a very specific denomination, there are likely many views supported within the official view of the denomination--since this is probably not considered an essential tenant of any denomination's statement of faith.  So... I hope this doesn't make the question unanswerable.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2016-03-25T02:10:28.547" Title="How are angels and humans different?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-03-27T03:32:04.213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4521" CreationDate="2011-11-10T16:29:38.787" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not really have a concept of mental illness in the sense we have it today. There are, as far as I know, no stories in the Bible that clearly talk about the mentally ill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are of course cases of people described as &quot;demon possessed&quot; or &quot;having an evil spirit&quot;. Many have speculated that these are people who would today be described as having a mental illness. Examples that spring to mind include the demon called &quot;Legion&quot;, (Mark 5 1-20), Luke 4:31-37, The Philippian slave girl (Acts 16). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether we consider this a real demon or a mental illness, one thing that all these stories have in common is that after the demon has left (or they have been cured) no blame is attached to the person. We don't read that the people have to repent, or are forgiven. We could reasonably infer that they are not responsible for what they have done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ADDITION:While not strictly within the scope of the question, I found while researching &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08041a.htm&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; which discusses the moral responsibility of the insane from the Catholic viewpoint. Its conclusion is that there are kinds of insanity that remove the culpability of those that commit sin, chiefly those of a delusional nature or which prevent the sufferer knowing right from wrong. However if the sufferer still knows right from wrong they may still be responsible for their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-11-12T21:06:40.993" LastActivityDate="2011-11-12T21:06:40.993" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4530" CreationDate="2011-11-10T17:18:07.070" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;WARNING - CATHOLIC ANSWER&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A religious sister at the end of the Faith Formation class I teach at was talking about this difference last night.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Angels are pure spirit, like God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Angel is their office, Spirit is their nature&quot; - St. Augustine (see CCC)  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Angels do not need to be saved by Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They made their choice to serve God or not before time began and do not have a fallen nature brought about by original sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Angels cannot consume the Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some theologians believe that this, coupled with the vision that Jesus would come to redeem mankind and be born of a woman, is the reason for Lucifer's revolt.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism entry on angels&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The internet does not seem to be a good place to source this info, or my google-fu is a little off.  Most of what we posit about the nature of angels is borne of private revelation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So take it or leave it, I'll try to improve this answer when I come across the places I heard this information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T17:18:07.070" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2011-11-10T17:25:41.197" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two key passages which are used in support of this position:  Acts 2:38 and John 3:5-6.  Let's take them one at a time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:38&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to&#xA;  Peter and the rest of the apostles, &quot;Brothers, what shall we do?&quot;&#xA;  And Peter said to them, &quot;Repent and be baptized every one of you in&#xA;  the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you&#xA;  will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:37-38 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading this in English, it seems to indicate that Peter was instructing the people to both repent and be baptized for salvation, so they would need to do both.  A Greek-speaking person who read this at that time would not likely draw the same conclusion, though, because the verb tenses of &quot;Repent&quot; and &quot;be baptized&quot; are different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Repent&quot; is &lt;strong&gt;2nd&lt;/strong&gt; Person &lt;strong&gt;Plural&lt;/strong&gt; (all of you) Active Imperative, while &quot;be baptized&quot; is &lt;strong&gt;3rd&lt;/strong&gt; Person &lt;strong&gt;Singular&lt;/strong&gt; Passive Imperative.  So, it doesn't appear to really say &quot;All of you must repent and all of you must be baptized&quot;, but rather &quot;All of you must repent and then let him (who has done so) be baptized.&quot;  So, it seems that the translation into English has led to the uncertainty and misunderstanding.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR241.htm&quot;&gt;More Info&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &quot;Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of&#xA;  water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which&#xA;  is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is&#xA;  spirit.  John 3:5-6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this passage, the assumption is made that being &quot;born of water&quot; must necessarily be equivalent to being baptized in water.  This is definitely one interpretation, but certainly not the only one.  That assumption cannot just be &quot;assumed&quot; without a good reason to do so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must note that there are two times in which two things are joined by the &quot;and&quot;--one is water and spirit, and the other is the flesh and the Spirit: &quot;born of flesh&quot; and &quot;born of the Spirit&quot;.  Consequently, a valid interpretation is that water is referring to the flesh, as when someone is born the mother's water breaks.  We also must recall that Nicodemus was tripped up thinking that he had to be born physically again and enter his mother's womb a second time.  Jesus clarifies by indicating there are two distinct types of birth--a physical one and a spiritual one.  Nicodemus had no need to be born physically a second time, but he did have need of being born spiritually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Scarcity of the Mention of Baptism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are dozens of places where the word &quot;believe&quot; is used with regard to salvation where baptism is not mentioned at all.  To hold to the position of baptism being required for salvation, one needs to give an explanation for this.  If faith were insufficient for salvation apart from baptism in water, it is curious as to why it is so infrequently mentioned in these passages where faith is given as the means of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why the Baptism of John rather than the Baptism of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John the Baptist stated very clearly that he was nothing compared to the Messiah who was coming.  John baptized with water, but he spoke of One who would not baptize with water, but with the Holy Spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy&#xA;  Spirit.  Mark 1:8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is curious, then, that so often when the word baptism is seen in Scriptures that it is assumed to refer to John's baptism  rather than that of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration comes mostly from interpretations of Acts 2:37-38 and John 3:5-6 that are a bit problematic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T17:25:41.197" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4534" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-10T19:18:02.097" Score="2" ViewCount="2927" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering about the sinfulness of women, particularly mothers, working outside the home.  Perhaps 1 Timothy 5:8 could be understood to mean that only the husband is to provide for the family:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 5:8 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for a woman, particularly a mother, working outside the home?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="982" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-09-05T15:19:45.977" Title="What is the biblical basis for women, particularly mothers, working outside of the home?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;parenting&gt;&lt;vocations&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4534" CreationDate="2011-11-10T20:14:46.133" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 31 is considered (by many) to be the model of what a godly woman should be.  In this chapter, we see that this woman is actually quite industrious:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;An excellent wife who can find?  She is far more precious than&#xA;jewels. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no&#xA;lack of gain. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her&#xA;life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;She seeks wool and flax, and &lt;strong&gt;works with willing hands&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;She is like the ships of the merchant; she brings her food from afar.&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;She rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household&#xA;and portions for her maidens. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;She considers a field and buys it;&#xA;with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;She dresses&#xA;herself with strength and makes her arms strong. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;She perceives&#xA;that her merchandise is profitable.&lt;/strong&gt;  Her lamp does not go out at&#xA;night. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the&#xA;spindle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands&#xA;to the needy. &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all&#xA;her household are clothed in scarlet. &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;She makes bed coverings for&#xA;herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple. &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;Her husband is&#xA;known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land. &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;She&#xA;makes linen garments and sells them&lt;/strong&gt;; she delivers sashes to the&#xA;merchant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at&#xA;the time to come. &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching&#xA;of kindness is on her tongue. &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;She looks well to the ways of her&#xA;household and does not eat the bread of idleness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;&amp;quot;Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.&amp;quot;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears&#xA;the LORD is to be praised. &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;Give her of the fruit of her hands,&#xA;and let her works praise her in the gates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2031:10-31&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 31:10-31 ESV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;, in no way does the Bible say it is sinful for a woman to work outside the home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, men and women are still different, and masculinity is different from femininity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christian families that I know of where the woman does not work outside the home have made that choice because of their own priorities.  They have decided that freeing up the wife or mother to focus more effort on caring for the family and being active in the lives of their children is more important than the extra money and career success that the woman could otherwise achieve in the workplace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes both ways, though.  I believe that both the man who has a career and the woman should value the family more than career advancement and prestige.  For the man, that may mean not getting that next promotion that requires more hours, so that he can spend more time caring for his wife and children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T21:39:05.237" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="991" CreationDate="2011-11-10T20:37:36.083" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that I would have any general qualms about using the phrasings interchangably, but they do have the potential to give different connotations with regard to the mode through which a person is seeking his answers.   This points to the distinction between &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answers.org/theology/illumination.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;revelation, inspiration, and illumination&lt;/a&gt;.  (FTR, I'm not endorsing all of the  implications put forth in that link, but it does do a good job summarizing the differences between the three modes of communication).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the link:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation:  From God to man (man hears what God wants written)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Inspiration:  From man to paper (man writes that which God wants&#xA;  written)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Illumination:  From paper to heart (man receives that which God has&#xA;  written)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we (directly) look to &quot;what the Bible says&quot; in order to (indirectly) discern &quot;what God says,&quot; we're trusting in the inspiration of the biblical authors and illumination of the Spirit to &quot;shed light on&quot; those words of Scripture which have been revealed to those authors and offered to all men.    If someone uses the phrase they're looking to &quot;what God says,&quot; it can be ambiguous as to what exactly they mean (are they appealing to a &quot;special revelation&quot; of visions and prophecies that they alone are privvy to?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2011-11-10T20:37:36.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4491" CreationDate="2011-11-10T22:06:29.827" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some biblical sections (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:18-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:18-20&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I Timothy 3:14-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will need to go into more detail later but basically, the Holy Spirit is expected by Jesus to help protect the church remain faithful standing against the forces of Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this doesn't mean the Pope will be correct if he is doing math problems.  He is infallible in limited instances, and has not been used too often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-11T00:06:06.167" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T00:06:06.167" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4522" CreationDate="2011-11-11T02:35:52.310" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, this verse says that faith without &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt;) is dead, and it says the same of gifts of the Spirit and works exercised without &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, reading this to imply that works are necessary for salvation is bad hermeneutics.  Now, James, on the other hand has some clear things to say about faith without works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:14-26 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faith Without Works Is Dead&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; and one of you says to them, &amp;quot;Go in peace, be warmed and filled,&amp;quot; without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; But someone will say, &amp;quot;You have faith and I have works.&amp;quot; Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, &amp;quot;Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness&amp;quot;—and he was called a friend of God. &lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? &lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;so also faith apart from works is dead&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T02:58:32.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4522" CreationDate="2011-11-11T13:08:54.270" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of 1 Corinthians is written to address issues in the church at Corinth, so it deals with Christian living rather than salvation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is telling Christians, &quot;Hey, if you do all the right things but aren't loving, you're completely missing the boat.&quot;  Jesus' first and second commands are to love God and to love people.  That doesn't mention anything about faith either, but that's Jesus isn't talking about salvation there either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is akin to the church in revelation that was doing a bunch of good things, but had lost their first love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this passage has nothing to do with salvation, but everything to do with Christian living.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T13:08:54.270" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4543" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4544" CreationDate="2011-11-11T14:05:46.557" Score="16" ViewCount="1720" Body="&lt;p&gt;I seem to recall that indulgences had something to do with Roman Catholics doing something to receive forgiveness of sins prior to committing the sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is that what indulgences were?  When did these begin and are they still practiced?  If not, when did they end and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-11-12T11:55:24.120" LastActivityDate="2018-01-24T14:15:11.870" Title="What are indulgences and when and why were they used?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;indulgence&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4543" CreationDate="2011-11-11T15:31:24.670" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good introduction to indulgences can be found &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-primer-on-indulgences&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. A more thorough explanation can be found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;. I will try to extract a few basic points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. &lt;strong&gt;It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin&lt;/strong&gt;; neither could be granted by any power. &lt;strong&gt;It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven.&lt;/strong&gt; It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. &lt;strong&gt;Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory.&lt;/strong&gt; The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Catholic theology there are two kinds of punishment for sins The first is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;eternal punishment&lt;/a&gt; in which the sinner is separated from God forever. The price of this punishment has been paid for all Christians by Christ. There is however a 'temporal punishment' for sins committed by Christians, as a &quot;repayment of debt&quot; for the sin. This punishment is served in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Purgatory&lt;/a&gt; for a certain amount of time, after death. Indulgences (which comes from the Latin for a debt repayment) are a way for the person to pay that debt in their earthly life. The punishment of the first kind is a part of almost all Christian theology. The punishment of the second kind is largely specific to Catholicism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most non-Catholics have encountered the concept only as an object against which the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reformers&lt;/a&gt; protested. However even then the protest was largely against the &lt;em&gt;sale&lt;/em&gt; of indulgences, a matter which the church does and did consider an abuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These measures show plainly that the Church long before the Reformation, not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used her authority to correct them.&#xA;  In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indulgences are very old, going back to at least the third century of the church. Indulgences are still granted today, though not in any form that would be familiar from a popular account of the Reformation. They are typically proclaimed for specific religious acts. For example in the Jubilee years 1983 and 2000 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/Online_view.asp?lwID=1075&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;indulgences were proclaimed&lt;/a&gt; for those visiting certain shrines in Rome and other places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm#1470&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;X. INDULGENCES | Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2018-01-24T14:15:11.870" LastActivityDate="2018-01-24T14:15:11.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4387" CreationDate="2011-11-11T18:44:25.177" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hesychasm, one of the monastic traditions this question is about, is still practiced on the Greek peninsula, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos&quot;&gt;Mount Athos&lt;/a&gt;.  For over a thousand years, monks have practiced the discipline of continual prayer and worship, which goes back at least as far as the 4&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Fathers&quot;&gt;Desert Fathers&lt;/a&gt;.  And of course, the concept of praying continually goes back at least to Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.&amp;mdash;1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:16-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of going to a private place to pray (becoming a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eremitic&quot;&gt;hermit&lt;/a&gt; in extreme practice), goes back to Jesus himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.&amp;mdash;Matthew 6:6 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the outside, there does not seem to be too many differences between Western and Eastern Monasticism.  But since the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism&quot;&gt;Great Schism&lt;/a&gt; (and obviously even before), the two great branches of Christendom have diverged in doctrine and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis&quot;&gt;praxis&lt;/a&gt;.  To take a small instance, opponents of Hesychists accused them of practicing &lt;em&gt;Omphaloskepsis&lt;/em&gt; (literally &quot;navel gazing&quot;) because of one of their prayer postures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More seriously, Eastern traditions place a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon#Theology&quot;&gt;greater emphasis&lt;/a&gt; on icons than Western traditions.  (Some Protestants go as far as to abolish &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; images in their places of worship.)  Due in part to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Basil_the_Great&quot;&gt;Saint Basil the Great&lt;/a&gt;, the Eastern Orthodox traditions place much greater importance on images to help focus worship and prayer.  Perhaps the greatest treasure of Mt. Athos is their extensive collection of Byzantine painting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, Mt. Athos was not the center of scholarship that many Western monastic centers were (and are).  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Palamas&quot;&gt;Gregory Palamas&lt;/a&gt; famously defended Hesychasm against the scholastic &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_of_Seminara&quot;&gt;Barlaam of Seminara&lt;/a&gt;.  By this point, Eastern Monastics had largely rejected secular teaching as unprofitable for drawing closer to God.  In later years, the Eastern monastic tradition has grown more separate from the secular world, while Western monastics have maintained contact.  As an example, females (both human and animal!) have been forbidden to travel to Mt. Athos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even so, Hesychasm continues to have a large influence in Eastern Orthodoxy.  Devout believers still travel to Mt. Athos to observe and be a part of the continual prayers and worship going on day and night in the various monasteries.  It is held that these men have a holy connection to God and stand on the spiritual front-lines against evil.  Novices take on vows to remain on the peninsula for the rest of their lives in order to draw closer to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources for this answer include &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.colinwellsauthor.com/sfbb.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by Colin Wells and an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/21/60minutes/main20056101.shtml&quot;&gt;episode&lt;/a&gt; of 60 Minutes.  Wikipedia has good articles on specific people and belief systems, which greatly helped me recall details.  Not directly part of the answer, but fascinating to me, is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; in Vanity Fair by Michael Lewis on the monks' role in the Greek financial crisis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T18:44:25.177" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1991" CreationDate="2011-11-11T18:52:58.223" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;An important thing to remember is that God is spirit and, as Creator of the physical universe of time, space, and matter, existed and exists outside of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when the Father refers to Jesus as the Son, it doesn't mean that one day the father got old enough, married a wife, and had a son.  That is a physical reality, whereas God is spirit (John 4:23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father-Son relationship need not be biological, because a man may adopt a son as his own.  Nonetheless, the father-son relationship that we experience reflects the relationship of God the Father and God the Son.  It doesn't mean that their relationship had to be biological, but it identifies what the relationship is like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures indicate that the Father sent the son into the world (John 3:17 and others).  The Son doesn't send the Father, but the Father does send the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true with regard to us being the bride of Christ.  We aren't one day going to marry Him and have sexual relationships with Him to produce children.  That's nonsensical.  However, the physical groom-bride relationship reflects something about the spiritual relationship with Christ and the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T18:52:58.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2011-11-11T19:00:34.890" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no command in Scripture that compels Christians to seek to create governmental programs of any kind.  However, there are plenty of admonitions to love, serve, and be compassionate and generous to others personally.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if the government has social programs, that does not alleviate us from our own personal responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do know people who suggest the answer to the question of &quot;What would Jesus do?&quot; must, of necessity, mean that we support more and more government social programs.  However, a better way to answer that question is to first find out what Jesus &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt;.  He never supported government social programs, but He did care for the poor, was kind to children, had compassion on the multitudes, and ultimate sacrificed His life for all mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very poor argument as well, because if we are to make government do what Jesus would do and take over our responsibility, we would need to put prayer back in schools, abolish abortion, put the ten commandments up all over the place, and many other things that your friend would likely not agree with.  But you can't pick and choose on this stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T19:00:34.890" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4549" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4578" CreationDate="2011-11-11T19:04:21.173" Score="110" ViewCount="8382" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church, as well as many other Christians, believes that abortion is inherently immoral, based on the belief that life begins at conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for this position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in the perspective of those who are Biblical literalists, whether Protestant, Catholic, or others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2018-07-07T15:02:41.720" LastActivityDate="2018-07-07T15:02:41.720" Title="What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is immoral?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;abortion&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2011-11-11T21:33:23.460" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends.  Are you currently tithing?  Are you currently feeding the poor where you may find them?  Are you ministering to your brothers to do the same?  If so, then I believe you might not be hypocritical.  If every follower of Jesus strived to do this, there would not be a need for welfare. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="703" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T21:33:23.460" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4172" CreationDate="2011-11-11T21:38:07.783" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passage you quote is very near the start of a new topic in Paul's letter.  2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 8-9 covers the topic of giving; particularly giving to the church in Jerusalem.  The context leading into the passage in question in 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 10:1-2 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/2+Corinthians+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!—I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the topic Paul is directly addressing is the perception among the Corinthians that he is walking according to the flesh because of the way he writes his letters to them (i.e., boldly).  This thread started back in 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 7:8-9 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/2+Corinthians+7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it—though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presumably, this is a reference to 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians, which is a stark appraisal of the Corinthians.  As usual with Paul, we have to read between the lines a bit to understand what his detractors were accusing him of.  It appears he was accused of being only interested in winning a theological argument by hook or by crook, and not caring for the people of the church in Corinth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's defense against the charge is the passage quoted in the question and following in 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 10:3-12 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/2+Corinthians+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at what is before your eyes. If anyone is confident that he is Christ’s, let him remind himself that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we. For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed. I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters. For they say, &amp;quot;His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account.&amp;quot; Let such a person understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present. Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you follow the logic, the phrase &amp;quot;we are not waging war according to the flesh&amp;quot; is there to emphasize that Paul has a no-holds-barred attitude to attacking false doctrine that threatens the Corinthians salvation.  It's spiritual warfare in a sense, but the manifestation of the warfare is rational argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems that reading Christian Pacifism into the text is just that.  However, there is an argument to be made based on the first verse of the chapter which characterizes Jesus as meek and gentle.  As Paul had previously told the Corinthians, &amp;quot;Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.&amp;quot;  (1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;11:1&lt;/a&gt;)  So by extension, Paul may be suggesting that we, as Christians, remain meek and gentile in most circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul certainly knew of the story of Jesus cleansing the Temple, which &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/562/68&quot;&gt;appears&lt;/a&gt; neither meek nor gentle.   But it's possible that Paul intends us to recall that moment in Jesus' life since He was uncharacteristically violent for the purposes of opposing unprofitable doctrine, injustice, and corruption.  If Paul is suggesting what we call Christian Pacifism, it is a somewhat nuanced position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this particular passage can be read to support Christian Pacifism, it's certainly not the main point of Paul's argument here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-11T21:38:07.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2011-11-12T15:18:09.127" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;is it hypocritical to call myself a Christian and not support welfare programs?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like this question could be read at least two ways - first, should we support the &lt;em&gt;creation&lt;/em&gt; of welfare programs (as opposed to finding other, privately-funded ways to help the poor)? second, should we support welfare programs that &lt;em&gt;have been instituted&lt;/em&gt; (as opposed to, say, evading or petitioning to opt out of paying the tax that supports them)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second question--do we give our financial support to existing welfare programs if the government compels us to--is easy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 12:14-17 (NASB):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They came and said to Him, &quot;Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay or shall we not pay?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, &quot;Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They brought one. And He said to them, &quot;Whose likeness and inscription is this?&quot; And they said to Him, &quot;Caesar's.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus said to them, &quot;Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.&quot; And they were amazed at Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course this raises the question of whether we ought to 'render unto Caesar' things that are wrong and unjust, which brings us to our first question: Do we say that the government &lt;em&gt;ought&lt;/em&gt; to support the poor?  The Bible is mostly addressed to individuals, not governments.  But there are a couple of clear cases where the rulers of cities and nations are addressed and expected to support the poor, such as Deuteronomy 15:6-8--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For the LORD your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.  If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, &lt;strong&gt;in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you&lt;/strong&gt;, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--and Daniel 4:27--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;`Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Failure to do so when there are means to do so was the sin of the city of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, &lt;strong&gt;but she did not help the poor and needy&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if the welfare program is poorly conceived, the law poorly worded, the financial aspects poorly provided for, by all means, one could oppose implementing a welfare program on those grounds--but to do so &lt;em&gt;only because&lt;/em&gt; it is a welfare program should certainly be un-Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the government giving its support to the needy does not excuse us from our &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; obligations to charity.  But the government itself &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; have this obligation as surely as we do individually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastEditorUserId="950" LastEditDate="2011-11-12T16:42:56.167" LastActivityDate="2011-11-12T16:42:56.167" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4488" CreationDate="2011-11-12T21:25:32.733" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; gives an overview of the history of celibacy in the clergy. Even the Catholic church would admit that celibacy was not enforced on clergy in New Testament times, but would point out that those who chose celibacy were held in high honour, even in that period. There is dispute over how early the rules of celibacy came to be enforced. The earliest enactment of a rule was around 300AD at the Spanish Council of Elvira. This was not a universal rule. The rules appear to have been gradually tightened over the next few centuries,:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...] the synods of the sixth and seventh centuries, while fully recognizing the position of these former wives and according them even the formal designation of bishopess, priestess, deaconess, and subdeaconess (episcopissa, presbytera, diaconissa, subdiaconissa), laid down some very strict rules to guide their relations with their former husbands. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even centuries after that the practice was not universal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-11-12T21:25:32.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4157" CreationDate="2011-11-13T09:56:13.797" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Revelation refers to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_judgment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;final judgment&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:11-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 20:11-13&lt;/a&gt;; NASB quoted): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point all are judged; that both men and angels are subject to this judgment is suggested by the Revelator saying that both earth &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; heaven try to flee from the presence of Him who is on the throne to judge.   (As to why angels would be judged -- recall that there are both the unfallen angels that serve God, and also the fallen angels that serve the devil; see, e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 12:7&lt;/a&gt; where Michael and his angels battle the dragon and his angels.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As regards who does the judging, certainly that belongs to Him who is on the throne, but a few verses earlier (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 20:4&lt;/a&gt;) we also see others will as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them.&lt;/strong&gt; And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and &lt;strong&gt;they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I admit that the text isn't very clear on who the 'they' are that sit on the thrones here. Given, however, that the only other people mentioned in the chapter at this point are the angel who locks Satan in the abyss, and Satan himself, the implication appears to be that the martyrs and faithful mentioned immediately afterwards, reigning with Christ, are the ones sitting on the thrones and given the power of judgment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The beliefs of individual denominations about the further nature of the final judgment vary widely; the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_judgment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; describes several.  But in general this idea of the final judgment appears to be what Paul has in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2011-11-13T09:56:13.797" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4561" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-14T15:15:54.617" Score="9" ViewCount="1127" Body="&lt;p&gt;With the exception of Lutherans (who apparently use the same numbering system for the Decalogue as Catholics) Do other Protestants have a consistent method for numbering the 10 commandments? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics say the first 3 are about God. Then the last 7 about Man. Whereas, I've seen Protestants refer to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:8-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; as the 4th commandment and then top it off with &quot;thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff, and by stuff we also mean wife&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, other than keeping the Dec in the Decalogue, what is the reason behind munging the two separate commandments that are against adultery and expanding on the one commandment against profaning God?  Is there something in the Catholic teaching that favored the 3/7 split as a couple of the more beautiful numbers in Creation that was rejected by Protestants?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-11-14T22:39:16.827" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T08:56:34.180" Title="Protestant numbering of the 10 Commandments" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4565" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-11-14T17:31:21.890" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Literalism includes two categories of interpretation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Letterism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the attempt to uncover meaning based exclusively on the literal interpretation of the words used.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical_method&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Grammatical-Historical Interpretation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the interpretation based on historical understanding: taking the meaning of the text in the context that the author or original reader understood the text.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Literalism denies any additional &quot;sense of scripture&quot;, opting for the single, direct sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-11-14T17:31:21.890" LastActivityDate="2011-11-14T17:31:21.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4566" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-11-14T17:31:21.890" Score="0" Body="Biblical Literalism is the doctrine that the explicit and primary sense of the Bible is the sole interpretation that should be accepted." OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-11-14T17:31:21.890" LastActivityDate="2011-11-14T17:31:21.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4549" CreationDate="2011-11-14T19:07:02.873" Score="44" Body="&lt;p&gt;A wide variety of scripture can be cited in obvious support of abortion (as an act of murder) is inherently immoral:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Jeremiah%201:5&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 1:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Psalm 139:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Ephesians 1:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God wove us in our mother's womb and knew us before the foundation of the world, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; murder is a sin (ie is &quot;immoral&quot;), then abortion is murder and is immoral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-11-14T19:07:02.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4568" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4652" CreationDate="2011-11-14T19:59:35.853" Score="6" ViewCount="558" Body="&lt;p&gt;At Mass this weekend, we heard part of &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/readings/111311.cfm&quot;&gt;Proverbs 31&lt;/a&gt; which is nice and all.  But my wife always complains that, &quot;they always talk about how wives should act, they should say something about how husbands should act for once.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any Mass readings during the 3 year cycle (or even the 2 year weekday cycle) that talk about how men should act.  I can't think of any other than &quot;Husbands love your wives&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-11-14T20:05:07.683" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T14:54:49.430" Title="Mass readings about husbandly conduct" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;mass&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4569" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4843" CreationDate="2011-11-14T19:46:22.970" Score="7" ViewCount="712" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an example for this question, Jack Chick has put together &lt;a href=&quot;http://chick.com/reading/tracts/0007/0007_01.asp&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://chick.com/catalog/tractbykeyword.asp?subject=End-time%20prophecy&quot;&gt;stories&lt;/a&gt; on the end times, which are a compilation of prophecies in Daniel, Revelation, the gospels, and some other books. However, his Biblical references seem to skip around a bit (for example, from Rev. 19:1 to Zechariah 13:8 to Rev. 16:16). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the different viewpoints for the ordering of events for end-times prophecies?  Do all the viewpoints skip around the Bible like this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user991" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T04:44:06.523" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T04:44:06.523" Title="What are the different views regarding the order of events for end-times prophecy?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;daniel&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4561" CreationDate="2011-11-14T21:33:35.163" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It basically comes down to tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three major divisions of the Decalogue, in order of date. To compare these divisions, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Two_texts_with_numbering_schemes&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;. The dates are from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/decalogue.html&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philonic&lt;/strong&gt; (first century), in the writings of Philo and Josephus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Talmudic&lt;/strong&gt; (third century), in the Talmud.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Augustinian&lt;/strong&gt; (fifth century), in the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5032-decalogue&quot;&gt;Also found in Codex Alexandrinus, which was first noted in 1886&lt;/a&gt;. (Codex Alexandrinus dates to the fifth century, too)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Philonic division is used by most Orthodox and Protestant churches, except for Lutherans. It's the earliest recorded division, and very similar to the Talmudic division. The Talmudic division is the one adopted by Jews, and is probably based on earlier rabbinic tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Augustinian division came centuries later. It was chosen as the official Catholic division by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and also by Luther at about the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's probable that the Early Church used the Philonic or a similar division of the Ten Commandments. That's probably also why most Protestants choose to follow it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T08:56:34.180" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T08:56:34.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4571" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4575" CreationDate="2011-11-14T23:41:31.203" Score="7" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church&quot;&gt;the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)&lt;/a&gt; has only existed since 1992.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was Catholic doctrine clearly defined in a specific set of sources before CCC? What would a priest have referred to in earlier times, if he had needed to check the stance of the Church on a specific detail?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible/practical/easy to find out what Catholic Church taught of a specific subject at a specific time in history?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2014-05-21T03:20:47.900" Title="Where was Catholic doctrine defined before the Catechism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;catholic-catechism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4572" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-15T00:20:36.897" Score="1" ViewCount="3549" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3544/are-other-flood-legends-relevant-to-christians&quot;&gt;flood legends&lt;/a&gt;, legends of heroes of virgin birth and/or virginal conception are not uncommon in faiths across the world.  For example, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna#Birth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bhagavata Purana&lt;/a&gt; tells that Krishna was conceived without sex.  There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;many others&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was coming up in sunday school and reading Christian literature as a young adult, I remember that the virginal conception was taught to be a pretty special thing about Jesus.  I don't believe I &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt; heard that this concept was found in other faiths.  It was as if the very uniqueness and absurdity of this claim was enough to show it was true and proved Jesus was divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the flood stories or other ideas which are found in other faiths, the other faiths' stories are often seen as corroborating the biblical account.  This could make sense because those stories could be seen as coming after the biblical event or concept.  &lt;em&gt;But&lt;/em&gt; since most of the stories of sexless conception pre-date Christ (though of course &lt;a href=&quot;http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Chosen_One&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;not all&lt;/a&gt;), they are somewhat different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything a Christian might take away from the fact virgin births are found in other beliefs?  Perhaps some kind of global prophecy?  Or is it no more relevant than the fact &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;faith healing&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/asclepius.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;resurrection&lt;/a&gt; are also found in other faiths?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(also, didn't find very good tags for this, help if you can)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:29:02.810" Title="Virgin birth in other religions and relevance to Christianity" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-11-15T15:50:41.030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4573" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4576" CreationDate="2011-11-15T02:06:42.710" Score="1" ViewCount="2117" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did many of his disciples not even know it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus asked &quot;Who am I?&quot; to a bunch of his disciples. Out of so many, only Peter got it close. That he is the Messiah, son of the living God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even that is still vague. Cyrus is also a messiah. Judaism tends to think that God considers humans his children. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/187/Cyrus-Gods-Anointed.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/187/Cyrus-Gods-Anointed.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mean if believing that Jesus is God is that important, wouldn't Jesus like say that a million time? Wouldn't that be the first thing his disciples know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: I need to add that I wrote a million time figuratively. I mean if it's that important, he would have stressed that more so that his disciples would at least got it right when he ask, &quot;Who am I?&quot;. In fact, even after his death and resurrection, his disciples are still divided. We have gnostic, judaizer, arians, and trinitarian. Yea I know that &quot;the rest&quot; are heretic. I also know that most christians think that the trinitarian are the &quot;true&quot; follower of Jesus. But put your self in historian shoes here. Early jesus followers differ from jews only in whether they believe Jesus is a messiah or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He doesn't condemn those who think he's a prophet or Elia? He doesn't say, &quot;Good job Peter. For the rest of you, you'd better answer that thing right because my dad would fry you in hell if you messed up.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ancestralfindings.com/who/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.ancestralfindings.com/who/&lt;/a&gt; . Even Peter doesn't say, &quot;You're God, Homo Ousion, without the i&quot;. I mean if something is kind of important, shouldn't that be more explicit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="933" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T05:22:00.290" LastActivityDate="2015-04-06T19:01:08.560" Title="If believing that Jesus is God is that important, why doesn't Jesus say it more often?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-04-06T21:17:39.623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2697" CreationDate="2011-11-15T03:29:44.880" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that the 10 commandment is there for &quot;category&quot; of prohibition. Rape would go to don't steal I guess. By raping you are stealing &quot;usage right&quot; from the girl or the parent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a sense rape is indeed prohibited. In ancient hebrew, rape is actually punished by fine that can be quite high. That's how we define something as prohibited, namely that there is a punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference is on what's the punishment and how do we measure damage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In ancient time they don't have jail. Jail is a very expensive innovation. So the only punishment besides stoning possible are either fine or canning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish halakha actually prescribe that the rapists must pay for the pain and for the drop of the market value of the girl. The 50 shekel is only for the pleasure&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960635/jewish/Chapter-Two.htm#footnote2a960635&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960635/jewish/Chapter-Two.htm#footnote2a960635&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Damages [are evaluated] according to [the girl's] beauty. We look at&#xA;  her as if she were a maid-servant being sold in the marketplace:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The judge would estimate how much the girls' market value is. Maybe the judges would auction of the girl and shill bid it to get the correct market value of the girl as sex slave. Maybe they just estimate. Got to ask the jews again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So raping Selena Gomez is still off the chart. In ancient time people do not have bankruptcy laws. So if you can't pay you become slaves, which is like going to jail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/why-does-the-rambam-maimonides-equate-all-sex-outside-marriage-as-prostitution/11276#11276&quot;&gt;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11251/why-does-the-rambam-maimonides-equate-all-sex-outside-marriage-as-prostitution/11276#11276&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some may think it's disgusting. However, we may have to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inevitability of power. Even nowadays, women are not absolutely free to decide what they do with their body. Prostitution is illegal for example. So is group marriages. Hence we shouldn't judge a culture where parents control their daughter as disgusting given that in our modern culture the states have a right to control all women, most of which are not daughters of the president.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ancient jewish culture is more hierarchical. Western civilization follow the greek tradition that humans are equal. That's why raping an ugly girl is just as evil as raping a beautiful girl now. Ancient culture tend to actually be more objective on this. Raping a beautiful girl of course cause more harm than raping an ugly one just like destroying a Ferrari causes more harm than destroying a bike. Also stealing a Ferrari is more tempting than stealing a bike and hence need to be punished more. Contemporary court have this beauty blind attitude as if beauty shouldn't matter at all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Women at that time usually live at home. Think of muslim society. Ancient jews are like muslim. Not easy to rape a girl.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Probability of getting pregnant is quite low if it's just from one intercourse. Losing virginity would drop the women's market value and that's the real damage of rape + pain damage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In polygamous society, which ancient judaism is, there is always a shortage of women. In fact, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists claim that it's the real reason why we have laws against polygamy. So yea, the girl can still aim high because there will still be plenty of rich males for her, each want unlimited number of young girls. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rabam seems to think that harlots cover all sex outside marriage. However, the issue is fatherhood determination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For [ultimately], a father will marry his daughter and a brother his&#xA;  sister, [for in a sexually permissive society] a [girl] may become&#xA;  pregnant and give birth without &lt;strong&gt;knowing who the child's father is&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I forget the URL. It's really there. So perhaps the commandment to get married is there to ensure that should the girl get pregnant somebody will support the child. However, the parent could and most likely would still reject the boy if the boy is poor anyway. If the boy is rich, then he wouldn't need to rape right? Not like there is a strong intensive to rape either case.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will have to ask the jews again now that we can decide fatherhood by DNA tests, what would Rabam says about sex outside marriage and rape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jews do not think sex outside marriage as a big deal. It never get death penalty. Only on some circumstances it can get pretty serious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11021/what-does-adultery-mean-in-the-7th-commandment/11032#11032&quot;&gt;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11021/what-does-adultery-mean-in-the-7th-commandment/11032#11032&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which explains why prostitution is legal in Israel I guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:05.287" LastActivityDate="2011-11-15T03:54:08.467" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4571" CreationDate="2011-11-15T05:52:45.927" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, the history of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism#Catholic_catechisms&quot;&gt;catechism&lt;/a&gt; is &lt;em&gt;substantially&lt;/em&gt; longer than just 19 years! The catholic catechism dates for hundreds of years - one of the earlier &quot;official&quot; ones was promulgated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm&quot;&gt;1566&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catechizing has been a long-standing practice (arguably, God told the Israelites to do that when He told them to write His law on the door posts and tell it to their children).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2011-11-15T05:52:45.927" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4573" CreationDate="2011-11-15T09:56:42.057" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually he said it a lot. Enough to get himself killed for saying it. The Jews considered Jesus' statement that he was &quot;the Christ, the Son of the living God&quot; blasphemy, and Jesus' agreement with Peter's declaration is the reason they tried and executed him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples took a while to catch on, but not for lack of being told. Their dull, slow hearts took a lot of time to convince, and Jesus had a great deal to teach them before he stirred up the pot enough to end his ministry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note, however, the disciples to a man eventually became so convinced their teacher Jesus was THE Christ that they devoted their lives to proclaiming that message. Most of them were also willing to die--and did--for the truth of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anyone was in a position to know that Jesus was something less than what he claimed to be, his disciples would know, yet to a man (except for Judas) they went their separate ways proclaiming all over the world that Jesus was God and Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, I suggest Jesus made his message so plain that after his resurrection the disciples were left with no doubts about who he was. Who dies for something they know is a lie? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2014-10-08T14:13:05.480" LastActivityDate="2014-10-08T14:13:05.480" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4572" CreationDate="2011-11-15T11:14:09.637" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On other &quot;virgin births&quot; predating the concept of a virgin birth in Christianity:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The notion of the virgin birth in Christianity predates the actual birth of Christ too; it was prophesied explicitly some centuries earlier. Certainly in Isaiah, we have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%207:14&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 7:14 (MSG):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A&#xA;  girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son&#xA;  and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, the fact that this verse in Genesis (known as the Protoevangelium*) talks of &quot;&lt;em&gt;her&lt;/em&gt; offspring&quot; when it was/is more usual to refer to the offspring of a couple as being of the father rather than the mother, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://themoorings.org/apologetics/VirginBirth/Isaiah.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;interpreted by some theologians&lt;/a&gt; as a prophecy, or at the very least a hint, of a virgin birth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:15&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:15 (MSG)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God told the serpent:     &quot;Because you've done this, you're cursed, &#xA;        cursed beyond all cattle and wild animals,     Cursed to slink on your belly &#xA;        and eat dirt all your life.     I'm declaring war between you and the Woman, &#xA;        between your offspring and hers.     He'll wound your head, &#xA;        you'll wound his heel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because this happens right at the beginning of the human race, arguably this reference to virgin birth predates all others (although it is of course less explicit in meaning than the Isaiah prophecy).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Relevance of other virgin birth stories to Christianity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because there is that hint of a virgin birth right at the beginning of things, the comparison you draw to flood legends is a good one. It is logical that any culture with a collective recollection of the Flood may also have a collective recollection of the events before it; the Creation and the Fall, in which we find the Protoevangelium. In that respect the relevance of legends of virgin births to Christianity is similar to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3544/are-other-flood-legends-relevant-to-christians&quot;&gt;the relevance of flood legends to Christianity&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*Not to be confused with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Protoevangelium of James&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-11-15T11:14:09.637" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4549" CreationDate="2011-11-15T13:04:20.880" Score="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the most important passages regarding this is found in the Mosaic Law which God gave to Israel to be used in governance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that &lt;strong&gt;her&#xA;  children&lt;/strong&gt; come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall&#xA;  surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he&#xA;  shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you&#xA;  shall pay &lt;strong&gt;life for life&lt;/strong&gt;, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,&#xA;  foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. &#xA;  Exodus 21:22-25 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if the child (and this is what it is called) is born but is unharmed, then the man is guilty of assault, which did not carry the death penalty.  However, if the child &lt;em&gt;IS&lt;/em&gt; harmed, then the man's punishment should be the same as that which was suffered by the child while still in the womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a biblical perspective, then, the taking of the life of an unborn child was considered murder and would receive capital punishment, accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to this, John the Baptist responded the presence of God Incarnate when Mary visited his mother Elizabeth while both of them were still in the womb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to&#xA;  a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted&#xA;  Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, &lt;strong&gt;the baby&#xA;  leaped in her womb&lt;/strong&gt;. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,&#xA;  and she exclaimed with a loud cry, &quot;Blessed are you among women, and&#xA;  blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that&#xA;  the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of&#xA;  your greeting came to my ears, &lt;strong&gt;the baby in my womb leaped for joy&lt;/strong&gt;. And&#xA;  blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what&#xA;  was spoken to her from the Lord.&quot;  Luke 1:39-45 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before this, the angel told Zechariah the his son John (the Baptist) would be filled with the Holy Spirit even while in the womb of Elizabeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or&#xA;  strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, &lt;strong&gt;even from&#xA;  his mother’s womb.&lt;/strong&gt;  Luke 1:15 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 139 also speaks of life in the womb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together &lt;strong&gt;in my mother’s womb.&lt;/strong&gt; Psalm 139:13 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only does life exist in the womb, but God is active in the creation of that life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God gave Israel instructions to punish anyone who killed or harmed an unborn child, and the Bible strongly supports the position that life begins at conception and is in the image of God at that point, with a body, soul, and spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-09T13:38:56.423" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T13:38:56.423" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4571" CreationDate="2011-11-15T14:44:29.900" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I asked this to a presenter in our diocese's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.madisondiocese.org/Ministry/EvangelizationandCatechesis/SeatofWisdomDiocesanInstitute.aspx&quot;&gt;catechist training program&lt;/a&gt;.  She said that the writings of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm&quot;&gt;Council of Trent&lt;/a&gt; (1545-1563) were primarily used.  I guess that just helps Warren's answer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before that, I'd imagine we just looked at stained glass and/or frescoes...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-11-15T14:44:29.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4572" CreationDate="2011-11-15T15:19:35.977" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chesterton notes this assumption in the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Ball-and-The-Cross1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ball and the Cross&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With a smart journalistic instinct characteristic of all his&#xA;  school, the editor of &lt;em&gt;The Atheist&lt;/em&gt; had put first in his paper&#xA;  and most prominently in his window an article called &quot;The&#xA;  Mesopotamian Mythology and its Effects on Syriac Folk Lore.&quot; Mr.&#xA;  Evan MacIan began to read this quite idly, as he would have read&#xA;  a public statement beginning with a young girl dying in Brighton&#xA;  and ending with Bile Beans. He received the very considerable&#xA;  amount of information accumulated by the author with that tired&#xA;  clearness of the mind which children have on heavy summer&#xA;  afternoons--that tired clearness which leads them to go on asking&#xA;  questions long after they have lost interest in the subject and&#xA;  are as bored as their nurse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The streets were full of people and&#xA;  empty of adventures. He might as well know about the gods of&#xA;  Mesopotamia as not; so he flattened his long, lean face against&#xA;  the dim bleak pane of the window and read all there was to read&#xA;  about Mesopotamian gods. He read how the Mesopotamians had a god&#xA;  named Sho (sometimes pronounced Ji), and that he was described as&#xA;  being very powerful, a striking similarity to some expressions&#xA;  about Jahveh, who is also described as having power. Evan had&#xA;  never heard of Jahveh in his life, and imagining him to be some&#xA;  other Mesopotamian idol, read on with a dull curiosity. He learnt&#xA;  that the name Sho, under its third form of Psa, occurs in an&#xA;  early legend which describes how the deity, after the manner of&#xA;  Jupiter on so many occasions, seduced a Virgin and begat a hero.&#xA;  This hero, whose name is not essential to our existence, was, it&#xA;  was said, the chief hero and Saviour of the Mesopotamian ethical&#xA;  scheme. Then followed a paragraph giving other examples of such&#xA;  heroes and Saviours being born of some profligate intercourse&#xA;  between God and mortal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is our natural reaction to such statements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then followed a paragraph--but Evan did&#xA;  not understand it. He read it again and then again. Then he did&#xA;  understand it. The glass fell in ringing fragments on to the&#xA;  pavement, and Evan sprang over the barrier into the shop,&#xA;  brandishing his stick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic doesn't think about these things unless provoked, he knows that the Virgin Mary is his mother and recognizes that other religions have other mothers and leaves it at that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophecy that &quot;A virgin (or even a young woman) shall bear a son and he will be called God with Us&quot; (Isaiah 7:14) may be a prophecy that is not unique as a prophecy to Christianity or Judaism. But it is unique as a matter of fact, in that it came true. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is about covenants and renewal, God's part of the covenant is that He keeps His promises.  How He fulfills them is purely up to Him.  Nobody expected wisemen to come looking for Jesus following a star, except maybe the wisemen and God. Catholics also believe that whereas Christianity is the fullness of truth, other religions have hints of it and sometimes more than hints.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That these things should happen throughout history is just a foreshadowing of the goodness of God which is written on our souls when we're created.  It's unavoidable that things which are the same should bear some similarity, it doesn't mean everyone looks at them the same way or everyone is right about how they look at them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-11-15T15:19:35.977" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4581" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4583" CreationDate="2011-11-15T15:36:03.447" Score="11" ViewCount="4064" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original name for Jesus in Hebrew-Aramaic is &lt;em&gt;yeshu‘a&lt;/em&gt;. This was translated into Greek as &lt;em&gt;Iēsous&lt;/em&gt; and then via the Latin &lt;em&gt;Iesus&lt;/em&gt; into German, and eventually into English as &lt;em&gt;Jesus&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Christians believe that using the name of Jesus/Yeshua in prayer adds authority and power, it could be argued that Christians should be using his original name (Yeshua) or at least something closer to it, rather than the somewhat convoluted translation &quot;Jesus&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there any denominations or Christian groups that use &quot;Yeshua&quot; as opposed to &quot;Jesus&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there any evidence that other denominations have considered changing their usage from &quot;Jesus&quot; to &quot;Yeshua&quot; and are there any documented reasons why that suggestion was rejected?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-26T02:52:39.363" LastActivityDate="2016-01-26T02:52:39.363" Title="Are there denominations which prefer using the name &quot;Yeshu‘a&quot; instead of &quot;Jesus&quot;?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4582" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-15T15:53:10.220" Score="6" ViewCount="2018" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was surprised recently when I read Genesis 1 again, and noticed how &lt;em&gt;inactive&lt;/em&gt; God is during the creation process.  I mean that from a literary standpoint, not a literal one... bear with me. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is a summary of the creation actions described in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:1 -- God &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; heavens and earth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:3 -- there &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; light&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:4 -- God &lt;em&gt;separated&lt;/em&gt; light and dark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Three&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:7 -- God &lt;em&gt;made&lt;/em&gt; vault&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:9 -- it &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; so&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:11 -- it &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; so&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:12 -- the land &lt;em&gt;produced&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Four&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:15 -- it &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; so&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:16 -- God &lt;em&gt;made&lt;/em&gt; two great lights&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:17 -- God &lt;em&gt;set&lt;/em&gt; them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Five&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:20 -- God &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; sea creatures, and winged birds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:22 -- God &lt;em&gt;blessed&lt;/em&gt; them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Six&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:24 -- it &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; so&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:25 -- God &lt;em&gt;made&lt;/em&gt; wild animals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:27 -- God &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; mankind, he &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; them, he &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1:28 -- God &lt;em&gt;blessed&lt;/em&gt; them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find it interesting the verb choice used here.  A few observations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;4 of the 6 creation days use passive voice to describe creation events. The phrase &quot;It was so&quot; occurs 4 times, in addition to the passive phrases &quot;there was light&quot; and &quot;the land produced.&quot; (I know that &quot;produced&quot; is not technically a passive verb, but it doesn't show God's active involvement in the process here.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The verb &quot;create&quot; is used only 5 times--and three of those times are in the same verse, to describe the same action (verse 1:27). The verb &quot;make&quot; is used an additional three times (1:7, 1:16, 1:25)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God blesses sea creatures and birds, and humans, and tells them to be fruitful and multiply. But not land-animals.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My primary question is: &lt;strong&gt;What is the significance of the verb &quot;create&quot; during the creation account?&lt;/strong&gt;  It's only used to describe the creation of &quot;the heavens and the earth,&quot; &quot;sea creatures and birds,&quot; and &quot;humans&quot; (and it's used three times to describe humans).  I can see the creation of humans as special and distinct, and therefore worthy of special attention in the form of repeating that God created humans.  But what's so special about fish and birds?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And a secondary question is: &lt;strong&gt;What's the significance of the use of passive voice in the creation account?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally: &lt;strong&gt;Am I reading too much into this?&lt;/strong&gt;  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-11-02T15:02:09.920" LastActivityDate="2017-11-02T15:02:09.920" Title="What is the significance of verb choices in Genesis 1?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4581" CreationDate="2011-11-15T18:20:37.937" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians, in general, do not believe that Jesus' name is 'magic', in the sense that if you say the word your prayer is somehow more effective. The exact version of the name used is not therefore important. &quot;In my name&quot;, as Jesus says, can mean a number of things including &quot;with my authority&quot; and &quot;in accordance with my wishes&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's true that Yeshua is probably a better rendition of the original name than Jesus. However the confusion of changing it - unless you have a good reason - would probably outweigh the advantages. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only denomination that I know of that uses Yeshua on a regular basis are the Messianic Jews, particularly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewsforjesus.ca/messiah.aspx&quot;&gt;Jews for Jesus&lt;/a&gt;. That's because the name Yeshua is already familiar to many of them, so it isn't nearly as much of a disconnect. It also emphasizes Jesus' Jewishness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-11-17T15:56:42.380" LastActivityDate="2011-11-17T15:56:42.380" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4585" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5040" CreationDate="2011-11-16T12:59:39.567" Score="12" ViewCount="1132" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the original commandment to be fruitful and multiply involves reproduction.  However, planning to wait a little bit here and there seems reasonable enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the reasoning or the basis from which the Catholic Church teaches that any artificial birth control is immoral/sinful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-03T12:11:55.583" LastActivityDate="2015-04-10T17:44:16.630" Title="What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that artificial birth control is wrong?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;contraception&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4585" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:34:29.053" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Paul VI issued the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Humanae Vitae encyclical&lt;/a&gt; in 1968 which provided the basis for not using artificial means of birth control. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of the argument is that God designed men and women to be fruitful, and that it is morally wrong to play God and circumvent God's design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="568" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T15:01:42.597" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T15:01:42.597" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4587" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:45:26.917" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;While it has been argued that the birth of Jesus may have not taken place in late December, this tag is related to the birth event of Jesus and the celebrations that are associated with this event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, while it has been argued that the modern-day Christmas festivals and traditions may be associated with or originated from non-Christian traditions, this tag covers these modern traditions as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T14:36:17.557" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T14:36:17.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4588" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:45:26.917" Score="1" Body="Jesus' birth, the events around it, and the festivities the celebrate those events." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T14:36:17.573" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T14:36:17.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4589" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:47:50.733" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T13:47:50.733" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T13:47:50.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4590" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:47:50.733" Score="0" Body="The branch of Christian theology relating to the person, nature, and role of Christ.  For questions about the life of Jesus, use [life-of-jesus]." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-12-12T13:26:32.337" LastActivityDate="2018-12-12T13:26:32.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4591" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:50:45.173" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T13:50:45.173" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T13:50:45.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4592" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:50:45.173" Score="0" Body="The doctrinal position that salvation is granted and received by faith alone, not by works" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T14:10:17.880" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T14:10:17.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4593" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:52:13.470" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T13:52:13.470" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T13:52:13.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4594" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:52:13.470" Score="0" Body="The study of the supernatural significance of numbers" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T14:34:00.040" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T14:34:00.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4595" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:53:23.000" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T13:53:23.000" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T13:53:23.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4596" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:53:23.000" Score="0" Body="The first man, as depicted in the book of Genesis." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T14:33:31.367" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T14:33:31.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4597" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:55:01.000" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T13:55:01.000" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T13:55:01.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4598" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-11-16T13:55:01.000" Score="0" Body="The fifth book of the New Testament, giving an account of the lives of the apostles after Jesus' death and resurrection, and the development of the early church." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-11-16T14:33:25.407" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T14:33:25.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4599" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-16T18:19:17.627" Score="9" ViewCount="22983" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic church? When I search online, I mostly find stuff about filioque. But I want to know specifically what he &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt;. What is his role? How does he affect our salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2019-01-15T15:49:30.773" Title="What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4600" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4601" CreationDate="2011-11-16T21:17:14.717" Score="3" ViewCount="351" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the doctrinal basis for the Catholic teaching that abortion is immoral?  I understand that these will be based on Scripture, but will likely come from official Catholic documents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I'm specifically looking for an answer from a Catholic doctrinal position rather than a purely exegetical answer (as provided to my previous &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4549/69&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="34561" LastEditDate="2018-10-19T16:01:37.757" LastActivityDate="2018-10-19T16:01:37.757" Title="What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that abortion is immoral/sinful?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;abortion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4600" CreationDate="2011-11-16T23:32:33.307" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic catechism has a section on abortion (2270-2275).  It starts with this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before    &#xA;you were born I consecrated you.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, &#xA; intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.7&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ccc 2270&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, the position is that at the moment of conception, the embryo is fully human, that it should be &amp;quot;treated from conception as a person&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2274&lt;/a&gt;).  Because of that, destroying the embryo (or worse, the fetus) is murder.  Therefore, the ban against abortion is based on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;fifth commandment (do not murder)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-16T23:32:33.307" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4602" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-16T23:58:04.683" Score="4" ViewCount="1475" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4549/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-claim-that-abortion-is-immoral&quot;&gt;What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is immoral?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related to some recent questions, what is the Biblical basis for believing that life begins at conception?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once we know when life begins, then it makes sense that killing that life is wrong.  But I always hear the verse about &quot;before I formed you in the womb, I knew you&quot; and that is talking about God's knowledge of us, which exists long before conception.  It is quite obvious that human life begins before birth, but why is it so sure that conception is the beginning point?  And, is there a biblical basis for that belief, or only a historical basis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-11-17T03:15:28.113" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the belief that life begins at conception?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;abortion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-08-23T17:28:33.417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4602" CreationDate="2011-11-17T03:15:28.113" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll reference the previous (nearly identical) &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4549/69&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;'s answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-25&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 21:22-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 139:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If man chooses to define when life begins at any point &lt;em&gt;later than&lt;/em&gt; conception, then it is logically viable to choose to define life &quot;beginning&quot; at any arbitrary age. For example, if the definition is &quot;viability&quot;, then it is reasonably arguable that someone is not &quot;viable&quot; until they are old enough to provide for themselves - therefore, a 6 year old is not &quot;viable&quot; since it would die on its own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By accepting conception as the moment life begins, you accept the plain, simple reading of God's word over a 'nuanced' reading as being correct. Reading nuance into the verse is not good &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exegesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;exegesis&lt;/a&gt;, but is rather &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eisegesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;eisegesis&lt;/a&gt; - a dangerous path to be on when considering the Bible is God's word, and not man's!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to look at the medical technology and knowledge of the day in which the Bible was written (and, really, until &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; recently), it could not be known that a woman was with child until weeks or months into the pregnancy - except by inference of potential symptoms (lack of menses, morning sickness, etc). The law issued to the Israelites regarding what would happen to a man if he struck a pregnant woman and harm came to the baby should show clarity into God's view of how important life is - and how 'early' He considers it to exist!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;sidebar: at conception the new person is &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt; a multi-celled organism - amoebae are single-celled organisms, and no one would deny they are alive&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-11-17T03:15:28.113" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4599" CreationDate="2011-11-17T04:33:28.587" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The theology of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost - the two terms mean the same thing) is a huge subject. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; gives a systematic explanation from the Catholic point of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic theology of the Holy Spirit is very little different from general Protestant or Orthodox theology of the Holy Spirit, with a few notable exceptions, which I will attempt to list:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is generally accepted that one of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to guide the interpretation of the Scriptures. There is variation in how the Spirit is believed to do this. Protestants believe the Spirit does this either through Christians in general, or through the community of the church. Catholics believe that the Spirit does this through the church and its structures - specifically the Catholic church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Catholics would fall in with mainstream Protestants (but not Pentecostals) in believing that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm&quot;&gt;supernatural gifts of the Spirit&lt;/a&gt; (tongues, healings etc.) are not given to all Christians, and are relatively rare.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One important but obscure belief specific to Catholics is the belief that the Holy Spirit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm&quot;&gt;proceeds from both the God the Father and the Son&lt;/a&gt;. This beliefs is notable only because it is the nominal cause of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm&quot;&gt;the split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be others that I am unaware of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-11-17T04:33:28.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4605" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-17T04:50:37.210" Score="9" ViewCount="397" Body="&lt;p&gt;After reading about Hesychasm and the related topics such as Jesus' Prayer, Philokalia and palamism I'm stuck with a question. In Hesychasm, the main objective is to arrive to Hesychia, which is stillness or quietness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is straightforward: without living as a hermit and without being orthodox, are there any chances to practice Hesychasm successfully?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer is positive, how may this be?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If the answer is negative, why is it impossible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="149" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-21T20:09:15.727" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T13:09:34.487" Title="Can a non-orthodox layman arrive to Hesychia?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;monasticism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4606" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4617" CreationDate="2011-11-17T06:23:45.210" Score="8" ViewCount="779" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:63-64&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:63-64 NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So do Jews believe that the Messiah is to be the Son of God or is it a later Christian invention?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jews tend to think that christians commit idolatry. However, merely believing that Jesus is the messiah is not idolatry. Rabbi Akiva did that too to someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is about the idea whether messiah is the Son of God or not. If even the high priest, and Peter, believed that, then it'll be very interesting. Peter, a jew, also equated Son of God with Messiah when Jesus asked &quot;Who do you think I am?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is not about divinity of Jesus. That will be a different question. The question is whether the idea that messiah is a Son of God (perhaps in some lesser sense) originate out of judaism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="933" LastEditDate="2011-12-14T11:19:59.643" LastActivityDate="2015-02-18T06:07:21.937" Title="In Matthew 26:63-64, does the high priest think that the Messiah is Son of God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4607" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-17T08:47:52.560" Score="2" ViewCount="392" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicates:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4502/are-there-any-christian-groups-that-follow-matthew-239&quot;&gt;Are there any Christian groups that follow Matthew 23:9?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4409/what-is-the-roman-catholic-view-on-matthew-239/4412#4412&quot;&gt;What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 23:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father,&#xA;  which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In human life, it's usual to be attached to one's parents and for parents to be proud of their children (especially when they're young) to the point of vanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a bit confused or rather conflicted by the message or intent of this line or am I interpreting it incorrectly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2011-11-17T11:23:15.650" Title="Why does Jesus say &quot;Call no man your father upon the earth&quot;" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-11-17T11:22:27.383" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4608" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-17T10:00:07.567" Score="9" ViewCount="693" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;We can now design bacterial genome from scratch&lt;/a&gt;, as mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6942/can-scientists-create-a-life-form-yet&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; thread on skeptics.se, and this opens up new and exciting possibilities for solving many problems the humanity is facing today, from efficient generation of drugs and fuels to pollution and world hunger (although the latter might require more advances before a feasible solution can be engineered). Naturally, most secular thinkers hail this as a dawn of new era for humanity with less suffering and more prosperity for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religious figures, on the other hand, almost universally condemn this advance. Why? What is the basis on which Christians dislike the idea of artificially created life forms?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that different branches may have different explanations. Since I'm don't know much of the difference between them, it's OK if in your answers you will concentrate on any one of your choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="294" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:46:42.840" LastActivityDate="2015-08-19T02:33:15.707" Title="What is the basis for Christian disapproval of creation of artificial life?" Tags="&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;biology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4609" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4611" CreationDate="2011-11-17T13:11:51.980" Score="3" ViewCount="234" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many churches teach that embryonic stem cell research is strictly wrong, while adult stem cell research is alright.  What is the biblical basis for this teaching and why are the two distinguished?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-14T21:08:27.670" LastActivityDate="2015-04-14T21:08:27.670" Title="What is the biblical basis for the position that embryonic stem cell research is immoral/sinful?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4608" CreationDate="2011-11-17T14:16:54.933" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of issues here to consider; one is the concept of creating a life form artificially, and the other is how it's being done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding &lt;strong&gt;the concept&lt;/strong&gt;, there may be a wide variety of viewpoints and several arguments that both support and oppose the concept. These include (not an exhaustive list):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arguments against:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When God created the world, and all living things in it, what he created was &lt;em&gt;perfect&lt;/em&gt;. Therefore to add to that perfect creation would be a move away from perfection, and thus wrong.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creating life is God's job. By taking on this role we are setting ourselves up as gods, which is a direct violation of some of the key directions that God has given us - most famously, &quot;No other gods, only me&quot; from the Ten Commandments (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:3&amp;amp;version=MSG&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arguments for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When God created mankind, he gave us all the knowledge and intellect that we have. (The one piece of knowledge he didn't give us, but we took for ourselves, is the knowledge of good and evil). Thus our ability to artificially create simple &quot;life forms&quot; is not inherently a bad thing. You could liken it to developing breeds of cattle or dogs, or cross-fertilizing plants to create new varieties, and argue it's just an extension of that kind of activity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God gave mankind dominion over all other life on the Earth, and told us to take charge of and be responsible for all living things. Therefore there's nothing immoral about our creating new forms of life from existing forms of life; God has granted us that right (and also told us to use it responsibly).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking personally I know of very few Christians who object to the &lt;em&gt;concept&lt;/em&gt; of creating a living thing artificially.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The practice&lt;/strong&gt; may throw up some other considerations though, especially if the &quot;raw materials&quot; being used come from human embryos. I'm sure you're already aware of most of the arguments about embryo-related research so I won't repeat them here - particularly as the example you cited in the question doesn't go near human embryos, but is inserting a completely synthetic genome into a bacterium. It's worth noting that the critics in that article were &quot;including some religious groups&quot; - there's nothing to suggest that the views those critics expressed represented all, or even a majority, of Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some &lt;strong&gt;further reading&lt;/strong&gt; that may be of interest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-apologist-dissects-ethics-behind-artificial-life-cloning-29220/&quot;&gt;Christian Apologist Dissects Ethics Behind 'Artificial Life,' Cloning&lt;/a&gt; (Christian Post, 2007)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/creating_life_in_the_lab.html&quot;&gt;Creating Life in the Lab&lt;/a&gt; - a book that specifically addresses the work of Craig Venter. (This link is to a review of that book).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/origin-life/artificial-life-lab/artificial-life-ready-or-not-here-it-comes&quot;&gt;Artificial life: Ready or not, here it comes&lt;/a&gt; - a brief article by the author of the above book&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.examiner.com/biblical-christianity-in-phoenix/creating-artificial-life-from-a-biblical-perspective&quot;&gt;Creating artificial life from a Biblical perspective&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-11-17T14:16:54.933" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4609" CreationDate="2011-11-17T14:48:36.600" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,641157,00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; gives a pretty good summary of the foundations, though I'm not going to endorse the argument it makes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Embryonic stem-cell studies are controversial because they involve the destruction of human embryos,&amp;quot; the New York Times explained in a May 6 article reporting on the shifting politics of stem-cell research.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not complicated. An embryo used in stem-cell research (and fertility treatments) is three to five days past conception. It consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those Christians who believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and that a cell cluster five days past conception is the equivalent of a human being, equate the use of embryonic stem cells with murder. Use of adult stem cells does not kill the donor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other questions that address the biblical foundation for &amp;quot;life begins at conception&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-17T14:48:36.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4613" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4618" CreationDate="2011-11-17T14:54:29.270" Score="37" ViewCount="2908" Body="&lt;p&gt;What sources outside of the Bible give supporting evidence to the existence of Jesus and any of the events in His life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-02-05T09:02:47.797" LastActivityDate="2019-09-04T18:11:32.327" Title="What extrabiblical sources support the existence of Jesus in history?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;extra-biblical&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4613" CreationDate="2011-11-17T15:27:56.223" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &quot;Case for Christ&quot; does address this question. Among others, Josephus and Pliny both make reference to early Christian practice. The Josephus material is suspect, or more so than Pliny, anyway. Note these are to the followers of Christ, not &quot;see that guy over there named Jesus&quot; type references. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus&lt;/a&gt; for a start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1000" LastActivityDate="2011-11-17T15:27:56.223" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4615" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4616" CreationDate="2011-11-17T20:39:05.737" Score="5" ViewCount="4955" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS church believes the prophecy in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%204:5-6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Malachi 4:5-6&lt;/a&gt; (KJV) has &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Malachi#Mormon_Beliefs_about_Malachi_and_Elijah&quot;&gt;been fulfilled&lt;/a&gt;, and those verses are often cited while explaining &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/stories/purpose-of-family-history/&quot;&gt;why they're so interested in genealogy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other explanations exist for this prophecy? What do other denominations think it means that Elijah will &quot;turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2014-10-18T15:15:02.760" Title="What are other explanations for Malachi 4:5-6?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;elijah&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4615" CreationDate="2011-11-17T22:16:07.427" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible teaches that the Spirit of Elijah would be sent to the earth a total of 5 times (5 is the number of grace&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;). By &lt;em&gt;Spirit of Elijah&lt;/em&gt;, I mean God's spirit anointing a man to bring a message, in the same way that the first Elijah was anointed (a straight shooter, hard hitter, come out of the wilderness, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First, Elijah Himself&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;An examination of Elijah's traits may be beyond the scope of this question. If requested, I can revisit later.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second - Elisha&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;II Kings 2:9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that&#xA;  Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be&#xA;  taken away from thee. &lt;strong&gt;And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double&#xA;  portion of thy spirit be upon me.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;II Kings 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at&#xA;  Jericho saw him, they said, &lt;strong&gt;The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before&#xA;  him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third - John the Baptist (Forerunner to Jesus' First Coming)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the&#xA;  way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his&#xA;  temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:&#xA;  behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:17 And &lt;strong&gt;he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient&#xA;  to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the&#xA;  Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 7:11-13 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly&#xA;  shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That&#xA;  Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him&#xA;  whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of&#xA;  them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fourth - Forerunner to Jesus' Second Coming&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading Malachi 3 as referring to John the Baptist's fore-running of Jesus' first coming, Malachi 4 can be read as another fore-runner preparing the way for Jesus' second coming. This man will turn the hearts of the children (the believer's of today) to the original faith preached by the early church apostles (fathers), just as John turned the hearts of the fathers of Israel to the &quot;children&quot; that received his message of the coming Christ. Malachi 4:5 predicts that this messenger will come &lt;em&gt;before the great and dreadful day of the Lord&lt;/em&gt;, and if his message is rejected, the earth will be smitten with a curse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:17 specifically states that John would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children (Jesus' first coming), but does not include the Malachi 4:5 reference to turning the hearts of the children to the fathers (Jesus' second coming). This is similar to how Jesus, in the synagogue, began to read from Isaiah 61:1-2, but stopped halfway through verse 2 before he got to &quot;and the day of vengeance of our God&quot;. He would fulfill that part of that verse at his second coming, but not his first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fifth - One of the Two Witnesses to Israel&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;REVELATION 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they&#xA;  shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in&#xA;  sackcloth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See my response to this related question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1677/who-are-the-two-witnesses-in-the-book-of-revelation&quot;&gt;Who Are the Two Witnesses&lt;/a&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To briefly summarize that more detailed response, the characteristics of the two witnesses are so similar to Moses and Elijah that we can conclude that the anointing of the two witnesses will be the same that was with Moses and Elijah. This is the fifth and final time that the spirit and power of Elijah will be manifest on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;See EW Bullinger's &lt;em&gt;Number in Scripture&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-nis/five.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;on the number five&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T14:46:25.443" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4606" CreationDate="2011-11-18T01:32:20.463" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several Second Temple documents — and not just the Christian tradition — reflect the hope that God will re-establish the Israelite monarchy. This was often based on the promises God makes to David in 2 Sam 7, which state that his son Solomon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will build the Temple.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will become God's son.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will have a throne established forever.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes excellent sense of the fact that the High Priest, in the passage you are asking about, moves directly from questions about Jesus's relationship to the Temple to a question about whether Jesus is God's son: both questions were attempts to determine whether Jesus saw himself as a fulfillment of 2 Sam 7. So when the High Priest asked if Jesus was God's son, he meant, “do you think God has adopted &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; as a son to rule over his people Israel, like he adopted Solomon as his son?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1002" LastEditorUserId="1002" LastEditDate="2011-11-18T01:53:32.743" LastActivityDate="2011-11-18T01:53:32.743" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4613" CreationDate="2011-11-18T11:19:27.060" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_of_Peregrinus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lucian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pliny the younger&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Josephus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;St. Ignatius of Antioch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tacitus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Suetonius&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aristides&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Galenus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lampridius&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried to get all those that Norman names. Just a problem with spelling those wholly foreign names. You can find all 19 of them in the video though. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is curious to note that even Tacitus who was a rather big critic of the early church never thought that Jesus was a myth or never existed. When even Christianity's first century opposition talk about Jesus as a historical figure then it really becomes unreasonable to buy into this atheist rhetoric of him being a myth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus is the account is the most violently opposed because it gives such credence to Christianity. The atheist is left with the burden of proof of proving the text suspect. This again becomes unreasonable seeing as all the extant manuscripts of The Antiquities of the Jews says the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian when confronted with these attacks need to ask the naysayer what is his / her evidence for these texts being suspect? This will probably get you the response of denial of the burden of proof or if the opponent is honest enough he / she will admit their is none.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="22319" LastEditDate="2019-09-04T15:51:10.590" LastActivityDate="2019-09-04T15:51:10.590" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4620" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4622" CreationDate="2011-11-18T16:44:01.253" Score="7" ViewCount="550" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read somewhere that the LDS teaches that each person existed prior to physical conception.  What are the specifics of this teaching?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T15:14:49.503" Title="What does the LDS Church teach about the pre-existence of each person prior to conception?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4621" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-18T17:16:33.277" Score="9" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spiritual communion is a prayer one can pray if they can't receive the Eucharist at Mass and it's a good prayer to pray if you're making a visit to a tabernacle outside of Mass.  Sacramental communion can be conferred in extraordinary circumstances outside of Mass, and I would think that the same graces conferred through reception of the Body and Blood of Christ during Mass would be conferred outside of the Mass setting. &lt;em&gt;(Is conferred the right word?)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what graces are not conferred on the pray-er who asks for spiritual communion?  Or, less specifically, what is found in sacramental communion that is not found in spiritual communion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-11-02T14:44:36.433" LastActivityDate="2017-11-02T14:44:36.433" Title="What isn't spiritual communion?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4620" CreationDate="2011-11-18T21:18:15.887" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This doctrine teaches, in short, that we &lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt; existed prior to birth into mortality on this earth, and were involved in the salvation plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the below excerpts from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Encyclopedia of Mormonism&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pre-Existence (Pre-Earthly Existence)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The term &quot;pre-existence,&quot; or more accurately, &quot;premortal existence,&quot; refers to a period of individual conscious and accountable life before&#xA;  birth into mortality on this earth. It is Latter-day Saint doctrine&#xA;  that living things existed as individual spirit beings and possessed&#xA;  varying degrees of intelligence in an active, conscious spirit state&#xA;  before mortal birth and that the spirit continues to live and function&#xA;  in the mortal body. The revelations teach that premortal spirit bodies&#xA;  have general resemblance to their physical counterparts.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Council In Heaven&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Council in Heaven, sometimes called the Grand Council, refers to a&#xA;  meeting of God the Father with his spirit sons and daughters to&#xA;  discuss the terms and conditions by which these spirits could come to&#xA;  earth as physical beings. The terms &quot;Council in Heaven&quot; and &quot;Grand&#xA;  Council&quot; do not appear in the scriptures, but are used by the Prophet&#xA;  Joseph Smith in referring to these premortal activities, allusions to&#xA;  which are found in many scriptures (Job 38:4-7; Jer. 1:5; Rev. 12:3-7;&#xA;  Alma 13:3-9; D&amp;amp;C 29:36-38; 76:25-29; Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:23-28; cf.&#xA;  Tpjs, pp. 348-49, 357, 365; T&amp;amp;S 4 [Feb. 1, 1843]:82).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One purpose of the heavenly council was to allow the spirits the&#xA;  opportunity to accept or reject the Father's Plan of Salvation, which&#xA;  proposed that an earth be created whereon his spirit children could&#xA;  dwell, each in a physical body. Such a life would serve as a&#xA;  probationary state &quot;to see if they [would] do all things whatsoever&#xA;  the Lord their God shall command them&quot; (Abr. 3:25). The spirits of all&#xA;  mankind were free to accept or reject the Father's plan but they were&#xA;  also responsible for their choice. The Creation, the Fall, mortality,&#xA;  the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Final Judgment were&#xA;  contemplated and explained in the council (TPJS, p. 220, 348-50; MD,&#xA;  pp. 163-64; see also First Estate). The plan anticipated mistakes from&#xA;  inexperience and sin and provided remedies. Many spirits were&#xA;  foreordained to specific roles and missions during their mortal&#xA;  experience, conditional upon their willingness and faithfulness in the&#xA;  premortal sphere and their promised continued faithfulness upon the&#xA;  earth. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, &quot;Every man who has a&#xA;  calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to&#xA;  that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world&#xA;  was. I suppose I was ordained to this very office in that Grand&#xA;  Council&quot; (TPJS, p. 365; cf. 1 Pet. 1:20; Jer. 1:5; Abr. 3:22-23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although spoken of as a single council, there may have been multiple&#xA;  meetings where the gospel was taught and appointments were made. Jesus&#xA;  and the prophets were foreordained in the council. A redeemer was to&#xA;  perform a twofold mission in redeeming mankind from the physical and&#xA;  spiritual deaths brought about by the Fall of Adam and also in&#xA;  providing redemption, upon repentance, for sins committed by&#xA;  individuals. At a certain point in the council, the Father asked,&#xA;  &quot;Whom shall I send [as the Redeemer]?&quot; Jesus Christ, known then as the&#xA;  great I AM and as Jehovah, answered, &quot;Here am I, send me,&quot; and agreed&#xA;  to follow the Father's plan (Moses 4:1-4; Abr. 3:27). As a&#xA;  counter-measure, Lucifer offered himself and an amendment to the&#xA;  Father's plan of saving mankind that would not respect their agency.&#xA;  The substitute proposal was also designed to exalt Lucifer above the&#xA;  throne of God. The Father's response was, &quot;I will send the first&quot;&#xA;  (meaning Jehovah). Lucifer rebelled and became Satan, or &quot;the devil.&quot;&#xA;  A division developed among the spirits, and no spirits were neutral&#xA;  (DS 1:65-66). There was war in heaven (Rev. 12:7-8), and the third of&#xA;  the hosts who followed Lucifer were cast out (Rev. 12:4; D&amp;amp;C 29:36).&#xA;  These rebellious spirits, along with Lucifer, were thrust down to the&#xA;  earth without physical bodies (Rev. 12:9; cf. Isa. 14:12-17). The&#xA;  Prophet Joseph Smith explained: &quot;The contention in heaven was-Jesus&#xA;  said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the&#xA;  devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand&#xA;  council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil&#xA;  rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put&#xA;  up their heads for him&quot; (TPJS, p. 357). Heavenly Father and the&#xA;  faithful spirits in heaven wept over them (D&amp;amp;C 76:25-29). Satan and&#xA;  his followers are still at war with those spirits who have been born&#xA;  into mortality (Rev. 12:9; cf. &quot;War in Heaven,&quot; p. 788).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="560" LastEditDate="2011-11-28T17:44:19.080" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T17:44:19.080" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4620" CreationDate="2011-11-18T23:40:15.810" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;@Bob Black hit the nail on the head there pretty much. I'd like to add one of my favorite scriptures that actually comes out of the KJV Bible, &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/prov/8.22-30&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 8:22-30&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This expounds on and helps clarify some other scriptures as already stated (Job, Jeremiah, Alma, etc). It is clear that we had wisdom and other spiritual faculties in the pre-mortal life. Life does not end at death, why would it merely begin out of nothing at birth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-18T23:40:15.810" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4624" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-19T03:26:59.717" Score="15" ViewCount="5459" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4621/20&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; reminded me of a question I've had for a long time:  &lt;strong&gt;What is the Catholic concept of grace?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grace&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the dictionary&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;grace&lt;/strong&gt; [greys]&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;noun&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;favor or goodwill. Synonyms: kindness, kindliness, love, benignity; condescension.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a manifestation of favor, especially by a superior: It was only through the dean's grace that I wasn't expelled from school. Synonyms: forgiveness, charity, mercifulness. Antonyms: animosity, enmity, disfavor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mercy; clemency; pardon: He was saved by an act of grace from the governor. Synonyms: lenity, leniency, reprieve. Antonyms: harshness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always felt that #3 was the most relevant in the context of Christianity, but the way I have heard Catholics and Catholic literature speak about the topic, it seems there is a more specific, and almost &amp;quot;tangible&amp;quot; concept of grace (and &lt;em&gt;graces&lt;/em&gt;) at work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above mentioned question uses the phrases &lt;code&gt;...the same graces...&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;But what graces are not conferred...?&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I'm accustomed to &amp;quot;the grace of God&amp;quot; being a singular (or perhaps mass) noun, the concept of &amp;quot;graces&amp;quot; confuses me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2020-01-07T18:35:13.373" Title="What is the Catholic concept of grace?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;grace&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4625" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-19T05:57:11.130" Score="5" ViewCount="269" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible seems to condone slavery and accept wives as their husband's property. But these are generally acknowledged to be immoral in modern civilization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, there are other modern societal perspectives which differ from their Biblical perspectives that many (if not most) Christians deem to still be ungraceful in God's eyes, like homosexuality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm familiar with arguments that the Bible was written for its own time and pertained only to the era. But, if some values can be progressive and Christian despite what is in the Bible while others cannot, how can one know which ones God is okay with?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is it possible he just doesn't care about stuff like slavery?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="585" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-04-13T17:33:08.380" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T19:17:04.843" Title="How can one tell if God is in favor of a modern value or not?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2016-04-27T07:20:51.960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4625" CreationDate="2011-11-19T06:42:34.650" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love this question. I have wondered this myself and found answers. Here you go, from personal experience and study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short of it? Prophets, and prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Prophets&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, you are right, the Bible is old, but as Amos 3:7 says, &quot;Surely the Lord God will nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.&quot; God calls prophets so that people can know what He is speaking at the time. That is mainly how we have the Bible, a collection of words of God's prophets, chosen and set apart to lead the people in specific, contemporary issues at the time, and also eternal truths, mainly that of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often, people will being to disobey (&lt;em&gt;apostasy&lt;/em&gt;) and not follow God's prophets, so He withdraws them from the earth. When the people are ready again, God calls another prophet to speak His word and clarify truth. This happens all throughout the Old Testament, and a period of apostasy begins again near the end of the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God just leaves us alone forever? For hundreds of years there were no prophets on the earth, no new revelation. Hence a period of reformation/enlightenment when people sought greater spiritual truths for their day, and to restore teachings of the original Christ-organized Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As several denominations (and non-denominational sects too) believe (albeit differently depending on where you go/who you ask), God has prophets in the Church today. But we must be careful not to blindly follow a so-called prophet, ancient or modern. How can you &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Prayer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's values, or true eternal principles, will never change. God's truth then is God's truth now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To know if something is right, or, as we might say, to know God's &quot;opinion&quot; on the subject, we can &lt;em&gt;pray and ask&lt;/em&gt;. No promise is more repeated in canonized scripture than &quot;Ask, and ye shall receive.&quot; Knock, and it will be opened unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my own experience I &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; that God answers prayers and will give you an answer to sincere prayer through the Holy Ghost. One must only have a sincere heart and faith in Christ, with real intent to act on the answer. If you have a question about &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; moral, doctrinal, or other issue, I know God is there, and that He is interested in you and it. He wants to answer you and He will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-04-13T19:17:04.843" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T19:17:04.843" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4625" CreationDate="2011-11-19T13:36:24.707" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question basically boils down to two things: hermeneutics and doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hermeneuetics is the study of texts, and Biblical Hermeneutics is the application of textual study to the scripture and the process of determining what it means. This field is relevant to your question because your question itself contains clear trances of not being backed by any kind of hermeneutics at all. For example you mention that a &quot;woman as property&quot; view is condoned by Scripture. This is commonly made assertion made by commentators with an anti-Christian bias, but it is not based on a good reading of the text. In order to come away with an idea like that one must ignore the difference in literary genres between passages. The difference between narrative and prescriptive passages is very important and how that is determined is part of what the field of hermeneutics addresses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doctrines are beliefs about any given topic. Good doctrine is the result of careful application of hereneutics and a good overall understanding of Scripture and general revelation. Bad doctrine looks a lot like humanism and is the result of man using his own internal moral compass to delineate what he wants to believe. One must always choose between doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are of course conflicting doctrines out there. Some will say that practicing homosexuality is fine for a Christian, others will say it's a result of man's fallen sinful nature and an abomination in God's eyes. In order to determine which bit of doctrine you are going to subscribe to you need to do some research. If, as in the title of your question, you plan on subscribing to whatever you can determine to be God's judgement on the matter then your first order of business is to figure out what he said on the matter in the past and what it means to you today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means approaching Scripture using the lens of hermeneutics, examining the Canon to determine which books and teachings you are going to consider and authoritative witness on which to base your doctrinal conclusions, what methods of interpreting the text you will use and then applying that to the whole of Scripture to deduce a cohesive theology (or understanding of God's nature and the nature of his dealings with men). Once you have that you can use it to help guide your discernment on individual decisions. Is X a sin? What do the scriptures I hold true say about the matter, how do I read and apply those scriptures and what conclusions must I draw?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All Christian traditions have some corpus of accepted doctrines. Part of your process in choosing what tradition to align yourself with should be examining their doctrines and the basis for those doctrines to see if their reasoning and sources are sound and comparing them to any other conclusions based on the same sources. When conflicts arise between conflicting doctrines, you should have some clear idea WHY you reject one interpretation over another that has taken into consideration how the various conclusions got drawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, any true search for God's opinion -- his will in any given matter -- is going to include communicating with him on the matter. Although they vary in how they see this implemented practically, all Christians pretty much agree that God has made some provision for guiding people into a proper understanding of his word through his Holy Spirit left as a counselor to men after Jesus left earth. Not asking Him to guide you in your discernment process would be like trying to map out the objects in a dark room without turning on the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-11-19T13:36:24.707" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4630" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4631" CreationDate="2011-11-19T14:36:37.977" Score="6" ViewCount="5701" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:11-16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 7:11-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't seem that it can be just Solomon since Solomon's kingdom didn't last forever. It also doesn't seem like it can be a reference to the Messiah/Jesus because this bit doesn't fit with what I know of the Christians believe that Jesus, being God, could not do wrong:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 7:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When &lt;strong&gt;he commits iniquity&lt;/strong&gt;, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So who is being referred to in this passage?  I'm interested in an overview of what is commonly believed.  Quotes and references from any respected commentators are welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2017-02-01T03:20:23.523" LastActivityDate="2020-10-15T21:11:01.910" Title="Who is the son in the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:14)?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;solomon&gt;&lt;2-samuel&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4630" CreationDate="2011-11-19T19:41:06.160" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Matthew Henry commentary says that this passage is referring to the family of David, including Solomon; it also refers to Christ, who Henry says is sometimes called David or Son of David. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The section in which you're questioning the iniquity is not referring to Christ himself; rather, its talking about His spiritual seed (or believers). Believers have weaknesses, which they can expect to be corrected, but know that they won't be cast out because of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer is paraphrased from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&amp;amp;b=10&amp;amp;c=7&quot;&gt;these commentary notes&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-11-23T16:39:02.820" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T16:39:02.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4630" CreationDate="2011-11-20T03:19:42.997" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The tradition insists that the passage is indeed about Solomon. Note that the passage does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; say that Solomon's kingdom will last — in the event, it did not — but that the &lt;em&gt;throne&lt;/em&gt; of the kingdom would endure whether the earthly kingdom did or not. And the Christian tradition would see that promise as fulfilled because Jesus is currently occupying that Davidic throne, in the heavens, and will one day occupy it again on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I must admit, it would have seemed a vast disappointment to the people originally receiving this promise that their kingdom did not, in fact, endure; and that “throne” was not, as they might have reasonably expected, a synecdoche for “kingdom”, but a separate concept that could endure before God whether their nation survived intact or fell. So I am not claiming that the concept of a heavenly throne would have satisfied the original recipients of this promise, or lead them to believe that God was faithful. I am only describing how the promise was worked out as nevertheless the promise of a faithful God in later Jewish and Christian tradition!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1002" LastActivityDate="2011-11-20T03:19:42.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4624" CreationDate="2011-11-21T01:57:32.653" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;For most Catholic questions there are two places to start:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/a&gt;, by Thomas Aquinas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for this question I will use this from the CCC (#2)&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from Summa Theologica this:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2111.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2111.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there are two types of graces that come from God through Christ and the Holy Spirit, to help heal our sin, to sanctify us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sanctifying grace is a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural&#xA;disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with&#xA;God, to act by his love.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping&#xA;with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to&#xA;God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in&#xA;the course of the work of sanctification.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two other types of graces that are given by the Holy Spirit to help us to do God's will, which are a subdividing of the habitual grace from above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different&#xA;sacraments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the&#xA;Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning &quot;favor,&quot; &quot;gratuitous gift,&quot;&#xA;&quot;benefit.&quot; Whatever their character - sometimes it is&#xA;extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms&#xA;are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the&#xA;common good of the Church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two types of grace, the first is a sanctifying grace which helps to unite us with God (#1 in the first group) and the second is a gratuitous grace, which allows someone to lead others to God (the second group).  This is gratuitous because, much as when Moses was told to lead, he suggested his brother (a better speaker) instead, but, because of God Moses was able to lead, to do more than he expected to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we look at the cross as an example, where there is a grace that goes between us and God (the vertical part) and the horizontal bar is where we are tied to each other, as we help each others to be with God, so the gift of God has two distinct part, and the RCC differentiates between them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads to a discussion on the RCC's view on justification, but that is beyond the scope of this question, so I will end it here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-21T02:19:28.007" LastActivityDate="2011-11-21T02:19:28.007" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4635" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4645" CreationDate="2011-11-21T04:33:34.347" Score="6" ViewCount="35883" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which denominations primarily use the King James Version of the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I did a search on Google and could not find anything reliable.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-21T04:38:47.910" LastActivityDate="2018-03-11T17:21:31.930" Title="Which denominations use the King James Version?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4636" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4638" CreationDate="2011-11-21T04:37:37.257" Score="9" ViewCount="5592" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that many people and churches prefer using translations other than the KJV. Why? What are the common criticisms against it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2015-08-31T14:28:00.123" LastActivityDate="2017-02-22T15:18:42.717" Title="What are common criticisms against using the KJV?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4637" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-21T04:56:01.027" Score="11" ViewCount="5219" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2013:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:13 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sola-fide states that faith alone brings salvation. In this oft-quoted verse, Paul is clearly saying that love is greater than faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can any attribute be greater than that which is necessary for salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-22T19:41:55.167" LastActivityDate="2015-06-11T20:03:38.707" Title="How is love greater than faith?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-06-12T08:10:36.473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4636" CreationDate="2011-11-21T05:17:36.673" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The usual criticism is readability.  The KJV was originally translated in the 1600's, and even though it's been updated several times since then, there are still words that have different meanings now than they did in the English of the time.  The literary style is clearly less modern than more recent translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another criticism is based on the translation sources.  The New Testament portion of the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (Received Text), which has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus#Textual_criticism_and_the_Textus_Receptus&quot;&gt;subject to some criticism&lt;/a&gt;.  This has resulted in some minor textual differences that can be traced back to the different source manuscripts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hesitate to answer more completely because the choice of a Bible version is personal, and I want to avoid stating that any version/translation is superior to others.  There are those that feel very strongly about the superiority of their own version (KJV-only and those strongly opposed.)  The textual &lt;a href=&quot;http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts.html&quot;&gt;differences mentioned above tend to fuel such arguments&lt;/a&gt;, which in my opinion, tend to be counter-productive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another criticism is the distinction between a translation of the original texts, and a paraphrase.  The various  Bible translations fall somewhere on a scale between word by word equivolence and thought for thought equivalence or paraphrase.  The KJV is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm&quot;&gt;closer to the word-for-word end than many modern counterparts&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The KJV-only groups tend to prefer a direct translation of the original because it is less subject to be influenced by the views of the translator. They argue that an interpreted version is suspect, because the result is influenced by the translator's understanding of the meaning of the text.  On the other side, the argument goes that the &quot;paraphrase&quot; versions are written so that the meaning is clearly understood, and it's therefore &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Version.html&quot;&gt;easier to understand&quot; than the &quot;archaic&quot; KJV&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-11-21T14:26:23.390" LastActivityDate="2011-11-21T14:26:23.390" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4637" CreationDate="2011-11-21T07:18:31.537" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Love is the greatest because it is essential to the very nature of God as seen in &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Whoever does not love does not know God, because &lt;strong&gt;God is love&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love is the most prominent message in the Bible for a reason. John has a great passage about Love being your utmost responsibility as a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2013:34-35&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 13:34-35&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found the most convincing passage in Matthew where Jesus refers to Commandments and which are most important. Jesus quotes are always the best, I feel he really knows what he is talking about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:37-39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt; This is the first and greatest commandment. &lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love is also something that everyone can feel and believe in. Its like the first step in the process. It seems to be the most tangible of the three, also the most long lasting. In this book of the Bible Love also enables the Corinthian Christian to sort out their problems with spiritual gifts as well, the main point of the book it seems. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is why its the most important overall as a Christian and to the Corinthians in this part of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1012" LastEditorUserId="1012" LastEditDate="2011-11-23T14:44:59.107" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T14:44:59.107" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4568" CreationDate="2011-11-21T07:30:24.620" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible tell husbands that they should try to understand, try is the key word I think, so seems like this is keep her happy. It also says to do the hard and manly things for your wife because she is not as strong, which isn't always the case these days. Respect your wife is in there as well, seems pretty important. The Bible also tells you to do your husbandly duty and do it well. Last passage I found says he should provide for his family. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;A man should try to understand what his wife needs, rather than being bitter toward her. He will not expect her to do heavy work since she is not as strong. And he will respect her as being of equal spiritual value with himself.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 3:7 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;A husband also shows love by expressing affection and fulfilling the wife's sexual needs.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;As the head of the family, a man should provide, not just for himself, but for his whole household.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Timothy 5:8 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1012" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-11-23T14:54:49.430" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T14:54:49.430" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4642" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4647" CreationDate="2011-11-21T10:45:40.183" Score="6" ViewCount="415" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story about Jesus forgiving an adulterous women is not in the original copy, but that's the version we most commonly have. So how does that make the Bible inerrant, given that many important parts were added or removed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Further reading&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-11-22T18:36:36.750" LastActivityDate="2011-11-22T18:36:36.750" Title="How do adherents to inerrancy reconcile the fact that some part of the bible were added later?" Tags="&lt;inerrancy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4635" CreationDate="2011-11-21T13:57:24.170" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's really not a &lt;em&gt;denominational&lt;/em&gt; issue, per se, but a doctrinal issue or a simple preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement&quot;&gt;King James Only movement&lt;/a&gt; are people and churches that believe that the King James version is the only one to use.  They have various reasons for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James White has broken it down into five primary reasons for sticking with the KJV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;I Like the KJV Best&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; - people who simply like the translation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The textual argument&lt;/strong&gt; - people who believe that the KJV translation is more accurate because it's based on better manuscripts&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Received text only&lt;/strong&gt; - this belief states that the original manuscripts used by the KJV translation were supernaturally better than the ones we have today.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Inspired Translation&lt;/strong&gt; - this group believes that there was inspiration behind the translation and that it was, therefore, inspired by God whereas other translations are not.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Revelation&lt;/strong&gt; - this group believes that the KJV translation was a new revelation from God.  This view is often called &quot;Ruckmanism&quot;, after it's primary adherent, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman&quot;&gt;Peter Ruckman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, it's not a denominational thing, but either a doctrinal issue (that extends beyond denominational decrees) or a preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-11-21T16:52:43.023" LastActivityDate="2011-11-21T16:52:43.023" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4637" CreationDate="2011-11-21T15:24:03.130" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:30-31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christ&lt;/a&gt;, the greatest command is to &quot;love the Lord your God with all you heart, soul, mind, and strength&quot; and the second like is to &quot;love your neighbor as yourself&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christ&lt;/a&gt;, He is &quot;the way, the truth, and the life&quot; - &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;NO&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; one comes to the Father except through Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul expands on Jesus' statements through his writings - never in contradiction of our Lord, but always in congruence with Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By telling the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2013:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Corinthians&lt;/a&gt; that &quot;the greatest of these is love&quot;, he has &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;excluded&lt;/strong&gt; faith and hope. Rather, he has pointed the way higher than &quot;mere&quot; faith. Higher than &quot;mere&quot; hope. Paul is telling the Corinthians that faith and hope are only the beginning of the journey - the culmination is in completely fulfilling Christ's own &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2013:34-35&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;command&lt;/a&gt; to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;love one another&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-12-07T02:28:22.150" LastActivityDate="2011-12-07T02:28:22.150" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4642" CreationDate="2011-11-21T15:55:13.380" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The belief in biblical inerrancy does not require that the copies or translations of the Bible be completely inerrant.  It is generally accepted that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) Copies are subject to human error&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) Translations are subject to human interpretation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the &lt;em&gt;original manuscripts&lt;/em&gt; are inerrant.  Unfortunately, we do not have many original manuscripts (if we have any), so we study the copies that we have, compare them, and try to determine the text of the original manuscripts.  We may not be able to do so perfectly, and areas of ambiguity are often noted in modern Bibles (John 8, Mark 16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it stands to reason that we have a reasonably accurate representation of the original manuscripts, with the essentials preserved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2011-11-21T15:55:13.380" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4648" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4649" CreationDate="2011-11-21T18:06:20.087" Score="9" ViewCount="121" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4568/69&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;, I am very interested to find out how specific passages are &quot;vetted&quot; for inclusion into official church liturgical use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize this process may be different for Roman Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, etc traditions. Not relevant to this question would be any denomination/tradition that just reads from the Bible based on a cycle (eg, one chapter per Sunday in consecutive order), or on the pastor's volition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2011-11-21T23:22:45.347" Title="How are passages vetted for inclusion in officially sanctioned liturgical readings?" Tags="&lt;liturgy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4648" CreationDate="2011-11-21T19:20:21.863" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a member of the United Methodist Church, so my answer will be from that perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the United Methodist Church, preachers preach from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gbod.org/site/c.nhLRJ2PMKsG/b.6396085/k.FBC/Revised__Common_Lectionary__20112012.htm&quot;&gt;Lectionary&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Common_Lectionary&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Revised Common Lectionary was the product of a collaboration between the North American Consultation on Common Texts (CCT) and the International English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC). After a nine-year trial period, it was publicly released in 1994. The CCT membership includes the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as many traditional &quot;mainline&quot; or &quot;liturgically-based&quot; American and Canadian Protestant denominations such as Lutheran, North American Anglican (Episcopalian), Presbyterian, and more loosely Methodist and/or Seventh Day Adventist. The CCT thereby represents the majority of American and Canadian Christians and has been widely adopted in Great Britain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Consultation on Common Texts explains the process by which the current Revised Common Lectionary came about in this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.commontexts.org/rcl/RCL_Introduction_Web.pdf&quot;&gt;PDF file&lt;/a&gt;.  It appears to be a process of collaboration and suggestions from the various denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Revised Common Lectionary appears to be a product of the majority of American Christian faiths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those not familiar with the Lectionary, the book contains 4 Bible readings for each Sunday for a 3 year cycle.  The church year starts with the first Sunday of Advent, which this year happens to be Sunday, November 27, 2011.  This new year is Year B, or the 2nd year of the 3 year cycle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A preacher can use any or all of the 4 Bible readings in a worship service, and still be considered as preaching from the Lectionary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="583" LastEditDate="2011-11-21T19:31:38.440" LastActivityDate="2011-11-21T19:31:38.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4648" CreationDate="2011-11-21T23:22:45.347" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christian liturgy is closely tied to the Christian calendar.  &lt;em&gt;The Urban Ministry Institute&lt;/em&gt;, which produces a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tumi.org/migration/index.php?page=shop.product_details&amp;amp;product_id=717&amp;amp;flypage=flypage.tpl&amp;amp;pop=0&amp;amp;option=com_virtuemart&amp;amp;Itemid=724&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;lovely calendar&lt;/a&gt; each year, notes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since our earliest records, the Church has made it a point to remember and celebrate the events of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. The ancient Church centered its worship and witness on the person and work of Jesus Christ. A cursory outline of Church history reveals its deep commitment to remember and re-present the major events of Jesus’ life in real time. Largely as an act of worship and instruction, the Church Year was the early Church’s response to the secular events and calendar that sought to structure and give meaning to society’s course of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian Year (also known as the Church Year) observances, feasts, and services allowed them to think “Christianly” about their days and weeks and months, and put all things in the perspective of the Christ event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Used at least in part by virtually all traditions of the Church (including Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant traditions), the Christian Church year highlights and follows the prophecy, manifestation, and ministry of Jesus. The unfolding events on the calendar becomes an opportunity for worshipers to hear the prophets herald his coming, to kneel at the manger, to worship Christ with the magi, and to hear his teaching to the multitudes.  Through these events we see our Lord triumphantly come to Jerusalem, stand accused in a sham trial before his foes, be crucified with thieves on Golgotha, and rise from the dead on the third day!  From his ascension to the coming of the Holy Spirit, from his exaltation to the mission of his Church in the world, the Church Year reminds us of the that Story which in fact is the Greatest Story Ever Told– the hope of salvation in Christ for the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the Church Year, then, from ancient times to the present, has been to remember, reenact, and to be transformed by the major events of Jesus’ life. In the course of our everyday lives, we redraw and relive the way of Jesus in real time, tracing his birth, death, resurrection, ascension, session and return through the course of the year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Gilbert Le Blanc &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4648/how-are-passages-vetted-for-inclusion-in-officially-sanctioned-liturgical-readin/4649#4649&quot;&gt;answered&lt;/a&gt;, the Revised Common Lectionary is currently used by a wide variety of Christian traditions.  But it is based on the practice of Bible readings that go all the way back to the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; century church and the practice of regular readings (&lt;em&gt;miqra&lt;/em&gt;) in the Jewish synagogue.  Rev. Alexander Ring detailed the history of the lectionary and the church calendar in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blc.edu/comm/gargy/gargy1/AlexRing.gpc.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-21T23:22:45.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4605" CreationDate="2011-11-21T23:49:49.723" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose the answer depends entirely on how you define success.  To be an authentic Hesychast  monk, you would really need to move to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4387/how-is-spiritual-progress-described-in-eastern-monastic-traditions/4546#4546&quot;&gt;Mt. Athos&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's no reason you couldn't successfully integrate some Hesychast methods into your current life.  In particular, contemplation, meditation and recital of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus Prayer&lt;/a&gt; seems entirely within the reach of all believers and captures the core of the tradition as I understand it.  Being an outsider myself, I can't say if it's possible to reach the sort of peace the tradition sets as the end state, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a word of caution: like other sorts of spiritual gifts and experiences, it seems to me we go off course if we begin to pursue them for their own sake.  As Paul warns:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.&amp;mdash;1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+13/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-11-21T23:49:49.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4568" CreationDate="2011-11-22T00:15:24.663" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It appears that &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryB.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;21st Sunday of the Year [B Cycle]&lt;/a&gt; has at least part of what you are looking for, as Ephesians 5:21-32 has this from the KJV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.&#xA;&#xA; 22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.&#xA;&#xA; 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.&#xA;&#xA; 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.&#xA;&#xA; 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;&#xA;&#xA; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,&#xA;&#xA; 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.&#xA;&#xA; 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.&#xA;&#xA; 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:&#xA;&#xA; 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.&#xA;&#xA; 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.&#xA;&#xA; 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the rest you can look through &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryA.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryA.htm&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryC.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryC.htm&lt;/a&gt; but these links don't include the readings from the daily mass, which may have some of the verses mentioned that talk about husbands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-11-22T00:15:24.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4653" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6909" CreationDate="2011-11-22T01:27:45.703" Score="8" ViewCount="774" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What Would Jesus Do?&lt;/em&gt; The question is a popular meme, and I guess you could call it a youth movement what with all the bracelets and such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/jiadoldol/531931188/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/2a1RY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;WWJD by jiadoldol, on Flickr&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the theological background of the WWJD movement? Which doctrines are used to argue that &lt;em&gt;WWJD?&lt;/em&gt; is an important question to ask oneself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2017-03-07T18:54:01.837" LastActivityDate="2017-03-07T18:54:01.837" Title="What is the theological background of the WWJD movement?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;culture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4653" CreationDate="2011-11-22T02:10:15.260" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many scriptures which say we ought to do as Jesus Christ did:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2013:15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:15 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Pet.%202:21&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 2:21 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:6 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that doesn't necessarily mean that those passages are what actually spawned the movement. Wikipedia has details on the origin of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_would_Jesus_do?&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;WWJD&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-22T02:56:30.640" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4656" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4657" CreationDate="2011-11-22T04:33:24.700" Score="15" ViewCount="871" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've tried to phrase this question several ways now, and none of them are really to my liking. I will just ask it clumsily and provide more details as they are asked of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does God ever call people to lives devoted to their careers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, suppose someone says to himself &quot;God has called me to forego starting a family in favor of devoting my life to being the best dog groomer I can be.&quot; I choose a particularly strange career on purpose. The work of a doctor and the work of a dog groomer is equally meaningless if it is not blessed by God. I suppose my question, therefore, is whether there is precedent that God asks for and accepts such a life, or whether this hypothetical dog groomer is deluding himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1014" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditorDisplayName="user1014" LastEditDate="2017-11-13T17:40:13.360" LastActivityDate="2017-11-13T17:40:13.360" Title="Is there a biblical basis for God calling one to place one's career above their other duties?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;calling&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4656" CreationDate="2011-11-22T05:32:55.607" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no &lt;em&gt;specific Biblical&lt;/em&gt; precedent for such a claim - at least not in your example. But there is also no Biblical reason to &lt;em&gt;refute&lt;/em&gt; such a claim, either.  (Unless the claim is a direct contradiction of clear Biblical teaching.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures give examples of people called to be Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Preachers (Ephesians 4:11) and other ministries that directly serve God, or God's purpose. He has also ordained Kings. (Saul and David, for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in Scripture is anyone specifically called to be a baker, a server, or other secular job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is validity &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; Biblical precendent in a claim to a career serving God as a Missionary, for example, or a Pastor, Priest, or other Church official.  We are all called to serve God in one way or another, and most traditions believe that God specifically calls people into positions of authority, such as those mentioned previously.  Exactly &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; they are called, and &lt;em&gt;how they can be sure&lt;/em&gt; is likely the subject for a different question, as it varies based on factors such as denomination, interpretation of Scripture, and tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does tell us that no matter what our career is, we should do it &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/colossians/3-23.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as unto the Lord&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, meaning that we should do our best as if we were working for God Himself.  Several examples of those serving honorably doing ordinary (secular) tasks and jobs do abound.  The woman at the Well giving water, for example, or the people called to feed the hungry, fight in the battles, serve their masters.  Being a good servant is a basic Christian principle, and is both &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/servants&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;commanded and honored in Scripture&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your comment, it is entirely possible that God does call us to serve in secular jobs.  God is, after all, sovereign.  God alone knows where the line is between His sovereignty, and the free will He allows us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-11-23T04:47:37.117" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T04:47:37.117" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4658" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4659" CreationDate="2011-11-22T05:53:47.080" Score="22" ViewCount="45612" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:19&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 18:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; good but One, &lt;i&gt;that is,&lt;/i&gt; God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: is this contradictory? What does Jesus mean by this statement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="910" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-08-22T09:44:45.747" LastActivityDate="2014-10-11T18:51:48.797" Title="What does Jesus mean by saying, &quot;Why do you call me good?&quot;" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4658" CreationDate="2011-11-22T06:05:34.967" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;This passage is often used to bolster the claim that Jesus is not God.  The usual misinterpretation is that Jesus is saying that He isn't good, because He isn't God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The opposite is true.  In this passage, Jesus is establishing His deity.  The Answering Islam site offers &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/lk18_19.htm&quot;&gt;a fairly good explanation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the central passage of chapter 10, Jesus makes the statement: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the good shepherd. (John 10:14)  This establishes his claim to&#xA;  deity in a double way. First, because of the criterion above, since he&#xA;  calls himself good, and this not only in a general way as &quot;a good&#xA;  shepherd&quot; (one of many) but as &quot;the good shepherd&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is a simple syllogism: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;No-one except God is good  and      Jesus is good  therefore      Jesus is God  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Somebody might want to argue that here &quot;good&quot; is only qualifying&#xA;  something else (i.e. &quot;shepherd&quot;), but we simply observe that in the&#xA;  original passage (Luke 18:18 above), it was qualifying &quot;teacher&quot;. So,&#xA;  the situation is indeed parallel, and the argument applies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second, Jesus calls himself not only &quot;good&quot;, but he claims the title&#xA;  &quot;shepherd&quot;. This is a clear reference back to Psalm 23 and, even more&#xA;  important, Ezekiel 34, where God himself is the shepherd of Israel&#xA;  (see this discussion). Thus, with this statement Jesus takes upon&#xA;  himself yet another title of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why do we call him good? Because he is - AND he is the Lord God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more succinct answer (with the same outcome) can be found on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heartlight.org/wjd/luke/1024-wjd.html&quot;&gt;this article about WJD at Heartlight&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus is challenging the religious leader to wake up and understand&#xA;  the truth that stands right in front of him. If he is calling Jesus&#xA;  &quot;good,&quot; then he must come to understand that Jesus is God and not play&#xA;  religious games, but come to truly believe. Jesus isn't denying that&#xA;  he is God; Jesus is affirming that he is God and that man truly needs&#xA;  to acknowledge that he is. Eternal questions are not simply religious&#xA;  speculation, but the core questions of the human soul. Only God can&#xA;  answer those questions. So if he is going to ask Jesus this question,&#xA;  he needs to pay attention and place his faith in Jesus' answer. So do&#xA;  we!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-11-22T18:26:36.597" LastActivityDate="2011-11-22T18:26:36.597" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4660" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4667" CreationDate="2011-11-22T10:22:23.273" Score="0" ViewCount="978" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people claim that religion is just the unwarranted belief in things without evidence or reason, or that faith is antithetical to reason. If we do believe in God based on evidence, what would be the best way to convey these evidences to a secular world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, is there any evidence that God is real and that the bible is true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2011-12-19T02:31:52.913" LastActivityDate="2011-12-19T02:31:52.913" Title="Faith without reason?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2011-11-22T14:53:28.273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4660" CreationDate="2011-11-22T12:39:54.373" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no defense against atheism because it's a religion of its own. If you try to tear it down on a logical level, you will always lose, because it's not a logical problem, but a spiritual one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, you need to attack the problem from the spiritual side. Paul teaches in Romans 1 that all people know there is a God. The person you're talking to is in denial for some reason. It is this problem that must be sussed out and dealt with through prayer and speaking the word instead of trying to convince someone that faith is really logical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1016" LastActivityDate="2011-11-22T12:39:54.373" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4660" CreationDate="2011-11-22T14:25:30.363" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A great many atheists / humanists are &lt;em&gt;essentially&lt;/em&gt; applying scientific process, and science &lt;strong&gt;is adaptable&lt;/strong&gt;; it is &lt;em&gt;entirely&lt;/em&gt; willing to change, as new discovery and observation is made. All you need to do, then, is to provide some kind of tangible evidence that actually stands up for more than a few seconds in the face of the appropriate community (so, the science community if such proof is scientific, etc). Such evidence has never been forthcoming so far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very good example of this is the current speed of light claims. Now, general accepted wisdom is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded; however, some scientists have submitted interesting results, with decent explanation of their method and workings, and have invited the community for feedback. The scientific community &lt;strong&gt;did not&lt;/strong&gt; say &quot;pfff you're wrong&quot;, but rather (paraphrasing) - &quot;wow; that's staggering; that challenges an awful lot of existing findings - but hey, your process is not without merit - let's look into that some more&quot;. Indeed, regardless of the outcome, the science &lt;strong&gt;will have progressed for the better&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Reversing that, the problem with religious dogma is that it generally &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; be changed, even when it is outright contradicted by science).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: in answer to your question: find evidence. Any evidence &lt;strong&gt;of actual merit&lt;/strong&gt;, that can be inspected, discussed, and validated or disproved (any genuine theory must be refutable - otherwise it is simply not a theory in the way that science means).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another example; I currently have no reason to believe that fairies exist. I am aware that some people do believe in fairies, but my default position (given a complete lack of reason-for, or evidence-of, their existence) is that : fairies do not exist. However! If you can &lt;em&gt;find&lt;/em&gt; reasonable evidence of fairy-folk, I'll be surprised and shocked, but I'll seriously consider it (by which, I mean I should also evaluate the &lt;em&gt;merit&lt;/em&gt; of the evidence too; photoshop is rather too good these days, for example). By the same token, homeopathy - it has proponents, but also has a &lt;strong&gt;lot&lt;/strong&gt; of counter-evidence about the subject. In many ways, the argument here is &lt;strong&gt;alarmingly&lt;/strong&gt; similar to religion. To paraphrase Tim Minchin (by removing the rude bits &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U#t=5m54s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;advisory&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you show me&#xA;  That, say, homeopathy works,&#xA;  Then I will change my mind&#xA;  I’ll spin on a (redacted) dime&#xA;  I’ll be embarrassed as (redacted),&#xA;  But I will run through the streets yelling&#xA;  It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!&#xA;  Water has memory!&#xA;  And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems Infinite&#xA;  It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You show me &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; it works and &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; it works, and when I've recovered from the shock&#xA;  I'll take a compass and carve &quot;fancy that&quot; on the side of my (redacted).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common answer here is that religion is &lt;em&gt;outside&lt;/em&gt; of things like science; that is an acceptable answer, but in that case &lt;em&gt;do not engage science with logic&lt;/em&gt;. We can always agree to coexist without trying to convert each-other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2011-11-22T14:54:08.230" LastActivityDate="2011-11-22T14:54:08.230" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4637" CreationDate="2011-11-22T19:51:12.450" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is greater than faith in only one way, it is eternal.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heaven is the culmination of our Faith and &lt;code&gt;Faith is the realization of what is hoped for&lt;/code&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/heb/11:01&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Heb 11:1 NAB)&lt;/a&gt;, we don't need them there.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in Heaven, love still exists because God is there.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To your question, on earth, there's no reason to suspect that St. Paul is saying that for us the living a faithless love (of what?) will do anything for our personal salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I heard a Catholic priest say this a while back on a &lt;a href=&quot;http://relevantradio.com/index.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RelevantRadio&lt;/a&gt; Q&amp;amp;A call-in-show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-11-22T19:51:12.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4656" CreationDate="2011-11-22T20:03:19.790" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;@DavidStratton makes a good case about how God can use our ordinary jobs for his kingdom. I would have quoted Colossians 3:23 myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll just note that there are many churches/organizations that teach pretty much what you asked about. One good example is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei&quot;&gt;Opus Dei&lt;/a&gt;, a Catholic organization. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=12224&quot;&gt;Opus Dei teaches&lt;/a&gt; that every Christian is called to follow Jesus Christ, sanctifying their ordinary life. Especially family life and work are taught to be areas where we can commit our lives to God. This teaching is apparently largely based on the Second Vatican Council (but I'm no Catholic theologian).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Protestant organizations have similar teachings about worshipping through committing to our secular work, but I can't name any really major ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastActivityDate="2011-11-22T20:03:19.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4670" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4671" CreationDate="2011-11-23T01:31:18.623" Score="16" ViewCount="4016" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just curious if holiday celebrations like Christmas and Easter were written in the Bible, not merely mentioned but &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;specifically&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; indicating that people should celebrate them. It seems to me that celebrations like Christmas and Easter come from older, pagan traditions like Yule and the vernal equinox. For Easter, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover by much of its symbolism, as&#xA;  well as by its position in the calendar. In many European languages,&#xA;  the words for &quot;Easter&quot; and &quot;Passover&quot; are etymologically related or&#xA;  homonymous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It occurred to me that our holidays may be nothing more than pre-Christan pagan traditions (not that such is a bad thing). However, I did a little research and it seemed to me that God of the bible, at least in some ways, thinks that our Christmas celebrations are largely worthless. At the very least, he made it clear that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2010&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;it's not useful to have Christmas trees&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 10 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Hear what the LORD says to you, people of Israel. 2 This is  &gt; what the LORD says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“&lt;strong&gt;Do not learn the ways of the nations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  or be terrified by signs in the heavens,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  though the nations are terrified by them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;For the practices of the peoples are worthless;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    they cut a tree out of the forest,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; They adorn it with silver and gold;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    they fasten it with hammer and nails&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    so it will not totter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    their idols cannot speak;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  they must be carried&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    because they cannot walk.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Do not fear them;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    &lt;strong&gt;they can do no harm&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    nor can they do any good.&lt;/strong&gt;” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the above passage doesn't actually mention Christmas, it mentions a common thing done on Christmas. Some people think that the passage does not mention Christmas trees, but rather &lt;em&gt;idols&lt;/em&gt;. This only partially true. It is quite clear that the passage describes a Christmas tree, but it's referring to &lt;strong&gt;the worship of this tree as an idol as a worthless thing&lt;/strong&gt;, not necessarily the tree itself as being worthless&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/188/Does-Jeremiah-Describe-Christmas-Tree-Jeremiah-102-5.htm&quot;&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47778&quot;&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;. So it's OK to have Christmas trees—just don't worship them! There is some debate about this, but that is for another question. :) I just included the passage to show the Bible does &lt;em&gt;possibly&lt;/em&gt; mention this aspect of how many people currently celebrate Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is really just asking for a bit more than a &quot;sidelong mention&quot; of Christmas trees. Specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are there other passages which specifically mention Christmas (or some close equivalent, like &quot;Christ's Birthday&quot;, etc.), Easter, and other Christian holidays, and which also indicate that we should celebrate them?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-03-15T13:54:05.227" LastActivityDate="2015-04-05T17:03:41.453" Title="Is there a basis for Christian holidays in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;easter&gt;&lt;holidays&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T19:55:10.820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4670" CreationDate="2011-11-23T01:47:06.313" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Neither Easter, nor Christmas, nor any other Christian holidays that I am aware of are mentioned in the Bible.  Many of the traditions we adhere today are, indeed, pagan in origin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's plenty of material on the web to support this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ChristianAnswers.Net discusses &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the origin of the name Easter&lt;/a&gt;, as well as the Easter Hare (the original Easter Bunny), and Easter Eggs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You've already covered Christmas trees, and it's already been covered in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/59/what-is-the-origin-of-the-christmas-tree-and-is-it-accepted-in-all-christian-tra&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;em&gt;this doesn't mean that it's wrong to celebrate them.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity isn't about strict observance of rituals.  Celebration is a gift given by God.  What could be more natural than to celebrate the Savior that gave His all for us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T04:58:22.413" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4656" CreationDate="2011-11-23T12:45:46.620" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;(This answer comes from a Reformed Protestant perspective)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians we have two callings. The college I went to liked to call them the &quot;big C&quot; Calling and the &quot;little c&quot; calling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your &quot;big C&quot; Calling is the calling to a life and ministry in Christ. This is the call to follow Christ and to serve him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your &quot;little c&quot; calling is whatever vocation you are called to. Sometimes these callings intersect (vocational ministry like the pastorate or the missions field or something like that), but they don't have to (secular work like being a doctor, a dog groomer or a programmer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another phrase that came up occasionally was &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://president.blogs.covenant.edu/2010/07/21/extraordinary-callings-in-ordinary-places/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;extraordinary callings in ordinary places&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; Here is how our president explained it: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The principal point of the phrase is to remind us of the primary way in which God has from the beginning accomplished his redemptive and reviving work in the world: through the faithful, day-by-day, most often mundane work of his people, most often in “ordinary” places and through “ordinary” means, as by his mercy and provision they fulfill the extraordinary callings to which he has called them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact of the matter is that not everyone is called to vocational ministry and we can be just as worshipful in our dog grooming and programming and doctoring as a pastor is in his work. There are still opportunities to minister to people both in your work and in your life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If everyone was a full time pastor then there would be no one to work to support the church financially and there would be no one to reach people who wouldn't listen to two words from a pastor. We are called to do everything we do for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Sometimes its a mundane place that makes for an extraordinary calling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T12:45:46.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4670" CreationDate="2011-11-23T12:48:38.827" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passage you cited is from the Old Testament, and was, therefore, received by the nation of Israel and pertained to God's covenant with them.  Israel certainly had their own holidays, including the Feasts of Tabernacles, First Fruits, Atonement, Trumpets, and Unleavened Bread, as well as Passover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jewish people who first became Christians (or completed Jews) continued to celebrate these holidays.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there seems to be nothing wrong with holidays in general.  And the prohibition to become like the nations was to Israel--not Gentiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament covenant is not one of law and prohibitions, but of grace and mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T12:48:38.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4637" CreationDate="2011-11-23T12:59:53.610" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Romans is Paul's treatise on salvation by faith alone, 1 Corinthians 13 is written to Christians regarding proper Christian living and specifically with regard to relationships within the church (see chapter 12).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the faith he mentions in comparison to love is referring to the faith of a Christian in his daily life--not the initial saving faith of an unbeliever turning to God.  And the comparison is to the gifts God gives to believers to serve the church and each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, faith is absolutely not just the chief element of salvation--but the only one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Christian living and relating with others in the church, God has given special gifting to believers for this purpose.  Some are apostles, teachers, evangelists...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Paul instructs us to let love be the overriding principle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T12:59:53.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4677" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4681" CreationDate="2011-11-23T13:17:07.583" Score="18" ViewCount="1223" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard or read something that the LDS church teaches that there will be marriage and even polygamy in the after life for people who are good Mormons.  Is this available for all people are just a few?  And what are the specific teachings about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-11-23T14:37:11.713" LastActivityDate="2017-06-29T22:39:18.240" Title="What does the LDS Church (Mormon) teach about marriage and polygamy in the afterlife?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4679" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4688" CreationDate="2011-11-23T13:59:15.237" Score="11" ViewCount="6100" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was talking to a Christian friend recently, and she brought up this teaching that when you sin you give the devil 'legal access' (her words) to your life. The conversation was in the context of a Lutheran pastor with cancer we both knew, who refused to believe that his cancer was in any way a spiritual attack, as he was a child of God and 'defended from the darts of the enemy.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm curious about any scriptural teaching on whether your sin opens up some sort of 'legal right' for satan to work in your life. Personally I'm quite uncomfortable with this idea for a number of reasons (for one, it doesn't seem to sit well with the story of Job), but I'd be interested if anyone can provide any scriputural justification/refutation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="795" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-07-06T17:37:52.343" LastActivityDate="2014-11-13T16:06:20.367" Title="According to the Bible, does sin give Satan 'Legal Access' to your life in any sense?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4677" CreationDate="2011-11-23T14:28:39.030" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Preparing for Exaltation Teachers Manual - Lesson 41: &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/manual/preparing-for-exaltation-teachers-manual/lesson-41-eternal-marriage?lang=eng&quot;&gt;Eternal Marriage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Explain that in the temple, through the power of the priesthood, Chris and her husband could be married for eternity, not just until death. Their children would then be “born in the covenant,” which means that they could be sealed together as a family forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are married in an LDS temple, for time and all eternity, and you reach the highest of the three degrees of glory after death, the celestial kingdom, and your wife and children reach the celestial kingdom, your marriage and your family is yours forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, eternal marriage and family are not for everybody.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a man marries more than one woman while on earth, because of the first wife's death, then he will be married to both women in the celestial kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Women who make it to the celestial kingdom because of their faithfulness, and whose husbands don't make it to the celestial kingdom, because of unfaithfulness, are eligible to marry a different, faithful husband in the celestial kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edited to add answers to the questions in Narnian's comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can you expand on the case where one woman would marry multiple men, because of death? Since she was married to multiple men, whose wife in the afterlife is she?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The woman would be the wife of the earliest celestially worthy husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Also, if there happen to be more men than women in the highest degree of glory, would a woman have multiple husbands?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.  There would be men who don't have celestial wives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="583" LastEditDate="2011-11-23T16:08:40.153" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T16:08:40.153" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4682" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4683" CreationDate="2011-11-23T14:50:45.243" Score="17" ViewCount="92778" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know Jesus is risen and that whole story, but when I was much younger I remember hearing about some people who never actually died in the Bible. Who are these people and how did they leave this world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1012" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-10T13:10:17.370" LastActivityDate="2014-10-19T17:38:54.817" Title="Who never died in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;immortality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4682" CreationDate="2011-11-23T15:04:47.630" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;Enoch and Elijah are the two that fit this category. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. Enoch&#xA;  walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had&#xA;  other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Enoch walked with God, and he was not&lt;/strong&gt;, for God took him.  Genesis 5:21-24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and&#xA;  horses of fire separated the two of them. And &lt;strong&gt;Elijah went up by a&#xA;  whirlwind into heaven&lt;/strong&gt;.  2 Kings 2:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some have speculated that Moses also fits into this category, but that doesn't fit with this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moses was 120 years old when he died. His eye was undimmed, and his&#xA;  vigor unabated.  Deuteronomy 34:7 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that Moses could have been in that category probably comes from the record that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun,&#xA;  and his clothes became white as light. And behold, there appeared to&#xA;  them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.   Matthew 17:2-3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;Enoch and Elijah&lt;/strong&gt; are the two that meet this criterion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, Lazarus and a few others died twice, so the death rate of all people who have ever lived is actually slightly greater than 100%.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that according to 1 Thessalonians, there are still some people who will not experience physical death, but will enter eternity prior to death.  This is yet future, though.  (Asleep is thought to be a euphemism for physical death)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are&#xA;  asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For&#xA;  since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through&#xA;  Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this&#xA;  we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are alive,&#xA;  who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who&#xA;  have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with&#xA;  a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound&#xA;  of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. &lt;strong&gt;Then we&#xA;  who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in&#xA;  the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with&#xA;  the Lord.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore encourage one another with these words.  1&#xA;  Thessalonians 4:13-18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-11-23T16:32:23.997" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T16:32:23.997" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4682" CreationDate="2011-11-23T18:13:05.900" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another person who never died in the Bible, and whose lack of death may have made some waves in the early Christian community was the Apostle John (the disciple whom Jesus loved). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, “Master, who is the one who will betray you?” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? [What concern is it of yours?]” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 21:20-23 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By itself it seems kind of mundane, of course John died and tradition holds that he was the only disciple to manage to not die a martyrs death, in exile on the island of Patmos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/jn/21:23#51021023-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;footnotes&lt;/a&gt; of the NAB say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This whole scene takes on more significance if the disciple is already dead. The death of the apostolic generation caused problems in the church because of a belief that Jesus was to have returned first. Loss of faith sometimes resulted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which sort of begs the question.  Is John really, very truly dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T18:13:05.900" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4685" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-23T19:45:11.300" Score="8" ViewCount="4881" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible say that an individual has an obligation to defend themselves in court (or in the court of public opinion) against an individual who you believe has some authority over you (like a wife who takes Corinthians literally, or a religious or military superior)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the saints have gone down in history for not defending themselves in big things, like St. Gerard, and in little things, like St. Therese. Moreover, Jesus says that you are blessed when accused falsely because of Him.  Are you still blessed when accused falsely and you offer up your hardship for Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like answers from a Biblical perspective, but if there are examples from the lives of the saints or just Natural Law and common sense, I'd appreciate that too. But I'm not looking for personal pastoral advice, just help to find the information that I can use to help someone else think through things more clearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="232" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T03:41:44.640" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T17:33:17.847" Title="Defending your honor against a superior who accuses you falsely" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;honor&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4685" CreationDate="2011-11-23T20:03:28.347" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know of no commandment in Scripture to not defend yourself when falsely accused.  The Apostle Paul used the privilege of his Roman citizenship to his benefit after he had been beaten, and by doing so incurred the apologies of the authorities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when it was day, the magistrates sent the police, saying, &quot;Let&#xA;  those men go.&quot; And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying,&#xA;  &quot;The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and&#xA;  go in peace.&quot; But Paul said to them, &quot;They have beaten us publicly,&#xA;  uncondemned, &lt;strong&gt;men who are Roman citizens&lt;/strong&gt;, and have thrown us into&#xA;  prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come&#xA;  themselves and take us out.&quot; The police reported these words to the&#xA;  magistrates, and &lt;strong&gt;they were afraid when they heard that they were&#xA;  Roman citizens.&lt;/strong&gt; So they came and apologized to them. And they took&#xA;  them out and asked them to leave the city.  Acts 16:35-39 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 7, Stephen also gave a great defense of his own behavior prior to his being stoned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is really the only One who needed to give no defense to be like a sheep before its shearers (Isaiah 53).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be distinguished that there is a difference from being falsely accused and being falsely accused for the name of Jesus.  The former can happen to anyone, while the second one is persecution.  So, just merely being falsely accused does not rise to the level of being blessed unless it is specifically because of our identity as Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter points out another important distinction in his letter.  If we are punished for doing something wrong, the fact that we are Christians doesn't mean we are being persecuted.  Rather, we are just being punished as anyone would.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you&#xA;  endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is&#xA;  a gracious thing in the sight of God.  1 Peter 2:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there doesn't seem to be any explicit blessing for those who do not defend themselves under a false accusation.  The blessing is in being falsely accused because of one's identity as a Christian, and it only applies for false accusations--not justified ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-23T20:03:28.347" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4685" CreationDate="2011-11-23T22:19:13.140" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One answer from Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.&amp;mdash;Mark 13:9-13 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+13/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To paraphrase: When you are accused of something, the Holy Spirit will guide how you should respond.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another from Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.&amp;mdash;Galatians 5:22-24 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Galatians+5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which I take to mean: Do things the Spirit prompts and you won't be rightly accused of wrong-doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They don't have radically different answers and even agree that everything will turn out alright in the spiritual realm if not in the earthly one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both responded to false accusations in surprisingly pragmatic ways.  Jesus defended Himself against accusations and attempts to murder Him while it was not yet the right time, but when it came time to fulfill His mission, He went quietly.  Paul also seems to struggle in Philippians about whether he should fight the charges against him and certainly did stand up for himself over and over according to Acts.  But when he went to Jerusalem the final time and was taken to Rome in chains, he did not shy away from doing what he felt called to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my daily Bible reading today, I heard an answer from Peter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Peter 2:18-25 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Peter+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire letter of 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Peter emphasizes that this sort of submission is expect of all Christians, whether slaves, servants or free people.  (See especially &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Peter+4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Peter 4:12-19&lt;/a&gt;.)  However, Peter makes clear that we shouldn't blindly trust people who are in authority when he writes his second letter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.&amp;mdash;2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Peter 2:1-3 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/2+Peter+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From personal experience (and this is probably off-topic, but I'm compelled to mention it anyway), people sometimes get trapped in unhealthy situations: bosses who exploit them, spouses who abuse them, friends who lead them astray, etc.  Even some pastors and other church leaders (who may be as sinful as the rest of us) sometimes use their authority to mislead (in every sense) their own flocks.  I think the Christian response is to endure for a time (following Jesus, Paul and Peter), seek reconciliation, and, if the abusive relationship continues, seek guidance about how to step away.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My wife worked for a Christian non-profit for a few years and her immediate boss exploited her and her co-workers.  She sought reconciliation over and over following the steps outlined by Our Lord in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+18/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18&lt;/a&gt;, and yet the unhealthy relationship continued.  Finally on the the advice of several of our pastors, she quite the job and pursued another career.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are sometimes too quick to abandon difficult positions, but its equal folly to hold onto a situation beyond what is good for our souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The right answer seems to be dependent on circumstances and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  As always, seek wise counsel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2011-11-25T20:12:59.973" LastActivityDate="2011-11-25T20:12:59.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4679" CreationDate="2011-11-24T02:51:04.723" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer is coming from the viewpoint of a Conservative Independent Baptist that believes that the Bible is the ultimate guide to truth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It also assumes that the phrase &quot;legal access&quot; in your question means &quot;legal claim&quot;, and is intended to mean the &lt;a href=&quot;http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Claim&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;official definition of the phrase&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;claim 1)&lt;/strong&gt; v. to make a demand for money, for property, or for enforcement of a right provided by law. 2) n. the making of a demand&#xA;  (assert a claim) for money due, for property, for damages or for&#xA;  enforcement of a right. If such a demand is not honored, it may result&#xA;  in a lawsuit. In order to enforce a right against a government agency&#xA;  (ranging for damages from a negligent bus driver to a shortage in&#xA;  payroll) a claim must be filed first. If rejected or ignored by the&#xA;  government, it is lawsuit time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;claim (Right),&lt;/strong&gt; noun beneficial interest, contingent interrst, due, equitable interest, expectancy, heritage, interest, legacy, ownership,&#xA;  privilege, share, stake, title, vested interest  Associated concepts:&#xA;  claim of ownership, claim of right, claim of title&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also assumed that you are referring to sin in the life of a believer after salvation (based on the context).  This answer is not to contradict the core doctrinal tenets of original sin, or of unbelievers/unsaved persons belonging to Satan.  As covered elsewhere, we adhere to those teachings, and believe that if a person is not saved, he or she is lost already.  (John 3:18 and others)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard this statement as well, and your question prompted me to see if I could look into it myself.  The main issue that I have with the teaching is that in all my Bible studies, I've never heard a Scriptural basis for such a claim.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I managed to find some teachings on the Internet on the subject, but these are also without Scriptural backing.  Examples, all of which make the claim that our sin gives Satan a legal right to us, or that Satan fights a legal battle.  I'll skip including quotes on each because they all essentially make that same statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/legalrights.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/legalrights.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.simplychurch.com/2010/10/kingdom-skills-causes-of-emotional-problems-5-when-satan-has-a-legal-right-.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.simplychurch.com/2010/10/kingdom-skills-causes-of-emotional-problems-5-when-satan-has-a-legal-right-.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://yourlastresort.net/index.cfm?PageID=5606&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://yourlastresort.net/index.cfm?PageID=5606&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The  list goes on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest I came  to a site that had actual Scriptural basis cited &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2012:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 12:10, KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and&#xA;  strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for&#xA;  the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before&#xA;  our God day and night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is often explained as Satan being our accuser in God's court of judgment.  This is how I understand the passage as well, but the idea of Satan being our accuser in a &quot;court&quot; is not the same as giving Satan a legal claim on our lives.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meaning of these statements seem to indicate that by giving Satan a legal claim, we make ourselves his and give him full power to possess, harm, and destroy us.  The accuser in the final judgment is accusing us in the trial for our final destination.  These are two very different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The statement that sin gives Satan a legal right may sound right, but without Scripture to back it up, I see no reason to accept it as truth.  I base this on the lack of Scriptural support and the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:1&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:1, KJV&lt;/a&gt; which says &lt;code&gt;Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The authors of the New Testament went into great detail on doctrinal issues.  Paul, in the many books he authored, went to great pains to ensure that the truths that are important were understood.  If this were an important, doctrinal issue, it would be evident in Scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that there are no truths outside of Scripture.  Scripture never states that 1+1=2, yet it's true.  However, as a doctrinal issue, this one sounds good, but fails the test of Biblical support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-11-24T20:44:31.077" LastActivityDate="2011-11-24T20:44:31.077" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4679" CreationDate="2011-11-24T03:05:44.500" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that Christians have developed this conviction from the passage in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/ephesians/4-27.htm&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:27&lt;/a&gt; which in the NIV translation says, &quot;and do not give the devil a foothold.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore taking this passage some believe that if you allow &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; sin in your life you are giving the devil a foothold or, as someone else might put it, &quot;legal access&quot; to your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew Henry states in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&amp;amp;b=49&amp;amp;c=4&quot;&gt;commentary on Ephesians&lt;/a&gt; a similar belief, &quot;We give place to the devil, when the first motions of sin are not grievous to our souls; when we consent to them; and when we repeat an evil deed. This teaches that as sin, if yielded unto, lets in the devil upon us, we are to resist it, keeping from all appearance of evil.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1019" LastEditorUserId="1019" LastEditDate="2011-11-24T06:04:54.600" LastActivityDate="2011-11-24T06:04:54.600" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4692" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4699" CreationDate="2011-11-24T08:27:15.500" Score="7" ViewCount="505" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading an article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodsNeedPrayerBadly&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;TVTropes&lt;/a&gt; and I've found this :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a way, there's a &amp;quot;Person Needs Prayer Badly&amp;quot; in medieval European Catholicism... in order to go to Heaven (or reduced their time in purgatory) and join the Angels, the soul of the deceased needed to be prayed for. This led to the modern idea of the funeral, as well as other ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is still part of the Catholic beliefs, but you only pray for the soul in Purgatory as man has no role in deciding the salvation of souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to current Catholic doctine, are funerals (and prayers) a way to &amp;quot;reduce&amp;quot; time of a soul in purgatory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1022" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-02-28T21:12:40.357" Title="Are funerals a way to reduce the time of the dead in purgatory" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4692" CreationDate="2011-11-24T09:00:14.657" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seeing as how I'm not Catholic I know very little of Purgatory, but on the case of burial it predates modern times by quite a few centuries&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read more about it at this link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_burial&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_burial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Probably the earliest detailed account of funeral ceremonial which has&#xA;  been preserved to us is to be found in the Spanish Ordinals of the&#xA;  latter part of the seventh century. Recorded in the writing is a&#xA;  description of &quot;the Order of what the clerics of any city ought to do&#xA;  when their bishop falls into a mortal sickness.&quot; It details the steps&#xA;  of ringing church bells, reciting psalms, and cleaning and dressing&#xA;  the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-11-24T09:00:14.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4582" CreationDate="2011-11-24T13:19:57.563" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: this is my opinion; I'm not trying to start an argument (or is that implicit in all posts here?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder if this hints at there being a process at work which is an interplay between God and creation?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I certainly see in &lt;code&gt;the land produced&lt;/code&gt; a hint that natural processes were at work, and that God did not instantly &quot;magic&quot; everything into being, but nudged things in the right direction and let them run their (unfallen) natural course.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know for sure, of course; these are hints which not everyone will see, but it's fun to think about it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have to add that these thoughts evoke a sense of awe and wonder in me which I find it hard to explain. I find it easier to see how God could have &quot;magiced&quot; a complete creation into being; the thought that there was some kind of process is absolutely beyond my imagination.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="949" LastActivityDate="2011-11-24T13:19:57.563" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4656" CreationDate="2011-11-24T14:15:11.733" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Their is no reason to think we cannot serve God in which ever trade we do. I would like to think as a business student that one day when I'm a Chartered Accountant I will be doing the lords work in my own way by running a business responsibly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will make certain that the people who work at the institutions livelihoods are safe. It can even create a few new jobs and with that uplifting a few lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that every person can make his or her contribution towards the bettering of their communities irregardless of the profession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-11-24T14:15:11.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1375" CreationDate="2011-11-24T14:22:40.327" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Euthypro dilemma has bearing on this question. Generally the Christian view has been that we should base our morality not on anything God has arbitrally commanded but rather on Gods character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should not lie because God cannot lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Titus 1:2 &gt;&gt; New American Standard Bible (©1995) in the hope of&#xA;  eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is the moral standard to which we all should strive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-11-24T14:22:40.327" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3144" CreationDate="2011-11-24T14:40:53.640" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would just like to add that the book of Romans talks about those who have not heard the gospel and those of other religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 2 Let God Be the Judge  1 So do you think that you can judge&#xA;  those other people? You are wrong. You too are guilty of sin. You&#xA;  judge them, but you do the same things they do. So when you judge&#xA;  them, you are really condemning yourself. 2 God judges all who do such&#xA;  things, and we know his judgment is right. 3 And since you do the same&#xA;  things as those people you judge, surely you understand that God will&#xA;  punish you too. How could you think you would be able to escape his&#xA;  judgment? 4 God has been kind to you. He has been very patient,&#xA;  waiting for you to change. But you think nothing of his kindness.&#xA;  Maybe you don’t understand that God is kind to you so that you will&#xA;  decide to change your lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 But you are so stubborn! You refuse to change. So you are making&#xA;  your own punishment greater and greater. You will be punished on the&#xA;  day when God will show his anger. On that day everyone will see how&#xA;  right God is to judge people. 6 He will reward or punish everyone for&#xA;  what they have done. 7 Some people live for God’s glory, for honor,&#xA;  and for life that cannot be destroyed. They live for those things by&#xA;  always continuing to do good. God will give eternal life to them. 8&#xA;  But others are selfish and refuse to follow truth. They follow evil.&#xA;  God will show his anger and punish them. 9 He will give trouble and&#xA;  suffering to everyone who does evil—to the Jews first and also to&#xA;  those who are not Jews. 10 But he will give glory, honor, and peace to&#xA;  everyone who does good—to the Jews first and also to those who are not&#xA;  Jews. 11 God judges everyone the same. It doesn’t matter who they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12 People who have the law and those who have never heard of the law&#xA;  are all the same when they sin. People who don’t have the law and are&#xA;  sinners will be lost. And, in the same way, those who have the law and&#xA;  are sinners will be judged by the law. 13 Hearing the law does not&#xA;  make people right with God. They will be right before him only if they&#xA;  always do what the law says.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14 Those who are not Jews don’t have the law. But when they naturally&#xA;  do what the law commands without even knowing the law, then they are&#xA;  their own law. This is true even though they don’t have the written&#xA;  law. 15 They show that in their hearts they know what is right and&#xA;  wrong, the same as the law commands, and their consciences agree.&#xA;  Sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done wrong, and this&#xA;  makes them guilty. And sometimes their thoughts tell them that they&#xA;  have done right, and this makes them not guilty.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 All this will happen on the day when God will judge people’s&#xA;  secret thoughts through Jesus Christ. This is part of the Good News&#xA;  that I tell everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just thought it worth mentioning&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-11-24T14:40:53.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4692" CreationDate="2011-11-24T16:55:23.730" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that prayer can help shorten the time someone spends in Purgatory, but, as was pointed out, funerals predated Christianity so it would be incorrect to state that funerals will help shorten the time, in part, because funerals are a way for those that survive to reflect on and to have closure over the loss of a loved one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; you find this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the&#xA;  dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: &quot;Therefore [Judas&#xA;  Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered&#xA;  from their sin.&quot;609 From the beginning the Church has honored the&#xA;  memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all&#xA;  the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the&#xA;  beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving,&#xA;  indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their&#xA;  father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead&#xA;  bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who&#xA;  have died and to offer our prayers for them.611&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripturally you can look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ma012.htm&quot;&gt;2 Maccabees 12&lt;/a&gt;, and you may want to read some part of the last section of this chapter for context, but at verse 46 is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead,&#xA;  that they may be loosed from sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Job 1:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make&#xA;  arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would&#xA;  sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my&#xA;  children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s&#xA;  regular custom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the RCC those that have died before us are still part of our church, and much as Job made sacrifices to help purify his children, and much as prayers for the dead help them, we continue this tradition to help shorten the time people spend in Purgatory, as you cannot enter the gates of Heaven with any stain on your soul, so if you did not die perfectly in grace, you spend time being purified, then enter Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this is different than worshiping the dead. Not all prayer is worship, prayer can also just be a way to talk with someone that you care about that isn't with you, for example.  True worship should only be for God.  This is often a point of confusion for non-catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more on this you can look at:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/Pray_to_Saints.htm&quot;&gt;http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/Pray_to_Saints.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for some quotes from early church fathers, and more explanation you can look at:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap070600.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap070600.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that want to argue about the validity of 2 Maccabees you may want to read this first to see what the early church fathers taught about the OT canon, for example that it was quoted by Cyprian of Carthage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon&quot;&gt;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2011-11-24T16:55:23.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4700" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4702" CreationDate="2011-11-25T00:30:13.877" Score="-2" ViewCount="574" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sodom story in Genesis 19 is about the attempted gang-rape of two (apparent) men. This is usually taken as an indictment against homosexuality in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very similar story appears in Judges 19. This story is about the actual gang rape of a woman. For some reason, this is not usually taken as an indictment against heterosexuality in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2011-11-25T17:43:29.860" Title="Inconsistency in Biblical interpreatation (Genesis &amp; Judges)" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-11-28T13:55:33.057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4582" CreationDate="2011-11-25T02:55:26.757" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the significance of the verb &quot;create&quot; during the creation account?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer this question I believe we first need to understand why Genesis was written. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The research that many exegestes, such as James K. Hoffmeier's “&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1983%2015/Hoffmeier15.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 &amp;amp; 2 and Egyptian Cosmology&lt;/a&gt;”, have done conclude that it was written to reject the Egyptian Cosmology (Creation Mythology).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These creation myths are greatly explained in this article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/genesis-1-2-light-ancient-egyptian-creation-myths&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths&lt;/a&gt; by Tony L. Shetter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I don't believe I could explain this any better I'll just quote the summary of the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In conclusion, the author/redactor(s) of the Genesis creation accounts&#xA;  share certain concepts of the makeup of the world with other ancient&#xA;  Near Eastern cultures. However, it is especially with Egypt’s&#xA;  worldview that the author/redactor(s) are familiar. Evidence for this&#xA;  lies in the many allusions to Egyptian creation motifs throughout the&#xA;  Genesis creation accounts. But, rather than being a case of direct&#xA;  borrowing, they demythologize the Egyptian concepts and form a polemic&#xA;  against the Egyptian gods. Thus, they elevate Yahweh-Elohim as the one&#xA;  true God, who is transcendent and who is all powerful. He speaks his&#xA;  desire and it comes to pass. He does not require the assistance of&#xA;  other gods to perform the acts of creation. He alone possesses the&#xA;  power and means necessary to effect the creation of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1019" LastActivityDate="2011-11-25T02:55:26.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4700" CreationDate="2011-11-25T08:39:15.030" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure this has been covered here before but... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problematic interpretation here is not the second of the two you mention it us the first. Neither passage is a teaching passage about what is right or wrong expression of sexuality. Both passages are narrative of events that happened and &lt;strong&gt;both events are condemned.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Genesis passage is not a good proof text for the fact that God considers homosexual acts to be sinful even though it is clear from the narrative that evil is afoot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise we know that the Judges account is of a tale of misdeeds but it is not clear what is what. We learn clearly from the rest of scripture what proper relations are, so we conclude from this passage the eminent issue is the rape and murder, not the heterosexual nature of the rape. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-11-25T08:39:15.030" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4700" CreationDate="2011-11-25T17:43:29.860" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very few Christian apologists would use the Sodom and Gomorrah story as a negative toward Homosexuality. They are far more likely to use Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1023" LastActivityDate="2011-11-25T17:43:29.860" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4704" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-25T21:32:27.960" Score="7" ViewCount="481" Body="&lt;p&gt;In church traditions that subscribe to Reformed theology it is common to refer to God's relationship to men in terms of covenants -- agreements between God and His people in which God makes specific promises and demands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most commonly, a &quot;covenant of works&quot; and a &quot;covenant of grace&quot; are referenced. What are the defining features of these and how do they relate? Are they wholly different or variations on a theme? Also, what is the &quot;covenant of redemption&quot; and how does it relate to the other two?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T06:40:58.290" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T06:40:58.290" Title="How are the different covenants related to or different from each other?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;covenants&gt;&lt;covenant-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4705" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-25T21:36:36.743" Score="13" ViewCount="16160" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically as used by the Reformed theological tradition, what is meant by the term &quot;covenant&quot;? How is this different than other forms of agreements under assorted names in English like contract, agreement, pact, pledge, etc. How should the term be understood when used as an adjective,  such as in &quot;covenant theology&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T06:40:42.377" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T06:40:42.377" Title="What is the difference between a covenant and a contract?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;covenants&gt;&lt;covenant-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4706" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-25T21:41:50.640" Score="28" ViewCount="1143" Body="&lt;p&gt;What specially is new and different in the &quot;New Perspective on Paul&quot; movement? How can the differences to the &quot;old&quot; perspective be summarized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note: Please don't make this question about defending one view over the other, only concisely describing any significant differences between them.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2014-10-14T23:58:45.270" Title="What is &quot;new&quot; in the New Perspective on Paul?" Tags="&lt;npp&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4707" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-11-25T21:46:09.203" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Saint Paul the Apostle (Greek: Παῦλος Paulos;), originally known as Saul of Tarsus (Hebrew: שאול התרסי‎; Greek: Σαῦλος Ταρσεύς Saulos Tarseus), was an apostle (though not one of the Twelve Apostles) who taught the gospel of Christ to the first-century world. He is generally considered one of the most important figures of the Apostolic Age. In the mid-30s to the mid-50s, he founded several churches in Asia Minor and Europe. Paul took advantage of his status as both a Jew and a Roman citizen to minister to both Jewish and Roman audiences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="24557" LastEditDate="2015-12-16T22:39:15.103" LastActivityDate="2015-12-16T22:39:15.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4708" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-11-25T21:46:09.203" Score="0" Body="The Apostle Paul was the writer of many Epistles in the New Testament. He brought the Gospel to the Gentiles. " OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="10665" LastEditDate="2015-11-26T00:04:53.100" LastActivityDate="2015-11-26T00:04:53.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4709" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4851" CreationDate="2011-11-26T01:27:03.843" Score="5" ViewCount="279" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be honest, I'd never heard about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/New_Perspective_on_Paul&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Perspective on Paul&lt;/a&gt; before today. Does anyone know of denominations that subscribe to the NPP interpretation, in part or in full?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, the following concepts, taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/New_Perspective_on_Paul&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Covenantal Nomism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s&#xA;  plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant&#xA;  requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its&#xA;  commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read this to mean &quot;God saves us by providing atonement, so long as we keep up our end of the bargain.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This of course, would be different than &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#The_place_of_works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sola Fide&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The righteousness of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proponents of New Perspectivism argue that the righteousness of God,&#xA;  spoken of by Paul in Romans, is refering to God’s faithfulness rather&#xA;  than the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Justification&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to Wright, justification isn’t merely an initial means by&#xA;  which someone is right with God, but rather a mark of who already is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Denial of imputed righteousness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;N.T. Wright reinterprets texts classically used as prooftexts for&#xA;  imputed righteousness. He understands 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example,&#xA;  to refer to God’s covenant faithfulness. While many still profess&#xA;  agreement with the substance of the doctrine of imputed righteousness,&#xA;  the classic (or traditional) interpretations of texts relating to&#xA;  imputation have more or less been removed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-12T17:25:09.097" LastActivityDate="2015-11-12T17:25:09.097" Title="Denominational adherence to &quot;The New Perspective On Paul&quot;" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;npp&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4705" CreationDate="2011-11-26T12:35:34.923" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before getting to the specific difference you asked for, I think it's necessary to understand the various ways in which the term is used - particularly the legal definition.  In Reformed theology, the relationship between God and His people is often couched in legal terms, particularly in relation to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Covenant Theology&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In browsing all of the various definitions, the distinction appears to be generally a level of solemnity, where a covenant is a type of contract that is considered solemn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28law%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;legal definition of a covenant&lt;/a&gt;, this note is included: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Under the common law a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary&#xA;  contract by the presence of a seal. Because the presence of a seal&#xA;  indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant, the&#xA;  common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of&#xA;  consideration. A Covenant is also used to describe a contract or a&#xA;  legally binding promise&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another phrase that came up in all of the definitions for the various types of covenant is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...affirmative, a promise to do something  or negative, a&#xA;  promise to not do something&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is very similar to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28biblical%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;definition of a Biblical covenant&lt;/a&gt;, where the covenant is between God and His people.  I believe that this is also the Reformed theological traditions that you specifically asked for.  Example (one of many):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves,&#xA;  and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will&#xA;  I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their&#xA;  land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-11-27T19:20:21.113" LastActivityDate="2011-11-27T19:20:21.113" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4709" CreationDate="2011-11-26T14:02:25.200" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;N. T. Wright in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; speech (near the end) given in 2003 claims that the new perspective is still compatible with reformed theology. So if you accept Wright's conclusion, then Calvinism, and any denomination that accepts 'reformed like' theology, at least should be okay with the new perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-11-29T10:18:28.693" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T10:18:28.693" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4713" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-26T20:22:58.093" Score="-2" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/301/how-to-answer-why-does-evil-and-suffering-exist&quot;&gt;How to answer &amp;ldquo;Why does evil and suffering exist?&amp;rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is a God who created the world etc, how did he get it so wrong that even he got annoyed with it so much so that he would send his son to sort it out. Even the Bible ( I think Revelation ) makes reference to God returning to right all the wrongs – if he made such a wonderful thing as this earth, does he not have the power to sort out where he initially went wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1028" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T18:37:12.647" Title="&quot;God created the world&quot; - why can't he correct it?" Tags="&lt;theodicy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-11-28T05:11:04.560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4714" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4716" CreationDate="2011-11-26T21:24:50.493" Score="12" ViewCount="1176" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mediatrix&lt;/a&gt; has Virgin Mary in a role of a mediator in the salvation process—at least that's what Wikipedia says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mediatrix in Roman Catholic Mariology refers to the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a mediator in the salvation process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my admittedly biased point of view, this seems to clash with Paul's writing about Jesus being the only mediator between man and God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1tim%202:5-6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 2:5-6 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;  who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Catholic teaching about the Mediatrix concept? How is this passage interpreted? Do all Mariologists take this passage into account?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" LastEditorUserId="60" LastEditDate="2011-11-28T19:39:50.133" LastActivityDate="2011-12-03T15:53:18.047" Title="How is 1 Timothy 2:5 interpreted relative to the Mediatrix concept?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;mariology&gt;&lt;mediator&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4713" CreationDate="2011-11-27T07:43:18.377" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not quite sure if you are asking about the problem of evil or the amount of natural evil in the world. I will take a stab at them both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to the problem of evil we have certain considerations. Now when God created us humans he had two choices in regards to free will. He could have given us no free will and with controlled us and made sure that their was no evil in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if he had done that we would have serious claims for a unjust God. As it has been mentioned on this site slavery and love do not mix. He would also have the problem that it would invalidate the position of people believing he exist and loves as it would be something forced upon us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if he gave us free will (Which most Christians affirm) than we can come to the knowledge of our free will. This is a way of believing in God that is much more in tune with the notion of a loving God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No with free will we have the problem that it allows people to do evil (Even though God forbids it). Free will cannot be internally coherent without the option to do evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this idea that the amount evil in the world is inconsistent with a loving God really holds no sway in light of the free will defense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to read more I can recommend researching Alvin Platinga free will defense. He is probably the biggest name in Christianity writing about these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No on the fact of natural evil. I'm not entirely convinced that natural evil exist. Yes we have in the bible various natural event with which God exacts judgment on nations but I do not think that every time their is a earthquake we should be trying to discern whether God is judging us for some wrong doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These could be just the natural forces at work with no divine interferences in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-11-27T07:43:18.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4714" CreationDate="2011-11-28T03:19:15.163" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Indeed, Catholic theologians are well aware of the Bible verses concerning this teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The EWTN Faith Library article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces&lt;/a&gt; has a fine explanation, under the heading &quot;Objections&quot;, that compares the mediation of Christ with the mediation provided by Mary, in light of 1 Tim 3:5.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Mediator_%28Christ_As%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article on Mediator&lt;/a&gt; points out that Jesus' unique mediatorship is concerned with the salvation of mankind, something only He could do. Note that Mary receives no mention here, as the article focuses on salvation and the origin of all graces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/isnt-calling-mary-the-mediatrix-of-all-graces-contrary-to-the-doctrine-that-jesus-is-&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; on the very topic of your question makes the point that Mary is called a Mediatrix because she is the conduit of the graces that originate through Jesus, first, because her &quot;yes&quot; to God gave us our Savior; second, because she, like all saints, and indeed all Christians, petitions her Son through prayer intentions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastEditorUserId="443" LastEditDate="2011-12-03T15:53:18.047" LastActivityDate="2011-12-03T15:53:18.047" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4717" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4725" CreationDate="2011-11-28T13:44:35.003" Score="14" ViewCount="2970" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard or read that in the Mormon Temple Ceremony, each person learns certain secret handshakes and passwords that are necessary for them to enter into heaven.  I've also heard that a woman has to enter through her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, according to LDS teaching, when does a person have to use the secret handshakes and passwords?  Are there different levels for different handshakes?  What if a person forgets them?  Do wives have to wait to enter heaven until their husbands die?  If a person later abandons the LDS church, can he still get into heaven, since he already knows the secrets?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-11-28T22:39:01.493" LastActivityDate="2019-03-04T17:46:28.653" Title="According to the LDS Church (Mormons), what role do secret handshakes and passwords play into a person's entrance into heaven?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4718" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4721" CreationDate="2011-11-28T14:59:38.613" Score="10" ViewCount="425" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, there have been a few people (e.g. Harold Camping) who have predicted the end of the world.  Historically, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible &amp;amp; Tract Society) have also predicted the end of the world several times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the claim that no one can predict the date that the world will end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-14T21:12:28.247" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T13:24:23.273" Title="What is the Biblical basis against being able to predict the date of the end of the world?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4719" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6200" CreationDate="2011-11-28T15:01:27.440" Score="10" ViewCount="41630" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that some doctrines and beliefs are not taught openly.  I was curious, what is the Southern Baptist doctrine regarding predestination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do they believe in unconditional election or complete lack of free will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2018-03-13T15:05:39.550" Title="What do Southern Baptists believe about Predestination?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;southern-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4718" CreationDate="2011-11-28T15:07:40.553" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus taught that we might be able to read the signs that it was near, but that no one would be able to know what day the end would come:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. &lt;strong&gt;But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.&lt;/strong&gt; Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.&quot; &amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/passage.aspx?q=mark+13:28-37&quot;&gt;Mark 13:28-37&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="43" LastEditDate="2011-12-19T20:57:02.390" LastActivityDate="2011-12-19T20:57:02.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4722" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4724" CreationDate="2011-11-28T15:07:56.720" Score="8" ViewCount="3494" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have yet to see anyone speaking in tongues in a Southern Baptist church.  Having said that, the lack of speaking in tongues does not necessarily mean that Southern Baptists &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; speak in tongues or that they do not believe in it as a general rule.  Clearly they seem to avoid it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, what is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2021-02-01T03:22:48.583" Title="What is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues?" Tags="&lt;southern-baptist&gt;&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4722" CreationDate="2011-11-28T17:08:33.570" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Southern Baptist denomination doesn't hold any particular stance regarding the gift of speaking in tongues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you took a survey of all the different Southern Baptist churches, you would come up with a variety of beliefs on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From their FAQ regarding &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp#8&quot;&gt;speaking in tongues&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Probably most believe that the &quot;gift of tongues&quot; as described in the Bible ceased upon the completion of the Bible. Some may view speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift given to some Christians enabling them to communicate the Gospel to foreign cultures in a language the speaker had not known previously.  A very small minority might accept what is commonly practiced today in charismatic churches as valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There has been some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-baptists-debate-over-speaking-in-tongues-27177/&quot;&gt;debate among Southern Baptists regarding speaking in tongues&lt;/a&gt;, with varying views mentioned above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T17:08:33.570" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4717" CreationDate="2011-11-28T17:32:25.557" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Mason Wheeler mentioned, LDS members consider the answers to these questions sacred, and thus you're probably not going to find much &quot;official&quot; information on this subject.  However, there is one quote that comes to mind, and my responses will be in light of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let me give you the definition in brief.  Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/2/6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Brigham Young, 6 Apr 1853, &lt;em&gt;Journal of Discourses&lt;/em&gt; vol. 2, page 31&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;speculation&amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Brigham Young, these special &quot;key words, the signs and tokens&quot; are used &quot;after you have departed this life&quot;.  Since the apparent goal is to &quot;gain your eternal exaltation&quot;, it seems unlikely that there would be &quot;different levels for different handshakes&quot;, since the idea of &quot;eternal exaltation&quot; sounds pretty binary: you either get it or you don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone who knew the &quot;key words, the signs and tokens&quot; forgets them, it seems unlikely that they would be able to pass the &quot;angels who stand as sentinels&quot;.  However, I believe in a merciful God, so I also believe that before anyone gets to that point, they'll know everything they need to know to keep going.  Thus if you forget something, my hope is that there'll be a refresher course or some sort of way to remember before continuing on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do wives have to wait to enter heaven until their husbands die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an interesting question.  For starters, LDS doctrine is that &quot;eternal exaltation&quot; can only be gained after the Resurrection, which (generally) hasn't really happened yet (there were those who were resurrected immediately following Jesus Christ, and LDS teachings can point to a handful of cases since then, but the prevailing opinion is that it's largely on hold until the Second Coming).  Since you have to be resurrected in order to gain exaltation, the idea of &quot;waiting for your spouse&quot; seems a bit irrelevant, since both would have to wait for the resurrection to happen anyway.  Where things get really interesting is on the question of single or divorced people, and the answer I know of to that is &quot;we have no idea, but we believe God is merciful and that all things will be worked out&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a person later abandons the LDS church, can he still get into heaven, since he already knows the secrets?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That seems unlikely, since the LDS Church teaches that there is more to getting in to Heaven than knowing how to &quot;pass the angels who stand as sentinels&quot;. For example, the Church teaches that exaltation can only be granted to those who have received all of the necessary ordinances and who have lived according to the commandments of God.  Since some of those commandments have to do with participation in the Church (primarily the Law of Tithing, etc), it would follow that someone who leaves the LDS Church would be ineligible for exaltation, regardless anything they may have received or learned in the past.  Of course, the Church also teaches that there is a time granted for everyone to repent and be reconciled before &quot;Judgment Day&quot; when these sorts of things would be an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;/speculation&amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, since I haven't died and been resurrected yet, take all this with a grain of salt. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2018-10-24T08:17:57.160" LastActivityDate="2018-10-24T08:17:57.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4726" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4727" CreationDate="2011-11-28T17:59:58.743" Score="7" ViewCount="11314" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between Protestantism and Evangelicalism? Are all Protestants also Evangelicals? Are all Evangelicals also Protestants?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T19:31:03.757" LastActivityDate="2013-01-20T08:23:16.243" Title="What is the difference between Protestantism and Evangelicalism?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-20T21:58:23.423" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4726" CreationDate="2011-11-28T18:34:57.350" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Evangelicalism is a kind of Protestantism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great&#xA;Britain in the 1730s and gained popularity in the United States&#xA;during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century.&#xA;Its key commitments are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The need for personal conversion (or being &amp;quot;born again&amp;quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A high regard for biblical authority&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son&#xA;of God, Jesus Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Actively expressing and sharing the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast this with the traditional lutheran church that does not have the concept of being &amp;quot;born again&amp;quot; (1), also believes in the Tradition (2), don't know about (3) and traditionally being a part of the power mechanisms of its countries (4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1036" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T19:38:42.110" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4728" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4922" CreationDate="2011-11-28T19:30:04.003" Score="5" ViewCount="599" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kind of based off &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4726/what-is-the-difference-between-protestantism-and-evangelicalism&quot;&gt;this question contrasting Evangelicalism and Protestantism&lt;/a&gt;.  My assumption as a Catholic (which you are certainly more than free to trounce upon) is that since modern day televangelists are more than 6 degrees separated from Calvin, Wesley and Luther, that they couldn't in good faith call themselves Protestants since the Catholic Church is not weighing heavily on their consciences. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is this yet another false assumption?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T19:30:42.527" Title="Do Evangelical leaders (televangelists, megachurch pastors, etc...) not consider themselves Protestants?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4729" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4733" CreationDate="2011-11-28T20:02:33.783" Score="16" ViewCount="8132" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why are Virgins so popular in the Catholic Church (specifically in Mexico and Latin America)?  Aside from the obvious, Virgin Mary, there are &quot;Virgins&quot; of practically every major Catholic Church throughout Mexico.  The Virgin of Guadalupe is the most famous one, I believe.  Where I live, there are two parishes that could not each afford their own Virgin (you can buy Virgins?), so they pooled their resources, and now share one.  Every 6 months, there's a big ceremony in which the Virgin is transported with much fanfare from one to the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the significance of these Virgins?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this practice specific (or more common) to Mexico and Latin America, or is it common in Catholic Churches world-wide?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What exactly are these Virgins?  Clearly they represent a person who once lived; are the bodies of these people what is being transported and/or stored?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why aren't virgin males important?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-08T17:37:26.117" LastActivityDate="2020-01-22T16:30:57.517" Title="Significance of Virgins in the Catholic Church" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4728" CreationDate="2011-11-28T20:09:27.947" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much depends here on your definition of Protestantism. You don't have to be an expert lexicographer to discern the etymology of the word, its roots being in &quot;protest&quot; against Roman Catholicism. But while I know many evangelical Christians who disagree with Catholicism, I know very few who actively protest against it, or for whom Catholicism is &quot;weighing heavily on their consciences&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, and I believe to most, &quot;protestant&quot; simply means non-Catholic Christian. Speaking personally, I do self-identify as a protestant but it's not my first-choice term to describe myself or my faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having given my answer I need to qualify it: i'm not a tele-evangelist or megachurch pastor and can't claim to fully represent them, but I would be very surprised if any evangelical Christian didn't also recognise themselves as a protestant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T20:09:27.947" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4719" CreationDate="2011-11-28T21:07:59.010" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a denomination, Southern Baptists haven't taken a stand on this issue.  Therefore, it's pretty much up to the individual churches and individuals to decide for themselves what to believe regarding these topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument comes down to Calvinism versus Arminianism.  A rough breakdown of the differences can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism#Comparison_among_Protestants&quot;&gt;at the Wikipedia site on Arminianism&lt;/a&gt;.  But what is important is how this relates to the Southern Baptist convention:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp#7&quot;&gt;Southern Baptist Convention FAQ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Southern Baptist Convention has not taken an official stance on either Calvinism or Arminianism. If you surveyed Southern Baptists across the nation you would likely find adherents at both ends of the spectrum with plenty at each point in between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, Southern Baptists, as a denomination, does not take a stance on free will, predestination, or unconditional election.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an interesting, deep and fascinating &lt;a href=&quot;http://dmacattack.wordpress.com/2006/12/11/do-southern-baptist-believe-in-predestination/&quot;&gt;article about the subject&lt;/a&gt; from someone attending a Southern Baptist seminary that claims a Southern Baptist stance on the subject, if you're interested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T21:07:59.010" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4729" CreationDate="2011-11-28T21:40:19.623" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the significance of these virgins?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;There are two elements in virginity: the material element, that is to&#xA;  say, the absence, in the past and in the present, of all complete and&#xA;  voluntary delectation, whether from lust or from the lawful use of&#xA;  marriage; and the formal element, that is the firm resolution to&#xA;  abstain forever from sexual pleasure.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(stolen from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin#Catholic_view&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is this practice specific (or more common) to Mexico and Latin America, or is it common in Catholic churches world-wide?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is common in all catholic countries. It may be more of an iberian thing though but there are definitely virgin statues in both france and italy. In some cases the catholic church just &quot;inherited&quot; a local godess and turned it into a saint so that the festivities that were important to people weren't disturbed despite the new religion. (This applies to Europe when it was christened but I think there are cases where jesuit monks did likewise in the new world.) The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;black madonna&lt;/a&gt; (beware of crazy speculations at the other end of this link) may fascinate you as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What exactly are these virgins? Clearly they represent a person who once lived; are the bodies of these people what is being transported and/or stored?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not likely. They are most often statues made in the image of a long dead saint - mother Mary. Relics of other saints may be brought out for processions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why aren't virgin males important?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh - this is like opening the box of interesting subjects of patriarchal power structures, feminism and equality in one question. Anyone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1036" LastEditorUserId="1036" LastEditDate="2011-11-28T22:41:41.677" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T22:41:41.677" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4729" CreationDate="2011-11-28T21:44:51.473" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;These virgins need a disambiguation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Virgin Mary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the one hand, La Virgen, Is Our Lady, Blessed Mother. She's the only Holy Mother of God the Blessed Virgin Mary. That's her with her place of honor on the side of the altar at most Catholic Churches throughout the world.  If you hear of her under the title of La Guadalupana (Our Lady of Guadalupe), &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1586171712&quot;&gt;Our Lady of Lourdes&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snows.org/DevotionalAreas.aspx?path=root/english/AboutUs/devotional&quot;&gt;Our Lady of the Snows&lt;/a&gt;, Our Lady of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wafusa.org/the_message.html&quot;&gt;Fatima&lt;/a&gt;, Our Lady of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09008b.htm&quot;&gt;La Salette&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/140192378X&quot;&gt;Our Lady of Kibeho&lt;/a&gt; or any of the titles in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryd6f.htm&quot;&gt;Litany of Loreto&lt;/a&gt; then that's still her.  It's a worldwide thing, but Latin America is particularly fond of Our Lady of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07043a.htm&quot;&gt;Guadalupe&lt;/a&gt;, and with good reason, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0385527721&quot;&gt;this book&lt;/a&gt; her apparition in Mexico is responsible for millions of conversions and the end of human sacrifice!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't have her remains since she was assumed into heaven, so the statues are just statues. Every church has an altar with some relic of a saint in it (anything from a bone to something a saint wore or a piece of their casket).  Sometimes relics are transported from place to place in a procession (which is a lot of fun).  It wouldn't be a relic of Our Lady though.  Statues are blessed and are sacramentals, so they do have some significance in the Church, but aren't to be prayed to as idols ever.  There probably is a bit of pride in having a beautiful statue of La Virgen, but that's about it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The titles that Mary goes by more akin to those given to her Queenship, like all the titles you'd see the King of France go by (and go through).  They're not different virgins, they're titles she is given (by the grace of God, as even the king of France would have said) when she conquers a nation for her Son (in a real an spiritual sense). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Holy Virgins&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand you have the holy virgins.  Unless otherwise noted, those are the female saints who took vows be a spouse of Christ who didn't die a martyrs death.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Male saints who take similar vows are usually referred to as Confessors, not because they heard a lot of confessions, but because they confessed the faith. Male chastity is every bit as reverenced and useful as female in the Church.  Can't give you a legit explanation of why men aren't titled under 'virgin', but keep in mind most church words (Ordinary, Common etc...) have completely different connotative meanings than in ordinary and common usage. (that was a Catholic joke, har har).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Regarding the title 'virgin'&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic calendars usually say, St. Agnes Virgin, Martyr to signify which prayers are supposed to be read in the Liturgy of the Hours (unless otherwise noted the section you read for a saint like St. Agnes is called the 'Common of Virgins') it also signifies what colors are supposed to be worn by the priest at Mass. Red for martyrs, white for other saints (including virgins).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-11-29T14:18:07.703" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T14:18:07.703" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="69" CreationDate="2011-11-28T22:06:13.623" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although I am not a believer anymore I think that the idea of progressive revelation best reconciles the different images of god in the old and new testaments. This idea means that mankind has written down the part of god that they were able to comprehend and that god revealed (him|her)self in a way that the people of that day could understand. People living in the nomadic tribe of Moses were surely a lot different from city romans 1000 years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is easier to reconcile with progressive revelation if you also believe in the tradition. The sola scriptura folks like it more set in stone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1036" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T22:06:13.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4735" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4736" CreationDate="2011-11-28T22:10:29.543" Score="4" ViewCount="739" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 1:9 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according&#xA;  to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was&#xA;  given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this verse says what I think it does, that we were chosen to be saved &quot;before the world began,&quot; doesn't that prove the Calvinist Doctrine of Election?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1034" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T22:04:41.733" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T22:04:41.733" Title="Does 2 Timothy 1:9 prove the Doctrine of Election?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;2-timothy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:16:41.597" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4735" CreationDate="2011-11-28T22:34:17.270" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. Even as a Calvinist, one has to understand that it takes more than one verse to put together a complete picture of how we understand salvation to work. The verse you reference in Timothy is indeed very helpful, but it really only proves the part about his purpose as the author of salvation was conceived before we were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to defend the doctrine of election, you will need to reach out to other parts of scripture. For example in 2nd Timothy, how do you know that &quot;us&quot; is specific to individuals and not just representative of a general group of &quot;somebodies&quot; that God planned on saving?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do think the doctrine can be defended from Scripture, but I don't think you can do it from one verse. You need to take into consideration the whole counsel of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-11-28T22:34:17.270" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4735" CreationDate="2011-11-28T23:22:31.503" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;An alternative interpretation of this passage is that it refers to corporate election. Corporate election is often used as an alternative interpretation of passages dealing with election. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the belief that God elected &lt;em&gt;the Church itself&lt;/em&gt; to be the body of Christ and to receive salvation.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who &lt;strong&gt;gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%202:11-14&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Titus 2:11-14 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in contrast to the belief that God predestined &lt;em&gt;the individuals&lt;/em&gt; who would become members of the Church (I use the words &quot;members&quot; and &quot;Church&quot; in the spiritual sense - not speaking of membership in any particular church, but of membership in the body of Christ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this view, the &quot;us&quot; in the passage would refer to all believers, in the corporate sense.  For example (with purely illustrative purpose):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who hath saved [His Church], and called [Christians] with an holy calling, not according to  works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given [to the body of Christ] before the world began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know Greek, so I'm not sure how well this illustration fits with the tenses used in the original text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read more about corporate election &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_election&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2011-11-29T00:19:32.757" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T00:19:32.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4738" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4739" CreationDate="2011-11-29T00:35:54.390" Score="11" ViewCount="367" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible teaches that one of the many roles of the Holy Spirit is that of a teacher: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12:11-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 12:11-12 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2014:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 14:26 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%202:11%E2%80%9315&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 2:11-15 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura&quot;&gt;Sola-scriptura&lt;/a&gt; is the belief that &quot;that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does sola-scriptura reconcile with the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T03:51:19.390" Title="How do sola-scriptura adherents reconcile the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;sola-scriptura&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4738" CreationDate="2011-11-29T01:54:23.617" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;We do not deny the role of the Holy Spirit as a teacher.  We believe that the Holy Spirit does serve to teach us, and to guide us.  The Holy Spirit also serves to convict sinners that they may come to repentance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the article you linked to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to&#xA;  be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly&#xA;  by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from&#xA;  scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other&#xA;  authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply&#xA;  demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be&#xA;  corrected by, the written word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem lies in the fact that many false teachers have come into the world, and any of them can (and do) &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;claim&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to have teachings from the Holy Spirit, from angels, from God the Father through divine revelation, or through personal encounters with Jesus Christ Himself. Likewise, our own hearts and thoughts are not trustworthy and can deceive us.(Jeremiah 17:9)  The Bible warns us not to trust every spirit, but to test them to see if they are false or true.  The test is simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:1-6 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they&#xA;  are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.&#xA;  2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that&#xA;  Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that&#xA;  confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:&#xA;  and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it&#xA;  should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God,&#xA;  little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is&#xA;  in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world:&#xA;  therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are&#xA;  of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth&#xA;  not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this Scripture, as well as John 15:26, we believe that before believing the teaching of the Holy Spirit, we need to first test to ensure that what we perceive of as the Holy Spirit meets the test, and &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the Holy Spirit.  The test is found in Scripture, which is unchanging, and serves as a plumb-line to ensure that the teaching of the Holy Spirit lines up.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the Holy Spirit cannot teach anything that is not in accordance with God's Word, whether explicitly or implicitly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-17T03:51:19.390" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T03:51:19.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4740" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4745" CreationDate="2011-11-29T02:26:20.623" Score="11" ViewCount="1357" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do Baptists reject the idea of a central authority and instead place authority in the local congregations? Does this have a biblical basis or is it a result of past conflict with authority figures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-11-29T02:33:10.907" LastActivityDate="2014-05-13T23:15:18.617" Title="Why do Baptists believe in the autonomy of local congregations?" Tags="&lt;baptist&gt;&lt;authority&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4740" CreationDate="2011-11-29T02:35:06.107" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a good summary of reasons for this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://baptistdistinctives.org/articles/churchautonomy.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;an article at baptistdistinctives.org&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to preface that that this is &lt;em&gt;not necessarily a doctrinal stance&lt;/em&gt;. This is a stance on how we govern our own Church.  However, the stance is based on doctrinal presuppositions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we consider Scripture to be the ultimate authority, as it is from God, and is unchanging and infallible. Man, on the other hand, is not infallible, and subject to corruption.  We distrust central authority for the same reasons that we &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4738/how-do-sola-scriptura-adherents-reconcile-the-role-of-the-holy-spirit-as-a-teach/4739#4739&quot;&gt;test the spirits to see if they of of God&lt;/a&gt;.  Central authority, other than Christ Himself, is subject to human error.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't have a problem with denominational belief in a central authority per-se, but in our view, so long as that authority is subject to God and His Word.  Organizationally, it is easier to correct the course of a local congregation than it is to fight anti-Biblical teachings of a large organization.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, it's easier for a local autonomous Church to throw out a Pastor that is teaching error than it is to overthrow a the head of, or even simply have a voice in, a national or multi-national organization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, we find precedent in Scripture.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In new Testament times, the local Churches selected their own members to the various positions and ministries.  (Acts 6:3-6, Acts 12:-13) and Paul instructed the local Church at Corinth to discipline their own members. (1 Corinthians 5:1-3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The New testament church, including the Apostles rejected man's authority and stated that they answer to God alone.  (Acts 4:18-20, Acts 5: 29)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The book of Revelation, in the letters to the Churches, each Church was treated as a separate, distinct unit, all within the body of Christ, but separate and individual.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians 4: 1-16 teaches that we are all called by Christ to serve Christ, with Christ as our head.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrews 9:15 teaches that Christ is our mediator, not a human authority.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrews 10:21 teaches that Christ is to be our head, not a human authority.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-11-30T11:40:20.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4742" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4813" CreationDate="2011-11-29T05:05:37.440" Score="10" ViewCount="873" Body="&lt;p&gt;As explained in a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4740/why-do-baptists-believe-in-the-autonomy-of-local-congregations&quot;&gt;previous question&lt;/a&gt;, one Baptist Distinctive is the rejection of a central Church authority (whether an individual or a governing body).  Instead, we hold fast to the autonomy of the local Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has been my view, and coming from this perspective, I wonder what the &lt;strong&gt;doctrinal&lt;/strong&gt; basis is for having a central authority.  This could be answered from the perspective of any denomination that does have a central authority.  This is not intended to be an argument for or against the validity of any claim.  I would, however, ask that the responses be supported, either by scriptures, or by official Church statements, or other supporting documentation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that different groups may have different, or common answers, and that there may not be one &quot;right&quot; answer, but rather several &quot;right&quot; answers.  If I need to pick a denomination for the question to be valid, I will certainly do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2016-09-08T16:48:33.120" Title="What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;&lt;authority&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4743" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4756" CreationDate="2011-11-29T14:38:45.390" Score="17" ViewCount="8490" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first pope and that papal succession continued down through history to the present day.  However, neither the Orthodox nor the Protestant churches recognize this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what are the biblical arguments (Protestant or Orthodox) against the papacy and papal succession?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-01T00:41:42.833" LastActivityDate="2020-03-30T16:41:43.427" Title="What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4742" CreationDate="2011-11-29T14:41:47.943" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good article about the nature and structure of the Church according to Catholic doctrine can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. In short the Catholic view is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church was instituted by Christ as one organization, not many&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The church was hierarchic from the beginning. Local churches frequently sought approval from the central authority (the Apostles) even in Apostolic times, and church leaders were appointed by leaders from outside the local congregation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Anglican church disagreed with the Catholic church not on the desirability of a central organization, but only on whether national churches should be answerable to the worldwide church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-12-05T14:37:45.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T14:37:45.397" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4740" CreationDate="2011-11-29T15:26:25.400" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two concepts that are important to understand.  How they interact show directly how this works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of sola scriptura is that the Bible is the highest authority.  Anyone and everyone (who can read) has direct access to the final word of God.  If someone is saying something that isn't in line with the Bible, then they are clearly not from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Priesthood of All Believers&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, every believer in Christ has the authority to preach, interpret the Bible, and determine doctrine (providing it falls in line with the Bible, of course).  Given this, the authority of Christianity lies directly with the believers in Christ, not with a &lt;em&gt;church&lt;/em&gt; per se--neither a local congregation, nor a central authority.  Each person becomes responsible for his/her own beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Reaction!!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, combine those two ideas together and you get an &lt;strong&gt;emotional, fiery reaction&lt;/strong&gt;:  All central authority crumbles, since each individual believer has the authority to reject or accept another person's word.  Furthermore, the only way to rebuke another believer to bring them in line with your way of thinking is using the Bible--a book that can be twisted, bent, confused, and misconstrued--all in the name of personal exegesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Local Congregations&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the dust settles, believers start to realize that there needs to be a church--a gathering place for others who share their beliefs--and a preacher--someone who can comfort, guide, and instruct them when they need answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each church is built on these ideas: a place to gather for corporate worship, lead by someone to help guide, instruct, and lead the people.  When church leaders start to get off track, they are either let go, or the church falls apart.  The only cohesion being the Word of God and the beliefs established by the members of the congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Authority of the Local Church&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, as all men do, the members of the congregation begin to stray.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15-17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:15-17&lt;/a&gt; has given authority to believers to attempt to steer each other in the right direction.  If that doesn't work, some authority has been given to the church itself to guide members to right thinking: but which church?  A local church?  A central church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this passage (as with all) is open to interpretation; and schisms between believers throughout history have determined this to be (for their convenience, I suspect) authority of the local church, rather than a central authority.  That means the each local church has the ability to reject its own members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if there are enough believers (which agree with the errant way) to form a new church, a new church is formed and a split occurs, dragging part of a congregation from one church (one authority) to another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the Priesthood of All Believers have caused each person to have the authority to reject or accept any given spiritual authority.  Churches band together on common beliefs for corporate worship, instruction, and support.  However, their cohesion is purely based on individual support of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the authority is not with the local church as much as it is with the believers within that church.  Each church rises and falls on the beliefs established by its members.  It's these two doctrines that are the source of this &amp;quot;authority&amp;quot; of the local church (in a round-about way).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T16:06:43.057" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4746" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4747" CreationDate="2011-11-29T15:56:06.850" Score="15" ViewCount="4246" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for the priesthood of all believers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:51:21.787" LastActivityDate="2019-06-23T22:18:28.620" Title="What is the biblical basis for the priesthood of all believers?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;universal-priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4746" CreationDate="2011-11-29T16:28:10.130" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;This doctrine was made evident from several passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:5&lt;/a&gt;).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, priests as mediators is against this biblical passage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We are called a holy people, a royal priesthood (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 2:9&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus blood has made us into priests and kings (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%205:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelation 5:10&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The apostles were not supposed to be regarded as leaders, but as servants (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%204:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 4:1&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were the foundation of the church because they were: &lt;code&gt;entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed&lt;/code&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%204:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 4:1&lt;/a&gt;), not because they were given special authority&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other passages that support the idea of the universal priesthood:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2019:5%E2%80%936&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 19:5&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:4%E2%80%936&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelations 1:4-6&lt;/a&gt;, and other passages in the book of Hebrews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; is a good source for more information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-11-29T16:32:41.913" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T16:32:41.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4748" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4750" CreationDate="2011-11-29T16:28:12.453" Score="7" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;Following-up a previous &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4746/69&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;, what Biblical basis does the Catholic church claim for the special role of Priests, Cardinals, and Popes in the structure of the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T21:31:47.017" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the special mediatorial position of the Pope, Cardinals, etc in the Catholic church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;mediator&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4749" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4758" CreationDate="2011-11-29T17:08:10.573" Score="7" ViewCount="159" Body="&lt;p&gt;I might be making some naive assumptions here, but I have a hard time seeing what the purpose of congregations are in the context of priesthood of all believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, priesthood of all believers basically says that all people have direct and equal access to God, as well as equal privilege and authority to minister. What then is the purpose of congregating? Why are those congregations well organized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T14:42:15.357" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T14:42:15.357" Title="Why do adherents to the priesthood of all believers still have organized congregations?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;universal-priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4748" CreationDate="2011-11-29T17:10:27.563" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Pope&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, the direct successor of Peter who was handed the Keys to the Kingdom by Jesus. (Matthew 16:19)  This makes his role a mediator for consciences, or an arbiter of what is right and wrong, true and false in terms of faith and morals, but not science and logic. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ccc 891&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bishops&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics claim apostolic succession, meaning that what Jesus said the His apostles applies specifically to the episcopate, the Bishops especially. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Matt 28:18-20 NAB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is commissioning the Apostles and their successors to act in His name.  Not baptizing like John baptized, but baptizing like Christ baptized.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus established or sanctified all 7 sacraments in his short ministry and expects His priests to carry them out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism (John 3:1-5)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Confirmation (Acts 8:5-17 and Acts 1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Eucharist (John 6:48-58, and institution narratives in synoptics) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Orders (Everything Jesus tells the apostles to do)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Marriage (Mark 10:1-12, Eph 5)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reconciliation (John 20:19-23)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anointing of the Sick (Mark 6:7, 12-13)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brantpitre.com/documents/printable_outlines/sevensacraments.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Biblical Sources for sacraments&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Priests&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priests (as well as the Pope and the Bishops) act &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'in persona Christi'&lt;/a&gt;.  They forgive sins ,through God, because Jesus forgave sins and told the apostles to act accordingly (John 20:23).  The very definition of priests is one who offers sacrifices for the people.  You don't have to poke very far into Leviticus to find a biblical basis for priests acting like priests.  Priests in the new covenant 'do this in remembrance of me', and they say this, not 'do this in remembrance of Jesus' during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Eucharistic prayer before communion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cardinals&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to point out is, not all cardinals are currently Bishops (and historically there have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_cardinal&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lay cardinals&lt;/a&gt;, so it's an error to conflate their position with Bishops, they do not act as cardinals as mediators in any way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-12-20T21:31:47.017" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T21:31:47.017" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4751" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-29T18:02:15.043" Score="10" ViewCount="290" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a question that ought to have a concrete answer and be a good example for how the process of canonization works for my Religious Ed. class:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who has been declared blessed for the longest period of time without being canonized?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who is the oldest person to have been declared blessed (died shortest after Christ)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bonus points if anyone knows who has been 'venerable' or 'servant of God' for the longest or is the oldest &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Bonus points may be stored up and redeemed in Heaven, where neither moth nor worm may spoil them)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-11-02T23:34:53.643" LastActivityDate="2020-03-08T12:44:25.033" Title="Who is the oldest Blessed?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;communion-of-saints&gt;&lt;beatification&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4749" CreationDate="2011-11-29T20:20:55.003" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The purpose of congregational gathering is not exclusively to provide the laity access to someone who can be a mediator between them and God, so the assumption that the priesthood of all believers is mutually exclusive is invalid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gathering as a congregation has many purposes, including mutual edification, encouragement toward love and good deeds, instruction in the word, serving one another, community, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the biblical idea that we all have one Mediator between us and God in no way precludes the call to fellowship with one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T20:20:55.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4749" CreationDate="2011-11-29T20:37:29.297" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are correct in viewing the priesthood of all believers as obviating the need for a mediator between oneself and God - but there is also incumbent upon the participant a duty, as a priest, to minister to one's fellow congregants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put simply, without a congregation, there is no one to minister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a member in the priesthood of all believers, I am to minister to others in my church, and my church ministers to me. We sharpen, encourage, and build up &quot;the brethren,&quot; meaning that we all serve as priests for one another, without respect to hierarchy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T20:37:29.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4743" CreationDate="2011-11-29T21:06:58.223" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a broad question, but in many ways, it boils down to the antecedent of &quot;this&quot; in Matthew 16:18.  After Peter tells Jesus, &quot;You are the Christ,&quot; Jesus answers something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.&quot; (English Standard Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, what is this rock?  Is it Peter or his confession?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, Protestants tend to favor the &quot;confession&quot; interpretation, and emphasize our equality before God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T21:06:58.223" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4751" CreationDate="2011-11-29T22:25:08.690" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has an article entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blesseds&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;List of Blesseds&lt;/a&gt; in the Catholic Church. One can click on the heading of the column giving the date of beatification. Doing so, the earliest that shows up is &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Como#Bishops_of_Como&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eutychius of Como&lt;/a&gt;, who died in 539; however, no specific date of beatification is given. The earliest date of beatification is 1259 for &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronislava_of_Poland&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bronislava of Poland&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The external references for the article are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Online list of saints and blesseds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://saints.sqpn.com/indexsnt.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patron Saints Index&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia also has an article entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_venerable_people_(Roman_Catholic)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;List of Venerable People&lt;/a&gt;. The person in that list with the earliest date of declaration is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_de_%C3%81greda&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;María de Ágreda&lt;/a&gt;, declared venerable in 1673.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-11-02T15:02:59.703" LastActivityDate="2017-11-02T15:02:59.703" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4743" CreationDate="2011-11-29T22:33:59.770" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a huge question.  I am going to attempt to summarize this as succinctly as possible--distilled to a potent brew.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2/84&quot;&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, there is no higher authority than the Bible--not tradition, not other people's opinion or beliefs.  Therefore, the pope, as simply a human, cannot stand up against the authority of the Bible, as God-breathed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sola Scriptura is supported by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%202:13&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Cor. 2:13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:2&lt;/a&gt; (among others), which shows that the Bible was divinely inspired.  Because of this, we can trust the Bible to be the absolute truth (above all human knowledge).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Side note: Martin Luther wrote &lt;code&gt;a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4746/84&quot;&gt;Priesthood of All Believers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers states that we are all priests and do not need to go to a human mediator in order to reach God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:5&lt;/a&gt; shows that there is only one mediator between God and man.  This shows us that we don't need priests (or bishops, archbishops, or popes) to intercede for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 4:14&lt;/a&gt; (among others) shows that Jesus is our high priest.  As such, we need no one else to offer prayers on behalf of the nation.  The pope, by comparison, is attempting to act as High Priest, like the High Priest in Judaism--to go before God on behalf of all Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the two big ones I can think off of the top of my head.  Obviously, each one of those goes much deeper than what I gave here.  Also, there are probably more big ticket items and a bunch of smaller ones.  But each of these has more support and many more arguments that can be used to dispute the papacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-11-29T22:33:59.770" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4423" CreationDate="2011-11-30T01:50:38.083" Score="9" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If this were an important doctrine, it seems there would be fairly clear reference to it in the Scriptures. However, the Bible is incredibly silent on it and even seems to indicate that Joseph had no union with here until Jesus was born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irrelevant. There are many things all Christians believe that are not directly spelled out in the bible, such as the Trinity, the hypo-static union, etc. Also, Catholics do not believe in a &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; approach to doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[B]y implication that Joseph would need to be an eternal virgin as well since he was married to her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no such need. Joseph may have been a widower, for instance. His virginity is never referenced in Catholic tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What importance does the eternal virginity of Mary have? What does it matter? A what would have been so horrible about her and Joseph enjoying the intimacy God provided for a married couple?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not that it would have been horrible -- indeed, it is good for a man to know his wife in this sense. In Catholic teaching, however, there are two other things at play here: the notion of sacrifice, and piety with respect to the holy. When we sacrifice things, we sacrifice good things. This goes for burnt offerings and little penances alike. When, for instance, a monk or a nun take vows of poverty and chastity, it isn't because sex and wealth aren't good things -- indeed, they are! But the spiritual good is better than the temporal good, and they are choosing, out of love of God, to give certain things up to seek further spiritual nourishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Piety and reverence to the holy is something that in the Catholic/Orthodox do a bit different than other traditions. For instance, traditionally the vessels of consecration, the tabernacle, the altar, etc. are all veiled. Women, traditionally, veil their head in prayer, particularly in the presence of the blessed sacrament. The veiling hides them from plain sight, not because they are bad, but because they are holy and beautiful. Joseph abstained from relations with Mary because she was the tabernacle -- she contained Jesus within her. She was the ultimate sacred vessel -- the Theotokos -- who bore God. Out of reverence, awe, respect, and love, he had forgone relations with her. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to all this, it is a crucial article of faith that all Catholics are bound to hold under penalty of mortal sin. From the Second Council of Constantinople:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;II. If anyone does not confess that God the Word was twice begotten, the first before all time from the Father, non- temporal and bodiless, the other in the last days when he came down from the heavens and was incarnate by the holy, glorious, God-bearer, ever-virgin Mary, and born of her, let him be anathema.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1040" LastActivityDate="2011-11-30T01:50:38.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4749" CreationDate="2011-11-30T04:24:01.553" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least part of this answer I believe comes through obedience to the many ‘one another’ commands of the New Testament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are exhorted in various ways to be involved with and caring for one another:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To admonish one another (Rom. 15:14)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To comfort and encourage one another (1 Thess. 4:18; 5:11; Heb. 3:13)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To worship with one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 10:25)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To always seek the good of one another (1 Thess. 5:15) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To be honest with one another (Col. 3:9)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To show hospitality to one another (1 Pet. 4:9)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To be at peace with one another (Mark 9:50)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An overview of the Greek 'one another' is given in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/christian-fellowship&quot;&gt;Christian Fellowship&lt;/a&gt; by J. Hampton Keathley, III which states: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The expression ‘one another’ is a translation of a reciprocal pronoun&#xA;  in the Greek New Testament. Reciprocal means mutual, shared, shown or&#xA;  felt alike by both sides, united in feelings, actions,&#xA;  responsibilities, and attitudes. Synonyms include: common, mutual,&#xA;  fellowship, and shared—ideas that are at the heart of the doctrine of&#xA;  fellowship. In usage, this pronoun is used in statements and&#xA;  injunctions to believers regarding shared and mutual responsibilities.&#xA;  In emphasis, it focuses us on our need of the ministry and aid of&#xA;  others, of our duty to care for others as partners in the body of&#xA;  Christ, and of how we can experience true fellowship. Therefore, a&#xA;  study of the ‘one another’ commands of Scripture would be tremendously&#xA;  helpful in the matter of New Testament fellowship. For a detailed&#xA;  study of the doctrine, see the study on the “One Another” Commands of&#xA;  Scripture..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it would be quite hard, if not impossible, to follow these instructions without some form of Congregationalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1019" LastActivityDate="2011-11-30T04:24:01.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4759" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4837" CreationDate="2011-11-30T13:31:36.647" Score="15" ViewCount="1860" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the LDS church teaches the concept of eternal progression, that &quot;As God is, so man can become and as man is, so God once was.&quot;  So, men may attain godhood in exaltation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By implication, God the Father was once a man Himself on another planet where there was another god and attained to godhood Himself through his life on that planet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is, according to LDS teaching, who was the first God who began all this--the uncreated God, since all other gods, including God the Father would have been born spiritually through a spiritual union between the god of the previous planet and one of his wives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is there any worship given in the LDS Church to this first God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2019-09-25T14:53:23.180" Title="According to LDS (Mormon) teaching, who was the first God who began the eternal progression?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4794" CreationDate="2011-11-30T14:34:57.440" Score="16" ViewCount="3727" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may be related to a previous question about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/according-to-lds-mormon-teaching-who-was-the-first-god-who-began-the-eternal&quot;&gt;the first god who began eternal progression&lt;/a&gt;.  This is something I've really been wondering for a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Almighty God began life as a man, he must have been part of this universe.  As part of this universe, it would've been impossible to &lt;em&gt;create&lt;/em&gt; the universe--since that requires a deity that it outside the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do Mormons believe that the universe existed before God?  Or that God existed as God before the universe began (and therefore is one who didn't ascend to godhead, but was always a deity)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, either the universe always was and there was a first god who created everything (related to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/according-to-lds-mormon-teaching-who-was-the-first-god-who-began-the-eternal&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;) or there is a god who existed, as god, before the universe.  Yet the Mormons teach that God was once a man.  So, who created the universe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2021-03-17T17:57:23.363" Title="According to the Mormon doctrines, who created the universe?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4762" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4765" CreationDate="2011-11-30T18:40:49.853" Score="10" ViewCount="1988" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Roman Catholic view of the rapture? Does the Catholic church accept the idea that people will be caught up in the air to meet Christ? If not, how do they interpret &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thessalonians%204:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&amp;nbsp;Thessalonians&amp;nbsp;4:17&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-07T15:05:57.313" LastActivityDate="2020-10-10T16:16:02.310" Title="What is the Catholic view of the rapture?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;&lt;1-thessalonians&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4763" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-30T18:43:05.527" Score="4" ViewCount="1148" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any verses in the Bible besides &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thessalonians%204:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:17&lt;/a&gt; that support the doctrine of the rapture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2016-03-14T14:30:53.147" Title="Is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 the only verse that supports the rapture?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4763" CreationDate="2011-11-30T19:04:44.043" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/24:40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:40-42&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Two men will be out in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. Therefore, stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and it's friend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/lk/17:34&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 17:34-35&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so long as you leave off the next verse&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They said to him in reply, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which rapture folks might be likely to do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It kind of leaves you thinking that the lucky one is the one who is left, not the one who was taken and eaten by a vulture. If this were pointing to a rapture, the one who was left would be the one eaten by a vulture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-11-30T19:19:46.840" LastActivityDate="2011-11-30T19:19:46.840" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4762" CreationDate="2011-11-30T19:16:25.303" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholicism is incompatible with the Rapture because the Church has taught for many centuries before people started envisioning folks disappearing mid-sentence that there would be a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Final Judgement&lt;/a&gt; where everyone would see their sins and their effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think 1 Thessalonians 4:17 speaks to the Final Judgement on account of the fact that St. Paul says &quot;We who are still alive&quot;.  If he's dead &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5685157/Bone-fragments-confirmed-to-be-Saint-Paul.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as his bones attest to&lt;/a&gt; then he ought to have said, &quot;those who are still alive&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, Catholics don't have any problem with folks being carried off into heaven body and soul, so long as they're free from original sin (Mary and Jesus) or been given a special grace (Enoch and Elijah). The rapture, as it is envisioned in recent popular literature, would be prior to final judgement even if it came at the same hour and doesn't make a lot of sense in the light of Catholic teaching even though it fits the puzzle pieces left in the New Testament pretty well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there was a rapture, and the good were taken up, they would have been judged as good and the rest would be... waiting to see if they're good or not?  Well a 7 year span of tribulation doesn't jibe with the Final Judgement as a Last Thing.  The final judgement is Sheeps on this side, Goats on that side and everybody out of the pool.  The dead will have a particular judgement, but at the end of time, as far as I understand the teaching. The final judgement is for the living and the dead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-12-27T22:21:01.093" LastActivityDate="2013-12-27T22:21:01.093" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4766" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-11-30T20:58:06.477" Score="6" ViewCount="1020" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that Brigham Young, the second Prophet of the LDS Church, taught what is known as the Adam-God doctrine for much of his tenure as Prophet of the Church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the specifics with regard to this teaching and where is it recorded?  How long was it taught?  Is it still part of Mormon Scripture/teaching/doctrine today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-09T15:31:41.647" LastActivityDate="2015-11-09T15:31:41.647" Title="What was Brigham Young's teaching regarding Adam being God?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;&lt;adam&gt;&lt;brigham-young&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4704" CreationDate="2011-12-01T02:33:35.097" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia's article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Covenant theology&lt;/a&gt; says the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Covenant of redemption&lt;/strong&gt; is a covenant amongst the Godhead in which Christ was appointed to redeem mankind. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Covenant of works&lt;/strong&gt; is a covenant between God and Adam (representing all mankind) that obedience would bring life and disobedience would bring death.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Covenant of grace&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through the &lt;strong&gt;covenant of grace&lt;/strong&gt;, Christ fulfills the &lt;strong&gt;covenant of works&lt;/strong&gt; on behalf of those who receive forgiveness. In this manner Christ also fulfills the &lt;strong&gt;covenant of redemption&lt;/strong&gt; in which he was appointed to redeem mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion they're not a variation on a theme. They all share the same purpose of salvation for mankind, but they have distinct agreements and expectations of those involved. The &lt;strong&gt;covenant of works&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;covenant of grace&lt;/strong&gt; are also closely related in that they both promise eternal life, but the former involves God while the latter involves Christ, and the former requires works while the latter requires faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-12-01T03:12:51.197" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T03:12:51.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4766" CreationDate="2011-12-01T07:06:43.187" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This idea spawns from a number of statements that Brigham Young purportedly made, both in public and in private. For example, he was recorded as having said something like this in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/JournalOfDiscourses3,1861&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Journal of Discourses&lt;/a&gt;, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/study/topics/journal-of-discourses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the LDS Church does not officially accept any of the Journal of Discourses or cite it for doctrine&lt;/a&gt; because of erroneous scribing and other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, it is evident that the original, doctrinal meaning of which Brigham was intending to speak, was lost from the time it was received by revelation from God to the time it was transmitted, or transcribed, erroneously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Immediately upon understanding that many were confused on this teaching or idea, &lt;a href=&quot;http://udn.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/deseretnews3&amp;amp;CISOPTR=143021&amp;amp;CISOSHOW=143025&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brigham spoke again on the matter&lt;/a&gt;. Here, President Young reports that he inquired of this doctrine to Joseph Smith, his predecessor to the presidency, and, startled by the confusion from his statements, attempts to clear up some misconceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, on 19 Feb 1981, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve named Bruce R. McConkie wrote a letter to Eugene England on this topic, stating, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our&#xA;  spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists&#xA;  ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that&#xA;  are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young&#xA;  also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam&#xA;  in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham&#xA;  Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which&#xA;  Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the&#xA;  expressions that accord with the teachings in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/study/topics/standard-works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Standard Works&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that we must still be careful extrapolating context when the audience was a specific person, not the world in general. It may not necessarily be the official view of the LDS Church.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, a human made an error, but never has this doctrine been officially an accepted part of LDS teachings. In fact, today (I know from experience), this idea of &quot;Adam being God&quot; is not tolerated in Church schools or settings at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enemies of the Church (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=%22enemies%20of%20the%20church%22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; for documentation of this controversial yet accurate term; also see comments) will quickly take a glitch in history and blow it out of proportion, which understandably will cause others to believe that the prophet taught this &quot;for much of his tenure as Prophet of the Church.&quot; At this point, I think the mis-understanding is clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Godhead is made up of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived, died, and was resurrected, completing the Atonement for mankind. That is &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/jesus-christ/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the LDS doctrine on that matter&lt;/a&gt;, and certainly is the most central and prominent feature of Mormon doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I have also used &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FAIR's Wiki page on this topic&lt;/a&gt; as a source here.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-11-09T13:10:49.650" LastActivityDate="2015-11-09T13:10:49.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3755" CreationDate="2011-12-01T07:08:58.843" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer to question this isn't based on Bible verses, But based on my overall view of his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke wrote in detail about the Missions of Paul in Acts. The suffering of Paul in his entire life leaves me doubtless on the life of Paul. Luke humbly hides himself, since he wanted us to focus on the great Apostleship of Paul. So I can't think that Paul was an insidious infiltrator, His death reveals us that he was a martyr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding his conversion, there were witnesses, and the whole event was recorded by Luke. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other apostles didn't write or say anything wrong about Paul's preaching or find fault on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, His entire message doesn't complicate our believes, It reflects what the old testament says, and what Jesus said.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-12-16T00:30:20.600" LastActivityDate="2013-12-16T00:30:20.600" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4760" CreationDate="2011-12-01T14:21:07.630" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mormons believe that, in general, the universe was created.  That there was a creator and that the creation story was handed down by the one true God to Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, it is considered a mystery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brigham Young once said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As to the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  John A. Widtsoe, &lt;em&gt;Discourses of Brigham Young&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sub&gt;(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978, p. 259)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the one true God could not have been the creator of the universe.  Exactly who created the universe or how it was created is left as a mystery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this, it is noted that while God did not create the universe, he did &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/science.shtml#evol&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;create mankind&lt;/a&gt; and the earth.  As such, he is still the Creator, just not the creator of the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a article regarding the &lt;a href=&quot;http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/Talmage1931.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mormon doctrine of creation&lt;/a&gt;, written by James Talmage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-12-01T14:32:18.950" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T14:32:18.950" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4771" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4895" CreationDate="2011-12-01T14:52:56.657" Score="12" ViewCount="409" Body="&lt;p&gt;The United Reformed Church is a denomination in Britain that was formed out of a merger of the Congregationalist and Presbyterian denominations in 1972. What doctrinal compromises had to be  made for the merger to succeed? In other words, what are/were the differences between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism, which beliefs and doctrines were carried forward into the URC and which had to be dropped?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-07T14:14:01.363" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T04:19:33.627" Title="How does the doctrine of the URC differ from its predecessors?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4772" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4777" CreationDate="2011-12-01T16:43:59.143" Score="11" ViewCount="1647" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember hearing something about a true Saint Nicholas who maybe helped poor children or something, but to be honest, I really don't know much about when Christmas began to be celebrated by Christians.  I do know that the Orthodox Church celebrates it on a different day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did it begin in the Catholic Church?  If so, when did it become adopted by the Orthodox Church?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-12-01T16:57:07.763" LastActivityDate="2019-12-03T23:43:05.347" Title="When did Christmas (the birth of Christ) first begin as a Christian celebration?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4773" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4776" CreationDate="2011-12-01T16:54:06.507" Score="12" ViewCount="104323" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 2:11, we read that the Magi or wise men brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.  Were these common gifts to be given at that time or did each of them hold significant meaning, perhaps unknown to the wise men themselves but part of God's sovereign plan?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and&#xA;  they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they&#xA;  offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.  (Matthew 2:11, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-29T21:03:09.503" LastActivityDate="2016-12-24T19:43:08.870" Title="What is the significance of the three different gifts (gold, frankincense and myrrh) given to Jesus by the Magi after his birth?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;&lt;historic-customs&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-01-02T07:58:38.117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4774" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4788" CreationDate="2011-12-01T16:56:39.840" Score="10" ViewCount="541" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard a few ideas about who the wise men from the east were who came to Jesus at his birth (or shortly thereafter) and offered gifts.  What are the best theories on this and what evidence is there that supports them?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, how many wise men were there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-12-01T17:16:42.787" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T08:13:38.867" Title="Who were the &quot;wise men from the east&quot; (Magi) spoken of in Matthew 2?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4775" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4783" CreationDate="2011-12-01T17:03:04.783" Score="3" ViewCount="2353" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romans 1:26-27:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[26] For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, [27] and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said nothing about homosexuality (from what we know) yet Paul teaches strongly against it (continuing in other verses). How do Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong justify the potential discrepancy here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="301" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-03-24T18:38:18.427" LastActivityDate="2018-06-09T11:20:39.217" Title="Do Paul and Jesus disagree on homosexuality?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2018-06-12T15:09:48.173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4773" CreationDate="2011-12-01T17:36:17.170" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We Three Kings&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses to 'we three kings' are pretty wonderfully theological and wrap across most doctrines. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gifts symbolize aspects of Jesus' ministry and purpose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Born a King on Bethlehem's plain&#xA;  Gold I bring to crown Him again&#xA;  King forever, ceasing never&#xA;  Over us all to rein&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gold is the gift to honor a King.  It is offered in acknowledgement that Jesus is the King of His Kingdom. Prince of Peace, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Frankincense to offer have I&#xA;  Incense owns a Deity nigh&#xA;  Pray'r and praising, all men raising&#xA;  Worship Him, God most high&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankincense is the incense burned in religious ceremonies.  It is an offering to honor Jesus as God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume&#xA;  Breathes of life of gathering gloom&#xA;  Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying&#xA;  Sealed in the stone-cold tomb&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Myrrh is the oil that is used to anoint a dead body before burial.  It is offered as a prophecy of the way he would die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prefiguring the New Covenant&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may also be some symbolism in the three offerings in terms of Jesus as Priest, Prophet and King.  Hebrews 9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant was held a gold jar of Manna from Heaven, the Rod of Aaron which sprouted and the 10 Commandments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are also types for Jesus. Manna for Jesus as the Great Prophet, the rod for Jesus as the Eternal High Priest and the ten commandments for Jesus as the Lawgiver or King. And the Gifts reflect those items stored in the Ark.  Gold for kingship, Frankincense for priesthood and Myrrh for prophecy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They're offered to Jesus, but it is Mary, who accepts them as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ark of the New Covenant&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alas, I just read this in the Catholic Encyclopedia &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The giving of gifts was in keeping with Oriental custom. The purpose of the gold is clear; the Child was poor. We do not know the purpose of the other gifts. The Magi probably meant no symbolism. The Fathers have found manifold and multiform symbolic meanings in the three gifts; it is not clear that any of these meanings are inspired &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently there is no inspired and obvious symbolism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-12-14T04:01:19.757" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T04:01:19.757" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4772" CreationDate="2011-12-01T17:54:42.257" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Nicholas of Myra predates the Great Schism by over 600 years. His feast day traditionally was December 6th, but has been taken off the Catholic calendar recently. Orthodox celebrate the feast of the nativity on the same day Catholics do, but their celebration with gifts, etc... is 12 days after (like it is in Spain and parts of Louisiana) on 3 kings day (feast of epiphany (catholic) or Theophany (orthodox)). That's January 6th, which remembers when the 3 kings came, quite a bit later than Jesus' birth (unlike in popular depiction). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Nicholas's feast day, like St. Stephen's who the song &quot;Good King Wenceslas&quot; takes place on, is conflated with Christmas for a few good reasons. Namely charity. On St. Nicholas's feast day there is a tradition of children leaving their shoes out for him to come and fill.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The older feast is the feast of the annunciation which apparently goes back to when the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini&quot;&gt;Anno Domini system&lt;/a&gt; was established. It was and is March 25th, and that was the greater of the two feasts in those days. Like the annunciation of Mary and John the Baptist, Jesus' annunciation feast day is 9 months previous to His birth. So, even in 731 there is a tradition of having Christ's birth be celebrated on December 25th.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there's nothing particularly special about the times and seasons of liturgical feasts. They arise through tradition and not through scripture. But the indisputable fact is, it is old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-12-01T18:21:21.463" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T18:21:21.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4775" CreationDate="2011-12-01T21:22:55.557" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to keep the commandments, including the commandment against Adultery (Matthew 19:16–19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commandments against adultery form the basis for the Catholic teaching against homosexual acts and all sexual acts outside of marriage.  These teachings all fall under an explanation of the sixth commadnment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chastity and homosexuality&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that &amp;quot;homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.&amp;quot; They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2357-2359&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adultery may mean many things to many people, but the Church is clearly free to expand on what she considers adultery to encompass and it's perfectly rational that any sex outside of marriage is adultery on account of&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;that person you're having relations with may one day be someone else's bride or husband and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;you may one day be someone else's bride or husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this definition, and since 'homosexual marriage' is a spiritual and physical impossibility, every homosexual act must be adultery, at least in a spiritual sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T17:33:53.293" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4773" CreationDate="2011-12-01T21:46:32.323" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The gifts represent Jesus ministry, death, and resurrection&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Frankincense&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankincense comes from a tree of unusual hardiness--to the point where they have a reputation of growing out of solid rock.  The hardiness of the tree signifies the times of the life of Jesus--that they will be difficult, tumultuous times and that Jesus will grow roots and flourish.  Furthermore, the spice from the tree is used for incense, signifying his priestly role on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Myrrh&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Myrrh was a perfume and a burial spice used in ancient Egypt.  This represented his death that he would have to endure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Gold&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the metal of kings.  This signifies his kingdom that is established after his death.  Furthermore, gold is a metal that does not rust or fade, signifying that his kingdom would be eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that this is the only gift of the three that is a metal signifies that the other two were temporary in nature (his life and his death) while the gold (his kingdom) was eternal in nature.  Gold is eternal in nature compared to the two spices that were gathered from trees and burned or consumed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T21:46:32.323" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1580" CreationDate="2011-12-01T21:46:54.987" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If he did, it would probably have been listed on &lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/fathers/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;newadvent's Patristic writing's page&lt;/a&gt; alongside: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/fathers/1017.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Apocalypse of Paul&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/fathers/0816.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Acts of Paul and Thecla&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/fathers/0815.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Acts of Peter and Paul&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T21:46:54.987" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4775" CreationDate="2011-12-01T21:51:11.027" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jesus did not in fact say that, it doesn't mean that Paul and Christ are in contradiction with one another. Not saying something does not mean acceptance or approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, Jesus has made a stand and voiced opposition against homosexuality. &lt;em&gt;Just not while He was performing his ministry here on earth.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, &lt;strong&gt;Jesus is God&lt;/strong&gt;: John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, Jesus existed before the earth began: John 1:3 - All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, &lt;strong&gt;God said from the beginning that it stands against his law&lt;/strong&gt;: Gen 19:4-11, Lev 18:22.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth, Jesus entered the world not to abolish the law but to fulfill it: Matthew 5:17.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fifth, Paul and the other apostles being filled with the Holy Spirit of Truth would not preach a different gospel than their Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1045" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T01:00:37.317" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T01:00:37.317" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4773" CreationDate="2011-12-01T21:55:36.047" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Traditionally, these gifts are seen representing a variety of things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Gold&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an expensive metal.  This signifies his kinghood.  It's a gift fit for a king and the wise men use it as a gift to signify that they consider Jesus a king.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Frankincense&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incense, to signify his priesthood.  The wise men gave Jesus this gift in order to signify that they believed him to be the high priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Myrrh&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is another spice used as a burial spice.  While Frankincense shows he was a priest and gold shows he was a king, Myrrh prophesies his death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T21:55:36.047" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4775" CreationDate="2011-12-01T21:59:40.537" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are correct in stating that there are no recorded teachings of Jesus on homosexuality.  However, to suggest that this means there is disagreement between Paul and Jesus is unreasonable, since it is comparing something to nothing. &lt;strong&gt;It is certainly wrong to assume that Jesus disagreed with Paul on that just because He never explicitly indicates His agreement -- with Paul and the Law of Moses&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, if Jesus had disagreed with Moses on this, we should expect to hear about it in His teaching. If, however, He agreed with Moses, then why go to great pains to point that out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Jesus was Jewish and lived among Jewish people in a Jewish culture.  This whole culture was based on Mosaic teachings that held that homosexuality was wrong and had a very stiff penalty spelled out for it, much like adultery. People caught in adultery still suffered the possibility of death (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:1-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 8:1-11&lt;/a&gt;). It is quite likely that this was simply not practiced in this culture.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus never taught that eating pork was wrong either, because everyone in that culture agreed with that and no one ate pork. The idea of &quot;preaching to the choir&quot; about getting involved in the church comes to mind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During Jesus' life, Israel was still under the Old Covenant, so the prohibition against eating pork was still in effect. Paul's writings occur in the New Testament, but reaffirm the prohibition of Moses against homosexuality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there's absolutely no &quot;discrepancy&quot;, and any intimation that Jesus supported homosexuality is not reasonable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus &quot;did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt; [Matthew 5:17]&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T15:09:19.253" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T15:09:19.253" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4773" CreationDate="2011-12-01T22:01:48.853" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the gifts themselves have, throughout time, taken on meaning of their own, the wise men were not giving these gifts to signify any particular meaning other than they had at the time that they were given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 2:2 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Gold&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gold is a gift for a king--the metal of kings.  They chose this gift because they came to worship a king.  And gold was the appropriate metal made for a king.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Frankincense&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Jews were a religious people, they brought incense to signify his priestly role as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;King of the Jews&lt;/a&gt;.  They knew that he would be a priest, since any king ruling over Jews would have to be a priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Myrrh&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was a burial spice, yes, but it was also a perfume--a rich, expensive perfume.  The wise men brought this gift not to prophesy his death (he was, after all, just a baby at the time), but as an expensive perfume.  This gift wasn't considered a gift of death at the time, but a gift of fragrances of the wealth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These gifts may have, over time, acquired new meaning.  However, they were not given specifically for any particular meaning.  They were gifts--expensive, rich gifts--meant for a king.  Had they brought other gifts, these other gifts would have gain other meanings over time and we shouldn't read into things too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T22:01:48.853" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4740" CreationDate="2011-12-01T22:06:17.523" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, the Apostles did not go around setting up a high level church hierarchy. As others have stated, Christ is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 4: 1-16). That said, they did set up elders at every church (Acts 14:23) to rule well (1 Timothy 5:17). That is the church structure according to the Bible. Anything else is extra-biblical and please note that I did not state unbliblical. However, I feel that anything else that was beyond what the Apostles had started is unecessary and thus man-made. Anything man-made is likely prone to malfunction or self-serving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1045" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T22:06:17.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4763" CreationDate="2011-12-01T22:11:48.957" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 13:30 and the book of Joel. Search for the word harvest in the Bible. Many references to harvest in the Bible are referring to the separation of weeds and the wheat which represents the difference between the unsaved and the saved during the Lord's Day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1045" LastActivityDate="2011-12-01T22:11:48.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4774" CreationDate="2011-12-02T00:43:05.907" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is not clear, and these questions have never been answered definitively.  the best we can do is repeat the theories of those who have tried to answer this before us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people assume there were three, based on the fact that there are three gifts, but this isn't conclusive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Huffington Post put out an article that examines this question.  It can be found online &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-landau/on-revelation-of-the-magi_b_788238.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It mentions several theories and includes the mention of a piece of Apocrypha called &lt;em&gt;Revelation of the Magi&lt;/em&gt;, which purports to be a the wise men's personal testimony.  Whether it's truly what it claims to be is just as inconclusive as any other answer you're likely to get on this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-18T08:13:38.867" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T08:13:38.867" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4789" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4800" CreationDate="2011-12-02T00:54:46.850" Score="15" ViewCount="14435" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very simple question really. If the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations, so that all of us are born with a sin nature, how can it be that Jesus was born of Mary (a human being), yet sinless?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm from a Protestant (specifically Baptist) background, and would be interested in knowing how we explain it. Most churches have rather vague doctrinal statements that don't address subtle issues like this. So I am wondering if there are any common answers to this issue. Good answers will show that the position proposed is accepted by more than just the poster. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only argument I've beard before is that sin is passed via the seed of man, but I find no Biblical support for this, and it sounds like an artificially constructed argument to oppose some Catholic answers to this question which may require the sinlessness of Mary (which would be contrary to the Bible from the Protestant point of view).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="959" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-07-31T23:39:16.433" LastActivityDate="2015-08-03T12:26:14.170" Title="How have Protestants explained how Jesus could be born of mankind and be sinless?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4789" CreationDate="2011-12-02T01:29:17.910" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's one possible answer to this apparent dilemma &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/04.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  I've heard this repeated on Christian radio stations by protestant preachers from various denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic outline of the answer is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sinful heredity is passed through the blood.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Since Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, there was no corruption from the man.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The blood of a baby in the womb does not come from, nor mix with the mother.  Instead, the embryo itself generates any blood it has.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore, since there was no corruption from the seed of a human father, and no mingling of the blood with the mother, the sinful nature is not passed on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether this is, in fact, the real answer is something that I don't believe we can know for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; rely on is that this is what Scripture teaches: Jesus &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; sinless. The &lt;em&gt;mechanism&lt;/em&gt; by which He is able to be sinless is not central to Christian doctrine for most denominations.  The &lt;em&gt;fact&lt;/em&gt; of His sinlessness is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T12:33:25.707" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4742" CreationDate="2011-12-02T01:49:42.320" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although I'm not Catholic (If I had to I'd consider myself part of the Christian Church) I have friends and family that are Catholic and they have explained to me that the scriptural basis for central church authority comes from Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15-17 where the belief is that Jesus recognised Peter as head of the church on Earth (with Christ being its heavenly head) thus creating a central authority. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From there it is through &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Tradition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sacred Tradition&lt;/a&gt; they consider every pope to be Peter's successor and the rightful superior of all other bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An expanded explanation of Peter being the first pope can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Catholic_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Saint Peter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1019" LastEditorUserId="1019" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T04:04:03.990" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T04:04:03.990" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4789" CreationDate="2011-12-02T01:59:35.737" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Per the Nicene Creed, He was begotten not made. Conceived by the Holy Spirit, but born of the Virgin Mary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that since he was born of woman but not man, as God's son, he did not inherit sin. Catholic doctrine goes further, adding the idea of an immaculate conception - for Mary - that Jesus might be born sinless. ( I know, I always thought that the Immaculate Conception refered to Jesus, but it's really Mary ! )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you're saying, but where is this in the Bible? The answer is that it ain't! The whole idea of inherited sin is theological speculation. It's grounded in Paul talking in Romans 6 when he says, &quot;If sin entered through one man, Adam. ...&quot; and then proceeds to talk about how it is defeated by Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T03:26:20.987" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T03:26:20.987" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4760" CreationDate="2011-12-02T04:26:56.973" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mormons do not believe in creation &lt;em&gt;ex nihilo&lt;/em&gt;, as traditional Christian doctrine does.  So to ask who created the universe in Mormonism is asking the wrong question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, Mormons believe that god arranged pre-existing matter in creation. The matter always existed; creation was an act of organizing the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=100&amp;amp;chapid=1113&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ancient Views of Creation and Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo&lt;/a&gt; by Stephen D Ricks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To these should be added his[Josephs Smith's] powerful rejection of creation ex nihilo (&amp;quot;from nothing&amp;quot;)—according to which doctrine God alone is eternal and uncreated while matter is not—and his affirmation of creation from preexisting matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham 3:24 in the Pearl of Great Price confirms the Latter-day Saint belief in creation from preexisting matter: &amp;quot;And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a clear distinction between the beliefs of Joseph Smith and conventional Christianity. &lt;strong&gt;Mormonism affirms that physical material is eternal and organized by God; conventional Christianity affirms that God is eternal and that He created the physical world out of nothing.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1047" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-07T13:58:42.640" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4795" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4797" CreationDate="2011-12-02T07:36:02.157" Score="16" ViewCount="7200" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just over a decade ago there was much hype in the media about the Toronto Blessing, a phenomenon that began at Toronto Airport Church and subsequently spread from there. What is it? Is it still happening?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-16T12:37:47.153" LastActivityDate="2015-12-16T12:37:47.153" Title="What is the Toronto Blessing?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;charismatic&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4796" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4830" CreationDate="2011-12-02T10:13:27.350" Score="7" ViewCount="95" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some of the more traditional denominations—certainly Catholicism and Anglicanism, to name two—churches or church buildings are named after &quot;saints&quot;. This is in contrast to the more evangelical denominations, where churches are generally either named after their local area (&quot;Mytown Baptist Church&quot; / &quot;Mytown Methodist Church&quot; etc.) or more free-form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do the traditional churches determine which saints to dedicate each congregation/building to? Is it the building or the church itself (the people) that take on the name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-11-02T14:26:39.753" LastActivityDate="2017-11-02T14:26:39.753" Title="Who determines church dedications?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;anglicanism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4795" CreationDate="2011-12-02T13:05:20.060" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Toronto Blessing is described as a &quot;Revival&quot;. The term &quot;revival&quot; means different things to different denominations, and can even mean the different things within a denomination.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the term describes an outpouring of the Holy Spirit from a Charismatic point of view.  The Toronto Blessing consisted of signs accepted by Charismatics as evidence of the Holy Spirit's blessing, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.burningbush.sg/ccr/restingspirit.htm&quot;&gt;Falling and resting in the Spirit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/holylaugh.htm&quot;&gt;Holy Laughter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shaking and Crying&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crunching (a vomit-like heaving to &quot;cleanse&quot; and &quot;release&quot; negative experiences)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Others&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These events drew controversy, of course, centered around the usual arguments over the Charismatic definition of &quot;Gifts of the Spirit&quot; with one side claiming that this was clear evidence of God's hand at work, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/char/more/bless.htm&quot;&gt;others&lt;/a&gt; claiming that it's self-centered, emotionalism, demonic, and all of the other charges that Churches that don't believe in these charismatic gifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Blessing&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Toronto blessing began at the Airport church when pastors John and&#xA;  Carol Arnott were inspired by a revival in Argentina led by Claudio&#xA;  Freidzen and in South Africa.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/holylaugh.htm&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; They invited Randy Clark of St.&#xA;  Louis, Missouri to minister at the church in January 1994. Randy Clark&#xA;  had been influenced by the ministry of Rodney Howard-Browne, a South&#xA;  African preacher, founder of the Rodney Howard-Browne Evangelistic&#xA;  Association in Louisville, Kentucky, and the earliest known proponent&#xA;  of the &quot;holy laughter&quot; revival phenomenon. Clark preached at the&#xA;  Airport church for two months starting January 20 and introduced some&#xA;  of Howard-Browne's approach into TACF practice.   In that first&#xA;  revival service, there were about 120 people in attendance. Arnott&#xA;  recalled that most members fell on the floor &quot;laughing, rolling, and&#xA;  carrying on&quot;.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/holylaugh.htm&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; During that first year, the church's size tripled to&#xA;  1,000 members and meetings were held every night except on Mondays as&#xA;  the revival's influence spread. Reports of similar revivals emerged&#xA;  from Atlanta, Anaheim, Saint Louis, several Canadian sites, Cambodia,&#xA;  and Albania. It was common for visitors to carry the influence of the&#xA;  revival back to their home congregations – two notable British cases&#xA;  in point being Holy Trinity, Brompton and Holy Trinity, Cheltenham.&#xA;  Areas that have become known for Toronto Blessing type revivals&#xA;  worldwide include Pensacola, Florida, home of the Brownsville Revival,&#xA;  and Bath, England.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship claims that this continues, and  Churches across the globe claim similar events to this day. The Toronto Airport Christian fellowship changed their name, and of course, they have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catchthefire.com/?redir=tacf/&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt; (apparently with video of these events), so that you can see it from their perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T13:11:18.200" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T13:11:18.200" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4789" CreationDate="2011-12-02T13:11:44.093" Score="-6" Body="&lt;p&gt;He was sinless because he was born of a virgin. In other words, he was not born of sexual desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 51:5&lt;/strong&gt; Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother&#xA;  conceive me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No matter how perfect a life lived, we were all born &quot;the wrong way&quot;. Instead of being born from God (like Jesus was), we came into the world by sexual desire, a process started in the garden of Eden when Eve disobeyed God's word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:6-7&lt;/strong&gt; That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is&#xA;  born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, &lt;em&gt;Ye&#xA;  must be born again&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because we were conceived in sin, the perfect antidote had to be conceived without sin (born without sexual desire, i.e. a virgin birth), paving the way for us to be reborn, but this time not by the flesh, but by the Spirit of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was sinless because He was born of God, not of man. Joseph and Mary had nothing to do with his conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mathew 1:18&lt;/strong&gt; Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as&#xA;  his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, &lt;em&gt;she&#xA;  was found with child of the Holy Ghost&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 1:20&lt;/strong&gt; But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel&#xA;  of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of&#xA;  David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: &lt;em&gt;for that which is&#xA;  conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T13:11:44.093" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4706" CreationDate="2011-12-02T13:15:20.850" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a theologian but my understanding is that what's &quot;new&quot; is the move away from the traditional reformed view of justification by works vs. by faith. Wright does not deny this but believes that the traditional view misunderstands and oversimplifies what Paul meant, taking &quot;works&quot; to mean any human effort or action. Wright, I think, sees these &quot;works&quot; in terms of the things that established covenant membership (primarily circumcision). So the &quot;new&quot; view includes that Paul's works-faith dichotomy means something more like &quot;belonging to God's people is not only for the Jews but for everyone.&quot; I could be all wrong though!&#xA;See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/vyir3N&quot;&gt;series on JesusCreed about the New Perspective&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1050" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T13:17:49.633" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T13:17:49.633" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4789" CreationDate="2011-12-02T13:20:50.003" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is very clear that Jesus did not begin to exist in the womb of Mary.  As the Second Person of the Trinity, He exists outside of the physical universe of time, space, and matter and with the Father and Spirit created the physical world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is holy, was holy, and will always be holy... and sinless and righteous and pure and blameless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Mary conceived, the eternal Son of God became flesh and entered into the physical universe.  That act did not require that He become sinful.  He retained His holiness, as He is the same yesterday, today and forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His being born of a virgin is an important part of this, of course.  The doctrine indicates that without a human father, Jesus did not inherit the sin nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When He was born, He was given the name of Jesus (The Lord saves) because He Himself was the Lord who was saving His people from their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T15:44:06.093" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T15:44:06.093" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4801" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4816" CreationDate="2011-12-02T14:57:56.153" Score="9" ViewCount="9888" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really am torn sometimes when having the kids in my Religious Ed. class read scripture, on the one hand we've got the &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0884898628&quot;&gt;Catholic Good News Translation from St. Mary's Press&lt;/a&gt; (Breakthrough Bible) which they don't stumble over and has nice pictures and everything. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And on the other hand we've got the old crusty falling apart &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0899429505&quot;&gt;St. Joseph's New American Bible&lt;/a&gt; which is not particularly archaic in language, but definitely less readable and absorbable for the short time I've got the kids.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem I have with the GNT is that it doesn't sound like Mass, so when I say &quot;Blessed are the meek&quot; and the bible says, &quot;Happy are the meek&quot; I've got to do some explaining.  Namely I need to explain how happy and blessed coalesce. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only problem is, I don't believe that happy and blessed do coalesce, at least not on earth. As Our Lady said to St. Bernadette at Lourdes, &quot;I can't make you happy in this life, but I can in the next&quot;.  At that moment, she was blessed, she still died a painful and tragic death at a young age, but she was blessed - and maybe happy, but not happy as the world knows it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why even use the word &quot;Happy&quot; to describe being &quot;Blessed&quot; isn't this a complete misnomer or do the transliterators expect everyone reading to understand this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and furthermore, how does happy = blessed and how does blessed = happy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-12-02T16:16:07.973" LastActivityDate="2020-10-14T21:20:17.690" Title="What is the difference between being blessed and being happy?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2020-10-14T23:06:15.890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4802" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4811" CreationDate="2011-12-02T15:36:17.290" Score="5" ViewCount="1092" Body="&lt;p&gt;Following-up to these &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2666/69&quot;&gt;previous&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4772/69&quot;&gt;questions&lt;/a&gt;, why do some traditions &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; celebrate the birth and death (or, more accurately, His resurrection) of Christ as &quot;official&quot; church &quot;events&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that celebrating the Communion Table is a celebration of Jesus death - but why not celebrate His birth and resurrection, too, in a &quot;special&quot; way (ie beyond just celebrating His resurrection every Sunday by that being the the church comes together for worship)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2019-12-26T22:59:45.203" Title="Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;easter&gt;&lt;celebrations&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4803" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-02T16:02:26.793" Score="14" ViewCount="17668" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that I once heard that &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Quakers&lt;/a&gt; are pacifists, but I'm not sure if that's just a rumor or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Quaker doctrine regarding war and killing people as a soldier in the military?  If they think it is wrong, what is the biblical basis for this belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, do their beliefs extend to being a soldier in the military under any capacity (such as a chaplain, for example)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-28T11:08:41.877" LastActivityDate="2017-11-27T02:48:37.147" Title="What do Quakers believe about war and serving in the military?" Tags="&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;war&gt;&lt;pacifism&gt;&lt;society-of-friends&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4804" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6154" CreationDate="2011-12-02T18:10:53.237" Score="2" ViewCount="681" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/iC56P.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been told &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Kierkegaard&lt;/a&gt; suggested that worship be a form of theater where the congregants are actors and pastors are directors.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worshipandchurchmusic.com/kierkegaard.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; is the only on-line reference I could find, does anyone have a link to a more authoritative source for this?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kierkegaard is regarded as an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Existentialist&lt;/a&gt;.  Existentialists stress the importance of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Authenticity_and_inauthenticity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Authenticity&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone please explain how it would be possible to worship authentically if a worshiper is merely acting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1051" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T01:23:33.517" Title="How to reconcile Kierkegaard's model of worship with Existential authenticity?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4801" CreationDate="2011-12-02T18:13:57.417" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ah, the nuances of language.  Interestingly enough, dictionary.com defines blessed as &quot;Made Holy; Consecrated&quot; but then lists a synonym as &quot;Happy.&quot;  I would proclaim that if you are &quot;Holy&quot; you will indeed be happy.  Though, if you are happy, that in no way means you are Holy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have the same problems you do when trying to equate blessed with happy.  Though I would venture that if you can manage to follow the beatitudes, you will indeed be happy and content because you've managed to rid yourself of worry, angst, strife, and greed.  If I could get rid of all of that in my life, I think I would be a very happy person and feel blessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="626" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T18:13:57.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4789" CreationDate="2011-12-02T18:41:02.600" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you consider the original sin to be an figure to represent that we, humans, are disconnected from God's will by having our own will, and behaving on our own purpose instead of God's, then the original sin has nothing to with the physiological details on which a person was created (i.e. human blood heritage, male semen, sexual intercourse, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can decouple the notion of original sin from physical aspects, and see it as an spiritual condition, the idea that Jesus is the impersonated face of God and never deviates of God's plan (even in face of death, Lc 22,42 &quot;Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.&quot;) can easily be regarded as the lack of original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every man and woman on earth inherit the original sin because no man and woman on earth had or will ever have the same full connection Jesus had with God. And Christ baptism frees us from it because there are not our sins that matters, but our good deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am very reluctant to accept such elaborated logic-dogmatic explanation to this problem, such as the catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception (and I am catholic), or that there is no corruption of man semen so there is no sin. The problem with these explanations is that they build meaningless reasoning chains on concepts that should purely spiritual, and deviates from the real meaning of the figure of Adam's sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1052" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T18:41:02.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4309" CreationDate="2011-12-02T20:26:02.527" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look carefully, this Mark passage talks about Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was a siege in Jerusalem on year 70 A.D., led by the Roman emperor Titus. In this siege the city was sacked and the Temple was completely destroyed. If Jesus said that at 33 A.D., less tan 40 yeas had passed since, what is a good timing for &quot;this generation&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the suffering the Jewish people would bear during this Jewish–Roman War would be mistaken as the end of times, but Jesus assured Peter, James, John and Andrew, in the passage, that those would be hard times, but necessary and yet not the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering this passage on the context of Siege of Jerusalem (70 AD) and the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 AD), this looks pretty much like fulfilled prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I disagree with the explanation that depends on the wrong interpretation of &quot;this people&quot; as &quot;this generation&quot;. This is so because the disciples specifically asked for a timing in Mc 13,4 of the specific destruction Jesus mentioned in Mc 13,2. Jesus then briefs the events of a future hard time (that might well be a war), then talks about the glory of the Son of Man (glory of Christianity), and finally gives the timing the disciples asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1052" LastActivityDate="2011-12-02T20:26:02.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4774" CreationDate="2011-12-02T22:32:01.173" Score="9" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Persia is the city called Saveh, from which the three Magi set out when they came to worship Jesus Christ. Here, too, they lie buried in three sepulchres of great size and beauty. Above each sepulchre is a square building with a domed roof of very fine workmanship. The one is just beside the other. Their bodies are still whole, and they have hair and beards. One was named Beltasar, the second Gaspar, and the third Melchior. Messer Marco asked several of the inhabitants who these Magi were; but no one could tell him anything except that they were three kings who were buried there in days gone by. ... Let me tell you finally that one of the three Magi was from Saveh, one from Hawah, and the third from Kashan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Marco Polo The Travels: The Travels of Marco Polo&lt;/em&gt;, Translated and with an Introduction By Ronald Latham, Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, England, UK, 1976. pp. 58-60.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is believed they were from Hecatompylos (now Damghan: DaiMogan: convent of Mogi) the capital city of Parthians. But Marco Polo cites three different cities. It is correct since Mogi in Parthians time were part of the ruling class and used to convene in a Mogistan at the capital from far and near cities. Mogistan had the role of advisory parliament for Parthian kings and had a mixture of aristocracy and priests. So three Mogi could be priests or princes or barons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="748" LastEditorUserId="748" LastEditDate="2011-12-08T12:20:32.033" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T12:20:32.033" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4773" CreationDate="2011-12-02T23:49:39.560" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The inhabitants [of a certain Persian town] declare that in days gone by three kings of this country went to worship a new-born prophet and took with them three offerings – gold, frankincense, and myrrh – so as to discover whether this prophet was a god, or an earthly king or a healer. For they said: &amp;quot;If he takes gold, he is an earthly king; if frankincense, a god; if myrrh, a healer.&amp;quot; ... The child took all three offerings...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B00HL4GESU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Travels of Marco Polo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, translated and with an introduction by Ronald Latham, Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, England, UK, 1976. page 59.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shows that He was all three: king, god, and healer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="748" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-12-30T11:55:01.287" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4802" CreationDate="2011-12-03T01:52:56.943" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas because of the pagan origins of many of our current customs.  They cover this in several articles on their site.  A search of their site returns many. They also reject several other holidays, citing similar reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several other denominations have similar beliefs, and even within denominations that largely celebrate holidays, there are those with &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;personal convictions&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; about various aspects of holidays and refuse to celebrate to one degree or another.  It's not always a traditional boundary, since most denominations agree that Christianity isn't about rules and regulations, but rather about a relationship with Christ, and His saving grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a couple of personal examples, I come from a Baptist Church, and most of us celebrate Christmas, have Christmas trees, etc.  However, there are some in my own Church that refuse to have the trees.  I personally don't like telling the kids about Santa Claus because I don't want them questioning whether they can trust me to tell the truth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note, that last paragraph was included as an example of personal convictions, not an endorsement or indictment of any person's choice to celebrate in whatever way they see fit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2019-12-26T20:32:49.610" LastActivityDate="2019-12-26T20:32:49.610" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4742" CreationDate="2011-12-03T07:39:30.180" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Support for central authority and organization is not strongly evident in the gospels, possibly because they were written with the purpose of telling the story of Christ and not the purpose of establishing the church. We do see a lot of evidence of a church organization in the book of Acts. As the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; that DJClayworth linked to points out, Paul's later epistles are laden with references to church organization because organizing the church was an important concern of his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are three NT passages that can be interpreted to support church authority and organization:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%206:13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 6:13 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:19-22&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 2:19-22 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2014:23&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 14:23 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A central church authority is a necessary byproduct of believing that certain ordinances are necessary for salvation. Ordinances often have rules for who can be administered to as well as how it must be done. Church authority is a very orderly and efficient way to regulate those requirements. The Old Testament is an excellent example of this. Notice that churches who put more emphasis on ordinances also have more structure (Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS churches, as well as the Jewish faith). And it's not just a good way to regulate the ordinances, but also a good way to regulate doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more on the Catholic views, I would read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; referenced earlier by DJClayworth from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Its dense, but its thorough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS Church has lists of scriptures that they believe support church &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/priesthood-authority?lang=eng&quot;&gt;authority&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/church-organization?lang=eng&quot;&gt;organization&lt;/a&gt;. As expected, some references are from the Book of Mormon and other extra-biblical canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2011-12-03T07:39:30.180" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4814" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4838" CreationDate="2011-12-03T08:07:46.783" Score="12" ViewCount="2249" Body="&lt;p&gt;While reading about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin&quot;&gt;original sin&lt;/a&gt;, I often read that the Catholic and Orthodox churches disagree on the doctrine of original sin. But as far as I can tell, they both reject the idea that mankind inherited sin from Adam and believe that mankind only inherited the fallen nature. The only differences I see are in terminology. What am I missing? How are their views on original sin different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-24T21:25:19.037" LastActivityDate="2015-09-24T21:25:19.037" Title="How do the Catholic and Orthodox views of original sin differ?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;original-guilt&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4801" CreationDate="2011-12-03T16:44:47.517" Score="11" Body="&lt;h3&gt;The root senses of the words&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you have noticed, English has changed a lot since the first translations were made.  Now, the original meaning of 'blessed', according to the etymology, is 'consecrated', but it started to pick up a second meaning—over time it started to sound like more like the word 'bliss', and so, following on the idea of being consecrated, the idea of blissfulness or happiness was added to it. (This is explained at &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blessed&quot;&gt;dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt;.  For another example of how unrelated words can influence each other's senses, compare how the word 'niggardly' came to be politically incorrect.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may also be instructive to look at the meaning of 'happy' in the past.  The word '&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happy&quot;&gt;happy&lt;/a&gt;' comes from the word '&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hap&quot;&gt;hap&lt;/a&gt;', meaning what happens by chance. The words '&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mishap&quot;&gt;mishap&lt;/a&gt;' and '&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happen&quot;&gt;happen&lt;/a&gt;' itself are related; the former is a bad chance occurrence, and the latter is what just happens to occur.  The root meaning of 'happy' thus is what we might describe as 'lucky' or 'fortunate'—as the familiar saying goes, &quot;happiness is based on happenstance&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we do not strongly associate the idea of good luck with 'happy' today, the association was stronger in the past, so the translators of the time may have preferred not to use it here, though people who wrote dictionaries would use it to specify when they said 'blessed' that they mean this sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Which sense is actually meant?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can find out by looking at the original language.  While English uses 'bless' for both the idea of consecration and the idea of happiness, Greek has two different words: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Deu%29loge%2Fw&quot;&gt;εὐλογέω&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;eulogeō&lt;/em&gt;) is to bless as in to consecrate, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Dmaka%2Frios&quot;&gt;μακάριος&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;macarios&lt;/em&gt;) is happy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&amp;amp;version=SBLGNT&quot;&gt;the original Greek of the beatitudes&lt;/a&gt;, 'μακάριος' is used. So indeed the sense of happiness is intended here; Jesus is talking about the future happiness of people who are not traditionally considered to be happy, not the future consecration of people who are not traditionally considered to be consecrated.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(In Latin likewise there are two different words -- &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext:1999.04.0059%3aentry=benedico&quot;&gt;benedico&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; is to bless as in to consecrate, and &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext:1999.04.0060%3aentry=beatus&quot;&gt;beatus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; is happy.  It is from the latter that we get the name 'beatitudes'.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;But 'happy' is different from 'blessed' somehow&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as you say, you &quot;don't believe that happy and blessed do coalesce, at least not on earth&quot;.  You have reason to say this, but this is less about the meaning of the words and more about their associations.  The idea of 'blessed' happiness is strongly tied to the religious idea whose name it shares and so we tend to use the word only in religious contexts or with religious feeling -- and because we make it a religious idea, we tend to think about it more and realize that &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; happiness is not of or in this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because 'happy' has no such religious association, we tend to use it more lightly and don't think of it in such a way.  But the idea is still in the word; one may see it when we are talking about happiness in a philosophical but non-religious way, as when we speak of the saying of Solon, &quot;call no man happy till he is dead&quot;—the original Greek for the 'happy' here is also of the same root as μακάριος. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;So why change 'blessed' to 'happy' in the translation?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's true that 'blessed' already has more of the connotations that one would want in this text.  But, especially for those not raised to religious terminology, the word is kind of obscure — and without use in a variety of contexts, it's hard for people to learn what a word means; the meaning tends to get muddled.  By updating 'blessed' to 'happy'—which we can do now that 'happy' no longer means 'lucky'—we at once make the original idea more accessible, and hopefully stimulate in the word 'happy' the kind of thinking about happiness we have already done when using the word 'blessed'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2011-12-03T16:44:47.517" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4706" CreationDate="2011-12-03T19:52:04.557" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the &quot;new&quot; perspective belief is accurate, then the actual answer is &quot;nothing&quot;. The New Perspective on Paul attempts to get back to the original intent of Paul's letters by explaining the issues he was addressing when he wrote them.  The movement asserts that our current teachings and understanding of his letters are based on a misunderstanding of the original intent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The perspective is &quot;new&quot; only in the sense that a used car can be referred to as &quot;my new car&quot; to the person who just bought it.  It's new to the current audience, but really, it's not new at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difficulty in answering how it compares to the &quot;old&quot; perspective (and the reason I think the question stayed unanswered for so long) is that there's a lack of agreement on what the &quot;old&quot; perspective is.  Consider the following stances that varying disciplines take on salvation, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some hold that you must be a member of the &quot;one true Church&quot;, and that you must meet certain requirements for salvation - Not breaking commandments, keeping Church ordinances, being confirmed, or having hands laid upon you by an elder, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some don't necessarily believe in &quot;one true Church&quot;, but still believe in what some would call a &quot;works-based&quot; salvation.  You must meet certain requirements of partake in certain ordinances to be saved. (Baptism, for example).&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Among these, many would argue that their beliefs are not works-based at all, but instead, obeying the ordinances are a sign of obedience, and are not &quot;works&quot; at all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe in salvation by Grace alone - but that you can lose your salvation if you turn away from God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe in salvation by faith alone and that you cannot lose your salvation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe that the apparent loss of salvation is a sign that the person was never really saved in the first place.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe that we can come to God of our own free will, and that man is not totally corrupt.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Others believe that man is totally corrupt, and only those that God chooses can be saved, and those people are irrevocably saved - they  have no choice, and will be saved no matter what.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to compare the &quot;new&quot; perspective to the &quot;old&quot; perspective, you need to ask &lt;em&gt;which&lt;/em&gt; &quot;old&quot; perspective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At best, the New Perspective, from what I've been reading since you posted the question is that it merely lends support for an existing perspective - tat you must be within the fold, and your good works are a sign that you are in the fold.  It's a combination of several of the above beliefs into one , &lt;em&gt;possibly&lt;/em&gt; new, doctrinal stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is perhaps over-simplified, but in essence, the &quot;new perspective&quot; results in the following theological stance on salvation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation is by faith alone (as long as you're performing the good works necessary to remain in the covenant)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation cannot be lost (so long as you're performing the good works necessary to remain in the covenant)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-05T02:27:59.340" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T02:27:59.340" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4742" CreationDate="2011-12-04T00:15:34.180" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A central church authority can restore order when leaders of local congregations step out of line. We see an early example of this in the church in Antioch:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, &quot;Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.&quot; And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. &amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+15:1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostles and elders considered the matter, and sent instructions back to Antioch:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members  and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, with the following letter: &quot;The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers  of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled  and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.&quot; &amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+15:22-29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:22-29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The letter settled the dispute:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So they were sent off and went down to Antioch. When they gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. When its members  read it, they rejoiced at the exhortation. &amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+15:30-31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:30-31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul and Barnabas did not have enough authority on their own to combat the heresies of this group that had infiltrated their church. Leaving each congregation to its own resources would have been disastrous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-12-04T00:15:34.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4819" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4820" CreationDate="2011-12-04T10:57:25.843" Score="10" ViewCount="1095" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lately I heard that, as an inhabitant of ancient Israel, it is more likely that Jesus had dark skin and probably had hair that was a little curly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is it that illustrations always show him with blond hair and blue eyes, and how did he really look? Also, I know that, for believing in him, his appearance doesn't really matter, but it still interests me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1055" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-04-18T09:10:08.180" LastActivityDate="2018-04-18T13:19:53.697" Title="Are the images of Jesus drawn with blond hair and blue eyes correct?" Tags="&lt;art&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-04-20T18:15:41.757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4819" CreationDate="2011-12-04T13:53:17.280" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was an interesting show years ago to find out what Jesus looked like, and he would be darker skinned than he is depicted for a couple of obvious reasons, one being that due to his origin from a group that lived in a desert-like region, and the fact that he was a carpenter meant that he worked outside a great deal, so he would be tanned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the fact that we show Jesus as white is due to our familiarity with it, I remember visiting a black friend when I was a child and he had pictures of a black Jesus and a black Santa, and that struck me as wrong (I was probably 7 at the time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information you can look at this article, as they have an approximate picture and more details as to how it was decided that how Jesus may have looked: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Real Face Of Jesus - Advances in forensic science reveal the most famous face in history.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-10T15:17:16.447" LastActivityDate="2016-11-10T15:17:16.447" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4821" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4823" CreationDate="2011-12-05T00:40:58.263" Score="3" ViewCount="2013" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know a lot of people who have very strong views against Catholics and was really starting to wonder, just as the title suggests, other than Catholicism having priests, what differences are there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1058" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-12-05T00:47:44.627" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T15:02:09.247" Title="Is there any real significant difference between Protestantism and Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4821" CreationDate="2011-12-05T04:26:27.820" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question makes the assumption that &quot;Protestantism&quot; is easily defined, and can easily be compared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Protestant&quot; simply means &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant#Protestant_doctrines&quot;&gt;Not Catholic or Orthodox&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, and could refer to one of hundreds of different denominations, all with subtle and not-so-subtle differences in beliefs.  Some hold doctrine that is similar to Catholic doctrine, and some that is vastly different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a comparison chart of Catholic to Protestant views &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, but as I said in the above paragraph, on the Protestant side, there are a wide range of beliefs, and this chart only shows one particular protestant view.  (Glancing at it, it appears to be a Calvinistic point of view.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An entire book could be written on this subject alone, but some differences include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In general, Protestant Churches adhere to the concepts of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide&quot;&gt;Sola Fide&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura&quot;&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/a&gt;.  These are probably the biggest differentiating beliefs, but even they are not universall held by protestant denominations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Catholic Church includes Apocryphal writings as part of their accepted Scripture.  This includes a few extra books to the Bible, and two extra chapters to the Book of Daniel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Catholic Church accepts the concept of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory&quot;&gt;Purgatory&lt;/a&gt;, which is almost universally rejected in protestant denominations.  The same can be said for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation&quot;&gt;Transubstantiation&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences&quot;&gt;indulgences&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/Pray_to_Saints.htm&quot;&gt;prayer to saints&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession#Catholicism&quot;&gt;confession to a Priest&lt;/a&gt; rather than direct confession to God through prayer, and a host of other teachings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, your question can be answered as &quot;yes, there are some significant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism&quot;, but the difference varies based on which Protestant denomination you're referring to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-05T06:14:07.130" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T06:14:07.130" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4824" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4827" CreationDate="2011-12-05T07:40:14.567" Score="1" ViewCount="2095" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question for people who believe in the creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One point considered a serious proof of evolution is the scientific method of carbon dating. As per this method, humans haven't existed from the beginning of the creation of the earth (as per age of discovered human skeletons). However many other species like Apes and have existed before human beings and a species whose skeleton looks partly ape and partly human has been discovered, which existed before humans as well. Humans began to appear around the same time this species seemed to go extinct. Isn't this a proof for evolution? Or at least a proof that creationism does not exist? (Since Humans and animals were created within a span of 7 days according to the bible.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In what ways do creationist Christians generally handle these claims?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1057" LastEditorUserId="1057" LastEditDate="2011-12-05T13:25:08.357" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T13:40:04.360" Title="How do Creationist Christians respond to the evidence for Evolution?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-12-06T02:20:27.837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4824" CreationDate="2011-12-05T11:57:17.330" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the best way for a Creationist Christian to respond to &lt;em&gt;claims&lt;/em&gt; of evolution is to step back and examine the broader assertion as to whether evolution is possible. I believe that a Creationist Christian can take the moral and scientific high ground by using the scientific method to lessen the scientific claims of evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found Stephen C. Meyer's &lt;em&gt;Signature in the Cell&lt;/em&gt; to be an excellent resource and reference. Meyers goes through a series of easy-to-follow examples (a cheater at a roulette wheel, words built from Scrabble tiles, a combination lock) as well as some more challenging examples (such as the chance of a molecule mutating into a useful amino acid, given that the entire universe is working on that single problem). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meyers comes to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is the best hypothesis that fits the data, and uses scientific thinking to undermine the very roots of evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a mass media resource (funny and accessible) rent or show the movie &lt;em&gt;Expelled: No intelligence allowed&lt;/em&gt;. It draws some of the same conclusions and has some pointed moments in interviews with evolutionists when they say ridiculous things (e.g., life evolved on the backs of crystals). From the editing, a thoughtful skeptic would say that the evolutionist doesn't believe it himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to a pointed question about carbon dating, I would point to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cambrian explosion&lt;/a&gt; and note how many life forms appeared during this period. I would ask the evolutionist what evolutionary mechanism could have been the cause for this explosion of life forms. They will probably answer &quot;punctuated equilibrium&quot; or some variation, as described by Stephen Gould. Then, refer to chapter 19 of Meyer's book (&quot;Sauce for the Goose&quot;) where he politely, firmly, and thoroughly dismisses Gould's notions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="568" LastEditorUserId="568" LastEditDate="2011-12-05T14:57:04.687" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T14:57:04.687" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4824" CreationDate="2011-12-05T12:53:41.143" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quite frankly, there are several viewpoints on this.  There is no one answer to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some Christians see evolution as a complete non-issue (but you asked specifically about creationists, so this group is outside of the scope of our desired answer).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some hold what are sometimes called &quot;compromise positions&quot; by young-earth creationists, such as the Day-Age theory or the Gap Theory.  Each of these theories explains an old earth while allowing for a semi-literal interpretation of the Genesis account:  The Gap Theory by indicating that there's a &quot;gap&quot; between creation and Genesis and the Day-Age theory by explaining the days in Genesis as &quot;time periods&quot; rather than literal days.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Others - literal young-earth creationists see flaws in the arguments and have specific arguments about the accuracy of the methods used to date the universe as old, and point to other evidences that could indicate a young earth.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer this fully would be too big an answer for this forum, but if you're really interested in how young earth creationists explain these things, a good resource you might consider is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org&quot;&gt;http://www.icr.org&lt;/a&gt; (The Institute for Creation Research)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also have articles that explain the gap and day-age theories, but they absolutely hold to the young-earth creationist view.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the  partly man/partly ape skeletons, both the young and old earth creationist camps happily point to several examples of &quot;human ancestors&quot; that turned out to be mistaken identity or outright fraud.  (Nebraska man, Java Man, and Piltdown man all come to mind off  the top of my head.)  They ask, &quot;If these were accepted as human ancestors, and have been shown to be false, why would we automatically assume that the current &quot;ancestors&quot; are to be trusted.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, there's a range of beliefs, and not all creationists agree on every specific point or example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-06T01:33:29.100" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T01:33:29.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4824" CreationDate="2011-12-05T14:02:10.263" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Carbon-14 dating does give ages that are incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible.  The question, then, is whether or not Carbon-14 is giving us valid data.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few assumptions used in Carbon-14 dating:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The rate of C-14 decay (half-life) has always been the same. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The C-14/C-12 ratio in the Biosphere (equilibrium) has remained constant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The specimen was in equilibrium with the Biosphere when buried. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The specimen had not gained any carbon since it was buried. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Today, we can measure the correct C-14/C-12 ratio in the specimen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If any of these assumptions is invalid, then the dates we get from Carbon-14 dating would be inaccurate and completely irrelevant to the discussion.  Any reasonable person should admit this.  The onus is then on those who accept all of the assumptions as true without proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it turns out, there is evidence that the rate of decay has not always been constant, and there is also evidence that the C-14/C-12 ratio is still not in equilibrium.  So, if that's the case, Carbon-14 dates should be considered inadmissible in the court as evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Propounding the difficulties is the fact that when multiple dating methods are used on the same specimen, wildly different results are found.  For instance, if the Carbon-14 test gives a date of 50,000 years, but the Uranium-Lead test gives 100,000 years, and the Potassium-Argon test gives 200,000 years, the question is often asked which one is accurate.  Yet, why should we say any of them are accurate with such extreme inconsistency?  Even if the 100,000 year date fits into what was expected, it doesn't mean it's correct.  If all the dating methods consistently returned results within 1-3% of each other, that would be significant, but that is not the case at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a professor gave a specimen to his students to date, and he used one method and each of the students used a different method, the professor would give each of them an &quot;F&quot; on the assignment, because they would differ that much from the result the professor himself got.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, creationists just simply respond to the Carbon-14 evidence with a request for proof that all of the assumptions used are actually true, and we also ask for an explanation of why multiple dating methods disagree so much with each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, we would probably point to some of the many evidences for creationism, such as the earth's decreasing magnetic field, the departing moon, the presence of meteorites, the continued rotation of the earth, the 2nd law of thermodynamics... and a million other things.  In any discussion on such things, the evolutionist and creationist should both split their time defending and presenting evidence.  Too many times creationists are forced into only countering so-called evidence for evolution, and the evolutionist never has to answer anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that's how a creationist would answer such evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-12-12T13:40:04.360" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T13:40:04.360" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4828" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4836" CreationDate="2011-12-05T14:42:11.553" Score="10" ViewCount="620" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the LDS Church teaches that the Book of Mormon was written on gold plates in a language called &quot;Reformed Egyptian&quot;.  According to the LDS Church, what did Joseph Smith use and how exactly did he translate the Book of Mormon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T04:47:25.053" LastActivityDate="2016-04-09T22:22:33.877" Title="According to the LDS Church (Mormons), how specifically did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;&lt;translation&gt;&lt;joseph-smith&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2011-12-05T14:47:03.120" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are misunderstanding the point being made in the article linked to. The 'drama' description is being used as an analogy to what people are doing in the worship service, not to whether they are 'pretending'.  In other words some people are 'directors' (telling others what to do) some are 'actors' (doing stuff) and some are 'audience' (watching stuff being done). When they talk about people being 'actors' they don't mean they have to pretend - it means they have to do stuff rather than just watch (that's the original meaning of the word actor - one who takes action).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point being made on the web page, and presumably by Kierkegaard (though there isn't any reference to back it up), is that there are churches where the congregation are mere audience - watching what is happening without taking any part. He believes this is wrong, and that the congregation should take an active part in the worship. It doesn't mean they have to 'pretend'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T14:47:03.120" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4796" CreationDate="2011-12-05T14:54:37.180" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The denominations that dedicate their churches in this fashion tend to be those with a more centralized structure. As far as I know the decisions are usually made by consultation between the local congregation and the church authorities. I've been part of one Anglican church where the choice of a name was clearly that of the congregation, with the approval of the central authorities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other organizations can also have an input. I was part of one congregation where the choice of name was vetoed (or at least recommended against) by the Fire Department, on the grounds that there was already a church with that name in the town, and the fire trucks might be dispatched to the wrong one. In this specific case &quot;Saint Luke&quot; was the preferred name, since the church was to share a building with a medical centre (St. Luke was a doctor). However in the end &quot;Saint Francis&quot; was chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-12-18T19:18:44.627" LastActivityDate="2011-12-18T19:18:44.627" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4775" CreationDate="2011-12-05T15:19:33.147" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus talked about marriage, and reiterated that it is between a man and a woman. So if you go just on Jesus' words, you know homosexual marriage is a sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1060" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T15:19:33.147" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4819" CreationDate="2011-12-05T15:37:48.850" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there has been speculation that the face of Jesus that we see depicted in art is not how Jesus actually looked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, while &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The Real Face of Jesus&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; is based on educated guesses, they are still that: guesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Historic artistic depictions of Jesus&lt;/a&gt; didn't really come around until a few centuries after his death.  Obviously, the artists at that time couldn't have known Jesus personally, nor have heard about a detailed description of him handed down.  Clearly, they based their perceptions of Jesus on speculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are people who have (or claim to, at least) seen Jesus personally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vast majority of Christians accept that Jesus is alive and well, and that he is divine.  As such, appearing to modern-day people here on Earth is not outside of the realm of possibility.  No one who has ever claimed to see Jesus has ever discounted the traditional rendition of him &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most amazing stories of a first-hand witness is that of Akiane. What's most amazing isn't &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; that she witnessed Jesus, but that she is also a divinely gifted artist, who undertook the task of painting the image of Jesus that she saw.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/KIuxI.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This is Akiane's vision of Jesus.&lt;/a&gt;  (If that ever breaks, just do an image search for &amp;quot;Akiane Jesus&amp;quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, this depiction of Jesus was confirmed by an unrelated boy, who &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0849946158&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;also claims to have seen Jesus&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one can claim to know what Jesus looked like unless they have actually seen him.  The vast majority of artists have &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; seen Jesus.  Therefore, we can safely presume that the vast majority of artistic renditions of him are simply guesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This includes--and especially applies to--the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The Real Face of Jesus&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'm sticking with the depiction of the artist who &lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/KIuxI.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;actually saw Jesus&lt;/a&gt; that was confirmed by someone who is an &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0849946158&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;independent witness&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T15:37:48.850" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4821" CreationDate="2011-12-05T15:51:25.917" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4823/4&quot;&gt;David Stratton pointed out&lt;/a&gt; a few of the differences. A very good answer, but missing a bullet point on Mary, but this answer isn't about her. The most significant difference ought to be pointed out specifically. It is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (What he's talking about as Transubstantiation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To a Catholic, this is the source and summit of our faith.  &quot;To a Protestant, the Bible represents God's most complete and perfect revelation of Himself to humanity&quot; &lt;em&gt;(Thanks Flimzy)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To a Protestant, it's a reenactment of the Last Supper. To a Catholic it is the entire Passion and Death of Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To a Catholic, we unworthily consume Our Lord as He instructed.  To a Protestant, they share bread and show love to one another as Our Lord instructed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To a Protestant, the minister is a specially called person, but could be anyone and their ability to officiate the Lord's Supper is the same as anyone else's.  To a Catholic, only a validly ordained minister may consecrate the host and in so doing make present Jesus before the congregation in the form of bread and wine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of the priesthood, these differences are shared between any Catholic/Orthodox congregation and any Protestant denomination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T18:38:13.507" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4824" CreationDate="2011-12-05T16:17:11.187" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Through history, Christianity has struggled with science. Ultimately, there are only three possible solutions that we can come to in order to reconcile facts with beliefs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Re-evaluate, and attempt to change the facts (or establish new facts based on beliefs)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Re-evaluate and attempt to change the belief (or establish new beliefs based on the facts)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do not attempt to reconcile the facts and the existing beliefs&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These three directions have resulted in three separate doctrines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1529/what-is-old-earth-creationism&quot;&gt;Old Earth Creationism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that God created the earth over the course of millions of years. This is an attempt to reconcile the latest understanding of science with the clear doctrine of creationism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(In regards to evolution specifically, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Theistic Evolution&lt;/a&gt;, also known as evolutionary creation, is a doctrine that has come out of the belief of evolution.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1526/what-is-young-earth-creationism&quot;&gt;Young Earth Creationism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that the Bible is completely accurate and that the best interpretation of the text speaks to the Earth being about 6,000-12,000 years old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This belief system presumes science's most popular conclusions to be somehow faulty and tries to shed more light on the matter by either hunting for new evidence or re-examining existing science and forwarding various possibilities that discredit the methods or premises used.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Non-reconciliation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several Protestant denominations (From Southern Baptists to Quakers), simply don't try to reconcile these differences.  They say that God created the universe and that science studies the universe, but they don't try to reconcile the two.  These viewpoints basically leave the believers of the denomination open to make their own judgments (which generally follows YEC or OEC above).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As science changes, Christianity changes, usually.  Sometimes, Christians don't attempt to reconcile the difference between science and religion.  Sometimes they do.  When they do, they end up either pushing back against their original beliefs or pushing back against the scientific system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, how evolution (and all other scientific theories) is reconciled with Christianity depends upon the doctrine to which you hold fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T14:58:28.973" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4828" CreationDate="2011-12-05T16:36:10.240" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith was surprisingly tight-lipped about the translation process.  There isn't much we know about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, he had two seeing stones, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm#whatexactlyis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Urim and Thummim&lt;/a&gt;.  He used these for the translation of the first 116 pages from the golden plates.  However, when someone stole the original translations, he claimed that the angel took away both these magical stones and the golden plates; he also claimed that he was not able to continue translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the golden plates were returned to him, he used a different seeing stone that he had before he had found the golden plates.  Amazingly, this magic seeing stone worked just like the other two seeing stones!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When, later in life, he was asked about all of this, all he said is that he was able to translate this mysterious language by 'gift and power of God'.  At this point, either he was unwilling to repeat the story about the seeing stones or he was changing his story to not include the seeing stones.  When his brother, Hyrum Smith, asked him for more details, Joseph replied that &quot;it was not expedient for him to tell more than had already been told about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and it was not well that any greater details be provided&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T16:36:10.240" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4828" CreationDate="2011-12-05T18:43:44.127" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, here's the simple version: Buried together with the golden plates was a device known as the Urim and Thummim, &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng#35&quot;&gt;described by Joseph Smith as&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate,&#xA;  constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the&#xA;  plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what&#xA;  constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and ... God had&#xA;  prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several revelations, including the translation of the plates, were received by the use of these stones, through a process that is not well-understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answering the question &lt;em&gt;well&lt;/em&gt;, however is a bit complicated.  By the time most people became aware of the Book of Mormon, the work of translation was in the past; both the translation and the publication of the Book of Mormon were completed before the organization of the Church or the missionary work that brought the book to so many people.  And Joseph Smith himself never had much to say on the subject; he considered the book to be the significant thing, not the process by which it was produced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clearest and most detailed quote regarding the translation process comes to us from David Whitmer, an associate of Joseph Smith's, but one who was never actually involved in the translation process, so its authenticity is questionable.  Whitmer stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in&#xA;  the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and&#xA;  in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something&#xA;  resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing.&#xA;  One character at a time would appear, and under it was the&#xA;  interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English&#xA;  to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was&#xA;  written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct,&#xA;  then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation&#xA;  would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and&#xA;  power of God, and not by any power of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;An Address to All Believers in Christ&lt;/em&gt; (1887)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, this explanation may or may not be accurate, as David Whitmer was never present to witness the process.  Joseph's wife, Emma, who did serve briefly as a scribe during the translation process, gave a slightly different description:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of&#xA;  it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to&#xA;  proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them&#xA;  out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling,&#xA;  he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible&#xA;  for him to see how I was writing them down at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he&#xA;  commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and&#xA;  one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a&#xA;  sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I&#xA;  answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [I didn’t know.] I was afraid I had&#xA;  been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that&#xA;  time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Edmund C. Briggs, “&lt;em&gt;A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856&lt;/em&gt;” (1916)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many years later, in an interview, she gave some more detail on the process:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and&#xA;  well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon&#xA;  [by his own effort]. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing&#xA;  of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his&#xA;  scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when&#xA;  returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin&#xA;  where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having&#xA;  any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do.&#xA;  It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and,&#xA;  for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Last Testimony of Emma Smith&lt;/em&gt; (1879)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only things that are clear from the historical record, (by looking at surviving newspaper articles, personal journals, and the like,) are that Joseph Smith was widely believed by his contemporaries--both friends and enemies--to be in possession of a set of golden plates in the late 1820s, that he claimed that these plates contained an ancient record, and that he had the means to translate it by means of the interpreters (Urim and Thummim) found with the plates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At one point, Joseph Smith produced a transcription of several characters from the plates, plus a translation of the sample, which was shown to scholars by Martin Harris, Smith's scribe at the time.  He was skeptical of the work and wanted evidence.  The record is uncertain as to the details of what happened when he did so, with Harris claiming that he received a favorable response, and Professor Charles Anthon, the scholar he showed it to, denying the claim.  As Gordon B. Hinckley noted,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some years later when he was approached by an avowed detractor of&#xA;  Joseph Smith, Professor Anthon denied ever having commented with favor&#xA;  upon the characters or the translation. Yet the fact remains that&#xA;  Martin Harris was so impressed by the experience that he returned to&#xA;  Joseph Smith, and then immediately proceeded to Palmyra to put his&#xA;  affairs in order so that he might assist with the translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Truth Restored&lt;/em&gt; (1979)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, while speculation abounds today, the actual concrete details of the process were never well-documented and have been lost to time, and all that remains are comments and recollections given years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T18:43:44.127" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4759" CreationDate="2011-12-05T19:01:15.397" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Mormon doctrine states that creation &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4760/according-to-the-mormon-doctrines-who-created-the-universe&quot;&gt;has always been in existence&lt;/a&gt;.  As such, we can't presume that there was a beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, there wasn't a &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; God, but an endless succession prior to the one true God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brigham Young once stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods...&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Brigham Young &lt;em&gt;(Journal of Discourses 7:333)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, LDS Apostle Orson Pratt stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so one, from one generation to generation&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;LDS Apostle Orson Pratt &lt;em&gt;(The Seer, pg. 132)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(It should be noted that the Orson Pratt writings were later discounted by the LDS church and shouldn't be taken as doctrine.  Still, it elucidates the point.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, since there was no beginning, there was no &amp;quot;first&amp;quot;.  Therefore, there was no &amp;quot;first God&amp;quot; in regards to the eternal progression.  The universe, being eternal, has always been around.  The progression of Gods has likewise been eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T19:01:15.397" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4814" CreationDate="2011-12-05T20:04:30.560" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics (i.e., Western or Latin -- I belong to this group) believe that original sin entails actually inheriting the burden of Adam's Sin, which is mortal sin keeping us from entering heaven without a method of acquiring sanctifying grace, such as baptism. Original sin also threw all of nature into discord, and is the source of man's concupiscence. The Easter Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and Oriental Orthodox, by contrast, do not believe that man inherits the burden of Adam's sin, but they believe that it is the source of the fallen nature of man, and concupiscence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More info here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1040" LastActivityDate="2011-12-05T20:04:30.560" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4803" CreationDate="2011-12-05T20:08:53.470" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quakers are considered one of the &quot;peace churches&quot; who oppose war of any kind, and typically refuse to participate in it. However they are also not a denomination which expects everyone in it to do exactly what the church says. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Testimony&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; for more information. The biblical basis for pacifism is discussed &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2879/what-is-the-biblical-and-historical-basis-for-christian-pacifism&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that some Quakers have indeed served in the military as medics. I've never heard of one serving as a chaplain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T00:27:20.203" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4840" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-05T21:54:25.927" Score="6" ViewCount="3149" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some denominations who arrange their pews so they are on opposite sides of the pulpit (or equivalent for their denomination), or otherwise have pews facing each other. Is there somebody familiar with different church layouts who can perhaps point out a couple major denominations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What came to mind for me was the church designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, but I heard that some denominations do this as regular practice. &quot;Friendship House&quot; came to mind, but we didn't come up with much of an overview when searching the internet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1062" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T14:41:56.153" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T14:00:19.887" Title="What denomination uses church pews that face each other?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;church-building&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4840" CreationDate="2011-12-05T22:10:46.670" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;With the clarification to the question, I realize that this is a multi-answer question.  So, here are two answers for you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many churches have their church/chapel/meeting area arranged in a circular formation, such that two sides face each other and one side faces the front (&lt;a href=&quot;http://chestofbooks.com/architecture/Cyclopedia-Carpentry-Building-4-6/279-Methods-Of-Guarding-Against-Failure-By-Shear-Or-Diagonal-Tension.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/zfXQG.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty common setup.  It's just a way for everyone to face the pulpit. It's not a denominational thing, just a logistics thing. There are also similar setups (which are far more common) where the side pews are angled instead of straight inwards facing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, though, that's just a logistics issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Religious Society of Friends (aka Quakers) have their pews set up a bit differently.  Their Meeting Houses are generally arranged where the pews or chairs face each other and there is no pulpit.  Furthermore, since it's just a meeting of friends, there is no &amp;quot;front&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;back&amp;quot; but more of a &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;outside&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This arrangement is primarily used by groups of Quakers that practice &amp;quot;Unprogrammed&amp;quot; meetings (also known as &amp;quot;Silent&amp;quot; meetings).  While this is the most common meeting, there are some Programmed Meetings that are more of a traditional speaker/preacher type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're interested in the Quaker Unprogrammed meeting, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fgcquaker.org/library/welcome/silentworship.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;FGCQuaker.org&lt;/a&gt; has a page about silent worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="84" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T18:39:12.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4840" CreationDate="2011-12-05T22:29:23.257" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Arrangement of church pews is really not a function of denomination. The denomination I am most familiar with uses both &lt;a href=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/St._Paul&amp;#39;s_Anglican_Church_3_(interior).JPG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;forward-facing pews&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/King&amp;#39;s_College_Chapel,_Cambridge_15.JPG&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inward facing pews&lt;/a&gt; .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2015-04-07T00:33:54.047" LastActivityDate="2015-04-07T00:33:54.047" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4569" CreationDate="2011-12-06T03:01:32.910" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've found a few sources for answering this question.  The one I'm choosing to use as a reference is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.claywatts.com/endviews.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; from Clay Watts, as it includes some views that are largely ignored in the other sources I've found.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Figurative/Idealist&lt;/strong&gt; view: The order of events is a non-issue because the end-times prophecies are to be taken figuratively, not literally.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Literal/Preterist&lt;/strong&gt; view: Most of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century, and that many prophetic details relate to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Literal/Historicist&lt;/strong&gt; view: End times prophecy has been in the process of being fulfilled since the time of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Literal/Pre-millennial&lt;/strong&gt; views, all hold that the end times events are still in the future. The include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pre-tribulation/Dispensationalism&lt;/strong&gt;: Dispensationalism holds that God deals with man differently in successive covenantal eras.  Once the church dispensation ends with the rapture, Daniel's seventieth week will continue with Israel as a major participant in the tribulation period, culminating in the second coming of Christ and his millennial reign with the saints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mid-tribulation&lt;/strong&gt;:  The tribulation is actually the three and one-half year Great Tribulation, and that it commences with the revealing of the Antichrist midway through the seven year peace treaty he has made with Israel. At that point the church is raptured in order to escape the Great Tribulation, which is taken to be God's wrath.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pre-wrath&lt;/strong&gt;: The church will experience some of the Great Tribulation period after the mid-point of Daniel's seventieth week, when antichrist is revealed. This would include the natural and man-caused disasters, or wrath, but then the church will be taken out just prior to the wrath of God aimed at the unrepentant. In this view God's wrath includes only the trumpet and bowl judgments, which occur after the sixth seal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Post-tribulation&lt;/strong&gt;: The post-tribulation view sees a single second coming of Christ. It says that the church will be kept by God's grace through all of Daniel's seventieth week, and the saints will be given their glorified bodies in order to meet Christ as he comes to earth to defeat the antichrist at Armageddon and establish his millennial reign in Jerusalem&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article linked to at the beginning of this answer offers the arguments for each of the views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article does miss &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Postmillennialism&lt;/a&gt;, which teaches that the second coming will come after the 1000 year reign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-11-23T22:06:37.360" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T22:06:37.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4844" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="39028" CreationDate="2011-12-06T03:27:31.977" Score="1" ViewCount="19871" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:24-27 states that humans were created after the other animals, and the first man and woman were created simultaneously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1:24&lt;/strong&gt; And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;1:25&lt;/strong&gt; And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;1:26&lt;/strong&gt; And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;1:27&lt;/strong&gt; So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Genesis 2:18-22 states that man was created first, then the animals and only then the woman from the man's rib.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2:18&lt;/strong&gt; And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;2:19&lt;/strong&gt; And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;2:20&lt;/strong&gt; And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;2:21&lt;/strong&gt; And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;2:22&lt;/strong&gt; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which one is the correct order of events?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1064" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T04:16:04.083" LastActivityDate="2016-03-20T16:33:16.570" Title="Which came first, man or animal?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-03-20T18:50:38.643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4845" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4847" CreationDate="2011-12-06T04:23:34.907" Score="14" ViewCount="17639" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always used to consider the first sin committed by Adam and Eve as eating the forbidden fruit from a particular tree. But recently my husband commented that Adam and Eve had sex with each other which is the first sin. I had no substantial point to prove against his point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is sex considered to be the forbidden fruit? Is that thought prevalent among Catholics? What is the Catholic teaching on the first sin of Adam and Eve?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Note that this question is asking about the first sin committed by Adam and Eve, not the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;original sin&quot;&lt;/a&gt;: that we all in some way have inherited a sinful nature from them.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1030" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-11-14T08:17:10.090" LastActivityDate="2019-11-17T18:16:52.400" Title="What is the Catholic understanding of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4845" CreationDate="2011-12-06T04:31:18.110" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most traditions agree that the original sin was disobedience to God.  God specifically told them not to eat of the tree in the middle of the garden, and they did it anyway.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eating of the fruit, in direct contradiction to what He told  them to do is the definition of rebellion. They chose to do what &lt;em&gt;they wanted&lt;/em&gt; instead of what &lt;em&gt;God had commanded&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-06T04:49:48.600" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T04:49:48.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4845" CreationDate="2011-12-06T04:38:07.380" Score="37" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sexual intercourse was not a sin at all (for Adam and Eve in the context of their marriage).  In fact, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And God blessed them. And God said to them, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Be fruitful and&#xA;  multiply&lt;/strong&gt; and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the&#xA;  fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every&#xA;  living thing that moves on the earth.&quot;  Genesis 1:28 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While having sexual intercourse was not a direct command, it most certainly was an indirect command.  You can't be fruitful and multiply without it, unless God was merely encouraging them to garden and do arithmetic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the original sin was eating of the fruit &lt;strong&gt;in direct violation of God's command&lt;/strong&gt;.  However, it could be suggested that pride preceded that, because for them to defy God's command they had to exalt themselves as the authority over their own lives.  Pride would have been a sin of the heart whereas eating of the fruit was a sin of deed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2019-11-14T23:55:05.693" LastActivityDate="2019-11-14T23:55:05.693" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4844" CreationDate="2011-12-06T04:48:16.650" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In verse 19, it also talks about how formed the fowls of the air, while in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chapter one&lt;/a&gt;, it says that they were created on day 5, a day before man. Therefore, it can be inferred that that there is shift between verses 18 and 19, while it goes back in time a little to give a better understanding of how he noticed that he needed one. While the first chapter was about detailing what happened in what order over the course of days, chapter two is much more detailed, but not entirely chronological. Also, since Eve was made from a rib taken from Adam after he noticed his lack of a female counterpart, she was obviously made after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="103" LastEditorUserId="103" LastEditDate="2014-10-21T00:44:06.553" LastActivityDate="2014-10-21T00:44:06.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4766" CreationDate="2011-12-06T05:11:30.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;THE SPECIFICS OF THE ADAM-GOD TEACHING&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia gives the following information regarding the specifics of the Adam-God doctrine in [this article]:&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine#Brigham_Young.27s_1852_announcement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Brigham Young's 1852 announcement&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...the first recorded explanation of the doctrine was by Brigham Young, who first taught the Adam–God doctrine at the church's spring General Conference on &lt;strong&gt;April 9, 1852&lt;/strong&gt;. This sermon was recorded stenographically by George D. Watt, Young's private secretary, who was an expert in Pitman shorthand. Watt published the sermon in 1854 in the British periodical Journal of Discourses, in a volume endorsed by Young and the church's First Presidency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Watt's transcript of the sermon, Young said he intended to discuss &quot;who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary&quot;, a subject which he said &quot;has remained a mystery in this kingdom up to this day&quot;. The transcript reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it&#xA;  with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He&#xA;  helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel,&#xA;  the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is&#xA;  our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing,&#xA;  must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Further development by Young&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a special conference on &lt;strong&gt;August 28, 1852&lt;/strong&gt;, Young explained in greater detail the mechanism by which celestial beings like Adam and Eve could give birth to mortal offspring. According to Young, when a couple first become gods and goddesses, they first begin to create spiritual offspring. &lt;strong&gt;Then, they begin creating &quot;mortal tabernacles&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; in which those spirits can dwell, &lt;strong&gt;by going to a newly-created world,&lt;/strong&gt; where they:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;eat and drink of the fruits of the corporal world, until this grosser&#xA;  matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies, to&#xA;  enable them according to the established laws to produce mortal&#xA;  tabernacles for their spiritual children&quot; (Young 1852b, p. 13). This&#xA;  is what Adam and Eve did, Young said, and &quot;Adam is my Father (Young&#xA;  1852b, p. 13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On February 19, 1854, he reiterated the doctrine in a sermon. He also reiterated the doctrine at the October 1854 General Conference,[31] in a sermon that was reported to have &quot;held the vast audience as it were spellbound&quot;[32] In the October conference, Young is reported as clarifying that Adam and Eve were &quot;natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that &lt;strong&gt;Adam was God, our Eternal Father&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Young discussed the doctrine again in early 1857, he emphasized again that &quot;to become acquainted with our Father and our God&quot; was &quot;one of the first principles of the doctrine of salvation&quot;, and that &quot;no man can enjoy or be prepared for eternal life without that knowledge&quot;.[34] Nevertheless, he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider Our Heavenly&#xA;  Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not&#xA;  care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to&#xA;  consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for&#xA;  in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is&#xA;  also of our species.&quot;.[35] Young continued... &quot;How much unbelief&#xA;  exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one&#xA;  particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed&#xA;  to me -- namely that &lt;strong&gt;Adam is our father and God&lt;/strong&gt;...Our Father Adam is&#xA;  the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life&#xA;  and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the&#xA;  earth&quot; (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret&#xA;  Weekly News, June 18, 1873.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just before his death, Young took steps to ensure that the Adam–God theory was taught in LDS temples as part of the Endowment ceremony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This time period appears to be about 25 years, then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Current Teachings&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, the LDS Church does not hold to this doctrine in any fashion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T05:11:30.570" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4709" CreationDate="2011-12-06T06:05:37.527" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;NPP is more an academic movement than a denominational teaching. To the extent that any denominations use it, it would be only to help inform their understanding of Paul's teachings, and not as a denominational doctrine itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T06:05:37.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4844" CreationDate="2011-12-06T08:26:42.357" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to understand the meaning of any text, you must understand it's purpose. If you don't understand why a bit of text was written, you are quite likely to come away with a bad understanding of what it means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case your question assumes a mis-understanding of the purpose of the two texts in question. If you correct that understanding, it becomes apparent that there is actually no contradiction and nothing that needs resolving from an inerrancy standpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two chapters you quote from in Genesis serve slightly different purposes. It is quite common on ancient Hebrew literature to repeat parts of a story in different ways to draw out different points. In this case one passage tells us something about the Chronology of events, the second goes on to give us another event that happens to be sandwiched inbetween the last steps of the first event that includes some additional commentary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to know in what order things were created, Genesis 1 should be your guide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 2, we find out that that (presumably about day 6) God was trying to show Adam that his own personal help-mate was going to be a different kind of creature than the animals, so after he makes Adam but before he makes Eve he parades the rest of the created order before Adam and demonstrates that none of them are like he is. The animals are not made on the spot, there is just a bit of commentary that reminds us that they were created out of the ground. In the process, all the animals get names.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then we go on to the creation of Eve, made not out of the ground but out of Adam's flesh. &lt;strong&gt;This second chapter helps us establish some order or rank to creation as well as lay the foundation for its purpose, not re-sequence the events of creation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T08:26:42.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4854" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5252" CreationDate="2011-12-06T12:06:53.867" Score="11" ViewCount="2539" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4291/what-does-the-bible-say-about-modesty/4850#4850&quot;&gt;recent answer&lt;/a&gt; on this site made a very broad statement, that &quot;those who live in nudist colonies are not Christians&quot;. However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=christian%20naturists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a quick Google search for &quot;Christian naturists&quot;&lt;/a&gt; (other search engines are available) shows that there appear to be quite a few people who would disagree with that stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any denominations specifically stipulate that naturism/nudism is a sin? If so, which?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-01-07T00:04:37.487" Title="In which denominations is naturism unacceptable?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-03-05T02:22:53.777" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4856" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4875" CreationDate="2011-12-06T15:36:00.480" Score="16" ViewCount="755" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that people with black skin had been denied certain things in the Mormon Church until the past 30 years or so and that this has something to do with the Curse of Cain.  What has been the historical teaching of the LDS Church regarding the Curse of Cain and dark-skinned people?  What are the references in the Book of Mormon and other Mormon Scriptures that address this issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-01T21:57:53.357" LastActivityDate="2020-06-20T23:46:45.603" Title="What has the LDS Church (Mormons) historically taught about the Curse of Cain and dark skin?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;cain&gt;&lt;racism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4857" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-12-06T15:44:59.610" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;While generally taken to mean future-telling based upon special revelation from God (eg Jacob's blessings upon his sons on his deathbed at the end of Genesis), this is not always the case: it can also refer to the special insight given by God into a specific situation or personal case (eg, &quot;the woman at the well&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quoting from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, prophecy is referred to as one of the Spiritual gifts given by the indwelling Holy Spirit. From this, many Christians believe that the gift of prophecy is the supernatural ability to receive and convey a message from God. The purpose of the message may be to &quot;edify, exhort and comfort&quot; the members of the Church. In this context, not all prophecies contain predictions about the future. The Apostle Paul also teaches in First Corinthians that prophecy is for the benefit of the whole Church and not just the individual exercising the gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-12-06T15:44:59.610" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T15:44:59.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4858" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-12-06T15:44:59.610" Score="0" Body="the communication of messages directly received from God, either in biblical or modern times." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:12:51.740" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:12:51.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4859" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4862" CreationDate="2011-12-06T15:59:34.127" Score="16" ViewCount="2860" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed#English_translations&quot;&gt;Apostle's Creed&lt;/a&gt;, the term &quot;catholic&quot; is used in describing the reciter's belief:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe ... in the holy catholic church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This creed is used by a wide variety of denominations, and therefore I'd find it very hard to believe that it &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; refers to the Roman Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some English translations of the Apostle's Creed use &quot;holy Christian church&quot; instead of &quot;holy catholic church&quot; - is &quot;catholic&quot;, therefore, a synonym for &quot;Christian&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is its use in the Apostle's Creed (and other documents)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-23T16:40:37.207" LastActivityDate="2015-08-23T16:40:37.207" Title="What is the difference between &quot;catholicism&quot; and &quot;catholic&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;apostles-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4860" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-06T16:06:57.790" Score="3" ViewCount="679" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;&lt;code&gt;Ex opere operato&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&quot; says that a person must have the proper disposition and desire in order to receive graces through sacraments (correct me if I'm over simplifying this). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this not apply to infants when being baptized? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do infants receive graces from baptism? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the doctrine regarding infants and &quot;&lt;em&gt;&lt;code&gt;ex opere operato&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2011-12-06T17:37:31.717" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T17:37:31.717" Title="Does ex opere operato apply to infants?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;infants&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-22T10:11:18.480" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4845" CreationDate="2011-12-06T16:19:15.323" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took away from reading &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1932645349&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Theology of the Body for Beginners&lt;/a&gt;, which is a entry-level explanation of Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body talks aimed primarily at married couples or those interested in Catholic teaching on sexuality, that Adam and Eve could have had some great sex in the garden of Eden.  I may have been misreading it or reading between the lines, but that's the gist my wife and I got.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, that is not original sin, the way men and women use each other for sex and with sex is a 'fruit' of original sin.  But in that sense, fruit is just something that comes from somewhere else like Jesus is the Fruit of Mary's womb or your underwear are the Fruit of the Loom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The forbidden fruit can certainly be allegorically interpreted, but there's no reason to think it has anything to do with sex, other than to make it shameful somehow.  Previous to eating of the tree, man only knew good and only sought the good. Afterwords man knows sin.  Sex in and of itself is not sinful. Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae Vitae (On human life) says that it's part of your vocation as a married couple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In humble obedience then to her voice, let Christian husbands and wives be mindful of their vocation to the Christian life, a vocation which, deriving from their Baptism, has been confirmed anew and made more explicit by the Sacrament of Matrimony. For by this sacrament they are strengthened and, one might almost say, consecrated to the faithful fulfillment of their duties. Thus will they realize to the full their calling and bear witness as becomes them, to Christ before the world.  For the Lord has entrusted to them the task of making visible to men and women the holiness and joy of the law which united inseparably their love for one another and the cooperation they give to God's love, God who is the Author of human life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Humanae Vitae&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not original sin, it's obedience to your calling (not being a misogynistic guy here, being chaste for a time is also obedience to your calling).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Original sin was disobedience because of pride,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 16:18 - NABRE&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the disordered desire to be like God without being obedient to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three things to ask your husband when he thinks he's so smart:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Where was Adam when Eve ate the apple?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How big was the snake?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-11-14T14:35:24.117" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4859" CreationDate="2011-12-06T16:20:59.690" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The wording of that creed has caused confusion among untold thousands of people over the past millennium and across scores of languages. For as much consternation as it has spawned, the intended meaning is really very simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;catholic&lt;/em&gt; in the a Apostle's Creed is being used as an adjective, not a proper name! A quick English &lt;a href=&quot;http://goo.gl/XOcze&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dictionary search&lt;/a&gt; will turn up possible meanings like the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Of or including all Christians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Roman capital-C Catholic church used this adjective as a proper name in their official title. In our current times, the word is almost ubiquitously associated with that proper name. The Apostles Creed, on the other hand, was very specifically not referring to the Roman Catholic church but to the church universal. This is why a clear majority of Christian traditions both Catholic and Protestant are able to stand behind the Apostles Creed as a valid representation of their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The various alternate wordings you will find (such as the one you noted: &quot;Christian&quot; or another common alternative: &quot;Universal&quot;) are attempts at resolving the confusion by using a less miss-understood word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although it would not be a good substitute in the Creeds because it has overtones of diversity rather than unity, another related term is &lt;a href=&quot;http://goo.gl/nFHxE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;ecumenical&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. To put it all in context, it would be reasonable to say that &quot;The Apostle's Creed's description of the core tenants of our (catholic) faith rather than a specific (Catholic) tradition makes it useful in an ecumenical context.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T10:10:32.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T10:10:32.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4860" CreationDate="2011-12-06T16:27:42.187" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say not, but this is just my opinion, and not because I've ever heard of Ex Opere Operato so I'll keep this short and hopefully someone adds a better answer.  But Baptism leaves an indelible mark: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1272&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is more like chiseling yours and your bride's initials into a post with a big heart around it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T16:27:42.187" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4859" CreationDate="2011-12-06T16:47:42.547" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Big 'C' Catholic I'd have to disagree with &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4862/4&quot;&gt;Caleb's post&lt;/a&gt; on principle. But no holy wars or anything, I promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics, like some Protestant congregations, truly consider themselves the Universal Church.  Unlike other Protestant congregations however, we do not consider non-Catholics (or not-us'es) to not be Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, when Catholics say catholic in the Creed, we mean everybody capable of salvation, not just Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 835&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, Little 'c' catholic is a lot broader as defined by the Catholic Church than as it is defined by Protestants. I'm not sure how or why this teaching came about, but the Apostles Creed is old and the traditions passed on by it are old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's actually a pretty good tradition of adopting a thing common to most Christians to describe one group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Episcopal (a church with churches)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Presbyterian (a church with leaders)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Methodist (a church that follows a rule)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptist (a church that practices baptism)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Congregational (a church that has congregations)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Church of Christ (a church with Christ as its founder)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evangelical (a church that proclaims the Gospel)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentecostal (a church that started as a church at Pentecost)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Orthodox (a church with right teaching)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics would say we're all those things too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-12-06T18:10:38.917" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4866" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4935" CreationDate="2011-12-07T14:00:21.250" Score="8" ViewCount="369" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas' hymn &lt;em&gt;Tantum Ergo&lt;/em&gt;, which is usually sung at Benediction, always seems better in Latin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Et antiquum documentum&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Novo cedat ritui:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mainly because in both the transliterated and the literal translation it doesn't make a ton of sense:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And let the old practice&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Give way to the new rite;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this is written over 1000 years after the rite was established, what is this line in the hymn about? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-11-02T14:28:00.867" LastActivityDate="2021-01-18T20:41:52.540" Title="What's the new rite in Tantum Ergo?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;&lt;latin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4706" CreationDate="2011-12-07T14:49:45.330" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for Paul's works, it also re-examines several other historical issues and purports to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that aren't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who hold the old view find the new to be incompatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Full disclosure: I believe that, while the NPP has some valuable perspectives to offer Christianity, some of its premises are invalid and some of its conclusions are heretical. Still, I will try to answer here carefully. If my treatment of the facts of the case are not fair, feel free to comment.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basis for the &quot;new&quot; understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in a different understanding of the religious culture of his day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, most of Protestantism has understood 1st century Judaism to be a works-based religious system under which people crossed their t's and dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor. NPP submits that Judaism in Paul's time was actually more about grace than Reformation era Protestants give it credit for: that it taught grace as the basis of salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What goes around comes around.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works, then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religion -- as most Reformed teachings claim -- but one of two parts of the same right religious understanding being contrasted. Hence, the NPP would have works and faith working together in the effecting of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;How impudent!&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With works and faith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;imputed righteousness&lt;/em&gt;. Rather than Christ's work being the sole item to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. Wright does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing; their own righteousness will still be based on their own works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T08:03:22.870" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T08:03:22.870" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4868" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4870" CreationDate="2011-12-07T18:33:45.750" Score="14" ViewCount="4655" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Jonah records that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a great fish (possibly a whale).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was&#xA;  in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.  Jonah 1:17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any scientific evidence that suggests it is possible for a person to survive in the belly of a whale, or are we left to conclude that this was part of the miracle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T12:12:34.630" Title="Jonah and the Whale - Is there any scientific proof that it is possible to survive in the belly of whale?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;jonah&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-07-31T02:24:24.753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4854" CreationDate="2011-12-07T19:05:13.657" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bibilically speaking, being &quot;exposed&quot; has always been linked with a shaming - from the time that Adam and Eve realized they were naked and after the fall thus ashamed (Gen 3), to Hosea in which a disgraced and conquered foe was stripped naked, etc...  the general tenor of Scripture is that being naked is an undesirable state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since naturism / nudism as a movement is a very new phenomenon (springing in the early 20th century), very few denominations would have felt much need to deal with the issue. There are nudist &quot;churches&quot; (I think of the one at White Tail Resort in VA, for example) but by and large the membership isn't sufficient to warrant the attention of most denominations&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, my take on it (and its just my take) is this - being a nudist - i.e. advocating that clothing is unnecessary and socially inhibiting in public - is contrary to scripture mostly because it is an attempt to deny the Fall. In a way, it attempts to deal with the &quot;sin&quot; by stating that it is simply man's invention - a stance that would be at odds with an understanding that God defines what is and is not sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2011-12-07T19:05:13.657" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4868" CreationDate="2011-12-07T19:24:39.407" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cecil Adams (aka &quot;The Straight Dope&quot;) did a lot to debunk later-day Jonah stories here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2294/have-any-real-life-jonahs-been-swallowed-by-whales-and-lived&quot;&gt;http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2294/have-any-real-life-jonahs-been-swallowed-by-whales-and-lived&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, he says that while many would like to believe this is a phenomenon that has been reproduced, all the stories range from apocryphal to fraudulent. As such, yes, the fact that Jonah was preserved for three days in the belly of the whale, was in fact a miracle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Theological Import&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that Jesus alludes to the same in Luke 11:32 (the sign of Jonah being given instead of a miracle) may lead one to a discussion of the difference between a sign and a miracle - but in both cases the effect is the same. It is a physical situation in which the natural human response is to see God's direct intervention. I would argue that the point of Luke 11:28 (A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miracle, but no miracle will be given it except the sign of Jonah) specifically points to the fact that people wanted a magical reproduction. Nowadays, we are not a magical culture, but rather a scientific one. As such, we ask not for a miracle but a scientific explanation.  I suspect Jesus would say of his own resurrection, that no explanation would be given it, except the sign of Jonah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2011-12-07T20:25:16.597" LastActivityDate="2011-12-07T20:25:16.597" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4868" CreationDate="2011-12-07T19:52:26.450" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's telling here that several translations (KJV, ASV, Darby, ERV, WEB at least) will use the word &quot;prepared&quot; rather than &quot;appointed&quot;.  That is significant.  If a great fish is only &quot;appointed&quot; (chosen/selected), you could argue that we are limited to what can be selected from the natural world. If the fish was &quot;prepared&quot;, however, then we should expect more supernatural intervention; it could be a species with a single member designed for the explicit purpose of swallowing Jonah. In other words, this opens the door to greater divine intervention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Science is the study of the Natural Universe, and with the alternate translation the passage here now implies &lt;b&gt;super&lt;/b&gt;natural intervention. Since we have that intervention, as a believer I find the science in this case completely irrelevant... indeed, I might even be disappointed if a simple scientific explanation is found.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-05-10T14:36:27.737" LastActivityDate="2012-05-10T14:36:27.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4621" CreationDate="2011-12-07T21:32:53.747" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf&quot;&gt;Council of Trent Catechism for Parish Priests&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The text states that the first grace required to receive the Eucharist (sacramental communion) is &quot;given to none unless they receive in wish and desire&quot; (spiritual communion). Spiritual communion recalls the soul to life, giving the grace required to receive &quot;the fountain of all graces&quot;, sacramental communion. The text states that language is inadequate to fully describe the fruits of the Eucharist itself, but gives as examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;feeds, invigorates, and delights the soul&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;unites the soul with the substance of the sacrament, i.e., Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;remits venial sins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;strengthens against temptation by displacing the lusts of the flesh with the love of charity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in short, facilitates the attainment of eternal life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="925" LastActivityDate="2011-12-07T21:32:53.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3755" CreationDate="2011-12-07T21:48:48.513" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a very relevant question you ask here. Occasionally, someone from the Jesus seminar, for instance, will make the claim that Paul somehow stole Christianity away from the apostles and his disagreement with the Jewish Christians was never resolved. For example, the 2006 Peter Jennings documentary &quot;The Search for Jesus&quot; had an expert biblical scholar making this claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is just some more circumstantial evidence from a non-canonical source to add to the other answers. The bishop of Rome, Clement, wrote &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a letter&lt;/a&gt; to the Church in Corinth in the late 1st century which is regarded by most scholars as authentic. There is a passage where he is talking about Peter and Paul who had been martyred 'in our generation'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The take away here is that it seems that both Peter and Paul were contemporaries, ministering in Rome at the same time. More than likely they were ministering together building the very early church in Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not 'the' answer, you can make an argument against it. But taken together with the other evidence, it makes a good case that Paul did not have any lasting disagreements or schisms, theological or otherwise, from the other Apostles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2011-12-08T14:39:37.297" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T14:39:37.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4856" CreationDate="2011-12-07T22:10:34.233" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is more context for some verses from the Book of Mormon, the first quote shows the curse, and the effect of it, so they became dark-skinned and lazy.  The problem is that this can then be extended to shape prejudices against anyone because of their skin color, but, the last two quotes shows that discrimination based on color is wrong, and all from the Book of Mormon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/2_Nephi#5:21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/2_Nephi#5:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of&#xA;  their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become &#xA;  like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that &#xA;  they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come &#xA;  upon them. 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto &#xA;  thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 23 And cursed shall be the seed of &#xA;  him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And &#xA;  the Lord spake it, and it was done. 24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they &#xA;  did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for &#xA;  beasts of prey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you come back to God and do what is expected then this curse is lifted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/3_Nephi#2:15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/3_Nephi#2:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Therefore, all the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord&#xA;  did unite with their brethren, the Nephites, and were compelled, for&#xA;  the safety of their lives and their women and their children, to take&#xA;  up arms against those Gadianton robbers, yea, and also to maintain&#xA;  their rights, and the privileges of their church and of their worship,&#xA;  and their freedom and their liberty. 13 And it came to pass that&#xA;  before this thirteenth year had passed away the Nephites were&#xA;  threatened with utter destruction because of this war, which had&#xA;  become exceedingly sore. 14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites&#xA;  who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; 15&#xA;  And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like&#xA;  unto the Nephites; 16 And their young men and their daughters became&#xA;  exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were&#xA;  called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another section showing that others may get the curse due to their wickedness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/Alma#3:18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/Alma#3:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he&#xA;  said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a&#xA;  mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and&#xA;  thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of&#xA;  their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. 15&#xA;  And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy&#xA;  brethren, that they may be cursed also. 16 And again: I will set a&#xA;  mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed. 17 And again, I&#xA;  say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and&#xA;  I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth&#xA;  and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to&#xA;  his seed. 18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the&#xA;  words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads;&#xA;  nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God;&#xA;  therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them. 19&#xA;  Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the&#xA;  curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself&#xA;  his own condemnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you try to be consistent with the BoM then cherry-picking to justify prejudices is going to happen, as God isn't going to discriminate based on skin color for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/2_Nephi#26:33&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/2_Nephi#26:33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that&#xA;  which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it&#xA;  be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come&#xA;  unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come&#xA;  unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he&#xA;  remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and&#xA;  Gentile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here the believers are commanded not to hold these against others since the believers should reflect on the filthiness of their own souls. This is similar to &quot;Him who has no sin cast the first stone&quot;, IMO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/Jacob#3:8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/Jacob#3:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their&#xA;  husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and&#xA;  their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity&#xA;  of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the&#xA;  sight of your great Creator? 8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye&#xA;  shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours,&#xA;  when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. 9&#xA;  Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God,&#xA;  that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their&#xA;  skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their&#xA;  filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember&#xA;  that their filthiness came because of their fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it is easy to see how people could pick some verses and make some decisions that enforce their own biases, but that is due to ignoring other verses, so the blame is not on the BoM but on those that did the cherry-picking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="560" LastEditDate="2011-12-08T05:09:14.013" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T05:09:14.013" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4868" CreationDate="2011-12-08T08:19:37.867" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there are two options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He survived, and it was a miracle. (The whole story is miraculous, from the storm that stops, through the fish spitting him out at a certain location to the repentance of Nineveh.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He didn't survive, he died and was resurrected, also a miracle. I think this is the implication of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2011:30&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Luke 11:30&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-12-09T06:29:42.500" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T06:29:42.500" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4877" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4881" CreationDate="2011-12-08T11:53:34.053" Score="6" ViewCount="1026" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got the following line from the movie Cowboys vs Alien. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God doesn't care who you were. He only cares who you are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking it with a pinch of salt, I'd like to ask the community if this statement can be asserted with biblical sources. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="122" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-10T01:33:43.050" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T01:33:43.050" Title="Does God care about who we were?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4511" CreationDate="2011-12-08T14:28:41.350" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;By and large, Protestants don't really use the Rule of Faith as it is classically known.  So to answer your question would be rather difficult since Protestantism has chosen to separate itself (potentially too much) from classical Catholicism.  And I only say this because I sincerely doubt many protestants even know what the Rule of Faith even is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T14:28:41.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4877" CreationDate="2011-12-08T14:29:47.323" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course God cares who you were, just as much as He cares about who you are, and just as much as He cares about who you will become.  Ultimately, God always cares, that is what Perfect Love does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 136 says that His love endures forever as a refrain throughout.  Dallas Willard says that &quot;the first act of love is the giving of attention.&quot;  God has been giving us His attention for a very long time, which is another way of saying that He has cared about us for a very long time.  In fact, Love can do no other than to care, for love to be uncaring would be a contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously God cared about who we were enough to want to remake us as new creations (2 Cor 5:17), and also cared about who we were enough to want to separate us from our sins &quot;as far as the east is from the west.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="794" LastEditDate="2011-12-08T16:01:48.903" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T16:01:48.903" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4877" CreationDate="2011-12-08T14:30:30.320" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Key Verses&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;If any one is in Christ, he is a new Creation. Behold, the old things have passed away, the new is come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Cor 5:17&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the east is from the west,&#xA;   so far has he removed our transgressions from us&#xA;- Psalm 103:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Interpretation&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;So, the whole basis of the Gospel is grace - the unmerited favor of God towards sinners.  Grace is the complete forgiveness of sin, and a core tenet of the Gospel is that God's grace is abundant.  Put simply, there is no sin that God cannot forgive. (I know, somebody's going to link to the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but that's not where I'm going.)  In forgiving us, God's design is to make us a new creation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether forgiveness means that the sin is forgotten or merely paid for is irrelevant to the original question - does God &lt;em&gt;care&lt;/em&gt; about what we were? Not in the plainest sense, no.  Its water under the bridge, so to speak. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God's design then is that we are transformed into a new creation, it would seem silly to assume that God would spend much time caring about where we begin. Put another way, God is sufficiently focused on what he will make of us that it seems silly for him to focus on what we were when we came to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, here's where I'm going to shift from God's motivation to what I suspect is the real thrust of the quote - If God is more concerned about what he would make of us, then once we come to him, any time we spend focused on what we were is distraction.  We feel guilt and shame, to be sure, but the awesome news that is the Good News is this - God has forgiven us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying not to preach here, but the point is so basic I think it needs to be made: God has forgiven our sin. What we were is no longer relevant. (It may have consequences in the temporal - not arguing that, I'm just saying, God is making us new.)  The theological import of the admonition is 100% right on - God doesn't care where we came from, because he wants to remake us into his new creation anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One last avenue of argument - Temporal Omnipresence&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians (Process Theologians excepted) would, I believe, argue that God is not constrained by time. Given temporal omnipresence, then, God would simultaneously see the sinner and the new creation.  If God is outside of time, not part of the timestream if you will, then there is no past or present for God - all time happens at once.  If that is the case, then it isn't possibly to for God to care where you &lt;em&gt;came&lt;/em&gt; from or where you &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; going, because its all present tense to him.  Being that God loves us, he must care for us as we are along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2011-12-08T16:59:42.140" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T16:59:42.140" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4479" CreationDate="2011-12-08T15:56:47.850" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Justification, if it is an event, probably happened that weekend when Jesus was crucified, died and was buried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, since God exists outside of time, from His perspective there may not be a &quot;moment&quot; when justification happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the better question is why does it matter when justification happened?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T15:56:47.850" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4884" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4886" CreationDate="2011-12-08T17:17:10.590" Score="8" ViewCount="1148" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”&#xA;     “The son of David,” they replied.&#xA;   43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,&#xA;     44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:&#xA;     “Sit at my right hand&#xA;  until I put your enemies&#xA;     under your feet.”’[e] &#xA;   45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The response is silence, and apparent victory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord.  I get that its a good theological point.  But why does it silence his critics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2015-09-04T15:34:24.260" LastActivityDate="2015-09-04T15:34:24.260" Title="Why was Jesus able to silence his critics simply by pointing out that the Messiah was both Lord *and* son?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;pharisees&gt;&lt;sadducees&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4479" CreationDate="2011-12-08T18:22:27.677" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Methodist tradition, a person is justified when they accept the grace God has given them, and make a decision to follow his will rather than their own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though justification by itself is not a process, it is the beginning of the process of sanctification, in which we work with God to transform us into the people God intended us to be. This is, as far as I understand, similar to the Catholic and Orthodox concept of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;theosis&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T18:22:27.677" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4884" CreationDate="2011-12-08T20:09:24.317" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Earlier on in Mathew 22 the Pharisees are trying to trap Jesus with what they probably considered paradoxes or no-win scenarios (ie Jesus picks one side he'll anger the other side). I've always imagined these questions are the kinds of questions the Pharisees argued over in the internet forums of their day (Should we pay taxes to Caesar? Matt 22:15, Will the Dead will rise again? Matt 22:23, What's the most important commandment? Matt 22:34).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question Jesus asks the Pharisees in verse 41 is along the same lines. He shows them something that was probably ingrained in them since they were born (that the Messiah is the Son of David) and called it into question. In a way it challenged their thoughts on God and who the Messiah was really going to be. And exactly like you mentioned in your comments the theological implications were not lost of the Pharisees, who as far as I know, never expected the Messiah to be both God and Man. Imagine your own theology being blown out of the water by your own scriptures to the extent of being irrefutable, by virtue of source and being logically sound. This wasn't something Jesus was just saying (something that could be refuted), he instead pointed them to scripture which is something they all held sacred. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence the silence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-12-08T20:21:32.020" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T20:21:32.020" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4887" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-08T20:38:48.077" Score="1" ViewCount="7020" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the religious significance of the modern practice to decorate the outside of the house and front yard with strings of light?  Is it entirely secular?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1073" LastActivityDate="2015-12-11T10:05:40.473" Title="What is the religious significance of Christmas lights?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-10-28T17:16:08.437" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4888" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-08T20:40:59.483" Score="6" ViewCount="1229" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Christianity definitively state that the God can never do wrong?  If so, where is this stated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-12-09T09:48:37.470" LastActivityDate="2011-12-10T01:32:51.150" Title="Is God capable of ever doing wrong?" Tags="&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2011-12-12T19:00:48.880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4889" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-08T21:48:20.800" Score="7" ViewCount="588" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not seem to prohibit slavery (whether using the modern definition or an alternate like &quot;indentured servitude&quot;). Does the Bible explain &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; it does not prohibit these practices?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-09T11:17:31.887" LastActivityDate="2011-12-10T17:51:08.340" Title="Why doesn't the bible prohibit slavery?" Tags="&lt;slavery&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2011-12-12T21:36:40.193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4887" CreationDate="2011-12-08T21:54:13.093" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, there certainly isn't anything in the Bible about it, for the simple reason that there isn't anything in the Bible about celebrating Christmas in the first place.  (Not to mention electricity!)  However, hanging or holding up lanterns to provide festive illumination after dark for festivals or celebrations is an ancient custom in many cultures, dating back to Old Testament days.  See the the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:1-13&quot;&gt;Parable of the Ten Virgins&lt;/a&gt; for just one example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T21:54:13.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4889" CreationDate="2011-12-08T22:09:59.217" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anything can be harmful.  If you're going to talk about something being harmful, you have to keep this in mind and ask whether it is &lt;em&gt;more harmful&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;less harmful&lt;/em&gt; than the alternatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you actually study the Mosaic laws on the subject of slavery, a couple things become apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, that indentured servitude under the Law was a contract that a person could enter into voluntarily in order to work off debts that they could not pay.  (What are the alternatives?  Take a look at the rest of the world.  Depending on where and when you look at, they tend to involve prison, extreme physical punishments up to and including death, exceptionally harsh and inhumane consequences for one's family, or some form of slavery.)  The evils of slave &lt;em&gt;capturing&lt;/em&gt; and slave &lt;em&gt;trading&lt;/em&gt; were completely absent from the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the bulk of the laws regarding slavery were on one point: defining and protecting the rights of such a servant.  For example, it was not legal to separate a slave from their family (unlike in the American South,) nor was it legal to physically abuse a slave. The punishment for doing so was for the slave to be immediately freed, which was equivalent to the debt being annulled.  As the primary reason for the use of slave labor has always been economic in nature, (you don't go buying slaves just because you wake up one day, give your mustache a good twirl, and get the urge to go out and &lt;em&gt;oppress&lt;/em&gt; someone) this legal protection provided quite a strong deterrent!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our brains operate on association and analogy.  When we see things that are similar, we tend to lump them together by nature.  It works really well, right up until we run into things that look superficially similar but are in reality completely different.  And the indentured servitude in the Old Testament was completely different from the horrific evils perpetrated by slave holders in the American South or by human traffickers today.  Trying to equate the two is a mistake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-12-08T22:09:59.217" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4888" CreationDate="2011-12-08T22:46:52.593" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christian theology holds that God is holy, righteous, omnipotent, and unchanging (among other things).  So, not only is He holy and righteous, but He has all power to maintain His holiness and never change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All He does is consistent with His character, and His character is holiness and righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, God is complete in Himself and has need of nothing, so there's nothing to tempt Him to do what is wrong.  We are tempted to do wrong, because we believe that sin will somehow be to our benefit.  God would certainly not be so easily deceived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-12-09T13:04:27.273" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T13:04:27.273" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4888" CreationDate="2011-12-09T00:54:20.073" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity defines right and wrong through God. It's not whether God does right or wrong, but rather that something is right &lt;em&gt;because God does it&lt;/em&gt;, or is in his nature to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T00:54:20.073" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4771" CreationDate="2011-12-09T01:03:16.293" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Basis of Union&quot; can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urc.org.uk/what_we_do/the_manual/the_basis_of_union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.urc.org.uk/what_we_do/the_manual/the_basis_of_union&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, understanding any denomination usually hinges on two issues - salvation and governance.  In my head, most any other distinctive could be chalked up to a peculiar practice or worship style, with its own concomitant theology.  The comparatives are usually in salvation or governance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Salvation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from the beginning it should be said that Presbyterians descend from a Calvinist tradition (in Scotland), whereas Congregationalists and Puritans descend from a decided mixture of Calvinistic and Arminian traditions.  In practice, I would assume that any already-in-the-minority free will positions that some Conrgegationalists held would have been further de-emphasized, but I couldn't find anything in the URC statement of belief to corroborate this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Governance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Statement 2: Identity The URC will be a Church where every local congregation will be able to say who they are, what they do and why they do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of church governance, Congregationalists stress the complete autonomy of the local church, although in practice many (like the Baptists) will come together in association in order to maximize their effectiveness. Presbyterians are very close to this - individual churches hire their own pastors, for example, but the power of the association and synod is a little greater.  (Its nothing like say, a Catholic church, but there is some governance!)  In practice, then, governance would have been a fairly easy compromise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2011-12-09T04:19:33.627" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T04:19:33.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4896" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4901" CreationDate="2011-12-09T01:49:13.357" Score="39" ViewCount="112323" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was about to say this in another discussion somewhere else, and wondered: do we know that?  As in &quot;it's mentioned or at least hinted at in $book $chapter:$verse&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is it just a very likely conjecture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="169" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-25T07:05:58.617" LastActivityDate="2015-03-04T05:04:52.393" Title="What evidence is there that Jesus was a carpenter?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4896" CreationDate="2011-12-09T02:03:51.180" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that Joseph was a τέκτων (tekton)- traditionally a carpenter but literally, any craftsman who worked with his hands, from Matthew 13:55 (Is this not the carpenter's son?).  Traditionally, boys would follow in their father's occupation, hence the tradition that Jesus was a carpenter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally in Mark 6:3, we get the same word describing Jesus himself. (Is this not the carpenter?). Mark is probably the older source ( the Farrer hypothesis ) from which Matthew is drawing. With Matthew's desire to portray Jesus as king, it makes sense that he would prefer to move such a menial task to the dad and let people just assume that Jesus would have been trained up in the family trade. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2011-12-12T17:25:51.723" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T17:25:51.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4898" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-09T04:40:48.583" Score="11" ViewCount="389" Body="&lt;p&gt;The recent discovery of an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16040655&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Earth-like planet&lt;/a&gt; caused me to wonder: do any Christian denominations have official doctrine regarding humans on other planets? If so, what is the doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1051/does-the-bible-make-any-allusions-to-life-on-other-planets&quot;&gt;Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-10-07T21:01:25.240" Title="Do any denominations have official doctrine regarding humans on other planets?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;extra-terrestrial-life&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4888" CreationDate="2011-12-09T11:00:20.877" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer depends on your definition of &quot;right&quot; and &quot;wrong&quot;. Christians base their definitions on God, so everything God does must necessarily be &quot;right&quot; by this definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not the only definition, however, and many non-Christians will undoubtedly say that some of God's actions, especially some mentioned in the Old Testament are &quot;wrong&quot; according to their definitions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T11:00:20.877" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4896" CreationDate="2011-12-09T12:00:08.347" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=1823&amp;amp;tt_page=tt_document%24jsp&amp;amp;docID=1096&quot;&gt;discussion here&lt;/a&gt; talks about the various possibilities.  To quote a small part that summarizes well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus' adopted father Joseph was a carpenter (Matthew 13:55 &amp;amp; Mark 6:3). The Greek word is Teckton which means builder. Now, some say he worked with wood; building tools, doors, shelves, tables etc. = carpenter. Others say because of the region and the resources were rock, and most everything was built from rock, then he built millstones, winepresses, houses, etc. = stonemason. There is no real evidence to clarify exactly what Joseph was a builder of, but we know that he was a Teckton = Builder. Now, in the Jewish culture of that time (1st century) it was required of the father to teach the son their trade at age 12, and find a wife for them around the age of 20. Joseph being very Jewish would have adhered to this practice and began teaching Jesus at 12 his trade of being a builder (Teckton).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2118&quot;&gt;This page&lt;/a&gt; from the same site offers additional explanation for the stonemason theory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Given that Israel's buildings were constructed of stones and rocks, Jesus likely worked as a stonemason rather than a carpenter. He probably spent hours helping his father shape and cut stones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above quoted site is provided by &lt;em&gt;That the World May Know Ministries&lt;/em&gt;, and offers a DVD series entitled &lt;em&gt;Faith Lessons&lt;/em&gt;, featuring the founder &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Authors/Author.htm?ContributorID=VanderLaanR&amp;amp;QueryStringSite=Zondervan&quot;&gt;Ray Vander Laan&lt;/a&gt; which offers documentary-style on-location Bible studies suitable for small groups.  I &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt; the one that addresses this issue is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310279624&amp;amp;QuerySiteString=Zondervan&amp;amp;QueryStringSite=Zondervan&quot;&gt;Life and Ministry of the Messiah&lt;/a&gt;, or possibly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310271161&amp;amp;QuerySiteString=Zondervan&amp;amp;QueryStringSite=Zondervan&quot;&gt;Walk as Jesus Walked&lt;/a&gt;.  It has been several years since I've watched these, and I don't have access to them now to confirm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-05-04T05:05:05.813" LastActivityDate="2013-05-04T05:05:05.813" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4896" CreationDate="2011-12-09T13:54:15.273" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, Jesus is called a carpenter in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:3&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Mark 6:3 NIV1984&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; based on comments below, some explanation of the word &lt;em&gt;carpenter&lt;/em&gt;. First, that is the word used in various translations, e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:3&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot;&gt;Amplified&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:3&amp;amp;version=GNT&quot;&gt;Good News&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;New American Standard Bible&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;King James&lt;/a&gt;. Secondly, it is true that the meaning has been questioned in some commentaries, where it has been suggested that the word could also mean, &lt;em&gt;craftsman&lt;/em&gt;. So, we cannot be 100% sure, but since the church has historically considered Jesus to have been a carpenter, and most or all translations use that, it seems probable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2011-12-10T13:56:02.033" LastActivityDate="2011-12-10T13:56:02.033" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4903" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12443" CreationDate="2011-12-09T13:54:41.030" Score="6" ViewCount="645" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4896/do-we-actually-know-that-jesus-was-a-carpenter&quot;&gt;stone mason theory&lt;/a&gt; because that would make Jesus and St. Joseph (the patron of manly men) really tough.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, is there any significance to the traditional conception of Jesus following St. Joseph as a table and chairs sort of carpenter as opposed to a millstone and monuments sort of carpenter borne of the Old Testament prophets? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any allusions to carpentry in the Old Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T04:40:58.597" Title="Were there any OT prophecies that Jesus should be a wood-working carpenter" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4904" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4911" CreationDate="2011-12-09T13:56:38.610" Score="6" ViewCount="1242" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that there is a difference between being a Mormon and being a Temple Mormon (one who has gone through the Temple Ceremony at least once and maintains Temple worthiness).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also understand that it is quite similar to the Masonic Temple Ceremonies and that Joseph Smith was himself a mason.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where exactly, then, did this Temple Ceremony come from?  Has it changed throughout the years and, if so, how specifically has it changed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-05-23T04:47:22.810" Title="What is the origin of the Mormon Temple Ceremony and how has it changed throughout the years?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;freemasonry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4903" CreationDate="2011-12-09T14:05:40.310" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. I researched exactly this when working on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4896/do-we-actually-know-that-jesus-was-a-carpenter/4902#4902&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;. This is not mentioned in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T14:05:40.310" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4907" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4912" CreationDate="2011-12-09T14:17:25.347" Score="5" ViewCount="1574" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any references to Jesus / the Messiah in the OT apocrypha?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#King_James_Version&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(See example of book list here.)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2011-12-09T14:58:31.130" LastActivityDate="2020-07-11T12:00:58.223" Title="Are there any Messianic references in the OT apocrypha?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;apocrypha&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2020-07-11T13:35:08.010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4903" CreationDate="2011-12-09T14:28:12.020" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Carpentry &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; mentioned in the Old Testament but not as a prophecy about Jesus. Carpenters are mentioned in several of the histories - unsurprisingly usually in the context of building houses and the like - and once or twice in Isaiah (depending which version you use - sometimes it is translated as the more generic &quot;craftsman&quot; instead of &quot;carpenter&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T14:28:12.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4907" CreationDate="2011-12-09T14:51:36.663" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there are several (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirach&quot;&gt;Sirach&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch&quot;&gt;Enoch&lt;/a&gt; for example). In fact Jude quotes the book Enoch. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jude 1:14-15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of&#xA;  these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his&#xA;  saints,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly&#xA;  among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly&#xA;  committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have&#xA;  spoken against him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T14:51:36.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4888" CreationDate="2011-12-09T15:03:49.517" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joel's answer is a good one, but I would just add that the question is really one that's sort of loaded with certain presupposed authority.    For anything to be deemed objectively right or wrong, then that thing needs to be measured against some sort of authoritative transcendent standard (a standard that supercedes the thing in question).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order for God to do a &quot;wrong,&quot; then there would have to be some sort authority or standard higher than God himself against which His actions are measured.   Hypothetically, suppose God was deemed to have done something &quot;wrong&quot;...who/what is it that gets to decide or identify it as such?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity presupposes God as the ultimate sovereign and author and sustainer of all things.   He creates the cosmos and defines the rules of the game, as it were.  There are naunces and consequences of the &quot;rules&quot; that may seem unfortunate to us at times, but there's no higher set of rules that we can point to in order to say they are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe it's not as related as it seems, but it kind of reminds me of this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 9:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump&#xA;  one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the sole owner of his creations, no one is really in a position to argue that the potter has made the wrong pot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T15:03:49.517" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4904" CreationDate="2011-12-09T15:44:15.963" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are more than one LDS Temple covenants.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism (for the dead)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Endowment (including washing and anointing on first visit)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Confirmation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ordination to higher offices of the priesthood (and ordination to Elder on behalf of the dead)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Marriage and eternal family sealings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming you're referring to the endowment covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the lds.org page on &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&amp;amp;sourceId=b1747c2fc20b8010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&amp;amp;vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&quot;&gt;Temples&lt;/a&gt; (under Additional Information):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One ordinance received in the temple is called the endowment. The word endowment means &quot;gift,&quot; and the temple endowment truly is a gift from God. The ordinance consists of a series of instructions and includes covenants to live righteously and follow the requirements of the gospel. The endowment focuses on the Savior, His role in Heavenly Father's plan, and the personal commitment of each member to follow Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_%28Mormonism%29&quot;&gt;Endowment&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The endowment was instituted by founder Joseph Smith, Jr. in the 1840s with further contributions by Brigham Young and his successors. The ceremony is performed in Latter Day Saints' temples, special places dedicated specifically for the endowment and certain other rituals sacred to Mormons, and is closed to all but worthy Mormons. There was a brief period during the construction of the Salt Lake Temple where a small building referred to as the Endowment House was used to perform the ritual. The endowment is currently practiced by the LDS Church, several denominations of Mormon fundamentalism, and a few other Mormon denominations. The LDS Church has simplified its ceremony from the way it existed in the 19th century, and has removed some of the more controversial elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the LDS church, the endowment ceremony was revealed to Joseph Smith by God.  According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exmormon.org/journey/journey_g.htm&quot;&gt;church detractors&lt;/a&gt;, the endowment ceremony was based on the Masonic initiation ceremony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the specific changes, the Wikipedia Endowment article has a section at the bottom called &quot;Later modifications by the LDS Church&quot;.  It's too long a section to quote in the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="583" LastEditDate="2011-12-09T15:49:31.120" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T15:49:31.120" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4907" CreationDate="2011-12-09T15:54:11.553" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not part of my definition of apocrypha, but reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/wisdom/2&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wisdom&lt;/a&gt; leaves you with a distinct feeling that that the messiah is coming and he's going to be very badly treated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't post all of Wisdom 2 here, but make sure if you read it, that you don't cut up the verses, these are bad people talking bad things about a righteous Man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For, not thinking rightly, they said among themselves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Wisdom 2:1 NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, basically, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;amp;v=cZ5aYoSr3Hg&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;as some English monks point out&lt;/a&gt;, the entire Bible points to Christ in some way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Tobit, He is the Messenger of New Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Judith, He is Weakness Turned into Victory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Esther*, He is our Advocate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 and 2 Maccabees, He is the Leader who dies for God’s law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Wisdom, He is the emanation of God’s thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Jesus is our security.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Baruch, He is the Mercy from the Eternal One.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Daniel*, Jesus is the Fourth Man in the fiery furnace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I know these aren't 100% Deuterocanonical, but they're in here for completion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T15:54:11.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4898" CreationDate="2011-12-09T16:29:29.807" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints mentions other worlds in their scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.24?lang=eng#23&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 76:23-24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 For we saw him [Jesus], even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moses 1:31-35&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T16:29:29.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4888" CreationDate="2011-12-09T16:53:16.777" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholicism, for one, does not pander to notions of moral relativism, that there is no objective truth and good and evil can't be objectively established.  We have no problem taking on hard questions like this, but the answer is a mystery that'll only leave you hanging.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The active will of God is only going to do and has only done the highest good.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flooding the earth to cleanse it, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;killing the first born Egyptian sons, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;letting Satan pick on poor old Job and kill his family.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the things we read in the Bible about God actually doing, not just let happen are indeed good and it's not just the Jewish or Christian conception of good.  It's the objective, ordered with the universe conception of good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The world was flooded, leaving only Noah and his family alive, because they were actually the only people who had any fear of the Lord in them and if God's plan for salvation was to continue, he was going to have to do something.  Everyone else brought judgement upon themselves, they had over a hundred years to repent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The first born children of Egypt were killed due to the hardness of Pharaoh's heart, which was caused by God, but He still respects our freewill - and how are the people who allowed the sons of Jacob to become enslaved in the land where their coming was such a blessing not guilty? They had 9 plagues in which to depose Pharaoh which they squandered. In pre-youth worshiping cultures, I think it would be the parents who would be considered the victims here and it's them who were being judged, not their innocent children.  God gives life and takes it away, it's not an atrocity for God to be God at the beginning of life any more than it is for Him to be God at the end of your life. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job's sons were not living rightly, and even though they didn't &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; anything to deserve to have their house collapse on them, they could have been &lt;em&gt;doing&lt;/em&gt; something instead of partying.  Also, that ought to be taken more allegorically anyway - but people often bring it up as God doing something nasty. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything else you see or hear about God doing, letting Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Tornadoes happen, these are all things God allows to happen, yeah, but it's always to bring about a greater good.  But we can't understand, nor can we convince anyone else with our words. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-12-09T20:00:52.053" LastActivityDate="2011-12-09T20:00:52.053" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4888" CreationDate="2011-12-10T01:32:51.150" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some ways, this is a question that makes no sense, simply because God defines what is right and wrong.  It's like the questions about an unstoppable object hitting an unmovable object, or asking if God can create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift.  The questions themselves are nonsense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because God defines what is right and wrong, and that he only does right, asking if God can do wrong is kind of like asking if God can be not God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All through the Bible, God is the definition of what is right and good, and claims he has the right to make that definition as well.&#xA;1 John 1:5 &quot;God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.&quot; &#xA;James 1:17 &quot;Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.&quot; &#xA;Job 40:8 &quot;“Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's still valid to ask the question, because understanding what the question means helps to understand the nature of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastActivityDate="2011-12-10T01:32:51.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4916" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-10T06:15:11.900" Score="1" ViewCount="438" Body="&lt;p&gt;On this site there is plenty of information about what the &quot;official&quot; doctrines of various denominations are, but I doubt that the majority of Christians follow all of these to the letter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have there been any studies done to identify beliefs taught by a denomination, but which are widely ignored or not given much weight by its members?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example would be self-identifying Catholics who use contraception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To avoid the &quot;no true scotsman&quot; fallacy, consider a member of a denomination to be anyone who identifies themselves as such. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm mostly interested in protestant views, but interesting examples from other groups are also welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastActivityDate="2011-12-10T13:59:17.120" Title="What &quot;fundamentalist&quot; beliefs are most commonly rejected by &quot;moderate&quot; Christians?" Tags="&lt;fundamentalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-12-11T14:49:40.807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4916" CreationDate="2011-12-10T13:59:17.120" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The hardest part in this answer is to distinguish Evangelicals from Fundamentalists, who share the same doctrines, but a different culture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Fundamentalist movement itself takes it's name from a set of books called &quot;The Fundamentals,&quot; published in 1925 as a reaction to modern liberalism in church polity. It basically called for a return to literal interpretation of the Bible and an increased focus on holiness. After the humiliating press from William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey Trial in the same year, the movement also advocated a complete separation from and rejection of the culture. This has the practical result of demphasizing missions in most truly fundamentalist churches. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1950s, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and others reacted to this gap by telling fundamentalists they needed to reenage the culture- the foundation of evangelicalism. And, with Roe v Wade in the 1970s most remaining fundamentalists came to believe that engagement in politics was necessary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Fundamemtalism itself is a movement and not a denomination, it is not possible to speak of doctrines or polity (though in effect most are Baptists in these matters) but rather culture and emphasis. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Primary distinctives are thus Literal Interpretation of the Bible, a rejection of theologically liberal learning (especially of the late 1800s) and a call to be separate from the culture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2011-12-10T13:59:17.120" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4889" CreationDate="2011-12-10T17:08:30.360" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the Bible does not, to my knowlege, &lt;em&gt;prohibit&lt;/em&gt; slavery, it certainly does &lt;strong&gt;condemn&lt;/strong&gt; it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 1:9-11 NIV1984&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for &lt;strong&gt;slave traders&lt;/strong&gt; and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 1that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding those two highlighted words, &lt;em&gt;slave traders&lt;/em&gt;, it is only used here in Scripture. Scholars differ as to whether it is referring to making people a slave by force or trading in slaves. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godvine.com/bible/1-Timothy/1-10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; for some commentaries on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, many people raise the question you have asked. Perhaps this is because other translations use different (possibly less clear) terminology, e.g. the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Amplified&lt;/a&gt; uses &lt;em&gt;kidnappers&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:9-11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;KJV&lt;/a&gt; uses &lt;em&gt;menstealers&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the principle of keeping people captive was condemned by Jesus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:10-17&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 13:10-17&lt;/a&gt;) and the opposite, freedom, He considered an aim of salvation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:31-36&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 8:31-36&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One caveat: when considering slavery in the &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; sense, it is important to consider who is the slave owner. Paul describes this in detail in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%206&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 6&lt;/a&gt;, saying that we should not be slaves to sin but that we &lt;em&gt;should be&lt;/em&gt; slaves to righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-10T17:51:08.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4573" CreationDate="2011-12-10T21:14:51.707" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jesus had merely claimed to be God and done nothing else, people would protest His claim by asserting that He never did anything to prove His Deity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Jesus chose to do was to prove His Deity by what He did and said, and the result is that many people protest because He didn't specifically claim to be God often enough or clearly enough for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, we really do not know how often Jesus claimed to be God, nor in how many ways.  The gospel accounts do not record every word that Jesus ever spoke.  Rather, the gospel writers chose to record certain things that were pertinent to the audience they targeted.  So, perhaps Jesus claimed to be God very clearly and very often, but that just wasn't recorded in the gospel accounts.  Again, we don't have an audio recording of everything Jesus ever said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Jesus did certainly did demonstrate very clearly that He most certainly claimed to be the eternal Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He forgave sins, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, walked on water, fed 5,000, raised the dead, demonstrated omniscience... the list goes on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gospel writers record that Peter was convinced that Jesus was the Son of God, and Jesus does not correct His conclusion.  On the contrary, Jesus affirms it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon Peter replied, &quot;You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.&quot;&#xA;  And Jesus answered him, &quot;Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh&#xA;  and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in&#xA;  heaven.  Matthew 16:16-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples were convinced that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God.  In fact, John's whole point in writing his gospel was to convince others to believe that very thing.  The approach he chose to use in order to convince people was to show what Jesus did and let the strength of that evidence convince the reader.  In any court of law, a mere claim of something must be backed up by hard evidence.  A person's claim of innocence is irrelevant if all the evidence leads to the contrary.  Jesus' claim to Deity is attested to by a preponderance of evidence.  In fact, even if Jesus never took the stand an made the claim to His Deity, He could still be found &quot;guilty as charged&quot; based on the abundant evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-10T21:14:51.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4868" CreationDate="2011-12-11T00:00:04.127" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well - you can easily answer this yourself. You need fresh oxygen every minute, and will die after about 3 minutes without fresh air. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would you expect fresh air in the stomach of an animal? Of course not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if it happened every second week, that people get eaten by whales, and come back again - it wouldn't be a miracle. But what is the function of the big fish, eating the human? It shall convince you about something extraordinary happening here, and giving the words of Jonas more authority. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="282" LastActivityDate="2011-12-11T00:00:04.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4728" CreationDate="2011-12-11T03:08:35.193" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;A little bit of apples and oranges here, so if you don't mind me clarifying a few terms here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Protestantism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the West, most Christians assume that Protestant means anything &quot;not Roman Catholic.&quot; Yes, we're ignoring the Orthodox, but I think a strong working definition of Protestantism would be as follows: Any non-Roman Catholic denomination that split from the &quot;universal church&quot; after the Reformations of the 16th Century (1517 onwards). If you don't like the 'accident of history' definition, there is a belief-basis answer as well - see the other response for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants differ in a lot of theology, but share a common belief that the Roman pontiff has no special claim to leadership of the church.  In this, Protestants really are just picking up the same argument that the Orthodox had before the Reformation, but there is a theological difference between those that split before 1054 and those that split after 1517.  This is both geographical (East vs. West) and in terms of theological emphasis.  (No Orthodox mysticism, for example, would ever be confused with, say, Scholastic theology or a Spurgeon outline).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Evangelicalism&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;First off, Evangelicalism is a movement, not a denomination. It is a reformed fundamentalism that tends to define itself as reformed fundamentalism. It stresses literal interpretation of the Bible, a return to holiness, engagement with the culture, tends to be missiological, etc... Interestingly enough, the argument is out there that you don't &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to be Protestant to be Evangelical, although many assume you have to be.  At the risk of self-promotion, I would suggest a quick look at the history &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4916/what-fundamentalist-beliefs-are-most-commonly-rejected-by-moderate-christian/4917#4917&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Evangelical and Protestant&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;In 2007, Francis Beckwith, slated to become president of the Evangelical Theological Society, became a Roman Catholic.  Story &lt;a href=&quot;http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2007/05/evangelical-theological-society.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. In the end, the Evangelical society basically pushed him out, asserting that part of Evangelicalism is being non-Papist.  Tony Blair, when he &quot;converted&quot; to Roman Catholicism was also considered by many to be an Evangelical, and is still considered by many to be both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ecumenicalism&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Recently, amongst most American Christians, we are living in a post-denominational age. As a practical matter, most Christians tend not to care about governance.  In a lot of ways, this was due to the fact that Evangelicalism was a movement rather than a denomination.  There was an impulse, regardless of denomination, to return to &quot;the fundamentals.&quot;  This general reforming trend in church politics, as well as the &quot;Culture Wars&quot; of the 80s in which most Protestants realized they had more in common with Catholics than not, has led to a general diminution of denominationalism in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The New Evangelicals&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;So, most mega-church pastors (I'm thinking the Rick Warrens, Lon Solomons, John Piper, etc...) tend to be Protestant and Congregationalist. I suspect the reason is more logistical than anything else - the charismatic leadership of a superstar pastor is harder to sustain in a more hierarchical church.  I mean think about it - you're a flashy priest in the Roman Church.  You start attracting 4000 people on a Sunday.  What are the chances you are going to be left to continue your work without any change in orders from above? Doesn't matter if you're being promoted or told to back off - its just harder to achieve a personal following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I think you're seeing is a correlation - mega church stars tend to be Congregationalist, because that's the only way to sustain a personality based ministry, and evangelical because, frankly, evangelical churches are growing really strongly in the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I doubt any of these &quot;stars&quot; are going to be hitting &quot;the evils of papistry&quot; very hard - mostly because I doubt most other Christians care. Are they still Protestant? Sure.  Buy 'em a beer and they'll tell you they like the Pope but don't believe he's infalliable.  Ask 'em to do deep theology, and they'll tell you why.  But is important? No. So, Why do I call them protestant? Becuase of time.  Why don't they care? Becuase nobody in their churches does either. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T15:31:01.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4717" CreationDate="2011-12-11T05:55:05.310" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will risk an answer, though I too hold these things to be very sacred.  I will also offer this disclaimer:  This is my understanding, having been a life-long member of the LDS church.  If a lack of references and citations means this answer needs to be deleted, I fully understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My question is, according to LDS teaching, when does a person have to use the secret handshakes and passwords? Are there different levels for different handshakes? What if a person forgets them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though I am a devout member of the Latter-Day Saint church and fully believe its teachings and doctrines, I must admit that I have a difficult time understanding why an omnipotent God needs to have &quot;angels who stand as sentinels&quot; as if someone could sneak in. So my current level of understanding is less literal, and this is based on what I have been taught about the temple and in the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically (and here I might be digressing from your question.  I apologize), in the temple the ceremonies are highly symbolic.  The things we see, hear, say, and do are intended to help us learn by the Spirit what the Lord would have us know.  On the surface, each person in attendance has the same experience.  But the amazing thing about symbols is that each person will understand them differently.  The more we attend the temple and become familiar with the symbols used, the more easily we can quietly listen to the Spirit who brings into our minds and hearts different connections, insights, and understandings.  Sometimes these are in direct answers to prayers and concerns we've brought before the Lord.  Sometimes these are things we are now ready to learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we need to worry about remembering specific actions and words?  Maybe.  But I think it is much more likely that these things are symbols through which we can be taught and prepared for what the Lord has in store for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do wives have to wait to enter heaven until their husbands die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned above, we believe that entrance to Heaven happens after the resurrection.  So wives and husbands get to go together.  If the symbolism in the temple is a literal precursor of future events, there is one point at which the husband goes first, but it is very much (in my mind) on the order of a husband carrying his bride across the threshold.  Another way to think of it is, in my culture, men will sometimes go first for the privilege of then extending a helping or loving hand to his beloved.  We hold the door for them, or we climb up the rock, and then offer a hand to her.  It is loving, kind and thoughtful.  How wonderful to enter Heaven together, being in love, holding hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for giving me the chance to express myself. I've never put down in words how I felt about these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-11T11:43:24.443" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T11:43:24.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2396" CreationDate="2011-12-11T06:27:27.060" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;While this may have something to do with sex, it goes much deeper than that.  Becoming one flesh involves each spouse sharing every aspect of themselves.  If you attempt to maintain separate identities and hold back parts of yourself from your spouse, it can lead to ruin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like a wedge driven into the heart of a strong, living tree, hiding small parts of yourself slowly separates you from your spouse.  With time, the small wedge destroys the tree.  Likewise, for marriages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These things that I mention come directly from experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the practical applications of &quot;two shall become one flesh&quot;?  It is sharing every aspect of yourself with your spouse.  From where I stand, from what I know, it is the only way to ensure a long and happy marriage, a stable family.  To know everything there is to know about the other person, to have them know everything about you, and then together to live a Christ-like life -- that is how we grow together through the years, not apart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastEditorUserId="1075" LastEditDate="2011-12-13T21:25:58.480" LastActivityDate="2011-12-13T21:25:58.480" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4866" CreationDate="2011-12-11T12:54:36.140" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Question: is &quot;the New Rite&quot; necessarily a proper noun, or could this be a general reference to all old forms of repetitive forms of worship being replaced by &quot;true worship of the heart,&quot; which in turn grow stale and must be replaced by new energetic forms of worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This the translation I found at the Catholic Encyclopedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Down in adoration falling,&#xA;  Lo! the sacred Host we hail,&#xA;  Lo! oe'r ancient forms departing&#xA;  Newer rites of grace prevail;&#xA;  Faith for all defects supplying,&#xA;  Where the feeble senses fail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The translation &quot;newer rites&quot; overtaking older ones would tend to support this position. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2011-12-11T20:45:15.847" LastActivityDate="2011-12-11T20:45:15.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4926" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-11T14:02:40.450" Score="8" ViewCount="6320" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have many times heard the claim that only very few people who identify themselves as Christians have actually read all or most of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have there been any studies to approximate the percentage of Christians who have read the Bible? I have found several numbers, but none of them cite any reliable sources.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any significant differences between denominations?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastActivityDate="2014-06-03T16:08:28.923" Title="How many Christians have actually read the whole Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4728" CreationDate="2011-12-11T15:01:17.407" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems in your question your assumption is that Protestantism is something akin to Contra-Catholicism. This is not the case. What distinguishes protestants from Catholics and what identifies different denominations both as protestant is the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29&quot;&gt;Justification by Faith&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take that as the working definition of what is to be protestant then it is no stretch of the imagination to think that all of the major evangelical leaders would classify themselves as protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a member of an extremely large non denominational evangelical church I can say with some authority that we believe and promote the doctrines '&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers&quot;&gt;priesthood of all believers&lt;/a&gt;' and '&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura&quot;&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/a&gt;' both of which are distinguishing beliefs of Protestantism. I would be shocked if I learned other similar churches did not believe the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have evangelicals (and thereby many protestants) and Catholics moved closer theologically since the reformation? Perhaps; although &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/is_the_reformation_over_john_calvin_roman_catholicism_and_contemporary&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; is a recent article that discusses remaining tensions between the two (specifically reformed theology).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2011-12-11T15:58:29.577" LastActivityDate="2011-12-11T15:58:29.577" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4928" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4930" CreationDate="2011-12-11T20:39:23.400" Score="7" ViewCount="435" Body="&lt;p&gt;Could Jesus save Satan?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some biblical reference with explanation, would be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1076" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T13:01:52.660" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T13:01:52.660" Title="Could Jesus save Satan?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2011-12-12T14:05:33.820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4928" CreationDate="2011-12-11T23:21:45.560" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is very little in Scripture directly about Satan, so biblical references aren't really going to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to clarify, however, is the meaning of &lt;em&gt;Satan&lt;/em&gt; as opposed to Beelezub, Lucifer, or the Devil.  It should be noted that while we all think this is the same bad guy, the primary reference to Satan (and really the only one from which much can be gleaned) is in the first two chapters of Job.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ha-Satan literally means &amp;quot;the Accuser.&amp;quot;  To &amp;quot;save&amp;quot; a (false) accuser, presumably from the results of his lying would mean forcing him to withdraw his charge.  Once &amp;quot;the Accuser&amp;quot; is no longer Accusing, what is he?  He can be defeated (and will be!), or silenced, but to be &amp;quot;saved&amp;quot; would be to deny the very essence of what he is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the answer is &amp;quot;No.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its not because God doesn't have the power, or even the desire - its because of the law of non-contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*For completeness' sake, here are all the references, via Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ha-Satan with the definite article occurs 13 times in the Masoretic Text, in two books of the Hebrew Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job ch.1–2 (10x)&#xA;Zechariah 3:1–2 (3x)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan without the definite article is used in 10 instances, of which two are translated diabolos in the Septuagint and &amp;quot;Satan&amp;quot; in the King James Version:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Chronicles 21:1, &amp;quot;Satan stood up against Israel&amp;quot; (KJV) or &amp;quot;And there standeth up an adversary against Israel&amp;quot; (Young's Literal Translation)[8]&#xA;Psalm 109:6b &amp;quot;and let Satan stand at his right hand&amp;quot; (KJV)[9] or &amp;quot;let an accuser stand at his right hand.&amp;quot; (ESV, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-11T23:21:45.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4928" CreationDate="2011-12-12T13:33:30.033" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible reveals no provision of salvation for angelic beings, while it speaks quite a bit about the provision of salvation for mankind.  It also speaks of &quot;the eternal fire&quot; as a place prepared for the devil and his angels...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed,&#xA;  into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  Matthew&#xA;  25:41 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically speaking, there is no &quot;first Adam&quot; of the race of angels, because they neither marry nor are given in marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,&#xA;  but are like angels in heaven.  Matthew 22:30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, without a &quot;first Adam&quot;, there could be no &quot;Second Adam&quot;, and consequently, no Savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T13:33:30.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4932" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4943" CreationDate="2011-12-12T16:09:06.440" Score="10" ViewCount="1328" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, several places in the bible are just lists of names:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis 5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I Chronicles 1 - 10&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke 3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;all come to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 1, in particular, I have pulled sermons out of the only four women named (each one has a really good story!), but I wonder what use a genealogy is from a theological point of view.  Obviously, there are good reasons to include them or they wouldn't be there, but I wonder how/if one should make use of these in a pulpit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-10T02:48:35.637" LastActivityDate="2016-07-29T11:52:10.247" Title="What is the theological import behind genealogies?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-08-01T05:00:38.787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4926" CreationDate="2011-12-12T16:47:25.113" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics who attend daily Mass for 3 years will have &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=81943&quot;&gt;read through the entire Bible&lt;/a&gt;, or at least enough to disqualify themselves for St. Jerome to count them among the ignorant of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Jerome (famous bible translator)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't attempt to extrapolate numbers that don't exist, but you &lt;a href=&quot;http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/massattendweek.pdf&quot;&gt;might as well assume&lt;/a&gt; the number is non-negligible, but probably no more than 3% in North (of Mexico) America and Europe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I don't go to Mass every day any more because of work, commute and family, but I did read the whole Bible when I was a telerelay operator and had the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T16:47:25.113" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4932" CreationDate="2011-12-12T17:19:54.480" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of things about the numerology of the Bible which have been lost to time. The genealogy of Matthew actually has a good deal of &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=Go4XAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=hermeneutical+manual+fairbairn&amp;amp;cd=1#v=onepage&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; (see pg. 224). (Note the repetitions of 14). As Matthew has traditionally been seen as the Gospel &quot;to the Jews&quot; it is also noteworthy that his genealogy starts with Abraham (while Luke, writing to the gentiles, goes all the way back to Adam).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the pulpit is concerned, I've only ever heard these used as a gloss: &quot;notice the saints and sinners&quot; type stuff. It would have been more significant at the time, but most of us are not big genealogy buffs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2011-12-12T22:13:28.490" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T22:13:28.490" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4866" CreationDate="2011-12-12T17:31:37.860" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;New&quot; in this sense, is as in, &quot;New covenant (or new testament, if you're going by a literal translation of the word covenant).&quot; It is &quot;new&quot; as in it &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; 1200 (Aquinas wrote it), as opposed to the 4000(?) year old covenant of Abraham and the 2500 year old covenant of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It means that the believer is able to relate directly to the Godhead through the sacrifice of Christ, as opposed to the defective worship of the Old Testament (where the priest was mortal and sinful and had to offer sacrifice for his own sins in addition to the sins of the people and all of that other quasi-Pauline goodness from the book of Hebrews).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T17:31:37.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4936" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-12T21:35:13.397" Score="6" ViewCount="445" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems like the majority of Christian denominations oppose euthanasia, although I can't imagine it's universal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis against euthanizing terminally ill and those who are diagnosed as brain dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-13T23:52:01.500" LastActivityDate="2015-04-13T23:52:01.500" Title="What is the biblical basis against euthanasia?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;euthanasia&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4936" CreationDate="2011-12-12T22:34:29.230" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biblical argument, I believe, is that as Christians we all must have faith, and just as Christ was able to wake the &quot;dead girl who was sleeping&quot; (Mat. 9) so we should have faith that Christ can heal. Things get a little bit more ambiguous when you're talking about brain death, though &amp;mdash; we are able to keep body parts alive long after the original owner has clearly passed on (a transplanted heart will often out-survive its original owner for years), but committing suicide, in any circumstance, has been considered a profound lack of hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A non-biblical argument (put forth by Augustine) was that, more or less, &quot;dying&quot; had no substantive meaning &amp;mdash; I could have cancer and be told that i have two weeks to live. Clearly I would be &quot;dying&quot; in that case, but I could then make a full recovery tomorrow. On the other hand, I could be perfectly healthy and then decide to go for a walk and get hit by a bus. In this case, the person who seemed healthy was the one who was really dying and the person who seemed sick was not dying at all!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T22:34:29.230" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="27" CreationDate="2011-12-12T22:36:50.103" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to consider is that the doctrine of unconditional election goes hand-in-hand (logically) with the doctrine of total depravity.  To establish this relationship, there  are several passage to consider.   The idea being that through sin, man is naturally &quot;dead,&quot; and so predisposed against choosing the good news of God's salvation such that, left to his own devices, man won't believe and accept the free grace of Jesus's redemptive work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one passage, where one has to kind of read between the lines a bit is  (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:1-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:1-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And you &lt;strong&gt;were dead in the trespasses and sins&lt;/strong&gt; 2 in which you once&#xA;  walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of&#xA;  the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of&#xA;  disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our&#xA;  flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by&#xA;  nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4But God, being&#xA;  rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive&lt;/strong&gt; together with&#xA;  Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and&#xA;  seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in&#xA;  the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in&#xA;  kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;through faith&lt;/strong&gt;. And &lt;strong&gt;this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his&#xA;  workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God&#xA;  prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bearing this in mind (i.e. we were once dead, but we've been made alive), it's also  interesting to note that reconciliation occurs at the point where man is still in emnity with God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%205:10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 5: 10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of&#xA;  his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by&#xA;  his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...and kind of along the same vein, this verse touches on the the heart of belief with a sort of tautology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to&#xA;  us who are being saved it is the power of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if we think about the nature of belief, then this one should be a bit obvious, but it raises an interesting question.  We only believe that which we believe to be true (the obvious part), so what would it take to suddenly believe that which one considers folly...and all the more a folly offered by one's enemy?   In other words, if someone is an enemy of God (which we are before we're reconciled), and we believe the gospel to be folly (which we do before we believe it to be true), then how does one swap from a state of disbelief to a state of  belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel answers this question ... it takes a (quite literally!) change of heart:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2011:19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 11:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within&#xA;  them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them&#xA;  a heart of flesh&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is regeneration.  None of this would be necessary if man we already predisposed to be in harmony and faith with God, but since he's not, it requires a spiritual intercession to to soften man's heart.   He is born again, and given the capacity for faith.   This is the birth by spirit described in this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:5-8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 3:5-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Jesus answered, &quot;Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of&#xA;  water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which&#xA;  is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is&#xA;  spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'&#xA;  8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do&#xA;  not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone&#xA;  who is born of the Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also described in this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203:4-7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Titus 3:4-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,&#xA;  5he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but&#xA;  according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal&#xA;  of the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus&#xA;  Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by his grace we might&#xA;  become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Titus is particularly significant here, because it actually identifies the regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirirt as the means through which salvation is extended.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary, Salvation occurs by grace through faith, and is applied by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.   This regeneration is the (nec.) second birth which gives those dead in their sin a new life with a new heart with which they are able to believe.   This regeneration is nec. because the old, stoney heart of sinful man is, otherwise, unable (universally unwilling, if preferred :) ) to believe on the perceived folly of the gospel of grace presented by God (with whom man is at odds).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2011-12-12T22:36:50.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="79" CreationDate="2011-12-13T00:49:04.767" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The principle that nothing is allowable unless it is explicitly allowed in the Bible is a bad one.  This is also often referred to as &quot;being silent where the Bible is silent&quot;, and is usually applied selectively to rationalize traditionalism (and traditionalism not tolerated by Jesus - see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%207&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 7&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is best demonstrated by considering that Hymnals (like instruments) are not explicitly allowed in the New Testament, yet no proponents of this principle use it against Hymnals.  Rather, proponents seem to use it to subjectively target practices that do not fall into their traditional comfort zones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the principle is self contradictory, as it has no basis in the Bible.  So it is necessary to abandon the principle in order to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2011-12-13T01:13:00.120" LastActivityDate="2011-12-13T01:13:00.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4940" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-13T01:34:16.187" Score="7" ViewCount="2478" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Grace_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Free Grace Theology&lt;/a&gt; is that it separates the believers salvation from their sanctification, in that sanctification is not the necessary result of salvation.   It separates the call to believe and be saved from the call to follow and be a disciple.  In other words, people may be saved without exactly being &quot;followers&quot; (i.e., without going through the process of sanctification).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many passages in 1 John that seem to contradict Free Grace Theology, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:9-10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 3:9-10 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in&#xA;  him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. [10] By this the&#xA;  children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone&#xA;  who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who&#xA;  does not love his brother&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage seems to contradict Free Grace Theology's teaching that the saved may not be &quot;followers&quot; of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do adherents to Free Grace Theology reconcile/interpret 1 John?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/strong&gt;: I understand that this passage is not saying that Christians will &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; sin, lest it contradict &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 1:10&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-24T02:52:16.250" LastActivityDate="2016-01-24T02:52:16.250" Title="How does Free Grace Theology reconcile 1 John?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;1-john&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="109" CreationDate="2011-12-13T03:00:50.573" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have two points to make.  The first is that the sexual act is one of the most amazing gifts God has given us.  It brings two people closer together both physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.  It ties hearts and minds together and helps build unbreakable bonds of trust upon which stable families can be built. It is not the end-all and be-all of a strong marriage, but it is one of the most powerful tools we have been given to use for this purpose.  Let me reiterate: sex inside the marriage covenant brings about an intimacy and trust between the two that is unmatched by any other experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My second point to make is this.  You have to understand what sex is.  It is not simply the act of intercourse. Sex begins with flirting which communicates that the two find each other attractive.  Sexual tension and desire begin to develop and the two people find ways to be near each other, enjoying the rush of the endorphins and such that flood the brain.  When they begin becoming physically intimate, they spend time in foreplay allowing the sexual tension to build.  Intercourse is the culmination of this process of bringing two people so close together they are willing to share themselves so completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When did the sex begin?  Intercourse was at the end, and it was only part of the whole experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My concluding thoughts: If you are married, when can you tell your spouse is interested in sex?  Often it is when they are playful and flirty with you.  Sex starts with the flirt.  If you are married, then flirting outside of marriage is off-limits.  If you are married, seeking or enjoying sexual stimulus without your spouse is wrong, because it weakens (or destroys) the trust and intimacy shared between only you two.  This is why Christ said that even lusting after another is adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what if you aren't married yet? Well, flirting is ok, because that is how we signal the other person we are interested in moving the relationship in a more serious direction than just friendship.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now when you do meet and fall in love and marry the true love of your life, do you want to say to them (or do you want to hear them say), &quot;I have already shared this sacred gift of intimacy with others before you.  What we have is wonderful, but it won't be unique in my life because of my past decisions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sex is ordained of God between those who are married.  Flirting is part of courtship.  But anything that stimulates you sexually must be avoided unless it is with your spouse.  If you don't have a spouse yet, then continue to avoid it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastActivityDate="2011-12-13T03:00:50.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4932" CreationDate="2011-12-13T06:27:41.753" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not Catholic, but the Catholic Encyclopedia does a good job of outlining the importance of the genealogies &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06408a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several purposes for including the genealogies in Scripture, some theological, some merely cultural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the cultural side:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Hebrews shared the predilection for genealogies which prevailed&#xA;  among all the Semitic races. Among the Arabs, for instance, no&#xA;  biography is complete without a long list of the hero's ancestors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the theological side: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The priests and Levites had to prove their&#xA;  legal descent in order to fulfil the honourable and remunerative&#xA;  functions of their respective offices. On returning from the&#xA;  Babylonian Captivity several were excluded from the priestly class&#xA;  because they could not prove their Levitical pedigree (Ezra 2:62;&#xA;  Nehemiah 7:64).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally (and most importantly), the genealogies help to establish Jesus as the Messiah, since the &lt;a href=&quot;http://messiahfactor.com/page57.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Messiah was to come from the line of David&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how to use them from the Pulpit, use them as they were intended, and don't fall into the trap of making more of them than what they really are.  It's very easy to take a few verses and read a whole lot of meaning into them that aren't there.  Stick to the Word, and what it says, and you can avoid a whole lot of confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-12-13T06:27:41.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4936" CreationDate="2011-12-13T14:06:41.613" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may be overly simplistic, but I think it gets straight to the point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou shalt not kill. - Exodus 20:13 (King James Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1067" LastActivityDate="2011-12-13T14:06:41.613" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4945" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4947" CreationDate="2011-12-13T15:36:47.947" Score="9" ViewCount="981" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the LDS church institutes that Aaronic Priesthood.  In the Old Testament, this was specifically reserved to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and you shall gird &lt;strong&gt;Aaron and his sons&lt;/strong&gt; with sashes and bind caps on&#xA;  them. And the &lt;strong&gt;priesthood shall be theirs by a statute forever&lt;/strong&gt;. Thus&#xA;  you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.  Exodus 29:9 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the LDS Church, is this the same priesthood?  If so, what is the doctrinal precedent where people other than Jews from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron can be given that priesthood?  Who receives that Aaronic priesthood today and how long is it held?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T21:35:46.953" LastActivityDate="2015-08-05T21:35:46.953" Title="In LDS (Mormon) theology, what is the Aaronic Priesthood and to whom is it conferred?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;aaronic-priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4945" CreationDate="2011-12-13T21:43:52.840" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 107 verses 13-17 we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it&#xA;  was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their&#xA;  generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an&#xA;  appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power&#xA;  in administering outward ordinances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the&#xA;  keys or authority of the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this&#xA;  priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority&#xA;  to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office&#xA;  of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided&#xA;  he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands&#xA;  of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verses 16 &amp;amp; 17 get to the heart of your question.  Only Aaron and his sons have a legal right to the authority.  When a descendant of Aaron is not present, then a High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood can officiate in the office of bishop, which in LDS theology is the presiding authority in the Aaronic Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, all worthy young men, starting at age 12 can be ordained to an office in the Aaronic Priesthood.  There are a total of four offices:  deacon, teacher, priest, and bishop.  The worthy 12-years olds are ordained to the office of a deacon.  When they turn 14, if they are still worthy, they are ordained to the office of a teacher.  At 16 they can be ordained a priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, (age 18 or so) they can, with approval from their priesthood leaders, be advanced to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and ordained to the office of an elder.  This is why LDS missionaries are referred to as &quot;Elder.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The duties of the Aaronic Priesthood are spelled out clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants.  We also teach the young men of the church that the &lt;em&gt;purposes&lt;/em&gt; of the Aaronic Priesthood are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and live by its teachings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Serve faithfully in priesthood callings and fulfill the responsibilities of priesthood offices.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Give meaningful service.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Prepare and live worthily to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and temple ordinances.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Prepare to serve an honorable full-time mission.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Obtain as much education as possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Prepare to become a worthy husband and father.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Give proper respect to women, girls, and children.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Taken from &lt;em&gt;Handbook 2: Administering the Church&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to how long they hold the priesthood, as long as they remain worthy, it is not taken from them.  More responsibilities are added as they progress, but &quot;once a deacon, always a deacon.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are interested in knowing more about the particular duties of the Aaronic Priesthood in the LDS faith, I would be happy to share them as well.  But you probably have to ask that as a separate question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastActivityDate="2011-12-13T21:43:52.840" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="609" CreationDate="2011-12-13T22:09:02.047" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;I prefer to look at the verse itself, in this matter.  When I read this verse in Revelation it is easy to see that this is a warning to &lt;em&gt;mankind:&lt;/em&gt;  Don't add stuff!  It's not your right, and you don't have the authority!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it does NOT say that &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt; cannot (or even will not) continue revealing his word and his mind and his plans to mankind.  Remember Amos 3:7...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret&#xA;  unto his servants the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and I can promise you, God is very active still.  He is doing amazing things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible clearly teaches that the end times will have prophets.  Two will be killed in Jerusalem and the whole world will watch (Rev. 11) and there is even a warning about &lt;em&gt;false&lt;/em&gt; prophets, which would not be necessary if there were simply &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt; prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while the warning in Revelation might be viewed a warning about adding to the Holy Bible as a whole, it does not extend to God Himself.  He chooses to whom to speak, what to tell them, and what to do with that information.  If He tells them to tell others, well that is the definition of a prophet, and that is His prerogative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastEditorUserId="1075" LastEditDate="2012-09-22T00:37:44.803" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T00:37:44.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4949" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4950" CreationDate="2011-12-13T22:49:21.010" Score="27" ViewCount="35110" Body="&lt;p&gt;The gospel of Luke states that when the angel Gabriel appeared to Zacharia and told him that his wife Elizabeth would conceive John the Baptist, Zacheria doubts the prophecy and so is temporarily struck dumb till the day John would be born. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However even Mary expresses doubt at Gabriel's word that she would conceive Jesus. Why then is Mary not punished for doubting God's word unlike Zachariah? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1057" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-07T17:48:30.357" LastActivityDate="2018-03-26T01:44:29.107" Title="Why was Zachariah punished while Mary was not?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-03-27T02:46:09.613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2011-12-14T00:48:43.813" Score="40" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a subtle difference in the responses of Zacharias and Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zacharias says, in Luke 1:18 (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Zacharias said to the angel, “How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zacharias is essentially asking the angel, &quot;How do I know I can trust you? Prove it.&quot;  Furthermore, Zacharias's only basis of doubt was his and his wife's old age.  This was a miracle for which Biblical precedent had already been set (for Abraham, for example, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 18&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary, on the other hand, asks in Luke 1:34 (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is not asking &quot;How will I know&quot; (i.e., she's not asking whether she can trust God's word) - she is asking &lt;em&gt;how it can be&lt;/em&gt;, in a spirit of amazement and wonder, rather than a spirit of doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, note that in Luke 1:38, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary may have expressed doubt by asking how this would be initially, but once she was given an answer to her question of how it could be, she did believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-14T01:16:19.917" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T01:16:19.917" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4952" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6855" CreationDate="2011-12-14T01:30:57.303" Score="11" ViewCount="4420" Body="&lt;p&gt;A common belief (not my own, but fairly common) is that believers may lose or abandon their salvation.  A number of Bible verses seem to contradict this teaching, but in particular, 1 John 2:19 stands out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 2:19 (NASB):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like John is talking about a group (who he refers to as antichrists) who left their fellowship.  He seems to imply that if they had been true believers in the first place, they would not have left - which seems to directly contradict the doctrine of conditional security.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do proponents of conditional security interpret this verse, so that it does not contradict conditional security?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) A logical, natural alternate interpretation of the passage, or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) An answer that documents and references the most prevalent &quot;conditional security friendly&quot; interpretations of this passage, even if those interpretations are not necessarily logical or natural&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-03-19T23:37:33.820" LastActivityDate="2016-03-05T07:37:48.360" Title="How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-03-04T18:30:14.050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4940" CreationDate="2011-12-14T02:17:38.403" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is the key part:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in that sanctification is not the necessary result of salvation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free Grace would teach that a truly saving faith (not merely simple belief) is strong enough that &quot;sanctification&quot; will always result, and depending on who you talk to they may also say that on accepting Christ as their savior, the spirit of Christ will dwell in that person in a way that causes noticeable change (sanctification).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T02:17:38.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4956" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-14T04:29:42.630" Score="4" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there are many more names in the New Testament that no one would know, but this one strikes me as very odd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophetess Anna is described in pretty good detail, for the Bible at least, but she doesn't do anything.  She is described as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does his name give any credence to her story or her prophecy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-11-02T14:27:25.107" LastActivityDate="2017-11-02T14:27:25.107" Title="Would the Christians Luke was writing for know who Phanuel was?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4956" CreationDate="2011-12-14T04:58:30.873" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you'll get a definitive answer on this one.  There's no other reference in Scripture, so there's nothing to cross-reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My hunch is that some people would and some wouldn't, the same way some people in my Church would know who Ray Comfort is, and some wouldn't.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might simply be the habit of recording familial lines to avoid confusion with another Anna - this was Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, as opposed to another Anna.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that we have to assume that at least some (if not all) of the intended audience either was familiar with this person, or would be able to use the familial reference to determine the identity of this person.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Identification of a person as the &quot;son of&quot; or &quot;daughter of&quot; another person is a relatively common method of distinguishing individuals, not just in Biblical times, or even just in the Middle East.  I've heard references like this from Scotland, England, and various other places, both in historical works and in literature.  (I've even heard it in science fiction  i.e. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worf&quot;&gt;Worf son of Mogh&lt;/a&gt;.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that this was merely a common expression that most of the intended audience wouldn't think twice about.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-14T05:04:16.197" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T05:04:16.197" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2396" CreationDate="2011-12-14T07:22:01.440" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't agree that this is (just) an analogy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;become one flesh&quot; is literally true when it comes to having children, as a child inherits genetic (fleshly) material from both parents. The result of parental intimacy is, therefore, a very real fusion of their physical makeup in the child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, these physical realities do point to other non-physical outcomes of the union between man and woman. These have been adequately suggested by other answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T07:22:01.440" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2011-12-14T13:19:50.423" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the entire Jewish race began with a miraculous birth of an old man and woman who was &quot;past the age of childbearing&quot;.  Additionally, women who were barren became mothers through the provision of God--not only Sarah, but Rebekah and Rachel as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, &quot;Shall&#xA;  a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? &lt;strong&gt;Shall Sarah,&#xA;  who is ninety years old, bear a child&lt;/strong&gt;?&quot;  Genesis 17:17  ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because &lt;strong&gt;she was barren&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  And &lt;strong&gt;the LORD granted his prayer&lt;/strong&gt;, and Rebekah his wife conceived. &#xA;  Genesis 25:21 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Rachel was barren&lt;/strong&gt;.  Genesis 29:31 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Zechariah had apparently prayed specifically that God would allow he and his wife to have children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the angel said to him, &quot;Do not be afraid, Zechariah, &lt;strong&gt;for your&#xA;  prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  and you shall call his name John.  Luke 1:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Zechariah's prayer, like Abraham's, Isaac's, Rachel's, Hannah's and others, was heard.  The angel was merely announcing to Zechariah that his prayer would be answered.  So, he actually doubted God's proclaimed provision and answer to his prayer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary, however, had certainly not ever prayed that she would have a miraculous child out of wedlock, and a virgin had never given birth before, so her questioning is a quite a bit more understandable than that of Zechariah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T13:19:50.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2615" CreationDate="2011-12-14T14:25:19.163" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Phillippians 2:5-7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theological term for this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis&quot;&gt;kenosis&lt;/a&gt; - emptying. Jesus undid his divinity while on earth, and thus chose to put himself in a place where he could be surprised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2011-12-15T13:53:45.663" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T13:53:45.663" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2396" CreationDate="2011-12-14T15:44:56.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to add that the verse is not only analogous to what it will mean for believers to be the bride of Christ (in Christ) but also to understanding the trinity. God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three different persons yet one God (John 10:30). Likewise, the bride of Christ are one with Him. Ephesians 5:15-32 shows a great relevance between marriage of husband and wife and how the church will be Christ's bride and is good application to your question: What does being one flesh mean?. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marriage is a spiritual covenant made within the confines of God's will between two parties and thus doesn't require sex and should not be unholy. Being one flesh means being one in accord with the other just as Jesus came to do the Father's will. The covenant is not to be broken. This is why divorce is offensive to God. As it represents his union with the believer, what would we say if Christ suddenly changed his covenant with His body and stated that he would not come back for it as He promised? So, being one in flesh means being in unity. Each party has a different personality, each party may have a different purpose, yet, each party is bound together in unity as one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are blessed as blemished souls that Christ would consider us to be united with Him who is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1045" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T15:44:56.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4966" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4968" CreationDate="2011-12-14T18:11:23.397" Score="25" ViewCount="5357" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does Jesus refer to himself as the &quot;Son of Man&quot;?  This is similar to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4059/why-does-jesus-speak-of-himself-in-the-third-person&quot;&gt;Why does Jesus speak of himself in the third person?&lt;/a&gt;, but I am specifically looking for an explanation of the &quot;Son of Man&quot; references. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="876" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2019-03-04T09:43:27.313" Title="Why does Jesus refer to himself as the &quot;Son of Man&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2972" CreationDate="2011-12-14T18:27:29.970" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;canopy&quot; is an extra-biblical answer, but one generally given by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis has to do with the climate pre-flood.  During the creation, it was said that the waters above were separated from the waters below, and during the flood, it is said that water came from both places.  The implication is that there was a canopy of water that protected human life from cosmic radiation, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not saying this is the answer, just one that is commonly cited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-24T12:21:34.873" LastActivityDate="2013-03-24T12:21:34.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4966" CreationDate="2011-12-14T19:05:48.520" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &amp;quot;The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus: “When E. Hiyya ben Adda died … R. Levi received his valuables. This was because his teacher used to say: ‘The disciple of bar nāšâ is as dear to him as his son.’ ” Here the expression plainly refers to the group of teachers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is suggested that the idiom was used as a form of self-reference in cases where the speaker wished to show modesty or to speak of matters (such as his own death) which were distasteful—in any case in sayings where he wished to avoid speaking directly in the first person.&#xA;--Green, J. B., McKnight, S., &amp;amp; Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (779). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several theories about what Jesus was alluding to in calling himself son of Man (literally son of 'a-dam'):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A re-affimation of his authority to forgive sin (which entered via Adam).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An allusion to the suffering that he will undergo&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A kindredness that will be evident at his return, in which he will come not just as a conqueror, but as a redeemer who is coming (back) to his own.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An allusion to his Messianic role, since the Messiah would be &amp;quot;the Son of Man&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A reference to the inheritor of the world, per Daniel 7.  The last beast to have authority was &amp;quot;like a Son of Man&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With any of these motives, by speaking of himself in the third person, he is making an audacious claim (the power!) but couching it in the most humble terms he can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T19:13:49.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4969" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4989" CreationDate="2011-12-14T22:06:40.807" Score="-2" ViewCount="308" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not familiar with the different Christian doctrines but as I've slowly come to understand it, it seems that answers differ depending on doctrine. Does this mean there are no definitive answers to some questions due to the existence of different Christian doctrines?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-01-07T22:09:00.427" LastActivityDate="2015-01-07T22:09:00.427" Title="Does the diversity in doctrines among Christian traditions indicate that there are multiple &quot;truths&quot;?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2011-12-16T07:07:45.883" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4970" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4973" CreationDate="2011-12-14T22:26:17.253" Score="9" ViewCount="1666" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that there are numerous prophecies from the OT which have been fulfilled over the years. (Ignoring any gray areas between &quot;prophecy&quot; and poetic passage of scripture.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from the book of Revelation, is there an outstanding list of &lt;em&gt;pending&lt;/em&gt; prophecy? I.e. things which have been foretold which haven't come to fruition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="997" LastActivityDate="2015-03-16T07:58:30.350" Title="Unfulfilled prophecies?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-03-16T17:22:29.340" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4969" CreationDate="2011-12-14T22:28:55.240" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  As Jesus said, &quot;I am the way, the truth and the life.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:6&lt;/a&gt;) Note the use of the singular here, for both &quot;way&quot; and &quot;truth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%207:13-14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:13-14&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to&#xA;  destruction, and many there be which go in thereat,  [but] strait is&#xA;  the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few&#xA;  there be that find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:33&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:33&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For &lt;em&gt;God is not the author of confusion,&lt;/em&gt; but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201%3a%2010-13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1: 10-13&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,&#xA;  that ye all speak the same thing, and &lt;em&gt;that there be no divisions among you;&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  *but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them&#xA;  which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I&#xA;  of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 &lt;em&gt;Is Christ divided?&lt;/em&gt; was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just a small sampling of available scriptures on the topic, but it's clear that both Jesus and Paul considered there to be one truth; all divisions and confusions of doctrine were proscribed in clear and forceful language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T22:28:55.240" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4969" CreationDate="2011-12-14T22:34:09.527" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there is only one truth. And it doesn't change because it is the person of God himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, our understanding is very limited and marred by sin. I quite honestly wish I was right more of the time, but quite frankly I'm wrong an awful lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history of Christianity is littered with confusing tracks taken by folks who interpreted one issue or another differently based on their own priorities, limited understandings, etc. Others have tried to derail it for one reason or another. Among the jobs of the Church is to use the Bible as a reference to bring the first back into line and to identify the second as heretics and exclude them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue is far more evident on a secular site like this that acts as a kind of public square. There are no doctrinal boundaries here to identify who the &quot;real&quot; Christians are so any self professing group can forward their doctrines here -- hence the need to scope questions to particular sets so that they can be given reasonable treatment in answers without sparking never-ending infighting between groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout history you can trace something known as orthodoxy, or conventional standardized Christian belief. Different groups here will claim that line of faithful more-or-less correct doctrines is traced through different places, but each branch of Christianity (often referred to here as tradition) will have a pretty distinct set of doctrines or beliefs. While it is true that some of these are at odds with eachother and cannot both be actually &quot;true&quot;, discovering which is truly true is an excersize left up to the reader and outside the scope of the StackExchange site. You can ask about all the doctrines here, but in the end you will have to make your own decision what to belief. You might find a local church helpful in this regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-14T22:46:06.230" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T22:46:06.230" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4970" CreationDate="2011-12-14T22:45:32.277" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is &quot;yes, there are&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few other places that prophecy about the end times, particularly in Daniel 7-12, Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 24:14 specifically prophecies that the Gospel will be preached throughout the entire world prior to the end:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole&#xA;  world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. &#xA;  Matthew 24:14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of&#xA;  difficulty. 2For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money,&#xA;  proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful,&#xA;  unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control,&#xA;  brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit,&#xA;  lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance&#xA;  of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.  2 Timothy&#xA;  3:1-4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days&#xA;  with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say,&#xA;  &quot;Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell&#xA;  asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of&#xA;  creation.&quot; 5For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens&#xA;  existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through&#xA;  water by the word of God, 6and that by means of these the world that&#xA;  then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same&#xA;  word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire,&#xA;  being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. &#xA;  2 Peter 3:3-7 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are&#xA;  asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14For&#xA;  since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through&#xA;  Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15For&#xA;  this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are&#xA;  alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede&#xA;  those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will descend from&#xA;  heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with&#xA;  the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise&#xA;  first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up&#xA;  together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so&#xA;  we will always be with the Lord. 18Therefore encourage one another&#xA;  with these words.  1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be&#xA;  considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also&#xA;  suffering— 6since indeed God considers it just to repay with&#xA;  affliction those who afflict you, 7and to grant relief to you who are&#xA;  afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from&#xA;  heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance&#xA;  on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel&#xA;  of our Lord Jesus. 9They will suffer the punishment of eternal&#xA;  destruction, away from[b] the presence of the Lord and from the glory&#xA;  of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his&#xA;  saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our&#xA;  testimony to you was believed. 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-14T22:45:32.277" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4974" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-15T00:37:46.140" Score="1" ViewCount="1200" Body="&lt;p&gt;In principle, Christianity is monotheistic.  It posits that one god exists.  However, as a result of the 300k+ christian sects, there exists more than one definition of the &quot;Christian God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the existence of multiple &lt;em&gt;definitions&lt;/em&gt; of a &quot;Christian God&quot; amongst different sects and doctrines this creates a plurality of practices - each aimed at their respective notion of &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; &quot;Christian God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, since these multiple definitions lead to a pluralism of practices, does this mean Christianity &lt;strong&gt;functions&lt;/strong&gt; as a polytheistic faith?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If not&lt;/strong&gt;, this would require that all 300k sects agree that they worship the same &quot;God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastActivityDate="2011-12-16T03:07:36.077" Title="Is Christianity functionally polytheistic?" Tags="&lt;practice&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="17" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2011-12-16T04:26:15.010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4974" CreationDate="2011-12-15T04:39:43.203" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it is not. There is only one God that Christians believe in, and that is &quot;the&quot; God in the Holy Bible. As to how the different sects interpret the Bible and get their view of God is unrelated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T04:39:43.203" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4976" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4977" CreationDate="2011-12-15T04:50:48.597" Score="14" ViewCount="596" Body="&lt;p&gt;More specifically I'm wondering in the way that we go to the Bible and to God about concerns or issues that we are facing for instruction and wisdom, can we think biblically about another's concerns or issues that they are struggling with in order to help them, and in overall hopes of leading them to Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to give a non-believing friend some Biblical advice, but I don't know if it will even benefit him (to be honest, I'm not quite sure what I would even say yet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="84" LastEditDate="2011-12-15T14:14:20.870" LastActivityDate="2013-12-31T15:58:24.943" Title="Can the Word of God and God's wisdom be beneficial to an unbeliever?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;wisdom&gt;&lt;non-christians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4976" CreationDate="2011-12-15T05:12:41.230" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I'm going to start with some base assumptions, because I sense that the atheists are going to have a field day with this, and I'm hoping to prevent this from turning into a debate on whether or not God exists, is good, etc.  The assumptions are those that are necessary for this site. IMO, the debate over the assumptions on which this site are off-topic.  Those debates have nothing to do with the question asked&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that God is  who the Bible claims He is (a core assumption of Christianity), then He is all-knowing...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming again, that the Bible is God's word, given to us by His divine inspiration, and preserved through time (again, a core assumption of Christianity)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And further assuming that God loves us, and is good, and knows what's best for us...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then yes, Biblical advice can absolutely help an unbeliever.  In addition to pointing to God, and Christ as savior, the Bible is chock full of wisdom that is applicable to daily life.  If God loves us (as the Bible says He does), then He will give us good advice, and instructions that are for our own good.  His wisdom is good, regardless of whether not an individual &lt;em&gt;believes&lt;/em&gt; it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The instructions on how husbands and wives are supposed to love and respect each other in Ephesians 5, for example, will strengthen the relationship of anyone who chooses to follow them, regardless of whether they are Christian or not.  Similarly, advice to love our neighbors (and our enemies) as we love ourselves will benefit anyone.  Most strife in relationships is caused by selfishness on one or both parts.  Two completely selfless people, devoted to loving each other as God intended would have nothing to fight about.  (Of course, there is no such thing as a completely selfless human being.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is whether or not they will choose to follow Biblical advice and apply it.  Plenty of people will reject even the best advice, if it comes from a source they don't agree with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-15T06:41:29.487" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T06:41:29.487" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4974" CreationDate="2011-12-15T06:02:46.887" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If not, this would require that all 300k sects agree that they worship the same &quot;God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aaa, but that is just the rub: they do! Even the ones with pretty radically different descriptions of him agree that there is just one God out there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The suggestion that this is functional polytheism is ludicrous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-15T06:43:23.683" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T06:43:23.683" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4974" CreationDate="2011-12-15T06:51:13.283" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is really more a logic/philosophy question than a Christianity one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is logically similar to this scenario:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Twin brothers get separated from their mother and from each other at a young age. As adults they later reunite and discuss their mother, to find that their childhood memories are imperfect, and sometimes conflict. Does this mean they have multiple mothers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the brothers may have different memories or opinions about their mother, they are still borne of the same mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I love my boss. My coworker hates the same boss. Does this mean we have multiple bosses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Differing and conflicting perceptions and opinions of the same being/entity/object does not mean the being/entity/object in question is actually multiple beings/entities/objects.  It simply means our perceptions and opinions are different and often times imperfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;EDIT&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following from these examples, it is clear that the twins, and me and my coworker do not &lt;em&gt;indeed&lt;/em&gt; have multiple mothers/bosses. Likewise, Christianity does not &lt;em&gt;indeed&lt;/em&gt; worship multiple Gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going a step further, to more directly address the actual question, nor do the twins &lt;em&gt;functionally have multiple different mothers&lt;/em&gt;--that is to say, one doesn't send Mother's day cards to one city, and the other to another city.  Nor do they &lt;em&gt;function as if they have multiple mothers&lt;/em&gt;; that is to say, neither brother sends Mother's day cards to multiple addresses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nor do my coworker and I &lt;em&gt;functionally have multiple bosses&lt;/em&gt;; I don't call my boss on one extension, while my coworker uses another.  Nor do we &lt;em&gt;function as if we have multiple bosses&lt;/em&gt;; I don't call one of multiple extensions when I need a PO approved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as applied to Christianity, the various sects/denominations/faiths/traditions all functionally worship the same God&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so they do not &lt;em&gt;functionally have multiple gods&lt;/em&gt;, and no Christian individual prays to multiple gods&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, thus do not &lt;em&gt;function as if they are polytheistic.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Some minority Christian faith groups try to tie Christianity to other non-Christian belief systems; such as Christianity and New Age, where the nature of God is &quot;changed&quot; (i.e. &quot;God is the Universe&quot;).  In such a belief system, where the adherents are worshiping &quot;the Universe&quot;, they are not in the strictest sense worshiping the same God that main-line Christianity worships, who is distinct from the created Universe. In this regard, and in this regard only, it may be possible to claim that Christianity as a whole is &quot;functionally polytheistic,&quot; in that two subsets worship each a distinct [Gg]od. But in my mind, this still is not the same as &quot;functionally polytheistic.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Some Christian sects do have polytheistic undertones.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2902/20&quot;&gt;Mormonism&lt;/a&gt; for example, has some polytheistic (or henotheistic) undertones. Sometimes Catholicism is considered &quot;polytheistic,&quot; especially in certain parts of the world where praying to the saints is hard to distinguish from worshiping the saints. But these possible examples of &quot;functional polytheism&quot; have nothing to do with the various Christian faiths, and have everything to do with the specific faiths being (or appearing to be) truly polytheistic, so I don't believe they apply to this question.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;EDIT #2&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it comes down to a question of identity (or the external appearance of identity) of the [Gg]od(s) being worshiped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian sects, with rare exception (see &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; above) believe in a God that share the same identity. They all believe God wrote (either directly or indirectly) the 66 books of the Bible, they believe God became human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, and they believe God died a torturous death on behalf of sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether a Christian group worships the God thusly identified through song, acts of service, acts of war, or any other means, the identity of the God is the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is distinct from the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship (or appear to worship) the same God, because in this case the identity of the two Gods is distinct (at least on the surface). Christians believe in a God identified above. Muslims believe in a God that never took on human form, and who sent a final prophet, Muhammad, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Whether, upon further investigation, we can determine that the identity of the [Gg]od worshiped by Christians and Muslims is indeed the same is for another discussion. The only point I'm making here is that it's easy to see how they may &lt;em&gt;appear&lt;/em&gt; to be different Gods.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this identity-of-God argument, I would say that Christianity as a whole (not withstanding fringe groups that subscribe to an alternate identity of god), is &lt;em&gt;not functionally polytheistic.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2011-12-16T03:07:36.077" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4980" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4983" CreationDate="2011-12-15T11:29:23.900" Score="15" ViewCount="12715" Body="&lt;p&gt;On one occasion, I heard someone prayer, &quot;To God, our Father and Mother.&quot; In &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shack&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Shack&lt;/a&gt;, the Trinity is represented as three persons, where God the Father is a woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any biblical justification for referring to God as Mother?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any denominations or movements which do call the first person of the trinity 'Mother'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T23:55:36.957" LastActivityDate="2017-08-31T20:52:34.100" Title="Is there any biblical justification for referring to God as Mother?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;gender&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4976" CreationDate="2011-12-15T11:36:40.140" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a two-part answer, because your question addresses two things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should also make it clear up front that I am one of those unbeliever types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) Yes, wisdom from the bible can be beneficial to an unbeliever.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because wisdom from all sources is beneficial.  As an unbeliever, no book holds a special place.  This means that all sources can be analysed for wisdom.  The bible in particular contains many parables and thought experiments that can be useful regardless of their source; exercises to challenge one's sense of ethics and morality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But equally, we could read Harry Potter and analyse some of their circumstances and come out with different, but equally valid, wisdom.  Stories of daring and heroism, and in particular those things that the heroes are willing to do or sacrifice in order to achieve that heroism, are always fun to break down and analyse.  Try to work out the ethics of Snape, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But do be aware that, since unbelievers don't share the same foundational concepts, the stories and ethics can come out somewhat differently.  Many of the more foundational stories of the Old Testament -- The Binding of Isaac, Jonah and the Whale, The Testing of Job all being class examples -- and even the concepts from the New Testament -- the vicarious redemption of mankind by Jesus, Hell, etc. -- can be and are interpreted entirely differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Don't do that.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in the rare case that the story you're going to tell is actually appropriate, telling bible stories to a stressed-out unbeliever is going to come across as preachy and will stress your friendship equally if not more.  Feel free to suggest actions taken by those in the stories as possible routes out of their situation -- after all, this is distilled version of the wisdom that is actually imparted to you -- but just telling the story will just likely cause your message to be lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1083" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T11:36:40.140" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4980" CreationDate="2011-12-15T11:49:40.003" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 49:15 - Can a mother forget the child nursing at her breast? Yes, but even if she could, I would not forget you. See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a practical matter, the case for &quot;Mother God&quot; tends to be made only by the more liberal wings of churches. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2011-12-15T21:56:32.080" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T21:56:32.080" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4980" CreationDate="2011-12-15T13:36:13.987" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a significant distinction between calling God &quot;mother&quot; and the Bible identifying aspects of motherhood (and fatherhood) as reflecting the glory and character of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both men and women reflect the glory and character of God in different ways, as men and women, fathers and mothers, teachers, judges, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, God is spirit (John 4:23) and not physical.  In the beginning, God created the physical universe, including genders.  Yet, He Himself was not biological, but is and was outside of creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When He entered into creation, He did enter into it as a Man.  In the Lord's prayer, God the Son instructs us to refer to God the Father as &quot;Our Father&quot; (Matthew 6:9-13).  Nowhere in Scripture are we instructed to refer to God as mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The example of Paul is of note as well.  He himself indicated that he cared for the Thessalonians like a mother cares for her children:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But we were gentle[c] among you, like a nursing mother taking care of&#xA;  her own children.  1 Thessalonians 2:7 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But no one used that as a basis for calling Paul &quot;Mom&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This in no way disparages women, and both men and women reflect the glory of God.  Yet, God has chosen to reveal Himself in the masculine sense.  If we are devoted believers, we recognize that He is the One who has the right to define how we should refer to Him--not us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T13:36:13.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4980" CreationDate="2011-12-15T18:10:25.037" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the key to understanding this is to remember one thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God is not male...     ...and not female either.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 4:24 NET&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is worth further pointing out that scripture does exclusively use the male pronoun in reference to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-07-08T19:49:30.590" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4970" CreationDate="2011-12-15T18:27:59.250" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another example is Isaiah 61:1-2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,&#xA;     because the LORD has anointed me&#xA;  to bring good news to the poor;&#xA;     he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,&#xA;  to proclaim liberty to the captives,&#xA;     and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;&#xA;  2 to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor,&#xA;      and the day of vengeance of our God;&#xA;     to comfort all who mourn;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 4, Jesus read this passage in the synagogue in Nazareth, but he stopped in the middle of verse 2.  He then said, &quot;Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.&quot; (Luke 4:21 ESV) I've heard that the reason he stopped there is that the part he read refers to his first coming, but the last part of verse 2 refers to his second coming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1084" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T18:27:59.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4986" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="4987" CreationDate="2011-12-15T20:15:09.903" Score="21" ViewCount="10931" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not record angels having wings at any point, but this is a popular depiction of angels. Do any Christian groups teach that angels &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; have wings, in extra-biblical materials? Where does the idea come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-01-05T20:31:06.273" LastActivityDate="2020-01-05T20:31:06.273" Title="Where did angels get their wings?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;apocrypha&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4986" CreationDate="2011-12-15T20:22:48.063" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible actually does indicate that angels have wings, as both cherubim and seraphim are angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a&#xA;  throne, high and lifted up; and the train[a] of his robe filled the&#xA;  temple. 2Above him stood the seraphim. &lt;strong&gt;Each had six wings: with two&#xA;  he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he&#xA;  flew.&lt;/strong&gt; 3And one called to another and said:  &quot;Holy, holy, holy is the&#xA;  LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Isaiah 6:1-3 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the&#xA;  mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the&#xA;  mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Exodus 25:20 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He put the cherubim in the innermost part of the house. And the wings&#xA;  of the cherubim were spread out so that a wing of one touched the one&#xA;  wall, and a wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; their&#xA;  other wings touched each other in the middle of the house. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Kings 6:27 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also assumed that the four living creatures are angelic beings, since it's hard to imagine what else they could be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the four living creatures, &lt;strong&gt;each of them with six wings&lt;/strong&gt;, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, &quot;Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 4:8&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="4158" LastEditDate="2015-03-26T22:19:59.197" LastActivityDate="2015-03-26T22:19:59.197" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4974" CreationDate="2011-12-15T20:23:04.677" Score="2" Body="&lt;h1&gt;No&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a polytheistic religion, each member worships a set of gods. In Christianity, each member worships a single god, and further, believes that there is only one god. The fact that there are different sects does not make it a polytheistic religion -- each sect claims as a point of doctrine that there is only one god, and hence, each sect is monotheistic. Disagreements about the nature of God result in different doctrines, not polytheism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="675" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T20:23:04.677" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4969" CreationDate="2011-12-15T20:32:46.037" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, rather, diversity in doctrine shows the difficulty in approaching the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even armed with all that we know, there is plenty of room for educated, informed people to disagree on the best way to relate to God. When one person has a specific interpretation and others follow, that interpretation may become the doctrine of a specific sect. Others may interpret things differently, leading to other sects being formed. (Many of the churches we have today were formed by branching based on doctrinal disagreements.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the truth was easy to grasp, everyone would believe the same thing. But it isn't, and there are lots of variations in people's beliefs about what the truth is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one truth, but people disagree on what it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="675" LastActivityDate="2011-12-15T20:32:46.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4969" CreationDate="2011-12-16T06:24:41.900" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there is only one truth, but as finite humans we are incapable of fully grasping it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly,  but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. &amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-corinthians/passage.aspx?q=1-corinthians+13:9-12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:9-12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But more important than knowing the right doctrine is learning to love the way God loves us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. &amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-john/passage.aspx?q=1-john+3:18-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 3:18-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, it's hard to find all the right answers, but it's even harder to practice that kind of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-12-16T06:24:41.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4991" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2011-12-16T15:20:33.827" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For questions pertaining to the  doctrine that humanity is in a state of sin since Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God.&lt;/strong&gt; This first sin of the parents of the human race is known as the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;original sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Original sin&lt;/a&gt;, also called ancestral sin, is a Christian belief in a state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a &quot;sin nature&quot;, to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon first alluded to the concept of original sin in the 2nd century in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine (354-430) also shaped and developed the doctrine, seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalms 51:5. Tertullian (c.  155 – c.  240), Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine's formulation of original sin after 412 CE was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence (or &quot;hurtful desire&quot;), affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom to do good. Before 412 CE, Augustine said that free will was weakened but not destroyed by original sin. But after 412 CE Augustine proposed that original sin involved a loss of free will except to sin.[11] Modern Augustinian Calvinism holds this later view. The Jansenist movement, which the Catholic Church declared heretical from 1653, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will. Instead the Catholic Church declares &quot;Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.&quot; &quot;Weakened and diminished by Adam's fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-03-14T00:36:58.263" LastActivityDate="2020-03-14T00:36:58.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4992" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2011-12-16T15:20:33.827" Score="0" Body="For questions pertaining to the  doctrine that humanity is in a state of sin since Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God." OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-03-14T00:36:58.263" LastActivityDate="2020-03-14T00:36:58.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4993" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-16T17:25:23.390" Score="18" ViewCount="780" Body="&lt;p&gt;The town of Shingo in Japan claims to be the burial site of Jesus of Nazareth: someone took his place on the cross, and he made his way to Japan, where he died. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing%C5%8D,_Aomori&quot;&gt;Wikipedia.&lt;/a&gt;) Do, or did, any denominations of Christianity believe this, and which?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1090" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-07-07T14:32:33.527" LastActivityDate="2019-07-07T14:33:03.423" Title="Which Christian denominations believe Jesus is buried in Japan?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="4994" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="30698" CreationDate="2011-12-16T19:16:02.383" Score="7" ViewCount="678" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not a pastoral advice question, I'm happily married.  I just really don't know the answer to this question to help a friend, so I guess it's pastoral pastoral advice, but I definitely don't want a 'try to work it out' answer, just the facts please.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sacramental marriage cannot be undone by civil divorce, that much is clear from scripture and Church teaching. However, what does civil divorce mean for the sacramental marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is OK, what factors should a person take into account when forming their consciences to up and leave (for instance there could be a case where the laws in a particular region require someone to serve divorce papers in order leave their spouse with their kids and not be accused of kidnapping them) and if it is not OK then what recourse does one have to protect themselves and their children against their spouse, that does not constitute a grave sin? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2011-12-16T20:29:56.973" LastActivityDate="2014-07-08T06:25:41.280" Title="Is civil divorce OK for Catholics, are there mitigating circumstances?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4994" CreationDate="2011-12-16T19:58:50.630" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;what factors should a person take into account when forming their consciences to up and leave &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, there's this from &lt;code&gt;Malachi 2:16&lt;/code&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I hate divorce,&quot; says the LORD God of Israel &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's really hard to overstate that. The idea of &quot;forming their conscience&quot; to do something the Lord hates, even if you're only talking about the civil aspect, smacks of open rebellion against God, the very heart of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The alternative in a dangerous situation, since we're talking about civil law, could perhaps be a restraining order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2011-12-16T19:58:50.630" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4484" CreationDate="2011-12-16T21:48:42.197" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another verse making this distinction is &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/hosea/11-9.htm&quot;&gt;Hosea 11:9&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2011-12-16T21:48:42.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4994" CreationDate="2011-12-16T22:24:04.537" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some cases the rules for a church annulment may coincide with the rules for a civil divorce, but not a civil annulment (those latter rules obviously depending on the jurisdiction in question).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would mean that someone would be able to be not married, in the eyes of both church and state, but while the state considered them divorced - that is, that they had been married but are no longer - the church would consider them to have never been married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also Pauline Privilege. The church considers most non-Christian marriages to be lawful and valid, but non-sacramental. However, if two people were both non-baptised at the time that they got married, and later one of them converted to Christianity (note, to Christianity - not to Catholicism from another form of Christianity) and was baptised, then they &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; leave the marriage. This has been justified in relation to 1 Cor 7:10-15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more recent extension of this is Petrine Privilege, where a baptised person marries a non-baptised, and the non-baptised remains un-baptised, then it can be dissolved (again, it would be lawful and valid, but not sacramental) by the pope, if the marriage was seen to impede the spiritual life of the believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Divorce a mensa et thoro - still a legal concept in some places, was actually originally a matter of the ecclestiastical courts. This would be close to what is called legal separation in many jurisdictions - the couple are married, but do not live together, and there may or may not be a form of alimony and/or maintenance paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1092" LastActivityDate="2011-12-16T22:24:04.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4993" CreationDate="2011-12-17T02:46:13.803" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan&quot;&gt;Kakure Kirishitan&lt;/a&gt; literally &lt;em&gt;Hidden Christians&lt;/em&gt; were a sect of Japanese believers who received the Gospel in the 1600s, but after foreigners were expelled and went underground.  In the 200 years or so following, they developed many peculiar to syncretic to downright heretical ideas about Christianity, mainly based on passed down traditions that had become corrupted over time. What characterized their worship, for example, was a Buddhist sounding chant using Latin-sounding version of the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, two points are in order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I could not locate any information about a supposed &lt;em&gt;kakure krishitan&lt;/em&gt; burial site for Jesus Christ, one way or another. From the link provided, I see the reference, but no mention of &lt;em&gt;kakure krishitan&lt;/em&gt;.  That said, it wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Such a position, that Jesus died and stayed in the grave is as fundamentally heterodox as it gets. C.S. Lewis, for example, stated that the resurrection was the essential distinctive of Christianity, without which the religion was useless.  Paul also stated, &quot;If in Christ we have hope in this life only [i.e. no resurrection], we are of all people most to be pitied.&quot; (1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 15:19 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Corinthians+15/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)  The resurrection and the &lt;em&gt;empty&lt;/em&gt; tomb are &lt;em&gt;sine qua nons&lt;/em&gt; of the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, if Jesus' bones have any resting place, the whole thing falls apart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, its really hard to call any sect that denies the resurrection Christian.&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* I know we're not supposed to answer &quot;are X Christians&quot; or not&amp;mdash;I'm not trying to say this of any group&amp;mdash;only an essential doctrine that is a clear dividing line between Christian and other.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-03-14T00:36:04.813" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T00:36:04.813" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="385" CreationDate="2011-12-17T04:10:56.703" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Wikipedia and &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Simon_the_Shoemaker&quot;&gt;OrthodoxWiki&lt;/a&gt;, in the late 900s, after being told this saying of Jesus, a caliph required the Christians, under pain of death, to move a mountain in three days. The pope of Egypt (for so the patriarch of the Copts is called), called Abraham, asked everyone to pray. In a vision, the Virgin Mary told the pope to get intercession from a one-eyed man carrying water through the market. This was St. Simon the Tanner. St. Simon directed the prayers of the Christians, and the mountain (the Mokattam Mountain) was lifted (and promptly set back down in its proper place) before the caliph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia also mentions the discovery of what are, more likely than not, the relics of St. Simon the Tanner, and the reasons behind attribution of the relics to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No geographical anomalies near the Mokattam Mountain are cited on Wikipedia, which one would expect to accompany such a miracle. The Coptic Church isn't wiped out, if that helps....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-17T15:46:46.363" LastActivityDate="2011-12-17T15:46:46.363" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="385" CreationDate="2011-12-17T18:56:33.823" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I knew a lady that lived close to gold mine. There was a mountain made from the soil they dug up. The gold mine closed but the mountain remained. It caused a lot of dust in the air. Remembering this verse, she prayed for it to be removed and shortly afterwards a company started flattening the mountain as they were sifting it a second time for other elements. It took them 2 years, but the mountain was removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1093" LastActivityDate="2011-12-17T18:56:33.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="385" CreationDate="2011-12-18T01:28:05.670" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this doesn't count as evidence, but the question brought this to mind as the only instance I was aware of (before the St. Simon the Tanner story above).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Book of Ether, chapter 12 verse 30 it says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the brother of Jared said unto the mountain Zerin, Remove—and it&#xA;  was removed. And if he had not had faith it would not have moved;&#xA;  wherefore thou workest after men have faith. -- Ether 12:30 from The Book of Mormon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastEditorUserId="1075" LastEditDate="2011-12-23T06:14:25.747" LastActivityDate="2011-12-23T06:14:25.747" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4994" CreationDate="2011-12-18T19:52:20.190" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As usual the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; is helpful here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Catholic doctrine on divorce may be summed up in the following&#xA;  propositions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ&#xA;Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never&#xA;be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been&#xA;consummated; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute&#xA;divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Separation from&#xA;bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes,&#xA;especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy&#xA;on the part of husband or wife.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would take that last part to indicate that if the marriage is unlivable in (for example if there is violence or other abuse), then civil separation is a viable option. In most jurisdictions civil separation does not need to be followed by a divorce - I have known people who lived in a state of separation for decades. The only practical difference is that a separated person cannot remarry. As I'm sure you are aware, sacramental marriages can be annuled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2011-12-20T21:58:48.113" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T21:58:48.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4966" CreationDate="2011-12-19T11:19:38.803" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;He was alluding that he would fulfill the prophecy made by the Prophet Daniel in Daniel 7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a&#xA;  son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the&#xA;  Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given&#xA;  authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every&#xA;  language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that&#xA;  will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be&#xA;  destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was as direct a claim of messiah ship a first century Jew could make. The Jews understood this and is why he was so widely held as a blasphemer by the Jewish people. This is further reiterated by passages like&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 2:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (©1984) But that you may know that the Son&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...&quot; He said to the&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  paralytic,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews understood that only God had the power to forgive sin. We even have a passage where his disciples admit that he is the messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  18 Once when Jesus was&#xA;  praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them,&#xA;  “Who do the crowds say I am?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and&#xA;  still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to&#xA;  life.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter answered, “God’s Messiah.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:35:55.657" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:35:55.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5007" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5009" CreationDate="2011-12-19T13:52:13.060" Score="11" ViewCount="2229" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several different denominations teach that water baptism is a prerequisite for (or is essential for) salvation. What is the biblical basis against this teaching?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-13T23:35:25.757" LastActivityDate="2016-06-05T06:54:52.760" Title="What is the biblical basis against baptismal regeneration?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;regeneration&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5007" CreationDate="2011-12-19T15:33:35.960" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best articles on this controversial subject is from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, entitled &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; by Matt Slick. I've included some of the key verses it refers to, and arguments it uses, below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:1 and Ephesians 2:8 show that we are justified by faith (not by faith + something else). Furthermore, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204:1-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 4:1-11&lt;/a&gt; talks of being saved by faith, not by works - including the &quot;works&quot; of the Jewish religious ceremony of circumcision. In particular, verses 9b-10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as&#xA;  righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it&#xA;  after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Abraham's faith saved him &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; his circumcision; salvation comes before the religious ceremony, not as a result of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a slight aside, another oft-cited example is the account of Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:40-43) where one of the criminals being crucified alongside Jesus is apparently saved without being baptised. Slick does not quote this, but does make mention of the many people who receive Christ on a hospital deathbed and don't get baptised before they die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:11-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 2:11-12&lt;/a&gt; links the Old Testament ceremony of circumcision with the New Testament ceremony of baptism; therefore what applied to circumcision (it &lt;em&gt;follows&lt;/em&gt; salvation, which is by faith) applies to baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:1-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:1-5&lt;/a&gt; says that it is by the Gospel that we are saved, and defines the Gospel as Christ dying for our sins and rising again. We are saved by Christ's endeavour, not our own. Paul emphasizes this earlier in 1 Corinthians 1:17a: &quot;For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel&quot; - clearly the two are different things, and it is the latter that Paul sees as the more important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several other passages that say &quot;if X then you are saved&quot; where X does not include baptism; Romans 10:9 is a good one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your&#xA;  heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Equally, Romans 6:23 describes eternal life in Christ as a &lt;em&gt;free&lt;/em&gt; gift - in other words, we do not have to pay, or undergo any religious rite, in order to receive it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slick's article then goes on to explain those verses that may seem to say that baptism is part of salvation. That's beyond the scope of this question but I would recommend reading it when looking at this issue, particularly when considering the flip-side of this coin, the question asking for the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/335/biblical-basis-for-baptism-as-a-prerequisite-for-salvation&quot;&gt;Biblical basis for baptism as a prerequisite for salvation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-12-19T15:33:35.960" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5007" CreationDate="2011-12-19T15:50:14.373" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of compelling arguments against baptismal regeneration, such as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lack of a Biblical basis &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; baptismal regeneration (relies solely on verses with natural, alternate interpretations)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The absence of the mention of baptism in passages on how to become saved&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The contradiction with passages against works-based salvation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are dealt with nicely in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4533/971&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; and in Waggers' answer to this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One additional argument against baptismal regeneration (copied from my answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4468/971&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) is an examination of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2010:44-10:48&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 10:44-48 NASB&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;While Peter was still speaking these words&lt;/strong&gt;, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the &lt;strong&gt;Gentiles also&lt;/strong&gt;. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, &lt;strong&gt;“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”&lt;/strong&gt; And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice from the passage that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) The listeners had not been baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) The Holy Spirit fell upon the listeners &lt;strong&gt;as Peter was still speaking&lt;/strong&gt;.  Not during baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(3) The circumsized believers were amazed that the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles &lt;strong&gt;also&lt;/strong&gt;.  Some proponents of baptism-for-salvation claim that the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles in a special manner, not indicative of true salvation.  This seems unlikely, considering the presence of spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues), and the use of the word &quot;also&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(4) The circumcised believers were amazed that the Gentiles were able to be saved, because they were &lt;strong&gt;Gentiles&lt;/strong&gt; (it is more clear, if you read the context around this passage, that this is the source of their amazement).  However, if baptism was the means of salvation, wouldn't the circumcised believers have been equally amazed that the Gentiles were saved without baptism?  Yet there is no mention of this incident being an anomaly &lt;em&gt;with respect to baptism&lt;/em&gt; (it is an anomaly only because they were Gentiles).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(5) Peter seems to consider receiving the Holy Spirit a prerequisite for baptism.  If Peter had believed that water baptism was the means of salvation, why would he see a need for their baptism?  It seems to me that he would think: &quot;Wow, what an interesting exception - these people were saved without even being baptized.  Well, no sense baptizing them now.  They are the saved, after all!&quot;  But instead, he instructed them to be baptized.  This indicates that Peter saw baptism as a command for believers, and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; as a means of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is not a part of our salvation, but it is an important command that, as believers, we should follow.  It symbolizes the inward change that has already taken place in our lives: our death to ourselves, and resurrection in Christ. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:3-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 6:3-4 NASB&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-12-19T16:46:46.857" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4484" CreationDate="2011-12-19T16:38:25.527" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm surprised no one quoted John 4:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and&#xA;  truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-12-19T16:38:25.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5012" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-19T20:53:05.180" Score="5" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;I spoke to a friend recently and they said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I feel like I've done so much in my past, and that is holding me back from having a relationship with God. How can I know that God will accept me, even after I have done wrong in my past? Can God really look beyond my past?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is probably best asked as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the biblical basis to support the position that a person's sins (past included) do not preclude them from being able to receive salvation?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for answers that come from Bible passages (purely exegesis). My friend doesn't subscribe to a specific denomination; with that in mind, I'm searching for Biblical answers rather than Catholic or JW doctrinal backed answers, for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastEditorUserId="967" LastEditDate="2011-12-20T16:02:20.363" LastActivityDate="2011-12-23T14:49:34.197" Title="What is the Biblical basis that God's sacrifice is sufficient for all of our sins (past included)?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;grace&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5013" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5023" CreationDate="2011-12-19T20:59:52.870" Score="6" ViewCount="13723" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jesus brought everlasting life and Abraham died before the coming of Jesus (and in fact before Judaism), would we therefore expect to see Abraham in heaven? What passages in the bible direct us to an answer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-31T23:31:33.323" LastActivityDate="2014-10-31T23:31:33.323" Title="Is Abraham in heaven?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-10-30T17:37:47.033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5013" CreationDate="2011-12-19T21:26:18.723" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is yes. As well as the Old Testament accounts of Abraham's life he is also mentioned a few times in the New Testament - namely in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204&quot;&gt;Romans 4&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&quot;&gt;Galations 3&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's in the first two of those that we find our answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited&#xA;  to him as righteousness.&#xA;  (Romans 4:3, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consider Abraham: He believed God, and it was credited to him as&#xA;  righteousness&#xA;  (Galations 3:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham has received righteousness; in other words, he is made holy, or sin-free; he is saved by his faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2011-12-19T23:22:19.360" LastActivityDate="2011-12-19T23:22:19.360" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="335" CreationDate="2011-12-19T23:01:18.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 16:15-16 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,&#xA;  and preach the gospel to every creature.  He that believeth &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and&#xA;  is baptized&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just try to spread the gospel omitting that part in that verses! :) I imagine the arguments: &quot;Just ignore that part, Jesus was not serious about it, just check the thief in the cross, he was salved...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now speaking serious, just understand that some rules has exceptions, and of course, God is fair to save someone that cannot be baptized by some &quot;major force&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I feel myself odd if I say &quot;I will not follow that Jesus's commandment, it isn't needed to salvation...&quot;, looks realy contradictory to me! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most person will happily go to pool in the weekend to play with your childs, but the near effort to be baptized is avoided as a cancer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastActivityDate="2011-12-19T23:01:18.200" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5017" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5018" CreationDate="2011-12-20T00:29:18.697" Score="4" ViewCount="822" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1763/what-happens-to-people-who-have-never-heard-about-jesus&quot;&gt;What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found this very basic question perplexing to different pastors, rectors, and members of churches: If there is a monk who has lived in the mountains of Asia, who has lived a good life, and not sinned by our definition, but does not know of or ever heard of Jesus, does he go to heaven or hell?  He does not reject Jesus or a single God, but he also has never heard of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2017-05-01T00:39:16.230" Title="Does my monk go to heaven?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2011-12-20T07:34:51.277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5017" CreationDate="2011-12-20T01:18:02.340" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to try to answer this from a purely Scriptural point of view, rather than a particular doctrinal stance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short answer is, according to Scripture, no.  But there are a few points to address in the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and not sinned by our definition&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone on earth has sinned, save Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 3:23 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you examine it, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/heaven-goodenough.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;every one of us has broken each and every one of the Ten Commandments&lt;/a&gt;, if not in deed, then in heart and in intent.  For example, perhaps we've never committed adultery physically, but as Jesus said, if we've looked at someone with lust, we've committed adultery in our hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:28 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in&#xA;  his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We've all broken the other Commandments in spirit as well, but even if one of us has squeaked away with not committing all of them, it doesn't matter.  The Bible tells us that if we've broken even one, we're guilty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:10 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,&#xA;  he is guilty of all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the theoretical monk is not sinless by the standards laid forth in Scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 1 touches on the subject of whether or not we are held guilty if we've never heard the Gospel message.  It lays out a few truths:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God reveals Himself to us, and we are without excuse.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our ancestors had access to the truth of God, and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;chose&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to turn from them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:18. (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in&#xA;  unrighteousness; &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;19.&lt;/strong&gt; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;20.&lt;/strong&gt; For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even&#xA;  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;21.&lt;/strong&gt; Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and&#xA;  their foolish heart was darkened. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;22.&lt;/strong&gt; Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;23.&lt;/strong&gt; And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and&#xA;  creeping things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their unbelief and rebellion against God meant that their children, their children's children, and so on were not taught about God.  It's not His fault, it's theirs.  Because they chose to rebel when they knew the truth, and didn't teach their children, they doomed their children to not knowing the truth of God.  This is one reason that &lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 22:6&lt;/strong&gt; is important.  (Again, &lt;strong&gt;KJV&lt;/strong&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will&#xA;  not depart from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;Romans 2 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;11.&lt;/strong&gt; For there is no respect of persons with God.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;12.&lt;/strong&gt; For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by&#xA;  the law;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;13.&lt;/strong&gt; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;14.&lt;/strong&gt; For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law&#xA;  unto themselves:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;15.&lt;/strong&gt; Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while&#xA;  accusing or else excusing one another;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This theoretical monk would qualify, not knowing about the Hebrew God, or Jesus as one who &quot;sinned without the Law&quot;, and Scripture here tells us that &quot;he shall perish without law&quot;. He will perish because he has sinned, and ignored the conscience that God has placed in each and every one of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be noted that even in civil, earthly law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were to carry a concealed weapon in a state that doesn't allow concealed carry, for example, and I was arrested, would I be able to avoid the consequences by telling the Judge &quot;I didn't know&quot;?  No.  I'd be punished according to the law, whether I intentionally broke the law or not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we saw in Romans 2 (quoted above), the Bible tells us that God will not accept ignorance as an excuse.  He will perish without the Law, as God's word states, because he has sinned and broken the law, not because he has rejected Jesus.  Accepting Jesus &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the only way to be saved.  He pays the penalty for our guilt.  However, the reason we are guilty is not because we didn't accept Him, it's because we chose to sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can try to blame God all we want, and we can even try to blame the ancestors, but the simple fact remains that the monk will be condemned because of his own sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="22610" LastEditDate="2017-05-01T00:39:16.230" LastActivityDate="2017-05-01T00:39:16.230" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5017" CreationDate="2011-12-20T02:31:19.007" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and not sinned by our definition&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strike&gt;You won't find such a monk.&lt;/strike&gt; Check that. You might find someone who passes a human definition... but our definition doesn't matter. Only God's definition of sin matters, and you won't find a monk who hasn't sinned according to God's definition.  &lt;em&gt;Everyone&lt;/em&gt; has sinned when compared to God's standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Setting aside original sin for a moment, even if the monk did everything else right, failing to acknowledge and praise God is enough. Romans 1:19-20 make this clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't want to speak for God here. He is sovereign and can save whoever he chooses. For example, in this case there is the chance that God may choose to treat the monk as he would a child that is innocent through virtue of not yet knowing right from wrong. I wouldn't expect it, but I am not God. His grace and mercy and are amazing, and so an outright rejection is too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2011-12-20T03:20:41.720" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T03:20:41.720" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5020" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-20T04:00:57.950" Score="0" ViewCount="710" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm talking about the afterlife cause you can easily experience moments of happiness during your life on earth, with any kind of attitude towards God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But after we die, do we have any other choice than to love God? In other words, is happiness possible without loving God? Heaven is only for those who embrace God, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know many people hate God, because they don't like the world that God created. Otherwise they are no bigger sinners than God-loving Christians. I don't know what would have to happen for them to stop hating God. Probably God would have to explain himself to them, which I find hard to imagine... What will happen to them after death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1099" LastEditorUserId="1099" LastEditDate="2011-12-20T04:28:29.887" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T16:10:56.903" Title="Can a human ever be happy in the afterlife while not loving God?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-12-14T00:05:46.130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5017" CreationDate="2011-12-20T06:08:56.543" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From a strictly scriptural perspective&lt;/strong&gt;, one must remember Luke 12:47-8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a purely scriptural perspective, this is fairly clear: those who fall are culpable no matter what. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From a more nuanced perspective&lt;/strong&gt;, the law of God is written on our hearts, which means that it is possible to follow this law without ever learning the name of Jesus. It may be difficult, but the grace of God knows no bounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T18:42:47.410" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T18:42:47.410" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5020" CreationDate="2011-12-20T08:28:49.547" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, Christianity doesn't teach that some get to go to heaven because they are &quot;smaller sinners&quot; than everybody else. Likewise those in hell are not their because they are &quot;bigger sinners&quot; than anyone else. In fact as humans we all stand on pretty equal ground as far as that is concerned, and if that were the standard we'd all be in hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, men do not hate God because of the world he created, they hate God because he is good and they are not. However consciously or unconsciously, they hate him because he is altogether different than they are. They do not understand him and if they did they would not like what they found. The Bible teaches that men love darkness because their deeds are dark and that God is light. (John 3:16-20) Men will naturally hate that which brings judgement to their deeds. God created the earth &quot;and it was good&quot;, there would have been no reason to hate it except for the evil deeds of men that have polluted it. A truly Christian perspective on &quot;hating the world&quot; would involve hating the pollution of sin in it and therefore hating ourselves which would turn us to loving God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another point that comes up in your question is the issue of choice. The Bible does not speak of any opportunity for new choices to be made after death. Even though everything will be laid bare and there will be no longer room for doubt or question, the choices are made here. They will be sealed there. Those who (through God's intervention in giving them a new heart) chose to hate sin and love God on earth will continue to do so and be truly happy in his presence. Those who have not been redeemed and hate him here will continue to do so for all eternity even though his nature is revealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to bring all this round to the core of your question: &lt;strong&gt;No, it will not be possible for a human to be happy in the afterlife while not loving God.&lt;/strong&gt; There is nothing else in heaven to be happy about. The lamb on the throne is the central theme in the description we are given of heaven. Heaven is heaven because God is there. It will be unquestionably happy for those there because they will love him (even more than they do now). For those apart from him there will be no happiness at all, only weeping and gnashing of teeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-20T13:37:29.237" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T13:37:29.237" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5013" CreationDate="2011-12-20T10:33:26.267" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus Himself said Abraham was in heaven, in the parable of &lt;strong&gt;The Rich Man and Lazarus&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 16:19-31 NIV1984&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;(I have highlighted the six references to Abraham.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to &lt;strong&gt;Abraham’s side&lt;/strong&gt;. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw &lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt; far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘&lt;strong&gt;Father Abraham&lt;/strong&gt;, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“But &lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt; replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“&lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt; replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“‘No, father &lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt;,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T10:33:26.267" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5024" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5041" CreationDate="2011-12-20T13:49:12.920" Score="18" ViewCount="17893" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a &lt;strong&gt;Biblical&lt;/strong&gt; answer to this question: will there be any &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; people in heaven? An equivalent question: are the people created in this life (on Earth) the only people who will ever exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm aware that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:25&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Jesus said&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that is all that I can find, except a clue in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:5&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;em&gt;“I am making everything new!”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T22:42:06.163" LastActivityDate="2014-06-29T04:06:35.103" Title="Will there be &quot;new people&quot; or reproduction in heaven or &quot;the next life?&quot;" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-01-23T17:01:32.640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5026" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5036" CreationDate="2011-12-20T14:03:31.550" Score="3" ViewCount="921" Body="&lt;p&gt;In praying the &quot;Hail Holy Queen&quot; at the end of the Rosary with my Parish, there is a bit strangeness in the terms used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For one, some people say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mourning and weeping in this vale of tears&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and some people say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then some people say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;turn then, most gracious advocate&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and some people say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;turn then, most gracious, advocate&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but when they pronounce advocate they pronounce it 'advo-kate', which seems to mean they're addressing Mary as 'most gracious' and asking her to 'advocate' on their behalf (not that that makes sense with the continuation of the next line, but oh well I've got my theories)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, does any good Christian soul know the right way to pray the Salve Regina in English, has anyone overheard the Pope praying the Rosary in English perhaps?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T18:39:32.477" Title="Variations in the Hail Holy Queen (Salve Regina) prayer" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4952" CreationDate="2011-12-20T14:38:38.410" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;John's thought in his letter includes verses 18 and 20.  Here's 1 John 2:18-20 (NRSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John describes for the first time in his letter the departure of the opponents. They &lt;strong&gt;went out&lt;/strong&gt; from the congregation or Christian community he is now writing to. Their departure shows that &lt;strong&gt;all of them&lt;/strong&gt; never really belonged in the first place.  As to whether or not these opponents are antichrists, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-commentary-1-john-218-27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;W. Hall Harris III&lt;/a&gt; writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the opponents have withdrawn from the community in a dispute over christological doctrine, a dispute which has every indication of being a bitter split. As Schnackenburg observed, these opponents were secessionists – they left of their own free will; there is no indication in the text that the author’s community took the initiative in expelling them. Houlden noted that this division appears to be a new development within the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In what is probably more than coincidence, the same verb used to describe the departure of the opponents here (ejxh'lqan, exhlqan) was used in John 13:30 of the departure of Judas Iscariot from the upper room. The implication is clear – just as Judas betrayed Jesus, so the secessionists have betrayed their fellow members of the community (and indeed, the author himself) and have gone out into the darkness (as Judas went out into the night).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe John is describing antichrists in verse 19, that is, people that have decided to work against the community of believers.  I don't believe these were people that just lost faith, or had a disagreement about how to observe the Lord's supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edited to add: In the Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_security&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Conditional preservation of the saints&lt;/a&gt;, 1 John 2:19 is not mentioned as a supporting verse for conditional security.  The verse is referring to antichrists, not people that lose their relationship with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T15:58:30.883" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5029" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5057" CreationDate="2011-12-20T14:47:47.313" Score="6" ViewCount="6965" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm listening to the Librivox version of Pilgrims Progress and I like it a lot, I really liked reading Pilgrims Regress which I read before I ever even heard of John Bunyan.  So far, in listening to the first 6 parts there are a couple biting remarks about Catholicism (I'm thinking of Formality, Hypocrite and Pope) which may as well have been true as far as Bunyan's perception of the Catholic Church was concerned. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as a Catholic myself, is there anything in the works that I should be worried about in reading. In other words are there any roads which Christian would walk down that a Catholic priest would advise me against walking down? And are there any portrayals of Biblical characters that are at odds with Catholic belief (I'm thinking we don't believe Moses is such a jerk)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2017-04-23T08:39:12.323" Title="What should a Catholic know about Pilgrims Progress?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5012" CreationDate="2011-12-20T15:14:44.040" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question you are asking here is really the essence and the magnificence of the Gospel itself. The scripture that we're all familiar with John 3:16-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only&#xA;  Son, so that &lt;strong&gt;everyone&lt;/strong&gt; who believes in him will not perish but have&#xA;  eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the&#xA;  world, but to save the world through him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus knew what your friend has done when he died on the cross and died for him just the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for precedence see these examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Samaritan woman in John 4 - she was not living a moral life yet Jesus takes time to reach out to her.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Woman caught in adultery in John 8 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peter, Jesus' disciple denying him in John 18 and then Jesus restoring him in John 21&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul in Acts 8 and 9 - he killed many Christians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ultimate example comes in Luke 23:34 when Jesus is on the cross and He forgives the very ones crucifying him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus even talked about this in a few of His parables for example the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015:1-7&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lost sheep&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015:11-32&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prodigal son&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T15:14:44.040" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5032" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-20T15:56:46.847" Score="7" ViewCount="2050" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5022/1099&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Secondly, men do not hate God because of the world he created, they hate God because he is good and they are not. However consciously or unconsciously, they hate him because he is altogether different than they are. They do not understand him and if they did they would not like what they found. The Bible teaches that men love darkness because their deeds are dark and that God is light. (John 3:16-20) Men will naturally hate that which brings judgement to their deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So people are created sinners and they naturally hate God, right? They could try to love God under the influence of teaching but it's just forced change of their nature through mind (so to speak) and when they experience lots of suffering, it is going to break them at some point and they will realize that they don't really feel the love. Unless of course God has blessed them to love him, in which case they will feel the unconditional love for God. But they have no influence here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who (through God's intervention in giving them a new heart) chose to hate sin and love God on earth ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So ultimately only a divine intervention can make a person love God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1099" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T01:29:47.557" Title="Do people have the ability to truly love God, without God guiding them into loving him?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-27T07:18:44.520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2011-12-20T16:15:42.667" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that to understand this issue, we need to question our base assumption of how salvation is &quot;fair&quot;.  We have a tendency to think about salvation like &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever doesn't believe in Christ will be damned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While that's true, it's a little misleading.  We should think about it like &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever believes in Christ will be saved&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with the first one is that it implies that the default position is a belief in Christ, and that not believing in Christ is to stray from that default position - the punishment for which is damnation.  But it's actually subtly different than that.  The damned aren't exactly being punished for unbelief in Christ.  More generally, they are being punished for &lt;strong&gt;sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23-24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23-24 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for all have &lt;strong&gt;sinned&lt;/strong&gt; and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a &lt;strong&gt;gift&lt;/strong&gt; by His &lt;strong&gt;grace&lt;/strong&gt; through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, the default position is not belief - it is damnation. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  We tend to think of salvation as a right, but salvation is a &lt;strong&gt;gift&lt;/strong&gt;.  It's not unfair for people to be damned - that's the fair part.  That's getting what we deserve.  The unfair part is that anyone is able to be saved at all.  That's getting what we don't deserve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you think about damnation as punishment for not believing in Christ, then it makes sense to call it unfair.  How can you be held accountable for something that you didn't know you were supposed to do?  But that's not what we're being held accountable for.  We're being held accountable for our sin (or rather, in Christ, we are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; being held accountable for it).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If even one person in all of history were saved by grace from his/her just damnation, we should count that far more grace than the human race has any right to expect from God.  So the fact that God has created a way (through the sacrifice of His own Son), for &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; who believes to be saved is incomprehensibly gracious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that is why evangelism is so important, as illustrated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:14-15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 10:14-15 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-03-12T16:20:40.580" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T16:20:40.580" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5035" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5039" CreationDate="2011-12-20T17:47:33.123" Score="8" ViewCount="445" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently read &lt;a href=&quot;http://patrickvandapool.com/2011/12/13/tim-tebow-and-evangelicalisms-altar-of-entertainment/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this blog post&lt;/a&gt; from a Catholic blogger who shed some light on the ancient history and purpose of genuflection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While striking his pose, Tebow is praying, and I don't believe any person objects to that.  But what is clear is his use of an ancient Catholic practice—genuflection, which is done before Christ in the Eucharist—and only then. For a religion that has no history, no scriptures other than the expropriated scriptures of the Catholic Church, and no sense of sacred and profane, the barrowing (&lt;em&gt;sic&lt;/em&gt;) of the gesture becomes fair game.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think the author would have any reason to know much about when Evangelicals do genuflect or if genuflection is even what they'd call it. I'd imagine Tim Tebow is just &quot;taking a knee&quot; and praying like we did in my public high school before a game. But is there any circumstances where an Evangelical Christian would have reason to genuflect or is this just a quick aspiration to the Holy Spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rKmjPm.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rKmjPm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Tim Tebow in the act of Tebowing&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, what is he doing and why is he doing it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2017-03-07T18:40:47.953" LastActivityDate="2017-03-07T18:40:47.953" Title="What's the evangelical take on &quot;Tebowing&quot; and genuflection" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;genuflection&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5026" CreationDate="2011-12-20T18:39:32.477" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would call the vale/valley question inconsequential -- they both mean the same thing in English and are both accurate renditions of the Latin &lt;em&gt;valle&lt;/em&gt;. But I suppose there's an official translation of the Salve in the Liturgy of the Hours, since it's the standard post-Compline anthem for most of the year. So that could settle the question, in a sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, using 'advocate' as a verb would be fairly inconsistent with the Latin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Eia ergo, &lt;strong&gt;advocata nostra&lt;/strong&gt;, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;advocata nostra&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;our advocate&quot;) is a noun phrase in the vocative case -- it's the person being addressed. The verb in the sentence is &lt;em&gt;converte&lt;/em&gt;, which is usually rendered &quot;turn&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, even in &quot;the Latin&quot; there are variants. Carthusians, for example, open the prayer thus (IIRC):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Salve Regina misericordiae vitae dulcedo et spes nostra&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I.e., &quot;Hail Queen of mercy, life's sweetness and our hope&quot; -- where the standard Roman edition has:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Salve Regina &lt;strong&gt;mater&lt;/strong&gt; misericordiae &lt;strong&gt;vita&lt;/strong&gt; dulcedo et spes nostra&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I.e., &quot;Hail Queen, mother of mercy, our life, sweetness, and hope&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems like organic variations that don't do violence to the prayer are well-warranted in the tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T18:39:32.477" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2925" CreationDate="2011-12-20T20:00:05.250" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a little more info about the Little Office of Our Lady. Hope it helps fill out the Wikipedia article. It's a truncated form of the Divine Office which, in its traditional form, consists of the eight traditional canonical Hours (Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline). Each hour is much like the Roman Office in its structure -- psalms with antiphons, a hymn, a Scripture reading (three at Matins), a versicle and response, a Gospel canticle at some hours, and a closing prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, though, the Little Office of Our Lady differs markedly from the Roman office in that &lt;strong&gt;it is basically the same every day&lt;/strong&gt;. Here are the variations (I'm working from memory here so this might not be completely accurate):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are three nocturns (i.e., sets of three readings or &quot;lessons&quot;) given at Matins, but only one nocturn is used each day, and the choice of nocturn is determined by the day of the week.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The psalm antiphons and the readings and versicles/responses vary during Advent and again during Christmas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are minor variations throughout during the Easter season&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps needless to say, the psalm antiphons, lessons, versicles, and orations are very pointedly Marian -- and sometimes very intriguingly so, since they're frequently direct quotations from Scripture, but not necessarily from a part of Scripture one would immediately associate with Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The psalms themselves don't change from day to day, or seasonally as far as I'm aware, so the entire Little Office of Our Lady includes only 20-30 psalms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you happen to be interested in older forms of the Western Liturgy of the Hours, this little office is an excellent introduction because it's so simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to have been hugely popular among the literate laity in medieval England (pre-Reformation), and AFAIK it's still prayed daily by Carthusians &quot;in cell&quot; as an adjunct to the great Office. E.g., before singing &quot;great&quot; Vespers in choir, a Carthusian will pray the Vespers of Our Lady alone in cell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T20:00:05.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5035" CreationDate="2011-12-20T20:35:02.010" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Outside of the Roman Catholic context, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuflection&quot;&gt;genuflection&lt;/a&gt; is simply kneeling or bowing to show respect. There's no right or wrong time to do this; the Bible doesn't say we must be on one knee before we take communion, nor that we must not genuflect at any other time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In evangelical meetings, genuflection is sometimes used; sometimes as a result of an invitation to do so corporately, and sometimes spontaneously as individuals. You're likely to see the latter more frequently in more charismatic churches, where individuals are encouraged to express their worship in their own way, and to see the former more in more conservative churches, where there tends to be more direction from the front. But there's no real rule that I'm aware of in any of the main evangelical churches that says you must genuflect at some particular times. You're just as likely to see the raising of hands, or taking up of other postures, in exactly the same way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know little of Tebow - I prefer the kind of football where the foot and the ball actually make contact - but it would seem he is prone to kneeling occasionally, perhaps before a big kick or something; this kind of behaviour certainly isn't uncommon in sport (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/nov/20/rugbyworldcup2003.rugbyunion&quot;&gt;Jonny Wilkinson springs to mind&lt;/a&gt;). He might be praying, he might just be focussing his mind - we don't know for sure. We do know it's not necessary to be on one knee in order to pray, but we also know that such a motion may help to focus his mind and spirit on God (assuming he &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; praying) amid the noise and bustle of the football stadium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T20:35:02.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4585" CreationDate="2011-12-20T21:56:34.700" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since sexual intercourse is the defining act of marriage, it's helpful to look at what the Catholic Church says about marriage. Traditionally, Catholic theologians have identified three purposes of marriage, which I present here in no particular order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mutual help of the spouses (which I believe has developed more recently into the notion of  the &lt;em&gt;union&lt;/em&gt; of the spouses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Procreation and education of children&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Relief of concupiscence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, I think the prohibition of artificial birth control follows from the principle that &lt;strong&gt;married couples should use their sexuality in a way that always respects all three of the basic purposes of marriage&lt;/strong&gt;. But the use of artificial birth control implies the ordering of a particular act of sexual intercourse in such a way that it is intrinsically incapable of &lt;strong&gt;procreation&lt;/strong&gt;. Before he was Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla argued further, in &lt;em&gt;Love and Responsibility&lt;/em&gt;: that choosing to withhold one's fertility in sex is also to work against the &lt;strong&gt;unity&lt;/strong&gt; of the spouses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All told then, the Catholic philosophical view could be summed up thus: &lt;strong&gt;artificial birth control makes marriage one-dimensional, by deliberately limiting its defining act to the service of the least noble of the three purposes of marriage.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plenty of objections arise on the way from the principle to the conclusion, of course -- particularly in the articulation of how abstinence-based methods can be morally legitimate while artificial methods and sterilization cannot -- but I'm not sure if this is the right venue for considering and responding to all of those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I'd like to try to clear up, though, if I might. In your question you said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, planning to wait a little bit here and there seems reasonable enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, and this is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches, at least as I understand it. The clearest official statement of this point that I've seen is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html&quot;&gt;Gaudium et Spes&lt;/a&gt; paragraph 50.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church certainly does not require its faithful to have as many children as they're capable of, nor does it require every act of sexual intercourse to be aimed at procreation -- just to set aside two very common misunderstandings. One has to bear in mind that one of the purposes of marriage, in Catholic thought, is the &quot;procreation &lt;strong&gt;and education&lt;/strong&gt; [or bringing-up] of children&quot;. Every married couple must discern for themselves the right balance between fruitfulness and their responsibility for the children they already have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main thing is that any &quot;waiting a little bit here and there&quot; be achieved by morally acceptable means. This is of course what the comments on your question were getting at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2011-12-20T21:56:34.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5024" CreationDate="2011-12-20T23:01:44.360" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology&quot;&gt;eschatology&lt;/a&gt; (the study of last things) is rarely subject to a definitive answer, because there is simply a wide range of opinion on how to interpret these things.  The best that I can do is repeat theories I have seen before.  The answer below presumes a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism#Dispensational_premillennialism&quot;&gt;pre-milennial dispensationalist&lt;/a&gt; reading, meaning that the timeline is what Tim LaHaye popularized in the &lt;em&gt;Left Behind&lt;/em&gt; series / the dispensationalist view promulgated by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism&quot;&gt;Charles Ryrie / Darby / Chafee / etc&lt;/a&gt;.  I'm going to restrict myself to the biblical references, however, so bear in mind this isn't &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; answer, but rather &lt;em&gt;an&lt;/em&gt; answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 20, the devil is cast into a pit for 1000 years.  At the end of that time, he and cohorts are released to see whom they can deceive - and the speculation is that those who were born during this milennium will compose a portion of that deceived cohort.  The idea that there would be new people who could be believed presupposes then, that new people are someone born in the milennium. This isn't heaven, but being a different &quot;dispensation,&quot; it is nonetheless suggestive that reproduction continues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theory would then be extended to suggest that if in this age there are new people, then there would be nothing to suggest that heaven would be different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:22 / Genesis 9:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning of creation, the first injuction was that man should continue God's creative work by &quot;be[ing] fruitful and multiply[ing]&quot;. After the Flood - the end of the first &quot;dispensation&quot; and the beginning of the second, this injunction is repeated.  Clearly in the remaining periods (&quot;dispensations&quot;) the injunction continues, so the proof of &quot;procreation stops in heaven&quot; would be on the one making the claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 65:20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking of the end times, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and continuing into verse 24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They will not labor in vain,&#xA;     nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;&#xA;  for they will be a people blessed by the LORD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to suggest that these blessed people who's children live a very, very long time will be having children.  One could question if this is heaven, but again, some people will apply it that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the implication is that (a) there are infants and even (b) death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:11-12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we can say with a little more assurance (and here I'm leaving dispensationalism behind) is that in heaven, &quot;We shall know fully, even as I am fully known.&quot;  In other words, the closeness reserved for earthly marriage (which as you pointed out doesn't exist in heaven) is the level of intimacy we all will have in heaven*.  As a present progressive, there seems to be an implication that we will be continually knowing and growing, which to me would imply new people to be known by. And, in the absence of sin, we would be able to know people much more fully than now&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*(One could ask, does that mean you can have sex with anyone you want in heaven, and since there is no shame in it, you could at least make a case. I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out how speculative eschatology gets!). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is this a definitive &quot;Yes?&quot; No. It is a speculative theology hopefully just extending existing theology.  In the end, my only guess is that all of heaven is &quot;exceedingly, abundantly, more than we could ever ask or imagine.&quot; (Eph 3:20.)  That's theology I can support!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2011-12-21T16:45:27.190" LastActivityDate="2011-12-21T16:45:27.190" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5042" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5059" CreationDate="2011-12-21T03:53:10.620" Score="5" ViewCount="2923" Body="&lt;p&gt;To my understanding, Jehovah's Witnesses try to exclude pagan influences from their practice.  Whether or not they do, what is their reason for doing this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastActivityDate="2021-04-22T19:58:31.113" Title="Why do Jehovah's Witnesses exclude pagan influences from their doctrine?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5032" CreationDate="2011-12-21T11:05:06.900" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is how I would explain the viewpoint behind the comments you quote in your question. I do hold a belief about the nature of people that says that since the fall they are inherently bad, totally corrupt. This doesn't mean they were created that way, just that the corruption that we inherit from the first Adam is so complete that we can do nothing truly good or right on our own volition. This is commonly known as the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;Total Depravity&lt;/em&gt;. You might check the entry on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Total_depravity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Theopedia&lt;/a&gt;, and articles such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; for an overview of how this doctrine is derived from Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than defend that doctrine here, I simply want to point out that your question hinges on it. You ask:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So ultimately only a divine intervention can make a person love God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer this, one possible way of defining what it looks like for a human to love God would be this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%2014:15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet if we apply this simple test to humanity and ask, &quot;Do they keep his commandments?&quot; we are left with the bleak conclusion that there are indeed none who keep God's commandments as God intended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans%203:12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course that isn't the end of the story. Again your question posed whether only a divine intervention can make a person love God. Christianity's answer to that is yes, &lt;strong&gt;and that divine intervention has taken place&lt;/strong&gt;. That divine intervention is very poetically prophesied about in Ezekiel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Ezekiel+11:19-20/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 11:19-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And &lt;strong&gt;I will give them one heart&lt;/strong&gt;, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, &lt;strong&gt;that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them&lt;/strong&gt;. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is grace. Unmerited favor: a divine intervention to transform undeserving fallen humans  into creatures capable of loving that which they once hated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are of course Christian traditions that do not hold this view. Perhaps most notably, Catholicism has a different take on the issue. While they agree that man in his fallen state is incapable of doing any works that could affect his salvation apart from the Grace of Jesus, they disagree on how total the fallen state is concluding that the heart of men is not really dead to God, only wounded. While they understand salvation to be affected by God, they think man is capable of acting as an initiator in this process. Likewise several Protestant traditions hold that man in his fallen state is still capable of making some good choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In doing so, Reformed Theology would argue, they replace some aspect of grace with some aspect of works. If men can and do in their natural state &quot;choose&quot; to love God and that makes them eligible for salvation, salvation ceases to be purely a grace bestowed by God and his sovereign will in the matter becomes eclipsed by ours to whatever measure men are thought to be capable of deserving anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-08-15T06:13:13.403" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T06:13:13.403" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5044" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5703" CreationDate="2011-12-21T16:06:55.527" Score="3" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was tempted to answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1378/if-adam-and-eve-were-perfect-why-did-they-choose-to-sin&quot;&gt;this question about freewill and Adam and Eve&lt;/a&gt; but I chose not to because all I've got it conjecture and I'm not even sure if it's not borderline heresy on the matter.  What I'd like to know is if what I would have answered lines up with Catholic thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would have said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve could sin because they chose to follow their intellect and made a rational decision that being like God was in fact a good idea. They could give in to temptation, without following their passions (as they had complete self-mastery in this regard) for the same reason that Lucifer could want to be like God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I might have gone on with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this way God shows us the difference between following divine law (i.e. not eating an apple because God commanded it) and not following natural law (i.e. not intentionally eating (or giving someone) a poisoned apple because it will cause death) and divine law is a kind of law that can be violated without giving into your passions.  That is to say, an act of pure intellect can violate divine law, but violating natural law requires giving in to the passions (intentionally diverting your will from your intellect).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone could run that through their Catholic fluff and heresy parser and give me a readout I'd sure appreciate it before I go and tell it to my Religious Ed. kids, should the matter arise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T03:10:34.907" Title="Seeking a richer Catholic understanding of passion vs intellect as it applies to our first parents" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;divine-law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4952" CreationDate="2011-12-21T18:21:32.930" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question seems to imply that the group in this verse includes &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; people who become Christians and then leave the faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as @Gilbert Le Blanc pointed out, by giving context to the verse, the thought is referring to a &lt;em&gt;specific group&lt;/em&gt; who were not believers. So the verse &lt;em&gt;does not&lt;/em&gt; refer to &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; who ceases to call themselves Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2011-12-21T18:21:32.930" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4729" CreationDate="2011-12-21T21:58:47.833" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The disambiguations here are helpful but in answer to the first question, the &quot;virgin&quot; -- in the sense of &lt;strong&gt;one who has renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom&lt;/strong&gt; -- is admired in Catholic (and Orthodox) tradition because he or she has gone beyond the call of duty in the service of the Lord and is thus a model of radical Christian discipleship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical testimony for this seems pretty strong, both from the mouth of Christ in &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 19:11-12&lt;/strong&gt; and from St. Paul in &lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 7&lt;/strong&gt;, particularly verses 7-8 and 32ff. Here are a few of the latter verses from the RSV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but &lt;strong&gt;to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. ... So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The long practice of priestly and monastic celibacy is very strong evidence that male virginity is highly valued by Catholics as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect (though this is just speculation) that the practice of specifically identifying a celibate female saint as a &quot;virgin&quot;, and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; using that title for a celibate male saint, is a cultural artifact held over from times and places where a very specific physical sense of &quot;virginity&quot; was more significant than it is now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2011-12-21T21:58:47.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5047" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5075" CreationDate="2011-12-21T22:33:34.483" Score="8" ViewCount="3534" Body="&lt;p&gt;Towards the end of the New Testament writing, the heresy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gnosticism&lt;/a&gt; was one of the chief &quot;false teachings&quot; against which Paul and the other writers were contesting.  Could someone present some of the chief teachings of the Gnostics that were &quot;false teachings,&quot; and for extra credit, identify any of these beliefs that may be present in certain denominations today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2013-12-28T12:44:17.847" LastActivityDate="2015-06-24T10:45:57.993" Title="Are there any tenets of Gnosticism that are still present in the church today?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;gnosticism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5048" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5159" CreationDate="2011-12-21T22:37:47.877" Score="18" ViewCount="1533" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two early heresies that intrigue me a bit are monoergism and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism&quot;&gt;monothelitism&lt;/a&gt;.  Both basically suggest that while Jesus was both human and divine, he only had one &quot;energy&quot; or one &quot;will.&quot;  Both were eventually called heresy by the church, but why? Does this this guard against the frankly worse heresy of Nestorianism?.  What is so bad about these heresies? What practical effect does it have on one's perception of Jesus if we fall into this trap?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-10-15T13:08:25.810" LastActivityDate="2015-10-15T13:08:25.810" Title="What's so bad about monoergism and monothelitism?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5049" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-22T03:26:33.923" Score="22" ViewCount="11878" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a multi-part question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis, Chapter 4 tells us about Cain and Abel.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Genesis, Chapter 5 tells us about Seth and &quot;other sons and daughters&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly doubt that our species began with many acts of incest (not just for religious/legal/moral reasons but biological reasons as well), so how did humanity continue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, am I obliged to accept one of the following?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam and Eve's progeny mated with descendants from another lineage that the Bible (through no apparent malice) failed to describe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The story of Adam and Eve is just that - A story. It is a story that was passed down by way of oral tradition. It was never meant to describe actual historical events.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T12:52:36.300" LastActivityDate="2015-12-14T13:56:13.287" Title="Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;incest&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2015-12-14T00:44:29.480" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5049" CreationDate="2011-12-22T03:54:43.243" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;strong&gt;third&lt;/strong&gt; option - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prohibition on incest didn't come about until the covenant in Leviticus &amp;amp; Deuteronomy, and to accuse Cain, Abel, and Seth of incest is to accuse them &lt;em&gt;ex post facto&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, a Young Earth Creationist would date the Creation to 4004 BC, and the Exodus (and  hence the Covenant) to about 1440BC.  As such, you would be accusing them of a crime that wasn't mandated for nearly 2600 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to say, &quot;but surely the law goes back further than the covenant,&quot; you get into territory of, &quot;So when did it become a law?&quot;  Incest is prohibited in most secular cultures today because it weakens the gene pool.  Over time, the level of closeness has gotten wider in order to ensure a wider mixing.  In modern times, a first or second cousin is off-limits.  If I remember correctly in Leviticus, immediate family was prohibited, but I believe that cousins were ok. If you follow the trajectory backwards, you'd probably arrive at a date at which it was ok even for family members to procreate together, societally speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An objection has been raised worth noting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;regardless, biology hasn't changed. legally incest wasn't &quot;wrong&quot; yet but humanity does not tend to survive well on inbreeding. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My response stands, however:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Agreed that humanity doesn't tend to survive well on inbreeding, but it fares even more poorly if the first of the species refrain from procreation altogether&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-10-28T19:13:49.903" LastActivityDate="2014-10-28T19:13:49.903" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4443" CreationDate="2011-12-22T04:22:48.907" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Hebrew, there are no numerals, but the letter aleph is inserted to stand for &quot;one hundred.&quot; Additionally, the same aleph can be used to represent a clan or a tribe. As such, it is possible that Andino killed 8 clans, and not 800 people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2011-12-22T04:22:48.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5052" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5082" CreationDate="2011-12-22T08:46:48.303" Score="10" ViewCount="2756" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which Orthodox churches are recognized by the Catholic church? Are there any churches older than the split that are not recognized by the Catholic Church and that are still active?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: &quot;recognize&quot; can be exemplified by that it is possible for an orthodox to receive a sacrament from a catholic priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1036" LastEditorUserId="1036" LastEditDate="2011-12-22T22:27:59.390" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T19:10:38.530" Title="Orthodox churches recognized by Catholic Church" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5020" CreationDate="2011-12-22T09:20:05.703" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We as Christians are generally not as convinced of our virtue as atheist are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some pertinent bible verses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;&amp;lt; John 3 &gt;&gt;&#xA;New International Version 1984   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Teaches Nicodemus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the&#xA;  Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we&#xA;  know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform&#xA;  the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the&#xA;  kingdom of God unless he is born again.a”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he&#xA;  cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom&#xA;  of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth&#xA;  to flesh, but the Spiritb gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be&#xA;  surprised at my saying, ‘Youc must be born again.’ 8The wind blows&#xA;  wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it&#xA;  comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the&#xA;  Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand&#xA;  these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we&#xA;  testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our&#xA;  testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not&#xA;  believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No&#xA;  one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the&#xA;  Son of Man.d 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the&#xA;  Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may&#xA;  have eternal life.e&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,f that&#xA;  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For&#xA;  God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to&#xA;  save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not&#xA;  condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already&#xA;  because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.g&#xA;  19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved&#xA;  darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone&#xA;  who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for&#xA;  fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth&#xA;  comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has&#xA;  done has been done through God.”h&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2011-12-22T09:20:05.703" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5047" CreationDate="2011-12-22T09:22:15.270" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the defining characteristic of gnosticism is the belief that salvation is attained through the realisation of gnosis, which Wikipedia defines as &quot;esoteric or intuitive knowledge&quot;. This is at odds with much of Christianity, which teaches that salvation is attained by faith (or, in some cases by faith and works, where works might be a ritual such as baptism).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it isn't a case of faith good, gnosis bad - depending what you include as gnosis. You might include the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:7-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;gifts of the Holy Spirit&lt;/a&gt; - prophecy, discernment, tongues, etc, which are to be encouraged. People who exercise these gifts do tend to be seen as &quot;more spiritual&quot; than others by some Christians, and leaders displaying this kind of gifting are often those who are labelled as having &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4358/what-is-apostolic-authority&quot;&gt;apostolic authority&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether there are degrees of spirituality - whether someone can be &quot;more spiritual&quot; than someone else - is probably a different question (and more of a discussion topic than something definitively answerable); but the main point is that even if someone has fully realised this kind of gifting, they are no more or less saved as a result of it. If gnosis is defined as a combination of knowledge of the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Holy Spirit, then it is something that follows salvation, might even be part &lt;em&gt;of&lt;/em&gt; salvation, but is not the &lt;em&gt;cause&lt;/em&gt; of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably the churches that come closest to gnosticism are the charismatic churches, where more emphasis tends to be placed on the manifestation of spiritual gifts than in other denominations; but charismatics still hold true to the fact that we are saved by faith, not by demonstrating spiritual gifts or spiritual knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may well be groups that adhere to &quot;full-blown&quot; gnositicism and profess to be Christians, but they are unlikely to be recognised as such by the mainstream denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-06-24T10:45:57.993" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5049" CreationDate="2011-12-22T14:35:32.237" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe it's an allegory and not intended to be taken as literal as we often do.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always thought that there were 'others' with whom Cain mated.  Within the known history of the world outside of the Bible, I speculate that the first humans were Adam and Eve.  That is, they were the first intelligent beings who's children mated with the Neanderthals.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is scientifically speculated that &lt;em&gt;Homo Sapiens&lt;/em&gt; came out of Africa where they encountered the Neanderthals, who were stronger and better hunters (implying warriors) than the &lt;em&gt;Homo Sapiens&lt;/em&gt;.  The &lt;em&gt;Homo Sapiens&lt;/em&gt; retreated back into Africa for years and then came back north, but this time for some unknown reason (I believe that it's the fruit of knowledge of good and evil) this time they had an enlarged brain.  The rest as they say is history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further reading about this: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2010/05/did-neanderthals-mate-with-modern-humans.html&quot;&gt;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2010/05/did-neanderthals-mate-with-modern-humans.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would also explain why Cain was fearful of the others killing him when he was sent away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2011-12-24T15:42:24.227" LastActivityDate="2011-12-24T15:42:24.227" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5029" CreationDate="2011-12-22T14:50:47.043" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you pointed out, &lt;em&gt;Pilgrim's Progress&lt;/em&gt; was and is a very anti-Catholic book.  Seeing as its author, John Bunyan, was a Baptist writer serving time in jail for opposing an Anglican church in England at the same time England was living in fear of the even-more hierarchical Roman church, you can understand why he might be anti-Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic tenant of the book - that the Christian life is a journey that must be accomplished on one's own, is as about as Baptist / Puritanical as it gets.  Like all Puritans, he celebrated rather than suppressed emotion, and wanted to ensure the &quot;personal relationship&quot; with Jesus took center stage. (Yes, Puritans were not the dour people popularly portrayed.  Want to read a theology that celebrates sex between man and wife? Look to the Puritans - not the Catholics!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two biggies - the unmediated experience and the anti-hierarchical church polity - are probably the biggest bugaboos for a Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, the book presents salvation as an act of free will, and seems to completely discount election or predestination.  These issues may also cause some interesting discussions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, this is the second best selling book of all time, just behind the Bible. Even if a good Christian were to disagree, I'd suggest it is edifying to read and think.  The praise of Acts 17:11 comes to mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Baptist believer in soul competency, Bunyan himself probably wouldn't have wanted you to accept his opinions without considering them against scripture. His genius was to rehabilitate allegory from static symbolism and push the metaphor into dynamic journey and learning that could be used to direct a believer's life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2011-12-22T14:50:47.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5042" CreationDate="2011-12-22T15:40:58.170" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on this 15 December 2007 article from The Watchtower, called &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007922?q=Can+a+Pagan+holiday+be+made+christian&amp;amp;p=par&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian?&lt;/a&gt;, the answer comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/2-corinthians/6/#v-14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14-17&lt;/a&gt; (New World Translation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Be´li·al? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;“‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take YOU in.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2013-09-01T06:17:07.427" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T06:17:07.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5047" CreationDate="2011-12-22T15:50:28.093" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gnosticism was born out of an idea that secret knowledge will grant you some form of salvation, which in some ways can sound like how some Christians view the necessity of hearing of Jesus.  However, the better question might be of what are they saved from?  Classically Christianity has taught that humanity needs to be saved from its own hubris, oncoming destruction, selfishnes, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HOWEVER, Christianity has never said that one needs to be saved from this material world.  THAT is a heretical tenet of gnosticism that has been carried over into today's Christianity.  It is heretical to say that Jesus saves us from this physical reality in order to abandon our bodies and live on some more spiritual plane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only that, but gnosticism had a strong following of people who believed that there were two demigods, light and dark, or good and evil that were constantly at battle, but more than that, they were equal.  Any form of Christianity that gives the devil or evil just as much power as God or good is influenced by this heretical tenet of gnosticism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-12-22T15:50:28.093" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5061" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11279" CreationDate="2011-12-22T16:53:18.963" Score="10" ViewCount="1127" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two schools of thought on when the Exodus occurred, the &quot;early&quot; date of 1440BC, and the &quot;later&quot; date of 1290BC.  How was each date arrived at, and what is the evidence for each?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T01:51:30.577" LastActivityDate="2015-08-02T01:51:30.577" Title="What are the arguments for the Exodus occuring in 1440BC or 1290BC?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5064" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-22T21:03:33.740" Score="6" ViewCount="443" Body="&lt;p&gt;Brigham Young taught the doctrine of Blood Atonement that indicated the blood of Christ was insufficient to provide forgiveness for some sins.  What are the specifics regarding the doctrine of Blood Atonement that Brigham Young taught?  Where is this teaching found?  What sins could be atoned for by the cross of Christ and which could not?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this doctrine still believed today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2015-06-19T04:31:17.733" Title="What did Brigham Young teach regarding Blood Atonement, and is that doctrine still held today in the LDS/Mormon Church?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5065" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-22T21:57:47.660" Score="10" ViewCount="1309" Body="&lt;p&gt;Life on earth is filled with the horrible effects of sin.  Why did God create mankind with the capacity to sin?  Was there a higher purpose in this or was there a specific reason for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm specifically looking for an answer based on biblical teaching as interpreted in the Protestant tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-23T15:04:28.380" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T00:10:15.947" Title="Why would God create beings with the capacity to sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:35:42.077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4337" CreationDate="2011-12-22T23:53:38.690" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have in James Black's answer the standard Roman Catholic view of the &lt;em&gt;filioque&lt;/em&gt;.  To understand the Orthodox objection to it, consider the difference between &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;temporal&lt;/strong&gt; procession of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity regards the &lt;em&gt;eternal&lt;/em&gt; relations between the members of the Trinity: God the Son is eternally &lt;strong&gt;begotten&lt;/strong&gt; by the Father, and God the Holy Spirit eternally &lt;strong&gt;proceeds&lt;/strong&gt; from the Father.  God the Father is the ultimate source of the Son and the Spirit, though the three coexist eternally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The filioque can be understood in an orthodox manner if it is taken to refer to the &lt;strong&gt;temporal&lt;/strong&gt; procession of the Holy Spirit from Jesus Christ to the apostles.  If it is taken to refer to the &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt; procession of the Holy Spirit, then there are a couple of objections:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It makes the Father and the Son both eternal sources&lt;/strong&gt;.  In Orthodox theology, two sources within the Godhead would be equivalent to having two gods, an obvious heresy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Orthodox believe that traits of the Godhead are either shared by all three, or are particular to one&lt;/strong&gt;.  The filioque (if referring to eternal procession) would make this procession common to the Father and the Son but not the Holy Spirit.  As a trait shared by two of the Three, it would distort the unity and balance inherent to the Holy Trinity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the theological problems, there's a canonical problem.  The filioque was added to the Nicene Creed unilaterally by the West without gaining the consent of the whole Church.  The Orthodox believe that only an ecumenical council can alter the Creed shared by the whole Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more reading on the Orthodox view of the filioque, see this page, which has an article as well as links to other reading materials: &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque&quot;&gt;Filioque (OrthodoxWiki)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastActivityDate="2011-12-22T23:53:38.690" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5064" CreationDate="2011-12-23T03:41:46.550" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041267/Mormon-church-statement-on-blood-atonement.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article at Desert News&lt;/a&gt; concerning the topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this&#xA;  statement Wednesday:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was&#xA;  common, some church members and leaders used strong language that&#xA;  included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving&#xA;  up their own lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, so-called &quot;blood atonement,&quot; by which individuals would be&#xA;  required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a&#xA;  doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We&#xA;  believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of&#xA;  Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible&#xA;  for all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That same site states the date of this announcement as June 18, 2010.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-12-26T20:11:30.240" LastActivityDate="2011-12-26T20:11:30.240" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="217" CreationDate="2011-12-23T04:49:40.033" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  God created each of us, and loves each of us individually. (He doesn't love what we do, necessarily, but he loves us just the same.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone who has been created by God (I think that covers everyone) will have the opportunity to accept Christ and His atoning sacrifice at some point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God judges our hearts:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on&#xA;  the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord&#xA;  seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but&#xA;  the Lord looketh on the heart. -- 1 Samuel 16:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is applied to this topic in these verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they&#xA;  had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom&#xA;  of God;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who&#xA;  would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that&#xA;  kingdom;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works,&#xA;  according to the desire of their hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at&#xA;  the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of&#xA;  heaven.  -- Doctrine &amp;amp; Covenants 137:7-10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Everyone&lt;/em&gt; has an opportunity:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the&#xA;  unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the&#xA;  flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of&#xA;  God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein&#xA;  few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  1 Peter 3:18-20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is discussed in more detail here... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 I marveled, for I understood that the Savior spent about three&#xA;  years in his ministry among the Jews and those of the house of Israel,&#xA;  endeavoring to teach them the everlasting gospel and call them unto&#xA;  repentance;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 And yet, notwithstanding his mighty works, and miracles, and&#xA;  proclamation of the truth, in great power and authority, there were&#xA;  but few who hearkened to his voice, and rejoiced in his presence, and&#xA;  received salvation at his hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the&#xA;  brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son&#xA;  of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were&#xA;  disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of&#xA;  Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and&#xA;  perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding&#xA;  quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the&#xA;  wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and&#xA;  appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and&#xA;  commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to&#xA;  them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus&#xA;  was the gospel preached to the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day&#xA;  of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even&#xA;  unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins,&#xA;  without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected&#xA;  the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious&#xA;  baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the&#xA;  laying on of hands,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for&#xA;  them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged&#xA;  according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the&#xA;  spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the&#xA;  unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought&#xA;  through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent his time during his&#xA;  sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the&#xA;  faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the&#xA;  flesh;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 That they might carry the message of redemption unto all the dead,&#xA;  unto whom he could not go personally, because of their rebellion and&#xA;  transgression, that they through the ministration of his servants&#xA;  might also hear his words.  -- Doctrine &amp;amp; Covenants 138:25-37&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God's stated purpose:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying...For behold, this is my&#xA;  work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of&#xA;  man.  -- Moses 1:37-39 from the Pearl of Great Price&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He creates us, He loves us, He sent his Only Begotten Son to save and redeem us.  He does not wish to see anyone cast into hell.  And like any parent, he grieves and is angry when we choose to disobey.  (if this last paragraph needs citations, I'll look them up.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastActivityDate="2011-12-23T04:49:40.033" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2011-12-23T05:48:09.563" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a wonderful treatment of faith, obtaining greater faith, and knowledge found in this passage of scripture.  I have found it to be a &quot;go to&quot; reference when learning about faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First, a definition and a reminder:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Alma 32:21-22, 26-43 from The Book of Mormon)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect&#xA;  knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things&#xA;  which are not seen, which are true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should&#xA;  remember, that God is merciful unto all who believe on his name;&#xA;  therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe,&#xA;  yea, even on his word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then, a little later, &lt;strong&gt;Proposing An Experiment&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect&#xA;  knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety&#xA;  at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an&#xA;  experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even&#xA;  if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you,&#xA;  even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion&#xA;  of my words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and an promise of results, using &lt;strong&gt;An Allegory&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place,&#xA;  that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true&#xA;  seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that&#xA;  ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell&#xA;  within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will&#xA;  begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good&#xA;  seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul;&#xA;  yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to&#xA;  be delicious to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you,&#xA;  Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to&#xA;  grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it&#xA;  swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will&#xA;  not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith:&#xA;  for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it&#xA;  sprouteth and beginneth to grow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto&#xA;  you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not,&#xA;  behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted&#xA;  the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye&#xA;  must needs know that the seed is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is&#xA;  perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you&#xA;  know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also&#xA;  know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to&#xA;  be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is&#xA;  light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible,&#xA;  therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have&#xA;  tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith,&#xA;  for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might&#xA;  try the experiment to know if the seed was good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us&#xA;  nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up,&#xA;  and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with&#xA;  much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its&#xA;  nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the&#xA;  sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away,&#xA;  and ye pluck it up and cast it out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it&#xA;  because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because&#xA;  your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye&#xA;  cannot have the fruit thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an&#xA;  eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of&#xA;  the tree of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it&#xA;  beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with&#xA;  patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root;&#xA;  and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience&#xA;  with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold,&#xA;  by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious,&#xA;  which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all&#xA;  that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall&#xA;  feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not,&#xA;  neither shall ye thirst.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and&#xA;  your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree&#xA;  to bring forth fruit unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alma encourages us to act on our desire to believe.  That is, to come to Christ, to believe Him, to nurture our tiny faith through prayer, scripture, service, repentance.  And as we do, we will find that our faith enlarges our soul and, in turn, our faith will continue to grow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 22 is also a wonderful reminder that God is merciful and &lt;em&gt;desires&lt;/em&gt; that we believe.  Consequently, He will bless our desire to believe, and our willingness to act on that desire, with greater faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T02:24:11.423" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T02:24:11.423" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5012" CreationDate="2011-12-23T06:12:56.420" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always loved the imagery in this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your&#xA;  sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red&#xA;  like crimson, they shall be as wool. -- Isaiah 1:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Paul, in his epistle to Timothy says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that&#xA;  Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.&#xA;  -- Timothy 1:15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also tells us, in his epistle to Titus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Who gave himself for us, that he might &lt;strong&gt;redeem us from all iniquity&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. --&#xA;  Titus 2:14 (emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, in the epistle to the Hebrews, Paul quotes the prophet Jeremiah, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins&#xA;  and their iniquities will I remember no more. -- Hebrews 8:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And last, a personal comment.  Just this past week, someone said to me, &quot;God loves broken things. God loves &lt;em&gt;fixing&lt;/em&gt; broken things, whether it is a broken heart, a broken mind, a broken spirit, a broken family....  God loves fixing broken things!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And God, who created the universe and all that is in it, would love to fix your &quot;broken&quot; friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastActivityDate="2011-12-23T06:12:56.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5072" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5395" CreationDate="2011-12-23T09:26:53.007" Score="9" ViewCount="10795" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/how-do-i-get-more-faith&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;How do I get more faith?&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; has been posted here. When I read it, my mind went to the time the disciples and Jesus had a similar dialogue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:5-6&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 17:5-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like the disciples are asking Jesus &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;How do I get more faith?&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; (or perhaps they are demanding?) but Jesus' answer sounds to me like He is saying, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Yes, it would be great if you had more faith.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; But His answer doesn't help people with little faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how should I interpret His answer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-12-26T20:38:44.280" Title="&quot;How do I get more faith?&quot; - how to understand Jesus' answer?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-12-27T01:20:04.897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5072" CreationDate="2011-12-23T13:55:16.213" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Think back to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%204:30-32&quot;&gt;the other time he mentions a mustard seed&lt;/a&gt;.  What he focuses on in the example is the way it grows from a very small seed to a very large plant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if a disciple's faith is as this seed, vital and active, and capable of great growth even though it may be small at the moment, then it can enable them to do great things when the need arises.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-12-23T13:55:16.213" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5012" CreationDate="2011-12-23T14:49:34.197" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his marvelous book, All of Grace, Charles Spurgeon cites the Apostle Paul in affirming that it is the ungodly people that God justifies, and not the righteous people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as&#xA;  his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in &lt;strong&gt;him who&#xA;  justifies the ungodly&lt;/strong&gt;, his faith is counted as righteousness. Romans&#xA;  4:4-5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common mistake is to believe that Jesus came to save the righteous, but that couldn't be any more wrong that it already is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God justifies the ungodly--not the righteous.  To borrow from a colloquialism, God does not save &quot;the good&quot;, but rather &quot;the bad and the ugly.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Himself stated the same thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I have not come to call the righteous &lt;strong&gt;but sinners&lt;/strong&gt; to repentance.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, Paul claims for himself the title of the chief of sinners:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners&lt;/strong&gt;, of whom I am the&#xA;  foremost.  1 Timothy 1:15 ESV&#xA;  Luke 5:32 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is good news to those who identify themselves as ungodly people and sinners, for Christ Jesus came into the world specifically to save us--and to save no one else.  He came to save sinners.  He came to justify ungodly people.  Indeed, anyone who has no sin and is righteous--or believes himself to be that way--that person has no need of justification nor salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is the sick who need the doctor--not the healthy.&quot;  A doctor has no value to a healthy person and is ultimately out of place where there is no disease or impairment.  A doctor can only do anything of value to those that have need of him.  So, too, the self-righteous Pharisees of Jesus' time felt no need of salvation, so Jesus saved His harshest rebukes for them.  Yet, to the adulterer, to the thief, and to the sinner the arms of Jesus were warmly outstretched to receive them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, your friend could not be any more qualified to receive salvation from God.  In fact, such a person is the perfect fit for the grace and mercy of God.  In fact, no one could be a better candidate for salvation than one such as your friend, who understands that he or she is truly a sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I highly recommend Spurgeon's book, All of Grace, on this subject.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-23T14:49:34.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5047" CreationDate="2011-12-23T14:58:30.947" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gnosticism was a movement that sprung up as an attempt to fill a major knowledge vacuum in the Scriptural record.  The Gospels record that even the Apostles, Jesus's highest and most trusted disciples, were spiritually weak and deemed by the Lord as unready for the true doctrines of the Kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, witness Peter, who boasted of his fearlessness and readiness to follow the Lord to any tribulation, only hours before being reduced to fearful lying to disassociate himself from Christ when the actual tribulation came.  The &quot;fearless&quot; apostle, the one who Jesus had named the Rock, was reduced to cowering before a serving girl, one of the lowest social positions in Jewish society!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But all that changed once they began their ministry.  Acts describes Peter as a preacher of true fearlessness, ready to face prison and beatings and all manner of tribulations for the Lord's sake.  And as for what happened to change him and the Apostles, we are left with a void.  The Scriptural record glosses over the events that occurred after the resurrection.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are told that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:13-35&quot;&gt;the resurrected Christ talked with two disciples on the way to Emmaus&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in&#xA;  all the scriptures the things concerning himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but only the first few sentences of this wondrous sermon are preserved for our knowledge.  Likewise, Luke records that &quot;also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:3&quot;&gt;Acts 1:3&lt;/a&gt;) but the record is silent on the &lt;em&gt;contents&lt;/em&gt; of this teaching.  Any understanding of Gnosticism has to take this into account, for it is the root of Gnosticism.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=114&quot;&gt;Dr. Hugh Nibley wrote:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All the 40-day teaching is described as very secret, delivered to a&#xA;  closed cult group. There is no desire to intrigue and mystify,&#xA;  however, as with the Gnostics, but rather the clearly stated policy&#xA;  that knowledge should be given always but only to those who ask for&#xA;  it, with the corollary that the higher and holier a teaching the&#xA;  more carefully it should be guarded. As &quot;the last and highest&#xA;  revelation,&quot; the teaching of the 40 days was top secret, and has not&#xA;  come down to us. Since Irenaeus, churchmen have strenuously denied&#xA;  that there ever was a secret teaching or that anything really&#xA;  important has ever been lost. To profess otherwise would be&#xA;  perilously close to an admission of bankruptcy; yet Christian scholars&#xA;  do concede that the Apostles had information that we do not have,&#xA;  allow the existence of an unwritten Apostolic tradition in the&#xA;  church, and grant that there was a policy of secrecy in the early&#xA;  church—though insisting that it began with the catechetical schools.&#xA;  The catechists, however, appeal to a much earlier tradition of&#xA;  secrecy, and when the Fathers attempt to reproduce the unwritten&#xA;  tradition which they claim for the church they have nothing to offer&#xA;  but the commonplaces of the schools. Plainly things have been lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After the alarming gap in the record following the fall of Jerusalem,&#xA;  the curtain rises on a second-century church seething with conflict&#xA;  and split into factions hotly debating the reality of the&#xA;  Resurrection. The Gnostic exploited both the ignorance and the&#xA;  knowledge of the time—the knowledge that the answers to the great&#xA;  questions of existence were known and treasured by &quot;the Elders&quot; of&#xA;  another day, and the ignorance of just what that knowledge was. The&#xA;  oldest definition of the Gnosis specifies that it was the knowledge&#xA;  imparted secretly by the Lord to the Apostles after the Resurrection.&#xA;  The Gnostics claimed to have that very knowledge, and their&#xA;  tremendous initial success shows how hungry the Christian world was&#xA;  for it—the &quot;main church,&quot; in fact, had to invent a counter-Gnosis of&#xA;  its own to meet the threat and ended up with a compromise that has&#xA;  left a Gnostic stamp on Christian thinking ever since. The Gnostics&#xA;  did not invent the 40-day situation, as has been claimed, for they&#xA;  were the last people in the world to imagine a return of the Savior in&#xA;  the flesh, and any tinkering would have been readily exposed in a&#xA;  quarreling and hyper-critical society; but they did exploit it because&#xA;  it was there and they had to: at a time when everything else was being&#xA;  questioned, it is one of the few things that is never challenged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this knowledge unavailable to the church in general, but its &lt;em&gt;existence&lt;/em&gt; unquestioned, false teachers sprung up to fill the void, bringing a new doctrine inspired heavily by Greek philosophy.  The idea was that physical matter was somehow corrupt and evil, and that God's plan involved freeing Mankind from the bonds of the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for Gnostic influence in modern Christianity, you need look no further than this basic concept.  A lot of the more &quot;out there&quot; Gnostic teachings have been stamped out, but shades of the core ideas can be found even today in the common understanding of God as a being of pure spirit, without any physical form. The Christ of the Bible, and of the early Christian church, was a resurrected being who went out of his way to prove and demonstrate that he had a fully real body of flesh and bones!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-12-23T14:58:30.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5076" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19225" CreationDate="2011-12-23T16:54:47.550" Score="11" ViewCount="25721" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I understand of premillenial eschatology, during the millennial reign, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Matthew 24:13&quot;&gt;people who survived the tribulation&lt;/a&gt; will have their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065:20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Isaiah 65:20&quot;&gt;longevity returned like before the flood, but they will still die.&lt;/a&gt; What happens to those that die, but are saved? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Zechariah 14:5&quot;&gt;Jesus is already on earth with the saints&lt;/a&gt;, the people saved before the tribulation; but what about those saved after? Would they just get their glorified bodies immediately?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="103" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2017-03-15T16:52:02.833" LastActivityDate="2017-08-14T15:17:29.197" Title="What happens to those saved during the millennial reign that die? (Premillennialist perspective)" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;premillennialism&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5065" CreationDate="2011-12-23T16:58:48.720" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Free will is the ability of people to make choices different than God's commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A sin is a thought or act contrary to God's will for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without the ability to sin, there is no free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our problem is that free will is never addressed in the Bible.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue92.htm&quot;&gt;Bob DeWaay&lt;/a&gt; describes it this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even in passages where prophets and others asked God why He allowed so much evil to harm the innocent, it was not discussed. The answer was never that God was committed to the principle of free will and determined that allowing evil was a necessary by-product of free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He continues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most free will theology is based on philosophical considerations that are imported to the discussion from outside the Bible. Since the Bible does not directly discuss the meaning of “free will,” the concept must be derived from passages about human bondage to sin and human responsibility and culpability before the Law of God. You will see this as we examine literature on the topic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Continuing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Free will is not the simple answer to important theological questions that people think it is. It raises more questions and complications than it answers. I set about to study this matter in great detail over ten years ago. I read the best material I could find, much of it sited in this article. The bottom line for me is that we need to accept what the Bible teaches and not try to escape from clear Biblical passages through philosophical speculation. I am not minimizing the sincere desire people have to answer the difficult question about God’s relationship to time, evil, and human choices. But I am saying that outside of Divine revelation in Scripture there are true mysteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it's worth the time to read all of Bob DeWaay's essay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal opinion is that God considers the free will of man to be the prime directive, with everything else supporting free will.  But my opinion is not supported by the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2011-12-23T16:58:48.720" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5065" CreationDate="2011-12-23T18:03:34.547" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason God created anything at all is for His glory.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:1-7&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 43:1-7 (esp v.7)&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4:11&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rev. 4:11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:15-16&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Col 1:15-16&lt;/a&gt;)This is a hard concept to grasp for anyone, even for a committed Christians.  So the answer is that sin is there to glorify God.  You may ask, &quot;How does sin glorify God?&quot;  Sin glorifies God's attributes of justice and wrath, not His most popular attributes.  Many Christians view God a pure love, and that is correct; but God is also pure wrath &quot;a consuming fire&quot; and pure justice. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2012:29&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 12:29&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:4&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:4&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about it this way.  If you had a family member who had been murdered by a criminal and you were present at the trial and the Judge decided to acquit the criminal despite eye witness testimony, how would you feel?  Would the judge be 'glorified' in your eyes.  God is glorified in the judging of sinners.  In the case of true Christians, Christ stands as their sacrifice.  So if we go back to the courtroom example we see the Judge's Son offering to take the punishment of the criminal and the Judge offering to take the criminal into his family to reform him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God is glorified by sin in two ways.  He is glorified by judging sin righteously and also by His Son taking the punishment for some of the sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:22-26&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:22-26 (NKJV):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="1109" LastEditDate="2012-03-21T00:10:15.947" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T00:10:15.947" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5079" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-23T20:55:17.950" Score="7" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that every annulment must go through the Vatican in some capacity. Does every annulment get reviewed by some tribunal there or is it just a rubber stamp for the tribunal of the diocese from whence it came? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2018-09-22T22:16:14.453" Title="What role does the Vatican play in marriage annulments?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2430" CreationDate="2011-12-23T23:37:14.217" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I should preface this answer by pointing out that Catholics and non-Catholic Christians may not mean the same thing at all when they each say the word &quot;faith&quot;. When a Catholic says &quot;faith&quot; in a context like this, he means &lt;em&gt;free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed&lt;/em&gt; (CCC 150). This is not a complete definition of faith but it's an essential part. I'm not sure that it coincides with a typical non-Catholic understanding of the &lt;em&gt;fides&lt;/em&gt; in &lt;em&gt;sola fides&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate the other answers so far are helpful in distinguishing between faith and works generally, but it sounds like the original question is focused more on the distinction between &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;grace&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question seems to hinge on one particular aspect of Catholic doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God gives us grace to perform the meritorious works that earn our salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strictly speaking this is an accurate statement from the Catholic viewpoint; cf. for example the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P70.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Catechism on &quot;Merit&quot;&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis in original):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, &lt;em&gt;we can then merit&lt;/em&gt; for ourselves and for others &#xA;  the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this is is a difficult and somewhat mysterious concept, because anyone who is able to perform &quot;meritorious works&quot; of this sort is by definition already justified (in more typically Catholic language, &lt;em&gt;is already in a state of sanctifying grace&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, to put it more succinctly: &lt;strong&gt;only the just are able to perform meritorious works&lt;/strong&gt;. So in one sense there is no question of earning one's salvation by meritorious works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand the Church teaches very clearly, as quoted above, that the just can &quot;merit ... the attainment of eternal life&quot;. What this means precisely (to the extent that it can be understood at all) might best be explored in a separate question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And all of that still leaves the question &lt;strong&gt;&quot;how is one justified?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (Catholic translation: &lt;em&gt;how does one attain a state of sanctifying grace?&lt;/em&gt;). The simple, externally visible answer in the normal course of most people's lives is &lt;strong&gt;&quot;by being baptized&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's not a complete answer by any means, because the Church teaches that there is a lot going on within the believer prior to baptism, and that after baptism one could in fact lose one's justification (Catholic translation: &lt;em&gt;sin mortally&lt;/em&gt;) and would then need to be justified again (&lt;em&gt;be restored to sanctifying grace&lt;/em&gt;), which God normally achieves in the context of sacramental confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, the supernatural virtue of faith, which is a gift from God, is foundational to the process of justification, but in typically careful fashion the Church notes that faith is a virtue of the &lt;strong&gt;intellect&lt;/strong&gt;, whereas the &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; must also be prepared for justification. From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia entry on &quot;Sanctifying Grace&quot;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. ix) decrees that over and above&#xA;  the faith which formally dwells in the intellect, other acts of&#xA;  predisposition, arising from the will, such as fear, hope, love,&#xA;  contrition, and good resolution (loc. cit., cap. vi), are necessary&#xA;  for the reception of the grace of justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How then do we read Romans 3 &amp;amp; 4? I'm not sure if there's an official Catholic answer to that, but it does seem that any interpretation must also be compatible with, on the one hand, the 'work' of Philippians 2:12 and the 'crown ... which the Lord ... will award' of 2 Timothy 4:7-8 -- not to mention the necessity of baptism* as expressed in John 3:5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Bearing in mind that besides sacramental baptism there is also the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2011-12-27T23:21:36.313" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T23:21:36.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5052" CreationDate="2011-12-24T05:56:09.533" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church allows both Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches to receive the sacrament &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_communion&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;if they request it of their own accord and are properly disposed&lt;/a&gt;. However, both Orthodox groups don't recognize that and tell their members they should not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This came up in my Bulgarian friend's wedding.  His wife is Catholic and he's Orthodox; the church was willing to let his parents take the sacrament but they refused it on that basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholics consider the Orthodox sacraments to be valid, but not so much vice versa, is the problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="232" LastActivityDate="2011-12-24T05:56:09.533" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5079" CreationDate="2011-12-24T08:52:07.687" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding has always been that this is handled by a Diocese's Marriage Tribunal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On looking it up, it appears that when you request a Declaration of Nullity in Canada, an investigation and judgement are made by the Diocesan Marriage Tribunal, then all decisions are reviewed by a Canadian Appeal Tribunal, which issues the final Declaration (or not.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archtoronto.org/arch_offices/pdf/Nullity_of_Marriage.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This pamphlet (pdf)&lt;/a&gt; from the Toronto Archdiocese has a good explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2011-12-24T10:39:16.530" LastActivityDate="2011-12-24T10:39:16.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="867" CreationDate="2011-12-24T10:26:06.513" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As one of the supposedly-offended here, allow me to add a perspective: I am not &lt;em&gt;in the least bit&lt;/em&gt; offended by anyone wishing me a happy Christmas; nor would I be in the least bit offended by friends an associates wishing me a happy Eid etc. Or new year, or Chinese new year. In fact I dislike intensely any attempt to hide the names in the sake of political (in)correctness. After all, we haven't renamed Thursday (Thor from Norse mythology) or January (Janus from Roman mythology, IIRC) in a long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all cases, these are simply (in my interpretation) points of reference - days on a calendar that allow us to talk about a date or social holiday in the most terse way. This has particular meaning in Christmas as a time to try harder to spend time together as a family (at a time when our kin are &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; generally available), make an extra effort to see friends, take a moment to appreciate our own fortune, and make an extra effort towards consideration of those less fortunate. As Christians you may have &lt;em&gt;additional&lt;/em&gt; considerations, but I'm sure you'll share in the ones above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: on behalf of any non-Christians who share my interpretation: Happy Christmas to all on the site, no matter your beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of &quot;showing shame for our God&quot; - no; I would have to suppose that those &lt;em&gt;promoting&lt;/em&gt; alternative names are merely trying to observe that a great many people do not share your belief. The aim is misplaced, though, IMO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(what &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be considered offensive, though, is the suggestion that non-Christians should not be celebrating at Christmas-time in any way, when a: the reasons above are not unreasonable, and b: Christmas has absorbed previous social celebrations such as Saturnalia and Yule; a little celebration seems to do us all good).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2011-12-24T10:36:27.840" LastActivityDate="2011-12-24T10:36:27.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5032" CreationDate="2011-12-25T19:23:55.917" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, I don't think so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 4:19 (NIV1984)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We love because he first loved us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This implies that all our love, toward God or anyone, only exists because His love comes directly to us or filters through other people to us. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_john/4-19.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Extensive info at this commentary&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding what I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; I read from the rest of your question, God chooses to love the &lt;strong&gt;whole world&lt;/strong&gt;, not just a select few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-25T19:23:55.917" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5089" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5091" CreationDate="2011-12-26T14:49:35.540" Score="12" ViewCount="7768" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Exodus 34:13, Deuteronomy 7:5, Deuteronomy 12:3, God states laws against idolatry, and God says to cut down or burn groves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 34:13 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But ye shall destroy their altars, break their&#xA;  images, and &lt;strong&gt;cut down their groves&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 7:5 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall&#xA;  destroy their altars, and break down their images, and &lt;strong&gt;cut down their&#xA;  groves&lt;/strong&gt;, and burn their graven images with fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 12:3 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break&#xA;  their pillars, and &lt;strong&gt;burn their groves&lt;/strong&gt; with fire; and ye shall hew down&#xA;  the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of&#xA;  that place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some kings, fighting against idolatry, accomplished that commandment, like Hezekiah&#xA;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Kings 18:4 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He removed the high places, and brake the images,&#xA;  and &lt;strong&gt;cut down the groves&lt;/strong&gt;, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that&#xA;  Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn&#xA;  incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my native language (portuguese), &quot;grove&quot; is translated as a &quot;forest&quot;. So I thought: What's the problem with some trees? What's related to idolatry on groves? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using &lt;strong&gt;strong&lt;/strong&gt;, the &quot;grove&quot; word is &lt;strong&gt;H842&lt;/strong&gt; (happy; asherah (or Astarte) a Phoenician goddess; also an image of the same). God was fighting the idolatry about that goddess?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-11T06:25:59.897" LastActivityDate="2020-08-12T14:13:09.573" Title="What's the problem with groves?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;deuteronomy&gt;&lt;2-kings&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2020-08-12T14:14:44.873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1543" CreationDate="2011-12-26T15:28:28.653" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic tradition of moral theology addresses this question in significant detail. The following is an extremely rough summary, but generally speaking one can distinguish between three aspects of a moral action:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Object&lt;/strong&gt;: the thing you're actually doing (e.g., &lt;em&gt;giving a coin to a beggar&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Intention&lt;/strong&gt;: the end toward which an action is aimed. Note that a single action can be, and often is, inspired by multiple intentions (&lt;em&gt;the relief of the beggar's hunger&lt;/em&gt;, but also &lt;em&gt;in order to be numbered among the sheep&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Circumstances&lt;/strong&gt;: I'm having trouble giving a simple definition but these are &quot;accidental&quot; characteristics of an action which nevertheless contribute to its moral character. St. Thomas Aquinas calls them &quot;proper accidents&quot;, a term which he probably learned from Aristotle. The modern Catechism mentions the &lt;strong&gt;consequences&lt;/strong&gt; of an action as among the circumstances. Another morally noteworthy circumstance might be &lt;strong&gt;compulsion&lt;/strong&gt; -- either interior like addiction, or exterior like a threat of force.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find all of this articulated in St. Thomas Aquinas (particularly the question in the Summa on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2018.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;The good and evil of human acts, in general&quot;&lt;/a&gt;) or, more recently, in the Catechism's article entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;The Morality of Human Acts&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate it's been the typical understanding among Catholics for a long time that &lt;strong&gt;for a moral action to be truly good, all three of the above must be good&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conversely, for example, a sinful intention (&lt;em&gt;so that I can boast&lt;/em&gt;) can make an otherwise good action (&lt;em&gt;giving coins to a beggar&lt;/em&gt;) into a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That leads to the second part of your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How would these teachings define sin in such a way that even an act of deliberate charity could be considered sinful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism has this on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm#II&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the definition of sin&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sin is ... failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I guess the application to your example might be something like this: The man who gives a coin to a beggar out of pride is perversely attached to his own self-image as a righteous man and this attachment prevents him from acting in a way that is truly loving either toward the beggar or toward God. One could fairly easily imagine such a man walking right past the beggar on his way toward a more promising opportunity to justify himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the Catholic ethicist would say that if the man is acting from pride he is not performing an act of charity (even though, concretely speaking, the beggar still gets a coin which &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; an objective good that results from the action).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, one last note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;attitude towards sin that excuses misbehavior if a person had &quot;good intentions&quot;, most Christian traditions do not seem to include the persons &lt;strong&gt;feelings&lt;/strong&gt; in the matter when defining an action as sin or not&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth nothing that in a strict analysis according to the three traditional Catholic ethical principles above, the actor's &lt;em&gt;feelings&lt;/em&gt; -- in the sense of the subjective state of his bodily passions -- would be part of the &lt;em&gt;circumstances&lt;/em&gt;, if they were to be considered at all. The &lt;em&gt;intention&lt;/em&gt; in Catholic moral thought is the end toward which the action is ordered, and has nothing at all to do with feelings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2011-12-26T15:45:41.997" LastActivityDate="2011-12-26T15:45:41.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5089" CreationDate="2011-12-26T15:39:43.457" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_grove&quot;&gt;Sacred groves&lt;/a&gt; are a common feature of ancient pagan religion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A particularly accessible Western example might be &lt;em&gt;Oedipus at Colonus&lt;/em&gt;, which is the middle play in the Theban cycle of Sophocles (following &lt;em&gt;Oedipus Rex&lt;/em&gt; and preceding &lt;em&gt;Antigone&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great deal of the action in &lt;em&gt;Oedipus at Colonus&lt;/em&gt; takes place in a grove outside Colonus that is consecrated to the &quot;Erinyes&quot; (goddesses of vengeance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also not uncommon in the legends of early-medieval Western saints for the saint to cut down a sacred tree in the presence of pagan clerics and dignitaries, in a sort of recapitulation of 1 Kings 18 -- e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donar_Oak&quot;&gt;Boniface and the Donar Oak&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-12-26T21:02:48.410" LastActivityDate="2011-12-26T21:02:48.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5089" CreationDate="2011-12-26T15:40:09.090" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.  The original word &lt;em&gt;Asherah&lt;/em&gt; referred to shrines to a fertility goddess, not to forests, groves, or trees in general.  There's nothing wrong with having trees around, of course; this is just another example of God's repeated warnings against idolatry.  Asherah was the consort of Baal, whose worshipers were always a thorn in the side of Israel, and the two were often worshiped together as male and female aspects of fertility worship.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%206:25-32&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judges 6&lt;/a&gt; for one example.  And as the verses you cite show, cutting down &lt;em&gt;asherah&lt;/em&gt; is always found in the context of doing away with idols and idol-worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-12-26T15:40:09.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5076" CreationDate="2011-12-26T18:16:56.713" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passage you link to is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065:20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 65:20&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your assumption is that this is referring to Christians. However, we know that during the Millenium there will be Christians and non-Christians (either those that come out of the Tribulation or perhaps people born during these 1000 years):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:7-8&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:7-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my understanding is that Christians will all have their resurrected, immortal bodies during the Millenium, and non-Christians will not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this theory does not address what happens to people who &lt;em&gt;become&lt;/em&gt; Christians during this time!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-26T18:16:56.713" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5072" CreationDate="2011-12-26T22:38:24.040" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus intentionally does not tell how one can &quot;get more faith,&quot; for the purpose of reminding people that God can do amazing things with even an incredibly small amount of faith.  There are many of us of faith who ask pious, but nonetheless, the wrong question.  Often we ask, &quot;how can I increase my faith?&quot;  Instead of simply trusting that God can make miracles happen with even the smallest materials.  It is almost as if Jesus is saying, &quot;Don't focus on getting more faith, focus on what God can do with your small faith.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps all who read this in their faith walk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastEditorUserId="794" LastEditDate="2011-12-27T01:39:57.113" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T01:39:57.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2011-12-27T01:47:06.573" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't ask yourself how you can get more faith, and remember that God can do amazing things even with a barely visible faith, you know, like the size of a mustard seed or smaller...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T01:47:06.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5065" CreationDate="2011-12-27T01:54:27.373" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.&quot; - Romans 11:32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By looking at this passage alone, we can guess that God had set all this in motion in order to show mercy and love to all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, classical Christianity has always fallen silent on this mystery, we may not be intended to know why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Westminster catechism at least teaches that we were intended to &quot;love God and enjoy Him forever.&quot;  If that the the end that we hold that Christianity has for us, then whatever happens here and now in the interplay of sin and free will, election and grace, is for the purpose of helping us to &quot;love God and enjoy Him forever.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="794" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T01:54:27.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2011-12-27T12:06:14.577" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to try a more scientific / psychological response to this question... let's see how this goes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, one dictionary definition of faith (from dictionary.com) is &quot;belief that is not based on proof.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is therefore logical that if you have proof of something, you cannot have faith, therefore the goal of faith is never to try and prove something, but merely to believe whether there is proof or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing I would do is ask myself the question, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Why do I want to have more faith?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  If you don't believe in Jesus, why would you want to believe in Jesus?  If you believe in heaven and hell, then you probably already believe in Jesus, and you do have faith.  If you doubt Jesus, then it's probably better to try and understand why you doubt him, rather than to simply try and have faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You said &quot;It's a choice to have or not have faith&quot;.  I don't think that's entirely correct.  One can have faith that the sky is blue, but it's not a choice... your brain simply tells you that the sky is blue.  One can, however, trick one's mind into believing things whether they're true or not, and many people do it without even knowing that's what they're doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you still want to have faith, then the way to do it is by ignoring any evidence that suggests that the subject of your faith is false, and read all evidence that suggests that the subject of your faith is true.  Cognitive dissonance (look it up if you don't understand) will eventually kick in and will prevent you from believing anything contrary to the subject of your faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not ever test the subject of your faith... either it could prove that it's false, in which case you will lose your faith, or it may prove that it's true, which will (based on the dictionary definition of faith) also kill your faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1114" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T12:06:14.577" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4511" CreationDate="2011-12-27T13:28:51.577" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;rule of faith&lt;/a&gt; (Latin: regula fidei) or analogy of faith (analogia fidei) is a phrase rooted in the Apostle Paul's admonition to the Christians in Rome in the Epistle to the Romans 12:6, which says, &amp;quot;We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule of faith is the name given to the ultimate authority or standard in religious belief, such as the Bible alone, as among some Protestants; the Bible and tradition, as among Catholics; reason alone, as among rationalists; as among the Eastern Orthodox it is theoria the inner light of the spirit, as among mystics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible and Sacred Tradition (that is, things believed to have been taught by Jesus and the apostles that were not recorded in the Bible but were transmitted through the church) are considered a rule for all believers for judging faith and practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conservative Protestantism Romans 12:6 is viewed as the biblical reference for the term &amp;quot;analogy of the faith&amp;quot; (i.e., αναλογἰα τῆς πἰστεως). The Bible alone is considered the word of God and the only infallible standard for judging faith and practice; hence, for conservative Protestantism, the analogy of the faith is equivalent to the analogy of scripture – that is, opinions are tested for their consistency with scripture, and scripture is interpreted by the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture (compare &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Methodism, John Wesley described a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;quadrilateral of faith&lt;/a&gt;, which held that Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition were interdependent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T13:28:51.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="385" CreationDate="2011-12-27T13:33:00.513" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is whether or not Jesus intended this to exclusively apply to moving mountains or if it was intended in a figurative way to indicate that God would honor prayers of faith by granting very large requests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it were intended to apply exclusively to mountains, we should wonder what need anyone would ever have to move a mountain and why God would have put mountains in the wrong place to begin with.  It would seem to make the statement indicate that, &quot;Hey if you ever need a mountain moved, no problem, but if you need anything else, you're out of luck.  All I'm promising is to move mountains around.&quot;  That seems a bit absurd.  Furthermore, the Bible contains no mention of the apostles ever asking for such a thing, so it seems that they did not understand this promise in this manner either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we do find, however, is the apostles asking for other miraculous things that God did work on their behalf.  To name just a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Peter walked on water for a few moments before doubts entered in  Matthew 14:29-30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Peter raised Tabitha from the dead.  Acts 9:36-42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The man who was lame was healed when Peter said, &quot;Silver and gold have I none...&quot;  Acts 3:6&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ananias prays and Saul (Paul) receives back his sight.  Acts 9:17-18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Peter heals the paralytic Aeneas.  Acts 9:33-35&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Paul cures the lame man of Lystra.  Acts 14:7-9&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Paul casts out a demon from a girl.  Acts 16:16-18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Paul heals Publius' father of dysentery.  Acts 28:7-8&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament also has many miraculous things that God did on behalf of his people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also fits well with other Scripture as we are commanded to pray in faith and to expect God to answer.  Nowhere else is a mountain referred to, so, again, the best conclusion is that this was a figure of speech, understood as such by those who originally heard it, to indicate that we can be confident that God will respond to our prayers of faith with miraculous power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, if there were ever a time when a mountain literally needed to be moved, an omnipotent God would certainly be able to do anything and certainly could move a mountain--or anything else for that matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T13:33:00.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4549" CreationDate="2011-12-27T17:05:54.393" Score="37" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to make a few secular/political contributions to this question. This answer probably should not qualify for the accepted answer, but I think it's worth adding here that there are some good scientific legal arguments against abortion, and it's not solely an issue of religion vs science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abortion is legal in the United States because of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. The ruling in this case specifically declined to look at whether or not a fetus is a human life. The justices attempted to side-step that polarizing issue. They could not settle the question, and so dealt with the fetus as merely a &quot;potential&quot; human life. I believe they hoped this would assuage the religious side by still treating the unborn as something special, as well as the secular side by declining to rule that a fetus was fully human. Regardless of their intent, the court took that baseline and then weighed whether the mother's right to privacy can exceed a mere &lt;em&gt;potential&lt;/em&gt; human's right to life and the interest of the state in protecting that potential life &amp;mdash; thus giving in &lt;em&gt;by default&lt;/em&gt; to the secular view &amp;mdash;  and finds, to a point, in favor of the mother. That point, which was originally very limited, has today been stretched to breaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;If&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the court's view of a fetus is sound, then the current prevailing secular position on abortion absolutely makes sense. A women should, moral issues aside and purely from a legal standpoint, be able to do with her own body as she pleases. However, if this is wrong &amp;mdash; if a fetus is its own separate human life form, and more than just human in potentia &amp;mdash; then the opposite view absolutely makes sense, and most abortions are nothing short of state-sanctioned murder. It's also worth noting that, ethics aside and based solely on the science of the time, the court's view of a fetus was not entirely without merit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, science has learned some things since 1973. I'm talking here, of course, about DNA. While DNA has been known since the 1800's, it wasn't until the 1950's that scientists really began to understand it.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;  The forensic and legal worlds took a little longer to embrace this, and it wasn't until 1986 that DNA is first used in court to exonerate and 1987 for conviction&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &amp;mdash; well after Roe v Wade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, I think most would agree that no other physical property more than DNA absolutely and definitively distinguishes one individual from another. DNA is used in courts to distinguish and prove not only individuals, but also family relationships and, most significantly here, different species. If the situation were examined again today, a DNA sample from a fetus would undoubtedly show that fetal tissue is both distinct from the mother and also entirely human. While I have not, of course, had the opportunity to confirm this, it is my (admittedly limited) understanding of animal biology that a hypothetical DNA sample taken from a fetus would be a match for that of the adult, should the fetus continue to develop and ultimately reach that stage of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The significance here is that fetal tissue, having distinct human DNA, should probably no longer be considered as merely a part of the mother's body. Take religion out of the debate completely, and the science says that a fetus is both fully human and separate from the mother. &lt;strong&gt;A woman has the right to do with her own body what she wants... but now we have the rights of another individual involved as well.&lt;/strong&gt;  A woman has the right to do with her own body what she wants... but the scientific evidence shows that the fetus is more than just part of the mother's body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we must take this new understanding of the scientific evidence into account, and use it to re-examine the current legal environment. Since an unborn fetus is a definitely a distinct human entity, as demonstrated by it's DNA, and more than a mere potential human as it was treated by Roe v Wade, we can say the current Supreme Court ruling is clearly inadequate. A new ruling must be established, and this can only be (re-)settled by the courts. But my opinion is that a much better legal interpretation of this new evidence would make use of same legal doctrine that allows the use of a murder victim's corpse for forensic purposes, even over the objections of next of kin. In this context, we can say that the unborn individual would likely want to live, and that the state has the power to compel the mother to allow this. Doubtless those in favor of legal abortions will come up with their own arguments, but as they have as yet largely declined to move beyond Roe v Wade, I haven't heard anything more compelling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a complete aside to the question, it boggles my mind that Pro-Life groups continue today to make religious arguments for their position against people who will only acknowledge arguments grounded in a framework of science, when there is a perfectly good scientific argument for the Pro-Life position ready and waiting. I agree with the religious argument as well, but as Levar Burton said, &quot;You don't have to take my word for it.&quot;, when there is (to the Pro-Choice view) a more credible source at hand. I feel like pushing the DNA argument more strongly could change the conversation about the issue and tilt more opinions in the Pro-Life direction. I've heard it said by some on the Pro-Choice side that those who are Pro-Life hate women. Surely they understand that this argument reciprocates and, if true, by their own logic and arguments Pro-Choice groups hate children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;History of DNA research (Wikipedia)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;DNA profiling (Wikipedia)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2017-02-11T16:51:38.247" LastActivityDate="2017-02-11T16:51:38.247" CommentCount="22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5101" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-27T17:08:21.797" Score="20" ViewCount="48293" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is in response to the disciples asking why Jesus teaches in parables:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He said to them, &quot;The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables, so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven.&quot; -Mark 4:11-12 New English Translation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does he say this? Why is he teaching at all if his intent is actually that the people not see, not understand, and not repent. It seems troubling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="10835" LastEditDate="2014-04-16T14:57:53.337" LastActivityDate="2014-04-16T17:08:09.570" Title="Why does Jesus not want people to repent and be forgiven in Mark 4?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5101" CreationDate="2011-12-27T18:21:24.567" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your Bible is missing the double quotes.  Jesus is quoting Isaiah: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” “Here I am,” I said; “send me!” And he replied: Go and say to this people:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Listen carefully, but do not understand!&#xA;  Look intently, but do not perceive!&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  Make the heart of this people sluggish,&#xA;  dull their ears and close their eyes;&#xA;  Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,&#xA;  and their heart understand,&#xA;  and they turn and be healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/is/6:9&quot;&gt;Isaiah 6:8-10 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think He's describing the process shown in the OT and exemplified throughout human history, not issuing a command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the intratext in the NABRE, this is also quoted in &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/jn/12:40&quot;&gt;John 12:40&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/28:26&quot;&gt;Acts 28:26&lt;/a&gt;; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/rom/11:08&quot;&gt;Romans 11:8&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't say that I particularly understand the meaning of Jesus' words, but hopefully it'll point you in the right direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T18:21:24.567" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5101" CreationDate="2011-12-27T19:22:15.963" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In your question, you recognize the inconsistency of the life and teachings of Jesus with the idea that Jesus did not want people to repent and be forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the Bible is very clear that salvation is offered to all the world.  Just a few references:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Testament&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;God so loved the world&lt;/strong&gt;, that he gave his only Son, that &lt;strong&gt;whoever believes&lt;/strong&gt; in him should not perish but have eternal life.  John 3:16 ESV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and &lt;strong&gt;you were not willing&lt;/strong&gt;!  Luke 13:34 ESV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, &#xA;for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God &lt;strong&gt;from every tribe and language and people and nation,&lt;/strong&gt;  Revelation 7:9 ESV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, &lt;strong&gt;will draw all people to myself&lt;/strong&gt;.  John 12:32 ESV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, anyone who believes receives eternal life. God loved the whole world--not just a few people.  Jesus desired to gather in all of Israel, but the problem was the will of the people that would not follow God.  Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people and nation will be among those who do believe and do receive eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;General revelation is given to all people, indeed, but why give general revelation or special revelation (in the Scriptures) to anyone if God doesn't want them to repent?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to conclude from the Mark 4:11-12 passage that Jesus does not want people to repent is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.  Consequently, that can be eliminated as a possible interpretation at the very beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One possible explanation for this, however, is that in speaking in parables, Jesus gives sufficient light/revelation for anyone to come to Him, yet does not give too much light that a person may not refuse to come to Him.  To those who harden their hearts, God allows them to do that without overwhelming them to the point of destroying their will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As C. S. Lewis poignantly stated in &lt;em&gt;The Screwtape Letters&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the&#xA;  very nature of his scheme forbids him to use.  Merely to override a&#xA;  human will… would be for Him useless.  &lt;strong&gt;He cannot ravish.  He can only&#xA;  woo”&lt;/strong&gt; (C.S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final verse is important to understand:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness,&#xA;  but is patient toward you,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but&#xA;  that all should reach repentance.  2 Peter 3:9 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus does want all people to repent and believe and receive eternal life, and, indeed, He gives light to everyone (John 1:9)--sufficient light to believe, yet not much light to deprive us of our own wills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Addendum&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A comment suggested that the &quot;whole world&quot; idea is strictly New Testament, while the Old Testament is all about preference for one people (the Jews).  However, the whole world idea is clearly presented in the Old Testament as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and &lt;strong&gt;in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.&lt;/strong&gt;  Genesis 12:3 ESV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring &lt;strong&gt;all the nations of the earth shall be blessed&lt;/strong&gt;,  Genesis 26:4 ESV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD&lt;/strong&gt;, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them.”  Exodus 7:5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, &lt;strong&gt;that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth&lt;/strong&gt;.”  Isaiah 49:6 ESV&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The covenant with Israel actually only spans from Abraham to Christ (~2,000 B.C. to 33 A.D.).  However, that covenant was expressly for the purpose of being a blessing (and bringing salvation) to the whole world.  At Babel, the people were dispersed all over the world.  God chose Abraham to proclaim God to the nations from the very outset.  In the lineage of Jesus Himself, we find Rahab from Jericho, Ruth from Moab, and Urriah the Hittite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Space does not permit a full discussion here, but suffice it to say that the &quot;ends of the earth&quot; reach of God's salvation in the New Testament is merely a continuation of that which began with the command to Adam to &quot;fill the earth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2011-12-27T20:27:50.240" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T20:27:50.240" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5101" CreationDate="2011-12-27T20:20:34.550" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible was written particularly for a certain time, place, and reason. Questions you must ask is Why was Mark written, to whom was it written, when to name a few. People often a phrase out of context and apply it to any situation which changes the meaning of the original text. This is also a problem of translations as the more translations there are can make it more difficult for others to find the right meaning. For example NIV is tailored for gender neutral, international reading, and for 12th grade and above. Certain sacrifices are made to get the word out as correct as possible so the group it is written to can understand it. That's why as you get more advanced in studying the text you will look at the original language to fine tune your understanding. With that being said current Greek is different than New Testament Greek from thousands of years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a quote from The KJV Bible commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ’s use of parables explained. 4:10–12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;10–11. Unto you. Jesus said the truth is made clear to those who believe and follow Him. Them that are without. Without (Gr exō) would be better translated “outside” because it refers to those who are “outside” the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12.Lest … they should be converted. A superficial understanding of this quote from Isaiah 6:9–10 has confused some about the Lord’s instructions regarding evangelism. Here He explains that details about God’s kingdom are not to be used to “prove” God’s message to anyone. Faith precedes proof, not vice versa. People are won “through the foolishness of preaching” not scientific facts. If that were the case, faith would be nothing more than the recognition of revealed evidence. &amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somethings in the Bible to understand you must be a Believer in Christ. For example if I am explaining it correctly there is a box people inside and people outside. If you don't know what is is the box you will not understand. If you are in the box you can see what it contains or at least understand. The disciples are to spread the Word so that those who don't understand or know can have Faith without seeing the direct Miracles or image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not dived deep into this study but merely scratched the surface with some of my resources that I have on hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that gets you a little closer to understanding. A recent book that I found to be helpful is Grasping God's Word by Scott Duvall. Sample of Chapter 1.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zondervan.com/media/samples/pdf/0310259665_samptxt.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.zondervan.com/media/samples/pdf/0310259665_samptxt.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See Side-by-side textual comparison: Image Link&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/yXLZH.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://i.stack.imgur.com/yXLZH.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1115" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-27T21:47:48.990" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5105" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-27T22:50:08.817" Score="7" ViewCount="868" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading Archbishop Fulton Sheen's &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0385132204&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Life of Christ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; and he always refers to Isaiah and Isaias and Elijah as Elias.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that's one of the traditional English spellings, but when did it change for Catholics at Mass (at least in Latin translated Missals) and in other liturgical use?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not on topic here, but well appreciated would be an explanation of how one could come to pronounce -jah as -ias.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-04T16:08:47.670" LastActivityDate="2016-01-04T16:08:47.670" Title="When did the older English spelling of the endings of Isaiah and Elijah stop being used in the Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5106" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="46321" CreationDate="2011-12-27T22:56:48.640" Score="13" ViewCount="22998" Body="&lt;p&gt;When does Christmas really end for Catholics?  I know it starts different for most Eastern Orthodox, but for Latin Rite Catholics, like myself, I don't know when it actually is supposed to end. At the very least I know it's over by Ash Wednesday, but there there seem to be very real reasons to celebrate from &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;December 25 - January 1st (the octave of Christmas, ending with the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;December 25 - January 6th (the 12 days of Christmas, ending with the Epiphany)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;December 25 - February 2nd (40 day celebration, ending with the Presentation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I guess the real question is who has the stamina to party Catholic style for 40 days, especially after the hubbub leading up to Christmas, but in a liturgical sense, when does the Christmas season end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-10-15T13:34:07.083" LastActivityDate="2019-12-01T16:25:02.273" Title="When is the end of the Christmas season for Latin Rite Catholics?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;calendar&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5107" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5108" CreationDate="2011-12-28T05:02:06.460" Score="13" ViewCount="579" Body="&lt;p&gt;Early scientists thought that the age of the earth is proven by the genealogical tables in the book of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Other than this observation, is there any reference to the direct age of the earth noted anywhere in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="383" LastActivityDate="2015-03-10T06:04:17.683" Title="Is the age of the earth in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:35:57.157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5107" CreationDate="2011-12-28T06:12:53.507" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  The age of the earth is not clearly stated in the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;according to young-earth creationists&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (like myself), it can be derived, assuming that the word &quot;Day&quot; in Genesis means a literal day, and that the genealogies are accurate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding up the genealogies can give an age of about 6,000 years, but there are some gaps in the genealogies, and even among young-earth creationists, there is room for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism&quot;&gt;6,000-10,000&lt;/a&gt; years of history.  The most literal interpretation &lt;a href=&quot;http://thecrazypastor.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/age-of-the-earth-can-the-bible-be-serious/&quot;&gt;puts the age at about 6,000 years&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are those that hold to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exploringcreation.info/science/age.htm&quot;&gt;day-age theory&lt;/a&gt; (the days in Genesis can be interpreted as &quot;time periods&quot;) and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html&quot;&gt;Gap theory&lt;/a&gt; (there is a gap between the creation of the universe and the arrival of man).  These each throw age estimation out the window, and allow for a much older earth.  Also, there are those who believe in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html&quot;&gt;theistic evolution&lt;/a&gt;, or that the Genesis account is not to be taken literally.  These also throw the young earth idea out the window.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as other references in the Bible, again, nothing direct but Jesus did say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 10:6 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Young-earth Biblical literalists (such as myself) would say that this is indication that Jesus Himself considered Adam and Eve as having been created &quot;at the beginning of creation&quot;, ruling out the gap and day-age theories.  Again, there is much disagreement on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-28T18:15:47.953" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T18:15:47.953" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5105" CreationDate="2011-12-28T09:38:33.880" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you'll find the question is not how &lt;code&gt;-jah&lt;/code&gt; came to be &lt;code&gt;-ias&lt;/code&gt; as how &lt;code&gt;-ias&lt;/code&gt; came to be &lt;code&gt;-jah&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example you could look at the Greek rendering of the name Isaiah as see that it is &lt;code&gt;Ἠσαΐας&lt;/code&gt; (pronounced &lt;code&gt;Ēsaïās&lt;/code&gt;) which is a pretty clear indication that at one significant point in history the name was pronounced closer to the old/alternate English rendering of Isaias.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general you will find names &lt;strike&gt;mutilated&lt;/strike&gt; morphing from language to language and in a language over time as it gets to some persons ears and doesn't sound quite right. It's quite possible that at some point an Englishman's ear told him that ending a name with &lt;code&gt;-ias&lt;/code&gt; sounded foreign and so he adapted it, however...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pushing farther back however you will find the Hebrew name was &lt;code&gt;יְשַׁעְיָהוּ&lt;/code&gt; (&lt;code&gt;Yəšạʻyā́hû&lt;/code&gt;) so it might be that the more modern English rendition is actually an attempt to render an English name closer to the original rather than following the long tail of languages in between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar story can be told for Elijah who's Hewbrew name would be &lt;code&gt;אליהו&lt;/code&gt; (&lt;code&gt;Eliyahu&lt;/code&gt;) but in much more modern usage is rendered &lt;code&gt;إلياس,&lt;/code&gt; in Arabic (Pronounced &lt;code&gt;Ilyās&lt;/code&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for WHEN the change happened, it would see that for Isaiah, Isias might actually be a trendy thing started by a couple of writers in the mid 1900's. However the majority usage dating back to at least the 1600's KJV text is undoubtedly &quot;Isaiah&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ILN4o.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T09:38:33.880" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4949" CreationDate="2011-12-28T09:59:14.427" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fact that Zechariah had a negative consequence to his question while Mary did not tells us more about God than it does about the two individuals. For God does not judge whether a work or a question is a good work or a sin on the basis of the outward work or obvious question. Rather God is clear that He judges the heart as to the motivation. The conclusion is clear that since Zechariah receive a negative consequence to his question it was because doubt and unbelief motivated his question. So also, since Mary received no negative consequence her question was NOT motivated by doubt and unbelief but simply an inquiry into how God intended to fulfill His promise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1117" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T09:59:14.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5106" CreationDate="2011-12-28T13:48:14.247" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_year#Christmas&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christmas season immediately follows Advent. The traditional Twelve Days of Christmas begin with Christmas Eve on the evening of December 24 and continue until the feast of Epiphany. The actual Christmas season continues until the Feast of the Baptism of Christ, which in the present form of the Roman Rite is celebrated on the Sunday after 6 January.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the pre-1970 form, this feast is celebrated on 13 January, unless 13 January is a Sunday, in which case the feast of the Holy Family is celebrated instead. Until the suppression of the Octave of the Epiphany in the 1960 reforms, 13 January was the Octave day of the Epiphany, providing the date for the end of the season.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The period following Christmas is called &lt;strong&gt;Ordinary Time&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;Time after Epiphany&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T13:48:14.247" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2011-12-28T15:16:54.267" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm offering the following as a partial answer because the OP said he felt there was more to gain from this parable.  I don't feel like what follows is anything new, but it helped me understand one of the ideas in it a little better by putting it in a context I can relate to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, this is in reference to verse 9, which in the KJV reads&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer:  This quote is from a leader in the LDS faith.  However, this is not a doctrinal statement, but rather a personal story from his life which he felt illustrated this idea.  I will provide a link to the full article at the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was converted in 1973 at the age of 24. I was single and living with my parents. As is traditional in Taiwan, my parents believed in Buddhism and wanted all their children to follow their religion. Before I learned about the Church I did not live the Word of Wisdom. I quit smoking and drinking the day I decided to be an investigator. It was not easy, but the desire to smoke and drink was burned out of me by the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When my mother found out I had attended the Latter-day Saint Church, she was very angry. It was very difficult to choose between respecting my parents and following the Savior. I did everything I could to maintain a good and respectful relationship with my parents, while living my new religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three years after my baptism, I was called as a bishop. One year later I had the privilege of traveling to Salt Lake City to attend general conference. In those days imported cigarettes and wine were very expensive in Taiwan. My father asked me to buy some American cigarettes and wine for him on my trip. I told him I couldn’t. He was very upset and complained to my mother. I still remember her wise comment: “Your son is a bishop, and his religion does not allow him to smoke and drink. Asking him to carry cigarettes and wine for you would be like asking a Buddhist monk to carry a pig’s head through a street market.” My father said nothing after that because he knew that Buddhist monks are vegetarians and are highly respected in Chinese society. They would never carry a pig’s head in public.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My mother passed away several years ago. She did not want to change her religion, but she taught me wisdom I will never forget. &lt;em&gt;She used her position of authority to help me with my father’s request in a way that I could not have done for myself.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://lds.org/ensign/2003/07/parables-of-jesus-the-unjust-steward?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=unjust%20steward&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Parables of Jesus: The Unjust Steward&lt;/a&gt;, by Elder Tsung-Ting Yang, published in the July 2003 Ensign. (emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elder Yang draws a parallel between his situation with his mother and father (both non-christians) and the steward making friends with the debtors, with the hope that they can help him out when he needs it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that early in the account, Elder Yang mentions he did everything he could to maintain a good and respectful relationship with his parents without compromising his christianity.  Later, when his father only saw a disrespectful son and was angry, his mother was willing and able to intercede because of her position of authority in the family, her understanding of buddhist practices, and her understanding of her son's standards and his integrity in living them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I don't know that this adds new insight, but it helped me see a context in which cultivating friendships, regardless of their worldliness or difference in faith, is a worthwhile endeavor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T16:01:57.447" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2011-12-28T15:32:57.663" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The (Roman) Catholic position is officially in support of evolution (or at least, is not &lt;strong&gt;against&lt;/strong&gt; evolution); Pope Pius XII stated that there was no conflict between science and (Roman) Catholicism, and in 1996 this was explicitly stated (Pope John Paul II) to include evolution. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution&quot;&gt;Wikipedia has full details&lt;/a&gt;. Of course, there is still a very vague line, where over-stepping that line is decreed to result in excommunication under the Pope Pius IX rules, and variants there-of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;On God the creator of all things&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If anyone denies the one true God,&#xA;  creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides&#xA;  matter: let him be anathema.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If anyone says that the substance or&#xA;  essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be&#xA;  anathema.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and&#xA;  spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine&#xA;  substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and&#xA;  evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a&#xA;  universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes&#xA;  the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals:&#xA;  let him be anathema.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If anyone does not confess that the world and all&#xA;  things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were&#xA;  produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God;&#xA;  or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity,&#xA;  but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the&#xA;  world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the (Roman) Catholic church says &quot;yes you can believe in both, as long as you believe in religion more&quot; - which is a bit evasive, but is a sensible policy in terms of minimising obvious conflicts of dogma vs evidence. However, this opinion is not &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; mutual (in terms of science towards religion).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2011-12-29T11:54:14.687" LastActivityDate="2011-12-29T11:54:14.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5107" CreationDate="2011-12-28T15:44:08.680" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is nothing in the Bible that pins down the date. Just to give an alternative view to the &lt;em&gt;speculation&lt;/em&gt; that exists in YEC (the existing answer), the (Roman) Catholic church has an official position that is in acceptance of the scientific age of about 4.5 billion years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I won't bother copying it all, but see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; under the heading &quot;Pope Benedict XVI and today&quot; (which has both the relevant quotations and sources). Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI officially distances the (Roman) Catholic church from both YEC and ID (leaning towards theistic evolution).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not Catholic myself (or even religious) but: credit where due: the Vatican knows the Bible pretty well - and they're happy to go with what the scientists say with regards to the age of the Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2011-12-28T16:28:03.030" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T16:28:03.030" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5116" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5120" CreationDate="2011-12-28T15:56:18.017" Score="6" ViewCount="3334" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there is a wide range of opinion among adult-baptism protestants as to whether a Catholic (or other infant) baptism is or can be considered valid, there seems to be (at least in my experience) a general attitude that Catholic communion and marriage are considered valid by protestants.  That is to say, if a protestant were to visit a Catholic church and participate in the Eucharist (communion), most protestants would not have a problem with this (whether the Catholic church would allow this is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/653/20&quot;&gt;another question&lt;/a&gt;). And certainly if a couple got married in the Catholic church, and later became protestant, no protestant church (that I'm aware of) would require a re-marriage (then again, if a couple gets married before they are Christian at all, I've never heard of any protestant churches requiring a re-marriage in this case, either).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if a protestant couple gets married, then later becomes Catholic, they must be re-married in the Catholic church (or at least this is my understanding!).  And Catholics are not permitted (by the Catholic church) to participate in a non-Catholic communion (with a few &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5052/20&quot;&gt;possible exceptions?&lt;/a&gt;). I don't know if Catholics recognize a protestant baptism, or require re-baptism when a protestant becomes a Catholic. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5117/20&quot;&gt;Related question here&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is:  &lt;strong&gt;On what grounds does the Catholic church reject communion, marriage, and (possibly) baptism of protestants?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-03-13T16:40:33.623" Title="On what grounds does the Catholic church reject sacraments of protestant denominations?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5117" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5119" CreationDate="2011-12-28T15:59:27.653" Score="11" ViewCount="14293" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the requirements for joining the Catholic church as an adult?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in all the requirements, including whether a previously baptized Protestant would be required to (or forbidden from?) being re-baptized as a Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="1787" LastEditDate="2019-03-21T21:13:12.470" LastActivityDate="2019-03-21T21:13:12.470" Title="What are the requirements for joining the Catholic church as an adult?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5118" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5131" CreationDate="2011-12-28T16:08:46.967" Score="7" ViewCount="1660" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, Mennonites and other Anabaptists practiced adult re-baptism when a Catholic or Lutheran converted.  This got them in a lot of hot water at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a long-time member of a General Conference Mennonite Church (now the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mennoniteusa.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mennonite Church USA&lt;/a&gt;), and a current member of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usmb.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mennonite Brethren&lt;/a&gt; church, my impression is that when a Catholic (or other person baptized as an infant) becomes a Mennonite, they are generally given the option of re-baptism, but it's not considered a requirement.  But admittedly, this doesn't happen very often in the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in Mexico, where practically everyone is born Catholic (and therefore baptized as an infant), re-baptism seems quite common; but in Mexico the Catholic and protestant churches are often quite at odds with each other (Mexican Catholics think &quot;Christian&quot; is a dirty word).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is:  What are the &lt;em&gt;official rules&lt;/em&gt; among Mennonite churches regarding re-baptism of new members of the Mennonite church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T09:20:33.603" LastActivityDate="2018-01-15T04:35:05.927" Title="What is the baptism requirement for becoming a Mennonite?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;mennonite&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5117" CreationDate="2011-12-28T16:20:48.587" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;This looks like a job for... &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon Law 869&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can.  869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gist of it is, there's no need for re-baptism, being baptized by anyone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in time of need, it is valid for anyone to baptize anyone else.  For instance, if you were in a really bad accident and I came upon you and said, &amp;quot;boy, you look pretty rough are you ready to meet the Lord&amp;quot; and you said, &amp;quot;Lord who?&amp;quot; and I, while dressing the wounds of your mangled body, managed to convince you of the truths of the Catholic Church and you decided that you wanted to die a Christian, I could baptize you and even if you managed to live, you wouldn't need to be re-baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The requirements for joining the Church are different for unbaptized folks than for baptized.  Either way, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.isthmuscatholic.org/index.cfm?load=page&amp;amp;page=194&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;RCIA&lt;/a&gt; process is followed and culminates with all three sacraments of initiation  Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation (with the exception of Baptism for the already Baptized) .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The liturgical part of the process can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0899423558&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this book&lt;/a&gt; I bought it and read through it because I'd like my dad to become Catholic, but it's not much help really.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What one would need to do in order to become convert to Catholicism, would be largely up to the priest.  I have a friend who is a convert who showed up on a priests doorstep 30 some years ago and the priest gave him one-on-one instruction until he joined the church. But others, Lutherans in particular, say &amp;quot;all the priest said to do was make a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;general confession&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;, other parishes have RCIA programs led by lay ministers similar to Catechetical instruction for children leading up to their confirmation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T22:12:46.477" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5116" CreationDate="2011-12-28T17:56:52.410" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that @Justin Y's answer to an earlier question of mine has the key to the answer to your question as well.  My question was &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4742/what-is-the-doctrinal-or-scriptural-basis-for-a-central-church-authority&quot;&gt;What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his answer, Justin stated this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A central church authority is a necessary byproduct of believing that&#xA;  certain ordinances are necessary for salvation. Ordinances often have&#xA;  rules for who can be administered to as well as how it must be done.&#xA;  Church authority is a very orderly and efficient way to regulate those&#xA;  requirements. The Old Testament is an excellent example of this.&#xA;  Notice that churches who put more emphasis on ordinances also have&#xA;  more structure (Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS churches, as well as the&#xA;  Jewish faith). And it's not just a good way to regulate the&#xA;  ordinances, but also a good way to regulate doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is that the Catholic Church, like Orthodoxy, as well as some other denominations, teaches that authority must be ordained, or passed along from someone who has the authority to do so. The entire governing structure of the church is based upon these concepts.  Therefore, ordinances performed by someone who is not &lt;em&gt;authorized&lt;/em&gt; to perform them  would be deemed invalid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a secular comparison, only accredited schools have the authority to hand out diplomas that are seen as valid.  If I were to hand you a diploma for a Computer Science degree, I doubt anyone would accept it as valid because I don't have the authority to hand out college degrees.  If you were to apply for a job that required such a degree, they would likely require you to get it from an accredited school, because mine is invalid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T18:26:13.667" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5118" CreationDate="2011-12-28T18:30:17.260" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Baptism is a &quot;sign&quot; of redemption and commitment in the Mennonite tradition, not a sacrament as in some other Christian traditions (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/1995/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, 1995&lt;/a&gt;). Since Mennonite churches emphasize congregational and conference leadership, the practice of adult rebaptism will vary by congregation or region. There are no &lt;em&gt;official rules&lt;/em&gt; for Mennonite adult rebaptism as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1120" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-12-28T19:54:02.270" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T19:54:02.270" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5122" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5124" CreationDate="2011-12-28T19:31:38.320" Score="11" ViewCount="21117" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:1-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 5:1-11 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the only passage that I know of in the New Testament that tells us of Christians being put to death. As far as I understand, it was God that put them to death for lying to the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is what might have happened to them after their sudden death. Did they go directly to hell, or did they go to heaven? Was their death a kind of instant judgement that sent them away from God and directly to hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-12-28T20:05:55.997" LastActivityDate="2014-02-13T19:12:41.857" Title="What happened to Ananias and Sapphira after death?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-07-21T21:47:09.403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5116" CreationDate="2011-12-28T19:41:38.043" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure, but I don't think that it's required to get re-married if a couple converts to Catholicism.  While researching an answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5079/what-role-does-the-vatican-play-in-marriage-annulments&quot;&gt;this question on annulment&lt;/a&gt;, I found multiple &lt;a href=&quot;http://rcav.org/marriage-tribunal-frequently-asked-questions/#Q1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sources that say:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...every marriage, whether between Catholics, Christians of other&#xA;  denominations, or non-baptized persons, is presumed to be valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2014-10-09T17:46:04.703" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5122" CreationDate="2011-12-28T19:53:33.037" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We don't know&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't tell us.  The only answer I can give is a tautology - if they were saved, then they went to heaven.  But the Bible doesn't tell us whether they were saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it should be noted that the nature of their punishment does not rule out the possibility of their salvation.  Consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:1-5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, &lt;strong&gt;I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the meaning of &amp;quot;destruction of his flesh&amp;quot; is debated, one possible interpretation is that this person was being sentenced to death.  Yet it is made clear that, despite the severity of the punishment, the man himself was saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the question remains of whether Ananias and Sapphira were saved in the first place, as nothing in the text rules out their salvation, or indicates their possession of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T20:34:27.840" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5125" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5128" CreationDate="2011-12-28T21:48:47.470" Score="6" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we are making decisions in church group, rather charismatic people will say things like&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt; we should...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which they sometimes connect to be input of holy guidance like the holy spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because I'm not convinced most times that my thought is that of GOD's input, I'll say &lt;code&gt;I think...&lt;/code&gt; instead because I consider it very dangerous how some people act as if God had to tell them what to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The move for an own option to become a godly input seems to be quite fluent with some people. But just because we have the Holy Spirit living in us, does not mean most of our options are direct input by god, does it?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mention this, because they will see themselves to be guided by God in the simplest of things like how do move banks in the church....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would God not leave such duties to ourselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can we determine the difference between the leading of the Holy spirit and our own opinions?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1121" LastEditorDisplayName="user1121" LastEditDate="2011-12-29T10:26:52.020" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T21:56:04.323" Title="Holy Spirit vs Own option" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;practice&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5116" CreationDate="2011-12-28T22:19:51.880" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think @DavidStratton's answer takes a good &quot;root cause&quot; approach but I'd like to look at the surface of things a bit as well. I noted in my comment above that protestant baptisms and marriages are not categorically rejected by the Catholic Church so &lt;strong&gt;I'll just focus on communion&lt;/strong&gt;. There are three main reasons why Catholics wouldn't receive communion from protestants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intercommunion signifies a unity of faith that doesn't exist. For Catholics the act of receiving Holy Communion is, among many other things, a public statement of faith: &quot;I believe what this Church teaches in general, and I believe in particular what this Church teaches about the Eucharist&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most protestants don't believe the doctrine that in Catholic traditional language is called &quot;transubstantiation&quot;. So in a Catholic's eyes, a protestant community holding a communion service is, objectively speaking, doing something other than what the Lord commanded in Luke 22:19. This obviously makes for some insurmountable difficulties.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even those protestants who do believe in transubstantiation, by whatever name, almost certainly don't believe in an ordained priesthood in the same way that Catholics do -- which would almost certainly mean that they don't have what the Catholic Church would consider a valid priesthood. And only validly ordained priests are able to confect the Eucharist validly. So even in the (I assume rare?) case of a protestant community that professes a faith in the Eucharist which is indistinguishable from the Catholic doctrine, there would still be the objective problem of validity of the sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2011-12-29T00:51:56.657" LastActivityDate="2011-12-29T00:51:56.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5127" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-28T22:36:56.110" Score="6" ViewCount="413" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most clear evidence when people state their belief is &lt;strong&gt;experience&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reasons vary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;logical expressions of belief is somewhat inverted (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_fish_(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)#Babel_fish&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;read this paragraph&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;experience is connected to intimate feelings and thus valued over analog reasoning&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe others...?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During my studies of calculations in probability at the university, I had to be very careful to distinguish events and their relative dependance on each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not rightly separate events from their dependencies -  the calculated results can be very surprising because &lt;em&gt;intuition can be misleading&lt;/em&gt;. If you are not very familiar with this, there exists a very basic problem that illustrates a simple example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Monty Hall problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&amp;quot;Two Events are independent...&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...when they have no connexion one with the other, and that the happening of one neither forwards nor obstructs the happening of the other.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have strong problems of regarding so called &lt;strong&gt;personal experiences of god&lt;/strong&gt; as true evidence of his interference in life because they are not independent. They cannot be verified as being divine in any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually, the experience...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...can be explained to be a rather unlikely event, but that does not make it divine.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...is only real to the &lt;em&gt;witness&lt;/em&gt;. (&lt;del&gt;narrator; &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; person&lt;/del&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the last case the experience is &lt;em&gt;not an independent event to a third person like me&lt;/em&gt;. The experience is &lt;em&gt;always connected to the witness&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What would true independent divine interference 'look' like?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can you define divine interference?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1121" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user1121" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2011-12-30T09:50:50.187" Title="How to define an independent interference by God?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;divinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-01-07T19:43:35.447" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5125" CreationDate="2011-12-28T22:38:27.217" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God does speak&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very interesting question.  Certainly God has spoken to people in the past in very specific ways.  To mention a few...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God told Moses to stretch out his staff over the Red Sea, and it parted.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God told Moses to strike the rock, and water poured out&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God told the Israelites to go out to find the manna, and it was there (every day for 40 years)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God told Joshua to march around Jericho once a day for 6 days and then 7 times on the 7th day, and the walls fell.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God told Joseph to flee with Mary and Jesus, and he did and spared his family.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Source of Subtle Feelings&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these were never a subtle feeling, but a very direct command of God.  That's a very important distinction.  A subtle feeling is often attributed to divine guidance when it could be just what someone happens to want.  Perhaps some people want to feel like they are in such close communion with God that He is directing every aspect of their lives.  However, I do believe this could be true for some people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the only way to discern whether or not what someone claims is divine guidance is actually from God is to wait for the outcome.  If the waters part, the manna falls from heaven, water comes forth from the rock, walls fall, or peril is escaped, then it's probably from God.  However, sometimes there is no visible distinction in the outcome.  That doesn't mean there isn't one.  Perhaps God really is active in the situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, never in Scripture does God command someone to do something that ultimately results in failure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Responsibility&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the issue comes down to where the subtle feelings are directed.  If someone has a feeling and decides to do things in their own life accordingly, then they are ultimately responsible for those decisions.  It seems, though, that some people can make very poor decisions, all the while proclaiming they are following God's guidance, when they are only doing what they want to do.  The problem with this is that the feeling cannot be questioned, no matter how ridiculous, illogical, unwise, or even ungodly it is.  When a situation turns out really poorly, people sometimes attribute it to God wanting them to go through that.  However, that ends up meaning that God directs people to make unwise decisions, so that it may be better to reject the guidance of God at times--for your own good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if someone comes to you and tells you that they feel God is telling them that YOU should do something, that can be problematic.  If it is to stop sinning, then that's probably fine.  If it's to make a seemingly foolish decision, I would encourage the person to pray that God would direct them personally rather than relying on the uncertain feelings of another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of us is ultimately responsible for his own decisions, so we have to make the wisest decisions we can and then own them.  God can certainly lead people to do things, and we should certainly be open to His leading.  Yet, we should not use &quot;divine guidance&quot; as an excuse to fulfill our own desires or wishes.  If we say God is leading us, then we should be very certain that it is God and not our own desires or even wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-28T22:38:27.217" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5127" CreationDate="2011-12-29T00:31:40.120" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Types of Unusual Events&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;There are several different categories of uncommon and unusual events.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Anomalies&lt;/strong&gt; are natural events with a pattern&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Magic&lt;/strong&gt; includes sleight of hand, which is basically a trick.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Satanic Signs&lt;/strong&gt; include demonic influence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psychosomatic Events&lt;/strong&gt; include mental states of mind, such as the power of positive thinking.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Providence&lt;/strong&gt; includes naturally explained phenomenon occurring at opportune moments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Miracles&lt;/strong&gt; are supernatural acts that by definition defy natural law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=PCGhbTrI9QoC&amp;amp;pg=PA210&amp;amp;lpg=PA210&amp;amp;dq=miracles%20types%20providence%20fog%20normandy&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=9CaiVkKYK4&amp;amp;sig=pANxHAo6cOQFaqzzso2HwJ61U8c&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=OKn7ToqWLdSRgQfG9M2MDg&amp;amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=miracles%20types%20providence%20fog%20normandy&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Providence&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Of particular interest for this particular question are the latter two.  It was likely Providence that someone forgot something at home and turned around just before another car would have hit them.  Did God intervene?  Perhaps, so.  It's not incontrovertible, but is certainly possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I prayed for a job years ago, did God keep me from getting a job at a company that would get bought out and dismantled in few short months?  Then did He provide a job at another solid company?  Sure, it could be coincidence, so that's not a verifiable &quot;miracle&quot;, but it's part of the life of faith and dependence on God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Miracles&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Miracles are really the issue here, though.  It must be first stated, though, that if we begin with the mandate that no miracle is evidence unless we are the ones to see it face to face, then that is a bit presumptuous and probably an invalid standard of evidence to demand.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A miracle could certainly be quite verifiable even if we are not there to see it.  Several hundred people saw Jesus after the resurrection.  The empty tomb, the changed lives of those who saw Him, the explosive growth of the church, the conversion of hardened enemies of Christianity like Paul and others--all of these give substantial evidence to the resurrection.  Of course, God's drawing of a person's spirit is only discernible to that person, but it also serves to validate the message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he appeared to more than &lt;strong&gt;five hundred brothers&lt;/strong&gt; at one time, most&#xA;  of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  1 Corinthians 15:6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In modern days, there are numerous accounts of very miraculous events occurring, including miraculous healing (medical miracles).  I heard a speaker tell of how his wife's body was full of cancer.  They prayed diligently that God would intervene somehow, though they knew not what that might mean.  Shortly after the surgery began, the doctor came out and sat down with this man and informed him--in shocked tones--that they could find no trace of the cancer that had been all over her body a few short days before.  The doctors was not a Christian at that time, but he is now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Place of Miracles&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that God generally chooses &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; to give miracles to those who demand to see them before they will believe in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a&#xA;  sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet&#xA;  Jonah.  Matthew 12:39 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The sign spoken about here is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why doesn't God show miracles to people?  Wouldn't they all believe in Him then?  The biblical answers is, &quot;No, they wouldn't believe in Him if they saw miracles.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees saw many of the miracles Jesus performed, yet still refused to believe in Him.  Jesus rose from the dead, and they still would not believe.  They did not deny the miracles, since they themselves were eyewitnesses.  Rather, they attributed Jesus' ability to do the miracles to demonic powers (Matthew 9:34).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some today state emphatically--even as a challenge--that if they themselves saw miracles firsthand, then they would believe.  If we can't produce miracles for them, then they claim that proves Christianity is false.  However, like the Pharisees, seeing miracles certainly does not automatically result in faith in Jesus, and whether or not Christianity is true certainly does not depend on that either.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith and miracles are related, but in exactly the opposite way--&lt;strong&gt;Seeing miracles does not produce faith, but faith can result in a person seeing miracles.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, divine interference can look like what we would expect--truly miraculous events or providential events.  The truly miraculous do occur today and can be verified, but miraculous events cannot be demanded of God as proof of Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Providence includes naturally occurring events at the most opportune times as well as specific answered prayers.  As you said, you can certainly give a natural explanation for these, but for the person who is living a life of faith, it's real to them.  And that's the whole purpose of God's intervention in their lives--not to prove to the unbelieving, but to demonstrate His faithfulness to His promises to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2011-12-29T00:31:40.120" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5127" CreationDate="2011-12-29T07:20:57.503" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question makes the assumption that some good things occur as the result of divine interference, and that others occur by way of chance.  This is a faulty assumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 1:17 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in answer to your question, &lt;em&gt;what would true independent divine interference 'look' like?&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It would look like a good and perfect gift.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I know your question isn't asking specifically about &quot;good things,&quot; but more generally about determining whether &quot;personal experiences&quot; are divine.  I think the same litmus test can be used, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was the personal experience a &quot;good and perfect gift?&quot; If so, it came from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any genuine personal experience with God also won't contradict any other part of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe most protestants (and possibly other groups) value personal experience, but always in light of scripture.  Personal experience is considered a very real, and valuable thing, but without an ironclad standard (God's word), it is too easy for it to contradict reality (and even for one experience to contradict a later one, experienced by the same person).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2011-12-29T07:32:21.243" LastActivityDate="2011-12-29T07:32:21.243" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5118" CreationDate="2011-12-29T20:20:17.793" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few things based on my own experience in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onmb.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ontario Conference of Mennonite Brethren&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a matter of doctrine that only those baptized 'of the age of accountability' are considered validly baptized. Baptisms of infants are not considered valid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However individual churches are, I believe, able to set their own rules about whether baptism is required, and for what. The norm is that baptism is required for membership; but in many Mennonite churches people can be very active participants for a long time, even serve in leadership positions, without becoming formal members, and thus without being baptized (i.e. without being &lt;em&gt;rebaptized&lt;/em&gt; if you were baptized as an infant). That was certainly true in my case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in short: if you were baptized as an infant you are considered not baptized: however that may not be much of a restriction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-01-02T18:48:24.280" LastActivityDate="2012-01-02T18:48:24.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5132" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5134" CreationDate="2011-12-29T20:40:07.220" Score="9" ViewCount="3045" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two modes of water baptism of which I am familiar--immersion and sprinkling.  As far as I know Catholics practice sprinkling along with many Protestant traditions, although many other Protestant traditions practice immersion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for immersion according to those who have a literal interpretation of the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T21:29:55.703" Title="What is the biblical basis for baptism by immersion?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5133" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5145" CreationDate="2011-12-29T20:41:11.790" Score="14" ViewCount="31598" Body="&lt;p&gt;As noted in the other question, there are two modes of water baptism of which I am familiar--immersion and sprinkling. As far as I know Catholics practice sprinkling along with many Protestant traditions, although many other Protestant traditions practice immersion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling according to those who have a literal interpretation of the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2016-10-23T19:25:14.533" Title="What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5132" CreationDate="2011-12-29T21:15:39.217" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an excellent article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/articles/is-baptism-by-immersion-the-only-correct-way-to-be-baptized-&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that covers the Biblical arguments for, and the common arguments against each point.  A few relevant excerpts&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The word baptizo in Greek, translated &quot;baptize&quot; in the New Testaments,&#xA;  meant to &quot;dip&quot; or &quot;immerse.&quot;  It is sometimes argued that in Mark 7:4&#xA;  and Luke 11:38 the word means &quot;to wash by pouring,&quot; not &quot;immerse&quot;; but&#xA;  in those texts the actual meaning (as historical information&#xA;  substantiates) is to &quot;wash by dipping or immersing in water.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is specifically stated in the New Testament to represent the&#xA;  Christian's spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and&#xA;  resurrection (Romans 6:3-7), which is remarkably and dramatically&#xA;  pictured in immersion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Whenever the act of baptism is described in the New Testament (which is rarely), the one who is baptized actually goes into the&#xA;  water.  Thus, after Jesus was baptized, He &quot;came up out of the water&quot;&#xA;  (Mark 1:10), and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, &quot;they both&#xA;  went down into the water&quot; (Acts 8:38).  These descriptions do not&#xA;  quite prove complete immersion, however, since they could have stood,&#xA;  let us say, ankle-deep in water while one of them scooped up some&#xA;  water and poured it over the other's head.  Furthermore, we are not&#xA;  told in Scripture that we must baptize in exactly the same way as John&#xA;  or Philip.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The mode used by the early Church in the first few centuries was immersion, with affusion reserved for occasions when immersion was&#xA;  impossible due to lack of sufficient water, and aspersion used for&#xA;  individuals too sick or weak for either immersion of affusion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is more in the original article, but in summary, the Biblical argument is based on both the meaning of the original Greek word, and also from evidence inferred, but not directly stated in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The summary, however, is excellent, in my opinion.  The author states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not&#xA;  all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as&#xA;  substitutes in exceptional circumstances.  God accepts the believer on&#xA;  the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on&#xA;  the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. &#xA;  The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that&#xA;  only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the&#xA;  Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based&#xA;  on Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-29T21:35:01.347" LastActivityDate="2011-12-29T21:35:01.347" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5136" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-30T00:39:20.070" Score="-1" ViewCount="733" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pagan?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt; defines Pagan as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1.one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2.a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  3.an irreligious or hedonistic person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, is Paganism compatible with Christianity or any Christian doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-11-10T17:10:44.433" LastActivityDate="2015-11-10T17:10:44.433" Title="Is paganism compatible with Christianity?" Tags="&lt;comparative-religion&gt;&lt;pagan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-11-12T13:46:57.307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4854" CreationDate="2011-12-30T00:54:38.940" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not know of any denomination that specifically prohibits naturism/nudism.  I have heard that the Anglican/Episcopal denomination has specifically pronounced that nudism is okay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will only add that in my study and experience, I have found nothing that conflicts with the Bible, and much to recommend the practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1123" LastActivityDate="2011-12-30T00:54:38.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5138" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5141" CreationDate="2011-12-30T01:12:07.060" Score="6" ViewCount="2499" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do old earth Christians believe that there were cavemen in early times? This is not to say people who lived in caves but more as what is pictured in early evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope I'm wording this correctly and somewhat intelligently. If not, please feel free to ask for details etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="898" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T00:57:51.187" LastActivityDate="2012-03-05T19:21:58.730" Title="Is there biblical evidence of &quot;cavemen&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-23T17:09:27.693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5136" CreationDate="2011-12-30T01:13:40.113" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  Jesus said &quot;I am the way, the truth, and the light.  No one comes to the Father but by me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's an exclusive statement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As is &quot;Thou shalt have no other gods before me&quot; and &quot;Thou shalt not make any graven image&quot; (which I take to mean a &quot;god&quot; we create with our hands or with our imagination.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire history of the Jewish people, as recorded in the old testament was one of being saved (first from Egyptian slavery, then by various captivities and judgments throughout history), turning toward God, then after a generation or so, turning away from God to Pagan gods.  The entire history recorded in the Bible would indicate that paganism is not compatible with Christianity or Judaism, from which Christianity came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are certain &lt;em&gt;teachings&lt;/em&gt; that the two might have in common.  Certain things are undeniably good.  Pagan religions may promote selflessness, kindness, mercy, and a whole host of other teachings that are compatible with Christian teachings.  In my answer, I'm not addressing whether there are commonalities, as this is a different question from &quot;Are the two compatible&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-30T03:00:06.277" LastActivityDate="2011-12-30T03:00:06.277" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5138" CreationDate="2011-12-30T03:54:09.333" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that &quot;is there Biblical evidence&quot; is a completely different question than &quot;do old earth Christians believe&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible gives no mention of human ancestors, and specifically states in the Genesis account that God created Adam and Eve rather than that they evolved from a proto-human ancestor, so the answer to &quot;Is there &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Biblical&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Evidence&quot; is &quot;no&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the other question, there are a whole range of beliefs that &lt;em&gt;Christians&lt;/em&gt; hold - from Young-Earth Creationism to Old-Earth Creationism, theistic evolution, and full belief in evolution.  Some Christians really just see the Biblical account as allegorical - just a story, but believe in the less &quot;outlandish&quot; things in the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that not all Christians agree on what is to be taken literally, or on the inerrancy of Scripture, there is a wide variety of views on the entire origins debate.  Certainly, some Christians believe in proto-humans.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2011-12-31T06:44:24.947" LastActivityDate="2011-12-31T06:44:24.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5138" CreationDate="2011-12-30T04:04:47.120" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's going to be some confusion in any answer, because the strictness of interpretation of Genesis (especially 5) is precisely what divides a young earth creationist from an old earth creationist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By definition, the old earth creationist appeals to extra-biblical &amp;quot;evidence,&amp;quot; and hence there cannot be a &amp;quot;biblical&amp;quot; old earth creationist stance. The YEC Creationist believes in the young earth because the genealogies of Genesis 5 point to only about 2000 years. This combined with other references fixes the earth at about 6000 years.  The OEC Creationist looks at the geological record and the apparent &amp;quot;age&amp;quot; of things, and uses that to contradict this literal reading of Genesis 5.  The YEC counters (like William Paley) say God created things with age.  The OEC says, no - Genesis 5 is either incomplete or figurative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Please note - I am not saying one is right or wrong - just that the rules of interpretation are such that an OEC isn't going to have the 'biblical' basis of a YEC.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, how would you make a case for Cavemen in Scripture?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, because Adam had language (he was &lt;em&gt;naming&lt;/em&gt; the animals after all), we can rule out a non-intelligible caveman grunting society stereotype. So, Neanderthals they weren't.&#xA;That said, there is some interesting evidence from Genesis 4 that may pertain to the &amp;quot;caveman&amp;quot; question.  Specifically, Genesis 4:19 -22 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. 22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of[g] bronze and iron&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implications are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If Tubal-Cain was the &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; forger of bronze and iron tools, then all characters mentioned prior (i.e. Lamech and those before him), were by definition stone age societies.  Bronze and metalwork is the technological divide.  (Interestingly, the big gap between the Israelites and the Philistines was that the Israelites were a Bronze Age society that didn't have the stronger Iron Age tools of the Philistines.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the point of the &amp;quot;caveman,&amp;quot; however, a stone age society could construct stone and adobe shelters, or use caves, but certain types of shelter would have eluded them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jabal, if taken to be the first bedoiun, would imply that societies had a different arrangement than that of the bedoiun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Cain was a farmer, we can't necessarily conclude that had to be a hunter-gatherer society, but we also can't rule that out. Who knows, maybe Cain was just a gatherer rather than a cultivator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is this a flimsy case for cavemen in the bible?  Yes, it is flimsy.  I don't think you really can make the case - but if you were going to, these would be the points I'd go with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-05T19:21:58.730" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5136" CreationDate="2011-12-30T11:22:00.010" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Per your own quoted dictionary, &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. By definition they are incompatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pegan: ... observing a polytheistic religion ... who is not a Christian ... irreligious. (dictionary.com definitions #1, #2 and #3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per the every major creed in Christian history, &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. The whole purpose of these creedal statements was to show how Christianity's beliefs are set apart from any other and define the God we believe in and how men are to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. (Nicene Creed)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per the Ten Commandments, &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. God defines the rules for his chosen people as being incompatible with any others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall have no other Gods before me. (Exodus 20:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per Jesus NT teachings, &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. By his own statement, Jesus is incompatible with all other belief systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary. &lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quite simply, there might be similarities because some aspects of true religion and even divine truth are seen in the wider culture, but at their core they are fundamentally incompatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians understand some of the similarities to be echos of general revelation that people instinctively understand some things about God and others to be perversions of the truth. We see in the garden when the serpent talks to Eve that he loves to take nuggets of truth to bait a hook of lies and we see this pattern repeated throughout history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise not all of Christianity is pure and unadulterated; in the same way that many pagan practices are perversions of truth, many non-Biblical customs and ideas have been allowed into the &quot;culture&quot; of Christianity. Some may be harmless or simple tarnishes dimming its vibrance, others poison sapping its life and dissuading people from the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2011-12-30T11:22:00.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5144" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5148" CreationDate="2011-12-30T14:05:48.307" Score="30" ViewCount="2248" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why was December 25th chosen as the day to celebrate Jesus' birth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-12-21T14:54:46.940" LastActivityDate="2020-12-14T14:01:29.613" Title="Why is Christmas on December 25th?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;&lt;calendar&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5133" CreationDate="2011-12-30T14:23:00.453" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics don't baptize by sprinkling water, we pour it over the baptized's head, if there's just a font.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read Acts 8:24, you probably think baptism by immersion if that how baptism happens in your tradition, but if baptism is usually performed by pouring, then this is what your minds eye produces:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5UTe4m.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Philip baptizing a eunuch&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philip baptizing a eunuch by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel_de_Pujol&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Abel de Pujol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canonically, either is permissible in the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.upc-orlando.com/resources/written/doctrines/doctrine01.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sprinkling is biblical&lt;/a&gt;,  but it's usually connected with blood.  But, since we're &quot;baptized into His death&quot;, then I think the water of baptism may represent Jesus blood in some way, especially since that was what poured forth from His side when He was pierced on the cross. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-02-21T11:38:11.833" LastActivityDate="2014-02-21T11:38:11.833" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5107" CreationDate="2011-12-30T14:25:51.017" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only starting point for all calculations are the geneologies. However, even if the age itself would be mentioned, we should not forget the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,  that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,  and a thousand years as one&#xA;  day. &lt;strong&gt;(2 Peter 3:8)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can make all age calculations highly speculative, and also, irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastActivityDate="2011-12-30T14:25:51.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5144" CreationDate="2011-12-30T14:29:23.357" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The exact day for the birth of Jesus is not known. You can find a lot of info on Wikipedia, with references. The most interesting for this question might be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The precise day of Jesus' birth, which some historians place between 7&#xA;  and 2 BC, is unknown. In the early-to-mid 4th century, Western&#xA;  Christianity first placed Christmas on December 25, a date later&#xA;  adopted also in the East. Theories advanced to explain that&#xA;  choice include that it falls exactly nine months after the Christian&#xA;  celebration of the Annunciation, or that it was selected to&#xA;  coincide with either the date of the Roman winter solstice or of&#xA;  an ancient pagan winter festival in order to stamp out these&#xA;  celebrations and replace them with a Christian one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="1122" LastEditDate="2017-02-22T21:54:45.977" LastActivityDate="2017-02-22T21:54:45.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5144" CreationDate="2011-12-30T14:58:44.577" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a good &lt;a href=&quot;https://taylormarshall.com/2011/12/pope-benedict-xvi-december-25-as.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;recent blog post&lt;/a&gt; covering Pope Benedict's thoughts on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key is the date set for the annunciation (March 25th):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Traditionally held to be the first day of creation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Traditionally held to be the date when Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac after a 3 day journey to Mount Moriah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extrapolated to be the date of Jesus' annunciation (when the Angel Gabriel came to Mary)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Futher extrapolated to be the date of Jesus' crucifixion (on the Lunar calendar at least) to parallel Abraham's attempted sacrifice and align with the passover. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5147/4&quot;&gt;vsz says&lt;/a&gt; wikipedia says, but should say louder, add 9 months, et voila you've got December 25th.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the age of the feast as celebrated by Christ's Church, said blog post also notes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Pope Leo the Great&lt;/a&gt; mentioning the feast of the Nativity of Jesus in the winter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But this Nativity which is to be adored in heaven and on earth is suggested to us by no day more than this when, with the early light still shedding its rays on nature, there is borne in upon our senses the brightness of this wondrous mystery. (St Leo Magnus, Sermo 26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not going to say that only stupid people think that Christmas is an attempt to quash pagan solstice shenanigans, but I will say that people ought to think long and hard before believing the Discovery channel over thousands of years of tradition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-04-30T12:34:19.523" LastActivityDate="2019-04-30T12:34:19.523" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5151" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5152" CreationDate="2011-12-30T18:30:24.197" Score="20" ViewCount="2915" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, in my world travels with missionaries, it seems like a missionary, if he/she doesn't come from North America, is next most likely to come from Korea*. In seminary, the proportion of Anglos &amp;amp; Koreans way beat out any other group. And, in my neck of the woods (Northern Virginia, just outside Washington DC), it seems like there are Korean churches all over the place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This all stems from the fact that South Korea has a huge Christian population.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is it about the history, culture, economy, whatever of (presumably South) Korea that has made it so receptive to the Gospel?  I know that Catholic missionaries were there in the 1600s, but they've been a lot of places.  What (other than &quot;the Holy Spirit&quot;) accounts for the tremendous receptivity and growth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along these lines, I'm curious &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a. If there is any particular denominational emphasis (it seems like a fair number Presbyterians, but I don't know that)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b. If it is confined to South Korea or if the communist North has experienced similiar things&#xA;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c. What the underlying causes are for this growth... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Note: Totally unscientific claim.  Just my experiences in Europe &amp;amp; Central Asia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-01-22T13:35:16.917" LastActivityDate="2016-03-25T21:30:30.677" Title="Why is Christianity so popular in (South) Korea?" Tags="&lt;culture&gt;&lt;missions&gt;&lt;korea&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5151" CreationDate="2011-12-30T21:21:10.173" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please excuse my short answer, I'm not very good with words :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;threat of North Korea&lt;/strong&gt; is very real. Both countries are officially at war. Lethal incidents occur from time to time. All South Korean males have to fulfill a 21 month long military service which is a hard political decision due to the missing workforce for the economy. Where harm to body and life is a real threat, people do think about the life and death. They start to care about spiritual matters. South Koreans Christians are spiritually quite alive. (This is no argument trying to support growth of Christianity in SK, it solely tries to explain the vigorous spirit of SK Christians.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unlike in other Western Nations, &lt;strong&gt;Christianity is in a competitive state&lt;/strong&gt; in South Korea. It is a major religion but has to compete with Buddhism. Buddhism is a very tolerant, non-radical religion and therefore widely accepted.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;South Korea has a very &lt;strong&gt;hierarchal culture&lt;/strong&gt;. Your boss is not just your boss. He is THE BOSS. How can I explain this? You simply do not speak bad of your boss. Also you do not stand up to him. Your respect to the boss is 'unlimited'. Thus, workers are very loyal and obedient. The hierarchal culture starts in the family where each member has a title. While my grandparents may greet me by my first name, I have to name them by their title. Due to the 'western' influence in our family this not &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; big of a deal. I think that it is the culturally induced obedience towards your superior that is reflected in the strong missionary work of South Koreans.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christianity in South Korea is still young&lt;/strong&gt;. It does not have the old relics and structures that the mainstream church has created in Western Europe. It's young and vibrant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the second world war, South Korea was occupied by Japan. There was an active &lt;strong&gt;persecution and deportation of Christians&lt;/strong&gt;. Many were martyred. Since these events are only seventy years old or so, these events are still present in the memories of the older generation and have supported growth of Christians among the younger generations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About point 5: This is what Korean relatives have told me: They themselves see this as the most important point to mention. In fact, my grandfather was close to getting killed by the Japanese military force. They locked him up with others in the church and started lighting it on fire from the outside. Yet, he managed to escape. Even though my own relatives were telling me this, I surprisingly could not find much evidence online to confirm such persecution of Christians in SK during WW2. Most information you find, will relate to persecution of Catholic Christians in the early 19th century. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1121" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditorDisplayName="user1121" LastEditDate="2014-08-05T11:22:35.200" LastActivityDate="2014-08-05T11:22:35.200" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1360" CreationDate="2011-12-30T21:57:13.320" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question which has plagued me for many decades.  I am truly shocked that a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4772/when-did-christmas-the-birth-of-christ-first-begin-as-a-christian-celebration&quot;&gt;similar question&lt;/a&gt; received such little response during this season.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other discussions here, we all can agree that &lt;strong&gt;no one&lt;/strong&gt; can answer the question directly.  No one &lt;strong&gt;knows&lt;/strong&gt; the actual date of Christ's birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To know what one does not know is a sign of scholarship.  Sometimes, the wisest answer to a question is &lt;strong&gt;&quot;I don't know.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  To continue rambling in the answer is to address issues not identified in the question.  (As the previous sentence just demonstrated.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;end of answer&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2011-12-30T22:02:49.583" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1363" CreationDate="2011-12-30T22:22:38.313" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html&quot;&gt;Dr. Richard P. Bucher&lt;/a&gt; provides an excellent analysis of this question.   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 2:1-3&lt;/a&gt; specifically states the purpose of Mary and Joseph's journey to Bethlehem (Roman census ordered by Caesar Augustus).  And, from extra-biblical sources, we know that Augustus ordered a census in 27 BC, 8 BC, and 14 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;strong&gt;8 BC&lt;/strong&gt; seems the most reasonable answer to your question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1126" LastActivityDate="2011-12-30T22:22:38.313" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5155" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-30T23:40:58.173" Score="7" ViewCount="6808" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having a bit of holiday over Christmas and New Year I'm going over some notes I've made of topics I want to look at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One such question regards the use of terminology such as &quot;Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read a little and seen that there's a variety of perspectives (from perhaps &quot;sickness is something that shouldn't affect Christians&quot; to perhaps a focus on the full-application being in the future kingdom) that this statement could cover, but I'd be interested to see if anyone could give me the background texts to support such a statement (one would not have to agree with the exegesis to present the texts used to support the doctrine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One commonly referenced text would be &lt;a href=&quot;http://esv.to/isaiah53:4-5&quot;&gt;Isa 53:4-5&lt;/a&gt; which concludes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and with his wounds we are healed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in seeing what is the range of ideas that &quot;Jesus took our illnesses&quot; covers and what key texts are used to build up that argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that's reasonably clear!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1128" LastActivityDate="2017-01-05T16:10:27.673" Title="What do Christians mean by &quot;Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross&quot; and why?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2017-01-08T01:36:52.990" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5156" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5166" CreationDate="2011-12-30T23:57:58.227" Score="8" ViewCount="1614" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Life of man continued in eternity in Eden&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;During this time the tree of knowledge was present&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At any given point in time, man had the free will to make the choice: I will eat the forbidden fruit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it seems like a mathematic inevitability that the probability of eating the fruit = 100% as time → infinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might be thinking of this too naïvely or simplistically but it seems like regardless how figurative or literal you take the account, the core issue still stands?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless 1. is not as simple as it seems and eternity is a more complex notion than simply time continuing indefinitely as we understand time now? Or 2. is debatable, i.e. the tree could have only been a one-time test which would not have continued into eternity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1129" LastActivityDate="2015-03-23T00:37:00.943" Title="Was the fall of man inevitable?" Tags="&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;eden&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-03-26T03:44:35.027" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3307" CreationDate="2011-12-31T00:07:17.237" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want a non-tautological answer, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ludwig Wittgenstein&lt;/a&gt; uses the theory of the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;language game&lt;/a&gt;&quot; to describe speech as a set of rules that have an agreed upon foundation, which both defines and limits the the thing. The agreed upon foundation is a postulate - you cannot conceive of the thing without it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity could be considered a language game, and the other answers here enumerate the postulates.  That the Bible is the foundation is simply the most basic postulate of revelation - the idea that God revealed to us his will in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2011-12-31T00:07:17.237" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5155" CreationDate="2011-12-31T00:14:03.047" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Isa 53, the word you are translating &quot;illnesses&quot; is more often translated as &quot;transgressions&quot; or &quot;iniquities.&quot;  Both of those words highlight the fact that Jesus took our sins with him on the cross, and by the wounds he suffered, we were healed - from the iniquity of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic idea of salvation in Christainity is often summarized as this -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We are sinners&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Because of this sin, we deserve eternal death - separation from God&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus paid the penalty for that sin by dying on the cross, thus we are healed and given eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(For the purposes of this answer, lets not get into all the different ideas of atonement, etc... I'm going for the overview here!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is &quot;illness&quot; is not a physical thing here, but a legal one. (Indeed, I've never seen that translation before - perhaps its just being confused with iniquities?  An iniquity is an evil, a cause of suffering and distress, not necessarily a bodily thing.)  We are &quot;suffering&quot; from sin, and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 pays for that sin, so we are healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, I've never seen a promise that Christians would never get sick.  Even the early church recognized that believers would still die.  The Good News, however, is that in our resurrected state, there would be no more corruption in our bodies - i.e. no sickness - but that's on the other side of the Jordan, not this one!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2011-12-31T00:20:43.520" LastActivityDate="2011-12-31T00:20:43.520" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5048" CreationDate="2011-12-31T00:28:52.170" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was trying to explain these two Christological concepts to an unsaved friend of mine, and he said, &quot;Oh, so you're talking about the opposite of demon-possession - that Jesus the man was simply possessed by God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stripping that analogy down to its essentials, I think he may be on to something.  If Jesus only had one &quot;energy&quot; or one will, then Jesus is essentially a docetist God, only appearing to be man.  If his humanity is scooped out and overridden by God's indwelling, then he can't really identify with humanity.  To hold to a monothelitist idea is to say that God only &quot;appeared&quot; to be human - but a lobotomized human isn't really all that human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, to hold to this heresy would be to make a mockery of the incarnation.  God may have taken on flesh and bone, but not mind and spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, if he didn't, then he didn't know jack about every Tom. Dick, and Harry out there...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="876" LastEditDate="2012-01-05T20:01:00.157" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T20:01:00.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5160" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5161" CreationDate="2011-12-31T05:57:11.250" Score="13" ViewCount="127517" Body="&lt;p&gt;During a burial today, I noticed the coffin was buried facing east.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where does this Christian tradition come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1086" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2018-04-13T20:49:05.097" LastActivityDate="2019-01-23T14:38:35.193" Title="Why are people traditionally buried facing east?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;burial&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5160" CreationDate="2011-12-31T06:11:37.107" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not a purely Christian tradition.  Other religions practice this as well.  There's an article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ehow.com/about_6671751_do-tombstones-face-east_.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; on ehow.com that gives an overview of the origins of the practice.  Some highlights:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to &quot;Ethnicity and the American Cemetery,&quot; the feet of the deceased face east as well. This tradition is based on the belief that when Jesus returns, the departed will rise from the grave already facing his direction. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to Northumberland County Council, the tradition began when Pagans buried the dead so they would face the rising sun. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that it's not universal.  We have a cemetery tied to a Church a few miles from here where the graves all point to the North, and several others I've visited have some facing one way, and others at right angles - those graves are laid out to maximize use of the land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2011-12-31T06:11:37.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5162" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2011-12-31T09:50:40.053" Score="5" ViewCount="520" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unlike many of the other great religions of the world - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, even Judaism to some extent - Christianity is founded not on a philosophy or a metaphysical idea, but on an historical event. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Christianity, sometime around the year 0 a boy was born in the town of Bethlehem; sometime around the year 30 that same boy, now a man, started preaching, gathering disciples, healing and confronting the authorities that be. A few years later, those same authorities had him crucified. But a few days later he was seen alive by his disciples. After he returned to heaven these disciples travelled all over the known world, preaching this message - that the word has become flesh and has dwelt among us. A good number of them were killed before denying what they believed. 2000 years later, millions of people around the world still live lives, not just according to this man's teaching, but in some way 'in' him, and he in them too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is very broad, but basically very simple. If Christianity is indeed based so firmly on real historical events, then surely there must have been significant scholarly work to discern the reliability of the New Testament cannon. Has this work been summarised in any books? Are there any &lt;em&gt;objective&lt;/em&gt; (as far as that's possible) reviews of the historical reliability of the claims of the New Testament writings (particularly the Gospels and Paul's writings). Or possibly are there several complementing (should I say competing :) ) works that would give a balanced overview.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What frustrates me the most about this issue is the dichotomy of views. To take but one example, my good old NIV study bible says, concerning the authorship of 1 Timothy, that '...evidence is convincingly supportive of Paul's authorship' yet according to Wikipedia 'most modern scholars' hold that Paul was not the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I said at the beginning, Christianity is in many ways unique in that the entire religion is firmly based on purported historical events. In light of the great range of opinions and views we hear on this issue, I want to spend some time looking at the new testament independently of my Christian bias. Any help (particularly recommended reading) would be greatly appreciated. Thankyou&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="795" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T04:47:32.503" LastActivityDate="2015-08-05T04:47:32.503" Title="Sources on Historical Reliability of the New Testament" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-21T03:14:26.403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5162" CreationDate="2011-12-31T11:01:12.970" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you mean events: much of the NT concerns small groups of average people. We would not expect independent validation, so any question of &lt;em&gt;historic&lt;/em&gt; accuracy is limited to a single source (or, if you like, a few intertwined sources) (which has inbuilt bias, if evaluating from a clinical perspective). Simply: for much of NT I would expect simply: no one can say for certain, beyond faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The grave-openings in Matthew 27:52 are &lt;em&gt;massively&lt;/em&gt; unreported, though; from a &lt;em&gt;historic evidence&lt;/em&gt; perspective, that is something you might expect people to have noticed and reported, enough to be visible today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, we have only a fragmented set of documentary sources from the time period - the luck of whatever survived 2000 years (whether in original form, or via copying). There honestly isn't an awful lot of parallel evidence to look at (which says nothing about the accuracy of events, or not, other than to say: it is hard to know).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, any evidence or counter-evidence for any individual event does not prove or disprove any &lt;strong&gt;other&lt;/strong&gt; events. For example, while there may be some independent mention of the crucifixion, that &lt;strong&gt;from an evidence basis&lt;/strong&gt; says nothing about the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, because it is &lt;em&gt;written&lt;/em&gt; that something was witnessed by (say) 100 people, &lt;strong&gt;does not prove&lt;/strong&gt; that this is the case; numbers (and events) can be subject to embellishment, so many of the events are, from an &lt;strong&gt;evidence&lt;/strong&gt; perspective, not certain to be reliable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I want to spend some time looking at the new testament independently of my Christian bias&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That simply does not exist, as such; the key sources &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; Christian, and it is perfectly well known that the documents selected for inclusion in what became The Bible were selected; among this selection, being &quot;in line&quot; with the dogma &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; a factor. Unless you mean something like a Jefferson Bible (and I don't think that is what you mean). This is obviously something that a lot of people have looked at lots of times, over lots of years. To date, I am honestly unaware of any &lt;em&gt;compelling&lt;/em&gt; evidence that has not faced &lt;strong&gt;significant&lt;/strong&gt; criticism, usually for uncertain logic, cherry-picking over the (scant) evidence, and making some fairly large assumptions (in particular with the motivation of characters or authors). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are a believer, I suggest: base your beliefs on your faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-01-01T14:53:29.803" LastActivityDate="2012-01-01T14:53:29.803" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5156" CreationDate="2011-12-31T13:21:13.917" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, let's have a look at the actual text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:16-17&quot;&gt;Genesis 2: 16-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the&#xA;  garden thou mayest freely eat:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not&#xA;  eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely&#xA;  die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 17 is particularly interesting.  &quot;&lt;strong&gt;In the day&lt;/strong&gt; that thou eatest thereof&quot; is not an &quot;if&quot; statement but a &quot;when&quot; statement.  This makes me think that yes, it was part of the plan, and that Satan's temptation did not consist of getting them to eat the fruit &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, but of getting them to do it before they were ready (whatever else that would have consisted of.)  Unfortunately, the Scriptures are silent on any further details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2011-12-31T13:21:13.917" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2302" CreationDate="2012-01-01T05:09:37.553" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who is this God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD is known by the judgment He executes (Psalms 9:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the&#xA;  LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers&#xA;  upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that&#xA;  hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and&#xA;  keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:5-6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this attributes, we see that God is very just.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1131" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-02T19:03:36.300" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T19:03:36.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2012-01-01T08:09:18.343" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;That hell is a literal place as is understood by Western Protestants is far from settled.  Byzantine (Greek) Orthodoxy, for example, adheres to a conception of Hell very similar to that espoused by Bell: Hell not a physical place but the state of not experiencing God's love, one can leave it at any time by accepting God's love, and those who live a righteous life without the guidance of God and the Church are quite praiseworthy indeed and can end up in heaven.  In fact, within Byzantine Orthodoxy there is a significant push towards a position of universal reconciliation, in which all souls are eventually reconciled with God no matter what their bearers did in life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answers above indicating that there is a literal hell and that it is inescapable are written in ignorance of the full spectrum of thought on the matter across all of Christendom.  Those quoting Revelations are missing the fact that Revelations was not written as an end-times prophecy but as an allegory for contemporary Christians to help them deal with the persecution they were then facing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even within mainstream Christendom there is nothing near universal agreement on this matter as others have suggested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1133" LastActivityDate="2012-01-01T08:09:18.343" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5175" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5184" CreationDate="2012-01-01T13:55:48.697" Score="11" ViewCount="29768" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Moses led the people of Israel through the desert, there were two interesting occasions when God wanted to destroy the people of Israel and start over. (There may be more occasions that I don't know of.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first one is when Moses went up on mount Sinai and stayed there for 40 days and 40 nights. During that time, the people of Israel grew weary and made themselves a golden calf to worship, since they believed God had deserted them. This made God very angry (and would have made me very angry too) and he told Moses this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. &lt;strong&gt;Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.&lt;/strong&gt;” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032:9-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 32:9-10, NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verses &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032:11-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;11-14&lt;/a&gt;, Moses replies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. “LORD,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some time later, some of the Levites rose up against Moses and were then destroyed by God. The day after, this happened:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. “You have killed the LORD’s people,” they said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the tent of meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the LORD appeared. Then Moses and Aaron went to the front of the tent of meeting, and the LORD said to Moses, &lt;strong&gt;“Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.”&lt;/strong&gt; And they fell facedown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put incense in it, along with burning coals from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has started.” So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah. Then Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance to the tent of meeting, for the plague had stopped. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2016:41-45&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Numbers 16:41-45, NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is: Did God REALLY want to destroy the people of Israel? &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; certainly would, but would God really? If Moses had said: &amp;quot;Okay, go ahead&amp;quot;, would God have done it? Moses reminded God of the promise he gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I know that the sum of the Bible is true, thus it is important to understand a passage in its context and the Bible in its entirety. I have a little problem of getting God's unlimited love and grace to sum up with these two places where he wants to destroy the people of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-09-13T09:12:50.840" Title="Did God REALLY want to destroy the people of Israel?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;numbers&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-05-27T16:20:26.530" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5156" CreationDate="2012-01-02T01:01:04.907" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this question reflects a common error in our thinking which I call temporal lock - that is, we have a great tendency to reason about the eternal things of God from a temporal and limited perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is the great &quot;I Am&quot; - the eternal present. God's eternity certainly is more complex than time continuing forever; it's &lt;em&gt;timelessness&lt;/em&gt;. God is not bound by time; he does not exist within time as we know it - our time was created by him when he created the universe: Genesis 1:1 &quot;In the &lt;em&gt;beginning&lt;/em&gt;...&quot; (emphasis mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear from the laws of physics of this universe that it was &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; designed to exist eternally. The laws of thermodynamics ensure that the universe, much less this planet, cannot sustain life indefinitely. Equally, consider what was to happen once mankind had fulfilled the command to multiply and fill the earth - then what? It seems apparent from the creation itself that this entire universe is an &lt;em&gt;interim&lt;/em&gt; endeavor. While it is feasible that God could have stepped in and done something supernatural, it's more reasonable to postulate that this creation is temporary and is designed for a purpose, which once achieved, will negate the reason for its existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not so much that mankind would &lt;em&gt;inevitably&lt;/em&gt; sin, but that in God's experience, there is no other reality. God knew from all eternity that man would sin and what he would do about it - the plan of salvation was in the heart of God before (whatever &quot;before&quot; means in God's dimensional existence) this creation &lt;em&gt;ever was&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one reasons this through to its logical conclusion, in the face of a perfect eternal being, one must conclude that this creation, the fall and Christ's redemptive action is a necessary interim step in God's ultimate plan for our eternity. An eternity in which mankind has perfect communion with God, has free-will and the capability to love, and yet is incapable of sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2012-01-04T20:35:22.110" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T20:35:22.110" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5182" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5183" CreationDate="2012-01-02T15:56:50.060" Score="7" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2012:7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 12:7&lt;/a&gt;, Paul references a thorn was given to him in the flesh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, &lt;em&gt;a thorn was given me in the flesh&lt;/em&gt;, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have any insight on what this might be? Also, I am unsure as to &lt;strong&gt;why&lt;/strong&gt; he was given this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-07-08T14:15:28.103" LastActivityDate="2019-11-28T20:28:15.393" Title="What was Paul referring to by the &quot;thorn in the flesh&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;2-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5182" CreationDate="2012-01-02T16:11:44.467" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many theories, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kcm.org/real-help/article/what-about-pauls-thorn-flesh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kcm.org/read/faith-to-faith/06/09&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;demon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, since Paul says it was a &lt;em&gt;&quot;messenger of Satan&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/Paul-thorn-flesh.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a physical affliction&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;em&gt;&quot;incessant temptation, dogged opponents, chronic maladies (such as eye problems, malaria, migraine headaches, and epilepsy), to a speech disability&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/thorn.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;false teachers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(My personal theory is that it was his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+6:11&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;eyesight&lt;/a&gt;; but the majority of experts do not agree!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We simply &lt;strong&gt;don't know&lt;/strong&gt; for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;, that's in the verse you quoted, to keep Paul &lt;em&gt;&quot;from becoming conceited&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're all subject to pride and Paul, as a great leader in a new movement and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%209&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chosen by Jesus Himself&lt;/a&gt; had reason (in man's eyes) to be conceited (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil%203:4-6&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;he even said so himself&lt;/a&gt;). This &lt;em&gt;&quot;thorn&quot;&lt;/em&gt; was apparently to prevent that, so that his work could continue without anyone being able to find fault with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="23657" LastEditDate="2018-07-08T06:22:15.630" LastActivityDate="2018-07-08T06:22:15.630" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5175" CreationDate="2012-01-02T20:47:45.457" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If Moses had said: &quot;Okay, go ahead&quot;, would God have done it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can take a look at the narrative of Abraham and Sodom (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018:16-33&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 18:16-33&lt;/a&gt;) as an example of this opposite case.  Abraham, of course, doesn't say &quot;Okay, go ahead and destroy Sodom&quot;—but he doesn't ask for mercy either.  His intercession is based on justice instead: it would be unjust, he argues, to destroy righteous people along with wicked people.  He talks God down to the idea of saving an entire city full of unrighteous men, women, and children for the sake of ten hypothetical righteous ones—but can we doubt that if Abraham had been bold enough to ask for mercy instead, God would have spared them altogether?  (Moses, who surely knew the story of Sodom—if he didn't write it himself—knew better than to base his pleas for mercy on the righteousness of the Israelites.  Likewise, we ourselves cannot be saved on our own merits.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, the question is: Did God REALLY want to destroy the people of Israel? I certainly would, but would God really?  [...] I have a little problem of getting God's unlimited love and grace to sum up with these two places where he wants to destroy the people of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does look bad—to understate it—to see the one we recognize as a God of love and grace calling for genocide.  But the real issue is an even bigger one: we as humans &quot;all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23-24&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt;), and &quot;the wages of sin is death&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:23&lt;/a&gt;).  We &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; face judgment, not just the Israelites in the wilderness—they just happened to be faced with receiving it early.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did God really want to destroy the people of Israel?  Well, does God really want to destroy any of us?  The answer to that is surely in the negative.   In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:9&lt;/a&gt; we read that God is &quot;not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance&quot;.  We're told that God says &quot;I desire mercy, not sacrifice&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%206:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hosea 6:6&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%209:13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 9:13&lt;/a&gt;).  We're told that God loves the world—so much so &quot;that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;)  If God must destroy anyone, it is surely with regret, not with relish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2012-01-02T20:47:45.457" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5185" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-02T23:23:45.617" Score="12" ViewCount="1893" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5184/224&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, God does not want to destroy sinners. And yet, there are several accounts in the Bible of God doing just that. Sodom and Gomorrah is one example, another one is the flood or the numerous atrocities against the Egyptians in Exodus, just to mention a few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, with God being omnipotent, and thus with presumably an infinite number of ways of dealing with these situations, why does he resort to the most cruel and barbaric methods like genocide and murder? It doesn't seem like something a god who loves everyone would do, especially one with the power to resolve these situations in more peaceful ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2014-06-28T19:38:43.100" Title="Why does God resort to genocide and destruction?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5185" CreationDate="2012-01-03T06:45:09.027" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're going to call God's methods &quot;cruel and barbaric,&quot; what alternative do you propose, keeping in mind that mankind's free will is held sacrosanct even by God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It makes more sense when you have an understanding of the plan instead of simply viewing isolated events out of context.  God wishes for all mankind to find salvation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:4&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:4&lt;/a&gt;)  And when even the worst of civilizations turn unto God, they can turn away his wrath.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah%203&quot;&gt;Jonah chapter 3&lt;/a&gt; for an example.  Nineveh was condemned to the same fate as Sodom and Gomorrah, and they even had a ticking doomsday clock: &quot;Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.&quot;  But when presented with the prophecy of their destruction, they managed to avert it through sincere repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second half of verse 8 is particularly interesting: &quot;yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and &lt;em&gt;from the violence that is in their hands.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;  An abundance of violence is specifically cited (twice) as the reason why God sent the Flood. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:11-13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Genesis 6: 11-13&lt;/a&gt;)  Such an attitude is, of course, in direct opposition to the nature of Christ, who is called the Prince of Peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that, although it's possible to avert this fate even well into the endgame, as was the case for Nineveh, (see also Sodom and Gomorrah, where God was willing to hold back for the sake of 10 righteous citizens, but even that paltry number could not be found!) when a civilization has turned away completely from seeking salvation and seeking to emulate God and follow his commandments, and becomes filled with violence or other sinful attributes that are in opposition to the nature of God, then they have failed.  It's God's wish that all may find salvation, but when a group of people willingly place themselves in opposition to everything that leads to salvation, there's no good purpose to be served by keeping them around, and a lot of harm that they could do if allowed to remain.  (Being full of violence means they'd likely go around causing harm to righteous people.  Also, they could have children who would be raised in an environment in which they had zero chance of attaining salvation.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When viewed with an eternal perspective in mind instead of a mortal one, we see these acts of divine destruction for what they are: damage control. Not &quot;wrath&quot; or petty &quot;cruelty and barbarism,&quot; but decisive action to prevent harm to innocents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T06:45:09.027" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5189" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5219" CreationDate="2012-01-03T13:15:32.783" Score="7" ViewCount="8229" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:14-16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:14-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your &lt;strong&gt;light&lt;/strong&gt; shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does Jesus mean by &lt;em&gt;light&lt;/em&gt;? Talents? Spiritual gifts? God showing through us? Something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Update: &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/823/definition-of-light-in-matthew-516&quot;&gt;I have now also asked this at Biblical Hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt;, as mentioned in comments below.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-03-30T01:50:44.860" Title="Definition of light in Matthew 5:16" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;sermon-on-the-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-02T02:05:42.463" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5190" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5194" CreationDate="2012-01-03T13:17:01.253" Score="6" ViewCount="1110" Body="&lt;p&gt;People often talk about spiritual gifts, like tongues and prophecy. What spiritual gifts are mentioned in the Bible? Please provide references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T13:16:24.177" Title="What are the Spiritual Gifts?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5185" CreationDate="2012-01-03T13:45:47.533" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Egyptians were killing all male babies, not just the first born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah, &quot;When you act as midwives for the Hebrew women, look on the birthstool: if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/exodus/exodus1.htm&quot;&gt;Exodus 2:15-16 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the story of the flood is one common to many, many Mesopotamian religions. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm&quot;&gt; Gilgamesh&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and in both stories, God is relenting and merciful in His judgement.  He either puts it off till the last possible moment or He finds some good man to carry on His covenant when He would rather have just wiped out all of humanity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the LORD said: I will wipe out from the earth the human beings I have created, and not only the human beings, but also the animals and the crawling things and the birds of the air, for I regret that I made them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/6&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:7 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I think the best way around this conundrum is to &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remember that His ways are not our ways. (Isaiah 55:8-9)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recall that the measure by which you measure will be measured against you. (Matthew 7:2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Know that God shows partiality towards no one. (Job 34:19)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T13:45:47.533" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5185" CreationDate="2012-01-03T14:40:56.983" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that God is completely loving, but that he is also completely just.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A truly just God who already decreed that the punishment for sin is death is morally obligated to follow through on that punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, remember in Daniel 6 that Daniel broke the law about praying to any 'god' other than Darius. Despite the fact that Darius liked Daniel, when Daniel [disobeyed], Darius was obligated to throw Daniel into the lions den.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To do any less is to turn God into a liar (something which he by definition is not). He is tautologically constrained by goodness, justice, and omnipotence to act.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the real question isn't &amp;quot;Why did God punish these towns (Sodom, the death of the firstborn in Egypt, the inhabitants of Canaan, the world right before the flood)?&amp;quot;  but rather, &amp;quot;Why doesn't he wipe out more civilizations?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is God merciful ?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to that is his mercy, as evidenced by Jonah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonah, as you will remember, was sent to Ninevah by God to demand they repent. Jonah did his duty, however grudgingly, simply telling telling them &amp;quot;Thirty days and Ninevah shall be destroyed.&amp;quot; When Ninevah heard this, however, it repented.  As a result, God changed his mind and decided to wipe them out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's when Jonah gets upset.  Here's what he says in Jonah 4:2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He prayed to the LORD, O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response, God gives Jonah a living parable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the LORD God provided a vine and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the vine. But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so that it withered. When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah's head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, It would be better for me to die than to live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But God said to Jonah, Do you have a right to be angry about the vine? I do, he said. I am angry enough to die. But the LORD said, You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why does justice demand death ?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is reasonable to ask, why should a just God demand death for sin. After all, he is the one who pronounced originally that &amp;quot;in the day you shall eat thereof, you shall surely die.&amp;quot;  (Here, I'm quoting Gen 2:17. Yes, Romans 6:23 is where I can unequivocally state the wages of sin is death, but I'm trying to stay in chronological order here!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I want to delve into a bit of (hopefully informed) speculation.  The Jews understood that one could not look upon God and live.  (That's why (a) Jacob was amazed that he wrestled with God and lived, and (b) Moses, who asked to see God's face was told that he could not see it and live, but God did deign to show him his back.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think it is an unreasonable jump to suggest that when sinful man looks upon a completely holy God, he becomes so aware of his own inferiority that he cannot live with that knowledge.  (Its like that feeling of coming back to work after a wonderful Christmas vacation. The shock is killer!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To look, unfettered upon the face of God, would be to literally die of shame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, Dante says that the gates of hell are locked from the inside - Its not that God cannot abide man in heaven, but that sinful man cannot abide God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T21:35:21.753" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5190" CreationDate="2012-01-03T15:04:46.227" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are (non-mutually exclusive) two lists of spiritual gifts in the early church, one found in Ephesians 4, the other in 1 Corinthians 12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here they are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;to another faith by the same Spirit, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;to another miraculous powers, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;to another prophecy, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;to another distinguishing between spirits, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and to still another the interpretation of tongues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from Ephesians 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was he who gave some to be apostles, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;some to be prophets, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;some to be evangelists, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spiritual gifts in Romans 12 are listed not as an exhortation to unity but rather to action:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-03T15:17:59.230" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T15:17:59.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5190" CreationDate="2012-01-03T15:15:00.877" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_gift&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has a decent article on this subject. There are a few places in the Bible where lists of spiritual gifts occur, which are, according to Wikipedia, as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 12:6-8:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophecy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Serving&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teaching&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exhortation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Giving&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leadership&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mercy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 12:8-10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Word of wisdom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Word of knowledge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faith&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gifts of healings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Miracles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophecy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Distinguishing between spirits&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tongues&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Interpretation of tongues&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 12:28:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apostle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophet&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teacher&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Miracles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Kinds of healings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Helps&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Administration&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tongues&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4:11:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apostle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophet&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evangelist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pastor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teacher&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Note that Wikipedia lists those last two as one entry: Pastor-teacher - but they are more commonly listed as separate items.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 4:11:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Whoever speaks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Whoever renders service&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be argued that not all of these are spiritual gifts - some might be better referred to as roles or activities; also different versions of the Bible will use slightly different wording for some of these so it's important to look into the context and meaning of the relevant passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, there are other places in the Bible where spiritual gifts are mentioned, but not necessarily as part of a list. A good example is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of&#xA;  Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him&#xA;  with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with&#xA;  knowledge and with all kinds of skills— to make artistic designs for&#xA;  work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in&#xA;  wood, and to engage in all kinds of crafts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2031:1-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 31:1-5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then there are other gifts, in such as abilities, talents and more (a good example being someone who is musically gifted); it's next to impossible to really give a definitive list because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 1:17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2012-01-04T13:16:24.177" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T13:16:24.177" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5189" CreationDate="2012-01-03T15:29:04.213" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, it's interesting to note that in John 8:12, Jesus says, 'I [Jesus] am the light of the world,&quot; but here he says that &quot;You [the Jewish followers of Jesus listening to Him at that time] are the light of the world.&quot;  One understanding of this is that Jesus is the light source, while we are the light rays.  Another way to understand it is that Jesus is the first candle, and each of us are candles that are lit by His flame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the Jewish people were given the revelation of God in order to be a testimony to the world, and indeed God used them to be that in Egypt (Exodus - &quot;that the Egyptians will know there I am the Lord&quot;), in the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires through the lives of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and in various other ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:9 indicates that Jesus gives light to all people.  John 3:19 indicates that light has come into the world, but many people have rejected the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it seems the light is using a physical reality to demonstrate a spiritual reality.  The light, then, probably refers to the revelation of God.  Jesus was the revelation of God, as He states in John 17. We also are called to testify to the glory of God, so that a people living in darkness can see a great light and come to God in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T15:29:04.213" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2517" CreationDate="2012-01-03T16:22:46.497" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does 'begotten' mean in the context of John 3:16 and 4:9?  According to the dictionary we have only two meanings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A. Procreate or generate offspring. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;B. Cause to be produced.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have a logical issue in relation to Jesus' eternal nature.  If A, then he is not eternally existing, and did not exist before bring born to Mary and God.  If B, he is a caused entity and therefore did not exist before being caused to exist by God, and hence not eternally existing again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Better minds may have an answer to this conundrum.  We have the same logical issue if we take the Greek text of John 3:16 and 4:9 (as others have shown above) to mean 'only Child' or 'only Son' and look at the definitions of Child or Son.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course we could avoid the question by saying our languages are incapable of explaining Jesus' nature, but it seems such a crucial matter of faith ought to be explainable in words and not be so semantically and logically difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastEditorUserId="1137" LastEditDate="2012-01-03T16:41:51.460" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T16:41:51.460" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5197" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15205" CreationDate="2012-01-03T16:28:55.293" Score="13" ViewCount="4469" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of those attributes of God is his ability to be everywhere at all times.  I'm not debating that it is an attribute of his, I'm just wondering how we know that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask, because I've been going through a question of my own recently - If God is omnipresent, how can hell exist?  After all, hell is by definition, that one place that God is not. But, if God is everywhere, how can there be a place that he is not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My favorite answer to that question comes from C.S. Lewis' &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/em&gt;, in which he describes hell not as a place of fire and brimstone, but rather an infinitely empty, substance-lacking smallness.  The journey from hell to heaven that his characters make is not from &quot;down&quot; to &quot;up&quot; from rather from &quot;small&quot; to &quot;big&quot; and &quot;weak&quot; to &quot;strong.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really like using that idea of hell, since it seemingly answers the idea that hell is merely a place that is, itself, so small and insubstantial that it isn't God's lack of presence, but rather its own insignificance that causes God's presence to feel so lacking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to test that assertion, however, I want to make sure that I am correctly stating the postulate - namely that God really can be everywhere at all times. What is its biblical basis, and does God presence exist in hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-08-06T06:04:12.583" LastActivityDate="2020-08-06T06:04:12.583" Title="Does God's omnipresence extend to hell?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;omniprescence&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2517" CreationDate="2012-01-03T16:44:26.843" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess this is why the Nicene Creed says that Jesus &quot;was begotten not made.&quot;  If Jesus was made, then there is the possibility that God could make other sons.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To hold that Jesus was made in the same sense that Lucifer was made can thus be safely at least declared &quot;non-orthodox&quot; and out of keeping with orthodox Christianity, at least as it has been defined since 325 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Mormon, of course, will object that the Nicene Creed wasn't given by revelation.  That may be true, but it still puts them at odds with 1700 years of Christian scholarship, and so in my mind, at least raises the bar / puts the ball in their court to prove otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ask: Who made Lucifer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's digress for a second and ask who made Lucifer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As John 1:3 reminds us, there was nothing made that Jesus did not make.  Thus, the question is &quot;Is Lucifer a created being?&quot;  If the answer to that question is yes, then Jesus (via 1:14) made Satan and not God.  As such, John 1:3 must be wrong or they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus made Satan, Jesus is Satan's father - not his brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God would at best be his grandfather, although as stated above, orthodox Christianity states Jesus was begotten not made. In any event, Jesus and Satan can't both have been made by God, since all things that were made were made by Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they say 'No, Lucifer was not a created being,&quot; then ask them how Satan is not co-equal to God.  If they assert that he is, they are Gnostics, as evidenced by their dualism.  Paul clearly calls Gnostics heretics.  I think you are on safe ground then calling them the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-03T16:59:07.943" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T16:59:07.943" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5197" CreationDate="2012-01-03T17:12:45.420" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In reading your question, I don't think the issue at hand is God's omnipresence at all. Frankly it's not a terribly important doctrine in the first place and while I think one could make a case for it from Scipture, I think it's a little forced. Much more importantly, the Scripture states the reverse quite plainly, that all things are in and held together by God/Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:16-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:16-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This includes hell. The problem with your question is not the doctrine of omnipresence, but the doctrine of hell. You state:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After all, hell is by definition, that one place that God is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But where does that idea come from in the Bible? &lt;strong&gt;The problem with hell is that God is there!&lt;/strong&gt; It is where God pours out his eternal judgement on all things evil. This is a part of his nature and God's wrath will be a very present reality of hell for all eternity. While we can't paint an exact picture of hell, we do have have some fairly vivid and specific descriptions of the way God is involved in punishment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2014:9-11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 14:9-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, &lt;sup&gt;10&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and &lt;strong&gt;in the presence of the Lamb&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;11&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is different about it there is that it is a place separated from his grace. Neither the general grace that rains on the just and the unjust alike on this earth nor his specific graces experienced by believers will be experienced there. Folks will be separated from those aspects of God. He is only holding back his hand for a time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-03-27T17:00:54.490" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T17:00:54.490" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5197" CreationDate="2012-01-03T17:53:51.590" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd agree with Caleb here.  God exists even in hell.  Theologically I am not sure how God is able to be omnipresent, just that it is one of God's attributes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scientifically, one theory that holds promise is String Theory which implies that all in the past, present and future may exist at once.  And God may be able to exist not only everywhere but at all times!  I realize I am possibly muddling things up by bringing science in here, but so be it :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T17:53:51.590" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5136" CreationDate="2012-01-03T18:14:30.730" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can take compatible in a number of directions and the answers, accordingly, varies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Compatible meaning theologically interchangeable - answer is no, clearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. Compatible means holding similar doctrines - answer is no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C. Compatible means holding similar values - answer is USUALLY yes.  Just look at the values espoused in Buddhism and Hinduism, not to mention Judaism and Islam.  I'd say very similar in terms of the Golden rule, kindness, purity, loyalty, respect for authority, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other directions we could go in as well, and the answer would change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-03T18:58:07.937" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T18:58:07.937" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2302" CreationDate="2012-01-03T20:19:58.717" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the answer is obvious, in logical term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We Christians believe that God created everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God is the ultimate reference and authority for everything. He created the world with his standards. He is justice himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this perspective, God not being just is illogical, because it would require an higher authority under which God could be found &quot;wrong&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God could only be felt &quot;injust&quot; by creatures standards, which are automatically inferior to God justice (and thus flawed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A comparison would be when you (rightfully) punish a child and he says &quot;that's not just&quot;. People who dealt with children know what I mean ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Addition : a &lt;strong&gt;false&lt;/strong&gt; representation of God could be found injust. The true justice is said to be seeded in every man's soul by God. Against this higher, truer sense of justice coming from God himself, a false representation of God could be rightfully found injust. This should stimulate a real truth seeker to &quot;clean&quot; his representation of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1138" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-03T21:42:57.880" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T21:42:57.880" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5197" CreationDate="2012-01-03T20:54:12.373" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, God's omnipresence is logical under the assumption that God created everything, which Christians hold to be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God created everything, nothing can exist out of God will. Things only exist if God wants them to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anything that exists is automatically &quot;eternal&quot; (in God's reference-frame, as opposed to our human reference-frame) because, as pieces of God will, they cannot be made void (which would require God to forget about them in an absolute sense, which is impossible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I understand, Hell is not a &lt;em&gt;place&lt;/em&gt; but more a &lt;em&gt;state&lt;/em&gt; of a soul where it consciously rejects God while knowing who He is and of God respecting the soul's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure you already encountered once in your life a person who was proven wrong and still held to his statement despite all evidences and &lt;strike&gt;matching&lt;/strike&gt; refuting testimony. You know how painful it is to see (because you know that this person knows they are wrong) and that it ultimately comes from stubborn pride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now imagine the private judgment at the time of death, and a person consciously choosing to reject God's presence rather than humiliate himself and admit that he has been wrong and that others were right. Add to that the perfect knowledge that they are wrong. Add to that the knowledge that the choice has been made once for all and can not be undone. Add to that the knowledge that the are the source of their state because God would have forgiven them everything immediately if they had asked. Add to that the hate that they feel towards God and toward themselves because they know that it's their own fault. Now put them with fallen &quot;friends&quot; that made them become like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think God &quot;omnipresence&quot; even in hell is not impossible. I would make a difference between &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; presence, and &lt;em&gt;relational&lt;/em&gt; presence. You can have someone in the same room (or lift/elevator) but ignore it completely. You can have a boss in your company. The company would not run without him, but you may never see him or speak with him. It's &lt;em&gt;relational&lt;/em&gt; presence that is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About God &lt;em&gt;relational presence&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On earth, God presence cannot be felt completely because our limited capabilities.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On earth, someone can have more God presence if he truly wants it and God gives it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On earth, someone can do the opposite.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In &quot;heaven&quot;, God presence will be full, leading to infinite happiness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In &quot;hell&quot;, God presence (relational) will be null, with opposite effect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1138" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2012-01-04T21:27:39.053" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T21:27:39.053" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5197" CreationDate="2012-01-03T21:44:22.393" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an interesting question, indeed.  We speak of omnipresence from the perspective of the physical, yet the Bible reveals that God is outside of the physical universe--God is spirit.  He created the physical universe, but exists apart from it.  He certainly entered into it as well in the incarnation and the Spirit indwells the spirits of believers everywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;God is spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, and those who worship him must worship in spirit&#xA;  and truth.”  John 4:24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible clearly presents God as omnipresent, yet this is quite possibly in a spiritual sense rather than a physical one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hell is actually the place where people are specifically separated from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from[a]&#xA;  the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might... 2&#xA;  Thessalonians 1:9 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how could God be omnipresent and at the same time be separated from those in hell?  It seems that separation does not necessitate isolation.  When we experience conflict with another person, we could be standing right next to them, but be completely separated from them relationally.  Perhaps the same is true of hell and those who are there.  The presence of God need not be absent for there to be separation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-03T21:44:22.393" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2302" CreationDate="2012-01-04T04:41:19.717" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h2&gt;Matt 5:48&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God is perfect, that means in every way possible. In justice, in mercy, in love, in reward, in punishment, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is the ultimate example in everything! So how could he be an unjust god, and yet maintain his perfection in all things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="433" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T04:41:19.717" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4789" CreationDate="2012-01-04T16:22:24.297" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being born with a &quot;sin nature&quot; is very different from being born a &quot;sinner.&quot; Having a &quot;sin nature&quot; means it is natural for you to want to sin, but being a &quot;sinner&quot; means you actually do it. We get tempted to sin and sometimes we fall into the temptation, other times we don't. Since we have all fallen into a temptation to sin at some point, we are all sinners. That is what separates Jesus as sinless: though he was tempted (Mt 4:1-11), he never fell into those temptations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T16:22:24.297" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5209" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-04T17:35:33.520" Score="13" ViewCount="35299" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did the devil go after Eve and not Adam?&#xA;Was it because Eve was weaker than Adam?&#xA;Why didn't the devil tempt Adam first?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1140" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-07T12:22:00.040" LastActivityDate="2014-07-01T08:43:15.370" Title="Why did the devil tempt Eve first?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-09-30T15:16:02.727" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5209" CreationDate="2012-01-04T18:14:58.683" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that Eve was created as a helper to Adam and created from Adam. As a being created from Adam, Eve would have, in a sense, been further removed from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many ancient civilizations - including the one(s) to which the book of Genesis was written* - had the concept of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iep.utm.edu/emanatio/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;emanations&lt;/a&gt; which basically subscribe to the idea that created things are subject to, and hence weaker than, the thing from which they are created.  Adam being directly created by God would have been &quot;closer&quot; to God than Eve, and hence a &quot;harder&quot; target.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note this isn't a physical, spiritual, or even a maturity thing. Its totally foreign to modern ears - its just the idea that Adam would have been &quot;the firstborn of creation&quot; and Eve wasn't. You don't attack the prince, you attack the prince's helper, and hope to get to the prince, and eventually the king.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I'm a little bit concerned about opening a can of worms here.  Did the Holy Spirit dictate the Scripture or was it a product of the cultures in which it was written?  I actively don't want to open that can of worms.  What I can say is this - the Jewish cultures to whom the Word was first given (whether that would have been as they were fleeing the Egyptians, when they were in the Kingdom, or as part of the Babylonian exile) all would have understood / subscribed to this concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also get a little bit concerned, because while this concept is seen throughout Scripture, it is a mostly Helenistic idea, incorporated into the thinking of those who received the Word.  If the writers of Scripture are simply human, then one would say this was simply part of the background of the writer. If the Holy Spirit is the sole writer of the Word, you could argue, hermeneutically, that he was simply conveying the information in ways that the people would have understood, or it simply could have been that's just the way it was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to stay objective and give an answer that is consistent with as many of these strains of thought as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**N.B.  The term 'logos' actually comes from this idea of an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newtestamentmadeeasy.com/emanation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;emanation&lt;/a&gt; - the Logos is the Word that was directly from God, was with God, and ultimately was God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-04T20:13:58.410" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T20:13:58.410" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5175" CreationDate="2012-01-04T18:23:14.863" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether or not God &lt;em&gt;wanted&lt;/em&gt; to destroy Israel may be overstating the case. He may have felt he had to, in order to maintain his justness.  My answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5185/why-does-god-resort-to-genocide-and-destruction&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; would be the same answer in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that Moses &quot;reminds&quot; God of God's own nature is keeping with the tradition of Abraham interceding for Sodom. God understands that he is compelled to show justice.  But, if those for whom he must be just intercede to request mercy, God may be less obligated to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T18:23:14.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5209" CreationDate="2012-01-04T18:38:13.017" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;(assuming a literal Genesis interpretation) Genesis gives (to the best of my knowledge) no mention of a reason here. In the lack of further supporting scripture, &quot;why not?&quot; is probably as good a reason as any. Since no scriptural basis exists, one could just put it down to convenience: she was nearby and &lt;s&gt;alone&lt;/s&gt; available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T07:35:05.487" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T07:35:05.487" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5209" CreationDate="2012-01-04T19:35:58.927" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason for Eve being tempted very likely has little to do with her gender. She was admiring the tree and the snake (Satan) tempted her. Non-christian apocryphal texts (there is a link &lt;a href=&quot;http://sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) often paint Eve as weak against temptation, but these documents are not accepted as canon by any of the major christian denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1141" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T07:36:02.117" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T07:36:02.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5209" CreationDate="2012-01-04T20:28:40.943" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It must be noted that the Bible never explicitly answers this question, so our answer has to come from related observations we make from the text.  However, we must admit that these observations are not explicitly taught from the Scriptures, so we must not be emphatic where the Scriptures are not.  It is important, then, to identify what it is that we do know and what it is that we do not know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do know that the prohibition from eating the fruit of the tree was directly given to Adam by God prior to the creation of Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work&#xA;  it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You&#xA;  may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 &lt;strong&gt;but of the tree of&#xA;  the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat&lt;/strong&gt;, for in the day&#xA;  that you eat of it you shall surely die.” 18 &lt;strong&gt;Then&lt;/strong&gt; the LORD God&#xA;  said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a&#xA;  helper fit for[e] him.”  Genesis 2:15-18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible never indicates how Eve learned about the command.  We do not know whether God repeated the command to her after He created her or whether Adam passed it on to her.  We do know that she seems to be aware of the command during the temptation, although her statement of it differs from that which was given to Adam--Eve adds the part about not touching it.  She also fails to call the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil by its name, referring to it simply as the tree in the middle of the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, perhaps Eve received the command secondhand and wasn't as certain about it as Adam was.  Again, we don't know for sure, but this is at least a possibility.  If so, then it is reasonable to assume that Satan saw Eve as the one more susceptible to deception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do know that by deceiving Eve, though, that Satan got two for one.  He had to deceive Eve, but Adam willingly followed her into sin, despite not being deceived.  Eve seems to not have understood what she was doing, but it seems that Adam actually did--and did it anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a&#xA;  transgressor.&quot;  1 Timothy 2:14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Adam had been the first to sin, we do not know if Eve would have followed.  Perhaps so.  We do know, however, that Adam did follow Eve into sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be suggested that Eve's weakness was uncertainty, while Adam's weakness was Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, we don't know for sure, but we can make some observations about the text and draw some possible explanations to answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T20:28:40.943" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4940" CreationDate="2012-01-04T21:25:49.603" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much of the debate around this issue occurs over two separate but connected portions. The salvation of a believer that confesses to Jesus Christ and how such a confession affects the believer's mortal life. Free Grace theology would view these conditions in that a believer is written into the Book of Life at the moment of a true, heartfelt confession. In this line of thinking, a true confession would be one that was always followed by proper christian behavior and beliefs and if it was not, then the confession was not true or even possibly a lie or mistake. Amongst other protestant theology a person can have a true conversion experience before Christ but then falter. In this case they believe that the original confession was valid, but the person failed to live uprightly afterwards. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The crux of this argument really lies in whether or not a person who falters after conversion can be considered to have true committed themselves in the first place. Your view on this completely changes the view of passages such as this and what they mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that both theologies require that a person who obtains salvation to live a Christ-like life. Free Grace Theology does not grant permission for a person to continue their sinful life after conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1141" LastActivityDate="2012-01-04T21:25:49.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5185" CreationDate="2012-01-05T01:07:17.487" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer draws heavily on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310275466&amp;amp;QueryStringSite=Zondervan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The God I Don't Understand&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by Christopher J. H. Wright.  Part II specifically asks &quot;What about the Canaanites?&quot;, but the answer addresses the bigger issue as well. He suggests the following improper approaches, which he labels as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Dead Ends&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;It's an Old Testament problem which the New Testament puts right&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trouble with this approach is that it's a problem in the Old Testament too (God has always been a God of love) and the New Testament does not seem to stand against Old Testament stories.  In fact, our doctrines of punishment of sin and the wrath of God are largely fleshed out in the Christian texts, not the Jewish ones.  Jesus expounded on the doctrine of hell more than any other Biblical figure.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Israelites thought it was what God commanded, but they were wrong&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Dr. Wright, the conquest of Canaan was never labeled as a mistake in the Bible, but is &quot;anticipated, commanded, achieved, and remembered as something that &lt;em&gt;accomplished&lt;/em&gt; God's will.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is all meant as an allegory of spiritual warfare&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not this view is correct, actual people died and violence was committed against them.  It might help us to sleep better, but it doesn't take away the pain, suffering and loss of life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next he suggests directions that might not provide a satisfactory answer, but do give us a way to think more accurately about God's actions.  He calls these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Frameworks&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Framework of the Old Testament Story&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Ancient Near East, boasts of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/4112/3252&quot;&gt;complete extermination&lt;/a&gt; of entire peoples were common.  However, the boasts were usually overblown&amp;mdash;at least if you expect it to mean genocide or &quot;ethnic cleansing&quot;.  Generally, the boast simply meant the people's strongholds and cities were destroyed.  More specifically, the Hebrew word God used to condemn the various nations was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herem_%28war_or_property%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;herem&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, which can be translated &lt;code&gt;ban&lt;/code&gt;.  It meant that everything attacked in battle was to be dedicated to God and therefore burned or destroyed.  The Israelites could not profit from these conflict either so as acknowledgement of God's role in the victory or to avoid contamination by foreign gods (or both).  In any case, the destruction was limited to specific events and there have been no new commands from God to &lt;em&gt;herem&lt;/em&gt; a people since the time of Joshua.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Framework of God's sovereign justice&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this view, the Canaanites were particularly wicked in culture and religion.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 15:16&lt;/a&gt;, for instance, makes a cryptic remark about Abram's offspring not returning to the promised land until the iniquity of the Amorites is complete.  It wasn't that the Israelites were particularly righteous.  In fact they functioned in part as God's tool of correction, just as God used the Assyrians and the Babylonians as punishment for the sins of Israel later on.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Framework of God's plan of salvation&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. Wright points out that God's ultimate plan is to bring peace to the nations.  If you think of Yahweh as a god bent on destruction, it's somewhat surprising that He does not allow David, who finally established the Kingdom of the Hebrews with military might, to build His temple.  He specifically calls out the blood on David's hands as the reason David can't build the temple.  Over and over, the Bible says the one of God's goals with Israel (and the temple) is to bless the nations.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Psalm+47/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 47&lt;/a&gt; even encourages people everywhere to praise God for putting the nations under Israel's feet.  It turns out the Jebusites were not completely eliminated, but over time were integrated into the nation of Israel.  Women, such as Rahab, Naomi and Ruth were not only brought into the Hebrew people, but were actually part of the lineages of David and Jesus.  Somehow, and it's not clear to me exactly how, God used these violent events to bring about the salvation of all nations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's good that we are uncomfortable with the idea that God would use Israel (or anything or anyone else) cause destruction and violence.  The Bible is clear, however, that He did consider the destruction of the Canaanites (and the Sodomites and the Egyptians and the pre-deluge peoples) to accomplish His purposes.  Dr. Wright's book gives us a few ways to think about the problem that are not completely satisfactory, but at least are Biblical and point us in the right direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:46:42.840" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T01:07:17.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3721" CreationDate="2012-01-05T02:19:54.857" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think bonus question 2 is from George Muller. Look for his autobiography, in which he talks about his devotional practice. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Devotions/Devotions020.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Devotions/Devotions020.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1142" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T02:19:54.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5189" CreationDate="2012-01-05T13:06:41.030" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most definite references I found are in&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%205:8b-10&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5&#xA;8b-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in&#xA;all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases&#xA;the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and it continues in verses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%205:15-16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;15-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise,&#xA;making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fruits of the light indicate the light to be the holy spirit ('same fruit'). But it is the holy spirit who gives us spiritual gifts and talents. He is God living in us. Believers are different people, as their actions differ from the understanding of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there is this reference in&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 1:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...which without doubt states the light is God. Maybe it's easier to refer to it as any part of the holy trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, in answer to your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;light&lt;/strong&gt; ⇔ Holy Spirit, God, Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;shining&lt;/em&gt; (light)&lt;/strong&gt; ⇔ talents, spiritual gifts, God living in us&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1121" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user1121" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T19:35:03.770" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5220" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5230" CreationDate="2012-01-05T13:37:50.247" Score="12" ViewCount="887" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, one of the attributes of God that provided the most comfort to many people was his unchanging nature - God is &quot;the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.&quot; (Hebrews 13:8) Additionally, Malachi 3:3 says, &quot;I am the Lord, I do not change.&quot; and Numbers 23:19 reminds us that God is not a man, and thus does not &quot;repent&quot;.  This doctrine of God's immutability gave solace to those, frankly, frightened of a changing world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there are places where God &quot;changes his mind&quot; (Exodus 32 / Numbers 16) and even &quot;regrets&quot; making humanity (Genesis 6:6 - translated repents in the KJV!) but fundamentally the question is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the God of the Bible change and grow, as say, a progressive theologian (or is that process theologian I forget!) would maintain, or is God's constancy his defining characteristic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-05T14:13:10.220" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T17:34:25.550" Title="Does God change?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2326" CreationDate="2012-01-05T14:06:57.250" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 9 answers your question directly.  The death of Christ is required, because &amp;quot;without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using a legal metaphor (and the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is nothing if not a legal metaphor), the transaction that Jesus makes is literally a blood covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because &amp;quot;the wages of sin is death&amp;quot; (Romans 6:23), there must be a death to pay the wage of that sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;blood of Christ&amp;quot; (and trust me, you can't have a Baptist song without the blood of Christ!) pays that wage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The power of Christ overcomes death (1 Cor 15:54) because Jesus first died and then overcame death. Without death, there cannot be resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short Christ's death pays the penalty. Christ's resurrection gives us power to overcome death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T14:06:57.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5220" CreationDate="2012-01-05T14:08:37.727" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Open Theism&lt;/a&gt; says, &quot;yes,&quot; as do a few other belief systems I can't recall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say, &quot;no.&quot; If God were to change, then there would be some timeline (not necessarily the one we age through) that He was subject to and there would be some governing set of rules that governed God's mutability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To view this problem from another angle, if God changes, then there is some element of creation that He either does not control or is unaware of. A knowledge that is beyond Him. He ceases to be all and is subject to either entirely to this other source of knowledge or the concept of God is now distributed between God and the other holder of knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that's helpful. It's a bit more philosophy than exegesis. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for that particular passages you're referring to, they are typically interpreted as God acting in human terms. When Moses or Abraham contend with God and He relents, it should be taken as the author intends it, to show God's condescension to His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1144" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T14:08:37.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5197" CreationDate="2012-01-05T14:16:52.173" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the premise is inaccurate. &quot;Present with God&quot; is used in the Bible to mean being in Heaven. This does not mean that those who are not regenerate are not also before God in some capacity. In fact, Mike Horton has said in a White Horse Inn broadcast this year that God saves us, essentially, from Himself. Hell is, in my reading, the presence of God apart from the effective work of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1144" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T14:16:52.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5225" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-05T15:49:56.900" Score="6" ViewCount="946" Body="&lt;p&gt;I attended a class on the Sacraments last night and the presenter was talking about how Bishops, priests and deacons were specifically mentioned in the NT. It made me wonder, how did Christians get their start putting constant and unchanging liturgical elements into their worship?  Most of all, how did early Christian presbyters learn to sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not asking so much how did newly minted Christians go from believers to those called to act &quot;In persona Christi&quot; as that's the work of the Holy Spirit and a direct reaction to Jesus' commands, but how did ordinary folks adopt the standards and practices for worship that were common only to the Levitical Priesthood?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did they do it in imitation or were there actual Jewish Priests who converted and instructed the first Christian priests?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-08T03:29:23.977" LastActivityDate="2012-05-20T17:03:45.987" Title="Why did priests begin to sacrifice?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;mass&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2012-01-05T19:15:55.777" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story in Genesis is 100% clear about what &quot;day&quot; means--- it means a day, like in normal language, and it should not be reinterpreted in light of scientific discoveries. It is not scientifically accurate, but reflects the false beliefs of that era, much like everything else in the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The creation story has the following phases:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God creates the earth and the sky, light, day and night.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God beats out a celestial dome, and puts this dome over the (flat) Earth, and puts some water above the sky-dome and some water below.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God pools the water under the sky-dome into seas, and leaves dry land.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God puts plants on the dry-land&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gods puts animals and fish, birds under the sky dome&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God makes people&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Done&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis, the universe is consistently divided into three parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;sky&quot;, which is a big dome made out of a malleable beat out substance, covering our heads with water on top of it, water that leaks down as rain.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A flat square Earth with four corners below, with sea generally covering the western part and land to the east.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An infinite sea below called &quot;the abyss&quot;, which extends downward forever.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the bible, the words &quot;Tehom&quot; (Abyss) is used to describe the infinite watery sea below. The word &quot;Sheol&quot; describes a similar idea of the underworld. An interesting quote is from Issac or Jacob, before he dies, he says &quot;Oh breasts up above, watery abyss below&quot;, which suggests that the sky is considered like the breasts, and the abyss like the womb, thinking of the universe as a gigantic fertility symbol woman type thing. That might also be what the mysterious &quot;El-Shaddai&quot; means (God of my-breast(s)), it might mean &quot;God of the Sky&quot;, where the sky is the breasts of the woman-figure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These ideas are normal everyday 10th century BC cosmology, and it is essentially the Babylonian conception of the universe. If you impose an anachronistic scientifically accurate rereading of Genesis, it stops making sense, and becomes a lot less interesting or readable. The stories are not meant to be read with a modern picture in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T19:15:55.777" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5136" CreationDate="2012-01-05T19:50:14.297" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends which angle you're looking at it from. &lt;em&gt;Is Paganism compatible with Christianity?&lt;/em&gt; is, to be frank, a hopelessly vague question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paganism is a very broad category. Most Pagans would accept Jesus as a deity. A few might include him in the their personal Pantheon. Most wouldn't. It is certainly possible, though, for a Pagan to do reverence to Jesus within a Pagan context. From that perspective, yes, they are compatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is also a broad category. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Many Christian traditions are unashamedly borrowed from Pagan sources&lt;/a&gt;. There are aspects of Easter which are drawn from a spring fertility festival, and Christmas and Halowe'en also show signs of Pagan influence. Various customs and rituals (such as churches being oriented toward the sunrise) may also have a Pagan origin. Does that mean that Paganism is &quot;compatible with&quot; Christianity? Well, it certainly means that some traditions are compatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really, the problem here is that your question is very poorly defined. There's no good clue as to what you're actually asking. I've answered two questions. I suspect that neither is the question you're actually asking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's move on. It's not just traditions and rituals which are derived from Pagan sources. Some Christian beliefs are, too. As an example, the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke developed a story that Jesus was born of a virgin, with accompanying signs and wonders. Why did they tell this tale? Because it was, at the time, part of the standard mythos of a hero. Mithras was born of a virgin. Julius Caesar was born of a virgin. In fact, here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a list I nabbed from somewhere&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Julius Caesar, Augustus, Aristomenes, Alexander the Great, Plato, Cyrus, the elder Scipio, some of the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Buddha, Hermes, Mithra, Attis-Adonis, Hercules, Cybele, Demeter, Leo, and Vulcan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actual Christian beliefs taken from Pagan sources are, of course, a more contentious matter, since many Christians will disagree about the origins of these stories. Looking at religion at the outside, as a series of memes borrowed and reshuffled, this seems pretty clear. We borrow beliefs from the broader society in which we find ourselves. That's how these things work. It's how we all work. We could not be otherwise and yet be human. The Trinity doctrine, for example, is frankly weird, and there's vanishingly little evidence that it was part of Christianity in the first century. And yet now the vast majority of Christians accept it and call it a defining part of their faith. Again, it was borrowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that make Christianity &quot;compatible&quot; with Paganism? Well, the word &lt;em&gt;compatible&lt;/em&gt; remains hopelessly ill-defined in this context, so I can't say. I suspect not. A mere convergence of belief in certain specific areas, however those beliefs are derived, is not the same as &quot;compatibility&quot;, by most definitions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me put that another way. Christians have a religious framework which prioritises belief over practice, which presents a hierarchical view of the universe, and which is history oriented. Pagans, by and large, have a religious framework which prioritises practice over belief*, which has a far less hierarchical view of the universe, and which is more cyclically oriented. They are very very different. If in certain specific areas, they have a couple of beliefs or traditions in common, they are no less different overall. I don't know what definition of &lt;em&gt;compatible&lt;/em&gt; you're using, but by most definitions, Paganism and Christianity are incompatible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* Pagans with very different beliefs can participate in the same rituals; Pagans with very similar beliefs may have incompatible rituals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T19:50:14.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5220" CreationDate="2012-01-05T21:26:26.913" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historical Christian teaching says that God is perfect.  If he were to change, that would make him not perfect.  Or else it would mean that he wasn't yet perfect, and had to change to become perfect.  Therefore, if God changes, he is not perfect; if he is perfect, he does not change.  It also implies time -- there was a time that he was something different than he is now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References to God changing his mind have appeared to me to be a literary device, or a way of explaining things that we can understand.  Change implies time, as Sam notes, and since we are in time, we can really only understand things within time.  By describing God as changing his mind, it is describing him within time, but also in a way that we can understand.  That is not because he does change, but because there is no way for us to understand what is really happening outside of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For another example of time based words for something outside of time, consider the concept of the Son proceeding from the Father, or the Father begatting the Son.  Those words imply time, and yet are used to describe something eternal and outside of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastActivityDate="2012-01-05T21:26:26.913" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5231" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5235" CreationDate="2012-01-06T06:09:31.847" Score="4" ViewCount="364" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which languages did Huldrych Zwingli know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, he knew Latin and, of course, he knew his own mother tongue (which was German or Romanch?), but did he know some other languages? I am especially interested in whether he knew Hebrew or Greek.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-08-10T12:39:10.527" LastActivityDate="2016-08-10T12:39:10.527" Title="Which languages did Huldrych Zwingli know?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;zwingli&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2012-08-23T17:27:43.840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5232" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5234" CreationDate="2012-01-06T06:21:58.893" Score="7" ViewCount="4016" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that Martin Luther knew Latin and German, but did he know other languages? For example, did he know Greek or Hebrew (I mean those Greek and Hebrew that the Bible is written in)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-12T02:34:15.160" LastActivityDate="2020-03-22T12:19:38.937" Title="Did Martin Luther know Hebrew or Greek?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5220" CreationDate="2012-01-06T07:58:45.413" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the question of God's immutability must be considered as two distinct questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the shared concept of God which is acknowledged by religious people of a Christian tradition (or a Muslim, Jewish, or Samaritan tradition), at least those that tend to agree that they are talking about the same thing, one of an immutable thing?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is God, as described in the Bible, the figure of Yahweh, an immutable character in His descriptions?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two questions are not the same, since the Bible is only a finite collection of symbols, and it is impossible to capture an infinitely complex notion with a finite character string. I think the answer to the first question is &quot;yes&quot;, because the notion of God is outside of space and time, as an abstract figure in an external realm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An analogy might be made with the notion of &quot;integer&quot;, or of &quot;shape&quot;. Both of these are outside of space and time, they live in the world of mathematical objects. They are described in Euclid's elements, and in modern mathematical textbooks in different ways. Does this mean that the concept of &quot;17&quot; changed between ancient times and today? Not really. It simply reflects that the notion of integer is infinite and infinitely rich, and we discover new aspects of this notion with time, so that we describe them in a different way today. It does not invalidate Euclid to say that we now can conceive of a larger world of shape and integers than Euclid could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, the notion of God has evolved. Within the Catholic tradition, people say the same thing by saying that revelation is gradual, that new aspects of God are revealed in time (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=S2_eiONVgBMC&amp;amp;pg=PA192&amp;amp;lpg=PA192&amp;amp;dq=gradual+revelation&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=9olXtqjxkJ&amp;amp;sig=dS-mw_U6Vrcrr3HnScvUCEKIR8w&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=BQkHT9-ZCIzoggeW79G2Ag&amp;amp;ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=gradual%20revelation&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gregory of Nazianzu's position on the gradual  revelation of the Trinity&lt;/a&gt;, from revealing the Father in the old testament, to the Son in the Gospels, to the Holy Spirit active in individuals, which has the capacity to inform those in the Church of Divine opinion regarding new developments), so that the conception of God is gradually enriched. This means that things that were once considered the word of God, like the rules governing slaves and multiple wives, are replaced with different rules in context, like the rules of not permitting slavery and polygamy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not clear to me that the concept of God in the old and new testaments, with its authoritarian tone of submission to state authority and its disrespect for pagan belief systems and their complex artwork, is optimal for the ethical concerns which are most pressing in our day. For example, when the Taliban wrecked those Buddhas of Baminyan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan), they claimed to be acting in God's service. But it's one thing to break an idol used for human sacrifice and another to shatter an image that reflects a deep meditative tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-12T03:53:28.690" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T03:53:28.690" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5232" CreationDate="2012-01-06T09:38:09.783" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luther did translate the bible to what is known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luther Bible&lt;/a&gt; from old Greek, old Hebrew and Aramaic sources - not the latin translations that were widely used with the catholic church in Germany.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the two hints from the wikipedia article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He used Erasmus' second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament, known as the Textus Receptus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[...] by 1534 he completed his translation of the old and new testaments from Hebrew and Greek into the vernacular [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther was more familiar with Hebrew &lt;del&gt;Greek&lt;/del&gt; than with Greek &lt;del&gt;Hebrew&lt;/del&gt; which is why his translations received help by others - especially Philipp Melanchthon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther must have known at least German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1121" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user1121" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T11:13:48.480" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5231" CreationDate="2012-01-06T11:58:15.923" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would be highly unusual for a major theologian of that (or any) erra (and certainly for any of the Protestant reformers) to not have at least some familiarity with the source languages of the texts they studied and taught from. Also, Latin is pretty much a given for any scholar of that time whether at a seminary or in any other field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A little background reading from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli#Early_years_.281484.E2.80.931518.29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia makes this comment&lt;/a&gt; about the time of one of his early posts as pastor. In other words he clearly studied Greek early on, then during his first tenure as pastor also took up Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He perfected his Greek and he took up the study of Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Digging a little further, it seems clear that his Hebrew must have been more than a smattering. At one point in his education he was required to translate texts from Hebrew to Latin and Greek and make commentary on it as part of devotionals five days a week. We also find he had at various times at least two qualified tutors in Hebrew, one of which was the author of a Hebrew grammar book of the time. (Source: &lt;em&gt;Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment&lt;/em&gt; by Magne Saebo and &lt;em&gt;The Swiss Reformation&lt;/em&gt; by Bruce Gordon.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seem to be plenty of sources that talk about the education he had and the abilities that those required. Try searching for things like &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=Zwingli+hebrew&amp;amp;btnG=Search+Books&amp;amp;tbm=bks&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;zwingli hebrew&lt;/em&gt; on Google Books&lt;/a&gt; for further study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-01-06T13:36:43.780" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T13:36:43.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5236" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5263" CreationDate="2012-01-06T14:01:25.387" Score="4" ViewCount="1612" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it true that Martin Luther never considered the works of the early Church Fathers while he was developing and defending his teaching?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the list of some of those Fathers (from Wikipedia):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Apostolic Fathers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1.1 Saint Clement of Rome&#xA;1.2 Saint Ignatius of Antioch&#xA;1.3 Saint Polycarp of Smyrna&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Greek Fathers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;2.1 Saint Irenaeus of Lyons&#xA;2.2 Saint Clement of Alexandria&#xA;2.3 Origen of Alexandria&#xA;2.4 Saint Athanasius of Alexandria&#xA;2.5 Cappadocian Fathers&#xA;2.6 Saint Cyril of Alexandria&#xA;2.7 Saint John Chrysostom&#xA;2.8 Saint Maximus the Confessor&#xA;2.9 Saint John of Damascus&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 Latin Fathers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;3.1 Tertullian&#xA;3.2 Saint Cyprian of Carthage&#xA;3.3 Saint Hilary of Poitiers&#xA;3.4 Saint Ambrose of Milan&#xA;3.5 Saint Jerome of Stridonium&#xA;3.6 Saint Augustine of Hippo&#xA;3.7 Saint Gregory the Great&#xA;3.8 Saint Isidore of Seville&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2013-03-31T14:12:02.890" Title="Is it true that Martin Luther never considered the works of the early Church Fathers?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5237" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6061" CreationDate="2012-01-06T14:07:07.140" Score="6" ViewCount="6165" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it true that Martin Luther cursed a lot and even used some bad language in his own writings? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2020-05-17T17:46:59.127" Title="Is it true that Martin Luther used some bad language in his own writings?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5238" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5240" CreationDate="2012-01-06T14:16:18.857" Score="4" ViewCount="1240" Body="&lt;p&gt;Love, compassion and mercy are typically associated with the God of the New Testament, while the God of the Old Testament is typically associated with judgment and vengeance.  However, the Bible also presents God as unchanging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the Old Testament basis for the idea that God is a God of love, compassion, and mercy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This question is seeking an answer based on a literal interpretation of Scripture.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T21:46:07.747" Title="What is the Old Testament basis for the position that God is a God of love, compassion, and mercy?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5239" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5241" CreationDate="2012-01-06T14:18:30.540" Score="8" ViewCount="817" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Testament is frequently seen as presenting a God of love, compassion and mercy, while the Old Testament is often viewed as presenting a God of judgment and vengeance.  However, the Bible collectively presents God as unchanging.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the New Testament basis that supports the idea that God is a God of judgment and vengeance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T21:18:53.953" Title="What is the New Testament basis for the idea the God is a God of judgment and vengeance?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5238" CreationDate="2012-01-06T15:34:02.637" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a host of verses to which one could look throughout all of the Old Testament, with the first being in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:8-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:8-21&lt;/a&gt;, God could've brought complete destruction on Adam and Eve, but instead showed mercy by allowing them to live and gave them a promise of a redeemer who would eventually come to destroy the serpent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:6-7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 4:6-7&lt;/a&gt; shows God having compassion on Cain &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; he killed his brother:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the LORD said to Cain, &quot;Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jump ahead to the conquest of Canaan, and see the mercy and love shown to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%202:12-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Rahab&lt;/a&gt; and her entire family (she is so important for having been saved in Jericho that she is in the human line of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Christ&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now therefore, please swear to me by the LORD, since I have dealt kindly with you, that you also will deal kindly with my father's household, and give me a pledge of truth, and spare my father and my mother and my brothers and my sisters, with all who belong to them, and deliver our lives from death.? So the men said to her, &quot;Our life for yours if you do not tell this business of ours; and it shall come about when the LORD gives us the land that we will deal kindly and faithfully with you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She's even celebrated in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011:31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;New Testament&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Daniel &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%203:28-30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;3:28-30&lt;/a&gt;, we see God's deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as having a profound impact on the king:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nebuchadnezzar responded and said, &quot;Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who has sent His angel and delivered His servants who put their trust in Him, violating the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies so as not to serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree that any people, nation or tongue that speaks anything offensive against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego shall be torn limb from limb and their houses reduced to a rubbish heap, inasmuch as there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.&quot; Then the king caused Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego to prosper in the province of Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Esther we see God strategically putting one of His people into a position of extreme influence to the King whereby He saves His people from the maniacal plans of Haman who wanted to exterminate the Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%205&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;II Kings 5&lt;/a&gt;, we see God having mercy on the captain of the Assyrian army, Naaman via the instrument of a Hebrew maid girl in his house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the Old Testament is as replete with God's mercy, love, and compassion as the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T15:34:02.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5239" CreationDate="2012-01-06T15:44:08.410" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's start with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:31-46&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:31-46&lt;/a&gt; where Jesus talks about Judgement Day whereon He will separate the sheep from the goats, casting the goats into Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:18-20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 12:18-20&lt;/a&gt;, Paul cites the extant scriptures for why Christians should not take their own vengeance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, &quot;VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,&quot; says the Lord. &quot;BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 2&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus dictates a letter to Pergamum wherein He says, &quot;Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Substantial portions of the rest of Revelation discuss God's impending judgement on the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 5&lt;/a&gt;, we see God issuing immediate punishment to Annanias and his wife Saphira for conspiring to lie to Him. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2012:20-23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 12&lt;/a&gt;, God strikes Herod for not giving Him praise, &quot;And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Himself cleanses the temple of money changers by making a whip and driving them out [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 2:15&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no &quot;inconsistency&quot; between the two &quot;halves&quot; of the Bible - it is truly one book, the record of God's work and plan of salvation throughout history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-01-10T21:18:53.953" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T21:18:53.953" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5237" CreationDate="2012-01-06T16:06:37.017" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it is, Martin Luther was after all: angry and upset at the Pope and the Catholic clergy. Some examples would be: &quot;&lt;em&gt;no sooner do I pass a motion than they smell it in rome.&lt;/em&gt; Saying in effect that Rome was a cess pool. Many times does he call Monks the &quot;&lt;em&gt;lice placed by the devil on God's almighty fur coat.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  There are of course many other things I won't repeat out of decency. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther also would curse Rome and the Pope, comparing them to villains in the bible. These phrases of themselves are not &quot;extreme&quot; by todays standards of course, however when the remarks were made they were directed at the Holy men of the time, something many people just thought as heresy. So it's easy to believe that a lot of the things he said were taken to be just so foul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1148" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T16:06:37.017" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5244" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-06T18:44:49.183" Score="3" ViewCount="391" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do you think, based on the Scriptures, about spiritual gifts tests that try to determine what your gifts are?  To me, they seem mostly bogus.  One of my main reasons for this is a lot of the questions seem to ask questions that deal with your personality.  That is, a nonchristian could answer a large portion of the questions and the test would come up with a list of their spiritual gifts, even though they don't have the Spirit.  So, it's not possible that these are spiritual gifts.  And, even for a Christian, the results may be very similar to if they had taken the test before becoming a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, why is it so important to &quot;know&quot; your spiritual gifts?  Isn't it important to know what God wants you to do and then do it, trusting in God?  That is, shouldn't we trust that if God asks us to do something that He will give us whatever we need to accomplish it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses said he wasn't a good speaker and God should send someone else.  God said that He made the mouth and He would speak through Moses.  God gave Moses even more help by saying Aaron could go with him and speak, but if you read the rest of the story, it is Moses speaking.  So, that is God's Spirit moving Moses to be able to do something he was NOT inclined to do.  If Moses filled out some spiritual gifts test, wouldn't it tell him he is not gifted in that way, and then wouldn't that give him even more doubt in his head about his ability to go?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, related to that, do we even always have the same spiritual gifts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any thoughts on this?  Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1146" LastActivityDate="2014-11-01T20:19:10.147" Title="Spiritual gifts tests" Tags="&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-11-02T01:46:14.870" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5244" CreationDate="2012-01-06T18:57:52.930" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to agree with your diagnosis: they are mostly bogus. Besides the problems you listed, they also don't tend to be particularly faithful to the Biblical definitions of the &quot;gifts&quot; in question. That being said they enjoy rather wide circulation in various parts of Christianity, with more charismatic traditions tending to hit them up a lot more frequently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To play devil's advocate for a minute, I can think of two points in their defense:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All gifts/talents are from God whether the recipient is a believer and acknowledges that or not. Even those in most adamant rebellion against God were still made in his image and have certain characteristics as a result. Likewise, during our present age on earth some of God's graces are rained down upon the just (not that any humans are more just than others, this is a references to those who have been justified by faith) and the unjust (those who haven't been).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christians often need to be reminded that they do have attributes that they are supposed to use to build up the body and minister to the world. Whether such &quot;tests&quot; are the best way to do that -- I would argue strongly that the answer is no -- is debatable but whether through the best most Biblical means possible or through messy cultural trends, there is some gem of value in reminding the faithful that they have been given gifts on loan from God and need to employ them in His service.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a reformed protestant perspective, I would argue that the needed function is much more faithfully accomplished by diligent teaching of the Word, walking believers through what it teaches on these subjects challenging them to apply it to their life. Sitting them down with some contrived checklist that resembles a personality test isn't a method we find prescribed in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To comment briefly on the gifts themselves, we do find some very specific roles described that God might have called some to and others not that have very specific qualifications, but the tests in question usually have more to do with the other gifts. The lists we have in Scripture of these gifts are pretty mix and match, and I think a case could be made that nobody has quite the same mixture of gifts nor is it a requirement to pigeon-hole a gift into a certain label in order to make use of it for the God's Kingdom. In other words those who serve as teaching elders should be qualified for the task exactly as prescribed, but those called to use their gifts of &quot;giving&quot; or &quot;encouraging&quot; or whatever should do so in whatever and as many varied ways as they can!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T18:57:52.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5246" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-06T19:22:34.660" Score="22" ViewCount="1622" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just finished reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/C_S_Lewis_in_a_Time_of_War.html?id=S2bCrx8EwKMC&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. S. Lewis in A Time of War&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by Justin Phillips.  It seems Lewis went to great lengths to ensure that everything he said in his BBC talks that became &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; was orthodox for a large cross-section of the Christian faith available in England at the time.  He consulted Anglican, Dissenting, and Roman Catholic authorities to verify that he did not say anything that would be seen as incorrect by any of these traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he did not consult Eastern Orthodox or Reformed theology experts.  It also seems to me that by leaving out controversial topics (e.g., papal authority, baptismal practices, etc.) Lewis might also have left out critical beliefs of certain faith traditions&amp;mdash;even core beliefs in some cases.  (I think leaving out these &quot;internal matters&quot; was the right call at the time, but it might leave us with an incomplete view of Orthodoxy.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is two-fold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did Lewis say/write anything in the series that would be rejected by Orthodox or Reformed Christians?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; cover enough of the bases for most Christians to be a good reference for what constitutes the core of the faith?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2014-05-01T01:14:50.827" Title="Does &quot;Mere Christianity&quot; represent the core of Christian belief?" Tags="&lt;cs-lewis&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5247" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5251" CreationDate="2012-01-06T19:24:43.923" Score="10" ViewCount="4258" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that all the 7 sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Marriage, Holy Orders Anointing of the Sick and Reconciliation) are each explicitly mentioned in the Bible as commands put forth by Christ and/or practiced by the apostles and established in the earliest traditions of the Church.  On what grounds did early protestant reformers decide that participation in the seven sacraments weren't essential in forming, guiding and preserving the Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definition of sacramental economy from Catholic Catechism &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1076.htm&quot;&gt;CCC 1076&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2014-10-31T21:54:32.490" Title="What are the protestant arguments against a sacramental economy?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2012-01-06T19:36:56.837" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;After looking through most of the comments and answers, I have seen at least a couple talk about the fact that &quot;day&quot; may be interpreted as &quot;age&quot; or &quot;period&quot;.  I have to say this doesn't make any sense if you read the story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, let me say that you can probably believe in evolution and be saved.  You don't have to know everything that ever happened in the world to be saved.  You need to have a relationship with Christ.  Nothing can separate you from Him.  Solomon said it is the glory of kings to search out mysteries so it is fine if you are seeking and trying to figure things out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, if your question is, &quot;How does the Bible say the universe was created?&quot;, the answer is God created it in 7 days.  And, even if you want to say, &quot;That word could be interpreted as age or period, and doesn't have to be day&quot;, it's easy from the context to see exactly what the Bible meant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read the story.  After every single day, it says, &quot;And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.&quot; (and second day, third day, and so on).  So, what does evening mean?  It is defined in the text, &quot;God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.&quot;  So, there was a period of darkness, only one each day, and that darkness was caused by absence of the sun which God created on the first day.  If the word for &quot;day&quot; stands for 1 million years, then the earth was dark for 300,000-400,000 straight years or something like that.  Under those circumstances, everything would die each night.  So, there would be no life left.  And, less importantly, that would mean that God slowed the rotation of the earth so much that it took 1 million years for it to spin one time.  And, then later on, he decided to speed it up to only take 24 hours?  Why would He do that?  It makes no sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is my point.  If you take the story to be literal, that word MUST mean day.  There's no way around it.  It makes absolutely no sense.  And, if you don't take it literally, there's no reason to try to figure out what that word means because it's just symbolic any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, there is much more to this question than just that.  Here are a bunch of other very important things all of you should consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Scientists have never created life.  They can't do it.  If life was created by some bolt of lightning striking a pool of proteins as some believe, then scientists should be able to recreate it.  It could be that they will do it 20 years from now, but maybe they won't.  Until it happens, scientists believe BY FAITH that this is what happened just as I believe BY FAITH that it didn't.  This isn't some small thing.  People assume it is entirely possible for something to happen that no one has ever seen or been able to recreate.  If life wasn't created in this way, then the entire process of evolving from one-celled organisms to complex beings could never have started.  In fact, I find it MUCH easier to believe by faith that God created life than to believe by faith that it was created out of nonlife.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Scientists are not free to believe evolution is not true.  If a biologist has evidence against evolution, it will never get published and he will be shunned by a large portion of scientists.  In Ben Stein's documentary, there are stories of professors being fired for not believing in evolution, even ones that were not studying biology at all.  I have a friend who applied to a medical school and he was told that he didn't get in because he didn't believe in evolution.  What does that have to do with going to medical school?  The point is, even if people disagree, they are not allowed to speak out.  This implies people are not trying to find truth when they are trying to show evolution happened.  They have already made up their mind on the conclusion and now they are trying to make everything they see fit that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A scientist that is an atheist believes there is no god BY FAITH.  Based on his or her assumption that there is no god, there is no possible way for life to have started except from nonlife, and life would clearly start as a small one-celled organism.  As unlikely as it is for that to happen, it's incredibly more unlikely that a human being, or some other complex organism, was created from nonlife.  It must have started small.  Then, based on the fact that we are here, you would have to conclude that large amounts of evolution took place after that.  So, for an atheist to say anything against evolution would mean they would HAVE to believe in God.  I think it is clear that this &quot;science&quot; is definitely biased.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you don't believe in a literal story in Genesis, it screws up a bunch of the rest of the Bible too.  Consider Paul.  He was a pharisee among pharisees.  He studied the Scriptures his entire life.  He and the other Jews of his time were 2000 years closer to the stories in the OT, and they passed on the Scriptures and meanings from generation to generation.  And, Paul actually talked with Jesus.  So, Paul would understand much better than we would what the story in Genesis is intended to mean.  And, how does he interpret it?  Literally!  He uses the fact that man was created first to make decisions about how things should work in the church.  So, you might say, &quot;But, he didn't have the advances in science that we do now.&quot;  But, then I would say, if he didn't know what he was talking about, then the Bible is not God breathed.  Since I believe by faith that the Bible is God breathed, I must believe by faith that Paul was not in error in taking the story literally.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't say evolution can't happen.  The problem is, what do we mean by evolution.  For many people, evolution is a huge process where life started as small and simple and evolved to much more complex.  But, as I pointed out in 1, you would need to figure out how life started first for this to make any sense.  I see nothing in the Bible that says no evolution ever occurred after God created the world.  Speciation, fine, nothing in the Bible says that can't happen.  Shifts in the genome, yea, so what.  Bible says nothing against it.  We know mutations occur.  I'm not saying they don't.  Bible certainly doesn't say mutations never occur.  So, when I say evolution is possible, I mean it.  But, what I believe about the origin of life is not the same as your standard atheist who MUST believe in &quot;evolution&quot;, which includes as an assumption life started in a certain way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1146" LastEditorUserId="1146" LastEditDate="2012-01-06T19:42:45.983" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T19:42:45.983" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2012-01-06T19:52:24.253" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you take the story literally, it's clear from the context that it must be a 24 hour day.  For example, night and day is mentioned, where night clearly means darkness.  A day really means 1000 years, for example, then the story says it was dark for a large portion of that &quot;day&quot; = 1000 years.  Say this is 300 years.  Then, there was darkness on the earth for 300 years.  All the life God just created would die in the extreme cold that would happen in 300 years of darkness, not to mention plants couldn't live without the light from the sun even if they could survive the cold.  And, since the &quot;day&quot; and &quot;night&quot; were caused by the sun shining on that portion of the earth, or not, respectively, God would have had to slow the rotation of the earth considerably for that to be possible.  For one, it doesn't make sense that God would later speed it up.  For two, I'm sure that would throw off all sorts of things, which would also make life not possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't take the story literally, then who cares if that word means day or not because it's just a symbol any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1146" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T19:52:24.253" CommentCount="0" CommunityOwnedDate="2012-01-06T19:52:24.253" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5246" CreationDate="2012-01-06T19:53:40.133" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The same could be said of G.K. Chesterton and probably a whole host of smart writers wholly ignorant of large swaths of Christianity.  One difference, &lt;a href=&quot;http://cslewis.drzeus.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=45&amp;amp;t=9843&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pointed out here&lt;/a&gt;  is that Lewis doesn't see a need for a Church and without a Church it is hard to have a priesthood and without a priesthood it is hard to have a sacrifice - so I'd imagine that's contrary to Eastern Orthodox (insofar as it is contrary to regular orthodoxy as practiced by both lungs of the Church).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I wasn't intending on answering this since, I'm not an expert of mere Christianity, I think I read it all but can't remember - except the part where he said he's not going to talk about Marian Dogma)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T19:53:40.133" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5247" CreationDate="2012-01-06T21:29:24.740" Score="11" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants do perform many of the rites that the Catholic church considers Sacraments, but only two, Baptism and Communion, are considered Sacraments by the majority of Protestants.  These two are the only two rites that are conducted using the formula given to us by Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament#Lutheran_teaching&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luther&lt;/a&gt;, as is usual, took the first step:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ, of which also every Christian ought to have at least an ordinary, brief instruction, because without them there can be no Christian; although, alas! hitherto no instruction concerning them has been given.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Large Catechism&lt;/em&gt; IV, 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther suggests here that without Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar (i.e.  Holy Eucharist), there can be no Christian.  This criteria leaves out Marriage, since many Christians have not and will not be married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I don't know were that particular criteria comes from however.  The Bible doesn't explicitly establish rules for what is considered a &amp;quot;Sacrament&amp;quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also rejects sacramental penance (i.e. Reconciliation) at the start of his &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/95theses.php&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;95 Theses&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said &lt;em&gt;Poenitentiam agite&lt;/em&gt;, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument here (which is fleshed out in later points) seems to be that confession is not limited to a rite performed by a priest and is therefore not a sacrament.  (There is some confusion here since Luther seems to label repentance as &amp;quot;the third Sacrament&amp;quot; in &lt;em&gt;The Larger Catechism&lt;/em&gt; IV, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php#para74&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;74&lt;/a&gt;, but in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php#para75&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;75&lt;/a&gt; he clarifies that &amp;quot;it is really nothing else than Baptism.&amp;quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph Stump's &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=FCkPAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=sacrament&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;An Explanation of Luther's Small Catechism&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; states there are three criteria for a rite to be labeled a Christian Sacrament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Command of Christ;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Use of Earthly Elements;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Communication of a Heavenly Gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that these are not explicitly stated by Luther himself, however.  If I recall correctly, this was the criteria I was taught in my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.covchurch.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Evangelical Covenant&lt;/a&gt; confirmation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For many Protestants, however, the fundamental issue with Sacraments in general is that we reject a specialized priesthood.  In the Old Testament, priests were set aside from the Levites, who were themselves set aside from within Israel, which was itself a people set apart by God.  According to the New Testament, these distinctions have been removed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.—1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Peter 2:4-5 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%202/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exactly what this passage means practically is a matter of dispute, but many Protestants view the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;priesthood of all believers&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; to mean that all believers have direct access to God via Christ, our High Priest.  (I know that the Catholic Church &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; affirm the &amp;quot;priesthood of all believers&amp;quot;, but I don't understand the position myself.  Please correct and forgive me if I mischaracterize here.)  We submit to the authority of Christ Jesus and to each other, but not a church hierarchy.  While we often do have some form of church structure, it is usually seen as a practical, social construct and not as a result of Apostolic Succession.  Therefore, the distinction between Sacraments and ordinary Christian rites are less clear.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament#Non-sacramental_churches&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some traditions&lt;/a&gt; eliminate the distinction altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally there is an important distinction between Baptism and Communion compared to the other possible Sacraments: Jesus himself gave us the formula (or words) we use to practice them.  For Baptism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”—Matthew 28:18-20 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew+28/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for Communion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.—1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 11:23-26 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+11/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, the other potential Sacraments were not commanded by Christ in the same way.  Therefore, while we do practice marriage, ordination, visitation of the sick and dying, repentance, and confirmation (along with many other rituals), we don't view these as equal in significance to the rites instituted by Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-06T23:13:07.193" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4854" CreationDate="2012-01-06T21:31:19.870" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;First dealing with the error in the first answer.  It the 3rd paragraph the author specifically calls naturism sin when he/she writes &quot;... it attempts to deal with the &quot;sin&quot; by stating that it is simply man's invention ... &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;nakedness cannot be sin because last verse of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 tell us that the man and woman were naked and that God saw that &quot;... it was very good.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in Isa 20:2 God commanded his prophet Isa to go naked for 3 years, and yes that really was NAKED! as it symbolized the naked/barefoot/&quot;buttocks uncovered&quot; condition the Egyptians and Ethiopians would experience when they were taken away as prisoners of war and slaves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise contending that the &quot;concept of naked&quot; is some invention of mankind appears to miss the mark. as is reveled by God's question in Genesis 3:11 when God asks &quot;Who told thee that thous wast naked&quot;.  It hardly makes sense that God would have asked that if the idea had not come from the serpent.  As for God clothing Adam and Eve in  Genesis 3:21, one should apply the principle of examining the context and one will see that 3 verses previous in Genesis 3:18 God had just said he was sending them into a world with thorns and thistles, and then note that in verse 21, those clothes were made of &lt;strong&gt;LEATHER!&lt;/strong&gt; a material appropriate for repelling thorns.  The context suggests that the clothing was needed for protection and not covering up God's &quot;capstone of earthly creation&quot;.  Clothing is protection when needed,  which is why it is a shame when people do not have it because of poverty or being denied it because of their state of captivity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to answer the original question: &#xA;The question is stated in the negative asking in which denominations is it unacceptable.  The societal aversion to nudity is so broadly spread that to avoid condemnation from lay members, or disrupting congregations, or sowing discord among the brethern; it is perhaps better to seek an answer to the converse, &quot;In which denominations is naturism well tolerated?&quot;  Quakers have a great tolerance  for nudity, having practiced it as a religious statement in times past.  Lutherans are said to have tolerance for it (may vary by synod). and the previous pope has said that the naked body is not sinful.  However the problem is that what is the viewpoint of the denomination may not be reflected in the practice of the local congregations.  So it is best to check it out with the pastor and/or deacons or others in the local hierarchy.  An accurate picture of the official position of the denomination might be more likely obtained by searching for the denomination's web site and asking the question there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1150" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-01-07T00:04:37.487" LastActivityDate="2012-01-07T00:04:37.487" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5255" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5283" CreationDate="2012-01-06T23:06:37.280" Score="13" ViewCount="5002" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the process of answering a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5251/914&quot;&gt;question on the Sacraments&lt;/a&gt;, I discovered that Catholic Church accepts the doctrine of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers#Priesthood_in_non-Protestant_traditions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;priesthood of all believers&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  This rather surprised me since the Church has separate, ordained priests who, among other things, perform the Sacraments.  From my point of view (as an Evangelical Protestant), passages such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you are a chosen race, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, a people to be a personal possession to sing the praises of God who called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Peter 2:9 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=67&amp;amp;bible_chapter=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NJB&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...suggest that everyone in the church has a duty to stand before God.  Practically the entire &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=65&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;book of Hebrews&lt;/a&gt; makes the case that the Old Testament model of priests as holy (literally, &quot;set apart&quot;) men has been replaced by a new model in which we all function as priests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a very simple level, it seems impossible to hold both of the following statements as true:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The entire Church is set apart by God to be priests.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Individuals are set apart from the rest of the Church by God to be priests.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I equivocating on the word &quot;priest&quot;?  (Or to put it another way, are there two different classes of priests in the Catholic Church?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2014-10-03T04:52:21.077" Title="How does the Catholic Church understand the priesthood of all believers?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;universal-priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5257" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5259" CreationDate="2012-01-07T04:52:48.557" Score="3" ViewCount="875" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is a set of traits that are common for all protestants (excluding those who call themselves Christians, but don't pray to Christ), yet setting them apart from other Christians (the Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-01-07T10:41:54.260" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T13:37:57.247" Title="A set of traits common for all protestant believers" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5257" CreationDate="2012-01-07T12:40:33.963" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is similar to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/do-evangelical-leaders-televangelists-megachurch-pastors-etc-not-consider/4927#4927&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; response I made to the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4728/do-evangelical-leaders-televangelists-megachurch-pastors-etc-not-consider&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;, 'Do Evangelical leaders (televangelists, megachurch pastors, etc…) not consider themselves Protestants?'. But, essentially the primary doctrine that set Protestantism apart, and was a primary cause of the reformation to begin with is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Justification By Faith&lt;/a&gt;: that salvation comes entirely from Christ's atoning work on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without turning this into the wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;protestantism&lt;/a&gt;, there are a number of other doctrines that have come to dominate the thinking of most modern protestants including, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the priesthood of all believers&lt;/a&gt; (which is why protestants call their clerics pastors instead of priests), and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;five solas&lt;/a&gt;, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sola scriptura (&quot;by Scripture alone&quot;)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T13:37:57.247" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5260" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-07T16:32:49.697" Score="2" ViewCount="1325" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see this quote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there are many interpretations (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword#Interpretations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword#Interpretations&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Jesus is known as the Prince of Peace (Isaiash 9:6), so this is quite confusing. What then, does the &quot;sword&quot; refer to? Does it mean that Jesus is por-war? Or does it just mean that Christianity is a contentious doctrine that will lead SOME people to wage war?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus advocates peace, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1152" LastEditorUserId="418" LastEditDate="2012-11-10T21:11:26.183" LastActivityDate="2012-11-10T21:11:26.183" Title="Where does Jesus stand on war and peace?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-01-18T14:49:23.580" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3096" CreationDate="2012-01-07T18:29:13.807" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: &lt;strong&gt;YES&lt;/strong&gt;! Why? It's my biblical basis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2Co 10:5 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that&#xA;  exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into&#xA;  captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible is like a programming language that can compile itself! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastEditorUserId="881" LastEditDate="2012-01-07T18:36:11.813" LastActivityDate="2012-01-07T18:36:11.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5236" CreationDate="2012-01-07T21:18:46.270" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it is not true. Luther was widely read in many works of theology and church history and and if you take into consideration his commentary on various church Fathers and the merit or  issues with their theology it is ridiculous to make such a claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that he was sometimes critical of their works, but he clearly used them in his own studies. Sometimes he made favorable remarks about things that he had learned from them. For example he seems to have prefered Epiphanius over Jerome:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Epiphanius compiled a history of the church long before Jerome; his writings are good and profitable, and, if separated from dissentious agruments, worth printing. -- Martin Luther&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Augustine's writings he seems to have found a friend and ally:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Augustine was the ablest and purest of all the doctors, but he could not of himself bring back things to their original condition, and he often complains that the bishops, with their traditions and ordinances, troubled the church more than did the Jews with their laws. -- Martin Luther&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However he didn't seem to think too highly of Chrysostom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will not presume to criticize too closely the writings of the Fathers, seeing they are received at the church, and have great applause, for then I should be held an apostate; but whoso reads Chrysostom, will find he digresses from the chief points, and proceeds to other matter, saying nothing, or very little, of what pertains to the business. When I was expounding the Epistle to the Hebrews, and turned to what Chrysostom had written thereupon, I found nothing to the purpose; yet I believe that he at that time, as being the chief rhetorician, had many hearers, though he taught without profit; for the chief office of a preacher is to teach uprightly, and diligently to look to the chief points and grounds whereon he stands, and so instruct and teach the hearers that they understand aright, and may be able to say: this is well taught. When this is done, he may avail himself of rhetoric to adorn his subject and admonish the people. -- Martin Luther&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further study you could check out the book &lt;em&gt;The Table Talk of Martin Luther&lt;/em&gt;, a collection of misc writings by Martin Luther that includes lots of mentions of works he read and either profited from or objected to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We must read the Fathers cautiously, and lay them in the gold balance, for they often stumbled and went astray, and mingled in their books many monkish things. Augustine had more work and labor, to wind himself out of the Father’s writings, then he had with the heretics. Gregory expounds the five pounds mentioned in the Gospel, which the husbandman gave to his servants to put to use, to be the five senses, which the beasts also possess. The two pounds, he construes to be the reason and understanding. -- Martin Luther&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-01-07T21:18:46.270" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5264" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5265" CreationDate="2012-01-08T08:47:04.653" Score="0" ViewCount="225" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have met some Christians who seemed to put a lot of emphasis on their realization of how sinful they were. Others, however, didn't seem to be stressing this point that much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honestly, in my personal experience, the joy of knowing the Lord, the joy of the very first prayer to Christ, and the joy of having fellowship with Christians came first. The first true realization of how sinful I am came much later. In fact, this realization is still progressing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By looking briefly through the New Testament I can think of some examples of individuals' coming to the Lord with a considerable level of contriteness over their sinfulness, for example, the robber on the cross asking Jesus to remember him in His kingdom. On the other hand, there are also some examples of people coming to the Lord for the first time, in which this contriteness is not clearly stated, for example, the eunuch of Ethiopia in Acts 8. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is how much realization of one's own sinfulness is needed for a person to be saved? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-01-08T12:25:26.000" Title="How much realization of one's own sinfulness is needed for a person to be saved?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="13" ClosedDate="2012-01-08T15:59:34.830" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5264" CreationDate="2012-01-08T12:25:26.000" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the realization of sin in the world can't save someone, they may go and meditate, take up some philanthropic work to make them feel better, kill themselves or find some other way to get away from that realization of the sinfulness of their heart; to try and numb that realization. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of Judas betraying Christ and Peter denying Christ. Judas said &quot;I have betrayed the innocent&quot; (Matthew 27.4) and then you know what he did to himself even though he realized his sin in this circumstance. We know that he was lost (The Lord said before his Crucifixion that he would loose non except Judas - John 17:12) Peter was not lost though! The Lord called him back. Realization of sinfulness doesn't lead us in and of itself to Christ in whom we can be  saved, it is God that does that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 6.44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me &lt;strong&gt;draw him&lt;/strong&gt; (call): and I will raise him up at the last day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I therefore don't think the question is of all that value to think upon in this sense. Maybe a more instructive question would be not &quot;how much&quot; but &quot;whether&quot; realization of sin is a necessary part of the Lord's call and drawing of a person to salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1153" LastActivityDate="2012-01-08T12:25:26.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5260" CreationDate="2012-01-09T06:44:35.780" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not about war, as in killing people, but about the coming struggle to bring people into the Christian faith, when the faith will deny their previous beliefs, whether Jewish or Pagan. Jesus is likening the struggle to spread the faith to a war. I believe this interpretation is pretty much universal to all denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse is sometimes cited by non-Christians as evidence that Jesus was a historical  militaristic guy, like Bar-Kochva. This is just not a reasonable interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T06:44:35.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5270" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5276" CreationDate="2012-01-09T09:41:45.930" Score="-2" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the eternal life unique as it is? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can there be two or three eternal lives? Apostle John said that those who believe in Christ the Son of God have eternal life (1 John 5:13). When the fall of man had just taken place, God made sure Adam wasn't able to partake of the tree of life and, thus, start living forever (Gen. 3:22,24). Was that eternal life that was contained in the tree of life the same as the life that apostle John is talking about in his epistle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T17:25:00.900" Title="Is the eternal life unique as it is?" Tags="&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2012-01-09T19:23:25.973" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5271" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-09T09:46:56.280" Score="7" ViewCount="1501" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who I am: ex worship leader / lifelong &quot;Christian&quot; of 18 years, now agnostic.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why I ask: If God is the way I am about to describe (unjust from a human perspective), why follow him?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my understanding, the belief that God has predetermined those who will receive salvation is one held by many Christians, and in my experience has been mostly Christians with a Calvinist theological perspective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what I mean by predestination: The belief that God has chosen/ predetermined those who will spend eternity in heaven with him and while not choosing others. In doing so, he has intentionally NOT chosen some to spend eternity with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here is the problem.&lt;/strong&gt; According to the Calvinists I have talked to, because of our sinful human nature that we've had since the fall, we are not deserving of heaven/ God's presence.  For example, if a child is born and dies the following day, its spirit will go to hell due to its sinful nature. Another example would be a person who has never accepted the gospel because they never heard it. Even if they have heard it, certainly no two people have had an equal chance to receive salvation (i.e. a pastor's son and a child raised in an atheist home). This is not even taking into account whether or not God has chosen them for heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In no way are these things just from a human perspective. However, if this is the case, then there are both uninformed adult and newborn souls in hell who never had a fair opportunity to receive salvation (by a human standard). Why would anyone desire to be in the presence of a God who does not show mercy to certain people? It seems to me as though it would only be to escape the punishment of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please correct my misconceptions of this viewpoint or explain it is that God is just in this context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="158" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-01-09T16:22:31.883" LastActivityDate="2016-05-04T21:59:04.680" Title="Is the God Calvinists believe in unjust?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;justice&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-05-04T22:35:42.490" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5271" CreationDate="2012-01-09T12:50:34.477" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While it is not wise to base a theology on one verse, I am quoting just one because it summarises the answer to your question quite well, I think:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:37&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6:37&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first part, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;All that the Father gives me will come to me&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; stresses &lt;strong&gt;Predestination&lt;/strong&gt;, that whoever God chooses will come to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second part, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;whoever comes to me I will never drive away&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; stresses &lt;strong&gt;Freewill&lt;/strong&gt;: Jesus will &lt;strong&gt;never&lt;/strong&gt; turn away anyone who comes to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do we reconcile these? Apparently we have to hold them in tension, like physicists who accept both the wave and particle properties of light simultaneously (physicists: this is an oversimplification and may be wrong; please forgive me - it's just an illustration :) ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more detailed answer, please see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4236/how-does-free-will-fit-with-the-doctrine-of-predestination&quot;&gt;How does free will fit with the doctrine of predestination?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T12:57:59.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5271" CreationDate="2012-01-09T12:59:18.847" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the issue here is that &lt;strong&gt;you are trying to examine one point of doctrine outside of the context of the whole system of doctrines that it fits into.&lt;/strong&gt; If you take the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination by itself and tack it on to a generic pseudo-protestant view of salvation, you'll end up with a problem such as the one you describe. God becomes unjust because your definition of justice is supported by a theological framework that Calvinistic theology would say is a broken framework. Even as a Calvinist I can see how people who try to examine a specific doctrine such as predestination can conclude it to be nonsensical or even offensive. However that is not the end of the story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to judge such a doctrine, &lt;strong&gt;you must consider it in the context of all the same presuppositions and other related doctrines&lt;/strong&gt;. This will be a very simplistic outline of some issues that need to be brought into the discussion rather than a full treaties on the issues, but I hope it helps provide a starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, predestination cannot be considered without also resolving the issue of original sin. According to a Calvinistic interpretation of scripture, &lt;strong&gt;the idea of original sin when traced through all of scripture paints a picture of man as totally depraved&lt;/strong&gt;: in other words he will not (and cannot) on his own volition and power act or choose anything that is truly good in God's eyes. It's a hard pill to swallow because man's prideful nature always wants to defend himself to the last; yet I have come to believe this is both the true nature of all men and exactly the picture Scripture paints of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leaves us with an unsettling conclusion quite different from the one you pose in your question. If the doctrine of total depravity is to be believed, &lt;strong&gt;no man on earth would ever, given an opportunity, voluntarily choose to follow God&lt;/strong&gt; or believe in Christ as savior. &lt;em&gt;The only just thing for God to do with such rebellious prideful people is to destroy them.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This creates a whole new problem. Suddenly God is not unjust for not saving some, he is unjust for saving any at all! The problem with justice, for a Calvinist, comes at the point of &quot;unconditional election&quot;, whereby &lt;strong&gt;God opts to save some in spite of the fact that they have fulfilled &lt;em&gt;no condition&lt;/em&gt; for deserving salvation&lt;/strong&gt; such as believing or doing works or whatever. Now the Doctrines of Grace are starting to all play off of each other!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The problem of injustice -- that God would knowingly justify (make right) and acquit somebody who themselves had done nothing but wrong and of whom justice would demand punishment -- is resolved in the propitiatory act of Christ where somebody who had done no wrong and justly deserved life was &quot;made sin&quot; and put in our law place and punished on our behalf.&lt;/strong&gt; Whose law place did he step into? Again according to the same set of interpretations one must understand Limited Atonement, or the idea that Christ choose to be the atonement for a specific set of people, his chosen. In a very real sense this choice is arbitrary because those people did not do anything specific to deserve it -- hence we cannot boast in any choice or act of our own but only in Christ who rescued us -- but it is not unjust for him not to choose other than he did. The alternative is that he died in an attempt to save more, but was ineffective in so much as it only &quot;worked&quot; for some people who had enough good sense to recognize the value of his work of their own accord (an idea ruled out earlier by Total Depravity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The system can be rounded out with the other doctrines such as Irresistible Grace where God does not fail to lead those he has acquitted to repentance faith and repentance and holy lives being transformed to be like Christ; and Perseverance of the Saints whereby those he has saved and truly worked in cannot be pulled out of his hand by any force of Satan or shortcoming of their own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously these points need to be examined in the light of the Scriptures. They basically stand or fall together. If the Bible as God's inerrant word really is pointing in the direction of any of these points, it must also be consistent to tell us about the others. Great care must be taken in two areas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not to use some system that fails to take into account all the points in Scripture to interpret for us whether some doctrine is true or not. Predestination makes little sense to some theological systems, but it must not be thrown out because it doesn't fit a definition of justice that isn't the one defined by Scripture. This is the error I think you have made.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not to read into Scripture some point not actually found in the text because it has to fit our system. Quite frankly this is the error Calvinists are more likely to fall into. If the interpretive framework fails to shed light on the whole of Scripture or is contradicted by it on any point, one must start over and examine it's presuppositions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am convinced that the only set of presuppositions and interpretive methods that leads to a framework that can consistently interpret the whole of Scripture is the one that leads to all of these Doctrine of Grace -- yet it is not a perfect system and we must remain humble in the knowledge that our limited understandings of God's works are always going to be flawed in so far as we have not yet been made perfect in glory!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly I think it's worth noting that it is impossible to approach Scripture without some interpretive framework. There is no such thing as entirely unbiased reading. Even if the text in question was written in your own time and language, words are meaningless with out certain presuppositions. For example if you fail to presuppose that I wrote this post in English and rather assume it to be Bengali, it will be no more than gibberish. In testing it can be shown that reading the text using English grammar and vocabulary lead to a much more useful understanding. Likewise if we do not approach Scripture with certain assumptions about how it was inspired or is meant to be interpreted as a whole, we will not come away with as deep or true an understanding of it. While these are pre-suppositions (pre because they must be made first and tested later) they can be shown to make more sense when taken together as a whole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T12:59:18.847" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5271" CreationDate="2012-01-09T13:16:07.853" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting question, user158. I hope we can give plausible answers to your mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that you have been listening to a parody of Calvinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is not unjust. You can't ask him why you were made for destruction&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but&#xA;  potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the&#xA;  potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no&#xA;  hands’? (Is 45:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have inherited a sin nature from our Adam. We are, by nature, destined for destruction. Instead of sending all to hell, God graciously snatched some away from destruction, at the cost of the life of his own, sinless Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What about the heathen?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;This gets to the heart of your question, namely, “Is God unjust?”&#xA;This is a very old question that has a wonderfully gracious answer from Scripture. When a person doesn't hear the gospel, he is judged according to his own conscience. Sometimes that conscience excuses him, and sometimes the conscience accuses him. (See Romans 2:14-16.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists believe that elect infants who died in infancy are saved by God's grace, just like the rest of us believers. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westminster Confession of faith&lt;/a&gt;, X.3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better question might be, &lt;em&gt;why has God chosen to extend so much mercy to us?&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We really deserve death and hell. God chose to punish his own Son my place. If there is any injustice that God has displayed, it was in punishing his own Son when I am the one who deserves that punishment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And perhaps most important question of all, user158, is your particular attitude towards the Gospel. It says “how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (Heb 2:3) You may have thought that you were a believer at one point in your life. You have heard the gospel of grace. You can't say that God is unjust in giving you the opportunity of salvation through the gospel of his Son. This verse in Hebrews is a plea and a warning. Your willful ignorance of the Gospel will lead to your destruction. It is not God who is unjust. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="568" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T13:16:07.853" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5271" CreationDate="2012-01-09T14:27:57.570" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I'm not at all a fan of Calvinism, I can at least succinctly defend this one point. Note again that I don't necessarily agree with the defense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem posed in the question comes down to the default position of humanity. If you realize that everyone, even day old infants, truly deserve Hell and damnation because of original sin, then the idea that anyone is saved at all is a miracle of God's Grace. God appears unjust, but not because some seemingly-innocent are condemned. God is &quot;unjust&quot; because many who are guilty will come to be saved &amp;mdash; and even in this case He paid the price for the their salvation through his son. The difference between the two views is that of someone holding your head under water while you drown and of someone seeing many drowning people and saving those who are able to reach up and grab his offered hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-01-09T20:57:58.413" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T20:57:58.413" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5270" CreationDate="2012-01-09T17:18:51.723" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a distinction between living forever on earth and eternal life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although we are not given overt and explicity details about this, it appears that the tree of life enabled Adam and Eve to live forever on earth.  Prior to the Fall, this was great.  After the Fall, however, this would have caused mankind to remain in an unredeemed body that is incapable of fully realizing the relationship with God for which we were created.  Thus, physical immortality in an unredeemed state is really an entrapment apart from the glory God desires for us to experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus specifically defines eternal life in John 17 as the ability to know God.  This is what John was also referring to in John 20:30-31 as well as the verse you mentioned--1 John 5:13.  Eternal life is being in a relationship with God through Jesus Christ the Son.  This, again, is to be distinguished from physical immortality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and&#xA;  Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which&#xA;  are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may&#xA;  believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by&#xA;  believing you may have life in his name.  John 20:30-31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one lived forever in a physical body that is under the curse and not be able to separate from that into a glorified body, then our relationship with God would be ultimately limited.  For, as the Scripture says, when we see God face to face, then it is when we will know Him fully, as we are fully known by Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in&#xA;  part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.  1&#xA;  Corinthians 13:12 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, immortal physical life is distinct from eternal life.  The former would inhibit our relationship with God, while the latter gives us a relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-01-09T17:25:00.900" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T17:25:00.900" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5277" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5287" CreationDate="2012-01-09T17:39:39.057" Score="2" ViewCount="898" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Adam and Eve have the ability to experience physical pain before the fall? It seems that there is no indication in Genesis of physical pain in the Garden of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this issue mentioned anywhere else in the Scriptures?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do any Christian traditions use other known pieces to derive some belief about what pain must have been like before the fall? If so how to they arrive at these interpretations and what doctrine do they build on these understandings?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-01-09T20:59:06.337" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T20:59:06.337" Title="Is it known whether  Adam and Eve had the ability to experience physical pain before the fall?" Tags="&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;eden&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2012-08-23T17:20:50.870" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5278" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6072" CreationDate="2012-01-09T17:45:37.520" Score="16" ViewCount="350" Body="&lt;p&gt;Were there any Christian groups that existed during the time of the first four ecumenical councils and that were not represented at them either because they chose not to attend or they were not invited or, perhaps, were not even known?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-10-28T12:27:05.700" LastActivityDate="2014-10-28T12:27:05.700" Title="What evidence do we have today about Christian groups not represented at the first four ecumenical councils?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;ecumenical-council&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4041" CreationDate="2012-01-09T17:54:29.237" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[T]he Book of Revelation is not a book of esetoric information to give&#xA;  the curious something to do, it is a book filled with pastoral comfort&#xA;  - &lt;a href=&quot;http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2008/1/29/behold-i-am-coming-soon-revelation-226-21.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kim Riddlebarger&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I read the book of Revelation in light that God will set things right, then I understood that this book comforts the saints, from the First Centiry Christians to Present Day ones.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T17:54:29.237" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5244" CreationDate="2012-01-09T18:16:41.993" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthinas 12 - 14 is one of the best disclosures about Spiritual Gifts. Amazingly, Paul mentioned at the end of chapter 12, &quot;I [Paul] will show you a still more excellent way.&quot; and we proceed to chapter 13 which is about Love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus mentions that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I&#xA;  have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people&#xA;  will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.&#xA;  - John 13:35 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the Church should focus on finding ways to love one another, and gifts and diveristy of it is a means to show love to one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-01-09T19:01:06.507" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T19:01:06.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5281" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-09T18:35:50.917" Score="13" ViewCount="1953" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia defines divine simplicity&lt;/a&gt; this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is&#xA;  without &lt;strong&gt;parts&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Euthyphro, God's Nature, and the Question of Divine Attributes&lt;/em&gt;, which discuss Divine Simplicity and the philosophies used to describe how God is &quot;simple,&quot; provides a better definition in &lt;a href=&quot;http://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Grisham.Simplicity.1.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;part 1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When we speak of God’s simplicity then, in the most elementary sense,&#xA;  we are speaking of his not having parts, of his non-compositeness. “We&#xA;  use the term,” Berkhof explains, “to describe the state or quality of&#xA;  being simple, the condition of being free from division into parts,&#xA;  and therefore from compositeness”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Grisham.Simplicity.2.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;part 2&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Grisham.Simplicity.3.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;part 3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think divine simplicity is coherent. But I couldn't find any scriptural support for this doctrine. What is the Biblical basis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-02-08T20:57:07.527" LastActivityDate="2017-02-08T20:57:07.527" Title="What is the Biblical basis for divine simplicity?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;divine-simplicity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5255" CreationDate="2012-01-09T18:47:07.780" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church believes in three different types of priests: &lt;sub&gt;(Edited from this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;first, the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5–9);&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;second, the ordained priesthood (Acts 14:23, Romans 15:16, Titus 1:5); and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;third, the high priesthood of Jesus (Hebrews 3:1).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church accepts the 'priesthood of all believers' doctrine. This is exemplified in the 'Chaplet of Divine Mercy' prayer (which I personally believe to be a very powerful form of prayer), in which the individual Christian declares: &amp;quot;Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, we are all called to evangelize - to spread the love of God, and we have a responsibility towards the preservation and propagation of the faith.&#xA;God also chooses a few among us to be 'fishers of men', and these are called to serve as ordained priests through apostolic succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what sacrifice does the priesthood of the laity offer?  What do we lay “priests” consecrate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Paul answers the first question in Romans 12:2: “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God, your spiritual worship.”  As the Lord Jesus offered himself totally for our sake, we are called to lay down our lives for Him and for one another.  In rare occasions, this may mean the “supreme sacrifice” of martyrdom.  But more commonly, it means the living sacrifice, the “white martyrdom,” of denying our own will to embrace His will, “offering up” in love the work we do and the trials we endure, as a sacrifice of praise of God and intercession for others in need.  Studying for exams, changing a soiled diaper, going to work to provide for our families--these are all activities that become opportunities for Christians to exercise their sacred priesthood.  In fact during the Sunday Eucharist, as the bread and wine are carried up to the altar, we are called to consciously place ourselves and all sacrifices of the past week on the altar with the gifts to be united with Christ’s perfect sacrifice to the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what do we lay “priests” consecrate?  Vatican II gives us the answer to that question in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity.  We are called to consecrate the secular, the earthy, the nitty-gritty realities of life to God.  When we give thanks over a meal, we consecrate it to God’s glory and sanctify it.  When we offer our work in sacrifice, and live out our Christian witness in the workplace, we consecrate our work and sanctify it.  We lay priests are to be God’s secret agents in every arena of life, in places where ministerial priests and religious may never go, elevating, purifying, sanctifying, blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/625/priesthood_of_believers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Priesthood of Believers By: &lt;em&gt;Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio&lt;/em&gt; | The Crossroads Initiative&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: This is an interesting read - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE, &lt;em&gt;James Akin&lt;/em&gt; | EWTN&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1157" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-10-03T04:52:21.077" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5281" CreationDate="2012-01-09T19:17:29.193" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only scriptural notion for divine simplicity I found is a statement by Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark&#xA;  10:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God&#xA;  alone.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If only God is good, then 'good' and 'God' are synonyms.&#xA;Simply put, this is a &lt;em&gt;definition&lt;/em&gt;: &lt;strong&gt;God = Good&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of divine simplicity postulates that an attribute is &lt;em&gt;identical&lt;/em&gt; to God. Mere logic implicates then that this doctrine is &lt;em&gt;equivalent&lt;/em&gt; to the latter definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answer to your questions: &lt;strong&gt;Divine Simplicity is coherent for 'God' and 'good'.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Divine Simplicity can result in paradox implications when postulated for multiple attributes: God=Good, God=Just &amp;#x21D2; Good=Just. However, I do not see straight-forward biblical basis for other attributes in divine simplicity other than good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1121" LastEditorDisplayName="user1121" LastEditDate="2012-01-10T12:41:18.283" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T12:41:18.283" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5260" CreationDate="2012-01-09T19:36:27.987" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus certainly is the Prince of Peace as you point out.  That peace is peace between God and man.  Previously man was at enmity with God, but now through Jesus Christ, God and man may be reconciled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of&#xA;  his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by&#xA;  his life.  Romans 5:10 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is not to suggest that Jesus desires Christians to be violent.  On the contrary, we are live lives of love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in&#xA;  love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant&#xA;  offering and sacrifice to God.  Ephesians 5:1-2 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question then becomes, &quot;In what sense did Jesus bring a sword?&quot;  Here it is instructive to look at how Jesus taught the world would relate to believers in Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If &lt;strong&gt;the world hates you&lt;/strong&gt;, know that &lt;strong&gt;it has hated me before it hated&#xA;  you&lt;/strong&gt;. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own;&#xA;  but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the&#xA;  world, &lt;strong&gt;therefore the world hates you&lt;/strong&gt;. 20 Remember the word that I said&#xA;  to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ &lt;strong&gt;If they persecuted&#xA;  me, they will also persecute you.&lt;/strong&gt; If they kept my word, they will also&#xA;  keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of&#xA;  my name, because they do not know him who sent me.  John 15:18-21 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of the apostles, except for John, died a martyrs death.  At its birth, Christianity was enveloped by rampant persecution--not Christians taking the sword against others, but others taking the sword against Christians.  It is remarkable, indeed, that with such an intensely persecuted and martyred group of believers in this new revelation of Jesus as the Messiah could have survived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All throughout history, in fact, true believers in Jesus have been severely persecuted.  There are quite a few countries today in which Christians are martyred just as frequently as they were 2,000 years ago.  The Soviet Union intensely persecuted Christians as well, prior to its collapse.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the future, we can expect the same thing.  True believers in Jesus will be victims of the sword through persecution and martyrdom.  True believers are always on the sharp end of the sword in matters of persecution, because true Christianity spreads not through conquest, but through the drawing of a person's heart and soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T19:36:27.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5277" CreationDate="2012-01-09T20:24:56.880" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an interesting question.  The simple answer is that we are really told explicitly whether or not physical pain was possible.  We do know, however, that in the judgment of Eve, pain is mentioned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To the woman he said, “&lt;strong&gt;I will surely multiply your pain&lt;/strong&gt; in&#xA;  childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.  Your desire&#xA;  shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”  Genesis 3:16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;I will surely multiply your pain&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;, could certainly indicate that physical pain was a possibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings up some theological questions though.  It seems that death only exists as a penalty for sin, and it would seem that pain is related to death.  Pain tells us that something is wrong physically (much like shame lets us know that something is wrong spiritually).  Yet, the body seems to have been created for immortal life, so pain that indicates the destruction of the body in some way does not seem to fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if pain originated at the fall, the wording in Genesis 3:16 could indicate that pain would also be a part of something that was intended to be good rather than just with all things that are to our own destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, again, we are not explicitly told the answer to this question, so it seems the best we can do is contemplate what we do know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-01-09T20:44:00.967" LastActivityDate="2012-01-09T20:44:00.967" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1673" CreationDate="2012-01-10T00:35:42.157" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;However it does state that we will be caught up with Him and He will return (1 Thes. 4:17). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also if there was a second chance He would have to go back to the beginning of time and give everyone a second chance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now do you think that he will allow those who chose  Hell for not believing in Christ to change their mind?  No He won't you make your choice while you are here and when He does return it will be too late to make that choice&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1158" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2014-08-02T15:45:57.283" LastActivityDate="2014-08-02T15:45:57.283" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5290" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6351" CreationDate="2012-01-10T01:15:36.713" Score="15" ViewCount="2245" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism&quot;&gt;Cessationism&lt;/a&gt; is the belief held by some protestants that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as prophecy, do not occur in present day.  The general thinking is that these gifts &quot;ceased&quot; at the completion of the canon, closing any new revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the basis for this belief?  I'm interested in Biblical, logical, empirical and historical arguments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-11-02T05:25:18.553" LastActivityDate="2015-01-25T15:43:39.847" Title="What is the basis for Cessationism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;charismatic&gt;&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;&lt;cessationism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5291" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-10T02:40:09.267" Score="-3" ViewCount="3473" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always wondered this.  God likes to test us and Satan likes to hurt us. Are the two the same or even related?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've kinda had the view that Satan is God's mercenary. So when God says &quot;this city will be burned to the ground for their sin&quot; it's Satan that carries out the action.  Is this at all accurate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="73" LastActivityDate="2014-03-20T18:45:26.743" Title="Are bad things in life Satan's doing or God testing/punishing me?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-08-12T21:53:45.590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5291" CreationDate="2012-01-10T03:30:59.543" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From an atheist Christian perspective, the answer is obviously no.  The bad things that happen in our lives are either blameless accidents or the consequence of bad actions by ourselves or others (without any intermediary directing things around so there is a bad outcome).  And since all people are fundamentally good, bad actions by ourselves or others are themselves a consequence merely of a failure to properly educate the responsible party as to right or wrong, so that moral knowledge is internalized (rather than the simple academic awareness that other people think it's wrong)--which means that we must share the Christ's brotherly love and compassion with them so as to help them see the error of their ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1133" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T03:30:59.543" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5291" CreationDate="2012-01-10T07:40:04.570" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In terms of scripture, no:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Genesis 19:24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is pretty clear that &lt;em&gt;scripturally speaking&lt;/em&gt; that is not a satanic action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The believer would argue that if God is ordering something done, then it is (by definition) Good, and I don't see any scriptural reason to outsource it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of logic, no:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; are such absolutes, yet in many cases that which is bad for one person directly or indirectly benefits another (for example, an organ becoming available for transplant much to the benefit of a patient &lt;em&gt;generally&lt;/em&gt; means somebody else had a really bad day). I don't suggest (although some will) that this is a deliberate act by any force or agency; simply: stuff happens. It isn't about you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T07:40:04.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5297" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-10T13:17:52.143" Score="10" ViewCount="3088" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was looking in the store to buy a bible, I noticed that the different bible translations not only differ in their style of translation, but also in the sources they use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the sources used in common bible translations?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1159" LastEditorUserId="1122" LastEditDate="2012-01-10T20:45:38.250" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T15:44:34.820" Title="What sources are used for the Christian Bible translations?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5298" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-10T13:23:48.983" Score="13" ViewCount="7430" Body="&lt;p&gt;In school, I learned that the different gospels did copy a lot from each other. This was the explanation for why there are so many overlapping events between the gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there substantial evidence to support this besides the bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1159" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-01-10T15:40:18.213" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T18:27:41.520" Title="Did the gospels really copy from each other?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5299" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5300" CreationDate="2012-01-10T13:51:50.823" Score="5" ViewCount="9093" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do we have any idea how long Adam and Eve were together sinless in the Garden of Eden before &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;they sinned&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were created on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:24-31&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sixth day&lt;/a&gt;. They sinned before they &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;had children&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any other clues as to how long they were sinless together?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-16T17:00:54.003" LastActivityDate="2019-10-20T14:36:33.107" Title="How long was it before Adam and Eve sinned?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5299" CreationDate="2012-01-10T13:57:34.917" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 5:3 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By virtue of this, we know that Cain killed Abel within 130 years of Adam being created, because Seth was not born until after that occurred. This means that the Fall had to occur within that time. Other than that, the Bible is silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="35290" LastEditDate="2019-10-20T14:36:33.107" LastActivityDate="2019-10-20T14:36:33.107" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5290" CreationDate="2012-01-10T14:15:18.680" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The argument for Cessationalism tends to be empirical rather Biblical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While there is significant evidence for glossalia in the NT writings (it is mentioned heavily), by the time of the Church Fathers  (1 Clement, Didache, Polycarp, etc...), the evidence is scant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;During most of recorded church theology (everything from say, Origin, Jerome, etc... to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azusa_Street_Revival&quot;&gt;Azusa Street Revival&lt;/a&gt; in 1900, this gift seems to have largely bypassed written record.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is often excused / explained by the idea that the gift of prophecy and miracles was superceded by the written Word of God.  Another idea is that the gifts were no longer being used for their intended purpose. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The presence of miracles in Jesus' testimony, for example, was clearly given &quot;in order that you might believe&quot; (see Mark 2:8, Matt 17:26) and not for show (e.g. Luke 11:28-32). In Acts 2, the toungues were given as a miracle to substantiate the authority of the Apostles (those who would be 'sent out'). But, as Paul indicates in 1 Cor 12, the showy gifts like toungues and prophecy were causing divisions amongst believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned by Software Monkey, Pentecostal churches explicitly reject Cessationalism.  The aforemention Azusa Street Revival (and modern manifestations such as the Toronto Blessing) are, for the Penetcostal movement, the evidence of their legitimacy.  The term, of course, refers to the contrary position held by non-Pentecostals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T14:15:18.680" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5298" CreationDate="2012-01-10T15:12:09.150" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fact that some people are taught in school that the gospel writers copied from each certainly does not make it so.  One question that arises at the outset is, &quot;Why would the gospel writers copy from each other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, the gospel writers were each eyewitnesses, then there would be no need to copy from each other, since each would be recalling events from personal experience.  However, if the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, then the need for copying becomes apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is sufficient evidence to support the idea that the authors were, indeed, eyewitnesses, though this should be covered in a separate question and is certainly disputed by some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another question that arises is, if the gospel writers were copying from each other (or a different source), what was the purpose of even creating very similar accounts of the same story?  Why not just stick with the original source?  It doesn't seem to make much sense.  It only makes sense if the original source was not a written &quot;Q&quot; document, but the actual eyewitness experiences of the three authors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great question to ask is, &quot;What would we expect to find if the gospel writers did, in fact, copy from each other?&quot;  We would expect to find very significant agreement in the details of each event as well as the order.  However, we find quite a few differences.  Luke includes details about John the Baptist and Elizabeth, while the others do not.  Matthew introduces us to the Magi, while the others do not.  Matthew's genealogy does not match Luke's, and Mark leaves it out altogether.  The text of the Sermon on the Mount differs significantly between Luke and Matthew, and Mark again omits it.  The three differ on the specific details given about the trial, death, and resurrection of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Copying from each other does not seem to be able to account for so many differences.  It is much more sensible to conclude that each recorded what impressed them most from their shared experiences of the same events.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, there are a lot of the same events mentioned in each of the Synoptics.  It is reasonable to assume that each is confirming the accounts of the others by giving their own accounts of many of the same events.  Each wrote for a specific purpose for a specific audience.  It is certainly likely that the second and third authors were aware of those that wrote before them, and this could have shaped the event selected in their own writings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we can't know with absolute certainty, but it is certainly rational and reasonable to conclude that each author shared his own record of events, highlighting what impressed him the most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T15:12:09.150" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5298" CreationDate="2012-01-10T15:12:23.580" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, although not quite the way you put it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is agreed by pretty much all Bible scholars that there is some degree of interdependence between the gospels. This is based on the fact that many of the stories in the gospels are told in a very similar way. Exactly what depended on what is the subject of much debate, and more information can be found on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/a-question-of-priority&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Answers&lt;/a&gt;. This belief is very old, with Augustine laying down one of the most widely believed dependencies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the beliefs of dependency include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Augustinian view&lt;/strong&gt;: Matthew written first; with Mark using Matthew, and Luke using Matthew and Mark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q source&lt;/strong&gt; Matthew and Mark used a now lost source called &quot;Q&quot;. Luke used both Matthew and Mark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Markan priority&lt;/strong&gt; Mark was written first, with Matthew using both Mark and an unknown source&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Four-source&lt;/strong&gt; Mark and three unknown sources were written first, which the other gospels drew on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth pointing out that the interdependency has never been seen as in any way invalidating the gospels as sources. Any thorough modern biographer would also make use of other documents about their subject, and the parallel passages can be seen as evidence of the thoroughness and accuracy of the gospel writers. it's worth noting that all the gospels also contain some material found in no other gospel. Clearly none of the gospels was composed simply by copying other gospels. The wording differences are great enough to rule that out. Nor does it rule out the idea that the writers were eyewitnesses of at least some of the events themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answer to your final point, the only evidence for this is from analysis of the gospels themselves, though that includes the dating of manuscripts of the gospels and fragments of the gospels. None of the hypothesised sources such as Q has been definitively identified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-08-21T18:27:41.520" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T18:27:41.520" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5297" CreationDate="2012-01-10T16:12:01.320" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_version_debate#Source_text&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has a good list of the various sources used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Septuagint&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Masoretic&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Syriac&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dead Sea Scrolls&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vulgate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Samaritan Pentateuch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Textus Receptus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Codex Bezae&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Codex Sinaiticus&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04086a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Codex Vaticanus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;other fragments and partial texts &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-10T16:51:39.757" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T16:51:39.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5291" CreationDate="2012-01-10T16:26:19.127" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;James 1:2-3 is very clear on this - trials (bad things)  are used by God to perfect you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Temptation, often a related concept, however, is not from God, per verses 13-15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Hebrews 12 reiterates this, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,&#xA;     “My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, &#xA;     and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, &#xA;   because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, &#xA;     and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, from 1 Corinthians 10:13 it is clear that when these bad things occur, God promises to give you strength to overcome them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Greek, the understanding of trials and temptations can be understood to represent the bad circumstances of life that strengthen an individual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-10T16:47:37.437" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T16:47:37.437" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="66" CreationDate="2012-01-10T17:29:05.857" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Richard's answer doesn't address the primary issue of Unconditional Election, which is that God's election of people to salvation is based entirely on himself, not on any criteria about the person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;e.g. Many people ask me if God didn't simply elect the people that he knew would accept salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Doctrine of Total Depravity implies that there is no merit to base any criteria or condition on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More directly, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/esv/Ro3.27&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:27-30&lt;/a&gt; Paul makes it very clear that there can be no boasting in our salvation.  If God had any preference for one type of person over another, then we could use our salvation to boast as evidence of that.  But since there can be no boasting, then God must not prefer one type of person over another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/esv/Ro9.10&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 9:10-18&lt;/a&gt;, Paul argues that God makes his decision with no dependence on the man or woman, but entirely on himself. He references God's choosing Jacob over Esau in verse 11, &quot;though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue&quot;. This makes it clear that God's reasons for choosing Jacob were for &quot;God's purpose of election&quot;, not in Jacob's worth or actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="94" LastEditorUserId="94" LastEditDate="2013-11-27T20:20:29.993" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T20:20:29.993" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5307" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5309" CreationDate="2012-01-10T17:49:29.943" Score="8" ViewCount="105750" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whenever I debate someone about Bible literal-ism they usually mention &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20137:9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 137:9 KJV&lt;/a&gt;.  Based on the Protestant doctrine, how can I handle this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T00:39:48.440" LastActivityDate="2015-01-19T00:39:48.440" Title="How can Psalm 137:9 be defended?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5246" CreationDate="2012-01-10T18:48:19.020" Score="9" Body="&lt;h1&gt;The Reformed perspective&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Tim_Challies&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tim Challies&lt;/a&gt; (a well known reformed pastor in Toronto) gives an in depth opinion on Mere Christianity on his blog.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reading Classics - Mere Christianity&lt;/strong&gt; by Tim Challies &lt;strong&gt;part&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-i&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;II&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-iii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;III&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-iv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-v&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;V&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-vi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VI&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-vii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VII&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the reformed view, Lewis does make the common errors with regard to free will and God's sovereignty, especially with regard to the Garden of Eden.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also errs in some ways that that are problems with other denominations outside of the Reformation movement, including some &quot;Open Theism&quot;, his opinion on Evolution, and his version of salvation where people from other religions may be saved without ever becoming Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tim Challies' posts with the harshest critiques are (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-iii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;III&lt;/a&gt;) for free will and the Garden of Eden, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-vi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VI&lt;/a&gt;) for Open Theism, and (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/reading-classics-mere-christianity-vii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;VII&lt;/a&gt;) for evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, he still regards the book as a classic and worth reading with a ton of great quotes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="94" LastEditorUserId="5535" LastEditDate="2014-05-01T01:14:50.827" LastActivityDate="2014-05-01T01:14:50.827" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5307" CreationDate="2012-01-10T19:17:39.987" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The meaning is pretty obvious in context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ps 137 is a lament for Jerusalem after the Babylonians have invaded and destroyed it.  Verses 7-9 make it explicit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did &#xA;     on the day Jerusalem fell. &#xA;  “Tear it down,” they cried, &#xA;     “tear it down to its foundations!” &#xA;  8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, &#xA;     happy is the one who repays you &#xA;     according to what you have done to us. &#xA;  9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants &#xA;     and dashes them against the rocks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is sheer gloating on the part of the psalmist.  Whoever overthrows Babylon is someone the author wants to buy a beer! (Put another way, that person is someone really popular with the author.)  Whoever wrote this &lt;strong&gt;really&lt;/strong&gt; hated the Babylonians, and would love to kill their children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this &quot;right?&quot;  Remember, this is a psalm - an ancient song of the Hebrews.  I suspect many a future scholar will puzzle over, say, the misogynistic lyrics of Eminem or many like-minded rappers.  Psalms express the feelings of the writer, NOT THEOLOGICAL RULES FOR YOUR BEHAVIOR. (Although, it is often argued that the feelings reflected in the Psalms should be that of a mature Christian.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also, there is nothing that says &quot;You should bash a baby against a rock.&quot;  Doesn't fit with the text or the nature of God. It would be a misreading of the text, which actually proves the point there are &quot;rules&quot; for reading the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why is it in Scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who knows. 'Could be that God desired to illustrate that the Exiles had learned their lesson about spurning God's good gifts in Jerusalem, could just be that people agreed with the sentiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a person who doesn't believe the Bible is a &quot;real&quot; book, this verse is actually a pretty good arguement.  If the Bible were merely the work of &quot;men with an agenda,&quot; there doesn't seem to be a good reason to let such a genuine feeling in here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible can be literal but still express itself in the language of feeling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-10T19:24:14.907" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T19:24:14.907" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5298" CreationDate="2012-01-10T19:41:52.973" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;DJClayworth's &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5303/914&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; is spot on.  I'd like to take a moment to defend Bible scholars, their theories, and the gospel writers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/183/68&quot;&gt;serious question&lt;/a&gt; about whether John knew about the Synoptics.  The Fourth Gospel was almost certainly the last written and it would seem the others would be available.  But there's no textual evidence that I'm aware of that would show it copied from the Synoptics.  Almost everyone who has ever considered the question views John as an independent source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke explains in his prologue the methods he used to collect his sources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.&amp;mdash;Luke 1:1-4 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Luke+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The translators of the NET Bible &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Luk&amp;amp;chapter=1&amp;amp;verse=1#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;note&lt;/a&gt; on the word &quot;narrative&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is sometimes translated “narrative,” but the term itself can refer to an oral or written account. It is the verb “undertaken” which suggests a written account, since it literally is “to set one’s hand” to something (BDAG 386 s.v. ἐπιχειρέω). “Narrative” is too specific, denoting a particular genre of work for the accounts that existed in the earlier tradition. Not all of that material would have been narrative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what is clear from Luke's introduction is that he was aware of other compiled sources in addition to eyewitness testimony.  Luke's expressed purpose is &quot;to write an orderly account&quot; so that Theophilus &quot;may have certainty concerning the things [he has] been taught.&quot;  He doesn't claim to be an eyewitness, but to have followed (some translations say &quot;investigated&quot;) them.  His approach is that of an ancient historian who takes a hodgepodge of sources (including his own eyewitness in the second volume, Acts) and compile them into a readable story for his patron.  There was, in those days, no quotation mark, no footnotes, no concept of plagiarism, and no expectation that sources would be identified.  By the ancient standards, Luke went above and beyond to write a convincing history of Jesus' life and of the early years of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the great discoveries of &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/430/68&quot;&gt;source criticism&lt;/a&gt; is that Luke and Matthew usually quote Mark when writing about material common to all three.  To illustrate, here's the calling of Levi (AKA Matthew) with identical wording bolded and changed words italicized:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 2:14 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:14,Matthew%209:9,Luke%205:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NASB&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 9:9 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:14,Matthew%209:9,Luke%205:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NASB&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As Jesus went on from there&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;He saw&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;a man called Matthew&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;sitting in the tax&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;collector’s&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;booth; and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 5:27 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:14,Matthew%209:9,Luke%205:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NASB&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;After that He went out and noticed a tax collector named&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Levi sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One parallel doesn't make the case, but over and over we see the pattern of Luke and Matthew editing Mark's material &lt;em&gt;separately&lt;/em&gt;.  Matthew wanted to use the name &quot;Matthew&quot; instead of Levi while Luke would like to clarify that the person in the tax booth was, in fact, a tax collector.  These are reasonable edits and help the intended readers to understand the situation better.  And again, by that era's standards, edited quotations without attribution was to be expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all the material in Luke and Matthew was copied from Mark.  There is a substantial body of material that seem to be common to both.  Careful examination of the passages common to Luke and Matthew suggest that each redacted (i.e. edited) another source.  A wide variety of Biblical scholars have concluded that there was a written source (now lost) that consisted mostly of Jesus' teachings that both Matthew and Luke independently drew from.  This hypothetical document was called &lt;em&gt;Quelle&lt;/em&gt; (German for &quot;source&quot;) by its early proponents and is now simply called &lt;em&gt;Q&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some scholars dispute the existence of &lt;em&gt;Q&lt;/em&gt; and others say that it was likely an oral, not written, source.  Given that one of the primary duties of a Rabbi's disciples in that period was to memorize the teacher's words, the &lt;em&gt;Q&lt;/em&gt; material may very well represent our Lord's teachings as a Rabbi.  But none of these theories is supported by external evidence and so must be held loosely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other material, particularly related to Jesus' birth, is unique to Matthew and Luke respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Doesn't it harm our faith to accept that the gospels copied each other?&lt;/strong&gt; I can imagine some thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No!&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remarkably, the Passion narrative of each gospel is independent.  Fully one third of Mark (and a similar proportion of the other three gospels) is absolutely unique to it.  That means that for the most critical week of our Savior's life, we have &lt;strong&gt;four independent accounts&lt;/strong&gt;.  What's more, while they do disagree on some details (the classical example is who was at the tomb), they &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; agree that Jesus died and bodily rose again&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.  Further, they agree on why these events happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian ought to rejoice in the care that Matthew and Luke took when writing down their biographies of Jesus.  Both used independent sources when available and diligently edited Mark's accounts when necessary.  We can take comfort in knowing that the gospel writers were eager to leave us with complete and accurate narratives of Jesus' life.  We should rejoice in the blessing of Christ's story handed down to us from the testimony of many witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Synoptic gospels &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; copy each other and that should be encouraging to Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnote:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mark's ending is a tricky problem in textual criticism.  It seems to end in mid-sentence &#xA;after &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 16:8&lt;/a&gt;. The ESV translators note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16:9 Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9–20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: &lt;em&gt;But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.&lt;/em&gt; These manuscripts then continue with verses 9–20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exactly what happened at the end of the gospel is not clear, but many (including N. T. Wright in &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=RoD5_bN-WxUC&amp;amp;dq=resurrection%20of%20the%20son%20of%20god%20wright&amp;amp;source=gbs_navlinks_s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Resurrection of the Son of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;) believe that the original autograph was damaged and we lost the final portion of the gospel.  The various endings according to this view are attempts to reconstruct the text using fragments of Luke and plausible guesses.  But we should not consider any of these endings as authentic as they all differ in style and theme from Markian material.  Thankfully, we do have enough of the ending to assert that Jesus rose from the dead and that the tomb was empty:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. &lt;strong&gt;He has &lt;em&gt;risen&lt;/em&gt;; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;mdash;Mark 16:6 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we are missing here is any post-resurrection appearances.  This deficiency is amply corrected by the other gospels and by Paul in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 15&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T20:31:11.037" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5238" CreationDate="2012-01-10T21:46:07.747" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jonah 4:2 has this formulation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that is repeated in Exodus 34:6, Numbers 14:18, Psalm 86:15, Psalm 103:8, and Psalm 111:4, just to mention a few places. As such, it seems this is a standard formulation for describing character - in the OT - that focuses first on God's love, above and beyond his justness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-10T21:46:07.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2012-01-10T22:15:37.840" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are not necessarily &quot;being punished&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not held accountable for their sin. Adam and Eve, our first ancestors,  became sinful and we have inherited their sinful nature being born from them. Adam failed where Christ succeeded. That is why we must be &quot;born again&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God chose perfectly a man and woman who would represent mankind. Would not all of us at some point be tempted and have walked in disobedience?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2015-09-25T17:27:38.883" LastActivityDate="2015-09-25T17:27:38.883" CommentCount="18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5297" CreationDate="2012-01-10T22:28:41.717" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Newer Bible translations are moving to the Masoretic text more and more for the Old Testament translation, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Dead Sea Scrolls validate the authenticity of the Masoretic text). Septuagint is a very good translation of the Hebrew original when it comes to the Torah, but the rest of the books are known to be poorly translated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The translators, of course, make use of the Septuagint and other translations wherever the Masoretic text is not very clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the New Testament, most translators make use of the Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland text, among others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T18:01:09.287" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T18:01:09.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5316" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5374" CreationDate="2012-01-10T22:54:49.633" Score="22" ViewCount="58251" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, Onan in Genesis 38 has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;accused of masturbation&lt;/a&gt;, and for this supposed transgression was struck dead.  The term Onanism (or in German &lt;strong&gt;Onanie&lt;/strong&gt;) is still used to describe this practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jerome write:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I wonder why he the heretic Jovinianus set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother his seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Clement of Alexandria, while not making explicit reference to Onan, similarly reflects an early Christian view of the abhorrence of spilling seed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted. To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was Onan's sin really masturbation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T02:26:40.967" LastActivityDate="2020-06-17T02:26:40.967" Title="Was Onan really struck dead by God for masturbating?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;masturbation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5316" CreationDate="2012-01-10T23:05:15.217" Score="50" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story of Judah and Tamar is an interesting one, to say the least.  Judah and Tamar are both explicitly mentioned in Jesus' lineage (Matthew 1 - and Tamar is only one of four women mentioned, all of whom have sordid stories associated with them).  In the end, Tamar is going to trick her father-in-law into getting her pregnant, and then avoids death by proving Judah is the father.  But the question is about Onan, not Judah...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the story, Tamar is first wed to Er, the eldest of Judah's sons.  Er dies for some unmentioned reason, and Tamar is left without children. Children in that time were important both for the social support for parents in their old age, and for continuance of the family line.  Being childless, the law calls for something called 'levirate marriage' - the next oldest brother is required to marry and give the widow the children.  This is how Judah's second child, Onan, enters the story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, Onan was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; masturbating.  If anything, you could accuse Onan of &lt;em&gt;coitus interruptus&lt;/em&gt;, but not masturbation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Onan was doing, however, was using Tamar for sex, but not giving her the child she deserved.  One could call this theft - it isn't really the sex that is at issue at all. As the text clearly states, Onan did not want his deceased brother to have an heir. That would have negated his claim on the inheritance, and his new found status as eldest brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the story continues with this theme of theft - Judah refuses to allow his third son Shelah, to fufill this duty. (I mean, can you blame him? Two sons dead, and now looking at a third?)  Instead of Shelah taking from Tamar, Judah is &quot;stealing&quot; Tamar's due.  In the end, however, Tamar tricks Judah into securing her place in the line of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just your typical Sunday School story, I know, but a fun one :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T07:30:15.710" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T07:30:15.710" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5225" CreationDate="2012-01-10T23:10:58.217" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that for the first century of Christianity, it was really difficult to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. See Acts 15, for example, where the Jews are being to accommodate Christian Gentiles.  As such, Jewish practices in the first century would have largely set the  tone for Christian worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the book of Hebrews presents Christ as the sacrifice and the High Priest, and represents the earliest &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; understanding of sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the time of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Didache&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (one of the earliest Church Fathers - a &quot;manual&quot; that early Christians used to &quot;do&quot; church), we already see that early Christians were equating communion with sacrifice, as evidenced by this reference from Book Five:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now according to the Lord's day, gather together and break bread and give thanks, after acknowledging your wanderings to one another, so your sacrifice would be a clean one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It wasn't until the late 300s AD that Gentiles outnumbered Jews, so &quot;imitation&quot; isn't really the right word. &quot;Just doing what they've always done&quot; might better describe it, but in reality, it is just an extension of existing practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The extension of this perogative to non-Jews would have been substantiated by Acts 10 (the Cornelius vision, declaring formerly unclean things clean), Acts 15 (the Apostles' letter saying that Gentiles were not subject to the restrictions of the law), and Galatians 3:26 (In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What made this accessible to the average person was the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, promulgated during the time of the Reformations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-30T21:56:00.370" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T21:56:00.370" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5321" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5415" CreationDate="2012-01-11T00:47:07.817" Score="4" ViewCount="760" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the main logical or doctrinal basis that is put forth by those Christians who don't believe in the existence of God? I mean, in the Bible Jesus spoke of God the Father many times, so how do they logically explain their belief that God doesn't exist? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-26T17:58:33.760" LastActivityDate="2015-10-26T17:58:33.760" Title="What's the main logical basis that is put forth by those Christians who don't believe in the existence of God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;&lt;existence-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5322" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5323" CreationDate="2012-01-11T00:51:45.530" Score="7" ViewCount="362" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology&quot;&gt;soteriologies&lt;/a&gt; (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Arminianism&quot;&gt;Arminianism&lt;/a&gt;) that require humans to make a decision to come to God, why is that the case?  What does God gain from faith? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, why does he require a violitional act of choosing God, rather than simply unilaterially saving humans from their fate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T16:06:50.913" LastActivityDate="2014-03-17T18:33:58.730" Title="Does God need/demand humans' faith for them to be saved? If so, why?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5322" CreationDate="2012-01-11T01:26:18.157" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One has to argue the premise - God doesn't necessarily &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; faith, he might just want it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A truly compassionate and loving God who understands his people, may simply desire what is best for them. If God is the best, then it would be His desire that his people come to him- willingly and without coercion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an analogy, a father may understand that his children learn the value of money. That would entail getting the child's attention, showing correct courses of action, and rewarding desired / punishing undesired behavior. But, before any of this training can occur, the child must first believe that the parent knows how best to deal with money.  Without that implicit faith, nothing can be taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, God demands faith (1) in order that he might help his children to be better.(2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(1) Heb 11:6 without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(2) Heb 12:6 - 10 the Lord disciplines the one he loves, &#xA;     and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, it does sound a little bit like an old Army ad, but its true: God wants you to be all you can be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to accomplish that, however, one must choose (via free will) that God is in fact the best authority you can emulate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T13:40:31.870" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T13:40:31.870" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5246" CreationDate="2012-01-11T01:35:57.147" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what Lewis has to say for himself in his introduction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope no reader will suppose that &amp;quot;mere&amp;quot; Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions—as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall  out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lewis (along with contemporaries such Dorothy L. Sayers and Dietrich Bonhoeffer) played a part in promoting the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ecumenical movement&lt;/a&gt; and struggled with the definition of the Church.  On the one hand, philosophically there ought to be a unifying system of belief among the body of Christ.  On the other, many of us find life in the beliefs and practices that are most divisive.  (Depending on which side of the Adriatic Sea you live on, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hesychasm&lt;/a&gt; is either &amp;quot;navel-gazing&amp;quot; or experiencing God.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; proposes a solution that we simply ignore those things we disagree on and talk about those that are common.  To use Lewis' analogy of a large building with many rooms, the hallways will have beige carpet and unobjectionable artwork and plants that don't require much in the way of care.  In the same way, &amp;quot;mere&amp;quot; Christianity will insist on only those beliefs and practices that remain when the bulk of disagreement is removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shockingly, what's left over turns out to be supremely rich.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a paragraph in which he explains that some people may spend considerable time in the hallway before finding (what we Protestants sometimes call) a &amp;quot;church home&amp;quot;, Lewis address picking a denomination and how we should think of those we disagree with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In plain language, the question should never be: &amp;quot;Do I like that kind of service?&amp;quot; but  &amp;quot;Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here?  Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More than anything else, &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; stands as a valiant attempt at ecumenicism.  If it fails, it fails because the idea of bringing the entire Christian faith into one house is unworkable.  I would prefer to believe that it succeeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T01:35:57.147" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5327" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5330" CreationDate="2012-01-11T02:24:03.993" Score="9" ViewCount="3371" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed&lt;/strong&gt; and in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;first verse&lt;/a&gt;, two angels are greeted by Lot as they arrive at the gates of Sodom. But instead of the &quot;do not be afraid&quot; speech that angels typically say, Lot offers to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;wash their feet&lt;/a&gt; and insists they spend the night at his house. What is going on here? I can't find a verse that specifically states the angels were disguised as men, but in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;verse 5&lt;/a&gt;, the people of Sodom say, &quot;Where are the &lt;strong&gt;men&lt;/strong&gt; who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be really weird if the angels weren't disguised (actually it's weird either way) so I'm going to go ahead and say that they were disguised as men. Are there other biblical references where angels are disguised as humans?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="157" LastEditorUserId="157" LastEditDate="2015-09-08T23:58:34.953" LastActivityDate="2015-09-08T23:58:34.953" Title="Are there other biblical references where angels are disguised as humans?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;sodom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-07T21:39:53.550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5327" CreationDate="2012-01-11T02:35:16.813" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently, some in New Testament times were familiar with some such incidents, and did not find it unlikely that it would happen, as related in the book of Hebrews:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2013:2&quot;&gt;Hebrews 13:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T22:29:00.480" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T22:29:00.480" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5327" CreationDate="2012-01-11T03:52:10.840" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Samson's father Manoah did not recognize the Angel of the Lord until after he and the angel sacrificed to the Lord (Judges 13:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The angel of the LORD replied, “Even though you detain me, I will not eat any of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, offer it to the LORD.” (Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the LORD.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-13T16:26:04.723" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T16:26:04.723" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5332" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5334" CreationDate="2012-01-11T11:14:53.180" Score="4" ViewCount="302" Body="&lt;p&gt;These two passages appear to be contradictory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. (1 Samuel 17:50)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod. (2 Samuel 21:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can these be reconciled?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1161" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-07-25T17:21:21.260" Title="Who killed Goliath?" Tags="&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;david&gt;&lt;1-samuel&gt;&lt;2-samuel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5333" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5338" CreationDate="2012-01-11T11:34:05.557" Score="15" ViewCount="9245" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Colossians, there appears to be some disagreement amongst the first century church on &lt;em&gt;whether&lt;/em&gt; to keep the Sabbath:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 2:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a &lt;strong&gt;Sabbath day&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the first century church keep the Sabbath?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if so which day was it on? The Jewish Saturday or the new Christian Sunday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-01-07T18:21:23.847" Title="Did the first Christian believers keep the Sabbath and if so on which day?" Tags="&lt;sabbath&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5332" CreationDate="2012-01-11T12:03:54.947" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;An explanation for the first question is that God is in control over everything and that everything happens because he has allowed it. Sometimes he strike people with afflictions, but that does not mean he really wants to do it. Note the word &quot;willingly&quot; in the second verse. He does not do it willingly, but that does not mean he doesn't do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An explanation for the second question is that it was Goliath's brother (since Goliath himself had already been slain). Note that names and relations was not as well recorded then as it is today. Also, the same writer would not make such a large mistake in this obvious example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this type of issue, where there might be doubt as to whether the translation is correct or not, it's a good idea to examine the original source and if that is not possible examine a number of different translations of the passage. I did this by looking up the verse in every English translation available at BibleGateway.com and found that the most of them uses the word &quot;willingly&quot;. Many says that God does not &lt;em&gt;enjoy&lt;/em&gt; doing it and some says that he does not do it &lt;em&gt;by heart&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="85" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T13:29:29.470" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T13:29:29.470" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5335" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5339" CreationDate="2012-01-11T13:07:41.770" Score="3" ViewCount="230" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to soteriologies (e.g. Calvinism) that believe God makes the choice to save people without expecting any decision from them first, what is the role of faith? If the decision making process is not mans' in the first place, why is it that God says people will only be saved by faith? What does their faith accomplish?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, why does he require obedience if there is no choice in the matter anyway?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-12T23:46:30.303" LastActivityDate="2015-07-17T21:50:01.990" Title="What is the use of faith if God doesn't need/require anything from humans to save them?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5336" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5344" CreationDate="2012-01-11T13:24:48.180" Score="20" ViewCount="761" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it wrong to try to reach God with reason instead of faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really believe that logical reasoning is the way to get closer to God but since I was a kid my parents and relatives keep telling me that I can only get closer to God and be saved by my faith and I'm not really a faith person, I'm more a logical person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid I'm taking the wrong road, my mind keeps telling me I'm right thinking with reason but my parents and friends from church keep telling me I'm not going to be saved because of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've started studying Deism and I really like it, not everything, but it makes sense to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anyone that can make me understand more about Christianity and logical reasoning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Am I going through a spiritual war or something like it? I'm really confused and a bit scared about my decisions and thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance for any help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1161" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-17T04:39:47.760" LastActivityDate="2015-01-17T16:58:35.447" Title="Is Christianity with reason wrong?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;&lt;deism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-01-20T22:11:18.073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5333" CreationDate="2012-01-11T13:49:05.193" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first Christians were Jewish, so they naturally observed the Sabbath on Saturday--just like they always had.  They worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--just like they always had, but they did so with the realization that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and visited them, that is, that Jesus the Messiah, the eternal Son of God had become a man, had been crucified, buried and rose again on the third day, that is, on Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also appears that they began to observe the first day of the week as Jewish believers in order to honor the day of the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside&#xA;  and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no&#xA;  collecting when I come.  1 Corinthians 16:2  ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gentiles were never required to become Jewish in order to follow Jesus.  They were not required to be circumcised or to observe the Jewish Sabbath or refrain from eating pork--or any of the covenant laws of Israel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, Paul and Peter continued to attend Sabbath days in the synagogue and to proclaim Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse immediately after the one you cited states this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to&#xA;  Christ.  Colossians 2:17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Paul is stating that the New Moons, Sabbaths and all that (from the Law) were a shadow of the things that were to come.  The reality is found in Jesus.  Therefore, if Gentile believers did not do all of these things, they should not be concerned with the Judaizers or any who would criticize them for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Gentile believers in Jesus the Messiah, it seems appropriate to honor the day of resurrection, following the pattern set forth by the early church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, if you happen to celebrate and worship Jesus on the wrong day, I'm sure that's alright.  In fact, we should probably worship Him every day of every week, and certainly not just one day a week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T13:49:05.193" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5333" CreationDate="2012-01-11T14:00:24.757" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The writings of the early Christians make it clear that Christians abandoned the Jewish custom of worship on the Sabbath (seventh day) and instead held the first day, which they called the Lord's Day, to be the sacred day of worship.  One of the simplest explanations on the subject comes from Tertullian, around 200 AD:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But why is it, you ask, that we gather on the Lord's Day to celebrate&#xA;  our solemnities?  Because that was the way the Apostles also did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;De Fuga in Persecutione&lt;/em&gt;, XIV: 11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was not an innovation of the second century AD, as a full century earlier, (101 AD,) we find Ignatius saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to&#xA;  the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but&#xA;  living in the observance of the Lord's day on which our life was&#xA;  sprung by him and his death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;Epistle to the Magnesians&lt;/em&gt;, Chapter 9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just in case there is any confusion as to the identity of the Lord's Day, we can turn to Justin Martyr. (140 AD)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And on the day which is called Sunday there is an assembly in the same&#xA;  place of all who live in cities or in country districts; and the&#xA;  records of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as&#xA;  long as we have time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly,&#xA;  because it is the day on which God, when he changed the darkness and&#xA;  matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day&#xA;  rose from the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;Apologies&lt;/em&gt; 1:67&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again from Justin Martyr, we see that Christians did not keep the Jewish holy days:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We neither accord with the Jews in their peculiarities in regard to&#xA;  food nor in their sacred days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;Apologies&lt;/em&gt; Sec. 21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, it's clear from the historical record that the first-century Christians, such as Ignatius, had organized worship meetings on the Lord's Day (Sunday), and that they did not consider observance of the Jewish Sabbath important, it having been fulfilled by Christ with the rest of the Law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-01-12T02:55:42.963" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T02:55:42.963" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5335" CreationDate="2012-01-11T14:07:01.357" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few facets to this, but the Calvinist perspective (though not nec. &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; the Calvinist perspective) would say that faith is the mechanism for salvation, because it gives God the glory; it doesn't give man room to boast (also, it doesn't help that man doesn't quite cut it with his works).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle Paul addresses this in his letter to the Ephesians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:1-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:1-10 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt; [Emphasis mine]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once&#xA;  walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of&#xA;  the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of&#xA;  disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our&#xA;  flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were&#xA;  by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But&#xA;  God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he&#xA;  loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive&#xA;  together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up&#xA;  with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ&#xA;  Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable&#xA;  riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 &lt;strong&gt;For by&#xA;  grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own&#xA;  doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one&#xA;  may boast.&lt;/strong&gt; 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus&#xA;  for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in&#xA;  them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reformed Theology understands the order of salvation as beginning with regeneration (being &quot;born again&quot; -- see John 3) with a capacity for faith.   This faith is not something that is effected through the will of sinful man (who is &quot;dead in [his]...sins&quot;), but rather, it is a gift from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T14:07:01.357" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5336" CreationDate="2012-01-11T14:27:35.307" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%201:18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 1:18  (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD:  though your sins&#xA;  are like scarlet,     they shall be as white as snow;  though they are&#xA;  red like crimson,     they shall become like wool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian God is a God of order, and He is the author and sustainer of all of creation, which, I believe, explains the transcendental requisites for a universe that supports reason.  He also created man in His image, which, I believe, accounts for man's rational ability and desires.   God is a God of reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, not all things are going to be reasonable to us, or even evident enough to enter into the realm of &quot;reasonableness,&quot; so I'm not sure that it's quite fair to pit faith against reason (my first paragraph was sort of intented to illustrate this: my reason for holding to a high esteem of &quot;reason&quot; is based on my faith).   God requires his people to trust Him in faith, but He also presents them with a well-structured creation, a mind built for rationality, and an offer to &quot;reason together.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I don't like that Christians have gotten a reputation (though, much of it is probably fairly earned from a real tendency) for shying away from purusuits of reason in the name of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T14:27:35.307" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5336" CreationDate="2012-01-11T14:43:35.537" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm focusing here on the aspect that you are finding it possible to relate to; namely Deism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deism is, in the conventional form, the &quot;light the blue touch paper and retire&quot; deity - i.e. that sets up the initial conditions, and then bows out. And this is where it gets interesting, since Deism traditionally breaks the link with all supernatural activity, and revealed theology (and becomes impersonal, rather than personal). This means firstly that you can't use the Bible as a source, since it is no longer Holy. It also means that if you &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; consider the Bible as a source, you are limited to  things like the Jefferson Bible (or similar), meaning: no miracles, no divinity, no resurrection. As you say, this approach then defies neither the observed universe nor modern reason / science, and does not call for a &quot;suspension of disbelief&quot; over the supernatural, which many people find genuinely hard (or: impossible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deism admits the option of a God, but it could be argued that &lt;em&gt;at that point&lt;/em&gt; it is very unclear whether you are talking to the same meaning of &quot;God&quot; (since the Christian tradition is based on the revealed Bible, and things like the resurrection, which is supernatural). Furthermore, it flat-out denies events like the resurrection, which many (not all) Christians would argue is a fundamental tenant of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each must find his own path; personally, if I had to place it in a group, I would have to conclude that Deism is un-Christian (but without malice; it isn't usually actively anti-Christian). It is open to interpretation as to whether it is part of the Abrahamic tradition, since that is also based on a very hands-on and supernatural God; but the possibility could not be entirely eliminated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Deism approach was not uncommon (especially around the enlightenment), but is much diminished now, based on a combination of scientific progress of the early universe (which migrates some with Deist thinking a step further, into naturalistic [H]umanism), and kickback from the mainstream Church (pulling some back to mainstream Christianity with a supernatural, personal God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only you can choose your path here. Personally, finding a lack of &lt;em&gt;reason&lt;/em&gt; for divinity (inside of, or outside of, the universe), I took the step towards Humanism, and I am &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; happy with my decision. It is, ultimately, a personal thing - and the Christian angle here would be, instead, to pull you back into the warmth of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T14:43:35.537" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5336" CreationDate="2012-01-11T15:32:42.983" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reasoning can take you a long way.  Just look at this community.  Being a part of the StackExchange network, a good percentage of the members (including myself) come from a highly technical, scientific background, and would likely revolt at the thought of rationality being incompatible with Christian faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that reasoning is only a process.  It's a tool, and like any useful tool, it's susceptible to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer&quot;&gt;golden hammer fallacy&lt;/a&gt;, particularly when one fails to realize that the reasoning process does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems&quot;&gt;and provably can not&lt;/a&gt;) provide any foundation to start reasoning from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reasoning is the process of taking information and drawing useful conclusions from it through the application of rational rules.  As such, it can only ever be as good as the information you start with.  For an illustrative demonstration of the significance of this fact, take a look at late medieval science sometime.  Stuff like &lt;em&gt;phlogiston theory&lt;/em&gt; (an explanation of how fire works in the absence of atomic theory and an understanding of oxygen) or &lt;em&gt;retrograde motion&lt;/em&gt; (an explanation for peculiarities observed in the orbits of our neighbors in the solar system, based on a geocentric model instead of a heliocentric one.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people who studied this stuff did a lot of very interesting experiments, which were valid according to the scientific method, to try to figure out how things really work.  But because they began with incorrect assumptions, they reached bad conclusions.  Reasoning was useless in these cases; what was needed was better data.  (And indeed, when better data became available, scientists were able to reason out more accurate theories pretty quickly, and the old ones became obsolete.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where faith comes in.  God has given us everything we need to have a reason to believe that he exists, but he stops short of providing absolute and universal proof because that would interfere with the development of our faith, and salvation comes only through faith. (The reason &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; it's only through faith that we can be saved is a matter for another question, and not everyone agrees on the details, but the fact that it's necessary is nearly universally accepted as Christian doctrine AFAIK.)  So your parents and friends are right, to a point.  You can't find God through reason alone.  But when you have achieved a foundation of faith, it's certainly possible to use reason to strengthen your faith, or to figure out how to deal with problems in our lives when no obvious, explicit solution is given in the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has revealed his existence, his plan for us, and the rules that we need to live by in order to find happiness in this life and salvation after this life, through his prophets and apostles.  This information has been recorded in the scriptures, to preserve it for later generations, like us.  If we can exercise our faith enough to accept this, it gives us a solid foundation to start reasoning from when it comes to many important aspects of our lives.  For example, we're told that Paul made a habit of using the scriptures which the Jews had already accepted to reason with them and help them find faith in Christ, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:1-3&quot;&gt;Acts 17: 1-3&lt;/a&gt;, see also Acts 18,) and that the resurrected Lord did the same with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:13-25&quot;&gt;Luke 24: 13-25&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, there's nothing wrong with using reason to increase your faith.  But it cannot &lt;em&gt;establish&lt;/em&gt; your faith, and it should not be the only thing you allow to guide you.  There are times when we reach the limits of what we know, and reason becomes useless.  In those cases, it's necessary to simply let God's word serve as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119:105&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;a lamp unto our feet&lt;/a&gt;, lighting&#xA;our path one step at a time, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:7&quot;&gt;walk by faith, not by sight&lt;/a&gt;.  Having both principles available to you will make you stronger than having to rely on only one or the other, particularly if you can learn when the appropriate time to apply each of them is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-01-17T08:45:00.873" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T08:45:00.873" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5336" CreationDate="2012-01-11T15:32:45.040" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically there have been two schools of thought about human reason. One says that Adam was gifted with wisdom and understanding to be able to deduce the truth, but at the Fall these powers were lost to him. In such a case human reason cannot be relied upon. The other says that reason is a natural gift, and that Man therefore has all the reasoning necessary to make correct deductions about God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T15:32:45.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5336" CreationDate="2012-01-11T15:40:45.513" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, there have been four sources of Theology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tradition&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reason&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Experience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of these is a tool that we can use to answer questions about God, and each has its pros and cons. The best theology draws from all of these sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good resource for understanding the pros and cons of reason as a source of theology is the &quot;Theology Unplugged&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/what-we-do/the-theology-program/introduction-to-theology/&quot;&gt;podcast&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a quick summary, the biggest problem with reason (by itself) is that the assumptions on which it is based often change over time.  To take it out of the theolgical realm, we &quot;know&quot; that the earth revolves around the sun, but less than 800 years ago, we also &quot;knew&quot; that the sun revolved around the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because we have limited knowledge, sometimes we must accept God's revelation in order to have reasonable assumptioms from which to make deductions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: This doesn't say we shouldn't use the reason and minds God gave us!  Just understand that reason by itself is not a silver bullet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T15:40:45.513" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5335" CreationDate="2012-01-11T17:04:00.350" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think one thing that might cause confusion here is that at first glance, &quot;faith&quot; seems like a rather arbitrary requirement...especially since the nature of belief is such a tricky one: We only believe that which we consider to be believable (chicken or egg?), so until we find the gospel believable...why would we ever believe the gospel?  It's kind of a sticky wicket from a volitional standpoint...and some different theologies seek to address this with their different takes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe more fundamentally, though, I think we can consider that God requires obedience.   He created the universe, and He sets the laws of this cosmos.   To violate the laws He set forth is a pretty big deal, whether we realize it or not, and so God is well within in His right to punish all disobedience (which is rebellion against the sovereign God's created order committed by the very creatures he gave life to) in whatever manner He sees fit.   The Biblical account shows, though, that man is not very good at being obedient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus enters the scene, and provides a gracious provision.   Jesus IS perfectly obedient, and he alone, fulfils the law.  He also acts as the sacrificial lamb who pays the penalty for the disobedience of his people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where faith comes in to play, as this defines who are Jesus's people. We are basically given a choice...do we accept the perfect life, the atoning death, and the resurection of Jesus Christ,  and trust him to be our representative when judgement comes (i.e. do we stand before God as though Jesus's life record is our own -- this requires faith, as we're trusting in the validity of the testimony of Jesus, and we're trusting in him as our Saviour ), or do we reject that and choose to be our own representive -- do we rely on our own merit as the basis for our worthiness to be judged by God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T17:04:00.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5354" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5356" CreationDate="2012-01-11T18:18:48.260" Score="6" ViewCount="253" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the right terminology here for when God's allowing something, but not blessing it?&#xA;I once had it, but now I forgot. It's something about two different types of God's will. One is kind of &quot;allowing&quot; will, for example, in such things like earthquakes, in which children die, and the other one is a &quot;good-pleasure&quot; will, for example, in such things like preaching the gospel and saving people. So, what are the correct words here?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T22:30:43.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T15:17:53.060" Title="What's the right terminology here for what God's allowing something, but not blessing it?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3505" CreationDate="2012-01-11T18:50:43.203" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scene: The captain's office in a frontier fort, somewhere near enemy territory. Enter a sentry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Captain: What is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sentry:  I think it's possible that there may be some enemies out there, sir.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Captain: Enemies? Where are they? How many? How are they armed? What direction are they heading? Are they coming here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sentry: I'm not really sure, sir. I didn't like to look at them too closely. I thought it might be demoralizing. So I just kind of kept looking at the wall of the watchtower, where it's safe. But I'm pretty sure there's someone out there. Somewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't read these books, how are you going to know what they say?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T18:50:43.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5354" CreationDate="2012-01-11T18:52:58.050" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that's considered His &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=311586&amp;amp;Pg=&amp;amp;Pgnu=1&amp;amp;recnu=&quot;&gt;passive will&lt;/a&gt; as opposed to His active will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...the will is the intellectual appetite. But in the intellect there are two powers--the active and the passive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica Question 83 article 4 objection 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T19:03:11.700" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T19:03:11.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2012-01-11T19:02:34.680" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think He has punished every human for one's mistake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also don't believe that the world began with Adam and Eve, I think that is the way God used to explain how things worked at that time. And I believe on that based on the scripture when Caem was expelled from paradise and head to a village, if he was going to a village, who lived in this village based on the idea the world began with 2 persons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eva would have sex with her children?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar thought happens when Jesus said &quot;kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed&quot;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:31-32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I'm a person that like to explain the Bible with science(not always, of course), the world got closer to something called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Higgs Boson&lt;/a&gt;, also know as &quot;God particle&quot;, read wiki for more information. Those CERN scientists are trying to find it a long time and, if I'm not mistaken, they got closer to finding it at december 2011. Imagine Jesus explaining it to some people ~2000 year ago, that would sound really weird.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that is also the reason why Jesus gave all his lessons in parables so that everyone could understand it despite the time, future, past, present... a parable is the same thing forever everywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1161" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T19:02:34.680" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5358" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5360" CreationDate="2012-01-11T19:44:00.110" Score="0" ViewCount="493" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5144&quot;&gt;Why is Christmas on December 25th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4772&quot;&gt;When did Christmas (the birth of Christ) first begin as a Christian celebration?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1360&quot;&gt;On which date was Christ born?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Also Related:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4802&quot;&gt;Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2653&quot;&gt;Does Christianity allow Christians to celebrate other holidays?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4802&quot;&gt;Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Se also:&lt;/strong&gt; The &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/christmas&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;christmas&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;christmas&lt;/a&gt; tag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a curiosity about our celebrations, for instance Christmas, based on Jesus birth. It is not biblical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25 December is a pagan date, commemoration of Mitra's birth and not Jesus's birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only clue about Jesus birth is that of the shepherds who visited Him, they were still in the fields, which lets us eliminate the month of December, as the harsh winter in the northern hemisphere did not allow the action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I never saw a Christian not celebrating the Christmas even it been a pagan celebration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other dates that I have doubts but I'll leave them for another question later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is my information correct about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1161" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T12:37:26.477" Title="Is Christmas biblical?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;celebrations&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2012-01-18T12:34:18.070" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5358" CreationDate="2012-01-11T20:03:30.827" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Christians were left to celebrating sacred events on days where no other pagan celebration has ever occurred, there would be no days available for Christian celebrations.  So, on a day where some people at a certain time celebrated the birth of a god that never existed, Christians (Catholic and Protestant) choose to celebrate the birth of Jesus the Messiah.  The two celebrations have absolutely nothing to do with each other, other than that they occur on the same day.  (The common days for the Orthodox Christmas are January 6 and 7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is certainly possible that it was originally selected because it had been the celebration of a birth of a false deity before.  That would make sense.  The idea of redeeming a day of worshiping the birth of a false deity by celebrating the birth of the one true Lord and Messiah and worshiping Him is a great idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be especially so for people who come out of false religions worshiping false gods.  As they continue to live in a culture that has various sacred observances, why not provide an alternative to these that worship the true and living God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus was definitely born, and it's a great thing to remember this incredible event each year in worship.  We don't know exactly what day He was born, but December 25th is certainly fine.  The kids are out of school, there are a lot of sales going on, and we have a day off of work.  Why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T20:03:30.827" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5358" CreationDate="2012-01-11T20:03:43.823" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Potential dup (or near question) &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5144/christmas-on-december-25th&quot;&gt;Why is Christmas on December 25th?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless, the information there (and in its sources) help form an answer to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;December has carried significant &quot;spiritual&quot; weight throughout humanity, probably attached to the Winter Solstice. In addition to the things that you've mentioned, the traditional date for the purification of the Temple by the Maccabean Revolt (leading to a brief period of Jewish independence just before the birth of Jesus) is Dec. 25th (V-Day for the Maccabees). Also, it was the day that Sol Invictus became the official cult religion of the Roman Empire in the 200s which gave rise to a celebratory festival in the honor of the cult god on the 25th. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;edit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extending this, there is the potential that early Christians walked the fine line between being good citizens of both Heaven and Earth by not completely disrupting the societal norms (and holding a festival) but explicitly dedicating it to the birth of Jesus. As Christianity became more readily-accepted (ultimately with Constantine) perhaps the festival took on the more Christian understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relationship to Sol Invictus and the solstice is reason for 15th C. Christians rejecting its celebration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Justo Gonzales has some good stuff in The Story of Christianity vols 1 &amp;amp; 2 which I am drawing upon (memory, though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T20:10:54.670" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2926" CreationDate="2012-01-11T20:14:35.380" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It takes some interpretation as well as synthesis from scientific sources but the biblical narrative roughly follows the evolutionary process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:3-10 describe the initial stages of order coming into place. Day, night, water, land, atmosphere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vegetation appears next in vv. 11-13. Vegetation would have been the first macro-organism on the scene in the evolutionary process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the atmosphere stabilized (and perhaps the vegetation processed the CO2) the stars appeared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, vv.20-23 describes the appearance of fish and birds which are the next phases in the macro-evolutionary cycle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vv. 24-26 are the land animals - also next in evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, vv. 26ff describe the creation of humanity which is the next stage in the evolutionary process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIHistory.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIHistory.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pciesiel/gly3150/plant.html&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="86" LastEditDate="2012-01-11T20:40:08.663" LastActivityDate="2012-01-11T20:40:08.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2926" CreationDate="2012-01-11T21:51:26.410" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to keep in mind is that the precise definition is &quot;day&quot; is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; a 24 hour period. The precise definition of &quot;day&quot; is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation; to the Jews, a day was the time from when the sun rose to the time it set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting that, prior to creation, the bible says the &quot;Earth was without form and void&quot;. Depending on translation, it does not say that the Universe was without form and void &amp;mdash; just the Earth. Though some translations may argue this point, &quot;Earth&quot; vs &quot;Universe&quot; is definitely one possible interpretation. It's also interesting that prior to this there were no &quot;days&quot; &amp;mdash; and given the precise definition, how could there be? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's therefore possible that the first couple &quot;days&quot; may have taken quite a lot longer than 24 hours, even holding to a very literal interpretation of scripture. This is especially interesting when you consider that for several days there wasn't even a sun by which to measure the day.  It &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; have had some other meaning during that period, and if it meant something else during those days, why not the few days the followed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-01-20T19:33:54.180" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T19:33:54.180" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5354" CreationDate="2012-01-11T23:09:43.357" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no universally accepted terminology for this idea. While some circles have distinctions they make, the lines between them and the terminology are not ubiquitous. Whatever terms you use, you would do well to define what you mean by them as part of your own content.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said,  the most common terms I have heard are &lt;strong&gt;Will of Decree&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Will of Desire&lt;/strong&gt; or Will of Command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's &lt;strong&gt;Will of Decree&lt;/strong&gt; would be anything that in his sovereign power he chose to be exactly one way and it is exactly that way. Examples of this would be creation itself, the order of things in heaven, the days of a man's life, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's &lt;strong&gt;Will of Desire&lt;/strong&gt; (or Command) is anything that is God's will but not concretely enforced, instead it is given as a command for others to enforce according to their wills. As an example, God commands men not to commit murder, yet  murder is done because he did not make it impossible for us to do so. God's will of desire can be (at least for a time) denied him through rebellion. Anything that does so is, of course, sin. &lt;em&gt;What Jesus did on earth that every man before him failed to do was fulfill God's Will of Desire by living according to his commandments.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We life in the &quot;now and not yet&quot; period where it is not always clear to use how these two wills converge. To continue with our example, we know that God ordains the number of a man's days and that it would be impossible for a man to live longer or shorter than God wills for them, but that murder (which can be the physical cause of their &quot;early&quot; termination) is against God's will. In this sense his commands can be broken while not violating his sovereignty. There is an apparent tension between these that with our limited view of only the physical world we are unable to resolve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A time will come when all that is wrong will be made right. This means that these two forms of &quot;will&quot; will eventually become one. When death is disposed and Jesus is given permanent reign over the new Jerusalem (we're talking about heaven here) then there will be no more murder (his desire will be decreed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T15:17:53.060" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T15:17:53.060" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5365" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11712" CreationDate="2012-01-12T08:07:56.527" Score="3" ViewCount="5077" Body="&lt;p&gt;I mean we still have a lot of men named Mohamed in the Muslim community. Is it the same with the name &quot;Jesus&quot; in the Jewish community? Do we have any evidence of Jewish men named Jesus that have lived since the birth of Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the main question is: Has the name &quot;Jesus&quot; ever been used for naming children since the Savior's incarnation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-13T15:45:46.453" LastActivityDate="2012-11-21T20:30:14.080" Title="Has the name &quot;Jesus&quot; ever been used for naming Jewish children since the Savior's incarnation?" Tags="&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5365" CreationDate="2012-01-12T08:38:43.123" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it is actually a common name in many languages. &lt;strike&gt;It isn't so popular on English but&lt;/strike&gt;* I know lots of people in the Spanish,  Turkish and Arabic worlds that use various renditions of the name &quot;Jesus&quot;. I am sure it is used in many other languages as well. Personally I would never name my kid that but there is nothing to stop anybody from doing so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;sub&gt;Several people have pointed out my mistake, it exists in English too the quite common name &quot;Joshua&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-01-12T20:46:27.110" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T20:46:27.110" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5365" CreationDate="2012-01-12T10:19:44.030" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Brazil I know some Jesus but I'm like Caleb at that point and would never name my kid Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that calling someone Jesus looks serious. Imagine a friend of someone called Jesus and someone cursing him because he was late or something, that looks bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But according to Psalm 33:14-15 where it reads: “From the place of His dwelling, He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually.” I don't think God is really worried about it, He worries only with the persons heart&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1161" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T10:19:44.030" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5368" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5370" CreationDate="2012-01-12T14:59:48.230" Score="4" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I mean here by &quot;regenerated&quot; is being born of God, i.e. become a child of God. Has this matter been discussed in Christianity? If the question is too broad, then I am firstly after the protestant-tradition answer here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, once again: Is it possible to believe in Jesus, pray to Him and be baptized and yet not get regenerated? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-12T18:24:34.143" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T03:19:17.453" Title="Is it possible to believe in Jesus, pray to Him and be baptized and yet not get regenerated?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;regeneration&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-06T15:05:38.140" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5368" CreationDate="2012-01-12T16:08:58.060" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2019&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 19:1-7&lt;/a&gt; has an interesting story that may have bearing on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”&#xA;     They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“John’s baptism,” they replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;There were about twelve men in all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of interest here is the fact that John &amp;amp; Jesus preached the exact same same Gospel, so this was really, really close. The question is whether there is something magical about the syllables &quot;G&quot; and &quot;Sus&quot;, which, especially bearing in mind that this wasn't originally in English, is unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is more interesting is that clearly John's baptism was one of repentance - the very sine qua non of an altar call - and yet, clearly that's not enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I surmise from this text is either:&#xA;(a) that inflowing of the Holy Spirit is therefore the choice of the Holy Spirit. While repentance was clearly a pre-requisite, it almost seems as though these people needed to accept the grace that the Spirit entails, even above and beyond repentance.&#xA;or (b) that it is in fact Jesus himself that is the key aspect of regeneration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-12T18:28:46.413" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T18:28:46.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5365" CreationDate="2012-01-12T16:35:38.373" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that the Hebrew Name &quot;Yeshua&quot; is exact English equivalent of &quot;Joshua.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/babyname.cgi&quot;&gt;United States Social Security Administration&lt;/a&gt;, this was, in 2010, the 11th most popular boy's name - very, very popular, although its still a drop from when it was #3 from 2002 to 2006.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per the same source, 'Jesus' (which is a fairly common name amongst Hispanics, and is pronounced 'Hey-sus'*) was the 92nd most popular boy's name, down from a peak of 67 in 2003.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, neither appears in the list of the top 20 in either 1937 (the oldest complete set) or 1880 (the oldest set altogether).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Recently, I worked with an Indian developer and a Mexican named 'Jesus', and the Indian refused to pronounce it Hey-sus, but rather G-sus.  It was really, really weird...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-12T20:00:02.737" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T20:00:02.737" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5316" CreationDate="2012-01-12T18:14:23.927" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might depend on the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3312/what-is-masturbation-according-to-the-catholic-catechism&quot;&gt;definition of masturbation&lt;/a&gt;.  The ends achieved by masturbation are not all that different than &lt;em&gt;coitus interruptus&lt;/em&gt;, homosexual sex, contraceptive sex, oral sex or anal sex to name a few. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real question, the one you bring up, is whether Onan died because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sexual immorality, violating the natural law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;blasphemy because he broke God's law in producing an heir for his brother.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, what if Onan has just refused her relations altogether, would have have still been killed for it?  I've been doing some bible searching and I haven't found much mention of anyone, besides St. Joseph and David (as an old man), not having relations with a woman (or women) whom he was lawfully married to.  So, the real, real question to ask is this, why did Onan consent to 'having relations' with Tamar and not just abstaining? And, if he had refused relations, would he still have been smote?  It's impossible to know, but I have to believe that the part about spilling his seed is in there for a reason and you can't just substitute &quot;not laying with&quot; with &quot;seed spilling&quot; and expect the same end result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing is clear, Judah and Shelah weren't punished like Onan was even though God, who knew their hearts, knew their actions produced the same end result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing Catholics believe about the OT, is that everything in it is found in perfection in the New Testament.  In my opinion, and maybe you'll see this too, if you compare the relationship between Onan and Tamar and Joseph and Mary, you can see the difference between the right way to live the vocation of marriage chastely and the wrong way to do so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T18:14:23.927" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5358" CreationDate="2012-01-12T18:18:27.837" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two 'holidays' celebrated on December 25 in America.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A secular holiday celebrating &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; children and awarding them with gifts.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A Christian religious holiday celebrating the incarnation of the logos.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; a birthday party.  Originally Jesus' birth was not celebrated.  Because of Christian assimulation, the Christians wanted a reason to have a celebration on an already popular date full of tradition.  Some of which is tied to the secular holiday such as praising children.  Another holiday celebrated by the Romans was something like Holloween for adults.  Slaves would act as the master and the master would act as the slave for the day.  Early Christians made a holiday on this day as a feast day to celebrate the incarnation of the logos.  Years later it was simplified to the birth of the christ child (same event, but different... meaning).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different groups had different holidays on this day.  Some people believe it was for the solstice.. and it was... but it isn't the only reason or the origin of the holiday.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I make mention of America because this holiday (secular or not) is not celebrated the same way through the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T18:18:27.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5368" CreationDate="2012-01-12T19:38:43.947" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;After believing in Jesus and being baptized, the only way to lose salvation is to blaspheme the holy spirit as it is the only unforgivable sin as read from the NASB:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 12:32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be&#xA;  forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it&#xA;  shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come,&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; read that to mean that you could blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, become a believer in Jesus and be baptized, all of your sins will be forgiven except that one.  If you believe in a judgement day, you will be judged on that.  If you do not then you would not be forgiven.  If you don't know what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and are concerned about it, then you haven't done it yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-01-12T20:48:48.137" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T20:48:48.137" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5336" CreationDate="2012-01-12T20:19:26.967" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reasoning can be a pathway to faith, but is not a requirement.  If reasoning involves logical arguments, AND if you start with the appropriate premises, you can arrive at faith.  If you do not accept the right premises, reasoning can drive you away from faith.  Of course, many faithful come to faith without relying on reason at all.  Abraham, for instance, comes to faith in God through the use of reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because religions, including Christianity, are full of seemingly illogical mysteries, staying faithful requires some level of suspension of the laws of nature and acceptance of the laws of God. We just do not have reasonable answers to a vast array of things.  Science theorizes some answers, religious faith provides others, and many questions remain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T20:19:26.967" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3116" CreationDate="2012-01-12T20:53:57.783" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We understand God's personality, powers, characteristics, and attributes necessarily through religious texts and traditions.  In addition, the image we form of God in our minds is a very unique thing and very difficult to express.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Humans are born with a curious instinct and seek God or a deity of some sort - they want to believe in something or someone. Sometimes humans rely on reason to come to faith. (Now, reason, without the correct premises, may lead to unbelief but that is a separate discussion)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However even if reason brings you to faith in God, it does not necessarily help in forming an image of God in our minds.  The descriptions we find of God in religious texts are our only help in this regard, IMHO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastActivityDate="2012-01-12T20:53:57.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5379" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5390" CreationDate="2012-01-12T21:26:27.107" Score="4" ViewCount="641" Body="&lt;p&gt;Works like &quot;Mere Christianity&quot; try and address common Christian beliefs and help recognize the diversity of belief systems within Christian sects.  The question is whether this is what all of Christianity is, or is there more?  Do Christian religious texts provide guidance on how to organize society and govern it with justice and fairness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added after reviewing comments through morning of 1/13/12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it true that the family &amp;amp; social laws in the Old Testament texts are to be ignored?  Yes/No? (provide supporting information)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If OT laws are to be ignored by Christians, does God/Jesus provide substitute laws in the New Testament texts?  I.e., if God thought it important to provide laws (in addition to requiring certain beliefs) to guide people prior to the New Testament, why has He not deemed it important to either re-affirm these same laws in the New Testament, or provide substitute laws?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastEditorUserId="1137" LastEditDate="2012-01-13T15:07:03.957" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T15:07:03.957" Title="Is Christianity just a belief system, or is it also a system for organizing and governing society?" Tags="&lt;belief&gt;&lt;practice&gt;&lt;society&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-06T15:02:23.107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5379" CreationDate="2012-01-12T21:46:36.483" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you liked Mere Christianity, you might like to read Screwtape Letters and see what Lewis has to say about using Christianity to further political ends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, Christianity is the basis for a Church, which is a bigger thing than a government.  In the OT, we've got the Covenants (Individual: Adam and Eve, Familial: Noah and his Family; Tribal: Abraham; National: Moses; Kingdom: David) and in the New Testament, Jesus establishes a new covenant with His Church, one that will not pass away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the old covenants were used to organize and govern those societal groups, getting bigger and bigger until the Kingdom of Israel. Then what Christianity is, is actually too big to be used as a tool to govern a society, it's for all people, even though not everyone accepts it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why at consecration, the priest says &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;for many&quot;&lt;/a&gt; in the English translation now, they had it translated &quot;for all&quot; for the last 50 years, but Christianity is really just for those who accept Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-13T14:32:13.110" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T14:32:13.110" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2012-01-12T22:37:27.380" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Excellent question.  It highlights apparent contradictions given God's attributes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A Just God would not blame any human for the actions of another, especially given the action of one were not caused or influenced by the other.  A Just God would also not burden humans by birth with a sinful nature either (as some have suggested) and instead would start us off with a clean slate allowing us to believe and live virtuously or choose to go the other way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A Loving God would not indict or punish in a blanket manner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;An All Powerful God would not need to take human form for the express purpose of granting forgiveness of a sin committed generations ago by Adam and Eve.  He could simply forgive without going through this exercise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@James Black's discussion of Pelagianism is very interesting and provides some answers to the above conundrum.  Those who are interested in a detailed discussion may follow James' links or this one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nndb.com/people/677/000097386/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pelagius.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An excerpt: &quot;We are born characterless (non pleni), and with no bias towards good or evil (ut sine virtute, ita et sine vitio). It follows that we are uninjured by the sin of Adam, save in so far as the evil example of our predecessors misleads and influences us (non propagine sed exemplo). There is, in fact, no such thing as original sin, sin being a thing of will and not of nature; for if it could be of nature our sin would be chargeable on God the creator. This will, capable of good as of evil, being the natural endowment of man, is found in the heathen as well as in the Christian, and the heathen may therefore perfectly keep such law as they know.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-18T03:12:16.343" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T03:12:16.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5368" CreationDate="2012-01-13T02:08:34.373" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it is. You forgot at least one ingredient - repentance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/isrepentancenecessaryforsalvation.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; but for once I'll be brief and state that without repentance there is no true conversion. Whether God calls us to repentance (the Calvinist view) or we are capable of coming to repentance ourselves because we are only partially depraved (non Calvinist view)  is irrelevant to this question, but Scripture clearly teaches that repentance is necessary. Jesus Himself preached repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee,&#xA;  preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is&#xA;  fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe&#xA;  the gospel&quot; (Mark 1:14-15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's mentioned here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted&#xA;  out ...&quot; (Acts 3:19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and over a hundred times in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person can do all the things you mentioned without repentance, which doesn't save you, but is a prerequisite to saving faith and grace. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mere belief is not enough. Even demons believe. Faith is much more than mere belief, and from a &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt; perspective the other things you mentioned are &quot;works&quot; and contribute nothing to salvation or regeneration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-01-13T03:19:17.453" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T03:19:17.453" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2012-01-13T02:39:21.733" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many answers were given, so if you get all the way here, I'll try to be brief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, Adam was punished because God is just. His justice is demonstrated by the fact that he punishes Adam and Eve. The guilty could not remain unpunished and God yet remain just. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the holiness of God is on display here. Holiness cannot be in contact with unholiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, I could accuse God of being unjust to place on me the responsibility of one man's sin -- but I would then also have to correspondingly accuse God of giving(/offering) me the righteousness of Christ. The logic God applies in Eden is the same he applies at the cross. Either I accept both -- the guilty verdict He placed on me because of Adam, and the righteousness He gave because of Christ -- or I accept neither of them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="1795" LastEditDate="2012-06-26T12:03:25.277" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T12:03:25.277" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5385" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-13T11:03:00.830" Score="5" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original languages of the Bible itself and, to my knowledge, most of Christian history, are replete with the filial language of God being known as a “Father” and Jesus being known as his “Son”. However there are certainly enclaves of folks professing Christianity that claim that this is either given unnecessary focus or is outright misleading. Books have been written that intentionally substitute “mother” and translations are being made that remove the family relationship language altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a multi-part question and I’m looking for a broad overview of how these pieces fit together in history, not an argument for or against any position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When in Christian history is God first introduced as a male “father” figure? Have there been any turning points or changes in this imagery through different ages, regions or languages? Have any church fathers or theologians seen this a core issue to the faith?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historically, which groups professing Christianity have attempted to deviate from this filial imagery? Have any notable church fathers or theologians advocated for alternate renditions? If so what works did they write and approximately what size following did they attract?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the overall (worldwide) view or trend on this issue today? What percentage of translations continue to use the language of father/son to translate the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible and what translations use something else?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What modern day movements advocate deviating from this tradition and which (or what kind of) denominations support them? Are there any direct parallels between these groups/translations and historical groups/translations?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-04-13T08:37:55.170" Title="How diverse or united is Christian history on the imagery of “Father” and “Son”?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;translation&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;movements&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5385" CreationDate="2012-01-13T12:05:21.053" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is indeed a very complex question to answer. The complexity rests more on our cultural sensibility like :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not refering a group over an other (in this instance male over female)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Male and female equality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to make every group happy, as if you were a politician&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This being said from my reformed, Calvinistic heritage I would say that God has always been seen has the Father and Jesus the son. The idea that God could be a Mother is relatively new. As explain in a book like : &amp;quot;The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture&amp;quot; by Mary A. Kassian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek texts uses that terminology Father and Son, and nothing else. I mean that reading in the original Greek (for the New Testament) it is hard to understand, out of the text, how would someone translate God has mother. Especially since there were Greek female divinities, and the language would have support the naming of God in a feminine way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when is God introduce has a father before christianity in Jesus life and ministry, christianity is what happend after Pentacost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5.48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, this view has been made more popular for the feminist movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are but a few translation that would go in that direction, because translating the original text in that way prove a ideology, and not the author intent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T12:05:21.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5379" CreationDate="2012-01-13T12:24:25.967" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Islam proposes a system of government. But the Bible does not. Although many systems with Christian beliefs have tried to force a political system or government. I would say that they failed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not saying in any way that a Christian should not do politics and act out of his belief system. What I am saying is more that there is no such thing as a Christian nation but there is an Islamic nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-01-13T13:46:18.703" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T13:46:18.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5389" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5391" CreationDate="2012-01-13T12:51:49.807" Score="14" ViewCount="120947" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the comments to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5258/85&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3524/why-did-abraham-lie-to-pharaoh-about-sarah-being-his-sister-in-gen-12/5258#5258&quot;&gt;the question of why Abraham lied to Pharaoh about his relationship with Sarah&lt;/a&gt;, the following question which I am about to pose, appeared:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Was the marriage between Abraham and Sarah incestuous?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In two separate occasions, Abraham told the local ruler that Sarah was his sister. These two passages are found in in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2012:10-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 12:10-20&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2020&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 20&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's examine the first passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2012:10-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 12:10-20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. 11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. &lt;strong&gt;12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman. 15 And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. &lt;strong&gt;18 So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” he said. “Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!”&lt;/strong&gt; 20 Then Pharaoh gave orders about Abram to his men, and they sent him on his way, with his wife and everything he had.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to imply that since Abraham told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, Sarah was believed to be his sister only and not his wife. This, in turns, makes me draw the conclusion that marriage between siblings was unusual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's head on to the second passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2020&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and&#xA;  lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, &lt;strong&gt;2 and&#xA;  there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then&#xA;  Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.&lt;/strong&gt;  3 But God came to&#xA;  Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, “You are as good as&#xA;  dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Now Abimelek had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord, will you&#xA;  destroy an innocent nation? &lt;strong&gt;5 Did he not say to me, ‘She is my&#xA;  sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this&#xA;  with a clear conscience and clean hands.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a&#xA;  clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That&#xA;  is why I did not let you touch her. 7 Now return the man’s wife, for&#xA;  he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if&#xA;  you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all who belong to&#xA;  you will die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Early the next morning Abimelek summoned all his officials, and&#xA;  when he told them all that had happened, they were very much afraid. 9&#xA;  Then Abimelek called Abraham in and said, “What have you done to us?&#xA;  How have I wronged you that you have brought such great guilt upon me&#xA;  and my kingdom? You have done things to me that should never be done.”&#xA;  10 And Abimelek asked Abraham, “What was your reason for doing this?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Abraham replied, “I said to myself, ‘There is surely no fear of&#xA;  God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.’ &lt;strong&gt;12&#xA;  Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not&#xA;  of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And when God had me wander&#xA;  from my father’s household, I said to her, ‘This is how you can show&#xA;  your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, “He is my brother.”’”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Then Abimelek brought sheep and cattle and male and female slaves&#xA;  and gave them to Abraham, and he returned Sarah his wife to him. 15&#xA;  And Abimelek said, “My land is before you; live wherever you like.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 To Sarah he said, “I am giving your brother a thousand shekels[a]&#xA;  of silver. This is to cover the offense against you before all who are&#xA;  with you; you are completely vindicated.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelek, his wife and&#xA;  his female slaves so they could have children again, 18 for the LORD&#xA;  had kept all the women in Abimelek’s household from conceiving because&#xA;  of Abraham’s wife Sarah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This second passage also tells us that marriage between siblings was unusual. It also tells us that Abraham did not really lie when he said that Sarah was his sister, since she was his half-sister. &lt;em&gt;Also note that nowhere in the two passages Abraham is accused of lying!&lt;/em&gt; This is a quite interesting fact. In any way, it is clear that our definition of incest in today's western society, is not the same as it was in that time and place. Still, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2027:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 27:22&lt;/a&gt; clearly states that for a man to marry his father's daughter (as Abraham did) is a sin!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does one reconcile these passages? Was Abraham's and Sarah's marriage a sin? Was it considered incest?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2019-02-04T07:09:51.093" Title="Was the marriage between Abraham and Sarah incestuous?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;&lt;incest&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5379" CreationDate="2012-01-13T13:53:38.303" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;just a belief system&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;, nor is it &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;also a system for organizing and governing society&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is simply the way for imperfect people to get into an eternal relationship with a perfect God, not by our good works but by the gift of Jesus. John puts it better than I can:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are consequences of this that affect the individual (e.g. a commitment to honesty and love) which then in turn affect society. (We are also instructed about our duty &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; society, e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:7&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;pay your taxes&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;.) But that's a by-product, rather than the central aim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More directly answering your question, the Bible does not explain how to organise society but it does contain some very light weight (by which I mean, not overly proscriptive) examples of how to organise a church (e.g. mentioning elders).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T15:05:38.593" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5389" CreationDate="2012-01-13T14:04:15.603" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like my answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5049/did-adam-and-eves-progeny-commit-incest&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, you need to keep the chronology right.  There is no levitical law at the time of Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, even if he did marry his sister, remember that he was breaking no covenantal restriction on doing so.  As I said in that answer, you don't convict someone of a crime &lt;em&gt;ex post facto&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T14:04:15.603" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5389" CreationDate="2012-01-13T14:12:54.017" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Marrying a close relative was not forbidden at that time.  The old question of &quot;Where did Cain get his wife?&quot; is answered by saying that he married a sister of his.  It was not immoral at that time, since there was no law forbidding it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus is where we find such laws, which was written over 400 years after the time of Abraham.  We now understand that as the genetic pool has become degraded, it is best not to marry a close relative because of the possibility of both husband and wife having the same genetic deficiencies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early on in human history, these genetic deficiencies were quite minimal, so there wasn't an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marrying a sister may have been uncommon at that time, so Abraham appears to be fudging a bit to justify Sarah as his sister.  He has to explain how she is his sister, because she isn't his direct sister.  So, he's trying to justify his lie by a tenuous explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So again, there was no law that he was breaking at that time.  It would be as if the government passed a law against eating twinkies and then rounded up everyone who had ever eaten one before it was outlawed.  The American Justice system strictly forbids this practice (Ex Post Facto).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-13T15:49:46.103" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T15:49:46.103" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5072" CreationDate="2012-01-13T15:51:27.633" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Robert Harvey's answer (above, in the comments) was the best:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus was saying to the apostles that they didn't need more faith.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found this very profound as it totally changed my attitude to what Jesus was saying. Like I wrote above, I thought He was saying something similar to, &lt;em&gt;&quot;Shame you don't have more faith&quot;&lt;/em&gt; but what He is actually saying, according to Robert, is that &lt;strong&gt;they already have all the faith they need!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes complete sense to me. Rather than thinking, &lt;em&gt;&quot;I don't have enough faith&quot;&lt;/em&gt; I should just assume I do and keep &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:1-8&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;persistently praying&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T15:51:27.633" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5072" CreationDate="2012-01-13T16:15:40.850" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was saying to the apostles that &lt;em&gt;they didn't need more faith.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is not an act, although it can be demonstrated by the way you act.  Rather, faith is an attitude, an understanding that things will work out as they should, under God's plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many places in the Bible that basically say not to try and do things all by yourself.  &lt;em&gt;&quot;Rely not on your own understanding,&quot;&lt;/em&gt; but on God's.  Faith doesn't require effort; it requires surrender.  Surrender is hard, not because it is something we must &quot;do,&quot; but because it is something we do not always allow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is not something you can &quot;measure.&quot;  In a very real sense, there is no such thing as &quot;more faith.&quot;  You can not surrender &quot;more,&quot; you can only surrender completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="219" LastEditorUserId="219" LastEditDate="2012-01-13T16:45:16.110" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T16:45:16.110" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5321" CreationDate="2012-01-13T17:11:06.303" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know that there's a &quot;main&quot; (in the sense of &quot;universal and accepted by all atheist Christians&quot;) one, but I can certainly speak for myself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The assertion that &quot;[believing] in the divinity and/or divine origin of Jesus Christ&quot; is the &quot;definition of 'Christian'&quot; is not one I accept.  It is my position that the Christ is an ideal, and that it is a mistake to identify the Christ with Jesus personally.  Jesus was but an imperfect manifestation of the Christ.  Thus, we do not necessarily need to accept everything Jesus said.  Much of what he did points us in the general direction of the Christ, but it remains to us to separate the wheat from the chaff and continue fleshing out our understanding of the Christ and Christness.  Jesus's importance comes not from his supposed literal divinity, but as the originator of the tradition of Christ-seeking in which I consider myself to be working within.  While many of those Christ-seekers, I believe, made grievous errors, the ultimate goal is still the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Christ is an ideal, an example we should strive for, because by living in this ideal manner as exemplified by the Christ all people can live among themselves without destroying one another (thus, the Christ is very literally our savior, by showing us how to avoid our own destruction). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1133" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-01-14T22:34:22.217" LastActivityDate="2012-01-14T22:34:22.217" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5072" CreationDate="2012-01-13T17:40:21.020" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faith is something one can have in a very small amount (mustard seed) it's how one chooses to express that faith that matters. Expressing faith through actions, not just words is, I think, paramount. I agree that faith is something that you can not measure, just like air, gotta have that air, so in some ways, gotta have faith, no matter how small it is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1169" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T17:40:21.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="469" CreationDate="2012-01-13T18:37:11.437" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is unclear whether this story is parable or not.  The fact that Lazarus is named causes some to suggest this isn't a parable at all, but rather an actual account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that this text follows the Parable of the Dishonest Manager leads some to believe that it is in fact a parable, but that analysis is by no means universal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-13T19:33:17.507" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T19:33:17.507" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="469" CreationDate="2012-01-13T20:16:32.890" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Additional information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is the possibility that this was a cultural &quot;stock&quot; parable that Jesus used for his own purposes. Think along the lines of Hansel and Gretel or something along those lines. As such, this common lore would be used by teachers to develop a lesson that suited the particular teaching situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources: &#xA;Interpreting the Parables (Craig L. Blomberg) p. 86&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An Afro-Sociological Application of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) in Black Theology: An International Journal, Vol 4, No 1 (2006) by Olubiyi Adeniyi Adewale&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastActivityDate="2012-01-13T20:16:32.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5321" CreationDate="2012-01-14T13:35:52.953" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on an example of proponents of Christian Atheism, the logic behind a 'Christian' who does not believe in God/god, seems to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I can call myself Christian if I strive to be like the ideal (and not real) concept of Christ.  I do not have to believe in the divinity or divine origin of Jesus or Christ.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-01-14T22:33:21.890" LastActivityDate="2012-01-14T22:33:21.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5405" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-14T14:03:36.497" Score="5" ViewCount="1556" Body="&lt;p&gt;If OT laws are to be ignored by Christians, does God/Jesus provide substitute laws in the New Testament texts? I.e., if God thought it important to provide laws (in addition to requiring certain beliefs) to guide people prior to the New Testament, why has He not deemed it important to either re-affirm these same laws in the New Testament, or provide substitute laws?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians believe (I think) that accepting Christ in their lives provides innate guidance on how to lead their lives virtuously, and this impacts the creating of virtuous family and social life.  The implicit problem is that individual understanding of what is 'virtuous' may vary significantly as it applies to organizing and governing society.  I am trying to understand why God/Jesus Christ would replace detailed written guidance with something open to individual understanding and interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-06-01T13:22:03.853" LastActivityDate="2014-10-07T19:21:10.297" Title="Do Old Testament individual, family and social laws and guidance apply to Christians or did Jesus come to discard OT laws and guidance?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5407" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5409" CreationDate="2012-01-14T14:23:13.757" Score="8" ViewCount="1344" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the placing of one's faith in Christ for salvation, a work?  - Can I produce faith on my own?&#xA;How does the Bible answer that question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T16:21:22.893" Title="Is belief a work into salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-01T08:07:40.667" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5405" CreationDate="2012-01-14T14:25:18.663" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did&#xA;  not come to abolish                           but to fulfill. 18 For&#xA;  truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest&#xA;  letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19&#xA;  Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and&#xA;  teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of&#xA;  heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great&#xA;  in the kingdom of heaven.&quot; Matthew 5: 17-19.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear from the above verses that Jesus did not come to discard the Law, even though a lot of churches do preach that. However, us as Gentiles are not required to follow the Law since the Law was mainly given to the Israelites and those who attached themselves to Israel (i.e. either were their slaves, servants or those who converted to Judaism).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God sent Jonah to Nineveh, he asked that they repent and that was that, he did not demand that they follow the Law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus does ask us to follow his commandments. So whatever he said to us in the Gospels is what we should follow. Whether that means following the Law of Moses or not is a different matter (I, for one, don't believe that the Law is discarded or any such thing, God and his people have a lot of love for the Law of Moses. I don't believe God just sent it to tell people that they can't follow God's commands, I believe the Law is good and that we should use it as a guidance even if we don't follow it as legally and morally binding).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me&quot; John 14:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is, of course, my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastEditorUserId="1160" LastEditDate="2012-01-14T14:32:01.350" LastActivityDate="2012-01-14T14:32:01.350" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5407" CreationDate="2012-01-14T15:24:47.877" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have asked for a biblical answer, and there are certainly different positions on this.  Some who believe that works are essential for salvation will refer to belief/faith as a work.  Indeed, if faith can be classified as a work, then requiring additional works for salvation seems more reasonable.  Yet, there appears to be good reason to distinguish faith from works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9 is, of course, a key passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved &lt;strong&gt;through faith&lt;/strong&gt;. And &lt;strong&gt;this is not&#xA;your own doing&lt;/strong&gt;; it is the gift of God, 9 &lt;strong&gt;not a result of works&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;so that no one may boast.  Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Salvation comes through faith, but salvation is not our own doing, but a gift of God.  Salvation is not a result of works (but of faith).  Faith, then, is distinguished from works.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Some assert that faith is the gift of God, &amp;quot;this&amp;quot; does not match &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; in gender, so that doesn't really fit.  It would be like saying, &amp;quot;my brother and his wife came over, and he got a new job--you would know I am speaking about my brother getting a new job because of the gender agreement)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few other passages that demonstrate salvation is by faith, but not by works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now the righteousness of God has been manifested &lt;strong&gt;apart from the&#xA;law&lt;/strong&gt;, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the&#xA;righteousness of God &lt;strong&gt;through faith in Jesus Christ for all who&#xA;believe&lt;/strong&gt;. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and&#xA;fall short of the glory of God... Romans 3:21-23 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.  Romans 3:28 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;whoever believes&lt;/strong&gt; in him should not perish but have eternal life... 18&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Whoever believes&lt;/strong&gt; in him is not condemned, but &lt;strong&gt;whoever does not believe&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the&#xA;only Son of God.  John 3:16, 18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know&#xA;that &lt;strong&gt;a person is not justified by works of the law but through&#xA;faith in Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in&#xA;order to be &lt;strong&gt;justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;because &lt;strong&gt;by works of the law no one will be justified&lt;/strong&gt;.  Galatians 2:15-16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Addendum&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was reading in Romans last night and came across this verse that specifically distinguishes works from faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to the one who &lt;strong&gt;does not work but believes&lt;/strong&gt; in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.  Romans 4:5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul speaks of the one who does not work, but believes--that person's faith is counted as righteousness.  Thus, faith is not a work, but is contrasted with works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T12:24:04.400" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5410" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5428" CreationDate="2012-01-14T15:59:06.493" Score="15" ViewCount="2969" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the key issues in the Reformation was the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;Sola Fide&lt;/em&gt;, that is, that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the biblical basis for this belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-22T06:24:26.217" LastActivityDate="2019-10-15T07:04:58.557" Title="What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5412" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5454" CreationDate="2012-01-14T21:51:57.580" Score="22" ViewCount="56011" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 20:1-15 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who&#xA;  brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.&#xA;  “You shall have no other gods before me. “&lt;strong&gt;You shall not make for&#xA;  yourself a carved image&lt;/strong&gt;, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven&#xA;  above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under&#xA;  the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the&#xA;  Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers&#xA;  on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who&#xA;  hate me, ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 26:1 ESV &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You shall not make &lt;strong&gt;idols for yourselves or erect an image&lt;/strong&gt; or pillar,&#xA;  and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to&#xA;  it, for I am the Lord your God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this different than a Cross in a church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see how this cross&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rUFxc.jpg&quot; width=&quot;150&quot; /&gt; is different than this idol &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/aq4vf.jpg&quot; width=&quot;150&quot; /&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-22T06:21:21.880" LastActivityDate="2014-07-22T06:21:21.880" Title="Why isn't the cross considered an idol?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;&lt;cross&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5405" CreationDate="2012-01-14T22:25:46.367" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that the OT law is not binding on Christians; instead we are called to something far greater, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:48&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;perfection&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The longer answer: this was actually the subject of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;first recorded church summit&lt;/a&gt;. There they focused on the big issue of the day: circumcision. Was it a requirement for salvation? I will come back to the decision in a moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A number of fundamental strands of doctrine are woven throughout the NT, which &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/538/how-do-you-convert-somebody-to-christianity/578#578&quot;&gt;I have elaborated on previously on this site&lt;/a&gt;. They include God's perfection, our sin and subsequent need of a Saviour. The law, therefore, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3:20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;was given to show us our sin, but it could not save us&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said on many occasions that the law was not enough. For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-22&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;He said that not only should we not murder, we should not even call someone a fool&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;He said not only should we not commit adultery, we should not even look with lust&lt;/a&gt;. He told us that we &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;should not be rule followers but people of genuine righteousness&lt;/a&gt;. In summary, He called us to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:48&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;perfect&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2:10&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James said&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:3&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Paul echoed&lt;/a&gt;, if we break one part of the Law, we have broken all of it. So we start our Christian lives &lt;em&gt;as law breakers&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So back to your question: does the Law apply to Christians? &lt;strong&gt;Should we &lt;em&gt;try&lt;/em&gt; to keep the law? Absolutely not!&lt;/strong&gt; If we try to keep the Law to please God or to earn our salvation then, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;as Paul said&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus will be of no value to us! Instead, inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God's love to us&lt;/a&gt;, our goal is to love God and love others. As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2:8&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James said&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:14&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Paul said&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:10&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;twice&lt;/a&gt;) and as even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus Himself said&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;if we love God and love each other, we obey the whole Law&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to that church summit. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:28-29&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;conclusion was advice to the Gentile believers avoid certain things&lt;/a&gt;, presumably so as not to be a stumbling block to others who might want to come to faith. It was certainly &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a list of obligations required for salvation, nor has this short list featured substantially in church history. (If it was intended for salvation, it would not be complete, because it missed our fundamental &quot;rules&quot; like &quot;don't murder&quot;!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why did Jesus say that &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;? From the references above, it seems clear that Jesus could not have been talking about the entire Law, including circumcision, or else much of the NT and church history would be wrong! &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gci.org/bible/matthew517&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;It appears, therefore, that he was talking about His commandments&lt;/a&gt;, which He preached throughout His ministry but especially in the Sermon on the Mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further suggested reading: The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and Paul's letter to a church struggling with this issue: Galatians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-01-14T22:30:58.243" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5412" CreationDate="2012-01-14T22:40:53.160" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;No Christian that I know of prays to the cross, nor considers that the cross of itself has any power (rather, it is &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+1:18&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Christ's death on the cross that has power&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;), nor even considers the cross sentient!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the cross is &lt;strong&gt;merely a symbol&lt;/strong&gt; of our redemption, reminding us of the price Jesus paid to save us; nothing more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-01-14T22:40:53.160" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5321" CreationDate="2012-01-14T22:59:06.943" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an alternative to &quot;Christian Atheism&quot; as a belief system, there is another interpretation here of a Christian who does not believe in God, which is the &quot;cultural Christian&quot;. This was reminded to me by a comment on the question referring to &quot;Jewish&quot; as both the adherents and / or the society - but is has been identified that this is very genuinely the case for Christianity too. This obviously is not based on a scriptural position, but on society and observation; there really are a large number of people who will identify (when asked in passing) as Christian, by which they mean (typically) they have been raised within Christianity, but don't really believe in it as such (and don't typically attend a church or worship, except maybe things like &quot;saying grace&quot; at mealtimes through habit and expectation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be tied to the fact that to say &quot;no, this is not what I believe, and I shall separate myself from it&quot; can sometimes take a lot of effort and energy, jeopardise friendships and relationships (and humans are social creatures) and prospects (perhaps impacting business relationships). It can also cause friction within a family, etc. I can fully accept that it may be a lot easier to just &quot;go along with&quot;, since that takes no effort (not even church attendance etc) - especially if their stance one way or the other on the matter is not of huge importance for them (compared with, say, more pressing needs like feeding the family and paying the bills). There are also sometimes additional factors if they want to get their kids into a particular school (alarmingly common), where rocking the boat may cause complications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So - looked at &lt;em&gt;from that perspective&lt;/em&gt;, the cultural Christian (in reality, not a true believer) is a very real phenomenon. This is not, however, a Biblical basis - it is, simply, an observation on the complexities of &lt;s&gt;modern&lt;/s&gt; society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(removed &quot;modern&quot;, as there is no reason to suppose this is in any way new)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-01-15T08:32:26.273" LastActivityDate="2012-01-15T08:32:26.273" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5416" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5427" CreationDate="2012-01-15T04:39:09.097" Score="3" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of Matthew Henry's commentary on Exodus 22 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is he referring to as &quot;God's law&quot; in reference to setting a guard upon it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1017" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T02:10:59.703" LastActivityDate="2015-08-03T02:10:59.703" Title="What &quot;God's law&quot; is Matthew Henry referring to?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;bible-commentary&gt;&lt;matthew-henry&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5385" CreationDate="2012-01-15T04:45:43.373" Score="3" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It seems as early as Deuteronomy 32:6 that God is addressed as Father: Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Historically, it appears that (at least for people who claimed Christ) that it was gnostics that primarily held a view that God was the Father, the Spirit was the &quot;Mother&quot;, and Jesus was the Son. For some background on this an article written by a feminist to support her view of God as &quot;mother&quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.womenpriests.org/body/pagels.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.womenpriests.org/body/pagels.asp&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't know percentages but it appears that Todays NIV and NRSV are the main versions that go the gender neutral route. - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately modern liberal protestants in general go this route (of course there are others). I've seen this in the Lutheran Church as well as the Methodist church. They go to great lengths to remove any reference to God as Father. They have changed the Trinity from Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to The Creator, The Redeemer, and the Sustainer. They have changed popular hymns to remove any reference to gender.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fortunately Scripture is clear on this matter. First we know Jesus was male, secondly Jesus who is the Son, calls God the Father, and calls the Holy Spirit &quot;He&quot;. This wasn't just men calling God the Father, but it was Jesus the Son of God and God Himself. We don't have freedom to try to change God's Word, especially when God calls Himself that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 16 5“But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks&#xA;  Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6“But because I have said these things to&#xA;  you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7“But I tell you the truth, it is&#xA;  to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper&#xA;  will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8“And He,&#xA;  when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness&#xA;  and judgment; 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;&#xA;  10and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no&#xA;  longer see Me; 11and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this&#xA;  world has been judged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good article for reference - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastEditorUserId="223" LastEditDate="2012-01-15T06:05:10.200" LastActivityDate="2012-01-15T06:05:10.200" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5412" CreationDate="2012-01-15T04:53:40.897" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference is that a cross in a church is not worshipped. As the translators' notes in the New English Translation (NET) Bible indicates, &lt;a href=&quot;http://net.bible.org/#!l/bible%3AExodus%2020__notes%3AExodus%2020&quot;&gt;regarding Exodus 20:4&lt;/a&gt;, the concern of the Law with respect to &lt;em&gt;pesel&lt;/em&gt;—the Hebrew term referring to &quot;an image that was carved out of wood or stone&quot;—was about statues that &quot;would be made for the purpose of worship, an idol to be venerated, and not any ordinary statue.&quot; In John Gill's exposition of this verse he makes the same distinction, that God's commandment regarded things shaped from wood or stone, cast into a mold, or engraved by men &quot;in order to be worshipped.&quot; There is no compelling reason to think that the Law was opposed to any and all images whatsoever; after all, God himself commanded Moses to make a snake and set it on a pole, so that all those who were bitten if they looked upon it would live (Num. 21:4-9). As Gill notes, the Jews of Christ's era had no religious aversion to coins impressed with images, although &quot;they vehemently opposed the setting up any images of the Caesars or emperors in their temple, &lt;em&gt;because they seemed to be placed there as deities, and had a show of religious worship&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (emphasis mine). Nor is there any compelling reason to think images were forbidden for use in worship—such as a cross in a church?—for were there not golden cherubim set over the Mercy Seat, which God commanded be made? As noted in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://jfb.biblecommenter.com/exodus/20.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;The mere making was no sin—it was the making &lt;em&gt;with the intent to give idolatrous worship&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (emphasis mine), which is surely indicated in the rest of this second commandment, particularly as seen in verse 5: &quot;You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God.&quot; The same thing is seen in Lev. 25:1, where the same worship qualification is found: &quot;to bow down before it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As described in &lt;em&gt;The Christian Observer&lt;/em&gt; (p. 41)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is manifest also that the art of the graver, sculptor, and embroiderer, was sanctified under the old dispensation. Still there is that sweeping intolerance of the second commandment towards any image or likeness of any created thing wherever or whatever it might be. But it scarcely needs much knowledge of the Hebrew idiom to be aware that when two clauses are paired together as in that commandment, &quot;Thou shalt not make … Thou shalt not bow down,&quot; it does not mean two precepts but one. In most other languages the meaning would be conveyed something to this effect, &quot;Thou shalt not make … in order to bow down thereto.&quot; If thou make for other purposes, the commandment touches thee not. So Calvin with his usual acute perception comments thus: &quot;There is no necessity to refute what some have foolishly imagined, that sculpture and painting of every kind are condemned here.&quot; Otherwise Solomon's lions and oxen and palm trees must stand condemned, and the positive command to cast the brazen serpent and to model the cherubim would be a scandal and a difficulty. It was thus [in this fashion] that John of Damascus, Gregory II, and others replied to the broad assertions of the Iconoclasts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&quot;Early image-worship in the church,&quot; &lt;em&gt;The Christian Observer&lt;/em&gt;, No. 1 [London: Hatchards, 1877], 41.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: I originally had more links in here, pointing to where these things can be read online, but it seems I need a higher reputation before I can post any more than two.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1170" LastActivityDate="2012-01-15T04:53:40.897" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5419" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5460" CreationDate="2012-01-15T04:57:55.930" Score="21" ViewCount="7221" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is something that has confused me over the years. It appears that many Christians stand against the belief that global warming or climate change is occurring. But I have yet to hear any biblical reasoning. What is the biblical basis, if any, that some Christians claim that there is no (potentially devastating) climate change? Furthermore, how does this affect how a Christian should believe and act regarding this issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-03-31T22:16:03.937" LastActivityDate="2017-01-14T03:49:09.780" Title="Is there a Biblical basis for not believing that Global Warming is occurring?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;earth&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5354" CreationDate="2012-01-15T05:28:21.770" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add another version I have mostly heard: Sovereign Will and Moral Will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a really good article for reference - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/gods-moral-will-and-sovereign-will&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/gods-moral-will-and-sovereign-will&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, God's sovereign will, will be accomplished and cannot be changed. His moral will consists of morals He has prescribed for us, but His moral will can be disobeyed. Such as it isn't God's moral will that we murder, but yet we do. But it is God's sovereign will that Jesus came and died for our sins, this couldn't have been changed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastEditorUserId="223" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T05:55:59.783" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T05:55:59.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5419" CreationDate="2012-01-15T05:38:29.947" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The purportedly relevant passage is probably this one: From Genesis 8:20-22 after the flood (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Genesis#Chapter_8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;_my translation, available on Wikisource&lt;/a&gt; )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Noah did build an altar for Yahweh; and he took from all the pure beast, and from every pure fowl, and raised smoke in the altar. And Yahweh smelled the comforting smell, and said to Himself, no more will I curse the ground on cause of man, because the heart of man has wrong from his adolescence, and no more will I strike all that lives, just as I have done. Onward, all the days of the earth: seeding and reaping and cold and hot, and summer and winter, and night and day, will not arrest&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage says that God will not strike down the Earth with catastrophic flooding again. So this could be interpreted by anti-global-warming zealots as saying that global warming will not melt the ice caps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even ignoring the fact that the whole Bible is not a scientific guide, and this story is in no way historical or factual, this story is not making predictions regarding future climate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage is solely talking about the relation of God to man, and states that God will not turn his back on the descendents of Noah, no matter how terrible their deeds. It does not make any claims about whether the activity of humans can alter climate, or whether humans can cause catastrophic flooding by their own stupid actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many protestant Christians in the U.S. tend to be politically conservative, and the global warming denial movement is essentially just a propaganda machine by wealthy businessmen whose business interest involves burning fossil fuels. This means that it is supported by conservatives, and by extension, many Christians. Global warming denial is a fringe position, and it is not taken seriously by any large group of people outside the U.S., nor by many scientists, nor by theologians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastEditorUserId="1113" LastEditDate="2012-04-02T13:25:32.107" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T13:25:32.107" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5316" CreationDate="2012-01-15T06:23:16.927" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Onan's sin is most accurately interpreted as withdrawal, or coitus interruptus, as affable geek has said. But interpreting the sin as masturbation is strained even further when you consider the relevant Leviticus passages (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Leviticus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; Wikisource translation&lt;/a&gt;), chapter 15, verses 16-18:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And a man which a semen discharge will leave, and he bathed all his flesh in water, and he is defiled until evening. And all cloth and all leather which upon it the semen discharge will be, and it will be washed in water, and it is defiled until evening. And a woman, which a man will lay with discharging semen, and they bathed in water, and they are defiled until the evening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses are not solely referring to nocturnal emissions, as the last verse makes clear. It nowhere prohibits masturbation, nor non-standard sex. It simply (sensibly, in my opinion) asks you to wash up afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a continuation versus 19 and 24 (linked by some irrelevant stuff, same translation, my translation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;And a woman who will be discharging, blood will be discharging in her flesh, seven days will she be in her menstrual defilement, and all that touches her will be defiled until the evening... &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;And if lay a man will lay with her, and her menstruation will be upon him, and he is defiled seven days, and all the couch which he shall lie upon will be defiled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main injunction is against touching blood. There is no special injunction against the necessarily non-procreative sex involved here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The blood injunction is the main theme of Pentateuch law. The blood is to be drained from animals before eating, it is to be sacrificed to God, and it is not to be eaten or touched. The defiling aspects of blood over and above other discharges are repeated many times, For example, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Lamentations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; translation of Lamentations 4:13-15, on Wikisource&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the sins of her prophets, the torment of her priests, that spill within her, the blood of saints. they swayed blind outside, were touched by blood, so that their clothes, no one could touch. &quot;Away, defiled!&quot; they called to them, &quot;Away! Away! Do not touch&quot;. So they fled, also swayed, and said, among foreigners they will not continue to wander. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this seems to be that the blood is considered the resting place of the soul. The injunctions on semen are minor by comparison. Consider Leviticus 17:11 ( again, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Leviticus#17._Meat_eating_and_sacrifice.2Fthe_soul_is_the_blood.2Fcarrion.28treph.29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; translation, available on Wikisource&lt;/a&gt; ):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood, and I will give it to you on the altar, to atone for your souls, because it is the blood, which will atone for the soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So on the whole, Leviticus doesn't care about masturbation (beyond cleaning up afterward), so it is inconceivable that the even more lax pre-Leviticus code would.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastEditorUserId="1113" LastEditDate="2012-04-02T13:24:03.047" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T13:24:03.047" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4281" CreationDate="2012-01-15T06:33:37.923" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You say &quot;The major point of Christianity, compared to Judaism, is this: Judaism is still &quot;under the law&quot;. In other words, they are trying to earn their salvation by keeping the Law.&quot;  I disagree.  There is a) belief and b) there is law/rules to follow - two separate things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judaism does not merely call for following the Law, it more importantly calls for belief in a singular God, who is the law Giver.  In fact the belief is a prerequisite to Jewish salvation.  No Jew, I think, believes that abiding by the Law is enough for salvation at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, why would Christians not follow be required to a) believe in Jesus Christ (for salvation), and b) abide by the OT Law.  How is there a conflict between the two (especially given Jesus himself says he is not abolishing the Law)?  The conflict only arises if you assume Judaism is calling you to follow the Law to attain salvation.  No, Judaism calls for pure faith for salvation, and the Law are rules to organize and govern here in this world. IMHO.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastActivityDate="2012-01-15T06:33:37.923" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1037" CreationDate="2012-01-15T07:51:40.977" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus are a compilation of several narratives, all dating to the 10th century BC or thereabouts, which are evident by the seams in them, and by the radically different styles. They are considered to be compiling Jewish narratives to make a unified tale which will bring the disparate tribes together in a kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three major threads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Yahwist (J)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This author is first rate, one of the greatest writers in history, if not the greatest. She writes about God in a very visceral, fully embodied fasion. She tends to emphasize the stories of women, providing first person internal monologues from the point of view of Eve, Rebecca, Sarah, and provides a wonderful story of female attempted seduction in Genesis 39. For this reason, I refer to her as a &amp;quot;she&amp;quot;, although this is obviously uncertain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can identify J easily by reading the narrative. There is no doubt when she is writing. She consistently uses &amp;quot;Yahweh&amp;quot; as God's name, or &amp;quot;Yahweh God&amp;quot; in Genesis 2. She writes internal monologue and easy natural dialogue. She tends to write stories of women in detailed human terms, and of men in distant heroic terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quintessential Yahwist narrative is exemplified by the following passage in Exodus, chapter 33, verses 17, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Exodus#Chapter_33&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; translation, available here&lt;/a&gt; :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Yahweh said to Moses: &amp;quot;Also this thing that I have spoken I will do, because you are pleasing to me, and I will know you by name.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he said: &amp;quot;Please show to me, your honor.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And said, &amp;quot;I will bring by all my goodness in front of you, and I will call on the name of Yahweh in your presence, and I will grace that which I will grace, and I will feel for that which I will feel for.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And He said: &amp;quot;You could not see my face, because a man will not see me and live.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Yahweh said: &amp;quot;Here is a place filled with me, and you will post yourself against the rock. And it will be as mine honor will pass, and I will put you in the nook of the rock, and I will lean my palm against you until I pass.And I will remove my palm, and you will see my back, but my face will not be shown.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of seeing God's back, as He is moving away, lifting an enormous palm from a nook in the rock to uncover his mighty passing form, is simultaneously beautiful and haunting, and masculine erotic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Elohist (E)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elohist has a less fleshy description of God than J, and the drama is not as tense. Elohist writes about blessings and omens a lot. Here is some E (Genesis 48, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Genesis#Chapter_48&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; translation, available on Wikisource&lt;/a&gt; ):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim in his right hand, to the left of Israel, and Menashe in his left hand, to the right of Israel, and he approached him. And Israel sent his right hand and placed it on Ephraim's head, and he is the younger, And his left hand on Menashe's hand: with consideration upon his hands, because Menashe is firstborn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he blessed Joseph, and said: &amp;quot;The God in whose presence my fathers came before, Abraham and Isaac, the God who has shepharded me from before until this day, the angel who spares me from all harm, will bless these youths, and will call into them my name, and the name of my forefathers Abraham and Isaac, and they will multiply in the face of the land.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Joseph saw that his father had sent his right hand on the head of Ephraim--- and this was wrong in his eyes. And he supported his father's hand to take it off the head of Ephraim, to Menashe's head. And Joseph said to his father, &amp;quot;Not so, father, because this is the firstborn, put your hand on his head.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And his father declined, and he said: &amp;quot;I knew, my son, I knew. He also will be a great nation, and he also will grow in number; but his younger brother will grow more than him, and his seed will fill the nations.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E uses &amp;quot;El Shaddai&amp;quot;, which is a weird monicker for God. He also has the extraordinary &amp;quot;I am that I am&amp;quot; (more literally, &amp;quot;I'll be what I'll be&amp;quot;), which is followed by a Yahweh tack-on with an obvious seam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Priestly (P)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priestly can't write to save his life. He is almost surely a Levite priest, who is trying to canonize Leviticus law by attaching it to the timeless masterpieces produced by J and E. Priestly's voice is heard at the end of Exodus and throughout Leviticus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A typical Priestly passage (Leviticus 11, vs 41-45) in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Leviticus#11._Dietary_laws_.28Kashruth.29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; translation, available on Wikisource&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And all the vermin that infests the Earth, it is an abomination, it will not be eaten. All the walks on its torso, and all that walks on four, unto any centipede, onto all the vermin that infests the earth--- you will not eat them, because they are an abomination.&#xA;Do not abominate your souls in all the vermin that infests, and do not defile in them, and you were defiled by them. Because I am Yahweh your God, and you were blessed holy and became holy, because I am holy. And you will not defile your souls in all the vermin that crawls on the earth. Because I am Yahweh, who raises you from the land of Egypt, to be a god for you, and you became blessed holy, because I am holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This block is particularly repetitive, but even this example does not do justice to Priestly's cloying, unnecessary, mind numbing repetitions. Things are a &amp;quot;comforting smell to Yahweh&amp;quot; six times in a chapter, detailed grilling instructions are repeated, detail by detail, three times for three only slightly different situations. Priestly is boring, uninspired, pedantic, and generally unreadable. One of the best things about Christianity is that you can ignore nearly everything he wrote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priestly is also the master of stilted narrative. Here is Leviticus Chapter 10 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Leviticus#10._Nadav_and_Avihu_struck_dead.2FRules_for_eating_offerings&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; translation, on Wikisource&lt;/a&gt;) :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, each took from their sinstuff and they put fire to them, and they put incense upon it, and they sacrificed before Yawheh, on a foreign fire, which was not commanded of them. And a fire came out from before Yahweh, and consumed them, and they died before Yawheh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Moses said to Aaron: &amp;quot;That is what Yahweh spoke, saying: that with me I shall bless, and in front of all the people, I will be respected.&amp;quot; And Aaron fell silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Moses called to Mishael and Eltzaphan, the sons of 'uzi-el, Aaron's uncle, and said to them: &amp;quot;approach and carry your brethren from facing the holiness, to outside the camp.&amp;quot;&#xA;And they came close, and they carried them in their cloaks, to outside the camp, as Moses spoke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is so stilted and badly written. Aaron's sons are immolated in his presence, and there is none of the drama of Lot running from the fire and brimstone, pleading with God to let him find shelter in a Mizar. None of the beauty and elegance of Jacob's pining for his lost son, prayed by wolves. No sign of the genius of pacing or drama of Genesis and the early half of Exodus. Their crime basically amounted to cooking communal meat on a grill different from the communal grill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only line of genius which can be safely attributed to Priestly is Leviticus 19:18 (in generic translation--- I went with &amp;quot;You loved your compatriot as yourself&amp;quot;, but this phrase is famous.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And you loved your neighbor as yourself&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is surely his, because it is embedded in a set of verses that repeat &amp;quot;I am Yahweh&amp;quot; for no good reason again and again and again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Redactor (R)&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Redactor is whoever put the narratives together to make a whole. This is probably Priestly, the way I see it. You can see the redactor at work at several places, where verses are inserted for no reason other than the discomfort of the editor at what is being said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;consider Genesis 18, verses 16-22 in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Genesis#Chapter_18&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; Wikisource translation&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the men stood from there, and they gazed towards Sodom, and Abraham walked with them, to send them off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Yahweh said: &amp;quot;I disguise from Abraham that which I am doing,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;And Abraham, onwards will be a great big people, and through him all the nations of the Earth will be blessed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Because it was known to him that which he commanded his sons and his household to do, and they kept the way of Yahweh, to make charity and justice--- leading to Yahweh bringing Abraham that which he spoke to him about.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Yahweh said, &amp;quot;the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is so loud, and their sins, so very heavy. I will descend there and see if its cries which comes to me are due to them all; and if not, I will know it.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the men turned from there, and did go towards Sodom; and Abraham, still left standing before Yahweh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an obvious break in the otherwise extraordinarily beautiful narrative, coming right after &amp;quot;I disguise from Abraham that which I am doing.&amp;quot; The thing that God wishes to disguise from Abraham is the destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah, but as the angels walk toward the city, Abraham argues with God about the destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, redactor didn't like that God is diguising something from Abraham, and so stuck in the completely inane two verses that follow, which simply repeat promises of God to Abraham from other passages, which are completely out of context here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike other translations, the translation above seeks to preserve the tone-deaf narrative and horrible writing style of redactor, which match the tone-deaf narrative and horrible writing style of Priestly. I don't see any reason to think they are separate authors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the issue of the &amp;quot;and Aaron&amp;quot;'s in Exodus. These read more naturally if omitted, so that God is speaking to Moses only. But the Exodus author tacks on &amp;quot;and Aaron&amp;quot; in many places, some places where it mismatches with the singular tense of the verb! This is R at work, although I don't see any reason why this isn't P.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arguing against identifying R with P is the fact that while common authorship of writing of great genius is easy to identify, all hacks of the same era write alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Others&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is supposedly a D author, the Deuternomist, who continues the narration into Deuteronomy and perhaps Judges. I didn't translate those books, so I can't judge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for other authorial guesses, I think that the author of psalm 137 is also the author of lamentations, either in whole or in part. The word choice and the strange baby imagery is so distinctive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T13:21:24.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5419" CreationDate="2012-01-15T13:20:33.203" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  The Bible says nothing about global warming either way. Any attempt to twist any scripture to support or deny global warming is pure speculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Global warming is something that is squarely within the realm of science to support or disprove. We have facts, evidence, and trustworthy (if contradictory) data.  It's a matter for scientific inquiry not Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Global warming does not predict the end of the world, a repeat of a global flood that would wipe out all mankind, or anything else that would contradict Scripture. Global warming is irrelevant to Scripture and vice-versa. It does predict flooding, but not at the scale necessary to conflict with God's promise to Noah. In short it predicts hardship, not total destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how global warming should affect Christian worldviews (and vice-versa) the two are completely unrelated, and should affect each other no more than Brittney Spears' favorite color should affect what I want to eat for breakfast. (which is bacon and eggs.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1180&quot;&gt;We're already supposed to be good stewards of the world God gave us&lt;/a&gt;. The truth or falseness of global warming does not change the fact of our responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-01-15T14:39:20.190" LastActivityDate="2012-01-15T14:39:20.190" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5416" CreationDate="2012-01-15T13:44:13.757" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering that this is a commentary on Exodus 22, which is dealing with issues relating to theft, this is likely on the specific &quot;thou shalt not steal&quot; commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblebaptistchurchcambridge.com/wordpress/?p=101&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The idea of property rights is found throughout Scripture&lt;/a&gt;, and taking someone's property is, in it's most basic form, theft.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-01-15T13:44:13.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2012-01-15T15:04:42.067" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to have to limit my quotes from Scripture and leave some compelling verses out, because there are simply so many.  This answer would be even longer than my  normal long-winded answers if I included all supporting Scripture references.  Please forgive me if I miss something you consider relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there is the &lt;strong&gt;entire book of Romans&lt;/strong&gt;, which is a build-up to, statement of, and then supporting evidence of, the doctrine.  Some relevant verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapter 1 is a description of Gentiles (non-Jews) and shows the wickedness as part of the build-up.  By extension, this shows that religious affiliation (even to a so-called &quot;one true Church&quot; as many denominations claim) can save us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapters 2 segues into showing that the Jew is no better, for even though they have the promise of God, they are still corrupt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapter 3 continues to show that the Jew (and by extension everyone) is unable to attain salvation through the works of the Law and gets to verse 27:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 3:27 and 28 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay:&#xA;  but by the law of faith.  28 Therefore we conclude that a man is&#xA;  justified by faith without the deeds of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The remainder of Romans is support for this doctrinal statement.  Paul starts out by showing how the early heroes of the Jewish faith were not justified by their own goodness, but by Faith on God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then goes on to show how the Law is perfect, and cannot save us, but rather was given to us that we might know what sin is - so that we can realize that we are sinful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the words of Ray Comfort in his teaching on Hell's Best Kept Secret, God's Law is like a mirror that shows us to ourselves in our true nature.  If we see we have a dirty face in a mirror, we don't wash our faces with the mirror.  No, we wash our faces with water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, we can't wash away our sins with the mirror of God's law, but instead are washed clean by the blood of Christ. This is the essence of the message to the Romans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other verses throughout the New Testament also state this doctrine plainly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Epesians 2:8-9 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 8 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works,&#xA;  lest any man should boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I said in the beginning, a comprehensive list of Scriptures would be prohibitively large, and it would be impossible to do a better job of answering this than has already been done by Paul in Romans, but here is a link to an article with more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblefacts.org/bible/salfaith.html&quot;&gt;http://www.biblefacts.org/bible/salfaith.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T00:16:53.097" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T00:16:53.097" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5431" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5435" CreationDate="2012-01-15T19:38:36.627" Score="18" ViewCount="931" Body="&lt;p&gt;In response to a question about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5316/69&quot;&gt;Onan&lt;/a&gt;, @RonMaimon chose the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(Wikisource)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;WikiSource translation&lt;/a&gt;. Not being familiar with it, I tried to examine it's pedigree, but could not find one. I'd like to know a little about the scholarship of this translation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see that it has been in progress since 2006, but can't seem to locate much more than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Bible Gateway, which has a lot of translations, does not source this one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like the idea behind an open source translation, but can't decide if this one is quality or not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From what base manuscripts is the text drawn? What key manuscripts are referenced (Are we talking Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, papyri, etc.. Or is this based on later translations such as the LXX or even English translations. ) Is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nestle-Aland 27&lt;/a&gt; considered, etc... &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What are the credentials of the translators? Put another way, how do I even know if they can read Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? Unfortunately, I couldn't locate the base manuscripts to do any investigation. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is the translation philosophy of WikiSource? Is it &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dynamic or formal equivalence&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Kjv, hcsb, esv, nrsv, and lots of others, you can easily find the answers, but i had no luck on Wikisource. Even for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NET bible&lt;/a&gt; - a public domain bible, I can answer these questions and still retain full insight into the translation choices, but i couldn't locate such a statement for this one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-02-12T17:07:06.180" Title="What scholarship exists behind the WikiSource translation of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2012-01-16T01:30:32.633" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The real answer to &quot;How do I judge&quot; is to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/&quot;&gt;learn Greek&lt;/a&gt; or Hebrew yourself and look at the translation.  Or, I suppose you could move to Turkey and pick up some Greek in the places where the Bible was actually written, but you'd have to be crazy to do that :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the non-language learner, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm&quot;&gt;Greek&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm&quot;&gt;Hebrew&lt;/a&gt; Interlinear will give the root word for each translated (English) word in the scripture.  Ideally, one would understand the part of speech, tense, mood, position, etc... and compare it with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/&quot;&gt;corpus of literature from the same time period like Persues&lt;/a&gt; to see how a given word was used in context at the time.  Tools such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibleworks.com/&quot;&gt;BibleWorks&lt;/a&gt; or Logos (http://www.logos.com/) will aid tremendously in this regards.  (A seminary degree doesn't hurt here either!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the rest of us, we need to rely on the work of scholars. There is a great deal of scholarship that goes into a good bible translation, and like any academic pursuit, it should be judged on how well it follows the rules of good scholarship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, one should consider the manuscript evidence on which a given translation was based. Many older translations, such as the KJV, were limited to the Textus Receptus, and based on fewer available manuscripts.  Since the 1533 printing of this version, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/&quot;&gt;Codex Sinaiticus&lt;/a&gt; and the Dead Sea Scrolls have simply added more source material that help scholars detect variations between various handwritten copies.  (That said, no major doctrine has ever been built on one of these variations)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, one should consider the purpose of the translation.  Some manuscripts, such as the New Living Translation will purposely diverge from a word-for-word translation, because that is the aim of the producers.  In contrast, the Amplified Bible is all about giving as many synonyms for a given word as possible, intentionally undermining its &quot;readability.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thirdly, one should consider the credentials of the translator. The late Bruce Metzger is probably the foremost authority in this regard.  His critical apparatus &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.logos.com/product/2190/a-textual-commentary-on-the-greek-new-testament&quot;&gt;A Textual Commentary on the NT&lt;/a&gt; identifies all manuscript discrepancies and grades them on a scale of A to C to distinguish the likilhood of a given reading being an original.  It should be noted again, that in most cases, a variant is no more than a letter or a single word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, judging the &quot;correctness&quot; of a translation is an art, not a science, but the same tools mentioned above will help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luckily for us, there is very little in Scripture that is rooted in the language. Unlike the Qu'ran, Christians do not hold Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, or English in any particular high regard. For a religion that spread around the world, mostly amongst the poor, it would have been odd to have gotten hung up on language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the final analysis, if a doctrine is rooted in only one language, it is unlikely to widespread or even important. As Mark Twain once said, &quot;It's not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that concern me - it's the parts that I do understand that terrify me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T01:30:32.633" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5431" CreationDate="2012-01-16T02:35:59.053" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Wiki page for the Bible translation project is here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/WS:WPWB&quot;&gt;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/WS:WPWB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't really trust it so much because it says stuff like this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you know Greek or Hebrew, add your name to the list of participants&#xA;  and claim a chapter! Or if you don't want to make that commitment yet,&#xA;  check somebody else's work. If you don't know Greek or Hebrew, we can&#xA;  still very much use your English skills in proof-reading and tweaking&#xA;  the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when it lists out the participants in the project, it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Type #~~~ at the end of the list to add you name. If you want the&#xA;  current date and time after your name add one more &quot;~&quot;. If you&#xA;  understand Greek or Hebrew very well please add &quot; - Translator&quot; after&#xA;  the #~~~. If you don't understand Greek and Hebrew very well then you&#xA;  can add &quot; - editor&quot; after you name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They don't seem to understand that it takes a lot more than &quot;knowing Greek and Hebrew&quot; to be able to translate the Bible or any ancient text for that matter. You not only need to be a master of these languages AS THEY WERE SPOKEN back then but also need to know the culture of the time like the back of your hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice, don't take WIKI anything without a grain of salt. It should raise a lot of alarms in the case of the Bible, especially because anyone thinking they can do it, will try to do it. They are probably trying to stay true to the translation (I don't know what their intentions are), but I just wouldn't trust them. I have a hard time trusting some of the translations out there already, I would steer clear of Wiki stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should make it clear though, I like open source stuff, but this stuff is something I would probably not want to take any chances with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T02:35:59.053" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5438" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5457" CreationDate="2012-01-16T05:21:26.643" Score="10" ViewCount="19136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently learned that the gap in time between the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus into heaven was given as &quot;40 days&quot;.  I'm curious about that period and have a few related questions about it that I'd be interested in learning about any dominant Catholic or Protestant understandings of it, if they exist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there a name for this period in the various traditions?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When he wasn't appearing to people, where and on what was Jesus spending his time?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was his being the same as pre-resurrection, or was he somehow fundamentally different?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was there a purpose to this &quot;stopover&quot; back on Earth?  (I assume to indicate the resurrection).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there aren't any Biblical or doctrinal views of it, if there are any literary or artistic conceptions of this period that you know of, I would be interested in that as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-02T21:30:27.723" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T21:30:27.723" Title="The nature of Jesus's 40 days post-resurrection but pre-ascension" Tags="&lt;easter&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;ascension&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5431" CreationDate="2012-01-16T06:10:42.593" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Wikisource bible translation project is essentially dead. There are a lot of ancient Greek speakers, so there is almost all the New Testament, but the parts I saw were spotty, because many different people contributed, with very different translation styles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the Hebrew translations, I'm pretty much the only person that did major books (the exceptions are Ruth and Song of Songs at present writing). I can tell you my motivations. I am a secular native Hebrew speaker. Modern Hebrew is about as different from ancient Hebrew as Shakespeare's English is different from modern English. Aramaic is about as different from modern Hebrew as Chaucer's English is different from modern English. This means that a modern Hebrew speaker can read the Bible about as fluently as you read Shakespeare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not 100% fluent, there are obscure words and shifted meanings. But these are easy to catch, since I had access to all previous English translations for help with vocabulary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My main goal in translation was to &lt;em&gt;preserve the brevity&lt;/em&gt;. The Bible is very terse in Hebrew, and religious translators, out of misplaced reverence, bulk up the translation with extra words. For example, one place I saw the word &quot;Vehaya&quot; which means &quot;And it was&quot; translated as &quot;and in due course it came to pass&quot;! This type of nonsense makes the English unreadable in any fluent way, and the following guideline make it simple to keep the readability&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preserve the approximate syllable count&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that &quot;Vehaya&quot; can be &quot;And it was&quot;, but not &quot;And as it turned out to be&quot;. You can violate this rule, of course, but not too much, so that the flow of the narrative is preserved more or less. All other translations violate this in a &lt;em&gt;gross&lt;/em&gt; way, leading people to think that Hebrew is a magic language with terse terms for very specific English meanings. It's not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second principle I adhered to is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preserve Aramaic endings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one means that if &quot;they walked&quot; is rendered &quot;Hithalchun&quot; with the distinctive Aramaic ending, I wrote it as &quot;they did walketh&quot;, in faux-archaic English. This lets the English reader date the text by themselves as well as a Hebrew speaker, since Aramic tinged Hebrew is later stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third principle, important for poetry&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preserve meter (when important)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;many of the Psalms show a blank verse poetry. Translating the Psalms is challenging (especially compared to the straightforward Genesis or Exodus), and the meter is ignored by many translations, leading to clunky poetry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word choices are informed by previous translations, but I only read these &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; writing a sketch, so as to fix my screw-ups (which I had plenty of, but I think I fixed most of them, and footnoted the rest).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;em&gt;absolutely no scholarship&lt;/em&gt; used in these translations, beyond the implicit scholarship which kept the Hebrew language alive, and the scholarship that went into previous translations. Everything there is original text, with minor one-word corrections from previous versions (or a reworded sentence when I totally misread something).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the translation I did of Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus/Lamentations/Psalms1-60/Eccelesiastes blows every other translation out of the water. When I read my translation, I get the same feeling as when I read the Hebrew, with the same pacing, and the same style, even distinguishing the different authors. When I read other translations, no, no, no. I will let readers judge for themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the specific question of philosophy: a good translation preserves &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; dynamic and formal meaning, so that it is correct in form, and in imagery and meaning. The tradeoff between the two is not as large seeming for someone fluent in both languages. The major impediments to translation is that people have crazy religious interpretations of every sentence, so that they do not translate the simple meaning (the &quot;Pshat&quot; in Jewish terminology) accurately, but translate to preserve all the cockamamie wrongheaded crufty interpretations over the millenia. I didn't do that, I stuck to the Pshat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I must also mention that Douglas Hofstadter wrote a book &quot;Le Ton Beau de Marot&quot; about translation, especially translation of poetry, which emphasizes the degree to which form and meaning can both be preserved with assiduous effort and constant faith that there &lt;em&gt;must be an answer&lt;/em&gt;. I read this book, and tried to take the lessons to heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastEditorUserId="1113" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T07:37:18.023" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T07:37:18.023" CommentCount="18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2981" CreationDate="2012-01-16T08:02:38.870" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically, it's not a sinners prayer that saves you.  It's not the words that save you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to John 3:15-16 there is no mention of saying some words and getting saved.&#xA;The key word in John 3:16 is &lt;strong&gt;&quot;believe&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:15-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal&#xA;  life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,&#xA;  that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have&#xA;  everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but&#xA;  that the world through him might be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1177" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T08:02:38.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5443" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5444" CreationDate="2012-01-16T08:52:27.550" Score="11" ViewCount="732" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has the Catholic church ever acknowledged such a possibility as not contradicting the Bible? Or has it once said that the whole idea of aliens is absolutely non-Biblical as the humans are the center of God's creation or something like that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, once again: Has the Catholic church ever voiced its view on the possibility of aliens' existence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-01-18T21:06:01.460" LastActivityDate="2015-10-07T23:41:07.620" Title="Has the Catholic church ever voiced its view on the possibility of aliens' existence?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;extra-terrestrial-life&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5443" CreationDate="2012-01-16T12:04:52.350" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church has made no claims about the existence—or lack thereof—of extraterrestrial lifeforms, preferring instead to let astrobiologists and other members of the scientific community make that determination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, a number of Vatican astronomers over the years have theorized about the existence of such beings. Most notable among them is Father Jose Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, who spoke to the &lt;em&gt;L'Osservatore Romano&lt;/em&gt; (the Vatican newspaper of record) in 2008:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Father Funes said it was difficult to exclude the possibility that other intelligent life exists in the universe, and he noted that one field of astronomy is now actively seeking &amp;quot;biomarkers&amp;quot; in spectrum analysis of other stars and planets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He even speculated that extraterrestrials might not bear the mark of original sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Asked about implications that the discovery of alien life might pose for Christian redemption, Father Funes cited the Gospel parable of the shepherd who left his flock of 99 sheep in order to search for the one that was lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;We who belong to the human race could really be that lost sheep, the sinners who need a pastor,&amp;quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;God became man in Jesus in order to save us. So if there are also other intelligent beings, it's not a given that they need redemption. They might have remained in full friendship with their creator,&amp;quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2009, when the Church hosted a conference to discuss astrobiology, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/11/world/main5613197.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Funes spoke out again&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration,&amp;quot; said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another Vatican scientist at the same conference, Brother Guy Consolmagno, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;speculated even further&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said he was &amp;quot;comfortable&amp;quot; with the idea of alien life and asked if he would baptise an alien, he replied, &amp;quot;Only if they asked.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I'd be delighted if we found life elsewhere and delighted if we found intelligent life elsewhere,&amp;quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;But the odds of us finding it, of it being intelligent and us being able to communicate with it - when you add them up it's probably not a practical question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;God is bigger than just humanity. God is also the god of angels.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said the characteristics synonymous with having a soul - intelligence, free will, freedom to love and freedom to make decisions - may not be unique to humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul,&amp;quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However machines were unlikely to be smart or human enough to have souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As they are under the employ of the Church, it's likely what they have said is at least &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_obstat&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;nihil obstat&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, but definitely not dogmata.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-10-07T23:41:07.620" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3381" CreationDate="2012-01-16T13:28:41.220" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Solomon married his concubines, so he wasn't practicing adultery - just polygamy, which was not forbidden. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David murdered Uriah, but did it by proxy. He did not kill Uriah, rather he set up a situation in which he would fall in battle. Beyond that, yes David &quot;killed his ten thousands,&quot; but did so in battle, and thus it isn't murder. And as Caleb pointed out, God punished David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T13:28:41.220" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5447" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5451" CreationDate="2012-01-16T16:09:59.007" Score="5" ViewCount="558" Body="&lt;p&gt;The same certainty we have on the Bible and Jesus Christ, other people from other religions have on their gods and &quot;holy books&quot; (between commas because I'm one of those who have the certainty about Bible) and I have no explanation for that and I'd like one so I can answer some friends about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1161" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T20:28:29.423" Title="Christianity certainty and other religions certainty" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-04-14T17:34:31.860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2012-01-16T16:17:12.117" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus says in many places that blindly following the Law of Moses will not lead to salvation, and is his primary criticism of practicing Jews of the time.  Belief in Jesus' message and God is required for salvation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, mainstream Christians take Jesus' statement &quot;I did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it&quot; as evidence that he has completed the Law and belief in him is enough going forward to attain salvation by faith alone.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, some Christians (e.g. Messianic Jews &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews&lt;/a&gt;), believe that Christians must believe in Jesus' message and God to attain salvation.  But they also follow the Law of Moses as they lead their lives, not because the Law is required for salvation, but because otherwise they will be committing sin given that Jesus did not abolish the Law.  Even these Christians believe in salvation by faith alone, but they do not excuse themselves from the Law believing that God will punish them for sins due to breaking the Law, before ultimately accepting them into Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be major misunderstanding of what Jesus says and preaches, and this shows in answers provided by others.  Most Christians believe that Jews are wrong to rely on practicing the Law of Moses as a pathway to salvation.  This is not the case.  As far as I know, Judaism also believes in salvation by faith alone.  The Law is to be followed to avoid displeasing God and not sin.  Following the Law to the letter, without faith in the One God, is not enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jews do not believe that abiding by the Law of Moses is enough for attaining salvation - belief in the One God is key to attaining salvation.  Jesus saw that many Jews of his time were obsessed with details of the Law and its interpretation, and not on Moses' call to focus on the belief in the One God.  Jesus came to correct them in their practice and reinforce belief in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not even close to being knowledgeable enough to answer the question in a scholarly manner, but the above difference in belief is what I have uncovered by practicing in discussions on this portal.  Others may be better able to elaborate further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1137" LastEditorUserId="1137" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T16:42:25.320" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T16:42:25.320" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5447" CreationDate="2012-01-16T16:34:45.643" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an interesting question.  Many people are firmly convinced that their religious position is, indeed, true.  This includes atheistic positions as well.  Yet, the question is not with the level of certainty an individual has, but the validity of that certainty.  As on writer put it, &quot;faith is only as strong as the object of that faith.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The illustration of ice is mentioned.  A traveler from the Arctic regions may visit a warmer climate in winter.  While in his home town, they drive cars on the lakes at this point, where he is visiting only seldom as ice thick enough to walk on.  Coming upon a lake, he may leap out onto it with all the certainty possible.  Yet the object of his faith does not hold up, and he gets very wet and very cold.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another person from the mild climate may visit an arctic region, and with great timidity, gently step out onto a lake that is covered by two feet of ice.  His uncertainty is placed in an object that can well accommodate his act of faith, and he remains dry and on solid &quot;ground&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, faith is only as strong as the object of that faith.  As Spurgeon exhorted, &quot;never make a Christ out of your faith.&quot;  It is not the strength of our faith that saves us, but the truthfulness of salvation that God offers to us through Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the real question in this matter is which religious belief is true.  All religious beliefs which are false, including atheism, will not support our weight if we put our trust in them.  Christianity, however, will indeed support our weight as we put our trust in Jesus, despite the timidity or certainty of our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity alone has overwhelming evidence to support its truthfulness, including hundreds of predictive prophecies fulfilled in Jesus, the inexplicable growth of Christianity in the face of severe and extensive persecution at its very birth, billions of transformed lives, and on and on and on and on...  but that's another question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T16:34:45.643" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2012-01-16T17:33:26.780" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to David's thorough answer, I would like to add (what I think) is the single most clear verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:15-16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 2:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ &lt;strong&gt;know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I added verse 15 for clarity, verse 16 is in bold.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;NIV Study Bible&lt;/strong&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians stands as an eloquent and vigorous apologetic for the essential NT truth that man is justified by faith in Jesus Christ - by nothing less and nothing more - and that he is sanctified not by legalistic works but by the obedience that comes from faith in God's work for him, in him and through him by the grace and power of Christ and the Holy Spirit. It was the rediscovery of the basic message of Galatians that brought about the Reformation. Galatians is often referred to as &amp;quot;Luther's book&amp;quot;, because Martin Luther relied so strongly on this letter in his writings and arguments against the prevailing theology of his day. A key verse is 2:16 (see note there).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that note is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key verse in Galatians. Three times it tells us that no-one is justified by observing the law, and three times it emphasises the indispensable requirement of placing one's faith in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T21:38:03.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5447" CreationDate="2012-01-16T18:04:39.833" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are correct, in that all religions all, &lt;em&gt;when measured objectively and independently&lt;/em&gt;, essentially have the same level of firm &lt;strong&gt;proof&lt;/strong&gt;, and (give or take) the same level of depth of feeling in the believers (I'm omitting &quot;cultural&quot; associates from this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This applies both to non-Chistian faiths, and also to the various sects &lt;em&gt;within&lt;/em&gt; Christianity - with many fragments entirely convinced of the validity of another competing particular position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting. And keep in mind that your belief that another religion is false is &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; what that religion reciprocates - by definition most religions are exclusive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way: if there was an &lt;strong&gt;answer&lt;/strong&gt; to this, there would be (given our current global communications capability) exactly one religion or zero religions (depending on the result).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T18:20:45.633" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T18:20:45.633" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5447" CreationDate="2012-01-16T18:13:29.923" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you have observed, a feeling of certainty about religious beliefs is not a reliable indicator to the truth of those beliefs.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Largest_religions_or_belief_systems_by_number_of_adherents&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;big four religions&lt;/a&gt;, worldwide, are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.  (If you wanted to count atheism as a religion, but not merge it with Buddhism, it would probably be between Hinduism and Buddhism.)  None have a majority (Christianity broadly construed is accepted by close to 1/3 of the earth's population), and all have sizable numbers of strong believers, advocates, fundamentalists, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also can't trust &lt;em&gt;claims&lt;/em&gt; of evidence or accuracy or personal benefit.  You are already familiar, I take it, with (at least claims of) the extraordinary evidence that supports Christianity.  But Islam can claim that many prophecies from the Quran &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/prophecies.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;have been fulfilled&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam#The_Umayyad_Caliphate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;speed of its spread&lt;/a&gt; was astounding (far faster than Christianity), among other things.  Hinduism is rather amorphous (far more diverse than Christianity), but there are no shortage of miracles (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;) attributed to it.  Buddhism is an essentially atheistic belief system in that it rejects the existence of God/gods (though it does have some supernatural elements), yet there are many stories of how it has &lt;a href=&quot;http://ahandfulofleaves.net/dhamma/?page_id=942&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;positively changed people's lives&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, since many of the features of major religions look &lt;em&gt;broadly&lt;/em&gt; the same, it must be the &lt;em&gt;details&lt;/em&gt; that matter.  In particular, if you are talking to friends who (strongly) hold other beliefs, be aware that they are likely to be in a similar situation as you, and if you're going to figure out who is right, you will need to listen respectfully and/or empathize with the feelings their religion may induce in them, while sharing your point of view.  If you are talking to friends who hold the same beliefs as you and who are baffled why everyone else doesn't believe the same (maybe it's because they're evil?), you can point out that it's not nearly so obvious as they feel it is, since outwardly all major religions have many similar aspects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastEditorUserId="519" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T18:18:49.183" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T18:18:49.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5412" CreationDate="2012-01-16T19:21:32.763" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would seem that the Cross could, in fact, be used as an idol.  However, from my experience, that would seem to be the exception rather than the rule.  The Cross is simply a reminder.  I have never prayed to a Cross or have even cared whether one was displayed while I was worshiping.  It is merely a symbol, much like the icthus on the back of my car.  (Just to clear, I don't pray towards that either.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the original Temple (and tabernacle) had objects inside them--none of which were to be worshiped.  These items included the table of showbread, the altar of incense, the ark of the covenant, the golden lampstand, etc.  Each of these had a noble purpose, but none of them were worshiped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a pretty significant distinction between the crucifix (with the image of Jesus on the cross) and just a cross, however.  Many Protestants view this very specifically as an image of God, since Jesus is the eternal, pre-existent Son of God.  As a result, many Protestants will never use the crucifix in any decorations at all for the very specific reason that it has in it the image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, symbolism is not forbidden in Scripture, and there is a precedent for having symbolic things in a place of worship (lampstands =&gt; Light of the world, Showbread =&gt; Bread of life... the articles of the old Temple pointed to Jesus, the Son of God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, most Protestants at least would have no problem at all having all the cross decorations removed from a church.  It's only symbolic, and we worship God with or without them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1597" LastEditDate="2012-10-05T14:50:35.780" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T14:50:35.780" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5412" CreationDate="2012-01-16T19:50:23.400" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics, for one, only genuflect before Jesus. We do so before Him wholly present in the Eucharist reserved in a tabernacle in the sanctuary of a church.  If you're in a Catholic church that, for whatever reason, has the tabernacle removed from the place where Mass is being celebrated people should not be genuflecting; this is the case on Good Friday, when, incidentally, we venerate the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that is the crux of the matter. Whatever the highest form of human devotion is, we only reserve it for God Himself. This is the &lt;em&gt;latreia&lt;/em&gt; form of worship. It is what is due only to God.  One can argue one way or another, because the definition is sort of self-referential. But if this form of worship is what the Catholic Church (and like minded churches) says it is, then it is what it is and only divine iconoclasm could change it, which has not been the case:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pnk8z.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;911 Cross&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;World Trade Center after 9/11&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/lUXV7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Virgin Mary statue from Nagasaki&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Virgin Mary after bombing of Nagasaki&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sacramentals, such as a crucifix or cross (without a corpus), statues of Jesus or Mary or the saints, and other devotional items ought to be treated with reverence out of respect for what they symbolize.  The Eucharist on the other hand, ought to be adored because of what It IS!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/others.html&quot;&gt;CCC 1667&lt;/a&gt; for more information on sacramentals) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T19:50:23.400" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5456" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-16T20:16:23.073" Score="3" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is closely related to those regarding &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/749/can-christianity-be-objectively-defined&quot;&gt;the definition of a Christian&lt;/a&gt; that was also discussed on the meta site &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/101/what-is-the-definition-of-christian&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/132/christianity-se-vs-survivor&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  While I consider that question answered and outside the scope of this site (as discussed in Meta), it seems that there is still room for this tangent.  Quite apart from what individuals are labeled as Christian, is Christianity the sum of the actions and beliefs of its adherents or a set of actions and beliefs defined by the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Background: I recently referred an acquaintance to an article describing differences between Jews and Christians.  I (converting to Judaism) said that I thought the article pointed out important differences between Christianity and Judaism.  He (a Christian) said that he thought the article pointed out the differences between some Christians and some Jews.  Obviously he is correct in his observation, but, by doing the latter, the article was (to my mind) also doing the former.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="363" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:33:31.730" Title="Is Christianity the sum of the actions and beliefs of its adherents or a set of actions and beliefs defined by the Bible?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;religion&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2012-01-18T10:40:28.797" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5438" CreationDate="2012-01-16T20:29:21.120" Score="9" Body="&lt;h3&gt;1. Is there a name for this period in the various traditions?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any for protestant Christianity, but Catholicism refers to this period as &lt;em&gt;Eastertide&lt;/em&gt; or the &lt;em&gt;Season of Easter&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;2. When he wasn't appearing to people, where and on what was Jesus spending his time?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told the thief on the cross that &amp;quot;today, you will be with me in paradise&amp;quot;, so it's reasonable to assume that he was moving between this creation and the next eternal creation being prepared for the redeemed of the Lamb (that place commonly known as &amp;quot;heaven&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, neither scripture nor tradition has anything definitive to say about where he was when he was not revealing himself here on earth.  Do note, though, that the concept of time is very different outside of this creation (if it has any meaning at all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;3. Was his being the same as pre-resurrection, or was he somehow fundamentally different?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' body, post-resurrection, was indeed fundamentally different - it was his glorified eternal body, not limited by created time and space. This body is the incorruptible, immortal and eternal state that is the future for all those who are saved, as described in 1 Cor 15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;35&lt;/strong&gt; But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” &lt;strong&gt;36&lt;/strong&gt; You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. &lt;strong&gt;37&lt;/strong&gt; And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. &lt;strong&gt;38&lt;/strong&gt; But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. &lt;strong&gt;39&lt;/strong&gt; For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. &lt;strong&gt;40&lt;/strong&gt; There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. &lt;strong&gt;41&lt;/strong&gt; There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;42&lt;/strong&gt; So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. &lt;strong&gt;43&lt;/strong&gt; It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. &lt;strong&gt;44&lt;/strong&gt; It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. &lt;strong&gt;45&lt;/strong&gt; Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. &lt;strong&gt;46&lt;/strong&gt; But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. &lt;strong&gt;47&lt;/strong&gt; The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. &lt;strong&gt;48&lt;/strong&gt; As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. &lt;strong&gt;49&lt;/strong&gt; Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 15:35-49&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is part of the stunning wonder of the incarnation; that eternal God could have put off his glory to become, for a time, limited, finite man constrained by our dimensions of time and space, to effect the salvation of those who &amp;quot;confess with [their] mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in [their] heart that God raised him from the dead.&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10:9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rom 10:9&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;4. Was there a purpose to this &amp;quot;stopover&amp;quot; back on Earth? (I assume to indicate the resurrection).&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was, in part, to bear witness to his bodily resurrection.  For as Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 15:12-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also that he could give final teaching and instruction to his disciples now that his purpose and mission had been fully revealed to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-03-21T21:43:16.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5456" CreationDate="2012-01-16T21:02:47.293" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is very subjective as it appears you are trying to separate what Christianity is from what its adherents do, and that is very tricky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus had a vision of God's message that he understood very well.  Then he gave the pieces of the mosaic to his apostles, and taught some parts to his disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They then tried to recreate the picture that Jesus understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, they passed those pieces on to use in the form of writings, but many of these came from disciples of those Jesus taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we now have thousands of different groups each claiming to have reconstructed the picture, but each one is very different, as some will have put different ones in the center, and most will have some pieces left out of the image as unneeded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when you ask what is Christianity, both can be seen as Christianity, there are the teachings, but how those are applied in the real-world shows whether the teachings are reasonable to follow, and so likely to be true.  If you teach a belief that no one can follow at all, then it is probably not a true teaching, but just a theory on how to live life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in the US, we have Christian groups that teach hatred, and teach that treating those not of their particular faith as being less important, unless they can be converted.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would seem to fly in the face of Jesus' teachings of loving enemies more than ourselves (not something Jesus stated directly, but can be inferred), and being willing to die for those that persecute us.  But, these followers can seem to be happy with making this unreasonable loving part less important, or redefining it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, to an outsider, this is Christianity.  To those on the inside they may state it isn't, but if anyone group claims to be Christian then the entire teachings of Christ are judged by the actions of the claimants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why Fulton Sheen stated that people don't hate Roman Catholicism, they hate what they think Roman Catholicism is.  People see something and may misinterpret, and so they hate this religion because of what they see, and what they may misunderstand, but to those within the Church they will see it differently and so not understand why people will judge the religion so harshly.  &lt;strong&gt;I am not trying to defend the RCC, but to use it as an example&lt;/strong&gt;, btw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T22:11:07.993" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T22:11:07.993" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5456" CreationDate="2012-01-16T21:40:34.580" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd have to chalk that us as a false dichotomy because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christianity is a personal encounter with the person of Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Benedict XVI, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deus Caritas Est&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church as a spiritual thing would exist without any members. Each person adds his or her talents to the Body of Christ. It is not a black hole, but as Lewis and Chesterton both allude, it is something that is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.  It is supernatural, the Bible is evidence of the real covenants which God has made with His people, be they Jews, Muslims or Christians. However, no new covenants will be made because the eternal one was as good as it gets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the &lt;strong&gt;new and eternal covenant;&lt;/strong&gt; which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.  Do this in memory of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Eucharistic Prayer 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-16T22:07:10.090" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T22:07:10.090" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5419" CreationDate="2012-01-16T21:54:21.043" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible has very little to say on the topic. The closest would be Genesis 9:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even that passage has little relevance to the Global Warming issue today, as no one I know would suggest that Global Warming/Climate Change is threatening to cover the entire Earth with water (perhaps large parts, but not the entire globe).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the larger question here is whether or not you believe that God directs history. If you believe that God is in control of the world, as do most Christians, then Global Warming and it's consequences are irrelevant. Maybe God intends catastrophe, and Global Warming will change the face of the planet; if so, this is God's will and mankind will be powerless to prevent it.On the other hand, maybe God intends it all come to nothing; in this case &quot;Nature&quot; will recover no matter how much mankind pollutes things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that it makes little difference to Christians whether or not Global Warming itself is or is not real, because we have no influence in the outcome either way. The idea that we need to recycle more or become more energy efficient in order to &quot;save the planet&quot; is something that many Christians will vehemently dispute. There may be other good reasons to do both, but from the Christian perspective, saving the planet isn't one of them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't to say we should always act helpless. If I see a house on fire, I'm going to call the fire department to put it out. But what alarmists are talking about here is on the level of global catastrophe; perhaps not complete utter destruction, but still on the level where Christians tend to believe things are firmly in God's Hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That out of the way, there is also a stewardship issue in play here as well: God gave the Earth to mankind, to take care of it. It is amazing to me that Christians who would never just throw litter around will also take part in polluting the planet in just slightly less-direct ways. Of course, I am no doubt just as guilty of this hypocrisy, as are many Global Warming advocates. It's just so easy to cause indirect pollution these days; if you rode a vehicle to work or school this morning that ultimately derives motive power from petroleum or coal, even a hybrid or mass-transit, you're already guilty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While perhaps many Christians do doubt Global Warming, it's not really Global Warming or Climate Change that the Christian faith would stand against most strongly: it's the fear-mongering that goes along with it. Let's teach our children to care for the planet, but teach them to do it because it's the right thing to do for themselves and for society (and for believers, because it's what God wants us to do), and not because the world will end if we don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also go a step deeper. It may not be true that man is powerless against global warming. A major theme in the Old Testament is how it shows a cycle of the Israelite Nation: Israel turns from God, God punishes Israel, Israel turns back to God, God rescues Israel from the punishment and restores it. This theme is repeated over and over. If global warming does result in catastrophic climate change, it may be that God is working through a similar process. In a global culture that is increasingly secular, such a calamity could serve to move the hearts of man back towards God, at which point He would restore us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this the case, then there is a route we can take that avoids dooms-day scenarios. However, this route does not involve conservation or limiting carbon dioxide. It's through lifting our hearts to God in prayer and praise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2015-04-20T04:17:59.080" LastActivityDate="2015-04-20T04:17:59.080" CommentCount="4" CommunityOwnedDate="2012-11-27T16:55:02.793" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5456" CreationDate="2012-01-16T23:47:04.813" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whitehorseinn.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mike Horton&lt;/a&gt; has in the past year (2011) has frequently defined Christianity as God's acting on our lives and integrating us into His story of redemption. I realize this isn't one of the choices you gave, but I think this is the right way to view the Christian scriptures. If it is our actions, then we have a long history of failure. If it is actions described by the Bible, then we are constantly failing at it and Christianity is an impossible theoretical religion. If it is God's work in saving a people for Himself as described in the Bible, then we can begin to talk about the religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bug now, thus says the Lord, your Creator, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel, &quot;Do not fear , for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine!&quot; [Isaiah 43:1b]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is your God, and that is your religion: His action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1144" LastActivityDate="2012-01-16T23:47:04.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5456" CreationDate="2012-01-17T04:46:44.707" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both.  &quot;Christianity&quot; as a concept has fuzzy boundaries, and both the Bible and the adherents appear important to its nature, and so it seems most apt to meld both into one set and state that the religion(s) of Christianity corresponds to this set in some way(s). To try to define it more formally than that doesn't buy any clarity and isn't rooted in anything objective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T04:46:44.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5447" CreationDate="2012-01-17T07:08:39.443" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The certainty of religious faith applies to the existence of an ethical standard, which is coming from a moral lawgiver, from God. In logical positivist terms, evidence for the existence of God comes from observing that ethical standards are convergent, so that all people will eventually agree on what constitutes an ethical or unethical act given sufficient time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems like a preposterous notion. But if you ask people of any of the big 5 religious faiths what constitutes ethical or unethical behavior, excluding specific religious doctrines or rituals, they will mostly agree! This convergence is astonishing, especially considering the lack of agreement in earlier times. The religions of South America demanded human sacrifice, for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The functioning of the physical universe is not affected one bit by the existence of an ethical convergence. But in order to get the ethical standards to converge, you sometimes have to tell stories which claim ridiculous things happened, so as to spread the faith. This moral law has led otherwise nice people tell lies. I don't think you should tell lies. God tells me I should not tell lies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not a substance like aluminum. It is a spiritual entity, found by introspection, which informs our ethical judgements. The ethical notion of God is universal to all humanity, and different aspects are revealed in different traditions. All these traditions have elements which are true, otherwise they would have been abandoned long ago. The elements of each faith which are most important slowly become more obvious with time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No religion can sensibly claim primacy and exclude the others. The ethical principles of other religions are largely compatible with Christianity. They are only incompatible with Christian religious practice. So if you want to practice a religion, you have to choose. But the choice of a valid faith to practice is more like choosing which book you like the best, or which movie you want to see. Its not like choosing the right numbers in a lottery ticket, where all other numbers go to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T07:08:39.443" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5456" CreationDate="2012-01-17T08:29:19.637" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T08:29:19.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5465" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5469" CreationDate="2012-01-17T11:37:04.853" Score="4" ViewCount="1744" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that Christianity does not enforce any way of governing. And that democracy was invented by the Greeks before Jesus. But my question is this: &lt;strong&gt;Does Christianity teach the values for democracy to work?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, the United States Declaration of Independence states that all humans have rights because they were created equal by God :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of religious liberty has been defended from Calvin onwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the book of Acts contains examples that could be understood as democracy at work in the church. Acts 13 presents the whole church sending &lt;code&gt;Paul&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;Barnabas&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore are Christian values the reason democracy became a &lt;em&gt;viable&lt;/em&gt; way of governing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-09-21T07:42:14.840" LastActivityDate="2015-03-31T02:08:18.247" Title="Does Christianity provide the right elements for democracy?" Tags="&lt;global-christianity&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-06T14:56:46.213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5465" CreationDate="2012-01-17T11:59:27.823" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Read Rodney Stark's &lt;em&gt;The Victory of Reason&lt;/em&gt;. His entire book is an argument that says the answer is yes. From respect for humanity's images dei to an understanding of property rights being grounded by a common transcendent God, he makes the argument you're looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-01-17T17:17:31.623" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T17:17:31.623" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5465" CreationDate="2012-01-17T12:08:51.890" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few problems with this approach; firstly, democracy cannot make sense if there is something with a super-vote; if we ignore the Christian hot-points, and say that (silly example) there's a religious law that says &quot;chairs must be blue&quot;. At this point, it doesn't matter if 95%+ of the population wants to use different colour chairs - they are trumped by religious law. Thus, true democracy does not exist while there is somebody with an absolute trump.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second issue is that what you say is not specifically a Christian value (rather: it is applied much wider than that by many cultures and people - I &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2056/christian-values&quot;&gt;had a discussion here&lt;/a&gt; about the definition of &quot;Christian values&quot;, but never articulated it as a site question), and indeed it is not even strictly applied &lt;em&gt;as&lt;/em&gt; a Christian value by all; there are various sections of Christianity that have (both past and present) shown significant issues with gender roles, and the worth/righteousness of individuals acting entirely within the law of the land (starts with &quot;h&quot;...). While this is true of &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; society, religion tends to slow-moving on issues like this, since changes here (or anywhere) challenge doctrine and dogma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third issue is that Christianity hasn't exactly done a good job of showing a working democracy; instead, every time there's a difference of opinion it has fragmented into different factions, schisms and sects. Showing this level of inability to work as a cohesive democratic body on policy &lt;em&gt;in the Christian domain&lt;/em&gt; does not bode well as an example for setting policy &lt;em&gt;outside&lt;/em&gt; core Christian arenas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-01-17T12:13:55.737" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T12:13:55.737" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5465" CreationDate="2012-01-17T12:19:15.277" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;democracy&quot; comes from ancient Greece, where what is generally considered the first democracy &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Ancient_origins&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;was established in Athens in 507 BCE&lt;/a&gt;. Democracy thus predates Christianity by a significant margin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for &quot;Christian values&quot; having an influence on the success of democracies, note that many of these democracies, especially in Europe, were created by overthrowing monarchies which often &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy#Role_of_religion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;had close ties to the Church&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastEditorUserId="224" LastEditDate="2012-01-17T12:33:04.317" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T12:33:04.317" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5465" CreationDate="2012-01-17T13:17:44.940" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tend to agree with Marc Gravell's answer on this, but I would like to add that I don't think that &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; religious influence or moral framework could make a true democracy work.  True democracy, history has shown, always degenerates into what Lord Acton described as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the tyranny of the majority&lt;/a&gt;&quot; in which the rights of the minority get trampled by the opinion of the majority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also like to point out that the quote that you used was not intended by the founding fathers of the United States to support a democracy.  It was used to state that they felt that the government of Britain had trampled certain rights.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of unalienable rights was an important part of providing the form of government that was eventually established here - not a democracy, but a &lt;em&gt;Constitutional Republic&lt;/em&gt; with some democratic elements: A form of government in which the Constitution is the rule of law, and the protection of freedoms established in the Constitution were designed, specifically, to limit what the government is able to do, and thereby protect the country from the pitfalls of a true Democracy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Marc pointed out, The U.S. is now fractured and divided among many lines, which is, in my opinion, a result of the fact that we've lost sight of the fact that we're &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a democracy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People on &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; sides seem to have forgotten the fact that we're not a democracy, that might (whether in strength, or in numbers) doesn't make right, and that there's a reason we are supposed to have a limited government.  The fact that we've forgotten the idea of unalienable rights is allowing us to slip into the &quot;tyranny of the Majority&quot; and it's only the fact that both sides have approximately equal support that we're not there already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also agreeing with other's sentiments, Christianity itself is split among too many lines.  This site is a small representation of Christianity as a whole, but even among the Christians here we're split.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/833/making-it-clear-that-this-is-the-christianity-se-and-not-the-evangelical-protest&quot;&gt;Even on this site, there is a concern about the tyranny of the majority&lt;/a&gt;, and I think it's a valid concern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary, I believe the answer is &quot;no&quot;.  Christianity might be able to provide some good moral foundations, and certain teachings that coincide with what's best in us, but no religion can form as the basis of a government.  I personally believe that the idea of unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator is a very good starting point, but that's something that could have come from other sources than Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2014-09-22T13:24:04.333" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5465" CreationDate="2012-01-17T15:14:37.563" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity, or at least Catholicism, teaches us to honor and respect our traditions.  It is a corporal work of mercy to bury the dead and a spiritual work to pray for them and tradition, as G.K. Chesterton wrote in &lt;em&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt; is the &quot;Democracy of the Dead&quot;.  Tobit was ruined because he persevered in burying the dead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=p7UEAQAAIAAJ&amp;amp;lpg=PA85&amp;amp;ots=XBYNzfkdQg&amp;amp;dq=orthodoxy%20democracy%20of%20the%20dead&amp;amp;pg=PA85#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy - Chapter 4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is our faith, being continually built upon by men with good ideas and others who accept them.  The heresies pass away, not because they're not popular, but because they're wrong and right thinking men and women come to find them distasteful. So too with bad laws, and that is the point of democracy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholicism provides sacraments, sacred oaths, which bind adherents to the Church with public disgrace, and private shame as the penalties for breaking them.  When the Church was first forming, Pliny the Younger used the word &lt;em&gt;Sacramentum&lt;/em&gt; to describe the oaths which the followers of the Way took to avoid bad behavior and to provide for the needs of the group.  &lt;em&gt;Sacramentum&lt;/em&gt; is also the word used for the oath that Roman soldiers would take when enlisting themselves.  It's just a few words that actually change your status.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer the question, in a democracy, all men are the king, in baptism, we are baptized into Christ's Kingship.  In a democracy, everyone must be informed, in baptism, we are baptized into Christ's role as prophet - giving us direct access to the Holy Spirit. In a democracy, all men and women need to be prepared to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, in baptism we are baptized into Christ's priesthood and His sacrifice and ours ought to be the underpinnings of a just society that reflects the glory of Heaven as best it can given our limited means and fallen nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(More on &lt;em&gt;&quot;Sacramentum&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0385509316&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scott Hahn, Swear to God&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T15:14:37.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5438" CreationDate="2012-01-17T19:03:58.207" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Is there a name for this period in the various traditions?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that I'm aware of, aside from &quot;the forty days.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. When he wasn't appearing to people, where and on what was Jesus spending his time?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We aren't told, so any answer on this subject is pure speculation.  In fact, we aren't even told that he was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; with them and teaching them the whole time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Was his being the same as pre-resurrection, or was he somehow fundamentally different?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus showed himself to the Apostles, he said to them,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see;&#xA;  for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:39&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 24:39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The choice of words here is interesting. He speaks of his body as &quot;flesh and bones,&quot; which is notably &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the more common idiom &quot;flesh and blood.&quot;  As blood is typically used in the Bible to refer to mortality and the essence of mortal life, (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:4&lt;/a&gt; for just one example,) this suggests that Christ's resurrected body may have been immortal at least partially because it was literally &lt;em&gt;without blood&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4. Was there a purpose to this &quot;stopover&quot; back on Earth? (I assume to indicate the resurrection).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is silent on this point, but the historical record indicates that this time was spent organizing the Church and preparing its leaders for the task before them.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5047/are-there-any-tenets-of-gnosticism-that-are-still-present-in-the-church-today&quot;&gt;As I explained elsewhere&lt;/a&gt;, it was well-known and not disputed or controversial that Christ had taught the Apostles (and whoever else was with them) special knowledge which was withheld from the public record on purpose, and this knowledge vacuum was directly responsible for the rise of Gnosticism, which originated as an attempt to fill the void.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T19:03:58.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5447" CreationDate="2012-01-17T20:28:29.423" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are like me, then you will believe there are no holes in our bible, being the inerrant Word of God, and that makes it easy to defend. But as with other religions and beliefs, you will have to dive in and study them, and find ways to debunk them. As @RexKerr said, you need to do this entirely in love. You aren't going to save souls for Christ without showing them God's love and having empathy for them, understanding, respect, etc., even if they aren't doing the same for you (remember, your love is fed from God, not other people). You will just have a debate that will leave a bitter taste in both your mouths, and will really get you guys nowhere but having doubts in the things that got disputed and will cause both parties to research more to further back up their beliefs, if anything. Also you should have something to say as to where your certainty comes from, and try to be a witness to them (always sprinkling in the message of the Gospel) :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T20:28:29.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5476" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5477" CreationDate="2012-01-17T21:05:24.790" Score="23" ViewCount="74695" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, Roman Catholic crosses have Jesus hanging on them, but Protestant crosses do not. I understood that Protestant crosses do not because they want to focus on the Resurrection, not the death of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that correct? Why the difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T07:34:35.000" Title="Why the difference in depiction of the cross between Catholics and Protestants?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;cross&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5476" CreationDate="2012-01-17T21:51:37.207" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a pretty clear distinction between Catholics and Protestants in that regard, though there may be Protestant denominations that do use the crucifix rather than the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that the main issue that Protestants today have with the crucifix is that it is specifically an image of Jesus, the Son of God.  Such an image is believed to be strictly forbidden in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of&#xA;  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or&#xA;  that is in the water under the earth.  Exodus 20:4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites were distinguished from other nations by the fact that they had no idols to represent God.  God gives the reason for this commandment in Isaiah, where He indicates that He is righteously jealous for His own glory and will not share it with an idol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my&#xA;  praise to carved idols.  Isaiah 42:8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Protestant churches are most often decorated with only an empty Cross that is not an object of worship, but merely a symbol of remembrance.  No Protestant I know of ever prays to a cross or cares whether or not there is a cross in front of them when they pray or worship.  It is wholly decorative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, Catholic churches do often have crucifixes, which have an image of Jesus, the Son of God.  Additionally, there is often an image of Mary as well.  These may or may not be objects of worship, but for most Protestants, these are unacceptable due to the aforementioned commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Orthodox churches are often quite replete with images of Jesus, Mary, and many of the saints.  Again, I'm not sure these are used as objects of worship or not, but Protestants generally reject the use of these as they are viewed as idols--or at least could be confused as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a footnote, the listing of the 10 Commandments is different between Catholic and most Protestant traditions.  In the Catholic listing, idolatry is not present, but is considered as part of the first commandment, and have two commandments that mention covetousness.  Protestants list the prohibition against idolatry as the second commandment and only list one commandment regarding covetousness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T21:51:37.207" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5476" CreationDate="2012-01-17T23:20:38.933" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Narnian has a great explanation of one part of it (no graven images). The other is that Jesus' glory is displayed not only in the cross, or Jesus hanging from it, but also in the empty tomb. While it is incredibly significant that Jesus died for our sins, what makes this sacrifice worthwhile is that in so doing he &lt;em&gt;defeated&lt;/em&gt; death, and rose again. In this way, an empty cross from after the resurrection is much more meaningful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T14:56:01.407" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T14:56:01.407" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5476" CreationDate="2012-01-17T23:36:46.570" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, the Catholics use the Crucifix because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Roman Catholic (Eastern and Western Rite Catholics), Eastern Orthodox,&#xA;  Coptic and other Oriental Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran Christians&#xA;  generally use the crucifix in public religious services. They believe&#xA;  the crucifix is in keeping with Scripture, which states that “we&#xA;  preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to&#xA;  Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23). In the West altar crosses and processional&#xA;  crosses began to be crucifixes in the 11th century, which became&#xA;  general around the 14th century, as they became cheaper than before.&#xA;  Since the Roman Missal of Pius V in 1570 use of a crucifix as an altar&#xA;  cross has been mandatory (with some exceptions) for the Catholic mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=555&quot;&gt;The Online Catholic Encyclopedia says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The crucifix is the principal ornament of the altar. It is placed on&#xA;  the altar to recall to the mind of the celebrant, and the people, that&#xA;  the Victim offered on the altar is the same as was offered on the&#xA;  Cross. For this reason the crucifix must be placed on the altar as&#xA;  often as Mass is celebrated (Constit., Accepimus of Benedict XIV, 16&#xA;  July, 1746).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And according to the above page on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, the Protestants don't use it because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Early Protestants generally rejected the use of the crucifix, and&#xA;  indeed the unadorned cross, along with other traditional religious&#xA;  imagery, as idolatrous. Martin Luther did not object to them, and this&#xA;  was among his differences with Andreas Karlstadt as early as 1525.&#xA;  Calvin was violently opposed to both cross and crucifix. In England&#xA;  the Royal Chapels of Elizabeth I were most unusual among English&#xA;  churches in retaining crucifixes, following the Queen's personal&#xA;  conservative preferences. Under James I these disappeared, and their&#xA;  brief re-appearance in the early 1620s when James' heir was seeking a&#xA;  Spanish marriage was the subject of rumour and close observation by&#xA;  both Catholics and Protestants; when the match fell through they&#xA;  disappeared. Opposition to plain crosses has generally softened in&#xA;  Protestantism, but many Protestant groups still oppose the crucifix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A long time ago, I read up on the Crucifix and why it was allowed and what the reasoning behind allowing it was. But, I can't remember what it was that I had read or where I had read it. If I find a reference to it, I will update this answer but this is all I know for now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastEditorUserId="1160" LastEditDate="2012-01-17T23:57:31.697" LastActivityDate="2012-01-17T23:57:31.697" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2012-01-18T03:03:56.830" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Early Christians used translations of the Hebrew scriptures and also translated the epistles and the Gospels early on. This suggests that early Christians understood the importance of getting scripture in language that people could understand. As a Christian, I follow this tradition and believe that valid translations accurately convey the message; some translations are more accurate than others, but they do a fine job of conveying the message of the gospel. Insofar as the translations conveys the message accurately, then the translation is authoritative as the text in its original language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1176" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T03:03:56.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5405" CreationDate="2012-01-18T03:26:00.500" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;With regard to Jesus' &quot;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill,&quot; Gary Tuck presented an excellent paper where he made the case that the the 'not to X but to Y' language is a Hebraism understood as 'not only to X but also to Y.' One example Tuck gives is 1 John 3:18 where John doesn't mean that it is useless to vocalize love for someone; rather, the idea is to not only vocalize one's love but also show it in action. So the idea is &quot;Do not think that I have come only to abolish the Law and the prophets; I have not come only to abolish but also to fulfill.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul seemed pretty clear that the Colossians were not to be judged according to food, drink, religious days, or Sabbaths (Col 2:16-17). He was also clear to the Romans any of the commandments is fulfilled by love to neighbor (Rom 13:8-10), implying that the Mosaic Law isn't binding upon Christians. The author of Hebrews is clear that the Mosaic Law is obsolete and passing away (Heb 8). These passages and others indicate that the Mosaic covenant is not binding upon Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1176" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T03:26:00.500" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5482" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9885" CreationDate="2012-01-18T04:47:37.017" Score="-1" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember reading a webpage about the issue of calling someone father. One of the points made against the practice was an Old Testament passage of someone asking another person to be his father spiritually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-25T21:31:08.727" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T21:31:08.727" Title="Where in OT does someone ask another to be his father?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5405" CreationDate="2012-01-18T06:23:36.440" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know why you frame the question exclusively in terms of Jesus's direct teachings. The teaching of the Church begins with Jesus's teaching, it doesn't end there. Peter's dream, allowing non-kosher food, and conversion of Gentiles without circumcision, is as central to Christian doctrine as anything Jesus said, and from this dream it is 100% clear that the Mosaic law no longer applies to Christians converted from Gentiles. It is not clear whether Jewish converts were supposed to keep OT laws at first, but with time, the convention that OT laws are superseded by Christian teachings became established doctrine, and one does not discriminate between church members based on their ancestry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within Jesus's teaching, Romans and Samaritans can be righteous, more so than Jews who are overly concerned with nitpicking finer points of law. The rejection of law as a source of righteousness is also implicit in the calling to perfection, the idea that God's law goes far beyond some minor rules about hygene and sacrifice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Jesus does say &quot;I come not to overthrow the law, but to fulfil it&quot;, but even if this is an injunction to keep the law, one shouldn't focus on minor contradictions and inconsistencies. I personally don't see it as contradictory, because of the context in which the statement is made. Jesus's is talking about a Jewish culture which is actively oppressed by Roman rule, where abandoning the Jewish law is considered a form of collaborationism. In this context, it is repugnant to abandon the Mosaic tradition, because you are abandoning those who are fighting oppressive colonialism against long odds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Peter's dream is in an entirely different context, the growth of Christianity through converts in the Roman empire itself. Within this context, it answers the question &quot;What is required of people to become Christian?&quot;, and it gives a tolerant, forgiving answer, which does not nitpick fine points of Jewish theology, and does not require overly strict conditions on accepting Christ. This is consistent with the philosophy of Jesus teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from Peter's dream, the main answer is not to change their diet or cut their foreskin, but to get the message of Christ out. This is the most important thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church did not have the ambition of only liberating palestine from Roman rule, but of liberating the entire Roman empire from its cruel pagan traditions. How can one find fault with the practice that succeeded in doing this the fastest and most efficiently?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, the teachings of Christ require an open mind regarding best practice, and demand that goodness come from within, and not from outside. Imposing a strict law has the counterintuitive consequences at times of making bad actions seem ok, because they are not specifically contradicted by law. No Christian denomination spells out a strict all encompassing law, and leaves things open to change in response to new developments. This is considered a positive evolution within Christianity, and it seems that it is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T06:23:36.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5482" CreationDate="2012-01-18T11:18:56.997" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know exactly what you are referring to, but lets look at some of the usage of &lt;code&gt;Father&lt;/code&gt; in the Old Testament. The most interesting usage is probably the way in which God identifies himself as a Father to his people. The adjective &amp;quot;spiritual&amp;quot; isn't even introduced, he just pronounces that he is the father of Israel and likes the various things that he does and feels to those that a Father does and feels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word use used several hundred times so this won't cover them all, just a few to show this pattern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To start with, there is an interesting reference where the Lord is speaking to David and promises to give him a son, but also that that son will be &lt;em&gt;His&lt;/em&gt; son and that He will look after him as a Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Behold, a son shall be born to you [...] and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. [...] He shall be my son, and I will be his father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever. -- 1 Chronicles 22:9-10 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This usage is very parallel to the language you find in many of the prophets (Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.) where God is comforting his people by claiming them as his own. Two examples of many:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So shall you be my people, and I will be your God. -- Jeremiah 11:4 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. -- Jeremiah 31:9 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Psalmist also shows helps draw this parallel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him. -- Psalm 103:13 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also by Solomon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[...] the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights -- Proverbs 3:12 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This identification is also not just one way, Isaiah shows that he indeed understands God to play this role:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name. -- Isaiah 63:16 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophet Malachi also laments the fact that although God is the Father of his people, he is not properly regarded as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. [...]&amp;quot;-- Malachi 1:6 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? -- Malachi 2:10 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T11:29:20.040" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5486" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5511" CreationDate="2012-01-18T11:20:12.560" Score="2" ViewCount="2938" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Reformation brought five solas that gives bonderies on how the Protestant view the biblical teaching. Here is the five solas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1. Sola Gratia            (By grace alone)&#xA;2. Soli Deo Gloria        (To God alone be the glory)&#xA;3. Sola Fide              (By faith alone)&#xA;4. Sola Scriptura         (The scripture as only basis)&#xA;5. Solus Christus         (By Christ alone)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does Catholic teachings reject or approved them? How?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T14:23:56.047" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T14:15:00.737" Title="Do Catholics reject the sola of the Reformation" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5487" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5489" CreationDate="2012-01-18T11:33:59.073" Score="7" ViewCount="12839" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any valid source for the claim that Voltaire' house has been used by the Bible Society? I heard this many times, but I've never read a valid source for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-19T01:51:12.443" LastActivityDate="2021-02-10T22:39:08.393" Title="Was Voltaire's house being used by the biblical society?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1172" CreationDate="2012-01-18T12:34:20.830" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though this is not a direct answer to your question, this may be helpful and is what I use to keep in mind the differences between the Quran, Bible and Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quran is the &amp;quot;ipsissima verba&amp;quot; (the very words) of Allah revealed to Muhammed. Jesus Christ is the the very &amp;quot;Logos&amp;quot; (word) of YHWH incarnate, made flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus it would be more correct to say that Jesus is to Christians as the Quran is to Muslims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The canon of scripture (Bible) is talked about in terms of &amp;quot;ipsissima verba&amp;quot; (the very words) and &amp;quot;ipsissima vox&amp;quot; (the very voice) and much discussion is had over the differences. For example, do we have the exact words of Jesus recorded in the New Testament or do we have the &amp;quot;voice&amp;quot; of Jesus which is faithfully repeated without error by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of translation, then, if I was to translate the Bible to any language or even roughly paraphrase in English &amp;quot;Jesus who was righteous suffered once for sinners who are unrighteous so that he might bring us to his Father.&amp;quot; (1 Peter 3:18a); is the educational intent and transmission of the message of the author still held even if the words are not exactly that of the autograph (original document) written in Greek? Does the authority still remain?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of authority, for example is the Greek only then authoritative, or is the information presented authoritative (in any language) if it conveys precisely what the inspired author intended to present?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This I think is an important question, and I believe reveals the centrality of the authority of Jesus for Christians, the wide ability for faithful Biblical translation and transmission, and the comparative rigor of the authority of the Quran being only in its original language, Arabic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also presents then a question that is the Bible we hold in our hands non-authoritative if we do not have the exact word for word grammatically perfect sentences Jesus (or other authors) spoke? I do not think there are many who believe we do have every word, sentence, pause and breath recorded. I may be wrong and please do correct me if I am; on the other hand I believe for Muslims you could not say that the Quran in Arabic is not the exact word for word grammatically perfect sentences of Allah, I believe the Quran itself says that it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This to me then shows quite a stark contrast in the root of the authority of the Bible in comparison to the Quran.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1187" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-17T21:04:32.983" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T21:04:32.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5487" CreationDate="2012-01-18T12:40:42.927" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently it is not true:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is an apocryphal story that his home at Ferney was purchased by the Geneva Bible Society and used for printing Bibles, but this appears to be due to a misunderstanding of the 1849 annual report of the American Bible Society. Voltaire's chateau is now owned and administered by the French Ministry of Culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Religion&quot;&gt;Source: Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T12:40:42.927" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5490" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5502" CreationDate="2012-01-18T14:50:38.187" Score="13" ViewCount="759" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the LDS/Mormon church teach about the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer? Are they beings on the same level or of the same origin? What are their natures? What texts are used to teach specifically about the relationship between them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-04-28T21:38:16.060" LastActivityDate="2017-04-28T21:38:16.060" Title="According to LDS (Mormon) teaching, what is the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5491" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5560" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:19:43.193" Score="7" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard this from a Catholic friend of mine: He said, in explaining where Orthodoxy is coming from, that because St. Andrew told his brother Simon about Jesus, he's the real leader of the church and hence the Church which claims its succession from Andrew is the true Church and since that Church is the Orthodox Church, they're the real deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this 3rd hand, 3rd grade articulation of the origins of Eastern Orthodox apostolic succession and legitimacy even close to what they actually believe?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T17:28:11.430" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T14:33:33.970" Title="Primacy of Andrew in Eastern Orthodoxy" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;apostolic-succession&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5492" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:35:33.837" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T17:35:33.837" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T17:35:33.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5493" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:35:33.837" Score="0" Body="St. Andrew, follower of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, son of Jonah." OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T17:35:33.837" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T17:35:33.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5494" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:37:46.750" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T17:37:46.750" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T17:37:46.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5495" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:37:46.750" Score="0" Body="The belief in some Christian churches that the ministry of Christ's Apostles is derived in a continuous succession usually through laying of hands." OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2014-06-26T06:19:21.003" LastActivityDate="2014-06-26T06:19:21.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5496" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:39:05.313" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T17:39:05.313" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T17:39:05.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5497" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:39:05.313" Score="0" Body="The execution device upon which Jesus died." OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T17:39:05.313" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T17:39:05.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5498" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:40:42.207" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T17:40:42.207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T17:40:42.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5499" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-18T17:40:42.207" Score="0" Body="Son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham, father of the 12 tribes of Israel in the Book of Genesis" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-18T17:40:42.207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T17:40:42.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5500" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-18T18:07:16.593" Score="5" ViewCount="126" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine Sayeth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(paraphrased quote from the Catechism)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for context, I looked this up and he actually said&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wherefore, in the Old Testament there is a veiling of the New, and in the New Testament there is a revealing of the Old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1303.htm&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We believe this in Catholicism and it's apparent from the way we structure the readings at Mass, the OT reading is always subtly explaining the Gospel one.  But is that the case, is it just the Gospel (+Acts?) that is hidden in the OT.  How do the epistles and revelation work in to the &quot;hidden in / unveiled&quot; equation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T21:21:50.130" Title="Is the OT unveiled in the entire NT or just the Gospels?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5490" CreationDate="2012-01-18T20:42:55.607" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS theological view is that God, the Eternal Father, created all spirits, including Jesus the Firstborn, Lucifer, and all the rest of us, as His spirit children. Further, God is a separate being from Jesus and the Holy Ghost, who are all individual personages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These three beings constitute the &lt;em&gt;godhead&lt;/em&gt;, which is different from the usual Trinity belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These teachings are in harmony with at least the following scriptures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/col/1.15?lang=eng#14&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Col. 1:15&lt;/a&gt; (Jesus the Firstborn of every creature, image of the Father)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/14.12-14?lang=eng#12&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:12-14&lt;/a&gt; (Lucifer-son of the morning-rebellion)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.25-27?lang=eng#24&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 76:25-27&lt;/a&gt; (Lucifer, an angel in the authority of God, fell)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.21?lang=eng#20&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 93:21&lt;/a&gt; (Jesus is the Firstborn)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/4.1-4?lang=eng#0&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moses 4:1-4&lt;/a&gt; (God tells Moses what happened in the pre-mortal life with Lucifer)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For context: there was a council in heaven regarding God's plan for all His spirit children. God's plan was presented, and a Savior was needed to fulfill it. Jesus was Chosen by the Father to fulfill that role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan opposed, declaring &lt;em&gt;his&lt;/em&gt; plan, which was contrary to the will of the Father. &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/7?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;War ensued&lt;/a&gt; between &quot;the dragon&quot; (Satan) and the Christ's followers, which war is still ongoing today, here in mortality. It's a sibling rivalry, if you will, which Jesus and His disciples will win in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-03-17T16:21:05.993" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T16:21:05.993" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5500" CreationDate="2012-01-18T21:21:50.130" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the whole NT reveals the old, particularly in explaining OT prophecy. Possible the best example is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book of Hebrews&lt;/a&gt;, since it may well have been written for &lt;em&gt;exactly that purpose&lt;/em&gt;. Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To which of the angels did God ever say,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Sit at my right hand&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;until I make your enemies&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a footstool for your feet&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:13&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 1:13&lt;/a&gt;, quoting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20110:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 110:1&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there is the account of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2014:18&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Melchizedek&lt;/a&gt; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7&lt;/a&gt;, who as both &lt;strong&gt;King&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Priest&lt;/strong&gt; was an archetype of Christ. (This theme is carried on into subsequent chapters, the High Priest in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+8&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapter 8&lt;/a&gt; and the Blood of a sacrifice (Christ in NT) in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapters 9&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;10&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally (in this &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; brief overview of Hebrews), is the men and women of faith in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapter 11&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's just one book!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other examples I could mention are the imaginary of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel&lt;/a&gt; coming back in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation&lt;/a&gt;, Paul explaining grace in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%204:21-31&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 4:21-31&lt;/a&gt; using the examples of Hagar and Sarah and Peter quoting proverbs in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202:22&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 2:22&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally (for my summary, there is of course &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; more), there is the promise of a New Heaven and a New Earth, first revealed in Isaiah &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+65:17&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;65:17&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+66:22&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;66:22&lt;/a&gt; and then repeated by Peter in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3:13&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:13&lt;/a&gt; and John in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:1&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, the OT comes back time and time again in the NT. One might speculate it was planned that way. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-18T21:21:50.130" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5504" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5629" CreationDate="2012-01-18T21:45:33.400" Score="8" ViewCount="990" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5502/207&quot;&gt;answer to another question&lt;/a&gt;, someone suggested that the LDS (Mormon) church teaches that Jesus is distinct from God—that though He is a part of the Godhead, the Godhead is not a Trinity defined by the &quot;Three-in-One&quot; idea.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What specifically, then, does the LDS Church teach about who Jesus is and where He came from?  Is He eternal, not eternal, uncreated, created?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-04-28T21:36:59.893" LastActivityDate="2017-04-28T21:36:59.893" Title="What does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teach about who Jesus is and where He came from?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5410" CreationDate="2012-01-18T22:31:38.270" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In answer to the recent comment added, I will edit this answer to provide better explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 18:9-14.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since salvation is salvation from God by God and related to the state of the relationship between God and mankind, then whether one is righteous (or in right standing with God) is what is the key issue. One is saved from the punishment of God, by God, via God's own provision of the means of being in right standing with him. That is the sin atoning work of Jesus, his propitiation, and imputation of his righteousness to all those that are his and who are to accept it (God's grace).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the above passage is simply that, the means of being called righteous is that acknowledgement of one's sinfulness and the need for God's mercy. It is simply asking God to be saved from what one deserves. Humility, repentance and acceptance that it is God who saves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ESV. Luke 23:39-43.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, the one criminal simply recognized that he was a sinner and recognized who Jesus was. By asking Jesus to remember him when Jesus enters his kingdom is a fairly profound acknowledgment that Jesus is not of this world, and that his kingdom is after death, and whatever Jewish milieu of kingdom understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both passages that I chose, someone is justified by their acknowledgement of who they are and who God is, and their relation to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are countless resources providing scriptural basis for salvation by faith alone, hence why I didn't reproduce those. I chose the two passages simply because you have a clear presentation that someone standing with God is dynamically changed simply because of their acknowledgement of their relationship to God, not because they have done anything to gain favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1187" LastEditorUserId="1187" LastEditDate="2015-07-27T11:15:14.423" LastActivityDate="2015-07-27T11:15:14.423" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5504" CreationDate="2012-01-19T00:38:31.137" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with @Matt's comment. And from what I understand, LDS believe that all people, angels (including Lucifer and co.), and even Jesus were &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; by God and are His children and existed and lived with God before creation in what they call the &quot;pre-earth&quot; life, and that Jesus was &lt;em&gt;chosen&lt;/em&gt; to be Savior in this pre-earth life. Also, in our &quot;pre-earth&quot; life we (the people) all had faith in Jesus. They believe God sent us to Earth to learn to make the right choices, and by choosing to have faith in Jesus, &lt;em&gt;again&lt;/em&gt;, can we return home to the father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The belief that Jesus was created would mean He is not eternal, and is not God, as defined by the trinity belief, but perhaps &lt;em&gt;a god&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/plan/our-eternal-life&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a link for more info (Thanks @Matt).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2013-06-22T16:10:16.877" LastActivityDate="2013-06-22T16:10:16.877" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5507" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-19T01:37:13.817" Score="3" ViewCount="782" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mark 10:29 mentions father, but Mark 10:30 doesn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or&#xA;sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my&#xA;name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit&#xA;everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is&#xA;no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or&#xA;mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time,&#xA;houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and&#xA;lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your&#xA;Father, which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T06:22:51.967" Title="Why are fathers missing in Mark 10:30?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5508" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5512" CreationDate="2012-01-19T05:36:14.213" Score="2" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the reason for loving/worshiping Jesus?  As an extension, what does it mean to love/worship Jesus and how does that help one accomplish spiritual goals (salvation, forgiveness, sanctification, etc.)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...if the answer is based on scripture (e.g., &quot;because God demands it from the righteous&quot;), then why is that demand made?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: apologies for multiple questions in one post. My aim is to get an autonomous answer (i.e., not circular, not rhetorical).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for your thoughtfulness!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;COMMENT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As @SteelyDan points out, this question is different depending on emphasis: Jesus, the incarnation, or Jesus, the Christ. @Affable seems to cover both. The incarnation is the great act of God's love, hence Jesus (the incarnation) is love. &amp;lt;-- unless I'm reading into his answer too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1190" LastEditorUserId="1190" LastEditDate="2012-01-20T19:55:31.230" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T19:55:31.230" Title="Reason for loving/worshiping  Jesus" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;sanctification&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2018-12-11T22:25:58.967" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5509" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5515" CreationDate="2012-01-19T06:38:52.537" Score="11" ViewCount="41510" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is how I see the story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25 and 26):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are two very different twins who seem to fight a lot. Esau goes hunting and he is starving when he gets back. He asks Jacob for some stew. Jacob replied, &quot;First sell me your birthright.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+25:32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&quot;Look, I am about to die,&quot; Esau said. &quot;What good is the birthright to me?&quot;&lt;/a&gt; So Esau accepts the trade and it says &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+25:34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;he despised his birthright&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) When Esau says he is about to die, is this figuratively (from hunger) or literally he thinks he is close to dying from old age?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then it gets kinda weird because Isaac's wife, Rebekah, tells her son, Jacob, to trick Isaac into thinking he is Esau and give the blessing to him. Jacob is hesitant and says &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+27:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;I would appear to be tricking him and would bring down a curse on myself rather than a blessing&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; But then she says, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+27:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Let the curse fall on me. Just do what I say&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; Jacob then lies and tricks his father into believe he is Esau so Isaac blesses him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Isn't Rebekah promoting lying, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+27:35&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;deception&lt;/a&gt;, and disrespecting elders?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) What is the difference between birthright and blessing? They sound &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+27:36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;similar&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) If they are similar, why didn't Jacob just tell his father that Esau willingly gave up his birthright?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5) Are Isaac's words/blessings/curses really powerful enough to change the course of Jacob/Esau's life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for all the questions but this whole passage seems really confusing to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="157" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T00:56:49.453" LastActivityDate="2014-11-05T23:14:36.977" Title="Jacob and Esau: what is this story all about?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-03-12T06:34:13.227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5486" CreationDate="2012-01-19T13:02:50.483" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;five solas&lt;/a&gt; was to contrast the Protestant Reformation from the contemporary Roman Catholic teaching:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sola gratia:&lt;/strong&gt; that grace alone is the only thing necessary for salvation, and that the supposed Roman Catholic belief of good works affecting salvation is incorrect&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Soli Deo gloria:&lt;/strong&gt; that glory is given to God alone, and that the Roman Catholic glorification of the saints (especially Mary) and the Pope is wrong&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sola fide:&lt;/strong&gt; that forgiveness of sins is achieved through faith alone, and not through faith plus good works as believed by the Church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sola scriptura:&lt;/strong&gt; that the Bible is the only thing necessary to understand God's word, and that the Church's reliance on sacred tradition is wrong&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Solus Christus:&lt;/strong&gt; that Christ is the head of the Church, and that salvation comes only through him and not some intermediary, like the Pope, the priesthood, or the saints.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They're presented in such a way as to argue what the Church teaches is wrong, and as such, the Roman Catholic Church rejects all five as they were formulated and argued &lt;em&gt;simpliciter&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church's response to the implications derived from the five solas has been similar to its reponse to much of Protestant teaching; that they're based on misinterpretation and misapplication of the scriptures or of the Church body:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church affirmed the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;sola gratia&lt;/em&gt; twice: first in 529 at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Orange&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Second Council of Orange&lt;/a&gt;, and again in 1545 at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Council of Trent&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church agrees that all glory is to God alone, but that the recognition of the saints is to glorify God, and that the Church is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mystical Body of Christ&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church rejects the Biblical standing upon which &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt; is founded, just as the Protestants reject the Biblical basis upon which the doctrine of faith plus grace/good works is founded.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church believes the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; has no Biblical basis, and while the Bible is authoritative, the Gospels state the Church has the authority to teach and interpret it (for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/18:18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:18&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The head of the Roman Catholic Church is, in fact, Jesus Christ: and only through His grace we are saved. However, the sacraments, performed by the Church, confer that grace (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4473/72&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T14:15:00.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5508" CreationDate="2012-01-19T14:29:05.783" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of 1 John explicitly makes the case that loving Jesus, and by extension loving others, is the fundamental &lt;em&gt;sine qua non&lt;/em&gt; of a Christian life.  In chapter 4, John writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Loving others is the natural outflow of loving Jesus. Indeed, the Gospels argue that all right behavior is supposed to stem, not from conviction, but from love. As Jesus states this plainly in John 14:15 as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you love me, keep my commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the conditional is the love - If you love, then obey.  It is explictly not, Obey so that i will love you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus was asked to choose the greatest command in Mark 12, he continues this theme of linking the law as an outgrowth of love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is also consistent with the witness that we love because of Jesus' love for us. Romans 5:6-8 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. &lt;em&gt;But God demonstrates his own love for us in this:&lt;/em&gt; While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love is thus the action first of God. The natural response of love, is then to return (or spurn) the love of the initiator.  If my wife comes up to me and kisses me, for me not to return that love would be weird at best.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/worship-definition-part-2/&quot;&gt;Worship&lt;/a&gt; is that natural response of love to the One who first loved us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-19T14:39:35.317" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T14:39:35.317" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5507" CreationDate="2012-01-19T15:02:43.950" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very intriguing question.  It appears that these particular conversations (Matthew 19 and Mark 10) are between Jesus and the 12 disciples.  So, they were all specifically men.  In the Matthew passage, he specifically precedes this teaching with a reference to the twelve disciples.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both passages, this is in direct response to Peter's statement that &quot;we have left everything to follow you.&quot;  It seems that Peter is referring to the 12 disciples in that statment, who literally had, indeed, left everything to follow Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Peter said in reply, “See, &lt;strong&gt;we have left everything and followed&#xA;  you&lt;/strong&gt;. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to&#xA;  you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious&#xA;  throne, &lt;strong&gt;you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left&#xA;  houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or&#xA;  lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold[c] and will&#xA;  inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the&#xA;  last first.  Matthew 19:27-30 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter began to say to him, “See, &lt;strong&gt;we have left everything and followed&#xA;  you.&lt;/strong&gt;” 29 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has&#xA;  left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or&#xA;  lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a&#xA;  hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and&#xA;  mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to&#xA;  come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the&#xA;  last first.”  Mark 10:28-31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, had the audience been a mixture of both men and women who were His devoted followers, He certainly may have said &quot;husbands or wives&quot; rather than just &quot;wives&quot;.  In the context of all men, though, including husbands would seem odd--just as it would be to refer to wives when speaking to an audience of all women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T15:02:43.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5509" CreationDate="2012-01-19T15:38:00.570" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the lesson learned here is essentially the same one as the parenthood dispute in King Solomon's court: regardless of who the blessing actually originally belonged to by birth, it ended up going to the one who could truly appreciate its worth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have here the story of Jacob, a man of spiritual sensitivity, contrasted with his brother Esau, who was a hunter.  Hunters are not well-regarded in the Old Testament, (the archetype being Nimrod, the &quot;mighty hunter&quot; who is traditionally equated with the founder of Babylon and the one who directed the construction of the Tower of Babel, and standing in opposition to God and his people,) and we see Esau following the stereotype, caring more for temporal things than for the things of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where his character really shows is in the matter of the birthright.  This was the continuation of the great covenant blessing, given by God to Abraham and then passed down to Isaac, to have a numberless posterity and be the father of many nations, (see Genesis 15 and 17) and, most impressive of all, that &quot;in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022:18&quot;&gt;Genesis 22:18&lt;/a&gt;) which was literally fulfilled by Christ being born through his lineage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jacob appreciated these blessings, whereas Esau--who is by this point a grown man able to go out on hunts alone and look after himself--comes across as a petulant child.  You can almost hear the whiny tone in his voice as he says, &quot;who &lt;em&gt;cares&lt;/em&gt; about the stupid birthright? I'm &lt;em&gt;starving&lt;/em&gt;!&quot; All he cared about in the moment was the needs of the moment, and for that he was willing to sacrifice great eternal blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Esau was his father's favorite.  And as the transaction had occurred between Jacob and Esau in private, with no witnesses, if Jacob were to claim that Esau had sold him the birthright, it would be his word against his brother's.  And as we see from subsequent events, Esau had every intention of taking the birthright that was no longer his, even if it be by force.  Bear in mind, when asking why Jacob used deception to obtain the blessing that was rightfully his, that Esau was willing to use deception (claiming that he was still entitled to it) &lt;em&gt;and worse&lt;/em&gt; to obtain it when it was not rightfully his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Isaac's words being powerful enough to change the course of his sons' lives, bear in mind that they aren't ordinary words in this case. They're carrying the weight of a covenant established with the Lord, and the Lord &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; have the power to change the course of people's lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T15:38:00.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5509" CreationDate="2012-01-19T16:31:24.073" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, there was a very practical effect - the descendants of Esau (the Edomites) never prospered in the way that the descendants of Jacob (the Israelites) did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This lesson was not lost on the exilic descendants of the Israelites, as noted here in Malachi:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 “I have loved you,” says the LORD.&#xA;     “But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But this is what the LORD Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the LORD—even beyond the borders of Israel!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Malachi then goes on to lambast the Israelites for essentially the same error. They are so caught up in their daily greed that everything has been corrupted, from the priests to the tithes, to everything.  In doing so, they are trading their eternal inheritance for a pot of stew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 12 also shows this practical effect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17 Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By &quot;despising his birthright,&quot; Esau becomes effectively godless.  So caught up in his current feeling, Esau seems to think God's blessing has no practical benefit.  It is this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/floccinaucinihilipilification&quot;&gt;floccinaucinihilipilification&lt;/a&gt; that shows how utterly earthbound Esau is.  (Always wanted to use that word!)  Becuase Esau doesn't care about the things above him, he loses the things around him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Esau probably would not have consciously said that he was giving up his birthright (because that would have also meant his physcial inheritance), but the point of the story is that the unseen blessing - the part that Esau was blind to - was actually the more important part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Rebekah, well, yeah, she's being pretty dishonest here, not at all unlike what Jacob is going to be on the receiving end later, when he is tricked into marrying Leah instead of Rachel.  Genesis isn't a book of black and white - even good people do bad things. Abraham, Jacob, Judah - they all are imperfect to say the least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What binds them as &quot;the good guys&quot; however, is that they are looking forward to that which is seen just far off - a city whose builder and maker is God. (Hebrews 11).  That faith, which is intangible and unseen, is worth far more than mere temporal concerns - and that is the point of this story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T16:31:24.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5507" CreationDate="2012-01-19T16:44:55.157" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the risk of sounding sexist, a young person would probably have been quite happy to have multiple mothers (they dote on you, they feed you), but to replace your father would be to replace your own identity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having a new father means you are totally different person, and to include the father would be to confuse the point that Jesus is trying to make - namely that every thing that gives you comfort which you forsake is nothing in comparison to what you will receive in heaven as a reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul would say in Romans 8: 18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T16:44:55.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5517" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-19T18:16:01.763" Score="4" ViewCount="206" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hear it a lot in Christian rock and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&amp;amp;feature=player_embedded&quot;&gt;this youtube video&lt;/a&gt; articulates the idea that somehow we'd be better off following Jesus and not following the Church He started.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic that's about as high as it gets on my poppycock meter, but what would a Lutheran who attends services and practices their faith according to their traditions say to a man who thinks that organized religion is unnecessary. The fellow in the linked video is basing his argument in the Gospel and definitely appealing to emotions. But emotion aside, is there a Lutheran response to the argument against organized religion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-19T21:36:55.653" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T02:59:24.403" Title="Do Lutherans have a rebuttal for the Jesus &gt; Religion argument" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5517" CreationDate="2012-01-19T18:39:32.707" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't really label myself to a certain sect, though I do go to a baptist church, and this is my rebuttal:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're supposed to worship collectively and hear teachings from God's appointed leaders. Jesus wants us to break bread, together, in remembrance of Him (not just in practice, but in worship also). We are the body of Christ, brothers and sisters in Jesus, and being a member of the body, we need to incorporate ourselves with other members and become part of the family; not cut ourselves off. When one part of the body isn't getting it right, you can't blame the entire body. But it is our job to set them straight. We need to be there for each other to build each other up in love, faith, motive, knowledge/wisdom/understanding of God's Word, etc., and this is done within the church. People use the word &quot;religion&quot; to define such things..  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the guy in that video talks about religion, he seems to be referring to people who practice over worship, and have motives of self interest, and that is what he should say. He shouldn't refer to it as &quot;religion&quot;. There is much Christian religion out there that are 100% in it for Christ, and this guy doesn't acknowledge that and makes religion as a whole look foolish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a cool rebuttal video from a Lutheran guy: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbsadOQK_6A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbsadOQK_6A&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-01-19T19:05:10.627" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T19:05:10.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5517" CreationDate="2012-01-19T19:33:38.617" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are the notions of the Visible Church (member of a church) and the Invisible Church (Faith in Christ).  Basically, only those that are in the Invisible Church will be saved.  Most of those in the Invisible Church are also in the Visible Church, however, there are far too many who are in the Visible Church, but not in the Invisible Church.  For more read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://marshill.com/2010/10/17/the-invisible-and-visible-church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article on the The Invisible and Visible Church&lt;/a&gt; is article and then the book called &lt;a href=&quot;http://relit.org/vintagechurch/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vintage Church by Mark Driscoll&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a good argument that those in the Invisible Church should also serve in the Visible Church, but that is not a requirement to be saved.  After we realize that God loved us first, we are called to love our neighbors and serve them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="876" LastEditorUserId="876" LastEditDate="2012-01-19T19:42:13.407" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T19:42:13.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5520" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5521" CreationDate="2012-01-19T23:18:42.577" Score="10" ViewCount="7588" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems rather basic, but I'm having trouble finding verses that say to read God's Word often. It seems like something that Paul said quite a few times, and it's obviously a good thing, but I can't find any specific verses. Can someone help me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="103" LastActivityDate="2015-05-25T15:36:38.207" Title="Where does the Bible say to read itself?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-05-29T06:53:55.560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5520" CreationDate="2012-01-19T23:46:02.583" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there are any verses in the Bible that say &quot;read the Bible&quot;, since the Bible as one book is a concept that came after the books were written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the following are some of the verses that talk about reading God's word or His teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall&#xA;  meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do&#xA;  according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your&#xA;  way prosperous, and then you will have success. Joshua 1:8 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Psalms have a lot on meditating on God's law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the&#xA;  wicked,  Nor stand in the path of sinners,  Nor sit in the seat of&#xA;  scoffers!  2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,  And in His&#xA;  law he meditates day and night. Psalm 1: 1-2 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course the famous &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Psalm 119&lt;/a&gt;, I'd suggest you read all of Psalm 119:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Blessed are You, O LORD;  Teach me Your statutes.  13 With my lips&#xA;  I have told of  All the ordinances of Your mouth.  14 I have rejoiced&#xA;  in the way of Your testimonies,  As much as in all riches.  15 I will&#xA;  meditate on Your precepts  And regard Your ways.  16 I shall delight&#xA;  in Your statutes;  I shall not forget Your word. Psalm 119: 12-16 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's all I can think of for now. But I will update this answer as I remember/find more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastActivityDate="2012-01-19T23:46:02.583" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5517" CreationDate="2012-01-20T02:59:24.403" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think the video's point is that religion is &lt;em&gt;bad&lt;/em&gt;, but that religion &lt;em&gt;misses the point&lt;/em&gt;.  And I think that's pretty much true. Without Jesus, religion is meaningless. Religion cannot add or take anything away from the person, message, and work of Jesus. That doesn't mean that a follower of Jesus should have no part in religion; rather it means that a true follower of Jesus will follow &lt;em&gt;Jesus&lt;/em&gt; rather than some religious formula/rules/organization/etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the video says, religion is man's attempt to reach God, but Jesus is God's attempt to reach man. Even &quot;Christianity,&quot; when practiced outside the grace of Jesus, is simply man's attempt to reach God, and it falls short.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the only &quot;rebuttal&quot; necessary is to clarify that the point of the video is not to shun religion, but to put our focus on Jesus &lt;em&gt;rather&lt;/em&gt; than religion.  If, and only if, our focus is in the right place--on Jesus--will our religion be good, useful, meaningful religion.  Any other religion is a futile attempt to &quot;reach God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T02:59:24.403" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2926" CreationDate="2012-01-20T08:31:00.347" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.softwaremonkey.org/Article/Religion/Old-Earth-Creation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;detailed treatment of this subject&lt;/a&gt; on my website. The broad points made in that article are as follows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, scripture is is clear that the creation &lt;em&gt;in and of itself&lt;/em&gt; is sufficient evidence of God's existence that mankind is held eternally accountable on the basis of creation alone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. So they are without excuse. &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; Claiming to be wise, they became fools, &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.Biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%201:19-23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:19-23 (ESV; emphasis mine)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, ancient Hebrew is a language much more limited in vocabulary than modern English, some 10,000 words to the latter's 150,000 words in common usage. This means that Hebrew words have multiple literal meanings, and discerning which of the multiple meanings was intended requires other evidence, from context, from the common knowledge and from sources completely separate to the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;English boasts one of the richest vocabularies in the world. It gives those who speak and write the language an ability to make very fine distinctions. The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines approximately 160,000 English words. Ancient Hebrew, by contrast, has a very small vocabulary. In fact, the entire OT was written using only 8,674 Hebrew (and Aramaic) words, and these words are formed from only 2,552 unique root words. Due to the disparity, Hebrew terms are typically far broader and less specific than their English counterparts. Each Hebrew word can, on average, be translated into several possible English words depending on context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/HistoricAgeDebateDependenceonTranslationsPart2of5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reasons to Believe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old-creation position takes Genesis quite literally and as an historic account; but words like Yom (Day) and the phrase &amp;quot;there was evening and there was morning&amp;quot; have much deeper meaning than that implied by the English translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word &lt;em&gt;Yôm&lt;/em&gt;, as used in scripture, has three different literal definitions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any part of the daylight hours,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a twenty four hour period, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;any finite period of time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true of the phrase, &amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;And there was evening, and there was morning&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot;. Not only does this seem to be idiomatic Hebrew connoting an progression from something less ordered to something more ordered, but the underlying words for evening and morning connote &amp;quot;hiding&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;revealing&amp;quot;, respectively. And have you ever wondered that the phrase actually does not include the daylight hours?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrew scholar and physicist Gerald Schroeder, in his Book &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B005KB0V62&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis and the Big Bang&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, makes a compelling case that the Hebrew phrase has a deeper meaning than modern English speakers appreciate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word for &amp;quot;evening&amp;quot; is &lt;em&gt;erev&lt;/em&gt;. This is the literal meaning of the word, although the root of &lt;em&gt;erev&lt;/em&gt; carries with it implications far beyond that of a setting Sun. What is the visual sensation for evening? Darkness begins. Objects become obscure, blurred. The root of erev means just that, &amp;quot;mixed up, stirred together, disorderly&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew for &amp;quot;morning&amp;quot; is &lt;em&gt;boker&lt;/em&gt;. Its meaning is quite the opposite of &lt;em&gt;erev&lt;/em&gt;. Morning brings first light. Objects, visually mingled by the dark of night, become distinct entities and this is the root meaning of &lt;em&gt;boker&lt;/em&gt;, &amp;quot;discernable, able to be distinguished, orderly&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Had the text said, &amp;quot;and there was morning and there was evening,&amp;quot; our concept of a day might have been better satisfied. The sequence would have at least included the light of the day. But had the text followed this human logic, it would have forfeited its cosmic message. [...] We are being told, that within this parcel of space where mankind was to stake his first roots, there was a systematic flow from disorder -- chaos or &amp;quot;evening&amp;quot; -- to order or &amp;quot;morning&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis and the Big Bang (Chapter 6)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, and this bears back on Romans 1:19-23, the old-creation position expects that observations of God's creation should reveal God; the Bible says that this is so. For the Bible to make such a claim and for the creation to then appear to be old while in fact being young would make God a cosmic deceiver and liar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it's not as simple as claiming that God created with the appearance of age; the best example of that is light from distant galaxies (and that these galaxies are far, far away is no longer contested). Such light, has either been travelling for billions of years, or it was created &amp;quot;in transit&amp;quot;; but if the latter there is a problem because the light carries information of past events and if the events never happened then the created light is a created deception (my article has a detailed explanation of this problem).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth, there is no compelling biblical evidence that animals did not die before the fall and certainly no support for the idea that animal death is of any eternal significance at all.  The scriptures usual used to argue that there was no death before the fall are usually quoted out of context and can all be clearly shown to be referring to &lt;em&gt;human&lt;/em&gt; death, not animal death.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, &lt;strong&gt;and death through sin&lt;/strong&gt;, and so death spread &lt;strong&gt;to all men&lt;/strong&gt; because all sinned -- &lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation &lt;strong&gt;for all men&lt;/strong&gt;, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life &lt;strong&gt;for all men&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.Biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%205&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:12-17 (ESV; emphasis mine)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the issue of this creation (a) being temporal and finite, destined to expire and (b) having fixed laws of physics, coupled with Revelations description of a new eternal creation with quite different laws of physics make it abundantly clear that this creation was always an interim step in God's plan, and was never the end-game:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, &amp;quot;Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.Biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 21:1-4 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that it was always in the plan of God for this creation to pass away and for a the new heavens and new earth to replace this creation seems clear from Jesus himself when he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;34&lt;/strong&gt; Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;from the foundation of the world&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%2025&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mathew 25:24 (ESV; emphasis mine)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T23:28:25.547" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5278" CreationDate="2012-01-20T10:27:11.710" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There were probably some groups in eastern Asia, like India and China. If I recall correctly, there are the Jesus Sutras which were finished around 640 CE. There are also those like Bardaisan(sp?) who lived around the time of one of the councils but were farther east.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1176" LastEditorDisplayName="user1176" LastEditDate="2012-01-20T23:07:07.273" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T23:07:07.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5526" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5527" CreationDate="2012-01-20T11:38:46.517" Score="24" ViewCount="7059" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some religions claim to have a newer revelation of God: the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an are presented to be the latest revelation of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament closes with a climax of expectation of the Savior. The New Testament presents the Savior and finishes with his return. &lt;strong&gt;What are the biblical arguments that the canon is closed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do understand that Catholics include in the canon what protestants calls the Apocrypha, but I don't want to make a distinction about that in this question. Although, there is no need to quote out of these books to answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-25T06:38:12.097" LastActivityDate="2018-09-06T05:10:02.893" Title="What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5526" CreationDate="2012-01-20T14:15:05.310" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with this question is that the Bible is not a single book, and as such does not directly address what &quot;other books&quot; are considered canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter, for instance, writes that Paul's books are highly profitable for reading, &quot;even if they are sometimes hard to understand,&quot; but there is no book anywhere that says &quot;these books are canon, these are not.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the &quot;closed canon&quot; of the NT wasn't even recorded in its entirety until 367, when Athanasuis published his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntcanon.org/Athanasius.shtml&quot;&gt;festal letter&lt;/a&gt;. This letter is merely a recommendation list, much like the NY Times best-seller list. It lists books which are &quot;profitable&quot; (see 1 Tim 3:16) for a Christian to read, but it merely reflects consensus, not dogma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, there has only been common consensus as to what is canonical and what is not.  (This is also why it is downright silly for people to talk about &quot;suppressed&quot; books or &quot;hidden gospels&quot;, because frankly there is no authority on what is or is not canonical.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, for the NT, one of the &quot;marks&quot; of canonicity has been aposotolic authorship.  While scholars will tell you that Paul, for example, probably didn't write many of the &quot;Pauline&quot; letters (and never claimed to write Hebrews!), they were traditionally ascribed to apostles. (This is why Jude got in - apostolic claim).  Because the original 12 apostles are no longer writing, this avenue of new canon is pretty much closed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One biblical admonition that is often cited is Rev 22:19,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can't really be used for canonicity claims, however, since &quot;this book&quot; would only refer to Revelation itself - a completely separate work from the other 65.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-20T19:46:42.507" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T19:46:42.507" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5526" CreationDate="2012-01-20T15:24:57.370" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I do understand that Catholics include in the canon what the protestant calls the apocrypha, I do not want to make a distinction in this question. Although, there is no need to quote out of these books to answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this actually yields one of the more satisfactory answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the arguments for exclusion of the apocrypha is that Jesus never quotes any of them.  In contrast, virtually all other OT books are quoted by Jesus Himself, and at the very least His apostles or one of the sources He quotes.  Based on this criteria, no further books would ever be added to the OT, as these parties are no longer walking this earth and quoting additional material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1195" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T15:24:57.370" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4145" CreationDate="2012-01-20T17:06:12.347" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that this was answered several months ago but I would like to contribute my view on this since I am actually of the LDS Faith have left the LDS church at one point and returned after a lengthy period of time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The family is the most central unit of the LDS church. All doctrine in the church revolves around the family unit. Without the saving ordnance of being Sealed in the temple to your husband/wife a member of the LDS church believes that they cannot attain the highest degree of glory. As David said there is a large emphasis on works as well as the saving grace of Christ. So beyond just getting sealed the couple and later their family must continue to work at being a Celestial family (the highest degree of glory according to LDS doctrine). Because of this LDS families that actually live the teachings of the gospel do place a heavy emphasis on close family relationships. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to clarify what @James Black said. As one who has belonged to the LDS church for most of my life and having left the church at one point as well. I can honestly say that I never felt like I was discriminated against by those who knew me or my family. In fact I have a sibling who is not currently part of the church and my family not only loves her still, but does not pressure her to come back to the church. Would we like her too? Of course we would, but part of the reason that LDS families that live the gospel are so strong is because the LDS church also puts such a heavy emphasis on accepting people for who they are, and not who we think they should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T17:06:12.347" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5531" CreationDate="2012-01-20T19:54:53.913" Score="9" ViewCount="774" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently doing some research for a Church project and next week we are covering creation. While looking at creation, I came across an interesting tidbit that I've never actually thought about before, and was wondering if someone could answer a question or two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the link to the particular passage:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, with that being read, first I'd like to know: were Adam and Eve mortal by creation? This text seems to say that man would become immortal by eating from the tree of life. Does that mean God created us in such a way that we were, by design, meant to die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More importantly, how does this work alongside &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%205:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for all answers :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-03-17T16:03:39.683" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T16:03:39.683" Title="Genesis 3, original sin and mortality" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5530" CreationDate="2012-01-20T20:23:29.990" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's not much consensus on this. As with all answers on this site dealing with the subject of Creationism, there's a wide array of opinion on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading the text, in and of itself, without any external verses, interpretation, or debate over scientific validity of the claim certainly makes it appear as if Adam and Eve weren't created to be immortal, but if they'd eaten of the tree of life, they'd have gained immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apparent conflict with Romans 5:12 can likewise be taken in different ways.  It could be taken as an outright conflict (not my belief), or it could be that the word &quot;death&quot; is used as a metaphor.  &quot;Death&quot; is often taken to mean the judgment of God, or Hell in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on the context of Romans 5, this seems the most likely explanation to me, as Paul is speaking of salvation, which has to do with eternal life, not physical life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparative verse: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 6:23 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T20:23:29.990" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5532" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5535" CreationDate="2012-01-20T21:24:43.443" Score="17" ViewCount="4567" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a &lt;strong&gt;rigorous&lt;/strong&gt; translation of the Bible, sponsored or produced by secular organization?  Not that this translation would be necessarily more impartial, but it would be nice to have this version to read in parallel with other versions. There are several Parallel works (listed below) but they too seem to be affiliated with Christian organization or scholars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Popular translations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The NIV was sponsored by the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The KJV conforms to instructions by King James I to support the episcopal structure of the Church of England. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Parallel translations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Amplified Bible (which sources 2+ translations side-by-side) is a product of the Zondervan Corporation, the founding member of the Evangelical Publishing Association of America.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Comprehensive New Testament - promising. I may read it, but also edited and compiled by Christians.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1190" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-11-08T23:51:43.917" LastActivityDate="2019-07-14T17:25:03.240" Title="Non-Christian/secular translation of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5532" CreationDate="2012-01-20T21:34:07.827" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The obvious example (as it's been recently discussed here) is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Wikisource Translation&quot;&gt;Wikisource Translation&lt;/a&gt;  It's not complete, though, and its value as a &quot;good&quot; translation is debatable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1133" LastEditorUserId="1133" LastEditDate="2012-01-20T22:01:09.500" LastActivityDate="2012-01-20T22:01:09.500" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5532" CreationDate="2012-01-20T22:23:12.193" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbl-site.org/aboutus.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Society for Biblical Literature&lt;/a&gt; produces a well regarded translation (Logos even carries it).  According to their own mission statement, they are concerned with biblical scholarship and not doctrine. Their vowed mission statement is simply &quot;to promote biblical scholarship.&quot; They are a secular organization not affiliated with any religious organization (see comment below). Their Greek translation of the New Testament is available for free &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sblgnt.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, but I believe their translation of the Old Testament requires purchase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/051734582X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaac Asimov&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thomas Jefferson&lt;/a&gt; both have secular digests that bear some reading. (Admittedly, neither is an &lt;em&gt;ad fontes&lt;/em&gt; translation, but they did look at sources to compile their versions.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for commentaries that speak to the translation difficulties that come from a decidedly secular point of view.:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oxfordreference.com/pages/Subjects_and_titles__t126&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Oxford Companion to the Bible&lt;/a&gt; was the product of many well respected theological scholars, including several who are not Christians. Bruce Metzger is (was?) the chief editor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Anything by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bartdehrman.com/books.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bart Ehrmann&lt;/a&gt; e.g. Misquoting Jesus should speak to the historical value of the source texts and give guidance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Anything by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Dominic Crossan&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Jesus Seminar&lt;/a&gt; would also fall into this category. JDC is currently in the leadership of the SBL.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-01T21:39:21.033" LastActivityDate="2012-11-01T21:39:21.033" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5532" CreationDate="2012-01-21T00:15:42.963" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;update of the popular NIV translation&lt;/a&gt; about to come out or recently released. Whatever it's root, Zondervan (the publisher) is now owned by Harper Collins, which is in turn owned by News Corp.  Harper Collins is decidedly secular, publishing many books that would definitely be out of place in a Christian home. Thus, while it involves mainly Christian scholarship, even the well-known NIV translation could no longer be said to be wholly Christian in origin. Many other common modern translations have similar conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T00:15:42.963" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3505" CreationDate="2012-01-21T11:03:32.070" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of prohibiting books is silly, all knowledge from both sides of the spectrum are viable sources. It is for the reader to discern what makes sense and what doesn't make sense. Would an atheist feel prohibited from reading the bible, just because he/she isn't a proponent? No, of course not, never fear knowledge, only fear the prohibition of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="667" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T11:03:32.070" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5336" CreationDate="2012-01-21T11:22:35.643" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, embrace whatever feels right to you, if a logical approach feels right, then most likely, it is right. Don't feel torn because others are telling you how to pursue answers. Regarding your question: There is a reason why it is called faith, since faith is how one becomes close to god -not logic. Using logic will only bring you farther away from god. God isn't logical, the concept is irrational and perplexing. Being logical is an extremely good quality, don't deny your gift, logical people are rational people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="667" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T11:22:35.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5546" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-21T13:28:36.610" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T13:28:36.610" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T13:28:36.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5547" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-21T13:28:36.610" Score="0" Body="The Evangelical Counsels are admonitions from John Calvin's book _The Institutes of Christian Religion_" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T13:49:57.727" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T13:49:57.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5548" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-21T13:46:31.730" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T13:46:31.730" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T13:46:31.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5549" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-21T13:46:31.730" Score="0" Body="The Seven Ecumenical Councils refer to the seven meetings that occurred in the years 325 AD - 787AD, which helped to define Christianity as it is most widely practiced today." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T13:49:55.730" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T13:49:55.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5550" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:24:27.237" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word 'love' is usually used to translate the Greek words - Agape (God's love), Philos (Brotherly love), or Eros (Romantic Love). Older translations also use the word 'charity'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for all questions about these topics, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*God's love for humans&#xA;*Human's love for God&#xA;*Human's love for each other&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pleas use the 'sexuality' tag for questions regarding sex and romance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T17:57:35.883" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T17:57:35.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5551" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:24:27.237" Score="0" Body="Relating to the biblical concept of love, usually translated from the Greek words - Agape (God's love), Philos (Brotherly love), or Eros (Romantic Love)." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T17:17:26.477" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T17:17:26.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5552" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:25:25.550" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T14:25:25.550" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T14:25:25.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5553" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:25:25.550" Score="0" Body="Relating to the biblical characters Adam and/or Eve, appearing in Genesis 1 - 3, and representing the first two created human beings" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T16:29:03.893" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T16:29:03.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5554" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:26:37.280" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Parables are stories told on in Gosples by Jesus in order to tell some mystery of Christian faith or living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;parable&lt;/a&gt;is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, that illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters. A parable is a type of metaphorical analogy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some scholars of the canonical gospels and the New Testament apply the term &quot;parable&quot; only to the parables of Jesu though that is not a common restriction of the term. Parables such as &quot;The Prodigal Son&quot; are central to Jesus's teaching-method in the canonical narratives and the apocrypha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-03-04T11:12:50.843" LastActivityDate="2020-03-04T11:12:50.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5555" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:26:37.280" Score="0" Body="Relating to the stories told by Jesus in the Gospels to make a theological point." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T16:30:26.060" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T16:30:26.060" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5556" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:28:28.713" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Abraham is considered the father of three religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Use this tag for questions about him or doctrines concerning him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T17:56:59.283" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T17:56:59.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5557" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:28:28.713" Score="0" Body="Referring to the Biblical character of Abram (renamed Abraham), who appears in Genesis 12 - 22 " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T17:57:10.127" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T17:57:10.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5558" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:29:47.213" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T14:29:47.213" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T14:29:47.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5559" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:29:47.213" Score="0" Body="A question that seeks a precise and accurate wording of a theological concept or practice." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T17:17:31.517" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T17:17:31.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5491" CreationDate="2012-01-21T14:33:33.970" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an Eastern Orthodox, I've never heard this line of reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, what is usually discussed is the difference between &lt;em&gt;primacy&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;supremacy&lt;/em&gt;.  In the Orthodox view, among all the bishops, there were five who were regarded as preeminent based on the importance of their sees.  These were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rome&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Constantinople&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alexandria&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Antioch&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jerusalem&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox recognized Rome as &quot;first among equals&quot;, that is, as the preeminent bishop among the five great sees, and among all bishops everywhere.  In disputes, Orthodox would from time to time appeal to Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Orthodox reject the idea that the bishop of Rome is on a level &lt;em&gt;above&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;superior to&lt;/em&gt; other bishops.  All bishops are the successors of the apostles.  There's no reason to suppose that the bishop of Rome has an office that is different in kind from the office of bishop held by all the other bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The significance of Rome is not the Petrine founding of the church there, but simply the fact that it was the capital city of the Roman Empire.  In 381, Constantinople received the second place of honor after Rome, not due to any apostolic heritage, but because it was the second most important city after Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T14:33:33.970" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5405" CreationDate="2012-01-21T15:15:10.633" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because there can not be such thing as an objective proof, especially when the subject matter is as personal as one's connection to the divine, this answer can not be any more than a mere opinion. Therefore it seems safe to begin with &quot;I think...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the answer to your question lies in the phrase from the Old Testament, quoted by Jesus in the New Testament: &quot;I desire love not sacrifice&quot;. What is a sacrifice in this context? It is a price to pay to purchase goods from God, that is a specified algorithm aimed at obtaining something from God. So it seems laws and sacrifice are the same thing in this respect, if their aim is your connection to Him. In other words if you are trying to purchase God's favor, or manipulate him through rules, payment, or incantations, you're not thinking your actions all the way through. From this perspective, one of salvation or connection, none of the laws ever applied to neither Christians nor the Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the reason those laws are presented in the scripture must be something other than salvation. In addition, interpreting those laws never was a straightforward affair. Moses, who delivered &quot;thou shall not kill&quot;, led Israelites to kill the inhabitants of the Holy Land. Many Jews, living abroad, could not stone other Jews for adultery. How did they decide what scriptural laws were applicable, and when, was as much of a problem then, as it is now, and so one needs to know their purpose for them to have benefit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems each law has to be considered individually, depending on the situation one's in. Can you afford to kill your own animals in a fantastic ritual? Maybe you should, it would certainly be more artistic and beautiful than mass machine slaughter at the meat factory, having no idea who touched your meat before you bought it at the supermarket. Should you stone people for adultery? If you live in a country that permits it, then you have God's permission to cleanse that country of it, of course accepting full well that you should present yourself and your family and children for stoning, for stonable offenses, should you or they commit such. Should you celebrate the prescribed holidays? Couldn't hurt, considering that people have no idea how to celebrate holidays these days, but as with all others your salvation does not depend on them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only things that were truly cancelled in the New Testament (by the apostles, not Jesus, nonetheless) was the circumcision, which wasn't quite a law, but more of a mark of an era, and the dietary restrictions, which seem very minor of the laws, and although I do not have an understanding of why they were given with the rest, I am inclined to believe that the point of them was prevention of some diseases that were common in those forbidden animals in the ancient times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So nothing is changed, as long as your aims are not to manipulate God, following the rules of the Old Testament, as far as they are legal in your country, can improve your life, but discretion should be practiced and there are far more important things to be mostly concerned about, that the former should naturally flow from. Perhaps the phrase &quot;law written on their hearts&quot; pertains to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1199" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T15:15:10.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5562" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-21T15:27:01.407" Score="10" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;Were swine prone to transmit disease in the conditions around the time of Moses? This consideration and similar are what I'm interested in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please answer only if you have a clear and solid source to back up the scientific foundation of your claims, wikipedia being okay for this purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&#xA;To clarify what I mean by dietary restrictions, due some of the discussions that followed:&#xA;I do not mean ritual cleanliness, but rather the diet itself, i.e. ruminates, fish, locust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I have mentioned in the comments a complete answer can not be expected, but if someone has studied this subject, they will still find an open slot for an accepted answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1199" LastEditorUserId="1199" LastEditDate="2012-01-22T07:54:31.597" LastActivityDate="2012-01-22T07:54:31.597" Title="Could there have been a pragmatic purpose for the OT legal dietary restrictions?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5562" CreationDate="2012-01-21T18:47:19.783" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a quick glance at either of these sites: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/bacteria/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIH site on foodborne illnesses&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/poison.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Texas Aggie page on Bacterial food poisoning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both of them give the names of illness-causing bacteria that are found in pork. So to answer your first question, yes, swine and the handling of pork can transmit disease today. It is likely that these bacteria were present in Moses's time, as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will note on the same pages that shellfish, beef, poultry, lamb, and undercooked eggs can also transmit foodborne pathogens. As your title question is different than your main question, I would note that while shellfish are not kosher, the rest of the list (beef, poultry, lamb, and eggs) are permitted in the OT. This poster is led to conclude that there is something other than the &quot;pragmatic purpose&quot; at work in the Mosaic law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="568" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T18:47:19.783" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5562" CreationDate="2012-01-21T20:55:16.360" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your title and question are very different, so I will respond based on the title.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may find this article very interesting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040402.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040402.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, there is no hygienic reason for these dietary rules, as, if a clean animal died on its own and you ate it, then you must wash your clothing and be unclean until evening. (Leviticus 11:40)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, would it make sense that you had some disease, but once the sun set you were now healthy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is nothing to imply that this was for health reason, but for ritual reasons, and perhaps to help the Jews to understand that they were not like other groups, and by following a different diet they could set themselves apart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also Leviticus 11:35, where the rule is that if an unclean food was ever used on that oven or stove is now unclean and must be destroyed, as it will always be unclean. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this was for health reasons, it could be scoured, disinfected with bleach, but if you are following these restrictions then you must take apart the oven or stove, regardless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/leviticus/11-35.htm&quot;&gt;http://bible.cc/leviticus/11-35.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Everything, moreover, on which part of their carcass may fall becomes&#xA;  unclean; an oven or a stove shall be smashed; they are unclean and&#xA;  shall continue as unclean to you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you feel you must follow these dietary restrictions, then you must follow all of them, including never use a used stove/oven, for example, as is found in James 2:10 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/james/2-10.htm&quot;&gt;http://bible.cc/james/2-10.htm&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is&#xA;  guilty of breaking all of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="543" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T20:55:16.360" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5566" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-01-21T21:55:53.453" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically Orthodox churches are those Chalcedonian churches which participated in the first seven ecumenical councils, but divided from the Roman Church in 1054. Examples include Eastern Orthodox churches such as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not use this tag for questions about 'orthodoxy' in the sense of 'normal correct belief'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T18:02:16.873" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T18:02:16.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5567" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-01-21T21:55:53.453" Score="0" Body="Relating to those Chalcedonian churches which participated in the first seven ecumenical councils, but divided from the Roman Church in 1054. Examples include Eastern Orthodox churches such as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox. Note, this is NOT &quot;orthodoxy&quot;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-21T23:26:26.083" LastActivityDate="2012-01-21T23:26:26.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2711" CreationDate="2012-01-22T06:24:01.027" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The theological term here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis&quot;&gt;kenosis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Phillipians 2:6-7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Jesus gave up the perks of being God in order to identify with humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-22T06:24:01.027" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5572" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5573" CreationDate="2012-01-22T19:53:24.747" Score="8" ViewCount="1922" Body="&lt;p&gt;In answering a question about kenosis, I said that Jesus emptied himself of his divinity, essentially, &quot;giving up the perks of being God.&quot; Hammar replied, &quot;but he still performed miracles, didn't he?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response, I said, &quot;yes, but other humans performed miracles, too.&quot; which got me thinking - Do humans actually perform miracles or does God perform a miracle through people in order that people might know that God approves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblically speaking, there are several instances of Jesus and other people performing miracles.  Is there, however, any indication that the power by which they were performed &quot;flowed differently&quot; between the prophets of the past and the Jesus that is believed to be a part of the Godhead himself?  What proof texts would speak to the issue on either side, and how have these been interpreted by significant theologians in the past?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-07-17T11:36:56.287" LastActivityDate="2014-07-17T16:01:09.003" Title="From a biblical perspective, Who performs a miracle - the person or God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5572" CreationDate="2012-01-22T20:03:30.877" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In healing the woman who had been bleeding for many years (Mark 5:24 - 30), Jesus has an interesting reaction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25 And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. 26 She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27 When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, 28 because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” 29 Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;32 But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. 33 Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. 34 He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting, a miracle was performed without Jesus doing it.  This seems to imply that miracles could occur without Jesus' explicit doing. If Jesus was unaware of the miracle being performed &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; him, who was doing the miracle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious answer is that God the Father poured out power in a way that bypassed Jesus' human consciousness. Jesus could thus empty himself of his divinity (the kenosis), and yet still perform miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would also explain the story in Acts 8, when Simon, a former magician turned new believer, asked the disciples the secret of how to perform miracles.  He was even willing to pay for the privilege, a dubious practice called simony (the selling of power) ever since.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, in seeking to perform these miracles, he was rebuked.  Even if he wanted to perform these miracles for god's kingdom, it was clear he didn't realize that miracles were performed for God's glory, not his own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Jesus is explicit that miracles are not magic tricks - they are signs that are to accompany a message.  They are not to relieve suffering but rather to authenticate God's will. In Mark 2, Jesus forgives the paralytic, which incenses the Pharisees. It isn't until after the Pharisees get angry at this blasphemy (Who can forgive sins but God alone?), that Jesus performs the miracle, explcitly saying &amp;quot;in order that you might believe.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Miracles, are thus a sign of God's power. As such, I don't think its a stretch to say if the purpose of a miracle is to prove God's hand in a thing, that he would also be the source of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-22T20:03:30.877" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5574" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5575" CreationDate="2012-01-22T22:08:06.120" Score="15" ViewCount="4294" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that Trinitarians believe that God exists as one God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That God the Father is God is patently obvious from the entire Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That God the Son is God is made forcefully in John, Colossians, and throughout the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, but...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirit is God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2021-02-06T00:51:05.287" LastActivityDate="2021-03-24T16:09:45.690" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the Holy Spirit being God?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5574" CreationDate="2012-01-23T01:18:52.937" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 5:1-4 it says Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit and has therefore lied to God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a&#xA;  piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part&#xA;  of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the&#xA;  apostles’ feet.&#xA;  Then Peter said, &quot;Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your&#xA;  heart that you have &lt;strong&gt;lied to the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; and have kept for yourself&#xA;  some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you&#xA;  before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your&#xA;  disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? &lt;strong&gt;You have not lied&#xA;  just to human beings but to God.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 we see the Spirit &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the Lord:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now &lt;strong&gt;the Lord is the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there&#xA;  is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the&#xA;  Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with&#xA;  ever-increasing glory, which comes from &lt;strong&gt;the Lord, who is the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bold text is my emphasis of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="157" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T01:18:52.937" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5576" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5578" CreationDate="2012-01-23T02:15:23.297" Score="2" ViewCount="2897" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a song by Damian Marley that refers to &quot;The sleeping sons of Jacob&quot;. I looked up 'Sons of Jacob' on Wikipedia and now understand them to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, but I have only heard &quot;sleeping&quot; sons of Jacob in the Damian Marley song.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am curious to know what the significance of &quot;Sleeping&quot; may be, if anything. Is this a reference to some religious concept?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1201" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-12-26T19:26:43.003" LastActivityDate="2019-11-12T02:13:25.793" Title="Does the 'Sons of Jacob' refer to only Jews, or also Christians and Muslims?" Tags="&lt;israel&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5576" CreationDate="2012-01-23T03:28:13.443" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible lists out the sons of Jacob (also known as Israel) in the following verses. These children of Jacob also became the twelve tribes of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; 22b  Jacob had twelve sons: &#xA;&#xA; 23 The sons of Leah: &#xA;   Reuben the firstborn of Jacob, &#xA;   Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun. &#xA;&#xA; 24 The sons of Rachel: &#xA;   Joseph and Benjamin. &#xA;&#xA; 25 The sons of Rachel’s servant Bilhah: &#xA;   Dan and Naphtali. &#xA;&#xA; 26 The sons of Leah’s servant Zilpah: &#xA;   Gad and Asher. &#xA;&#xA;   These were the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Paddan Aram. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Jacob came home to his father Isaac in Mamre, near Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron),&#xA;  where Abraham and Isaac had stayed. 28 Isaac lived a hundred and eighty years. 29 Then he&#xA;  breathed his last and died and was gathered to his people, old and full of years. And his&#xA;  sons Esau and Jacob buried him. Genesis: 35:22-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is not what you wanted to know, then I have misunderstood your question. Please let me know if you're looking for something else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastEditorUserId="1160" LastEditDate="2012-01-23T03:34:38.483" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T03:34:38.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5576" CreationDate="2012-01-23T04:02:05.340" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elyricsworld.com/africa_must_wake_up_lyrics_nas_and_damian_marley.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lyrics&lt;/a&gt;, I'm not convinced this has anything to do with the biblical Jacob at all. There is no other reference, except for an oblique reference to Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one does assume that this is the Jacob who became Israel (hence Jews only), then the &quot;sleeping sons of Jacob&quot; would probably refer to the lost 10 tribes of Israel. After Israel was invaded by Assyria in 722bc, the northern tribes were dispersed throughout the empire and the known world. After that invasion, only Judah and Benjamin (the remaining two tribes of the Southern kingdom) retained any distinct identity as Jews.  Some parts of Africa (Uganda and Ethiopia to name two in particular) claim to be descended from these northern tribes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that a once great part of western history is alive in Africa could be the spark the writer wishes to blow into full flame, that Africa might &quot;wake up&quot; and play a greater role on the world stage, as it did in the past. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get back to the Biblical issue, however, it is Abraham- Jacob's grandfather, who is the father of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to both the Quran and the Torah, Abraham sent out Ishmael, once Isaac was born. Ishmael, and his birth mother Hagar made it to Egypt. Both traditions state that Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, and Islam posits that Ishmael was also supposed to be the promised son of the Lord. Isaac, the father of the Jews  (through Jacob, later renamed Israel) and the Edomites (through Esau) is not a Muslim hero, whereas Ishmael is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-24T04:33:39.553" LastActivityDate="2012-01-24T04:33:39.553" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5579" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5580" CreationDate="2012-01-23T11:25:51.323" Score="9" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are those who say that if they saw the miracles that happens in the time of Moses, or the disciples they would surely have faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the Biblical reasons for miracle? Is it to create faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-24T02:23:23.697" LastActivityDate="2012-01-24T23:58:25.320" Title="Could more miraculous works bring more persons to faith?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:15:16.553" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5579" CreationDate="2012-01-23T13:41:16.993" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Preface: this is a generalization.  Atheists, like Christians, can't simply be lumped into a group where all of them think, act, react, and believe the same way.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe so.  In the words of Jesus Himself,in Matthew 16:1-4 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired&#xA;  him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.  2 He answered and&#xA;  said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather:&#xA;  for the sky is red.  3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to&#xA;  day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern&#xA;  the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?  4&#xA;  A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there&#xA;  shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And&#xA;  he left them, and departed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, Jesus was specifically dealing with the hypocritical &quot;spiritual leaders' of the day, but I believe that the lesson can just as easily be applied to those who don't believe at all.  The problem with the Pharisees and the Sauducees was that they didn't believe and that they didn't want to believe because believing that Jesus was the messiah, the son of the living God, would have upset their world-view.  They were comfortable in their beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With most atheists that I've rubbed shoulders with (or even myself when I was one) the problem is only &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;partly&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that we have no proof of God's existence.  The other half of the problem is that we would reject the proof if we saw it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As reference for this last  statement, go back and search this site for questions on miracles - why are there no miracles seen today, and other similar questions, and read the comments.  If you do, you'll see that the atheists asking here pretty much reject any miracle as coincidence, or something explainable via non-miraculous means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, non-atheists from other religions wouldn't necessarily be convinced by miracles.  The Old Testament is filled with stories of other nations seeing the miracles of God, but still worshiping their own idols and gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T13:41:16.993" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5532" CreationDate="2012-01-23T14:48:36.980" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the risk of stating the obvious, the entire Old Testament can be found translated to English by Jewish scholars. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_English_Bible_translations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; gives an overview.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T14:48:36.980" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2012-01-23T15:03:22.650" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As one who grew up in a &quot;Bible Church,&quot; I can answer from my own experience here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paraphrases are typically touted as wonderful aids to devotional reading, but are never used for doctrinal discussion.  In other words, &lt;em&gt;The Living Bible&lt;/em&gt; (or nowadays, the much, much better New Living Translation), would be on the bedstand, but never the pulpit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The few exceptions I've seen are this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When a pastor is simply trying to give the background to a narrative (i.e. OT stories), if the paraphrase is good, it'll be used. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When the pastor's point is to make the listener stop and reflect, I'll often hear them pull out Eugene Peterson's &quot;The Message,&quot; and expect about a paragraph.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, its used for context and clarity, but never didactically or for doctrinal dispute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T15:03:22.650" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5579" CreationDate="2012-01-23T16:34:43.127" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question, but&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;not only would miracles not cause people to believe&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;but also miracles would not accomplish what God wants&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Miracles do not cause people to believe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 16 contains the story often called &amp;quot;The Rich Man and Lazarus&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Dives and Lazarus&amp;quot; in older times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gist of the story is that a rich guy (rich is 'Dives' in Latin, pronounced Div' - ees) dies and goes to hell. Once there, he really, really doesn't like the place, and begs Abraham to be able to go back and tell his brothers to change course, lest they end up there with him. His reasoning is simple - surely a miracle would prove to them that they need to repent!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Dives is making the case that if a miracle were given, then clearly people would believe and repent.  Abraham is, however, proved exactly right every day, however, in that Jesus did come back from the dead [I know somebody is going to disagree with me on that!] and yet &lt;em&gt;people didn't listen to him either&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As God cries out in Isaiah 65:2,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;All day long I have stretched out my hands to a stubborn and obstinate people.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Miracles do not accomplish what God wants&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, however, if &amp;quot;seeing is believing,&amp;quot; then seeing would ultimately be counter-productive, because God explicitly desires faith. And faith, as we know is the evidence of things hoped for - the rebuke / the real proof (my translation) of things not seen. (Heb 11:1) Jesus says as much to Thomas, after the miracle of the resurrection, in John 20:29 when he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as it says in Hebrews 11:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, miracles might &amp;quot;prove&amp;quot; something, but God doesn't want to overwhelm us - he wants us to believe on our own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So then, why are miracles given at all?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Miracles are given in order that we might believe (Mark 2:9-10). They are signs that God is in fact behind a thing.  Jesus forgave a lame man's sin, and the Pharisees grumbled. So, Jesus says, &amp;quot;in order that you might know that I have authority to forgive sin...&amp;quot; he performs a miracle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem, of course, is that then people want miracles not as evidence but rather for gain.  Herod wanted Jesus to perform tricks in order to prove his god-hood, but Jesus would not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately the best indictment, however, comes from Luke 11:28 -32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-24T04:07:52.013" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5579" CreationDate="2012-01-23T16:35:42.640" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The definition of faith: To believe in something that is not seen but is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Miracles were provided after faith to confirm ones faith. So many wonderful things happened during the time of Moses and yet... The children of Israel wondered in the desert for 40 years, worshiped idols and would not look upon the raised up snake to save themselves. Why? Because they didn't have faith so no mater how many miracles they saw it was not enough to 'give' them faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question no miracles are not to give faith. They never have been and they never will be. Things that are seen are forgotten (above example of the Israelite's coming out of Egypt) which is why faith is confirmed by the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T16:35:42.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5579" CreationDate="2012-01-23T16:59:20.403" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aside: I find the idea that faith is only possible with a lack of evidence to be unconvincing.  There are plenty of places that that falls down within Christian ideology.  Consider the apostles' faith, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, faith is simply a conviction that something is or will be.  The faith can be blind or it can be guided, but it's still faith.  Even Doubting Thomas had faith.  So he was &quot;less blessed&quot;, whatever that means, but that doesn't matter in the long run.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, to answer the question: many of the miracles of the times of Moses are trivial to reproduce in modern day with modern illusion, trickery, and technology.  We are a much more learned people today.  The miracles would have to be much greater in scope.  Or perhaps more personal in scope.  An identical revelation to all people on Earth simultaneously would be convincing to many, I'm sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'm going to give this a tentative yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1083" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T16:59:20.403" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3505" CreationDate="2012-01-23T17:12:59.943" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of us, even we atheists, have a core set of principles and beliefs at our heart.  These are the primary motivating sources for those things we do throughout the day.  Based on the principle that it's better to be motivated by a truth than by a falsehood, I would say it is imperative for all people to continually challenge and refine their internal motivations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is one possible reason why, for example, you might find that atheists in the USA at least tend to know religion &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/survey-reveals-atheists-know-religion-better-than-believers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;better than believers&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1083" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T17:12:59.943" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5579" CreationDate="2012-01-23T17:15:28.690" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you believe what people say, the answer is clearly &quot;yes, some more would believe&quot;.  One can with little trouble find discussions just like this on various forums.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120119150208AA4hYpu&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's one regarding conversion of atheists.&lt;/a&gt;)  If you believe what people say, the answer is again clearly &quot;yes&quot; given that some people say they &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; convert because of miracles.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/thai-muslim-woman-converts-to-christianity-through-miracles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Another example, this time converting from Islam.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the question is: can you believe what people say?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2012-01-23T17:15:28.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5579" CreationDate="2012-01-23T21:59:34.297" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are at least three reasons for miracles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So that the works of God may be displayed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 9:1-3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”&#xA;  3“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To reward faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 8:48&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to her, &quot;Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To catalyze the formation of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 11:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And you people of Capernaum, will you be honored in heaven? No, you will go down to the place of the dead. For if the miracles I did for you had been done in wicked Sodom, it would still be here today.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, yes, miraculous works can help bring more people to the faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said (John14:11) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it matter whether someone believes because of a testimony vs. a miracle? A sheep is a sheep whether it walks through the gate or is carried. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. Jesus miraculously appeared to doubting Thomas with the stated goal of producing faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="666" LastEditorUserId="666" LastEditDate="2012-01-24T23:58:25.320" LastActivityDate="2012-01-24T23:58:25.320" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4159" CreationDate="2012-01-24T02:47:30.960" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;So first off, this story of Jacob &quot;struggling with God&quot; (in Hebrew Isra - el) is one that has puzzled people for years.  There is little agreement amongst scholars about what this means.  Some interpret this is a vision, others as a theophany, and still others suggest that it was simply a metaphor for the striving and struggling that Jacob had been doing all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, however, the exact question is, 'Why didn't Jacob die after seeing the face of God (the Pen - el)?'  After all, as you pointed out, when Moses asked to see God's face 430 years later, he was told that if he did, he would die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two theories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God was disguised&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is different, however, is that Moses wanted to see God's full Shekinah Glory. He wanted the unmediated experience of seeing God in his fullness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, here God is clearly not revealed in his full glory.  Remember that when the three visitors came to see Abraham, they were disguised. When the angel came to visit Samson's father, he was disguised.  When there was the fourth in the furnace, shining brightly as a 'son of God,' he too could have been considered to be disguised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a trickster who had disguised himself once to fool his own father, Jacob would have understood a disguise.  There's nothing supernatural here in being able to realize that someone is way more than he looks like on the surface.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was a miracle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jacob himself is shocked that he saw God and lived. He was in fact, left crippled by the experience, it was that powerful.  Remember, he was blessed, though its hard to understand how being crippled is a &quot;blessing,&quot; unless if compared to the certainty of death for seeing God face to face.  That his life was preserved and he still got to be with God in the same way Adam once talked to him is an amazing gift.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-18T03:16:47.563" LastActivityDate="2012-02-18T03:16:47.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5594" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5602" CreationDate="2012-01-24T03:01:28.113" Score="11" ViewCount="2927" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Premise #1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sex is for procreation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter Turner has an excellent &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5316/was-onan-really-struck-dead-by-god-for-masturbating&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; to the question on Onan. In it, he suggests that Onan really was misusing sex, and that angers God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I also consider priestly celibacy and the general nature of Roman teaching on contraception, masturbation, and other regulations around sex, it seems like the Roman church really wants to suggest that the beauty of sex is when it furthers the end of &quot;being fruitful and multiply&quot;ing.  I'm probably not doing it justice, but it seems like procreation is the point of sex.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, my question then, could be &lt;em&gt;mis&lt;/em&gt;-read as antagonstic, but its not.  I really do want to understand how these go together.  Here's my conundrum - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Premise #2: The canonical &lt;em&gt;Song of Solomon&lt;/em&gt; celebrates the passion of sex&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Song of Solomon clearly celebrates a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who dearly love each other.  I know that some have historically tried to say that the Song of Solomon is Christ's love for his church, but I can't buy that with verses like these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;SOS 5:3 I have taken off my robe— must I put it on again? &#xA;  I have washed my feet— must I soil them again? &#xA;  4 My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him. &#xA;  5 I arose to open for my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, &#xA;  my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the bolt.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find it very hard to read that and not think that is physical. (We're all grownups here, right?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book goes on to warn us not to &quot;arouse or awaken love, until it so desires, because love is as strong as death.&quot; (Its a common refrain).  Clearly here the focus is on that passion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, that passion is seemingly celebrated, and not necessarily because of the kids that result. It may be dangerous, like fire, but the two lovers aren't saying its a bad thing at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Question: How do these fit together?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question in all sincerity is this - How do Romans read the Song of Solomon?  How is it reconciled with the seeming Papal preference for purely procreative reproduction?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, am I misreading Catholics here - maybe they're not nearly as stuffy as people make them out to be? The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/quotes/the-puritans-and-sex&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Puritans were no prudes either&lt;/a&gt;, and it would be nice to understand if a Roman could endorse &quot;the joy of (marital) sex.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2021-02-17T09:21:28.873" Title="How does a Roman Catholic reconcile a preference for purely procreative sex with the Song of Solomon?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;song-of-songs&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5596" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5620" CreationDate="2012-01-24T04:51:55.047" Score="15" ViewCount="219963" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, this is not the start of a joke about a bunch of people walking into a bar.  Rather, I thought it would be helpful to clarify various titles that people give to leadership roles in churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T20:14:05.413" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T20:14:05.413" Title="What is the difference between a pastor, a priest, and a minister?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;clergy&gt;&lt;leadership&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5596" CreationDate="2012-01-24T04:53:04.920" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;An attempt at a generic Protestant version. Note that these are guidelines, and additional tradition-specific versions should be consulted!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clergy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Priest&lt;/strong&gt; One who conducts the rituals that mediate between God and man.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pastor&lt;/strong&gt; From a word meaning 'shepherd', one who 'watches over' a church, manages it, and tends to its members. Because of the shepherd connotation, the members of the church are often called the flock as in the flock of sheep under a pastor's care.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Minister&lt;/strong&gt; One who tends to the needs of others. From the Latin minister=servant, from Latin minus=less. A pastor would by definition minister to his congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chaplain&lt;/strong&gt; A person who is called to minister to a group of individuals on an as-needed basis, such as for weddings, funerals, and hospital visitations only. In some very small congregations, chaplains are also called to serve in part-time basis only, if the church meets less than weekly, or if the pastor is not expected to perform regular visitation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Preacher&lt;/strong&gt; One who actually preaches a sermon&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reverend&lt;/strong&gt; A generic title for any ordained persons, one who is to be 'revered' for his special calling&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bishop&lt;/strong&gt; An overseer of the clergy, most typically involved in a church hierarchy. Baptists, Mennonites, and other congregational churches who reject hierarchies also reject bishops. In African American churches, this can also refer to any pastor who has raised up pastors within his own church, and thus may effectively be just a very successful senior pastor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Apostle&lt;/strong&gt; Literally one who is &quot;sent out&quot; (from the Greek) to spread the news. Historically, this refers to those 12 men whom Jesus specifically charged with the task of spreading the news. 11 of these Apostles were originally disciples i.e. students of Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depends on the tradition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deacon&lt;/strong&gt; Depending on the tradition, can have a wide variety of meanings, although all indicate that one is serving in a capacity. The deacons were so named in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%206:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 6&lt;/a&gt;, in order to relieve the Apostles of duties that were time consuming but not as important as their ministry through proclaiming the Word.  Specifically the line (in 6:2) is &quot;It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, a Deacon in a Baptist Church is equivalent to an elder in a Bible Church or a vestry member in the Episcopal church - all of which are &lt;em&gt;non&lt;/em&gt; Clergy who in effect &quot;run&quot; the local church which the priest / minister / pastor is paid to lead.  Think of it as the board to the Pastor's CEO.  In contrast, a Deacon in the Episcopal church is a guy who has just been ordained, and in most instances, will become a priest in about 6 months time, but has not yet so been named. As a deacon, they can read the Gospel, prepare the Eucharistic table (but not actually lead the Eucharist), and pronounce the blessing at the end of the service.  All of this to say - an Episcopal deacon is a junior priest whereas a Baptist deacon would be a very senior member.  As you can see, there is a lot of variation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Elder&lt;/strong&gt; Also highly dependent on the tradition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &quot;Bible Churches&quot;, the Board of Elders functions much like a vestry - a board of committed, respected members of the congregation would serve in an advisory or leadership capacity to set the direction of the church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Mormon tradition, since most men are supposed to preach, the elders have more of an organizing role for the congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:&#xA;In the NT, deacons, elders, and later bishops are the only mentioned leadership positions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22500" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T18:50:47.613" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T18:50:47.613" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5598" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5600" CreationDate="2012-01-24T07:12:33.427" Score="19" ViewCount="1420" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answers to &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2926/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-old-earth&quot;&gt;What is the biblical evidence for an old Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; say that biblical arguments for old Earth creationism are based on the ambiguous words used for describing lengths of time in Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any record of biblical scholars addressing these ambiguities before modern science first began questioning the age of the Earth a few centuries ago, or did old Earth creationism appear later in an attempt to reconcile Genesis with the more recent scientific discoveries?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, were these ambiguities unnoticed or ignored for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1920/how-old-is-the-old-testament&quot;&gt;over two thousand years&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="224" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2014-07-28T12:04:31.893" Title="How old is old earth creationism?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;&lt;origin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5598" CreationDate="2012-01-24T15:18:28.807" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;For most issues in Christianity, doctrine is only clearly defined once a heresy (or disagreement) comes up which requires it.  For instance, the canonization of the New Testament only happened because people started circulating their own canons which were clearly bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historical theologians probably did not think about the age of the Earth in specific lengths of time.  It is much more a scientific question than a theological one.  Only recently as we started asking scientific questions about the age of the Earth did asking those questions become important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own teachers at Church argue that the point of Genesis is not to establish the age of the earth, but present God as creator, what sin is, and what this meant for the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt.  None of them are Evolutionists or believe in the Big Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know enough about historical theology to know that they did not discuss this however or what the closest discussion topic would have been.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="94" LastActivityDate="2012-01-24T15:18:28.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5598" CreationDate="2012-01-24T16:02:25.320" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nobody in ancient times could have imagined that the earth was billions of years old, so you won't see any explicit attempts to reconcile the Genesis creation stories with an old earth. However, the early Christians did see discrepancies that made them question how literally the creation stories should be understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote in his &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dialogue with Trypho&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, chapter LXXXI:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see already the seed of the notion that the &quot;days&quot; of Genesis 1 do not refer to 24-hour periods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third century scholar Origen of Alexandria went further in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen125.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;De Principiis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; IV.16 [emphasis mine]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, &lt;strong&gt;I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even ancient scientists understood that &quot;evening&quot; and &quot;morning&quot; were meaningless without reference to the sun, moon, and stars; Origen interpreted Genesis in light of the scientific knowledge of his day, paving the way for later generations to reconcile faith and science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The influential 5th century scholar Augustine of Hippo, in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The City of God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, 11.6, refused to speculate about what &quot;day&quot; meant in Genesis 1 [emphasis mine]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time,— after that which is past, before that which is future. But none could then be past, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could be measured. But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. &lt;strong&gt;What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Literal Meaning of Genesis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (PDF), 1.19, Augustine gave advice for interpreting the Scriptures' statements about the physical world [emphasis mine]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. &lt;strong&gt;Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics;&lt;/strong&gt; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lest he be misunderstood, Augustine continued [emphasis mine]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. &lt;strong&gt;If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven,&lt;/strong&gt; when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later in the same book, Augustine laid out his hermeneutic for reading Genesis (&lt;em&gt;The Literal Meaning of Genesis&lt;/em&gt;, 2.9, no online link available, but quoted in Wikipedia, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Allegorical interpretations of Genesis&lt;/a&gt; [emphasis mine]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith.&lt;/strong&gt; For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. &lt;strong&gt;In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So although old earth creationism is a modern view, it draws (as does &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1533/what-is-theistic-evolution&quot;&gt;theistic evolution&lt;/a&gt;) on the ancient tradition of understanding Genesis in light of our current knowledge about the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-01-24T16:23:14.803" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3549" CreationDate="2012-01-24T17:23:54.147" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could argue about the Bible terminology, as the answers above have done, but I think you would miss the main difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It stems from one of the main points of contest between the churches: the value of aesthetics. A priest is the master of ceremonies. He performs rituals. Protestants began by believing that rituals should be simple and minimal, so as to not become a distraction to the true purpose of faith. A minimalistic ritual can be performed by any member of the church, and so there only remains a need for teachers and worship leaders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics (also Anglicans and Orthodox), on the other hand, do not think they are distracted by lush performances, and so they have a person well trained in making such happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think all the above answers, while offering interesting insights, confuse the meaning of the word priest, making one into a mediator between man and God, and thus accusing the other side of being disconnected from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1199" LastActivityDate="2012-01-24T17:23:54.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5594" CreationDate="2012-01-24T19:14:09.060" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Catholic Church, the marital act has two effects: procreative and unitive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2351&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Catechism reference is in relation to the sin of Lust, which Jesus equates with adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's lust that is the problem, and the Church does not teach that man and women are somehow freed from an inclination to lust by virtue of their marriage.  Nor is it even logical, St. Paul says that marriage is better for those who whose inclination to fornicate burns within them he doesn't say that the passion will be put out by marriage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard that The Song of Solomon is the most commented on book in the entire Bible by Christians throughout the history of the Church and what St. Jerome makes of it is very interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Song of Songs the precept is given as a hard one: &quot;Regulate your love towards me.&quot; And so we plead that, if we err, we do so not from ignorance but from feeling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001046.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Jerome - Letter 46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what verse he translated to be &quot;Regulate your love towards me&quot; but if it's the overall feeling he had in the translation it ought to have some effect.  It's true that other commentaries use the Song of Songs to describe God's love for His church or just the whole Trinitarian dynamic of love.  But that's just the necessary and fruitful anagogical understanding of the book.  The literal interpretation is just that, make love to your beloved.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We even use scripture from the Song of Songs in scriptural rosaries to meditate on the 5th Glorious mystery, the Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth.  It doesn't mean we believe she was not a virgin, even though in some metaphor we see her as the woman in the song who everyone said, &quot;Who is she?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0898704456&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Love and Responsibility&lt;/a&gt; is the best and most dense way to gain a full understanding of the purpose of sex and marriage as put forth by the Catholic Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-05-29T16:47:26.403" LastActivityDate="2014-05-29T16:47:26.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="554" CreationDate="2012-01-24T20:26:28.473" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kudos to @JonathonByrd for his answer! I would just like to add a verse that I recently stumbled on in Luke:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;JUST AT that time there [arrived] some people who informed Jesus about&#xA;  the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And He replied by saying to them, Do you think that these Galileans&#xA;  were greater sinners than all the other Galileans because they have&#xA;  suffered in this way?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I tell you, No; but &lt;strong&gt;unless you repent&lt;/strong&gt; (change&#xA;  your mind for the better and heartily amend your ways, with abhorrence&#xA;  of your past sins), &lt;strong&gt;you will all likewise perish and be lost&#xA;  eternally&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and&#xA;  killed them--do you think that they were more guilty offenders&#xA;  (debtors) than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I tell you,&#xA;  No; but &lt;strong&gt;unless you repent&lt;/strong&gt; (change your mind for the better and&#xA;  heartily amend your ways, with abhorrence of your past sins), &lt;strong&gt;you will&#xA;  all likewise perish and be lost eternally&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Luke 13:1-5 - Amplified&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moment someone truly accepts Jesus, they have remorse for their sins, and they are saved. Once we have our salvation, we cannot lose it (John 10:28-29). However, you will continue to sin, so therefore you should continuously repent for those sins. Not necessarily for salvation, but to have a better relationship with the Lord.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when we deliberately sin, and don't repent to God (maybe because we feel ashamed and/or don't really feel sorry because we keep doing it), we become more numb to the sin and it brings less conviction and takes us farther from God each time we do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-01-24T21:58:15.890" LastActivityDate="2012-01-24T21:58:15.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5604" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5612" CreationDate="2012-01-24T21:27:15.170" Score="8" ViewCount="7611" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently heard a talk on the notion of &quot;multiple judgments&quot;; the idea is one is initially judged simply on the fact of their salvation - did that person put their life in Christ's hands and accept Him as savior. If yes, that person is accepted into Heaven. If no, that person is cast off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, I heard of more judgments after this - essentially, being judged on what one &quot;accomplished&quot; based on what they had available. This seems to contradict the idea in Ephesians 2:8 of faith saving someone, not works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may have been more judgments that I heard, but I was so perplexed by this and didn't recall anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: Besides the initial judgement of salvation, what is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments, and are those judgments based on &quot;merit&quot; or &quot;good works&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-27T16:21:03.673" LastActivityDate="2017-03-12T04:00:14.650" Title="What is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments after death?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5605" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-24T21:56:07.573" Score="4" ViewCount="2104" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the Anglican church require from potential ordination candidates as far as education and background? In particular, how would they handle a candidate from a different Protestant background who came along seeking to be ordained? Obviously I would expect the candidate is expected to agree with some statement of faith covering key doctrinal distinctions, but would they also be required to undergo education in an Anglican institution? Are there set timelines for such proceedings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-02T10:45:39.780" LastActivityDate="2014-07-02T10:45:39.780" Title="What education requirements are imposed on ordination candidates in the Anglican church?" Tags="&lt;holy-orders&gt;&lt;anglicanism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5606" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-24T22:12:44.397" Score="14" ViewCount="2802" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the idea of Mechanical Inspiration -- that the very physical action of writing down the scriptures was guided or enacted by God through physical manipulation of the human writers -- is always listed for completeness as one of the ways the inspiration of the Scriptures &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; have been accomplished, I wonder if anyone actually holds that view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any current groups identifying as Christian believe in this kind of inspiration? If so who and what evidence or reasoning do they cite?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T12:25:10.690" LastActivityDate="2015-04-12T17:55:00.490" Title="Who believes in Mechanical Inspiration?" Tags="&lt;inspiration&gt;&lt;special-revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5607" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-24T22:20:35.873" Score="15" ViewCount="22963" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate the Lord's Supper/communion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so what are their beliefs about the nature of the Sacrament? Do they believe in Transubstantiation or some variant of symbolism? Is participation optional or required and who decides? Is there an age limit? Are there times a member would be restricted from participation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="3593" LastEditDate="2012-12-22T07:41:25.457" LastActivityDate="2021-04-22T18:32:30.803" Title="Do Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate communion?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5607" CreationDate="2012-01-24T23:48:51.113" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;After speaking to someone I know who is a former witness, the short answer is &quot;No.&quot;  They treat the body of Christ similarly but differently.  If they have some equivalent, which many would debate, it's something they call &quot;The Memorial of Christ's death&quot; which occurs once a year and only the &quot;anointed&quot; are allowed to eat the bread and drink the wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the former Witness I spoke to had this to say about the framing of your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;its like you walk and I drive and I think driving is better so I ask&#xA;  you things like &quot;so when its a yellow light do you walkers push on the&#xA;  brake or speed up? What do you use as a brake? Do you think yellow&#xA;  lights are long enough to pass through as a walker?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to shed light on the wide spectrum of thoughts on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="200" LastEditDate="2012-01-24T23:55:56.360" LastActivityDate="2012-01-24T23:55:56.360" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5605" CreationDate="2012-01-25T01:57:32.957" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Funny you should ask. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was ordained in the Baptist church, but I've really come to believe that I personally needed to Bette connected to an ancient church, so within the last month, I have begun that process. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here in the Diocese of Virginia (TEC), ordination candidates with an M. Div. are required to take approx. 1 years addtl training before being made a deacon, then usually a few more months before being made a priest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're going straight in, the process is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;undergo a discernment process with the bishop and your sending church. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;start a 4 yr M. Div. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in your 3d year, begin a 2yr field work in another parish. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;at the end of the this year, a review board will give you an interview, and make recommendations about whether or not to proceed with deaconal ordination &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;at the end of your 4th year, interview with a church. If they call you, essentially you will be ordained. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-25T13:11:06.073" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T13:11:06.073" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5604" CreationDate="2012-01-25T02:15:35.090" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you're referring to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Throne&quot;&gt;White Throne Judgment&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bema&quot;&gt;Bema Seat Judgment&lt;/a&gt;, which are typically believed to be different judgments by Evangelical Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The White Throne Judgment is described in Revelation 20:11-15.  This, to the traditions that believe in the two judgments, is the judgment that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; faces, where you are judged to be innocent or guilty; whether you will be cast into the eternal lake of fire, or accepted into Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 11-15: (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled&#xA;  away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead,&#xA;  small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and&#xA;  another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were&#xA;  judged out of those things which were written in the books, according&#xA;  to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and&#xA;  death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were&#xA;  judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were&#xA;  cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever&#xA;  was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of&#xA;  fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bema Seat Judgment, on the other hand, is believed to be the judgment of rewards to those who are saved, who have in essence, &quot;made it through&quot; the White Throne judgment.  It's based on several scriptures scattered throughout the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an article that describes it &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/doctrine-rewards-judgment-seat-bema-christ&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, with Scripture references.  The page has a copyright notice, so I won't copy sections of it, rather a short summary follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several passages in Scripture indicate that we will receive rewards for faithful service.&#xA; - 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20&#xA; - Revelation 22:12 &#xA; - Romans 14:10-11&#xA; - 1 Corinthians 3:11-15&#xA; - 2 Corinthians. 5:9-10&#xA; - 1 John 2:28&#xA; - Revelation 3:11-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:9 reference a &quot;judgment seat&quot;, which is a translation of the Greek word &quot;Bema&quot;.  There are arguments from some circles that this term has connotations of rewards coming to athletes competing for a prize.  The article I referenced above states it this way.  Others argue that these explanations are extra-Biblical and contradictory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not there are separate judgments is something that's been debated for centuries.  I won't put my own personal beliefs here, as they are flavored heavily by the doctrines I've been immersed in.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I will say that from an evangelical protestant perspective, the doctrine  of two separate judgments does reconcile otherwise contradictory passages.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone apart from works would indicate that our good works do absolutely nothing to earn us salvation. (The White Throne Judgment)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second, we are told in various places in Scripture that we will be judged by our works, and will be rewarded.  If the core doctrine of salvation by faith alone, apart from works is true, then these judgments and rewards must be something other than salvation.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is the promise of crowns in Heaven (Rev. 3:11, Matt. 6:2, Rev. 4:4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is the promise of Heavenly treasure (Matt. 6:20, 1 Pet. 1:4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are promises of Responsibility, Authority, and inheritance of God's possessions. (Matt. 19:28; 24:45-47; 25:21, 23; Lk. 19:17-19; 22:29-30; Rev. 2:26).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to whether the doctrine of two judgments is Biblical depends on the definition of &quot;Biblical&quot;.  Scripture does not come out and state directly that there are two judgments, so in that regard, it might be considered &quot;extra-Biblical&quot;.  On the other hand, there is a bit of Biblical support for the doctrine.  In that regards, it's as Biblical as the doctrine of the Trinity, and other doctrines not explicitly stated in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-01-25T04:32:56.420" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T04:32:56.420" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5604" CreationDate="2012-01-25T06:51:30.897" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for being judged on what you accomplish there is biblical basis for that as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 2:14-18 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;14) What doth it profit, my brethern, though a man say he hath faith,&#xA;    and    have not works? can faith save him?`&#xA;        15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,&#xA;        16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are&#xA;    needful to the body; what doth it profit?&#xA;        17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.&#xA;        18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my&#xA;    works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very act of calling one's self a Christian is to take upon one's self the name of Christ. While Christ had perfect faith, He also &lt;code&gt;went about doing good&lt;/code&gt;. So His example is a pretty good biblical indication of how faith and works go together. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I know this doesn't exactly answer the OP's question of &quot;basis for two judgments,&quot; I just wanted to point out that there is biblical basis for being judged on works as well as faith. Which lends itself, albeit slightly, to the notion that their is more then one judgement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2012-01-25T06:57:06.537" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T06:57:06.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2012-01-25T10:56:15.277" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially what is being asked here (and, if I may be so bold, reframe the question), is if Adam and Eve were perfect how could they sin? How can beings who are created perfect sin? God is perfect but He cannot sin nor can He be tempted to sin. We infer from Ezekiel (assuming this really is referring to the Devil (aka Satan aka Lucifer?) was perfect in all his ways from his creation (Ezek. 28:15) yet he sinned. The Son of God, the second Adam, became man. He was “without sin” yet He was able to sin since He was subjected to the Temptation. What, then, is the implication upon God if a perfect being can sin? If perfect beings can sin then is God who is, after all, Sovereign, responsible for creating them with that potential?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The essential facts (drawing upon Genesis 2 - 3 are that:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam and Eve, when they were created in the Garden of Eden, were sinless (without having sinned -- reference to their pre-Fall condition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God saw all that He had made (that it) was “very good.” &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The serpent tempted Adam and Eve with the promise of being like God and having a knowledge of “good and evil”. She succumbed to that temptation. &#xA;4 The consequeces were, if Satan’s exact words are to be believed, that their “eyes were opened&quot; and they became “as gods knowing good and evil”. &#xA;5 According to God’s word (which is to be believed) “in dying they began to die”. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Following divine judgment pronounced upon them and because they had now become like God (“like one of us knowing good and evil”), they were banished from the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and living forever.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In respect of the facts, we can deduce that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(i)  Genesis does not describe A and E as “perfect” but “very good”. Is there a difference? Does the original Hebrew provide any clue here?&#xA;(ii) God, who in His omniscience knows good and evil, did not want A and E to have this knowledge and forbad them from accessing it on pain of death. Then this knowledge was harmful to A and E&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1211" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-05T20:28:35.683" LastActivityDate="2012-02-05T20:28:35.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5615" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5616" CreationDate="2012-01-25T11:21:34.113" Score="5" ViewCount="5543" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some verses that use the terminology &amp;quot;power&amp;quot;, and I heard it with different preachers that the Christians possess power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the &lt;em&gt;Spirit and of power&lt;/em&gt;, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:4-5, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Stephen, full of grace and &lt;em&gt;power&lt;/em&gt;, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. (Acts 6:8, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the power that Christians possess?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-12-01T02:47:08.130" Title="What is the power that Christians possess?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2017-01-08T01:35:59.190" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5615" CreationDate="2012-01-25T13:48:19.990" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following comes from a mainly Calvinist view point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The power you are looking for is the power granted to Christians by the Holy Spirit. Probably one of the most clear examples of this was in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”  (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was the first manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit on these new Christians. Much of the book of Acts continues to chronicle this power that they had been granted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is now some &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;debate&lt;/a&gt; how this power manifests in the modern 21st century. However, it is no doubt still active. Even those (like myself) that are &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5290/what-is-the-basis-for-cessationism&quot;&gt;cessationists&lt;/a&gt; believe that the spirit is still active in our daily lives, but that he manifests his power differently than he did in the early church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example many believe that one of the greatest examples of the power of the spirit is his working on the hearts and minds of God's people to perform both &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_%28theology%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;regeneration&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sanctification&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2014-11-21T19:27:37.570" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5615" CreationDate="2012-01-25T17:46:11.840" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I's not the most important power, but it can be a quite useful &quot;secondary&quot; power: to always be able to feel happy, no matter the situation. Even in our temporary physical world this can be useful, as stress and pessimism do cause a large number of psychological illnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might not be a very scientific answer, because I speak from personal experience, but I have no doubt that I'm not the only one with this explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T17:46:11.840" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5605" CreationDate="2012-01-25T17:59:34.687" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Church of England the process is described in detail on &lt;a href=&quot;http://callwaiting.org.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this website&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Candidates for the priesthood are selected by a discernment process. This will involve your priest and your bishop among others. The process is going to be a relatively long process, and usually involve a Selection Conference, where the candidate spends a weekend with other candidates and a 'selection committee'. There is no minimum education standard as such, but the site says &quot;The job is intellectually demanding, and the academic side of your calling is just as important as any other. In principle, ordained ministry is a graduate profession.&quot;. In other words the training is 'degree level' and you will need to be able to cope with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After selection you will get training. &quot;Training usually lasts two or three years, depending on your previous academic training and age. It can be full-time and residential, part-time and non-residential, or a mixture of the two&quot;. The church pays for this training if necessary. At the end you will be ordained, and then spend some years being mentored by an experienced priest before being given a parish of your own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are no problems with having a background in a different denomination. From the website: &quot;it will be normal for any candidate to be confirmed, or welcomed  into the Church of England from another Church, before she or he is ordained.&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-01-25T18:38:22.453" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T18:38:22.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5596" CreationDate="2012-01-25T18:30:09.520" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of the primary differences are due to the believed place of the clergy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some churches being  clergyman is considered a &quot;vocation&quot;. If someone is called to be ordained they are ordained for life (barring exceptional circumstances). Even if they stop doing the job of a priest, they remain one. The denominations that practice this typically have a three-level clergy: bishops, priests and deacons. These churches include Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutherans. In these denominations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Priests&lt;/strong&gt; are the primary ministers, normally responsible for overseeing the congregation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bishops&lt;/strong&gt; are overseers of other clergy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deacons&lt;/strong&gt; are either more junior or more specialized clergy. In Catholic and Anglican traditions a deacon cannot celebrate Mass.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reverend&lt;/strong&gt; is a title applied to one of these e.g. &quot;Reverend John Smith&quot;. To call someone &quot;a reverend&quot; is technically incorrect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other protestant churches reject the idea of ordained clergy. A church leader is appointed to a specific job, and can leave it. When a pastor quits his job he is no longer a pastor. These churches use different terms for their leaders:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pastor&lt;/strong&gt; From the word for shephered, one who oversees and provides care for the congregation. Many churches reserve the title for their more senior leaders within a congregation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Minister&lt;/strong&gt; from the word for servant. One who provides for the needs of the congregation, and typically used for church leaders. Often interchangeable with &lt;em&gt;pastor&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Preacher&lt;/strong&gt; one who preaches. May or may not also be a church leader.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Apostle&lt;/strong&gt; originally refers to one of the Twelve chosen by Jesus, and then to other people. It literally means &quot;one who is sent&quot;, and is applied to someone who carries the Christian message to others. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_%28Christian%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia has a good article&lt;/a&gt;. Some churches still use the term. The Latter Day Saints use the term to refer to their highest leaders.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Elder&lt;/strong&gt; AffableGeek describes this much better than I could. It depends on the tradition, but is frequently used to describe a member of an advisory or leadership committee within the church, separate from the pastors.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deacon&lt;/strong&gt; is sometimes also used by these churches for more junior leadership roles or more junior Elders.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other terms:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vicar&lt;/strong&gt; in the Catholic church is a priest who is the bishop's helper. In the Anglican church it is a priest who is in charge of a parish.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chaplain&lt;/strong&gt; normally means a priest or minister who serves a specific community or institution other than a church - e.g a prison, military unit or football team. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-01-25T22:10:39.900" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T22:10:39.900" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5596" CreationDate="2012-01-25T18:35:56.717" Score="13" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Catholic version&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Priest&lt;/strong&gt; The biblical order of presbyters. One who conducts sacrifices &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vicar, a priest who is the bishop's helper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dean (arch-priest) a priest who is designated by the bishop to oversee a number of parishes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Monsignor, a title given by a Bishop to an exemplary priest.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pastor&lt;/strong&gt; The priest who is in charge or a parish, he may have associate pastors - recently ordained priests start as associate pastors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Minister&lt;/strong&gt; Ordinary ministers are the bishops, priests and deacons who administer the sacraments to the faithful.  Extraordinary ministers are laypersons appointed by the priest to help in the administration of the sacraments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chaplain&lt;/strong&gt; An ordained person whose vocation is specific to their task (i.e. hospital chaplain, military chaplain etc..) not to a parish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Preacher&lt;/strong&gt; Not a specifically Catholic term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reverend&lt;/strong&gt; A title given to any priest deacon or bishop (&lt;a href=&quot;http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BkOj&quot;&gt;to varying degrees&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deacon&lt;/strong&gt; An ordained person in the order below priests.  Deacons cannot celebrate Mass or administer the sacrament of reconciliation (strictly speaking, they can hear your confession - but they can't do anything about it).  Deacons come in two flavors.  The permanent deaconate (people ordained specifically as helpers to the priests) and transitional deconate (seminarians ordained a few years before their eventual ordination to the priesthood)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Elder&lt;/strong&gt; Not a specifically Catholic term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bishop&lt;/strong&gt; The successors of the apostles who oversee their diocese or bishopric (in the Eastern Catholic churches). Together with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, they are the top of the Catholic hierarchy. They are the ones who can confirm with the Holy Spirit (or appoint priests to do so in their stead) and only they can ordain priests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Primate&lt;/em&gt; the Bishop of the first diocese in a nation (the primate of the U.S. is the archbishop of the diocese of Baltimore)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Archbishop&lt;/em&gt; a bishop of a larger diocese&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Cardinal&lt;/em&gt; a title, given by the pope generally to a bishop to serve as an elector of the next pope.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T18:35:56.717" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5607" CreationDate="2012-01-25T19:13:59.930" Score="13" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Symbolic meaning of the bread and wine&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JW's do not accept transubstantiation (the unyeasted bread means/symbolizes Jesus' perfect and sinless body and the wine represents his blood he sacrificed to save humankind from the sinful state inherited by Adam and to seal the second covenant). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical verses in the New World Translation (NWT), the translation JW's commonly use, also underline this symbolic meaning of the bread and wine. In Mt. 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20 and 1. Cor. 11:24-25 the NWT-committee translated the Greek verb 'estin' in these verses (literally: this 'is' my body; this 'is' my blood of the covenant) in a figurative way as 'means' (this 'means' my body, this 'means' my blood of the covenant).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wine and bread are thus clearly considered symbols or emblems. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question properly, one has to understand the basic tenets of JW's doctrine.&#xA;JW's believe that throughout the entire Christian history God has selected only 144,000 to go to heaven where they will rule as kings and priests together with Christ (See Rev. 7:1-8 and 14:1-5). According to JW's it is God's holy spirit who convinces the individual that they indeed belong to the anointed class and have a heavenly call (Rom. 8:16-17) . Only with them Jesus has entered into a second covenant (see e.g. Luke 22:29-30).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's Kingdom will however also rule over the earth, which will for ever be inhabited by a 'great crowd' of righteous ones/other sheep (JW's and non-JW's) which no man is able to number.  See John 10:16 and Rev. 7:9.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Partaking of the emblems: doctrinal restrictions&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only the ones who belong to the 144,000 anointed partake of the emblems (i.e. eat from the bread and drink from the wine). Thus they show they belong to the second covenant and are one with Christ. According to the Watchtower-doctrine, the anointed one is apparently under 'a command' to partake of the bread and wine (Gal. 6:16; Watchtower 1985, March 1, Question From Readers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in order to eat the bread and drink the wine in this day and age 'lawfully', you have to be (1) baptised as a Jehovah's witness, (2) 'in good standing', or at least not disfellowshipped and (3) believe you belong to the anointed class. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are only a few thousands among the JW's today who still believe they go to heaven, the other JW's  (&quot;great multitude of other sheep&quot;) believe they will live for ever on paradise earth. So the great majority of Jw's  do not drink from the cup of wine or eat the bread, but simply &quot;pass&quot; these emblems. Persons who are present at the memorial, but are no (baptised) JW's, are instructed not to partake of the emblems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most congregations of Jehovah's witnesses there are no anointed left, so the emblems are &quot;merely passed&quot; and left untouched.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bread and wine only enjoy a special symbolic meaning during the memorials 'ceremony'. The leftovers have no special meaning at all, are certainly not holy and can be eaten by anyone or simply discarded of (and are thys considered just any other food product). See e.g. Watchtower 1976, February 1, 88. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Partaking of the emblems: time restrictions&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The emblems are only passed once a year on 14th Nisan (last supper) and this in remembrance of Jesus and in accordance with his command (Luke 22:19 and 1 Kor. 11:20). &#xA;The emblems are only passed and taken by the anointed after sunset. So the exact time (hour) varies from place to place, but the memorial can only be held when the sun has set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only when an anointed person is ill and can't make it to the memorial or there is another valid reason for his or her absence, the emblems can be taken on another date than 14th Nisan (this is very rare, and I take it the emblem must then still be passed after sunset in a kind of a private &quot;ceremony&quot;). The anointed person could than partake of the emblems 30 days later than 14th Nisan (if possible). This is in accordance with the ancient laws of Israel when a man could not attend passover in case of 'force majeure'. See Numbers 9:10,11 and 2 Chron. 30:1-3, 15.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Partaking of the emblems: age restrictions&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The JW doctrine has undergone a substantial change recently. JW's believed since the 1930's that the number of anointed ones was &quot;sealed&quot;. This normally meant persons had to be baptised as a JW before the 1930's, if they claimed to be of the anointed class. Since JW's are not baptised as infants, but later when they are personally convinced that their religion is true, normally only persons who are born in 1920's or before could belong to the anointed. I say &quot;normally&quot; because in theory a younger person could belong to the anointed class if an older anointed person defected from the faith and the younger one fills in the place among the anointed that has become vacant (Rom. 11:17-22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JW's now (Watchtower 2007, May 1, Questions From Readers) believe, however, that the number was never sealed in the 1930's, so every baptised JW could claim to belong to the anointed class. &#xA;The only age limit is connected with the fact that the person has to be baptised. In theory an exceptional child which has sufficient understanding, say of 9 years old, could be baptised and thus partake of the emblems and claim an 'anointed' status. &#xA;Such a decision would likely be highly controversial and probably met with some skepticism among JW's (See in this light: Watchtower 2011, August 15, page 22: 'A number of factors including past religious beliefs or even mental, or emotional imbalance-might cause some to assume mistakenly that they have the heavenly calling. We thus have no way of knowing the exact number of anointed ones on earth; nor do we need to know.').&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't recall there are any special instructions how to deal with a minor anointed one who drinks the wine and might infringe on local (penal) laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Partaking of the emblems: formalities&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The red wine (e.g. chianti, bourgogne or bordeaux, but no sherry, port, dubonnet, ...) is poured out in a cup and the unyeasted bread leaves are laid down on a plate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jw's have given certain instructions about acceptable recipes, table decoration and flower arrangement (See e.g. Watchtower 1985, February 15, page 19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passing and partaking of the emblems (cup and plate) happen while you remain seated. So one does not &quot;go&quot; to communion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also means there has to be a person to your left and to your right (you accept the emblem from the person next to you and pass it to the other). For the person at the end of the row of the seats, there is no one seated to accept the emblem. This problem is solved by men who are standing at the end of a row of the chairs who accept the emblem and pass it to the next row of sitting persons. Somewhat peculiar is that these 'standing' men also take their seat afterwards and pass the emblems among them, this time while sitting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Note&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The memorial is the only time that the ones who partake of the emblems are counted: in that way the JW's organisation still keeps track of how many persons of the 144,000 anointed ones still remain alive today (therefore they are called the &quot;holy remnant&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Persons who are no (longer) faithful Jehovah's witnesses and still do partake, are considered not genuine partakers and are not counted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These figures are published every year, together with other statistics.&#xA;The anointed-statusdoes not have any other special effect (except that only anointed men are on the Governing Body) and the JW's now believe that the (exact) amount of anointed ones who remain, is no longer of particular interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1213" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-08-03T13:10:05.150" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T13:10:05.150" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2128" CreationDate="2012-01-25T20:16:28.127" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at these two verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then&#xA;  shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of&#xA;  man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  31 And he&#xA;  shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall&#xA;  gather together his elect from the four winds, &lt;strong&gt;from one end of heaven&#xA;  to the other&lt;/strong&gt;. (Matthew 24:30-31; KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also see the Amplified translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then&#xA;  all the tribes of the earth will mourn and beat their breasts and&#xA;  lament in anguish, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the&#xA;  clouds of heaven with power and great glory [in brilliancy and&#xA;  splendor].&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  31 And He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet&#xA;  call, and they will gather His elect (His chosen ones) from the four&#xA;  winds, [even] &lt;strong&gt;from one end of the universe to the other&lt;/strong&gt;. (Matthew&#xA;  24:30-31; Amplified)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T20:16:28.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5623" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5626" CreationDate="2012-01-25T20:16:42.900" Score="19" ViewCount="32553" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that some Protestant churches prohibit the use of musical instruments in their worship services.  What is the specific biblical basis for this practice, or, if there is no specific biblical basis, what is the principle behind this practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it an issue of mixing musical instruments with vocal music?  Can they have one or the other, but not both?  Which churches follow this teaching?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-05T00:44:32.753" LastActivityDate="2019-10-29T20:55:19.300" Title="What is the biblical basis for the prohibition of instruments in worship?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5624" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5628" CreationDate="2012-01-25T20:19:42.557" Score="8" ViewCount="6503" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that Jesus fulfills the three Jewish &quot;offices&quot; of Prophet, Priest, and King.  What is significant about this, and how specifically does or did Jesus fulfill those offices?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-05T18:10:56.477" LastActivityDate="2018-10-26T20:40:17.873" Title="How does Jesus fulfill the offices of Prophet, Priest and King?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5623" CreationDate="2012-01-25T21:22:07.693" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://church-of-christ.org/who.html#music&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt; gives a general idea about what some of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ&quot;&gt;Churches of Christ&lt;/a&gt; teach about music in worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As a result of the distinctive plea of the church - a return to New&#xA;  Testament Faith and practice - acappella singing is the only music&#xA;  used in the worship. This singing, unaccompanied by mechanical&#xA;  instruments of music, conforms to the music used in the apostolic&#xA;  church and for several centuries thereafter (Ephesians 5:19). It is&#xA;  felt that there is no authority for engaging in acts of worship not&#xA;  found in the New Testament. This principle eliminates the use of&#xA;  instrumental music, along with the use of candles, incense, and other&#xA;  similar elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been to a Church of Christ myself (my wife and I also got married at a Church of Christ). I asked the Pastor there about this. He said something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;We don't use musical instruments because the New Testament does not&#xA;  mention musical instruments. We are silent where the NT is silent and&#xA;  hence we don't use musical instruments.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than that, I don't see any other reason, Biblically, why some churches don't have musical instruments for worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastEditorUserId="1160" LastEditDate="2012-01-25T23:43:56.510" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T23:43:56.510" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5623" CreationDate="2012-01-25T22:28:03.960" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm familiar with a couple different schools of thought on this.  Doubtless there are others as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first comes from &lt;strong&gt;Greek Orthodox tradition&lt;/strong&gt;.  I can't really speak to it directly, but a quick google search &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthocuban.com/2009/07/why-do-the-orthodox-not-use-instruments-in-worship-part-01/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;turned up a result&lt;/a&gt; indicating that it might have more to do with history and wanting to separate themselves from pagan worship. But there's likely a lot more to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other is from the &lt;strong&gt;churches of Christ.&lt;/strong&gt; This side I can speak to at length. To understand this, you need to know something of their history. The churches of Christ descend trough the Restoration movement of the mid-1800s. This was a movement that strove to throw off all of the excess structure that had arisen over the years since the 1st century and restore 1st century-style worship. The primary means of achieving this goal was through a very careful and strict interpretation of scripture.  &quot;Innovations&quot; from known historical patterns of the first century should only be permitted when there is a clear case for them, shown either through direct command, example, or necessary inference.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;reason&lt;/em&gt; for the return to 1st century worship was a reaction to all divisions, and a desire to fulfill the Lord's prayer &quot;that they may all be one.&quot; It was a drive for unity, and &lt;em&gt;one part&lt;/em&gt; of this was to push away anything a true seeker might possibly see as contrary to scripture, and hold up only those things which meet an &lt;em&gt;exceptionally&lt;/em&gt; strict criteria for doctrinal purity (the other two parts are congregational independence/freedom and an strong emphasis on individual study). Don't knock the process too hard, as it met with some success... this is one of the few major groups to begin it's history as the result of a &lt;em&gt;merger&lt;/em&gt; of a few smaller groups, rather than as a split from a larger group, and was the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; group in existence at the time with a strong presence in both the North and the South to make it through the Civil War without dividing over the issue (sadly, this claim is the result of a prior study for which I no longer have a reference link).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There are four pieces that combine to contribute the general (not universal, but nearly so) use of a&amp;nbsp;cappella music among church of Christ congregations.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The first is a very strict interpretation on the silence of scripture.&lt;/strong&gt; I don't want to go into this at length, but you can read my answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3660/what-is-the-justification-for-relying-on-faith-healing-over-conventional-medicin/3661#3661&quot;&gt;this question on faith healing&lt;/a&gt; to get a vague idea on how it works. The upshot is we lack explicit &lt;em&gt;New Testament&lt;/em&gt; instructions or examples on the use of instruments (while singing or otherwise) in congregational worship &amp;mdash; scripture is silent here. However, we do have explicit instructions to sing. Because we have an explicit instruction about how to use music in worship, the silence in this case is prohibitive rather than permissive. This by itself is weak, but remember it's only part of the reasoning.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The second reason is participatory.&lt;/strong&gt; The command to sing praises is interpreted to mean that music in worship should include &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; as a participant... that if the music portion of your service consists mainly of just a few performers or even a choir, while the majority of the congregation is only listening (even if this is the &lt;em&gt;effect&lt;/em&gt; rather than the &lt;em&gt;intent&lt;/em&gt;), you're doing it wrong. The entire congregation should take part in producing the music. Instruments are seen as counter-productive to this effort, as history shows they have a tendency to take over and dominate the performance to the exclusion, rather than inclusion, of audience participation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A third reason is practical.&lt;/strong&gt; Successful use of a&amp;nbsp;cappella music in worship is something that takes a commitment. If you decide to just try out a&amp;nbsp;cappella music one week in service, or just do one a&amp;nbsp;cappella song in each service, you're likely to fail miserably if few of the participants have done this before. Therefore, as a practical matter the choice to use a&amp;nbsp;cappella music came down to an &quot;all or nothing&quot; approach, where those that use a&amp;nbsp;cappella music in worship tend to do so exclusively. If you see a commandment to sing as a congregation as something to take seriously, a commitment to frequent a&amp;nbsp;cappella worship is something to look at seriously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The final reason is historical.&lt;/strong&gt; Remember this group comes out of a movement whose goals were to restore 1st century worship styles. &lt;strong&gt;We do know from historical documents that the earliest Christians, without exception, did not use instruments in their worship. At all.&lt;/strong&gt; In fact, it's already the third century before we find examples of &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; instrumental accompaniment, and some sources place it as late as the sixth century.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; It's possible there were forces other than doctrine driving this, such as: limited funds, fear of persecution if louder instruments give away a secret service, or simply modeling congregational worship after Jewish synagogue worship (which also did not use instruments). However, the fact of the matter is that the historical record indicates a&amp;nbsp;cappella is the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Not my original source, but I recently came across this article that has more info on the historical sources, with lots of research references:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.housetohouse.com/HTHPubPage.aspx?pub=2&amp;amp;issue=663&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.housetohouse.com/HTHPubPage.aspx?pub=2&amp;amp;issue=663&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2019-10-29T20:53:44.307" LastActivityDate="2019-10-29T20:53:44.307" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5624" CreationDate="2012-01-25T23:58:46.870" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes Jesus did fulfill the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. It is important because it gives us a look on how he calls us to live out our lives.  In a &lt;strong&gt;Priestly&lt;/strong&gt; fashion we offer everything we do to God, Jesus' example is the Eucharist.  In a &lt;strong&gt;Prophetic&lt;/strong&gt; fashion we are called to proclaim God's good news to all the world in word and in our actions, one of Jesus' examples was preaching to the children.  In a &lt;strong&gt;Kingly&lt;/strong&gt; fashion we are called to master our passions, in the aspect that we are called to use our gifts and our talents for God and we are disgracing him by not using what he gave us, unfortunately I can't think of an example from Jesus at the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;..hope this helps!Sure am glad I took good notes in my Theology class for once! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1214" LastActivityDate="2012-01-25T23:58:46.870" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5624" CreationDate="2012-01-26T00:06:34.733" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prophet:&lt;/strong&gt; In the old testament a prophet was typically one that communed with God to get revelation for the Israelites and was head of the 'church.'&#xA;I.E. Moses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Christ was head of the church while he was here on earth and received all the revelation from God during that time and passed it on to the 12 apostles he then would have the title of prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King:&lt;/strong&gt; One of the reasons that Christ was actually rejected by the Jews was because the Messiah of the old testament was supposed to be &lt;code&gt;King of the Jews&lt;/code&gt; and come in Glory and overthrow those that oppressed the Israelite nation. Christ was (and is) the Messiah but the scriptures talked of 2 comings of the Messiah one in meekness (as the Son of Man) and one in Glory (his second coming see &lt;code&gt;Malachi 3,4&lt;/code&gt; Also see the whole book of Isaiah. Isaiah talks about both the first and second comings of the Lord and it can be confusing at times to know which he is talking about. Isaiah is also the one who most often refers to Christ as a King or descendant of kings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Referring to the fact that Jesus through His mother Mary and His adopted father Joseph He is descended from King David. The Jews, of course, were looking for a mighty descendant of David to overthrow the Roman rule of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Priest:&lt;/strong&gt; Priest has a lot of meanings depending on the denomination, but they often have duties to minister unto the members of a church. If you look at the life of Christ then it is easy to see that He fits this definition of a Priest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2018-10-26T20:40:17.873" LastActivityDate="2018-10-26T20:40:17.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5504" CreationDate="2012-01-26T04:37:03.533" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The below is pulled from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-3/lesson-1-the-godhead?lang=eng&quot;&gt;The Araonic Priesthood Manual 3: Lesson 1 The Godhead&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Firstborn Son of Heavenly Father in the spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Only Begotten Son of Heavenly Father in the flesh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Creator of heaven and earth under Heavenly Father’s direction.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Savior and Redeemer of mankind.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons believe we are all the spirit children of Heavenly Father, Jesus is our older brother in spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Kind of self explanatory&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the Godhead means 3 distinct Individuals, one of them was responsible for the physical creation of the earth. Going further on this point would be a whole different answer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is, as far as I know, the common denominator among all christian denominations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that is who the Mormons believe he is, as far as created, Mormons believe all spirits are created, thus given #1 above, Heavenly Father Created Jesus. I would like to note though that from what I have learned the definition of Created to a Mormon is a bit different than to many other christian groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as eternal, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/liahona/1992/04/life-is-eternal?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=spirits+eternal&quot;&gt;President Ezra Taft Benson&lt;/a&gt; 13th President of the LDS Church said &lt;code&gt;&quot;Life is eternal. We are eternal beings.&quot;&lt;/code&gt; If we are eternal then Jesus is Eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastEditorUserId="770" LastEditDate="2012-01-26T13:19:03.987" LastActivityDate="2012-01-26T13:19:03.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5630" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="28807" CreationDate="2012-01-26T11:17:45.590" Score="12" ViewCount="46321" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course, he could speak Hebrew and from such examples like preaching the gospel in Athens it seems that he had no problem speaking Greek. He also wanted to visit Rome, while there were no Jews living in Rome at that time, so does it mean that he could also speak Latin? Also he wanted to go to Spain. Does it mean that he could also speak Spanish? Was Spanish existent at that time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-01-26T11:56:47.757" LastActivityDate="2015-03-02T13:52:39.733" Title="How many languages did apostle Paul speak?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5630" CreationDate="2012-01-26T11:33:37.390" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that he spoke Greek, Hebrew, and maybe Latin. The Latin conjecture is based on the fact that he was Roman and the official language of Rome was Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proof text for Hebrew:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ &lt;em&gt;(Acts 26:14, ESV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proof text for Greek: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? &lt;em&gt;(Acts 21:37, ESV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-03-02T06:59:15.870" LastActivityDate="2015-03-02T06:59:15.870" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5633" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-26T18:15:41.793" Score="6" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems utterly superficial, but one of the most frequent methods of promulgating information about Christianity for fallen away folks or getting the word out to people who are teetering on the edge of this or that near occasion of sin is to give them a book. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes when I read a book, I have no trouble thinking of some poor sinner in my life who could benefit from it the same way this poor sinner did.  But when I hear that as advice on, say, a call in radio show,  I think it's a little lacking and doesn't do anything to actually fix the problem at hand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you bridge the gap between giving a person a book and letting them make the most of it and giving a person a book with the expectation that it will do some good?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm seeking an answer akin to what one might be taught in a class on evangelization at a seminary, not just friendly advice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T19:37:24.157" LastActivityDate="2015-05-21T20:50:05.880" Title="How to conduct missionary work through literature" Tags="&lt;books&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-05-23T05:34:07.803" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2128" CreationDate="2012-01-27T05:06:55.847" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adding to what previous posters have said, the Bible was written in a cultural and historical context where the concept of life outside our world wouldn't have been understood. Speaking about this would have caused confusion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, what we can do is apply what the Bible says to our situation. It follows from Psalm 139:8 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the&#xA;  depths, you are there&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that wherever we are God is always there, and always aware of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1220" LastActivityDate="2012-01-27T05:06:55.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5633" CreationDate="2012-01-27T05:19:26.743" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Albeit that the question is a little unclear as mentioned, I can still hopefully offer some thoughts for the heart of what you asked:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How do you bridge the gap between giving a person a book and letting them make the most of it &gt;and giving a person a book with the expectation that it will do some good?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian writing today is not the same as the Bible, in many ways. However, that is not to say that it is not inspired by God. Luke 12:11-12 reminds us that the spirit speaks through us to encourage and spur on one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how &gt;you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at &gt;that time what you should say.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the God's message has been already revealed in its complete fullness through the Bible. Christian writing today is useful for explaining, analysing and promulgating the gospel message, but not for adding to it. For this reason, books have their limits. For this reason, we can't hold the expectation that through reading books, a person will be made aware of their shortcomings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My belief is that the frame of mind when giving someone a book should be that it will aid them in their understanding and reading of the scripture- a kind of 'Cliff's Notes' on the bible, and that through this reading, they won't be swayed by the powerful writing or deep arguments, but by the power of God working through the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, when giving someone a book, you do it not as an act to hope that they will 'make the most of it', but that it will help them in their understanding of the only book that saves, the Bible. (As with everything, praying also helps).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1220" LastActivityDate="2012-01-27T05:19:26.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5640" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-27T11:05:40.113" Score="2" ViewCount="1364" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading Acts and I came across Acts 2:15 which reads &quot;These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning!&quot;(NIV, 1984).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I realized that in the Apostolic times,  they did not use the a.m. and p.m. way of time telling. So, after a brief search, I found that in early translations, it is &quot;For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day&quot; (KJB, Cambridge ed.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know we live by grace and anything we do which is not of faith is a sin. I like using the old way of time telling. But when I communicate, I try to be helpful in order not to confuse people and use the am, pm time. I think this old timing is the standard in countries like Ethiopia and some Greek, Indian and Russian churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1221" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-12-26T19:02:01.510" LastActivityDate="2013-12-26T19:11:06.780" Title="What conventions did the Jews use to express time in Jesus' day?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5640" CreationDate="2012-01-27T12:12:11.667" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The NIV has simply translated the Jewish reckoning into a time that moderns would understand more readily. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Briefly, hours were reckoned from sunrise - the third hour of the day would be about three hours after sunrise.   Depending on the time of year, that is usually around 9 or 10am in the morning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the concerns about translating units, one should realize there is nothing sacred about the units.  Translating units is merely a helpful aid to the reader who is otherwise unaccustomed to the system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be the equivalent of going from the German &lt;em&gt;Er fahrt funf kilometer&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;em&gt;He drove three miles&lt;/em&gt;. Literally, the sentence says 5km, but in changing units as well, the reader gains more clarity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is nothing any more sacred about units in which a thing is measured than in the sylables with which a word is pronounced. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who are baptized in the name of Jesu, Yeshua, iousous (Greek), or &quot;der Herr&quot; are not going to Hell because the syllables G and sus were not uttered. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike Islam, Christianity does not believe there is anything sacred about original languages. Units of measure would be no different- whilest the KJV will speak of homers and ephaths, modern translations are totally okay with kilos and liters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(As an American, however, quarts are clearly holier than liters. How else do you explain our refusal to do what everyone else is doing!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-12-26T19:11:06.780" LastActivityDate="2013-12-26T19:11:06.780" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5640" CreationDate="2012-01-27T12:18:55.813" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that your question trouble your soul. Understanding Christianity is never an easy business, on the contrary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity there is what is important, and what is less important. The Gospel message is what is the most important:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We were created by God to enjoy a relationship with him&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam sinned and plunged humanity under the wrath of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God reestablish the relationship through Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Grace is given to those who accept his gift&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ is coming again not as a servant, but as a savior&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These five points would be a brief summary of the core of the Gospel. There is a lot of discussion about what is the Gospel in our time: &lt;code&gt;What is the Gospel&lt;/code&gt; by Greg Gilbert, I think MacArthur &lt;code&gt;Ashamed of the Gospel&lt;/code&gt; would touch the subject, also on the web the The Gospel Coalition has many &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/category/articles/a#ByTopic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;articles on salvation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That beeing said, using the ancient terminology or our current time description is, in my view an amoral decision. Use the terminology that people around you will understand. When Paul preached in Athens (Acts 17), he used the Greek philosophy to start where his audience was. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The seasons fall under the same type of discussion, it is a question of preference. On less your salvation comes from your ability to follow any type of law. As shown in the verses below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Galatian 4.9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ga 4:9–11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;After reading the moderator comments I'll try to be more specific on how I believe my answer ties in with the questions. Here are the question asked in the post:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Which timing is correct/Scriptural?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  The way we speak of timing is not a moral issue, and not a Gospel issue. Therefore I would argue to use the language people around you would understand. Is is more a practical issue then a theological issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Changing the times and seasons rings a bell in my mind but I do not remember which verse. When the Anti-Christ comes doesn't he change the time, etc?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Without a precise context that question is very ambiguous. Time can be understood in different ways in this questions. 1. Time, has the way we live (a technological time/age) 2. Time a the way we understand the history. Changing what we believed happened in the past. (The second world war, did not carry the genocide of the Jews).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I would find hard to say the the Anti-Christ would use a calender over another. I do not remember that in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Which calendar should I use?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;The one people would understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it Scriptural if I worship by truth and in spirit alone, independent of time keeping, etc?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;This verse his saying more the way the way we are to worship then on time keeping. Here is my two exegetical cents:&#xA;Seek the truth of God, get to know him who is spirit. So worship in is minimal sens is what consume the most of your toughs. So if you want to worship in truth and spirit. Seek that knowing, loving God be your default mode (what you do when you are idle). And by that you well be worshiping in truth and spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="1168" LastEditDate="2012-01-30T12:07:25.633" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T12:07:25.633" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5643" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5644" CreationDate="2012-01-27T12:22:00.563" Score="4" ViewCount="2648" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is believing in the sovereignty of God the same as fatalism?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fatalism teaches that fate will arrive no matter what you do. And Christians believe that God is in Heaven and does what he wants. Are the two different? How? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="361" LastEditDate="2012-01-29T16:39:37.300" LastActivityDate="2017-09-28T19:20:44.977" Title="Christianity and Fatalism" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;fate&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5643" CreationDate="2012-01-27T13:40:44.570" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is &quot;no. it's not fatalism&quot; for most Christians. Most traditions believe and teach that God gave us free will. Without free will, there could be no such things as faith.  Without free will, there could be no good or evil.  Without free will, there'd have been no reason for Joshua 24:15, for example.  We'dsimply be programmed, mindless automatons going through the motions of life.  This would be fatalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that God knows what we will do does not negate the fact that we have a choice.  For example, I know right now that if I tell my kids to go clean their rooms, they will resist.  I can predict with a high degree of accuracy what each will say, and exactly how they will resist.  I'm not making them react a certain way, I just know from experience.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, of course, knows with 100% accuracy what we will do.  This still doesn't mean we don't choose to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of fatalism suggests that we throw up our hands and just let what happens happen, because it's going to happen anyway.  If this were what God intended, entire swaths of Scripture would have to be removed.  And command to obey, repent, any statement that God loves a humble heart and obedience would be rendered meaningless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joshua 24:15 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;  And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which&#xA;  your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the&#xA;  gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my&#xA;  house, we will serve the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-01-28T04:04:57.363" LastActivityDate="2012-01-28T04:04:57.363" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5645" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-27T14:15:38.487" Score="25" ViewCount="51467" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 2, it makes it clear that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod and was a young child when Herod died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great&quot;&gt;Herod&lt;/a&gt; died in 4 BC, so we know that Jesus must have been born in 4 BC or shortly beforehand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 2, it is made clear that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. ...&#xA;  He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius&quot;&gt;Quirinius&lt;/a&gt; became governor of Syria and performed his census in 6 AD. From this we know that Jesus must have been born in 6 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is a nine year discrepancy between the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Matthew and the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Luke&lt;/strong&gt;. How can these two accounts be reconciled?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user247" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T21:42:26.360" LastActivityDate="2020-04-16T09:38:11.220" Title="How could Jesus be born during the reign of Herod, and when Quirinius was governor of Syria, if those periods were not contemporary?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5646" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-27T14:31:58.380" Score="6" ViewCount="372" Body="&lt;p&gt;I asked &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2/what-is-the-basis-for-sola-scriptura&quot;&gt;this question on Sola Scriptura&lt;/a&gt; a few months ago and got the answer that denied my premise that Sola Scriptura is about private interpretation.  Unfortunately, I didn't get a good reason as to why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I think Sola Scriptura, meaning the Bible is the entire deposit of revelation, necessitates private interpretation is because the Traditions of the Catholic Church are held as cursory, if not just wrong, under it.  Therefore, in Protestantism, any doctrine or dogma as it relates to the Bible lives and dies with the one who reads it and discovers it.  Even if that person starts a movement, followers of that person (Lutherans, Calvinists etc...) are under no obligation to adhere to the doctrines promulgated by the leaders of their traditions or if they can't find them in the Bible themselves then they'll up and leave.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, to say they just pick up a bible and ask if something is biblical regardless of precedent would be perhaps overstating the truth, but the difference between Catholic Tradition and Protestant precedent is the difference between an American judge following a Supreme Court ruling (binding over the entire nation) and taking under advisement a UN Resolution (binding to only those who acknowledge it as law, i.e. no one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what I'm asking is, does any part of Sola Scriptura, as Protestants believe, allow for a biblical dogma to be defined definitively like Hell or Judgement or the Blessed Trinity, or does every young Protestant get to craft in their own mind their conception of Hell and Judgement and the Blessed Trinity based on their own reading of the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-01-27T17:04:14.607" Title="Does Sola Scriptura go hand in hand with personal interpretation?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;sola-scriptura&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5645" CreationDate="2012-01-27T14:43:22.573" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a fairly common question, and there is a very good answer.  A detailed answer can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  These are some of the highlights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that Luke mentions that the census to which he is referring is the &lt;strong&gt;first&lt;/strong&gt; census taken while Quirinius was governing.  This seems to indicate that at the time of writing, the readers would need to distinguish between multiple censuses.  Luke specifies that this was the first one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the term used for the ruling of Quirinius in Luke is not specific to a certain position.  So, it's quite possible that he held one position at first and then was promoted to the specific position of governor and performed a census then as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, linking the census mentioned by Josephus to this first census that took place when Quirinius was in a position of governing is uncertain at best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being 2,000 years removed from this, our historical data and understanding are certainly not what they would have been to first century readers of Luke's account.  It is doubtful that Luke would have created such a glaring inconsistency, and if there were one, the readers of that day would surely have raised objection to it and discounted the narrative.  Indeed, there were many in that day who would have loved to expose Christianity as false, if given the chance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, there is ample evidence to resolve this apparent discrepency when we pull back from the assumption that there was only one census that must be connected between Josephus and Luke, and we also understand that Luke does not specify a particular position in mentioning the governance of Quirinius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-01-27T14:53:58.080" LastActivityDate="2012-01-27T14:53:58.080" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5643" CreationDate="2012-01-27T16:16:08.740" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The closest concept that would apply to fatalism would be predestination.  A strict predestination &lt;em&gt;ante previsa merita&lt;/em&gt; says that God has chosen who will be saved, even before the foundation of the world, without regard to what you will or will not do in your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the most strict adherents to unconditional election, however, would point out that you don't know if you were chosen by God to be saved or not.  And, as such, we should live as if we already were saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2017-09-28T19:20:44.977" LastActivityDate="2017-09-28T19:20:44.977" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5646" CreationDate="2012-01-27T17:04:14.607" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, your basic premise is spot on.  As a lifelong evangelical, my biggest gripe with evangelicalism is that we either dismiss or declare heretical anything that is based on &quot;Tradition,&quot; ignoring the fact that all readers of Scripture do so with a tradition in mind.  Any theological framework (rapture? trinity? the words don't appear in Scripture!) frames the way that a passage is read, which in turn heavily affects the outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, Isaiah 7:14 is clearly read as a prophecy of Jesus - and the Gospels reinforce that it should. And yet, the context clearly states that it was supposed to be fulfilled immediately.  But, because of tradition, even the Gospel writers also &quot;knew&quot; this was supposed to speak of the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another example, every time a true &quot;Fire and Brimstone&quot; sermon is preached, the fires of hell are quite warm. And yet, the biblical warrant of Hell is limited at best.  (I'm not saying Hell doesn't exist - quite the contrary - but find it in your Bible, you may be surprised how little the Bible talks about it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in both of these instances, I suggest that the &quot;personal interpretation&quot; is, regardless of what the person may want, heavily guided by a tradition.  What differs are two main points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Protestant explicitly rejects the Magisterium.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While they don't voice this, to many Protestants, the Pope is still selling indulgences and banning people from reading the Bible for themselves.  This is patently false, but it informs the worldview.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, the typical Protestant exercise in interpreting scripture is to try to analyze it in a vacuum, trying to get back to &quot;the first church,&quot; (never mind that even the first churches had their own problems - see Corinth, Ephesus - Rev 2, etc...)  This tradition causes the believer to ask &quot;What would this have meant if X had not been the historical interpretation&quot; which colors the analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was promulgated precisely to fight against this excess.  Traditionally, Protestants think &quot;the priesthood of all believers&quot; means that there is no need for a priest.  Go back to the original doctrine, however, and you'll see that what was meant was that every believer would serve as a priest to everyone else.  Private Interpretation was regularly denounced by Calvin and Luther, precisely because of the bad interpretation that could result.  The priesthood was supposed to be the corrective precisely to private interpretation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, however, that hasn't worked out terribly well.  The marriage of philosophy and theology and the opening of seminaries to a much wider audience has been the new tradition in which Scripture is read.  It has become traditional to refer to theologians like Ryrie, Scofield, Lewis, LaHaye, etc... instead of the Magisterium, but in the end, we've really gotten back to just having a separate tradition that we cite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A sizeable number of Protestants would argue that the &lt;em&gt;Left Behind&lt;/em&gt; books are built on the exact timeline of the end times &quot;based on Revelations.&quot;  Mind you, they can't get more specific than that (because it ain't there folks!), but we have that timeline in our heads and accept it as dogma for all practical purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We'd also say that the Four Spiritual Laws are effectively dogma. Each point in the 4 Spritual Laws has scriptural warrant, yes - but the notion that &quot;this is what it means to be saved&quot; is tradition, not scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question another way, no you can't define something as dogma strictly by tradition, but you can effectively arrive at the same result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-27T17:04:14.607" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5650" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-27T17:40:09.073" Score="5" ViewCount="1973" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there anything in scripture (or even private revelation to the saints) which says that near the end of the world, the world as a whole will come to accept abortion as morally acceptable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-10-15T20:38:44.123" Title="Abortion and Biblical End Times Prophecy" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;abortion&gt;&lt;signs-of-the-times&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-01-08T01:35:49.133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5650" CreationDate="2012-01-27T19:42:17.503" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nothing specific to abortion, although I wouldn't expect there to be. 2 Timothy 3:1-7 gives us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt; 1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which generally points to people being disobedient, which is probably the closest you'll find. The problem, though, is that people have &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; been disobedient and rebellious. Before deciding the above fits &quot;today&quot;, first try to find a point in history where it &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;wouldn't fit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. And indeed, much of this comes down to simply different ethics (meaning: bemoaning people who don't abide the church's edicts) . Moving away from abortion (too divisive to have a constructive discussion), while &quot;modern&quot; values may sometimes seem at odds with Christianity, I for one thinks today's society is heading in a positive direction, not a negative one, with a lot of emphasis on equality and the value of all humans, even (tongue in cheek) those that don't profess and follow Christian beliefs. And even those that do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, looking at Luke 21 10-11, 25-26 - we have &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; been at the mercy of nature. The difference now is that we have much better reporting, measurement and awareness (including awareness of our own harm on the world).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a more personal note, I don't think obsessing about end of the world prophecy is healthy in a culture. I'd much rather we all got on with living our lives in accordance with our values, and to the greater communal (local and international) good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: no, and no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-01-27T19:47:27.210" LastActivityDate="2012-01-27T19:47:27.210" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5645" CreationDate="2012-01-27T21:32:41.520" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Herod probably died in the year 4.  That date is corroborated by an eclipse of the moon which occurred on the very night that Herod burnt Matthias alive (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-17.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVII, vi, 4&lt;/a&gt;), a few days before his own death; for there was an eclipse of the moon from &lt;a href=&quot;http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JLEX/JLEX-AS.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;12 March to 13 March, 4 B.C&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that leaves Luke in error, because we know that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria, and that a census was made in A.D. 7.  We can read in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=IEsfAQAAMAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA736&amp;amp;lpg=PA736&amp;amp;dq=Chronology%20in%20Cheyne%27s%20Encyclopedia%20any%20census%20in%20Judea%20before%20the%20well-known%20one%20in%20the%20year%20A.D.%207%20is%20impossible&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=-MiOLo1iAs&amp;amp;sig=mcNRFW_Yu5xM-pktu1G3qYRPv8U&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=exYjT9G6HdOC0QGNna3MCA&amp;amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=any%20census%20in%20Judea%20before%20the%20well-known%20one%20in%20the%20year%20A.D.%207%20is%20impossible&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chronology in Cheyne's Encyclopedia pg 736&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;any census in Judea before the well-known one in the year A.D. 7 is impossible&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can these be reconciled?  They cannot.  Yeshua Ben Yosef probably was not born in Bethlehem because of a census or not before &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents#Historicity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the murder of the innocents&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  However he was born in Bethlehem as there are many accounts, Christian or not.  Even the Quran hints to it.  Matthew and Luke are the only two books describing the nativity and the importance of his birth at the time is was not as important as it is now - to Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may want to read, Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Sanders discusses both birth narratives in detail, contrasts them, and judges them not historical on p. 85–88.  Specifically: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Sanders' considers Luke's census, in which everyone returned to his&#xA;  ancestral home, as not historically credible given that Emperor&#xA;  Augustus, known for being rational, would not have uprooted everyone&#xA;  in the Empire by forcing them to return to their ancestral cities and&#xA;  that people were not able to trace their own lineages back forty-two&#xA;  generations.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-28T01:20:30.513" LastActivityDate="2012-01-28T01:20:30.513" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5653" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5662" CreationDate="2012-01-28T02:54:11.430" Score="5" ViewCount="2084" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is somewhat related to another about whether &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4239/914&quot;&gt;Catholics are allowed to read the NIV&lt;/a&gt;.  But my question is broader: is there an English translation that most church authorities accept?  I would like to find a translation that won't offend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Catholic Christians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eastern Orthodox Christians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most Protestant Christians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm largely familiar with Protestantism and I know that you can't please all of us all of the time, so I'm most concerned with the first two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm prompted to ask this question from a paragraph in the Preface to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofjob.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; that states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have elected to use the &lt;em&gt;New Revised Standard Version of the Bible&lt;/em&gt; throughout this work. It is the only translation that is universally accepted by all three branches of the Christian faith: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that true?  He gives no source and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; indicates that all three branches have serious reservations about the translation.  Would any other translation fit the bill?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T19:05:08.243" Title="Is there an English translation of the Bible that is accepted by most Christians?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;ecumenism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5653" CreationDate="2012-01-28T03:03:53.473" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Annotated_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Oxford Bible with Apocraphya&lt;/a&gt; is one I've seen in Protestant and Catholic seminaries alike. It's NRSV, a fairly scholarly translation, although amongst conservative evangelicals, it's considered a little bit more liberal than the ESV. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I just don't have any knowledge about Orthodox views on that translation however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-01-29T17:01:03.933" LastActivityDate="2012-01-29T17:01:03.933" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4279" CreationDate="2012-01-28T10:26:29.120" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I think people don't get is that Jesus wasn't saying these things to us.  Matthew 24:1 makes it obvious that Jesus was talking to his disciples.  &quot;Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said &quot;&lt;strong&gt;You&lt;/strong&gt; will hear of wars and rumors of wars..&quot;.  Not, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;People in the future&lt;/strong&gt; will hear of wars and rumors of wars..&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is consistent with Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32, which states quite simply that this would all happen in their generation (The first century) which was a long time ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believe it or not,... that is what the bible says.  Check it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1114" LastEditorUserId="1114" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T12:15:01.880" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T12:15:01.880" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5656" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-28T10:50:44.490" Score="8" ViewCount="2108" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me first explain my understanding of these words (punishment &amp;amp; revenge):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Punishment is typically when you do something to one person to &lt;strong&gt;make things better for society, or for that person&lt;/strong&gt;.  It is either something unpleasant, so that the person will not want to do the bad thing, because they know the punishment is there, or they do the crime, but because of the punishment (death penalty / chopping off someone’s arm / being locked away) they cannot do the crime again or will think twice before doing it again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Punishment, in theory, &lt;strong&gt;serves the majority of people&lt;/strong&gt;.  It is a &lt;strong&gt;good thing&lt;/strong&gt;.  It has &lt;strong&gt;positive benefits to most people&lt;/strong&gt; (negative to one person – the crime committer – temporarily to &lt;strong&gt;solve a social problem&lt;/strong&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revenge is completely different.  That is when you cannot control your anger and hurt someone because they hurt you.  No positive benefit, other than making the angry person feel better.  It is, as I understand it, all about &lt;strong&gt;emotions&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 12:19: “It is mine to avenge, I will repay, says the Lord”.  Hell does not seem like punishment, it seems like revenge.  This makes no sense, given the &quot;good&quot; and &quot;just&quot; descriptions of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, based on the above, what is God, who is good and just, intending by sending people to hell:  to punish, or to take revenge?  Please include a logical explanation with your answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been asked to define what I understand as &quot;hell&quot;, and the doctrinal context that I want this answered in, so here's my attempt to do that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand hell to be a place of eternal suffering that God created, where He sends people who do not believe in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what I understand to be the typical protestant view of hell, as described in the bible.  If you have a different view, then you may not be the best person to answer this question, because I really want an answer from those who believe this point of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also like all answers to include some kind of reference, if their source is not simply logic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1114" LastEditorUserId="1114" LastEditDate="2012-01-30T20:30:45.063" LastActivityDate="2014-07-06T17:19:13.807" Title="Which is hell: punishment, or revenge?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-11-12T13:43:21.647" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5656" CreationDate="2012-01-28T11:44:01.643" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Neither. Both if these options are built around a human centered view of justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, God isn't working under the same constraints as we would be and he has other purposes in mind. It still comes down to justice, but not quite the same kind of justice that would be metered out on a court on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here on earth, our purposes in &quot;punishment&quot; are usually either corrective or protective. Some punishments are given to try to convince the wrongdoer that &quot;crime doesn't pay&quot;. Others guard against future harm, sometimes at the expense of giving the offender any more chances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in human terms, &quot;revenge&quot; is in some way trying to regain something that was lost whether possessions or honor, or at least restore a balance between victim and perpetrator but reversing the crime and setting the original perpetrator back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's judgement against sin is not quite either of these things. The nature of His person is not such that he has lost anything that would need to be restored and he is certainly not trying to hurt somebody else the way he was hurt just to get even.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand all of our ideas in this are in some way just echos of something more real and true; our ideas of &quot;punishment&quot; are but a memory destroyed by our own sin of what God's idea of punishment is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hell is a just punishment for the crime humanity has committed. In eternally damning some humans to there, God is doing the only just thing. He is also giving men just what he asked for. In his pride man set himself up as god apart from God, and in sin he continues to demand his independence from God. Being permanently cut off from Him is just the logical extension of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time there is an element of vengeance in it. God is extracting from the rebels everything they tried to steel from Him. He is demonstrating for all eternity that HE is Lord, there is no other, and that he will not tolerate evil. Never will it be said of Him that he let the wicked prosper unjustly. While human revenge is unjust, God eradicating evil is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-07T22:27:07.630" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T22:27:07.630" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5660" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5661" CreationDate="2012-01-29T00:30:34.443" Score="4" ViewCount="690" Body="&lt;p&gt;Isaiah refers several times to a &amp;quot;highway&amp;quot; that will be built.  Particularly, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2035:8-10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 35:8-10 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; he writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A highway will be there, a roadway,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it will be called the Highway of Holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The unclean will not travel on it,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it will be for him who walks that way,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And fools will not wander on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No lion will be there,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nor will any vicious beast go up on it;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These will not be found there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the redeemed will walk there,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the ransomed of the LORD will return&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And come with joyful shouting to Zion,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With everlasting joy upon their heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They will find gladness and joy,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And sorrow and sighing will flee away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commentary I'm reading assumed that this was a literal highway, but it seems like it could be a metaphor for Jesus, or perhaps Christianity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.&amp;quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:6 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this view supported by any scholarly work, and would a figurative interpretation of the highway fit poorly with other references to the highway by Isaiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-01-06T00:00:44.210" Title="Is the highway mentioned in Isaiah a literal highway?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-08T01:37:41.320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5660" CreationDate="2012-01-29T00:41:02.840" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Baptist perspective&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We studied this in our Sunday School. In our studies we also assume it is a literal highway, that will exist but it is *also a figurative &quot;picture&quot; for walking with Christ in salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture contains many passages that are both literal and metaphorical. I'll stop at one example, though there are many: The priests in the Old Testament literally sacrificed animals, and we believe that these served both as a &lt;em&gt;temporary&lt;/em&gt; covering for sin in O.T. times, but they were also a picture (or preview) of the coming Savior and the sacrifice He would ultimately make.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-01-29T17:08:24.123" LastActivityDate="2012-01-29T17:08:24.123" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5653" CreationDate="2012-01-29T20:04:43.220" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main problem with the NRSV is its attempt at using gender inclusive language when possible, although it is more conservative in this regard than some versions. Otherwise, it is a very scholarly translation that is more literal than some, but still has a good English style. It is available in Catholic editions with all 72 books in the traditional order, as well as Protestant editions, with or without the Apocrypha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original RSV also comes in Protestant and Catholic editions, and does not have the issue of gender inclusive language. It does use &quot;thee&quot; and &quot;thou&quot; etc. in prayers, which some people like, and others hate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My impression in dealings with some Eastern Orthodox is that there is no English translation that entirely lives up to their standards. They would like a translation of the Old Testament taken from the Greek Septuagint, which they consider the Christian version of the OT since it was the most common version used in the early Church. All English Bibles that I know of that are in use today come primarily from the Hebrew OT. The Orthodox Study Bible is based on the New King James Version, with an attempt to change the Old Testament where it contradicted the Septuagint. Also, the Septuagint books that are missing from the Protestant Bible were also added. My understanding is that some Orthodox are not satisfied with the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Twelve years ago I attended a Bible study led by the Orthodox Bishop of Dallas, Abp Dmitri, and he used the RSV. This was before the Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament was available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastActivityDate="2012-01-29T20:04:43.220" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5630" CreationDate="2012-01-29T20:34:02.323" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Paul's day, Greek was still widely used in Rome, so knowledge of Latin was not crucial. Besides Hebrew and Greek, he most likely spoke Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="111" LastEditorUserId="111" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T15:34:21.580" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T15:34:21.580" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5666" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5668" CreationDate="2012-01-30T12:37:05.567" Score="5" ViewCount="647" Body="&lt;p&gt;I live in a very atheistic land. People hate religion because the main religion in my province has abused the people. Thus sometimes when I speak to friends and coworkers I present Hell as follows. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have been designed to love (worship) God and find our joy in Him. Heaven is where we get to love Him perfectly and enjoy Him perfectly. But a non-believer does not want to love God or enjoy Him. The non-believer wants to be God for himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if heaven is the place where God is at the center and all our attention is turned towards Him, it would go against the desire of the unbeliever's heart for God to send him to heaven. So if a person goes through life rejecting God, Hell is the place where God does not intervene (no common grace). &lt;strong&gt;Then does God offer the object of desire of the rebel heart?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I understand that Hell is a punishment, but does this explanation of Hell fit with the biblical teaching?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-10-22T18:31:02.977" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T00:11:58.553" Title="Could Hell be seen as a reward?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;practice&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-01-06T15:01:19.450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5666" CreationDate="2012-01-30T13:32:37.783" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Christian definition notion of hell itself already assumes in itself a belief in the Christian doctrines. As such, most atheists have exactly zero fear of hell, and it is considered merely an invention, typically either of fear or of control (depending on who you ask). As such, it isn't the atheists desire to exist in an afterlife without God - simply the entire notion of the afterlife is rejected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in answer: no, it would not be a &quot;reward&quot;; the mere fact of existing and have been wrong would be enough to make it miserable, even before the torment. But as I stress, atheists (and I include myself in this very completely) have no fears over this hell, or any other by any other religion. For example, I assume most Christians do not fear the hell of Jaunism, Taoism or Zoroastrianism. The atheist merely fears one less hell than most believers. To emphasise: it is not the desire of the atheist to endure an afterlife without God; the afterlife itself is unwanted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the atheist expects is simple: to cease to be, on the event of expiration on this world. It doesn't relate to the question, but a common follow-on question to this is &quot;but if there is no afterlife, what reason is there to be ethical in this world?&quot; to which the answer is simple: &quot;there is just this world; and that by itself is &lt;em&gt;plenty of reason&lt;/em&gt; to be ethical and face the consequences of our actions &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in this world&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that we share&quot;. Which usually works out pretty well for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if some God is truly fair to all, but ironic, they'll scupper everyone, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ha18O1dAI#t=0m41s&quot;&gt;as proposed by David Mitchell&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-01-30T13:45:02.710" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T13:45:02.710" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5666" CreationDate="2012-01-30T15:29:02.773" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Spirit of God is &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; that will make eternal life worthwhile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the full glory of God will be revealed to everyone at the time of judgement. Hell is torture because it is complete and utter separation from God, nothing more, nothing less. This will be torture for unbelievers and anti-believers because they will first have been shown &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; what it is they've spurned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2013-01-11T04:06:27.947" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T04:06:27.947" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5656" CreationDate="2012-01-30T16:42:33.373" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are a wheat farmer, and weed appears in your field, you uproot and destroy it. Do you do it as a punishment, or do you do it out of revenge?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not saying that my example above describes the final judgment, it's just an example that there might be alternatives to punishment and revenge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T16:42:33.373" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5044" CreationDate="2012-01-30T18:35:31.173" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11534a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;passion&lt;/a&gt;, passions themselves are neither good nor bad - they are simply an appetite that propels man towards a given end.  The desire to &quot;be like God&quot; is in and of itself, not a bad thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Passion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is not that Adam and Eve had a perverted passion, but rather that their passions were manipulated to be out of the means which God had proscribed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you've really pointed out then, is that you can do the right thing in the wrong way, and run contrary to Divine Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Temptation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 1:14 is clear that temptation may begin with a passion, but it is a twisted passion.  This temptation by itself is not sin - the same verse goes on to say that this desire conceives, and the child of desire is sin.  Desire here is an evil desire, or an evil passion.  Conception is what sounds like - it is the result of a passion being joined with  something to form a new thing - sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;natural law&lt;/a&gt; states that when temptation is joined with the choice to act, then it will give birth to sin - hence the free will aspect.  The natural law dictates that temptation unleashed gives birth to sin - our proclivity is to turn temptation into something tangible.  What that is leads to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Divine Law&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Adam and Eve, they fell into the temptation of taking the easy road to Godhood, rather than following the proscribed path.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Divine Law&lt;/a&gt; (aka God's revealed plan) specifically said that this was the wrong road.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their passion was right, but they followed a natural law that leads to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Another way of expressing this&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, you and I (and by extension I mean orthodox Roman Catholic understandings and the effective position of many Protestants) hold abortion to be murder. Thus, we have a passion to stop it.  One could achieve that end by murdering an abortion doctor. From a purely utilitarian viewpoint, one might possibly be able to even justify that action, suggesting that the murder of 1 makes up for the murder of hundreds. The &quot;problem&quot; is, Divine Law says, &quot;Thou shalt not kill.&quot;  The murder of an abortion doctor is thus wrong in any case (except for an actual &quot;just war&quot; which is always the case where killing is acceptable, in regards to theology.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, we can have a correctly guided passion set against a divine law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even a correct passion, incorrectly followed, is a transgression of divine law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of all of this is simple - your passion isn't the problem, your action is. The natural law can compel you to do anything - it is the Divine law that must be followed. Adam and Eve chose to weigh their passion over Divine Law, and thus fell into the consequences of natural law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God says its Red, its Red, even if it looks green*.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*(You know, if you're travelling at 75% the speed of light, red can look green - true physics!)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-30T18:42:00.823" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T18:42:00.823" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5672" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5675" CreationDate="2012-01-30T18:46:54.307" Score="16" ViewCount="4771" Body="&lt;p&gt;This weekend my son and I participated in our Scouting council's annual Ten Commandments hike in which we walked to 10 different churches and heard a short talk on each of the 10 commandments from Exodus 20. The lone Catholic church on our route (churches were largely represented based on proximity, not theology) was assigned the following passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth.&amp;mdash;Exodus 20:4 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/bible/ten_commandments.php&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NJB&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(My very first problem in researching this question is that, while this was labeled the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4561/914&quot;&gt;second commandment&lt;/a&gt; by the organizer of the hike, it's the second half of the first &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/502/914&quot;&gt;according to Catholic tradition&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems we had some bad luck since the priest who was representing the Catholic position did not do a very good job of explaining idolatry to us. He mostly explained that the stained-glass windows (which were not unusual in the other churches we visited) and the statues (which were absolutely unique to that church) were not worshiped. Rather they were to be a reminder of the great saints of the past, their deeds, and that we could ask them to pray for us as we might ask a friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The particular difficulty I'd like to resolve in my own mind is why Catholic churches use statues, which are carved, rather than flat images. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon#Theology&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Orthodox church&lt;/a&gt; specifically uses icons in order to avoid idolatry. Stained glass, for better or worse, has become a nearly universally accepted church decoration. To me, either of these art forms go a long way to helping remind us (and especially visual learners) the deeds of the saints without risking they will be worshiped. So what is the Catholic reasoning for including carved statues in places of worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; It occurs to me that if I'd asked the question a month or so ago, I would have been confronted with the statues many Protestants &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; set up in our churches: the Nativity scene.  My parent's church, where I was baptized, even includes a little ritual of having a child bring new figures to be added to the scene over the weeks of Advent.  In my rush to judgement, I didn't stop to think if I had a plank in my own eye.  Talk about hypocrisy!  So, I really am not trying to &quot;score points&quot; on my Catholic brothers and sisters or further the cause of the Reformation. I want to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-06-05T12:23:10.637" LastActivityDate="2020-04-17T21:39:48.893" Title="What is the Catholic position on Exodus 20:4?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5674" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5772" CreationDate="2012-01-30T19:21:52.433" Score="8" ViewCount="36511" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholic understanding, there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm&quot;&gt;divine law&lt;/a&gt; and a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm&quot;&gt;natural law&lt;/a&gt;.  Based on my reading, it seems like Divine Law = Revelation (as a Protestant would call it) and Natural Law = what you could deduce about right and wrong simply by using Reason to extrapolate the consequences of the act.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the 10 Commandments are first natural law (because you can figure out pretty easily that killing is bad), but then are also articulated by God. Does it then become Divine Law? Is it &quot;also Divine Law&quot; or &quot;no longer Natural Law, just Divine?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are these categories supposed to exclusive? Is divine law higher than natural law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, what is the difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-01-15T04:52:11.157" LastActivityDate="2018-01-15T04:52:11.157" Title="In Catholicism, what is the difference between Natural Law and Divine Law?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;divine-law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5672" CreationDate="2012-01-30T19:22:11.213" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/ten_commandments.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this EWTN article on the 10 commandments&lt;/a&gt; in connection with another post on this site, but it's appropriate here too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I won't attempt to justify my Church beyond what the Catechism says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new &amp;quot;economy&amp;quot; of images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, &amp;quot;the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.&amp;quot;70 The honor paid to sacred images is a &amp;quot;respectful veneration,&amp;quot; not the adoration due to God alone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2131-2132&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus states a few chapters after the Decalogue&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the propitiatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P26.HTM#8C&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 26:18-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not trying to point out inconsistencies.  I assume that the Bible is internally consistent and it's done a good job of ordering society for a long time.  It's pretty apparent that the Jews of the Bible had no problem smashing opposing nation's idols and there's no history of ancient busts of David or Solomon popping up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as I meant to say a bit ago, when I referenced the EWTN article on the 10 commandments, they reflect the Natural Law.  They're not strange and arbitrary commands of God, as they would be if they favored iconography over sculpture.  One could say that you'd be less given to idolatry given an icon over a statue, but that'd be a natural law argument, not a purely theological one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, and the Sabbath is made for man and not the other way around, then why is art not made for man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sacramentals do assist in prayer, some austere monastic types not like them, but others do.  To be able to talk to Mary, who hears your prayer and intercedes on your behalf, is something that can be helped through art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://freric.uwcatholic.org&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;good priest will tell you&lt;/a&gt;, if you need something, turn to Mary.  Turning, is a physical act which requires a subject and when you see a statue of Mary in a Church, and to her left is Jesus, Body blood soul and divinity in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.  You've got a good basis for a spiritual platform from which to voice your petition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gist of it is, sacred art assists, rather than detracts, in the authentic worship of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T19:22:11.213" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5656" CreationDate="2012-01-30T20:41:07.153" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think punishment versus revenge is a false dichotomy.  There seem to be aspect of both represented in the Biblical accounts of hell, but they are not the primary purpose of that dreadful destination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Punishment&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a basic representation of hell as punitive:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:1-3&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven with the key to the abyss and a great chain in his hand. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for 1,000 years. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; He threw him into the abyss, closed it, and put a seal on it so that he would no longer deceive the nations until the 1,000 years were completed. After that, he must be released for a short time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The imagery here is of God putting an evil-doer somewhere he can't cause trouble.  It's not entirely clear that &quot;the abyss&quot; is Hell proper or the same destination that is mentioned a few verses down.  But it is something very like what we usually think of as Hell.  This conception of Hell as a prison makes sense with your explanation of punishment being a general good for a society.  The New Jerusalem certainly won't be a very pleasant place if the ancient serpent is still hanging around causing trouble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Revenge&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few verses later, we see the &quot;hell as revenge&quot; picture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:7-10&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:7-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; When the 1,000 years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; and will go out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle. Their number is like the sand of the sea. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; They came up over the surface of the earth and surrounded the encampment of the saints, the beloved city. Then fire came down from heaven and consumed them. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key phrase is the final one: &quot;they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.&quot;  You can't really say that this is about keeping bad actors out of good society, since they are going to be tormented always and forever.  You don't have to look hard to see that the God of the Bible has powerful emotions.  The passage you quoted in Romans shows that God reserves vengeance to Himself and Revelation 20 is a description of how He will avenge Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we are here, the idea of people being tortured forever for committing particularly heinous crimes was far more socially accepted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;those days&lt;/a&gt; than it is in ours.  Perhaps part of our current squeamishness on the topic come from Western society's strong Christian influence that tells us that we ought not to wish bad things on our enemies.  This is to the good, but it does make having a correct theology of hell a bit more difficult if we apply the principle to God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God's Justice&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we think of people &quot;going to Hell&quot;, we are usually thinking of passages such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:15&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; And anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we need to back up in order to see what is meant by the &quot;book of life&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:11-12&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:11-12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_sets_of_books&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;two sets of books&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Books that record the works of all people, great and small.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The book of life that records the names of people who are saved from Hell.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The strong implication here, which is confirmed in the rest of the Bible and most especially Romans, is that everyone will be condemned by the first set of books.  God's justice demands that Satan's charges against us be punished according to our deeds.  As for myself, and I imagine all honest readers, the judgement is eternal torture.  (My personal torture, according to the classic Greek tradition, would be a library of all the books every written and infinite time to read them, but just as I start to open a page someone with an urgent task that I can't put aside will prevent me from reading.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God's Mercy&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thankfully, God's accounting system includes a second book that allows anyone whose name is recorded to be released on what might be called a technicality.  As it turns out, the reason God is able to refer to the book of life is that He demonstrated perfect love by substituting His Son as a sacrifice to cover our sins.  God can give us the gift of life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:17&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 22:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; Both the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” Anyone who hears should say, “Come!” And the one who is thirsty should come. Whoever desires should take the living water as a gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the primary purpose of the church is to say to all who will listen, &quot;Come!&quot;  because God offers life to all who will take it.  In the end, the accounting of Mercy trumps the accounting of Justice.  Without the Cross, Hell is the proper destination for all of us who have been tainted with Adam's sin.  With the Cross, Hell shows us what God's ultimate sacrifice rescued us from.  It is God's way of illustrating the extreme (and rightful) consequences of our sin without His intervention. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Struggling with God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I would like to personally encourage you (and anyone else who struggles with this question) to continue to challenge God on this.  Don't accept easy answers (not even mine).  Remember that in the end God blessed Job even though he directed his anger at God and dared to charge Him with wrongdoing.  (I've been doing a lot of thinking about &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/job?sort=newest&amp;amp;pagesize=50&quot;&gt;Job&lt;/a&gt; lately.)  As Paul says on the topic of perfect, self-sacrificial love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:12&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  but then face to face.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Now I know in part,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  but then I will know fully,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  as I am fully known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can't yet be fully pleased with the answers we have because they aren't complete and clear.  We dare not give up on seeking answers from God until He reveals all to us at the end of the age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T20:41:07.153" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5677" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5686" CreationDate="2012-01-30T21:34:35.093" Score="8" ViewCount="920" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in people who say &quot;I'm a Christian, but I don't go to church.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand the sentiment - it really fits in well with the &quot;spiritual, but not religious&quot; Zeitgeist, and it seems to often coincide with a dislike of &quot;hypocrites in the church.&quot; Jesus clearly inveighed vehemently against the Pharisees and all who would put on a show, but I'm trying to figure out what Jesus or any of the Biblical writers would have thought of the person who doesn't show up at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In making the case against a non-churched Christianity, I would point to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Wherever two or more are gathered in my name&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The fact that the vast majority of the NT is addressed to churches and not inviduals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The fact that the OT seems to also simply assume corporate worship.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could keep going on, but I'm interested in understanding the opposite view.  What scriptural or traditional evidence could one muster to make the case for an idiosyncratic Christianity?  (Etymologically, the word &quot;idiot&quot; actually comes from &quot;one who refuses to join the greater body&quot;) In other words, how would the idiosyncratic believer claim he's a Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T13:55:20.643" LastActivityDate="2014-11-14T16:10:38.917" Title="What Biblical support is there for a non-Churched Christianity?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5672" CreationDate="2012-01-30T21:56:20.807" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm relatively new to Catholicism, and on top of that I'm an Eastern Rite (Maronite) member so please take what I am about to say as private opinion.&#xA;First off, we aren't called to uphold all the Jewish laws. I forget the passage, but Paul basically gives the statement that we have a new law in Christ and we don't have to go through circumcision, avoid mixing milk and cheese, and all the other stuff that Jewish law dictates. It may be generally a good idea to follow the spirit of the law of the old testament, but with few exceptions, we are not to slavishly follow the law. Secondly, as the commenter above noted, icons, statues, stain glass windows, etc. are not idols in the Old Testament sense as we use them as objects of cynosure and not as items of worship. Cynosure means &quot;something that serves as a guide&quot; and has connection to the navigation by the stars (the dog star to be exact). The statue, the window, or the icon are never to be worshiped, but to be more like a guiding star.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1236" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T21:56:20.807" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5666" CreationDate="2012-01-30T22:19:27.160" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luke 16 is your answer here.  The rich man who is sent to hell clearly says, &quot;Don't let my brothers join me here!&quot; Ergo, hell is clearly NOT a reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.&#xA;     22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, even without God's presence, Dives (a name commonly given the rich man) isn't even concerned about God, and yet he hates this place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, he hates it so much, that his last request is that people he loves not join him here.  It is the classic response to the old T-Shirt that says, &quot;Hell is where all my friends are.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If hell were simply the opposite of what God likes, and therefore (in some not really coherent fashion) pleasurable to those who like the opposite of what God created them to be, then one would assume that this man in hell might at least want the company.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it is, he doesn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ergo, one can safely assume NOBODY likes hell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-30T22:19:27.160" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5681" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5689" CreationDate="2012-01-31T01:44:09.080" Score="11" ViewCount="47477" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading the book of Nahum and it was speaking about Nineveh.  Is the book of Nahum foretelling the destruction of Nineveh, for which the people of Nineveh averted by repenting of their sins, or is Nahum talking about an event that happened after Jonah's time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1172" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-04-16T00:43:53.663" LastActivityDate="2017-05-19T13:09:36.450" Title="What is the ordering of events in Nahum and Jonah?" Tags="&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;&lt;jonah&gt;&lt;nahum&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5530" CreationDate="2012-01-31T07:29:01.557" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is my opinion, you can take it as it is. Adam and Eve were created mortal. &quot;You shall surely die&quot; --&gt; You're already going to die, but if you eat of the tree, then you will &quot;surely die&quot; because I am going to kick you out of the garden so you can't eat from the tree of life which will give you life (so you won't die). In regards to Rom 5:12, it's exactly as it says, death came from Adam's sin (his disobedience) which led to him and the rest of his descendants not being able to eat from the tree of life. So the death wasn't a direct effect of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but an indirect effect of not being able to eat from the tree of life. Hence, v 14: &quot;Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one was to come.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1239" LastActivityDate="2012-01-31T07:29:01.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2743" CreationDate="2012-01-31T09:10:58.980" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original intention of red-letter Bibles seems to have been to aid in interpretation.  According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/03/red-letter-origin/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crossway&lt;/a&gt;, the publisher of the English Standard Version: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the first red-letter Bible, the words “universally accepted as the utterances of our Lord and Saviour” were printed in red. So were Old Testament passages that Jesus quoted or that were directly related to incidents to which he referred (with the relevant cross reference also printed in red). Old Testament verses containing prophetic references to Christ were identified with red stars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lous Klopsch, who invented the concept, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/03/red-letter-origin/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;described&lt;/a&gt; its use thusly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here the actual words, quotations, references and allusions of Christ, not separated from their context, nor in a fragmentary or disconnected form, but in their own proper place, as an integral part of the Sacred Record, stand out vividly conspicuous in the distinction of color. The plan also possesses the advantage of showing how frequently and how extensively, on the Authority of Christ himself, the authenticity of the Old Testament is confirmed, thus greatly facilitating comparison and verification, and enabling the student to trace the connection between the Old and the New, link by link, passage by passage.&amp;mdash; “Explanatory Note,” in &lt;em&gt;The Holy Bible: Red Letter Edition&lt;/em&gt; (New York: Christian Herald, 1901)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't seem to far from the way some people &lt;a href=&quot;http://precept.org/about_inductive_bible_study&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mark up&lt;/a&gt; their Bibles for inductive studies.  Only it's the publisher and not the reader who has done the analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my reading and studying of the Bible, there is almost no reason to seek out or use a &quot;red-letter&quot; edition.  Every once in a while, I find Jesus' words in an unexpected place:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘&lt;strong&gt;It is more blessed to give than to receive.&lt;/strong&gt;’”&amp;mdash;Acts 20:35 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+20/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for the most part, I find the red-lettering disruptive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guess is that part of the appeal of such editions is that they show reverence for Our Lord's words.  It's a nice idea, but it doesn't seem to me to make any difference.  God is more likely to be honored by us reading His Word &lt;em&gt;in toto&lt;/em&gt; than by us owning a Bible with some of His words in red.  (The Old Testament never gets this treatment anymore.)  If the highlighting makes the Bible harder to read, I don't see how we gain anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2016-02-26T21:43:56.353" LastActivityDate="2016-02-26T21:43:56.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2743" CreationDate="2012-01-31T11:14:22.027" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;None. The red letter Bible are a good tool to highlight the word Jesus is speaking in the gospels. The downside, its that these words become more great then the rest of the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The benefit, tool to found when Jesus is speaking in the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Downside, makes words or section more spiritual or more deep then the rest of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-01-31T11:14:22.027" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5677" CreationDate="2012-01-31T11:31:55.623" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;None. Every time the Bible presents the belivers it presents them in a context of a group. The biblical christian (believer in the Bible) always get together in houses, underground. Here are a few passages tackling this subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans 12.3-8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Corianthians 12.12-31&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Peter 2.4-5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heb 10.25&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument advanced by the non-church goer is all over the place, but not in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They say that Jesus never built a Church or been to one (But Jesus was in the synagogue). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The church was to protect and help the member in hostile time like the beginning. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are hypocrites in the church. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The church does not serve me ...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-31T16:36:10.953" LastActivityDate="2012-01-31T16:36:10.953" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3512" CreationDate="2012-01-31T12:41:52.503" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Islam considers Jesus a prophet just like Moses, Abraham, and Noah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Qur%27an&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Muslims deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of Jesus, comparing it to polytheism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although Musilms see Jesus as the Messiah, son of Virgin Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://quran.com/3/45&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3:45&lt;/a&gt;)  &lt;em&gt;Surat 'Āli `Imrān (Family of Imran) - سورة آل عمران&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[And mention] when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Qur’an is +90% the same as the Christian Bible in many aspects, but they cannot be compatible, because Christianity bases its faith and believes in the divinity of Christ, while the Qur'an does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read similarities and differences in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1242" LastEditorUserId="1242" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T21:46:19.553" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T21:46:19.553" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5681" CreationDate="2012-01-31T13:40:46.820" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Typically, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah&quot;&gt;Jonah&lt;/a&gt; is dated to the period of Jeroboam, i.e 780 - 750s BC, whereas &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahum&quot;&gt;Nahum&lt;/a&gt; is dated to either shortly before (615BC) or after (612BC) the fall of Assyria (and its capital, Nineveh). Thus, Nahum is at least 150 years after Jonah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer the question directly, No - Nahum is not the promised vengeance of God against Nineveh promised by God in Jonah.  If it were, then God is not &quot;slow to anger, but abounding in compassion,&quot; as Jonah himself points out in chapter 4, nor is the &quot;incomplete ending&quot; of Jonah to any effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key date that differentiates these works, however, is 722BC, when Assyria conquered the northern kingdom of Israel, leaving only the last two remaining tribes of Israel - Judah and Benjamin. Jonah presumes a full, diverse Israel, whereas Nahum is only addressing the remaining &quot;Israel&quot; in the sense that most people think of Israel today.  The fuller complement of Israel would have been more steeped in idolatry and the &quot;sins&quot; people think of today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jonah goes to Nineveh to preach repentance, the amazing thing is that Nineveh does repent, much to Jonah's annoyance.  That generation is completely spared the wrath of God and lives, so to speak, happily ever after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It isn't for another 150 years (think the time between now and the American Civil War)  that Nahum is writing.  He is fortelling the doom of Nineveh in order to encourage (Southern) Israel from prematurely capitulating to Assyria.  The later parts of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles tells the stories of Hezekiah and Josiah, set in this time period, and the constant question is whether Israel should rely on God, or trust in some bigger foreign power like Egypt or Assyria, the two big players in the region.  Imagine, for example, you're Belgium just before WWII.  Do you rely on God or make peace with either Germany or France, and you're beginning to get the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it happens, Egypt itself had fallen shortly before Nahum, and Assyria does fall very shortly after (or if you don't believe in prophecy, before) the writing, so in any case, its good advice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately for Judah, however, Babylon is the instrument of Assyria's departure from the scene, and within only about 40 more years (587 / 586 BC) they will invade Judah itself, thus destroying the last vestige of the kingdom, and sending all the peoples into exile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-01-31T13:46:03.163" LastActivityDate="2012-01-31T13:46:03.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5690" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5691" CreationDate="2012-01-31T16:44:08.527" Score="11" ViewCount="4207" Body="&lt;p&gt;One distinctive of Baptists and many other congregational churches is that they have no prescribed method of worship. Unlike, say, an Episcopalian or a Roman Catholic, there is no prayer book and no guidance &quot;from above&quot; (in the earthly, not heavenly sense) as to the elements and order of a church worship service. Each congregation is free to explore and promulgate its own worship order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, in effect, most Baptist services I've ever participated in or led have boiled down to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A Welcome&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Two or three songs, one of which might be a choir special&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A single Bible reading&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An offering&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Doxology&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A prayer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A sermon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An altar call and a final hymn&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Followed by coffee hour in truly progressive churches :)  Additionally, communion, to be held quarterly or monthly  is inserted between the sermon and the altar call.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there is no strict order, I'm willing to bet that I've just described about 95% of them, and I've probably even got the order right in at least 80%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the question—is that a liturgy?  I know I'd reject that label, but is it fair to call it a liturgy? If it is, why do Baptists reject the claim. If not, what element is missing to call it such?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T13:14:19.380" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T13:14:19.380" Title="Is it fair to say that Baptists have a liturgy?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5690" CreationDate="2012-01-31T17:13:51.827" Score="11" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes and No&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is fair to say that Baptist services are liturgical, but I don't think I'd say that they have &quot;a&quot; liturgy (meaning that they generally adhere to a common liturgy).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Baptist churches I've been to don't quite follow the formula you described.  Most follow it somewhat, but I think that to call it a common liturgy, it needs to be followed more closely than it actually is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best formula that I can come up with that describes every Baptist church I have been to is (in varied order):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Singing (varied number of songs)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Announcements&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prayer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sermon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel that that is too generic to be called a liturgy, because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The order varies from church to church.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These are common elements, but these elements are practiced very differently in different churches (hymns versus rock bands, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Churches often have additional elements.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that said, most Baptist churches are liturgical within themselves.  In other words, they don't necessarily follow the liturgies of other Baptist churches, but the pattern of a given Baptist church service changes very little from week-to-week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-01-31T17:20:03.300" LastActivityDate="2012-01-31T17:20:03.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5677" CreationDate="2012-01-31T17:58:34.017" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I spent a long time as a non-church going christian. My reasoning was based in tradition/culture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looked into several churches and one of the few things they all agreed on was that if I picked the wrong church I was going to hell. So to not pick the wrong church I picked no church. I didn't have the time to look into over 40,000 (or however many there are) Christian churches and find the right one (at the time I believed there could only be one true church), so I studied the bible on my own, spread my word to those that I could, and prayed for a merciful God that would understand I was doing my best to follow the path of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with David Laberge there is little to no biblical reference for not going to Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastActivityDate="2012-01-31T17:58:34.017" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5674" CreationDate="2012-01-31T18:42:39.940" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my experience and reading completely conflicting sources while having no formal education in the matter there seems to be two schools of thought on the matter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way of looking at it is this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/u5LXk.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Linear Laws&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here God's laws are on top and man's are on the bottom it's ordered by jurisdiction.  Here the eternal law that is on top is the Unchangeable Nature of God, His Might, Glory, Power and Awesomeness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next is the Divine Law, which is what he tells us about Himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The line is there to divide God's laws from man's laws which is as big a chasm as there is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then is the Natural Law, which is the law written on the hearts of man and accessible to man through reason alone. (I'm not sure if this actually includes the natural sciences or not, but if it does, then more power to it)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then is the Human Laws, like requirements that people in a neighborhood have a certain color curtains as well as evil and arbitrary laws like Jim Crow laws in the American south and ones leading to the Nazi Holocaust.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the other way of looking at is is in a hierarchical manner.  You don't get any order of magnitude, but you can see which are made up and which are innate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5nTsX.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Hierarchical Laws&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the division between Natural Law and Positive Law.  On one side there is what is classically described as the Natural Moral Law and that's everything that seems innate to nature.  When Aristotle looked at a rock and said, &quot;what does it do?&quot; he was describing the Natural (Natural) Law when Plato considered the God of the universe and said, &quot;what does He do?&quot; he was describing the Natural (Eternal) Law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other side, as with the above description are the seemingly arbitrary laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The divine side of positive law is the commands of God.  This is the stuff atheists hate.  It is also the stuff by which man must supplement his bread if he wants to live.  The covenants God makes with man are Positive (divine) law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then positive (human) law is the same as described above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Classification&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking in the basest way possible about things I hold sacred, religion only puts things in &quot;divine&quot;. Eternal and natural law are accessible to reason and therefore in the realm of philosophy, not religion.  Catholics, at least, are called to respect the laws of the other religions insofar as they reflect God's truth.  We don't say our religion has the 'fullness of truth' to be all high and mighty, but because we know that other religions have a share in that truth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who do not believe in God, or only believe in Him through reason, might argue that Divine Law is arbitrary, and one would have a hard time arguing with that because it is true.  They might argue that it is man made, and one would have a hard time arguing with that because it comes to us through men. However, they can't win an argument on the premise that divine law (i.e. biblical revelation) conflicts with eternal law and this is (one reason) why Christianity is true. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Natural law, however, is changeable, as nature is changeable.  For instance, if humanity was struck with a fit of incurable hermaphordism, then I'd imagine homosexual marriage would be acceptable under the natural moral law.  The difference between Natural law and Eternal law is that Natural law is applied to God's creation and created things are always in flux.  This does not mean, however, that it is up to man to decide when they've changed or whether or not they really exist; that is why the Natural Moral Law is incompatible with moral relativism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, and to your question, there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moral aspect of Divine Law&lt;/a&gt;.  Which is how the Decalogue goes from being written on your heart to being written on tablets. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...all the precepts of the Decalogue are also precepts of the natural law, which can be gathered by reason from nature herself, and in fact they were known long before Moses wrote them down at the express command of God. This is the teaching of St. Paul — &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&quot;For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law [of Moses], are a law to themselves: who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;    &#xA;    &lt;p&gt;(Romans 2:14, 15). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although the substance of the Decalogue is thus both of natural and Divine law, yet its express promulgation by Moses at the command of God was not without its advantages. The great moral code, the basis of all true civilization, in this manner became the clear, certain, and publicly recognized standard of moral conduct for the Jewish people, and through them for Christendom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it came to pass that the natural moral law was codified as the divine positive law.  One might even say, to it's detriment, as the Ten Commandments are now prohibited and contentious religious symbols. But, I wouldn't say it is to the detriment of the natural law. In a world where people are free even to deny the foundational principles of their soul, our God has given us two reasons to believe and follow his commandments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T13:34:03.310" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T13:34:03.310" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5606" CreationDate="2012-01-31T20:10:22.793" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definition&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always understood the term &quot;mechanical inspiration&quot; to be synonymous with inerrancy, although I believe technically that mechanical inspiration refers to God's ensuring that humans wrote what God said to write and inerrancy that the autographa were themselves without error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In neither case would printer's mistakes like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Adulterers Bible&lt;/a&gt; be covered by mechanical inspiration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Modern Adherents&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of the Southern Baptist Convention (especially say, the Texas General Convention) and most &quot;Bible Church&quot; evangelicals believe in inerrancy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This issue, of course, is what divides Baptists more than anything else. The more conservative conventions (Texas, Alabama, Georgia) tend to make this a litmus test. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.paigepatterson.info/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paige Patterson&lt;/a&gt; (I've had him over dinner!) would be one such leader of this line of thinking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;History&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As recently as the 1950's, the Lutheran church also accepted this position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rogers' and McKim's classic work The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible (1979) argues that it is a fundamentalist and evangelical novelty, although Paul Achtemeier's book The Authority and Inspiration of Scripture (1995 - I think?) would argue this has been the historical position of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The classic source and defense for inerrancy is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Turretin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Francis Turretin&lt;/a&gt;, who expounded this doctrine as an extension of his understanding of Calvinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-01-31T20:10:22.793" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5696" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5697" CreationDate="2012-01-31T21:32:59.533" Score="11" ViewCount="7431" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many churches do not practice infant baptisms, because they believe that in the Bible baptism is taught to be something done &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; a person chooses to follow Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an alternative, many of those churches practice &quot;baby dedications.&quot;  A baby dedication is not a baptism (there is no water involved).  It's more like a public pledge by the parents to raise their babies in the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Biblical basis or precedent is cited for this practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-15T17:41:35.017" LastActivityDate="2017-01-02T02:16:18.927" Title="What is the Biblical basis for baby dedications?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;infants&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5696" CreationDate="2012-01-31T22:18:33.310" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most usual passage cited is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:11&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 1:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; Making a vow, she pleaded, “LORD of Hosts, if You will take notice of Your servant’s affliction, remember and not forget me, and give Your servant a son, I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and his hair will never be cut.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:23-28&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 1:23-28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; Her husband Elkanah replied, “Do what you think is best, and stay here until you’ve weaned him. May the LORD confirm your word.” So Hannah stayed there and nursed her son until she weaned him. &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; When she had weaned him, she took him with her to Shiloh, as well as a three-year-old bull, half a bushel of flour, and a jar of wine. Though the boy was still young, she took him to the LORD’s house at Shiloh. &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; Then they slaughtered the bull and brought the boy to Eli.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; “Please, my lord,” she said, “as sure as you live, my lord, I am the woman who stood here beside you praying to the LORD. &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; I prayed for this boy, and since the LORD gave me what I asked Him for, &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; I now give the boy to the LORD. For as long as he lives, he is given to the LORD.” Then he bowed in worship to the LORD there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I don't know of anyone who dedicates their child to the LORD as completely as Hannah did.  Another commonly referenced passage is Luke 2 when Jesus is brought to the temple.  Again, the form of the dedication is not followed since it was following the Jewish circumcision ritual and the command about the firstborn:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2013:2&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 13:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; “Consecrate every firstborn male to Me, the firstborn from every womb among the Israelites, both man and domestic animal; it is Mine.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example that seems more applicable is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2010:13-16&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 10:13-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (HCSB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Some people were bringing little children to Him so He might touch them, but His disciples rebuked them. &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; When Jesus saw it, He was indignant and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me. Don’t stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; I assure you: Whoever does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; After taking them in His arms, He laid His hands on them and blessed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By implication, even infants are part of the kingdom of God if their parents bring them before Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, the purpose of the dedication is to replace some of the rituals and ceremonies of baptism when Protestants began to reject the notion of baptizing infants.  In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=&amp;amp;esrc=s&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=1&amp;amp;ved=0CCsQFjAA&amp;amp;url=http://www.covchurch.org/&amp;amp;ei=OmUoT96TKoHKiQKR4IT_AQ&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFGzvGcH8NMRGmJeepkH1Yd56kkuw&amp;amp;sig2=emaHJQxyKxQ5bR6PlOqqdw&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Evangelical Covenant Church&lt;/a&gt;, newborns are either baptized or dedicated depending on the preference and conviction of the parents.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.covchurch.org/resources/files/2010/04/Infant-Baptism.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;PDF source&lt;/a&gt;) The only substantive difference is that water and the names of the Trinity are required for baptism.  Everything else proceeds on the same lines either way.  (I remember one pastor getting to the bit in the liturgy when the baptism might occur and asking the parent, &amp;quot;So we aren't baptizing [name of child here] today, are we?  Just making sure.  I think we can find some water.&amp;quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dedication turns out to be more about the relationship between the child, the parents, and the church than between the child and God.  The parents dedicate themselves to raising a Godly child and the church congregation dedicates itself to assisting the parents in that endeavor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no specific command to dedicate children in the Bible.  However, Jesus does say that children are part of His kingdom and so many churches have instituted public ceremonies to introduce newborn into the body of believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T17:23:32.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5698" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5701" CreationDate="2012-01-31T22:36:56.167" Score="4" ViewCount="295" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I went to World Youth Day in 2005 (wow, long time ago now) my wife and I were sick of walking and wanted to enjoy our honeymoon for a bit so we watched the Pope come into Cologne on a boat.  We were with a big group of pilgrims and most of them went but one consoled us saying said something to the effect that, the Pope's blessing extends to those who watch him live on TV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, and I don't want to delve into scrupulosity here, but how out of sync can live TV be, does taped delay count?  How about watching taped benediction or Mass on EWTN?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, yes, by &lt;em&gt;count&lt;/em&gt; I do mean time off purgatory.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-12-28T16:58:06.977" LastActivityDate="2017-12-28T16:58:06.977" Title="Papal blessings via alternate media?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;blessings&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5699" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-01-31T22:40:57.393" Score="5" ViewCount="11456" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without infant Baptism, do Protestants have godparents? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, are there any traditions common to most Protestant denominations concerning who should see to it that a child is raised in the Faith in lieu of the parents?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2018-10-25T18:35:10.410" Title="Godparents in Protestantism" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;godparents&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5699" CreationDate="2012-01-31T23:26:28.457" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestantism is too big and diverse to so make any sweeping statements about it.  According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godparent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, Lutheran, Anglican, and some Calvinist churches still have godparents.  Generally, if a denomination still practices infant baptism, its more likely to also have formalized godparent roles.  (Of course, Orthodox and Catholic churches retain the role.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in my experience, most protestant denominations do not regularly include the formal godparent relationship.  Once in a while, I've seen family friends stand with the parents at an infant dedication, but it's more of an &lt;em&gt;ad hoc&lt;/em&gt; sort of deal.  Instead, as I mentioned in a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5697/914&quot;&gt;related answer&lt;/a&gt;, the entire congregation commits itself to assisting the natural parents in raising children.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as vsz mentions in the comments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It depends. In my region most Protestants are Calvinists, and being a godparent is a very important role that binds the two families together, not just an &quot;ad hoc&quot; act. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Reformation was such a complicated mixture of cultural, religious, intellectual, and national conflicts that making sweeping generalizations rarely covers all the bases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of a parent, I've found that many people in our church have legitimately taken a hand in training our son both spiritually and naturally.  And as a member of the congregation, I take my commitment to other people's children seriously whether they have been formally dedicated or not.  My wife and I would rather be rebuked for overstepping the boundaries (we have been) than to allow our friend's children to lack outside, Christian, adult interactions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christian parents organically seek out others who serve many of the same functions of godparents.  Some don't.  There's a risk of a congregation not responding to cries for help because of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;bystander effect&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;diffusion of responsibility&lt;/a&gt;.  Perhaps re-instituting the godparent relationship will help.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T17:20:32.990" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5698" CreationDate="2012-02-01T02:23:24.280" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I used to listen to the Vatican Radio podcast which included a recording of the Pope's &lt;em&gt;Urbi et Orbi&lt;/em&gt; blessing and they would put a disclaimer in the recording that the blessing didn't apply to recordings, only to those &lt;strong&gt;present or watching/listening live&lt;/strong&gt;.  The key distinction is live versus a recording; even if you're watching the EWTN web stream -- which might be broadcast delayed up to a minute or more due to the nature of &quot;live web broadcasts&quot; it still counts as live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how much it &lt;em&gt;counts&lt;/em&gt; toward time off of Purgatory, there is the rule in moral theology that you only receive the graces you're disposed to receive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T02:23:24.280" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5672" CreationDate="2012-02-01T02:42:48.933" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The prohibition in Exodus: &quot;Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them (Exodus 20:3-5).&quot;  When Moses wrote this the population of heaven consisted of only Angels and God, all of whom are pure spirits, having no physical substance.  As such, any image -- mental, drawn, graven, gilded (eg: calf), or otherwise -- would be inaccurate because an image, by it's very nature, depicts something which exists in the physical world.  The conclusion being: any image that purported to be a likeness of any thing that is in heaven couldn't possibly be accurate and would only serve to confuse the mind of the beholder. After the Incarnation this changed: now the Word was made flesh: He had a physical substance that could be represented in the form of a humanly visible image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The veneration of images was dealt with in detail in the fourth session of the second Council of Nicea in the discussion on the Veneration of Images -- you can read a lot more about that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;at the Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;.  In short, similar to the reference above, the Saints and the Blessed Mother really existed in physical form so images of them are not idolatrous as long as it is understood that it's not the &lt;em&gt;image&lt;/em&gt; that is being venerated but the &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; of whom the image is meant to be a likeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T02:42:48.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5044" CreationDate="2012-02-01T03:04:59.173" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer to your question is to review the &lt;a href=&quot;http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id329.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Haydock Commentary of the 3rd Chapter of Genesis&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel like I should add more, but I'm not smart enough to top the incomparable Haydock commentary. Here are a couple short, relevant snippets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ver. 1. &lt;em&gt;Why hath God?&lt;/em&gt; Hebrew, &quot;Indeed hath God, &amp;amp;c.&quot; as if the serpent&#xA;  had overheard Eve arguing with herself, about God's prohibition, with&#xA;  a sort of displeasure and presumption. St. Augustine thinks, she had&#xA;  given some entrance to these passions, and the &lt;em&gt;love of her own power&lt;/em&gt;,&#xA;  and hence gave credit to the words of the serpent, de Gen. ad lit. xi.&#xA;  30. She might not know or reflect that the serpent could not reason thus, naturally; and she had as yet, no idea or dread of the devil.&#xA;  (Lombard, 2 Dist. 21.) This old serpent entered into the most subtle&#xA;  of creatures, and either by very expressive signs, or by the motion of&#xA;  the serpent's tongue, held this delusive dialogue with Eve. Moses&#xA;  relates what happened exteriorily; but from many expressions, and from&#xA;  the curse, ver. 15, he sufficiently indicates, that an evil spirit was&#xA;  the latent actor. (Haydock) --- &lt;em&gt;Of every tree&lt;/em&gt;. Satan perverts the word&#xA;  of God, giving it an ambiguous turn: in doing which, he has set&#xA;  heretics a pattern, which they follow. (Menochius)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ver. 5. God. The old serpent's aim is, to make us think God envies our&#xA;  happiness. (Haydock) --- Or he would have Eve to suppose, she had not&#xA;  rightly understood her maker, who would surely never deprive her of a&#xA;  fruit which would give her such an increase of knowledge, as to make&#xA;  her conclude she was before comparatively blind. (Menochius) --- &lt;em&gt;As&#xA;  gods&lt;/em&gt;, Hebrew &lt;em&gt;Elohim&lt;/em&gt;, which means also princes, angels, or judges. It&#xA;  appears, that our first parents had flattered themselves with the&#xA;  hopes of attaining a divine knowledge of all things. (Calmet)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="1244" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T03:10:34.907" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T03:10:34.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5225" CreationDate="2012-02-01T03:21:17.997" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To your question: &quot;How did early Christian presbyters learn to sacrifice?&quot; I answer: from God -- twice. The first was in the Old Testament when Moses wrote down the instructions he received from God how the worship of God was to be performed.  In the New Testament Christ Himself directs the Apostles how to worship/sacrifice: &quot;Do this in memory of Me&quot; and the infusion of the Holy Spirit cleared up any doubt or weakness there might have been in the minds of the Apostles on these specific points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Did they do it in imitation or were there actual Jewish Priests who converted and instructed the first Christian priests?&quot;  I alluded to this already, but it was Christ who taught the Apostles to &quot;Do this in memory of Me&quot; who in turn passed on the power and knowledge to worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T03:21:17.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5530" CreationDate="2012-02-01T09:02:00.570" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following represents my personal thoughts and views, and not that of any particular Christian tradition (although it would find a home in several). Indeed Adam and Eve were by nature physically mortal, just as all living things were (and are) mortal. The tree of life, like so many objects in Scripture, is represented as a sign and symbol of the everlasting life which Adam received immediately from God—as will the glorified saints in the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 2:7; 22:14); as observed in Vincent's Word Studies, &quot;To eat of the tree of life expresses participation in the life eternal.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But ever since the fall, Adam and his posterity were cut off from the tree of life and no longer received everlasting life immediately, but rather mediately through Christ (1 John 5:11). Thus Jesus Christ testifies that those who hear his gospel and believe have eternal life and will not be condemned, but have &quot;crossed over from death to life&quot; (John 5:24). Give attention to that phrase, &quot;from death to life.&quot; Immortality is something which in Christ we seek; and if we seek it, then we do not now possess it (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53). Likewise Paul speaks about how &quot;sin reigned in death&quot; among mankind (Rom. 5:21), and how could sin reign but among those who are physically alive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, death is understood covenantally in a spiritual context, which is how sin reigns in death for those who are physically alive but spiritually dead in Adam, whereas grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life for those justified in Christ, such that we spiritually live even though we physically die. (Cf. John 11:25-26, &quot;The one who believes in me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in me will never die.&quot;) As John Calvin noted, &quot;Let us know, therefore, that when we have departed from Christ nothing remains for us but death&quot; (cf. Rev. 20:6, 14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1170" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T09:02:00.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5707" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5708" CreationDate="2012-02-01T12:19:44.527" Score="7" ViewCount="416" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic blessings? And what are those blessings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being an evangelical, I do not understand from the Bible, the reason for papal, priestly, or other blessings. How would you explain it to me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-10T00:33:58.747" LastActivityDate="2015-04-10T00:33:58.747" Title="What is the Biblical basis for Catholic blessings?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;blessings&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5707" CreationDate="2012-02-01T12:49:20.120" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first Bible reference that comes to mind is Jacob's blessing of Isaac (Gen. 27:28).  Countless times in the Gospels Christ blesses something, the most notable that comes to mind is the bread and wine at the Last Supper: &quot;And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body (Matt 26:26).&quot; When Christ cured the sick He &lt;em&gt;blessed&lt;/em&gt; them, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At it's most basic elements a blessing is just the minister of the Church invoking a Divine Benediction upon a person or thing.  The power to Bless comes from the Holy Spirit which a priest receives in his ordination (as well as the jurisdiction to give the blessings which the priests of the Church can give) but there are blessings that non-priests can give.  As a parent, I can (and do!) bless my children in the evening before they go to bed (something the parents can do as the spiritual heads of their household through the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit, as alluded to in the above citation of the patriarchs of the old testament blessing their offspring).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T12:49:20.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5699" CreationDate="2012-02-01T13:49:15.957" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The purpose of Godparents is to back up the natural parents in raising the child in the Faith should the natural parents die or fail in their duty.  This is why, in the Catholic Church, Godparents are not required for an adult who is being Baptized (though they are allowed if the person being Baptized wants it).  The the degree that Protestant practices derive from the Catholic practices from which they were &quot;reformed&quot; then absent an authoritative protestant opinion I would (because I am a Catholic and trained in the the teachings of the Catholic Church) defer back to the pre-Protestant practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="1244" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T16:05:03.607" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T16:05:03.607" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5710" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T13:57:04.497" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about Christian practice relating to day-to-day life, and theology related to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:33:26.947" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:33:26.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5711" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T13:57:04.497" Score="0" Body="The practice of day-to-day living in a Christian manner." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:33:31.937" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:33:31.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5712" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T13:58:30.610" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T13:58:30.610" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T13:58:30.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5713" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T13:58:30.610" Score="0" Body="Referring to one of the two historical sources of theology (Scripture, Tradition).  Relates to questions that ask about practices that have historically been the norm, and typically looking for an origin explanation" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2014-07-06T03:21:42.130" LastActivityDate="2014-07-06T03:21:42.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5714" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T13:59:02.607" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T13:59:02.607" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T13:59:02.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5715" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T13:59:02.607" Score="0" Body="Relating to questions about heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, and all states after a person dies" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T13:59:02.607" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T13:59:02.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5716" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T13:59:43.357" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T13:59:43.357" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T13:59:43.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5717" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T13:59:43.357" Score="0" Body="Actions of God not explained by normal laws of physics, chemistry, biology, or the natural sciences " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T13:59:43.357" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T13:59:43.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5718" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:00:39.407" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:00:39.407" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:00:39.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5719" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:00:39.407" Score="0" Body="Relating to the name of Y'shua, Jesus of Nazereth, also called the Christ." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:00:39.407" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:00:39.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5720" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:02:07.050" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the belief that the Bible should be understood literally, or about the interpretation of the Bible in this way. Use it also if you want a question answered solely from the point of view of Biblical literalists. Do not use it on questions about how to interpret the Bible unless you are only interested in literalist interpretations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:48:27.420" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:48:27.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5721" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:02:07.050" Score="0" Body="A hermeneutical approach in which the Bible is understood as accurate historical narrative throughout, with the exception of parts clearly stated not to be so." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:48:39.213" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:48:39.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5722" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:03:03.820" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The early church spans from New Testament times to the first Ecumenical Councils in the 4th Century AD. Use this tag for questions about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T17:43:01.473" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T17:43:01.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5723" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:03:03.820" Score="0" Body="Relating to first several centuries of the Christian church; usually considered to end in the 4th century" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-02T12:49:48.927" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T12:49:48.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5724" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:04:03.320" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about book in general or specific books, other than scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:33:11.143" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:33:11.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5725" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:04:03.320" Score="0" Body="Questions regarding christian book other than the canonical scripture" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2014-06-27T10:31:01.740" LastActivityDate="2014-06-27T10:31:01.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5726" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:05:10.383" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions on Christian teachings about women or their roles, or for general questions about historical and scriptural women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T22:18:31.673" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T22:18:31.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5727" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:05:10.383" Score="0" Body="teachings about women or female characters" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T23:12:21.403" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T23:12:21.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5728" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:06:03.910" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:06:03.910" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:06:03.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5729" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:06:03.910" Score="0" Body="dealing with unbelief or objections based in reason to Christian doctrines or practice" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:06:03.910" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:06:03.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5730" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:06:43.987" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Relating to actions or deeds (whether righteous or unrighteous) and their relationship with, and place in, Christian life and soteriology. This tag should be included in questions which are focused on the role of works specifically (i.e. in justification, daily life, or worship).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="8617" LastEditDate="2019-01-13T18:20:41.507" LastActivityDate="2019-01-13T18:20:41.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5731" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:06:43.987" Score="0" Body="Relating to actions or deeds and their relationship with, and place in, Christian life and soteriology" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="8617" LastEditDate="2019-01-13T18:21:00.423" LastActivityDate="2019-01-13T18:21:00.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="5732" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:08:01.630" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions involving changing to follow the Christian religion (or away from it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use 'evangelism' for the act of assisting others to convert.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T22:58:57.743" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T22:58:57.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5733" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:08:01.630" Score="0" Body="The act of changing from one religion (or none) to another." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T22:58:58.353" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T22:58:58.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5734" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:10:00.817" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:10:00.817" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:10:00.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5735" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:10:00.817" Score="0" Body="relating to the descendants of Jacob (the Hebrew peoples whose story comprises the history of the OT) or the country which has historically been called Caanan, Palestine, or Israel" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:10:00.817" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:10:00.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5736" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:11:46.820" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about these four books, for beliefs about them and practices regarding them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not use this tag for questions about &quot;the gospel&quot; meaning the Christian message of good news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T18:22:27.510" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T18:22:27.510" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5737" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:11:46.820" Score="0" Body="The New Testament books describing the life of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T18:22:32.330" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T18:22:32.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5738" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:13:14.930" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions relating to the beliefs, practices and history of the Baptist denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a 'john-the-baptist' tag for questions about that person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T17:37:57.550" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T17:37:57.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5739" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:13:14.930" Score="0" Body="The Protestant denominations characterized by the need for professing believers baptism. " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="18388" LastEditDate="2015-01-27T16:03:32.767" LastActivityDate="2015-01-27T16:03:32.767" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5740" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:13:58.313" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:13:58.313" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:13:58.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5741" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:13:58.313" Score="0" Body="prayer in which requests are asked from God." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T23:00:30.177" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T23:00:30.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5742" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:15:03.243" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:15:03.243" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:15:03.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5743" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:15:03.243" Score="0" Body="relating to the doctrine of life that occurs after death and does not end" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:15:03.243" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:15:03.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5744" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:15:58.500" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also glossalia, this supernatural gift includes both the speaking of earthly languages unknown to the speaker, or to heavenly languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:34:03.373" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:34:03.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5745" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:15:58.500" Score="0" Body="the supernatural gift of speaking in foreign or spiritual languages" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:36:03.103" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:36:03.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5746" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:17:37.623" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:17:37.623" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:17:37.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5747" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:17:37.623" Score="0" Body="referring to the process or moment in which an individual's sins are forgiven - distinct from sanctification, in that the latter refers to the process or moment in which a person is made fit for standing in front of a holy God" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:17:37.623" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:17:37.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5748" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:18:24.410" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:18:24.410" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:18:24.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5749" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:18:24.410" Score="0" Body="The Bishop of Rome, the earthly head of the Catholic Church. " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2014-04-20T16:47:56.577" LastActivityDate="2014-04-20T16:47:56.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5750" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:19:58.820" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Greek hypoakouw, literally to place oneself under the hearing of.  Refers to that state in which the subject is following the proscribed teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T18:05:37.230" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T18:05:37.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5751" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:19:58.820" Score="0" Body="Following teachings and commands." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T18:02:21.103" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T18:02:21.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5752" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:21:16.213" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for all questions about Christian teaching and involvement with civil government.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not use this tag for church governance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T19:00:34.337" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T19:00:34.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5753" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:21:16.213" Score="0" Body="the process of civil government" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T19:00:36.223" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T19:00:36.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5754" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:26:52.557" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:26:52.557" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:26:52.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5755" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:26:52.557" Score="0" Body="the unmerited favor of God, from the Greek 'charis' meaning a gift (from God)" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:26:52.557" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:26:52.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5756" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:28:42.257" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:28:42.257" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:28:42.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5757" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-01T14:28:42.257" Score="0" Body="relating to the theological definition of anthropology - that set of doctrines which attempt to understand how God created the spirit, soul, and mind of a human being, and to ascertain that for which he destined and how he is subject to the natural laws" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T14:28:42.257" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T14:28:42.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4279" CreationDate="2012-02-01T15:40:06.370" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First: a translation issue. I am not literate in Greek but I have studied Latin; the Vulgate renders Matt 24:6 as: &quot;&lt;em&gt;audituri autem estis proelia et opiniones proeliorum videte ne turbemini oportet enim haec fieri sed nondum est finis&lt;/em&gt;&quot; Notice the noun &quot;bellum, belli&quot; is not in that sentence, but &quot;proelia&quot; (plural form of proelium) which means &quot;battle, combat, or conflict.&quot;  Like the Eskimos having many different words for snow with subtle differences in meaning, so the Romans had different words for war-like activity. The English use of the word war in the term &quot;cold war&quot; implies a non-kinetic state of potential hostility, something Latin speakers would have called &quot;pax&quot; (peace) or &quot;indutiae&quot; (truce, or suspension of hostilities).  So looking at the Latin Vulgate (from which the King James Bible was translated) it's important to understand that while &quot;war&quot; can fit the meaning of &quot;proelia&quot; it would more precisely be rendered as &quot;skirmishes,&quot; &quot;battles,&quot; or &quot;armed conflict&quot; in contemporary (2012) American English parlance.  (A modern example of &quot;proelia&quot; would be what's going on in Libya, Syria, Somalia, and possibly even Iran.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specific answers to your questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;My guess as to what constituted a report of war would be a report (by whomever reports things) of a war.  Lacking a media like we have today news would have traveled by word of mouth, carried by traveler, merchants, soldiers, vagrants... whomever might have been in a position to see a war or hear about a war.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the translation background I laid out above, no, the cold war isn't a rumor of war.  I would also say that Vietnam doesn't count either.  It's possible that current times (February 2012) might count as there are &quot;active, kinetic operations&quot; taking place in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, the Philippines, South America, Indonesia, Africa... and those are just the ones we know about.  The big rumor right now is that things might go hot with Iran but that remains to be seen.  Given the news media we have now, I'm not sure what constitutes fact versus rumor in this regard.  I think the &lt;em&gt;spirit&lt;/em&gt; of the verse is that we will have reason to be very agitated, nervous, and fearful because of war and the prospects thereof... which is a subjective standard to say the least.  But in final answer on this point, I would say &quot;no&quot; to the way you phrased the question.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more point regarding what Christ is saying in Matthew Chapter 24: there will be worrying and troubling events coming and that we should not allow the turmoil of the world to affect our interior peace which comes from union with Him, the Prince of Peace.  I know that doesn't address the question of determining when the end of the world will arrive, but Christ said that His return will be like a thief in the night.  We don't gain any extra merits spiritually by knowing when Christ is going to return: we only merit by being ready.   Have your soul so disposed as to be ready for Christ to return at any time and you'll have the peace which the world cannot take from you -- regardless of &quot;proelia&quot; or rumors of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="1244" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T15:52:23.810" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T15:52:23.810" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5690" CreationDate="2012-02-01T16:15:45.873" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I laughed when I read this. Growing up in a Baptist church I can totally relate to what you're asking. I agree with the posting above in that I don't think I'd call it a liturgy, but it's definitely a pretty routine schedule. I think this is also true of any church though. Even the &quot;free, crazy, and spontaneous&quot; ones. They have a set schedule and they usually follow it quite closely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although, technically, I think it would be considered liturgy. I suppose liturgy is mostly composed of rituals and I don't think that Baptists would say that they have rituals but rather they'd probably call it &quot;average service activities&quot; or &quot;Service Patterns&quot;. It's less than a framework though. They don't have to abide by these patterns and can change up the layout of how the service is presented (although is is rare). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1246" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T16:15:45.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="722" CreationDate="2012-02-01T16:47:37.967" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest difference is that Irish Culture, since the time of Saint Patrick, is so profoundly Catholic that almost everything in Irish Culture is colored by a Catholic influence.  Moreover, the Irish are &lt;em&gt;known&lt;/em&gt; for being Catholic (you've heard Ireland called &quot;The Isle of Saints and Scholars&quot;, no?).  The Irish also produced an abundance of religious vocations, including many, many missionary priests: in many parts of the world the first contact one might have had with an Irishman would have had a distinctly Catholic experience.  That isn't to say that there aren't other Catholic micro-cultures (Sicilian-Catholic, Bavarian-Catholic, Hungarian-Catholic... with all of the very unique cultural influences they have) but the Irish are somewhat unique in that it's uncommon to find an element of Irish culture that &lt;em&gt;isn't&lt;/em&gt; Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T16:47:37.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2981" CreationDate="2012-02-01T16:58:26.423" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow! What a great question! The short answer is both yes and no.&#xA;The long answer is that the sinners prayer is given as a form of &quot;template&quot; or &quot;recipe&quot; for the &lt;strong&gt;heart&lt;/strong&gt;. This is reflected upon the verse:  &quot;&lt;em&gt;because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;(Romans 10:9- also quoted before). These two things are to show that an internal &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; external response is necessary. Not that words themselves have the power, but they declare the change in our heart because, &quot;&lt;em&gt;..out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks&lt;/em&gt;&quot;(Matt. 12:34). In the end, the Bible says that &quot;&lt;em&gt;..by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. This also draws from the idea that our words really reveal what's in our heart. Also, I don't believe baptism saves us (growing up Baptist you think I would). Baptism is a necessary public symbol of the death we have to ourselves and the joining in death (and life) that we have to Jesus. That's why it's such a powerful and necessary act. Now, will someone who gives their life to Christ and doesn't get baptized go to Hell? NO! Of course, God alone is the Judge, but He also says that we should have a mind to judge and know these things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice comes in two parts. &#xA;1. &lt;strong&gt;Don't worry about if you're saved.&lt;/strong&gt; If you have to worry about whether you're saved or not, then you probably are. Instead, read Matt. 6:25-34. Although this talks about worrying about basic provisions from God, the principle of &quot;laying worry down at Jesus' feet (1 Peter 5:7)&quot; is still the same. The Bible literally tells us to give our anxieties to Jesus because it's &lt;strong&gt;his&lt;/strong&gt; job to care for us. This could be a key of complete freedom from anxiety if we let it be! Now, this doesn't mean I support the idea of &quot;once saved always saved&quot; because we should &quot;&lt;em&gt;..work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..&lt;/em&gt;(Phil. 2:12)&quot;. &#xA;2. &lt;strong&gt;Spend more time loving on Jesus.&lt;/strong&gt; This is the best advice I can give anyone. All of our &quot;problems&quot; are solved here. It's when we love Jesus that we're confident in His love for us and can love other people. The first commandment is first for a reason. Spend time talking to the Holy Spirit. Just because He's the third person of the trinity doesn't mean He's third place (or less than). A lot of people get really uncomfortable talking about the Holy Spirit, but Jesus Himself said that He is our Teacher and Counselor. I know for a &lt;strong&gt;fact&lt;/strong&gt; that we're a studious bunch here. What teacher did you have that you didn't talk or ask questions to? And what counselor did you ever hear of that didn't give advice? In a crazy whirlwind of awesomeness and humility Holy Spirit exalts Jesus, Jesus exalts Holy Spirit, Jesus exalts the Father, and so on. Most people say, &quot;I just want to focus on Jesus&quot;. Trust me, no one loves Jesus more than the Holy Spirit. He's been given to us to empower us to love Jesus more (among &lt;strong&gt;many&lt;/strong&gt; other things). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In conclusion&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;don't worry and love Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;. Salvation is such a hard word to talk about because we're not saved so much &lt;strong&gt;from&lt;/strong&gt; something as we are ** unto** something. Our salvation isn't just a &quot;whew, now I'm free from hell&quot;. Salvation extends &lt;em&gt;so&lt;/em&gt; much farther than the shallow definition of &quot;saved from Hell&quot;. Do a word search on salvation and you find &lt;em&gt;numerous&lt;/em&gt; results in the Bible. Sure, we're saved from Hell too, but we're salvation is unto the knowledge of Jesus and an eternal life with Him when He comes back and establishes His kingdom here on the Earth. I hope this helps :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1246" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T16:58:26.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5594" CreationDate="2012-02-01T17:01:11.817" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please consider this quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it. So, as you will see, the breach and turning point in the development of sexual life lies in becoming subordinate to the purpose of reproduction. Everything that happens before this turn of events and equally everything that disregards it and that aims solely at obtaining pleasure is given the uncomplimentary name of 'perverse' and as such is proscribed.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This gem of a quote isn't even from a Catholic: it's from (the atheist) Sigmund Freud!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key consideration is separating the physical act from the possibility of procreation.  I've heard it stated in Catholic teaching that &quot;the marital acts are those acts which are, of themselves, suitable for the generation of children.&quot;  Catholic teaching doesn't require that such acts much be dispassionate, stoic exercises; to the contrary, there &lt;em&gt;ought&lt;/em&gt; to be love and passion in the act as the marriage bond is more than just physical, it's emotional, intellectual, and spiritual and the act of love-making can be all of the above as well as open to the generation of children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T17:03:03.770" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T17:03:03.770" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5666" CreationDate="2012-02-01T17:11:12.307" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is only a &quot;reward&quot; in the linguistic sense that it's the just result for one who has obstinately turned away from God.  It could also be seen as a &quot;reward&quot; in the sense that the one who goes there gets what he wants: himself and only himself for all of eternity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0898707102&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the book&lt;/a&gt; in front of me so this quote will be off the top of my head, but an exorcist related that 'hidden knowledge' is a mark of possession. In the particular case, a  possessed child, was asked what the relationship was between two sinners in hell who were associates on earth.  The answer from was along the lines that in hell nobody has a relationship with anyone else, the damned are eternally turned inward on themselves.  They forsook the chance to be united with God so now they have only themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the degree that having lost God and having only yourself for eternity is a goal, hell is a 'reward.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T17:11:12.307" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2012-02-01T17:31:17.570" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another great question! Marriage is an earthly covenant set in place by God and is terminated when the flesh dies (death). You're right in your assumptions that there is no marriage after we die. On top of Matthew 22:30 (which personally I think is quite plain), there is 1 Cor. 7:39: &quot;&lt;em&gt;A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes..&lt;/em&gt;&quot; and also in Eph. 5:31: &quot;&lt;em&gt;For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one &lt;strong&gt;flesh&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;. The keyword here being flesh of course. Not only does the Bible speak of sex here, but it talks about a covenant that is bound by the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marriage is an earthly symbol that represents a heavenly perfection. The marriage between God and man. We-as the bride of Christ-are betrothed to Him forever. That is the only marriage that will continue throughout eternity. What would be the purpose of marriage in eternity? If we read 1 Cor. 7 we realize that people are given in marriage because of the desires of the flesh (7:2, 7:9, 7:36). In eternity we will a spiritual body much like our current body, but totally different at the same time. Insead of a person that's ruled by our flesh we will be a people ruled by our spirits (by the Holy Spirit). 1 Cor. 15:44 says, &quot;&lt;em&gt;It (our bodies) is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Revelations John pains a beautiful picture of the Church as the Bride of Christ. That marriage is finally consummated symbolically when Jesus returns. There is even a marriage supper! In the age to come we won't be serving ourselves in everyday life, but Jesus. We will fully be given to Him. If we think that spending eternity serving Jesus is going to be boring then we probably have some theology wrong. The Creator of the universe in all His majesty comes and lives with us. He makes His home here. God with man- the ultimate act of humility and intimacy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1246" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T17:31:17.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5278" CreationDate="2012-02-01T17:31:43.230" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes: the Apostle Thomas evangelized a significant part of the globe, including north and south America and Asia.  A summary, drawn principally from the writings of Cornelius a Lapide and Dr. Warren Carroll -- who cite that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church teach that the Gospel was preached literally to the whole world before the death of the last Apostle --  is recounted &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20051218-Saint-Thomas-the-Apostle-Preaching-the-Gospel-to-the-New-World.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in this sermon/homily on St. Thomas the Apostle&lt;/a&gt;.  I don't think many/any of these evangelized people attended any of the first four Councils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: For those down-voting this answer solely because I'm citing the Apostle Thomas' evangelization of north and south America, here's a link for you: &lt;a href=&quot;http://is.gd/yAnaJg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://is.gd/yAnaJg&lt;/a&gt; -- and notice that the Apostle Bartholomew is recorded to have been with him.  More links to come as I find them.  If I have to scan printed texts and link to those I will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="1244" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T03:09:07.523" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T03:09:07.523" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5666" CreationDate="2012-02-01T17:48:12.133" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hell is never a reward. God created every human being. He's placed eternity in their hearts and a desire for God. Unbelievers substitute this desire with earthly desires and thus deceive themselves that they don't need or want God. In reality, it is &lt;strong&gt;not possible&lt;/strong&gt; to resist God when we see Him in His beauty. &quot;In His presence is fullness of joy&quot; and &quot;at His right hand are pleasures forevermore&quot;. These are basic longings of the human heart. To be loved, and to be happy. Most atheists (as is commonly said around these parts) don't know what they don't know. God has a wonderful magnetic quality about Him that draws us to Him without Him even trying. He is &lt;strong&gt;so&lt;/strong&gt; good we wouldn't want to resist Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1246" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T17:48:12.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4279" CreationDate="2012-02-01T18:05:47.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the disciples asked Jesus three questions in Matt. 24:3. &quot;When will these things be&quot; and &quot;what will be the sign of Your coming &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the end of the age&quot;? Jesus foretells (in 24:2) that the destruction of the temple is coming. The disciples are too caught up with the moment that they clump the events into one period in time, thinking first that Jesus was going to actually establish His kingdom at His first coming and then later they thought Jesus was coming in their lifetime (which accounts for people selling all things in Acts). I think it's a simple passage that merely says, &quot;there's coming a time when there will be so much war and rumor (or fear) of war&quot;. So, I wouldn't narrow it down to one incident, but I also wouldn't exclude it of course. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1246" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T18:05:47.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2743" CreationDate="2012-02-01T18:07:25.937" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The words of Jesus are highlighted in red so that you can easily see that Jesus is speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Red Letters are used to help the reader discern the actual statements or conversations which can be directly attributed to Jesus. The object is to make it clear when Jesus is being quoted, as opposed to someone speaking to or about Him. It is used as a reading enhancement, and an easy way to point more attention to Jesus. It is not the publisher's intent to somehow indicate that the red letters are more important, it is simply a reading study tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.squidoo.com/red-letter-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Squidoo - Red Letter Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/03/red-letter-origin/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crossway&lt;/a&gt;, red letter Bibles were &quot;invented&quot; by Lous Klopsch. The origin of &lt;em&gt;red&lt;/em&gt; letters comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:20&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Klopsch decided that, based on this verse, Jesus' words would be in red.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Red Letter Bible, more clearly than in any other edition of the Holy Scriptures, it becomes plain that from beginning to end, the central figure upon which all lines of law, history, poetry and prophecy converge is Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. He expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself and the Divine plan for man’s redemption, and the Red Letter Bible indicates and emphasizes this Divine exposition and personal revelation at each successive stage, making them so clear that even the simplest may understand. It sheds a new radiance upon the sacred pages, by which the reader is enabled to trace unerringly the scarlet thread of prophecy from Genesis to Malachi. Like the Star which led the Magi to Bethlehem, this light, shining through the entire Word, leads straight to the person of the Divine Messiah, as the fulfillment of the promise of all the ages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T18:07:25.937" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5674" CreationDate="2012-02-01T18:41:14.997" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The overly simple answer is:  Natural Law is a human person's participation in the Eternal Law (the knowable part of which is called Divine Law).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Peter Turner's answer covered all of the essential points, St. Thomas Aquinas' coverage of the topic is the benchmark among the Doctors of the Catholic Church and one summary of it (among many, I am sure) can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/302/aquinlaw.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aquinas On Law&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eternal Law&lt;/strong&gt; is the mind of God as understood by God Himself.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Divine law&lt;/strong&gt; is derived from Eternal Law as it appears historically to humans (revelation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Natural Law&lt;/strong&gt;, is tough to summarize succinctly. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;One decent summary is&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Natural Law, as applied to the case of human beings, requires&#xA;  greater precision because of the fact that we have reason and free&#xA;  will. It is the our nature humans to act freely (i.e. to be provident&#xA;  for ourselves and others) by being inclined toward our proper acts and&#xA;  end. That is, we human beings must exercise our natural reason to&#xA;  discover what is best for us in order to acheive the end to which&#xA;  their nature inclines. Furhtermore, we must exercise our freedom, by&#xA;  choosing what reason determines to naturally suited to us, i.e. what&#xA;  is best for our nature. The natural inclination of humans to acheive&#xA;  their proper end through reason and free will is the natural law.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Formally defined, the Natural Law is humans' participation in the&#xA;  Eternal Law, through reason and will&lt;/strong&gt;. Humans actively participate in&#xA;  the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason&#xA;  in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While not relevant to the original question, the final point is &lt;strong&gt;Human Law&lt;/strong&gt; which builds on Natural Law. Saint Thomas says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from general and&#xA;  indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to proceed to&#xA;  certain particular determinations of the laws. These particular&#xA;  determinations, devised by human reason, are called &lt;strong&gt;human laws&lt;/strong&gt;. &#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; q91, a3, p. 21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2014-10-15T05:34:02.480" LastActivityDate="2014-10-15T05:34:02.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4279" CreationDate="2012-02-01T19:15:43.777" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ESV (among others) still uses &quot;rumors&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2024:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you probably know, texts such as this are very controversial among Bible scholars.  In relation to this passage, there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology#Approaches_to_prophetic_interpretation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;four main views&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Preterist&lt;/a&gt;&amp;mdash;Essentially all of Jesus' prophecy has already been accomplished (usually in the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism_%28Christianity%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Historicist&lt;/a&gt;&amp;mdash;Events described in prophecy are linked to specific historical events&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_%28Christianity%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Futurist&lt;/a&gt;&amp;mdash;Prophecy will be fulfilled in the future and we are still waiting expectantly for those events to happen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_%28Christian_eschatology%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Idealist&lt;/a&gt;&amp;mdash;Apocalyptic language in the Bible ought be primary seen as symbolic and representative of a larger, spiritual conflict.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are gross caricatures of serious positions, however, since almost all scholars hold more nuanced opinions.  For instance, I lean toward a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_preterism#Partial_preterism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Partial Preterist&lt;/a&gt; position that links quite a bit of Matthew 24 to the great Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Roman campaign&lt;/a&gt; started far to the north, in Galilee, during the spring of 67 AD and ended with the siege of Masada seven years later.  To answer your first question, rumors of war meant hearing about war in some distant place that might be headed your way.  (The Greek word translated rumor is &lt;em&gt;akoe&lt;/em&gt; &amp;lt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=189&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;189&lt;/a&gt;&gt;.  It's primary definition is &quot;the sense of hearing&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I may take this space to make a plug, your first question seems ideal for Biblical Hermeneutics.  If my answer so far whets your appetite for more, that's where I would look.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For interpretation #1, the Cold War wouldn't qualify as &quot;rumors of war&quot;.  Since the text is clear that this part of the prophecy is &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; the end, under #3 the Cold War might be a sign.  And of course for #2, it almost certainly is.  Under #4, the Cold War was a sign of ongoing conflict in the spiritual realm, but so was the Crimean War and the Hundred-Year War.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, I think it's probably a mistake to spend too much time thinking about whether this event or that event is a sign of the end.  For one thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2024:36&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:36&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I think we really are missing the point of apocalyptic language in the Bible.  The word in Greek, ἀποκάλυψις, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;means&lt;/a&gt; &quot;lifting of the veil&quot;.  God's purpose in speaking to prophets is to show us what's behind the curtain.  Our tendency in Western culture is to hear the Great and Powerful Oz, pull back the curtain, and expect a man speaking into a microphone.  We have an insatiable desire to deconstruct and find out how things work on a mechanical level.  If we say that Vietnam and the Cold War are &quot;wars and rumors of wars&quot;, begin to loose track of what God is trying to say to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I had to boil all of prophecy down to one message, it would be God saying, &quot;I got this.  All of human history fits in my design for the world.  Here's a glimpse of what I'm planning, but you'll see that everything is for my Glory in the end.&quot;  If thinking about the Cold War as a fulfillment of prophecy helps you think that way, go for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T18:58:18.497" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T18:58:18.497" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5690" CreationDate="2012-02-01T19:16:10.733" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose it depends on how you define 'liturgy' and then whether you're following a strict or loose interpretation of the word.  The Catholic Encyclopedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;has the following entry for 'Liturgy'&lt;/a&gt; but while I don't think anyone would assert that Catholics don't have a liturgy, the following definition doesn't seem to &lt;em&gt;precisely&lt;/em&gt; qualify what is and is not Liturgy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Liturgy (leitourgia) is a Greek composite word meaning originally a&#xA;  public duty, a service to the state undertaken by a citizen. Its&#xA;  elements are leitos (from leos = laos, people) meaning public, and&#xA;  ergo (obsolete in the present stem, used in future erxo, etc.), to do.&#xA;  From this we have leitourgos, &quot;a man who performs a public duty&quot;, &quot;a&#xA;  public servant&quot;, often used as equivalent to the Roman lictor; then&#xA;  leitourgeo, &quot;to do such a duty&quot;, leitourgema, its performance, and&#xA;  leitourgia, the public duty itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So in Christian use liturgy meant the public official service of the&#xA;  Church, that corresponded to the official service of the Temple in the&#xA;  Old Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We must now distinguish two senses in which the word was and is still&#xA;  commonly used. These two senses often lead to confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the one hand, liturgy often means the whole complex of official&#xA;  services, all the rites, ceremonies, prayers, and sacraments of the&#xA;  Church, as opposed to private devotions. In this sense we speak of the&#xA;  arrangement of all these services in certain set forms (including the&#xA;  canonical hours, administration of sacraments, etc.), used officially&#xA;  by any local church, as the liturgy of such a church — the Liturgy of&#xA;  Antioch, the Roman Liturgy, and so on. So liturgy means rite; we speak&#xA;  indifferently of the Byzantine Rite or the Byzantine Liturgy. In the&#xA;  same sense we distinguish the official services from others by calling&#xA;  them liturgical; those services are liturgical which are contained in&#xA;  any of the official books (see LITURGICAL BOOKS) of a rite. In the&#xA;  Roman Church, for instance, Compline is a liturgical service, the&#xA;  Rosary is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The other sense of the word liturgy, now the common one in all Eastern&#xA;  Churches, restricts it to the chief official service only — the&#xA;  Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, which in our rite we call the Mass.&#xA;  This is now practically the only sense in which leitourgia is used in&#xA;  Greek, or in its derived forms (e.g., Arabic al-liturgiah) by any&#xA;  Eastern Christian. When a Greek speaks of the &quot;Holy Liturgy&quot; he means&#xA;  only the Eucharistic Service. For the sake of clearness it is perhaps&#xA;  better for us too to keep the word to this sense, at any rate in&#xA;  speaking of Eastern ecclesiastical matters; for instance, not to speak&#xA;  of the Byzantine canonical hours as liturgical services. Even in&#xA;  Western Rites the word &quot;official&quot; or &quot;canonical&quot; will do as well as&#xA;  &quot;liturgical&quot; in the general sense, so that we too may use Liturgy only&#xA;  for the Holy Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T19:16:10.733" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5666" CreationDate="2012-02-01T20:24:09.287" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll pose a counter-question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say you have a man, and all he talks about is how much he wants to drink pure sulfuric acid and how wonderful that would be. Then, one day, he asks really nicely and someone grants him access to the sulfuric acid. He then drinks the sulfuric acid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, is the acid a reward? I suppose in one sense. After all, he got what he thought he wanted. On the other hand, he also got a miserable and painful death. So, I guess what you would have to say is that he got his reward, but the reward wasn't what he really wanted and so it damned him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we can ask for things which are not God. And we can focus on them exclusively. And we can make them the center of all of our desires, but fundamentally, they are straw. And on the day of reckoning, the straw will burn, and the house built upon the sand will fall, and the virgins who had better things to do than make sure they had enough oil will be cast out. And those who have chosen that life will find that the master knows them not. And they will be cast into the darkness. And there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, they have made their choice. And God will not force a man into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Before anyone gets rid of the &quot;and&quot;'s, they (as well as the &quot;but&quot;'s) are an allusion to the Hebrew word &lt;strong&gt;וְ&lt;/strong&gt; (generally translates to &quot;and&quot; or &quot;but&quot;) a word which grows in strength with repetition)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T20:24:09.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4279" CreationDate="2012-02-01T20:31:14.823" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;πολέμους καὶ ἀκοὰς πολέμων&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wars and rumours/hearings/rumblings of wars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πολέμους is accusative, masculine plural. Seems like it's the first part of a content (or object) clause of the infinitive ἀκούειν (&quot;to hear&quot;). I guess it could also be indicative, but infinitives can be taken as indicatives when context allows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πολέμους and ἀκοὰς are both the same case and number.  These are linked by the copulative καὶ which means that wars is to be taken with what follows --- as part of the clause. The final πολέμων is a genitive which should be taken as a descriptive genitive that modifies the ἀκοὰς (hearings/rumors). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does all of this mean? It seems that based on this cursory grammatical overview that A sign of the events that Jesus is describing is the presence of actual wars and rumors of wars. What these rumors are is open for interpretation. Is it just general sense fear, anxiety, uneasiness about international relationships? Political pundits and the like ACTUALLY &quot;forecasting&quot; war? Certainly all of the events that you mentioned qualify. Take note that though this criterion is mentioned first, it is not the only criterion for &quot;end times.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reality is that the end time has been near since Jesus initiated the Messianic Age (Luke 4). Since then, Christians have been awaiting the return of Messiah under the belief that they are in the end time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T20:31:14.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5690" CreationDate="2012-02-01T20:33:55.943" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's safe to say that everyone has a liturgy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit:&#xA;Liturgy (Greek: Λειτουργία) is the customary public worship done by a specific religious group, according to its particular traditions. (Wikipedia - don't kill me it's the first I could find in response to the comment).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even denominations who wish to distance themselves from &quot;The Liturgical Tradition&quot; (which is most colloquially understood to encompass the Orthodox, Catholic, Episcopalian, Anglican, etc) have &quot;traditions&quot; regarding their worship. These &quot;liturgy&quot; of &quot;The Liturgical Tradition&quot; started as a practical means to engage their purpose and even though congregational churches do not have a prescribed liturgy, pushed down from traditions past, they functionally create their own liturgy. That is, of course, unless they do not have any clearly-identifiable pattern to engaging in worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="86" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T23:28:48.850" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T23:28:48.850" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5778" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5780" CreationDate="2012-02-01T21:03:01.310" Score="9" ViewCount="875" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is a Biblical rebuttal of the belief that there is &lt;strong&gt;one right person&lt;/strong&gt; (a &lt;strong&gt;soulmate&lt;/strong&gt;) to be your spouse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-09T01:24:25.873" LastActivityDate="2015-08-09T01:24:25.873" Title="What is the Biblical basis against the existence of one &quot;ideal&quot; spouse for each person?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5572" CreationDate="2012-02-01T21:11:53.620" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps we should define what a miracle is.  I have always understood it to be an act which can only be accomplished with supernatural power (that is, above the nature of a human to perform).  In the case of Jesus it's simple: He is God and can perform acts with the abilities proper to either His Divine (supernatural) or human natures (natural).  In the case of anyone else performing a miracle they would be exercising power given to them by God but which is above their natural abilities.  So Saint Paul performed miracles, but the power to effect the miracles came from God, not Saul of Tarsus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A side note: you refer to Jesus &quot;emptying Himself of His Divinity.&quot;  In Jesus there is one person and two natures.  The person answers the question who is doing something; the nature answers the question &quot;what can the person do.&quot;  The person of Jesus is a Divine person, the second person of the Blessed Trinity; that person has two natures and is capable of exercising all of the powers of either nature: human and divine.  Nevertheless, the &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; of Jesus is a Divine person.  If this weren't the case then we would have a real dilemma with regard to salvation because we couldn't be sure who died on the Cross.  Only an infinite sacrifice can repair the infinite offenses made to God by the sins of men, and only a Divine person is capable of an infinite sacrifice.  Jesus only died in His human nature on the cross, but it's a real death (separation of body and soul) nevertheless.  The point being that any acts performed by Jesus were performed by a divine person; He wasn't unaware of who touched his garment... as God he was sustaining that woman in existence and giving her the capability to touch his garment in the first place!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T21:11:53.620" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5778" CreationDate="2012-02-01T21:27:00.747" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Finding the Right Spouse Not Really Biblical&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history of marriage in the Bible seems to provide little basis for the idea that we must find &quot;the one right person in the entire world.&quot;  Abraham remarried after Sarah died and, as the saying goes, &quot;had many sons&quot;.  Abraham's servant chose a bride for Isaac, so Isaac certainly had no opportunity to find the right one for him.  Jacob actually chose one and ended up getting the one he wanted and another one he didn't want (or expect).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A problem with the idea of &quot;the one right person in the entire world&quot; is that more often than we would like, tragedy strikes and a spouse dies.  That leads to the surviving spouse finding another &quot;one right person in the entire world,&quot; who presumably was &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; the &quot;one right person in the entire world&quot; while the other &quot;one right person in the world&quot; was living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Finding the Right Kind of Person&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is, however, good reason to seek &quot;the right kind&quot; of spouse.  The passage about being &quot;equally yoked&quot; is often quoted to support the idea that believer should not marry unbelievers.  It would seem, however, that the verse is broader than marriage and broader than just believer to unbeliever.  A large discrepancy in the commitment level of two people to Christ could certainly be problematic.  One person who is deeply committed to Christ could probably experience a lot of grief if the spouse prioritizes other things over church and such things as that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has&#xA;  righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with&#xA;  darkness?  2 Corinthians 6:14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it is wise to look for a godly person with integrity and honor who is emotionally healthy, not selfish, who you would be friends with even if you weren't married to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Be the Right Person&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible actually gives a lot of instructions, not about &lt;strong&gt;finding&lt;/strong&gt; the right spouse, but about &lt;strong&gt;being&lt;/strong&gt; the right spouse.  Husbands are commanded to love their wives sacrificially, as Christ modeled in His sacrifice for the church.  Wives are urged to respect their husbands.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave&#xA;  himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her&#xA;  by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the&#xA;  church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such&#xA;  thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same&#xA;  way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves&#xA;  his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but&#xA;  nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because&#xA;  we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father&#xA;  and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one&#xA;  flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to&#xA;  Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife&#xA;  as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.  Ephesians 5:25-33 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not accountable for the life and actions of others, but we are, indeed, accountable for our own lives and actions.  So, we are responsible to become the person God calls us to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should each seek to become a caring, servant-minded, giving, humble, honorable, faithful, godly person of integrity and honor--not just try to find someone like that to marry who then has to put up with us for the rest of their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-02-01T22:11:34.523" LastActivityDate="2012-02-01T22:11:34.523" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5783" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5784" CreationDate="2012-02-02T00:39:45.853" Score="14" ViewCount="106604" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read both the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version&quot;&gt;New King James version&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version&quot;&gt;English Standard version&lt;/a&gt;. I have noticed very trivial differences between the two. What, if any, are the major differences between the NKJV and the ESV?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="34561" LastEditDate="2018-11-09T13:44:44.043" LastActivityDate="2018-11-09T13:44:44.043" Title="What are the major differences between the NKJV and the ESV translations?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;esv&gt;&lt;nkjv&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5783" CreationDate="2012-02-02T01:05:55.413" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New King James version is meant to be an update (circa 1975) of the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and literary beauty of the original 1611 KJV version. 130 translators used the original King James version as well as Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The translators have sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call &quot;complete equivalence&quot; in contrast to &quot;dynamic equivalence&quot; used by many other modern translations. The task of updating the English of the KJV involved significant changes in word order, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. One of the most significant features of the NKJV was its abandonment of the historic second person pronouns “thou”, &quot;thee&quot;, “ye”, “thy”, and “thine”. Verb forms were also modernized in the NKJV (for example, &quot;speaks&quot; rather than &quot;speaketh&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English Standard Version (ESV) of 2001 is a revision of the of the 1971 Revised Standard Version, which traces it's origins to William Tyndale's New Testament translation of 1525 (the first English translation of a Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, which was also a significant influence on the original KJV).  Work on the ESV began over the perceived looseness of style and content of recently published English Bible translations. Many alterations designed to correct or improve the text were made to satisfy the objections of conservative Protestants who had considered the RSV to be theologically liberal, for example, changing the translation of the Hebrew almah from &quot;young woman&quot; (used in the RSV) to &quot;virgin&quot; (in the ESV) in Isaiah 7:14. The language was modernized to remove &quot;thou&quot; and &quot;thee&quot; and replace obsolete words (e.g., &quot;jug&quot; for &quot;cruse&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Relative Differences:&lt;/strong&gt; the biggest practical difference that I can see is that the ESV is newer. The RSV, upon which the ESV is based, was primarily a project to update the Bible to the English language of the current time (mid-20th century) as an improvement over the old KJV.  By the time the ESV was published the New King James Version -- which also had as its goal to modernize the language -- had been published twenty years earlier.  It seems to me (a Catholic who primarily uses the Challoner revision to the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate) that the both the ESV and NKJV are projects which in their history are based on the same work (Tyndale's Bible) with the same general goals (modernized language) and which have both achieved this goal with negligible qualitative differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="1244" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T01:21:43.460" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T01:21:43.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5785" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5796" CreationDate="2012-02-02T01:10:28.110" Score="6" ViewCount="6923" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the Old Testament a Jewish religous book and should it be discarded by Christians today? If not what does it add to Christians today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-30T02:37:02.737" LastActivityDate="2015-04-30T02:37:02.737" Title="Is the Old Testament a Jewish book?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-05-01T14:13:13.593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5785" CreationDate="2012-02-02T01:41:56.487" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The books of the old Testament were written by Jews for Jews, so yes, it's a Jewish book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also the history of the chosen People of God to whom the redeemer Jesus Christ was promised, who fulfilled the law and the prophets and guided the People of God into the new testament as Christians.  So it's our book too as Christianity is the continuation of Israel, the true People of God here on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T01:41:56.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5785" CreationDate="2012-02-02T01:52:18.973" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First the Old Testement isn't 'one' book its lots of books. Second many of the books that are in the current version the Old Testament are in the Jewish religious book the Torah. So it is technically 'a Jewish book' Third, The New Testament was in fact written by Jews. God had to &lt;em&gt;command&lt;/em&gt; Peter to take the gospel to others because they were &lt;em&gt;Non Jewish.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for what it adds today it is very appropriate for depicting good and bad behavior in the gospel. Also there are many prophecies in the Old Testament that have not been fulfilled... Which means if for nothing else there are still things we can learn about the Second Coming from the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T01:52:18.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5785" CreationDate="2012-02-02T02:09:57.540" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are asking two completely separate questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Is the Old Testament a Jewish book?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Insofar as the Torah was revealed first to the Jews, yes. As Romans 9 points out&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Theirs [The Jews] is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, is the promise made to Jews alone?  Paul continues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not we are descended from Abraham (or even Isaac) here is irrelevant - Paul admits it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children. Whilest I am always a little bit leery of putting the church in the place of the Jews in all things, it is fair to say that we are heirs of the same promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Should it be discarded?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus himself said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Futhermore, Paul - the biggest opponent of &quot;the law&quot; if there ever was one - even he says (Galatians 3:17):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to call the law a &quot;pedagogica&quot; - think of it as a nanny - that leads us to Christ. It is the thing that makes us aware of our sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Romans 7, he makes the same point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all these things, the OT law still has a purpose - it makes us aware of our need for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, it also tells us who God is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in short, no, we can't discard the OT - it's the foundation without which grace makes no sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T02:09:57.540" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5606" CreationDate="2012-02-02T02:54:57.540" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never heard it called &amp;quot;mechanical&amp;quot; but simply that the writers of Sacred Scriptures (as opposed to the author, who is the Holy Spirit) were infused with the truths to write and then they wrote them down.  The analogy I've heard is that the inspired writer is to the Holy Spirit what a particular kind of pencil or pen or marker or paint brush is to a human writer: an instrument with unique qualities and properties which affects the manner in which they write what has been inspired in them.  As an example we see the physician Saint Luke using medical details not seen in the other Gospels; Saint John's contemplation yields scriptures unlike the others; Saint Paul's background as a Pharisee yields a degree of exactitude and legal precision not seen in the other books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for the sake of citation, here's a quote from the First Vatican Council and one from an encyclical letter by Pope Pius 12th:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic who wishes to make a correct analysis of Biblical&#xA;inspiration must have before his eyes the following ecclesiastical&#xA;documents: (a) &amp;quot;These books are held by the Church as sacred and&#xA;canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and&#xA;afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain&#xA;revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration&#xA;of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and have been&#xA;transmitted to the Church as such.&amp;quot; (First Vatican Council, 3rd&#xA;Session, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The Holy Spirit Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up and&#xA;impelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them while&#xA;writing in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly,&#xA;and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exact&#xA;language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing&#xA;else; without that, God would not be the author of Scripture in its&#xA;entirety&amp;quot; (Encycl. Provid. Deus, in Dena., 1952).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T02:54:57.540" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3505" CreationDate="2012-02-02T03:00:40.013" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, no, not if you don't have a very good reason to do so.  Traditionally, in Catholic seminaries, there was a section of the library called the &quot;Hell Section&quot; and a seminarian had to get permission from the rector of the seminary in order to go into the Hell Section -- which was locked -- to get a book contained therein.  The simple reason for this degree of precaution is that one is not allowed to put their Faith in danger with a serious and compelling reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T03:00:40.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5476" CreationDate="2012-02-02T04:21:04.437" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nickecarlo touched on the answer: We (Catholics) preach Christ Crucified.  Consider our &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; for Christ: since the fall of Adam and Even, heaven is closed to us. Absolutely nothing we can do as human can make up for the infinite offense of the Original Sin.  But God promised a Redeemer. To repair an infinite offense requires an infinitely valuable sacrifice, which is the Sacrifice of Christ.  In theory, since every act of Jesus was an act of God, even the slightest suffering -- taking on human nature, being circumcised -- would have sufficed.  But would we really understand how much God loves us if He performed only the &quot;minimum&quot; sacrifice on our behalf? Instead, for us unworthy sinners, He not only took on our human nature but was tortured and died in the most cruel and humiliating manner possible.  As Catholics we revere the Crucifix because it is the most universally transcendent symbol of love possible: God Himself became man and endured all of the suffering, tortures, insults, etc... for me... so that I might have the opportunity to spend eternity with Him in heaven.  With such an overwhelming expression of love, how can we not love Him in return?  And knowing that such a love exists, why not have a reminder ever-present?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T04:21:04.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5792" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5800" CreationDate="2012-02-02T05:56:58.717" Score="17" ViewCount="6583" Body="&lt;p&gt;The triune God is defined as three persons equal in nature. What does &quot;persons&quot; mean in this statement? Can the word &quot;persons&quot; be replaced with &quot;personalities&quot; or &quot;roles&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1248" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-10-12T21:47:46.183" LastActivityDate="2020-08-05T21:40:28.890" Title="When talking about the Trinity, what does &quot;persons&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;persons-of-the-trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5606" CreationDate="2012-02-02T11:23:42.987" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mechanical Inspiration sees the writing of the Bible as God dictating to the author every word that needed to be inserted in the Bible or that the author was in some sort of trance and did not know what he was doing. God using the author has a puppet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The view is presented in doctrines classes as a view put forward in history to explain the inerrancy or ineffability. I do not know any evangelicals who hold this position in the current day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Current evangelicals believed that the Bible was breathed by God, but that the human author was still lucid and that he wrote with his own words, his own style. There is a miracle component to the evangelical position, but it is not mechanical inspiration. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-06-15T18:05:58.657" LastActivityDate="2012-06-15T18:05:58.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5792" CreationDate="2012-02-02T12:13:06.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is a bit both. The personalities and roles could both explain the persons in the Trinity. But it is important to remember that the three persons are not separated from one another. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God cannot be constituted of different parts and cannot be subdivided. Is being in single, numerically one, exempt from any composition. The man on the other hand has different parts like the material and the non-material. But God is spirit and is not subject to division. This unity is not incompatible with the notion of the Trinity, because unity is not the same has one unit. One unit is basically one single element. God's unity allow for personal distinction in his divine nature, while still maintaining that the divine nature is numerically one and eternally one. &lt;strong&gt;The unity implies that the three persons in the trinity are not three essences separated inside the divine essence.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  &lt;code&gt;Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, chapter 9&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I only had the book in French, so the quote is a rough translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T12:13:06.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5792" CreationDate="2012-02-02T12:30:50.490" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personalities, possibly, but roles no. To say that God merely exists as one person filling three jobs (roles) or having three &quot;faces&quot; is a heresy known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism&quot;&gt;modalism&lt;/a&gt;. The exact formulations are always &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiousian&quot;&gt;contentious&lt;/a&gt;, and the truth is there is no satisfactory analogy, because there is no terrestrial equivalent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tricky balance of the Trinity is to maintain the distinct personhood of the Three individuals, even though they are so close - closer even than the &quot;one flesh&quot; that man and wife are supposed to become. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T12:36:36.083" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T12:36:36.083" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5785" CreationDate="2012-02-02T13:32:54.477" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The opening to the book of Hebrews sheds some light on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Long ago, at many times and in many ways, &lt;strong&gt;God spoke to our fathers by&#xA;  the prophets,&lt;/strong&gt; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,&#xA;  whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created&#xA;  the world.   Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This affirms that long ago (well before the time of the New Testament), God was speaking to mankind.  As Jesus pointed out in Luke 6:45, &quot;out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks,&quot; so spoken words reveal the heart of the speaker.  In the same way, the spoken words of God reveal God's heart as well.  So, the Old Testament reveals the heart of God in many ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also mentions the benefit of the Old Testament, stating that hope can come through the Scriptures--and at the time he wrote Romans, there wasn't much Scripture outside of the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whatever was written in former days was written for our&#xA;  instruction, that through endurance and through &lt;strong&gt;the encouragement of&#xA;  the Scriptures we might have hope&lt;/strong&gt;.  Romans 15:4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke also notes that the people of Berea were considered noble for the very fact that they studied the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they&#xA;  received the word with all eagerness, &lt;strong&gt;examining the Scriptures daily&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  to see if these things were so.  Acts 17:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These people searched the Old Testament Scriptures and concluded that Paul's messages was, indeed, true and that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah.  This verification is very important today, as the Old Testament continues to show that God had prepared the world for the coming of the Messiah, and that the Son of God became a Man named Jesus who was that Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Himself noted that the Old Testament Scriptures actually spoke and testified about Him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have&#xA;  eternal life; and &lt;strong&gt;it is they that bear witness about me&lt;/strong&gt;... John 5:39&#xA;  ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;strong&gt;the Old Testament was not written just for Jews.&lt;/strong&gt;  In the lineage of Jesus Himself, there is mention of a Hittite (Urriah), a Moabite (Ruth), and a woman of Jericho (Rahab).  The promise to Abraham was that he would be a blessing to all people--not just his own descendants through Isaac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will&#xA;  curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. &#xA;  Genesis 12:3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in Egypt, the purpose of the plagues was to show the Egyptians that the God of Israel was the one true God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD&lt;/strong&gt;, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them.  Exodus 7:5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Genesis is believed by many to have been a collection of writings from Adam, Noah, and others.  If so, Adam and Noah were not &quot;Jewish&quot;, but the ancestors of all people alive today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Old Testament can be considered a Jewish book, written by Jews (with the possible exception of Genesis) under the inspiration of God, to proclaim God's name to all mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that the New Testament is written entirely by Jews as well.  In fact, Christianity is inherently Jewish and was begun by all Jews.  It could easily be described as Gentiles (as well as Jews) recognizing Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah of the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, Paul's letter to Timothy emphasizes that all Scripture is of value.  At the time of his writing, he certainly intended to include the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for&#xA;  reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that&#xA;  the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.  2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both the Old and New Testaments are the revelation of God, and, as such, are the primary means by which we can know God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T19:12:50.500" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T19:12:50.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5797" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5798" CreationDate="2012-02-02T13:53:13.087" Score="12" ViewCount="399" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the main differences between Messianic Judaism and Christianity?  How does the idea of the Trinity differ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully this can be answered by someone who considers themselves to be Messianic Jewish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-09-10T11:42:01.530" LastActivityDate="2017-09-10T11:42:01.530" Title="What is Messianic Judaism?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;messianic-judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5797" CreationDate="2012-02-02T14:26:00.027" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that because the early Jewish converts to Christianity (the original Messianic Jews) &lt;strong&gt;maintained their Jewish identity&lt;/strong&gt; after conversion (at least initially, if not for a considerable time), modern Messianic Jews also seek to worship Christ while maintaining a Jewish cultural identity as a continuation of this historical precedent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shmuel Wolkenfeld, a Messianic Rabbi, has a much longer essay — “&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orhaolam.com/uploads/What_Are_Messianic_Jews.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What Are Messianic Jews?&lt;/a&gt;”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: As DJClayworth says in the comments, the doctrine of the Trinity is fully accepted by most Messianic Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2014-01-10T19:36:05.093" LastActivityDate="2014-01-10T19:36:05.093" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5792" CreationDate="2012-02-02T14:43:28.210" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The classic definition of &quot;Person&quot; is that given by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02610b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Boethius&lt;/a&gt; in &lt;em&gt;De persona et duabus naturis&lt;/em&gt;: &lt;strong&gt;an individual substance of a rational nature&lt;/strong&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt; explained the preceding definition in terms that practically constitute a new definition: &lt;strong&gt;a substance, complete, subsisting per se, existing apart from others&lt;/strong&gt; (Summa Theologica, III, Q. xvi, a. 12, ad 2um).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the persons of the Blessed Trinity, for the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;accident&lt;/a&gt;; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with &lt;em&gt;ipsum esse subsistens&lt;/em&gt; (Subsistent Act of Existing Itself).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A much, much more detailed discussion of this topic -- with citations that could give you a few years more reading -- can be found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on &quot;Person.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="29840" LastEditDate="2016-10-12T14:15:48.810" LastActivityDate="2016-10-12T14:15:48.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5801" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5803" CreationDate="2012-02-02T15:00:42.377" Score="4" ViewCount="1267" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cyrus king of Persia revealed to Daniel that something bad was happening. He fasted and did the whole 9-yards for 3 weeks. My question is, what happened afterwards? He obviously was super tired and lack of energy, but Daniel saw a Vision, and I presume this was Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What really happened? Did Daniel fasted this intensely to get His attention?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="35" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-01-16T15:37:47.167" LastActivityDate="2017-01-16T15:37:47.167" Title="Fasting in Daniel 10, What is going on?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;fasting&gt;&lt;daniel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-16T22:27:41.400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5801" CreationDate="2012-02-02T15:24:46.270" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fasting has physiological effects which affect one's ability to concentrate, meditate, and generally shut out distractions, which is a very, very good thing if you're wanting to pray intensely. (NPR's &lt;em&gt;This American Life&lt;/em&gt; features a short story about the spiritual aspects of fasting; one of the producers fasted for 14 days in order to see if he would have hallucinogenic dreams, visions, or significant spiritual revelations... but I digress.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the point of &quot;getting His attention&quot; the goal of fasting has always been seen as depriving yourself of a good (food) in order to mortify the flesh (which, since the fall of Adam and Even &quot;makes war against the spirit&quot; as St. Paul says) both to make one's self a victim or sacrifice to God and thereby glorify Him (as sacrifices are offered to God).  The more perfectly and earnestly we do this the more pleasing it is to God, and yes, it get's His attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T15:24:46.270" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5801" CreationDate="2012-02-02T15:27:23.030" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The person who appears to Daniel in chapter 10 is an unnamed angel - a messenger not Jesus.   Michael the Archangel,(Good name there!) is mentioned as assisting him, and while angels attended to Jesus, they would not have been needed to tip the scales in a fight. Jesus would have only needed to speak a word, and the demons would be bound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Daniel is aware that he must be in prayer and fasting, but the connection to Michael is unknown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we do know, from verses 12 - 14 is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since we know that the Devil is &quot;the prince of the power of the air,&quot; and that there &quot;powers and principalities&quot; in the demonic realm.  Many have suggested that each &lt;em&gt;ethne&lt;/em&gt; (a people group or nation-state) has their corresponding demonic prince.  If that is the case, then what delays Michael is this demonic ruler of the Persian peoples, preventing the prophet from receiving the message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know this can't be a human detaining the angel, because either an angel or a demon could easily overpower a human - clearly there is some demonic force preventing the &lt;em&gt;angelos&lt;/em&gt; from delivering his message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, was it needed for Daniel to be fasting the whole time?  In so far as Daniel's praying and fasting was a perquisite for the dream, we can safely say No, because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a. There is no evidence that human prayer affects angels in any way (Angels are merely messengers of God)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;b. There is no evidence that God requires prayers to work some magic - to assume otherwise is to make God contingent upon us. While it may get God's attention, it does not compel him to act or in any way affect his ability to effect what he desired. Having gotten his attention, God dispatches Michael to clear the impasse&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;c. There is evidence that demons are subdued in the power of Jesus's name, but not that we are responsible. (In Acts 19:15, the demons admit they know Jesus, and know &lt;em&gt;of&lt;/em&gt; Paul - but they are completely baffled by some people who think they can control the demons speaking.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why then was Daniel was it important for Daniel to attend to prayer and fasting then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is, it was preparing Daniel for the message, even as Michael is being detained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T16:13:57.713" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T16:13:57.713" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5804" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5806" CreationDate="2012-02-02T15:39:51.027" Score="18" ViewCount="8302" Body="&lt;p&gt;Modalism, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism&quot;&gt;Sabellianism&lt;/a&gt;, is the belief that the three persons of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) are simply three &quot;roles&quot; or &quot;modes&quot; of the same person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view is labelled as a heresy by many denominations. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against modalism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-07T09:37:22.623" LastActivityDate="2019-05-06T16:06:25.760" Title="What are the Biblical arguments against modalism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;modalism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5804" CreationDate="2012-02-02T16:45:58.543" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The argument against modalism is that the Trinity is made of three distinct Persons, a topic which is addressed here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5792/when-talking-about-the-trinity-what-does-persons-mean&quot;&gt;When talking about the Trinity, what does &amp;quot;persons&amp;quot; mean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATED BASED ON ERIC'S COMMENT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for what the Modalists believe: God was said to have three &quot;faces&quot; or &quot;masks&quot; (Greek πρόσωπα prosopa; Latin personae). Modalists note that the only number ascribed to God in the Holy Bible is One and that there is no inherent threeness ascribed to God explicitly in scripture. The number three is never mentioned in relation to God in scripture, which of course is the number that is central to the word &quot;Trinity&quot;. The only possible exceptions to this are the Great Commission Matthew 28:16-20, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and the Comma Johanneum, which many regard as a spurious text passage in First John (1 John 5:7) known primarily from the King James Version and some versions of the Textus Receptus but not included in modern critical texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This topic is addressed in greater detail:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism#Meaning_and_origins&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;On Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;In the Catholic Encyclopida&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sabellianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;OrthodoxWiki&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/514999/Sabellianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The encyclopedia Britannica&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T16:54:28.543" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5804" CreationDate="2012-02-02T16:57:47.393" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Biblically the biggest problem with modalism is that you end up having God talking to himself several times in the NT. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of modalism is simple enough - God has different &quot;modes&quot; of being, kind of like an actor who simply appears with different masks in different situations [1]. If the same person is merely appearing in multiple forms simultaneously, there are some weird situations in Scripture that result, and have implications that are dicey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus is Baptised, a voice from heaven declares, &quot;This is my son, with whom I am well pleased&quot;.  If Jesus is just a different view of the same God, why would he say something like this, to himself?  It makes God seem a bit arrogant, frankly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus is on the cross, he cries out &quot;Father, Why have you forsaken me?&quot;  How could he forsake himself if he is the same person forsaking and forsaken.  Note - specifically in relation to the cross, the view that the Father was on the cross is a heresy known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism&quot;&gt;Patripassianism&lt;/a&gt; - from &quot;the Father suffering&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrews 9:14, &quot;the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offer[s] himself unblemished to God&quot;.  How can Christ offer his own blood to himself if he is the same person?  Unless that were somehow possible, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement&quot;&gt;Substitutionary Atonement&lt;/a&gt; is also invalid.(See Note 2)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By maintaining the distinct personalities (and personhood) of each part of the Trinity, you avoid all of these ridiculous to downright bad implications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Or kind of like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who&quot;&gt;Doctor&lt;/a&gt; meeting his past selves, crossing the timelines, and somehow necessitating running up and down corridors a lot. But I digress!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Note - Substitutionary Atonement is only one theory of salvation, so even if you could some how prove Modalism true and S.A. false, it wouldn't deprive us of salvation - it would just upset a lot of people who think this legal metaphor is the only theory that describes salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T17:08:29.487" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T17:08:29.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3829" CreationDate="2012-02-02T18:18:16.937" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the first chapter of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xvii.ii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Westminster Confession&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly &lt;strong&gt;set down in Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;, or by good and necessary consequence &lt;strong&gt;may be deduced from Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.  &lt;em&gt;Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence,&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Protestants, the first line of defense is the Scripture.  This comes from Paul himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:16-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Confession makes specific allowances for the role of the Spirit in the interpretation of Scripture&amp;mdash;in particular when it comes to doctrines of salvation.  Of course, Scripture doesn't cover everything: specifically &quot;the worship of God, and government of the Church&quot;.  Therefore, we are encouraged to use &quot;the light of nature and Christian prudence&quot; to order them.  I think that means reason and common sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, we confess that we should always observe the general rule of the Word.  To me, that means to double-check our beliefs against Scripture.  This is the essence of what we mean by &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that's the backdrop.  Let's see how we might apply that to a topic that's been on my mind lately: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5672/914&quot;&gt;Iconoclasm&lt;/a&gt;.  Should we have images of saints or Christ or anything else in our places of worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First cut:&lt;/strong&gt; Exodus 20:4 commands us not too make carved images of anything for the sake of worship.  Therefore, no images in church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second cut:&lt;/strong&gt; Over the years, the church &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; allowed images.  In fact the second Council of Nicea ruled that images are allowed because of the Incarnation.  Perhaps the simple reading of Exodus is mistaken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third cut:&lt;/strong&gt; Relying on the Holy Spirit for wisdom in interpreting the Bible, we go back to relevant New and Old Testament passages and try to understand if the arguments made by Christians in the past justifying images hold water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The informal motto of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.covchurch.org/who-we-are/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;denomination&lt;/a&gt; I was confirmed in was &quot;Where is it written?&quot;  What that means is that we are always going back to the bedrock of our faith, the Bible, to answer questions of faith.  History and tradition have their place, but the Reformation remains committed to weeding out anything that hinders our relationship with God and holding tight to what God's Word affirms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T18:18:16.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5809" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-02T19:03:04.433" Score="4" ViewCount="2819" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have asked &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2314/how-do-christians-understand-the-existence-of-god-in-relation-to-the-scientific&quot;&gt;earlier&lt;/a&gt; how Christians understand God in relation to the scientific concept of energy.  Ultimately that line of questioning was stopped by the observation that my &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ontology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ontology&lt;/a&gt; was very different from the likely respondents.  While I addressed the issue of ontology in the physics stack exchange (and consequently had &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1394/in-what-sense-if-any-could-something-without-mass-or-energy-exist&quot;&gt;the question&lt;/a&gt; moved to the philosophy stack exchange), there seemed to be very little interest and even less consensus on a coherent and widely accepted ontology.  This got me wondering,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a widely (or historically) accepted Christian ontology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FYI: My personal definition of &quot;existence&quot; would run something like &quot;that property which, when possessed by a well defined object, allows for causal interaction with other well defined objects that share the property of existence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="363" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2015-04-08T06:09:47.333" Title="Is there a standard Christian ontology?" Tags="&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;metaphysics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5809" CreationDate="2012-02-02T19:37:41.177" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Augustine of Hippo&lt;/a&gt; was influenced, and in many ways owed his conversion, to the writings of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism#Logos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;neo-platonists.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians would accept him as the most prolific Christian philosopher of the first millennium; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt;, as his successor in the next millennium, reintroduced his wisdom in the form of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/a&gt;; wherein you will find all your answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic encyclopedia also has a good treatment on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Existence&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my own words, I'd say that Catholic philosophy defines existence, as we know it, as God's creation. God, on the other hand, is the prime mover.  Existence does not signify matter or energy, as Angels exist and the immortal soul exists yet are not observable.  And God's existence, as a pure spirit, cannot be defined my the human intellect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T22:03:34.853" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T22:03:34.853" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5278" CreationDate="2012-02-02T22:11:45.600" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not exactly answer your question, but perhaps the most significant presence at the first few councils which was eventually thrown out was the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nestorian&lt;/a&gt; church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have lots of evidence that they existed, and in fact they were a major influence in the &quot;Church of the East&quot; until about 622 AD. Syria, Persia, and much of the East was Nestorian, prior to the rise of Islam. There is evidence, that there was a significant Nestorian presence in China as late as the 9th Century, as evidenced by a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_Stele&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Steele&lt;/a&gt; rediscovered in 1625. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What differentiated Nestorians from the Chalcedonian Churches, and why they were basically booted out of the councils was their understanding of Christology. Unlike Egypt which emphasized the Divine Nature of Christ, almost the exlcusion of his human side, The Nestorians went in the other direction - emphasizing his humanity to the point where they claimed that Jesus had two completely separate natures - as if he were what we today would call schizophrenic. In some later incarnations, the idea was even put forth that Jesus and the Christ were two distinct things, with the Christ occasionally appearing with in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, however, Islam first co-opted, then supplanted Nestorianism pretty much everywhere it went.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T22:11:45.600" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5812" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-02T22:14:48.877" Score="8" ViewCount="332" Body="&lt;p&gt;So the kids in my catechism class aren't all that into the notion of living forever.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's kind of depressing, but I don't think its anything we can't get around.  However, what do you tell a kid, who is just starting their life, to invest all this time and energy in learning about Christ and His Church in order to go to Heaven at some far off date when all they want to do is grow up and live out their mortal life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their attitude reflects what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html&quot;&gt;Spe Salvi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Perhaps many people reject the faith today simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment. To continue living for ever —endlessly—appears more like a curse than a gift. Death, admittedly, one would wish to postpone for as long as possible. But to live always, without end—this, all things considered, can only be monotonous and ultimately unbearable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But even the notion of living forever is lost on them.  They were literally surprised that the point of going to Church and begin good, having a strong faith, etc... is so that we can live again with Christ.  I called it &quot;living forever&quot;, maybe there's a better way to explain it.  I think they thought I was crazy, but I didn't think it was necessary to say, &quot;well, you have to die first&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somehow the sweetness and succor of heaven is lost on the young.  So how do you help to instill in kids a desire to be with Christ forever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T18:59:43.237" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T23:57:00.447" Title="What arguments would you give to teenagers who are unconcerned about eternal life?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;&lt;religious-education&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5813" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-02T22:38:10.097" Score="3" ViewCount="6380" Body="&lt;p&gt;In reading the meta discussion about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/436&quot;&gt;what logo should be used for Christianity.SE&lt;/a&gt;, I got to wondering what symbols are unique to various denominations. Note: I'm not looking for symbols which are &lt;em&gt;common&lt;/em&gt; across Christianity -- such as the Cross -- but which are more narrowly focused.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the following symbols are -- as far as I know -- uniquely Catholic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/0uw8t.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Chi Rho&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeSNUSP5uk-Tpm5LM1N2_kcivimo1nsZOR0yImDp7sbG19ToRZ&quot; alt=&quot;Holy Name Monogram&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRL0qhe2MFT-nSblMaw_WkdbXwzH9a26WvDdu3DwB8n-XAfk1t_VA&quot; alt=&quot;&amp;quot;M&amp;quot; for Mary&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of a symbol which &lt;em&gt;I think&lt;/em&gt; is denominationally unique (and I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; is Episcopal) is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://aldiechurch.com/images/episshield.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Shield http://aldiechurch.com/images/episshield.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other denominationally unique symbols are there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2015-10-10T14:32:23.667" Title="What symbols are unique to the various denominations?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2015-10-10T19:46:33.250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5812" CreationDate="2012-02-02T22:50:53.730" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, some things that are professed in Christianity simply cannot be proven by any known scientific methods that I am aware of.  It is, for the most part, a mystery to those of us who are still living.  If the students are in a Catechism class, I would suggest simply teaching what is part of the catechism and referencing what the catechism says while also providing scriptural references.&#xA;&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;&#xA;An appreciation of the belief of eternal life that Christianity adheres to will likely come naturally in time, especially since even the young are prone to experiencing the passing of their relatives.  However, there are some activities that can be taken to nurture that appreciation.  For example, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy include such things as visiting the sick.  Prayers for the faithful departed at a cemetery may also be something that can open people's eyes to the realities of the world and help people come face-to-face with their own mortality and grow in knowledge of themselves.  Hopefully a better understanding of it comes through study and research.  All a teacher can do is instruct about what it is that is believed, not necessarily change individual beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1255" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-02-02T23:24:57.243" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T23:24:57.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5809" CreationDate="2012-02-02T23:25:32.833" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The monotheistic position on ontology can be summarized by the first few words of the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201:1-2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Precisely what this passage means is the subject of much debate.  So many books have been written about these words, it's almost impossible to know where to start.  (Dietrich Bonhoeffer's &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=kVxB_g04WUAC&amp;amp;pg=PA12&amp;amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Creation and Fall&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; would be my own suggestion.)  But what is clear is that God existed &amp;quot;before&amp;quot; anything else and that He created everything.  (&amp;quot;The heavens and the earth&amp;quot; was a stock phrase in Hebrew that means &amp;quot;all things&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;life, the universe, and everything&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;the cosmos&amp;quot;, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philosophers have struggled with the question of whether God &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; exists.  In other words from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/notes.html#1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;metaphysical or broadly logical&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; perspective, can we &lt;a href=&quot;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;know that God exists&lt;/a&gt; merely from describing His nature?  Christians disagree with each other on this point, but all monotheists agree that &lt;strong&gt;God does exist, has always existed, and will always exist&lt;/strong&gt;.  Whether or not this may be demonstrated with human reason might be controversial among us, but we all believe that it is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity makes a further claim that &lt;strong&gt;The Son does exist, has always existed, and will always exist&lt;/strong&gt;.  Here's how Paul phrases it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:15-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:15-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; [God's beloved Son] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that statement, we can also reinterpret Genesis 1:2 to include the third member of the Trinity: &lt;strong&gt;The Spirit of God does exist, has always existed, and will always exist&lt;/strong&gt;.  The important distinction between Christ and the other members of the Trinity is that He had a body that has a physical existence.  It didn't always, but His body does continue to exist and will always exist.  (This is what Paul means by &amp;quot;the firstborn from the dead&amp;quot;: He is the first person to have a resurrection, eternal body.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John uses this language:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; He was in the beginning with God. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The language in John 1:1-3 is purposefully parallel to the language of Genesis 1:1-2.  The Greek word used here is &lt;em&gt;Logos&lt;/em&gt; &amp;lt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3056&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3056&lt;/a&gt;&amp;gt;, which long had a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;philosophical significance&lt;/a&gt;.  John is likely applying the ideas of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philo&lt;/a&gt; to Jesus in this introduction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should point out that the Trinity is an important dividing line for most Christians.  Many of the early controversies in the church swirled around the question of just who Jesus was and how he is associated with God.  Ontology turns out to be central to Christian philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity has a strong affinity to platonism with its focus on non-physical Forms.  Christians (and other monotheists) believe at the very least that God had a non-physical existence before creation (since the physical world was itself created). But we take sharp exception to Plato's notion of souls.  We believe that God created everything outside of Himself, including our souls.  Historically, Christians have also taught, &lt;em&gt;contra&lt;/em&gt; Plato's idea of transmigration of souls, that the church will experience bodily resurrection and exist for eternity with God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:3-4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:3-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is the eternal, axiomatic, and supreme source of all existence, including both the physical and non-physical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-02T23:25:32.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5813" CreationDate="2012-02-03T00:31:23.930" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Chi-Ro symbol dates back to 312 AD when Constantine had a vision, and was told to fight under that symbol at the Battle of Milvan Bridge. It is truly &quot;catholic&quot; in the sense that it is universal to all of Christianity. [You may have heard of a city in Egypt that the Copts named after this symbol ;) ]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IHS is also fairly common- I've seen that in Baptist churches and Anglican ones. I believe that is supposed to be the Greek form of Jesus but I don't know. (maybe someone should ask!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last one is just a coat of arms for The Episcopal Church, much like the emblem of the Holy See. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T00:31:23.930" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5812" CreationDate="2012-02-03T00:41:38.033" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my experience, I have found two things to help teenagers. :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When I talk about heaven, I'm always quick to point out that the &quot;golden harp on a cloud&quot; picture that we have of heaven isn't biblical, and frankly it would be kinda boring. Instead, I point out that eternal life with God is anything but static- we re still growing in heaven!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't focus as much on eternal life as much as real life in this present age. After all, we know that Jesus came in order that you might have life, and have it more abundantly. (in the here and now even!) Paul speaks of the fact that the joy of the Lord is our strength, and he admits that these things are written that &quot; our joy may be made complete&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Piper is a great resource for telling kids that the only way to truly enjoy life is to enjoy God.  In enjoying Gods awesomeness, we learn what makes him so grat. (In fact, you might even say that God is most glorified, when we are most satisfied, in him). Teenagers already think they're immortal, so focus on the present until they realize their need. Once the experience the goodness of God, they'll realize they want to keep it forever. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T00:58:02.700" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T00:58:02.700" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5812" CreationDate="2012-02-03T01:17:32.403" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with David and Affable Geek's answers: teens tend to think they are indestructible so you might not break through.  Lord willing, they will survive long enough to remember your wise teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A suggestion that I have which probably can't be applied to your situation is to take a look at John Piper's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/desiring-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Desiring God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  According to Piper, God isn't just offering eternal life, but also a joyful life.  The subtitle, &lt;em&gt;Meditations of A Christian Hedonist&lt;/em&gt;, really grabbed hold of me.  He quotes from C. S. Lewis' sermon &amp;quot;The Weight of Glory&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our&#xA;own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing,&#xA;I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is&#xA;no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing&#xA;promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised&#xA;in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too&#xA;strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with&#xA;drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an&#xA;ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because&#xA;he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.&#xA;We are far too easily pleased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps more useful is Blaise Pascal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There once was in man a true happiness of which now remain to him&#xA;only the mark and empty trace, which he in vain tries to fill from all his&#xA;surroundings, seeking from things absent the help he does not obtain&#xA;in things present. But these are all inadequate, because the infinite&#xA;abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to&#xA;say, only by God Himself.—&lt;em&gt;Pensees&lt;/em&gt;, 113&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what I would focus on is that heaven is really an extension of all the great things that this life has to offer, only better (perfected) and without end.  What Christianity in this life is all about is preparing us to be able to enjoy the bounty of the next one.  Being able to communicate that Christian truth in a way that really connects with them is a question I don't really have an answer for, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll let the &lt;a href=&quot;http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Thomas+Aquinas,+Saint&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Angelic Doctor&lt;/a&gt; have the last words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I answer that,&lt;/strong&gt; As stated above (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q1_A8.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Q[1], A[8]&lt;/a&gt;), the end is twofold: namely, the thing itself, which we desire to attain, and the use, namely, the attainment or possession of that thing. If, then, we speak of man's last end, it is impossible for man's last end to be the soul itself or something belonging to it. Because the soul, considered in itself, is as something existing in potentiality: for it becomes knowing actually, from being potentially knowing; and actually virtuous, from being potentially virtuous. Now since potentiality is for the sake of act as for its fulfilment, that which in itself is in potentiality cannot be the last end. Therefore the soul itself cannot be its own last end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In like manner neither can anything belonging to it, whether power, habit, or act. For that good which is the last end, is the perfect good fulfilling the desire. Now man's appetite, otherwise the will, is for the universal good. And any good inherent to the soul is a participated good, and consequently a portioned good. Therefore none of them can be man's last end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if we speak of man's last end, as to the attainment or possession thereof, or as to any use whatever of the thing itself desired as an end, thus does something of man, in respect of his soul, belong to his last end: since man attains happiness through his soul. Therefore the thing itself which is desired as end, is that which constitutes happiness, and makes man happy; but the attainment of this thing is called happiness. Consequently we must say that happiness is something belonging to the soul; but that which constitutes happiness is something outside the soul.—&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q2_A7.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Question 2, Article 7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T01:17:32.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5819" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5822" CreationDate="2012-02-03T02:14:05.817" Score="2" ViewCount="373" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm coming at this from the evangelical reform side of salvation. For the evangelical, salvation is made for us by Jesus on the cross. There is nothing else we can add to make us more saved, or less saved (I know those who believe in losing your salvation). So my hope is in the fact that Jesus paid for me, and that God raised him from the dead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But from my understanding, Roman Catholics believe that salvation must be earned, although Jesus made the way possible. If there is a part involve from me in my salvation, I find it hard to believe where is the hope in all of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Could someone explain to me how they see the hope in the Roman faith?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I want to extend an apology if this question has insulted anyone. I tried to asked it in a way that was neutral, trying to understand my catholics friends. Since there were many sincere catholic on this site I though I would get a to answer to this genuine question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here again I ask your forgiveness if I offended anyone. It was not my intention in any way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T19:30:02.620" LastActivityDate="2014-10-03T04:44:37.520" Title="What is the hope in Roman Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2337" CreationDate="2012-02-03T03:44:44.083" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;(I wrote this in an essay on Hebrews a few years back)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origen (185-254 CE) in the East has been quoted as saying that God only knows who wrote the Epistle although he also suggested that Paul was the author (Robertson, 1932). Hippolytus (170-236 CE) from Rome denied it was written by Paul. Tertullian (160-220 CE) in North Africa spoke of an Epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews (Vincent, 1886). At the councils of Carthage (397&amp;amp; 419 CE) it was accepted that Hebrews was Pauline and was affirmed in the council of Trent (1545-1563) (Vincent, 1886). During the reformation doubt was again put on the authorship as Luther (1484-1546) said it was written by Apollos (Robertson, 1932) and Calvin (1509-1564) denied it was Pauline (Vincent, 1886). Adolf von Harnac (1851-1930) suggested that Priscilla may have been the author but Robertson (1932) highlights that Hebrews 11:32 mentions a masculine participle that dismisses this theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Epistle itself provides some information about the author. The author was a friend of Timothy (13:23) and was possibly writing in Italy (13:24), although this verse may mean “those who are originally from Italy”. In Hebrews 2:3 the author includes himself in receiving the message of salvation from those who first heard it, thus making it likely the author was not an Apostle but a second generation convert (Achtemeier, Green, &amp;amp; Thompson, 2001, p. 467). Throughout Hebrews the author attributed all of the Scriptural quotes to God. This use of Scripture suggests that the author believed the Old Testament to be the inspired word of God. The author had knowledge of the Jewish system leading many to think that the author was Jewish. All copies of the Epistle that have been found were written in polished Greek and not in Hebrew, indicating that the author was educated (Achtemeier, Green, &amp;amp; Thompson, 2001, p. 469). The author also used the Greek Septuagint and not a Hebrew Old Testament to quote from, probably due to the large Hellenistic influence of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also (this wasn't in my essay) in 5:11, 6:9, 11 etc the author refers to themselves as &amp;quot;we&amp;quot; suggesting that Hebrews may have been co-authored, perhaps in the same way that Philippines and Philemon is written by Paul and Timothy (Phil 1:1, Philemon 1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Citations&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Achtemeier, P. J., Green, J. B., &amp;amp; Thompson, M. M. (2001). &lt;em&gt;Introducing the New Testament: its literature and theology&lt;/em&gt;. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Robertson, A. T. (1932). &lt;em&gt;Word pictures in the New Testament&lt;/em&gt;. Nashville: Broadman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vincent, M. R. (1886). &lt;em&gt;Vicent word studies in the New Testament&lt;/em&gt;. Hendrickson Publishers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1248" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T03:59:12.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3829" CreationDate="2012-02-03T04:11:01.607" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;By and large, Protestants follow Chalcedonian formulations in regards to Chalcedonian heresies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants by and large subscribe to hypostatic union, although our theories of communion vary widely from memorialism to consubstantiation. If you think in terms of the importance of these issues, however, the more &quot;important&quot; the doctrine (i.e. the nature of Christ is more important than the nature of the elements in the Eucharist), the more likely we are to agree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Analogy to Common Law&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest analogy would be like what happened in the Americas after we revolted from Great Britain.  The UK had a long, established Common Law for crime, torts, etc...  Those precedents in English Common law are still used in American Courts of Justice today. Why? Because it didn't matter if you had a President or a King - libel was still libel, theft was still theft, and double-parking was still rude.  In the same way, old heresies are still heresies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To stretch the analogy, however, what constitutes murder is almost identical.  Libel, on the other hand, has far more nuance (and is much harder to prove) in the US than in the UK. Where does defamation become slander? Well, that's when you start getting lawyers involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you ask any Christian outside of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;an obscure Dutch sect&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;Is Jesus God?&quot; You're going to get a yes.  If you ask about Hypostatic Union, any priest or minister will agree.  (And 90% of the people in the pew will say, um, sure, yeah.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, we agree on a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What defines heresy?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Up until the rise of the Scholastic movement in the 1300s and the proto-reformers like John Wycliffe and Duns Scotus, there really was no such thing as a Protestant (or a Roman Catholic for that matter).  There was simply &quot;the Church.&quot;  (I know someone's going to say &quot;but what about the Orthodox?&quot;  They were part of &quot;the Church&quot; too, even if they were in disagreement about who was the head honcho.) Likewise, prior to 787 and the 7th Ecumenical Council, there was no Eastern and Western church - just the &quot;church&quot; (albeit with different Patriarchs).  In regards to theological doctrine, there was (and still is) far more agreement than disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look, for example, at the Nicene Creed.  There is a heck of a lot of theology in that creed, and yet with the exception of one syllable at the end of filioque, 97% of the world's Christians can still agree on the entire summary!  Each of the heresies noted by the Council of Chalcedon is a rejection of a tenet of that creed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, most of the heresies as identified by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;first seven ecumenical councils&lt;/a&gt; are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;regarded as heresies by modern Protestants&lt;/a&gt; as well. They are regarded as heresy by Orthodox and Roman Catholics too.  There is a wide body of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/what-is-mainstream-christianity&quot;&gt;mainstream Christianity&lt;/a&gt; that really is a definable entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone tries to say that your salvation is dependent on a godly pastor, a Protestant can yell &quot;Donatism!&quot; as easily as a Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone says that Jesus was strictly God and not man, it doesn't matter if your RCC or Orthodox or Protestant, you can still say &quot;that's Monophysite&quot; and be right.  (Incidently, a lot of Baptists are for all practical purposes Monophysite but don't know it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to anyone who says that Jesus only appeared to be human or only appeared to die on a cross (like, say a Muslim), pretty much any Christian* can say &quot;Docetism!&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heresy simply means this - a theological position out of step with accepted majority thinking. Back in the days when people were persecuted for being out of step it meant something more, but nowadays, it just means whether or not the doctrine has historically been considered consensus or not.  (Indeed, every heretic believed it was everybody else who was going to hell.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How I learned to stop worrying and love the heresy bomb&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To your original question of &quot;What heresies are in the church today?&quot; well, that's a book.  The former dean of Virginia Theological Seminary once told me, &quot;There are no new heresies, and there are no non-heretics.  Everybody has a heresy, the question is simply which ones.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trinitarianism and Christology are two classic examples of heresy breeding grounds.  Between modalism and tritheism, monophysitism and monoergism and Nestorianism - there are so many errors on either side that the question isn't if one espouses a heresy, but which one.  In practice, I'm sure I'm a heretic, but I at least can label my heresies :)  The point is to note the error and seek to correct it in one own's theology (or point it out where there is a practical implication in others reasoning) rather than worry about or ignore it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Now - does that mean that there are some people who claim to Christian but hold to heresy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yup.  Doctrinally speaking, Christians are not pure.  We hold all sorts of mysteries in tension, and as such hold to heresy from time to time.  By the measurement of Chalcedon, some groups are further away than others.  It isn't a opinion, its a demonstrable fact. Historically, that's been the most widely accepted definition of Christianity ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that mean Chalcedon was 100% correct? That's when you start getting into bar-room philosophy and theological brawls. But if you just want to know what the (mainstream) Christian world calls heresy and what it doesn't, that's the place to start. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T19:49:33.813" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5819" CreationDate="2012-02-03T04:37:53.857" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, I finally got to reading pope Benedict's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html&quot;&gt;spe salvi&lt;/a&gt; and it was totally worth it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, it is &quot;in hope we are saved&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Spe Salvi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person who hopes has been led out of darkness. Hope gives our works meaning and our life direction. We work to bring about and build up the Kingdom of God here on earth, all the while hoping for a share in it in the next. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pope relates the story of St Josephine Bakhita, an African saint whose life was almost pure hope. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;She was known and loved and she was awaited. What is more, this master had himself accepted the destiny of being flogged and now he was waiting for her “at the Father's right hand”. Now she had “hope” —no longer simply the modest hope of finding masters who would be less cruel, but the great hope: “I am definitively loved and whatever happens to me—I am awaited by this Love. And so my life is good.” Through the knowledge of this hope she was “redeemed”, no longer a slave, but a free child of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Her hope was simply God Himself.  That is Catholic hope, what else could you say the substance of which is Faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You do point out some true doctrinal differences between our sects. We don't say that a person can lose their salvation because we don't presume that we had it to begin with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person can't become unbaptized, but through intentional evil acts can put themselves outside a state of grace. If one dies outside a state of grace they will go to hell. Don't do this! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as Jesus says, the only unforgivable sin is the offense against the Holy Spirit, which is quite simply denying that He has the power to save.  This despair is the virtue which is the opposite of hope. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think I wrote enough, maybe someone else will touch on faith and works.  But we believe that if a person has faith they'll show it in the way they live their lives. As the pope says our hope is &quot;performative&quot; not just &quot;informative&quot; it directs our path, it doesn't just fill our brains with lofty notions.  And it is communitive, not individualistic, our hope is to seek the kingdom as a people. Even though we must die alone like Christ, we can help carry each others crosses.  It's not that we do it to earn salvation, we do it in imitation of Jesus and the hope of what lies beyond sends us forth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T04:37:53.857" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5812" CreationDate="2012-02-03T05:31:05.843" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are they not into it because they &lt;em&gt;do not feel it is real&lt;/em&gt; or because they &lt;em&gt;don't care about the difference&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they think that living forever (in some sense) and living only for a normal human lifespan are equivalent, you can invite thought-experiments about what things would be like for them in 40, 60, 80 years.  Most teenagers have plenty of imagination to do that; they may not feel the finiteness as intensely as people who are older, but I would be surprised if they would agree that it wouldn't even make much difference to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they think that living forever is not going to happen, either because they believe but don't think they can measure up, or because they don't really believe, then I would suggest that you are perhaps starting in the wrong place.  For the I-can't-make-it crowd, you can emphasize forgiveness and Jesus' sacrifice for mankind (including them).  For the I-don't-really-think-so crowd, you at least can probably get them to agree that there would be a difference if it was an option (back to the first point), and then leave it be until you're ready to talk about something that might be more compelling for them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T05:31:05.843" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5650" CreationDate="2012-02-03T07:52:01.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is nothing in scripture which makes this statement. As far as private revelation, nothing I know of, however, I do not typically seek out teachings based on private revelation. 2 Peter 1:20-21.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="178" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T07:52:01.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5825" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5826" CreationDate="2012-02-03T08:02:17.020" Score="1" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;Referencing the gospel accounts of Christ's actions and teachings, how does He clearly define a Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="178" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T17:40:57.560" Title="How does Christ define a Christian?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-08T01:37:48.593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5825" CreationDate="2012-02-03T09:16:33.077" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus didn't, because the word &quot;Christian&quot; only appeared much later. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2011:26&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Acts 11:26c&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T09:55:56.490" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T09:55:56.490" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5827" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-03T09:30:24.520" Score="-2" ViewCount="860" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1763/what-happens-to-people-who-have-never-heard-about-jesus&quot;&gt;What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 14:6 Jesus says &quot;I am the Way the Truth and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the implications of this statement with regards to those that have never heard of Christ? I'm thinking specifically of those who lived before he was born, and those who, even after his birth, never hear anything about him (for example people who live in tribes in the Amazon). Are these souls doomed to suffer in hell for eternity, and if so how is that just?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, how does the fate of these lost souls affect my fate as a Christian, given that Christ commanded us to spread the Gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1256" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T09:58:36.220" Title="What are the implications of Jesus Christ being the only way to obtain eternal life?" Tags="&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2012-02-03T12:50:18.363" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5827" CreationDate="2012-02-03T09:58:36.220" Score="0" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All people have knowledge of God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:19-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:19-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All people reject God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All people are guilty before God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:24&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:24&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1:26&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:29-31&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1:29-31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All people are condemned for rejecting God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God has made a way of salvation for the lost. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:21-22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:21-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;People cannot come to God apart from faith in Christ. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christ commands the church to make the gospel known to all peoples. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:13-15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 10:13-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Rom 10:14-15 ESV)  14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?  15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="178" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T09:58:36.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5831" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5836" CreationDate="2012-02-03T13:45:26.647" Score="7" ViewCount="102949" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:1-4&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:1-4&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and &lt;strong&gt;become like little children&lt;/strong&gt;, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this mean? How can we apply it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-03-16T03:05:47.753" Title="What does Jesus mean when He says that we should be like children?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;bible&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-16T22:27:47.753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5833" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-03T14:40:39.680" Score="2" ViewCount="823" Body="&lt;p&gt;What guidelines should be followed if using spiritual gifts in a church setting today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T01:21:06.893" Title="What guidelines should be followed using spiritual gifts?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:09:56.273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5819" CreationDate="2012-02-03T14:50:37.503" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Definitions and commentaries about Hope could go on for a very long time (the scholastics, Fathers, and Doctors wrote voluminously on this topic); perhaps a more concise insight of the Catholic view of Hope can be grokked by considering a prayer called &quot;The Act of Hope&quot; that I was taught as soon as I was able to memorize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O MY GOD, relying on Thy almighty power and infinite mercy and&#xA;  promises, I hope to obtain pardon of my sins, the help of Thy grace,&#xA;  and Life Everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my Lord and&#xA;  Redeemer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this short prayer we affirm that any expectation of salvation is explicitly anticipated based on the infinite merits that Christ earned on our behalf, and our reliance on His mercy. It's also important to realize that the operation of Hope in the soul cannot really be separated from Faith, as Faith in God is the basis of our Hope (and Faith and Hope together become actively expressed in Charity, both to God and man, which is why the Theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, while being separate in concept, cannot be separated in practice for the Christian who lives as he believes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T14:50:37.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5831" CreationDate="2012-02-03T15:22:40.333" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard to top the Haydock commentary for this so I'll just cite it and link to it (though I did add the emphasis):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ver. 1. Who, thinkest thou? This altercation for superiority among the&#xA;  apostles, whilst they were upon their road to Judea, might have arisen&#xA;  from another cause besides the precedence given by Jesus Christ to&#xA;  Peter above, as St. Chrysostom (hom. lix. in Mat.) affirms. A report&#xA;  prevailed among the disciples, that Christ would soon die; and they&#xA;  wished to know who would be the first, when he was gone. (Jansenius)&#xA;  --- Or expecting that by his future resurrection he would enter into full possession of his temporal kingdom, they wished to learn which of&#xA;  them should be the greater in this new and glorious state. Calmet&#xA;  supposes that Peter was not with them, but that he had gone before&#xA;  with his Master to Capharnaum. (Calmet)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ver. 2. And Jesus calling ... a little child. In St. Mark (ix. 32.) we&#xA;  find that Jesus did this in the house, when they were arrived at&#xA;  Capharnaum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ver. 3. You shall not enter, &amp;amp;c. i.e. &lt;strong&gt;you shall have no place in my&#xA;  kingdom of glory, in heaven, where none shall find admittance but they&#xA;  that are truly humble&lt;/strong&gt;. (Witham) --- Our Lord in this and the next&#xA;  chapter teaches us, 1st, To sit down in the lowest place; 2nd, to bear&#xA;  patiently with our neighbor; 3rd, not to scandalize a weak brother;&#xA;  4th, mildly to correct him when faulty; and 5thly, to forgive him when&#xA;  repentant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ver. 4. Greater in the kingdom of heaven, because more conformable to&#xA;  me here on earth. &lt;strong&gt;Humble souls, who are little in their own eyes, are&#xA;  so dear and closely united to the Almighty&lt;/strong&gt;, that Christ declares them&#xA;  to be the most acceptable, the first in merit, not highest in&#xA;  authority or dignity either in church or state, as some idle fanatics&#xA;  pretend. (Jansenius) --- The kingdom of heaven is not the reward of&#xA;  ambition, but the boon of simplicity and humility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id36.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id36.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T15:22:40.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5831" CreationDate="2012-02-03T15:33:42.487" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question!&#xA;There are so many things about this verse that are so awesome. I would propose Jesus' answer has a two-fold answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Part 1&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;First, Jesus says that we will not enter the kingdom of heaven unless we become like a child. We need to change our mindset and think like children think. Not that we become immature and act childish in the traditional sense, but that we accept things in simplicity. Children have a way of believing everything you say and believing it as fact. It's only when we grow up that we tend to question everything. The currency of the kingdom of heaven is faith. It's what moves God's heart and what the great people of God are known for. So for the first part Jesus is telling us, &quot;have faith like a child&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Part 2&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;The humility of children is very evident. It's a beautiful thing to watch. Although they may compete with each other in games and such, the humiliity they have without even knowing it is astouding! They were also thought of in Jewish culture as insignificant until they were 12. Essentially, Jesus is saying act as if you were the lowest in society. Jesus often tell us to go lower if we want to be higher. Our humility in His eyes equals in direct proportion to how He exalts us. The word says over and over that our job is to humble ourselves in His sight and &lt;strong&gt;He&lt;/strong&gt; exalts us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this makes sense and helps :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1246" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-02-11T18:17:35.793" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T18:17:35.793" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5825" CreationDate="2012-02-03T15:39:40.657" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;To the extent that &quot;being Christian&quot; means following Christ in imitation of Him, Christ gives the answer in Matthew 16:24: &quot; Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In commentary on this verse Saints Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylactus, show that free will is confirmed by these words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not expect, O Peter, that since you have confessed me to be the&#xA;  Son of God, you are immediately to be crowned, as if this were&#xA;  sufficient for salvation, and that the rest of your days may be spent&#xA;  in idleness and pleasure. For, although by my power, as Son of God, I&#xA;  could free you from every danger and trouble, yet this I will not do&#xA;  for your sake, that you may yourself contribute to your glory, and&#xA;  become the more illustrious.&quot; (St. Chrysostom, hom. lvi.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T15:39:40.657" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5841" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6794" CreationDate="2012-02-03T16:29:13.870" Score="10" ViewCount="20115" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that members of the LDS (Mormon) Church are prohibited from drinking coffee and perhaps some other drinks and possibly food, much like the Jewish people in the Old Testament were forbidden from eating pork and other foods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the specific drinks that are forbidden by the LDS Church today?  Also, are there any specific foods that are forbidden as well?  What is the basis for these teachings in the Bible and other sources?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-21T02:13:21.923" LastActivityDate="2016-01-06T00:18:55.317" Title="What specific foods and drinks are forbidden by the LDS (Mormon) Church?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5841" CreationDate="2012-02-03T16:40:32.100" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/faq/law-of-health/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;From Mormon.org&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our body is a precious gift from God. To help keep our bodies and our&#xA;minds healthy and strong, God gave a law of health to Joseph Smith in&#xA;1833. This law is known as the Word of Wisdom (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:1-21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to emphasizing the benefits of proper eating and physical&#xA;and spiritual health, God has spoken against the use of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tobacco.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alcohol.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Coffee and tea.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Illegal drugs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God promises great physical and spiritual blessings to those who&#xA;follow the Word of Wisdom. Today, the scientific community promotes&#xA;some of the same principles that a loving God gave to Joseph Smith&#xA;nearly two centuries ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading the comments on the site linked above, the reasoning for the prohibition of these substances is that they impair the clear use of the mind; this is essentially the same principle why drunkenness is forbidden in Catholic moral teaching: free will and intelligence are gifts from God which allow us to know and love Him, so the voluntary impairment of these is wrong. St. Thomas Aquinas, on the question of how much are we allowed to drink, answers that we can drink &amp;quot;to the point of merriment (also translated as 'hilarity').&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T20:16:59.783" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5833" CreationDate="2012-02-03T16:47:28.083" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wowsers! Great question! Also a loaded one. I'll be deconstructing 1 Corinthians 14 since this is the clearest example of guidelines (I'm also assuming that you meant the spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have so much to say about this in terms of non-cessationalism, but because it doesn't directly answer the original question, suffice it to say that Paul tell us that spiritual gifts are to be desired. We were never given a choice between chosing to love God and spiritual gifts. I often hear, &quot;I rather love Jesus and focus on Him&quot;, as if that can minimize Jesus in some way to pursue spiritual gifts. So then, in this guideline, we're told first of all to desire spiritual gifts. Paul, as if to argue the possibility that some may doubt, establishes the topic of this snippet (chapter 14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the verses that I see that Paul clearly establishes a differentiation between two different kinds of &quot;tongues&quot;. Here he is talking about the public use of speaking in tongues. Later in verse 28 he says that if there is no one to interpret, we speak in tongues privately (which is actually to God and for our edification as we see in verses 4, 14 &amp;amp; 28). We're told here that the public use of tongues is useless in terms of the edification of the Church as a whole when there is no interpretation. Thus, we should rather speak from our understanding if there is no interpreter present. Notice here, though, that the word is interpret and not translate. Because there are different kinds of tongues (1 Cor. 13:1), there will not always be someone there who knows that particular language and the Spirit gives an interpretation. It's not a word-for-word translation, but the message is conveyed the same. I've seen this happen many times in a service where one speaks in tongues and interprets what He feels the spirit is saying, then someone has stood up and said, &quot;that was my native tongue and you have said everything exactly as you spoke it!&quot;. It an amazing thing to watch and it instills a fear and awe of the Lord.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.&#xA;  21 In the law it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“With men of other tongues and other lips&#xA;I will speak to this people;&#xA;And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”says the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a good guideline. Be careful that you don't &quot;overuse&quot; tongues in a public service because those who are unbelievers will think you are crazy if they come in and you're babbling in languages that they don't know. Although, if there is prophecy and his heart is revealed then he will know there is a God. I've seen this many times. People who don't believe in God will quickly listen when you tell them the secrets of their heart that no one else could know but God alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (I've ommited verses 34-38 to keep from debating such a sensitive topic.) 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 &lt;strong&gt;Let all things be done decently and in order.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is probably the &quot;meat&quot; of the guidelines section. Verse 40 basically sums everything up. The thing we need to keep in mind when operating in spiritual gifts in a Church setting is that things need to be done decently and in order. There should not be chaos in the Church of the God of peace. Each has his own part and there is no rush to make yourself heard since everyone can take a turn and be edified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps and makes sense. Sorry if it's too long!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1246" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T16:47:28.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5833" CreationDate="2012-02-03T16:55:14.860" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;(The following answer is given from the Catholic point of view.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spiritual Gifts (also called &quot;Charismatic Graces&quot; in Catholic parlance) are gifts given to members of the Church for the benefit of others in the Church.  As such, the guidelines are: those to whom such gifts have been given ought to make use of them for the benefit of others according to the law of Charity (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). The scriptural basis for this guideline would be Christ's exhortation: To whom much is given, much is expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T16:55:14.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5833" CreationDate="2012-02-03T17:01:10.527" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;My guidelines would be: &quot;due caution&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;many people over the years have claimed supernatural powers; and yet, in this sceptical world, not one has ever been shown to actually exist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;healing is particularly dangerous, as many countries exercise strict laws about claiming to be able to heal: healing is a medical claim, and &lt;strong&gt;even by a church&lt;/strong&gt; demands full &lt;strong&gt;medical&lt;/strong&gt; evidence (and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;previous tests aren't very compelling&lt;/a&gt;); if you make any claim of being able to heal, you are on rocky ground; even listing things that you think can be cured through faith is risky, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/2/Healing-on-the-Streets_Bath/SHP_ADJ_158433.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as HOTS found recently&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;prophecies have failed equally damningly - obviously there will be some &quot;hits&quot;; the question is: do the &quot;hits&quot; stack against the many &quot;misses&quot; (cough &lt;em&gt;rapture&lt;/em&gt; cough) - unfortunately, most &quot;misses&quot; are silently ignored&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;as a result, if you claim supernatural powers, as per the question, there is a good chance that you will be seen as a charlatan, by some in the church, and by most outside the church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T17:01:10.527" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5825" CreationDate="2012-02-03T17:40:57.560" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus generally talks about His Kingdom when He talks about the church.  But He does have things to say about who belongs among His followers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:33-41&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 9:33-41&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, &lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt; John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” &lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. &lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; For the one who is not against us is for us. &lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He sets the bar of membership much lower than any church I know (including my own):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No matter who you are or what you've done, if you act in Jesus' name, you are His follower.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we can't forget the immediate context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:30-32&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 9:30-32&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; They went on from there and passed through Galilee. And he did not want anyone to know, &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; But they did not understand the saying, and were afraid to ask him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we want to follow Him, be imitators of Christ, or Christians (literally &amp;quot;little Christs&amp;quot;), we need to follow Him where ever He goes: even to death.  We also believe we can follow Him in Resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T17:40:57.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5847" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6217" CreationDate="2012-02-03T18:43:07.253" Score="10" ViewCount="2320" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament checks in at about 580,000 - 590,000 words (depending on the translation), and the New Testament has about 180,000.  That means the 66 distinct books combined have a total of about 770,000 words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For purposes of comparison, the Lord of Rings Trilogy (just 3 books!) is 525,000, Atlas Shrugged (1 book!) is 645,000, and L. Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth is over 1.2 million words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of 2 John has only 245 words, and the book of 3 John has 219 words - again for comparison, Dr. Suess' Cat In The Hat 1629 words. Indeed, 12 of the 66 books are all shorter than that!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The longest book in the Bible - the Book of Psalms, has about 42,000 words, which is not too much more than 1/2 of the first Harry Potter book (80,000). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://writemindset.com/writing/944/novel-word-count.html&quot;&gt;Write Mindset.com&lt;/a&gt;, 60,000 is about the minimum for a novel, and no book in the Bible comes close. Indeed, only two of the Gospels exceed the normal maximum length of a short story by being just over 20,000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all of these comparisons, the point is pretty simple - the Bible is short.  The question is, Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html&quot;&gt;http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-04T04:51:11.693" LastActivityDate="2012-02-24T09:57:46.917" Title="Why is the Bible so short?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-26T01:23:03.337" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5847" CreationDate="2012-02-03T18:43:23.337" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several reasons, but one of the most interesting to me is the cost of available materials.  We take cheap paper for granted, but even in the days of Paul, the raw materials for writing would have been expensive.  In his &lt;em&gt;Introduction to the New Testament&lt;/em&gt;, Raymond Brown calculated that the cost of a paper and ink alone would have cost Paul the equivalent of about US$3000 in today's money just to write the Book of Romans.  That would not have necessarily even covered the cost of an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanuensis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amanuensis&lt;/a&gt; to physically do the writing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With prices like that just for the raw materials, one can understand why John would say in John 21:25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth is, he probably couldn't have afforded it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-04T04:50:31.947" LastActivityDate="2012-02-04T04:50:31.947" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5849" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5856" CreationDate="2012-02-03T18:53:28.410" Score="9" ViewCount="838" Body="&lt;p&gt;L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology.  I was just wondering if they claim to be Christian in any event? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-04T18:04:42.570" LastActivityDate="2012-02-04T18:04:42.570" Title="Does Scientology claim to be Christian?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5849" CreationDate="2012-02-03T18:58:49.503" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology&quot;&gt;From Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L.&#xA;  Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), starting in 1952, as a successor to his&#xA;  earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard characterized Scientology&#xA;  as a religion, and in 1953 incorporated the Church of Scientology in&#xA;  Camden, New Jersey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing about Christ here; I'll answer no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-beliefs/what-is-the-concept-of-god-in-scientology.html&quot;&gt;From Scientology.org&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;DOES SCIENTOLOGY HAVE A CONCEPT OF GOD? Most definitely. In&#xA;  Scientology, the concept of God is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic—the&#xA;  urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the&#xA;  Supreme Being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, nothing about Christ.  I think the answer is no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-beliefs/religious-figures-of-the-past.html&quot;&gt;And for good measure, L. Ron Hubbard says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The great religious civilizing forces of the past, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and others, have all emphasized differentiation of good from evil and higher ethical values.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That sounds to me like someone speaking of Christianity as an outsider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="1244" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T19:04:09.250" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T19:04:09.250" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2170" CreationDate="2012-02-03T19:20:02.067" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sure: a man &quot;has the capability judge&quot; God in the sense that he has the free will to regard himself so highly as to pass judgement on God.  Obviously that doesn't mean such a man as the moral right or ability to do so.  It seems to me that anyone who openly questions why God allows such-and-such an evil (be it starving children in Africa, being evicted from their house, getting in a car accident one day after their medical and car insurance expires) is demonstrating a free-will capability to judge God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I didn't address &quot;fair&quot; in my answer, but on what other issue would there be to &quot;judge&quot; God?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T19:20:02.067" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5847" CreationDate="2012-02-03T20:14:21.777" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition, a surprising amount of content is repeated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomy&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy&lt;/a&gt; generally summarizes the law of the rest of the Torah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The two &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Chronicles&quot;&gt;Books of Chronicles&lt;/a&gt; cover much of the books of Samuel and Kings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew repeats &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels&quot;&gt;almost all&lt;/a&gt; of Mark&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A quarter of Matthew and Luke are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source&quot;&gt;nearly the same&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts tells the story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle&quot;&gt;Paul's conversion&lt;/a&gt; three times in addition to short mentions he makes in his letters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are the genealogies, repeated sacrifices, land allotments, and other lists that give us, modern readers very little extra content.  (Not that we should contemplate removing or ignoring those bits.  They just make the question that much more pressing.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I have not plumbed the depths of God's Word and I don't know of anyone who has.  There is a richness there that I have never tasted anywhere else.  How can I complain that I don't have enough of something that satisfies me and more?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I'm nobody compared to the Psalmist who is looking forward to an eternity with the Torah alone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20119:41-48&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Psalm 119:41-48&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;b&gt;Waw&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;your salvation according to your promise;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for I trust in your word.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt; And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for my hope is in your rules.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt; I will keep your law continually,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;strong&gt;forever and ever&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt; and I shall walk in a wide place,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for I have sought your precepts.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt; I will also speak of your testimonies before kings&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and shall not be put to shame,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt; for I find my delight in your commandments,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;which I love.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt; I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and I will meditate on your statutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T20:14:21.777" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5812" CreationDate="2012-02-03T20:25:18.017" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This is not really an answer so much as a perspective - that might, in part, apply. So I've marked it &quot;wiki&quot;. If people think this is unhelpful, I'll delete it.&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a youth, I was raised as roman catholic, and attended all the usual groups (including confirmation classes) and then some, including reading/serving in church, extra-curricular RE to GCSE (which was very uncommon, even in my RC school). I could have waxed on at substantial length for the equivalent of your catechism group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But here's the thing: at no point did I ever believe one word of it. At best, I would have been (in my formative years) agnostic. I attended, and learned, due to expectation, and not wanting to disappoint. And, truth to tell, I enjoyed the learning. Religion remains of interest to me, but as an observer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: it could be that no matter what you say, you aren't going to reach (some of) them. As for what arguments I would give them... well, I wouldn't .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T21:06:54.733" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T21:06:54.733" CommentCount="7" CommunityOwnedDate="2012-02-03T20:25:18.017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5847" CreationDate="2012-02-03T21:28:08.163" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible, when thought of as a single book, is not short. It's the individual &quot;books&quot; that make up the bible that are short. Here, I think the confusion is that &quot;books&quot; within the bible are called books under a different, older meaning of the word that is more akin to &quot;volume&quot;. Indeed, several of the books are really just letters from one person to another.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T18:08:25.167" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T18:08:25.167" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5849" CreationDate="2012-02-03T23:01:39.290" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Scientology, Jesus Christ was part of the &quot;implant&quot; that Xenu imposed on the thetans. That is, he is a fictional character that people were brainwashed into believing in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scientologists believe that 75 million years ago the leader of the Galactic Confederation, Xenu, decided that many planets in the galaxy were overpopulated, and to solve this problem he killed hundreds of billions of people, captured their &quot;thetans&quot; (i.e. souls) in a mixture of glycol and alcohol, and transported them to the planet Teegeeack to imprison them there. (Which we now call &quot;Earth&quot;.) He placed all these frozen thetans around volcanos and blew up these volcanos with hydrogen bombs. The thetans were gathered on &quot;electronic ribbons&quot; where they stuck together in &quot;clusters&quot;. Xenu took these thetans to Hawaii and Los Palmas where he subjected them to a kind of brain-washing called &quot;implanting&quot; for 36 days, in which false memories were implanted in their minds to make them servile. Scientologists call this event &quot;Incident 2&quot;. Modern humans are these thetans in bodily form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small part of the &quot;implant&quot; was belief in Christ. Another part of the implant was that if anyone tried to learn the truth, they would die of pneumonia. That's how things stood for 75 millions years until L Ron Hubbard came along and somehow managed to survive and break the implant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's what Scientologists believe, anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, they're not Christians by any reasonable definition of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T23:01:39.290" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5813" CreationDate="2012-02-03T23:25:43.853" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suspect most Protestant denominations in America and Europe have some sort of official logo. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Southern Baptists&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Md1x.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian &amp;amp; Missionary Alliance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/1yZLf.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evangelical Lutheran Church of America&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FD2It.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;United Methodists&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/0Gb28.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Etc etc. I'm sure we could list hundreds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-02-03T23:32:37.180" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T23:32:37.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5809" CreationDate="2012-02-03T23:42:52.873" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you say &quot;widely accepted Christian&quot; belief about X, where X is some complex philosophical subject, I wonder whether you mean, &quot;widely believed among all Christians in the world, of all educational and intellectual levels&quot;, or &quot;widely believed by Christian scholars in the relevant field&quot;. Frankly, I'm sure there are many complex ideas in Christianity -- or any other subject area -- that are not &quot;widely accepted&quot; in the sense that most people don't understand the question, never mind have an intelligent opinion about the answer. Like, Einstein's theory of relativity is widely accepted among physicists. But most people have only the vaguest idea of what it means, and Hollywood screenwriters routinely portray profound misunderstandings of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I think most serious Christian thinkers have adopted Aristotle's idea of the &quot;prime mover&quot;: Most entities in the universe exist because they were caused by some other, pre-existing entity. But if you follow this chain backward, you must conclude that either the universe has existed forever, or there must have been some &quot;first cause&quot; which had no cause preceding it. (I'm not trying to give the full &quot;argument from first cause&quot; here, just summarizing it.) We call that being God. So God's existence is independent of any other entity. Everything else is caused, i.e. created, either directly or indirectly by God. Christians normally assert that God is unique in this way: he is the only uncaused entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jon Ericson notes, philosophers have struggled with the question of whether God's existence is necessary or contingent, i.e. whether we could even imagine a universe in which God, if we properly understood the word, does not to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's true that most Christians would agree with Mr Turner that God is fundamentally unknowable by the human mind. I don't agree, I think it is conceivable that we could understand God if we had sufficient information, but I'm giving my own opinion here, I think the concensus would disagree with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, people have written many books on this subject, I don't think I can summarize it all in a few paragraphs, so I'll stop here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T23:42:52.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2904" CreationDate="2012-02-03T23:50:51.177" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the author (e.g., the human author) &lt;em&gt;meant&lt;/em&gt; to be writing figuratively, or poetically, or even mythically, then in &lt;em&gt;theological&lt;/em&gt; parlance, the figurative, poetic, mythic interpretation &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the literal interpretation.  In theology, it goes by authorial intent, not by high school literature course canons.  E.g., St. Augustine talks about 'ages' instead of days, but says this is a literal interpretation.  So the word &lt;em&gt;literal&lt;/em&gt;, in theology, does not mean what the word 'literal' means in common English modern conversation, nor should it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1260" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T23:50:51.177" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5812" CreationDate="2012-02-03T23:57:00.447" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know that the average teenager would find this answer persuasive, but here's how I see it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ask any teenager why he should go to school. Most understand that the purpose of school is to prepare you for adult life. You have to know enough math to be able to at least handle routine tasks like figuring out if you can afford that house or apartment on your income, etc. You have to know enough civics to function within our society's laws without getting arrested. You have to learn enough to be able to get a job when you graduate, like if you plan to become a chemist it would be a good idea to learn some chemistry, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when a kid is in school, he's not normally thinking, &quot;I need to study chapter 4 in the math book because someday that will be useful when I'm trying to determine how much I need to save for retirement.&quot; Rather, he thinks, &quot;I need to study chapter 4 so I can pass the test on Tuesday.&quot; The long term goals of preparing for adult life are often obscured beneath the short term goals of passing the test or completing the project, and are often ignored because of unrelated short term goals like winning the football game or getting a date with Susie. We know the ultimate goal is there, but we often forget it because of more immediate things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the same way with eternity. The purpose of this life is to prepare us for eternity. But we -- teens and adults -- get wrapped up in the short term goals: getting a job, going on vacation, enjoying hobbies, etc. There's nothing wrong with many of these, and many are positive goods. But it's easy to let these immediate things become the focus of our attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a slogan that went around the business world a few years ago: Don't let the urgent become the enemy of the important. It's even more true about eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-02-03T23:57:00.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5861" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5863" CreationDate="2012-02-04T00:39:03.617" Score="6" ViewCount="1305" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know there are many denominations in the Christian circle. I was wondering if there is a consensus on what the Bible is about? Or in other words is there a consensus in Christianity today on what is the main theme of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther said of the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;None of its parts are obscure... The scriptures is the book the more clear in all the world&#xA;  &lt;code&gt;The Bondage of Will by Martin Luther&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-04T05:26:08.140" LastActivityDate="2015-12-09T07:21:23.250" Title="What is the central idea of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-12-09T15:36:30.223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5861" CreationDate="2012-02-04T00:51:52.680" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading for a class and came across the folowing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Augustine proposes that when Christ is viewed has the center of the Bible and love is our supreme good, we understand the Scripture in all their light.&#xA;  &lt;code&gt;Class notes from pastor René Frey, trough translation from French&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-02-04T00:51:52.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5861" CreationDate="2012-02-04T01:20:48.570" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the central &quot;idea&quot; of the Bible: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The old Testament begins with the fall of man and the prophecy of the Redeemer (Jesus) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Jewish religion was constantly looking forward to the Messiah (Jesus)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The New Testament records Jesus' life and public ministry&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Epistles both explain the doctrine of Jesus as well as re-establish the proofs that the old testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus (esp. St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revelations/Apocalypse looks forward to the second coming of Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-04T01:20:48.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2904" CreationDate="2012-02-04T02:23:07.150" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What if the Old Earth view was the more literal view? Remember that the ancient Jews who wrote this defined a day based on the sun. When a day started or ended depended on what time the sun sets. This is much earlier in the Winter than in the Summer, for example. With that in mind, the first couple &quot;days&quot; don't make much sense as a 24-hour period at all, as the sun either did not yet exist, or was at least not yet visible. This implies that a different reading of the text may be in order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2013-04-29T02:03:48.173" LastActivityDate="2013-04-29T02:03:48.173" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5847" CreationDate="2012-02-04T07:16:23.353" Score="2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Intro&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(As a note, the tl;dr is at the end, in the conclusion)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't want to get into an argument about Sola Scriptura here, but that is in part because there were a lot of things which simply were not written down and were passed by word of mouth. This was both because it was cheaper and faster (people without books are better at memorizing), but also because a person was far less likely to be confiscated and burned (yes, Christians were arrested, but they could often go for some time before they were actually put to death and over that time they could continue teaching, documents were destroyed immediately).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true for the Old Testament. Life in ancient Judah was far from stable and when the Babylonians came in and exiled the majority of the educated populous, it got far worse. In fact, at the time of Esdras, he established a school of Hebrew which enshrined the knowledge and teachings of YHWH&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/everymans-talmud-abraham-cohen/1100423296?ean=9780805210323&amp;amp;itm=8&amp;amp;usri=talmud&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;. You may know their intellectual descendants as Scribes and Pharisees. (This is also why Christ refers to them as sitting in &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/23-2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moses's seat&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the Bible also isn't everything which has been written about Judaism/Christianity, and I am not talking about what was in the Deuterocanon ether. There are apocryphal books like III Maccabees, and the books of Enoch (both fascinating, but not worth your time IMHO) from the days before Christ and then there are extra-apostolic works, some of which were written while the Apostles were still alive (and possibly by their instruction) (Immediately, I can think of the Didache).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;So, what happened?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Old Testament&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back in the day, back when Christ walked the earth, there was no canon of scripture. Some groups included Enoch, some included Maccabees, some included books like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/apcmose.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apocalypse of Moses&lt;/a&gt;. Quite frequently, different copies would have extra pieces of books or entire chapters missing (Comp. Esther with and without the Deuterocanon). Most deferred to a collection in &lt;strong&gt;Greek&lt;/strong&gt; called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Septuagint&lt;/a&gt;. Whether Christ used that collection or not is disputable, but it is undeniable that it was quoted from and used by the Apostles (remember that quote, &quot;a virgin shall conceive&quot;, that is the Septuagint version of the verse, the Hebrew is rendered, &quot;A young woman shall conceive&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Septuagint remained the primary source of Old Testament knowledge for some time.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Predominantly, this is because it was so clearly used by the Apostles (in fact, the very fact that it was used by the Apostles gives it particularly high prominence in the Orthodox and Oriental Churches), but just as importantly, it was 1. already translated to the common tongue, and 2. it was ubiquitous. There was some questioning of this practice when the Vulgate was being written, but the practice remained in place until the Protestants switched to the Hebrew canon in the 16th to 17th century. It was at that point that the Deuterocanon was removed from the KJV (1611?) and it was &quot;officially recognized&quot; by the Catholics (Council of Trent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an interesting side note, one of the primary reasons for the exclusion, originally, was that there were no existing copies of the deuterocanonical books in Hebrew. In recent years, however, a Hebrew copy of Sirach has been found.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2. There was a rumor at one point that a council took place at Jamnia in the latter half of the first century. That is now believed to be false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;And the new&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament was even less cut and dry. There a great deal of quasi-apostolic and pseudepigraphical texts (people wrote under the name of an Apostle as a tribute to them). There were also letters and instructions from the administrators the Apostles left in charge of the Church (Ignatius and Polycarp being the earliest). And then there were quasi-Christian groups (like the Gnostics) who were trying to get their documents recognized too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A group in Asia Minor might have had the Gospel of Luke, the three letters to the Corinthians by Paul, the writings of John, and the letters of Ignatius. Another group, say from Egypt, might have had the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistles of Peter and Jude, and the entire collection of the works of St. Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to standardize both worship and sources of theology (intrinsically linked topics), the Church realized that some things needed to be kept, and others discarded. And so it decided on the standard of, &quot;If we can be reasonably sure that it is from the Apostles, we will include it.&quot; To be honest, they got a lot of it wrong, meaning we have things like the story of the woman caught in adultery, which may or may not have been a part of the New Testament &amp;mdash; was that part of John, Luke, or was it not even in the canon to begin with?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;And the rest?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There actually are quite a few documents out there which were not only Christian, but were used in the services and held on par with Apostolic documents for some time. And I am not talking about questionable documents like, say, the gospel of Thomas (notice the small &quot;g&quot;). There are some which can only be counted as true Christian treasures which all believers would benefit from. Remember, just because we know that scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, that does not mean that it is the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; thing which is God-breathed and the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; thing profitable for teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal favorites are the writings of Ignatius, &quot;Episcopai&quot; (biblical title which translates to &quot;administrator&quot; but is also properly rendered &quot;bishop&quot;) of Antioch, who wrote the words, &quot;I am God's wheat, about to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts into the bread of Christ.&quot; But there is also the letter of Clement, one of the first Roman episcopai, who wrote to the Corinthians (guess what, 20 years after Paul was dead in the grave, the Corinthians were &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;STILL&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; fighting). There is Polycarp, who is a great study in martyrology, and then there is Justin Martyr, whose martyrdom is rather dull, but he writes some wonderful things about the Gospel. And, of course, there is the gallic Irenaeus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion (tl;dr)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My, I have said quite a bit, and I suppose I will end with this, if all of Jesus's actions were written down, the entire world could not hold them (last verse of Gospel of John). This means that any collection of books will necessarily be insufficient. The books we do have are books which were known to be reliable and were known to be the &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; essential documents of the early Christian era. And, more importantly, we have the advocate, the Paraclete who is to guide us on our way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, go with the Spirit. Read scripture and know it. And, if you have time, check out the other writers too, they're definitely worth something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-04T07:16:23.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5813" CreationDate="2012-02-04T07:41:51.530" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would not be surprised if every church had some form of logo. Here are the ones I know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lutheran cross:&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/TyDN9.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ELCA &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/sb906.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Papal flag:&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/es8ei.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Papal flag&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Episcopal&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/NHDj7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(American) Anglican&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/jFLn5.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptist&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QkfwE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Methodist&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/EkGEb.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Orthodox (and Eastern Catholic)&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/oxQQC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Russian Orthodox (foot goes opposite way)&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/6owfe.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Russian&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-04T07:41:51.530" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5871" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5874" CreationDate="2012-02-04T16:01:34.937" Score="9" ViewCount="9714" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder whether &lt;strong&gt;God the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; are actually the same?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, why we can't we have our spiritual communication only with Jesus Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1155" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-09T01:25:24.940" LastActivityDate="2014-03-04T15:30:33.673" Title="Are God, Son (Jesus) and The Holy Spirit Same?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-06-11T13:14:50.727" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5813" CreationDate="2012-02-04T18:24:23.363" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;For good measure, the Church of England (Anglican Church - i.e. what Episcopalians diverged from):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/H9Knm.png&quot; width=&quot;250&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastActivityDate="2012-02-04T18:24:23.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4898" CreationDate="2012-02-04T20:52:51.930" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an interesting article at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.discovery.org/a/1330&quot;&gt;Center for Science and Culture website&lt;/a&gt; pertaining to Christians and their belief in extra-terrestrials. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notably, Seventh Day Adventists founder &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_White&quot;&gt;Ellen White&lt;/a&gt; believed in aliens. She taught that there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man&quot;&gt;unfallen&lt;/a&gt; people living on other planets. She wrote about one vision she had of Jupiter: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;the inhabitants [of Jupiter] are a tall, majestic people, so unlike the inhabitants of earth. Sin has never entered here.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in her &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/3876960/christian-experience-and-teachings-of-Ellen-G-White&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christian Experiences and Teachings of Ellen G. White&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; she wrote &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord has given me a view of other worlds...The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastActivityDate="2012-02-04T20:52:51.930" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5871" CreationDate="2012-02-04T21:21:40.007" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's three Persons in one Divine Nature, all separate in their personhood, all equal in their divinity.  An image pulled from an old catechism diagrams the relationship like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/R7dzs.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The legendary analogy that Saint Patrick used when educating the Irish was the shamrock: three distinct leaves in one plant.  Obviously, any image we make is going to be an imperfect representation of what the Trinity is, but the essence is that the three distinct persons are united in their shared Divine nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-05T06:29:59.817" LastActivityDate="2012-02-05T06:29:59.817" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5875" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5879" CreationDate="2012-02-05T04:05:48.103" Score="4" ViewCount="739" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the field of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neurotheology&lt;/a&gt; present a threat to Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neurotheology is a field of science that tries to correlate brain states to spiritual experiences, such as speaking in tongues, prayer, and meditation.  Scientists' understanding of the brain is getting more and more detailed.  My question is, if it succeeds in correlating the two, does that threaten the Christian beliefs in God, spiritual beings, free will, human consciousness, etc.?  Or would it actually reinforce those concepts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T04:10:13.523" Title="Neurotheology and God" Tags="&lt;science&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:43:33.757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5875" CreationDate="2012-02-05T13:37:41.637" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Barbara Bradley Haggerty (most known for being NPRs religion correspondent but also a former Christian Science practitioner turned Christian herself) investigated many of these claims in her book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1594488770&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Fingerprints of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. The book seeks to be a compendium of scientific investigations about the brain and its relationship to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While to book itself is fascinating, her conclusion is what speaks to your question. Her basic point was that these investigations may explain brain functioning better but ultimately still leaves a lot of room (an imperative actually) for God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She also suggests that what all of the deepest religious practices reveal is that while each religion moves one closer to the God hinted at by the scientific research she chronicles, they do so in different ways, leading Haggerty to the analogy of a bike wheel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She presumes that all religions get you to the same God (This is a highly questionable postulate in most forms of Christianity, but it is what she espouses). She sees each religion as a single spoke of that wheel leading one to God. Borrowing practices from other religions doesn't get you closer to the center because each one is a completely different path. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is interesting in regards neurotheology is that in Haggertys estimation, these scientific studies in many cases point towards the reality of transcendent Spiritual being who calls but does not command adherence, thus allowing for Spirit, God, and free will, much like the original Christianity from which Haggerty begins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T17:13:06.387" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T17:13:06.387" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5875" CreationDate="2012-02-05T16:31:31.177" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll have a try at this one. But since Affable Geek gave a Great answer to the direct question, I allow myself to tackle the question on a broader spectrum. Is neurology a threat to Christianity? Assumes that science and Christianity is opposed to science or vice versa. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you that a look in history you will find that the same question was asked during the enlightenment. Could rational reasoning replace God? But rational reasoning proved that it could not save the human being. Then modernity came along? Science or technology would save us. But that also failed in the end. Now we live in post-modernity, and what next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point is simply that the next kid on the block is neurology, where is used to be psychology. The problem is not the new scientific discovery but the premises behind the study. For the atheist neurologist that is the greatest threat to any kind of belief system. For the believer just an other way to praise God the creator. (Understand that all of the philosophy come with some good in them. They are not a total affront to Christianity. And the good part in them should be redeem.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer is greatly influence by &lt;code&gt;Ravi Zacharias'&lt;/code&gt; book &lt;code&gt;Deliverus from evil&lt;/code&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is neutrology a threat to Christianity? that really depends on the premises you hold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;How does rational reasoning try to save us? If I take the first point of the westminster confession of faith the shorter catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://opc.org/sc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way some thinkers have looked at the rational reasoning was to bring them a purpose in life and a joy in life. That could be compared has the salvation in Christianity René Descartes used rational reasoning to get to God, because of is Catholic premises. But Voltaire on the other end express the following : &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker&#xA;  &lt;code&gt;Voltaire / 1694-1778 / Les Cabales, 1772&lt;/code&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_world_embarrasses_me-and_i_cannot_dream_that/259988.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The both of them look to rational reasoning, but they only proved their thesis or premises. Therefore, rational reasoning failed to bring everlasting joy, eternal life and all the questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What to I mean that science and technology failed in the end?&#xA;A bit like rational reasoning, if one look into it for everlasting joy, eternal life and the answer to all the questions, well I believe that the old saying : &lt;code&gt;the more I learn the more I learn how little I know&lt;/code&gt; (Socrates ?) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with the human heart is that it tries to be free from God. Our hearts create all kind of divinity to worship. (Jean Calvin idea of &lt;code&gt;our heart as a idol factory&lt;/code&gt;, Tim Keller &lt;code&gt;Counterfeit Gods&lt;/code&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This being said, I am in no way implying that Christianity have all the answer, and at is core it understand human limitations. How could a finite being understand fully an infinite one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ps 115.3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isaiah 55:8 and following&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note : I am in no way saying the christian most switch off their brains. We should push in science and technology, and thinking hard about all the issues of life. &lt;code&gt;Think&lt;/code&gt; by John Piper would express that though more. But we should not look in to those field has a place to receive everlasting joy, freedom from sin, peace, everlasting life. Our final hope must be in our Lord and Savior Jesus-Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit 2&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I left the previous post unchanged to allow you to follow the discussion. After talking with @Marc Gravell. The idea in this post what to present that the philosophy of the time could not dismiss the idea of God. Not the technical/scientific method. Thanks Marc for the discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="1168" LastEditDate="2012-02-07T11:20:35.767" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T11:20:35.767" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5882" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-05T17:48:35.023" Score="1" ViewCount="182" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS church has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Educational_System#Seminaries&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high school seminary system&lt;/a&gt; where high school students intensively learn the teachings of the LDS church.  This is a week-daily 1/2hr - 1 hour class taken before normal school hours and then the kids go to their highschool.  Do such systems exist for those in other Christian denominations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1269" LastEditorUserId="1269" LastEditDate="2012-02-05T19:42:32.510" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T18:25:29.497" Title="Are there analogues to the Mormon/LDS high school seminary in other Christian denominations?" Tags="&lt;religious-education&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="181" CreationDate="2012-02-05T17:49:20.530" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is a Divine person with a finite human nature and an infinite divine nature.  The key points here are &quot;&lt;strong&gt;one person&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; and &quot;&lt;strong&gt;two natures&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;  Person answers the question &lt;strong&gt;who&lt;/strong&gt; is performing an act; nature defines &lt;strong&gt;what&lt;/strong&gt; is performing the act.  As such, when we read in the Gospels what Jesus said or did or where he went, we have to realize that this is God saying, doing, and going.  At the same time Jesus is human and subject to the human condition: He eats, He sleeps, He can bleed, He can be killed.  This is important for us all from a salvation standpoint.  The Original Sin was an &lt;em&gt;infinite&lt;/em&gt; offense because of Who was offended.  The only possible reparation would have to be infinite, something only a divine person can do.  Or put another way: if God didn't die on the Cross, then the sacrifice is not infinite and is therefore not able to open the gates of heaven.  To say that &quot;God died&quot; is not difficult to understand when you realize that the person who died -- Jesus -- only died in His human nature (the soul was separated from His body).  Jesus cannot be killed in his divine nature, but he was able to be killed in His human nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-05T17:49:20.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5882" CreationDate="2012-02-05T18:25:39.850" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is World of Life and Torchbearer do something like it in the evangelical circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;World of life : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wol.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.wol.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Torchebearer : &lt;a href=&quot;http://torchbearers.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://torchbearers.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T18:25:29.497" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T18:25:29.497" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5886" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5887" CreationDate="2012-02-05T20:40:19.160" Score="4" ViewCount="4179" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 38&lt;/a&gt; tells the story of Judah and Tamar. At first Tamar was married to Er (Judah's firstborn son) but he was wicked and killed by the Lord &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38:6-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;v6-7&lt;/a&gt;. So Judah tells Tamar to wait until his youngest son, Shelah, grows up &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;v11&lt;/a&gt; (to marry her?). Years go by and Tamar is never given to Shelah as a wife so Tamar disguises herself as a prostitute and Judah sleeps with her since he doesn't recognize her. When he finds out she's pregnant, he wants her burned to death but she proves he is the one who impregnated her to which Judah replies, &quot;She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;v26&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does Judah say that Tamar is more righteous than himself? I feel like I'm missing something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="157" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T01:32:33.603" LastActivityDate="2014-03-13T22:51:07.980" Title="Why was Tamar more righteous than Judah?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5886" CreationDate="2012-02-06T01:07:29.353" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id365.html&quot;&gt;From the Haydock commentary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Juster.&lt;/em&gt; For Juda had been guilty of injustice; and had thus exposed her to the danger of following a life of lewdness. (Haydock) --- She&#xA;  remained a widow afterwards, as she was now rendered unfit to be&#xA;  married either to Juda or Sela. The latter married another woman,&#xA;  Numbers xxvi. 19. (Calmet) --- While Juda was engaged in this unlawful&#xA;  commerce, and yielded to the temptation, Joseph was triumphing over a&#xA;  much greater temptation, in rejecting the solicitations of his&#xA;  master's wife. (Haydock)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, by not following through on his promise to have his son Sela marry her, Judah exposed Tamar to the danger of making a living as a prostitute as she did not have any other way to support herself in her widowhood.  As such, Judah was more at fault; or stated the other way around: Tamar was more just than Judah (calling Tamar more just could be a vestigial idiomatic construct of the Hebrew language).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T16:36:32.613" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T16:36:32.613" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5886" CreationDate="2012-02-06T01:12:04.550" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unlike Tamar, who had been fighting for what was simply her just due (namely an heir), Judah was all about taking whatever he could get (including some no-strings sex) protecting what was his (his last remaining son) and not caring who got the short end of the stick (ie Tamar who was left without anything). That's why even Judah can recognize the injustice he'd been committing against his own daughter-in-law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, the only things that Tamar took were the things due her - the signet and seal (proof of inclusion in the family) and the seed of an heir. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was she stealing? Well, Judah was stealing her rightful husband (the third son, Shelah).  All Tamar took was a thing, not a legacy. And the thing she took, namely full membership in the family, was rightfully hers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What she ultimately got, of course, was a place in the lineage of Jesus. I always tell kids I work with, Jesus was no dummy. He could have chosen any great-mothers he wanted, and he chose to include Tamar. She wanted in no matter what it took, and in the end, she got to be a mother of the King!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T18:05:20.210" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T18:05:20.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5875" CreationDate="2012-02-06T02:37:02.300" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In its present form, neurotheology is not a threat to Christianity (though a few specific beliefs may be overturned).  The reason is that regardless of what is found about the neural basis of spiritual experiences, this only tells you &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; is there not &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; it is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, either one can view these findings as the way in which God imparts certain types of spiritual experiences to us (much like he created our eyes to deliver visual experiences); or one can view these findings as further confirmation that a material explanation exists for human experiences, rendering God even less necessary as an explanation than before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the details of what is found, the evidence may lean one way or the other, but since there will be no proof that it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; one way or the other, people who already have made up their minds will likely not feel compelled to change their minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(It will, however, provide extra impetus for those Christians who are uncomfortable with the brain's causal connection to the mind to think deeply about why they find this troubling, since neurotheological research has, so far, only strengthened the connection between the two.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T02:37:02.300" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5891" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6029" CreationDate="2012-02-06T04:08:04.510" Score="4" ViewCount="199" Body="&lt;p&gt;Someone  told me that Luther had a teaching about the true invisible Church that was a far cry from what could be seen as the Church at his time. Is it true that Luther didn't consider anyone of the Catholic clergy to be a member of the true Church of God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T05:10:38.237" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T22:04:01.400" Title="Is it true that Luther didn't consider anyone of the Catholic clergy to be a member of the true Church of God?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;&lt;clergy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5892" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5899" CreationDate="2012-02-06T06:45:12.163" Score="-4" ViewCount="1321" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;This question is a multiple-tradition overview question, which means that all kinds of views on the matter from all various traditions that are present in Christianity are welcome.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is prayer an integral part of worshiping, or is it possible to worship without a prayer? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would this kind of worship be reckoned as valid? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If possible, please answer in the perspective of both Old Testament and New Testament.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T18:01:55.610" LastActivityDate="2014-01-28T13:35:09.243" Title="Is prayer an integral part of worshiping, or is it possible to worship without a prayer?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-17T01:31:07.013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5893" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5895" CreationDate="2012-02-06T07:18:16.633" Score="7" ViewCount="2015" Body="&lt;p&gt;Between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Reformation, were there any Christian groups outside the Roman Catholic Church? Who were they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-08-07T16:28:01.133" LastActivityDate="2017-08-07T16:28:01.133" Title="What non-Catholic Christian groups existed in Western Europe during the Middle Ages?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;schism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5894" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5909" CreationDate="2012-02-06T07:32:01.327" Score="4" ViewCount="283" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is it so that while we are told in the Acts and epistles of many false-apostles and false brothers, there are no specific names mentioned? Has this matter ever been considered in Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T14:45:36.637" Title="Why no specific names of false apostles and false brothers in Acts and epistles?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2015-12-17T19:22:37.463" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5893" CreationDate="2012-02-06T08:57:35.057" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking your defined period for the Middle Ages—starting at the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE and ending with the 95 Theses in 1517 (which began the Protestant Reformation)—a number of minor Christian groups that were considered heretical, and thus outside the communion of the Catholic Church, popped up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the definition of Catholicism, anyone who does not accept the entire Dogmata of the Church would not be in communion with it. It would therefore be impossible to enumerate every single person or minor group in a 1,000 year time span who may or may not have been in communion with the Church during that time period. However, it should be noted that the Church, from time to time, did address these heresies in the form of Synods, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council#Councils_recognised_as_ecumenical_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecumenical Councils&lt;/a&gt;, Papal Bulls, Encyclicals, and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the points of contention in the Middle Ages were the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_controversy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Investiture Controversy&lt;/a&gt;, where Kings and Queens were creating their own bishops and priests (a power reserved only to the Pope), addressed in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_the_Lateran&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;First Council of Lateran&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Anacletus_II&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Antipope Anceletus II&lt;/a&gt;, pretender to the Papacy; addressed in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_the_Lateran&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Second Council of Lateran&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catharism&lt;/a&gt; (also known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY5.TXT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Albigensian Heresy&lt;/a&gt;), a gnostic sect in France, addressed in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_the_Lateran&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Third Council of Lateran&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Waldensianism&lt;/a&gt;, which practiced something similar to &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; prior to the Reformation, also addressed in the Third Council of Lateran&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Knights Templar&lt;/a&gt;, which were found to be a heretical order after the Crusades, and disbanded by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Vienne&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Council of Vienne&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those aside, there were two major events, or schisms:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Great Schism of 1054&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: Brought on by a number of issues, the Eastern Eurpean Churches, centered around Constantinople (now the Orthodox Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church), fell out of communion with the Western European Churches (now called the Roman Catholic Church).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Western Schism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (1378–1417): Due to a political issue with most of the major powers in Western Europe, three Papacies, all laying claim to the Church, arose: one out of Rome (backed by the Holy Roman Empire), another out of Avignon (backed by France), and a for a short third out of Pisa (backed by a small number of cardinals and bishops).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to note that, like the Protestant Reformation that would come a few hundred years later, in both cases, all sides laid claim to Catholicity and considered themselves Catholic due to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;First Council of Constantinople&lt;/a&gt;, which established there is only &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T18:44:58.067" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T18:44:58.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5892" CreationDate="2012-02-06T15:42:35.133" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sorry that my answer isn't multitradition, but I can answer biblically speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord tells us to pray:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 6:18  NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 18:1&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And offers help in how to pray:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:26-27 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And tells us WHY to pray:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Zechariah 13:9 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The LORD is our God.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what if you don't pray?   &lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; don't think it's a sin or you'd lose salvation because of it, but you will be a better person with it.  It's a bit of stretch, but you could say that it's similar to adultery - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:28 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we have eyes to see and minds to think, thus we've all committed adultery (some more than others).  However you will not lose your salvation, you'll just have a better life if you keep the eyes from wondering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T15:52:13.030" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T15:52:13.030" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5892" CreationDate="2012-02-06T15:55:47.030" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been an Evangelical, a Presbyterian, a Catholic, and I've had long discussions with Orthodox. Everyone I have come in contact with has been of the opinion that worship &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;As is noted in the comments, worship is a type of prayer. They are not synonyms.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T17:56:54.367" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T17:56:54.367" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1855" CreationDate="2012-02-06T16:24:33.070" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no correct or certain posture for prayer. In the Bible people&#xA;  prayed on their knees (1 Kings 8:&lt;strong&gt;54&lt;/strong&gt;), bowing (Exodus 4:31), on their&#xA;  faces before God (2 Chronicles 20:18; Matthew 26:39), and standing (1&#xA;  Kings 8:22). You may pray with your eyes opened or closed, quietly or&#xA;  out loud—however you are most comfortable and least distracted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/prayersverses/a/basicstoprayer.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://christianity.about.com/od/prayersverses/a/basicstoprayer.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Kings 8:54 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Solomon had finished all these prayers and supplications to the&#xA;  LORD, he rose from before the altar of the LORD, where he had been&#xA;  kneeling with his hands spread out toward heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 4:31 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and they believed. And when they heard that the LORD was concerned&#xA;  about them and had seen their misery, they bowed down and worshiped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Chronicles 20:18 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jehoshaphat bowed down with his face to the ground, and all the people&#xA;  of Judah and Jerusalem fell down in worship before the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 26:39 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and&#xA;  prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.&#xA;  Yet not as I will, but as you will.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Kings 8:22&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in front of the whole&#xA;  assembly of Israel, spread out his hands toward heaven&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T16:24:33.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5894" CreationDate="2012-02-06T16:43:59.607" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In political debates, candidates who wish to take &quot;the high ground&quot; will often not refer to their opponents by name.  Indeed in the US Republican Presidential primary contest, when Mitt Romney was trailing Newt Gingrich, he started calling his opponent out by name, leading the media to call him &quot;desperate.&quot; Once he was comfortable in his lead, he ceased to call his own name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, coupled with the expense of ink and paper would probably have simply led to the &quot;omission.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T16:43:59.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5894" CreationDate="2012-02-06T17:53:53.610" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some suggestions, none of which I am claiming as necessarily &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Naming people draws attention to them. The writers probably didn't want their readers going to find out what these people were writing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Naming people makes them exclusive. If the writer says &quot;don't listen to Marcus and Suetonius&quot; that leaves Octavius free to spread his teaching. This is especially true since the letters were circulated widely, and the authors may well have understood that they were also writing for a later generation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T17:53:53.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5903" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5904" CreationDate="2012-02-06T18:20:45.843" Score="10" ViewCount="13585" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 8:6-8 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.&#xA;  But Jesus stooped down, and &lt;strong&gt;with his finger wrote on the ground&lt;/strong&gt;, as&#xA;  though he heard them not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said&#xA;  unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a&#xA;  stone at her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And again he stooped down, and &lt;strong&gt;wrote on the ground&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we have any information on what he was writing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2014-01-24T07:29:41.317" LastActivityDate="2016-12-05T02:27:34.540" Title="What did Jesus write on the ground?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5903" CreationDate="2012-02-06T19:04:11.577" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The quick answer is &quot;No.&quot; However, there has been a lot of speculation on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do know that the accusers of the woman left without stoning her after Jesus said, &quot;He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her,&quot; but apparently none of them left before He did this. We also know that the older ones were the first to leave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what He wrote on the ground could have been irrelevant, and the people left perhaps under conviction from the statement alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One interesting suggestion is that Jesus was writing out the 10 Commandments. If so, it could have been that the accusers realized that they were guilty of breaking the law.  &quot;Honor your father and mother&quot; comes before the &quot;Thou shalt not commit adultery&quot;. Also included are the prohibition against bearing false witness and coveting, both of which could likely have indicted all of the accusers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also possible that Jesus was writing other specific commandments (outside the ten commandments) of which each person was guilty of breaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, again, we don't really know. We aren't told, so we can conclude that it wasn't important for us to know. What Jesus wrote may or may not have added to what drove the accusers away.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-02-07T04:41:27.057" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T04:41:27.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5905" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5912" CreationDate="2012-02-06T19:20:49.287" Score="3" ViewCount="1937" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a lot of talk about the end times. But where and when in the scripture does it recount the world actually being destroyed? In the end of John's Revelation we have the new heaven and earth, and at the beginning the old. More specifically, at what event and by what means are the old heavens and earth destroyed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T20:40:39.870" Title="According to the scripture, when and how is the world destroyed?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-01-17T02:35:13.540" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5871" CreationDate="2012-02-06T19:31:52.037" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This particular belief, once called Sabellianism after Sabellius, is also called Modalism. In Modalism it is expressed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are effectively three different masks or personae of the One God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Orthodox Christians have considered this heretical since the first century, to our knowledge, because it contradicts the scriptures (for instance, who is the 'God of Jesus Christ', and how are we to interpret the prophecies in the Psalms where God makes his anointed placed above all of his brethren? They appear to not be the same person, God and 'the Lord' or 'the Anointed' (the Christ).)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the reason why our communion is with all of the Godhead and not just Jesus Christ (as it says in our prayers, 'and have Thee (the son) and thy Father and thy Holy Spirit dwelling and abiding in me') is because they are three persons who fully indwell each other. In our liturgy and prayers this is repeated in various ways, but the most prominent is in the liturgy itself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One in essence and &lt;strong&gt;undivided&lt;/strong&gt;.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To have communion with one of the persons without the others would effectively divide the Godhead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T19:31:52.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5905" CreationDate="2012-02-06T19:42:34.847" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that a cataclysmic event (or series of events) that necessarily leads to annihilation, or some other form of the annihilation of the world is a biblically defensible position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;new&quot; could be a reference to a restoration of the created order to its original intended state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: I stand corrected&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/end-of-the-world.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/end-of-the-world.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This guy has an interesting take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="86" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T20:04:26.433" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T20:04:26.433" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5903" CreationDate="2012-02-06T19:48:54.883" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The speculation that I have heard is that he was performing a miracle not unsimilar to speaking in tongues (where a person speaks and others hear them in their own language): he was writing and each were seeing their own trespasses being written out, different as they were. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, despite not being as empirical as other ideas, fits most with the story itself and is not impossible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to find the citation but I'm having trouble finding John 7:6-8; has there been some renumbering done?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T19:48:54.883" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5894" CreationDate="2012-02-06T20:11:13.520" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see several possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One major characteristic of the Gnostic groups was the lack of defined leadership&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, so one might imagine that the false brethren may simply have been without definite leader. Considering that the Gnostic movement would have started by the time that the Johanine literature was complete, I think this should hold particular prominence in this discussion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There was a desire to generalize those who are proclaiming false gospels. By giving examples, they automatically include and exclude certain groups. While there are many ways of falsehood, there is only one way of truth. This is what was meant when the Council of Constantinople said, &quot;One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church&quot;. Had they said, &quot;this community&quot; or &quot;that community&quot; and a third community came along this generalization makes it so that they might be automatically excluded. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is not charitable to write that &lt;em&gt;such-and-so is a heretic&lt;/em&gt;. While that person may be a heretic now, a week from now he could repent (such as was the case with James &quot;the brother of our Lord,&quot; who was a Judiazer until the council described in Acts). If that happens, then you have this message sent out to all of the Churches condemning this person unjustly. Direct condemnation places a major stumbling block on the road to repentance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perhaps they were not well known:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The false brothers were less known &amp;mdash; it is quite possible that, since there was no Apostolic (and, by proxy, divine) support for their position, they were not able to gain notoriety save as individuals in the congregations. Everyone knew Paul the Evangelist. Not quite so many knew Joe the third heretic.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John speaks of a separation with these false brethren. It could be that they were no longer a part of the Church in the formal sense, and so similarly, they would not have been as well known.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1.Pagels, Elaine &lt;em&gt;The Gnostic Gospels&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T14:45:36.637" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T14:45:36.637" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5903" CreationDate="2012-02-06T20:21:34.130" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures don't record what was written, only that He began writing and paused to say that he who was without sin should cast the first stone.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-John8.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The commentators vary&lt;/a&gt;; St. Bede said that His writing was an indication to the Scribes and Pharisee that it was He who wrote the law given to Moses.  Alcuin wrote: &quot;the ground denotes the human heart, which yields the fruit either of good or of bad actions: the finger jointed and flexible, discretion. He instructs us then, when we see any faults in our neighbors, not immediately and rashly to condemn them, but after searching our own hearts to begin with, to examine them attentively with the finger of discretion.&quot; I have often heard the theory that He was writing the sins of the Scribes and Pharisees there present but I have never seen a citation of that.  The context suggests it was something related either to the law given to Moses, of which He was the author, or a reference to the earth being an analog of the human nature which God made (the physical part, that is) from the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever the exact case was, between what was written and Christ suggesting that any sinless man present should cast the fist stone, served as an examination of conscience making the Scribes and Pharisees aware of their own guilt... prompting them to leave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T20:21:34.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5905" CreationDate="2012-02-06T20:28:10.520" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I am understanding St. Paul correctly, he's telling us that there is no way to know when this will happen -- that indeed the angels don't even know -- and that our preoccupation with it is of no consequence if we are not ready to meet and be judged by God on that day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id221.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The following is based on 1 Thessalonians chapter 5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Of the times and moments. That is, of the day of judgment, of the end&#xA;  of the world, of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is enough to know&#xA;  the time is uncertain, and that death cometh as a thief in the night.&#xA;  (Witham) --- When the judgment shall take place the Angels themselves&#xA;  do not know. Perhaps St. Paul, when wrapt up to the third heaven, may&#xA;  have learnt something on this subject; for he was told many things&#xA;  which he could not announce to man; therefore, he says, I need not&#xA;  write to you: it is unnecessary for us to know it. (Calmet)&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second epistle of St. Peter does suggest fire though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Peter 3:10: But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth, and the works that are in it, shall be burnt up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id273.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Some commentary on this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens, &amp;amp;c. He puts the faithful in mind not to regard these&#xA;  profane scoffers, but to be convinced of the truths revealed, and that&#xA;  the world shall be destroyed a second time by fire. Reflect that the&#xA;  time of this life, and all the time that this world shall last, is&#xA;  nothing to eternity, which has no parts, no beginning, nor end; so&#xA;  that in the sight of God, who is eternal, a thousand years are no more&#xA;  to be regarded than one day, or one moment. The long time that hath&#xA;  hitherto passed, must not make you think that God is slack as to his&#xA;  promises, or that they shall not infallibly come to pass at the time&#xA;  and moment appointed by his divine providence. God's infinite mercy,&#xA;  and his love for mankind, bears patiently with the provocations of&#xA;  blind and unthinking sinners, not willing that any of them should&#xA;  perish, but that they should return to him by a sincere repentance and&#xA;  true penance, and be saved. But watch always, according to the&#xA;  repeated admonition of our blessed Redeemer. (Mark xiii. 37. &amp;amp;c.) For&#xA;  both the day of your death, and the day of the Lord to judge the&#xA;  world, will come like a thief, &amp;amp;c. (Witham)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="1244" LastEditDate="2012-02-06T20:36:38.323" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T20:36:38.323" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5905" CreationDate="2012-02-06T20:40:39.870" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The precise moment seems to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's probably best to think of this as an image of what will happen rather than a detailed description.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;  However, the image is that the &lt;em&gt;throne&lt;/em&gt; of God fills the space that the heavens and earth&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; currently fill and completely supplants them.  Precisely what happens to them seems not to matter in the culmination of history.  Only the people, who are judged at this time, remain from the former world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Immediately on the heals of the arrival of God's throne and the disappearance of the old world, comes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:1-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:1-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am &lt;strong&gt;making all things new&lt;/strong&gt;.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've bolded the critical phrase.  N. T. Wright &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;says&lt;/a&gt; on the topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The New Testament, building on ancient biblical prophecy, envisages that the creator God will remake heaven and earth entirely, affirming the goodness of the old Creation but overcoming its mortality and corruptibility (e.g., Romans 8:18-27; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17, 66:22).  When that happens, Jesus will appear within the resulting new world (e.g., Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the New Testament, the world isn't so much destroyed as renewed or replaced.  God will make it His dwelling place with us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnote:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Revelation overflows with images that are not to be taken as strictly literal.  For instance, what is &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/266/68&quot;&gt;transparent gold&lt;/a&gt;?  I don't think our language is equipped to describe such things precisely&amp;mdash;we can't yet see clearly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Earth and sky&quot; often is a metaphor for &quot;everything&quot; or, what we now call, &quot;the universe&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T20:40:39.870" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5913" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5914" CreationDate="2012-02-06T21:45:13.337" Score="3" ViewCount="1405" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm afraid I may have slunk to the depths of troll question engineering, but I'm having a hard time with this answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to some facebook meme&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/kPujM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;facebook meme&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it is &quot;dictionarily&quot; invalid to argue that &quot;sanctity&quot; is a state that can be enforced by the government.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I attempted to call this particular facebook personality out on the carpet by saying that their definition of religious was invalid; that it did not include worship.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been hearing a lot about this recently on Relevant Radio concerning the redefinition of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to mean literally, freedom of worship, instead of freedom of religion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did any of the Popes write on this?  What is Christian religion over and above Christian worship and why must it be protected?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-05-11T15:30:57.103" LastActivityDate="2014-11-13T08:37:33.677" Title="How is Christian worship different than Christian religion?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;religion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="16" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5913" CreationDate="2012-02-06T22:19:16.040" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ironically, I think the constitutional issue here is the simpler one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that from the Christian world view, marriage is established by God between Adam and Eve. It is a religious structure &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; it is a social or legal structure. Therefore, &lt;em&gt;by the reasoning of the poster in the question, &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;  law or regulation that recognizes marriage &amp;mdash; at all &amp;mdash; is unconstitutional. That would include not just who can marry whom, but also joint filing for taxes, federal employment benefits for spouses, federal tax breaks for private employment benefits for spouses, immigration rules, health privacy rules, joint property laws, and much more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the secular (a-religious) view is that God could not have established marriage (because this view doesn't allow for the existence of God in the first place).  Therefore marriage &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; have first arisen as a social or legal structure, which religion later co-opts. If marriage is primarily a social or legal structure, then society or government &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be allowed to set it's bounds at will. Any other restriction would be the same as legislating religious compliance, which, while often tempting, is probably not a good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fortunately, there is a third category. The poster in the question is fundamentally flawed, because it focuses in on the word &quot;religion&quot; and ignores the entirety of the phrase &quot;establishment of religion&quot;.  This completely changes the constitutional implications. We must now also think about what constitutes an &quot;Establishment of religion&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the surface, marriage might qualify as an &quot;establishment of religion&quot;. In that case, the poster is entirely invalid; not only is Congress prevented from making any laws about marriage, but as a confirmed religious establishment the definition is left &lt;em&gt;entirely&lt;/em&gt; up to religion, and government has &lt;em&gt;no say at all&lt;/em&gt;. If religions choose to exclude homosexual marriage, then that's what marriage is and Congress has no power to do anything about it. It's also worth noting that all tax, inheritance, immigration, employment benefits, etc outlined in my first paragraph would be impossible... at least at the federal level. Part of the premise of the poster is to first accept the word &quot;sanctity&quot;, and the result is that this is the position the poster supports most strongly... more so than legalized homosexual marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better legal interpretation here is that marriage is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; an establishment of religion, at least in the Constitutional sense. Instead, the Constitution is referring to different religious groups: the Catholic church is an establishment of religion, the Southern Baptists are (maybe have?) an establishment of religion, the Mormons are/have an establishment of religion, and so on, such that even Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are establishments of religion and equally protected. The purpose, then, of this clause is to prevent the state from favoring (or disfavoring) any one religious group over others. The founders did not want another Church of England telling them how to worship. This clause ultimately has nothing to do with marriage at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Put another way, the creator of the poster likely sees religion trying to use government to create new restrictions on marriage, and believes that the constitution prohibits this. On the other hand, many Christians see the lbgt community trying to use government to expand marriage to mean something it has never meant before, and use the &lt;strong&gt;exact same reasoning&lt;/strong&gt; to argue against it.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Christians could easily create a poster with most of the same text that argues the exact opposite&lt;/strong&gt; (and by acknowledging the whole &quot;establishment&quot; phrase rather than just the one word, would probably have a better interpretation of the constitution in the process). However, I think I've shown here that both views are flawed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last interpretation does allow some room for Christians to argue that marriage is primarily a religious matter, that the precise definition is not something that society is free to expand at will, and any laws defining or using marriage relationships are merely acknowledging what exists elsewhere. However, I think the current legal landscape is against Christians here. Marriage may be a religious structure, but the establishment clause does not create any protected legal status for marriage, because marriage is not shown to be an &quot;establishment&quot; of religion. The state has the power to recognize any marriage it wants to, even if it is clearly counter to the traditional definition. Constitutional issues aside, Christians are free to argue that the man-woman definition of marriage is the status quo and that expanding that definition is a &lt;em&gt;bad idea&lt;/em&gt; (and I believe they would be right to do so). Unfortunately society and government no longer recognize God's authority on this matter.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good news is that I believe that the state does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have the power to force establishments of religion to recognize these so-called marriages. Therefore, perhaps a better response by Christians would be for our &lt;em&gt;establishments&lt;/em&gt; to more strongly assert that right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can now also answer the religion vs worship question, using some of what we learned addressing the constitutional issue. Christian religion would be an &quot;establishment&quot;. Worship would be the practices of the individuals in the establishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-05-11T14:57:04.997" LastActivityDate="2012-05-11T14:57:04.997" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5894" CreationDate="2012-02-06T23:03:30.040" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pauls did name and shame Phygelus and Hermogenes for leaving him, and latter in the same letter, he mentions &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Demas&lt;/a&gt; (maybe the same guy in Col 4:14) who had deserted him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[15] You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me,&#xA;  among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. (2 Timothy 1:15 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[10] For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and&#xA;  gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.&#xA;     (2 Timothy 4:10 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1248" LastActivityDate="2012-02-06T23:03:30.040" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5871" CreationDate="2012-02-06T23:34:09.160" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Augustine defined all of the following to be true:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Son is God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Father is God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Holy Spirit is God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Father is not the Son.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Son is not the Holy Spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Holy Spirit is not the Father.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;There is only one God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a summary of Lecture 10, &quot;The Doctrine of the Trinity&quot;, in the class &quot;The History of Christian Theology&quot; by Phillip Cary, Ph.D., which helps better to explain what &quot;is&quot; is.  &quot;The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is about how the one true God is Father, Son, and Holy Spririt, even though these three (each of them God) are different from one another.  The crucial argument developed in the 4th century was wheter the Son or Logos, the second person of the Trinity, was as fully God as God the Father.  In answering yes, the Council of Nicaea in 325 laid the foundations of the orthodox trinitarian tradition.  This tradition teachs that the oneness of God consists in a single divine essense or ousia, belonging equally and fully to all three, while the threeness is not three Gods but three hypostases or persons.  Because all divine attributes (such as eternity, omniscience, etc.) belong equally to each, they can only be distinguished from another by their relations of origin (for example, the Father begets the Son, not vice versa).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastEditorUserId="841" LastEditDate="2012-02-07T04:40:48.523" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T04:40:48.523" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5892" CreationDate="2012-02-07T02:37:34.533" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple tautology&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prayer is communication with God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Worship is the act of telling God how much he means to you&#xA;Ergo,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Worship is a kind of prayer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T02:37:34.533" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5928" CreationDate="2012-02-07T03:46:32.813" Score="7" ViewCount="2086" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, there are many stories of Jesus and the apostles spending time in the Temple teaching and preaching. The apostles also do this after the resurrection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was the structure of events at the temple? Was it somewhat free-form, where people could freely gather and talk about things? I would think there would have to have been some openness in the temple, if the priests, who were against him, did not prevent him from preaching. But surely there must have been regularly scheduled, organized rituals and ceremonies that took place there, also? Were they preaching during between times?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1274" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T20:20:28.490" Title="What was it like in the Temple at the time of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5920" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5926" CreationDate="2012-02-07T07:01:15.307" Score="7" ViewCount="483" Body="&lt;p&gt;I mean, there could be thousands of Orthodox Christians at this moment praying to, say, Saint Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg, and there could probably be even more of Catholic Christians praying right now to, say, saint Patrick, let alone Mother Mary. Does that mean that all those saints have the All-knowing God's ability to hear all of those praying to them, distinguish their prayers one from another, and later adequately act on each one of them accordingly?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-02-07T07:12:43.047" LastActivityDate="2015-10-29T12:41:13.987" Title="Do those who pray to saints ascribe to them the quality of being able to hear many people at once?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;communion-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5922" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5927" CreationDate="2012-02-07T11:55:07.143" Score="3" ViewCount="130672" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Adam and Eve had only three sons (Cain, Abel, and Seth)&lt;/strong&gt;, but no daughters: how did the world get populated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1155" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-09-24T03:38:00.383" LastActivityDate="2016-09-24T03:38:00.383" Title="How did the world get populated according to Bible?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;cain&gt;&lt;seth&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5923" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5938" CreationDate="2012-02-07T11:56:41.307" Score="9" ViewCount="941" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that there is an element call faith to believe a system of belief. But my question is, are there valid arguments to prove God to someone who does not believe? Or at least to present God as logical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T12:01:37.240" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T12:01:37.240" Title="Is there a way to prove the God of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;logic&gt;&lt;general-revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-09-14T17:35:04.660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5923" CreationDate="2012-02-07T12:15:27.993" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The classic arguments I know are the following :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cosmological argument:&lt;/strong&gt; That every thing that has a beginning must have a cause.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Theological argument:&lt;/strong&gt; The order and the useful setting in a system imply an intelligence and a finality that did the organization.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ontological argument:&lt;/strong&gt; That the idea of God itself is a proof for the existence of God. How can a finite being imagine an infinite one?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Moral argument:&lt;/strong&gt; The conscience of the human is proof of a conscience giver. Or, the morality within man means that there must be a moral law giver.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Congruence argument:&lt;/strong&gt; This argument maintains that the previous arguments present the best way to understand the person of God. That the belief in the existence of God is the better way to explain our moral nature (mental and religious). Also, it is the better way to explain the material universe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These arguments work together to form one argument. So please don't work with these as 5 single, independent arguments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-02-07T13:24:41.560" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T13:24:41.560" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5920" CreationDate="2012-02-07T12:33:42.763" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Time has no meaning in heaven, there is probably a more precise Thomistic answer for this question bit that should suffice.  If time is meaningless then &amp;quot;at the same time&amp;quot; is meaningless. I'll get confused if I write any more about that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible, O Lord, that, since thou art in eternity, thou art ignorant of what I am saying to thee? Or, dost thou see in time an event at the time it occurs? If not, then why am I recounting such a tale of things to thee? Certainly not in order to acquaint thee with them through me; but, instead, that through them I may stir up my own love and the love of my readers toward thee, so that all may say, &amp;quot;Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised.&amp;quot; I have said this before and will say it again: &amp;quot;For love of thy love I do it.&amp;quot; So also we pray -- and yet Truth tells us, &amp;quot;Your Father knoweth what things you need before you ask him.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, we lay bare our feelings before thee, that, through our confessing to thee our plight and thy mercies toward us, thou mayest go on to free us altogether, as thou hast already begun; and that we may cease to be wretched in ourselves and blessed in thee -- since thou hast called us to be poor in spirit, meek, mourners, hungering and athirst for righteousness, merciful and pure in heart. Thus I have told thee many things, as I could find ability and will to do so, since it was thy will in the first place that I should confess to thee, O Lord my God -- for &amp;quot;Thou art good and thy mercy endureth forever.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine of Hippo - Confessions Book 11, Chapter 1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We not only believe that the saints can hear and deliver our prayers to God. We believe all the angels and all the saints are present at every Mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T19:31:40.047" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5922" CreationDate="2012-02-07T13:06:16.393" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible actually indicates that Adam and Eve did, in fact, have daughters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he&#xA;  made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them,&#xA;  and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. 3&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image&lt;/strong&gt;, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam&#xA;  after he fathered Seth were 800 years; &lt;strong&gt;and he had other sons and&#xA;  daughters&lt;/strong&gt;. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and&#xA;  he died.  Genesis 5:1-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that Seth was born after Cain had killed Abel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name&#xA;  Seth, for she said, &quot;God has appointed for me another offspring&#xA;  instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.&quot;  Genesis 4:25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when Adam was 130 years old after Cain killed Abel, Eve became pregnant and gave birth to Seth.  So, did Adam and Eve have other children in between the time that Cain and Abel were born and Seth was born?  We can't say absolutely, but we can't say absolutely not either.  It certainly seems reasonable that other children would have been born during that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 5 does indicate that Adam and Eve had daughters as well (plural), though we are not told how many.  The very minimum would be three sons and two daughters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently Jewish tradition holds that Adam and Eve actually had &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/adam-and-eve.html&quot;&gt;33 sons and 23 daughters&lt;/a&gt;.  This is not biblical, of course, but it aligns with the idea that Adam and Eve were probably extremely fruitful and multiplied greatly, as God had commanded them.  The genetics were quite pure as well as the environment at that time.  They lived a long time (Adam was 930 years old when he died according to Genesis 5), so they had a lot of time to have children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it should be noted that this doesn't completely answer the question of how the world got populated.  The Bible teaches that the world was destroyed by a flood and that only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives survived.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts,&#xA;  all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22&#xA;  Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life&#xA;  died.  Genesis 7:21-22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the world has become populated today as descendants of those 8 people.  Even Noah could possibly have had children after the flood as well as Shem, Ham, and Japheth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their&#xA;  genealogies, in their nations, &lt;strong&gt;and from these the nations spread&#xA;  abroad on the earth after the flood.&lt;/strong&gt;  Genesis 10:32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-02-07T13:11:34.233" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T13:11:34.233" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5919" CreationDate="2012-02-07T13:29:41.930" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a web page titled &lt;a href=&quot;http://edgewoodcoc.org/synagogue.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The Synagogue&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, any Jewish male could lead a prayer or read and translate Scripture. Every service began with specific readings that had been prescribed by the scribes and rabbis. Most commonly read was the shema (“hear”) passage (Deut. 6:4-9). Nearly every service gave much attention to reading sections from the Law, the Prophets, and especially the Psalms. The congregation would stand as Scripture was read (cf. Neh. 8:1-8), and the reader was forbidden to take his eyes off the scroll in order to ensure that the word of God was communicated accurately (cf. Luke 4:16-20). Following a reading, a male in the synagogue (usually prepared in advance) would seek to apply the Scripture to life in the form of a brief sermon. Visiting rabbis were frequently asked to bring sermons to local synagogues (see Acts 13:15ff.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to a worship location, the synagogue also served other functions in a community. It was a school for training Jewish children in the Laws and ways of the Lord. It was not uncommon in the first century to find young children hard at work in synagogues memorizing the Torah, or Law of Moses. The synagogue also served as something of a community center for festivals, times of mourning and fasting, and as a center for feeding strangers and the poor. Sometimes the synagogue functioned as a court of law in which important questions regarding God’s law were decided. People could be banned from the synagogue (Jn. 9:22; 12:42), and sometimes corporal punishment (administered by the hazzan) could be applied for rebellion against the authorities — usually 39 lashes to honor God’s commandment (cf. Deut. 25:3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know, but Jesus and his Jewish apostles could have preached during the sermon time.  Or, they could have spoken while people were gathered for school or community activities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T13:29:41.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5923" CreationDate="2012-02-07T13:42:57.357" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there are no scientific experiments that you could run to show the existence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christians talk about proving God, they mean something along the lines of Malachi 3:10 (NRSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another oft quoted verse is James 1:5-8 (NRSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you. But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, to prove (test) God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Believe in His word.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask God for the things he's already promised us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask in sincere faith.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See God's blessings in your life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T13:42:57.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5923" CreationDate="2012-02-07T14:20:18.777" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/a&gt;, CS Lewis describes such a proof (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/mere-christianity/Book2/cs-lewis-mere-christianity-book2.php&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless-I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice-was full of sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, we would not have even a &lt;em&gt;concept&lt;/em&gt; of justice, if &lt;strong&gt;absolute justice&lt;/strong&gt; did not exist, just like a fish has no concept of either dry or wet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CS Lewis also had his famous &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;trilemma&lt;/a&gt;, demonstrating that if you accept the existence of Jesus and what He said, He &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; have been God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Gumbel&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicky Gumbel&lt;/a&gt; (I think) summarised it as &lt;em&gt;Jesus can only have been Mad, Bad or God.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the trilemma in full:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T14:20:18.777" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5931" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5932" CreationDate="2012-02-07T14:55:31.740" Score="11" ViewCount="478" Body="&lt;p&gt;I answered &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/640/how-is-veneration-similar-or-different-from-adoration&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; calling adoration and veneration &lt;em&gt;honor&lt;/em&gt; given to God and the saints accordingly.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the edits for my answer, I think I had some confusion as to the terminology which is popping up again and I still don't know what to do about it.  I can repeat the old maxim, &quot;we adore God, we venerate Our Lady and the saints.&quot; But then, if asked to define those terms I'd have to say, adoration is worship due only to God and veneration is worship due to those in Heaven who are not God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I couldn't call them both worship, then I couldn't accurately compare them and people would say that I couldn't pray to both.  If I call both worship, then I take a great step into the land of idolatry and ancestor worship.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This is a Catholic questioned aimed at answers that teenagers would be able to grasp, but all reasonable answers will be considered reasonably :)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T15:24:29.397" Title="Is veneration worship?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5931" CreationDate="2012-02-07T15:12:05.027" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Veneration&quot; and &quot;worship&quot; are imprecise terms.  The precise terms are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dulia&lt;/strong&gt;: a theological term signifying the honor paid to the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hyperdulia&lt;/strong&gt;: a theological term signifying the honour paid to Mary the mother of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Latria&lt;/strong&gt;: a theological term signifying the honour paid to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Veneration&quot; is commonly associated with &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm&quot;&gt;dulia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;hyperdulia&lt;/em&gt;; &quot;worship&quot; is commonly associated with &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm&quot;&gt;latria&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, but to be technically precise, &quot;veneration&quot; and &quot;worship&quot; are not formally defined on their own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the English language terms are imprecise, depending on the setting or context it would be best to disambiguate the terminology and use the Latin terms instead, mentioning that certain English words are commonly used in place of the Latin words, but the Latin terms are the precise ones (at least that's how my catechism and religion teachers handled the issue of word selection).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: the Catholic encyclopedia's definition of &lt;em&gt;latria&lt;/em&gt; is rather weak; pragraph 55 of Pope Paul 6th's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html&quot;&gt;encylical &lt;em&gt;Mysterium Fidei&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; implies that &lt;em&gt;latria&lt;/em&gt; is worship meant for God alone (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the&#xA;  presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her&#xA;  teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this&#xA;  great Sacrament &lt;strong&gt;the worship known as &quot;latria,&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; which may be given to&#xA;  God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="1244" LastEditDate="2012-02-07T15:24:29.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T15:24:29.397" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5935" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-07T19:35:43.293" Score="14" ViewCount="6984" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5926/20&quot;&gt;An answer&lt;/a&gt; suggests that &quot;time is meaningless in heaven.&quot;  Do we know this to be true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like an easy conclusion to draw, based on the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God created the entire universe, including all dimensions and time. Therefore, God exists outside of time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Heaven is the place of &quot;eternal&quot; life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Heaven we will be &quot;with&quot; God (so possibly/presumably outside of time as well?)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But does all of this add up to time being meaningless or nonexistent in heaven?  Or does the Bible give us any other clues as to the &quot;timeliness&quot; of Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;If there are significantly diverging views on this based on theological tradition let me know in comments, and I can try to make the question more specific, or ask separate questions for those traditions in which I am most interested.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2014-07-22T04:34:45.800" Title="Is/will there be time in heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-03-19T01:20:54.043" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5935" CreationDate="2012-02-07T20:20:42.367" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that the idea that created beings become timeless in heaven is not one that is widely held.  God, as the Creator of time, space, and matter, is the only Being that exists outside of time, space, and matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a significant distinction between that which is mortal, that which is immortal, and that which is eternal (outside of time).  That which is mortal has both a beginning and an end.  This includes the earth, our physical bodies and taxes (thank goodness).  That which is immortal has a beginning but no end.  This includes our souls and spirits as well as angels.  God alone is eternal.  Only God has no beginning and no ending.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eternal life that we have does not mean that all of a sudden our lives go from having a beginning to not having a beginning.  We have eternal life in the sense that it will have no end--not in the sense that it has no beginning.  God is eternal in an entirely different sense.  Perhaps our language is not specific enough in this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key point is those beings who have a beginning cannot go through any process where their beginning is eliminated and makes them timeless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have been created inside of time, space, and matter, and we will always exist within that.  Only God exists outside of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T20:20:42.367" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5935" CreationDate="2012-02-07T20:41:46.323" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a relevant part from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia on Eternity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So far for the strict or proper notion of eternity, as applying solely to the Divine existence. There is a wide or improper sense in which we are wont to represent as eternal what is merely endless succession in time, and this even though the time in question should have had a beginning, as when we speak of the reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked as eternal, meaning by eternity only time or succession without end or limit in the future. In the Apocalypse there is a well-known passage in which a great angel is represented as standing with one foot on sea and one on land, and swearing by Him that liveth forever that time shall be no more. Whatever the meaning of the oath may be, it has found an echo in our religious terminology, and we are wont to think and say that with death, and especially with the Last Judgment, time shall cease.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried reading the passage in revelation referenced in the above quote.  Which I believe is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P12T.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the end of Revelation 11&lt;/a&gt; and I can't make heads or tails of it, but that's par for the course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suffice it to say, it is the Catholic understanding that our subjective conception of time will cease in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T20:41:46.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5923" CreationDate="2012-02-07T20:58:35.190" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No Overwhelming Proof&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be cause to distinguish between, &quot;Is there a way to prove the existence of the God of the Bible to all people in all times?&quot; from the question of &quot;Has there ever been a way to prove the existence of the God of the Bible?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to latter question is affirmative, although the accounts of this are recorded in the Bible itself.  Nonetheless, the people of Israel were given overwhelming proof that the God of the Bible was real many times over for specific people in time.  To mention a few...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The plagues in Egypt were pretty concrete proof.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The parting of the Red Sea for those who passed through it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's Presence in the Pillar of Fire by night and the Cloud by Day.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal and Ashteroth was significant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The chariots of God that were tens of thousands.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elijah's exit into heaven, seen by Elisha&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The miracles that Jesus performed were pretty convincing proof.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those who saw the Jesus after His resurrection from the dead, including Saul of Tarsus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isaiah seeing the throne of God was probably quite convincing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God certainly did provide very convincing proof of His existence in times past--not to everyone who ever lived since the beginning of the world.  Yet, as Jesus told Thomas, &quot;blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for whatever reason, it does not appear to be God's desire to show overwhelming evidence to every person who has ever lived in all times.  It does appear that He offers &quot;sufficient&quot; evidence, but not &quot;overwhelming&quot; evidence to every person, including general revelation in creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, just because there isn't overwhelming evidence or proof for something certainly does not mean it isn't true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Logical Proof&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The classical arguments are certainly good places to start.  The book, &lt;em&gt;I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist&lt;/em&gt; has some really good lines of reasoning in it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At its root, the universe itself either came from nothing or it came from something or someone.  All of our experimentation and reason indicates that &quot;Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could...&quot; (to reference The Sound of Music).  We know from logic and reason that nothing can create itself.  Something has to exist &lt;strong&gt;before&lt;/strong&gt; it can create anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Science now tells us convincingly that the universe is &lt;strong&gt;not eternal&lt;/strong&gt;.  The implication is that it began to exist, so it must have a cause that is greater than itself.  The physical universe of time, space, and matter must have been created by a being that is outside of time, space, and matter.  That Creator does correlate to the God of the Bible, who is outside of time, outside of space, and outside of matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A complete logical argument would need to entail evidence of prophecies fulfilled and the resurrection of Jesus, which is the crux of Christianity (pun intended).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T20:58:35.190" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5923" CreationDate="2012-02-07T22:43:17.893" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, it depends what you mean by proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mathematical proof&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scientific proof&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Court of law proof&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first of these is the strongest: you can build absolute proofs that cannot be refuted by anyone who accepts the principles of Mathematics. However, such proofs are limited to the perfect abstractions described by mathematicians, and don't necessarily work that well in the real world. For example, you can prove that 1 + 1 = 2, but you can't easily prove that 1 haystack + 1 haystack = 2 haystacks because haystack counting doesn't follow the normal rules  (1 haystack + 1 haystack = 1 big haystack). As a result, you can't apply that kind of proof to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is weaker, but is still strong: scientific proof is the result of trying to find evidence against a theory, and accepting it as proven only if no evidence has yet been found that undermines that theory. If such evidence is found, and if the theory can't be adjusted to accommodate it, then the theory must be rejected. Nevertheless, if such evidence can't be found by the scientific community then there is good reason to accept a theory as proven. Some people feel that this kind of proof does apply to God, but there isn't sufficient consensus to accept that God's existence has been proven in this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the evidence required to convict someone in a court of law is somewhat weaker. The community of investigators is far smaller than that required for scientific proof, and the process of proof is far less rigorous than scientific proof would be. Whereas scientific proof relies on repeatability, this is generally impossible when someone is on trial. Now, despite the relative weakness of courtroom proof, it is often the best we've got, and we have to make real-world (even life-and-death) decisions based on this kind of proof. Many of us have looked the evidence for and against the Christian God's existence and concluded that, to the best of our ability, we have found sufficient 'proof' that He is real. We believers are willing to make real-world decisions on the basis of this proof, but recognize that it is at best a court-room proof rather than a mathematical or even a scientific proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the most part, we believers assume that God's existence is logical. Some of us are able to articulate our understanding of that logic, whilst others are willing to accept that such a logic may exist but that we either don't or even can't know what it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to what evidence people use as the basis of their proof, there are numerous sources, and different believers find different kinds of evidence persuasive. Some popular sources of evidence include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Religious experience - either an &quot;inner witness&quot; or observable phenomena attributed to God or to the results of faithful obedience.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The testimony of other believers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historical records, including (but not limited to) the Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Philosophical arguments - such as Pascal's Wager, Lewis' Trilemma, Aquinas arguments (as paraphrased on David Laberge's answer), etc. This includes both arguments for God's existence and refutations of arguments against God's existence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Let's be honest - wishful thinking and guesswork&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is this: we each of us have the option to look at the evidence available for God's existence and makes up their own mind. There is no &lt;em&gt;absolute&lt;/em&gt; certainty - but for us Christians, there is enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2012-02-07T22:43:17.893" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5923" CreationDate="2012-02-07T23:05:16.657" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus claimed to be the God of the the Bible a few times, and he even used the scriptures to support his case (here is only a few verses to make this case):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus claimed to be God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough&#xA;  for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I&#xA;  been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever&#xA;  has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the&#xA;  Father’? (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John+14:8-9/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:8-9&lt;/a&gt; ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I and the Father are one.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John+10:30/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 10:30&lt;/a&gt; ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus invoked the name of God that was revealed to Moses in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Exd+3:14/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exd 3:14&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it&#xA;  and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty&#xA;  years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them,&#xA;  “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they&#xA;  picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out&#xA;  of the temple. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John+8:56-59/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 8:56-59&lt;/a&gt; ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus claimed to fulfil a reading from Isaiah (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Isaiah+61:1-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;61:1-2a&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He&#xA;  unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,&#xA;    “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,         because he has anointed me&#xA;        to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim&#xA;  liberty to the captives       and recovering of sight to the blind,       to&#xA;  set at liberty those who are oppressed,   to proclaim the year of&#xA;  the Lord's favor.”    And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back&#xA;  to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue&#xA;  were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this&#xA;  Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+4:17-21/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 4:17-21&lt;/a&gt; ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus used the scriptures to explaine his death and resurrection:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things&#xA;  and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the&#xA;  Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things&#xA;  concerning himself. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+24:26-27/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 24:26-27&lt;/a&gt; ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also held that Jesus' death and resurrection was from the scriptures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set&#xA;  apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through&#xA;  his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was&#xA;  descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be&#xA;  the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his&#xA;  resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+1:1-4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:1-4&lt;/a&gt; ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Paul stated that if Jesus did not rise from the dead (according to the scriptures) then the Christian faith is futile and Christians are misrepresenting God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also&#xA;  received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the&#xA;  Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third&#xA;  day in accordance with the Scriptures, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Corinthians+15:3-4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:3-4&lt;/a&gt; ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain&#xA;  and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be&#xA;  misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised&#xA;  Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not&#xA;  raised. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Corinthians+15:14-15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:14-15&lt;/a&gt; ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus and Paul seemed to think that the resurrection of Jesus proved that Jesus was the God of the Bible. If you can prove the resurrection then you have a good case that Jesus is who he said he was. There is no way to prove this scientifically, but historically there is &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; evidence that may imply it happened. This also depends on how strongly you take the historical sources, but most historians can agree that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus died by crucifixion. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was honorably buried in an easily accessible public tomb.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The death of Christ caused His followers to lose all hope in His Messianic claims &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Three days later, the tomb was empty. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The disciples had genuine experiences that they were convinced were literal appearances of the risen Christ.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The disciples were radically transformed from skeptics and doubters to bold proclaimers of Christ’s Resurrection.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eleven of the twelve apostles suffered martyrs’ deaths for their convictions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Resurrection message was absolutely central to the early preaching of the Church. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Resurrection message was central to the entire New Testament.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Resurrection was first proclaimed in the very environment most hostile to it, Jerusalem. Even there, those motivated to disprove the Resurrection could not do so.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church exists only because of the disciples’ conviction that the Resurrection occurred. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Sabbath Day was changed to Sunday. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;James, Paul, and many other skeptics were only convinced as a result of personally seeing the risen Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other resurrection theories (swoon, stolen body, hallucination, mistaken identity, wrong tomb etc...) try and account for either (1) the empty tomb, (2) the resurrection appearances and (3) the transformed lives of his followers, but no theory, besides Jesus' resurrection adequately explains all three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Source&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Resurrect? An Atheist and Theist Dialogue&lt;/em&gt;, Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, edited by John F. Ankerberg&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1248" LastEditorUserId="1248" LastEditDate="2012-02-14T08:14:21.267" LastActivityDate="2012-02-14T08:14:21.267" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5941" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5942" CreationDate="2012-02-08T03:30:46.050" Score="2" ViewCount="331" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been many &quot;calculations&quot; done by various people from various Christian denominations concerning the precise date of the end of the world, like Harold Camping and 21st of May 2011. Despite those numerous instances of people figuring out the time this event was to occur, I can't find any sources to the exact math behind such claims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any resources like that available anywhere so one could verify such math and find out the flaws of the &quot;scientific&quot; reasoning behind them? If those are available, have they been revealed before the predicted date was to occur?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1283" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T13:25:16.767" Title="End of the world &quot;calculations&quot;" Tags="&lt;rapture&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2018-12-23T19:21:08.140" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5941" CreationDate="2012-02-08T03:48:26.727" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difficulty in verifying the math and the calculations is that every prognostication has its own formula.  In order to verify Harold Camping, for instance, you have to look at the passages &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_end_times_prediction&quot;&gt;he&lt;/a&gt; is pulling from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.1260-1290-days-bible-prophecy.org/1260_days-bible-prophecy-bible-numbers-ch-2h.htm&quot;&gt;one&lt;/a&gt; (and I don't endorse it) showing how they arrive at their numbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably the most important calculations revolve around the &quot;time, times, and half a time&quot; in Revelation, and the vision of the 70 weeks in Daniel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one mathematical construct in the Bible that bears the most weight, however, and that is Matthew 24:36:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-08T04:03:34.733" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T04:03:34.733" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5935" CreationDate="2012-02-08T04:03:42.150" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am pretty sure there will be time. Time is, basically, order. Without order there is chaos and God is a God of order.  Events happen in a certain order--you plant a seed and it grows into a tree, you are in one location and then you are in another (etc). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 22 we read about the river of God and the Tree(s) of life that yield fruit &lt;em&gt;every month&lt;/em&gt;. Now, fruit coming to maturity is evidence of one event occurring after another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other passages of an event and then another event following it in order. Sounds like &quot;time&quot; to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyhow, my conclusion, is that there IS time, but more then likely not as we currently know it or understand it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="576" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-08T05:18:56.770" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T05:18:56.770" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5875" CreationDate="2012-02-08T04:10:13.523" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll take &quot;threaten the Christian beliefs&quot; to mean that neurotheology's future findings might make some who are Christian change these beliefs to something else.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say there is a reasonable chance.  More strongly, of all scientific enterprises, if any can do it, neurotheology probably has the greatest chance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take free will, as you mentioned, as one example.  There are already studies that suggest that our actions are already decided in our brain prior to our conscious awareness of making a decision to act (discussed &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). This suggests a different view of will than the free one that Christianity proposes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T04:10:13.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5941" CreationDate="2012-02-08T13:25:16.767" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The general point is that there are different ways to try to figure it out. There are generally two assumptions made (three if you count the elephant in the closet of being able to calculate at all) and these are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The scriptures provide in some fashion a calculable total of time units at the end of which is a particular eschatological event such as 'the Rapture' or the final judgment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a way to determine the number of time-units we are from one definite point (such as the coming of Christ) to the other definite point in 1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are generally private interpretations (warned against by the apostles) and you can tell because there is no general system. For instance, they may count the number of words in the Codex Vaticanus, or the number of days from creation to Christ, or the number of days taken literally in Revelation. The second step is then to use the symbols in the prophecy to figure out where in that process we are. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The emergence of these predictions is sometimes sparked by the discovery of an old document or the advent of access to a system of counting something in the scripture more accurately. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That all being said -- you can easily find the calculations for a given prediction if you look it up!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T13:25:16.767" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5920" CreationDate="2012-02-08T13:31:45.433" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is no. Recall first of all that prayer is not necessarily audible words, and secondly, the means by which prayers 'rise like incense before the throne of God' is never entirely clear. If we take for instance the issue of God hearing prayer, there are multiple ways in which the prayer could be received. To take two, the first is that God knew before the foundation of the world what would be prayed, though he himself did not make it so. The second is that through the Spirit he fills all things, and thus knows the words that are going to be prayed before they are formed into words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We who venerate and ask for intercession of the saints believe that they dwell in God, so while it is not impossible that they can hear and interpret multiple 'messages' at the same time this does not seem to be an issue raised nor a description used. The saints live in the power and energy of the Divinity; they simply do what is given for them to do. They hear us through God to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T13:31:45.433" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="185" CreationDate="2012-02-08T14:14:25.107" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any Biblical support?  Yes; the writer of Ecclesiastes takes it as a given (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%203:21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 3:21&lt;/a&gt;, ESV quoted):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the book of Revelation appears to refer to creatures in the sea as living souls - some translations do say living &lt;em&gt;things&lt;/em&gt;, but the Greek word is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext:1999.04.0058%3aentry=yuxh/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ψυχή&lt;/a&gt; &quot;breath, soul, spirit&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016:3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 16:3&lt;/a&gt;, KJV quoted):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, if animals do have souls, your author is right that they may differ in important ways from human souls. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What &lt;em&gt;effect&lt;/em&gt; are you trying to observe when you ask whether animals have souls? Or what properties associated with the English word &quot;soul&quot; are you looking to find in animals? A better directed question will help quell the quibbles about definitions appearing in every other answer here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastEditorUserId="950" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T01:49:10.520" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T01:49:10.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5949" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5956" CreationDate="2012-02-08T14:36:56.013" Score="13" ViewCount="30194" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus is brought before Pilate, he asks him if he is a king. When Jesus admits that he is Pilate says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“&lt;strong&gt;What is truth?&lt;/strong&gt;” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. &lt;em&gt;(John 18:37-38)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does Pilate actually believe Jesus, or is he simply being dismissive of Jesus' &amp;quot;naivite&amp;quot; in assuming there is such a thing as truth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like answers that pull from the tradition of mainstream Christian factions and scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-11-02T20:15:41.307" Title="What did Pilate mean by asking &quot;What is truth?&quot;" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;&lt;truth&gt;&lt;pilate&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-11-04T09:00:41.820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5949" CreationDate="2012-02-08T15:04:48.577" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripture doesn't explain what Pilate was thinking when he said &quot;What is truth.&quot;  I know that Pilate has always been portrayed by Catholic moral theologians as the archetype of the man who wants to please everyone, of the pusillanimous man who doesn't have the courage to take a tough stand because of the personal costs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the best dramatization of this &quot;want to have it both ways, woe is me, I can't make up my mind&quot; concept is from the movie &lt;em&gt;The Passion of the Christ&lt;/em&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/r_tOgEIup_s&quot;&gt;http://youtu.be/r_tOgEIup_s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is ironic that Pilate would address the question &quot;what is truth?&quot; while looking Truth itself right in the eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T15:04:48.577" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5951" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5955" CreationDate="2012-02-08T15:23:23.633" Score="4" ViewCount="730" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament we can see at least two people that didn't seem to ever die: Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). The Scriptures say that the first one was taken by God, and the second one was taken to the heaven by a whirlwind. Besides this, are there any indications in the Bible that these two never went to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22)?    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T16:25:24.483" Title="Indications that Enoch and Elijah have never gone to Abraham's bosom?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;elijah&gt;&lt;enoch&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5919" CreationDate="2012-02-08T15:27:20.093" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;In the temple&quot; is rather vague as it can be broadly understood to mean &quot;anywhere inside the temple complex&quot; which was significantly expanded by Herod and included things like The Court of the Gentiles, The Court of the Women, The Court of the Israelites, etc... all in addition to the Tabernacle which housed The Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.  It is my guess that it was in one of the several courts where Christ and the Apostles did their teaching and preaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T15:27:20.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5951" CreationDate="2012-02-08T16:25:24.483" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because John 3:13 says, &quot;And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven&quot; (Douay) I am inclined to believe that they went to Abraham's bosom. That is the easiest interpretation of that verse without going through some severe theological hoops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, and this is admittedly out of the scope of the question directly, but there is general theological consensus that the death of Christ &quot;opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers.&quot; And while this is in the &lt;em&gt;Te Deum&lt;/em&gt;, you can also find similar notions in Luther and Matthew Henry's Commentary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T16:25:24.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5949" CreationDate="2012-02-08T16:36:27.557" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate&quot;&gt;History&lt;/a&gt; records that Pilate was not the most even tempered of men. Considering this, I find that it is quite probable that the words would have been intended more as mockery than anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditions related to Pilate are a good deal more vague. While the apocryphal &quot;Passion (or Gospel) according to St. Peter&quot; exonerates him, the majority of writings which come from the post-apostolic writers suggest that the writings of Philo may very well be correct as to the nature of his character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there is no way to &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt;, but it seems far more probable that he was not acting as Christ's friend in that conversation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-08T16:36:27.557" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5957" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5959" CreationDate="2012-02-08T21:57:44.230" Score="3" ViewCount="2337" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading the New Testament side by side, one can pick up inconsistencies in the Gospels by various Disciples. For example, some of them mentioned by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thenazareneway.com/new_testament_biblical_inconsistencies.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this website&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 1:6-7 The lineage of Jesus is traced through David's son, Solomon.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 3:23-31 It is traced through David's son, Nathan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 26:18-20, 57-68, 27:1-2, MK 14:16-18, 53-72, 15:1 Jesus' initial hearing was at night on Passover. In the morning he was taken to Pilate.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 22:13-15, 54-66 The initial hearing took place in the morning on Passover.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  JN 18:28, 19:14 It took place the day before Passover, on the Day of Preparation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 28:1 The first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (two).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  MK 16:1 Both of the above plus Salome (three).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 23:55 - 24:1, 24:10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and &quot;other women&quot; (at least five).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  JN 20:1 Mary Magdalene only (one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 28:1 It was toward dawn when they arrived.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  MK 16:2 It was after sunrise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 24:1 It was at early dawn.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  JN 20:1 It was still dark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 28:1-2 The stone was still in place when they arrived. It was rolled away later.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  MK 16:4, LK 24:2, JN 20:1 The stone had already been rolled (or taken) away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 28:2 An angel arrived during an earthquake, rolled back the stone, then sat on it (outside the tomb).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  MK 16:5 No earthquake, only one young man sitting inside the tomb.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 24:2-4 No earthquake. Two men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  JN 20:12 No earthquake. Two angels are sitting inside the tomb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MT 28:8 The visitors ran to tell the disciples.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  MK 16:8 They said nothing to anyone.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  LK 24:9 They told the eleven and all the rest.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  JN 20:10-11 The disciples returned home. Mary remained outside, weeping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do such inconsistencies occur, given that some people claim &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Biblical inerrancy&lt;/a&gt;, and how do various Christian theologians from the major denominations account for them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1283" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T00:48:09.473" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T00:48:09.473" Title="Why are there inconsistencies in the New Testament?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-02-09T00:56:33.033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5958" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-08T22:17:49.133" Score="19" ViewCount="6579" Body="&lt;p&gt;How did Noah prevent fresh water fish from dying when salt water inundated inland waterways during the claimed floods?  I'm not sure which Christian doctrines take the literalist position but what is their explanation for this aspect of the claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T00:54:28.993" LastActivityDate="2017-01-06T14:34:59.003" Title="How did Noah preserve fresh water fish?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5957" CreationDate="2012-02-08T23:23:43.417" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Narnian said, an answer to all of your listed contradictions would be huge and if you have a real problem with a specific one it should be asked as a separate question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a general answer to why there are inconsistencies in the New Testament lets look at some facts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gospels were written by mortal men who make mistakes. They were written at different times by the apostles some later then others so some of them would of had a better recollection of the events then others. On that note everyone perceives experiences separately, so this would of also contributed to their different accounts of the same event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally look at the historical timeline. The New Testament is over 2000 years old. We read it today for the most part in English, which is not the original language. And there are always problems when reading translations because every language is different. For example many languages have emphasizers, words that add emphasis to an action or noun, which just do not translate into English because we don't use emphasizers. We don't have access to the original manuscripts so we can't check how accurate the translations are. Not to mention the fact that they were translated by men, who make mistakes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of these things detract from the validity or the message that is meant to be conveyed by the New Testament. Namely that God sent His Son to redeem the world because He loves everyone. And that His Son, Jesus the Christ was a perfect example for us to follow and pattern our lives after. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: this part is just opinion and addresses the fact that for a great many Christians inerrancy is not really an issue because of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since that message comes across clear despite the inconsistencies there is no doubt at least in my mind that God inspired the writers and translators. Else how would we even have the New Testament 2000 years later in the condition that its in.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T00:21:59.110" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T00:21:59.110" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5958" CreationDate="2012-02-08T23:29:43.377" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Noah was command to take every animal that walks on the face of the earth - not those that &quot;swim in the deep.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Genesis 6:19 - 20, via the Amplified Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And of every living thing of all flesh [found on land], you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.&#xA;  Of fowls and birds according to their kinds, of beasts according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind--two of every sort shall come in with you, that they may be kept alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 6:17 is equally clear that is only flesh that lives on the earth that shall perish:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For behold, I, even I, will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy and make putrid all flesh under the heavens in which are the breath and spirit of life; everything that is on the land shall die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew Interlinear can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen6.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, Noah would neither be commanded to protect sea life (since God was wiping clean &quot;the face of the earth&quot; and not &quot;the waters under the earth) nor would he need any special containers for fish.  They were protected.[1]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, Genesis 6:20 also says that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5962/1039&quot;&gt;Noah didn't have to search for the animals, rather they came to him&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point, however, is that marine life is not &quot;all living creatures on the earth,&quot; and as such need not fit on the ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, as pointed out in a comment however, there is still a question about how fresh-water fish would survive the flood outside of the ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A flood that covers the face of the earth is necessarily going to mix salt water and fresh.  How would fresh water survive?  Two hypothesis come to mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God miraculously keeps the waters separate.  Note that in Genesis he commanded the waters to separate from the land causing the firmanent, so this wouldn't be a stretch.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Remember that the flood came both from underground and above.  As Genesis 7:11 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be that the fresh and salt water was kept in some kind of balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I stretching here?  Yes.  It was a miracle!  But the basic point is still satisfied. Noah needn't have done a thing - God himself attended to the needs of marine life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that many Christians believe the flood to be a local (and not global) event. Indeed, I have seen documentaries suggest that the flood occurred when the Bosporous opened up and flooded the Black Sea.  They point to archeological evidence of civilizations at the bottom of the Black.  That said, these people are not the &quot;literalists&quot; asked for in the question, so the point need not be pressed here either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T15:51:36.880" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5958" CreationDate="2012-02-09T00:34:38.680" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize that what I'm about to put forward is not conclusively proven, but it is possible.  It's &lt;em&gt;specifically&lt;/em&gt; answering from the perspective of young-earth creationists, which isn't the only view out there. (But it is the one you specified you wanted in your question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Noah didn't have to save the fish.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question makes two assumptions that seem reasonable, but aren't really axiomatic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That the oceans were salt water at the time of the flood, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That the fish at the time were already adapted to either fresh water or salt water.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is entirely possible that at that early stage in earth's history (assuming a young-earth time-line) that the oceans were fresh water, or nearly fresh water.  If this were so, there would have been no dichotomy between fresh and saltwater fish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The oceans gain their salinity because material from land is constantly eroding into the oceans.  Both sea water and fresh water evaporate, but all water eventually ends up in the oceans.  the reason the oceans are more salty than fresh water is that the minerals can't travel back upstream, so when the water evaporates, the salinity increases. (more &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; if you want it)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46303377/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/why-there-are-so-few-fish-sea/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Even secular scientists are saying that most salt-water fish evolved from fresh water fish&lt;/a&gt;.  Even the young-earth creationists wouldn't argue that.  We see it as a minor variation within the Biblical &quot;kinds&quot;  Turning from a freshwater fish to a saltwater fish is a minor change compared to the transformation from a dinosaur (primarily reptile from what we understand) to a bird, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One popular YEC view is that likely, at the time of the flood, most sea life was able to live in both ocean water and fresh water because the salinity of the ocean was much less than.  During the flood, large amounts of materials would have been deposited rapidly, and as the flood waters receded, the ocean would have been much more salty shortly after the flood than it was before from that fact alone.  Over the remaining years, the oceans have become more salty at a slower rate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar argument can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creationtoday.org/how-did-the-fresh-water-fish-survive-the-flood/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, with a story about someone who experimented an was able to get salt and fresh-water fish living together in the same tank.  There's no reference on the story, but it's certainly possible to try it yourself if you'd like to experiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/fish-flood/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Fish in the Flood &lt;/a&gt; has this to add:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As a matter of fact, most of them didn’t survive. Over 95 percent of&#xA;  all fossils are marine creatures. They died and are fossilized by the&#xA;  trillions. Many are buried in great fossil graveyards, tightly packed&#xA;  together, choked with sediments, buried before they had time to decay.&#xA;  Obviously, they didn’t live in the environment in which they died.&#xA;  They were transported by rapidly moving water and then buried in&#xA;  sedimentary deposits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-01-06T14:34:59.003" LastActivityDate="2017-01-06T14:34:59.003" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1954" CreationDate="2012-02-09T01:18:16.127" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gen 6:20 reads as follows in the KJV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort &lt;strong&gt;shall come unto thee&lt;/strong&gt;, to keep them alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sense here is that the animals came to Noah, not that Noah went out and got each animal.  I'm not sure that if I were a polar bear, I'd want to walk all the way from the polar regions to the ark, but if God is compelling the animals to come, then come they would have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, remember that Noah had been building the ark for 100 years before the flood began, so there was ample time for the animals to reach the ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-03-24T17:41:36.247" LastActivityDate="2013-03-24T17:41:36.247" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5963" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-09T01:37:21.290" Score="12" ViewCount="4296" Body="&lt;p&gt;As it was mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5957/why-are-there-inconsistencies-in-the-new-testament&quot;&gt;in this topic&lt;/a&gt;, reading the New Testament side by side, one can pick up apparent inconsistencies in the Gospels by various Disciples. As it was suggested that they should be explained on a case by case basis, lets start with the opening of Jesus' tomb. Looking at four different passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mathew 28:2&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the&#xA;  Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the&#xA;  stone and sat on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 16:4-5&lt;/a&gt; But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed&#xA;  in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:2-4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 24:2-4&lt;/a&gt; They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but&#xA;  when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.&#xA;  While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that&#xA;  gleamed like lightning stood beside them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 20:11-12&lt;/a&gt; Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept,&#xA;  she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white,&#xA;  seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at&#xA;  the foot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this inconsistency explained by theologians of the various major denominations of Christianity, especially the ones that believe in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Biblical inerrancy&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1283" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-09-11T00:00:08.357" Title="How can these inconsistencies about Jesus' tomb be explained?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;&lt;tomb-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5963" CreationDate="2012-02-09T02:21:47.237" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, in the first three cases (the Synoptic Gospels), you have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an angel (or someone dressed in a gleaming white robe)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a stone rolled away&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And that's just one sentence)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John, you have two angels, yes, but this purports to be the account of a different person. (the Synoptics have the disciples as the antecedent, John explicitly mentions Mary)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose you could say that Matthew differs from Mark and Luke, in that one purports to narrate that the angel rolled it away, but before the disciples got there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not seeing the inconsistency -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was one angel when the disciples came.&#xA;There were two when Mary came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all instances, you have angels, a rolled away stone, and an empty tomb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T02:32:31.453" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T02:32:31.453" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5963" CreationDate="2012-02-09T02:45:44.463" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bridgeway Bible Commentary (by Don Fleming, I'm unsure of his denomination or theological lens) tries to harmonise the resurrection accounts in the following way (sorry this is a long quote):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Morning of the resurrection (Mt 28:1-15; Mk 16:1-11; Lk 24:1-12; Jn 20:1-18) It is not surprising that there are differences in the&#xA;  accounts of what people saw on the Sunday morning when Jesus rose from&#xA;  the dead. The sight of the empty tomb and the heavenly messengers&#xA;  produced a mixture of reactions - excitement, joy, anxiety, fear,&#xA;  wonder. There was confusion as people rushed here and there to tell&#xA;  others. One writer records what he heard from some, another what he&#xA;  heard from others. But there is no variation in the basic facts: the&#xA;  tomb was empty and Jesus had risen. The following summary suggests the&#xA;  possible order of events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the first sign of dawn two groups of women set out from separate places to take spices to anoint the body of Jesus. One group consisted&#xA;  of three women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses,&#xA;  and Salome the mother of the apostles James and John). The other group&#xA;  consisted of Joanna and some friends (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:1-3; Luke&#xA;  24:1,10).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The group of three women arrived at the tomb first and found the stone rolled away. Mary Magdalene panicked and, without seeing the&#xA;  angel or hearing the voice, ran to tell Peter and John that the body&#xA;  had been stolen (John 20:1-2). But the other Mary and Salome remained.&#xA;  They met one angel sitting on the stone outside the tomb, and another&#xA;  sitting inside the tomb. Upon hearing that Jesus had risen and desired&#xA;  to be reunited with his disciples in Galilee, they rushed off to the&#xA;  place where the apostles were gathered, eager to pass on the exciting&#xA;  news (Matt 28:2-7; Mark 16:4-8).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile the Roman guards fled the tomb and hurried across the city to tell the chief priests what had happened. These priests were&#xA;  the ones who had set the guard in the first place, and their purpose&#xA;  was to prevent Jesus’ followers from stealing the body. Now the same&#xA;  priests bribed the guards to spread the story that Jesus’ followers&#xA;  stole the body while the guards slept. The priests had earlier been&#xA;  worried that Jesus’ disciples might deceive people, but now they&#xA;  themselves were the deceivers (Matt 28:11-13; cf. 27:62-66). If Pilate&#xA;  heard the story of the guards sleeping on duty, the Jewish leaders&#xA;  promised to protect them by bribing Pilate (Matt 28:14-15).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Back at the tomb, a few minutes after the first group of women had departed, Joanna and her friends arrived. They went inside, met two&#xA;  angels, heard the news of Jesus’ resurrection, and hurried off to tell&#xA;  the apostles (Luke 24:2-8).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Soon after the women left the tomb, Peter and John arrived, went inside and saw the linen cloth lying neatly folded. They believed the&#xA;  evidence they saw that Jesus must have risen from the dead, but they&#xA;  left the tomb confused, not understanding the significance of the&#xA;  event (John 20:3-10; Luke 24:12).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mary Magdalene, who followed Peter and John back to the tomb, arrived after they had left. She remained there alone, weeping. Then&#xA;  she saw the two angels inside the tomb and, on turning round, saw a&#xA;  man whom she did not immediately recognize (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-15).&#xA;  When she discovered that the man was Jesus, she took hold of him as if&#xA;  not wanting to let him go. Jesus told her she had no need to cling to&#xA;  him in this way, as he was not ascending to heaven immediately (though&#xA;  he would within a few weeks). She should not become dependent on his&#xA;  physical presence, otherwise she would be disappointed again. She was&#xA;  to go and tell the apostles what he had told her (John 20:16-17).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shortly after appearing to Mary Magdalene, Jesus appeared to the other women of her group (the other Mary and Salome) as they were on&#xA;  their way to tell the apostles of their discovery (Matt 28:8-10).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The two groups of women reached the house of the apostles about the same time, followed soon after by Mary Magdalene. They told the&#xA;  apostles of what they had seen at the tomb and of their separate&#xA;  meetings with the risen Jesus, but the apostles believed neither Mary&#xA;  nor the other women (Mark 16:10-11; Luke 24:9-11; John 20:18). (All&#xA;  the events summarized in sections 1 to 8 above probably happened&#xA;  within the space of an hour or so.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (by R. A. Torrey - American fundamentalist) on the angles in Mark 16:5 says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This appears to have been a different angel from that mentioned by&#xA;  Matthew.  The latter sat in the porch of the tomb, and had assumed a&#xA;  terrible appearance to overawe the guard. (Mt 28:1;) but this appeared&#xA;  as a young man, within the sepulchre, in the inner apartment.  The two&#xA;  angels spoken of by John (ch. 20:11) appeared some time after these;&#xA;  but whether they were the same or different cannot be ascertained; nor&#xA;  whether the angels which manifested themselves to the second party of&#xA;  women, recorded by Luke, (ch. 24:4,) were the same or different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew Poole (English Nonconformist/Puritan) on Mark 16:5 concerning the number of angels says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Both Luke and John mention two angels in the habit of young men.&#xA;  Matthew speaks of one sitting upon the stone. They might see him&#xA;  sitting upon the stone, and yet find him within also, the motions of&#xA;  angels are quick and undiscernible to our sense, or the stone might be&#xA;  rolled inward. That they were affrighted is no wonder, considering how&#xA;  apt we are to be frightened by any apparitions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Gill (English Baptist Calvinist) on Mark 16:5 on the number of angels says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;nor is this any contradiction to John's account, who says there were&#xA;  two angels, one at the head, and another at the feet, Joh 20:12; since&#xA;  Mark does not say there was no more than one;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Gill (English Baptist Calvinist) on Matt 28:2 on the angel says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This posture of the angel does not contradict what other evangelists&#xA;  say of this, and the other angel, that they stood by the women, and&#xA;  also were sitting in the sepulchre,  Mr 16:5, for each was true: when&#xA;  the women first came, the angel sat upon the stone; after that, with&#xA;  the other, stood by them; when having invited them to the grave,&#xA;  placed themselves, sitting the one at the head, and the other at the&#xA;  feet, where the body of Christ had lain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly the The Pulpit Commentary (edited by Joseph Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones who were conservative Church of England folk) on Luke 24:4 and the number of angels says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To one company of women one angel appeared: to another, two. Mary&#xA;  Magdalene, a little later, saw two angels in white sitting, as it were&#xA;  keeping watch and ward over the sepulchre for a short time after the&#xA;  sacred form had left it. The words which these beings from another&#xA;  sphere spoke to the mourning women were slightly different, but the&#xA;  teaching was the same in each case: &quot;He is not here, but is risen. Do&#xA;  you not remember what he told you when he was yet with you?&quot; Van&#xA;  Oosterzee and Farrar repeat a beautiful passage from Lessing on this:&#xA;  &quot;Cold discrepancy-mongers, do you not, then, see that the evangelists&#xA;  do not count the angels?... There were not only two angels there were&#xA;  millions of them. They appeared not always one and the same, not&#xA;  always the same two; sometimes this one appeared, sometimes that;&#xA;  sometimes on this place, sometimes on that; sometimes alone, sometimes&#xA;  in company; sometimes they said this, sometimes they said that.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1248" LastEditorUserId="1248" LastEditDate="2015-09-11T00:00:08.357" LastActivityDate="2015-09-11T00:00:08.357" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5966" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-09T04:38:38.383" Score="8" ViewCount="6431" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think most (if not all) Christians would agree that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2021:27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;there will be no sin in heaven&lt;/a&gt;. However, we often make mistakes that aren't sinful: accidentally spilling a glass of milk isn't a sin. We don't know everything, we aren't all virtuosos, nor are we all Olympic athletes, but ignorance and a lack of skill and athleticism aren't sins either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: will we be perfect in Heaven, mentally and physically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastActivityDate="2015-01-11T02:20:55.990" Title="Will we be perfect in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5966" CreationDate="2012-02-09T05:08:47.450" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripture doesn't address accidents and the like.  In the context of Christianity, this means the only valid answer is &quot;We don't know&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The King James and other versions do use the word &quot;perfect&quot; in several places in the Bible when describing saved state:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:17&lt;/strong&gt; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 6:1&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation&#xA;  of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:14&lt;/strong&gt; For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:22&lt;/strong&gt; Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made &#xA;   perfect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 5:10&lt;/strong&gt; But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while,&#xA;  make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above are just the first few I found, but there are plenty more.  However, the meaning in the original language is usually better translated as &quot;Mature&quot;, &quot;justified&quot;, or &quot;sinless&quot; depending on the context and the original word(s) used.  They don't indicate the lack of accidents in the manner you described.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T13:11:44.217" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T13:11:44.217" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5966" CreationDate="2012-02-09T05:08:49.817" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Only God is perfect, and (except for Mormon teaching) we will never be God. Ergo, we will never be perfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going a bit deeper into the word, however, when the Bible uses the word perfect, it is typically the Greek word &lt;em&gt;telos&lt;/em&gt;. Telos does not imply a state of being, but rather a direction toward the end for which a thing is made. It has the sense of a target, minus the actual arrival. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: This doesn't mean our bodies won't be a heck of a lot better - our new bodies will be glorified.  That which was sown perishable is raised unperishable.  Our bodies will not be affected by sin, and that makes them way better than we can imagine now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But perfect is a different level entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it as two ants and looking at my belly and saying &quot;Its the largest thing ever!&quot;  No, it's pretty massive, but there are larger things. (Until I eat them)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T00:17:02.787" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T00:17:02.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5949" CreationDate="2012-02-09T06:43:49.663" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are asking this from the perspective of a Christian. Now step back, and consider it from the perspective of the observer, here re-phrased a bit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(19) the religious authorities ask some questions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(20-21) the defendant refuses to answer them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(23) the defendant retorts &quot;charges or I walk&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(24) the defendant is sent to the high religious authority; what was discussed is not recorded, but presumably relates very much to the charges&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(28) the defendant is sent in front of a judge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(33) the judge asks a question, that relates to why is he is being handed over&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(34) the defendant does not answer the question&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(35) the judge re-asks about the nature of the incident&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(36) the defendant answers, saying something which could very well be treated as incoherent or delusional, but which seems to answer an indirect affirmative to the &lt;em&gt;original&lt;/em&gt; question&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(37) the judge, exasperated, exclaims that the original question finally has some kind of half answer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(37) the defendant claims this exasperated outcry as an affirmation (actually, it was simply a restatement of the &lt;em&gt;defendants&lt;/em&gt; words in (36), where it is the &lt;em&gt;defendant&lt;/em&gt; who says this)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(37) the defendant claims to be about truth, and claim everyone in support of truth supports him (I'm reminded here of &quot;...available in all good book stores&quot;, and &quot;all decent people agree...&quot; - as a device, it makes it sound like anyone who simply disagrees with him disagrees with &quot;truth&quot;, but... this is not a reasonable claim for any person; and remember he is judged and tried as human)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[key point]&lt;/strong&gt; (38) the judge, tiring of the whole thing, with little &quot;truth&quot; coming from those who sent the defendant, and the defendant being uncooperative while setting logic traps about &quot;truth&quot;, snarkily retorts that the &quot;truth&quot; here isn't worth knowing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(38) to his credit, the judge remarks there is no clear case to answer, and suggests (within the rules available) to acquit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T16:29:16.470" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T16:29:16.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1954" CreationDate="2012-02-09T07:04:17.833" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One school of thought on the flood holds that it was not in fact global, but just occurred in Mesopotamia.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;argument&lt;/a&gt; is that Psalm 104 indicates the earth would never be fully covered with water after the creation, and the Hebrew words for &quot;whole earth&quot; in the flood account generally indicated a local area.  So Noah only had to save &quot;local&quot; animals, which, presumably, did not include penguins and polar bears.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T07:04:17.833" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5958" CreationDate="2012-02-09T07:05:35.993" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To clarify, a number of literalists that I've spoken to about this subject cite &quot;miracle&quot; as their explanation. This is &lt;strong&gt;exactly&lt;/strong&gt; the point that I'm trying to make in the last paragraph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMO, the question here extends far far beyond just fish; for example, you destroy all the plants and all the habitats, and all the insert / etc life that goes with it; you have no food (vegetable or meat) to sustain people or animals disembarking. Remember that a lot of the animals getting off the boat eat other animals, are &lt;strong&gt;specialized&lt;/strong&gt; at that, and would need more than a few to raise young. &lt;strong&gt;Any&lt;/strong&gt; time they eat, they drive another species extinct, and probably doom themselves if they are specialists. So they have the fun job of sitting in the fetid mud surrounded by debris and rotting carcasses, little food, little hope; floods do &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; sweep things clean; they leave foulness. Let alone the issues of the energy (often from other animals) necessary for the journey back to a climate where it can actually survive for more than a day (which, by foot and paw, could be many months)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point? (yes, I do actually have one that is relevant): as a result of the issues of the life &lt;em&gt;disembarking&lt;/em&gt; from the ark, it seems necessary to adopt one of two positions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the rules of life were &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt; suspended to &lt;em&gt;such&lt;/em&gt; a large extent (in order to ensure survival of, well, everything that survived) that it is meaningless to ponder about things like how that worked for fish; as a: it isn't recorded, and we would have to invent the reasoning; b: it is immaterial - without supernatural intervention, most of the remaining animal life is going to be dead shortly anyway (also remembering the supernatural intervention required to &lt;em&gt;bring&lt;/em&gt; the animals, and the floods); and of course c: genetic diversity is thrown out of the window&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or; it didn't happen as per the tale in the Bible (which to some means: similar divine  events, but with Genesis not the exact re-telling, and to others means: any such global/local flood that underpins the story was non-divine in nature)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each is entitled to their view of what happened; all I'm saying is: if you choose the &lt;strong&gt;literal&lt;/strong&gt; Bible flood account: then it &lt;strong&gt;demands&lt;/strong&gt; multiple additional (beyond that recorded in Genesis) supernatural events, not &lt;strong&gt;just&lt;/strong&gt; the floods and the arrival of the animals. It is &lt;strong&gt;inconsistent&lt;/strong&gt; to try to find a &lt;em&gt;rational/natural&lt;/em&gt; explanation for the survival of (say) fish in the midst of &lt;em&gt;supernatural&lt;/em&gt; events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T13:44:35.133" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T13:44:35.133" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5972" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5975" CreationDate="2012-02-09T08:36:32.993" Score="8" ViewCount="6881" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which does God prefer most, &lt;strong&gt;giving to the church&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;giving to the poor&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1155" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T12:45:40.373" LastActivityDate="2014-07-07T16:17:18.980" Title="Giving to the church or giving to the poor?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-07-08T04:06:13.500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5972" CreationDate="2012-02-09T12:17:02.680" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Contributing to the needs of the church is a precept of the Catholic Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alms giving is a corporal work of mercy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may vary parish to parish, but when you contribute to the offertory, you are helping the poor who come to be helped and healed by the local Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many times there will be a special collection for missions or charities. Then you know you're giving will directly help the needy, by those who can help them best. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any act of charity helps build up within you the virtue of charity, but the most difficult acts are the ones that help the most.  Giving one dollar to your Church is not a difficult act, steadily increasing your giving as you have the means will make you more charitable. Giving one dollar to a homeless person is not a difficult act, buying them a coat (or giving them your own is)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God must want  us to increase in virtue, so whatever acts make us increase the most align us best on the path to seek the will of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T15:13:38.000" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T15:13:38.000" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5966" CreationDate="2012-02-09T12:20:09.023" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We will receive a glorified body like that which was shown to the Apostles on Mt Tabor at the Transfiguration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Transfiguration gives us a foretaste of Christ's glorious coming, when he &amp;quot;will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body.&amp;quot; But it also recalls that &amp;quot;it is through many persecutions that we must enter the kingdom of God&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 556&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that Catechism entry specifically references the following scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%203:20-21&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 3:20-21 (DRA)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; But our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;     &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory, according to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things unto himself.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(at the resurrection,&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;not right after death)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T00:17:54.567" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5972" CreationDate="2012-02-09T12:49:09.097" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;(From an Evangelical, &lt;em&gt;Sola Fide&lt;/em&gt; perspective)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is based on a false dichotomy.  &lt;em&gt;Neither&lt;/em&gt; is more pleasing to God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both types of giving are a sign of obedience to God, and an act of love and mercy &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; our motive in doing either is pure.  If we are doing &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;either&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; simply to do so, or to &quot;earn points&quot; then neither is pleasing to God.  If we're trying to earn points with God, then it isn't an act of love or charity, but rather one of selfishness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, love is the greatest commandment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God&#xA;  with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  38&#xA;  This is the first and great commandment.  39 And the second is like&#xA;  unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  40 On these two&#xA;  commandments hang all the law and the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses supporting Sola Fide (Salvation by Faith Alone) are covered extensively elsewhere on the site, so I'm omitting them in the interest of brevity.  Suffice it to say that the doctrine teaches that our &quot;good works&quot; don't get us to heaven, and are not, in and of themselves, pleasing to God.  Isaiah 64:6 state that our righteousness is no more good than &quot;filthy rags&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The giving a tithe or an offering can be compared the sacrifices brought to the Temple in Old Testament times.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hosea 6:6 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, it's the heart condition - the love that counts - what David calls the &quot;Inner parts&quot; in Psalm 51:6 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden&#xA;  part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Giving offerings is also an act of mercy (depending on what the Church actually does with the money.)  In our Church, for example, there is a distinction between tithes and offerings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tithes are the 10% of our income that we give to the Church, which is used to support the business of the Church - pay for the building, electricity, Hymnals, Bibles, and other mundane needs.  These allow the Church to do its business - training up Christians, teaching us the principles of God, teaching us to love our neighbors, and equipping us to witness to others and see them get saved.  The motivation for giving tithes should be two-fold.  One reason is simply because God demands it, and we obey.  The other is that we know that ultimately, the money all works directly or indirectly toward saving people from an eternity in Hell, and that's loving people.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Offerings are over and above tithes.  In our Church, they are all designated for different purposes: Supporting missionaries, helping those in need, etc.  The pure motivation for giving is to give to those who need it more than us, again, out of love and mercy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, not everyone gives for the same reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are, of course, those that think they can buy their way into heaven.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are those that give large sums of money to &quot;look good&quot;  (&quot;Oh, look at me, I'm a righteous person because I give so much money.&quot;  Jesus rebuked this in His teachings, by the way.) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are those that give to the poor for similar purposes.  I don't believe that God honors this either.  What &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; pleasing to God is...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;love&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mercy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;obedience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;humility&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and a whole host of other qualities that have to do with the condition of our hearts, and not our external actions.  Where people get confused is that if we do have those traits, we will naturally give because we love, have mercy, are humble, etc.  Those are the &quot;fruits&quot; that grow out of the seed of our love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-11T13:47:36.213" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T13:47:36.213" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5972" CreationDate="2012-02-09T13:15:23.107" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;People have both physical and spiritual needs.  If we gave our lives only to meeting people's physical needs and never did anything for people's spiritual needs, the impact could be to give them comfort here but risk them having an eternity without God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if we gave our lives to only meeting people's spiritual needs, then many people would die of hunger before they could ever begin a relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, people are both physical and spiritual beings with both physical and spiritual needs.  The Bible specifically commands us to help the poor with physical needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet&#xA;  closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?  1&#xA;  John 3:17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, the Great Commission Jesus gave to us all is to proclaim to the world how mankind may be reconciled to God, be forgiven of their sins, and enter into a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a]&#xA;  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit&quot; Matthew&#xA;  28:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, giving to churches SHOULD result in both of these, since the church should itself be involved in both the Great Commission and meeting the needs of the poor.  Many churches, of course, don't do one or the other of these that well, so giving to the church can fulfill one or both of these, depending on the particular church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the answer is a resounding &quot;YES!&quot;  God commands us to do both--give to the poor and give so that people all over the world can hear and respond to Jesus.  Doing only one of them, regardless of which one we may choose, is inappropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T13:15:23.107" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1954" CreationDate="2012-02-09T14:10:43.937" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two issues with your question.  First, the assumption the polar bears must have been on the ark.  The Bible specifies that there were two of each &quot;kind&quot;.  If we take this to mean two of every species that modern science defines, then that would necessitate many more animals on the ark.  If, however, it just means that there were two of each kind, then there would be much fewer animals on the ark.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that all the genetic information for domestic dogs as well as coyotes (and perhaps wolves) could be contained within two representative wild dogs at the time.  Indeed, we can expose the range of variations in domestic dogs to get Great Danes and Teacup Poodles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if there were two bears that contained sufficient genetic information to account for the various species we see today, black, brown, polar, grizzly, etc., then polar bears need not be on the ark, except within the genetic makeup of the two bears that were selected (probably very young bears--one pink and one blue).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other assumption is that the pre-flood climate is basically what we have today as well.  There is sufficient evidence to show that this assumption is probably false.  For example, we find wooly mammoths eating tropical vegetation in what are now arctic regions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblically speaking, people lived far longer prior to the flood than they did afterward.  A drastically different climate could certainly account for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Noah probably took one of each &quot;kind&quot; rather than one of each of the isolated species we see today.  Noah had 8 people--not 2 Chinese, 2 Europeans, 2 Africans, 2 Native Americans, 2 Computer Programmers, etc.  Also, the climate was likely much different then than it is now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T14:10:43.937" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5966" CreationDate="2012-02-09T14:37:49.430" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ecclesiastes 12:7 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit&#xA;  returns to God who gave it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; take that to imply that our physical bodies do not go with us.  However it is a gnostic idea.  It is custom of modern Christianity to believe that we return to our bodies.  Either way, our bodies are not perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are who we are, in Heaven and on Earth - with free will and all.  I suspect that I will not play the harp well the first time in Heaven :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another little bit about the distinction between our Earthly bodies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 15:42-44 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown&#xA;  is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it&#xA;  is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it&#xA;  is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T14:37:49.430" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5972" CreationDate="2012-02-09T14:40:10.380" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short, mildly off-the-cuff answer here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the New Testament, most (all?) of the references to collecting/offering/giving money were related to the material needs of poor Christians - either locally, or further afield.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Noting also Paul's attitude to being paid for his ministry, I'd say that there isn't a great New Testament precedent for giving the majority of whatever you give to the church &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="83" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-10-02T14:20:24.920" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T14:20:24.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5972" CreationDate="2012-02-09T16:18:56.877" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Isaiah 64:6 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All our righteousness is as filthy rags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, even our good deeds in and of themselves do not curry favor with God. Any works we do are done as signs of the fact that we appreciate what God has done for us (John 14:12) and they are outflows of that appreciation.  Our works do nothing except signify the transformation that has already occurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the question is not &quot;What does God prefer?&quot; but rather, &quot;What makes the most sense.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Practically speaking, Christians who give do so in order to alleviate suffering, because we know that God's desire is not that others suffer.  We know from Matthew 25 that those who do more than just say &quot;Lord, Lord,&quot; want to attend to the practical needs of their fellow man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, the question is, how to best use that money to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two points are held in tension:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Churches as institutions have economies of scale that can more efficiently distribute aid.  (Think Compassion International, Catholic Charities of America, the Salvation Army, etc...)  [1]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not all acts of relief require economies of scale, however, so sometimes direct aid can bypass administrative costs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why Scripture tended to speak of &quot;tithes and offerings&quot; as separate categories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tithes&lt;/strong&gt; were a levied tax in Ancient Israel to support the church, separate from the government.  These tithes ensured there was a synagogoue in place that could, amongst its other activities, coordinate good works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Offerings&lt;/strong&gt; were free-will gifts (one could even call this &quot;alms&quot;) above and beyond required &quot;taxes&quot; that could help in immediate cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Both categories were expected of all believers.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Economies of Scale also allow institutions to respond to large crises (disasters, famine, endemic social issues) that individuals cannot.  Implicit in scale is waste, fraud, and abuse (yes, Mr. Baker, I'm talking about you!), but the hope is that more often than not the economy of scale can outweigh the lapses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T16:35:38.013" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T16:35:38.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5981" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5982" CreationDate="2012-02-09T16:56:24.510" Score="7" ViewCount="89106" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which angels and fallen angels are named in the Bible. and what are they responsible for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1283" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T00:38:22.463" LastActivityDate="2019-01-23T06:52:46.187" Title="Which angels and fallen angels are named in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5981" CreationDate="2012-02-09T17:00:01.743" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Angels&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are only two angels mentioned by name in Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Michael, the archangel, mentioned in Daniel 10 (and also in Jude). He is described as fighting the prince of Persia.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gabriel, who announced the birth of Jesus to Mary in Luke 1.  Here Gabriel is being an &lt;em&gt;angelos&lt;/em&gt; quite literally - a messenger.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other Angels appear in the OT (One to Manoah in Judges to announce the birth of Samson, three to Abraham in Genesis), but they are unnamed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An angel has only one job, as implied by the name - they deliver messages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When they are not doing this job, they are usually in the presence of the Lord, praising him and announcing his glory (Isaiah 6, Revelation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fallen Angels&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Debatedly, the only fallen angel is Lucifier in Isaiah 14 - the &quot;Star of Morning&quot; who is the Devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could also describe &quot;Legion&quot; as a demon in Luke 5 (at Genesseret), but that isn't a proper name, rather a collection of Demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T00:22:49.193" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T00:22:49.193" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5983" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6015" CreationDate="2012-02-09T17:29:14.203" Score="3" ViewCount="19033" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible mentions a number of supernatural beings, starting with the most commonly known ones - God, angels, spirits, but there are also ones that appear less often, like witches (Witch of Endor), or giants (Nephilim).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a comprehensive list of supernatural beings that appear in the Bible along with descriptions of what they are?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for defining supernatural, lets assume anything that is not part of the natural world, that is, grounded in reality outside of religion. Humans are natural, animals are natural, people worshipping other gods (like wiccans or baalists) are natural, people performing miracles (like Witch of Endor) are supernatural, just like angels, half angels, spirits, etc. In the end, anything not conforming to natural laws is supernatural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1283" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-30T02:39:25.487" LastActivityDate="2017-08-10T03:30:55.247" Title="What kinds of supernatural beings are in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;giants&gt;&lt;occult&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5984" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6028" CreationDate="2012-02-09T17:32:42.090" Score="6" ViewCount="1346" Body="&lt;p&gt;He's been called the &quot;Eosphoros of the Reformation&quot;, but how did he come to believe that the Bible opposes the idea that papal authority is above government authority?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1289" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-24T16:34:09.677" LastActivityDate="2017-07-24T16:34:09.677" Title="Why did John Wycliffe oppose papal authority in the 14th century?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;john-wycliffe&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5981" CreationDate="2012-02-09T17:38:05.547" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;@Affable Geek's right, but doesn't mention the Archangel Raphael as his tradition doesn't consider the book of Tobit scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Catholics and Orthodox include this book, he's also one of the angels named in the Bible.  His name means God Heals and he's the one who took Tobias on his journey and helped him heal his father's blindness. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tob008.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;He's actually pretty awesome&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in Catholic tradition (and other traditions), it was two angels who visited Abraham and Sarah, along with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...the truth of the matter seems to be this, that one of them was the son of God in an human form, that chiefly conversed with Abraham, and who rained from heaven brimstone on Sodom; and the other two were angels in the like form that accompanied him in that expedition: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/genesis/18-2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;from Gill's Exposition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Jewish traditions include Raphael &lt;a href=&quot;http://jhom.com/topics/angels/talmud_fourangels.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;and a few others&lt;/a&gt;, I can't comment on how ubiquitous those traditions are, you might want to ask on &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/malach-angel&quot;&gt;Judaism.SE&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:05.287" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T17:38:05.547" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5983" CreationDate="2012-02-09T17:40:23.343" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The definition of supernatural is pretty important here.  If it refers to anything that is not in the physical world, then angels and demons could be considered supernatural.  If it refers to anything outside the scope of common experience to modern society, then the Nephilim could be considered supernatural.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps a good definition for supernatural would be anything that is outside the physical universe of time, space, and matter.  In that case, only God is supernatural, since even angels and demons seem to exist within the physical universe.  Most often, they are hidden from our view, but not always.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the definition is expanded to refer to any beings for which earth is not their home, then angels and demons are added to the list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Witches exist today.  They are people who practice certain rituals and such.  They are not supernatural themselves, but they seek to facilitate demonic powers, which can be considered supernatural.  So, the powers they seek to use are supernatural, but they themselves are natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nephilim could very well be normal human beings.  It is really speculation to firmly classify them one way or the other, since we just aren't told enough about them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God is supernatural.  Angels and demons could also be considered supernatural, and this would include the Seraphim, Cherubim, and other angelic beings mentioned in Scripture.  Outside of that, I don't really know of any beings that are considered supernatural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T17:40:23.343" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5988" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5989" CreationDate="2012-02-09T18:37:14.357" Score="9" ViewCount="8557" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament states that God created the world and God created man.  We see the lineage of Adam and Eve, to Abraham, and so forth while the Hebrew nation is created.  Then, seemingly from left field, the Egyptians appear, and they are considered evil because they are worshiping multiple Gods and have enslaved the Hebrews, etc. This ultimately leads to the plague and the story of Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am struggling with how to state this question, but here it goes: If God created all mankind, how did nations such as the Egyptians end up so far off course?  Would they not have been descendants of Abraham as well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not seem to be covered by the Old Testament (much like the gap in Jesus' early years in the New Testament), so I am perplexed.  It almost seems as though they evolved on a separate path.  Can anyone point me to resources that would fill this gap?  Or have I missed a critical passage in the Old Testament somewhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1293" OwnerDisplayName="geoffmpm" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-01T15:46:27.313" LastActivityDate="2018-09-15T17:44:53.160" Title="How can I understand the rise of the Egyptians as a race in the Old Testament?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;ancient-egypt&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5988" CreationDate="2012-02-09T20:02:57.717" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Biblical perspective, the Egyptians would have descended from Noah, but not from Abraham.  Genesis 10 is considered the &quot;Table of Nations&quot; in the Bible as it details how the sons of Noah began to populate the earth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tower of Babel in Genesis 11 is also a very significant event.  God had commanded Noah (like He had Adam) to fill the earth.  The Tower of Babel was a direct act of disobedience by the people to not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.  God confused the language there in order to force mankind to obey Him and spread out across the whole earth.  The Egyptians were some of these people, no doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spreading out didn't totally resolve the issue, though, since now you had people all over the earth who had already rejected God, at least in part, at Babel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clarence Larkin has a very &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.preservedwords.com/disptruth/images/10-gentile.gif&quot;&gt;interesting chart&lt;/a&gt; detailing how the sons of Noah spread out over the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there really isn' a gap at all.  It probably just isn't as explicit enough to make it obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T20:02:57.717" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5988" CreationDate="2012-02-09T20:16:36.247" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The first problem&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recall that the ancient Jews viewed the world as descended of three different bloodlines: Jaseph, Shem, and Ham. Jaseph went North, Shem largely stayed put, and Ham went South. But, before that could happen, Ham uncovered his father's nakedness and was cursed (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 9&lt;/a&gt;) and summarily was cursed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of Israel can be seen as a manifestation of a rivalry between brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Now, a bit of extra biblical history.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ruling class of Egypt was not always, well, Egyptian. Just about when Joseph went south, an ethnically semitic people came into control. They would have had a good deal in common with Jacob and his family (which is one of the reasons Joseph was able to rise to power. This is also why a Pharaoh arose who was no longer friends with the Jews). Because of language and cultural distinctions, however, they remained segregated from those who had been native to the land previously (sim. to how the Samaritans and Jews never quite mixed despite the Maccabean nation which re-united Israel politically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as you may recall, the Semites were not all followers of YHWH. Recall the story of the stolen &quot;house gods&quot; from earlier in Genesis. So, in addition to the fact that there wasn't cultural cohesion, the Semites weren't all on the same page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of the above is courtesy of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sent2all.com/Oxford%20Bible%20Atlas.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Oxford Bible Atlas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-11-01T04:20:31.830" LastActivityDate="2015-11-01T04:20:31.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5963" CreationDate="2012-02-09T21:31:13.213" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to keep in mind here is that we are relying on humans recalling events that had taken place in some cases as long 40 years prior. Setting aside inspiration for the moment (as we would expect a skeptic to do) makes it even easier, as it's just not reasonable to expect everything to line up perfectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we do expect is for them to get the broad picture right. To be accurate on the big brush strokes.  This is &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; true with regards to the &quot;fantastic and miraculous&quot; events, because those are the things a person will tend to take note of and remember well later.  Jesus' tomb was empty? You bet! Was an angel there? Sure. Was the angel outside or inside? I don't rightly recall, but I know it was there, so I better write about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another good example is the Sermon on the Plain vs the Sermon on the Mount. How can you reconcile Matthew's record of the &quot;Sermon on the Mount&quot; with Luke's &quot;Sermon on the Plain&quot;? How were they able to record such a long discourse so accurately?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One explanation here is to remember that in those days, without tv or radio, public figures would travel from place to place and give the &lt;em&gt;same speech&lt;/em&gt; everywhere they went. This was how they got their message out. Today, we call that a &quot;stump&quot; speech, and politicians today will still do that from time to time. This both explains differences between the sermons in Matthew and Luke (they were recounting different deliveries of the same speech) and explains how they were able to recall it so well: they heard it many times, because they traveled with Jesus, and possibly had the text reinforced in private. Even so, one would hardly expect perfect recollection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T21:37:08.383" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T21:37:08.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5992" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5993" CreationDate="2012-02-09T21:35:58.930" Score="4" ViewCount="548" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know something about Jesus' clothes, that He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3:11&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wore sandals&lt;/a&gt; and that He wore a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:23&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;seamless undergarment&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other clues in the Bible as to His physical appearance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-24T17:46:48.740" LastActivityDate="2016-01-24T17:46:48.740" Title="Can we know anything about Jesus' appearance from the Bible?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;clothing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5992" CreationDate="2012-02-09T21:57:09.270" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There isn't much, and that itself is telling.  Isaiah mentions a couple of things prophetically--first, that His appearance was not going to be particularly special:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out&#xA;  of dry ground;  he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, &#xA;  and no beauty that we should desire him.  3 He was despised and&#xA;  rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with&#xA;  grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was&#xA;  despised, and we esteemed him not.  Isaiah 53:2-3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and secondly, that He would become pretty marred, which is understood to have occurred at His scourging prior to the crucifixion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As many were astonished at you—his appearance was so marred, beyond&#xA;  human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind &#xA;  Isaiah 52:14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from these prophecies, there is nothing that really indicates what He looked like.  We do know that children wanted to come to Him, so He likely looked normal enough.  The fact that there isn't anything mentioned about His appearance is an indication that there probably wasn't anything out of the ordinary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;King Saul was head and shoulders above everyone else, and that was notable.  Nothing like this is mentioned about Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T21:57:09.270" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5994" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="5995" CreationDate="2012-02-09T21:57:47.087" Score="0" ViewCount="1484" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually Christians write He, His and Himself with a capital H when referring to God the Father. I'm not aware of this practice for either Jesus or The Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why the distinction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T23:56:38.010" Title="Why is it that God the Father is alone capitalised in the third person?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5994" CreationDate="2012-02-09T22:42:56.337" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on the style guide, but it is a convention to capitalize names of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Chicago Manual of Style&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/Pronouns/Pronouns05.html&quot;&gt;does not require it, but does acknowledge it&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a person doesn't capitalize He in regards to Jesus or the Holy Spirit, it is probably just an unintentional slip. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They could be Nestorian, and deny the divinity of Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They might be Unitarian or Agnostic, and just not be sure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Their Shift key might be possessed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They might be anti-German, and thus hate capitalization on principle.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They might have just screwed up.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Never to attribute to malice where simple incompetence will suffice.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-09T23:56:38.010" LastActivityDate="2012-02-09T23:56:38.010" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5992" CreationDate="2012-02-10T00:43:47.337" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe this prophecy of Isaiah refers to Christ having a beard:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa+50%3A6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 50:56&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;  I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in support of Jesus looking like any other Jewish man: Judas had to kiss Him on the cheek to identify Him to the multitude in the Garden of Gethsemane. This would hardly have been necessary if Jesus was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://upwrite.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/the-problem-with-white-jesus/&quot;&gt;tall Caucasian with blonde hair and blue eyes&lt;/a&gt;. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T00:43:47.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5988" CreationDate="2012-02-10T05:33:00.447" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Narnian notes, the Egyptians weren't descended from Abraham. The Arabs are descended from Abraham through his son Ismael, but the ancient Egyptians weren't Arabs. That the Egyptians can't be descended from Abraham is easily seen from the fact that Abraham visited the Egyptians at least twice, and they were clearly already a populous nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How they fell away from belief in Jehovah is not all that mysterious. There are many families today where the children do not follow the beliefs of their parents: Moslem parents have children who become Christians, Christian parents have children who become atheists, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simple scenrio: Not long after the Flood, a son of, say, Ham, rejects belief in Jehovah. He them moves away to some remote place in Africa, out of contact with Jehovah-believers. He does not tell his children anything about Jehovah, but raises them as atheists or in some new religion that he invents. That is then all they know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone once said: How long does it take to lose the accumulated knowledge of a civilization?  Answer: One generation, if you work hard enough to destroy all the records.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure where you're saying there are &quot;omissions or inconsistencies&quot;. I guess there are &quot;omissions&quot; in the sense that the Bible does not name every person who ever lived and where he fit in the geneologies. But wow, such a book would be incredibly long and boring. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T05:33:00.447" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5972" CreationDate="2012-02-10T05:57:12.840" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are commanded to do both. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 14:12-14 Then He also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i.e. we should give to help the poor with no thought of reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 26:6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.” But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me.For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i.e. we should give to glorify Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To anyone who says that building a great cathedral or monument to God when the money could be spent on the poor, see the above verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is &quot;more pleasing&quot;? I don't know. Would God prefer that you help a widow or an orphan, or that you help a homeless person or a sick person? I'd say do all you can and don't worry about what's worth the most points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dittos to those pointing out that salvation is by faith and not works. I won't repeat that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T05:57:12.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5963" CreationDate="2012-02-10T06:09:22.697" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fact that two accounts don't include all the same details don't mean they contradict. It just means that one person mentioned a detail that another didn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So they didn't all mention the earthquake. Well, maybe it was mild enough and some of the writers far enough away at the time that they didn't feel it. Or maybe they just didn't find it necessary to include it. The story already had the amazing facts of angels and a huge stone rolled away and a man come back from the dead. Next to than an earthquake is small stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;suppose you read two news stories about the same event, say a political protest. Both say that the protestors marched down Main Street. Both say that they chanted a certain slogan. Both say that they assaulted bystanders. One says that some of the protestors broke some store windows and the other doesn't. Would you say that that is a &quot;contradiction&quot; and one of the reporters must be lying? Maybe the reporter who left it out just didn't think it was important enough to include. Or maybe he didn't see it. No one can report every single thing that happened, second by second. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RE one angel versus two: None of the Gospels says that there was only one angel. One says there were two angels, the others only mention one. Maybe they didn't think the number was important. Suppose I say, &quot;I was at the hardware store yesterday and a clerk named Bob helped me find the power tools.&quot; Would you be justified in concluding that because I mentioned no other clerks, that Bob must be the only person who works at that store? Not necessarily. I might well have not mentioned other clerks because they weren't relevant to what I wanted to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T06:09:22.697" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6000" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-10T06:28:08.313" Score="5" ViewCount="2049" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5994/why-is-it-that-god-the-father-is-alone-capitalised-in-the-third-person&quot;&gt;Another question&lt;/a&gt; really got me to thinking about the Holy Spirit.  I thought it better to  open a new question rather to divert the focus of that thread.  So growing up, I also thought of the 1st Person of the Trinity as Father and the 2nd Person of the Trinity as Son but never really came away with the overwhelming feeling of Holy Spirit as He.  &quot;It&quot; would certainly be quite wrong, after all the Holy Spirit is the 3rd &lt;em&gt;Person&lt;/em&gt; of the Trinity.  What support is there for referring to the Holy Spirit as He?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="148" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2015-09-11T12:50:43.927" Title="How do we know to refer to the Holy Spirit as He?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;gender&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6001" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6009" CreationDate="2012-02-10T10:05:17.657" Score="2" ViewCount="122" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was it stated in any one of the universal councils before the schism in 1054 that the One Universal Church is defined by Eucharist? I mean a statement that if the Eucharist is not practiced in a certain Christian group than this group is not a part of the Church.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T20:34:44.053" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T20:34:44.053" Title="Eucharist as a definition of the Church in any early universal councils before the 1054 split?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;evangelical-counsel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6002" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6003" CreationDate="2012-02-10T10:19:15.440" Score="6" ViewCount="3903" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic church claims that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome, that he was the leader of the other apostles/bishops, and that since the pope is the rightful heir of Peter's title (according to the Church), the pope would also be the leader of the bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for this claim? Does the Church take any specific verse as evidence for this claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-27T16:55:57.310" LastActivityDate="2015-07-27T16:55:57.310" Title="What is the Biblical basis for Peter being the leader of the apostles?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6002" CreationDate="2012-02-10T10:59:25.373" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; the direct Biblical basis for Peter's primacy comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/16:17&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:17-19&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, there's this passage from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/21:15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 21:15-17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6002/biblical-basis-for-peter-being-the-leader-of-the-apostles/6003#comment16087_6003&quot;&gt;DJClayworth noted in the comments&lt;/a&gt;, his role as the leader of the Apostles (and subsequently, the early Church) after Jesus's death and resurrection is clearly shown, particularly in the first half Acts of the Apostles which almost exclusively features his mission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Note 1&lt;/sup&gt;: The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1L.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church states&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;552&lt;/sup&gt;Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: &amp;quot;You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.&amp;quot; Our Lord then declared to him: &amp;quot;You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.&amp;quot; Christ, the &amp;quot;living Stone&amp;quot;, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;553&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: &amp;quot;I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.&amp;quot; The &amp;quot;power of the keys&amp;quot; designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: &amp;quot;Feed my sheep.&amp;quot; The power to &amp;quot;bind and loose&amp;quot; connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T20:36:02.840" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6004" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6018" CreationDate="2012-02-10T14:09:44.743" Score="4" ViewCount="671" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've often heard that if you lay out the books of the New Testament by the chronological order of their composition, the story of Jesus' resurrection becomes more important in the later books. Some also say it becomes more supernatural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any truth to this? I do not know the order of the books by when they were written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-10-15T16:40:39.837" LastActivityDate="2015-10-15T16:40:39.837" Title="Did the importance of the resurrection increase as the New Testament was written?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;literary-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6000" CreationDate="2012-02-10T15:28:24.883" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus calls the Holy Spirit &quot;him&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John14:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=John%2016:7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 16:7&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T15:44:41.417" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T15:44:41.417" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6004" CreationDate="2012-02-10T16:02:34.357" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The importance of the resurrection is highlighted starting in Genesis. Jesus death was the fulfillment of &quot;Satan bruising his heel&quot; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+3:15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:15&lt;/a&gt;. Without the resurrection, that would have counted for a lot more than a heel bruise, but with it the promise is proven true and Satan's head is crushed. Likewise, Isaac being given back alive points to a sacrifice that gives life. Many more examples could be given from just the oldest handful of Old Testament books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story continues to develop all through the Old Testament. By the time we come to the New Testament accounts in the four Gospels (which date as the earliest content in the NT even through penned after a few of the letters) the authors are able to talk about the resurrection as both a certain fact and the culmination of a long foretold story. Jesus himself speaks of his own resurrection as the key piece in the events that will unfold on his own life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While no case can reasonably be made to defend the thesis on your question, it should come as no surprise that the actual language used to describe the event becomes more plain in the  letters addressed to churches that did not witness the event. As neigh-sayers arose in the community, the reminders to true believers that address the importance of the core understandings of Christianity are given head on. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Corinthians%2015:17/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15&lt;/a&gt; stands out in this catagory, however beyond a few letters which emphatically state the importance of the resurrection to the faith, any attempt to impose an artificial timeline on this as a developing idea will fail in light of some of the latest written texts hardly mentioning the fact and some earlier ones giving it lots of attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, the original context of each book and writer should be examined to understand it's take on the subject. Paul had a specific reason to emphisis this doctrine is such clear speach to the Corinthians; and it wasn't that he had a new agenda to push.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-02-11T00:08:49.983" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T00:08:49.983" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6002" CreationDate="2012-02-10T16:51:44.183" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mark Trapp had a nice biblical answer, but here's another nugget:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:3-5&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 20:3-5 (DRA)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, John shows deference to Peter, as the leader he should be the first to inspect the empty tomb.  That deference could just be because of age, but it is clear that John thought Peter was the one who should inspect the tomb first.  If he didn't he A.) would have went in first and B.) wouldn't have bothered writing about it so many years later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T16:51:44.183" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6001" CreationDate="2012-02-10T19:17:07.503" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general rule of the Councils is that they are created out of a great crisis in the Church. This could be either theological (as in the first seven), or political (the healing of the Great Western Schism). While the identification of the eucharist with the body and blood of Christ can be seen in both the East and the West prior to the split, the first major challenges (there had been a minor challenge while the Church was united, but that never gained real traction) to the doctrine were only felt immediately &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the schism (literally, within the same decade). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of related thoughts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One can only wonder if the anti-eucharistic theology had gotten traction earlier if the resulting Council would have helped prevent the schism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vatican II was the only Council which was not created at a definitive time of crisis. Interesting to think about at least.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While the major crises of the East were resolved by Councils, Manichaeism and Donatism really never had a presence in the East. Those two heresies had a profound impact on Western theology. That is one reason why there is a difference between how Catholics and Orthodox view who is appropriate minister of Baptism (Catholic = anyone, clergy preferable; Orthodox = clergyman only).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T19:17:07.503" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5913" CreationDate="2012-02-10T19:48:33.630" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest issue I can see in America is the frequent confusion of Christian marriage and Governmental marriage (which hints at a greater confusion between America and God, but that's another topic for another day.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective, marriage is defined as a covenant between a man and a woman to honor and love each other, and treat the other as better than oneself until one of them should die.  The relationship between the two in marriage should represent the relationship between Christ and the Church in how it operates, and thus, point to Christ and his love.  Ultimately, the governmental definition of marriage shouldn't matter at all from a Christian perspective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The crux of the problem is that American Christians have, for too long, viewed things as though Christianity was primarily made for marriage, and not marriage for Christianity.  Visit a large singles group in the Bible belt in the US, and you'll see what I mean.  It becomes the ultimate desire of the average church-going single to find a mate, not to worship God.  This kind of attitude begets a Christianity that doesn't seek after God, so much as it seeks after happiness in marriage, which means people are seeking earthly things instead of the creator who created those earthly things.  This kind of seeking for earthly things ultimately fails.  It's like C.S. Lewis' quote: &quot;Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.&quot;  And of course, when two Christians, looking to their spouse for happiness ultimately find that they're not fulfilled in that search, their marriage looks no different than a non-Christian marriage.  Not understanding the true meaning of marriage (to represent Christ and the church: Ephesians 5:22-33), these people view marriage as a religion unto itself, and attribute the worship of it accordingly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question in my mind is: what is the difference between Christian marriage and any other marriage?  Should we even care what non-Christians (including the government) do?   I don't think we should.  As Christians, our focus should be more on making sure our own representation of Christ and the Church, through our marriage, is so clear, that it shines before men and points to Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the United States, the right to worship as one sees fit ought to be protected, as it's part of the constitution, but I see nothing in any proposed constitutional redefinitions of marriage that would ultimately prevent someone the right to worship as he sees fit.  Unless, of course the object being worshiped is the Governmental institution marriage, in which case, yeah, you've got a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to answer the basic question at the end: I think Christian religion and Christian worship cannot be completely separate.  Romans 12:1 says that our spiritual act of worship is to present our bodies as a living sacrifice.  I think it's possible to practice the Christian religion without practicing Christian worship.  All you need to do to do that is do &quot;Christian&quot; things, but proper Christian worship is recognizing Christ's ability to save us from our own depravity, and then glorifying God for having had sent his Son for us.  I don't think, however, it's possible to practice Christian worship without practicing some semblance of the Christian religion, which, in it's purest form, is glorifying God... be it through marriage or through some other means.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T19:48:33.630" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6004" CreationDate="2012-02-10T21:21:26.590" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, given that works don't show a clear trend and were written by different people for different purposes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also 'begs the question' given that it seems to assume that the Resurrection could somehow be 'unsupernatural'? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T21:21:26.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6012" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6016" CreationDate="2012-02-10T21:29:57.483" Score="2" ViewCount="468" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking of a Bible passage where the narrator has a dream/vision of being before the throne of God. Satan accuses him of being a sinner and unworthy and then God rebukes Satan and tells him to keep silent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can remember reading that story, but I don't remember where. Try as I might, I can't find it. Does anyone know where that story appears? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="78" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-05T10:56:26.687" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T10:56:26.687" Title="What Bible passage contains Satan and God where God rebukes Satan?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:17:52.693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6012" CreationDate="2012-02-10T21:38:41.377" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you're thinking about the story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job1-2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job&lt;/a&gt; but you have the story mixed a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T23:58:31.740" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T23:58:31.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6004" CreationDate="2012-02-10T23:41:55.340" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Allow me the liberty to rephrase your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Did the concept of Resurrection develop over time?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ancient Hebrews did not seem to have any conception of life after death.  In Job and the Psalms, we start seeing hints that Israelites envisioned some existence after death, but not as anything very exciting.  If you've read any Homer or the Gilgamesh epic, you'll remember that the dead go to a shadowy, dry place.  But it's important to understand that, unlike the Greek concept of &lt;em&gt;Hades&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7585&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sheol&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; wasn't a place where souls existed, but where whatever was left of the dead's body and spirit was housed.  It's not clear that the writers of the earlier books in the Old Testament envisioned anything more than a grave when they used the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple&quot;&gt;Second Temple period&lt;/a&gt;, Jews began to develop more sophisticated cosmologies.  We start getting hints of bodily Resurrection:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Daniel 12:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But even then, it's not clear if the Biblical prophets (outside of Daniel) were envisioning people actually rising from the dead.  Ezekiel 37 (the dry bones passage), for instance, was probably a statement of hope for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Resurrection.htm&quot;&gt;restoration of the nation&lt;/a&gt; of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish writings in the time between the Old and New Testaments show even more development of the idea of Resurrection, which always had strong nationalistic and (during times of occupation) revolutionary overtones.  But the idea was that at some point in the future, God would gather up all of His people and restore them to life all at once.  Nobody would have pictured one man rising from his grave as the (or even a) Resurrection.  Certainly the Messiah would not participate in the Resurrection, except to make way for it to happen, since he wouldn't die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we get to the time of Jesus, we suddenly see the Christian conception of Resurrection appear on the scene.  It draws strongly from the inter-testament ideas, but in a fairly radically altered format because the Messiah Himself dies, is buried, and resurrected.  Sometime later, the general Resurrection as envisioned by late, Second Temple Jews was predicted&amp;mdash;along with the return of the Messiah to complete His work on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How did the concept of Resurrection develop in the New Testament?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surprisingly little.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our earliest church documents are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#Authenticity_of_the_epistles&quot;&gt;Paul's letters&lt;/a&gt; to various primitive churches.  While it does seem that Paul warms to the subject over the course of his ministry, he does not alter his theology.  In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Galatians 2&lt;/a&gt;, Paul lets us know that his theology was shared with the leaders of the Jerusalem church (James the bother of Jesus, Peter, and John).  His dispute with them was not whether the Resurrection of Jesus occurred or what it meant, but whether or not it replaced the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem&quot;&gt;Mosaic Covenant&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD), Paul gives us one of the earliest formulations of the Christian view of Resurrection:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:3-8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:3-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many scholars think this represents an even earlier tradition that might have been a creedal statement.  Paul goes on to affirm that there will be a general Resurrection in the future:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:21-22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:21-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also the text (remember it's one of the earliest, written 20 or so years from Jesus' crucifixion) that asserts the Resurrection to be critical to the Christian faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:17-19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:17-19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anything, the Gospels, which were written later, downplay the Resurrection by giving us more details about Jesus' earthly ministry.  Mark even ends immediately after the women's discovery of the empty tomb and doesn't provide a post-Resurrection account.  (Whether this was by design or was a historical accident is not known.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reference:&lt;/strong&gt; I draw most of my information from N. T. Wright's &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=6b0nRIKjYxMC&amp;amp;dq=isbn:0800626796&amp;amp;ei=rps1T_-RG6f-kASjy4nADQ&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Resurrection of the Son of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, which stands alone as the best survey of the history of the idea of the Resurrection ever written.  If I don't stop now, I'm in danger of summarizing his entire book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T23:48:48.823" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T23:48:48.823" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5983" CreationDate="2012-02-10T23:45:17.660" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some supernatural beings mentioned in the Bible that I could find, along with named examples if such appeared for the less common beings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God, angels and people performing miracles in the name of God appear throught the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fallen angel in form of Lucifer was mentioned in Isaiah 14.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Satan, possibly a separate entity from Lucifer, was very prevelant in the Book of Job.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Beast, that is either Lucifer, Satan, or a separate entity was described in the Book of Revalation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Divinators, observers of time, enchanters, witches, charmers, mediums, familiar spirits, wizards, necromancers - all are mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:10-11. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most nootable witch mentioned in the Bible was Witch of Endor, that was able to communicate with spirits and conjure them - 1 Samuel 28:3-25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most notable sorcerror mentioned was Simon Magus - Acts 8:9-24. He used sorcerry, as well as was able to bewitch the entire city of Samaria.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A number of evil spirits or devils were mentioned throught the Bible, most notable was Legion from Mark 5. He was described as having supernatural strength.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Giants, or Nephilim (half-angels, half-men), Anakims, etc. - They were mentioned in Genesis 6:4, but also appear in other places. Most probably they were just big people, but given the origin of Nephilim, can still be considered supernatural.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dragons/sea serpents/leviathans - they are refferred to several times, most notable mention appeared in Isaiah 27:1. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1283" LastEditorUserId="1283" LastEditDate="2012-02-10T23:55:36.150" LastActivityDate="2012-02-10T23:55:36.150" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6012" CreationDate="2012-02-11T01:20:27.290" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may be thinking of Zechariah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.  And the LORD said to Satan, &quot;The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Zechariah 3:1-2 (RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T01:20:27.290" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6004" CreationDate="2012-02-11T08:00:33.513" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jon Ericson has given a good summary of the development of the doctrine of resurrection. I'm going to take a different angle and look at the level of detail about Jesus' resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;New Testament Chronology&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find a reasonable chronology of New Testament writings, as well as other early Christian writings, at the aptly named &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Early Christian Writings&lt;/a&gt; website. The dates of each document are given in ranges, and are ordered by the earliest date suggested for each document.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few of these are highly speculative. For example, the &amp;quot;Lost Sayings Gospel Q&amp;quot; is thought by many scholars to be a written source used by Matthew and Luke, but no copies of such a gospel exist, and no ancient Christians ever mentioned it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, many scholars believe there was an early &amp;quot;Passion Narrative&amp;quot; written prior to the first gospel. If so, we can only guess what details might have been in it, because again no copies exist. The early Christians &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt;, however, mention details about Jesus' last days, even before the gospels were written. But whether they got these details from a written document or from oral tradition, we can't really know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6014/126&quot;&gt;Jon's answer&lt;/a&gt; mentions Paul's teaching about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians, one of his earlier letters. This shows the doctrine of the resurrection was fleshed out very early in the development of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Resurrection Story&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But your question asked about the &lt;em&gt;story&lt;/em&gt; of the resurrection, and that's something different. While Paul's letters mention scattered details about the resurrection, they do not contain a narrative about it. For that, we must look to the gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/passage.aspx?q=mark+16:1-8&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first gospel to be written, most scholars agree, was Mark. Mark's account of the resurrection is somewhat sparse. Mary Magdalene goes to Jesus' tomb with two other women with burial spices. When the women arrive at the tomb, they find the stone rolled away and the body missing. A &amp;quot;young man&amp;quot; tells them that Jesus has risen and will meet the disciples in Galilee. The women flee the tomb in fear. That's the end of Mark's gospel. (The earliest and most reliable copies of this gospel do not contain any verses beyond 16:8.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/28.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second gospel written was Matthew. Again, the women go to the tomb with burial spices. According to Matthew, there is an earthquake as an angel descends and rolls the stone aside.  The angel tells the women that Jesus has risen, and will meet his disciples in Galilee. As the women turn around to go tell the disciples they see Jesus himself, and worship him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Galilee Jesus tells his disciples to go into all the world and make disciples themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you can already see a greater level of detail going from Mark's account to Matthew's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/24.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third gospel written was Luke. Again the women go to the tomb and find the stone rolled away and the body missing. Here they see two men who tell them he is risen. The women go back and tell the disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples don't believe it. Peter goes to the tomb himself to verify the women's story, and sees the empty burial clothes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In one sense, this is less &amp;quot;supernatural&amp;quot; than Matthew's account; there is no angel, and no appearance of Jesus to the women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Luke's story doesn't end there. Later the same day, two disciples (but apparently not two of the 12) are walking from Jerusalem to the town of Emmaus when Jesus appears and walks with them. They don't recognize him. He explains to them &amp;quot;the things about himself in all the scriptures&amp;quot;. They invite him into their home, he blesses their bread, and they realize who he is. Then he vanishes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the two go back to Jerusalem to tell the 12 (well, 11 now), and while they are relating their story, Jesus appears again. He eats a fish, then teaches them about himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He leads them to the nearby town of Bethany, where he offers a final blessing then ascends to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So although Luke's account of the empty tomb is perhaps more down to earth than Matthew's, the subsequent appearances give this gospel a much more detailed account of the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/passage.aspx?q=john+20;john+21&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last gospel to be written was John. Again we have the familiar story of the women going to the tomb and finding the stone removed. In this account, Mary tells Peter and John that Jesus' body has been taken from the tomb. The two disciples run to the tomb, enter, and see the burial clothes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary, however, remains outside the tomb and weeps. She is met by two angels who ask her why she is weeping. She tells them Jesus' body has been taken and she doesn't know where to find it. She turns around and sees Jesus himself but does not recognize him. She asks him if he knows where the body has been moved to. He calls her name, &amp;quot;Mary!&amp;quot; She replies, &amp;quot;Teacher!&amp;quot; and goes to tell the disciples that she has seen Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That evening Jesus appears inside a locked room where the disciples have hidden (except for Thomas who is not present). When they later tell Thomas they have seen Jesus, Thomas doesn't believe them. He insists that he won't believe unless he can see and touch the scars on Jesus' body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a week later, Jesus appears again and gives Thomas the opportunity to do just that. Thomas believes and worships him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some time later, seven of the disciples are fishing. They spend much of the night on the lake but do not catch anything. About daybreak Jesus shows up on the lake shore, and tells them the fishing is better on the other side of the boat. They follow his suggestion and catch 153 fish. Peter recognizes Jesus, gets out of the boat, and goes to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus has a conversation with Peter that is apparently meant to counter Peter's three denials of Jesus on the night Jesus was arrested. Three times Jesus asks, &amp;quot;Do you love me?&amp;quot; Three times Peter replies, &amp;quot;Yes.&amp;quot; In response, Jesus gives Peter the instructions, &amp;quot;Feed my lambs,&amp;quot; then, &amp;quot;Tend my sheep,&amp;quot; and finally, &amp;quot;Feed my sheep.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the account of the empty tomb contains much more detail than in the first three gospels, and the number of subsequent appearances of Jesus in John's gospel equals the total from the first three gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;TL;DR&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I wouldn't say the resurrection story gets more important or more &amp;quot;supernatural&amp;quot; from gospel to gospel, it certainly gets more detailed in the later gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T08:00:33.513" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6019" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6021" CreationDate="2012-02-11T10:52:03.057" Score="3" ViewCount="1530" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the point of supplication prayers when the living believers are asking the other living ones to pray for them? I mean apostle Paul asked other believers to pray for him. Why did he do that while he himself could pray for himself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T13:46:29.930" Title="What's the main point of supplication prayers?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6020" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6052" CreationDate="2012-02-11T11:06:45.190" Score="10" ViewCount="5968" Body="&lt;p&gt;These questions keep me wondering:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, how is it possible that Matthew and Luke came up with completely different genealogies of Jesus's ancestors, if they are both following the masculine line?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And more importantly, if I'm overlooking something and both Matthew and Luke were right, how can this 13-generatons gap be justified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Added later&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Matthew 1   | Luke 3&#xA;------------+-------&#xA;David       | David&#xA;Solomon     | Nathan&#xA;Rehoboam    | Mattatha&#xA;Abijah      | Menna&#xA;Asa         | Melea&#xA;Jehoshaphat | Eliakim&#xA;Jehoram     | Jonam&#xA;Uzziah      | Joseph&#xA;Jotham      | Judah&#xA;Ahaz        | Simeon&#xA;Hezekiah    | Levi&#xA;Manasseh    | Matthat&#xA;Amon        | Jorim&#xA;Josiah      | Eliezer&#xA;            | Joshua&#xA;            | Er&#xA;            | Elmadam&#xA;            | Cosam&#xA;            | Addi&#xA;            | Melchi&#xA;            | Neri&#xA;Jehoiachin  |            &amp;lt;-- According to Matthew the exile started here&#xA;Shealtiel   | Shealtiel  &amp;lt;-- Same names&#xA;Zerubbabel  | Zerubbabel &amp;lt;-- Same names&#xA;Abiud       | Rhesa&#xA;Eliakim     | Joanan&#xA;Azor        | Joda&#xA;Zadok       | Josech&#xA;Achim       | Semein&#xA;Eliud       | Mattathias&#xA;Eleazar     | Maath&#xA;Matthan     | Naggai&#xA;Jacob       | Esli&#xA;            | Nahum&#xA;            | Amos&#xA;            | Mattathias&#xA;            | Joseph&#xA;            | Jannai&#xA;            | Melchi&#xA;            | Levi&#xA;            | Matthat&#xA;            | Heli&#xA;Joseph      | Joseph&#xA;Jesus       | Jesus&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1299" LastEditorUserId="1299" LastEditDate="2012-02-11T16:11:53.687" LastActivityDate="2014-09-26T12:09:56.217" Title="Jesus's genealogy: 28 generations or 41 since David?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-09-28T16:58:04.000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6019" CreationDate="2012-02-11T13:46:29.930" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think prayer (especially supplication prayer) is one of those things that can't be removed from the context of the Gospel, and then properly understood.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, God desires to have a relationship with us.  This is the whole reason he sent Jesus.  He loves us enough, even though we are born with our fist to the sky against him, to send Jesus to die.  It's against this context that we look at prayer.  If he loves us this much, doesn't it stand to follow that he wants to have a relationship with us?  (The answer is yes.)  If this is the case, then praying for another person isn't a burden, it's a privilege and a joy provided only to those who can approach the throne of grace with confidence. (Hebrews 4:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, in this relationship, he wants us to acknowledge his complete and total provision for us.  He, being the creator of everything, has, by definition, given us absolutely every good thing we have (James 1:17: Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.)  It's in this truth that he desires to be glorified, as a God who provides all good things.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prayer must be seen as more than simply &quot;what we can get by asking&quot;, because God gives us several things that we never ask for, such as breath when we're young, friends, sunshine, etc.  So if that's the case, it leads me to a couple of conclusions: First, God desires to bless us (Matt 7:7) (I walk a thin line here... I'm not talking about &quot;prosperity Gospel&quot; here.  He gives us what he knows is best for us, not what we think is best for us.)  And second, God asks us to pray in supplication, because he wants to bless us, and he wants to be seen, rightly, as the one who blesses.  It's a way he can build our dependency on him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ask any dad.  They know what their children want before the ask, but they want their kids to ask, so that when the provide their children with what they want, their children are thankful for the provision.  If the provision is given without the asking, the gratitude is far less likely to happen, because we're inherently selfish people.  Christianity is like growing up in reverse.  Instead of us learning to be more independent, we learn to be more dependent upon God.  The strongest Christian is the one who is the most dependent on God, and least dependent on self. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now for the meat of the question: Why should other people pray for other people, when we can pray for ourselves. I think this again comes down to relationship.  Praying for someone else means you set aside your own selfish thoughts for a while, and think about somebody else.  Praying for somebody else means you come alongside that person and acknowledge that you're &quot;on their side&quot;, and you too would like to see God's provision for that person's life, and you're likely to rejoice with that person when God does provide.  It's a way to communally love one another and share in someone else's sufferings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So prayer is more a tool that changes the one praying than it does the circumstances around the prayer.  It leads us into dependence on God, and into community with one another.  It binds the church to God, and binds the church members to one another, encouraging unity within the church.  Paul's mission, and ours as well, should therefore do more than simply spread the Gospel to the unbelieving, unknowing world, it should also help to grow the Gospel within those who believe. Supplication for others helps that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T13:46:29.930" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6023" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6026" CreationDate="2012-02-11T16:42:24.713" Score="16" ViewCount="3297" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity generally accepts the Bible to be the Word of God, and the Bible itself makes this claim (i.e. 2 Peter 1:16-21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to&#xA;  you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were&#xA;  eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory&#xA;  from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic&#xA;  Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we&#xA;  ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with&#xA;  him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully&#xA;  confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp&#xA;  shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star&#xA;  rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy&#xA;  of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no&#xA;  prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God&#xA;  as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, just because the Bible claims to be a revelation from God does not make it so, as other holy books of other religions claim to be the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, are the primary lines of evidence that demonstrate that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God to mankind (outside of its own claims)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-09-08T19:38:07.743" Title="What evidence is there to support the position that the Bible is truly the Word of God to mankind?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6023" CreationDate="2012-02-11T17:30:29.253" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me try to make clear that the terminology &lt;em&gt;Word of God&lt;/em&gt;, despite the frequent use of it, is more or less meaningless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, a claim of the Bible about its reliability wouldn't only make sense because it's a circular argument, but also because the Bible as we know it was bundled together many years later in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;393 AD&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course one could reply that God inspired the Synod of Hippo, to only approve divinely inspired books to be part of the canon. Yet Martin Luther, for instance, denied that the Epistle of James 'was the work of an apostle and termed it an &quot;epistle of straw&quot; as compared to some other books in the New Testament'. Also people have been arguing about the reliability of the Book of Revelation (I haven't found a reference for this, but I'm pretty convinced there is).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, even if the Bible were to be the Word of God, we are left with our interpretation of it. Luther's interpretation of the Epistle of James made him think it could not have been written by James, for instance. Is there any evidence for that claim? As we cannot ask James in person and as theologians disagree, we have to judge for ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this doesn't imply that all of a sudden all books of the Bible lose their reliability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1299" LastEditorUserId="1299" LastEditDate="2012-02-11T18:55:42.393" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T18:55:42.393" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6023" CreationDate="2012-02-11T20:03:49.117" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, like @Harmen, I'd like to clarify what I mean when I say the Bible is God's word.  From there, I can get to a better answer to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What does the statement &amp;quot;The Bible is God's Word&amp;quot; mean?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The traditional Evangelical view in the Scripture as God's word is that it was inspired by God.  The actual term used is &amp;quot;God-Breathed&amp;quot;.  Further clarification on this statement is taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/IsthebiblefromGod7/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;truthnet.org&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible was written under “Inspiration” from the Holy Spirit.  The&#xA;word inspire is dervived from the latin word “inspirare” meaning  “To&#xA;breathe upon or into something”.  God revealed Himself through&#xA;individuals to speak to a much larger audience.  In the same way some&#xA;one would pick up a pen.  The pen would becomes the tool in the hand&#xA;of the writer, the prophet is God’s pen in revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is a collection of books.  As the prophets received&#xA;revelation the books were colleceted in manuscript&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/IsthebiblefromGod7/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; form.  The&#xA;orginal manuscript, written by the prophet is known as the autograph.&#xA;The autograph is inspired by God from the first generation.  The&#xA;autograph is then copied to additional manuscripts.  As the&#xA;manuscripts wear out over time from use and enviroment the manuscript&#xA;is again copied onto a new scroll. This process of copying the old&#xA;manuscript  to a new manuscript is known as manuscript transmission.&#xA;Over a period of time the manuscripts from accepted prophets were&#xA;collected.  This collection of manuscripts is known to us as the&#xA;Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What evidence exists to support the statement that the Bible is God's Word?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book, &lt;em&gt;Evidence That Demands a Verdict&lt;/em&gt;, Josh Mc Dowell notes that if God created man with a desire to know Him, we would expect His message to have some unique properties:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It would be preserved through time without corruption&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It would be completely accurate historically.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible stands alone as the only religious text that can claim it meets all the above criteria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Test 1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first qualification listed above is any message from the Creator would have to distribute His message to a wide audience. The Bible is next to none in this test. It is the most published book in history, with the widest distribution of any published work. It has been translated into more languages than any other book. It is the most sold book in history. It was the first book published with moveable type. It is still the #1 best seller of any book. Now, none of these feats prove that the Bible was inspired. They are, however, consistent with what we would expect of God's message if He were trying to let us know about Himself and His plan for us. In other words, one cannot disqualify the Bible on this point. Many other ancient writings fall short, but it behaves as we would expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Test 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible has orders of magnitude more manuscript evidence, supporting the fact that it has been preserved though history, than any other book in antiquity. More can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/manuscript-evidence&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Test 3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extra-Biblical accounts of history and supporting archaeological discovers confirm a great deal of what's in the Bible.  More can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Test 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there's little agreement on one of the big issues - Young-Earth Creation vs. Old-Earth Creation vs. Evolution, so I won't even both trying to use that.  The evidence that exists can be used to support any view if you twist it enough.  However, aside from that, the Bible does outline medical wisdom that is far ahead of it's time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Genesis was written, The Greeks were beginning to tell of&#xA;Apollos' flight across the sky in a flaming chariot. The Egyptians&#xA;were worshipping the sun as Ra, deifying it. The Mesopotamians&#xA;referred to the sun as &amp;quot;Shamosh&amp;quot; and called it the god of justice.&#xA;Genesis, however, calls the sun &amp;quot;a light in the expanse of the&#xA;heavens&amp;quot; and views it as a thing, one created by God. That the Bible&#xA;does not follow the naiveté of those ancient religions is often&#xA;overlooked, since modern man is much more knowledgeable in the&#xA;mechanics of nature. We take for granted that someone touching an&#xA;infectious person or a corpse should practice good hygiene and wash&#xA;thoroughly in running water before proceeding to anything else, but&#xA;this &amp;quot;discovery&amp;quot; has only been a medical reality for 150 years. The&#xA;book of Leviticus, though, requires this same procedure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One cannot&#xA;find ideas as arcane as blood-letting or consuming ram's horn for&#xA;fertility, or all the other mythical cures for ills that were thought&#xA;to be science in those days. &lt;strong&gt;The Bible is not a science book. It does&#xA;not focus on scientific facts about the creation, but where it&#xA;mentions those things, it is accurate in its representation&lt;/strong&gt;. This is&#xA;exactly what we'd expect if the Bible had its origin in the One who&#xA;created the universe and its scientific laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also a neat little chart showing Biblical teachings compared to the &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; of the time &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/theology/general-apologetics/biblical-forecasts-scientific-discoveries&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Test 5, from the same source as above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus far we have examined several evidences of the accuracy and the&#xA;reliability of the Bible by comparing it to outside sources and what&#xA;we know is true. Now, I'd like to turn our attention to the text of&#xA;the Bible itself to show how it validates itself as the word of God.&#xA;Again, I remind you that we have a collection of different documents&#xA;that were written over one and a half millennium, that are devoted to&#xA;discussing the most controversial and emotionally charged topics man&#xA;has known. The incredible thing is that they all agree. Taken&#xA;together, the Bible presents a single, unified message of actions and&#xA;attitudes by which man can live. This is an unprecedented feat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To have sixty six books written by about forty authors, from kings and&#xA;nobles to fishermen and soldiers, in three languages and on three&#xA;continents, be of the same mind is just not humanly possible. Why, the&#xA;editorial writers in our newspapers can't even agree when they come&#xA;from the same culture and similar educational backgrounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To demonstrate the remarkability of this accomplishment, we can&#xA;propose an experiment. Imagine a classroom of thirty students at the&#xA;high-school level. The teacher has decided on the class writing a&#xA;novel for a class project. Each student will be assigned one chapter&#xA;and they will then gather the papers together to assemble the finished&#xA;work. The topic chosen is &amp;quot;Why God is important in man's life,&amp;quot; but&#xA;there is no outline and there are no rules as to what that statement&#xA;means. Because the students are all the same age and live in the same&#xA;area at the same point in time, they have a tremendous advantage over&#xA;the Biblical writers, but to expect a congruent work is ridiculous.&#xA;The fact that the Bible is a unified message shows that its origin&#xA;comes from beyond man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the Bible claims it is the word of God, it requires of itself&#xA;a stricter assessment. The Old Testament is filled with the&#xA;authoritative phrase &amp;quot;Thus sayeth the LORD&amp;quot; . The fact that men&#xA;recognized it from the time it was first penned as authoritative gives&#xA;it a measure of strength. The laws that were required of the Jews were&#xA;very arduous. Because they chose to accept them as commandments from&#xA;God before any significant length of time had elapsed to mythicalize&#xA;them shows that the people believed with their lives that these&#xA;documents were from God. Jesus Himself validates the Old Testament by&#xA;regarding it as the word of God and authoritative in all things&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, not mentioned in the tests from Josh McDowell, there's the test of prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible contains many prophecies, some made hundreds of years before they were fulfilled.  Many of these are very specific, not vague statements like the ones you see from Nostradamus, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few, with probability calculations are presented &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, none of this constitutes absolute proof, and atheists and non-Judeo-Christians have been arguing against all of this evidence for years.  The idea that there would be people that scoff at the Biblical account of creation and the flood, for example, is even predicted in 2 Peter 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; And saying,&#xA;Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,&#xA;all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the&#xA;heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in&#xA;the water: &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with&#xA;water, perished: &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the&#xA;same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of&#xA;judgment and perdition of ungodly men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, of course, is perfectly in harmony with Jesus' teaching in the book of &lt;strong&gt;John 3 (Also KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,&#xA;that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have&#xA;everlasting life. &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; For God sent not his Son into the world to&#xA;condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not&#xA;is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the&#xA;only begotten Son of God. &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; And this is the condemnation, that light&#xA;is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,&#xA;because their deeds were evil. &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; For every one that doeth evil hateth&#xA;the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be&#xA;reproved. &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his&#xA;deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, no amount of evidence is going to be enough to prove the Bible's truth, that it's God's Word, or even the existence of God to those that simply don't want to believe.  The evidence is there, it's up to each of us to determine whether we're convinced by it, and how we want to respond to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T20:03:49.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6023" CreationDate="2012-02-11T20:13:45.183" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the old saws often bandied about in all theological sources is the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;four sources of theology&lt;/a&gt;&quot;: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. What we don't often say is that all four sources inform each other as much as they stand alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of determining what is Scripture, we actually rely mostly on tradition, plus some reason and experience, if for no other reason than we want to avoid a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;circle of self-referential authority&lt;/a&gt;. Logically most people would reject the argument &quot;I am an authority because I say so,&quot; so it necessarily falls to the other three sources of authority to corroborate the first. As such, we rely on the testimony of &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/19-15.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;other witnesses&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tradition&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that there was no authority that ever said &quot;these are the inspired books, these are not&quot; when determining the canon of Scripture, especially in regards to the New Testament. What we do have is the consensus of a Christian tradition that, over the course of centuries, has winnowed out the chaff. We rely on Christians who have gone before us to say, &quot;these are the words that we're most sure come directly from God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why should I listen to Origen, Polycarp, Justin Marytr, John Chrysostm, and Athanasius when it comes to determining what's in my Bible?  Because traditionally people have seen these men as great men of God, and these men say these Words come from God.  By the same token, very few of us have ever spoken with any of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution, but traditionally we respect their ideas when it comes to good government in the US.  Why? Because people we trust trusted them. Over time, we have accepted the tradition that George Mason and John Madison and more to be trusted then say, Benedict Arnold, (or even Thomas Hobbes!) when it comes to choosing what is good for our government.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have agreed that the books of the New Testament, at least, should have been written by (or at least traditionally accepted to be written by) eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus, hence the inclusion of books by Peter (including Mark, 1 &amp;amp; 2 Peter), Matthew (a disciple), John (a disciple), James ( a brother of Jesus), Jude (written by a disciple), and Paul (who saw Jesus whilest on the road to Damascus, and whose companion Luke, wrote one Gospel and Acts).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reason also backs up the choices made in determining Scripture.  There are also several philosophical arguments that have been made over the years that support the thrusts of the selected books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most interesting, IMHO, comes from Ludwig Wittgenstein who suggests that Christianity is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;game of language&lt;/a&gt; in the same way that football is a game with a round spherical object.  In both cases, there are sets of internal rules without which the thing does not make sense, but within which, gives meaning to all actions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, I'm purposely vague in calling out the sport of football.  After all, what does &quot;touchdown&quot; mean when referring to the sport in which you use your feet to kick the ball!  But within what Americans call &quot;soccer&quot; there exists an whole universe of meaningful statements that affect how we make sense of what occurs on that field - what makes for &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot;; what constitutes intelligence and practice, what is merely bad acting (Maradonna, I'm looking at you!).  What we call &quot;soccer&quot; shapes our understanding, and in turn is reshaped when we put on our kleets and head out on the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could imagine a religion called &quot;Christianity&quot; based on different books, but it wouldn't mean the same thing.  We exist within a set of books that shapes our world view (and I'd argue to a world view that positively transformed the world because of what it says) and that in turn shapes us. Indeed, the fact that some books are considered Scripture by some groups (e.g. deuterocanonicals by Catholics) shapes their worldviews slightly differently than Protestants.  The fact that the Book of Mormon is perceived as much further away philosophically than the accepted canon by other groups, leads many of those groups to view Mormons as much further away from Christianity as a result.  On the flipside, Mormons see no incongruities, and as such, think it unfair to be considered out of step with Mainstream Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we as Christians call &quot;God&quot; is thus defined by Scripture.  Now, that same Scripture says that God is &quot;exceedingly abundantly more than we could ever ask or imagine,&quot; which leads me to suspect that the same God was thus complicit in its revelation - but that's precisely where we veer out of realm of the discussion that makes sense outside of the language game.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice this argument purposely sidesteps God, not because I don't believe him to be the author, but because it doesn't communicate the validity of Scripture to those who don't already accept it - and that brings me to the last &quot;evidence&quot; that the Bible is the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Experience&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a simple level, much of the proscribed behavior of the Bible has been shown to positively affect the lives of those who follow it.  Most Christians become Christians in the same way that Andrew brought Peter to Jesus.  He simply said, &quot;Come and See.&quot;  The Benedictines used that as their motto too.  It is usually only when our experience shows us the benefits of the Bible that we attend to it as we ought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it the common experience of people to see Christians who are utterly transformed by Scripture? Of course not.  One of the reasons that Christianity often feels like it is declining is because this external evidence is becoming that much more rare.  As G.K. Chesterton wrote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1717/1717-h/1717-h.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What's Wrong with the World&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, going back to where I began - I firmly believe that where Scripture has been imbued, it has changed things.  Abolition was unthinkable without Quakers and religious men like William Wilberforce.  Civil Rights without a &lt;em&gt;Reverend&lt;/em&gt; Dr. Martin Luther King is not (and I argue could not be) secular.  The Science of religious men like Gregor Mendel and Michael Faraday - or even a Roger Bacon, developed within this body of Scripture.  And, the lives of the Mother Teresas and Billy Grahams of this world prove it to me as well.  When the Dietrich Bonhoeffers of the world are merely the most recent in a line of martyrs that goes back to Peter, for the notion that these words are the words of God, it makes me stand up and take notice as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it an iron clad case? No. But is it evidence? Oh yeah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-09-08T19:38:07.743" LastActivityDate="2014-09-08T19:38:07.743" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5984" CreationDate="2012-02-11T21:59:32.173" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are whole books to be written on the subject of John Wycliffe's early Reformations, and even the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#Conflict_with_the_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; on the conflict is pretty substantial.  As such, this is just a brief summary of three influences (in chronological order) that should be understood:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Duns Scotus&lt;/a&gt; first helped to diminish the idea of &quot;universals&quot;. Universals - the hallmark of scholasticism - were concepts that had real essence in and of themselves. As Scholasticism declined, philosophers less willing to study the &quot;ideal notion&quot; of a thing and look more at the specifics of an individual.  Its an overstatement to say that a scholastic didn't care about &quot;the Pope&quot; and only thought of &quot;the Papacy,&quot; but Duns Scotus helped the idea that one could separate the individual from the instution.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William of Occam&lt;/a&gt; and his writings against papal authority. &#xA;William of Occam was a philosopher who championed the idea that &quot;Universals should not be propogated needlessly&quot; or more simply &quot;The simplest explanation is usually the best,&quot; probably the most succint way of describing Scotus...  Occam also began to write about the abuses of power in general, and the need for a separation of church and state in particular.  Later the concilliar movement would take these ideas as the bedrock of liberal democracy in general.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wycliffe's own mendicacy&#xA;Wycliffe himself, like St. Francis of Assisi before him, more or less rejected wealth and power, and therefore became increasingly vocal in his dislike of the papacy.  It should also be noted that by the time of Wycliffe's death, there were &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two people claiming to be Pope&lt;/a&gt;, one in Rome, the other in Avignon, and would soon be a third in Pisa.  This enabled one to remain in the church and write a little more openly. Even the modern Roman Catholic Church admits this was a real low point in the Papacy, and abuses were rife.  Simony and Indulgences, and all the things Protestants still think of as &quot;Catholic&quot; were fairly normative at this time, and it wasn't until the 1540s that these abuses would be rectified.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean Wycliffe's own writings escaped the notice of the 15th Century Popes, however.  In 1415, Wycliffe's remains were exhumed and burned, and he was excommunicated.  Still, the relative disorder of the period gave Wycliffe space to write.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T21:59:32.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5891" CreationDate="2012-02-11T22:04:01.400" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an Augustinian monk himself who tried desparately not to leave the church, but rather only to reform it, I think this would be a hard claim for someone to make of Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the &quot;invisible church&quot; or what we moderns would probably call &quot;real Christians&quot; is always a subjective term.  I'm sure he thought many clergy weren't truly Christian, but I also know that he thought there were Catholics who were as well.  At the very least, Augustine would have been a Catholic clergyman that Luther would have seen as part of the invisible Church, albeit 1000 years predating himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-11T22:04:01.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6030" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6063" CreationDate="2012-02-11T23:54:49.777" Score="1" ViewCount="313" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need this sort of information to talk about creationism with an agnostic friend of mine. I know about the passages in Genesis, naturally, but I heard there are some more in the book of Job, somewhere. Also, I believe there are some other passages about creation I certainly haven't heard about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1289" LastActivityDate="2015-03-10T03:24:01.307" Title="Bible evidence in favour of creationism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6031" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6034" CreationDate="2012-02-12T00:08:15.907" Score="9" ViewCount="19477" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently saw &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bill Maher's documentary&lt;/a&gt; and he mentions that the virgin birth is only mentioned in two of the gospels. He goes on to bug Christian people several times by asking questions such as &quot;How can you believe in the virgin birth if it's only mentioned in two of the gospels?&quot;. I know for a fact that the virgin birth is mentioned in the gospels of &lt;strong&gt;Matthew&lt;/strong&gt; (1:18) and &lt;strong&gt;Luke&lt;/strong&gt; (1:26-35), however, it is mentioned in &lt;em&gt;neither Mark nor John&lt;/em&gt;. In spite of that, millions of Christians world-wide take the virgin birth for granted. My question is, as stated above, why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all four gospels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1289" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2015-01-29T19:08:37.697" LastActivityDate="2015-01-29T19:08:37.697" Title="Why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all of the gospels? Does it matter?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6032" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-12T00:18:49.403" Score="9" ViewCount="466" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am struggling with certain personal aspects of my life, and almost every Christian I ask about this issue seems to be against it. I know there are some few Christian people that are in favour of homosexuality, but they appear to be a minority. This is very important for me, because I understand the Bible does say things about this, but no one I asked (neither those for it nor those against it) has given me the biblical basis for their stance. Some people say I shouldn't worry about what the Bible has to say on the matter, but I am concerned about this, not simply going to church and worshipping but also applying principles to my life. I believe this is the way Christianity should be practised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1289" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T13:21:08.960" Title="Can I be homosexual and still be a Christian?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-07-22T13:21:18.507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17787" CreationDate="2012-02-12T01:28:57.127" Score="36" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. What you &quot;are&quot; is irrelevant&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us first distinguish between being a member of a class - in this case homosexuals - and engaging in any sort of behavior.  For many people, being a member of the class &quot;homosexual&quot; means having feelings in one direction or another.  In no event would a &quot;temptation&quot; towards a certain behavior be taken as exclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James makes it clear that temptation itself is not sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians also makes it clear that being a member of any class is irrelevant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the risk of self promotion, look at this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4881/1039&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; for more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. What you do is irrelevant&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even without broaching the question of whether or not homosexual activity is sin, this question still be categorically answered &quot;Of Course you can!&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary message of the Gospel is grace.  Grace is God's unmerited favor - the free gift that he bestows in which he says &quot;You are forgiven&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that before God ALL MEN ARE SINNERS.  As Isaiah 64:2 says, eve &quot;our righteousness is as filthy rags&quot; in God's sight.  There is simply no person that God loves more than any other - he is &quot;no respecter of persons&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, as Ephesians 2:8-9 states, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For by grace you are saved through faith - it is NOT through any work of your own, lest any man should boast.&quot;&#xA;  Since there is nothing that you do to earn your salvation, your status is irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Whether or not you continue in homosexuality is the only question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once one is a Christian, one is expected to grow in Christ - to become more Christ-like. Here is where as you mature, you may want to put these things away.  But, understand, obedience comes out of love and desire to be more like Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus says in John 14:12 &quot;If you love me, keep my commandments.&quot;  It is explicitly not &quot;Do what I say so that I will love you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under no circumstances should one believe they need to get clean before being washed by Jesus!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, what you probably want to ask is &quot;Is Homosexuality a Sin&quot;&#xA;This question has been asked &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/121/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/why-do-some-christians-believe-it-is-moral-to-be-a-homosexual&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire who left his wife for another man likes to argue Acts 10 - (Let no man declare unclean what God has declared clean) - that God is doing a new thing.  I personally don't think God's word has changed on that matter - but I bring it up to say that Christians debate the matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, sin is irrelevant.  God's grace is what is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course you can be whatever you want and be a Christian.  The question is whether or not God will leave you that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-02-12T01:35:53.937" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6031" CreationDate="2012-02-12T01:34:44.797" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;The birth of Jesus is also only mentioned at all in Matthew and Luke.  Following the logic, since only half of the Gospels mention that means we should discard the theory that he was ever born at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 100% of the cases where a birth narrative is present, the miracle of God becoming man is mentioned. Indeed, in John, even where the birth narrative isn't present, the incarnation - that God became man - is explicit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither John nor Mark say anything about the birth of Jesus at all, so it is not surprising at all that there is nothing about the virgin birth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-30T15:20:20.953" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T15:20:20.953" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6035" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6038" CreationDate="2012-02-12T02:16:08.180" Score="15" ViewCount="5767" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read that Cardinal Ratzinger stated the story in Genesis 1 and 2 should not be interpreted as a literal account of the beginning of things. In spite of recent events like this, they have always been in favour of a literal explanation of creation based on Genesis. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p81.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; is what I read. Why does Ratzinger hold this view on such an important matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1289" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-09-18T04:53:30.437" LastActivityDate="2019-09-18T04:53:30.437" Title="Why did Cardinal Ratzinger stop supporting a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;benedict-xvi&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6035" CreationDate="2012-02-12T04:10:48.227" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ratzinger writes at such length as to obscure the point, in my opinion.  If you read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283 (2nd ed.)&lt;/a&gt;, the reasoning is spelled out in a brief and clear form:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the&#xA;  object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our&#xA;  knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of&#xA;  life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to&#xA;  even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us&#xA;  to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and&#xA;  wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can&#xA;  say: &quot;It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know&#xA;  the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for&#xA;  wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, they recognize and appreciate the value of scientific studies for the information they yield about matters including the history of the universe and life on earth.  This is entirely consistent with their stance that faith and reason can never truly be in conflict (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c3a1.htm#III&quot;&gt;CCC 159&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Faith and science: &quot;Though faith is above reason, there can never be&#xA;  any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who&#xA;  reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason&#xA;  on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever&#xA;  contradict truth.&quot;37 &quot;Consequently, methodical research in all&#xA;  branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly&#xA;  scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict&#xA;  with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of&#xA;  faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering&#xA;  investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the&#xA;  hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all&#xA;  things, who made them what they are.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the scientific evidence against a literal reading of Genesis is so overwhelming that if truth cannot contradict truth, it suggests that the error is to read Genesis literally.  I do not know why it took so long for the Catholic Church to recognize this, but the current position is internally consistent and reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they were to continue to insist on a highly literal interpretation, they would have had to drop their position on discrepancies and simply state that faith wins.  That would have been a much larger doctrinal change than maintaining (as they do, to my understanding) that Genesis 1 and 2 is spiritually accurate without being a literal account of all events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More on this topic can be found in a large number of places, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="519" LastActivityDate="2012-02-12T04:10:48.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6039" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6041" CreationDate="2012-02-12T04:19:55.150" Score="33" ViewCount="8386" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that Mormons say the Bible and the Book of Mormon don't contradict. I don't know about that, but I would like to know whether there actually is a verse in the Bible that could support the belief in an exterior source such as the Book of Mormon, so highly regarded -by Mormons- as another revelation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1289" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T01:44:24.750" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T01:44:24.750" Title="What is the biblical basis for believing in the Book of Mormon?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6040" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6046" CreationDate="2012-02-12T05:04:54.360" Score="4" ViewCount="481" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on a recent discussion, the assertion was made that a skeptical viewpoint allows one to be more objective, even in matters of theology. Is this demonstrably true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When evaluating Christian claims, one must use a certain epistemological framework.  The question is, does a presumption of belief in the Scripture somehow negate one's ability to be &quot;objective&quot; and &quot;dispassionate&quot; about the claims it makes? In other words, does the presumption of truth so fatally bias the questioner as to make philosophical reasoning invalid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-13T13:41:06.107" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T13:57:39.580" Title="Is a &quot;skeptical viewpoint&quot; more objective than &quot;Christian viewpoint&quot; in matters of theology?" Tags="&lt;epistemology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2012-02-13T21:28:43.747" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6039" CreationDate="2012-02-12T05:35:42.653" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is that the Bible doesn't really have an infallible table of contents. So, while there is nothing in the Bible definitively suggesting that there is another set of infallible documents inspired by God which relate to the Old Testament, the Bible also doesn't exclude that possibility either. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because I have seen multiple comments on this, I think it might be good to address the two verses in the Bible which condemn addition or subtraction.  The first is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Deut. 4:2.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, in the context, it is fairly clear that the &quot;Word&quot; is the Torah (the book of the Law, which is the first five books of the Old Testament&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;). The verse preceding is talking about the law, and the verse after is talking about when the law was written and what has happened to those who have strayed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is to be taken in the sense that it is referring to the whole Bible, this means that we must take that to exclude the New Testament. After all, Christ most certainly added to and subtracted from the Law (the dietary restrictions are removed, while the laws on forgiveness and loving of one's neighbor were expanded). So, clearly, this must be taken as a reference to the book of Deuteronomy itself. Especially since there were prophetic and historical books written both before and after Deuteronomy&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rev. 22:9-10&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, so we will posit that the canon of Scripture is the sole deposit of faith (a point I am not willing to cede, but I will allow us to make that assumption for the sake of argument). But, what is that canon? The early Church could not agree for one hundred years after that phrase was written.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; So, if the people who &lt;em&gt;knew the author&lt;/em&gt; had no idea which books he was referring to, then it is more than presumptuous to assume that we know. Since it is clear that we are missing books from Paul&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, can we really assume that something else isn't lost? After all, the Pauline Epistles &lt;em&gt;are scripture&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;. Of course, then there are questions of the Deuterocanon (you might call it apocrypha), which I simply do not have the time to deal with at the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there is the question (assuming that we can agree on what should be in the canon) of which version. As a Catholic, I can definitively state that the woman caught in adultery is part of scripture&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;, but can everyone else? The unfortunate answer is, &quot;No, they can't&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if we are to assume that Rev. 22 is referring to the Bible &lt;em&gt;as a whole&lt;/em&gt;, we have to admit that we aren't sure which documents it is referring to, or which books. That pretty much means that unless we can find a collection of documents which dates to the late first century, we can only asume that some piece of the NT has been added or taken away. This means that your copy of the Bible is probably blasphemous and should be thrown out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there is the problem of translation. In order to translate scripture, you have to make choices. Some words simply don't translate well. Others are ambiguous. My favorite example is Gen. 3:15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will put enmity between you and the woman,&#xA;  and between your seed and her seed;&#xA;  he shall bruise your head,&#xA;  and you shall bruise his heel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is &quot;He shall strike your head.&quot; In more modern manuscripts that is clearly &lt;strong&gt;הוּא&lt;/strong&gt;, and you will notice the little dot by the wav. Unfortunately, that dot was added in the middle ages, which means that the word, &quot;he&quot; in that sentence could very well be the ancient word for &quot;she&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... what are you left with? The Bible you have at home is a dubious collection of dubious manuscripts collected and translated by a dubious translator. Considering that &lt;em&gt;this is the best you will ever have available without knowledge of at least several versions Hebrew, Aramaic, Syrian, Greek, and Latin&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (and possibly French, German, and Ecclesiastical Latin, and even then you are probably not qualified&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;), are you really willing to say that your copy is necessarily infallible? Are you really willing to say that you have an inspired table of contents? Honestly, I hope not. Because if you are, then you are basically saying that the canon of scripture fell out of the sky... That is a story which sound oddly &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plates_of_Nephi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;familiar&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. Testament is actually an antiquated translation of the Greek word for covenant.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;2. If you do not have access to the Navarre Bible, the New Jerome Bible Commentary, the New Interpreter's Bible, the New Oxford Annotated RSV (or NRSV), the Anchor Bible, or some form of modern theological library, you can find these ideas summarized (reasonably well) in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deuteronomy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;. (as a side note, the New Oxford Annotated RSV (and even the NRSV) is truly a magnificent work of Biblical scholarship. Of all of the documents I just named, it is the one I recommend the most)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;3. As above, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Apostolic_Fathers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; is a reasonable source if you can't get your hand on a more scholarly analysis. (and I recommend Oxford above pretty much everyone else)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;4. As above, you can use &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#Lost_Pauline_epistles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, or, &lt;em&gt;The Lost Books of the Bible&lt;/em&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;5. This one's easy: 2 Peter 3:16&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;6. See the NAB commentary on John 7:53 ff.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;7. This &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/my-favorite-passage-that%E2%80%99s-not-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;gentlemen&lt;/a&gt; makes all of the relevant points and he isn't in an overly priced commentary! (He's also Protestant, if anyone cares)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;8. There are very early Latin translations based on documents superior to the ones which made up the KJV&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;9. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5435/325&quot;&gt;Here's&lt;/a&gt; an SE answer which explains the folly.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-12-24T10:36:50.083" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6039" CreationDate="2012-02-12T07:38:53.160" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cwallenpoole made it clear, that the Bible, as we have it today, is not complete. If one is not careful, it is easy to run into a &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Negative_evidence&quot;&gt;negative evidence&lt;/a&gt; fallacy by supposing that simply because the Bible doesn't mention something, that something must be false. (That would be like saying &quot;Jesus Christ&quot; of the New Testament is false because that Name is never mentioned in the Old Testament.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before I also attempt to answer your question, let me prelude with a disclaimer: most members of the LDS church will hesitate to show &quot;proof&quot; or even &quot;evidence&quot; of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness, for the very existence of the Book itself is evidence of what is known as the Restoration, which is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/3.21?lang=eng#20&quot;&gt;fulfillment of prophecies&lt;/a&gt; concerning the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/1.10?lang=eng#9&quot;&gt;dispensation of the fulness of times&lt;/a&gt; (the days before the Second Coming in which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/2.20?lang=eng#19&quot;&gt;the Lord would send prophets&lt;/a&gt; to the earth again after &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-thes/2.1-4?lang=eng#primary&quot;&gt;a falling away first&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons will remind anyone that &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/book-of-mormon/#how-to-know-the-book-of-mormon-is-true&quot;&gt;the only way to truly believe in the Book of Mormon, or have a testimony of its truthfulness&lt;/a&gt;, is not by scholarly study, but by reading it and praying to ask God if it is true, and that an answer will come by the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So with that in mind, the following verses (in addition to those I've linked to) should be instructive. Keep in mind that &lt;em&gt;while many people interpret these verses in many ways, this is one way the LDS population understands them&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ezek/37.15-23?lang=eng#14&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 37:15-23&lt;/a&gt; (The Stick of Judah and the Stick of Joseph. The Stick of Judah is written by Jews, in other words, is the Bible. The Stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon, written by descendants of Joseph. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/ezekiels-sticks-and-the-gathering-of-israel&quot;&gt;More details about the sticks here.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/29.4,11-14?lang=eng#3&quot;&gt;Isaiah 29:4,11-14&lt;/a&gt; (A voice out of the dust. The Book of Mormon was buried for centuries until it came out of the ground and was translated. Because it is the same gospel that Christ teaches from the Bible, it is a familiar voice. Also, a vision of a sealed book taken to a learned man, and an unlearned man that could not read them. Plus the transcript of Joseph Smith's First Vision experience in 1820. These were fulfilled as recorded in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.11-26,63-65?lang=eng#10&quot;&gt;JS-H 1:11-26,63-65&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ezek/17.22-23?lang=eng#21&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 17:22-23&lt;/a&gt;. (The highest branch of the high cedar is the royal family of Israel; the young twigs are the children, and the tender one is a man named Mulek, son of Zedekiah, who &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/8.20-22?lang=eng#19&quot;&gt;actually escaped and was led to the Americas&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/2?lang=eng&quot;&gt;Lehi's group had already left Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt;, and later we learn that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/omni/1.15?lang=eng#14&quot;&gt;Mulek's group joined the Nephite nation&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/10.16?lang=eng#15&quot;&gt;John 10:16&lt;/a&gt;. (Jesus refers to &quot;other sheep&quot; which would &lt;em&gt;hear His voice&lt;/em&gt;. True, the gospel later did go to the Gentiles, but they heard the voice of His prophets and apostles, not His voice directly. These are the people of the Americas, and others. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/15.12-24?lang=eng#11&quot;&gt;This is made clear in the Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt;, where Jesus visited and ministered to them personally, established His Church on the American continent, and ordained prophets and disciples there, fulfilling all sorts of prophecies.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/14.6-7?lang=eng#5&quot;&gt;Revelation 14:6-7&lt;/a&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/133.36?lang=eng#35&quot;&gt;An angel flying in the midst of heaven that had the everlasting gospel.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.32-34?lang=eng#31&quot;&gt;This was Moroni, who buried the Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt;, who later as a resurrected being, brought forth the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith to go forth to all the earth.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/amos/3.7?lang=eng#6&quot;&gt;Amos 3:7&lt;/a&gt;. (Why would inhabitants of the American continent not have the gospel, if God loves all His children and wants them to know of His Son? So, God &lt;em&gt;at least probably&lt;/em&gt; called prophets in America and they obviously prophesied. God's works are without end and His words never cease, so that God's canon of scripture is closed would not be logical, at best.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/5.25-26?lang=eng#24&quot;&gt;Isaiah 5:26-27&lt;/a&gt;. (An ensign, or standard, would be lifted up to all nations to gather Israel before the Lord's coming.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are others. This list is not comprehensive, but I hope others will add to this as is proper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible and the Book of Mormon support each other. The Book of Mormon supports what the Bible says. All the prophets since the world began (including those in the Book of Mormon) knew there would be an apostasy of the Christian church in the New Testament and that God would set his hand a second time to recover His people. For example, see 2 Nephi, chapters: 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/7.8-10?lang=eng#7&quot;&gt;Mormon 7:8-10&lt;/a&gt; are a few, although the doctrine of Christ's mercy and Atonement is found all throughout the entire book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of particular interest is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13?lang=eng&quot;&gt;1 Nephi 13&lt;/a&gt; (especially the second half of the chapter) which discusses Nephi's vision of the settling of colonial America, the coming of Christians from Europe, and the introduction of the Bible (&quot;which proceedeth forth from the mouth of a Jew&quot;) among the Native Americans, that it is holy and true, but that many plain and precious parts are actually missing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I add these references to the Book of Mormon because they should help support the Bible references mentioned here that help to directly answer your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the notion of &quot;infallibility&quot; in scripture is misleading, because &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/3.16?lang=eng#15&quot;&gt;while God does inspire true scripture&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;em&gt;imperfect&lt;/em&gt; but holy men write it down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title.p2?lang=eng&quot;&gt;Title Page of the Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—&lt;strong&gt;And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-12-27T03:19:07.087" LastActivityDate="2013-12-27T03:19:07.087" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6040" CreationDate="2012-02-12T13:45:33.660" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer comes down to what you're going to trust and what is objective truth? There are a few options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Skeptical Viewpoint:  This would be where you trust yourself more than anyone else when you examine truth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Biblical viewpoint:  This would be where you trust the Bible above yourself or others when you examine truth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dogmatic viewpoint:  This is when you trust other's interpretation of the Bible more than you trust your own, and you're unwilling to do more research to verify their viewpoint. (I'm not going to address this one much.  It doesn't seem too applicable to the question.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is: which truth is objective?  Self-interpreted truth, Biblical truth, or dogmatic truth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, something is only objective insofar as it clearly understands actual truth, so if the Bible is the true inerrant word of God, and God created all things, then a Biblical viewpoint must be the objective one, because true reality is determined by what God says about it.  If the Bible is not, then we have the option of either trusting our own truth, or trusting someone else's understanding of the world in order to gain true objectivity.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, I do believe that some of our greatest theologians have come from skeptical backgrounds: CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer come to mind immediately.  I don't agree with all that they say, but I do think it's relatively clear that their approach to scripture did lead to a more well-thought out understanding of theology, especially as it met with the true objective truth of the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way you go, I think there's a bit of a balance.  Skepticism can lead to doubt, and that doubt can either push you away or lead you to seek to understand more.  Some people don't have that ache to understand and some people do, and I think God accepts both kinds on the basis of the Cross.  I think God uses those people in different ways as well.  Those who are more skeptical tend to be able to exposit the &quot;meat&quot; of scripture better, and tend to be able to explain their viewpoint better.  There has to, at some point though, be a balance between skepticism and learning.  If the skeptic is always skeptical but never learning, he will never understand anything, however, if a person is always believing information, but never questioning it, he will likely be led astray in one direction or another, and he'll be swayed by the belief-du-jour.  So I think it comes to this: to gain objectivity, one must determine what the measuring stick is: if it is self, then the measuring stick is changeable and malleable, like a rubber ruler.  If it's God and his Word, then it is unchanging and eternal, able to be used to measure and understand not only the world, but God himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-02-12T13:45:33.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6040" CreationDate="2012-02-12T15:30:50.830" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Definitions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets start with some definitions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Skepticism&lt;/a&gt; or Scepticism has many definitions, but generally&#xA;refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or&#xA;opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are&#xA;taken for granted elsewhere.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Objectivity&lt;/a&gt; is a central philosophical concept which has been&#xA;variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to&#xA;be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are&#xA;&amp;quot;mind-independent&amp;quot;—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious&#xA;entity or subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bias&lt;/a&gt; is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also worth noting is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080305021629AA252Dt&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;difference between objectivity and bias&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biased means a personal preference is expressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Objective means both or numerous sides are expressed without a preference being expressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for &amp;quot;Christian viewpoint&amp;quot;, one could refer to one of two positions (one more moderate and one more devoted):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Theism&lt;/a&gt;, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian apologetics&lt;/a&gt; is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is the main difference between a skeptic, and a Christian theist? A theist believes that God of the Bible and Jesus exist (therefore, it is a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; to them, nor a mere &amp;quot;possibility&amp;quot;), whereas a skeptic takes no assumption (is neither agnostic, saying that one can't know if God exists, nor atheist stating that there is no God, but is open to the &lt;em&gt;possibility&lt;/em&gt; that God &lt;em&gt;might or might not&lt;/em&gt; exist).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a difference between a Christian theist and a Christian apologetic? An apologetic defends the faith against objections, and exposes the perceived flaws of other views. An apologetic is therefore biased towards his or her system of belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Good or bad at answering questions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes an apologetic better for answering theological questions? Quite often they know a lot on the subject of the given religion they support, and can present numerous claims supporting their viewpoints. They are devoted to proving their point right, so they will not try to omit any evidence supporting their claim, no matter how insignificant. So in general, they can present all there is about a given subject from the point of view of what they are supporting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes an apologetic worse for answering theological questions? As per definition, they defend their faith against objection, which can be accomplished by not presenting alternatives to their views, or by misrepresenting some facts in their favour (for example, Kitzmiller v. Dover and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WRzm1T99BE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;claiming ID is not a religious belief&lt;/a&gt;). Moreover, sometimes apologetics resort to using faulty logic to prove their point (for example, even if one can prove that evolution is wrong, that would not prove intelligent design, despite &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;some people implying that&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes a theist better for answering theological questions? By definition they believe in something, so they have to know at least a bit about the subject. They can be devoted to giving answers about their faith and could enjoy talking about the subject. Depending on their world view they can be more open to alternatives than apologetics and admit that some believes are not based on facts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes a theist worse for answering theological questions? Some might not consider alternatives to their beliefs, some might choose not to mention it, or would be uncomfortable talking about it (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;taboo&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes a skeptic better for answering theological questions? They hold nothing as fact until it is proven, so they can consider and present more alternatives to a given problem. This can provide an insight that could be omitted by a theist (for example, Polish Catholics idolize pope John Paul II, but would seldom acknowledge him being &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Social_and_political_stances&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;conservative on doctrine, sexuality and ordination of women&lt;/a&gt;). Generally, they are comfortable exploring both sides of an argument and reaching their conclusion from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes a skeptic worse for answering theological questions? Generally, being a skeptic says nothing about one's interest or knowledge, so the person in question might not have any knowledge on a given subject. Sometimes skepticism can be close to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism#Ancient_Pyrrhonism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;pyrrhonism&lt;/a&gt; (&amp;quot;nothing can be known&amp;quot;), or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_%28contemporary%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;contemporary cynicism&lt;/a&gt; (lack of faith and hope in human race), therefore rendering the &amp;quot;answer&amp;quot; into an open-ended &amp;quot;debate&amp;quot; with oneself. Skeptics disparage in regards to values hold sacred by theists can be viewed by some as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;trolling&lt;/a&gt;, or attempts at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;personally attacking them&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Which view is biased?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By definition, apologetics are strongly biased. Theists can be biased, but have an easier time being objective. Skeptics by definition are not biased in favour of the thing they are skeptic about, but they can be biased against that thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Which views are useful?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of them. If one is looking for answer to a theological question based on a specific doctrine (&amp;quot;What does the Bible say about...&amp;quot;), an apologetic and a theist can present an exhaustive answer on the subject, as they are interested in learning a lot about their faith and scripture. If one is looking for an answer to a question that bridge between religious and non-religious world view (&amp;quot;Is there scientific evidence for creationism?&amp;quot;), a theist and a skeptic can remain objective on the matter and present a balanced opinion. Each view should be applied where it is relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;TL;DR&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apologetics are strongly biased, theists can be biased in favour of religion, skeptics can be biased against something. All can give good answers, but most in their area of expertise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1283" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-12T15:30:50.830" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1908" CreationDate="2012-02-12T17:30:01.420" Score="-2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:19-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:19-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; Do not quench the Spirit. &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Do not treat prophecies with contempt &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; but test them all; hold on to what is good, &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; reject every kind of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible has accounts of many great prophets that did amazing things. Not only did some of them contribute to the actual writing of the Bible, but they were also a part of many miracles and wonders. They made a difference in the outcome of important Biblical events. They were the messengers of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The calling of a psychic is very similar to the work of a prophet. I guess it is just on a smaller scale? When a psychic does a reading they see many things from the past, the present and the future, the same way the prophets did in the Bible.  The prophets were there to help, guide, advise and warn of coming danger, the same way modern psychics read for their clients.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being born a psychic or medium is a God-given talent and calling. Did you know that one of the world’s most well-known psychics, Edgar Cayce, was also a devout Christian who read through the whole Bible once every year. Why should a psychic, who received his gifts from God, be persecuted as someone who is doing evil?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is sad that people sometimes judge psychics and mediums for helping others to overcome fear, sadness and grief. There is a difference between having a God-given ability and using it for evil purposes. Evil and corrupt people can be found in all professions and all walks in life. People being evil is not due to the talents or gifts they received from God, but due to their abuse of those gifts or talents for their personal, selfish gain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1302" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-02-15T00:01:58.013" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T00:01:58.013" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6040" CreationDate="2012-02-12T18:56:26.287" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This approach answers your question in a different way than ThePiachu's does. Your question was whether it is &lt;em&gt;demonstrably&lt;/em&gt; true that a skeptical viewpoint allows one to be more objective. What I'm trying to do is to list examples in which this is the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Until Darwin only religions provided an answer to the mystery of life, all in this form: the world is so incomprehensibly complex, it must have been created by God. Only a few skeptics, David Hume for instance, saw the fallacy of this argumentation: something which &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; exceptionally complex, does not necessarily &lt;em&gt;has to&lt;/em&gt; have a designer*. However, until Darwin people couldn't imagine an alternative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now take a look at what happened when Darwin finally published his book On the Origin of Species. Look what this alternate explanation triggered; I imagine it even boosted secularization. But why? While people who were so sacredly convinced of their old explanation got scared or even angry, skeptics stayed calm and tried to ask taboo question that had to be answered in the situation: &quot;Does Genesis 1 give an explanation for the origin of life, like we used to think? Why are we so convinced that Genesis 1 explains everything? ...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;[I might add another example later, or the community might try to help me]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*This is closely related to the is-ought problem of David Hume&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1299" LastEditorUserId="1299" LastEditDate="2012-02-12T19:04:26.040" LastActivityDate="2012-02-12T19:04:26.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6040" CreationDate="2012-02-12T20:22:17.527" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Skeptical&quot; can be seen as such a negative word (although, actually I think it is a healthy position to take in all things). However, what skepticism really means is that when &lt;em&gt;presented&lt;/em&gt; with anything, all the possibilities/evidence should be considered, and the &quot;which is most likely the truth&quot; judged from there. No evidence should be given &quot;special&quot; merit; it should be judged by itself. This pretty much means that yes: the skeptic is trying to apply objectivity. There are, of course, some biased people who call themselves skeptics - taking an extreme example, conspiracy theorists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most religious people are pretty familiar with accepting doctrine/dogma, and the authority of the church. Giving special consideration to, say, the Bible is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; an objective thing. There are, however, some fairly objective theists. Actually, the people interested enough in their religion to participate here on christianity.SE are above the norm here; I have spoken to an awful lot of different religious people over the years, and frankly a lot think about their religion an awful lot less than you do. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that a large part of the congregation simply does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; put as much thought to it as some of the folks here do, so many are &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; applying objective thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a random example; you read in the paper someone talking about a memory from a wedding many years ago. Actually, not quite a memory: the author wasn't there - it was a friend of a friend of a friend at the wedding. Apparently, after the wine ran out, someone there &quot;miraculously&quot; turned water into wine. The &lt;em&gt;objective&lt;/em&gt; thing is to consider various explanations that may reasonably account for this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the story has grown in the re-telling&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe it originally related to a confused drinks order (sent for water, came back with wine)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe they simply found some more wine under a table / in a cupboard&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe the issue was the drinks &lt;strong&gt;budget&lt;/strong&gt; had ran out, and they simply put a bit more money behind the bar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe there was a professional performer there, and the story got confused&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe the story didn't even relate to that wedding/man, but was a re-telling of a far older story, with who-knows-what origins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe somebody in the chain simply wanted to show off, and invented the story&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe somebody in the chain had problems that made either their memory or their lucidity unreliable - this is not uncommon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and did we mention they have a book to sell?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe the story was accidentally or deliberately misrepresented / invented by the newspaper&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;maybe it was intended as an April 1st story, or as a similar hoax (where people originally knew it was not real), but was subsequently picked up and reported by the paper / individual&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the story could be deliberately invented simply to incite reaction from a particular audience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the story could be deliberately manipulated at some point to have parallels to other similar stories, to cast the target individual in a particular light &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or maybe there was a miracle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and I should note: the character of the person at the head of this chain is not much help, since the author wasn't actually there&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If reading this in the paper, most people would perform something like the above internally, without even thinking about it. But when applied to the marriage at Cana, the Christian &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; explicitly asked to take the view offered in the Bible as fact. This could be seen as any of &quot;appeal to tradition&quot;, &quot;appeal to majority&quot; or &quot;appeal to false authority&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since it is unlikely that any new evidence on this story will ever come to light, all we have is John 2:1-11. It is not &lt;em&gt;objective&lt;/em&gt; to simply accept this account by indirect testimony (IIRC Hume has a good view on testimony of miracles). The same applies to most of the Bible (or any other text); there is insufficient quality evidence to form a proper objective opinion, so yes: if, in the void of evidence, we accept the most &lt;strong&gt;unlikely&lt;/strong&gt; position (miracle) in favor of any of the very possible mundane explanations, we are not being objective. Conversely, if we &lt;strong&gt;refuse&lt;/strong&gt; to take that position, we are being skeptical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to repeat: there are Christians who try to be objective, as far as is possible without strong direct evidence, and I can respect that. And there are some lousy skeptics :p&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-02-13T00:28:26.003" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T00:28:26.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6050" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6060" CreationDate="2012-02-12T20:31:57.577" Score="27" ViewCount="51502" Body="&lt;p&gt;What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin? Can anybody give an overview, please?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-07-10T14:50:33.460" LastActivityDate="2015-07-10T14:50:33.460" Title="What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1908" CreationDate="2012-02-12T20:40:08.087" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is admittedly not based in the Bible (there are other answers here which already address most of the relevant passages), but according to &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0898707102&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;An Exorcist Tells His Tale&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (good book, I recommend it), the majority of the times that specific knowledge of the future (or clairvoyance, etc.) it is not from God, but rather demons. His test is simple: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do these purported gifts serve to further the cause of Christ (are they evangelistic)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do they cause great disharmony in the Church?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are they used for personal gain or profit (as opposed to the benefit of others, such as saving lives or conversion of souls)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer to any of those is, &quot;yes,&quot; then it is highly probable that the prophecy has non-divine origins. Of course, this is all summarized by the idea that we are to &quot;test everything and retain that which is good&quot; (1 Thes.) as well as, &quot;let everything be done for building up.&quot; (1 Cor. 14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This of course falls under the prevue of private revelation, which also has some other distinct markers (this is paraphrased from &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0898702631&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fire Within&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, another great book). Revelation  can be known to be from God if:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it is memorable. (The details remain vivid even years later)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it is beneficial (as above).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it carries an impetus for good (John of the Cross said it this way (paraphrasing), &quot;The more God quenches your thirst for him, the more glorious it is, and the greater your yearning becomes.&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it is uplifting (Teresa of Avila experienced this quite literally (the sisters at her convent literally had to hold her to the ground or she would float up into the air), but overall the descriptions of divine visions from God have a type of peace to them, even if they are of things which are not necessarily good)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it (generally) cannot be attributed to mental illness (which isn't to say that the mental illness precludes visions, but certain illnesses make them doubtful).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, even if all of those things are true, there is no guarantee that it is revelation, and that can only be seen over time. It is a bit of a paradox &amp;mdash; you know it is reliable when it shows itself reliable &amp;mdash; but these are the only real measures we have. Even if all of these are true, there is no guarantee that the hand of man of the hand of the devil is not in them somewhere, so we must use our wits and trust the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-12T20:40:08.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6020" CreationDate="2012-02-12T22:12:16.070" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew and Luke had different purposes for their genealogies. Matthew wrote his gospel to present Jesus as King of the Jews. Therefore, his genealogy traces Jesus' descent from Abraham (father of the Hebrew nation) through the royal line of David and Solomon. Luke presented Jesus as the Son of Man and showed his descent from Adam (the first man). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference in purpose explains the answer to both of your questions. The genealogies are different because Matthew gave Joseph's genealogy and Luke gave Mary's. Physically, Jesus was Mary's son, not Joseph's, so it makes sense that Luke, who stressed Jesus' humanity, would show Jesus' physical line in his genealogy. Matthew, presenting Jesus as a Jew and of the kingly line, shows Jesus' adopted father Joseph's genealogy. &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Explanations_for_divergence&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; lists some possible explanations for why Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gaps are because Matthew only selectively chose noteworthy names for his genealogy; that's how we get exactly fourteen generations between Abraham and David, David and the Captivity, and the Captivity and Christ. Luke lists close to twice as many names in his genealogy because he wanted to show Jesus' humanity by specifically listing all or most of his ancestors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastActivityDate="2012-02-12T22:12:16.070" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6055" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-13T01:47:25.427" Score="22" ViewCount="16482" Body="&lt;p&gt;Orthodox views on it state that any sort of lie is a sin by itself. More liberal Christians will say that it doesn't really mean that much provided it doesn't hurt anybody. But more importantly than personal opinions; what does &lt;em&gt;the Bible&lt;/em&gt; have to say about white lies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1289" LastEditorUserId="102" LastEditDate="2014-08-01T16:43:21.980" LastActivityDate="2014-08-01T16:43:21.980" Title="Does the Bible condemn white lies?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-08-22T10:10:15.090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6055" CreationDate="2012-02-13T02:19:43.110" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible speaks to lies in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;9th Commandment&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a lie is a &quot;false witness&quot; (which it certainly is), then it is forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus called Himself &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Truth&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, and as &lt;em&gt;CHRISTIANS&lt;/em&gt;, we are to be emulating Christ in everything we do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T02:19:43.110" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6055" CreationDate="2012-02-13T02:36:15.117" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 6:16-19&lt;/strong&gt; These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, &lt;strong&gt;a lying tongue&lt;/strong&gt;, and&#xA;  hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked&#xA;  imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false&#xA;  witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no &lt;em&gt;Biblical&lt;/em&gt; distinction between little or big lies.  Nowhere in Scripture does it distinguish between types of lies.  That's a human construct based on the idea that the ends justify the means. A white lie is a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=250&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that goes into depth, but in short, a lie is a lie is a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I will agree that there is often a need to choose between the lesser of two evils.  I have difficulty with this because of &lt;strong&gt;James 2:10 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,&#xA;  he is guilty of all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we don't live in a perfect world, and I understand that sometimes we need to choose between two evils out of necessity.  We may need to lie to save a life, as some of the other answers point out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue, however, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;that those examples are not within the scope of the question&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  The question asks about &quot;white lies&quot; which are understood as small lies that have no consequence and are often used to spare someone's feelings or avoid unnecessary conflict.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answers to &quot;Does this dress make me look fat?&quot; or if I were to ask &quot;Am I really &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; ugly?&quot;  would qualify as situations where a white lie would be the usual answer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Telling a Nazi soldier that there are no Jews hidden in your attic is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; a white lie, but a deliberate choice between the lesser of two evils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If I were in this situation, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;I'd lie, too&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and my prayer after the fact (and even before) would be something like  &quot;Forgive me, father for the lie.  I know it's against your word to lie, but it's also in your word to love, and to protect life.  I'm doing my best to choose between the lesser of the evils.  Please forgive me for the lie.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lying to save your own skin never qualifies as a &quot;white lie&quot; either.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-02-15T13:20:17.630" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T13:20:17.630" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6055" CreationDate="2012-02-13T02:36:41.247" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is... &quot;sort of&quot;. It seems the admonition against lying would be better explained as &quot;Do not bear destructively false witness&quot;. While some might point to the ten commandments and leave that as their answer, saying that the rule is, &quot;don't lie... ever&quot; is easily refuted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the beginning of Exodus, the midwives are told to kill the Jewish boys but &quot;they feared God and let them live.&quot; While you can &lt;em&gt;try&lt;/em&gt; to say that they were telling the truth when they said, &quot;the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and are delivered before the midwife comes to them,&quot; you are doing some real verbal gymnastics to try to make it work (and, inevitably, it doesn't).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Joshua, Rahab lies to the servants of the King of Jerico about the location of the two Jewish spies (Josh. 2:4), but this is counted as a good thing because it saves their lives.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In 1 Sam. 21, David deceived those he was with by pretending to be mad. While this is not outright, &quot;lying&quot; you are hard pressed to demonstrate the distinction.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would Christ condemn these? Doubtful. Especially since Exodus says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So God dealt well with the midwives; (Exo. 1:20, RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then becomes, &quot;What is actually prohibited?&quot; and the Bible becomes very ambiguous. Yes, the weighted scale (Prov. 20:23) and the lying tongue (Prov. 6:17) are prohibited, but considering what is said above, we &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; say that God is condemning all deception. Rather, we must say that only the deceptions which arise out of desire for profit or are destructive should be considered forbidden. Now, this could include white lies which are told for flattery, but not necessarily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this matter, I have always (well, since I became Catholic) deferred to Chrysostom's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/485&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Treatise on the Priesthood&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A man was once suddenly attacked by a fever of great severity; the burning heat increased, and the patient rejected the remedies which could have reduced it and craved for a draught of pure wine, passionately entreating all who approached to give it him and enable him to satiate this deadly craving— I say deadly, for if any one had gratified this request he would not only have exasperated the fever, but also have driven the unhappy man frantic. Thereupon, professional skill being baffled, and at the end of its resources and utterly thrown away, stratagem stepped in and displayed its power in the way which I will now relate. For the physician took an earthen cup brought straight out of the furnace, and having steeped it in wine, then drew it out empty, filled it with water, and, having ordered the chamber where the sick man lay to be darkened with curtains that the light might not reveal the trick, he gave it him to drink, pretending that it was filled with undiluted wine. And the man, before he had taken it in his hands, being deceived by the smell, did not wait to examine what was given him, but convinced by the odor, and deceived by the darkness, eagerly gulped down the draught, and being satiated with it immediately shook off the feeling of suffocation and escaped the imminent peril. Do you see the advantage of deceit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, it is not the Bible. But where there is ambiguity in the Biblical text, that is where the Church's guidance is the most important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;As a side note:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be remembered that &quot;false witness&quot; does not necessarily mean lying. Half-truths and gossip can be particularly destructive. Imagine someone saying of St. Paul, as he entered a new town, &quot;This man has persecuted us. He has done much to damage the Church and should not be trusted.&quot; Technically, whoever said that would be right. Paul even gave tacit endorsement of murder. BUT, he had reformed. The first two parts of the statement were 100% true, and the third part was completely subjective. Yet, that &quot;truth&quot; would be destructive and demonstrate a complete lack of charity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-13T14:31:46.507" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T14:31:46.507" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6035" CreationDate="2012-02-13T04:18:17.110" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;My mother-in-law has that book you link to (she's a very traditional minded Catholic and would be aghast if the Pope invalidated the Genesis account).  I read a little of it and it's more or less a collection of meditations written by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, it has no official doctrinal significance and is little more than his opinion.  Frankly, I'm aghast that someone could infer from a collection of meditations, written by a man who didn't even really want to be pope, something about Catholic doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6038/4&quot;&gt;Rex did a good jo&lt;/a&gt;b of giving the Catechism's take on Faith, Reason and Creation.  But I've got to put a plug in for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youcat.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the YouCat&lt;/a&gt;, it just answers the questions outright&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;41.) Does science make the creator superfluous&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;42.) Can someone accept the theory of evolution and still believe in the Creator?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;43.) Is the world a product of chance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;44.) Who created the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;45.) Do natural laws and natural systems come from God also?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a lot more to those answers than just yes's or no's, but it's nice that initially they don't mince the words.  I'll leave it to you to get your hands on a YouCat in case you want to know more, just find someone who went to World Youth Day in Madrid in 2011 and they ought to have one in your language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, and to your exact point, question #46 has a more nuanced answer.  I won't quote it completely since it's copyrighted, but I'll try to give you the gist of it all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;46.) Why does the Book of Genesis depict creation of the world as &amp;quot;the work of six days&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The symbol of the work week, which is crowned by a day of rest, is an expression of how good, beautiful, and wisely ordered creation is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes on to give 7 points, which I'll phrase in my own words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 7 days account are symbolic of these principles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God made everything out of nothing, nothing in creation was not made by God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God made everything good.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even things that are bad now still have some good in them &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All of creation is connected somehow.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everything that was created is a reflection of God's glory.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a hierarchy in creation and more complex beings (us) are on top of it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All of this points to a glorious and final end where we all be one in God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Science is not going to inform our theology any more than theology is going to inform science.  They're completely separate entities and they tell us completely different thing.  Theology is infinitely more important than science since it concerns our ultimate destiny and knowledge of science is not necessary for entrance into Heaven.  Science is not the realization of what is hoped for nor the evidence of things not seen.  Theology is for the simple (Virgin Mary, St. Bernadette, St. Juan Diego, the 3 Children from Fatima) and it was not incumbent on them to understand complex theological principles any more than it was incumbent on them to understand complex scientific principles to receive God's grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you show me one scientist who fully understands the Big Bang, Evolution and Quantum Mechanics, I'll show you one scientist who fully appreciates God's grandeur in the infinite and infinitesimal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that [the unheard-of precision of the processes associated with the &amp;quot;Big Bang&amp;quot;] is supposed to have happened by chance?! What an absurd idea!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Thirring&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Walter Thirring&lt;/a&gt;, Austrian physicist&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I'll leave you with the words of Pope Benedict XVI &lt;em&gt;(in the margin of the YouCat)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.  Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pope Benedict XVI, April 24, 2005&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;a href=&quot;http://starwars.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;tell your sister you were right&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mass for the Inauguration of the Pontificate&lt;/a&gt;, thanks St. @ath&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-05-02T16:55:53.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6050" CreationDate="2012-02-13T05:35:47.287" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Luther and Calvin thought pretty highly of one another, despite their disagreements. Also keep in mind that when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door, Calvin was less than 10 years old. It must also be remembered that a lot of what is taught under the banner of &quot;Calvinism&quot; today was not necessarily taught nor believed by Calvin, and the same applies to Luther and Lutheranism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Salvation:&lt;/strong&gt; They were both monergists, meaning they believed God completely accomplishes our salvation - human choice and deeds play no role. Luther taught the the will was bound until Christians are spiritually regenerated, and thus grace is resistible. Calvin believed that free will was gone permanently because God is completely sovereign, and thus His grace is irresistible. They essentially agreed on predestination, but Calvin believed that Christ died only for the elect (&quot;limited atonement&quot;), while Luther believed that Christ died for all humanity. Luther taught what is often called single predestination, which essentially means that God predestines people to heaven, but no one is predestined to damnation. Calvin on the other hand taught double predestination, that God predestines people either to heaven or hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lord's Supper:&lt;/strong&gt; Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, but disagreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Calvinists like to label this view as consubstantiation, but present-day Lutherans reject this label. Calvin affirmed the presence of the living Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper by the action of the Holy Spirit, but disagreed with Luther's view because he felt it &quot;localized&quot; Christ to the elements. Calvin believed that Christ was &quot;truly and efficaciously&quot; present in the Lord's Supper, but in a spiritual sense, and through the mysterious intervention of the Holy Spirit, the communicant partakes spiritually of Christ's body&quot; (cf. &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; IV, 17, 18). It is argued whether Calvin's view is rightly called symbolic, or if it is a halfway point between Luther's view and the popular evangelical symbolic position. Either way, &lt;strong&gt;both Luther and Calvin felt that this was the biggest disagreement between them&lt;/strong&gt;. Many Calvinists have argued that this disagreement was semantic and a result of clashing worldviews, while many Lutherans believe that these views are truly mutually exclusive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Law/Gospel Emphasis:&lt;/strong&gt; Calvin taught that God is absolutely sovereign, and man was created solely to bring glory to him. Luther did not necessarily disagree with this point, but his emphasis was much different. The motivation for glorifying God in Calvin's teaching was because this was man's obligation to God, which Luther felt was a Law-based focus. In Luther's teaching, while he didn't necessarily disagree with Calvin, man is privileged to serve God because of His grace and mercy, a Gospel-focused approach. This gets extended in each man's view of the Church (Calvin's emphasis of the visible vs. Luther's dual emphasis of the visible and invisible Church), but this is somewhat speculative. The Law/Gospel emphasis is a very subtle point, but most Lutherans believe it is extremely significant. Many modern-day Calvinists think this is an insignificant semantic argument (as well as with the Lord's Supper).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My Thoughts:&lt;/strong&gt; This paragraph represents my &lt;em&gt;opinion&lt;/em&gt;, and thus contains a Lutheran bias (I consider myself an Eastern Lutheran, which is somewhat oxymoronic). Having a Calvinist and a confessional Lutheran weigh in would be helpful to the discussion. Theology consists of a series of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy&quot;&gt;antinomies&lt;/a&gt;. They are not mere paradoxes that can be logically resolved, but both/and statements of truth. For instance,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is completely divine and yet fully human.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus said &quot;This is my body... this is my blood&quot; and yet it is clearly bread and wine.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is completely sovereign yet man has free will.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christians are simultaneously sinners and saints (&lt;em&gt;simul justus et peccator&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Law &amp;amp; Gospel (You must be perfect, but your works contribute nothing to salvation).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is three and yet One.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theological distinctives are often honest attempts to resolve these antinomies, but this places fallen human logic as judge over God's Word. It involves attempting to understand things that are beyond us, concepts for which our language and thinking are insufficient. Luther appeared to be more tolerant of antinomies, while Calvin often developed logical resolutions to many issues, viewing them as mere &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox&quot;&gt;paradoxes&lt;/a&gt; (which only appear contradictory but can be logically resolved). In this sense, Luther was more tolerant of &quot;mystery&quot; while Calvin emphasized human logic more so. Both emphasized Western logic in many respects (Luther identified with Augustine's views on &lt;em&gt;concupiscence&lt;/em&gt; which affects his belief of total depravity / original sin), but Luther vehemently attacked Aristotelian philosophy while defending Augustinian philosophy. Understanding Scholasticism and the philosophical underpinnings in German and French culture is crucial to understanding the deeper worldview issues influencing Luther and Calvin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall I think both Luther and Calvin were honest, sinful men (just like the rest of us) who struggled with understanding God and His Word in their given historical and philosophical contexts. We are often unaware of our deepest biases, and this is no doubt the case for these men and for us as well. Their primary doctrinal disagreement centered in their views on the Lord's Supper, with significant philosophical underpinnings affecting this point of contention. It is my opinion that by embracing mystery and accepting the fact that our logic is fallen and corrupt, we will better &quot;become partakers of the divine nature&quot; (2 Peter 1:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T05:35:47.287" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5237" CreationDate="2012-02-13T05:51:28.377" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that profanity is a relative cultural concept. That is, what one culture considers to be profane may not be offensive in another. For example, various hand gestures that are perfectly acceptable in the USA would be highly offensive in the Middle East. Similarly, the word &quot;bloody&quot; in the UK carries a harsher connotation than in American English. Thus we should not be quick to dismiss quotes because they do not match what our culture considers to be profanity, especially in Western culture that allows horrific words, violence, and sexuality to be displayed routinely on public television. With this in mind, I offer some quotes by Martin Luther:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?&quot; (&lt;em&gt;On the Jews and Their Lies&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw pig poop at him when he sees him and chase him away.&quot; (&lt;em&gt;On the Jews and Their Lies&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course &quot;fart&quot; was highly offensive at the time and &quot;pig poop&quot; (older translations say &quot;sow dung&quot;) can be translated more harshly - I don't think I need to spell it out ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T05:51:28.377" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6055" CreationDate="2012-02-13T10:05:32.400" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the sermon of the mount, Jesus teaches about the sixth through tenth commandments, deepening their meaning.  For example, &quot;Don't kill&quot; he expands to &quot;Don't have unresolved anger or conflict&quot;.  &quot;Don't commit adultery&quot; becomes &quot;Don't lust&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For &quot;Don't bear false witness&quot;, Jesus says (not quoting one of the ten commandments directly, but a related passage about making vows):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, &quot;You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.&quot;  But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.  Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.  But let your statement be, &quot;Yes, yes&quot; or &quot;No, no&quot;; anything beyond these is of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:33-37 (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that you should always follow through with what you say.  In other words, be trustworthy.  The same applies to the commandment: people should be able to trust you, whether that is in a courtroom, or in daily life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;White lies are not compatible with being trustworthy, because it tells others that you will lie for the sake of convenience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether white lies are ok in the context of helping another, I don't know.  That leads to: &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/is-the-ends-justify-the-means-compatible-with-christianity&quot;&gt;can the ends justify the means&lt;/a&gt;?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T10:05:32.400" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6030" CreationDate="2012-02-13T12:13:16.713" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On Creation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main text on the subject of creation is the Genesis account. The first few chapters are there to present how God created the world, not to present a twenty-first century scientific thesis. So God provided a simple explanation. A bit like saying that the sun rises instead of talking of the rotation of the earth around the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This being said, this part of the Bible is regarded in many different lights. The first position is the literal position, which says that the heaven and earth were created by God in 6 twenty-four hour periods. This position is held by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Answers in Genesis&lt;/a&gt; for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another position is that the first few chapters of the Bible are poetry. Then you can believe anything you want on the subject of creation, because the author of Genesis uses poetry as he opens his book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are positions between the two poles described above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The rest of the Bible and creation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The six days of creation are quoted elsewhere in the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex%2020:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:11&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex%2031:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 31:17&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible present Jesus has the author of creation in a few verses. (This make biblical sense because Jesus is the word of God, and in creation the only tool used is the word of God.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jn%201:1-4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:1-4&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%201:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:16&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage in Job you mentioned is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2040:15-18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 40:15-18&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;“Behold, Behemoth [The ESV study Bible comment on the Behemoth is 'A large animal, exact identity unknown'], which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;From my reading of scripture the Bible supports a literal six-day creation. When did that happen? There are different theories about this as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some argue against a six-day creation, requesting proof. There is no way to prove creationism, but the same is true for evolution. Your position is a question of faith. This being said, it does not mean that you don't ask questions about your position. The starting point of reference in your thinking system, today's science or the Bible, will greatly influence your position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might not help you with your discussion with your agnostic friend, but I hope that it helps you in your personal thinking on the subject. Your question is a valid one, but answering it in a few sentences is hard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T15:21:14.133" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6040" CreationDate="2012-02-13T13:57:39.580" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Viewpoint is a binary thing - one must have a certain epistemological construct in order to make sense of anything. Without a framework, one is no better than a beast, unable to comprehend or make meaning out of information.  The question is thus not, &quot;Are you biased?&quot; but &quot;How?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because there is no transcendent place from which to compare viewpoints, the question of &quot;objectivity&quot; is actually fairly moot.  There is no transcendent place from which to compare viewpoints - one must always have a viewpoint, and thus cannot step outside.  It is like using light to describe color - every visible wavelength of light has a color. If one's eye is optimized for red, one cannot comprehend blue. If as many wish to claim &quot;all truth is equally valid&quot; then the one who believes that is trapped.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither the Christian nor the skeptic fall into that trap however. Each takes a stand - both suggest there is a transcendent truth. The only question is, how do they evaluate the evidence they have at hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of a &quot;skeptical&quot; viewpoint is that the presumption is all claims made by Scripture are false until proven true.  A Christian viewpoint presumes Scripture is true until proven false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The skeptic then goes on to apply traditional &quot;scientific method&quot; to evaluate the claim - make a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Christian&quot; viewpoint, however, does not believe that God is a machine - but rather a person. People are not necessarily reproducible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we were talking history, for example, the skeptical viewpoint is basically absurd, because one does not attempt to reproduce a George Washington or Atilla the Hun in order to evaluate a claim.  Instead, one gathers evidence about their deeds and then merely seeks to interpret.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the single most important claims of Scripture about itself is that it is revelation from God - i.e. outside the realm of reproduciblity.  The &quot;Skeptical&quot; viewpoint on the French Revolution is no more useful than that of an &quot;Economic&quot; or &quot;Historical&quot; or even Deterministic viewpoint.  In like manner, a &quot;Skeptical&quot; viewpoint has no more insight to whether or not Revelation occurred than a theological one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Skeptic, however, then stops at this first question. Unable to resolve whether or not God said this, he is unable to work with what God said, as if God had said it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a postulate that God saying a thing is profoundly different than man saying it. A &quot;Christian&quot; viewpoint can use this postulate, a skeptical one cannot.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An &quot;objective&quot; Christian viewpoint, less concerned with reproducability, is thus able to concentrate more on applicability. In other words, it operates at a higher level. Like any programmer will tell you, a higher level language isn't necessarily better - they just hide abstractions and allow the focus to be on different tasks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;skeptical&quot; viewpoint is thus, in my estimation, so focused on first questions that it loses its ability to solve more practical questions. As such, its &quot;objectivity&quot; is thus bogged down in matters of less importance, and hence less capable of dealing with the implications of the matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T13:57:39.580" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6039" CreationDate="2012-02-13T16:29:56.973" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matt briefly mentioned Ezekiel 37:15-23 in his answer, but it deserves greater emphasis.  The linked article starts out by very briefly mentioning writing on staves, and then discounts it, saying that had Ezekiel meant a staff, he would have used a different word.  And then it goes and gives several examples of &lt;em&gt;'ets&lt;/em&gt; meaning all sorts of things, many of which had their own specific words.  But on the other hand, we have many translators and commentators throughout the ages calling Ezekiel's &quot;wood&quot; a &lt;em&gt;staff,&lt;/em&gt; a &lt;em&gt;rod,&lt;/em&gt; or a &lt;em&gt;stick.&lt;/em&gt;  People centuries closer to the author (and thus more likely to be familiar with his cultural context) than we are consistently call the &quot;wood&quot; a rod of some sort, so it's worth understanding why someone might do what Ezekiel describes to an actual stick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS scholar Hugh Nibley has a thorough treatment of the subject in his article, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=73&amp;amp;chapid=881&quot;&gt;The Stick of Judah.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;  He begins from the premise that what Ezekiel is doing, writing on two halves of a rod and joining them together so that they become one in his hand, is familiar to his audience, even though it's not familiar to us.  Then he explains the historical context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since ancient times, formal contracts have been represented by inscribing the terms on a rod and then cutting it down the middle, through the inscription.  One half was given to each party to the contract.  When it came time to fulfill the contract, both parties would bring their sticks before a priest, magistrate or other legal authority, who would join them together in his hand.  This made fraud impossible, as only if the two pieces of wood matched perfectly, grain for grain, could the contract be verified, and changing the engraving would require physical access to both halves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This use of tally-sticks to signify contracts is of ancient date, and survived until surprisingly late in history.  The official British archive of fulfilled tally-stick contracts was kept in the Houses of Parliament until 1834. (Interestingly enough, the official written language of such contracts was not English or even Latin, but Hebrew!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the Lord has Ezekiel prepare a tally-stick, signifying a formal contract in which one side represents writings of Judah, and the other, writings of Joseph, that will be joined together into one &quot;in my hand.&quot;  The writings of Judah are obviously the Bible, which leaves an obvious question: what can the identity of the stick of Joseph be?  This prophecy requires a writing similar in nature to the Bible, containing the Lord's covenant with his people, as the Bible does, but coming forth from Joseph, not Judah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon contains the sacred records of an offshoot of the House of Israel descended from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph.  It speaks of God's commandments and his gospel, and testifies of Christ just as the Bible does, and it specifically mentions that its words are to be joined with the testimony of the Bible.  (2 Nephi 29:8, read the entire chapter for context. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy requires &lt;em&gt;something that looks exactly like the Book of Mormon,&lt;/em&gt; and for which no candidate other than the Book of Mormon exists that I know of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-04-14T12:20:26.997" LastActivityDate="2012-04-14T12:20:26.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6030" CreationDate="2012-02-13T16:42:44.717" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, frankly, there isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not because it it &quot;wrong&quot; as such, but for the reason that everything in genesis is not testable, cannot be studied, etc. All that is presented is a proposal. Here is an alternative proposal I used the other day (paraphrased):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The world was created by a giant magic spider crab, who likes the colour green; which is why He made a lot of trees green.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The details in the proposal (trees/green) may be &lt;strong&gt;consistent&lt;/strong&gt; with observation, but that &lt;strong&gt;is not evidence&lt;/strong&gt; that the proposal is true. It &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; says that the argument is not internally inconsistent and/or trivially untrue. This is not evidence &lt;em&gt;in any way&lt;/em&gt;, otherwise &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; can be shown to be &quot;true&quot;. This applies directly to genesis: it is not sufficient to say &quot;see, nothing in there is trivially untrue&quot; (especially when we have to deny existing observation to make even that modest claim).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the obvious contrast here (see David's answer) is the scientific approach, and things like evolution; this &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; testable, and through testing has both proven that it is a useful representation, and provided new approaches (a lot of medical science, for example) that were discovered &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; of the theory, and their effectiveness &lt;em&gt;directly supports&lt;/em&gt; that the theory is valid. The effects of evolution, despite contrary myth, have also been &lt;a href=&quot;https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/7987/226&quot;&gt;directly observed&lt;/a&gt; (not just theorised from fossils). Yes the theory is still evolving [sic], but it is &lt;em&gt;essentially&lt;/em&gt; proven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:46:42.840" LastActivityDate="2012-02-13T16:42:44.717" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6000" CreationDate="2012-02-14T03:29:57.667" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is never any indication in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit is a &quot;he&quot;. In Greek, gender for normal nouns like &quot;spirit&quot;, &quot;rock&quot; or &quot;bread&quot; is a &lt;em&gt;grammatical&lt;/em&gt; thing, not a &lt;em&gt;sex&lt;/em&gt; thing. This is common in the romance languages as well, if you are familiar with those. The fact that it is neuter does not tell you that it is an &quot;it&quot; as we think in English. The word &quot;day&quot; is feminine, but there is nothing feminine about the daytime. &quot;Death&quot; is masculine, but both males and females die. &quot;teknon&quot;, one of the Greek words for child, is neuter, etc... So the fact that the word &quot;spirit&quot; is neuter (and it is, despite what was said in one of the other answers) actually doesn't tell you anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People often appeal to things like John 14:16 and 16:7 to prove that the Holy Spirit is male, but this is inaccurate. The word &quot;helper&quot; is masculine grammatically (like the words above). This is why pronouns that refer to &quot;helper&quot; like the &quot;auton&quot; in 16:7 are masculine. To do otherwise would be to commit a grammatical foul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wish to say that the Holy Spirit is a &quot;he&quot;, realize that this is an &lt;em&gt;English&lt;/em&gt; thing you are doing, not a &lt;em&gt;Greek&lt;/em&gt;. Orthodoxy states that the Holy Spirit is a person, so speaking of him/her/it personally entirely makes sense and is appropriate, but personhood in the Godhead need not imply gender. So, theologically, feel free to call him a person. But by arguing about gender you are taking this question beyond what the writers of the New Testament apparently felt like discussing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit 9/11/2015&lt;/strong&gt; in response to comments because the response is too long to put in the comments themselves&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@bruisedreed I can see where that could be confusing. Let's change the verse to something non-controversial to see my point. In John 19:23, it refers to Jesus' tunic with the statement ἦν δὲ ὁ χιτὼν ἄραφος..., translated by the ESV as &quot;But the tunic was seamless&quot;. In the next verse it says μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτόν... &quot;let us not tear it&quot;. Grammatically speaking, αὐτόν/&quot;auton&quot; in John 19:24 is just as masculine as the αὐτόν/&quot;auton&quot; in the case we're discussing. Yet there is no debate on the personhood of the cloak and people would question the sanity of the ESV translators if they translated that last bit &quot;let us not tear him&quot;. Unless it's one of those cases where we used a gendered pronoun when it isn't actually necessary but is idiomatically okay (e.g., &quot;My boat, she's a sinking!&quot;), in English we would generally choose &quot;it&quot; if something doesn't have an obvious gender and/or agency. So here &quot;it&quot; is appropriate because it would be weird in English to call a cloak &quot;him&quot;. But in Greek that's not the case. If someone said μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτό in reference to the cloak, he/she might be chastised for bad grammar because using the masculine is normal for the language in this case. John 16:7 is parallel. Greek has the pronoun as masculine because the noun it refers to is grammatically masculine. That in and of itself implies no gender or even agency. Jesus (or his translator into Greek) essentially had no more choice in the gender of the pronoun than whoever it was that said &quot;let us not tear it (masculine pronoun).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if παράκλητος/parakletos implies gender or agency, that's something else. That &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; meaningful. It clearly implies agency but it is debatable that it implies gender.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@warren you say &quot;so saying it's merely an English thing to assign gender to persons of the Godhead is false&quot;. I agree. However, what I said was &quot;need not imply gender&quot;, not &quot;does not imply gender&quot;. Perhaps I should have said &quot;doesn't necessarily imply gender&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Susan That's really interesting. So here's the question I have about this. Idiomatically speaking, when referring to an agent and substantized, is this adjective/noun always masculine? If it is, then there isn't really a choice that can be made here (grammatically speaking) and the &quot;choice&quot; of gender isn't a choice at all and just what is expected in the language. If it isn't, then a masculine παράκλητος here might be useful for arguing gender, which could be useful for those concerned with giving the Spirit a gender. I was hoping the Philo reference in De opificio mundi would be helpful but I don't think so :( I don't know the answer to this but I think it's an interesting question. More usages of the word would be helpful. The form you mention clearly shows that there can be a feminine (in both grammatical and sex senses) παρακλήτρια. But is there enough data to prove that παράκλητος is a dude? Somebody get us all the references to the term in Greek literature and we'll figure it out :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="151" LastEditorUserId="151" LastEditDate="2015-09-11T12:50:43.927" LastActivityDate="2015-09-11T12:50:43.927" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3524" CreationDate="2012-02-14T04:59:05.720" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Um... Abraham didn't lie. The word &quot;sister&quot; can also mean &quot;kinswoman&quot;, and Sarah was, in fact, a kinswoman to Abraham (see Gen. 20:12) (this is an example of bearing false witness by telling the truth).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, why did he allow them to be deceived? Why didn't he say things outright? In addition to the fact that he was a human being flawed and struggling with sin, it was also the time of Sodom and Gomorrah (chapter 19 is right between the covenant of 17 and the repeat problem in 20). He could have rightly assumed that by wandering into an enemy camp he was signing his own death warrant. While we might enjoy condemning him for these failures in faith, we can't exactly say that we would have done better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-14T04:59:05.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5278" CreationDate="2012-02-14T05:34:31.227" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nestorians are a good example for the latter two councils. There were a few attendees from the non-Greek east, groups that would later be called Nestorians. There was at least two, Jacob of Nisibis and another bishop named John. The eastern church &quot;officially&quot; accepted Nicea in 410 at the council of Isaac though the Nestorian schism happened soon after. But I guess nobody doubts the existence of the now-called Nestorian church during the time. Some of their writings survive and I'd recommend a reading of Moffett's &quot;Christianity in Asia&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I recall correctly, it is still too early for the Indian Christians to be associated very closely with the churches later called &quot;Nestorian&quot;. Perhaps they are as old as Thomas. One tradition says it was Bartholomew rather than Thomas. It is reported that when Pantaenus went to India in the second century from Egypt he found Christians there. So there is probably an old tradition there, but as far as I know none of theme made it to the ecumenical councils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Chinese churches probably did not yet exist at the time of the first councils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that groups east of the Roman Empire might have had troubles at times traveling to councils in the west. The Romans and Persians were on and off again at war, which would have hurt the communication lines a bit I'm sure, even if travel wasn't completely stopped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you go further west, there are traditions of Christianity reaching England in the second century, though as far as I know it didn't really thrive till much later (but I could be wrong on that). But if there are groups that far west, it is less likely that they would have made it to an ecumenical council.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know the Marcionites existed, even after the death of Marcion. As far as I know, they had no presence at the councils and none of their writings survive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some lump them the Marcionites in with the Christian gnostics (and not all gnostics would have attached themselves to Christianity), but it might just be best to say there were a number of different types of gnostic groups. We have evidence of various gnostic groups because of polemics against them by the early fathers. If you haven't read Irenaeus, you can see a variety of gnostic groups attacked there. Since the discoveries of the Nag Hammadi documents we also have evidence of gnostics in their own words. You can also see some material on the gnostics in the early Christian historians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also the Ebionites, who were a group of law-following Christians that some would say are akin to what people think of when they think &quot;Judaizer&quot;. They were still around to a certain degree during the councils but as far as I know did not attend and no writings survive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Arians were around during the councils but they attended...and were ultimately condemned. So they don't really fit your question, but I figured I would mention them anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you want to read for yourself from the groups that were eventually considered heretics by the orthodox, you are going to have trouble finding primary source texts to read. Most of what we have are from their opponents, which we can't assume always portray their opponents fairly, even if some (like myself) think they were right in deeming the ideas unorthodox (well...at least I think they were mostly right)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="151" LastEditorUserId="151" LastEditDate="2012-02-14T13:45:19.833" LastActivityDate="2012-02-14T13:45:19.833" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6073" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6074" CreationDate="2012-02-14T06:07:30.847" Score="13" ViewCount="27137" Body="&lt;p&gt;I converted to the Presbyterian faith from a Catholic upbringing a while back and have always wondered - but never had anyone to ask - why Catholics use &quot;Trespassers&quot; in the Lord's prayer (Please forgive our trespasses, as we forgive our Trespassers) and the Presbyterians use &quot;Debtors&quot;.  I'm sure someone has to have asked this question somewhere before me :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1293" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-06-03T13:41:33.833" LastActivityDate="2017-12-31T19:51:11.077" Title="Debtors vs. Trespassers" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;&lt;lords-prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6073" CreationDate="2012-02-14T11:02:24.583" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/11/lords-prayer-our-father-is-debts-or.html&quot;&gt;great analysis&lt;/a&gt; by Dave Armstrong that goes into a lot more detail, but it comes from trying to best capture the point of the Lord's Prayer—as it's rendered in the Bible—in English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two forms of the Lord's Prayer found in the Bible: one in Matthew and another in Luke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/6:9&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:9–13&lt;/a&gt;, the Lord's Prayer is rendered as (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;“This is how you are to pray:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our Father in heaven,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  hallowed be your name,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;your kingdom come,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  your will be done,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  on earth as in heaven.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;Give us today our daily bread;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;and forgive us our debts,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  as we forgive our debtors;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;and do not subject us to the final test,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  but deliver us from the evil one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/lk/11:2&quot;&gt;Luke 11:2–4&lt;/a&gt;, it's rendered as (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;He said to them, “When you pray, say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Father, hallowed be your name,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  your kingdom come.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;Give us each day our daily bread&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;and forgive us our sins&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt to us,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and do not subject us to the final test.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given it's more fleshed out, most Christians favor Matthew's version. In the original Greek, the word used in Matthew 6:12 is ὀφειλήματα, which means &quot;debts&quot;. The word used in Luke 11:4 is ἁμαρτίας, which means &quot;sins&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to be in line with the original manuscript, &quot;debts&quot; is the correct word, and indeed, most Christians (including all non-English Catholics) use &quot;debts&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In English, however, &quot;debts&quot; and &quot;debtors&quot; usually refer to a loan: a monetary debt to a bank, for example. But later on in Matthew, it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;If you forgive others their transgressions&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, your heavenly Father will forgive you&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while the actual word is &quot;debts&quot;, it's clear the point of the Lord's Prayer is to say that one ought to forgive those who wrong us, just as God forgives us our sins and transgressions, not that we ought to forgive loans made upon us (i.e., God doesn't &quot;loan&quot; us sins).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make clear the point of the prayer,&quot;debts&quot; was replaced with &quot;trespasses&quot;. This translation became popular in 16th century England, even making it into the Book of Common Prayer. The Roman Catholic version of the Lord's Prayer is almost identical to the Book of Common Prayer's version at the time, and has not been changed since then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the English version of the Missal &lt;a href=&quot;http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/&quot;&gt;recently underwent a fairly dramatic change&lt;/a&gt; as things were retranslated to better correspond to the original meaning of words, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/background/articles-documents-and-reflections/changes-in-the-peoples-parts.cfm&quot;&gt;the Lord's Prayer was skipped&lt;/a&gt;. I could not find any explicit justification for the omission, which suggests to me that the Vatican still considers the use of &quot;trespasses&quot; to accurately convey the intent of the prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Note 1&lt;/sup&gt;: Also translated as &lt;em&gt;trespasses&lt;/em&gt;, depending on the translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user72" LastEditorDisplayName="user72" LastEditDate="2012-02-14T20:51:45.477" LastActivityDate="2012-02-14T20:51:45.477" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6073" CreationDate="2012-02-14T14:20:02.210" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being raised Catholic, I was taught trespasses vs debtors.  As a child, I was also taught to use the shorter version without: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and&#xA;  ever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Freemasons say the Lord's prayer we use debtors.  Which was the first time I had heard it done that way.  I thought that we (Freemasons) were wrong until I researched and found out that it's very plausible that debtors is the correct translation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My research showed that John Wycliffe in 1382, debts and debtors was used.  Only the Tyndale version of 1525 used trespasses.  I was completely perplexed!  Ultimately we probably mean something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But change is not something we do well :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In line with what Mark Trapp said, please see &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblos.com/matthew/6-12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-02-14T14:35:54.120" LastActivityDate="2012-02-14T14:35:54.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6076" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6078" CreationDate="2012-02-14T14:41:21.210" Score="12" ViewCount="14919" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my regional language (Tamil) biblical names vary from the actual names. I'm sure this is not only in my regional language only but also in other languages too. For instance &lt;strong&gt;Jesus' name is Yesu and John's name is Yovan&lt;/strong&gt; and so on. But in my regional language it doesn't mean anything; rather it's confusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In our prayers also we used the regional names and I think, &lt;strong&gt;would we mean Jesus' name or something else?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can understand it'd be necessary to translate the Bible as it'd help the people to understand the Bible better. &lt;strong&gt;But what was the reason to change the names&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1155" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-17T12:34:17.197" LastActivityDate="2017-05-13T22:57:14.683" Title="Why do biblical names vary in different languages?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6076" CreationDate="2012-02-14T15:09:48.900" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the reasons for the variance in names is that languages often don't share the same sounds as Greek or Hebrew.  For instance, Russian has no &quot;th&quot; sound.  Consequently, the sound of that name cannot be reproduced in Russian.  In Greek, it is ματθαιος, or /Mat-thaios/.  Russian translates this as Матфей, or &lt;em&gt;Matfay&lt;/em&gt;.  So, the &quot;th&quot; becomes an &quot;f&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the ending of the name changes in Greek depending upon which part of speech it is.  We don't do that in English, so we just have to select an ending and stick with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a difference whether or not the Greek or Hebrew is being translated.  The Greek for the Hebrew Name of Jesus (Yeshua) is  Ἰησοῦς, or &lt;em&gt;Yay-soos&lt;/em&gt;.  The Hebrew name of Yeshua is translated into Joshua, while the name Yay-soos is translated Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, sometimes a word's sounds are not matched in the receiving language.  Other times, there is variance on whether it is coming from Hebrew or Greek.  This accounts for some of the issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-05-09T07:53:46.417" LastActivityDate="2013-05-09T07:53:46.417" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6076" CreationDate="2012-02-14T17:13:41.287" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is simply the nature of language. Here's how things got from Yeshua (Hebrew) to Jesus (English).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Greeks changed it to Yeshu (drop the final &quot;a&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans changed it to Iesu (sh changes to s, Y-&gt;I) and, in certain grammars, a final &quot;s&quot; was added.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Over time, as the J came into common use, this changed to Jesu/Jesus (pronounced yay-soos).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The letter J in English warped and gained its modern pronunciation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly enough, the hymn &quot;O come all ye faithful&quot; has the line &quot;Jesu to thee be all glory giv'n&quot;. In England (and in fussy choirs here), this is pronounced with the French &quot;J&quot; (as in Jean) as the first consonant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, there is Yochanan, which became Ian, Sean, and John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yochanan becomes Yohana (final n dropped in Greek? not sure if this is a Latinism.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was then changed to Iohannes (that extra &quot;s&quot; added in Latin again (This is one of the final forms in Germany, the alternate simply missing &quot;es&quot;, thus Johan Sebastian Bach and Johannes Brahms))&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Italian the &quot;h&quot; becomes a &quot;v&quot; (there is no aspirate H in proper Italian, meaning that &quot;Yohan&quot; is technically unpronounceable) and the &quot;es&quot; becomes an &quot;i&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In France the &quot;ha&quot; and the &quot;es&quot; are dropped and, when the i becomes a j, it becomes &quot;Jean&quot; (ea is a better spelling of the aw sound in John).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In English the &quot;es&quot; and the &quot;a&quot; are missing (but the H is still there!) because they were deemphasized over time to the point of obscurity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Irish Gaelic (Irish John = Sean) it actually was the same process as found in France, only they took the extra step of &quot;unvoicing&quot; the first consonant (the French J is the voiced version of the English SH)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Scotch Gaelic (Scottish John = Ian), it kept much of the original English pronunciation (remember J and initial I's used to be pronounced Y), but as time went on, the sound of that initial I changed into the &quot;ee&quot; sound.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Juan&quot; in Spanish kept the same sounds that English, both Gaelics, and French did, but then the &quot;J&quot; changed into the &quot;w&quot; sound.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-14T17:13:41.287" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2863" CreationDate="2012-02-14T20:47:49.847" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may be surprised but there is no such thing as &quot;luck&quot; for Christians. As the other nations believe that if one has a good luck, whatever one does, he always wins, or if one has a bad luck, whatever one strives to make good, he always fails, but sadly this is the world view or pagan view which leaves no choice to anybody whereas the Bible clearly states in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Deuteronomy%2011:27-29&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 11:27-29&lt;/a&gt; about how to receive BLESSING OR CURSE. The choice is ours. If we start accepting the pagan view, it leaves no choice to luck believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For us the commandment is not to indulge or adopt the teachings of any other nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1316" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-02-15T00:15:27.793" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T00:15:27.793" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6082" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6084" CreationDate="2012-02-14T21:28:46.333" Score="-1" ViewCount="896" Body="&lt;p&gt;I might have violated a ton of Christianity.meta regulations for asking something not specific but opinionated, but I figured this would be a good place to ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At Church, I was challenged by the series to &lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/36694694&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pray Boldy&lt;/a&gt; and from bible study &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310333024&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pray intentionally for something by circling around it and pray through it&lt;/a&gt;. Its about God would place a big dream in your heart, and challenges us to pray through it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a student and I have daily challenges (i.e. loans, grades, scholarships, girls (lol), pride, friends, parents, etc) but is it selfish to pray for academic success? This would entail praying for being able to succeed in school, and make an impact in the corporate world, and being able to make a different in the lives around me. My biggest concern is picking something that is too easy, or not bold enough, or even too selfish and too &quot;reactive&quot;. Should i stop praying for those? What are the dreams God has place in my heart???? I dont have any BIG dreams... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="35" LastActivityDate="2012-02-14T21:58:03.070" Title="Praying BOLDLY: Praying for personal achievement vs. praying for selfless achievement" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-04-03T13:35:40.650" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6082" CreationDate="2012-02-14T21:52:57.083" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is concerned in the big and the small. If you take a look at the book of Proverbs, for example, you'll see that many of the bits of wisdom there aren't big life-changing issues but small, tactical day-to-day advice on dealing with people and situations. Since God is concerned on that level, praying on that level is appropriate. As Jesus said, God is concerned even with the birds, and your most minor school issues are more important than that. To say that the small matters don't matter actually betrays a distorted biblical worldview. God created the world and all that is in it. God is concerned that you get a job, that you work, that you be successful, that you find a spouse...or whatever he actually has planned for you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, that can be taken too far. I remember someone at college praying about if they should go eat mexican food one day. This isn't a bad idea because it is small but because it is irrelevant. There is nothing moral or immoral about mexican food (though I do consider fajitas of divine origin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, if you only live on the level of the small, then your vision may be too narrow. There is a truth in what you mention. Pray for a bigger goal in life. Pray that God will give you something bigger to focus on. And then pray about that too. But in looking for the big, you can't avoid the small. If you fail in your work, with girls, with school or with your parents then you will probably fail with the big.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My two cents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="151" LastEditorUserId="151" LastEditDate="2012-02-14T21:58:03.070" LastActivityDate="2012-02-14T21:58:03.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6085" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6091" CreationDate="2012-02-14T21:58:30.167" Score="3" ViewCount="478" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, I was asked to substitute &quot;souls&quot; for &quot;men&quot; in the hymn, &quot;Good Christian Men, Rejoice,&quot; in order to be more gender-inclusive. In this same congregation, I caused quite a stir by suggesting we sing &quot;Onward Christian Soldiers,&quot; for much the same reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was reading through &quot;The Faith We Sing&quot; (a Methodist hymnal) and seem to remember seeing several substitutions like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to be more of a left-wing / right-wing thing, but I'm wondering if there are denomination stances. Specifically, what do Catholics, Presbyterians, and Lutherans do in this regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also curious whether or not this type of hymnody exists in Mormon and JW churches, and how widespread the practice is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T03:58:03.877" Title="What denominations use gender-inclusive hymnology?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6086" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6093" CreationDate="2012-02-14T22:02:15.700" Score="7" ViewCount="664" Body="&lt;p&gt;Isaac Watts has often been called &quot;the Father of English Hymnody.&quot;  He is responsible for many of my favorite hymns:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joy to the world (arranged by Lowell Mason to an older melody originating from Handel)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Come ye that love the Lord (often sung with the chorus [and titled] &quot;We’re marching to Zion&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;O God, Our Help in Ages Past&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When I survey the wondrous cross&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alas! and did my Saviour bleed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and many, many others.  I've seen his hymns in Baptist, Anglican, and Methodist hymnals, so I'm assuming he's Protestant in some fashion (although I'd love to know if he is in Catholic hymnals), but I don't know what tradition he himself was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does he he make a confession in a particular denomination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2018-02-20T15:24:35.183" Title="What was Isaac Watts' theological background?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6087" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6310" CreationDate="2012-02-14T22:06:06.490" Score="4" ViewCount="3580" Body="&lt;p&gt;Attending an African American church service recently, I was introduced to the hymn &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_Every_Voice_and_Sing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lift Every Voice and Sing&lt;/a&gt;.  One of my colleagues said this was the &quot;Black National Anthem,&quot; uniquely Christian and a great solace in the fight for civil rights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is it that caused this song to be so closely identified with the Civil Rights Movement, and is its theology unique to a particular brand of Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along these lines, is there a scriptural basis for this hymn?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-02-13T00:28:52.270" LastActivityDate="2017-02-01T23:37:58.117" Title="Why did &quot;Lift Every Voice and Sing&quot; become the &quot;Black National Anthem&quot;?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;&lt;racism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6088" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6090" CreationDate="2012-02-14T22:19:11.170" Score="9" ViewCount="3461" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love the song &quot;Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing.&quot; It's beautiful, and the backstory is pretty amazing.  My problem is that I always shudder every time I sing this line in the third verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O to grace, how great a debtor, daily I'm constrained to be&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I keep noodling over that sentence. From a mainstream Protestant perspective, is it really possible to be in debt to grace?  Isn't the point that grace means I don't have a debt as far as God is concerned?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, am I just reading too much into this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T21:06:06.457" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T21:06:06.457" Title="Is &quot;Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing&quot; preaching heresy?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6088" CreationDate="2012-02-14T22:28:32.380" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think here the meaning of &quot;indebted&quot; is simply in the sense that you are thankful, not in the sense that you'll have a bill come later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-02-14T22:28:32.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6088" CreationDate="2012-02-14T22:38:08.743" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're reading way too much into this :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to appreciate this song, I think you need to allow for variation of meaning in the English language. Understanding some songs even require that we grant them some poetic license, although I think we should treat those with caution because consciously or otherwise those do tend to cloud our theology. However in this case I don't think poetic license is even necessary to appreciate the meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Debtor&lt;/em&gt; could have several meanings. One of them is quite simply the sense of 'thankful', but I think the meaning here could actually be understood in a much stronger sense than thankfulness. The word can carry a sense of being 'dependent' or 'bound to'. And yes, theologically speaking, I think it is fair to say we are dependent on God's grace every day. While we don't owe him anything in return for it the very fact that his grace is freely given does &quot;daily constrain us&quot; to walk in His ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="11471" LastEditDate="2014-07-20T22:12:09.717" LastActivityDate="2014-07-20T22:12:09.717" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6085" CreationDate="2012-02-15T03:51:39.860" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen Congregationalists and Episcopals do this most frequently (I've also seen Episcopals do the opposite). The modern Catholic &lt;s&gt;abominations&lt;/s&gt; hymnals will often do things like that, but that can vary from parish to parish. When I was a singer in a PCUSA church the practice was to manually update, even though the hymnal didn't include it. I have seen similar updates in Lutheran and Baptist hymnals...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that my answer has to be, &quot;most denominations do this to some extent.&quot; I hadn't originally started to say that, but I don't think I have an option. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not to politicize this, but this happens to be a practice particularly common in the denominations and parishes to the left of center. I know a couple of Catholic parishes which use the &lt;s&gt;right&lt;/s&gt; old words. I know that the Orthodox Pres. Church sticks with the old ones, as does the LCMS (very conservative Lutherans). Anglican Catholics use the old words as well (the most conservatives among the Episcopals generally fall in that category).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-15T03:58:03.877" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T03:58:03.877" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4192" CreationDate="2012-02-15T03:53:34.710" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Judgment Seat of Christ is for the saved, while the Great White Throne judgement is for unsaved. However, that doesn't necessarily mean these are two separate events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Judgment Seat of Christ&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians is written to believers; Paul opens the letter with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+1&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Paul...Unto the church of God which is at Corinth&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;. In chapter 5 Paul exhorts the Corinthians to labor for Christ, telling them that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; Paul goes on to say that the judged will receive what is due them, depending on the works they did on earth. The Judgement Seat of Christ is also referenced in 1 Corinthians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203:10-15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 3:10-15&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;...I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These passages reveal that the Judgement Seat of Christ is when Christians will be judged for the works they did after they accepted salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Great White Throne Judgment&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20:12&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the dead are judged &amp;quot;according to their works,&amp;quot; like the Judgment Seat of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:13,%2015&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20:13, 15&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works...And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the unsaved are definitely judged at the Great White Throne Judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The saved are present at the Judgement Seat of Christ, and the unsaved are present at the Great White Throne Judgment. Is it possible that they take place at the same time? Yes. Both judgments are a judgment of earthly works. It could be that Paul and John just chose to focus on different aspects of the same event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also possible that these judgments take place at different times. Nothing in scripture prevents them from occurring separately, and they are certainly referred to in different manners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, whether they take place together or not, the salient point is that both the saved and the unsaved will be judged for how they lived their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T03:53:34.710" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6086" CreationDate="2012-02-15T05:50:33.120" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quoth Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Likewise, Isaac Watts held religious opinions that were more non-denominational or ecumenical than was at that time common for a Nonconformist; he had a greater interest in promoting education and scholarship than preaching for any particular ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/browse/authorInfo?id=watts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;general&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Sermons/isaac.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;consensus&lt;/a&gt; is that Watts' father was a dissenter and that Watts &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wholesomewords.org/biography/bwatts5.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;followed suit&lt;/a&gt;. No denomination truly claim him as &quot;one of their own&quot;. That said, his particular congregation was independent in 18&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century UK. Now, while that does not necessarily mean that he was of Puritan stock, it means that he was far closer to that than, say, Presbyterian. And, FWIW, the Puritan church in the US predominantly became Congregationalists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Realize that this edit is a bit old, but I can confirm O God Our Help and When I Survey are in at least one modern Catholic hymnal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2018-02-20T15:24:35.183" LastActivityDate="2018-02-20T15:24:35.183" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2012-02-15T08:13:32.397" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's take the extreme example of Germans hiding Jews in their houses during WW2.  (inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6055/does-the-bible-condemn-white-lies&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;) When asked if they are hiding Jews, what do they say?  Do they lie to protect them, or do they tell the truth knowing they'll be sent to a concentration camp?  I can think of 3 possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Choose the outcome that is the most loving.&lt;/strong&gt;  I certainly wouldn't want to be handed over to the Nazi's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do to others as you would have them do to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 7:12 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can justify lying in the same way as you &lt;strong&gt;justify resisting an evil government&lt;/strong&gt;.  See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2259/are-christians-bound-to-the-laws-of-their-country&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.  Lying would be ok in the same way that hiding the Jews in the first place would be ok.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered the king, &quot;... be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Daniel 3:16-18 (NRSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faith.&lt;/strong&gt;  Realize that it is actually not you, but God, who is in control, and he won't punish you for obeying him. Do what he commanded and trust that he will work it out.  In our example, you could refuse to answer the Nazi's question even though that causes suspicion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A controversial Biblical example of this would be Lot refusing to break the hospitality he had offered to two strangers, and instead putting his own daughters at risk.  God protects them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 19:8 (NRSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which option you choose in the extreme case should also guide your decisions in the everyday moral conundrums.  I personally believe that the third option is the highest, but also by far the most difficult in practice, because it requires us to give up control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-02-17T06:02:33.903" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1908" CreationDate="2012-02-15T12:58:11.547" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As has been stated, in both the case of the psychic and the prophet, there is communication between man and a spirit.  In the case of a psychic, that spirit is probably of the Devil, in the case of the prophet, that Spirit is the Spirit of God. That is why amongst the skills of a mature Christian and the gifts of the Spirit is that of &quot;distinguishing amongst the spirits&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As 1 Corinthians 12:8 - 10 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, &lt;strong&gt;to another distinguishing between spirits,&lt;/strong&gt; to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting case presents itself in Acts 16, in which Paul is being tailed by a young girl with psychic powers. She is called a &quot;diviner&quot; or a &quot;fortune teller&quot; in the ESV.  As Acts states it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. 17 She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” 18 She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we had a psychic who was telling the truth, but clearly in a fashion that was not from God. It fits all the points of the assertion - a spirit and - unknown origin. Paul, gifted by God, casts out the evil spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story goes on to say that this girl's owner became irate, because &quot;their hope of making money from her was gone.&quot; This leads me to a simple test that, while not 100%, would cover what I think of as the garden variety psychic who has a fortune telling storefront. The test is this - &lt;strong&gt;is the gift being used to make money? If so, it is clearly not from God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is supportable through a few other instances of Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Kings 5 tells the story of Elisha healing Naaman of leprosy.  After he does this, it says:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 The prophet answered, “As surely as the LORD lives, whom I serve, I will not accept a thing.” And even though Naaman urged him, he refused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elisha's servant, however, desires this tribute, and when he accepts it, the servant becomes a leper himself.  God is a jealous God, he shares his Glory with no other, and clearly needs no reward for what he does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts 8 tells the story of Simon the Magician, after whom we get the term &lt;em&gt;simony&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this story, Simon is a believer, but desires power from God in order to make money from it.  Peter says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, then, the answer is, No. A Good Christian would not use his psychic gifts as is normally done.  The source of the spirit must be known, and if the gift is being used gain, it is clearly not from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T12:58:11.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6088" CreationDate="2012-02-15T13:22:51.260" Score="8" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;O to grace, how great a debtor, daily I'm constrained to be.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is essentially the poetic way of saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every day I'm made to realize how much I owe everything to grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't need to mean a literal being in debt - it just happens that the language of debt is used to express such ideas. We might also put it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every day I'm made to realize how much I have that's due to grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But even here - even though we may not often think of it that way - &quot;due&quot; in &quot;due to&quot; is a debtor's word, and itself is etymologically related to 'debt'.  I think really all we are to understand is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every day I'm made to realize how much I have because of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T13:22:51.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6097" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6101" CreationDate="2012-02-15T13:32:38.777" Score="10" ViewCount="11566" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on a comment from @AndrewThompson, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'the' Bible (any one you care to name) is no more evidence of anything than the BOM is. You might take the numerous discrepancies between versions of 'the' Bible as the proof of that statement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;there is a belief out there that &quot;versions&quot; of the Bible apparently have &quot;numerous discrepancies&quot;.  I'd like to know what these are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the most egregious textual variant measured in terms of its impact on theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. If you are going to cite the game of &quot;telephone&quot; please be prepared to cite a specific example, demonstrably showing manuscript evidence. If there are so many &quot;discrepancies&quot; this should be an easy exercise. The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all online.  Additionally, there are several &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ericlevy.com/Revel/Cosmogony/Guide%20to%20BHS%20Critical%20Aparatus.PDF&quot;&gt;Critical Appartus&lt;/a&gt;&quot;es, the best are by &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0195072979&quot;&gt;Bruce Metzger&lt;/a&gt;, that will catalog every known variation. These things can be checked, I'd just like a good example of something significant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-31T23:37:05.790" LastActivityDate="2020-05-25T21:53:55.207" Title="What major discrepancies exist between &quot;versions&quot; of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;&lt;manuscript&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6097" CreationDate="2012-02-15T13:50:11.073" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are none.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Translation Choices aren't Biblical Version issues&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I categorically have to rule out translation choices as different &quot;versions&quot; because by definition, languages that change will change their wording to make things clear. Whether one translates the term &quot;cell phone&quot; into German as &lt;em&gt;Mobil Telefon&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Handy&lt;/em&gt;, for instance, is completely arbitrary, although the act of translating does introduce different connotations. By the same token, should one literally translate &lt;em&gt;Ich habe die Schnatuze voll damit!&lt;/em&gt; literally as &quot;I have the nose full with it!&quot; or idiomatically translate the meaning to &quot;I'm sick of it&quot; or &quot;I'm fed up with it!&quot;  Of course those expressions mean nothing until the language catches up with it, proving the point that language changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike the Qu'ran, the Bible has no problem with itself being translated.  If you want to quibble over a translation, you are quibbling over language, not the &quot;Bible.&quot;  As such, I would confine any &quot;discrepancies&quot; to the original Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic parts of Daniel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some very bad translations out there (see Was Jesus a Separate God?), but again, those are not the fault of the manuscripts, but rather translation choices that lacked scholarship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Manuscripts are pretty consistent&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are admittedly, minor textual variations amongst the various manuscripts, but are there any that have any impact on theology?  Most are the grammatical equivalent of a transposed comma or a changed preposition. In a few cases (e.g. the Woman caught in adultery in John 8), there are sections that are missing in older manuscripts, but no textual variations once the story is added to the corpus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0195072979&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Text of the New Testament, It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, Bruce Metzger analyzes thousands of manuscripts, and points out every miniscule variation amongst the miniscules, codices, papyri, and manuscripts.  Glancing through the linked table of contents, it will become obvious how minor the variations are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1947, after having been buried for nearly two milennia, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&amp;amp;article=357&quot;&gt;there were no significant discrepancies&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Tischendorff uncovered (stole?) the Codex Sinaiticus in the 1800s, there were no significant discrepancies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, this book is way less fluid than modern edits to Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An examination of claims that manuscripts have significant theological variation&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;This is detail, but I think its worthwhile.  If you like the short answer, stop reading - but I think in trying to make the case that there is &quot;significant theologcal variation, this text indavertently shows how little disagreement there really is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to show some examples that one commentator says are &quot;significant&quot;, from @CwallenPoole's excellent answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the case - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This statement is clearly false. It is not true to the evidence. Dr. Sumner wrote: &quot;The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not effect [sic] in any way any doctrine.&quot; This is false! Doctrine IS affected. Dr. Robert L. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in his California Seminary, wrote: &quot;No major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading.&quot; False, again. Dr. H.S. Miller wrote: &quot;No doctrine is affected.&quot; False again. Dr. Stanley Gundry stated: &quot;Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine command to us.&quot; False again. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote: &quot;Important differences of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian doctrine.&quot; False again!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N.B. That's a fair number of good scholars to disagree with.  (Kurt Aland is also mentioned, the same Aland of Nestle-Aland - probably the best Greek NT out there.)  So, we have a lot of scholars making the claim I'm making.  Let's give the author a chance to debunk them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:15. &quot;That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you know what the &quot;B&quot; (Vatican) and &quot;Aleph&quot; (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, &quot;should not perish&quot;? They REMOVE them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. 3:15. What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So do the other modern versions and perversions. For them, there is no hell in Jn. 3:15. Is this not a major doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the claims is &quot;should not perish&quot; is not supported by the manuscript evidence.  Okay, let's assume its true.  The doctrine of annihilationism is not predicated solely on this Scripture, and in any case, isn't accepted by most Christians.  In either case, the significant theological point is &quot;Believe in Jesus, Have eternal life.&quot;  Hell has other scripture to make the case one way or the other.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are gone: &quot;Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because &quot;B&quot; (Vatican) and &quot;Aleph&quot; (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and perversions. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. Is this not a major doctrine? ... Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English perversions will assist them in their heresy of a &quot;fireless hell&quot;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, neither a widespread position, nor the exclusive basis of the claim.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV, where the Lord Jesus declared: &quot;Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That verse is as clear as a bell, on how to receive &quot;everlasting life.&quot; But, the Westcott and Hort Greek text, following the &quot;B&quot; (Vatican) and &quot;Aleph&quot; (Sinai) manuscripts, takes out those two vital and precious words, &quot;on me.&quot; Because of their reliance on these false Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV also removes &quot;on me.&quot; So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. If you're trying to lead a soul to Christ with those new versions and perversions, using Jn. 6:47 exclusively, you'll never lead them to Christ, because &quot;on me&quot; (Christ) is gone from that verse in their perversions! All they say is something like this: &quot;Whoever believes has everlasting life.&quot; Believes what? Their verse doesn't say. Their verse merely says &quot;believes.&quot; According to these perversions of John 6:47, if I were to believe in atheism, Christ promises me everlasting life. The same if I believe in humanism, or in the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or in Santa Claus, or in Rudloph the Red-Nose Reindeer, or in Bugs Bunny, or in Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Modernism, or in anything else! That's major false doctrine in my judgement, and it stems directly from false Greek texts and false English perversions!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, so we're missing the words &quot;on me&quot; from believes &quot;on me&quot;.  From the whole of Scripture, does anybody really think John 6:47 allows belief in Santa Claus to get you into heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 1:16. Here's what it says in the accurate KJV: &quot;For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heretical Greek texts of &quot;B&quot; (Vatican) and &quot;Aleph&quot; (Sinai) remove the two words, &quot;of Christ&quot; in this verse. Because of this, the NIV also removes these words. So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. This certainly is doctrine. &quot;Gospel&quot; means &quot;good news&quot; or a &quot;good announcement.&quot; What &quot;gospel&quot; could be inserted there instead of the &quot;gospel of Christ&quot;? Was it the good news about a pay raise? Was it the good news about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It's the gospel or good news about Christ. That's doctrine! That's theology!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is the &quot;Gospel&quot; so radically different from the &quot;Gospel of Christ&quot;?  Don't think its major.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text, &quot;Aleph&quot; (Sinai), and some of the versions, He was. Note Jn. 7:8: &quot;Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to the Greek text &quot;Aleph&quot; (Sinai), the word &quot;yet&quot; must be removed. The NASV omits it also. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do some other modern versions and perversions. Why do I say this removal of &quot;yet&quot; makes the Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that feast, He would have told a lie, would He not? This certainly is a major theological doctrine. As in all of the other 356 doctrinal passages, the KJV has superior theology here. The perversions are inferior in their theology and doctrine! Stay away from them! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it just me, or is this a stretech?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the point - a scholar doing his best to present &quot;theological differences&quot; between manuscript versions fails to make a compelling case that theology is fundamentally altered by manuscript evidence.  I still challenge someone to show me a case where Bible &quot;versions&quot; really change theology dramatically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T14:13:50.403" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T14:13:50.403" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6073" CreationDate="2012-02-15T14:55:53.820" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an English translation issue, not a Protestant/Catholic issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church and the Latin says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus &lt;strong&gt;debitoribus&lt;/strong&gt; nostris&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-02-15T15:34:13.353" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T15:34:13.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1908" CreationDate="2012-02-15T15:11:28.180" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can &lt;strong&gt;be&lt;/strong&gt; anything and be a good Christian. It's what you &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; that determines whether you sin or not.  Some people, by their nature (who or what they are), will have a harder time with different sins than others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T15:11:28.180" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6097" CreationDate="2012-02-15T15:33:42.813" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some rather major and fundamental differences between different versions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The KJV was based on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Textus Receptus&lt;/a&gt; New Testament, a work which was clearly corrupt (the last part of Revelation was translated from a Latin version!) and the Masoretic Text, a document which was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;clearly inferior&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you want to be able to see the differences between the ancient texts and the TR, then I suggest you look for people who believe the King James to be superior. &lt;a href=&quot;http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/waite-fourfold1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This author&lt;/a&gt; claims that there are over 5000 differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An easy way to see this effect is to actually look at the RSV. Quite frequently you'll see in the footnotes, &amp;ldquo;Aramaic &quot;they&quot;&amp;rdquo; or &amp;ldquo;Vulgate &quot;until&quot;&amp;rdquo; or, even better, &quot;Hebrew unclear&quot;. Sometimes this is even enough to change the entire meaning of the passage (LXX says, &quot;a virgin&quot;, Hebrew says, &quot;a young woman&quot; in Isa 7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as an example (and this was just the first page I happened to open), in 1 Sam. 18:28, there is a significant difference between manuscripts. As an illustration:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Saul realized that the LORD was with David and that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;his daughter Michal&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; loved David (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;while another manuscript has&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when Saul saw and knew that the LORD was with David, and that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all Israel&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; loved him (RSV)*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, while I suppose you could argue that this is not &quot;significant&quot;, the differences between manuscripts are sufficient to cause a major difference in interpretation. I would argue that saying that this is &quot;not important&quot; swallowing the proverbial camel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;THEN&lt;/em&gt; there is the question of &quot;which text in the text do you believe&quot;? In reading Hebrew, there is occasionally a note that &quot;while this text is to be written this way, it is to be said some other way.&quot; The most obvious example is:  יֱהֹוִה (Qr אֲדֹנָי) which means, &quot;YHWH is to be pronounced adonai,&quot; but there are other cases where it is clear that the footnote represents a difference in historical understanding and then-current treatment of the language. So... which is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, there are different versions of the Bible. No, they are not insignificant. And yes, the telephone analogy is apt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* The RSV states that the &quot;all Israel&quot; quote is more likely, but the &quot;his daughter Micah&quot; does appear in an ancient Heb. manuscript.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-15T16:38:26.557" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T16:38:26.557" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3167" CreationDate="2012-02-15T16:41:13.430" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we consider that love is an action, I don't think it's possible to love Satan in the same way that we love our neighbor, and we cannot do so without hating God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at the parable of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:25-37&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Good Samaritan&lt;/a&gt;, we love our neighbor (our fellow human) by taking care of them when they are in need.  Jesus several times shows love to other people by serving them and God calls us to do the same.  In this sense, there is really no way we can &quot;love&quot; Satan because we cannot do anything for him as we can a human.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, we love others by praying for their salvation and telling others about Christ.  But it is quite clear in the Bible that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2020:10-20:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Satan's fate&lt;/a&gt; is already sealed, so there is nothing we can do for him in that regard.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, another way to &quot;love&quot; Satan is to basically serve his desires, but we cannot do that without disobeying God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I don't think it is really possible to love Satan, because we cannot do so in the sense that we love other humans, and we cannot do so without going against God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="364" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T16:41:13.430" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6103" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6105" CreationDate="2012-02-15T18:06:34.773" Score="13" ViewCount="859" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 1&lt;/a&gt;, we learn about both &lt;strong&gt;John's baptism of repentance&lt;/strong&gt; and Jesus's proclamation that &quot;the time has come.  &lt;strong&gt;Repent and believe in the good news!&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John's baptism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a&#xA;  baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean&#xA;  countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him.&#xA;  Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus's Proclamation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming&#xA;  the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of&#xA;  God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How would Jews have understood this at the time before Jesus's death?&lt;/strong&gt;  It seems like the common understanding is that before His death and resurrection, the only sanctification for sin was through particular forms of sacrifice, based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;this passage in Hebrews (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with&#xA;  blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So - other than that God being with us and loving us is clearly excellent news - how would this have been understood in Jesus's time before his death and resurrection?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="665" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T06:19:38.100" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T06:19:38.100" Title="What is God's good news before Jesus's death and resurrection?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2012-02-15T18:20:35.000" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that &quot;the ends justify the means&quot; admits that there is something inherently wrong with &quot;the means&quot;.  Indeed, it admits that &quot;the means&quot; are actually &lt;strong&gt;unjustified&lt;/strong&gt; by themselves.  The claim, then, is that although &quot;the means&quot; are unjustifiable in themselves, that a particular outcome that is achieved by them results in the justification of the unjustified.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity certainly &lt;strong&gt;does not&lt;/strong&gt; have any basis for this idea, and it doesn't need any.  I know of a particular religion that believes it's alright for its followers to lie in a conversation with someone of another religion if lying helps them win the argument.  Christianity, however, does not need to do this, because Christianity believes that truth is on its side.  That's a key point, because Truth invites questioning, whereas lies and falsehoods do not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God calls us to do what is righteous and then trust Him for the results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T18:20:35.000" CommentCount="21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6103" CreationDate="2012-02-15T18:31:00.970" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Good News is that the promised Messiah - God's annointed - has returned. The Kingdom of God was to be established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus begins to preach in Luke 4, he overtly references himself as the promised Messiah of Isaiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, &#xA;     because he has anointed me &#xA;     to proclaim good news to the poor. &#xA;  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners &#xA;     and recovery of sight for the blind, &#xA;  to set the oppressed free, &#xA;     19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Kingdom would have had connotations of return to power and re-establishment of the &quot;ancient order.&quot; The Kingdom announced in Isaiah 40 - 66 would have indicated a new social order, one in which there is equality and goodness of all, and that the throne of David would be re-established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke in particular understood this reversal - the oppressed would no longer be on the bottom, the poor would be rich, etc... Look to Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:48 - 52) to see this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To many, the idea was conflated with political liberation from Rome, but the Good News preached was actually just the new social order of Isaiah 40 - 66.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What made Jesus' teaching unique was precisely the fact that Jesus redefined the notion of Messiah as applying personally and not just politically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-16T14:25:28.267" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T14:25:28.267" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6088" CreationDate="2012-02-15T20:00:04.043" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think another interpretation of this is that we are indeed in debt to saving grace! Our debt is to tell others of this grace that they might be saved as well (or do the Lord's will in general, obey his teachings and follow Jesus, etc.). In Matthew 25, the man that did nothing with the &quot;talents&quot; that were given to him was cast out into outer darkness! We are to invest what the Lord has given unto us so that our Master can reap more abundantly in His great harvest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-02-15T21:53:02.630" LastActivityDate="2012-02-15T21:53:02.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4385" CreationDate="2012-02-15T23:08:15.877" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the &quot;faith alone&quot; viewpoint has been well represented thanks to @DavidStratton, I will propose an additional diagram that doesn't fit into either of the two in the question, This is the view posited by Eastern Orthodox Christianity. I will abbreviate Eastern Orthodox as EO for the remainder of this response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than a Venn diagram including faith and works (with faith shown as being more preeminent), or a diagram with works following and slightly overlapping with faith, EO views faith and works as two sides of the same coin (and as equally important).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ivlMA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Two sides of the same coin&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Orthodox Christianity teaches that belief in Jesus must be combined with putting that belief into action - feeding the hungry, ministering to others, etc. Both are essential. We read in the epistles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? &lt;strong&gt;Can this kind of faith save him&lt;/strong&gt;? If a brother or sister  is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,' but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? So also &lt;strong&gt;faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself&lt;/strong&gt;. But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith without works and I will show you faith by my works. You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear&quot; (NET, emphasis mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can indeed 'believe' in Christ and yet lead a life that betrays that belief. Hence belief alone is not sufficient. Jesus said, &quot;Not all who say 'Lord, Lord' will have a place in my Kingdom&quot; (Matthew 7:21). Thus EO view grace and works as a synergistic process. &lt;em&gt;Synergy&lt;/em&gt; comes from a Greek word that essentially means &quot;cooperation&quot; or &quot;working together.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EO does not view grace as God's attitude towards man, it is more of a real energy or power that He gives to man freely, which enables us to have faith in Him and do works that please Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great video explanation that contrasts the Protestant vs. Orthodox views of salvation is available &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, and there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eastwestreport.org/articles/ew03204.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;good article available&lt;/a&gt; by Don Fairbairn that explains five perspectives commonly held by Protestants of EO and how each is justified or incorrect according to Fairbairn's beliefs. Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://oca.org/orthodoxy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the website of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)&lt;/a&gt; is very helpful in understanding EO beliefs and practices as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope you don't mind me pitching my two cents in.... ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T20:36:29.947" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T20:36:29.947" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6108" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-16T07:07:53.763" Score="3" ViewCount="623" Body="&lt;p&gt;What specific traditions (or denominations inside a tradition) currently practice paedocommunion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any that practice paedocommunion but not paedobaptism?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any that historically practiced it but have given it up?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am specifically interested in the treatment of infants, not children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-02-16T15:53:07.893" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T20:06:37.780" Title="Which traditions practice paedocommunion?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6109" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6112" CreationDate="2012-02-16T09:53:05.093" Score="8" ViewCount="2650" Body="&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 19:19 states&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'Keep my decrees. &quot;'Do not mate different kinds of animals. &quot;'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. &quot;'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the importance of including these rules? I know some of the dietary laws of the Old Testament are there for practical reasons, such as preventing disease. Is there a similar practical explanation for the inclusion of these laws? Or perhaps a more symbolic reason for their inclusion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I notice this verse is mention in the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2714/should-a-christian-wear-clothing-of-mixed-fibers&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, but I am not asking should we or should we not follow such rules, but rather why such laws are present. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1559" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T14:44:53.593" Title="What is the importance of Leviticus 19:19?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;leviticus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:42:37.623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6108" CreationDate="2012-02-16T13:01:00.487" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox practice paedocommunion and the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Roman&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Catholics used to but don't anymore. I can't speak to your second point though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T13:01:00.487" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6108" CreationDate="2012-02-16T14:03:09.817" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.paedocommunion.com/churches.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; website which lists currently practicing denominations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Covenant Presbyterian Church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reformed Episcopal (REC)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure which denominations/traditions have stopped practicing paedocommunion, but I would be surprised if there were any that offered communion to children of believers without also baptising them.   From my understanding, the argument for paedocommunion is that the children are considered part of the covenant and are welcomed as members of the church body (this being sybolized w/ baptism), so they should be welcome as participants in &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of its sacraments and not excluded from the communion table.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T14:03:09.817" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6109" CreationDate="2012-02-16T14:22:08.893" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The point was to give a concrete definition of &quot;holiness&quot; - namely that God was &quot;set apart,&quot; i.e. holy, and God wanted his people to be &quot;set apart&quot; from the other nations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These vestigal practices mainly were a symbol of a greater concept - that as God's chosen people, they were to be different / separate from everyone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The opposite of holiness is syncretism - mixing in religious practices from outside Israel into the worship of YHWH.  He would often say of himself &quot;I am a jealous God.&quot; He would not share his glory with any other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-16T14:44:53.593" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T14:44:53.593" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6114" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-16T16:36:42.850" Score="5" ViewCount="259" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3M.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon law&lt;/a&gt; says that anointing of the sick is to be done to someone having attained the age of reason, same as reception of the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as &quot;Food for the Journey&quot;, if a child is near death, do they usually still receive the Eucharist as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15397c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Viaticum&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read the Catholic encyclopedia entry I linked to on viaticum it says that they are. But, I'm not sure if it's outdated because it seems to conflict with Canon Law.  As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6110/4&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; states younger children receiving communion used to be normal, but not any more, is this the same for Viaticum or is it totally separate from the sacrament of anointing of the sick (other than the fact that they both usually take place before death).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T18:56:12.997" Title="Do Catholic children near death recieve the Eucharist as Viaticum" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;anointing-of-the-sick&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6115" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-16T17:12:16.693" Score="8" ViewCount="398" Body="&lt;p&gt;Over at Judaism.SE, there's a question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/13819/971&quot;&gt;How should we respond to objectionable content in a public forum?&lt;/a&gt;  It got me thinking, how should we apply Jesus' teaching on reconciliation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”&amp;mdash;Matthew 18:15 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+18/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, we are in a public forum with someone who is our brother or sister in Christ, and they say or do something that hurts us or is a sin against us.  When in person or when a private communication channel is provided (e.g., Facebook, email, and many internet forums), it's easy enough to take them aside.  But what should we do where there is no way to initiate a private conversation with a fellow Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, this very site is an example of where this might come up.  But I'm not making it a meta-question since it's really a question about how Christians should behave in &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; public forum.  And of course, it must be an ecumenical position since, unless the forum happens to be specific to a particular branch of Christianity, the other person might come from any faith tradition (or none at all).  How do we love those who sin against us in strictly public places?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:05.287" LastActivityDate="2014-10-16T07:42:52.917" Title="How can we practice Matthew 18:15 in a public forum?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;reconciliation&gt;&lt;ecumenism&gt;&lt;church-discipline&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:44:34.697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6116" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-16T17:15:31.860" Score="0" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just wondering if there is any other way of looking at the whole &quot;I and the father are one&quot; issue, and all that is this hugely important passage of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per the comment, I'll spell it out. Traditionally and in most Biblical commentaries, the passage is Jesus telling those around him that he is God. To quote the ESV commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus’ claim that I and the Father are one (i.e., one entity—the Gk.&#xA;  is neuter; cf. 5:17–18; 10:33–38) echoes the Shema, the basic&#xA;  confession of Judaism, whose first word in Deut. 6:4 is shema‘ (Hb.&#xA;  “hear”). Jesus’ words thus amount to a claim to deity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm interested in are other viewpoints. Anything from Panenthism (see 10:34) or otherwise (i.e. extending the idea of the Logos within Sufism). Anything from the Emergent Church group would also be great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastEditorUserId="136" LastEditDate="2012-02-16T17:30:29.237" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T22:20:11.177" Title="Are there any alternative / emergent views on John 10:22-ff?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;emergent&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-12T16:41:15.507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6108" CreationDate="2012-02-16T18:27:44.380" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics of the Eastern Churches (Ruthenian, Ukranian, Melkite, etc), like the orthodox, baptize, commune and chrismate infants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1322" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T18:27:44.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6114" CreationDate="2012-02-16T18:51:00.477" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think your question is covered by Can. 913:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can.  913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§2. &lt;strong&gt;The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While that does not explicitly say, &amp;quot;if and only if,&amp;quot; I believe it is fairly clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note: when it comes to questions like, &amp;quot;who should receive a sacrament?&amp;quot; the person who really decides is priest (or, occasionally the Eucharistic Minister) present. It could very well be that a 3½ year old or someone outside of the Catholic Church could receive when they are close to death (my son understood the Eucharist was special at 2½, but I doubt a priest would have let him receive...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T18:56:12.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6119" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6123" CreationDate="2012-02-16T20:08:12.300" Score="8" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;p&gt;A primary point in the Reformation was the issue of &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt;--the position that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works.  This was to distinguish the position that works were necessary for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In LDS/Mormon theology, what is the position on faith and works in salvation?  Is it &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt; or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-09-10T19:36:36.740" Title="What roles do faith and works play in the LDS/Mormon understanding of salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6116" CreationDate="2012-02-16T20:47:11.830" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe this generally refers to the &lt;em&gt;purposes&lt;/em&gt; of God the Father and God the Son (Jesus). Jesus was sent to do the will of the Father, so in their purpose they are one. This is similar to the reference in John 17:21. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,&#xA;  that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou&#xA;  hast sent me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The intent is not to describe Himself as the same Being as God, but to demonstrate unity in purpose. Similar statements might be a general saying &quot;Let us fight as one!&quot; or a president saying &quot;The country must come together as one.&quot; Neither infer to coming together into one physical mass, but to be unified in desire, effort, and purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1323" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T20:47:11.830" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6119" CreationDate="2012-02-16T20:55:21.797" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Super short summery:&#xA;No it is not like &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now really long answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are LDS saved by faith? Yes absolutely. The thing to understand here is that death and the Resurrection are viewed differently in LDS doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe EVERYONE will be brought back into the presence of God, because of the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ. Now this is where works come in. It does not matter what your works were, you are going to be judged and go before the Bar of God, that's a given; where you go after that depends on your works. James said works were required in the New Testament here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 2:17-20: 17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy&#xA;  faith without works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19) Thou believest that their is one God; thou doest well: the devils&#xA;  also believe, and tremble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20) But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To expand on that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Latter-day Saints believe that we were all in the presence of God the Father before we were on earth and that the fall separated us from the presence of God. This did 2 things it caused a spiritual death &lt;em&gt;at that time&lt;/em&gt; because our spirits were separated from God's presence. It also made us mortal and opened us to physical death. So there were 2 deaths which Christ overcame and we all receive that blessing. But we are subject after the judgement to a second death. Where our &lt;em&gt;faith and works&lt;/em&gt; will determine if we are welcomed back into the presence of God or we are again separated from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term taking upon yourself the name of Christ is very literal in Latter-day Saint doctrine. Christ is described as &lt;code&gt;going about doing good&lt;/code&gt; so if we are to follow Him and take His name upon ourselves then it would logically follow that we would also need to &lt;code&gt;go about doing good&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for the long answer but its not a simple question of what is the doctrine since the underlying principles behind it need to be explained in this case or its a lot harder to understand (and explain) what the view is of Faith and Works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2014-09-10T19:36:36.740" LastActivityDate="2014-09-10T19:36:36.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2178" CreationDate="2012-02-16T21:33:48.433" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since we already know the end of the Story, let's see where the Church is headed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:6-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 19:6-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“Hallelujah!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For the Lord our God&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;the Almighty reigns.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Let us rejoice and exult&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and give him the glory,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  for the marriage of the Lamb has come,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and &lt;strong&gt;his Bride has made herself ready&lt;/strong&gt;;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; it was granted her to clothe herself&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;with fine linen, bright and pure”—&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.” &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, in the imagery of the New Testament, the Bride is the united Church and the Lamb is Christ Jesus Himself.  So the goal of ecumenism is (or ought to be) the part I bolded: to make ourselves ready for our marriage with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can understand marriage imagery: especially if we are ourselves married.  The bride and groom prepare intensely for the big day: caterers, officiants, bridesmaids and groomsmen, DJs, guest lists, invitations, venues, honeymoons, etc., and etc.  It can be overwhelming.  But the primary duty of the bride is the please her future husband and &lt;em&gt;vice versa&lt;/em&gt;.  In the long run, the marriage will only work if each person commits to giving the other &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; love that Paul describes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+13/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 13&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lamb has already prepared Himself: His central task was His work on the Cross.  That is done, but He is still active in preparing the Church for her great day.  He is ready; we are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Lamb expect from His Bride?  Well, that seems clear from this passage too: to clothe ourselves in the &quot;fine linen, bright and pure&quot;: &quot;the righteous deeds of the saints.&quot;  Already, we can start to see denominational pitfalls.  Since the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap070400.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;official canonization process&lt;/a&gt; was not in place, &quot;saints&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;means&lt;/a&gt; simply &quot;holy people&quot; or those who have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sanctified&lt;/a&gt;.  Also, the &quot;righteous deeds&quot; here have nothing to do with salvation: the Bride has already clothed herself with them at that point in future history.  We can argue about exactly &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; that will happen, but we can't argue &lt;em&gt;that it will happen&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John fell to worship the angel, but the angel redirected him worship God instead.  His reasoning is that he is a servant of God, just like John and his &quot;brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus.&quot;  That's a pretty good definition of the Church historically.  It's also a vital part of getting the Church ready: &quot;hold to the testimony of Jesus.&quot;  The other part is to do what He commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does that mean when the rubber meets the road?  As you say: do we try to sing in harmony or do we sing the same tune?  Both and more!  The songs of every nation will rise up and, though they now sound discordant, will then be harmonious and in praise of One God together.  I got a taste of that at &lt;a href=&quot;https://urbana.org/history&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Urbana '93&lt;/a&gt; with thousands of fellow students as we worshiped God together and celebrated communion.  At that moment, it would not have surprised me if Christ Himself walked into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.athletics.illinois.edu/facilities/facilities/assemblyhall/default.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Assembly Hall&lt;/a&gt;.  Around the same time, John Piper &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/the-wells-of-salvation-and-the-work-of-missions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;preached&lt;/a&gt; these words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church; worship is. Missions exist because somewhere true worship doesn't. Missions is a means to creating worship in the hearts of those who have never drunk from the wells of salvation. The father is seeking people to worship him in spirit and in truth. This is the ultimate meaning of missions—to bring about Christ-exalting worship in all the peoples of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the barriers to Reunification are too high.  In our sin we have separated ourselves too definitively to be rejoined before Christ returns to set all things right.  You and I can never agree on certain issues until we are before God's throne and see everything clearly.  But I can look over the barrier and see whether or not God is worshiped in your tradition.  (He is.)  So the spirit of ecumenism, in my opinion, encourages us to point out the one, true God to each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different streams of the Christian faith have different ideas about how it will happen, but according to Revelation, all will eventually flow into one mighty river.  We know this will happen because we are all aiming at the same goal: union with Jesus, the Lamb of God.  Ecumenism only makes sense if we are encouraging each other to follow that course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T21:33:48.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6119" CreationDate="2012-02-16T22:04:17.287" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;As consolidated as I can make this: Mormons believe that we are saved from death by the grace of Christ, that faith is demonstrated by good works, and that these combined result in salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, I've often heard it accused that the LDS doctrine is that &lt;em&gt;works save&lt;/em&gt;. I've come to find this is &lt;em&gt;not true&lt;/em&gt;, for while works are required for salvation, no amount of good deeds will actually redeem us from spiritual death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual LDS doctrine is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/25.23#22&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;only by the grace and power which is in Christ can man be saved, after all we can do&lt;/a&gt;. Nephi wrote it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/4.11#10&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jacob, a prophet in the Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt;, makes this clear too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/8.18#17&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ammon, a missionary in the Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt;, teaches the relationship between faith and works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidently by our &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; we are expected to bring about &lt;strong&gt;works&lt;/strong&gt;, which do not save us, but which are of benefit to our neighbors, and that is a quality of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/7.24#23&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Alma&lt;/a&gt; also makes this clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And earlier in Chapter 5, Alma is exhorting the people of Zarahemla to follow Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 I say unto you, can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto you, in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 Or do ye imagine to yourselves that ye can lie unto the Lord in that day, and say—Lord, our works have been righteous works upon the face of the earth—and that he will save you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...  41 Therefore, if a man bringeth forth good works he hearkeneth unto the voice of the good shepherd, and he doth follow him; but whosoever bringeth forth evil works, the same becometh a child of the devil, for he hearkeneth unto his voice, and doth follow him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our works reflect who we follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, Christ saves, not faith. By our &lt;strong&gt;faith in Christ&lt;/strong&gt; comes &lt;strong&gt;good works&lt;/strong&gt;, and although works do not save, our faith in Christ (and all that implies) &lt;strong&gt;qualifies us&lt;/strong&gt; for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further reading:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/plan/jesus-christ-is-the-way&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/plan/jesus-christ-is-the-way&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/jesus-christ/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://mormon.org/jesus-christ/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T16:22:19.237" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6116" CreationDate="2012-02-16T22:20:11.177" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's take a look at John chapter 10 in the original language.  Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh10.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PDF of John 10 in Greek with interlineal English&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:30 is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ΕΓω καί ό   πατΗρ  εν  εσμεν &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Ego kai ho  pater en esmen&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  I   and the father one are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final word, &quot;εσμεν&quot; (esmen) is a plural conjugation, as compared with &quot;εστιν&quot; (estin) would be the singular.  This may be an indication that the sense in which Jesus meant this statement relates to the preceding context.  In the 10:28, Jesus states that no man shall remove His sheep from His hand.  In 10:29, Jesus states that His Father gave the sheep to Him, and no man is able to snatch them from His Father's hand.  Thus, 10:30 may indicate that Jesus and His Father are united in abilities and purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 10:31-10:33, Jesus' audience begins to stone him for blasphemy, accusing him of claiming to be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 10:34 and 10:35, Jesus responds to his their assertion that he is blaspheming by calling himself God.  He responds that scripture calls gods all of those unto whom His Word was given.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 10:36, Jesus says, &quot;...you are saying that you are blaspheming that I said, 'The Son of God I am.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in 10:38, Jesus says, &quot;...and you should be believing: that in Me the Father, and I in Him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the context of the discussion Jesus is having with his audience, he says that all the people who have been given the Word are gods, that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus and the Father are in each other, that Jesus has some of the powers of the Father, that the goals of Jesus and the Father are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is consistent with other statements by Jesus, for example, John 6:38,  &quot;That down I am stepping out of the heaven, that not I may be doing the will of Me, but the will of the One sending Me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In considering what Jesus meant in the quote of John 10:30 and why God would cause us to receive this particular wording, it seems that Jesus and God are telling us that Jesus and the Father are effectively the same thing from the perspective of the judgment which will be applied to the humans.  This is consistent with John 14:6, &quot;... I am the way and the truth and the life; no one is coming to the Father if not through Me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, John 10:27-10:30 seems to mean something similar to: There is one flock, which God gave to Jesus.  No man shall remove a sheep from Their flock.  Together they are one Shepherd of the sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1324" LastActivityDate="2012-02-16T22:20:11.177" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="322" CreationDate="2012-02-16T23:22:01.723" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read articles which interpret the word translated as &quot;spirit&quot; in Luke 1:17 to mean something like &quot;motivational attitude&quot; as in &quot;team spirit.&quot;  I don't think that is what Luke 1:17 means.  Let's compare the language of Luke 1:17 with other scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:17 - [Angelic messenger speaking to Zacharias] - And he (Gk. &lt;i&gt;autos&lt;/i&gt;) shall be coming first in view of him (Gk. &lt;i&gt;autou&lt;/i&gt;) in the spirit (Gk. &lt;i&gt;pneumatos&lt;/i&gt;) and ability of Elijah...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;compare with:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 2:26 - As even the body apart from the spirit (&lt;i&gt;pneumatos&lt;/i&gt;) dead is ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To James, the word &lt;i&gt;pneumatos&lt;/i&gt; meant the spiritual force which gives life to the material body.  It seems likely that John used the word in the same sense.  Therefore, &quot;he&quot; is going to be born with the spirit that gave life to Elijah's body giving life to his body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible, though, to question the antecedent of the pronoun &lt;i&gt;autou&lt;/i&gt; (&quot;him&quot;) from Luke 1:17.  This might have referred to either John or perhaps Jesus (for whom it could be said that John &quot;came first in the sight of&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Returning to your question around John 1:19-21, let's extend our research three more verses, to the end of the conversation in question, that is through John 1:24.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, John said to the priests in 1:23 that John is the one sent to make the way straight for the Master, as per the prophecy from Isaiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most important however, is John 1:24: &quot;And the ones having been dispatched were out of the Pharisees.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare this to Jesus' teaching as to what one does with a Christian brother who will not repent from sin against you even when your church has asked them to, Matthew 18:17, &quot;... let him be as unto you as one of those from nations (Gk. &lt;i&gt;ethnikos&lt;/i&gt;) and the tax-collector.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Pharisee is one of those from nations.  The relevance of John 1:24 may be that John's statements to his inquisitors were less than forthcoming.  It is possible that his answer &quot;I am not&quot; might have been further elaborated, &quot;I am not, I am his return, named John.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words John 1:19-24 is the presumably true account of John's possibly misleading responses to hostile inquisitors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1324" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-24T15:17:40.720" LastActivityDate="2012-02-24T15:17:40.720" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6115" CreationDate="2012-02-17T02:34:18.330" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether a person hurts our feelings is a different matter than whether that person has sinned against us.  For example, my doctor might tell me I am overweight.  In that case, my doctor would be acting lovingly toward me.  If my feelings are hurt, then I am the one with the hard heart in that example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore my counsel is to be especially careful in asking for repentence from someone who has hurt your feelings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, my thought is that there is always a way to ask for private communication.  It may be the case that private communication cannot be accomplished immediately, so you may have to employ patience.  Suppose, for example that you are in a huge auditorium and a public speaker bears false witness against you (that being a sin from Exodus 20-23, the Ten Commandments and their sentencing rules). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think you should stand up in that public forum and proclaim, &quot;I would like to speak with you privately!&quot;  Entertaining the thought of that action leads one to think it might be inappropriate per the instructions from Matthew 18:15.  If you agree,  you might instead contact the public speaker by postal mail, waiting many days to receive any reply.  You won't get the pleasure of an immediate retraction, and you may therefore have to suffer embarrassment during your period of patiently reaching out to the public speaker.  That seems OK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On this SE, you could ask a person to contact you using the comment system, with a message along the lines of, &quot;Brother, I would like to email with you privately concerning something you've written here.  Would you please email me at xxx -at- yyy.zzz?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest that you then exchange phone numbers and not use email to settle your difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1324" LastEditorUserId="1324" LastEditDate="2012-02-17T03:21:56.920" LastActivityDate="2012-02-17T03:21:56.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1048" CreationDate="2012-02-17T15:57:43.727" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The old testament has a story relating to this question. Exodus 1:15-21 ( in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Exodus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt; &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; translation, available on Wikisource&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwifes, one of whose names is Shiphrah, and the second Poo'ah. And he said, &amp;quot;When you deliver for the Hebrews, and you saw upon the paired rocks, if it is a son, and you killed him, and if it is a daughter, she lives.&amp;quot; And the midwives feared God, and did not do that which the king of Egypt commanded, and they let live the boys born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the king of Egypt called the midwives, and told them &amp;quot;Why did you do this thing, and let the boys born live?&amp;quot; And the midwives told Pharaoh that the Hebrews are not like the Egyptian women, that they are animals, not even does the midwife arrive, and they have delivered. And God made good for the midwives, and multiplied the nation, and they became very mighty. And it was because the midwives feared God that he made households for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the midwives say that the Hebrew women are like animals, not needing a midwife. This is an obvious lie, and it is a useful lie, because it allows the midwives to save the boy babies. God rewards the midwives financially for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In traditional translations, the midwives statement is translated to &amp;quot;the Hebrew women are very &lt;em&gt;lively&lt;/em&gt;, they deliver before the midwife arrives&amp;quot;. This mistranslates the word &amp;quot;Chayoth&amp;quot;, which means &amp;quot;animal&amp;quot; by substituting a different meaning, which is a feminine adjective meaning lively, which is both a painfully stretched interpretation and completely spoils the beautiful and jarring sentiment. This sentence reveals a lot about Pharaoh's Egyptian supremacy ideas--- he is willing to believe any demeaning fact about the Hebrews. This is a biblical parallel to the Nazi-hiding example used in Matt White's answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The midwives lie for the purpose of a greater good. Exodus does not ask people to be stupid, and if they have to lie to the authorities, this can sometimes be a good thing. Established religion is authoritarian, so it is not a good interpreter of the holy texts, which are written by inspired authors. This passage is both mistranslated and ignored by Christians and Jews alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T21:32:15.667" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6129" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6141" CreationDate="2012-02-17T18:45:18.353" Score="7" ViewCount="4170" Body="&lt;p&gt;Slavery existed as a fact of life in the ancient world, and the Bible mentions slavery in many places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When the Bible speaks of slavery, is it supporting it, or merely describing it? Does the Bible encourage slavery, merely condone it, or is it actively against it?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What Scripture addresses the treatment of slaves, and how does this compare with how other nations in the same time period addressed their slaves? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Along these same lines, what was the role of Christians in the slavery debate? Since the status of Africans was in many ways the philosophical underpinning of their servitude, were there any particular denominations that were distinguished in their rejection of this prevailing attitude. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, are passages about slavery in the Bible prescriptive or descriptive in their treatment, and did the Bible have any discernible impact on the actual practices of Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T00:33:25.660" LastActivityDate="2015-01-19T00:33:25.660" Title="Does the Bible support slavery and (white) superiority in the context of American slavery?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;slavery&gt;&lt;racism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-01-20T21:57:42.960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2012-02-17T18:46:24.860" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;As stated, slavery was a fact of the Ancient World, and so when the Bible addresses the topic, it should not be compared against the sensibilities of the modern world, but rather against the sensibilities of the ones to whom the Bible was addressed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is an anchronism to apply questions of, for example, feminism or communism, to the Scriptures, because the original audience would have had no means of apprehending it as such.  It would have made no sense, for example, to put an apologetic against evolution into Genesis,  because until the 1860s, no one had ever conceived of the notion. Likewise, to rail against the evils of slavery would not have made sense to the original audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What was the status Quo on Slavery?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary puts it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;People could become slaves in several ways. The poor who were unable to pay their debts could offer themselves as slaves (Ex. 21:2–6; Neh. 5:1–5). A thief who could not repay what he had stolen could also be sold as a slave. Children born of slave parents became “house-born slaves” (Gen. 15:3; 17:12–13). Sometimes children would be taken as slaves in payment for debts (2 Kin. 4:1–7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What did the Bible teach?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, when Scripture is compared to prevailing attitudes, Scripture is remarkably anti-Slavery in comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The laws concerning the treatment of slaves were remarkably liberal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a.  Israel was instructed by the law not to rule over a fellow Israelite harshly (Lev. 25:39; Deut. 15:14). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;b. If a master beat a slave or harmed him, the law provided that the slave could go free (Ex. 21:26–27); and the killing of a slave called for a penalty (Ex. 21:20).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;c. Slaves were allowed to secure their freedom. Under the law, no Hebrew was to be the permanent slave of another Hebrew. After six years of service, a slave was to be released (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;d. In the Year of JUBILEE, no matter how long a slave had served, he was to be released (Lev. 25:37–43). If a slave desired to continue with his master, he would have a mark made in the ear; this mark would signify that he had chosen to remain a slave (Ex. 21:5–6). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;e.A slave could also buy his freedom, or another person could buy his freedom for him (Lev. 25:47–49).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N.B. In fairness, there is no evidence that the Hebrews ever actually did the Jubilee, but it is instructive that the concept was embedded both in the Law and the Prophets. Additionally, the fact that it was never practiced shows how radically out of step with the time it was.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The prophets are remarkably on the side of the slave and against the master.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bible contains warnings about the practice of slavery. The prophet Amos spoke woe to Gaza and Tyre for their practices of slave-trading entire populations (Amos 1:6–9). The Book of Revelation declares that disaster awaits those who sell slaves (Rev.18:13). ...  Paul appealed to Philemon to receive back Onesimus, a runaway slave who was now a Christian and therefore a brother (Philem. 1:16). Elsewhere Paul counseled believing slaves to seek freedom if they could (1 Cor. 7:21). Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains no direct call to abolish slavery. But the implications of the gospel, especially the ethic of love, stand in opposition to slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Paul is as clear as you can get that there should be no difference between slave and free:&#xA;Galatians 3:28 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Good News of the Kingdom of God in Isaiah is that Jubilee (Lev 25:37) would actually come about. Mary is also equally clear that she thinks the tables are going to be turned, and the &quot;oppressed&quot; would be free.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What was actual practice?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not going sugar-coat Christian history. Whites treated Blacks horrendously.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ame-church.com/about-us/history.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;AME Church&lt;/a&gt; was founded by a black minister who was savagely beaten at the altar of St. George's Church. Slave masters often tried to stress the value of obedience amongst slaves.  Theological cases (like Ham in Genesis 10) were often made to to try to say that the white man was superior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But interestingly, it was still within the church that opposition to slavery was at its greatest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Wilberforce&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Newton&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Newton&lt;/a&gt; are widely credited with the abolition of slavery in Great Britain, and the ban in 1808 on the trading of slaves. Both unashamedly said their opposition to slavery was born out of their understanding of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Quakers were remarkably opposed to the subjugation of people - their refusal to simply take land from the Indians to their united opposition to slavery was a constant force in the abolitionist movement.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Christian_Leadership_Conference&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Southern Christian Leadership Conference&lt;/a&gt; to even the Reverend Jesse Jackson - most of the stalwarts of the Civil Rights movement were leaders in the Christian Church.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What did the rest of the world believe?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hinduism explicitly teaches that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_%28Hinduism%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;you should remain in your caste&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Buddhism explicitly teaches that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;if you are a slave it is because you deserve It&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Islam explicitly teaches that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/016-qmt.php#016.071&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;masters are better people than their slaves&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While slavery was practiced worldwide, the Christian church was the first to react heavily against it. It was the Christian church that first abolished and then &quot;forced&quot; that view on many of what I freely admit were its subjugated colonies.  Still, the point is this - it is not natural to set your property free.  It takes something engrained in a society to make it change, a &quot;religion&quot; of freedom, and Christianity seems that most likely force.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-07-10T18:59:31.023" LastActivityDate="2014-07-10T18:59:31.023" CommentCount="27" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4159" CreationDate="2012-02-17T19:51:28.973" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the account of Jacob's wrestling match, he wrestled a mortal man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 32:24 - And he is being left, Jacob, to be alone.  And he is wrestling with a man (Hb. אֱנוֹשׁ &quot;&lt;i&gt;enosh&lt;/i&gt;&quot;) until the ascent of the dawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jacob prevails, he asks the man for a blessing, and this is what he is given:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 32:28 - Not Jacob shall be said further the name of you, but rather Israel, that you are upright with Elohim and with mortals (&lt;i&gt;anashim&lt;/i&gt;), and you are prevailing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word for &quot;man&quot; from 32:24 is related to the Hebrew word אָנַשׁ (&lt;i&gt;'anash&lt;/i&gt;) meaning mortal.  This implies that the word used in 32:24 refers to a mortal.  The word used in 32:28 is the plural of this root word, &lt;i&gt;anashim&lt;/i&gt; or &quot;mortals.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wrestling match is referred to later, in Hosea:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hosea 12:3-4 - ... [Jacob] was upright with Elohim, and he is controlling to messenger, and he is prevailing ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The view of Hosea seems to be that the man in Gen 32:24 is a messenger (angel) of Elohim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now let's look at a different encounter with God, that between Ezekiel and Elohim:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 1:1 - ... they are opened, the heavens, and I am seeing appearances of Elohim.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Ezekiel 1:4 - And I am seeing and beholding wind of tempest coming from the North, cloud great and fire taking itself, and brightness to him round about, and from the midst of her, as sparkle of the amber from midst of fire.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Ezekiel 1:5 - And from midst of her, likeness of four animals.  And the appearance of them, resembling of human (אָדָ֖ם &quot;&lt;i&gt;Adam&lt;/i&gt;&quot;) they.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The descriptions in Ezekiel go on for quite a bit and are themselves very interesting, but already we can understand that Elohim travels with angel heralds who appear like men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that Elohim sent a messenger, in the appearance of a man, to wrestle with Jacob.  That would also explain why the messenger, upon blessing Jacob, first has to inquire as to what Jacob's name is.  (Gen 32:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jacob, however, might not have realized that he encountered a messenger rather than God himself.  It's plausible that the appearance of the messenger was so supernatural as to be the most amazing thing Jacob had ever seen.  This may explain Jacob's statements, which otherwise are incongruous with the story as it is given to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1324" LastActivityDate="2012-02-17T19:51:28.973" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2238" CreationDate="2012-02-17T22:27:37.487" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might not be a contradiction.  John 3:22 doesn't say who Jesus baptized at that time.  It might mean that he baptized his disciples at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also might consider that possibility that Jesus performed baptisms at first, until the number of people arriving for baptism became so great that he was required to delegate the baptism to his disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1324" LastActivityDate="2012-02-17T22:27:37.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6134" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6150" CreationDate="2012-02-19T04:10:33.070" Score="4" ViewCount="564" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife and I were discussing the central role that congregational singing of hymns takes in Western churches, when it dawned on me that I don't real have a good understanding what its like outside of Roman Catholic and Western Protestant circles. I realized I just assumed everybody sang &quot;Amazing Grace,&quot; &quot;Tis So Sweet To Trust In Jesus,&quot; &quot;Are you washed in the Blood,&quot; and all those &quot;traditional Baptist hymns&quot; I think about.  That's not something I could back up, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a Baptist service, for instance, there will be several hymns (and usually one of them has to mention &quot;the blood of Jesus&quot;), that will generally precede the sermon, and almost always a &quot;decision hymn&quot; after the sermon and during the altar call, which the preacher typically uses to drive home the point of the message, and provide time for reflection. Often the theology of the hymns plays a fairly significant role in shaping the theology that parishioners really carry throughout the week&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In an Episcopalian one, there are hymns sung during communion, but because the sermon itself comes so early in the order of worship, the songs with the richest theology tend to be the parts of the mass that are sung every week - the Sanctus, the Doxology, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm curious to get an understanding of those churches I'm least familiar with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;LDS&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eastern Orthodox (totally different league)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;and just a non-Western perspective altogether. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Anybody outside the US - I really want to know - when do you sing hymns, and what types do you sing?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, what is the role of congregationally sung music - is it used to drive home theological points, used primarily in ritual, or is it not present, in the denominations listed above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please feel free to characterize what role congregational singing takes in your churches, and what the purpose of these songs is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T08:14:47.023" Title="What role does hymnody play in non-Western churches?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-10-07T19:28:23.280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6135" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6137" CreationDate="2012-02-19T04:25:37.420" Score="14" ViewCount="2455" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following definition of a humanist was given by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/feb/02/card-carrying-catholic&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Andrew Copson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a humanist I try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the last point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical.  When Jesus says, &amp;quot;I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly,&amp;quot; it seems really, really close to this.  (Admittedly, the implication of &amp;quot;this one life&amp;quot; is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-13T20:48:12.447" Title="Is it possible to be both a humanist and a Christian?" Tags="&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-02-20T19:14:09.097" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6135" CreationDate="2012-02-19T09:42:47.527" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the question directly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important point in the 4th item is &quot;this &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; life&quot;: meaning - we shouldn't be looking to some reward/punishment in some promised afterlife (or: staus in reincarnation, for some religions) to justify or rationalise our actions in &lt;strong&gt;this&lt;/strong&gt; life. Rather, we should do things &lt;em&gt;because they are reasonable/ethical things to do&lt;/em&gt;, and because we enjoy them in this life. Essentially &quot;No, Mr. Pascal, we do not agree with your conclusion to your wager/gambit&quot;. A brilliant example of this is the archbishop of Canterbury, 1965:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a nuclear war would involve nothing more than the transition of many millions of people into the love of God, only a few years before they were going to find it anyway&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the Humanist this is abhorrent. The destruction of everything is not to be celebrated, and no effort should be spared in denying such a horrific end from occurring. Sadly there genuinely are people (of all religions) who actively seek to bring about their own traditional &quot;end of days&quot; scenario. I've seen enough people, even here, excited by &quot;won't it be great&quot; and &quot;isn't it good that it will be soon&quot; to be very concerned about that eagerness spilling over into... &lt;em&gt;manufacted&lt;/em&gt; world death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third is tricky - this may also include those who practice things that your beliefs don't agree with. Now, many Christians are great with this. But sadly many others aren't (I could point to things like Westboro Baptist Church). I don't believe for one moment that this is a single brush to tar all with: but - it is real and exists all too commonly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(rephrased) Another issue with human value is the slightly thorny issue of &quot;total depravity&quot;, which might be expressed that people are universally wicked, and that only by following the stated path (&lt;em&gt;which&lt;/em&gt; path. &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; varies between sections) can people earn redemption. Whether this is faith/acts/both/etc I won't ponder; however, this conflicts with the Humanist position of emphasing first the value and worth of all. The positive, rather than the negative. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flimzy notes the flaw in the second; putting God at the centre vs putting humanity at the centre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first comes down to how you interpret &quot;rational&quot;. In the context used, it is meaning &quot;non-supernatural&quot;. This isn't me saying &quot;all YEC are idiots!&quot; (which I have been accused of implying before): it is simply saying that - given something we don't yet know, assuming a supernatural origin is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; the rational (meaning: based on scientific-method, deductive logic, etc) / natural thing to do. You are, of course, welcome to do so, and many have looked at ways to satisfy themselves that this is reasonable. I would argue that &lt;strong&gt;in the context used&lt;/strong&gt;, supernatural beliefs (without evidence etc) are the opposite of the way that line means &quot;rational&quot;. I think this is neatly summarised by I tweet I once saw: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear Religion, Pics or it didn't happen. Love, Science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, a big point here is the &quot;h&quot;. If you mean small-h humanism, then yes: there are various Christian humanist movements. If you mean, as I was referring to, big-H Humanism, then that is referring to &lt;strong&gt;secular&lt;/strong&gt; Humanism, which explicitly does not give any special meaning to religious beliefs. In particular, it (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism&quot;&gt;wiki&lt;/a&gt;) applies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I honestly haven't ever considered whether one can be Humanist and Christian at the same time; I don't really think so; Humanism respects the &lt;em&gt;believer&lt;/em&gt; and fully defends the &lt;em&gt;right to believe&lt;/em&gt; - but doesn't give credence to the supernatural beliefs themselves. Which is typically exactly how Christianity feels about &lt;em&gt;virtually every other belief&lt;/em&gt;, so we're not in hugely different places there (I say &quot;virtually&quot;, because it gets a bit wooly re Islam and Judaesm and the OT).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the bigger issue is: how do you look to find explanations for the unknown? If you look the the Bible (creation, Noah, Babel, resurrected messiah, etc) then that is fundamentally at odds with Humansim, which looks strictly to ... er... (picks words carefully) &quot;research that looks only to strongly verifiable evidence&quot; rather than &quot;tenacious tales, of uncertain, unverifiable, faith-based, belief&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said: one could well be a Christian who is pro-secular in terms of public policy (and in fact, a MORI survey in the UK indeed showed that the majority of UK citizens who identified as Christian feel this way - of course, it also showed that the majority of the same set of self-identified Christians were actually non-religious cultural Christians).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Re compatibility: if your decision making doesn't make (emph) &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; (/emph) consideration of your religious beliefs, then I would propose you aren't actively applying Christianity in your daily life. In many ways Christianity is pretty easy-going in terms of daily life (contrast the strictness of Judaism or Islam, for example) - so this distinction is quite subtle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should also emphasise that that list is not &quot;mine&quot; - it is, as I believe I mentioned at the time. I'm sure the actual list is searchable - IIRC it was a response to a Christian membership-card. What I think the list &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; show is that Humanism does focus on ethics, fairness/equality, and the value of the person. This is not unreasonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the acid test is simple (the following is mine - quoted only for emphasis):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your chosen supernatural-inspired religious text states (without reasons), categorically, clearly and without room for confusion, that activity X is Wrong with a big W. do you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;accept this, and actively seek out to undo all X&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;accept this, and not participate in X&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;accept this, but (if you happen to like X) do X anyway, knowing that it conflicts, but that &quot;in balance&quot; you're OK; maybe feel a bit guilty and embarrassed, secretive, maybe depressed, as a result; alternatively and equally - deny yourself X and feel repressed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;ignore this, and participate, or not (as you choose) in X, since the text is of no importance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;ignoring the supernatural aspect, look to understand X, and where this may have come from; is there an underlying reason that avoiding X benefits society? Or perhaps benefited society &lt;strong&gt;at that time&lt;/strong&gt;? Is this a hangover of an early culture, with the culture biases of the time? Is there a valid and fair reason to deny X &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt; (again, supernatural aside)? If we assume human origin, was there perhaps political/personal gain behind this law? (Important:) If there is no logical argument to deny X, then actively seek to challenge those that enforce X on purely supernatural grounds, even when X has (by history) been absorbed into law (human law can, after all, be changed - it takes time, though)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first three would seem to be compatible with Christianity (orthodox to liberal, in order); the fourth seems rather hedonistic on the surface; the fifth is the Humanist position. It certainly doesn't use &quot;God&quot; as a definition of morality (or, if you prefer, &quot;ethics&quot; - although it is primarily religion that distinguishes the two terms).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-20T04:38:55.937" LastActivityDate="2012-02-20T04:38:55.937" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6135" CreationDate="2012-02-19T10:02:10.010" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the incompatibility between the two philosophies is obvious from their names:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Human&lt;/em&gt;-ism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christ&lt;/em&gt;-ianity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each tells us right in its name the value it considers most central and important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, looking at the list, I think there is enough common ground for someone to be a Christian Humanist (just as some claim to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian Pacifists&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_hedonism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian Hedonists&lt;/a&gt;).  A Christian would insist that Christ is central and of ultimate importance, but still hold the Humanist values with minor modifications:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian humanist I try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare second only to loving God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, I'd certainly want to expand and clarify these points, but only the second (on ethics) requires a change to shift the center from humanity to God.  As a practical matter, Jesus calls us to love him by loving each other:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’—Matthew 25:34-40 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+25/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; suggests:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian humanism may have begun as early as the 2nd century, with the writings of St. Justin Martyr, an early theologian-apologist of the early Christian Church. While far from radical, Justin suggested a value in the achievements of Classical culture in his &lt;em&gt;Apology&lt;/em&gt;.  Influential letters by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa confirmed the commitment to using pre-Christian knowledge, particularly as it touched the material world. Already the formal aspects of Greek philosophy, namely syllogistic reasoning, arose in both the Byzantine Empire and Western European circles in the eleventh century to inform the process of theology. However, the Byzantine hierarchy during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) convicted several thinkers of applying &amp;quot;human&amp;quot; logic to &amp;quot;divine&amp;quot; matters. Peter Abelard's work encountered similar ecclesiastical resistance in the West in the same period. Petrarch (1304–1374) is also considered a father of humanism. The traditional teaching that humans are made in the image of God, or in Latin the &lt;em&gt;Imago Dei&lt;/em&gt;, also supports individual worth and personal dignity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there is some reason to say that the two views are not entirely incompatible, but not in a state of peace either.  Christian thinkers have long struggled with the integration of their faith with the society at large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-19T10:02:10.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6135" CreationDate="2012-02-19T16:24:02.580" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just as a note (and I, personally, find it the most problematic of the humanist position), but this quote cannot, in any way, be reconciled with Christian thought:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To be ethical, acting in a way that puts &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;human welfare at the centre of morality&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, human welfare &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be at the center of your morality. The first and greatest commandment, the ground of the Christian's morality, is, instead, the love of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-06-13T20:48:12.447" LastActivityDate="2012-06-13T20:48:12.447" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6140" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-20T00:42:08.770" Score="9" ViewCount="3109" Body="&lt;p&gt;The soul, the immaterial “breath of life”, was originally thought (I believe) to be where most of our thoughts, feelings, and personality originate. However, a lot of the functions of the brain, like cognitive thoughts, aggressiveness, generosity, attribution of your actions as being self initiated, and happiness have been shown to either have a biological basis or correlates. A lot of these functions overlap with what I would have attributed with being the immaterial soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I would have thought that trust would be something that would originate in the soul, however, oxytocin can make someone more trusting. It also seems to play an important part of maternal love and long-term relationships. Morality is also attributed to the soul, but alcohol can inhibit moral actions. I don’t see how alcohol can make it more difficult to be moral, unless there is some biological component of being moral. Perhaps, only the conscience is a part of the soul, but acting on the conscience is either a function of the physical brain or a close collaboration between the soul and the physical brain? Also, attributing an action (such as your hand moving) as being self-initiated versus involuntarily initiated (such as uncontrolled shaking of the hand) seems to rely on subcortical areas and people with schizophrenia (presumably a biological disorder) are unable to correctly attribute their actions to themselves. I would have thought that the soul be able to distinguish actions that it initiated? Or does the soul even responsible for initiating conscious actions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are there Christian scholars who propose ideas of the different roles that our biological brain and souls play and how do they interact?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note 1:&lt;/strong&gt; This question may challenge your preconceived notions of the soul, but it does not challenge the idea that there might be an immaterial soul. I’m just curious about details of such conjectures; detailed to the extent that they might form testable hypotheses. Some of which will inevitably be wrong, there is nothing wrong with this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note 2:&lt;/strong&gt; While the soul may be immaterial, if it affects the biological brain, then it is at least theoretically possible to study it with science. For example, gravity still remains a black box to us. There are hypotheses (such as the graviton), but we don’t really know. But this has not prevented us from studying the effects of gravity and learning a lot from it. Likewise, behaviorists treated organisms as a black box, but that didn’t prevent them from making a lot of discoveries about learning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1331" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T15:05:58.953" LastActivityDate="2015-08-05T15:05:58.953" Title="What are modern Christian views of the soul?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;souls&gt;&lt;conscience&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="11" ClosedDate="2017-01-08T01:37:06.360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6129" CreationDate="2012-02-20T14:08:44.370" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hilaire Belloc enlightened me to the meaning of pre-christian slavery in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archive.org/stream/servilestate00belluoft/servilestate00belluoft_djvu.txt&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Servile State&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was no question in those ancient societies from which we spring of making subject races into slaves by the might of conquering races. All that is the guess-work of the universities. Not only is there no proof of it, rather all the existing proof is the other way. The Greek had a Greek slave, the Latin a Latin slave, the German a German slave, the Celt a Celtic slave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theory that &amp;quot;superior races&amp;quot; invaded a land, either drove out the original inhabitants or re-duced them to slavery, is one which has no argument either from our present knowledge of man's mind or from recorded evidence. Indeed, the most striking&#xA;feature of that Servile Basis upon which Paganism reposed was the human equality recognised between master and slave. The master might kill the slave, but both were of one race and each was human to the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might say, well that's well and good, but that's pre-christian slavery.  What about Christian slavery?  Well, 1.) that's a misnomer and 2.) the dark ages were a slow process of forgetting slavery through private or collective ownership by the people.  It may not have been the intended effect, but the crusades did more to free English serfs (who by that time were technically free from slavery, but tied to the land which they did not own) than any other movement of the last 2000 years.  And if you can't call the Crusades a product of Christianity, I'm not sure what you can call a product of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the Crusades, a noble would have to finance his journey to the Holy Land by granting large tracts of land to the serfs whom he previously lorded over.  Sometimes, in exchange for not granting these tracts of land, they'd just ask for more freedoms for the serfs&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's all tangential to the point in the question, but I mention it to draw the distinction between what effect the Gospel message had on slavery.  People became willing to sell all they had (slaves, land and other possessions) just to do what they thought was God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/phm001.htm#vrs8&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philemon for instance&lt;/a&gt;, is a tacit acceptance of slavery as it was.  Part of the epistle is read at Mass once every 3 years and it is almost always followed by a homily about race relations, civil rights, etc...  What should be carried away is that in Christ we're all brothers and sisters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the point is, if Jesus doesn't call us slaves, he calls us friends. And in ancient times, slavery wasn't about a master race enslaving all the poor races of the world (even Saul/Paul was granted the rights as a Roman citizen as a Jew).  Slaves are those individuals who are bound to their master, there is no slave race bound to a master race.  Being a servant or a slave, to &lt;a href=&quot;http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark9.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/1/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Paul&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/jude/1:1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jude&lt;/a&gt;, was a very, very good thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1. I known I'm going to get beat down by an Englishman for pretending to know anything about medieval England, so I'll just say this is my synthesis of Belloc and Chesterton's histories and if you haven't read them then you can't really call yourself an Englishman anymore than I can!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-20T14:08:44.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6142" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6143" CreationDate="2012-02-20T14:41:11.147" Score="9" ViewCount="1126" Body="&lt;p&gt;The comments to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6139/325&quot;&gt;this response&lt;/a&gt; suggest that there is such a thing as a Christian who does not believe in God. To me, that is rather contradictory, sort of like social networking without all of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how does it work? &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the major authors? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do they have a denomination?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any statistics related to them? (How many, location mostly)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2021-01-04T23:25:06.030" Title="What is a &quot;non-theistic&quot; Christian?" Tags="&lt;atheism&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6142" CreationDate="2012-02-20T14:59:52.720" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, define a Christian ;p It actually isn't as simple as you'd think - for example, consider the definition this site uses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As far as the scope of this site is concerned, any group that identifies themselves as Christian are to be considered on-topic and allowed to label themselves Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You would perhaps need to ask the author, but &quot;cultural Christians&quot; may be one answer; for example, the recent results of a UK MORI (i.e. well-respected/independent survey) of &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; people &lt;strong&gt;who self-identified as Christian&lt;/strong&gt; showed that 65% are actually non-religious cultural Christians, i.e. identify as Christian for reasons such as &quot;was Christened as a child&quot;, &quot;parents are Christian&quot;, etc. Likewise, only 10% used religion as a primary tool in morality issues. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/985&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summary document&lt;/a&gt; - but emphasis: while the survey was commissioned by the Dawkins Foundation, the survery was conducted independently paying scrupulous attention to the actual questions to ensure the questions weren't leading, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't know whether this relates to the thoughts of the answer you are thinking of, but that number is pretty telling, particularly when interpreting geographic religion statistics - i.e. how people &lt;em&gt;identify&lt;/em&gt; might not actually relate much to their &lt;em&gt;religious beliefs&lt;/em&gt;, but more to their historic/cultural identity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-20T17:19:03.083" LastActivityDate="2012-02-20T17:19:03.083" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6145" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-20T15:23:22.410" Score="7" ViewCount="1403" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not counting Martin Luther, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/347/4&quot;&gt;who appears to have believed in the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary&lt;/a&gt;, what do other Protestants think is the source and reason for Catholic adherence to the notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a virgin before giving birth, after giving birth and until the end of her earthly life? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My assumption, as a Catholic, is that once the reformation took off, and people were interpreting the Bible for themselves, that they looked at the brothers and sisters of Christ mentioned in Mark and threw out the doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They probably thought that it leads to &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;worshiping Mary.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;is an extra burden put on them by the Church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;is borne out of ignorance of scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;is a made up tradition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But all these are my assumptions, what are the protestant assumptions about the source and reason for the existence of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (the one that they absolutely do not adhere to).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By perpetual virginity, I mean mainly that she remained a virgin during and after giving birth to Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer is purely biblically based is should at least acknowledge the fact that pre-reformation Christians were capable of reading and interpreting scripture.  I'd like to know what the reformers used as their arguments that most Protestants just take for granted nowadays. Unless, of course, they seriously weren't all that interested in convincing anyone who was not ignorant of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="35009" LastEditDate="2018-05-05T01:58:06.697" LastActivityDate="2018-05-05T01:58:06.697" Title="What do Protestants say was the source for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6145" CreationDate="2012-02-20T17:15:48.010" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the defining tenets of Protestant Christianity is &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt;--that the Scriptures are the fundamental basis for all doctrine.  This is in contrast to extra-biblical teachings.  The idea is that if it were important enough for us to know, God would have told us in the Scriptures themselves and not have us rely on extra-biblical teachings.  Protestants see the potential for great danger when there is reliance on the teaching of men rather than on the unchanging Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question specifically, Protestants generally believe that this was a teaching that was introduced by the Catholic church centuries after the life of Jesus.  There is no apostolic authority behind it, as it appears nowhere in Scripture.  All we are told is that Mary was a virgin at Jesus' conception and remained so &lt;strong&gt;until His birth&lt;/strong&gt;, as @ryanOptini also noted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angle of the Lord&#xA;  had bidden him, and took unto him his wife, &lt;strong&gt;and knew her not till she had brought forth &#xA;  her firstborn son:&lt;/strong&gt; and he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that Mary remained a virgin &lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; the birth of Christ.  This would certainly have been noteworthy, since it would not have been a normal thing for a married woman (and man, for that matter) to &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have a consummated marriage and experience the normal and sacred aspects of marriage.  Yet, the best biblical support is quite vague at best.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also problematic to Protestants as to why it would have been necessary for Mary to remain a virgin--and for Joseph to remain celibate towards her as her husband.  Why is this level of intimacy denied both Mary and Joseph and what could possibly be wrong with it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it may have been the Mary began to be held up as a female example for women to follow.  Men could look to Jesus Himself or any of the apostles to see a male example to follow.  So, perhaps it was well-intentioned.  God found favor with Mary, much like He had done with Noah in the Old Testament.  Her virginity as an unmarried woman is commendable as well.  And perhaps over time, Mary's virginity was turned into eternal virginity to really set her apart and give her even more honor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, it may have been well-intentioned, but Protestants generally believe it was a teaching introduced by the Catholic church long after the apostles were gone.  So, the teaching lacks apostolic authority as well as biblical support, which is extremely important if something so unexpected is to be believed and held as such an important doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-20T17:15:48.010" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1682" CreationDate="2012-02-20T20:34:48.653" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The U.P. isn't a law about what can and can't be measured; it's a principle about what properties a particle actually has.  A particle DOESN'T HAVE a precise position and a precise momentum at the same time.  A particle DOESN'T HAVE an exact amount of energy at an exact time.  The notion that a particle might have a precise position is a misconception, due to humans attempting to apply macroscopic concepts to microscopic entities.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, when speaking about the position, or momentum, or energy of a very small particle, there's nothing for an omniscient being to know.  It's like asking whether God knows the colour of unicorns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1334" LastActivityDate="2012-02-20T20:34:48.653" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6149" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6151" CreationDate="2012-02-20T23:06:49.220" Score="27" ViewCount="15661" Body="&lt;p&gt;The closest in tone to sarcasm, though somewhat different, that I am aware of is John 1:45-46&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Philip found Nathanael and said to him, &quot;We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote -- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Nathaniel said to him, &quot;Can anything good come out of Nazareth?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that is not really sarcasm. Are there any examples?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1336" LastActivityDate="2018-11-12T09:44:14.027" Title="Are there any examples of sarcasm in the bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2016-12-19T15:48:02.817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6134" CreationDate="2012-02-20T23:12:38.087" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;DISCLAIMER:&lt;/strong&gt; I am from the USA, but I happen to live in a part of the country that has over 20 Eastern Orthodox churches in a close radius, representing numerous nationalities and distinct ethnic expressions of the faith (for instance, we have multiple Romanian, Serbian and Greek Orthodox churches, and we also have Macedonian, Serbian, Ethiopian, Coptic (Egyptian), and American Orthodox churches).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eastern Orthodox typically have chanting and sung liturgy, and also choirs - usually a capella but sometimes including simple instruments or a &quot;church bell.&quot; You must understand that EVERYTHING centers on the Divine Liturgy in Orthodox worship. It is &quot;the work of the people.&quot; The traditional expression concerning Orthodox liturgy is &quot;Always everyone, always together.&quot; The &lt;a href=&quot;http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/the-divine-liturgy&quot;&gt;OCA website&lt;/a&gt; says it well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Divine Liturgy is the common action of Orthodox Christians officially gathered to constitute the Orthodox Church. It is the action of the Church assembled by God in order to be together in one community to worship, to pray, to sing, to hear God’s Word, to be instructed in God’s commandments, to offer itself with thanksgiving in Christ to God the Father, and to have the living experience of God’s eternal kingdom through communion with the same Christ Who is present in his people by the Holy Spirit....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because the Divine Liturgy exists for no other reason than to be the official all-inclusive act of prayer, worship, teaching, and communion of the entire Church in heaven and on earth, it may not be considered merely as one devotion among many, not even the highest or the greatest. The Divine Liturgy is not an act of personal piety. It is not a prayer service. It is not merely one of the sacraments. The Divine Liturgy is the one common sacrament of the very being of the Church Itself. It is the one sacramental manifestation of the essence of the Church as the Community of God in heaven and on earth. It is the one unique sacramental revelation of the Church as the mystical Body and Bride of Christ.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to understand this, because they do not have a &quot;disconnected&quot; view of worship. In other words, they do not view worship as a conglomeration of singing, reading, etc. It is all one Divine Liturgy. Worship is a &lt;em&gt;participatory experience&lt;/em&gt; for all Orthodox Christians gathered. Orthodox tend to view Protestant worship as being a show; something that professional worshippers perform as a service for the people. This runs counter to Orthodox theology, where Divine Liturgy is the common work of the people &quot;on behalf of all and for all.&quot; You must also understand that the building carries much significance (oblation and altar tables, icon screen, etc.) and this all ties into Orthodox theology. It seems that Protestant worship is disconnected from its theology. It is acceptable to sing songs with little theological content and preach on any chosen topic. Orthodox follow the Church calendar which prescribes what readings from scripture will occur and many aspects of liturgy will tie in to this &quot;theme&quot; or focus for each gathering. Everything in the service is united, and the Church calendar is designed to teach the entire Christian Orthodox faith to participants over time and then reinforce it. It globally unites Orthodox believers because they can go to a different Orthodox church across the world and they will pick up where they left off. I know that in many Protestant churches, even if you go to the same &quot;denomination&quot; down the street it may be a different message and scripture verse being taught. In Orthodox Christianity this is not so - thus the churches are truly united in belief and practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The living experience of the Christian sacramental and liturgical life is a primary source of Christian doctrine. In the liturgy of the Church, the Bible and the Holy Tradition come alive and are given to the living experience of the Christian people. Thus, through prayer and sacramental worship men are “taught by God” as it was predicted for the messianic age (Jn 6:45).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In addition to the living experience of the liturgy, the texts of the services and sacraments provide a written source of doctrine in that they may be studied and contemplated by one who desires an understanding of Christian teachings. According to the common opinion of the Orthodox Church, the sacramental and liturgical texts—the hymns, blessings, prayers, symbols, and rituals—contain no formal errors or deformations of the Christian faith and can be trusted absolutely to reveal the genuine doctrine of the Orthodox Church.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/sources-of-christian-doctrine/the-liturgy&quot;&gt;OCA&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning style, here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymn&quot;&gt;a source&lt;/a&gt; that says it well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Eastern Christianity (the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches) have a very rich and ancient hymnographical tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Eastern chant is almost always a cappella, and instrumental accompaniment is rare. The central form of chant in the Eastern Orthodoxy is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Chant&quot;&gt;Byzantine Chant&lt;/a&gt;, which is used to chant all forms of liturgical worship. Exceptions include the Coptic Orthodox tradition which makes use of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistrum&quot;&gt;sistrum&lt;/a&gt;, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which also uses drums, cymbals and other instruments on certain occasions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox Church has been reevaluating the role of music in worship as of late. One source says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Russian Orthodox church music has its particularly unique development. Byzantine music remains basically monophonic (single-line unison singing). But part-singing appeared in Lvov and began to spread in Southern Russia and the Ukraine as early as the 15th Century. From this we can trace early experiments with harmonization, and in the 17th Century the influence of the Kievan schools of harmony on Moscow. Choirs of sorts began to be schooled in the Imperial Court, although they sang in small groups and were made up of male singers only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was Peter the Great in the 18th Century who gave rise to the Imperial Chapel Choir. The movement to introduce Western European harmonization and the chorale style spread very quickly, initiating the new period of concert-like choir singing. Bortniansky, under the patronage of Catherine the Great, still remains the best example of the composer-conductors and their church choirs of the choral tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By the beginning of the 20th Century there was already a great interest among Church musicians to return to the traditional roots of the canonical chant systems. Kastalsky particularly stands out among them. While choral compositions and choir singing remain popular to this day, among serious students of Church music more and more is sacred singing looked upon as a discipline of liturgical theology rather than simply as a musical art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is particularly so in America, as we accept the responsibility for an Orthodox inculturation of a new land, a new language and a new people. As we attempt to find our own style in response to new needs and situations (especially those of the small missions), above all we seek to be anchored to the great Tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This great Tradition, however, insists neither on a rigid formalism nor a return to a hypothetically more primitive practice. There is room in Orthodox culture for both choir singing and congregational participation, for ancient chants and familiar harmonized works, as well as perhaps for new adaptations based on the timbre of the English language, developed from the local materials of our own particular time and place. All of this is possible so long as none of it contradicts our ecclesial identity as the Orthodox Church.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq1U5tDsM0c&quot;&gt;a video&lt;/a&gt; showing some 4th-century-style Orthodox worship in Africa. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq1U5tDsM0c&quot;&gt;The video&lt;/a&gt; features the koboro drum and the sistrum. Here is &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHCSd7Zdb3w&amp;amp;feature=related&quot;&gt;another video&lt;/a&gt; with some chanting/singing like you might hear in an Orthodox church. The Russians have some beautiful chanting as well, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gPz8dFmZrk&amp;amp;feature=related&quot;&gt;listen here&lt;/a&gt;. It is heavenly. It should also be noted that Orthodox incorporates all the senses, not just hearing and seeing, but also smell, touch, and taste.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I quoted a lot of sources, but I felt they said things better than I could. I know the original question was related to hymnody, but I wanted to make it clear that hymnody is merely a part of the Divine Liturgy in Eastern Orthodox understanding - it is not a separate discipline but an integrated part of the whole. It is difficult to fully answer this question without first discussing &lt;a href=&quot;http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship&quot;&gt;all aspects of Worship in the Orthodox faith&lt;/a&gt; (of which Divine Liturgy is only one). The hymns tie into the greater Liturgy and worship experience, which are informed by Holy Tradition and centered on Christ, Who is our Song.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2012-02-20T23:17:53.790" LastActivityDate="2012-02-20T23:17:53.790" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6149" CreationDate="2012-02-20T23:57:49.600" Score="45" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first instance of sarcasm that jumps into my mind is 1 Kings 18:27, where Elijah is taunting the prophets of Baal because their sacrifice is not burning up (they were having a sort of contest). The NET renders the verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;At noon Elijah mocked them, 'Yell louder! After all, he is a god; he may be deep in thought, or perhaps he stepped out for a moment or has taken a trip. Perhaps he is sleeping and needs to be awakened.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some have even speculated that the Hebrew term here translated &quot;deep in thought&quot; may mean &quot;relieving himself,&quot; or that the term translated &quot;stepped out for a moment&quot; implies stepping out in order to relieve oneself. I have not found any scholarly support for this other than a former Hebrew professor of mine mentioning it, but either way, Elijah is being sarcastic about Baal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost the entire book of Amos is satirical, dealing with the social injustices committed by God's people in the northern kingdom of Israel. Job can also be fairly sarcastic in the midst of his suffering, often crossing into cynicism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are a few examples that come to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-20T23:57:49.600" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6149" CreationDate="2012-02-20T23:58:03.530" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard the following two examples of Jesus being sarcastic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Syrophoenician Woman&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[A] woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about [Jesus], and came and fell down at his feet. The woman was a Greek, by race a Phoenician from Syria. And she started asking him to drive the demon out of her daughter. He responded to her like this: &quot;Let the children first be fed, since it isn't good to take bread out of children's mouths and throw it to the dogs! [kynaria]&quot; &#xA;  But as a rejoinder she says to him: &quot;Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!&quot; &#xA;  Then he said to her: &quot;For that retort, be on your way, the demon has come out of your daughter.&quot; She returned home and found the child lying on the bed and the demon gone (Mk. 7:25-30).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this instance, Jesus is calling her a dog, which seems out of character for someone who taught love for all. It has been suggested that Jesus was being sarcastic, melodramatically acting as a Pharisee would. If that hypothesis is correct, then Jesus is sarcastically calling out the Pharisees on their attitude.  Jesus is clearly amused by the woman's response, also witty in character, and chooses to heal her daughter as a result.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees straining out the gnats and eating the camel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You Blind guides! You strain your water so you won't accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 23:24, Jesus is being absurdist and humorous in his remark, but is still making a fairly cutting remark.  May not be sarcasm, but its close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-20T23:58:03.530" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1009" CreationDate="2012-02-21T01:02:05.790" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you restrict libertarian rules to the realm of governing and not personal responsibilities, then these views do not necessarily conflict. Ayn Rand would propose that it is everyone’s personal responsibility to earn what they receive which is hard to reconcile with the view that you should love thy neighbor and the Golden Rule. Sure you can help others too much, but you cannot honestly claim that is harmful in every case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other biblical teachings, can be even more difficult to reconcile with libertarianism applied to personal responsibility:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 12:33&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian libertarian may, however, argue that you should give to charity or stop to help someone with a flat tire, but the Government shouldn’t force anyone to do so. This view is more easily reconciled with biblical teachings, however, even this has some dangers. For example, should parents be able to allow kids to have access to alcohol and drugs, allowing them to become addicted before they learn to make mature choices for themselves? Should the government help people help themselves? Some libertarians would say no, even if pays for itself by helping people to become productive members of society (such as with education). Sure libertarianism has some good points, but ultimately libertarianism should be seen as a tool to achieve some greater purpose and you should not lose sight of what is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1331" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T01:02:05.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4804" CreationDate="2012-02-21T01:23:33.517" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kirk, I just came across this question from way back in December.  Actually, one of the primary points that Kierkegaard was making is that what happens in worship is done for the sake of God (who is the audience). It is a corrective to the idea that worship is entertainment for the congregation or that the pastor/priest is the primary performer.  The primary action of worship is the praise and prayer of the congregation offered to God; the role of the pastor/priest is to support the work of the congregation.  The word &quot;liturgy&quot; is actually in its derivation &quot;the work of the people.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1337" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T01:23:33.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1009" CreationDate="2012-02-21T02:44:12.200" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off I &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1014/4&quot;&gt;think posing Ayn Rand as&lt;/a&gt; &quot;probably the single most influential philosopher in Libertarian thought&quot;, does not reflect reality. As most ideologies go, there are a few flavours to choose from, as is also the case with religions, christianity included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ayn Rand does indeed sell an anti-altruistic world view, but it is worth noting that she draws an distinction between egotism and egoism in the introduction to &quot;The Fountainhead&quot;. Quote: &quot;The difference is that egoism is equal trade in values, while egotism – exactly like altruism – belongs to the realm of disconnection between what a person gives and what he receives.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My interpretation of that book is that it is not a good idea, and even damaging, to forever be giving of yourself when there is no return. No gratitude, no thank you, no appreciation. So nothing bad in being good to other people, but that it is no healthy to give away your self in the process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I see it the golden rule is ever present in most libertarian writings, although there often seems to be an exception when it comes to people who do not follow it when interacting with you. So not so much the turning of the other cheek. And as most psychologists would argue, turning the other cheek and not standing up for yourself is not a good idea, so there might be a point here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Libertarianism being based on rationale, and not dogma, it seems to me as being a real opposite to any religion. But that's not saying there is no morality to it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience around the world, not being an unpleasent person seems to work out quite well everywhere, with people of all faiths, in all cultures, everywhere, and that's really what libertarianism is about. It's not an -ism of you're wrong and I'm right, it's an -ism of you do whatever you think is best, and I'll do the same, and we agree not to bother each other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need help, I'll help you, but not for the sake of feeling good about myself, or because I'm compelled or forced to do it, but for the sake that helping you might be mutually beneficial, whatever your or my faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1338" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T14:54:28.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6140" CreationDate="2012-02-21T08:07:37.187" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is clearly true that chemicals and physical alterations of the brain can affect how we think and feel. So -- assuming we understand the &quot;soul&quot; to be what is or holds a person's thoughts, feelings, and personality -- any theory that says that the soul is completely separate from the physical body can't be right. On the other hand, the theory that our thoughts and feelings can be completely understood in terms of biochemical and electric activity in the brain is not substantiated by evidence, but is an article of faith by materialists. No one CAN completely explain thoughts, etc in biochemical terms. They insist that someday science will advance to the point where we can. Maybe, but &quot;I believe this will someday be proven to be true based on unprovable dogmas that I believe because I find them emotionally satisfying&quot; is a long way from scientific proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People sometimes discuss this as modern science challenging an ancient Bible teaching. But a little thought will show that &quot;modern science&quot; has nothing to do with it. Oh sure, we know a lot more about the chemistry of the brain today then people did at the time the Bible was written. But this doesn't address the fundamental question. People in ancient times were well aware that chemicals and physical damage could affect the personality. The people who wrote the Bible knew that alcohol could affect someone's behavior. They knew that bashing in someone's head could affect his behavior. But they still talked about the soul as something distinct from the body. So it's not a new issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T08:07:37.187" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6145" CreationDate="2012-02-21T09:40:47.483" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;One answer that has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/05/31/perpetual-virginity-mary&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;suggested&lt;/a&gt; is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Infancy Gospel of James&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (AKA &lt;em&gt;The Protoevangelium of James&lt;/em&gt;).  This document dates to roughly the middle of the second century and focuses largely on the person of Mary from her birth to the birth of Jesus.  As the central character, Mary's honor and purity are defended in great detail.  Mary's virginity is repeatedly demonstrated—including when she is six-months pregnant and endures an ordeal by the high priest.  Since she survives drinking poison, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the priest says&lt;/a&gt;, &amp;quot;If the Lord God has not made manifest your sins, neither do I judge you.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most important to our question comes immediately after the miraculous birth of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: &amp;quot;Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee: a virgin has brought forth—a thing which her nature admits not of.&amp;quot; Then said Salome: &amp;quot;As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: &amp;quot;Show thyself; for no small controversy has arisen about thee.&amp;quot; And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: &amp;quot;Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief...&amp;quot;—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Roberts-Donaldson English Translation&lt;/a&gt; (with added punctuation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the midwife and Salome are said to have inspected Mary's hymen immediately after the birth in order to show that Mary was a virgin before &lt;em&gt;and after&lt;/em&gt; the event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here's my speculative sequence of events:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was born from the virgin Mary as described in Luke and Matthew.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sometime later, opponents of Christianity questioned this doctrine.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In response, someone (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xvii.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;no scholars&lt;/a&gt; believe it was written by James the Just) wrote the &lt;em&gt;Infancy Gospel&lt;/em&gt; to defend Mary's honor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even though it was not accepted as canonical, many early Christians accepted the story of Mary's perpetual virginity and even expanded on it.  (The &lt;em&gt;Protoevangelium&lt;/em&gt; does not speak of Mary's life after the birth of Jesus, so it doesn't claim she never had other children.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary became enshrined in tradition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Reformation examined church tradition against scripture, it understandably focused on what it considered most important and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mariology&lt;/a&gt; was not high on the list.  Therefore, the question of whether Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth was not immediately questioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should point out that as far as it goes, perpetual virginity is an innocuous doctrine to the Protestant worldview.  That Christ was born of a virgin is a matter asserted by the earliest Creeds and the gospels themselves, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch if it turned out that Mary &lt;em&gt;remained&lt;/em&gt; a virgin—what's a little more miracle after all?  But Protestants generally agree that perpetual virginity is a) not true and b) part of a larger set of doctrines that misplace the importance of Mary.  That's why we tend to be opposed to the doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you point out, pre-Reformation Christians &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; read scripture.  But they did not have many of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/430/68&quot;&gt;tools of criticism&lt;/a&gt; that were &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/422/68&quot;&gt;developed&lt;/a&gt; at about the same time.  Therefore, the doctrine of perpetual virginity was placed &lt;em&gt;beside&lt;/em&gt; the gospel accounts and the differences were harmonized.  The harmonized interpretation then became part of church's tradition.  When the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; was introduced, the differences were interpreted as denying perpetual virginity, which was therefore dropped.  It's not necessarily even a matter of Protestants being better at interpretation.  Rather, I would say that Protestants are more &lt;em&gt;willing&lt;/em&gt; to be skeptical of tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Protestants venture any theory at all, it is that perpetual virginity defense entered the church's tradition very early on in its history in response to charges that Christ's birth was entirely natural (and even illegitimate).  Understandably, the tradition may have exaggerated the facts at times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-02T21:12:58.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="320" CreationDate="2012-02-21T10:15:31.810" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvin's commentary on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xv.html#ix.xv-p71.1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:25&lt;/a&gt; deserves to be quoted in full (hat-tip to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/320/protestant-arguments-for-perpetual-virginity-of-mary#comment6307_320&quot;&gt;gmoothart&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;25&lt;/code&gt;. &lt;em&gt;And knew her not&lt;/em&gt; This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called &lt;em&gt;first-born&lt;/em&gt;; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph &lt;em&gt;knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son&lt;/em&gt;: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, this suggests that Calvin (and the other Reformers who did not oppose the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity) didn't think the matter, well, mattered.  Later reformers, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6163/914&quot;&gt;I think&lt;/a&gt;, have expressed concerns because of the deeper divide between Protestants and Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T10:15:31.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6149" CreationDate="2012-02-21T12:58:29.547" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;One case could be in 2 Corinthians 12:13.  Paul is writing to the Corinthians and mentions that he hasn't been a burden to them, presumably financially, but has labored among them nonetheless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in what were you less favored than the rest of the churches,&#xA;  except that I myself did not burden you? &lt;strong&gt;Forgive me this wrong&lt;/strong&gt;!  2 Corinthians 12:13 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Forgive me this wrong&quot; definitely seems a bit sarcastic.  &quot;Forgive me for not being a burden to you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another one isn't really sarcasm, but it does strike me as a bit humorous.  It's from the gospel of John, which is held to have been written by John, and He seems to refer to Himself as &quot;the other disciple&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were&#xA;  running, &lt;strong&gt;but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb&#xA;  first.&lt;/strong&gt; 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there&#xA;  but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter, &lt;strong&gt;who was behind him&lt;/strong&gt;, arrived and&#xA;  went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well&#xA;  as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was&#xA;  folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other&#xA;  disciple, &lt;strong&gt;who had reached the tomb first&lt;/strong&gt;, also went inside. He saw and&#xA;  believed. John 20:3-8 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John seems to make sure we understand that he won the race to the tomb!  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-02-21T13:52:24.127" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T13:52:24.127" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6166" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6176" CreationDate="2012-02-21T13:16:04.057" Score="12" ViewCount="3117" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the ancient historian, Mantheo, the fifteenth dynasty of Egypt were a people known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos&quot;&gt;Hyksos&lt;/a&gt;, literally the &quot;rulers of foreign countries&quot; or, as sometimes been translated &quot;the Shepherd Kings.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These Hyksos were the rulers of Egypt roughly 1700 BC, were clearly not Egyptian, and centered in and around Goshen - all facts that line up with the time period and story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%28son_of_Jacob%29&quot;&gt;Joseph&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, scholars do not think this is archeological &quot;proof&quot; of Joseph.  Why is this the case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="14794" LastEditDate="2020-08-04T07:59:54.673" LastActivityDate="2021-05-28T04:01:14.097" Title="Why we do we &quot;know&quot; that Joseph wasn't Hyksos?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6149" CreationDate="2012-02-21T13:28:29.183" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings+22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Kings 22&lt;/a&gt;, Kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat were being counseled by false prophets to go to war against Syria. Jehoshaphat asked that Ahab send for a prophet of the Lord, and he sent for Micaiah. The man who brought him told him of the other prophecies, and suggested that he should say the same. When Micaiah did answer the same way, Ahab admonished Micaiah to tell the truth, and then did not like the answer he got. I believe Micaiah answered in an obviously sarcastic way, or how else would Ahab know he was not giving the true prophecy? Again, just my opinion, but I have long held this view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1339" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-03-01T18:40:45.033" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T18:40:45.033" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6149" CreationDate="2012-02-21T13:46:16.040" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, Paul provides the best example. Here he is, in Galatians, having just given his opinion on circumcision (not necessary for Christians), then giving his opinion on those who insist on it for salvation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:12&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Galatians 5:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, don't stop at the foreskin, get rid of it completely to prove how holy you &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; are. Genius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T13:46:16.040" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6166" CreationDate="2012-02-21T14:49:15.417" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, there are still no records of Joseph himself. From an objective perspective, these Hyksos could only be considered proof of the possibility of Joseph, not of Joseph himself. Yes, there is a record which says that it is quite possible that the stories of Genesis and Exodus represents some sort of mytho-symbolic truth, but that does not mean that the details of the stories are accurate by any means. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have proof of George Washington, we do not have proof of the cherry tree. While it is possible that a cherry tree was chopped down by Washington, there is not definitive proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Washington here as a matter of illustration. I am not stating that Genesis and Exodus are wrong, merely that they do not hold up to what are now considered modern standards of evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-21T15:54:09.500" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T15:54:09.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6172" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6175" CreationDate="2012-02-21T18:50:52.223" Score="6" ViewCount="975" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 6:31 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to&#xA;  plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him&#xA;  shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can&#xA;  defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Kings 18:21 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver&#xA;  between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is&#xA;  God, follow him.” But the people said nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god#anchor6&quot;&gt;found here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The name Ba'al (), apparently as an equivalent for Yhwh, occurs as an&#xA;  element in a number of compound proper names, such as Jerubbaal,&#xA;  Ishbaal, Meribaal, etc. Some of these names, probably at a time when&#xA;  the name of Baal had fallen into disrepute (comp. Hosea ii. 16, 17),&#xA;  seem to have been changed by the substitution of El or Bosheth for&#xA;  Baal (comp. II Sam. ii. 8, iv. 4, v. 16; I Chron. viii. 33, 34; ix.&#xA;  39, 40; xiv. 7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also seen &quot;Baʿal of Tyre&quot;.  So is Ba'al a title or an entity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-22T16:26:06.223" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T16:26:06.223" Title="Who is Ba'al from the Old Testament?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;gods&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1954" CreationDate="2012-02-21T19:18:26.303" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Couldn't the answer simply be:  &quot;God 'snapped his fingers' and there they were.&quot;  Because that is how other non-natural events' origins are often attributed in Christian traditions (e.g., the Red Sea parting, the burning bush, virgin birth...or, well, the creation of the entire universe).  If God is taken to be omnipotent, what is the point of thinking &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; mentioned in the Bible is, in your word, &quot;implausible&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an answer for any implausibility you could find with this story (or any others). Not enough room on the ark?  SNAP!  Sure there is--it's like the TARDIS.  Etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have trouble understanding why, if one believes in the existence of an omnipotent being, one is later stymied by &quot;challenges&quot; he and his followers might face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastEditorUserId="361" LastEditDate="2012-02-21T20:24:05.987" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T20:24:05.987" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6140" CreationDate="2012-02-21T20:26:49.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You ask for a view from Christian scholars, so here's one (not mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &quot;Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny&quot;, Dave Hunt argues that the difference between humans and lower animals is in the brain, but that the brain is just matter, and:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;as we will continue to remind readers, matter cannot think&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(no basis, evidence, qualification, explanation or research is offered for this assertion, note)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, that there is a non-physical intangible element responsible for our thought, distinct from (but related to) the physical matter of the brain, which communicates instantaneously between the the physical universe and the non-evidenced soul existence. This then facilitates eternal existence by outliving physical existence. This non-physical form is then responsible for our thought, emotion, and morality. IIRC, physical/chemical damage is then supposed to interfere with this communication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, in his attempt to play down evolution, a lot of emphasis is placed on the difference between man and &quot;lower animals&quot; (which he repeats many times, to draw a very thick line between humans and anything else), which is problematic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a lot of higher primates are very communicative, and have successfully used things like sign language and similar communication techniques (oddly, not too disimilar to things like Makaton, commonly used by speech-impaired children, at least here in the UK)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a lot of animals show things like reasoning (problem solving, etc) and empathy (the rats infamously releasing their trapped cage-mates, etc); if that isn't &quot;thinking&quot; I'm not sure what is&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, I'm not sold on any significant difference between how human brains work, versus that of any other animals - other than we've developed it further, as our primary means of survival. I also think the Dave Hunt work here is very sloppy, in terms of going to great lengths to seek &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; minor gap in evolutionary theory, while failing to offer even one iota of reasoning for the arguments so strongly asserted. From the author's perspective it makes sense: not presenting such means there is nothing for his critics to pull apart. In my opinion it does not make for a strong case, and as such is representative of most of the other views on a soul that attempt to fit themselves into biology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally, there is a problem: there is no actual &lt;strong&gt;scientific&lt;/strong&gt; justification for even speculating at the &lt;em&gt;existence&lt;/em&gt; of a non-physical soul, so trying to find scientifically valid explanations for something that isn't even defined is.... problematic at best. Equally, any purely philosophical proposals designed to fit in with current neurobiological knowledge run a risk of &quot;soul of the gaps&quot; (if you will).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-02-21T20:57:43.127" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T20:57:43.127" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6172" CreationDate="2012-02-21T21:27:15.460" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;BAAL (Bāʹ ȧl) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Lord of Canaanite religion and seen in the thunderstorms, Baal was worshiped as the god who provided fertility. He proved a great temptation for Israel. “Baal” occurs in the OT as a noun meaning “lord, owner, possessor, or husband,” as a proper noun referring to the supreme god of the Canaanites, and often as the name of a man. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;According to 1 Chron. 5:5 Baal was a descendant of Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn son, and the father of Beerah. Baal was sent into exile by Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria. The genealogical accounts of Saul’s family listed in 1 Chron. 9:35–36 indicates that the fourth son of Jehiel was named Baal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The noun comes from a verb that means to marry or rule over. The verb form occurs in the Hebrew text 29 times, whereas the noun occurs 166 times. The noun appears in a number of compound forms which are proper names for locations where Canaanite deities were worshiped, such as Baal-peor (Num. 25:5; Deut. 4:3; Ps. 106:28; Hos. 9:10), Baal-hermon (Judg. 3:3; 1 Chron. 5:23), and Baal-gad (Josh. 11:17; 12:7; 13:5). See Canaan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Brand, C., Draper, C., England, A., Bond, S., Clendenen, E. R., Butler, T. C., &amp;amp; Latta, B. (2003). Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (151–152). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic idea is that Ba'al was a fertility god who showed up all over Caanan.  Pagan gods tend to take on different characteristics and different stories, especially when popular, and so it differentiate them, sometimes specific place names are added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Baal is sometimes combined with YHWH stems more from the fact that the Israelites themselves became highly syncretic, moreso than any firm sociological study that says they stem from the same place.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Baal and Ancient Israel: The cult of Baal was widespread in the Syro-Palestinian world and became the focus of Israelite religious animosity. Baal’s consort in Palestine was not Anat, but Asherah (Judg. 3:7) or Astarte (Judg. 2:13; 10:6). Syncretism had blurred distinctions between Asherah, Astarte, and Anat, while for Israelite writers such distinctions were not of interest. We hear of the cult of Baal in a number of local manifestations: Baal of the Covenant at Shechem (Judg. 9:4); Baal of Peor at Shittim (Num. 25:3); Baal ‘Zebub’ (‘of the flies’; but should Zebul, ‘Prince,’ be read?) of Philistia (2 Kings 1:2-3); and perhaps Baal of Hamon (Song of Sol. 8:11). &lt;strong&gt;Jezebel introduced to Samaria the worship of Tyre’s god Baal (1 Kings 18:19). It is not altogether clear whether these local baals were taken to manifest the single great god Baal or whether they were imagined as discrete deities.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Achtemeier, P. J., Harper &amp;amp; Row, P., &amp;amp; Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (84). San Francisco: Harper &amp;amp; Row.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There have been people who promulgated the theory that Baal and YHWH were the male and female essences of the same pre-caananite god, but this is by no means a universal interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The relationship between El and Baal in Canaanite mythology has been a matter of dispute. There is some indirect evidence of antagonism between these important gods, inasmuch as they were competitors for the highest position in the pantheon. Yet there is also evidence of concord between them. Philo of Byblos reported an accommodation whereby Baal ruled on earth with the permission of El; many have seen in this arrangement the pattern of relations between the two most important gods of the Canaanites. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Achtemeier, P. J., Harper &amp;amp; Row, P., &amp;amp; Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (84). San Francisco: Harper &amp;amp; Row.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, by the time of Jesus, Baal had morphed into &quot;Beelzebub&quot;, a name commonly associated with the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Ugaritic epic material, Baal is pictured as descending into the netherworld, the domain of the god Mot. That descent was evidently part of a cycle intended to coincide with the cycle of seasons. In order to bring Baal up from the realm of Mot and thus ensure initiation of the fertile rainy season, the Canaanites engaged in orgiastic worship that included human sacrifice as well as sexual rites (Jer 7:31; 19:4–6). Sacred prostitutes evidently participated in the autumnal religious ritual. The worship of Baal was strongly condemned in the OT (Jgs 2:12–14; 3:7–8; Jer 19).&#xA;  See also Canaanite Deities and Religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By NT times, the name had changed to Beelzebul (KJV Beelzebub), from the Syriac language meaning “lord of dung.” It was a common practice to apply the names of the gods of enemy nations to the devils of one’s own religion. Thus, the title was applied by the Jews to the devil, or Satan, the prince of demons (Mt 12:24, 27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Elwell, W. A., &amp;amp; Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (135). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-21T21:33:45.870" LastActivityDate="2012-02-21T21:33:45.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6166" CreationDate="2012-02-21T22:35:32.553" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Boy is that wikipedia article riddle with &lt;sup&gt;citation needed&lt;/sup&gt; around the part mentioning Joseph. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing that points to Joseph being of the Hyksos, looks to be what I thought was the best evidence against it. If you didn't think of this yourself, permit me to state the obvious, The evidence is in where the bones went. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/genesis/50-25.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph wanted his bones buried where they came from&lt;/a&gt;, so unless they, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/joshua/24-32.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;and everyone else&lt;/a&gt;, forgot where they came from, they buried him in the wrong place.  But if they came from Canaan and went back to Canaan then that's rather appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, and with the help of the only reference to Hyksos on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/297q01.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Vatican.va&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.google.com/?tl=it&amp;amp;q=undefined#it|en|Ma%20se%20la%20Bibbia%20%E2%80%94%20come%20vedremo%0A%E2%80%94%20esalta%20la%20vita%20pastorale%20in%20modo%0Anostalgico%2C%20memore%20delle%20sue%20radici%0Anomadiche%20tipizzate%20nei%20patriarchi%0AAbramo%2C%20Isacco%20e%20Giacobbe%20ma%20anche%0Ain%20Mos%C3%A8%20e%20Davide%2C%20%C3%A8%20altrettanto%0Avero%20che%20i%20pastori%20sono%20stati%20sempre%0Avisti%20con%20disprezzo%20e%20terrore%20dai%20sedentari%2C%0Aun%20po%E2%80%99%20come%20da%20noi%20oggi%20sono%0Aconsiderati%20gli%20zingari.%20Cos%C3%AC%2C%20nella%0Aletteratura%20accadica%20i%20pastori%20sono%0Achiamati%20%C2%ABil%20nulla%20che%20viene%20dalla%0Asteppa%C2%BB%3B%20quella%20sumerica%20ci%20ha%20lasciato%0Aquesta%20fisionomia%20del%20nomade%3A%0A%C2%ABHanno%20apparenza%20di%20uomini%20ma%20la%0Aloro%20voce%20%C3%A8%20quella%20del%20cane%20della%20prateria%0A%C2%BB%3B%20gli%20Sciti%20li%20chiamavano%20%C2%ABi%20draghi%0Adei%20monti%C2%BB%2C%20mentre%20altre%20culture%0Ali%20comparavano%20a%20briganti%20affamati%20o%0Aa%20cavallette%20insaziabili.%20Degli%20Egiziani%2C%0Ache%20furono%20conquistati%20e%20sottomessi%0Aattorno%20al%201700%20antecedente%0Al%E2%80%99era%20cristiana%20dai%20nomadi%20Hyksos%2C%20la%0ABibbia%20ricorda%20la%20ripulsa%20a%20pranzare%0Acoi%20pastori%3A%20%C2%ABPer%20loro%20questo%20%C3%A8%20un%0Aabominio%C2%BB%20%28Genesi%2C%2043%2C32%29.%20Anzi%2C%20la%0Astessa%20Bibbia%20in%20una%20delle%20sue%20pagine%0Ad%E2%80%99apertura%20narra%20il%20tragico%20odio%20di%0Aun%20sedentario%2C%20l%E2%80%99agricoltore%20Caino%2C%0Anei%20confronti%20del%20pastore%20beduino%0AAbele%20%28Genesi%2C%204%29.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;translated into English&lt;/a&gt;, the key is in the revulsion that the Egyptians felt towards Joseph and his brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2043:32&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 43:32 (DRA)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; And when it was set on, for Joseph apart, and for his brethren apart, for the Egyptians also that ate with him, apart, (for it is unlawful for the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews, and they think such a feast profane:)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is evidence of revulsion (or evidence of future subjugation) then yeah, that could be the historical Joseph story.  But if there's no evidence for this, then they're separate folks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which may be the reason some are hesitant to jump on the Joseph as Hyskos bandwagon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-31T14:42:21.573" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T14:42:21.573" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="920" CreationDate="2012-02-22T02:07:34.567" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Piper, the leading proponent of Christian Hedonism, often uses a slogan based on The Westminster Catchecism. He modifies the catcehism's stock answer that the chief end of man &quot;is to glorify God&quot; by restating it as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is most glorified, when we are most satisfied, in Him &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, because God designed us to glorify Him, and because he is love, he designed us for joy. We are most satisfied when we are in that joy, because God made us for that. He gave us desires that reflect what he has in store for us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As one example, and this may come as a shock, but God made sex enjoyable. Why is it pleasurable? Because it is a foretaste of the oneness we will have in heaven, where &quot;we will know even as we are known.&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why then do many Christians see sex as evil? Because, used inappropriately, it can cause the exact opposite of that oneness. It can rob us of joy, because we seek after the momentary pleasure rather than true joy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As C.S. Lewis puts in his the definitive short essay on the subject, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=-buxASKSnUkC&amp;amp;q=Our+desires+are+too+weak#v=snippet&amp;amp;q=Our%20desires%20are%20too%20weak&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Weight of Glory,&lt;/a&gt;&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, entertainment is entertaining, precisely because it is a foretaste of that infinite joy offered us, if only we are strong enough to truly seize it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-02-22T03:56:38.277" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T03:56:38.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2438" CreationDate="2012-02-22T11:07:15.730" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have often associated this phrase with Jesus' comment that &quot;if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto Me&quot; in association with His crucifixion. This is somewhat evidenced by the usage in the song &quot;Lift Jesus Higher&quot; which I have always had trouble singing because it would appear we are calling on ourselves to crucify Him. Maybe I'm just off in my hearing of that song.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the concept of lifting up His name for me has always been closely associated with proclaiming Christ &quot;crucified, the hope of glory.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1342" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T11:07:15.730" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6140" CreationDate="2012-02-22T12:18:13.587" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT FROM THE COMMENT BELOW&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading trough systematic theology books, I found that Christians hold that the human has two are three parts. The two parts view says that the human is body (material) and soul(immaterial), the three parts folks hold the position that human are body(material), soul(feeling), conscience(image of God, moral center). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are two links to books chapters on Google :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.ca/books?id=wIaOzaH2xhAC&amp;amp;pg=PA158&amp;amp;hl=fr&amp;amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;amp;cad=4#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lecture in Systematic Theology by Henry C. Thiessen&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.ca/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&amp;amp;pg=PA472&amp;amp;hl=fr&amp;amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;amp;cad=3#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Systematic Theology by Wayne Grundem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="1168" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T11:26:03.017" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T11:26:03.017" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6180" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6181" CreationDate="2012-02-22T14:10:09.927" Score="8" ViewCount="1438" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Samuel 16:13 states that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his&#xA;  brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully&#xA;  upon David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and in 14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a description of the holy spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1172" LastActivityDate="2016-07-16T14:42:14.970" Title="Spirit of the Lord Upon David" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-07-21T06:33:59.367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6180" CreationDate="2012-02-22T14:29:52.560" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is, indeed, presumed to be the Holy Spirit.  There is the idea that the Spirit did not indwell people in Old Testament times, but did &quot;come upon&quot; them.  The indwelling did not take place until after redemption has been accomplished with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or do you not know that your &lt;strong&gt;body is a temple of the Holy Spirit&#xA;  within you,&lt;/strong&gt; whom you have from God? You are not your own  1&#xA;  Corinthians 6:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key question would be what Spirit could it be if it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the Holy Spirit.  There really are no other legitimate candidates for that.  The word &quot;spirit&quot; is typically used of our own spirits and of the Holy Spirit.  Since this particular use of &quot;spirit&quot; is distinguished as that of the Lord (and not ours), the best conclusion appears to be that it is, in fact, a reference to the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting to note that David specifically prayed that God would not take the &quot;Holy Spirit&quot; from him after his sin with Urriah and Bathsheeba:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit&#xA;  from me.  Psalm 51:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T14:29:52.560" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2012-02-22T14:40:29.500" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though possibly not directly related, I think it is interesting to point out that science has opened the way for the &quot;possible&quot; existence of God in the arena of Quantum Physics.  I'm currently reading a book called Quantum Glory by Phil Mason that compares what science is discovering in the area of quantum entanglement, quantum non-locality, quantum teleportation to what we see in the Bible and in the Christian view of God.  It is quite fascinating.  Simply point:  The universe is made up of wave energy and only collapses into particles / matter as we know it when someone is watching it, and someone has to be watching the whole universe for it to be matter.  Sounds like God to me :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1343" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T14:40:29.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6183" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6185" CreationDate="2012-02-22T18:03:56.833" Score="6" ViewCount="136" Body="&lt;p&gt;It appears as if heavy duty instructions to the world at large began with Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did it come about that he issued so many encyclicals?  Did he set a precedent for future popes to emulate in their teaching office? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/index.htm&quot;&gt;Check 'em out for yourself&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-22T01:47:43.540" LastActivityDate="2015-08-22T01:47:43.540" Title="Why did the popes begin issuing encyclicals?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;leo-xiii&gt;&lt;encyclicals&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6184" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6186" CreationDate="2012-02-22T18:58:19.653" Score="17" ViewCount="5842" Body="&lt;p&gt;Coming from a Protestant tradition, I grew up hearing about Lent but never having any practice associated with it.  In the years since, I've gathered that there's some sort of connection between Easter, Lent, Ash Wednesday, and Fat Tuesday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would someone please explain how it all fits together?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T05:29:54.520" LastActivityDate="2018-02-14T18:50:50.417" Title="What is the connection between Mardi Gras, Fat Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Lent, etc?" Tags="&lt;practice&gt;&lt;calendar&gt;&lt;lent&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6183" CreationDate="2012-02-22T19:11:57.507" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is actually a fairly accurate assessment. Most of the documents which came out of the Vatican were Papal Bulls, and they would be one, possibly two, per papacy. You can find most of them at &lt;a href=&quot;http://papalencyclicals.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;papalencyclicals.net&lt;/a&gt;. Unfortunately, we didn't even bother keeping the documents from Gregory the Great through until the Renaissance (poss. later, you can find the exact information in the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/Europe.html?id=4StZDvPCcJEC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Europe: A History&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (sorry, I am far too lazy to go through the relevant 200 or so pages to be more specific)) Leo XIII changed that. (Don't know if it was the assertion of infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, or what), but since then there have been exponentially more documents released by the Vatican.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, it could have to do with the fact that not only was in inexpensive to print documents (the offset press was invented 8 years before his election), it was also &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; to transmit data across the Atlantic in real time (the trans-Atlantic telegraph cable was first laid in 1866). Though it might also have had to do with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;declarations of Vatican I&lt;/a&gt;. Though the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff had been long established, this was (as near as I can tell) the first time that the authority was so clearly laid out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then another reason he might have written was the Holy Spirit (he's always makin' mischief).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-22T21:08:49.810" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T21:08:49.810" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6184" CreationDate="2012-02-22T19:20:37.900" Score="14" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Lent&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lent is a period of penance in preparation for Triduum (Maundy Thurs. through Easter Sun).  The faithful are encouraged to increase their works of mercy and decrease their self-indulgence. It begins on Ash Wednesday, which is 40 days (minus Sundays) before the Triduum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Ash Wednesday&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So called because it invokes the ancient practice of covering oneself in ashes when in morning. Often it is accompanied by, &amp;quot;Thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return.&amp;quot; As a side note: the ashes are generally from (at least in part), the palms of the previous Palm Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Shrove Tuesday&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, &amp;quot;Mardi gras&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;Fat Tuesday&amp;quot; in French, so there's that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fats and fatty foods are often given up for Lent (at one point abstaining from all meat was a requirement), but fat will go rancid if it is left out for all of Lent. So, instead of letting it go to waste, it would be used for cooking. Often this would mean that there would be a rich supper immediately before Ash Wednesday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is called, &amp;quot;Carnevale&amp;quot; because that, originally, was &amp;quot;Carne vale,&amp;quot; which means, roughly, &amp;quot;without meat.&amp;quot; I believe the relationship with &amp;quot;Fat Tuesday&amp;quot; would be obvious (for more ways of saying the same thing, look up &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrove_Tuesday&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Shrove Tuesday&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, with the rise of secularism, this tradition became bloated and corrupt, and eventually lead to the depravities which can be seen in New Orleans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Easter&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all know what Easter is... I hope. It is the Teutonic name for an ancient pagan festival, brought to mean the celebration of the resurrection of Christ, apparently because the German speakers were too lazy to use the word &lt;em&gt;pasch&lt;/em&gt;, which is what it is called in basically every other language on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-24T15:33:23.627" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6184" CreationDate="2012-02-22T19:31:29.393" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the Catholic Lenten Cliffnotes. I see I've been &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6186/4&quot;&gt;beaten to the punch&lt;/a&gt; at answering, but what the heck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mardi Gras is some sort of French meaning Fat Tuesday.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's called that because the next day is Ash Wednesday&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ash Wednesday (today) is the beginning of Lent. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is a precept of the church that Catholics are supposed to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and abstain from meat on Fridays during lent. (we usually give something up too)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The connection is that Mardi Gras is the last chance to celebrate before Lent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lent is observed for 40+ days, remembering Jesus' temptation in the desert. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lent is officially over at sundown on Holy Thursday (Thursday before Easter).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thus begins the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1706/4&quot;&gt;Holy Triduum&lt;/a&gt; (Thursday, Friday and Saturday until Dusk)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then Easter begins, it is a 50+ day celebration seemingly ending on Ascension Thursday, but actually going until Pentecost (and the week after).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if properly observed, you've just completed a quarter of the year, Catholic style. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T19:31:29.393" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="461" CreationDate="2012-02-22T21:01:18.630" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;My thinking on this starts with Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.—1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 9:19-23 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+9/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, that means that I must do my best to put myself in the shoes of an atheist in order to hope to influence their thinking.  When I answer questions on &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Philosophy&lt;/a&gt;, I must think like a philosopher.  On &lt;a href=&quot;https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Skeptics&lt;/a&gt;, I must be skeptical.  (I'm 1 for 2 there, by the way.)  When I talk to friends and co-workers who have left the church, I must be sympathetic to their complaints.  In my mind, it's impossible to communicate when neither corespondent is willing to &amp;quot;get inside&amp;quot; the head of the other.  Even in contexts outside of philosophy and religion, that's just good policy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do I have to &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt; the atheist default is correct?  &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/209/73&quot;&gt;Not necessarily.&lt;/a&gt;  I agree with &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1409/914&quot;&gt;Plantinga&lt;/a&gt; that the theist assumption is warranted.  Given the chance to argue against the atheistic assumption, &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/607/73&quot;&gt;I will&lt;/a&gt;.  Ultimately, I believe what I believe because I've seen the power of God in my life—not because I've constructed an argument from the ground up to prove His existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I'm also convinced that very few people arrive at the atheist position because of carefully constructed arguments.  (You, my dear reader, are probably one of the exceptions.)  Most people come to believe by the most convoluted paths.  I believe that the desert is beautiful, but it would take all afternoon for me to explain how I came to that conclusion.  Most people (perhaps not you), if they really examined their assumptions, are atheists (or theists) because of seminal events in their lives over which &lt;em&gt;they had no control&lt;/em&gt;.  I can't will myself to like the taste of tomatoes and I can't will myself to believe God does not exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, we must go back to Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.  For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,  &#xA;         and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”   &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.—1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 1:17-25 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+1/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T21:01:18.630" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6189" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6190" CreationDate="2012-02-22T21:05:37.130" Score="12" ViewCount="305" Body="&lt;p&gt;At what point in church history did the Lenten season become a significant part of the church year?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously Easter came first, but I don't see the biblical basis for 40 days of preparation &lt;em&gt;for Easter&lt;/em&gt;.  I'm sure from that arose Ash Wednesday, and then a need for a Mardi Gras - but when do we see each of these parts of the Lenten season coming about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-22T21:26:06.657" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T21:37:12.040" Title="How long has the church been observing Lent?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;practice&gt;&lt;lent&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6189" CreationDate="2012-02-22T21:37:12.040" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word Lent itself is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word meaning &quot;Spring,&quot; and another word which also was the word for &quot;March,&quot; the month in which the majority of Lent falls. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0527.html&quot;&gt;Fr. Saunders writes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Since the earliest times of the Church, there is evidence of some kind of Lenten preparation for Easter. For instance, St. Irenaeus (d. 203) wrote to Pope St. Victor I, commenting on the celebration of Easter and the differences between practices in the East and the West: &quot;The dispute is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast. Some think that they ought to fast for one day, some for two, others for still more; some make their 'day' last 40 hours on end. Such variation in the observance did not originate in our own day, but very much earlier, in the time of our forefathers&quot; (Eusebius, History of the Church, V, 24). When Rufinus translated this passage from Greek into Latin, the punctuation made between &quot;40&quot; and &quot;hours&quot; made the meaning to appear to be &quot;40 days, twenty-four hours a day.&quot; The importance of the passage, nevertheless, remains that since the time of &quot;our forefathers&quot; -- always an expression for the apostles -- a 40-day period of Lenten preparation existed. However, the actual practices and duration of Lent were still not homogenous throughout the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lent becomes more regularized after the legalization of Christianity in A.D. 313. The Council of Nicea (325), in its disciplinary canons, noted that two provincial synods should be held each year, &quot;one before the 40 days of Lent.&quot; St. Athanasius (d. 373) in this &quot;Festal Letters&quot; implored his congregation to make a 40-day fast prior to the more intense fasting of Holy Week. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) in his Catechectical Lectures, which are the paradigm for our current RCIA programs, had 18 pre-baptismal instructions given to the catechumens during Lent. St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) in his series of &quot;Festal Letters&quot; also noted the practices and duration of Lent, emphasizing the 40-day period of fasting. Finally, Pope St. Leo (d. 461) preached that the faithful must &quot;fulfill with their fasts the Apostolic institution of the 40 days,&quot; again noting the apostolic origins of Lent. One can safely conclude that by the end of the fourth century, the 40-day period of Easter preparation known as Lent existed, and that prayer and fasting constituted its primary spiritual exercises.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2004/lent.html&quot;&gt;Others have speculated&lt;/a&gt; that Lent may have originally only been for believers preparing for baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T21:37:12.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="730" CreationDate="2012-02-22T23:09:44.440" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_case#History&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Letter case&lt;/a&gt; is a relatively modern innovation, so we can't go by the original languages.  Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek were all written in what we would call uppercase.  They also lacked other typographic conventions such the modern system of punctuation.  (You can get an idea about what ancient writing looked like by reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk/2011/02/the-pilcrow-part-1/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this history&lt;/a&gt; of the pilcrow.)  The primary purpose of case is to aid the reader, so different languages have different conventions.  In German, every Noun is capitalized.  In Spanish, days of the week and months are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; capitalized.  In English, personal nouns are capitalized and pronouns are not.  This is a matter of language convention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where things get interesting when we enter the territory of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitonym#List_of_capitonyms_in_English&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;capitonyms&lt;/a&gt;: words that may be capitalized or not depending on the intended meaning.  One example of such a word is god, which is usually capitalized when referring to a (or rather, the) monotheistic God.  So one might refer to either &amp;quot;the Greek god of war&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the Hebrew God&amp;quot;.  Frankly, the capitalization need not signify respect or honor in this case; rather it is a sign of uniqueness.  &amp;quot;God&amp;quot; functions like a personal name in this instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not been able to find out how pronouns referring to God began to be capitalized, but it does aid in the understanding of some Biblical texts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.—Exodus 3:4-6 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Exodus+3/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, the English Standard Version doesn't capitalize divine pronouns.  In this short section, we have three sentences in a row that start off &amp;quot;&lt;code&gt;X&lt;/code&gt; he said&amp;quot;.  Two of the 'he's are God, which is clear enough from what is being said.  (Actually, there is a reference to &amp;quot;the angel of the LORD&amp;quot; in verse 2, which confuses the interaction somewhat.)  We can see that the exchange is a bit more clear if we use a translation that capitalizes &amp;quot;He&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:4-6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 3:4-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Then He said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; He said also, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there's also the issue of people who purposely do not capitalize God.  This is &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/832/73&quot;&gt;pretty common&lt;/a&gt; among atheists.  Obviously, they would not bother capitalizing &amp;quot;he&amp;quot; at all.  Why would they?  When &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6188/914&quot;&gt;interacting with atheists&lt;/a&gt;, I try to avoid capitalization unless it helps make my point clear.  That can sometimes mean leaving God lowercase when it might confuse matters.  I don't think He minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to Jesus, it probably doesn't pay to overthink it.  (But watch me!)  One rule might be to switch the case depending on whether his humanity or His deity is in view.  But unless that's something you are writing about, you're more likely to confuse your readers than edify them.  Better is to pick a convention and stick to it.  Don't forget Jesus' warning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  “‘This people honors me with their lips,  &#xA;          but their heart is far from me;    &#xA;    in vain do they worship me,  &#xA;          teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’  &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”—Mark 7:6-8 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+7/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Capitalization of pronouns is a convention of language and not intrinsically a sign of honor or respect or divinity.  There are good reasons to use &amp;quot;He&amp;quot; and equally good reasons to use &amp;quot;he&amp;quot; to refer to Christ depending on context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-22T23:50:16.027" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6196" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6208" CreationDate="2012-02-23T00:10:41.800" Score="8" ViewCount="1726" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been told that all major Catholic churches contain within the altar a relic of a saint. Given that saints are not declared until long after the death of the person in question, and many saints die in less than favorable conditions, how does the Church go about verifying and collecting relics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1318" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2021-02-09T22:00:14.267" LastActivityDate="2021-02-09T22:00:14.267" Title="How does the Catholic Church identify and collect relics?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;relics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6197" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-23T00:34:10.930" Score="9" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was taught that Lent represents the 40 days Jesus spent in the desert. However, in church on Ash Wednesday, my Priest stated that it used to be 3 days and was extended to 40. I can only assume that the 3 days were the time Jesus was entombed. Was Lent ever 3 days? Was this official doctrine? And if so, when and why was it changed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1318" LastEditorUserId="1318" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T03:27:54.910" LastActivityDate="2021-02-11T20:33:28.733" Title="Is there any evidence that Lent used to be a 3 day observance? " Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;lent&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4719" CreationDate="2012-02-23T01:35:19.840" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;90% of southern baptists do not believe in predestination as interpreted by the &quot;reformed&quot; churches. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in fact any baptist that calls themselves &quot;reformed&quot; in their theology is not a true baptist, because reformed theology involves a lot more than the 5 points of calvinism, and it directly opposes some baptist distinctives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;reformed&quot; churches beleive that they were meant to reform the catholic church, and retained many catholic ideas and still use the nicene creed (true baptists reject the use of creeds--the BIBLE alone is our creed),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;most refromed churches believe that the LORD'S supper and baptism are sacraments rather that ordinances, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;most reformed churches practice infant baptism, and believe in a central church authority controlling all churches, rather than each local church being independent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that is not to say that some baptists dont believe in predestination--some do, but even the &quot;primitive baptists&quot; who hold very strongly to predestination, are insulted if you call them a &quot;calvinist&quot; because of the reasons ive previously stated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ALL southern baptists believe in predestination, but they dont all agree on exactly what predestination is---most but not all, believe that we are predestined according to the FOREKNOWLEDGE of GOD--in other words we believe that GOD knows everything in advance, so HE already knows who will come to repentance, and thus he pre-determined that these people will reap the reward of heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;heres my parable of what i believe---theres a train that will only hold a certain number of people. this is because GOD knows how many people will decide to pick up their ticket and board the train. CHRIST has purchased a ticket for EVERYONE, but not everyone will claim their ticket, because they think that if they work hard enough, they can save enough money to purchase their own ticket. BUT NOBODY can afford the price of the ticket, because the price of the ticket is PERFECTION, so their works are in vain. only CHRIST is perfect, and only HE can take away our sin and imperfection, so only HE can pay the price for our ticket. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so there are enough tickets for EVERYONE, but since GOD in HIS foreknowledge knows how many will repent (change their minds about trying to purchase their own ticket and surrendering to the fact that CHRIST has already paid the price), then the number of seats on the train is fixed at that number. the train represents the church--the elect--so the CHURCH is predestined, NOT individuals --GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH BUT THAT ALL (all means ALL) should come to repentance. the train WILL reach the destination that GOD has predestined it to reach--the destination is this---that all who are on the train (the church) will be conformed to the image if HIS SON, and ultimately be received into glory as the bride of CHRIST. if you want to be in the elect, then run for the office and GOD will elect you! his vote is the only one that counts in this election!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks so much for your compliment! its nice that we can have a discussion and see the other view point without anger--the key to any disagreement is the ability to see the valid points of the other side--i have to disagree about the &quot;90%&quot;--my statement is based on a survey done by various sources including lifeway and a non-baptist source (christian exchange) which did surveys among churches in the sbc which states that 90% do not beleive in predestination as interpreted by the reformed churches--i have been in a southern baptist church my whole life, being a member of several different churches in different cities, and none of them beleived in the reformed doctrine of predestination. all the churches i have attended have been linked to pastors and leaders such as jerry vines, adrian rogers, bill stafford and others, and i am very active in the stome mountain association, and none of our churches currently endorse that doctrine, altho some have staff members who do, so i stand by my statement. but again the difference is the INTERPRETATION of predestination. if you asked &quot;do you beleive in predestination&quot; my answer would be yes--but i would have to qualify what i mean by that. having said that here is the reason i oppose the use of the word &quot;reformed&quot; in baptist discussion--1) to a non beleiver, it sounds as tho you are a recovering baptist lol--like saying i am a reformed alcoholic--they dont understand the term. also it can be taken to mean that you are not part of the larger baptist body. for example, there is a church called the &quot;reformed catholic church&quot; which means (at least to roman catholics) they are NOT in communion with rome and thus are NOT catholic at all. the other reason, is that reformed theology implies a LOT more than just predestination---reformed churches for the most part accept infant baptism, believe in sacraments versus ordinances, and are completely protestant in nature. even the primitive baptists who believe very strongly in predestination, are offened if you call them calvinists or reformed. reformed churches also usually believe in some form of centralized church govt. read the statement made by charles spurgeon---&quot; We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not begin our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men. — Charles Spurgeon (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol.VII, Page 225). so i beleive when you use that term people assume you mean reformed in the same sense as presbyterians or dutch reformed church--if you stick to the scriptures, there is no need to ever reform your theology--i do not for a MINUTE doubt your sincerity, but i am also a student of baptist history, and can trace my family back to the church where the sbc was fouded near crawfordville ga--it still stands. i will agree that at that time a lot more baptists beleived in your predestination than do today, but it was never a majority. the church that has a sunday school wing named after my great aunt still has as theor official name RUHAMA MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, even tho they have assoicated with the sbc since its inception in 1868--it is being said by some baptists that those who use the term &quot;reformed baptist&quot; are really just presbyterians in disguise--again this statement isnt meant to imply that i dont believe youre a baptist if you hold to classic predestination--i just view with suspicion anyone who uses the term, because everyone i know that uses that term spends more time attending presbyterian school and church than they do baptist ones, and to SOME it appears that those who label themsleves that way spend way more time trying to convert others to that theology than they do Christ--not saying i believe that, just saying how it is perceived. grace to you brother!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1345" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-02-25T23:21:39.613" LastActivityDate="2012-02-25T23:21:39.613" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4719" CreationDate="2012-02-23T02:44:17.417" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, Baptists drew from both the Calvinist (Predestination) and Arminian (Free Will) soteriologies.  Early Baptists were first and foremost dissenters - people who disliked the establishment churches of England and Virginia.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What drew them together was not soteriology but rather a disdain for establishment church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Puritans in particular (one set of proto-Baptists) were basically Calvinist. Many of the more famous English baptists - John Bunyan (1600s), William Carey (early 1800s), Charles Spurgeon (late 1800s), were all Particular Baptists. Many of their kin settled in Virginia and Massachusetts (or like Roger Williams in 1636 were kicked out and stuck in Rhode Island), and helped to form the basis of Baptists in the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Baptist movement spread during the two Great Awakenings of the 1700s, much of it was fueled by charismatic Arminians, such as the Wesley brothers. In the 1700s in particular, Baptists and Methodists both were very closely related - the primary distinction between the two was the autonomy of the local congregation. Methodists had bishops, Baptists had &quot;associations.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the time Baptists were allowed to practice freely (1786 is a good year) both stances were evident.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually, there were two main camps of Baptists - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Baptists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;General&quot; Baptists&lt;/a&gt; who believed in General atonement, i.e. anyone who chose (i.e. free will) to believe in Christ.  In contrast, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Baptists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Particular&quot; Baptists&lt;/a&gt; were Calvinists, who believed in Limited Atonement.  These are the Baptists who wrote the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1689 Baptist Confession of Faith&lt;/a&gt;, one of the closest things to a &quot;founding Baptist creed&quot; you'll get from a Baptist.  As you would expect from a Calvinist, they believed in predestination - i.e. that God has foreknown whom he would save from before the beginning of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845, the issues that divided Baptists had far more to do with whether or not Sunday schools and missionary work were important, than the means of salvation.  (Actually, the argument against was predicated on the belief that if God had already chosen who was saved, then it was just a waste of resources to invest in those things.  That didn't stop a a guy like William Carey, though, because he realized that even the elect should work to help the elect who didn't know they were saved to be saved!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More to the point for Southerners was whether or not missionaries could own slaves.  The SBC has acknowledged this was their genesis, and apologized for it in the 1990s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout all of this, both strains of salvation continued through all the denominations, although many of the more prominent current Baptists (Paige Patterson, Al Mohler) are definately of the Calvinst persuasion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2000 Baptist Faith and Message&lt;/a&gt; is clearly ambivelent on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Section 4. Salvation says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;implying free will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Section 5. Grace says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility. All true believers endure to the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which could come out of the Tu-lips of Calvin himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidently, there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Will_Baptist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Free Will Baptists&lt;/a&gt; denomination who are most definately Arminian in their soteriology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;In short, Baptists have always been both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-08-01T14:59:39.890" LastActivityDate="2014-08-01T14:59:39.890" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6197" CreationDate="2012-02-23T04:17:10.180" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;From CatholicEducation.com's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0527.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;history of Lent&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since the earliest times of the Church, there is evidence of some kind of Lenten preparation for Easter. For instance, St. Irenaeus (d. 203) wrote to Pope St. Victor I, commenting on the celebration of Easter and the differences between practices in the East and the West: &quot;The dispute is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast. Some think that they ought to fast for one day, some for two, others for still more; some make their 'day' last 40 hours on end. Such variation in the observance did not originate in our own day, but very much earlier, in the time of our forefathers&quot; (Eusebius, History of the Church, V, 24). When Rufinus translated this passage from Greek into Latin, the punctuation made between &quot;40&quot; and &quot;hours&quot; made the meaning to appear to be &quot;40 days, twenty-four hours a day.&quot; The importance of the passage, nevertheless, remains that since the time of &quot;our forefathers&quot; -- always an expression for the apostles -- a 40-day period of Lenten preparation existed. However, the actual practices and duration of Lent were still not homogenous throughout the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I suppose that the answer is that there is evidence that it was 3 days some places, but this was never official policy of the Church Universal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a note: the length of Lent is not a doctrine, but a practice. While it is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;EXTREMELY&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; doubtful that the length will ever change, it is theoretically possible for the Vatican to make some pronouncement changing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T04:17:10.180" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2438" CreationDate="2012-02-23T05:36:29.137" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;One clear example of this is the song &quot;Lord, I lift your name on high&quot;, a  7-11 earwig sung in many, many churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;chorus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lord, I lift your name on high;&#xA;   Lord, I love to sing your praises; I'm so glad You're in my life; I'm so glad You came to save us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;verse:&#xA;  You came from heaven to earth to show the way; From the earth to the cross my debt to pay; From the cross to the grave; From the grave to the sky; Lord, I lift your name on high&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;repeat chorus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;repeat verse&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.musicbabylon.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.musicbabylon.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main verse proves the point that at least in this highly popular song, a clear parallel to Philippians 2:5-12 is clearly intended.  In Philippians, Paul describes the trajectory of Jesus as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You came from heaven to earth to show the way&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From the earth to the cross, my debt to pay&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From the cross to the grave, from the grave to the sky&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lord, I lift your name on high&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be understood that Jesus himself often referred to Himself as needing to be &quot;lifted up&quot; on the cross. In John 3:14, He says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that instance, (recorded in Numbers 21) the Children of Israel had complained against God, and God sent snakes to bite and destroy them. They cry out, and Moses is instructed to fashion a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehushtan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bronze serpent&lt;/a&gt;, put it on a stick, and &quot;lift it up&quot; in the center of the camp.  When people lift up their eyes to this serpent, they are healed. As one might expect, this became very, very popular. Lifting up was clearly an exaltation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Interestingly, in the days of King Hezekiah, this same symbol, which had been lifted up, had itself become so exalted, that the King realized it was nothing more than an idol. As such, he had it torn down, in order to comply with the prohibition on idols.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2016-08-18T12:44:21.093" LastActivityDate="2016-08-18T12:44:21.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5064" CreationDate="2012-02-23T05:42:09.357" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know the details on the Blood Atonement, but the LDS Church does continue to hold some sins as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/unpardonable-sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;unpardonable&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and that forgiveness cannot be received in this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/sons-of-perdition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sons of Perdition&lt;/a&gt; - Those who served Satan and turned utterly against God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shedding of innocent blood (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/murder&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;murder&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Denying the Holy Ghost after receiving a sure knowledge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Denying the Holy Ghost after receiving a sure knowledge is not a very common sin to occur. Most of us will not receive a sure knowledge in this lifetime (based on my understanding). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oftentimes suicide is grouped into shedding of innocent blood, but the reality is that taking of ones own life is much more complicated and may actually be considered murder by a 3rd party in the eyes of the Lord. The point being that we cannot judge those as God would.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. Again this is a complicated matter when the life of the mother is at issue, or cases of incest or rape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a scriptural &amp;amp; doctrinal support for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/capital-punishment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;capital punishment&lt;/a&gt; for example in the case of murder, but the LDS Church does not have an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/capital-punishment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;official stance&lt;/a&gt; on it. The LDS Church does however &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/abortion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;officially oppose elective abortions&lt;/a&gt; (follow link for full details).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="18" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T05:42:09.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6204" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6207" CreationDate="2012-02-23T06:15:33.187" Score="14" ViewCount="2125" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the last several years, I've noticed a trend of people who reject the label &quot;Christian,&quot; and instead prefer to use terms like &quot;Christ follower&quot; or &quot;follower of Jesus.&quot; (Not to be confused with people who just follow the jesus tag on SE).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the impetus behind this relabelling, and is there historical or scriptural justification for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2014-06-16T14:19:15.243" Title="What are the reasons for calling oneself a &quot;follower of Jesus&quot; rather than a Christian?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6204" CreationDate="2012-02-23T07:11:19.023" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not really sure it is enough for an answer, but feels too long for a comment; as with &lt;a href=&quot;http://amokarts.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/reject-all-labels/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, it primarily seems to be people who feel that the label &quot;Christian&quot;, regardless of it's origin and literal meaning, has too many associations (perhaps more in the people they interact with than themselves).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, there are phrases often used in media and politics such as &quot;Christian values&quot;, &quot;the Christian thing to do&quot;, &quot;the Christian view&quot;, etc. As is demonstrated daily on this site, there &lt;strong&gt;is no such thing&lt;/strong&gt; as a single definition of &quot;Christian values&quot;, or &quot;the Christian thing to do&quot; - it is a &lt;em&gt;huuuuuuuuuge&lt;/em&gt; spectrum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence my interpretation of this is that these people are believers who are very happy to follow the teachings of Christ, but for whom the term &quot;Christian&quot; has become loaded; while it represents positive things, the same term is also used &lt;strong&gt;on their behalf, and without their consent&lt;/strong&gt; to (mis?)represent them, or to form assumptions about their view on things simply from the label &quot;Christian&quot;, when simply &lt;em&gt;asking them&lt;/em&gt; could be more helpful to all parties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting feature of this, for example, is in politics - where &quot;Lobbyist X&quot; who happens to be Christian, cites some Christian head-count number, and uses that argument to support their case. However, it is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; true to say that just because someone is Christian means that they agree with the view being presented by the lobbyist - it is false representation. Without trying to walk head-first into another label, lobbyists using such tactics &lt;em&gt;tend&lt;/em&gt; to be trying to push through Christian-right/conservative perspectives. As a current example, some Christian-right folks are currently getting very worked up about the thought of proposed US laws relating to contraception and employer obligations - somewhat ignoring the fact that the &lt;a href=&quot;https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8056/have-98-of-catholic-women-used-birth-control&quot;&gt;vast majority of Christian women have used contraception&lt;/a&gt; (this is meant as an example only, so let's not get overly distracted on that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Labels aside, I doubt you (as someone who is happy to identify as &quot;Christian&quot;) would have any important &lt;em&gt;belief&lt;/em&gt; differences. In terms of &lt;em&gt;opinion&lt;/em&gt; differences - that is entirely the point: you'd need to ask them, as forming an opinion (of either party) merely from the label &quot;Christian&quot; can be very very misleading. As such, though, it seems a little bit implicit that a &quot;follower of Jesus&quot; / &quot;follower of Christ&quot; is &lt;em&gt;probably&lt;/em&gt; not overly conservative in their views. The irony here is that avoiding one label (&quot;Christian&quot;) seems to imply another (&quot;liberal&quot;) - but that might just be me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:46:42.840" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T07:39:17.430" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6204" CreationDate="2012-02-23T13:04:35.353" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems the definition of Christian, at least in America, has become so broad as to include so many disparate teachings that it really fails to distinguish a devoted Christian from one who rejects the Bible and most of its teachings.  &quot;Follower of Jesus&quot; is, perhaps, a way to make this distinction.  &quot;Followers of Jesus&quot; are not Christian in name only, but also follow the teachings and life of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an international ministry perspective, the word Christian is loaded with prejudice and hatred.  Jewish people often associate &quot;Christians&quot; with the Holocaust, since Germany was a &quot;Christian&quot; nation.  Many Jews have a good deal of animosity towards &quot;Christians&quot; because of this, even though true Christians were appalled and died in opposition to what Hitler and Nazi's did.  Nonetheless, when Jewish people come to realize that Jesus/Yeshua really was and is the Jewish Messiah, identifying themselves as &quot;Christians&quot; is very difficult emotionally.  Even referring to their Messiah as &quot;Jesus&quot; is difficult, so many prefer the Hebrew form of Yeshua instead.  This is a name that they are familiar with anyway, as &quot;Joshua&quot; was Moses' successor in Israel's history.  Calling themselves &quot;followers of &quot;Yeshua Hamashiach&quot; (Jesus Messiah) is much easier to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Muslims, the word &quot;Christian&quot; often embodies all Western countries.  Christians are, rightly or wrongly, blamed for aggression in the Crusades.  When Muslims come to recognize that Jesus is really the Son of God and that the Bible is really His word--and Muhammed was not a prophet of God--they also have great emotional difficulty identifying as the hated &quot;Christians&quot;.  Indeed, there is also great danger in identifying as a Christian in many Muslim countries.  There are some who consider themselves Muslim Followers of Jesus--Muslim culturally, but Followers of Jesus spiritually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hindus sometimes face a similar reaction from their own families as do Muslims, so there are Hindus who consider themselves &quot;Hindu Followers of Jesus&quot;, meaning they are Hindu culturally, but have rejected Hinduism spiritually and recognize Jesus as the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T13:04:35.353" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6204" CreationDate="2012-02-23T15:46:49.853" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;To some extent the trend stems from the 2007 book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B003V1WG9I&quot;&gt;unChristian&lt;/a&gt;. The authors surveyed young American adults (late teens to early 30s) and found that the words this group most commonly associated with &quot;Christian&quot; were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;judgmental&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;antihomosexual&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;hypocritical&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;too political&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;sheltered&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book challenges Christians to move away from behaviors and activities that reinforce these stereotypes, but throughout the book the authors use the term &quot;Christ-follower&quot; instead of Christian because of these negative associations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T15:52:31.907" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T15:52:31.907" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6196" CreationDate="2012-02-23T15:56:55.550" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Maximilian Kolbe would be a good example of a saint whom we will never be able to identify any of his first degree relics, since he was burned in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.  However, there are many 2nd and 3rd degree relics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Relics are the remains of a saint. They are classified according to degrees. First degree relics are physical remains of a saint. They are most typically bones. Second degree relics are objects or items that touched a saint while he was alive. The relics of Christ's Passion would be second degree relics. Third degree relics include anything that touched other relics. Normally, it is the bones of the saints and the relics of Christ's Passion that are mentioned among the relics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/catholictracts/tract83.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Forum - Relics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The perfectly preserved body parts of lots of European saints aren't going to be transferred to the Americas any time soon and we've got a lot of work to do to increase our output of saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Code of Canon Law says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given in the liturgical books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4K.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Can.  1237 - §2.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what do the liturgical books about the degree of relics for altars?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I skimmed over this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Rites/RDCA.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;liturgical book&lt;/a&gt; and you can skim it over yourself, but it doesn't say anything about the degree of the relics.  It does however say that relics of martyrs are preferred and that only recognizable body parts can be placed in sight.  Otherwise, they're put in a box (as a reliquary) under the altar.  The altar must be fixed in place so that everyone knows that the relics are there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got to remember to ask what we've got for a relic in my parish. I hope someone remembers.  Hopefully a priest will show up and give you a better answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2021-02-09T16:07:44.987" LastActivityDate="2021-02-09T16:07:44.987" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6184" CreationDate="2012-02-23T15:57:16.603" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to add some comments from a Protestant who lived in New Orleans for 4 years. I like the idea of Lent as a time to reflect on what Christ's sacrifice means to us, and a way to draw closer to Him as we approach the celebration of His resurrection, and I have used this in church settings. Unfortunataly, for some it is merely an outward ritual that does not reach to their soul (true in all denominations). In New Orleans, more emphasis seems to be on the carnival than the self-denial. Despite falling during the Lenten season, St. Patrick's Day (3/17) and St. Joseph's Day (3/19) are celebrated with parades and parties. It is our challenge to lead others to the true meaning behind these rituals. By the way, an alternative translation of carne vale that I have heard is &quot;farewell to the flesh,&quot; not only in the sense of giving up meat but also getting outside ourselves and closer to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1339" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T15:57:16.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6211" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-23T19:22:59.863" Score="11" ViewCount="4646" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that proclaiming the Gospel at Mass is restricted to ordained folks. But, is it permissible for a lay man or woman to lead a word and communion service and read from the Gospel? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can they lead a different sort of prayer service in a Catholic Church that includes the proclamation of the Gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-03-05T15:49:33.587" LastActivityDate="2019-03-05T15:49:33.587" Title="When are lay men and women permitted to proclaim the Gospel in a Catholic church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;laity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6212" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-23T21:41:35.760" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Church discipline is about rules, practices and punishments applied by churches to their members. It includes church law, shunning and sanctions, rules for expulsion, prohibitions and other restrictions on behaviour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T22:05:16.370" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T22:05:16.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6213" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-23T21:41:35.760" Score="0" Body="rules and punishments applied by church organizations to their members" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-23T22:05:15.637" LastActivityDate="2012-02-23T22:05:15.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6211" CreationDate="2012-02-23T22:12:31.647" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, at a minimum, most people read from the Gospel on Palm Sunday and Good Friday (only about four lines which are labeled &quot;[said by the] crowd:&quot;). I think that counts as laity ;-).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to &quot;communion service&quot;, the prayers of an EM with the homebound can be considered a &quot;communion service,&quot; and anyone is allowed to read there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coming back to this post several years later. It should be noted that Mass is the only liturgical prayer of the church where the reading of the gospel is specifically designated to the clergy. In the normal form of the Divine Office, there is no gospel. There is, however, a canticle from Luke which is read or sung in common. In the Lectio Divina, sometimes prayed in conjunction with Matins, Vigils, or as a separate service, the gospel may be read by any in attendance, according to the norms of the particular community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of this is different from prior to the reforms of the liturgy under Paul VI. The Divine Office was open to all and supported a variety of expressions, even within the more restrictive hours (&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespers#Latin_Rite_Catholic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;you can read more about the different liturgical approaches to Vespers here&lt;/a&gt;). The Lucan Canticles were said in common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Preaching on the gospel, however, was a good deal more restricted. However, even in this case, there was a good deal of leeway. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gregory/life_rule.iv.xxxix.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;It is the task of the prior, whether ordained or no, to exhort the brethren while they eat.&lt;/a&gt; This implies 1. that a quasi-liturgy is in effect, and 2. that a non-ordained person is preaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2018-07-23T16:52:27.770" LastActivityDate="2018-07-23T16:52:27.770" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6215" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6219" CreationDate="2012-02-24T06:29:51.700" Score="6" ViewCount="3969" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is from a Facebook fan page titled &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.facebook.com/JesusChrist.Savior?sk=wall&amp;amp;filter=2&quot;&gt;Jesus Christ&lt;/a&gt;&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We all struggle with sin, and at times it's so bad that we think&quot; God has to hate me,I will never get into heaven, I am so awful!&quot; Well Thats the devil talking to you and the truth is &lt;strong&gt;we have NO control at all over the lusts of the flesh&lt;/strong&gt;. We have to have faith and trust in God, that He is going to get us through it by walking in the spirit! &lt;strong&gt;You know you can't say NO to what you feel inside or want to do, no matter how hard you try.&lt;/strong&gt; I know I cant! So tell God you are sorry and ask God to take it for you and trust in Him! If we try and do it on our own like in Deuteronomy it will take us so much longer to accomplish what God wants because we didn't trust in Him. If we truly give it up, it's at that point God takes it and it's easy!He knows it's not easy but He tells us we just have to be willing to give it to Him and He will do the rest.And if it comes back up for you again give it right back to God!And just keep doing it and after a while you will be amazed what Happends!Don't be affraid! Walk in the spirit! We walk by faith not by sight!God can handle anything! Jennifer GSM&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The emphasis is mine and is the inspiration for this question. When I read this, I kept thinking that that was so wrong. I myself can control and suppress certain fleshy desires and without any perceptible help from God...and so can others, including non-Christians. I &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be wrong though. Hence, I'm wondering: is this view Biblical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2014-06-10T19:43:45.810" Title="Do we have no control over our flesh?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:44:44.573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5847" CreationDate="2012-02-24T09:57:46.917" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;How long a particular text should be depends entirely on what type of text it is. As you probably know, the Bible contains many different types of texts. Words of wisdom and poetry generally takes up a lot less space than descriptions of events, person, places and actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not really fair to compare the historical books of the Bible with long novels like &lt;em&gt;the Lord of the Rings&lt;/em&gt; or the &lt;em&gt;Harry Potter&lt;/em&gt; series, since the Bible is not a novel. When you write a novel you can make up all events and descriptions and details and it's generally good to make detailed descriptions of certain important things. In a historical account, on the other hand, it's impossible to know the exact details (unless you are a first-hand witness and you write it down shortly after the event) and to describe them accurately. In addition to this, it's not important to know all those details (it might be fun, but not important).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's take an example: If I were to write a historical novel about the murder of Julius Caesar, I would use several pages to cover just the actual murder (I would describe in detail how the murderers did it and their feelings before and after the deed), while the historical accounts would use just a few sentences -- as would the Bible. The Bible doesn't really go into details and it uses very brief descriptions. Take Samson as an example. He performed incredible demonstrations of strength, but his entire life is covered in a few pages, whereas a modern novel would probably span hundreds of pages, if not more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In short&lt;/strong&gt;, the Bible is not a novel and should not be compared to novels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastActivityDate="2012-02-24T09:57:46.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6215" CreationDate="2012-02-24T12:25:22.277" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul actually answers this quite well, in Romans 7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is only through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit who kills the sinful nature, that we are saved. That is why being saved works - As Paul says in Galatians 2:20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why we must die with Christ.  As Paul said earlier in Romans 7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once we are made alive again in Christ, however:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C.S. Lewis' &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/em&gt; captures this really well in Chapter 11. In this chapter, we meet an otherwise agreeable ghost (one of the creatures who is visiting heaven, and being made fit to live there) who has a lizard on his shoulder. The ghost wants to be saved, but the lizard is a representation of all his sin and vice, whispering constantly in his ear, and leading him astray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An Angel and the ghost have a conversation, in which the Angel simply and repeatedly asks, &quot;Do you want me to kill it.&quot;  The chapter counters all of the protests the ghost is making to killing the lizard, but in the end, the ghost finally allows the Angel to kill that sinful nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is amazing about the metaphor is what happens when the Angel is finally allowed to kill it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Have I your permission?&quot; said the Angel to the Ghost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I know it will kill me.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;It won't. But supposing it did?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You're right. It would be better to be dead than to live with this creature.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then I may?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Damn and blast you! Go on can't you? Get it over. Do what you like,&quot; bellowed the Ghost: but ended, whimpering, &quot;God help me. God help me.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Next moment the Ghost gave a scream of agony such as I never heard on Earth. The Burning One  closed his crimson grip on the reptile: twisted it, while it bit and writhed, and then flung it, broken backed, on the turf. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot; Ow! That's done for me,&quot; gasped the Ghost, reeling backwards. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For a moment I could make out nothing distinctly. Then I saw, between me and the nearest bush,  unmistakably solid but growing every moment solider, the upper arm and the shoulder of a man. Then, brighter still and stronger, the legs and hands. The neck and golden head materialised while I watched, and if my attention had not wavered I should have seen the actual completing of a man-an immense man, naked, not much smaller than the Angel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What distracted me was the fact that at the same moment something seemed to be happening to the Lizard. At first I thought the operation had failed. So far from dying, the creature was still struggling and even growing bigger as it struggled. And as it grew it changed. &#xA;  Its hinder parts grew rounder. The tail, still flickering, became a tail of hair that flickered between huge and glossy buttocks. Suddenly I started back, rubbing my eyes. What stood before me was the greatest stallion I have ever seen, silvery white but with mane and tail of gold. It was smooth and shining, rippled with swells of flesh and muscle, whinneying and stamping with its hoofs. At each stamp the land shook and the trees dindled &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The new-made man turned and clapped the new horse's neck. It nosed his bright body. Horse and master breathed each into the other's nostrils. The man turned from it, flung himself at the feet of the Burning One, and embraced them. When he rose I thought his face shone with tears, but it may have been only the liquid love and brightness (one cannot distinguish them in that country) which flowed from him. I had not long to think about it. In joyous haste the young man leaped upon the horse's back. Turning in his seat he waved a farewell, then nudged the stallion with his heels. They were off before I well knew what was happening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do ye understand all this, my Son?&quot; said the Teacher. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I don't know about all, Sir,&quot; said I. &quot;Am I right in thinking the Lizard really turned into the Horse?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Aye. But it was killed first. Ye'll not forget that part of the story?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I'll try not to, Sir. But does it mean that everything-everything-that is in us can go on to the Mountains?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Nothing, not even the best and noblest, can go on as it now is. Nothing, not even what is lowest and most bestial, will not be raised again if it submits to death. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. Flesh and blood cannot come to the Mountains. Not because they are too rank, but because they are too weak. What is a Lizard compared with a stallion? Lust is a poor, weak, whimpering whispering thing compared with that richness and energy of desire which will arise when lust has been killed.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But am I to tell them at home that this man's sensuality proved less of an obstacle than that poor woman's love for her son? [referring to an earlier story in which a obsessed mother was demanding to have her son, even though he was already in heaven] For that was, at any rate, an excess of love.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot; Ye'll tell them no such thing,&quot; he replied sternly. &quot;Excess of love, did ye say? There was no excess, there was defect. She loved her son too little, not too much. If she had loved him more there'd be no difficulty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-24T12:47:33.497" LastActivityDate="2012-02-24T12:47:33.497" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6215" CreationDate="2012-02-24T14:01:05.043" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we have no control over the lusts of the flesh, then all the commands in the Bible to refrain from sin are pretty absurd and waste of time and space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course we have the ability to say no to temptations, as is cited in many passages of Scripture that urge us to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is&#xA;  faithful, and h*&lt;em&gt;e will not let you be tempted beyond your ability&lt;/em&gt;*,&#xA;  but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that&#xA;  you may be able to endure it.  1 Corinthians 10:13 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,&#xA;  12 &lt;strong&gt;training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions&lt;/strong&gt;, and to&#xA;  live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age. &#xA;  Titus 2:11-12 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your&#xA;  former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be&#xA;  holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy,&#xA;  for I am holy.”  1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we really did not have the ability to overcome temptation, then the Bible would say much different things and give different instructions about responding to our inevitable failures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-24T14:01:05.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6220" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-24T15:20:50.480" Score="4" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that a good number of believers, who were once Muslim, became Christians after having a dream where Jesus appears to them and tells them to follow Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples are recorded in books like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newtestamentpattern.net/bookreviews/biography-modern/idaredtocallhimfather.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;I Dared to Call Him Father&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any common themes in these dreams?  Does Jesus Himself always appear?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is this common for people in any other religion like Hinduism, Taoism, or anything like that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-02-24T19:01:42.717" LastActivityDate="2012-02-25T06:54:34.363" Title="Are there any common themes in the dreams so many Muslims have that prompt them to come to Jesus?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;islam&gt;&lt;theophany&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6220" CreationDate="2012-02-24T15:37:18.700" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have only heard of this happening en masse in the Muslim world.  The testimonies I have heard from missionaries to Turkey and Iran are these people are seeing Jesus appear to them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other notable example I've heard of this happening recently (1996) to a non-Muslim is Joshua Blahyi, formerly known as General Butt Naked in Liberia.  He tells of a man and a woman appearing to him, and the man spoke in his old dialect.  He says the man was Jesus.  I don't know who the woman was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see his story in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a piece by the Vice Guide to Travel&lt;/a&gt;[possibly NSFW]. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="724" LastEditorUserId="724" LastEditDate="2012-02-25T06:54:34.363" LastActivityDate="2012-02-25T06:54:34.363" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6224" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-25T18:54:30.290" Score="3" ViewCount="489" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I mean by this is, in other communities of people, there may be certain ways to measure a delusion.  An atheist may define it differently than a theist.  The official DSM has a specific way to define a &quot;delusion&quot; (with religious exemption).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any Christian doctrines have a clear way to define delusions OR is there no such thing as a psychological delusion from a Christian perspective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-09-05T13:42:10.627" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T13:42:10.627" Title="Is there a Christian perspective on the matter of &quot;delusion&quot;?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:44:54.213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6224" CreationDate="2012-02-25T19:20:29.113" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Delusion is neither a Christian nor a non-Christian matter.  Delusion is simply believing something that isn't true despite overwhelming evidence.  I don't believe there is a specific &quot;Christian&quot; perspective on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to try &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;very hard&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to answer the rest of this objectively and not get on a soap box (even though it goes against my obnoxious nature).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's start with a definition of a &quot;delusion&quot;, straight from Wikipedia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior&#xA;  evidence. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological&#xA;  (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it&#xA;  is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information,&#xA;  dogma, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as we are limited finite beings, a certain amount of uncertainty exists in determining what is &quot;real&quot; and what is not.  As long as we are finite, we can't know and prove everything.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as we're not omniscient then the best we can do it to try to interpret the evidence in such a way that it makes sense to us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example an atheist and non-atheist can relate to:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For years, scientists thought that atoms were the smallest level of matter, until they realized that atoms are made up of proton, neutrons, and electrons.  Then came quantum physics, which indicates that at that level, reality is a lot more strange and complex than ordinary physics.  Does this mean that the scientists that didn't understand quantum physics were &quot;delusional&quot;?  No, they simply didn't have all the facts.  We still don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going back to the &quot;superior evidence&quot; portion of the definition, there is plenty of evidence &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; for &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; against the existence of God, creationism, theism, the Bible as God's word, and a whole host of other beliefs that separate us.  The problem isn't the evidence itself in many cases, it's how our own personal biases and our own presuppositions color how we interpret the evidence.  We don't have conclusive evidence for or against Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I came from the atheist viewpoint to be a very firm believer in the most conservative young-earth view of Christianity based on examining the evidence.  I was attempting to show my mom how dumb Christianity is.  My own bias was against Christianity. I don't say this to convince you or anyone else, but I do say it to back up the fact that I have examined the evidence, and I would argue with anyone that the evidence is far from conclusive &lt;em&gt;either way&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I came to my position not because the evidence for God was so overwhelming, but because I learned through years of research that the evidence against His existence wasn't as strong as I'd believed, and an open mind led me to believe, personally, that the evidence for Him has fewer unresolved assumptions and problematic discrepancies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Christianity is not delusional, nor is atheism.  Neither one fits the textbook definition of &quot;against overwhelming evidence&quot;.  There's a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;big&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; difference between &quot;there's overwhelming evidence&quot; and &quot;I'm only aware of some of the evidence and reject out-of hand the evidence that doesn't support my viewpoint.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the note it looks like I went the wrong route and am not answering your question as you intended, but I think the above still applies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Thessalonians 2:11, (KJV) we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they&#xA;  should believe a lie:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This delusion simply refers to a falsehood - a false belief, still meeting the textbook definition above.  This is just a specific delusion being spoken of in this case.  it doesn't nullify or establish the idea of &quot;delusion&quot; still meeting the normal understanding of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-09-05T07:17:51.343" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T07:17:51.343" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6226" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6227" CreationDate="2012-02-26T02:34:31.707" Score="8" ViewCount="974" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was &quot;eye for an eye&quot; law in the O.T. permissive or imperative in its nature? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I mean here is that if somebody took my eye in that time and I were one of the Israelites, then I could have taken his eye too in an act of revenge, and later I would have no feeling of guilt as according to the law it would have meant that I had acted righteously, i.e. according to the law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, what if I failed to act in that way (for example, I was physically very weak and I just couldn't go to my offender and take his eye, or let's say I was simply a coward), would it be then considered that I didn't act according to the law? Would I then be considered a violator of the law? If not, then this law is only permissive, if yes, then the law is imperative.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T03:55:02.963" Title="Was &quot;eye for an eye&quot; law in the O.T. imperative or only permissive?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6226" CreationDate="2012-02-26T03:35:17.793" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lex Talionis&lt;/a&gt; was actually restrictive in it's nature. The remarkable thing about the law was that it set a maximum punishment, equal to the damage inflicted. In contrast, prior laws had said the equivalent of &amp;quot;a life for an eye.&amp;quot; It was quite remarkable that limitations were being placed on revenge. This was not an imperative, but a restriction on the one demanding vengeance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer you question, no it did not demand that an equal punishment be meted out if the victim did not desire the punishment be inflicted. Instead, it was saying, the victim may not demand any more than this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The case law cited draws it out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That women were property, for instance, would have been taken for granted. That a man might be put to death for killing someone's property is rather progressive for it's day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also, it is the court here that is in charge- not the aggrieved party. If the victim did not wish the court to act, the court was obliged to do so. If the husband makes no demand, there is no case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the concept of judicial mercy itself was rather unique, and was developed over the course of the OT.  The prophets over time called out for mercy. To hear the God of the Bible saying things like, &amp;quot;Vengenance is mine (I.e not yours!) says the Lord&amp;quot; is remarkable progression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, unlike, say, even the Code of Hammurabi, Leviticus is clear that the principle is to apply regardless of social class. In contrast, the Hammurabi Code, while having the same principle, was clear that this didn't apply, for example, if a master plucked out his slave's eye. (The slave might be freed, but there was no such thing as equal compensation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T03:55:02.963" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6226" CreationDate="2012-02-26T03:45:20.230" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that neither are true and that the premise of the question is incorrect.  Although the mosaic law has much to say about the proper response to an offense, it is important to understand who is the proper responder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;eye for an eye&quot; command is given within the context of a pregnant woman who has been injured during a quarrel between two men.  It explains that &quot;...if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.&quot; (Exodus 21:23-25).  Verse 21:22 also explains that judges (ie governing authority) are responsible for determining the proper &quot;payment&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it would be wrong to take revenge on one's own initiative.  The &quot;eye for an eye&quot; command basically boils down to &quot;the punishment should fit the crime&quot;.  Its important to note that the punishment is given by the government, not vigilantes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1353" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T03:45:20.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6229" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6287" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:36:25.397" Score="7" ViewCount="198" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have there been any attempt in Christianity to draw a set of rules or principles on how the Bible must be interpreted? For example, I know some Christians take the words of the Lord literally that He spoke of the loaf of bread during the supper: &quot;This is my body&quot;, however, they don't go as far as to take His other similar words literally like &quot;I am the door of the sheep&quot;, &quot;I am the bread which came down from heaven&quot; or &quot;I am the vine, ye are the branches&quot;. So, there must be some rule or at least some explanation on why some words in the Bible should be taken literally and others not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also some similar words that seem to be meant to be taken only literally: &quot;I am the Son of God&quot;, &quot;I am the resurrection, and the life&quot;, &quot;I am the way, the truth, and the life&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, have there been any set of rules established anywhere in Christianity? Have such an attempt been made? I guess, the answer is yes. Then, if the answer is positive, is it possible to present such rules here in general? If they really differ greatly depending on the branch of Christianity, please, specify on behave of which such branch you are saying. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T16:36:24.160" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T22:48:05.553" Title="Have there been any attempt in Christianity to draw a set of rules or principles on how the Bible must be interpreted?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6230" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:43:07.543" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T06:43:07.543" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T06:43:07.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6231" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:43:07.543" Score="0" Body="The artificial termination of a pregnancy." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T23:01:51.860" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T23:01:51.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6232" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:44:27.370" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T06:44:27.370" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T06:44:27.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6233" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:44:27.370" Score="0" Body="From the Greek, Angelos, meaning messenger, refers to a set of created but heavenly beings" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T06:44:27.370" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T06:44:27.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6234" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:45:55.497" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anglicanism refers to a set of churches which originated in England in the 1530s, when Henry VIII broke away from the Pope and the Catholic Church. The English reformation was controversial, and since that time Anglicanism has had strong reformed elements and elements which are less reformed, which are called Anglo-Catholic. Individual Anglican churches now exist on a spectrum from evangelicalism to Anglo-Catholic to progressive liberalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Anglican Communion is headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and includes churches from all over the world. But in many parts of the world Anglican churches have split over the issues of Biblical authority and homosexuality, and there are now many Anglican churches which, although they are in communion with each other, are not in communion with the Church of England.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-09-04T11:58:19.110" LastActivityDate="2016-09-04T11:58:19.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6235" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:45:55.497" Score="0" Body="Churches of an Anglican heritage descended from the Protestant reformation in England" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-09-04T07:01:22.303" LastActivityDate="2016-09-04T07:01:22.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6236" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:46:15.550" Score="6" ViewCount="436" Body="&lt;p&gt;From  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 2, NIV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1b&lt;/sup&gt;Magi from the east came to Jerusalem...&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowhere does it say there were three Magi.  For all I can tell from this passage, there could have been two, or thirty.  The &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; clue I see about there being three is that three gifts are mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is the history behind the concept of three Magi in this story?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T15:00:49.177" Title="History of the &quot;three&quot; wise men" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6237" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:54:54.657" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T06:54:54.657" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T06:54:54.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6238" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:54:54.657" Score="0" Body="From the Latin, &quot;before the flood&quot; refers to the people and events that occurred prior to the floe of Noah, mentioned in Genesis 6." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T06:54:54.657" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T06:54:54.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6239" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:58:00.490" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Books of Tobit, Esdras, Macabees, Judith, Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon are considered Deuterocanonical, use &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/deuterocanonical-books&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'deuterocanonical-books'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;deuterocanonical-books&lt;/a&gt; if you mean them specifically. This tag is intended for questions on apocrypha in broader sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T13:33:36.093" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T13:33:36.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6240" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:58:00.490" Score="0" Body="Books not considered to be biblical by at least some churches." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T13:33:54.033" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T13:33:54.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6241" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:58:42.517" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T06:58:42.517" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T06:58:42.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6242" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:58:42.517" Score="0" Body="Referring to the actual order of worship by various groups " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T06:58:42.517" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T06:58:42.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6243" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:59:57.897" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T06:59:57.897" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T06:59:57.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6244" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T06:59:57.897" Score="0" Body="Technically a distinct style of Music, generally referring to the music typically sung in a worship service. " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T06:59:57.897" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T06:59:57.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6245" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:02:00.857" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rapture is a predicted event and related doctrines in which Christians on earth are removed from it during the End Times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:42:25.963" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:42:25.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6246" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:02:00.857" Score="0" Body="The eschatological event in which Christians will be &quot;caught up in the air&quot;. " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T22:59:37.213" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T22:59:37.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6236" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:02:30.640" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard a few different things. You're right though: it's not in canonized scripture. The idea of &quot;three&quot; wise men is only (mostly unimportant, but interesting) tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The enumeration of three specific gifts contributes to the &quot;trio&quot; of persons. Their alledged names even appear in writings later in history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. Talmage remarks on this in his excellent book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=DqU_AAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;dq=jesus%20the%20christ&amp;amp;pg=PA99#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus the Christ&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Much has been written, beyond all possible warrant of scriptural authority, concerning the visit of the magi, or wise men... As a matter of fact, we are left without information as to their country, nation, or tribal relationship; we are not even told how many they were, though unauthenticated tradition has designated them as &quot;the three wise men,&quot; and has even given them names; whereas they are left unnamed in the scriptures, the only true record of them extant, and may have been numbered but two or many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/356642/Magi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/356642/Magi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-04-26T14:18:20.310" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T14:18:20.310" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6248" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:02:58.563" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:02:58.563" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:02:58.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6249" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:02:58.563" Score="0" Body="A state of bondage or indentured servitude, in which one person is forced to do the bidding of another " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:02:58.563" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:02:58.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6250" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:04:22.820" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:04:22.820" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:04:22.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6251" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:04:22.820" Score="0" Body="The process by which an individual is made sufficiently holy to be able to stand in the presence of God. Depending on the tradition, the moment may be contemporaneous with justification or be a process that follows the moment of justification. " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:04:22.820" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:04:22.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6252" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:05:12.477" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;For questions pertaining to the followers and the religion founded by it’s leader, Muhammed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Muhammad (c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious, social and political leader and the founder of Islam. According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to present and confirm the monotheistic teachings preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.He is viewed as the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though some modern denominations diverge from this belief. Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity, with the Quran as well as his teachings and practices forming the basis of Islamic religious belief. He is referred to by many appellations, including Messenger of Allah, The Prophet Muhammad, Allah's Apostle, Last Prophet of Islam and others; there are also many variant spellings of Muhammad, such as Mohamet, Mahamad, Muhamad and many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Born approximately 570 CE (Year of the Elephant) in the Arabian city of Mecca, Muhammad was orphaned at the age of six. He was raised under the care of his paternal grandfather Abd al-Muttalib, and upon his death, by his uncle Abu Talib. In later years he would periodically seclude himself in a mountain cave named Hira for several nights of prayer. When he was 40, Muhammad reported being visited by Gabriel in the cave,and receiving his first revelation from God. Three years later, in Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that &quot;God is One&quot;, that complete &quot;submission&quot; (islām) to God is the right way of life (dīn), and that he was a prophet and messenger of God, similar to the other prophets in Islam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The followers of Muhammad were initially few in number, and experienced hostility from Meccan polytheists. He sent some of his followers to Abyssinia in 615 to shield them from prosecution, before he and his followers migrated from Mecca to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in 622. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the tribes under the Constitution of Medina. In December 629, after eight years of intermittent fighting with Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The conquest went largely uncontested and Muhammad seized the city with little bloodshed. In 632, a few months after returning from the Farewell Pilgrimage, he fell ill and died. By the time of his death, most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The revelations (each known as Ayah, lit. &quot;Sign [of God]&quot;) which Muhammad reported receiving until his death form the verses of the Quran, regarded by Muslims as the verbatim &quot;Word of God&quot; and around which the religion is based. Besides the Quran, Muhammad's teachings and practices (sunnah), found in the Hadith and sira (biography) literature, are also upheld and used as sources of Islamic law (see Sharia). - &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Muhammad (Wikipedia)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-09-07T13:49:32.693" LastActivityDate="2019-09-07T13:49:32.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6253" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:05:12.477" Score="0" Body="Referring to the followers of Mohammed and the religion founded in 622 AD by Mohammed." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2019-09-07T13:49:58.243" LastActivityDate="2019-09-07T13:49:58.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6254" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:06:47.967" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Includes miracles of resurrection from scripture or history and the doctrine of the future resurrection of the faithful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T15:51:17.823" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T15:51:17.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6255" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:06:47.967" Score="0" Body="raising from the dead in general; for the resurrection of Jesus specifically, use the resurrection-of-jesus tag" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T15:51:10.637" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T15:51:10.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6256" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:12:25.417" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag both for the general practice or specific instances of formally recognizing specific people as 'saints', as done by the Catholic church; and for the doctrine that all Christians are to be considered 'saints'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:40:04.687" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:40:04.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6257" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:12:25.417" Score="0" Body="A holy person of God, depending on the tradition can refer to&quot;the communion of saints&quot; (I.e. All believers) or be restricted only to those who have undergone a formal review, beatification, and proof of a miracle after their death " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:12:25.417" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:12:25.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6258" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:13:53.450" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about Jesus twelve disciples. Use 'discipleship' for questions about following Jesus in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T22:56:25.470" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T22:56:25.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6259" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:13:53.450" Score="0" Body="Normally used for the twelve close followers Jesus chose for himself, but can be applied to any follower. " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T22:56:26.000" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T22:56:26.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6260" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:15:16.583" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Frequently referring to The Twelve chosen by Jesus. Paul also uses the term to describe himself and others doing similar work. Used by some churches to refer to those 'sent out' to carry the message of Christianity, or sometimes to the highest leaders of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for any of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T18:17:53.070" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T18:17:53.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6261" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:15:16.583" Score="0" Body="Those &quot;sent out&quot;, including Jesus' Twelve Apostles and later equivalents." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T18:22:10.410" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T18:22:10.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6262" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:16:15.847" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:16:15.847" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:16:15.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6263" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:16:15.847" Score="0" Body="The point at which the spirit is separated from the physical body, tuning the body into a lifeless thing" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:16:15.847" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:16:15.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6264" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:17:11.587" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;use this tag for any questions related to these beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:33:37.193" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:33:37.193" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6265" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:17:11.587" Score="0" Body="evil supernatural beings." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:33:40.907" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:33:40.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6266" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:18:13.397" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:18:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:18:13.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6267" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:18:13.397" Score="0" Body="The practice of sexual relations with members of the same gender, or a sexual attraction to members of the same gender" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="21030" LastEditDate="2018-11-13T14:45:19.960" LastActivityDate="2018-11-13T14:45:19.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6268" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:18:50.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for all questions regarding doctrine or practice relating to children, including the bringing up of children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:33:20.707" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:33:20.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6269" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:18:50.137" Score="0" Body="doctrine and practice regarding children" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T21:33:23.373" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T21:33:23.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6270" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:21:30.583" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:21:30.583" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:21:30.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6271" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:21:30.583" Score="0" Body="The study of how one goes about &quot;knowing&quot; what they know" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:21:30.583" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:21:30.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6272" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:23:38.553" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the nature of belief, or about beliefs held by Christians. Use the 'doctrine' tag for beliefs that are held 'officially' by specific churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T14:00:17.600" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T14:00:17.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6273" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T07:23:38.553" Score="0" Body="An epistemological understanding in which the adherent gives tacit assent to the thing" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T07:23:38.553" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T07:23:38.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6274" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6288" CreationDate="2012-02-26T10:50:35.720" Score="7" ViewCount="2985" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm aware that the rise of Gnosticism was after the New Testament was written – but it would seem that a lot of the ideas on which it was built were floating around at the time. (Particularly Greek ideas about the uncleanness of the body contrasted with the purity of the mind/spirit). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Particularly in 1 Cor 15, but also more generally across the NT – how does the Bible rebut the ideas of Gnosticism? (i.e., that Jesus and subsequent resurrection was physical). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-01-09T14:23:47.210" LastActivityDate="2017-01-09T16:58:17.473" Title="What is the New Testament argument against Gnosticism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;resurrection-body&gt;&lt;gnosticism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6275" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6276" CreationDate="2012-02-26T11:01:14.490" Score="6" ViewCount="653" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is something of a long shot. I had a friend look at &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%2015&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 15&lt;/a&gt; (and other parts of the Bible), and he formed the conclusion that 1 Cor. 15 was about a spiritual and not bodily resurrection—i.e., that Paul felt that the resurrection appearances of Jesus were visions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there an argument that 1 Cor. 15 is not about physical resurrection? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I don't see it in the passage, but I wanted to open my mind to how other people read it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="461" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-10-03T04:44:46.027" LastActivityDate="2015-10-03T04:44:46.027" Title="What arguments can be made that 1 Corinthians 15 is not about physical resurrection?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6275" CreationDate="2012-02-26T14:04:03.563" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;If one chooses to explain away 1 Corinthians 15:4-7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the a&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is still the matter of 15:36-38&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The metaphor of the seed dying but coming back with a new tangible substance is made by both Jesus and Paul. It is a nonsensical metaphor if only a spiritual one &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, if death is the same for all, how could death have been overcome, per verse 51?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the word raised has a very definite meaning of to come back to life. &lt;code&gt;Egerow&lt;/code&gt; has a linguistic link to energizing, to rising up, like one does in the morning. It is as fully physical and it is without matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As pointed out in your question on Gnosticism, there were those who wanted to make Jesus out to be a spirit, rather than flesh. The difference is that historically, most of these heresies took an all or nothing approach. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Docetists believed that Jesus never was human at all - he only appeared to be. That Gonstics held this is clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The testimony of anti-gnostic writers like Irenaeus to the Docetism of the unholy succession of Gnostics and gnosticizing teachers in the second century (beginning for Irenaeus with Cerinthus and in this respect including Marcion and his followers) is broadly confirmed by the Nag Hammadi gnostic texts (Rudolph, 157–71, Tröger). Thus the Acts of John 97–104 portray Christ, already risen from his temporary body, watching the crucifixion of Jesus taking place&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Dictionary of the New Testament and Latter Developments, &quot;Docetism&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of 2 John (7) clearly says this is to be rejected, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This isn't a rebuttal, just a rejection - otherwise you have seen it in the other question!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With both Paul and John rejecting this &quot;Jesus only looked like flesh&quot; all along, it would be unreasonable to think that they wouldn't have mentioned something if they thought that after the cross, Jesus' substance was less than flesh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, Thomas' touching of Christ, that he ate bread, and other things really make it seem that Jesus' resurrection was physical. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make 1 Cor 15 merely a spiritual endeavour would be joining up with the Gnostics in the end, and is thus rejected elsewhere in Scripture and Christian practice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-02-27T16:57:18.753" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T16:57:18.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6274" CreationDate="2012-02-26T20:41:44.120" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some parts of 1 Corinthians 15 look a little ambiguous about the nature of the resurrection body. Verse 44 keeps the distinction between spiritual and physical:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-corinthians/15-44.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:44 NRSV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 53 describes a transformation process, indicating that the resurrected body is not like the mortal body:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-corinthians/15-53.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:53 NRSV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But throughout the whole passage, Paul is contrasting different types of &lt;em&gt;bodies&lt;/em&gt;, not, as the Gnostics did, contrasting an impure physical world and a pure spiritual world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of the gospels include details that may be intended to rebut an early form of Gnosticism. In Jesus' appearance to the disciples in the upper room in Luke, we see him take a break from teaching and eat a piece of fish:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/passage.aspx?q=luke+24:41-43&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 24:41-43 NRSV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, &amp;quot;Have you anything here to eat?&amp;quot; They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if the Gnostic &amp;quot;Gospel of Thomas&amp;quot; was written in the first century as some scholars believe, a story from the Gospel of John may be intended as a rebuttal, a way of saying, &lt;em&gt;That's not the Thomas I knew.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/passage.aspx?q=john+20:24-28&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 20:24-28 NRSV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Thomas (who was called the Twin  ), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, &amp;quot;We have seen the Lord.&amp;quot; But he said to them, &amp;quot;Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.&amp;quot; A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, &amp;quot;Peace be with you.&amp;quot; Then he said to Thomas, &amp;quot;Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.&amp;quot; Thomas answered him, &amp;quot;My Lord and my God!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T20:41:44.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6278" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6279" CreationDate="2012-02-26T21:30:43.037" Score="10" ViewCount="1178" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the late Middle Ages, two documents arose which, together, are called the &lt;em&gt;The Donation of Constantine&lt;/em&gt;. They made a large number of statements which would have had the effect of making the Pope the &quot;Emperor of Christianity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering that they were discredited by the end of the 16&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century, what effect did these documents have on the development and legitimacy of the Papal claims at primacy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-08-22T19:29:09.007" LastActivityDate="2017-08-22T19:29:09.007" Title="What role did the Donation of Constantine have on the development of the doctrine of Papal supremacy?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;constantine&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6278" CreationDate="2012-02-26T21:31:30.587" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;My interpretation is that the answer is, &quot;doctrinally, effectively, none.&quot; While I will definitely say that it seems like there was a good deal of effect on the politics of Italy (and, to a lesser extent, France) in the High Middle Ages, from a doctrinal perspective, it does not really seem to be terribly significant. And I say this for two particularly important reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine was already in place:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The claims and assertions about the primacy of the Papacy had been around since before Eusebius who died in 339.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leo the Great is generally considered &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; major proponent of the doctrine, and died centuries before the document was written.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They were disproven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The documents were disproven 70 years before Luther, 100 years before Trent&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While that was not published until the 16&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century, it was certainly widely known when the doctrine of infallibility itself was defined at Vatican I&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The major challenger to Papal authority in when those were written was the See of Constantinople, but it is apparent that these documents were known only to the west. (And when it was shown in the East, it contributed to the Great Schism)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-27T10:35:07.320" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T10:35:07.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6280" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T21:43:43.543" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T21:43:43.543" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T21:43:43.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6281" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T21:43:43.543" Score="0" Body="Relating to special abilities given by good for the edification of the church and described in the NT, such as prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, teaching, and service. " OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-07-01T23:49:27.600" LastActivityDate="2016-07-01T23:49:27.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6282" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T21:45:31.967" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T21:45:31.967" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T21:45:31.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6283" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T21:45:31.967" Score="0" Body="The practicing of refusing food in order to focus exclusively on the presence of God" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T21:45:31.967" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T21:45:31.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6284" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-26T21:47:12.353" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T21:47:12.353" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T21:47:12.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6285" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-26T21:47:12.353" Score="0" Body="A theological movement to emphasize the commonalities amongst Christian groups" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-26T21:47:12.353" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T21:47:12.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6229" CreationDate="2012-02-26T22:38:29.483" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been many attempts in Christianity to draw a catholic (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;catholic&lt;/a&gt; literally means &quot;universal&quot;) set of rules or principles on how the Bible must be interpreted. This is called the field of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;biblical hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt; (and there is &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;an entire Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; devoted to this field/art). &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt; is not exclusive to scripture, it is also applied to other texts. The goal of hermeneutics is to determine the objective meaning of the text, which may include attempts to understand authorial intent, historical/cultural context, and the grammatical and linguistic meaning of the words and phrases themselves. Many church councils were centered on disputes on how various texts should be interpreted, and creeds were developed to clarify the Church's position on various issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Brief History&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The field of hermeneutics has been applied to the Old and New Testament by both Jews and Christians throughout history. Early Jewish hermeneutics include &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12936-rules-of-hillel-the-seven&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the seven rules of Hillel&lt;/a&gt; which were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/hillel.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;passed down orally&lt;/a&gt; before being transcribed shortly before the birth of Christ, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraita_of_Rabbi_Ishmael&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rabbi Ishmael's Baraita (13 rules)&lt;/a&gt; from the late first or early second century. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Seven ecumenical councils&lt;/a&gt; occurred throughout church history where specific interpretations of scripture were rejected or accepted. The goal of these councils was Church unity, thus it could be said that hermeneutics were being formulated through these decisions. I only reference seven because these were considered to be ecumenical and thus the decisions made at these councils are generally accepted by most major Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nicea I (325)&lt;/strong&gt; - The first part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_original_Nicene_Creed_of_325&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt; was formulated which defined the divinity of the Son of God, refuting Arius. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Constantinople I (381)&lt;/strong&gt; - The second part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_Niceno.E2.80.93Constantinopolitan_Creed_of_381&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt; was formulated which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit and refuted &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinarism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apollinarism&lt;/a&gt;. The creed is sometimes called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed because it was formulated in councils in both Nicea and Constantinople.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesus (431)&lt;/strong&gt; - Christ was defined as the Incarnate Word of God, refuting &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nestorianism&lt;/a&gt;; and Mary was affirmed as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Theotokos&lt;/a&gt; (God-bearer). The Nicene Creed was declared as being authoritative and it became unlawful to hold to a different faith than that as defined by the creed (the creed defined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chalcedon (451)&lt;/strong&gt; - Christ was defined as perfect God and perfect man in one person (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_Union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hypostatic Union&lt;/a&gt;), refuting &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutyches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eutyches&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;monophysitism&lt;/a&gt;. Those who rejected the decisions of this council include the present-day 'Oriental Orthodox,' which includes the Coptic Church, Armenian Orthodox Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Constantinople II (553)&lt;/strong&gt; - The Church reaffirmed the doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ, further refuting &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nestorianism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Constantinople III (680)&lt;/strong&gt; - The Church affirmed the true humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action, refuting &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;monothelitism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nicea II (787)&lt;/strong&gt; - The Church affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expressions of the Christian faith, restoring the veneration of icons and ending the first &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm_%28Byzantine%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;iconoclasm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From then on, the Church interpreted the scriptures in light of these councils' decisions, notably the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith as defined in the Nicene Creed. Various factions within Christianity have accepted or rejected additional councils and decisions, which further affects how they interpret scripture. It should also be noted that many modern Christian leaders do not consider any church councils to be infallible, to include the first Church council held in Jerusalem which is recorded in Acts 15. I bring all of this up because &lt;strong&gt;everyone interprets scripture in light of Church history and their historical and cultural context&lt;/strong&gt;. Some groups insist that their sole authority is &quot;scripture alone,&quot; but even these groups hold specific interpretations that have come about due to historical events. This is true whether or not these groups are aware of their biases. Clearly the Church has attempted to come to universal agreement on biblical interpretation, but numerous schisms and divisions have made this virtually impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to the Enlightenment, most Christians treated the bible as a special class of literature (sacred revelation), and thus did not apply &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;textual criticism&lt;/a&gt; methods to its study. But during the Enlightenment it became common to read the bible as any other piece of literature, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-critical_method&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;historical-critical methods of interpretation&lt;/a&gt; began to be employed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general (painting with a broad brush), most conservative Christian groups now employ some form of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical_method&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;historical-grammatical interpretation&lt;/a&gt;, while most liberal groups employ &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-critical_method&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;historical-critical methods&lt;/a&gt;. Another recent trend is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics#Trajectory_hermeneutics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;trajectory hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt;, which asserts that since revelation is progressive, there is a &quot;redemptive movement&quot; or interpretive trajectory to the text that must be determined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;General Hermeneutical Principles&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will now attempt to answer the second part of your question: &quot;is it possible to present such rules here in general?&quot; I would not go so far as to call these rules, but they are general hermeneutical principles that guide most Christians today as they seek to understand and apply the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The original text (and the best text) must be used for interpretation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There can be but one sense of a Biblical word or sentence (i.e., the plain grammatical sense). Thus no interpretation is correct unless it is grammatically correct, that is, according to the grammar and syntax of the language in which it was originally written.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The meaning of any phrase or word must be sought in its own context.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus Christ is the center of all scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this point on various Christian groups differ significantly (and some may not even accept those listed above, although most would). Most conservative Protestants assert that &quot;Scripture interprets scripture,&quot; while Roman Catholics would include the authority of the Church and the Pope as having the ultimate right to interpret scripture. Many others have specific principles to avoid the misinterpretation of specific genres of literature within the bible (allegorical, prose, apocalyptic, poetry, etc.), although these principles are not technically restricted to biblical interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried to give a thorough answer that steers clear of taking the sole view of any specific branch of Christianity. For additional hermeneutical principles specific to your Christian tradition, I would recommend speaking to your priest/pastor and/or taking a course in biblical studies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-02-26T22:48:05.553" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6274" CreationDate="2012-02-26T23:21:28.553" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Timothy 6:20, Paul specifically exhorts Timothy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In doing so, Paul is specifically calling on Timothy not to engage those who claim a special &quot;Gnosis&quot; that somehow elevates them. As such, Paul is not going to take on that heresy himself, but he does still provide the basis for rejecting it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Timothy makes claims that stand in opposition to the docetic beliefs of the Gnostics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Timothy 3:16 makes clear that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He was manifested in the flesh&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and goes on to say in 1 Timothy 4 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gnostics believee that matter itself was evil (and as such could not believe that God would deign to become matter), and as such made anything fleshy out to be bad. Eventually, since everything tangible was bad, they started suggesting that it didn't matter what the flesh did, only the spirit, and so they became libertines, orgiastic, and the like. Paul undercuts the argument he by rejecting the premise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Bruce Alderman points out, John may have been reacting to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (really just a collection of sayings mores than a narrative as we expect Gospels to be)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has been debated whether or not Gnosticism predates Christiainity or if in turn Gnosticism grew out of Christianity. In any event, however, the fact that Paul was only mentioning it in his later books (argued by some scholars to actually be written by Pauls followers after his death) shows that much of the NT was already in place before it became a real threat to the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John, by contrast, is typically considered to be one of the last books, so a back handed reference fits in perfectly with that assertion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, in 2 John (and here I'll claim same authorship) he writes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not a rebuttal, but at least you know where he stands. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2017-01-09T16:58:17.473" LastActivityDate="2017-01-09T16:58:17.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6290" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14332" CreationDate="2012-02-27T02:09:48.703" Score="10" ViewCount="1436" Body="&lt;p&gt;Would it be okay to say this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is both God and Man, which means that He possesses both&#xA;  divine and human nature. Divine nature in Him is from God the Father&#xA;  and the human nature in Him is from the virgin Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or what I said just now - I am mostly concerned about the very last sentence - would be a heresy according to the teaching in the main-stream Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the last sentence in the quote is a heresy, please, specify, which branch of Christianity considers that as heresy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T20:18:10.327" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T04:52:28.167" Title="Relationships between God the Father, Mary and the two natures of Jesus Christ" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6290" CreationDate="2012-02-27T03:24:21.320" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have corrected characterized that Jesus is fully God and fully man. No heresy here!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing that is weird here is Mary being the one who imparts the human nature. Typically, he is called the Son of Adam or the Second Adam - moreso than Mary - but it doesnt really matter whether you say Adam, Mary, or even Joseph, as one of the gospel genelogies state.  It isn't any heresy to name any human as being the importer of humanity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, Mary has been given the title Theotokos (Mother of God) but nothing is said of Mary's substance or essence, other than she was obviously human. Catholics also believe her to be sinless, because of her &quot;Immaculate Conception,&quot; but this too is dogma rather than Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-02-28T15:54:08.720" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T15:54:08.720" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6292" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6294" CreationDate="2012-02-27T03:24:25.587" Score="0" ViewCount="456" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming that Adam was placed on Earth as an infant...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who nurtured &lt;strong&gt;Adam&lt;/strong&gt; when he was an infant?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2014-01-20T04:49:53.340" Title="Who nurtured Adam when he was an infant?" Tags="&lt;adam&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6293" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6295" CreationDate="2012-02-27T03:35:45.777" Score="2" ViewCount="18915" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a few related questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How did Adam and Eve die?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who died first - Adam or Eve?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were Adam and Eve buried after their deaths?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2020-02-25T00:50:01.610" Title="How did Adam and Eve die?" Tags="&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6292" CreationDate="2012-02-27T03:43:44.167" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the relevant text:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.&amp;mdash;Genesis 2:5-8 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/genesis+2/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God created Adam fully formed or&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God created Adam as an infant and placed him a garden where he was able to live safely.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both cases, it is God who made sure that Adam lived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A subsequent text suggests that option #1 is correct:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”&amp;mdash;Genesis 2:15-17 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/genesis+2/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, how could God expect the man to work and keep the garden, and how could he understand God's commands?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T03:43:44.167" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6293" CreationDate="2012-02-27T03:47:30.190" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adam (and presumably Eve) simply died of old age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 5:5 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for where they're buried, I don't think that's recorded anywhere in the Bible. Who died first certainly isn't recorded; that bit of trivia likely wouldn't have been important to people of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T03:47:30.190" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6297" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6301" CreationDate="2012-02-27T07:21:55.477" Score="13" ViewCount="9196" Body="&lt;p&gt;God Himself limited a human's lifespan to 120 years, as told in the following verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:3&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 6:3 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be &lt;strong&gt;no more than 120 years&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment&quot;&gt;Jeanne Calment&lt;/a&gt; managed to live for 122 years and 164 days, significantly more than 120 years. Does this mean that God's decree was somehow part of an old order of things that has since passed away or been overwritten, much like what Jesus did with the Law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-17T11:35:27.793" LastActivityDate="2015-06-19T06:20:45.893" Title="What does it mean that someone managed to live beyond 120 years?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="18" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-12-21T20:34:24.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2012-02-27T08:55:35.780" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is my favourite summary of the parable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/S4Slt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.&amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Elliot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jim Elliot&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www2.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/faq/20.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;October 28, 1949 journal entry&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It refers to the pivotal verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.&amp;mdash;Luke 16:9 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/luke+16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, the parable is about giving up worldly wealth for the sake of the Kingdom of God.  Our life on this earth is short and will soon be taken away from us.  It might seem foolish to cheat our master, but only if we are in service of a greater master.  That's why Jesus adds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”&amp;mdash;Luke 16:11-13 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/luke+16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jim Elliot serves as a wonderful example of this.  He left his young wife and baby daughter to visit the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaorani_people&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Waodani people&lt;/a&gt;, who are an indigenous people in the Ecuadorian Amazon.  It was well known to Elliot and his four companions that the Waodani were extremely violent.  They were killed, but as a result many Waodani became Christian.  This was the story told in the documentary &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Gates_of_Splendor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Beyond the Gates of Splendor&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The master is this world&amp;mdash;our service to it is temporary.  Therefore, we must not be fooled into serving worldly things, but ought to use worldly things to obtain eternal things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-02-27T09:20:43.877" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T09:20:43.877" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6297" CreationDate="2012-02-27T09:57:13.287" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's all relative, of course.  Here's the immediate context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died.&amp;mdash;Genesis 5:28-31 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compared to Lamech, Mme. Calment died regrettably young.  She ought to still be in prime of her life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&amp;amp;chapter=6&amp;amp;verse=3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NET Bible footnote&lt;/a&gt; offers a simpler solution:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Heb&lt;/em&gt; “his days will be 120 years.” Some interpret this to mean that the age expectancy of people from this point on would be 120, but neither the subsequent narrative nor reality favors this. It is more likely that this refers to the time remaining between this announcement of judgment and the coming of the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, we can see that Genesis contradicts the idea that 120 years is a hard limit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad 500 years and had other sons and daughters.&amp;mdash;Genesis 11:10-11 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ages do drop fairly rapidly.  Nine generations later:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran.&amp;mdash;Genesis 11:32 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming a limit to the length of life is meant, the author(s) of Genesis seem to be thinking in terms of &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/567/68&quot;&gt;approximations&lt;/a&gt; or orders of magnitude.  An occasional 122 (or &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6297/what-does-it-mean-that-someone-managed-to-live-beyond-120-years/6299#comment16853_6297&quot;&gt;130&lt;/a&gt;) year-old is to be expected, but we don't see anyone living 500+ years anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T16:15:06.830" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6300" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6304" CreationDate="2012-02-27T10:00:37.697" Score="16" ViewCount="3300" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throughout the bible, angels typically appear as men or a masculin form. They're often described as warriors, engaging in battle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/OmDYxm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luckymojo.com/archangelmichael.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in modern, generally Western (or at least American) culture, angels are thought of as feminine figures, often portrayed by women (or Victoria Secret models).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/xnYocm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/your-guardian-angels-day/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When (about) did this change occur?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize this may not be a very well-developed question (please, feel free to modify/enhance it), but I think I'm on to something here - even if it is merely a curiosity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I get the feeling that one of the reasons for angels being thought as feminine has something to do with the New Age movement and their concept (and often worship of) Guardian Angels, but it's just a gut feeling or sorts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="313" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-14T02:02:36.397" LastActivityDate="2020-12-19T06:34:37.677" Title="When did the angel archetype change from masculine to feminine?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;gender&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6297" CreationDate="2012-02-27T12:37:23.727" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;While &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6297/what-does-it-mean-that-someone-managed-to-live-beyond-120-years?rq=1#comment16857_6299&quot;&gt;marc-gravell&lt;/a&gt; mentions that the 120 years until the flood interpretation is &quot;hotly contested&quot; I would say that is definitely the best interpretation. Even the link provided by Marc really talks more about the timeline for building the ark rather than contesting the &quot;120 years to the flood&quot; interpretation. The author of that article concludes that this is the best interpretation of Genesis 6:3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we take 120 years to as some average lifespan then the Bible completely misses this mark. Immediately following the flood the lifespans are still measured in the hundreds of years and by the end of the patriarchal period the lifespans drop well below a 120 year average. The main issue with interpreting this number as the years until the flood only occurs with the length of time it took Noah to build the ark. When we realize that the text doesn't require that Noah started building at the same year as the statement in 6:3 then the interpretation works rather well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem stems from the poor translation of the NLT text. In attempting to make the text more &quot;readable&quot; they have inferred meaning that isn't required by the original text. Most (all?) scholarly translations do not force this meaning into the text of Genesis 6:3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1342" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-12-22T16:03:31.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5101" CreationDate="2012-02-27T13:56:04.703" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus' insistence on initially keeping the fact that he is the Messiah under wraps is a theological construct called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Messianic Secret&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several theories have been proposed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's just a narrative device, used to add tension&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus did not want his crucifixion to occur until enough of Israel had a chance to decide&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's love constrains him to not overwhelm those whom he would have choose him&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the early church, the author of Mark may have wanted to tone down the Messiah thing in order to not alienate the other Jews (Wrede's hypothesis)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And many, many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T13:56:04.703" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6300" CreationDate="2012-02-27T16:41:39.530" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://youall.com/angelanswers/angelgender.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this websitesite&lt;/a&gt;, the change occurred gradually over time, as the representation of the human form in art changed. In the middle ages, artists rarely painted distinctly masculine characteristics on their subjects:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;…what modern viewers and artists perceive as “feminine” angels in many famous medieval European paintings were not intended by the artists to be females at all. Particularly during the Medieval period, the overt “sexuality” of much classic Greek and Roman art was almost totally repressed. Bodies were totally covered, both male and female, in long robes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But artists of the time seldom painted overtly “chiseled,” square-jawed, masculine features on the faces of men. So unless a male was bearded, and particularly if he was represented as a young man, it wasn’t all that easy to sort out the vaguely uni-sex heads in pictures by gender.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1800s, a move toward more realistic depiction of the human form in art coincided with a growing interest in angels apart from their original biblical context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They may have a “spiritual aura” connected to them, which makes them look otherworldly, but without any special link to a Heaven where God’s throne is. They are viewed by many as being benevolent supernatural beings whose primary interest is helping out people—not necessarily because they have been sent by God to do so, but because it is just “their nature.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as this “new” kind of angel has taken shape in the past century or two, the emphasis has shifted more and more to a sort of gentle, nurturing, “motherly” (or “big sisterly”) role for angels—hence the trend toward almost entirely representing them as female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T16:41:39.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1009" CreationDate="2012-02-27T19:50:56.983" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue comes down to the difference between the church and the government.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus was speaking to the government when he spoke the golden rule, then yes, there would be a conflict.  If he was speaking to individuals within the church, I don't believe there's a conflict at all.  If a person holds that the Golden Rule was given to those who follow Christ, and simultaneously holds that the government isn't as effective at private institutions and citizens at rendering aid to those in need, then you pretty much, by definition, have a Christian Libertarian who follows the Golden Rule. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Underlying this question, however, is a bigger one: Are Christians who hold a Libertarian viewpoint truly following the Golden Rule?  That's a question that can't be answered on a macro level, but only on an individual level.  Granted, there are those who give lip service to the Golden Rule so they can appease their conscience while they hold a Libertarian viewpoint for no other reason than their own unconfessed selfishness.  But there are also those who hold to a Libertarian viewpoint because of a more emotionally removed cost-benefit analysis of the services provided by the government.  My guess is that the latter is rarer than the former, but the latter surely does exist.  Judging motives, however, is God's role, not ours. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, my short answer is: a personal ethic of libertarianism ought to be avoided by the Christian.  However, a governmental ethic of libertarianism need not be verboten. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T19:50:56.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6290" CreationDate="2012-02-27T19:59:14.600" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe that would be heresy at all.  Jesus, being fully human and fully God is the only one qualified to act as high priest for the church - the go-between between God and man.  He's qualified because he was tempted in every way, but was without sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least this is my understanding, and I tend to be pretty conservative when it comes to my understanding of Scripture.  Mainstream Christianity would likely argue that this is the only way to understand this particular viewpoint.  If Christ was only God, and was not also man, then he is not qualified to pay the penalty for our sins.  He would have no temptation, being God only.  However, if he was only man, he would not have had the capability to be sinless, as all mankind are fallen and depraved.  It's only through the combination of the two natures of Christ that Christ's sacrifice is both unique and satisfies the requirements of the law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to hear a Catholic chime in on this one.  From what I understand, some in Catholicism believe Mary to have been sinless, which is not a viewpoint held by mainstream Protestantism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T19:59:14.600" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6290" CreationDate="2012-02-27T20:10:50.157" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd imagine that would be a heresy of the heresy of modalism or arianism or &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3829/how-do-protestants-deal-with-pre-reformation-heresies&quot;&gt;something&lt;/a&gt;, but that's not a very precise answer since a heresy of a heresy could be anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you want to identify a heresy to the doctrine of the incarnation it would have to deny that Mary is the Holy Mother of God.  The heresy that denied that was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nestorianism&lt;/a&gt;. You can read St. Cyril give him the business &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;in his 12 Anathemas&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The miracle of the Incarnation of Jesus took Mary's flesh and made Jesus, like God took part of Adam and made Eve, except in reverse; this is all very fitting and proper and a completion of the work of the OT, as it should be. Moreover, it is a mystery and a miracle that cannot be understood by reason alone, as it should be.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T20:10:50.157" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6308" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-27T20:21:56.633" Score="7" ViewCount="851" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd never seen this before today when I was trying to answer a question on the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6290/relationships-between-god-the-father-mary-and-the-two-natures-of-jesus-christ&quot;&gt;natures of God&lt;/a&gt;, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Cyril's 12 Anathemas against Nestorius&lt;/a&gt; is pretty interesting, and as a piece of literature, I think it's pretty unique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is from the first of the Anathemas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, &amp;quot;The Word was made flesh&amp;quot;] let him be anathema.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nestorius: If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the first part St. Cyril and the second part Nestorius himself? Or is the whole thing St. Cyril and the part that starts with &lt;code&gt;Nestorius:&lt;/code&gt; just St. Cyril writing what he believe are the problems with Nestorius's theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-06-16T18:21:46.783" Title="How are the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril against Nestorius supposed to be read?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6308" CreationDate="2012-02-27T20:42:27.777" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would seem that only the first paragraph was Cyril's side of the argument.  Here's another &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/135-cyril-of-alexandria-third-epistle-to-nestorius-including-the-twelve-anathemas&quot;&gt;copy&lt;/a&gt; of the text:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It links to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ix.i.html&quot;&gt;a copy&lt;/a&gt; on the CCEL.  The bit labeled as &lt;code&gt;Nestorius:&lt;/code&gt; is included in a &quot;Notes&quot; section.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/Page_206.html&quot;&gt;scan&lt;/a&gt; of that page makes the situation slightly more clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T20:42:27.777" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6087" CreationDate="2012-02-27T23:34:43.273" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Lift Every Voice and Sing&quot; was written as a poem by James Weldon Johnson for a celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday in 1900. In the early 1900's, singing this song became a way for African Americans to demonstrate their patriotism and hope for the future. In calling for earth and heaven to &quot;ring with the harmonies of Liberty,&quot; they could speak out subtly against racism and Jim Crow laws—and especially the huge number of lynchings accompanying the rise of the Ku Klux Klan at the turn of the century. In 1919, the NAACP adopted the song as &quot;The Negro National Anthem.&quot; By the 1920s, copies of &quot;Lift Every Voice and Sing&quot; could be found in black, often Baptist, churches across the country.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1970's, this song experienced a revival with the Civil Rights Movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It resonates strongly as a Christian hymn because it is a song about exodus. It is a story of a journey sanctified by faith, and protected and prospered by God.  For African Americans, the civil rights movement was their exodus story. Segregation, disenfranchisement, and racism were their Egypt, and this song was inspiration for the journey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bearden, Romare and Henderson, Harry. A History of African-American Artists (From 1792 to the Present), pp. 168-180, Pantheon Books (Random House), 1993, ISBN 0-394-57016-2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1358" LastActivityDate="2012-02-27T23:34:43.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6311" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6314" CreationDate="2012-02-28T00:43:38.863" Score="0" ViewCount="1130" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard that in the main stream Christianity there is such an assertion: In the Holy Trinity The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct, but not separated. I also heard this: the divine and the human natures in Jesus Christ are joined, not separated, and not intermixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about the distinction of those two natures in Jesus Christ? Has it been asserted anywhere (in any counsel or any document) in main stream Christianity that the two natures in Christ (divine and human) are clearly distinct (just like the Three are distinct from each other in the Trinity)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-09-07T01:28:20.037" LastActivityDate="2018-09-07T01:28:20.037" Title="Has the distinction of the human and divine natures in Jesus Christ been established?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-19T14:31:12.943" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6312" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-28T02:15:18.763" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-28T02:15:18.763" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T02:15:18.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6313" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-28T02:15:18.763" Score="0" Body="Relating to that eschatological event when all people are sent to a reward or punishment" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-02-28T02:15:18.763" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T02:15:18.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6311" CreationDate="2012-02-28T02:45:39.163" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the contrary, mainstream Christianity has held that the human and divine natures of Christ are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; separable. A key point was the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Ephesus&quot;&gt;third ecumenical council&lt;/a&gt;, held at Ephesus in 431 in order to resolve disagreements between &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorius&quot;&gt;Nestorius&lt;/a&gt;, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria&quot;&gt;Cyril&lt;/a&gt;, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Nestorius wanted to make a distinction between Christ the person, and the eternal Son: two distinct natures in one body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cyril's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm&quot;&gt;anathemata against Nestorius&lt;/a&gt;, which the &#xA;council accepted, express the view that it is impossible to draw a sharp line between the human and divine natures. It's worth unpacking a few of these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(2.) If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an expounding of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union&quot;&gt;hypostatic union&lt;/a&gt; idea, whereby the human and divine essences are joined, making Christ simultaneously fully human and fully divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(3.) If anyone shall after the union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The union is a &quot;natural union&quot;, not an imposition of the divine over the human. This counters the Nestorian position that Jesus was merely the carrier for the Word (the human nature being subordinate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(4.) If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Cyril says that in talking about Christ, it's wrong to apply separate terminology or titles for the human and divine natures. Again, this counters the idea that some of Christ's actions can be attributed to Jesus the human (such as his eating, weeping, dying, etc.) and others to the Word (responsible for our salvation, all things were made through him, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Twenty years later, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon&quot;&gt;Council of Chalcedon&lt;/a&gt; of 451 adopted a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Creed&quot;&gt;creed&lt;/a&gt; that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html&quot;&gt;expresses the relationship more briefly&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, &lt;strong&gt;to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son&lt;/strong&gt;, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two natures are distinct insofar as they are not the same (humanity and divinity are different things), but they are united inseparably in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T02:45:39.163" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6315" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6317" CreationDate="2012-02-28T04:31:36.747" Score="6" ViewCount="546" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's the first recorded case of the Church's persecuting heretics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By persecution I mean not only the act of stopping fellowship with a heretic, but also something more than that - things like, for example, taking away all his books that he wrote or, perhaps, stripping him off of some social rights - that is when the Church already had such power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-26T18:58:52.057" LastActivityDate="2015-12-26T18:58:52.057" Title="What's the first recorded case of the Church's persecuting heretics?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;persecution&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6316" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6319" CreationDate="2012-02-28T04:45:31.487" Score="17" ViewCount="8972" Body="&lt;p&gt;When talking with a Catholic friend (I'm a Protestant) about the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books, it occurred to me that a possible argument for their inclusion in the Canon would be their authority, measured in two ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Claiming to be speaking on behalf of God (e.g &quot;Thus saith the Lord...&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being quoted by other books considered to be a part of the Canon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, I was wondering which (if any) books are quoted or referenced in the New Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, are there any OT books that quote the apocrypha? (I have a feeling this may be a &lt;em&gt;stupid question&lt;/em&gt; since, if I understand correctly, they were mostly written before the apocrypha.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="959" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-02-28T15:00:45.670" LastActivityDate="2018-06-15T22:52:35.207" Title="What deuterocanonical books are quoted in the New Testament?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;authority&gt;&lt;deuterocanonical-books&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6315" CreationDate="2012-02-28T06:58:19.627" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's difficult to give a definitive answer because of the ambiguity of words like &quot;heretic&quot; and &quot;persecute&quot;. I presume that if Mr X says to Mr Y, &quot;No, I disagree with you&quot;, that's not persecution. If he has him tortured and killed over the disagreement, that pretty clearly is persecution. But there's a wide range in the middle. If X tells people that Y is a dangerous kook and they shouldn't associate with him, is that persecution? What if so many people follow X that Y is completely ostracized from society, can't get a job, etc?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said, I suspect the first case would be the repudiation of Arianism at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. The Arians were exiled and their books banned, which I think qualifies as persecution. This took place shortly after Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, and so suddenly Christians went from being outlawed and persecuted themselves to having political power and influence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Constantine was an emperor, i.e. a dictator, so it's not surprising that when he learned that his new-found religion was facing division and disagreement, he decided to step in and &quot;solve&quot; the problem by declaring which side was right and ordering everyone to fall in line or else. AFter all, that's what he would do if his generals disagreed about how to wage a war, or if his bureaucrats disagreed about how to administer some law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T06:58:19.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6316" CreationDate="2012-02-28T08:47:04.440" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are no &lt;em&gt;direct&lt;/em&gt; quotes, at least, not in the sense that, for example, Isaiah is quoted, but there are certainly several allusions and parallel passages. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a list of some of them from both NT and OT (and yes, I am well aware that some of those are debatable).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to &quot;other books quoting them,&quot; it should be noted that neither Song of Songs, Esther, or Ecclesiastes are quoted elsewhere in scripture. It should also be noted that the Apocalypse of Enoch is quoted in Jude as well as I &amp;amp; II Peter (and it is fairly obviously quoted in Jude and II Peter) and no one sees that document as canonical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-28T09:01:58.807" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T09:01:58.807" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6320" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6329" CreationDate="2012-02-28T09:13:29.603" Score="10" ViewCount="262" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, there are three distinct titles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Episcopai &amp;mdash; literally administrator, these were tasked with overseeing a church/region&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Presbyteros &amp;mdash; a lesser title, still tasked with overseeing a church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Diaconos  &amp;mdash; Deacons (like Stephen)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (and possibly the Anglicans?), these &quot;translate&quot; to bishop, priest, and deacon respectively (the quotes are because the English words are the product of linguistic shifts, and not an actual separate etymology), and we go off on a tangent about ecclesiastical lines and succession, yada yada yada...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the mainstream Protestant line of thought, what happened to these positions? They do not seem apparent in the Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, or Reformed church governments (I do not know the Lutheran church government).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note: while presbyteros is the etymological ancestor of priest, the word has a fundamentally different meaning. Catholic &quot;priests&quot; are better understood as &quot;presbyters&quot; which is very different from the &quot;priesthood of all believers&quot; (the Latin for a &quot;priest&quot; as in a parish priest is &quot;presbyteros&quot;, the Latin for &quot;priest&quot; as in &quot;priesthood of all believers&quot; is &quot;sacerdos&quot;). This is a deficiency of English itself as most others have the difference built in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-02-28T16:36:35.953" LastActivityDate="2012-06-08T15:22:27.777" Title="Where did the ecclesiastical offices go?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6320" CreationDate="2012-02-28T12:54:56.387" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Amongst Baptists, the title deacon (or more typically the Board of Deacons) is the highest office in the church. It actually functions as a board of Prebyteros, but even the Baptists knew that name was taken :). Baptists retain the notion of deacon, because when the office of deacon was established in Acts, it was clearly a servant role, really nothing more than a glorified waiter. (in the eyes of a Baptist at least). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Baptists reject any form of an establishment cannot be made strongly enough. Baptists subscribe to the priesthood of all believers (John Smythe going so far as to baptize himself, before baptizing Samuel Helwys, the first two Baptists). In reacting against the establishment of church as an institution beyond the local congregation, they necessarily abolish the other offices. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Baptists reject any authority beyond the local church, there is no need for a Bishop, although I know that the head of the NorthStar Baptist Asociation (in Northern Virginia) jokingly refers to himself as a Baptist bishop. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptists tend to believe that the first church had no ecclesiastical offices, and see the ranks of episcopos and presbyteros as aberrations. They have elders which are mentioned in the NT, but note that the very few references to bishops are confined only to the latest of the NT works. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T12:54:56.387" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6324" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-28T15:06:47.080" Score="11" ViewCount="1901" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a little past Christmas, but I forgot to ask this question based on the song &quot;Mary did you know&quot;, which really raises the question.  Did Mary know? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic, there are lots of traditions around the Nativity of Mary, that she was brought up as a temple virgin, well versed in scripture, a humble, sinless and beautiful person with a timeless grace etc...  So, when I hear that song, &quot;Mary, did you know?&quot; I think she did know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, what do the saints and great Catholic writers, like St. Dominic or St. Alphonsus Ligouri say about the foreknowledge of Mary?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is the line &quot;the child that you delivered, will soon deliver you&quot; heretical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2012-03-03T22:26:38.723" LastActivityDate="2014-12-16T17:34:08.233" Title="Did Mary know that her Baby Boy would &quot;soon deliver her&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;&lt;mariology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6324" CreationDate="2012-02-28T15:36:47.950" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Not Heresy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's a great line from a great song.  It's a play on words, using &quot;deliver&quot; in such completely different ways.  It is saying that Mary would deliver--give birth to--Jesus, the eternal Son of God who became a Man, and then that Jesus would one day deliver Mary, that is redeem her and all mankind from the power, penalty and presence of sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if it were suggesting that Mary was going to somehow be the savior of Jesus, that would certainly be heretical, but it's not.  It's simply using a nuance of the English language in a very poetic and powerful way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did Mary Know?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a biblical perspective (and admittedly not from Catholic writers specifically), we do know what the angel told Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found&#xA;  favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear&#xA;  a son, and &lt;strong&gt;you shall call his name Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;. 32 He will be great and will&#xA;  be called &lt;strong&gt;the Son of the Most High&lt;/strong&gt;. And the Lord God will give to him&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;the throne of his father David&lt;/strong&gt;, 33 and he &lt;strong&gt;will reign over the house of&#xA;  Jacob forever&lt;/strong&gt;, and of &lt;strong&gt;his kingdom there will be no end&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a&#xA;  virgin?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you,&#xA;  and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the&#xA;  child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God. 36 And&#xA;  behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a&#xA;  son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37&#xA;  For nothing will be impossible with God.”   Luke 1:30-37 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Mary was specifically told the name of the child would be Jesus.  She no doubt understand that this name meant literally, &quot;The Lord saves&quot;.  She was also told that He would be called the Son of the Most High, that He Himself would reign forever (not just His lineage), and that His Kingdom would last forever.  She also knew that He would have no earthly father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also consider the greeting Mary received from Elizabeth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her&#xA;  womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she&#xA;  exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed&#xA;  is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that &lt;strong&gt;the&#xA;  mother of my Lord&lt;/strong&gt; should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of&#xA;  your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45&#xA;  And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of&#xA;  what was spoken to her from the Lord.”  Luke 1:41-45 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, we have what the angel told Joseph:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the birth of Jesus Christ[e] took place in this way. When his&#xA;  mother Mary had been betrothed[f] to Joseph, before they came together&#xA;  she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her&#xA;  husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame,&#xA;  resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things,&#xA;  behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying,&#xA;  “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that&#xA;  which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a&#xA;  son, &lt;strong&gt;and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people&#xA;  from their sins.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph was given the specific reason why He would be named Jesus--because He would save His people from their sins.  This was pretty significant, and it is at least likely that Joseph shared this with Mary in explanation as to why he decided to go ahead and take her as his wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary was also part of a culture that had received the promises of a Deliverer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, from a biblical perspective, it is quite likely (at least) that Mary did have an understanding that Jesus would one day &quot;deliver her&quot; and the whole world from the power of sin.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T15:36:47.950" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6320" CreationDate="2012-02-28T16:18:20.020" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Presbyterian model does not tend to see a distinction between these classes, though particular Presbyterian churches may differ in the details. This is founded in (what the Reformers believed to be) the practice of the early Church, according to evidence from the Bible and from the Church Fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deacons are still around. But they are not trainee priests, or assistant priests, or anything like that; their role is pastoral or administrative or both.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everybody is a priest, but only some people are ministers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The unique functions of bishops are distributed among various assemblies.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;priesthood&lt;/em&gt; is typically held to be common to all believers; the relationship between us and God is not interrupted by any intermediate layer. However, there is still a function of &lt;em&gt;ministry&lt;/em&gt; to which certain people are called:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The duties of ministers are various; yet for the most part they are restricted to two, in which all the rest are comprehended: to the teaching of the Gospel of Christ, and to the proper administration of the sacraments. &lt;sup&gt;1, Ch. 18&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ministers are meant to be associated with a particular local congregation. No minister has any more authority than any other, and in particular, &amp;quot;bishop&amp;quot; is taken to be a term that puts emphasis on the administrative or governing role of the minister, rather than denoting a distinct class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the one and an equal power or function is given to all ministers in the Church. &lt;sup&gt;1, Ch. 18&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In giving the name of bishops, presbyters, and pastors, indiscriminately to those who govern churches, I have done it on the authority of Scripture, which uses the words as synonymous. &lt;sup&gt;2, IV.3.8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All, therefore, to whom the office of teaching was committed, [the early Church] called presbyters, and in each city these presbyters selected one of their number to whom they gave the special title of bishop, lest, as usually happens, from equality dissension should arise. The bishop, however, was not so superior in honour and dignity as to have dominion over his colleagues ... And the ancients themselves confess that this practice was introduced by human arrangement, according to the exigency of the times. &lt;sup&gt;2, IV.4.2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic system, bishops do many different jobs. They are in charge of their diocese, they exercise discipline over the local priests, they ordain new priests and assign them to parishes, and so on. In the Presbyterian system, these tasks are the responsibility of an assembly/presbytery/session/synod instead (whose members are ministers and &lt;em&gt;elders&lt;/em&gt; - representatives of congregations). The same jobs are being done, but it's no longer a single man doing all of them. For example, the local congregation will &amp;quot;call&amp;quot; a minister to the parish; he is not sent there by the bishop. The authority of these assemblies does not come from a notion of apostolic succession; it's simply a matter of what is considered an appropriate way to make decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That leaves deacons. There are some differences between various churches here. Deacons may be chosen as administrators (looking after church finances), or as having a special pastoral office directed towards the poor, or both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves. &lt;sup&gt;2, IV.3.9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Deacons in the early Church] received the daily offerings of the faithful, and the annual revenues of the Church, that they might apply them to their true uses; in other words, partly in maintaining ministers, and partly in supporting the poor. &lt;sup&gt;2, IV.4.5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Second Helvetic Confession&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. Heinrich Bullinger, 1562.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Institutes of the Christian Religion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. John Calvin. 1559. Translated by Henry Beveridge, 1599.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T16:18:20.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6320" CreationDate="2012-02-28T20:16:19.313" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer here will vary &lt;strong&gt;widely&lt;/strong&gt; depending on which specific protestant group you ask. No one can speak to every protestant tradition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try to think of a continuum, with one end describing groups with a very formalized and liturgical worship style, and the other end an informal and more laid-back style. Groups using the former style tend to (may not always) place more importance on structure and leadership at the level of the entire denomination (If you're liturgical, someone fairly high up was likely privileged to write out your liturgy). Groups using the latter style tend to (but not always) place more importance on the structure and leadership at the congregational level. In this answer, I will try here to speak to the latter end of the continuum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many such protestant denominations, &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; member is a priest/presbytor. In 1 Peter 2:9, speaking to all believers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some will take this as far as calling &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; distinctions &amp;mdash; at all &amp;mdash; between &quot;lay&quot; and &quot;clergy&quot; backwards and &lt;em&gt;evil&lt;/em&gt;, because the distinction discourages the individual Christian from taking up the full responsibility for their relationship with Christ. I know of groups that don't even formally ordain their pulpit ministers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moving on to Episcopai. This office may be called variously Elder, Bishop, Pastor, Minister, or Reverend; never Father, as that is a title reserved for God alone &amp;mdash; some will even refuse to use the title &quot;Father&quot; when directly addressing a Catholic priest, as they see it akin to blasphemy. This level is notable because office holders generally (not always, especially among groups that use &quot;Elders&quot;) draw some kind of salary to help support themselves directly through their ministerial work. This office is generally charged with oversight of a region or congregation, and the selection for this position may even originate within the congregation itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final office is Deacon. Deacons may be in charge of a service area within a particular congregation, such as &quot;benevolence&quot;, &quot;building/grounds/custodial&quot;, &quot;children's ministry&quot;, etc. Deacons will typically not draw a salary from their ministerial work, but are nearly always chosen from the so-called &quot;lay&quot; membership of the congregation itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-06-08T15:22:27.777" LastActivityDate="2012-06-08T15:22:27.777" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6330" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6331" CreationDate="2012-02-28T21:09:02.963" Score="10" ViewCount="276" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many excerpts of the Bible one can find an extended description of a person and his respective descendents. What's the purpose of this? Is it supposed to give an idea of how much time passed between two important facts? Is it supposed to preserve the origin of man? The genealogic tree is a lot more objective than most of the facts narrated in the sacred book. There must be a good reason for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis, 5:21-24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T07:16:38.657" Title="What is the purpose of describing who is son of who?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6330" CreationDate="2012-02-28T21:18:08.870" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many cultures, genealogy roots a person in who they are. By saying, &quot;so and so is the son of so and so,&quot; you are establishing an identity.  As the old saying goes, &quot;we don't want nobody nobody sent.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the specific case of Genesis 5 &amp;amp; 10 (sometimes called &quot;the Table of Nations&quot;), however, there is a very interesting theological point being made.  Namely, the Israelites were a nobody.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many creation myths, the creation myth is set up in such a way as to highlight the fact that the culture that came up with it has pre-eminence amongst the peoples. In Babylonian myths, for example, the Mesopotamians were the firstborn among creation. In Egyptian creation myths, the same holds true, and the pattern is repeated in many places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is different about Genesis is that Abraham is kind of a nobody. He's not always the firstborn of the firstborn of the firstborn.  He's just another guy in creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes him different is that God chose him to say, &quot;through you I will bless all nations.&quot;  The Jewish scriptures are remarkable in their lack of ethnocentricity.  As you state, these genealogies are very objective in their fact taking stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T21:18:08.870" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6332" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-02-28T21:59:38.260" Score="3" ViewCount="406" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did Joseph Smith condone, or perhaps even encourage polygamy?  What scriptures, if any, support this practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1364" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-03-01T11:02:12.430" LastActivityDate="2016-04-24T20:14:41.993" Title="Joseph Smith purpose of polygamy" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;polygamy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6320" CreationDate="2012-02-28T22:09:56.780" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Joel Coehoorn &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6329/914&quot;&gt;notes&lt;/a&gt;, there are huge variations in what Protestant congregations do with church offices.  From an Evangelical congregationalist standpoint, there are two offices defined in the New Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Overseers or Elders&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul gives the qualifications for &lt;em&gt;episkopos&lt;/em&gt; &amp;lt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1985&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1985&lt;/a&gt;&gt; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Timothy+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy 3:1-7&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Titus+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 1:5-16&lt;/a&gt;.  Often the title is translated &quot;elder&quot; and is usually seen as synonymous with &lt;em&gt;presbyteros&lt;/em&gt; &amp;lt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4245&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;4245&lt;/a&gt;&gt;.  (The case for them being the same starts with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4245&amp;amp;t=KJV&amp;amp;cscs=Tts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 1:5&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4245&amp;amp;t=KJV&amp;amp;cscs=1Ti&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy  5&lt;/a&gt; where Paul seems to be referring to just one set of people by both terms.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on local culture, tradition and usage, the group of elders are called the &quot;Elder Board&quot;, &quot;Church Council&quot;, &quot;Board of Directors&quot;, or similar.  In congregationalist churches, they are normally elected by the membership body.  Since they often are given responsibility over the hiring and firing of pastors and staff, boards don't usually include the pastors in their membership.  Since they often have control over budget and policy decisions, pastors are often invited to their meetings.  Many churches only allow men to be elders (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Timothy+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 1:6&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exactly what the board does depends on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2001/june-online-only/cln10620.html?start=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;size of the church&lt;/a&gt; and the role of the pastor.  Our local church has been transforming the role from being largely business-of-the-church focused to spiritual-leadership focused.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Deacons&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The office of deacon seems to stem from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 6:1-7&lt;/a&gt; and Paul gives the qualifications for &lt;em&gt;diakonos&lt;/em&gt; &amp;lt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1249&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1249&lt;/a&gt;&gt; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Timothy+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy 3:8-13&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some churches lack formal deacons, others have leaders who are appointed similar functions, and still others have &quot;Deacon Boards&quot;.  The primary distinguisher between an &quot;elder&quot; and a &quot;deacon&quot; is that deacons are normally appointed by the elder board.  Some churches allow deaconesses (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&amp;amp;chapter=16&amp;amp;verse=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 16:1&lt;/a&gt;) but others limit the office to men (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Timothy+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy 3:12&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are usually volunteers and often assigned to specific functions.  For instance, our church has a Missions Deacon, a Hospitality Deacon, a Hispanic Ministries Deacon, and etc.  It's not unusual for these leaders to be chairs of ministry committees, whether they are formally created or not.  They almost always have a focus on practical service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Congregationalist churches tend to model their church offices on the positions Paul describes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Timothy+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy 3:1-7&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Titus+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 1:5-16&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-02-28T22:16:19.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6336" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6357" CreationDate="2012-02-29T03:21:05.767" Score="4" ViewCount="423" Body="&lt;p&gt;A comment to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6294/491&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; prompted this question. Was Adam created, naming the animals, and married in one day, or did these events take place in a larger time span?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T14:05:12.150" Title="Did Genesis 2 occur all in one day?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2015-03-09T01:23:07.990" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6338" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6698" CreationDate="2012-02-29T04:09:44.830" Score="14" ViewCount="6779" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Bible espouses &lt;strong&gt;moral absolutism&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, I recently read on this site a response to a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6129/does-the-bible-support-slavery-and-white-superiority&quot;&gt;question about slavery&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As stated, slavery was a fact of the Ancient World, and so when the&#xA;  Bible addresses the topic, it should not be compared against the&#xA;  sensibilities of the modern world, but rather against the&#xA;  sensibilities of the ones to whom the Bible was addressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anachronism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;anachronism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to apply questions of, for example, feminism&#xA;  or communism, to the Scriptures, because the original audience would&#xA;  have had no means of apprehending it as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this statement is correct, then the Bible cannot appropriately speak to issues like slavery or women's rights because it was written in a different era. Therefore are we all left to interpret and filter the Bible through the lens of our current times and adopt &lt;strong&gt;moral relativism&lt;/strong&gt; for ourselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/3rja8EcMmPw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here's a quick refresher&lt;/a&gt; about the differences between moral relativism and moral absolutism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-05-08T18:48:06.067" Title="Does the Bible espouse moral absolutism or moral relativism?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;epistemology&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2015-09-07T21:34:01.090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6339" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6342" CreationDate="2012-02-29T04:27:00.087" Score="-5" ViewCount="202" Body="&lt;p&gt;Building on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6336/1100&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;How much of Genesis 2 &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; occurred?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And how do historians/biblical scholars know that it occurred?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-01-20T00:10:20.263" Title="How much of Genesis 2 *actually* occurred?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2012-02-29T12:54:10.903" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3538" CreationDate="2012-02-29T09:59:35.770" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a very good explanation of where most of the water came for the flood in this link&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Explanation of Noah's flood&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;This explanation would give plenty of water to flood the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not believe the universe is made of water,but there is evidence of vast amounts of water out there in this link.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/6247/244/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;water on the edge of universe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are lots of very good material to give a good explanation of the world.And I do not believe God is the author of confusion. Satan is!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1365" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T19:17:52.773" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T19:17:52.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6339" CreationDate="2012-02-29T11:21:29.693" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is simply no archeological evidence nor any biblical information. &#xA;Any such evidence as may have existed would have been guarded by the angel in 3:24, until such time as the whole thing was destroyed in the flood of Genesis 6-9. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, archeology is also notoriously unable to nail down the duration of short events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, you are only left with speculation and opinion, neither of which is on topic for this site. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T11:56:19.370" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T11:56:19.370" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6338" CreationDate="2012-02-29T13:45:58.203" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I don't think slavery can be used to measure the moral relativism or absolutism of the Bible, as it has no clear moral statement on the topic.  Simply because I never said I don't like liver doesn't mean that I do like it, but it also doesn't mean I don't.  It's kind of like having a moral Schrodinger's box.  We just don't know until God tells us clearly.   The Bible &lt;em&gt;mentions&lt;/em&gt; slavery, but does not &lt;em&gt;address&lt;/em&gt; it in a moral context, so we can't really use that.  (On a side note, I do believe there are other passages in Scripture that would hint at the attitude we should take: Romans 12:10, Philippians 2:3, but this is still not a clear, direct application to the topic of slavery). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But on other issues, I think it's crystal clear: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not murder.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not steal.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not lie.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not covet.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On these things, the Bible isn't relativistic at all.  I don't think a lack of a moral judgment on an issue should be construed as moral relativism, but simply as silence.  There's a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, this question is making an assumption about the purpose of the Bible.  It's assuming that the Bible is primarily meant as a tool to tell us how we ought to live.  This isn't the purpose of the Bible at all.  It's purpose is to show us who God is, and how we can know Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul, in Romans 3:19-20, makes it clear that the law isn't an &lt;em&gt;exhaustive&lt;/em&gt; list of rights and wrongs, but a measuring stick by which we can all conclude that we all come up short:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are&#xA;  under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world&#xA;  may be held accountable to God.  For by works of the law no human&#xA;  being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes&#xA;  knowledge of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's the purpose of the law?  It's so we'll see our own sin in our lives and turn to Christ to be saved.  In order for the law to do it's job, it must be taken as absolute.  If it bends to societal whims, it will never be able to do it's job, which is to show us our need for a Savior.  Instead, we will likely use it to excuse ourselves, denying our need for a Savior, and thus rejecting Christ altogether.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update - The different kinds of law&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to add a couple of clarifications about the different kinds of laws in the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to remember that, in the Old Testament, there were multiple kinds of laws given: moral, ceremonial, governmental, and sanitation-related laws are some of them.  Moral law would include such things as the Ten Commandments.  Ceremonial laws would include such laws as how to, and when to, kill a lamb.  Governmental laws would include such things as how to handle slaves, etc.  Sanitation laws might include laws about mildew and various rashes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, it's true that some of these laws don't apply to us anymore.  We don't call a priest and then abandon our homes when we have a little bit of mildew.  Instead, we grab the household cleaner and start spraying.  This isn't a moral judgement on mildew, it's the best way they had at the time to diagnose the problem and ensure public health.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, there are some laws that applied to the Israelites as a governmental entity.  Slavery is included in these.  Typically, the governmental laws are the application of the moral law within a society.  We have no obligation today to follow the governmental laws of the theocratic government of the Israelites, as we are no longer under a theocracy, and open slavery is not as widespread of a practice today, so it need not be addressed or have limits placed on it.  However, the moral laws do still apply, and these are the ones we're concerned with when we speak of moral relativism and absolutism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The false dichotomy that is often made regarding the OT law is that we either have to accept the entirety of it as a moral law, or we have to reject the entirety of it as &quot;simply an opinion&quot;.  Neither option is very palatable, and both options needlessly over-simplify the Bible.  I also don't believe we can extrapolate the moral law from the ceremonial or governmental law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the crux of most moral and ethical conversations revolving around the Bible comes down to this question: What kind of law was it?  If it was homosexuality, was it governmental, ceremonial, sanitation-related or moral?  If it was slavery, was it governmental, ceremonial, sanitation-related or moral?  Deciding these questions decides what morals we live by today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in the end, it still comes down to the purpose of the law.  If we're talking about the law as an agent to point out our shortcomings and point to our need for a savior, then the safest route to go is to assume that the &lt;em&gt;entire&lt;/em&gt; law applies, regardless of type.  If our goal is tell us how to best live our lives, so we can avoid owing God, then our route is to pick and choose which ones apply and which ones don't.  I choose to believe it's the former, and that's what makes me a Christian, and not a scared rule-follower. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-03-03T03:27:35.213" LastActivityDate="2012-03-03T03:27:35.213" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6338" CreationDate="2012-02-29T14:17:06.963" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure the Bible does espouse moral absolutism throughout.   The apostle Paul, for example is in general very big on the idea that the law of the Jews does not apply to Gentiles who become Christian.  There was an enormous debate in the early church as recorded in the New Testament about whether circumcision (a moral necessity for the Jews) was a moral necessity for Gentile Christians.   The Council of Jerusalem (as described in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 15&lt;/a&gt;) met to decide this question, and actually &lt;em&gt;decided on what would be the morals preached to Gentile Christians&lt;/em&gt; (vv. 19-20):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore  my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who  turn to God, but should write to them  to abstain from  the things polluted by idols, and from  sexual immorality, and from  what has been strangled, and from  blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul wrote the entire letter of Galatians to a Gentile church that wanted to adopt Jewish morals such as circumcision - even though he believed the Jewish law was &amp;quot;holy and righteous and good&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 7:12&lt;/a&gt;) and that &amp;quot;circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 2:25&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The reason Paul can give different morals to different cultures is because he believes it is not the law or morals that save us - the purpose of the Law is to show us that we are sinful.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now it is evident that  no one is justified before God by the law, for  “The righteous shall live by faith.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:11&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For  by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since  through the law comes knowledge of sin. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:20&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law,  I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if  the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 7:7&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why he can say &amp;quot;there is neither Jew nor Greek&amp;quot; for those who are in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But even if you disagree with me on that point, there is, I think, still the possibility of &amp;quot;moral anachronisms&amp;quot; even if the law is absolute: Paul tells us, for example, that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but  sin is not counted where there is no law. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 5:13&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Before the law was given,&amp;quot; I think, is the important point here. Before the law was given, Jacob married a woman and her sister.  Afterwards knowledge of the law forbidding this came (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 18:18&lt;/a&gt;).  Was it just as sinful before the law was known as afterwards?  Most likely.  Was it counted against him?  No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if the law of what is right and wrong is absolute, might our knowledge of it still be imperfect - might we not continue to learn more about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T14:17:06.963" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6345" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-29T21:51:45.590" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different parts of Christianity apply the term 'infallible' to different things. It is applied by some to the teachings of the church (and by Catholics especially to pronouncements by the Pope). Protestants sometimes apply it to the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for all of these. There is also an 'inerrancy' tag which refers to the similar concept of something never having been wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T22:05:27.960" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T22:05:27.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6346" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-29T21:51:45.590" Score="0" Body="Questions on inerrancy of Bible, Pope or other authorities." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-01-29T21:28:14.370" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T21:28:14.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6347" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-29T21:55:14.900" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;prophet&lt;/strong&gt; is someone appointed by God to speak on his behalf. A recognized office in the Old Testament, and also used of people with this gift in the New Testament. Some denominations recognize people as prophets in modern times. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about any people carrying out this task in ancient or modern times. There is also the tag &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/prophecy&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;prophecy&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;prophecy&lt;/a&gt; for questions about the process itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-09T04:34:48.283" LastActivityDate="2014-07-09T04:34:48.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6348" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-29T21:55:14.900" Score="0" Body="A tag for any of the Bible's prophets, including the writing prophets (Isaiah to Malachi) and the non-writing prophets such as Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, or Elisha, as well as prophets from the New Testament era such as Agabus." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-09T04:35:00.567" LastActivityDate="2014-07-09T04:35:00.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6349" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-02-29T21:57:35.757" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the people. use the 'methodism' tag for questions about the movement they started and its beliefs and practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T22:04:04.093" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T22:04:04.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6350" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-02-29T21:57:35.757" Score="0" Body="The brothers Charles and John Wesley, founders of Methodism." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-02-29T22:03:48.307" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T22:03:48.307" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5290" CreationDate="2012-02-29T23:48:07.430" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not think you can have discussion about cessationism without mentioning 1 Corinthians 13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:8-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; For we know in part and we prophesy in part, &lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, what Paul talking about? It seems that at some point in time, either in the past or in the future these gifts will not be taking place or would have stopped taking place. When will this happen? Paul gives the answer in verse 10, &quot;...when completeness comes&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the cessationist argument, using this as proof text, generally is centered around the meaning of 'completeness'. They would argue the completeness came at the end of the apostolic age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark Driscoll gives a very thorough treatment of the text &lt;a href=&quot;http://pastormark.tv/2011/12/15/tough-text-thursday-1-corinthians-13&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, in which he comes to an anti-cessationist conclusion, but extremely thorough none-the-less, and worth a read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2012-02-29T23:48:07.430" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6336" CreationDate="2012-03-01T01:42:24.200" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis chapter 2 is a telling of the creation account from the perspective of Adam; that is to say it was Adam-centered. First God thought to create man, man needed a home, man needed food, man needed work (taking care of the animals, among other things). The chronological order of creation is found in Genesis chapter 1. Therein we find that creation took 6 days, with God resting on the 7th day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the concept of day doesn't have to mean one 24-hour period, especially since these days started being counted before there was a 24-hour day as we know it, this period of 6 days could be thousands or millions of years. The scriptures relate a day to a year (Eze 4:6), a day to 1,000 years (2 Pe 3:8), a day to a period (day's of Noah, Luke 17:26), or a day to a period corresponding to an event (day of fury, Zeph 1:15). Furthermore, the creative account in the Bible of 6 days doesn't even take in to account things that were created before the 6 days began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the 'evening and morning' part of the verses, consider that it says that even about the first 'day' in which there were still no luminaries (though there are day and night by that time). Additionally, if you note 2:2-3 it mentions that God proceeded to rest (note the original verb tenses here, many translations read 'God rested') implying that the resting has continued. Furthermore, at Heb 4:1-11 Paul indicated that God was still in the 7th day of rest, some 4,000 years after Adam's creation. Also, it seems that the 1,000 year reign of Christ will also be included in God's day of rest as Jesus is called &quot;Lord of the sabbath&quot; (Mt 12:8; Re 20:1-6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, the creation of all things took longer than one 24-hour day, but it could be said that all creation occurred in Jehovah's creative day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to your comment on this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6292/who-nurtured-adam-when-he-was-an-infant/6294#6294&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; consider that Ge 2:23 records Adam as saying 'This is &lt;em&gt;at last&lt;/em&gt; bone of my bones...'. That would certainly imply that Adam had been alive for much longer than a single day before Eve was created. Additionally, Adam had to name the creatures on the earth. This job could have taken quite some time, especially since the account mentions that Jehovah brought the animals to Adam to see what Adam would call them, which could imply a period of observation. Then the text adds that there 'was found no helper as a complement of him' further implying that time had passed for the search and for Adam to notice that all animals had a helper/complement but he didn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1363" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T14:05:12.150" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6353" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6356" CreationDate="2012-03-01T02:50:02.383" Score="12" ViewCount="1206" Body="&lt;p&gt;Old Earth Creationism incorporates evolution, which requires natural selection, which requires death. If death pre-dated Adam, then death pre-dated sin. How then do Old Earth Creationists explain Romans 5:12, which says that death did not pre-date sin? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="666" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-03-01T10:51:32.177" LastActivityDate="2015-10-27T10:36:43.560" Title="How do Old-Earth Creationists explain Romans 5:12-19?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;&lt;romans&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5185" CreationDate="2012-03-01T03:04:48.170" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Canaanites practiced child sacrifice, temple prostitution, and likely demon worship. The chances are very high that their society was riddled with STDs, violence, and vice. Surely it was merciful for God to cut off such nations. Would anyone want to grow up in a society where they would likely be born with an STD, some of their siblings murdered as &quot;sacrifices&quot; (possibly to demons) by their parents, and violence rampant? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 18:20-12: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God told Abraham that for the sake of 10 righteous individuals He would not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[edit] I should have also mentioned God's justice, which is rooted in his Holiness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 For the upright will inhabit the land,&#xA;  and those with integrity will remain in it,&#xA;  22 but the wicked will be cut off from the land,&#xA;  and the treacherous will be rooted out of it. Prov. 2:21-22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="666" LastEditorUserId="666" LastEditDate="2012-10-07T22:17:39.883" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T22:17:39.883" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6338" CreationDate="2012-03-01T06:03:16.853" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can find places in the Bible where different rules are applied in different situations. But this is not the same as situation ethics or moral relativism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that the morality of an action depends on the context in at least some sense. To take a silly example, if I swing a sledge hammer at a cement block as part of a construction project, that is morally neutral, maybe even praiseworthy if the construction project serves some noble purpose. But if I swing a sledge hammer against the head of someone that I plan to murder and rob, that is morally wrong. I could make the exact same motions using the exact same tool in both cases, but the surrounding circumstances change the morality of the act.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take a more serious example: The Bible required the Jews to follow a number of special dietary rules, but then in the New Testament we are told that these rules do not apply to Christians. We could debate the exact reasons, but it is certainly not necessary to suppose that God couldn't make up his mind. The circumstances were different, so different rules applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it is a huge leap from &quot;morality must be judged in context&quot; to &quot;right and wrong are just matters of opinion&quot;. The Bible says that sex within marriage is a positive good while sex outside marriage is a sin. The moral relativist says that neither is a &quot;sin&quot; in any absolute sense. It may be a sin for you if you believe it's a sin, but if I don't believe it's a sin than it isn't a sin for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, the Bible routinely says that X is right in this situation but wrong in that situation. Nowhere does it say that &quot;right&quot; and &quot;wrong&quot; are meaningless words or that you can choose what is right or wrong for you based on your personal whims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T06:03:16.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6353" CreationDate="2012-03-01T06:14:33.330" Score="15" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Death through Sin&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of &amp;quot;death through sin&amp;quot; in Romans 5:12 refers to Genesis 2:17, where God warns Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The NIV translation of Genesis 2:17 is questionable, so I'm offering four other translations, because the wording is important for understanding the passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/genesis/2-17.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/genesis/2-17.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/genesis/2-17.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/genesis/2-17.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NIV softens this a little, obscuring the fact that the death is meant to occur on the same day:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/niv/genesis/2-17.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What is a Day?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God explicitly says that they will die &lt;em&gt;on the day they eat the fruit&lt;/em&gt;. However, they did not physically die before sunset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple ways to make sense of this. Either &amp;quot;day&amp;quot; does not mean a 24-hour day here, or &amp;quot;die&amp;quot; does not mean physical death (or both).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the early Christians, using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-peter/3-8.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:8&lt;/a&gt; (&amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;) interpreted the &amp;quot;days&amp;quot; of Genesis as 1000-year periods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote in his &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dialogue with Trypho&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, chapter LXXXI:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see more examples in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5600/126&quot;&gt;my answer to the &lt;em&gt;How old is old earth creationism?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What is Death?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early Christians also frequently understood &amp;quot;death&amp;quot; to mean not dying physically, but being cut off from the eternal life that Christ brings. Paul, in that very same letter to the Romans, uses it this way numerous times:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/romans/6-23.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 6:23 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/romans/passage.aspx?q=romans+7:9-10&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 7:9-10 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as well as in his other letters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-corinthians/1-18.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1:18 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-corinthians/7-10.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 7:10 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see this usage immediately following the &amp;quot;thousand years&amp;quot; verse in 2 Peter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-peter/3-9.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:9 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and in one of the best-known Bible verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/3-16.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:16 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This usage continued in the early church. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Didache&lt;/a&gt; (the full Greek title translates to &amp;quot;Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles&amp;quot;) was a late first or early second Christian document summarizing the doctrines of the early church. It explains the difference between life and death as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Didache chapter 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and accursed: murders, adultery, lust, fornication, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rape, false witness, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness; persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing a reward for righteousness, not cleaving to good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that which is good, but for that which is evil; from whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pursuing revenge, not pitying a poor man, not laboring for the afflicted, not knowing Him Who made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him who is in want, afflicting him who is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these.—&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Didache chapter 5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;TL;DR&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:12 is not talking about physical death but spiritual death, i.e., separation from God. That's what sin does; it separates us from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T06:14:33.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6336" CreationDate="2012-03-01T06:39:30.040" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: A literal reading of the text would indicate that yes, Adam was created, named the animal, and married all in one day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:1-2:6 gives an overview of the creation of the world. Gen 2:7-25 then goes back and gives additional detail about the creation of Adam and Eve. (There's nothing odd about this, it's a common enough literary technique: first give an overview, then go back and give details about the part you're most interested in.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:26-27 says that God created humans on the sixth day. It specifically says male and female. Gen 2:7 describes the creation of Adam and 2:21-22 describes the creation of Eve. So the plain reading is that 2:7, 2:22, and everything in between therefore happenned on one day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see any difficulty in supposing that Adam and Eve were both created and married to each other in one day. It's not like they had a lot of choice about potential marriage partners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you struggle with how Adam could have named all the animals in one day? That depends how many animals he named. You often hear how there are millions of species in the world. But the vast majority of those are microscopic, most of the rest are insects or arachnids, and a hefty percentage are sea creatures. The text says Adam named cattle, birds and &quot;every beast of the field&quot;. There's no mention of Adam naming fish, insects, or microscopic creatures. If you just count mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians, there are about 30,000 species. Genesis does not spell out how broad or narrow the categories where that he named, and species is pretty narrow. Like did Adam name &quot;dogs&quot; (in whatever language he spoke, of course, not English), or did he name every individual breed? Or for that matter did he just give a name to the broader family that includes dogs, wolves, etc? Realistically, Adam probably named a few thousand animals, maybe as little as a few hundred. If he just went down the line and said, &quot;Okay, I'll call that a 'dog', that's a 'cat', that's a 'moose' ...&quot; etc. he could have named each one in a second or two. At 3 seconds per animal he could name 20 per minute, 1200 per hour, 9600 in an 8-hour working day. Okay, I doubt he kept up a rapid-fire pace of naming for 8 straight hours, but he could have named several thousand animals in a day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to take the story symbolically or allegorically, then the whole question becomes moot. If it's all just a symbolic story and none of it really happenned, then it's meaningless to talk about how long it took.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T06:39:30.040" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="852" CreationDate="2012-03-01T07:00:16.627" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Man is complex because he was created to perform many complex functions. Einstein once said, &quot;Make everything as simple as possible ... but not simpler.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The human body is made to survive in environments from freezing cold to broiling hot. We can live on many different kinds of food. We can perform manual labor or refined intellectual contemplation. Etc etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare the human body to any machine you have ever seen. Simple machines can do one thing very well, but are generally useless for anything else. A bicycle is great for travelling on flat services, not so good on rough ground, and pretty useless for climbing mountains. An airplane goes very fast through the air, but is not so good under water. A calculator is great for performing arithmetic quickly and accurately, not so useful at telling the temperature or evaluating the creativity of a poem. Etc. But a human being can walk, climb, swim, add and subtract, distinguish hot and cold, write poems, and a million other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And by the way, I think you've got it backwards on complexity being a cause of medical problems. The human body can fight infection and repair itself when damaged. The ability to repair itself is awesome. I develop computer systems for a living, and just trying to build a computer system that can correct bad data or recover cleanly from a power failure is an extremely difficult problem. Usually an outside intelligence -- the programmer -- must repair damaged data, the system can't fix itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T07:00:16.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2900" CreationDate="2012-03-01T09:07:39.137" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the book by Jean Claude Larchet &quot;Therapy of mental illnesses. Experience of Christian East of the First Centuries.&quot; (I read it in Russian). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 3 types of illnesses: natural, spiritual and demonic. Very often 2 or 3 types appear at the same time. For example, someone has very strong pride, it results is a spiritual illness. It may result in formation of a natural mental illness, so that when the person becomes more humble, the illness does not end. But if it is purely spiritual, it will cease as the sin ceases. That is the difference at least how I understand that. The illness of demonic nature can completely end in one second if the demon is gone. But if it caused (due to presence of the demon for a long time) a natural illness, the natural illness will remain even without demon possession. The indicative of the demon possession is the reaction on the Holy Water, relics of the Saints etc. All other external behavior of demonic illness (even not mental) can look absolutely &quot;natural&quot;. Also sometimes, maybe very often, I do not know statistics, there are demonic illnesses without complete possession, i.e. the person can take Communion, drink Holy Water, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also that book says, quoting many other authors, that some cases from the Bible look like natural, some not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I also read in that book and other places, Apostles, Saints and modern Elders can distinguish when it is demonic, when natural, and were sending people - some to exorcism, some to the doctor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1359" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T09:07:39.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6360" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6402" CreationDate="2012-03-01T13:39:23.010" Score="8" ViewCount="99966" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had an interesting question presented to me by a rector of a church.  He asked me to find anywhere in the bible where Jesus spoke of your &lt;em&gt;spirit&lt;/em&gt; going to heaven and then research those specific passages (find the original documents and look at different translations).  While I thought about it for a while and then jumped in to do research, I found it not as easy I thought it would be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where does Jesus speak specifically about the spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-01T15:22:58.370" LastActivityDate="2013-05-11T11:07:09.990" Title="What does Jesus say about your spirit going to heaven?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6332" CreationDate="2012-03-01T14:27:42.607" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was polygamy, or plural wives, in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Starting with the (NRSV) Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sarai gave Hagar to Abram as his wife, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=197610021&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 16:1–11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jacob received Leah and Rachel and their handmaidens as wives, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=197610066&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 29:21–28&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=197610110&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 30:4, 9, 26&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If a man take another wife, he shall not diminish the first wife’s possessions, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=197610143&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 21:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;David and his two wives went up to Hebron, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=197610176&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 2:1–2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Book of Mormon, the book of Jacob, Jacob explains to the Nephites how God sees plural wives. (Jacob 2:27-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God has to command plural marriage by revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, God revealed that he wanted all things restored, including polygamy.  This revelation was recorded 12 July 1843, and is known in the Doctrine and Covenants as revelation 132.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Poor Joseph.  God commanded him to restore all things.  He felt obliged to marry &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;34 other women&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T14:27:42.607" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6362" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6363" CreationDate="2012-03-01T15:22:33.207" Score="3" ViewCount="2020" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2016&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Numbers 16&lt;/a&gt; describes the Levites revolting against Moses and Aaron. In proving the Lord sent him to do all those things, Moses said &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But if the Lord brings about something totally new, and the earth&#xA;  opens its mouth and swallows them...you will know that these men have&#xA;  treated the Lord with contempt. As soon as he finished saying all&#xA;  this, the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth&#xA;  and swallowed them...the earth closed over them, and they perished and&#xA;  were gone from the community.&quot; Numbers 16:30-33&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like &quot;something totally new&quot; was an earthquake causing the ground to split. Is there any evidence for or against this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T18:47:59.250" Title="Does Numbers 16 describe the first earthquake?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;numbers&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6362" CreationDate="2012-03-01T15:34:22.680" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe, maybe not.  Consider Job 9:6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%209:6&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 9:6 (DRA)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job is supposed to have lived around the time of Abraham, quite a while before the events that took place in numbers. Even if you consider Job to be a tall tale, its origin in oral tradition might suggest that Earthquakes are not new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Earthquakes as a means of disposing with traitors to the faith, well that's different than flooding the Earth, and something new in God's revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But alas, there is nothing new under the sun. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T15:34:22.680" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6362" CreationDate="2012-03-01T15:57:44.317" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not that earthquakes themselves were new, but rather that an earthquake would have been directly caused by God to punish Korah in front of everyone that would have been new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers 16:28 - 29 sets this up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: If these men die a natural death and suffer the fate of all mankind, then the LORD has not sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sons of Korah (this is often called &quot;Korah's rebellion&quot;) wanted new leadership, rather than simply relying on Moses' word. Moses was willing to put their claims to the test. Moses was even willing to give them the benefit of the doubt - if nothing bad happens when Korah tries to do its thing, then I'm not talking to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if the LORD brings about something totally new&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i.e. if something bad happens, then yes, in fact the Lord is supporting me (Moses).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, if something new happens in the lives of the sons of Korah, then this is God talking. In a way, its no different than Gideon's fleece, only for the whole of Israel. Moses is stacking the situation so that God must show himself strong on account of Moses, or else God isn't talking to Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...you will know that these men have treated the Lord with contempt. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, earthquakes themselves had most likely happened before this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis 7 talks about the fountains of the deep opening up - which could be an earthquake, and &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in Exodus 19:18, Mount Sinai itself was said to have &quot;trembled greatly&quot; when the Lord descended.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, what's new is the Lord making an event occur that is out of the ordinary, just as Korah speaks.  This is also the first time in Scripture that the earth &quot;swallows&quot; someone up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidently, according to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264370798000246&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;scientific study&lt;/a&gt; the Sinai has a long history of earthquakes, and they have been going on a long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-01T16:42:41.860" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T16:42:41.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6360" CreationDate="2012-03-01T19:18:16.883" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Excellent question.  You're right, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot on the topic in Scripture, so I'm going to give this the best try I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus seems to imply that his spirit will be with God the Father when he died. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 23:46:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit&#xA;  my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to me to be an assumption that at least his spirit will be with God the Father.  We could then conclude from other passages in scripture, including those that indicate that Christ is the firstborn of all creation, and those in Romans 5 comparing and contrasting Christ to Adam, that our spirits will also be in heaven with Christ if we're found in Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only other area I could find directly from Jesus mouth is when he's talking to Nicodemus in John 3, and this is probably where the greatest evidence for spirits in heaven exists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:5-6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of&#xA;  water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which&#xA;  is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is&#xA;  spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like these two verses can be taken together to say that the Holy Spirit is the spiritual analogue to a human mother, and nobody can enter into the kingdom of God unless they are born of the Spirit, that is, unless they have a spirit.  Essentially, he seems to be saying that flesh doesn't enter into the Kingdom of God, but spirit does. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, accepting this interpretation depends on your view of the relationship between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T19:18:16.883" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6360" CreationDate="2012-03-01T19:44:03.910" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am unaware of any locations in the Bible that support the claim that our spirit goes to heaven upon our death, however, I'm sure Jesus was have believe the portion of the Bible that was already written at that time which stated that upon death ones spirit goes out, but a person goes in to the ground and has no thoughts (Ps 146:4; Eccl 9:5-6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Co 15:52 speaks of those that go to heaven being changed to spirit beings (like angels) after their death. It makes a point of saying that on the last trumpet such ones wouldn't remain in death, but be changed instantly. However, they still died in the flesh as the concept of 'baptism into death' and other texts at Ro 6:3-4 indicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that spirit in this verse and in many other locations in the scriptures refers to an animating force, or breath (as in breath of life, Ge 2:7; Compare Job 33:4), not to a being with a body like the angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it weren't for the teachings of a resurrection found throughout the Bible a dead person would remain such, that is to say without thought, feeling, or capability. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1363" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T17:26:39.113" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T17:26:39.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6369" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6370" CreationDate="2012-03-01T22:06:42.097" Score="6" ViewCount="467" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, I know we shouldn't have a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2011/09/19/canon-within-the-canon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;canon within the canon&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, but I'll admit, I just can't get worked up over Ezra.  I love Malachi. I could for a long time on 2 Peter.  I can even find stuff in Leviticus worth reading, but try as might, I just don't see anything interesting in Ezra. Understanding that I really do see theology in really obscure places, can someone help me see what is theological about this book?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-14T12:57:11.580" LastActivityDate="2016-01-14T12:57:11.580" Title="Why was Ezra included in the canon?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;ezra&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-09-26T18:54:01.490" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6369" CreationDate="2012-03-01T22:33:47.777" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;You, my friend, have a hard heart if you can't find anything interesting in Ezra.  ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the directions of David king of Israel. And they sang responsively, praising and giving thanks to the LORD,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  “For he is good,&#xA;    for his steadfast love endures forever toward Israel.”&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid. But many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers' houses, old men who had seen the first house, wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, though many shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people's weeping, for the people shouted with a great shout, and the sound was heard far away.&amp;mdash;Ezra 3:10-13 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ezra+3/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, this is a picture of the joy we will have in the Lord when He brings this age to a close and we enter the age that will last forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire book tells the story of God's influence in world history even in the operation of a worldly empire.  Since the Second Temple was rebuilt, Jesus was able to enter it and, ultimately, bring the Mosiac Covenant to a close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-03-01T22:33:47.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6373" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-02T02:57:15.473" Score="11" ViewCount="673" Body="&lt;p&gt;Occasionally when discussing the modern nation of Israel I hear ideas &lt;em&gt;accused&lt;/em&gt; of being &quot;Replacement Theology&quot;.  What is Replacement Theology, and why is it almost always used in a negative light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:33:24.863" Title="What is replacement theology, and why do I hear it used with a negative connotation?" Tags="&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3834" CreationDate="2012-03-02T04:06:14.610" Score="-5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adam got his spirit from God, so his spirit was perfect. When Adam sinned, he made his spirit faulty, and thus passed on his imperfect spirit to all of his offspring. That is why everybody has a tendency to sin....because Adam passed on his imperfect spirit to all.&#xA;Jesus however had a perfect spirit, since His spirit did not come from Adam, only his body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1371" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T04:06:14.610" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3834" CreationDate="2012-03-02T08:06:53.047" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think anything in the Bible or Christian theology says that Adam &quot;represents&quot; us in the sense that you are using the word, that is, that we are held responsible for Adam's actions. Rather, it says that Adam's actions brought sin and death into the world, and everyone since then has sufferred because of it. 1 Cor 15:21-22 &quot;For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.&quot; It is not like a judge saying, &quot;Your father robbed a bank, so I sentence you to jail.&quot; Rather, it is like your father moved to a crime-ridden area, you grew up among drug dealers and gangsters, you ended up joining a gang and becoming a criminal yourself, and now the judge says, &quot;You have turned out to be as bad a criminal as your father was, and because of the crimes you committed I sentence you to jail.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is what Warren was trying to say with his &quot;European ancestors&quot; analogy. I didn't choose to have ancestors who emmigrated to the United States. I had no control over their actions as I wasn't even born yet. But their decisions and actions have affected my life, for good or ill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surely you don't claim that God is unfairly accusing you of being a sinner, blaming you for something that Adam did! I don't know you, of course, but unless you are unique among human beings, you have broken many of God's laws in the course of your life. I can pretty fairly guess that you have been guilty of lying, greed, lust, egotism, etc etc. Don't get me wrong -- I've done these and plenty more too. We all have. That's the point. Adam brought sin into the world. But you are not held accountable for Adam's sinsh; you are held accountable for your own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T08:06:53.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6376" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-03-02T11:21:28.073" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T11:21:28.073" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T11:21:28.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6377" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-03-02T11:21:28.073" Score="0" Body="Because this is ambiguous, please do not use this tag" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T11:21:28.073" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T11:21:28.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6378" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-03-02T11:22:55.137" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T11:22:55.137" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T11:22:55.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6379" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-03-02T11:22:55.137" Score="0" Body="Refers to the character in Genesis 37 - 50 who was sold into slavery by his brothers but became second in command over all egypt" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T11:22:55.137" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T11:22:55.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6380" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-03-02T11:24:07.537" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T11:24:07.537" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T11:24:07.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6381" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-03-02T11:24:07.537" Score="0" Body="Refers to the man who was betrothed to Mary when she bore Jesus" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T11:24:07.537" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T11:24:07.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6382" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6386" CreationDate="2012-03-02T14:52:32.040" Score="4" ViewCount="375" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicates:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11/praying-to-people-outside-the-trinity&quot;&gt;Praying to people outside the Trinity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/767/what-is-the-basis-for-the-solicitation-of-prayers-from-dead-saints&quot;&gt;What is the Basis for the solicitation of prayers from dead saints&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that those who practice praying to the saints rely heavily on either their own experience in this regard or on the experience of others who likewise practiced praying to the saints in their lives. However, they may also have some support from the Bible for this practice. What places from the Bible do such Christians view as indicating the validity of this practice? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T12:05:47.970" Title="What Biblical support for praying to the saints is usually cited by those Christians who practice that?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-03-22T12:05:04.197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6338" CreationDate="2012-03-02T15:19:45.460" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to stand by by statement that it is an anachronism to judge the Scripture from modern biases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the first rules of hermeneutics is that a text cannot mean today what it could not mean to the people who received it. This is a simple enough postulate, buttressed by the fact that not every word of God was for every time, and that the canon we retain consists of that which has proven to speak to all throughout the&#xA;ages. But, if it is to speak to us today, it had to have spoken to them then, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how then can we retain the fact that God is unchanging, and that the moral rules he laid down are transcendent?  We need to remember that God and Man are different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. God doesn't change, but people do&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First and foremost, God doesn't change, but we do.  Imagine, if you will, one of those cheap holograms that they used to put in kid's cereal boxes.  You could hold the hologram completely still, but depending on your position, it could display two different images.  Even if God is unchanging, very few people would argue that we do. The problems that we face in the 21st Century are different from the problems that we faced in the 1st. Oddly enough, the Bible has nothing to say about the morality of nuclear power! Why? becuase any explanation would have been nonsensical to the original recipients.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way in which we face our problems also dictates the way in which we will face God. If God were distant, the parallax would make the movement irrelevant. But God is close, and God is involved. As such, he will necessarily appear different, if he has stayed put and we have moved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1st Century, slavery was a fact of life. As such, it made sense to say, &amp;quot;if you're going to have slaves, treat them well.&amp;quot;  That implied &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; is a very different beast then &amp;quot;you should have slaves.&amp;quot;  In the milennia before Christ, it was permissible to have multiple wives, and so the injunction was given, if you have multiple wives, treat them all well.  That was not a command to marry multiple times by any stretch either. But in an age where silence is now equated with acquiensence, it will appear to us like a tacit endorsement. But to say that is not to make a statement about God, but rather about where we are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember also that laws &amp;amp; principles can remain constant while their interpretation varies.  In 1787, the writers of the Constitution said that Congress should not make any law regarding the establishment of a religion or to prohibit the free exercise thereof.  That had a very specific meaning - In Virginia, the Anglican / Episcopal Church was the established church of Virginia.  The government collected taxes on its behalf, outsourced the institution of marriage, and generally proscribed that all citizens be members of that church.  Nowadays, it doesn't even occur to us to set up a federal church.  And yet, the United States interprets that clause to mean that schools cannot lead prayers, and the City of New York wants to interpret that to mean that churches cannot even pay rent to the school system to use vacant buildings on Sunday mornings. George Mason himself would have been bowled over at such a suggestion. The principle of antiestablishmentarianism itself is  thus absolute, even if its application bears no resemeblance to its former practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Gospel is not a set of laws any way. It is a message that a gracious God loves us in spite of our sin.  That we are better at following certain laws at certain times and worse in others should be obvious.  Did Christians in the United States sin by holding slaves in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries? Amen, yes, we did.  Did we ignore the principle that before God we are equaly? Amen, God have have mercy.  But I wonder what our great-great-granchildren we think of us.  Did we sin by driving cars like Hummers that were built in total disregard of the command that God gave us to be good stewards of the earth? Its a valid question.  I suspect in the years to come people will be asking how one can be a Christian given our long track record of being such rapacious stewards of the planet we were given to tend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet, I don't think the absolute morality has changed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. From God's perspective, we're all sinners anyway. From our perspective, there are only degrees&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From God's perspective, we're all sinners anyway. As Isaiah says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even our righteousness is as filthy rags.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In God's eyes, we're all sinners anyway. Much of the &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; we have been given is merely to mitigate against the fact, and minimize the harm we do to one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was ok to divorce a woman.  They knew full well that God &amp;quot;hates divorce&amp;quot; (Malachi) and wanted to trap Jesus.  But Jesus explained the whole purpose of divorce - divorce is totally legal, but not at all desirable.  As Jesus said, divorce was given &amp;quot;because of the hardness of your heart!&amp;quot;  I think we can unequivocally say that God hates slavery, for the reasons in my previous answer.  But he also is willing to meet us where we are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our laws, however, recognize that because man is so fallen, there are degrees of punishment that are appropriate. No more than a tooth should be taken for a tooth. No more than an eye may be taken for an eye.  The punishment for a double-homicide is necessarily different from the one for double-parking.  Just because one is not punished for doing a bad thing doesn't make it right. As Jesus said in Matthew 5:45,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mere silence on the morality of slavery is not equivelant to support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The incarnation is such a supreme act of love, because it is a holy God, in whose presence sin can not stand, doing everything He can to reach out to sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Absolutely, He does not change. But relatively speaking, He will do everything He can to be with us, to take us where we are and fit us for where He would have us be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T03:03:59.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6373" CreationDate="2012-03-02T15:27:13.853" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term is typically applied by Dispensational Theologians when referencing Covenant Theology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dispensationalists believe that God is relating to the church during the church age, which we're in right now, however, he related to the Jews during the Mosaic period, using the Mosaic law.  They don't believe, however, that the church has replaced Israel, but rather that the Church is a separate entity to which God relates.  They view the church age as a &quot;parenthesis&quot; during which time, God brings about the salvation of the Gentiles, however, this is still mainly a story between God and Israel.  This theology was first systematized by John Darby, and popularized by Cyrus Scofield, via the Scofield Reference Bible, which was the first major study Bible published in the U.S., hence the theology's popularity today.  The epicenter of this theology today is likely Dallas Theological Seminary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Covenant theologians believe the Church replaces Israel.  This is the reasoning for some of the differences we see between Covenant theology, and Dispensational theology, such as child baptism, which, in Covenant theology is the analogue to Israel's Circumcision, which is, of course viewed oddly by Dispensationalists who believe Baptism to have an entirely different meaning altogether.  Many people call Covenant theology, typically in a negative light, &quot;Replacement Theology&quot;, because they view the theology as &lt;em&gt;excluding&lt;/em&gt; and nullifying God's promises to Israel.  In this way, they view that the theology is making God out to be liar.  That being said, there's often some muddiness when it comes to understanding what exactly is replaced: the Old Covenant, or the Jews themselves.  I tend to believe it's the former, and not the latter, though there is seem to be some Biblical evidence to support the idea that the majority of Jews today are temporarily, or at least, partially blinded.  (Romans 9-11). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The danger of &quot;Replacement Theology&quot;, like any theology, historically speaking, has been the misinterpretation and misuse of that theology for evil means.  A good example of this is the extermination of the Native Americans in North America.  Many of the rationalizations behind this ethnic cleansing revolved around the misunderstood and twisted idea that, since the Church replaces Israel, and many people coming to America at that time considered themselves Christians, then the Native Americans must be our Caananites who should be completely eliminated.  Obviously, this is a tragedy and a great misinterpretation of Scripture for selfish gain.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, Dispensationalism often comes hand-in-hand with pre-millenial eschatology, which believes in a relatively complicated timeline that includes several specific things that have been prophesied regarding end times.  These prophecies often include a physical return of the Jews to the land of Israel.  Many Covenant theologians, are Amillenial.  They tend to take Revelation more simply, viewing Christ's return as the overall gist of the book, and many of the details allegorical.  Because of this, they view the modern state of Israel as a different entity altogether than the Israelites of the Bible.  This effectively removes the eschatological viewpoint from the argument on whether or whether not to support Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, whether you hear this term at all, and what light it's put into, largely depends on the theological bent of those around you.  I've typically heard it more around Classical or Progressive Dispensationalists, whereas most of my Covenant Theology friends typically take it as an assumed truth, though many haven't really thought out all the implications or details of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:33:24.863" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:33:24.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6373" CreationDate="2012-03-02T15:35:05.747" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To quote from a few &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/replacement.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sources&lt;/a&gt; (including the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; article), Replacement Theology (or Supersessionism) basically states that the church is the fulfillment of Israel, and Israel as a nation no longer has a purpose, since God's chosen people are now the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is a Christian interpretation of New Testament verses, viewing God's relationship with Christians as being the inheritance of the Christian Church of the promises made to the Jews (or Biblical Israelites) and Jewish Proselytes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The tendency is to select those promises which fit church theology (like healing, prosperity, victory) and ignore those which do not (like punishment for rebellion, keeping of feasts, sacrifices). To set the record straight: the church did not yet exist when those promises were given, and they were not given to Israel as a &quot;type&quot; of the church until the church should inherit them. The Old Testament promises were given to Israel, and they apply to Israel. Many of them ALSO apply to the church in a general way, and many of them apply to all nations in a general way, and many of them apply only to Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T15:35:05.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6382" CreationDate="2012-03-02T16:24:42.910" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, this is what DRV suggest. (all Bible quotes in RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses and Samuel can intercede:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the LORD said to me, &quot;Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go! (Jer. 15:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; intercede:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God. (2 Macc. 15:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further Raphael hears and intercedes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And so, when you and your daughter-in-law Sarah prayed, I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One; and when you buried the dead, I was likewise present with you.  (Tobit 12:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(There are misc. references in Revelation of John to saints praying in heaven, the DRV references this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; (Rev. 5:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The efficacy of these prayers can be seen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD appeared to him the same night and said, &quot;I am the God of Abraham your father; fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your descendants &lt;strong&gt;for my servant Abraham's sake&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't really see that much which needs to be expounded on after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T17:05:31.837" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T17:05:31.837" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3834" CreationDate="2012-03-02T17:02:36.997" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox have a different perspective on Adam which makes a lot of sense, at the cost of being a tad &quot;mystical&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20091011031949/http://www.zephyr.gr/stjohn/sixdawn2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://web.archive.org/web/20091011031949/http://www.zephyr.gr/stjohn/sixdawn2.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put simply, Adam is not the biological ancestor of all humans, but God chose him as the representative of all creation, not just all humans, to be the first to receive divine life (a living soul).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, we do not inherit responsibility or culpability for his actions, but we do share the same nature as all the rest of Creation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1234" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T17:02:36.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6388" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-03-02T18:10:15.543" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Culture is defined as the attitudes, practices and values of a group or institution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-09T22:08:48.947" LastActivityDate="2016-01-09T22:08:48.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6389" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-03-02T18:10:15.543" Score="0" Body="For questions about general beliefs, attitudes and practices - ancient or modern - of a group, or Christian attitudes towards these.  This includes questions about Christian culture and how Christians respond to contemporary secular cultural." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-09T22:04:05.800" LastActivityDate="2016-01-09T22:04:05.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6390" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-03-02T18:15:35.163" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A priest is a person called to the immediate service of the Deity and authorized to hold public worship, especially to offer sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for the office of priest in the Old Testament, for the priesthood of Jesus, for the office of priest in the Church or for the doctrine of the Preisthood of all Believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2014-06-26T06:18:58.287" LastActivityDate="2014-06-26T06:18:58.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6391" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-03-02T18:15:35.163" Score="0" Body="Priesthood is the state of consecrated life of a priest. Questions regarding the office and/or the sacrament of Priesthood." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2014-06-26T06:18:52.457" LastActivityDate="2014-06-26T06:18:52.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6392" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-03-02T19:00:41.163" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T19:00:41.163" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T19:00:41.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6393" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-03-02T19:00:41.163" Score="0" Body="The biblical book of Job, and its main character." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T19:01:25.507" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T19:01:25.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6394" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-03-02T19:35:03.160" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; for more information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for all questions about Evangelicalism, or to indicate that an answer from the Evangelical perspective is required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use the 'evangelism' tag for questions about proclaiming the Christian message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T20:00:17.683" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T20:00:17.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6395" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-03-02T19:35:03.160" Score="0" Body="Evangelicalism is a branch of Christianity with an emphasis on personal conversion, biblical authority and proclamation of the gospel." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T20:00:21.787" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T20:00:21.787" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6396" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-03-02T19:36:21.973" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use 'evangelicalism' for questions about the evangelical movement. Use 'evangelism' tag for questions about proclaiming the Christian message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T19:39:08.627" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T19:39:08.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6397" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-03-02T19:36:21.973" Score="0" Body="Do not use this tag." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-02T19:39:12.963" LastActivityDate="2012-03-02T19:39:12.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3834" CreationDate="2012-03-03T06:51:32.727" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something which I believe nobody has mentioned, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 5&lt;/a&gt; Adam - either figuratively or not - passes on the broken image of God through the bloodline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 5:3 (emphasis added) When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in his own likeness&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in his own image&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;; and he named him Seth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is opposed to Adam being made in God's image and likeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and I hope someone who lived thousands of years ago can &quot;represent&quot; me... I need Jesus to represent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastEditorUserId="1375" LastEditDate="2012-03-03T06:59:40.173" LastActivityDate="2012-03-03T06:59:40.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6360" CreationDate="2012-03-03T18:41:04.990" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are you asking if, in general, Jesus taught that there is life after death? Or are you looking for specific discussion of the word or concept of &quot;spirit&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the former: Matthew 22:23,29-32 &quot;The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him ... Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. ... But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”&quot; [NKJV]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus clearly said that there is life after death. He also indicated that those who have died are experiencing that eternal life now, not that they will experience it at some point in the future. Of course Abraham and Isaac had physically died many centuries before Jesus said this, so their bodies were dead. So the &quot;them&quot; that is still alive must be some sort of spirit or soul or a new body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I cannot find anyplace in the Gospels where Jesus talks about a human &quot;spirit&quot; in that sense. Jesus often talks about the Holy Spirit, and about evil spirits. He has a few places where he talks about a person's spirit in the sense of their personality, like Mark 14:38, &quot;The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak&quot;, or John 4:23, &quot;true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Jesus seems to reject the idea that after death a person becomes a non-corporeal spirit. After his resurrection, when he appears to the discipiles, he says, Luke 24:39, &quot;Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, I suppose you could say that Jesus' resurrected body might not be the same as the bodies that people have after death, I don't know any place where Jesus specifically says that they are. But Paul says that our resurrection will be like Christ's, for example 1 Cor 15:20 &quot;But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.&quot; (It might not be clear from that one verse; read the whole context.) If you're asking specifically what JESUS said rather than what the BIBLE says, then I don't know of any place that Jesus specifically describes the resurrection body other than describing his own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I conclude that Jesus uses the word &quot;spirit&quot; in a more specific sense then we use the word today. I don't think Jesus used &quot;spirit&quot; as a synonym for &quot;soul&quot;. He appears to use it to refer to a specific category of being -- the Holy Spirit, angels and demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-03T18:41:04.990" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6403" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-03T19:04:16.333" Score="4" ViewCount="1589" Body="&lt;p&gt;Will Jews, Buddhists, and all others who truly believe in God but not that Jesus is God, and who adhered to the Ten Commandments and who have done charitable acts throughout their lives, &#xA;be excluded from getting into Heaven solely because of their non-belief in the divinity in Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1378" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-08-03T16:03:27.233" LastActivityDate="2017-04-30T16:52:33.457" Title="Will good, God-fearing people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity be excluded from Heaven?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-04T00:30:53.460" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6403" CreationDate="2012-03-03T20:23:36.403" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Per Scripture, the only way to heaven is by putting our trust in Christ and accepting His free gift of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question you pose is based on a common misunderstanding of the relationship between how &quot;good&quot; we are and whether or not we are &quot;good enough&quot; to get to Heaven.  The problem is that not one of us has ever kept the Ten Commandments, much less the hundreds of other laws in the Bible, and therefore not one of us is &quot;good enough&quot; to get to Heaven on our own merits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a much more complete explanation of this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/heaven-goodenough.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A longer version of the same answer would go like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, everyone on earth has sinned, save Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 3:23 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you examine it, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/heaven-goodenough.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;every one of us has broken each and every one of the Ten Commandments&lt;/a&gt;, if not in deed, then in heart and in intent.  For example, perhaps we've never committed adultery physically, but as Jesus said, if we've looked at someone with lust, we've committed adultery in our hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:28 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in&#xA;  his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We've all broken the other Commandments in spirit as well, but even if one of us has squeaked away with not committing all of them, it doesn't matter.  The Bible tells us that if we've broken even one, we're guilty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:10 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,&#xA;  he is guilty of all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the none of these people are sinless by the standards laid forth in Scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 1 touches on the subject of whether or not we are held guilty if we've never heard the Gospel message.  It lays out a few truths:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God reveals Himself to us, and we are without excuse.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our ancestors had access to the truth of God, and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;chose&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to turn from them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:18. (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in&#xA;  unrighteousness; &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;19.&lt;/strong&gt; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;20.&lt;/strong&gt; For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even&#xA;  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;21.&lt;/strong&gt; Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and&#xA;  their foolish heart was darkened. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;22.&lt;/strong&gt; Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;23.&lt;/strong&gt; And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and&#xA;  creeping things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their unbelief and rebellion against God meant that their children, their children's children, and so on were not taught about God.  It's not His fault, it's theirs.  Because they chose to rebel when they knew the truth, and didn't teach their children, they doomed their children to not knowing the truth of God.  This is one reason that &lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 22:6&lt;/strong&gt; is important.  (Again, &lt;strong&gt;KJV&lt;/strong&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will&#xA;  not depart from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;Romans 2 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;11.&lt;/strong&gt; For there is no respect of persons with God.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;12.&lt;/strong&gt; For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by&#xA;  the law;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;13.&lt;/strong&gt; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;14.&lt;/strong&gt; For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law&#xA;  unto themselves:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;15.&lt;/strong&gt; Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while&#xA;  accusing or else excusing one another;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These theoretical people you mentioned are guilty.  Scripture here tells us that &quot;he shall perish without law&quot;. They will perish because they have sinned, and ignored the conscience that God has placed in each and every one of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be noted that even in civil, earthly law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were to carry a concealed weapon in a state that doesn't allow concealed carry, for example, and I was arrested, would I be able to avoid the consequences by telling the Judge &quot;I didn't know&quot;?  No.  I'd be punished according to the law, whether I intentionally broke the law or not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we saw in Romans 2 (quoted above), the Bible tells us that God will not accept ignorance as an excuse.  They will perish without the Law, as God's word states, because &lt;em&gt;they have sinned and broken the law&lt;/em&gt;, not because they have rejected Jesus.  Accepting Jesus &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the only way to be saved.  He pays the penalty for our guilt.  However, the reason we are guilty is not because we didn't accept Him, it's because we chose to sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can try to blame God all we want, and we can even try to blame the ancestors, but the simple fact remains that these people will be condemned because of their own sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2017-04-30T16:52:33.457" LastActivityDate="2017-04-30T16:52:33.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6330" CreationDate="2012-03-03T21:15:22.457" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As already mentioned by @Affable Geek, the identity of a person is an important thing in biblical times. The importance of identity is also to be able to trace your history back to the promises of God. So for a Jew, it is important to trace your origins back to Abraham to show that you are a child of Abraham and therefore part of the promises that God made to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, King David, it is important to show that he is a decendant of Abraham because we see God's promises partly fulfilled in Him (Israel has land, has become a great nation (offspring) and bring blessings to other nations).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A promise is also made to David that an even greater King will come from his line&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Samuel 7:12 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise&#xA;  up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will&#xA;  establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that Jesus is that king. Part of Jesus' credentials is his anncestory. In fact, this is so important that when Paul reminds Timothy of the Gospel they are preaching he says in 2 Timothy 2-8 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David.&#xA;  This is my gospel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Liniage is also important as it shows the trustworthy nature of God. If Jesus couldn't be traced back to David then either Jesus isn't the King that God promised, or God changed His mind and chose some other person to be the King. If God changes His mind then we cannot trust Him. Yet, the bible shows that God consistently keeps His promises (for example the promises to David) and so we can trust Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2012-03-03T21:15:22.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6407" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6408" CreationDate="2012-03-03T22:21:16.060" Score="7" ViewCount="2753" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1397/405&quot;&gt;This answer&lt;/a&gt; says that the serpent convinced Eve to eat the apple to avoid death by saying &quot;surely not die&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since they are described as the first people that existed, what could death mean to them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="405" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-03-04T21:47:55.447" Title="Did Adam and Eve understand death? What did death mean to them?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:42:49.063" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6407" CreationDate="2012-03-03T23:48:59.967" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every recorded interaction that Adam and Eve had in Genesis portrays them as active, reasoning adults, so there is no particular reason to assume they had less than normal intelligence. That said, there had been no killing in the garden, so Adam would not have had any first hand knowledge, that is true. (Unless if you want to get into the apocraphyal story of Lillith, but that's a whole other story!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Adam probably would have understood, however, is the concept of alive and not alive. He was alive before Eve, and while he wasn't awake for it, probably understood ru'ach - breath inside of Eve animating her.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of not having breath, of being inanimate, probably would have made sense, because Adam in naming the animals, would have understood what is not animal, and therefore what is not alive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What became clear, upon The sin, was the new way in which God was no longer felt. Being scared of God led Adam and Eve to cover up after the fall- so if they didn't know what death was, they learned quickly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is strange about the question, however, is the implicit understanding that if Adam and Eve didn't know what death was, then the punishment should not necessarily have been a deterrent.  That postulate itself is questionable, however. An understanding of the consequences is not necessarily a prerequisite for obedience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I tell my kids, &quot;you had better do so and so, or else you will be in trouble,&quot; is sufficient reason alone to do what I say. Punishments are equally valid even when they only teach lessons after the fact. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Adam and Eve Died to God that day taught them that God must be obeyed. A lack of understanding of the consequences is not a justifiable defense. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-04T21:47:55.447" LastActivityDate="2012-03-04T21:47:55.447" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6410" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6425" CreationDate="2012-03-04T05:15:06.230" Score="7" ViewCount="1644" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Christian, I want to teach and share the word of God as I wish&#xA;but I do no want the call of God upon my life. This may sound weird but please hear me out first.&#xA;I want to spread the word of God, its my passionate, something I love to do. But I don't want it to be like tag on me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if I'm making sense, I can explain further on request.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, is this ideology wrong? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1372" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T19:22:33.153" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T19:22:33.153" Title="Refuse the Call of God?" Tags="&lt;calling&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-03-11T00:28:48.450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2012-03-04T05:26:21.940" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing I know for sure is that God does not imprison His children&#xA;HE created us in HIS image and likeness but! He also gave us a mind of our own&#xA;He tells you, this is the way, walk in it. If you choose otherwise, that is because you made a conscious effort to do so.&#xA;That is why the bible says ''you are inexcusable'' oh man! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know right from wrong, Adam and Eve knew they were doing the wrong thing, and went ahead with it. It was a choice they made&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1372" LastActivityDate="2012-03-04T05:26:21.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5509" CreationDate="2012-03-04T05:39:22.563" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;1)From my understanding its Hunger. Depending on where you are from, you may not have experience the kind of hunger that makes you feel like you are going to die. But it happens, especially in 3rd world countries&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Yes she is. Humans do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Birthright from my understanding, is like your right as for example the first child. You have certain privileges/upper hand, a 2nd child doesn't have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) Well that would also make him sound as bad as his brother or even worse, as he took advantage of his brother's condition and got his birthright from him. That is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5)Yes they are. The bible talks about the power of the tongue. Its even more powerful when it comes from the one who birth you, your parents. And Judging from Isaac's relationship with God, that was a blessing to worth it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this answer helps &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1372" LastActivityDate="2012-03-04T05:39:22.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="73" CreationDate="2012-03-04T07:11:06.053" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is executing His judgment &lt;strong&gt;through&lt;/strong&gt; His people instead of through the floods or any other means like during Noah's time. So it is allowed in a sense that we should accept it as His just judgment, because God judges them, commands it and allows it to happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is different from using the Bible to justify an act of killing a group of people, because none of us are capable of judging others and to have equal authority with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Joshua 5:13-15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[e] have for his servant?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 The commander of the LORD’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that the supreme commander making the command is not Joshua, but that it is the Lord who is the commander of the army. So it's Joshua for God, and not God for Joshua.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1380" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-04T07:11:06.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6410" CreationDate="2012-03-04T12:58:14.277" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah felt your pain. In chapter 20, he cries out against God, blaming God that he had to deliver these messages of woe. He goes so far as to accuse God of deceiving him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have deceived me, Yahweh, and I let myself be deceived, you are stronger than I and have overpowered me. I have become a laughingstock the whole day, the whole of it mocks me. Every time I speak, cry out “Violence!” and “Destruction!” shout,&#xA;  (then) the word of Yahweh becomes for me a reproach and derision the whole day;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, Jeremiah understands that he will still be compelled to preach :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and (every time) I think, “I shall not remember it or speak any more in his name,” (then) it is in my heart,(it is) like burning fire,(like) pressure in my bones,&#xA;  and I am tired of holding (it) in,&#xA;  and cannot «bear». &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, Jonah resisted the word of the Lord- and of course he ran. Moses, when he was given the word of the lord basically responded, &quot;here I am, send my brother Aaron!&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Indeed, it always makes me laugh when people say the church is just a big conspiracy for some men to gain power over others. I think about how much power any of the prophets ever had, and ask why would anyone have sought that out? Paul was beheaded, Peter was crucified upside down - of the 12 apostles, only John died a natural death. Even later, from Perpetua to Assissi to Bonhoeffer, the faith is not a means of gain!) What you are feeling, when you don't want to have the call of God isn't weird - in fact it is quite rational. But, you love God. And trust me, love is rarely rational. If you are married, you probably remember some of the weird things you felt compelled to do for her too. It's the same thing, only more worth it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say all of this to tell you that you are not the first to love God but not want to deliver his message. It is a terrifying responsibility, and it is not atypical to not desire it. From a worldly standpoint, it will neither win you friends, nor always even let you influence people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But take heart, for as Jesus said in Matthew 5:11-12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed are you when men shall persecute you and revile you and speak all manner of evil against you for my name sake, for so treated they the prophets who were before you&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead just remember what he says to the good ones in Matthew 25:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Well done, thou good and faithful servant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-05T13:11:58.877" LastActivityDate="2012-03-05T13:11:58.877" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6410" CreationDate="2012-03-05T02:50:31.393" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know exactly what it is that you think God wants you to do that you don't want to do. But let's assume for the sake of argument that the premise of your question is completely correct: God wants you to do X, but you don't want to do X.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not at all uncommon that we do not &quot;feel like&quot; doing what is right. I don't feel like working eight hours a day to get my paycheck: I'd rather goof off all day and still get paid. But that would be stealing. I don't feel like admitting fault when I could easily talk my way out of trouble with a lie. I don't feel like changing the channel when a TV show gets too sexually explicit. Etc, etc. Sometimes I have the willpower to do what is right even when I don't feel like it. Sometimes I give in to tempatation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't suppose that Jesus &quot;felt like&quot; dying an agonizing death on the cross. But he did it, because it was the good and right thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't worry about your feelings. What matters is not how you feel, but what you do. Jesus said, &quot;By their fruit you shall know them.&quot; You can tell a good man by what he does, not by how he feels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose you are driving down the road and you see someone lying on the sidewalk, obviously bleeding and injured. What matters to that unforunate victim: Whether you feel like helping him, or whether you actually do help him? If you stop and help him and get him to the hospital, he will not care that you really didn't want to stop because you were in a hurry to get home and play your new video game. If you don't stop and help him, will he (or his family, if you leave him to die) really be consoled by your voice mail message that you really felt bad for him and wanted to stop and help, but then you decided you didn't have time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do what's right. Let feelings follow actions, not the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-05T02:50:31.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6423" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6435" CreationDate="2012-03-05T09:47:43.933" Score="5" ViewCount="7567" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a question on here about the importance of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3064/whats-the-importance-of-fasting&quot;&gt; fasting.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;But this is different because I want to know what denominations don't believe in fasting and why they think that its not important. I personally have great faith in fasting and in the power of fasting such as found in Mark and Matt, when the 12 have tried to cast out a devil but failed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 9:28-29, 28, (end of verse)...Why could not we cast him out?&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;29, And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is a clear example of where the disciples could not do something unless they fasted and prayed for the power to do it first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Changed as per the comments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-09-30T17:10:26.193" Title="What denominations don't believe in fasting? And Why?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;fasting&gt;&lt;inter-faith&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6403" CreationDate="2012-03-05T13:37:41.357" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally, Christianity doesn't believe that &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; you do gets you into heaven.  You can do good things, and not be saved. You can do bad things, but be forgiven. Who you are, and what you do is, sad to say, irrelevant. From God's perspective, &quot;even our righteousness is as filthy rags.&quot;  To believe that our poor power to add or detract is a fundamental misunderstanding of how truly incredibly large God is.  Its like thinking that we can use a lighter to break a country out of a cold snap.  We're too small, and he is too big.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity, in its most basic form, simply says that God saves people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Yes, we can get into questions about whether there is first-order volition and predestination and all that - but this isn't the point.  You might also ask why God doesn't save everybody - and that would be a good question - but does it make sense to blame a fireman who saved half of the people in the burning house for the deaths of the other half who refused to leave?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't matter how good you are, only if God has loved you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A rejection of the divinity of Jesus is a rejection of the belief that you cannot save yourself.  Either we accept that we are not able to save ourselves (and hence ask Jesus to save us) or we try to be own our own Redeemer, in which case, we get precisely the Lord we requested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-05T13:44:36.107" LastActivityDate="2012-03-05T13:44:36.107" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6410" CreationDate="2012-03-05T13:42:05.967" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there's a strong difference between what you do and who you are.  You don't want to &quot;have the call of God on your life&quot;, but you still want to share the Gospel and tell others about Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds to me that the &quot;call on your life&quot;, as far as your vocation, is to share the Gospel with other people.  That's an excellent, and very admirable place to be.  Not all Christians share that passion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the problem comes when you confuse your identity as a loved child of God with your identity as an evangelist, preacher, or teacher.  When you start to identify yourself as anything other than belonging to, and being loved by God, you begin to measure your worth by what you do as opposed to what Christ has already done.  Measuring your worth by what you do will lead you to frustration, as you'll never quite be satisfied with how well you do it, and before long, you've turned the Gospel of grace into a Gospel of works.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that being said, if you take a vocational route where you share the Word of God, there are going to be people in your life who are going to &quot;tag&quot; you as one of these identities other than your identity in Christ.  This is going to happen regardless of what you do, and you can't control the thoughts of other people.  Nevertheless, you yourself don't have to take the bait.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember, Christianity is not about what you can do for Jesus, it's about what Jesus has already done for you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think your perspective is messed up at all.  I think it's very straightforward.  You want to do something, but you don't want your identity to be in what you do.  There's nothing wrong with that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd strongly encourage you to watch this video I'm linking to below.  You'll have to sign up for an account on the website, but I think it'll greatly help your perspective, and it comes from a pretty well-known and sometimes controversial pastor.  Whatever you think of him, I think he hits the nail on the head with this video.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://theresurgence.com/2012/02/15/your-ministry-is-not-your-identity&quot;&gt;http://theresurgence.com/2012/02/15/your-ministry-is-not-your-identity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-03-05T13:42:05.967" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6403" CreationDate="2012-03-05T14:20:56.583" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me attempt to briefly address another issue here.  Implicit in this question is an assumption that going to heaven is good and desirable, while going to hell is bad and undesirable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is it desirable to go to heaven?  What is in heaven that a Muslim or a Buddhist would want?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that our cultural sensibility has so effectively clouded the true meaning of heaven, that we only have left this vague understanding that heaven is somehow good, while hell is somehow bad, but we're not really sure why.  Perhaps it's because heaven seems less fiery than hell, and because people speak well of heaven, but poorly of hell.  But surely we don't decide our eternal fate on the temperature on the thermostat.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me suggest that heaven is heaven simply because it's where God is.  Heaven is heaven because we get to commune with God, and no other reason.  If God were in Hell, then his very presence there would make hell heaven.  And vice versa.  If God were absent from heaven, then heaven would cease to be heaven, and would thus become hell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The God of the Bible is full of love and grace, giving life to the unworthy and giving them all a chance to turn to him through the death of his son.  He loves us enough to tell us that our works are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6... literally &quot;menstrual cloths&quot;), and that we can never do anything to earn God's love, because we've all sinned and failed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you view heaven as being with God, and your desire is to be with Him, then at this point you're going to be frightened.  With the disciples, you're going to ask yourself &quot;Who then can be saved?&quot; (Mark 10:26).  If God is so demanding and we've all failed so horribly that there's no way we can be with him, then we're in a very bad position.  God is all that is good, and we're in a state where we're going to be completely rejected by him, and without him for all eternity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where Jesus comes in.  Jesus paid the penalty.  His death was fully sufficient to pay the penalty we owe God.  It's not simply that God forgave the sin, but that the sin was properly paid for.  God grants eternal life with him to those who depend on Christ's sacrifice, and not their own good works, for salvation.  And he loved us enough to send Christ, knowing that there's no way that we'd be able to generate enough good works on our own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is: do you want to be with such a God?  Do you want to worship a God who is both demanding but loving and forgiving?  If the answer is yes, then there's only one way: through Jesus (John 14:6).  If the answer is no, then any other belief can accomplish the task of keeping you from Him, but of course, not every belief accomplishes exactly what it promises.  (Matthew 7:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in a nutshell: Those who don't have faith in Christ as the sacrifice for their sin will not go to heaven.  But the bigger answer is that they don't really want to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-03-05T14:20:56.583" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6427" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6534" CreationDate="2012-03-05T16:56:57.583" Score="7" ViewCount="4234" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the phrase, &quot;Heaven is the presence of God, but Hell is the absence of God&quot; an orthodox viewpoint?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By orthodox I mean orthodox with a lower case o, not an upper case O, as in Orthodox. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used this idea when responding to another question regarding exclusion from heaven here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6403/exclusion-of-some-people-from-heaven&quot;&gt;Will good, God-fearing people who don&amp;#39;t believe in Jesus&amp;#39; divinity be excluded from Heaven?&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More to the point, does this phrase describe the primary characteristics of both places, and what verses support/refute this idea?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T22:56:00.960" Title="Is the phrase, &quot;Heaven is the presence of God, but Hell is the absence of God&quot; an orthodox viewpoint?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6428" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6429" CreationDate="2012-03-05T20:25:57.387" Score="27" ViewCount="25261" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using any of the standard hymnals, what is the oldest hymn that people are still singing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Baptist Hymnal 1975 / 1991 / 2008, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Faith We Sing (Methodist, right?), &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The (Episcopal) Hymnal 1982, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adoremus (or anything else Catholics use) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or just about any standard denominational hymnal in current usage&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, I'll take anything on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hymnary.org/hymns&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hymnary.org&lt;/a&gt;, since my aim is to find old hymns while excluding extremely obscure ones that only appear, for example, in a random hymnal from the 1700s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me strike out one answer real quick – yes, I know the Psalms is a Jewish hymnbook.  The problem that I have with including the Psalms in the scope of this question is that we don't have the music :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect somebody can find obscure hymns that are old, but I'm looking for old hymns that are still sung widely. Things like the Doxology, the Sanctus, or other parts of the Mass would be likely candidates: as long as the song is still sung widely, I'm fine with translations of the original lyrics, but I'd prefer that the original tune/music be at least known, if not used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please include the date of the text and the music, if you could.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E.g., &quot;All Creatures of Our God and King&quot;, &#xA;words by Francis of Assisi (1200s), &#xA;tune is &lt;em&gt;Lasst Uns Erfreuen&lt;/em&gt;, 1623.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-11-24T01:55:45.530" LastActivityDate="2020-02-09T23:24:17.030" Title="What is the oldest hymn (with music) that is still sung in churches today?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6428" CreationDate="2012-03-05T20:36:21.430" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably the oldest text you'll find is the Phos Hilaron, sometimes known as &quot;Hail gladdening light&quot;.  The earliest music for it was a Byzantine Chant, and it's still largely sung in churches worldwide, though not so much in the West.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David Crowder released a version on his album &quot;Church Music&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hymnary.org/text/hail_gladdening_light_of_his_pure_glory_?tab=about&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hail, gladdening Light, of His pure glory poured&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phos_Hilaron#Modern_usage&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Phos Hilaron (Wikipedia)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AFAIK, that's the oldest &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; hymn known today. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-10-23T14:15:49.697" LastActivityDate="2016-10-23T14:15:49.697" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6428" CreationDate="2012-03-05T20:47:45.400" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was going to say &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeste_fideles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Adeste Fideles&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Oh Come all Ye Faithful&quot; as it was anachronistically placed in my kids' cartoon about St. Nicholas of Myra. It's old, but, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Deum#Origin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Te Deum&lt;/a&gt; (4th century) was attributed to St. Ambrose and is sung by lots of Catholic religious to this day while praying the Liturgy of the Hours. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6429/4&quot;&gt;David's answer&lt;/a&gt; is probably the right one for all of Christendom, but Te Deum would be one of the oldest hymns in the Latin Rite. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-03-05T20:47:45.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2012-03-06T09:57:18.353" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a passage that indicates that God (specifically Jesus) &lt;em&gt;made and sustains&lt;/em&gt; humor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities&amp;mdash;all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&amp;mdash;Colossians 1:16-17 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/colossians+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps this is a bit of morbid humor on Jesus' part:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, &lt;strong&gt;“It is enough.”&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;mdash;Luke 22:35-38 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Luke+22/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd call this famous sentence a pun on two separate axes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.&amp;mdash;Matthew 16:18 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+16/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides the obvious &lt;em&gt;Petros&lt;/em&gt; &amp;lt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=4074&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;4074&lt;/a&gt;&gt;/&lt;em&gt;petra&lt;/em&gt; &amp;lt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=4073&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;4073&lt;/a&gt;&gt; pun, I think renaming Simon to &quot;The Rock&quot; is pretty funny given his often mercurial passions.  Actually, Peter's interactions with Jesus often turn out to be comedic even if He &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; playing the straight man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus loved exaggeration:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.&amp;mdash;Matthew 18:21-22 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+18/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is followed by the parable of the unforgiving servant, which is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_tale&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;tall tale&lt;/a&gt; if you know that 10,000 talents is an impossibly large sum.  It's also a reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Esther+3:9/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Esther&lt;/a&gt;, which can be read as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Purim/History/Book_of_Esther/Esther_as_Comedy.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;humorous&lt;/a&gt;.  Jonah can also be &lt;a href=&quot;http://theopolitical.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/jonah-satire-and-literal-interpretation/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;read as satire&lt;/a&gt; and many of the provocative actions of the prophets are slapstick if you think about it.  Remarkably, God is directing the action in these stories. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if one could say that the Jewish people invented jokes, but the Hebrew Scriptures certainly contain more than their fair share.  (And &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1240/68&quot;&gt;rabbinic commentaries&lt;/a&gt; have no problem adding to the humor.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I think our best evidence that Jesus enjoyed a good joke once in a while comes from a story told by Luke and Matthew.  After He reassured John that He was the expected Messiah, Jesus told the crowds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“To what then shall I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;“‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;  &#xA;  we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”&amp;mdash;Luke 7:31-35 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke%207/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think Jesus was joking in this passage, but He contrasts Himself with John, who doesn't seem like he was a lot of fun to be around.  To me, it doesn't seem like Jesus would have been invited to very many parties if He didn't know how to have a good time with friends.  And that strongly implies that He had a sense of humor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-03-06T09:57:18.353" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2012-03-06T12:19:01.043" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had this question myself once, long ago. The only time in the Bible I could find God laughing, was scoffing at rebellious figures in the Psalms for their nonsensical disobedience (only twice, and which is not really what you are after).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, I could find no article in the New Bible Dictionary from IVP on &quot;humour&quot;, &quot;funny&quot;, &quot;fun&quot;, &quot;laugh&quot; etc. The NBD guys are usually pretty thorough, and don't shy away from using evidence from other sources (apocrypha, archaeology, other historical and extra biblical sources). So I would, and have, taken that to mean that there is not much at all in the way of biblical or extra-biblical evidence for God's sense of humour on display.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question of a doctrinal stance: I would take God's apparent lack of outward personal expressions of humour, and use it to reconsider what God is intending in to do in the world and with the Bible. I feel like most Christians would agree that one of the big meta narratives of the Bible is God graciously building a people for himself despite the problem of sin in the world. It could be argued that, this lack of humour is totally aligned with a God who finds nothing funny about the state of the world, and is totally serious when it comes to relating to his people in a right relationship, etc. I know it's not a knock-down bullet-proof doctrinal stance, but maybe just a guess at an explanation - How could a God so holy and righteous, in a world where sin is still present, be humorous? It's not all business - it's deadly serious!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this is helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2012-03-06T12:19:01.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6433" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6434" CreationDate="2012-03-06T13:41:01.363" Score="7" ViewCount="2083" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was that Pentecost, during which the Holy Spirit was poured out on the apostles in the book of Acts was also a time of jubilee? From what I see, the Pentecost was a holiday to commemorate God's giving Ten Commandments to His people - once every year. And the year of jubilee was established in the Old testament - according to what I can tell from Leviticus 25 - as a year of commemoration of the nation of Israel entering the promised land - once every 50 years. So, was that Pentecost in the Acts also a time of the year of jubilee?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-31T15:39:08.613" LastActivityDate="2015-08-31T15:39:08.613" Title="Was that Pentecost in the Acts also a time of the year of jubilee?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;pentecost&gt;&lt;jubilee&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6433" CreationDate="2012-03-06T13:59:13.863" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As much as the Jubilee is important in Scripture, there is no evidence that one was ever actually declared in Israel's history. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is noted as such by &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=w_0qnkPr1lMC&amp;amp;pg=PA35&amp;amp;lpg=PA35&amp;amp;dq=no+evidence+of+a+jubilee&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=VzV-pPIPz8&amp;amp;sig=n4nbR0-vpFbU8PxxzoG_W0OuN7E&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=FRtWT8jdGNK10AGUzOiaCg&amp;amp;ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=no%20evidence%20of%20a%20jubilee&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;Jeffrey Fager&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=vX9FOa4DOKkC&amp;amp;pg=PA436&amp;amp;lpg=PA436&amp;amp;dq=no+evidence+of+a+jubilee&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=CivZp-Fgvj&amp;amp;sig=9bmsPZQ2bfewxjse9wsa19NQ188&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=FRtWT8jdGNK10AGUzOiaCg&amp;amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=no%20evidence%20of%20a%20jubilee&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;D.P. O'Brien&lt;/a&gt; in unrelated papers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, there is no base from which to calculate the 50th year. More to the point for this question, there is no archeological or historical evidence of such a proclamation in the first half of the 1st century. (None later either, but since we don't know for certain when the Resurrection happened ( estimates range from 30 to 33 to 36 AD), I would be willing to consider any such declaration.) Unfortunately, there is none to be found. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, Jesus himself assuredly was the Jubilee. He says as much in Luke 4, when he preached on Isaiah 61:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,&#xA;     because he has anointed me&#xA;     to proclaim good news to the poor.&#xA;  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners&#xA;     and recovery of sight for the blind,&#xA;  to set the oppressed free,&#xA;     19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Good News&quot; is the Gospel that Jesus has redeemed his own. Man may have been lax in keeping the Jubilee, but God was faithful in declaring it nonetheless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jubilee itself is heavily bound up wit the idea of redemption:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Corollary to this provision was the right of redemption (ge˒ullâh) attached to the sale of any land by a Hebrew. One did not have to wait for the Year of Jubilee to recover one’s land; rather, it could be reclaimed at any time by the gō˒ēl (redeemer), a kinsman of the original owner, or by the owner himself, upon payment of a sum proportionate to the number of harvests remaining from the time of re-purchase to the next Jubilee Year (Lev 25:24–28). In any case, the land was to revert to its original owner at the time of the Jubilee. The primary theological basis for the “release” of slaves, debts and land was Yahweh’s ownership of both the people and the land&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In presenting himself as the &quot;Redeemer,&quot; Jesus himself is setting up the analogy of God reclaiming his own - the reason behind the Jubilee.  As such, we can state, Jesus is our Jubilee, because though we had been slaves to sin, God restored the rightful order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke’s narration of Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth represents a particular development in the eschato logical use of Jubilee Year themes: Jesus himself is presented as the anointed (messianic) herald of the long-awaited Year of Jubilee. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The term “release” (aphesis) represents the primary theological and verbal connection with the levitical proclamation of Jubilee. The classical Greek employment of aphesis was in the legal sense of a “release” from office, marriage, obligation, debt or even punishment. The word was not used, however, in religious contexts. In the LXX, of the approximately fifty instances of aphesis, twenty-two are in Leviticus 25 and 27, where it translates in most cases the Hebrew yôḇel, “Year of Jubilee”; in other cases, most notably Leviticus 25:10, it translates derôr, “release.” Derôr, in fact, seems to have been the technical term of the prophets to indicate the Year of Jubilee, that is, “the year of release,” or “liberty,” as Jeremiah 34:8, 15, 17; Ezekiel 46:17; and Isaiah 61:1 indicate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Green, J. B., McKnight, S., &amp;amp; Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (396). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In paying for our sin on the cross, Jesus pays the redemption price for the world he created. In calling us sons and slaves, &quot;joint heirs with Christ,&quot; we are free. As such, the Jubilee is for us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-06T14:41:02.787" LastActivityDate="2012-03-06T14:41:02.787" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6423" CreationDate="2012-03-06T19:34:07.337" Score="16" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Who fasts and who doesn't?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Do, and its important&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Both the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abbamoses.com/fasting.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eastern Orthdox&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting_and_abstinence_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Church&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Roman Catholic&lt;/a&gt; churches have required fasting periods for their members, as shown by the links.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are encouraged to &lt;a href=&quot;http://whymormonism.org/7/fasting_mormonism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;fast for the first Sunday of every month&lt;/a&gt;, which they call their fast and testimony meeting. Instead of speakers, members come up to the microphone and bear their testimony about the truthfulness of their experiences in the Gospel [per Gilbert LeBlanc]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Encourage, but in practice don't&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Episcopalians are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America)&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;supposed to fast&lt;/a&gt; on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and on &amp;quot;lesser fasts&amp;quot;, but I've never heard it preached from the pulpit in the five years I've been one. Pancake Tuesday? Sure.  Fasting the next day, not so much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Baptists &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baptistdigest.com/archive/column/fasting_as_obdience/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;practice fasting as a private discipline&lt;/a&gt; but have no agreed upon days on which fasting is to occur. (Baptists can't even agree on a lectionary, so if you think you'd be able to pry the fried chicken out of my cold dead hands, think again! When I was ordained as a Baptist minister, I explained to my ordination committee that Baptists only believe in three sacraments - marriage, communion, and potluck.  They agreed.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Methodists &lt;a href=&quot;http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&amp;amp;mid=2872&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;encourage fasting&lt;/a&gt; but offer no official guidelines on when to do it, since it is a &amp;quot;private matter&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presbyterians, per the Westminster Confession of faith &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.redeemerpresbyterian.org/home/i-ve-wondered-/what-is-your-church-s-position-on-fasting-&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;encourage fasting&lt;/a&gt; on Sundays, but do so with the admonition of Matt 6:17, in which believers are encouraged not to brag about how spiritual they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lutherans &lt;a href=&quot;http://www2.elca.org/prayer/resources/fasting.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;encourage fasting&lt;/a&gt; but do not require it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why don't many Protestants fast?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Protestants don't fast - not because they think fasting is wrong, but because there is nothing compelling to make them think that it is important. Very few Protestants I know would say fasting is wrong, but in practice, it just isn't important*. (See note on &amp;quot;Papistry&amp;quot; below, however.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For most evangelicals at least, and many protestants in particular, the emphasis on grace is such that anything that smacks of &amp;quot;works&amp;quot; is relegated to the &amp;quot;nice, but optional&amp;quot; category. Puritans would call some of the spiritual disciplines &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wordreference.com/definition/superciliousness&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;superciliousness&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; - an over attention to the perfection that leads to pride. Additionally, many older Protestants view fasting as an artifact of Catholicism. This isn't accurate, but for many centuries, anything that smacked of &amp;quot;Papistry&amp;quot; was viewed with suspicion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these basically leads to a culture in which many spiritual disciplines are just not part of the culture. Kids don't grow up thinking you do it, so they don't, and in turn, their kids perpetuate the cycle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After attending a spiritual disciplines seminar or after reading Foster's &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0060628391&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Celebration of Discipline&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; or anything by &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0060694424&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dallas Willard&lt;/a&gt;, they tend to learn, but the point is that the culture of Protestant churches (and I am generalizing a bit there) simply doesn't emphasize it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you ask me, &amp;quot;why don't I fast?&amp;quot; It's really just laziness.  I know it would be good, and I have done it from time to time, but in my personal experience it hasn't done a lot. I suspect I'm not alone in thinking that.  It doesn't justify it, it just explains it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Excursis on the textual evidence for fasting&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, while I wouldn't argue this, the verse you reference in Mark is considered by many scholars to be a minor variant inserted after the original manuscripts.  I won't argue it either way, but it just doesn't rise to &amp;quot;really important&amp;quot; for a lot of Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Net Bible's footnote on Mark 9:29:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;38 tc Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (Ì45vid א2 A C D L W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nhsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most important witnesses (א* B), as well as a few others (0274 2427 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 17:21 is often ommitted (NIV, NRSV, ESV, Net Bible, HCSB, for example) for the same reason:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;tc Many important mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Ë1,13 Ï lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as a translation of some of those symbols, א is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/history.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Codex Sinaiticus&lt;/a&gt; (aka the Tischendorf's stolen manuscript) and  B is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Codex Vaticanus&lt;/a&gt;, two of the most important manuscripts available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-06-03T15:07:18.127" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6427" CreationDate="2012-03-06T19:44:53.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on what you mean by &quot;orthodox&quot;, I guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Eastern Orthodox, the answer would be &quot;no&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Origen, and all rationalists who are like him, was not able to&#xA;  understand that the acceptance or the rejection of God's grace depends&#xA;  entirely on the rational creatures; that God, like the sun, never&#xA;  stops shining on good or wicked alike; that rational creatures are,&#xA;  however, entirely free to accept or reject this grace and love; and&#xA;  that God in His genuine love does not force His creatures to accept&#xA;  Him, but respects absolutely their free decision.  He does not&#xA;  withdraw His grace and love, but the attitude of the logical creatures&#xA;  toward this unceasing grace and love is the difference between&#xA;  paradise and hell. Those who love God are happy with Him, those who&#xA;  hate Him are extremely miserable by being obliged to live in His&#xA;  presence, and there is no place where one can escape the loving&#xA;  omnipresence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1234" LastActivityDate="2012-03-06T19:44:53.390" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6410" CreationDate="2012-03-06T19:52:03.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have been designed specifically by God.  He determined where and when you would be born, to which parents, in what demographic of society, with what experiences, skills, personality, and desires.  He has blessed you with specific spiritual strengths.  Your identity comes from Him.  He has designed you for a specific role within His kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you don't have to fit any other person's tag/label/box of who you are.  How you serve God will be unique to how he has designed you.  On the other hand, you shouldn't shrink back from his identity for you.  If He has called you to spread the word of God in some specific way, then living any other way will not be fully satisfying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastActivityDate="2012-03-06T19:52:03.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6441" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-07T04:46:08.790" Score="5" ViewCount="7456" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospels tell us that Jesus was a Jew.&#xA;Yet Jesus revealed that he was the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that Jesus' contemporaries must have been forced to decide if his teachings were either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extensions of or updates to Judaism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Or things that were so transformative/disruptive that they were suggestive of a new religion and a new interpretation (perhaps to the point of being heretical).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Question:&#xA;- Did Jesus bother to reconcile his teachings with Judaism? And if so, how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2018-01-23T21:02:46.377" Title="How did Jesus reconcile his teachings with Judaism?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6442" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-07T04:56:29.493" Score="4" ViewCount="100" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4488/when-did-the-prohibition-of-marriage-for-priests-in-the-catholic-church-originat&quot;&gt;When did the prohibition of marriage for priests in the Catholic church originate?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;When and why did the Vatican decide that Catholic priests should take a vow of celibacy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2015-08-21T16:57:38.707" Title="What is the origin of celibacy for Catholic Priests?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-03-07T14:06:03.210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6441" CreationDate="2012-03-07T06:17:01.273" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clearly Jesus described himself as being within Judaism and not opposing or superceding it. Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the easy answer to your question is to turn it around: What did Jesus ever do or say that contradicted the Hebrew scriptures? What did he say that needed to be reconciled? He never said that he was abolishing Judaism. He never said anything that contradicted anything in the Hebrew scriptures. He routinely quoted scripture to back up his statements, and as I quoted above, he affirmed the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, he claimed to be the Messiah and God made flesh, and if that was not true , he was the worst of blasphemers. But if it was true, then he was fulfilling the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T06:17:01.273" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1344" CreationDate="2012-03-07T06:48:26.773" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, biologists have identified about 1.4 million species. There are surely other species not yet identified and cataloged, but estimates vary widely on how many. I've seen estimates for total number of species ranging from less than 2 million to over 100 million.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the majority of species are microscopic. By definition, microscopic creatures would not take up any measurable amount of space on the ark. They would have just been carried along in or on the larger creatures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The International Union for Conservation of Nature -- no indication they're a Christian or creationist group, they're environmentalists -- estimates there are 1.3 million non-microscopic creatures in the world. You can get similar numbers in many places. Anyway, 1.3 million, still a lot. But 1,000,000 of those are insects and another 102,000 are arachnids, which don't take much space. 31,000 are fish. The salt-water fish, at least, would not have had to be carried on the ark: Noah didn't need to build fish tanks. Another 85,000 are mollusks, most of which are sea creatures. The only creatures Noah would have had to worry about are what's left: 5,490 species of mammals, 9,998 birds, 9,084 reptiles, and 6,433 amphibians. That makes 31,005 species. (See International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, Gland, Switzerland, 2010, Table 1.) (And by the way, I'm just using them as a convenient source. You can find similar numbers from other sources.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have noted, Genesis says Noah brought 2 of each &quot;kind&quot;, not 2 of each &quot;species&quot;. A baramin (kind) is usually broader than a species. So 31,000 is pretty much the upper limit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Noah would have had to bring 31,005 x 2 = 62,010 animals. (Okay, a little more for the creatures that he brought 7 pairs.) There are and were certainly some large animals in the world --hippos and elephants and allosauruses and so forth -- but most species are much smaller than this. The average animal weighs about 100 grams, about the size of a large rat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Woodmorape wrote a book called &quot;Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study&quot; in which he devotes considerable space to calculations on how much space would be required. He comes up with a total of 15,754 animals. (i.e. he's counting baramin and not species.) He then estimates space requirements by using the amount of space given to animals in laboratories and factory farms. He makes the argument -- a valid one, I think -- that this is a good &quot;middle number&quot;. Using the space given when transporting animals in trucks, train, or plains would be too small: such trips tend to be short, so the animals don't need a lot of room. But using space given in zoos would be too large: Zoos are meant to be comforable, and the environments are as much to entertain the visitors as to be pleasant for the animals. The Ark voyage was not a pleasure cruise. So anyway, using figures for space in labs and factory farms, he came up with a total space requirement of 4,300 square meters. That is less than half the floor space on the ark if built to the dimensions in Genesis. That's a high number, because it assumes all cages sit on the floor, but surely Noah could have stacked the cages of the smaller animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Woodmorape goes on to calculate that food for the voyage would have taken another 6 to 12% of the available space. If they had to bring along enough water for the entire voyage, that's another 9%. (In real life they could likely have captured rain water to meet at least some of their needs.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as I say in my book, all the animals plus the food and water would have taken up about 2 of the ark's 3 decks. That leaves the other deck for quarters for Noah and his family, room for extinct animals unknown to us today, the dance floor, casino, and karaoke bar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T06:48:26.773" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="102" CreationDate="2012-03-07T07:08:17.357" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no reason why God couldn't use a &quot;bride&quot; analogy two places in different contexts. If one day I say, &quot;Bob works as hard as a horse&quot; and another day I say, &quot;Charlie can run as fast as a racehorse&quot;, that's not a contradiction because I compare two different people to horses, or compare them in two different ways. Even if it's true that God refers to himself as having two different brides, that doesn't make him a bigamist! Neither is literal, it's just an analogy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, New Jerusalem is to be the home of the saved. The Church is the collection of those who are saved. So both are pretty much the same group of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T07:08:17.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6330" CreationDate="2012-03-07T07:16:38.657" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No disagreement with AffableGeek. As you mention in your question, another value to these geneologies is to allow us to establish a chronology for Genesis. Historians such as James Ussher and Isaac Newton calculated dates of OT events, including creation, based on adding up these ages until we get to an event that we can connect to a modern calendar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thought that occurs to me when I find something in the Bible that doesn't seem important or relevant to me is: Maybe it's not important to me. But maybe it is important to someone who lives in a different culture, whose life or faith faces different challenges. Even if it's not important to anyone, anywhere in the world today, maybe it was important to people hundreds of years ago, or will be important to people hundreds of years from now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T07:16:38.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3237" CreationDate="2012-03-07T07:22:32.020" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also note Matthew 20:21, where the mother of two of the disciples asks Jesus, “Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom.”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the most important point in these passages is the idea that the person is sitting next to God, clearly a place of high honor. Just like if today you were invited to a formal dinner or whatever, and told that you would be sitting next to the president or the pope or Snooki or some such important person, you would surely take this as a great honor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others note, sitting at the king or whoever's right is more prestigious in most cultures than sitting at his left. But both are pretty high up there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T07:22:32.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5049" CreationDate="2012-03-07T07:37:03.517" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, according to those that hold a literal view of Genesis, they did commit incest, but it wasn't a problem at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why incest is medically bad is because it makes genetic birth defects more likely. Most genetic defects are recessive. If two people who both have the gene have children, the childrenm may inherit the gene from both parents, and it will materialize. But if someone with the bad gene marries someone without the gene, then their children have one good gene and one bad gene, and -- assuming it's receissive -- they will not manifest the defect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bad genes are mutations, that is, DNA damaged by toxic chemicals, radiation, etc. Adam and Eve were presumably created with no bad genes. It took time for mutations to accumulate. So incest was not a medical problem for the first generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incest also has social implications, the confusion of roles of &quot;sister&quot; and &quot;wife&quot; or &quot;brother&quot; and &quot;husband&quot;. That would have been less of an issue before the Flood, when people lived longer. If Eve lived to be circa 900 years old like Adam, and if she was fertile for the same percentage of her life as a modern woman. That is, if a modern woman is fertile from mid teens to mid 40's, circa 30 years or 1/2 to 1/3 of her life, then if Eve lived to be 900, she might have been fertile for 300 years. She could have had children decades or centuries apart, who would not have been raised together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And by the way, if Eve was fertile for several hundred years, she could have had dozens or even a hundred or more children in her life. And none of them ever called.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2015-12-14T13:56:13.287" LastActivityDate="2015-12-14T13:56:13.287" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1518" CreationDate="2012-03-07T08:10:18.570" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In your very question you have most of the context you require:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so&#xA;  that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,&#xA;  over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the&#xA;  creatures that move along the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image of God relates to humanity's role and relationship with creation, compared to God's. God is the creator, who lovingly brings everything into and upholds it's existence. Mankind in the image of God is entrusted with the stewardship, Lordship, vice-regency, etc over creation. We are to tend to God's world, taking care of it and organising it, so that it &quot;works&quot; (for lack of better wording &gt;&amp;lt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand God's image as this very status of being God's stewards of his world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;? why isn't it about us being 'spritual' like God is?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, other beings exist which are spiritual.. but not in the image of God. i.e. demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;? why isn't it about our trait or capacity to think, reason, love, obey God, free will, xyz......?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Slippery slope, as then any person without capacity xyz then becomes sub-human using that definition. e.g. somebody who is not smart, somebody who is disobedient, somebody who medically cannot empathise. Depending on the capacity you choose determines who you consider to be a lesser, inferior human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Angels seem to have all of the human capacities, yet are not in the image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T08:10:18.570" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6450" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6630" CreationDate="2012-03-07T11:48:53.047" Score="6" ViewCount="665" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/hebrewgospel.htm&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt; that basically says that some if not all of the gospel could have been written in Hebrew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is this theory supported today and by whom?&lt;/strong&gt; Scholars and school of though would be appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the article quote sources, but they are getting old (1991 for the earliest). Is there more recent development on this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T23:22:48.817" LastActivityDate="2015-01-19T23:22:48.817" Title="Was the first gospel written in Hebrew?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6450" CreationDate="2012-03-07T12:04:51.223" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus would have spoken Aramaic which is descended from Hebrew, but is not the same language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is evidenced by the fact that in the few places where Jesus words are left untranslated, he is speaking in Aramaic&amp;mdash;&lt;em&gt;Abba&lt;/em&gt;, father. And &lt;em&gt;Talitha cum&lt;/em&gt; (Daughter arise)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, whether or not Matthew is the first gospel is a matter of some debate. The Greisbach hypothesis, for example, suggests that Mark is the first Gospel, from which Matthew and Luke drew in order to flesh out their accounts. If Mark is the first Gospel, then its main witness, Peter, would probably have spoken to Mark in Aramaic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many manuscripts of the time would be dictated to an &lt;em&gt;emaneusis&lt;/em&gt;&amp;mdash;a scribe who would listen and then write. Since Aramaic was such a limited language, it is not altogether unlikely that the &lt;em&gt;emaneusis&lt;/em&gt; would have listened to what was said by the author, but written it down in Greek. Greek was the &lt;em&gt;lingua Franca&lt;/em&gt; of the old world, even if not the language that people spoke. It would be akin to English today. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An analogy might be as if you were an obscure Swedish band in the 70s, but then you had an idea for a song you wanted to get out to the whole world. Your thinking process would be in Swedish, a few drafts might even be in Swedish, but the translation would be so early that everybody would have thought of it in English. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So too with Koine Greek. The area may have spoken Aramaic, but the world spoke Greek. As such, you'd use Greek. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-03-08T00:10:31.293" LastActivityDate="2012-03-08T00:10:31.293" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6441" CreationDate="2012-03-07T13:02:00.963" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, without Jesus, Judaism is incomplete.  The Old Testament, even as far back as Genesis 3, speaks of a Deliverer, a Messiah, a Savior.  This Deliverer would come through the line of Abraham and be the blessing to all people that God promised Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I want to point out that I am distinguishing Biblical Judaism from rabbinical Judaism.  I'm defining Biblical Judaism as acknowledging Jesus as the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies.  Messianic Jews fit this definition of Biblical Judaism.  Rabbinical Judaism denies Jesus, of course, but still has no Messiah that has yet come.  Still culture and traditions are followed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures foretold when and where the Messiah would be born, that He would be called &quot;God with us&quot;, that He would die and rise again, that He would be rejected by His people, and on and on.  So, without Jesus, Judaism is incomplete, with God being silent and ignoring the Jewish people for 2500 years.  Furthermore, within a generation of the Jewish leaders rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, the Jewish nation was conquered and the Temple destroyed.  This lasted for nearly 1900 years.  (This dispersion and regathering was also prophesied.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostles never saw themselves as anything other than Jewish.  Indeed, the most Jewish thing a Jewish person can do is recognize the Jewish Messiah.  Jesus fulfilled the promise to be a Deliverer not only for the people of Israel, but for the whole world.  (Isaiah 49:6 and others)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without Jesus, Judaism is without a Messiah.&#xA;Without Jesus, Judaism has not been a blessing to all people.&#xA;Without Jesus, the Jewish prophecies remain unfulfilled and must be considered false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus' teachings fit completely within Judaism, and true Judaism recognizes Jesus as the Jewish Messiah prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-03-07T15:14:58.083" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T15:14:58.083" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6455" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6457" CreationDate="2012-03-07T17:33:02.850" Score="7" ViewCount="577" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today, while reading Exodus, I noticed a possible link between communion as defined in the New Testament, and priests eating the flesh of sacrifices as mentioned in the Torah.  I haven't studied this in depth, so my question is: &lt;strong&gt;Is there a basis in the Mosaic Law for Communion?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the passage in Exodus (with more details in the rest of the chapter):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall take the ram of ordination, and boil its flesh in a holy place; and Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram and the bread that is in the basket, at the entrance of the tent of meeting. They themselves shall eat the food by which atonement is made, to ordain and consecrate them, but no one else shall eat of them, because they are holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 29:31-33 (NRSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that the priests were supposed to eat the flesh of the sacrifice and the bread, the food by which atonement is made.  In communion we eat bread that represents Jesus' flesh, who was our sacrifice, and atoned for our sins.  As Christians, we are holy and priests and are therefore allowed to partake in communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A follow-up question would be: &lt;strong&gt;Why do we drink wine representing Jesus' blood when drinking blood was absolutely forbidden by the Mosaic Law?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-23T00:30:51.873" LastActivityDate="2015-08-23T00:30:51.873" Title="Exodus 29 and Communion" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6455" CreationDate="2012-03-07T18:14:00.363" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak for Protestants, but for early Christians and present day Catholics, the Eucharist was and is offered on the day after the Sabbath as a Thanksgiving Sacrifice.  There are a lot of offerings and sacrifices in the Mosaic law, but the one that is closest to Communion is the Thanksgiving offering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0114.htm#18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sacrifice of Melchizedek&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is offered for someone who was saved who was in danger of death. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+107&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;see Psalm 107 for reasons to give thanks&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A portion is eaten by the one &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm#Zebach&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;making the offering&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And Eucharist is Greek for Thanksgiving&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rev-know-it-all.com/2010/2010---06-06.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rev. Know it all&lt;/a&gt; for more info to this point. And this &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/703/how-did-the-thanksgiving-offering-work&quot;&gt;Hermeneutics.SE question&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-03-08T14:15:48.127" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6455" CreationDate="2012-03-07T18:29:09.187" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like many things Jesus said, the Jews would have found more than just the drinking of the blood offensive.  They would have also been offended by the concept of eating Christ's flesh, which is akin to cannibalism in the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key verse here is this (Leviticus 17:10-14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing&#xA;  among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. &#xA;  For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you&#xA;  to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that&#xA;  makes atonement for one’s life.  Therefore I say to the Israelites,&#xA;  “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you&#xA;  eat blood.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any&#xA;  animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it&#xA;  with earth,  because the life of every creature is its blood. That is&#xA;  why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any&#xA;  creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who&#xA;  eats it must be cut off.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in the OT, the blood was spilled upon the altar, not ingested, as it is the blood that makes atonement for our sins.  In fact, the reason for the blood itself was as an atonement for our sins, and as such, it was prescribed that it would be spilled before the altar.  To drink the blood would be depriving it of it's purpose: to be spent on the altar.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enter Christ.  In John 6:53, he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the&#xA;  flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here is is saying that, in order to have life in us, we have to eat of the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that leaves us with the question:  What is the difference between the animal sacrifice, and Jesus' sacrifice?  When we answer this question, we find that the animal sacrifice was simply symbolic and temporary.  The animal sacrifice itself did not bring life to the one sacrificing, so much as it atoned for their sins, and more importantly, pointed ultimately to Christ.  When Christ came, he actually &lt;em&gt;imparted life&lt;/em&gt; to those who believe him.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As one commentator said, all true life comes from Christ, not from the animal sacrifices.  We have no life outside of Christ.  This is why drinking of Christ's blood is acceptable, but drinking of an animal's blood was not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or to look at it another way, if Paul is right, and our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, then doesn't it make sense that Christ's sacrifice should happen within our own hearts, and hence the ingestion of Christ's blood and body?  The ceremonial system did not impart the Holy Spirit to those who practiced it.  It was a shadow of what was to come.  Paul puts it like this in 1 Corinthians 6:19:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit&#xA;  within you, whom you have from God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in Judaism, the altar was in the temple, and the sacrifice was spread before the altar in the physical temple, whereas when Christ came and ended the sacrificial system, his blood must be spread in the temple of our hearts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews sheds a bit of light on this too.  In Hebrews 8-10, the writer speaks of the difference between the blood of bulls and calves and the blood of Christ.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Hebrews 10:1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead&#xA;  of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same&#xA;  sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those&#xA;  who draw near.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, the old covenant sacrifices can never impart life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrews 10:22 he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places&#xA;  by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us&#xA;  through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a&#xA;  great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart&#xA;  in full assurance of faith, with &lt;strong&gt;our hearts sprinkled clean&lt;/strong&gt; from&#xA;  an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (emphasis&#xA;  mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the old covenant, it was the altar sprinkled with the blood of the lamb, but in the new covenant, it is the altar of our hearts sprinkled with the blood of the Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your original question, Jesus and his disciples were actually sharing a Passover Seder together, not a typical sacrificial meal.  The passover, if you'll recall correctly, was the meal that the Israelites would share to commemorate the time that God killed all the newborn children in Egypt, but passed over those whose door sides and top were covered in the blood of the lamb.  The disciples were preparing for such a time, only this time it would be the blood of the Lamb of God that would be covering their &lt;em&gt;hearts&lt;/em&gt;, causing death to pass by them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the bread and wine, it was typical to eat bread and drink wine for Passover.  Today, most Jews will drink four cups of wine as described &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/passover/thefourcupsofwineforpassover.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  They wouldn't drink the last cup of wine, because that one represents the coming of the messiah.  To this day, the Jews don't drink this cup.  It's likely that it was this fifth cup that Jesus was sharing with the disciples when he said, in Matthew 26:26-29:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke&#xA;  it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my&#xA;  body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to&#xA;  them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of thec&#xA;  covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.&#xA;  I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until&#xA;  that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer the original question, yes, Communion was instituted in the OT, though the interpretation of it's true spiritual meaning wasn't fully revealed until Christ.  Communion, however, is most closely related to Passover as described in Exodus 12, and not to the consecration of priests, as the text in Exodus 29 describes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2012-03-08T12:41:56.430" LastActivityDate="2012-03-08T12:41:56.430" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6362" CreationDate="2012-03-07T18:47:59.250" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is evidence that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 was due to seismic activity. (I am remembering [hopefully correctly] things I read 20 years ago) The Jordan River once flowed all the way to the Red Sea, but the seismic shift caused it to stop at the Dead Sea, and a once well-watered and desirable land (Gen. 13:10) became desert. So God not only destroyed the cities, but the entire region. I agree with the others, that the &quot;new thing&quot; was the people being swallowed up alive into the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1393" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T18:47:59.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6459" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-07T19:02:26.903" Score="6" ViewCount="1485" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church.  I see how each of them are some form of &lt;i&gt;Sacramentum&lt;/i&gt;, an oath between man and God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Marriage has a marital vow&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy orders is a vow to be a priest, deacon or bishop.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reconciliation is a resolution to &quot;Go and sin no more&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Holy Communion we say, Amen to &quot;The Body of Christ&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Baptism we resolve to enter more into the Body of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and in Confirmation we renew and confirm that resolution.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, what is the oath in Anointing of the Sick?  To die peacefully?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2012-03-07T19:25:48.497" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T15:22:59.897" Title="What is the sacramental principle at work with Anointing of the Sick?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;anointing-of-the-sick&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6441" CreationDate="2012-03-07T19:05:41.700" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to remember that Judaism was a religion instituted by God, intended for God's purposes, but had been co-opted by man who began adding and removing laws as they saw fit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So enter Jesus:  He says he &quot;fulfills&quot; the law.  What does he mean by this?  Many people seem to think this meant that he added to, and finished creating all of the rules associated with the law, but I don't believe this to be the case.  As Paul said in Romans 3:19-20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are&#xA;  under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world&#xA;  may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being&#xA;  will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge&#xA;  of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if the law's purpose wasn't to primarily justify us, but to show us our sin, then why would Jesus simply come and add laws? (Indeed, he does do this at times, but I believe his point is to push people closer to the edge of despair when it comes to their own self-reliance, and push them to a point where they cry out to have mercy on them.)  The answer is, he doesn't.  He, being God, clarifies the law by showing the true expectation of the law, that our hearts would be turned towards God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as for fulfilling the law, he fulfills it by himself following the law.  He finishes the expectations of the law by living under the law, and thus, he is the only one who manages, on his own merits, to escape the judgement of God.  Now here's where it gets crazy, and why we believe in Christ in the first place:  he then goes on to die the death of a sinner anyways, and in doing so, he becomes the sacrifice for the sins of those who have failed to obey the law, and thus he frees us from the law (though not himself).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the temporal consequences of our sin will still remain with us.  If I kill someone, then I am more than likely going to suffer temporal consequences for doing so, but the death of Christ is sufficient to pay the penalties for this on an eternal level, and my failure to match up to the requirements of the law are forgiven not solely on the basis that God forgives, but on the basis that Christ has already paid the penalty.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Jesus reconciled himself to Judaism by following all that Judaism required of him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for his contemporaries trying to decide if he did or not, keep in mind that they had already co-opted the law and the prophets for their own gain.  They added and removed laws to suit their fancy, and viewed Jesus as a glutton and a drunkard because he didn't follow their twisted version of the law.  Nevertheless, the law was given by God, and the law, as given by God (not as twisted by the Pharisees and Sadducees) was fulfilled (obeyed) by Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T19:05:41.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6275" CreationDate="2012-03-07T20:05:20.397" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1257/68&quot;&gt;answered&lt;/a&gt; the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1251/68&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; on the Hermeneutics site, which can be summarized as spiritual resurrection was an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;oxymoron&lt;/a&gt; at that point in history.  I won't repeat that argument, but I will make a related argument based on what the Corinthians probably expected from a messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Who were the Corinthians?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Corinth was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Corinth#Roman_era&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;reestablished&lt;/a&gt; as a colony by Julius Caesar in 44 BC.  During the late Republic and early Empire, colonies were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126390/colony&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;established&lt;/a&gt; in order to provide land to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion#Pay&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;pay off&lt;/a&gt; and settle veterans.  A hundred or so years later, when Paul arrived, it was a much more &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Corinth#Biblical_Corinth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;cosmopolitan&lt;/a&gt; city with a mixture of Romans, Greeks and Jews.  The city's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Corinth#The_two_ports:_Lechaeum_and_Cenchreae&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;twin ports&lt;/a&gt; and strategic location meant that received much &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinth_Canal&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Roman attention&lt;/a&gt;.  While the original legionary colonists had died off, it seems quite likely that their decedents would have had strong affinities to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_%28ancient_Rome%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Imperial cult&lt;/a&gt;&amp;mdash;especially &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_%28ancient_Rome%29#Caesar.27s_heir&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Divus Julius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What would they have thought of Jesus?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Corinthians, we can imagine, never heard of Jesus.  Of those who had, probably many supposed he had been rightly executed as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zealot&lt;/a&gt;.  But the primary audience of Paul's letters were Christian.  They must have seen Jesus as worth following, even perhaps to the death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why are we in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus?&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 15:30-32a (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps they saw Jesus in the mold of a Greek demigod, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hercules&lt;/a&gt;.  But more likely, they thought Jesus had experienced &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis#Ancient_Rome&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;apotheosis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; upon his death in the same way &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Comet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;many believed&lt;/a&gt; Julius Caesar had become a god.  Caesar was not resurrected as his body was cremated in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Caesar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Forum&lt;/a&gt;; his soul was believed to have ascended into heaven in the form of a comet.  So the Corinthians could have interpreted stories of Jesus' transfiguration and his ascension in the same incorporeal manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seem to have been a division in the Corinthian church (see 1&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 1:10-16&lt;/a&gt; and all of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapter 3&lt;/a&gt;, for instance) along ethnic and cultural lines.  The Jewish Christians would have understood Jesus as Messiah and looked forward to a general Resurrection event, but might not have put the two concepts together. If so, they didn't believed that Jesus bodily rose from the grave either.  (But more likely, they became Christians after believing that the Christ rose from the tomb on the third day.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What was Paul's argument?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's task is to bring both sides of the Corinthian church into unity.  The letter tackles a huge number of issues: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sexual immorality&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;lawsuits&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;idols&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;worship&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;spiritual gifts&lt;/a&gt;.  His driving goal is to find ways of unifying the body.  So when he gets to the topic of Resurrection, he must make a series of complicated arguments.  But this is his abstract:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 15:12-14 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's argument (and it carries throughout the chapter) was that what happened to Christ is fundamentally the same thing that we can expect to happen to us in the future.  He leans hard on the word &quot;resurrection&quot; (x2 in these verses alone) and &quot;raised&quot; (x3).  To his Jewish audience, the words would have clearly signaled an event that would look like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.&#xA;  You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!&#xA;For your dew is a dew of light,&#xA;  and the earth will give birth to the dead.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;Isaiah 26:19 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Isaiah+26/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But notice that Paul directs his argument toward &quot;some of you [who] say that there is no resurrection of the dead&quot;.  Therefore, Paul basically sides with the Jewish Christians when it comes to resurrection theology.  Thus, his argument must be opposed to the Greek and Roman views that Christ was a special case&amp;mdash;an extraordinary man who was transported into heaven.  So Paul stands on the side of the group who believes our bodies can somehow be transformed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;“Death is swallowed up in victory.”&#xA;“O death, where is your victory?&#xA;   O death, where is your sting?”&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 15:50-57 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's argument assumes the Corinthians &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt; believed Jesus had experienced a &quot;spiritual&quot; ascendance into heaven, so it makes little sense that he would convince them, in a strident tone, that Jesus' ascendance was just spiritual.  Paul clearly expects them to believe something &lt;em&gt;beyond&lt;/em&gt; their current beliefs: namely bodily resurrection&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-03-07T20:27:07.030" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6469" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-08T20:29:05.710" Score="5" ViewCount="1095" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your wife asks, &quot;Does this dress make me look fat?&quot; And you think it does, but you tell her, &quot;Of course not, honey!&quot; Is that a sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-05-03T12:12:55.363" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T12:13:07.817" Title="How should a Christian respond to &quot;Does this dress me look fat?&quot;?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="18" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-05-05T17:56:25.407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6469" CreationDate="2012-03-08T20:55:09.753" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what the bible says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 19:11 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not steal.&quot; &quot;Do not lie.&quot; &quot;Do not deceive one another.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalms 31:18 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let their lying lips be silenced,     for with pride and contempt&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  they speak arrogantly against the righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 8:7 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My mouth speaks what is true,     for my lips detest wickedness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 26:28 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A lying tongue hates those it hurts,     and a flattering mouth works&#xA;  ruin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and there are a 100 more that I can post.  It shows that there is no good enough reason to lie.  However, if you're asking about losing your salvation for lying, I'd point to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not&#xA;  from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one&#xA;  can boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which means that your works do not get you into nor out of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastActivityDate="2012-03-08T20:55:09.753" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6469" CreationDate="2012-03-08T21:17:25.483" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just as a small counter-argument to the obvious answer, remember that Jesus said the entire law was summed up as this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, of course, is whether being a true witness would cause injury. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oddly enough, if your wife is just looking to see that you love her, I would argue it is loving to &quot;lie&quot;.  A better tack, however, might be to answer a different question - to say that indeed, to you, she looks beautiful.  And really, her words may be &quot;Am I fat?&quot; but she's really wanting to know, &quot;Am I beautiful?&quot;  Answer that question instead, and you'll be safe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If she were asking a medical question, a loving answer might be, &quot;Dear, the doctor does want to you lose weight, and because I love you and want you to be with me for a long time, yes I think you need to do what the doctor says.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If she insists on asking the question out of vanity, however, then may I suggest the best answer is found in Job 40:14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-05-03T12:13:07.817" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T12:13:07.817" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6469" CreationDate="2012-03-08T21:31:58.663" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;A successful marriage relationship will need a full measure of &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/950/68&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; love.  Here's how Paul defines it with particularly relevant words bolded:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Love is patient and kind&lt;/strong&gt;; love does not envy or boast; &lt;strong&gt;it is not arrogant or rude&lt;/strong&gt;. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but &lt;strong&gt;rejoices with the truth&lt;/strong&gt;. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 13:4-7 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Corinthians+13/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's take these in reverse order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rejoices with the truth&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presumably, the husband does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; think he is telling the truth.  By this standard, lying to your wife is not loving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;It is not arrogant or rude&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if the husband said exactly what he thought, that would be rude (and possibly arrogant):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It makes you look like a pregnant cow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honestly, given the choice, it would be more loving to lie to your wive than to be rude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Love is patient and kind&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's another way.  The patient thing to do is to ask questions or let the wife down easy.  I've found that saying things like &quot;I wonder if it would be a good idea to accessorize?&quot; communicates that something is not quite right, without being rude.  (I don't know what accessorizing means exactly or how it could help, but it shows my wife that I care.)  Another thing that works for me is to spend &quot;too long&quot; appraising the outfit.  After a minute of looking and contemplating, my wife will get the hint: something isn't right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are about to go out and I think there's a good chance she will be embarrassed if someone posts a picture of the outfit on Facebook.  The kindest thing I can do is let her know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dearest, I know you spent the last hour and a half getting ready to go, but I really think you'd look better in some other dress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I will (Lord willing) spend whatever time is needed helping her look her best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-03-08T21:31:58.663" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6473" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6476" CreationDate="2012-03-09T00:34:23.020" Score="1" ViewCount="3222" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's something that has stumped me since I was a kid:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What did the carnivores/predators eat on the Ark?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Noah also round up sufficient vegetation to feed all of the animals? Or did they somehow maintain the circle of life on the Ark for 40 days and 40 nights?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2017-11-21T23:20:16.223" Title="What did the carnivores/predators eat on the Ark?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-11-22T00:11:43.540" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6475" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6480" CreationDate="2012-03-09T01:13:07.237" Score="1" ViewCount="1015" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems like people take some Biblical passages word for word and live it, others not so much. I do not see many people giving their life away for Jesus or i.e. - Jesus said if you want to be perfect you must give away all your money...how come nobody does these things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 19:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &quot;If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions&#xA;  and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come,&#xA;  follow me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or - do you think you can really walk on water if you wholeheartedly believe and do not doubt that you can. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2014:22-33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 14:29-30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or- &quot;it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-05T00:58:57.693" LastActivityDate="2014-11-05T00:58:57.693" Title="How literally do you take and universally apply what Jesus said?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2012-03-11T00:03:46.283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6473" CreationDate="2012-03-09T01:22:20.487" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 6:21 has your answer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T01:22:20.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6475" CreationDate="2012-03-09T02:03:31.460" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, Jesus was speaking to a single archon - the &quot;rich young ruler.&quot;  Jesus told Peter to come out and walk on the water, but that doesn't mean I need to do the same :) There is nothing in the text to indicate that this is a generalized principle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was speaking to one person, and it is interesting how the exchange goes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”&#xA;  18 “Which ones?” he inquired.&#xA;  Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”&#xA;  20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that Jesus seems to know what is going on with this guy.  Of the last six commandments (typically called the &quot;Second Table&quot; because they talk about how man is to relate to man instead of how man is to relate to God in the &quot;First Table&quot;), Jesus only mentions 5.  The missing commandment is significant -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou shalt not covet&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus knew this was the archon's problem - he was obsessed with wealth. Knowing this young man's problem, he can focus on that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, positionally, this pericope occurs as Jesus is going to Jerusalem to give everything up. Taken from this point of view, it also be taken to show that Jesus himself is totally Good, because Jesus alone is going to be the only one who can truly fulfill this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T02:03:31.460" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6475" CreationDate="2012-03-09T02:27:47.430" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I do not see many people giving their life away for Jesus...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not true. Many martyrs gave their life for Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said if you want to be perfect you must give away all your&#xA;  money...how come nobody does these things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Roman Catholic Church, members of religious orders take &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;vows of poverty&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, while many may not take fulfill the words of these passages &lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt;, many fulfill them in a figurative sense. That is, many forgo worldly pleasures, worldy experiences, and worldly fortunes while either serving others or spreading God's Word to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="1100" LastEditDate="2012-03-12T00:20:36.183" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T00:20:36.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6469" CreationDate="2012-03-09T03:42:32.307" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see the problem here.  The honest answer to &quot;Does this dress make me look fat?&quot; is never yes.  Tell her &quot;No, It's being fat that makes you look fat.&quot; Tell the truth.  Then be prepared to outrun her.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all seriousness, however, my wife would prefer that I tell her when something isn't flattering because she'd rather have me tell her in private before she can go out in public.  If I answered &quot;no&quot;, and later one of her friends told her the opposite (and one of them would) she'd be mad at me for letting her go out and embarrass herself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This question is simply a variation of a question I am amazed that people keep getting wrong:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is more loving?  Telling someone the truth (lovingly) to save them from one type of pain, embarrassment, or some other worse fate, or lying to spare their feelings (another type of pain)?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Telling the truth and hurting someone's feelings short-term is not necessarily the un-loving thing to do.  What some people perceive as &quot;mean&quot; is really more loving than giving/telling them what they want to hear.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes it takes a more extreme example of the application of the same principle to clarify the issue, so here's a more extreme example of the same basic question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one of your family members is a drug addict, or is drinking themselves to death, it it more loving to confront the problem, or to turn a blind eye, keep your silence, and let them destroy themselves 9and perhaps their marriage, hurt their children, you name it.)  They would think you're a jerk for confronting the issue rather than letting themlive their own lives, but keeping silent is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the loving thing to do in that situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to the whole &quot;does this dress make me look fat&quot; question, that is often used as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man&quot;&gt;straw-man&lt;/a&gt; argument against the idea that we are to tell the truth at all times.  The simple fact is that a lie is a lie.  We lie for different reasons, sometimes to protect ourselves, sometimes out of a desire to avoid unnecessary conflict. It's cowardly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're really serious about the question, tell your wife the truth in a kind and loving manner.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it were me speaking to my wife, I'd say something like &quot;Honey, I'm biased.  To me, you're the most beautiful woman on earth, and would look great even if you were wearing a burlap sack, but the dress isn't very flattering...  I think you look much hotter in this one.&quot;  Or simply &quot;This one looks better&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, my wife has an extremely good sense of humor, so I can get away with statements like the one in my opening paragraph.  (One of the many reasons I love her so much.)  And she hates being lied to above all else, so my answer is a bit &quot;flavored&quot; by my own relationship with her.  Not all marriages work the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-03-09T12:52:45.583" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T12:52:45.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6469" CreationDate="2012-03-09T03:57:19.540" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the real answer here is to &lt;em&gt;know your wife&lt;/em&gt;.  My wife requests that I be completely honest with her in that kind of matter.  She, believe it or not, really &lt;em&gt;wants&lt;/em&gt; to know, so she can change into something else if something isn't the most flattering on her.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it goes against everything you've been taught on the matter on how to treat your wife, but really, just like the dress, there isn't any &lt;em&gt;one size fits all&lt;/em&gt; answer for this one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with some of the other comments that say that it takes wisdom to know what your wife is really asking, so you can answer the question appropriately, but if you don't know your wife, that's the bigger issue.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T03:57:19.540" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6475" CreationDate="2012-03-09T04:00:26.713" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was trying to push the rich young ruler to the breaking point.  The point at which he knew his sin had a firm grasp on him that wouldn't let go.  He wanted to drive the ruler to despair, so, like the leper, he would cry out, &lt;em&gt;Kyrie Elieson&lt;/em&gt;, have mercy on me, Lord!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe Jesus was making a blanket statement about riches, as so many people have taken this verse to mean.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://justinholcomb.com/2012/02/08/why-jesus-wants-you-to-lose-hope/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This post&lt;/a&gt; clarifies my thoughts, and is easily the best interpretation I've ever seen on the topic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2014-11-04T19:55:04.270" LastActivityDate="2014-11-04T19:55:04.270" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1481" CreationDate="2012-03-09T04:27:25.183" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no surviving Roman census document that lists Jesus. But this isn't particularly surprising: most such ancient documents don't survive. It's not like we have a copy of the census rolls and they jump from &quot;Jeremiah&quot; to &quot;Jethro&quot; with Jesus glaringly omitted. The rolls of that census no longer exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do have surviving copies of a book by Tertullian, &quot;An Answer to the Jews&quot;, written ca AD 197, in which he makes a brief mention, when describing Jesus's background, &quot;As, among the Romans, Mary is described in the census, of whom is born Christ.&quot; Similarly, in his book &quot;Against Marcion&quot;, he mentions Jesus's &quot;enrolment in the census of Augustus— that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome&quot;. He makes these statements in a very straightforward and confidant way -- no weasle words like &quot;these records are probably there&quot; or &quot;they were there at one time&quot;. There's a pretty clear implication that anyone who wants to check up on his facts could do so. If he was just making this up, he was a great bluffer. He would have made an excellent poker player.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tertullian was the son of a Roman centurion and there is some evidence that he himself was a lawyer, so he might well have seen the census documents himself or spoken to someone who had.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T04:27:25.183" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2012-03-09T11:23:36.587" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am surprised that no one talked about Abraham and the birth of Isaac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 17:15-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said to Abraham, “As for your wife, you must no longer call&#xA;  her Sarai; Sarah will be her name. I will bless her and will give you&#xA;  a son through her. I will bless her and she will become a mother of&#xA;  nations. Kings of countries will come from her!”&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Then Abraham bowed down with his face to the ground and laughed&lt;/strong&gt; as he said to himself, “Can a son be born to a man who is a hundred years&#xA;  old? Can Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, as he laughed, God told him to call his son Isaac. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 17:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God said, “No, Sarah your wife is going to bear you a son, and you&#xA;  will name him Isaac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Isaac means &lt;strong&gt;&quot;laughter&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. It is possible that as both Abraham and Sara laughed when God told them about how he were going to bless them with a son, as if he couldn't do this regarding of their oldness, he decided to give him this name:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 18:9-14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then they asked him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” He replied, “There,&#xA;  in the tent.”  One of them said, “I will surely return to you when the&#xA;  season comes round again, and your wife Sarah will have a son!” (Now&#xA;  Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, not far behind him. &#xA;  Abraham and Sarah were old and advancing in years; Sarah had long&#xA;  since passed menopause.)  So Sarah laughed to herself, thinking,&#xA;  “After I am worn out will I have pleasure, especially when my husband&#xA;  is old too?” The Lord said to Abraham, &lt;strong&gt;“Why did Sarah laugh and say,&#xA;  ‘Will I really have a child when I am old?’  Is anything impossible&#xA;  for the Lord? I will return to you when the season comes round again&#xA;  and Sarah will have a son.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1401" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T11:23:36.587" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6473" CreationDate="2012-03-09T13:31:23.150" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to Affable's &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6476/69&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt;, there is also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:3&lt;/a&gt; which indicates that &lt;em&gt;at least&lt;/em&gt; mankind did not eat meat before the flood:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is arguable that animals did not prior to the release from the Ark, as well - they also were not afraid of men until after (the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;previous&lt;/a&gt; verse):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, regardless of whether animals were carnivorous prior to the flood or not, we know that God provided for them via Noah's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;efforts&lt;/a&gt; to lay-up stores in the 100 years before the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T13:31:23.150" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6490" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-09T14:31:49.443" Score="8" ViewCount="1156" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard on the Relevant Radio recently that the Genesis account of the deluge is prehistorical.  Meaning, it wasn't really recorded in histories the way other more specific accounts of historical events were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, where exactly does the Bible's historical content begin for Catholics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the radio broadcast of &lt;a href=&quot;http://relevantradio.streamguys.us/downloadfile.php?file=GAF_Archive/GAF20120306.mp3&quot;&gt;Go Ask Your Father&lt;/a&gt; I was listening to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-03-09T16:44:46.457" LastActivityDate="2017-07-17T18:05:36.963" Title="Where do Catholics believe the historical narrative of the Bible begins?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4255" CreationDate="2012-03-09T15:21:20.643" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Family Radio, as of March 7, 2012, they no longer believe the end of the world to be May 21, 2011&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As written in a statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must also openly acknowledge that we have no new evidence pointing to another date for the end of the world. Though many dates are circulating, Family Radio has no interest in even considering another date. God has humbled us through the events of May 21, to continue to even more fervently search the Scriptures (the Bible), not to find dates, but to be more faithful in our understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have learned the very painful lesson that all of creation is in God’s hands and He will end time in His time, not ours! We humbly recognize that God may not tell His people the date when Christ will return, any more than He tells anyone the date they will die physically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We realize that many people are hoping they will know the date of Christ’s return. In fact for a time Family Radio fell into that kind of thinking. But we now realize that those people who were calling our attention to the Bible’s statement that &amp;quot;of that day and hour knoweth no man&amp;quot; (Matthew 24:36 &amp;amp; Mark 13:32), were right in their understanding of those verses and Family Radio was wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T17:51:03.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2012-03-09T16:07:51.973" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been thinking about this recently and I do not think that being &quot;born of water and the Spirit&quot; is referring to two separate &quot;births&quot;, but rather the singular moment of baptism.  The same way God took the living man Adam and breathed divine life into him, bridging the gap between merely being alive and being alive in God.  It is through the water of baptism that the Spirit enters us for the first time and we are thus &quot;born&quot; into true life rather than merely being alive in the temporal sense, which will end.  I believe this is why the older traditions practice infant baptism as well.  They understood humans as not having an eternal soul inherently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1234" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T16:07:51.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6490" CreationDate="2012-03-09T16:39:02.570" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with that question is that it makes a very difficult assumption: that the Church has an official position as to when the historical begins. Frankly, it doesn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church's view of Genesis can be best summed up by, &quot;it means what it means.&quot; Yes, that is tautology, but it is necessarily so &amp;mdash; we know that the Bible is 100% accurate in faith and morals as intended by the author, but it is very difficult to narrow down the theology beyond that. Further, it is not impossible for the author to make an error in matters historical as history is not strictly limited by faith and morals. (Placement of the Medes in the book of Daniel, for example, is generally considered an anachronism, but it does make sense if taken more symbollically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a personal note: I view the histories as starting with the book of Joshua and continuing from there. For, while there is definitely som mytho-symbolic content in Judges, my reading is that, overall, the concern of the documents is the historical progression of the nation. Yes, that does omit the entire pentateuch, but, while I will not deny that there is most certainly history in those documents, picking apart history from legend in those five is a bit tricky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T16:39:02.570" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6494" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6495" CreationDate="2012-03-09T18:43:09.980" Score="2" ViewCount="1399" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ask the question for a real reason. I would like to make more money to support my family and live in better conditions. I feel I have to rely on myself to go back to school, work hard and then get a great job. However, I hear something different at Church, rely on Jesus for our needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we apply relying on Jesus in situations where it appears we have to rely on ourselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you have specific real life examples of how you do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you define this and where do you draw the line?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Marc in his comment below brought up a good topic of: &quot;do what you were going to do anyway&quot; vs (what I interpret as) completely leaning back on Jesus....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-03-09T23:18:19.980" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T16:17:54.850" Title="How can we apply relying on Jesus in situations where it appears we have to rely on ourselves?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-11-07T18:39:54.157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6494" CreationDate="2012-03-09T19:48:11.100" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me flip the question around a little bit:  Is there anything about going back to school, working hard, and interviewing for (notice I didn't say &quot;getting&quot;) a great job that is inherently &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; relying on God?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's two sides to this coin: Using the talents God has given you, and being faithful to use them for his glory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God made you a certain way, and make no bones about it, &lt;em&gt;he is the one who gave you the talents you have.&lt;/em&gt;  So when it comes to relying on God in that sense, you already are.  In fact, it takes God to even allow you to breathe.  Everything you have, and everything you are is from God, so in that sense, you're &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; relying on him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there comes a point when we have to realize that working is part of God's will for us.  I am a programmer, but if I sit behind my computer, never write a line of code, and trust Jesus to write it for me, I'll probably get fired, and Paul would say, I'm worse than an infidel for not providing for my family.  Work is still relying on God.  It's the means he's given us that he uses to provide us with the things we need.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in each of our lives, we will each have several opportunities to make bad decisions.  As you go back to school, you have the opportunity to either learn what they're teaching properly, or you'll have the opportunity to cheat on your tests.  Cheat, and you're not relying on God.  Do the best you can, and you are.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll also have the opportunity to overwork yourself and neglect your family.  Work so hard that they never see you, and your wife and kids forget who you are, and you're probably not relying on God.  Work as hard as you can without neglecting the roles and responsibilities God has given you, and you probably are.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes 9:10 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no&#xA;  work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are&#xA;  going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Whatever&lt;/em&gt; your hand finds to do.  In whatever roles you find yourself in, do them well.  If you find yourself in the role of father, do that well.  Of husband, do that well.  Of student, do that well.  Of employee, do that well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, it takes wisdom.  Ask Jesus: Should I take on this role of student?  If you feel you can without irreparably damaging your other roles, and you're open and honest about that, then I think you're in a good place.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't over-think the whole &quot;relying on God&quot; thing.  He's given you certain characteristics because he wants you to use them to his glory.  Do the best you can, and trust him with the results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T19:48:11.100" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6496" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6497" CreationDate="2012-03-09T20:12:53.860" Score="6" ViewCount="860" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gregory of Nyssa's&lt;/a&gt; book &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/The_life_of_Moses.html?id=wAJ6fwFAligC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Life of Moses&lt;/a&gt; is, if nothing else, a very interesting read. He goes through Moses' account in Exodus and ascribes spiritual meanings to every little detail, although it is doubtful that any of them would pass muster in a pulpit today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine would also do allegorical interpretations, such as the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Thus as great and brilliant a scholar as Augustine offers the following interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho = Adam&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jerusalem = the heavenly city of peace from which Adam fell&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jericho = the moon, and thereby signifies Adam’s mortality&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thieves = the devil and his angels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stripped him = namely of his immortality&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beat him = by persuading him to sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And left him half-dead = as a man he lives, but he died spiritually, therefore he is half-dead&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The priest and the Levite = the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Samaritan = is said to mean ‘Guardian,’ and therefore means Christ himself&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bound his wounds = means binding therestraint of sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oil = comfort of Good hope&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wine = exhortation to work with a fervent spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beast = the flesh of Christ’s incarnation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Inn = the church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The morrow = after the Resurrection&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two-pence = promise of this life and the life to come&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Innkeeper = Paul&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above interpretation, however, is a requote from Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart's classic and authoritative book &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gci.org/book/feestuart&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;How to Read the Bible for all its Worth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, as an example of how modern interpretation is &lt;em&gt;NOT&lt;/em&gt; to be done.  They are right, of course, because allegory really isn't testable in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is this - how did the vast majority of modern Christians come to realize that allegory was not the best hermeneutical principle for reading Scripture?  Historically, when did the shift occur, what triggered it, and how did Chalcedonian Christianity come to realize this was not the way to read the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along these lines, are there any major strains of Christianity that would accept this? (My guess would be that if anyone still does this, it would be the Eastern Orthodox, but I'd need confirmation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-10T23:51:48.187" Title="Why and when did allegorical interpretations of Scripture lose their appeal?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6496" CreationDate="2012-03-09T20:25:13.660" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure it completely has abandoned allegorical interpretation.  The PCA church still takes much of Revelation to be allegorical, although the rest of the United States doesn't so much anymore... a result of John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield in the 19th century, who came out with the Scofield Study Bible, with Darby's dispensational, and somewhat more literal interpretation of Revelation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of Jesus parables are still taken allegorically, though they're often coupled with a philosophical Occam's Razor in order to come up with the simplest explanation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think it's that we don't take parts of the Bible allegorically, I think it's just that we no longer go out of our way to do so, unless the text seems to call for it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, much of the shift that you're referring to, at least according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Modern&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, comes from Luther and Calvin, the former of whom came up with the principle of &lt;em&gt;scriptura sui ipsius interpres&lt;/em&gt; (Scripture is it's own interpreter), and the latter of whom came with the principle: &lt;em&gt;brevitas et facilitas&lt;/em&gt;, brief and relevant.  That, combined with the rationalist and humanist movements of the 15th and 16th centuries combined to make the shift. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T20:25:13.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6499" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6500" CreationDate="2012-03-09T22:27:40.730" Score="2" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;(I ask this question because my only exposure to Jesus has been through Calvary Chapels for many years.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you attend &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary_Chapel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Calvary Chapel&lt;/a&gt; (or ever listened to the radio station &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KWVE-FM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;K-WVE&lt;/a&gt; broadcasted nationally or I guess world-wide now) there seems to be an undertone of something always having to be wrong in this life. People call in with testimonials about being drug addicts, ill, etc and it was Jesus that saved them (which is great!). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it seems this is where this non-denomination starts to max out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the church I go to, I sincerely wonder if the pastor is happy at all in this life and he seems only focused on the next...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the basis of catch as many people as possible (for Jesus) since we all hit hard times?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is specific to this non-denomination or is it generic to other Christian &quot;ways&quot; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-27T16:18:36.180" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T16:18:36.180" Title="Does Calvary Chapel assume everything is wrong in this world?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6499" CreationDate="2012-03-09T23:19:55.703" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;From your description, this sounds simply like the application of the Calvinistic doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Total Depravity&lt;/a&gt;, which is typical of many congregationalist congregations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-09T23:19:55.703" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6501" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-10T08:32:19.247" Score="3" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally try to base everything I believe on the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels.  I also take the Old Testament as truth because Jesus also did.  I see Paul like I do CS Lewis, I happen to agree with most of what he wrote, but not all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words I may or may not agree with what Paul (or CS Lewis) wrote based on my own personal interpretation of what Jesus said in the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastEditorUserId="1404" LastEditDate="2012-03-10T08:57:57.827" LastActivityDate="2012-03-10T13:05:54.993" Title="Why do so many Christians call Paul &quot;teacher&quot;, when Jesus said it was forbidden?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-03-11T00:23:16.023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6502" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6503" CreationDate="2012-03-10T09:38:19.447" Score="0" ViewCount="566" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like this verse but I don't fully grasp what Jesus is talking about in his prayer (specifically 11:25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Father Revealed in the Son&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1386" LastActivityDate="2012-03-10T10:16:35.997" Title="What &quot;things&quot; is Jesus talking about in Matthew 11:25?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;wisdom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6502" CreationDate="2012-03-10T10:16:35.997" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Things&quot; is simply Truth, these Truths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is better to be humble than proud.&#xA;Grace is better than triumph.&#xA;That all credit for anything we achieve belongs to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-10T10:16:35.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6504" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-10T12:40:13.430" Score="8" ViewCount="14662" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does the Old Testament never mention unclean spirits and demon-possessed people? Or I am missing something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1405" LastActivityDate="2015-06-04T16:33:58.957" Title="Why does the Old Testament never mention unclean spirits and demon-posessed people?" Tags="&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-06-12T08:04:59.520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6501" CreationDate="2012-03-10T13:05:54.993" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the key to understanding this is to look at the broader context in which Jesus makes these statements. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's take a look at Jesus' entire paragraph here from Matthew 23:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,  &quot;The scribes and&#xA;  the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever&#xA;  they tell you-but not what they do. For they preach, but do not&#xA;  practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on&#xA;  people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them&#xA;  with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For&#xA;  they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they&#xA;  love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues&#xA;  and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. &#xA;  But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you&#xA;  are all brothers.  And call no man your father on earth, for you have&#xA;  one Father, who is in heaven.  Neither be called instructors, for you&#xA;  have one instructor, the Christ.  The greatest among you shall be your&#xA;  servant.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles&#xA;  himself will be exalted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear that Jesus is speaking of a &lt;em&gt;particular kind&lt;/em&gt; of teacher.  He's not speaking of a teacher that instructs the best he can from scripture, all the time giving glory to, and pointing people to God, but he's speaking of a teacher that teaches to impress other people, so that he can be honored, have power over another, and have his ego stroked.  There's a difference.  One teacher teaches out of his desire for power and acceptance, while another simply repeats what he has heard from Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Jesus is prohibiting the disciples from being teachers in the sense that they hold power over one another and force people to do what they say, and judging people when they don't.  Instead, the disciples were to teach others humbly, always looking back to Christ as the source of what they teach, being careful not to go beyond what it is that Jesus taught, and they should do so driven by the motivation to see people love Christ, not driven by the motivation to have followers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-03-10T13:05:54.993" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6504" CreationDate="2012-03-10T13:08:01.073" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're missing something.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Samual 16:14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit&#xA;  from the LORD tormented him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he started playing a game of darts with David as the bulls-eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-03-10T13:08:01.073" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6507" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-10T14:21:03.907" Score="-1" ViewCount="109" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any indication in the Bible (N.T. is preferred) that the spirit of man can be discerned properly from the words that he is speaking? And is there any indication of the opposite - that the spirit of man can be easily discerned without listening to his words?    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1405" LastActivityDate="2014-07-28T17:01:28.800" Title="Indication of the possibility to discern the spirit of a man by/without listening to his words" Tags="&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2252" CreationDate="2012-03-10T16:17:54.667" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Exodus 34 commandments are sometimes called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_Decalogue&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ritual Decalogue&lt;/a&gt;, as opposed to the Ethical Decalogue that most people are familiar with from Exodus 20.  The Wikipedia page above lists the various theories of why these two sets of commandments are different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One theory points out that this second set of commandments follows the incident of the golden calf, and so is an addition to and expansion of the first with a greater focus on worshiping God and avoiding idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastActivityDate="2012-03-10T16:17:54.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4966" CreationDate="2012-03-10T17:01:29.107" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that it is a mystery why Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man.  And yet it was in fact what Jesus called Himself the most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see it like this, Jesus is speaking as God, because He is God.  His perspective on everything is from the point of view of God.  So what makes Jesus unique foremost, is not that He is a man who is God, but rather that He is God, but also a man.  In all the Universe, here is God as &quot;the Son of Man (mankind)&quot;.  Or - I am God and also a man, not I am a man who is also God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-10T17:01:29.107" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6511" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6562" CreationDate="2012-03-10T17:47:49.733" Score="4" ViewCount="371" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know what works are considered to be principal elements of Western soteriological thought, primarily focused on Roman Catholic and Protestant ideologies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested mostly in primary texts by the likes of Martin Luther, Erasmus, and Calvin, since I've had a hard time finding exactly where in, for instance, Luther's Works, he discusses such things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Example: I'm reading a book on Luther's inception, and it sends me to&#xA;  &quot;&lt;em&gt;LW&lt;/em&gt; 34:167&quot;, which corresponds to one of Luther's soteriological writings. I'm curious if people know about stuff like this for other theological thinkers; for instance where Calvin outlines his theories of predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1406" LastActivityDate="2014-07-20T12:56:22.920" Title="Important Western Soteriological Works" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-09T15:35:00.957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6459" CreationDate="2012-03-10T21:33:59.540" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that &quot;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4N.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;first grace of this Sacrament&lt;/a&gt; is one of strengthening, peace and courage to overcome the difficulties that go with the condition of serious illness or the frailty of old age.&quot; There's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4J.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quite a bit more&lt;/a&gt;: it covers six pages. &quot;In this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ's Passion: in a certain way he is &lt;em&gt;consecrated&lt;/em&gt; to bear fruit by configuration to the Saviour's redemptive Passion.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So one might say, 7: In Anointing, we recognise our own Cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'm not sure that an &lt;em&gt;oath&lt;/em&gt; can be brought out of that in the same way as your other six interpretations. I believe this sacrament is one of pure grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2012-03-10T21:41:19.733" LastActivityDate="2012-03-10T21:41:19.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6504" CreationDate="2012-03-11T00:24:35.510" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the light shines more brightly the shadows appear more pronounced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the Christ event the Kingdom of God has come. It is evidenced by Him casting out demons by the finger (=authority)/Spirit of God. Thus demons are exposed when they come close to Christ and the Spirit filled community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest reading some work by George E Ladd on the Kingdom of God in order to get a more thorough understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another aspect is that the Old Testament texts do not have as a purpose to teach demonology. There are lots of stuff they are leaving out since it is of no value to the point the texts are trying to make. In the original context the authors wanted to teach the listeners (few people would read the texts before Gutenberg) about faithfulness to the Covenant between God and his people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet another aspect is that language itself had to evolve. The prophets spoke words that made sense to their original audience. That audience had no understanding of the Bible in its complete form. It was not until the inter-testamental period that there was a nomenclature available to speak about demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So instead of using technical terms, they are using symbolic language: &quot;great waters&quot; and other various descriptions of powers of chaos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also helps explain why Saul could be tormented by a spirit &quot;from the Lord&quot;. The purpose of that text is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; to teach the chain of command in the spiritual realm or the &lt;strong&gt;mechanism&lt;/strong&gt; of abandonment. Fixating upon grammar, especially in a translation that can not do justice to the Hebrew text, is a sure way to miss the point of the text. &quot;from the Lord&quot; is not a &lt;em&gt;terminus technicus&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="1407" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T15:58:39.223" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T15:58:39.223" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1920" CreationDate="2012-03-11T00:57:24.860" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all we must understand that there are no answer concerning the dating of OT texts that everybody agrees upon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, there is a difference between the time of the events and the time of writing down those events &lt;strong&gt;in their final form&lt;/strong&gt;. Before the invention of the printing press societies relied more on oral traditions, which science has proven can convey messages verbatim across several generations with equal precision as hand-written manuscripts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, the texts in themselves are quite silent about their authors. It is never even stated that Moses wrote the complete texts of the Pentateuch, even if that tradition is strong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I seriously doubt that Henok or Noah spoke biblical Hebrew or that even Abraham did. Thus the exact words that speak about the occurrences in Genesis did probably not take shape until after the invention of the oldest form of the Hebrew alphabet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Weighing all things together my estimation is that the earliest parts of the Bible probably were put down during the time of Moses, but most of it were written after the exile, probably by Esra and a few learned friends of his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is not a single piece of my faith that is shaken if evidence would appear that alters my tentative dating of the texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for versions, &lt;strong&gt;some&lt;/strong&gt; events are told twice or even more times. The creation is described twice in the first 2 chapters of Genesis and then there are some texts describing creation in the Psalms. Deuteronomy = &quot;the second (deuter) law (nomia)&quot; retells the events in the desert. Chronicles retells some of the events from Kings. And yet a few events are depicted again in the Prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Christ event is unique and of far greater importance than anything told in the OT. It is thus only natural that we get a description from more angles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T00:57:24.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6338" CreationDate="2012-03-11T02:31:20.470" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In response to the title, I believe the bible doesn't espouse either moral absolutism or relativism - we espouse these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On Slavery:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be seen in the quotes given and the question (great question btw :), as ironically it is assumed from our modern perspective that slavery is absolutely wrong for everyone and all time. Even a relativist may not dispute that these days. We only think this because of our place in history, not actually because there is something inherently evil with slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can I be confident of this? God didn't say it was evil, but clearly told Israel to &quot;do slavery well&quot;. That is, don't abuse it. God gave instructions and laws about it specifically about it because he knows that slavery is open to abuse. Neglecting to instruct Israel on how to do slavery in a morally right way would have been a disaster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And with our place in history, we know that slavery is so open to abuse we fight against it at every point. This is the right thing to do. Not because slavery was always wrong, but because it is better - and now practical - to prohibit slavery in order to prevent it ever from being abused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also think highly of the answer you have quoted. Good job to Geek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Counters to moral absolutism:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are things required of the Old Testament Israel which are not required of the New Testament Jews or Gentiles. e.g. circumcision, eating kosher food, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are not things which can be dismissed as &quot;not moral&quot;. Not doing them in that time and place would mean breaking God's convenant law. It had real morality attached, and now it doesn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can aslo find, I'm sure, examples of things which are considered bad or wrong in New Testament times which were not wrong before hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 12:1-8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His&#xA;  disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat&#xA;  them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your&#xA;  disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”  3 He answered,&#xA;  “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were&#xA;  hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate&#xA;  the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only&#xA;  for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on&#xA;  Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?&#xA;  6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you&#xA;  had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a]&#xA;  you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is&#xA;  Lord of the Sabbath.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously if it were absolutely wrong for all time to break the Sabbath or eat the consecrated bread when not a priest, then how can Jesus say such a thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Counters to moral 'relativism' (or 'subjectivism'?):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The position that the morality of an action is contingent upon&#xA;  circumstances (and societal norms) is what I meant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for clarifying (quote from the comments). The fact that God gives laws indicates that it is not societal norms or circumstances which decide whether something is good or evil, but God. In fact, many interpret the story of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as saying that the core issue with sin is that humanity takes it upon themselves to decide what good and evil are, instead of accepting what God says is moral and not moral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this just clutching at straws? Can't we just define something as absolutely right or wrong based upon what God says? Or relative if God says something is right under one set of circumstances and wrong under another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, it is important to say that God 'creates' the moral code, and doesn't just read to us what is already written. It is not as if morality is eternal and God just tells us what it is. God &lt;em&gt;decides&lt;/em&gt; what is right and is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has God decided to make morality totally relative to our time and place in history? Or are there some absolute components? I don't think we have been told definitively either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; God espouse in terms of morals?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes&#xA;  to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God espouses himself as defining the moral standards that we should live by. God is the thing that the Bible puts forward as absolute - i.e. not morality. Yes it is true, God doesn't change. He is absolute and eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also needs to be remembered that God's revelation is progressive. What this means is that God's instruction and leading may change or vary over time, especially when our circumstances change. But this is a practicality and says little about an underlying moral structure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note though this highlights some finite aspect to our understanding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God, who defines himself and righteous and eternal, also defines to us morals which are (sometimes) unrighteous and (always) non-eternal (didn't exist for infinity past-future). A paradox I can't explain other than to admit that my definition of righteous and unrighteous are finite, and not to be defined by me anyway.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As said before, we often know what is right or wrong in a given circumstance, yet it is hard for us to know or understand all there is to know about the 'morality universe'. Is there anything that is purely relative? Is there any issue which is purely absolute? Is there only degrees? Are we totally missing the point? Can we even comprehend these things?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1375" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T02:31:20.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6518" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6522" CreationDate="2012-03-11T06:52:44.780" Score="1" ViewCount="1009" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the discerning of spirits in 1 Cor. 12:10? It seems that it is a bit different from the trying of spirits in 1 John 4:1 as there John gives a particular method as to how to try them and find out whether they are from God or not. Also, John seems to address every believer in his epistle, whereas in 1 Corinthians 12:10 Paul says that the gift of discerning spirits is given only to some believers (to &quot;another&quot;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-01-09T22:43:42.460" LastActivityDate="2017-01-09T22:43:42.460" Title="What is the discerning of spirits in 1 Cor. 12:10?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;1-john&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:43:18.547" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6519" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6525" CreationDate="2012-03-11T06:52:47.093" Score="14" ViewCount="1299" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Jonah 4:9 we read a dialog between God and Jonah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God said to Jonah, Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?&#xA;  I do, he said. I am angry enough to die. But the LORD said, You have&#xA;  been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it&#xA;  grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more&#xA;  than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right&#xA;  hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be&#xA;  concerned about that great city?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did the author of this passage know the exact conversation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-25T06:53:43.190" LastActivityDate="2014-07-25T06:53:43.190" Title="How did the author of Jonah know about this conversation?" Tags="&lt;inspiration&gt;&lt;jonah&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6427" CreationDate="2012-03-11T11:49:07.977" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is an orthodox view inasmuch as it's not heterodox. (The question asked whether it's &quot;orthodox,&quot; not &quot;Orthodox&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Catechism defines hell as &quot;the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1033&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real Hell is knowing that not only is God absent, but that he is absent because &lt;em&gt;one's own actions&lt;/em&gt; have excluded him. He's not absent because he wants to be. &quot;To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice.&quot; [ibid]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heaven is entirely the opposite, being in the presence of God crying &quot;Holy, Holy, Holy&quot; and falling on one's face worshipping him for eternity &lt;em&gt;because that's the best thing ever&lt;/em&gt; and something you never want to stop doing. [Isa 6:1-3, Rev 7:9-12, Rev 11:16-17]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CCC defines &quot;heaven&quot; as having a number of meanings: the firmament of the sky; God's own place; the place of angels and spiritual creatures who surround God; eschatological glory. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1A.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 326&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T11:49:07.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6518" CreationDate="2012-03-11T13:34:58.683" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The setting in 1 Cor 11-14 is the church gathered for worship. At such gatherings Paul expects participation from lots of people using spiritual endowments, given in that moment for the edification of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is a grave danger of people abusing those endowments for the attention and prestige. There is also a danger of &quot;the flesh&quot; lying, mimicking or at least misunderstanding what the Spirit is saying. All gifts are &quot;in part&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, in the context of 1 Cor 12, discerning of spirits seem to be a specific spiritual endowment to recognize by what spiritual inspiration somebody else is acting, what parts are of the flesh and what parts are of the Lord?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context for 1 John is the early gnostic models of thought. Here it is a matter of recognizing the true Gospel and discarding the gnostic corrupt versions. Gnostics have a worldview that says everything true is 100 % spiritual and the physical world is by definition evil. Christ being truly incarnated (=in flesh) was something they denied. But in so doing they denied the Gospel, since it is Jesus dying &quot;in the flesh&quot; that brings salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That also explains why it was so important for John to say (1:1f) that he had seen Jesus with his (physical) eyes and touched him also after the resurrection with his hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Off topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an interesting &lt;strong&gt;spinoff&lt;/strong&gt; from this. Today media and bloggers or just about anyone will claim that the gnostic &quot;gospels&quot; (Thomas, Judas, etc) should be considered historic sources on par with the biblical gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these pseudo-gospels never ever claim to be historic sources in the sense we are using the word today. John claims &lt;strong&gt;empirical&lt;/strong&gt; knowledge of the risen Christ. He saw, he touched. That is exactly why his words were discarded by the gnostics! They claimed &quot;spiritual revelation&quot; - the senses are physical, evil and not to be trusted!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gnosticism is as far removed from scientific knowledge as you can get, and claiming that gnostic sources should be counted on par with biblical gospels is patently absurd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a forum like this it is probably wise to tell from what tradition an answer is given. Especially on topics where even Bible believing Christians disagree. Had I had the time to expand my answer with proper exegesis and a comparison of different commentaries that would not have been necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I have studied spiritual gifts using the Koine Greek text, nobody studies in an intellectual vacuum. Having read what many traditions have to say, I have found the the most sound exegesis exist in the writings of &quot;empowered evangelicals&quot; or in the writings of pentecostal scholars like Gordon Fee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T13:34:58.683" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6523" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-11T15:35:18.697" Score="1" ViewCount="11223" Body="&lt;p&gt;About 2000 years ago Jesus Christ died on a cross. A person who is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings is called &lt;strong&gt;Christian&lt;/strong&gt;. My question is what were people called who followed the Messiah before Jesus Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1155" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-26T21:56:42.810" LastActivityDate="2015-12-01T18:09:43.670" Title="What were people called who believed in the &quot;Christ&quot; before Jesus was born?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6524" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-11T15:53:48.683" Score="10" ViewCount="40135" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:5&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is &lt;strong&gt;born of&#xA;  water&lt;/strong&gt; and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does &quot;&lt;strong&gt;born of water&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; means baptism i.e., water being used in that or Jesus mean something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1155" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-23T11:53:27.520" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T18:50:22.850" Title="What does it mean to be &quot;born of water&quot; in John 3:5?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-10-27T04:19:09.133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6519" CreationDate="2012-03-11T16:53:49.840" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't mean to be snarky, but you could ask the same question of how anybody recorded the dialog of George Washington. During the Whiskey Rebellion, when he put on his spectacles, and simply told his men that he had grown old in the service of his country, people remembered it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address#Five_manuscripts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;five versions of the Gettysburg address&lt;/a&gt;, depending on which transcription of Abraham Lincoln's own writing you use. Of those five versions, there are a few prepositional phrases that are modified, but to call them anything other than the same speech would be to stretch the grounds of credulity. Still, the variation is sufficiently minor to where you'd have to be really, really picky to ask, &quot;How can we be sure of what Lincoln &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; said. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before modern recording devices, there was no expectation that these direct quotations would have been the same as a court reporter. People would simply do their best to record, as closely as possible what they heard. To be honest to the text is to say that people pretty well agreed what was said, consistent with a pre-technological understanding of what a quote meant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry, now I get the point of the question - how does a narrator know exactly what God said to Jonah. Ultimately, there are several valid hypotheses, depending on your understanding of the work&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Especially considering how abruptly Jonah ends*, we have no extant information. That said, there is nothing that would preclude the answer from being something as simple as &quot;Jonah saw he was wrong, repented again, and told people how God changed his mind.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somehow, the narrator would have had to know the events of the story. No eyewitness was with Jonah in Israel, on the boat to Tarsus, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; in Nineveh, other than Jonah himself.  As a preaching prophet, it is not unreasonable to assume that Jonah could have given a testimony to an emaneusis who would then have recorded it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Commentators have often noted that Jonah ends before we even know if Jonah himself repented.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah%3a_A_VeggieTales_Movie&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Veggie Tales movie&lt;/a&gt; really does get it right - Jonah doesn't have an ending!  So, they call out the point - that God is the god of second chances, and that it is up to the reader to decide. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, one could call it historical fiction, in which the author, knowing the events of the story, could interpolate the lesson God was giving through Jonah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This being a book of prophecy, it may not be intended to be taken as history. The Jews did not place the Prophets with the historical accounts. They placed the Nevi'im (the Prophets) after the Ketu'vim (the Writings). Prophets never claim to be historians - they claim to speak the truth that God gave them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pastors are exercising the role of prophet, not when they claim to know what is occurring in the future, but rather when they make clear God's understanding of the present. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, is rightly called a Prophet of the Civil Rights movement, and famously drew from Amos - another of the prophets - when saying that justice will rain down like mighty waters. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same that [martin Luther King] &quot;had a dream,&quot; so too this may have been Jonah's perception. I would ask, for example, whether the detail of MLK actually being asleep and having subconscious thoughts of children of all races playing together on Stone Mountain is as important as the vision that this gives us all. How, after all, did MLK record that &quot;dream?&quot; I odoubt that it arrived completely unformed and then entered his speech improvisationally. So too, it may have been, whether Jonah directly wrote what he learned or another prophet extrapolated the message from the events of his life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a prophet uses an illustration, he has a different purpose than an historian.  An illustration should not be demonstrably false, but if details are glossed over (such as whether this was an actual, audible voice or just an epiphany had) that are irrelevant, than it is held to that standard. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Medger Evers is hailed as a martyr for the cause of Civil Rights, that is a fully valid illustration, even if he was more likely just an unfortunate victim.  The truth is that his death bore witness (marturion!) regardless of whether or not he held discourse with his assailants as docu-dramas have been known to include. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also, even if Medger Evers' exploits took on an air of outsized glory, it does not detract at all from the historicity of what he did. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as a pastor might create a dialogue within an illustration to set up the historical point, so too the author of Jonah was interested in the theological point, and could thus back into the dialogue that God had with Jonah.  The creeping vine, in particular, was a Persian motif, and would thus have been accessible to the hearer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;tl;dr:  You don't have to take a position on the historicity of the events to get the idea that God's truth is being conveyed in the whole story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-01T12:10:55.157" LastActivityDate="2012-11-01T12:10:55.157" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6523" CreationDate="2012-03-11T17:36:20.343" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Messiah is a well-known type within Judaism.  Prior to the incarnation of Jesus Christ (when Jesus, who was God, became man), there was no Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Messiah&quot; in Greek is &quot;Christos&quot; from which we get the term &quot;Christianity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Messiah&quot; simply means &quot;appointed,&quot; and within Jewish thought, the Messiah was appointed by God to make radical changes. For more on this, see the question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6103/what-is-gods-good-news-before-jesuss-death-and-resurrection&quot;&gt;What is God&amp;#39;s good news before Jesus&amp;#39;s death and resurrection?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically, Christians claim to be the heirs of the promise given to the Jews, through Abraham. The distinction between modern Judaism and Christianity is whether or not we believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, aka, &quot;the Christ.&quot; That we are have the same understanding of what is good and bad morals is the link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What separates us is whether or not Jesus was God. If Jesus is God, then he can save us. If Jesus is not God, we can only be saved by being part of the covenant given through Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, even for the first Century, the only distinction between &quot;Jews&quot; and &quot;Christians,&quot; was that Christians were this sect of Judaism that believed Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Jewish Scriptures. Unlike what mainstream Judaism would have taught, however, this Messiah was not a Jewish-only savior.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this group of Jews grew, (they were known as &quot;The Way&quot; at that time), non-Jews (Gentiles) were seen to be part of the group as well.  Initially, the question was how Jews should accommodate these Gentiles (see Acts 15), but by the end of the first Century, the situation was reversed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this is to say, people who followed the Messiah prior to Jesus' would have simply been called &quot;Jews&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Side note, Hebrew is an ethnic identity, Judaism is a religion that originated amongst the Hebrews)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T17:56:21.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6524" CreationDate="2012-03-11T17:40:32.280" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is referring to Amniotic fluid, at least according to the sermons we hear in our Baptist Church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being born of water refers to natural birth, which everyone goes through and being born of the spirit refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit imparted at the time of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this isn't explicitly stated in Scripture, it makes sense in context, where Nicodemus had just asked how he could re-enter is mother's womb to be born again.  The idea of natural birth was clearly in the context of the current conversation.  And of course, labor begins with the water breaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-03-11T17:48:21.883" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T17:48:21.883" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6524" CreationDate="2012-03-11T17:59:15.020" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two common interpretations of this phrase.  One is that &amp;quot;born of water&amp;quot; refers to baptism.  This view is typically held by those who adhere to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;baptismal regeneration&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other view, which I will argue for here, is that it refers to actual physical birth.  In this view, the water might allude to amniotic fluid. This view seems far more likely to me as we view the passage in its context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of &lt;strong&gt;water&lt;/strong&gt; and the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;Flesh&lt;/strong&gt; gives birth to flesh, but the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. &lt;strong&gt;So it is with everyone born of the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:3-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:3-8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that after Jesus says that we must be born of &amp;quot;water and the Spirit&amp;quot;, he immediately contrasts flesh and Spirit.  In the context, Jesus is answering Nicodemus's concern that he must be born &amp;quot;again&amp;quot;.  In one sentence, he mentions two births: water and Spirit.  And in the next sentence, he again mentions two births: flesh and Spirit.  The most natural interpretation is that flesh and water are referring to the same birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, notice that Jesus says &amp;quot;So it is with everyone born of the Spirit&amp;quot;.  If he were intending to say that everyone must be born of flesh, water (baptism), and Spirit, then it seems that he would have said &amp;quot;So it is with everyone born of water and of Spirit&amp;quot;.  Water is painted here as the already accomplished (physical) birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T17:59:15.020" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6532" CreationDate="2012-03-11T20:15:12.157" Score="0" ViewCount="591" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which denominations (churches) have the highest attendance of young adults (say ~16 to ~32) as a percentage of the congregation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If statistics aren't available, then in your experience, what are some churches with high young adult attendance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: any insight from any country would help, but I'm mainly interested in the &quot;next generation's&quot; adoption of Christianity in the U.S. and Western Europe. This is for research.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1190" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:30:57.990" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:30:57.990" Title="Church/denomination with highest young adult attendance?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-08-23T17:29:53.907" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6519" CreationDate="2012-03-11T20:35:07.610" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is simpler than you think. No author intended to write down any conversation verbatim. Not even the words of Jesus are treated that way in the Gospels. In John 20:30-31 it is made clear that we are dealing with excerpts. This is also evidenced by the fact that the same quote can be slightly different between two narratives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical authors did not intend to record events like they were some kind of surveillance camera, neither did they intend to record dialogue as if they were a tape recorder. They wrote for an audience and chose what parts to include or exclude based on the need of that audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of a quote like the one in Jonah 4:9 is not that we have a recorded history of the exact words God spoke. We are not even told how God spoke: An audible voice, an internal impression, through an angel...?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the text is to convey a message, the purpose of biblical inspiration was to make sure that the message is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T20:35:07.610" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6530" CreationDate="2012-03-11T21:02:07.100" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;By experience in my area (Ohio), it appears that non-denominational (Baptist with a little 'B' generally) contemporary services tend to draw in young adults.  I'd feel safer to say that if your age group is 18 to 32.  16 year old are still under control of their parents.  At 18 they can choose where to go and more parents do not object since at least they're attending some church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic churches also have a good crowd, but those are usually people who were raised Catholic and attending service is a tradition.  Unchurched people are more inclined to join a church as mentioned above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-03-11T22:39:42.923" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T22:39:42.923" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2012-03-11T22:11:41.887" Score="13" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 37:12-13 The wicked plots against the righteous And gnashes at&#xA;  him with his teeth. The Lord &lt;strong&gt;laughs&lt;/strong&gt; at him, For He sees his day is&#xA;  coming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 2:2-4 The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers&#xA;  take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed,&#xA;  saying &quot;Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from&#xA;  us!&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He who sits in the heavens &lt;strong&gt;laughs&lt;/strong&gt;, The Lord scoffs at them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God has a sense of humour explicitly revealed in the Old Testament, but one that I don't think most people are going to appreciate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T22:11:41.887" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6427" CreationDate="2012-03-11T22:56:00.960" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelations 14:9-10 Then another angel, a third one, followed them,&#xA;  saying with a loud voice, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If anyone worships the beast and his image,&#xA;  and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is&#xA;  mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and he will be&#xA;  tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels&#xA;  and in the presence of the Lamb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming this is the Lake of Fire or Hell, then the damned are not just away from Jesus and His benefits, but in His presence, and He is actively involved in administering their eternal torment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I don't think that is an orthodox statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1410" LastActivityDate="2012-03-11T22:56:00.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6535" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6536" CreationDate="2012-03-12T00:18:31.897" Score="2" ViewCount="399" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5526/what-are-the-biblical-arguments-that-the-bible-canon-is-closed&quot;&gt;What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Preface: This question is not directed at a specific denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christians believe that God inspired humans to write the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;But the fact is that humans have decided which writings should be included in the Bible and which should not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So as society and civilization proceed, why haven't we shed some passages which aren't relevant anymore and why haven't we included some new writings which &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; particularly relevant to modern day Christianity?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For instance, I think many writings from St. Augustine and St. John Bosco should be included in the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T12:45:54.820" Title="Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-03-13T01:16:26.733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6535" CreationDate="2012-03-12T00:28:00.157" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Historically, canonicity in the NT was restricted to the 12 apostles and direct relations of Jesus. (Mark = Peter, Luke=Paul*, Matthew &amp;amp; John were both disciples, Hebrews was errantly ascribed to Paul, James and Jude were brothers of Jesus // Paul was considered to be an apostle, since Jesus appeared directly to him.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Later Councils (I forget if it was Chalcedon or Ephesus) also declared the canons closed, representing the consensus of the church that indeed, &quot;It is finished&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Theologically, it is understood that Jesus was the last and ultimate sacrifice, and therefore no further revelation of God is necessary (something that would be at direct odds, with say, the Ba'hai)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T00:28:00.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6537" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14292" CreationDate="2012-03-12T00:34:27.833" Score="3" ViewCount="15803" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does Psalm 37:29 mean when it said &quot;The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.” Does this mean an earthly paradise that God has promised to    restore?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="437" LastActivityDate="2014-10-12T19:18:26.763" Title="What is the meaning of the Psalm 37:29?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;earth&gt;&lt;righteousness&gt;&lt;kingdom-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-10-15T02:18:03.347" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6537" CreationDate="2012-03-12T01:36:59.247" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theologically speaking, the first two verses of this Psalm give away the whole point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Do not fret because of those who are evil &#xA;     or be envious of those who do wrong; &#xA;  2 for like the grass they will soon wither, &#xA;     like green plants they will soon die away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is so tempting to see &quot;the wicked prosper,&quot; and forget that even Jesus said that his Father causes &quot;the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike.&quot;  The author of Ecclesiates frets that the wicked propser. The author of Psalm 73 cries out with the same question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Habbakuk even demands that God answer, &quot;How long, O Lord?!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How long, LORD, must I call for help, &#xA;     but you do not listen? &#xA;  Or cry out to you, “Violence!” &#xA;     but you do not save? &#xA;  3 Why do you make me look at injustice? &#xA;     Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? &#xA;  Destruction and violence are before me; &#xA;     there is strife, and conflict abounds. &#xA;  4 Therefore the law is paralyzed, &#xA;     and justice never prevails. &#xA;  The wicked hem in the righteous, &#xA;     so that justice is perverted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Psalmist is not blind to the present situation. Indeed, he is all too aware of the problem that doing good doesn't seem to help out!  As we would say nowadays, no good deed goes unpunished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Psalmist also knows what Peter will put into words later on (2 Peter 3:8-9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may not be today, but it will happen.  There will be a time when the evil are defeated.  And when that occurs, it will be as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The righteous - the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2/what-does-meek-mean-in-matthew-55&quot;&gt;meek&lt;/a&gt; - those who could match injustice with power, but will not - they will eventually get it all. In God's time, the unrighteous will be destroyed, and the just will have everything that's left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the planet on which we stand? Well, that might be part of it - but the point is that evil will be defeated, and the righteous will prevail, if only we stick to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's going to feel like an eternity, but justice will be served.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T13:09:27.827" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6539" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6553" CreationDate="2012-03-12T02:13:56.140" Score="14" ViewCount="12607" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 15:24 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the&#xA;  house of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that he was talking specifically to a lady who was begging (successfully) for her daughter.  However, is Jesus trying to say that his message is only for the Jews to hear?  Does this conflict with Romans 10:12?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:12 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same&#xA;  Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-24T15:38:09.400" LastActivityDate="2015-12-24T15:43:23.257" Title="Was Jesus was sent to speak to the Jews only?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;romans&gt;&lt;gentile&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6540" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6749" CreationDate="2012-03-12T02:18:30.257" Score="10" ViewCount="1686" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been reading &lt;em&gt;A Testament of Hope&lt;/em&gt;, which is a compilation of sermons by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. I also know he's a Baptist. (I even got to stand and preach for a minute in his pulpit last year!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I haven't seen in these sermons is an emphasis on the Gospel, but I'm not sure if that was a selection bias (since the book really is there to &lt;em&gt;focus&lt;/em&gt; on his Social Gospel), or if that really is indicative of his preaching style. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a good sermon that represents his view of salvation? (An altar call? A good theology? Bueller, Bueller!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-11-18T02:32:56.500" LastActivityDate="2020-11-19T00:53:43.463" Title="What was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s understanding of salvation?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;martin-luther-king-jr&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6539" CreationDate="2012-03-12T02:35:29.797" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew 15 &amp;amp; Mark 7) is interesting in that it specifically is addressing the question of whether or not Jesus was sent to the Jews only, or to all mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few backdrops&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 12, God tells Abraham that he will make of Abraham a great nation (obvious assumption = Israel), but more importantly, that &lt;em&gt;all nations will be blessed through him&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah 49:6, it says of the Messiah that &quot;It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the Jews had a definite ethnocentric view.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were the &quot;Ha'am Ha'aretz&quot; - the people of the Land, and that was what was most important to them.  In Jeremiah 7 (NIV), we see them trusting in that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. 4 Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!” 5 If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, 6 if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, 7 then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your ancestors for ever and ever. 8 But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, in Jesus' day, the Pharisees, for example, thought they were saved because of their birth.  Jesus rebukes them specifically, saying (Luke 3:8):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God. Don't just say to each other, 'We're safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.' That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answering the Syro-Phoenician woman, Jesus may have been being sarcastic, saying to that woman, &quot;It isn't right to feed the children's bread to the dogs.&quot;  What Jesus &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; have been saying sarcastically could very well have been what the Pharisees really would have thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the woman answers, &quot;Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table,&quot; I'm convinced that Jesus laughed. In any event, he would have understood that she got it - that Jesus really was more than just a Hebrew thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly enough, Jesus heals most of the Jews in person, but there are two notable &quot;healings at a distance.&quot; Both this woman's daughter and the Gentile centurion did not need Jesus to be there when he healed. In contrast, Jairus just assumed Jesus had to be in the presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is this - Jesus may or may not have thought that he was sent to the Jews, but the Jews were pretty clear that they expected the Messiah to be strictly theirs.  Whether or not that was God's plan was a completely different story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-24T15:43:23.257" LastActivityDate="2015-12-24T15:43:23.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6530" CreationDate="2012-03-12T04:31:36.620" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anecdotally, it entirely depends on your locality. There are some very powerful young adults groups in several denominations and it is my experience that those are definitively on the rise among Catholic parishes in Northern NJ and the NYC metro area. But it completely varies on a church to church basis. I know of one Evangelical Free Church in the Princeton area and the majority of their congregants are young adults. Of course, the different campus ministries are almost 100% young adult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, I think I'll leave my answer at that. &quot;College campuses&quot; is the denomination with the highest percentage of young adults.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T04:31:36.620" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6535" CreationDate="2012-03-12T05:41:30.033" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It may be that other writers since the closing of the NT are inspired by God, maybe in the same way as the NT writers, maybe not. But we have no authority to establish that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I am not convinced that the canon is now closed forever. But if new books are added, it will have to be because there is a whole new revelation, a &quot;Third Testament&quot;. As Affable Geek notes, the criteria for the NT was the authority of the apostles, books they either wrote themselves or were closely associated with. Suppose Christians today decided to &quot;update&quot; the Bible by adding some new books. Who would decide what new books to add? What criteria would they use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that a book is not included in the canon doesn't stop Christians from reading it. Feel free to read Augustine or Aquinas, or C.S. Lewis or James Dobson for that matter. How do you read them differently because they're not in the canon? If your answer is, they are not viewed as inspired and infallible ... exactly, that's the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some would add &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pat Robertson&lt;/a&gt;. Other would add &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bishop Spong&lt;/a&gt;. Who's going to make the decision?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-13T12:45:54.820" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T12:45:54.820" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6546" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-12T07:30:22.503" Score="5" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Lucifer defied God he must have thought he stood a chance of winning. Did he? And if not how is it he didn't realize that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1412" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T18:25:37.030" Title="Did Lucifer have any chance?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2012-03-12T20:16:37.623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6548" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-12T13:25:36.823" Score="4" ViewCount="2654" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any passages in the New Testament where Jesus himself condemns the practice of contraception? As a virgin and the product of a miraculous conception himself it would seem odd for Him to have a strong opinion on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1412" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T17:20:25.053" Title="Did Jesus condemn contraception" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;contraception&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:42:43.273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6548" CreationDate="2012-03-12T13:59:12.117" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there are no passages in the New Testament where Jesus even speaks about contraception.  Coincidentally, He never mention airplanes, computers, fast food, or cell phones either.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these are modern inventions for which there was no vocabulary or context in which teaching could be given.  (While there were examples of contraceptives in ancient history, the Jewish people don't appear to have used any.)  The basis of the teachings of the Catholic church and others comes from arguments of design.  God's design of intercourse leads to reproduction--not all the time, of course, but that is certainly a reasonably common outcome.  Additionally, there is a specific command given to Adam and Noah to fill the earth and multiply upon it, so taking unnatural action to prevent reproduction seems to go against that to some extent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the idea that Jesus would not have a strong opinion on the subject, merely because He Himself was the product of a miraculous conception, ignores the Biblical teaching that Jesus was Himself the eternal Son of God who took on flesh 2,000 years ago.  The Son of God, through whom all things were created, certainly has a strong opinion on truth and morality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-03-12T14:37:35.237" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T14:37:35.237" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6548" CreationDate="2012-03-12T13:59:32.133" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are not any references to contraception in the Bible. The two arguments I have heard against using contraception are Onan dying after spilling his semen on the ground to avoid getting his brother's wife pregnant (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038:8-10&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 38:8-10&lt;/a&gt;). The other is just that it is unnatural&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="702" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T13:59:32.133" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6507" CreationDate="2012-03-12T14:29:38.820" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Matthew%2012:34&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;know&lt;/a&gt; that &quot;out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, being able to &lt;em&gt;entirely&lt;/em&gt; determine the state of someone's soul via their words is a talent not entrusted to [most] people (the exceptions being accounted-for in the Bible with the Apostles).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A period of witnessing all of the components of a person's life - words, actions, approaches to living, etc - would be needed to make a credible decision as to whether or not they are saved. As a Christian, it &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be our goal to become more and more like Christ every day, and part of that &lt;strong&gt;IS&lt;/strong&gt; with our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Ephesians%204:29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;words&lt;/a&gt; - &quot;Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, this practice is followed by many churches when they have a waiting period between when salvation is professed, and when the believer is baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, even knowing all of that, we are still fallible humans, and there &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Matthew%207:22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;will be&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, it is only God Himself who fully knows the heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T14:29:38.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6539" CreationDate="2012-03-12T16:16:54.723" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jesus said He was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then that is certainly true.  If we don't accept Jesus' own words as true, then it would be difficult to imagine what the qualifications for acceptance would be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  That does not mean, however, that Jesus, the eternal Son of God, did not come ultimately to save the entire world.  His mission was quite strategic.  It has been well said, that &quot;Jesus loved the world, preached to the multitudes, and gave His life to 12 men.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He came to the Jews as their Messiah, yet His strategy was to reach the entire world.  Incidentally, that strategy is working quite well, and Christianity continues to spread even in the harshest and remotest of places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's plan from the beginning was to have a world full of people who reflected His image and who were in a relationship with Him.  His purpose has remained the same throughout time.  Becoming flesh in the virgin birth and presenting Himself as the Jewish Messiah to the Jewish people was just a part of that plan for all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T16:16:54.723" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1763" CreationDate="2012-03-12T17:15:20.687" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus very clearly states that we are not permitted to answer your question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 6:37&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. &gt;Forgive, and you will be forgiven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if we attempt to answer the question, we are forced to say who is in and who is out of Heaven, clearly a sin according to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Jesus meant by Hell, we have no idea other than it was eternal separation from God.  He said the World was Satan's Kingdom, is this Hell? Is the only way out of this place to know Jesus?  He said He was the Shepherd and the gate keeper.  He also asked God to forgive those who put Him on a cross:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 23:34&#xA;  34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe we continue to get reincarnated until we do finally meet Him?  Elijah was John the Baptist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mathew 17:10 - The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that &gt;Elijah must come first?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell &gt;you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him &gt;everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” &gt;13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... it is all an un-seeable mystery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we absolutely must believe that God is perfectly good, and cares FAR more than any human ever could about every living thing.  Thank God, Judgement is not up to us!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastEditorUserId="1404" LastEditDate="2012-03-12T18:08:12.477" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T18:08:12.477" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6548" CreationDate="2012-03-12T18:19:46.037" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you'll excuse what may be faulty parallelism, you might see that one of the more ancient prophecies about Christ is right next to the denouncement of &quot;those who engage in witchcraft&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+18%3A9-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 18:9-15 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;  When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;  Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;  or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;  Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;  You must be blameless before the LORD your God.  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;  The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;  The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if no one thinks about contraception as witchcraft nowadays, but in days of yore, I'd imagine, if you'd want to get a contraceptive back in the day, you didn't go to Planned Parenthood.  You went to the old hag who knew how to conjure that kind of stuff.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should note, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1874211/posts&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;witchcraft as contraception is not completely bogus opinion&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-03-12T20:09:48.880" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T20:09:48.880" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6546" CreationDate="2012-03-12T18:25:37.030" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It may be that Satan has always defied God, or (and) that he believes his own lies.  The Bible doesn't touch the subject directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T18:25:37.030" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6557" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6558" CreationDate="2012-03-12T19:28:21.280" Score="8" ViewCount="1575" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was Hebrews included in the canon solely because it was assumed to be authored by Paul, or was there any other basis for its canonization?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T19:43:07.680" Title="Why was Hebrews included in the canon?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6557" CreationDate="2012-03-12T19:43:07.680" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.iii.html&quot;&gt;Eusebius' Canons&lt;/a&gt;, one of the earliest church histories (early 300s AD) we have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.593 It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,594 saying that it is dis&#xA;  puted by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place.596 In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul,597 I have not found them among the undisputed writings.598&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, Eusebius' view is not really accepted anymore in this regard, but he also rejects 2 Peter, so its not like he's infallible. As Phillip Schaff (the editor of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, from whom this is taken, explains as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;τινες ἠθετήκασι. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; written by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as absolutely certain. It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline authorship; its theology and style are both non-Pauline; and finally, external testimony is strongly against its direct connection with Paul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T19:43:07.680" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6535" CreationDate="2012-03-12T21:13:30.673" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;real fact&lt;/em&gt; is that even though people chose what books to put into the bible, doesn't mean the entire bible was not ordained by God. Constantine was most likely saved, but regardless, God is the potter and people are his clay (Romans 9:21). Does he not have the power to also move those that are not his followers? Of course he does. Everything in the new covenant/testament is just as relevant as it was when Christ was crucified as it is today and will be until Christ returns (as far as the messages are concerned), and it is all we need. Where do you think these great Christian writers got the things they are writing about? It's all biblical! Well, hopefully. I am personally very thankful for what we do have. I think the God of creation was more than generous to give us so much writing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastActivityDate="2012-03-12T21:13:30.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6560" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6563" CreationDate="2012-03-12T23:46:57.050" Score="9" ViewCount="18340" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;John 10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;&#xA;  but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself&#xA;  God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are&#xA;  gods?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does Jesus mention to the people that are stoning him, that they are Gods? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that bring them up to the same level as Him (Christ)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-07T04:51:24.247" LastActivityDate="2015-04-05T19:00:46.533" Title="Why did Jesus say to his accusers &quot;You are gods&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6560" CreationDate="2012-03-13T00:09:03.310" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a reference to Psalm 82 6-7 [NASB]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I said, &quot;You are gods, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And all of you are sons of the Most High&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Nevertheless you will die like men&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And fall like &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; one of the princes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not refering to literal godhood, but the position of judges (Psalms 82:2), so it does not refer to literal godhood (personal opinion follows) but rather probably to the right to rule and execute judgements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1406" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T00:09:03.310" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6511" CreationDate="2012-03-13T01:44:06.000" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I took Soteriology, we read alot of primary sources.  I asked my old professor, &lt;a href=&quot;http://trs.cua.edu/faculty/toom/index.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tarmo Toom&lt;/a&gt;, an expert in patristic soteriology, for that list.  I've added links to the two documents you will be most interested in reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Athanasius, On Incarnation, 25-64; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Augustine, On Nature and Grace, 22-51, 58-67.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Anselm, Why God Became Man? (Book Two); &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Aquinas, Summa Theologica 12ae, Q 109, Art. 1-10.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember Athanasius' On Incarnation to be particularly interesting - the idea was that salvation was God's way of telling Jesus how much he loved him, by giving him us and eternal life in us as a love offering...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, for Luther and Calvin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Luther, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mcm.edu/~eppleyd/luther.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Two Kinds of Righteousness&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Calvin, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Institutes, Ch. 11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 671-681; The Remonstrance (The Arminian Articles); The Canons of the Synod of Dort.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, for more modern perspectives, he selected:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Soteriology: A Contemporary Protestant/Evangelical Perspective&#xA;  W. G. Rusch, Justification and the Future of the Ecumenical Movement, 23-34, 35-46, 133-149; (in class, The Gift of Salvation).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Soteriology: A Contemporary Roman Catholic Perspective&#xA;  Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 24-43; The Content of Faith, 199-202, 344-349; The Hope of Salvation; (in class, Catechism of the Catholic Church).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Soteriology: A Liberation Perspective&#xA;  - Boff, Salvation and Liberation, 1-66.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Soteriology: An African-American Perspective&#xA;  - Cone, God of the Oppressed, 138-162, 195-246.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Soteriology: A Non-Violent Perspective&#xA;  - Weaver, Nonviolent Atonement, 12-19, 70-98, 210-224.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Soteriology: A Feminist Perspective&#xA;  - Japinga, Feminism and Christianity, 107-126.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Full bibliography here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Anselm, Why God Became Man? in St. Anselm: Basic Writings. Chicago: Open Court, &#xA;1996, 253-302.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aquinas, Summa theologica 12ae Q 109, Art. 1-10 in Aquinas on Nature and Grace, ed. &#xA;A. M. Fairweather. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954, 137-156.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Augustine, On Nature and Grace, in FC 86, trans. John A. Mourant and William J. &#xA;Collinge, 1992, 22-90.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Boff, L. and C. Salvation and Liberation: In Search of a Balance between Faith and &#xA;Politics. Translated by R. R. Barr. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984, 1-66.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Canons of the Synod of Dort, in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian &#xA;Tradition, ed. J. Pelikan and V. Hotchkiss. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2003, 571-600.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Calvin, J. Institutes, Ch. XI, in Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: The &#xA;Westminster Press, 1961, 89-107.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cone, J. H. God of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury, 1975, 138-162, 195-246.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fiddes, P. S. “The Understanding of Salvation in the Baptist Tradition,” in For Us and &#xA;For Our Salvation, ed. W. J. Hollenweger. Utrecht: Instituut voor Missiologie, 1994, 15-37.&#xA;The Hope of Salvation, International Theological Commission. Origins (April 26, 2007): &#xA;726-748.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Japinga, L. Feminism and Christianity: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999, &#xA;107-126.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Justification and the Future of the Ecumenical Movement: The Joint Declaration on the &#xA;Doctrine of Justification, ed. W. G. Rusch. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003 (Chadwick, H. “An Anglican Reaction: Across the reformation Divide,” 23-34;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Franklin, R. W. “A Model fro New Joint Declaration: An Episcopalian Reaction to the Joint Declaration on Justification,” 35-46; Macchia, F. D. “Justification and the Spirit of Life: A Pentecostal Response to the Joint Declaration,” 133-149).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luther, M. Two Kinds of Righteousness in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Works, ed. &#xA;T. F. Lull. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989, 155-164.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rahner, K. Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. &#xA;Trans. W. V. Dych. New York: Crossroad, 1978, 24-43.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;__&lt;/strong&gt;. The Content of Faith. Ed. K. Lehmann and A. Raffelt, trans. ed. H. D. Egan. &#xA;New York: Crossroads, 1993, 199-202, 344-349.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Remonstrance (The Ariminian Articles), in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the &#xA;Christian Tradition, ed. J. Pelikan and V. Hotchkiss. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2003, 549-550.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tanner, N. P. (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. II. Washington D.C.: &#xA;Georgetown University Press, 1990, 671-681.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Weaver, J. D. The Nonviolent Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001, 12-19, 70-98, &#xA;210-224.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Anselm, Why God Became Man? in St. Anselm: Basic Writings. Chicago: Open Court, &#xA;1974.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Boff, L. and C. Salvation and Liberation: In Search of a Balance between Faith and &#xA;Politics. Translated by R. R. Barr. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cone, J. H. God of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury, 1975.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dunn, J. D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Green, J. B. and Baker, M. D. Recovering the Scandal of Cross: Atonement in New &#xA;Testament &amp;amp; Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Weaver, J. D. The Nonviolent Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-07-20T12:56:22.920" LastActivityDate="2014-07-20T12:56:22.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6560" CreationDate="2012-03-13T04:46:04.900" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is one of those times where context helps quite a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:33-36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 10:33-36 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came&lt;/strong&gt;—and Scripture cannot be set aside— &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Emphasis mine, of course. The part in bold made me think that these were prophets, but let's check the reference to be sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2082&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 82  (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;b&gt;A psalm of Asaph.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; God presides in the great assembly;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;he renders judgment among the “gods”:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; “How long will you defend the unjust&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and show partiality to the wicked?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Defend the weak and the fatherless;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Rescue the weak and the needy;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;deliver them from the hand of the wicked.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;They walk about in darkness;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;all the foundations of the earth are shaken.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; “I said, ‘You are “gods”;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;you are all sons of the Most High.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; But you will die like mere mortals;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;you will fall like every other ruler.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Rise up, O God, judge the earth,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for all the nations are your inheritance.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Huh, this passage seems to be talking about &lt;em&gt;judges&lt;/em&gt;, not prophets. However, remember that in ancient Israel, judges and prophets were often the same people&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the question becomes: why call these people &quot;gods&quot;? One readily apparent reason is that God is the great Judge, hence these judges are gods in that sense. Another, less clear and more speculative reason, has to do with them being prophets. Taking parts of two verses and putting them near each other...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 10:35b - to whom the word of God came  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 82:6b - you are all sons of the Most High&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...it would seem like they are related by God's Spirit somehow. An analogue can be found in the New Testament with regards to Christians being &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=brothers+and+sisters&amp;amp;version1=NIV&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;limit=none&amp;amp;wholewordsonly=no&amp;amp;startnumber=1&amp;amp;resultspp=250&amp;amp;displayas=long&amp;amp;sort=bookorder&quot;&gt;brothers and sisters in Christ&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+2:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 2:11 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:29 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, God's prophets could be called &quot;gods&quot; due to their association with the Holy Spirit.&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; If someone could point me to a source for this, I'd greatly appreciate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T04:46:04.900" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6564" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6565" CreationDate="2012-03-13T10:45:11.647" Score="15" ViewCount="7484" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And on the morrow, when they had come out of Bethany, he [Jesus]&#xA;  hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if&#xA;  perhaps he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he&#xA;  found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And he&#xA;  answered and said unto it, ‘No man [will] eat fruit from you from now&#xA;  on — for ever.’ And his disciples heard it. Mark 11:12-14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several pastors interpret this event mentioned in Mark 11:12-14, as God will abolish those who do not yield like this fig tree. However, on the way back when the disciples saw the fig tree   withered away from the roots, Jesus uses this incident to explain faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus cursed the tree, when it was not the time or season to bear fruits?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. 23 “Truly[f] I tell you, if&#xA;  anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and&#xA;  does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will&#xA;  happen, it will be done for them. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever&#xA;  you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will&#xA;  be yours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus used this incident to explain faith why do preachers use this incident to explain it as a warning to the sinners who didn't turn back to our Lord like this unyielding fig tree?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-13T11:25:02.317" LastActivityDate="2016-06-22T12:47:15.120" Title="Why did Jesus curse the fig tree?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-06-23T00:02:17.650" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6564" CreationDate="2012-03-13T11:21:03.023" Score="13" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34  Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 23:32-35)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The miracle of the cursing of the fig tree has a literary form called an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusio&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inclusio&lt;/a&gt;, or what many seminary students have come to affectionately know as &quot;the sandwich.&quot;  The idea is that two stories (Story A and Story B) are related, and the way the hearer is cued to know that fact is the arrangement.  In an inclusio, Story A is started, but not finished. Story B then comes in the middle. Finally, there is a return to Story A. The point of the inclusio is always story B, where Story A is usually the frame. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Synoptics, the story of the fig tree has as its inclusio Jesus clearing the Temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Fig Tree is a metaphor for a vibrant, living thing that is supposed to be giving life. Like the tree in Psalm 1, the man who does not walk in the way of the wicked is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...like a tree planted by streams of water, &#xA;     which yields its fruit in season &#xA;  and whose leaf does not wither— &#xA;     whatever they do prospers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike a tree, however, a man's 'season' is his lifetime. And, the Temple (having been recently reconstructed) should also be in its season at all time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that Jesus finds a barren tree is disconcerting, especially since he, the Messiah has come. Like his parable of the bridesmaids (where 5 foolish women burn all their oil but 5 wise ones save it), Jesus expects his people his people to be ready.  (Indeed, there are several parables that teach this very point). Upon finding his Temple in disarray, Jesus is visibly disappointed that the fruits of Temple worshippers are noticeably absent. Like the Tree, the Temple worshippers may not have thought they needed to be in season, but they are wrong.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul later would admonish Timothy, Jesus' followers must be &quot;be ready in season, out of season.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to be ready like that, however, one must have complete faith that the Lord is coming. As Jesus says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sin of those in the Temple was simply that they were not ready. Those in the Temple should have been bearing fruit, not selling it. Though their own scriptures had been saying that the Messiah would be returning for centuries, when it actually happened, people were clearly not ready.  Even the Temple had no special sway - people treated it like a shopping mall rather than the house of God. People were not &quot;bearing fruit in keeping with repentence.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was as Peter would say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As people awaiting the return of the Lord again, the lesson we are to take is that we should be producing fruit at all time. If our hope is to wait to be fruitful until the 11th hour, we better pray Jesus doesn't come at 10:30. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-05-10T02:20:27.110" LastActivityDate="2012-05-10T02:20:27.110" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6564" CreationDate="2012-03-13T13:22:00.440" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This act of Jesus was essentially a live-action parable against hypocrisy.  It makes perfect sense if you understand a key fact about how fig trees work: they don't put forth leaves until very late in the spring, and by the time the leaves show up, the fruit is there too.  However, unlike (for example) an apple tree, the fruits are small and (in some figs at least) the same color as the leaves.  This means that you can't see them from far away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what Jesus and the disciples came across was a tree that showed the outward appearance of being full of fruit, but without having produced any actual fruit to sustain the weary traveler.  And was this not his grievance against the Jewish leaders at the time, that they were full of extravagant outward displays of piety without actually doing real good?  So the tree was cursed, as a symbol of the fate of all men who live their lives in a similar deception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T13:22:00.440" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6459" CreationDate="2012-03-13T15:15:20.827" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll have another go since Affable Geek has redefined the question...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The noted Anglican divine Richard Hooker defined a sacrament as &quot;an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace&quot; [sorry, don't have a reference for that]. The Roman Catholic Church teaches &quot;the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.&quot; [Catechism of the Catholic Church, s.1131]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sacraments are a means of grace. In fact &lt;em&gt;sacramentum&lt;/em&gt; means &quot;made holy&quot;. An oath makes a promise holy (and so may be translated as &lt;em&gt;sacramentum&lt;/em&gt;); but a sacrament in the Christian sense, although holy, is not a promise or oath. This is why finding a promise or oath in Anointing is so difficult: it is &lt;em&gt;purely&lt;/em&gt; a means of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not qualified to say whether it's right to discern an oath/promise in the other sacraments, but I suspect that what Peter discerns as a promise is in fact a manifestation of the grace of the sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking the seven sacraments in Peter's order,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Marriage — the grace of divine love.&lt;/strong&gt; The sacrament of Matrimony&#xA;signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the&#xA;grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved&#xA;his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love&#xA;of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies&#xA;them on the way to eternal life (cf Council of Trent: DS 1799). [CCC&#xA;1661]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Orders — the grace of service in the Church.&lt;/strong&gt; The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the&#xA;faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the&#xA;faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the&#xA;People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus&#xA;liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi). [CCC 1592]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reconciliation — the grace of forgiveness and reconciliation with God and the Church.&lt;/strong&gt; The spiritual effects of the sacrament of&#xA;Penance are: reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers&#xA;grace; reconciliation with the Church; remission of the eternal&#xA;punishment incurred by mortal sins; remission, at least in part, of&#xA;temporal punishments resulting from sin; peace and serenity of&#xA;conscience, and spiritual consolation; an increase of spiritual&#xA;strength for the Christian battle. [CCC 1496]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Communion — the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.&lt;/strong&gt; By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the&#xA;Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated&#xA;species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is&#xA;present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his&#xA;Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS&#xA;1640; 1651). [CCC 1413] Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ&#xA;increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial&#xA;sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this&#xA;sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant&#xA;and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the&#xA;Mystical Body of Christ. [CCC 1416] &lt;em&gt;Transubstantiation is quite successfully described in the accepted answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/541/what-do-catholics-mean-when-they-talk-about-the-real-presence-in-the-eucharist&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Baptism — the grace of forgiveness of sin.&lt;/strong&gt; The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of&#xA;original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which&#xA;man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a&#xA;temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is&#xA;incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer&#xA;in the priesthood of Christ. Baptism imprints on the soul an&#xA;indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the&#xA;baptized person for Christian worship. [CCC 1279-80]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Confirmation — the grace of witnessing to the Faith.&lt;/strong&gt; Confirmation perfects Baptismal grace; it is the sacrament which gives the Holy&#xA;Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation,&#xA;incorporate us more firmly into Christ, strengthen our bond with the&#xA;Church, associate us more closely with her mission, and help us bear&#xA;witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds.&#xA;Confirmation, like Baptism, imprints a spiritual mark or indelible&#xA;character on the Christian's soul. [CCC 1316-17]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unction — the grace of strengthening, peace and courage.&lt;/strong&gt; The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as&#xA;its effects: the uniting of the sick person to the passion of&#xA;Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church; the&#xA;strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner&#xA;the sufferings of illness or old age; the forgiveness of sins, if&#xA;the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of&#xA;Penance; the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the&#xA;salvation of his soul; the preparation for passing over to eternal&#xA;life. [CCC 1532]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T15:22:59.897" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6568" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6569" CreationDate="2012-03-13T15:30:22.977" Score="18" ViewCount="5894" Body="&lt;p&gt;When reading the King James Bible, I've noticed that some words are marked with italics. I have yet to discover any pattern, but it seems that all of the marked words are short common English words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="85" LastActivityDate="2016-03-11T15:19:01.727" Title="Why are some words in the King James Bible written in italics?" Tags="&lt;kjv&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6568" CreationDate="2012-03-13T15:58:05.747" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a sign of honesty on the translators' part.  The italicized words are &lt;em&gt;interpolations,&lt;/em&gt; words that were not in the original documents but were added to the English text.  Many of them are there to make things make better grammatical sense in English, but a few of them can actually change the meanings of the passages, so they ought to be examined critically when you run across them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T15:58:05.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6571" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6574" CreationDate="2012-03-13T16:07:25.563" Score="9" ViewCount="25315" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the correlation between these two scripture?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why Jesus felt forsaken if he knew what was going on?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why was it mentioned in Old Testament as well as New Testament(in two places)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?&lt;/strong&gt; Why are You&#xA;so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning? (Psalm 22:1, NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a&#xA;loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “&lt;strong&gt;My God,&#xA;My God, why have You forsaken Me?&lt;/strong&gt;” (Matthew 27:46, NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1155" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-07-07T02:46:34.047" Title="What did Jesus quote Psalm 22: &quot;My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?&quot;" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-01-09T03:25:53.277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6571" CreationDate="2012-03-13T16:15:12.690" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the same reason so many other things from the Old Testament are mentioned in the New Testament: they're quotations.  This particular one was a reference to the beginning of the 22nd psalm, and it's quite instructive to look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022&quot;&gt;the psalm in its entirety&lt;/a&gt;.  Of particular interest is verse 18, which had literally happened to him just moments ago.  Jesus's invocation of the psalm gives a good look into his mindset and his feelings at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T16:15:12.690" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6571" CreationDate="2012-03-13T16:15:38.660" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The quick answer, the condensed one that I hear in homilies at Mass around Holy Week is that Jesus quotes this scripture to evoke the Psalm, not just the part of the Psalm where David feels forsaken, but the part where God is glorified.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T16:15:38.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6571" CreationDate="2012-03-13T16:49:36.763" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;He was quoting David in Psalm 22.  But nevertheless, Jesus must have felt these words Himself. What it was like for the Son of God to experience &quot;Hell&quot;, or separation from God, we can not begin to imagine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can only speculate that Jesus, when He uttered those words, felt God had abandoned Him in a real way, not a symbolic way. Jesus truly felt separated from God, and that was far worse than even the pain and suffering on the Cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastEditorUserId="17529" LastEditDate="2015-03-18T08:54:39.867" LastActivityDate="2015-03-18T08:54:39.867" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6576" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6578" CreationDate="2012-03-13T19:53:56.360" Score="9" ViewCount="32103" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:1&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible state a reason anywhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-08-09T00:48:29.757" LastActivityDate="2015-07-04T07:20:27.803" Title="Why did God create the Heavens and the Earth?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:42:30.423" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6576" CreationDate="2012-03-13T20:21:49.883" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Earth is the dwelling place of mankind.  God's decision to create mankind necessitated the creation of a dwelling place for him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The heavens possibly include the sky, the stars and planets, and even the throne of God.  The sky, stars, and planets are, of course, part of man's dwelling place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's throne is where the angelic beings can be in His presence, but also mankind as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T20:21:49.883" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6576" CreationDate="2012-03-13T22:44:55.873" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;God created the heavens and the earth as an expression of His glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens are telling of the glory of God; &#xA;  And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Psalms 19:1 NASB&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens declare His righteousness, &#xA;  And all the peoples have seen His glory. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2097:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Psalms 97:6 NASB&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think John Piper explains it nicely in &lt;em&gt;Desiring God&lt;/em&gt;, which is available for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/desiring-god&quot;&gt;free&lt;/a&gt; online.  Basically, he argues that God's ultimate purpose and joy is in the display of His glory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God would be unrighteous (just as we would) if He valued&#xA;  anything more than what is supremely valuable. But He Himself is supremely valuable. If He did not take infinite delight in the worth of His own glory, He&#xA;  would be unrighteous. For it is right to take delight in a person in proportion to&#xA;  the excellence of that person’s glory. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/desiring-god&quot;&gt;Desiring God, p42-43&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to that purpose, creation is the expression of His glory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In creation, God “went public” with the glory that reverberates joyfully between&#xA;  the Father and the Son. There is something about the fullness of God’s joy that&#xA;  inclines it to overflow. There is an expansive quality to His joy. It wants to share&#xA;  itself. The impulse to create the world was not from weakness, as though God&#xA;  were lacking in some perfection that creation could supply. “It is no argument of&#xA;  the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain, that it is inclined to overflow.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God loves to behold His glory reflected in His works. So the eternal happiness of the triune God spilled over in the work of creation and redemption. And&#xA;  since this original happiness was God’s delight in His own glory, therefore the&#xA;  happiness that He has in all His works of creation and redemption is nothing&#xA;  other than a delight in His own glory. This is why God has done all things, from&#xA;  creation to consummation, for the preservation and display of His glory. All His&#xA;  works are simply the spillover of His infinite exuberance for His own excellence. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/desiring-god&quot;&gt;Desiring God, p44&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aside Note:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To some, this concept might seem to put God in a light in which he seems vain, or like he is &quot;just showing off&quot; (as @MasonWheeler mentioned). I don't believe it does. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although &quot;showing off&quot; is essentially correct, that phrase carries a negative connotation.  I think that connotation comes from the fact that &quot;showing off&quot; is usually used to describe humans that scramble to draw attention to, and highlight their own perceived glory.  The difference between these people and God is that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As humans, these people do not actually deserve the attention&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These people attempt to detract glory from God, who deserves it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Their intentions are entirely self serving, and seek attention that benefits only themselves&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God very much deserves our attention&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God cannot detract glory from Himself&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is in our infinite best interest to perceive and experience God's glory.  That is why we are constantly commanded to praise God, give glory to God, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-03-13T23:42:23.030" LastActivityDate="2012-03-13T23:42:23.030" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3348" CreationDate="2012-03-13T23:21:05.187" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an interesting question. I don't know if I'm correct about this, but here are my thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The differences might be theologically meaningful to a certain extent (e.g. the meaning of diatheke in 2 Cor. 3:14), but they probably have, in my opinion, a more important social function. By using specific language (or jargon) the group can distinguish and separate itself better from other rival groups or even from the rest of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The behaviour of JW's is very often characterised by a radical rejection of the doctrines, practices, festivities, imagery and language of other (christian) religions. So their behaviour might just be the way it is, because they want to be contrary to the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a certain period, JW's did not even consider themselves 'a religion' ('religion is a snare and a racket'). Later on, the language clearly shows they make an effort to separate themselves from christian churches: 'christianity' (JW's, true christianity of the bible) vs. 'christendom' ('professed christianity').&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since there is such a strong desire to be separated from the world/other groups, it is for example not surprising that the symbol of 'christendom', the cross, is rejected by JW's. &#xA;Although linguistic and other arguments can be made to sustain the literal meaning of stauros as a 'torture stake', the drive to be different from (other christian) religions may play a (major) part as well. The same can be said in respect of the word 'congregation' instead of 'church' (ekklesia), 'Hebrew scriptures' instead of OT, 'overseer' instead of 'deaken' etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of the aversion for (other) religious groups, there appears to be even a certain paradox around JW's: they mix very humanistic, secular and scientific thought with biblical arguments to stand out, e.g. their traditional preference of BCE and CE, the insistance on a strict seperation of state and church, their battle for freedom of thought and freedom of press, etc..&#xA;Now that the secular world has become more vocal to use BCE and CE, interestingly JW's have recently begun to move away from this terminology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most surprisingly, they admit that the surviving texts of the NT have been manipulated thouroughly (because God's name has been removed out of it), but at the same time they still accept the text as exceptionally authorative. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The insistance on a traditional medieval rendering of God's name has also some function (in this way they create the impression they worship a different God with a distinctive name and have a personal relationship with God, while other groups are far removed from him because they do not even know his name and use only titles).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See for interesting articles about the specific language of JW's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/langid.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/langid.html&lt;/a&gt; (J. ELLIOTT, 'LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY AT THE KINGDOM HALL: THE DISCURSIVE STRATEGIES OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY') [EDIT: Link available on &lt;a href=&quot;https://web.archive.org/web/20140401122624/http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/langid.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Archive.org&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/icon.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/icon.html&lt;/a&gt; (J. ELLIOTT, 'You Can Live Forever on a Paradise Earth. The Visual Rhetoric of Jehovah's Witness Iconography') [EDIT: Link available on &lt;a href=&quot;https://web.archive.org/web/20140401125756/http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/icon.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Archive.org&lt;/a&gt;]   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1419" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-03-22T15:31:56.060" LastActivityDate="2015-03-22T15:31:56.060" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6581" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6582" CreationDate="2012-03-13T23:47:09.563" Score="13" ViewCount="4286" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:7 KJV&lt;/a&gt; reads,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed&#xA;  into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There must be a very good reason. I read the Bible but don't know it well enough make anything out of this main premise (man). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any supporting references are helpful (articles, Bible references, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. Please do not confuse with: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/852/why-did-god-create-such-complexity-in-man&quot;&gt;Why did God create such complexity in man?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2014-02-14T08:03:03.673" Title="Why did God create man?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-03-12T17:20:00.237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6581" CreationDate="2012-03-14T00:37:33.937" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has something to do with God loving us.  I think to understand it any better than that requires an understanding of the nature of the Trinity, not something that is possible from our point of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the best way to look at it is using the metaphor Jesus used.  He called God His Father, saw Himself as God's Son.  And Jesus made it clear that God was a perfect Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why do fathers have children? My own answer (I speak as a father) might be, &quot;because I want to love them&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T00:37:33.937" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6583" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6585" CreationDate="2012-03-14T01:13:41.603" Score="4" ViewCount="24370" Body="&lt;p&gt;In spirit of Easter coming up: Where did Jesus go after he arose from the grave? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was spotted walking, then.....?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he went to Heaven after rising, how long did he stay on earth and why not stay to help us out? Does the Bible address this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 2:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had&#xA;  said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had&#xA;  spoken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-03-09T06:27:06.993" LastActivityDate="2018-10-26T23:19:26.890" Title="Where did Jesus go after he arose from the grave?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2133" CreationDate="2012-03-14T06:02:20.927" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Papal infallibility means that under certain conditions the Roman Pontiff (the Pope) cannot err when teaching about faith or morals.   This is called speaking &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; and its &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;conditions&lt;/a&gt; include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Pope must speak as the pastor and teacher of all Christians (&lt;em&gt;cum omnium Christianorun pastoris et doctoris munere fungens&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The teaching must define a doctrine of faith or morals (&lt;em&gt;doctrinam de fide vel moribus&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The doctrine must be accepted by the universal Church (&lt;em&gt;universa Ecclesia tenendam&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Roman Pontiff must define the proposed doctrine for acceptance by the whole Church (&lt;em&gt;definitive actu proclamat&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is debate whether any &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; statements were ever made. The &lt;em&gt;Immaculate Conception&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;Assumption&lt;/em&gt; have been cited as &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; statements. Further, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Law 749 § 3&lt;/a&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this statement to be true, a doctrine must first be declared infallible before it meets the criteria of being manifestly infallible, which is circular logic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1421" LastEditorUserId="1421" LastEditDate="2012-03-14T06:09:01.590" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T06:09:01.590" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6583" CreationDate="2012-03-14T07:31:30.863" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 28 says he appeared to the two Marys, then to the 11 disciples in Galilee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 16 says he appeared to Mary Magdalene, then to 2 of the disciples, then to all 11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 24 says he appeared to 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus, then to the 11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20-21 says he appeared to Mary Magdalene, then to an unspecified number of disciples (specifically not including Thomas, maybe all 10 of the others, maybe not), then to the 11 indoors, then to 6 disciples on a beach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4 says he &quot;descended into the lower parts of the Earth&quot;, which the Apostles Creed interprets as &quot;descended into Hell&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Cor 15 says he was seen by Peter, then &quot;the twelve&quot;, then &quot;over 500 of the brethren at once&quot;, then by James, then by &quot;all the apostles&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 1 says it was 40 days from the resurrection until his ascension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be other references to post-resurrection appearances that I'm forgetting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of these claims to be a minute-by-minute of Jesus's activities after the resurrection, so it's not surprising that some mention incidents that others don't. Mark's mention of him meeting two disciples and Luke's mention of meeting 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus are probably the same incident, but it's tough to prove. Apparently he met various groups of the disciples at different times, so figuring out which meetings in different accounts are describing the same event is not necessarily obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why: Jesus gives (at least) 2 reasons: John 14:1 &quot;I go to prepare a place for you.&quot; Normally understood to mean Heaven or the New Jerusalem. And John 16:5, &quot;It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why couldn't Jesus stay here and bring the Holy Spirit, or send the Holy Spirit and then come back? I have no idea, but the plain reading appears to be that Jesus said this would not be possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T07:31:30.863" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5298" CreationDate="2012-03-14T07:51:50.387" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd generally agree with Clayworth, but let me add a couple of points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evidence is purely from textual analysis: There are large sections of Mark that also appear in both Matthew and Luke, and there are things in both Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The similarities aren't as blatant as some imply. It's arguable that the similarities are because the writers are describing the same events, and not because they copied from each other. But I'd agree that this is unlikely. There are too many similarities, including identical wording in some places. One or two such cases could be coincidence, but there are hundreds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a little surprised the Clayworth doesn't mention what I thought was the most popular theory: That Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Then that there was another source which no longer exists today, called &quot;Q&quot; (from the German word &quot;quellen&quot; meaning source) that Matthew and Luke also used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q is mostly quotes from Jesus: sayings, slogans and sermons. So Q may have been a collection of &quot;sermon notes&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Papias, an early church historian, mentions that Matthew compiled a collection of quotes from Jesus that he called &quot;The Sayings&quot;, written in Aramaic. I wonder if this book by Matthew could be the mysterious &quot;Q&quot;. I understand that language scholars say that the Q quotes in Matthew and Luke appear to be translated to Greek from Aramaic based on wording and grammar. (I am not a linguist so I can't evaluate this.) But as far as I know there's no further evidence for or against.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm always a little amused when I hear this analysis used as an argument against the authenticity of the Gospels. I've heard some critics discuss the parallels it as if they were some great secret revelation that Christians are unaware of or are trying to hide. But any study Bible I've ever owned has a section called &quot;Gospel Parallels&quot; or &quot;Harmony of the Gospels&quot; or some such that lists these parallels verse by verse. And as others have indicated, in any other subject, studying the work of those who have come before you is called &quot;research&quot; and &quot;scholarship&quot;. But when it comes to the Gospels suddenly it becomes &quot;cheating&quot; or &quot;deceit&quot; or something. (Yes yes, if the Gospel writers did copy from each other, they failed to include proper footnotes. Maybe because the MLA handbook wasn't written until 2000 years later.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T07:51:50.387" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4181" CreationDate="2012-03-14T10:22:51.313" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I feel that the previous answer might be a bit one sided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;0) First of all, persons who are not baptised as a JW, but only raised as a JW, are free to live their lives as they see fit (there is no infant baptism among JW's). They are not considered as JW's and the society can not officially sanction any of their life style choices. The same goes for disfellowshipped persons or persons who disassociated themselves from the JW's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So many persons who are raised as a JW, do not consider themselves JW's (although the outside world might perceive them this way) and they live with partners whom they choose 'freely' (of course one has to take into account some pressure from family, peer pressure and pressure from society in general, which limits the free choice of most persons).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Since many JW's are married and belong to a different religion before they get baptized as a Jehovah's Witness, interfaith marriages are not so rare among JW's (typically only the wife converts to JW's). &#xA;In those situations Paul's advice to the Corinthians apply. Basically he advises to stick with your partner (1 Cor. 7:10-16). So in that case, JW's are married with non-witnesses and have to do everything in their power to make the marriage work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Persons who are unmarried adults and baptised as a JW, are encouraged to marry only other baptised JW's (of a different gender). Again this is based on the advise of Paul to the Corinthians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Cor. 7:39: '...she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in (the) Lord'.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Cor. 6:14-15: 'Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? (...) Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever?'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptised male JW's who do not follow this advise, might lose some 'privileges' (e.g. they may not teach the audience in public anymore). &#xA;It is however not a disfellowshipping offence to date or marry a non-JW. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know if there are any official sanctions against female JW's who marry non JW-men (the position against women is more relaxed, I think).&#xA;When they do marry, the same advice as given in 1 Cor. 7:10-16 apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Many persons who are baptised as a JW, fade away and become inactive (this means they do not go knocking on doors anymore for a period of 6 months or more).&#xA;According to some studies 2/3 of the children who are raised as a JW, do not consider themselves as a JW when they reach adulthood (this is apparently the lowest retention rate of all the religions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of time, the inactive single persons are also free to do whatever they like, because the congregation of JW's will probably not keep track of what they are doing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also possible that two partners are baptised and only one of them (very often the husband) becomes inactive (and has a different outlook on life, becomes agnostic, atheistic,...). In that case, the same advice as given in 1 Cor. 7:10-16 applies.&#xA;Often the JW partner is quite disappointed in the decision of the partner and this can put a strain on the marriage, but in many cases the relationship continues as usual. Also the relationship with other JW's can continue as usual, however some JW members might not be so cordial anymore with a person who has become inactive. So sometimes situations might arrive where e.g. JW's give a party and only invite the JW partner and not the 'inactive' mate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also not very uncommon that young persons who are raised as a JW (and baptised) marry each other and once they are married both stop practising the religion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in these cases you have relationships between real JW's (who go door to door and to all the meetings) and only 'name' JW's (inactive ones who do basically nothing).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bottom line is that JW's are allowed to marry outside the faith, but it is discouraged.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1423" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T10:22:51.313" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6588" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6592" CreationDate="2012-03-14T12:41:30.567" Score="15" ViewCount="87348" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 2:15(NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD God took the man and put him in the &lt;strong&gt;Garden of Eden&lt;/strong&gt; to work it&#xA;  and take care of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm curious to know, now, &lt;strong&gt;in which which country is the Garden of Eden located?&lt;/strong&gt; (which is mentioned in Genesis)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1155" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-08-24T21:28:23.957" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T18:19:56.357" Title="In which country is the Garden of Eden located?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;eden&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6588" CreationDate="2012-03-14T15:11:39.347" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming it was a literal garden in the physical world, and not a metaphor, it was most likely somewhere between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, close to the border between modern day Iraq and Iran, or maybe the Eastern region of modern Turkey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just Googling for Tigris, Euphrates and Eden will give you more sources you can probably read in a lifetime :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T15:11:39.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6539" CreationDate="2012-03-14T15:15:40.690" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe Jesus was using this as a &quot;teachable moment.&quot; For example, in John 9:6 He made clay to put on a blind man's eyes to heal him. We know He could heal with a touch, or just a word, so why make clay? Verse 14 tells us this was done on the Sabbath, so Jesus obviously did this (in Jerusalem, no less) to make a point. He had already been accused of breaking the Sabbath by healing, but making clay was undeniably working, so the Pharisees condemned Him, but the man who was healed answered, &quot;If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.&quot; We know Jesus ministered to Gentiles; John 4 tells us He sat by the well of Sychar and waited for the Samaritan woman to come. I think Jesus gave the answer the Pharisees would have given, allowed her to answer as He knew she would, and then praised her faith. In the healing of the centurion's servant (Mat. 8:10-12) He was even more explicit in His teaching: &quot;I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel...many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham...but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out...&quot; Believing Gentiles will be accepted, but unbelieving Jews will be rejected. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1424" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T15:15:40.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6571" CreationDate="2012-03-14T15:18:10.443" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was really suffering. He probably could have used miracles to not feel any pain, but then the whole sacrifice would just have been a fake one. To be a real sacrifice, feeling real human pain, both physical and psychological, was indeed necessary in my opinion. Can there be any bigger emotional pain than feeling that God has forsaken you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T15:18:10.443" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6588" CreationDate="2012-03-14T15:49:35.303" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Per Genesis 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Mesopatamia (i.e. Iraq) is where the Tigris &amp;amp; Euphrates are, the remaining two rivers (Gihon is in Israel, and the Pishon is, I believe unknown, though some scholars think it is the Nile) are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are thus two possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Flood altered where these rivers flowed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The location is not meant to be literal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, the Flood probably did wipe out the Garden of Eden, and even if it didn't, there was an angel (in Genesis 3:24) who is guarding the entrance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: For an interesting excursion into the idea of &quot;mapping&quot; Eden, check out this &lt;a href=&quot;http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/583-east-is-eden-adam-and-eves-chinese-garden?page=all&quot;&gt;article showing maps of Eden from 1914&lt;/a&gt;.  They are highly speculative, but show the diversity of thought around where Eden might be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-10-03T14:01:01.453" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T14:01:01.453" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6593" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6595" CreationDate="2012-03-14T17:39:30.303" Score="5" ViewCount="7344" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Ecclesiastes 7:16,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be overrighteous,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;     neither be overwise—&lt;br&gt;&#xA;     why destroy yourself? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why does the Bible say, &quot;don't be &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; righteous&quot;?  Encouraging one to be moderate in their righteousness... Doesn't that seem a bit out of place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-08-30T00:26:43.913" LastActivityDate="2016-08-30T00:26:43.913" Title="Per Ecclesiastes 7:16, Does the Bible want me to sin?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;ecclesiastes&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-09-01T15:34:12.880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6588" CreationDate="2012-03-14T17:52:47.550" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Sailhamer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/sailhamers-view-of-creation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;proposes&lt;/a&gt; a rather novel idea in his book &lt;em&gt;Genesis Unbound&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second chapter of Genesis provides a closer look at God's creation of the first human beings. We are told that God created them from the ground and put them in the garden of Eden to worship and obey God (not merely to work the garden and take care of it). The boundaries of that garden are the same as those of the promised land; thus the events of these chapters foreshadow the events of the remainder of the Pentateuch. God creates a people, He puts them into the land He has prepared for them, and He calls on them to worship and obey Him and receive His blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't read the book myself, but thinking about the Torah texts, it does solve a number of problems.  But the theory is &lt;em&gt;at least&lt;/em&gt; as controversial as every other theory I know of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T17:52:47.550" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6593" CreationDate="2012-03-14T18:06:24.707" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;One possible interpretation is that it is warning against legalism - the type of &quot;over righteousness&quot; that the Pharisees were known for.  Not exactly a true righteousness, as seen from God's perspective, but a self perceived righteousness derived from a &quot;holier-than-thou&quot; attitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wernerbiblecommentary.org/?q=node/571&quot;&gt;The Werner Bible Commentary&lt;/a&gt; puts it like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One who is overly righteous or righteous to an excess insists on the letter of the law, failing to take into consideration human limitations and the need for compassion and understanding. Such a person is quick to make a major issue about minor matters, insisting on strict adherence to certain procedures, rules, or practices even when doing so would prevent one from being helpful and kind to those in genuine need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bit farther down, in verse 20, it goes on to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%207:20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 7:20 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is something that the Pharisees did not seem grasp, and righteousness through their own &quot;over righteousness&quot; was something that the Pharisees saw as attainable, or already attained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T18:06:24.707" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6596" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6598" CreationDate="2012-03-14T19:43:21.647" Score="4" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Christianity say that the events that happen to us are from God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it all free will, or free will and God steps in to veto if he wants, or everything from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask because at the Church I go to it seems like if a street light turns green, it is from God...or if a stranger says something to me, it is a sign from God...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-11-28T18:38:10.393" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T18:38:10.393" Title="Does Christianity say that the events that happen to us are from God?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;determinism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:43:51.220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6597" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-14T20:27:20.173" Score="11" ViewCount="555" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can be pretty sure it isn't in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4993/914&quot;&gt;Japan&lt;/a&gt;.  The two most referenced sites are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#Challenges_to_authenticity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Aedicule&lt;/a&gt; of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Tomb#Reception&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Garden Tomb&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, both stake their claims by virtue of their proximity to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Golgotha&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  (Proponents of the two tomb sites also disagree on the location of Jesus' crucifixion.)  However, I don't see anything in the Gospel texts that indicate where the tomb might have been in relation to the crucifixion site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.&amp;mdash;Mark 15:42-47 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Mark+15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; the tomb belonged to, but not where it was situated.  In fact, I can see no reason for the tomb not to be anyone of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-cut_tombs_in_ancient_Israel#Second_Temple_era_tombs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Second Temple burial sites&lt;/a&gt; found around Jerusalem.  Given the little we know about Joseph, I'd say the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vosizneias.com/47022/2010/01/14/jerusalem-neglected-sanhedrin-tombs-in-dire-need-of-resturation/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sanhedrin Tombs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; are as likely than any other candidate.  More likely still, the tomb was used by Joseph's family and the connection to Jesus was lost.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;  It may very well have been destroyed in one of Jerusalem's many rebuilding projects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we know where Jesus was buried?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&#xA;1. Oddly, it's difficult to find good information on this site, which is practically neglected.  I don't know, for instance, exactly how they got their name or what era they come from.  So this suggestion ought to be taken with a shaker of salt.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2. This theory isn't surprising since according to the Gospels, the tomb would have been empty.  There was nothing to see and no reason to visit!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2015-08-16T17:00:15.183" Title="Where was Jesus' tomb?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;easter&gt;&lt;geography&gt;&lt;tomb-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6596" CreationDate="2012-03-14T21:11:31.570" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not all things that happen are &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; God: Either God has allowed something to happen, or God intervenes and causes something to happen. God accomodates for everything that takes place and has worked it out for His own purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A light turning green or someone saying something to you, does not necessarily mean they are from God.. But that doesn't mean God hasn't intervened with traffic lights before (or more likely the timing in which you come into contact with this light), or not inspired someone to say something to someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverbs 16:4 (Amplified) - The Lord has made everything [to&#xA;  accommodate itself and contribute] to its own end and His own&#xA;  purpose--even the wicked [are fitted for their role] for the day of&#xA;  calamity and evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-03-14T22:45:59.093" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T22:45:59.093" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3631" CreationDate="2012-03-14T21:52:39.513" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm still looking into this next claim, but perhaps, while the Synoptic Gospels give us parables (think: &quot;The Kingdom of God is like...&quot;), John does not. In the Synoptics, it seems that Jesus says that he speaks in parables to the crowds, but reveals the secrets to the disciples. In John, he speaks more openly.  What I think is that John contains the meaning of the parables found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And what does this mean in regard to the Eucharist? In John, Jesus institutes the Great Commandment: Love one another...as I have loved you. It is more than just &quot;love your neighbor as yourself.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the model for this love is that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) the Word became flesh (in the beginning of John), and a member of our fallen race.&#xA;2) very concretely, the foot washing,&#xA;3) the death and resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Foot washing&quot;, serving our fellow man, is the only way we can emulate Christ on earth, unless we are in an exceptionally situation (think soldiers or firemen, etc) who die to save others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get to the point: perhaps the Eucharist celebration is the outward sign and symbol of that great truth, a mystical act that reminds us of our great commandment. So where parable is expressed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the meaning of the parable is explained in John. The true meaning of Jesus' life is represented by the bread and wine in those Gospels, but openly stated in John. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;feedback?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1425" LastActivityDate="2012-03-14T21:52:39.513" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6596" CreationDate="2012-03-14T22:15:02.387" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the Bible makes clear that even a random number generator will always generate the number of God's choosing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 16:33 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The lot (dice) is cast into the lap, &#xA;  but its every decision is from the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a tornado kills my child, I can take comfort in knowing there is a divine purpose for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God says He &quot;rose up Pharoah&quot;, He also &quot;rose up Hitler&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-03-15T14:07:18.203" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T14:07:18.203" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3631" CreationDate="2012-03-15T00:03:51.663" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1197/68&quot;&gt;One theory&lt;/a&gt; is that John assumes his audience know one or more of the synoptic traditions and wrote to supplement the other gospels.  If true, the &quot;I am the Bread of Life&quot; found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%206/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6:35&lt;/a&gt; provides the philosophical background for the Eucharist custom.  This might explain the reaction Jesus gets from His teaching:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.&amp;mdash;John 6:52-59 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%206/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you don't assume John wrote after the Synoptics, he would have known that his readers had access to the circumstances behind communion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 11:23-26 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So instead of linking the practice to the final hours of Jesus' ministry, John links them to its start.  He also connects the concept of Eucharist with the literal feeding of 5,000 in the first half of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/John%206/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; mention the Eucharist, but not in the place we expect it to be from Paul's writing and the other gospels accounts.  He ordered his account more for thematic reasons than for &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/217/68&quot;&gt;chronological&lt;/a&gt; or historical purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T00:03:51.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6602" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6612" CreationDate="2012-03-15T01:37:51.507" Score="4" ViewCount="9537" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Daniel 7:9&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He sat on a fiery throne with wheels of blazing fire.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also references to wheels in Ezekiel Chapter 10 (which may or may not be related).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a significance to the throne having wheels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they actually wheels?  Why are they on fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophanim&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Ophanim&lt;/a&gt;  and it almost led be to believe that these &quot;wheels&quot; were actually beings that enabled the thrones to move.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1426" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-03-15T14:00:22.970" LastActivityDate="2016-02-05T23:12:04.483" Title="Why does the throne in Daniel 7:9 have wheels and are they literally wheels?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;daniel&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-02-07T01:46:00.670" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6603" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6610" CreationDate="2012-03-15T02:48:29.540" Score="9" ViewCount="273" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know Christianity at a glance as I haven't read the Bible thoroughly from start to finish. I haven't found bad things Jesus taught us. But I have a crucial question to raise my confidence in believing Jesus as my savior. The question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is there a mentioning (in the Bible) about why god exists?&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1427" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-26T18:04:36.073" LastActivityDate="2015-10-26T18:04:36.073" Title="Is there a mentioning (in the Bible) about why God exists?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;existence-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:45:10.813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6593" CreationDate="2012-03-15T03:22:46.440" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One must not treat the whole Bible as a homogenous text, which represents a single point of view. There are different texts, which serve different purposes. The earliest parts are more suitable for children, in that they are clear message tales, where the good people win and the bad people get struck down by God. The later texts are more nuanced adult narratives, which try to mirror how life actually is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more secular philosophical text of Ecclesiastes (available in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Ecclesiastes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt; &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; translation on Wikisource&lt;/a&gt; ) is very different than the earliest law-giving texts, or the histories and prophecies. It belongs to the third part of the old testament, called &amp;quot;the writings&amp;quot; by Jews, and along with the Book of Job, the proverbs, and some of the Apocrypha, it is considered a book of wisdom, reflecting a philosophy that was considered important enough to canonize.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes shows a Greek influence. The writing is recursive and flowing, and contains a greater degree of abstraction than the earliest books. It is believed to have been written in Hellenistic times, around the 2nd-3rd century BC, making it perhaps the very latest contribution to be canonized in the old testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The text is interesting in that it is easily heretical at points, and this is one of the major arguments used back then against its canonization. There are several points where you hear what sounds like a redactor. The last verses of the book are an infamous summary, which does not summarize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vapid mirage, said Koheleth, everything is mirage. And as Koheleth became wiser, so he taught wisdom to the people, and he listened and he investigated, and he set many sayings. Koheleth asked to find things of use, and right writing, truthful words. The words of wise men planted as fasteners and ramparts in the pages of anthologies; they were given by one shepherd. And more than of these, my son, be careful: to making many books there is no end, and too much studying afflicts the flesh. Word's end, everything is heard: Fear God, and keep his commandments, because this is all to man. Because to every deed God will bring judgment, over all that's hidden, whether good, or bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual content of the book is completely different. This is one of the books of the Bible that is actually worth reading end to end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes is a free-thinking catalog of despair, at the meaninglessness of life and the unreality of the world. It is a philosophy of misery, similar to the Hindu concept of Maya, or world-illusion. We are all trapped in Maya, &amp;quot;Havel&amp;quot; in Koheleth's words, or &amp;quot;Vanity&amp;quot; in King James, &amp;quot;mirage&amp;quot; in Wikipedia, &amp;quot;vapor-wisp&amp;quot; in the most literal reading of the Hebrew. This is meaninglessness that is a consequence of the slightness of our world, its ephemerality, and our actions, we are all headed to the grave, the wise along with the foolish, and nothing that we do is particularly meaningful when considered on, say, geological time. Everything repeats in an eternal cycle, nothing is truly new. Wicked people prosper, righteous people are struck down, and there are injustices that cannot be fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea, the futility, leads Koheleth to all sorts of despair and searching. He tries out all sorts of things, building, and destroying, study, and partying, piety, and sin. He concludes that life is finite, and of no consequence or meaning, that there is no afterlife, so we should take some pleasure out of our limited time, be mostly virtuous, and a little sinful, and try to enjoy ourselves as long as we are here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This type of philosophy is completely out of place in the Bible, and this book therefore has many quotes which can be construed as contradicting the rest of the Bible. Koheleth tells you to enjoy life, be happy on Earth, and forget about heavenly rewards (3:20):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All things to one place are going, all came from the dust, and all returns to dust. Who knows whether the spirit of man, if up above it goes, and the spirit of the beast, if down to the ground it goes? And I saw that there is nothing better than that a man will be happy in what he does, because this is his allotment. Because who will bring us to see of what will come after him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He explicitly denies the afterlife later: (Ecc. 9:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that your hands shall find to do within their power, do: because there is no deed or reckoning or knowledge or wisdom in the underworld, that is where you are going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He tells you to not be too virtuous (7:16):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't be greatly righteous, and don't be too much wise, why become desolate? 17 Don't be greatly wicked, and don't become foolish: why die before your time? 18 Better that you grasp this, and from the other do not release your hand...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He tells you that righteousness is not rewarded (8:14):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is mirage, done on the Earth, that there are righteous ones whose fate is as if for the work of the wicked, and there are wicked ones whose fate arrives as if for the works of the righteous. I said that this too is mirage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This text is not representative of Jewish or Christian theology. It is not representative of what we would call modern secular philosophy either. It might have a root in Hindu or Buddhist traditions of Maya or Earthly suffering, but even then, it is delivered in a different ideosyncratic way, as the personal story of a wealthy scholar. The Bible would be a lot more consistent without it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why is this text canonized? Perhaps the last verses will make it clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be happy, young man, in your childhood, and your heart will improve in the days of your virility, and go along the paths of your heart, and the sight of your eyes, and know that over all these God will bring you to judgment. And eradicate anger from your heart, and pass evil away from your flesh because childhood and dawning are mirage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And remember your creator in the days of your virility, just until they will come, the bad days, and there will come years of which you you will say: &amp;quot;I do not have use for these.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So until the sun will darken, and the light and the moon, and the stars, and the clouds return after the rain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the day that the guardians of the house will shake, and the the soldiers will distort, and the millers shall be idle because they dwindled in number, and the lights will darken in the windows. And the doors in the marketplace will close, in the fading sound of the mill, and to the sound of the birds it will arise, and all the song-girls will lay low.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also they will fear the on high, and along the path terrors, and the almond shall blossom and the locust will be burdened, and the caperberry shall fail, because a man is walking to the eternal home, and the mourners surround the marketplace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until the silver rope is snapped, and the golden bowl is cracked, and the pitcher breaks on the fountain, and the cover-wheel crumbles into the well. And the dust returns to the Earth, as it was, and the spirit returns to God, who gave it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this writing isn't divinely inspired, then nothing is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T13:10:52.707" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6605" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-15T03:34:07.190" Score="3" ViewCount="4353" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ethical egoism&lt;/a&gt; is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to ethical egoism, I should only do what benefits me. That doesn't mean I must be the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; benefactor. Ethical egoism does allow for others also benefiting from my actions, only so long as the act also serves my long-term interests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible could be seen as advocating a similar view. I must have faith because without it I can't be saved, and being saved is in my long-term interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible advocate ethical egoism? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T00:45:03.723" LastActivityDate="2015-01-19T00:45:03.723" Title="Does the Bible advocate ethical egoism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6603" CreationDate="2012-03-15T03:42:04.033" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may sound like a cop out, but God precedes &quot;why?&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might had well ask, why does the question &quot;why&quot; exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moment you bring God into our earthly view, you change who God is by limiting Him. He is eternal and unchanging.  He exists even if the Universe disappears and all the laws of Physics with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you ever tried to imagine nothing? It is like that. We can't go there, it is actually impossible to imagine nothing. Yet, that is where you must start to have the perspective to understand why God exists. I love that God told Moses His name meant &quot;I am&quot; (yea, lots of translations). Maybe that is the answer, God exists because He IS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastEditorUserId="1404" LastEditDate="2012-03-15T16:14:48.260" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T16:14:48.260" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6605" CreationDate="2012-03-15T04:18:04.390" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short Answer, No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. The model of Jesus argues against it&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In laying down His life for creatures he made, Jesus had absolutely nothing to gain. Being God, he is in no way contingent upon us. Despite this, he willing gave up the perks of being God, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death - even the death of a cross! Now, yes, because of this, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father. (Phillippians 2:5-12) But remember, he was already God, so it wasn't needed. So, from the standpoint of Jesus, the answer would have to be no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Biblical teaching argues against it&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus said, &quot;You must take up your cross, and follow me,&quot; he did so knowing there would be no gain. When Jesus said, Blessed are you when men shall persecute you and revile you for My names sake, he was being clear that this was not a path to power, riches, or fame. Even Peter admitted that the disciples had given up houses and family- and Jesus replied that they wouldn't be paid back for any of those things in this life. So, from an instructional point of view, the answer must be no. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 5, when the first believers came together, they willingly shared all they had in common. From a Randian perspective, for example, this is sheer lunacy. To give up all they had just out of love is completely contradictory. So, from an early practioner's point of view, the answer would have to be no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, James and many others stress humility - that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.  Using the term &lt;em&gt;doulous&lt;/em&gt; (a slave), Christians are regularly told that their duty is to serve one another in Christ, and that &quot;the first shall be last, and the last first - &quot; all the exact opposite of self-interested service of any kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. The definition of Love argues against it&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, the major theme of Johanine literature is the idea that people should be able to recognize Christians by their love. Love often involves a cost - As Jesus said, no greater love hath a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Jesus showed his love for us in this - that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us!  Likewise, Paul explicitly defines love as something that &quot;Seeketh not its own&quot; (1 Cor 13).  So, from a theological point of view, the answer would be no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4. Original Sin suggests that grace overrides man's choice anyway&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, far more Christians adhere to the Calvinistic doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14142/what-is-the-opposite-of-total-depravity&quot;&gt;Total Depravity&lt;/a&gt; than its heretical opposite (which I now know to call Pelagianism). Total Depravity says that as a result of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;original sin&lt;/a&gt;, man's will has a fundamental defect that prevents it from seeking God on its own. That man can be saved is an act of grace - unmotivated by selfish interest from a perfect God - and (as Paul says), not through any work, lest any man should boast.  In other words - even if man is inherently self-interested in the out come of faith, it isn't really a choice he is even capable of making in the first place.  &lt;sup&gt;(Here, some Arminians might say that God supernaturally enables man to make a free choice - but even there, the act of grace is required to get man to the place where he can choose in the first place.)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, I can't think of a way to make Rand and Jesus go together. So, from a answer standpoint, I'd have to say, no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T14:13:12.747" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4670" CreationDate="2012-03-15T04:40:56.483" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking a step back from Christmas and Easter holiday celebrations in particular, it should be noted that there were several celebratory feasts (and trust me, as a former Baptist, feasts are crucial to Baptists too) that the Jews undertook. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact Deuteronomy 14 records an obligatory feast in which Jews were required to take a tenth of their possessions, and have a great celebratory feast:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeing as this would occur in families and villages, this could be likened to the practice of giving gifts at Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, amongst the Jews, the Feats of Booths, the Pentecost (the first fruits of harvest), the Day of Atonement, and other holidays were set out by decree. Additionally, some holidays were instituted to commemorate important graces of God - Passover is an obvious example, where God's miraclous release of the slaves in Egypt commemorates important things God has done. Likewise, Purim celebrates God's saving of the Jews from Haman.  Purim is an excellent example, because while God never commands the holy day, it still has a clear religious purpose of commemoration, much like Easter and Christmas do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could go into great detail about the main feasts, but the point is this - God definately wanted holy days to be celebrated.  Whether or not he intended the Christ-mass to honor his Son's incarnation, or for a Resurrection Sunday is unclear. What is clear, however is that God likes a good time, and he wants us to be a part of it too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T04:40:56.483" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6603" CreationDate="2012-03-15T10:32:36.823" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible assumes God exists. It begins with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:1 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not answering the question &quot;Why&quot;, but simply having God as a premise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard Ravi Zacharias say once. That in the Occident that we asked the question if we should believe in God, but in Orient they ask which god you believe in. In Orient they take for granted that you will believe in something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Bible was written in the Est and during an age where atheism and skepticism was not what it is today, I ,personally, find it normal that they did not answer a question that was not in their mind and in their reality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the vast majority of the people at the time of the writing of the Bible believe in some God the Bible defines God, it does not explain the reason why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-03-15T13:57:12.833" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T13:57:12.833" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6611" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6653" CreationDate="2012-03-15T11:17:37.863" Score="1" ViewCount="306" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assume that I am a layman without knowledge other than science-related ones. How should I do to be a Christian in a correct way? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In more strict words, what are the &quot;correct&quot; steps or algorithm to be a Christian? In more honest words, is assuming God(s) exist(s) the first step? You can also think of how do you persuade me to fear God, etc, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this question will be reopen to let others help me go to the heaven!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1427" LastEditorUserId="1427" LastEditDate="2012-09-09T06:29:45.663" LastActivityDate="2012-09-09T06:29:45.663" Title="What are the &quot;correct&quot; steps for a layman to be a Christian?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-03-17T03:48:04.730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6602" CreationDate="2012-03-15T11:23:38.723" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pawson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;David Pawson&lt;/a&gt; has an interesting answer, referring to a similar vision in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%201&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 1&lt;/a&gt;. First, bear in mind that the Israelites were at that time in captivity in Babylon. Then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, the throne can travel in any direction. This symbolizes the omnipresence of God, who is able to be anywhere and everywhere. He is a mobile God. This is significant because, until this point, every vision of God’s throne in the Bible had portrayed it as static, fixed in Jerusalem. So it was a comfort for Ezekiel to learn that God’s throne was mobile, for it meant that he could move to Babylon. This was an important truth to communicate to the exiles, who may have believed that God lived in one place, hundreds of miles away in Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the ‘eyes’ on the rims of the wheels tell us that God can see everything, everywhere. It’s a very meaningful picture. No wonder Ezekiel was overwhelmed with the vision and fell to the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary:&lt;/strong&gt; yes the throne has wheels to symbolise that God is &lt;em&gt;with His people&lt;/em&gt;, even when they are not near the temple. But, no, they are not literal. God is speaking to Ezekiel in a vision which he and the people he preached it to would immediately understand and draw comfort from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegospelriderministries.com/Old%20Testament/Ezekiel.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegospelriderministries.com/Links.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;quotes directly&lt;/a&gt; from David Pawson's &lt;em&gt;Unlocking the Bible Omnibus&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T14:54:12.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6611" CreationDate="2012-03-15T11:54:12.233" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, belief in God's existence is the first step. As Hebrews 11:6 says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, the good news of the Gospel is that Jesus already has taken the first steps toward you becoming a Christian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him ... We love because he first loved us. &lt;sub&gt;1 John 4:16-20&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/538/how-do-you-convert-somebody-to-christianity&quot;&gt;exact process&lt;/a&gt; of &quot;conversion&quot; is a matter of some debate, the sign that it has occurred is not - you are to grow in Christ, bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. As Paul says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things! Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there &lt;sub&gt;Galatians 5:24&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just remember, we obey out of love, not out of a need for love. As Jesus said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you love me, you will obey what I command &lt;sub&gt;John 14:15&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the way of the Gospel- that God loves us, and we in turn respond in obedience out of love, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. &lt;sub&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, if you prefer it all one text, consider Titus 3:3-8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.  But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T13:28:10.450" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="121" CreationDate="2012-03-15T12:13:29.560" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people like to have some kind of sin not categorized as sin. This question about Homosexuality is repeatedly asked by many, But bible clearly says that Homosexulal or Men having sex with Men will not enter in to the Kingdom of God. I also do not understand why no one refers to this passage written by Paul, which gives maximum clarity &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;Read  &lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 6: 9-10&lt;/strong&gt; carefully in any of the popular versions of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NIV:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of&#xA;  God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters&#xA;  nor adulterers nor &lt;strong&gt;men who have sex with men&lt;/strong&gt; 10 nor thieves nor&#xA;  the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the&#xA;  kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ESV:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the&#xA;  kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor&#xA;  idolaters, nor adulterers, nor &lt;strong&gt;men who practice homosexuality&lt;/strong&gt;,[c]&#xA;  10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor&#xA;  swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ASV:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of&#xA;  God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor&#xA;  adulterers, nor effeminate, nor &lt;strong&gt;abusers of themselves with men&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor&#xA;  extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NCV:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9-10 Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit&#xA;  God's kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship&#xA;  idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or &lt;strong&gt;men&#xA;  who have sexual relations with other men&lt;/strong&gt;, those who steal, are&#xA;  greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not&#xA;  inherit God's kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NKJV:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of&#xA;  God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor&#xA;  adulterers, nor &lt;strong&gt;homosexuals&lt;/strong&gt;, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor&#xA;  covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit&#xA;  the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here: The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-03-15T12:39:17.680" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T12:39:17.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6615" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7345" CreationDate="2012-03-15T12:42:17.910" Score="11" ViewCount="5204" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do any people in the Bible self identify as atheists?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;s&gt;Or are they all theists, differing in &lt;em&gt;which&lt;/em&gt; god they follow?&lt;/s&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently at least some atheists existed, since David had heard of them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+14:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Psalm 14:1&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+53:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Psalm 53:1&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-23T17:23:23.430" LastActivityDate="2018-12-10T07:09:30.483" Title="Are there any atheists in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6615" CreationDate="2012-03-15T13:43:26.673" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not exactly the answer you are looking for, but Paul clearly understands humanity to be functionally atheistic, if not in practice. From Romans 1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 &lt;strong&gt;For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,&lt;/strong&gt; but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.&#xA;   24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, to be a-theistic in the ancient world was to invite destruction upon the whole community. In Rome, in particular, for example, legally they didn't care which god you worshipped, as long as you worshipped one. I don't have the quote handy, but I remember David Bell in &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0879075465&quot;&gt;Many Mansions&lt;/a&gt; making the case that atheism was like &quot;poor hygenie or a public health hazard,&quot; meaning that impiety would invite needless retribution from someone, so if everybody was worshipping what they thought, at the least the &quot;true gods,&quot; would forgive them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T13:43:26.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6603" CreationDate="2012-03-15T14:30:56.707" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Working backwards from one of my favorite verses, Hebrews 11:6 -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 11:6 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;  And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, here, for man's purpose, in regards to God's existence, is to believe that he is and that he is good.  From the perspective of man, God's existence is to be that object of faith that pleases God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My training is to read the Bible as a character study in who God is, and given who God is, what implications that has on man. In this perspective, God's existence is assumed, and the implication is that his existence provides an object for faith. Turning that around, as the question presumes, is linguistically tortured, but still valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T14:30:56.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6603" CreationDate="2012-03-15T15:27:08.757" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To ask &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; X exists is to inquire about the &lt;em&gt;causes&lt;/em&gt; of X coming into being, it is to suppose there is a source, or creator, of X with some motivation for bringing about X.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is, by definition, uncreated - the uncaused first cause.  He &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; existence.  Everything else that exists does so because of Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1234" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T15:27:08.757" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5923" CreationDate="2012-03-15T15:42:07.553" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, but all other existing theories have holes in them.  Huge holes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The current scientific model says it all started with the Big Bang and before that there was nothing.  Yet, if an &quot;explosion&quot; creates a New York City, let alone occurs at all, then it is no longer nothing, but something, and no longer a valid answer to explain why we exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can not say the Universe, the laws of physics, reason itself came from nothing.  That is no answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also can not say we came from an infinite series of Big Bangs. Think about it like this. Imagine I hand you a letter.  You read it, then ask, &quot;who wrote this?&quot;  Who created the letter, who &lt;strong&gt;wrote&lt;/strong&gt; it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say, I got it from the postman (by our definition postmen do not write letters).  You say, &quot;No, who wrote it?&quot;  I say it came from an infinite series of postmen.  That does not answer your question. We can not say we came from an infinite series of zero explanations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other answers like, from the Great Eagle, things like that. But who made all the eagles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T15:42:07.553" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6611" CreationDate="2012-03-15T18:08:58.700" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every person's journey to God is different. God understands that, and is capable of revealing himself, drawing you to him, in a way that is specific and meaningful for you. He actively wants to do this, and your job is to cooperate if you wish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You describe yourself as &quot;a person without knowledge other than scientific knowledge&quot;. Can I suggest that you start by acquiring some other kinds of knowledge. Read some books about Christianity, especially those looking to explain Christianity to non-Christians. These books are called 'apologetics', and any church or Christian bookshop will have plenty. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously being a Christian involves belief in God. You will need to come to a belief in God at some point in your journey. But don't start by 'assuming' his existence: examine the evidence and decide for yourself. &lt;strong&gt;Believing in his existence is also not necessarily the first step.&lt;/strong&gt; I know people who started their walk with God by living a Christian life to the best of their ability, without necessarily believing in its truth. As the practice seemed to 'work' for them, that increased in them the belief that there must be a reality underlying the teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other important point is to seek out Christians and talk to them. That will give you a much better idea of what Christianity is like in reality, and whether it is real for those people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T00:52:44.933" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T00:52:44.933" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6571" CreationDate="2012-03-15T19:04:47.770" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at this article which I feel explains one view pretty well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil.  Therefore, it is possible  that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away.  At that time, the Son may have cried out.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/why-did-jesus-cry-out-my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/why-did-jesus-cry-out-my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1115" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T19:04:47.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6623" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-15T19:06:31.233" Score="4" ViewCount="14831" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious of how much money the Catholic Church spends globally for charity per year. I could not find the information I wanted by a simple Google search, and even on Wikipedia, I could only  find some figures for the USA. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not interested in a debate about who gives more or who gives less, or whether it's too little or too much. I'm only interested in the cold hard sum expressed in a notable currency, with a source where the information or approximations comes from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sake of simplicity, I do not include Catholic persons who privately give to charity, I'm only interested in Church-owned funds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;: some comments pointed out, that the word &quot;charity&quot; is too ambiguous. I used it in a sense like charity outside of supporting the upkeep of the Church, but charity in the sense of giving to poor people, starving children, etc. (and schools, sanitation and hospitals in poor countries)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;What's the best word for &quot;charity&quot; in this sense? &quot;External charity&quot; seems odd to me and even more prone to be misunderstood. Or should I say Vatican, not Catholic Church? I'm not Catholic myself, so my understanding of Catholic organization and structure might be flawed. &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="1481" LastEditDate="2012-09-29T00:54:31.443" LastActivityDate="2015-04-09T13:57:14.610" Title="Approximate amount of money per year the Catholic church spends for charity?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;charity&gt;&lt;money&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6611" CreationDate="2012-03-15T19:50:28.387" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a to-be-saved step-by-step process for ya:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Belief in God (Or rather the acceptance of the &lt;em&gt;possibility&lt;/em&gt; that God is real) - Though this doesn't save you. The devil knows God exists.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;See God for what he is - Holy, pure, perfect. - For this, you can get to know God and his attributes through reading the bible (try starting with a gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John) and/or attending a biblical based church.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;See your sins for what they are - Evil (use the 10 commandments)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a. Have you ever lied?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b. Have you ever said God's name in vain? (blasphemy)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c. Have you ever stolen from someone, even something minor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;d. Have you lusted for earthly things? (Idolatry)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;e. Have you lusted for another human being out of sensual pleasure, or&#xA;had sex outside marriage? (Adultery; see Matt. 5:28)  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you answered yes to any of those in #3 (and that is a short list), then you need to see that&#xA;you are dead in your sins, and you have separated yourself from God&#xA;and the kingdom of heaven. God, being perfect, cannot have liars,&#xA;thieves, fornicators, blasphemers, etc. in heaven. Otherwise he&#xA;would not be the just God that he is.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Know that God loves you and &lt;em&gt;wants&lt;/em&gt; to spend an eternity with&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;you&lt;/strong&gt;. He has made a plan of salvation so that those who want to turn away from themselves and turn to God can do so. God literally&#xA;became flesh, in the name of Jesus Christ, and took the punishment&#xA;of your sin on the cross, so that whoever would repent of their&#xA;selfish ways and put their faith and trust in God can have eternal&#xA;life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that helps me desire God's will over my own is that I don't know what is best for me; not even close. God, being perfect, knows exactly what is best for me and also wants me to have as much &lt;em&gt;joy&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;pleasure&lt;/em&gt; as I can possibly have!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 16:11 (KJV) - Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy&#xA;  presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for&#xA;  evermore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T01:31:41.557" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T01:31:41.557" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="653" CreationDate="2012-03-15T20:39:09.263" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once was present at a Catholic mass, and the priest, knowing that a large number of protestants (Calvinists) attended the event, explicitly stated that the protestant brothers* can also participate if they wish to do so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the event and the historical, cultural etc. background can have an influence. Usually it's safer to ask, especially if you are foreign to the community and don't know their customs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* note that the language the mass was held in is genderless, so &quot;brothers&quot; was gender-neutral&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="1122" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T14:22:32.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T14:22:32.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6623" CreationDate="2012-03-15T20:55:49.600" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kind of depends on your definition of charity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I consider 100% of my donations to my parish and diocese to be charitable donations.  100% of them go to building upkeep, promoting and sustaining religious vocations, proclaiming the gospel, instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, prison ministry, running hospitals, schools and catechism programs.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church has no income other than what is given to it through charitable donations and it's investments, which go up and down with everyone elses'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your only definition of charity is providing for the immediate needs of people, then the Catholic Church isn't a slouch in this area either.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest I could find is the financial statements of &lt;i&gt;Caritas&lt;/i&gt;, which is official  European charitable org and Catholic Relief, which is the US charitable org.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can check out their financial statements &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.caritas.org/resources/publications/index.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://crs.org/2010-annual-report/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, the Catholic Church has no obligation or duty to divulge what she does with her money any more than your mom does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-03-15T20:55:49.600" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6627" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-15T22:52:37.247" Score="27" ViewCount="51182" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, as I read the bible or listen to a speaker in church, I can't help but feel that while Paul's letters are full of well-grounded Christian wisdom and advice, they can also contain what seems to me like Paul's human opinions, as opposed to God's own word. I do believe Paul is a true apostle, spoken to by Jesus on the road to Damascus, and an important figure, but he's also just a human man, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, as a Christian, I would never question or disagree with the words spoken by Jesus in the Bible, no matter how challenging they are, or unpopular they can be in mainstream society. Really, I 100% accept them as the direct word of God, as part of His New Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Jesus did not talk about every topic. While answers to the questions that really &lt;em&gt;matter&lt;/em&gt; can be found in Jesus' words, the answers to every possible question cannot. And so, I often see an individual, or a church, or a whole denomination establish doctrines and views on certain topics solely by studying the words written by Paul (or other New Testament authors). But how can they be certain in these views, if it's Paul's word they are reading and not God's? How is it any different to reading the words of any other human being, past or present, and using &lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt; to form their doctrines?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've come across the view that Paul's letters are God's word because in 2 Peter 3:14-16, they are referred to as Scripture. But that just begs the same question - who gave Peter the authority to define such a thing? He's human too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also come across the view that Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was an act of validation by God of Paul's authority, and so Paul's letters can be seen a validated by God, and so practically God's own words. But surely that's an opinion - a supposition, not an unequivocal fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some also say that Paul's letters were validated as God's word by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. But again, those guys were humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some just have the faith that God &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; have intervened in the process of compiling The Bible over the centuries, and so we should assume everything in it is validated as God's own word. But again, Jesus never stated this, it's not a Commandment - it's a human supposition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When I read Jesus' words in the Gospels, I believe I am reading the unquestionable Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When I read a Christian book by a modern author, I do so appreciating and learning from the wisdom and advice contained within, but I feel entitled to disagree (or at least not entirely agree) with any of the content.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question (and struggle) really is: when I read Paul's letters, should I treat them as (1) or (2) above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1431" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-08-11T06:54:26.853" LastActivityDate="2014-08-11T06:54:26.853" Title="Are Paul's letters to be taken as God's word?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;&lt;epistles&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-08-13T02:33:19.000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6627" CreationDate="2012-03-16T01:33:12.993" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7:12 has an interesting phrase (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest &lt;strong&gt;I, not the Lord, say&lt;/strong&gt;: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interesting bit here is that Paul seems to assume that everything else he is writing is from the Lord. Historically, all Chalcedonian Christians (+/- 0.1%) up to the time of Schleiermacher have agreed. Even heretics like the 2nd century &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Marcion&quot;&gt;Marcion&lt;/a&gt; accepted Paul as being part of the canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, to single out the Gospels as a somehow being &quot;more Scriptural&quot; is a fallacy (I think heresy would be too sharp a term) called &quot;canon within the canon&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Irenaeus&quot;&gt;Iraneus of Lyons&lt;/a&gt; in particular taught that all of Scripture was one organic whole, and to treat it otherwise runs contrary to the prevailing Orthodoxy of the time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In modern times, this view has come about that Paul is somehow secondary to the words of Jesus, but it is not a form of Christianity that any of the Patrisics would have accepted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, once something is considered &quot;canonical,&quot; it literally means that it &quot;measures up&quot; to being God's revealed word. You can discount Paul if you want, but it is definitely what the ancients would have derisively called &quot;novel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, that is also part of the reason that canon was reserved to those who were apostles. To clarify, Paul considered himself &quot;the least of the apostles,&quot; but an apostle nonetheless. He was an eyewitness of Jesus after the resurrection, per Acts 9. Historically the church Fathers saw him as the legitimate heir to Judas (as opposed to say, Matthias), and a full apostle. As such, he was considered canonical. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-07-09T05:05:04.550" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T05:05:04.550" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6450" CreationDate="2012-03-16T01:39:46.933" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been thinking and reading on the issue. There is no official or credible sources that state that the first gospel has written in Hebrew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Introduction to the New Testament by DA Carson &amp;amp; Douglas J.Moo does not event bring the issue up. &#xA;Mounce in is Basics of Biblical Greek does not seem to bring the issue either.&#xA;The ESV Study Bible does not bring up the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is what I found, especially from the Book Introduction to the New Testament By Carson and Moo. Is that Mark was written first, in greek, from a source unknown called &quot;Q&quot;. Then the Q source and the gospel of Mark are the source of the gospel of Matthew and Luke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew influence is due to the fact that the author spoke Aramaic. A bit like my French way of writing English. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Example in 1 Jonh 3.15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 πᾶς ὁ μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστίν, καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ μένουσαν.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (1 Jn 3:15). Logos Bible Software.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a extract of A Workbook For Intermediate Greek by Herbert W. Bateman III at page 377 :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Semantical Issue: Is &lt;code&gt;πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον&lt;/code&gt; a Semintism or evidence of vernacular Greek? A literal rendering of the phrase is &quot;every murderer does not have eternal like&quot;. A similar example occurs in 2.19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the one hand, it is argued that the Greeks customarily placed the  noun in the negative [...]. Thus, πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον is a Semitism. Speaking in an extremely broad sense. &quot;Semetism&quot; is a way to describe features of Greek that are &quot;tinged&quot; with either Aramaic or Hebrew. On the other hand, Brown has argued that the example in 1 John 2.19 as well as here in 3.15 is more in line with vernacular Greek. Whether this is a form a Semitism or an example of venacular Greek is difficult to determine and such discussions tend to forget the author's point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T01:39:46.933" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6627" CreationDate="2012-03-16T03:18:58.090" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Either you believe in the complete and total inerrancy of scripture, or the entire Christian faith has absolutely no basis, whatsoever. Therefore, I would submit that nothing can be discredited, or everything can. After all, do we believe what John and Peter wrote?? If them, why not Paul?? For that matter, how do we know that Moses or Samuel of the Old Testament were speaking the Word of The Lord?? Either we believe in the foresight of God and in the perfection of His Word, &lt;em&gt;in its entirety&lt;/em&gt;, or Christianity is a fallacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1432" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T03:18:58.090" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6338" CreationDate="2012-03-16T03:53:32.290" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with your view that the Bible teaches absolutism, but strongly disagree with the assertion that this makes the Bible inapplicable (within absolutism) to issues such as slavery and women's rights. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was written then can still be applied today, even if the quote you mentioned is true!! Let's use women's rights as an example: What was written then was that women were to behave in humility, and were to respect their husbands as the heads of the household, obedient to Christ. This in no way means that wives were meant to be slaves to their husbands; on the contrary, Proverbs 31 (Solomon's description of a model wife) describes a hardworking, property-owning business woman who is the mistress of her home, not the slave that people often picture when obedience to a husband is mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's use the other example you mentioned, slavery. When slaves were mentioned, it must be understood that slaves and servants were, for the most part, the only types of employees at that time - free men owned their own businesses. As such, what was said then regarding slaves is applicable to employees: be humble and obedient to your masters, doing whatever is asked of you without complaint, as though you are working for God, not men. [(Butchered, I'm sure) Paraphrase of 1 Timothy 6.] BibleGateway has a decent little commentary on this as well. Haven't accessed it in a while, but I'm sure it's still there. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, I would say that the answer to your question is a resounding no. The quote you mentioned has a few good points about the economic and social situations at that time, but the statement&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&gt; It is an anachronism to apply questions of, for example, feminism or communism, to the Scriptures, because the original audience would have had no means of apprehending it as such.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is patently absurd, and in my opinion, demonstrates a total lack of information regarding the context at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/1Tim/Instructions-Concerning-Slaves&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;'s the link to that commentary I mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/1Tim/Instructions-Concerning-Slaves&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/1Tim/Instructions-Concerning-Slaves&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1432" LastEditorUserId="1432" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T04:02:24.417" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T04:02:24.417" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6627" CreationDate="2012-03-16T05:00:01.583" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possible to believe that the Epistles where actual letters written by Paul, and at the same time believe that the Gospels are accurate accounts of what Jesus did and spoke. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then further, if you believe you should follow Jesus's words alone, you can still call yourself a Christian, if you define &quot;Christian&quot; as &quot;follower of Christ&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 23:8&lt;/strong&gt; “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T05:00:01.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6634" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-16T09:22:05.520" Score="-7" ViewCount="412" Body="&lt;p&gt;Someone told me that wealthy Mormons are supposed to give their money to poor ones. Is that true? What is the biblical basis for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do they really do that? Is it mandated by certain denominations more forcefully than others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so it sounds like socialism to me. If this practice is distinct from socialism how so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1412" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T02:39:09.447" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T02:39:09.447" Title="Are Christians socialists because they are commanded to share their wealth?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;charity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6627" CreationDate="2012-03-16T10:46:33.480" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Peter certainly treated Paul's letters as God's word, elevating them to the status of &lt;em&gt;written scripture&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the &lt;strong&gt;other Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;, to their own destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:16&lt;/a&gt;, with my emphasis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T10:46:33.480" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6627" CreationDate="2012-03-16T10:52:23.060" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Peter himself considered Paul's writings to be scripture in 2 Peter 3:15,16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    and consider [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,&#xA;    as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable [people] twist to their own destruction, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures.&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note how Peter says &lt;strong&gt;the rest&lt;/strong&gt; of the Scriptures? He is telling us that he considers Paul's writings (which some find hard to understand) as part of the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1342" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T10:52:23.060" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6627" CreationDate="2012-03-16T11:34:46.947" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple answer of no use to you: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At Mass when Paul's epistles or any other non-gospel reading is read or sung, the lector says. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the word of the LORD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To which the people respond. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;thanks be to God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We say this even when the reading is some bummer out of Job or Lamentations or all the Maccabees just got killed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T11:34:46.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6639" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6640" CreationDate="2012-03-16T11:55:25.303" Score="2" ViewCount="7746" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christian religions constantly remind us that Mary was &quot;forever virgin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why doesn't the Bible tell us that Jesus was also a virgin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="1100" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T12:02:05.873" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T18:34:20.770" Title="Why doesn't the Bible tell us that Jesus was a virgin?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-09-02T20:21:19.617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6639" CreationDate="2012-03-16T12:22:25.057" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is tradition (mostly Roman Catholic), but actually not in Scripture at all. (I'm not taking a stand on that doctrine for purposes of this question, just pointing out that even Roman Catholics would not, I believe make the case from Scripture.)  It mentions that at the time Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, she was a virgin, but the Scripture is at best silent on perpetual virginity, and at worse dismissive of it, since the Bible mentions Jesus' brothers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the only clear reference to a sexually inexperienced woman is when Matthew mistranslated &quot;young woman&quot; in Isaiah 7:14 to specifically talk about how miraculous Jesus' virgin birth is. In all other instances, when the Bible speaks of a virgin, the point is her age, not her sexual history. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say this to point out mostly that the Bible is rarely interested in someone's sexual experience (except when it is showing the consequence of its misuse), and thus it is not at all surprising that the Bible is silent on the matter of Jesus' sex life. The Bible makes no mention of the fact that he was single either, leading some to question if Jesus was married. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-17T18:34:20.770" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T18:34:20.770" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2012-03-16T12:42:23.597" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As we wait for perhaps more clarification on the question, I'll attempt an answer anyway and edit later if need be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;, it can't be said so broadly that &quot;Mormons are socialists,&quot; but &lt;strong&gt;yes&lt;/strong&gt;, they do &quot;give their money to poor ones.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might as well be asking, &quot;Is the Red Cross socialist?&quot; &quot;Is the United Way socialist?&quot; &quot;Is the Ronald McDonald House socialist?&quot; &quot;Are &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; charitable, Christian people socialist?&quot; All these &quot;give their money to poor ones.&quot; With that qualifier, they seem socialist as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/18.20-23?lang=eng#19&quot;&gt;teaches that we should be generous and give of what we have to the poor&lt;/a&gt;. As far as I know, this is a universal concept among Christian denominations: that what we lose, we gain, and when we give charitably, we lay up store in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons are often known to give quite generously and are encouraged to live the law of consecration, especially among their own people. If you've been blessed with prosperity or surplus of a particular resource, then you will be blessed &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; by giving it away with gladness of heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's individualistic. The LDS Church as a whole is known for their &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/humanitarian-aid/&quot;&gt;humanitarian aid and other efforts&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/humanitarian-services&quot;&gt;see also this article&lt;/a&gt;), much like other non-profit organizations. They also encourage &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/welfare-and-self-reliance&quot;&gt;welfare and self-reliance&lt;/a&gt; among members and neighbors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Politically, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality&quot;&gt;LDS Church stands neutral&lt;/a&gt; but &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/citizenship/&quot;&gt;encourages its members everywhere to be actively and appropriately involved in political process&lt;/a&gt;. Thus, societies are improved as governments adopt, through some sort of democratic or republic process, policies and procedures which are in harmony with gospel teachings, creating a better world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, it is too general to say that &quot;Mormons are socialists&quot; by itself and still be fair and accurate, but some of what Mormons and other Christian groups do exhibits some similarity to &quot;socialism,&quot; in that goods are distributed among those who are in need. Beyond that, though, there's no political agendas at a Church level, and I have found individuals in the LDS Church to be generous in giving to the poor and needy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T12:47:50.547" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T12:47:50.547" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2012-03-16T12:44:50.393" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Um, it's not just Mormons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hate to break this to you, but all Christians are supposed to be sharing their wealth with the poor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 24 tells the Jews to sell 10% of what they have and share it with everybody on a feast. Jesus says in Luke 3:11 that whoever has two cloaks should share with him who has none.  Acts 4 says that they Christians held all they had in common. Paul commands many of those to whom he writes to take up a collection for the poor in Jerusalem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sharing the wealth is pretty common in all of Christianity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T13:11:25.383" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T13:11:25.383" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6639" CreationDate="2012-03-16T13:09:46.730" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most common denomination that believes Mary is the eternal virgin is Catholicism.  As noted here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Patrology, 1:120–1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is&#xA;  to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and&#xA;  after the birth of Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it is not universally accepted as fact.  For instance, to consummate a marriage a woman's virginity was lost.  The only exceptions would be if the woman was too young or the man too old.  I have read stories about Joesph begin too old - which explains why he is not mentioned later in the Bible.  I've also read stories were Mary may have been too young.  But either way, it's pretty safe to assume (unless you share of the Catholic traditions) that the marriage was consummated at some point, potentially after the birth of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One large debate is that of the translation / editing of the Bible.  Was Mary a virgin or a young woman.  Someone more familiar with &lt;a href=&quot;http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;biblical hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt; may be able to expand on this more than I can here.  However, the quest is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%207:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isa 7:14 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will&#xA;  conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Footnotes: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew is plural. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 7:14 Or young woman &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 7:14 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls son, and he or son,&#xA;  and they &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God with us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here you can see that it is possible that Mary was a young woman which would also explain the lack of consummation right after the marriage.  It is further explored &lt;a href=&quot;http://mynorthwest.com/category/local_news_articles/20110303/US-bishops-changing-Mary%27s-%27virgin%27-status-in-Bible/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and resulting in American Catholic Bishops changing Mary from a virgin to a young woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John Allen, with the National Catholic Reporter in Rome&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Their point in translating this reference to Mary as a 'young woman'&#xA;  rather than a 'virgin' is that the original Greek word doesn't mean&#xA;  what we in contemporary English mean by a 'virgin.' It simply means a&#xA;  young woman&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why doesn't the Bible mention Jesus virginity state?  Probably because it wasn't important.  For instance, they don't mention the virginity of most of the people in the bible.  Was Abel a virgin?  Why would we care if his was or wasn't?  There are stories that say that Jesus was married, but they were not added to the canon.  The stories have made Dan Brown extremely wealthy.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/was-jesus-married-a-careful-look-at-the-real-evidence/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Please consider reading this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the books not accepted in the canon was The Gospel of Philip which states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;section 59&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and&#xA;  her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;section 63&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved&#xA;  her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her&#xA;  mouth[sic]. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed&#xA;  disapproval. They said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of&#xA;  us?’ The Savior answered and said to them, ‘Why do I not love you like&#xA;  her?’ When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness,&#xA;  they are no different from one another. Then the light comes, then he&#xA;  who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in&#xA;  darkness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T13:18:11.337" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T13:18:11.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6634" CreationDate="2012-03-16T13:16:22.850" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul wrote in 1 Timothy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant&#xA;  nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put&#xA;  their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our&#xA;  enjoyment.  Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and &#xA;  to be &lt;strong&gt;generous&lt;/strong&gt; and willing to share.  1 Timothy 6:17-18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, all Christians who have wealth are commanded to be generous.  This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the political system of socialism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Socialism gives people no choice.  Indeed, it takes money from those with wealth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no honor for anyone who does something under compulsion, for he has no choice but to do so.  However, there is great honor for the one who gives voluntarily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teaching that those who are rich should be generous implicitly acknowledges that there are people who are rich, and while Jesus did command the rich young ruler in Mark 10:21 to sell everything he had and give to the poor, this wasn't a universal command that no one should ever be rich.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Mormons and many other Christians as well are bound to follow this teaching, but are not bound to be socialists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-03-16T14:50:51.360" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T14:50:51.360" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6639" CreationDate="2012-03-16T13:21:47.430" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does emphatically state that Jesus was without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our&#xA;  weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,&#xA;  yet without sin.  Hebrews 4:15 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus was never reported to have been married in the Bible, a sexual relationship would have been a sin.  Since Jesus is and was and forever will be sinless, we can know for certain that Jesus was also a virgin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is implicit rather than explicit, but no less certain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T13:21:47.430" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6639" CreationDate="2012-03-16T13:45:29.307" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:25&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;John 21:25&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If &lt;em&gt;&quot;the whole world&quot;&lt;/em&gt; would not have space for all the things He &lt;strong&gt;did&lt;/strong&gt; do, it is unlikely to have space for all the things he &lt;em&gt;didn't&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T13:45:29.307" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6338" CreationDate="2012-03-16T20:29:30.590" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, because it must espouse the real moral code, not the one the real moral code conforms to at different times.  In other words, if the Bible espouses some moral code that changes over time, the question then becomes, to which moral code does it conform to over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets take an extreme example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it okay to wipe out a culture, commit genocide even?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, it depends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For humans the answer is probably, &quot;only if God tells you to do it&quot;. Because God can see the future, He may know that some bad culture may pollute the world is some horrible way, in the end killing far more people etc, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even where the Bible seems to condone horrible things, we must assume God is always doing the right thing. His master plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize all this may sound like horrible stuff, look at all the evil done in &quot;God's name&quot;.  But as Christians, we have some perspective.  Ultimately it is about love, forgiveness, not judging others, caring for the poor, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said simply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22&lt;/strong&gt;: 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must believe that God was is always doing the right thing, then and now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T20:29:30.590" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6524" CreationDate="2012-03-16T21:31:39.357" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Speaking of &amp;quot;born of water and of the Spirit&amp;quot; in John 3:5, D.A. Carson writes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Most important of all is Ezekiel 36:25-27, where water and spirit come together so forcefully, the first to signify cleansing from impurity, and the second to depict the transformation of heart that will enable people to follow God wholly. And it is no accident that the account of the valley of dry bones, where Ezekiel preaches and the Spirit brings life to dry bones, follows hard after Ezekiel’s water/spirit passage (cf. Ezk. 37; and notes on 3:8, below). The language is reminiscent of the ‘new heart’ expressions that revolve around the promise of the new covenant (Je. 31:29ff.). Similar themes were sometimes picked up in later Judaism (e.g. Jubilees 1:23-25).&amp;quot; (&lt;em&gt;The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary&lt;/em&gt;, see 191-196; see &lt;a href=&quot;http://aaronshaf.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/d-a-carson-on-the-meaning-of-born-of-water-and-of-the-spirit/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;larger excerpt&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus rebuked Nicodemus because he should have been familiar with this kind of thing in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the view that &amp;quot;water&amp;quot; in John 3:5 refers to some kind of bodily fluid, Carson writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as ‘from water’, and the few that use ‘drops’ to stand for semen are rare and late. It is true that in sources relevant to the Fourth Gospel water can be associated with fecundity and procreation in a general way (e.g. Song 4:12-13; Pr. 5:15-18),&lt;a href=&quot;http://aaronshaf.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/d-a-carson-on-the-meaning-of-born-of-water-and-of-the-spirit/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; but none is tied quite so clearly to semen or to amniotic fluid as to make the connection here an obvious one. The Greek construction does not favour two births here. Moreover the entire expression ‘of water and the Spirit’ cries out to be read as the equivalent of anōthen, ‘from above’, if there is genuine parallelism between v. 3 and v. 5, and this too argues that the expression should be taken as a reference to but one birth, not two.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For a defense of this first option, cf. Ben Witherington III, NTS 35, 1989, pp. 155-160; Morris, JC, pp. 150-151.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1435" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T21:38:35.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6627" CreationDate="2012-03-16T21:53:06.813" Score="8" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether Paul's letters are God's Word to us depends entirely on the criteria you use.  I will list a number of criteria and evaluate the letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Did Paul think he was writing God's Word?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I asked and answered the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1353/68&quot;&gt;above question&lt;/a&gt; separately (it was getting to long for this space).  In summary, I think Paul had some inkling that he was writing significant work that might stand beside or even against Jewish Scripture.  But since the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jewish canon&lt;/a&gt; had not yet been finalized, it's possible (even likely) that Paul didn't believe his letters would be singled out from other, later Christian writings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Did the letter's recipients think they were God's Word?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary indication against is that Paul argues mostly from reason and tradition rather than merely asserting authority.  For instance, Paul addresses the division in the nascent church at Corinth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 1:11-13 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Corinthians+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We get the idea that Paul's audience didn't know who to believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the recipients of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Philemon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philemon&lt;/a&gt; took care to preserve that relatively inconsequential letter (as did the recipients of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/2%20John/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/3+John/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; John&lt;/a&gt;).  That shows they valued Paul's words more than just as a friend.  Since Paul references letters sent to him that we no longer have, we must assume it wasn't a case of packrat syndrome.  (To be fair, Paul references other letters that he wrote, but which do not seem to be preserved, so not everything he wrote was Scripture.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Did the early church think they were God's Word?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6629/914&quot;&gt;Yes!&lt;/a&gt;  In addition shortly after &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Clement_of_Rome&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Clement of Rome&lt;/a&gt; (late 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; century), the church seems to have agreed that Paul's letters and the fourfold gospel were authoritative.  Even Clement quoted favorably from Paul, though he still was in the mindset of calling only the Septuagint Scripture.  By the late 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; or early 3&lt;sup&gt;rd&lt;/sup&gt; we have &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;manuscript evidence&lt;/a&gt; that Paul's letters were in circulation as a collection.  Most of the early arguments about the Christian canon focus on texts outside of Paul, such as James, Hebrews, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Shepherd of Hermas&lt;/a&gt;, and etc.  For &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; Christians, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius#New_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;list&lt;/a&gt; produced by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 AD represents the final Canon of the New Testament.  (But note that the list is not terribly different than the list of texts Clement relied on.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be honest, Paul's credentials as an author of Scripture are impeccable and I must now turn the question back to you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why do &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; think Paul's letters are not God's Word?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what you wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sometimes, as I read the bible or listen to a speaker in church, I can't help but feel that while Paul's letters are full of well-grounded Christian wisdom and advice, they can also contain what seems to me like Paul's human opinions, as opposed to God's own word. I do believe Paul is a true apostle, spoken to by Jesus on the road to Damascus, and an important figure, but he's also just a human man, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1354/68&quot;&gt;I agree&lt;/a&gt; that at times Paul speaks from his own wisdom.  But we need to be careful to not fall in to the trap of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#Marcionite_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;tailoring God's Word to our own preferences&lt;/a&gt;.  That path leads to intellectual dishonesty and spiritual immaturity.  Paul was an intellectual, spiritual, theological and evangelical giant.  What's more, he was bursting with the authority of the Holy Spirit.  It's not for nothing that Jesus is the hero of the first volume of Luke's two-part history of the church, and Paul is &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1277/68&quot;&gt;the hero&lt;/a&gt; of the second.  Personally, it makes me humble when I read Paul's letters.  There's more wisdom in the points &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/546/68&quot;&gt;I &lt;em&gt;disagree&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; with Paul then in the entire corpus of many other authors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the Church universal has been given significant authority by Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”&amp;mdash;Luke 24:44-49 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke+24/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final sentence was a reference to the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.  You can read about what happened next in Acts.  The point is God didn't step out of the picture when Jesus ascended.  Rather, Jesus transferred His authority to the Church empowered by the Holy Spirit.  In turn, the Church recognized Paul's letters and the rest of the New Testament as &quot;breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.&quot;&amp;mdash;2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy 3:16-17 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/2+Timothy+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-03-16T21:53:06.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6651" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6699" CreationDate="2012-03-17T00:11:32.123" Score="6" ViewCount="1434" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Christianity what are specific real life examples of how the devil works?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, any specific examples of how the devil works in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-03-18T08:37:43.540" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T21:44:35.927" Title="How does the devil work?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2015-03-16T05:42:10.197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6652" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-17T01:56:45.730" Score="2" ViewCount="481" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians have a wide variety of opinions concerning modesty. Many say that if you believe you should dress a different way than that is fine for you--just don't impose your beliefs on us--because the bible doesn't explicitly define modesty. That seems to be a postmodern way of thinking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being a Christian means trying to be more like Christ and incidentally less like the world. Many &quot;Christians&quot; seem more interested in being a close as they can to the world in how they dress. Surely that stance denies the truth that we are to follow Christ as best we can and is therefore &quot;postmodern&quot;: If we aren't supposed to follow Christ as best we can, does truth even exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="666" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-16T23:57:46.100" LastActivityDate="2014-07-16T23:57:46.100" Title="Are Many Christians postmodern in their approach to modesty?" Tags="&lt;clothing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2012-03-22T16:17:30.743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6611" CreationDate="2012-03-17T03:46:42.847" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seems to me that the essential element of being a &quot;Christian&quot; is to believe in Christ, that is, to believe that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You have broken God's laws. (Which implies that you believe that there is a God.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is a penalty to be paid for breaking these laws.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christ has offerred to pay the penalty for you.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Accepting Christ's offer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What leads you to such belief seems to me to not matter to the end result. That is, whether you believe because of careful study of historical, technical, or whatever evidence; because someone you trust told you so; on the basis of subjective feelings; etc. Just like, if someone offers you a tip on a stock that they say will make a bunch of money, to make that big profit you have to buy the stock, which implies that you believe it will make money or are willing to give it a try. Whether you come to that faith because of careful study of the company's financial reports, because you trust the recommendation of a financial advisor, or because you called the psychic hotline and they told you that W is your lucky letter for today and this company's name starts with a W, or whatever, if you buy the stock, you'll make the profit, and if you don't buy the stock, you won't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T03:46:42.847" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6651" CreationDate="2012-03-17T04:09:42.303" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Devil works in all evil.  The father of lies, the World is where he reigns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;George MacDonald said, &quot;The one principle of hell is - 'I am my own.'&quot;  Perhaps the biggest lie of all and the source of pride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T04:09:42.303" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6656" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6661" CreationDate="2012-03-17T05:36:37.843" Score="9" ViewCount="3900" Body="&lt;p&gt;In church we learn to not lean on ourselves. We learn we can do nothing with our own power. That we must completely let go of control and let God. That everything that happens is from God and that we must be humble and let people do whatever they wish to us because it is God's will and doing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I almost get the impression that all my OWN thoughts and actions are wrong. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That I must be a true servant to other peoples needs and that I can never say no to them, even if they are manipulative or crazy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, I leave service feeling bad to be ambitious and work hard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I have self confidence, self esteem, &lt;strong&gt;think for myself&lt;/strong&gt;, feel free, proud of my achievements and feel good about working hard, if I follow what is preached ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What part of Christianity am I missing? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-04-05T19:00:55.853" LastActivityDate="2019-01-29T21:10:54.470" Title="How do I have self confidence, self esteem and work hard if I am a true Christian?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-04-24T02:46:31.917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6657" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6659" CreationDate="2012-03-17T06:56:26.933" Score="-2" ViewCount="4386" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do great things happen to unbelievers and even bad people? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Church there is talk about blessings of the Lord for those who love Him, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about those that are blessed that don't love him? How does that work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-06-01T03:12:12.930" LastActivityDate="2016-06-01T03:12:12.930" Title="How is it that sinful people who do not believe, still get the blessings of the Lord?" Tags="&lt;blessings&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2016-03-26T04:01:23.060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6657" CreationDate="2012-03-17T08:15:48.543" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could take the word &quot;atheist&quot; here and replace it with any group. Any religion, including (yes, really) Christian has people who fit that description. And there are people from every religion, and atheists, who that description fails to describe. You could also use labels such as political alignment, county of origin, gender - and you'd get the same hits and misses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe you are very deeply confused about the relationship between what people believe (in terms of religion), and how people act, and whether they are successful / constructive / whatever. And I have &lt;em&gt;no idea&lt;/em&gt; how &quot;good looking&quot; plays into this question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But: if the question is &quot;why don't atheists live according to Christian teachings&quot;... Er, &lt;strong&gt;because they don't believe them&lt;/strong&gt;. I could equally ask &quot;Why don't Christians live according to the teachings of Hindu/Islam/Zoroastrianism/Norse-Mythology?&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Re &quot;living by different rules&quot;; you may be aware of something in your location called &quot;local/national/international law&quot;. Most people live according to their &lt;em&gt;society's&lt;/em&gt; laws, which are usually based along the lines of &quot;don't harm eachother&quot; - do not steal, do not kill, etc (aside: please don't think this means these laws come from the Bible; these same laws have evolved in every successful culture, including those completely separated from the Bible; it seems such laws, and things with health implications (&quot;don't eat each other&quot;, &quot;having kids with your sister is not a good idea&quot;) are a pre-requisite, for self-evident reasons, for a successful culture). As it happens, this is often fairly compatible with many religions. Indeed, there are many laws in the Bible that are largely disregarded even by believers (most Christians in Western cultures are happy to use contraception, for example (citation: &lt;a href=&quot;https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8056/have-98-of-catholic-women-used-birth-control&quot;&gt;Catholicism&lt;/a&gt;). A reasonable case could be made that many Christians are primarily &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; following the society law, rather than Biblical law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Christianity does not, AFAIK, claim to make you rich, healthy, successful or attractive. Any claims of such are usually limited to the afterlife. Which is convenient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not &lt;em&gt;entirely&lt;/em&gt; sure what the question is, but hopefully I've touched on some of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:46:42.840" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T19:57:49.873" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6338" CreationDate="2012-03-17T08:19:40.343" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The whole point of the Bible, and the reason people look to it for guidance, is that it makes the case that there is a notion of a moral absolute, a right and wrong that is not derived from cultural norms, but from &lt;em&gt;elsewhere&lt;/em&gt;. The &lt;em&gt;elsewhere&lt;/em&gt; is the realm of the spirit, and the notion of God tells you that if you look to this realm with a calm mind and a good heart, you will receive guidance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This insight is intuitively plausible for nearly all people, since we come with a built in moral compass that tells us generally that some behaviors are right and some are wrong. But this moral compass, the intuition, is sometimes faulty, in that it leads us to condemn the action of others as immoral when it conflicts with our own instincts about what we would do in the same circumstance. It is also easily manipulated by culture or habit, doing something terrible many times can numb you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The position that there is a correct answer to moral questions, contingent only on circumstances not on culture, is the position of moral absolutism. This means that given identical circumstances, all people should come to agree on the right and wrong. Culture counts as circumstance, of course, so that in a Christian culture it might be ethically required for a person to send a Christmas present to his aunt, while in a Buddhist culture, it wouldn't be. That's not relativism. Moral relativism is saying that if you asked the Buddhist culture to think about what is ethically required of the same Christian person living in the same Christian culture, and describe these circumstances in detail, they might decide that it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; ethically required to send that present, and that their position would be just as good. This is what moral absolutism forbids.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the diversity of human culture, this is a strange idea. If a 19th century Comanche warrior captured you, his culture taught him that the proper course of action is to either torture you to death, if you are a man, or to sexually assault you otherwise. This type of thing was culturally embedded, so that a warrior would pride himself on his ability to be stoic in the face of pain, and would feel humiliated if he betrayed any sign of suffering. The torture would be a test of your stoic spirit, and after you failed the test, you deserve all the further suffering you endure. It is this sort of hard-to-eradicate socially sanctioned self-perpetuating barbarism that the Bible is designed to stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of universal ethics is that this reinforcing social setup is wrong, not by my personal standards, or by your standards, or from one point of view, but even from the point of view of the Comanche, or of anyone else. It is just not right, period. In other words, you look at the Comanche's actions, not from the point of view of their culture, but from the point of view of their victims, which is also the point of view of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In cases like these, it is very easy to be an armchair philosopher, to say &quot;but if you were brought up in a culture that taught you that it is ok to torture captured victims, that you would do it too.&quot; This is possibly true, but it is irrelevant. It ignores the essential fact known to anyone brought up in a bad situation:  you do it, buy you still &lt;em&gt;know that it is wrong&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, as an Israeli, I remember my sense of unease in the intifada year of 1987, the nagging feeling that I am on the wrong side. I knew very quickly that I could not serve in the Israeli army, which meant that I was headed to prison in a few years. I worried about this for a while, but then my family moved to the U.S., and this mooted the issue. But from experience, it's not your culture that tells you when you are doing wrong. If you don't know, it's because you've chosen not to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of the Bible is designed to convey the idea that in the long struggles of history, the winning path is also the one that you know is right, in terms of these hard-to-define universal ethics. The way it does so is by identifying the source of the universal ethics as the lawgiver God, who lies above all other lesser gods. It attributes the creation of the universe to this God, and gives God unlimited powers to strike down the wicked. These stories are obviously literally false, God doesn't do squat, but they get the message across: over time, those cultures which condone unethical practices will not survive against those cultures which are ethically aware. This message is more or less true. It is about as true as any universal proposition about a complex world can be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I mentioned the Comanche, and since arguments like these were used in the U.S. to justify genocidal policies, I have to say that genocidal policies are never the proper course of action, even when faced with an intolerably barbaric practice. Missionary work together with law enforcement can eradicate the barbaric practices while allowing the language and traditions to organically evolve to incorporate old-world insights. One doesn't have to hide Christian philosophy from people, but one also doesn't have to eradicate a culture in order to spread a message of compassion. Of course, in a situation where one is potentially watching a person get tortured to death, there is no choice, really. Desmond Tutu demonstrated the proper &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christian response to such a circumstance&lt;/a&gt; , and one prays one can muster the courage to live up to his example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are positivistically minded, as I tend to be, you want an in-principle algorithm to find this universal ethics, to be sure you know what you're talking about. Given that God's ways are the winning ways, the precise algorithm is to wait a sufficiently long time, and ask somebody from the future what they would do. This works backwards: any random person on the street would make a pretty good moral teacher for the cave-people of 10,000 years ago, for 19th century Comanches, and probably even for the mid-twentieth century people of Europe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here is the basic idea in the Bible: there is an objective ethical standard, the source of this ethical standard can be reasonably and accurately personified as a super-smart individual, and that this ethical standard is revealed approximately and ever more accurately gradually through the victories in the struggles of history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more ideosyncratic things in the Bible, like the rules for washing your hands, and sacrificing pigeons after your period, but I will ignore these. The point of the Jewish rules is to establish an ever-present sense of God's presence in day-to-day activities, so that you are never caught in a situation where you are not mindful of God. Similarly, in Christianity, you are taught to constantly be aware of your sinful nature, so that you think of Jesus every time you have some sexy thoughts. In Islam, you pray 5 times a day, and submit your soul to God, asking for mercy. All these practices are somewhat effective on the social level at eradicating barbarous practices. They worked to eradicate child-sacrifice and temple prostitution in ancient times, and slavery and racism in modern times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see that this actually does work in real life, you should consider how socially sanctioned crimes were carried out in atheist states. In Nazi Germany, Hitler began a euthanasia program for the mentally disabled, which was the pilot precurser to the holocaust. So many Catholics and Protestants were outraged by this program, despite government propaganda about its value, that the Nazi government was forced to shut it down. The SS learned the lesson--- genocidal policies would be carried out in complete secrecy from this point on, and the religious folks were kept unaware. Still, some Catholics made it their business to be aware, and formed the White Rose. Their awareness of God was their only defense against a criminal social order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the Catholic church in South America, along with Marxist organizations, were and are giving voice to dispossessed indigenous peoples. Protestant churches in the U.S. were central in the abolitionist movement. In every case where crimes are perpetrated, the church serves as a collective conscience, informing the state of universal ethics. Where it is suppressed, or inactive, barbarous practices flourish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Mathematical models: God and Games&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My scientific upbringing makes me feel uneasy about advocate such a vague-seeming notion as universal ethics, coming from a universal lawgiver which is not directly observable. I don't like to propose an idea without a mathematically precise argument. The idea of an ethics-giving personal God is a pretty implausible pill, even with a mathematical argument. I will try to argue that there are good reasons to believe this, without relying the pseudo-historical made-up narratives in the Bible, and without relying on personal revelation, compassion or empathy, or any other moral instinct, only on game theoretic considerations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the risk of alienating every single one of the readers, and inviting a thousand downvotes, I will describe a mathematical model which will show how this type of uber-person decision making can be seen to emerge from a bunch of people playing games. Further, it is plausible (although it cannot be strictly proved) that this decision making process is convergent, that there actually is a sense in which a universal ethical standard will emerge over time. This means that the religious sense will not be exclusively human--- it should be shared by intelligent alien life, or by artificial intelligences, if sufficiently developed. It is a meta-property of collective and individual decision making, which must be recognized in order for collectives to function correctly, to maximize their collective potential.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, I will explain Nashian game-theoretic decision-making, and why it fails, for the simple case of symmetric games. This discussion parallels Douglas Hofstadter's discussion of superrationality in 1980s Scientific American, reprinted in &quot;Metamagical Themas&quot;. The extension to non-symmetric games is standard religion (to distinguish from non-superrational systems that call themselves religions too, like Levay's Satanism).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Toy Model: Symmetric Super-rationality&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider a prisoner's dilemma with symmetric payoffs and very little temptation. This means, you and your opponent are both placed in a room, both of you have a button on the wall, and if you push the button, your opponent will be killed and you will get a dollar. If you don't care whether your opponent lives or dies, and neither of you is suicidal, what is the correct course of action to maximize your probability of survival (and perhaps get a dollar)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The game theoretic answer is to push the button. Push that button quickly. Just in case the other person decides to do the same thing. This solution defines game-theoretic rationality, the rationality of economic behavior. I will call this &quot;Nash rationality&quot; after John Nash.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to not be so morbid, and so as not to trigger killing aversion instincts, and so on, this game is usually not described as fatal--- you can suppose that if neither of you presses the button, you both get $100, but if your opponent presses you get $0, your opponent gets $101, and vice-versa, and in the case that both of you press the button, you both get $5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two ostensibly rational economists in this situation will walk out with $5. The point of religion is to make sure that most of us will behave less stupidly than those economists, so that we can enjoy the $100 prize. There is nothing blocking the two opponents from that prize except for their own button-pressing constructed rationalization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To avoid this rationalization, Douglas Hofstadter pointed out that one should take into account the following fact: whatever course of action I take, the other person will take &lt;em&gt;the same action&lt;/em&gt;. Hofstadter suggested that one should try to maximize the payoff assuming that my action will be perfectly correlated with the other person. If you do this, there are only two options, really, both of us cooperate, or both defect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea defines a different type of rationality, also self-consistent, called superrationality. These two self-consistent modes of behavior are both observed in people playing the prisoners dilemma, and it is not possible to logically rule out one or the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it is possible to advocate that one makes sense and the other doesn't. I believe that the superrational course of action is the obviously correct one, when one is playing against a superrational player.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in the real world, how would you know if the other player is superrational? You need some sort of signal that the person is superrational. To do this, it helps if you have a secret handshake, a dress code, or a manner of speaking. It also helps if you identify each other publically in meeting places. This is the major purpose of places of worship, and the major purpose of religious identification. If you are playing against a religious player, you are guaranteed some form of superrationality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will defer to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; for more detail (I'm not copping out--- it was mostly written by me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Nonsymmetric super-rationality is Monotheistic Religion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Superrationality, as Hofstadter discusses it, is restricted to symmetric games. You can only know that the strategy of the other superrational players is the same as yours in the case that they are solving the same problem as you. In the real world, games are never symmetric, and they can rarely be approximated as symmetric, so this is an artificial restriction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But one can extend the notion of super-rationality by assuming there exists a monotheistic strategy--- a unique strategy for &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; games, which is to be followed by all players who consider themselves superrational. In order to be a real monotheistic strategy, it should reduce to the superrational strategy in the case of symmetric games.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For non-symmetric games, it will tell you how to play so as to maximize.... what exactly? The issue is that when you have a universal strategy, it might not maximize your personal utility, or the &quot;sum&quot; (whatever that means) of utility between all the players, or any such thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only quantity which is sensible to talk about is the utility of a decision making entity, since utility is well defined only when you have an entity which can make choices between probabilistic options (this is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Morgenstern_utility_theorem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Von-Neumann Morgenstern utility theorem&lt;/a&gt;). The choices which are made by the superrational strategy are therefore those that maximize the utility of an uber-entity, a collective entity, partially formed by all the players.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will call this entity a &quot;god&quot; (lower-case g). The superrational strategy is to maximize the utility of the god formed by the players in the circumstance. Since the strategy is universal, contingent only on the circumstances of the game, the gods themselves, in playing games against each other, all make choices which are consistent with the utility function of a super-duper agent, which lies on top of all the gods. This entity I will identify with the monotheistic conception of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A religion will be considered correct when the decisions it dictates for partisan games is consistent with the utility function of God. The convergence of ethics is then the statement that all societies reveal the decisions of God for all partisan games.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have tried my best to be precise about what I mean, and I hope that the notion of absolute ethics can then be seen to be reasonable. In the next section, I will argue that the old-testament of the Bible is a rough approximation to this universal ethics, and the teachings of Christ somewhat more so, although these teachings are by now mostly incorporated into all the major existing religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Bible as a source of Superrational Ethics&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible explicitly asks you to construct a notion of an external and unmodifiable entity, namely that of God, and to consider God's will in your day-to-day decisions. The Bible further makes claims about how God reveals His will, through the actions of history, through personal meditation and prayer, and through congregative religious practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will argue that this biblical position is a statement that the God that one prays to is the entity whose utility coincides with the utility function of the perfect superrational strategy for non-symmetric games. That these are more or less the same notions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious problem with this identification is that the strategy God didn't create the universe, doesn't perform miracles, cannot respond when you pray, and is in general oblivious to the mechanical workings of the universe. The God of Christianity is a living God, which is everpresent and meddlesome. These seem like different concepts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the point is that each of the individual players in the game have an image of God, an approximation to the universal ethics, as a template for their mental strategy. This is a collectively useful thing, because a society which contains this template can function to expand its influence collectively, while a society which has a suboptimal template will fare worse. So the winners in the struggles of history will be those societies that have the most optimal approximation to the superrational strategy implanted in all their players.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to do this, the guide to the superrational strategy must be ubiquitous, simple, illustrated with homey parables and examples, persuasive, and generally spiritually moving, so that all people will encounter it, and pay attention when they do. This is the Bible. The Bible makes us aware that we have responsibilities to God, and makes us aware of God's presence. It isn't the only book which does this, and God knows it's not perfect or complete, but it's a start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T08:19:40.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6656" CreationDate="2012-03-17T09:19:32.577" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very good question and I want to address it from several different approaches.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First have to go a little deeper into the reason you believe that you are here on this earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible has many examples of why God put us here. At the for front among those is to prove us or test us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Judges 2:22, That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the Lord to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  23, Therefore the Lord left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here we see an instance where the Lord comes strait out and says I am testing you to see if you will follow the commandments. This is important to note because for something to be a test you necessarily have need the option to be able to fail. Which means that we have agency or the ability to choose for ourselves what we will do in life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since we have agency that means that there is opposition because you can't have choice without opposition. This is important to note because you say that you are learning that you have to accept whatever someone does to you because its God's will. That is not necessarily the case. The Lord &lt;code&gt;lets the rain fall on the just and unjust alike&lt;/code&gt; and He allows somethings to happen to good people because it needs to be that way if we are going to &lt;em&gt;choose&lt;/em&gt; to follow Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus admonished the sinners that He healed to &lt;code&gt;go and sin no more.&lt;/code&gt; Why would He do this if everything that was happening was being caused by God? He said this because not everything that was happening was being caused by God but by people exercising their agency to choose the devil instead of God and hence sinning. So we can see that while everything is &lt;em&gt;allowed&lt;/em&gt; by God not everything is &lt;em&gt;caused&lt;/em&gt; by Him, a very crucial difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That lets us address the part of your question where you say that we need to lean on the Lord and not our own power. This is true. Because we all live in a fallen state no matter how much we want to we will at one time or another exercise our agency to choose to follow the devil and sin. To return to the path we need to lean on Christ and His Atonement for us. The scriptures say that there is no other way to return to live with God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;So we are being tested yes, we need to make our own decisions to live up to that test but when we fail we need to rely on the Lord to make that up because we can't do that ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a scripture to go with the importance of doing works ourselves and yet rely on the Lord at the same time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 2:14-21) 14: What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15: If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16: and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and&#xA;  filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are&#xA;  needful to the body; what doth it profit? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy&#xA;  faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19: Thou believest that there is one God; thou does well: the devils&#xA;  also believe, and tremble. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered&#xA;  Isaac his son upon the altar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham did not know ahead of time that a substitute would be there to be offered instead of his son yet he proved himself worthy by relying on the Lord for that difficult trial and passed his test. Similarly we need to show our faith by our works which means that we need to get out and do service. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Feeling good about ones-self is paramount to the gospel and enshrined in the second commandment given by Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou shalt love thy neighbor as &lt;em&gt;thyself&lt;/em&gt;. (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can't love yourself if you don't feel good about yourself so while we should not feel boastful we should feel good about what we have accomplished serving the Lord because it shows our faith and that we are striving to pass the test given to us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to sum up: In order to prove ourselves we need to have agency which requires that we think for ourselves and choose to &lt;em&gt;freely&lt;/em&gt; follow God. We need to do hard work to show our faith and pass our test. And we should feel good about what we accomplish because it shows that faith (and anything that involves building faith is including the Lord), and shows we are doing our best. And its commanded by the Lord. In all of this we must remember that we will slip up from time to time and it is at those points when we must rely on Christ to make up for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T09:19:32.577" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6656" CreationDate="2012-03-17T09:56:37.897" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;God expects us to &lt;strong&gt;use our own minds&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2032:9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Psalm 32:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he expects us to achieve and &lt;strong&gt;be proud of our accomplishments&lt;/strong&gt;, so that we don't burden others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%206:4-5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Galatians 6:4-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Himself told us to &lt;strong&gt;use the gifts&lt;/strong&gt; we've been given:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't let manipulative people control you&lt;/strong&gt;, but rather:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Above all else&lt;/em&gt;, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+4:23&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Proverbs 4:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as I'm answering this I'm left with one important question for you: &lt;em&gt;&quot;Are you getting Biblical teaching at your church?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-03-17T10:02:10.527" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T10:02:10.527" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6519" CreationDate="2012-03-17T10:25:08.517" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes the author was the person involved e.g. Moses is often considered the author of the first five books of the Old Testament, and John the author of his gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes the conversation was passed on e.g. the Apostle Peter is thought to have inspired the gospel of Mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, regarding the &lt;strong&gt;exact dialogue&lt;/strong&gt;, that's a miracle of The Holy Spirit, as Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will &lt;strong&gt;remind you of everything I have said to you&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14:26&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;John 14:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-03-17T19:38:42.093" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T19:38:42.093" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6581" CreationDate="2012-03-17T10:32:43.733" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have a complete answer, and I'm not even sure we'll get one this side of eternity. But a clue can be found in the narrative woven throughout the Bible picked up in the Song of Songs but explicity explained in the New Testament: that God the Father is looking for &lt;strong&gt;a bride for His Son&lt;/strong&gt;, e.g. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you &lt;strong&gt;the bride, the wife of the Lamb&lt;/strong&gt;.”  And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:9-10&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:9-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication is we, who will be in that city, are the bride of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T10:32:43.733" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5530" CreationDate="2012-03-17T13:53:11.503" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least one Rabbinic tradition (and I'm trying to find the source of this) posits that Gods intention was, from the beginning, that Adam and Eve choose from the prohibited tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, in order that they would learn to choose God rather than simply be subject to Him out of blind filial obedience. If this is the case, that God intended for them to sin, then the default question of &quot;Would they have died had they not eaten from the tree&quot; becomes irrelevant (even if it is an interesting case)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T13:53:11.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6652" CreationDate="2012-03-17T17:00:32.047" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;With all due respect, to compile the entire Christian community into a composite entity and then direct the question at that entity is at best unfair. To be a Christian certainly involves always being cognizant of the image that one is projecting to others in their daily life, and to that end a Postmodern stance on one's level of modesty is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Do some Christians reflect a Postmodern preference of modesty? Of course. Do some Christians consciously value humility instead? Most definitely. It's no different for any other religion. This really comes down to a case-by-case basis and can't be applied to the Christian collective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1439" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T17:00:32.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6651" CreationDate="2012-03-17T18:29:55.923" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Satan is a Hebrew word (Ha-Satan) that means The Accuser. In Job 1, we see the Accuser doing what he does best- making accusations against God's chosen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the devil is a created being, and therefore nowhere near being God's equal, he can only accuse people in front of God, and God may allow the Devil to bring about events as a result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the point of the Gospel is because that there is therefore now No condemnation for those who believe in Christ Jesus, the Devil has lost his one ability over God's elect, namely the ability to accuse the Brethren. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T18:29:55.923" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6519" CreationDate="2012-03-17T18:44:05.393" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is your question, (a) &quot;How did the writer know the exact words?&quot; Or, (b) &quot;How did the writer know what was said at all?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If (b), I would think the answer is pretty simple: The same way that the writer of any history book knows what was said in a private conversation: Either the book was written by someone who was present and knows what was said, or the person who wrote it was in contact with someone who was present and knows what was said. (Or there may have been some additional intermediates: A was an eye-witness, he tells B, B tells C, and C writes the book. Or of course someone might use an earlier book, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might note that in many cases, there might have been people present at a conversation besides those actually named in the history books. If, for example, a book describes a conversation between the leaders of two countries, it is quite possible that besides the two leaders, there might also have been aides, servants, and/or translators present who might later tell the story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of the book of Jonah, there are parts of the story where many people were present, so there are many possible sources. When he was on board the ship during the storm, any member of the crew or any of the other passengers could have related the story. When he preached in Ninevah, the whole population of the city could have told the story. For some of Jonah's conversations with God it seems like only Jonah was present (besides God, of course), though it's possible that he had some unmentioned friend or assistant. But the simplest explanation is surely that Jonah either wrote the book himself or that the person who wrote it got the story from Jonah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that it is not at all necessary for the writer to have been an eyewitness to the entire story or to get the story from an eyewitness to it all. Lots of history books are written by piecing together accounts from many different people. For example, it would be unrealistic to insist that the author of a book about World War 2 must have personally witnessed the fighting in France, and also personally witnessed the fighting in Russia, and in China, and in the Phillipines, plus also been party to conversations in the White House, and in the Kremlin, and in the Reichstag, etc etc. Rather, we expect that he will collect information from many different stories and piece it all together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If (a): Ancient Hebrew and Greek writers did not distinguish between an exact quote and a paraphrase like we do today. The distinction today is expressed through certain common literary conventions, primarily the use of quotation marks. If a book today reported, &quot;Abraham Lincoln said, '87 years ago our ancestors ...'&quot; etc, many would object that that is not an accurate quote, because those were not his exact words. But that's just because you have used quotation marks. If instead the book reported, &quot;Abraham Lincoln said that 87 years ago our ancestors ...&quot; etc, no one would object, because it is not presented as an exact quote, and the meaning is the same. To the best of my knowledge there is no clear convention in ancient Hebrew and Greek to distinguish the two. There are no quote marks in the original Bible manuscripts. So any given quote may or may not be the exact words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you believe that the Bible is inspired and infallible, then you will believe that such quotes accurately reflect the speaker's meaning. But there is no need to insist that they be the speaker's exact words. Just like if I read a modern book that says, &quot;Abraham Lincoln said that 87 years ago our ancestors ...&quot; etc, I would not say that the book is false because it is not the exact words. As long as it accurately conveys Lincoln's meaning, the book is 100% accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T18:44:05.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6656" CreationDate="2012-03-17T20:37:36.110" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes 3:13 states&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil--this is the gift of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, I believe it Biblical to take pride in your work, as long as it doesn't become arrogance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1432" LastActivityDate="2012-03-17T20:37:36.110" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6670" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="67355" CreationDate="2012-03-17T21:48:19.037" Score="4" ViewCount="665" Body="&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/lc-4-creed.php#para43&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Large Catechism, The Apostles' Creed, Article III, paragraphs 43-45&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43] For where He does not cause it to be preached and made alive in&#xA;  the heart, so that it is understood, it is lost, as was the case under&#xA;  the Papacy, where faith was entirely put under the bench, and no one&#xA;  recognized Christ as his Lord or the Holy Ghost as his Sanctifier,&#xA;  that is, no one believed that Christ is our Lord in the sense that He&#xA;  has acquired this treasure for us, without our works and merit, and&#xA;  made us acceptable to the Father. What, then, was lacking? 44] This,&#xA;  that the Holy Ghost was not there to reveal it and cause it to be&#xA;  preached; but men and evil spirits were there, who taught us to obtain&#xA;  grace and be saved by our works. 45] &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Therefore it is not a&#xA;  Christian Church either&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;; for where Christ is not preached, there is&#xA;  no Holy Ghost who creates, calls, and gathers the Christian Church,&#xA;  without which no one can come to Christ the Lord. 46] Let this suffice&#xA;  concerning the sum of this article. But because the parts which are&#xA;  here enumerated are not quite clear to the simple, we shall run over&#xA;  them also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Dr. Martin Luther is denying here the fact of the Church's existence among the Roman Catholic Church of his time. I've learned &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5891/is-it-true-that-luther-didnt-consider-anyone-of-the-catholic-clergy-to-be-a-mem&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that while claiming that there were a lot of non-Christians in the Roman Catholic Church of his time, he still didn't consider all the clerics of the Roman Catholic Church as surely not the Church, however, these words that I just read in his Large Catechism (see the quotation above) seem to say the opposite. Can anyone, please, clarify this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2018-11-28T17:04:15.520" Title="Martin Luther: &quot;Therefore it is not a Christian Church either&quot;?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6671" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6687" CreationDate="2012-03-18T02:40:52.593" Score="2" ViewCount="792" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I pray and truly believe God will turn around a personal problem, does Christianity support that will help solve the issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive&#xA;  them, and ye shall have them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;—Mark 11:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there some context I am missing with this quote or does it stand alone - and I can use it to solve personal problems?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-03-18T08:28:30.703" LastActivityDate="2013-01-27T09:02:07.283" Title="Does Christianity solve personal problems?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-08T01:36:35.493" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1054" CreationDate="2012-03-18T02:48:45.657" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me, this question is analogous as if one must be baptized in water and circumcised of the flesh to be a Christian but the Bible supports what is needed is to be baptized in the spirit and circumcised in the heart:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 30:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your&#xA;  descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all&#xA;  your soul, and live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 3:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me&#xA;  is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will&#xA;  baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Church you attend is filled with people who are not circumcised in the heart and not baptized in spirit, then it would be &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; not to go!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, that is just an example of why saying you have to go could be wrong. Attending Church does not make you a Christian as my pastor says BUT it sure an help!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-03-18T02:57:10.123" LastActivityDate="2012-03-18T02:57:10.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6673" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6677" CreationDate="2012-03-18T06:56:50.323" Score="3" ViewCount="4312" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Epic of Atrahasis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_gilgamesh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Epic of Gilgamesh&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; flood myth, the gods are rash, foolish, even &lt;em&gt;weak.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis&lt;/em&gt; copies most of the myth. And although it's sanitized quite a bit, some actions seem to be inconsistent with an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God. God decides one moment that all animals must be killed&lt;sup&gt; 6:7&lt;/sup&gt;, and the next that Noah must save them all himself&lt;sup&gt; 6:19–20&lt;/sup&gt;. All humanity is evil and must be purged, except for Noah, but Noah is punished with spending the better part of a year on a tiny boat filled with polar bears. At the end God promises never to try the scheme again&lt;sup&gt; 8:21&lt;/sup&gt;, apparently one step from an outright apology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What higher narrative purpose does this myth fulfill, that it's included in the Bible despite its &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; subversive origins and troublesome implications?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1441" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-03-22T12:08:44.347" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T12:08:44.347" Title="What narrative purpose does the Flood story fulfill?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:44:17.940" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6670" CreationDate="2012-03-18T08:35:07.690" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think he is speaking in the abstract.  But without reading more context, I can't be sure if the entire passage is meant that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take the first quoted sentence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For where He does not cause it to be preached ... it is lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the rest of the passage is meant in the same context. In other words, I think the point he is making (by reordering the sentence) is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For where Christ is not preached ... there is no Holy Ghost [and] ... it is not a Christian Church, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2012-03-18T08:35:07.690" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6671" CreationDate="2012-03-18T09:49:11.250" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Atonement of Christ is unique and powerful in that He experienced everything that you would go through in life. This means that even if no one else in the world understands what your going through with a trial Christ does and can help you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you pray for help with a problem and truly believe that God can help you then you will receive help. But the thing to remember is that this life is a test so God expects you to make choices on your own. Also as the Old Testament puts it: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher then the earth, so are my ways higher then your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what you want as help on a problem is not always what you will get because God sees all and knows what is best for you even if you don't. He will always do whats best. Which means that you might not get the help you were looking for, but you will &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; get help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-03-18T09:49:11.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6673" CreationDate="2012-03-18T10:05:38.780" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Flimzy said your question seems argumentative so I will answer as concisely as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First thing of note, stories and information did not travel back then as they do in this day and age. So while Gilgamesh is perhaps older (not saying it is we have no actual date on the writing of Genesis so it could in fact be older) its quite possible that the writer of Genesis had never even heard of the story before. The Jews were well known in their devout stages(when they actually followed the commandments of God) for not mingling with other societies which makes it even more likely that the writer had never heard the myth before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, as Marc said the narrative is there to record events and therefore is not a myth. Whether you believe that or not depends on your interpretation of the bible but for most they take it as &lt;strong&gt;fact&lt;/strong&gt; not myth that the Noah flood actually happened. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-03-18T10:05:38.780" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6673" CreationDate="2012-03-18T11:50:16.373" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The narrative purpose of the flood account is actually quite simple. It reminds us of one simple truth of God's character: God is just. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the Jew for whom this exact version of the narrative is written (I can leave aside Gilgamesh because it differs in thrust), there is one overwhelming truth- God will punish the wicked. In a world where the wicked often seem to prosper, this is too easily forgotten. To say, the Jews of the exile, this is actually a very comforting thought - that even though they may be temporarily defeated (and that happened a lot in Jewish history) God is simply &quot;slow to anger&quot; not completely silent or ineffectual on the matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In punishing the wicked, the righteous will be protected. To an enslaved and defeated  people, this is good news indeed. There will be an accounting when God's wrath is complete. He is not slow in keeping his promises, as some count slowness to be. Neither is he unconcerned, nor is he Powerless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter (who, it should be remembered, was a Jew) says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven other ... if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. (2 Peter 2:5,9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the Christian it holds a secondary meaning, namely that God may be love, but he is more than love. God is not just &quot;nice,&quot; but he is also just. It is too easy to forget that because God is good, it doesn't mean he can't be powerful too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-03-18T15:54:56.287" LastActivityDate="2012-03-18T15:54:56.287" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6673" CreationDate="2012-03-18T23:04:26.843" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, it's highly intellectually dishonest to claim that the story of Noah is a redacted version of the Utanapishtim myth found in the &lt;em&gt;Epic of Gilgamesh&lt;/em&gt;.  That notion was discredited at least half a century ago with the discovery and translation of the much older Sumerian &lt;em&gt;Epic of Atra-Hasis&lt;/em&gt;.  The Atra-Hasis tale contains a deluge myth that both differs from &lt;em&gt;Gilgamesh&lt;/em&gt; and agrees with the Genesis account on many important points--including the cowardly character of the gods as mentioned in the question above--making it clear that the &lt;em&gt;Utanapishtim&lt;/em&gt; story is the one that's been edited and changed from the original account.  (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archive.org/stream/babylonianexped04archgoog#page/n81/mode/1up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hilprecht, &lt;em&gt;The Earliest Version of the Babylonian Deluge Story and the Temple Library of Nippur&lt;/em&gt;, p. 61&lt;/a&gt;)  It's hard to believe that people are still dredging up the Utanapishtim-Noah theory after all these years!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, the purpose of including the story of Noah and the Flood in Genesis is very simple: the author believed it!  This is one of the interesting things about the ancient Israelites: almost uniquely among ancient cultures, they saw their stories handed down from older times still as &lt;em&gt;literal history&lt;/em&gt; rather than mythology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-03-18T23:04:26.843" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5122" CreationDate="2012-03-18T23:39:13.400" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In chapter 4 it talks about believers selling property and giving the money to the Apostles. Starting in chapter 5 it says there was a man.  When the Bible refers to fellow Christians, it usually calls them fellow believers,  brothers, friends.  Here it states a man which leads me to believe they were not Christians&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1443" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-05T22:45:06.677" LastActivityDate="2012-11-05T22:45:06.677" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6657" CreationDate="2012-03-19T02:17:16.187" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;theodicy&lt;/a&gt; is present throughout the Bible, and so I am not going to give an exhaustive answer.  I will say, However, that even Jesus said that His Father caused &quot;rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike,&quot; (Matthew 5:45)), meaning that in this present age, the wicked will, in fact, be seen to prosper. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of what the Bible says on the matter can be found &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6537/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-psalm-3729/6538#6538&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the better answers to theodicy is to remember that God is both just &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; merciful. A formulation that is used throughout the old testament is that God is &quot;slow to anger, but abounding in mercy.&quot;. That God would give the wicked every chance to repent is in His nature, and a blessing for all sinners who choose to repent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To your point that the wicked must be punished in order for Chrisianity to mean anything, well, May I suggest Jesus has a story you need to hear?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most famous parables - called alternately the parable of the Produgal Son or the Parable of the Loving Father, is completely against the idea that the righteous should expect or take any solace in the punishment of the wicked.  After the Prodigal returns, the older brother is, to put it mildly, pissed. After all, why should the young brother be forgiven?  When the Father takes the older brother aside, he encourages the older brother to rejoice in the return, not worry about the evil that has been done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is against the Pharisees this parable is directed.  the story is a picture of God's loving response towards sinners, and a warning against the righteous not to be annoyed that repenting sinners are received with open arms. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, as a sinner myself, I am to rejoice at God's forbearance.  I regularly praise God that I didn't get &quot;what I deserve.&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as Galatians says, do not be deceived, God is not mocked. What a man sows, so shall he reap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T02:22:47.967" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4181" CreationDate="2012-03-19T08:37:12.663" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Marrying a non-believer is highly discouraged for practical and biblical reasons. Even people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses and belong to other churches would find it wise to marry someone who shares the same faith. It is just one of the many compatibility aspect of finding a mate. If two share a common thing there would be less drama in life and therefore less strain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the organization do not interfere in their members' personal decision-making and thus cannot control those who will decide to marry outside the religion, so each person who decides to marry a non-Witness must be willing to face the consequences and not blame the Bible for giving such wise advice that the person did not follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not a disfellowshipping offense but that does not make it a less serious law. It is a wise advice that each one has a choice to take or not to take, and each choice has corresponding pros and cons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why others got disfellowshipped is not their marriage to a non-Witness in itself, but the immorality or pre-marital sex involved, which is very common when a Witness develops a relationship with a non-Witness, simply because they may not share the same views on this matter. However, dating couples who are both Witnesses are not free from the dangers of immorality even though they both should have the same views on pre-marital sex.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are different reasons why some sisters and brothers choose to marry unbelievers, either voluntarily or out because they have drifted away from close association with brothers and sisters. For example, I know some people who intentionally find mates outside because of their past. For example, if a sister was once disfellowshipped, from a human standpoint it may be hard for her to find a suitable brother who is not judgmental and would accept her everything and marry her, so she can either date an inactive passive Witness or go out to the world and scan through a lot of other options and just get married, with all the consequences she will be facing in mind. It is a big risk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some brothers also choose to marry outside because they always get rejected by sisters inside. And no wise words such as, Wait for Jehovah's provisions, Wait till the new system, can ever convince them to stay single. That is why they find a mate outside the orginization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different reasons, different circumstances. Brothers and sisters involved in such situations surely are not having the time of their life, so being sensitive to what they are already facing, it would help a little if people around just stop making comments and judging, which is common in some congregations. But what can we expect? This world is full of imperfect people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1445" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T00:39:39.500" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T00:39:39.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6682" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="26577" CreationDate="2012-03-19T09:59:43.860" Score="8" ViewCount="618" Body="&lt;p&gt;What things in general have been brought with time into the Eastern Orthodox Church that the mainstream protestant Christianity considers as not being able to be traced back to the times of the church of the first century?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, my question is about what kind of things the mainstream Protestantism sees as new in the today's Eastern Orthodox Church. We know, for example, that the &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot; principle that was put forth by the Protestants has been deemed as something new by both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (meaning that originally there was no such thing as &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot; in the early Church of the time of the 12 apostles). So, my question is about some such &quot;new&quot; things (as Protestant would deem them) in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-22T13:35:41.893" LastActivityDate="2015-10-22T15:17:20.720" Title="According to Protestants, what &quot;new&quot; things has the Eastern Orthodox Church acquired over time?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1054" CreationDate="2012-03-19T11:08:22.433" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The writer to the Hebrews encourages regular fellowship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10:25&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the best example is Jesus Himself, who regularly (every week?) went to the synagogue on the Sabbath:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, &lt;strong&gt;as was his custom&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+4:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 4:16a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-03-19T11:08:22.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6684" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6685" CreationDate="2012-03-19T12:41:01.497" Score="6" ViewCount="774" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Luke 8, the man freed from the Legion demons is told by Jesus not to follow him, but to tell everyone round about. But later, Jesus heals Jairus's daughter and tells the family not to tell anyone. Why would Jesus want the man who had demons driven out of him to tell everyone, but not want Jairus's family to tell everyone about the miracle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="370" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-03-19T13:49:48.710" LastActivityDate="2012-03-19T19:06:31.613" Title="Luke 8: Telling others - What's the difference between Jesus driving out demons &amp; healing Jairus's daughter" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:42:58.917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6684" CreationDate="2012-03-19T14:58:09.313" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference is that, in the pigs story, Jesus was asked to leave the region:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then all the people of the region of the Gerasenes &lt;strong&gt;asked Jesus to leave them&lt;/strong&gt;, because they were overcome with fear. So &lt;strong&gt;he got into the boat and left&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%208:37&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 8:37&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the formerly demon possessed man was possibly the only witness / preacher / disciple Jesus had in the region.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other cases, Jesus' popularity has prevented Him preaching (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+1:44-45&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark1:44-45&lt;/a&gt;) and even eating (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+6:31&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 6:31&lt;/a&gt;)! So He often told people not to tell others about the miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-03-19T19:06:31.613" LastActivityDate="2012-03-19T19:06:31.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6682" CreationDate="2012-03-19T15:22:37.050" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Separation of layperson from clergy would be a big one in my book as well as &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorification#Eastern_Orthodox_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;glorification&lt;/a&gt; (formal recognition of sainthood). To many protestants, if you're not a saint you're not a christian, because all christians have been sanctified by the blood of Jesus. The two states are inseparable. Additionally, most protestants also reject the veneration of Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="19785" LastEditDate="2015-07-20T19:36:48.277" LastActivityDate="2015-07-20T19:36:48.277" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6671" CreationDate="2012-03-19T16:57:35.400" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity solves a couple of &quot;personal&quot; problems.  It solves our struggle against sin (this is called sanctification), and it solves the problem of our well deserved awaiting judgement (this is called justification).  It also empowers us to further the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2011:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Mark 11:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be &lt;i&gt;granted&lt;/i&gt; you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In saying this, Jesus did not intend to place himself inside a genie lamp to fulfil our every whim.  When Jesus says &quot;all things for which you pray and ask&quot;, there is an implied qualification on the &quot;all things&quot;.  That is, what you ask for must be in accordance with God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This concept is clarified if we take a look at 1 John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:14-15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 John 5:14-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything &lt;strong&gt;according to His will&lt;/strong&gt;, He hears us. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; And if we know that He hears us &lt;i&gt;in&lt;/i&gt; whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, John makes the qualification explicit.  What we ask must be in accordance to His will.  In James, we see something similar:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%204:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;James 4:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend &lt;i&gt;it&lt;/i&gt; on your pleasures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James's audience did not receive, because they did not ask in accordance with God's will.  They asked selfishly, in order to fulfil their own desires, and not to further the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-03-19T16:57:35.400" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6684" CreationDate="2012-03-19T17:15:52.273" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a strictly textual perspective, Mark is big on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Messanic Secret&lt;/a&gt;, whereas Luke is not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could simply be the emphasis of the writers - Mark (and Matthew who uses much of the same material) is writing to a Jewish audience, one that understands the power struggle and inevitable sacrifice around the &quot;Kingship&quot; of Jesus.  In contrast, Luke's emphasis (and thereby Paul's) is on the poor and oppressed, to whom the Good News was supposed to be preached first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-19T17:15:52.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6689" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6718" CreationDate="2012-03-19T18:40:16.933" Score="3" ViewCount="1117" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the differences being a Christian will make in this life (on earth not entrance into heaven or hell)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is it just a group identity of a hopeful passage into Heaven upon the next life and really will not make much difference on this earth if it is ruled by the fall of man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T18:08:04.757" LastActivityDate="2015-07-23T13:12:49.830" Title="What differences will being a Christian make in this life?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-07-24T01:22:27.213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6690" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6732" CreationDate="2012-03-19T20:12:40.167" Score="3" ViewCount="377" Body="&lt;p&gt;Per this &lt;a href=&quot;http://donteatthefruit.com/2012/03/smartphones-in-church-screens-textures-backligh/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;, there is a very definite effect of technology in worship.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The benefits of using, say, an iPad to reference Scripture and all of the additional source material (commentaries, interlinears, etc...) are fairly straightforward - the pastor can teach, and leave as an exercise to the &quot;student,&quot; finding the resources, etc... needed to back up an presentation. Additionally, if the preacher references &quot;Balaam&quot; or uses a word like &quot;eschatalogical hope,&quot; it is beneficial if people can look up that term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if the point of a sermon and or a worship service is simply to bring about a contemplative mental state, then these distractions (e.g. the lights emanating from the device, the temptation to go to non-church resources) would most likely outweigh the benefits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how do Christians even go about answering what the purpose of the worship service is, in order to decide for themselves if i-Paraphenalia is to be encouraged or discouraged?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T03:54:30.643" Title="Is it more important that a worship service be contemplative or instructive, and how do we know?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6692" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6730" CreationDate="2012-03-19T20:21:14.773" Score="19" ViewCount="37004" Body="&lt;p&gt;What exactly is the meaning of an &quot;ark&quot; that applies to a boat and that thing that melts off the Nazi's faces in the first Indiana Jones movie?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-13T22:25:17.630" LastActivityDate="2014-09-25T07:13:20.423" Title="Why is the word &quot;Ark&quot; used for Noah's boat and the Ark of the Covenant?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;ark-of-the-covenant&gt;&lt;ark-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6692" CreationDate="2012-03-19T20:23:13.600" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;An ark isn't a boat - it is a place of refuge - a container that protects things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jews place their Torahs in an &quot;ark&quot; - a special box made to preserve the contents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ark of the covenant was a box that protected and preserved the 10 commandments, Aarons rod, and an omer of manna.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More importantly, despite the fact that when you say &quot;ark&quot; most people think &quot;boat,&quot; the point of the ark was not that it was seaworthy, but rather &lt;em&gt;that it preserved the lives of the people stored in it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-19T20:23:13.600" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6694" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-19T20:47:34.400" Score="5" ViewCount="2382" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/774/what-does-the-bible-say-about-bad-words&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about &amp;ldquo;bad&amp;rdquo; words?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In modern Christianity, we tend to hold a certain set of (approximately) four letter words as taboo words.  In Ephesians, Paul writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%204:29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such &lt;i&gt;a word&lt;/i&gt; as is good for edification according to the need &lt;i&gt;of the moment&lt;/i&gt;, so that it will give grace to those who hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of these taboo words have unwholesome roots, but have now been overloaded with non-unwholesome definitions, so that in everyday dialect, they are not typically used with any unwholesome &lt;em&gt;meaning&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Biblical or cultural&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt; argument against using cuss words&lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[1] A cultural argument is an argument based on the cultural context in which the Bible was written, or perhaps an extra Biblical source describing a view point held by the very early church.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[2] I mean cuss words in the most general sense - obviously the definition of which words are cuss words varies between cultures/languages.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T19:45:29.127" Title="Is there any Biblical argument against using &quot;cuss words&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;culture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2012-03-20T20:32:08.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6490" CreationDate="2012-03-19T21:41:43.940" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church says (#105), &quot;God is the author of Sacred Scripture.&quot;  Further, (#106)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[The human authors of scripture]consigned to writing whatever he wanted written and no &#xA;  more.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, there is no part of the scriptures that is merely human and potentially erroneous.  God is Truth, and can neither deceive nor be deceived.  Thus, I believe that the answer to your question is that all of Genesis is to be considered historical, unless there is a reason to believe that the literal sense is different (as has been suggested with Genesis 1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at Pius XII's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Divino Afflante Spiritu&lt;/a&gt;, you will find this spelled out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.&quot;[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the &quot;entire books with all their parts&quot; as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as &quot;obiter dicta&quot; and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order &quot;went by what sensibly appeared&quot; as the Angelic Doctor says,[5] speaking either &quot;in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.&quot; For &quot;the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - [6] the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation&quot;; which principle &quot;will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,&quot;[7] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden &quot;either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,&quot; since divine inspiration &quot;not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.&quot;[9]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these considerations, I would say that &quot;for the sake of salvation&quot; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dei Verbum&lt;/a&gt; in this quote should be interpreted as the motivation for God's revelation in the scriptures and not as a restriction of inerrancy to moral and theological subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the area historical accuracy, the Old Testament has been proven a very reliable witness to the ancient, ancient world.  One should be careful about finding historical inaccuracies there, because the authors of the Old Testament, even at the latest date argued for the time of writing, were far closer to the events and society of the times they depict than we are.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A little anachronism is to be expected in human language.  For instance, we often talk about things happening in Israel or Turkey when it is only a geographical accident that they are included in the current borders of the political entities that bear those names today.  That doesn't make the statements any less true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1433" LastEditorUserId="1433" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T21:25:40.737" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T21:25:40.737" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6694" CreationDate="2012-03-19T23:11:05.990" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Preface: This is one of those questions that deals with personal convictions and preferences rather than a clear-cut Biblical statement.  This actually came up not too long ago when our Pastor was preaching a sermon on the difference between the three.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Biblical statement is simple.  The Bible says &quot;Thou shalt&quot; or &quot;thou shalt not&quot;. (Example: Theft - thou shalt not steal)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Conviction (in his definition) is a position on a subject based on overwhelming Scriptural support, but no direct statement from Scripture.  (not watching unwholesome movies based on &quot;I shall set no evil thing before my eyes&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A preference is simply something we prefer.  (short hair on men, wearing a tie to Church)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often the line between conviction and preference is blurry.  Many preferences can be loosely based on Scriptural understanding, and some convictions are based more on personal belief than the Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I think the rest of this answer falls in that line between the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't directly address &quot;swear words&quot; as we use the term.  When the Bible has the word &quot;swear&quot;, it is usually a translation of a word meaning &quot;take an oath&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Bible DOES say that what we say is important for many reasons.  To list just the first two:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The words we use can hurt others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The words that come out of our mouth reveal the condition of our heart and spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using just the second principle, if we are cursing, it's a sure sign that our spirit it not where it needs to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an entire sermon on the subject online &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wacriswell.org/PrintTranscript.cfm/SID/3423.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relevant Bible section is &lt;strong&gt;James 3:1-11 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My brethren, if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man,&#xA;  able also to bridle the whole body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and&#xA;  we turn about their whole body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven&#xA;  of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm,&#xA;  whithersoever the pilot listeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. &#xA;  Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity:  so is the tongue among&#xA;  our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the&#xA;  course of nature; and it is set on fire of Gehenna.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every kind of beasts, birds, things of the sea, is tamed ... But the&#xA;  tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With it we bless God, even the Father; and with it we curse men, which&#xA;  are made after the similitude of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing.  My brethren,&#xA;  these things ought not so to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olives?  Or a vine, figs? so can&#xA;  no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 15:18-20 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the&#xA;  heart; and they defile the man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,&#xA;  fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen&#xA;  hands defileth not a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, the final test comes down to &quot;what is the frame of mind I must be in if I'm saying this particular word/phrase&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no situation where a loving heart shouts or mutters things like &quot;what the ########  are you doing, you ########.  Learn to drive the ######## car!&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any sentence where I can consider using what we would call &quot;swear&quot; words, I need to be either angry, disrespectful, reacting to a sudden injury or fright, or a combination of the above.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In none of those situations am I being &quot;godly&quot; or &quot;Christ-like&quot; which should be the goal of every Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T00:00:28.130" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T00:00:28.130" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6690" CreationDate="2012-03-19T23:22:00.297" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is a personal question with no  &quot;right&quot; answer, and it hinges on the question &quot;What do you want to get out of Church attendance?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, personally, I want the following things (not necessarily in order):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I want to learn something new&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I want to experience some sort of conviction - that twinge of guilt that tells me I need to change something in my life/behavior/thought process to be more pleasing to God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I want to offer back songs and praises to the God I love.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some things I DON'T want as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't want a message that's hateful or teaches hate (thank God a true Bible-teaching Church won't spit venom from the pulpit)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't want &quot;warm and fuzzy feelings&quot; that do absolutely nothing to teach, instruct, or edify.  (I can get that watching TV or a game when the Packers are winning).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't want to hear the opinions of the Pastor when they conflict with God's word.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for me, the answer would be that it's more important to instruct, because with instruction and truth, I get the things from my first list without the things on the second.  For others, it may be reversed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people go to Church to feel good, or because they feel they have to, or any number of reasons.  Some do go, just to feel &quot;closer to God&quot;.  I don't know that there's anything wrong with that.  It's just not &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; reason for going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, addressing the use of technology in Church, I personally would rather take notes on paper in Church and look them up online later.  First, writing things down in pen and paper tend to commit the teaching to memory, and second, if I had an electronic device handy I &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; I'd get distracted and miss something important.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all honesty, knowing that the electronic devices are distracting, that it's less likely I'll pay attention means that for me, using an electronic device would be detracting whether I wanted instruction or contemplation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I think it's rude to the Pastor to come in using electronic devices.  He has no idea if we're looking up something he said, or updating our Facebook status, or answering questions here. For all he knows, we're completely ignoring him, and that's likely to break his flow of concentration, same as it would for anyone else.  It's simply more polite to listen attentively, and taking notes the old-fashioned way is less of a distraction for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-03-19T23:36:16.893" LastActivityDate="2012-03-19T23:36:16.893" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6338" CreationDate="2012-03-20T00:51:13.860" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Frame (A Reformed professor and theologian) presents a framework for Christian Ethics that is both objective and relative.  He has written extensively on Ethics and other topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Ethics&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The same perspectives govern the quest for ethical knowledge, the knowledge of right and wrong. As secular epistemology has been divided along three lines corresponding with these perspectives, so secular ethics has been either existential (basing ethical judgments on feelings), teleological (focusing on happiness), or deontological (focusing on duties). I see these as existential, situational, and normative, respectively. These fail in various ways to account for the nature of ethical decisions. One major problem is that most ethicists try to separate these three perspectives from one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A biblical ethic will include all three perspectives. Normatively, we seek to obey God’s authoritative word, his law. Situationally, we seek to apply that law to situations (which are themselves revelation of a sort—general revelation) so as to maximize divine blessing, the highest happiness. Existentially, we seek the inner satisfaction of living as God designed us to live, in his presence. These are perspectives. Each involves the others. But each serves as a check and balance against our misunderstandings of the others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/PrimerOnPerspectivalism.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/PrimerOnPerspectivalism.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His ethical framework applies to every decision that we make in life, though not always directly. The Bible itself provides objective norms for communicating about morals.  On the other hand, interpreting the Bible and its application to arbitrary situations is subjective / relative.  Even the most obvious commands like &quot;thou shall not murder / kill&quot; require thought and consideration of exceptions.  Finally, the conscience and work of the Holy Spirit are very personal but also a necessary part of moral decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While God has a position to know the absolute right and wrong of any action, he gives us a measure of freedom to make decisions on our own.  Many decisions have trade-offs, and neither choice is the obvious correct one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, some people like to take relativism in the opposite extreme and suppose situations where one is left with no choice but to clearly break one of God's moral laws.  The problem is not the focus on relative ethics, but of ignoring the objective component.  All three perspectives need to be considered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="94" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T00:51:13.860" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6651" CreationDate="2012-03-20T02:04:19.440" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to being the accuser. Satan is also the &quot;stumbling block&quot;.  That's the effect to which Jesus uses the term against Peter when he attempts to dissuade Him from the cross. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208:33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 8:33 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;  But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Satan's job in one sense is to trip us up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-03-22T21:44:35.927" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T21:44:35.927" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6700" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-20T02:17:02.913" Score="18" ViewCount="4887" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard the phrase and even used it before, in potentially dangerous and unintelligent ways.  But what did CS Lewis mean when he came to the realization that Christianity was not just Myth, but True Myth. And furthermore, was he talking about the Bible in its entirety or just the Gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-12-18T07:28:44.347" Title="What does CS Lewis mean by True Myth?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6701" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6707" CreationDate="2012-03-20T02:43:23.130" Score="4" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;With the recent announcement that the archbishop of Canterbury will resign, there is bound to at least be a presumed set of replacements, each with a particular vision of the future. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the most basic level, it would be nice to know who is eligible (Is the Queens list restricted to the English?) and what the procedure for appointing a replacement is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An amazing answer would call out a few likely candidates and what a future Anglican Communion would look like as a result?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T07:56:32.300" Title="Who might replace Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury?" Tags="&lt;anglicanism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2012-03-21T03:02:19.820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6702" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6712" CreationDate="2012-03-20T02:59:58.893" Score="28" ViewCount="10660" Body="&lt;p&gt;I asked a Christian today whether he believed that Jesus turning water into wine literally happened, or was just a metaphor. He said it literally happened, and also that other miracles literally happened, such as Jesus dying and coming back to life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some miracles described in the bible appear to violate the laws of physics. For example, in turning water into wine, I assume carbon atoms would have to appear where they did not exist before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do Christians have an opinion on what happened? Do they believe&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The laws of physics were obeyed, and that our understanding of them is merely insufficient to understand what happened.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God does not break the laws of physics, but he changed the laws of physics temporarily such that those laws permitted certain miracles to occur.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is not only able, but is willing, to break the laws of physics that he created?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latter two sound like God being inconsistent, and the first one raises the possibility that if humans can understand the science fully, it may (or may not) be possible to replicate what he had done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="630" LastEditorUserId="630" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T07:16:39.323" LastActivityDate="2016-09-24T13:32:23.470" Title="Do miracles violate the laws of physics?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="16" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2014-12-09T00:46:58.233" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2012-03-20T03:31:57.840" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;That would be one definition of miracles - that they are a suspension of the normal rules of physics and the universe.  Otherwise they would be &quot;coincidences&quot; or &quot; explainable anomolies&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Miracles are supernatural by nature, and by definition, not explainable by the normal laws of physics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All three of the bullet points you listed are possible explanations, and all could be true for different miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for inconsistency, God is also Sovereign, and can do as He pleases if it suits His will.  That's very clear in the Bible, and His miracles are always shown to have happened for a purpose.  All of Jesus' miracles, if you look them up, are performed to demonstrate that He is more than just a normal man - that He is God.  They all are accompanied by Him teaching or making a subtle (or not so subtle) claim to His authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, being finite with limited (although incredible) mental capacity, we will never &quot;understand science fully&quot;.  That would mean omniscience, an attribute that is believed by Christians to be only applicable to God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted, however, that the subject of Miracles is not purely a Christian issue, nor is &quot;supernatural&quot; the only type of miracle possible.  Miracles can, as alluded to in the first paragraph, be happy but unlikely coincidences.  However, the miracles you're speaking of are clearly supernatural in nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Miracle&lt;/strong&gt; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A miracle often denotes an event attributed to divine intervention.&#xA;  Alternatively, it may be an event attributed to a miracle worker,&#xA;  saint, or religious leader. A miracle is sometimes thought of as a&#xA;  perceptible interruption of the laws of nature. Others suggest that&#xA;  God may work with the laws of nature to perform what people perceive&#xA;  as miracles.[1] Theologians say that, with divine providence, God&#xA;  regularly works through created nature yet is free to work without,&#xA;  above, or against it as well.[2]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In casual usage, &quot;miracle&quot; is seen as any event that is statistically&#xA;  unlikely but beneficial, (such as surviving a natural disaster), or&#xA;  simply a &quot;wonderful&quot; occurrence, regardless of likelihood, such as a&#xA;  birth. Other miracles might be: survival of a terminal illness,&#xA;  escaping a life threatening situation or 'beating the odds'. Some&#xA;  coincidences may be perceived to be miracles.[3]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T03:51:24.913" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T03:51:24.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2012-03-20T03:55:25.143" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't claim to speak for the entire Christian community, but as a Christian I can tell you what I feel to be true. You offer 3 explanations for the various miracles that occurred in the New Testament, however, I would choose:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;4. None of the above&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human beings are so wrapped up in searching inside this little box that we live in for all of the answers to how the universe works that our truly limited understanding of what is possible casts a veil over our willingness to believe that there are things yet to be understood or discovered when it comes to the laws of physics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can tell you this, God is never inconsistent, He is Truth, and there is only one Truth. Just because we don't understand every nook-and-cranny of the entire Truth doesn't render it impossible (or even implausible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scientific community has recently been thrown into a tizzy over the observation that a group of neutrinos out-ran a group of photons in a race to Italy, which should be impossible according to our limited understanding of physics as photons travel at the speed of light and theoretically nothing can travel faster than c. Many members of the scientific community are scrambling to blame this observation on calibration errors in their instruments but they haven't been able to confirm such errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an amateur quantum physics enthusiast I'm fascinated by the concepts of String Theory, time travel, wave-particle duality, quantum computing and parallel universes. Moreover, the existence of these forces don't compromise my faith in our Creator or His Son. Quite the contrary, they reinforce that God is truly capable of anything and I'm excited to one day unite with Him and become enlightened to His amazing ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1439" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T03:55:25.143" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6705" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6733" CreationDate="2012-03-20T04:26:10.020" Score="3" ViewCount="496" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any extant pre-Schism (i.e. Before 1054 AD, when the Eastern and Western chueches anathematized each other) commentary on the golden calf incident of Exodus 32:1--6, and if so, where?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T02:29:02.423" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T02:29:02.423" Title="Where can I find Patristic Commentary on the Golden Calf incident?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6706" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6709" CreationDate="2012-03-20T06:34:33.667" Score="11" ViewCount="2049" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I understand Martin Luther according to the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches possessed the Apostolic succession while he was in the Roman Catholic Church (he was a priest, after all). However, now both Luther and all his followers are considered by both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church as those who don't posses the Apostolic succession. So, according to them, at what particular point Martin Luther lost his Apostolic succession? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T01:32:18.030" LastActivityDate="2017-01-30T09:36:15.063" Title="When did Martin Luther lose his Apostolic succession according to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churchеs?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;apostolic-succession&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6701" CreationDate="2012-03-20T06:48:34.617" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;At this point nothing is really very certain, but &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sentamu+tipped+for+archbishop&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;many sources (Anglican and external)&lt;/a&gt; cite &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sentamu&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Sentamu&lt;/a&gt; (Archbishop of (/&amp;quot;for&amp;quot;) York) as the most likely candidate, who is Ugandan by origin (so no, not restricted to &amp;quot;English English&amp;quot;, although he is a British Commonwealth citizen).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Re approach - Dr. Williams has been working tirelessly as a conciliatory figure within the Anglican communion, trying to hold various sections together. He is also probably best described as a &amp;quot;moderate&amp;quot;, seeking a middle line that is broadly acceptable to most. I don't agree with all of his views, but he has been a reasonable spokesperson.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. Sentamu is not this! He is pretty conservative and non-compromising, with very divisive views (he was one of only 4 bishops who refused to sign the Cambridge Accord, which related to the basic human rights of homosexuals). I actually suspect this will count against him in terms of candidacy, since the wider Anglican Church presumably does not hope to fragment itself internally or publicly. Equally, if elected, I strongly suspect his strong views will be a problem for a large number of the congregation (how to say... the general congregation is notably more moderate than many of the Anglican officials, &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; on divisive issues like those Sentamu tends to speek on... perhaps it could be said he speaks for the Church &lt;em&gt;as an office&lt;/em&gt;, but not for the congregation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternative candidates I've seen mentioned include &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Chartres&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rt Rev Richard Chartres&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Baines_(bishop)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rt Rev Nick Baines&lt;/a&gt;. My &lt;strong&gt;personal&lt;/strong&gt; suspicion is that Richard Chartres has the most chance of not polarizing things to damaging levels, which may count strongly in his favour. It depends on what &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2403/outline-of-procedures-for-the-appointment-of-an-archbishop-of-canterbury&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the committee (&lt;strong&gt;this includes the official process, asked in the question&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/a&gt; see as important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Re eligibility, the above link states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are all bishops from within the Anglican Communion eligible for consideration as the next Archbishop of Canterbury?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Archbishop of Canterbury is automatically a member of the House of Lords he must, under the law of the land be a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen. The person chosen will be someone whom the CNC considers to be best able to fulfil the full range of responsibilities of the role, which, in addition to those concerning the Anglican Communion include being Primate of All England, Metropolitan for the Southern province and Diocesan Bishop of Canterbury. There is, however, no rule which limits the CNC to choosing someone who is currently holding an office in the Church of England. Indeed Archbishop Rowan was serving in another province of the Communion when nominated as Archbishop of Canterbury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Could the next Archbishop of Canterbury be female if the women bishops legislation passes in July?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next Archbishop will be male, whatever happens in Synod this July. Even if the legislation secures final approval then there are several further steps that will have to occur before it can come into force. It will be late 2013 or early 2014 before it is possible for women to be appointed as bishops in the Church of England.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So basically: must be male, a Brtish/Irish/Commonwealth citizen, but does not appear to need any specific denomination within the Anglican Communion. It &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; that the phrasing of the question is an implicit &amp;quot;and must be a Bishop&amp;quot;, but I am not 100% sure (having read the briefing documents, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.churchofengland.org/clergy-office-holders/asa/senappt/dbnom.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;available under &amp;quot;Resources&amp;quot; here&lt;/a&gt;) that it wouldn't be possible to &lt;em&gt;promote&lt;/em&gt; someone into the diocesan role and thus become Bishop and Archbishop at the same time. That said, even if technically possible, it would seem logistically unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T07:56:32.300" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6706" CreationDate="2012-03-20T11:32:37.950" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Luther was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theosource.com/2009/01/martin-luther-excommunicated-1521.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;excommunicated for insubordination&lt;/a&gt; on January 3, 1521, he lost the ability to say he was in the chain. You cannot succeed someone who has disowned you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the date to which most people would ascribe the &quot;beginning of the Protestant Reformation&quot; (a bad term since it was really a process that had been going on since the 1300s!) is October 31, 1517, when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door at Wittenburg Cathedal&amp;mdash;a document outlining his beefs with the Catholic church, as it was acting at the time. The heresies for which Luther was excommunicated are not generally given a specific name (unless if you want to call Lutheranism or even Protestantism a &quot;heresy&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T15:34:44.353" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T15:34:44.353" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2012-03-20T11:40:38.757" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just as within the moral realm, God's law outweighs and supplants but does not negate the Natural Law. In the super natural realm, wherein even an atheist would say God exists, God's ways outweigh and supplant, but do not negate natural realities like entropy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has promised to man through scripture that He will not change. And this means He will not violate logic by squaring circles. But it does not mean that He won't use His infinite power to bring about our infinite good. Which, I personally think is a good case for miracles.  They really exist to bolster faith, not just to heal the body. It shows what God really wants is for us to be happy with him forever, not only for a short time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T11:40:38.757" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2012-03-20T11:53:31.997" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think many individual denominations have come to a consensus on this question, much less is there a consensus that is representative of collective Christianity. But based on my experience as a scientist and as a life-long Christian, I would suggest that miracles do in fact obey laws of physics that we simply do not yet understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider this. Our understanding of various topics in science is not perfect and never has been. But despite having an incomplete picture, various models and theories have proven useful despite their imperfections. On the other side, our understanding of faith, of God, and of His nature is not perfect and never has been. But our limited understanding does not prevent us from accepting God, exercising faith in Him, and enjoying the blessings He has promised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people today see conflicts between science and faith. We must remember that there is ultimately one truth. Science endeavors to describe this truth in physical terms, while faith and religion endeavor to describe the truth in terms of its spiritual, metaphysical, and eternal impact our our lives. When there are apparent conflicts between science and faith, it is generally because our understanding is limited in both areas. I'm confident that Christ's miracles have an explanation that fits squarely within the laws of physics, but not necessarily the laws of physics as we now understand them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="54" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T11:53:31.997" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2012-03-20T12:00:47.043" Score="45" Body="&lt;p&gt;The laws of physics are certainly quite different from moral laws.  In fact, the Bible never refers to the laws of physics as &quot;laws&quot;.  We see them as laws, because we are bound by them and are unable to break them.  We don't obey them based on our own volition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moral laws define what we ought to do, but we are under no compulsion to obey them.  We have a choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We obey the laws of physics because they bind us to them.  We obey moral laws because we bind ourselves to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the idea of God &quot;obeying&quot; what we describe as the laws of physics is really an absurdity.  These laws govern the physical universe--not the Maker of the physical universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very significant distinction, because I have heard someone make the claim that if God breaks His own laws (of physics), then He is guilty of sin for breaking the law.  This is a completely false statement, though, because the laws of physics are distinct from moral law. Breaking a moral law is, by definition, immoral, but this is not true of the breaking of physical or natural laws.  Breaking a natural law would simply be &quot;unnatural&quot;, or, more appropriately, &quot;supernatural&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Maker of the physical universe certainly has the power to create new matter according to His own will, as in the case of the Feeding of the 5,000.  He can change matter according to His will as well, as in the case of the Turning of the Water into Wine, the healing of the blind, the raising of the dead, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, His authority is not merely over the physical world, but over the spiritual realm as well, as demonstrated in Jesus casting out demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God is not confined by what we happen to refer to as &lt;strong&gt;the laws&lt;/strong&gt; of physics.  They are laws the govern the physical universe.  They do not govern God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-12-30T20:20:54.653" LastActivityDate="2013-12-30T20:20:54.653" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6694" CreationDate="2012-03-20T13:29:33.033" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are really two kinds of cuss words (with some overlap): the profane and the vulgar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Profanity&lt;/strong&gt; is absolutely prohibited, in part because of the verse quoted in your question, but it is important here to first understand the precise definition of the word.  To &lt;em&gt;profane&lt;/em&gt; something is to take something that is holy (set apart) and make it common. Words themselves are never profane, but they can be used in profane ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vulgarity&lt;/strong&gt; is a little different. Again, it's worthwhile to go to the precise definition. Something is &lt;em&gt;vulgar&lt;/em&gt; when it is &quot;common&quot;, in the lowest-common-denominator sense of the word common. When you use vulgar speech, you are lowering yourself down to that level. You are not just making speech &quot;saltier&quot; or more colorful. Since you doubt a direct prohibition in scripture, I would point you first to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/10-23.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:23&lt;/a&gt; &amp;mdash; &quot;Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial.&quot; Maybe you don't believe it's prohibited, but that doesn't mean it's still a free-for-all. There is also &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/ephesians/5-4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:4&lt;/a&gt; &amp;mdash; &quot;Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some current practical examples of which is which: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You should not damn (condemn) things. That is profane, because it is a privilege reserved for God alone. This especially applies when directed at a person, because it is saying that you wish that person to spend eternity in hell... something no Christian should wish for anyone. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You definitely should not use the name of God or His son as an expletive; it's hard to be more profane than that.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A word that is vulgar, but not profane, is &quot;shit&quot;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, the f* word is both vulgar and profane because it debases a holy act that God has &lt;em&gt;set apart&lt;/em&gt; for marriage and &lt;em&gt;makes it&lt;/em&gt; vulgar.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T19:45:29.127" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T19:45:29.127" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6700" CreationDate="2012-03-20T13:32:43.217" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;myth&lt;/em&gt;, in its academic definition, means a story with deep power and symbolic meaning. When studied in the academic sense, it's that meaning that is important, not whether the story actually happened or not. Thus ancient 'myths' like the founding of Rome, or the stories of Hercules were important (to their societies) for what they said and the effect they had on those societies rather than because of their historicity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of those myths turn out not to be actually true (like Hercules). That doesn't necessarily rob them of their power. The existence of the story can still shape a nation and a culture. But given that they mostly aren't historical, the word 'myth' in common parlance has come to mean 'something that isn't true' (giving rise to 'Mythbusters' for example). But that's not the sense that Lewis, as an academic, intended it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Lewis' point in calling the Christian story a 'true myth' is that it is &lt;strong&gt;a story that is powerful, and capable of changing lives and shaping cultures&lt;/strong&gt;. It also happens to be historically true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T18:44:49.953" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T18:44:49.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2012-03-20T13:47:02.260" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Miracles are generally divided into two types, called (unoriginally) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scibel.com/scibel/materials_questions%20-%20does%20it%20make%20sense%20to%20believe%20in%20miracles.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Type 1 and Type 2 miracles.&lt;/a&gt; It's an old distinction. The definitions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Type 1 miracles are those where nothing occurs that is unexplicable in itself, but the timing or other circucumstances make for particular meaning or significance. To give an example, if you are lost in the wilderness and pray for rescue, and a guide shows up immediately, that's a type 1 miracle. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In a Type 2 miracle there is no sequence of cause and effect that could have brought about what occurs. Turning water into wine is an example, so is recovery from a terminal disease.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Type 2 miracles do, by definition, violate the laws of nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, in case 1, you don't have a miracle at all. But it's very unlikely that a future improved understanding of the laws of nature are going to reveal a case when water might spontaneously change into wine (and even if we did, it would still be a type 1 miracle since it just happened to occur at exactly the right time). Case 2 and Case 3 are essentially the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T13:47:02.260" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2012-03-20T13:48:08.873" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; the Laws of Physics where before none existed.&lt;/strong&gt;  A God who can do that is surely able to bend them in both small and large ways at will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T13:48:08.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6689" CreationDate="2012-03-20T14:56:58.413" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;on a personal scale&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being a Christian can (should!) change oneself to model oneself more closely on Christ and follow his teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can also affect others on a personal scale: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Booth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Booth&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Cavell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Edith Cavell&lt;/a&gt; are two modern examples who come immediately to mind, but there are many, many more stretching back into antiquity (for example, monastic orders who provided education and healthcare).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not simply a group identity as you propose, although of course there is the sure and certain hope of resurrection to new life. However, even if someone should like the idea of Heaven in the next life, or feel there should be more to this present life than they have, it's my experience that investigating that by joining a congregation will convince them of what it is to know Christ and &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; is their entry to Heaven. That sounds really evangelical; but I'm Roman Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This probably won't be sufficient. Could you expand on your question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T14:56:58.413" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6689" CreationDate="2012-03-20T16:38:37.673" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What changes in the world will happen from being Christian?  Well the biggest support for such things is simple... Look at the start of Christianity.  11 Uneducated fishermen, tax collectors, and zealots.  What happened within 272 years of following Christs teachings (thus being a &quot;Christian&quot;), Constantine, in hope not to get shanked in the shower, converted the religion of the Roman empire to Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The goal of a Christian should be to change ones surroundings by living the example and SPEAKING the example (lots of people like to default to just living because its more &quot;comfortable&quot;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the sense of this question, i have to simple guess your an American.  American christianity has been in a malaise for some time now.  Go to China, India, or Fiji and see what christianity can do to a culture.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read Acts 18 - 19 (i believe right in that area) and you will read about the conversion of Ephesus.  It went from being SUPER pagan to having its entire social-economic order changing from just a few &quot;Christians&quot; following what Christ said.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1453" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T16:38:37.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4952" CreationDate="2012-03-20T19:01:34.960" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://arminiantoday.com/2008/03/27/the-abuse-of-1-john-219/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; gives an argument for an alternate interpretation of the passage that does not conflict with conditional security.  The author states that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Clearly then 1 John 2:19 is speaking of these gnostic teachers who went out from the apostles claiming to be super apostles and above the apostles. However, they did not continue in the doctrine of the apostles as the early Church had always done (Acts 2:42). This clearly reveals, writes John, that they were not of the apostles (v.19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can understand, under the alternate interpretation a paraphrased interpretation of the passage would be something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They went out from [the apostles], but they were not really [apostles]; for if they had been [apostles], they would have remained [apostles]; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not [really apostles].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the argument is that this passage is referring to a special case - referring only to apostolic imposters.  It is argued that apostles always &quot;continue in the doctrine of the apostles&quot;.  Therefore, the apostle imposters were shown as not really apostles by their &quot;going out&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T19:01:34.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6721" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6722" CreationDate="2012-03-20T19:05:59.883" Score="3" ViewCount="9394" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 5:9-11 states that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have written you in my letter no to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why are the sexually immoral singled out as those with whom the Corinthians should not associate? I don't see any reason why such sin should be considered better or worse than any other. Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1559" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-11-06T02:11:46.817" LastActivityDate="2017-02-10T13:21:07.573" Title="Why does Paul pay special attention to the sexually immoral in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6721" CreationDate="2012-03-20T19:30:10.553" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because, as 1 Corinthians 6:18 says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a port-town frequented by sailors (and Cretens!) Corinth had a lot of sexual sin going on. The town had all sorts of temple prostitutes.  In sinning with said prostitutes, a person is using his own body in such a way as to bring disgrace to Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, at least one member of the Corinthian church was engaging in gross immorality, even by the standards of such an immoral town.  As 1 Corinthians 5:1 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T19:51:45.223" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T19:51:45.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6721" CreationDate="2012-03-20T19:35:34.137" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we take a look at the surrounding context, we see that Paul is dealing with a case of sexual immorality  within the church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:1-2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he is specifically dealing with sexual immorality in the context, and basically tacks on &quot;and for that matter, not greedy, swindlers, or idolaters either&quot;.  It is evident that in the passage you cite (v 9-11), he is still operating in the context set up in v 1-2, because he goes on in verse 13 to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T19:59:09.830" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T19:59:09.830" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6741" CreationDate="2012-03-20T19:45:37.753" Score="16" ViewCount="91029" Body="&lt;p&gt;I came across this verse today (bold added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:15-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:15-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body &lt;i&gt;with her&lt;/i&gt;? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.”&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit &lt;i&gt;with Him&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:7-9&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot;&gt;Mark 10:7-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this imply that the act of consensual sex initiates a marriage in the eyes of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; My doctrinal tradition is protestant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-17T02:27:25.793" LastActivityDate="2014-10-17T02:27:25.793" Title="Does the act of sex constitute marriage in God's eyes?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-10-21T12:29:55.840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6724" CreationDate="2012-03-20T20:39:17.607" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short and sweet answer: No, otherwise &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication&quot;&gt;fornication&lt;/a&gt; would be impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-03-20T20:56:43.917" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T20:56:43.917" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6724" CreationDate="2012-03-20T20:41:51.423" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus does not seem to consider merely being with a man to make him your husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%204:16-19&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 4:16-19 (DRA)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus saith to her: Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17 The woman answered, and said: I have no husband. Jesus said to her: Thou hast said well, I have no husband:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband. This thou hast said truly.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;  &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; The woman saith to him: Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, another reading this verse will lead you to one amazing conclusion which was pointed out by my Bishop in Madison, Wisconsin (I don't know where he got it from). He said that to the Jews, the number 7 was a perfect number.  Once it reached the 7th thing, it wasn't going to get any better.  So this lady had 5 husbands, but 7 lovers. The 7th being Jesus, the penultimate lover of her soul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that you care, but to a Catholic, we might say, if she gave up her old ways, that she was married to Christ.  We're pretty particular about what conjugal relations make up marriage, but very liberal about what spiritual relations constitute marriage.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marriage is that which makes husband and wife, mother and father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-03-21T16:50:20.000" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T16:50:20.000" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6721" CreationDate="2012-03-20T21:28:08.150" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure Paul is singling out the sexually immoral. The only place they are mentioned exclusively is when he talks about his previous writing. Everywhere else he says &quot; immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters...&quot;. I would take that as a deliberately inclusive list - i.e. he is making a long list to make it clear that he's talking about all kinds of morality. A possible interpretation is that he wrote previously about sexual immorality for some reason, and now he's is having to correct a few misinterpretations, one being that sexually immorality is a special kind of immorality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T21:28:08.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1030" CreationDate="2012-03-20T23:08:02.123" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's witnesses will also use other bible texts to back up the idea of a 'paradise earth', although the exact combination of these two words do not appear in the bible and sometimes discussion can arise about the 'correct' interpretation of the word 'land/earth'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important ones (or the first that come to my mind) are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 5:5 (NWT, part of Jesus' sermon on the mountain):&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Happy are the mildtempered ones since they will inherit the earth'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 6:10 (part of Jesus' model prayer, NWT):&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Let your will take place as in heaven, also upon earth.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Peter 3:11 (NWT): &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell.' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea of a new heaven and earth is also already known in the OT, e.g. Isaiah 66:22.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OT texts that stress a 'promised land' or the idea that the earth or righteous ones who inhabit it, will remain for ever, are also used to support the idea of a paradise earth: e.g. Deuteronomy 30:20; Psalm 37:29, Proverbs 2:21-22 (or a contrario Proverbs 10:30) and Ecclesiastes 1:4. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JW's further point to certain OT texts that heavily stress that humans have an earthly destination or that the earth is destined to be inhabited, e.g.: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 115:16 (NWT): 'As regards the heavens, to Jehovah the heavens belong, but the earth he has given to the sons of men.' &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 45:18 (NWT): '...God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, who did not simply create it for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited.' See also Genesis 1:28 (NWT): 'fill the earth and subdue it'.    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: the difference in rewards for the faithful ones (eternal life in heaven or eternal life on a paradise earth) is based on a special interpretation of John 10:16 (the 'other sheep' are not interpreted as non-Jews, but as persons who look forward to live for ever on paradise earth and not in heaven).    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1455" LastActivityDate="2012-03-20T23:08:02.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6724" CreationDate="2012-03-21T00:32:51.907" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is strange to me that we talk about the 'sacrament of marriage'.  I suppose that works for a Roman Catholic... however I don't find any description in Scripture that tells me exactly what constitutes marriage.  There is no specific ceremony given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see however in Genesis 4:1 (Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.”) that Eve was already Adam's wife before this act.  Had the previously consummated their marriage?  Even as far back as Genesis 2:21-24 Eve appears to be called Adam's wife, I would assume here before any consummation of anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example can be found in Genesis 24:67 (Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife...)  This passage seems to support the view that Sex = marriage, however I do not agree that it does.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My thought is that marriage has more to do with our intentions before God to be joined as one flesh permanently and fornication has to do with not having that intention.  So that sex with no intention to become married does not equate to marriage, but sex with intention to be one flesh does equal marriage in God's eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T00:32:51.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6692" CreationDate="2012-03-21T00:50:48.063" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;We need to be careful thinking that our English (or other language) translations always reflect God's Words perfectly.  The word 'Ark' when referring to Noah's ark or the ark of bullrushes that Moses was placed into is the hebrew word 'teebah'.  The word used for the Ark of the Covenant is 'arown'.  I believe that there are similarities between the two as noted in other answers, but the words given are distinct in the Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T00:50:48.063" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1092" CreationDate="2012-03-21T00:59:40.460" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;English Bible Translations differ for a number of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Differences in the  English language.&lt;/strong&gt; Dancek's excellent answer points out how the English language changes over time. In addition, some translations are more dialect-specific  (American English vs British English).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Sources used for the translation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible translators use a wide variety of source materials, including but not limited to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Masoretic Text&lt;/strong&gt; (Hebrew text of the Old Testament)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Septuagint&lt;/strong&gt; (Greek translation of the Old Testament. Completed around 130BC, this is the version known to the writers of the New Testament.) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Latin Vulgate&lt;/strong&gt; (4th Century Latin translation by St. Jerome. Became the official version of the Roman Catholic Church.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Textus Receptus&lt;/strong&gt; (Greek New Testament by Erasmus in the 1500s, based on &quot;Byzantine&quot; manuscripts, sometimes called the &quot;majority text&quot;. Basis for KJV and most early English translations.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Novum Testamentum Graece&lt;/strong&gt; (Greek New Testament based largely on &quot;Alexandrian&quot; manuscripts discovered in the 20th century, sometimes called the &quot;critical text&quot;. Basis for most modern English translations.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many modern scholars think the Alexandrian manuscripts used to make up the &quot;critical text&quot; are earlier and more reliable. Other scholars strongly disagree, preferring the &quot;majority text&quot; for a variety of reasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some modern translations use a single source, others try to harmonize multiple sources. Many modern English versions are based primarily on other prior versions. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations&quot;&gt;Plenty of examples here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Different stated purposes&lt;/strong&gt; for creating the translation. A few examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_English_Bible&quot;&gt;Common English Bible&lt;/a&gt; is designed to have English &quot;at a comfortable level for over half of all English readers&quot;, and contains the apocryphal books used by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. &lt;br&gt;&lt;em&gt;The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness doesn’t extinguish the light.&lt;/em&gt; (John 1:5)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplified_Bible&quot;&gt;Amplified Bible&lt;/a&gt; was designed to &quot;amplify&quot; the text by bringing out all shades of meaning in the original. It tends to contain lots of synonyms:&lt;br&gt;&lt;em&gt;And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it].&lt;/em&gt; (John 1:5)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_%28Bible%29&quot;&gt;Message Bible&lt;/a&gt; was written by a single Evangelical scholar and pastor in contemporary idiom to keep the Bible &quot;current and fresh and understandable&quot;.&lt;br&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness; the darkness couldn't put it out.&lt;/em&gt; (John 1:5)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Reader%27s_Version&quot;&gt;New Internation Reader's Version&lt;/a&gt; was an update of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version&quot;&gt;New International Version&lt;/a&gt; with more accessable language, for children or those just learning English.&lt;br&gt;&lt;em&gt;The light shines in the darkness. But the darkness has not understood it.&lt;/em&gt; (John 1:5)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4. Translation philosophy&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence&quot;&gt;Dynamic vs Formal Equivalence&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is easiest to illustrate using an example: how would you translate the following Spanish phrase:&lt;br&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&quot;¿Cómo te llamas?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very literal word-for-word translation (&lt;em&gt;formal equivalence&lt;/em&gt;) might be &lt;strong&gt;&quot;What do you call yourself?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; or perhaps &lt;strong&gt;&quot;What are you called?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. This is understandable, but is a little awkward in English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A modern English speaker would probably ask this question as &lt;strong&gt;&quot;What is your name?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; This would be an example of &lt;em&gt;dynamic equivalence&lt;/em&gt;, which translates idea-by-idea instead of word-by-word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1454" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T00:59:40.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6690" CreationDate="2012-03-21T01:01:53.790" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the real question is what God wants out of worship.  In Amos 5:21-24, God clearly tells the Israelites that He hated their worship.  This was worship He had commanded that they were doing.  I think that the real issue here is doing what God wants in worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that iDevices can be a help.  I am a very old fashioned and conservative (Reformed) Christian and I use my iPad as my Bible in worship.  However I use it basically the same way that I would use my Bible, to read along with the pastor as he is going through passages.  When the minister preaches it is a holy event.  Hebrews 10:14 states, &quot;How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?&quot;  The Greek does not say 'whom they have not heard about?' as some translations have it, but as the NKJV translates correctly, 'whom they have not heard?'  And Christ being heard here is directly related to the preaching of the Word by a preacher.  So when I am listening to a sermon I am listening for the Words of Christ.  I do not believe that every word a preacher says are Christ's words to His people (He would then be inconsistent) but that the Words of Christ do come through His ministers to His people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if I am sitting in church fiddling with my iPad and looking up some minor point (out of pride) to bust the ministers chops after the service, or if I am distracted by my device then I think that I have totally missed the point of why we are there.  We are in Church to give glory, worship and praise to our God, and to hear His very words from the minister.  I think this is the real issue.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you can use an iDevice in worship to give greater glory to God then do so, if it is a distraction or point of pride, leave it at home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T01:01:53.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6705" CreationDate="2012-03-21T03:34:48.630" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) volumes are all freely available online, along with many other Patristics. I got over 300 hits with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/golden+calf&quot;&gt;a search for &quot;golden calf.&quot;&lt;/a&gt; and found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.xxxv.html?highlight=golden,calf#highlight&quot;&gt;several&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.vii.iii.xxx.html?highlight=golden,calf#highlight&quot;&gt;notable&lt;/a&gt; quotes. Keep in mind that the Fathers often allegorized/spiritualized scripture while discussing living for/in Christ. You can also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/study/Exodus_32&quot;&gt;study the passage&lt;/a&gt; and select works that reference it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During the Roman period and long after, the golden calf episode was a source of embarrassment to the Jews in their relations with the increasingly aggressive Church, which fully exploited the story in its polemics with the Synagogue. Even Josephus, who was concerned only with pagan antisemitism, was evidently afraid that the biblical account might be employed by Alexandrian antisemites to lend credence to their allegation that the Jews worshiped an ass's head in the Temple (cf. Apion 2:80, 114, 120; Tacitus, Histories 5:4). Josephus accordingly omits the entire golden calf episode from his account of the Israelite migrations in the desert. Instead, he graphically depicts the deep anxiety of the Israelites concerning Moses and their joy when at last he came down from Mount Sinai (Ant. 3:95–99). Not only did Moses not break the tablets, but he actually displayed them to the rejoicing people (3:101–2). Josephus also omits any reference to Aaron, and the same is true of Philo who does not, however, completely suppress the golden calf narrative (Mos. 2:161–74, 271).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As early as the immediate post-crucifixion era, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, sharply denounced the Jews (but not Aaron who was held in veneration by the Church) for having made the golden calf, which became the fountain-head of Jewish crimes throughout their history, culminating in the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 7:41–52). For the Church the golden calf episode served as proof that the divine covenant with Israel had never been consummated, so that the Jewish claim to a special relationship with the Almighty was unacceptable (see Smolar in bibl., p. 91). By worshiping the golden calf, the Jews had revealed their foolish, stubborn, unrepentant, and immoral character (ibid., 100). Augustine also associated the calf cult with the worship of the devil, and the Jews who had drunk the water into which the powder of the golden calf had been cast with the body of the devil (ibid., 100–1). The medieval identification of the Jew with the devil was no doubt influenced by this extreme patristic interpretation (ibid., 101, n. 12). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07514.html&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also find &lt;a href=&quot;https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&amp;amp;context=rel&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; interesting. I apologize for the hurried and scattered response, I am very busy this evening but wanted to point you in the right direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2012-03-21T03:40:27.250" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T03:40:27.250" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2012-03-21T03:44:26.533" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Tim Keller:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order. The Bible tells us that God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it. Jesus has come to redeem where it is wrong and heal the world where it is broken. His miracles are not just proofs that he has power but also wonderful foretastes of what he is going to do with that power. Jesus' miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts, that the world we all want is coming.” &#xA;  ― Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, God's consistency in miracles was with the natural created order (and restoring it) rather than the laws of physics, though it is possible that in some cases, that he was consistent with both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have always claimed that his greatest miracles were not the physical ones, like changing water into wine, but the spiritual ones, like forgiving sins, saving souls, and changing lives. For example, healing the cripple lowered from the roof was done after forgiving him as proof that Jesus had the power to forgive sins. Similarly, Jesus told the disciples that it was impossible for a rich man to be saved without God, implying that it was impossible for anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' miracles were always performed more to show God's love and mercy and change people's lives and were never exclusively a display of his power. Jesus was actually tempted to demonstrate his power without the redeeming purpose as one of the temptations in the desert, and he refused to do so as it would be a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In turning the water to wine, Jesus ministered to the bridegroom even if he never knew the miracle took place, as running out of wine may have cost him dearly. In this case, He acted consistently with God's plan to redeem the world, which is a greater cause the the laws of physics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="94" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T03:44:26.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6724" CreationDate="2012-03-21T07:03:43.920" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know any place in the Bible that actually defines marriage, but there are some clues, like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 34:1-4 Shechem has sexual relations with Dinah, and then AFTER doing this, says he wants to marry her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Cwallenpoole points out, if sex equaled marriage, then there could be no such thing as adultery or premarital sex by definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know any place in the Bible that refers to two people who have a one-night stand as &quot;married&quot;. The Bible describes plenty of such activity, so it's not for lack of an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 2:24 says a man will &quot;leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife&quot;. The implication is that marriage is more than just sex: it involves a long-term commitment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matt 19:3-12, Jesus says that divorce is allowed only in very limited circumstances. So marriage is a life-time commitment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the reasonable conclusion is that it includes a life-time commitment to live with the other person and to limit one's sexual activity to one's husband or wife. (Multiple wives was apparently permitted or at least tolerated. I don't know any references to multiple husbands in the Bible.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't require any particular ceremoney or ritual to become married. Whether God would accept two people just saying, &quot;Hey, let's declare ourselves married&quot;, I don't know. If they were stranded on an island with no pastor or priest around to perform a marriage ceremony, I think God would accept that. If they refuse to have a ceremony because they don't want to make a formal commitment, I don't think God would accept that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T07:03:43.920" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4705" CreationDate="2012-03-21T08:46:55.030" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many reformed theologians would begin a discussion on the topic of covenants with the way they understand the biblical covenants to be formulated.  God uses language and objects we understand to relate His truth to us.  Many Reformed theologians also believe that he used a covenantal structure called a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fivesolas.com/suzerain.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;suzreinty vassal treaty&lt;/a&gt; which was common among the Hittites at the time of Moses, to structure His covenant with His people so that they would better understand what he meant by it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A SV treaty has a specific form and purpose which is well explained in the link above and this has a very high level of similarity to the Book of Deuteronomy and other parts of OT scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important issue here is that there is a distinct difference between this treaty or covenant and a contract.  A contract is entered into by two (or more) parties who both come of their own free volition and they are generally at an equal level as they sign the contract.  In sharp contrast with this is a SV treaty where the suzerain has either conquered or come to the defense of the vassal and imposes the structure of the covenant on the vassal.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other side, the suzerain not only imposes his will but also binds himself with duties toward the vassal.  So basically it was something like this:  I (suzerain) delivered you from your enemies, therefore you (vassal state) will pay me tribute and you will send men to serve in my army every year.  In exchange for this I vow to defend you from your enemies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Reformed theologians believe that the covenant God has made with His people is of a similar structure: I created you and even though you rebelled against me I sent my Son to die for you.  I have conquered your enemy the Devil and will continue to defend you from him.  Therefore you will serve me and offer me praise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reformed theologians believe that God has created this sort of a covenant with His elect people unilaterally, and that we only love God, because He first loved us and imposed His gracious covenant on our rebellious hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T08:46:55.030" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6724" CreationDate="2012-03-21T13:58:51.467" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, for a whole lot of reasons.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Old Testament Law says that a man who has sex with an unmarried woman has to marry her. That would be unnecessary if having sex made them married.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If that were the case, some teacher somewhere would be reminding people that they had to treat the people they had sex with as if they were wives.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tamar has sex with Judah because he won't consent to give her to his son in marriage. After they have sex, there is no thought that they are married. Judah relents and allows Tamar to marry his son.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As pointed out elsewhere, fornication and adultery would both be non-existent events if the act of sex made you married.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;David has sex with Bathsheba, and then later marries her. Also unnecessary if the sex made them married.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having sex &quot;makes you one flesh&quot;, and that is something that should be reserved for marriage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Mark 10: &quot;a man shall...be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh&quot;. That's two things that should happen, not one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2012-03-22T18:31:29.110" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T18:31:29.110" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2109" CreationDate="2012-03-21T15:51:21.753" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to remark that the linguistic arguments of Jehovah's witnesses are based on the fact that is not certain if Jesus died either on a (single) torture stake or a (tradinally shaped) cross. Rather they feel the language used in the NT is not sufficiently clear on this point. Therefore they stick with the basic meaning of the NT word (stauros) as a 'torture stake'. By translating it with a 'cross', they feel they risk adding something to the word which might not be intended by the original authors in the first century. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, there has been a Ph.D. study published about this very subject. The author basically agrees with this linguistic argument of Jehovah's witnesses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity. An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, 2010, 413 p. (published in 2011).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A short outline of the book's content&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author investigates the philological aspects of how ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, including the New Testament, depict the practice of punishment by crucifixion. A survey of the ancient text material shows that there has been a too narrow a view of the “crucifixion” terminology. The various terms are not simply used in the sense of “crucify” and “cross,” if by “crucifixion” one means the punishment that Jesus was subjected to according to the main Christian traditions. The terminology is used much more diversely. Almost none of it can be elucidated beyond verbs referring vaguely to some form(s) of suspension, and nouns referring to tools used in such suspension. As a result, most of the crucifixion accounts that scholars cite in the ancient literature have to be rejected, leaving only a few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament is not spared from this terminological ambiguity. The accounts of the death of Jesus are strikingly sparse. Their chief contribution is usage of the unclear terminology in question. Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of crucifixion in general, and the execution of Jesus in particular, cannot be supported by the studied texts.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Own website&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the author was frequently quoted in the media as a person who doubted the crucifiction of Jesus, the author, who is not a Jehovah's witness but a protestant pastor, has his own website in which he tries to take away some misconceptions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.exegetics.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crucifixion in Antiquity&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also for general information: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_about_Jesus&amp;#39;_execution_method&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1459" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-08-01T23:28:20.227" LastActivityDate="2016-08-01T23:28:20.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6721" CreationDate="2012-03-21T16:28:42.523" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Apostle John actually commands believers to not associate with those professing to be believers who deny that Jesus came in the flesh.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not&#xA;  confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. &lt;strong&gt;Such a one is the&#xA;  deceiver and the antichrist&lt;/strong&gt;. 8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not&#xA;  lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Everyone&#xA;  who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does&#xA;  not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and&#xA;  the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting&lt;/strong&gt;, 11 for&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works&lt;/strong&gt;.  2 John 1:7-11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Jesus Himself taught that there times when believers should disassociate from others who claimed to be believers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between&#xA;  you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.&#xA;  16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you,&#xA;  that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three&#xA;  witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.&#xA;  And if he refuses to listen even to the church, &lt;strong&gt;let him be to you as a&#xA;  Gentile and a tax collector.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;  Matthew 18:15-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a Jew at that time, there was strict rules about associating with Gentiles (those who did not worship the one true God).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, no one--Christian and non-Christian and even atheist alike--should ever associate with tax collectors.  That's a universal moral absolute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's instructions are directed at a specific case that was occurring in the Corinthian church, so he didn't mention those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh or  because that wasn't an issue in the Corinthian church at the time--really bad sexual immorality was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, sexual immorality is not singled out in the body of Scripture for disassociation--it's just mentioned because it was occurring in this specific instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T16:28:42.523" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6745" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6746" CreationDate="2012-03-21T22:18:12.477" Score="4" ViewCount="1476" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Christianity, is heaven something we will comprehend with the consciousness we have now? Will we be the same consciousness, brain and memories of this world, or is it just the energy of our soul going back to its source – nothing that we will actually experience in terms of earthly experience? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-12-28T22:46:49.677" LastActivityDate="2016-12-28T22:46:49.677" Title="Will we experience heaven (or hell) with our consciousness?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;bible&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-12-29T09:16:08.827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6745" CreationDate="2012-03-21T23:36:12.093" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Memories:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 14:12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to&#xA;  God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am under the impression that &lt;em&gt;yes we will have memories of our lives&lt;/em&gt; (because without such memories how could we give account?). We would not be able to give an account if we did not have consciousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conscious Experience:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that this Scripture gives us a clear answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 6:9-11 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar&#xA;  the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and&#xA;  the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice,&#xA;  “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the&#xA;  inhabitants of the earth and &lt;strong&gt;avenge our blood?&lt;/strong&gt;” Then each of them&#xA;  was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer,&#xA;  until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and&#xA;  sisters, were killed just as they had been.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only did they have the ability to ask a question, they also remembered the way that they were killed and that they deserved justice. They also felt longing, which also supports that there is conscious experience in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Earthly&quot; (Physical) Experience:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please also keep in mind that when Revelation describes heaven there are references to many physical things. I don't believe such language would be used if we were just going to be spiritual beings returning to our source. &lt;em&gt;Please read Revelation 21 &amp;amp; Revelation 22:1-5&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sure that there are more evidences of this, but I am yet to search them out. I am convinced that Heaven will is not just some holding tank for souls, but rather a beautiful restoration of all creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Bless!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1460" LastEditorUserId="1460" LastEditDate="2012-03-21T23:42:35.597" LastActivityDate="2012-03-21T23:42:35.597" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6706" CreationDate="2012-03-22T02:20:05.473" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;1521 might be the Roman Catholic answer to this question, but the Eastern Orthodox answer is a bit harder to give.  The Roman Catholic Church lost its apostolic succession in splitting off from the Orthodox Church (remember, this is the Orthodox perspective).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As late as 1274 and then at 1438, there were still attempts at reunion between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox.  But the reaction of the Orthodox people to the attempted reunion in 1438 made it clear that by that time the schism was a &lt;em&gt;fait accompli&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being the case, in the Orthodox view Luther was &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt; in a church that had lost its apostolic succession, and his actions did nothing to remedy that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, some of the Reformers did have contact with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and explored the possibility of reconciliation between the two groups.  Here's an article that gives a good summary of what took place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luther Had His Chance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T02:20:05.473" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6597" CreationDate="2012-03-22T02:27:35.613" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that God has not given us an answer to this question as it might lead to a form of idolatry.  I remember standing in the Princeton Cemetery at the foot of Jonathan Edward's grave (he is one of my heros of the faith) and thinking, my goodness, this is where that godly man's bones rest until the resurrection.  I was so tempted to worship the place I was standing in because of it's proximity to a bunch of dead bones?!?!  It was a strange feeling, and it was basically a temptation to idolatrous worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, &lt;em&gt;how much more&lt;/em&gt; tempted might we be to worship a hunk or rock which we knew to be the location of that most glorious of events, the resurrection?  I believe God has not told us this so that we are not tempted to worship the place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T02:27:35.613" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6540" CreationDate="2012-03-22T02:34:23.703" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that it would be a bit of an anachronism to state that MLK followed what is today called Black Liberation Theology, but many &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89236116&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;followers of that theology&lt;/a&gt; point to him as a big part of their inspiration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Black Liberation Theology&lt;/a&gt; focuses in it's view of salvation on liberation from earthly oppression.  One would need to dig more deeply into MLK's writings to either support or deny this claim, however it makes sense as a starting point for discussion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T02:34:23.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6369" CreationDate="2012-03-22T03:43:16.507" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading the last page of the Catholic Catechism where it gives the abbreviations for all the books in the Bible and I noticed &lt;code&gt;macc 2&lt;/code&gt;, but not &lt;code&gt;macc 1&lt;/code&gt;.  So, if you want a book that isn't even mentioned in the Catechism but is included in our canon, there's your book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My next thought was of this question and I wondered whether Ezra is referenced in the Catechism and by golly it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezra 9:6-15&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;New International Version (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;6 and prayed:&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   “I am too ashamed and disgraced, my God, to lift up my face to you, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens. 7 From the days of our ancestors until now, our guilt has been great. Because of our sins, we and our kings and our priests have been subjected to the sword and captivity, to pillage and humiliation at the hand of foreign kings, as it is today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 8 “But now, for a brief moment, the LORD our God has been gracious in leaving us a remnant and giving us a firm place[a] in his sanctuary, and so our God gives light to our eyes and a little relief in our bondage. 9 Though we are slaves, our God has not forsaken us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 “But now, our God, what can we say after this? For we have forsaken the commands 11 you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: ‘The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. 12 Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 13 “What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins deserved and have given us a remnant like this. 14 Shall we then break your commands again and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor? 15 LORD, the God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is referenced by CCC 2585:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the time of David to the coming of the Messiah texts appearing in these sacred books show a deepening in prayer for oneself and in prayer for others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say that's not devoid of theological content, it's actually pretty powerful stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T06:35:42.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6652" CreationDate="2012-03-22T03:46:50.650" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand where you are coming from. It seems that the level of modesty seen as acceptable by &lt;em&gt;some Christians&lt;/em&gt; seems to have declined. I am not sure if post-modernity is really the reason for this change, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems more like it may be an issue of sanctification, or perhaps the result of teaching that puts little emphasis on holiness and coming out from the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think to call it postmodern thinking takes away from the possibility that it could indeed be an issue that the Church (Body of Christ) is facing at this time in history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here are a few excerpts from Scripture that I find to be relevant to the situation at hand:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%207:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 7:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, &lt;strong&gt;perfecting holiness&lt;/strong&gt; out of reverence for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 12:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Do not conform to the pattern of this world&lt;/strong&gt;, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Follow your Biblical convictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that this answers your question somewhat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Chris&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1460" LastEditorUserId="1460" LastEditDate="2012-03-26T16:23:37.137" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T16:23:37.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6369" CreationDate="2012-03-22T09:32:04.663" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This answer is incomplete - but I'm not sure how to resolve it. It is based on a sermon I heard a &lt;strong&gt;long&lt;/strong&gt; time ago. Please help make it better if you can - if not downvote or perhaps delete?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not an answer to the whole question, but here is one interesting lesson from Ezra. It answers the question: should we trust in God completely or allow humans to help? E.g. should we &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; pray for healing or allow doctors to intervene?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nehemiah asked for and got help from the king, though he acknowledged God's hand:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the king’s forest, so he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel by the temple and for the city wall and for the residence I will occupy?” And because the gracious hand of my God was upon me, the king granted my requests. So I went to the governors of Trans-Euphrates and gave them the king’s letters. The king had also sent army officers and cavalry with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah+2%3A8-9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nehemiah 2:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, Ezra was ashamed to ask for help, so he relied on God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There, by the Ahava Canal, I proclaimed a fast, so that we might humble ourselves before our God and ask him for a safe journey for us and our children, with all our possessions.  I was ashamed to ask the king for soldiers and horsemen to protect us from enemies on the road, because we had told the king, “The gracious hand of our God is on everyone who looks to him, but his great anger is against all who forsake him.” So we fasted and petitioned our God about this, and he answered our prayer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%208:21-23&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezra 8:21-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; are supported in scripture by men of faith and a God of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T09:32:04.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6755" CreationDate="2012-03-22T09:58:48.713" Score="2" ViewCount="521" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yesterday, as I imagine happens at many places, a person came to my university, and for 6 hours or so, talked about &quot;thousands of ex-homosexuals experiencing the love of Jesus Christ&quot; and about how one can not be gay. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was probably one of the most ugly scenes I have ever seen, with people yelling, screaming (both sides) cursing, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is as follows: It is my understanding that an important christian ideal is love (i.e. not hate at minimum) one's fellow man, and that this is ace tenet of the religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Making a small assumption, I would assume that many people that were protesting, cursing at, yelling at, etc, the person that came to say his piece were incited to hate the individual that came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I am not making light of the way that both the new and old testament speak about homosexuality, at the same time, it prompts the question: Why is causing so many people to hate (something that is a core tenet, and a basic principle found throughout the gospels) worth what is honestly a very slight chance of changing their sexuality (something that is not mentioned in the gospels at all as far as I can tell)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing something, or is this behavior not religiously justifiable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disclaimer:&lt;/strong&gt; I don't know very much about Christianity, and therefore might be making false assumptions. Please correct me if that is the case. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1449" LastEditorUserId="1449" LastEditDate="2012-03-22T10:36:32.427" LastActivityDate="2013-05-28T17:14:53.563" Title="Religious justification for creating a large angry scene with the ostensible purpose of making people not gay" Tags="&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-08-02T15:50:19.220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6753" CreationDate="2012-03-22T11:06:41.140" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are nearly right that an important Christian ideal is love, actually it is &lt;strong&gt;the ideal&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus replied: &lt;strong&gt;“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:34-40&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:34-40&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, note that this is a &lt;em&gt;command&lt;/em&gt; which implies that we have freewill whether or not to follow it (Jesus didn't say, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;I &lt;strong&gt;hope&lt;/strong&gt; you all love each other!&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;) So I take issue with your statement that anyone is &lt;em&gt;causing&lt;/em&gt; hatred - that is a decision of the listeners (even though they sound provoked - I will come back to that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But more than this, Jesus even told us to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-48&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;love our enemies and be perfect!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what has gone wrong here? Answer: someone has chosen to preach &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;one part of Christian teaching&lt;/a&gt; while apparently excluding the rest. Jesus had this to say about that attitude:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:1-5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:1-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;We've all sinned&lt;/a&gt; and, ironically, it appears that while this preacher was pointing out others' sins, he was himself sinning in his attitude.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think you witnessed something not worthy of Jesus, not loving, and I'm so sorry it happened. Sounds like it has done more harm than good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1 I wasn't there - I'm just going on how you've described it.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T11:17:00.317" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6753" CreationDate="2012-03-22T11:11:37.943" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The motivations for protests against homosexuality differ based on the group, and as such the answers must be tailored to the groups.  It should also be mentioned that overall (meaning as a percentage) relatively few Christians tend to take part in these protests, for precisely the reason you state. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, there are several Christian denominations that actively support homosexuality. The Metropolitan Community Church, for example, is a denomination that is in many ways founded on the idea idea of being gay positive.  Other denominations, such as the more liberal parts of the Anglican Communion (i.e. the Episcopal Church in the US) actively support and encourage the lifestyle, although this splits the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because I do not know what group is doing the protest at your school, let me break down the motivations of a few that do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hate (e.g. Non-Reflective Christians)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue the largest body of gay-haters are, as you say, Christians who haven't read the Scripture. Remember that for many people, Christianity is a cultural thing, not a spiritual thing. Homosexuals are different (if you'll forgive the pun.) For many people, homosexuality represents a threat to the established order, and if there is one thing many people hate, it is change. For centuries, many &quot;Christians&quot; also &quot;knew&quot; that white people were better than black people. There were even sermons that pointed out how Ham and Caanan (who I guess must have been black) was cursed by God (well, Noah really, but Noah speaking for God, I guess).  As such, by reading verses out of context, one could conveniently ignore texts like &quot;In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek,&quot;... etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what such hatred did do is to serve the preservation of the culture. People who don't want to change will naturally seek to preserve it by any means possible. There are &quot;scientific,&quot; &quot;cultural,&quot; and &quot;historical&quot; arguments.  Note: They &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; even be valid. But the motivation is important, and if it is not done out of a God given spirit, despite the veneer of Christianity, it is not Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be said here that Jesus never claimed that &quot;preserving the culture&quot; was his mission.  His mother (in Luke 1) exults in the fact that old order will be turned upside down. He himself also says in Luke 12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fear (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fred Phelps is a minister who believes that the judgment of God is being visited on the world because of homosexuals. He and his church are almost universally condemned across the Christian spectrum. Their preferred method of &quot;being faithful to the Gospel&quot; as they see it is to find high profile, sad events, like military funerals or the funerals of well known people, and hold up signs tht say things like &quot;God hates fags.&quot;  These people protest out of fear - not necessarily of homosexuals per se - but out of fear that a totally just God will visit punishment on the country.  They misread texts like Luke 11:31 saying that the USA is worse than Sodom, and that in the final judgement, God will visit destruction upon us all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, it should be made clear that this is not biblical.  As 1 John states (ch 4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love ... God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Ancient Rome, there were laws against atheism for this exact same reason - fear that a vengeful god would destroy the town for gross acts of sacriliege by any who would deny the gods' existence. Initially, because Jews and Christians only believed in one God, they were branded atheists and punished accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Love (e.g. Exodus International)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there is a Christian motivation for the sentiment, if not the tactic (sorry, protests don't change minds) of persuading people &quot;not to be gay.&quot;  From the website of Exodus International:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many settle for so much less than what God intended. Perhaps you are one of them. But the Good News of the Gospel is we can be restored and reconciled to the MORE we were created to experience. God came to bring us life and life MORE abundantly&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, please understand that Exodus International is extremely controversial. Many, many Christians would disavow it**, but it is worth looking at a motivation that really is grounded biblically.  In their estimation, homosexuality damages the individual - it is an oppression from which an individual can and should be freed.  Much like an alcoholic should be freed from the prison of drink, so a homosexual, in their estimation, should be freed from the &quot;stunted growth&quot; of a homosexual lifestyle.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;**Update:  Recently, Exodus International has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156367287/evangelicals-fight-over-therapy-to-cure-gays&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;disavowed itself of any conversion therapy approaches&lt;/a&gt;, meaning that it does not believe that any proclivities will necessarily disappear.  They continue to stand with gays, however, in resisting the impulse to act on the desires, and do so with love, compassion, and empathy.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love, it should be remembered, does that which is in the best interests of its target.  It is more than being nice. When I stop my son and my daughter from doing things that hurt them, that is love. That is the motivation out of which Exodus International operates, and I argue, the real reason why people hate it so much - because it actually is trying to be Christian. It isn't borne out of fear or hate, nor is it a caricature of faith - it is people who genuinely want to be Christian. People don't hate counterfeit three dollar bills - they hate the genuine thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, a personal note. I was engaged in a homosexual relationship for many months after college. I do not claim to speak on behalf of all gays, and I won't even argue that my experience was typical. I will tell you that for me (and I repeat FOR ME) homosexuality was ultimately a trap.  I liked the companionship, and the relationship was actually quite positive. For a young man to be involved in a deep romantic relationship for the first time in my life, it was highly pleasurable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I am glad I was not allowed to stay in that relationship. I eventually had a heterosexual relationship and even children. The joy of those relationships is, frankly, far more than I could have imagined when I was &quot;stuck&quot; in that homosexual one. Most people go through a homosexual phase, but continue to grow. I, personally, believe that phase holds many people - or at least held me - back.  If I can help a person grow, I will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tatically speaking, a protest is not the way to do that.  Jesus did command Christians to love everyone, and holding a sign is not love. I do not advocate for laws banning homosexuality (whether or not marriage is state thing or a church thing is not this question in any event). And if you ask me, do I hate homosexuals? I can clearly answer no.  But will I do everything in my power to help someone who is, in my estimation, trapped? Love compels me to say, Of Course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="4517" LastEditDate="2013-05-28T17:14:53.563" LastActivityDate="2013-05-28T17:14:53.563" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6753" CreationDate="2012-03-22T11:37:01.033" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus says &quot;Blessed (happy, but not in the common sense) are you when they utter all sorts of things falsely because of me. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this fellow persisted in when he ardently thought was right, just and beneficial for his fellow man, there is no real reason for him to stop just because he is being jeered at. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if his words come not from love of others whose personhood he treasures above all else, then as St. Paul puts it, he is a resounding gong. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding what you said about &quot;not hate&quot; being the minimum of the Christian ideal. Well (and I know I don't speak for all Catholics or Christians) but my Bishop has preached against the false virtue of tolerance and really opened my eyes to the fact that if we tolerate someone whom we ardently believe is hurting themselves or society or blaspheming God (and thereby hurting themselves much more than they could possibly know) that tolerance is just plain old morally impermissible and because of this one must make a resolution to act, according to ones conscience, to do whatever necessary to bring about the Kingdom of God.  One must present the Gospel in a way that is not just palatable, but above all true. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T11:37:01.033" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6753" CreationDate="2012-03-22T14:42:20.177" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Basis of Love&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an interesting question.  You are correct in that we as Christians are commanded to love.  This was modeled for us by Jesus, who loved the world, forgave those who called for His crucifixion, washed the feet of His disciples, touched the leper, removed people's shame, and set people free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Homosexuality and Sin&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that many people today believe that homosexuality is either genetic or natural and not immoral.  That is not the biblical view and not the view of those who follow the teachings of the Bible.  It's certainly a modern view in this country, still listed as &quot;abnormal&quot; behavior in psychology books until the last half century when they were pressured by the gay community to change that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does classify homosexuality as immoral, along with many other things, including lying, cheating, deceit, envy, jealousy, bitterness, lust, adultery, and murder.  The Bible teaches that all of these sins actually hurt not just the victims (when there are such) but also those who commit the sins.  As one writer said, &quot;bitterness if the poison I drink hoping it will kill someone else.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We as Christians are not to hate anyone who does any of these things.&lt;/strong&gt;  The reality is that we ourselves are guilty of some or many or all of these sins, at least in our hearts as Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount.  (Matthew 5-7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Message of Christianity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the message of Christianity is that sin destroys.  We hurt ourselves when we sin.  However, there is healing and restoration and forgiveness and wholeness and joy and peace that Jesus offers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The testimonies of those who have experienced this is enormous.  David Berkowitz, the infamous Son of Sam who murdered and raped women, actually experienced this through Jesus and is now a completely different person who remains repentant over what he did.  He would testify that Jesus transformed him and set him free from his sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are definitely thousands of people who have experienced the same thing regarding a homosexual lifestyle.  These are real people with real lives who experienced this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the person whom you heard could have had the motive to share with people who felt trapped by homosexuality, who wanted to be free of it, who wanted healing and restoration, but who did not know it was even possible.  He likely wanted to let them know that it was available to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Hatred&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting that this person who proclaimed freedom and healing was not exhibiting hate towards anyone (or at least you did indicate that he was--certainly he should not have been), but many other people were exhibiting hatred towards him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus actually taught that Christians would be hated, so there's not a whole lot we can do about that.  It doesn't really matter if we are speaking about what is and is not immoral, that mankind is sinful, that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, that Jesus is God, or many other things.  People will hate Christians.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated&#xA;  you. 19  If you were of the world, the world would love you as its&#xA;  own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the&#xA;  world, therefore the world hates you.   John 15:18-19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, we are also under obligation to go into all the world and bring the message of forgiveness and reconciliation and restoration to all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;True Love&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those of us who believe that Jesus is God and the Bible is His Word, the most loving thing we could do is to tell people about Jesus.  Because if that is true, then we really are all separated from God because of our sin, but there is healing and wholeness and joy and peace and forgiveness and life available to all people through Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all the world is infected with a deadly disease, and I have the cure, then to not offer that to anyone would be to demonstrate the must vile hatred possible.  The most loving thing would be to offer that to all people free of charge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People may disagree with the Christian and think he is mistaken, but the heart of the Christian is to offer what is good to those who are hurting--not to just to make people feel guilty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-03-22T22:00:57.547" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T22:00:57.547" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6652" CreationDate="2012-03-22T15:04:17.843" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The view you essentially describe is indeed held by some Christians, but this is not postmodernism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Postmodernism implies a denial of absolute truth, and I assume that your question arises because if many Christians deny an absolute definition of modesty, this seems to imply, to some degree, a denial of absolute truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that is not the case.  Denying an absolute modesty dress code does not imply the denial of an absolute principle of modesty.  In other words, the Christians you describe still hold themselves to an absolute truth - but that truth is a principle of modesty, and not a legalistic dress code.  The Bible does cover the principle of modesty, though what that looks like in practice will vary greatly from culture to culture, and from conscience to conscience&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This principle of modesty&lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt; is described much better by C.S. Lewis in &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of 'modesty' (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. &lt;strong&gt;Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes.&lt;/strong&gt; A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally 'modest', proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[1] See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2014&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[2] Note that C.S. Lewis distinguishes between &quot;modesty&quot; and &quot;chastity&quot;, and uses the word &quot;modesty&quot; only to describe social propriety.  In my answer, I have used the phrase &quot;principle of modesty&quot; in the same way he uses the word &quot;chastity&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T15:04:17.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6652" CreationDate="2012-03-22T16:10:27.913" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians would only be postmodern in the view of modesty if there were an absolute standard set forth in the Scriptures.  Since there is no such standard, then there is no absolute truth to deny.  (As another answer mention, postmodernism is the denial of absolute truth.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an absolute truth defined in Scripture regarding adultery, so if Christians denied that adultery (or lying, blasphemy, stealing, lust, etc.) were wrong, then that would be postmodern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modesty is certainly based on culture in some ways.  in Alaska, it is probably possible to wear much more clothing than it is in Jamaica.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T16:10:27.913" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6764" CreationDate="2012-03-22T16:32:30.927" Score="5" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am aware that there have been two wide spread movements to bring the Evangelical and Roman Catholic Churches closer together (ECT and ECT2).  My question is this: What has changed in Roman Catholic doctrine since the Council of Trent when the split was fully made and the evangelical movement anathematized by Rome?  Have all of the changes that have encouraged these movements been from the side of the Evangelicals?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-22T17:35:44.173" LastActivityDate="2017-03-20T01:54:58.330" Title="Changes in Rome since Trent versus the Evangelicals" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;ecumenism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6761" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6763" CreationDate="2012-03-22T16:33:19.503" Score="12" ViewCount="1398" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not all prayers are answered by God. When one is facing some heavy burden God does not move away, what should our attitude be? The Bible often talks about waiting for God patient. How do we apply these Bible verses? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1367" LastActivityDate="2015-05-23T02:12:55.123" Title="What should be a Christian's attitude when his prayers are not answered?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-05-23T13:37:08.077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6761" CreationDate="2012-03-22T16:49:42.133" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As in all things, our example should be the Savior.  Witness his attitude in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he earnestly wants something even though he knows that it's not right:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:39&quot;&gt;Matthew 26: 39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it can happen to Jesus, it can happen to us as well, and here we see the appropriate way to handle it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T16:49:42.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6761" CreationDate="2012-03-22T16:59:10.673" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, we should recognize that our requests were not in accordance with His will:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:14-15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 5:14-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; And if we know that He hears us &lt;i&gt;in&lt;/i&gt; whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not to say that our asking for it was sinful (though, that's a possibility: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%204:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 4:3&lt;/a&gt;), but we do not have all of the information that God has.  Keep in mind that what seems painful at the time, may be in your ultimate best interest.  Therefore, knowing this, consider it all joy that God is able to work out all things for the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to &lt;i&gt;His&lt;/i&gt; purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201:2-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 1:2-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; And let endurance have &lt;i&gt;its&lt;/i&gt; perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example of this principle at work is given by Paul, who describes to the Corinthians a &amp;quot;thorn in his flesh&amp;quot; that he wished to be taken away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2012:8-9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 12:8-9 (NASB)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;  Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;  And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God told Paul no, and Paul saw in hindsight that God used this thorn to keep Paul from spiritual pride (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2012:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;v7&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So trust God that His plan is superior to our own.  Through all hardships (and good times, for that matter), trust God, constantly seeking closeness with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206:25-34&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:25-34&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; “For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, &lt;i&gt;as to&lt;/i&gt; what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, &lt;i&gt;as to&lt;/i&gt; what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and &lt;i&gt;yet&lt;/i&gt; your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; And who of you by being worried can add a &lt;i&gt;single&lt;/i&gt; hour to his life? &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is &lt;i&gt;alive&lt;/i&gt; today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, &lt;i&gt;will He&lt;/i&gt; not much more &lt;i&gt;clothe&lt;/i&gt; you? You of little faith! &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T20:29:40.193" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6760" CreationDate="2012-03-22T17:15:11.123" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not that doctrine has changed as much as the importance of the arguments. The Roman Catholic Church and many Evangelicals now agree that much of the arguments were semantic, and political and cultural opposition played a large role (especially ongoing political rivalries between France and Germany and the Turkish threat in the Mediterranean). So what has changed isn't really doctrine, but rather the importance of wording those doctrines in certain ways versus others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is actually Evangelicals who have changed their doctrines, which is the reason for the recent ecumenical successes. In fact, the Second Vatican Council's &lt;em&gt;Decree on Ecumenism&lt;/em&gt; states that ecumenical activity cannot result in changing any aspect of the Catholic faith. For example, Post Conciliar Document Number 42 says that the purpose of ecumenism is to transform the thinking and behavior of non-Catholics so that eventually all Christians will be united in one Church. It states, &quot;This unity, we believe, dwells in the Catholic Church.&quot; In other words, &quot;unity&quot; means that all Christians will become Roman Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reality of it is that the Roman Catholic Church is engaging in ecumenical dialog with Protestants and Orthodox, calling them &quot;separated brethren,&quot; and claiming to respect their beliefs. But at the same time, it still officially declares that they are heterodox because of these same beliefs. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/catholicconcerns.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some Catholics&lt;/a&gt; have expressed concern over this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2017-03-20T01:54:58.330" LastActivityDate="2017-03-20T01:54:58.330" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6765" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6771" CreationDate="2012-03-22T17:45:46.663" Score="9" ViewCount="9433" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Kings 2:23-24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road,&#xA;  some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here,&#xA;  baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!”  He turned around, looked&#xA;  at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then&#xA;  two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that I would consider doing so... except for that guy who cut me off this morning on the freeway. :)  This just comes across as against Christianity as I know it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastActivityDate="2014-07-21T18:17:10.373" Title="When is it okay to curse people in the name of the Lord?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-22T00:54:06.520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2012-03-22T18:21:57.433" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This reminds me of the questions the Pharisees would ask of Jesus, intending to trap Him no matter what answer He gave. (I'm not saying that was his intent here) Either it is not really a miracle (bad) or God violated His own laws (also bad). I think the question has been well answered from the standpoint of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I would like to look ar whether a miracle requires some &quot;supernatural&quot; event to take place. I was taught in college that a miracle was God working on behalf of His people at the time and in the manner required, whether that was in nature or out of nature. Example 1: Joshua 3 tells the story of the Israelites crossing the Jordan into Canaan. Verses 15-16 say that as soon as the feet of the priests bearing the Ark of the Covenant touched the water, the river flow stopped far away at Adam, and the people crossed on dry ground. The Jordan passes through cliffs in the region of Adam, and occasionally a landslide will block the flow until the waters are able to overcome the blockage. Is this a miracle? Yes, because the priests did not have to stand there a day, or a week, or a year, waiting for something to happen, but God stopped the water immediately. Example 2: In 1 Samuel 12:16-18 God shows His displeasure with the Israelites rejecting Him as their king and asking for an earthly king by sending thunder and rain in the dry season. I live in Alabama, and there are storms approaching my location right now. To me this is no miracle, but to the Israelites it might as well have been snowing in July. We can explain the phenomenon, but it was still a miracle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1461" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T18:21:57.433" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6760" CreationDate="2012-03-22T18:37:25.870" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several thoughts which came up immediately:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of changes which have come from both sides. On the one hand, the Church has had a decidedly different approach to the separated brethren over the past hundred years. We have come a long way from when the Pope declared the Anglican Holy Orders null and void (Apostolicae Curae). This was accelerated through VAII and by the 1980's it had gotten to the point where JPII allowed Catholics to worship at Protestant churches in 1983 (and the Sunday after the law changed, he preached at a Lutheran church).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As the nationalism of denominations has declined, so the scholastic cooperation has increased. The scholars who study the ancient documents couldn't care less who wrote a particular book, so long as they actually supported their thesis. This is why the New Jerome Bible Commentary includes several non-Catholic sources.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is an increased eye for objectivity. I have one book dated to the first half of the 20th century which makes the statement, &quot;unfortunately, it seems that the people who followed the apostles followed more the theology of James than the liberating theology of Paul.&quot; The implication: that the early Church documents are wrong and that this person knows better.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The documents from the Ancient Church are more available and less &quot;augmented&quot;. When Protestantism first came on the scene there were something like 16 epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (we can now authenticate, at most, 7) and the TR version of the Bible was decidedly corrupt. This made it much easier to say that personal interpretation was paramount to actual Biblical literacy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, major enemies of the Church, like Jack Chick and Loraine Boettner, have either fallen out of favor or died in the past 20 years. It has gotten to the point where new denominations are no longer quite as concerned with attacking the Church as, say, in the 19th century.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T18:37:25.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6651" CreationDate="2012-03-22T18:42:37.810" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Satan's Tactics&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Genesis account, we see a few key methods:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that&#xA;  the Lord God had made.  He said to the woman, “&lt;strong&gt;Did God actually say,&#xA;  ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’&lt;/strong&gt;?” 2 And the woman&#xA;  said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the&#xA;  garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree&#xA;  that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest&#xA;  you die.’” 4  But the serpent said to the woman, “&lt;strong&gt;You will not surely&#xA;  die.&lt;/strong&gt; 5 &lt;strong&gt;For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened,&#xA;  and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”&lt;/strong&gt; Genesis 3:1-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Casting doubt on the word of God &gt;&gt; &quot;Did God really say?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Misquoting God &gt;&gt; &quot;Did God really say, 'You shall not eat of &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; tree in the garden'&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lying and contradicting the word of God &gt;&gt; &quot;You will not surely die.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Attacking the character of God and promising benefits &gt;&gt; &quot;For God knows that when you eat it you will become like God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Man's  Weakness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The description in verse 6 identifies key areas where Eve was tempted (and all of us are today as well).  This is quite interesting in light of 1 John 2:15-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the&#xA;  eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she&#xA;  took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who&#xA;  was with her, and he ate.  Genesis 3:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the&#xA;  world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the&#xA;  world— &lt;strong&gt;the desires of the flesh&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;the desires of the eyes&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;pride&#xA;  of life&lt;/strong&gt;—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the&#xA;  world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the&#xA;  will of God abides forever.  1 John 2:15-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The fruit was good for food &gt;&gt; Desires of the flesh&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A delight to the eyes &gt;&gt; Desires of the eyes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Desirable for gaining wisdom &gt;&gt; Pride of life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tried to summarize these a number of times and have come up with &lt;strong&gt;Pleasures, Possessions, and Pride&lt;/strong&gt; as well as &lt;strong&gt;Appetites, Acquisitions, and Aspirations&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first seems to be an appeal to physical desires that are not evil in themselves.  In fact, God had amply provided for those. The second seems to possibly refer to greed and the desire to possess, as advertising is very visual in its appeal.  The third is perhaps the desire to be something or someone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps &lt;strong&gt;What I Do, What I Have, and Who I Am&lt;/strong&gt; better fits these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Satan obscures the truth, promises benefit from sin, deceives, lies, and attacks the character of God.  He appeals to our desire to do, to have, and to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T18:42:37.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6765" CreationDate="2012-03-22T19:10:35.017" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, &quot;boys&quot; is a very unfortunate translation here, as the original word properly means &quot;youths&quot; (teens/young men, not children.)  And a group of over 40 youths coming out to confront a single man with angry words is a lot more than simple &quot;jeering&quot;.  Imagine the scene!  His life was most likely in danger.  (Remember when Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away because Ishmael was endangering young Isaac with his &quot;teasing&quot;?  The ancient Hebrews seem to have had quite the gift for understatement in these matters!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, this wasn't just any man they were harassing.  This incident came right after Elisha witnessed Elijah's ascendance into heaven, when Elisha was granted an official status as the spiritual heir to Elijah.  In other words, he was the new prophet of God, as Elijah had been.  To harass him was to reject his authority as the emissary of God to Israel, and &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; is where Elisha is different from us.  He was a prophet of God, and he had the authority to call upon the powers of heaven in order to protect himself, as Elijah did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T19:10:35.017" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6765" CreationDate="2012-03-22T19:18:36.010" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;David in Psalm 139:21-22 states:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?  And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies.&quot;    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to remember here that God had set aside a nation for himself and at this time the enemies of David the King of Israel were also the enemies of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today we have a King who is greater than David, King Jesus.  His kingdom is &quot;Not from this world&quot;.  Paul also notes that:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.&quot; (Eph 6:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More specifically the prophets of God, like Elisha, were His messengers and called to a purpose that men no longer have given the Word of God is complete in the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that this means that we no longer have a calling to curse anyone but instead to fight against spiritual wickedness.  We do this by wrestling in prayer and by using the Word of God to tear down the enemies strongholds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditDate="2012-03-22T21:36:42.297" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T21:36:42.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6753" CreationDate="2012-03-22T20:43:52.027" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand the question, the speaker was a Christian speaking about his (Christian) view of homosexuality, and the protesters were opposed to him and &quot;protesting, cursing at, yelling at, etc.&quot; him, and that they &quot;were incited to hate the individual that came&quot; (i.e. the Christian speaker. Your question appears to be &quot;why would the Christian come to say his piece, given that the ugly protest was the result?&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally if a group of people descide to make an ugly protest, with yelling, cursing etc &lt;em&gt;that is their decision and their issue&lt;/em&gt;. The speaker came to say his piece. I don't find anything in your question to indicate that he incited the protest, or spoke in an inflammatory way, or expressed hatred for homosexuals (if he did, that's a whole different story).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might argue that if &quot;protest and hatred&quot; are the result, the speaker shouldn't have spoken. I don't think that works either in Christian doctrine, or in the wider world. Jesus frequently said things that upset people, and provoked a violent reaction. Christians who spoke out against slavery and for the Civil Rights movement also sometimes provoked angry and violent protests (as did non-Christians). Are you arguing that they shouldn't have spoken out? If you apply this rule then it becomes really easy to prevent anyone for saying something you disagree with - you just have to get enough people to object loudly enough, and the speaker is 'morally obliged' to stop talking. Freedom of speech could be ended in a moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You do also say that the confrontation got ugly on both sides, and I'm not going to try to excuse that. Christians should indeed behave better. But that's really difficult to do when a roomful of people are yelling at you. And it's certainly not a reason to not speak what you believe to be the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T20:43:52.027" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6773" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6777" CreationDate="2012-03-22T22:16:12.730" Score="7" ViewCount="261" Body="&lt;p&gt;If a devout Christian is not &quot;delivered&quot; in this life, how are they viewed by other Christians? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, a black Christian pastor in segregated America, who truly loves the Lord, is killed by the KKK....or a Christian fed to lions in ancient Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How are the events thought of by fellow believers? (is it considered the devil winning a round, the persons fault,a question, expected reality, God's act, etc?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1109" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T02:11:19.200" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T02:11:19.200" Title="How are devout Christians viewed by other believers, when they are not delivered from &quot;evil&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6690" CreationDate="2012-03-22T22:38:34.637" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about early Christian services?  Here are some samples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:42 (NIV) They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and&#xA;  to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 17:11 (NIV) Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than&#xA;  those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great&#xA;  eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul&#xA;  said was true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advice to a young pastor &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Timothy 4:13 (NIV) Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of&#xA;  Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2:42 seems to be representative: there was teaching and learning, relationships and eating together, and prayer to God.  Except perhaps the prayer, it was not contemplative, it was actively learning how to follow the two great commandments: love God, love people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 12-14 is rebuking the people for having services that were inwardly based and were not building up the whole church: they were not instructing and learning but all doing their own thing.  They were being self-centered instead of loving.  Paul didn't say that they were wrong in looking inward, but in a service the purpose was to build others up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor 14:3-4 (NIV) But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.  He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prohesies edifies the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contemplation is certainly encouraged, teaching and learning are even better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T22:38:34.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6753" CreationDate="2012-03-22T23:21:21.657" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians that go out and publicly protest/speak out against abortions, homosexuality, &quot;satanic death metal&quot;, etc. in the name of Jesus is upsetting. You are right, they aren't acting in love.. &lt;code&gt;John 8:7 - Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.&lt;/code&gt; How can they be so merciless, disrespectful, and not understanding, and expect to win people to Christ? Even if they were being nice about it, we are commanded to live quietly and peacefully and to mind our own affairs; one reason being to gain the respect of the outside world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Thess 4:10-12 (Amplified)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And indeed you already are [extending and displaying your love] to all the brethren throughout Macedonia. But we beseech and earnestly&#xA;  exhort you, brethren, that you [f]excel [in this matter] more and&#xA;  more,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 To make it your ambition and definitely endeavor to live quietly and peacefully, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands,&#xA;  as we charged you,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 So that you may bear yourselves becomingly and be correct and honorable and command the respect of the outside world, being&#xA;  dependent on nobody [self-supporting] and having need of nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-03-22T23:43:03.580" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T23:43:03.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6773" CreationDate="2012-03-23T00:02:01.940" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a purely Biblical perspective, there is nothing in God's word that promises that we will not suffer.   In fact, it teaches the opposite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.looktotheeast.com/God_loves_you_and.htm&quot;&gt;tract put out by Living Waters Publications&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is true that God loves you, but you decide if His plan is&#xA;  &quot;wonderful.&quot; If you have heard that happiness comes through Jesus&#xA;  Christ, you may like to think again. The first thing Jesus said of the&#xA;  Apostle Paul (who wrote most of the New Testament) was that He would&#xA;  show him &quot;how great things he must suffer for (His) name's sake.1&#xA;  Three times Paul was beaten with rods, once he was stoned, three times&#xA;  he suffered shipwreck, a night and a day he spent in the sea. There&#xA;  were times when Paul was so unhappy, he wanted to die.2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bible says, &quot;All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer&#xA;  persecution.&quot;3 It says we enter the Kingdom of God through much&#xA;  distress,4 and that we were appointed to afflictions.5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said if we followed Him we would be reviled, persecuted, hated,&#xA;  and all manner of evil would be said against us falsely, for His sake.&#xA;  He warned that we would have to take up our cross daily, deny&#xA;  ourselves and follow Him, saying, &quot;In the world you shall have&#xA;  tribulation,&quot; and even that we may be called to die for our faith.6&#xA;  :&#xA;  That is 100% true.  Being delivered from Evil is a valid prayer request, but we understand that it doesn't mean we will always be delivered.  Someone on this site recently said &quot;God isn't some Genie that goes around granting wishes.&quot;  That's also 100% true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question appears to come from the perspective that &quot;God has a wonderful plan for your life&quot; and also a variation of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology&quot;&gt;Prosperity Doctrine&lt;/a&gt; (where all our evils are caused by our own sin, but if we are just, we'll get whatever we desire).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always had a problem with both teachings. For a more lengthy discussion on the topic, I recommend Ray Comfort's book on the topic, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesuseveryday.com/free_christian_books/Ray_Comfort_God_Has_a_Wonderful_Plan_for_Your_Life.pdf&quot;&gt;freely available online in pdf format&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some relevant verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Mark 8:34-36)&lt;/strong&gt; If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life&#xA;  will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s&#xA;  will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world&#xA;  and forfeit his soul?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Acts 9:15-16)&lt;/strong&gt; But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings,&#xA;  and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he&#xA;  must suffer for my name's sake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(John 15:18-21) If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me&#xA;  before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love&#xA;  its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of&#xA;  the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I&#xA;  said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you...&#xA;  because they do not know Him who sent Me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the book of Job is a pretty good example of someone that God loves,  suffering because God allowed it.  We are reminded in that story that God is sovereign, and that He allows suffering for His purposes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suffering increases faith, encourages reliance on God, and destroys pride.  In short, pain makes you stronger and better.  It refines us as a fire refines fine metals:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Isaiah 48:10)&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have&#xA;  chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in short, when we see Believers not &quot;delivered from Evil&quot; we don't think it's unnatural.  And we darn well &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be thinking &quot;what can I do to provide comfort or help&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T00:32:54.163" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T00:32:54.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6773" CreationDate="2012-03-23T00:17:16.597" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the Christian suffering for his or her faith is an honor. If it is the result of his faith not just is wrong behavior (It is not suffering for your faith, if you are uncaring for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first example in the Bible that comes to my mind is :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;41 Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.&#xA;  &lt;code&gt;The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ac 5:41). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle were rejoicing from the fact that they suffer &quot;evil&quot; because of Christ. For the Christian God is not cut short when suffering happens. He is still sovereign in the hard time as he is in great times. For as Paul said it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. &#xA;  &lt;code&gt;The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 8:18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian hope is in living eternally with God, not on fulfilling the american dream.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T00:17:16.597" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6779" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6781" CreationDate="2012-03-23T02:25:32.113" Score="7" ViewCount="2432" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the Reformation began to take hold, the Orthodox may have been in decline, but were definately still present. I'm curious to know what what the two &quot;breakaways&quot; thought of each other - is it a case of &quot;my enemies' enemy is my friend,&quot; or was the doctrinal difference too great?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-04-19T01:40:25.033" LastActivityDate="2017-04-19T01:40:25.033" Title="What did Luther think of the Eastern Orthodox and vice versa?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6780" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6789" CreationDate="2012-03-23T02:34:42.417" Score="20" ViewCount="4250" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Great Schism&lt;/a&gt; represents the break between the Eastern and Western churches. I know that a primary bone of contention that the East had with the West was Rome's insistence on &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_supremacy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Papal Supremacy&lt;/a&gt;. My understanding is that for a millennium there had been an understanding that Rome would be first among equals, and clearly this somehow fell apart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to know &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what was the proximate cause of the mutual anathema,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;why they each anathematized the other (one would assume that one side could have denounced the other, but mutual allegations seem odd), and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;why a simple governance question couldn't be resolved politically. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, finally, for bonus points :) I understand that the Pope recently (like in the 1990s) has reconciled with the Orthodox.  Is this true, and how did it come about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Note: There is already a question about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3926/what-are-the-theological-implications-of-filioque&quot;&gt;filioque&lt;/a&gt; so feel free to gloss over any details about that in particular.  Per cwallenpoole, it is a fairly contentious thing.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, Can't we all just get along?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-10-08T16:05:59.633" Title="Why did Rome and Constantinople split in 1054 AD?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;schism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6779" CreationDate="2012-03-23T03:27:37.357" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I linked to this article in another question, but it's certainly relevant here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx&quot;&gt;Luther Had His Chance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Lutherans did make contact with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Jeremias_II_of_Constantinople&quot;&gt;Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople&lt;/a&gt;.  They gave him a copy of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Confession&quot;&gt;Augsburg Confession&lt;/a&gt; and requested his reaction.  The Patriarch politely thanked them and, later, gave a detailed reply, indicating where the various points of the Lutheran document were in conflict with Orthodox doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Reformers, in turn, composed a detailed reply to explain themselves and assert that doctrinally the two churches were not really so far apart.  The Patriarch replied at greater length, again explaining which doctrines were not acceptable to the Orthodox faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Reformers sent one more letter, but the Patriarch felt things were at an impasse.  He replied requesting no more correspondence on matters of doctrine, but rather &quot;for the sake of friendship.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T16:34:05.903" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T16:34:05.903" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6782" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-22T04:20:10.903" Score="15" ViewCount="81576" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently spoke with a friend of mine and he was wondering if we are alive before conception. We know that there is life after death according to the Bible, but what does the Bible say about &quot;life&quot; before birth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All I could dig up was this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%201:4-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 1:4-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,&#xA;  and before you were born I consecrated you;&#xA;  I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:15-16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Psalm 139:15-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV1984)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; My frame was not hidden from you&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;when I was made in the secret place.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; your eyes saw my unformed body.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  All the days ordained for me&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;were written in your book&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;before one of them came to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any insight?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit: It is clear that we do not have physical being before birth but is there something in the Bible that might prove or disprove the existence of our souls before conception?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1460" OwnerDisplayName="Chris B." LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-03-29T18:26:09.143" LastActivityDate="2014-02-10T21:58:25.247" Title="What does the Bible say about life before conception?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;souls&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6782" CreationDate="2012-03-22T05:57:07.950" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I think the verses you brought up are enough to make the point, here are some additional verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Job31.15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 31:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Did not he that made me in the womb make him?  And did not&#xA;  one fashion us in the womb?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Is44.2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 44:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from&#xA;  the womb, which will help thee&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1466" OwnerDisplayName="Lance Roberts" LastActivityDate="2012-03-22T05:57:07.950" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6782" CreationDate="2012-03-23T12:42:24.537" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't explicitly say whether or not we exist prior to conception.  The Psalm 139 passage you referenced indicates that God knew us before we were born and saw our unformed body.  However, this is not a definitive statement that we existed prior to birth.  Contextually, it seems much more probably to be referring to the omniscience of God (from whom I cannot hide, and who is with me wherever I go...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be instructive to ask what would need to be in the Scriptures to give sufficient evidence for the belief in pre-conception existence.  If there were a verse that indicated God spoke to us or heard our prayers prior to conception or indicated we had made a decision prior to conception--those would be quite significant.  No such verses exists, though.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Psalm 51, David asserts that &quot;I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me&quot;--but not before is mother conceived him.  This is quite a significant distinction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if it were true that we existed prior to conception, we must wonder why nothing in the Bible explicitly or definitively states this.  On the contrary, we are given reasons to disbelieve this doctrine, but not conclusive reasons to believe it.  For a doctrine or idea that is characterized by such evidence it seems prudent to retain skepticism regarding it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T12:42:24.537" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6782" CreationDate="2012-03-23T13:09:22.990" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The soul of the body, or the spirit, did exist before conception, yes, but we did not have physical being then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' disciples knew that the soul existed before physical conception. Evident here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 9:1-2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How could the disciples thought he might have sinned or transgressed before birth, if he did not exist, or they did not think he existed before birth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often, references are made to events and relationships that existed before the foundation of the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 17:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 1:18-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also speaks repeatedly of a notion of foreordination, or being known and foreordained before the world ever was, for instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 1:3-4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job references an occasion where all the sons of God shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 37:4,7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John the Revelator, in the Book of Revelation, saw in vision a recount of a war in heaven before Adam and Eve were placed on the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 12:7-9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Titus 1:2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude also references an organized spiritual state before this physical life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jude 1:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(According to some Christian churches, this is thus our &lt;em&gt;second&lt;/em&gt; estate, having kept our first  by not following Lucifer in the war in heaven before this life.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just note that I do not know of many Christian faiths that actually believe or can explain the doctrine of pre-mortal existence. It is largely unrevealed to us and the Bible alone is not definitive in the description of that state. It evidently &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; happen, however, and I have cited only a few passages here which support that. &lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Let me re-emphasize the general vagueness of these passages; but I would rather be comprehensive than not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T13:55:10.163" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T13:55:10.163" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6568" CreationDate="2012-03-23T16:10:43.607" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;See the original KJV 1611 online at:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&amp;amp;PagePosition=77&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&amp;amp;PagePosition=77&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Click on the radio buttons in the upper right to enlarge the image. Enlarged, you can see the Blackletter type (called Old English today) that all early English Bibles used. The KJV, called the Authorized Version back in 1611, used ROMAN type to distinguish the helping verbs and prepositions which were added to the original Hebrew and Greek texts to make them read better in English. Later printers changed these ROMAN text words to italic type fonts. The italic would be required if the regular text was set in ROMAN type such as the type we are now all used to seeing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prologue summarizing each chapter is also in ROMAN type, indicating it too is not part of the original Scripture. The innovation of using ROMAN type to distinguish helping words added to the English translation was the thin pretext by which the Barker family was given an exclusive, new patent to print all Bibles in England.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other printers howled in protest at Barker getting an exclusive patent to print the Bible in England because they had the right to print Bibles and religious texts under earlier rules. Barker and his financial backers paid 3500 pounds in gold to the Crown for the right to print the Authorized Version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &quot;Wide as the Waters&quot; by Benson Bobrick for a great, well-written history of the development of the Bible in English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1467" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T16:10:43.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6568" CreationDate="2012-03-23T16:25:19.690" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever you deal with translation from one language to another, there are some expressions that just don't make sense in the language into which a text is being translated.  For instance, Russian has no articles (a, an, and the).  So, if we translated from Russian to English, we have to add articles in to make sentences sound right, even though they aren't in Russian&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am going to store.        &amp;gt;&amp;gt; Direct Translation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am going to &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; store. &amp;gt;&amp;gt; article added in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is essentially what all translators of the Bible have to do.  The KJV editions explicitly show where they had to do this with italics, which is certainly nice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, this doesn't show everything that translators have to do, since &amp;quot;ο θεος&amp;quot; (ha theos) is typically how the Greek refers to God.  This contains the definite article &amp;quot;the&amp;quot;.  However, we seldom say &amp;quot;the God&amp;quot;, choosing rather to address Him as just &amp;quot;God&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the italics are nice in that they show where words have been added to help make the English more like we speak, yet there are places were articles and such have been omitted for the same reason which we can't see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's pretty difficult, indeed, to see when a removed word is italicized!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T16:31:41.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6753" CreationDate="2012-03-23T17:08:00.230" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Presumably Christians should follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. And of course Jesus never said anything to make people angry at him. Everywhere he went everyone liked him and wanted to be his friend ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh wait, that's didn't happen. People hated him so much that they eventually had him tortured and killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, he specifically warned his followers to expect the same. For example, Matthew 24:9-10, &quot;Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.&quot; Or Luke 6:22-23, &quot;Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man’s sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, Jesus said that we should love our enemies. But apparently he didn't mean by this that we should always be sweet and polite to everyone. He called his opponents a bunch of snakes (Matthew 3:7), liars (John 8:44), hypocrites (Matthew 16:3), etc. On at least one occassion he vandalized a building and physically assaulted people. (John 2:13-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't wish to be rude or snarky, but I think you have this exactly backwards. Anyone who stands up for what is right will be hated by those who want to do wrong. Anyone who preaches the Gospel will be hated by those who reject it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a preacher is widely loved and respected by the world, he should carefully examine is message to see what he is doing wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T17:08:00.230" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6780" CreationDate="2012-03-23T18:40:05.533" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy&quot;&gt;This site&lt;/a&gt; has a good overview of the history from a Catholic viewpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a high level overview based on that site and the article on Wikipedia (which currently stands in question of its neutrality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the church headquartered at Constantinople began to have ongoing squabbles with Rome due in some part to the Emperor's meddling in Church affairs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 1054, after the Norman conquest of southern Italy, the friction escalated due to the imposition on the Greek colonies there of the practice of Eucharist using unleavened bread.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A Papal legate was sent to address the situation, but (apparently largely) personality issues  caused the two delegates to mutually anathemize each other (but not their respective churches). This was not considered very momentous at the time, but in retrospect it marked the departure point between the two bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even after that, there were future attempts at reconciliation. The collapse of the Byzantine Empire, between 1450 and 1490, precipitated the enduring split.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the last few popes, there have been renewed attempts at reunification. In fact there are a number of Eastern-Rite churches in communion with Rome (e.g. the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/about-us-mainmenu-60&quot;&gt;Byzantine Catholic rite&lt;/a&gt;). But &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Criticism_of_reconciliation_efforts&quot;&gt;it seems&lt;/a&gt; that the laity of the Eastern Orthodox are more opposed to reunification than the leaders, at least in some ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important aspect of this the differing views, from an early age, of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Papal_privilege_and_authority&quot;&gt;role of the Pope&lt;/a&gt;. Easterns regard him as &quot;first among equals&quot; or to have primacy, while Westerns, of course regard his role as one of authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Filioque question was an early (sixth century) bone of contention between the East and the West. These days, Rome considers the two to be equivalent statements and it seems likely that it would be a small or nonexistent issue if serious reconciliation were ever to take place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1468" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-03-24T17:54:51.537" LastActivityDate="2012-03-24T17:54:51.537" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6790" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6798" CreationDate="2012-03-23T18:50:27.373" Score="2" ViewCount="744" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am confused about what it really means to activate God's power in my life, which I heard my pastor say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord,&#xA;  and with justice and might…” (Micah 3:8, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Renew a right spirit within me. —Psalm 51:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are passages that make it sound like something actually comes into us (the Holy Ghost, I heard someone say) and actually changes real life situations...in other words things from from the meta-physical or spiritual world changing us and daily experiences. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that true, or is it us just acting and thinking differently?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or maybe means activating the part of God already in us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T19:07:30.727" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T21:13:25.050" Title="Does believing in Christ activate God's word or just make us think and act different?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4952" CreationDate="2012-03-23T19:14:07.873" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that this passage, given the context, is referring to the body of Christ when John says &quot;us&quot;. That would indicate eternal security of your salvation. However, if one wanted to interpret the passage to say that by &quot;us&quot;, John is referring to a particular group of people (a group of teachers, a particular assembly of believers, etc.), then in that sense it wouldn't contradict with the conditional security belief.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I don't think that makes sense, because if John was referring to particular group of people, then he wouldn't say &quot;for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us...&quot;, because you can be part of any group and then decide to not be part of it, any group but the body of Christ. If you are truly Christ's, then you can never be separated from Him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor&#xA;  principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to&#xA;  separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Romans 8:38-39 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-03-23T20:53:56.157" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T20:53:56.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6782" CreationDate="2012-03-23T19:45:10.393" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just wanted to chime in with the obvious about this scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 1:5 ) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That seems pretty clear to me. God knew Jeremiah before he was born. While you might say that this knowledge referes to the fact that God knows everything. There are actions involved not just knowledge. Jeremiah was sanctified and &lt;em&gt;ordained&lt;/em&gt; and you could maybe stretch(and it would be a stretch) and say that you can sanctify knowledge but to ordain something that something has to exist. So Jeremiah existed before he was formed in the belly and while he existed he was ordained to be a prophet unto the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2012-03-24T01:05:15.240" LastActivityDate="2012-03-24T01:05:15.240" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5841" CreationDate="2012-03-23T19:46:10.127" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Word of Wisdom refers both to Doctrine and Covenants section 89, and also to its interpretation. The scripture is listed here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with many issues in LDS doctrine, some aspects are specified, and others are left open-ended. The official list from mormon.org posted above contains a few items that are explicitly banned--you can't claim to be &quot;living the Word of Wisdom&quot; (and be considered worthy of a temple recommend) if you consume them, even occasionally. However, the scripture contains other guidelines whose interpretation is open to debate within the LDS community. In addition to caffeine (discussed elsewhere), the following is debated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord,&#xA;  have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they&#xA;  are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should&#xA;  not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within the LDS community, someone on a pure meat diet would not be ineligible to receive a temple recommend, but personal opinions vary widely on how this should be interpreted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1471" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T19:46:10.127" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6795" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-23T20:26:01.540" Score="6" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Ancient Rome, gladiators would fight to the death for the amusement of the crowd.  What did Christians do to stop this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T20:32:55.807" Title="What was the Christian response to death-loving practices of Ancient Roman society?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;martyrdom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6795" CreationDate="2012-03-23T20:27:23.787" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians had a revulsion against the exploitation of the games, as evidenced by the story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Telemachus&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Telemachus&lt;/a&gt;, an Egyptian monk who, in  403 AD threw himself into the arena to stop the gladitorial games. Telemachus died in the melee already on the field, but Emperor Honartius was so inspired by the sacrifice that he put an end to the games on January 1, 404.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Foxe's Book of Martyrs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this fortunate victory over the Goths a &amp;quot;triumph,&amp;quot; as it was called, was celebrated at Rome. For hundreds of years successful generals had been awarded this great honor on their return from a victorious campaign. Upon such occasions the city was given up for days to the marching of troops laden with spoils, and who dragged after them prisoners of war, among whom were often captive kings and conquered generals. This was to be the last Roman triumph, for it celebrated the last Roman victory. Although it had been won by Stilicho, the general, it was the boy emperor, Honorius, who took the credit, entering Rome in the car of victory, and driving to the Capitol amid the shouts of the populace. Afterward, as was customary on such occasions, there were bloody combats in the Colosseum, where gladiators, armed with swords and spears, fought as furiously as if they were on the field of battle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first part of the bloody entertainment was finished; the bodies of the dead were dragged off with hooks, and the reddened sand covered with a fresh, clean layer. After this had been done the gates in the wall of the arena were thrown open, and a number of tall, well-formed men in the prime of youth and strength came forward. Some carried swords, others three-pronged spears and nets. They marched once around the walls, and stopping before the emperor, held up their weapons at arm's length, and with one voice sounded out their greeting, Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant! &amp;quot;Hail, Caesar, those about to die salute thee!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The combats now began again; the glatiators with nets tried to entangle those with swords, and when they succeeded mercilessly stabbed their antagonists to death with the three-pronged spear. When a glatiator had wounded his adversary, and had him lying helpless at his feet, he looked up at the eager faces of the spectators, and cried out, Hoc habet! &amp;quot;He has it!&amp;quot; and awaited the pleasure of the audience to kill or spare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the spectators held out their hands toward him, with thumbs upward, the defeated man was taken away, to recover if possible from his wounds. But if the fatal signal of &amp;quot;thumbs down&amp;quot; was given, the conquered was to be slain; and if he showed any reluctance to present his neck for the death blow, there was a scornful shout from the galleries, Recipe ferrum! &amp;quot;Receive the steel!&amp;quot; Privileged persons among the audience would even descend into the arena, to better witness the death agonies of some unusually brave victim, before his corpse was dragged out at the death gate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The show went on; many had been slain, and the people, madly excited by the desperate bravery of those who continued to fight, shouted their applause. But suddenly there was an interruption. A rudely clad, robed figure appeared for a moment among the audience, and then boldly leaped down into the arena. He was seen to be a man of rough but imposing presence, bareheaded and with sun-browned face. Without hesitating an instant he advanced upon two gladiators engaged in a life-and-death struggle, and laying his hand upon one of them sternly reproved him for shedding innocent blood, and then, turning toward the thousands of angry faces ranged around him, called upon them in a solemn, deep-toned voice which resounded through the deep inclosure. These were his words: &amp;quot;Do not requite God's mercy in turning away the swords of your enemies by murdering each other!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angry shouts and cries at once drowned his voice: &amp;quot;This is no place for preaching!--the old customs of Rome must be observed!--On, gladiators!&amp;quot; Thrusting aside the stranger, the gladiators would have again attacked each other, but the man stood between, holding them apart, and trying in vain to be heard. &amp;quot;Sedition! sedition! down with him!&amp;quot; was then the cry; and the gladiators, enraged at the interference of an outsider with their chosen vocation, at once stabbed him to death. Stones, or whatever missiles came to hand, also rained down upon him from the furious people, and thus he perished, in the midst of the arena.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His dress showed him to be one of the hermits who vowed themselves to a holy life of prayer and self-denial, and who were reverenced by even the thoughtless and combat-loving Romans. The few who knew him told how he had come from the wilds of Asia on a pilgrimage, to visit the churches and keep his Christmas at Rome; they knew he was a holy man, and that his name was Telemachus-no more. His spirit had been stirred by the sight of thousands flocking to see men slaughter one another, and in his simple-hearted zeal he had tried to convince them of the cruelty and wickedness of their conduct. He had died, but not in vain. His work was accomplished at the moment he was struck down, for the shock of such a death before their eyes turned the hearts of the people: they saw the hideous aspects of the favorite vice to which they had blindly surrendered themselves; and from the day Telemachus fell dead in the Colosseum, no other fight of gladiators was ever held there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a religion, Christians also agitated against the Roman practice of infanticide as well, fishing live, discarded babies out of the Tiber.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, it can be said that Christians held those practices of the Romans that involved needless killing to be repulsive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T20:32:55.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6576" CreationDate="2012-03-23T20:48:46.863" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two Scripture references, that basically say the same thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. &lt;sup&gt;Proverbs 16.4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. &lt;sup&gt;Col 1:15&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As tautological as this sounds, it is true - God made everything for himself, because he wanted to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T20:48:46.863" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6790" CreationDate="2012-03-23T21:13:25.050" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since I don't know the context it is hard to explain what your pastor meant exactly. I will try to give a general answer to the question about the Spirit as a strengthening and guiding Helper in our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This answer will ignore the teaching in the Bible about the Spirit as co-creator with Christ and the Father, the Spirit as the endowing power that enabled the earthly Jesus to perform miracles and indeed even submit to the Father's will in sacrificing himself, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two points before I really get started.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, the Bible never intends to solve the paradox between our responsibility as human beings and our dependence on God. It's like the bike having two pedals. You will need both to push it forward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the Spirit will guide us to maturity. Being mature means not having to be told every minute detail that you're supposed to do. Such knowledge will be &lt;strong&gt;internalized&lt;/strong&gt; when you're grown up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Occasionally, though, there may be moments when specific guidance is needed, especially for ministry. But let's start at the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit is not completely unknown to any living human being. &quot;He himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.&quot; Acts 17:25&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God can, through the Spirit, speak to (or prompt) anyone or speak through anyone. Like Cyrus of Persia or through Balaams donkey. The person may or may not be aware that it is God speaking.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was through the Spirit of God that saving faith is bestowed to us. While Christian traditions may interpret the how of this differently, the fact that the Spirit is a key part of this is unarguably true.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is through the Spirit that you're born again. The phrase may have been overused or even abused, the Biblical truth never becomes reduced to nothing. Being born again means a fundamental inner transformation. It makes you partake of the nature of Christ himself. But our sinful nature is not erased. As of us being born again, the Spirit takes begins to &lt;em&gt;dwell&lt;/em&gt; in us. The verb dwelling is never applied to unbelievers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit will illuminate the Word of God, making it more than a an objective truth, but also a personal communication from God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit will guide us and strengthen us by giving (or withdrawing) inner peace. That peace needs us dialing down and taking time to communicate with God through individual and communal prayer, worship and listening to Gods Word. It can be silenced by stress, fear and doubt.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The greatest working of the Spirit and the most awesome effect of the Spirit dwelling in our beings, is the release of the cry Abba! Father! The Spirit makes our being daughters and sons of God more than a judicial state, it enables intimacy in our communion with the Father. (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far I think every believing reader on this forum will agree. I will provide a few more points, where admittedly Christian traditions differ, but this is how I interpret the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit can &quot;fill us&quot;, or &quot;come upon us&quot;. This happened to Peter at least 3 times in Acts (2:4; 4:8; 4:31 - exact same verb in the Greek original). Through this we get power for ministry in that situation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit will endow us with Spiritual gifts, through which we can build each others up; Through them we can exhort, inspire, comfort, teach, heal, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We can be &quot;filled&quot; with Spirit. The NT has other verbs that speak of a more continual state. But there is no exact distinction between points 5-7.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We can be guided through the Spirit, not as in being taught doctrine apart from the Bible, but as in being helped in our individual service for God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit will help us pray, through inner promptings, prophetic inspiration or the gift of tongues.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally (at least in this answer), building this primarily on Gal 5:13-26, but also many other sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit will empower the godly life, helping us resist evil and temptation and provide strength to avoid sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Through the Spirit &quot;the fruit (singularis) of the Spirit&quot;, primarily love, faith and hope, but in essence encompassing every good and Christ lie personality trait. Thus, God is working so that I both in will and in deed do the will of God. My will is not reduced from the equation, but it is affected by God. He will make me want what is good.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian life may contain many periods of great enthusiasm, personal revival. I personally think of these as the blossoming season in the spring. Fruit, however, is seen during the dull autumn. Fruit grow slowly. (While gifts are given instantaneously.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in essence - yes the Spirit of God is in a sense an external force. God is God and I am me. But the Spirit of God dwells within me, since I have been made a child of God thanks to Christ. Thus, the Spirit is working within me, but also through other people in my vicinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T21:13:25.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6799" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6849" CreationDate="2012-03-23T22:16:51.543" Score="5" ViewCount="35340" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have wrestled with this topic for years and have come to all sorts of conclusions along the way. Please, I'm searching for what others perceive is God's definition of forgiveness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are wronged terribly by someone, is it &quot;ok&quot; if there is always a bit of us that is guarded when it comes to talking/thinking/interacting with that person? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may not feel anger or wish them any harm, but as a human being it sometimes feels almost impossible to forget the hurt that has been caused by someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1439" LastActivityDate="2015-11-28T03:07:34.127" Title="What is God's definition of forgiveness?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-11-28T17:16:06.500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6799" CreationDate="2012-03-23T22:34:04.297" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding of it is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both emotions and the will are involved in forgiveness and resentment. We are not fully in control of our emotions (as part of our fallen nature) but we are fully in control of our will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exhortation to forgive others (&amp;quot;forgive those who trespass against us&amp;quot;) is referring to the will. God will not ask us to do something impossible, like exert full control over our emotions. So you may indeed be guarded with someone who has hurt you in the past. But the question is whether you nurse the resentment or make a conscious effort to forgive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 18:21-22 New American Standard&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard this interpreted as not only applying to future wrongs the person does, but also to the same wrong over and over. Sometimes we have to make multiple efforts to forgive people because our emotions keep influencing us to resent the person. But Jesus is telling us to be persistent with ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1468" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T22:34:04.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6799" CreationDate="2012-03-23T23:34:48.520" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to be &quot;as wise as serpents, but as gentle as lambs.&quot;. Being a Christian does not mean checking our brains at the door when it comes to interacting with the world. Indeed, we are often called to be &quot;discerning.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My interpretation of that word is this - forgiveness doesn't mean forgetfulness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can still be guarded when dealing with others, and if they are looking like they are truly changing, give them more trust. When John Mark left Paul, for example, Paul initially said not to trust him. It wasn't until the end of his ministry that Paul changed his mind, mostly on the evidence of a track record. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgiveness would imply giving people a chance to make amends - to be different - but it doesn't imply an open invitation for somebody to demand trust that is not warranted by their behavior. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-23T23:34:48.520" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6802" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6806" CreationDate="2012-03-24T02:53:08.937" Score="15" ViewCount="1016" Body="&lt;p&gt;The motivation for this question basically comes from reading the discussion around the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1010/is-it-necessary-to-biblically-support-arguments-within-discussions-about-christi&quot;&gt;Is it necessary to Biblically support arguments within discussions about Christianity?&lt;/a&gt; and a question at Philosophy Stack Exchange, &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2185/kierkegaard-and-the-tripartite-theory-of-man&quot;&gt;Kierkegaard and the Tripartite Theory of Man&lt;/a&gt; in which the bipartite view (only mind and body) of man is distinguished from the tripartite view (spirit, soul and body).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In science, we know things through empirical methods, and in logic/mathematics, we know things through logical proofs. We use combinations of these methods to know various facts in daily life. Yet 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that &quot;...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God...&quot; and uses the phrase &quot;spiritually discerned&quot; in reference to the things of the Spirit of God. Now in the book &quot;The Spiritual Man&quot; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchman_Nee&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Watchman Nee&lt;/a&gt;, which takes the tripartite view, there is reference made to &quot;The Soul's Faculty of Intellect or Mind&quot; (in Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 2), hence apparently making a connection between &quot;mind&quot; and &quot;soul&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence all this leads to the obvious question: Are there true statements that inherently are unknowable by empirical means or logic and simply require &quot;spiritual discernment&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the second question is: What is a man to do then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, I realize that this whole tripartite view might not even be widely accepted in the first place, nor might the book I mentioned be well-known. I myself do not claim expertise in all these matters. I'd just be happy to hear views and generate discussion. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1450" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:21.153" LastActivityDate="2018-06-10T17:48:05.983" Title="Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means?" Tags="&lt;epistemology&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:45:18.593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6799" CreationDate="2012-03-24T03:00:17.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Forgiveness means not holding ANYTHING at all against them. It's 100%. You wish them the best, you hope they grow to know Jesus. You pray for them because you love them. This in fact is what we are commanded to do to even our worst enemy. The guy who raped and killed your daughter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not able to do that myself, not even close. But that is what Jesus would do, and what we should aim for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to being &quot;guarded&quot;. That is different. Jesus said &quot;don't throw your pearls to the pigs&quot;. You got to know who the pigs are to beware of them. But just because you know someone is say, a murderer, doesn't mean you hate them or judge them as closer to hell than you yourself are. Imagine if you visited him in a cell, you might tell him, &quot;brother, you got to stay in here cause you might kill someone&quot;. But at the same time your heart goes out to him and you put your arm around his back and pray with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-10-02T14:18:52.517" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T14:18:52.517" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-03-24T03:39:57.693" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer, no, you can't have truth that is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; known through spiritual means.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; have truth known through spiritual means, but that &quot;only&quot; in the question makes all the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;longer answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human understanding is based on experience, observation, sometimes reason, emotional frame of mind, and a whole host of other factors.  What we believe to be truth is shaded by what we observe around us and how we've been conditioned to interpret what we observe.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from a purely logical perspective, the answer is &quot;No.  &lt;strong&gt;There can not be a truth that we know only via spiritual means&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.  Anything we &quot; know&quot; has already been filtered out by our thought process, using logic applied to past experience and observation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The fact that we've evaluated the thought to determine if it's true already has nullified the &quot;only&quot; in your question.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's from a purely logical perspective.  Moving on to a &quot;Christian&quot; perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big question is &quot;how do you determine what is truth?  What is your &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keyway.ca/htm2005/20050118.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;plumb-line&lt;/a&gt; - your test for determining if something is true?&quot;  Is it something tangible?  Is it reliable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To better answer your question, I'm going to compare my viewpoint - one that holds the Bible as the ultimate authority on truth to the proposed viewpoint: the idea that spiritual discernment is the ultimate authority on truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my view, Scripture is the plumb-line.  Any doctrinal truth must be traced back to one of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A direct, clear statement from Scripture on a subject&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;example: Theft - thou shalt not steal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Logical reasoning that takes it's base supporting argument from Scriptural statements.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;example: racy movies based on what Scripture teaches about lust, and particularly the verse &quot;I shall set no evil thing before my eyes&quot;.  The Bible doesn't mention movies, but using the Bible as a plumb line, it's not hard to come to that conclusion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now on the other hand, if spiritual revelation is an equally valid &quot;plumb line&quot;, then there is no such thing as truth.  I can have a spiritual revelation that says that racy movies are actually holy because God created our bodies for enjoyment.  I can claim to have divine revelation or the &quot;leading of the Holy Spirit&quot; that led me to understand that there's nothing wrong with theft, or that it's OK to lie.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, I can believe whatever I want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Such a viewpoint would be patently un-Christian&lt;/em&gt;.  Since this is a site about Christianity, I have to assume that you want a Christian perspective.  Christianity, whatever flavor, is based on the God of the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be disagreements about certain teachings in the Bible, and varying opinions on the inerrancy, authority and reliability of the Bible, but if we take away the Bible's authority, we're left with nothing upon which to base our Christian claims of faith. W're left with simply &quot;I believe&quot; with no frame of reference, no plumb line, so we can believe whatever we want. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we allow spiritual discernment or personal revelation to take co-equal status with Scripture, then we may as well decide to worship smurfs and sacrifice rodents to our &quot;god&quot; because we'll no longer be worshiping God as He revealed Himself, but instead we'd be worshiping gods that we made with our minds - idols.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't to say that there is no Spiritual revelation, or that Spiritual revelation doesn't have its place.  What I'm saying is that &lt;em&gt;even true, honest spiritual revelation must meet certain tests, as laid out in Scripture&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The three key passages that come to mind are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:1 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone&#xA;  out into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for&#xA;  instruction in righteousness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 4:24 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No doubt these false prophets either intentionally deceive, or else they honestly believe what they're teaching.  We're told to test the spirits and see if what they are saying lines up with Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, even if there is &quot;truth&quot; that is spiritually known, we are commanded as Christians to test it to see if it meets the standard - does it agree with the rest of Scripture?  Does it directly contradict Scripture? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And because of this command from Scripture, the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Biblical&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; answer to your question is a resounding &quot;no&quot;.  There cannot be truths that are &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; known through spiritual means.  They must be known through spiritual means &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; via logical comparison to existing known doctrinal truth as revealed in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-03-29T02:56:16.030" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T02:56:16.030" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-03-24T03:42:10.377" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer to your question is yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:28-29&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you suppose it means, &amp;quot;as one having authority, and not as the scribes&amp;quot;? (Think how the scribes learned what they knew of the law.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 1:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cool how Paul learned the gospel, isn't it? The disciples describe similar experiences thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 24:32&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The burning of the bosom is a sensation described multiple times in scripture as a possible way to know/recognize spiritual truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul describes the process of revelation by spiritual means to know God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 1:17-18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, it is by spiritual means that a personal testimony is gained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus directly told the disciples that the Holy Ghost will teach them/us all things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Romans is instructive:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this spiritual truth learned? Spirit to spirit. I believe this is the only way to gain a true understanding and/or testimony of certain doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what are we to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 29:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This promise is perhaps one of the most oft-repeated promises in all of holy scripture (for example, see Luke 11:9 or Matthew 7:7), and I think many, if not all, Christian faiths abide by this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-06-10T17:48:05.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="6807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6602" CreationDate="2012-03-24T03:54:40.590" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;  *In Daniel, as in Ezekiel, God cracked the door that we might peer into the heavenly realm.  In Daniel 7, we also have the only directly related vision referencing the Lord's throne with wheels.  These two visions of the throne have similarities and there is much imagery.  However, in Ezekiel the wheels are described in much greater detail. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fiery Throne: The throne in this dream is described with the Ancient of Days seated and the throne as &quot;burning as with fire and its wheels were ablaze.&quot;  In and of itself this description wouldn't make much sense.  However, in light of the historic understanding of the chariot throne, it does.  It is reminiscent of the wheels in Ezekiel's vision.  In the first chapter of this study, we observed that Ezekiel beheld a moving throne that included the chariot of the cherubim and their wheels.  Those wheels were to the prophet burning with fire. &#xA; The fact that the wheels are included in a vision where many other things in the passage are interpreted as allegoric/figurative gives evidence that the wheels are to be understood in this same sense. Though these two passages are the only places in scripture that the wheels of the throne are spoken of directly, there are many passages that use related imagery.  The words &quot;chariots of the Lord&quot; can be found in a greater number.  This concept is important in that it sheds light on the more obscure passages where wheels are associated with the throne.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagery in the Fire of God:  As noted earlier, the wheels are associated with fire.  In a related passage, Psalm 97 states: &quot;1 Yahweh reigns. … Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. 3A fire goes before him, and burns up his adversaries on every side.&quot;*       &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quotes from the online eBook &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.upwardcall.net/wgtch2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;The Wheels of God's Throne&quot;  (Ch2)&lt;/a&gt; by G.Thomas Windsor&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1473" LastActivityDate="2012-03-24T03:54:40.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-03-24T08:09:39.833" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the question is circular:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are there true statements that inherently are unknowable by empirical means or logic and simply require &quot;spiritual discernment&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is unknowable by empirical means or logic, how would you &lt;strong&gt;possibly&lt;/strong&gt; be able to say that it is &quot;true&quot;? Answer: you can't. If we accept &quot;yes&quot; for that question, then any non-falsifiable statement is acceptable. Russell's teapot, for example, or the invisible undetectable pixies that push things downwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look to non-empirical means, and imagine two claims (one valid, one invalid): the invalid claim has exactly the same pedigree as the valid claim; neither can be &lt;em&gt;said&lt;/em&gt; to be true. Regardless of whether you subscribe to the valid one, invalid one, neither or both: there is no meaning to saying &lt;em&gt;of either of them&lt;/em&gt; &quot;this is true&quot;. Spiritual discernment is, by defintion (given the lack of empirical data or robust logic) an arbitrary and personal elective: &quot;I &lt;em&gt;choose to believe&lt;/em&gt; (want?) this to be true&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or a more useful comparison: a spiritually discerned truth of Christianity has no different pedigree of that of Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Norse, Sikh, Zoroastrian or  Taoist origin, and are usually incompatible (unless we mean very vague societal things of the form &quot;don't be a total jerk to folks&quot;). There is no mechanism to say that one &quot;spiritual truth&quot; is more true than another &quot;spiritual truth&quot;, and a truth that is strictly personal is not a truth at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-03-24T08:52:02.403" LastActivityDate="2012-03-24T08:52:02.403" CommentCount="22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6811" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-24T13:09:59.337" Score="8" ViewCount="17419" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that&#xA;  whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting&#xA;  life. - John 3:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:16 tells us that God loved us, so He sent Jesus to save us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why didn't He do this during Noah's time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2014-04-19T17:25:59.133" Title="Why didn't God send Jesus during Noah's time instead of The Flood?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2018-02-10T13:55:10.033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3784" CreationDate="2012-03-24T15:40:57.100" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You asked for an exegesis, which I don't feel anyone has provided here.  I've completed an exegesis on this question and written a little over 3,000 words on the results.  I will summarize those results here and provide a link to my Bible study article:&#xA;&quot;The seven spirits of God ARE the seven lamps of fire (people filled with the Holy Spirit), the seven horns (kings that have yet to receive the kingdom) and the seven eyes (those who see) on the Cornerstone (Christ). The seven angels oversee and are the celestial messengers to the seven earthly churches. The seven churches (lampstands) make up the perfected One Church (the glorified Menorah before the Throne), who is the Wife, the Bride of Christ. This glorified Menorah may very well represent the saints who’ve gone before us. We, as lamps of the seven earthly lampstands, are filled with His oil and burn with the Fire of His Spirit, commissioned to go out into all the earth to spread the gospel! Jesus keeps our wicks trimmed, lamps filled and fire continually burning.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the link for those who would like to see what the Bible shows us on this subject: &lt;a href=&quot;http://judahsdaughter.hubpages.com/_ui1xcnn62gpk/hub/The-Seven-Spirits-of-God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://judahsdaughter.hubpages.com/_ui1xcnn62gpk/hub/The-Seven-Spirits-of-God&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May our LORD, Jesus Christ, be praised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1474" LastActivityDate="2012-03-24T15:40:57.100" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6811" CreationDate="2012-03-24T16:07:20.777" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've pondered this myself. Genesis speaks of a period when a faction of angels deliberately defied God by coming down to Earth and mating with human women, resulting in a race of beings, the Nephilim. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The terrible nature of these creatures was one of the primary catalysts for the great flood and it's my belief that Jesus was sent to save God's intended people, not the aforementioned abominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 6:4-8 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1439" LastEditorUserId="1439" LastEditDate="2013-05-16T18:28:12.170" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T18:28:12.170" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6811" CreationDate="2012-03-24T17:55:01.053" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does a judge sentence one man to prison, another to community service, and gives a third a suspended sentence? It may be because the judge is capricious, but it might also be because, after examining the facts of each case, he fairly concludes that this is the appropriate action in each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering how little we know about the pre-Flood world, I think it's pretty tough to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-24T17:55:01.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-03-24T18:34:17.370" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see the answers already posted disagree widely. So let me say something different still.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you mean by &quot;spiritual means&quot;? If you mean, &quot;can only be known by revelation from God&quot;, I would say the answer is yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many ways to gain knowledge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Science has certainly proven to be a very powerful tool. Science works by experiments and observation. The power of science is that it can close questions and move on. For example, if someone told me that he doubted the theory of gravity, or Newton's laws of motion, I could point him to the experiments that have been done to prove these theories true. If he claimed the physics book I showed him was lying or mistaken, we could perform the experiments together until he was convinced. Compare this to debates about philosophy, where we continue to debate the same questions today that Plato discussed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why don't we use science to solve these philosophical questions? Because powerful as science is, it simply cannot be used to attack some problems. If my hypothetical friend from the previous paragraph said that he doubted that George Washington was ever president of the United States, I could show him a dozen history books saying he was. But what if he claims those books are all lying or mistaken? There is no experiment we can perform to prove that George Washington was president 200 years ago. It is a one-time event that is claimed to have occurred in the past. There is no experiment I can perform in the present to prove it true or false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So consider a question like, &quot;What is Heaven like?&quot; How could we possibly answer such a question other than by revelation from God, or something of the sort? There's no experiment you can perform to study Heaven, because we cannot readily get there to study it. Anyone who claims to have been there and come back would be classified as discussing a &quot;spiritual&quot; experience by definition. I suppose we could make deductions about what Heaven must be like given what we know about the nature of God. But most of what we know about God is known by revelation, i.e. the Bible. (If you want to claim some other book to be divinely inspired, fine, whether any given book is inspired is another question.) Perhaps we could draw some conclusions by starting with what theologians call &quot;general revelation&quot;, that is, what we can learn about God by studying the universe around us. Then go from there to conclusions about Heaven. But by that time I think any conclusions would be extremely speculative and tentative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-24T18:34:17.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6799" CreationDate="2012-03-24T18:54:52.647" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is far from a complete answer to &quot;what is forgiveness&quot;, but just to address one portion of your question: I don't think that forgiving someone means that you cannot take steps to protect yourself from further harm. Like if my neighbor robs my house, forgiving him does not mean that I do not lock my doors, or that I trust him with my ATM card and password.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think forgiveness does mean that I do not punish the guilty person or demand that he be punished, and that I do not repeatedly bring up the offense. Complete forgiveness would mean that you do not demand any penalty at all. A lesser forgiveness would be to accept whatever penalty or compensation has already been taken as sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, suppose your neighbor breaks into your garage and steals your lawnmower. You discover it was him. You confront him and he gives back the lawnmower and apologizes profusely. Forgiveness would be to accept his apology, not press charges, and never bring the matter up again. The greatest forgiveness of all would be to tell him to keep the lawnmower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-03-24T18:54:52.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6811" CreationDate="2012-03-24T20:55:45.460" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's rather ironic — the thrust of your question is &quot;Why did God wait so long?&quot; Andrew Lloyd Webber asks the exact opposite question — &quot;Why come so early?&quot;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVr2uks0C8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;As Judas sings in the finale&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every time I look at you&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I don't understand&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Why you let the things you did&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Get so out of hand&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  You'd have managed better&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  If you'd had it planned&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Now why'd you choose such a backward time&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And such a strange land?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  If you'd come today&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  You could have reached the whole nation&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth, however, is that God in his timing knew exactly when to come.  As Paul says in Romans 5:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That phrase &quot;at the right time&quot; is a single Greek word, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;kairos&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; — which is an opportune moment, the perfect time for a thing.  Paul says much the same thing in Galatians 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces[a] of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was the early 30s the perfect moment? Why was the fullness of time not earlier? Only God knows. We can speculate, but the truth is, only God knows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing we do know is that God did not desire multiple sacrifices. Rather, he wanted one &quot;for all time,&quot; as Hebrews states in chapter 10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given how controversial literal interpretations of &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; prior the written record, it is not overly surprising to me that God would wish to wait, for &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; benefit, to come to a time when written records would be preserved. (Heck, theologians even discounted the existence of a real King David until just recently when, surprise, written evidence found.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Had Jesus come in antediluvian times, Jesus would have been hopelessly mythological.  (Again, even with as much historical record as does exist&amp;nbsp;— Tacitus, Josephus, etc.&amp;nbsp;— &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4613/what-extrabiblical-sources-support-the-existence-of-jesus-in-history&quot;&gt;many still regard Jesus as myth!&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, absent the flood that did come, it is also equally likely that, frankly, God would look like too much of a softy.  I mean, think about it&amp;nbsp;— in Genesis, God is forever trying not to blow people away.  He withholds the death that Adam &amp;amp; Eve deserve.  He withholds the death that Cain deserves. And after the Flood at Babel, God disperses the people by the least intrusive means possible&amp;nbsp;— confusing their language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can argue that God is not just (although I'd argue back with &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5192/1039&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;). You can argue &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ivpress.com/title/exc/1423-8a.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God is too lenient&lt;/a&gt;.  But the truth is, God has exactly the timing that he desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T19:13:19.850" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6811" CreationDate="2012-03-24T22:11:40.617" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Biblical account, a lot of things were different in the antediluvian and early post-diluvian world—lifespans were longer (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 5&lt;/a&gt;), one language was held in common (until Babel, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 11&lt;/a&gt;), and even the very properties of water were different: there was no rain (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 2:5&lt;/a&gt;) and rainbows were not seen in water (until Gen. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:13-16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;9:13-16&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Morality, too, appears to have been different.  Before the Flood, Cain could ask God, perhaps in all honesty, &quot;Am I my brother's keeper?&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 4:9&lt;/a&gt;), and murderers like Cain and Lamech received divine protection.  Only after the Flood does God change this: &quot;From the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.&quot;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:5-6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 9:5&lt;/a&gt;, KJV).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a world where there was little or no responsibility for the lives of others, &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; a Christ have taken it on himself to save humanity?  Would that divine sacrifice have been understood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2012-03-24T22:11:40.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6820" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-24T23:31:13.497" Score="13" ViewCount="21811" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard multiple preachers explain Free Will and Predestination with this illustration:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Free Will and Predestination are like a door. The side of the door toward us says, &quot;Free Will.&quot; Once you go through the door you turn around and see that the other side says, &quot;Predestination.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could someone that understands what this illustration means explain it to me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastActivityDate="2015-01-30T23:18:10.107" Title="Can you explain this Free Will / Predestination illustration?" Tags="&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-03-24T23:52:28.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no empirical truth to the statement, &quot;that was a touchdown.&quot; it simply exists outside of the realm of science. It is a language construct, defined epistemologically by the rules of American football. Put more plainly, a touchdown is only a touchdown because people have agreed what a touchdown is. There is no natural essence of &quot;touchdown&quot; that could be arrived at without reference to the definition. Light, on the other hand, exists independently of the definition and can be studied using empirical methods. American Football can not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could use science to calculate the speed, trajectory, and position of the ball (though not all three with certainty at the same time :)), but there is no empirical natural phenomenon known as &quot;goal.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say that to point out that not all truths are science, nor are they empirically testable. Spiritual truths, such as the morality of an action or the existence of a a Creator fundamentally require a different system of proof. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certain topological conunumdra do not have solutions in Euclidian geometry, but do in non-Euclidian ones. So too it is with matters that not empirically based. I love my wife, and while you might be able to observe certain physiological changes, you'd be hard pressed to prove it using Science.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When asked to name himself, God sidestepped a lot of this. He simply named himself &quot;I am&quot;.  In Hebrews 11:6, it goes on to give a truth that cannot be understood outside this frame of reference. It simply says that those who would draw near to God must believe (ie have faith / have trust) that he exists and that he rewards those who love him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is not a testable truth. (See, I agree with Atheists when I can!) it requires spiritual perceptivity to evaluate the truth of the statement. It is thus not at all intended as an insult or a put down to claim as Paul does, &quot;the Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing.&quot; Once a believer chooses to put their faith in the words of Scripture, (and no, im not saying which one) one is able to use spiritual means to evaluate the statement. That said, opening oneself up to that kind of proof inherently biases one towards its acceptance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, you can't prove faith without faith. If that sounds circular, so be it. That said, one can't really know love until one has experienced it as well. The mere fact that a thing doesn't submit to rationality, empiricism, or our current form Of logic doesn't render it invalid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-03-25T11:38:00.883" LastActivityDate="2012-03-25T11:38:00.883" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6820" CreationDate="2012-03-25T02:37:19.020" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As long as you do not know the future, you experience free will (some would say the &quot;illusion&quot; of free will).  But God knows everything from His point of view in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does nothing to answer: &quot;If God has predetermined what we do, then why are we to blame?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That question only relates to Heaven's point of view, which is the only point of view that ultimately matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But life on earth feels EXACTLY like free will, because we can't even predict the future 1 second in advance (at any moment you heart could sieze).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-25T02:37:19.020" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-03-25T08:12:08.760" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I'll answer the common objection that empiracle evidence is required in order to make true statements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My great grandfather either did or did not wear a carnationion his wedding day, but all records of the event are lost. If you guess, you guess &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be true. If you happened to guess right, you would be making a statement of truth without having used either empirical or logical means. Therefore, empiracle evidence and logical deduction are  not the only way to arrive at a true proposition. Of course, the truth of the proposition is not immediately verifiable bu empiracle means either, but that doesn't make it less true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, I'll answer the objection that Spiritual means are less reliable than other means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider two blind men who are arguing about the color of a vase. One says it is blue. Another says it is red. Then a third man enters and claims that it is green. They ask how he knows, and he claims that he can see. They disagree - and argue that blind people can never accept the word of a so-called sighted person because they have no means to verify the truth of their statements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If some people can &quot;see&quot; spiritually, you would expect (1) them to agree on what is true, and (2) for there to be indirect evidence for at least some of what they say. Christians argue both of these are the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2012-03-25T08:12:08.760" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6820" CreationDate="2012-03-25T13:04:16.930" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems to me to be saying that you have complete freedom to act, but God knows all ends. You have freely chosen to walk through the door; but it was always known that you would (because God is God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My preferred analogy is this: given the choice between, say, eating poop and eating ice cream, my son will always choose ice cream. I do not need to use coercion, I know he will make that choice because I know my son. He has free will and freedom to act, but I will plan to give him ice cream because I know my son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-03-25T13:04:16.930" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6820" CreationDate="2012-03-25T13:46:24.047" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with these two doctrines in reformed theology is that we see a certain liberty and predestination exposed in the Bible. So saying that predestination is the result of foreknowledge would not be accepted by Calvin for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Calvin seemed to foresee that there would be people that would argue that God &quot;distinguishes among men according as he foresees what the merits of each will be&quot; (Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin, accordingly, writes against this notion, &quot;by thus covering election with a veil of foreknowledge, they not only obscure it but feign that it has its origin elsewhere&quot; (Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin contests that this view of foreknowledge makes man God's co-worker in salvation, and implies that election is ratified only by man's consent. This is to make the gravest of errors because it suggests that man's will is superior to God's plan, or at the very least, implies God's plan is partially dependent on man(Inst. III, 24, 3). In refutation of this view, Calvin asserts that &quot;this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth&quot; (Inst. III, 21, 7 emphasis added). &#xA;  Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformedtheology.ca/calvin.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.reformedtheology.ca/calvin.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This being said, predestination is not foreknowledge on the part of God, but an act of his sovereign will over his creation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Bible still presents a great degree of liberty. For example, the brothers of Joseph went to him after Jacob's death to seek protection. Gen 50.20 &lt;code&gt;As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.(ESV)&lt;/code&gt; In this case the brothers used their liberty to plan evil, but it was the will of God that was executed. So to take the illustration of the OP in this scenario: the brothers used their freedom, but when they looked behind them they saw the sovereign God at work or predestination to save all the sons of Jacob.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The analogy I heard the most about these two doctrinal statements is: they are like the two rails of the railroad. The never join, but you still need them both to ride the train. This illustration demonstrates how some reformed theologians hold these views. They are both presented in the Bible and in the mind of God they do not conflict one another. It is not a clear-cut answer or an airtight argument, but to a certain degree it is one that does justice to the whole teaching of the Bible and does not place our view of reality over God's view of reality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the illustration presented by the OP: the individual makes a choice of his own liberty, but when he looks back on it he sees the hand of God guiding him in his choice. It is as if the freedom of the will and predestination was two sides of the same coin in the mind of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT NOTE: Thanks to the question and comment of @Hammer and @Nathan Bunney which helped me to clarify my thoughts and correct an error that I left in my first response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="491" LastEditDate="2013-03-18T14:41:08.183" LastActivityDate="2013-03-18T14:41:08.183" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6826" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6827" CreationDate="2012-03-25T19:25:57.420" Score="4" ViewCount="223" Body="&lt;p&gt;The context of my question is is directed mostly toward &quot;non-denominational&quot; or independent Christian groups, though feedback from the perspective of more established (e.g. Protestant) churches is welcome where applicable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm aware that there are Sunday-schools by churches to teach their congregations about the scriptures, the gospel, etc. Some churches also teach classes about other churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do some Christian churches have classes about other churches? What is the Christian, not secular, reason for having them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-11-05T15:02:55.590" LastActivityDate="2012-11-05T15:02:55.590" Title="Why do some Christian churches have classes about other churches?" Tags="&lt;religious-education&gt;&lt;inter-faith&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6826" CreationDate="2012-03-25T21:56:39.307" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because, and I say this with all humility, everyone of us concedes (or at least should concede), we could be wrong. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides- one thing we know about God's Truth is that it can always stand up to rigorous inquiry. If it did not, either we serve a weak God (which we don't) or our understanding of God is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, the last thing any Christian should be scared of is the Truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-05T14:30:00.120" LastActivityDate="2012-11-05T14:30:00.120" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6828" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6829" CreationDate="2012-03-26T01:32:17.147" Score="9" ViewCount="44873" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen many testimonies and case studies lauding the benefits of transcendental meditation. It is said that it isn't a religion and people of all religions participate in this practice. As a dedicated Christian my only concern is that partaking in this practice would violate teachings of my faith. Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1439" LastActivityDate="2016-11-10T19:52:28.067" Title="Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs?" Tags="&lt;belief&gt;&lt;meditation&gt;&lt;christian-identity&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-03T04:06:01.610" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6828" CreationDate="2012-03-26T02:42:15.750" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;While it's not always the most reliable source for knowledge, a quick trip to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia's article on Transcendental Meditation&lt;/a&gt; gets us a bit of well-referenced history on the whole Transcendental Meditation movement.  Included in the article is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement was presented as&#xA;  a religious organization. The Transcendental Meditation technique was&#xA;  held to be a religion in a New Jersey court case. By the&#xA;  1970s, the organization had shifted to a more scientific presentation&#xA;  while maintaining many religious elements. The movement now&#xA;  describes itself on a spiritual, scientific, and non-religious basis.&#xA;  This shift has been described by both those within and outside the&#xA;  movement as an attempt to appeal to the more secular West.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I included the above because of your statement: &quot;It is said that it isn't a religion and people of all religions participate in this practice.&quot;, and the fact that at least part your question seems to be centering around the question of &quot;Would participating in this be participating in another religion&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The movement absolutely had it's roots in Hinduism, so on the one hand, there is cause for scrutiny.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, simply meditating... Is that the same as worshiping Hindu gods? I don't know that I'd be dogmatic on that.  This appears to be one of those gray areas, and ultimately, this is something that you will have to decide, and it will be between you and God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I come from a denomination that has members that believe that everything even remotely related to evil has no place in a Christian's life.  Harry Potter?  Satan's attempt to introduce our kids to witchcraft as harmless...  Rock music? Satan's tool for stirring up anger.  Dance? Satan's tool for stirring up lust.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To them, the idea of participating in Transcendental Meditation is no different than worshiping idols.  Me, I'm not so sure.  I personally don't see that practicing a meditation technique is the same as converting to Hinduism or worshiping their gods.  The technique ma be based on Hindu teachings, but that does not mean that the technique itself is Hinduism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may be far-fetched, but as a comparison - suppose someone were to come up with a cure for cancer and the person who came up with the treatment did so based on teachings of a Wiccan herbalist.  Would taking that cure be the same as participating in Wicca?  I don't think so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question also includes the following: &quot;Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is going to be next to impossible to answer, because there are a wide variety of Christian beliefs.  Again, there are plenty in my denomination that would say &quot;yes&quot;.  And there would be plenty that would say &quot;no.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real questions here are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anything in TM conflict with &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Christian beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I participate in it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can't answer the first one for you at all.  You should know what you believe.  If you're unsure of what you believe or should believe, then I'd focus on that first.  Once you know what you believe, you could study about TM yourself and keep your eye out for patently non-Christian elements.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3505/should-a-christian-read-books-known-to-be-heretical-blasphemous-against-chri/3507#3507&quot;&gt;Knowing what non-Christian or even anti-Christians teach can be beneficial&lt;/a&gt;.  At any rate, you'll need to make your own mind up on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the second question, there is precedent in Scripture, which may completely nullify my answer to the first question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 14:14-23 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that&#xA;  esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not&#xA;  charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness,&#xA;  and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God,&#xA;  and approved of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and&#xA;  things wherewith one may edify another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;&#xA;  but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing&#xA;  whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that&#xA;  condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of&#xA;  faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 8:4-13 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an&#xA;  idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but&#xA;  one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in&#xA;  earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,&#xA;  and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and&#xA;  we by him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with&#xA;  conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto&#xA;  an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we&#xA;  the better; neither, if we eat not, are w&#xA;  e the worse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a&#xA;  stumblingblock to them that are weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the&#xA;  idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be&#xA;  emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom&#xA;  Christ died?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak&#xA;  conscience, ye sin against Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh&#xA;  while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Participating in TM is very comparable to eating food sacrificed to idols in this regard.&#xA;Paul is teaching that eating food sacrificed to idols in and of itself has no effect on the saved Christian.  The Christian isn't worshiping the idol, and meat is meat. (1 Cor 8:4-8)  Similarly simply meditating using TM isn't the same as practicing Hinduism.  Meditation and relaxation techniques are just meditation/relaxation techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, reading on in 1 Cor 4: 9-13, you need to be aware that people are watching you.  There may be non-Christians who are watching your actions.  Maybe people you've witnessed to, and if they see you participating in TM, they may think that there's nothing at all wrong with it, either.  They, unlike you , may not know what is Christian and what is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another good comparison would be martial arts.  I was in martial arts of varying types when I was younger.  Almost all of the martial artists I hung out with fancied themselves to be Zen Buddhists to one degree or another.  If they weren't quoting Bruce Lee, they were quoting Zen Buddhist sayings.  Some of them went further and got sucked in completely, some were just posers.  As a Christian, I feel confident that I could practice martial arts again, without getting sucked into the eastern mysticism that tends to go hand-in-hand with the martial arts culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TM is pretty similar.  I feel pretty confident that I could sort out the mysticism, determine what is patently un-Christian (if anything), and participate with a clean conscience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I know plenty of people that wouldn't be able to sort it out.  non-Christians, or those that are Christians in name only (raised in a Christian home, and somehow they think this is enough).  They might say &quot;Hey, if he can do it, so can I.  They could go in and get sucked in, because they don't have the background and knowledge that I have.  (That isn't meant to sound as arrogant as it does.  I just mean I know what I believe, and some haven't given it much thought.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, personally, for their sake I wouldn't participate.  This is exactly what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T02:55:17.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6826" CreationDate="2012-03-26T05:34:56.577" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We don't want to pretend that everyone else agrees with us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We want to understand the extent to which we have common ground with others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As Affable Geek has said, we want to demonstrate our openness to alternative points of view.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We want to show why we believe that our own POV is superior to everyone else's.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T05:34:56.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6826" CreationDate="2012-03-26T14:27:28.500" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was a Evangelical/Presbyterian(ish), I always took it as an opportunity to &lt;em&gt;contrast&lt;/em&gt; beliefs: these people believe this, which is why we say that &quot;such-and-so&quot; and not &quot;this-and-other.&quot; Comparing theology of communion and predestination was especially beneficial as that was an issue which was of particular interest to the people in my congregation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And even though I have a different perspective (Catholic), that is still true: we can learn a lot from the teachings as to what is wrong with the gnostics. Augustine's refutation of Donatism and Manicheism are made more invaluable when you actually have opportunity to learn a little bit about the heresies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T14:27:28.500" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6833" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6834" CreationDate="2012-03-26T14:34:23.700" Score="15" ViewCount="31002" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just reading Mark 15:17-20 (ESV) (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they clothed him in a &lt;strong&gt;purple&lt;/strong&gt; cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him.  And they began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they were striking his head with a reed and spitting on him and kneeling down in homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak&#xA;  and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this why purple is the color of Lent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="876" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-02-23T13:57:08.457" LastActivityDate="2019-02-23T13:57:08.457" Title="Why is purple the color of Lent?" Tags="&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;lent&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6833" CreationDate="2012-03-26T15:58:31.320" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's actually kind of a contradiction.  Which isn't surprising as Christ was a sign which would be contradicted (see Luke 2:34).  Purple is a kingly color, which is why they put it on Jesus to mock Him.  Purple is also, or has become, the penitential color for the Church, it is also the color worn and used to decorate churches during Advent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Purple is certainly penitential in contrast to Rose, which is the color of Joy, worn on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08737c.htm&quot;&gt;Laetare&lt;/a&gt; in Lent and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06394b.htm&quot;&gt;Guadete sunday&lt;/a&gt; in Advent. But, the only other person to wear Purple clothes in the New Testament was the rich man (who went to Hell) in the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:19). But his wearing purple is a sign of his wealth and vainglory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of the ways the soldiers mocked Jesus have become for Christians a sign of His eternal glory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T15:58:31.320" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6828" CreationDate="2012-03-26T17:15:01.737" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we were perfect, our every thought would have it's foundation in God.  What I mean is, if you &quot;dive deep&quot; into your thoughts, or even try to &quot;empty&quot; yourself, God becomes everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that I have ever been able to do that very well, but the deeper you go, the more you as a Christian will find God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question, go for it, but your aim should be drawing close to God.  But maybe then it becomes something other than transcendental meditation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T17:15:01.737" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6828" CreationDate="2012-03-26T17:29:06.023" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, not at all if it is centered in Christ.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meditation is food for the spirit. Just like we feed our bodies food, we must feed our spirit God. That's all meditation really is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Matthew 6). &quot;When you pray, go into your room, close the door and&#xA;  pray to your Father in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done&#xA;  in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling&#xA;  like pagans, &lt;strong&gt;for they think they will be heard because of their many&#xA;  words.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in prayer/meditation we shut out everything, we cut out the &quot;words&quot;, mind chatter, (true meditation needs no mantra) outside influences to reach Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting involved with some group could lead to conflicts but true meditation in it's purest form will only reveal more of God's nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many forms of meditation but the fundamental and main purpose is to drop the ego and turn to your higher self, the part that is of God &lt;strong&gt;and Jesus ask us to do this many times, in many different ways.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I went to Greece to visit the cave where Paul was imprisoned. There was an Greek Orthodox priest in the cave and he was &lt;em&gt;chanting&lt;/em&gt; his prayers. His eyes were closed and it appeared to all of us that he was in a trance! Never seen anything like that at Church here. My point, he was doing the same thing as when you see the yogi's in India chanting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nevertheless, meditation can be rooted in Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wccm-usa.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;World Community for Christian Meditation&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Welcome to the website of the World Community for Christian Meditation&#xA;  in the United States. The World Community for Christian Meditation is&#xA;  an international organization of meditators whose practice of this&#xA;  universal tradition is rooted in the teachings of the Gospels and the&#xA;  early Christian monastic methods of prayer and contemplation.&#xA;  Forgotten over the centuries, this aspect of Christian spirituality in&#xA;  the life of the Church was rediscovered by Fr. John Main (1926-1982),&#xA;  a Benedictine monk who in the 1970s reintroduced it into the lives of&#xA;  religious and lay people alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-01-22T22:30:23.163" LastActivityDate="2013-01-22T22:30:23.163" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-03-26T17:36:53.747" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yeah, there are truths that can be known through spiritual discernment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've ever been asked, &quot;what do you want to do when you grow up?&quot; you may have encountered this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is about vocation (calling), and it hits to the core of what it is to be a human being.  Everyone is called by God to do something with their lives.  Everyone is called to figure out what that thing is.  If it truly is what your calling is, then you've discovered it and it is wholly the Spirit leading you to that place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priests have to answer this call, some do, some don't some never were called and respond, some only find their calling after years and years of searching, some might even say they &quot;lost their calling&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At Mass a priest says the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peace be with you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to which the people respond&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And with your spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason behind this (it is a very recent change in the English translation, but consistent with ancient texts and modern Latin), is because it is the Spirit with which the Priest received his orders which we greet.  This isn't something you should say in a prayer service with a lay person... There is a Spirit which rests on each priest and gives him the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ.  I don't know what it means, but this is certainly a spiritual reality and so are the rest of the sacraments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are all private spiritual truths, subjective and not really an answer to this question.  But it does lead to one big spiritual truth (at least for Catholics).  How is the Pope determined?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dastardly masonic plot&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Darts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Popular vote in college of Cardinals.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you answered 4.) then you may believe what I'm about to say...  The Pope is a man who truly has a calling.  In almost 2000 years of the papacy, he's never managed to subvert the Catholic Church's teaching on faith and morals.  This isn't a proof, it's only an example - because there is no proof only staggering hosts of counter examples. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire field of apologetics is to mass the counter examples to those who deny dogmas.  Unfortunately you said &quot;are&quot; in your question, which means skepticism is the only concrete answer and faith is the conciliatory answer.  But, if you had asked, &quot;has anyone ever been able to refute the existence of spiritual truth?&quot; I could say, &quot;not if it's Catholic dogma&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-03-26T17:55:02.290" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T17:55:02.290" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5871" CreationDate="2012-03-26T17:52:41.077" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the idea that the Father, Son and Spirit are all the same Being were true, we would expect that we would never see more than One of Them at the same time.  Clark Kent and Superman are the same person, and the fact that you never see them together would make you start to suspect that after awhile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Scriptures, we see the Father, Son, and Spirit at the same place and the same time.  A classic example of this is at the baptism of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now when all the people were baptized, and when &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; also had been&#xA;  baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, 22 and the &lt;strong&gt;Holy&#xA;  Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and &lt;strong&gt;a voice came&#xA;  from heaven&lt;/strong&gt;, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased. &#xA;  Luke 3:21-22 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good way to test ideas is to try to fit them into Scripture and see what happens.  In this case, it gets pretty bizarre...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now when all the people were baptized, and when &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; also had been&#xA;  baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, 22 and &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  descended on &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; in bodily form, like a dove; and &lt;strong&gt;a voice came&#xA;  from heaven&lt;/strong&gt;, “&lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; am &lt;strong&gt;My&lt;/strong&gt; beloved Son; with &lt;strong&gt;Me&lt;/strong&gt; *&lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt;* am well pleased. &#xA;  Luke 3:21-22 Weird Version&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the Great Commission specifically identifies that believers ought to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.  If they are all the same, why not just the name of God?  (Matthew 28:18-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other phrases would become nonsensical as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed be the &lt;strong&gt;God and Father&lt;/strong&gt; of our &lt;strong&gt;Lord Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;...  1 Peter 1:3  ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We always thank &lt;strong&gt;God, the Father&lt;/strong&gt; of our &lt;strong&gt;Lord Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;, when we pray for you&quot;  Colossians 1:3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Long ago, at many times and in many ways, &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt; spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days &lt;strong&gt;he has spoken to us by his Son&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;whom he appointed&lt;/strong&gt; the heir of all things, &lt;strong&gt;through whom also he created the world&lt;/strong&gt;. 3 &lt;strong&gt;He is the radiance of the glory of God&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;the exact imprint of his nature&lt;/strong&gt;, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. &lt;strong&gt;After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high&lt;/strong&gt;.  Hebrews 1:1-3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that &lt;strong&gt;I go away&lt;/strong&gt;, for if I do not go away, &lt;strong&gt;the Helper will not come&lt;/strong&gt; to you. But &lt;strong&gt;if I go&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;I will send him to you&lt;/strong&gt;.  John 16:7 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Scriptures are pretty clear that the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct Persons, and the Bible starts sounding extremely weird if we assume that they are the same Being.  You have God being the Father of Himself, sending Himself, referring to Himself as another Being, sitting next to Himself, and all sorts of strange things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of Modalism or Seballianism just doesn't fit the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T17:52:41.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-03-26T19:00:27.543" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passage that immediately comes to mind in answer to your question is 1 Corinthians 2.  It's a lengthy portion, but there is a lot in this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom&#xA;  of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.&#xA;  7 But we impart a &lt;strong&gt;secret and hidden wisdom of God&lt;/strong&gt;, which God&#xA;  decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this&#xA;  age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified&#xA;  the Lord of glory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 But, as it is written, “&lt;strong&gt;What no eye has seen,&#xA;  nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined&lt;/strong&gt;, what God has prepared&#xA;  for those who love him”— 10 &lt;strong&gt;these things God has revealed to us&#xA;  through the Spirit.&lt;/strong&gt; For the Spirit searches everything, even the&#xA;  depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit&#xA;  of that person, which is in him? &lt;strong&gt;So also no one comprehends the&#xA;  thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 &lt;strong&gt;Now we have received&#xA;  not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we&#xA;  might understand the things freely given us by God.&lt;/strong&gt; 13 And we impart&#xA;  this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit,&#xA;  interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 &lt;strong&gt;The&#xA;  natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for&#xA;  they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because&#xA;  they are spiritually discerned.&lt;/strong&gt; 15 The spiritual person judges all&#xA;  things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16  “For who has&#xA;  understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have&#xA;  the mind of Christ.  1 Corinthians 2:6-15 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage would seem to suggest that there are, in fact, truths that are spiritually discerned--specifically spiritual truths.  When believers sense the presence of God, that is true, but it is not something that can be empirically proven.  When an unbeliever senses the Holy Spirit drawing their hearts, that is very real, but, again, not something that can be tested.  As believers, we feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit when we sin and that is very real as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart&#xA;  before him; 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than&#xA;  our heart, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not&#xA;  condemn us, we have confidence before God;  1 John 3:19-21 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it seems there is at least some biblical evidenced to support the idea that there are, in fact, &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; truths that can only be known through spiritual means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T19:00:27.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6841" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6842" CreationDate="2012-03-26T21:43:36.773" Score="6" ViewCount="1126" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the bible opposes the practice of magic does this mean its claims of &quot;magic&quot; are literally real (as opposed to metaphorically)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, is there scientific proof of the existence of &quot;magic&quot;? Is there an explanation of what &quot;magic&quot; is in the first place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastActivityDate="2012-03-27T16:25:29.093" Title="If Christianity speaks out against the use of &quot;magic&quot; does this mean &quot;magic&quot; is literally real?" Tags="&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6841" CreationDate="2012-03-26T22:01:14.213" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible also opposes idolatry, even though the prophets say that an idol is nothing but a thing made out of wood and precious metal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as Psalm 135 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idols of the nations are silver and gold,&#xA;made by the hands of men.&#xA;16 They have mouths, but cannot speak,&#xA;eyes, but they cannot see;&#xA;17 they have ears, but cannot hear,&#xA;nor is there breath in their mouths.&#xA;18 Those who make them will be like them,&#xA;and so will all who trust in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or as Jeremiah says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who worship idols are stupid and foolish.&#xA;The things they worship are made of wood!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any quick concordance search will show that &amp;quot;worthless&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;idols&amp;quot; show up a lot!  So, if there is no power in an idol, why does God make such a big deal over it? Because of it's effect on the idol worshiper!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with magic isn't so much the &amp;quot;magic,&amp;quot; but rather the senseless chasing after another power. When, in Acts 8, Simon the magician wanted to purchase this power, Peters reaction was that he didn't understand what God was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Luke writes it in Acts,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; 9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To this same end, magic is not an opposing force to God, but is rather a red herring that keeps them from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T22:21:55.670" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6841" CreationDate="2012-03-26T22:03:15.713" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic idea behind the practice of magic is to use supernatural means to acquire power or knowledge not normally available.  While opinions definitely differ from one branch of Christianity to another with regard to whether magic is literally real, the basic principle that makes it offensive is the idea that a person is trying to subvert the natural order that God has established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This goes back to the transgression of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden: God gave them a commandment about the way they should behave, and then Satan tempted them with an alternative plan, telling them that it would produce better results for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing about it is that the practice of magic frequently seeks to duplicate the effects of miracles brought about by God's power.  For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%208:18-20&quot;&gt;Isaiah spoke against going to diviners for revelations,&lt;/a&gt; as the proper source of such knowledge is the Lord.  And in the New Testament, we have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019%3a%2011-20&quot;&gt;the account of Jewish exorcists seeking to duplicate the miracles of Paul,&lt;/a&gt; and the time when &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208%3a%209-24&quot;&gt;a sorcerer saw the power that the Lord had given to Peter, and asked to buy this power from him.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all these cases, the common thread is seeking the &lt;em&gt;effects&lt;/em&gt; of the power of God without actually going through the Lord and complying with his commandments.  It's no surprise that God looks unfavorably on such practices; no one likes a counterfeiter!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-03-26T22:28:39.390" LastActivityDate="2012-03-26T22:28:39.390" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6847" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6848" CreationDate="2012-03-27T01:16:08.150" Score="13" ViewCount="8071" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;List enumerating character attributes guaranteeing political success&quot; (Lust, Envy, Covetousness, Anger, Gluttony, Pride, and Sloth) has a long career as &quot;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins&quot;&gt;seven deadly sins.&lt;/a&gt;&quot;  What I don't see is a list in Scripture that differentiates these sins from any other. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it isn't good, I just wonder how it is that these sins came to be almost on the level of the 10 Commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that the list itself was compiled by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evagrius_Ponticus&quot;&gt;Evagrius Pontus&lt;/a&gt;, but why is it that it became popularized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, who put this list together, and what purpose did it serve in the early to modern church? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this, for example, the distinction between a venial and grave sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-15T16:15:30.097" LastActivityDate="2018-04-12T04:59:24.630" Title="How did the Seven Deadly Sins originate and how is it used?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6847" CreationDate="2012-03-27T03:33:25.140" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another name for these is the &lt;em&gt;capital&lt;/em&gt; sins or vices, meaning that they are the root causes of other sins (from the Latin &lt;em&gt;caput&lt;/em&gt;, &amp;quot;head&amp;quot;, also meaning &amp;quot;principal&amp;quot;). Gregory the Great wrote in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Job&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Commentary on Job&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (the &lt;em&gt;Magna Moralia&lt;/em&gt;) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book31.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;31:88&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These several sins have each their army against us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For from vain glory there arise disobedience, boasting, hypocrisy, contentions, obstinacies, discords, and the presumptions of novelties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From envy there spring hatred, whispering, detraction, exultation at the misfortunes of a neighbour, and affliction at his prosperity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From anger are produced strifes, swelling of mind, insults, clamour, indignation, blasphemies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From melancholy there arise malice, rancour, cowardice, despair, slothfulness in fulfilling the commands, and a wandering of the mind on unlawful objects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From avarice there spring treachery, fraud, deceit, perjury, restlessness, violence, and hardnesses of heart against compassion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From gluttony are propagated foolish mirth, scurrility, uncleanness, babbling, dulness of sense in understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From lust are generated blindness of mind, inconsiderateness, inconstancy, precipitation, self-love, hatred of God, affection for this present world, but dread or despair of that which is to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because, therefore, seven principal vices produce from themselves so great a multitude of vices, when they reach the heart, they bring, as it were, the bands of an army after them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas Aquinas agreed (&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2084.htm#article3&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;I-II Q84:3&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A capital vice is one from which other vices arise, chiefly by being their final cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He concurred with Gregory's enumeration. He does not link these vices with the venial/mortal scheme; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Q88&lt;/a&gt; of the same part he describes the distinction as &amp;quot;mortal and venial are mutually opposed as reparable and irreparable&amp;quot;, although he admits that venial sin can &lt;em&gt;become&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;lead to&lt;/em&gt; mortal sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dorothy L. Sayers, in her introduction to her translation of Dante's &lt;em&gt;Purgatorio&lt;/em&gt;, described the vices rather neatly as &amp;quot;the fundamental bad habits of mind recognized and defined by the Church as the well-heads from which all sinful behaviour ultimately springs.&amp;quot; She continues, in the manner of Gregory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In classifying sin under these seven main heads, the Church displays more subtlety and a profounder psychology than is sometimes supposed. It is, for instance, often asked: &amp;quot;Why does the Church not count Cruelty as a Deadly Sin?&amp;quot; The answer is that although cruelty is indeed (in one sense) a sin deadly to the soul that indulges in it, it is not a &lt;em&gt;root&lt;/em&gt;-sin. No sane person is cruel for cruelty's sake: there is always, hidden behind the act and habit of cruelty, some other (often unacknowledged and unsuspected) evil motive. [...] It may, in fact, derive from any one of the Capital Sins: from sheer selfish indifference to others' needs and feelings (Pride); from jealousy, resentment, or fear (Envy); from ill-temper, vindictiveness, or violent imagination (Wrath); from laziness, cowardice, lack of imagination, complacency, or irresponsibility (Sloth); from meanness, acquisitiveness, or the determination to get on in life (Avarice); from self-indulgence and the wanton pursuit of pleasure (Gluttony); from perversions of sexual and personal relationships, such as sadism, masochism, or possessiveness (Lust).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, they are quite different from the Ten Commandments, which are about specific categories of &lt;em&gt;action&lt;/em&gt;; the seven capital vices are categories of sinful &lt;em&gt;thought&lt;/em&gt; which can lead to sinful deeds. As you note, there is no real basis in the Bible for this &lt;em&gt;exact&lt;/em&gt; catalogue (there are various sin-lists but not this one). And there's no reason to believe (nor, I think, do the early writers claim) that the list is in any way &amp;quot;complete&amp;quot;. I would imagine that it has persisted simply because it has been found pastorally useful, since the seven deadly sins are easy to preach about, and memorable for the congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-27T03:33:25.140" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6799" CreationDate="2012-03-27T13:48:31.193" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to offer a different interpretation on this. I'm not going to back it up with Bible verses, you can do the legwork yourself if you want to pursue the issue further:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What is forgiveness?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say it is liberating someone from the the 'debt' of whatever offence they committed against you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;When should I forgive?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Here we depart from the 'folk orthodox' position)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question needs to be rephrased to &amp;quot;when &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; I forgive?&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the answer is: when the offender has &lt;em&gt;asked&lt;/em&gt; for forgiveness, and &amp;quot;brought forth fruits worthy of repentance&amp;quot;. Forgiveness is a transaction between the offender and the victim; you can't perform that transaction with just one person at the table.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note&lt;/strong&gt; that we're talking &lt;em&gt;big, soul-destroying&lt;/em&gt; offences here, not &amp;quot;he looked at me funny on Sunday morning&amp;quot;. (&lt;em&gt;Longanimity&lt;/em&gt; is not a word we use much, but Christians could do with learnin' up on it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;How should I forgive?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are basically three cases. The first two pose no problem; it's the last one we may disagree on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Offence occurs, offender realises, asks forgiveness, makes reparation, you forgive*&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Offence occurs, offender oblivious, you approach them, offender realises, asks forgiveness, makes reparation, you forgive*&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Offence occurs, offender oblivious, you approach them, offender ignores you or worse:  denies everything, blames you, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can you do in the third case? You can't forgive, but you don't want to carry the worry of that unpaid debt around with you all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You need a professional debt collector. Hand him all the paperwork, and get on with your life. Like Jesus: &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;He committed Himself to Him who judges righteously&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where we make the distinction between 'forgiving' and 'letting go': find someone you can trust, tell them (or write them a letter) about the offence, tell them about the consequences, perform some symbolic act (burn the letter), pray, let it go*.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*I.e. your work starts here...&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;How &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; I forgive?!&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The message of the Gospel is clear: as offence calls for repentance, repentance calls for forgiveness. There's no wriggle room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that doesn't mean instant forgiveness (which risks being as empty and meaningless as a flippant &amp;quot;sorry!&amp;quot;), nor does it mean that the offender has a &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; to be forgiven. There is nothing more perverse than turning a victim into an offender because of their 'unreadiness' to forgive (even more so if there is no repentance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are verses (forgive as you have been forgiven) which I believe can become more than trite platitudes, if you let them in. But ultimately, if you are in this situation, there's not much some guy pontificating on a website can do for you. You need a flesh-and-blood someone to see you through, someone you can trust to shut up and listen, to understand, to encourage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That person may not be your pastor/priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;What about reconciliation?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems obvious that in the case where the offender refuses to recognise the offence, reconciliation is impossible. But what about in the other cases? Should you forgive and forget? &lt;em&gt;Can&lt;/em&gt; you forgive and forget?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see how you could &lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt; forget. What you &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do is cease to ruminate - but that takes time. 'Letting go' is a first step, but there will probably be many lettings go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for real reconciliation, that will depend on many factors. I don't see how it can be considered an obligation: if trust has been betrayed, it can't just be turned back on. Whatever happens, I'd say that it is impossible for the relationship to go back to what it was before (if there was a relationship before), and again, it will take time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this takes time, but time is standing still until you can forgive, or let go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Finally&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are reacting against this 'redefinition' of forgiveness, you may feel more comfortable calling my letting go 'forgiveness', and my forgiveness 'reconciliation'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Some associated (googled) reading&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/repentance-and-forgiveness-high-holidays_b_983132.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The True Power of Repentance and Forgiveness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abusehelpspiritual.com/Forgiveness.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;How do you define forgiveness in the absence of repentance?&lt;/a&gt; (pdf)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canonglenn.com/2011/03/02/forgivenessanotherview/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Forgiveness: Another View&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.luke173ministries.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=39548&amp;amp;PID=466809&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;No Forgiveness For The Unrepentant&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="83" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-27T13:48:31.193" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6850" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7005" CreationDate="2012-03-27T14:38:33.607" Score="8" ViewCount="224" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/index.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Anglican Covenant&lt;/a&gt; is a document long in the making; it is a proposed formal statement of how the member churches of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Anglican Communion&lt;/a&gt; should relate to one another. It is particularly motivated by disagreements among those churches about such topics as homosexuality, and the threat of schism. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/docs/The_Anglican_Covenant.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;current text&lt;/a&gt; is available for ratification by each of the provinces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church of England decided that a majority of its dioceses would have to vote in favour of the Covenant (that is, the bishops, clergy, and laity of each diocesan synod) in order for the Church to adopt it. On Saturday 24 March 2012, the diocesan synods of Guildford, Lincoln, and Oxford voted &quot;no&quot;, making it impossible for there to be an overall &quot;yes&quot; majority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What process will be followed for the Covenant now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this rejection enough to halt the ratification in other provinces, or could others continue to decide? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it final with respect to the Church of England, or could they change their minds? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does it mean that we will see another draft - or does it end the overall process?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From the voting results, it seems that the bishops are more pro-Covenant than the clergy or laity are: does this have any bearing on the possible future of the Covenant?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also asked: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6851/what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-anglican-covenant&quot;&gt;What are the arguments for and against the Anglican Covenant?&lt;/a&gt; That question is about the content of the Covenant, and this one is more about the process and consequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2014-07-14T03:07:40.260" Title="What process will be followed for the Anglican Covenant after its rejection by the Church of England?" Tags="&lt;anglicanism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6851" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6931" CreationDate="2012-03-27T14:42:01.963" Score="5" ViewCount="719" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/index.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Anglican Covenant&lt;/a&gt; is a proposal for governing how the member churches of the Anglican Communion should relate to one another. Paul Avis &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/docs/paul_avis_covenant.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;writes&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Ecclesiology&lt;/em&gt; 7.3, 2011):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Anglican Communion is under stress because of &#xA;  disagreements about Christian morals and about what kind of &#xA;  mutual obligation is involved in membership of the Communion. &#xA;  The Windsor Report (2004) tackled the problems raised by the &#xA;  consecration of a bishop in a same-gender partnership in The &#xA;  Episcopal Church in the USA, the liturgical blessing of same-gender partnerships in a diocese of the Anglican Church of &#xA;  Canada, and the cross-jurisdiction interventions by Anglican &#xA;  churches from the Global South in response to this situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The single most significant proposal made by The Windsor Report &#xA;  (2004) was for a Covenant between the churches of the Anglican &#xA;  Communion. It proposed that they would covenant together to &#xA;  commit themselves to exercise restraint in contentious areas, to &#xA;  consult carefully about potential developments and to strengthen &#xA;  processes of mutual accountability. The Covenant has since gone &#xA;  through various drafts and the final &quot;Ridley&quot; draft is now being &#xA;  considered by the member churches of the Anglican Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What arguments do Anglicans use, for and against adoption of the Covenant?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2012-03-27T16:30:11.440" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T20:03:16.160" Title="What are the arguments for and against the Anglican Covenant?" Tags="&lt;anglicanism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6841" CreationDate="2012-03-27T16:08:20.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not necessarily. Magic can also mean magical thinking, which is even a real danger / temptation for a Christian. If someone prays, or lights a candle, or donates to charity, or asks a saint to intervene, or more drastically, kisses a relic only in order to have a &quot;sure way&quot; to grant his/her own wishes, that can be regarded as magical thinking. Especially if you think/believe that with your prayer/ritual/whatever you can actually &lt;strong&gt;force&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;trick&lt;/strong&gt; God to grant you something. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Magic is when you perform some ritual for a supernatural outcome which you believe should be under your control. It doesn't matter if that supernatural outcome is really possible, it's enough if you believe it to be possible by the means you are trying. This is drastically against Christian teaching, where everything God gives you, He gives you out of grace, and not because you forced Him to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="1122" LastEditDate="2012-03-27T16:25:29.093" LastActivityDate="2012-03-27T16:25:29.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6841" CreationDate="2012-03-27T16:17:27.223" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you ever get a chance, I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0898707102&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;An Exorcist Tells His Story&lt;/a&gt;. It spends a good deal of time going into now not only is magic real, but it is always made the power of some demon. Miracles, he testifies, have tangible and direct counterparts (though miracles will win in the end).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to proofs, well, there is as much proof for magic as there is for miracles. It does not meet scientific rigor, but that does not mean that they do not exist or that they have not happened. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-03-27T16:17:27.223" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6820" CreationDate="2012-03-27T16:33:56.040" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The point of the illustration is to reconcile God's sovereignty in salvation with man's free will to choose salvation.  I believe it originated from H.A. Ironside:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It has been pictured in this way. Here is a vast host of people hurrying down the broad road with their&#xA;  minds fixed upon their sins, and one stands calling attention to yonder door, the entrance into the&#xA;  narrow way that leads to life eternal. &lt;strong&gt;On it is plainly depicted the text, &quot;Whosoever will, let him&#xA;  come.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; Every man is invited, no one need hesitate. Some may say, &quot;Well, I may not be of the elect,&#xA;  and so it would be useless for me to endeavor to come, for the door will not open for me.&quot; But God's&#xA;  invitation is absolutely sincere; it is addressed to every man, &quot;Whosoever will, let him take of the&#xA;  water of life freely&quot; (Rev. 22: 17). If men refuse to come, if they pursue their own godless way down&#xA;  to the pit, whom can they blame but themselves for their eternal judgment? The messenger&#xA;  addressed himself to all, the call came to all, the door could be entered by all, but many refused to&#xA;  come and perished in their sins. Such men can never blame God for their eternal destruction. The&#xA;  door was open, the invitation was given, they refused, and He says to them sorrowfully, &quot;Ye will not&#xA;  come unto Me, that ye might have life.&quot; ... [But some will say], &quot;I am going inside: I will accept the invitation;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;I will enter that door,&quot; and he presses his way in and it shuts behind him. As he turns about he finds written on the inside of the door the words, &quot;Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the&#xA;  world.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;H.A. Ironside, &lt;em&gt;In the Heavenlies (Ephesians)&lt;/em&gt;, pages 27-28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The illustration distinguishes the cause of salvation into two perspectives: the perspective of man, and the perspective of God.  The idea is that from our perspective, we use our &quot;free will&quot; to choose to be saved.  And from God's perspective, God uses his sovereignty to choose who will choose salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of the illustration is to defend against the the objection to Calvanism that if predestination is true, then not everyone who wants to be saved can be saved.  This illustration counters this by arguing that everyone who wants to be saved can - because everyone who wants to be saved was predestined to be saved.  It attempts to reconcile the notion that anyone who wills to be saved can be saved, with the notion that God chooses who will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-03-27T16:33:56.040" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4952" CreationDate="2012-03-27T19:45:36.500" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we're reading our cultural bias back into this text - namely by saying that it is talking about salvation in terms of &quot;in&quot; or &quot;out&quot; and our soteriological context. That is a very Western concept, and was largely foreign to the apostles. For them, salvation was found only in the Church (referring here to the gathered and 'sent' people of God, not to a building nor an institution), and to leave the Church was to leave Christ. Granted, this has soteriological implications, but only as &lt;em&gt;a consequence&lt;/em&gt; of leaving the Church and remaining outside of Her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you stated, the context of this passage is indeed that the αντιχριστοι (antichrists) were teaching false doctrine, and they &quot;went out&quot; from the κοινωνια (fellowship, participatory community, mentioned in 1:3). The verb μεμενηκεισαν implies that they did not remain, abide, reside, continue, stay, endure, and/or were no longer present. We don't have a great English term to effectively translate this concept, so you often see it in all of the above forms (and some others as well). μεμενηκεισαν is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.donpotter.net/PDF/Roberts%27%20Grammar%20Lesson%2025.pdf&quot;&gt;pluperfect&lt;/a&gt; active indicative (3rd person plural) here, simply implying that their present absence is a &quot;state or condition following a completed action in the past,&quot; i.e. they (voluntarily) went out and so they no longer remain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle's view was that we come to the Church and we remain in the Church because the Church is the Body of Christ, and to be one with Him is to be united to the Church, which is His Body (1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:4). Thus there is no salvation outside the Church because there is no salvation apart from union with Christ's Body (which is the Church). This is very sacramental (mysterious) and involves how we are &quot;partakers of the divine nature&quot; (2 Peter 1:4). Trying to understand this passage within the worldview of Western Christian philosophy compartmentalizes salvation as a divine singular action that can occur outside of the Church if someone confesses Jesus as Lord and believes several historical facts about Jesus, or simply prays a special prayer. James reminds us that even the demons believe correct doctrine about God (James 2:19) and that &quot;faith apart from works is dead&quot; (2:26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to clearly answer the question, this passage has little to do with the doctrines of conditional or unconditional security. The meaning is simply that these false teachers left the Church (the apostolic fellowship), and by doing so proved that they also left Christ; for to be one with Him is to be united to the Church, which is His Body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As a further note, the theological implications of this passage have more to say about the concept of apostolic succession than they do about Western soteriology. The real question it should cause us to ask is whether or not we are part of the Church that has remained faithful to the teachings of the apostles.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2012-03-27T21:09:53.773" LastActivityDate="2012-03-27T21:09:53.773" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="79" CreationDate="2012-03-28T01:06:00.260" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Background&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Silence of Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has to do with what we call the &amp;quot;silence&amp;quot; of scripture — things that are not explicitly discussed — and whether silence is permissive or prohibitive. In the general case (not just scripture), we often think of silence as permissive. However, it is easy to show that this is not always true. I'll provide an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's say you send your teenage child to the store for milk and eggs, and give him/her a $20 bill to cover the expense. The child comes back with milk, eggs, ice cream, and less change than you hoped for. You didn't tell him/her not to buy the ice cream, but you're probably not going to be happy. Here, the silence was prohibitive. You also didn't specify which store to go to. You may have expected the local grocery store, but if the child knew of a sale at a nearer convenience store they may have chosen that instead. Here, the silence was permissive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Applied to scripture, there is a common (not universal) interpretation that when we are given instructions in an area of worship, silence on other aspects of the area is prohibitive. For example, God told Noah to use gopher wood when building the ark. He didn't mention other kinds of wood (he was silent), but his specific instruction for gopher wood excludes/prohibited them. What if Noah wanted to use gopher wood for the hull, but thought a little bit of maple trim might have looked nice around the window and door? This interpretation system would not allow for that. Going back to the shopping example, ice cream was not on the list, and so was prohibited. On the other hand, scripture says nothing about air conditioning our homes, or heating/cooling them at all, and so the silence is permissive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hermeneutics&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above system is an example of a &lt;strong&gt;hermeneutic&lt;/strong&gt;. Hermeneutics are the lens you use to study scripture. As an example, they are how you know what to do when you come upon &amp;quot;Do not judge, or you too will be judged.&amp;quot; in one place, and &amp;quot;Do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world?&amp;quot; in another. Hermeneutics help ensure that you interpret scripture consistently; that you not hear only what you want to hear from the passages you want to read. A perfect hermeneutic, perfectly applied, would lead to a perfect understanding of scripture. Unfortunately, man is far from perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most good hermeneutics will at some point need to deal with the silence of scripture, in some way or another. Most fail to handle it adequately. The hermeneutic described above actually handles the subject pretty well, but hermeneutics are a creation of man, and so are not flawless or perfect. Our application of them also often leaves something to be desired. In spite of that, if you don't have a hermeneutic system to use when you study scripture, you're probably not getting what you should out of your study. At the same time, it's important to remember that rather than hard-fast rules they should be seen more as guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answering the Title Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This specific hermeneutic is normally only used to apply to worship. Silence of scripture is more often taken to be permissive in the general sense, but for worship specifically it might be a good idea to pay more attention to what is and what is not enumerated explicitly.  Therefore, with regards to the title question, the answer is most often permissive.  However, it's still important to make sure that whatever you do, you're making choices that are centered on God, and not choices that are centered on what you can get away with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Instrumental Music&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Restoration Movement&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To fully understand the instrumental music in the churches of Christ, you need to know something of our history. The churches of Christ descend from the Restoration movement of the early/mid-1800s. This was a movement that strove to throw off all of the excess structure that had arisen over the years since the 1st century and restore 1st century-style worship. The primary means of achieving this goal was through a very careful and strict interpretation of scripture. &amp;quot;Innovations&amp;quot; from known historical patterns of the first century should only be permitted when there is a clear case for them, shown either through direct command, example, or necessary inference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for the return to 1st century worship was a reaction to all the divisions, and a desire to fulfill the Lord's prayer &amp;quot;that they may all be one.&amp;quot; It was a drive for unity, and one part of this was to promote hermeneutics that would push away anything that a true seeker might possibly see as contrary to scripture, and hold up only those things that meet an exceptionally strict criteria for doctrinal purity (the other two parts are congregational independance/freedom and an strong emphasis on individual study). Don't knock the process too hard, as it met with some success... the Restoration Movement was one of the few major groups to begin it's history as the result of a merger of a few smaller groups, rather than as a split from a larger group, and was the only American group in existence at the time to make it through the Civil War without dividing over the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;churches of Christ&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are four pieces that combine to contribute the general (not universal, but nearly so) use of a cappella music among church of Christ congregations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Silence of Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first is a very strict interpretation on the silence of scripture, as described in the section above.  The upshot is that churches of Christ believe we are lacking an explicit instruction to use instruments (while singing or otherwise) in congregational worship — that scripture is silent here.  We discount the passages in the Psalms quoted in other answers as allegorical, specific to Old Testament worship, or applying to personal life rather than congregational worship. Churches of Christ acknowledge that we do have explicit instructions to sing.  Because we have an explicit instruction about how to use music in worship, the silence in this case is prohibitive rather than permissive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it another way, churches of Christ don't use incense during worship either, and you likely don't think this is strange — in fact, you would likely feel a little odd to see/smell it — after all, God does not instruct us anywhere that he wants incense as part of our worship. He's silent about incense, and so we choose to focus on the areas where He is more direct in what He wants. This argument is weak when left by itself, but remember that it's only part of the reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Practical Participation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second reason is participatory. The command to sing praises is interpreted to mean that music in worship should include everyone as a participant... that if the music portion of your service consists mainly of just a few performers or even a choir, while the majority of the congregation is only listening (even if this is the effect rather than the intent), you're doing it wrong. The entire congregation should take part in producing the music. Instruments are seen as counter-productive to this effort, as history shows they have a tendency to take over and dominate the performance to the exclusion, rather than inclusion, of audience participation. Additionally, successful use of a cappella music in worship is something that takes a commitment. If you decide to just try out a cappella music one week in service, you're likely to fail miserably if few of the participants have done this before. Therefore, as a practical matter the choice to use a cappella music came down to an &amp;quot;all or nothing&amp;quot; approach, where those that use a cappella music in worship tend to do so exclusively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Historical Record&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third reason is historical. Remember that this group comes out of a movement whose goals were to restore 1st century worship styles. We do know from historical documents (sorry, no reference handy :( ) that the earliest Christians, without exception, did not use instruments in their worship. &lt;em&gt;At all.&lt;/em&gt; In fact, it's already the &lt;em&gt;third&lt;/em&gt; century before even the most sympathetic scholars find any historical examples of any instrumental accompaniment. It's possible there were forces other than doctrine driving this: for example, funds, fear of persecution if louder instruments gave away a secret service, or simply modeling congregational worship after Jewish synagogue worship (which also did not use instruments). But the fact of the matter is that the historical record indicates a cappella is the way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Identity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other reason is that as a capella music for worship became less and less common in the  culture, retaining and featuring a capella became part of the identity of the churches of Christ. Identity is especially important for a group as loosely associated as the churches of Christ, who recognize no earthly central authority or association. This final piece is by far the weakest from a persuasive or justification standpoint, but it still needs to be mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Application&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put the four together, and you have a fairly strong case that a cappella music is the way to go in the worship service. Unfortunately, more recent history in churches of Christ have forgotten that the reasoning here is as much practical as it is scriptural (especially with regards to the fourth reason, though, again, the scriptural argument is not entirely without merit) leading to a stronger reaction against instrumental music from some contingents within the churches of Christ than may be warranted. Remember, again, that this is a group with no earthly central authority or governing body, and therefore anything you hear (including this very text) is the opinion of the speaker; never of the churches of Christ as a whole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also indications that you do not need to avoid instrumental music in personal and corporate worship. For example, the historical evidence is that the early worship followed the Jewish synagogue model. Jewish synagogue worship was entirely a capella, but they were happy to use instruments in their personal and family worship as well as the temple/corporate setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, there is something to this silence of Scripture thing, but it's not fool proof. There's also something to be said for using a capella music during the formal church service. But you're probably in safe water to listen to a little Jars of Clay, Newsboys, or Reliant K with your friends or on your own time. The important thing is the make sure you are tuning into what God wants here rather than what you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's more info on the subject, include a number of researched references into the history and scripture, at this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.housetohouse.com/HTHPubPage.aspx?pub=2&amp;amp;issue=663&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T17:43:30.693" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6851" CreationDate="2012-03-28T01:55:01.963" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak directly for any Anglican, but reading through the material quickly I can identify a very good reason why they might not adopt it: namely that in asking restraint it asks people to affirm through their silence (or at least muted opposition) practices which they believe are heinous in God's sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-03-28T01:55:01.963" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6833" CreationDate="2012-03-28T07:06:04.507" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Tyrian purple&quot; as it is called and often referred to as &quot;Royal purple&quot; was often reserved for the very wealthy and royalty, essentially the 'elite' of society. The Romans placed an extremely high value on the dye as it was extracted from sea snails, therefore not easily obtained. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ was often referred as being &quot;clothed in humility.&quot; He came from a very lowly background and it is quite symbolic of a peasant wearing something of kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While not quite pertaining to the history of purple and it's representation during Lent, you may choose to read The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:2-11) and The Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14) in regards to the meek and lowly being exalted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, to be humble is not to be self-deprecating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1480" LastActivityDate="2012-03-28T07:06:04.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6863" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7110" CreationDate="2012-03-28T10:28:36.853" Score="16" ViewCount="8574" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a raging debate in the province of Quebec on the question &quot;Does someone have the right to kill another because the first one is suffering?&quot; There are more and more cases in the news that look like the following that arrived just yesterday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a video of an example : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/Montreal/1305551527/ID=2213970096&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/Montreal/1305551527/ID=2213970096&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible tackle the issue? From an evangelical perspective how do I answer this question/issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit :&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I'm looking to a way to answer a fellow Christian with little knowledge of the Bible, and a non-Christian as well. The question is not simply assisted suicide, but it's implied therapeutic relentlessness as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2016-02-28T05:47:04.870" LastActivityDate="2016-02-28T05:47:04.870" Title="Is there a Christian response to dying in dignity or assisted suicide?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;politics&gt;&lt;applications&gt;&lt;suicide&gt;&lt;euthanasia&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6864" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-28T12:23:41.030" Score="3" ViewCount="365" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been following some (often less than civil) conversations about the character of pastors lately in which how morally upstanding a church leader should be expected to be is questioned. At several points, the interpretation of various Biblical sources was called into question -- something to the effect of &quot;&lt;em&gt;if this is to be interpreted literally it would disqualify lots of pastors. Obviously that wouldn't be God's intent, so we just re-examine our interpretation&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; Right off the bat, the hermeneutical principles I bring to the table call that nonsense -- instead  it is the Biblical text itself that informs us of what outcome God would or would not have wanted. This leads me to believe that, given the premise of that statement, indeed many church leaders should be disqualified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is what happens when we apply various standards to the first apostles? I know it is generally understood in most Christian circles that while 12 were originally called, it was understood that one was destined to play the traitor, leaving 11 apostles after Christ left. Among themselves they appointed a new 12th. We also know that at least some of them came from sketchy backgrounds where a few broken families and certainly some shady business practices are assumed. Tax collectors anybody?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what do we know about the moral character of the apostles after Christ's ascension? As they went out into ministry, did they evidence the kind of upstanding moral character we might expect? Does scripture or history record of lieing/cheating/stealing in their &quot;born again&quot; lives? How about divorce? Did any of them go on to marry and then be unfaithful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Scriptural record and history don't afford any concrete examples of unfaithfulness, what dirt did folks &lt;em&gt;try&lt;/em&gt; to throw on them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T12:40:42.830" Title="What is known (and/or alleged) about the moral character of the 12 disciples?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;twelve-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6863" CreationDate="2012-03-28T12:35:26.523" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not specifically tackle this issue. There are many passages about murder and murderers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:21-24 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not&#xA;  murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to&#xA;  you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to&#xA;  judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council;&#xA;  and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. So&#xA;  if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that&#xA;  your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before&#xA;  the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come&#xA;  and offer your gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 35:30 ESV&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the&#xA;  evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the&#xA;  testimony of one witness &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many about suicide&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 1:20-26 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will&#xA;  have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted&#xA;  in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is&#xA;  Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body,&#xA;  this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do&#xA;  not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with&#xA;  Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you&#xA;  that I remain in the body. Convinced of this, I know that I will&#xA;  remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy&#xA;  in the faith, so that through my being with you again your boasting&#xA;  in Christ Jesus will abound on account of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Murder and suicide are not unpardonable sins, therefore it is safe to say that assisted suicide is also pardonable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only passage where I can find something extremely close is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 31:4-6 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and run me through, or&#xA;  these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse&#xA;  me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul&#xA;  took his own sword and fell on it. When the armor-bearer saw that&#xA;  Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. So Saul&#xA;  and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together&#xA;  that same day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore I believe that we're supposed to read into that story.  That is, if a person becomes so desperate that they should want to kill themselves or ask for help in doing so, we are not obligated to assist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To directly answer your question &quot;&lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt; Christian response to dying in dignity or assisted suicide?&quot; and since I consider myself a Christian:  I would say that one should refrain from aiding people in suicide.  The Bible also directs us to treat our bodies as temples to God.  Which I believe is to mean that we shouldn't commit suicide.  However I believe (as I would) a Christian would have compassion for the person and the family if a person's suicide was in response to a terminal condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-03-28T14:34:07.623" LastActivityDate="2012-03-28T14:34:07.623" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6866" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6872" CreationDate="2012-03-28T13:52:52.697" Score="9" ViewCount="1330" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do we have any information about what 1st century Christians and Jews believed about hell?  I know what the Bible says on the subject, and am curious about the extra-biblical context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T11:59:21.497" Title="What do 1st century extra-biblical sources say about hell?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;extra-biblical&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6868" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-28T15:17:35.940" Score="7" ViewCount="765" Body="&lt;p&gt;While reading through the Torah, the following verses caught my eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too&#xA;  difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so&#xA;  that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and&#xA;  proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so&#xA;  that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim&#xA;  it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is&#xA;  in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just like the title, I am honestly wondering how the verses above (keeping their context in mind) fit in with the commonly held belief in the Christian church that human beings were and are incapable of following the law of God without the help of the Holy Spirit, etc?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am aware of Romans 10:6-8, which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your&#xA;  heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”(that is, to bring Christ down)&#xA;  7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”(that is, to bring Christ up&#xA;  from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is&#xA;  in your mouth and in your heart,”that is, the message concerning faith&#xA;  that we proclaim:&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, what I am looking for is an honest explanation from the Old Testament, if possible, about the verses from Deuteronomy above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If using Paul's words above is necessary for the explanation then I'd take that too. I am just honestly curious, looking for honest answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: No offense intended here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PSS: Translation used is NIV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastActivityDate="2014-01-14T03:48:51.960" Title="How does this fit in with &quot;we are incapable of following the law&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4484" CreationDate="2012-03-28T16:02:41.273" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's repeated declarations about himself in Isiah 40-66 are also extremely relevant. That God is the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; god is indeed important; the difference between him and all else is categorical. He is not just vastly quantitatively different, but qualitatively different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the nations are as nothing before him; they they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness. To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? —Isaiah 40:17-18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One. — Isaiah 40:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock: I know not any. --Isaiah 44:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are just a few examples. I recommend reading chapters 40 through 66 straight through in one sitting to really get a sense of what he is saying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other doctrines which are only coherent with an understanding that God is more than &amp;quot;a lot different&amp;quot; than man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The overall emphasis on the Bible in describing God in the highest possible terms of human language.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The thrice-holiness of God pronounced by beings far above humans in Isaiah 6. Holiness is a broader concept than righteousness; especially in its threefold emphasis, it indicates a different in being.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's identification of himself as &amp;quot;I am&amp;quot; and calling himself by the name YHWH.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That all sins are so much against sins that they are effectly not even against anyone else. After committing murder and adultery, David says in his &lt;em&gt;repentance&lt;/em&gt;, &amp;quot;Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight.&amp;quot; (Psalm 51:4) Connected to this, God's ability to forgive sins in an ultimate sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The offense of the Pharisees at Jesus' claims to deity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Countless other doctrines, such as his omniscience, omnipotence, absolute providence, seeking of his own glory, etc...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also have a look at God's encounter with Job. To contend that God is only &lt;em&gt;greater&lt;/em&gt; and not &lt;em&gt;utterly other&lt;/em&gt; is to miss the point of the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-28T16:30:26.077" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6870" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15554" CreationDate="2012-03-28T16:21:05.400" Score="7" ViewCount="2199" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Related&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have asked a &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2185/kierkegaard-and-the-tripartite-theory-of-man&quot;&gt;similar question on Philosophy.SE&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading Arthur W. Pink's pamphlet &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1612033350&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Regeneration: Or, the New Birth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; recently, I was surprised to find that he had a tripartite view of man; and even more surprised to see the nuance in the way he related this to the doctrine of regeneration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He says, &quot;Man was a tri-partite being&quot; before the Fall. But the Fall &quot;does not mean that either his spirit or soul, or any part thereof, ceased to be, for in Scripture 'death' never signifies annihilation, but is a state of separation.&quot; (p. 16 in my copy, which is printed by the Bible Truth Depot, Swengel, Pa.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he goes on to say (referencing Galatians 5 and similar passages), &quot;The 'flesh' refers to the &lt;em&gt;degenerate state&lt;/em&gt; of man's spirit and soul and body, as the 'spirit' refers to the regenerate state of the spirit and soul&amp;mdash;the regeneration of the body being yet future.&quot; (18, italics original) This would be a tripartite view much more palatable to those who hold to bipartite view. (The tripartite theory I am more familiar with, associated with Pentecostalism, teaches that at regeneration the &lt;em&gt;spirit&lt;/em&gt; is regenerated but not the &lt;em&gt;soul&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Question&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In what works does Pink deal with this doctrine further? The only other work I've read by him is &lt;em&gt;The Attributes of God&lt;/em&gt;. How does he distinguish between the soul and the spirit, and what functions does he ascribe to each? What other theologians would agree with this brand of tripartite anthropology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:21.153" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T08:30:22.970" Title="A.W. Pink and the Tripartite Theory of Man" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;souls&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;&lt;human-body&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6868" CreationDate="2012-03-28T16:29:45.023" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key difference is that the Torah is speaking to the letter of the law, Paul is speaking to what Jesus says of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus says in Matthew 5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to give an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,c’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of the Torah, the requirement is simply to do the sacrifices and not go after idols.  It is completely a works based thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul could, for example, in Acts 23 say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but also say, as he does in Romans 7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That tension works itself out in the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Jesus, it is a whole life shift - one that involves regeneration of the mind.  To actually put to death the sinful nature is impossible on one's own. To live out the perfection of the law is, as Jesus sets the bar, beyond man's ability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just checking off the boxes, as Moses commanded, is a much lower bar indeed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I'm not sure that in my own power, I would have even met that one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-28T16:29:45.023" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6866" CreationDate="2012-03-28T18:29:52.500" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Early Christians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Epistle of Barnabas (70 - 130 AD):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The way of darkness is crooked, and it is full of cursing. It is the&#xA;  way of eternal death with punishment. (“Epistle of Barnabas”)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if&#xA;  they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death. how much&#xA;  more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God. for the sake&#xA;  of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart&#xA;  into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him. (Letter&#xA;  to the Ephesians 16:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clement of Rome (150 AD):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we&#xA;  neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal&#xA;  punishment (“Second Clement” 5:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus&#xA;  by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in&#xA;  unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have&#xA;  endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory&#xA;  to their God saying, 'There shall be hope for him that has served God&#xA;  with all his heart!' (“Second Clement” 17:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Martyrdom of Polycarp (155 AD):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised&#xA;  worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To&#xA;  them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before&#xA;  their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire&#xA;  (“Martyrdom of Polycarp” 2:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irenaeus (189 AD):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according&#xA;  to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things&#xA;  in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that&#xA;  every tongue should confess' to Him, and that He should execute just&#xA;  judgment towards all; that He may send 'spiritual wickednesses,' and&#xA;  the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the&#xA;  ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into&#xA;  everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer&#xA;  immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His&#xA;  commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning&#xA;  of their Christian course, and others from the date of their&#xA;  repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. (“Against&#xA;  Heresies” 1:10:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God&#xA;  and despise his coming. . . . [I]t is not merely temporal, but&#xA;  eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed&#xA;  ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever&#xA;  (“Against Heresies” 4:28:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tertullian (197 AD):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These have further set before us the proofs He has given of His&#xA;  majesty in judgments by floods and fires, the rules appointed by Him&#xA;  for securing His favor, as well as the retribution in store for the&#xA;  ignoring, forsaking and keeping them, as being about at the end of all&#xA;  to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the&#xA;  doom of fire at once without ending and without break, raising up&#xA;  again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them&#xA;  with the object of awarding either recompense. (“Apology” 18:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just&#xA;  deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and&#xA;  evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and&#xA;  unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor&#xA;  resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now,&#xA;  without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God,&#xA;  clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those&#xA;  who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally&#xA;  unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire,&#xA;  divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility (“Apology” 44:12–13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated&#xA;  resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still&#xA;  unchanged--the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the&#xA;  proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not&#xA;  true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the&#xA;  punishment of everlasting fire--that fire which, from its very nature&#xA;  indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility. (&quot;Apology&quot;&#xA;  48:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many more but I think these should help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As for Jewish sources, I am still looking for sources. Once I do, I will post them here.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am still looking for good material from the 1st century about hell from Jewish sources. It just so happens that the concept of Heaven and Hell is a more Christian concept than it ever was Jewish and rabbis have had very little to say, if anything at all, over the vast history of Judaism (which is still a lot but little compared to Christianity). Anyway, I found this page that you will find helpful, I think:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Afterlife_and_Messiah/Life_After_Death/Heaven_and_Hell.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heaven and Hell in Jewish Tradition&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt from the above link:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are, however, several biblical references to a place called&#xA;  Sheol (cf. Numbers 30, 33). It is described as a region &quot;dark and&#xA;  deep,&quot; &quot;the Pit,&quot; and &quot;the Land of Forgetfulness,&quot; where human beings&#xA;  descend after death. The suggestion is that in the netherworld of&#xA;  Sheol, the deceased, although cut off from God and humankind, live on&#xA;  in some shadowy state of existence.   While this vision of Sheol is&#xA;  rather bleak (setting precedents for later Jewish and Christian ideas&#xA;  of an underground hell) there is generally no concept of judgment or&#xA;  reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic&#xA;  books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of&#xA;  the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave&#xA;  or free man (Job 3:11-19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The development of the concept of life after death is related to the&#xA;  development of eschatology (speculation about the &quot;end of days&quot;) in&#xA;  Judaism. Beginning in the period following the destruction of the&#xA;  First Temple in Jerusalem (586 BCE), several of the classical&#xA;  Israelite prophets (Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah) began forecasting a&#xA;  better future for their people.   However, with repeated military&#xA;  defeats and episodes of exile and dislocation culminating in the&#xA;  destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jewish thinkers began to&#xA;  lose hope in any immediate change, instead investing greater&#xA;  expectations in a messianic future and in life after death. This was&#xA;  coupled with the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic notions of&#xA;  the division of the material, perishable body and the spiritual,&#xA;  eternal soul.    The catastrophe of 70 CE caused a theological crisis.&#xA;  How could it be that the God of Israel would simply allow His&#xA;  sanctuary to be destroyed and His people to be vanquished at the hands&#xA;  of the Roman Empire? While the rabbis often claimed that it was the&#xA;  Israelites' sinfulness that led God to allow it to be defeated&#xA;  (mi-p'nei hataeinu, &quot;because of our sins&quot;), it was more difficult to&#xA;  explain why good and decent individual Jews were made to suffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It talks about Jewish &quot;tradition&quot; but that's because the Tanakh does not address heaven and hell, as we understand it, in much detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above is not in any way &quot;the&quot; Jewish belief. Its just an article giving you insight into some of the thought and discussions of the Talmud and the rabbis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If and when I find direct quotes, I will put them here. But I really hope this helps you in your study/research.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastEditorUserId="1160" LastEditDate="2012-03-30T11:59:21.497" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T11:59:21.497" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6873" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6874" CreationDate="2012-03-28T19:35:39.217" Score="4" ViewCount="2375" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of people don't consider JWs to be Christian, usually for the reason of their view on the Kingdom of Jesus to be a kingdom here on Earth. I respect the guidelines of this site, so I do not wish to discuss who is considered Christian and who isn't. I'm only curious about how they view John 18:36 and similar statements. Despite Jesus explicitly stating multiple times, that Heaven is something totally different from what we can perceive, and is not from this world, they still believe the following two views, which very few if any Christian denominations accept:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The number of people admitted into the &quot;real Heaven&quot; is limited, and already filled.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All the rest have only a chance in the best case to live here in an earthly utopian kingdom, which is not eternal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What biblical basis do they have for it? Their door-to-door preachers I had seen, neither could say anything except a small handful of Bible verses they memorized, but nothing in this topic. I don't have the occasion (neither do I have the intention) to start lengthy debates with some of their better qualified members, this is why I'm asking here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be good if someone here was a Jehovah's Witness, who could tell their view on this question. It might even be possible that the two points I listed come from a misunderstanding and they don't really have those views, could someone more knowledgeable clear this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Of course, you don't have to be a a JW to post an answer :)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="1122" LastEditDate="2012-03-28T19:56:27.077" LastActivityDate="2014-05-10T16:19:39.947" Title="What is the view of Jehovah's Witnesses on John 18:36 &quot;My kingdom is not from this world&quot;?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6873" CreationDate="2012-03-28T20:33:30.147" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is actually a verse that Witnesses would know well, and quote often. It is on the basis of this verse that Witnesses avoid politics (and, generally, careers which would result in fame). Witnesses do not vote; do not join political campaigns; do not donate to political causes; and do not join political parties. This is all on the basis of John 18:36:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the Witnesses, Christ's “Kingdom” is not a simple synonym for “Heaven”. Furthermore, “this world” is not a synonym for “planet Earth” or “the physical universe”. In other words, &lt;strong&gt;the verse you reference has, to the Witnesses, very little relevance to the beliefs you’re asking about&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“This world” is the current political/social system. Witnesses try to avoid being caught up in it much, as explained above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The Kingdom” is God’s system, implying a structured rulership over subjects, living here on Earth in the “new system”. That Kingdom &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;, in fact, eternal. I don’t know where you got the idea that it isn’t. (It will be briefly interrupted 1,000 years in, but after that it’ll go on eternally.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Living on Earth is not supposed to be a second-best. It is, in fact, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8605&quot;&gt;the original plan for humanity&lt;/a&gt;. The few who go to heaven to be kings of the Kingdom (“joint heirs with Christ”) are the anomaly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2014-04-24T19:57:01.760" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1823" CreationDate="2012-03-28T20:42:22.397" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm doing a study of the book of Mark, and this question came up.   The general consensus of the group was that this is referring to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), when the Holy Spirit was poured out on a crowd including many (all?) of the remaining apostles.    At this point, many did experience the power of the kingdom of God in a remarkable way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't necessarily disagree, but a different parsing of the words (&quot;they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom;&quot;  &quot;see the kingdom of God come with power;&quot; see the kingdom of God&quot;)  might be pointing more towards the ascension of Christ shortly before Pentecost (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:6-11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 1:6-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord,  will you at this time  restore the kingdom to Israel?” &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; He said to them,  “It is not for you to know  times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But you will receive  power  when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and  you will be  my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and  Samaria, and  to the end of the earth.” &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And when he had said these things, as they were looking on,  he was lifted up, and  a cloud took him out of their sight. &lt;sup&gt;10&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And while &lt;strong&gt;they were gazing into heaven as he went&lt;/strong&gt;, behold,  two  men stood by them in  white robes, &lt;sup&gt;11&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; and said,  “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven,  will  come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-03-28T20:42:22.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1823" CreationDate="2012-03-28T21:07:20.997" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within you and:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 12:27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think Jesus meant &quot;when I come again&quot;, but rather He was describing what happens to someone when Jesus becomes their Savior, or as in the scripture above, He was saying the Kingdom of God had already come because the Messiah was on earth. Those that accept Jesus as Savior will see the Kingdom of God before they die.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-28T21:07:20.997" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6877" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6878" CreationDate="2012-03-29T01:55:38.300" Score="22" ViewCount="3696" Body="&lt;p&gt;The title sums it up: I often hear it said during the debates on liturgy and music styles that are appropriate for worship that even Luther used common bar tunes (equivalent to days pop songs) for his hymns. Is this true? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-10-28T20:34:01.153" LastActivityDate="2018-12-09T15:32:00.327" Title="Did Luther really use bar tunes for his hymns?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6877" CreationDate="2012-03-29T01:58:14.380" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nope, it's not, actually. Luther used a &lt;em&gt;form&lt;/em&gt; of music &quot;bar form&quot;, but he was actually opposed to use of common tunes (like Calvin) for his hymns. The following is from an essay called &lt;a href=&quot;http://tdgordon.net/courses/various_files/major_forms_of_bs.doc&quot;&gt;&quot;Major Forms of BS&quot;&lt;/a&gt; by T. David Gordon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I cannot count the number of times I have heard the common myth about&#xA;  Martin Luther employing the tunes of familiar “bar songs” in his&#xA;  hymns.  This is entirely false, and its utter falsehood is only&#xA;  partially explained by confusion, because Luther did indeed, at times,&#xA;  employ what musicians call “bar form” (an AAB structure), a common&#xA;  musical form in classical and sacred music.  Luther wrote many of his&#xA;  own tunes, and borrowed others from Gregorian chant and elsewhere, but&#xA;  not from taverns.  Here’s what the good friar actually said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;“I too, with the help of others, have brought together some sacred songs, in&#xA;    order to make a good beginning and to give an incentive to those who&#xA;    can better carry on the Gospel and bring it to the people…And these&#xA;    songs were arranged in four parts for no other reason than that I&#xA;    wanted to attract the youth (who should and must be trained in music&#xA;    and other fine arts) away from love songs and carnal pieces and to&#xA;    give them something wholesome to learn instead.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Emphasis mine, from&#xA;  the Forward, first edition, of Johann Walter’s Wittenberg Geistliche&#xA;  Gesangbüchen, 1524.  Cf. also the discussion of this matter in “Luther&#xA;  and Bar Song:  The Truth, Please!”, chapter 21 in Paul S. Jones,&#xA;  Singing and Making Music:  Issues in Church Music Today (P&amp;amp;R, 2006),&#xA;  pp. 171-178].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T01:58:14.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6879" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6887" CreationDate="2012-03-29T03:26:42.833" Score="11" ViewCount="15977" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although the question could go all over the place I am looking to know how evangelicals define the role of a man and of a woman from the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the verses they use? Is there a short description of the different roles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T00:04:35.247" Title="How does the Bible describe the gender roles?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6879" CreationDate="2012-03-29T04:02:07.767" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biblical (at least, imo) view of gender roles is, in short, that the man symbolizes Christ and the woman symbolizes the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Delving in a little bit deeper, Eve was created as a &quot;helper&quot; for man, a &quot;suitable partner&quot; - not as a creature inferior, though, which I think could be inferred from the fact that Eve was made from the rib of Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused&#xA;  the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took&#xA;  one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then&#xA;  the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man,&#xA;  and he brought her to the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A20-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:20-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Ephesians, Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the  Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their  husbands in everything.&#xA;  25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave&#xA;  himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing&#xA;  with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a&#xA;  radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but&#xA;  holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their&#xA;  wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29&#xA;  After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care&#xA;  for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members&#xA;  of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and&#xA;  mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one&#xA;  flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ&#xA;  and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as&#xA;  he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:23-33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:23-33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the key phrases here are &quot;love his wife&quot; and &quot;respect her husband&quot; - the woman has a supporting role to the loving, caring, providing husband; both epitomizing Christ and the Church. (See Hosea for great imagery on this)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this is in the context of marriage, but generally I think it still applies - man providing, woman helping/submitting, especially since this is the general role given at Creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in the context of the church, there's some information provided by Paul in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2014:34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 14:34&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to&#xA;  speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately though, these are minor distinctions: in Christ there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;neither male nor female&lt;/a&gt;; we are all equally sinful but equally made righteous by the blood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-03-29T14:26:03.280" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T14:26:03.280" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6877" CreationDate="2012-03-29T10:30:07.137" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luther did not, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Booth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Booth&lt;/a&gt; did. He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www1.salvationarmy.org/heritage.nsf/0/42d53ced9ec1583080256954004bff3e?OpenDocument&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;said&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;Why should the devil have all the good music.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Booth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, one of the most famous songs set to a drinking song is &quot;The Star Spangled Banner.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, back to Luther. While he did not set sacred music to drinking songs, he is credited with saying, &quot;Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update:  At least according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.av1611.org/question/cqdevila.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt; I appear to have fallen for a popular &lt;em&gt;mis&lt;/em&gt;-attribution.  That said, it is a fairly common one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T14:56:15.333" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T14:56:15.333" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6864" CreationDate="2012-03-29T12:40:42.830" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am no expert in the apostles' lives, but here are some thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has been said that God provides His truth in earthenware vessels. That is, they are never of impeccable moral character. Judas is an obvious example, but Peter, too, sinned against Jesus in the course of His passion (by denying him three times). The difference between the two is that Peter did not run or hide from Jesus when he saw him again and received his forgiveness.  But Judas could not forgive himself nor did he seek Jesus' forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 21:17 NAS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He said to him the third time, &quot;Simon, son of John, do you love Me?&quot; Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, &quot;Do you love Me?&quot; And he said to Him, &quot;Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.&quot; Jesus said to him, &quot;Tend My sheep.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result, Peter remained as head of the disciples, but we all know what happened to Judas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, later on, we hear of Paul rebuking Peter, apparently over his recalcitrance to eat with Gentiles. So there is still fraternal correction going on even among the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 2:11-14 NAS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, &quot;If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that the apostles all, except John, died a martyr's death spreading the kingdom. So whatever other faults they may have had, they were at least loyal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1468" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T12:40:42.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6883" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6888" CreationDate="2012-03-29T14:29:46.257" Score="19" ViewCount="55286" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the Mormon missionaries I've encountered are young men doing a couple year stint. They are typically identified as &quot;elders&quot;, but my understanding is that this designation is only temporary during their time of service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is the LDS use of this term similar or different than the office of elder in mainstream Protestant circles? Does their designation as elders give them any ruling authority over the church body or is their role strictly to work with non members?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-05-17T02:39:01.937" LastActivityDate="2017-06-13T18:10:28.657" Title="Why do Mormons use the term &quot;elder&quot; for their missionaries?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;missions&gt;&lt;elders&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6820" CreationDate="2012-03-29T14:41:02.903" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;A similar illustration to demonstrate the concurrent nature of God's sovereignty and our freedom to act on our desires...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read a book a while back on classical Arminianism (Grace, Faith, &amp;amp; Free Will). The author, Picirilli, is an expert in Greek but I would say not the best at arguing a free-will position. His writing is highly technical from a language standpoint, but I found it a little weak from a logic standpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this book, he gives an example of predestination with which as a reformed believer I would fully agree. Picirilli used it as demonstration of God's &quot;hands off&quot; approach to guaranteeing an outcome while never touching man's freedom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's say that a man wants to go into his garden in the late afternoon. Let's also say that God does not want to go into his garden in the late afternoon. God also knows that the man will choose not to enter the garden if there is rain. To keep the man from the garden, God sends rain at the time the man would have gone into the garden. Thus, the man freely chooses not to enter the garden, and God's sovereignty is preserved in that His purpose was not overridden. Picirilli wouldn't tell you this, but it is a brilliant illustration of how God accomplishes His divine will for man in all circumstances (both in man's sin and man's acts of righteousness) and yet remains Holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big point of both illustrations though is that man always acts in free agency, and God's will is always accomplished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you asked about it, what the door illustration lacks however is the explanation that by nature since the fall, our inclination is to not enter. God plants within us the desire to enter the door, and by God not actively planting such a desire in us, we are left in our natural state of wanting nothing to do with entering the door. For point of fairness, a classical Arminian would say that God has given prevenient grace to each man and has enabled us to want to enter the door, but we choose to not want to enter the door.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T14:41:02.903" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6885" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6886" CreationDate="2012-03-29T14:50:21.737" Score="3" ViewCount="1084" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:21-22&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;“But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the Lord?’ &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the test of an Old Testament prophet was whether or not they prophesied correctly. However, I heard last weekend that modern-day prophecies are not always correct, much like when Galadriel (from Lord of the Rings) says (roughly) &quot;Remember that the Mirror shows many things that have not come to pass, and may still not.&quot;. Given that prophesying still happens today (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:16-18&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:16-18&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14&lt;/a&gt;), I ask: does this Old-Testament test of correctness still apply today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T19:09:08.150" Title="Does Deuteronomy 18:21-22 still apply today?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-01-08T01:41:05.673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6885" CreationDate="2012-03-29T15:02:39.327" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether or not prophesying (or, at least future-telling prophesying) still happens today is up for debate (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5290/971&quot;&gt;What is the basis for Cessationism&lt;/a&gt;).  However, if it does still happen today, then most Christians would agree that the Prophet's Test you mentioned is still very important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prophecy is only defined as such when it is a revelation from God.  And since &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;it is impossible for God to lie&lt;/a&gt;, any so-called prophecy that proves false must not have been from God.  The principle of the passage still applies: if a prophet speaks presumptuously, asserting God's authority when God's authority was not actually given, that &quot;prophet's&quot; credibility is shot - he cannot be trusted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T15:57:40.287" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6879" CreationDate="2012-03-29T15:05:29.627" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note:  This is typically a fairly volatile issue.  My answer attempts to identify what the Bible has to say on this subject.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is certainly important to understand the reason for which God made us, including the reason for which God made us as beings with gender.  We can only experience the fullest joy when we understand who we are and our unique purpose.  God's desire for both men and women is for them to experience the highest joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would certainly seem obvious that there are fairly significant differences between men and women.  It is also important to note that differing roles does not indicate differing value or intelligence of honor.  Yet, God did create us as beings with gender, so it behooves us to seek to understand why He chose to do that and what that might mean for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gender Roles in Creation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not explicitly define gender roles, but it does identify points that are instructive.  The creation of man and woman seems to shed a good bit of light on things, including the following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam was created first--they were not created simultaneously.  (Genesis 2:7)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God planted the garden for Adam and brought Adam to the garden. (Genesis 2:8)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam was given work to do prior to be given a wife, but we have no record of Eve specifically being given work. (Genesis 2:15)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit, but we don't know whether or not Eve was also told by God or if she learned this from Adam.  (Genesis 2:16-17)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The wife was created as a &quot;suitable helper&quot; for Adam, not the other way around.  (Genesis 2:18)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam named the animals--not Eve.  (Genesis 2:20)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eve was created from the man, not the other way around.  (Genesis 2:21-22)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eve was brought to the man, but the man was not brought to Eve. (Genesis 2:22)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both Adam and Eve were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam was created outside the garden from the dust of the ground, while Eve was created inside the garden from a part of the man.  (Genesis 2, portions)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gender Roles in the Fall&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Fall of mankind also provides some interesting information that either resulted from the Fall or was already inherent prior to the Fall, but was just identified after the Fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The judgment of Eve included 1) increased pain in childbearing and the statement that 2) Her desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her.  (Genesis 3:16)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam's judgment affirms his role of worker in that his work would become toilsome.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam named Eve, but Eve did not name Adam. (Genesis 3:20)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eve was identified as the &quot;mother of all the living&quot;.  (Genesis 3:20)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gender Roles in Marriage&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul identifies the idea of &quot;headship&quot; for the husband, among other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wives are instructed to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (Ephesians 5:22, 24)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Husbands are identified as the &quot;head&quot; of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Husbands are to instructed to love their wives sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church, and as their own bodies (Ephesians 5:25, 28-29)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wives are instructed to give respect to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:33)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Man is described as the glory of God, and woman is described as the glory of man. (1 Corinthians 11:7-9)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Neither male or female&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much is sometimes made about Galatians 3:28 where it indicates there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, &lt;strong&gt;male or female&lt;/strong&gt;.  Some would suggest that all gender roles are, in Christ, rendered obsolete because of this.  However, it was Paul who wrote that, and he is the one who comes under fire the most for making gender distinctions in his writing.  Galatians 3:28 is referring to our standing in salvation.  Jewish believers have no better place before God than Gentile believers, just as men have no greater standing in salvation than women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Bible does tend to reveal a distinction in roles.  Men were created first and given work to do.  The woman was given to the man in marriage as well.  Women seem to have been specifically created for relationship and, in marriage, are specifically instructed to be submissive to the headship of the man, who has the responsibility to treat her with sacrificial love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T15:05:29.627" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6883" CreationDate="2012-03-29T15:48:06.827" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;Elder&quot; actually has two (related) meanings among Latter-Day Saints: first, it's an office in the Priesthood, which all worthy male members can attain.  It doesn't imply any leadership, just certain duties, responsibilities, and privileges associated with being an Elder in the Priesthood.  All male missionaries must be found worthy to be ordained an Elder before leaving on their mission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But not all members who have been ordained an Elder go by the &lt;em&gt;title&lt;/em&gt; of &quot;Elder&quot;.  That's used for people who are dedicated full-time to the ministry.  As the Latter-Day Saints have a lay clergy, this is a fairly small group.  It obviously includes the missionaries, and General Authorities of the Church (the Apostles and Seventies who preside over the Church as a whole) are also referred to as &quot;Elder [last name].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for a missionary's authority in the Church, they have no inherent position of leadership as part of their calling, though missionaries assigned to areas where the Church is still small may find themselves called to serve in the leadership of the local branch while they're there.  But their primary calling is to teach the Gospel, not to administer in the affairs of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2014-05-05T03:01:12.763" LastActivityDate="2014-05-05T03:01:12.763" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6765" CreationDate="2012-03-29T18:12:59.663" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had to consider how to answer an atheist (on Twitter, no less) who used this passage as &quot;proof&quot; that if God does exist, He is a cruel and petty one. At least here I'm not limited to 140 characters! The hermeneutics of this passage have been well covered by others. During the reign of Ahab, not too long before this, Jezebel killed every prophet of the Lord she could get her hands on, and we can assume there was probably still significant persecution of the faithful minority. Bethel was home to one of the 2 golden calves that Jeroboam made to entice the people of Israel into idolatry and away from the Lord, so it is not surprising that we see Ejisha being ridiculed here by a gang of youths. My college OT professor told us that this carried the connotation of calling him an &quot;emptyhead.&quot; Now look at 2 Kg. 1:9-15, where King Ahaziah sends soldiers to demand that Elijah come to him, and Elijah calls down fire from heaven and turns 2 bands of 50 into crispy bits. When the captain of the third band humbles himself and begs for his men's lives, God spares them. I see these passages as representing what is soon to befall Israel as a whole: those who reject God will be punished, but mercy will be given to those who humble themselves. These prophets were acting in the authority of God, proclaiming His message. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as to whether we have the authority to do this, look at Luke 9:51-56. A Samaritan village rejects Jesus because He was going to Jerusalem, and James and John ask Him if they should call down fire on them, as Elijah did. Jesus rebukes them and says &quot;The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them.&quot; So we do not have the authority to curse anyone in the name of the Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1486" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T18:12:59.663" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6761" CreationDate="2012-03-29T19:34:52.947" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The whole story of Habakuk tells us how the prophet kept crying out to God but without a reply whiles suffering continues with his people. But he gets an answer asking him to hold on and wait.  Habakkuk 2:3&#xA;&quot;For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T19:34:52.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2662" CreationDate="2012-03-29T20:17:30.840" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Building on @warren's response:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, righteousness does not indicate that he was perfect. Additionally, crimes against humans by humans are particularly abhorrent to both humans and God. So why, then, would Lot be considered righteous?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also a couple of other factors that &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; influence our understanding of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Context. Peter is addressing a group a Christians who were being&#xA;persecuted for their beliefs. The author explicitly compares (or&#xA;contrasts?) the two parties (&quot;Lot&quot; and &quot;the godly&quot;) so there is some&#xA;sort of relationship between the two.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Righteous.&quot; This is one of the most fascinating words on the NT.&#xA;Without going into too much detail here, &quot;righteous&quot; and its analog&#xA;&quot;just,&quot; stir up quite the controversy. We'd have to look through&#xA;Peter and read a bit of personal theology into this passage to&#xA;conclude if Lot was &quot;justified&quot; or &quot;righteous&quot; because of his&#xA;actions, or because of a declaration made by God. Again, I've done&#xA;very little research on Peter's use of &quot;righteous&quot;/&quot;just&quot; so I can't&#xA;definitively say that it is one or the other, but it is certainly a&#xA;topic to explore.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why the distinction between &quot;godly&quot; (lit. &quot;pious&quot;) people (the&#xA;author's presumed immediate audience) and &quot;righteous Lot?&quot; I would&#xA;probably contend that there is nothing more implied here beyond a&#xA;separation of the two objects since the author goes on to compare or&#xA;contrast the two.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We can't really eliminate the potential for irony here. The&#xA;description of Noah immediately prior to Lot may also help us&#xA;understand this better. The description of Noah is brief (&quot;preacher&#xA;of righteousness&quot;) and Lot's is significantly longer. So either the&#xA;author is trying to justify Lot as actually righteous, or he's&#xA;demonstrating God's power through the irony of physically delivering&#xA;someone with Lot's past.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, this is longer than I thought it would be. The reality is that there's plenty of study to be done on this particular section and there are a few weighty factors to consider before we can come to a definitive solution. I'm not a fan of citing Matthew Henry, or any of the older commentaries that are freely available online, so I apologize in advance for just coming out and citing something with an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; say, though, is that this is a passage that is designed to inspire hope and should be understood through that lens. Whether you accept an ironic interpretation, or one that sees the sovereignty of God's decree (and I do not believe that these are mutually exclusive), or some combination of them, the point of this passage is to say that God can deliver you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-04T22:24:09.843" LastActivityDate="2012-04-04T22:24:09.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6031" CreationDate="2012-03-29T20:47:30.990" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The underlying assumption is that if something is true, it has to appear in all four Gospels.  However, if it appeared in all four gospels, some would ask why doesn't it appear in every epistle as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's interesting that people attack the Bible for having four versions of the same story in the Gospels and other people attack the Bible for not having four exact copies of the same story in the Gospels.  Some people will find fault no matter what the Bible teaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good answer to bill maher's question would be to ask him if he believes that Jesus died and rose again from the dead, since that is, in fact, recorded in all four gospels.  Of course he would say he does not, because he doesn't believe the Bible.  By the same token, those who believe that Jesus did die and rise again are well prepared to believe that Jesus is also virgin born, even though only two gospel accounts record that.  One witness would have been sufficient--two is more than enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark and John, as Affable Geek noted, do not even record Jesus' birth.  The books were written to concentrate on different aspects of Jesus life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, maher's question was nonsensical at its very root.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T20:47:30.990" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6885" CreationDate="2012-03-29T21:38:14.570" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, Romans 8:16 should let you believe that there is God, and His spirit can contact anyone, even you. There is a level of prayer where the spirit takes over your prayer, taking you closer to God. &#xA;Romans 8:26&#xA;&quot;Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.&quot;&#xA;Now, from 1Cor 14:1-3 where someone has to prophesy to you, it must give you comfort and improve your mind and character.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another thing is that the prophecy may cause you the listener to react. &#xA;1 Corinthians 14:24-25&#xA;&quot;But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1489" LastActivityDate="2012-03-29T21:38:14.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6901" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6920" CreationDate="2012-03-30T02:16:19.470" Score="8" ViewCount="5866" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the first commandment, &quot;Thou shalt have no other gods before me&quot; means that God, and God alone is to be worshipped, why do we have the Second Commandment? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aren't idols covered in the First Commandment? Worshiping an idol would be &quot;having another god&quot; before the Lord, and we don't have extra commandments covering lust (just the one general one on adultery) so why the extra commandment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note: I've answered this myself from a Protestant/Reformed view, but I'd love to hear what other traditions have to say and my answer is by no means an exhaustive one&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-03-30T02:59:21.337" LastActivityDate="2014-12-14T07:43:40.510" Title="What's the point of the second commandment?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2015-11-25T07:01:29.870" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6901" CreationDate="2012-03-30T02:27:25.680" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The First Commandment covers who to worship, but the Second Commandment covers &lt;em&gt;how.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often when the Israelites worshiped idols they were actually trying to worship Yahweh&lt;sup&gt;[&lt;em&gt;citation needed&lt;/em&gt;]&lt;/sup&gt; and were going about it all wrong. In the Second Commandment, God was giving a clear explanation on what kind of worship was acceptable, and idolatrous worship was &lt;em&gt;out&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a reformed protestant point of view, I understand this to be forbidding prayer to or worship of images of God or Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neil Postman, author of &lt;em&gt;Amusing Ourselves to Death&lt;/em&gt; (and also Jewish, I believe) comments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I wondered...why the God of these people would have included&#xA;  instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their&#xA;  experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an&#xA;  ethical system &lt;em&gt;unless its author assumed a connection between forms&#xA;  of human communication and the quality of a culture&lt;/em&gt;. We may hazard a&#xA;  guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract,&#xA;  universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of&#xA;  drawing pictures or making statues or depicting their ideas in any&#xA;  concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the&#xA;  Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception required the&#xA;  highest order of abstract thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Postman is using this as example of how different media affect their cultures, it's interesting to think about it in light of the New Testament and Paul's statements about faith and sight. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we walk by faith, not by sight. - 2. Cor. 5:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at&#xA;  all. Who hopes for what they already have? - Romans 8:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea seems to be that we are to walk by faith, trusting in the Word of God and not in the tangible images we might construct. We are to worship God by faith, not by sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T02:27:25.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6901" CreationDate="2012-03-30T07:35:06.227" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know JWs use the second commandment to partly explain why they do not salute the flag, which i sometimes appreciate although am a baptist. There are many small forms of worships we have indulged ourselves in which might be very wrong before God.&#xA;I agree with Thomas yet let me add this. &#xA;&quot;...likeness of any thing that is in heaven above...''&#xA;We have on our flags the moon, star, sun. &#xA;''...that is in the earth beneath...''&#xA;On countries coat of arms we see eagles, lions. horses etc. &#xA;''...or that is in the water under the earth:&quot; &#xA;On coat of arms we see sea horses on both sides of the shield, you could cite a few more yourself. So it was very relevant that God added the second, and even with that we do not see that we are worshiping other things alongside our Jesus Christ. Drawings and carvings of Jesus, Mary which we bow before in church are all part of it. &#xA;Think of it, those times they saw how Jesus looked like but the disciples or anybody never bow before a carving of Christ after he had left. it was purely by faith and belief. We need to be careful about these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1489" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T07:35:06.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6904" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-30T08:02:07.237" Score="17" ViewCount="3613" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.&quot; (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.&quot; (1 Timothy 2:12-14). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I asked my mom once about this and she explained that when the holy spirit descended, both men and women received it. And this gives us many different gifts such us prophesying, singing and preaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understood her but what I could not ask her was that, Corinthians and Timothy came after the holy spirit descended in Acts. In Africa you cannot keep on asking challenging questions to the elderly as it might be seen as disrespect. Someone help me here.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1489" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-21T13:12:29.303" LastActivityDate="2015-01-21T13:12:29.303" Title="Should women give sermons?" Tags="&lt;women&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;preaching&gt;&lt;1-timothy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-23T20:16:18.813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6904" CreationDate="2012-03-30T10:29:20.710" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; can be asked using the theological terms of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Complementarianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;complementarianism&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Egalitarianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;egalitarianism&lt;/a&gt;. The crux of the question is this - Did God make all humans the same or did He give each &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;separate but equal&quot;&lt;/a&gt; roles to uniquely fill within the church? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, like most real issues of substance, is not one where a single proof verse can answer it. (Although, watch me violate this in a minute!) Rather, one needs to pit the whole of Scripture and discern what the whole of God's heart on the matter is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A whole lot of good ink has been shed on this subject, and entire books can only begin to scratch the surface of a fully biblical answer to that question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a deeper understanding of the 1 Corinthians 14 passage in particular, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; references Gordon Fee, one of the preeminent experts on how texts should be read. It is a solid summary (albeit 3 long pages) that really should be consulted. Finally, as to the &quot;women should keep silent in church,&quot; verse in Corinthians, I have heard it argued that this is actually a return to the subject of Chloe and Scynthe, two women in the church at Corinth who were fighting a lot, but I cannot source this claim. This &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle_and_women&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wiki article&lt;/a&gt; also does a good job of summarizing the role of women in the Bible, using these headings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication of complementarianism would be that women were not created for this role, but rather were to be nurturers rather than leaders. Egalitarians, on the other hand, stress passages like Galatians 3:22 (In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, &lt;em&gt;male nor female&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblically speaking, the opening of 2 John makes it difficult for me to say that a &quot;woman should keep silence&quot; in church. After all, it is directly addressed to &quot;the elect lady and her church,&quot; which indicates to me that in New Testament times, there were churches in which which women were in charge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This said, as a guy, I'll admit, I'm not convinced this is a matter that should divide Christians. It could be one of those &quot;tyranny of the weaker brother&quot; questions, in which the Christian freedom afforded to women could cause others to stumble. Likewise, in churches that have accepted it, keeping women out of the pulpit could be a major stumbling block to those who see this as blantly unfair. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Romans 14:5 says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2012-04-03T14:59:53.670" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T14:59:53.670" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6908" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6918" CreationDate="2012-03-30T14:09:53.023" Score="22" ViewCount="2374" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theistic evolution holds that God used evolution to create mankind.  It seems to follow then that this view must also hold the creation account in Genesis to be unhistorical.  So, Adam and Eve may have been people, but were perhaps the first humans whose parents were pre-human.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to those who reject it, what are the Biblical and theological problem with theistic evolution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-04-09T00:22:48.460" LastActivityDate="2017-04-09T00:22:48.460" Title="What are the Biblical and theological problems with theistic evolution?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;theistic-evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4653" CreationDate="2012-03-30T14:19:53.823" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;What would Jesus do?&quot; expression actually comes from the Christian Classic book entitled &lt;em&gt;In His Steps&lt;/em&gt;, by Charles Sheldon.  In this great novel, a group of believers look at 1 Peter 2:21 and, based on that teaching, ask the question, &quot;What would Jesus do?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow &lt;strong&gt;in his steps&lt;/strong&gt;. 1 Peter 2:21 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story follows several of them as they try to truly live their own lives as they believe Jesus would.  A newspaper editor, a wealthy lady, and a few younger people incur disdain from other Christians who suggest that living in such a way is not practical.  It really is a pretty good book.  I've both read it and listened to an audio book version of it occasionally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, it seems that this question, which comes from a book written in 1897, recently became a fad, abbreviated in the initials of WWJD.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that the only way anyone can hope to know what Jesus &lt;strong&gt;would&lt;/strong&gt; do is to study what He &lt;strong&gt;did&lt;/strong&gt; do.  It seems that too often some have based their ideas about what Jesus would do on a concept of Jesus that has nothing to do with His actual life and teachings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-12T20:36:57.930" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T20:36:57.930" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2012-03-30T14:35:54.363" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;God created light on the first day of creation.  The sun is just something that produces light.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The underlying assumption of many is that the sun defines day and night, so day and night cannot exist without the sun.  However, that assumption is perhaps incorrect from a biblical perspective.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the sun is supreme, then the sun would, indeed, define day and night.  However, the Bible teaches that God created day and night first.  God, as Creator, is certainly powerful enough to define a &quot;day&quot; independent of the sun.  The earth could have spun prior to their being a sun around which to orbit.  We certainly aren't given enough information to know for sure, but it certainly is a possibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, the Bible indicates that God created the sun, and perhaps the revolution of earth continued, but now had hours of light and dark due to the light produced from the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, we can't know for sure, the assumption that the earth could not have been rotating or have a definition of day and night prior to there being a sun could be invalid.  Mankind has only existed after the creation of the sun, so our perspective is limited and it is perhaps difficult to envision something outside the box that we are in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="30990" LastEditDate="2016-12-04T05:36:41.780" LastActivityDate="2016-12-04T05:36:41.780" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2012-03-30T14:39:49.020" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the Creation account in Genesis is unhistorical, Adam and Eve are unhistorical (so they can't be the first humans, with pre-human parents).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no problem with its not being historical. It means the Creation account is allegorical, and it's interesting that the occurrences which are listed as occurring within a week happen in the same order as a geological-time account of creation and evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is very similar to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1533/what-is-theistic-evolution&quot;&gt;one asked previously&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T14:39:49.020" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6912" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6915" CreationDate="2012-03-30T15:28:57.560" Score="9" ViewCount="2179" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the key points of the Reformation was the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;Sola Fide:&lt;/em&gt; that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works. The Reformers thought this was in contrast to the doctrines of the Catholic church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the biblical basis &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;Sola Fide?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-10-12T21:52:31.837" LastActivityDate="2015-10-12T22:30:45.673" Title="What is the biblical basis against Sola Fide (salvation by faith alone, apart from works)?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-03-30T15:54:09.510" Score="0" Body="&lt;h3&gt;The Meaning of &lt;em&gt;Spiritual&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue that the tripartite view is wrong, and that when the New Testament uses the adjective &lt;strong&gt;πνευματικός&lt;/strong&gt; it is almost always referring to the Spirit of God, though sometimes to evil spirits. Thus, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6816/1481&quot;&gt;like Jay&lt;/a&gt;, I take &quot;spiritual means&quot; to indicate a revelation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;References&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I agree with a number of the other posts here (though I don't know whether their authors would agree fully with me).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everything by Cornelius Van Til (who is badly misunderstood most of the time)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Francis Schaeffer on the &lt;em&gt;Nature/Grace&lt;/em&gt; dichotomy in Thomas Aquinas (&lt;em&gt;Escape from Reason&lt;/em&gt;; also in &lt;em&gt;How Shall We Then Live?&lt;/em&gt; and the development of the result of this in &lt;em&gt;The God Who is There&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Søren Kierkegaard on the problems of Socratic maieutic method and the need for regeneration (&lt;em&gt;Philosophical Fragments&lt;/em&gt;). (Please forgive me for referencing Van Til and Kiekegaard at once.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Two thousand plus years of philosophical history that have yet to arrive at any sort of satisfactory or certain conclusions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Holistic Approach to the Question&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The unbeliever is so wrong about everything that he is said to have &quot;no knowledge&quot; (because in his being he is in antithesis to God, not because he can form no concept of 2 + 2 = 4):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They have no knowledge who carry about their wooden idols and keep on praying to a god that cannot save. —Isaiah 45:20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, this is not a state he can rescue himself from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray, and he &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; deliver himself or say, &quot;Is there not a lie in my right hand?&quot; —Isaiah 44:20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His state of rebellious ignorance (Romans 1) is so severe that he has no ethical ability to stop it (his will is free ontologically, but is ethically enslaved).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, there are not only some truths that must be spiritually discerned, but it is not even possible to have any profound understanding of any ethical or ultimate questions without the supernatural action of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a regenerate person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fear of the Lord is the &lt;em&gt;beginning&lt;/em&gt; of knowledge. —Proverbs 1:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblically, knowledge has little to do with proofs and empirical evidence. It has to do with a person being brought into relationship with the Triune God. In a systemic and not an atomic sense, it is not even possible for the unregenerate man to know &lt;em&gt;e&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;iθ&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; = cos &lt;em&gt;θ&lt;/em&gt; + &lt;em&gt;i&lt;/em&gt; sin &lt;em&gt;θ&lt;/em&gt;; he does not understand it in light of the glory of Jesus Christ, with which it is loudly crying out,  and though he can conceptualize the math (perhaps much better than I can), he is still &quot;living on borrowed truth&quot; as he is in antithesis to God in the totality of his being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-03-31T17:36:31.197" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2662" CreationDate="2012-03-30T15:54:26.843" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Outside of being offered by their father in this incident, there are really only two things we know about Lot's daughters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;they were betrothed or in some translations actually married to men of Sodom (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:14&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Gen. 19:14&lt;/a&gt; - the latter option making Lot's claims to their virginity suspect), and &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;after the destruction of Sodom, they get their father drunk and seduce him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:30-38&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Gen. 19:30-38&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They may well have been pure-hearted young women, but the text itself doesn't suggest this.  So while the situation might have resulted in gang rape for Lot's &lt;em&gt;unwilling&lt;/em&gt; guests, his daughters might well have been enough of the Sodomish mindset where they &lt;em&gt;wanted&lt;/em&gt; to join in—and while allowing one's daughters to join an orgy is not the most fatherly of actions, if they were consenting it would at least move it out of the category of offering them up for gang &lt;em&gt;rape&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T15:54:26.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6912" CreationDate="2012-03-30T15:56:32.547" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question could be worded better. Even the reformers would disagree with Sola Fide as you've described it (with the exception of Luther, perhaps).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common passage against Sola Fide is found in James 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15  If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16  and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19  You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21  Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that there is more than one aspect of salvation. There is justification, that which is Sola Fide, and there is sanctification, which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit and is manifest by good works. This is why 2nd Peter tells us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So salvation is &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; Sola Fide. However, salvation is also &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; of works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T15:56:32.547" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2012-03-30T16:08:56.323" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The theological problem with holding this view stems from Gen 1:26 &amp;amp; 27 (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 Then God said, “&lt;strong&gt;Let us make human beings in our image&lt;/strong&gt;, to be&#xA;  like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the&#xA;  sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small&#xA;  animals that scurry along the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 So God created human beings in his own image.&#xA;      &lt;strong&gt;In the image of God he created them&lt;/strong&gt;;&#xA;      male and female he created them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human beings that evolved would hold a value less than what this verse implies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T16:08:56.323" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2012-03-30T16:58:53.143" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Answers in Genesis writes about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/creation-matters&quot;&gt;this topic&lt;/a&gt; a lot.  Their primary arguments are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Genesis narrative seems to be written as a historical one, and not allegorical.  Adam and Eve are treated as historical figures, having offspring, a genealogy, and death.  Thus treating it otherwise would be poor hermeneutics.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Genesis account of the order of things created is different from the evolutionary account.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the Biblical account, death enters the world as a result of sin, specifically Adam's sin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12-21&lt;/a&gt;).  In the evolutionary account, death must precede man.  This view is argued to undermine the nature of the fall of man, and thus the redemption of Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T16:58:53.143" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1453" CreationDate="2012-03-30T17:08:53.570" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a few issues on this topic, I'll illustrate my opinion as follows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm disputing the statements made here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Darkness is not made, it is just there.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not here to debate theology, but to argue against the premise that darkness was never made, but was 'just there'. Saying this alone is borderline heretical against the principle belief of both Judaism and Christianity, not to mention Islam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;GOD created the world 'ex nihilo.' Everything that GOD created was made entirely 'out of nothing' by the decree and Word of GOD...the Qalam. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Implying that darkness was 'just there', is saying--in terms of platonic premise--that darkness co-existed eternally with GOD, or before GOD--if anyone wants to take this further.  This is directly heretical!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible clearly states numerous times that everything came from GOD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another premise that I want to address against:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;There is no mention in the Bible that suggests that God created the darkness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can someone say that there is no mention of the Bible suggesting that darkness was created? Clearly in Isaiah 45:7 says:&#xA;אני יהוה עשה כל־אלה...יוצר אור ובורא חשך &#xA;&quot;Forming light and creating darkness..I am the LORD [that] does all these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anyone believes that darkness CANNOT be created is stating that GOD has limited powers and doesn't possess absolute knowledge, nor the ability to create  certain things...again that is purely a platonic view. And such views are considered extremely heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the Bible, is states that GOD created the [seven] heavens and the earth, and all that is in between....darkness co-exists in the realms of heaven, especially the lowest heaven (i.e. physical universe). I can expound ever so deeply on this topic, but I don't have the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if anyone wants scientific proof: Dark matter, dark energy, vacuum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My advice is to NOT read bible verses on picking certain verses or tailor the verses to fit your own desire, but read it page-by-page...spend a year reading it, then read it again fully the next year...and do it all over again the year after...then repeat. Biggest problem in Christianity today is that no one really read the Bible fully. I've found many of my Christian brothers and sisters proclaiming that they read it [all], but don't know what is written in it. It is like a mule carrying a load of books, but don't know what is contained therein. They have the sources in front of them but don't understand anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1492" LastEditorUserId="1492" LastEditDate="2012-03-30T17:15:33.077" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T17:15:33.077" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6901" CreationDate="2012-03-30T17:12:42.783" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Aren't idols covered in the first commandment?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes and no.  The thing is, our use of the English word 'idol' is broad enough that there can be two kinds of idolatry: one, worshipping any god that isn't our own, which the first commandment prohibits, and two, worshipping a man-made image (or &quot;graven image&quot;) of any deity, which the second commandment prohibits.  God here is specific and prohibits both separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the first commandment, saying there should be no other gods before Him, doesn't rule out worship of other gods that doesn't require man-made images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as Thomas pointed out in his answer, the second-commandment prohibition against creating or serving man-made images is not just about other gods, but also refers to man-made images intending to represent God himself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So one could break the first commandment and keep the second commandment by (for example) worshipping trees, the sun, or a sacred animal, without creating any images.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And one could break the second commandment and keep the first by creating an image intended to represent God, and directing one's worship and service to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T17:12:42.783" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6921" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-30T17:36:50.787" Score="-1" ViewCount="5273" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1813/what-is-the-basis-for-clerical-celibacy&quot;&gt;What is the basis for clerical celibacy?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why it is said to be a bad thing since Christians say that God had a Son?&#xA;Why do humans deny that to themselves and accept it for God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1493" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-04-01T23:15:22.853" Title="Why  can't the Pope have children?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-04-06T21:21:18.817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6921" CreationDate="2012-03-30T18:52:05.300" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's very simple actually. The Pope can't have children because in Western Catholicism, Priests are expected to be unmarried and celibate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary and Joseph had a child despite celibacy, but they were at least married (thus giving Christ a legitimate father). I can't see how someone who cannot have an illegitimate child (celibate) or a miraculous child (not married) would be able to accomplish this, but I suppose that anything is possible through Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T18:52:05.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6885" CreationDate="2012-03-30T19:09:08.150" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God no longer uses prophets to reveal his will. The Bible is the only valid revelation today for how we ought to live. Prophets were God's chosen mediators between God and man. With the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost along withe scriptures human prophets are no longer necessary or valid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="255" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T19:09:08.150" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1453" CreationDate="2012-03-30T19:25:39.357" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take a look at this article:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short version is this... before the creation there was not nothing, there was God.  God is pure infinite glory.  The primary act of creation, Gen 1:1, God creates the heavens, that is Space, which is, in essence, a retraction of his infinite glory from a particular finite place.  The Big Bang and current expansion of the Universe, in other words, is looking at that retraction from the &quot;inside&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Science tells us the initial universe was not the transparent &quot;darkness&quot; that we know today but rather a superhot opaque soup of energy that had to expand enough to cool to the point where matter could exist and photons could travel freely through space.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might even say that there is no &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; darkness... even the vacuum of space has energy, you just have to be looking at the right wavelength :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_background_radiation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_background_radiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1234" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T19:25:39.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6929" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-30T19:41:47.637" Score="5" ViewCount="91" Body="&lt;p&gt;Following the death of the highest bishop of the Coptic church on March 17, 2012, what is the process by which he will be replaced?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-07-27T01:01:41.473" LastActivityDate="2015-07-27T01:01:41.473" Title="What is the process by which Pope Shenuda (Coptic) will be replaced?" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;coptic&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6929" CreationDate="2012-03-30T19:42:58.273" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The process by which Pope Shenuda's successor will be replaced can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/1/37017/Egypt/Dont-say-the-Pope-died,-the-Popes-in-heaven-Egypt-.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The highlights are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following Shenouda's death, the eldest member of the Holy Synod's archbishops will become acting pope until a new patriarch is seated. If the eldest archbishop, Anba Mikhail of Assiut, who was consecrated in 1946, declines to undertake the role, Archbishop Anba Pachomeus of Beheira, who was consecrated in 1971 and is the second eldest member of the Holy Synod, will become acting patriarch for two months until a new pope is elected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The candidates are nominated through the Holy Synod (the highest authority in the church, comprising 120 archbishops), the Monks Synod, Melli Council members, dioceses, and members of the Coptic Councils in the People's Assembly and Shura Council.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Coptic Orthodox tradition, the pope is elected by a number of processes. Candidates, chosen among monks and archbishops, must be at least 40 years old and have been monks for at least 15 years. &lt;strong&gt;Following an election, the names of the three candidates with the most votes are written on pieces of paper and placed in a box to be picked by a child — not more than nine years old — whose eyes are closed.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing that I find fascinating about this is the element of the Holy Spirit, whose hand is forced into the selection process. (In the podcast &amp;quot;How to Do Everything?,&amp;quot; the Yale Divinity Professor says this is the stated aim.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Ancient Israel, The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Urim and Thummim&lt;/a&gt; were cast (essentially drawing lots) for things like this, and when the Disciples wished to replace Judas, they did the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T19:42:58.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6851" CreationDate="2012-03-30T20:03:16.160" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;After discussing this with our rector, I discovered that the key bone of contention is Section 4, the enforcement mechanism (or lack thereof) that holds the Anglican Communion together. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The subtext of disagreement, of course, is the subject of the authority of the Scripture in Anglican life. Probably the most visible manifestation of this debate is the question over same-sex blessings and the elevation of homosexuals to the priesthood, and in 1 1/2 cases, the office of bishop. (One = Gene Robinson in New Hampshire, 1/2 = the process for replacing the Bishop of Los Angeles in which three of the six candidates were publically acknowledging and celebrating their own homosexuality.) Support for this is strongest in the West, particularly in Canada and the United States. In contrast, most of the growth in the 80 million member Anglican Communion is in Africa, where attitudes are quite different.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question on the table for the Anglican Communion is how such a wide diversity of opinion can co-exist. If a bishop is elevated who, at least in the minds of one wing, is living in open and unrepented sin, the Biblical mandate is fairly clear - that person should be excommunicated.  By contrast, the Anglican Covenant requires the following procedure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(4.2.4) Where a shared mind has not been reached the matter shall be referred to the Standing &#xA;  Committee. The Standing Committee shall make every effort to facilitate agreement, and may &#xA;  take advice from such bodies as it deems appropriate to determine a view on the nature of the &#xA;  matter at question and those relational consequences which may result. Where appropriate, &#xA;  the Standing Committee shall refer the question to both the Anglican Consultative Council &#xA;  and the Primates’ Meeting for advice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a &#xA;  Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any &#xA;  Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional &#xA;  limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the &#xA;  process set out below&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is bascially the status quo - The ABC asks everybody not to provoke anybody in either direction. The problem for conservatives is that acquiesence is tacit to complicity.  &quot;Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,&quot; would be their response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.economist.com/node/21551116&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Economist (3/24/12)&lt;/a&gt; describes the situation this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the 80m-strong worldwide Anglican Communion, things are even messier. American liberals hate a covenant which Anglican churches are being asked to sign, pledging to avoid provocative actions like consecrating openly gay bishops. If the future Archbishop of Canterbury insists on the covenant, bits of the communion may reject the arrangement whereby an English prelate chairs the global fraternity, says Frank Kirkpatrick, an American Episcopalian priest. An emerging block of African and American conservatives also questions Canterbury’s historic role. For some hardliners, the covenant does not go far enough in penalising liberals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The next Archbishop of Canterbury will also have to answer a more basic question: is the institution he heads part of the establishment, with an accepted role as its moral guide, or is it called on to be a provocateur, speaking its own version of truth to power? Defeat over gay marriage will make it tougher to play the first role, but a church that strives to be idiosyncratically prophetic will be harder to keep together. And the church’s role at home has implications for the communion: can an English church that is steadily disestablishing itself retain any natural place as a pacesetter for much bigger churches abroad?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Canterbury is in a no-win situation, and it is not clear if anyone (let alone the likely nominee John Sentamu) could hold it together.  The covenant appears to be a weak attempt at reconciliation without any teeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T20:03:16.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6932" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-03-30T20:39:45.323" Score="5" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find a lot of church practices wrong and I always feel I have joined the wrong family, and fear my salvation will be affected in the end. &#xA;Is it right for selling and buying to go on in or around the church premise during programs? &#xA;In Jesus' day he, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and&#xA;  the changers of money sitting,... he drove them all out of the&#xA;  temple... And said unto them...Take these things hence; make not my&#xA;  Father’s house an house of merchandise.&quot; (John 2:14-16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is obvious that what is happening today is just in another form, modernised when journals, bibles, church newspapers etc are always being displayed. &#xA;We get guest speakers who set up their books, cds and tapes to be sold after their sermon. I dont want to talk much but please, someone tell me if we are safe.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:29:24.310" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:29:24.310" Title="Do the temples need cleaning?" Tags="&lt;money&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6932" CreationDate="2012-03-30T20:55:00.670" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This story is told in all four of the gospels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 21:12-13&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  12  And Jesus entered the temple[a] and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of&#xA;  the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said&#xA;  to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’&#xA;  but you make it a &lt;strong&gt;den of robbers&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 11:15-17&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  15  And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the&#xA;  temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in&#xA;  the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the&#xA;  seats of those who sold pigeons. 16 And he would not allow anyone to&#xA;  carry anything through the temple. 17 And he was teaching them and&#xA;  saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house&#xA;  of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a &lt;strong&gt;den of&#xA;  robbers&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 19:45-46&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  45  And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, 46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be&#xA;  a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a &lt;strong&gt;den of robbers&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see they all add the phrase &quot;den of robbers&quot;, Jesus' focus was on the motives and heart of those doing the selling. In a place of prayer and worship they were taking advantage (and perhaps even worse) of worshipers. I don't know your pastors or the guest speakers you've had so it's impossible for me to tell you whether what they are doing is wrong or not, so I'd encourage you to talk with them (your pastors) about your concerns if you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-04-02T13:42:28.760" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T13:42:28.760" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2012-03-30T22:32:26.650" Score="3" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God made Adam from the dust of the ground - I &lt;em&gt;guess&lt;/em&gt; you could take that as a sort of metaphor for evolution, but why not just say so? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;..and Eve from the rib of Adam - okay, that sounds much more supportive of Evolution.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wait, &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; are our first parents anyways? This isn't a very technically rigorous argument, but Evolution seems to blur the line on the fact that Adam and Eve were our first parents (see Paul NT, etc.). If they evolved from pre-human species, wouldn't those species be our first parents? Also, it seems sort of strange that at some point something just magically &quot;clicked&quot; and &quot;real&quot; humans sprung into existence, with souls, consciences, and a knowledge of the Creator.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;opinionated&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;Again not very technical, but it seems rather anti-climactic - God makes a world, then sits around &quot;waiting&quot; for a few billion years for Adam and Eve to come along? That doesn't make a very good story, and in my opinion, the Bible is a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; good story.&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;/opinionated&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In sum, it just doesn't seem &lt;em&gt;like&lt;/em&gt; God at all to create man that way. Not very glory-bringing to him to have a slow, natural process create man when he could do it himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-03-31T17:17:37.167" LastActivityDate="2012-03-31T17:17:37.167" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6901" CreationDate="2012-03-30T22:46:35.503" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic perspective as I understand it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An idol can refer to a graven image, but it can also refer to a person, thing or pursuit that one places higher than God. If you place higher value on a hobby, money, career, or even family, then by definition you are worshiping that thing more than God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a kind of idolatry, and the kind we are more susceptible to these modern days, in which graven image worship of any kind is fairly unknown in the developed world. This is distinct from worshiping another being that sets itself up as a deity, whether or not it is a physical being, as other answers have pointed out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas Aquinas formulated this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3094.htm#article1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica Q. 94&lt;/a&gt; (Objection 4 and Reply to Objection 4) as &quot;worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator&quot;, which I have seen generalized to &quot;...the creation rather than the Creator&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As regards statues, pictures, and the like, as long as the &lt;em&gt;thing itself&lt;/em&gt; is not worshiped, venerated or addressed, but rather what it represents or points to, then it does not fall afoul of idolatry. From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Council of Trent&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An essential difference exists between idolatry and the veneration of images practised in the Catholic Church, viz., that while the idolater credits the image he reverences with Divinity or Divine powers, the Catholic knows &quot;that in images there is no divinity or virtue on account of which they are to be worshipped, that no petitions can be addressed to them, and that no trust is to be placed in them. . . that the honour which is given to them is referred to the objects (prototypa) which they represent, so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose likenesses they are&quot; (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXV, &quot;de invocatione Sanctorum&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, a few chapters after the idolatry commandment, in Exodus 25, God describes the creation of the Ark, which has images of cherubim in gold, and does not see any contradiction. And in a more common sense example, we never make the mistake of loving pictures of our families instead of the families themselves; we are capable of making the distinction. But it was an important distinction to make in the context of ancient Israel, surrounded by idolatrous cultures, which DID worship physical objects and creatures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1468" LastActivityDate="2012-03-30T22:46:35.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6938" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6941" CreationDate="2012-03-31T04:28:41.503" Score="17" ViewCount="26781" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you may know, God is never mentioned in the book of Esther, either by name (Yahweh), title (Adonai), or being (El). Neither is prayer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why not? I realize this is rather open ended, so I'll try to give some objective criteria:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it never mentions God, why is it in the canon? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the theological application to be gained from Esther &lt;em&gt;given&lt;/em&gt; the lack of any reference to God. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/handwave.html&quot;&gt;waves hands&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a few thoughts on this myself, but i'll try to hold them until I can get a good sampling of answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(also, why hasn't this been asked yet? Have I missed an obvious duplicate? Or stumbled into the Area51 of ✝.SE?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-12-18T15:36:57.117" LastActivityDate="2015-12-18T15:36:57.117" Title="Why isn't God mentioned in Esther?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;esther&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-12-21T20:35:07.007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6901" CreationDate="2012-03-31T06:23:50.207" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first commandment and the second commandment are completely different&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Exodus#Chapter_10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; translation, on Wikisource&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am Yahweh your God, who took you out of the land of Egypt, from the slave-house. You will have no other Gods in my presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will make for yourself no statue and no image of that in the skies above and that in the land below, and that in the water underneath the land. You will not bow to them, and you will not worship them, because I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous god, commanding blight, from fathers to sons to the third generation and the fourth generation, to my detesters. And I will have kindness on the thousands, to those that love me, and that keep my commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first commandment states that you will not worship other Gods. The second commandment requires the Jews to abolish any figurative art, even that which is dedicated to Yahweh, or just secular art. So no scenes of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, no pictures of Noah's ark, no statues of Moses, no paintings of Jewish Kings, no coins with representations of Jews, nothing. This law essentially made ancient Judea and Samaria the most barren of wastelands for figurative art in the entire ancient world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second commandment has been interpreted in different ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jewish/Muslim: no representational art whatsoever (at the very least, no religious art)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christian: Worship is not to be directed at objects, nor to any Earthly representation, but to the Heavenly realm. A figurative statue is not a problem.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should point out in this context that it is a monotheistic smear that Pagans generally believe that statues are alive and respond to prayers. Generally, the statues are representations of the Gods, and only serve as an Earthly work in which to present a heavenly form. So Pagan worship is generally not as ridiculous as Jews, Christians, and Muslims make it out to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the original phrasing of the injunction is against figurative art. Good visual artists in particular, are able to embue their work with spirituality and virtual life, and their spiritual message is often in conflict with the established orthodoxy, in all times. So this injunction is designed to prevent challenge to the priesthood from artists, by prohibiting figurative art entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the Cherubs on the &amp;quot;Ark of the Covenant&amp;quot; (the crate of the testimony) are Griffin-like creatures, they violate this commandment. But they are hidden behind a curtain, so that only the priests see them. I suppose these are allowed because God commanded they be made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a personal note, I do not respect the second commandment. I think it is criminal in the original interpretation (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Buddhas of Bamiyan&lt;/a&gt; for why). The Christian intepretation thankfully renders it harmless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T13:09:40.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6938" CreationDate="2012-03-31T17:15:55.967" Score="13" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Esther's legitimacy as part of the canon of Christian scripture  has been the subject of debate because there is no direct reference to God. The compilation of the original Bible is largely obscured in history (e.g. the Song of Solomon has been likewise disputed because of its romantic content), but Esther may have been included because of its rich demonstration of Christian values such as loyalty, courage, faith, and fasting (and by implication, prayer).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even though God is never directly mentioned in the book, His Providence is distinctly evidenced in the deliverance of the Jews in the face of great opposition and terrible odds. It is a witness of God's mindfulness of His people, His recognition of their faith, and His direct intervention in their lives despite His indirect presence among them. In fact, the refrain of mention of His name emphasizes this contrast: that even though God isn't directly with us (as it would seem), His hand is still mighty on behalf of His faithful, and thus, &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; actually with us.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1640/1003&quot;&gt;This answer by Warren&lt;/a&gt; suggests that Esther prefigures Mary, a significant example of faith and virtue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Embedded in Esther 4:13-16 is the confidence in a sure deliverance by Providence:  whether by Esther's house or by some other means, the Jews &lt;em&gt;would be delivered&lt;/em&gt;. So while the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther#Historicity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;historical accuracy&lt;/a&gt; of Esther is debated here or there, I for one personally love the book because of the inspiring display of virtues, and the profound example of faith by fasting, courage/loyalty, and patriotism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T16:26:39.133" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6942" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6944" CreationDate="2012-03-31T20:00:50.050" Score="6" ViewCount="433" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many times we try to ask questions not to challenge the Christian faith but rather to know more and perhaps draw closer to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can one get the confidence in trying to explain to and convert a learned and highly educated unbeliever who always has strong reasons from philosophy, logic, psychology etc to support his rigid stand?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible actually seem to halt us in seeking to know more from God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9:20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 9:20&lt;/a&gt;, KJV). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 14:5&lt;/a&gt; also says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then we have this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. [...] so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+55:8-9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 55:8–9&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These and many more make me feel incapable of winning souls for Christ and often leaves me hanging and tongue-tied myself. How do we manage this as Christians?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-26T17:33:32.047" LastActivityDate="2015-10-26T17:33:32.047" Title="Does yearning to know more about God for a stronger relationship leave us hanging in confusion?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;&lt;spiritual-growth&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6942" CreationDate="2012-03-31T20:50:45.423" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is certainly not seeking to stop people finding out more about God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 9:20 is rendered by more modern translations as &quot;But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?&quot;. It's not speaking against enquiry, but against trash-talking or accusing God (the previous verse makes that clear).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 14:5 is talking about something else completely, whether or not to celebrate special days. Paul is saying to make up your own mind, and then stick to it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 55 8-9 is simply pointing out that God's mind and thoughts are greater than ours. That doesn't mean we shouldn't improve our own minds or our thoughts, but it does point out that they will not be equal to God's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-03-31T20:50:45.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6942" CreationDate="2012-03-31T23:09:57.983" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of my favorite scriptures to turn to with questions like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 1:5 if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6) But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So James tells us that we should ask God for any knowledge that we don't know. But with a condition attached. You need to ask in faith that God will answer your question. If you do so its promised that the Lord will give to you freely. And He always keeps His promises. I would add that @San Jacinto was right on in that you need to be humble in asking as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-03-31T23:09:57.983" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6942" CreationDate="2012-03-31T23:49:24.293" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said &quot;Seek and yee shall find.&quot;  It is in fact the way to get closer to God.  It is your personal road to travel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some &quot;givens&quot;, things I no longer question. I have my own list:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a Creator who made everything.&#xA;He is perfectly good.&#xA;He loves me more than I could ever imagine.&#xA;He has forgiven me of all my sins.&#xA;Jesus was God, and He died for me.&#xA;Jesus is the supreme teacher, the ultimate authority on everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have very good reasons why I believe them to be true.  Those questions have been answered for me for a long time.  But it took years of &quot;seeking&quot; to get to the point where I believe them as strongly as I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-03-31T23:49:24.293" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6946" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6948" CreationDate="2012-04-01T01:43:09.853" Score="26" ViewCount="39387" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Thou_Fount_of_Every_Blessing&quot;&gt;Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing&lt;/a&gt;,&quot; the second verse, says, &quot;Here I raise my Ebenezer, hither by thy help I've come.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard that an Ebenezer is a monument of some kind, but even armed with that knowledge, I really don't understand what I'm singing. What is going in that verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-24T17:00:01.020" LastActivityDate="2017-07-07T19:34:23.220" Title="Why do I sing, &quot;Here I raise my Ebenezer?&quot;" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6947" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6980" CreationDate="2012-04-01T01:49:12.700" Score="6" ViewCount="1842" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Episcopal church, the traditional source of ashes on Ash Wednesday comes from the burnt remains of the previous year's Palm Sunday fronds. How did this practice originate, and what is the theological significance of the sign?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, do other denominations practice this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-01T02:34:32.113" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T18:03:34.970" Title="Why are the same palms used on Palm Sunday used for Ash Wednesday services the next year?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;easter&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6946" CreationDate="2012-04-01T02:10:18.633" Score="41" Body="&lt;p&gt;This has always been a favorite line of mine. As you may know, the word Ebenezer comes from 1 Samuel 7:12. Israel had just screwed up with the ark (the Philistines had captured it) and gotten it back (only because God has freaked the Philistines out by knocking their precious Dagon over), and Samuel was talking to Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen and&#xA;  called its name Ebenezer; for he said, &quot;till now the LORD has helped&#xA;  us.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ebenezer is &quot;Eben ha-`ezer&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H72&quot;&gt;which means&lt;/a&gt; &quot;stone of help.&quot; God was a rock of salvation to Israel; Samuel was setting up a monument of God's rock-ness (which is all throughout the bible) and salvation. God had, once again, helped Israel where they had messed up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is especially emphasized by the irony that &quot;Ebenezer&quot; was the name of the place that the Israelites had &lt;em&gt;lost&lt;/em&gt; the ark to the Philistines. Aren't the literary connections in Scripture cool?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first two lines in &lt;em&gt;Come Thou Fount&lt;/em&gt; that contain Ebenezer go (at least according to The &lt;em&gt;Trinity Hymnal&lt;/em&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here I raise my Ebenezer; Hither by Thy help I'm come&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The hymnist is, like Samuel, raising his stone of help as a tribute to God's salvation and grace. By &lt;em&gt;thy&lt;/em&gt; help I've come this far; I praise you for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a great line because it captures the grace of God and the praise of Him for it in one succinct quote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2012-04-01T02:10:18.633" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6949" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-04-01T02:41:44.100" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-04-01T02:41:44.100" LastActivityDate="2012-04-01T02:41:44.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6950" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-04-01T02:41:44.100" Score="0" Body="Easter is the traditional Christian celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  " OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-01T02:54:55.630" LastActivityDate="2012-04-01T02:54:55.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6904" CreationDate="2012-04-01T03:15:43.273" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think nearly everyone believes you should play to your strengths... or in biblical terms, that you should use your &quot;gifts&quot;... and preaching is definitely included among the spiritual gifts. Apply that to this question, and it follows that if it's permissible for a woman to preach, then it is &lt;em&gt;required&lt;/em&gt; of some women that they should do so. You can't simply say that some women may preach without also also making it in some cases mandatory that they at least try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we now have a position (that some women &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; preach) that is in direct opposition to a plain reading of scripture (that women &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be silent). Personally, I do not believe that this is an impossible situation; sometimes the full context of a passage can lead to interpretations that are counter-intuitive or the polar opposite to that first reading.  &lt;strong&gt;However, in these cases I think the standard should be set &lt;em&gt;exceptionally&lt;/em&gt; high before adopting such an interpretation.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that bar has been met in this case. In fact, I'm inclined to say that in the rush to appease modern sensibilities we have been a little too eager to look for mitigating circumstances around those passages. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I'm not done yet. I also recognize that my judgement is not infallible. I recognize that, if I'm wrong, the systematic repression of the talents and dreams of our young women is at least as great a sin as the alternative... and it's interesting to examine who the guilty party is in each scenario. Oughtn't I be first concerned about my own conduct, about my own sin? I may have a clean conscience based on my interpretation of scripture, but that does not make me right, and it won't take away the guilt if I'm wrong. Thank God for the grace made possible by the blood of Jesus, that can cover either my sin or that of a woman who preaches, because there are many issues like this and &lt;em&gt;no one&lt;/em&gt; is right about all of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main thing to remember in this situation is that it is not for me or any other human to pass sentence on the hearts and motives of a woman who chooses to preach. I may believe it to be sin, but ultimately God decides; only He can condemn. If a woman is convinced it's permissible to her, she has the gift, and she does it for God's glory, I say leave her be. Even if she doesn't quite live up to all of that, I would point you to Philippians 1:18. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, I must adhere to the interpretation that I believe to be correct, and so I do not attend a fellowship that normally allows this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-05-24T04:47:30.587" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T04:47:30.587" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6873" CreationDate="2012-04-01T04:45:03.620" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus talked about a &quot;kingdom&quot;, he talked about the same kingdom mentioned in Daniel 2:44: &quot;And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed..., it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.&quot; When Daniel says &quot;all these kingdoms&quot;, he is referring to the man-made kingdoms he just described, as pictured by that multi-substance statue. These man-made kingdoms, or governments, as we call them today, consisted of a head of state and it's supporting government structure. When Daniel prophecied that these would be &quot;broken in pieces&quot; and be replaced by a kingdom set up by the &quot;God of heaven&quot;, it is fair to assume that God's kingdom would also have a head of state (Jesus) and a supporting government structure run by ministers of various government departments/offices.(144,000) Otherwise it would not be a true replacement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when Jesus told Pilate: &quot;My kingdom is not of this world: then would my servants fight,...&quot;, he basically told Pilate, that he is not a king of a man-made government, &quot;... but now is my kingdom not from hence (this world).&quot; When Jesus promised his apostles that he would prepare a place for them (John 14:2), he obviously meant heaven, because that's where he went after he died on earth. And that's where the seat of his government or kingdom is located.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that's how JWs understand John 18:36.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to your other comments: You are right about our belief that only a limited number (144,000 - Rev. 7:4; 14:1) will be in heaven to form that government. And that makes sense, because they have to rule over someone. That's where the earth and mankind comes in. We don't view this as &quot;only a chance in the best case&quot;. There is nothing wrong with being human. Jehovah put a lot of thought into creating this earth for humans to enjoy. There were already millions of angels in heaven before Adam and Eve were created. If God wanted more angels in heaven, he could've created more. But He chose to create something new: humans. He didn't put them into a &quot;utopian kingdom&quot;, as you put it, but it was called a paradise. This paradise was not a state of mind control, where man was to blindly follow orders, without the ability to reason. Jehovah also dignified man by giving him privacy and the freedom to choose. This paradise was to be eternal. Only by willfully doing wrong, would that eternity be lost. And it was lost, for Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:16,17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is, again, reasonable to conclude, though, that eternity for mankind is not lost forever. As an illustration: Would you spend a lot of time and thought to build a sail boat and never put it out to sea? Well, the full potential of this created earth has never been realised, and if it never would be, God's purpose could be called a failure. And why should He let that happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, JWs believe that both heaven and earth are inhabited by beings created by God. They are different, but both are created in God's image, with their own specific eternal purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1496" LastActivityDate="2012-04-01T04:45:03.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6873" CreationDate="2012-04-01T08:55:07.480" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be understood that this is part of God’s plan for the paradise earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie&#xA;down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling&#xA;together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear&#xA;shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together:... And the&#xA;sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child&#xA;shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor&#xA;destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the&#xA;knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 11:6-9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for righteous men inhabiting the earth,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that it uses the word &lt;em&gt;inherit&lt;/em&gt; (gain property when someone is no more). Who shall be no more?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors&#xA;shall be rooted out of it.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 2:22&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD,&#xA;they shall inherit the earth.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 37:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for JWs not joining political parties, you should know that in many nations, saluting and showing respect to flags, coats of arms, and the like is in violation of the second commandment given to Moses, which was interestingly added after the first one. Compare: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6901/214&quot;&gt;What’s the point of the second commandment?&lt;/a&gt; I gave an answer there which earned me 2 upvotes, but I hope it does more than that this time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-04-24T20:03:08.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6954" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-01T13:06:50.240" Score="22" ViewCount="12306" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the early church began in homes but then at some point (it's another question) started meeting together in larger meetings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: did men and women sit together from the start or were they initially influenced by (separate seating arrangements of) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue#Denominational_differences&quot;&gt;the Synagogue&lt;/a&gt;? If not, how did it come to be a regular practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-04-01T13:11:58.940" LastActivityDate="2016-03-10T07:15:19.313" Title="When and how did men and women start sitting together in church?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;gender&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6955" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6957" CreationDate="2012-04-01T19:00:56.060" Score="10" ViewCount="2582" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the note of soon to pass Good Friday, Good Friday is the time of the year where we remember the death of Jesus, and Easter is where we remember the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Correct me if I am wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, people seem to associate Easter with egg hunting and bunnies and chocolates. I wouldn't mind a little celebration considering that it is the day Jesus rose from the dead, however I would like to know what in the world eggs and bunnies have to do with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-01T19:16:27.660" LastActivityDate="2014-04-07T18:10:17.720" Title="How come Easter is associated with Eggs, Bunnies and Flowers?" Tags="&lt;easter&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6955" CreationDate="2012-04-01T19:25:15.280" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because all are symbols of new life, such as the New Life we have in Christ and the new life shown in Jesus' resurrection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(My guess about the chocolate is that it's an indulgence after Lent. )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the request of a commentator, I will expand the &quot;symbols of new life&quot; ever so briefly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eggs, of course, are where new life comes from. As one who has chickens, ive seen this happen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flowers tend to bloom in springtime, when dormant vegetation is &quot;coming back to life&quot; after the cold winter. (Back in my day, winters were cold and we had this stuff called snow that you didn't have to buy on a street corner. Then came global warming...). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, bunnies are symbols of, how shall I say this delicately? Um, fertility. 2 bunnies make more bunnies rather rapidly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-04-01T19:57:14.317" LastActivityDate="2012-04-01T19:57:14.317" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6955" CreationDate="2012-04-01T20:44:41.187" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;It isn't... Or rather, they are associated with the &lt;em&gt;seasonal&lt;/em&gt; event but not the &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; event of Easter.. Pagans and general common folk had celebrated spring with signs of new life for a long long time before Christ. Easter then became associated with the spring festivals (in particular, but not limited to, the equinox) in the same way that Christmas became intermingled with pre-existing winter (and in particular, solstice) celebrations. All of the &quot;popular&quot; symbols of Easter are nothing to do with what Christianity calls Easter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.home2b.nl/susan-office-easter-pagan.html&quot;&gt;http://www.home2b.nl/susan-office-easter-pagan.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.witchology.com/contents/march/ostara.php&quot;&gt;http://www.witchology.com/contents/march/ostara.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://atheism.about.com/od/easterholidayseason/p/PaganChristian.htm&quot;&gt;http://atheism.about.com/od/easterholidayseason/p/PaganChristian.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/holidays/easter-problems.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/holidays/easter-problems.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism&quot;&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eggs and bunnies have as much to do with the resurrection as trees and sleighs have to do with the birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To a community where much of the population are involved in food production, the seasons (and spring/winter in particular), and the signs there-of, are all-pervasive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The crucifixion story is a pretty gruesome thing, and frankly doesn't &quot;market&quot; as well as eggs and bunnies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-04-05T21:16:13.543" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T21:16:13.543" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6921" CreationDate="2012-04-01T23:15:22.853" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The truth is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;there were Popes who had children&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children (one in Strasbourg and another one in Scotland), born before he entered the clergy.[10]&#xA;  Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had at least two illegitimate children, born before he entered the clergy.[11] According to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he &quot;openly practised nepotism in favour of his children&quot;.[12] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly ambitions.[13] The title Padre della patria (Father of the Fatherland) was suggested for him, precisely with suggestions that he may have fathered as many as 16 illegitimate children.[14]&#xA;  Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy orders. Academic sources identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence.[15][16]&#xA;  Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders.[17]&#xA;  [edit]Sexually active after receiving Holy Orders&#xA;  Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had at least one illegitimate daughter, Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election). Some sources indicate that he had two additional illegitimate daughters, who died in their childhood.[18] Furthermore, some (possibly libellous) reports of his time accused him of sodomy. According to the schismatic Council of Pisa in 1511, he was a &quot;sodomite covered with shameful ulcers.&quot;[19]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination[20] in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. There is no evidence of sexual activity during his papacy.[21] He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.[22][23]&#xA;Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had three illegitimate children before his election to the papacy.[24]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] as well as the Liber Pontificalis.[26] However it must be noted that this is disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894-966), John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I. Hence John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque underlines that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being &quot;prone to exaggeration&quot; while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.[27]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, to be fair, many of these were in 1400's, a time that I suspect even most Catholics would now call the low point of the papacy, especially in theological terms. There were three Popes at one time, all sorts of politicking, and in general, the Papacy was just another earthly Kingdom. (Again, I want to keep stressing even modern Catholics would probably agree with me on this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the first Pope, Peter, was at least known to be married. (Jesus healed his mother in law, after all). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Celibacy is not a &quot;modern&quot; innovation, but it is clearly post-Biblical. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-04-01T23:15:22.853" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6960" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-02T00:15:46.970" Score="7" ViewCount="2675" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few nights ago, a friend and I were reading through Hebrews 3 and 4. A few verses in particular caught my attention...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:11-13,%204:1&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 3:11-13 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; So in my anger I took an oath,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;‘They will never enter my place of rest.’ ”      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Be careful then, dear brothers and sisters. Make sure that your own hearts are not evil and unbelieving, turning you away from the living God. &lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;You must warn each other every day, while it is still “today,” so that none of you will be deceived by sin and hardened against God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:1&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 4:1 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4&amp;nbsp;God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me as if these verses taken together imply that a Christian can become unsaved by falling away from following God. Now, I realize that I have to some extent taken these verses out of context, but I don't see any significant contextual change between these verses. So...is my interpretation right? If not, how is it wrong?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers should be Biblically-based, with straight-forward exegesis from related scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-10-23T13:31:52.070" LastActivityDate="2016-10-23T13:31:52.070" Title="Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;apostasy&gt;&lt;assurance-of-salvation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-10-24T05:09:52.320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6960" CreationDate="2012-04-02T01:19:42.013" Score="10" Body="&lt;h2&gt;No.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and&#xA;no one will snatch them out of my hand. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;My Father, who&#xA;has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to&#xA;snatch them out of the Father's hand. - &lt;strong&gt;John 10:27-29 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will not leave you or forsake you. - &lt;strong&gt;Josh. 1:5 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the LORD will not forsake his people; - &lt;strong&gt;Ps. 94:14 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logical explanation of the verses in Hebrews is that those who fall away were never truly participators in the covenant to begin with. Indeed, reading the surrounding context in Hebrews is quite helpful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.&#xA;Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us&#xA;fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;For good news came to us just as to them, but the message&#xA;they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith&#xA;with those who listened. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;For we who have believed enter&#xA;that rest... - &lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 3:19-4:3 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the author explains, those who did not enter never believed in the first place.  This may seem strange considering what appeared to be a strong faith, so it's helpful to go to James on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does&#xA;not have works? Can that faith save him? ...You believe that God is&#xA;one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder!  - &lt;strong&gt;James 2:14, 19 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically faith is split into three categories: knowledge, assent, commitment. Most modern day Americans have knowledge (that is, most know of the gospel of Christ, or at least have heard of Jesus). Many believe that He died for their sins. But as James says, &amp;quot;even the demons believe!&amp;quot; Not so many, perhaps, &lt;em&gt;actually trust&lt;/em&gt; God for their salvation. It is one thing to think that Jesus died for you, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2981/is-the-sinners-prayer-important-for-salvation-and-why&quot;&gt;pray a prayer&lt;/a&gt;, and move on. It is another to live one's whole life utterly devoted to God, &lt;em&gt;in light&lt;/em&gt; of Christ's death and &lt;em&gt;wholly dependent&lt;/em&gt; upon that death for Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it seems the people in the church addressed in Hebrews were knowers, believers even. But &amp;quot;faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.&amp;quot; (James 4:17). And dead faith is really no use to anyone. With a dead (nonexistent, i'd argue) faith, those people never really trusted in God in the first place - they were never Jesus's sheep in the first place, so they were not snatched out of his hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[from the perspective of a reformed presbyterian.]&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-08T04:17:01.040" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6904" CreationDate="2012-04-02T02:39:18.567" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For starters, I encourage you to read @Affable Geek's response about slavery in the Bible &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6130/1100&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his response, @Affable Geek says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As stated, slavery was a fact of the Ancient World, and so when the Bible addresses the topic, it should not be compared against the sensibilities of the modern world, but rather against the sensibilities of the ones to whom the Bible was addressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christians believe that the founders of the early Church and the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired by God, but the fact remains that all concerned were &lt;strong&gt;humans&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When the Bible was written, men and women did not share equal rights.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Founders and Biblical authors could not help but be influenced by the culture and mores of their time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For this reason, it is my belief that the exclusion of women from the (Catholic) priesthood, diaconate, and sermon preaching is an accident of the time at which the Church was founded and the Bible was written.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The culture and mores of the time caused an error of omission rather than an error of commission, because the founders and Biblical authors (namely the authors of the New Testament) did not seriously consider the inclusion of women.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To do so would have required extremely progressive thinking that would have been quite strange to the ancient world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, back to your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Should women give sermons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Absolutely, 100% &lt;strong&gt;Yes!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Christian Churches can no longer logically defend the exclusion of women from this role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problems:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christian Churches are &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5526/1100&quot;&gt;slow/resistant to change&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christian Churches are unsure if they should follow the Bible's prescription for the exclusion of women literally, or if the Church should evolve with the times. [Please see my question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6338/1100&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T02:39:18.567" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6963" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6969" CreationDate="2012-04-02T03:03:03.517" Score="8" ViewCount="9998" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mark 10:25, Jesus states...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.&quot; (Mark 10:25 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After hearing his Disciples ask in light of this who could possibly be saved&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus looked at them and said, &quot;With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.&quot; (Mark 10:27 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My question is, how can any Christian in good conscience purchase any luxurious good or service that doesn't benefit anyone else besides themselves?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flat screens, cars, riding lawn mowers, all these things are luxuries for daily living, but let's face it, wouldn't God rather have us take that money and buy a pallet of food for the local food pantry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1439" LastEditorUserId="1439" LastEditDate="2012-04-02T13:16:06.823" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T13:23:15.427" Title="In light of Mark 10, how can Christians in good conscience purchase luxury items?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;charity&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-12-31T03:04:48.523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6963" CreationDate="2012-04-02T03:29:23.170" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;wouldn't God rather have us take that money and buy a pallet of food for the local food pantry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not neccessarily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it helps to be mindful of the Chinese proverb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in this respect, many Christians are employed as social workers and at food panties and shelters, trying to help the destitute help themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To your questions about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Flat screens, cars, riding lawn mowers...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a capitalist economy, the purchase of such goods keeps the economy running and keeps people employed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;However...&lt;/em&gt; If a good Christian has the means, he/she &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; donate to the Church and feed the poor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I'm mindful of tithing guidelines, I think it's difficult to prescribe amounts or wealth thresholds. It's a very subjective decision, and I think that only God is in a position to judge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T03:29:23.170" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6965" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6966" CreationDate="2012-04-02T03:37:51.443" Score="27" ViewCount="13456" Body="&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholic churches have a practice where congregational members confess their sins and the like to a priest in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional&quot;&gt;confessional&lt;/a&gt;. As I was saying to a friend a couple days ago, the practice doesn't make sense to me as Jesus is our High Priest, and as such, we don't need to go through another man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:14-16&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 4:14-16 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. &lt;sup&gt;15&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, my question is: what is the (Roman) Catholic justification for this practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, I'm talking about confessing &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; the priest, essentially putting them in the position of being the mediator between the confessor and God, &lt;em&gt;despite&lt;/em&gt; Hebrews saying that we need no other mediator than Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-04-02T22:56:43.963" LastActivityDate="2015-03-31T17:20:43.280" Title="How do Catholics justify confessing to a priest?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6965" CreationDate="2012-04-02T05:03:26.283" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sacred tradition in Catholicism makes the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation the pathway by which life in Christ is possible.  In the United States at least, before receiving first communion, children must first go to reconciliation.  All Catholics who are conscious of mortal sin, must confess their sins before receiving communion.  In fact, the only other way to &quot;have life within you&quot;, to a Catholic is to get Baptized, then be hit by a bus (or desire Baptism in some way and be hit by a bus (or to stop someone from being hit by a bus and be hit by a bus *))   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, our justification is that Jesus told his disciples to do this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2020:21-23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 20:21-23 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;  Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;  And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;  If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He didn't tell Mary Magdalene to do this, he didn't tell His Blessed Mother to do this, he didn't tell Pontius Pilate to do this, he didn't tell the Pharisees to do this, he didn't tell Lazarus to do this, he didn't tell Jarius to do this, he didn't even tell John the Baptist to do this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In one sense, yeah, he's telling us to do this, but in another sense.  The sense that the Pharisees knew in Mark 2:7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 2:7 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;  “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He's saying, when you forgive sins, they are GONE.  That's what a priest tells you in confession.  He tells you, that in God's eyes, your sins are no more. You could still be thrown in jail for them,  you may still have to pay up in purgatory for them, but whatever you did is forgiven forever.  Our sin has eternal significance, so do Christ's words in Matt 16:19 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2016:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 16:19 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The power that the apostles confer to their successors, the Bishops and their helpers, the priests, has the eternal significance of both bringing down Jesus to be with us in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar and acting &lt;i&gt;In Persona Christi&lt;/i&gt; to forgive sins in the confessional. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, priests themselves have no inherent right to hear confessions.  Priests are given the faculties to do so from the Bishop of the diocese they are stationed in. But there are extraordinary circumstances in case of emergency and also times like World Youth Day when priests from all over the world will congregate when any priest will hear your confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, regardless of the priest, the person making the confession must have &lt;b&gt;Contrition&lt;/b&gt; which can come in two forms &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fear of God's punishment (imperfect contrition)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Desire to love God and please him (perfect contrition)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they don't have these things, then they're not truly forgiven, there's no magic involved here.  There is only forgiveness and Jesus. The priest sort of recedes into the background here.  He's incredibly helpful because he often gives you great advice anonymously and freely. But the forgiveness part, that's all the Holy Spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*buses are not sacramental in nature and have no ecclesiastical significance, I bring them up solely for the visual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-06-18T22:31:12.620" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T22:31:12.620" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6938" CreationDate="2012-04-02T05:15:25.597" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now, I'm a little naive because I'm way way way more familiar with the Golden Books version of Esther that I've read to my kids a zillion times.  But didn't Esther proclaim a 3 day fast with the intention of saving her people.  There's a picture of her praying with her attendants so it just sort of confused me that prayer wasn't obviously an important part of who Esther was (as a person and a book). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther+4%3A15-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Esther 4:15-16 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;  Then Esther sent this reply to Mordecai: &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;  “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fasting for three days is not to make Esther appear haggard when she approaches the king.  Apparently she's even more radiant than ever.  She desires something only God can give her, the means at hand are fasting.  It's only God who is moved by the fasting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe I'm echoing the previous, very good answer, but I just thought a few more things could be said about this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T05:15:25.597" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6963" CreationDate="2012-04-02T06:07:38.190" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hmm, how do you get from &quot;it is hard for the rich to enter Heaven&quot; to &quot;a Christian shouldn't buy any luxuries&quot;? I think you need to present some logical argument why that follows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practical terms, what do you define as &quot;luxury&quot;? You could survive with some basic food and shelter from the elements. Everything beyond that could be considered &quot;luxuries&quot;. You certainly don't need a TV, a cell phone, and a computer to live. You don't need a house or apartment: plenty of people have survived in a cave or a cardboard box under a bridge. Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I don't know any place in the Bible that says that we should not enjoy the blessings that God has given us. Phillipians 4:11-12, &quot;Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.&quot; Paul enjoyed abundance when it came, and lived with poverty when that came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plenty of places in the Bible describe material blessings as gifts from God. Deuteronomy 28:9-12 &quot;The Lord will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in His ways. Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of you. And the Lord will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers to give you. The Lord will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm certainly not saying that being a Christian will make you rich. What I am saying is that God blesses some people with with wealth, others he blesses in other ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The greedy person's problem is not that he enjoys material things too much. It is that he doesn't enjoy them enough. The problem with greed is that it is never satisfied. Whatever blessings God gives him, the greedy person is never happy. He always imagines that if he had more, THEN he would be happy. But he never is. The ideal is to be content, to enjoy what God has given you, to be satisfied and take the pleasures he lets you have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T06:07:38.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6963" CreationDate="2012-04-02T06:58:32.120" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's go back and re-read the incident that prompted Jesus' teaching:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.&amp;mdash;Mark 10:17-22 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says &quot;No one is good except God alone.&quot;  While He was apparently taking advantage of the honoring address of the man, the point was important to the overall story.  Nobody is perfect in goodness except God.  The whole purpose of Jesus dying on the Cross is to fix that problem.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus mentions all but one of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/502/914&quot;&gt;commandments&lt;/a&gt; related to our horizontal relationships.  Jesus knew beforehand &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_covet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the problem&lt;/a&gt; the rich man faced: &quot;You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The man lacked &lt;em&gt;one thing&lt;/em&gt;: freedom from the bondage of possessions.  Jesus answered his question, but the man would not make himself free.  We know from verse 22, that the reason the man did not follow Jesus was because he could not give up his stuff.  The slavery to the material world was too great an obstacle for him.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus teaching based on the incident was less about anti-materialism and more about the worldly bondage that blocks people from following Him.  It is the wealth of the rich that tends to stand in their way, but not everyone is bound by the same rope.  In fact, we have an indication that Jesus' disciples did not have the same bondage to wealth as the rich man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”&amp;mdash;Mark 10:28-31 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus warned them about pride, which seems prescient:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”&amp;mdash;Mark 10:35-37 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only were James and John trying to get a leg up on the other disciples, Jesus also had to deal with the other ten's misplaced jealousy.  Each of us have our own unique set of spiritual struggles and it doesn't pay to feel superior to those whose struggles we don't share.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the traps we fall into is overgeneralizing.  Yes, Jesus' diagnosis for this man was to sell everything in order to take up his cross and follow Him.  (See Mark 8:34-38.)  But Jesus had another diagnosis for the one whose hand causes them to sin: cut it off!  Get rid of the foot or eye that erects a barrier between you and the Kingdom of God.  (See Mark 9:42-50.)  But not all people in the Kingdom have one hand, one foot, and one eye.  Not all of the people in the Kingdom have sold and given everything.  That's not how God made us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of us must deny ourselves something.  This text suggests that the something we must give up is the something that we wish most desperately to retain.  For you, it might be a love of luxury.  For me, it is almost certainly comfort and intellectual pride.  I have placed those things from time to time as gods to be worshiped.  They appear more trustworthy than Jesus more often than I care to admit.  So I can't follow Jesus if I am too busy following comfort and knowledge that puffs up.  Jesus says a man can not follow two masters (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:19-24&lt;/a&gt;) and therefore I'm only following Him when I give up those idols.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Few of us take seriously Jesus' command that the author of Hebrews summarized: &quot;Let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely&quot;. (Hebrews 12:1 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews+12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)  But we need to be honest with ourselves about what causes us to sin.  If it is wealth, by all means, give it away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T06:58:32.120" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6963" CreationDate="2012-04-02T10:06:22.840" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus knew the general effects wealth has on people. Many will do evil to retain or avoid material loss as it cuts down their status. Many business owners will find invisible ways of deliberately causing problems to tarnish the image of their competitors, they say that is how the game is played. They will create world wars just to profit from sale of weapons. They will own and support big pharmaceutical institutions that produce drugs worldwide with deadly side effects and claim to be curing diseases. &#xA;Take a look at politics and politicians worldwide, how many will you consider poor? Yet they still chase them. They think their security and power lies in their wealth. Because of this Jesus said  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.&quot;       (Luke 12:34). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David, a king with power and wealth, as loyal as he was to God was 'blinded' in conscience when he took his subordinate's wife althoug he had many already. He had to be 'slapped to awaken from sleep' by prophet Nathan and on his awakening...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:&quot; (2 Samuel 12:5).&#xA;...not knowing he was judging himself. That is what power and wealth makes you. You unable to feel the pain others go through and how evil you can suprisingly be.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you should mind the difficulty Jesus stresses on: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;...how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! &quot; (Mark 10:24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means it is possible to be rich and still enter the Kingdom. &#xA;Men like Job, Solomon and some others you can cite yourself were wealthy, but one would have to be alert all times like they were to put God first and not allow distraction of loyalty and faithfulness to Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T10:06:22.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6963" CreationDate="2012-04-02T11:34:13.077" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am satisfied with the answer that Jon Ericson has provided, but I would like to add a couple points. The problem lies with the passage's interpretation by the questioner. This passage is not really addressing wealth at all but rather man's attempt at self-justification before God. Let's view another account of the same story in the context of Luke 18. First, we read three parables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. 2 He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man. 3 And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ 4 For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’” 6 And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. 7 And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? 8 I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, we find that Jesus says that God will give His elect &quot;justice.&quot; We can assume from the passage that in this case, &quot;justice&quot; means mercy rather than God's wrath. Why can we say this? Because the &quot;Son of Man&quot; title Jesus speaks of in the next sentence is one describing the office He came to fulfill: a willing sacrifice having been perfect in the flesh, not judge of the earth at that time (John 3:17). However, Jesus poses a pretty strong challenge: &quot;when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith?&quot; It should make us ask: &quot;faith in &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;whom&lt;/em&gt;?&quot; ...let us continue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next parable..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12  I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of this passage demonstrates to us that the tax collector, symbolizing the worst of the most hated amongst society for the way they took advantage of others, is justified because he isn't look to his own merit to satisfy God's wrath. The pharisee is doing the opposite and is condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the next little bit, we read of the children coming to Jesus...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15  Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17  Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard countless times that this passage is an admonition not to question the Christian faith or ask any tough questions. It disappoints me to hear these things and makes me want to scream. Such teaching is not of Christ, it's of brain-washing cults!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does this passage mean? Remember that it's in the context of people claiming righteousness in themselves rather than God's imputed righteousness. It also says that the parents were brining even their infants to Christ and Christ said &quot;to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.&quot; Let me ask this... for what in life does an infant rely on himself, that he might have it? Nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally we get to the rich young ruler. For brevity, I won't quote the scripture. Essentially, this rich, powerful man asks Christ how to have eternal life. Christ tells him, in a nutshell, &quot;keep the Jewish law you've been given.&quot; The RYR says &quot;I have.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is where the RYR's self-righteousness comes through. The Law is a bona fide means of salvation only to those who can keep all of it (see the book of James). In Romans, we read that even though The Law offers a bona fide offer of salvation, its purpose was not to save people by their own righteousness. Its purpose is to stop every mouth, that we would recognize our hopeless estate before God, that nothing Good dwells in us apart from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the RYR was telling Jesus &quot;I've kept The Law. I am righteous,&quot; but Jesus knew that this was not the case because the entire purpose of The Law is to prove that you cannot please God in your flesh. So, Christ calls the RYR's bluff and says: &quot;prove it. Sell everything and follow me.&quot; ...but the man cannot, because he would lose his power and everything that he believes justifies himself before God would crumble before him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Materialism is a bad thing, but to claim that this passage is about materialism violates the beauty of the Gospel message in these sections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2012-04-02T12:00:49.673" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T12:00:49.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6965" CreationDate="2012-04-02T12:02:15.347" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Confession is actually required of all Christians.  As 1 John 1 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even for Protestants, there are an added benefits of confessing to a person, rather than just &amp;quot;repenting in our heart&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Accountability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being forced to repent to another person instills the discipline of shame - By going to an intermediary, it is harder to get &amp;quot;cheap grace.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Priestly Absolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers was initially promulgated, the idea was that all believers would act as priests for each other. By using each other as priests, we give each other the chance to intercede for and lift up the whole body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;High Priests delegate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes its nice not to start at the top of the chain, but rather in humility realize that we are like all men, twisted, torn, and weak. A fleshly intercessor can be a friend who incarnates Jesus' presence mediated by physical presence.  Going before the throne takes boldness.  Taking along a guy in the chain can make that easier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T03:10:57.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6963" CreationDate="2012-04-02T12:31:11.930" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are commanded to be generous--not impoverished.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your assumption seems tenuous.  &quot;Since it's hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, but it's not impossible since nothing is impossible with God, how can any Christian ever buy anything that benefits only themselves?  Jesus never said &quot;Don't buy anything unless it benefits someone else by meeting their physical needs.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An Example from Jesus' Life&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question assumes that the highest good that a Christian can do is to meet the physical needs of other people.  While this is very honorable and all of us ought to do that, we were not created for that purpose, but for another.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Mark 14, a woman anoints Jesus with a very expensive perfume:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was&#xA;  reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment&#xA;  of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over&#xA;  his head.  Mark 14:3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judas the traitor is the one who is indignant about the &quot;waste&quot;, since the perfume could have been sold and given to the poor (or used to buy a pallet of food for the local food bank).  Jesus rebukes Judas, honoring her for her act of worship and sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Generosity--not Poverty&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For us too, there are greater things for us to do than to give to the poor.  Worshiping God and actively seeking to meet the spiritual needs of a world who does not God is much more significant than merely meeting the temporal needs of people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are, indeed, commanded to be generous:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty,&#xA;  nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who&#xA;  richly provides us with everything to enjoy.  They are to do good, to&#xA;  be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus&#xA;  storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the&#xA;  future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.  1&#xA;  Timothy 6:17-19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul does not say, &quot;Command those who are rich to stop being rich.&quot;  He actually says that they ought to be generous, but also that God provides us with everything to enjoy.  He also says not to be their hope in riches.  Those who are wealthy should keep a right perspective on worldly goods and be mindful that joy and peace come from God and not wealth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, let us all give to those who are actually in need, despite their hard work and responsible living.  Let us be very generous towards them.  Yet, let us not merely meet the physical needs of the world and ignore their spiritual needs.  What nobility can be found in extending a person's life here without also providing them with the knowledge of how to have eternal life?  Life on earth is quite short and uncertain, while the next life is forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-04-02T13:23:15.427" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T13:23:15.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6932" CreationDate="2012-04-02T14:05:40.150" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A key point here is &lt;em&gt;where&lt;/em&gt; they were, although I certainly have my reservations about commercial activity at church (with the exception of really good books).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to&#xA;  drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he&#xA;  overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who&#xA;  sold pigeons. 16 And he would not allow anyone to carry anything&#xA;  through the temple. 17 And he was teaching them and saying to them,&#xA;  “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer &lt;strong&gt;for&#xA;  all the nations’&lt;/strong&gt;? But you have made it a den of robbers.”  Mark&#xA;  11:15-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus notes that the Temple was to be a house of prayer for &lt;strong&gt;ALL&lt;/strong&gt; nations.  It seems that they may have set up these tables in the court of the Gentiles--the outer court.  Gentiles were permitted to come into this part of the Temple, but no further.  The Jews were permitted to go further into an inner court, then only priests could go further, and then the High Priest alone could enter into the Holiest place, and that only once a year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if this is correct, the fact that they set up tables in the court of the Gentiles turned what was to be a place where Gentiles could worship the true and living God into a marketplace.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the very beginning, God's heart was for all the nations.  Israel was chosen to be a light to all nations, that the whole world may know God.  Jesus' anger demonstrates just how much God loves all nations.  That the Jews were excluding the Gentiles from the worship of God by using the Court of the Gentiles as a market was what enraged Jesus so much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T14:05:40.150" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6975" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6977" CreationDate="2012-04-02T15:38:33.467" Score="12" ViewCount="9202" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 5:7, Paul refers to Jesus as &quot;Christ, our Passover&quot;, suggesting that the Passover of Exodus somehow foreshadowed the life of Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How specifically does the Passover do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really&#xA;  are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.  1&#xA;  Corinthians 5:7 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-20T15:05:37.593" LastActivityDate="2020-12-24T19:53:07.433" Title="How does the Passover foreshadow the coming of Jesus as the Messiah?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;easter&gt;&lt;passover&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6975" CreationDate="2012-04-02T16:16:49.417" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul wasn't talking about the Passover feast, but the original Passover that the feast was meant to commemorate.  It refers to the last of the ten plagues of Egypt, just before the Exodus.  God told Moses that the tenth plague would involve the death of the firstborn son of every household throughout the land of Egypt, and how the Israelites could be spared this fate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012:1-13&quot;&gt;Exodus 12: 1-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt&#xA;  saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be&#xA;  the first month of the year to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth&#xA;  day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according&#xA;  to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his&#xA;  neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the&#xA;  souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the&#xA;  lamb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye&#xA;  shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month:&#xA;  and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in&#xA;  the evening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side&#xA;  posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat&#xA;  it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and&#xA;  unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with&#xA;  fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that&#xA;  which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on&#xA;  your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste:&#xA;  it is the LORD's passover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will&#xA;  smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and&#xA;  against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye&#xA;  are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague&#xA;  shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And everyone who had enough faith to listen to God's prophet and obey the commandment that was given to them was saved from the coming destruction that was to befall everyone else in the land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1 Corinthians passage, Paul says that &quot;Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.&quot;  This is an explicit parallel to John the Baptist calling Christ &quot;the lamb of God.&quot;  Christ was the sacrificial offering, and the parallelism is clear.  His blood, and our faith and obedience to God's commandments, provides a way for us to be saved from the spiritual destruction that will otherwise come upon all the world, just as the blood of the Paschal lamb, and their faith and obedience to God's instructions through Moses, allowed the Israelites to be saved from the physical destruction that would otherwise come upon all the land of Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T16:16:49.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6975" CreationDate="2012-04-02T16:30:36.833" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;In regards to Passover, Jesus is closely identified with the Passover lamb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 12&lt;/strong&gt; gives the specific details on how to select the lamb and how it was to be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Announce to the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of&#xA;  this month each family must choose a lamb or a young goat for a&#xA;  sacrifice, one animal for each household. ... 5 The animal you select&#xA;  must be a one-year-old male, either a sheep or a goat, with &lt;strong&gt;no&#xA;  defects&lt;/strong&gt;. 6 Take special care of this chosen animal until the evening of the fourteenth day of this first month. Then the whole assembly of the community of Israel must slaughter their lamb or young goat at twilight. 7 They are to take some of the &lt;strong&gt;blood&lt;/strong&gt; and smear it on the sides and top of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the animal. ... 13 But the blood on your doorposts will serve as a sign, marking the houses where you are staying. When I see the blood, I will pass over you. This plague of death will not touch you when I strike the land of Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of key points here,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The lamb was to be without defects&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The blood covered the doorposts and it was because of this blood that those within the home were saved from death.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus as we know was/is perfect (without sin) in every way and it's because of his shed blood that we are saved as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;John 1:29&lt;/strong&gt; John the baptist makes this declaration about Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Lamb of God&lt;/strong&gt; who takes away the sin of the world!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in &lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 1:19-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of&#xA;  God. 20 God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but&#xA;  he has now revealed him to you in these last days&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T16:30:36.833" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5419" CreationDate="2012-04-02T17:10:34.267" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard a couple of &amp;quot;biblical&amp;quot; arguments against Global Warming.  One is an appeal to God's promise that never again would a global flood destroy all life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%209:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%209:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this is ludicrous, as global warming advocates do not actually predict a global flood.  Another argument, used by a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theblaze.com/stories/senator-inhofe-global-warming-is-a-hoax-arrogant-to-think-humans-can-change-seasons/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Senator Inhofe&lt;/a&gt; is to reference God's promise to sustain the seasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%208:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 8:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; “As long as the earth endures,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;seedtime and harvest,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;cold and heat,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;summer and winter,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;day and night&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;will never cease.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also ludicrous, as global warming advocates do not actually predict cold/heat or summer/winter to cease.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to point out that even though a disproportionately large number of Christians do doubt global warming, this is due to (in my opinion, unfortunate) societal and political factors - not biblical reasoning.  Most Christians would readily recognize that these &amp;quot;biblical&amp;quot; arguments are weak at best, and delusional at worst.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-08-27T14:46:39.077" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6979" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6981" CreationDate="2012-04-02T17:48:33.800" Score="11" ViewCount="5285" Body="&lt;p&gt;A common soteriological view among Evangelical Christians (such as myself) is that we are saved by grace, through faith alone (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:8-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9&lt;/a&gt;).  However, this belief is usually accompanied by a belief that the inevitable effect of salvation is a life that bears fruit, and gradually conforms to Christ (sanctification).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%203:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 3:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:17-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 2:17-19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 2:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems clear, especially from James, that genuine saving faith is accompanied by works.  Of course, since we are not saved by works, we conclude that these works are the &lt;em&gt;fruit&lt;/em&gt; of our salvation, and not the cause of it.  In other words, we are first saved by grace through our genuine saving faith, and works result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems that it is possible to have a faith that is non-genuine, or non-saving, and thus does not lead to the bearing of fruit.  My question centers around what the difference between these two types of faith is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in non-Calvinist viewpoints, because I believe that I understand the Calvinist one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a Calvinist's answer to this problem would be that it is God who initiates the salvation process in the elect, and saving faith is the result.  Non-Calvinists would hold that God initiates the salvation process for everyone and draws all men to him, but we must choose Him.  So it is in the non-Calvinist viewpoint that the question arises: If there is such thing as a non-saving faith, or non-genuine &amp;quot;choosing&amp;quot;, what characterizes saving faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-22T00:16:37.723" Title="What is saving faith?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6947" CreationDate="2012-04-02T18:03:34.970" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The BBC has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/holydays/lent_1.shtml&quot;&gt;quite a good critique&lt;/a&gt; on the subject. It is of course a convenient way of getting good quality ash, but there is a theological significance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Palm Sunday palms symbolise Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem, and converting them into ash is a reminder that defeat and crucifixion followed soon after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ashing is a mark of penitence, and using the palms is also a reminder that the same people who cried &quot;Hosanna&quot; were before long baying &quot;Crucify!&quot; just as the Palm Sunday liturgy recreates. It is a mark of our own penitence for our own concupiscence (Christ's sacrifice of himself was a propitiation once for all time, including for us in our time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ash on its own doesn't make much of a mark, and some kind of binding agent is needed to allow them to make their statement. The ashes may simply be mixed with water as they are blessed (which is usual in most situations), but they may also be mixed with oil as a reminder of the chrismation and signing with the cross at Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Palm Sunday liturgy, palms are blessed outside the church and a short gospel is read about the finding of the colt and the entry into Jerusalem. The people follow, rejoicing as on the first Palm Sunday. Once inside the church the mood of the liturgy changes abruptly, reaching its climax in the Passion Gospel. Generally this is semi-dramatised and the people have their own part to play again, shouting &quot;Crucify! Crucify!&quot; at that point in the narrative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's common in Episcopalian and other high-church circles; and universal in the Roman Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T18:03:34.970" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6979" CreationDate="2012-04-02T18:04:36.507" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the short answer that's easiest to give to another person is that if you really believe the message the Christ brought to mankind, it will change you, and that change will show in your actions. Not that you must do change your behavior to attain salvation, but that coming to believe what saves us by faith &lt;em&gt;cannot but change&lt;/em&gt; your behavior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, it is very easy to say that one believes something, whether or not it is true. The profession of belief is important, but when one declares a belief and that belief is not reflected in their behavior, it is suspect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps I'm arguing semantics here, but I think it's meaningful that James says &quot;You say you believe there is one God,&quot; as opposed to, say, &quot;You say you believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah who died for your sins.&quot; I think James is pointing out that simply believing in the existence of God is a baseline, not the endpoint of faith. If that's the case, then such a belief isn't nearly as formative of behavior as belief that one is a sinner who can be forgiven. James seems to be saying faith should manifest action because real faith is in something transforming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastEditorUserId="168" LastEditDate="2012-04-02T18:36:56.767" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T18:36:56.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6960" CreationDate="2012-04-02T18:45:23.747" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add to Thomas' answer, you can also refer to the parable of the sower, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%204:3-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Mark 4:3-20&lt;/a&gt;, especially verses 16 and 17. Here, Jesus talks about people that are also described there in Hebrews 4:2, who were excited when they first heard the message but who did not (to continue the sower's metaphor) allow it to take root. They weren't transformed by the message, they were only excited about for some shallow, selfish reason (perhaps they believed God would make them wealthy or cure their illness and then leave them free to pursue their own desires again).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastActivityDate="2012-04-02T18:45:23.747" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6979" CreationDate="2012-04-02T19:39:21.280" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doesn't this seem to say that since true faith is accompanied by action, and faith unaccompanied by action is &lt;em&gt;dead&lt;/em&gt;, that the dead faith isn't really faith at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From your comment on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/168/asfallows&quot;&gt;asfallows&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6981/194&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But James seems to argue that people can legitimately believe (as the&#xA;demons do) but have some saving quality missing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hate to quote myself, but it's quite relevant, I promise. (plus, what's the difference between quoting myself and just re-saying it?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically faith is split into three categories: knowledge, assent,&#xA;commitment. Most modern day Americans have knowledge (that is, most&#xA;know of the gospel of Christ, or at least have heard of Jesus). Many&#xA;believe that He died for their sins. But as James says, &amp;quot;even the&#xA;demons believe!&amp;quot; Not so many, perhaps, actually trust God for their&#xA;salvation. It is one thing to think that Jesus died for you, pray a&#xA;prayer, and move on. It is another to live one's whole life utterly&#xA;devoted to God, in light of Christ's death and wholly dependent upon&#xA;that death for Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, then (from what I've been taught in my PCA church), non-saving faith isn't really faith at all. I suppose you could say it's 2/3 faith, but as James says, it's still &lt;em&gt;dead&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So unless we really, truly believe that Jesus died &lt;em&gt;for us&lt;/em&gt; and live for him, we've never really had faith in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a sort of strange extension of Paul's &amp;quot;dead&amp;quot; analogy in Ephesians 2, I guess you could say that the dead faith is like hooking a dead guy up to a robot. You can make the dead guy look sort of alive; you can put the gospel right in front of his nose and move him around. But unless he actually comes back to life, he won't be saved. (does that analogy even make sense?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;In Sum,&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if God hasn't given the person a new &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2036:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;heart of flesh&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;, it's not saving faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T16:21:36.703" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6986" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6988" CreationDate="2012-04-03T01:02:50.967" Score="5" ViewCount="395" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the spirit of my &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6901/whats-the-point-of-the-second-commandment&quot;&gt;previous question&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;what's the point of the tenth commandment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 5:21-22 Christ reveals the true application of the sixth commandment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not&#xA;  murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his&#xA;  brother will be liable to judgment (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in vs. 27-28 he reveals the true application of the seventh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with&#xA;  lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially what Jesus was doing was elaborating on these commandments - and teachings on the Ten Commandments (especially the second table) traditionally do so as well (see the Westminster Confession, for example): the fifth commandment tells us to honor and respect superiors and leaders, the sixth not to hate, the seventh not to lust, ect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when we come to the eighth commandment: &quot;Thou shalt not steal&quot; - it would seem the logical elaboration on it would be &quot;lusting&quot; after possessions in the same way that the seventh commandment (&quot;wife stealing&quot;, in a sense) covers lusting after a woman. In other words, it seems like coveting - the tenth commandment - is already &quot;covered&quot; by the eighth commandment. I'm not saying the tenth commandment is unimportant, but it seems to me that if you're going to include coveting, why not include a prohibition against pornography or lust? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR: Why the tenth commandment when it's covered by the eighth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;As with my 2nd commandment question, i've got a general idea of what I think about it. However, i'm going to let this one sit and see if I can get &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; answers than what I've thought of. If nothing comes, i'll answer it myself. Cheers! :)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T03:07:51.150" Title="What's the point of the tenth commandment?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-17T02:34:44.780" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6986" CreationDate="2012-04-03T01:59:46.170" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of the commandments are redundant. Jesus sums it up pretty well in Matthew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022:34-40&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:34-40&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got&#xA;  together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this&#xA;  question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” &#xA;  Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and&#xA;  with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first&#xA;  and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your&#xA;  neighbor as yourself.’ &lt;strong&gt;All the Law and the Prophets hang on&#xA;  these two commandments.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That last line is saying the other commandments are related to 1) Love God and 2) Love People. So you're right in saying that some commandments are covered by other ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="157" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T01:59:46.170" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6986" CreationDate="2012-04-03T03:03:14.623" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the story of the Rich Young Ruler, Jesus asks the man what commandments he has kept from his youth. He responds with the complete &quot;second table&quot; - i.e. those command which represent man's duty to man, rather than his duty to God - minus one.  The young man admits that he hadn't lied, killed, stolen, committed adultery, and honored his parents - but doesn't mention that he avoid covetousness. And, Jesus knew this about him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why Jesus told the young man, &quot;Go, sell all that you have, and follow me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In telling the young man to divest himself of all he owned, he was telling the young man that he must learn to lean on God, and not his own power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stealing says, &quot;Things should be mine.&quot; It is a kind of pride that says &quot;I deserve this.&quot; God says, &quot;I have given you what you need.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Covetousness says, &quot;If only I had the resources, I could meet my own needs.&quot;  God says, &quot;I am your only need.&quot; It is not a sense of entitlement - It is a sense of self-sufficiency, the opposite of the interdependent relationship that God would have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;point&quot; of the prohibition on covetousness was simply this - God is all we need. Absent God, we can never have what we need to live a full life. With God, we need nothing else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T03:03:14.623" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="778" CreationDate="2012-04-03T04:10:48.233" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's quite a bit of evidence in this link that &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt; means &lt;i&gt;prostitution&lt;/i&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Fornication_GREEK/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(SEE &quot;FORNICATION - ORIGINAL GREEK&quot;)&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if the Strong's definition above is actually the original definition of &lt;i&gt;porneia.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the word &quot;fornication&quot; comes from the Latin word &lt;i&gt;fornix (arch)&lt;/i&gt; referring to brothels.  So when you consider the roots of these words it's hard to believe the Bible isn't talking about prostitution when using the word fornication.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially in the context of the time - when people married so young - there is a lot of fear of sex at the ages we are talking about: twelve and thirteen.  It is hard for us to imagine pre-marital sex being such a prevalent concern, but I can see fornication, meaning &lt;i&gt;prostitution&lt;/i&gt;, being the real issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Words evolve in meaning. &lt;i&gt;Fornication&lt;/i&gt; is probably one of the words that has evolved to be defined as meaning something significantly different than it started out to be.  This happens all the time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example from the Bible: there are many times when the phrase &quot;to know&quot;, in a Biblical context, means &quot;had sex&quot;.  However, who uses this phrase to express the idea that two people had sex anymore?  Nobody applies this meaning to those words anymore.  This phrase, &quot;to know&quot;, has changed in meaning since the 1611 translation of the Bible, just like the definition of &lt;i&gt;fornication&lt;/i&gt; has apparently continued to get broader and broader, and has probably lost the accuracy of it's original meaning in modern societies' usages.  Many words, Biblical, or not, have done this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1501" LastEditorUserId="3837" LastEditDate="2013-01-25T03:47:55.377" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T03:47:55.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6564" CreationDate="2012-04-03T05:43:41.447" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible says, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speak. Therefore the overflow of what is deposited inside will be revealed outside. The tree portrayed a wrong image of its abundance. It was fake, God wants us to be real when we produce. God always likens Himself as a farmer. Like any other farmer He expected figs as the leaves were a symbol of fruitfulness. We as children of God, need to speak to our situations that makes us appear we have while we do not have, by so doing we are exercising our faith through Christ that we must be authentic before the Lord. God doesn't want us to be lukewarm, its either we are hot or could not in between. Its either we produce or we are not producing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1504" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-04-05T01:16:21.827" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T01:16:21.827" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6904" CreationDate="2012-04-03T06:59:44.203" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of today's conservative churches interpret these passages as a prohibition on women preaching to men.  Far from being a prohibition on women ever giving sermons, women are not merely allowed but actually commanded to teach younger women:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed - Titus 2:3-5 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a possible interpretation that this type of teaching excludes sermons in favor of exclusively individual mentoring, but my church and many others have women's groups taught by women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1195" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T06:59:44.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6992" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6995" CreationDate="2012-04-03T08:55:15.763" Score="12" ViewCount="9112" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Judaism, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem#Physical_layout&quot;&gt;template had an altar&lt;/a&gt; for sacrificing. But we believe our sacrifice is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19:30&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;done&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the point of a church altar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:27:43.797" LastActivityDate="2015-04-12T14:06:27.050" Title="Why do churches often have altars?" Tags="&lt;church-building&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6993" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="6996" CreationDate="2012-04-03T11:48:08.620" Score="7" ViewCount="930" Body="&lt;p&gt;Music directors existed in Old Testament times (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=director+of+music&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;version1=102&amp;amp;language1=en&amp;amp;spanbegin=1&amp;amp;spanend=73&amp;amp;resultspp=500&amp;amp;displayas=long&amp;amp;sort=bookorder&quot;&gt;see these 56 references&lt;/a&gt;). But was there such a thing as what we now call a &lt;em&gt;worship leader&lt;/em&gt; in &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; (New Testament and early church) times? Or is it a modern (re-)invention?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additional information: we know that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=hymn&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;version1=102&amp;amp;language1=en&amp;amp;spanbegin=1&amp;amp;spanend=73&amp;amp;resultspp=500&amp;amp;displayas=long&amp;amp;sort=bookorder&quot;&gt;hymns were sung in Biblical times&lt;/a&gt;, including by Jesus and the disciples. And we know there were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:41&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;gatherings of thousands&lt;/a&gt;. These two facts suggest to me the early church may have worshiped in large groups, which would imply someone coordinating it. But I have no idea if that resembles a modern worship leader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-04-03T11:54:26.117" LastActivityDate="2014-02-22T17:15:44.067" Title="What is the earliest Christian use of a worship leader?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;leadership&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6992" CreationDate="2012-04-03T15:02:57.563" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Roman Catholic liturgy specifically, the altar is where the &lt;em&gt;Eucharistic Sacrifice&lt;/em&gt; is made; i.e., Christ's one sacrifice on Calvary is made present again on the altar at each mass. The altar, in this theology, is still for performing sacrifices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In the New Law the altar is the table on which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered. Mass may sometimes be celebrated outside a sacred place, but never without an altar, or at least an altar-stone.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01346a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01346a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the largest unified body of Christians on the planet, Roman Catholics have a large influence on the terminology we use. Note that as a Protestant I don't agree with this theology, but the term &quot;altar&quot; likely persists in our churches merely as a matter of &quot;stale&quot; terminology used by those who do not know better. Protestant theology (at least all that I'm aware of) does not allow for an &quot;altar.&quot; The reason to have an altar is antithetical to the Protestant doctrines regarding regeneration and justification and having something that fulfills the purpose of altar (meaning that it isn't just a matter of stale terminology) is nonsense in Protestant churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2012-04-12T18:00:35.633" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T18:00:35.633" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6993" CreationDate="2012-04-03T16:13:46.277" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a fairly natural idea to have somebody fulfilling this role, and various Christian traditions have done just that. The following are from &lt;em&gt;Worship music: a concise dictionary&lt;/em&gt; (ed. Edward Foley, 2000):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cantor&lt;/strong&gt; [Latin]. &amp;quot;Singer&amp;quot; (1) In Christianity, a 5th-century term for the psalmist; later, the medieval singer (often cleric) who intoned and led the chants; more recently a leader of congregational song who often sings the verses to the congregation's refrain. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Precentor&lt;/strong&gt; [from Latin &lt;em&gt;praecino&lt;/em&gt;, &amp;quot;I sing before&amp;quot;]. (1) The leader of chant in a &lt;em&gt;schola&lt;/em&gt;; the precentor usually intoned chants on the side of the first choir, while the &lt;em&gt;succentor&lt;/em&gt; (&amp;quot;subcantor&amp;quot;) intoned for the second choir. (2) Another title for the cantor. (3) In some reformation traditions, the liturgical master of ceremonies, with special responsibility for the choral services. (4) The leader of congregational song in a church having neither a choir nor instrumental accompaniment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalmist&lt;/strong&gt; [Greek, Latin &lt;em&gt;psalmista&lt;/em&gt;]. (1) One who leads (or sings the verses of) the psalm, usually in responsorial style. The term appears in the 4th century in some lists of  ecclesiastical ministers. (2) The author of a Hebrew Bible psalm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psaltes&lt;/strong&gt; (pl. &lt;strong&gt;psaltai&lt;/strong&gt;) [Greek; Slavonic &lt;em&gt;pevetz&lt;/em&gt;]. &amp;quot;Singer, cantor.&amp;quot; In modern Byzantine usage when plainsong is used a &lt;em&gt;psaltes&lt;/em&gt; or cantor ordinary leads the congregation by intoning and carrying the melody. In the Byzantine era (6th-15th centuries) Hagia Sophia had 2 choirs of &lt;em&gt;psaltai&lt;/em&gt;; the leader (&lt;em&gt;protopsaltes&lt;/em&gt;) stood between them. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, the lines seem to be a little blurred between the roles of &amp;quot;main singer&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;musical decision-maker&amp;quot;, as with modern &amp;quot;worship leaders&amp;quot;. The Orthodox &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Cantor&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;protopsaltis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; seems to have evolved from the first into the second role. The Catholic Encyclopedia says under &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12372a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;precentor&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anciently, the precentor had various duties: he was the first or leading chanter, who on Sundays and greater feasts intoned certain antiphons, psalms, hymns, responsories etc.; gave the pitch or tone to the bishop and dean at Mass (the succentor performing a similar office to the canons and clerks); recruited and taught the choir, directed its rehearsals and supervised its official functions; interpreted the rubrics and explained the ceremonies, ordered in a general way the Divine Office and sometimes composed desired hymns, sequences, and lessons of saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Synod of Laodicea&lt;/a&gt; in the fourth century restricted who was allowed to sing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon 15&lt;/strong&gt;. No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is probably connected to the idea of having a person in charge of planning and performing the music in general. I don't know who had that job before the dates given in the references above (which go from the fourth century to the medieval period).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T16:13:46.277" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6904" CreationDate="2012-04-03T16:56:01.990" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is a question for which historical context needs to be afforded considerable weight. As others have mentioned, it is not the case that women never did any teaching in the days of the early church, even in the days when Corinthians and 2 Timothy were written. So these verses are certainly not, even in their most restricting interpretation, meant to remove all educational authority from women. However, it was clearly meant to restrict their role in a church setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I think about the early days of the church, I can't help but imagine that it was very hard work - most of the people a Christian would meet on any given day would not be Christian, and would find belief in Christ to directly conflict with existing beliefs. Such people would not be persuaded easily. The best advocate for Christ would have been someone who spoke with authority, determination, and conviction, and someone with as much likelihood of being respected by the target audience as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In those days, women were not taught to act with authority (outside the role of motherhood). Women were of lower station than men, they were expected to depend on their husbands for many things. In such a culture, the ability of a woman to teach with authority would be very suspect, not because of any innate difference between men and women, but because of how the woman had been raised and taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I consider these verses, I find myself thinking &quot;Well, I don't think I'd want a first-century woman giving sermons, either.&quot; However, I don't think that way about modern women at all. I grew up in a church with a female assistant pastor, and I learned very much from her, in sermons and at other times. Women today have just as much opportunity to become knowledgeable people of authority, people who speak with conviction and strength, people that an audience would expect to hear from. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all these reasons, the justification for these commands in a literal sense is much diminished. The underlying concern (people who are meek, unsure, or indecisive do not teach well) is still very valid, but the universal application of that concern to all women loses validity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T16:56:01.990" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6998" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7001" CreationDate="2012-04-03T20:37:04.657" Score="24" ViewCount="401699" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Exodus, God commands Moses to strike a rock, and promises to make water flow in the desert for the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you&#xA;  shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people&#xA;  will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.&#xA;  (Exodus 17:6 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later on, God tells Moses to speak to a rock, promising to make water flow in the desert again.  However, Moses strikes the rock again instead of speaking to it.  Because of just this one thing, God tells Moses that he will no longer be permitted bring the people into the Promised Land.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your&#xA;  brother, and &lt;strong&gt;tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to&#xA;  the congregation and their cattle.” 9 And Moses took the staff from&#xA;  before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10 Then Moses and Aaron gathered&#xA;  the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now,&#xA;  you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” 11 And&#xA;  Moses lifted up his hand and &lt;strong&gt;struck the rock&lt;/strong&gt; with his staff twice,&#xA;  and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their&#xA;  livestock. 12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did&#xA;  not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of&#xA;  Israel, therefore &lt;strong&gt;you shall not bring this assembly into the land&#xA;  that I have given them&lt;/strong&gt;.” (Numbers 20:8-12 ESV, emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was the punishment so harsh for what seems like a small infraction?  Was there something greater or more symbolic going on here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-03-04T01:55:20.817" LastActivityDate="2016-03-04T01:55:20.817" Title="Why was God so upset with Moses for striking the rock the second time in the desert?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;numbers&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2012-04-03T21:06:21.437" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The section you quote contains the answer: &lt;em&gt;because Moses did not believe&lt;/em&gt;. He was told to &lt;em&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;tell&lt;/strong&gt; the rock... to yield its water&quot;&lt;/em&gt; but instead he struck the rock twice, apparently believing God's command to be insufficient. He expected &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2017:1-7&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God to act in exactly the same way as He had before&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, but God apparently wanted to reveal His power to Moses in a new way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the leader, Moses was being watched. When Moses did not believe, this could easily lead to lack of belief amongst the Israelites, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;which had been a problem before&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, God had previously to deal with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;men not trusting His promise but taking matters into their own hands&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* There's a lesson in this for all of us: we cannot expect God to be predictable and solve our problems in the same way He always has done. He's in the business of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;making things new&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-10-25T15:22:50.697" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T15:22:50.697" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2012-04-03T21:06:41.127" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is right there in verse 12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “&lt;strong&gt;Because you did not believe&#xA;  in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel,&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have&#xA;  given them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a classic example of lack of faith.  God tells Moses to do something that doesn't sound reasonable to him, so he decides &quot;no, that'll never work&quot; and do something that he thinks would work better, such as striking the rock to get water out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T21:06:41.127" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2012-04-03T21:17:29.477" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like the forefathers of those who eventually ended up in the Promised Land, Moses's problem was that he failed to trust in God. In chapter 12 of Numbers, Aaron and Miriam oppose Moses as  God's messenger and their leader. As a result, they also are refused entry to the land (by death, like Moses). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses' problem wasn't that he misinterpreted God or thought that since he'd hit the rock before that it was okay to do it again. Rather, Moses was utterly rejecting God and trying to take control. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moses was violent. He struck the rock &lt;em&gt;twice&lt;/em&gt; when God just said to speak to it. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moses was usurping God's place. He said to the people, &quot;hear now, you rebels: shall &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; bring water for you out of this rock?&quot; The emphasis is technically mine, but it was already there. Moses didn't say &quot;God will bring water out of this rock for you.&quot; He (with Aaron, evidently) took God's place and assured them that &lt;em&gt;he&lt;/em&gt; would do it for them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 12 is pretty revealing as to the nature of Moses's crime: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Because you &lt;em&gt;did not believe in me&lt;/em&gt;,&quot; (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses totally failed to trust God for the life-supplying water. He tried to take matters into his own hands. He was supposed the be the leader, but also the servant of God. He tried to usurp God's place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, I think there might be some symbolism to the rock. Back in Exodus 17, God tells Moses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you&#xA;  shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people&#xA;  will drink&quot; Ex. 17:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote my study bible notes on this, &quot;An astonishing statement. In this trial God takes the place of the accused, standing in the dock.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 10:4 explains that &quot;the Rock was Christ.&quot; In striking the Rock, Moses was striking &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt; for the people. Christ was punished for the nourishment of his people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to Numbers, it seems that maybe the situation is similar here. God has provided a rock (Christ) that will bring forth water (salvation) for his people.  This is somewhat speculative, but it seems that this time, Moses is in the position of the people. He's supposed to ask God for salvation, to request the water from the rock. But instead, he takes up his previous position as judge, and strikes the rock (Christ). Before, he was commanded to. This time, he willingly strikes his Savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's interesting to note, in support of that theory, that the Hebrew word used for &quot;strike&quot;  is the same in both cases (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5221&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;), and the words for rock are quite similar (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5553&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot;&gt;Numbers word&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6697&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot;&gt;Exodus. word&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately of course, it's because Moses did not believe that God could bring the water out of the rock, and hit it himself. (perhaps he was trying to knock loose rocks to open up a stream, or he thought that his staff held some special Mosaic power - either way, he thought he was the key to the equation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I used my study bible a good deal on this one, the ESV &lt;em&gt;Reformation Study Bible&lt;/em&gt; by Ligonier&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2012-04-03T21:17:29.477" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7003" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-04T00:43:42.290" Score="6" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2326/how-is-christs-death-so-significant&quot;&gt;How is Christ&amp;#39;s death so significant?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I actually expect lots of downvotes for this question as it's close to blasphemy and fear it will be closed. But with a purely positive aim in faith and humility, I need help with this question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If many prophecies foretold Jesus' resurrection, what is the big deal about God's love in allowing Jesus to die for us?  After all, Jesus himself knew he would rise on the third day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you,&#xA;  while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which&#xA;  were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the&#xA;  psalms, concerning me....And said unto them, Thus it is written, and&#xA;  thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third&#xA;  day: &quot; (Luke 24:46)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What special love have you shown if you lose something (even if it were the only one you had) out of sharing or sacrifice knowing definitely you will get the same thing back? 'Special' will fit if Jesus were dead forever like all men do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought about this for a while and trust me, the only 'point' I could raise is the fact that Jesus had to go through physical pain, humiliation and torture which no man will be willing to go through for anyone. But I want more to justify that this sign of God's love, despite the resurrection, is more than the ordinary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-04-04T01:14:16.243" Title="What's the big deal about God's love by allowing Jesus to die and resurrect?" Tags="&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-04-04T11:07:45.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7004" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7012" CreationDate="2012-04-04T02:20:34.617" Score="9" ViewCount="2685" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I would have expected 12 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;stations of the cross&lt;/a&gt;. I mean, lets face it, a lot of things in the Bible happen in 12.  12 disciples, 12 tribes, etc...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeing as the stations of the cross are not Scripture, but rather a later invention, why were the stations that were chosen, chosen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And why 14?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-04-04T11:45:12.073" LastActivityDate="2020-06-27T21:12:12.097" Title="Why are there fourteen stations of the cross?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6850" CreationDate="2012-04-04T05:43:23.477" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that it will be final. Until the heads of diocese who voted in the negative die, or leave their leadership positions, as well as a compelling case being made for it, the Church of England simply has no reason to join. It gives other churches power within the Anglican Church that there's no reason to relinquish. As I see it, the accord will simply continue on without them. They already have enough churches to make this document significant, and there's no guarantee that if they change it that the Church of England would accept and ratify it. Better to stick with what they have and accomplish what they can without the Church of England, than to change it in a way that may alienate other churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br&gt;I believe it will pass without the ratification of the Church of England, at least for a long time. It provides what many churches are seeking, with regard to conflict resolution, and providing more overall unity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1432" LastActivityDate="2012-04-04T05:43:23.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7006" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7011" CreationDate="2012-04-04T15:19:38.320" Score="6" ViewCount="1742" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can someone provide a summary of Augustine's soteriological views, and their differences from contemporary views?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm particularly interested in a comparison of Augustine's soteriology with the soteriologies of Calvinists, Arminians, and Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T20:46:42.323" Title="What was Augustine's soteriology?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7007" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7017" CreationDate="2012-04-04T16:31:15.460" Score="3" ViewCount="2628" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absalom dies on a tree (2 Samuel 18). He's rebelled against his father, David, and taken the throne. He'd rallied all Israel to his side. David has fled, but he's sent in his army and they've totally crushed Absalom. Absalom is fleeing into the forest when he gets caught, hangs on the tree, and eventually gets speared to death by Joab (the leader of David's army). Reminds me of Jesus's death on a cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After hearing of Absalom's death, David is sad. &lt;em&gt;really sad&lt;/em&gt;. So sad he can't even rejoice that he's gotten his kingdom back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Christological significance to this scenario? What about David? Does he play a metaphorical role? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T09:09:10.417" LastActivityDate="2020-01-16T23:50:07.523" Title="How does Absalom's death foreshadow Christ?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;foreshadowing&gt;&lt;archetype&gt;&lt;typology&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7007" CreationDate="2012-04-04T16:38:38.573" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at this in broader context, the Christological implications are fascinating. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Absalom was David's son. Guess who else was the &quot;Son of David?&quot; Christ. After Absalom's death, Israel was restored to order. His death brought about peace for Israel, just like Christ's death brings peace (in heaven) to God's people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Absalom died on a tree. So did Christ. Absalom was finished off by a spear. So was Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is a sort of reverse metaphor, though. (I'm sure there's better terminology for that.)  Unlike Christ, Absalom was a prideful, arrogant, sinful, rebellious jerk. Christ was a humble servant. Absalom undermined his father, Christ went along with his Father's plan despite the pain he knew he'd have to endure. Absalom was fleeing the battle, Jesus humbly and willingly approached his death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to David's role, the opening verses of 2 Samuel 9 are quite interesting. Joab rebukes David in verse 6, saying &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for today I know that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead&#xA;  today, then you would be pleased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David wished he could sacrifice his innocent people for his sinful son. Remind you of anything?  God sacrificed his &lt;em&gt;innocent Son&lt;/em&gt; for his &lt;em&gt;sinful people!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We say the Old Testament points to Christ alot, and I think it does. However, often it's by reverse metaphor. David portrayed God the Father here, but he did a pretty crappy job. Absalom portrayed Christ, but he screwed up too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thankfully, God's plans are a lot better and the reality is greater than the promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-04T17:01:38.963" LastActivityDate="2012-04-04T17:01:38.963" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6992" CreationDate="2012-04-04T17:46:09.093" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the church in which I grew up (a United Methodist church), we have a wooden altar in the middle of the front of the sanctuary. It serves a purpose in two main contexts in the service:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The offering plates are laid on it after the offering is received, and the pastor prays over them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;During communion, the bread and wine are kept on the altar, and a short rite involving breaking the bread is conducted before communion is taken by the congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of these two things, Here are my thoughts on the altar, with the caveat that none of this is confirmed as doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The altar is an ancient religious symbol of sacrifice. I agree that the Jewish laws of sacrifice are not demanded of Christians, and in light of that alone it seems strange to have an altar any more. However, as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6994/168&quot;&gt;Narnain mentions&lt;/a&gt;, the altar is very different now than it was then. So if it's not a &lt;em&gt;Jewish&lt;/em&gt; sacrificial altar, what is a Christian altar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer is that it's still a symbol of sacrifice, but a whole different kind - it's a symbol of Christ's sacrifice. It's an altar that has had its order filled, and we keep it as a reminder of that sacrifice. Likewise, whether they are mandated in the same way or not, Christians still make sacrifices and offerings to God, and I find it very fitting to make such a sacrifice on an altar that is symbolic of Christ's sacrifice for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe there is a scriptural demand for churches to contain altars, and neither do I believe that there is scripture which explicitly disallows altars. I feel like they are much more symbolic than anything, but I think there's plenty of grounds for justifying one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-04-04T17:46:09.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7006" CreationDate="2012-04-04T18:54:24.503" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Upon examining the second book of Calvin's &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt;, I found that Calvin and Augustine are pretty much 100% on the same page. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Calvin, &lt;em&gt;Institues&lt;/em&gt;, 2.5.2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus [Augustine] asks, &quot;What is human merit? He who came to bestow not&#xA;  due recompense but free grace, though himself free from sin, and the&#xA;  giver of freedom, found all men sinners&quot; (Augustine, &lt;em&gt;In Psalmum&lt;/em&gt; 31).&#xA;  Again, &quot;If you are to receive your due, you must be punished. What&#xA;  then is done? God has not rendered you due punishment, but bestows&#xA;  upon you unmerited grace. If you wish to be an alien from grace, boast&#xA;  your merits&quot; (&lt;em&gt;In Psalmum&lt;/em&gt; 70). Again, &quot;You are nothing in yourself,&#xA;  sin is yours, merit God's. Punishment is your due; and when the reward&#xA;  shall come, God shall crown his own gifts, not yoru merits&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Epist.&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  52) To the same effect he elsewhere says (&lt;em&gt;De verb. Apost.&lt;/em&gt; serm. 15),&#xA;  that grace is not of merit, but merit of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering the wealth of quotes, it's pretty obvious Calvin agrees with Augustine on God's grace. Considering the total shunning of any human merit, this at least distinguishes Calvin and Augustine from the Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, in 2.5.8, Calvin quotes Augustine again:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As Augustine says, &quot;What God promises, we ourselves do not through choice or nature, but he himself does by grace.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mention of the inability of human choice (based, likely, on passages like Romans 9:16) separates Calvin and Augustine again from the Arminians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one disagreement I found was in 2.4.3, where Augustine appears to differ on the views of God's &quot;hardening.&quot; Calvin believed that God &quot;hardened the hearts&quot; of those whom he did not choose. So here, perhaps, Calvin was even more &quot;frozen-chosen-ish&quot; than Augustine, but otherwise they are in agreement regarding God's grace as the sole means of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2012-04-04T18:54:24.503" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7004" CreationDate="2012-04-04T20:30:37.023" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to the number of Stations it is not at all easy to determine how this came to be fixed at fourteen, for it seems to have varied considerably at different times and places. - &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Way of the Cross (Catholic Encyclopedia)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article as a whole actually goes into quite a few different variations which are found and expounds on those which were varied and altogether absent. To compound the matter further, some parishes will include a 15th station: the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is my suspicion (using &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0089.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;), but this is, at best, speculation, that it happened to be that the 14 stations which are used today happen to be the 14 stations which were used at the time in Rome. It is not unheard of for normalization to be propagated based on what was common in the area of the Roman See and, lacking better evidence, this seems like it makes for a good fit. Of course the fact that there were a number of published documents describing things not wholly unlike the modern practice from the two centuries prior does not hurt either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This ambiguity was also something which lead to Blessed Pope John Paul II creating a &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1594711283&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; stations of the cross&lt;/a&gt; in the 1990's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this is by no means a mystery on the level of the sacraments, it is still something which cannot be known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-06-27T21:12:12.097" LastActivityDate="2020-06-27T21:12:12.097" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7013" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7014" CreationDate="2012-04-04T21:35:25.033" Score="7" ViewCount="5062" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any core beliefs that &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; Christian traditions agree on? Are there any that &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; (&gt;90% of) Christian traditions agree on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a list can be made for either, are there any caveats?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-07-25T22:06:14.550" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T22:06:14.550" Title="What core, common beliefs are held by all (or most) Christians?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;ecumenism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-01-02T01:18:07.413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7013" CreationDate="2012-04-04T21:44:42.293" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like Narnian commented, per the definition given by this site, nothing. However, historically most denominations have agreed upon several things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing that comes to mind is the existence of both God and Jesus. Also, &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; agree Jesus is God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apostles Creed&lt;/a&gt; have been generally accepted lists of agreed upon Christian doctrine. They basically say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I believe in God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God created the world&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is his son&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was born to the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He was put to death by Pilate on a cross&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He was buried, but he rose again on the third day&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he ascended to heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he'll come again one day&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Holy Spirit exists&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the church are God's people&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God forgives our sins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We'll be ressurected one day and have eternal life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I say &lt;em&gt;historically&lt;/em&gt; - these documents have existed for practically two thousand years with general assent by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/888/1039&quot;&gt;97% of Christians (the Chalcedonians)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, I stress, precious few doctrine are agreed upon by everyone. There's always &lt;em&gt;someone&lt;/em&gt; who may call himself a Christian who disagrees with anything you say. For example, some people call themselves (I say that will all due respect, I'm not saying their not) Christians because they like Jesus's teaching, but don't even believe in a God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since &quot;Christian&quot; comes from &quot;Christ&quot; (Jesus), I think the only thing you can safely assume is that all &quot;Christians&quot; have some level of respect for Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T15:49:03.177" LastActivityDate="2012-04-04T22:05:50.427" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7013" CreationDate="2012-04-04T21:49:36.767" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only way this question can be answered is to &lt;strong&gt;agree on a definition of Christianity itself&lt;/strong&gt; that people have to agree to in order to be a part of that set. People who don't subscribe aren't Christian and therefore their deviance doesn't count. With all of the different religions claiming to be Christian, obviously that does not exist. There are even folks around here who would claim Christianity shouldn't even be deist. Never mind doctrines about Christ, they would said God doesn't exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, there are many creeds and confessions that have helped to define boundaries for Christian churches throughout the ages. You are probably familiar with many of them such as the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc. One of the major purposes of these statements is to draw lines between what basics must be agreed upon in order to be considered &quot;Christian&quot;. The contents of these creeds is probably what you want to hear for an answer. These are the basic tenets of the faith we claim to have in common (if we agree on a given creed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-04-04T21:49:36.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6986" CreationDate="2012-04-05T03:07:51.150" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the point he is trying to get across here is that one should really be following the &lt;em&gt;spirit&lt;/em&gt; of the commandments, not the letter of them. If you get the point, he really doesn't need to go on through all 10 of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="377" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T03:07:51.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7007" CreationDate="2012-04-05T04:09:51.230" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;IMHO, Christians find way too many &quot;types of Christ&quot; in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sure, there are some similarities between the death of Absalom and the death of Christ. But they're pretty strained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, both of their deaths involved a tree and a spear. Both were called &quot;son of David&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there are huge differences. Like: Absalom was guilty; Jesus was innocent. Absalom ran from death; Jesus faced death voluntarily. Absalom worked against his father; Jesus was working with his father. Etc etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure you could find parallels to Jesus death comparable to those you list in the deaths of lots of people throughout history. I'm sure I could find a criminal who was executed by hanging, who was a carpenter, and whose father was named &quot;David&quot;. Would that make him a type of Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in those cases where the parallels are really relevant, I'm not sure what the point is. So there are some analogies between the death of X and the death of Jesus. Interesting, perhaps, but so what? What does this prove?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T04:09:51.230" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1812" CreationDate="2012-04-05T08:34:14.363" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many languages today there is the equivalent of the English word &quot;acquire.&quot; In Russian &quot;priobrel&quot; means acquire - in contrast &quot;buy&quot; in Russian would be &lt;em&gt;kupit&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In Azerbaijani language for &quot;buy&quot; we use a word &quot;almaq&quot; which has many meanings like buy, take, gain.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This word &lt;em&gt;acquire&lt;/em&gt; in the original Greek does not necessarily mean that someone put down real money on the counter and got something in exchange for it. To make the long story short, the Scriptures show that the Priests bought it, and so Judas gained or acquired it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now what was Judas doing on that land? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was angry with what happened, he understood how he was fooled by the Pharisees, and could not believe his foolishness. It happens to all of us. In the heat of our passions, envy or some other feelings we do something stupid, and then like in the Azeri saying  -- &lt;em&gt;let the earth swallow me&lt;/em&gt; -- feelings rush in.  With that perspective, a very human reaction, Judas wanted to do two things on the land: &#xA; 1. to kill himself; &#xA; 2. to also disgrace the place Pharisees gave him, in an attempt to disgrace Pharisees too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1509" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-02-08T22:26:08.807" LastActivityDate="2017-02-08T22:26:08.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6975" CreationDate="2012-04-05T14:42:37.100" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to expand a bit on the other good answers already given.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Slavery&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the first things to note is the state of the people of Israel at the time.  They were &lt;strong&gt;enslaved&lt;/strong&gt; to Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as &lt;strong&gt;slaves&lt;/strong&gt; 14 and&#xA;  made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in&#xA;  all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made&#xA;  them work as slaves.  Exodus 1:13-14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus taught that we, as sinners, are also slaves--not of Egypt, but of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.  John 8:34 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Passover Lamb&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God instructed the Israelites to select an unblemished lamb, keep it for four days, then slaughter it at twilight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this&#xA;  month every man shall take &lt;strong&gt;a lamb&lt;/strong&gt; according to their fathers' houses,&#xA;  a lamb for a household... 5 Your &lt;strong&gt;lamb shall be without blemish&lt;/strong&gt;, a male&#xA;  a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, 6 and&#xA;  you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the&#xA;  whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall &lt;strong&gt;kill their lambs at&#xA;  twilight.&lt;/strong&gt;  Exodus 12:3, 5-6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John the Baptist introduced Jesus as the Lamb of God.  Though the timing is disputed, it does seem that Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, stayed for four days, and then was crucified, dying close to the end of the day.  Pilate himself pronounced Jesus as unblemished as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Lamb of God&lt;/strong&gt;, who takes away the sin of the world!  John 1:29 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “&lt;strong&gt;I find no guilt in this man.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Luke 23:34 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Salvation and Impending Judgment&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God told the Israelites to observe the Passover in order to escape the impending judgment that He was going to execute upon the land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he&#xA;  sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will&#xA;  pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your&#xA;  houses to strike you.  Exodus 12:23 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plain and simply, those who heard, believed, and acted on that belief by observing the Passover and applying the blood were spared from God's judgment.  Those who did observe the Passover received the judgment of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament teaches that there is an impending judgment for all mankind as well.  Jesus taught that there is only one way in which to escape this judgment, and that is by faith in Jesus, our Passover Lamb.  Those who hear, believe, and place their trust in this means of escape will indeed be saved from judgment.  Those who do not respond to this will, indeed, receive God's judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;because &lt;strong&gt;he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world&lt;/strong&gt; in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”  Acts 17:31 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that &lt;strong&gt;whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/strong&gt; 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18  &lt;strong&gt;Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.&lt;/strong&gt;  John 3:16-18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other Notes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Israelites were commanded to eat all of the lamb.  Jesus may have been alluding to this  in John 6 when He spoke of eating His flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Israelites were specifically commanded to eat the Passover meal &quot;in haste&quot;.  We eat quickly when we are in a hurry to leave, and they did the same.  They had been enslaved for many years, but by eating in a hurry, they exhibited faith that they would soon be set free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people were commanded to apply the blood to the doors of the homes.  Without this application of the blood, there would be no escape from judgment.  The blood of Jesus is the means of our escape.  It's interesting that it wasn't the righteousness of the people inside the houses that made them worthy of escape, but the blood of the lamb that was on the door of their houses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover.  Exodus 12:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Last Supper&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was crucified during the Passover Feast.  The Last Supper may have even been a Passover meal.  If so, the cup He lifted up would possibly have been the one called the &quot;Cup of Redemption&quot;.  He may have died while many Jews were sacrificing their own chosen lambs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting that during modern day Jewish celebrations of the Passover, there are three pieces of bread placed together in a white cloth.  The middle or second one is removed during a part of the ceremony, broken, then hidden away in another white cloth until it is brought out later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, spoke of His body being broken.  If the meal was, indeed, a Passover celebration, this may have actually been the time that He took and broke the second piece of bread.  Jesus's body was broken, and He was hidden away in the tomb for three days, but resurrected later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Heaven, the Promised Land&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exodus that began at the Passover Feast culminated in the entrance into the Promised Land--a distant land &quot;flowing with milk and honey&quot;.  God had indeed promised them that He would bring them there, and He did.  The exodus of Christians begins when we put our faith in the blood of Jesus, and it culminates when we reach a distant land called Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; &lt;strong&gt;believe also in&#xA;  me.&lt;/strong&gt; 2 In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I&#xA;  have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go&#xA;  and prepare a place for you, &lt;strong&gt;I will come again and will take you to&#xA;  myself, that where I am you may be also&lt;/strong&gt;. 4 And &lt;strong&gt;you know the way&lt;/strong&gt; to&#xA;  where I am going.” 5  Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know&#xA;  where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I&#xA;  am the way, and the truth, and the life. &lt;strong&gt;No one comes to the Father&#xA;  except through me.&lt;/strong&gt;  John 14:1-6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T14:42:37.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7020" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7021" CreationDate="2012-04-05T15:39:40.930" Score="7" ViewCount="1290" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7023/what-is-the-basis-for-topical-preaching&quot;&gt;What is the basis for Topical Preaching?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Expository preaching is, in short, preaching through the Bible or a complete portion of the Bible and expounding upon the topics and applications therein. For example, my Pastor is currently working his way through Luke, connecting each portion to earlier chapters, relating what we read to the context of Luke, and expounding on the topics and lessons in the passage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the triumvirate basis for this method? That is, what is the &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scriptural Basis. Obviously this is the #1 basis, but I'm not aware of any passages specifically addressing this, so you might need...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reasonable Basis. What's the logical, practical point of expository preaching? What's a logical argument for it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Traditional Basis. I've heard that &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; preachers in the past used this method, so that's a good starter argument in its favor. Who or what denominations have used this method in the past? Do they specify a reason?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(I'm not asking for experience as I don't think that could be particularly helpful here. If you think it is, by all means, reference it)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-04-07T05:35:05.367" Title="What is the basis for Systematic Expository Preaching?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;logic&gt;&lt;preaching&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7020" CreationDate="2012-04-05T15:56:09.257" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, systematic expository preaching ensures that the Word is preached, the whole Word is preached, and that the pastor has less of an opportunity to rehash his own opinion or stick to a &amp;quot;canon within the canon.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bryan Chapell, author of &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0801027985&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christ-Centered Preaching&lt;/a&gt; (which is probably the best preaching text since John Broaddus), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.preaching.com/resources/articles/11565737/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing that I think is most advantageous in an expository method is not only are we being bound to the message of scripture, but the preacher then has the authority of God's Word with which to challenge or encourage people. That one says: &amp;quot;this is not me as a preacher talking. This is what God says to you based upon what this text means.&amp;quot; So the chief advantage, I think, is the preacher is allowed to operate with the authority of what God says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other advantages: if one is dealing in an expository approach -- main points, subpoints coming from the text -- I think you create an informed listener. People who listen to expository preaching over time learn to see how scriptures develop, and therefore their own interpretative skills grow. There is the advantage that the preacher is not bound to his own thoughts and opinions. Particularly if he moves consecutively through a text, he is forced to deal with subjects that might not normally appear to his own mind.&#xA;The advantage of that additionally is he can address subjects that, had he thought them up, might appear to have been too pointed with perhaps sensitive issues in the congregation. If he is simply moving through the text, he might be able to deal with the subject of gossip where, if he had simply brought that up as the theme for the week and it had no connections to previous weeks he might seem to be responding to his own hurt -- that somebody gossiped about him and so he was just going to get them back in the sermon this week. So expository preaching has the advantage of authority, has the advantage of teaching, has the advantage of pushing us beyond our own opinions and enabling us to touch sensitive subjects without appearing to pick on people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By preaching systematically, the preacher also has the added benefit of an economy of scale when it comes to preparation. For any text, one needs to really be conversant wit the whole book, before picking out a pericope. If, however, you stay in the same book for several sermons in a row, you're already immersed in what the single writer is saying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One cannot stay in a single book forever, though, because to do so will deprive listeners of the rest of the Scripture (hence the advantage of a lectionary, which is not systematic!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T15:56:09.257" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1245" CreationDate="2012-04-05T16:36:16.997" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two answers to this question. One is the general type of &amp;quot;Cultural Christianity&amp;quot; to which other answers alude. A person can be non-religious, but still operate in a largely Christian context, clebrating some Christian-flavoured festivals (notably Christmas), and thinking of &amp;quot;God&amp;quot; in a Christian context, even without necessarily believing in that God. Richard Dawkins is such a cultural Christian, and is happy to talk about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it's also possible to be deeply religious (a word which is notoriously hard to define) within a Christian context without taking the beliefs literally. Mysticism is not confined to &amp;quot;Eastern religions&amp;quot; and Neo-Paganism. There are also mystic traditions within Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you mention Judaism in your question, let's talk about that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;Cultural Jews&amp;quot; you mention may not be simply thinking of themselves as Jews. They may also follow many Jewish traditions, keeping strict kosher, following Sabbath law, and suchlike, and find great meaning in those traditions, without necessarily believing in God. Mystic traditions often find the question &amp;quot;Is this really true?&amp;quot; to be quite uninteresting. What matters to them is whether it's useful, and whether it's meaningful. Many people can find great meaning and beauty, and a sense of connection and deep mindfulness, with the tradition of Judaism, without really caring whether God exists. This is clearly a step beyond simple &amp;quot;Cultural Judaim&amp;quot;. It's a religious practice. A deeply felt, important, sincere religious practice. And yet it meets your criterion of &amp;quot;not interpreting the religion as a fact&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This experience is perhaps most well known within Judaism, which is why I've used that as my example, but it certainly exists also within Christianity (and Islam). So there is a larger answer than &amp;quot;Cultural Christians&amp;quot;. There are many varieties of mystic and semi-mystic experience, which may take Christian beliefs more or less literally. Some don't take them literally at all. And many don't see that question as important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Of course, some people have a mystical approach to faith while also taking it literally. &lt;em&gt;Mystic&lt;/em&gt; does not &lt;strong&gt;necessarilly&lt;/strong&gt; imply non-literal.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Syncretic Neo-Pagan faiths can also operate in a somewhat Christian contexts. Wiccans may possibly draw on Christian figures. Vodoun is probably the most Christain-influenced form of Neo-Paganism (certianly the most Christianised one I know of). These faiths probably wouldn't be refered to as &amp;quot;Culturaly Christian&amp;quot;, or, indeed, as Christian at all, but everything exists on a spectrum, and religions and cultures bleed into one another. (All categories have fuzzy edges, as I've said before.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the answer to your question is manyfold: Christians who don't take the belief literally include,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &amp;quot;Cultural Christians&amp;quot; mentioned in other answers,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mystic Christians,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Semi-mystic Christians,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;people who find meaning in Christian practice, but who wouldn't necessarily believe it or call themselves mystics,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Neo-Pagans who are stronly enough influenced by Christianity that they might possibly be counted as Christians themselves,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;people who use Christian teaching as an ethical framework, without necessarily believing in anything supernatural,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T16:36:16.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7023" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7025" CreationDate="2012-04-05T18:18:49.717" Score="9" ViewCount="4309" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Related:&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7020/what-is-the-basis-for-systematic-expository-preaching&quot;&gt;What is the basis for Systematic Expository Preaching?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Topical preaching is rather self-explanatory - the preacher picks a topic, then finds bible passages or verses related to or supportive of the topic, and preaches on that topic (using the bible passages for proof texts/support)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the triumvirate basis for this method? That is, what is the&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scriptural Basis. Obviously this is the #1 basis, but I'm not aware of any passages specifically addressing this, so you might need...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reasonable Basis. What's the logical, practical point of topical preaching? What's a logical argument for it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Traditional Basis. Who or what denominations have used this method in the past? Do they specify a reason?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T19:39:59.307" Title="What is the basis for Topical Preaching?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;logic&gt;&lt;preaching&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7024" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7028" CreationDate="2012-04-05T18:46:06.527" Score="3" ViewCount="101" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is well known and well documented that spiritual ecstasies (and the like) are present in Christianity (Paul caught up into heaven &amp;amp;c.). I am looking for theological works which expound on the opposite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a record (Biblical or extra Biblical) of the association of physical pain with prayer? Clearly Francis of Assisi and all who had the stigmata were afflicted because of/during prayer, but I was wondering if there was any other form which was well known&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-06-06T19:02:25.907" Title="Is there a record of an association of prayer with pain?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;mysticism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7023" CreationDate="2012-04-05T19:39:59.307" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though I personally tend to favour expository preaching in practice, topical preaching certainly has its place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Scriptural Basis&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A case could be made from Scriptural example...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus's Preaching&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus's recorded preaching was purely topical - as far as I know, he never took a passage from the Old Testament and expanded on it.  Rather, he chose topics that his audience needed to hear, and quoted various scriptures when relevant.  For example, see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205-7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sermon On The Mount&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disciple's Preaching&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like Jesus's preaching, records of the disciple's sermons were topical.  They had in mind what they needed to talk about (preaching the Gospel, typically), and they used occasional Scripture references for support.  In other words, their preaching was directed by the subject at hand (using Scripture as support), rather than being directed by a passage (expanding on applications of the passage).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For examples, see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:14-36&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:14-36&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%203:11-26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 3:11-26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:22-31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 17:22-31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Letters to Churches&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All though they are not strictly sermons, one might argue that the letters to the churches are quite analogous to sermons, and would have been sermons had the authors been among their recipients.  As it is, all of the letters to churches are topical rather than expository.  The argument could then be, since the goals of sermons and letters are the same: to correct doctrine, bring to maturity, encourage, etc, why should the content change simply because the medium changes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Caveat...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But of course, we ought to keep in mind that when Jesus and the disciples preached, they were preaching something &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt;, and didn't have much material to exposit.  So these Scriptural examples should by no means be used to argue that preaching must be exclusively topical, but they do at least provide a basis for the acceptability of topical preaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Reasonable Basis&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We think in topics&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We think about things in topics.  Whether we preach expositionally, or topically, we reduce things into topics naturally.  Expository preaching is great, but say we want to know about a topic such as freedom in Christ from the law.  Expository preaching will cover that when going through Romans, and also when going through Galatians, but a topical sermon on the subject drawing from a wide range of scriptures would greatly clarify and unify things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Topics may need to be covered&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is often necessary to preach in order to meet a certain need.  Perhaps there is high confusion about something, or perhaps a congregation simply needs to be brought onto the right track regarding an issue.  If all sermons are simply systematically going through Scripture, then these needs will not be met (unless a topical sermon is interjected, and that is topical preaching).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Traditional Basis&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, tradition should not be taken into account as the basis for anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in conclusion, I think both have their place.  One danger with topical preaching (and the reason why I prefer expository preaching) is that it tends to be more eisegetical, as preachers tend to subtly twist Scriptures to fit their arguments.  This is a mistake, and while it is not a fundamental part of topical preaching, it does tend to occur in practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T19:39:59.307" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7026" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7027" CreationDate="2012-04-05T19:52:02.197" Score="15" ViewCount="34902" Body="&lt;p&gt;In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus referenced the story of the snake in the desert and indicated that it foreshadowed Himself.  How exactly does this story foreshadow Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.    John 3:14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-02-26T03:41:53.220" Title="How does the Snake in the Desert foreshadow the coming of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;foreshadowing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7026" CreationDate="2012-04-05T20:02:54.647" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 21:6-9 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the key here is the type of action that was taken &quot;raising up&quot; and the result of that action &quot;healing&quot;. If you recall the people of Israel were struck with a plague of snakes. To alleviate the plague Moses was instructed to raise up a bronze snake and all who looked at the snake were healed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jon 3:14-15(NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are bitten with a plague of sin, Christ was raised up on the Cross. Those who look to Christ are healed. I also don't think its a coincidence that the plague was snakes. This goes back to more snake imagery involving Jesus from Genesis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:15(NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And I will put enmity&#xA;     between you and the woman,&#xA;     and between your offspring and hers;&#xA;  he will crush your head,&#xA;     and you will strike his heel.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' coming was foreshadowed with snakes as far back as Genesis, this is a continuation of that theme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-18T18:07:11.723" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T18:07:11.723" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7024" CreationDate="2012-04-05T20:17:58.693" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Dark Night of the Soul, which is a Western work, John of the Cross talks about the extreme pain that the soul undergoes during prayer if/when God is removing its impurities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, from the East, tears are considered to be an important part of prayer, and they represent the pain of the soul for its sins being poured out in tears of repentance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for experiencing physical pain, that appears to be a Western phenomena, the Eastern Church does not have record of anyone experiencing &lt;strong&gt;stigmata&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the text for the common hymn for an asectic in the Eastern Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With the streams of your tears, you cultivated the barrenness of the&#xA;  desert; and by your sighing from the depths, you beared fruit a&#xA;  hundredfold in labours; and you became a luminary, shining with&#xA;  miracles upon the world, O &lt;em&gt;(name of saint)&lt;/em&gt; our righteous&#xA;  Father/Mother. Intercede with Christ God that our souls be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2012-04-05T20:37:18.277" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T20:37:18.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7006" CreationDate="2012-04-05T20:27:31.380" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Augustine's Soteriology is hard to nail down because in the particular work we most cite when we think of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;his soteriology&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; as though it were so fixed, he was reacting to Pelagius who was basically promoting a kind of Deism where God made man able to save himself and had to do nothing to help him. Of course, not everyone would achieve it, only people who were very exceptional. So you must know a bit about Pelagius' supposed teaching when reading Augustine - I somewhat doubt we actually know Augustine's final position on the issue. Those who quote his works to favor a Monergist approach abuse him greatly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2012-04-05T20:46:42.323" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T20:46:42.323" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6975" CreationDate="2012-04-05T20:30:54.057" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, if you recall the Passover was a celebration of the memorial of &lt;strong&gt;The Angel of Death&lt;/strong&gt; 'passing over' the houses whose doorframes (wooden frames) were stained with the blood of the Passover Lamb. Inasmuch as Jesus' death does the same, that is, causes death to 'pass over' those that are marked with his blood, he is in effect 'our passover' both in the sense of being the Paschal Lamb whose blood averts death and that his crucifixion and resurrection are pre-figured by the Passover celebration itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To go a little deeper, the blood on the doorframe is symbolic of those 'participating in his death', and in evading the sting of death, they also 'participate in his resurrection' as the Hebrews' firstborn were also spared death. If we take the household vis a vis the Passover to be symbolic of the body of the person, the 'firstborn' of the family is the soul. Thus, those whose bodies are marked by Christ's death through baptism escape death, provided they keep the vigil as the Hebrews did in the Passover. The vigil represents 'those who endure until the end shall be saved.' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T20:30:54.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6954" CreationDate="2012-04-05T20:49:26.483" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/pent45.htm&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt;, women were not even allowed to be taught the Torah publicly in the Jewish faith, so they were not able to even sit in the same area as the men who were taught from the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Restrictions applied to any public reading of Scripture in the&#xA;  Synagogue (Megillot 73a) and they were unable to pronounce the&#xA;  benediction after a meal in the home (Mishna Bereshit 7:2).... &#xA;  This was practiced in the Second Temple period of Jesus’ time and in&#xA;  synagogues afterwards; they were separated from men in the service.&#xA;  This practice is continued today among Orthodox Jews. Although today&#xA;  in most areas of Judaism (the reform side) much of this has changed&#xA;  considerably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that Jesus challenged this trend in His public ministry. Even still, by the fourth century it appears that men and women were separated in churches, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let men be with men, and women with women. For now I need the example&#xA;  of Noah’s ark: in which were Noah and his sons, and his wife and his&#xA;  sons’ wives. For though the ark was one, and the door was shut, yet&#xA;  had things been suitably arranged. If the Church is shut, and you are&#xA;  all inside, yet let there be a separation, men with men, and women&#xA;  with women : lest the pretext of salvation become an occasion of&#xA;  destruction. Even if there be a fair pretext for sitting near each&#xA;  other, let passions be put away. Further, let the men when sitting&#xA;  have a useful book; and let one read, and another listen: and if there&#xA;  be no book, let one pray, and another speak something useful. And&#xA;  again let the party of young women sit together in like manner, either&#xA;  singing or reading quietly, so that their lips speak, but others’ ears&#xA;  catch not the sound: for I suffer not a woman to speak in the Church.&#xA;  And let the married woman also follow the same example, and pray; and&#xA;  let her lips move, but her voice be unheard, that a Samuel may come,&#xA;  and your barren soul give birth to the salvation of God who has heard&#xA;  your prayer; for this is the interpretation of the name Samuel (Protocatechesis, 14, &#xA;  NPNF, s. 2, v.7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is unclear if St. Cyril was instituting a new practice or affirming an existing one. It should be noted that many Coptic Orthodox continue the practice of sitting on separate sides of the church to this day. Many Anabaptists also have followed this practice. Various cultures practice this also. Some old churches still have &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matroneum&quot;&gt;matroneums&lt;/a&gt; from when this was practiced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be kept in mind that the early Church suffered intense persecution until the Edict of Milan issued early in the 4th century under Constantine. It wasn't until this time that Christians were even able to construct buildings that were considered to be &quot;churches.&quot; Prior to that, churches were assemblies (ecclesiae) of believers who gathered in homes to avoid being killed for their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2012-04-15T23:30:00.773" LastActivityDate="2012-04-15T23:30:00.773" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7026" CreationDate="2012-04-05T20:52:28.807" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The snake being lifted up in the wilderness is a symbol of Christ 'becoming sin' and being 'lifted up' on the cross. Those who looked upon it lived even if they had the poison of the serpent in them, and in like fashion, those that look upon Christ crucified are saved from the venom of death. To understand what 'looking' means in this case you must consider that to accept the Gospel one must accept 'The Crucified God' - a big deal for pagans (and later, Muslims) who reject the idea of a God who would permit himself to be killed by men and actually die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-05T20:52:28.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7033" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7036" CreationDate="2012-04-05T21:22:42.840" Score="16" ViewCount="5421" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it historically inaccurate that Jesus is usually portrayed as European looking, having certain facial and bodily features (muscular)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would most people follow Him if he did not look white or was heavy set? It almost seems like a trick sometimes to get certain people to believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible say anything about his physical appearance and how we are to physically think of Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/pF95h.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;vs.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(A special on PBS about scientists who put together a large study to determine what Jesus looked most like, and it is not how he was usually pictured.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/t6DMY.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-04T20:35:31.060" LastActivityDate="2017-11-06T02:37:49.707" Title="Is it historically inaccurate that Jesus is usually portrayed as European looking?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7033" CreationDate="2012-04-05T23:48:34.560" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;With regards to ethnicity and geography, the direct answer to this is a big Yes, it is wrong. Bethlehem is in Palestine, Asia. The borders of this nation is the red sea, Egypt, Lebanon Jordan, the Dead Sea and Syria, (varied with time). The closest picture we could estimate should be that of an Arab or middle eastern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theories that Jesus was European were forged, and claims that he was black, partly because Jesus lived as a small boy in Egypt, are inaccurate as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying,&#xA;  Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and mother and flee&#xA;  into Egypt...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord&#xA;  by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.&quot; (Matthew&#xA;  2:13-15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These claims do not have any  concrete scientific bases and are purely subjective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in the bible is was Jesus physically described apart from the transfiguration. We are only told of his descent Solomon and David, all from Israel and over 14 generations afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of&#xA;  her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and&#xA;  Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;....And Jacob begat Joseph the&#xA;  husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.&quot;&#xA;  (Matthew 1:6-16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The names couldn't be European either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another possible answer also by logic is that God could not give him any look different from the people around him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's assume that Christ was born in Eastern or West Africa where you can find the darkest people on earth. For Him to live an exemplary life so that people wouldn't find it a big deal doing what he did, he must have had the looks of blacks, not white to look strange for his black society to think it takes something supernatural to live a righteous life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that the society could not doubt him as the son of Joseph, the carpenter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and&#xA;  his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?&quot; (Matthew&#xA;  13:55).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember Jesus hungered, slept, wept and got angry to prove his earthly being. The best assumption is that, in the Middle-east, he would be born Middle-eastern as some sort of placebo to win friends and followers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-04T20:37:52.627" LastActivityDate="2015-10-04T20:37:52.627" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7033" CreationDate="2012-04-06T06:33:50.190" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible gives no physical description of Jesus in the sense of describing his skin tone, hair style, etc. I am not aware of any description in other ancient documents. (If anyone knows of one, please tell us. I'd love to hear about it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' mother was Jewish and his father was the Holy Spirit. As the implication is that he indeed inherited genetic material from his mother, it seems he would have looked at least half Jewish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One story opponents spread about him was that his birth was the result of an affair between Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera. Whether anyone considered whether his physical appearance was consistant with being the son of an Italian I don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is very speculative, but it seems to me that if he looked distinctly non-Jewish, like if he had been black or looked Chinese, that this would have been surprising and people would have talked about it and there would have been some record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't see the PBS special you refer to. Did they have any actual evidence to back up this picture? What more could they know than &quot;probably looked Jewish&quot;? It's a long way from there to a mocked-up photo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Medieval and Rennaissance European art often portrays people from ancient history looking like Europeans, not only in skin color and facial features, but sometimes even wearing contemporary (to the artist) European clothes. As they did this with both heros and villians, I doubt it came from any racial antipathy. Perhaps it was ignorance: they didn't know how people back then looked. Perhaps it was the opposite of racism: They didn't know or care what color somebody was. Perhaps it was simple practicality: They were living in Europe, the available models to pose for a painting were all Europeans, so that's what they worked from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Shredder says, if someone draws Jesus looking non-Jewish because he hates Jews, that's racism and surely a sin. (And rather silly: if Jesus really had looked like a member of a racial or ethnic group you disliked, drawing him inaccurately wouldn't change that fact. It would make more sense for it to lead you to reconsider your prejudices.) If someone draws Jesus inaccurately because he doesn't know better, I can't imagine that God would hold that against him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we have no physical description of Jesus, ANY picture will surely be inaccurate. Barring divine inspiration to the artist, he's just guessing. What are the chances that someone who had never seen you or seen a picture of you, going just by vague knowledge of your ethnic background and a capsule biography, could draw a picture that people would recognize as you? Pretty close to zero, I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2017-11-06T02:37:49.707" LastActivityDate="2017-11-06T02:37:49.707" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6938" CreationDate="2012-04-06T11:25:55.433" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the primary reason Esther is there is to show the hand of God in preserving the line of His Messiah. Without Esther's intervention the Jews would have been destroyed and the line of the Messiah crushed. So whether God is ever mentioned or not, this book contains a pivotal story in the march toward the coming of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In our family we actually don't think too highly of Esther's character. She was willing to disobey God's law by sleeping with the King. Perhaps you could argue that she was forced to come to the King's palace, but that isn't a necessary conclusion from the text. Unlike her predecessors, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego, who abstained from the King of Babylon's delicacies and were rewarded, Esther fully partakes of all the preparations of the Persian harem in preparation for her night with the King.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite all that, however, Esther shows God's work in preparing for the coming of the Messiah. Interestingly, it appears John is telling us in John 5 that Jesus celebrated Purim so that is possibly another link between Esther and Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully some helpful thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remembered reading once that God's name appears in Esther in acrostic form. Today I found the link explaining how it works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app60.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app60.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll leave it to you all to decide if this is just clever hunting on the part of a zealous reader or inspiration within the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1342" LastEditorUserId="1342" LastEditDate="2015-01-05T11:54:00.947" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T11:54:00.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3796" CreationDate="2012-04-06T13:07:01.440" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of different visions of what Heaven will be like, but here we're not even beginning to disambiguate between 'The Bosom of Abraham', 'Paradise' and 'Heaven' -- In lieu of the ambiguity of many of these terms, I prefer to use the term in the creed: 'The Life to Come'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Death is no more (all are immortal)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No more sorrow, pain, disease for the faithful&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Physical light is no longer needed to see and the sun may be gone&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There will be a glorious city for the faithful to dwell in&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There will be no more temples or religion - God will be fully present to all&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both the heavens (the invisible creation) and the earth (the visible creation) will be renewed; this means that they will be preserved in what remains that was good in them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Worship of God will be constant, but what this means is that all activities done will be done in perfect accordance with God's desire, and thus be true worship. Everything will become an endless Liturgy (common work of the people).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The weary will finally get some rest (believe it!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The faithful will continually be growing in their shared divinity and perfection towards God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All contradiction will be overcome/transcended ('the Lion shall lay down with the Lamb')&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People's faithfulness will not waver any longer, since they will have seen God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote Maximus the Confessor: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All shall have eternal being, but not all shall have eternal&#xA;  well-being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-06T13:07:01.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2837" CreationDate="2012-04-06T13:18:44.257" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was an insult, but also a challenge. As one of the Fathers said, if you wish to test a man for pride, see if he can bear insult. It is important to consider that to the Jews of that time, Gentiles were 'dogs': they did not keep the law or even have the law, so they, like dogs, not only lived uncleanly but did not have the understanding (because they lacked the law) to even act in accordance with God's will, and thus were 'bestial'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It demonstrated that true faith, as this woman had, was not barred by racism, phyletism, prejudice, class division, or any other thing. In his ironic use (given that he knew, as God, that she would overcome the insult) of this slur, he demonstrates that 'in him there is no Jew or Gentile, but all are one.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My wife added this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was a compliment, because God knew beforehand she could bear the insult. If she would have been 'offended' and turn away, he would never have used the slur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-06T13:18:44.257" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7043" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7046" CreationDate="2012-04-06T13:59:19.113" Score="6" ViewCount="11951" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 19:38 - 40 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people&#xA;  and told them, “He is not guilty of any crime. 39 But you have a&#xA;  custom of asking me to release one prisoner each year at Passover.&#xA;  Would you like me to release this ‘King of the Jews’?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 But they shouted back, “No! Not this man. We want Barabbas!”&#xA;  (Barabbas was a revolutionary.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why were they so messed up that they would choose the rebellious, murderous Barabbas over the innocent Son of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-02T20:19:10.870" LastActivityDate="2015-11-02T20:19:10.870" Title="Why did they choose Barabbas?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;&lt;barabbas&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-24T05:41:37.483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7044" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7070" CreationDate="2012-04-06T14:40:36.143" Score="9" ViewCount="1365" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Related:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3131/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-millenialisms&quot;&gt;What are the differences between the different millenialisms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7053/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-historical-premillennialism&quot;&gt;What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism#Dispensational_premillennialism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dispensational Premillennialism&lt;/a&gt; is a view of the end times that (very, very basically) says that Christ will return to rapture believers, then there will be a tribulation, then the millennium. (something like that. Disp. Premils: please edit. Also, see Caleb's answer on the above &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3131/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-millenialisms&quot;&gt;related question&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the biblical basis for this belief?&lt;/strong&gt; Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T19:31:10.360" Title="What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7043" CreationDate="2012-04-06T14:43:10.393" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;They were persuaded by the chief priests and elders:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They (chief priests and elders) had enormous power over the people since the synagogues and temple were the way people could stay in relations with other people (it was the heart of the community) and, they thought, with God. Perhaps the crowd felt threatened with losing their livelihoods and eternity with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that is speculation - the text simply says that they persuaded the crowd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-04-06T14:43:10.393" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7043" CreationDate="2012-04-06T15:04:07.527" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 15:7-15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. 8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them. 9 And he answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10 For he perceived that pit was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” 13 And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” 14 And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Mark's version of this event emphasizes, the crowd was driven to cry for Barabbas by the chief priests who were at the root of the push to have Jesus killed. Why would they choose Barabbas as their alternative to prevent Jesus' release? The biggest factor, of course, is that Jesus was a problem for them - he spoke against them repeatedly, criticized their teaching and their ways, and taught many things that contradicted what they taught. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But on the specifics of why the chief priests would choose Barabbas, I think there's a pretty easy answer to reason out, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly detail it. Barabbas, as John mentions, was a revolutionary. That meant he was trouble, but not for the chief priests. He was trouble for the Romans. He wanted to resist Roman occupation and authority in the name of Jewish freedom. It's not hard to get an oppressed people to cheer for someone who wants to end their oppression. This would have been a win-win in the eyes of the chief priests, because they were getting rid of a man who threatened to compromise their authority in exchange for a man who threatened to compromise the authority of their oppressors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastActivityDate="2012-04-06T15:04:07.527" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7049" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7050" CreationDate="2012-04-06T16:34:01.210" Score="-2" ViewCount="303" Body="&lt;p&gt;Science says it is impossible for a woman to conceive a child without the sperm of a man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen Christians just gloss over this, romanticize about it, make it fairy tale or flat out deny it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it a sin to believe Jesus was not born of a virgin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would His body be different from a person born from a mom and dad if he was born of a virgin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Side thought: if the opposition theory was true of a Roman soldier being his father and keeping it secret for Mary's life - then it would make sense how his facial and bodily features are usually portrayed)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-06T20:06:46.250" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T17:37:04.190" Title="How should we think about Jesus' mother being Jewish and his father being the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7049" CreationDate="2012-04-06T17:04:56.680" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Science also says people can't walk on water, turn water into wine, spontaneously cure illness, or walk around after being killed. Whether you accept these things as having happened (as divine miracle) is pretty much the definition of most forms of Christianity. It isn't so much &quot;glossing over&quot;, as &quot;this is the doctrine and dogma of the Church&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the virgin birth is a particularly tricky one as it isn't universal, and some maintain that the correct translation is &quot;maiden&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question about the body from &quot;mum and dad&quot; vs &quot;virgin&quot; is rather moot when any miracle would presumably handle minor details like that. A &quot;natural&quot; (parthenogenesis) virgin birth here would presumably be female, given the lack of a Y chromosome to hand, although genetics is sometimes not quite as binary as would be convenient, and many scientists in the field will say that X / Y are a bit more fluid than might be obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-04-06T17:10:46.563" LastActivityDate="2012-04-06T17:10:46.563" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7049" CreationDate="2012-04-06T17:19:56.380" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible makes it very, very clear that the virgin birth is true. The emphasis below is mine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 1:20-23 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that&#xA;which is conceived in her is &lt;em&gt;from the Holy Spirit&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;She&#xA;will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save&#xA;his people from their sins.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;All this took place to&#xA;fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;&amp;quot;Behold,&#xA;the &lt;em&gt;virgin&lt;/em&gt; shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name&#xA;Immanuel&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 1:30-31, 34-35 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the angel said to her, &amp;quot;Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found&#xA;favor with God &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;And behold, you will conceive in your womb&#xA;and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus...&amp;quot; &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;And&#xA;Mary said to the angel, &amp;quot;How will this be, since I am a &lt;em&gt;virgin&lt;/em&gt;?&amp;quot;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;And the angel answered her, &amp;quot;The &lt;em&gt;Holy Spirit will come&#xA;upon you&lt;/em&gt;, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you,;&#xA;therefore the child to be born will be &lt;em&gt;called holy&lt;/em&gt; - the Son of God.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;therefore the child will be called holy&amp;quot; - this statement explains the importance of the virgin birth. If Jesus had been born of man, he would be a sinner, for &amp;quot;in Adam all die&amp;quot; (1 Corinthians 15:22). However, since Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, he is &amp;quot;holy.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the angel's reassurance to Joseph that the child is from the Holy Spirit rules out any possible third party - unless you question the angel's knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr:&lt;/strong&gt; you either have to twist the Scriptures like crazy or just outright disbelieve them to refuse the Virgin Birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;EDIT:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the miraculous nature of the virgin birth, C.S Lewis says the following in &lt;em&gt;Miracles&lt;/em&gt; (a short essay that can be found in &lt;em&gt;God in the Dock&lt;/em&gt;, and not the same as(though very similar to) his book Miracles):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[R]ecently I saw the taunt that we Christians believe in a God who&#xA;committed adultery with the wife of a Jewish carpenter. The answer to&#xA;that is that if you describe the action of God in fertilizing Mary as&#xA;'adultery' then, in that sense, God would have committed adultery with&#xA;every woman who ever had a baby. For what he did once without a human&#xA;father, He does always even when He uses a human father as His&#xA;instrument. For the human father in ordinary generation is only a&#xA;carrier, sometimes an unwilling carrier, always the last in a long&#xA;line of carriers, of life that comes from the supreme life. Thus the&#xA;filth that our poor, muddled, sincere, resentful enemies fling at the&#xA;Holy One, either does not stick, or, sticking, turns into glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-07T03:27:36.260" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7053" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7078" CreationDate="2012-04-07T03:33:41.183" Score="8" ViewCount="1275" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Related:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3131/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-millenialisms&quot;&gt;What are the differences between the different millenialisms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7044/194&quot;&gt;What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_Premillennialism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Historical Premillennialism&lt;/a&gt; is a view of the end times that (very, very basically) says that evil will continue to increase (but the church will hold strong), then Christ will return to rapture believers, then there will be a Thousand Year Reign. (something like that. Historic. Premils: please edit. Also, see Caleb's answer on the above &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3131/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-millenialisms&quot;&gt;related question&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the biblical basis for this belief?&lt;/strong&gt; Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T19:39:56.833" Title="What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7049" CreationDate="2012-04-07T04:06:33.043" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God was capable of creating human beings to begin with, without benefit of pre-existing males or females, then it's no great leap to suppose he could create a human being with the &quot;assistance&quot; of a human female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presumably when he created Adam he created an entire body. To effect a virgin birth he would only have to create one cell, i.e. a sperm cell. Or less: he could have caused an egg in Mary to split in a process akin to parthenogenesis. He would have had to create a Y chromosome, and he may have decided to create other genetic material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, whether you believe in a God capable of such creation is a pretty fundamental question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, anti-Christians often say that people in Bible times believed in miracles because they didn't understand science and so didn't know that these events were impossible. This is ridiculous. The authors of the Bible were well aware that the virgin birth (and other such miracles) was impossible by every known law of science. That's why they described it as a great miracle, rather than a curious side note. If people back then didn't know that it was impossible for water to turn into wine, they wouldn't have said that Jesus performed a miracle, they would have said, &quot;How convenient! The water turned into wine just when we needed it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Update&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reply to Mr Gravell: Do I really need to give examples of people saying that the folks in Bible times only believed in miracles because they were ignorant of science? Okay, in a quick Internet search I don't find those exact words, but here are some examples of essentially that idea:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue. -- Ethan Allen (quoted on Wikipedia &quot;Miracle&quot; page)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people who tell these stories about miracles would make good storywriters. They would not make good science fiction writers. They possess little knowledge of science. -- &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jovialatheist.com/miracles.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jovialatheist.com/miracles.html&lt;/a&gt; (In context, he's talking about the writers of the Bible as well as people of later times who believe them.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may, in fact, say that a miracle is an event of which the causes cannot be explained by the natural reason through a reference to ascertained workings of nature; but since miracles were wrought according to the understanding of the masses, who are wholly ignorant of the workings of nature, it is certain that the ancients took for a miracle whatever they could not explain by the method adopted by the unlearned in such cases. -- Spinoza. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacred-texts.com/phi/spinoza/treat/tpt10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sacred-texts.com/phi/spinoza/treat/tpt10.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Skepticism wasn't what it is today. Someone who tells you today that a demon jumped out of a tree, or a giant sea monster devoured a ship is likely to be ridiculed or sent to the Daily Sun. However, such tales were quite common and widely accepted with little question in Christ's day. -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/objections_sustained/obj2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/objections_sustained/obj2.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But a miracle means a violation of a natural law, and there can be no proof imagined that could be sufficient to show the violation of a natural law; even though proof seemed to show violation, it would only show that we were not acquainted with all natural laws. ... &#xA;Primitive and even civilized people have grown so accustomed to believing in miracles that they often attribute the simplest manifestations of nature to agencies of which they know nothing. -- Clarence Darrow. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/why_i_am_an_agnostic.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/why_i_am_an_agnostic.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In ancient times it was natural to ascribe the violent acts of nature to a pantheon of mischievous or malevolent deities. Calamities were often taken as a sign that we had somehow offended the gods… Ignorance of nature’s ways led people in ancient times to invent gods to lord it over every aspect of human life.” – Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Bantam Books, p25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Etc etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="859" LastEditDate="2012-04-11T04:50:11.640" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T04:50:11.640" CommentCount="19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7026" CreationDate="2012-04-07T04:26:53.160" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The snake was killed and hung up on a wooden pole. Jesus was killed and hung on a wooden cross. People looked to the snake to be cured from a physical plague. People looked to Jesus to be cured of the plague of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps one could draw further analogies, but I think that's the essence of what Jesus was pointing out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made a comment on another question that I think Christians find too many parallels to Christ in the Old Testament. But this was is clearly spelled out by Jesus himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-07T04:26:53.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2012-04-07T04:32:35.897" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've usually heard the explanation as being that Moses struck the rock when God said to speak to it. And I don't doubt that his failure to follow instruction may have been a part of it. But it seems to me the key problem is that he said, &quot;Shall WE bring water for you out of this rock&quot;. Rather than give glory to God, he tried to take credit for it himself. &quot;God and I will do this.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-07T04:32:35.897" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7043" CreationDate="2012-04-07T05:13:19.533" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2012:12-13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 12:12-13 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus came into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the people welcomed Him as a deliverer from the oppression of Rome. They cried, &quot;Hosanna!&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5614&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;which means &quot;Save us!&quot;&lt;/a&gt; They threw down palm branches, which since the time of the Maccabean revolt had been a Jewish symbol of victory (see section &quot;3. Palm Branches&quot; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibleencyclopedia.com/palm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Maccabees%2013:51&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Maccabees 13:51&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2012:14-15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 12:14-15 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This prophecy is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%209:9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zechariah 9:9&lt;/a&gt;, and if you read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah+9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;entire passage&lt;/a&gt;, you can see again what the Jews expected: a Messiah that would drive out their oppressors and be a physical savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did the Jews choose Barabbas instead of Jesus mere days after they welcomed Him so strongly? The other answers correctly point out that the chief priests and elders stirred the crowd against Jesus. However, the people were &lt;em&gt;able&lt;/em&gt; to be swayed because their expectations were disappointed. Jesus didn't ride into Jerusalem on a battle charger, accepting a crown and forming an army to defeat Rome. Instead He came humbly, on a donkey, and He came not to conquer Rome, but to conquer death and sin through His sacrificial death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastActivityDate="2012-04-07T05:13:19.533" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7060" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7302" CreationDate="2012-04-07T15:33:01.490" Score="11" ViewCount="881" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Reformation, the doctrine of the distinction between the &lt;em&gt;visible&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;invisible&lt;/em&gt; church was important in the Reformers' claim not to have started a rogue church. I am wondering...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Given that it was common for the Reformers to use the Patristics, did they reference any of the early church fathers on this question? More generally, did the early church fathers speak on it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How did they relate this doctrine to the concept of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/search.php?q=remnant&quot;&gt;remnant&lt;/a&gt; in the Old Testament?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm looking for actual quotes from church fathers, Reformers, confessional documents, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-12T17:27:55.830" LastActivityDate="2012-04-24T18:02:58.327" Title="Did the church fathers or OT talk about the visible and invisible church?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7061" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7064" CreationDate="2012-04-08T03:55:37.337" Score="11" ViewCount="3505" Body="&lt;p&gt;At my old church (PCA) occasionally there would be a few women who would dance at the front of the sanctuary. Later, after leaving the church, I began to feel a little bit biased against that dancing because of the mindset that surrounded it. It served a primarily &quot;mushy&quot; purpose - the focus that it gave to the &quot;worship&quot; was one of subjective, feel-y experience rather than sincere praise to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, after reading through the Psalms a year or so ago, I encountered a few passages explicitly allowing, supporting - even commanding dance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 149:3 ESV&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  Let them praise his name with dancing, making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 150:4 ESV&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  Praise him with tambourine and dance;&#xA;      praise him with strings and pipe!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David dances before the Lord in 2 Samuel 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being in a PCA church now, we hold to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship&quot;&gt;Regulative Principle&lt;/a&gt; - that is, we don't do anything in our worship service that isn't explicitly commanded in Scripture. So I understand the lack of other modern additions to worship. But dancing &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; commanded.  And yet our church - and many more &quot;reformed&quot; or &quot;traditional&quot; services - does not include dancing as part of the liturgy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why not? What's the biblical, logical, or traditional basis for this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For other non-reformed or non-&quot;traditional&quot; denominations or groups that still don't include dancing in the liturgy, what's your reasoning/scriptural backing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T07:03:49.320" Title="Why don't we dance?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;regulative-principle&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7062" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7063" CreationDate="2012-04-08T05:18:12.700" Score="4" ViewCount="6607" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6076/why-do-biblical-names-vary-in-different-languages&quot;&gt;Why do biblical names vary in different languages?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We call him Jesus in English. But in the  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tamil&lt;/a&gt; language, the word Jesus is pronounced as &quot;Eeasu&quot;. I wonder why such thing is happening. For example, if a person's name is John in English, he will be called John in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tamil&lt;/a&gt; and hopefully in other languages too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But why does  this rule differ in case of Jesus Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1516" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T06:42:24.527" Title="Why is Jesus' name pronounced differently in each language?" Tags="&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2012-04-11T15:03:53.670" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7062" CreationDate="2012-04-08T06:22:36.373" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your premise that other names are said the same across languages is simply not correct. Lots of writing systems and spoken sounds don't have one-to-one equivalents in other languages, and over time it is quite common for names to morph to things that are easier to write or say. Sometimes the name will be spelled the same but pronounced locally, then somebody will come along and start writing it how it sounds and so on. Sometimes names have meanings and it is common to translate the meaning into a new name. Then that name gets transliterated and the process continues. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main point is that Christianity's use is no different than common language practice. If anything there are some very common threads that connect all the dots&amp;mdash;more so than you might find for just any name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A simple example is my own name. Caleb on English is neither pronounceable nor spellable in Turkish. They can't actually say it well even repeat-after-me style because they never end words with &quot;b&quot; and the other sounds just don't go together well. If they see it written, they say it differently entirely. Usually I go by a rough sound equivalent and don't worry about how they spell it. If I'm doing documentation of any kind, I go by the spelling and just introduce myself with their pronunciation of that to save trouble, and I am accustomed to answering to that name as well. The other alternative would be to use the name as it had come to be translated in scripture, which through hand-me-down tradition and various language transitions is rendered &quot;kalev&quot;. Incidentally this is actually closer to the Hebrew version of the name than my given English name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, Jesus is rendered as &quot;İsa&quot; in Turkish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-04-08T15:31:14.443" LastActivityDate="2012-04-08T15:31:14.443" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7061" CreationDate="2012-04-08T21:04:37.573" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This answer relates to the Church of Scotland.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dancing has often been regarded with deep suspicion in the Presbyterian tradition. Originally, it was strongly associated with all kinds of bad behaviour, and would certainly not be permitted in church. Even after dancing became more socially acceptable, church was still meant to be a solemn and sober place. This is less true today, though there is still a lot of historical inertia against allowing dancing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1649, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=60094&quot;&gt;banned &quot;promiscuous dancing&quot;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Assembly, finding the scandall and abuse that arises thorow promiscuous dancing; do, therefore, inhibit and discharge the same, and do referre the censure thereof to severall Presbyteries, earnestly recommending it to their care and diligence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Promiscuous dancing&quot; particularly refers to mixed dancing at weddings and other celebrations, and was associated by the Kirk with drunkenness, gluttony, immodesty and lechery. Offenders could be punished by having to pay a fine, or be made to stand in the &quot;place of repentance&quot; at the front of the church, so that they could be rebuked during the sermon. Dancing on Sundays was particularly frowned upon, since Sunday was meant to be reserved for solemn religious observance. An earlier prohibition applied only to ministers, who were expected to set a moral example; the Second Book of Discipline (1578) said that Kirk sessions could excommunicate elders or ministers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;that teach erroneous and corrupt doctrine; that are of scandalous life, and, after admonition, desist not; that are given to schism or rebellion against the kirk, manifest blasphemy, simony, corruption of bribes, falsehood, perjury, whoredom, theft, drunkenness, fighting worthy of punishment by the law, usury, &lt;strong&gt;dancing&lt;/strong&gt;, infamy, and all others that deserve separation from the kirk.  (7.16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knox&quot;&gt;John Knox&lt;/a&gt;, in particular, disliked the feasting and dancing he saw at the court of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots&quot;&gt;Mary, Queen of Scots&lt;/a&gt;, telling her (in December 1562, according to his own account in &lt;em&gt;Historie of the Reformation of Religioun within the Realm of Scotland&lt;/em&gt;) that &quot;fiddling and flinging&quot;, instead of &quot;reading and hearing God's most blessed word&quot;, was morally objectionable for a ruler. He went on to say that &quot;&lt;strong&gt;the reward of dancers ... will be to drink in Hell&lt;/strong&gt;, unless they speedily repent, so shall God turn their mirth into sudden sorrow&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If secular dancing was seen in such a light, it is not surprising that dancing in church was unimaginable. Instrumental music was often regarded in the same way, and there were disagreements over forms of singing: for example, whether polyphony or harmony were allowed, or whether religious music should stick to first-century forms instead. In time, it was recognized that the acceptability of music in (polite!) society made a difference to how it could be used in church - it was no longer automatically associated with debauchery and decadence. This did not quite extend as far as dancing: in fact, one of the counter-arguments to permitting more diverse forms of music was that it would lead to dancing in church as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the main reformers was Robert Lee, a minister at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greyfriarskirk.com/&quot;&gt;Greyfriars Kirk&lt;/a&gt; in Edinburgh. In 1860 he had an organ installed there - the first one at any Presbyterian church in Scotland. In his book &lt;em&gt;The reform of the Church of Scotland in worship, government and doctrine&lt;/em&gt; (1864) he discusses Old Testament references to dancing, saying that it did not take place as part of Temple rituals, and therefore does not constitute a precedent for Christian churches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are only informed that the ancient Jews, in the excitement of their joy, actually danced on certain special occasions, such as after some great victory or some wonderful deliverance; but we never read that dancing was any regular or ordinary part of their religious worship. ... We have not a word to show that dancing enjoyed any divine sanction, or that any such thing was ever admitted or thought of &lt;em&gt;as part of that ritual&lt;/em&gt;. Also, while &quot;singers and players on instruments&quot; are repeatedly spoken of in connection with the temple-service, no mention is ever made of &lt;em&gt;dancers&lt;/em&gt;. ... The Seer of the Apocalypse also beholds &quot;the elders&quot; and &quot;them that had gotten the victory,&quot; with &quot;the harps of God&quot; (chap. V and XV); but he says nothing of &lt;em&gt;dancing&lt;/em&gt;; for no such thing was known in the temple-worship, which forms the basis of his imagery. It is in vain, therefore, to pretend that &lt;em&gt;dancing&lt;/em&gt; holds the same position in the Old Testament ritual as the use of musical instruments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He further notes that there is no New Testament reference to dancing in worship. Lee also proposes a general principle for how ancient modes of worship may be received and adapted, maintaining the essence but without having to adhere to the same exact form:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In all these cases, and in others which might be named, we not only consider what was practised by the ancient Jews, even under the sanction of Divine authority, but what may be decent and reverent in us, in our different climate, with our different institutions, customs, manners, and associations, and national character. ... These things belong not to the essence of religion, but are merely means towards an end, and are therefore to be judged of, in all cases and at all times, according to their fitness for promoting that end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, John Calvin had written (&lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; 3.20):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If singing is tempered to a gravity befitting the presence of God and angels, it both gives dignity and grace to sacred actions, and has a very powerful tendency to stir up the mind to true zeal and ardor in prayer. We must, however, carefully beware, lest our ears be more intent on the music than our minds on the spiritual meaning of the words. ... Songs composed merely to tickle and delight the ear are unbecoming the majesty of the Church, and cannot but be most displeasing to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would apply just as well to dancing as to singing. In general, contemporary arguments about dancing probably depend very much on the nature of the dancing and of its context in worship, as opposed to how well particular forms of dance (or singing, or instrumental music) mirror first-century practice. For example, we could argue that dance tends to be a performance for others to watch, rather than being a truly participatory act of worship. But the historical argument against it is not a knock-out blow, given that we have permitted many other innovations in worship since that time, even just in the domain of music. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-04-08T21:04:37.573" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7065" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-08T22:55:30.190" Score="8" ViewCount="542" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any Christian traditions that have specific teachings that supporting the existence of Ghosts (in the sense of being the spirits of or at least resembling dead people)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I have heard that JW's believe that ghosts are evil spirits that are made by Satan to take on the form of dead people and appear to men (who mostly fear them) in order to deceive men into thinking that the wages of sin is not death but that we become like gods. For this they cite:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.&quot; (Genesis 3:4-5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there there any other similar doctrines, and if so what Biblical basis do they claim for these teachings, and among which traditions are they given?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-04-17T08:53:08.227" LastActivityDate="2015-11-12T22:01:24.847" Title="Does anybody teach specifically about the existence of ghosts?" Tags="&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7061" CreationDate="2012-04-09T01:04:26.390" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's cultural. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a Catholic answer, but not based on Catholic Dogma or even the Bible.  It's just common sense.  In the Western Hemisphere, and western Europe (commonly and ruefully [here at least] referred to as the West) we don't need dance to communicate.  Furthermore, we can't even interpret dance as language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In African (and other) cultures dance may be the most succinct way of communicating the message.  Liturgy, means the work of the people of the church, not the entertainment of the people in the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, there is a great difference in cultures: what is well receieved in one culture cannot be taken on by another culture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWDANCE.HTM&quot;&gt;Dance in the Liturgy&lt;/a&gt; (1975)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-04-09T01:04:26.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7067" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7068" CreationDate="2012-04-09T02:55:57.640" Score="6" ViewCount="1181" Body="&lt;p&gt;This assumes that God conforms to the laws of logic as without doing so we can make absolutely no deductions about him, his existence, or any of his actions or attributes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within computer science, there is the notion of computability. This is the idea of whether it is possible to calculate something or not. It is provable that there exists a set of problems that cannot be computed. &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;See the Halting Problem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we take the attributes of the traditional Christian god, that he is all knowing, and all powerful, it appears this creates a logical contradiction. Here is an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Event A causes event B within the universe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God decides that he does not want event B to occur so he stops event A from happening.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Event A no longer happened and therefore God would never intervene in the first place. Go to 1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very simplified example, and suffers from the problem that it is grounded in the concept of time, and this would imply God is able to circumvent this paradox because of the fact he is outside of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However effectively the same occurs with the halting problem, except time is not an issue. If God evaluates the universe (all of space and time) and comes to a decision, he takes action but some actions will depend on what he originally observed meaning it must be re-observed and re-evaluated. In this 'new round' of observation he is now evaluating himself and his previous actions. In some cases, this can lead to infinite self reference which is logically undecidable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to leave us with 3 options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is not all powerful. He could be very close, but with the diagonalisation proof I think we can show there are conceivably situations that would not work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is not all knowing. Again, he could be very close to all knowing, but can't logically be entirely all knowing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God does not conform to the laws of logic.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be really interested to hear any thoughts you may have on different parts of this. If anyone here has studied the halting problem in more detail than I it would be interesting to see where it doesn't hold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; I feel I should make a small clarification about the logic assumption. If you actually know what logic is, and I don't mean &quot;things feeling scientific&quot; or something wishy washy like that, I mean the &lt;em&gt;laws&lt;/em&gt; of logic, then I think you will realise that saying God does not conform to them effectively makes the concept of God pointless.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know Christians who agree and disagree with this, but it seems that the pattern is those who actually understand what logic is agree that God must conform to it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to say that God does not conform to logic, however if you believe this you must also accept that, from our point of view, we can then say nothing about his nature, his actions or his existence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think this path of reasoning benefits anyone in any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit 2&lt;/strong&gt;: Here is a short description of the halting problem. The analogy I am making is that God is essentially one of the 'oracles' referred to in the article, and after acting within the universe must re-evaluate the universe to see if more changes need to be made now that he can see the results of his actions, thus leading to self-reference. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1517" LastEditorUserId="1517" LastEditDate="2012-04-09T16:19:46.340" LastActivityDate="2015-01-17T14:45:34.403" Title="How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?" Tags="&lt;logic&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;&lt;omnipotence&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7067" CreationDate="2012-04-09T08:27:11.087" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nothing to do with religion / God / whatever, but there seems to be a fundamental flaw in your argument here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Event A causes event B within the universe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;God decides that he does not want event B to occur so he stops event A from happening.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Event A no longer happened and therefore God would never intervene in the first place. Go to 1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third bullet does not follow unless you are thinking of God as Marty McFly hopping backwards and forwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I have misinterpreted the logic in the question, please let me know. However, let's put this into more common terms, following your reasoning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;smoking (A) causes cancer (B) and costs money&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I decide that I don't want to get cancer or waste money, so I stop this from happening to me by not smoking&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I didn't smoke (!A) and I find I don't have cancer (!B) (based on a statistical average) and have spare change in my pocket, therefore my efforts were wasted and there was no need not to smoke&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;leaving the hob gas on unlit (A) causes houses to explode (B)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I decide I don't want my house to explode, so I check the gas is off when I'm not using it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the gas wasn't on (!A), and my house didn't explode (!B), therefore my caution was unneeded and there was no need to turn off the gas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in Human logic, the third bullet is nonsense. It really isn't my intent to defend the religious view here, but this is not a sensible argument against God, and is trivially dismissed even when considering a person with natural knowledge. If we pre-suppose all-knowing, then that not includes &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; consequence, but rather: absolute knowledge of consequence (and prior reasoning).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that even in the knowledge that A (and B) hasn't (haven't) happened, having A &lt;em&gt;continue&lt;/em&gt; to not happen (to avoid B) is still necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-04-09T12:47:51.267" LastActivityDate="2012-04-09T12:47:51.267" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7069" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-09T09:50:24.650" Score="4" ViewCount="1773" Body="&lt;p&gt;The subject of question concerns the Fig Tree of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. I understand very well that statistically it has not been fruitful to speculate on exact timings for prophetic events and I'd like to emphasize that I'm not trying to promote any particular eschatological interpretations. I would simply like to ask for opinions on the viewpoint of the following article, which seems thoughtfully-written and reasonable (if one accepts all the necessary premises): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Fig-Tree&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Parable of the Fig Tree.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The viewpoint of the article is hardly isolated in the Christian community (I can give other sources saying the same thing), so maybe some/many here would already be familiar with it. In general, it seems difficult to find prophetic discussions that are both very specific in date-setting and reasonably argued at the same time. Any comments? Below, a brief summary of this particular eschatological interpretation has been added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brief Summary of this particular Eschatological Interpretation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;It is clearly Premillennial and adheres to a literal return of Jesus Christ.&#xA;It relies on an identification of the Fig Tree in Matthew 24 with the inhabited land of Israel. (Compare with Joel 1:7)&#xA;It posits that essentially the parable can be interpreted in a highly rigorous way. (Fig Tree = Israel, Generation = certain length of time, Budding of Fig Tree = certain historical event)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One probably dosen't have to go much further with this summary to see that the implications of this sort of thing are that very concrete predictions are being made. Since the predictions are so concrete, one may even make a rigorous discussion surrounding the idea. Here are some &quot;axioms&quot; for consideration, which I ask for opinions on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A) The statements in the Bible, while at first glance might have meanings that are difficult to interpret, ultimately do in the final analysis have specific, objective meanings. While different groups of people might differ on the interpretations, some interpretations are correct and some are wrong. Discerning which interpretations are correct is a different story, but the notion of a &quot;correct&quot; interpretation exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B) In the matter of the Fig Tree of Matthew 24, the ONLY reasonable explanation is that it refers to the nation/inhabited land of Israel, that the Budding of the Fig Tree refers to a certain event in modern times, and that the generation refers to a specific lenght of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please bear with me. If (A) if false, I can hardly see how studying the Bible could be inspiring or profitable since everything would be murky and nothing could be known with certainty. But if (A) is true, then (B) is almost certainly true. If (B) is true, then Jesus will be back by roughly the dates specified in the article, or there is something wrong with the law of the excluded middle. It may be the case that (B) dosen't follow from (A) as easily as I think. But the kind of reasoning in the article is far more sound than Harold Camping's types of predictions, hence it is not obviously false that (B) does not follow easily from (A).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1450" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-04-25T02:55:55.210" LastActivityDate="2016-04-25T02:55:55.210" Title="The Fig Tree of Matthew 24 and prophecy" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7044" CreationDate="2012-04-09T10:43:10.673" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question should probably be answered by somebody that believes in dispensationalism as well. (Obviously, from that sentence you all know that I do not.) Nevertheless I will venture a &lt;strong&gt;&quot;pre-answer&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. I will not discuss passages of scripture, that &lt;strong&gt;taken together&lt;/strong&gt; might be understood as supporting the view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to put some focus on the hermeneutics behind this view. How do you read the Bible in order to come up with this specific interpretation? I think the following points apply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unless there is a compelling reason to interpret a passage differently, all scripture should be read literally. The question of genre is not high on the agenda. When reading texts about eschatology in the Bible, they are &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; considered &lt;strong&gt;a topic, not a genre&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thus, there exist &lt;strong&gt;no specific apocalyptic genre&lt;/strong&gt; that needs special consideration. The question what the texts in Revelations, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc meant to the original hearers is therefore low on the agenda. Instead all focus is on how we &lt;strong&gt;today&lt;/strong&gt; can &lt;strong&gt;harmonize various sayings&lt;/strong&gt; in different passages having access to the finished Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Specifically, &lt;strong&gt;numbers telling passage of time&lt;/strong&gt; are to be understood &lt;strong&gt;literally&lt;/strong&gt;. Saying that a number only has a symbolic meaning is out of the question. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When there is a possible difference between various passages in the scripture, the main solution is not to re-interpret the passage as such, but to apply them in &lt;strong&gt;different phases&lt;/strong&gt;. Thus the second coming is a 2-phase event, all time, including the Old Testament time, is divided in different &quot;dispensations&quot; during which God uses partly &lt;strong&gt;different means&lt;/strong&gt; to help mankind.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&quot;natural Israel&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; is of utmost importance when God is &lt;strong&gt;shaping history&lt;/strong&gt;. The church age is basically just a phase. It's importance is primarily in preaching the Gospel to the ends of the earth. For the salvation of the individual, this is of course very important, but it is not really important for God's rule of the earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this hermeneutic approach one can dive in at various places in the Bible to explain Dispensational Premillennialism, since the teaching relies on &lt;strong&gt;how to fit different parts&lt;/strong&gt; of the Bible together. The Bible read this way is (among other things) a &lt;strong&gt;puzzle&lt;/strong&gt; and the pre-trib view is its solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Yes, my bias does show through in this answer. I hope, however, that it does not mean I have explained anything in a false way. I have read substantial amounts of text written by pre-trib theologians.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-04-09T13:25:50.377" LastActivityDate="2012-04-09T13:25:50.377" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7067" CreationDate="2012-04-09T10:54:40.190" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are an awful lot of assumptions here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is but one way to stop B&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no way to stop B if A has happened&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Etc&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it mainly boils down to this main flaw in the logic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Event A no longer happened and therefore God would never intervene in&#xA;  the first place. Go to 1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being all knowing God would of course be able to know the &lt;strong&gt;possibility&lt;/strong&gt; of A causing B. Thus the possibility of B happening is cause enough to stop A.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-04-09T10:54:40.190" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7067" CreationDate="2012-04-09T18:05:48.207" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're assuming that self-reference is required somehow, that God has to &quot;evaluate himself&quot; (whatever that means) when making decisions, and that his decision-making is based solely on observation and not on any sort of predictive ability.  There's a much simpler conceptual model:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Something important is about to happen.  There are three possible outcomes.  Predict which of the three is most favorable--which will necessarily be a correct prediction due to omniscience--and cause that one to occur.&quot;  No self-reference required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-04-09T18:05:48.207" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7067" CreationDate="2012-04-09T18:05:50.563" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you miss a few key points about the halting problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Just because there is no algorithm that can decide for every input program if it will halt, does not mean that no algorithms exist for any given input. See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/are-impossibility-proofs-possible/&quot;&gt;Are Impossibility Proofs Possible?- Halting Problem&lt;/a&gt; for examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You assume that God would have to function over every single conceivable input, where it may be that the number of inputs itself is fixed to some subset.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The problem can be reliably solved by people for a given subset of programs. The wikipedia introduction to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#Introduction&quot;&gt;Halting problem&lt;/a&gt; gives two trivial examples of such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The halting problem relies on the fact that no algorithm could examine every branch of any significantly complex program, similar in a sense to the inability of the computer to compute every legal move in a chess game.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply assuming that God is all knowing immediately demonstrates that He would know every branch of execution for the Universe and would by definition be able to decided if it would halt or not.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Your assumption relies on the fact that once God acts He would need to evaluate the outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has never been a requirement of the halting problem that I am aware of.  Nothing requires the output of the algorithm to be fed back into the algorithm, but even if you can demonstrate a reasonable formulation of the problem that meets that requirement, God is not required to act.  Meaning that Ge is not required to intervene to make the Universe more to his liking.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There exist modifications to even simple Turing machines which, as it turns out, enables them to solve the Halting problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the following Stanford article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computation-physicalsystems/&quot;&gt;Computation in Physical Systems&lt;/a&gt; states&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This allows infinitely accelerating Turing machines to compute functions, such as the halting function, that are Turing-uncomputable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, simply by removing time as a factor, computability limitations are removed.  Clearly refuting your claim that &lt;strong&gt;&quot;if you know about the halting problem, you will know that it is not based on time&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user359" LastEditorDisplayName="user359" LastEditDate="2012-04-09T18:18:37.817" LastActivityDate="2012-04-09T18:18:37.817" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7033" CreationDate="2012-04-09T18:42:13.217" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is probably inaccurate to portray Christ as caucasian as he was a middle easterner. Further, it was said of him, &quot;There was nothing to draw us to him&quot; (Isa.) and that he appeared as &quot;the carpenter's son.&quot; Both of these imply that he was not remarkably different from his compatriots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, some would point out that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shroud of Turin&lt;/a&gt; does have a good deal more &quot;European&quot; appearance than the one those who have created an amalgamation have portrayed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-04-09T18:42:13.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7067" CreationDate="2012-04-10T00:08:54.653" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The God of the Bible states &quot;I declare the end from the beginning.&quot; In comparing God to an algorithm, you go against the fundamental claims of God --that is, you create a straw man to knock over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not an algorithm, waiting for an asynchronous user event or for some unseen input data. God is the author of the data and thus by necessity of being its creator, it is sanitized to be within the exact ranges on which He wishes his state machine to operate. God has created the algorithm to run on the data. God has created the machine on which the algorithm runs and into which the input data goes. The analogy is broken from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&#xA;What you're arguing against in your question is a form of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Molinism&lt;/a&gt;, not historical perspectives of Man's free will and God's sovereignty. In this regard, you are entirely correct which is why I struggle finding correctness in Molinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T00:08:54.653" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7053" CreationDate="2012-04-10T02:16:14.823" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe in Historical Premillennialism(mouthful) (Edit: Now I stand with Dispensation Premillennialism.) and I will use bullet points and passages after it to give the bases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evil will increase&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 17, [20] Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 17, [28] “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. [32] Remember Lot’s wife!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was it like in the days of Lot? The passage, &quot;Remember Lot's wife!&quot; suggests that it is when Lot was in Sodom and Gomorrah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 13, [12] Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of  the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. [13] Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 18, [20] Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous [21] that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 19, [26] But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is pretty obvious here that the end of times are linked with sin. This is further reinforced with another verse in Book of Luke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 17, [26] “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. [27] People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 6, [5] The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. [6] The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. [7] So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” [8] But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Great Tribulation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tribulation refers to the hard times for the believers of Christ. There are disagreements on whether now is the time of tribulation or not. However, in America, the forces of Christianity are slowly decreasing. People are getting more wicked, to the point where they begin to arrest people when reciting bible publicly; to the point where in UK they began to teach health on Human Reproduction by showing &lt;em&gt;physical sexual intercourse video&lt;/em&gt; (aka pornography, Google it if you don't believe me.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 17 [30] “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. [31] On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. [32] Remember Lot’s wife! [33] Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. [34] I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. [35] Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 24 [3] As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” [4] Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. [5] For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. [6] You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. [7] Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. [8] All these are the beginning of birth pains. [9] “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. [10] At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, [11] and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. [12] Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, [13] but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. [14] And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. [15] “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— [16] then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. [17] Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. [18] Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. [19] How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! [20] Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. [21] For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 24: 3 to 6: I don't know about you, but I think the state of today reflects this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 24: 7: You remember the tsunami hitting on Japan, with Reactors exploding, etc, right? many people in Japan are migrating because the island is slowly sinking, according to the geologists. They say another one is coming. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 24: 14: There is no nation which the Gospel of God and missionaries weren't sent to according to the experts. We sent them all. The only problem is to give every person the chance to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Return of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt 24: [26] “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. [27] For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [28] Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. [29] “Immediately after the distress of those days&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘the sun will be darkened, &#xA;     and the moon will not give its light; &#xA;  the stars will fall from the sky, &#xA;     and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[30] “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. [31] And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1000 year Reign&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 20: [1] And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. [2] He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. [3] He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.&#xA;  [4] I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [5] (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. [6] Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: As Caleb have said, my answer may not have any defense that holds this over all other views of the End. However, this question was asking for the biblical bases of this particular view, and besides, Jesus prophesies these events in SAME order on every other Gospels, least, I think so..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Yes. Matthew 24: 1 ~ 31, Mark 13: 1 ~ 26, Luke 17: 20 ~ 30. All of them list the things to come, in this particular order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Power of Satan Arising over the Churches and Followers of Christ --&gt; Great Hardship for the followers of Christ --&gt; Coming of Christ in Great Glory and Power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: (Again, as I said above, I stand with Dispensational Premillennialism. The Power of Satan Arising over the Churches and Followers of Christ --&gt; The Rapture --&gt; Great Hardship for the people of the world --&gt; Coming of Christ in Great Glory and Power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 17 [30] “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. [31] On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. [32] Remember Lot’s wife! [33] Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. [34] I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. [35] Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Due to that fact that Jesus said that some will be taken, and some will be left behind, it suggests that Rapture will take place first and then Tribulation will take place.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2013-04-09T00:00:54.680" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T00:00:54.680" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7079" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7204" CreationDate="2012-04-10T02:57:52.550" Score="6" ViewCount="4401" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Related:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3131/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-millenialisms&quot;&gt;What are the differences between the different millenialisms?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7053/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-historical-premillennialism&quot;&gt;What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7044/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-dispensational-premillennialism&quot;&gt;What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since my previous two questions on Premillennialism were nicely answered, it's time for the next one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Postmillennialism&lt;/a&gt; is a view of the end times that basically says that things will get better and better, more and more (to eventually almost if not all) are converted, and the church expands. This period (which we are in now) is the millennium, and after it is over (i.e, after the world is almost completely awesomeified), Christ will return. (postmils: correct me if I err in my description).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the biblical basis for this belief?&lt;/strong&gt; Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems the strongest arguments are in favor of Premillennialism, as there are several passages about the tribulations that will happen to Christians, and I'm not aware of any &quot;Fear not, the world's gonna get awesome!&quot; verses, so what's the reasoning behind Postmillennialism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-07-26T19:37:44.067" Title="What is the biblical basis for Postmillennialism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7080" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7081" CreationDate="2012-04-10T04:17:22.440" Score="3" ViewCount="12180" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a Christian radio station I constantly hear the phrase &quot;to give your life away for Jesus&quot; but they never say what that means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am very confused about this concept. Any clarification is helpful, thanks !&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T18:06:52.607" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T18:06:52.607" Title="What does the Bible say about giving your life away for Jesus?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7080" CreationDate="2012-04-10T04:32:20.143" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is a bit vague, and I would be curious as to what verses they were referring to (if any) so I could better answer the question, but I'll take a quick whack at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things were perfect in the garden of Eden. Jesus was the ruler and there was no sin. When Adam and Eve chose to partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they brought sin into the world. Therefore, they lost direct connection to Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus died on the cross He once again opened the gateway to God through Jesus (this is the significance of the veil tearing, but that is different story). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God was in control when man was perfect, we gave up that control to ourselves. Jesus knew we couldn't do it on our own so He sent the Holy Spirit to instruct us. The Holy Spirit can't control what happens on the earth unless we, humans, allow it. Jesus will never come against free will. Satan doesn't have that power either, all he can do is trick us into believe wrong things. It is our choice and will always be our choice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When someone &quot;gives up their life for Jesus&quot;, they are asking for Jesus to come and take control of their lives. They are giving up their right to accomplish things on their own strength. Once this surrender happens, Jesus can work in ways unimaginable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&quot;I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me&quot; - Phil 4:13&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To taste that strength, you have to be willing to give up your free will and to give it to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1497" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T04:32:20.143" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7082" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-10T04:46:31.280" Score="7" ViewCount="5039" Body="&lt;p&gt;Biblical Apocrypha are portions of Bible that are printed in some editions of Bible between Old and New Testament, sometimes called inter-testament. When Martin Luther was translating Latin bible into German language, he left the translation to other people, and labeled it as &quot;Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Question is, why are they not included in the modern protestant Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-03-24T23:20:52.360" LastActivityDate="2014-10-30T09:11:52.610" Title="Why aren't the Biblical Apocrypha included in the protestant Bible?" Tags="&lt;deuterocanonical-books&gt;&lt;protestant-bible&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-10-02T15:35:29.453" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7082" CreationDate="2012-04-10T10:27:51.313" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;These books of the Bible were accepted as part of the canon (part of the Bible). These books have been around for a long time. First of all, the books called apocrypha are related to the Old Testament. The New Testament is accepted with its 27 books among the major Christianity branches (Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament Canon was taken from the Jewish Bible. The Jewish recognized an historical value to the apocrypha, but not one of authority. The Catholics started to view the apocrypha as part of the Bible during the counter-reforme in 1546 (Concile of Trente). Principally to object the protestant attack on particular doctrine like the purgatory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, the protestants returned to the position of Jerome, who presented the Old Testament with the apocrypha separated to the Old Testament (Prologus galeatus) around 390.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--Source Magazine Theologie Systematique, Article : Apocryphes ou Deuterocanoniques by Henri Blocher. (Sorry for the French source) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ejt/apocrypha_blocher.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here is the English transcript&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why are those books not included in the post-reformed Bible? Simply beacause for the Protestants these books were never part of the Old Testament. The New Testament does not quote them, as it does for most of the Old Testament. The Jewish people did not see those books on the same levels then the rest of the Old Testament Canon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-10T17:03:14.043" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T17:03:14.043" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7082" CreationDate="2012-04-10T13:33:55.103" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the Apocrypha is still included in the Catholic versions of the Bible.  They are just omitted in Protestant Bibles.  As David Laberge pointed out, these books were never recognized by the Jews as being authoritative or on the same level as Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 1611 version of the King James Bible--which was widely used by Catholic and Protestant alike--did, in fact, include the Apocrypha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in order to distinguish between canonical books and the Apocrypha, these books are not included in Protestant Bibles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T13:33:55.103" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7085" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7087" CreationDate="2012-04-10T14:34:36.377" Score="9" ViewCount="1330" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding of the relationship between works and salvation is that works are the inevitable fruit of salvation by grace (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%203:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 3:6&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:16-18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:16-18&lt;/a&gt;).  And my understanding of perseverance is that the genuinely saved will persevere (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philippians 1:6&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%202:19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 2:19&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this passage from Galatians does not seem to fit cleanly with my understanding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%206:8-9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 6:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Particularly in verse 9, Paul seems to be telling the Galatians to keep doing good in order to reap eternal life.  Furthermore, it sounds like this &quot;doing good&quot; falls under human responsibility, or why would Paul need to admonish the Galatians to do so?  That sounds a lot like works salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do those with understandings similar to mine explain/interpret this verse?  How does the context shed light on this passage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-09-22T17:57:06.203" LastActivityDate="2019-08-08T16:44:02.840" Title="How do those who believe in salvation by grace, and in works being the fruit of salvation, explain Galatians 6:8-9?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;works&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7067" CreationDate="2012-04-10T15:57:37.167" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree this is a strawman.  You're assuming in step 2 that God would act to stop something from happening because he didn't want it to happen.  That pretty much flies in the face of the entire story of scripture and all of human experience.  Bad things happen to good people, and sometimes bad people live a good life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on&#xA;  the righteous and the unrighteous.  Matt 5:45&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire story from the fall to the crucifixion is an epic saga of things happening &lt;em&gt;in spite&lt;/em&gt; of what God wants.  Jesus knew that his gift would be destroyed.  By your logic he would have chosen not to give it to prevent the rejection, but that isn't what happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1234" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T15:57:37.167" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7085" CreationDate="2012-04-10T16:20:22.163" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the key thing here is understanding what it means to &quot;sow to flesh&quot; and &quot;sow to the Spirit&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference (referencing Bob Utley's commentary) is the key difference between the two basic approaches to being right with God: our own effort, or God's free grace.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The former (sowing to flesh) refers to trying to be right by God by trying to work for it.  The latter (sowing to the Spirit) refers to trying to be right by God through his free grace.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Paul is strongly warning the Galatians to &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; attempt to be right with God through their own effort.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verse 9, he goes on to encourage the Galatians to continue in their works.  We are not saved by our works, but saved unto works.  You see this same thing in Ephesians 2:8-10: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your&#xA;  own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no&#xA;  one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus&#xA;  for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in&#xA;  them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the interpretation here should be a strict admonition to not mock God by attempting to hold up your good works as a sign of your deserving eternal life, but rather that you would abandon your good works as an effort towards salvation, and instead, embrace good works gladly as a privilege given to those who have ceased their striving to be justified through those same good works.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T16:20:22.163" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7088" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-10T16:32:02.637" Score="16" ViewCount="573" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might be familiar with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pascal's Wager&lt;/a&gt;, also known as Pascal's Gambit. It states that one is best off believing in Christianity, because, if it is true, you'll be saved and go to heaven, and if it is not true, it has still led you a decent life of moral behavior.&#xA;As Pascal said, &amp;quot;If you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing&amp;quot; - i.e, if you're right, you get eternal life, if you're wrong, you only sustain (if any) temporary injuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally disagree with this wager, but I thought of a related gambit that addresses those that believe in a pseudo-works salvation. It is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are saved by grace, you should want to serve God as heartily&#xA;and fully as possible, loving him and your neighbor and doing good&#xA;works. If we assume that, if salvation is not by grace, that it is by&#xA;works, than you are best off believing in grace in the first place, as&#xA;it will fuel you to do good works, and if it turns out to be wrong,&#xA;you'll still most probably get into heaven given the amount of good&#xA;you've done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This goes for any degree of human participation, be it a light view of faith/works salvation or a full-fledged Pelagian view of salvation by works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, how would those that this gambit addresses respond to it? Catholics, Arminians (sort of), Pelagians, any who hold to any degree of human participation of works to salvation, how would you respond to this logic, both biblically and logically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In sum&lt;/strong&gt;, why not believe in salvation by grace? It'll fuel you to do good works, and if you're right, you'll be saved. If you're wrong, and salvation is by works, no sweat! You've already done all those good works as a result of grace anyways, so you'll be saved that way too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T07:10:46.537" Title="How do opponents respond to the Grace Gambit?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;works&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="23" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7088" CreationDate="2012-04-10T17:19:57.627" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't truly an &quot;answer&quot; to the question so to speak, so please excuse my butting in here.  I think it may be helpful, however, for future readers, to do a small deconstruction of this argument from the perspective of a &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt; belief system.  I'm still interested in the other perspectives as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While logically, the gambit seems to make sense, it makes unclear the entire object of the faith in a very relativistic way.  At it's core, the different soteriologies that exist all point, eventually, to a difference in &lt;em&gt;who God is.&lt;/em&gt;  The soteriology of salvation by faith alone apart from works implicitly assumes that there is a loving God who has provided a way for us to be near him, and has provided it in such a way so that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are freed from having to do works for salvation. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is declared righteous and the only one worthy of praise. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To have a &quot;fall-back&quot; position is to either be unclear or deny the character of God has he has revealed it through Scripture.  In other words, living by the gambit is inherently a lack of faith in the saving power of God via Christ's sacrifice.  It's the kind of relativist &quot;soft belief&quot; that is so pervasive today (for which we have Pascal, among others, to thank).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the Christianized version of the relativistic worldview, which will claim to believe something, but doesn't believe either it's truth or it's power enough to stand it up in contrast to conflicting beliefs.  In other words, it's prideful unbelief masked in believing terms for no true reason other than to allow the one holding the gambit a false sense of security that they've somehow &quot;out-logicked&quot; God, and thus, he can hold God's hand to the fire saying he must save us because of our amazing prowess with finding loopholes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, it's another sign of depravity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I say this with great humility, realizing as I write this that I, sadly, am too often subject to this form of unbelief.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T17:19:57.627" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7088" CreationDate="2012-04-10T18:44:39.563" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hah, when I first heard about this theory, I thought it made sense.&#xA;but to God, it does not.&#xA;You may have heard about the story of two sinners who were hanged left and right of Jesus, where one sinner did not repent, however the other one did, and became the first one to enter the paradise with Jesus.&#xA;IMO, I think the creater of this Gambit heard about this.&#xA;The thing is, yes, you could enter the heaven after first Resurrection if you believe that the Jesus is your savior and only way to God is through him. However, the interesting fact is, God judges on on &lt;em&gt;how much time you had to accept Jesus as your savior&lt;/em&gt;. For the sinner who was hanged, he had little time, he was slowly dying, but he lucked out. :) However This is different for other people who had more time.&#xA;If you had more time, and had ability to serve Christ in any ways, he or she should have served the Christ. Besides, this life is only passing. How we do on our short lives are the only way to have better life at heaven.&#xA;Take one parable Jesus made for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 24: [14] “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. [15] To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. [16] The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. [17] So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. [18] But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. [19] “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. [20] The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’ [21] “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ [22] “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’ [23] “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’&#xA;  [24] “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ [26] “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? [27] Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. [28] “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. [29] For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, you have to the best you can with the time and talent you receive, to make the best of it towards The Christ, and essentially our everlasting life in heaven. If you are like this: &quot;Ok, I believe and accept Jesus as my savoir, now I can do anything I want now&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His life in everlasting life in heaven are not guaranteed. God judges that, but believing in Jesus and doing nothing towards your life in heaven is real bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T00:05:25.923" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T00:05:25.923" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7088" CreationDate="2012-04-10T18:52:35.390" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that the demographic for your gambit would object on a couple of grounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, they would object to sacrificing integrity in choosing to believe something that one does not actually believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, they would object to your premise:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you are saved by grace, you should want to serve God as heartily and fully as possible, loving him and your neighbor and doing good works&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By those who oppose the view, the by-faith-no-works view is often (mis)characterized as a license to sin.  They generally do not accept that good works would be the result of salvation by grace, and thus would not take such a wager, for fear of losing their motivation for good work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like @DavidMorton, I come from a &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt; perspective, so this is somewhat speculative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T18:52:35.390" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7093" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7095" CreationDate="2012-04-10T20:06:45.467" Score="5" ViewCount="2421" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, the best question any pastor can be asked is &quot;How can I learn to pray?&quot;  I know how I do it, but what resources (preferably in Scripture, although classic works are acceptable) would be useful for actually guiding someone in developing a disciplined prayer life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T04:49:01.013" Title="How can I teach someone to pray?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-01-17T02:34:20.970" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7093" CreationDate="2012-04-10T20:18:45.123" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the Psalms are simple expressions of prayer.  They exhibit a wide range of emotions, including despair, anguish, pain, hope, rejoicing, faith, anger, and worship.  Our relationship with God should allow us to voice these emotions much like the psalmists did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 is an obvious pattern, but also David's prayer in 2 Samuel 7 and Jesus' own prayer in John 17.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T20:18:45.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7093" CreationDate="2012-04-10T20:46:37.990" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 4, after being arrested and subsequently released by the Council of Pharisees, Peter and John lead &quot;their friends&quot; in prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God&#xA;  and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the&#xA;  sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father&#xA;  David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,&#xA;     and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves,&#xA;     and the rulers were gathered together,&#xA;     against the Lord and against his Anointed’&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;— 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus,&#xA;  whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the&#xA;  Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28  to do whatever your hand and&#xA;  your plan had predestined to take place. 29 And now, Lord, look upon&#xA;  their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your&#xA;  word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal,&#xA;  and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy&#xA;  servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they&#xA;  were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the&#xA;  Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several things can be noted from this prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They immediately address God as &quot;Sovereign Lord&quot;. They acknowledge his power and knowledge, but most importantly his status as King over his people. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They go on to praise God for his works of creation (&quot;heaven and earth and the sea&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They quote Scripture in the prayer - scripture that they use to reinforce their later plea&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They reason with God. They say &quot;you yourself say, why did the Gentiles rage? Look! They're raging now, they raged against Jesus! Show your power, protect us, enable us to keep preaching your word&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's gospel-centric. At the core of their prayer is &quot;your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Their goal is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; physical well-being, but the proclamation of the gospel. They say &quot;look upon their threats and grant to your servants to &lt;em&gt;continue to speak your word&lt;/em&gt; will all boldness.&quot; They don't ask for protection - all they care about is preaching the word of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was a pretty darn good prayer. The Holy Spirit shook the place! It was an &lt;em&gt;edifying&lt;/em&gt; prayer - the Holy Spirit filled them and they continued in their goal to preach the word of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I expounded on this on because I find it a very good prayer, but there are plenty of others. It's a good rule of thumb, in my opinion, to take the prayers of the saints as templates. Peter and John were apostles - they asked Jesus how to pray - and they learned well!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our church's Assistant Pastor preached a series on prayers of the bible once. Here's some of the passages he preached on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.box.com/shared/02z6fea2mf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Solomon's Prayer for Wisdom&lt;/a&gt;: 1 Kings 3:1-15&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.box.com/shared/681gsu8765&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David's Prayer of Gratitude&lt;/a&gt;: 2 Samuel 7:18-28&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.box.com/s/1b1f07bd7295d11c5474&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David's Prayer of Thanks&lt;/a&gt;: 1 Chronicles 29:10-22&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.box.com/s/uxnu78nmlukr79f9jr0p&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Prayer for a Church Oppressed by Heresy&lt;/a&gt;: Colossians 1:9-14&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.box.com/shared/y7asqmgy3a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Part 1&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.box.com/shared/2ybkhtgbvk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Part 2&lt;/a&gt; of A Prayer For Boldness: Acts 4:24-31&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.box.com/s/vpstj66ui4pagzgkf60p&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On Prayer itself&lt;/a&gt;: Phil. 4:6-7&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-11T04:49:01.013" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T04:49:01.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7088" CreationDate="2012-04-10T20:59:56.583" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a Latter-Day Saint perspective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Book of Mormon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Nephi 25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nephi is an accepted ancient prophet in the LDS religion. The whole chapter is really quite good and talks of almost nothing except for Christ. Anyways, to most christians this looks really weird. However if you take a closer look at it it makes a lot of sense. As I put in a comment on a question by @eric most people have an all or nothing view on grace and works. But I think that even in the Bible there is a significant amount of evidence that it is by both that we ultimately obtain our salvation. If you asked me if I was saved by grace I would say absolutely. The grace of Christ and the atonement He preformed is enough to save &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; men. If you asked me if I was going to live with Heavenly Father and Christ again after I died. I would say I hope so but I am not sure yet because I still have a lot to do here on earth and I could screw up royally and not repent of that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to get to your logic specifically I believe that you have to have both because they go hand in hand. Grace itself is not enough to inspire you to do good works. I was out looking for opportunities to serve once, when I met a man that said that he was saved by the grace of Christ and there was no service I could do for him. I said that's great for you, and then I asked if he knew of any others that could use some service on his street to which he replied, &quot;I don't know I'm not my neighbors keeper&quot;. This man professed to be saved by grace and yet had no desire whatsoever to help those around him. I wish that I could say this is an isolated experience but its not. So I'll join with James in saying that its by works that we show our faith and it is faith that helps us to do good works. &lt;strong&gt;They work together&lt;/strong&gt; you can not have one without the other. Which means the logic behind the gambit is, at least from an LDS standpoint, faulty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T20:59:56.583" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7097" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7153" CreationDate="2012-04-10T21:40:05.163" Score="3" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you can go to one as an Orthodox Christian, which one would be better to attend?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Thursday - 12 Gospels or&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Friday - Lamentations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1524" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T21:52:28.503" Title="What service is more 'important' in Orthodox Christianity?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7098" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7100" CreationDate="2012-04-10T21:57:51.410" Score="8" ViewCount="1707" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 6:9-13, Jesus gave the disciples what we refer to as &quot;the Lord's Prayer,&quot; (though Jesus Himself would never have prayed this, having no sin to confess).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some traditions use this prayer as something we should pray verbatim, while other traditions see this only as a pattern to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the biblical reasons &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; using it as a prayer that should be repeated verbatim  and &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; using it only as a pattern?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T21:59:25.097" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T21:59:25.097" Title="What biblical reasons are there for using the Lord's Prayer as a pattern for prayer rather than a prayer to repeat verbatim?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;lords-prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7098" CreationDate="2012-04-10T22:19:14.757" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simplest justification is a basic appeal to literalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:9&quot;&gt;Matthew 6: 9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art&#xA;  in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;After this manner&quot; means &quot;in this style.&quot;  It does not mean &quot;using these exact words.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T22:19:14.757" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7098" CreationDate="2012-04-10T22:27:52.233" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's look at the immediate context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this:&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;“Our Father in heaven,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;hallowed be your name...—Matthew 6:5-9 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+6/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the Sermon on the Mount, which might be summarized as calling Jesus' disciples to go beyond the normal or surface understanding of obedience.  The first paragraph I quoted above, for instance, calls us not just to pray, but to pray in secret when it produced no earthly benefit.  We aren't supposed to make a show of prayer, but to pray intimately with our Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, Jesus prefaces the actual text of the &amp;quot;Lord's Prayer&amp;quot; with the warning not to use empty phrases.  Don't approach prayer as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spaghetti%20test&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;spaghetti test&lt;/a&gt;.  Our words must be meaningful and not merely repetition of a formula.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although we now think of the &amp;quot;Lord's Prayer&amp;quot; as a very standard way to approach God, it was probably as strange to the first audience's ears as the rest of Jesus' teaching.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Mat&amp;amp;chapter=6&amp;amp;verse=9&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NET Bible notes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pray this way.&lt;/em&gt; What follows, although traditionally known as the Lord’s prayer, is really the disciples’ prayer. It represents how they are to approach God, by acknowledging his uniqueness and their need for his provision and protection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is addressed in terms of intimacy (&lt;em&gt;Father&lt;/em&gt;). The original Semitic term here was probably &lt;em&gt;Abba&lt;/em&gt;. The term is a little unusual in a personal prayer, especially as it lacks qualification. It is not the exact equivalent of “daddy” (as is sometimes popularly suggested), but it does suggest a close, familial relationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems natural that Jesus was calling us to something &lt;em&gt;beyond&lt;/em&gt; mere obedience to pray these particular words.  Rather, He was calling us to pray with a particular attitude.  Rather than obey a distant deity who has no particular reason to listen, Jesus suggests we treat God as a close relative who cares for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I find the prayer very carefully structured and well suited to be a guide.  I sometimes pray one phrase at a time and pause to meditate on what I personally wish to communicate along those lines to my God.  As long as the Christian is thinking about the &lt;em&gt;meaning&lt;/em&gt; and not merely repeating the sounds, there's nothing wrong with reciting the prayer word for word, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-10T22:27:52.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7101" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7102" CreationDate="2012-04-11T00:36:21.780" Score="5" ViewCount="4195" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a majority opinion as to what giving up free will and giving it to Jesus means? What does this action look like? Are there any real life examples?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-01T02:37:09.700" LastActivityDate="2014-12-01T02:37:09.700" Title="What does giving up free will and giving it to Jesus mean?" Tags="&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-12-03T00:46:35.707" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7101" CreationDate="2012-04-11T02:52:05.033" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hope that I can help here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple months ago I got engaged. I prayed a lot about the decision and felt like it was a good move in my life. One that would be hard but would be worth it. Well, 2 weeks ago my fiancee broke up with me. That was one of the hardest days of my life. And it would of been so easy to say, &quot;I prayed; it felt like a good choice, I was doing everything right, why did God allow this to happen?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could have blamed God and Jesus for all the pain I felt. Instead because of experiences I have had in the past I turned to Jesus and God and relied upon their love and grace. I have in the last two weeks learned more about my relationship with my Savior then I think I have in the rest of my life. I still hurt, true, but I have comfort in the knowledge that my Savior and my Heavenly Father love me and have a plan for me that will lead to even more happiness then I had with my fiancee. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to me turning your will over to the Savior means trusting Him in those hardest parts of your life. Knowing that it will strengthen you and that Christ has other plans for you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture reference was asked for so here goes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(KJV) Matt 16:24-25 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Applying this to my story above. I could have ignored Christ and tried anything and everything to get my fiancee back. That may or may not of worked but I would not of drawn as close to my Savior as I have in the last couple weeks.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;So I see it as literal; I think my burden or cross sucks, but I accept that Christ has a plan for me and I trust in Him and because I do I have found a measure of comfort and peace that I could not have found anywhere else, given the situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2012-04-12T19:33:13.553" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T19:33:13.553" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7098" CreationDate="2012-04-11T05:02:39.767" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see Mr Ericson has already posted the context, so I won't repeat it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that Jesus prefaces this prayer with two things that he says we should NOT do: 1. Pray in public in order to be seen by others; and 2. Use &quot;empty phrases&quot;, or as the King James puts it, &quot;vain repetitions&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think #1 means that it's wrong to pray in the hearing of others, but rather that our prayer should not be a show we put on for others, i.e. we should be talking to God, not to people around us. #2 seems to mean that we should not recite stock phrases without thinking about their meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the sad reality is that people use the Lord's Prayer in ways that break both of these rules. They stand up in public and recite it in a pompous way, to impress others with their spirituality, and they repeat it as a set of stock phrases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I read it, Jesus did not intend for us to memorize and recite this prayer. The plain reading seems to be exactly the opposite, that he was telling people NOT to memorize and recite stock prayers, but rather to use a prayer like this as a model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, that doesn't mean that it is wrong to recite the Lord's Prayer. If Jesus gave it to us, than it stands to reason that he intended us to read it, study it, and learn from it. But I think it IS often used wrongly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recall hearing a lecture years ago where the speaker said, &quot;The real prayers aren't the ones that start, 'Oh gracious and mighty Heavenly Father, creator of all the universe, bestow upon us this day thy munificent blessings ...' The real prayers are the ones that start, 'GOD!!!! Help me!!!'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T05:02:39.767" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7067" CreationDate="2012-04-11T06:21:33.710" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is, I suppose, conceivable that God is not bound by the laws of logic. But if true further discussion is impossible, as how are we to consider the possibilities except by using logic? I can't imagine how I could prove this either way. Will I present a logical proof that logic always applies? But if logic doesn't apply, then the proof is invalid, and the argument is circular. It is even more difficult to see how one could present a logical argument that logic DOESN'T always apply. So let's accept that God is bound by logic as an axiom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have noted, your paradox example doesn't really work. You appear to be invoking the classic time travel &quot;Run-over grandfather problem&quot;: What if you went back in time and killed your grandfather before he had any children? Then you would never be born, and so there would be no one to go back and commit the murder, so your grandfather would live, so you would be born, so there is someone to go back, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in your example, event A does not cause God to exist, or even cause him to act in a direct sense. Rather, it is the consideration of the consequences of A that causes God to act. If I shoot myself in the foot, it will hurt really bad. Therefore, I do not shoot myself in the foot. I don't need to shoot myself in the foot to know the consequences. I can learn the consequences from hearing of the experiences of others who have shot themselves in the foot, or I could deduce those consequences by considering the nature of bullets, flesh and bone, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose that God is outside of time. He sees all of history as one big panorama. We mortals only perceive a slice of it at any given moment, a slice that moves across the panorama as time passes. But from God's perspective, it's one big picture. He can then draw that picture, considering the implications of every line he draws, extended out as far as he wishes. A human artist drawing a picture of, say, a landscape might say, If I start drawing the base a tree here, I'll need to complete that tree upwards to the top branches, or perhaps draw it abruptly ending in a stump, etc. But he doesn't have to agonize through circular logic like, If I draw the trunk, I'll need to draw the branches, but if I make the branches too wide, then I'll have to redraw the trunk, but if I redraw the trunk ... What would be the catch? He would just draw the tree the way he wanted it. Even if we assume that God can change his mind after seeing how it turns out, so what? So he erases the tree and redraws it the way he wants. He can consider how the tree fits into the landscape and design one big picture meeting all his desired requirements. There's no need to be circular about it at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we assume that God exists within time, but is all-knowing and all-powerful, it doesn't change the model much. He can't draw the whole tree at one time, but he can still decide how he intends to draw it. Actually in practice he could still make a diagram of future history as he intends it to proceed, so in that sense he still can draw the tree all at once. He just can't create the whole history in reality all at once, the plan would have to unfold over time, just as mortals see it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take your analogy to computer software: I develop software for a living; I can relate to this. In this case we're looking for the inputs to use to get &quot;good&quot; outputs. So the analogy might be to someone using a mortgage calculator program to analyze a home purchase decision. He puts in the price of the home he's looking at and the interest rate and gets out a monthly payment. He decides that that payment is too high, so he's going to have to settle for a lower-priced home. So he inputs a different home price. He may tinker with this until he finds a combination of home price and monthly payment that he is satisfied with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not lead him into some endless loop of circular logic. The fact that he decided to change the inputs doesn't create an unsolvable self-reference problem, because the user is not part of the program that he is running. He is standing outside feeding inputs. Even if you consider the user to be part of a larger &quot;system&quot; seeking to find an optimal value, there is still no unsolvable self-reference problem. He just plays with values until he gets a satisfactory answer. I don't know if God &quot;plays with&quot; decisions in some &quot;history modelling system&quot; until he gets the desired results, but the concept is the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW Assuming that God is bound by logic, statements like &quot;God can do anything&quot; should not be taken literally. (When I say that I take the Bible literally, I do not mean that statement literally! The Bible clearly includes poetry, figures of speech, etc. 1 Cor 15:27 says that the word &quot;all&quot; in Psalms 8:6 is not to be taken absolutely literally.) I do not suppose that God can make a triangle with four sides, as that would be logically impossible. You might make such a problem a trick question by redefining the terms in some way, but that's just a trick. By the understood definition of &quot;triangle&quot;, it must have exactly three sides. When the Bible says that God is all-powerful, even if taken literally that does not mean that he can do anything. Suppose I told you to draw a four-sided triangle. You reply that this is impossible. So I suggest that you get ten really strong men to help you. Will this make it possible? What if you have the entire output of a nuclear power plant? Clearly more power will not help, because the problem is not lack of power, but logical impossibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for the long answer. Interesting question on which, I am sure, lots more could be said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T06:21:33.710" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7062" CreationDate="2012-04-11T06:42:24.527" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with Caleb, just to elaborate a little:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Languages don't always have the same sounds. When people who grew up with one language try to learn another, they often have problems with sounds that are used in the new language but not in their native language. For example, Chinese people trying to learn English often say &quot;r&quot; rather than &quot;l&quot;, hence all the jokes about &quot;Engrish&quot;. Native English speakers have trouble with the guttural &quot;kh&quot; sound found in other languages: we constantly struggle with whether to render it in English as &quot;k&quot; or &quot;q&quot; or &quot;kh&quot;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amusingly enough, there's an example of this in the Bible: Judges 12:6. In a war between two groups of people, the people on one side were able to tell that someone was a member of the other by asking them to say the word &quot;shibboleth&quot;. If they couldn't pronounce the &quot;sh&quot; sound and said &quot;sibboleth&quot;, then they knew they were one of the enemy. One can learn new sounds with sufficient time and effort, of course, but probably not when someone is standing with a sword to your throat demanding you say it NOW. This is probably not the ideal learning environment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Itpastorn notes, &quot;Jesus&quot; is not really very close to how Jesus said his own name. Nor is &quot;Jehovah&quot; all that close to the name of the father. It's probably just as well that we don't know how to pronounce God's name correctly: People would just use it as a swear word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T06:42:24.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7061" CreationDate="2012-04-11T07:03:49.320" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think many Christians view dancing with suspicion because it inherently focuses attention on the body, and we need to be careful in how we think about the bodies of people other than our spouses. Many dances involve close physical contact between two people. To what extent is this appropriate? Or if we are observing someone dance, especially men observing a woman dance, they are clearly thinking about her body in ways that are, if not lustful, easily turned to lustful thoughts. (Need I explain that I say &quot;men especially&quot; because men are more easily tempted to lust by a woman's physical appearance than women are by simply looking at a man?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I tend to think these concerns are exaggerated because they confuse all appreciation for the beauty of a human body with sex, and all interest in sex with lust. I often look at a woman and think, &quot;Wow, she's really beautiful&quot; without immediately following that with &quot;... and I'd like to have an adulterous affair with her.&quot; But the danger is certainly there, and one would have to be extremely naive to suppose that there is no sexual component to dancing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I presume this would be doubly bad within a church service. In a sense we could say that a woman performing a dance in front of the congregation as an act of worship is not inherently different from singing a song, playing an instrument, reciting a poem, acting in a play, etc. It could certainly be done with all the right motives. But I can comprehend a concern that men watching would be more likely to be thinking about the dancer's sexuality than about the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that said, this is pretty much the objection that Michal made to David's dancing: “How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!” And this objection is refuted on the grounds that he was dancing for God and not for people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T07:03:49.320" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7107" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-11T08:18:25.220" Score="17" ViewCount="17443" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was sent to earth to die for our sins. He knew it when the time came but from this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,&#xA;  Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou&#xA;  forsaken me? &quot; (Matthew 27:46).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He seemed to be saying &quot;Hey Dad, why are you leaving me, this wasn't part of the plan.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With such a loud cry, this must have been an emotional pain he went through aside the physicaly pain on the cross. Why did he have to ask his Father that question?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-11T14:29:25.267" LastActivityDate="2014-06-16T12:08:50.493" Title="Why did Jesus question God on the cross?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2014-11-23T13:27:49.470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7107" CreationDate="2012-04-11T08:35:06.027" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have a complete answer, but here is a partial one: two reasons I can think of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To fulfill prophecy&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Psalm 22:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of the Psalm seems to be largely about Jesus and especially His Death. The Psalm therefore shows us that this was not an accident but &lt;em&gt;was God's plan&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In our place&lt;/strong&gt;: if Jesus did not say it, or we do not appropriate His sacrifice in our lives, then I presume it would / will be us saying, &lt;em&gt;&quot;God, why have you abandoned me?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; - presumably the cry of those in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-04-11T08:50:13.730" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T08:50:13.730" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7107" CreationDate="2012-04-11T10:34:45.767" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not think that one reading the Gospel account could say that Jesus was wondering of the plan of God at this point in the salvation history. Here is how Jesus present himself in the good shepherd discourse :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and &lt;strong&gt;I lay down my life for the sheep&lt;/strong&gt;. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 &lt;strong&gt;No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.&lt;/strong&gt;” &#xA;  &lt;code&gt;The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Jn 10:14–18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.&lt;/code&gt; &#xA;  emphasis added&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus came to die on the cross. It was not part of the plan, but the plan all together. Here is how John the Baptist presents Jesus :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! &#xA;  &lt;code&gt;The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Jn 1:29). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cross was the plan all along. Why did Jesus quote the psalm 22 on the cross? In doctrine there is a separation in the relationship between Jesus and God, when Jesus bored the sins on the cross. That was the first separation of Jesus with the Father since eternity past. That might be the reason why Jesus quotes this psalm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T10:34:45.767" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6863" CreationDate="2012-04-11T12:06:06.260" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a general Christian perspective, I believe that assisted suicide is wrong.  I have multiple reasons for this.  The obvious, but too obvious, answer is that God commands that we shall not murder.  A common objection to this argument is that it's not murder if the person is suffering and wishes to die.  Perhaps so, so allow me to argue a separate point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the main reason I believe that assisted suicide is wrong, falls more on the person committing the suicide, assisted or unassisted, than it does the person who aids in the suicide. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 6:19-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who&#xA;  is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you&#xA;  were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, I believe this is probably the strongest evidence against the argument.  For those who choose to commit suicide, they are implicitly stating that they are their own.  In the cultures that are discussing these situations, there is already an existing undercurrent that essentially claims that our bodies are our own.  You can see this argument when it comes to all sorts of things dealing with human life, most noticeably abortion and assisted suicide.  The argument can almost always be boiled down to: &quot;It's my body, therefore I am allowed to do anything to it that I want to do.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the scripture holds true here, which I believe it does, then our own comfort and enjoyment of life comes second to what it is that God would have done in our lives.  Assisted suicide denies loved ones the opportunity to learn patience and love towards someone who cannot repay.  It runs on the assumption that comfort, happiness, and productivity are the most important things in life, and once those things are gone, there is nothing more to live for.  It robs God of the opportunity to do great things, and possibly recuperate the person.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, I cannot think of any good way to convince a non-Christian of the moral bankruptcy of assisted suicide.  Their perspective is typically to say that their body is their own.  This has been the same argument used for years in regards to abortion, where the child is viewed as an unpleasant and inconvenient intrusion on the mother's well-being and happiness, and therefore must be eliminated.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's really the same argument all over again, only this time, instead of killing another, we kill ourselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Regarding Therapeutic Relentlessness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been asked (at the end of the very long comments at the bottom) to update my answer to reflect my viewpoint on therapeutic relentlessness.  Obviously, this is a very sensitive subject, and I'm honestly less clear on what scripture has to say about &quot;how much treatment is too much treatment&quot; when it comes to sustaining a life.  There are plenty of other limitations in place, such as financial limitations, availability of technology, etc, that make for hard decisions in this area.  How do we balance the physical restrictions, with our moral obligation in this area?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be honest, I can't think of any place where the Bible speaks directly to the issue of therapeutic relentlessness, mostly because the technology to do such things didn't exist at the time of Christ.  But I think it's important to remember that the Bible ultimately isn't designed as a &quot;rule book&quot; that we're to follow, but it's ultimate intent is that we become dependent upon God for our daily lives.  It gives us a framework on some clear issues, but sometimes, we'll be called upon to pray and ask God what he would have us do.  If the Bible clearly explained every moral dilemma we're bound to face, then there would be no need for wisdom, and quite frankly, it wouldn't drive us into relationship with God.  We'd be happy following rules, and that would be all we would do.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, I think it comes down to stewardship, which is implicit in the verse above. We have been given our bodies not for our own purposes, but so that we might steward them properly. To steward something, it's necessary to have the recognition both that the object of our stewardship is not our own, and that we will answer to one greater than ourselves in regards to how we performed our stewardship duties.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good example of this is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/16-12.htm&quot;&gt;2 Chronicles 16:12&lt;/a&gt;, Asa did not consult God, but rather, consulted the physicians.  I don't believe here that the problem was that he consulted the physicians, but rather that he never consulted God.  He was being a bad steward in not asking God what God would have for his foot malady.  God may have said, &quot;go to the physicians, and they'll heal you&quot;, but he might have said to do something else.  We'll never know.  Asa died in the next verse.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, we are called to be dependent on God for all things, which means, that ultimately, what we do here isn't always a matter of black and white.  God may give us difficult situations for no other reason but that we might become more dependent on him.  It's a matter of godly submission.  When faced with difficulties like this, which I honestly hope I'm never faced with, our proper reaction should never be to lean in our own understanding, but rather to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/proverbs/3-5.htm&quot;&gt;trust in the Lord&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Personal Viewpoint&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it sounds like a cop-out answer, but I really don't think there's a hard and fast rule here.  From my personal perspective, something seems strange to me about artificially keeping a body of an unconscious person alive for years, when to remove the life support, the body would fail.  I see that as somehow different than actively killing the person, but again, that's my opinion on that, and I know some Christians who would probably disagree.  Another person, when faced with the same difficulty, may pray and ask God what God would like them to do, and he may lead them to sustain the body for a while.  They may view that as good stewardship of what God has given them.  Again, no hard and fast answer on that one, I'm afraid.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2012-04-13T12:46:26.310" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T12:46:26.310" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6863" CreationDate="2012-04-11T12:59:12.047" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no &quot;single&quot; way to answer this, because (as usual) there is no &quot;single&quot; Christian view; there are Christian groups with very well versed advocates at both extremes of this, so there are no absolute answers here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I'm looking to a way to answer a fellow Christian with few knowledge of the Bible...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My view in your discussion to a Christian : if you feel it is strongly against your beliefs, then don't go down this road yourself; don't elect for assisted suicide. However, also try to judge &lt;em&gt;others&lt;/em&gt; in this, especially when you are probably (I'm going with the numbers here) unlikely to understand what their life is. Being on the outside looking in can give a very false impression. And, as already mentioned, there are many Christians who are happy with the conclusion they've reached that does not rule this out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...and a non-Christian as well&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In talking to a non-Christian, there is no benefit bringing up scriptural points, since &lt;strong&gt;by definition&lt;/strong&gt; (unless you are talking OT scripture with a Jew, etc) there is no meaningful common scriptural basis. It is very wrong to try to enforce the side-effects of your own &lt;strong&gt;religious&lt;/strong&gt; beliefs on people who disagree with them. If you can make an argument based on non-scriptural reason, then feel free to do so, but it would be a hard argument to make (assuming that suitable assurances were in place to prevent abuse for convenience, or by benefactors or sufferers of treatable depression - that is a separate discussion, however). Equally, the &quot;chance of a miracle recovery&quot; is not medically sound, and should be weighed correctly against the &quot;chance of not&quot; (which is very very significantly greater).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not a simple issue. Medical advances have allowed us to reach a place where people can be sustained long beyond the time when (in a more primitive society) they would have surely perished. It is not surprising that the era of the Bible did not have such a complex set of concerns here. Time was weeks, not years or decades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; view (I don't expect many to agree here) is that I would very much like to know that this option is available to me, should I come to genuinely need it. I wouldn't make my pet dog suffer unnecessarily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T12:59:12.047" CommentCount="23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7107" CreationDate="2012-04-11T15:11:12.017" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to remember that the purpose of asking a question is often, but not always, to gain information, as is evidenced throughout the life of Jesus and even in our own lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oftentimes as a child my mother would ask me if I had disobeyed her.  She already knew the answer to that question, but there was something significant to me in having to answer that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This specific cry from the Cross expresses the anguish of separation, but it also informs us that Jesus did, in fact, suffer separation from the Father.  This is very important, because unless Jesus took upon Himself the entire penalty of our sin, then we would still remain something unpaid from our own penalty that would be left to us to pay.  Indeed, apart from this cry of Jesus, we may have been left to wonder if He really experienced the full extent of the penalty for our sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we can't always assume that the purpose of every question is to gain information, implying a lack of knowledge within the one who asks.  Jesus clearly understood the full extent of what He would endure, even though He expressed the depths of that pain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T15:11:12.017" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6863" CreationDate="2012-04-11T15:32:25.767" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to address the &amp;quot;to a Christian&amp;quot; aspect of the question (I'm not sure the &amp;quot;to a non-Christian&amp;quot; aspect is on topic).  I would argue in favour of assisted suicide, on a case by case basis.  I don't intend to comment on whether it should be legal or illegal, because I think that is mostly irrelevant to the issue of its morality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't have anything directly to say about assisted suicide, or therapeutic relentlessness, so any Christian viewpoint on this subject must be an inference from more general principles.  I argue that OP's question is a subset of the more general question of &amp;quot;Is it ever okay for a Christian to choose death?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Is it ever okay for a Christian to choose death?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One response by Christians to assisted suicide is that we do not belong to ourselves, and thus do not have the right to choose death.  My problem with this argument is that it is too black and white.  What about martyrdom?  We ought to be willing to give up our lives for the cause of Christ, which in many cases (such as refusing to denounce Christ at gunpoint) is effectively suicide.  So clearly there are some cases when it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; okay to choose death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd argue that the principle at work in whether choosing death is moral is &lt;strong&gt;whether the benefit of death outweighs the cost.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no cut and dry answer of whether choosing death is always okay, or never okay.  Like most aspects of Christianity, legalism doesn't work - we must each examine our own hearts, and the Spirit's will for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what are some examples of Christians choosing death, where the benefit of death outweighed the cost?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Countless martyrs throughout history have chosen death for the sake of the gospel.  In those cases, the benefit (furthering the gospel, integrity in not denying Christ) outweighed the cost (momentary death).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible also has several examples of people choosing death when the benefit outweighed the cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example is Samson:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2016:30-31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Judges 16:30-31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; Then his brothers and his father’s whole family went down to get him. They brought him back and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the tomb of Manoah his father. He had led Israel twenty years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Samson acted as he did, knowing it would kill him.  But the benefit outweighed the cost, as he was able to take many Philistines with him, and was likely going to die soon anyway.  Note that whether we think killing Philistines is a &amp;quot;good thing&amp;quot; is irrelevant.  It apparently fit into God's will and plan, or God would not have given Samson strength to do so (the context suggests that God gave him the strength).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example is Jesus.  Certainly Jesus could have prevented his death&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:53&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:53&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt; Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he considered doing the will of his Father (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:36&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 14:36&lt;/a&gt;) and the &amp;quot;joy set before him&amp;quot; to outweigh the cost:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+12%3A2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 12:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, some might argue that Jesus knew he would be resurrected, and thus was not choosing death.  But don't we as Christians have that same assurance?  As Christians, death is not the end.  In fact, it is far better to die and be with Christ, but we ought to remain when the &lt;em&gt;cost of death outweighs the benefit&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, for Christians, since we do not love our worldly life, the cost for us is little and the benefit for us is great.  But remember that we are called to love, and we must take into our calculation the cost for others and the benefit for others that can be incurred by our remaining in the world.  For if all Christians were to simply off themselves, there would be no evangelism.  Paul dealt with this very struggle, and his cost-benefit analysis led him to remain:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:21-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 1:21-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when does the benefit of death outweigh the cost?  There are probably a few clear cut cases, such as if the person is a vegetable with no chance of recovery.  Let that person be with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But generally, it depends on tons of factors, such as the amount of suffering one is in, the remaining time left in life, the possible benefit one might have to others, etc.  Christians should prayerfully examine their own hearts when making such a decision, and remember the importance of loving others in their decision.  We shouldn't automatically choose death, simply to escape suffering, when our life may benefit others or further the gospel.  Rather we can count our current suffering as joy, knowing that we are choosing it for the sake of love and the gospel, and we will surely be rewarded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;So, when is it okay to assist in choosing death?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, first of all, if we assume the morality of the chooser's choosing, then I don't think the assistance should be categorized as a sin.  I don't believe it falls under murder, as the motivation is love, rather than hate.  In the same way, an accidental killing is not murder (i.e., a car crash), because the spirit of the law is concerned with our intentions, and our heart (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205:21-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:21-22&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One caveat is that we should never assist in the death of an unbeliever.  For the unbeliever, we need to hold out fervent hope that he will come to Christ before his demise.  Though the unbeliever does not realize it, the benefit of relieving temporary suffering &lt;strong&gt;never&lt;/strong&gt; outweighs the cost of missing out on the chance to come to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;In Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, in most assisted suicide cases the benefit of death &lt;strong&gt;does not&lt;/strong&gt; outweigh the cost, but I am unwilling to make a blanket statement against all assisted suicide.  I'm sure that there are cases where a Christian's suffering is great enough, and their remaining time is short enough, so that the relief from suffering outweighs the benefit they might have on others in their short remaining time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T14:58:55.487" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7088" CreationDate="2012-04-11T16:11:55.343" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you reject Pascal's Gambit, then you should also reject Thomas' Gambit(tm) for the same reason: it is incomplete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Premise 1) You desire Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Premise 2) There is a chance that belief in Grace provides Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Premise 3) If belief in Grace does not provide Salvation, then doing Good Works provide Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: One can achieve Salvation by both believing in Grace and also doing Good Works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with this gambit is the same as the problem with Pascal's: its premises are unsupported*.  Without being able to inspect those things that actually cause Salvation, and to be able to report back with results you're left with guesswork and tradition.  You could easily add a fourth premise that both believing in Grace and doing Good Works does not provide Salvation and it would all make just as much sense.  Indeed, some critics of Pascal's Wager do add this kind of premise to point out the hypocrisy of the situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So essentially you're just left with faith.  (YMMV as to how much of a 'just' that is)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(*Aside: Similarly, there's no reason for Pascal to conclude that believing in the Christian god will not have a negative effect.  For example, one could posit a deity that for all intents and purposes acts exactly the same as the Christian god -- Moses, Jesus, Bible and all -- except that those who would be sent to heaven or hell by the Christian god are instead sent to hell or heaven respectively by the posited god.  Without being able to inspect those souls that are sent to heaven or hell and for what reason, there's no evidential basis on which to form a conclusion as to which god one is praying; just faith that it is the one you hope.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1083" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T16:11:55.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7049" CreationDate="2012-04-11T17:37:04.190" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what I understand the Catholic answer to this question to be:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus' Divine Nature comes to Him through the Father. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus' Human Nature comes to Him through His Blessed Mother. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is one Divine Person with two natures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Jesus' Human Body comes to Him through His Blessed Mother and no one else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Substance which materialized at the moment of the Incarnation was taken from Mary in the same way as the substance which made Eve was taken from Adam. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of who you are, it's up to God to animate your body with an immortal soul.  It's not up to your parents.  I'm more or less making this up, but it may even be part of God's covenant with Adam to subdue the Earth and fill it.  The married couple supplies the baby and God will give him or her the immortal soul.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calling the Incarnation &quot;a miracle&quot; is actually kind of lame.  It is &quot;THE MIRACLE&quot;, the one that, if you're paying attention, you should bend your knee and thank God for whenever it is mentioned!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, it is a sin for a Catholic to deny that Jesus was born of a Virgin or to assert any other blasphemy against Our Lady's purity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T17:37:04.190" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6724" CreationDate="2012-04-11T20:40:41.363" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The words of Jesus answer this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fact is, you have had five husbands, and &lt;strong&gt;the man you now have is not your husband&lt;/strong&gt;. What you have just said is quite true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:18&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 4:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly Jesus did not associate the Samaritans woman's relationship with marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T20:40:41.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7118" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7122" CreationDate="2012-04-11T20:59:03.907" Score="16" ViewCount="143355" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:46&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;John 5:46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where did Moses write about Jesus? My thoughts were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:15&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and possibly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:15-19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 18:15-19&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other places that Moses wrote about Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2014-05-02T03:43:02.213" Title="Where did Moses write about Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;torah&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7118" CreationDate="2012-04-11T21:07:49.583" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As soon as I posted this question, my mind went to the famous story of Jacob's ladder, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:15-19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Genesis 28:10-22&lt;/a&gt;. Two verses in particular stick out for me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2028:12&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Verse 12&lt;/a&gt;. This is because Jesus is our bridge to Heaven, and He appeared to confirm this reference in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:51&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;John 1:51&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He then added, “I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, of course, we have the famous prophetic act of Abraham sacrificing Isaac in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022:1-19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Genesis 22:1-19&lt;/a&gt;, representing God sacrificing His Son Jesus for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T21:07:49.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7120" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7126" CreationDate="2012-04-11T21:13:27.427" Score="10" ViewCount="1382" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus' words here contain an apparent contradiction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and &lt;strong&gt;they will put some of you to death&lt;/strong&gt;. All men will hate you because of me.  But &lt;strong&gt;not a hair of your head will perish&lt;/strong&gt;. By standing firm you will gain life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:16-19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Luke 21:16-19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can someone be &lt;em&gt;&quot;put to death&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and yet &lt;em&gt;&quot;not a hair of their head will perish&quot;&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-08-15T07:22:19.843" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T07:23:05.097" Title="Why did Jesus say &quot;you will be put to death&quot; and yet &quot;not a hair of your head will perish&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7121" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7124" CreationDate="2012-04-11T21:17:17.997" Score="24" ViewCount="111390" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the Last Supper, Luke records this dialogue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and &lt;strong&gt;if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one&lt;/strong&gt;. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“That is enough,” he replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:36-38&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22:36-38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus tell them to buy a sword? And what should we make of His reply, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;That is enough&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt; when they produce two swords? Did He mean, &amp;quot;that is enough talk&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;those are enough swords&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-10-01T23:20:01.417" Title="Why did Jesus tell His disciples to buy a sword?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7118" CreationDate="2012-04-11T21:29:45.877" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;Moses wrote many things that foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is, indeed, the Passover Lamb, as those who put their faith in His death and the blood He shed are rescued from the judgment that is to come.  (John 3:16-18)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Like the manna in the desert, Jesus is the Bread from Heaven (John 6:51) that satisfies our spiritual hunger and gives us life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Like the water that sprung from the rock, Jesus is the living water (John 7:37) that satisfies our spiritual thirst.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Like the snake in the desert that was lifted up that those who were bitten by deadly snakes could look upon and be saved, Jesus was lifted up so that we who have been bitten by Satan in our sin can look upon Jesus and be saved from spiritual death.  (John 3:14-15)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Like the rock that was struck the first time, but should never be struck again, Jesus suffered once for all. (1 Peter 3:18)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is the offspring of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3 that would crush the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is the fulfillment of the life of Joseph, which foreshadows Him being the beloved Son, being envied by His own, begin rejected by His own, cast down into the pit, resurrected, sent to a distant country where He became lord of all, and who then provided salvation for His own.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah: cf. Genesis 49:8ff as interpreted by Revelation 5:5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moses also said that God would raise up &quot;a prophet like me&quot; (Deuteronomy 18:15), and this is probably the clearest reference to the coming Messiah.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2012-04-12T16:42:07.427" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T16:42:07.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7118" CreationDate="2012-04-11T21:35:51.097" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;One example is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2032:43&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:43&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt; Rejoice, you nations, with his people,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   for he will avenge the blood of his servants;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;he will take vengeance on his enemies&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   and make atonement for his land and people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which we know from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 1:6&lt;/a&gt; is referring to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I suspect that Jesus was referring to the fact that much of Mosaic law was a type, or shadow, of Christ and the new covenant.  The book of Hebrews deals with this extensively, and deals with how Christ is the fulfilment of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%208:4-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 8:4-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The promised land (God's rest) was a shadow of salvation (Hebrews 4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Animal sacrifices were a shadow of Christ's sacrifice (especially the passover Lamb)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High priests were a shadow of Christ as our High Priest (Hebrews 5)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The tabernacle was a shadow of the tabernacle in heaven, where Jesus is our High Priest (Hebrews 8)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T21:35:51.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7121" CreationDate="2012-04-11T21:39:16.783" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;Up until this point, the disciples had operated under the aegis of both Roman and Jewish law.  They were seen as just another group of disciples of some charismatic Rabbi.  If he had some strange ideas he was teaching, well, so did plenty of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now, all that was about to change.  He was going to be taken by the Jews, tried and convicted and put to death by the Romans.  Suddenly their Master's public status was about to go from &quot;eccentric Rabbi&quot; to &quot;criminal condemned for stirring up trouble with the Romans,&quot; which would turn those who supported him into fugitives, at least temporarily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, he was trying to explain to them that they would need to be prepared to stay mobile (side note: the word &lt;em&gt;fugitive&lt;/em&gt; comes from a Latin root meaning &quot;to flee&quot;): they would  need to always have a purse (for money) and a bag (to carry basic supplies) ready, and that a sword (for protection against other men) was to be more important to them than a cloak (for protection against the elements) in the days to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as we see repeatedly throughout the Gospels, the disciples never really &quot;got&quot; the whole &quot;Jesus is going to die and then be resurrected&quot; thing until after it was all accomplished.  Here, they hear him talking about swords, and someone says &quot;yeah, we've got a couple here already.&quot;  They just don't understand what he's trying to explain, and you can almost hear the Master's resigned sigh.  &quot;Sure, that'll be fine.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-04-11T22:40:14.423" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T22:40:14.423" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7125" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7127" CreationDate="2012-04-11T21:40:13.443" Score="5" ViewCount="5621" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the judgment of the serpent in Genesis 3:15, God says the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed&#xA;  are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your&#xA;  belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.&#xA;  15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your&#xA;  offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall&#xA;  bruise his heel.  Genesis 3:14-15 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 15 has become known as the Protoevangelium, or &quot;First Gospel&quot;.  How is this the first gospel and how does Jesus fulfill this prophecy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2020-09-03T07:07:39.393" Title="How does Jesus fulfill the Protoevangelium (First Gospel) in Genesis 3:15?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7120" CreationDate="2012-04-11T21:41:09.590" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is talking here about the resurrection of the dead. Because of what Christ did all will live again. So yes you could die for the gospel but you would gain eternal life in Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just adding some scripture to back this up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(KJV) 1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just supporting that we will be raised from this mortal state which is corruptible (hence why we die) to an immortal state that is incorruptible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-08-15T07:23:05.097" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T07:23:05.097" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7125" CreationDate="2012-04-11T22:16:14.883" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gospel means &amp;quot;good news.&amp;quot; Understood rightly, this bit of news to Adam and Eve was certainly good news. The snake - the epitome of sin - had tricked Adam and Eve. Because of the snake (and their own sinful actions, of course) they were being kicked out of the garden. By trying to become like God, they had &lt;em&gt;become like the snake&lt;/em&gt; - sinful and evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But God promises to put enmity between them and the snake. He would pull them apart from their wretched connection to sin and death. How?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A savior. A promise. Importantly, &lt;em&gt;not Adam.&lt;/em&gt; Adam and Eve weren't going to get themselves out of this mess. Their offspring would. An offspring who would be born through the humiliating and painful process that God had just described to Eve a few verses back (the curse of the pain of childbirth). An offspring who would be injured by the snake (crushed on the heel) but who would, ultimately, &lt;em&gt;crush the head&lt;/em&gt; of the snake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes this the first gospel is of course the gold mine of promise beneath the metaphorical literary layer. The offspring of Eve would destroy the snake who brought Adam and Eve to sin and death, and in doing so separate them from that sin and death. He would undergo pain in the process, but it would be a trivial wound (on the heel) versus the mortal blow on the head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was Eve's offspring, naturally. He was born to a virgin, was the son of a carpenter, born in lowly Bethlehem, placed &lt;em&gt;in a manger&lt;/em&gt;, and raised in despicable Nazareth. He was born in a state of humility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was despised. He was beaten. He was killed on a Roman cross, the death for traitors and murderers. He temporarily &lt;em&gt;went through Hell&lt;/em&gt; for his people. Satan had indeed bruised his heel, but that death had paid for the sins of his people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when Christ rose from the dead on the third day, he conquered death. He conquered the very thing Satan had brought into the world and brought back Adam and Eve to himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. &lt;strong&gt;1 Cor. 15:22&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-09-03T07:07:39.393" LastActivityDate="2020-09-03T07:07:39.393" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7101" CreationDate="2012-04-11T23:03:23.137" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to add some scripture that I think goes along with the scripture @ryanOptini quoted, and will also help answer your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(AMP) Romans 12:1-2&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; I APPEAL to you therefore, brethren, and beg of you in view of [all]&#xA;  the mercies of God, to make a decisive dedication of your bodies&#xA;  [presenting all your members and faculties] as a living sacrifice,&#xA;  holy (devoted, consecrated) and well pleasing to God, which is your&#xA;  reasonable (rational, intelligent) service and spiritual worship. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; Do&#xA;  not be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and&#xA;  adapted to its external, superficial customs], but be transformed&#xA;  (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideals and&#xA;  its new attitude], so that you may prove [for yourselves] what is the&#xA;  good and acceptable and perfect will of God, even the thing which is&#xA;  good and acceptable and perfect [in His sight for you].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I quoted the Amplified translation because I like its extra notations.) This is the concept of &quot;surrender&quot;, which is vital in letting God take the reins of your life. Many Christians fail to take their faith to the next level. There are sins that we hold onto and don't give to God. We can even reason within ourselves as to why these things might be acceptable in God's eyes. Either way, we take what we want and leave what we don't want. You might hear preacher's call this salad-barring God, or keeping your pet sin's in the closet. Anyway, in this passage, Paul urges us to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, as our proper service and worship, so that we can have a renewing of our minds (and be transformed by it), and fulfill and prove the good and perfect will of God in our own lives.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The keyword in most translations is &lt;em&gt;offer&lt;/em&gt;, and as Amplified puts it: A &quot;decisive dedication&quot;. This is not as hard as you, or at least I, would have thought it to be, as I always thought that I could not fully live for God, because it is way too hard.. and it is just too much to ask (I don't have the &lt;em&gt;willpower&lt;/em&gt;). But all it is is simply making a declarative decision to no longer live for yourself, or anyone/anything else, but God (through which of course you will live for the interest of others also)! God's Spirit will then do miraculous work within you to cleanse you of your &quot;pet sins&quot;. In your offering, you will be convicted, you will weep, and you will repent; and this will be a continuous struggle for some things as you will not be made perfect. You will still be tempted, and you will still fall; but the key is to not give up and become numb to it, but pray for conviction of the Holy Spirit, that you may have repentance and be reconciled to God in His mercy. Without this, the bearing of your cross, the surrender, or &lt;em&gt;yielding&lt;/em&gt;, to God and the Holy Spirit, we cannot be proper disciples of Jesus, and thus the Light upon us and our path becomes darkened.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry if my answer is incomplete to your question. I hope this helps in some way. A great lesson is taught on this subject by Chip Ingram in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://r12online.livingontheedge.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;R12&lt;/a&gt; study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastActivityDate="2012-04-11T23:03:23.137" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7121" CreationDate="2012-04-12T10:40:32.920" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was a plot device.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of scenes later (vs 49-51) shows Jesus' healing powers by restoring the ear of a high priest that had been cut off by one of those swords.  In doing so, he capitulates magnanimously, where he could have instead used force to resist arrest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1083" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T10:40:32.920" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7121" CreationDate="2012-04-12T13:09:35.060" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;That very part was to fulfill the scriptures written by Isaiah which he cited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; [...] because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Link it also to the fact that he was on the cross in the middle of 2 robbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the high priests seek to trick Jesus with questions so they could incriminate him, but they had no reason to. A crime had to be committed before they could at least justify their arrest in the garden.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 20:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The emphasis on the swords could not be placed out of context to mean Jesus condoned violence. Jesus tells the disciples to sell their cloak for a sword showing how urgent a sword was needed &lt;strong&gt;at that particular time in the garden&lt;/strong&gt;. Two swords that were shown to him obviously could not fight off the armed soldiers who came for his arrest, but he said they were enough. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:52-53&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:52-53&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;52&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; [...] Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;53&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:49&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:49&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;49&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not answer &quot;No!&quot;; he did not stop what was about to happen. Lo and behold, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:50-51&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:50-51&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;50&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;51&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was after this incident, according to John, that Jesus stopped the violence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 18:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This meant that if Peter succeeded in defending Him, it would hinder His death, our salvation which God had planned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the disciples wouldn't understand Him, but a little crime (2 swords) was enough to (number Him among transgressors) to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-06-11T19:57:19.040" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T19:57:19.040" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7134" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-12T18:21:58.103" Score="10" ViewCount="2248" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that superstition is not supposed to be practiced and it is a violation of the 1st Commandment to honor God about all else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there's always something going on like a 9 day novena or a 40 day fast or a request to return to a particular grotto on the 11th of each month. Then there's other significant numbers like 3 and 7 and 12 which are supposed to mean something and spooky numbers like 6 and 666.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, where is the line between superstition and awe at the way God orders things mightily?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1787" LastEditDate="2016-06-20T21:00:39.713" LastActivityDate="2016-06-20T21:00:39.713" Title="What's the deal with numbers?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;catholic-catechism&gt;&lt;numerology&gt;&lt;superstition&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-06-22T14:06:39.503" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7135" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7155" CreationDate="2012-04-12T18:30:04.147" Score="10" ViewCount="7098" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tomorrow is the first Friday in Easter and in the Catholic Church Fridays are days of penance.  If a person usually does something small, like not continuously munch on things while at his desk, in Ordinary time and during Lent,  is that person permitted (or obligated) to not do those things during Easter? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it's one of those things that has to be up to one's conscience, but would a well formed conscience do well to rejoice during the season of Easter rather than continue the same routine they carry during other seasons? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-04-12T18:35:12.500" LastActivityDate="2019-11-02T14:46:30.163" Title="Should one avoid fasting during Easter?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;easter&gt;&lt;fasting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7134" CreationDate="2012-04-12T19:14:05.213" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you indicated, there certainly is a difference between being superstitious about numbers and recognizing beauty in the way God has ordered things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Analogously, there is a great difference between &lt;em&gt;astronomy&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;astrology&lt;/em&gt;.  One is the laws of the stars (asto nomos), while the other is the word or message of the starts (astro logos).  We can appreciate the order of the stars and study them, but many Christians believe it is wrong to think that the stars have a message for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The study of numbers in the Bible is often referred to as &lt;em&gt;Numerology&lt;/em&gt;.  This is fine as lone as it refers to the study of numbers and not the message of numbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can appreciate the significance the order of creation and how it reflects the image of its Creator.  The earth began unformed and unfilled, then there were 3 days of forming and 3 days of filling, followed by a day of rest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can appreciate that the physical universe consists of time, space, and matter--&lt;em&gt;three&lt;/em&gt; distinct things that form &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; whole.  Time is divided into past, present, and future.  Matter is divided into solid, liquid, and gas.  Space is divided into length, width, and height.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We definitely can declare with the psalmist, &quot;The Heavens declare the glory of God...&quot;.  However, we must avoid superstitions in numbers.  I was personally born on June 6.  That's 6/6.  Yet, there is nothing evil in that.  We shouldn't expect the antichrist to be born on 6/6/66, nor should we be afraid when a child turns 666 days old.  The third or seventh slot machine is not more inclined to be a winner than the sixth.  Lottery numbers that have prominent Bible verse numbers in them aren't more likely to win:  1_14__3_16__28_6__53_5 (although I haven't tried that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we can appreciate the order, but to think that we can use numerology to manipulate things or to use the hidden knowledge about them for profit is probably crossing the line (and probably won't work).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T19:14:05.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7139" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7166" CreationDate="2012-04-12T19:51:36.523" Score="3" ViewCount="1934" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to state, I don't necessarily believe Jesus contradicted Himself. But these parts of Scripture &lt;em&gt;sound&lt;/em&gt; like a contradiction, and I would like to hear any thoughts on how this can be reconciled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought of this question after reading &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7121/why-did-jesus-tell-his-disciples-to-buy-a-sword&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; and these verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and &lt;strong&gt;if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one&lt;/strong&gt;. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“That is enough,” he replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:36-38&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22:36-38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then when they come to seize Jesus, after Judas betrays Him with a kiss, this happens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and, striking the body servant of the high priest, cut off his ear.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;52 Then Jesus said to him, Put your sword back into its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2026:51-52&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 26:51-52&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per the answers in the linked post, Jesus had them get swords so the prophecies could be fulfilled: That He would be counted amongst the transgressors, and His arrest would be certain. But then why would Jesus reprove Peter of using his sword the way he did in the latter verses, when that is what He wanted to happen? Perhaps &amp;quot;contradiction&amp;quot; wasn't the best choice of wording, feel free to edit if you can word it better for me :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-08-14T15:59:21.133" Title="Does Jesus contradict Himself in these verses?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;violence&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1272" CreationDate="2012-04-12T20:04:22.607" Score="17" Body="&lt;h2&gt;A short history of the Talmud&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Law has it's foundation in the books of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Torah&lt;/a&gt;: the first five books of the Bible.  Although there are something like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;613 commandments&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;mitzvot&lt;/em&gt;) in the Torah, there are many areas of life that are not directly addressed by the written law.  And society has changed in ways that aren't explicitly accounted for by the text.  For instance, Moses commanded:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark that the Lord has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you two days’ food on the sixth day. Let everyone remain where he is: let no one leave his place on the seventh day.&amp;mdash;Exodus 16:29 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/Index/english-Exod-16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NJPS&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Originally, that meant to not leave the camp to go and gather manna.  Traditionally it meant not to leave the area of the city as defined by the city walls.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/Index/english-Jer-17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 17:19-27&lt;/a&gt;.)  But these days, we don't have well-defined cities.  I live near Los Angeles, but unless you pay careful attention to the signs on the side of the road, you can't tell if you are in Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Los Angeles or unincorporated Los Angeles county.  Am I breaking &lt;em&gt;mitzvot&lt;/em&gt; by moving around the metropolis?  (The Orthodox Judaism solution is to create an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv#Eruv_for_carrying&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;eruv&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer practical questions, such as this, Rabbis began to formulate a system of interpretations based on their understanding of the Mosaic principles.  According to tradition, this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Oral Torah&lt;/a&gt; could be traced back from student to teacher to Moses himself.  After the destruction of the Second Temple, Rabbis began to write down the Oral Law, which became the Talmud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus and the Talmud&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it happens, during Jesus' time there were (according to Josephus and other historians) three mutually dissenting views on what constituted the Jewish Law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sadducees&lt;/a&gt;, who rejected not only the rabbinical traditions, but all of the Tanakh outside of the Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pharisees&lt;/a&gt;, who shaped and promoted the Oral Torah in addition to the Tanakh.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Essenes&lt;/a&gt;, who seemed to have accepted not only the Tanakh, but a wide range of other texts.  They seem not to have accepted the Oral Torah.  (If the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Qumran&lt;/a&gt; community was Essene, we could be more certain about their beliefs.) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus (and the early Christian movement) mostly interacted with the Pharisees and theologically seemed to have the most in common with them.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+22/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:23-33&lt;/a&gt; and parallels, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 5:17-42&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+23/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 23:1-11&lt;/a&gt;.)  Some scholars speculate that John the Baptist was an Essene, but otherwise we have no record of Jesus interacting with that sect.  As you point out, Christianity accepts the texts that the Pharisees used as their scripture.  (The Tanakh was completed and in the process of being canonized, while the Talmud remained strictly oral at the time.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Jesus roundly rejected the Oral Torah as misguided:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!&amp;mdash;Matthew 23:23-24 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+23/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul interpreted Jesus' ministry as invalidating other Jewish practices:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”&amp;mdash;Galatians 2:11-14 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Galatians+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early church even rejected imposing certain laws written in the Torah, such as the &lt;em&gt;kosher&lt;/em&gt; rules and circumcision, on gentile believers.  As the church spread to Greek and Roman cities and beyond, its observance of the &lt;em&gt;mitzvot&lt;/em&gt; also diminished.  There is no evidence that Christianity ever advocated the Oral Torah which eventually became the Talmud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1276/914&quot;&gt;Mason Wheeler&lt;/a&gt; summarized the Christian perspective on the the Talmud well.  I will add that the Talmud provides a good deal of useful historical material for anyone trying to understand the origins of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2019-12-10T21:04:02.613" LastActivityDate="2019-12-10T21:04:02.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7141" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-12T20:09:25.713" Score="2" ViewCount="10932" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only temptation I know of in the bible concerning Jesus was when in the wilderness with the devil. A friend used Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ as his basis to claim Jesus was tempted by the devil (with the appearance of a snake) while praying. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I kind of thought, personally that it made sense to why he needed the disciples to help him in prayer. He had to go back for the third time to pray with sorrow and heaviness untill an angel came to strengthen him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.&#xA;  And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as&#xA;  it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.&quot; (Luke&#xA;  22:43-44).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it a mere spiritual reason to this claim that he was strengthened by an angel from heaven as if in a struggle or there are actual biblical references that support a spiritual encounter with the devil? If there was an encounter, how and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-12T20:21:01.807" LastActivityDate="2018-08-22T12:51:31.690" Title="Did Jesus undergo another temptation in the the garden?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7141" CreationDate="2012-04-12T20:18:56.553" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not definitively state whether or not Jesus was tempted in the garden or not, so for us to be definitive where the Bible is not must be speculative at best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we do know is that Jesus was tempted during His life in all ways, just as we are, yet was without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our&#xA;  weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,&#xA;  yet without sin.  (&lt;em&gt;Hebrews 4:15 ESV&lt;/em&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean that Jesus experienced every temptation anyone has ever experienced, but that He was tempted in the same ways that we are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that Satan is not the only source of temptation.  There are, of course, other demons, but temptation also comes from our own sinful flesh, apart from demonic influence.  Now, in this case, if there were any demonic temptation, Satan himself would probably have thought it worth his time.  Yet, we just don't and can't know for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus experienced distress, as the Scripture tells us, but we don't know for sure whether or not He experienced temptation at this particular moment, although it's quite possible and perhaps even as much as probable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2018-08-22T12:51:31.690" LastActivityDate="2018-08-22T12:51:31.690" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7139" CreationDate="2012-04-12T20:35:45.613" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sword is spiritual which he asks them to buy, such as the kind Paul refers to in his letter as 'the Sword of the Spirit', for example. Peter may have taken it literally (which mistake had been made several times in the past) and bought a sword with which he fought against the High Priest's servant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, he is telling them to set aside worldly possessions (he who has a cloak) and arm themselves (let him buy a sword) for the war they are going to enter, which does not, indeed, end with his crucifixion, but continues until the end of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T20:35:45.613" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7060" CreationDate="2012-04-12T20:38:44.767" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is only talk of 'Church Militant' and 'Church Triumphant'. The Triumphant Church is those who are glorified and live with God, known and unknown, and is usually invisible (but not always, as the lives of the Saints attest.) The Church Militant is those struggling or 'working out their salvation with fear and trembling' in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To my knowledge, the newer distinction had to be made as part and parcel of rejecting the most clear 'visible' Church Militant to the Reformers: The Roman Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T20:38:44.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7134" CreationDate="2012-04-12T20:38:59.540" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a superstition, but one that is co-incident with the development of the Scripture. In many ways, it is like a preacher who uses references to television shows in the sermon - it is a touchstone which communicated meaning well to the original hearing. Additionally, preachers like numbers such as 3 because they are memorable (and because then you have have a thesis, anti0thesis, and synthesis, but I Kant digress...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact set of numerical rules in ancient Hebrew society was called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gematria&lt;/a&gt;.  Numbers like 1 are associated with God, 6 with man, 7 with heaven, and 12 with Israel.  Because these numbers communicated to the hearers, the symbols were continued.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T20:38:59.540" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7146" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-12T20:40:03.623" Score="1" ViewCount="17765" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 4:15 says that Jesus was tempted in every respect as we are.  What does it mean that He was tempted &quot;in every respect&quot; as we are? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our&#xA;  weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,&#xA;  yet without sin.  Hebrews 4:15 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2016-05-17T14:35:48.807" Title="What does it mean that Jesus was tempted in every way like us (yet without sin)?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-05-17T21:40:14.377" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6992" CreationDate="2012-04-12T20:43:35.370" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Eastern Orthodoxy, the Altar is the type of the Altar in Heaven as described in Revelation. In the Anaphora, the Church joins in the 'One Liturgy' going on in heaven, and the Christ who offers himself once and for all becomes present in the gifts on the altar as a bloodless, spiritual sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a secondary note, it is traditional for the relics of Martyrs to be embedded in the bottom of the altar, following Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T20:43:35.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7146" CreationDate="2012-04-12T20:49:21.290" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tempted == Tested&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fathers say there are stages of temptation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Presence of the temptation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Entertaining the temptation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sinning&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Habitual sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In (1) the person is being tempted (such as if one hears evil words) but if one ignores them and does not react, one has neither 'been tempted' in the more normal usage of the word which means more 'one's heart inclining towards sin' which is reflected in (2), entertaining the temptation, or sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when Christ was tempted, he was exposed to all of the general temptations of men; lust, gluttony, pride, avarice: that is to say, he was a man in presence of women, had situation to overeat, had possible cause to vaunt himself above others, had the possibility to accrue possessions. He did not entertain these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T20:49:21.290" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7146" CreationDate="2012-04-12T21:02:33.970" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being the nerdy type, I sought out a more technical answer. Apparently the word used for &quot;in every respect&quot; (or as the KJV puts it, &quot;in all points&quot;) is κατα παντα, (kata panta). That latter word, πᾶς, (pas) means &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1) individually &#xA;  a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything &#xA;2) collectively &#xA;  a) some of all types&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3956&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;BLB&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the same word used to refer to &quot;all the world&quot; or &quot;the whole world&quot; - passages that we don't necessarily take 100% literally. That is, it &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; mean he was tempted with 100% all the same temptations we undergo, or, more likely, that he has experienced the same class of temptation and experiences we have, so he is able to sympathize with us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, as was implied in RiverC's &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7149/194&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt;, Christ's &quot;temptations&quot; weren't limited to the showdown with the Devil in the wilderness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For thirty years, Jesus lived a pretty normal life. He was a carpenter's son. Pure speculation, but I suspect the kinds of people he'd work with wouldn't have the purest of mouths. He was exposed to everything we are exposed to; he both&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;endured the trials of the human life that we do, and&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;resisted the temptations that we are exposed to and fail to resist&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the point is, &lt;em&gt;he didn't give in&lt;/em&gt;. We don't know what other temptations Adam underwent, but the one in the garden was the significant one. Same with Jesus, the second Adam. He was exposed to a nasty temptation like Adam and Eve, and resisted. He &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; subjected to the same things we were, regardless of what &lt;em&gt;technically&lt;/em&gt; &quot;in every respect&quot; means, and he &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; identify us, but more importantly represent us as a perfect Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T21:02:33.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7151" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-12T21:13:58.933" Score="23" ViewCount="1064" Body="&lt;p&gt;Western theology tends to view atonement as propitiation, while Eastern tends to view it as expiation. What are the primary differences and implications of each perspective? Are they antithetical or complementary paradigms? This is related to &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1526/how-should-hilasterion-be-translated-in-romans-325&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, which tackles translation issues concerning biblical passages that use these terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2017-01-14T18:24:28.980" Title="What are the primary differences and implications of a propitiatory view of the atonement versus an expiatory view?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4250" CreationDate="2012-04-12T21:49:26.667" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Eastern Orthodoxy these verses are often read (if other hymns do not supplant or if the verses are not readily available) during the time communicants are coming up and receiving communion. It is also a part of many communion prayers verbatim. We are meant to understand they refer to the Eucharist itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants usually say these are not literal but refer to the bread and wine he offers them before his betrayal only, and not to his actual flesh and blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T21:49:26.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7097" CreationDate="2012-04-12T21:52:28.503" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lamentations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is why. While the 12 Gospels contains much more theological material, at the end of Lamentations there usually is (at least in my experience) the moment where you enter the church 'under the bier', as though you are entering the grave following Christ, which you only come out of after the procession early on Sunday morning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, symbolically in the liturgical dance of the Church, Lamentations is more significant. But The 12 Gospels is probably more pedagogical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T21:52:28.503" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7146" CreationDate="2012-04-12T22:18:51.773" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least apart from the temptation in the wilderness, I also know of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign&#xA;  themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so&#xA;  they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.&quot;&#xA;  (Luke 20:20).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false&#xA;  witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none: yea,&#xA;  though many false witnesses came, yet found they none...&quot; (Matthew&#xA;  26:59-60).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a typical temptation any man would go through when he claims he has better ways, different from what is approved by existing authorities, of dealing with issues and thereby winning people to his side. Look at politics, and even the church. Such attacks and tricks will be directed to you to catalyse your downfall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While on earth as a complete man, he proved his earthly being as man. Jesus got tired and thirsty &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey... Jesus saith&#xA;  unto her, Give me to drink. &quot; (John 4:6-7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He hungered, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward&#xA;  an hungred.&quot; (Matthew 4:2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He got angered in the temple, wept at Lazarus' grave, cried on the cross, slept, sweated during prayer in the garden, loved, felt torture and pain etc. I could not cite all the bible locations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He definitely must have gone through all, perhaps more than all the possible temptations man could ever experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all, he chose to do his Father's will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink&#xA;  it, thy will be done. &quot; (Matthew 26:42).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-12T22:34:55.197" LastActivityDate="2012-04-12T22:34:55.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7135" CreationDate="2012-04-12T22:41:50.590" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Roman Catholic Church, the first eight days of the Easter Season make up the Octave of Easter and are celebrated as Solemnities of the Lord according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5932#Easter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;General Norms for the Liturgical Year and Calendar&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As each of those days is a Feast of the first order, fasting is clearly inappropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, because &lt;em&gt;The fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost are celebrated in joyful exultation as one feast day, or better as one &quot;great Sunday,&quot;&lt;/em&gt; (ibid) it may be inappropriate to fast throughout the Easter season. St Augustine said of Sundays, &quot;Fasting is set aside and prayers are said standing, as a sign of the Resurrection, which is also why the Alleluia is sung on every Sunday&quot;. (Ep. 55, 28: CSEL 342, 202)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-11-02T14:46:30.163" LastActivityDate="2019-11-02T14:46:30.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7156" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-12T22:47:33.203" Score="6" ViewCount="22389" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a common understanding among Christians I know that God has these four attributes: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Omnipresence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Omniscience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Omnipotence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Omnibenevolence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A grammatical interpretation would explain them as unlimited or maybe absolute, but I'm interested in the biblical approach to this matter. What is the meaning attributed to each of these &quot;powers&quot; in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="307" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-12T22:55:50.553" LastActivityDate="2013-05-05T18:41:04.820" Title="What is the meaning of God's omni-powers?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;&lt;omnipotence&gt;&lt;omnibenevolence&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7141" CreationDate="2012-04-13T03:38:43.550" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As lining up with a response of mine to another question, it is clear that he is tested in his humanity, since he does not want to die (living is a good thing.) Death is an evil that the human recoils from naturally. This 'natural' recoiling is overcome, it would seem, by doing something even better, that is, the will of God, which &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is life itself&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. If this counts as a 'temptation' in your analysis, then there is your answer! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T03:38:43.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7088" CreationDate="2012-04-13T03:47:50.887" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The act of believing in salvation by grace is itself a work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot accept the wager; grace must be accepted via a work, 'working together with faith', as St. James puts it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, this makes a weird dichotomy that I'm not sure how to parse. Who are the people who believe in Salvation by Works? Do you mean Roman Catholics? I'm pretty sure they believe in 'Salvation by the Church' - i.e. you can't be saved outside of the church. The rest has to do with purification from sin, so one can stand before the face of God and not be straw and grass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then who would this be? Pelagians? Muslims? It isn't clear to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T03:47:50.887" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7156" CreationDate="2012-04-13T05:14:57.107" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there are other references, but for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Omnipresence: Psalm 139:7-12 describes God being everywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Omnipotence: I can't think of a Bible verse that says, &quot;God is omnipotent&quot;. But Deut 4:37 (and many similar verses) talk about God's &quot;might power&quot;. Gen 17:1 and others refer to God as &quot;Almighty&quot;. Job 11:7b &quot;Can you find out the limits of the Almighty?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Omnibenevolence: Luke 18:19 &quot;So Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't think of a verse for omniscience off the top of my head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Omniscience: OT reference Psalm 69:5 - if He knows all our sins, He knows it all&#xA;and NT reference 1st John 3:20 comes right out and says that &quot;...God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-05-05T17:44:08.173" LastActivityDate="2013-05-05T17:44:08.173" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6724" CreationDate="2012-04-13T06:51:02.713" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering both biblical and secular traditions of marriage, what seems to be required for a valid marriage is public acknowledgement and acceptance of the relationship with sex being something that traditionally follows the public recognition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament demonstrates strong parallels between marriage and baptism.&#xA;As a Baptist, if you're a believer you're expected to make a public declaration (Mat 10:32-33, Luk 12:8-9) of your faith through baptism (Mar 16:16).&#xA;In marriage you make a public declaration of your commitment to your spouse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' first recorded miracle was at a wedding feast, and in one of his parables he spoke of the foolish virgins waiting for the bridegroom. As someone has already mentioned he spoke of the Samaritan woman as not being married to the man she was currently with. There's plenty of scripture that compares marriage with the church's and individual's relationship with Christ, and nowhere is the suggestion that either is a hidden thing kept out of public knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say sex without public recognition of a relationship is not marriage, but on the other hand public recognition doesn't need to be as elaborate as many people make it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there is mention in the Bible of abiding by local laws (eg render under Caesar what is Caesar's), in many countries there's no law that states that you are required to hold a marriage certificate to be accepted as a couple. It certainly provides legal recognition, but comparing a registry office marriage with no friends or family present to a celebration with them present, but with no official paperwork, I think in some ways the latter might actually represent a more authentic marriage in the eyes of God, unless there were some reason that family would not support the marriage, (however from a Christian perspective even if blood relatives don't support the marriage there's still the church family).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was extremely clear that divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality (Mat 5:32) on the part of a spouse is adultery, so to suggest sex with good intent is &quot;marriage in God's eyes&quot;, it would also have to follow that failure to follow up on that good intent makes both adulterers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul speaks of marriage to avoid inflamed passions leading to sin (1 Cor. 7), but he also urges restraint even in marriage, as to him, Christ should be the supreme centre of our attention. I don't think Paul was suggesting married people should not enjoy sex, but more that sex should not be such a preoccupation that there's no time left for Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1534" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T06:51:02.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7162" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-13T07:55:59.510" Score="3" ViewCount="1467" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am aware of the Lord teaching us to pray, detailing how and how not it should be done, but the only thing he said about fasting was&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; &quot; (Matthew 6:16-17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not recall where in the bible but I know faithful servants of God like David, Esther, Isaiah, Barnabas and Simeon fasted. We are even admonished to fast for  spiritual strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.&quot; (1 Corinthians 7:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do christians carry out this exercise when food is very important for strength in the physical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;If ye love me, keep my commandments. &quot; (John 14:15).&#xA;How do Christians keep this very commandment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please if anyone could help me put this question in a better way to avoid closure, edits are welcomed&#xA;[Expecting @RiverC's answer among the responses as he inspired me to reask better.] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-04-13T11:19:58.540" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T13:10:09.213" Title="How do Christians exercise self-control in the abstinence of food during fasting?" Tags="&lt;fasting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7162" CreationDate="2012-04-13T13:10:09.213" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, and foremost, fasting is a wonderful &lt;em&gt;discipline&lt;/em&gt; which teaches you to subject your flesh to the desires of your heart.  It is an exercise in which you will struggle. The truth is is, our flesh may have been sacrificed (Rom 12:1) and crucified (Gal 2:20), but it is still with us! (Rom 7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an exercise, it is primarily an exercise in willpower.  It is the conscious decision, for a set period of time, to force your body to do what your mind and spirit know is best.  In way, it is much as Douglas Adams described flying -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Flying is the art of attempting to hit the ground and missing!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of fasting, it means that every time you are tempted to eat during the prescribed period, you take that thought captive (2 Cor 10:5), consciously decide to not act on the impulse, and instead turn to God. Fasting for more than a few hours means repeating this a lot.  In the same way that jumping jacks and pushups are hard work, so too is fasting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more thorough treatment of the topic, the classic book on the subject is Richard Foster's &lt;em&gt;Celebration of Discipline&lt;/em&gt;. He'll give many more practical applications of how to do this. (What to eat, what you'll your experience, how to deal with the hunger pains, etc...) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As one example (and I forget if this Foster or someone else), your first 24-hour fast should be from lunch of day one, skip dinner, sleep (when you'll be most hungry), and skip breakfast. Eat a light lunch.  Also, be sure to drink lots and lots of water during the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T13:10:09.213" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1050" CreationDate="2012-04-13T13:16:54.863" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes Moses did marry an Ethiopian woman, and if you study the text then you'll see that God sanctified interracial marriages. When Miriam and Aaron began to talk against the marriage, God brought leprosy upon Miriam......&#xA;Numbers 12:1 &amp;quot;And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, as white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech you, lay not the sin upon us, in which we have done foolishly, and in which we have sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1536" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T17:47:08.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7139" CreationDate="2012-04-13T16:14:48.247" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I should preface my answer by saying this is entirely educated guesswork, as is any answer to this question. Don't take it as divine revelation, but as just one of many views on the events of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some have mentioned that maybe he was being metaphorical, and that the disciples were having one of their (quite frequent) blond moments in taking him literally. You think they would learn... anyway, this is very possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you prefer to take it literally, my guess would be that Jesus wanted them to have swords for a short time. My reasoning is that Jesus has prefaced this with a comparison. Previously, they had gone out, preaching love, repentance and righteousness under the authority of their rabbi, their teacher / mentor / religious authority. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having a rabbi was quite common. Many rabbis were radical, hard-hitting, slightly nutty and often very wrong (just read some of their recorded theories. One I read recently: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/index.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;). While Jesus was &quot;just another rabbi&quot;, they had little to fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet for the next few weeks, &quot;Jesus&quot; was synonymous with &quot;criminal&quot;. People who wanted to get in the good books with the religious leaders might want to present the head of one of his disciples, and people who might have once given them free stuff as a thank you for their wisdom and guidance would now be treating them as scum. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This crowd that came with the temple guards might consider it a good idea to take Jesus' collaborators as well - but when they arrive they are faced with a dillema. They could take an unarmed and willing Jesus without any fuss - which is all they really came for - or they could try and take an armed and unwilling 12 disciples. It's a no-brainer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S: I find it interesting that Jesus doesn't say &quot;You shouldn't have done that&quot;, but instead says, &quot;That's enough of that, you won't actually need to draw the sword unless you want to be killed by it&quot; (paraphrased and liberties taken!). I imagine he was secretly glad they cut off the guard's ear, because it showed the crowd that the disciples meant business. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, to counter any potential arguments that God could have protected the disciples without resorting to swords, yes, you are correct. But that doesn't mean that the disciples were not more confident knowing that they had swords with them, and it meant that the legacy of focus was solely on Jesus. Remember that &quot;the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.&quot; Isaiah 53:5 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="913" LastEditorUserId="913" LastEditDate="2012-04-13T16:36:33.320" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T16:36:33.320" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6960" CreationDate="2012-04-13T16:30:12.173" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that's consistent with the rest of New Testament teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus himself taught that some would abandon their faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+24:10-13&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:10-13 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But &lt;strong&gt;the one who endures to the end will be saved&lt;/strong&gt;. [emphasis mine]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the future tense. This is because, even though Jesus said, &amp;quot;It is finished,&amp;quot; as he died on the cross, there is another sense in which salvation is a lifelong process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul dealt with the future aspect of salvation in his letter to the Philippians, stressing God's ongoing work to complete the process:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/philippians/passage.aspx?q=philippians+2:12-13&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 2:12-13 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[W]ork out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul expressed confidence that the readers of this letter would endure to the end:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/philippians/passage.aspx?q=philippians+1:6-7&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 1:6-7 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ. It is right for me to think this way about all of you, because you hold me in your heart, for all of you share in God's grace with me, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in his own life he recognized there was a lot of work left to do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/philippians/passage.aspx?q=philippians+3:10-12&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 3:10-12 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in 1 Corinthians he expressed his concern about not being able to endure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-corinthians/passage.aspx?q=1-corinthians+9:25-27&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 9:25-27 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable one. So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to Hebrews. Not only does Hebrews say once-saved Christians can fall away, it warns that the consequences for this deliberate rejection of Christ are severe:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/hebrews/passage.aspx?q=hebrews+6:4-6&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 6:4-6 (NRSV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[from the perspective of a Wesleyan Arminian.]&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T16:30:12.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7156" CreationDate="2012-04-13T20:25:11.603" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A google search looking for a meaning/definition of the &lt;code&gt;omni&lt;/code&gt; prefix will give you a bunch of references that saying it denotes an &quot;all-&quot; meaning. The suffix words can be defined as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potency?s=t&amp;amp;ld=1030&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Potency&lt;/a&gt;: power; authority. - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:37&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 1:37&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/presence?s=t&amp;amp;ld=1030&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Presence&lt;/a&gt;: the state or fact of being present, as with others or in a place. - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:7-12&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 139:7-12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Science&lt;/a&gt;: the state of knowing. - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2037:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 37:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20147:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 147:5&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:19-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 3:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benevolent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Benevolent&lt;/a&gt;: Characterized by or suggestive of doing good. - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:17&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 19:17&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As those verses describe, God is all-powerful and all-authoritative, all-present (God's presence is in all places at once), all-knowing, and is all(perfectly)-good.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-04-13T23:01:30.113" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T23:01:30.113" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7088" CreationDate="2012-04-13T22:20:26.140" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the Arminian perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, a little background. Jacobus Arminius was a Reformed theologian who eventually became convinced that Calvin's views of predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil. His reasoning was that if God controls all our choices and does not give us free will, then even our wrong choices are the result of God's action. A Calvinist may disagree with Arminius' assertion, but that is nonetheless where Arminius ended up when attempting to take Calvinism to its logical conclusion, and that conclusion was not compatible with the biblical teaching that God desires everyone to be saved (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-timothy/2-4.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:4&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-peter/3-9.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:9&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arminius argued that God has given us all (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/titus/2-11.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 2:11&lt;/a&gt;) the grace to follow his will (known as &amp;quot;prevenient grace&amp;quot; because it precedes any decisions we might make), but that we also have been given freedom to go our own way. In other words, all of our wrong choices are fully our responsibility, and God can in no way be considered the author of evil. All of our right choices, on the other hand, are through no merit of our own, but are merely a response to God's grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Grace Gambit&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, I'm making an assumption. You say this wager is offered to &amp;quot;any who hold to any degree of human participation of works to salvation&amp;quot;; I'm assuming you mean that to &amp;quot;believe in salvation by grace&amp;quot; is to believe in &lt;em&gt;monergistic&lt;/em&gt; salvation, i.e., that God's action alone is responsible for our salvation or damnation and that no response of ours makes any difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's exactly Arminius' point of contention!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If &amp;quot;salvation by grace&amp;quot; means that God has already chosen who will be saved and who won't, then believing in this type of grace won't save us. We have nothing to gain from either the belief or the good works that may follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Salvation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, however, Arminius is right, then God expects a response from us. Believing that God has already made the response for us won't cut it. Nor do our good works save us, if they are not done as a response to God's call.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Armninius is right, and God expects us to respond to his grace, to give up our will and follow God's, we have everything to lose if we fail to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore the &amp;quot;grace gambit&amp;quot; fails on both sides of the equation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-13T22:20:26.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7170" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7699" CreationDate="2012-04-14T00:03:41.830" Score="19" ViewCount="3210" Body="&lt;p&gt;Famous computer scientist &lt;a href=&quot;http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Donald Knuth&lt;/a&gt; is also the author of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/316.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (A-R Editions, 1990). This is a tour of the Bible using the methodology of &quot;stratified random sampling&quot;, where Knuth examines chapter 3, verse 16, of each Bible book (for which such a verse exists). Each one is illustrated with typographical art, and three pages of commentary. For example, the following image is for 1 Timothy 3:16 - note the hidden cross shape. (The history of this picture is also discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/things.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;; the cross shape came about as a happy accident!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/6gyKt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;1 Timothy 3:16&quot; title=&quot;1 Timothy 3:16 - We know that true religion is a great mystery; Christ was revealed in body, justified in spirit, witnessed by angels, proclaimed to pagans, trusted on Earth, glorified in Heaven.&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knuth's aim with this sample was to present a more-or-less representative picture of the Bible; the choice of 3:16 was to make sure that for at least one verse (John 3:16), he'd have something to say. It turns out that many of the 3:16s are surprisingly interesting, and there are some common themes that run throughout the whole book. He speculates about other variations on the same theme - for example, taking every 4:4, or picking a wholly random assortment of verses without regard to chapter and book boundaries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anybody else produced a work of exegesis based on a similar &quot;sampling&quot; idea - not looking at every single verse, nor at a selection with a common theme, but at an almost arbitrary choice of verses? Now that Knuth has done this experiment once - in my view, successfully - is there any insight to be gained in doing something similar again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2020-12-07T15:19:27.617" Title="Is Knuth's 3:16 project unique?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7134" CreationDate="2012-04-14T01:00:10.510" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Numbers as language&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ordinarily, what a number refers to is more important than the number itself.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/890/68&quot;&gt;153 fish&lt;/a&gt; is a &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/891/68&quot;&gt;lot of fish&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 small copper coins&lt;/a&gt; is a tiny amount of money.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Galatians+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;14 years&lt;/a&gt; is  a certain period of time.  But to quote &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_James&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bill James&lt;/a&gt;, sometimes numbers &quot;have acquired the powers of language.&quot;  When that happens, the numbers themselves begin to have meaning independent of what is being counted.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God began using numbers literally from the beginning to communicate to humanity&amp;mdash;our week is a continual reminder of Who ordered the universe and how.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;  The number 12 carries particular significance since it was the number of Israelite tribes.  Moses went so far as to separate out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Joshua+13/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Joseph's inheritance&lt;/a&gt; into two half-tribes so that the number of territories was kept at twelve&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.  The early church made replacing Judas a top priority in order to bring the number of apostles back to twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometime during and after the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_exile&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exile&lt;/a&gt;, a new genre of Jewish writing appeared that is labeled &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_literature&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;apocalyptic&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  As a genre, it has close links to dream interpretation, such as we see with Joseph in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+37/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 37&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+40/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;40&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+41/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;41&lt;/a&gt;.  Notice that numbers are of critical significance in each of the dreams and have a significance beyond simply counting things up.  The second half of Daniel, a textbook case of the apocalyptic genre, extends the dream interpretation structure to reveal God's purpose, not just for one person, but for all of humanity.  Revelation, which clearly uses Daniel imagery, tells us to &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/618/68&quot;&gt;&quot;calculate&quot; 666&lt;/a&gt; in the most famous use of numerology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Numbers as superstition&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers surround us and some of them tell a story.  Unfortunately, not all numbers are meaningful.  We tend to give more credence to ideas that make good stories and so we sometimes assume more about numbers than is warranted.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; If 12 is &quot;good&quot; or &quot;lucky&quot; or &quot;blessed&quot;, than it seems reasonable that 13 (or &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/866/68&quot;&gt;11&lt;/a&gt;) is the opposite.  God uses numbers as language, but not all numbers and not at all times.  When we assume otherwise, we start down the path of superstition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Numbers for discipline&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, however, brings up a somewhat different use for numbers: as a discipline or reminder.  To remember that, for instance, Jesus was tempted in the desert for 40 days by observing Lent, seems only fitting.  As long as numbers themselves point to God and &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/659/68&quot;&gt;do not replace Him&lt;/a&gt;, I think they can be worth observing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Parting shot&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having posted this on Friday the 13&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt;, it's sure to be downvoted and probably will destroy the internet.  I'm sorry you asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&#xA;1. Baseball is a great example of this.  To a fan, the title the movie &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250934/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;61*&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is completely descriptive.  We know exactly what the story will be about without reading the summary.  SciFi (and humor) nerds don't need to be told the significance of 42 (as pointed out in the comments).  In the US, we all recognize 911, 1776, and 13 as being important symbols, though there might be several interpretations of their meanings.&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&#xA;2. Depending on how literal or not you take Genesis 1, this could be seen as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;just-so story&lt;/a&gt;, but that does not alter the fact that the number 7 acquired meaning independent of what was counted.&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&#xA;3. Levi received no land for an inheritance.&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&#xA;4. A good place to explore the narrative fallacy is Nassim Nicholas Taleb's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_%28Taleb_book%29#The_narrative_fallacy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Black Swan&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Fooled by Randomness&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-04-14T01:00:10.510" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7172" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7173" CreationDate="2012-04-14T03:59:43.947" Score="5" ViewCount="5786" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lets say a Christian is in a position where he must make a hard decision (assume it has to either be a yes or no by a deadline) and each one has negatives consequences (more negatives than positives). How should a Christian pick one option over another? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both options can and will affect the future of himself and others, but it is impossible to tell which one will impact the least or which one is a better decision, only time will tell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on Christian teaching, if Jesus specifically was talking to that person, how would he advise, or what are some things he would tell the person to keep in mind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sorry it is not specific but I can't put details to it. So if it helps, the main part of the question is how should a Christian put a decision in God's hands if he really doesn't see a logical answer but has to pick one? (I am also assuming the person was put into making that decision by God?... since he would rather not be in such a situation...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T23:25:11.020" LastActivityDate="2015-01-19T23:25:11.020" Title="How should a Christian put a decision in God's hands if there is no logical answer?" Tags="&lt;wisdom&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-20T22:11:06.007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7172" CreationDate="2012-04-14T04:43:51.750" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I seem to be answering a lot of your questions. Anyways I hope that I can help again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of our being here is to be tested, which means that sometimes we will be faced with decisions like this. Both seem sucky and it doesn't seem like any inspiration is coming on what we should do. At those times its often best just to pick one and then move forward with it. We may not see it now or even for years but there is a reason for going through what we go through. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(KJV) 2 Corinthians 1:6-7 And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. 7) And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Paul is saying, yea sometimes we suffer and don't know what to do but if we are stedfast and endure it well we shall not only partake in suffering but we shall take part in the consolation. It doesn't give us a solution but if we have faith it can give us comfort and most importantly it can give us hope. Which is what is needed to endure anything well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-04-14T04:43:51.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7172" CreationDate="2012-04-14T06:58:29.960" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, I have learnt something that will forever stick in my head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' prayer in the garden is something we should not be take lightly as I have always done. All the pain and torture, insults, whips, strength to carry the cross and face shame before all men was about to begin within a very short time. It was one big moment of his life. He had to get ready for the consequences of what ever he will do from there. He asked the disciples   for the third time to help him in prayer but they slept. He went into prayer for the 3rd time concerning the same issue with his father with sweat and heaviness oozing like blood. He was strengthened right there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the Son of Man, the Perfect man, asking for God's help how much more you, who knows nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should understand why we are sheep and the Lord our Shepherd. For we foolishly move about not knowing where we are going, even to the edge of the cliff, but He will guide us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Don't go to war without wise guidance; victory depends on having many counselors.&quot;&#xA;Proverbs 24:6, NLT&#xA; This big decision you are facing is your war at the moment, let God be your big time Counselor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;&quot;&#xA;Proverbs 2:1-3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But please, there is a way you should ask God for help, with FAITH.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.&quot;&#xA;James 1:5 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After prayer, just make a move, after weighing the pros and cons and still confused, go on and choose, He has just directed you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And never act on your own again even when the decision seems easy to make. No matter how logical your plan in mind could be, pray over it. I will end with this for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. &lt;strong&gt;IN ALL YOUR WAYS&lt;/strong&gt; acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths..&quot;&#xA;Proverbs 3:5-7 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastActivityDate="2012-04-14T06:58:29.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7176" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7217" CreationDate="2012-04-14T20:06:10.357" Score="4" ViewCount="1903" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about how a Christian should feel inside?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should it be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world&#xA;  giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let&#xA;  it be afraid. —John 14:27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of&#xA;  love, and of a sound mind. —II Timothy 1: 7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or is it more like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many are the afflictions of the righteous, But the LORD delivers him&#xA;  out of them all. -Psalm 34:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, at Church I get the feeling it is more the later one, of an anxious awaiting for the Lord to deliver people out of persistent trouble or stress, more than peace and joy inside. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T22:08:56.417" Title="How should a Christian feel inside?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-04-25T00:11:01.773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7176" CreationDate="2012-04-14T20:28:57.100" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Siloun the Athonite, a recent elder had this to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Keep your mind in hell, but despair not.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are numerous ways to interpret this, but it seems to indicate the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acknowledge the existence and persistence of afflictions in this life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have hope in, and only in, God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hard to do!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To encourage you, I would say that it is not improper to be sad about which things it is proper to be sad; nor is it improper to be happy about things which it is proper to be happy. Our peace does not derive from an emotional state, but from a fixed hope in Christ, which persists despite afflictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps answer the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-14T20:28:57.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7172" CreationDate="2012-04-14T21:04:09.927" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_course&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alpha course&lt;/a&gt; Nicky Gumbel dedicates a whole session to, &lt;em&gt;&quot;How Does God Guide Us?&quot;&lt;/em&gt; His answer is s list which he calls &lt;em&gt;&quot;the five CSes&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, to keep them memorable. They are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Commanding Scripture&lt;/strong&gt; i.e. the Bible. God will not tell us to do something forbidden by Scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Counselling Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; (earlier called &lt;em&gt;Controlling&lt;/em&gt; Spirit, which was changed probably because The Holy Spirit does not &lt;em&gt;control&lt;/em&gt;) i.e. The Holy Spirit who gives us whispers, impressions or visions of what God's will is.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Counsel of the Saints&lt;/strong&gt; i.e. getting wise advice from other (typically more than one) Christians.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Circumstantial Signs&lt;/strong&gt; i.e. something happens that makes doing what you believe tho be God's will easier, people frequently speak of &lt;em&gt;&quot;a door opening&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Common Sense&lt;/strong&gt; i.e. God may ask us to do counter intuitive things, but not something outright stupid.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-04-14T21:04:09.927" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7176" CreationDate="2012-04-14T21:18:19.940" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Christian has peace with God because of the reconciling work of Christ. We can &quot;approach God’s throne of grace with confidence&quot; (Heb 4:16) because Jesus lived the perfect life and died the death that we deserve because of our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian has confidence as an adopted son or daughter of God. He is no longer a slave. &quot;The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.'&quot; (Rom 8:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the Christian still faces the full range of human emotion, both positive and negative. Joy, happiness, peace, comfort: These are positive emotions, often associated with the Christian life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Christian does not need to hide that God brings difficulties into our lives to draw us closer to Him; to make us hunger for Him; to make us leave our sin. And the Psalms do not hide that the negative human emotions are fully valid: Feeling abandoned by God (Ps. 22), being pursued by enemies (Ps 38:19), envy, pride, sorrow, shame, guilt, despair, and sadness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even Jesus displayed anger (Matthew 21:12), sorrow and trouble (Matt 26:37-38). At one bitter moment, as He bore the sins of many, He was forsaken by God (Matt 27:46).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should the Christian feel? Circumstances and relationships are going to influence how the Christian feels, but these feelings are always to be informed by the eternal truths of adoption and redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body. (2 Cor 4:7-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="568" LastActivityDate="2012-04-14T21:18:19.940" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7172" CreationDate="2012-04-14T22:00:51.930" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 3:5-6 says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elsewhere in Proverbs (16:9 / 20:24), it says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A man plans his path, but the Lord directs his steps. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The consistent pattern I keep seeing is that if we are faithful to provide the motion, God is faithful to provide direction. Indeed, the case of Jonah, even when Jonah was not faithful, God used Jonah's movement but ultimately steered. (I've been known to say, God will gladly kick the sides to steer, but not the butt to move!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point that I'm making (and it would be consistent with Rom 8:28 as well) is that God will ultimately use your faithfulness to accomplish what he desires, regardless of whether or not you made the &quot;right&quot; choice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-04-16T19:26:40.903" LastActivityDate="2012-04-16T19:26:40.903" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7181" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-15T02:03:12.063" Score="6" ViewCount="882" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look across the Bible, there are many instances where oil is used. The anointing of Saul and David; Jacob pouring oil over the rock where he had his dream of the staircase to heaven(?); Maria pouring oil on Jesus, etc. Was oil expensive back then or something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T19:21:14.460" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T19:21:14.460" Title="What's the deal with oil?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7176" CreationDate="2012-04-15T04:09:14.083" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your second quote isn't a &quot;but&quot; from the first. The whole point of Biblical staements about peace and joy is not that once you become a Christian, you will no longer have any problems in life and so you will have no reason to be anxious. Rather, it is that a Christian should be at peace regardless of what difficulties or trials he faces in life, because our hope is not in this life, but in eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not to say that Christians DO consistantly maintain inner peace. But that's because our faith is weak. Just like we SHOULD never sin, but we DO sin all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-15T04:09:14.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7172" CreationDate="2012-04-15T04:35:35.207" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we say that a decision is &quot;difficult&quot;, that generally means one of three things: 1. We don't have enough information to determine which option is better. 2. No option is clearly wiser or morally superior, and we don't know what criteria to apply. Or 3. We know the right thing to do, but it is hard and we'd rather not do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me first deal with #3. Often when people say they are wrestling with a difficult moral problem, what they really mean is that they know what's right, but doing the right thing will be inconvenient or cost them money or cause embarassment or some such. Like, &quot;I've met a woman who is younger and prettier than my wife. We love each other deeply. Should I divorce my wife and run off with this other woman?&quot; Obviously the answer is &quot;No!&quot; The problem isn't that you don't know the right thing to do. It's that you don't want to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Items #1 and #2 may or may not have a moral or spiritual dimension. Sometimes it's purely pragmatic concerns. Like, if you're choosing between two jobs, each might have many pros and cons. A pays better, but I think I would like working at B more. Of course everything you do is spiritual in some sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If no option you are facing is clearly morally superior, then you must evaluate it on a temporal basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simple steps: Is there a clear moral issue? If so, do what is right, and leave it at that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does God offer any guidance in his Word? Is there a clear Biblical teaching? Is there some Biblical principle that can be applied?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Failing that, pray for guidance, use your best judgement, seek advice if appropriate. Then make a decision and leave it in God's hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One little lesson I've learned: Once you bought something, don't keep shopping for it. I mean that literally and metaphorically. I've had plenty of times that I've had to make some non-trivial purpose and so I've spent a bunch of time researching the market, etc. Then I've made a choice and bought something. Then I kept searching for better deals. Of course unless I actually managed to find the absolute best deal in the world the first time, if I keep looking, sooner or later I'll find someting better, and then I'll be upset. Why bother? When you've made a decision, live with it and be at peace. There's notihng to be gained by agonizing over whether it was the right choice forever. Could you have made a better choice? If you looked harder, could you have found a better job or a better wife or whatever? Maybe. but so what? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-15T04:35:35.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7185" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-15T05:21:36.943" Score="0" ViewCount="241" Body="&lt;p&gt;Motivated by the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6908/what-are-the-theological-implications-problems-with-theistic-evolution&quot;&gt;What are the theological implications/problems with theistic evolution?&lt;/a&gt;, consider that Jasher 4:18 seems to imply that there is something wrong with the mixing of animal species to create &quot;chimeras&quot;. The creationists group species into &quot;kinds&quot; but the naturalistic evolutionary view would probably say that the whole thing is a spectrum and that nothing is special about a particular given phenotype other than its current adaptability to the current environment, i.e. everything is just in continuous flux. But if Jasher 4:18 is true, then there is something &quot;divinely special&quot; about certain fixed phenotypes that we see nowadays. The two philosophies are completely in opposition. The technology to create chimeras will surely exist in future. What should a Christian say about chimeras? The view of Jasher 4:18 seems incontrovertible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1450" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-04-15T06:23:06.023" Title="Christian view on chimeras" Tags="&lt;evolution&gt;&lt;biology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-17T02:35:39.433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7185" CreationDate="2012-04-15T06:23:06.023" Score="2" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Theistic evolution allows that God used evolution as tool prior to the creation of Man, but that this part of his plan is now completed, and he will no longer allow one &quot;kind&quot; to evolve into another &quot;kind&quot;. A new species? Sure. A new genus? Maybe, if it's really similar to a prior one. After all, the classification system is an invention of man and therefore imperfect. A new family or phylum? Probably not gonna happen, except maybe among bugs or microbes. Note that theistic evolution doesn't demand this interpretation, but it allows it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The book of Jasher isn't exactly canon to most Christians.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-04-15T06:23:06.023" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7188" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-15T13:54:31.203" Score="19" ViewCount="154749" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter as Cephas. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But throughout the Gospels, Peter was called as Peter and his books also called in his name I Peter and II Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But why did Paul call Peter, Cephas (Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5)? In some occasions he also calls him as Peter. When I asked my mom, she said Paul was rebuking Peter in the name Cephas. Is this true? Or is calling Peter as Cephas normal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At times, Paul and Peter had disagreements as in Galatians 2:11-16: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.&#xA;   14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How was their relationship as fellow apostles? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-10-20T01:00:54.643" LastActivityDate="2021-03-24T11:45:55.083" Title="Why does Paul call Peter &quot;Cephas&quot; in his writings?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7189" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7205" CreationDate="2012-04-15T15:21:47.443" Score="6" ViewCount="3481" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today a Pastor on a local TV (in India) was preaching that we need not pray for someone's salvation. Salvation is something that belongs to God and His Plans. He also said that nowhere in the New testament are believers requested to pray for sinners or to ask God for a non-believer's salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said the plan of salvation by God is already fulfilled, and we only preach the Gospel and live a model life for unsaved people to come to our Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revealtion 19:1 says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If salvation belongs to the Lord, praying for someone's salvation would become absurd, correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;PS: I found another question  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4431/praying-for-someones-salvation-is-there-a-point&quot;&gt;Praying for someone&amp;#39;s salvation. Is there a point?&lt;/a&gt; but that was asked in a bit different approach. If this question still seems irrelevant, kindly close it or merge it. Thanks.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2014-09-23T04:02:37.857" Title="Should we pray for someone's salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-09-26T21:06:51.480" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7189" CreationDate="2012-04-15T18:03:14.123" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find that I pray for others salvation a lot but its not a &quot;please Lord save this sinner&quot; type thing as it is an active prayer. I pray that their heart may be softened so that the gospel can take root in their heart and change them. I ask if there is anything that I can do to help that process and I pray for them to find comfort in trials and to know that that comfort is coming from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's my take on praying for someones salvation and I think that yes its something we all should be doing. However your question is a little broad and you are going to get several different answers depending on the denomination that is answering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for my reasons for answering the way I did I think this scripture can help:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(KJV) Ephesians 6:17-18 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18) Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul describes something active in taking the &lt;em&gt;helmet of salvation&lt;/em&gt; and then in watching in prayer over all the saints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also as @Affable Geek said it depends on what your thought process is on salvation. Some believe that it is solely up to the Lord. Others believe that it takes faith alone, and yet others believe that it takes faith and works to obtain salvation. So whether its appropriate for you to pray for someones salvation depends on where you fall in those three main groups. (And that does not even begin to cover all the different thoughts on how one obtains or is given salvation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-04-15T18:03:14.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7194" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7220" CreationDate="2012-04-15T21:24:24.423" Score="7" ViewCount="524" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Wikipedia, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Theonomy, from theos (god) and nomos (law), is the state of being&#xA;  governed by God or in accord with divine law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also essentially the view that all types of government should adhere to, use, and operate on the Bible and biblical principles. See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy#Goals&quot;&gt;Goals&lt;/a&gt; of the wiki page for some practical applications of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the biblical basis for this?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Direct biblical support?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Logical deduction from passages or reasonable reasons for it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Traditional view of theonomy by church?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-17T22:55:35.107" LastActivityDate="2019-11-26T03:24:06.210" Title="What is the basis for Theonomy?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;politics&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7188" CreationDate="2012-04-15T21:30:33.330" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Peter means &quot;stone&quot; in Greek, while Cephas is &quot;stone&quot; in Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That verse is confusing in the NIV; the KJV is clearer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:42&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:42 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called &lt;strong&gt;Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ was speaking in Aramaic, and would have called Simon &quot;Cephas.&quot; John wrote his gospel in Greek, so he included the note for his readers that &quot;Cephas&quot; meant &quot;a stone.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastActivityDate="2012-04-15T21:30:33.330" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7181" CreationDate="2012-04-16T13:18:02.550" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is yes, oil was expensive. It was used in ceremonies both because it was often perfumed to have a pleasing aroma and because the financial sacrifice was an act of humility. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You mentioned several good examples, but I figured I would offer you one more: Elisha providing for a widow (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/esv/2Ki4.1-7&quot;&gt;2 Kings 4:1-7&lt;/a&gt;). In this scenario, Elisha is able to provide the woman with enough oil that she can pay off all her late husband's debts, and she and her sons are able to live on the rest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this passage doesn't explicitly state that oil was expensive, but a little common sense will tell us it can't have been cheap. Elisha sends the woman's sons for &lt;code&gt;empty vessels, and not too few&lt;/code&gt;, so he was clearly preparing to give her a large volume of oil, but it's fair to guess that the number ended up being in the 20-50 range (obviously just an estimate) as opposed to in the hundreds or thousands. For that amount of oil to be enough to pay off debts and set multiple people up for life means that oil had value, far more than it does today (imagine how much olive oil you'd need to hoard to be set for life).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastActivityDate="2012-04-16T13:18:02.550" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7197" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-16T15:01:50.780" Score="3" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the debate concerning the &quot;hypostatic union&quot; and the &quot;kenosis&quot; the Lutheran church stood opposed to the majority position. I can not seem to find a good resource to explain the distinctives of the two sides of the issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I am able to understand it, the debate was over the concept of whether or not the infinite divine nature of the Logos was contained or not contained in the finite body of Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the majority opinion was that the finite can not contain the infinite, following the Chalcedonian formula of no mixture of the two natures. And the Lutheran belief is that the two natures cannot be sepparated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am confused as to the Latin &quot;non extra carnem&quot; not without incarnation. What is it that is &quot;not without incarnation&quot;? Also how does all of this relate to the &quot;kenosis&quot; or emptying (Phil.2:7) during Christ's earthly ministry as compared to after the assention? What is orthdoxy and when do we cross the line into heresy? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1544" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-17T00:01:28.163" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T00:01:28.163" Title="What was the debate at the Reformation concerning &quot;non extra carnem&quot; vs. &quot;extra calvinisticum&quot;?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7181" CreationDate="2012-04-16T17:03:44.757" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always thought of it as more of an issue of versatility and approachability. Oils can be used for &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt;. The only thing on earth which is more useful is water (unless you're willing to start debating gasses &amp;amp;c., in which case I'm going with Hydrogen and Oxygen for the win). But, unlike water, which will often suppress fragrance and flavor, oil will absorb and augment it. Smell a child after a Catholic baptism or confirmation (and I know there are other denominations who do the same, but I am looking only for an example). In addition to that, it also has use as a material to light the home (no symbolism there).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oil, if it is properly stored, also has a remarkably long shelf-life. Look at the expiration date on your next purchase of olive oil. It won't be any time soon. Oil also has medicinal use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we have oil associated with light and with food, it lasts a long time, it can heal, it is something which can be fragrant, and it can be gotten relatively easily (except in times of drought) as it is one of the major uses of olives (something not exactly uncommon in that area). Is there any wonder that it is significant?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-04-16T17:58:23.220" LastActivityDate="2012-04-16T17:58:23.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7181" CreationDate="2012-04-16T17:04:58.880" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oil is a healing substance rubbing it all over you will literally strengthen your skin and thereby giving you strength to carry on.  That's one of the reasons oil is an excellent symbol for the Holy Spirit and furthermore why it's used all over the Old Testament.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any time you read oil, wind, water or fire you can read &quot;Holy Spirit&quot; unless otherwise indicated.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that in a historical/economical sense, this is not an answer to your question.  But if you wanted a non-doctrine answer you probably should ask on BH.SE.  According to Catholic Doctrine, blessed oil is a sacramental; and in this case it is the means by which actual graces can be conferred and we have a few distinct oils that are used for this.  One for Anointing of the Sick; another for consecrating priests and altars; and another for baptizing and confirmation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, following biblical traditions and ancient cultural practices, oil has always been used in this way.  As far as the woman perfuming Jesus' feet and the gifts of the Magi, the value of their oils were in the substances mingled with the oils. Oil itself would have had to been a fairly common substance since it was used to make bread (ala &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2017&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Kings:17&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-04-16T17:04:58.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7200" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-16T18:52:53.893" Score="9" ViewCount="214" Body="&lt;p&gt;Peter's excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.blogoverflow.com/2012/04/16/surprise-its-still-easter/&quot;&gt;blog posting&lt;/a&gt; pointed to a movement I'd never heard of before: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.consecration.com/default.aspx?id=8&quot;&gt;Militia of the Immaculata (MI)&lt;/a&gt;.  In the process of figuring out what it might be, I read this important qualification:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Marian consecration is a formal act of self-giving that does not stop at Mary, but is Christ-directed. It is really consecration to Jesus. The MI's mission is &quot;To Lead Every Individual With Mary to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the computer science side of me, this sounds like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection&quot;&gt;indirection&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consecration to Mary points to&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Most Sacred Heart points to&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In programming, indirection can be incredibly useful since it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hides irrelevant details&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Increases flexibility&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can be efficient from a CPU performance perspective.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of these, only #1 makes any sense as a use for indirection in the Christian faith, but that can't be a justification as there are usually &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; more symbols added to the mix in these sorts of movements.  Given that there's something important in the chain of symbols, what's the &lt;em&gt;right&lt;/em&gt; way to think of this sort of indirection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T22:51:55.297" Title="Can indirection bring us closer to Christ?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;mariology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7197" CreationDate="2012-04-16T19:39:48.250" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure I understand the specifics of the issue exactly, but the Essay Library from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod often has good resources on questions like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A quick search turned up two essays that seem to speak to the questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wlsessays.net/files/PetersCalvin.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.wlsessays.net/files/PetersCalvin.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wlsessays.net/files/SchulzGenus.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.wlsessays.net/files/SchulzGenus.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[EDIT]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for the format of my initial answer. I went through the first document a bit more carefully and it looks like the difference between the Calvinists and Lutherans was about how Christ's body was present in the Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the first article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Calvin’s main objection to the Lutheran understanding of the sacrament&#xA;  was that the Lutherans understood the body and blood of Christ to be&#xA;  present substantially...and would allow no figurative understanding of&#xA;  Jesus’ words of institution. The Lutherans believed that Christ’s true&#xA;  body was able to be simultaneously present on many altars by virtue of&#xA;  the communication of attributes...and therefore truly present under&#xA;  the physical elements of bread and wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1546" LastEditorUserId="1546" LastEditDate="2012-04-16T20:54:41.667" LastActivityDate="2012-04-16T20:54:41.667" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7194" CreationDate="2012-04-17T00:33:39.867" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply stated, theonomy is God's law or the rule of God (Deut.27:26). Israel is the only nation ever to live under the theonomy of the living God. It is to be compared with autonomy - self rule, and heteronomy - rule by another. &#xA;Concerning the Church of Jesus Christ, theonomy is an ethical mandate. It is not a political rule as such but rather the basis of the ethical norm. Christian ethics are theonomic.&#xA;There is a movement today to impose the rule of God (including all of the ritual, dietary and cerimonial laws found in the Pentateuch) upon the whole world. These folks are so called &quot;Theonomists&quot;.&#xA;Upon the 2nd coming of the Lord (from the dispensational point of view) the universal rule of God will finaly be established (Dan.7:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1544" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T00:33:39.867" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7189" CreationDate="2012-04-17T01:18:38.767" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible is the best authority, as always, I Tim.2:1-5; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1&quot;First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions&#xA;  and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of &lt;em&gt;all men&lt;/em&gt;, 2for kings and all&#xA;  who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in&#xA;  all godliness and dignity. 3This is good and acceptable in the sight&#xA;  of God our Savior, 4who desires &lt;em&gt;all men&lt;/em&gt; to be saved and to come to&#xA;  the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator&#xA;  also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a&#xA;  ransom &lt;em&gt;for all&lt;/em&gt;, the testimony given at the proper time&quot;  1 Timothy 2:1-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I Tim. 4:10 - &quot;For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have&#xA;  fixed our hope on the living God, who is &lt;em&gt;the Savior of all men&lt;/em&gt;,&#xA;  especially of believers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I chose these verses from I Timothy from among many such verses found in the bible (for example II Pet.3:9c - &quot;not wishing that any should perish' etc.) to illustrate that it is God's will of desire that all men have opportunity for salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am aware that strong Calvinist interpret these and like verses to apply only to the elect. I do not believe the Greek supports the translation; ex. in Timothy as &quot;All types or categories of men&quot; nor in II Pet. &quot;Not willing that any of us-ward (i.e. believers) should perish.&quot; Therefore I believe it is clearly proper to pray for the salvation of the unsaved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1544" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-15T03:04:29.790" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T03:04:29.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7079" CreationDate="2012-04-17T10:52:50.870" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Enjoying God Ministries (which I don't know anything about other than the page I will link to) has this summary: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-postmillennial-view-of-the-kingdom-of-god/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Postmillennial View of the Kingdom of God&lt;/a&gt;. They list a number of Biblical quotes which, for completeness, I will add here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Old Testament&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num.%2014:21&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Num. 14:21&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%202:6-9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalms 2:6-9&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022:27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;22:27-28&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2047&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;47&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2072:8-11&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;72:8-11&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20110:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;110:1-2&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:4-5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;138:4-5&lt;/a&gt; (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20102:15&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;102:15&lt;/a&gt;); &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%202:2-4&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa. 2:2-4&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%209:6-7&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;9:6-7&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2011:6-10&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;11:6-10&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2045:22-25&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;45:22-25&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2065&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;65&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+66&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;66&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer.%2031:31-34&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jer. 31:31-34&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%202:31-35&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 2:31-35&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zech.%209:9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zech. 9:9f.&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2013:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;13:1&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;14:9&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Testament&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%2013:31-33&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 13:31-33&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%2028:18-20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;28:18-20&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:31-32&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:31-32&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:33&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;16:33&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:13-14&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 2:13-14&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:8&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3:8&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:4,14&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;4:4,14&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:4-5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;5:4-5&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:32-36,41&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:32-36,41&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%2011:25-32&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rom. 11:25-32&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%2015:20-26,%2057-58&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 15:20-26, 57-58&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:8-9,13&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 1:8-9,13&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:5-9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2:5-9&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.%202:25-27&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rev. 2:25-27&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.%203:7-9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3:7-9&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207:9-10&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;7:9-10&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011:15&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;11:15&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:11-21&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;19:11-21&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the more interesting quotes (repeated on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/clearlyteach.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;monergism&lt;/a&gt; (again, I have no other knowledge of the site)) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022:27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 22:27-28&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Personal notes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses I've checked so far, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022:27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 22:27-28&lt;/a&gt;, could also be &lt;strong&gt;pre-millennialism&lt;/strong&gt;. I don't see &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; post-millennialism specific verses. The closest I could find is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:19&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore go and make disciples of &lt;strong&gt;all nations&lt;/strong&gt;, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the second closest is probably &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:31-32&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12:31-32&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, &lt;strong&gt;will draw all men to myself&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it more simply: &lt;em&gt;I was a pre-millennialist before I started this study. Now I'm a &lt;strong&gt;definite pre-millennialist&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Another, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2047&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 47&lt;/a&gt; appears to be more about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2047:3&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;military conquest&lt;/a&gt; and though &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2047:7-9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;it has verses that could be interpreted as millennial&lt;/a&gt;, they could just as easily be pre-millennial.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-19T05:21:22.100" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7189" CreationDate="2012-04-17T12:02:32.903" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;To make an assertion that Christians should not do something, one must appeal to an authoritative source, most likely the Bible.  Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to pray for the salvation of unbelievers, and that is quite problematic to the argument.  Indeed, if we are not supposed to do something, would God not have mentioned it somewhere instead of leaving it up to us to figure out based on obscure logic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, the apostle Paul gives us an example for us to pray that others may be saved.  He specifically prays for Jewish unbelievers, and his prayer is specifically for their salvation.  While he does not specifically request others to do so, it would be quite a stretch to assert that this was only something Paul did that no one else was supposed to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they&#xA;  may be saved.  Romans 10:1 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, if God answers prayer, it would be difficult to find something to pray for in which He is more glorified than in someone responding to Jesus in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation does, indeed, come from God.  It is He who does the saving, so it's His salvation in that it comes from Him.  Yet, it is our salvation in that we are the ones saved by it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-04-17T13:34:27.487" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T13:34:27.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7065" CreationDate="2012-04-17T14:18:02.207" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you could make a pretty solid case from the Bible that the spirits of men, once dead, stay dead to this world and are are only active* in another place. In fact, no mainline traditions I know of teach specifically in the existence of ghosts, and quite a few teach against such a thing being possible. There are of course a few exceptional groups claiming to be Christian that have other doctrines, but they are on the fringe and many could arguably be counted as cults.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is taught and believed by wide swaths of Christianity is that evil spirits are real and can manifest themselves in physical fashions in this world. The exact teachings on this are very diverse, some peddling such an obsession with the spirit world that every shadow comes to hold it's own set of wraiths. Others seem proclaim that the spirit world is irrelevant in our modern times and couldn't care less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes. Most of Protestantism (certainly the Reformed and more conservative circles on down the lines to some pretty generic Evangelical branches) would argue that while evil spirits are real and &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; and sometimes &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; have physical manifestations, the important thing to remember is that &quot;&lt;em&gt;He that is in us is stronger than he that is in the world.&lt;/em&gt;&quot; &lt;strong&gt;In other words, as believers in Christ with his Spirit living in us, we have naught to fear from any spirit.&lt;/strong&gt; Those that are not in Christ run a risk both in not heeding the spirit world and in listening to it and catering to it without possessing any power that can overcome it. I would say the greater risk they run is in their relationship with God not being set to rights, spirits --however real-- should be the least of their worries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;sub&gt;The timing of this is widely disputed, but is of no consequence to answering this question. Whether spirits sleep until the final judgement or whether the saints are taken directly to be with the Lord doesn't matter here as there is general agreement that this world is no longer their domain.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T14:18:02.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7207" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7527" CreationDate="2012-04-17T15:22:54.700" Score="5" ViewCount="1617" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecost&quot;&gt;sayeth&lt;/a&gt; in vague generalities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Evangelical churches, where a lesser degree of emphasis on the liturgical year is generally placed, Pentecost may indeed be one of the greatest celebrations in the year. In many other cases though, Pentecost may be a holiday ignored in these churches. Perhaps ironically, this includes many Pentecostal congregations. Christians of these traditions may be surprised to learn of the significance assigned to the holiday by others, and in fact in many evangelical churches in the United States, secular Mother's Day is more celebrated than the ancient and biblical feast of Pentecost&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, how do Evangelicals who do celebrate Pentecost do it?  Pentecost is one of the only two holy days that not only is a carry over from the Jewish tradition, but also a huge gigantic and utterly important point in the history of the Christian Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T02:13:40.603" Title="How do Evangelicals celebrate Pentecost?" Tags="&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;pentecost&gt;&lt;holidays&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7209" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-17T16:25:26.040" Score="13" ViewCount="644" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often hear the argument that the veracity of Christ's claims in the gospels can be considered reliable based upon two things: miracles and fulfilled prophecy. This pre-supposes the validity of the gospels. When scripture authors such as Isaiah have provably written their works before Christ acted, we can consider the gospels as accounts of fulfilling these prophecies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is my understanding that there are early historians such as Josephus who wrote in support of these topics, but it is believed that most writings like this contain interpolations from Christians at later times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My question is in two parts&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1)&lt;/strong&gt; What fulfilled prophecies most validate the gospels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2)&lt;/strong&gt; What may we look to for assertion that these are indeed fulfilled prophecies and note merely works of men who had access to the prophetic writings and used them to invent stories that appear valid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastActivityDate="2012-06-27T21:43:44.527" Title="Biblical Prophecy and Fulfillment" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-11-11T00:34:40.303" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7200" CreationDate="2012-04-17T18:14:47.797" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since we speak at least one common language, perhaps this illustration will shed some light on what Catholics gain by Marian consecration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Encapsulation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is not the head of the Catholic Church, she is however, the superclass from which all Christians descend.  In my Marian consecration, each day I promise to devote all my prayers, actions and sacrifices to her to further the work of her Divine Son. My public methods, my private methods and my protected methods all should point to Christ.  I do all these things poorly, in imitation of she who did these things well and was blessed by God for her faith and purity of heart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Polymorphism&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marian consecration takes on many, many forms.  The form you mentioned, the form I did 9 years ago at one of the lowest spiritual points in my personal life, is the consecration of St. Maximilian Kolbe who spread devotion to the Miraculous Medal given to St. Catherine Laborre at Rue De Bac (in the middle of Paris).  He took the message from Poland to Nagasaki and finally died in a concentration camp in Auschwitz, but his particular devotion of starting &quot;Marytowns&quot; spread all the way to Libertyville, Illinois.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fisheaters.com/totalconsecrationmontfort.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Marian consecration&lt;/a&gt; really goes back to St. Louis De Montfort in the 18th century.  Devotion to the Heart of Mary comes straight out of the Bible, who Simeon foretold a sword would pierce.  Is the Heart of Mary, Jesus is that passage even referring to Mary?  Who can know such things.  Fortunately, through the grace of polymorphism, we can overload the devotion with as much as we want and never find it failing to point to Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Inheritance&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary's ancestors, as well as Josephs were through the Davidic line. If we &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/19-27.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;take her into our home&lt;/a&gt;, if we esteem her like Solomon &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_kings/2-19.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;esteemed his mother&lt;/a&gt; then we do what we can to help our cause to become coheirs to the kingdom.  However, the abstraction fails, we're not gnostics, we don't gain access to Christ's protected methods (those hidden outside of revelation).  But we can meditate on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Abstraction&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this hits your observation about indirection.  When we conform ourselves to Christ,  we want to take on His attributes.  You want to be in Him?  You want Him to be in you?  Learn from the one who took Him not only into her home, but in to her body.  Mary is the Church, the Church is the bride of Christ, the Church is the Body of Christ.  There's no way to understand these mysteries, except through a mirror abstractly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that helps, it was fun to write but probably exceptionally useless in the long run.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-04-17T18:26:14.223" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T18:26:14.223" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7212" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7214" CreationDate="2012-04-17T19:14:22.267" Score="7" ViewCount="4128" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gideon was faithful enough among all the Israelites, to find grace in God's eyes. Presumably, he thought that God had forsaken them so he had to test the Lord's angel to be sure he was sent from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then&#xA;  shew me a sign that thou talkest with me.&quot; (Judges 6:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Becoming certain of the angel's mission should have been enough to have complete faith and trust in God, availing himself for whatever purpose God had for him. As if he was satisfied, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon&#xA;  said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD&#xA;  face to face.&quot; (Judges 6:22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord then begins to talk with him directly after the angel had gone.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;But then, he tests the Lord again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as&#xA;  thou hast said, Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and&#xA;  if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth&#xA;  beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as&#xA;  thou hast said.&quot; (Judges 6:36-37).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God responds to him proving that He will act upon His word. Gideon goes on further again asking for another sign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and&#xA;  I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once&#xA;  with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all&#xA;  the ground let there be dew. And God did so that night: for it was dry&#xA;  upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.&quot; (Judges&#xA;  6:39-40).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, from the last verse I notice that Gideon knew he wasn't supposed to test God. He knew that according to law,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah.&quot;&#xA;  Deuteronomy 6:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why would God allow Himself to go through series of tests? Was the 2nd and 3rd tests necessary? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-17T19:26:39.377" LastActivityDate="2014-01-02T08:20:56.790" Title="Why would God allow man to test Him?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-16T22:27:58.520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2012-04-17T20:30:41.590" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the most significant prophecies is the one found in Daniel 9.  Its significance is based not on specific events recorded in the gospels, but rather on the time in history in which Jesus came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophecy is a bit lengthy, but speaks of a period of 70 &quot;weeks&quot; or 70 &quot;sevens&quot;.  70 &quot;sevens&quot; would be 490.  The question is 490 what?  For various reasons, this has been understood to refer to years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 490 years are divided up into 7 &quot;weeks&quot; (49 years), then 62 &quot;weeks&quot; (434 years) and then one final week (7 years)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clock would begin ticking when a decree was made to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.  After the 69th week (483 years), an &quot;anointed one&quot; (messiah) would be cut off.  Subsequently, the city (Jerusalem) would be destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Artaxerxes issued the decree on March 14, 444 B.C.  Accounting for the 360-day year used by the Jews, 483 of those completes on April 6, 32 A.D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was pretty close to the time when Jesus was crucified.  We also know that shortly thereafter, in 70 A.D., Titus destroyed the city of Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to&#xA;  finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, &lt;strong&gt;and to atone for&#xA;  iniquity&lt;/strong&gt;, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision&#xA;  and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25  Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word&#xA;  to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a&#xA;  prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall&#xA;  be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 And after the sixty-two weeks, &lt;strong&gt;an anointed one shall be cut off&lt;/strong&gt; and&#xA;  shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall&#xA;  destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood,&#xA;  and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for&#xA;  half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on&#xA;  the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the&#xA;  decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”  Daniel 9:24-27 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, whether or not anyone accepts the gospel accounts of Jesus' miracles and teachings, this prophecy points to the Messiah being &quot;cut off&quot; at precisely the time in history that Jesus was crucified.  This is verified historically and not by specific writings of His followers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T20:30:41.590" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7212" CreationDate="2012-04-17T20:55:28.097" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two ways to look at this. The first is that Gideon is testing God. The second is that Gideon is &lt;strong&gt;reluctant&lt;/strong&gt; and doubting, but ultimately willing to accept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my understanding, 'testing God' is when a person makes a demand of God just to see if he will fulfill it, not so much to get assurance that God really means for the person to do what it seems like he does. This is treating God like a genie or essentially, controlling God for your own pleasure. Not only does this not benefit God or fulfill his will, it also does not benefit the person, encouraging them to be manipulative and self-willed instead of obedient and courageous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God knows the heart, he can kind of cheat on this - he may let one person seemingly test him a hundred times, but another person he rejects even a single test. But this is because he knows the disposition and the intent which may be hidden from the observer and even potentially the person themselves. Therefore, it may be that Gideon's original motivation was not so good, but God knew he'd come around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, this does not contradict the notion that 'God is not a respecter of persons' - that refers to God treating people differently based on their rank or situation in life. It is clear many times that God treats people differently based on the disposition of their heart. The Psalmist says, 'To the pure I will be pure, to the deceiving I will be deceptive.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T20:55:28.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7065" CreationDate="2012-04-17T20:55:50.080" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wish I had discovered this question earlier.&#xA;Berea is a famous dominion for teaching about existance of Ghosts. As I have written &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/482/does-the-bible-support-the-idea-of-a-temporary-holding-place/505#505&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, Of course, Berea is known in Korea majorly since it started there. Ever since it started, it received a lot of persecution of heresy, but after 2008 those heretic charges were cleared. The directer and founding Pastor wrote a book, &amp;quot;Argument of Ghosts&amp;quot;(the translation is not official) or 귀신론, which describes what exactly Ghost is, and other stuff. In our opinion, Ghosts/Demons are essentially the souls of those who did not believe in Jesus while in their mortal lives. They go around, tempting other people who do evil deeds, and they are angry for not believing in Christ earlier and receiving grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that I am condensing 300~400 page book into few sentences. I will give more information if the readers request... after I find the book of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T20:55:50.080" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7189" CreationDate="2012-04-17T21:34:49.527" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;To put in another perspective, it is traditional for Orthodox Christians to pray for the salvation of not only other living people, but also for the dead. Note that when we pray for 'salvation, visitation and continuance in all good things' as the common prayer states, we do not make a distinction between believers and non believers, and ultimately, no distinction between the living and the dead. Although there is an important point here as to why this prayer is generally first towards the living - those who are glorified do not need to be prayed for, but instead are asked to entreat God for those of us who struggle. But then what that means is those people are those who did not taste of death; they, like the Thief on the cross were 'that day with Him in Paradise' to paraphrase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To 'undigress', also from our perspective we can take note of two stark facts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God wills that all men be saved. Who can countervail his will?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not all men end up being saved. We know of at least Judas, and according to our tradition, Arius as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this, we should say that our praying for the salvation of people is not asking God to save them - he already has. Instead, we are asking him to help incline their heart toward him to accept the gift he freely gives. Given this, why would you not pray for their salvation? Do you not want to live with them in Eternity? Do you not want to see them glorified and at perfect peace? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know some people I'd rather not be around. But to not want good things for them, especially the Good Things, is certainly lacking in Charity. Let a person decide for themselves where they stand on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T21:34:49.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7176" CreationDate="2012-04-17T22:08:56.417" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several aspects to this, each of which necessitate a separate answer, so bear with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A) How does God &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; Christians to feel inside?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(SPIRITUAL ASPECT)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A Christian has an obligation to walk by the Spirit and not according to the flesh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh- for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.&amp;quot;  (Romans 8:12-14, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.  For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.&amp;quot;  (Galatians 5:16-17, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.  If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.&amp;quot;  (Galatians 5:24-25, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Walking by the Spirit results in &amp;quot;the fruit of the Spirit&amp;quot;, while walking according to the flesh results in &amp;quot;the deeds of the flesh.&amp;quot;  (Although these are mostly external expressions, it is easy to see that they are connected to internal feelings.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you , just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.&amp;quot;  (Galatians 5:19-23, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &amp;quot;fleshly feelings&amp;quot; can be pretty concisely and accurately summarized as &amp;quot;lust and pride&amp;quot;, or just &amp;quot;selfishness.&amp;quot;  Ideally we would not feel these things.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.  The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.&amp;quot;  (1 John 2:16-17, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Do nothing from selfishness...&amp;quot;  (from Philippians 2:3, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him...&amp;quot;  (from 2 Corinthians 5:15, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me...&amp;quot;  (from Galatians 2:20, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So, the first part to the answer is that ideally a Christian would not feel things like &lt;em&gt;lust&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;envy&lt;/em&gt;, for instance, but would feel things like &lt;em&gt;peace&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;joy&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(EMOTIONAL ASPECT)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In heaven, God has emotions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.&amp;quot;  (Genesis 6:6, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...The Lord scoffs at them... He will speak to them in His anger, And terrify them in His fury...&amp;quot;  (from Psalm 2:4-5, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The LORD your God ... will exult over you with joy, He will be quiet in His love, He will rejoice over you with shouts of joy.&amp;quot;  (from Zephaniah 3:17, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On earth, Jesus had emotions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Jesus wept.&amp;quot;  (John 11:35, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And Jesus called His disciples to Him, and said, 'I feel compassion for the people, because they have remained with Me now three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not want to send them away hungry, for they might faint on the way.'&amp;quot;  (Matthew 15:32, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?&amp;quot;  (from Matthew 17:17, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Man was made in the image of God, and one of the aspects to this is that we have emotions, just like He does.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Be angry, and yet do not sin...&amp;quot;  (from Ephesians 4:26, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...you shall rejoice before the LORD your God...&amp;quot;  (from Deuteronomy 12:12, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The capacity for emotion comes from God and is good.  However, a given emotion may be appropriate in one situation, but inappropriate in another.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;[Love] does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth&amp;quot;  (1 Corinthians 13:6, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.&amp;quot;  (from Hosea 3:1, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So, the second part to the answer is that Christians should feel free to experience their God-given emotions (as long as it is not inappropriate or controlling.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;B) If a person is truly a Christian, how &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; they feel inside?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is important to understand that while God desires for His people to experience the fruit of the Spirit and appropriate emotions, every Christian deviates from this to some degree.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind...  So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.&amp;quot;  (from Romans 7:22-25, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;For we all stumble in many ways...&amp;quot;  (from James 3:2, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.&amp;quot;  (1 John 1:8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(See also Rom 14:23, Jas 4:17, Matt 5:45, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So, the third part to the answer is that it is &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; for a Christian to feel pretty much &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;C) How &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; Christians feel about God's deliverance?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As we have seen, it is OK for a Christian to feel emotions.  In a given situation, one Christian may feel anger, while another may feel pity - and hypothetically, they could both be perfectly acceptable to the Lord.  It is interesting to look at how the people of God have historically responded to difficult times and God's promise of deliverance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am in distress; My eye is wasted away from grief, my soul and my body also. For my life is spent with sorrow And my years with sighing&amp;quot;  (Psalm 31:9-10, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Though He slay me, I will hope in Him. Nevertheless I will argue my ways before Him.&amp;quot;  (Job 13:15, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...there they crucified Him... But Jesus was saying, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.'&amp;quot;  (from Luke 23:33-34, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aside from emotions, there are some common themes throughout Scripture that relate to this question - this world is corrupt, it is a difficult place for the people of God, He will fix it, and we can look forward to that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;For we know that the whole creation groans...&amp;quot;  (from Romans 8:22, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.&amp;quot;  (2 Timothy 3:12, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.  For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own... a better country, that is, a heavenly one.  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away... And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, '...God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.'&amp;quot;  (from Revelation 21:1-4, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So, the fourth part to the answer is that believers are indeed afflicted in many ways, and the Lord will indeed deliver us, and it is good to look forward to this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T22:08:56.417" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7200" CreationDate="2012-04-17T22:51:55.297" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you will indulge me in a section of &quot;The Great Divorce,&quot; by C.S. Lewis.  In chapter 3, a deceased bishop (the &quot;Ghost&quot;) who is in hell but does not understand that he is, insists on arguing with a friend of his (the &quot;Spirit&quot;) - a &quot;Solid&quot; person who wants to bring him to God. Unfortunately, the poor bishop is so wrapped up in his own theology, that he is simply unwilling to be brought into the fullness of heaven.  The exchange goes as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;There is no meantime,&quot; replied the other. &quot;AH that is over. We are not playing now. I have been talking&#xA;  of the past (your past and mine) only in order that you may turn from it forever. One wrench and the&#xA;  tooth will be out. You can begin as if nothing had ever gone wrong. White as snow. It's all true, you&#xA;  know. He is in me, for you, with that power. And- I have come a long journey to meet you. You have&#xA;  seen Hell: you are in sight of Heaven. Will you, even now, repent and believe?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I'm not sure that I've got the exact point you are trying to make,&quot; said the Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I am not trying to make any point,&quot; said the Spirit. &quot;I am telling you to repent and believe.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But my dear boy, I believe already. We may not be perfectly agreed, but you have completely&#xA;  misjudged me if you do not realise  that my religion is a very real and a very precious thing to me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Very well,&quot; said the other, as if changing his plan. &quot;Will you believe in me?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In what sense?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Will you come with me to the mountains? It will hurt at first, until your feet are hardened. Reality is harsh&#xA;  to the feet of shadows. But will you come?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Well, that is a plan. I am perfectly ready to consider it. Of course I should require some assurances ... I&#xA;  should want a guarantee that you are taking me to a place where I shall find a wider sphere of&#xA;  usefulness-and scope for the talents that God has given me-and an atmosphere of free inquiry-in short, all&#xA;  that one means by civilisation  and-  er -the spiritual life.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;No,&quot; said the other. &quot;I can promise you none of these things. No sphere of usefulness: you are not&#xA;  needed there at all. No scope for your talents: only forgiveness for having perverted them. No&#xA;  atmosphere of inquiry, for I will bring you to the land not of questions but of answers, and you shall see&#xA;  the face of God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The indirection is a tool used by the Spirit to bring the Ghost towards Christ. The bishop is so unable to trust in the reality of God that he simply does not understand what he must do.  So, the Spirit says to his friend, &quot;Will you believe in me?&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't entirely allegory here. People can be so far from God that they require someone they recognize to lead them back on the path towards Christ. The reason behind the incarnation was precisely that we limited human beings cannot relate to God in His fullness. So, God became man to intermediate that relationship - to put a veil on his own majesty - for the sake of bring us to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, that indirection may be a tool by which an omnipotent God could woo rather than overpower those whom he would call to himself. If that is in the guise of Mary, as long as it leads back to Christ, then who am I to argue with his methods?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T22:51:55.297" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7212" CreationDate="2012-04-17T23:42:30.077" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;What a great question... and great opportunity to learn more about the nature of God!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First, it is essential to understand that God is love.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.&amp;quot;  (1 John 4:8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.&amp;quot;  (1 John 4:16, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Next, it is important to understand what God's definition of love is, because it is different than the world's definition.  In God's love toward His people, He is compassionate, tender-hearted, patient, slow to anger, and bears with us, enduring our treatment of Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.&amp;quot;  (from 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness.&amp;quot;  (Psalm 103:8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.&amp;quot;  (Ephesians 4:32, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God even goes so far as to &lt;em&gt;forget&lt;/em&gt; the sins of His people, and treasures it when His people are willing to also overlook the sins of others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins.&amp;quot;  (Isaiah 43:25, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;A man’s discretion makes him slow to anger, And it is his glory to overlook a transgression.&amp;quot;  (Proverbs 19:11, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It would be great if the people of God could walk in perfect faith, always recognizing His voice and trusting Him, but alas, we do not!  It is wonderful to see the love God pours out on us in these times of need.  He is willing to walk along side us and answer our requests as we struggle through life, learning to trust Him.  I love the picture we get from John (the &amp;quot;Apostle of love&amp;quot;) about Thomas' doubt and Jesus' response:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;But Thomas... was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, 'We have seen the Lord!' But he said to them, 'Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.'  After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came... and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.' Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'&amp;quot;  (from John 20:24-28, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We should strive to walk by faith, receptive to the word of God, trusting Him.  It is not &amp;quot;OK&amp;quot; to doubt.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...whatever is not from faith is sin.&amp;quot;  (from Romans 14:23, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;However, God, in His love, is willing to overlook our mistakes.  Consider the following powerful example of this.  Notice how God made a promise to Abram, and how Abram responded.  Then notice how Abraham is remembered before the people of God by the writer of Hebrews.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, '...I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you'... Then God said to Abraham, 'As for ... your wife, ...I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her... Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, 'Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?' And Abraham said to God, 'Oh that Ishmael might live before You!' But God said, 'No...'&amp;quot;  (from Genesis 17:3-19, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Abraham, who is the father of us all... believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken... Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.  Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.&amp;quot;  (from Romans 4:16-22, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We can be sure that Abraham, Gideon, and Thomas were God's people.  We can be sure that they had some trouble walking by faith.  We can also be sure that God, in His infinite love, bore with them and helped them, overlooking the weakness of their faith, and remembering them from a perspective of love, rather than of law.  I will leave you with one final passage - a cry from David to the Lord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Remember, O LORD, Your compassion and Your lovingkindnesses, For they have been from of old. Do not remember the sins of my youth or my transgressions; According to Your lovingkindness remember me, For Your goodness’ sake, O LORD.&amp;quot;  (Psalm 25:6-7, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As followers of Christ we can rest assured that He will be there to help us, and we will not be judged according to our performance.  (Thank God!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-17T23:42:30.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7194" CreationDate="2012-04-18T04:28:32.160" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Creator and Lord&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I suppose the Biblical basis for Theonomy begins with the fact that God created everything and everyone, and is therefore Lord of all creation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.&quot;  (Genesis 1:1, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”  (Revelation 4:11, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Indeed, all creation is charged with acknowledging Him as Lord and praising Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Praise the LORD!  Praise the LORD... all His angels... all His hosts... For He commanded and they were created... Praise the LORD from the earth... Kings of the earth and all peoples; Princes and all judges of the earth&quot;  (from Psalm 148:1-11, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Authority to Rule&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As Lord, He has the authority to &quot;call the shots.&quot;  The proper response to His Lordship is submission to His will.  These roles become immediately apparent when He takes His newly formed creature (man) and begins informing him of His requirements.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.  The Lord God commanded the man, saying,...&quot;  (from Genesis 2:15-16, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After &quot;the fall&quot; of Genesis 3, God began the process of redemption.  After some time of working with men on an individual basis, He chose to work through His friend Abraham, and set apart a nation of his descendents (Israel) who could serve as a light to the rest of the world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now the LORD said to Abram,'Go forth from your country... To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you,... And so you shall be a blessing... And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.'&quot;  (from Genesis 12:1-3, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens... gives breath to the people... And spirit to those who walk in it, 'I am the LORD... I will appoint You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations... I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another...'&quot;  (from Isaiah 42:5-8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'O LORD, the God of our fathers, are You not God in the heavens? And are You not ruler over all the kingdoms of the nations? Power and might are in Your hand so that no one can stand against You. 7 Did You not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel and give it to the descendants of Abraham Your friend forever?'&quot;  (2 Chronicles 20:6-7, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God's Law&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As part of the establishment of His new nation, God gave them a &quot;law&quot; - but not just any law - the most righteous law ever given.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?&quot;  (from Deuteronomy 4:8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Although this law was given to Israel, it is important to remember that Israel was supposed to be an example for the other nations.  This law was not just for Israel - it was for all mankind, and even Gentiles will be judged by their intuitive knowledge of its precepts.  The law is important for all of mankind, because it is only by this law that we have an awareness of sin, and so the law is what shows us our need for Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law,... [they] are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,... their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them...&quot;  (from Romans 2:14-16, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind...&quot;  (from Romans 7:7-8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ...&quot; (from Galatians 3:24, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Intended Government&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is important to understand that God's original intent was that He be King of all creation.  After mankind turned away, part of His redemptive plan was to be King over Israel, as an example to the other nations.  Sadly, even Israel rejected Him from being their King.  They demanded a human king, and became like &quot;all the other nations&quot; (with human-run government.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...Israel gathered together... and they said to [Samuel], '...Behold, you have grown old... Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.' ...The LORD said to Samuel, 'Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods...'&quot;  (from 1 Samuel 8:4-8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Consequences&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of course, the vast majority of nations throughout history have rejected God and His law (as have the vast majority of people.)  This has led to various treatments throughout history ranging from complete destruction of all inhabitants to displacement or some other form of judgement.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant... All the nations shall serve him... It will be, that the nation or the kingdom which will not serve him... I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine and with pestilence,' declares the LORD, 'until I have destroyed it...'&quot; (from Jeremiah 27:6-8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Justice and Restoration&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inevitably, Jesus, the Lord of Creation (John 1:1-3,14) will be given His rightful place as King over all the earth and will rule all of the nations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven&#xA;  One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom,&#xA;  That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.&quot;  (Daniel 7:13-14, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war... He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God... From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron... And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”  (from Revelation 19:11-16, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.  For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet... For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.&quot;  (from 1 Corinthians 15:24-27, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Justice will finally be served.  The original divine order (which we are presently failing at upholding) will finally be restored by the power of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-04-18T04:28:32.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7069" CreationDate="2012-04-18T09:43:31.830" Score="5" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Exegesis &lt;em&gt;(sort of)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you are spot-on with your analysis of what you call &amp;quot;axiom A&amp;quot;.  There is objective truth, the Bible is a message from God with specific meaning, and it is possible to learn about objective truth through studying scripture.  Consider the following examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, &amp;quot;And to seeds,&amp;quot; as referring to many, but rather to one, &amp;quot;And to your seed,&amp;quot; that is, Christ. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%203:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Galatians 3:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to them, &amp;quot;Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Mark 12:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is helpful to recognize that in both of these passages concerning &lt;em&gt;specific, objective truth&lt;/em&gt;, the &lt;strong&gt;vast&lt;/strong&gt; majority of the people studying the relevant scriptures &lt;em&gt;missed the true meaning&lt;/em&gt; - and it wasn't for a lack of study!  Let's be honest - it was for a lack of &lt;em&gt;relationship&lt;/em&gt; with God.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%202:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 2:14&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2013:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt 13:11&lt;/a&gt;, etc.)  We should be cautious of hermeneutical approaches that are so impersonal that they can be followed by anyone of any spiritual condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is tricky to articulate, but I once heard a Pastor say, &amp;quot;Words don't have meaning - &lt;em&gt;people&lt;/em&gt; have meaning.&amp;quot;  Honestly, I don't know if I have ever heard a statement more helpful in hermeneutics!  In the case of scripture, it is &lt;em&gt;essential&lt;/em&gt; to recognize that it is &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt; who has meaning, and not merely the &lt;em&gt;text&lt;/em&gt;, or the &lt;em&gt;author&lt;/em&gt;.  (See, for instance &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:10-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:10-11&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:6-9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 9:6-9&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Lion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me start by justifying the first part of the claim - &amp;quot;Words don't have meaning...&amp;quot;  &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Bear with me in a little foolishness.)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;  Who (or what) does a &amp;quot;lion&amp;quot; symbolize in scripture?  Jesus, obviously!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and one of the elders said to me, &amp;quot;Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome . . .&amp;quot; And I saw . . . a Lamb standing, as if slain &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%205:5-6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Revelation 5:5-6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, David killed Jesus, as we can see from this next passage, but it was the Lord's doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your servant [David] has killed both the lion and the bear . . . The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2017:36-37&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-1 Samuel 17:36-37&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, we're on to something - David obviously represents Israel, who slew Jesus, and Jesus brought about His own death... right?  But there are two lions, so there is another Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were six steps to the throne and a round top to the throne at its rear, and arms on each side of the seat, and two lions standing beside the arms. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2010:19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-1 Kings 10:19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...this must represent His resurrection!  But wait... resurrection to what?  This next passage was written after the resurrection and talks about the &amp;quot;other lion&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%205:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-1 Peter 5:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, I'll stop.  Hopefully it is clear, the &amp;quot;symbolic lion hermeneutic&amp;quot; led us down the wrong path.  You can do this with just about any &amp;quot;symbol&amp;quot; in scripture. My point is, it is extremely dangerous to assume that if a word is used symbolically in one context, that it must be a symbol everywhere else in Scripture as well. This is called &amp;quot;illegitimate totality transfer&amp;quot; in hermeneutics. This is essentially what people are doing when they interpret the fig tree of Matthew 24 as &amp;quot;Israel.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&amp;quot;Objection!&amp;quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sure someone will object on the grounds that we have clear evidence from other passages of symbols being used in scripture, for instance in the Parable of the Sower in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:3-9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:3-9&lt;/a&gt;, the seed represents the word of God.  I will quickly address this objection:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was trying to &lt;em&gt;explain something&lt;/em&gt;.  He was using symbols which had specific meaning relative to His message.  There is no indication anywhere in scripture that His use of these symbols carry across all of scripture.  (v.18-23)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus explained His meaning to those closest to Him (v.18-23), which I think is a pretty good illustration of how sound exegesis happens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was not trying to be understood by the rest of the folks!  (v.10-17)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the next parable (v.24-30), the seed represents &lt;em&gt;people&lt;/em&gt; - some righteous and some wicked! (v.36-43)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the third parable, the seed represents the &lt;em&gt;Kingdom of Heaven&lt;/em&gt;! (v.31-32)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly &amp;quot;seed&amp;quot; doesn't equal &amp;quot;word&amp;quot; everywhere in Scripture, even when &amp;quot;seed&amp;quot; &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; being used symbolically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What Jesus meant&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Words don't have meaning; &lt;em&gt;people&lt;/em&gt; have meaning. When Jesus referenced &amp;quot;the fig tree&amp;quot; He meant something by it. To discover what He meant, let's start by looking at why Jesus was talking.  Matthew 24 is all about the &amp;quot;end times&amp;quot; and starts with a request from His disciples (which He has no reservation in answering.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, &amp;quot;Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.&amp;quot; . . . the disciples came to Him privately, saying, &amp;quot;Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?&amp;quot;  (from v.1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus proceeds to explain that a lot of troubling stuff is going to happen, but that this is not yet the end. (v.4-8)  He then says that tribulation will come on His people and many will fall away, but the gospel will go out to all of the nations before the end comes. (v.9-14)  Jesus then explains that the abomination of desolation will mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation. (v.15-28)  And then immediately after the Tribulation, He will return (v.29-31)  And &lt;em&gt;in this context&lt;/em&gt;, Jesus says the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; &lt;strong&gt;so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near,&lt;/strong&gt; right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:32-34&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Matthew 24:32-34&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't a mystical story about a fig tree nation... what Jesus is doing is answering His disciples' question about what the signs of His coming and of the end of the age will be, and then urging them to recognize it when it happens, just as they would recognize that summer is near by the leafy tree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, for what it's worth, a &amp;quot;generation&amp;quot; can mean a number of things scripturally, and the claim that it means a particular length of time may be correct for some passages, but is clearly not for others.  (I'll save the full explanation for another question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T03:49:30.493" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7222" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7223" CreationDate="2012-04-18T14:43:53.147" Score="1" ViewCount="7260" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible lets us know that God does not tempt us into evil.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 1:13 &#xA;  &quot;When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but rather, He examines our minds and hearts to know if we truely keep his commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 17:10&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct,    according to what their deeds deserve.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, what becomes of us if we fail his tests? What if Abraham failed the test to obey?  If we suffer the same consequences  as those led astray by the devil, then what difference does it make whether God leads us into temptation or not? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have checked the relevant tags but none of the posts seem to answer on the results of failing God's tests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2012-04-18T15:17:37.783" LastActivityDate="2016-03-16T05:06:20.270" Title="What if we were not tempted by the devil but rather, we failed God's test?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-03-17T03:05:56.710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2012-04-18T16:10:22.790" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the great Intercessory Prayer Christ prays that God will keep those disciples given to him and any that believe on their word un-spotted from the world then in verse 23 he says something crucial to remember about God's motivation vs. the devils motivation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(KJV) John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What God does He does out of love, in fact as we read here He does it out of the same love that He had for the Savior. If God tests us and we fail that test, because He loves us the Savior has already provided a way to say &quot;I'm sorry I will try harder next time.&quot; Also when God is testing us He will support us and give us strength to make it through that test (great example of this is David and Goliath). If we have enough faith. This is a key difference between God and the devil. God will always love and support us, while the devil will get us to follow him but never offer support; and once he has us chained he will abandon us. Something that God would never do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in summery the answer to what becomes of us is simple. Its what we choose to let happen. God will love us still and if we decide to follow Him despite the trial and our perceived failure of that trial, then a way is provided for us to do so. If we decide not to, well then we have chosen to serve the devil and he will bind us just as surly as if we had sinned. Because in the end turning from God is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2012-04-18T16:56:14.150" LastActivityDate="2012-04-18T16:56:14.150" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7224" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-18T16:33:40.483" Score="4" ViewCount="345" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday#Dates&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;latest possible date&lt;/a&gt; for Ash Wednesday is March 10th and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecost#Date&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;earliest possible date&lt;/a&gt; for Pentecost is May 10th.  Besides the movable feasts, is there any indication that the Catholic Church places those feasts inside of these seasons for specific reasons?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, the Solemnity of St. Joseph is March 19th, this date is always in Lent (although the feast may be transferred to Easter), yet it is a Holy Day of Obligation in many places, (generally means it is equivalent with a Sunday in saying &quot;you need to go to Church today&quot;).  Is it, and other feasts, placed inside Lent or Easter to further the purposes that their respective seasons seek to celebrate? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-04-19T17:45:14.007" LastActivityDate="2012-04-19T18:04:20.753" Title="Non-movable feasts in the Lent and Easter seasons" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2012-04-18T18:19:48.260" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Beloved, God tests us to refine us and consecrate us for him in order that we may be closer to him, and that God may be glorified in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined and will test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, and I will hear and answer them. I will say, It is My people; and they will say, The Lord is my God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zec%2013:9&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zec 13:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, like a good Father, will not let us fall too far into a hopeless state through his trials. Take money, for example. If we covet money, God will not bless us financially. He will do what is necessary to show us that we need to surrender this part of our lives to Him, to refine us of this covetous desire, but will not, for example, let us fall into a severe hopeless state of poverty, i.e. something that we are not capable of handling or escaping.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For no temptation (no trial regarded as enticing to sin), [no matter how it comes or where it leads] has overtaken you and laid hold on you that is not common to man [that is, no temptation or trial has come to you that is beyond human resistance and that is not adjusted and adapted and belonging to human experience, and such as man can bear]. But God is faithful [to His Word and to His compassionate nature], and He [can be trusted] not to let you be tempted and tried and assayed beyond your ability and strength of resistance and power to endure, but with the temptation He will [always] also provide the way out (the means of escape to a landing place), that you may be capable and strong and powerful to bear up under it patiently.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians%2010:13&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 10:13&lt;/a&gt; -- See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2010:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV translation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference in being led astray by the devil in his temptation is a blurry line for me, so sorry if this is not correct (please correct me), but there is a difference. When we give ourselves over to sin, and do not heed to God's conviction and repent, we fall &lt;em&gt;away&lt;/em&gt; from God. But if we are truly God's and have real faith in him, we should not intentionally do this. I believe these kinds of people are defined in Matthew 13:7&amp;amp;22:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them out.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://Matt%2013:7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 13:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  As for what was sown among thorns, this is he who hears the Word, but the cares of the world and the pleasure and delight and glamour and deceitfulness of riches choke and suffocate the Word, and &lt;strong&gt;it yields no fruit&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2013:22&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 13:22&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the text, these people are probably not truly God's. But only God knows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the gate is narrow (contracted by pressure) and the way is straitened and compressed that leads away to life, and few are those who find it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Beware of false prophets, who come to you dressed as sheep, but inside they are devouring wolves.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;You will fully recognize them by their fruits.&lt;/strong&gt; Do people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Even so, every healthy (sound) tree bears good fruit [worthy of admiration], but the sickly (decaying, worthless) tree bears bad (worthless) fruit.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%207:14-17&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 7:14-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastActivityDate="2012-04-18T18:19:48.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7226" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7826" CreationDate="2012-04-18T18:20:46.497" Score="14" ViewCount="1356" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once heard a Reformed theologian critique Dietrich Bonhoeffer for his Christology, but it failed to stick with me because I have not (yet) read any Bonhoeffer and am not very familiar with recent German theology in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did Bonhoeffer teach about Christ? Was this related to Karl Barth's Christology? What other theologians hold to a similar position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-17T21:17:57.813" LastActivityDate="2016-02-17T21:17:57.813" Title="The Christology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;bonhoeffer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2012-04-18T20:51:31.557" Score="2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Sin&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First, it is important to understand that God desires intimate, loving relationship with His people and between His people.  The whole law is built upon this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And [Jesus] said to him, '&amp;quot;YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD...&amp;quot; This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, &amp;quot;YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR...&amp;quot; On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.'”  (Matthew 22:37-40, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.&amp;quot;  (from Romans 13:10, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The law was given to illustrate righteous (loving) behavior, and sin is any deviation from that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COVET.'&amp;quot;  (from Romans 7:7, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. &amp;quot;  (from Romans 5:13, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.&amp;quot;  (1 John 3:4, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Temptation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the context of James 1:13 (the passage you were asking about), we also learn what the definition of &amp;quot;temptation&amp;quot; is.  Another way of saying &amp;quot;he tempted me&amp;quot; is to say &amp;quot;he enticed me to follow my lust into sin.&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin...&amp;quot;  (from James 1:14-15, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In light of that definition, it is ludicrous to think that God would tempt us, because that would be the same as saying &amp;quot;God was enticing me to follow my lust and disobey His law.&amp;quot;  Of course, God would not do this, as James 1:13 explains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Satan on the other hand is definitely interested in enticing us to follow our lust into sinful disobedience.  But our great, loving God will be right there at our side, helping us in these times of need, and showing us the way through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.&amp;quot;  (1 Corinthians 10:13, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God Does Test Us&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A &amp;quot;test&amp;quot; is where God places you in a challenging situation to reveal your heart condition.  A test can reveal such things as whether a person will trust Him, or walk in love, or obey His commandment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.&amp;quot;  (from Deuteronomy 8:2, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God...&amp;quot;  (from Deuteronomy 13:3, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What If We Fail?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A test is an opportunity.  If we &amp;quot;pass&amp;quot; the test, it is an opportunity for glory and reward, and to be a good witness to others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ...&amp;quot;  (from 1 Peter 1:6-7, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If we &amp;quot;fail&amp;quot; the test, it is an opportunity to learn something about our hearts and grow in our relationship with the Lord.  There isn't a person on the planet who doesn't occasionally &amp;quot;fail&amp;quot;, but God is merciful toward those who belong to Him.  As the saying goes, &amp;quot;God is the God of a second chance&amp;quot;... or as I heard one Pastor say, &amp;quot;God is the God of &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;another&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; chance&amp;quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous&amp;quot;  (1 John 2:1, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;For we all stumble in many ways...&amp;quot;  (from James 3:2, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed...&amp;quot;  (from James 5:16, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is interesting that you asked what would have happened if Abraham had failed &lt;em&gt;his&lt;/em&gt; test.  I think it is helpful to understand that in a way, he did!  God promised him a son and he wanted it so bad that he decided to try to make it happen on his own with his servant rather than trusting God.  But he got it right eventually, and that's what he is now remembered for, by the grace and love of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-21T22:22:11.540" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2012-04-18T22:30:48.367" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question isn't really &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; you'll fail, but rather &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; you'll fail.  &quot;For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, what becomes of you depends on whether you belong to Christ or not.  It's not &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; tempts you that makes any difference, it's that you (and I, and everyone) are sinful through and through, and we will, at some point, fail, making ourselves a failure in God's eyes.  (Incidentally, that's what James 1:14, the next verse says... we're lured not by God, not by Satan, but by &lt;em&gt;our own&lt;/em&gt; desires.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that we're all going to fail is what Jesus is for.  He sacrificed for us, so that when we do fail, we can rest in the fact that his sacrifice paid any penalty we might owe to pay for the failure we've done.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry to keep it so short and sweet, but I think a simple question deserves a simple answer.  If you're Christ's, then eternally, you'll be with Him.  If you're not, then you aren't. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-04-18T22:30:48.367" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7229" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7231" CreationDate="2012-04-19T02:17:58.507" Score="-1" ViewCount="1600" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two opposing sides with different arguments, YOung Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists. Could you please provide a summary of what is the most common scientific evidence that is used on both sides?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1553" LastEditorUserId="1553" LastEditDate="2012-04-19T05:09:38.947" LastActivityDate="2012-04-21T00:27:03.670" Title="Young Earth Creationists vs. Old Earth Creationists" Tags="&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-04-19T19:45:18.537" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7230" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-19T05:40:50.960" Score="12" ViewCount="727" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I looked into &quot;canon criticism&quot; or &quot;canonology&quot; a while back, I came across numerous (alleged) criteria for whether a book is/was included in canon, such as &quot;Old Testament books had to be written in Hebrew.&quot;  However, for each criteria, it seemed like there was an exception.  (In this case, the book of Daniel, for instance.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I concluded that the Holy Spirit must have just guided the process, and that perhaps this is an instance where we cannot attribute natural reasoning, and just have to have faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is - did I miss something?  Is there actual rational criteria for whether a book is considered part of canon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Clarifications&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I am referring to the most widely accepted 66 books of the Christian Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;By &quot;rational&quot;, I just mean criteria which could be understood through human reasoning without supernatural assistance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I am not limiting answers to the historical criteria that the church fathers originally used&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is OK to answer with &quot;no there are not&quot;, but please elaborate / prove your case with references&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-04-19T17:00:45.197" LastActivityDate="2012-09-01T15:00:01.923" Title="Are there &quot;rational&quot; criteria for which books appear in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;logic&gt;&lt;protestant-bible&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7229" CreationDate="2012-04-19T12:48:21.527" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm very hesitant to answer anything on this as no matter what position I take, it will incite endless debate and comments.  However, I believe there is a simple answer that all sides can hold as acceptable truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is that we &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; have the &lt;em&gt;same&lt;/em&gt; evidence. Whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, YEC, OEC, the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;evidence&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; never changes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference lies in how we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;interpret&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To list off a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note, the OEC view is lumped with the Naturalist view, simply because they are similar.  OEC incorporates the idea of old-earth, and even the possibility of evolution after creation.  I'm not attempting to make any statement beyond that.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evidence:  The existence of fossils of animals that are no longer alive. (Dinosaurs)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YEC view - Dinosaurs were real animals created by God.  They're mentioned in the Bible, and depicted in art all over the world (as dragons).  They were likely more prevalent before the flood, when conditions on the earth were drastically different (admittedly a supposition based on loose interpretation of scripture)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;OEC and naturalistic View - What we're taught in the textbooks.  They lived millions of years ago, dies out long ago.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Evidence - Similar structures in a wide variety of animals.  For example, whales have bone structure in their flippers remarkably similar to hands on humand and primates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YEC view - We believe similar design is evidence for a common Designer. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;OEC/Naturlaist view - Common features indicate a common origin, from which these current features evolved.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list goes on forever.  The expanding universe, evidence for the Big Bang, geologic structures, dating methods, all have the same physical evidence.  The tests we can perform have the same results regardless of who is performing them.  Again, the difference is in the &lt;em&gt;interpretation&lt;/em&gt;, not &lt;em&gt;evidence&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-04-19T12:48:21.527" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7230" CreationDate="2012-04-19T15:50:39.420" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a difficult question, given that human reasoning is itself flawed. But if we were to look at the canonization process, the most we could say is that it must be not be absurd; Consider how Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas; even though the process of 'drawing lots' seems irrational, the lots were being drawn against a few possible candidates and not merely randomly at large. So the lots were used to make the decision against equally qualified candidates final in a way that no-one could claim favoritism. A very rational choice if there is one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my own study (and it has not been perhaps as extensive as many) these seem to be the criteria that explain the process in the most rational fashion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Traditional usage. Writings being added to the rule required that they were traditionally accepted for the use in teaching, admonishing, public exhortation, quotation and so forth. The reasoning here is obvious; this is the primary reason or use for the canon itself: So that a given locality does not have to ask the Bishop who has to ask this other Bishop who has to look at what they're about to read to determine whether its okay to be quoted, to be taught from, to be interpreted as prophecy, or to be announced publicly in liturgies and other prayers. What I mean by this is simply that one may consider this or that book quite true, but if it had no traditional usage, its position would be tenuous. This explains why some other epistles did not get added to the rule; there's only so much time for public exhortation in prayers and liturgies of the scriptures themselves. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not redundant. Some amount of redundancy is allowed, but later letters (if you look at the Apostolic Fathers) contained a fair amount of redundant material, simply re-iterating what was in the Gospels and Epistles of Paul, Jude, John, James and Peter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Has a special position. The writings of St. John had, as far as I can tell, a special position in the minds of the early Church. He was a great hero of the faith, and as we may recall, was the one surviving Apostle. His works - especially Revelation - are given special consideration because of the magnitude of his reputation as a true Theologian.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not praxis. This means, documents which were pure praxis (rules for practices) were excluded such as the Didache. You will notice that there are often problems with Paul's letters where he is 'speaking as a man' - giving practical advice for a given community's situation. Looking back now, we don't know the situation he was speaking to, and thus it is easy to misunderstand his advice. So pastoral letters were mainly excluded, though Paul's seem to have an elevated status (even Peter recognizes this in one of his own letters.) Paul's letters may be pastoral, but they are also theological and prophetic.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Part of the Septuagint. Everything in the Septuagint was accepted without question as far as I can tell, since it was the prior canon (what the 'scriptures' meant if a New Testament document refers to them.) The Septuagint - the Greek Old Testament - was the Early Church's canon of scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not pseudopigraphia. This is to say, the author/authorship was known and accurate as far as they knew. So Hebrews was believed to be the work of Paul (which it probably was.) The works attributed to John were either his own words or authorized by him (as with the Gospel of John.) The gnostic gospels were pure pseudopigraphia; faked names against unknown sources.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not written by a heretic. Simply put, some men who entered the faith later recanted; their works would be considered suspect and not included.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So take these criteria and look at The Shepherd of Hermas. Very popular, but never met criteria 1: being read or declared in church. It was a symbolic, poetic work and is difficult to understand. It would fall in the category of something like The Great Divorce, being that it is probably true and perhaps prophetic even, but is the wrong genre to be in the canon entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-19T15:50:39.420" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7224" CreationDate="2012-04-19T16:19:32.067" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has to do with, as with the Orthodox, the position of Easter (Pascha) which is a reflection of the calculation of the Passover prior to Pentecost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the common tradition in both Rome and the East on this, at least for Ash Wednesday and Pentecost, it has all to do with their positions vis a vis Easter. It says the 'last possible' or 'first possible' because - lets say Ash Wednesday is the Wednesday in the week seven weeks before Easter - since Easter cannot be earlier than a certain date, nor can Ash Wednesday. The same logic follows for Pentecost, which is - going back before Christ - the fifty-day after Passover celebration. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for St. Joseph's solemnity I can't say, I don't know the history (this feast is not in Orthodoxy.) Generally the explanation for any fixed feast (which can either be fixed against the date of Easter or the date of the First of the Year) is entirely historical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Inclusion of feasts specifically in Lent, as for instance in our tradition, The Sunday of Orthodoxy, or the Sunday of St. Mary of Egypt, has much to do with the catechetical, ascetical character of Lent itself and special lenten tide feasts reflect that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Annunciation on the other hand, sometimes in the Old Calendar can occur ON EASTER. This is called Kyriepascha, and you can't move Annunciation or Pascha. So you DO ALL THE PRAYERS. Which means all the texts specific to each feast are done, and considering how strange Pascha is structured, it's a crazy service!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-19T16:19:32.067" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2012-04-19T16:26:58.923" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You get more tests until you die. If the scripture is not wrong in saying, 'He wills that all men be saved,&quot; what happens when you fail God's tests which everything is, even evils, since while he does not tempt you himself he permits the temptation (it would not happen if he did not allow it) is that he keeps training you and pruning you. We are told this process does not actually end at death, but that the saints continue to increase in perfection eternally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-19T16:26:58.923" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7239" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7244" CreationDate="2012-04-19T19:20:31.107" Score="13" ViewCount="66158" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CLARIFICATION:&lt;/strong&gt;  For those who believe there will be an event in the &amp;quot;end times&amp;quot; in which believers will be &amp;quot;taken up&amp;quot; to meet Jesus &amp;quot;in the clouds&amp;quot;, and that there is yet to be a &amp;quot;Great Tribulation&amp;quot;, I am curious which scriptures (primarily) are used to support the view that the rapture will happen prior to the tribulation, as opposed to after the tribulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;REASON FOR THE QUESTION:&lt;/strong&gt;  I am studying Matthew 24 in preparation for a sermon next Sunday, and came across the following passages (from the NASB):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...the disciples came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? And Jesus answered and said to them...'  (from v.3-4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;'...they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you... At that time many will fall away...'&amp;quot;  (from v.9-10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;'For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.'&amp;quot;  (v.21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;'But immediately after the tribulation of those days... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds... And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.'&amp;quot;  (from v.29-31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on these passages, it sounds like the disciples asked what signs would indicate the &amp;quot;end of the age&amp;quot;, and in response, Jesus described a &amp;quot;great tribulation&amp;quot; after which He would &amp;quot;come on the clouds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;gather His elect&amp;quot;.  I am assuming that both &amp;quot;camps&amp;quot; (Pre-Trib. and Post-Trib.) would have an interpretation of this passage, but it got me thinking... if there was a &amp;quot;Rapture&amp;quot; before the great tribulation, why wouldn't Jesus just say something like &amp;quot;when you notice people disappearing, you'll know the end is here!&amp;quot;  In other words, Jesus is answering their question, but seems to be glossing over the most obvious &amp;quot;sign of the end of the age&amp;quot;, which happens before everything else (in the Pre-Trib view.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't studied the Pre-Trib. vs. Post-Trib. debate extensively, and was wondering if someone could summarize the arguments from scripture in favor of the &amp;quot;Pre-Trib&amp;quot; view.  (I am aware that any passage &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be interpreted any number of ways, but I am specifically looking for the most clear and convincing passages that support this doctrine.)  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-05-17T21:37:16.033" Title="What scripture is used to support a &quot;Pre-Tribulation Rapture&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7239" CreationDate="2012-04-19T21:49:42.700" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a combination of a couple of things.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there's a passage in Matthew 24:38-41:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking,&#xA;  marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;&#xA;  and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and&#xA;  took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of&#xA;  Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other&#xA;  left.  Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken&#xA;  and the other left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dispensationalists take this to mean that the Christian will be taken, and the non-Christian will be left.  This passage from Matthew is taken to refer to the same incident that will happen according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command,&#xA;  with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of&#xA;  God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.  Then we who are alive,&#xA;  who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to&#xA;  meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this viewpoint, this is the same incident referred to in the &quot;rescuing&quot; in Jeremiah 30:7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Alas, what a terrible time of trouble it is! There has never been any&#xA;  like it. It is a time of trouble for the descendants of Jacob, but&#xA;  some of them will be rescued out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, they'll be saved from the tribulation.  Revelation 3:10 echoes this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because you have kept my admonition to endure steadfastly, I will also&#xA;  keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come on the whole&#xA;  world to test those who live on the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thessalonians 1:10 is also taken to refer to this time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead,&#xA;  Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So these verses are all taken to mean the same time period, namely, the saving of the elect from having to go through the tribulation. All of these verses feed into the idea that we will be saved from the tribulation before it happens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, this interpretation was first systematized by John Nelson Darby in the 1800's.  The reason it's such a popular viewpoint in America today, is because of Darby's work on the Scofield Study Bible, which was the first study Bible to be published in the United States.  Since it's Darby's interpretation of Revelation that is present within the study Bible, many people viewed this interpretation as the &quot;de-facto&quot; interpretation of Revelation and eschatology in general. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I tend not to agree with these points (I'm an amillenialist), but having had grown up with this viewpoint, I figured I'm somewhat qualified to answer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-04-19T21:49:42.700" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7243" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-19T23:24:05.033" Score="4" ViewCount="1040" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt;  I am interested in learning more about numerology.  In this post I am specifically interested in the arguments used by those who reject this doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My current impression of what &quot;numerology&quot; is:&lt;/strong&gt;  Certain numbers in scripture have special symbolic meaning.  Examples: &quot;7 is the number of divine perfection&quot;, &quot;6 is the number of man&quot;, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What I am looking for:&lt;/strong&gt;  I am sure there are &quot;&lt;em&gt;countless&lt;/em&gt;&quot; examples in favor of this doctrine, but I am curious what the counterarguments are?  I am interested in maybe the top 3-5 counterarguments that a &quot;non-numerologist&quot; would use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is no such thing as a &quot;non-numerologist&quot;, or there are no counterarguments, please provide some sort of evidence or reference to this effect.  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-04-22T00:37:53.620" LastActivityDate="2014-08-14T06:45:52.147" Title="Counterarguments to &quot;Numerology&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;logic&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;numerology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7239" CreationDate="2012-04-20T03:19:05.740" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be honest, I don't have a good answer for why Jesus doesn't mention the Rapture in His Matthew 24 discourse. However, I don't think that this disproves a Pre-Tribulation Rapture, and many other passages support it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%204:15-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul writes that Christ will return in the clouds to take his Church to heaven to be with Him. It doesn't mention any other actions being taken by Christ at this time. I infer from this passage and others that this is a separate event from when &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=zech%2014:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christ returns at Armageddon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John also references the Rapture. Revelation 1-3 is all about the Church (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%201:19&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;); John mentions the Church 19 times in these chapters. Now, in chapter 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%204:1&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 4:1 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John (a member of the Church) hears a voice like a trumpet and is taken up to heaven (paralleling the Thessalonians passage above). John now shifts to the subject of the Tribulation in chapter 4, and we don't see any more of the Church &lt;em&gt;on earth&lt;/em&gt; until Revelation 19, when Christ returns at the end of the Tribulation. Conversely, there are many verses in Revelation 4-19 where we see the church in heaven (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%204:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;4:10&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%206:9-11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;6:9-11&lt;/a&gt;, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another support is that, rather than the Church, Tribulation prophecy focuses on Israel, the unsaved, and the Tribulation Saints (those saved during the Tribulation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Israel&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;The Tribulation is referred to as &amp;quot;Jacob's [Israel's] trouble&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jer%2030:7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 30:7&lt;/a&gt;) and is the final 7 year &amp;quot;week&amp;quot; of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:24-27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 9:24-27&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. The unsaved&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Many verses refer to God pouring out His wrath on the unsaved at this time: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%2013:6-11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 13:6-11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joel%203:12-13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Joel 3:12-13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=zeph%201:14-18&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zephaniah 1:14-18&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%206:15-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 6:15-17&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Tribulation Saints&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%207:9-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 7:9-17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%209:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 9:4&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pre-Tribulation Rapture position cannot be &amp;quot;proven&amp;quot;; however, it is implied by the structure of Revelation, the nature of Tribulation prophecy, and is supported by many scriptures. It is a consistent viewpoint which harmonizes many Bible passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-07T21:56:14.650" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7243" CreationDate="2012-04-20T13:07:41.813" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't answer the question in the way you're asking it, but I can 'disarm' numerology for you. When you encounter something, like say, a set of best practices in an activity, the number of units you decide to divide the information into determines the symbolic meaning you are essentially attaching to the set. This is possible with pretty much everything, so when you see 'ten commandments', if you affix too much significance to the ten, you lose sight of the fact that God could have given them four or twelve commandments with the same content, but &lt;em&gt;Ten&lt;/em&gt; is chosen because of its symbolic meaning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take the cross; it is one thing. You can divide it into the cross bar and the pole, that's two. You can divide it into the top, middle and bottom, that's three. You can divide it into each of the cardinal directions: four. You can divide it into cardinal directions plus the center: five. Or, you can get four by including more details, such as cross bar, pole, sign (above) and footrest. The cross has six elevations (forward, back, top, bottom, left, right). The five pieces before plus the footrest and the sign is seven; with the footrest and sign you get eight points. Take the seven before and include the spear of longinus and the reed with the sponge, you get nine objects. Ten if you then count the rock it was planted on. You get twelve by counting the sides in two dimensions, fourteen in three dimensions, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem and weakness of numerology generally is that it assumes the numbering and the content are coeval, that the ten-ness of the ten commandments is somehow essential to its content. Consider the four Gospels; four were kept because of the symbolism of four; at one time a Syriac wanted to combine them into a single gospel for accuracy (this was a long, long time ago.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difficulty with numbers is teasing out the meaning of the number itself and not confusing it with the &lt;strong&gt;thing being numbered&lt;/strong&gt;. All numberings aside from perhaps one and three are arbitrary; but even then the threeness of God is his decision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This position essentially refutes numerology because instead of seeing the numbers as a noumena, I.e a revelation of the underlying reality, it sees them as phenomena, that is, an arrangement applied to the underlying reality. Their use has a meaning, but it is not itself the meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-20T13:07:41.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7246" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-20T13:32:24.950" Score="4" ViewCount="1024" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are told, 'The just (upright) shall live by faith.' So I have a question for the Christians here. How do you understand faith? This does not have to be strictly biblical (since the scripture does not interpret itself, except where it really explicitly does so) but can also use anecdotal, philosophical or logical proofs/reasons for your explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good definition an agnostic gave me once was, '&lt;em&gt;A strong trust in someone or something&lt;/em&gt;'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the following two sided propositions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does faith refer to a blind acceptance?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are often told, no, and consider the case of Gideon, but --&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job is told he does not understand -- he is expected to accept the goodness of God without an explanation he can grasp&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is faith rational?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In some cases, we are told yes, consider the phrase, 'a reason to believe'... but --&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abraham is asked to do something wrong on orders from God; that he really will go through with it is met with 'Now I know that you are faithful.'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does faith itself save a person?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 3:16 suggests this, as do some of Jesus' words, but --&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are repeatedly told, 'Those who endure until the end shall be saved.' &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is faith a work?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In some traditions, faith is contrasted against works, but --&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;James the Just tells us 'faith without works is dead' and in another place equates Abrahams faith and works ('see how he was justified by works...') and indeed many passages where we have the word 'faith', it is really 'faithing', i.e. trusting, meaning something active: a work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is doubt a sin, or at least, the lack of faith?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus warns against doubt as does James the Just, but --&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Apostle Thomas is in our tradition lauded for his doubt ('the precious doubt of Thomas' it is called) and we are also confronted with a contradiction where the man in the Gospels says, 'I believe, help my unbelief' - suggesting doubt and faith can coexist.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is faith a source of knowledge?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul suggests so 'evidence of things not seen'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;But we have numerous examples where faith itself is only a substitute for knowledge (for example, Abraham's case.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the 'faith of Christ' (pisteis Christou)?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some suggest it is Christ's faith, i.e. his &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; faith, but&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The verbiage is vague, and may be interpreted as 'faith in Christ', i.e. believing in him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We use faith generically, but is this even correct?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is having faith in Christ the same as having faith that space aliens exist?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or does our definition of 'faith' implicitly include the &lt;strong&gt;object&lt;/strong&gt; of that faith? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it possible to overemphasize faith, as opposed to questioning?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On the one hand, we are told we must enter the Kingdom as little children: that's radical acceptance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are also told that false Christs will come with false signs and to test all of the spirits. That seems like pretty radical skepticism there.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may either answer personally or for your tradition, or for another person's interpretation. But most of all, I'm hoping to find a consensus on some if not all of these points. It does not have to be either/or, it can be both/and, but if so, &lt;em&gt;why?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2012-04-20T13:41:36.670" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T05:21:24.867" Title="Christian Position on the meaning of Faith" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;epistemology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-12-29T07:37:00.313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7246" CreationDate="2012-04-20T16:40:33.607" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Faith is the key to open the door inside of us, that opens to God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the bridge between the physical and spiritual worlds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is&#xA;  in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;&#xA;  -Corinthians 6:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-03-15T05:21:24.867" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T05:21:24.867" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7246" CreationDate="2012-04-20T17:43:53.530" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faith is the conviction and acceptance of what God has revealed to you. Faith persists even when challenged or confronted with reasons to not accept what God has revealed to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The object of Christian faith is always God. Christian faith is not blind or baseless, rather it derives it's strength and endurance from it's source: God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since faith is based on God's revelation, it outweighs any other form of evidence that one may base a conclusion on.  It may coexist with doubt when doubt is caused by some evidence contrary to what God has revealed, but faith will always win out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="36" LastActivityDate="2012-04-20T17:43:53.530" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7246" CreationDate="2012-04-20T19:30:45.117" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding the faith of Job and Abraham, remember that the tests of faith that they underwent, for both men, came towards the &lt;em&gt;end&lt;/em&gt; of their lives, not the beginning.  For both, this trial was the keystone of a long career of living and learning by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not unlike having a close friend, who you have known for many years and who has always dealt fairly with you, and then one day this friend asks something very strange or difficult of you.  You have no rational way of knowing that it won't turn out badly, but your years of experience tell you that he has never let you down before.  So, do you choose to put your faith in your friend, or to listen to doubts and fears?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know from the promise made in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:13&lt;/a&gt; that God would not have allowed such trials to come upon an someone whose faith was not strong enough to withstand it.  And yet, that's all that it is: potential.  They still both had their free will, and could have chosen to turn away.  (And some people do.  Contrast Abraham and Job with such luminaries as Saul, David and Solomon, each of whom was highly favored of the Lord, but fell to temptation anyway, leading Israel to ruin.  Perhaps, had someone chosen differently at some point, we would remember his name instead of Abraham's today.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for faith, works and salvation, you mention James's exhortation that faith without works is dead.  A more full explanation is given by the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount.  In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3a%2016-27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 7: 16-27&lt;/a&gt;, he makes several important points, one right after the other:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;By their fruits (outward works that a person brings forth) ye shall know them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not everyone who acknowledges Jesus as the Lord will be saved, but those who &lt;em&gt;do the will of God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The previous point notwithstanding, there will be many who do great works, ostensibly in Jesus's name, that he does not recognize at the last day because he never knew them (which, considering God's omniscience, should probably not be understood literally, but as the converse: &lt;em&gt;they never knew him&lt;/em&gt;) and thus he counts their works as iniquity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He who hears his words and acts upon them shall be counted as a wise man who builds his home upon a solid foundation that can withstand rough weather, whereas he who hears and does not act accordingly shall be likened unto a foolish man.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So clearly a person's works are very important, but with the caveat that if a person's good works are driven by hypocrisy and do not come from knowing the Lord, they don't count as far as he's concerned.  This is in line with Paul's teaching that the works of the Law (meaning the Mosaic law) cannot bring salvation (as the Pharisees believed) because there is no faith behind them and salvation comes through faith.  But as James and Jesus both point out, faith without actually acting upon it is useless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't a particularly strange concept. We're familiar with any number of pairs that are only helpful when used together.  A car and its fuel, an electronic device and electricity, the left and right oars of a rowboat, a man and a woman, and so forth.  Each one is far more useful with its complement than without, and so it is with faith and works.  They work together to accomplish salvation, but are both powerless on their own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is faith a source of knowledge?&lt;/strong&gt;  It seems more that, as a form of trust in God, it is the &lt;em&gt;result&lt;/em&gt; of knowledge.  This sort of goes back to the first point.  As we know that he has always been true in things we do understand, we can believe that he will be true in things we do not understand, (and thus have to accept on faith,) and act on this belief to make righteous decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is having faith in Christ the same as having faith that space aliens exist?&lt;/strong&gt;  Do you have previous experience leading you to believe that they do, even if you can't directly prove it?  If not, it's not the same sort of faith as we're discussing here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it possible to overemphasize faith, as opposed to questioning?&lt;/strong&gt;  You answer your own question in the sub-points.  True faith is not &quot;blind faith,&quot; but faith backed by personal experience.  Paul was emphasizing this principle, teaching that when a spiritual manifestation is given that the person has no experience with, to not trust it blindly, but to &quot;test the spirit,&quot; to discern whether it is of God or of some other source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the 'faith of Christ' (pisteis Christou)?&lt;/strong&gt;  Where are you getting this phrase from?  Some context would make it a lot easier to answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-04-20T19:30:45.117" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3357" CreationDate="2012-04-20T22:13:21.150" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love this question... questions like these really open the door for a better understanding of God's ways and a closer relationship with Him.  Here are some points to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why not speak directly to us?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is clear throughout scripture that God desires intimate, loving relationship with people and between people.  (Matthew 22:37-40, Romans 13:10, 1 John 4:16, Ephesians 4:32, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning, man had a very close relationship with God.  As a result, it would seem that there was no need for scripture in the Garden of Eden.  God walked side by side with man, so why would it be necessary?  If you had a question, you could simply ask Him!  (Genesis 3:8-10)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;After mankind fell from grace, there existed a separation between God and man. (Isaiah 59:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God attempted to reach out to humanity through the few men who would allow Him to use them, such as Noah, a &quot;preacher of righteousness&quot; to a world full of wickedness. (2 Peter 2:5, Genesis 6:5-8)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;At times, God would attempt to speak directly to man, but this generally resulted in them becoming terrified and requesting that He not do that anymore.  This is part of the reason Moses became such an absolute mediator between God and man in the wilderness.  (Hebrews 12:18-21)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, 'Speak to us yourself... but let not God speak to us....' Moses said to the people, 'Do not be afraid...' So the people stood at a distance, while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was. (from Exodus 20:18-21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I can't help but laugh when I try to imagine that scene.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why speak through other people?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think it is significant that God's design involves a man starting out in ignorance (as a baby), learning from his father and mother, and growing in understanding over time.  This model has &quot;dependency&quot; written all over it.  To me, this is one of &lt;strong&gt;many&lt;/strong&gt; illustrations in scripture of God's design for community amongst His people.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We see it again in reference to &quot;fathers&quot; (in the faith), elders, etc. (Deuteronomy 32:7, Hebrews 13:7, 6:11-12, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We see it again in God's design for the functions within the church.  (1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Benefits&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;People don't get quite so terrified when God is working through someone else, as opposed to interacting with us directly&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It draws us closer to others as well as closer to God&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The same God is working through each of these mediators.  In a manner of speaking, this builds a strong witness from God's people for those who are seeking truth.  (1 Corinthians 12:6, Proverbs 11:14, Matthew 18:16, Hebrews 12:1)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-04-20T22:13:21.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7251" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7260" CreationDate="2012-04-20T22:56:27.353" Score="6" ViewCount="9480" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just re-read the New Testament and this question has been at the front of my mind. These are just a few of similar quotes that are in question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:24: &quot;Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come&#xA;  after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by&#xA;  the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will&#xA;  live.&quot; (Romans 8:12-14, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live,&#xA;  but Christ lives in me...&quot; (from Galatians 2:20, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Matthew 7: 16-27, he makes the point:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Not everyone who acknowledges Jesus as the Lord will be saved, &lt;strong&gt;but those who do the will of God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mother Theresa and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7363712n&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Orthodox Monks at Mount Athos&lt;/a&gt; are some of the very few people I can think of when I read The New Testament and actually doing what Jesus asked of His disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, after reading the New Testament I see that I am a good person but not worthy of Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can anyone call themselves a Christian &lt;strong&gt;if they do not give up their life&lt;/strong&gt; (similar Mother Theresa or the Monks)? It seems pretty clear to me what he is asking of us(meaning no room for interpretation), so any clarification would be very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the rationale, bible passages, word of God, tradition (or anything else) that allows someone to feel confident calling themselves a Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank You.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-10-09T20:24:22.943" LastActivityDate="2015-07-22T04:08:51.950" Title="How are Christians expected to live up to the standards of following Christ?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;global-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-08-16T23:23:51.303" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7252" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-20T23:19:10.240" Score="6" ViewCount="6408" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the early verses of this scripture, Jesus tells the woman that we wouldn't need to go to the mountains or Jerusalem to worship. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. &lt;em&gt;(John 4:20-24)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spirit part is pretty clear to me but what do we make of worshiping God in truth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we focus on worship in truth as being about the right way of worship or having the right&#xA;mindset or perhaps it far&#xA;transcends the idea of correctness? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-02-19T22:11:57.523" LastActivityDate="2016-06-14T17:07:55.100" Title="What does it mean to &quot;worship in truth&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;truth&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-06-15T20:20:36.640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7251" CreationDate="2012-04-20T23:27:25.677" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Confidence does not come from what we do, but rather what Christ has done. In Philippians 3, Paul points out that if anyone should be confident in being saved by what they do, it is him. He is the one that has followed the law as much as humanly possible, yet in 3:7 he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. (Philippians 3:7, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to say that his salvation is based completely on what Christ has done, and gaining a righteousness from God that depends on faith. Paul is confident that it doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do, what matters is that he is right with God only through faith&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This however doesn't mean that Christians can do whatever they want. Jesus does call us to give up our lives and follow him. In James 1:22 it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not merely listen to the word and so deceive yourselves (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we have faith in Jesus' death and resurrection for our salvation then this should lead us to doing &quot;good things&quot;. It's important to note though that these good things don't save us, they come after salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But someone will say, &quot;You have faith and I have works.&quot; Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:18, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you give up your life to serve other people (like Mother Theresa) your works will not be enough to save you, you need to have faith. If you do have a genuine faith that Jesus Christ died on the cross and was raised again to give you a righteousness with God, then you can be confident that you are a Christian and should be confident in calling yourself one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2012-04-20T23:27:25.677" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7252" CreationDate="2012-04-21T00:52:58.140" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;So to worship in spirit means to do so with full purpose of heart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(KJV) Matt 15:8-9 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord was speaking about the Pharisees here who outwardly followed all of the commandments of the law of Moses, but inwardly they were vile sinners. Later in the chapter Christ talks about how it is not what goes into us that defiles us (talking about the law of Moses restrictions on food and washing before eating) but what comes out of our hearts. So to worship in truth is to not only worship outwardly but to also worship in your spirit and heart because that is what truly defines a man's belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-04-21T00:52:58.140" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7252" CreationDate="2012-04-21T00:53:34.133" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is from a VERY specific perspective, and other perspectives are likely to have a different answer (and possibly take offense, though none is meant.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of my &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible-truth.org/BaptistHistory.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fundamental, Independent Baptist Church&lt;/a&gt;, which regards the Bible ad God's word, written by men as &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/bible-inspired&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inspired&lt;/a&gt; by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/bible-inerrant-word-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inerrant&lt;/a&gt; and infallible.  (Starting out rather legalistic and then getting realistic)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To worship in truth means to worship as God has revealed Himself to us.  To not twist Biblical teaching and statements to distort their meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For example:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe that God is a loving God, and would never send someone to Hell.  They think that somehow, God will overlook their sins because of His love for him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From our point of view, this is not worshiping in truth, it's idolatry - making a god to suit ourselves, rather than accepting the hard truth that Hell is real, and that without the saving grace of Christ, all are doomed to an eternity there.  The truth that god does allow us to spend an eternity in hell if we choose to reject Him in spite of His love. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Churches that teach such things, and the people that choose to follow them are teaching and following the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;doctrines and commandments of men&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, rather than those of God.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:8-9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 15:8-9&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, as evidenced on this site, &lt;em&gt;&quot;not twisting Scripture&quot; is not such a clear thing&lt;/em&gt;.  It is quite possible for two people to read the same Bible and come to vastly different conclusions about what it says.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the distinctive traits about us is that we hold very closely to the idea of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intervarsity.org/news/why-biblical-doctrine-matters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sound doctrine&lt;/a&gt;.  We probably emphasize it too much over love and being a light in the world through good works.  But even among ourselves, there are things we don't agree on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, I think that worshiping God, as He revealed Himself, &lt;em&gt;to the best of our ability&lt;/em&gt;, is a good definition of worshiping in truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-04-21T00:59:13.923" LastActivityDate="2012-04-21T00:59:13.923" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7246" CreationDate="2012-04-21T04:54:59.493" Score="1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Selecting a &quot;faith&quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me start with a couple of my favorite quotes about defining the meaning of a word used in scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&quot;Words don't have meaning... &lt;em&gt;people&lt;/em&gt; have meaning.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&quot;The meaning of a word is determined by the context in which it is used.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English word &quot;faith&quot; can have any number of meanings to me (or any Christian), depending on its context.  In reference to scripture, the primary words in question are &quot;pisteuo&quot; and its root &quot;pistis&quot; (Greek), and &quot;batach&quot; (Hebrew).  (These are primarily translated into the English words &quot;believe&quot;, &quot;faith&quot;, and &quot;trust&quot;, respectively in the NASB.)  It is important to reiterate that the &lt;strong&gt;same&lt;/strong&gt; word may be used in two different places in scripture, and in each case it may have a &lt;strong&gt;different&lt;/strong&gt; meaning or usage (as indicated by its context.)  Let me give an example of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then Jesus told him, 'You believe because you see me. Those who believe without seeing me will be truly blessed.'&quot;  (John 20:29, NCV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a statement such as &quot;Jesus just wanted them to &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt;&quot; would be inaccurate.  Thomas &quot;believed&quot; because Jesus &lt;em&gt;proved&lt;/em&gt; His resurrection to him with visible evidence, but this is clearly not the kind of faith Jesus encouraged.  (e.g. Matthew 16:4)  For the rest of the answer, I will assume you are interested in the kind of faith that God actually desires (i.e. as referenced in Galatians 3:11.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Defining &quot;the good kind of faith&quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the kind of faith God desires is not a &quot;belief based on visible evidence&quot;, what is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) It has to start with &quot;hearing&quot; God (Romans 10:17, John 5:24 + 12:49)  &lt;em&gt;(To clarify, I don't think this is exclusively referring to hearing His audible voice.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) The next piece is &lt;em&gt;trusting&lt;/em&gt; Him and &lt;em&gt;believing&lt;/em&gt; what He has said, regardless of what you see, what you think, or what men say to the contrary (2 Corinthians 5:7, Romans 4:19-21, Hebrews 11:1, Proverbs 3:5, Jeremiah 17:5, Psalm 40:4 + Romans 3:10-18, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) The last part is &lt;em&gt;living&lt;/em&gt; by it (i.e. acting on your alleged &quot;trust&quot;.)  (James 2:22, Deuteronomy 8:3, Romans 8:14, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: God desires that we would trust Him with our lives, following Him even when we don't understand, believing His word above all else.  If a person will truly do this, it will be evident by the fruit of their life. (Matthew 7:15-20, 1 John 4:7-8,16 + 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, John 13:34-35, Galatians 5:22-23, Romans 8:13)  &lt;strong&gt;If not, their &quot;faith&quot; is useless.&lt;/strong&gt;  (Matthew 7:21-23, James 2:8-20, 1 Corinthians 13:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Q&amp;amp;A&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does faith refer to a blind acceptance?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Gideon vs. Job)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  Physically, yes.  Spiritually, no.  Our faith should rest not in what we see in the natural, but what we &quot;see&quot; supernaturally.  (John 9:39-41)  Gideon probably &quot;could have done better,&quot; but clearly it took faith to &lt;em&gt;act&lt;/em&gt; on God's instructions, despite needing confirmation &lt;em&gt;of&lt;/em&gt; the instructions.  So I think he's safe.  Job?  He had enough to go on to know the goodness of the Lord - God didn't need to give him further evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is faith rational?&lt;/strong&gt;  Nope.  At least not in my definitions of the words; rational = natural, faith = not based on the natural.  (Of course, one might argue that it would be insane to ignore God when He speaks, but then... men have consistently done this all throughout history and considered it &quot;rational.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does faith itself save a person?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(John 3:16 vs. Matthew 10:22)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; If we're talking about &quot;the good kind of faith&quot;, then yes.  Completely entrusting your life to Christ and following Him is exactly what saves you.  (&quot;Endurance&quot; = not falling away from this lifestyle in times of difficulty.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &quot;faith plus nothing&quot; doctrine&lt;/strong&gt;  Again, I need to clarify that just &quot;believing in God&quot; (He is there, etc.) is a necessary first step, but not enough to save you.  (Hebrews 11:6, James 2:19)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is faith a work?&lt;/strong&gt; This totally depends on the definitions of the words a person wants to use.  If you use my definition of &quot;the good kind of faith,&quot; and a definition of works which implies approaching God by your own righteous deeds rather than trusting His Son's sacrifice, no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is doubt a sin, or at least, the lack of faith?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(warnings vs. Thomas, Mark 9:24)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  Yes.  (Romans 14:23)  In regards to the two coexisting, the question becomes &quot;can a person trust God to an extent, but not perfectly?&quot;  The answer is yes.  (2 Corinthians 10:15)  We all stumble in many ways.  (James 3:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is faith a source of knowledge?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Paul vs. Abraham)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Not really.  God is the source of true knowledge.  (Proverbs 2:6)  Faith is the proper response to His revelation.  (I think the quote from Hebrews 11:1 may be a weakness in translation.  Faith is not natural evidence by which we base decisions; it involves becoming convinced of things not evident in the natural.)  Let me know if I misunderstood the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the 'faith of Christ'?&lt;/strong&gt;  I'm not sure what you're referring to, but A) we should have faith in Christ, and B) Jesus lived as an example of walking by faith.  This might sound strange, but in accordance with my explanation of &quot;good&quot; faith, consider the following passages: John 5:19, 6:38, 8:28, 14:24.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We use faith generically, but is this even correct?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(God vs. aliens)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; It's just a word with many meanings... it can be appropriate in the context of discussing salvation, or in the context of science fiction.  But when speaking in reference to scripture, it takes more than a single word to represent Christianity, as the history of the &quot;faith vs. works&quot; debate has shown us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it possible to overemphasize faith, as opposed to questioning?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(children vs. testing spirits)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Our faith should not be based on the word of man, or of an apparent angel of light - true faith starts with hearing the word of God.  If someone appears to you teaching strange new things, you would not be out of line to ask some questions... just to ensure you are actually receiving a message from God.  (1 John 4:1, 2 Corinthians 11:12-15, Galatians 1:8)  Once you are sure the message is actually from God, you are good to go!  (Matthew 7:24-25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-04-21T04:54:59.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7259" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7262" CreationDate="2012-04-21T05:53:43.667" Score="1" ViewCount="4488" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a very good-hearted aunt, she is a Chinese and also a Christian, who is constantly persuading me to start following Feng-Shui (a Chinese system of geomancy). The time has come for my family to buy a new house - now she is trying to persuade me to follow this system of Feng-Shui even more in order to choose the most &quot;fortunate&quot; house. She even stared visiting some specialists of Feng-Shui (which to me are really not a far cry from fortune tellers) who consult her (of course not free of charge) on the matter as to where I should buy this new house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other day she really got me and I had a conflict with her. I told her, &quot;Are you really a Christian? Don't you know that this is in fact a kind of abomination before the Lord?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She confronted me with her kind of logical argument: &quot;This system has already helped a lot of people. If it's good why should we not make use of something which is good? Don't you make use of visiting your dentist every half a year? Don't you make use of doing physical exercises every morning? So why not make use of something good here? And how can you be sure that this system is not from  God either? How can you be sure that this system is not allowed by God to exist and help humans?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today she even came up with some examples from the New Testament. First she cited the fact that the Apostles in the book of Acts used a technique in choosing Matthias which is very similar to that used in Feng-Shui (in fact it's a kind of divining using some objects like coins, turtle shells, etc.) She also  said that those magi that came to see baby Jesus were following the star, which is also very similar to Feng-Shui. She even said that since I exercise every morning, while Paul said that physical exercises is not so useful (1 Tim 1:8), which means that I am not really faithful toward the Bible in this regard, why not try something that proved to be good long before even the NT was written?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She kind of surprised me with these argument. I think some of those Feng-Shui experts gave her them, because I know that she hasn't yet completed reading the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what places from the NT can I quote to her?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T14:27:08.053" LastActivityDate="2016-01-07T08:55:30.163" Title="NT arguments against Feng-Shui" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;&lt;1-timothy&gt;&lt;divination&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7251" CreationDate="2012-04-21T12:15:22.980" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The mere fact that Jesus came in human form and not any supernatural, extraordinary form to live an exemplary life, facing worldly temptations is cause for us believe that we can truly be followers of him. When he left his men who were not exactly as perfect as He was, continued his works sharing their faith amidst trials and temptations of the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is deeply engraved in our genes making it seem impossible to reach that standard that Jesus requires of us, but the Apostle Paul faced similar challenges when he said&#xA;&quot;For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful&#xA;nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.&quot; Romans 7:18&#xA;From 2 Samuel 12, despite his faithfulness to God, David was severely punished for taking his subordinate's wife even after fasting and pleading to Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But with Christ's death,  as a bridge or ladder linking us to God, we can climb back at where we fell short of He glory. On this ladder, some are almost at the top, some at the middle while some have just taken a step. Others have seen and unwilling to climb whiles others are searching for it. Whatever level we are  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;...If any man trust to himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ’s, even so are we Christ’s.&quot; (2 Corinthians 10:7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding from the above is that noone can produce more proof of 'holiness' (I may be corrected if wrong). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some face death because of their faith, others do not. Some have been abandoned from families and societies due to their faith, others have not. Not all of us will face the troubles and evils of the world like the first Christians did but surely we will not find it easy.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Believing that Christ is our Saviour may not be enough, we will need to live the life. Living the life might not be enough, we will need to preach to others as well, and on it goes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. &quot; (Mark 10:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My eagerness, will power, readiness and deeds to follow Christ, whatever level I am on must manifest that God is really with me, that I'm are on the right path.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. &quot; (Matthew 7:17-18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastActivityDate="2012-04-21T12:15:22.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7251" CreationDate="2012-04-21T22:52:02.503" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All Men Are Sinners&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Adam sinned, the human race was corrupted, and everyone born was born separate from God.  (Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-24, 8:21, Romans 5:12, 3:10-18, James 2:10-11)  Even a man's &lt;strong&gt;&quot;righteous&quot; deeds&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;prayers&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;sacrifices&lt;/strong&gt;, etc. are offensive to God in that state!  (Isaiah 64:6, Isaiah 59:1-2, Proverbs 28:9, 15:8)  &lt;em&gt;NOTE: Christians generally believe that this is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin - the sinless sacrifice of Jesus was essential to God's plan. (Luke 1:26-35, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:21-23)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&quot; (Romans 3:23, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a major problem which earns us eternity in Hell.  (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, Revelation 20:11-15, 21:1,10,27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God's Redemptive Plan&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God had a plan for redemption though, and immediately began reaching out to mankind, foreshadowing the coming of Jesus, and encouraging people to return to Him and trust Him for their salvation.  (Genesis 3:21, Hebrews 10:1-10, Romans 7:7, Galatians 3:24, Colossians 2:16-17)  In God's love, He sent His only Son to come and pay the penalty for our sin - death.  (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, 2 Corinthians 5:21)  In fact, not only was justice served, but those who belong to Christ actually have their sins &lt;em&gt;removed&lt;/em&gt;. (1 John 1:7, 3:5, Psalm 103:12, Isaiah 43:25, Hebrews 10:14)  This fixes the &quot;problem&quot;.  (Romans 6:23, 8:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Life in Christ&quot;...?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are essentially three things which define the life of someone who is &quot;in Christ&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Living in submission to His Lordship (Matthew 7:21, Romans 6:22)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Walking in His love (John 13:35, 1 John 4:7-8, Luke 10:25-28)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Being led by His Spirit (Romans 8:9, 13-14)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(With some understanding it becomes clear they are all the same thing.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.&quot;  (2 Corinthians 5:15, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note, though, that &lt;strong&gt;God's will is often different than what &lt;em&gt;we think&lt;/em&gt; is good&lt;/strong&gt;.  (Isaiah 55:8)  If God has called you to work in a factory, but you lock yourself away in an Abbey somewhere, you are in disobedience.  (1 Thessalonians 4:11, Hebrews 5:4, 1 Corinthians 7:17)  If God calls you to rebuke someone, but you shrink back, you are in disobedience.  (2 Samuel 12:1-15, Hebrews 10:38)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Crossing Over&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A life &quot;in Christ&quot; is the opposite of a life &quot;outside of Christ&quot;.  (1 Peter 4:1-5)  So to &quot;repent&quot;, or &quot;convert&quot; is to die to your old life and live for Him.  (Acts 17:30, Romans 6:6, Galatians 2:20)  This death involves turning &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; over to Him.  (Luke 14:27-33, Galatians 5:17,24)  This is a drastic decision that can only truly be made out of sincere sorrow for our old life of offense to God.  (2 Corinthians 7:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls. &quot;  (1 Peter 2:25, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judge Yourself&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is good for us to consider carefully whether we are &quot;in Christ&quot;.  (2 Corinthians 13:5)  Have I surrendered my life to the Lord?  (Luke 17:33)  Do I desire to do His will above my own?  (Matthew 6:10, 26:42) Am I living (&quot;dying&quot;) this way daily?  (Luke 9:23, 1 Corinthians 15:31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all make mistakes, but God is patient and forgiving toward His people.  (James 3:2, Nehemiah 9:17, James 5:16, 1 John 2:1)  The question is - are we sincerely &lt;em&gt;trying&lt;/em&gt; to follow Christ out of a serious repentance and love?  (Hebrews 10:26)  If we are, God will honor that.  (Proverbs 24:12, Jonah)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-04-21T22:52:02.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7259" CreationDate="2012-04-22T00:16:57.420" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hah!  She sounds like a wily one.  I'm no expert in Feng-Shui (or your Aunt), but here are some relevant Biblical principles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wisdom In Silence&lt;/strong&gt; If a person is not truly interested in seeking/knowing the truth (e.g. a person who just wants to push their views on you), there is Biblical precedence for keeping silent.  (Proverbs 23:9, Matthew 27:12-14)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself,&#xA;  And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself.&quot;  (Proverbs 9:7, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Test The Spirits&lt;/strong&gt; God is the source of true knowledge.  (Proverbs 2:6)  There are many strange doctrines and spiritual &quot;truths&quot; out there, but we are instructed to test the spirits to see if they are from God.  (1 Timothy 4:1, 1 John 4:1)  If the founders of a particular doctrine are not men of God with good fruit in their lives, the doctrine becomes highly suspect.  (Luke 6:43-45, Galatians 5:22-23)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.&quot;  (Luke 6:45, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wisdom In Counsel&lt;/strong&gt; Proverbs states that everyone thinks what they do is right, but that it is wise to &lt;em&gt;seek counsel&lt;/em&gt;.  (Proverbs 21:2, 12:15, 14:12, 11:14, also Matthew 18:16)  Furthermore, God gave Pastors (a.k.a. Shepherds) to the church for a reason; a shepherd cares for and &lt;strong&gt;guides&lt;/strong&gt; the sheep. (Ephesians 4:11, John 21:15-17)  Based on these passages, it seems wise to consult a Pastor (and other trustworthy believers) when making difficult decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Very Similar&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; The argument &quot;x is very similar to y, and x is good, so y is good&quot; is very flawed, Biblically speaking.  (Matthew 24:24)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.&quot;  (2 Corinthians 11:14, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &quot;Appearance Of Wisdom&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; There are doctrines bases on the &quot;elementary principles of the world&quot;, which have &quot;the appearance of wisdom&quot;, but are of no value.  (Colossians 2:20-23, James 3:13-17)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women.&quot;  (from 1 Timothy 4:7, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Casting Lots&lt;/strong&gt;  Using Acts 1:26 as a precedence for casting lots is not a sound argument, and is certainly not a common interpretation.  As El'endia mentioned above, this was prior to the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and many Old Testament practices were merely a shadow of what was to come.  (Acts 2:1-4, Colossians 2:17)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Exercise = Unfaithful&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  She is misquoting the passage.  The passage (below) is teaching us that godliness is more profitable than bodily discipline.  The focus is on priorities, not on exercise being sinful.  (1 Corinthians 9:27)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.&quot;  (1 Timothy 4:8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-04-22T00:16:57.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2012-04-22T04:42:21.783" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Key Old Testament Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1A) Psalm 22 ~1,000 B.C.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;(NASB)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Death:&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?... [I am] despised by the people. All who see me sneer at me... saying, “Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.”... I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet... They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Resurrection:&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance... I will tell of Your name to my brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You... You who fear the LORD, praise Him;... And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel. For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard... The afflicted will eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the LORD. Let your heart live forever!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Legacy / Destiny:&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the LORD’S And He rules over the nations... All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him... Posterity will serve Him; It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation. They will come and will declare His righteousness To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1B) Isaiah 53 ~700 B.C.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;(NASB)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Life and Sacrifice:&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;...He grew up before Him like a tender shoot... He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief... Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed... the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,&#xA;  So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away;&#xA;  And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living... His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reward:&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; ...the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great... Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wow.&lt;/strong&gt;  (I will assume the reader can make a few connections here; there are a &lt;strong&gt;LOT&lt;/strong&gt; of fulfilled prophecies just from these two passages.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Proof of Authenticity?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am tempted to start talking about the testimony of historians, logic based on the life choices of the Apostles, the conversion of Saul, the impossibility of pulling off a resurrection hoax... but at the end of the day, there is no &quot;natural&quot; argument for which skeptics will not have a counterargument.  So here is my real answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2)&lt;/strong&gt; If you want to know if God is real, or if Jesus is the Messiah, or if the Bible is trustworthy, or how to be &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7261/1548&quot;&gt;saved&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;... &lt;strong&gt;ask Him&lt;/strong&gt;.  If you sincerely seek Him, you can bet you will find your answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.&quot;  (Matthew 7:8, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this doesn't satisfy the desire for a rational proof, but in my opinion, the desire itself is based on flawed logic.  It assumes spiritual truth is knowable through natural reasoning, which it is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7585/1548&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.&quot;  (1 Corinthians 1:20-21, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While God is patient with us and sometimes willing to humor our requests for signs and proof, ultimately He requires &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7256/1548&quot;&gt;faith&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.&quot;  (Matthew 11:25, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-06-27T21:43:44.527" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7266" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-22T07:32:35.380" Score="10" ViewCount="2730" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (&lt;strong&gt;let the reader understand&lt;/strong&gt;)'&quot;  (Matthew 24:15, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just curious if anyone actually understands this?  Is this the Antichrist, or Jesus, or the Jews, or Rome...?  Is this a prophecy that will only be understood once it happens?  Make your case.  &lt;em&gt;(See Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2014-08-20T18:40:04.510" Title="What is the &quot;abomination of desolation&quot;?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;daniel&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-03-27T02:41:09.440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7267" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-22T08:56:34.510" Score="4" ViewCount="1237" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the symbolic idea behind this number?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, what might be His intention behind the travel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1565" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2012-04-22T15:00:37.863" LastActivityDate="2017-02-10T11:29:01.003" Title="Why in the Book of Exodus did God let the people travel for exactly 40 years?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-02-10T19:31:25.873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7267" CreationDate="2012-04-22T15:03:48.030" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Numbers 14: 26-35&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: 27 “How long will this wicked community grumble against me? I have heard the complaints of these grumbling Israelites. 28 So tell them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the LORD, I will do to you the very thing I heard you say: 29 In this wilderness your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. 30 Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun. 31 As for your children that you said would be taken as plunder, I will bring them in to enjoy the land you have rejected. 32 But as for you, your bodies will fall in this wilderness. 33 Your children will be shepherds here for forty years, suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last of your bodies lies in the wilderness. 34 For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’ 35 I, the LORD, have spoken, and I will surely do these things to this whole wicked community, which has banded together against me. They will meet their end in this wilderness; here they will die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God commanded Israelites to explore the land of Canaan. Indeed, the milk and honey was flowing in that land. However, the people of Israel did not believe in God's powers and refused to march into Canaan and claim the land, except for Joshua and Caleb. God multiplied the number of days the group of explorers took to explore Canaan and multiplied it by a year. Eventually, the entire disbelieving generation died out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-05-29T14:40:14.803" LastActivityDate="2012-05-29T14:40:14.803" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7269" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7270" CreationDate="2012-04-22T18:28:22.307" Score="11" ViewCount="16824" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 20:24-29&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I either always lazily read or remember being taught that Thomas actually touched Jesus's side (or maybe &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredulity_of_Saint_Thomas_%28Caravaggio%29&quot;&gt;The Incredulity of Saint Thomas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; by Caravaggio influenced me). But under close reading it appears that Thomas didn't touch Jesus, he merely saw Jesus because the scripture doesn't explicitly say he touched Jesus and Jesus said &quot;Because you have &lt;strong&gt;seen&lt;/strong&gt; me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (emphasis added mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a good interpretation and/or is there any other scripture that would support or not support this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="93" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-12T00:17:06.527" LastActivityDate="2015-08-30T18:51:33.380" Title="Did Thomas actually touch Jesus's side?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;thomas-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7269" CreationDate="2012-04-22T19:56:55.643" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Safe answer:&lt;/strong&gt; John 20 is the only passage of scripture that discusses this event, so the short answer is - we can't say for sure.  In general, we need to be cautious about &quot;reasoning from an absence of scripture.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My guess:&lt;/strong&gt; Thomas made a statement to the effect of &quot;I &lt;strong&gt;refuse&lt;/strong&gt; to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; thing that could change my mind would be if &lt;strong&gt;He Himself&lt;/strong&gt; appeared and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;proved&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; it to me&quot;.  He is pretty &quot;over the top&quot; with his demand, because not only did he say Jesus had to &lt;em&gt;appear&lt;/em&gt;, but that Thomas would have to actually stick his fingers in each of Jesus' wounds!  I think he was trying to make it very clear where he stood on the matter!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus responded by appearing to him and offering to grant his request.  Thomas appears to have been shocked and humbled by this, and seems very repentant, judging by his statement, &quot;My Lord and my God!&quot;  I have a very hard time believing that Thomas proceeded to probe each of His wounds with his fingers, but that's just a guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-04-22T19:56:55.643" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7271" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7274" CreationDate="2012-04-22T22:20:42.563" Score="7" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Hinduism, there is a concept of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/pamphlets/KarmaReincarnation.html&quot;&gt;past life karma&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meaning if someone is born into an unfortunate situation (in a slum, for example) it is because they are paying for sin from a past life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does Christianity or the Bible give any insight into why it seems like some people are here on vacation and others full of strife and sorrow (and everything in between)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, did Jesus specifically address this (or did any of His disciples ask about this)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-09T19:12:42.197" LastActivityDate="2016-01-09T19:12:42.197" Title="Does Christianity give a reason for life experiences, such as in Hinduism?" Tags="&lt;comparative-religion&gt;&lt;theodicy&gt;&lt;hinduism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-03-16T15:06:48.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7271" CreationDate="2012-04-23T00:05:57.350" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, but it's completely unlike &quot;karma.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish culture had a sort of assumption that misfortune was a punishment for sin. This came from the obvious explicit warnings of God that &quot;break covenant =&gt; misfortune.&quot; However, those warnings applied to the covenant people as a whole, not the individual. Apparently somewhere along the road the Rabbis and Pharisees had tacked on some more details. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in Job, his friends are constantly rebuking him for sins he didn't do. They were convinced that his misfortune was a result of disobedience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus's disciples ask him in John 9 upon encountering a man born blind, &quot;Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's rather obvious that the Jews had this question too. But is &quot;karma&quot; the answer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job &lt;em&gt;hadn't&lt;/em&gt; sinned. The book of Job tells us why he encountered misfortune: it was because Satan thought God's chosen had it too easy. Satan told God that &lt;em&gt;of course&lt;/em&gt; Job was righteous, everything was going great! So God let him torment Job to prove a point. Job was steadfast, and in the end God restored his fortune.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only Job, but the man born blind wasn't a victim of unstoppable fate either. In answer to his disciples query of &quot;who sinned?&quot; Jesus responds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that &lt;em&gt;the works&#xA;  of God might be displayed in him.&lt;/em&gt;&quot; John 9:3 (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus then proceeds to heal the man. The event was ordained for God's purpose, as are &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 8:28 says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we know that for those who love God all things work together for&#xA;  good, for those who are called according to his purpose&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no matter what the situation, even if we don't understand it (Isa. 55:9), God's working everything together according to his purpose. That's not karma. It's not based on anything we do. It's all working for his plan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-04-23T03:29:10.897" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T03:29:10.897" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7271" CreationDate="2012-04-23T00:08:18.680" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, if I understand you correctly, your question could be alternately summarized as &quot;Does the Bible offer explanations for why certain things happen to certain people?&quot;, which is related to (but different from) the age-old question &quot;Why does God let bad things happen to good people?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To my knowledge, there isn't much (if any) canon scripture that directly addresses this question. Much of the Bible talks about God having a will and a plan, and that all things, whether we perceive them as good or bad, are used to this purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, consider the first few verses of &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/esv/Jn9.1&quot;&gt;John 9&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;1&lt;/em&gt; As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. &lt;em&gt;2&lt;/em&gt; And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” &lt;em&gt;3&lt;/em&gt; Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. &lt;em&gt;4&lt;/em&gt; We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. &lt;em&gt;5&lt;/em&gt; As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Jesus said here seems to reject the idea that God uses past sins as a method for deciding what will happen to us in the present. There is  certainly a causal relationship with sin, in that all actions have consequences, but nothing Jesus says here suggests that our experiences in life are &lt;em&gt;ordained&lt;/em&gt; as consequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also of potential relevance is the classic scripture from &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/esv/1Co13.4-7&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:4-7&lt;/a&gt;, which describes love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;4&lt;/em&gt; Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant &lt;em&gt;5&lt;/em&gt; or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; &lt;em&gt;6&lt;/em&gt; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. &lt;em&gt;7&lt;/em&gt; Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combined with &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/esv/1Jn4.1&quot;&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can quite reasonably apply every adjective and trait from Corinthians to our picture of God. The biggest piece that stands out here is that God is &lt;strong&gt;patient&lt;/strong&gt; and he is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;resentful&lt;/strong&gt;. This suggests that, whatever His intentions for us, and whatever the consequences for being sinful and far from God in the bigger picture, the consequences of sin are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; of the form &quot;You did X, therefore I will make Y happen to punish you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T00:08:18.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7271" CreationDate="2012-04-23T01:06:12.517" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It might be nice to believe that anyone who suffers must deserve it because of some evil thing he did, that everyone always gets exactly what he deserves, good or bad. But Christianity does not teach that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Asfallows and Thomas point out, in John 9 Jesus was specifically asked if a particular case of suffering was punishment for a person's sin, and he specifically said no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that suffering is never the result of sin. It often is. For example, Matthew 26:52 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword in its place, for all who take&#xA;  the sword will perish by the sword.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament contains many warnings on the consequences of sin. Like Proberbs 10:27-29 &quot;The fear of the Lord prolongs days, But the years of the wicked will be shortened. The hope of the righteous will be gladness,&#xA;But the expectation of the wicked will perish. he way of the Lord is strength for the upright, But destruction will come to the workers of iniquity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people have the idea that the Bible says that at least there will be justice in eternity, that good people will be rewarded in Heaven and bad people will be punished in Hell. But again, this is not what the Bible says at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of&#xA;  yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should&#xA;  boast.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heaven is not a reward for good works, but is a gift that God freely gives to all who ask for it and accept Jesus Christ as savior. According to the Bible, people who have committed all sorts of sins will be forgiven for the asking: David was guilty of adultery and murder, Rahab was a prostitute, etc. The thief on the cross was saved in the last minutes of his life. He clearly had no chance to do anything to make up for his past sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not &quot;fair&quot;. He is merciful. He doesn't give us what we deserve. He gives us something so much better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-23T01:09:23.423" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T01:09:23.423" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7267" CreationDate="2012-04-23T01:16:57.647" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God said that all those who had refused to believe his promise that he would give them the land of Canaan would die in the wilderness. Thus, they had to wonder long enough for all these people to die. That would require decades. &quot;Forty years&quot; seems to be a standard Old Testament period for &quot;one generation&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a Biblical literalist, but I wouldn't insist on the 40 years being an exact number. It may simply be a round number, and the exact time was 37 years, 4 months, and 12 days or whatever. If the writer is rounding off to the nearest 10 years, there aren't that many possible different numbers. It would pretty much hae to come to about 40 years give or take. Maybe 30 or 50. 20 would be too short; 60 probably too long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it may have symbolic significance. But I wouldn't make too much of it. Like that statement in John 21:11 that the disciples caught 153 fish. Did this number have symbolic significance? Or was it just that that happened to be the number?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T01:16:57.647" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7276" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-23T10:08:43.473" Score="5" ViewCount="1876" Body="&lt;p&gt;Friday the 20th was my birthday and as usual, I'll just have a quiet time thanking God for my life. I don't fellowship with JWs anymore but my conscience will not allow me as to why at all I should hold this 'special' day for merry making. I couldn't  devalue their view of this as ungodly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, there are 3 instances of birthday celebrations which all ended in killing of people. &#xA;1st account is when Pharaoh puts his chief baker to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast unto all his servants: and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants...But he hanged the chief baker: as Joseph had interpreted to them.(Genesis 40:20-22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2nd account is at Job who lost his children during their birthday feast. However and whenever they celebrated, Job knew it didn't please God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually. (Job 1:4-5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house: (Job 1:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Job 3 we note that &quot;their day&quot; denotes birthdays. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3rd instance is where Herod beheaded John the Baptist on his birthday only to please his daughter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when Herod’s birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask...&quot;And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. (Matthew 14:6-10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally think that God has shown us how to celebrate our lives keeping the true purpose in mind. ( John 10:10, John&#xA;17:17, II Tim. 3:16-17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, people may not lose their lives at the celebrations and nowhere does the bible directly stop us from this activity but indirectly, what does it seem to be telling us, perhaps about the origin? All posts and counter-claims from any denomination will be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-11T00:30:39.253" LastActivityDate="2015-10-11T00:30:39.253" Title="Are birthday celebrations ungodly?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;holidays&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-10-12T18:03:22.570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7276" CreationDate="2012-04-23T11:17:48.250" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ecclesiastes 8:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So I commend the enjoyment of life, because nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany him in his work all the days of the life God has given him under the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously, have some fun in life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T11:17:48.250" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7276" CreationDate="2012-04-23T14:13:08.250" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;First to address a couple fuzzy or incorrect conclusions drawn in the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of Job does NOT say, &quot;However and whenever they celebrated, Job knew it didn't please God.&quot; As you quoted, Job is being proactive to show God he cares about his children, and that on the off chance they have sinned, an atonement can be made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the beheading of John the Baptist coincided with Herod's birthday, but was not done for his birthday: it was done to please Herodias' daughter (who asked for her mother) after she apparently did some pretty exciting &quot;dancing&quot; for the guests at the party.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the question itself. Firstly, a &quot;birthday&quot; is amoral - it is a day like any other. Days do not have morality associated with them (though the actions of celebrants/observers will have moral implications). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/6/marc-gravell&quot;&gt;@Marc&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7277/69&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; is a start. Hannah celebrated Samuel's birth (though perhaps not the &quot;day&quot;) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%202:18-20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;annually&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now Samuel was ministering before the LORD, as a boy wearing a linen ephod. And his mother would make him a little robe and bring it to him from year to year when she would come up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. Then Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife and say, “May the LORD give you children from this woman in place of the one she dedicated to the LORD.” And they went to their own home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul writes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014:4-8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 14&lt;/a&gt; a generally-applicable commentary on celebrations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no condemnation of celebrating certain amoral days &lt;em&gt;on their own&lt;/em&gt; - any commentary made about varied celebrations is always about what the &lt;em&gt;participant(s)&lt;/em&gt; may be doing (or not doing). It is not about the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;day&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T14:13:08.250" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7269" CreationDate="2012-04-23T14:38:38.047" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In our tradition, the hymnography states unequivocally that Thomas does touch his side. The words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The apostle touched thy flesh and was not burned...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this essentially affirms two theological points about the resurrected Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He was physical, as in, solid&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His resurrected body was not physical in a normal way, and would have harmed an ordinary person because of its power.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also affirms that Thomas &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; touch Christ, according to Orthodox teaching. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, This explains part of why Christ advises Mary Magdalene to not touch him; touching him directly was not safe for a person to ordinarily do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Thomas we are made to understand was granted an exception so that his faith could be bolstered. Similar to how the Apostles were granted to see the Divine Light in the Transfiguration, if only for a short period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T14:38:38.047" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7280" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7291" CreationDate="2012-04-23T16:44:32.180" Score="15" ViewCount="1542" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1054&lt;/a&gt; a reasonable claim could be made that there existed &quot;one holy catholic and apostolic Church&quot;, as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt; puts it.  Since then, the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7060/914&quot;&gt;visible church&lt;/a&gt; has divided into at least three strands, if not many more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Recent_efforts_at_reconciliation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ongoing efforts&lt;/a&gt; to reconcile the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches, I assume that each believes that schism does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; serve God's greater purpose.  (Feel free to provide an answer if I'm wrong or miss some nuance, however.)  Many Protestants believe that both the Western and Eastern churches are wrong or at least misguided to the extent that they are no longer the one true church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But many Protestants, myself included, believe that the invisible church is infused within all the traditions of the church.  We hold that while some traditions (notably our own) are more faithful to Jesus' original call, all Christian traditions that cling to the ancient creeds will be represented in the Resurrection at the end of this world.  But if so, what good purpose could there be for schisms, sects, denominations, synods, conferences, and offshoots?  Isn't the acceptance of organizations that proclaim theology antithetical to what we know to be true more a product of postmodernism than anything found in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;N.B.:&lt;/strong&gt; This question serves the purpose of devil's advocate for the May &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/q/926/914&quot;&gt;blog topic&lt;/a&gt;: What is the church?  I have a number of ideas about how to answer the question, but I'd like to have my beliefs tested before I publish them to a broader audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T12:32:39.807" Title="How do schisms in the church fit into the plans of a monotheistic God?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:09:03.957" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7281" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7285" CreationDate="2012-04-23T17:38:23.423" Score="4" ViewCount="461" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33  “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree&#xA;  bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. 34  You&#xA;  brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of&#xA;  the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35  The good person out&#xA;  of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his&#xA;  evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment&#xA;  people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by&#xA;  your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be&#xA;  condemned.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this context, does being condemned by the words you speak conflict with salvation by grace?  So if you're saved by grace, Jesus would step in and say, &quot;he accepted my sacrifice, his sins are forgiven.&quot;  Who would this message be for?  Non-believers would go to hell if their words are good or bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-04-23T17:43:54.103" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T07:24:41.717" Title="Salvation vs Condemnation: Matthew 12" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;grace&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7282" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-23T17:53:45.753" Score="4" ViewCount="157" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every person comes to moments when they question what they believe.  For me, I was born into a fundamentalist Christian home, came to doubt that worldview, and after lots of soul searching and learning, became a non-believer.  Other people I know go through doubt and come out to be even stronger Christians.  Similar evolutions happen for people in other faiths or people who have no faith joining a religion, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have any studies been done on what kinds of circumstances, personalities, etc. are involved when people change from one faith to another or between faith and non-faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T17:53:45.753" Title="Are there any studies on why some doubters quit faith and others double-down on it?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-04-24T06:49:11.177" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7280" CreationDate="2012-04-23T19:04:19.230" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it were God's will we (Catholics) probably wouldn't pray for reunification every Good Friday!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Unity of Christians:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Let us pray&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For all our brothers and sisters&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Who share our faith in Jesus Christ,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  That God may gather and keep together in one church&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  All those who seek the truth with sincerity.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Almighty and eternal God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   You keep together those you have united.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   Look kindly on all who follow Jesus your Son.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   We are all consecrated to you by our common baptism.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   Make us one in the fullness of faith,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   And keep us one in the fellowship of love.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   We ask this through Christ our Lord.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   Amen.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;on the other hand&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the Easter Vigil Mass a few days later when we thank God for the &quot;Happy fault of Adam&quot; that did more damage to humanity than any schism is capable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, maybe in a few hundred years we'll all be thanking God for the &quot;Happy fault of Luther&quot;, who knows? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear enough, since so much hatred and bitterness were caused by schisms, that it is not the active will of God for His Church. But it is something God allows us to work out for ourselves, through His passive will. Probably to be tested and purified (ala &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/zechariah/13-9.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zech 13:9&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically to the point of schism, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;canon law says&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern day Protestants, practicing their traditions, are neither heretics nor schismatics.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-12J&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 817-822&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T19:04:19.230" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7281" CreationDate="2012-04-23T19:52:36.903" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;But those who reject Christ, who curse him, for instance, would not be accepting his gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there are two points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If it is as he says, out of the mouth the heart speaks, those who curse God with their words may be revealing that they do not accept him in their heart, which is to say, they do not accept the salvation that he offers them. This is directed at all people - particularly the Pharisees - who were supposedly holy people, but would curse Christ and condemn him to death. How could any of them claim to be holy if they were condemning God with their mouth? And furthermore, will God accept those who do not accept him?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even more subtly, the words you speak affect how you act; so one who speaks ill and curses all of his life will fill himself with evils and set his heart on wickedness. A person should not expect for themselves that they can live in such a way and then have a sudden turn around just in time to accept the thing they have been rejecting all of their life to fulfill their desires?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This appears to be addressed to all readers and hearers, but it is not to be applied by the reader or hearer to another person besides themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T19:52:36.903" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7281" CreationDate="2012-04-23T19:52:50.820" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Jesus is trying to say a few things here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Given the context, I think he's warning against hypocrisy. He calls his listeners a &quot;brood of vipers&quot; - they are hypocrites for trying to sound good when, at the heart, they are evil. They are painting their bad fruit to look good. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Watch your mouth. Like James, (&quot;the tongue is a fire&quot;), he warns that even a careless word of spite or a biting remark is a sin, a sin against a holy God, and as such it warrants punishment. On an eternal scale, sinful words are no different from sinful deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Heart ⇒ Mouth. What you say comes from what you think, which comes from who you are. Ultimately, evil or unkind words only come from an evil person. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Jesus isn't contradicting salvation by grace; rather, he's proving its premise: depravity. &lt;em&gt;Everyone&lt;/em&gt; says things they shouldn't, and if evil words really come from an evil hard, &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; is sinful at heart and deserves God's wrath and condemnation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But grace offers a change of heart. Because Jesus had a perfect heart, he never spoke a wrong word. He always spoke good, and his record of righteousness is transferred to us. Not only do we get a clean record (so God looks at our words and sees Christ's), we also get a new heart so that we begin to speak without evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-23T20:50:16.083" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T20:50:16.083" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7286" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7287" CreationDate="2012-04-23T20:07:45.107" Score="4" ViewCount="226" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we pray, does Jesus hear us? Is there a direct point of contact or is it received by all three persons of the trinity simultaneously?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-04-30T13:43:59.707" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T13:43:59.707" Title="What is the &quot;path&quot; of a prayer?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7286" CreationDate="2012-04-23T20:30:47.993" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no way to know for certain, and given that God knows your prayers before you pray them, if you will, before the foundation of the world, the direct path of your prayer is somewhat immaterial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who dwell in him, indeed, must also have this knowledge as well; but in a more limited fashion since they are not God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the second part, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit fully indwell one another, thus aside from the aspect of incarnation, it is impossible to make such a distinction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T20:30:47.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7288" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-23T20:32:48.303" Score="6" ViewCount="299" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was thinking about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7280/how-do-schisms-in-the-church-fit-into-the-plans-of-a-monotheistic-god#comment19685_7280&quot;&gt;this comment&lt;/a&gt; concerning cliquishness in the churches and how they can help build each other up (or avoid strife).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Smaller towns in rural America with large immigrant Hispanic populations often have Mass in Spanish usually with a visiting pastor. It once was the case that there would be a Polish church and a German church and an Italian church and maybe an Irish church in different neighborhoods.  But nowadays, we're lucky if there's one church for a 30 mile radius and we have to share resources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just wonder what the official status of these sub-parishes is.  If Mass is only offered in your native language once every month is that all you're obligated to attend?  Is Bishops goal of having Hispanic outreach to just get people in the door or to make them full fledged parishioners? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2016-08-30T20:27:09.923" Title="What is the Catholic position on ethnic parishes today?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7288" CreationDate="2012-04-23T21:14:03.317" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;My church (Roman Catholic, on the south coast of the UK) hosts a monthly Mass in Polish, which is well attended. The building was packed for the Polish &quot;Midnight&quot; Mass at Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also hosts a weekly (Sunday afternoon) Mass for the Ordinariate congregation, whose members are not members of the local diocese.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all these efforts, including the Hispanic Masses you reference, I would like to think that the Church is not just seeking to get people in the door, but providing a ministry. It is to be hoped that immigrant churchgoers will seek to assimilate themselves into the local culture, and there is at least a weekly opportunity to attend Mass in English, which would fulfil an obligation. But such assimilation may take some considerable time. If the Church can provide the opportunity for confession and Mass in a native language, and allow full participation in the rites of Church, then why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[The answer to &lt;em&gt;Why not&lt;/em&gt; is, of course, your point about making fully-fledged parishioners. However in our case, it's quite likely that members of the Polish community are not long-term residents. We do have a sizable Italian Catholic community, and they do attend Masses in English.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T21:14:03.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7286" CreationDate="2012-04-23T23:54:27.720" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; My understanding is that &amp;quot;we pray to the Father, in the name of the Son, with the help of the Spirit.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scriptural Justification:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Passages that lead me to believe we should be praying to the Father, specifically:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Jesus:] &amp;quot;when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret&amp;quot;  (from Matthew 6:6, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;[Jesus] said to them, 'When you pray, say: &amp;quot;Father,...&amp;quot;'&amp;quot;  (from Luke 11:2, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;[Jesus] fell on His face and prayed, saying, 'My Father,...&amp;quot;  (from Matthew 26:39, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Passages that lead me to believe we should pray in the name of the Son, specifically:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;[I, Jesus] appointed you that you would go and bear fruit... so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.&amp;quot;  (from John 15:16, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Jesus:] &amp;quot;In that day you will ask in My name, and I do &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; say to you that &lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; will request of the Father on your behalf;  for the Father Himself loves you...&amp;quot;  (from John 16:26-27, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Passages that lead me to believe we should pray with the help of the Spirit:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes...&amp;quot;  (from Romans 8:26, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit...&amp;quot;  (from Ephesians 6:18, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,&amp;quot;  (Jude 1:20, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-23T23:54:27.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7280" CreationDate="2012-04-24T02:25:01.297" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Schisms in the church are the result of sin. However, God can use even the schisms to serve His purposes, by making a distinction between those who are walking according to His ways and those who are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, it is important to distinguish between &quot;&lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; church&quot; and &quot;all the &lt;strong&gt;churches&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.  (Compare &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 3:15&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2016:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 16:16&lt;/a&gt; - same Greek word.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;The&quot; Church&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In one sense, there is one church, comprised of all believers.  Amongst believers, we should strive for unity, which means walking in humility, patience, tolerance, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[I, Paul] implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, &lt;strong&gt;being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace&lt;/strong&gt;. There is one body and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:1-6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Ephesians 4:1-6&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication is that if there is not unity, it is due to sin.  (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:23-24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:23-24&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Local Churches&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believers gather together in local assemblies, which are referred to as &quot;churches&quot; in the Bible.  For various reasons, local churches tend to take on unique personalities.  (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Revelation 2-3&lt;/a&gt;)  However, the principle is the same - be of like mind.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2013:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 13:11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Philippians 1:27&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;2:2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be &lt;strong&gt;no divisions among you&lt;/strong&gt;, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 Corinthians 1:10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reality&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, divisions are a reality.  This wasn't something Martin Luther brought into the church... consider the following division between the ministries of Paul and Barnabas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along . . . And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:37-39&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Acts 15:37-39&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Root of the Problem&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is an unpopular message, but scripture teaches us clearly what the reason for division is.  Divisions are the result of a person (or assembly) becoming worldly, devoid of the Spirit, following after their own lusts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.' &lt;strong&gt;These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.&lt;/strong&gt; But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:18-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Jude 1:18-21&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast to these wicked men, believers are instructed to walk by faith, pray in the Spirit, and remain in the love of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Redemptive Purpose&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God doesn't desire divisions amongst His people, but if a person (or assembly) becomes worldly, lustful, etc. sometimes it is necessary for a separation to take place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world . . . for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, &lt;strong&gt;I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person&lt;/strong&gt; . . . For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? . . . &lt;strong&gt;REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:9-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 Corinthians 5:9-13&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, Luther believed the Catholic Church had become so corrupt in his day that he needed to separate from them.  The Catholic Church responded with excommunication. In other words, the &quot;two groups&quot; felt they had irreconcilable differences in doctrine, and one or both sides were unwilling to continue in fellowship together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But God can even work through situations caused by the evil motives of men, and work it all out for the good of His people (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2050:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Genesis 50:20&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 8:28&lt;/a&gt;.)  There is even a redemptive purpose which God can work through divisions - He can use the divisions to shed light on who is following in His ways and who isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you . . . there must . . . be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:18-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 Corinthians 11:18-19&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-04-12T07:31:54.430" LastActivityDate="2013-04-12T07:31:54.430" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7276" CreationDate="2012-04-24T03:23:01.207" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Flawed Logic&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By that logic, I could easily show that getting married is a sin, because practically every woman in the Bible was a cause of stumbling for her husband... :p  Or I could show that God's interactions with Israel in the wilderness were evil, because whenever He tested them, they sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We need to stick to what the Bible &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; say, and be careful about reading into it too much.  Safe conclusion: &quot;Bad things sometimes happened on birthdays.&quot;  Shaky conclusion: &quot;Birthdays are evil.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Could Be Either&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If I throw a party for my birthday so I can get attention and presents and we can all get together and get drunk and talk about how great I am, then it's probably a safe bet to call this particular birthday party &quot;sinful.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If it's my friend's birthday, and I get some of his friends together, and we gather together to share a meal with him and show him how much we value him and care about him, that seems more like &quot;love&quot; than &quot;sin.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Taskmaster or Kinsman?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Many people view God as a ruthless taskmaster with His finger on the &quot;death button&quot; waiting for you to mess up so He can judge you.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think His people need to recognize that He is love, and He created life to be pleasant and enjoyable prior to sin messing it all up.  If we are walking in His will, it's ok to enjoy life a little in our &quot;down time.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-04-24T03:23:01.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7280" CreationDate="2012-04-24T09:38:46.643" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The traditions of the church and all the different denominations in the world have nothing to do with true Christianity except where they help individuals to follow Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church in it's many forms are but organizations made by men, not Holy, but flawed institutions with flawed rules and regulations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet God uses these institutions to spread the Truth.  But it is the individual alone who meets God &quot;in the dark night&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 15&lt;/strong&gt;:8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, &#xA;     but their hearts are far from me. &#xA;  9 They worship me in vain; &#xA;     their teachings are merely human rules.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 9&lt;/strong&gt;:49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7&lt;/strong&gt;:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-04-24T09:38:46.643" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2012-04-24T11:54:57.953" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Of course you can.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being Christian has nothing to do with your belief in evolution or another scientific theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian means &lt;em&gt;Christ-like&lt;/em&gt;. So as long as you mimic Jesus, i.e. &lt;em&gt;do what Jesus would do&lt;/em&gt;, you are Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;You can believe in evolution while at the same time love thy self, love thy neighbor and love thy God.&quot; Then YOU can proudly call yourself a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (KJV) &lt;em&gt;Matthew 22:37-40&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1569" LastEditorDisplayName="user1569" LastEditDate="2012-04-25T07:32:54.220" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T07:32:54.220" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7286" CreationDate="2012-04-24T12:46:32.583" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well don't try to imagine that there is Complicated Prayer System or algorithm in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Just hold this very word of Jesus:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.&quot; (KJV) &lt;em&gt;Luke 11:9&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The prayer path is simple one: ask and you'll receive the answer.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please read &lt;em&gt;Luke 11:1-13&lt;/em&gt; so we may understand what was exactly Jesus trying to teach us regarding prayer. Let us beware so that our intelligent didn't hinder us from understanding God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. (KJV) &lt;em&gt;Matthew 11:25&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response of @waxeagle 's demand:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, let us see what's Jesus intention:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent. (KJV) &lt;em&gt;Luke 4:43&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The possible question arises in the people's mind is: What's the difference between this kingdom of God with all the world's kingdom so that it's important to be preached?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus provide the answer through Lord's Prayer as we already know it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. (KJV) &lt;em&gt;Matthew 6:9-10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike all the world's kingdom, God, the King himself is our Father. The hassles (path, system, rules, algorithm, laws) we going through to speak (pray) to the King is present no more. I believe everyone here can easily talk to their own father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (KJV) &lt;em&gt;Luke 16:16&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples some of the hassles before the time the kingdom of God is preached:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Saul need to use Samuel as mediator to pray to God. (&lt;em&gt;1 Samuel 15:16&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Just to ask for forgiveness the children of Israel must perform certain ritual, moreover only High Priest permitted to talk to God (pray). Read &lt;em&gt;Leviticus&lt;/em&gt; it has a lot of old rules related to prayer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anecdote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the evening in Galilee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disciples: Rabbi, how's the rules (path, system, algorithm, laws) so that our prayer reach God (King)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus: It's simple, there's no rule, just go and talk to Him. He's our Father after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope it helps. God bless you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1569" LastEditorDisplayName="user1569" LastEditDate="2012-04-25T08:59:20.850" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T08:59:20.850" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7286" CreationDate="2012-04-24T16:34:59.540" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's say you write a letter to the CEO of a company: one important thing you need is the address. Even if you take it there in person, you first meet the front desk manager/assistant or receptionist. The letter goes through him or her before it is handed over to the boss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man&#xA;  cometh unto the Father, but by me. &quot; &lt;strong&gt;(John 14:6).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto&#xA;  you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it&#xA;  you. &quot; &lt;strong&gt;(John 16:23).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the address or the receptionist, the path.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is God's active force that we pray for, for him to use to empower us and direct us to carry out his works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 10:6&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;The Spirit of the LORD will come upon you in power, and&#xA;  you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different&#xA;  person.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1570" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-25T04:35:18.687" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T04:35:18.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7301" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-24T17:06:30.953" Score="4" ViewCount="1104" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do some traditions recite the Lord's Prayer word for word?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know a lot of Christians that do this, but I am having trouble understanding why. Is the Lord's prayer recited by anyone anywhere else in the Bible other than when Jesus first says it to the disciples?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1572" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T19:24:42.230" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T14:51:24.293" Title="Why do some traditions recite the Lord's Prayer word for word?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;lords-prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7060" CreationDate="2012-04-24T18:02:58.327" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if this is precisely what you are looking for, but your question immediately reminded me of Augustine's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.ii.xxxvi.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chapter 35.—Of the Sons of the Church Who are Hidden Among the Wicked, and of False Christians Within the Church.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let these and similar answers (if any fuller and fitter answers can be found) be given to their enemies by the redeemed family of the Lord Christ, and by the pilgrim city of King Christ.  But let this city bear in mind, that &lt;em&gt;among her enemies lie hid those who are destined to be fellow-citizens&lt;/em&gt;, that she may not think it a fruitless labor to bear what they inflict as enemies until they become confessors of the faith.  &lt;em&gt;So, too, as long as she is a stranger in the world, the city of God has in her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, some who shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints.&lt;/em&gt;  Of these, some are not now recognized; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate to make common cause with our enemies in murmuring against God, whose sacramental badge they wear.  These men you may to-day see thronging the churches with us, to-morrow crowding the theatres with the godless.  But we have the less reason to despair of the reclamation even of such persons, if among our most declared enemies there are now some, unknown to themselves, who are destined to become our friends.  &lt;em&gt;In truth, these two cities are entangled together in this world, and intermixed until the last judgment effects their separation.&lt;/em&gt;  I now proceed to speak, as God shall help me, of the rise, progress, and end of these two cities; and what I write, I write for the glory of the city of God, that, being placed in comparison with the other, it may shine with a brighter lustre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've emphasized several phrases that say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some of the elect are currently enemies of the Church,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some within the Church are not among the elect, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church and the World are currently intermingled.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not exactly the case that false Christians are &amp;quot;invisible&amp;quot;—Augustine notes that they may be found in the theaters with the godless.  (Augustine had a very low opinion of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_ancient_Rome#Stock_characters_in_Roman_comedy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;theaters at that time&lt;/a&gt;.  We could probably stand to be more critical of our entertainment choices in this day as my grandmother would have been quick to remind me.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-24T18:02:58.327" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7303" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-24T18:18:18.980" Score="9" ViewCount="5807" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was &lt;strong&gt;because of a revelation&lt;/strong&gt; that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.  - &lt;strong&gt;Galatians 2:1-2, NASB&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Paul's revelation was?  Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-16T16:59:58.407" LastActivityDate="2020-04-29T23:12:06.747" Title="What was Paul's &quot;revelation&quot; (mentioned in Galatians 2:2)?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7304" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9640" CreationDate="2012-04-24T18:31:12.100" Score="20" ViewCount="1256" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today, many Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the Middle East use Arabic as the language of the Divine Liturgy, often mingled with Greek. When did this practice begin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume that at the time of the Muslim invasions the only liturgical languages in use were Greek and Syriac, and I can't imagine that the Orthodox Christians at that time were &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; keen on immediately adopting the language of the conquerors. Nonetheless, this clearly happened eventually. How and when did this shift occur?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1573" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-04-16T15:31:00.350" LastActivityDate="2019-04-19T03:54:20.747" Title="When did Arabic enter into usage as a liturgical language among Christians?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7305" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9118" CreationDate="2012-04-24T18:46:48.337" Score="1" ViewCount="2639" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Christian perspective on deceptive brain messages?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern science now shows us proof that we can rewire our brains, so that it works in more beneficial ways. The concepts in a new book by Doctor Jeffery M. Schwartz (an Evangelical Christian), &lt;em&gt;You Are Not Your Brain&lt;/em&gt;, demonstrates some of the latest experiments and findings of the scientific community, having to do with the brain and the mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please see videos from the author to understand the book:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using Jesus as your impartial spectator to help you realize your brain is sending you a false message: &lt;a href=&quot;http://suprememastertv.com/ss/?wr_id=97&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://suprememastertv.com/ss/?wr_id=97&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Interviews: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jeffreymschwartz.com/resources.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jeffreymschwartz.com/resources.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Collection of his links:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://westallen.typepad.com/brains_on_purpose/about_jeffrey_m_schwartz_.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://westallen.typepad.com/brains_on_purpose/about_jeffrey_m_schwartz_.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youarenotyourbrain.com/appearances/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youarenotyourbrain.com/appearances/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;details and reviews:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/you-are-not-your-brain-jeffrey-m-schwartz/1030467418?ean=9781583334263&amp;amp;itm=4&amp;amp;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;B&amp;amp;N details&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1583334262&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon details&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/use-your-mind-change-your-brain/201106/you-are-not-your-brain&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psychology Today Article on the book&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://guineveregetssober.com/jeffrey-schwartz-you-are-not-your-brain/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;review&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example from the book:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nothing is more confusing or painful than when your brain takes over&#xA;  your thoughts, attacks your self-worth, questions your abilities,&#xA;  overpowers you with cravings, or attempts to dictate your actions.&#xA;  Have you ever felt that something is compelling you to “go” places...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. is an Evangelical Christian.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now with some people they say this is God telling them something or sending them an affliction etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where do we draw the line between medical condition inspired actions vs. God inspired actions?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, maybe someone with ODC in the year 200AD  thought it was God making him go back and make sure he put the lid back on the well. Today if someone keeps checking if they turned off the sink, it is considered a medical issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does Christianity address the difference between our mind (higher self as it is called in the book, he even says some patients also call it the Jesus in them) and the brain?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, here is something in general that support the concept:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your&#xA;  reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be&#xA;  anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication&#xA;  with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the&#xA;  peace of God, which &lt;strong&gt;surpasses all understanding&lt;/strong&gt;, will &lt;strong&gt;guard your&#xA;  hearts and your minds&lt;/strong&gt; in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is&#xA;  true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure,&#xA;  whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any&#xA;  excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, &lt;strong&gt;think about these&#xA;  things. ...&lt;/strong&gt; - Philippians 4:4-9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the Bible is the most modern and futuristic book we have and that it has a dimension that addresses this. I have concepts from my own summarizing of the Bible but if was asked to back it up, could not at this point. So any thoughts, passages, studies or ideas are welcomed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;Operating on the highly rational perspective that we are not our brains, but rather, substantial free agents who exercise control over our brains, Schwartz and Gladding develop a simple, yet profoundly insightful approach for developing a flourishing life.  The result will bring healing and hope to all who read it.&quot;&#xA;--J. P. Moreland, author of The God Question (Christian apologist).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT :&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Just found out the author of the book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://westallen.typepad.com/brains_on_purpose/about_jeffrey_m_schwartz_.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeffery M. Schwartz&lt;/a&gt; is an Evangelical Christian:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Please see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jeffreymschwartz.com/resources.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;first video here&lt;/a&gt;.  I believe that makes this question a bit more relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-08-13T18:38:45.817" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T23:09:49.013" Title="What is the Christian perspective on deceptive brain messages?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-03-16T05:38:25.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7306" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-24T18:55:10.510" Score="15" ViewCount="2908" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Leo X &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm&quot;&gt;enumerated 41 positions&lt;/a&gt; that he required Luther to recant from in order to be restored to communion with the Latin Church.  Presumably, he wasn't all that excited about some of the other &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/95_Theses&quot;&gt;Ninety-Five Theses&lt;/a&gt;, but preferred to ignore them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;86.&lt;/code&gt; Again:&amp;mdash;&quot;Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, it seems that the Roman Church has changed her &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Actions_for_which_indulgences_are_granted&quot;&gt;position on indulgences&lt;/a&gt; to the point where, though I disagree with the theology, I can see good purpose in the practice.  In fact, I'm tempted to say that Luther's proposed reforms have been implemented in the spirit they were offered if not to the letter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So which of Luther's theses, if any, still have bite?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2014-10-11T00:23:07.653" Title="Which of Luther's 95 Theses are still potentially valid critiques of Roman Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6879" CreationDate="2012-04-24T20:10:21.617" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will answer this question simply by presenting the actual roles of women in Scripture: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;wife (Sarah, for ex) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;president&quot; (Deborah)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;prophetess (Anna)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;agricultural worker (Ruth)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;advocate (Esther)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;teacher (Priscilla)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;disciple (Tabitha)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;deacon (Phoebe)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;spiritual leader (Deborah, Lydia)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;deliverer (Jael)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;household manager (Proverbs 31)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;chef (Rebekah)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;funder (Susanna)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;evangelist (Junia, Euodio and Syntyche)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;shepherd (Rachel)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;artists (exoduse 36)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rescuer (Moses' mother, Rahab)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;surrogate mother (Hannah)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;learner&quot; (Mary)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;servant (Martha)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mother (Mary)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this list, it is clear that women (and men) are called to many different types of roles. However, when people talk about &quot;gender roles&quot; in the church, the discussion largely looks similar to the posts above. This is unfortunate, because as evangelicals we believe it is important to take all of Scripture into consideration, but people tend not to think of actual women's roles as relevant to &quot;gender roles.&quot; And while Scripture may demonstrate lots of gender roles, based in the culture, that we would consider abusive in our culture, the fact that God called and used women beyond those patriarchal roles indicates to me that those roles are made by humans and not the intention of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A minor note on Eve being a &quot;helper&quot; as mentioned in one of the responses - The female (not yet called Eve) was created as a helper to the male the way God is described as a helper to humans. The Hebrew word used for Eve is most often used as a word to describe God helping humans - almost 20 times in the OT. The Hebrew word is more like &quot;rescuer&quot; and implies strength. Genesis 2 seems to demonstrate that the male was lonely, and God sent a rescuer, the female. This English translated word is used as a support for the idea of hierarchy, but the people I know who hold this understanding of &quot;helper&quot; do not believe that God is under males or that males have authority over God. They don't believe God is the sous chef. Yet to believe this is what the word means for females implies the same meaning for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, as evangelicals, we do not hold anything close to a monolithic view, there is a great deal of diversity on many non-central issues!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1574" LastEditorUserId="1574" LastEditDate="2012-04-25T14:40:47.367" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T14:40:47.367" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7281" CreationDate="2012-04-24T20:28:52.523" Score="1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Quick answer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This message is for the Pharisees, whom Jesus is rebuking for their self-righteousness. The Pharisees were very confused about their spiritual condition, so Jesus was trying &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;yet again&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to show them their wickedness and need for a Savior.  There is no conflict between this passage and salvation by grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Explanation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Context of Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might go without saying, but the spiritual truth that God is trying to communicate through scripture is a lot &quot;bigger&quot; and is very &quot;different&quot; than the way we generally think of things.  (Isaiah 55:8-9) Throughout the Bible, I get the sense that God is continually trying to &quot;explain it a different way...&quot; or &quot;in other words...&quot; or &quot;approach it from a different angle&quot;, in hopes that once we have seen truth from all of these different angles, we might finally have a clear picture of what reality actually looks like from God's perspective.  (e.g. Hebrews 1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, I think it is important to seek &quot;God's &lt;strong&gt;meaning&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; by careful study of &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; of the relevant passages, rather than focusing too much on the details of word definitions, etc.  (Matthew 4:1-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Bad&lt;/em&gt; Tree!&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is clearly trying to make a point by drawing a contrast between &quot;good trees&quot; and &quot;bad trees&quot;.  He is talking to a very confused group of people (the Pharisees) who think that being &quot;religious&quot; is the same as being &quot;good&quot;.  Jesus, &lt;strong&gt;once again&lt;/strong&gt;, is trying to explain that they are &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;good&quot;.  This time he is pointing out the wicked things that are coming out of their mouths, and indicating that they will be judged for every last one of them.  (Consider the context of the passage - blaspheming the Spirit.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Salvation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Jesus teaching &quot;salvation by words&quot;?  Not really.  (Mark 7:6-7, James 2:14-17)  If He was, we would all go to Hell.  (James 3:2, 2:10)  We should understand this passage in the same way that we understand the law... it is the perfect standard of God, which we should all live up to, but which &lt;em&gt;no man actually does&lt;/em&gt; live up to, and which we will all be judged by...  (James 2:10-11, Matthew 5:48)  ...&lt;strong&gt;unless&lt;/strong&gt; we return to Him and are cleansed from our sin by His gracious gift of salvation via the sinless sacrifice of Christ.  (Romans 3:19, Galatians 5:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judgment Day&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I may be wrong in this, but to me it looks like &quot;judgment day&quot; is reserved for the wicked, and the &quot;righteous ones&quot; aren't there for that event... (Revelation 20:4-6, 11-15, 2 Peter 3:7, John 3:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-04-25T04:21:53.133" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T04:21:53.133" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7309" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7394" CreationDate="2012-04-24T22:29:39.363" Score="12" ViewCount="1434" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Reformed Theology, &quot;the marks of a true church&quot; are often delineated, to the effect of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Church discipline&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teaching/preaching&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Administration of the sacraments&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(These are the marks often denoted in systematic theology, but let it be noted that they are not intended to exclude other important marks such as suffering and love.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A slightly altered formula is seen in Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25 &lt;em&gt;Of the Church&lt;/em&gt;, paragraph 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found something similar in Calvin's letter to Cardinal Sadoleto (available in Vol. III of Banner of Truth's &lt;em&gt;Tracts and Letters&lt;/em&gt; Calvin volumes, and in a slim booklet edited by John Olin entitled &lt;em&gt;A Reformation Debate&lt;/em&gt;, page 63):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since there are three things on which the safety of the Church is fonded, viz., doctrine, discipline, and the sacraments, and to these a fourth is added, viz., ceremonies, by which to exercise the people in offices of piety...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin's letter of 1539 predates the Confession by a little over a hundred years, and is the earliest document that I have personally found this doctrine in. However, I find it unlikely that Calvin wrote any new doctrines in his letter to the Cardinal, so I'm wondering where the origin of this doctrine was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does Calvin have earlier writings on it? Did earlier Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli or Bucer discuss it? Were there pre-Reformation theologians who discussed it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-02-24T02:22:13.577" LastActivityDate="2018-02-24T02:22:13.577" Title="Origin of the Reformed &quot;Marks of the True Church&quot;" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;&lt;marks-of-the-church&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6149" CreationDate="2012-04-25T01:31:14.093" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Michal despised David for dancing at the return of the ark.  She sarcastically refers to his behavior as &quot;glorious&quot; in 2 Samuel 6:20 (KJV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of&#xA;  Saul came out to meet David, and said, &lt;strong&gt;How glorious was the king of&#xA;  Israel to day&lt;/strong&gt;, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the&#xA;  handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly&#xA;  uncovereth himself!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1576" LastEditorUserId="1576" LastEditDate="2018-11-12T09:44:14.027" LastActivityDate="2018-11-12T09:44:14.027" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7306" CreationDate="2012-04-25T03:38:27.367" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, it was worth it to finally read those in their entirety and not try to pick apart individual portions.   It would seem that you're correct in saying that the church has changed her position on indulgences. However, the church has not changed her position on papal supremacy, only refined it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today a plenary indulgence is granted for some prayers, bible reading, and other timely things (like visiting a cemetery during November). The normal requirements must also be met confession, reception of the Eucharist and prayer for the Pope's intentions.  One must also have a complete detachment from sin, that's not easy.  Luther says there's very few (23), he's probably right. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T03:38:27.367" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7305" CreationDate="2012-04-25T03:52:24.480" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me begin with the disclaimer that I have not read this book, I have never heard of this book, and so all I know about it is what you say here. So most of what I say here is about the general idea and not the specifics of this book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think two key points should be born in mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I would be very cautious about saying that &quot;science has proven&quot; something based on claims of one writer in one, let us admit, obscure book. There have been many books written over the centuries claiming to have &quot;proof&quot; of this or that, from cold fusion to people being kidnapped by aliens, and further investigation proves them to be inconclusive or flat wrong. (I'd be especially careful about concluding that the Bible must be wrong or must be &quot;re-interpreted&quot; based on such claims. The scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible has withstood endless attacks over thousands of years. If a claimed new scientific discovery contradicts the Bible, the safe bet is that the Bible will turn out to be right. But maybe that's a tangent: I gather that you are not saying that this book &quot;proves&quot; the Bible wrong, but simply that you want to fit this into your understanding of spiritual truth.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;That said, at least the general idea as you describe it is nothing new. The Bible makes numerous mentions of at least one case where a physical stimulus can affect the mind: Proverbs 20:1 &quot;Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.&quot; There are warnings thoughout the Bible that excessive alcohol consumption interferes with good judgement. While I can't think of a Bible verse mentioning this, surely the Bible writers were aware that physical injury can hurt the mind. That is, they must have known cases where someone sufferred a head wound and was mentally impaired either temporarily or permeanently.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So nowhere does the Bible teach that the soul or mind is completely separate from and unaffected by the body, and indeed specifically talks about the counter-example of drunkenness on numerous occasions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Bible of course teaches that the soul outlives the body, and that sould embodies the same mind you had when alive, the mind must be something more than the electrochemical processes of the brain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what exactly is the relationship between the brain, i.e. the physical organ, and the mind, i.e. the personality? I can give a complete and accurate answer to that question: I don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly the brain affects the mind, but the mind is not the same thing as the brain. There is an interrelationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It certainly brings up difficult moral and spiritual questions. If a person accidentally ingests a chemical that messes with his mind and causes him to become violent, does God hold him accountable for the acts committed while under the influence of this chemical? Could a drug or electrical stimulus or whatever interfere with the functioning of a person's mind in a way that causes him to reject God, while without this stimulus he would have turned to God and been saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds very tricky, but a little thought will show that it's not different in principle from other human or natural events that could interfere with a person's salvation. Like, what if a person was on his way to visit a friend and tell him about God, and on the way he is killed in an automobile accident? What about people who, because of historical circumstances beyond their control, live in a place where the Gospel has never been heard? Etc etc. There are many natural events that can affect your spiritual life. Things that interfere with the functioning of the brain are more insidious -- &quot;creepier&quot; perhaps -- but not different in kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2012-08-16T00:59:14.587" LastActivityDate="2012-08-16T00:59:14.587" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7306" CreationDate="2012-04-25T04:26:50.337" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 95 These are not 95 points of criticism of Catholic doctrine. That is, Luther was not identitifying 95 different doctrines and/or practices of the Catholic church that he disapproved of. Really there are all about one practice of the Catholic church: the selling of indulgences, i.e. telling people that they could buy a &quot;reduced sentence&quot; in purgatory by giving money to the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the practices of the Catholic Church today, but to the best of my knowledge they are no longer selling indulgences, directly or indirectly. You might find individual cases where a priest or other representative of the church says or implies that someone can win some favor with God by making a big donation, but these are individual mistakes or abuses and not Catholic policy. Therefore, I think pretty much none of the criticisms in the 95 Theses apply today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, many of the 95 Theses are not, of themselves, criticisms of the Catholic church. For example #1, &quot;Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.&quot; Or #94, &quot;Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;&quot; I haven't counted how many are criticisms of church practice and how many are points Luther is trying to establish along the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that Luther carefully worded many to avoid overtly criticizing the Catholic church and especially the pope. For example #48, &quot;Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-10-11T00:23:07.653" LastActivityDate="2014-10-11T00:23:07.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2012-04-25T04:32:11.450" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt;  This question should not be answered with a &quot;yes&quot; or a &quot;no&quot;.  It depends on how much God has revealed to you, and whether you are responding to His revealed word in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Explanation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The topic of origins is &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; controversial, and there are &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; passionate people on &quot;all sides&quot; of the debate.  However, I would suggest that at its roots, your question isn't so much about origins as it is about what makes a person a Christian, and how much freedom we have in our beliefs as Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In an attempt to provide you with a useful answer (and avoid comment wars) I will generalize your question as follows:  &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Can I believe in -(insert doctrine here)- and still be a Christian?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Token Answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before providing a useful answer, I need to address &quot;the token answer&quot;, which is &quot;sure you can - lots of people do.&quot;  The problem with this answer is that it assumes that &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; people do all sorts of things and &lt;em&gt;call&lt;/em&gt; themselves Christians that it is &lt;em&gt;ok&lt;/em&gt; to do all sorts of things and call yourself a Christian.  I don't think this is a useful answer to any question of this form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Defining &quot;Christian&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many different &quot;Christian&quot; churches in the world, but what is &quot;Christian&quot; to one church may be &quot;Anti-Christian&quot; to another.  If we just define Christian as &quot;believing God is real&quot;, or &quot;believing Jesus rose from the dead&quot;, then there aren't really any limits to what you can believe (after all, even &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7798/1548&quot;&gt;the demons&lt;/a&gt; would fall into this category!)  I will assume you are referring to the kind of &quot;Christian&quot; who is doing things right according to Scripture.  From what I understand, &lt;strong&gt;a Christian would then be someone who has &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7261/1548&quot;&gt;turned their life over to Christ&lt;/a&gt; and, is now (by necessity) &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7256/1548&quot;&gt;walking by faith&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Important Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7256/1548&quot;&gt;Biblical faith&lt;/a&gt; is not blind, is not based on the opinions of men, and is not based on our own understanding.  It is a response to the word of God.  So the important question is - &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Has God revealed to you the truth about -(insert topic here)-, and if so, how have you chosen to respond?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  So, it has less to do with &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; you believe, and more to do with &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; you are walking out your decision to live by faith (trusting the word of God.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Illustration&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sake of providing an origins-neutral illustration, let's say you're blind, and you are sitting in a chair in a room.  Bob and Dan are in the room with you, and you have a sneaking suspicion that Jesus might be standing there as well.  Your mom calls on the phone and asks you what color your chair is, but you're blind, so you don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A) You could say &quot;I don't know what color it is&quot;, and that would be a good, honest answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B) You could say &quot;It's definitely blue, because I don't believe it would be red&quot;, but that would just be silly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, suppose it was somewhat important that your mom know the actual color of the chair.  You think to yourself &lt;em&gt;&quot;well, Jesus would be the most trustworthy person to ask, but I'm not sure if He's really standing there, and if I ask Him if He's there and it turns out that He's not, I'll look like an idiot to Bob and Dan.  Even if it turns out that He is there, He may not answer me.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  So, you decide to ask Bob and Dan what color the chair is.  Bob says it's black and Dan says it's green.  But to be honest, you're not entirely sure that they aren't blind also.  After thinking it over, you finally decide that in general, Bob is more trustworthy than Dan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C) You could say &quot;Bob says the chair is black, and I tend to believe him, but I can't say for certain&quot;, which would be a good, honest answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D) You could say &quot;The chair is definitely black&quot;, but you might be on shaky ground with that answer, not knowing if Bob is blind or not, and not knowing if he is telling the truth or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, suppose that it is &lt;em&gt;absolutely critical&lt;/em&gt; that you tell your mom &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; what color the chair is.  In your desperation, you cry out to Jesus, asking Him if He is there.  It turns out He is, so you ask Him what color the chair is.  He says &quot;the chair is yellow&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E) You could combine the answers from Jesus and Bob (considering them the two most reliable people in the room) and say &quot;The chair is dark yellow - almost black&quot;, but you might be on shaky ground, because Jesus is perfectly trustworthy and that's not exactly what He said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;F) You could say &quot;I believe the chair is yellow, because Jesus told me, and even though Bob and Dan are telling me something different, I trust the word of Jesus above the word of Bob and Dan&quot;.  Of course, this would probably upset some folks... Bob and Dan might not like hearing that they are &quot;blind&quot;, or &quot;untrustworthy&quot;.  But at least you would be pleasing your friend Jesus by demonstrating your trust in His word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Things To Consider&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How important is it to you to know the truth about this topic?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Who do you most trust to teach you the truth about this topic?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have you asked God to reveal the truth to you about this topic?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Has He told you the answer?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are you willing to believe Him even if people around you disagree?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, if God hasn't told you the truth about the matter, and you don't have any reason to believe that it is particularly important to Him, it would not be un-Christian to say &quot;I tend to believe &lt;strong&gt;X&lt;/strong&gt;, but I'm not certain&quot;, and leave it at that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if you considered the truth of this topic to be of supreme importance, as a Christian it would only make sense to seek God for the truth.  Once you have a clear word from God on the matter, it is our duty to trust what He says about it, despite the opinions of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T20:11:20.137" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1470" CreationDate="2012-04-25T05:31:23.217" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Angels do, or at least did have free will. Some have taken up a misconception that angels are like God's robots and do only what He wants them to. However, if that was the case, Lucifer could not have rebelled against God, nor could 1/3 of the angels of Heaven rebel with him. It was not God's desire for them to rebel anymore than it is His desire for us to rebel. It was not God's desire for angels to mate with humans, but they did(Genesis 6:1-8). Furthermore, what is commonly known as &quot;the Lord's prayer&quot; isn't a very good reference for God's will always being done in Heaven. When Jesus gave that outline for prayer, sure. Now, sure. But always from the beginning? No. God is the same and changes not, but that doesn't mean Heaven doesn't change, nor does it mean His angels don't. In fact, we know Heaven was created(Genesis 1:1), and we know it will pass away(Matthew 5:18), and will be re-created(2 Peter 3:13). While, this is an interesting topic, it is yet trivial compared to the importance of man's salvation. Many times we get cought up on a subject like this, rather than focusing on the souls of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1578" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T05:31:23.217" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7301" CreationDate="2012-04-25T13:49:29.743" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two main reasons we recite the Lord's Prayer in worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is a model prayer that Jesus gave us to teach us how to pray. We recite it to remind ourselves what genuine prayer looks like.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We pray it as a group to unify the congregation. When we recite the Lord's Prayer, we are all speaking to God with one voice.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T13:49:29.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7318" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7320" CreationDate="2012-04-25T15:47:14.777" Score="5" ViewCount="347" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jon Ericson&lt;/strong&gt; made a statement in &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1569/474&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; that is fascinating to me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, we aren't secure in our salvation because of the nature of salvation, but because of the nature of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is something that I've wondered about, but have never really formulated.  Among those who hold the doctrine of eternal security, what is considered the nature, or origin, of that security?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some possible viewpoints that I see are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation is eternal in its very nature.  This implies that abiding in Christ is evidence of salvation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation is not eternal in nature, but &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; eternal in practice because of God's keeping power.  In other words, though theoretically possible to forsake Christ and thus forsake salvation, God promises to keep us, never allowing us to do so.  This would seem to imply that abiding in Christ is the &lt;em&gt;cause&lt;/em&gt;, or medium, of salvation, but the work behind that cause is performed by God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the Biblical arguments for or against these viewpoints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2021-03-01T00:58:24.760" LastActivityDate="2021-03-01T00:58:24.760" Title="What is the nature of eternal security?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;perseverance-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7301" CreationDate="2012-04-25T16:32:35.407" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2) Is the Lord's prayer recited by anyone anywhere else in the Bible other than when Jesus first says it to the disciples?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are similarities between the Lord's Prayer and others prayers recited in those days as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaddish&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kaddish&lt;/a&gt;.  So it could be said that Jesus used a common pattern to make up His prayer based in what they know: Jewish traditions. We don't have references to say that anyone anywhere else recited it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1581" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-04-25T17:41:05.553" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T17:41:05.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7318" CreationDate="2012-04-25T16:39:59.097" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there are probably an infinite number of aspects in regards to eternal security, I would like to discuss it from a stance of imputed righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at this verse as a condemning statement we would all fall under one or more of these classifications that will not inherit the kingdom of God.  (our sinful nature implies that we all have idolatrous hearts)  I think that is the reason why this passage is often preached as a sermon on making changes in your life and doing works.  But, the pivotal point of these verses is that the &lt;strong&gt;unrighteous&lt;/strong&gt; will not inherit the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads me to the main point that I am trying to make.  When we accept Jesus Christ as our savior we inherit his righteousness and are consider justified in eyes of God.  It is a common misconception that God &quot;forgets&quot; our sins when we accept Jesus as our savior.  If that were true then God would not be omniscient.  Instead God chooses to not remember our sins.  In the same sense that God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Instead, our sins are paid for with Jesus's righteousness, and the only way to obtain righteousness is through Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Galatians 2:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, logically we can say that we are eternally secure because:&#xA;1. The righteous will inherit the kingdom of God.&#xA;2. We have imputed righteousness at the time of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1582" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-04-25T16:52:56.433" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T16:52:56.433" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7321" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-25T18:11:29.253" Score="19" ViewCount="2063" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible, God is loving:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;hr&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... as well as just, merciful, and compassionate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%201:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Thessalonians 1 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;hr&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%204:31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 4 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors, which he confirmed to them by oath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;hr&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%201:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 1 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that the only way to salvation (rather than eternal torment) is by genuinely accepting Jesus - being a good person, for example, is not enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how could any God to whom the aforementioned adjectives (loving, just, etc.) could reasonably be applied possibly impose such an unfair test for humans to have to pass in order to attain salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say 'unfair', because people born into a devout Christian community basically have a ticket to heaven from birth, whereas those who are born into a devout community of another religion basically have a ticket to hell.  At the bare minimum, it is dramatically easier for the former to get into heaven and dramatically harder for the latter... and that's not touching on those who are simply unable to believe in any god, in a society of unbelievers where certain people have seen enough evidence of various different conflicting religions that they &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; believe in any one, even if they wanted to.  Belief isn't a choice, after all; it's more like a function of your experiences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how does this dramatically skewed playing-field (in favour of devout Christian communities) square with a God that loves his creations?  Why would he be so unfair/unequal in his judgment of them?  Surely the fair way would be for him to appear to every human at birth, giving them an equal knowledge of him.  This, by the way, would presumably lead to there only really being one religion - if every child had an innate knowledge of God's nature, there couldn't be such drastically different religious dogmas because many would simply go against what a child had been told by God at birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1210" LastEditorUserId="1210" LastEditDate="2012-04-25T18:19:38.073" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T17:34:40.973" Title="How could a loving, just, merciful God have created such an unfair test for humans?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7321" CreationDate="2012-04-25T18:21:00.180" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Orthodox tradition, it is understood that in the Resurrection, Christ descended into Hades, the realm of the dead, where he preached the Gospel to the dead &lt;em&gt;of all times.&lt;/em&gt; Those who die in Christ have in their baptism already participated in his passage through Hades, which is death, and thus do not taste of death as Christ promises in the Gospels. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that Hades is not merely some temporal place, but rather the place which is the state of death, we acknowledge that all who died outside of Christ and will die outside of Christ have and will have had the Gospel preached to them by Christ when he descended into Hades which in our time happened around 2000 years ago. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These, even those who lived after, may have been some of the righteous souls seen risen from their graves as accounted in Matthew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus we see that 'there is no path to the Father except through Jesus' but essentially all persons are given the chance. A person who was a good person in their life and not merely self-righteous is the sort we hope would accept the Gospel when the Lord himself delivers it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we can only hope in the goodness of God and we cannot dogmatically declare the state of such souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can, however, and should, pray for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--- I was asked for some evidence of this position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, some Orthodox evidence of this position (as being a legitimate teaching of the Orthodox Church). The Troparia of Pascha simply says, 'Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, &lt;em&gt;and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.&lt;/em&gt;' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a link to the Paschal hours which is pretty explicit about what happened:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_Hours&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_Hours&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the tomb with the body and &lt;strong&gt;in Hades with the soul&lt;/strong&gt;, in Paradise with the thief and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit, wast Thou, O boundless Christ filling all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two, here are the scriptures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/04/8-bible-verses-on-christs-descent-into.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/04/8-bible-verses-on-christs-descent-into.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has done a good job summarizing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4:9 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Peter in Acts 2:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Peter again in his Epistle (1 Peter 3:19,20) :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which&#xA;  sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited&#xA;  in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that&#xA;  is, eight souls were saved by water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is death is referring to Hades, not merely being dead, and that those preached to were those previously dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the somewhat more controversial point of the timeless nature of the descent, read&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular see this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Has this anything to do with those who died outside Christian faith&#xA;  after the descent of Christ into Hades? No, if we accept the Western&#xA;  teaching that the descent into Hades was a ‘one-time’ event and that&#xA;  the recollection of Christ did not survive in hell. Yes, if we proceed&#xA;  from the assumption that after Christ hell was no longer like the Old&#xA;  Testament sheol, but it became a place of the divine presence. In&#xA;  addition, as Archpriest Serge Bulgakov writes, ‘all events in the life&#xA;  of Christ, which happen in time, have timeless, abiding significance.&#xA;  Therefore,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the so-called ‘preaching in hell’, which is the faith of the Church,&#xA;  is a revelation of Christ to those who in their earthly life could not&#xA;  see or know Christ. There are no grounds for limiting this event… to&#xA;  the Old Testament saints alone, as Catholic theology does. Rather, the&#xA;  power of this preaching should be extended to all time for those who&#xA;  during their life on earth did not and could not know Christ but meet&#xA;  Him in the afterlife[Bulgakov].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, all the dead,&#xA;  whether believers or non-believers, appear before God. Therefore, even&#xA;  for those who did not believe during their lifetime, there is hope&#xA;  that they will recognize God as their Saviour and Redeemer if their&#xA;  previous life on earth led them to this recognition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is essentially affirmed in the Paschal hours where we say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bearing life and more fruitful than Paradise, brighter than any royal&#xA;  chamber, Thy tomb, O Christ, is the fountain of our resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2012-04-26T14:53:32.180" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T14:53:32.180" CommentCount="22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7323" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7429" CreationDate="2012-04-25T21:19:16.680" Score="6" ViewCount="2384" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That if you confess with your mouth, &quot;Jesus is Lord,&quot; and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combining the passages of Romans 10:9 and John 14:6 it can be interpreted that the only way to heaven is by knowing of Christ Jesus, confessing that He is Lord and believing in the Resurrection. If this is indeed the case, what of all those who have never heard of Jesus or simply don't understand who Christ really is? Without first knowing a Christ has indeed lived, died and been resurrected, how can someone make such a confession and believe in something they haven't first heard of or truly understood. I know the year we live in, and I understand how it might, to some, seem unlikely that there are actually people who have never heard anything about Christianity. But there really are people who haven't heard the whole Gospel and some who wouldn't know what the word Gospel meant. What is to be of these people? Some of &quot;these&quot; people rake the neighbors leaves in the fall just to be nice, call you up to watch a game when your dog dies, talk you up when you didn't think you had it in you to meet your future wife etc etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-05T17:31:37.803" LastActivityDate="2015-10-05T17:31:37.803" Title="What about all those who just don't know?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;romans&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-07T19:16:19.423" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7321" CreationDate="2012-04-25T21:22:06.627" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the best way to address your question is to take apart what you've written, and address it piece by piece, looking especially at the assumptions you have made going into your argument. Please understand that while you may not agree with many of the statements I will make here, they do represent a Christian perspective. In particular, I will be writing from a Reformed Protestant perspective, and using some of their language. Most of the major concepts can be found in many other Christian traditions as well, although the presentation and emphasis varies. Also, you will not find unanimous agreement on these points, as many conflicting ideologies make a claim to be Christian. At some point, you must dig into the evidence and decide who's holding the picture right-side-up. I don't claim to have everything right, but I do claim that the following major points both answer your question and represent the way the world really is -- that when you look at the world this way, you suddenly find the view is in focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's start with your first point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;God is love&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is true. However, the definition and nature of love is often misunderstood in secular culture, and the theological claim that God is love must be understood inside the context of what else we understand about the nature of God. Most importantly, &lt;strong&gt;in order to love, one  must also hate&lt;/strong&gt;. Love is a defining feature of God, but in order to love a good thing, one must hate whatever is opposed to that thing. You cannot love Jews without hating the Holocaust. You cannot love babies and not hate when they are murdered. You cannot love good without hating evil. You cannot love righteousness without hating sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings up an issue you skipped over in your second point. 2 Thessalonians 1:6 deserves a little attention before we move on to the merciful bit you emphasized:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The justice of God is a big topic, but it strikes at the heart of your question. You ask, &lt;em&gt;&quot;How could a just God do something unfair?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. Christianity's answer is that he did not. &lt;strong&gt;What God does is entirely fair, and he even explains why.&lt;/strong&gt; Even the second part of this verse has a clue about what's going on. He groups men into more than one category. The verse is NOT addressed to all of humanity. It is addressed to a group of believers -- in this case, a specific gathering of believers (or church). With this in mind, you can see -- even in the fragments of text that you quoted -- that God treats some people one way, and some people another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question goes on to emphasize the ways God shows compassion. For example, you used Deuteronomy 4:31:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;[God] will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even here, I hope you see a hint of the answer. That covenant he references wasn't something God made with humankind, it was something he made with a subset of the human race. Originally, this promise was focused around one line of family descendants (Abraham to Isaac to Jacob etc.). Through history, you can trace this promise that is now open to a much broader swath of humanity -- namely, all of those that, through Jesus, have been adopted into that same family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So let's move on to your issue with John 14:6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;being a good person [...] is not enough&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This highlights the biggest piece of the puzzle that you are missing. &lt;strong&gt;There are no good people.&lt;/strong&gt; None. Anywhere. From Adam, right on down the line to you and me, all have sinned and missed the mark, fallen short of the standard of what a good person must be in order to qualify to be accepted by God. &lt;strong&gt;All, that is, except one.&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus Christ. The thing that is most emphatically different about Him is that He was without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's stop there, and go back to 'fairness'. One of the core tenets of the Christian faith is the unapologetic claim that &lt;strong&gt;ALL MEN, having trespassed against God, justly deserve His wrath.&lt;/strong&gt; In fact, it would be unjust of God to &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; punish all men. In this sense, to be merciful would be a disgrace to justice. So how can God also be merciful? For that, we go back to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus satisfied the divine demands of living a 100% sinless life, then He surrendered Himself, and &lt;strong&gt;was made to be sin&lt;/strong&gt; in our place. Having rightly deserved everything we do not, He took on Himself the iniquities of men, and &lt;strong&gt;was punished for them&lt;/strong&gt;. The wrath of God was emptied upon him. Forget the cross and the Romans and the whips and the crown of thorns for a minute, because those were only props -- hints and clues at what the real story is about. He drank from the cup of God's wrath, so that men wouldn't have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now we come to the issue of &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt;. All of humanity stood condemned. Jesus came and said &quot;See that man over there, and that one too, and those over there ... I want them to be mine -- and I'm willing to pay.&quot; God granted Him His wish, allowed Him to pay the price (even though it meant subjecting His own beloved Son to torture and death, both at the lowly hands of created men, and at His own hand, as He crushed Him with the punishment for sin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if Jesus says &quot;I paid for that one.&quot;, who are we to argue and say it isn't fair that He doesn't choose another? We do know several things about His choice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He doesn't base His choice on the good works or worthiness of individual people.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He does not leave it up to men to find Him, but goes out and hunts down His lost sheep, however far out of the fold they might be.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He does often extend His mercy and call through to descendants of ones He has already called and saved, but this is not a guarantee. Some that grew from the same branches are also pruned.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It isn't the job of Christians to do the picking and choosing. In fact, quite the opposite: those who have been chosen are also commanded to go out and proclaim what Christ did to ALL: announcing to them that there is One who has taken away the sins of the world, and that through Him they might be saved.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are quite a number of other points that could be made about your question. I'll address a few more in brief:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;those who are simply unable to believe in any god&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not acknowledge the validity of atheism. On the contrary, it states that all men, whether they acknowledge it or not, have an innate knowledge of God. It also says that all of creation declares Him, albeit in a general way. Quite simply, this is not a valid excuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Belief isn't a choice...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a fashion, I would actually agree with this, but not in the way you are thinking. I would say men did have a choice, and they choose wrong. And &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt; you don't have the power to make a right choice. In that sense, without God's intervention, you cannot just up and decide to change your fate. One theologian humorously addresses this point this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Augustus Toplady: “A man’s free will cannot cure him even of the toothache, or a sore finger; and yet he madly thinks it is in its power to cure his soul.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam was a prototype; you are of the same stock. You choose, and continue to choose, sin. Your own free will, left to its own ends, will never choose anything else. Yet Christianity calls men to make a new choice, to believe in Christ, to put their trust in Him, and stake their lives on the work that He did in removing our guilt from sin in the eyes of God. It also holds that this is only possible through a supernatural work --the intervention of the Holy Spirit-- in which God rips out your faithless heart of stone, and gives you a heart of flesh that is able to believe, love and obey -- but this, being His work, does not excuse you from searching out, wanting, and submitting to this new birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;the fair way would be for him to appear to every human at birth&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who are you to say what is or isn't fair? What is a pot to say to the potter that &quot;you should have made me with a handle&quot;? There are some aspects of faith that are a mystery --that we don't have answers for-- but even human logic could present an argument about this scenario being 'fair'. If the outcome you expect is for everybody to be united under one unanimous belief, then whatever God must have done to make that happen would have destroyed any pretense of free-will they had. Would you have us all be robots? &lt;strong&gt;Is being a free-willed but fallen human who is then chosen to be resurrected from a living death and eventually restored to perfection in Glory not enough drama and beauty for you?&lt;/strong&gt; Will you not bow in recognition that the Christ who did this is Lord -- and do so now willingly... before being left no other choice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR:&lt;/strong&gt; All of God's creation stands in rebellion of Him, and justly deserves to be destroyed. Only one Man was ever sinless, and that Man laid down His life so that others might live. How He picks who to adopt isn't the business of the newly adopted children. It is their job to turn around and tell others that He's still in the adoption business. If &quot;fairness&quot; is being stretched, it is being stretched in the direction of no-one deserves anything, so anything we get is all grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="1795" LastEditDate="2012-06-26T12:56:24.873" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T12:56:24.873" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7321" CreationDate="2012-04-25T21:52:43.413" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the contradictions you perceive in God's nature is the result of a misconception about God's justness in relation to our sinfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible teaches that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No matter how &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; we think we are, no one is righteous, and all have sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:10-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:10-12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; As it is written:&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   “There is no one righteous, not even one;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; there is no one who understands;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   there is no one who seeks God.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; All have turned away,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   they have together become worthless;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;there is no one who does good,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;   not even one.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of our sin, we all deserve death&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+6:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 6:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is only by immense grace that God sacrificed &lt;strong&gt;His&lt;/strong&gt; own Son to die for &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; sins.  This sacrifice was necessary in order to satisfy His justness.  For if he simply ignored our sin, he would be merciful, but he would not be just.  So God is just because He requires payment to be made for sin, and He is loving and merciful because He sent His own Son to make that payment on our behalf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point here is that the fact that some people are less likely to come to Christ is not injustice on God's part - it's justice.  Even if God only bestowed mercy on a handful of individuals in all of history, it would still be a display of infinite mercy, far beyond what we actually deserve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me try to illustrate this with an analogy.  Say there's a judge who presides over ten criminal cases.  For nine of them, he assigns them their due punishments.  But for one of them, he has extraordinary compassion, and undergoes the man's punishment for him.  Should we say that the judge was too harsh on the other nine?  No, he judged them rightly.  The other nine might think it unfair that grace was given to the one (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020:1-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 20:1-16&lt;/a&gt;), but isn't it better that grace be given to one that to none?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5033/971&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-25T23:47:10.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7326" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7341" CreationDate="2012-04-25T22:26:30.517" Score="8" ViewCount="3515" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed here and there the odd practice of inducing an &lt;strong&gt;extreme, seizure-like bodily shaking&lt;/strong&gt; in oneself, which seems quite strange to me; it's not at all clear what the purpose is. Some people claim that &lt;a href=&quot;http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=292277&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;it may have come from the Quakers, although Pentecostal's do it, and it occurs when the Holy Spirit fills the body&lt;/a&gt;. It also seems to be encouraged in some Evangelical circles, as it was explicitly said to be the force of the holy spirit in the movie &lt;em&gt;Jesus Camp&lt;/em&gt; (2006).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What exactly is this practice called, and where did it come from?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't recall reading anything about it in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;If you require an example, since I don't know what it's called I'm unable to find videos of it successfully on Google (&amp;quot;christian shaking&amp;quot; doesn't quite work), but what reminded me of it was the &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/bFEoMO0pc7k?t=1m14s&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;few seconds of this clip&lt;/a&gt; of one of the &amp;quot;Sweet Brown&amp;quot; remixes.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-02-24T13:47:50.403" Title="Christianity and extreme, seizure-like bodily shaking" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;ritual&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7303" CreationDate="2012-04-26T01:01:26.673" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The revelation was most likely simply a directive from God to go up to Jerusalem to talk with the apostles. This is the most natural way to read the verse, and there would be nothing surprising about this conclusion on the basis of the rest of Paul's life, since he was an apostle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An apostle had to be someone who had seen Christ directly with his eyes. This is evidenced in &lt;a href=&quot;http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Acts+1:21&quot;&gt;the choosing of a replacement for Judas&lt;/a&gt;. It is also shown in this chapter itself; Paul is arguing that he has apostolic authority on the basis of the fact that he has had a revelation of Jesus Christ (&lt;a href=&quot;http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Galatians+1:11&quot;&gt;1:11-12&lt;/a&gt;). Thus, he is an apostle not because he was sent by men, nor even commissioned by (authorized) men on behalf of God (this is the usual interpretation of 1:1). See also 1:16. Thus Paul says of himself &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-8.htm&quot;&gt;elsewhere&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other examples of specific revelations he received:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Acts+9&quot;&gt;His conversion story&lt;/a&gt;, when he sees Christ face-to-face&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/12-2.htm&quot;&gt;apparent reference to himself&lt;/a&gt; in the &quot;I know a man who has caught up into third heaven&quot; passage&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His distinction in &lt;a href=&quot;http://niv.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/7.htm&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7&lt;/a&gt; between his own apostolic wisdom and the revelation he has directly from Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit's &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/acts/20-23.htm&quot;&gt;revelation to him of his sufferings&lt;/a&gt; in Jerusalem&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit's &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/acts/16-6.htm&quot;&gt;preventing him from going into Asia&lt;/a&gt; at one point (there may be a different interpretation of this)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, given that the Lord seems to have spoken to him not only at his conversion and not only to teach him doctrine, and given that the context is that he had been gone for fourteen years without seeing any need to go to Jerusalem (2:1), it seems extremely likely that the revelation was a specific direction that he ought to go up to Jerusalem and confer with the apostles, particularly James, Peter and John (2:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T01:01:26.673" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7328" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7375" CreationDate="2012-04-26T02:59:49.483" Score="8" ViewCount="1292" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't a question about pastoral advice, but it is being asked on behalf of a friend who is worried that her children will become illegitimate if her marriage is annulled and all I can find to help her is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P43.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Code of Canon Law&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09131e.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;, which seem to suggest that the kids would be illegitimate if both she and her husband were found to be invalid ministers of the sacrament. Although, as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7328/has-the-notion-of-legitimacy-been-abandoned-in-the-catholic-church#comment19888_7328&quot;&gt;Andrew pointed out to me&lt;/a&gt; in the comments, this is more of a red herring as the Code of Canon law is modern and the Catholic Encyclopedia is not.  I only mention it here because this is as far as I got - and substantiates the rumors that I have heard about illegitimacy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this is not about whether they'd be illegitimate, it's about what is the disadvantage of being illegitimate in the eyes of the Church?  That is to say, what is the burden of illegitimacy today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T13:36:20.910" Title="Has the notion of &quot;legitimacy&quot; been abandoned in the Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2012-04-26T03:30:16.510" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't yet seen someone put this issue on the table yet, so if I may:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evolution requires death to iterate through possible species. Death doesn't enter the world until after all the types of animals are established. Therefore, while I see no problem with evolution occurring today, it does conflict with Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Might Genesis be a metaphor? The text doesn't give us that option. While there is a style change, there is no content break. You also have texts such as Romans treating Adam as a historical person. If you insist on applying evolution to the first few moments of history, you break your scriptures badly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you need to believe this, though, to be saved? I don't think so. The result is a very shattered theology based on a shattered witness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, consider that many of Bible's claims are based on, or authenticated by, miracles. If these claims are true, then who cares if Genesis has one more miracle in it? It seems a very minor point of contention unless the goal of the opponent is to deny God. If the argument is to deny God, then move off the ground of evolution because your opponent claims a lot more bits of data as supporting his position than you can. Evidentialism, as an apologetic method, cedes a lot of ground to the opponent but calls it neutral ground. It is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1144" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T03:30:16.510" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7318" CreationDate="2012-04-26T03:51:25.990" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you are considering in this question is the nature of salvation. Eternal security is an outgrowth of the larger Doctrines of Grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The subject is huge. In short, though, Eternal Security, as believed by people who hold to the Doctrines of Grace (Canons of Dort), believe that it is a property of salvation. To use your language above, it is by the nature of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Briefly, why? Read John 6, John 10, and Romans 9. When you do you will see God monergistically working. Faith is a gift that changes the nature of the person so that they repent of their sins. I personally love Romans 8:7-8, &quot;the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God... it cannot please Him.&quot; [paraphrased].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Books that represent the Doctrine of Grace accurately are The God Who Justifies or The Potter's Freedom by James White.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trouble with the Doctrines of Grace is that there is subtlety to representing them accurately, particularly in how the nature men affects their actions. The books are highly worth it and rather recent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1144" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T03:51:25.990" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7331" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7333" CreationDate="2012-04-26T07:28:07.240" Score="27" ViewCount="19769" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a plethora of verses that say that people can not cause a saved Christian to lose his salvation, such as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2010:29&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 10:29 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father’s hand.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this does not exclude the possibility of a Christian &lt;em&gt;choosing&lt;/em&gt; to turn away from God, as in&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%206:4-6&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 6:4-6 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;For it is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened—those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, &lt;sup&gt;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come— &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people back to repentance; by rejecting the Son of God, they themselves are nailing him to the cross once again and holding him up to public shame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is: is it possible for a saved Christian to &lt;em&gt;choose&lt;/em&gt; to walk away from Christ and thus lose their salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6960/58&quot;&gt;Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/124/58&quot;&gt;Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? [closed]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4952/58&quot;&gt;How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this question is rather similar to others, I think it's focused enough to not count as a duplicate. In particular, this one is focused on the ability or inability of the Christian to choose, not so much whether losing one's salvation is possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2014-12-14T11:43:02.670" Title="Can a Christian choose to walk away from his or her salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;apostasy&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-12-15T00:56:01.600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7331" CreationDate="2012-04-26T12:53:47.953" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't a question that can be resolved indisputably here, as there are different views amont Christians about this. These views are generally in a range of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pelagianism - the idea that a man's salvation is an act of his free will only.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Synergysm - the idea that a man needs grace, but has to freely cooperate with it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Irresistible grace - that grace saves even against human will.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Orthodox christians put more emphasis on free will than Roman Catholics (they are even sometimes called semi-pelagians by them). Jansenism (vide Blaise Pascal) and Calvinism share a belief in irresistible grace, while other Reformed churches vary here (somewhere between Calvin and RC doctrine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-04-26T12:57:31.223" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T12:57:31.223" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4605" CreationDate="2012-04-26T13:09:34.487" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to what I read from saints, you don't have to be a monk to get some gifts like prayer of heart or the seeing of uncreated light. The man from The Way of a Pilgrim wasn't a monk. Also I read about one of Optina Elders teaching a prayer of heart some sheperd girl.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the idea of achieving these gifts while not being orthodox is strange. And how can you achieve them if you don't believe in them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T13:09:34.487" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3419" CreationDate="2012-04-26T13:36:02.033" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;I'm pretty confident that the majority of people, religious or not, would argue that they know how to Love and that they show their love for people on a daily basis.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a kind of love, though, that people &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; know how to do and &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; show on a daily basis, that Jesus particularly associated with being born of God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-46&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:43-46&lt;/a&gt;, ESV quoted):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You have heard that it was said,  ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you,  &lt;strong&gt;Love your enemies and  pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.&lt;/strong&gt; For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and  sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This kind of love isn't easy: while it's natural to love friends, and while there are charitable people who are willing to love strangers, it's very rare that a person will be willing to love enemies—people let hate come first, and if there's hatred it tends to preclude love.   But this is not the example God has set for us with his own love (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:7-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:8&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God shows his love for us in that  while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's love led him to die for us &lt;em&gt;'while we were enemies'&lt;/em&gt; (v. 10).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a clear reason that this kind of love is necessary to being a truly loving person, though I'm not aware of any place the Bible itself makes it explicit; an example of the reasoning is given by Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing49.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;49&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who are good I treat with goodness;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who are not good I also treat with goodness —&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Virtue is goodness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as being good to people means being good to people, regardless of anything else, being loving means being loving, &lt;em&gt;regardless of anything else&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T13:36:02.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3419" CreationDate="2012-04-26T13:50:09.833" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that this fragment can help one to find about a perfect love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;&#xA;That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the measure of perfect love that a Christian should try to attain is being equally good to all the people and expecting no reward for your love. This certainly isn't something that &amp;quot;majority of people&amp;quot; would claim they can do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T13:50:09.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7323" CreationDate="2012-04-26T14:51:23.923" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Saint Paul says that when heathen follow the natural law they are law to themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saint Justin the martyr even goes as far as to call the philosophers that believed in Logos &quot;christians&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what to say about e.g. Melchizedech or Balaam which knew God despite not being part of Israel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Chistians always believed in natural law and that one can know God without being preached Gospel. This of course doesn't mean that Gospel is unnecessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T14:51:23.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6236" CreationDate="2012-04-26T15:00:49.177" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that I've heard is that there were three magi (Persian Lords) but there were many with them; this should be obvious since if they were traveling and were nobility they would not go alone. It is traditionally assumed that each lord brought a gift to the messiah. Here is some relevant stuff:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Magi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Magi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Latin tradition dating from the seventh century,(from a greek&#xA;  manuscript) their names are given as Gaspar (or Caspar/Jasper),&#xA;  Melchior and Balthasar. According to one tradition, the Magi were&#xA;  baptized by the Apostle Thomas, and became bishops. The Church&#xA;  commemorates the Magi as saints; the Eastern feast day of the Magi is&#xA;  December 25.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T15:00:49.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1096" CreationDate="2012-04-26T15:10:38.867" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Greek word is πυλαι and does literally mean &quot;gates&quot;, and this is the only reference to the gates of Hades/Hell in the NT. It's also the first use of the word εκκλησια, &quot;the called-out&quot;, &quot;church&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gates of a city are the point at which attackers lay siege, the weakest point. The strength of a city is directly related to the strength or power of its gates. Here Hades or hell is represented as a city with its strength in its gates. The gates represent the power of hell, and the Church is stronger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gates also keep people &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt;. Jesus may be referring to his death: Hades could not contain him, and it will not contain the Church either, those who are called out to belong to Christ. The Church will never succumb with the physical death of its members and fail; it will never die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T15:10:38.867" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7326" CreationDate="2012-04-26T15:15:17.363" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The practice is called being &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;slain in the spirit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is likely that this practice has existed for millennia; and that it is more a self-induced ecstasy than any kind of actual action of God upon the person. It is thought that 'prophets' in the Old Testament time may have done such things to try to induce visions. The prophets of Baal do something similar here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's something from an Orthodox source on the issue: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7112&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7112&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It appears St. Paul was questioned about the working of the Holy&#xA;  Spirit through the Gifts. Corinth was greatly influenced by Greek&#xA;  paganism which included demonstrations, frenzies and orgies, all&#xA;  intricately interwoven into their religious practices. In post Homeric&#xA;  times, the cult of the Dionysiac orgies made their entrance into the&#xA;  Greek world. According to this, music, the whirling dance,&#xA;  intoxication and utterances had the power to make men divine; to&#xA;  produce a condition in which the normal state was left behind and the&#xA;  inspired person perceived what was external to himself and the senses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In other words, the soul was supposed to leave the body, hence the&#xA;  word ecstasy (ek stasis). They believed that while the being was&#xA;  absent from the body, the soul was united with the deity. At such&#xA;  times, the ecstatic person had no consciousness of his own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Corinthians of Paul's time were living under the influence of&#xA;  Dionysiac religious customs. It was natural that they would find&#xA;  certain similarities more familiar and appealing. Thus the Corinthians&#xA;  began to put more stress on certain gifts like glossolalia. No doubt&#xA;  the Apostle was concerned that their ties and memories of the old life&#xA;  should be reason enough to regulate the employment of Glossolalia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While not utterly identical, these ecstasies - which is the only really good term we have for it in English - have an origin in common human natural religious yearnings. They are not specifically Christian but reflect the person's desire to be a instrument of God, even to the point of frenzied ecstasy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-02-24T13:47:50.403" LastActivityDate="2014-02-24T13:47:50.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2012-04-26T15:19:02.093" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are basically three forms of monastcism and they are still extant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anachoretism - the first form to emerge was living in complete solitude. Hermits however sometimes accepted disciples that would watch their life and then leave. There are still hermits living e.g. in rocky parts of Mt. Athos that don't see other monks for long periods of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Idiorythmia - when monasticism became popular, some areas fit for monastic life started attracting monks and monastic societes as e.g. Nitra emerged. Monks would meet at Liturgy and would counsel some things together, yet every brother would be econimically independent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cenobitism - as Bob already said - this form was instituted by St Pachomius. Monks live in a commune. They work together and their material needs are fullfilled by the community. This form is the safest and easiest, because monks can comfort each other and the strict obedience protects them from straying on their spiritual path. This is why it is most popular form today. But the two former are not extinct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T15:19:02.093" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2296" CreationDate="2012-04-26T15:26:19.533" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Pachomius_the_Great&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pachomius the Great (Wikipedia)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Pachomius the Great is one of the figures instrumental in moving monastic life from the life of hermits (old as dust) and small communities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for cenobitism, the widows in the New Testament were parochial nuns. If you consider the function of old widows in almost every church, you will find they generally fulfill the duties that nuns do, though in a local setting. A large church would have a fair number of these celibate (since post-reproductive age), prayerful and godly women. If you consider how Paul treats 'the widows' it is precisely as an order of nuns would be treated by the overseeing abbess or bishop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mens' tradition seems to have grown out of the former mens' tradition of hermit life, such as what St. John the Baptist lived. It is with Antony (my own patron) and Pachomius that we see people gathering around a single elder or abbot and forming a community. It is with Pachomius that the communites became sizable; Scetis (Antony's) still exists, but it has never been large. Pachomius' communities did not themselves survive (as many of the pilgrim cities did not) but his tradition and practices which allowed this organization did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-08-25T22:55:49.457" LastActivityDate="2016-08-25T22:55:49.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6615" CreationDate="2012-04-26T18:11:52.907" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The NET Bible &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&amp;amp;chapter=14&amp;amp;verse=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;notes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“There is no God.” The statement is probably not a philosophical assertion that God does not exist, but rather a confident affirmation that God is unconcerned about how men live morally and ethically (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Psa%2010:4,11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ps 10:4, 11&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&amp;amp;chapter=53&amp;amp;verse=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;and&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Heb&lt;/em&gt; “they act corruptly, they do evil [with] injustice.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&amp;amp;chapter=14&amp;amp;verse=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ps 14:1&lt;/a&gt; has עֲלִילָה (’alilah, “a deed”) instead of עָוֶל (’aval, “injustice”). The verbs describe the typical behavior of the wicked. The subject of the plural verbs is “sons of man” (v. &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&amp;amp;chapter=53&amp;amp;verse=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;). The entire human race is characterized by sinful behavior. This practical atheism&amp;mdash;living as if there is no God who will hold them accountable for their actions&amp;mdash;makes them fools, for one of the earmarks of folly is to fail to anticipate the long range consequences of one’s behavior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read through the text of these nearly identical Psalms, you will notice they concentrate almost entirely on &lt;em&gt;moral foolishness&lt;/em&gt; rather than any sort of intellectual foolishness.  The phrase &quot;There is no God&quot; seems more like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;hyperbole&lt;/a&gt; than a statement of fact.  Nearly everyone in the pre-modern word would have been classified as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;theist&lt;/a&gt; in the broadest sense.  A perhaps more representative verse would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers  &#xA;    who eat up my people as they eat bread  &#xA;    and do not call upon the LORD?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;Psalm 14:4 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Psalm+14/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My interactions with atheists (both &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/1828/73&quot;&gt;online&lt;/a&gt; and off) suggest that this particular Psalm doesn't apply to &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; who says there is no God.  Many people who claim the title &quot;atheist&quot; believe their actions have consequences.  They do their best to raise their children lovingly and ethically.  They support worthy causes and give of themselves to make the world a better place.  They refrain from wicked deeds and mistreating others.  In fact, this Psalm applies much better to certain people I know who claim to love God, but by their actions show they don't believe He exists.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:21.153" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T18:34:15.517" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6615" CreationDate="2012-04-26T20:35:23.070" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;King Sennacherip and his general Rabshakeh come closest to being self-proclaimed atheists in the Bible. Rabshakeh says in the name of the Gentile king to King Hezekiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of&#xA;  Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine&#xA;  hand? Who are they among all the gods of the countries, that have&#xA;  delivered their country out of mine hand, that the LORD should deliver&#xA;  Jerusalem out of mine hand?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Ki&amp;amp;c=18&amp;amp;v=34&amp;amp;t=KJV#34&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2Ki 18:34-35&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Sennacherib denounces all supernatural intervention to save, not just of Yahweh, but of the dozens of Canaanite gods around Israel. He essentially is saying that the gods spoken of here, are not gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides this example, I must conclude that the answer to your question is no. There are no self-identified atheists in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="66" LastEditDate="2012-04-26T20:55:48.130" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T20:55:48.130" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7346" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7405" CreationDate="2012-04-26T20:45:26.713" Score="5" ViewCount="435" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=saints&amp;amp;version1=NIV1984&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;limit=none&amp;amp;wholewordsonly=no&amp;amp;resultspp=500&amp;amp;displayas=long&amp;amp;sort=bookorder&quot;&gt;Saints&lt;/a&gt; are present throughout the Bible. In my understanding, Protestant use of this word applies to &lt;em&gt;all believers&lt;/em&gt;, which I understand is the New Testament (and OT?) meaning of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my limited understanding of Catholicism, it seems that the Roman Catholic church selects a subset of &lt;em&gt;all believers&lt;/em&gt; and declares &lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt; to be saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this then to the exclusion of other believers, ie saying that &lt;em&gt;not all&lt;/em&gt; believers are saints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T15:25:42.093" Title="Catholic view of Biblical saints" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1096" CreationDate="2012-04-26T21:24:00.763" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;An example of another metaphor like this is the image in King Nebuchadnezzar's dream. The Rock that was cut without hands hits the feet of the image, and, of course, the images does not prevail against it (Dan 2:34). Another example is the Chief Cornerstone that grinds to powder those on whom the Rock falls (Matt 21:44)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Rock in both these examples is clearly the Christ, and I think these metaphors are all related. The gates of hell must certainly represent all of hell and death itself and more. In antiquity, the gates of a city not only represented the defenses and entrance of a city, but also important places of civil government and commerce. See Deut 16:18 and Ruth 4. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the government of the godless (in the image of Nebuchadnezzar), the wickedness of the builders (who rejected the chief cornerstone), and place of hell itself (created for Satan and his angels), are all encompassed in the gates of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the second death, Hell and Death are thrown in the lake of fire. See Rev. 20:14. This will be the final fulfillment of Matthew 16:18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastActivityDate="2012-04-26T21:24:00.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7348" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7358" CreationDate="2012-04-26T21:35:51.503" Score="4" ViewCount="248" Body="&lt;p&gt;What makes people feel they have to figure it all out? How can someone strengthen their spirituality through contemplation while avoiding a desire to try to understand everything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="1584" LastEditDate="2012-08-11T23:14:05.707" LastActivityDate="2012-08-11T23:14:05.707" Title="How to contemplate without the urge to have to comprehend" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7349" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7352" CreationDate="2011-08-23T08:47:26.893" Score="19" ViewCount="4870" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is probably one of the most historically significant books for the Western civilization, so it should be a worthwhile read for many a literature geek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In which order should it be read, then? Cover-to-cover is hardly a good order, as the New Testament is more significant for western culture and Christianity than the Old Testament (which comes first). I'm looking for the preferred order for a first-time reader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible&quot;&gt;books of the Bible are listed on Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;. Answerers may assume a Protestant Bible, but ones based on others with two testaments are welcome, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="60" OwnerDisplayName="dancek" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-04-29T00:55:26.270" LastActivityDate="2020-04-29T00:55:26.270" Title="In what order should the books of the (Protestant) Bible be read?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;bible-reading&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2012-12-08T14:38:24.893" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7349" CreationDate="2011-08-23T09:55:08.187" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cover-to-cover is definitely not a good option. I would suggest starting from the New Testament first. Read the Gospel of Mark, which is the second book of the New Testament. Then, read Acts. When you've got the gist of the whole story (there is a story going on), you can either read the rest of the Gospels, or read about the very beginning, Genesis onward. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis, is about the Creation, and the early beginnings of the Israel nations. Skip Leviticus, as it's all about technical stuff. Read through till Ecclesiastes, then stop. The rest are the books of prophets, and contain prophecies concerning matters of the past and the future, and you probably won't be interested in that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you feel like it, you could read all the other books I've left out, but the reason I've left them out is because they're more of the doctrinal sort, whereas the ones I've listed are more of the narrative type. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="135" OwnerDisplayName="Cryst" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-04-27T07:18:09.727" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T07:18:09.727" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7349" CreationDate="2011-08-23T13:33:53.070" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would actually recommend starting with the Old Testament, because it provides the background that makes the New Testament make sense.  The story of Jesus, and later his apostles, traveling around preaching and doing good is certainly very significant to our culture, but it has a lot more meaning when you understand the culture that it itself is set in, and that is laid out in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" OwnerDisplayName="Mason Wheeler" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T13:33:53.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7349" CreationDate="2011-08-23T14:06:37.390" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading the Bible as a story is a good way to get a lot out of it and broaden your understanding. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/youth/biblegeek/59.asp&quot;&gt;The narrative books in order are:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exodus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Numbers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joshua&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judges&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Samuel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Samuel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Kings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Kings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ezra&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nehemiah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Maccabees&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what T3 Bible timeline uses (which we used in our parish Religious Ed. teacher formation), and it was the first time I ever saw the bible as a cohesive story.  Everything else is still good for teaching, refutation etc... but  those 14 books have the story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis is the story of the Primordial History and the Patriarchs, Exodus - Judges is the beginning of the Mosaic law and the cohesive part of Israel.  1 Samuel - 2 Kings is Saul, David, Solomon and their awful (and occasionally good) descendents. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezra and Nehemiah chronicle the exile and return. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maccabees is the story of the further persecution of the Jews a few hundred years before Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke and Acts are the two volume set Chronicling Jesus's life and ministry and the early church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to point out which struck me as very interesting is to see the folks who show up in Luke's and Matthew's genealogies pop out at you as you work through the story of the Bible.  It makes seemingly unimportant people, like Rahab and Ruth, seem much, much more important when you get to thinking about it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" OwnerDisplayName="Peter Turner" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-09T13:55:13.080" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T13:55:13.080" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7349" CreationDate="2011-08-23T15:00:21.880" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd take a similar approach to Thursagen, with some tweaks. Start with a Gospel: I recommend Luke since he covers more of Jesus' life than Mark and is the same one who wrote Acts. Now you have the historical context of early Christianity. While you're in the New Testament, check out Romans which lays out a lot of the core beliefs and gives you a better perspective on the gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now go back to the Old Testament and learn your history. Start &quot;in the beginning&quot; with Genesis and Exodus, skip to Joshua (avoiding lots of dense legal material), and continue through Esther (or Job, if you feel like it). If you're really into poetry continue through Psalms and Proverbs, otherwise skip to Ecclesiastes and finish up with Lamentations and Daniel, which is a book of prophecy that also includes a good narrative. Isaiah is worth checking out too, since it's a major prophetic book that is referred to quite a bit in the New Testament. By now you have a pretty solid base of the Hebrew scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then go back to the New Testament and read Hebrews, which puts the Gospels into more of an Old Testament perspective, and some of the other Epistles, or Revelation if you're interested in the apocalyptic writing. Finally, go back and fill in anything you missed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="63" OwnerDisplayName="Travis Christian" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-09T13:57:43.873" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T13:57:43.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7349" CreationDate="2011-08-23T15:57:50.600" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are various ways to read the Bible. Quite a few websites provide reading plans that can help you with that. Among the best of them, I'd recommend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible Gateway's reading plans&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crossway.org/blog/2009/01/esv-reading-plans/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV reading plans&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youversion.com/about/reading-plans&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;You Version reading plans&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/Bible/Plans.htm?QueryStringSite=Zondervan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zondervan reading plans&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are tons of others if you just search for &quot;Bible reading plans&quot; on your favorite search engine!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" OwnerDisplayName="Raphink" LastActivityDate="2011-08-23T15:57:50.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7349" CreationDate="2011-08-23T16:30:08.060" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;My advice is to not view the Bible as Testaments or sections. View it as one big thing. As far as order is concerned, I'd treat it like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis&lt;/strong&gt; a mythology about the beginning of time, a worldwide disaster, and the founding of a nation [think Romulus and Remus when reading about Abraham]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus&lt;/strong&gt; an escape story; the true believers of a deity are held captive by a nation and a man who don't respect the god of the slaves; therefore, the god of that nation shows his power by destroying the former slave-masters and rescuing his believers...pretty riveting&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus&lt;/strong&gt; not as literary; think of it as a rulebook given to those that god saved. basically, &quot;I saved you from a life of slavery; now you owe me. Do this and don't do that, etc.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers&lt;/strong&gt; retells some of the Exodus story, while documenting the time Israel spent wandering in the wilderness for disobeying god &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy&lt;/strong&gt; Moses' pep talk to the Israelites before they're finally allowed in to the land that god promised them; basically reminding them of what they've been through, encouraging them to be faithful to god, and energizing them for the coming task.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joshua&lt;/strong&gt; continues the story, as Joshua (not Moses) takes Israel into their Promised Land. Cool stories abound, especially one about walls of a city toppling down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges&lt;/strong&gt; a book that reminds me of Seutonius' 12 Caesars, in a way...basically the judges were the men/women that god chose to govern over his people during the time of their first years in their new land. there are good ones and there are bad ones, but most of them are pretty entertaining&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Skip Ruth for now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I/II Samuel&lt;/strong&gt; tells the story of the last judge, Samuel, and the beginning of the kings of Israel. Starts with Saul, who was a great warrior but not so holy of a man and finishes with David, who was pretty much the Odysseus/Achilles/Aeneus of Jewish culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I/II Kings&lt;/strong&gt; tells the story from David to Jehoiachin, the 400 year dynasty of kings in Israel. Mostly not so good kings, and Israel gets conquered by another nation, supposedly because they fell away from god again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Skip ahead to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel and read those. Then go ahead and go to Hosea and read down through Malachi. Now, you have a basic chronological account of the history of Israel. Now, let's read some poetry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read Psalms (a huge list of poems and songs), Proverbs (a sort of Benjamin Franklin almanac of wise sayings), and Job (a sad story about how god allows those who love him to be tested, seemingly as some part of a cosmic game). Then read Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. Next, read Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. (Warning: Daniel is &lt;em&gt;crazy&lt;/em&gt;). I'd skip the Chronicles. This is the order of the Tanakh, in case you were wondering. I think it gives the best order to read the 'Old Testament'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, for the 'New Testament'. I would read Luke and then Acts (even though they're probably not by the same author, as once thought, they chronologically fit pretty well). After Acts, avoid the New Testament order and read Paul's epistles in the order he actually wrote them, rather than by size (how they're ordered now). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I Thessalonians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Galatians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;II Thessalonians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I Corinthians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;II Corinthians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Philippians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Colossians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Philemon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I Timothy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Titus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;II Timothy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, go ahead and read Hebrews through Jude. Give yourself a break. Refocus. Then give Revelations a go. After all that, if you want to read the other gospels, go ahead and do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1207" OwnerDisplayName="Robert Ray" LastActivityDate="2012-01-02T12:13:40.793" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7348" CreationDate="2012-04-26T23:12:36.653" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; This answer was written before the OP was edited. A more direct answer is marked below, the following is build-up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Psalms are a great place to go for this. Psalm 143:5 says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I remember the days of old; I meditate on all that you have done; I&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;ponder&lt;/em&gt; the work of your hands. (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few verses down David implores God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Teach me to do your will, for you are my God!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He's meditating on God's actions and word, but he's still asking God to teach him. He's marveling, wondering, thinking upon the truths of God's covenant with him and Israel, but he certainly doesn't have it figured out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, by technical definition, &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contemplate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;contemplate&lt;/a&gt; does not mean &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comprehend&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comprehend&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the Bible talks numerous times of the mystery of God's nature and plan...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,&#xA;  declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so&#xA;  are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 55:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How&#xA;  unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! &quot;For who&#xA;  has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who&#xA;  has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?&quot; - &lt;strong&gt;Romans&#xA;  11:33-35&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So don't worry! You don't have to figure it all out. It's quite mysterious and amazing, &lt;strong&gt;but&lt;/strong&gt;, we can learn. After all, we've been given the entire Bible to study. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, we're going to be in heaven for &lt;em&gt;eternity&lt;/em&gt; learning about God. If it takes an eternity to learn about God, don't worry that you don't understand it all right now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;How to stop trying to figure it all out&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This borders on a pastoral concern, naturally, but I think we can take cues from the verses cited above. In my experience a good attitude is to &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to remember I can't figure it out. This is hard, because it's a fundamentally different from the narcissistic mindset we naturally have. You have to start knowing that no matter how hard you or anyone else tries, you won't figure it all out. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Try to figure out as much as possible anyways. We're supposed to learn about God (how can you worship someone you don't even know?).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you hit a paradox, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;stop.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; When you encounter something that the Bible doesn't explain, don't try to reason it out. The Bible leaves it alone for a reason. Don't try to compress the Trinity into the phases of water; the analogy fails miserably. (though it can be a helpful illustration). Paradoxes are there both because God is greater than us and to remind us of that. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-04-27T02:41:05.160" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T02:41:05.160" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7360" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7364" CreationDate="2012-04-26T23:57:32.997" Score="8" ViewCount="30643" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that Abraham's Bosom was the Saint's portion (Paradise) of Hades while on the other side of a great chasm (gulf) was a portion of Hades described as torment. Does this place known as Abraham's Bosom or Paradise still exist after Jesus's death and resurrection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 16:19-31&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into &lt;strong&gt;Abraham's bosom&lt;/strong&gt;: the rich man also died, and was&#xA;  buried;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool&#xA;  my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now&#xA;  he is comforted, and thou art tormented.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; And beside all this, between us and you there is a &lt;strong&gt;great gulf&lt;/strong&gt; fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither&#xA;  can they pass to us, that would come from thence.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this &lt;strong&gt;place of torment&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;29&lt;/strong&gt; Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;30&lt;/strong&gt; And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;31&lt;/strong&gt; And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; Paradise is not mentioned in the above &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham#New_Testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 16&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://thomasshields.net/article/9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Additional Information Provided by Thomas Shields&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-06T03:21:09.327" LastActivityDate="2014-07-06T03:21:09.327" Title="Does Abraham's Bosom (Hades/Paradise) still exist?" Tags="&lt;place-of-the-dead&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-10T02:59:00.510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7331" CreationDate="2012-04-27T00:35:47.220" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many Christians disagree on the topic, but as my personal view is that Christians can &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; walk away from their salvation, I will make a case for that here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are correct that John 10:29 does not necessarily preclude the possibility walking away from ones own salvation.  And you are also correct that one interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 is that believers may walk away from their salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, other natural interpretations for Hebrews 6:4-6 exist that do not lead to this.  For example, none of the terms used to describe those who fall away are used anywhere else in scripture to refer to the saved.  So a possible interpretation is that the people described may not have been saved to begin with.  Furthermore, the rest of Hebrews 6 goes on to seemingly make a strong case that the saved &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; lose their salvation.  Much could be said about this passage, but that's probably better for a separate question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to make the case that believers cannot walk away from their salvation, I would point to 1 John.  1 John deals a lot with authentic vs. inauthentic salvation, and how to know whether you have authentic salvation.  It also teaches, in my opinion, that people with authentic salvation will always remain.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 2:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; They went out from us,  but they did not really belong to us. &lt;strong&gt;For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us&lt;/strong&gt;; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people that John is referring to (antichrists) left of their own free will.  John uses this leaving to demonstrate that they had never really belonged to the church.  Even more, he says that if they had really belonged to the church, they would have remained.  If people could walk away from their salvation, John would not have said this, because it would be quite possible to really belong, and then not remain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common argument for the ability to walk away from one's own salvation is that we can use our free will to abandon it.  This is based on the assumption that our free will remains intact once we are saved.  But the Bible does not support this assumption.  In fact, we are told that we &lt;strong&gt;don't&lt;/strong&gt; exactly have free will to do some things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 3:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; No one who is born of God  will continue to sin,  because God’s seed  remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's seed remains in us, and we &lt;strong&gt;cannot&lt;/strong&gt; go on sinning&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;.  Something changes in us when we are born of God, and we cannot live a lifestyle like the one we had before.  Though this verse doesn't necessarily preclude it, it does remove the basis for the assumption that we should be able to abandon our salvation by our free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 3:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.  &lt;strong&gt;No one who continues to sin has either seen him  or known him.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone who once was saved and abandons his faith has the following characteristics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He keeps on sinning&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does not know God, but he &lt;strong&gt;has&lt;/strong&gt; seen/known God in the past (otherwise he was not born of God to begin with)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse tells us that those two characteristics cannot be harmonized.  No one who continues to sin&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt; has either seen him or known him (past tense).  Thus, a saved person who abandons his salvation is a walking contradiction to this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1] That Christians will not &quot;continue to sin&quot; does not mean that they will never sin.  If this were John's meaning, he'd be contradicting himself from just a couple chapters earlier (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 1:8&lt;/a&gt;).  What it means is not necessarily agreed upon by all Christians, but one thing is certain - it does not mean that Christians will never sin, as 1 John 1:8 makes quite clear.  I would say that it means Christians will not continue living in unrepentant sin.  As Christians, we will still sin (as Paul describes it in himself in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%207:14-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 7:14-25&lt;/a&gt;), but we will wrestle with it, and the Spirit will compel us to hate it where we recognize it in our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-04-27T02:58:14.590" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T02:58:14.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7348" CreationDate="2012-04-27T02:48:54.980" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why would you not want to figure it all out? Sure, you won't succeed. I don't suppose that you or I will completely understand life, the universe, and everything. Certainly not in this life, maybe or maybe not in eternity. (I'd guess no, but that's another subject.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to be realistic in the sense that I'm not going to get frustrated when I fail to achieve an impossible goal. But if we don't set lofty goals, what will we strive for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we aim for the stars, we might at least reach the planets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T02:48:54.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7346" CreationDate="2012-04-27T02:56:05.860" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not Catholic. Some of my fellow Protestants do criticize the Catholic church on this point. Personally, I think it's not a big deal, it's just a case of using a word with two slightly different meanings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like, forms that asks for your address typically ask for street, city, state, zip. &quot;City&quot; here clearly means the name of the community you live in, regardless of size. But in other contexts we use &quot;city&quot; to refer to a particularly large population center, like New York or Los Angeles. So the word &quot;city&quot; has (at least) two related but distinct meanings: any population center, or a particularly large population center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, &quot;saints&quot; is used to refer to any Christian, and is also used by the Catholic church to refer to Christians who have demonstrated particularly extraordinary faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd be interested in hearing a more detailed response from a knowledgeable Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T02:56:05.860" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7360" CreationDate="2012-04-27T03:19:00.340" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer is in two parts. Part 1 comes from an Evangelical perspective and attempts to indirectly show that Abraham's Bosom no longer exists by arguing that it never existed to begin with. Part 2 tries to logically show how the definition of Abraham's Bosom is inconsistent with it remaining in existence after Christ's Resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Part 1: If it didn't exist to begin with...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a couple of arguments against its existence. I quote myself (hey, it's the same as just saying it again!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all those who died before Christ’s ultimate death were placed&#xA;aside in an Upper Sheol (which, by the way, seems to make no sense –&#xA;Sheol by definition means “low place”) then what of Enoch and Elijah?&#xA;Elijah was taken into heaven by chariots of fire “And Elijah went up&#xA;by a whirlwind into heaven.” Is Elijah taken up to heaven, only to be&#xA;plunged back down into the depths of the earth? Does the chariot of&#xA;fire make a celestial u-turn? Or is Elijah of a special class? An&#xA;elite group? Why then did Moses, the greatest prophet of all time&#xA;(Deut. 33) not receive this privilege?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be fair, the language in I Kings about Elijah's &amp;quot;ascension&amp;quot; is quite ambiguous. Calvin talks about it at length in his Institutes, which I won't quote here, but I'll quote my younger and hot-headed self again in summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who came before Christ were not refused the privilege of Heaven&#xA;simply because the physical sacrifice had not yet been made. They had&#xA;been redeemed, justified, and purchased. It is not as if God must&#xA;await the result of the Crucifixion, hoping that Christ will succeed&#xA;but all the while biting divine fingernails; – no, the Sovereign&#xA;Yahweh of the Universe is not bound by time and will not be surprised&#xA;by His own plan being carried out. The words of Christ echo still&#xA;through eternity past, present and future, indeed, Abraham could hear&#xA;“It is finished” as clearly as could the those surrounding the cross.&#xA;To place the souls of those who precede Christ in a type of Limbo is&#xA;to grossly diminish the sovereignty of God and his miraculous grace&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, why should the Israelites have to wait in Abraham's Bosom for Christ to die? They were God's chosen people too!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the whole concept of Abraham's Bosom is biblically rooted only in Luke 16:19-31, the New Testament. Did the Jews not even know about Abraham's Bosom until they got there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Part II: Regardless, It obviously doesn't still exist&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'm not being technical here. For all I know it's a physical place that, once emptied, remains there, but empty. What I mean by &amp;quot;non-existent&amp;quot; is that it no longer serves any purpose; that no one is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, since part of the biblical foundation for Abraham's Bosom is the collection of verses that describe Christ's rescue of its inhabitants, I think we'd need to accept those verses for what they're saying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 68:18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and&#xA;receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LORD&#xA;God may dwell there&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Christ rescued the the captives of Sheol when he descended into Hell (as the Catholic church claims), then surely Abraham's Bosom serves no purpose. It's empty now, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose one might argue that it's still in use for &lt;em&gt;us&lt;/em&gt;, that as we die we go there just as the Jews did, until the last day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet in Acts 7:56, as Stephen is stoned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the&#xA;right hand of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... unless Abraham's Bosom has Christ at the right hand of God in it, it's gone. (Plus, if that's where Christ is, is it really Sheol at that point?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Answer taken in part from my &lt;a href=&quot;http://thomasshields.net/article/9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;previous blog post on this&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-29T03:52:25.383" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7331" CreationDate="2012-04-27T03:25:27.850" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Eric and Zefciu note, this is a highly controversial question in Christian circles, so even if we on this forum somehow all come to a concensus, I don't think the rest of the Christian world will accept our decision as authoritative. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My humble opinion: I've heard many preachers quote verses such as John 10:29 that you cite above, and say, See, you can't lose your salvation. But there's a difference between saying, &quot;You can't lose it&quot;, &quot;It can't be stolen from you&quot;, and &quot;You can't give it away.&quot; I don't carry around large amounts of cash: I put my money in a bank. That way I can't lose it or be robbed of it. But I can still give it to other people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The plain reading of Hebrews 6 is that it is possible to abandon your salvation. A comon reply from believers in Eternal Security is, as Eric says, that this is referring to people who were never saved to begin with. Well, I don't want to get into an argument, but I think such an interpretation is imposing what you want to believe on the text, rather than reading what the words say. I don't know of any Bible passage that clearly and specifically says that you cannot abandon your salvation, so it's not like we have to reconcile apparent contradictions. Granted, though, while the plain reading should be the PREFERRED interpreation, it is not always the only possible interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T03:25:27.850" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7346" CreationDate="2012-04-27T03:28:21.903" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look up the catholic Liturgy, you will find that their understanding of holiness is not so narrow. They still sing from Didache &quot;who is holy may he draw near&quot; and in the greek catholic Liturgy the priest says before communion &quot;Holy things for the holy&quot; (the answer begins with &quot;One is holy...&quot; as to remember that human can be holy only by grace, not by his or her merits)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the RC theology says much on idea of &quot;sanctifying grace&quot; which is not something reserved to canonized saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is a myth that Roman Catholic theology refuses to admit the term &quot;holy/saint&quot; as something every Christian can and should attain. They simply don't go around saying proudly &quot;I'm holy&quot; but prefer to use this word to show respect to people that surpass them in faith and good deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T03:28:21.903" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7323" CreationDate="2012-04-27T03:50:48.427" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, this is Christian teaching. According to the Bible, Jesus said, &quot;No one comes to the Father except through Me.&quot; (John 14:6b) Is this tough on people who have never heard the Gospel? Absolutely. That's why Christians send missionaries all over the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could simply be the harsh reality of life. My son was born with a deformed kidney that would have been fatal without surgery. Fortunately for him, the doctor had noticed the problem on an ultrasound when he was still in the womb, and after he was born he had a series of operations that saved his life. Well, what if we had lived in some poor country where they don't have ultrasound machines? What if the doctor had not noticed the problem? My son would have died. Is that &quot;fair&quot;, that some children live and others die just because some doctors have more knowledge or skill than others? Maybe not, but that's reality. Again, that's why Christians send out missionaries: because we don't want people to die without Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians often debate exactly what &quot;believing in Christ&quot; means in this sense. We routinely talk about &quot;general revelation&quot; -- what you can learn about God by looking at his creation -- versus &quot;special revelation&quot; -- the Bible. Is it possible for someone who has never heard the Gospel to &quot;figure it out&quot; based on what he sees in creation, his own conscience, etc? It's hard to imagine that they could somehow deduce that there must have been a man named Jesus who was born in Bethlehem and died on a cross in AD 33, etc etc. But they could deduce that there must be a God, that he created the universe, that people are sinners, etc. Is that enough? Even if it's theoretically possible, how many people have actually managed to do it? Any?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've often heard Christians say that people who have never heard about Christ must go to Heaven because it wouldn't be fair for God to send them to Hell when they never had a chance. That might be pleasant to believe, but nothing in the Bible backs it up. If that's true, then Christians are doing active harm by telling people about Christ. After all, if someone who hears about Christ and rejects him goes to Hell, while someone who never hears goes to Heaven, then a person would be far better off to never hear. But then why did Jesus command us to &quot;go into all the world and preach the gospel&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe God has some plan for those who never heard the Gospel. But if so, there is no mention of it in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T03:50:48.427" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7369" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-27T04:19:15.943" Score="17" ViewCount="1904" Body="&lt;p&gt;What Roman Catholic doctrines are based only in the 7 books canonized by the Roman church, but not accepted by Protestants. (e.g., Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the additions to Daniel and Esther, etc...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-06-06T13:23:44.983" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T21:24:25.337" Title="Which doctrines are based solely on the apocrypha?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;apocrypha&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7372" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-27T10:21:56.203" Score="2" ViewCount="461" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:  And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? &quot; (Matthew 12:25-26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, there are many &quot;men of God&quot; who perform miracles, including healing. (Healing here means those that have been scientifically and physically proven). Where I come from, women are more fond of these and often demand outright healings and miracles, and they do get what they want from these people who sometimes say and do things that seem questionable from a biblical respective.. Children are also healed of leprosy, blindness, name it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others also call themselves as spiritualists (not from God) who also interpret dreams and heal people. Please I know that these are not much heard of in the west although they may exist in different forms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question is, how do we apply the quotation above today as these &quot;men of God&quot; healers often cite it to buttress their claims? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastActivityDate="2012-11-16T14:16:14.243" Title="How do we apply Matthew 12:25" Tags="&lt;demons&gt;&lt;healing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-16T22:25:39.767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7373" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7374" CreationDate="2012-04-27T12:32:07.173" Score="2" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%206:15-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Kings 6:15-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the result of the power of Elisha's prayer and/or is it possible that while on this earth, I will ever be able to &lt;strong&gt;see&lt;/strong&gt; like this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-04-27T12:52:38.850" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T12:52:38.850" Title="Open my eyes so I may see" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7373" CreationDate="2012-04-27T12:38:32.493" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two common metaphors used throughout scripture are that we are &quot;blind&quot; and that we are &quot;dead.&quot; In both metaphors, the idea is that there are entire worlds and goings-on of which we are unaware.  Paul even combines both metaphors when he describes the Gospel as &quot;veiled to those who are perishing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly, then, the normal course of events is that we are unaware of this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the power of the Gospel can be compared to &quot;a blind man receiving back his sight.&quot;  This typically doesn't happen until the end, however, for as 1 Cor 13:12 says, &quot;For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror [ed or &quot;as in a glass, darkly&quot;]; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is that the supernatural part of Elijah's prayer wasn't that Elisha would see - but rather that he would see NOW as opposed to later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T12:38:32.493" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7328" CreationDate="2012-04-27T13:36:20.910" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What is the disadvantage of being illegitimate in the eyes of the Church? That is to say, what is the burden of illegitimacy today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can see in the Canons and the Catechism, there is no disadvantage or burden. I can find nowhere in either where it says that the sacraments are to be denied the illegitimate. This might be expected: Canon Law strives to be compassionately just (or justly compassionate) and it's manifestly unjust and uncompassionate to deny a child the ministry of the Church because of an act which it could have absolutely no control over. A child is a gift, and a person from the moment of conception (CCC 2378): how can the Church deny a child of God who is blameless for their situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the notion of legitimacy hasn't entirely been abandoned, because Canon 1137 specifically defines it. The Canons do not define illegitimacy, nor do they specify what happens when marriages are invalid or annulled (except by implication in Canon 1137).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the instant case, it appears that the marriage is at least a putative marriage &amp;mdash; one that has all the signs of being the real thing. Canon 1137 unequivocally states that children born of a putative marriage are legitimate. Given that there appears to be no way of &lt;em&gt;becoming&lt;/em&gt; illegitimate, presumably the annulment will have no such effect. (But your correspondent will need to ask the question of those dealing with the annulment, as they will have access to all the circumstances.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is similar to statute law, at least in England. Divorce does not make legitimate children illegitimate. There is a difference in statute law between an invalid marriage and an impeded marriage: a lawful marriage where there is invalid intent does produce a marriage, but can be ended. A marriage where there is a legal impediment is impossible, and is void &lt;em&gt;ab initio&lt;/em&gt;; and its children are statutorily illegitimate. However, it appears that the Church would consider its children canonically legitimate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T13:36:20.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1096" CreationDate="2012-04-27T15:23:56.230" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;There are no literal gates to Hell, are there?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original Greek of the verse has Jesus speaking of Ἅιδης (Hades), and that Greek word is believed to be a translation of the Hebrew concept of שאול (Sheol), which like Hades was &quot;the place where those that had died were believed to be congregated&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jewish Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the Old Testament indeed does say that Sheol has gates, e.g. in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2017:16&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 17:16&lt;/a&gt; (NKJV quoted):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Will they go down to the gates of Sheol?&lt;br&gt;Shall we have rest together in the dust?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2038:10&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 38:10&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I said,&lt;br&gt;“In the prime of my life&lt;br&gt;I shall go to the gates of Sheol;&lt;br&gt;I am deprived of the remainder of my years.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 'gates of death' are also mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038:17&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 38:17&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%209:13&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 9:13&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they are not in fact literal gates in the supernatural realm, the idea must be that this is the passage into the land of the dead—i.e., actual death itself.  Either way it is a one-way journey—they are prison gates which do not open from the inside—but Jesus is here giving us hope that the rock and the church built upon it will one day &quot;proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2061:1&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 61:1&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastEditorUserId="950" LastEditDate="2012-04-27T16:36:47.763" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T16:36:47.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7372" CreationDate="2012-04-27T15:38:31.890" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In context, the Pharisees are talking about Christ casting out a devil, not a healing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt 12:22,24 Then was brought unto him one &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;possessed with a devil&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, blind and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 24) But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub &lt;em&gt;[Satan]&lt;/em&gt; the prince of the devils. (emphisis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the people at the time understood this man to be blind and dumb &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; of the devil and he was healed of that by casting out the devil. Hence why Christ talked about a divided house against itself since He was accused of casting the devil out by the power of Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan has real power, and can counterfeit the works of Christ, especially when it comes to healing and the like. Which is why the context of being healed by &lt;em&gt;the casting out of the devil&lt;/em&gt; is so important here. So just be aware of anyone that claims to heal and watch their fruits. Not just the big public displays like healing. Do they heal to bring people to Christ? Or for financial gain, or fame or something else? Do they preach of Christ and urge all to come unto Him? Do they claim to heal in Christs name or their own? These are some important questions to ask about anyone who claims to have any spiritual gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T15:38:31.890" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7266" CreationDate="2012-04-27T16:30:14.103" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From an Orthodox source we have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no doubt that these words of Jesus found their partial&#xA;  fulfillment when Titus placed an idol on the site of the burned Temple&#xA;  after destroying Jerusalem, however, it is equally doubtless that the&#xA;  Lord was also alluding to the end of the world ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But later, the author quotes some Fathers thusly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen,&#xA;  and Cassian, the “Abomination Of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the&#xA;  prophet” is none other than Antichrist, who must appear before the&#xA;  second coming of Christ, seduce the world by his false miracles,&#xA;  causing the final apostasy, and who will “sit in the temple of God&#xA;  (the holy place), showing himself that he is God.” (II Thes 2:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems to imply a sign of the / an antichrist (recall that John says there are 'indeed many antichrists already among you')&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The source is here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/legacy/publications/books/books.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/legacy/publications/books/books.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Fathers cited are commonly available here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eschatological references are these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second, the information concerning the Abomination Of Desolation, and&#xA;  the following instructions to flee it in an urgent manner, are&#xA;  immediately followed by this verse, “For then shall be great&#xA;  tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this&#xA;  time, no, nor ever shall be.” (Matt 24:21) From this, it is safe to&#xA;  assume that the Abomination Of Desolation will be manifested standing&#xA;  in the “holy place” during the “Great Tribulation” mentioned in the&#xA;  Book of &lt;strong&gt;Daniel 12:1&lt;/strong&gt;, as well as the Book of &lt;strong&gt;Revelation 7:14&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T16:30:14.103" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7379" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7450" CreationDate="2012-04-27T17:29:51.080" Score="1" ViewCount="214" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:9 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou&#xA;  shalt be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I interpret Romans 10:9 as saying all those who don't confess with their mouth and don't believe in their heart, that they will not be saved and I &lt;em&gt;proclaim&lt;/em&gt; this; am I therefore sinning by &lt;em&gt;passing judgement&lt;/em&gt; on those who do not confess or believe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 2:1 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself;&#xA;  for thou that judgest doest the same things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:02:10.300" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:02:10.300" Title="Does proclaiming that all non-believers won't be saved count as passing judgement?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;romans&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-09-26T15:50:28.650" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4637" CreationDate="2012-04-27T18:12:14.613" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, the fathers teach us that while faith and hope are important, it is only Love that ultimately saves us. For Christ himself says, 'He who loves me keeps my commandments'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While faith and hope may bring one to Christ, it is only Love which keeps the person joined to him and abiding in him. Faith without works is dead, or so says the apostle James, so faith and hope are perfected by Love, and the thing which perfects is greater than the things perfected. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the one who hopes and has faith may be brought to Christ, but it is only the one who loves that endures until the end, and thus is ultimately saved. Paul emphasizes this in saying, 'I may have all faith and know all sciences and mysteries, but if I have not love, I am nothing.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, if God is love, as the apostle John says, then to &lt;strong&gt;truly have love&lt;/strong&gt; is to &lt;strong&gt;truly have God&lt;/strong&gt;. To have him is to participate in him, which is, as we are taught, the substance of salvation. As Peter says, 'Be ye partakers of the divine nature.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that while faith and hope are necessary before we have come into the new heavens and new earth, they are not necessary after we have received the thing we believed we would have and hoped for. Then, only love persists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T18:12:14.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7379" CreationDate="2012-04-27T18:27:29.400" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ himself says, 'Judge not lest ye be judged', and in another place, 'The same measure by which ye measure shall be measured unto you.' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not unreasonable to assume that if you are condemning other people, you are committing a sin, as Christ himself even says that he did not come to condemn anyone, but &lt;em&gt;because they stood condemned already&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the answer is, if you know their heart and know that they reject God it would be irresponsible for you not to warn them that rejecting God will cause them to be condemned. But given that I myself do not know anyone's heart, hardly even my own, I would say that to do so is at the very least presumptuous for two reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I do not know that person's heart. I may not even know their words.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I make the assumption that if they would just hear me and listen and confess, they will be saved. But I don't know the end of that person, what their future choices will be.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But merely proclaiming this - that those who do not confess and believe will be condemned - is no more sinful than declaring that those who fly into the sun will be consumed in plasma fire. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The consideration must be the reason for proclaiming it and to whom it is directed. Rarely do we use such a verse in an objective fashion; it is almost always directed against a particular person or person(s) we know to be unbelievers. This is prideful and dangerous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-27T18:27:29.400" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7383" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7384" CreationDate="2012-04-28T04:36:55.040" Score="2" ViewCount="15892" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that throughout the Bible Angels met with humans for very specific reasons. An obvious example can be found in &lt;strong&gt;Luke 1:26-38&lt;/strong&gt;. Gabriel speaks to Mary and informs her she will give birth to a son who is to be named Jesus. Do Angels still visit us on earth and interact with humans today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="1584" LastEditDate="2013-05-14T04:06:33.843" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T17:45:19.640" Title="Do angels still visit us on earth" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-06-02T05:19:17.280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7383" CreationDate="2012-04-28T07:05:29.050" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;They certainly exist, they exist in the past, present and future.  The Bible speaks of them in all three tenses to the last age of man.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do they interact with humans today? I can see no reason they would not, but it is not an absolute thing, where the Bible says this is the way it is exactly, as far as when and how they interact with men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My best guess is that they interact all the time, they seem to deliver messages a lot, I suspect they still do. I have read and heard stories and perhaps had a few interact with me and I never knew it.  They can appear like men and save your life. Carry you over a mountain pass through snow and then disappear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-04-28T07:05:29.050" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7385" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7985" CreationDate="2012-04-28T13:07:50.580" Score="4" ViewCount="1002" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any evidence that Martin Luther considered any of the Roman Catholic clergymen who lived in the centuries preceding his own lifetime (evidence related to those living in the centuries immediately preceding his own lifetime is preferred) a part of the Universal Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-04-28T15:03:57.830" LastActivityDate="2012-06-09T15:26:35.240" Title="Martin Luther's take on Roman Catholic clergy individuals living (immediately) before him" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;clergy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7331" CreationDate="2012-04-28T16:15:34.313" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will venture a simple answer - we discuss this issue in bible study and this is what I have found most important to me, two scriptures which are similar but one deals with denying Jesus and the other deals with denying the Holy Spirit.  Of the 2 the latter is final while the first is simply telling you consequence of denial of Christ which I believe that can be rectified.  I do not believe the second can be rectified.  &lt;em&gt;Just my take for what it's worth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 10:32&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Confess Christ Before Men&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:31&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;The Unpardonable Sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1593" LastActivityDate="2012-04-28T16:15:34.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7387" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-28T21:06:08.923" Score="8" ViewCount="8818" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Parable of the Ten Minas&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 19:27&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;(NIV)&lt;/em&gt; But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this is spoken in the 3rd person (of the &quot;man of noble birth&quot;); however, it still seems the intent of the parable is to order open carnage against those who don't follow the Abrahamic faith (see :9 &amp;amp; :10, that lead into this parable).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interpretation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-05-13T03:54:13.280" LastActivityDate="2016-02-19T19:53:05.947" Title="In the parable of the ten minas, why does the king kill his enemies?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;parables&gt;&lt;killing&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-02-24T15:28:13.897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7387" CreationDate="2012-04-29T01:07:21.933" Score="12" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is a parable, so the fact that &quot;a man of noble birth&quot; is third person is rather irrelevant. It's pretty obvious he's symbolizing someone, probably Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Context&lt;/strong&gt;. Verse 11 reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's easy to gather from this that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The parable was being told to show that the kingdom of God would &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; appear immediately&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This parable was about the kingdom of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;With this in mind, and knowing that the kingdom of God in Jesus's parables often refers to the day of judgement or the end times, we can make a couple of assumptions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is the nobleman. He often is, and he goes to &quot;receive for himself a kingdom,&quot; something especially reformed scholars says Jesus is doing (receiving a kingdom from his Father). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The followers of Christ are the ten servants. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those servants that pleased the nobleman with the abundance of minas are those saved by Christ who have lived out their lives &quot;according to their calling.&quot;  They have confirmed their faith through works, as James says. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The one who fails to multiply the mina is not one of Christ's followers, but a tag-along; like the seed sown in the rocks. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Point 4 is made more obvious in verse 26, which reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who multiplied their minas &quot;had&quot; - they had Christ, truly. Alternatively you could say they &lt;em&gt;truly&lt;/em&gt; &quot;had&quot; their mina, because then to them more was given. Either way, they had something (salvation) and to them more (eternal life) was given. To the man who hid the mina, he had not (no salvation) and so even everything else he had (life) was taken away (cast into hell). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As to verse 27, notice that the nobleman is still talking within the parable; Jesus is not talking directly. So we're still within the parable, which is happening &lt;em&gt;later&lt;/em&gt; (point 2.1). The nobleman (Jesus) will, on the last day, cast into Hell those who did not want him to rule over him, just as he &quot;took away&quot; from the man who failed to multiply his mina. (There might be a difference between what happens to these two groups, maybe, maybe not. Regardless, those rebelled against Christ are being punished). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, Christ isn't &quot;ordering open carnage against those who didn't follow the Abrahamic faith&quot;, he's sounding a warning that on the last day those who rebelled against him will perish. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;N.B&lt;/strong&gt; This answer, like many, is quite speculative. I've tried to stick to what I've heard preached and the typical Evangelical interpretation of the passage. The beauty of the votes is that they (should, anyways) show if I'm well representing that position.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2012-04-29T01:07:21.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7389" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7395" CreationDate="2012-04-29T02:28:49.537" Score="7" ViewCount="278" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do we know of any martyrs from among the Roman Catholic Church that lived during the five centuries before Martin Luther (i.e., 10–15th centuries)? I am especially interested in those who have been well-spoken of by Martin Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2019-03-13T19:01:22.260" LastActivityDate="2019-03-13T19:01:22.260" Title="Were there any Roman Catholic Church martyrs in the 10–15th centuries?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;martyrdom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7390" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7396" CreationDate="2012-04-29T03:21:24.483" Score="6" ViewCount="571" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is my understanding that there was a relic, used by the Crusaders, that was claimed to be the very Cross on which Jesus was crucified. I also understand that sometime around 1187, it was captured by Muslims, and subsequently burned. What is the history behind this relic, and if it was believed to be something as important as the true cross, what on earth possessed them to do something as crazy as risk it in battle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-08-25T21:52:38.967" LastActivityDate="2018-06-03T17:26:26.957" Title="What were the circumstances behind the loss of the &quot;True Cross?&quot;" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;relics&gt;&lt;crusades&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7391" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-29T08:20:17.667" Score="4" ViewCount="1342" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen his name appear in &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.&quot; (Colossians 4:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What more do we know about the author of the book of Luke? Where did he come from? Was he a doctor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1570" LastActivityDate="2015-07-10T05:12:25.467" Title="Who was Luke in the bible?" Tags="&lt;luke&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7266" CreationDate="2012-04-29T15:06:08.237" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians of many persuasions recognize this text as a definite and peculiar sign concerning the last days. Yet even though the majority of them can agree that the abomination of desolation is an important sign, they can't seem to agree on its specific nature. Even preachers are thrown into a quagmire of confusion - looking for something that no one is very sure about. It is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, some believe they know the identity of the abomination of desolation. Some teach that this prophecy was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes interrupted the temple sacrifices between 168 and 165 B.C. The abomination they point to is the pig Antiochus had offered on the altar in the temple complex. Others believe the abomination of desolation refers to a future time when an atheistic anti-christ will overthrow the temple in Jerusalem and use it as his throne. Then there are those who believe the abomination of desolation is the Roman standards which were worshiped in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. at the time of its destruction by Titus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just what exactly is the abomination of desolation? Is it any one of these alternatives? Is it all of them at the same time? Or could it be possible that not any of these interpretations are correct? The answer to these questions is vitally important. Jesus clearly implies that our very lives could be at stake over this matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus tells us that our study of the abomination of desolation should focus on the book of Daniel (Matthew 24:15). When one makes a careful study of this book, he discovers that the abomination of desolation can be divided into three parts. These parts are: the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day (involving the first temple); the abomination of desolation in Jesus' day (involving the second temple); and finally the abomination of desolation in the time of the end (involving the whole Christian church). The issues that come into play in the abomination of desolation as treated in the book of Daniel remain consistent in each of its three phases. Therefore they are types, or examples, of each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The First Abomination&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key that unlocks the mystery of this prophetic event is found in the first two verses of Daniel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came&#xA;Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and beseiged it. And&#xA;the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the&#xA;vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar&#xA;to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure&#xA;house of his god (Daniel 1:1,2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these two short sentences Daniel provides a concise historical background to the remainder of the book which follows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further study of Daniel's prologue reveals the abomination of desolation was existent in his time and led to Jerusalem's captivity. The Chronicler reveals the reason the Jewish kings fell to Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign... and&#xA;he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was because of Jehoiakim's iniquitous life that God allowed him to be taken captive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The significant feature of this is that Jehoiakim's evil deeds are described this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he&#xA;did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the&#xA;book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned&#xA;in his stead&amp;quot; (2 Chronicles 36:5-8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was specifically the abominations of Jehoiakim that led him and his city to forfeit God's protection and thus fall to Nebuchadnezzar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately Jehoiachin, his son, didn't do much better. Scripture tells us he also did &amp;quot;that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.&amp;quot; Consequently he too was taken captive to Babylon, and &amp;quot;Zedekiah his brother&amp;quot; was placed as king over Judah and Jerusalem (v. 9-11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible goes on to record that not only did Zedekiah turn out to be just as evil as his two predecessors, but &amp;quot;moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen&amp;quot; (v. 12-14). God's political and religious leaders, as well as the people, adopted heathen ways as their own. They did this at the expense of God's revealed truth. Notice where these abominations were committed: the people &amp;quot;transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem&amp;quot; (v. 14). These abominations were standing in God's consecrated holy place, the &amp;quot;house of the Lord.&amp;quot; The religious leaders of the day had purposefully led the people to adopt heathen worship practices and incorporated them into their worship of God. In substituting for God's commandments the vain notions of men, the leaders of God's heritage provoked his wrath. The people rejected God's calls to repentance and reformation and were left to reap the consequences. &amp;quot;Therefore, he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary&amp;quot; (v. 17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This judgment was felt not only in the spilling of the blood, but in the complete destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 19). This all was done &amp;quot;To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath to fulfill threescore and ten years&amp;quot; (v. 21). The result of God's people practicing the religious abominations of the heathen was the desolation of their land, city and sanctuary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Breaking The Sabbath Brought Desolation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just what were these abominations that resulted in such desolation? Since this was all done &amp;quot;To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah,&amp;quot; then Jeremiah should be able to tell us what substitutions in worship had been made. In Jeremiah 17 the prophet is told to stand in the gate of the people and prophesy. Under a divine mandate, Jeremiah told the people that if they would honor God's seventh-day Sabbath their city would remain forever, and that this faithful obedience would lead them into such a relationship with Himself that they would be used to convert the surrounding heathen nations (ch. 17:19-26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if they would not keep the Sabbath day holy God would allow their city to be desolated. &amp;quot;But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then I will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched&amp;quot; (v. 27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, the Jews chose to continue breaking God's Sabbath and thus inaugurated their own destruction and captivity. The abomination that led to their desolation was breaking the Sabbath. Thus, we see the significance of 2 Chronicles 36:21:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the&#xA;land had enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she&#xA;kept Sabbath.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel, who lived during the same time, also tells us about the abominations God's people were practicing in the holy place. In Ezekiel 8, the prophet was brought by vision to the door of the inner gate. God proceeded to show his servant the progressively greater outrages His people were committing. In verses 5 and 6 He speaks of an image that provoked Him to jealousy. In an escalation of outrage, unclean beasts had been brought into the house of God, women were weeping for Tammuz and the greatest abomination of all was twenty-five men standing in God's holy place &amp;quot;with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east&amp;quot; (Ezekiel 8:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God had instructed the Jews to erect the temple in a manner that would discourage the imitation of their heathen neighbors in sun worship. The ark of the covenant, the very focal point of the Jews' worship, was placed at the western end of the tabernacle. Thus the children of Israel would face the west, their backs to the rising sun, when they worshipped the true God. Yet the entrance of paganism among God's people had grown to such proportions that Judah's leading men were actually turning their backs on the temple of God. This was a significant act of apostasy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah list the heathen practices that had been incorporated into the worship of God. Whether it was breaking the second commandment by idol worship, adoring unclean beasts, worshipping Tammuz, the mythological god of the pagans, or breaking God's holy Sabbath and worshiping the sun on the day consecrated to it, these practices all were classed by God as abominations. It was because the Jews persisted in justifying their own course and continued in these heathen customs that God permitted the desolation of their city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Daniel himself agrees that it was the sins committed by God's people that caused their desolation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine&#xA;anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy&#xA;mountain: because for our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers....&#xA;cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate.... open&#xA;thy eyes, and behold our desolations...&amp;quot; (Daniel 9:16-18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that the abominations were done by the apostate people of God. This in turn resulted in their forfeiture of God's protection and called down His judgments and chastisement in their desolation. This scenario of the abomination of desolation in Daniel's day, involving the first Jewish temple period, prefigures the two other abominations of desolation prophesied in Daniel. The next one we shall consider is the one that concerns the second Jewish temple period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Second Temple Desolated&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After their release from Babylonian captivity and rebuilding the city and temple, the Jewish leaders erected a mountain of rules and regulations designed to protect them from repeating the sins that had led to their bondage. The fourth commandment's seventh-day Sabbath became a special object of amendment. The Jews reasoned that since it was transgression of the Sabbath that led to their captivity, they needed to define in minute detail how the Sabbath should be kept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over 500 rules concerning Sabbathkeeping eventually resulted. Some of these Sabbath laws were as ridiculous as this: one could not leave an egg in the sun on the Sabbath because the sun might cook it, and cooking on the Sabbath was a violation of the fourth commandment. Of course, this only resulted in a system of pure legalism. At last the people began to believe that favor with God depended on how well they obeyed the traditions of their elders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately the people were led full circle to disobedience again. Jesus comments that in spite of their apparent religiosity they were still breaking God's law even as their forefathers had during Isaiah's and Daniel's day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This&#xA;people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.&#xA;Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the&#xA;commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold&#xA;the tradition of men... full well ye reject the commandment of God,&#xA;that ye may keep your own tradition... making the word of God of none&#xA;effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered&amp;quot; (Mark 7:6-13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once again the people found themselves immersed in vain and rebellious worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though their apostasy expressed itself in legalism instead of laxness, it was still based on the same principle upon which all pagan religions are based - that man can save himself by his own works. Jesus, like Jeremiah of old, rebuked this religious system and called it an abomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your&#xA;hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in&#xA;the sight of God&amp;quot; (Luke 16:15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus expressed His displeasure for their abominations on numerous occasions. Most notable were the two times He cleansed the temple. On these times He expressed His anger at the desecration of His holy place. The controversy between Jesus and the Jews steamed, boiled and spewed over religion. The religious leaders hated Him because He didn't look like the Messiah, He didn't respect their traditions and most notably He didn't keep the Sabbath in the manner they thought it should be kept. This latter issue infuriated the Jews and led them to seek Jesus' death (See John 5:10-16; Matthew 12:1-4; Mark 3:1-6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In spite of the religious leaders' resistance, Jesus sought time and again to bring them to repentance and reformation. Often He reproved them for their erroneous ways and pointed the way to true and undefiled religion that is of great price in the sight of God. Yet they hardened their hearts and beat back the waves of God's mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus entered Jerusalem for the last time, His prophetic eye saw the consequences of their constant rebellion. With a grief-stricken heart and tears coursing down His cheeks, He prophesied the coming doom of the city:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a&#xA;trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every&#xA;side and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within&#xA;thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because&#xA;thou knewest not the time of thy visitation&amp;quot; (Luke 19:41-44).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After teaching in the temple for several days, Jesus left its precincts for the last time. Again He was choked with anguish as He saw the ultimate result of His people's apostasy. He exclaimed,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest&#xA;them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy&#xA;children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her&#xA;wings and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate&amp;quot;&#xA;(Matthew 23:37,38).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On both these occasions Jesus placed the guilt upon the people by stating, &amp;quot;they knew not the time of their visitation&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;ye would not.&amp;quot; As a result of not responding to God's call to turn from their abominations, their temple was to be desolated. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Roman armies of Titus burned the temple to the ground. This second desolation of the temple perfectly paralleled its first destruction. On both occasions the abominations were done by the apostate people of God and the desolation was an act of judgment performed by a heathen army.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This desolation of Jerusalem was prophesied by Daniel to come as a result of the people rejecting Messiah the prince. A careful study of Daniel 9:25-27 will show this to be the case. In verse 25 Messiah is promised to Israel and the city's restoration is also predicted. But then, ominously, all is prophesied for doom again. Verse 26 speaks of Messiah being killed by His own people and of how this act would cause their city and sanctuary to be desolated once again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Daniel heard Gabriel relay this prophecy, it was to his mind a replay of what he had seen happen to the Jerusalem of his day. The prophecy indicated that history would repeat itself, and this is exactly what happened. The abominations that God's people committed resulted, in both 586 B.C. and 70 A.D., in the destruction of their sanctuary and city -- first by Nebuchadnezzar, then by Titus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Israel rejected the Messiah they lost their place as God's favored people. Jesus predicted this would take place by saying, &amp;quot;The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof&amp;quot; (Matthew 21:43). Israel forfeited their franchise of the gospel by their own obstinate sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who would be the new nation to receive the kingdom of God and bring forth the fruits thereof? The Bible provides a clear and concise answer in the apostle Peter's letter to the Gentile converts who &amp;quot;In time past were not a people, but are now the people of God.&amp;quot; Of the converts to Christianity, the new people of God, he further says, &amp;quot;But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light&amp;quot; (1 Peter 2:9,10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the new dispensation God bestows upon the converted Christians all the privileges and promises that had been made to the literal seed of Abraham (see Galatians 3:26-29). Now converted Christians assume the role of Israel, and the Christian church absorbs the status of the temple or sanctuary of God. The Scriptures make this abundantly clear in such texts as Romans 2;28,29; Ephesians 2:11-13; 19-22; and 1 Peter 2:5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Final Desolation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is in the light of this New Testament principle of spiritual Israel that Daniel speaks of the abomination of desolation the third and final time. These references can be found in Daniel 8:13; 11:31; and 12:11. Discerning students of prophetic history realize that these verses predict the formation and ascension of power by the Papacy. It is an indisputable fact of history that the Papacy brought into the Christian church the very same practices of paganism for which ancient Jerusalem was destroyed. One has to do only a little study to see how image worship, Tammuz worship, and sun worship were introduced to Christianity during the Dark Ages. Many of these abominations are still with us in the form of statues, candles for the saints, rosary beads, Easter sunrise services and Sunday worship. [For more information on this subject, see Amazing Facts' booklet &lt;em&gt;Baptized Paganism&lt;/em&gt;.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By no means does the papal apostasy exonerate Protestantism. Most Protestant churches accede to the apostasy by continuing the practice of abominations that have their roots firmly fixed in ancient pagan religions, which were established to destroy God's truth. Both Catholicism and Protestantism have fostered abominations in God's holy place, His church. The Christian church is mirroring literal Israel. We are repeating many of the same sins and will consequently reap the same punishment of desolation, unless we are willing to read the handwriting on the wall and flee from Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that the three occasions of abomination of desolation found in Daniel result from apostasy on the part of God's people, but what is the sign that will tell us when the desolation is nigh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 21:20 Jesus told His disciples what would be the last sign of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem. He said, &amp;quot;And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.&amp;quot; This text does not indicate that the armies are the abomination, but rather that the armies were the instrument to cause desolation. Through the Roman armies God would execute &amp;quot;the days of vengeance&amp;quot; for Israel's abominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, it was a sign that most of the city's leaders and inhabitants had passed the boundaries of grace and had filled their cup of iniquity. To the Christians living in the city, this was to be a sign that Jerusalem would soon suffer God's judgment. As soon as the first opportunity arose, these Christians were to &amp;quot;flee to the mountains&amp;quot; (v. 21). In 66 A.D. when Cestius, the Roman general, surrounded the city the Christians knew the promised sign had arrived and the time had come to flee. At their first opportunity to escape they did so, and not one Christian died in the horrible destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as God gave the early Christians a sign of when to flee Jerusalem, so He has given us a sign. He has made it possible for every Christian to know when this world's probationary hour is nearing its close.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 13 and 14 John records a list of omens that will tell us just how close we are to the end. The sign that will show this nation has filled its cup of iniquity will be when it makes an image to the Papacy by uniting church and state. How much more neatly could this be effected than by the passage of a national Sunday law commanding everyone to honor a pagan day of worship? Such an event will be a direct fulfillment of Revelation 13:15-17, and provide assurance that the end of this earth's time is quickly approaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One author describes coming events this way: &amp;quot;As the approach of Roman armies was a sign to the disciples of the impending destruction of Jerusalem, so may this apostasy be a sign to us that the limit of God's forbearance is reached, that the measure of our nation's iniquity is full, and that the angel of mercy is about to take her flight.&amp;quot; When the churches have apostasized in their abominations to such a degree that they enact legislation of a religious law which displaces God's holy Sabbath with a pagan holiday, we may leave our cities, knowing that a time of trouble will be forthcoming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The abomination of desolation is an important subject in these last days. If we study this prophecy carefully, we will find that in each of its three fulfillments refers to a national apostasy by God's people that ends in their tragic destruction. We are now living in the time of the Christian church's final apostasy, which makes of none effect the commandments of God. We need to see that we are in the midst of fulfilling prophecy and keep our eyes open for the culmination of all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our only sure protection against the abomination of desolation is to give our lives unreservedly to Jesus, loving others as He loves them and worshiping Him in the way that His word teaches. The greatest commandment is simply to love God with all our heart and soul and strength. If we have such love, it will be natural for us to do all things to please and honor Him. In return, He will see us safely through the desolation that will close this earth's history just before He comes again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1595" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-29T16:51:17.607" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7393" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7404" CreationDate="2012-04-29T17:19:51.477" Score="5" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throughout a person's life they might experience some incredible highs in their relationship with Christ. They might receive answers to prayers and/or a bounty of unexpected blessings. A person might also at times find themselves very unsure and seemingly lost in a dark wilderness. But what about on a daily basis? A person may look in the mirror in the morning after spending a wonderful morning alone in prayer with the Heavenly Father only to look in that same mirror in the evening and realize they had &lt;strong&gt;avoided&lt;/strong&gt; seeking God, praising God and sharing His love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Scripture say about this? Are there any biblical characters who struggle with this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-05-05T16:31:52.733" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T16:31:52.733" Title="Vacillating passion for Christ" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-07-26T00:38:01.990" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7309" CreationDate="2012-04-29T20:33:09.623" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvin dedicates an entire Book of his Institutes (Book IV) to the Church, and Chapters 1-2 are about the &quot;true church&quot; in which he mentions the marks of a true church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From 4.1.9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever&#xA;  we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of&#xA;  Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the church of God has some&#xA;  existence, since his promise cannot fail,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&quot;Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them&quot; (Matthew 18:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here he lays out the first two points you mention - preaching and sacraments, but while he talks about discipline at length in 4.12 &amp;amp; 4.13, he doesn't include it in his &quot;marks&quot; in 4.1 and 4.2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Calvin's Institutes were published in 1536, before the letter he mentioned, I suspect he had only recently begun to develop the marks in his mind. By the time he wrote the letter in 1539, he'd added the third mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I dug a little deeper and while browsing &lt;em&gt;The Apostolic Fathers&lt;/em&gt; , a collection of letters and sermons by early church fathers, I found a document entitled &lt;em&gt;The Didache&lt;/em&gt;, or &lt;em&gt;The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.&lt;/em&gt;  This is likely a composite document, pieced together by early church fathers, and the author is unknown, but it dates somewhere from A.D 50 to 300, so it's well before Calvin (and Augustine, assuming he had anything to say about it)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Didache&lt;/em&gt; are three &quot;marks&quot; (though not declared as distinguishing points; they are given as instructions) of a church (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the Lord's own day gather together and &lt;strong&gt;break bread and give&#xA;  thanks&lt;/strong&gt;, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may&#xA;  be pure. But let no one who has a quarrel with a companion join you&#xA;  until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be&#xA;  defiled. For this is the sacrifice concerning which the Lord said, &quot;In&#xA;  every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,&#xA;  says the Lord, and my name is marvelous among the nations&quot; (Mal. 1:11,&#xA;  14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the&#xA;  Lord, men who are humble and not avaricious and true and approved, for&#xA;  they too carry out for you &lt;strong&gt;the ministry of the prophets and&#xA;  teachers.&lt;/strong&gt; You must not, therefore, despise them, for they are your&#xA;  honored men, along with the prophets and teachers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Furthermore, &lt;strong&gt;correct one another&lt;/strong&gt;, not in anger but in peace, as&#xA;  you find in the Gospel; and if anyone wrongs his neighbor, let no one&#xA;  speak to him, &lt;strong&gt;nor let him hear a word from you, until he repents&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first paragraph, given the stipulation to repent sins before the sacrifice, seems to be talking about the Lord's Supper: &lt;strong&gt;sacraments.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second paragraph speaks of establishing teachers: &lt;strong&gt;preaching the word.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third paragraph gives instructions for how to treat a non-repentant sinner: &lt;strong&gt;discipline&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though it doesn't label them marks in so many words, I think this is the closest (and earliest) you'll find to the idea of the three distinguishing factors. I'm fairly certain, however, that Calvin was the one who called them &quot;marks&quot; first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, I think the general idea stems from Acts 2:42&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship,&#xA;  to the breaking of bread and the prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2012-04-29T20:33:09.623" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7389" CreationDate="2012-04-30T02:22:56.630" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Thomas Beckett&lt;/strong&gt; - 1170 - assassinated at a church for annoying the king who made him Archbishop. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Bernard and companions&lt;/strong&gt; - 1226 - killed by the Moors&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bl. Charles the Good&lt;/strong&gt; - 1127 - killed at church after stopping black marketers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Stanislaus&lt;/strong&gt; - 1079 - killed after excommunicating a wicked king. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Elphege&lt;/strong&gt; - 1012 - killed by Danish invaders for refusing ransom by selling off his church property. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St Adalbert&lt;/strong&gt; - 983 - killed evangelizing Prussians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. Joan of Arc&lt;/strong&gt; - 1412 - (not canonized until 1920, but pardoned thirty years after her death) burned at the stake and not really a martyr, but I thought I'd throw her in here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St Wenceslaus&lt;/strong&gt; - 929 - killed by his brother while praying in a church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;St. John Nepomucene&lt;/strong&gt; - 1390 - drowned in the Vltava by a very different King Wenceslaus for refusing to violate the Seal of confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found these folks just by looking through my lives of the saints book there are undoubtably more. I haven't a clue about Luther's knowledge of these particular saints. However, I think it's safe to say that educated people knew about St Thomas Beckett and may have heard about Joan of Arc in Western Europe (From the Canterbury Tales and Joan of Arc is &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt; the patroness of France). As in Eastern Europe they may have known of St. Wenceslaus and St Stanislaus (patrons of Czech Republic and Poland).  Their cults didn't operate in a complete vacuum. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2019-03-13T14:22:58.520" LastActivityDate="2019-03-13T14:22:58.520" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7390" CreationDate="2012-04-30T05:26:36.663" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;About &quot;doing crazy thing as risking in battle&quot; - do you think Israelites were crazy for risking the Ark of the Covenant in battle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About the history of finding of the Precious and Livegiving Cross - look here for the narration about Saint Helen &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/exaltholycross&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/exaltholycross&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T05:26:36.663" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7393" CreationDate="2012-04-30T08:14:02.413" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure about the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bipolar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; condition specifically, but there is an interesting Biblical story very similar to what you describe in the life of &lt;strong&gt;Elijah&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings+18&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Kings 18&lt;/a&gt;, he wins a powerful victory over the Baal prophets, with clear Divine intervention. However, in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings+19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the very next chapter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, he becomes suicidal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He came to a broom tree, sat down under it and &lt;strong&gt;prayed that he might die&lt;/strong&gt;. “I have had enough, LORD,” he said. “&lt;strong&gt;Take my life&lt;/strong&gt;; I am no better than my ancestors.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2019:4&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Verse 4b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T08:14:02.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7398" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7402" CreationDate="2012-04-29T18:00:40.077" Score="8" ViewCount="18665" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a great set of answers that covers some of my question regarding the interpretation of this passage &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/223/36&quot;&gt;over on the Biblical Hermeneutics site&lt;/a&gt;, but it didn't answer all of my questions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today I heard an old pastor speak about when he saw one of those gates for himself in Jerusalem. If I understand it right, the gate he saw was even labeled with &quot;The eye of the needle&quot; or something similar (though his interpretation was not the classic, because he was sure of that there was no way a camel could get through the gate he saw).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What gate (which obviously exists today) is this pastor speaking about?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there really any part of the Jerusalem walls left since Jesus time? Weren't all of the walls destroyed after the siege of Jerusalem 70 A.D?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Update 1&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even since before asking this question, I never doubted that Jesus was speaking about a real &quot;eye of the needle&quot;, and not a gate. Even though I marked one answer (which was really clarifying) as accepted, it would be really interesting to nail this myth and go down to the details. According to the New Bible Dictionary, third Edition, p. 562, there is one remaining ancient wall &quot;at the present-day Damascus Gate&quot;. What does &quot;ancient&quot; mean in this context? Could it have survived since the days of Jesus? In that case, how big is this part? Are there other ancient walls that could be from the days of Jesus? And are there any &quot;gates&quot; in these ancient walls that have been suggested as the &quot;needle eye gate&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1600" OwnerDisplayName="Niclas Nilsson" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2017-09-13T14:55:59.010" Title="The &quot;eye of the needle gate&quot; today" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;&lt;jerusalem&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7398" CreationDate="2012-04-29T19:52:02.317" Score="3" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Well, there is a lot of debate about whether there was such a gate, but the disciples apparently didn't think there was, as their response is one of surprise, asking &quot;but then, who can be saved?&quot; To which Jesus replied &quot;with men &lt;em&gt;it is impossible&lt;/em&gt; but with God, all things are possible.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yes. No. The walls of the Old City are still basically as they were in the time of the crusaders. I believe the crusaders did some stuff to the walls, not sure what all. I think the walls around the temple mount are the same as they were in Jesus time. Josephus says that the walls of Jerusalem were destroyed, whether he intends this to include the temple mount or not, I don't know. But probably not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="725" OwnerDisplayName="Arlen Beiler" LastActivityDate="2012-04-29T19:52:02.317" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7398" CreationDate="2012-04-30T12:51:18.120" Score="-2" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is a gate called the Eye of the Needle. It is large enough for a man to pass through by ducking and squeezing, but a camel could never fit through, much less one with a person riding on it. But the gate is named because getting through it is like putting thread through the eye of a needle. &lt;a href=&quot;http://hethathasanear.com/Needle.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://hethathasanear.com/Needle.html&lt;/a&gt; has some information on said gate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I do not think the Romans razed the whole city to the ground. If you recall, the only walls that were important were the city walls; we take them for granted nowadays, but they were the defense of the city. But you must also remember that even in Jesus' time the walls had been expanded a few times, so there are probably a couple of different tiers of walls and I do not believe the Romans leveled everything.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T12:51:18.120" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7391" CreationDate="2012-04-30T12:55:05.400" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A collection of information on him is here, some of it is kergyma (oral tradition): &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke&quot;&gt;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first paragraph reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle and Evangelist Luke is the&#xA;  author of the Gospel of Luke, the companion of the Apostle Paul (Phil&#xA;  1:24, 2 Tim 4:10-11), and is numbered among the Seventy Apostles. He&#xA;  was a native of Syrian Antioch and a physician, and is the founder of&#xA;  iconography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to tradition, he painted the first icon as we think of them, it is called 'Directress' and it is of the Theotokos (Mother of God) holding the child Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T12:55:05.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7398" CreationDate="2012-04-30T13:02:30.240" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Minor clarification. While the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, the city of Jerusalem retained its general street plan until 135 AD.  In 135 AD, after the Bar Jakova Revolt, the already damaged city was razed to the ground. In its place, a Greek city called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelia_Capitolina&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Aelia Capitolina&lt;/a&gt; was put in its place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, when Constantine's mother, Helena visited the city in the 300s, there was nothing left, except new settlements which bore no relation to the extant city. This why Golgotha, for example - the outskirts of the town in the day - are, if you believe Helena, now inside the Church of the Holy Sepelchure, smack dab in the center of the city.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the city itself has migrated over time. The &quot;City of David,&quot; extends south of the current city walls. That one would now exit the &quot;Dung Gate&quot; to go to where David's palace was shows how fluid city layouts can be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Temple, which was at the northern end of the city, is now central to it.  The &quot;beautiful gate&quot; (or the &quot;Golden Gate&quot;, next to the Temple) was sealed off in 1541, and most of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Jerusalem&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;existing walls&lt;/a&gt; date to the Ottomans, built in the 1500s. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/n5sY1.png&quot; alt=&quot;Walls of Jeruslaem&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, if there ever was an &quot;eye of the Needle&quot; gate, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;which in my mind is highly doubtful&lt;/a&gt;) it certainly no longer exists today. Additionally, any understanding of where the gate was in relationship to the city would be of no use, because there is no context for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_Gate&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Damascus Gate&lt;/a&gt; has been the historic main entrance to the city. The actual edifice, however dates to 1547, and was built on the ruins of a 2nd Century AD gate,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T13:13:04.760" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T13:13:04.760" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7387" CreationDate="2012-04-30T13:02:39.917" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems pretty clearly to be referring to the day of judgement in the form of a parable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The disobedient servant is a Christian who was false (in name only, as we would say): he loses his reward since lip service is meaningless;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The others are plainly the enemies of God; not so much those who didn't believe in this life, but those who want to rule themselves outside of him, the demons primarily, but also heretics, apostates and those who reject him at the end. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot interpret this parable as speaking of open violence against non-Jews because of the simple fact that nobody there interepreted it that way; no violence followed the command then or afterwards. It is clearly understood - and maybe our translation makes it difficult - that these words were part of the story and referring to the final inception of the Kingdom on the day of Judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T13:02:39.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7393" CreationDate="2012-04-30T13:15:27.543" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This seems more to refer to the phenomena which Paul recounts when he says, 'I die daily'; in short, one may wake up in the morning with hope that he will walk according to the ways of God, but in the evening find that he hasn't. This is not bipolar; it is realistic and one of the reasons each person can say with certainty, 'I am the chief of all sinners'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his novel &lt;strong&gt;Till We Have Faces&lt;/strong&gt;, Lewis has a good recounting of this phenomena - of waking up trying to do and be good, and finding it impossible by the end of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to consider is this: One's relationship with God is not a matter of feelings of peace or good intentions; it is to walk the path of Christ himself which is a path of suffering (consider the Beatitudes.) Thus why Paul says, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;I die daily.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to modern psychological practice and tradiiton, a spiritually healthy person may seem deranged simply because they are not trying to &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt; good; they are trying to &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; good. And that involves a lifelong path of, as far as any man may know for himself, feeling &lt;em&gt;bad&lt;/em&gt;. There are plenty of NT quotes from even the Lord himself to support this. And this is precisely why, as far as I can tell, the actual peace &lt;strong&gt;surpasses understanding&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T13:15:27.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7346" CreationDate="2012-04-30T14:44:32.957" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Catholic, and though I'm certainly not professing to be an expert on doctrine... the answer I've been given goes along the lines that The Catholic church will not declare that any given deceased individual is in Hell (or not in Heaven) as we can't know the forgiveness of our Lord, but that there are individuals who, after careful examination of their earthly deeds and the fruits of their lives, we believe &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; in Heaven - those individuals we refer to as Saints. &#xA;It is (or should be) the goal of every Christian to become a saint after their death, and therefore to believe and behave in as saintly a manor as possible throughout their life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1601" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T14:44:32.957" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7346" CreationDate="2012-04-30T15:25:42.093" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading this while writing this months blog article on &amp;quot;What is the Church&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The Church . . . is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy. This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as 'alone holy,' loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God.&amp;quot; The Church, then, is &amp;quot;the holy People of God,&amp;quot; and her members are called &amp;quot;saints.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 823&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Curiously enough, we Catholics hold that everyone is more or less in the Catholic Church; otherwise the church wouldn't be universal, which is to say, catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it may be fallacious reasoning, but I like to think that we the living, are all saints and those who are dead are hopefully saints because all things are possible with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T15:25:42.093" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="587" CreationDate="2012-04-30T19:59:47.607" Score="5" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spiritual gift of tongues serves one purpose: communication where ordinary language skills do not serve.  Paul saw prophecy as useful to non-believers &lt;em&gt;even though&lt;/em&gt; its primary purpose is for the edification of believers.  But speaking in a language the unbeliever does not understand fails to accomplish any purpose at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A little context is in order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I speak in &lt;em&gt;the tongues of men and of angels&lt;/em&gt;, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 13:1 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+13/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of speaking in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;angelic languages&lt;/a&gt;, which is sometimes practiced in Pentecostal denominations, comes from this passing reference.  Paul seems to be using &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;hyperbole&lt;/a&gt; when looking at the rest of the chapter.  But even if he &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; approve of speaking in a non-human tongue, it's clear that it must be done in love.  At this point, however, it's not immediately clear how speaking in tongues (apart from saying &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6472/914&quot;&gt;unloving things&lt;/a&gt;) could lack love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After an excursion on the topic of love (perhaps the greatest chapter ever written by anyone), Paul returns to the topic of speaking in tongues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you &lt;em&gt;some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching&lt;/em&gt;? If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is &lt;em&gt;not intelligible&lt;/em&gt;, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and &lt;em&gt;none is without meaning&lt;/em&gt;, but if I do not know &lt;em&gt;the meaning&lt;/em&gt; of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 14:6-12 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+14/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we can understand how Paul could say that the mere act of speaking in a language that is not understood by its hearers could lack love.  If you've ever been in a situation where other people speak &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kli.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a language that you don't&lt;/a&gt;, you'll understand how frustrating it can be to not have anyone translate for you.  Conversely, when you are around someone who &lt;a href=&quot;https://stackoverflow.com/&quot;&gt;doesn't understand&lt;/a&gt; what you are communicating, you probably have felt a combination of superiority and (hopefully) compassion toward that unfortunate soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that Paul repeats the imagery of a worthless musical instrument from the previous chapter.  The purpose of language is to communicate meaning, but if you can't understand you are a foreigner and outsider in relationship to the speaker.  When it comes to building up the church (or in fact any community) putting people in the relationship of outsider doesn't seem like a good plan.  That's why Paul encourages (in the rest of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+14/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapter 14&lt;/a&gt;) that church meetings be understandable to &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/714/68&quot;&gt;everyone present&lt;/a&gt;.  The primary consideration is given to building up the church in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The historical context of the practice of speaking in tongues is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:1-13&lt;/a&gt;.  On the day of Pentecost, with Jerusalem packed with foreigners, God gave the church the extraordinary gift to speak in many languages they did not themselves understand.  Later that day, three thousand people were baptized and, presumably carried their new faith back home with them.  So God gave the gift of tongues at an ideal moment to carry out His mission to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.  It may be that some of Paul's Corinthian readers were witnesses, or even products, of that event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke records that some observers thought the church was drunk on Pentecost, which might be in Paul's mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 14:23 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+14/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, this sort of speaking in tongues (i.e., in a language not understood by unbelievers) fails to perform the mission of building the church.  The strong implication is that this sort of tongues should not be practiced at all.  Paul seems to be building on the theme of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapter 10&lt;/a&gt;: '“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.' (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;10:23-24 ESV&lt;/a&gt;)  He seems unwilling to condemn the practice of glossolalia, but gives some good reasons to avoid it in meeting where outsiders are present.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoglossy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Xenoglossy&lt;/a&gt;, however, would be quite useful to Paul and other missionaries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Personal Experience&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking in tongues is not commonly practiced at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.efca.org/about-efca/thoughts-consider-/lee-gradys-theses-charismatics/pentecostals&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;my church&lt;/a&gt;, but I have some personal experience with it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When I've visited highly charismatic churches, I've found speaking in tongues in particular to be off-putting.  Even in the rare cases where a translation can be given, there's a too-obvious division between those who participate and those who don't. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I speak conversational &lt;a href=&quot;https://spanish.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Spanish&lt;/a&gt;, but I believe that I've been given the gift of tongues several times on short-term mission trips to Mexico and Bolivia.  Since I already knew Spanish, these experiences would not convince a skeptic and I'm certain nobody but myself knew it happened.  However, I was able to speak fluently beyond my skill in a way that closely resembles my occasional experiences with prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I've known people who use private prayer languages.  One person asked to use it during prayer in a (very) small group.  I found the experience of listening to be odd, but comforting.  It seems possible that this sort of speaking in tongues could be edifying even if lacking in semantics.  The communication seemed to be of an emotional nature.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-05-23T12:41:56.337" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:35:02.557" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7408" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7409" CreationDate="2012-04-30T20:26:23.760" Score="9" ViewCount="6585" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people have seen the Classical depiction of Satan in paintings and statues, but what does scripture say about what Satan looks like?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-15T23:25:04.303" LastActivityDate="2016-04-09T05:05:14.100" Title="What does Satan look like?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-04-10T00:00:42.673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7408" CreationDate="2012-04-30T20:40:52.047" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently, anything he likes, including an angel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:14&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 11:14&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2609/where-in-the-bible-does-it-say-that-lucifer-is-an-angel&quot;&gt;Satan is an angel&lt;/a&gt;, then he can probably take on any appearance, at least that of a human:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+13:2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 13:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And possibly a snake (though some Christians do not take this passage literally)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;More information can be found on the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_demonology#Appearance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian demonology&lt;/a&gt; Wikipedia article.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-01-17T07:01:06.953" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7408" CreationDate="2012-04-30T20:52:30.800" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't forget the images in Revelation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. &lt;em&gt;Rev 12:3&amp;ndash;4 NIV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And especially this one, which gives the Number of the Beast:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon...It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666. &lt;em&gt;Rev 13:11,16&amp;ndash;18 NIV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-04-30T20:52:30.800" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7411" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7413" CreationDate="2012-04-30T21:10:38.137" Score="6" ViewCount="4011" Body="&lt;p&gt;What would happen to me if, while living in Europe, say, in the 13th or in the 15th century – in fact, in any time of the existence of the Roman Catholic Church before the Reformation – I openly declared that I didn't believe in Christ or in the existence of God. What consequences would I have been facing then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2021-01-28T21:35:01.490" LastActivityDate="2021-01-30T18:00:31.583" Title="What is an open atheist's fate in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7412" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-04-30T21:55:32.860" Score="14" ViewCount="10010" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming the doctrine of original sin is true, &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; exactly is original sin passed down to the rest of mankind? Was the nature of man changed? If so, what exempted Christ from sin but allowed him to remain 100% man? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a genetic inheritance of some strand of sin DNA?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about this? What does Church history have to say?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2020-01-07T18:28:12.130" Title="How is original sin transmitted?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-14T15:51:31.387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7411" CreationDate="2012-04-30T23:29:02.457" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;You would have been excommunicated by the church and shunned by the community. But then again, for some individuals, the solace that comes from &quot;having the courage of your convictions&quot; and &quot;being right&quot; may have made that option more palatable (see de Tocquville below).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People would have thought you odd, and possibly a public health hazard. (After all, God could punish the village for your unbelief.) But, if you were willing to move, you'd probably have been ok. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were all sorts of dissenters - Waldensians, Hussians, Huguenots. When they became large enough to threaten the local potentate, sure, you'd be dealt with- but the fact that these groups could begin to number in the tens of thousands shows how tolerant the High Middle Ages could be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sociologically speaking, the community simply cared about other things far more - surviving the Plague (1347 - 1350), resisting invasions (When Genghis Khan invaded Poland in the 1240s, people thought the world was coming to an end!), ignoring the Papal politics of your time.  Heck, for at the least the latter half of the 14th Century, you had three Popes to choose from. They were so busy fighting amongst themselves, they would have had little time for you. And, if you were a peasant, you were either so busy trying to make a living (before the Black Death) or choosing which of several jobs you wanted (after the Black Death), religious conformity would have been low on your list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5984/why-did-john-wycliffe-oppose-papal-authority-in-the-14th-century&quot;&gt;Duns Scotus&lt;/a&gt;, for example, was able to get away with chipping away at the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope pretty signficantly - and he prospered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is unlikely that you would have been publicly &quot;executed&quot; - you just would have been so weird that nobody else would have wanted anything to do with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, while you may have been anti-Christ, you certainly weren't &quot;the Anti-Christ&lt;sup&gt;TM&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;. You were just a nut!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, as Alexis De Tocqueville (&lt;em&gt;Democracy In America&lt;/em&gt;) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;points out that your persecution at the hands of a despot would have entitled you to take solace in your martyrdom&lt;/a&gt;. In contrast, simple ostracism may seem a greater punishment, if only because you would have realized how different and alone you truly were.  All that said, if you were truly an atheist, your love of reason should have been sufficient solace for you not to care. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T18:09:54.530" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7412" CreationDate="2012-05-01T00:15:38.233" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the best answer here is that the Scriptures are not entirely clear on how original sin is transmitted.  One thing that we do know (or believe the scriptures to teach) is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sin nature is passed on to us from our fathers and not our mothers &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sin entered the world through Adam - Romans 5:12 - not Eve who sinned first.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;More directly taught in Heb 7:9-10&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ Who did not have an earthly father did not have original sin passed to Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is about all that we know (and even this view is heavily disputed.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other good questions:&#xA;Is it genetic (I doubt it) or spiritual (much more likely)?  What would happen if we used two women's DNA to clone a new person, if the new creation had a soul would it be sinless?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="1109" LastEditDate="2012-05-01T00:29:33.710" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T00:29:33.710" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7415" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7466" CreationDate="2012-05-01T00:43:10.980" Score="12" ViewCount="735" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I mean by this is a little beyond &amp;quot;Wives submit to your husbands.&amp;quot;  In Joshua 7:22-25 Joshua stones and burns the entire family of Achen, including his children, after he sins by keeping back some of the loot from Jericho when God commanded it all be destroyed.  Was Joshua in sin because he did this or was this a right response?  God certainly blessed them right after this with victory over Ai.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also Exodus 20:5-6 (NJKV) states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a more practical note according to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=15630&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;study reported in Baptist Press&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[If] a child is the first person in a household to become a Christian, there is a 3.5 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow[.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the mother is the first to become a Christian, there is a 17 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if the father is first, there is a 93 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this point to a leadership of a father that goes beyond simple moral or financial and moves into the distinctively spiritual?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-12-16T17:54:52.807" Title="Does the Bible support the concept of male spiritual headship?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;gender&gt;&lt;leadership&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-12-18T02:44:50.287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7416" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7425" CreationDate="2012-05-01T01:17:42.577" Score="7" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joan of Arc was burned as a heretic. Now she is a saint. How does the Roman Catholic Church explain this? It turned out that the Roman Catholic Church has murdered its own saint? Has any logical explanation ever been offered for this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-05-01T06:29:22.017" LastActivityDate="2014-10-18T19:20:59.573" Title="Has there been any explanation given on the murder of Joan of Arc?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7417" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7419" CreationDate="2012-05-01T01:47:06.640" Score="6" ViewCount="613" Body="&lt;p&gt;In thinking over the &quot;fulfillment&quot; of certain prophecies in AD 70, it struck me that this is really the only prophecy (other than the Second Coming) that isn't fulfilled &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the general prophecies about gospel proclamation and evil abounding are partially fulfilled in Acts, as we see things spinning into motion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, other than the AD 70 prophecy (assuming you believe that's the fulfillment, which I'm beginning to doubt) and the Second Coming, are there any prophecies in the Old Testament (or the New?) that (regardless of their fulfillment status) are not fulfilled &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in Scripture&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, I'm not looking for extra-biblical support for prophecies; rather, I'm looking for prophecies which are &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; fulfilled outside Scripture and whose fulfillment is never mentioned in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-01T02:15:03.860" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T03:51:27.680" Title="Which prophecies are fulfilled outside of Scripture?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;extra-biblical&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-16T22:29:34.017" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7417" CreationDate="2012-05-01T02:10:14.477" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream. Daniel interprets the dream, even though Nebuchadnezzar first insists that Daniel tell him the details of what he saw.  He responds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands —a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interpretation is then clearly identified as those kingdoms which will rise up after Babylon - and historically speaking, these can be very closely ascribed to the Medeo-Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires. Indeed, the prophecy is so good that many scholars refuse to date Daniel to the time of Nebuchadnezzar because of it.  Within the Protestant canon, there is no mention of Alexander the Great, nor of the rise of Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of this vision, and the prophecy as a whole, however, is NOT the statue.  Indeed, so much ink has been spilt over exactly what the kingdoms represent, etc... - but notice that the point of the dream isn't the statue.  It is the rock, not hewn by humans, that destroys &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the Kingdoms of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is this rock? Well, I think its pretty clear that upon that rock, Jesus built his kingdom, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.  Rome, even divided into East and West, and later into many kingdoms, was clearly succeeded, not by an earthly kingdom, but an ecclesiastical one.  It was not made by human hands. And while we may have witnessed its birth in Acts 2, its full flower was clearly not understood until well after the canon was closed. John the Revelator may have understood that the church would be triumphant - but it certainly wasn't going to be in his lifetime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Want a prophecy that isn't attested to by Scripture alone? Look no further than the church, my friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T02:24:26.003" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7412" CreationDate="2012-05-01T02:37:47.903" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One can hold that there is indeed &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Original Sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; without assuming the nature of man changed. One might say instead, that the image of God was marred in man, like a coin covered in dross and scored with cuts. But the image remained. The nature - how man was made - did not differ, but his mode - as the Fathers say (I'm leaning heavily on Maximus the Confessor here) changed with the fall. So he operated as a beast though he was a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It follows therefore that reproduction - and not only physical reproduction but also parentage through fallen adoptive parents - transmits not merely the effects of previous sins on the bodies and souls of the children and parents, but also re-imprints the patterns and habits which foster the disease.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It then therefore follows, that God had to raise up righteous seed - those who were free from habitual sin and receptive to God's help - and that these, and in particular the Mother of God - could and would be able to accept the Son of God as a child and raise him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This except gives an idea of the Orthodox position vis a vis '&lt;em&gt;sinful nature&lt;/em&gt;':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...Every created nature is made to live in communion with God. Human&#xA;  nature itself lives in communion with God. Our fall does not consist&#xA;  in becoming something other than human – we have yet to become truly&#xA;  human. Thus St. Paul says: “Man is the glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7).&#xA;  And St. Irenaeus says, “The glory of God is man fully alive” (Adv.&#xA;  Her. 4.34.5-7). Our becoming truly human would mean the restoration of&#xA;  our true integrity – we would &lt;strong&gt;live in accordance with our nature&lt;/strong&gt; and&#xA;  praise the Lord without ceasing. The natures of all creation&#xA;  ceaselessly praise God by their very existence. Our struggle is to&#xA;  rejoin the song of creation with the whole of our being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/all-dogs-go-to-heaven/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/all-dogs-go-to-heaven/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is not the nature that changes, but whether those hypostases - concrete individuals - live in accordance to how they were made. Original sin constitutes a departure from this way of being at the very outset of human existence that affects the lives of every descendent of Adam and Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastEditorDisplayName="user304" LastEditDate="2012-05-02T14:38:51.560" LastActivityDate="2012-05-02T14:38:51.560" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7408" CreationDate="2012-05-01T02:55:13.577" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that as an angel, aside from a stint in fleshly imagery in the West, Satan like other angels is considered to not actually have a 'true appearance' at all. He is a bodiless intelligence and is thus, invisible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is highly misleading to try to tack down his appearance, like that of any angel or demon, because what they are is not primarily bodily and thus, passively or objectively visible, but intelligible and intelligent, and subtle. Any image they assume can be considered a 'vision of angels', since they have no actual appearance. How they appear is based on how they wish to be intelligible to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you can stomach it, you may wish to consider On The Divine Hierarchy by St. Denys. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan can appear as an angel of light and frankly, as alluded to above, whatever suits him and God permits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T02:55:13.577" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7383" CreationDate="2012-05-01T02:57:44.010" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are numerous stories, particularly in the lives of the Saints. But traditionally every Christian is regarded as having their own guardian angel. So to answer your question in perhaps a less spectacular and significant fashion, Yes, and constantly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T02:57:44.010" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7416" CreationDate="2012-05-01T05:15:50.360" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;She was burned by the English clergy who &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jeanne-darc.info/p_trails/trial_02_condemnation/00_pierre_champion_.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;denied her appeal to the Pope&lt;/a&gt; near the end of the Hundred Years War and she was cleared of all charges only 30 years after her death (even though it took almost 500 years to canonize her).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yeah, there's been extensive research and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stjoan-center.com/Trials/null03.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;analysis of what happened&lt;/a&gt;.  The trial and the aftermath is all amazingly well documented and worth reading; or if you prefer historical fiction Mark Twain has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://librivox.org/personal-recollections-of-joan-of-arc-by-mark-twain/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;awesome book about her.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-01T12:04:36.567" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T12:04:36.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7426" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7440" CreationDate="2012-05-01T06:27:30.380" Score="1" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around. The most recent example that comes to my mind is probably the incumbent Pope's decision to condone contraceptives. So, the question is: How can common believers be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? Has this matter ever been discussed in history?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T16:04:24.437" Title="How can common believers be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?" Tags="&lt;ecumenical-council&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-05-03T12:14:25.263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7427" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8021" CreationDate="2012-05-01T06:35:34.457" Score="7" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;What were the main differences or points of dissent between Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom? Can anyone give a summary, please?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-05-01T09:29:13.340" LastActivityDate="2012-06-12T15:52:16.203" Title="What are the main points of dissent between Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom?" Tags="&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7411" CreationDate="2012-05-01T06:58:00.937" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The inquisitors official purpose for inquisitorial penalties (which were torture, imprisonment, and not uncommonly, death)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;quoniam punitio non refertur primo &amp;amp; per se in correctionem &amp;amp; bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, &amp;amp; a malis committendis avocentur&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or roughly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the inquisitions were &lt;em&gt;absolutely&lt;/em&gt; aimed at serving as an example; if your beliefs were not in agreement with the local church, you were by definition heretical, and would have been at risk, without doubt. A vocal and proud non-believer would make a fine example. Many labelled as atheist were targetted for legal persecution, continuing the tradition of earlier times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Add to that, as Affable Geek rightly notes, you were likely to be shunned from family, friends and society (although I outright reject his conclusion that an atheist would &quot;not care&quot; about this - in a violent, hard and outright hostile time, where there wasn't easy and anonymous access to services such as &lt;em&gt;buying food&lt;/em&gt;, affiliation in a society was even more important; an outcast is not likely to fare well).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, in many cases punishment was in part political in addition to religious; if you were challenging the local officials (by encouraging people to think, always dangerous). Add to this that royal authority etc was usually &quot;by divine right&quot; - thus: by rejecting the faith you &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; undermining the local rulers, which was not well tolerated. If you think politics and religion are intertwined &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt;... it was worse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, at this point the word &quot;atheist&quot; is usually applied as an insult, applied to things such as different religious beliefs, suicides, and immoral people. The term itself (in everyday usage) didn't really mean the same as it does today (i.e. not believing in a supernatural deity). It was held as a threatening position (to society) by Thomas Aquinas, and even those in favour if religious liberty (John Locke, Thomas More) excluded atheists in their considerations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: it would not have ended well. Your best option would have been to disbelieve quietly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T06:58:00.937" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7323" CreationDate="2012-05-01T07:15:54.447" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not my personal position, but the Catholic position is &quot;yes, they're OK as long as they behave&quot;, recorded in Lumen Gentium (Second Vatican Council, 1964) - emphasis is mine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can &lt;strong&gt;attain to salvation&lt;/strong&gt; who through no fault of their own &lt;strong&gt;do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church&lt;/strong&gt;, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have &lt;strong&gt;not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God&lt;/strong&gt; and with His grace &lt;strong&gt;strive to live a good life&lt;/strong&gt;. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T07:15:54.447" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7417" CreationDate="2012-05-01T10:11:24.800" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was fulfilled one in 1967&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible passage: Zechariah 8:7-8&#xA;Written: between 520 and 518 BC&#xA;Fulfilled: 1967, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Zechariah 8:7-8, the prophet said God would bring the Jews back from the east and the west to their homeland (Israel) and that they would be able to live in the city of Jerusalem again. This prophecy has been fulfilled more than once. About 2600 years ago, Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and took many Jews as captives to Babylon. But many Jews later returned from Babylon. The Jews rebuilt Jerusalem but the city was destroyed about 1900 years ago by the Romans. The Romans killed more than 1 million Jews and forced many more into exile. The Jews did not have control of Jerusalem again until 1967 when the Jews recaptured the city during the Six Day War.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is Zechariah 8:7-8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what the Lord Almighty says: &quot;I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-05-01T22:53:45.320" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T22:53:45.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7426" CreationDate="2012-05-01T12:36:24.020" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;One can not be sure the Church's decisions are correct.  There must be some standard each individual uses to judge the Church's decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said simply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 22&lt;/strong&gt;:37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a Christian feels like the Church he is attending is violating Jesus's commandment, then they must decide for themselves to follow their Church or follow Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T12:36:24.020" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7436" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7439" CreationDate="2012-05-01T14:19:53.790" Score="6" ViewCount="3584" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always read about &lt;strong&gt;Jesus's commandments&lt;/strong&gt; as something new in the bible; those commandments changed the way Christians see the Moshe writings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible  commentaries in this page of &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/revelation/14-12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev 14:12&lt;/a&gt; don't explain about the &lt;strong&gt;commandments of God&lt;/strong&gt;, where saints keep them and have the faith of Jesus, nothing about  Jesus's commandments. So, there are any difference or are the same?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1603" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-20T11:30:45.070" LastActivityDate="2016-12-26T05:28:47.463" Title="Are there any differences between Jesus's commandments and God's commandments?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-12-28T18:31:37.387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7426" CreationDate="2012-05-01T14:54:09.053" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 2012 world-wide General Conference of the United Methodist Church is going on right now in Tampa, Florida, USA.  This conference is held every 4 years to determine the guidelines and direction of the United Methodist Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing you can do as a common member is to pray that the delegates are guided by God and God's will, rather than the earthly desires of a majority of delegates.  You can also pray to God for his confirmation that the decision you're concerned about was made in accordance with his will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only other thing you can do is find a church more in line with what you believe to be the will of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T14:54:09.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7436" CreationDate="2012-05-01T15:09:17.187" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Doubting Thomas said it well in his comment: &lt;em&gt;&quot;Jesus was just elaborating on God's Commandments from the OT; revealing their true meaning.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. In that spirit, here's my elaboration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-48&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:21-48&lt;/a&gt;, there are six &lt;em&gt;it has been said&lt;/em&gt; statements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not murder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not commit adultery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not break your oath&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love your neighbor and hate your enemy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In each case, Jesus says a little word, &lt;em&gt;&quot;but&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, and then goes one huge step further. Just to take the last one as an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-48&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;the above verses&lt;/a&gt; or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;full chapter&lt;/a&gt; for more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, note that Jesus Himself saw no difference. As He mentions just before the above verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-05-01T15:20:01.433" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T15:20:01.433" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7426" CreationDate="2012-05-01T16:04:24.437" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is know your Bible.  God has given us His Word to guide us.  The church, being filled with sinful men, is going to err and has erred.  But God's word is 'settled in the heavens', is perfect, is truth (John 17:17).  So the primary source for truth must be God's words and not men's words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is however difficult sometimes to go against the church and her teaching.  The leaders of any given church have usually studied the Bible a lot more than the average Christian.  But we must also remember that God guides His children into truth, so study your Bible, know it, and then ask God for His Holy Spirit to guide you in all truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T16:04:24.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7441" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-01T16:27:40.653" Score="3" ViewCount="1613" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic and Orthodox Churches are often named after saints because we believe in the communion of Saints and like to put our congregations under some sort of patronage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen Episcopal churches named after St. Francis and St. Dunstan and I'd imagine there are quite a few named after the various awesome Saxon saints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I've seen Lutheran Churches named after Biblical Saints (John, Mark, Luke etc...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never seen any traditions in Protestantism (not that it's a thing) that violate this rule, or this custom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are there any Protestant churches who name their churches after extra-biblical saints?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-02-26T20:39:50.917" LastActivityDate="2017-02-26T20:39:50.917" Title="Are non-Anglican Protestant churches ever named after extra-biblical saints?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7441" CreationDate="2012-05-01T17:37:44.633" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Round the corner from me there used to be a Methodist Church called St Aidan's. St Aidan was Bishop of Lindisfarne and died in 651. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01233d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Potted biography&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes: it does happen. But I know of only that one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[That particular church was closed some years ago due to structural problems and demolished. There's now a block of flats called St Aidan's Court on the site. I hope that wasn't the last Protestant church dedicated to a non-Biblical saint!]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T17:37:44.633" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7441" CreationDate="2012-05-01T20:25:25.537" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As it happens, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.emmanuelburbank.org/about-us/about-emmanuel/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;my local church&lt;/a&gt; is named after a saint who wasn't written up by name in the Bible.  He was the founder of our church and his name was Emmanuel Peterson.  (No prizes for correctly guessing whether the church uses his first or last name.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found a non-denominational Protestant church called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sdfa.org/sdfa-history.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;San Diego First Assembly&lt;/a&gt;.  (That's probably cheating since the church was named after the city named after &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didacus_of_Alcal%C3%A1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the saint&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as you noticed, naming churches after people (at least people not described in the Bible by name) is remarkably rare for Protestant denominations.  The most likely reason is one you alluded to: Protestants have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint#Protestantism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;different view of sainthood&lt;/a&gt; than the Orthodox or Catholic traditions.  We have some reason not to put our trust in the names of people no matter who they were.  As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/tabletalk.v.xxi.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luther said&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended; for they were but men, and, to speak the truth, with all their repute and authority, undervalued the books and writings of the sacred apostles of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we Protestants are far more likely to name our churches after concepts, especially those found in the Bible.  Alternatively, we use strictly descriptive names (cities mostly).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T20:25:25.537" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7441" CreationDate="2012-05-01T22:35:11.637" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer depends on how you define &quot;saint.&quot;  If you use a protestant definition of the term, then any church named after a Christian (living or dead) is a church named after a saint.  And there are many examples of this. A few I found quickly by google:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moodychurch.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moody Church&lt;/a&gt; in Chicago, Illinois, named after D. L. Moody.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.martinlutherchurch.net/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Martin Luther Lutheran Church&lt;/a&gt; in Milwaukee, WI, named after Martin Luther&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calvinchurchzelie.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Calvin Presbyterian Church&lt;/a&gt; in Zelienople, PA named after John Calvin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calvinministries.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Calvin Church&lt;/a&gt; in Holland, MI presumably named after John Calvin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calvin.org.nz/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Calvin Community Church&lt;/a&gt; in Gore, New Zealand presmably named after John Calvin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T22:35:11.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="121" CreationDate="2012-05-01T23:48:26.750" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Relative to the amount of attention homosexuality as a sin gets among Western Christians, the Bible has comparatively little to say on the subject.  For instance, greed is condemned loudly and often in the Bible.  So is hypocrisy.  Jesus compared anger to murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there are very clear warnings and even condemnations of people who practice homosexuality.  Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.&amp;mdash;Romans 1:26-27 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There can be little doubt that Paul is referring to consensual homosexual acts of both the male and female variety.  A little later, he provides a more comprehensive list of sinful behavior:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.&amp;mdash;Romans 1:28-32 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the rest of the letter, Paul makes clear that the punishment for &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; sin is death (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:23&lt;/a&gt;) and that &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of us sin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt;).  In terms of eternal consequences, homosexual acts are in the same category as, say, gossip.  That is to say, it's a sin worthy of death.  Thankfully, God provided a way out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.&amp;mdash;Romans 8:1 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Piper did a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-other-dark-exchange-homosexuality-part-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two&lt;/a&gt;-&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-other-dark-exchange-homosexuality-part-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;part&lt;/a&gt; sermon on this passage that changed my views completely.  Here is one of his conclusions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The deepest problem of our lives, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is the terrible exchange of the glory of God for images (verse 23). The exchange of the truth of God for a lie (verse 25). The disapproval of having God in our knowledge (verse 28). Failed worship is our worst disorder. This is beneath all the maladies of the world. Repairing this, not first our disordered sexuality, is our main business in life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-05-01T23:48:26.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7436" CreationDate="2012-05-02T01:52:56.857" Score="2" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus claimed to be one with God the Father.  As he said in John, &amp;quot;If you have seen the Father, you have seen me.&amp;quot; He also says, &amp;quot;I and the Father are one.&amp;quot; (John 10:30)  One of the core doctrines that holds all Chalcedonian Christians together is the idea of the Trinity - that God exists as a &amp;quot;three-in-one.&amp;quot; As Jesus and God are the same person, by definition, they cannot contradict one another&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus specifically states that he came &amp;quot;not to abolish the law, but to fufill it.&amp;quot;  (Matthew 5:17) Indeed the expression, &amp;quot;not one jot nor tittle&amp;quot; stems from the fact that Jesus is saying that he doesn't change the law in even the most insignificant way. (A jot is Y, which in Hebrew looks like an apostrophe.  It's the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.  A title is like an accent mark). As he continues in 5:18, &amp;quot;I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sermon continues that we are to be Perfect, &amp;quot;even has your Father in Heaven is perfect&amp;quot;. If there is a distinction to be made between the OT law and the NT, it is that Jesus drives home the idea that not only must our actions conform to the words of the law, but our hearts also.  While the &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; only said you can't commit adultery, Jesus says that if you lust after a woman, you've committed adultery in your heart.  As such, Jesus is showing that he is merely applying the same law more fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus was asked to summarize the law, he said &amp;quot;Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. And the second is like unto it - Love your neighbor as yourself.&amp;quot;  When he says that all the Law hangs on this, he isn't introducing anything novel. In fact, he is quoting from different parts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  Furthermore, he is also referencing the 10 commandments, using a standard formulation called &amp;quot;the two tables.&amp;quot;  If one looks at the 10 commandments, the first four show how people are to act before God (No other gods / No images / no other worship/ Sabbath), the second six are how people are to act before other people (parents / no killing /adultery / false witness / stealing / coveting).  Jesus' formulation is nothing but a good shorthand to the &amp;quot;two tables.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In John 14:15, Jesus links faith in himself with the &amp;quot;law&amp;quot; established between God the Father in the OT with faith in himself.  The basis of obedience is summed up when he says, &amp;quot;If you love me, keep my commandments.&amp;quot;  By his commandments, he is referring to the whole of the law established by God with the Israelites at Sinai.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 14:12, John is exhorting Christians to persevere.  He is saying specifically, &amp;quot;Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.&amp;quot; (ESV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is our faith in Jesus, grounded in love, that allows us to keep the commandments that He (as God the Father) commanded.  &lt;sup&gt;Please forgive the modalist heresy there.  The point is to remember that Jesus is God, even though they are distinct.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-02T02:08:52.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7379" CreationDate="2012-05-02T03:02:53.433" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a difference between condemning and being discerning. One is using the good judgement God gave you, the other is judging in the place of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be clear that Christians are supposed to be &quot;as wise as serpents but as gentle as lambs. &quot;. Throughout the NT, we are warned to avoid false teachers and cast them out of our midst. We are to encourage &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; rebuke our brothers  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But note the context- in the cases where we are to use discernment, it is in a personal, relating body of believers.  We are not called to be God's policemen, forcing a system of morality on unbelievers. Rather, it is a privilege to be subject to the discipline of God - for after all, he only disciplines those he loves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a brother is calling himself a Christian, he invites discipline, rebuke, and encouragement. He sees it as a way to be the person God created him to be. If not, there is no use in casting your pearls before swine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-05-29T21:27:56.800" LastActivityDate="2012-05-29T21:27:56.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7451" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7452" CreationDate="2012-05-02T03:16:16.803" Score="10" ViewCount="2821" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary's birth of Jesus was painless come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My wife just got home from a non-denominational study about Mary and she said she thought everybody knew this, but apparently no one knew about it - especially the Protestants!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, what I'm looking for is the origin of the quote that Jesus' birth was &quot;like light passing through glass&quot; and whether that quote is wholly indicative of a painless birth or if it could have been painless in another way?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that it's a little t tradition in the Church, not a dogma or anything.  But it's definitely a strong tradition; although it's one that could use a little preaching on from what I can tell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-09-27T06:37:21.033" LastActivityDate="2021-04-20T05:11:13.010" Title="Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary did not have pain giving birth to Jesus come from?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;immaculate-conception&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7451" CreationDate="2012-05-02T05:18:39.967" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic &amp;quot;tradition&amp;quot; is just that. It is not an official teaching or doctrine, but rather something one is free to believe. The Church does not take a physiological stance on whether or not Mary experienced pain during child birth. But to understand where this tradition came from, we have to go back to the Garden of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Adam and Eve sinned, God said to Eve that because of her sin, women would now experience pain during child birth. The teaching of &amp;quot;Original Sin&amp;quot; is that we have all inherited the sin of Adam and Eve. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was &amp;quot;the ark of the new covenant&amp;quot; and that God prepared her to be the perfect vessel which carried God (Jesus) into the world. That meant that she needed to be free from Original Sin and that she did not commit a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So since she was free from sin, including the sin from Eve, the tradition is that she did not need to experience pain during child birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read more about the teaching on &amp;quot;the ark of the new covenant&amp;quot; here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="454" LastEditorUserId="10672" LastEditDate="2021-04-12T16:03:15.533" LastActivityDate="2021-04-12T16:03:15.533" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7454" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:16:57.207" Score="15" ViewCount="1072" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can someone give me the run down on how the LDS church sees the relationship of the Book of Mormon to the Bible? Does it accept it in full and just continue the story? How does it make the transition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="unusualhabit" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-05-02T13:41:05.297" LastActivityDate="2014-05-16T03:14:04.250" Title="What is the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Bible?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7453" CreationDate="2011-08-24T01:34:43.670" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; helps here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon is one of four sacred texts or standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The other texts are the Bible (the King James Version), the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Church members officially regard the Book of Mormon as the &quot;most correct&quot; book of scripture, in that &quot;a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.&quot; This is, in part, because church members believe the Bible was the result of a multiple-step translation process and the Book of Mormon was not. Joseph Smith told of receiving a revelation condemning the &quot;whole church&quot; for treating the Book of Mormon and the former commandments lightly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons believe that the Bible is sacred, but not infallible.  The Book of Mormon transcends the Bible in relevance, correctness, and completeness.  Some of the stories/principles in the Bible are based on truth, but the Bible is not to be accepted in full.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="311" OwnerDisplayName="Daniel δ" LastActivityDate="2011-08-24T01:56:26.927" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7453" CreationDate="2011-08-25T00:15:43.870" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially, the Book of Mormon starts at about the time that Isreal was being scattered. It follows a prophet not mentioned in the Bible named Lehi, and his family, as they leave Isreal, and eventually travel to somewhere in the Americas. They have a copy of the teachings of the prophets with them that, as stated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/5?lang=eng&quot;&gt;1 Nephi 5:11-14&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And he beheld that they did contain the five abooks of Moses,&#xA;  which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam&#xA;  and Eve, who were our first parents;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And also a arecord of the Jews from the beginning, even down to&#xA;  the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning,&#xA;  even down to the commencement of the reign of aZedekiah; and also many&#xA;  prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of bJeremiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the&#xA;  aplates of brass a bgenealogy of his cfathers; wherefore he knew that&#xA;  he was a descendant of dJoseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son&#xA;  of eJacob, who was fsold into Egypt, and who was gpreserved by the&#xA;  hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all&#xA;  his household from perishing with famine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They follow the Jewish traditions at first, with some slight differences. There are many cross referenced scriptures, including much from Isiah. The quoted scriptures do not match word for word. Towards the end of the book, Jesus Chris visits the people in resurrected form, after he died and was resurrected. He teaches many of the same/ similar things that he taught before he was crucified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, members of the LDS church believe that the Book of Mormon continues the teachings of the bible, but from a different point of view. They believe that the Book of Mormon was recorded on metal plates, such that it could not be destroyed or changed as easily as the paper of the bible could be changed. As there have been fewer translations and people handling the words, members of the LDS church believe it to be more accurate in it's teachings than the Bible, but that they both have the same purpose, to help a man do what God and Jesus Christ want us to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="264" OwnerDisplayName="Pearsonartphoto" LastActivityDate="2011-08-25T00:15:43.870" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7459" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-02T16:22:17.067" Score="0" ViewCount="332" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4362/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-immaculate-conception&quot;&gt;What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I saw on another post where someone indicated that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was, in fact, sinless at conception and remained sinless for her entire life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems, then, that if she were sinless, she would have her own righteousness and not need salvation.  Furthermore, it seems that she would not be subject to death, since death results from sin.  Jesus' death was proof that He took on Himself our sins, since He had none of His own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the origin of this teaching and how are these questions explained in Catholic teaching?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-05-02T17:35:02.857" Title="What is the origin and explanation of the Catholic teaching that Mary was and is sinless?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;immaculate-conception&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2012-05-03T14:12:19.707" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7459" CreationDate="2012-05-02T17:00:41.607" Score="3" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Immaculate Conception&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That teaching is known as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It means that she was conceived without original sin and had no inclination to sin as a result of original sin, she had freewill, but was as we will be (hopefully) in Heaven, following our intellect and not our passions.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;The Immaculate Conception&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary &quot;was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.&quot; The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as &quot;full of grace&quot;.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, &quot;full of grace&quot; through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;492 The &quot;splendor of an entirely unique holiness&quot; by which Mary is &quot;enriched from the first instant of her conception&quot; comes wholly from Christ: she is &quot;redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son&quot;. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person &quot;in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places&quot; and chose her &quot;in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God &quot;the All-Holy&quot; (Panagia), and celebrate her as &quot;free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature&quot;. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC - 490-493&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If she were sinless, then it would be because God made her so, i.e. He saved her before or at the moment of her conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Assumption&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other part, about her not dying, or at least not dying as we know it is the Catholic dogma of the Assumption of Mary. That dogma was never codified until the 1950's but is a very old tradition;  older even than the apocryphal manuscript that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vii.xliii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;corroborates it&lt;/a&gt;.  The reason for her assumption is that she wouldn't feel the effects of sin (age, illness and death - or pain during childbirth). But, as a good Christian, the first Christian, she is thought to have desired to follow her Son in death.  So, at the end of her earthly life, she was assumed into heaven and all this was done according to the will of God, because it was done in accord with the will of God and not against it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Mediatrix? &lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is disagreement, or at least a need for clarification, about what Mary's role is in our salvation.  A lot of Catholics (me included) would like a definition of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mary as the Mediatrix of All Graces&lt;/a&gt;, but that hasn't happened yet.  So, that part of your question is more or less up in the air as far as concrete Catholic teaching is concerned. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway) in just a few minutes of thinking about a question I doubt you ever considered before, you uncovered 2000 years of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mariology&lt;/a&gt; (a separate branch of dogmatic theology from soteriology) and the rationale for the two dogmas and the one potential dogma - good job!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-05-02T17:35:02.857" LastActivityDate="2012-05-02T17:35:02.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4362" CreationDate="2012-05-03T00:23:04.143" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't itself have anything to say on the subject of Mary's conception (or birth), so the idea must have come from an outside tradition.  I argued in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6163/914&quot;&gt;a related question&lt;/a&gt; that Mary's honor needed to be defended at a very early stage in the Church's history.  But the Immaculate Conception doctrine &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#Medieval_dispute_about_the_doctrine&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;came much later&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the doctrine seems to logically follow from the related doctrine that Mary was without sin when Jesus was born.  Augustine &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xii.xlvi.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;expressed&lt;/a&gt; this doctrine in his &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xii.iii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;On Nature and Grace&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In context, Augustine examined a list of pious men and women that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pelagius&lt;/a&gt; asserted had lived their entire lives without sin.  Augustine excluded &quot;the mother of our Lord and Saviour&quot; and posed a hypothetical question: Would the rest of the people on the list agree that they were without sin or would they agree with 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; John 1:8 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+John+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Augustine didn't actually assert that Mary was without sin.  Rather he suggested that she was granted the grace to overcome sin on the basis of 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; John 3:5 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+John+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that the main reason for considering the idea that Mary lived a sinless life is the same apologetic reason for considering the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin: out of honor toward Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, Augustine in this work fought the heresy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pelagianism&lt;/a&gt; and asserted the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Total depravity&lt;/a&gt; Therefore, he ought to have had every incentive to pin original sin on Mary at this point if he could bring himself to do so.  That he didn't strongly suggests that he at least considered the idea that Mary was sinless from birth.  However, his reasoning would have derived from the nature of Jesus and not the nature of Mary herself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aquinas &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q27_A3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;stops just short&lt;/a&gt; of asserting that Mary was born completely sinless:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And although this appears to be part of the dignity of the Virgin Mother, yet it is somewhat derogatory to the dignity of Christ, without whose power no one had been freed from the first sentence of condemnation. And though, through faith in Christ, some were freed from that condemnation, according to the spirit, before Christ's Incarnation, yet it does not seem fitting that any one should be freed from that condemnation, according to the flesh, except after His Incarnation, for it was then that immunity from condemnation was first to appear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that Aquinas uses the word &quot;fomes&quot; as shorthand for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q15_A2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;inclination to sin&lt;/a&gt;.  He presumes that Mary was freed from that inclination from her conception until Jesus' conception so that He would be born without the taint of sin.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="23657" LastEditDate="2019-05-27T02:38:54.110" LastActivityDate="2019-05-27T02:38:54.110" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7415" CreationDate="2012-05-03T01:44:24.557" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course, the man is the spiritual head of the family. There are many references in the Bible that point to it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%205:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%206:4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 6:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the charge of bringing children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord is given to the fathers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joshua, spoke for his whole family - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2024:15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Joshua 24:15)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although not directly related to spiritual headship, it should be noted that the angel appeared specifically to Joseph (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%202:13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 2:13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%202:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 2:20&lt;/a&gt;) and not to Mary, to tell him where to take the baby Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul, refers to himself as the &quot;father&quot; of the Corinthians in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%204:15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 4:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul sees his role of leading the Corinthians deeper in their relationship with Christ as that of a father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2049:26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 49:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The blessings of your father are mighty beyond the blessings of the eternal mountains, the bounties of the everlasting hills...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that we can be brothers, sisters or mothers of Jesus, but not his father! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%203:35&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Mark 3:35)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that Jesus has no problem in having a human being as his mother, but he doesn't have such a provision for a father. This strongly hints towards the fact that fatherhood implies spiritual headship over the son and the family in general. Jesus himself is called the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="1607" LastEditDate="2012-05-05T00:07:04.943" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T00:07:04.943" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7464" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7467" CreationDate="2012-05-03T01:52:46.303" Score="9" ViewCount="21530" Body="&lt;p&gt;In reading through canon law ( I think around 1037 or so ), it says that unmarried men must be celibate and 25 years old, or married men must be at least 35 and have their wife's consent before being ordained. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I didn't see was if divorced men were allowed to become priests, and which provisions they would be subject to if they are. So, can divorced men become priests, and must they be celibate if they do?  (In other words, could they remarry if this were the case)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-07-29T11:21:58.153" LastActivityDate="2018-07-10T16:51:05.210" Title="May divorced men become Roman Catholic priests?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7412" CreationDate="2012-05-03T02:04:47.560" Score="3" Body="&lt;h3&gt;What is original sin?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Original sin&amp;quot;, in Catholic theology, refers to the natural &lt;em&gt;state&lt;/em&gt; of deprivation of grace. So man, by nature, is deprived of the &lt;em&gt;state&lt;/em&gt; of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because grace is no longer &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot;, it can be obtained only through supernatural means - through God. So even though a man and woman may both be in the state of grace and give birth to a baby, that baby does not inherit their spiritual state, but only their nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the baby, by nature, is deprived of grace. This is how original sin is transmitted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recommended reading: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of Catholic Church on Original Sin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T02:51:12.417" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7415" CreationDate="2012-05-03T02:48:25.413" Score="7" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Yes. No. Maybe.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is all really tied up in the idea of Federal Headship. The most obvious Scriptural example of this is Adam and Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 15:22&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is developed a lot more in the  epistles, but the general idea is that Adam acted as a representative for all of mankind: a distinctly &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; head. Christ of course acted as the same, working the other way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is, to what extent does everyone &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; Adam carry on his spiritual federal headship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 22:18 God says to Moses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,&#xA;because you have obeyed me voice&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul confirms this in Galatians 3:6-7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;just as Abraham &amp;quot;believed God, and it was counted to him as&#xA;righteousness.&amp;quot; Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons&#xA;of Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could make similar demonstrations for prominent biblical characters such as David, or Noah. If Noah had not &amp;quot;by faith&amp;quot; (as Hebrews said) obeyed God and made the arc, his descendants would be doomed! (Mostly because they wouldn't exist)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there seems to be a sense in which God uses the faith of a spiritual &amp;quot;father&amp;quot; (I suppose that's why we call them the patriarchs?) to direct the spiritual status of their descendants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course, how can we forget the most weighty declaration of this in Exodus 20:5-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of&#xA;the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of&#xA;those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth&#xA;generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Cultural Adaptation?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect (perhaps this could be asked on Judaism.SE) that this idea of federal representativeness or headship became quickly ingrained in Jewish culture. As a result, all throughout the Old Testament families are put to death because of the sins of the father. In Numbers 16, Korah's entire household. In 2 Samuel 21, 7 of Saul's sons are put to death for his unresolved sins against the Gibeonites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems, then, that while this might not always be a 100%, black-and-white, specific case, that &lt;em&gt;in general&lt;/em&gt; the father acts as the representative for the family - be it a moral, spiritual, or any other -al issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;And now?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul seems to generalize this even further:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to&#xA;live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband&#xA;is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made&#xA;holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean,&#xA;but as it is, they are holy. (vs. 13-14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of what &amp;quot;made holy&amp;quot; means, there's a couple interpretations here that might support the federal headship theory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul is reassuring  his audience that, even if the father (the spiritual head) is an unbeliever, his wife makes the children holy in his stead&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both parents, whether husband or wife, contribute to the child's &amp;quot;holiness&amp;quot; and so Paul is generalizing federal headship further to both parents, not just the father.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paedobaptists like myself would say there is definitely an element in which the parents contribute to the status of their children in the covenant community:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:39&lt;/strong&gt; The promise is for you and your children...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;strong&gt;yes&lt;/strong&gt;, there is definitely some biblical support for this idea and I (and I suspect most Evangelicals) would agree that to some extent the Father specifically (but also the mother) have a sort of &amp;quot;spiritual&amp;quot; leadership.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;, it's not as if every father is acting as a second Adam, determining the righteousness of his children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So depending on what &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; you mean: &lt;strong&gt;yes, no, maybe so&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T02:48:25.413" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7464" CreationDate="2012-05-03T07:06:04.377" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Divorce doesn't actually exist in the Roman Catholic Church, so the simple answer is No: they can't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;em&gt;annulment&lt;/em&gt;, where a marriage ceases to have canonical effect &amp;mdash; it is almost as though it had never been (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7328/has-the-notion-of-legitimacy-been-abandoned-in-the-catholic-church/7375#7375&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; &amp;mdash; it's complicated). Married people who divorce and whose marriage is annulled can marry in church; it's likely that the same applies to ordination. I couldn't find anything in the Code of Canon Law either: it can't cover every eventuality explicitly, but see below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without an annulment, the man is still canonically married and cannot be ordained priest: see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3S.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon 1042(1)&lt;/a&gt;. Following ordination, they cannot marry and remain in orders; I know someone who relinquished his orders in order to marry. Even deacons cannot marry after ordination &amp;mdash; they take a vow of chastity on ordination; but if they are already married they can be ordained deacon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few married priests in the Church, but they have to have had individual permission from Rome to be ordained &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3S.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(Canon 1047(2)(3))&lt;/a&gt;, and if their marriage ends (by annulment or widowing) they cannot remarry. The same applies to married deacons: they cannot remarry while in orders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an interesting supplementary question about annulment which arises though. Imperfect intent is grounds for annulment &amp;mdash; that is, if one of the parties never really intended the marriage to be a real marriage, then the Church can annul it. If a man contracts marriage but never intended it to last because he felt called to ordained ministry, would that be valid grounds for annulment, and if so, could he still be ordained?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems it may well be valid grounds for annulment because of the lack of good intent. However I guess that from the statement in Paragraph 72 of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930906_life-in-christ_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ARCIC's document &lt;em&gt;Life in Christ&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, the Church might consider that serious psychological defects exist. In that case &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3S.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon 1041(1)&lt;/a&gt; provides a reason not to proceed with ordination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;strong&gt;might&lt;/strong&gt; even obtain for a man whose marriage ended in annulment through no fault of his own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T07:06:04.377" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7468" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7470" CreationDate="2012-05-03T10:35:00.137" Score="11" ViewCount="26476" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious about the status of marriages performed outside the auspices of the church. For example, if a non Catholic converts to the Roman church, but was married beforehand, does it &quot;count&quot;. Based on an earlier question, I understand now that the church annuls marriages - but, if these two went on to divorce, wouldn't the church be in the position of denying a marriage they never blessed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along these lines, what happens if two people get married by a justice of the peace, or If ignoring the advice of a priest, they choose to find some other minister to perform the ceremony. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that the church's recognition of a marriage is completely different from the state's recognition (and truthfully the practical effect of a non recognition by the church is slim), but it still makes me wonder if, say, two baptists who marry and then convert are &quot;living in sin&quot; until the priest recognizes the marriage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the extreme side of things, Im assuming that the church would never recognize a &quot;gay marriage,&quot; considering it annulled from the beginning- but would that extend to legitimate unions simply conducted outside the aegis of the church as well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just curious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-21T15:58:21.507" LastActivityDate="2015-10-04T16:53:19.057" Title="Does the Roman Catholic church recognize marriages outside of the church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;canon-law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7469" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-03T10:39:18.977" Score="3" ViewCount="86" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5117/requirements-for-a-protestant-joining-the-catholic-church&quot;&gt;What are the requirements for a Protestant joining the Catholic church?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, a Protestant decides he wants to become a Catholic. What does she need to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T12:47:49.790" Title="How does an adult become a Catholic?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-05-03T12:47:22.943" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7468" CreationDate="2012-05-03T11:43:58.753" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Church &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; recognise marriages outside the Church. See Canons 1055 and 1056:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can.  1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A marriage between two baptised people is by definition a sacrament: it's the couple who are ministers of that sacrament, not the officiant at the ceremony. Consequently it doesn't really matter who the officiant is (although there are rules, just to make sure that everything is done properly and legally).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I noted in my profile and an earlier comment, I used to be an Anglican and am now a member of the English Ordinariate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Members of my Anglican church considered joining the Ordinariate, but their previous dissolved marriages would have caused difficulty. In practice, the Church attempts to be compassionate in justice and in most cases the reason for divorce would have been a valid reason for annulment and there would be no problem — but all the circumstances would have to be investigated thoroughly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps I should qualify the opening sentence as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Roman Church does recognise marriages outside the Church which accord with Canon 1055.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T11:43:58.753" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7471" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7537" CreationDate="2012-05-03T13:06:06.390" Score="4" ViewCount="428" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around. The most recent example that comes to my mind is probably the incumbent Pope's decision to condone contraceptives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another example: the council of Hieria in 754 a.d. and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 a.d., both of which appropriated their titles as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The first council forbade the use of icons, and the second one reversed that decree. I know that one could say here that the Synod of Hieria was not an Ecumenical Council (it was called and chaired by the imperial family and no patriarchs were present, plus, its status is implicit in the Second Council of Nicaea declaring itself to be the actual Seventh Ecumenical Council), however, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that at the time when it took place it was announced as an Ecumenical Council, which means that ordinary folks - at least during the time between those two councils - had to follow the decrees of the council of Hiernia, otherwise, they would definitely fall into the category of heretics according to the decree of that council. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is: How can common believers in the Roman Catholic Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2015-07-28T15:58:44.567" Title="How can common believers in the Roman Catholic Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7472" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-03T13:08:41.457" Score="7" ViewCount="1057" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example: the council of Hieria in 754 a.d. and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 a.d., both of which appropriated their titles as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The first council forbade the use of icons, and the second one reversed that decree. I know that one could say here that the Synod of Hieria was not an Ecumenical Council (it was called and chaired by the imperial family and no patriarchs were present, plus, its status is implicit in the Second Council of Nicaea declaring itself to be the actual Seventh Ecumenical Council), however, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that at the time when it took place it was announced as an Ecumenical Council, which means that ordinary folks - at least during the time between those two councils - had to follow the decrees of the council of Hiernia, otherwise, they would definitely fall into the category of heretics according to the decree of that council.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is: How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-02-11T21:55:30.890" LastActivityDate="2017-02-01T17:32:45.350" Title="How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7473" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7543" CreationDate="2012-05-03T14:59:27.763" Score="9" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;About seven years ago my wife and I (who are childless) left our old church and set out to find the best church we could in the area.  We ended up in a church that practices paedocommunion (child communion).  They do not practice this because they believe that the children are saved, but because they believe that the children are members of God's Covenant People because they have been baptized, as most Presbyterians do.  They often point to the Passover feast as the similar Old Testament 'sacrament' where the children ate with the whole family.  What other evidence, both biblical and historical, supports this practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-07T12:14:15.000" LastActivityDate="2017-07-08T16:54:04.237" Title="What biblical and historical support is there for the practice of child communion?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2012-05-03T16:14:41.837" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now to this context who are we to pray to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit seals your prayer and teaches you what to pray for, so that you don't pray amiss. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we say we pray to Jesus, and we receive what we ask for because all things in heaven above or on earth below have been given over to Jesus in such away that at the mention of his name every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a small child, one might call his father &quot;mother&quot;, but a grown up child will not do so. That is to say the Father expects us to grow from babes into mature children of the kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1608" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T16:22:23.687" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T16:22:23.687" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7476" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-03T16:28:32.433" Score="12" ViewCount="1645" Body="&lt;p&gt;As many of you probably know, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;day-age theory&lt;/a&gt; is an attempt to reconcile creation and evolution, by turning the days mentioned in Genesis into long periods of time. What is the biblical evidence against this theory? How can I use Scripture to refute such a view?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-02-07T13:41:05.083" LastActivityDate="2017-02-07T13:41:05.083" Title="What is the Biblical evidence against the day-age theory?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7477" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-03T16:42:22.643" Score="5" ViewCount="13999" Body="&lt;p&gt;Traditionally in many Christian churches the women would cover their heads in worship citing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:2-16&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:2-16&lt;/a&gt;.  Why has this practice stopped, and why has it stopped mostly in the last 70 years?  Might we be offending the angels because we are not practicing this?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for biblical support for the answer not just cultural or opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="1109" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T18:25:40.050" LastActivityDate="2014-12-10T19:59:09.013" Title="Should a woman cover her head in Christian worship?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-12-11T04:40:43.290" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7478" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-03T16:47:31.333" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The day-age theory attempts to reconcile evolution with creation by turning the seven day creation week into a long period of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each day becomes metaphorical for a much longer period of several (hundred, thousand, or million) years, rather than a literal 24-hour day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T18:01:17.447" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T18:01:17.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7479" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-03T16:47:31.333" Score="0" Body="the day-age theory attempts to reconcile evolution with creation by turning the seven day creation week into a long period of time" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T18:01:18.400" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T18:01:18.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7481" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-03T16:55:01.023" Score="7" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 15&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus gives one parable of a man that lost 1/100 sheep, and rejoiced when that sheep was found. And another parable of a woman who lost 1/10 silver coins, and rejoices much when she finds her lost coin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order for something to be &quot;lost&quot;, it must be in one's possession at some point beforehand; and these parables confirm that in the sense of salvation. So, in regards to this, I have a two part question: Will all that are &quot;lost&quot; be saved? And in what sense were we previously in the Father's possession? Is there any scripture that talks about this?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know my 2nd question could mean those who had previously come to God, but have fallen away, and came to God &lt;em&gt;again&lt;/em&gt;, but I think He is particularly talking about those who have not yet come to God. I think this could be clarified when Jesus says &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2019:1-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;He came to seek that which was lost&lt;/a&gt; in relation to a Chief tax collector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T17:56:24.753" LastActivityDate="2014-05-22T04:12:23.377" Title="Will all that are lost be saved?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7476" CreationDate="2012-05-03T16:58:27.117" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The primary argument against the day age theory is from the Hebrew Grammer.  The word Yom is translated day in this passage, and in different contexts it can mean different things.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word &quot;time.&quot; (Genesis 4:3, I Kings 11:42)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated &quot;year.&quot; (1 Kings 1:1) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated &quot;age.&quot; (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1, Joshua 23:1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is translated Day hundreds of times.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we were to stop here in our investigation of the word we could conclude that the genesis account could include the idea of the word yom referring to an age instead of a literal day.  But as we dig deeper this view becomes less likely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every place we find the word Yom with the words morning or evening it always means a literal 24 hour day.  Every place we find the word Yom with a number (First Day for example) it always means a literal day.  So usage would tell us that when we find the words &quot;So the evening and the morning were the first day.&quot; we would fully expect that this means a literal day and not an age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T16:58:27.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7483" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7484" CreationDate="2012-05-03T19:00:39.140" Score="0" ViewCount="21220" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple and easy. I am looking for &lt;em&gt;Biblical&lt;/em&gt; support (not opinion) for and against the view of predestination. Predestination is the view that all events are willed by God. I'm looking for both sides of the view, not just one side. What Biblical evidence exists for/against predestination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T19:09:17.990" LastActivityDate="2016-11-07T20:03:58.320" Title="What is the Biblical basis and support for and against the view of predestination?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-11-08T02:21:58.617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7483" CreationDate="2012-05-03T19:31:39.097" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;In Support&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 16:33&lt;/strong&gt; The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the &lt;em&gt;dice&lt;/em&gt; fall according to God's plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 1:11&lt;/strong&gt; In [Christ] we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things&#xA;according to the counsel of his will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God works &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; according to his will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 139:16&lt;/strong&gt; Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me,&#xA;when as yet there were none of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has written down (in other words, planned to the letter!) every day of our life before they even come to pass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 10:30-31a&lt;/strong&gt; But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; therefore&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knows how many &lt;em&gt;hairs&lt;/em&gt; you have. He's &lt;em&gt;counted&lt;/em&gt; them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now allow me to quote at length Louis Berkof, &lt;em&gt;Systematic Theology&lt;/em&gt;, pg. 168, quoted in the &lt;em&gt;Reformation Study Bible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible clearly teaches God's providential control&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;over the universe at large, Ps. 103:19; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;over the physical world, Job 37; Ps. 104:14; 135:6; Matt. 5:45;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;over the brute creation, Ps. 104:21, 28; Mt. 6:26; 10:29;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;over the affairs of nations, Job 12:23; Ps. 22:28; 66:7; Acts 17:26&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;over man's birth and lot in life, 1 Sam. 16:1; Ps. 139:16; Isa. 45:5; Gal. 1:15-16&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;over the outward successes and failures of men's lives, Ps. 75:6-7, Lk. 1:52&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;over things seemingly accidental or insignificant, Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:30&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in protection of the righteous, Ps. 4:8; 5:12; 63:8; 121:3; Rom. 8:28&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in supplying the wants of God's people, Gn. 22:8, 14; Deut. 8:3; Phil. 4:19&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in giving answers to prayer, 1 Sam. 1:19; Isa. 20:5-6; 2 Chron. 33:13; Ps. 65:2 Mt. 7:7; Lk. 18:7-8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in the exposure and punishment of the wicket, Ps. 7:12-13; 11:6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Against&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not very familiar with verses against Predestination, but as I understand it, a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of the argument against it is an interpretive argument; and those who are opposed to the doctrine would say the verses above are more general in nature and are simply talking about his omnipotence, not his nitty-gritty control over the details.  I'll leave it to someone more versed in this position to answer for the against side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T19:31:39.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7485" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7492" CreationDate="2012-05-03T21:42:34.033" Score="6" ViewCount="8199" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do they use icons in the Roman Catholic Church like they do in the East Orthodox Church? In my limited experience, I've only seen statues in the Roman Catholic Church, but not icons. I don't just mean having some images in the temple, but also praying while looking at them and kissing them from time to time - just like it is done in the East Orthodox. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T23:31:10.513" LastActivityDate="2018-08-08T21:42:24.410" Title="Do they use icons in the Roman Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7486" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-03T21:43:03.100" Score="21" ViewCount="4880" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the four Gospels, Jesus seems to talk a lot about the Law, about how to behave, about &quot;the Kingdom&quot; and how to restore social order. It doesn't seem like he talks about what Paul talks about: grace, law vs. gospel, gentile-inclusion. Mostly, what most Christians mean by &quot;Gospel&quot; and grace. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are some examples of passages that demonstrate how (or how not) Paul preached the same gospel Jesus did?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for passages of Paul or Jesus that match up with each other, not external verification that they are on the same page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-15T00:29:15.470" LastActivityDate="2018-12-15T00:29:15.470" Title="Did Paul preach Jesus's message?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7487" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-03T21:45:00.493" Score="6" ViewCount="301" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a book of interviews by Peter Seewald, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1586176064&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Light of the World&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, Pope Benedict is quoted as saying something to the effect that homosexual prostitutes would be better off if they used condoms than if they didn't. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did he ever issue any subsequent opinion or even hint that it would be acceptable for heterosexual couples to use any birth control methods other than natural family planning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(I hate asking questions prompted solely by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7471/how-can-common-believers-in-the-roman-catholic-church-be-sure-that-the-churchs&quot;&gt;other questions&lt;/a&gt; asked here on the site, but I think this is broad enough and may help to clarify things and otherwise improve the Internet.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T03:00:14.497" Title="Did Pope Benedict XVI grant permission for heterosexual couples to use artificial birth control methods?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;contraception&gt;&lt;benedict-xvi&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7481" CreationDate="2012-05-03T21:45:14.793" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ's parables can be dangerous to interpret outside of the interpretation given in the context.  In almost every case there is one thing taught in a parable and everything else is just filler.  The term &quot;parable&quot; can be loosely translated &quot;to throw alongside&quot;, the idea is that a story is thrown alongside a single truth.  In this context the teaching is: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 15:10&lt;/strong&gt; There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner&#xA;  who repents. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not believe that the 99 or the 9 can be tied to any specific group.  What Christ is teaching is that even the most &quot;insignificant&quot; sinner is worth everything in the eyes of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-03T22:11:10.817" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T22:11:10.817" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7487" CreationDate="2012-05-03T22:36:25.607" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No. The Pope did not permit or condone artificial birth control.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a full critique of a number of statements from &lt;em&gt;Light of the World&lt;/em&gt;, together with statements from the Vatican which provide a gloss, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/benedict_xvi_approves_artificial_contraception_in_certain_situations.php&quot;&gt;on the website of the Holy Family Monastery&lt;/a&gt;, although it appears they consider that the Pope has erred simply because his statements will be used to misrepresent his and the Church's teaching on contraception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Light of the World&lt;/em&gt; p117–119, we read this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Question: “In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV.  Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Answer from Benedict XVI: “The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement… In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms.  Much more needs to be done… There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.  But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.  That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Question: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Answer from Benedict XVI: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated on 19 December 2010 (my emphasis):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church. This hypothesis has been welcomed by some as a positive change and lamented by others as a cause of concern &amp;mdash; as if his statements represented a break with the doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church’s stance in the fight against AIDS. In reality, the words of the Pope &amp;mdash; which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. Light of the World, pp. 117&amp;ndash;119) &amp;mdash; do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church... The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, &lt;strong&gt;to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[&lt;em&gt;L’Osservatore Romano&lt;/em&gt; 22-27 December 2010, p11]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR: Condoms are not to be used to prevent pregnancy, but they can be used to prevent the spread of disease. Someone recognising that this is necessary may be a first step towards the moral and responsible stance of abstinence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T22:36:25.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7486" CreationDate="2012-05-03T23:22:54.363" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of passages that suggest that Paul preached the same message as the first eleven apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Paul says so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I went up because of a revelation and set before [the Jerusalem church] (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.&amp;mdash;Galatians 2:2 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Galatians+2/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luke implies that the Jerusalem church approved of Paul's message:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. &amp;mdash;Acts 15:22a (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+15/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And later:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God.&amp;mdash;Acts 21:18-20a (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+21/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The author of 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Peter put Paul's letters under the banner of Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.&amp;mdash;2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Peter 3:15-16 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/2+Peter+3/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Paul, he got the gospel directly from God by revelation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.&amp;mdash;Galatians 1:15-17 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Galatians+1/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ac9.3-8;Ac22.6-11;Ac26.12-18/&quot;&gt;Acts 9, 22 and 26&lt;/a&gt; detail Paul's conversion and show us that he spoke directly to the resurrected Jesus.  We read in various places (e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+13/&quot;&gt;Acts 13:4-12&lt;/a&gt;) that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit.  And, of course, he did spend time with the Jerusalem church, Peter and the other apostles.  Perhaps Barnabas, John Mark, Silas, and others traveled with Paul was so that they bare witness to the events of Jesus' earthly ministry and repeat His teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why Jesus didn't preach more about the Gospel of Grace, I think that stems from a greater mystery: for some reason God wants us to be part of His grand story.  God was surprisingly &quot;hands-off&quot; in the Old Testament period.  Sure, He brought down fire on wicked cities and rescued His people miraculously on occasion.  But for the most part, God expected His people to be faithful and remember His provision for them &lt;em&gt;without intervention&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, Jesus did surprisingly little to establish His Kingdom while on earth.  And the bulk of the church's work to reach the gentile world fell on their shoulders only after He ascended to heaven.  Jesus spoke the language of the Jewish peasant, fisherman, merchant, rabbi, and priest, but He didn't have much to say to gentiles.  Paul was the right man at the right time for the job of translating that message into a philosophical framework that a Greek-educated person would understand.  His struggle for the church was primarily in helping the gentiles see why a provincial Jew's teaching mattered to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-05-03T23:22:54.363" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7485" CreationDate="2012-05-04T01:37:34.560" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sure, they do!!! See this famous icon - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Damiano_cross&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;San Damiano Cross&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T01:37:34.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7493" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-04T02:26:36.053" Score="2" ViewCount="13423" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading the Last Supper passage in Luke the other day and came across this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:30 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus tells the 12 disciples that they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Since I assume Judas Iscariot will not have this privilege, who will judge the 12th tribe of Israel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T13:56:01.657" Title="Who will judge the 12th tribe of Israel?" Tags="&lt;israel&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-10-28T00:02:59.317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7481" CreationDate="2012-05-04T02:31:22.683" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;+1 Very good question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who are the sheep?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 10:27 - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the sheep are those who hear the voice of Jesus and follow him. So &quot;sheep&quot; cannot refer to those who have not yet come to God. Also, when Jesus said that he came &quot;to seek and to save the lost&quot;, he, in all likelihood, was referring to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.&quot; (Matthew 15:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The chief tax collector, was himself a Jew and every Jew was part of the house of Israel. He was &quot;lost&quot; in the sense that he was a sinner. So Jesus' statement doesn't mean those people who have not yet come to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Will all the lost sheep be saved?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, if we understand &quot;sheep&quot; correctly. Now, I mentioned that the sheep are those who hear the voice of Jesus and follow him. Now, in the original Greek, the words used in that quote are in the present tense. This means that the statement could be better understood as follows- &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My sheep continue to hear my voice, I continue to know them, and they continue to follow me&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then, the sheep are those who continue to follow Jesus throughout their life. There are others, who after getting &quot;saved&quot; (i.e. freed from sins, because salvation = freedom from sins (Matthew 1:21) ), suffer a shipwreck in their faith (1 Tim 1:19) and no longer follow Christ. There are still others, who &quot;endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away&quot; (Mark 4:17). These are not the ones who continue to follow Jesus and therefore, they would not be regarded as his sheep.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So note that while a sheep is someone who gets salvation from sins, not everyone who experiences salvation from sins is a sheep! We shall know only at the end of our lives whether we have been sheep or goats (Matthew 25:32). Till then, we can hope that we shall continue to follow him. His grace is always available to us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-05-04T07:01:13.280" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T07:01:13.280" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7493" CreationDate="2012-05-04T02:32:48.573" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why are you assuming a one to one correspondence? The Greek here says &quot;y'all&quot; will judge them. The idea is that collectively you will bear witness against all of Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Greek, the verse is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ἵνα ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου, * καὶ καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς κρίνοντες τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;κρίνοντες is a verb (to judge - from which we get 'criminal') which is in the 2nd person &lt;em&gt;plural&lt;/em&gt;, meaning that &quot;You&quot; is &quot;y'all&quot; (aka plural) and not singular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need a one to one correspondence, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7507/who-was-the-12th-apostle-matthais-or-paul&quot;&gt;take your pick between Matthais or (my personal bet as the real 12th apostle) Paul&lt;/a&gt;. But there's no reason too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One person can judge multiple people, and multiple people can judge one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T13:56:01.657" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7472" CreationDate="2012-05-04T03:52:50.617" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is simple. If a decision goes against the faith of the Church - it is  a heresy. Christians always used icons. So a council that was gathered only to enforce an imperial whim to remove them cannot be obeyed. No Ecumenical Council ever introduced any new truths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T03:52:50.617" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7497" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-04T04:00:06.833" Score="4" ViewCount="915" Body="&lt;p&gt;On our &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;sister site&lt;/a&gt; I asked a &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1565/does-baptizing-come-after-discipling-in-matthew-2819&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; about what the correct grammatical interpretation of Matthew 28:19 is with relation to baptism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the&#xA;  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question here is, is the Great Commission trying to make a doctrinal point about baptism? On Biblical Hermeneutics I asked if baptizing really came after &quot;making disciples&quot; in the Greek. Turns out it &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt;, but it's not really supposed to be read as subsequent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything being said about baptism, particularly infant baptism? Does the Great Commission support Believer's Baptism since &quot;making disciples&quot; comes first? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the doctrinal implications here, if any?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T15:50:26.097" Title="Is Matthew 28 saying something about Baptism?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-01-18T04:23:53.157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7486" CreationDate="2012-05-04T08:31:32.640" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are plenty examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paul:&lt;/strong&gt; For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Rom 13,9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus:&lt;/strong&gt; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.&#xA;  This is the first and great commandment.&#xA;  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.&#xA;  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Mt 22, 37-40)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paul:&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,(Rom 4,16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus:&lt;/strong&gt; If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (Jonh 8, 39)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paul:&lt;/strong&gt; Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.&#xA;  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.&#xA;  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same (Rom 13 1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus:&lt;/strong&gt; Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Mt 22, 21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus:&lt;/strong&gt; Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above (Jonh 19,11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is just a quick look through one of Paul's letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T08:31:32.640" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7493" CreationDate="2012-05-04T09:16:39.210" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it will be Matthias who was chosen by the apostles to fill in the place of Judas right  after the Lord's ascension in the very beginning of Acts. Number twelve was a vey important number for Jews, hence, it was the very first thing they did after the Lord commanded them to go to Jerusalem and await the infilling with the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T09:16:39.210" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7501" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7504" CreationDate="2012-05-04T12:30:10.967" Score="10" ViewCount="339" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a Biblical response to this question. And it's not specific to bin Laden but I'm just using him as an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know Jesus said &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-48&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;love your enemies&lt;/a&gt;. And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Paul even showed how this can be a form of revenge&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I can't help but wonder if a Christian could at least be relieved that the bin Ladens and Hitlers of the world were killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T17:59:26.877" Title="Should a Bible believing Christian be pleased at the death of Osama bin Laden?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-18T04:23:59.913" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7501" CreationDate="2012-05-04T14:31:19.960" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;In one sense, I don't think we should be &quot;pleased&quot; that he is dead.  God is not &quot;pleased&quot;, which should be our ultimate example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+33%3A11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 33:11 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, &lt;strong&gt;I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked&lt;/strong&gt;, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.    Turn!    Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, just because we should not take pleasure in his death, does not mean we cannot be pleased with the net outcome of the situation.  We can be pleased that future lives will be spared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, even though God did not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, he still ordered sentences of death for certain offenses (and he does &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20115:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;all that he pleases&lt;/a&gt;).  This was for the net benefit of the society.  So, although God did not take take pleasure in the death of the individual, he took pleasure in the protection of the masses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while we ought to grieve his individual death, for his sake, we can still be pleased overall for the sake of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T14:31:19.960" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2012-05-04T15:42:24.537" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The baptizing mentioned in Matthew 28 is not so much as a command as a part of a command.  The sentence structure here in the greek has one verb which is 'go'. Everything else modifies how we should go.  We should go discipling, we should go baptizing, we should go teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those commenting on the order of the words are, I believe, correct. The order is not significant.  Also note that the 'them' that are to be baptized here refers to the 'nations' that have been discipled.  God calls the people who are called by His name to receive the covenant sign of inclusion (baptism in the New Testament circumcision in the Old Testament).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that those who are outside the covenant should convert to the Christian faith before receiving baptism (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+8%3A12&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:12&lt;/a&gt;) but that still leaves the question about those who grow up in the Christian Faith.  Paul clearly states that the children of one believing parent are somehow &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:14&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;set aside and different&lt;/a&gt;.  I believe that the difference here is that the children are part of the covenant community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2012-05-04T21:46:19.923" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T21:46:19.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5783" CreationDate="2012-05-04T16:44:55.737" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the main differences between the ESV and NKJV is the underlying Greek texts.  The ESV uses whas has been called the Critical Text whereas the NKJV uses what has been called the Received Text.  The differences between these underlying greek texts is not insignificant.  A discussion of the differences between them is likely not appropriate for this venue.  My personal preference is for the Majority Text which is very similar to the Received Text in almost every way as the vast majority of greek manuscripts fall into this family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T16:44:55.737" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7507" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7534" CreationDate="2012-05-04T17:08:43.023" Score="13" ViewCount="41533" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, a distinction between disciple and apostle - a disciple is a student, and the 12 disciples were Jesus' students.  An Apostle is one who was &quot;sent out.&quot; Eleven of Jesus' disciples were sent out to preach the good news. Judas, of course, had committed suicide before being sent out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Disciples, recognizing the &quot;need&quot; for a 12th, cast lots and chose &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3801/reason-for-the-choice-of-new-12th-apostle&quot;&gt;Matthias&lt;/a&gt; in Acts 1.  On the choice of Matthais, I've heard things similar to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Also, we wonder if Luke was pointing out that casting lots, used all through the Old Testament, was a poor substitute for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who became the source of wisdom and discernment for such decisions after Pentecost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Lloyd Ogilive says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What happened to Matthias? We are not told. He never is mentioned again. Did he defect or drop out? Probably not. I believe we would have been told if that happened, and Luke’s thoroughness would have included that data. What we do know is that the position was filled by Paul. There is no need to be down on Matthias. He responded to a call. He was ready with his knowledge of Christ and an open mind and heart to receive His Spirit. He was there at Pentecost—that’s all that matters. Whether his ministry afterward received the recognition of history is unimportant. The same is true for us. Once we have experienced what Christ said and did for us in His death and Resurrection and then returned to continue to do, titles, or history’s recognition, or even the accolades of people today become unimportant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is thus this - Did the Holy Spirit actually intend for Paul to be the real 12th Apostle, or was Matthias not just an accidental, rash act on the part of the Eleven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, put more poetically (as well suggested by Flimzy, when it comes to apostleship, should we put our trust in God or men?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2015-02-12T17:04:46.480" Title="Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="13" ClosedDate="2015-09-07T21:41:52.233" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7507" CreationDate="2012-05-04T17:27:54.623" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to your correct assessment of the term Apostle I can not see that Matthias could possibly be an Apostle.  He was never sent by Christ as an Apostle.  To fill in as a top disciple he was a fit, but not as an Apostle to replace Judas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand we have irrefutable evidence in scripture that Paul was called to be an Apostle of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans 1:1 &quot;Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Cor 1:1 &quot;Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Cor 1:1 &quot;Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gal 1:1 &quot;Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eph 1:1 &quot;Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Need I go on? :-)  I think that the greeting to the Galatians is especially relevant here.  There Paul may be addressing this issue more directly.  Man cannot make an apostle.  You can't give God two choices and then just cast the lot to see which one.  An Apostle of Christ is one who Christ Himself calls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="1109" LastEditDate="2012-05-16T05:53:12.900" LastActivityDate="2012-05-16T05:53:12.900" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7507" CreationDate="2012-05-04T17:46:14.840" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acts is quite clear on the matter.  Matthias was called to fill the vacancy left by Judas, whereas Paul didn't even appear on the scene for quite some time afterwards. And even after he showed up, we have several epistles where he refers to himself as an apostle, but unlike Matthias, the actual process of him being called as an apostle has not been preserved down to our time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you mentioned, we have little information about what Matthias did after being called as an apostle, but that hardly disqualifies him from being one.  We have little information on what &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; of the Apostles did after the Resurrection.  What did Andrew do?  What about Matthew?  We don't know; it never got recorded in any record that survives to our day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Paul, it's quite possible that he was chosen at a later point to fill a new void in the Twelve.  We do know that martyrdom among Christian leaders was not an uncommon thing in those days.  (Just look at Stephen.)  The simple fact is, we don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-05-04T17:46:14.840" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7501" CreationDate="2012-05-04T19:46:01.720" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most important reaction to this should be that Osama bin Laden died without Christ, at least we presume he did, as he gave us no evidence of accepting Christ as his Savior before his death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:9%20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:9&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men&#xA;  count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any&#xA;  should perish, but that all should come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we too should be longing for the salvation of all the &quot;Osama's&quot; of the world. We should be sad that another lost soul went to Hell but similar to Eric's comment, we can take comfort that Osama bin Laden will no longer deceive others and cause them to turn from God. Furthermore, we can also praise God for keeping His promise:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2012:3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 12:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that&#xA;  curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we all know Osama bin Laden was an enemy of Israel, therefore, I believe God fulfilled his promise against Osama bin Laden. So we can praise God for keeping His promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1588" LastEditorUserId="1588" LastEditDate="2012-05-07T13:49:12.683" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T13:49:12.683" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2012-05-04T20:45:52.823" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE&lt;/strong&gt; - I am restructuring my answer to better conform to the OP questions as suggested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the OP,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My question here is, is the Great Commission trying to make a&#xA;  doctrinal point about baptism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, this verse is not making a &quot;complete&quot; doctrinal statement on Baptism. Although, it does conform and support the doctrine of believers baptism found elsewhere in scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is there anything being said about baptism, particularly infant baptism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. First, this verse isn't sufficient alone to make doctrinal statements about Baptism. Only doctrine you can draw from this verse about baptism is to support more detailed verses on baptism elsewhere. This verse does logically support believers baptism but when compared to other verses, one cannot make the leap from this verse to support infant baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does the Great Commission support Believer's Baptism since &quot;making disciples&quot; comes first? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. As I have stated above, even if the Greek translates to a seemingly concurrent act, it still mentions &quot;making disciples&quot; first, then baptism, you can be sure of the doctrine by comparing to other scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, believer's baptism is shown very clearly in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:35-38&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:35-38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and&#xA;  preached unto him Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and&#xA;  the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be&#xA;  baptized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou&#xA;  mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the&#xA;  Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down&#xA;  both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is very clear that belief in Christ has to come before baptism. Baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-mode.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;It is a public profession of the inward change of the believer.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, if the order for baptism in Mathew 28 can be seen and checked from other scripture, then you can easily have your answer to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What are the doctrinal implications here, if any?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is the verse alone cannot be used to form a complete doctrinal position on baptism but at the same time does not allow for infant baptism but does support believer's baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1588" LastEditorUserId="1588" LastEditDate="2012-05-07T15:27:57.660" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T15:27:57.660" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7493" CreationDate="2012-05-05T00:47:19.993" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming Affable Geek is right about the Greek, then that would largely explain it. One thing about English, unlike ancient Greek (and many other languages, like Spanish which I know a lot of), is that in English, we use the same word for the second-person singular and second-person plural. In other words, we say &quot;you&quot; whether addressing one person or many. In Greek, it's clear what is being said (if it is you or y'all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the apostleship, it is interesting that originally there were 12, and then one was replaced, but by 2, sort of; do you know what that sounds like? The 12 tribes of Israel! There were 12 sons of Israel, yet one of them, Joseph, gave his lot to his 2 sons. In reality, the &quot;twelve&quot; tribes are, for all intents and purposes, 13 (though they are considered twelve because each of Joseph's sons got half a share). Yet the Old and New Testaments consistently refer to the 12 tribes of Israel (except when discussing them in technical matters, because God can count, lol). This is complicated all the more by the fact that Revelation 7:8 refers to the tribe of Joseph, then refers to the tribe of Manasseh (one of Joseph's sons) who had a half-share in Jacob's blessing, and then leaves out Dan (one of Jacob's 12 sons) and Ephraim (Joseph's other son) completely! There are all kinds of theories as to why this is, but whatever the case, even the tribes themselves are treated with a great deal of fluidity, just like with the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that said, as to where Paul and Matthias come into play with the judging of the 12 tribes, I'm not sure it is 100% clear; my guess would be that the 13 collectively judge the 12 tribes, which in itself is an idea not clearly described in the Bible, so that's just speculation on my part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1614" LastEditorUserId="491" LastEditDate="2012-05-05T04:20:44.407" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T04:20:44.407" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4159" CreationDate="2012-05-05T01:41:55.307" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see what the issue is; God was in the form of a man when Jacob wrestled Him. Therefore, Jacob didn't see the face of God. Rather, he saw the face of a man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many places of Scripture, God shows Himself disguised by physical, created things (often referred to, in scripture, as the &quot;Angel of the LORD). There was Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3). There was the &quot;man of God&quot; who came before Manoah and his wife in Judges 13. As you recall, when He left, He jumped onto the burnt sacrifice they had made for the LORD, and in the flames ascended to Heaven. Interestingly (in one of the reversing of gender stereotype incidents that the Bible is known for among those who actually read it), Manoah panics, thinking they will die for having seen Him, but his wife is the voice of spiritual reason and reassures him. Similarly, in Judges 6, we have Gideon being visited by the &quot;Angel of the LORD&quot; as well. Here, though, it doesn't describe the angel's appearance, but we know that Gideon didn't find anything all that strange about seeing Him until He realized it was the angel of the LORD, and then feared that he would die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all of these cases, people see manifestations of God Himself (as evident by the Angel's speaking of God in the first person), yet do not die. Nevertheless, when they know it is God they are all frightened, and those who came after Moses usually fear that they will die, given what the LORD told Moses. But they don't die, because they don't see God's actual face. Instead, they see an angel, or a plant, or a man, or whatever else. They see God, but in a way that they can see Him without dying, without actually seeing Him (just as you might see a man in a chicken suit, but although it is a man that you are looking at, you aren't really seeing the man, but rather, the chicken suit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This fact, that God would show Himself in created things even prior to the incarnation is actually really useful information. It helps make the incarnation make so much more sense. There is a precedent in it that comes long before New Testament times. Jews may ask us how God can be in Heaven, ruling over every subatomic particle in the universe, and yet at the same time be a man on earth (Jesus)? Well, how can God be in Heaven ruling over every subatomic particle in the universe and at the same time, take the form of a man or a plant or an angel on earth? They say that God is too great to become flesh. An yet, the Old Testament teaches He had no problem at least manifesting Himself temporarily in creation. Obviously there are important differences. The incarnation was permanent and entailed more than veiling God in created things. And yet, a lot of what seems outlandish about it already pops up in the Old Testament as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Moses, in Exodus 33, is not conversing with the Angel of the LORD. He is asking to see the face of of Himself, the fullness of His shekinah glory (insofar as it can be localized). God graciously gives a glimpse of Himself as He runs by, but of courses tells Moses that nobody can see His face and live. In the future, in the new heavens and earth, this will not be the case (Revelation 22:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, I believe, comes into play in explaining why the Bible in many places says that nobody has ever seen God (John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16; 1 John 4:12), yet we have many people seeing God. Notice in Exodus 33:20 that God equates seeing Him and seeing His face. He says “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”  No one can see Him and live? But, a few verses later, He tells Moses that He can see His back as He runs by...Contradiction! (Just kidding). It's clear from this passage that, as far as God is concerned, to &quot;see&quot; Him means to see His face, not just any part of Him (insofar as one could say God has parts). Well, the others, including Jacob, didn't see God's face. They saw a man, or a plant, or an angel. Moses, when speaking &quot;face to face&quot; (in that same chapter) clearly was not seeing God's face. If he was, why would he have then asked God to show him His face (and why did he not burst into flames)? My guess: Moses was looking heavenward, talking back and forth with God, with God responding vocally and immediately (like when talking to a person). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever the case, it is as the Bible says, none of them (including Jacob) have ever &quot;seen&quot; God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1614" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T01:41:55.307" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7485" CreationDate="2012-05-05T03:49:57.753" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if it's common practice among all Catholics, but I kiss the image of Jesus on my scapular every chance I get.  It's pretty much an icon except it's done on cloth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I kiss the cross when making the sign of the cross while praying the rosary and on Good Friday we venerate the cross of Jesus by kissing the crucifix. Latin American Catholics are also known to make a tiny cross with their fingers after making the sign of the cross and kissing that (their hand).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one company that I know of in the united states that makes Catholic Icons (as well as Orthodox Icons); that's &lt;a href=&quot;http://monasteryicons.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;monastery icons&lt;/a&gt;. I don't believe a Catholic would be prohibited from venerating any sort of holy icon in an appropriate manner. Blessed icons would be considered sacramentals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="443" LastEditDate="2012-07-22T04:03:51.127" LastActivityDate="2012-07-22T04:03:51.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7507" CreationDate="2012-05-05T04:42:00.140" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Judas was the twelfth apostle, an by your own definition Matthias makes a more fit candidate to be reckoned as lucky #12 after Judas' death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 10, Jesus sends out 72 disciples. Among them most &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2011-05-14&quot;&gt;assuredly was St. Matthias&lt;/a&gt;. And the rest of the Apostles were doing quite a bit of on the job training, clearly away for Jesus as is shown in Matthew 17:21 where the disciples return to Jesus saying that they can't figure out how to cast out demons.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't doubt for an instant that St. Paul had the most effective charism in apostolic work that anyone ever had. And St. Thomas Aquinas just refers to him as &quot;the apostle&quot;. St. Paul however, knew he was an Apostle, but also knew that he was the least among them by virtue of the wrongs that he had done to them.  1 Corinthians 15:7-8 Jesus appears to James and the Apostles ... and last of all to himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I don't see much point in making a distinction between disciples and apostles.  If you're in the seminary and when you get out your a preacher or a pastor or a chaplain you were never simultaneously a seminarian and a what you are nowian. However you didn't become a crossing guard or a truck driver either. So it seems a tad strange to say one is better than the other or one is a dead end job and the other gets to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.  But I guess that's all pretty important stuff. However, I'd ask another question that's been rolling around in my head.  Was St.  Paul's work (not his works themselves) but his life as described in Acts, discerned through his letters and filled in with sacred tradition, we're all those thing the fullfillment of a prophecy or were the more or less arbitrary and St. Paul was just used as a vessel to unify the Churches and codify early Christian doctrine by his writings and witness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T04:42:00.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2012-05-05T05:10:06.733" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As some commercial on Relevant Radio always says, if you're baptized, you're a missionary &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1270 &quot;Reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church&quot; and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1270&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if an infant is baptized, does that infuse some sort of missionary zeal? No not really , that's what faith formation is for and that's what one professes when one is confirmed and receives the Holy Eucharist.  There are three sacraments of initiation, not just one Baptism. There is also a lifetime learning and praying and good works to be done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I have to say, that was an astute and awesome observation you made there. I don't know if it's ever been used as a justification for infant baptism or a test to prove the necessity of post-baptismal confirmation, but both these things exist and they certainly do so in accord with your reading of scripture. Unless the Holy Spirit infused knowledge to the thousand baptized after Pentecost Himself, this has to be the same Baptism Jeaus is talking about. Baptize into discipleship, afterwords the Apostles (who later became the Bishops) would come to seal you with the Holy Spirit like what St. Paul did in Acts 19:4-6 where he baptized followers of John into Christ's baptism and he laid his hands on them as a sin of confirmation, for they were alereadly formed spiritually. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. I know this is an unapologetically Catholic answer and potentially not what you're looking for at all, but I figured I'd put my two cents in as the other answers take for grante that infant baptism is done in error. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T05:10:06.733" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6863" CreationDate="2012-05-05T10:07:55.747" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem comes in that if we are to deem all life with intrinsic value then we are faced with the same problem that abortion and the death penalty brings. Do we succumb to nihilism and then deem the life of certain convicts and / or unborn babies is worthless or do we reject nihilism and deem that it has worth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we grant the doctors the right to end life or do we hold to the ideas that humans should not have the right over life and death. It has grave moral consequences this liberal stance on life and death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that when you go through history the leaders of countries who had these ideas of certain life being worthless had disastrous consequences. Stalin, Pot, Hitler. Although the doctrine that was at the root of their discrimination was different at the core the all had a selective nihilism that enabled them to justify mass murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I'm not trying to equate assisted suicide to genocide. Do not let me be misunderstood. I'm just trying to demonstrate what these types of philosophies has on a society so we can better understand whether we should allow them or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we not think that the people who deem unborn babies life worthless may not some day deem my life worthless as well and with it find the justification for murdering me as well? If we allow this now where will it stop?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I propose that these Christian ideals of life having intrinsic value is the core of a just society and to allow this would have disastrous effects that should not be allowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T10:07:55.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7519" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7657" CreationDate="2012-05-05T16:17:11.950" Score="9" ViewCount="2895" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian and so on) are distinct from the Oriental Orthodox (Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and so on).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we know when the term &quot;Oriental Orthodox&quot; started being used for these churches as a group? Likewise, do we know when the individual churches started referring to themselves as &quot;Orthodox&quot;? I'm curious if the term &quot;Orthodox&quot; was first used in other languages (possibly by missionaries) and then later adopted by the churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the Syriac Orthodox, for example, only started using the word Orthodox fairly recently, in the 19th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1613" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-02T11:35:49.117" LastActivityDate="2020-03-02T11:35:49.117" Title="When did the Oriental Orthodox Churches start being called 'Orthodox'?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;oriental-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2012-05-05T16:29:22.550" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Going along with this &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1566/319&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; from the other site, I think that saying that this supports &quot;believers' baptism only&quot; is a long stretch grammatically. Rather, the doctrinal point is that the two should be held together. &quot;If you are baptized, then you are a disciple&quot; along with &quot;if you are a disciple, then you are baptized.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another thought: if it is saying that &quot;believer's baptism is the only way,&quot; then that implies that it is possible to be a proper disciple without being baptized. Personally, I see that as a hard sell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T16:47:12.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3837" CreationDate="2012-05-05T16:44:22.423" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone who suffers from bipolar and had a recent incident of major depression within the last twelve months (related to the bipolar), I will have to say, yes, yes we can. This most recent bout of depression what characteristic of the disease: severe lows triggered by &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt;. The question isn't whether a person with mental illness can be saved, the question is what can they do with what they have. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also helps to remember that many (if not most) emotions are products of the sinful flesh and can often be corrupted by the devil. Never put it past him to polish something a little to make it look more enticing. After all, if he can cause physical disease, there is no reason he can't manipulate the chemical reactions in your grey-matter which is, after all, an organ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T16:44:22.423" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7523" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-05T17:19:56.573" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-05-05T17:19:56.573" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T17:19:56.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7524" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-05T17:19:56.573" Score="0" Body="One of the original 12 disciples. He was from Bethsaida in Galilee. Peter was crucified upside down as a result of his faith. He is considered to be the first Bishop and the first Pope by the Roman Catholic Church." OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2014-06-26T06:19:27.377" LastActivityDate="2014-06-26T06:19:27.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7525" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-05T17:21:32.877" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-05-05T17:21:32.877" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T17:21:32.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7526" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-05T17:21:32.877" Score="0" Body="The third son of King David. The most handsome man in the kingdom. Absalom rebelled against his father and declared himself king. This ultimately led to his death" OwnerUserId="95" LastEditorUserId="95" LastEditDate="2012-05-05T17:21:49.537" LastActivityDate="2012-05-05T17:21:49.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7207" CreationDate="2012-05-05T20:07:58.277" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pentecost, for Christians, marks the birth of &quot;the Church.&quot; For evangelicals, however, church history generally means when their local congregation was founded. As a body of believers with no history, by design, historical holidays (I.e. Anything not explicitly about Jesus) fall to the wayside. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an historic viewpoint, the Church Universal is an amazing institution. Like all institutions, however, tradition tends to shape it, once it gets going, for better or for worse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evangelicals tend to be highly distrustful of &quot;tradition,&quot; as their origin stems from a reaction to the &quot;religious maturation,&quot; aka liberal theology, of the late 1800s. In contrast, a group of scholars wrote a book called The Fundamentals, in which tradition was eschewed for a sola fide / sola scriptura basis. While fundamentalists sought to escape the culture, evangelicals intended to engage it- but in both cases, this reaction was grounded in an anti-establishment fervor. We basically threw the baby out with the bathwater. Anything &quot;traditional,&quot; including liturgies, lectionaries, and church &quot;holidays&quot; were all suspect. Christmas and Easter survive, as much out of their popularity as anything else - but pretty much everything else was jettisoned. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(By the way, in my seminary, I remember a preaching class in which the professor had to remind us that Easter really was a special day and needed to be treated as such. That such an admonition needed to be said speaks volumes about what we think. )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result, Pentecost tends to be forgotten the &quot;lower&quot; church one goes. It's sad, because Pentecost is probably the most significant holiday after Easter and Christmas, and it's 100% scriptural. (indeed, it even prefers Christmas and Easter in the Bible!) Still, there's just too much tradition against it now for things to change. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, my Episcopalian church celebrates Pentecost as &quot;Worship and Work Sunday.&quot;  We are all invited to wear red (the liturgical color) and spruce up the church grounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T02:13:40.603" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T02:13:40.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7383" CreationDate="2012-05-06T11:15:11.130" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:2 reminds us to show love and hospitality towards all, &quot;for in doing so, some have entertained angels,&quot; unaware. When Samsons parents were told they were going to have a child, they too were unaware that they were in the presence of an angel, until after they sacrificed, the angel went away dramatically revealing what he was. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is nothing to suggest that angels no longer visit Earth*, but nothing says that says we will recognize them as such when they do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*ok, possibly one could say that because we have the Bible, God no longer requires messengers (and by definition an &lt;em&gt;angelos&lt;/em&gt;' job is a messenger) but that would just be speculation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-05-06T11:30:25.980" LastActivityDate="2012-05-06T11:30:25.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7533" CreationDate="2012-05-06T16:34:40.177" Score="8" ViewCount="16451" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Daniel, there is an angel who has to fight for nearly three weeks in order to deliver his message, and isn't able to overcome until Michael intervenes. If there was a battle this hard, it makes me wonder if the Angel could have lost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything in the tradition about whether or not Angels can be killed or die of other causes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-05-07T11:02:38.803" LastActivityDate="2016-07-17T18:08:09.100" Title="Can Angels die?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-07-21T06:32:00.433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7531" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-06T17:09:04.863" Score="16" ViewCount="7267" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems to be incredibly important to numerous &quot;brands&quot; of Christianity that Jesus be God. So much so, that traditions that reject the deity of Christ are often dismissed as heretical by orthodox Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is this so important? Why couldn't the Messiah just be a man? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common reason I here is that the sacrifice had to be perfect. The Messiah had to be God because only God is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet (some? all?) Catholics believe that Mary was also perfect. Why couldn't she be the sacrifice? If God could make a regular human being perfect without them  being God, isn't the Christ's deity superfluous?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a deeper reason that Jesus had to be God that is compatible with the sinlessness of Mary?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; In an effort to clarify...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just wondering why the Messiah had to be God. Some people say it's because he had to be perfect. But if the Catholics are right (if Mary was sinless) then God could have just created the savior sinless (without him being God.), so I'm wondering if there's a deeper reason that the Messiah had to be God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-06T20:43:30.773" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T19:54:37.677" Title="Why does the Messiah have to be God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="17" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-03T18:59:40.110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7530" CreationDate="2012-05-06T18:59:13.413" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as Apostolic Tradition is concerned, angels cannot die, because they are spirits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Death = reduction of a composite being into its component parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man is a composite being- body + soul. So man can die if these components are separated. Since angels are not composite beings, angels cannot die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-05-06T18:59:13.413" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7530" CreationDate="2012-05-06T19:03:34.733" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luke 20:36&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suggests: no&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-05-06T19:03:34.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7507" CreationDate="2012-05-06T21:12:00.847" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one problem with the argument - &quot;Matthias was never sent by Christ to do anything, therefore he cannot be an apostle&quot;. The problem is that Barnabus (of whom we have no evidence that he was sent by Christ) is also called an &quot;apostle&quot; in Acts 14:14. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that Judas was an apostle and his &quot;office&quot; (Acts 1:20) was taken over by Matthias. And it is not as though this was done through some rash thinking on the part of the Peter, for he, along with the other apostles had in fact already received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (John 20:22). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, with the inclusion of Matthias, the phrase &quot;Peter and the eleven&quot; is used in Acts 2:14, which strongly suggests that Matthias was indeed the 12th apostle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-05-06T21:12:00.847" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2012-05-06T22:22:23.183" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Isaiah, the Messiah was a man- namely Cyrus. (Isaiah 45:1) Thus, if we are to read the text literally, the Messiah was in fact man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The salvific purpose of the Messiah was also temporal. As the Jews understood it, he would bring freedom to the captives, raise the poor from their situation, and generally turn the order upside down. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What only God could do was redeem people from the pit and the grave. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I'm not sure that the Messiah had to be God, the fact that Jesus was the son of God is attested to in the Scriptures. The nature of Jesus, of course, is that he is fully God and fully &#xA;man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Isaiah 49 says, it is &quot;too little a thing that my son should merely save Israel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That move - from Messiah to the eternal plan effected in His Sonship is where I believe the necessity of the Divine comes into play. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-05-07T00:42:36.363" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T00:42:36.363" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7471" CreationDate="2012-05-06T22:37:24.757" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the Pope speaks &lt;em&gt;ex Cathedra&lt;/em&gt;, he is invoking the powers handed down to him via apostolic succession. It is a matter of faith and tradition (although not codified until the late 1800s I believe) that when the Pope so speaks on a matter of faith or morals in an act meant to be instructive to Christianity as a whole, he is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;infallible&lt;/a&gt;. There is a Scriptural case made in the link, but it boils down to what I consider to be an older hermeneutic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that the Church is the one reliable and trustworthy interpreter of the Scripture, and if they say the Scripture means &quot;X&quot;, then by definition &quot;X&quot; is the correct interpretation. The counter case to this argument is that the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Scripture, and the Church is merely one vehicle through which he speaks.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Karl Barth&lt;/a&gt; in particular would be one theologian who would say that God gets to choose what is right, that he does that through the Scriptures, and that there is no getting around what God calls right and wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lest Protestants such as myself get all high and mighty, we believe that something is right, simply because God says it is so. If God say killing is good, then it is good because God declared it to be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be made clear that no other denomination accepts this idea of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Papal Infallibility&lt;/a&gt;,&quot; and is in many ways the genesis of the splits with the Orthodox (in 1054) and the Protestants (beginning in 1517). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians understand the Pope to be first amongst equals to be sure, but not infallible. Catholic dogma, however teaches otherwise. (Indeed, the premise of the movie &lt;em&gt;Dogma&lt;/em&gt; only works if you're catholic)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="14590" LastEditDate="2015-07-28T15:58:44.567" LastActivityDate="2015-07-28T15:58:44.567" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2012-05-06T23:56:58.783" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The premise of the question is incorrect.  The Messiah does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have to be God.  Have a look at this Wikipedia article for a long list of messianic claimants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants#List_of_Jewish_messiah_claimants&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jewish Messiah claimants&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these figures were thought by some to be the messiah at one time.  But none of them were spoken of in the kinds of terms used about Jesus of Nazareth.  That doesn't in itself &quot;prove&quot; something about Jesus.  It does show that a claim to be Messiah is not equivalent to a claim to be any sort of deity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the real question isn't why the messiah had to be God (as he didn't), but why Jesus was thought of as the Son of God and not simply as the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with that, note that most of the messianic movements in the first century dispersed when their leader was killed.  The same happened to the Jesus movement, but that movement obviously did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; disperse when its leader was killed.  (Why?  Well, as a Christian, it should be obvious what my theory is.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastActivityDate="2012-05-06T23:56:58.783" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7483" CreationDate="2012-05-07T02:23:29.937" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your definition of predestination is - &quot;Predestination is the view that all events are willed by God&quot;, then I would say that the Bible doesn't support this at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all events were willed by God, it would be absolutely redundant for Jesus to ask us to pray this way - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our Father, who art in heaven.... Thy kingdom come. Thy will &lt;strong&gt;be&#xA;  done&lt;/strong&gt;... (Matthew 6:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God's will is always done, we don't need to pray that his will be done. God's will is &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; done in only one sense - God's will is that man have free will and choose God or reject God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-07T02:26:07.623" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T02:26:07.623" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7477" CreationDate="2012-05-07T13:57:07.060" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&amp;amp;b=46&amp;amp;c=11&quot;&gt;Matthew Henry&lt;/a&gt; says in his short commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have &quot;power,&quot; that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Matthew Henry says, the Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;70 years or so ago, the wearing of hats was common.  Upon entering a church, or any building for that matter, a man would remove his hat out of respect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Customs have changed in the United States.  Men wear baseball caps, if they wear a hat, and for the most part, women do not wear hats.  Now, having said that, there are still some southern conservative churches where the women do wear hats to church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my church, a congregation of the United Methodist Church, our dress code is: wear clothes.  We're not concerned with what people wear to church, and we even have meetings to discuss whether the church leadership is dressing up too much, and discouraging people from attending. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T13:57:07.060" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7473" CreationDate="2012-05-07T14:10:25.657" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what my denomination, the United Methodist Church, says about child &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2311293/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;communion&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;May young children receive Communion?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly. As The United Methodist Book of Worship puts it, “All who intend to lead a Christian life, together with their children, are invited to receive the bread and cup.” We remember that when some of Jesus’ disciples tried to keep children away from him he said: “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs” (Mark 10:14 NRSV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But do young children know what they are doing when they receive Communion?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do they understand the full meaning of this holy sacrament? No, and neither do any of us. It is a wonderful mystery, and children can sense wonder and mystery. Children cannot understand the full significance of family meals, but we feed them at our family tables and at Christ’s family table. Young children experience being loved by being fed. They sense the difference between being included and excluded at a family meal. They have the faith of a child, appropriate to their stage of development, which Jesus recognized and honored. Indeed, he said to adults: “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15 NRSV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that other denominations have children wait until they have a better understanding of communion.  I'm sure they have good, scriptural reasons for their belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T14:10:25.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2012-05-07T16:32:42.343" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that there are two main reasons why the Messiah had to be God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One, which you alluded to in your question, is that he had to be sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice for sins.  I don't hold that Mary was sinless (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 3:10&lt;/a&gt;), and I believe that only God could have been sinless.  So in my opinion, that is a valid line of reasoning for the necessity of the Messiah to be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second reason, is that the Messiah needed to be God for the same reason that he needed to be man.  Hebrews tells us why Jesus had to become man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:17-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 2:17-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For this reason he had to be made like them,  fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful  and faithful high priest  in service to God,  and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.  &lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 4:14-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, since we have a great high priest  who has ascended into heaven,  Jesus the Son of God,  let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.  &lt;sup&gt;15&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For we do not have a high priest  who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are  —yet he did not sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Messiah needed to save mankind, and in order to do so, he needs to act as a high priest, an intermediary between God and man.  These verses show us that Jesus needed to become man in order to empathetically mediate &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; man.  I suggest that he also needed to be God, in order to mediate &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; God.  Jesus acts as a bridge between God and man, by having both natures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Jesus is in nature God, we have a perfect high priest in the heavenly tabernacle.   This provides for us an anchor behind the veil (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 6:19&lt;/a&gt;), which is far superior to any merely human priest.  Hebrews 7 explicitly states the flaws in having human priests, and why a priest with the eternal nature of God is far superior:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%207:23-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7:23-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; &lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.  &lt;sup&gt;25&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore he is able to save  completely those who come to God  through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is contrasting the disadvantages of human priests with the advantages of having God as our high priest.  The writer of Hebrews then goes on to list some characteristics of such a high priest that meets our needs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%207:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;26&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Such a high priest  truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners,  exalted above the heavens. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to intercede for us to God, the writer of Hebrews tells us that this high priest needed to have many characteristics that we would only associate with God: &lt;strong&gt;holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if we accepted the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think anyone would attribute to her these necessary characteristics of an effective heavenly high priest (except perhaps pure and blameless).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T16:32:42.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7472" CreationDate="2012-05-07T17:06:36.137" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church, of these days, cannot distinct between truth and heresies. For this, is needed more than a common believe.&#xA;The orthodoxy is not based on contemporary logic or understanding, neither based on science methods, or innovations.&#xA;The orthodox criterion is always based on tradition made by saints, their teachings, their life examples, and their councils. &#xA;The orthodox teachings are always inherited from and confirmed by the preceding saints, which are considered part of the Church, temples of Holy Spirit, guarantors of pure teaching of God tested in practice with their dedicated life, and without contain any mixture of profane wisdom or human understanding. &#xA;Many saints are confirmed by God, through relics and miracles around them.&#xA;So, distinction between truthful and heretics teachings are validated and accepted in time as official, along few generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T17:06:36.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7547" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-07T17:37:06.520" Score="17" ViewCount="28304" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've studied the Bible and am a fundamental independent Bible believing Baptist who believes what the scripture says about Baptism is clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is an ordinance after salvation, i.e. believers baptism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is not part of salvation but a public profession of the inward change.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is a picture of Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I refer &lt;a href=&quot;http://ebible.com/kjv/acts/8/35/-/8/38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:35-38&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://ebible.com/kjv/romans/6/3/-/6/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:3-4&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If infant Baptism were supported by scripture, where are the verses? How can that be reconciled with &lt;a href=&quot;http://ebible.com/kjv/acts/8/35/-/8/38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:35-38&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://ebible.com/kjv/romans/6/3/-/6/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:3-4&lt;/a&gt;? Seeing how an infant cannot place his/her faith in Christ as they don't understand their need for Christ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1588" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-03-17T23:56:21.757" LastActivityDate="2016-07-19T22:25:35.903" Title="What is the Biblical basis for infant baptism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;infants&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7547" CreationDate="2012-05-07T18:09:54.797" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Off the top of my head, the best case for infant baptism is made by examples like that of Cornelius in Acts 10, when his entire household is baptised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T18:09:54.797" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7547" CreationDate="2012-05-07T18:11:50.143" Score="21" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:39&lt;/strong&gt; For the promise is to you, and your children, and to all who are afar off...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of our argument comes from the inference that Baptism is to Circumcision as the Lord's Supper is to Passover. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 2:11-12&lt;/strong&gt; In [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by &lt;em&gt;putting off the body of the&#xA;  flesh&lt;/em&gt;*, by the circumcision of Christ, having been &lt;em&gt;buried with him&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  in baptism...  &lt;em&gt;(emphasis mine)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as circumcision was the &quot;putting off the body of the flesh&quot;, so baptism is being &quot;buried with Christ&quot;, &quot;into death&quot; (Romans 6:4). They are signs of the same promise of the same salvation, one given to the physical race Jews, the other to the world-wide race of the elect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the rite of circumcision was performed on male infants at eight days old, it makes sense to retain the age for Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 17:12&lt;/strong&gt; For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your&#xA;  household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your&#xA;  offspring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that those who are baptized are those &quot;in your household&quot; or those brought into the household, so by carryover this would only apply to children of believers in Baptism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just like we (usually) retain the general &quot;age of accountability&quot; for Lord's Supper (just like Hebrew boys generally were supposed to wait until they were 12 to take Passover), so it makes sense to keep the age for Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the following verses &lt;strong&gt;do not stand alone&lt;/strong&gt; to support infant Baptism, they &lt;em&gt;support&lt;/em&gt; it because they &lt;strong&gt;do not reverse the age set in the Old Testament for circumcision&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 16:14-15&lt;/strong&gt; ...The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household&#xA;  as well...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 16:33&lt;/strong&gt; And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While you would be right to say &quot;ah, but this is an argument from silence,&quot; I would reply that it certainly stresses &quot;her household&quot; and &quot;his family&quot; and considering the emphasis given in the New Testament to making sure that the Jews understood that the sacrifices/ceremonial law were now nullified, it would seem foolish of Luke not to carefully point out that the infants and children were omitted in the baptism. Instead, he includes the household and the family in the event because the parents (particularly the father) were representative of their family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God makes his covenant with Abram in Genesis 17, he says &quot;offspring&quot; five times before giving the command to circumcise &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; males, beginning at those only eight days old. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7:12-16 suggests this has not been nullified for the New Testament and foreward; vs. 14 says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the&#xA;  unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your&#xA;  children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My pastor, in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://grace-pca.net/the-sacraments-baptism-the-lord-s-supper&quot;&gt;letter&lt;/a&gt; to our congregation, said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Children of believers, like adult believers, are members of the&#xA;  visible church (church militant); and they, like we, are members of&#xA;  the invisible church (church triumphant) only by grace, through faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has also called Baptism an &lt;em&gt;engagement ring,&lt;/em&gt; placed upon the finger of the children of the covenant, and awaiting acceptance or rejection by that child as they grow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-07T18:30:04.787" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T18:30:04.787" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7547" CreationDate="2012-05-07T18:22:32.013" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The understanding of infant baptism in most denominations (I'm speaking from the Reformed Presbyterian background) is a systemic difference in understanding regarding the meaning of baptism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very importantly, most denominations that practice infant baptism &lt;em&gt;do not&lt;/em&gt; see infant baptism as something that saves.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It comes down to the understanding of the relationship between the church and Israel.  Dispensationalists (of which I'm assuming you are, given that you are a Baptist), don't believe that the promises that applied to Israel apply to the church, but they apply to Israel.  Covenant theologians, on the other hand, believe that the promises that were given to Israel apply to the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This includes certain promises, such as Genesis 17:7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring&#xA;  after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to&#xA;  be God to you and to your offspring after you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God gave this promise to the Israelites, he was declaring that his promise was given to Abraham and his descendents after him.  Covenant theologians believe that this promise still applies to believers in the covenant of Grace.  Because of this, they believe that baptism is not an outward symbol of an inward change, but rather that the promises that God makes to us also apply to our children as well.  This doesn't mean that our children are believers at two months old, but rather that, if they have faith in Christ, God will follow through with his end of the bargain.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, it's less about our heart change, and more about God's promise.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supporting verses include Acts 2:38-39:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in&#xA;  the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you&#xA;  will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. &lt;em&gt;For the promise is for you&#xA;  and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the&#xA;  Lord our God calls to himself.&lt;/em&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Acts 16:14-15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a&#xA;  seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened&#xA;  her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was&#xA;  baptized, &lt;em&gt;and her household as well&lt;/em&gt;, she urged us, saying, “If you&#xA;  have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.”&#xA;  And she prevailed upon us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T18:22:32.013" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7547" CreationDate="2012-05-07T18:25:28.583" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;orthodox catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 16:15&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;And when she was baptized, and &lt;strong&gt;her household&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 16:33&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;and was baptized, he and &lt;strong&gt;all his family&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 18:8&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;believed on the Lord &lt;strong&gt;with all his house&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 10:44&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on &lt;strong&gt;all them which heard the word&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot; 47 &amp;quot;Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 1:16&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;I baptized also &lt;strong&gt;the household of Stephanas&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Orthodox believers know for sure from Holy Tradition that apostles baptized the children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for the protestants who don't trust in Holy Tradition, arise some questions:&#xA;Can any man forbid the water, that children should not be baptized? In house of Cornelius, does the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word or not? Children has ears to hear the word or not? Holy Spirit fall only on adults and avoid the children? The answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 19:14&lt;/strong&gt;  &amp;quot;Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the heaven, could be children prematurely died or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:5&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostles baptized the children because (Psalm 50:6) &amp;quot;in sin did my mother conceive me&amp;quot; (Romans 5:6) &amp;quot;death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-01-08T22:49:34.263" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7553" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7554" CreationDate="2012-05-07T20:48:32.777" Score="3" ViewCount="4022" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4322/was-the-wine-in-the-last-supper-fermented&quot;&gt;wine was used by Christ at the last supper&lt;/a&gt;, is it valid to use grape juice in the remembrance of the Lord's Table? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2016-11-07T15:04:08.880" Title="Is it valid to use grape juice at Communion?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="19" ClosedDate="2013-07-13T10:54:22.187" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7553" CreationDate="2012-05-07T20:54:26.107" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, wine was most likely used by Jesus during the Last Supper, just as the cups in the Passover Feast are typically wine in today's observances.  Yet, there is not prescriptive command to use wine nor is there any prohibitive command against using grape juice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this were a significant issue, then it is reasonable to assume that the Bible would contain either a prohibitive or prescriptive reference somewhere.  After all, there are quite a few books, and Passover (which is what Jesus celebrated as the Last Supper) had been observed since Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the conclusion is that it is not a significant issue and neither moral nor immoral to use wine or grape juice.  We do use the fruit of the vine, following the pattern in Passover celebrations, but the presence of fermentation is immaterial.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The remembrance of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is supreme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I might add that if you happen to live in a desert where no grapes can be grown, it would seem improper to assert that you could not celebrate communion since you would have neither grape juice nor wine.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-05-07T21:37:37.473" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T21:37:37.473" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5132" CreationDate="2012-05-07T21:29:55.703" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biblical basis of the baptism can be found only in orthodoxy, known today as &quot;Old Calendar Orthodoxy&quot;. The baptism in this Church has the same form as the baptism performed by apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Peter's vision (Acts 10) describes significance and details of the baptism procedure:&#xA;the thrice time descending of the vessel corresponds the 3 time immersion in the water.&#xA;Details of the complete explanation of the view is in Holy Tradition, in the &quot;Life of saint Cornelius&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T21:29:55.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7553" CreationDate="2012-05-07T22:14:42.670" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say it is not valid. The wine at the Last Supper &amp;mdash; Jesus' Passover celebration &amp;mdash; was fermented because that was the tradition. It was an oral tradition later codified in the &lt;em&gt;Mishnah&lt;/em&gt;, but it was still what Christ did, so it should be when we &lt;em&gt;Do this in remembrance&lt;/em&gt;. It's not simply an act, it's a re-creation. I can see that the theology of the Eucharist looms large in the answer for &quot;valid&quot; or &quot;invalid&quot;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason there is no prescription in the Bible is because wine is wine: grape juice fermented anyway so there wasn't a choice. It would never had occurred to the writers to say otherwise because grape juice didn't really exist (only as a precursor to wine). There is no &lt;em&gt;proscription&lt;/em&gt; either, so there is no basis &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to use wine. Indeed, Paul admonishes Timothy in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Tim+5:23&quot;&gt;1 Tim 5:23&lt;/a&gt; to take wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having just checked, the Catholic Code of Canon Law (Can. 924) and the Canons of the Church of England (Can. B17) do prescribe wine. Other Churches may do likewise &amp;mdash; and in those Churches it is certainly not valid to use unfermented juice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To answer Narnian's edit, if there is &lt;strong&gt;no alternative&lt;/strong&gt; then in extremis of course something else can be used. But if wine can conveniently be obtained, then to do otherwise is not valid.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T22:14:42.670" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7553" CreationDate="2012-05-07T22:58:49.167" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The earliest recorded formulation of the Lord's Supper reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.—1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 11:23-26 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+11/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the words that many Protestant denominations use to institute the sacrament.  Which &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder#The_Four_Cups&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;cup&lt;/a&gt; was Jesus talking about?  It was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_in_the_Christian_tradition&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;almost certainly&lt;/a&gt; one of the cups of wine that are traditionally associated with the Passover celebration.  While there's an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_wine#Role_of_wine_in_Jewish_holidays_and_rituals&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;off-chance&lt;/a&gt; it was just grape juice, it's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_in_the_Bible#Alcoholic_content&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;more likely&lt;/a&gt; to have been strong wine diluted with water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast with the cup, we can be pretty certain that the bread was unleavened as befits the Passover.  However, Christian tradition does not universally require the bread at the Lord's Supper to be unleavened.  The issue of what type of bread to use turned out to be the final straw that precipitated the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Mutual_excommunication_of_1054&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Great Schism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So can we drink grape juice instead of wine for the Lord's Supper?  I'll let Paul take a crack at that question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.—1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 10:23-33 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+10/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The churches I normally attend use grape juice.  But when I go to a church that uses wine, I drink up.  I imagine the reverse is true.  As to whether communion at my church is &lt;em&gt;valid&lt;/em&gt;: that's another &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5116/914&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T22:58:49.167" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2012-05-07T23:21:41.610" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was planning on an answer almost as Eric's which will now carry no weight so I'd focus on possible consequences if man had played Jesus' role.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all I do not think we could compare man's 'perfection' (Mary or anybody else) to that of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.&quot; (Job 1:1). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean Job was sinless throughout his life? This is what our bible says about him, how much more a doctrine created by a 'brand' of christianity,  a belief that man thinks reflects what is in the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As righteous as man could be, he could not understand FULLY the plans of God. We know what God's main purpose is but we do not understand all his ways, methods and even time of accomplishments. &#xA;Let's get back to Job for instance. He faced harsh times but... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.&quot; (Job 1:22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No doubt about his faithfulness to God but he began to degrade his significance under the eyes of God. Though he did not charge God foolishly, there were wild and deeper complaints that pushed God to remind him of who he (God) is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.&quot; (Job 38:1-3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a long, strong reply from God, Job confesses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.&quot; (Job 42:3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we know that His ways are not our ways, it tells us that our worldly desires (by default) cannot allow God's will to totally be done on earth, even when it is our prayer. Even Moses, whom I consider as one of the most active and closest prophets of God, sometimes lacked boldness, and failed to carry out 'simple orders', not to mention Jonah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we compare these to Christ (God)? When the time for all the physical torture to begin, Jesus felt the heaviness, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.&quot; (Luke 22:44).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;yet He asked His will to be done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. &quot; (Matthew 26:42).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His death was not a one time killing by bomb blast which others (martyrs) will claim to die in for their course. It isn't a gunshot that will limit the period of pain before death. This One is spat upon, whipped, crowned with thorns, among others, finally hanged by nails on a cross and left to die. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For humans, the thought and expectations alone, knowing that all these will happen are torture enough to make us NEED an escape from such fate. We may be tempted to argue with God: Why at all must I suffer all these before I die, why not death by the sword in the garden after Peter reacts? And a whole lot, simply because even when we believe in Him, we cannot comprehend fully and allow God's will to be done without questions. Only He could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1490" LastEditorUserId="1490" LastEditDate="2012-05-07T23:33:30.470" LastActivityDate="2012-05-07T23:33:30.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2012-05-08T00:37:37.890" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;An interesting opinion I heard on this (and incidentally the reason I asked the question, though I hoped for and got better answers) had to do with the infinitude of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God is infinite, sinning against him is an &quot;infinite&quot; sin (for those who believe in &quot;trivial&quot; sins, assume i'm talking about a lifetime of sin from someone). For God to be just, infinite sin requires infinite payment. That's why we say it's fair for God to punish people infinitely in Hell for only a finite amount of sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the sacrifice would be taking the place of, not one, but millions (presumably, who knows how many will be saved) of people, all who have lived their entire lives sinning against an infinite God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So not only did Christ need to be sinless to be a representative, he needed to be a viable candidate. A human representative would have to actually go through Hell for infinity, and then do it again, and again - suffering hell for infinity  for each and every sinner. Since this is impossible, we would need one representative for each of us - and each representative would have to be perfect, and would suffer in Hell &lt;em&gt;forever.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, God sent his Son, incarnated him as man. The Godman, as Eric said, could both represent man, and was both sinless and infinite. As a result, he could suffer the infinitude of Hell for &lt;em&gt;each one of us.&lt;/em&gt;  The punishment was no less terrible! If anything, it was worse! But for the so many hours he was on the cross (or the three days he was in the tomb; depending on how you see it) the eternal son of God become man suffered infinite punishment for sin against himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that, I think, is why the Christ had to be God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T00:37:37.890" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7560" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7582" CreationDate="2012-05-08T01:00:50.137" Score="11" ViewCount="6526" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Reformed Presbyterian and it seems that for most people I run into, baptism for 'adults' after confession of faith only is the default position.  I always find myself fighting an uphill battle against this view.  However, I have yet to see one verse that prescribes that only adult believers be baptized.  I would ask that answers show where the Bible says that only believers are to be baptized or if not then what series of texts of scripture and lines of reasoning are used to support this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the sign of inclusion into the covenant under the Old Covenant (circumcision) is so closely tied to the sign under the New Covenant (baptism) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A11-12&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot;&gt;Col 2:11-12&lt;/a&gt; and since the Old Covenant sign was offered to children and since the New Covenant is more inclusive in every way than the Old Covenant and since telling a Jewish Christian that they can not baptize their children would have been a big deal to them (and the scriptures show no discussion on this point at all), it has always seemed to me that the burden of proof showing the change in practice lies at the Baptist doorstep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="1109" LastEditDate="2012-05-08T14:33:45.003" LastActivityDate="2014-06-05T22:58:45.067" Title="Which Bible verses support adult-only baptism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7531" CreationDate="2012-05-08T04:03:31.733" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mostly I'd ditto Eric's answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me add: COULD God have carried out his plan with a human being whom God specially created or ordained to be sinless, or special in whatever ways required? I don't know. You could ask all sorts of hypotheticals like that. Could God have saved humanity without sending Jesus at all? Could he have created a universe in which murder was not a sin? How about one where there was no such thing as electricity, or the color blue? Some such hypotheticals are easy to imagine, others not so much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible says that Jesus was God. Whether he &quot;had to be&quot; for salvation to be possible ... Could God have come up with some other plan? I don't know. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T04:03:31.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7553" CreationDate="2012-05-08T04:38:34.873" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What exactly does the Bible command regarding communion? 1 Cor 11:25, &quot;In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's pretty much it. If someone can point to a reference with more specific instructions, please post. But from that, I don't see how you could prove Biblically that it must be either wine OR grape juice. It just says we should drink from a cup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospels don't actually say the cup contained wine. They say, &quot;the fruit of the vine&quot;, which could be wine or grape juice. But in any case, nothing in the Bible says that the contents of the cup are an essential component of the sacrament. There are many details of the ceremony as Jesus performed it. In the absence of specific commands, which of these details are essential and which are irrelevant? The Bible clearly says that the Last Supper took place on Passover, yet I've never heard a Christian say that we can only perform the sacrament on Passover. We are told that 13 people were present, yet I've never heard a Christian say that the ceremony is invalid unless exactly 13 people are present. Every church I've ever been in serves the wine or grape juice in glasses, while the Bible clearly says that Jesus used a cup. Etc. Perhaps you'll say I'm just bringing up silly and ridiculous points. But why is the contents of the cup essential but the cup itself is not? Who says, and on what basis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would consider it distinctly odd and irreverent to have a communion service with iced tea and donuts. But I really can't make a scriptural argument against that, I just wouldn't think it &quot;feels right&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T04:38:34.873" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7547" CreationDate="2012-05-08T05:04:32.790" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand baptism from a &lt;strong&gt;familial perspective&lt;/strong&gt;. When we are baptized, we receive the Holy Spirit, the spirit of adoption (Rom 8:15), and we become sons of God. Now that we are God's sons, we are part of &lt;strong&gt;God's family&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a family, parents make decisions for their children, when their children aren't old enough to speak for themselves. As a son of God, I can make a decision for my infant child, that he be incorporated in God's family just as I am. For a classic Biblical example of parents making decisions for their children, please see 1 Sam 1:11, where Hannah, the mother of the (to be born) Samuel, made a vow to the Lord to dedicate the boy to the Lord even before he was born. So in the case of infant baptism, the &lt;strong&gt;FAITH&lt;/strong&gt; component that is necessary is supplied by the parents and by the church in general, because the child is unable to speak for itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, in Judaism, all males were circumcized and made part of the &lt;strong&gt;people of God&lt;/strong&gt; (the &quot;&lt;strong&gt;qahal&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;, the New Testament equivalent of which is &quot;ecclesia&quot; or &quot;&lt;strong&gt;church&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;). Wouldn't it be odd if babies could be part of the people of God in the Old Covenant and could not be part of the people of God in the New? After all, the law of the Old Covenant has only a shadow of the things that are to come in the New Covenant (Heb 10:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now some argue that repentance is necessary for baptism, because the Bible mentions it in that order. But what do babies have to repent of? Nothing. Note that John's baptism was also a baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4), yet Jesus also took John's baptism. Did Jesus have to repent? No. So repentance is necessary only if you have committed sin, otherwise not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to the passage - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Peter said to them, &quot;Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, &lt;strong&gt;every one whom the Lord our God calls to him&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; (Acts 2:38-39)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the promise? The gift of the Holy Spirit. Who is this promise for? For every one whom the Lord our God calls to him. &lt;strong&gt;Does our God call infants also&lt;/strong&gt;? Surely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.&quot; (Luke 18:16) In verse 15, it is recorded that they were bringing infants to him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is calling infants even today, but they have to be BROUGHT to him (like in Luke 18:15), because they cannot bring themselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="1607" LastEditDate="2012-05-08T05:12:18.660" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T05:12:18.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7565" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-08T05:26:46.433" Score="3" ViewCount="523" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible speaks to the qualifications of overseers and deacons, and also mentions that they are to be held to a higher standard than the rest of the congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Biblical basis exists, then, for the disqualification of those who are called to shepherd? Specifically, how to these align with the Biblical doctrines of repentance and forgiveness (if, say, a leader was repentant and sought forgiveness over a sin)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1267" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-05-08T09:04:07.553" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T12:18:57.520" Title="What is the biblical basis for elder disqualification?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;pastoral-care&gt;&lt;leadership&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7565" CreationDate="2012-05-08T12:18:57.520" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that you are confused about the purpose of the deacon or bishop ordination. They are not ordained for their own benefit, but for the benefit of all the church. Therefore it is important that they are not a reason for scandal and offence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that someone isn't found fit to be ordained as deacon, presbyter or bishop doesn't mean that he can't repent, is unforgiven etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T12:18:57.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7570" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-08T12:40:00.187" Score="1" ViewCount="82" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4760/according-to-the-mormon-doctrines-who-created-the-universe&quot;&gt;According to the Mormon doctrines, who created the universe?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was listening to a story on NPR about Mormon business ethics, when the claim was made that according to the LDS church, God did not create the world out of nothing, but rather out of chaos.  Is this understanding correct?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with this, I understand there is a claim that men and women can become like God as well.  How do these two relate? Is it understood that Mormons can actually speak their own universes into existence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T14:04:46.793" Title="According to LDS theology, did God create the world ex nihilo?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2012-05-08T14:11:23.840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7553" CreationDate="2012-05-08T13:13:46.717" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The United Methodist Church uses grape juice for communion.  Here's their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&amp;amp;b=5070513&amp;amp;ct=3333795&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reasoning&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The United Methodist Book of Worship says, &quot;Although the historic and ecumenical Christian practice has been to use wine, the use of unfermented grape juice by The United Methodist Church and its predecessors since the late nineteenth century expresses pastoral concern for recovering alcoholics, enables the participation of children and youth, and supports the church's witness of abstinence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, no Biblical reason, just a practical reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T13:13:46.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7573" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-08T14:43:52.683" Score="6" ViewCount="351" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some churches who appoint elders do so for a term (3 years is typical from what I have seen).  Other churches ordain elders for life.  Is there a Biblical basis for ordaining elders for a term?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-08T20:51:56.310" LastActivityDate="2012-05-25T01:03:15.003" Title="What is the Biblical basis for 'term eldership'?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-offices&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7575" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7584" CreationDate="2012-05-08T16:26:54.037" Score="6" ViewCount="1767" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am curious if there are any actions or conditions which &quot;seal your fate&quot; so to speak, such that should you do them—no matter how much you repent or accept Jesus or pray—that you are doomed forever to Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Richard Dawkins wrote several anti-God books and has long been critical of religion; is it possible that he's &quot;passed the threshold&quot; of &quot;saveableness&quot;? Or are we all &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; saveable? Or someone who is born gay, and while I understand not all Christians think gays will go to Hell, there are certainly some major groups that do. Are these people then, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;genetically determined&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to go to Hell? A better example might be someone who is born blind and deaf, or extremely mentally ill, such that with no amount of instruction would they be able to understand the Bible, let alone the concept of &quot;book&quot; or &quot;savior&quot;. These people would never embrace Jesus; are they damned from birth without any hope?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In other words, is it possible that the conditions of your existence could doom you to Hell &lt;em&gt;inevitably&lt;/em&gt;, despite any efforts or willingness on your part?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastActivityDate="2014-08-08T20:31:56.680" Title="Are there any conditions which make oneself completely unredeemable in the eyes of God?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;fate&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:41:28.483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7575" CreationDate="2012-05-08T16:32:27.790" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus answers this one pretty clearly: such a sin does exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://Mark%203:28-29&quot;&gt;Mark 3:28-29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of&#xA;  men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never&#xA;  forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does it actually say what constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and speculation as to its meaning tends to be all over the place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T16:32:27.790" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7575" CreationDate="2012-05-08T16:46:13.683" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible clearly says, that God doesn't want death of a sinner, but so he repents and live. And also, that He wants &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; people saved. Therefore idea, that some people are condemned from birth is absurd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also don't know what are the monsters that believe that people that suffer from homosexual passion, but don't commit sins will be punished. Or that mental retardation can stop Christ's love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T16:46:13.683" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7560" CreationDate="2012-05-08T17:33:37.277" Score="16" Body="&lt;h3&gt;There is no precedent for infant baptism in Scripture&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Infant baptism simply is not found in the Bible.  That isn't an argument that it &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; be done, but it should be seen as an extrabiblical tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Baptism is commanded with salvation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus commanded the apostles as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28%3A19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,  baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thrust here (and everywhere baptism is commanded) is that the people that the apostles are making the disciples of, and the people they are baptizing, are the same people.  I believe that people must choose to be disciples for themselves, which is a choice babies are unable to make.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul describes the inward change that baptism symbolizes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%206:2-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 6:2-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; By no means! We are those who have died to sin;  how can we live in it any longer? &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized  into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death  in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead  through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a symbol of our spiritually putting ourselves to death, so that we may live with Christ.  This is not a decision that babies can make, so why perform an act that reflects an inward change that has not yet occurred?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The water is just water&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts, we have an example of people who had been baptized with water, and needed to be rebaptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019:2-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 19:2-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit  when you believed?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “John’s baptism,” they replied.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Paul said, “John’s baptism  was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”  &lt;sup&gt;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly not all baptisms are equal.  Yet, what changes between right and wrong cases?  The water is constant, so I argue that it is the heart of the baptizee.  Certainly, whatever knowledge the people were lacking that made their baptism null, babies lack even more.  Peter tells us explicitly that the water is not what's important:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;21&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you  also—&lt;strong&gt;not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience  toward God.&lt;/strong&gt; It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Babies are easily able to undergo the removal of dirt from flesh - that can be accomplished by the simple act of pouring water on them.  What they aren't able to do is the very thing that Peter says is important: &quot;the pledge of a clear conscience toward God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;In regard to your arguments...&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you bring up some interesting points, but I don't think that they make a compelling case for infant baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since the sign of inclusion into the covenant under the Old Covenant (circumcision) is so closely tied to the sign under the New Covenant (baptism) Col 2:11-12 and since the Old Covenant sign was offered to children and since the New Covenant is more inclusive in every way than the Old Covenant and since telling a Jewish Christian that they can not baptize their children would have been a big deal to them (and the scriptures show no discussion on this point at all), it has always seemed to me that the burden of proof showing the change in practice lies at the Baptist doorstep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Is baptism circumcision 2.0?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like this is considering baptism to have been seen as a replacement for circumcision.  I don't know of any Scriptural basis for this, and Colossians 2:11-12 doesn't seem to make the case.  The absence of an argument in Galatians to this effect is also very conspicuous.  Since in Galatians, Paul is arguing that in Christ, physical circumcision is not important, it seems that the silver bullet argument for his case would have been that baptism is the new circumcision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Does baptism place us in the new covenant?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any indication in Scripture that water baptism includes us in the new covenant.  Rather, the indication seems to be that we are included by spiritual baptism, which occurs by faith in Christ, and water baptism is a subsequent act symbolizing that (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%203:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:21&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2010:44-48&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 10:44-48&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%203:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 3:11&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Piper makes an excellent point on this topic &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/infant-baptism-and-the-new-covenant-community&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  He points out that in the New Covenant, we are not included by physical descent, but spiritual:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%203:6-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:6-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Understand, then, that those who have faith  are children of Abraham. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;As an aside&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not completely familiar with the doctrine surrounding infant baptism, so I may be off on this point.  But one thing I don't understand about infant baptism placing someone in the New Covenant, is this: isn't its efficacy disproven once someone who is baptized as an infant grows up to be a non-Christian?  Surely there must be some examples of this...  Or is the belief that infant baptism places babies in the New Covenant until they reach an age of accountability, and then they must decide to enter it themselves?  In that case, shouldn't they be rebaptized anyway once they re-enter? Neither option seems to have Scriptural support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-07-24T20:02:23.920" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T20:02:23.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7575" CreationDate="2012-05-08T18:32:45.013" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember a story about this one guy somewhere in the Middle East who actually incited riots against Christians, causing several of them to be killed.  He became rather well known for this, and so he took his show on the road for a while.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, he went to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Damascus&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is that God can break through any threshhold, if He absolutely has to. If God wants a soul, it will be his. There is a point at which a person's heart can grow so hard that it becomes highly improbable - but that is because God loves his creatures too much to overwhelm them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To force one of his creatures to love Him would be akin to a spiritual form of rape.  He allows most people to choose. And, just like people who date, one can convince oneself so strongly against a person that pretty much anyone would give up on reconciliation.  But highly improbable is not the same as impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are stories (like Anthony Flew) of atheists who change. But, yes, these are not common. The truth is most of the time that a good and living God will, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:24&lt;/a&gt; says &quot;give them over to their own desires.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-05-08T18:49:52.943" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T18:49:52.943" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7560" CreationDate="2012-05-08T18:33:23.477" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think part of the problem with baptism discussions is that they are often mis-characterized as &quot;adult&quot; baptisms and &quot;infant&quot; baptisms, when really, the crux of disagreement is in the significance of the baptism rather than the age of its recipient. (baptism based on repentance vs. baptism as a covenental birthright)   I know you clarify this in your question, but I think the terms set up certain caricatures of the actual doctrinal positions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I'm a credo-baptist who has no problem with young children being baptized.  In fact, a bit ironically perhaps, when my oldest daughter professed her faith in Christ, she was considered too young to receive a &quot;believer's baptism&quot; in my Presbyterian church; she had to go through the communicants' class first, which was still a year or two off at the time.   Had I opted to baptize her as an infant, they would have gladly done that (being within their doctrinal guidelines), but since I was credo-baptist (a rarity in my congregation), they actually upped the ante on me a bit.  If I were really an &quot;adult baptism&quot; only advocate, then the issue would not really have have come up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the flip-side, I would wonder if/where paedo-baptists draw the line between a child of a believer being baptized by virtue of being a child of a believer vs. being baptized as a confessing believer in Jesus Christ. Hypothetically, say a family joins the Church: should the hypothetical 8 year old in the household be expected to repent before being baptized? 10 year old? 15 year old? 23 year old college graduate looking for job, but still part of the household and still his parents' child?  The hypothetical &quot;grandma&quot; who is widowed and living with her children and grandchildren (I'm kind of shifting goalposts here as the &quot;grandma&quot; is obviously not a child of her children; but she is a member of the household, which I think is included in most paedo-baptist views)?  I know that's a very contrived example, but I think how someone answers that question might reveal what I would consider a certain &lt;em&gt;potential&lt;/em&gt; inconsistency in paedo-baptist thinking (though, I very well may be completely wrong about that, and perhaps paedo-baptists would happily baptize the entire household regardless of age and/or evidence of faith).  If that question is wrong-minded, then I'm asking it out of my wrong-minded misconception based on the &quot;infant baptism&quot; moniker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that is a bit of a tangent, though.   As far as direct biblical statements, Acts 2:38-39 seems to me to suggest a credo-baptist model:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38-39&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Acts 2:38-39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;38&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And Peter said to them,  “Repent and  be baptized every one of you  in the name of Jesus Christ  for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive  the gift of the Holy Spirit. &lt;sup&gt;39&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For  the promise is for you and  for your children and for all  who are far off, everyone  whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this passage, we are presented a promise (2:38) and three groups of people to whom the promise is offered (2:39).  It's notable, that these three groups are given the same promise, and that the promise is explained with one explicit flow (&quot;Repent and be baptized every one of you&quot;).   To me, the &quot;easy reading&quot; of the application is pretty straight-forwarded, and I don't see how we should read this passage as saying to &quot;you&quot;: &quot;Repent and be baptized&quot;; to &quot;those who are far off&quot;: &quot;Repent and be baptized&quot;; but to &quot;your children&quot;: something like &quot;be baptized that you may one day repent.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ETA: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the second part of the question (I'm kind of glad I'm not the only one who missed it :) ), I think Galatians address this a bit in chapter 3.   The key passages are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:16-18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:16-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Now  the promises were made  to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one,  “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; This is what I mean: the law, which came  430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as  to make the promise void. &lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but  God gave it to Abraham by a promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; (not &quot;are&quot;) Abraham's offspring and the recipient of the promise? Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:23-30&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:23-30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law,  imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. &lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; So then,  the law was our  guardian until Christ came,  in order that we might be justified by faith. &lt;sup&gt;25&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, &lt;sup&gt;26&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; for in Christ Jesus  you are all sons of God, through faith. &lt;sup&gt;27&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For as many of you as  were baptized  into Christ have  put on Christ. &lt;sup&gt;28&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,  there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. &lt;sup&gt;29&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And  if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring,  heirs according to promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So where is our hope?  It is found in the fact that we are counted as the offspring, too, by virtue of being found in Christ.   Our adoption into the family of Christ does not happen when we are born (celebrated by &quot;infant baptism&quot;), but rather when we are born again (celebrated by &quot;believer's baptism&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="701" LastEditDate="2012-05-08T18:46:37.810" LastActivityDate="2012-05-08T18:46:37.810" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3069" CreationDate="2012-05-08T23:28:20.647" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, so far most answers are in terms of whether Christians/artists should work with copyrights. They give arguments like the musician, songwriter, etc. should get money in order to do what they do. But in all this, there is one important thing missing: motivation; what motivates the musician to write music - what motivated the people to write the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, then you must come to the conclusion that, if we talk about God, Jesus, Holy Spirit or the Bible, then it is the Holy Spirit that gives us the words to speak out. How we preach depends on the gift/talent God has given to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was not talent, sound or system, that motivated the apostles to spread the word of God,&#xA;no, it was love that motivated them to tell the Jews, Greeks, Romans and eventually us that Jesus died for us. Why? Because God gave His Son out of love. So if the motivation is love, how do you answer to that? With a thankful heart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we show that we are thankful? Through prayer, yes. But also in the gifts that we give to the church. That rule counts for every Christian: preacher, musician, artist, worship-leader, etc. And what is the promise of that rule? That you shall be blessed (no not Malachi, but 2 Corinthians 8:4). What we say, sing or show is knowledge given from the Holy Spirit. And to be thankful for that, we give to the church. &#xA;Not because the bible says it (in this case, the bible does say it) but out of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another answer is that most of the apostles sacrificed their lives (and still are!!) to preach the gospel; what gives us the right to ask for money to spread the word of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1628" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-09T00:11:19.483" LastActivityDate="2012-05-09T00:11:19.483" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7575" CreationDate="2012-05-09T00:44:58.247" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Absolutely not.  There are no conditions under which a person is doomed to Hell &lt;strong&gt;despite&lt;/strong&gt; having a sincere desire and willingness to return to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will be tricky to explain, so for the sake of space, I will link passages rather than quoting them.  I will address the common counterarguments to my answer at the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Nature of God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This topic cannot be understood outside of an understanding of God's nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is Willing.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:8,%2016&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;God is love&lt;/a&gt;.  In His love, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:9,%201%20Timothy%202:3-4,%20Acts%2017:30,%20Titus%202:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;He desires &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; men to return to Him and be saved&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:7,%20Ezekiel%2018:27-28,%2032,%20Acts%203:19,%202%20Corinthians%207:10,%20John%206:40,%20John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;He is willing to save anyone&lt;/a&gt; who will return to Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is Able.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2032:17,%20Job%2042:2,%20Hebrews%207:25,%20Matthew%2019:26,%20Revelation%2019:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;He has the power to save&lt;/a&gt; everyone who comes to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is Impartial.&lt;/strong&gt; Although &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:11,%20Romans%202:4,%20John%2015:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;His direct intervention&lt;/a&gt; is a prerequisite to repentance, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:34,%20Galatians%202:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;He is not partial&lt;/a&gt; in His dealings with mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, He is perfectly &lt;strong&gt;willing and able&lt;/strong&gt; to help &lt;strong&gt;anyone&lt;/strong&gt; return to Him - this was just as true for a sinner like Hitler as it was for a sinner like Saul.  But there is another important variable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We know that God desires all men to return to Him and be saved, and Satan desires all men to reject God and perish, but we know neither of these desires will come to pass.  This proves there is another variable - &lt;strong&gt;us&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20147:5,%201%20John%203:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;omniscient&lt;/a&gt;; He knows everything - even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2044:21,%20Luke%2016:15,%20Acts%2015:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;our hearts&lt;/a&gt; - even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:4,%20Galatians%201:15,%20Jeremiah%201:5,%20Romans%209:11-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;before we are born&lt;/a&gt;.  That is to say, &lt;strong&gt;God knew whether we would ultimately embrace Him or reject Him before we even existed!&lt;/strong&gt;  It is &lt;a href=&quot;http://1%20Peter%201:1-2,%20Romans%208:29&quot;&gt;according to this foreknowledge&lt;/a&gt; that He &quot;chose&quot; us, deciding who He would draw to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&quot;Doomed Forever to Hell&quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key thing to understand about Heaven &amp;amp; Hell is that ultimately, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:37,%20Hosea%203:1,%20Luke%2019:27,%20Matthew%207:13-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;most people &lt;em&gt;don't want&lt;/em&gt; to return to God&lt;/a&gt;.  We will all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%2012:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&quot;live&quot; forever&lt;/a&gt;, but if we ultimately decide to reject God, our eternal &quot;life&quot; will be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%201:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;eternal separation from God&lt;/a&gt; (also known as &quot;Hell&quot;).  I think it's less about God damning and dooming people, and more about people rejecting Him and God giving them what they wanted, &lt;em&gt;leaving them alone&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Born Sinful&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:5,%20Genesis%208:21,%20Romans%203:10-18,%20Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Everyone is born sinful&lt;/a&gt; - this isn't a problem unique to homosexuals.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Homosexuality is a sin&lt;/a&gt;, and believers are called to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=,%20Romans%208:13,%20Galatians%205:16-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;reject and overcome&lt;/a&gt; such carnal impulses.  As far as the idea that they can't overcome it because of genetics, all I can say is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2022:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;be careful who you learn from&lt;/a&gt; - the world may say that homosexuality is genetically predetermined, but they also say water can't be miraculously &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:1-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;turned to wine&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2014:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;there is no God&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Jesus is a liar&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Unable to Understand&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone is born in a state where they are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:11,%201%20Corinthians%202:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;unable to understand&lt;/a&gt; God's ways.  In terms of physical inhibitions, I think you would enjoy reading up a bit on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller#Writings&quot;&gt;Helen Keller&lt;/a&gt; - before the age of 2 she became deaf and blind, but was still able to come to God in a beautiful way (as I understand it.)  Regardless, there are two important points to make here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God doesn't ultimately even need a person to be born to know their heart, what (if anything) would bring them to repentance, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202:4,9,17,%20John%2014:2-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;in which eternal dwelling to prepare a place&lt;/a&gt; for them!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Despite Point #1, God will never condemn a person who is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2024:12,%20Romans%205:13,%20Romans%204:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;legitimately ignorant&lt;/a&gt; and hasn't had an opportunity to respond.  Remember - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;He is perfectly just&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, we have to recognize that it would be ridiculous to think our God would send someone to Hell for eternity who was unable to choose Him.  It is simply inconsistent with His nature as revealed in scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Answering the Objections&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some popular &quot;counterarguments&quot; to this teaching, which can be summarized as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Willful rejection of God&lt;/strong&gt;:  For example, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%203:28-30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;blaspheming the Holy Spirit&lt;/a&gt;&quot; results in not being forgiven, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:33&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;denying Jesus before men&lt;/a&gt; results in being rejected by Jesus before God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Willful rejection of God's ways&lt;/strong&gt;:  For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;refusing to forgive others&lt;/a&gt; results in not being forgiven by God, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;continuing to willfully practice sin&lt;/a&gt; results in there no longer being a sacrifice available to you.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me emphasize once again, that I am using the term &quot;willful rejection&quot; to refer to an &quot;informed desire and decision to ultimately reject&quot;.  This is the only point important to salvation in scripture - at no point are mistakes, ignorance, etc. met with unmerciful condemnation despite repentance!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So all of these counterarguments are really the same, and could be summarized as &quot;if you ultimately choose to reject God you can't be saved.&quot;  Of course that is true!  But it is irrelevant to your question.  You are asking if it is possible for a person to &quot;willingly&quot; desire to follow God, but be unable to do so because of a past mistake.  The answer is definitely &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say it a different way, &lt;strong&gt;of course a willful rejection of God and/or His ways precludes you from salvation!&lt;/strong&gt;  But then again, such a person would not be seeking repentance... if they did, it would be evidence that the so-called &quot;unforgivable sin&quot; they committed was not &quot;willful&quot; in the manner I've been describing, and was thus not &quot;unforgivable&quot;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God will give every opportunity necessary to a person in order to draw them to Himself if they would ultimately be willing to chose Him.  To argue otherwise would be to undermine God's just predestination according to foreknowledge.  (I hope that is clear.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the blasphemy argument got some attention here already, I'll quickly speak on it.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; covers the topic pretty well, but briefly, this is not a slip of the tongue or mistake which precludes you from true repentance, but rather, it is evidence of a heart in willful rejection of the very presence of God.  Of course, if a person &quot;blasphemes&quot; out of ignorance, that can be overlooked upon repentance;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief&quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Paul&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-05-09T00:52:52.153" LastActivityDate="2012-05-09T00:52:52.153" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6802" CreationDate="2012-05-09T04:44:42.997" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt;  Yes!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Perspective&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It depends (of course) on who you ask;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you ask a naturalistic atheist, of &lt;em&gt;course&lt;/em&gt; they will say &quot;no&quot;, or &quot;N/A&quot;, or something to this effect, because they presuppose the exclusive supremacy of natural reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the cause, wording, and citations of your question, however, I am assuming you are seeking a &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; perspective.  (I will answer from scripture, because we believe this is our &quot;textbook&quot; for doctrine, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;given by God for our utilization in answering questions&lt;/a&gt;!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Examples&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example 1: Internal Awareness of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:18-21&lt;/a&gt; teaches clearly that everyone has an internal awareness and knowledge of God, which He Himself gave them.  God's existence, power and nature are clearly seen and understood by all - and it is &lt;strong&gt;by an act of God&lt;/strong&gt;.  We saw this in the testimony of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller#Writings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Helen Keller&lt;/a&gt;, a woman blind and deaf from infancy, who upon finally learning to communicate, informed her teacher that she was already aware of God's existence, but never knew His name until she heard the gospel!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example 2: Creation Account&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1&lt;/a&gt; account of the Creation Week (through verse 26) was not a human eyewitness account!  For a Christian, this account represents an historical narrative, revealed to the writer by God - the only eyewitness to the event.  (The only alternative is that the writer made it up!)  Likewise, consider John's opening statements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:1-3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could only be known through divine revelation, whether directly to John, or via Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example 3: Prophecy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout scripture we see prophets predicting future events by the supernatural &quot;word of the Lord&quot;, or &quot;by the Spirit&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to another by the word of the Lord, “Please strike me.” But the man refused to strike him. Then he said to him, “Because you have not listened to the voice of the Lord, behold, as soon as you have departed from me, a lion will kill you.” And as soon as he had departed from him a lion found him and killed him. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2020:35-36&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Kings 20:35-36&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did the first prophet know the word of the Lord concerning this occasion?  How did he know what would happen to the other prophet?  Clearly not through natural reasoning!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example 4: Personal Revelation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:15&lt;/a&gt; Jesus asked His disciples who they thought He was.  Take note of Jesus' response to Peter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:16-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 16:16-17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example 5: Spiritual Sight&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Kings we have an amazing story of God opening a man's eyes to see into the spiritual realm.  Elisha was protected by the very armies of God, but this was not knowable through natural reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;when [Elisha's servant] had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” So [Elisha] answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the Lord opened the servant’s eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%206:15-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Kings 6:15-17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we have seen, there are at least &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; instances where divine revelation is required in order to know a truth.  We have just seen examples concerning knowledge of the past, present, and future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, science and logic cannot tell us anything definitively about the past &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; the future, and as we have seen from philosophy, there is a lot of evidence that reason cannot tell us anything definitive about the present either!  (&quot;Do we exist?&quot;,  &quot;Can we know anything for sure?&quot;, etc.)  Just consider how you would go about explaining the following passage using only the mechanics of nature and laws of arithmetic!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ordering the people to sit down on the grass, He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up toward heaven, He blessed the food, and breaking the loaves He gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds, and they all ate [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:9-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as much as they wanted&lt;/a&gt;] and were satisfied. They picked up what was left over of the broken pieces, twelve full baskets. There were about five thousand men who ate, besides women and children.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2014:19-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 14:19-21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(5 loaves) + (2 fish) - (as much food as thousands of hungry adults want) = (12 baskets full of leftovers)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What To Do?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When seeking truth, it is always &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%202:6,%20Daniel%202:21,%20Colossians%201:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wise to start by sincerely seeking God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%202:6,%20Daniel%202:21,%20Colossians%201:9,%20James%201:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-12T18:54:09.387" LastActivityDate="2012-06-12T18:54:09.387" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7586" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-09T06:13:55.850" Score="7" ViewCount="6539" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know of the angel guarding over the entrance gate of the Eden preventing man from entering. Also, the devil, an angel, deceives the woman. It seems to me angels preceded man but I'm not so sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...&quot; (Genesis 1:26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was He talking to angels?&#xA;At the point of making man, had God made angels already? &#xA;Any other biblical references?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1617" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-05-09T06:25:41.280" LastActivityDate="2015-03-09T05:29:29.297" Title="Who was first, men or angels?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:41:21.227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7586" CreationDate="2012-05-09T06:32:37.540" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Job 38:4-7 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Morning stars&quot; and &quot;sons of God&quot; appear to be references to angels. (One could debate this, of course.) If they sang and shouted when the Earth was created, and according to Genesis 1 the Earth was created before humans, then the angels must have been created before humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan tempted Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, and as you mention there's the reference to an angel standing guard at Eden. So if angels were created after humans, it was not long after. Not more than one generation, anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians generally interpret the &quot;let us ...&quot; statements of Genesis 1 as the persons of the Godhead speaking to each other, i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit conversing among themselves. There's no indication of angels participating in creation or of humans being created in the image of angels, but both Father and Son are described as creating, so this generally makes more sense than supposing that the &quot;we&quot; means God and angels. (I'm not sure how Jews interpret this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-05-09T20:43:06.220" LastActivityDate="2012-05-09T20:43:06.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7575" CreationDate="2012-05-09T07:00:45.993" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Mason Wheeler points out, Jesus explicitly said that there is only one unforgivable sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There have been plenty of cases throughout history of some of the worst sinners turning to God and, as far as we can tell, getting saved. John Newton was a slave trader who by his own admission was responsible for the deaths of 20,000 people and the enslavement of many more. Then he repented and became a Christian. In our own time, Bernard Nathanson was a founder and the first president of the National Abortion Rights Action League and was responsible for many thousands of deaths, but then he got saved. Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know any Bible-believing Christian who says that homosexuals cannot be saved. If you find some number of such people, they're not the mainstream of Christian thought. Yes, we believe homosexual acts to be sin -- just like stealing, adultery, covetousness, etc. A homosexual is no better or worse off than any other sinner, which is to say, any other human being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to physical handicaps ... No doubt being born blind and deaf makes it difficult for a person to acquire any information, including nothing of salvation. But it's certainly not impossible. Blind and deaf people have managed to learn to read in Braille and so forth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-09T07:00:45.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7573" CreationDate="2012-05-09T07:10:15.873" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people in the Bible who had leadership roles held those roles for life. For example, the Old Testament kings and the New Testament apostles apparently held leadership roles for life. Others held temporary posts, like the Judges. I don't recall any place in the Bible where someone held an office for a fixed amount of time, as is common today. But as Flimzy says, nothing in the Bible says that any office must be for life or for a specific term. (Well, except &quot;husband&quot; and &quot;wife&quot;, if you think of those as offices.) At least, I can't think of any.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-09T07:10:15.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7575" CreationDate="2012-05-09T09:34:52.940" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Judas case is one that should be watched closely though it still remains a controversy. Why the word &quot;perdition&quot; in: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. &quot; (John 17:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others claim he is not forgiven because he committed suicide, but we both know that &quot;all manner of sin&quot; in Matthew 12:31 covers this as the only exception is mentioned. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also appears to me that Jesus gives no hope for the betrayer like he did here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her...&#xA;...And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one...&quot; (John 8:7-9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He convicts Judas rather &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?  He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.&quot; (John 6:70-71).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.  Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.&quot; (Matthew 26:24-25).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, knowing what was about to happen according to the prophecy did not restrain the betrayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. &quot; (John 13:27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that Judas confessed of betraying an innocent man, though he did not repent that particular way where we turn to God. He regrets, returns the money, and exiles himself. The emphasis is placed on whether he was rebuked for committing the sins of stealing money, Satan entrying into him and committing suicide or something else. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Judas' personality were to be replaced by somebody else, would his fate be different as Jesus seem to paint Judas'? I see a condition of prophecy as a partial  answer to your question because it is a single instance to use. Also I'm not fully sure what sinning against the Holy Ghost means but definitely, Judas' case cannot be overlooked at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1617" LastActivityDate="2012-05-09T09:34:52.940" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7573" CreationDate="2012-05-09T09:44:59.213" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my tradition, which is Swedish pentecostal, the traditional view is that you are an elder for life. This used to be said with reference to Romans 11:29 &lt;code&gt;...Gods [...] call are irrevocable&lt;/code&gt; (NIV). That is however not very good hermeneutic. That passage refers to the calling of the people of Israel. Maybe you could argue that this also refers to Gods call for every person that belong to him through the faith of Jesus Christ. But you can't say that this speaks about the calling for a certain service in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would'nt say that there are a good biblical basis to say that you are an elder for life time. But I would say, and that is an personal opinion, that the texts (specially in the pastoral letters) takes the service to be an elder very serious. And it wouldn't be true to the seriousness of this service to let it rotate for every three years or something.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1600" LastActivityDate="2012-05-09T09:44:59.213" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6581" CreationDate="2012-05-09T16:31:11.240" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shortercatechism.com/resources/wsc/wsc_001.html&quot;&gt;the Westminister Shorter Catechism Question 1:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Man's chief end is &lt;strong&gt;to glorify God,&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;to enjoy him for ever.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/shorter_catechism.html&quot;&gt;Supporting verses:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%2086:9;&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Psalm 86:9 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All the nations you have made shall come&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      and worship before you, O Lord,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      and shall &lt;strong&gt;glorify your name.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Isa.%2060:21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 60:21 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your people shall all be righteous;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;       they shall possess the land forever,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      that &lt;strong&gt;I might be glorified.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%2011:36&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 11:36 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For from him and through him and to him are all things. &lt;strong&gt;To him be glory forever.&lt;/strong&gt; Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%206:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:20 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for you were bought with a price. So &lt;strong&gt;glorify God in your body.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%2010:31&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:31 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, &lt;strong&gt;do all to the glory of God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 4:11 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Worthy are you, our Lord and God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      &lt;strong&gt;to receive glory&lt;/strong&gt; and honor and power,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  for you created all things,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      and by your will they existed and were created.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.%2016:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Psalm 16:11 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You make known to me the path of life;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      in your presence there is &lt;strong&gt;fullness of joy;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      at your right hand are &lt;strong&gt;pleasures forevermore.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil.%204:4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Philippians 4:4 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are numerous other verses cited, but these are the majority of the verses that support this answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="95" LastActivityDate="2012-05-09T16:31:11.240" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6581" CreationDate="2012-05-09T19:19:41.133" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;So God created man in his own image,  &#xA;    in the image of God he created him;  &#xA;    male and female he created them.  &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;Genesis 1:26-27 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Humanity is the crowning achievement of God's creation.  We are the reason He created everything else&amp;mdash;we are His signature to mark it all as His work.  Among other things, we are made in His own image to be the one creative force that inhabits this universe.  Before the Fall, we pointed exclusively to God's great goodness that He exhibited in creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the Fall, we lost our focus on God's goodness.  It's a bit of &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/494/68&quot;&gt;a mystery&lt;/a&gt; exactly how that happened.  We are still God's signature, but we've become smudged.  Paul struggles to explain it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.&amp;mdash;Romans 7:15-20 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even so, Paul knows how the story will end:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.&amp;mdash;Romans 8:29-30 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, God sent Jesus to be His perfect signature on creation and, for some even more mysterious reason, we are able to join Christ.  Not only will be brothers and sisters with God's Son, we also miraculously share in His glory.  We may never be able to understand why God shared that joy with us, but we can be eternally grateful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weight_of_Glory_and_Other_Addresses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;The Weight of Glory&quot;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/desiring-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Desiring God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-05-09T19:19:41.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7597" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-10T00:57:43.240" Score="2" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider the question &quot;Is the Sabbath made for man or man for the Sabbath?&quot; A rhetorical question, because Jesus said that it was the Sabbath that was made for man. But this is not a question directly about the Sabbath; that was just an analogy. Rather, here's a question on &quot;Christian compassion&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider this logical exercise, with premises which might be wrong, but it's just a thought experiment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;No sinner ever repents apart from knowing the love of God. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The love of God is often conveyed, mostly, through the kindness of invidual human Christians. (2 Corinthians 5:20 speaks of this. God begs the sinner through Christians.) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since a sinner, most of the time, is living without the love of God, he or she understandably holds to a &quot;non-Christian way of thinking&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Non-Christian ways of thinking inevitably lead to non-Christian modes of behaviour or speech. This might involve the publishing of a book, such as those of the renowned biologist Richard Dawkins.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These non-Christian modes of behaviour, such as the books published by Dawkins, inevitably offend many Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By (1) and (2), the only possibility, in this or a parallel universe for a sinner to repent, is that God begs the sinner to repent through a Christian person.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From (5). But offended people don't beg those whom they feel offended them; rather they chastise them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, (6) and (7) lead to a contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's actually worse than (8), because usually the more in need of God's love the sinner is, the more likely he/she is to perform (5) in a more offensive way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question: How does one resolve this paradox?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's my take, but I'd like to hear other views: To me the late David Wilkerson epitomizes best what the solution to this paradox is. In &quot;The Cross and The Switchblade&quot;, he wrote of his words to Nicky Cruz “You could kill me Nicky. You could cut me in a thousand pieces and lay them out on the street. But every piece would cry out, Jesus loves you. And..............you’ll never be able to run from that.” And the empirical evidence showed that David Wilkerson was right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there other ways to resolve this paradox that don't involve such drastic exercises of compassion from Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1450" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-05-10T07:02:09.653" LastActivityDate="2012-05-10T07:02:09.653" Title="A paradox that arises from Christian duty as &quot;ambassador&quot;" Tags="&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-18T04:24:15.313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7598" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7606" CreationDate="2012-05-10T01:26:32.367" Score="30" ViewCount="5686" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today President Obama came out as the first U.S. president to support gay marriage.  In his address, he even quoted scripture to support his change of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love him or hate him, it seems clear that he has struggled personally over the issue, which leads me to think that Obama probably personally opposes homosexual behavior, but has come to the conclusion that permitting homosexual marriage is the right thing, and even the Christian thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is not about Obama's motives or his personal feelings. I simply bring this up as context, and to help explain the same intellectual struggle I'm dealing with personally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect many Christians find themselves in a similar situation of opposing homosexual behavior, but feeling caught in the debate over whether their moral/personal objection to homosexuality ought to have the force of law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for this question, I am seeking answers from the view point that homosexual behavior is a sin (there are &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/121/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality&quot;&gt;many&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/why-do-some-christians-believe-it-is-moral-to-be-a-homosexual&quot;&gt;other&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1086/does-god-create-some-people-heterosexual-and-others-homosexual&quot;&gt;questions&lt;/a&gt; that deal with this issue already, so please don't debate this issue here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question, then, is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Given that homosexual behavior is considered a sin, what is a Christian's justification for the legal prohibition against homosexual marriage?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm hoping for answers that cite Biblical principles, or at minimum theological and doctrinal principles.  I'm not interested in &quot;slippery slope&quot; arguments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strictly &quot;social&quot; justifications (&quot;I don't want my kids growing up in that sort of society,&quot; &quot;Legal marriage benefits exist because traditional marriage helps society in ways that homosexual marriage does not,&quot; etc), may be valid reasons to have such a view, but I don't consider them &lt;em&gt;Christian justification&lt;/em&gt;, so I would ask that such answers be omitted here (unless they can some how be tied specifically into Christian doctrine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also curious what, if anything, makes the homosexual marriage issue distinct among other moral issues that are legal, but not condoned by Christian teaching.  Adultery, sex outside of marriage, pornography, strip clubs, gambling, smoking, etc.  Should a Christian oppose the legality of all of these things as well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2014-06-17T14:20:58.553" Title="What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="8" ClosedDate="2021-04-29T00:30:36.410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7599" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7625" CreationDate="2012-05-10T01:41:51.277" Score="7" ViewCount="2934" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/05/07/soul-possession-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Freakonomics podcast&lt;/a&gt; had an interesting discussion about a guy who challenged an atheist to sell his soul. The guy who bought claimed to be a Christian. The trope, of course, goes back a long way - its not called a Faustian bargain for nothing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, however, is this. Is a man's soul something that belongs to him in the first place? Leaving aside for a minute that of the redeemed--namely those &quot;bought by the blood of Christ,&quot; I wonder if the unsaved actually have possession of their own soul, and if so, if they would have rights to transfer it to another. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, then it would beg the question, what right does God have to redeem it. Own it, I could understand, since he made it--but how could he transfer it from someone else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a person does own their own soul, what is the mechanism by which it can be transferred? How would one know? What rights would adhere thereto?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, does Faust actually make sense in Christian framework?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-05-24T16:48:13.203" LastActivityDate="2014-07-16T06:39:28.537" Title="Can a non-Christian sell his soul?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7597" CreationDate="2012-05-10T01:47:09.317" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with the paradox, as I see it, is with one of your premises:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5) These non-Christian modes of behaviour, such as the books published by Dawkins, inevitably offend many Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Christians may be offended by Dawkins, they should not love him any less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly this is not always the reality.  Many Christians do take offense at those who disagree with them, often violently, as seen throughout history.  But to the extent that Christians respond out of hatred rather than out of love, they are not behaving as Christians ought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-45&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:43-45, NIV&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;But I tell you, &lt;strong&gt;love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this verse, we see that a Christian's response to one like Dawkins (who &quot;persecutes&quot; Christians--at least intellectually, I don't think he's ever physically persecuted them), is to pray for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian who prays for Dawkins is not likely to have an ugly confrontation with him, should they ever meet. Instead, he will share God's love with him (your point #2), whether Dawkins ever accepts Christ or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2012-05-10T01:47:09.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7598" CreationDate="2012-05-10T01:51:30.997" Score="55" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Romans 1, we understand that homosexual activity is a result of a people who know God, but choose not to glorify Him as God. In other words, it is a symptom of a society that has rejected God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a theological point of view, a Christian could oppose gay marriage on the grounds that his government is, acting on his behalf, calling &quot;evil good and good evil,&quot; directly rejecting the prescribed order. It is tantamount to the society as a whole rejecting God. As one who has a vested interest in not rejecting God, I do not want my government, acting on my behalf, endorsing that which I detest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an active endorsement of a sin, as opposed to mere toleration as would be the case with merely allowing activities that are otherwise sinful.  Indeed, all of what is listed could be considered &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiaphora&quot;&gt;adiaphora&lt;/a&gt; - it is clearly not good stuff, and is actively discouraged amongst those who choose to follow &quot;The Way,&quot; but there is no justification for legal compulsion to the contrary.  In contrast, a government explicitly deriving its &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/&quot;&gt;power from the consent of the governed&lt;/a&gt; is making a explicit endorsement of the normative nature of same-sex relationships in declaring marriage &quot;equal&quot; to heterosexual relationships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(For the non Christians, a quick disclaimer. I understand we live in a pluralistic society. I realize I would be &quot;imposing my beliefs&quot; on others with this argument. I am simply answering the question, not even taking a stand - though today's news did greatly sadden me. Please vote on the theological justification, do not impose your &quot;tolerance&quot; and pluralism on me. You will note, I am not calling for the pitchforks. I'm just choosing to exercise my rights as a citizen to voice my disapproval, and to show that contrary to what people say, it does affect me.  )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, a Christian would argue that marriage is an institution ordained by God, not a function of the state. When Jesus said, &quot;for this reason a man shall leave his mother and cling to his wife,&quot; it is because that is the order which God prescribed. A Christian response would ask why the state gets to (re-)define that which God has defined and put together. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally, the real question has less to do with homosexuality itself, and far more to do with the question of whether marriage is a secular or a theological institution. As one who sees marriage as predating governments, I tend to think its none of the government's business.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-07-02T12:30:39.230" LastActivityDate="2012-07-02T12:30:39.230" CommentCount="21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7599" CreationDate="2012-05-10T05:21:35.870" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to &quot;sell your soul&quot;? It's not like I can hand someone my soul in a box in exchange for $20.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to &quot;own your soul&quot;? The soul is generally understood to mean your true self, your mind, your personality. Do you &quot;own your mind&quot;? As opposed to what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like saying that you offer to &quot;sell your country&quot;. A traitor could give away valuable military secrets in wartime in exchange for cash. In that sense you could &quot;sell your country&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Christian point of view, a Faustian deal to sell your soul to the Devil is possible in the sense that someone could make a deal with the Devil that he will not accept Christ in exchange for money, sex, etc in this life. I don't know if the Devil actually appears to people and literally makes such an offer, but clearly many people make exactly such a &quot;deal&quot; in a non-literal sense. Plenty of people reject Christ because they don't want to give up their sins. They say, &quot;Hey, I like the pleasure I get from promiscous sex and drugs, I enjoy the money that I get from cheating and robbing people, etc. Accepting Christ would mean turning my back on that lifestyle, so no way am I going to accept this Christ stuff.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-05-10T14:31:14.950" LastActivityDate="2012-05-10T14:31:14.950" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7597" CreationDate="2012-05-10T05:57:35.683" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians often say that we should &quot;love the sinner but hate the sin&quot;, and refer to this as a paradox. This completely misses the point. Sin might seem fun or pleasant for a time, but in the long run it destroys. It destroys our relationships with other people, it robs us of dignity, and of course it separates us from God. It is like a disease. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My best friend in college died of a terrible, wasting disease. It sapped his strength and destroyed his ability to function. He spent his last few month in his death bed basically just waiting to die. Would you expect me to say, &quot;This disease is a part of him. It fills his body. It dominates his life. Therefore if I love my friend, I should love this disease&quot;? That would be absurd. It is equally absurd to say, &quot;I love my friend, BUT I hate his disease.&quot; No, the rational thing to say is, &quot;I love my friend, AND THEREFORE I hate this disease.&quot; I hated the disease to exactly the same extent that I loved my friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disease my friend died of was AIDS. There was no mystery how he got it: he was a practicing homosexual. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Even aside from the physical effects, I saw how it destroyed his life. He never knew what it meant to love and be loved by a woman. He never enjoyed sex as God intended it. It destroyed his relationship with other men. Would you expect me to say, &quot;Homosexuality is a part of him. It was how he was born. It is his lifestyle. Therefore if I love my friend, I should love his homosexuality&quot;? That would be absurd. It is equally absurd to say, &quot;I love my friend, BUT I hate his sin.&quot; No, the rational thing to say is, &quot;I love my friend, AND THEREFORE I hate his sin.&quot; I hated his sin to exactly the same extent that I loved my friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know Richard Dawkins, so I can't love him in any but the most abstract sense. But if I did know him and love him as a friend, I would hate his atheism, not because it hurts me in any way, but because it hurts him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course sin can and does hurt people other than the person doing it: there are often direct victims. Stealing destroys the soul of the thief, but of course it also deprives the person robbed of his physical wealth. Sometimes non-Christians do things to actively hurt Christians. I'm talking about real persecution, like imprisoning, torturing, and killing people, as goes on in many parts of the world. In such a case a Christian might hate his persecutor for the harm he has done him. In that case he hates the sin, not because he loves the sinner, but because he loves himself. If someone is tortured, I can't condemn him for hating his torturer. I certainly don't claim that I would not. But surely it is a great thing when someone can love his torturer, and care more about the soul of the torturer than about his own life. That is the example of Christ, and many Christians throughout history have managed to follow it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-05-10T07:00:56.193" LastActivityDate="2012-05-10T07:00:56.193" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7599" CreationDate="2012-05-10T09:15:13.033" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to make an assertion here (and I would be very happy to be shown wrong, in which case I'll readily delete this): there is no Biblical support &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt; for the concept of soul selling (or indeed of any other kind of explicit pact). The entire notion is a non-scriptural invention, along with such things (now generally denounced) as limbo for non-baptised children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without any scriptural support, all that is left is human invention, exaggeration and fancifulness &lt;sub&gt;(bites tongue hard to avoid obvious additional comment)&lt;/sub&gt;. In the absence of any scriptural basis to an answer, one would have to assume&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;there is no basis to believe that &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; can sell their soul, or that any being is interested in purchasing it&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(for the Christian meaning of &quot;soul&quot;). Any other answer would be pure speculation, or building upon &lt;em&gt;traditions&lt;/em&gt; that are themselves based on pure speculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-05-10T09:15:13.033" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7598" CreationDate="2012-05-10T10:34:36.227" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;To directly answer the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key claim here &lt;em&gt;tends&lt;/em&gt; to be the assertion that Christianity (via Judaism) defines marriage (itself a tenuous claim, with polygamy being common, and no formal final definition) and pre-dates civil institutions (claimed since if you use the Biblical account, marriage goes right back to genesis, therefore to the start). And the Bible defines marriage as one woman and one man. This is then used to make a claim that marriage is therefore &quot;owned&quot;  by religion (and specifically, in this case, Christianity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To offer some commentary on the above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is: that only works &lt;strong&gt;if you accept the Bible as literally true&lt;/strong&gt;, which even many Christians do not (and &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; for books such as Genesis). Most countries are run via neither theonomy nor theocracy, and the Bible is rarely used as the code of law. History shows many examples of cultures that have had fully legal and official homosexual marriages, right up until Christianity came along and made them illegal (often, as was the case in Rome, executing those already married as such). If you don't presume the Bible's claim of marital authority (which indeed, a government in a pluralistic society should not, and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;explicitly must not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; in the case of the US), then that leaves marriage as a legal institution, not a religious one. This is then further supported by pre-existing rules on marriage &lt;strong&gt;by the state&lt;/strong&gt;, such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;having marriage available for other religions (yes, other religions define marriage too, and their claim has equal validity when compared from the out-group)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;having marriage available for atheists (not an &quot;under God&quot; thing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;having divorce via the legal courts, and subsequent re-marriage (which is shunned under various parts of Christianity, and accepted in others)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the fact that marriage laws have been redefined by the courts many times (since the question states US: such as to make interracial marriage illegal, then finally finally legalized, and changes such as where marriage can occur, and who can officiate)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;many well versed figures have concluded that marriage does not belong to religion; Luther describes this very claim as a &quot;farce&quot; (his words, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/IXUyr2&quot;&gt;http://bit.ly/IXUyr2&lt;/a&gt; - sorry, it was hard to &quot;site&quot; the link, but that entire chapter applies; scan up about half a page for the start of the chapter)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;having many legal privileges &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;unrelated to religion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (health, tax, end-of-life, property) tied to marriage highlights that there is much more at stake here than religion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the claim that any single religion &quot;owns&quot; the definition of marriage &lt;em&gt;in the legal sense&lt;/em&gt; is more than a bit wobbly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many ways, this shows a lot of similarity to the Catholic =&gt; Church of England issue around divorce and re-marriage; which suggests the potentially interesting future possibility (drawing directly on the above as comparison) that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(and this is a speculative outcome)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in civil terms, fully legal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in religious terms, some denominations will accept it &lt;strong&gt;and administer it&lt;/strong&gt;, some denominations will outright block it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I think that (^^^) is our collective best hope for an agreeable outcome, that doesn't trample the rights of anyone. I think we're tantalisingly close to the first bullet, although I honestly think we're about a generation away from the second (but I would hope to see it much sooner).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(indeed, many Christian groups have no &quot;anti&quot; position here; Quakers, UCC, etc)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-05-12T22:53:08.073" LastActivityDate="2012-05-12T22:53:08.073" CommentCount="34" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7614" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-11T04:12:29.817" Score="7" ViewCount="571" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few years ago, I tried to explain to the 7th-8th graders in my catechism class how awesome St. Francis was.  I told 'em about him giving up all his stuff and rebuilding the Church etc... but, for whatever reason, when I had them read &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canticle_of_the_Sun&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the canticle of the sun&lt;/a&gt; it didn't do anything for them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I reckon that in St. Francis' way, this is a very humble way of looking at creation.  But it more or less fails to resonate with me or my students.  What do 21st century Catholic critics (Pope Francis, for instance) say the Canticle of the Sun says to 21st century Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-01-23T23:01:44.723" LastActivityDate="2017-07-22T18:52:05.467" Title="According to 21st century Catholic critics, what's so great about the Canticle of the Sun?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7615" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7682" CreationDate="2012-05-11T04:50:57.210" Score="5" ViewCount="708" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the sense that the doctrine of &lt;strong&gt;self-examination&lt;/strong&gt; figures large in the writings of the Puritans (and perhaps other old-school Reformed theologians); however, I do not know nearly as much about it as I would like, as I am only at the very beginning of my study of the old Reformed theologians. What did the old Reformed theologians, particularly the Puritans, teach about the Christian practice of examining oneself—how it is to be done, its importance, what its purpose and result is, and where it arises from the Scriptures? What works by the Reformers and the Puritans might I turn to to study this teaching further? I would also be pleased if any answers wanted to include some addition information about what other Christian traditions have said about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T22:04:23.447" Title="Self-Examination in Reformed Practical Theology" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7616" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-11T04:52:49.627" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-05-11T04:52:49.627" LastActivityDate="2012-05-11T04:52:49.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7617" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-11T04:52:49.627" Score="0" Body="Doctrine which deals explicitly and directly with Christian life and practice." OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="1481" LastEditDate="2012-05-11T05:01:01.540" LastActivityDate="2012-05-11T05:01:01.540" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7618" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-11T05:15:42.670" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-05-11T05:15:42.670" LastActivityDate="2012-05-11T05:15:42.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7619" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-11T05:15:42.670" Score="0" Body="The doctrine that anything not commanded in the (public) worship of God is forbidden." OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-05-11T06:17:57.587" LastActivityDate="2012-05-11T06:17:57.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7598" CreationDate="2012-05-11T19:38:45.093" Score="-2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of&#xA;homosexual marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For a Christian, &amp;quot;homosexual marriage&amp;quot; is a abomination, not a &amp;quot;marriage&amp;quot;; God defined what &amp;quot;marriage&amp;quot; is:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:24 man will leave his father and mother and be united to his&#xA;wife, and they will become one flesh&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Christian cannot accept any kind of homosexual activity, because this behavior defies God. Defiance toward God brings total depravity, death of society, and eternal sufferings - all consequences of rejecting God.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 1:23-32 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images&#xA;made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.&#xA;Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of&#xA;their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with&#xA;one another.&#xA;Because of this, God gave them over to&#xA;shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for&#xA;unnatural ones.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;In the same way the men also abandoned&#xA;natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one&#xA;another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and &lt;strong&gt;received in&#xA;themselves the due penalty for their perversion&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Furthermore, &lt;strong&gt;since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the&#xA;knowledge of God&lt;/strong&gt;, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what&#xA;ought not to be done. &lt;strong&gt;They have become filled with every&#xA;kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity&lt;/strong&gt;. They are full of envy,&#xA;murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,&#xA;slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent&#xA;ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are&#xA;senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they&#xA;know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve&#xA;death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve&#xA;of those who practice them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Christian doesn't need to assume anything or to experience consequences of the laws toleranting homosexual activities, because already has the examples in history (the bible is also a historic book):&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 29:22 Your children who follow you in later generations&#xA;and foreigners who come from distant lands will see the calamities&#xA;that have fallen on the land and the diseases with which the Lord has&#xA;afflicted it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 29:23 The whole land will be a burning&#xA;waste of salt and sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no&#xA;vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and&#xA;Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in fierce anger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;God warns the rulers, that make countries a Sodom's land:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 1:10 &lt;strong&gt;Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom&lt;/strong&gt;; listen to&#xA;the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 1:16-17 ...wash and&#xA;make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop&#xA;doing wrong, learn to do right! &lt;strong&gt;Seek justice, encourage&#xA;the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of&#xA;the widow.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them;&#xA;they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them!&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;They have brought disaster upon themselves&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude 1:6-7 ... who did not&#xA;keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these&#xA;he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on&#xA;the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the&#xA;surrounding towns gave themselves up&#xA;to sexual immorality and perversion. &lt;strong&gt;They serve as an example of those&#xA;who suffer the punishment of eternal fire&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Christian is prepared to submit to rulers ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 2:13-14 &lt;strong&gt;Submit&lt;/strong&gt; yourselves &lt;strong&gt;for the Lord’s sake to&lt;/strong&gt; every authority&#xA;instituted among men: whether to the king, as &lt;strong&gt;the supreme authority,&#xA;or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who&#xA;do wrong and to commend those who do right&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 29:4 By justice&#xA;a king gives a country stability&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;... and to support them in their actions ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Timothy 2:1-2 First of all, then, I urge you to offer to God&#xA;petitions, prayers, intercessions, and expressions of thanks for all&#xA;people, for kings, and for everyone who has authority,&#xA;so that &lt;strong&gt;we might lead a quiet and peaceful life with all godliness and&#xA;dignity&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;... only if doesn't contradicts with God's ways.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “&lt;strong&gt;We must obey God&#xA;rather than men!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Christian is not judging peoples, even they call themselves homosexuals or not ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside&#xA;the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;... or appealing somehow to the authority justice against their persons.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 6:1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his&#xA;neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the&#xA;saints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Christian fights against devil's schemes ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 6:11-12 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your&#xA;stand against the devil's schemes. &lt;strong&gt;For our struggle is&#xA;not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the&#xA;authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the&#xA;spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;... and when the battle is losed, a Christian goes out from the depraved society ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore &lt;strong&gt;come out from them and be separate&lt;/strong&gt;, says&#xA;the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 18:26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of&#xA;Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;... to let to come God's wrath early ...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, dear friends, but leave room for&#xA;God's wrath. For it is written, &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;Vengeance belongs to me&lt;/strong&gt;. I will pay&#xA;them back, declares the Lord.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;... for the death of the sinful nature to may save the spirits&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 5:5 hand this man over to Satan, so &lt;strong&gt;that the sinful&#xA;nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved&lt;/strong&gt; on the day of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 18:9 When the kings of the earth who committed adultery&#xA;with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will&#xA;weep and mourn over her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be seen on this forum, not only in this topic, that supporters of homosexuality or other sins, or the ignorants on this subject, they don't care about the sins, and souls, and God.&#xA;They need definitions for these to make text analysis, silogistic constructions, valid assertions or just nice jokes playing with words ... avoiding the essence: disastrous consequences of the sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-12T23:41:15.450" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7624" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-11T21:23:26.080" Score="7" ViewCount="10190" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Pardon the length - my original post was more concise, but wasn't clearly conveying my question.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Background:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am currently studying the Spiritual Disciplines at a Protestant seminary.  For those unfamiliar with this term, I will give a very brief explanation.  Paul instructs Timothy to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;discipline&lt;/strong&gt; yourself for the purpose of godliness... For it is for this we &lt;strong&gt;labor&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;strive&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204:7-10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- 1 Timothy 4:7-10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, one Spiritual Discipline which is generally recognized among Protestant theologians is fellowship (or regular church attendance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, &lt;strong&gt;not forsaking our own assembling together&lt;/strong&gt;, as is the &lt;strong&gt;habit&lt;/strong&gt; of some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:24-25&amp;amp;version=NASB%5D&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Hebrews 10:24-25&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically the idea is that there are certain &lt;strong&gt;disciplines&lt;/strong&gt; which followers of Christ are called to &lt;strong&gt;practice regularly&lt;/strong&gt;. Despite the overwhelming witness from &quot;Church Fathers&quot; regarding the extreme importance of such disciplines, many Protestant theologians have called this the &lt;strong&gt;single greatest weakness in modern Protestantism&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;(Complete rejection of the doctrine of Spiritual Disciplines is a very modern position.)&lt;/em&gt; For the record, this is not &quot;works-based salvation&quot;; it is not &quot;earning God's acceptance&quot;; it is not church-mandated religion; it is simply a mature personal response to God's call for followers of Christ to be serious and intentional in following Him in all the ways which He has called us to follow Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please note: My question has nothing to do with &lt;em&gt;whether&lt;/em&gt; we should practice Spiritual Disciplines, or what &lt;em&gt;value&lt;/em&gt; they have.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Confession as a Spiritual Discipline&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One commonly recognized Spiritual Discipline is &lt;strong&gt;confession&lt;/strong&gt;.  The following passage is used to draw attention to the importance of confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, &lt;strong&gt;confess your sins to one another&lt;/strong&gt;, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%205:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- James 5:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although Scripture does not (to my knowledge) explicitly command us to make regular practice of this, the idea behind the Protestant doctrine of Spiritual Disciplines is that we &lt;strong&gt;practice&lt;/strong&gt; right behavior intentionally and &lt;strong&gt;diligently&lt;/strong&gt;, including things like confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rejection of the Catholic implementation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My impression is that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luther took issue with how the Catholic Church &lt;strong&gt;viewed&lt;/strong&gt; confession.  (i.e. working your way into right standing with God, intermediary &quot;Priests&quot;, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luther did &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; take issue with confession as a &lt;strong&gt;practice&lt;/strong&gt; (Discipline)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luther rejected &lt;strong&gt;practices&lt;/strong&gt; which he deemed heretical, while retaining others&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Somewhere along the line, the &lt;strong&gt;practice&lt;/strong&gt; of confession in Protestant churches took a completely different &lt;strong&gt;form&lt;/strong&gt; than in Catholicism.  (Perhaps when Luther's band split?)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Protestant theologians have long regarded confession as an important Spiritual Discipline&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Modern Protestant believers are generally very undisciplined about confession&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;My question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I began to wonder if there might be aspects to the Catholic implementation which Protestants should have retained (from a Protestant perspective, of course).  For example, Catholic confession seems to be &lt;strong&gt;any time&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;any sin&lt;/strong&gt; (and indeed &lt;strong&gt;every sin&lt;/strong&gt;), &lt;strong&gt;private&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;anonymous&lt;/strong&gt;, etc.  As a Protestant, this sounds like a very good idea - if Protestant churches had such a &quot;booth&quot; available, I wonder if Protestants wouldn't be more disciplined in this practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I became very curious... Why didn't Protestants just replace the &quot;Priest&quot; with a Pastor, guard against thinking of it as &quot;working your way up to God&quot;, and retain the rest of these potentially valuable elements?  Furthermore, if a Catholic Priest was a believer, and didn't think of confession as &quot;earning salvation&quot;, what would be wrong (from a Protestant perspective) with Catholic confession in that case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What I am specifically looking for:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When&lt;/strong&gt; did the Protestant church reject the Catholic &lt;strong&gt;method&lt;/strong&gt; of practicing confession?  (Again, not the &lt;em&gt;views&lt;/em&gt;, but the &lt;em&gt;elements&lt;/em&gt; I just mentioned.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why&lt;/strong&gt; were these &lt;strong&gt;methods&lt;/strong&gt; originally rejected?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there any reasons why the Catholic &lt;strong&gt;methods&lt;/strong&gt; should still be rejected &lt;strong&gt;today&lt;/strong&gt; (according to Protestant doctrine)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If not, would a Protestant find value in participating in Catholic confession today?  (I am of course asking about the church's doctrinal position, not personal opinions.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there modern Protestant groups which participate in confession at Catholic churches?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-05-18T21:00:21.533" LastActivityDate="2020-10-28T21:51:57.880" Title="Protestant rejection of the Catholic implementation of confession" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7599" CreationDate="2012-05-12T09:39:02.600" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;To sell something (legally), we have to own it. I believe that we have no ownership over our souls, disregarding of our religion beliefs. I beleave that we, &lt;strong&gt;our souls belongs to God&lt;/strong&gt;, our Creator:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+18%3A4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 18:4(NIV):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;For everyone belongs to Me, the parent as well as the child—both alike&#xA;  belong to Me.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This opinion has confirmation in one of known purposes of our creation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Colossians&#xA;  1:16(NIV):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,&#xA;  visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or&#xA;  authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Jesus Christ saved our souls from upon authority of sin and death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:20-23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Romans 6:20-23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free&#xA;  from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at&#xA;  that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result&#xA;  in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have&#xA;  become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the&#xA;  result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift&#xA;  of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a slaves (or servants) we cannot sell ourselves. While we are belonging to God, we have a choice of the way we want to live our lives, so it is similar to &lt;em&gt;renting&lt;/em&gt;. I believe we are renting our soul or, rather, our Lord gave us our souls to rule temporarly, the same way as in &lt;strong&gt;parable about talents&lt;/strong&gt; (&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:14-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:14-30 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;) or &lt;strong&gt;parable about mines&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=+Luke+19%3A12-27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 19:12-27 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;), see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas&quot;&gt;wiki article&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we cannot &lt;em&gt;sell&lt;/em&gt; our soul, but we can &lt;em&gt;destroy&lt;/em&gt; it by sins and by rejecting God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:8&#xA;  (NIV):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all&#xA;  liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.&#xA;  This is the second death.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the other point of view on soul selling is living for the sake of wealth, &lt;em&gt;serving to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon&quot;&gt;Mammon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:24&#xA;  (NIV):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love&#xA;  the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.&#xA;  You cannot serve both God and money.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="146" LastActivityDate="2012-05-12T09:39:02.600" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7626" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7993" CreationDate="2012-05-12T20:37:13.993" Score="4" ViewCount="2765" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romans 12 is said to describe &quot;spiritual gifts&quot;.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5194/1548&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt;, for instance.)  Such gifts are often regarded as being granted supernaturally to specific Christians, who are then specially able to exercise them.  My question is for Christians who hold such a view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since we have &lt;strong&gt;gifts&lt;/strong&gt; that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; &lt;strong&gt;he who leads&lt;/strong&gt;, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:6-8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;-(Romans 12:6-8)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the spiritual gift of &quot;leadership&quot;, how is it described in the Bible, and how is it unique to specially-gifted Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-06-11T18:22:45.783" Title="What is the Biblical view of &quot;the spiritual gift of leadership&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;leadership&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7598" CreationDate="2012-05-12T23:10:40.073" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found this question and conversation very interesting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Audience&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, I think it is important to identify which Christians' justifications are actually relevant.  For Christians who regard homosexuality as a sin, there are a few potential courses of action:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Talk about it.  (This may include preaching, complaining, arguing, etc.)  If this talk never leads to political action, I'm not sure why this person would have (or need) a &quot;justification for legal prohibition&quot;.  (It would be a bit like one American asking another American, &quot;What is your justification for North Korea submitting a request to join the United States?&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Become a legislator.  (In America, voters would fall into this category.)  The legislator, being &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;appointed by God&lt;/a&gt;, would first need to answer the question, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Should our country be governed by God's laws?&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (which I answer &quot;yes&quot; in &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7220/1548&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;) followed by the question &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Should a nation governed by God's laws condemn homosexuality?&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (which I will answer in a moment.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Leave.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:1,4-7,12-13,24-25,29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God called Lot to leave Sodom prior to destroying the city for their great wickedness (most notably, sodomy.)&lt;/a&gt; Point being - legislation isn't always the answer God is seeking.  If you have reached the stage of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:14-15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;shaking the dust off your feet&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and leaving a place, one might even argue that it would be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:11-12,%20Proverbs%2016:4,%20Jude%201:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;better to allow God to bring such a place to judgment&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, I would argue that the only relevant answer would be to the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Should a nation governed by God's laws condemn homosexuality?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As you indicated, we are presupposing that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;homosexuality is a sin&lt;/a&gt;.  (In fact, it is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the result of deep depravity&lt;/a&gt;.)  Scripture teaches us that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:3-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God's expectation is for those in authority to punish evil&lt;/a&gt;.  Therefore, I believe it makes sense for a nation following God's intentions to outlaw homosexuality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I am assuming we all acknowledge that one of the primary functions of government is to protect its citizens.  Given that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:1,4-7,12-13,24-25,29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God's reaction&lt;/a&gt; to Sodom for their outrageous sins (most notably sodomy) was to wipe them off the face of the planet as an example to everyone else, it seems wise for legislators seeking the welfare of their citizens to guard against walking after the ways of Sodom!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Objections&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common retort takes the form of, &quot;Then why not make it illegal to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2022:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;mix fabrics&lt;/a&gt; too?&quot;  I can't answer every specific instance of this objection in my post, but I will address questions of this form.  In general, questions of this form either arise from ignorance (e.g. many laws were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:16-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;mere shadows of what was to come&lt;/a&gt;), or are legitimate.  If they are legitimate, then it is not an objection - it is an additional point to argue in favor of when designing legislation!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-05-12T23:37:45.997" CommentCount="23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7598" CreationDate="2012-05-13T02:21:57.853" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me restate your question to clarify one possible Christian viewpoint on the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Given that homosexual behavior is considered a sin, what is a Christian's justification for the legal prohibition against homosexual marriage?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's reverse this question and look at it from both sides.  The request for government protection of homosexual marriage, and the reasons that the government should not do so from a Christian perspective.  Then to your second point (slightly paraphrased below):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should a Christian oppose the legality of other moral issues that are legal, but not condoned by Christian teaching?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today the US federal government, protects the institution of marriage as defined, one man and one woman.  Governments also protect civil rights.  Protection against religious persecution. Freedom of speech, and also barring racial discrimination, just to name a few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some believe it's also discriminatory to oppose homosexual marriage, but in the public square, there are many different opinions on any topic.  It's quite easy to find opposing arguments on moral issues, as well as political ones.  The important part of this is that all ideas be heard.  Good ideas and opinions will stand the test of time.  Bad ones will not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what we have are two opposing world views.  One where anything goes, I want to do my own thing, I want to define marriage any way I want to. Just give me the liberty to live as I want. So long as two people love each other, how can that be bad?  How can good people oppose that?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then the other world view that says, Yes I do have free will and I do have choice. But I bow in submission to a loving God...not a cosmic bully who wants to beat me to death with his rules, but a loving God who says, here's a parameter. I've made man and I've made woman and I've made the institution of marriage. And when you step outside that institution and you engage in sexual activity, you're going to get hurt. And because our God loves us unconditionally, he hates it when we get hurt. And so we speak out and we speak the truth. And it isn't a matter of saying, well, we're haters because we have an opposing belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's true is we are all sinners. Christians and homosexuals, but we are sinners that are loved by an unconditional God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians are not &quot;imposing their belief system&quot; nor are homosexuals &quot;imposing their belief system&quot;.  What is true is we have opposing views on the subject.  Christian doctrine on the subject is clear,  God calls homosexuality a sin. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10 among others).  Certainly not the worst ones in God's sight, but His stance is clear on the topic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone is a sinner whether straight, gay, black, white, nice, bad, greedy, giving. Because all of us have sinned, (Romans 3:23) no one has a clean slate before God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone is condemned (John 3:18) unless we accept the free gift of salvation, which comes through the Grace of God, by faith in Jesus Christ. The free gift is available to all people. It's our choice to believe or reject it.  That's the Christian faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So given the Christians position that we know God loves us and doesn't want to see anyone hurt by sinful choices.  We stand with God on this and all other issues God is quite clear on in the bible. Not out of hate, but with the same compassion for someone else in the bondage of sin.  So the real question is, should all choices be protected?  Or are some better choices? Christians should speak the truth in love.  If that means speaking an opposing view.  Should opposition change the truth?  I think not.  Truth cannot be changed, only discovered. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1638" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-05-13T04:27:03.157" LastActivityDate="2012-05-13T04:27:03.157" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7629" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-13T02:59:18.623" Score="6" ViewCount="449" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throughout the New Testament, the language of money is used to discuss sin and the gospel: words like debt, forgiveness, redeem, and impute. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Colossians 2 explains forgiveness of trespasses as cancellation of &lt;strong&gt;debt&lt;/strong&gt;. This brings in both the metaphor of a trespass as a debt and the concept that such a debt can be cancelled or &quot;set aside&quot; as part of regeneration by &quot;nailing it to the cross&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Romans 3, those who are &quot;justified by his grace&quot; are said to be done so &quot;as a gift, through the &lt;strong&gt;redemption&lt;/strong&gt; that is in Christ Jesus.&quot; Here justification (or righteousness) is made to be something that can be given as a gift, and it is done so by &lt;em&gt;redeeming&lt;/em&gt; one as from bondage. Redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις here) language is often connected with paying the debt of someone else; often someone who has been made a slave to the creditor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the language of &quot;imputation&quot; is sometimes used, in which funds are &quot;transferred&quot; from one account to another, at least on paper. I use the quotes and qualification to point out that there is no physical transference of monies, but rather, the funds are &quot;counted&quot; or &quot;imputed&quot; to the other account. This is not especially difference from the electronic transactions we have today. Romans 4 uses this language as a way of explaining how God gives righteousness to those who have faith in Jesus: &quot;And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is &lt;strong&gt;counted&lt;/strong&gt; as righteousness.&quot; Other translations here say that faith is &quot;credited&quot; is righteousness, or &quot;reckoned&quot; or &quot;accounted&quot;, or can be translated &quot;imputed&quot;. The Greek word here is λογίζεται, and these are all accounting terms with this same meaning in this context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is two-fold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does the Old Testament use this sort of language to refer to sin and righteousness?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In these Old Testament usages of monetary/accounting language, is such a concept of a transaction included, whereby sin is taken on by God, or that man is redeemed, his sin-debt forgiven, or righteousness granted?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="44" LastEditDate="2012-05-13T13:08:13.340" LastActivityDate="2012-05-14T00:19:48.703" Title="Does New Testament accounting language have any Old Testament backing?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;word-study&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7575" CreationDate="2012-05-13T08:39:21.330" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said the only sin that will not be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So what is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pride, the type that tells you that you own yourself, that you are your own master, your own God.  This kind of pride shuts the Holy Spirit out and makes itself king.  When your ego declares itself God over you, that is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-05-13T08:39:21.330" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7624" CreationDate="2012-05-13T13:20:24.287" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As believers in the priesthood of all believers, it is not that Baptists (and many other Protestants) reject confession per se- it's that we reject the idea that said confession must be mediated through the local priest. Ideally, we should be confessing our sins in a &quot;small group&quot; type setting if we are being faithful to what Luther, Calvin, et. Al proscribed, but the truth is that most Peorestants (myself included) like to pretend that we need absolutely no &quot;intermediary&quot; between ourselves and God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say this not out of arrogance, but more as one who knows he should do real confession with a priest, but sadly justifies himself instead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-05-13T13:20:24.287" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7615" CreationDate="2012-05-13T20:46:31.927" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;So far I have found the following works, but have not had time to study them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The address on self-examination in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/111764345X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Discourses Suited to the Administration of the Lord's Supper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; by John Brown&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B007MAFTCK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Necessity of Self-Examination&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; by Jonathan Edwards (apparently in audio form &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&amp;amp;currSection=sermonstopic&amp;amp;sourceid=ccc&amp;amp;keyword=Jonathan+Edwards&amp;amp;keyworddesc=Jonathan+Edwards&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1463708467&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Practical Religion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by J. C. Ryle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also found these sermons, but have not studied them yet either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&amp;amp;sermonID=860521189&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;One by Joel Beeke&lt;/a&gt;, who has saturated himself in the Puritans.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&amp;amp;currSection=sermonstopic&amp;amp;sourceid=gbc&amp;amp;keyword=Richard+Baxter+Self+Exam&amp;amp;keyworddesc=Richard+Baxter+Self+Exam&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;series&lt;/a&gt; which seems to be about Richard Baxter's treatment of self-examination, by a man I'm unfamiliar with&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0218.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;One by Charles Spurgeon&lt;/a&gt;, a Reformed Baptist with close affinities to the Puritans (this is a transcript)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also intend to look up the relevant passages in Calvin's &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt;, his commentaries, and John Gill's and Matthew Henry's commentaries. I intend to report further...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastActivityDate="2012-05-13T20:46:31.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7629" CreationDate="2012-05-14T00:19:48.703" Score="7" Body="&lt;h2&gt;1. Accounting Language&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is of course a different language, but yes, the same sort of language is present in the OT as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Repayment - for good &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; for evil&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the LORD is a God of &lt;strong&gt;recompense&lt;/strong&gt;, He will fully &lt;strong&gt;repay&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2051:56&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 51:56&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore the LORD has &lt;strong&gt;recompensed&lt;/strong&gt; me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2018:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 18:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Requite&lt;/strong&gt; them according to their work and according to the evil of their practices; &lt;strong&gt;Requite&lt;/strong&gt; them according to the deeds of their hands; &lt;strong&gt;Repay&lt;/strong&gt; them their &lt;strong&gt;recompense&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2028:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 28:4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Our Redeemer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As for me, I know that my &lt;strong&gt;Redeemer&lt;/strong&gt; lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2019:25&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 19:25&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel; I will help you,” declares the LORD, “ and your &lt;strong&gt;Redeemer&lt;/strong&gt; is the Holy One of Israel.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2041:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 41:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Seeking true profit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Riches do not &lt;strong&gt;profit&lt;/strong&gt; in the day of wrath, But righteousness delivers from death.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2011:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 11:4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus says the LORD, your &lt;strong&gt;Redeemer&lt;/strong&gt;, the Holy One of Israel, “I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to &lt;strong&gt;profit&lt;/strong&gt;, Who leads you in the way you should go.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2048:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 48:17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding. For her &lt;strong&gt;profit&lt;/strong&gt; is better than the &lt;strong&gt;profit&lt;/strong&gt; of silver and her gain better than fine gold.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%203:13-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 3:13-14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Debt&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The one who despises the word will be in &lt;strong&gt;debt&lt;/strong&gt; to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2013:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 13:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Forgiveness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But You are a God of &lt;strong&gt;forgiveness&lt;/strong&gt;, Gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%209:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nehemiah 9:17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Transaction / Imputation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, the concept of transaction is also present in the Old Testament.  The words aren't used explicitly, but the transaction should be apparent from the text:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed... the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 53&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-05-14T00:19:48.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7624" CreationDate="2012-05-14T07:18:18.053" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the most direct Bible verse on this subject is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Tim 2:5 &quot;For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men,&#xA;  the Man Christ Jesus&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians do not need any mediator besides Jesus. Specifically, we do not need a priest to stand between us and Jesus. Jesus is the mediator. We don't need a mediator to speak to the mediator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Peter 2:9 &quot;But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a&#xA;  holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises&#xA;  of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are all priests, not just a special class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 23:8-9 &quot;But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your&#xA;  Teacher, the Christ,and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on&#xA;  earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In context, I don't think Jesus meant that we should not call our male biological parent &quot;father&quot;, but rather, that we should not consider anyone our spiritual father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know of anything in the Bible that commands or even suggests that we should confess our sins to a priest. The only instruction I can find to confess to anyone other than God is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 5:16 &quot;Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one&#xA;  another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a&#xA;  righteous man avails much.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this doesn't say anything about having a special class of priests to hear these confessions, much less a specific ritual of confession booths, penance, etc. It says to confess your sins to each other. The phrase &quot;one another&quot; implies that any believer might at one moment be confessing and the next moment hearing confessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I would ask the opposite question from yours: What scriptural basis do Catholics offer for requring people to go to a priest to confess?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary reason why Protestants reject confession today is the principle of Sola Scriptura: that all doctrine must ultimately originate in scripture, and we see no  scriptural basis for this practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess a case could be made that it is a good thing to do even if it is not required by scripture. There are many things that are good to do even though they are not required. (Like, the Bible does not command me to brush my teeth, but that doesn't make tooth-brushing a sin.) But I would say that is wrong to tell Christians that it is required, or that confessing to a priest offers any benefit greater than confessing directly to Jesus, or confessing to another believer. Well, perhaps it could be argued that among the qualifications or training of priests is that they are better than the average Christian at hearing a confession in some practical way. So maybe you could argue that it is better to confess to a priest in the same sense that it is better to seek advice on auto repair from a professional mechanic rather than a random friend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-14T07:18:18.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7598" CreationDate="2012-05-14T08:35:13.067" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you refer to a &lt;em&gt;legal&lt;/em&gt; Christian justification?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, There is the Bible stance, that's well known and documented here, I don't need to repeat it.  There is the personal moral view, that's all over this topic, no need to revisit it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do see a general &quot;fear&quot; in the answers,  ~&quot;If people perform homosexual acts, God's gonna punish us all.&quot;  (paraphrased.)   Then again, isn't that the crux of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you believed that others activities in the bedroom (or where ever or what ever) will get you baked in fire and brimstone with the rest of the 'sinners', then sure, ya, you are going to want to stop it at all cost, Right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you 'feared' God was going to punish Homosexuals, and you could get all caught up in the action because of something someone else did, why wouldn't you defend your self?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Case in point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Having &quot;homosexual families&quot; will imply necesity of &quot;homosexual education&quot; which will&#xA;  develop into a &quot;homosexual culture&quot; with keep on growing population in a society which will redefine normality. As a result of DEEP AND WIDE DEPRAVITY they will call &quot;evil good and good evil&quot; (Isaiah 5:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A Christian doesn't need to experience the &quot;homosexual marriage&quot; in HIS society, to taste its fruits, for him and for his children, and for all next generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, a 'fear' of being caught up in Gods wrath if someone else did something bad.  That's the entire argument against homosexuality, here repeated over and over in various ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this is my answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Christian justification is fear, not of the Homosexual, but of getting caught up in God being mad at the Homosexual and getting caught up in the mess.  They believe this long enough it becomes their own fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is juxtaposed to the issues faced by the legal problems faced by those in Homosexual relationships.  I refer to end-of-life, visitations, medical, and all the other &quot;LEGAL&quot; issues that are defined by the Government due to the law and its relationship to marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you have people who can not get legal fairness under the law due to the fear of select religious beliefs of other groups.  That's the undisputed fact on the ground.  Due to religious belief, it is the law of the land in various states that Homosexual marriage is illegal, thus denying the rights afforded &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; by marriage under U.S. Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Treat us all fairly under the law, that's what we all ask of our Government, is it not?  Any variance of that is a more true danger to our society then the Homosexual lifestyle ever could be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that is such a big issue, then remove legal rights for those married as apposed to the unmarried so the Government doesn't have to weigh in on religious issues at all in this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own personal beliefs vary, I have come from a Pentecostal up-bringing, (and they are almost the most fire and brimstone as you can get) and have moved to a more 'universalism' viewpoint.  I am not Gay, But that's not what is going on.  To think the Government would make Law on various Religious beliefs and not on the equal rights of individuals is a slippery slope indeed.  See how well that serves Iran as an example.  Law dominated by the Religion, and what rights it affords them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not for a woman to speak in church, should that be made a law?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;How is it legal to work on Sunday... (assuming your specific interpolation puts it the day of rest actually on Sunday.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See, this list could go on and on and on.  This specifically is a hot topic because of the 'fear' of being overrun by people who, for what ever the reason, have Homosexual behavior, and then being told because of another person's religious belief, they can't have have equal protection under the law.  If it wasn't for the legal part of this, this would be as much a non-issue as porn or gambling.  (&quot;We don't care, just don't do it in front of us.&quot;)  You can still get Porn, and you can still gamble, but you can't take legal action for your partner, and you are fired from your carrier.   That's where it's at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1641" LastActivityDate="2012-05-14T08:35:13.067" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7642" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7644" CreationDate="2012-05-14T09:11:29.970" Score="4" ViewCount="3960" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I only thought about this when recently explaining the difference between Old and New Testament to somebody.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did the Son of God appear in the OT? Was his name Jesus?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was Jesus present in Heaven (or at God's side) before he appeared on earth? Did God &quot;send&quot; his son to earth or was Jesus &quot;created&quot; on earth for the first time?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can list many more, but limiting it to these two, I hope my question is clear.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastActivityDate="2016-03-24T12:46:39.827" Title="Where was Jesus before the events of the New Testament?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-07-21T21:11:46.507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7642" CreationDate="2012-05-14T11:10:02.413" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The christian trinitarian theology states, that the nature of the Three Hypostases are the same. So if Father is omnipresent, so is Son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also all the Nicene Christians believe that Son is co-eternal with Father (the Nicene Creed says He was born &quot;before all ages&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question where is/was Son of God, please meditate on the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Being God, You were present in the tomb by Your body,&#xA;  and yet in Hades by Your soul, in Paradise with the thief,&#xA;  and   enthroned,   O   Christ,   with   the   Father   and   the   Holy&#xA;  Spirit, filling all things but encompassed by none.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2014-05-16T03:01:37.723" LastActivityDate="2014-05-16T03:01:37.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7642" CreationDate="2012-05-14T12:59:10.437" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that the Second Person of the Trinity took on the name of Jesus when He entered into creation and was born of Mary.  Prior to this, He was with the Father and the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus prays in John 17, He mentions the glory He had with the Father before the world began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with&#xA;  you before the world began.  John 17:5 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, God the Son, certainly may have been the One who appeared in the Old Testament from time to time, walking in the garden with Adam and Eve, speaking to Abraham about the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, the fourth Man in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, perhaps Melchizedek, the &quot;angel&quot; who wrestled with Jacob, etc.  However, He was not called Jesus until He was born into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The receiving of the name &quot;Jesus&quot; identified the purpose for which God the Son entered into creation.  &quot;Jesus&quot; or &quot;Yeshua&quot; literally means &quot;The Lord Saves&quot;.  So, Jesus was called &quot;The Lord Saves&quot;, because He (the Lord) would, in fact, &lt;em&gt;save&lt;/em&gt; His people from their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will&#xA;  save his people from their sins.”  Matthew 1:21 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T14:18:42.203" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T14:18:42.203" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7642" CreationDate="2012-05-14T13:01:36.953" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the logos (λόγος) incarnate - which is what we celebrate in December; the incarnation of the logos and NOT Jesus' birthday party.  Therefore in the OT, he is known as Adonai (which is &lt;strong&gt;Lord&lt;/strong&gt; vs &lt;strong&gt;LORD&lt;/strong&gt;) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Yeshua_is_Adonai/yeshua_is_adonai.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Please read this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common OT scripture to address this is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 110:1 YLT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah (&lt;em&gt;LORD&lt;/em&gt;) to my Lord: `Sit at My&#xA;  right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is to say: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The LORD (YHWH) said to my Lord (Adonai) 'Sit at My right hand, till&#xA;  I make Your enemies Your footstool.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is then connected to the New Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 16:19 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into&#xA;  heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Added reference from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/154.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Adonai&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adon, in Hebrew, means “lord.” The form Adonai, used 439 times in the&#xA;  Bible, can be rendered either as “my Lord” or simply as “Lord.”&#xA;  (Linguists offer various explanations for the element -ai. Is it a&#xA;  possessive pronoun denoting “my” or does it indicate a plural of&#xA;  majesty?) Thus, we find Exodus 15:17 translated most frequently as&#xA;  “the sanctuary, O Lord [Adonai],* which thy hands have established”&#xA;  (KJV) but, sometimes, as “the sanctuary, my Lord, which your hands&#xA;  have established.”1 Since Adonai and Yahweh are both typically&#xA;  translated as “Lord,” many modern Bibles—following a suggestion first&#xA;  made by William Tyndale in 1530—render Yahweh as “LORD” in small&#xA;  capital letters, and Adonai as “Lord.” So, “The Lord [Yahweh] appeared&#xA;  to him” (Genesis 18:1), but “Let me take it upon myself to speak to&#xA;  the Lord [Adonai], I who am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). The&#xA;  NRSV only confuses things, however, by rendering Adonai as both “Lord”&#xA;  and “LORD.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Adonai Yahweh&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When used individually, both terms are translated as “Lord,” but to&#xA;  avoid the awkward appellation “Lord Lord,” the KJV and NRSV render the&#xA;  expression as “Lord God.” (Here too, small capital letters are used to&#xA;  indicate that the base word is Yahweh.) “Lord Yahweh” is also used.&#xA;  The combination Adonai Yahweh appears 310 times in the Bible, mostly&#xA;  in the prophetic literature, where the prophets often begin their&#xA;  speeches by saying, “Thus says Adonai Yahweh.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;To directly answer your question:&lt;/strong&gt;  Jesus was called Adonai in the Old Testament, however you will find it in translated in English bibles as &lt;strong&gt;Lord&lt;/strong&gt; - single capital.  We learn that when God made the word (Logos) incarnate (became flesh) by impregnating Mary via the Holy Ghost.  Mary is known by the title of Theotokos - God-bearer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For illustration purposes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/NMRiB.jpg&quot; width=&quot;456&quot; height=&quot;600&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-05-14T14:51:47.080" LastActivityDate="2012-05-14T14:51:47.080" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7646" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7659" CreationDate="2012-05-14T14:41:45.513" Score="4" ViewCount="10967" Body="&lt;p&gt;I studied in Methodist school from kindergarten to high school, but I never heard of Crusaders until I went to college - and people at church don't talk about it either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, Crusaders have a very bad reputation (at least in the movies.)  But what does it really mean for the modern Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-05-14T16:39:04.173" LastActivityDate="2012-05-25T21:37:27.547" Title="How should a Christian look at the Crusaders?" Tags="&lt;war&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-10-17T22:27:19.373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7646" CreationDate="2012-05-14T16:30:54.347" Score="-1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Why did it happen?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Crusades happened during a time when the Bible was not widely available to believers.  Only the highest Church members had access to it.  So when the leaders made statements about God's will no one could really argue - except on the basis of &quot;having a different opinion&quot;, which was received as rebellion  and heresy.  Simply put - they didn't know what the Bible said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What does the Bible say?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus continually made statements like the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:36&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- John 18:36&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the mob came to seize Jesus with swords and clubs, His disciples were ready for a fight!  But watch how Jesus rebukes them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:49-51&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Luke 22:49-51&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the death of Jesus, Paul explains the following to the early Christians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but&lt;/strong&gt; against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, &lt;strong&gt;against the spiritual forces&lt;/strong&gt; of wickedness in the heavenly places.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Ephesians 6:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What can we learn?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the clear lesson we can learn from the Crusades is the importance of knowing your Bible.  Yet even with such blatant examples from history, Bible illiteracy remains one of the biggest problems in the church today.  Yesterday I read the following quote from a book on Spiritual Disciplines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you realize that... you can read through the entire [Bible] in seventy-one hours?  In no more than fifteen minutes a day you can read through the Bible in less than a year's time...  And yet &lt;strong&gt;the majority of Christians never read the Bible all the way through in their whole life.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;- Donald S. Whitney&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We have been given more&lt;/strong&gt; in the way of Scripture than any generation before us.  We have all 66 books, entire fields of Biblical sciences devoted to clarifying the original wording, concordances, dictionaries, online search tools, commentaries, ... the list goes on and on.  It is difficult to consider this without considering the following words of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From everyone who has been given much, much will be required &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:48&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Luke 12:48&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lesson from the Crusades has never been more relevant: &lt;strong&gt;Read your Bible!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-05-14T16:30:54.347" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7648" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7656" CreationDate="2012-05-14T17:48:40.187" Score="22" ViewCount="6289" Body="&lt;p&gt;For those who profess to follow the word of Christ, everyone agrees that the Bible is the infallible word of God as transcribed by many different men compiled together in one book. But for this question, I'm not talking about &quot;The Bible&quot; as in &lt;em&gt;the idea of the perfect Bible&lt;/em&gt;, but of the &lt;strong&gt;copies&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;translations&lt;/strong&gt; mankind reads; the one you and I have on our bookshelves. This may seem like a stupid question for some, and I apologize, but &lt;strong&gt;is it possible for these books to contain errors?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I see it, The Bible is a product of mankind, written by man, transcribed by man, duplicated on printing presses created by man, and thus it may contain errors, mistakes, even contradictions; &lt;strong&gt;these mistakes are the result of man's imperfection, not God's.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It occurred to me after reading through many questions on this site that some people think that The Bible is 100% infallible, let alone that their particular copy may be a poor/inaccurate translation. It's almost as if they believe it was written by God himself, so they tend to blame errors on our own reasoning and interpretation of the Bible, as opposed to the simple fact that a particular passage could have been translated incorrectly (which often seems more likely, especially when it stands out from all the rest).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that whether errors/mistakes &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; (or do not) occur in The Bible is irrelevant; this questions asks merely &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;whether it is conceivably possible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that it could contain errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastActivityDate="2015-04-11T08:16:50.737" Title="Is it possible for The Bible to contain errors?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2017-01-18T04:24:23.080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2012-05-14T18:10:02.813" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been several mis-translations or understandings of the bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church historian Diarmaid MacCulloch comments about this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Jerome [the translator of the Old Testament into Latin], mistaking&#xA;  particles of Hebrew, had turned this into a description of Moses&#xA;  wearing a pair of horns - and so the Lawgiver is frequently depicted&#xA;  in the art of the Western Church, even after humanists had gleefully&#xA;  removed the horns from the text of Exodus.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Douay-Rheims Bible translates the Vulgate as, &quot;And when Moses came&#xA;  down from the mount Sinai, he held the two tables of the testimony,&#xA;  and he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the&#xA;  Lord.&quot;  This was, however, a mistranslation of the original Hebrew&#xA;  Masoretic text which uses a term equivalent to &quot;radiant&quot;,&#xA;  suggesting an effect like a halo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with that Michelangelo made the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_%28Michelangelo%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moses statue with horns&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 14:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!  You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”  But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Lucifer&quot; shows up for the only time in the KJV. The original Hebrew word there wasn't anything near Lucifer at all. The original Hebrew word there was &quot;&lt;em&gt;Helel&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. Why change it to Lucifer? The translation to KJB translated the name into Latin with the Vulgate. Lucifer is a Latin word. Isaiah nor any other OT prophet knew Latin. Helel as well as Lucifer means &quot;brightness&quot;, but in latin it’s also the word for &quot;morningstar&quot;. There was some wisdom to the translation since the next line says &quot;son of the morning&quot;. One must ask, why the huge differences in not only the names but the meanings? Helel/Lucifer is mentioned only one time in the entire Bible, so why only there? It describes how Helel fell. After he fell, God changed his name. He was the morningstar. Now he's the adversary, and anyone who is Luciferian (as in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100724101439AAbVRIW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ancient Roman religion&lt;/a&gt;) is now branded a Satanist by Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;The &quot;historical-grammatical&quot; method of Biblical Hermeneutics includes consideration of figures of speech.  There's a &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions&quot;&gt;stackexchange&lt;/a&gt; devoted to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as mentioned in my comment: mistranslations do not usually affect the whole story&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T16:56:07.677" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7650" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7664" CreationDate="2012-05-14T18:21:31.770" Score="6" ViewCount="6719" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people say that the story of Noah and flood is false, because there simply wasn't enough water in the world to cover the entire earth in a flood. As it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the waters became mighty and increased greatly upon the land, and the ark went [gently floating] upon the surface of the waters.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And the waters prevailed so exceedingly and were so mighty upon the earth that all the high hills under the whole sky were covered.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  [In fact] the waters became fifteen cubits higher, as the high hills were covered.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%207:18-20&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 7:18-20 (Amp)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the counter argument against this belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-07-03T22:15:22.900" LastActivityDate="2017-05-28T00:35:22.173" Title="What arguments do adherents of a global flood give for how water was able to cover the entire earth?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7598" CreationDate="2012-05-14T18:21:34.797" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pastor Bobby Scott of &lt;a href=&quot;http://lacbc.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Los Angeles Community Bible Church&lt;/a&gt; wrote an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthinthecity.com/2012/05/open-letter-to-president-obama.html?spref=fb&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;open letter to President Obama&lt;/a&gt; making these points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The generalization that advocates of traditional marriage hate or are bigoted against people who don't have a traditional family is an invalid &lt;em&gt;non-sequitur&lt;/em&gt; and  &lt;em&gt;ad hominem&lt;/em&gt; argument.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman.  Therefore the burden of proof rests on those who desire change to provide answers to the questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a. Why change it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;b. On what basis would a group morally seek to change the definition of marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One possible answer to these questions is for the sake of love.  But if gay couples must be allowed to marry on the basis of love, nothing prevents people in other types of relationships from claiming the same justification.  Society must place some boundaries on marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Another possible answer to the questions in #2 is to correct prior injustice along the lines of the civil rights movement.  But this argument fails as well since the courts and prosecutors systematically failed to address injustices committed against African Americans &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1431932&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;as recently as 1963&lt;/a&gt;.  Meanwhile, homosexuals receive proper legal protections both by governments and society.  Therefore this argument fails as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;category mistake&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From one Christian to another, Pastor Scott reminds the President that God loves all sinners (heterosexual and homosexual alike). But God's love does not override His holiness to allow sinners to define what is right.  The way God threaded the needle between His holiness and His love was via the work of Jesus on the cross.  [I don't think this particular point is addressed to American society at large, but to the Christian cross-section.]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Separation of church and state does not mean that religious people are excluded from public debate.  Nor does it mean that religious arguments have no place in shaping society.  Rather, the Founding Fathers rejected the idea that the United States should become a theocracy.  When the question has been put to them, the majority of voters (both Christian and non-Christian) have signaled that they do not want to change the definition of marriage.  [This point and the next are in the comments.]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was wrong to establish laws against interracial marriage because it changed the definition of marriage.  The Biblical (and in the United States, historical) definition of marriage is based neither on &quot;color&quot; nor &quot;love&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-05-14T18:21:34.797" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7646" CreationDate="2012-05-14T18:54:22.517" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;By the end of the first millenium the Turks, who held control of the Holy Land for four centuries, began to demonstrate a renewed aggression towards non-Muslims. Pilgrims to what are still considered the holiest places in Christianity were being molested and, as the Byzantine empire was not sufficiently strong to stop it (and, in fact, they were showing themselves to be incapable of defending the historically Christian territories), the option was either ignore this problem or retaliate in force.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of lessons which can be gleaned. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is a direct application of one understanding of Just War theory. When, exactly, is it OK to go to war? (is it OK to cross the street so that you can beat up a mugger?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While the intentions were good (even the fourth crusade, which sacked Constantinople, was well intentioned), there were a number of compromises made which made it so that despite the piety of the crusaders, they eventually did things which were less than honorable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many a well-intended cause is destroyed through pride.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perhaps one of the better lessons, however, is that this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HtkjJycc7A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;does not need to be a black eye for Christianity&lt;/a&gt;. Rather, this was a limited military action in response to a series of massive military actions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-05-15T14:59:47.477" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T14:59:47.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7655" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7660" CreationDate="2012-05-14T22:05:58.097" Score="-1" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;At what point did Paul become a child of God, born of God? John said that God gave the authority to be the children of God born of God to those who received Christ (John 1:12,13; 1st John 3:1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At what point did Paul become regenerate? Was it at his first encounter with the Lord on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:5,6)? Was it when he was baptized? Did it happen at a different time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ananias called Paul a brother before Paul was baptized (Acts 9:17, 22:13). What is the meaning of this word, &quot;brother?&quot; Does it infer that Paul had met the qualifications to be called a child of God, born of God, that is written in John 1, or was Ananias using the word &quot;brother&quot; differently, perhaps in the Old Testament sense?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-05-16T12:50:05.273" LastActivityDate="2012-05-16T12:50:05.273" Title="At what point did Paul become a child of God, born of God?" Tags="&lt;regeneration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2015-10-01T08:01:02.107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2012-05-14T22:15:43.897" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it is absolutely possible for &lt;em&gt;editions&lt;/em&gt; of the Bible to contain errors. There is no magical mechanism to prevent this. There are some notorious printing mistakes, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A 1631 printing of the King James version is now called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible&quot;&gt;the &quot;Wicked Bible&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, owing to its rendering of Exodus 20:14,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou shalt commit adultery&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 1763, the &quot;Fool's Bible&quot; said in Psalm 14:1,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fool hath said in his heart there is a God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Owl Bible&quot; of 1944 says in 1 Peter 3:5,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their owl husbands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more are listed at Wikipedia under &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata&quot;&gt;Bible errata&lt;/a&gt;. These are mostly simple mistakes, but some of them might be deliberately introduced (like the Printer's Bible of 1612, having &quot;Printers have persecuted me without a cause&quot; in Psalm 119:161).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In earlier times, when books were copied by hand, monks attributed such slips (in jest) to a demon called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titivillus&quot;&gt;Titivillus&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, whose job was to introduce errors into manuscripts, especially of important texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in the earliest Biblical manuscripts, there are disagreements, as can be seen by consulting most modern editions that have footnotes - it's not hard to find verses with annotations that note differences among early texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Or possibly Titivilus or Tituvillis, etc., it being perfectly in keeping with his nature that there is &lt;em&gt;no correct way&lt;/em&gt; to spell his name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-05-14T22:15:43.897" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7519" CreationDate="2012-05-15T00:42:28.237" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Greek &lt;em&gt;adjective&lt;/em&gt; orthodox (ὀρθόδοξος) is dated to the late third/early fourth centuries, and the derived Latin word (orthodoxus or ortodoxus) was also first used at about that time. There is an earlier &lt;em&gt;verb&lt;/em&gt; ὀρθοδοξεῖν, meaning &quot;to have correct beliefs&quot;, used by Aristotle in the &lt;em&gt;Nicomachean Ethics&lt;/em&gt;. As far as I know, Aristotle's coining is original, not based on any other language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity, the term originally became popular to describe those groups that adhered to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html&quot;&gt;the definition of the Council of Chalcedon&lt;/a&gt; (451 AD), even though the Oriental Orthodox churches that you mention are exactly the opposite, &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; accepting the Chalcedonian dogmatic definition. The Oxford English Dictionary (under &lt;em&gt;orthodox&lt;/em&gt;, 3) suggests that this is due to a later assumption that &quot;Orthodox&quot; refers to anybody who was not on the Catholic side at the time of the Great Schism (1054). So it seems that &quot;Orthodox&quot; was first associated with the Eastern Orthodox churches, and only later became applied to the Oriental Orthodox. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the reasons set out below, I think that the group term &quot;Oriental Orthodox&quot; was invented or at least popularized in the 1960s; and that at least some of the churches in question had Orthodox in their name for some years before that, though probably &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; earlier than the eighteenth century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a bit hard to distinguish between a church that uses Orthodox as part of its name, and one that merely describes itself as orthodox. Certainly, people have been calling themselves small-o orthodox for centuries, and in some cases that shifted from &quot;we are orthodox&quot; to &quot;we are the Orthodox&quot;. The unambiguous use of Orthodox in the name is comparatively recent, in all cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;&quot;Orthodox&quot; as a title of the Eastern Orthodox churches&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can see, the term &quot;Orthodox&quot; was not used as a distinctive term until many years after the Schism. The more normal way was to talk about the Eastern Church and the Western Church. The everyday usage was &quot;the Greeks&quot;, though this is of course inaccurate since not all Greeks are Orthodox and not all Orthodox are Greek. Meanwhile, Christians in general could be called &lt;em&gt;orthodox&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;catholic&lt;/em&gt; for some centuries, regardless of their east-west allegiance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm&quot;&gt;the proceedings of the Council of Basel&lt;/a&gt; (1431-5), we read &quot;the Greeks&quot; as the standard term for the Greek Orthodox delegates, as opposed to &quot;the Romans&quot;; but &quot;the orthodox faith&quot; and &quot;the catholic church&quot; are both used to mean Christianity in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox churches were certainly using the term as part of their identity by 1672, since the record of the Synod of Jerusalem contains many references to Orthodoxy as a tradition and as a communion (eg, talking about &quot;our Orthodox religion&quot;, &quot;Orthodox bishops&quot;, etc.). They were undoubtedly trying to use the term to distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholics, and to a lesser extent the Protestants. But even then, &quot;Orthodox&quot; was not part of the name of the church: the synod talks of &quot;the Eastern Church&quot;, which holds &quot;the Orthodox faith&quot;, but they don't use the title &quot;Orthodox&quot; for the church itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So at least in this period, the Orthodox placed additional emphasis on themselves holding to Orthodoxy as an ideal, in opposition to other groups. I suspect that the position of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_Orthodoxy&quot;&gt;Feast of Orthodoxy&lt;/a&gt; in the liturgy helped to establish this as a critical part of their identity. However, it seems that it may not have been used as a church title until a bit later. It was definitely established by the time of Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, who used it in &lt;em&gt;The Rudder&lt;/em&gt; (1800). Tentatively, I would say that it became used &lt;em&gt;as a distinctive title&lt;/em&gt; at some point in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century, though as set out above, there is a much longer history of the use of the word in the eastern Christian tradition. (The first OED appearance of &quot;the Orthodox Church&quot; is 1772, with &quot;the Orthodox Confession&quot; in 1679. Of course, that says nothing about non-English sources).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Oriental Orthodox&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned above, the application of &quot;Orthodox&quot; to these churches is quite unusual! There's even some evidence that the Eastern Orthodox deprecated the use of &quot;Eastern Church&quot; because they didn't want to be confused with non-Chalcedonian people (heretics!) who happened to also live in the east. Probably they were quite annoyed when those same groups started calling themselves Orthodox too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would assume from the chronology that the &lt;em&gt;individual&lt;/em&gt; Oriental Orthodox churches only started using the title a while after the Eastern Orthodox did. That would place the earliest use probably no sooner than the eighteenth century, and perhaps quite a bit later. Again, it may be that other people called them that, partly out of confusion as the OED suggests, before they called themselves that. So a 19th century date, in the case of the Syriacs, certainly makes sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Confusingly enough, &quot;Oriental Orthodox&quot; was also used as an exotic synonym for the Eastern Orthodox. &lt;em&gt;The Oxford History of Christian Worship&lt;/em&gt; (Geoffrey Wainwright, 2006) says that the umbrella term &quot;Oriental Orthodox&quot; for the Syriac, etc., churches, was established in the 1960s, as a replacement for calling them &quot;Monophysite&quot;. It certainly seems that pre-1950 references to &quot;Oriental Orthodox&quot; that I've found are actually talking about the Eastern Orthodox. Moreover, I imagine that the term &quot;Oriental Orthodox&quot; would only be invented if several of the churches in question were already calling themselves Orthodox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T00:42:28.237" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7658" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7992" CreationDate="2012-05-15T01:48:18.680" Score="10" ViewCount="2266" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scottish Protestant reformer &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knox&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Knox&lt;/a&gt; (1514-1572) is the author of the work of vile misogyny, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (1558). In the book, Knox rails against the idea of women having authority over men, particularly in the case of queens. He calls them &quot;weak&quot;, &quot;sick&quot;, &quot;impotent&quot;, &quot;foolish&quot;, &quot;mad&quot;, &quot;frenetic&quot;, &quot;impatient&quot;, &quot;feeble&quot;, &quot;inconstant&quot;, &quot;cruel&quot;, &quot;corrupted&quot;, and so forth.  Mary I of England was &quot;that cursed Jezebel&quot; and &quot;horrible monster&quot;, &quot;bloody tyrant&quot;; Mary of Guise was &quot;that crafty dame&quot;. He called for the people to rise up to murder both of them. He also hates &quot;the odious nation of Spaniards&quot;, Catholics (&quot;pestilent and detestable&quot;), and frankly quite a lot of other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7064/545&quot;&gt;a comment on an answer to an earlier question&lt;/a&gt;, I said that John Calvin (Knox's mentor) disapproved of what Knox had written. On reflection I realize that I don't actually have any evidence for that. I was misremembering a different comment by Calvin where he said &quot;moderate your rigor&quot; to Knox, but that was in the context of tolerating variations in the conduct of public worship (Knox absolutely hated any deviation from his ideas).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did Calvin actually think about the &lt;em&gt;Monstrous regiment&lt;/em&gt;?  - both in terms of the political difficulty it created, and in terms of the actual content (that is, did he agree or disagree with the basic sentiments, independently of the trouble the book caused?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-10-03T14:29:54.813" LastActivityDate="2018-10-03T14:29:54.813" Title="What did Calvin think about Knox's &quot;Monstrous Regiment&quot;?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;&lt;john-knox&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7646" CreationDate="2012-05-15T02:52:39.740" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Robert Spencer, who is one of the leading Christian authors on Islam has a fascinating insight into the crusades in this video - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ee4WzxV4c&quot;&gt;The Crusades, Fact &amp;amp; Truth&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Crusades have a bad reputation, because, as Spencer explains, Westerners have a healthy attitude of self-criticism. Such self-criticism is completely absent in Islam. Spencer points out that it was the invasion of the Turks that began the Crusades. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it is true that many of the Crusaders did evil acts, the Crusades in themselves were a defensive measure and not an offensive one. Should Christians be ashamed of those Crusaders who commited evil? Sure. Should Christians be ashamed of the Crusades themselves? Never. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When &lt;strong&gt;soldiers&lt;/strong&gt; came to John the Baptist asking him what to do, he didn't tell them to put their swords away, but &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with&#xA;  your wages.&quot; (Luke 3:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible also says that there is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time&#xA;  to build up&quot; (Ecclesiastes 3:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often, Jesus statement of &quot;turning the other cheek&quot; is quoted to suggest that any act of self defense is against the teachings of Christ. But I answer that somebody slapping you on the cheek doesn't kill you, whereas if someone tries to kill your body, you are obliged to defend yourself, because your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's&#xA;  temple is holy, and that temple you are.&quot; (1 Cor 3:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication of this statement is that if you allow your body to be destroyed, then you shall be held accountable for it. Jesus also said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let&#xA;  him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.&quot; (Luke 22:36)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul says that rulers are servants of God to execute God's wrath on the wrongdoer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in&#xA;  vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.&quot;&#xA;  (Rom 13:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible on many occasions praises soldiers. One of the first gentile converts to Christianity was a Roman centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10) and we don't see any demand being made on him to leave his position as a centurion. On another occasion, Jesus marveled at the faith of another centurion (Matthew 8:10). I therefore do not see any reason why a Christian cannot serve in the army. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Had the Crusades not taken place, the entire western world might have been under subjection to Islam today. As a Christian, I shall never be ashamed of the Crusades. Many Christians gave their lives for saving their brethren. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T02:52:39.740" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7655" CreationDate="2012-05-15T03:07:28.490" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question really has two parts - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How is one born again - through baptism or simply through receiving Christ in your heart. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was Ananias referring to Paul as a brother in Christ or using the Old Testament usage of the word brother. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question number 1 has already been &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/search?q=born%20again%20baptism&quot;&gt;discussed many times on this forum&lt;/a&gt;. I will answer question 2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is likely that Ananias was referring to Paul as a &quot;brother&quot; in the same way that Stephen referred to the Jews as &quot;brothers&quot; and &quot;fathers&quot; (Acts 7:2). There is no way to know for sure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T03:07:28.490" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7661" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7662" CreationDate="2012-05-15T03:09:42.480" Score="6" ViewCount="2743" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that some Catholic nuns chose new names, like Mother Teresa (previously Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu), and others didn't, like Sister Helen Prejean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What determines whether a woman changes her name on taking her vows? Is it up to the individual, or do different orders have their own particular rules or customs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2016-02-28T13:11:23.743" Title="Which nuns get new names?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;monasticism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7661" CreationDate="2012-05-15T03:18:20.487" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Name changes in the Bible indicate a significant change in the life of the person. For example,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abram became Abraham. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;&#xA;  for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.&quot; (Gen 17:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jacob became Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said, &quot;Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,&#xA;  for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.&quot; (Gen&#xA;  32:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simon became Cephas, which means rock. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas&quot; (which&#xA;  means Peter). (John 1:42)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, it is really up to the individual to take a new name. Usually, they like to take the name of a saint whom they are inspired by. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T03:18:20.487" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7663" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7666" CreationDate="2012-05-15T03:31:35.093" Score="7" ViewCount="1528" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking through Catholic baptismal records, while doing genealogy, when I realized that I didn't know what the purpose of godparents is. What is their purpose? Why are they recorded? Are the godparents held accountable for anything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-05-15T08:27:14.970" LastActivityDate="2015-08-04T14:23:45.310" Title="What is the purpose of godparents?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;godparents&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7650" CreationDate="2012-05-15T03:50:20.370" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml&quot;&gt;http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml&lt;/a&gt;, the total volume of the world's oceans is 1.3 to 1.5 billion cubic kilometers, which comes out to 310 to 360 million cubic miles. The surface area of the Earth is about 200 million square miles. So if the Earth was a perfect sphere, with no mountains, no valleys, no ocean trenches, the water would cover the surface about 1.7 miles deep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's water in the ice caps, underground, and in the atmosphere. Perhaps all this water was on the surface during the Flood. But by most calculations this is a relatively small percentage -- hydrologic scientists generally say that 97% of the world's water is in the oceans, 2% in the ice caps, 1% underground, and lakes a rivers a tiny fraction of 1%. So unless there's some very large unknown water reserve -- underground, I suppose -- adding these things in wouldn't change the 1.7 miles much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the world does have mountains and valleys, so some places are above the water level and others below. The highest mountain is of course Mt Everest, which is 6 miles high. The lowest point is the Marianas trench, 7 miles deep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the most obvious scenario for a Flood to cover the whole world is that the mountains before the Flood were smaller than today and the trenches not as deep. If the highest mountains were 1/4 the height today, then they would all be covered by water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Creation theorists generally suggest that the Flood caused major geological upheavals including relatively rapid movement of the Eartth's tectonics plates, resulting in mountain formation. That is, they say that the high mountains in the world today were formed during the Flood. Of course for the world to not be covered in water before the Flood, the amount of water in the oceans would have had to have been smaller. Genesis mentions water coming from both rain and &quot;the fountains of the deep&quot;. The theory generally calls for more water vapor in the air in the form of a large vapor canopy, and also more water underground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So ther's plenty of water if only the Earth was more nearly spherical before the Flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T03:50:20.370" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7663" CreationDate="2012-05-15T05:42:50.027" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;A good explanatation is given in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1465&amp;amp;repos=1&amp;amp;subrepos=0&amp;amp;searchid=325759&quot;&gt;&quot;The Role of Godparents&quot; by Fr. William Saunders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per Code of Canon Law 872 - 874 the rules are as below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can.872  Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a&#xA;  sponsor who assists an adult in Christian initiation or together with&#xA;  the parents presents an infant for baptism. A sponsor also helps the&#xA;  baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and&#xA;  to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can.873  There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can.874  §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a&#xA;  person must:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or&#xA;  minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this&#xA;  function;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has&#xA;  granted an exception for a just cause;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in&#xA;  keeping with the function to be taken on;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the primary purpose is to take care of the &lt;em&gt;Catholic faith formation&lt;/em&gt;, and it does not hold them accountable to taking care of the child in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T05:42:50.027" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2012-05-15T05:52:09.377" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Few Christians would challenge the idea that there can be errors in translation or copying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can always correct a translation error by going back to the original language. Copying errors are a bit more of a problem, as how can you know for certain what the original text was?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, though, it is usually possible to identify copying errors by comparing manuscripts. That is, it's not like there was only one copy of the Bible, and at some point someone copied it and then threw away the original. Rather, many many copies were in circulation simultaneously. Depending on how you count, there are somewhere between 13,000 and 24,000 surviving ancient manuscripts of the Bible. So suppose we started with A, and two people made copies, B and C. Then if B made a copying mistake, the chance that C would make exactly the same mistake would be very small. Thus copy B would be different from copy C. If further copies were made from these, they would copy the error. So when we see that two ancient manuscripts are different, that's an indication that there was a copying error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you've heard that there are 150,000 discrepancies in Bible manuscripts. This sounds like a lot. But to get this number you have to count the same discrepancy multiple times. That is, if 15,000 manuscripts say X and 5,000 say Y, then that counts as 5,000 discrepancies. If you ignore the duplicates, there are about 10,000 discrepancies. Still sounds like a lot. But the vast majority of these are spelling errors, changes in spelling over the centuries, changes in grammar rules, and word order, none of which affect the meaning of the text. That leaves about 400 discrepancies in the entire Bible that actualy involve changing the meaning of the text. Most of these are pretty minor. Like in Isaiah 53, some ancient manuscripts include the word &quot;light&quot; and others don't, so the meaning may be &quot;He shall see the labor of his soul&quot; or &quot;He shall see light from the labor of his soul&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember seeing a list of all these discrepancies once but I'm unable to find it now. Sorry! The biggest is Mark 16:9-20: some ancient manuscripts include it, others end the chapter at verse 8. None of the discrepancies change any significant event or doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T05:52:09.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7671" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7678" CreationDate="2012-05-15T09:36:01.530" Score="9" ViewCount="840" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, there is only one God, one Jesus, and one Holy Spirit, and they are ONE. But, what we have here is dozens of different doctrines (I'm not sure if &quot;doctrine&quot; is the right word for this). Catholics, Protestants, Mormons etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, the driving force of understanding the Bible comes from the guidance of Holy Spirit. And the Bible of course is the best place to learn about God's will. Since there is only one Holy Spirit that is teaching us all,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why can't we have a universal belief and practice? What creates this different bible interpretations from the spiritual point of view? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it possible to have just one universal doctrine/belief/practice?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="115" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-05-15T18:57:06.937" LastActivityDate="2013-05-14T11:34:51.130" Title="What is stopping Christians from having just one doctrine/interpretation?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7671" CreationDate="2012-05-15T10:49:07.837" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally believe that it would be hard to force a set of doctrine and of pratice to all believer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, the Bible is clear on the central issue like is the soteriology (the Gospel of the Cross*). There are many christian today that tries to gather with other christian on what they see at the center of Biblical teaching. Two examples are, The Gospel Coalition (http://thegospelcoalition.org/) and Together for the Gospel (http://t4g.org/) are two public window that want to tell the world that these Christian can put a side the peripheral issues and be join together on the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the Bible present the truth of the Gospel, but does not present a set of rules on how to conduct mariage, participate to the Lord's Supper. Take the Lord's Supper, here is a key passage :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 11.23-2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that&#xA;  the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and&#xA;  when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body&#xA;  which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way&#xA;  also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new&#xA;  covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in&#xA;  remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink&#xA;  the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (1 Co 11:23–26). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.&lt;/code&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage present the basic teaching on the Lord's Supper. It does not tell when Christian should take the Lord's Supper. Should we take it at the beginning, the end, once a month, could grape juice be Ok or does it have to be a specific type of wine. None of these issues is solved in the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This example goes to show that there are many place in the pratice of Christianity where the Bible does not proclaim practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, on the question of doctrine. It is true that the Holy Spirit teaches us, but many of us are lazy. Many christian take that truth and apply it with a certain lazyness. &quot;Since the Spirit teaches me I do not have to study&quot; they are thinking. But the Bible present that Christian have to study hard the Bible (Ps 119, 1Tim 4.12, 2Tim 3.14,) and life (example of the knowledge of Paul and the Ecclesiastes). Also there are many outhere that proclaim to be Christian and write books, and speak of the Bible in way that is contrary to the Faith or the teaching of the Gospels. Many follow them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion&#xA;Is it possible to have one set of doctrine, belief and practice. On the question of doctrine/belief we need to identify the main point of the Gospel and seek unity on the issue. On the peripheral issue we need to learn to hold them gently. On practice, the application must be a out of a firm resolved from understanding the Bible, our context and our generation. The methodology used in the 1600 might not the same today, or the practice in the US differ from those in Canada, and within Canada the practice differ if you are English of French. But that does not mean that the English brothers are less brother because they do not do has we, French Canadians. And I am only presenting north america, image if I started with South America or Africa...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ravi Zacharias (http://rzim.org/) once said : That unity is not uniformity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Terminology borrowed from Kevin deYoung and Greg Gilbert in their book &quot;What is the Mission of the Church&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T10:49:07.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7650" CreationDate="2012-05-15T13:27:01.920" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot;&gt;Gen. 8:2-5&lt;/a&gt; talks about the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens closing, and the waters receding and diminishing &lt;em&gt;anyway&lt;/em&gt;.  You would expect a natural flood to either drain into the earth—but the &quot;fountains of the deep&quot; were closed, so the water could not leave that way—or dissipate by evaporation—but the &quot;windows of the heavens&quot; were closed, so it couldn't leave that way, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The text seems to require pairing the miraculous appearance of water (the Flood) with the miraculous &lt;em&gt;disappearance&lt;/em&gt; of the same water afterwards.  In this case the question of whether there is enough water in the world &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt; to cover it is moot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T13:27:01.920" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2012-05-15T15:33:41.663" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think before looking at the question of whether or not the Bible has errors one firstly needs to look at the main purpose of this book and at how he personally views this book's main purpose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if he takes the Bible as a book that is meant to give us a precise account on how the world came into being, then, of course, Bible will contain a lot of mistakes in this regard, because giving an account on how the world was created is not the main purpose of the Bible. Neither is its purpose to give humans a correct and comprehensive description of the end of the world. The same is true with the Bible providing correct/not correct description of some historical events or facts or correct translation from one language into another - all of these are not the main purpose of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main purpose of this book is to bring those who are to be saved into believing into and the fellowship with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In this regard Bible really has no errors whatsoever as it absolutely serves its purpose! The numerous linguistic, factual, historical and doctrinal ambiguities that can be found in the Bible only lead those who are to be in/ those who are in the fellowship with the Son of God to pray to Him/to pray to Him more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-05-15T15:39:11.920" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T15:39:11.920" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7675" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-15T15:43:02.180" Score="8" ViewCount="885" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some churches who appoint elders do so for a term (3 years is typical from what I have seen). Other churches ordain elders for life. Is there a Biblical basis for ordaining elders for life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a follow on to my question about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7573/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-term-eldership&quot;&gt;term eldership.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-08-11T18:09:00.963" Title="What is the biblical basis for lifetime eldership?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-offices&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7671" CreationDate="2012-05-15T15:58:02.057" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus established his doctrine for several reasons. Among them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eph. 4:11-14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice especially verses 13 and 14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Originally, Adam and Eve were taught the gospel by revelation from God, who in turn taught it to their children, etc. Eventually, contentions arose (Cain, anyone?) and there surely became disagreements in doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During Jesus' life, this was still the case. Although He did have prophets and apostles, they were apparently rejected over time. In fact, after Christ's ministry finished, the Church He established quickly went into decline (within about a hundred years or so) because of apostasy, or rejection of the gospel according to the apostles that Jesus ordained. (Hence the epistles of Jude, Corinthians, Galatians, and John's warning not to add to or take away from the Book of Revelation which has precious truths about God's plan.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question comes down to: who is the authority on the matter? Who has the authority to interpret the Bible? So it goes, each sect will probably have a different answer to this question. This is probably due in part to when and how the Spirit teaches us truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eph. 5:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though teachings between Christian churches vary, pretty much all of them have truth and light. I would suppose that people are members of a church because they feel good at that particular church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why can't we have a universal practice and belief? Doctrines disagree because of the &amp;quot;sleight of men,&amp;quot; but the Spirit will always draw individuals toward truth. It used to be that way: one universal truth was both taught and received, and I expect it will be that way when the Savior comes again. (Interestingly, that would mean there is still one universal truth in these days since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. As David commented above, food for thought.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question about the Spirit teaching truth is also really insightful: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6802/are-there-truths-that-can-only-be-known-through-spiritual-means&quot;&gt;Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God will never teach one man a truth and another man a different truth which conflicts. Somewhere along the way, men did change things. If all could come to a consensus about who or what is the authority in interpreting scripture and declaring doctrine (as was done in Christ's day within the Church), I suppose all differences could be resolved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T17:40:03.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7671" CreationDate="2012-05-15T17:45:43.770" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The answer is &amp;quot;sin&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;.  The only thing stopping us from having one doctrine is sin.  If sin didn't enter into the equation, we would agree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God wants us to agree.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- 1 Corinthians 1:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But because of sin, we don't agree.  Sin can be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;summarized&lt;/a&gt; as &lt;strong&gt;lust&lt;/strong&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.&amp;quot; These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:18-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Jude 1:18-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...and &lt;strong&gt;pride&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- 1 Timothy 1:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:6-8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- 1 Timothy 1:6-8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose I am doing ok financially, and I read a passage indicating that I should &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2016:2,%202%20Cor%208:13-15,%202%20Cor%209:12,%20Acts%202:45,%20James%202:15-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;provide for my brothers who are in need&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%206:6,%20Rom%2015:27,%201%20Cor%209:7-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;for those who minister to me&lt;/a&gt;.  Buuut... something inside me tells me &amp;quot;Nah... that money is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2010:26,%20Ps%2024:1,%20Ex%2019:5,%20Job%2041:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;yours&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;!  You worked hard for it.  Forget those lazy people... they can go get a job and make their &lt;em&gt;own&lt;/em&gt; money!&amp;quot;  Well, such a person would be inclined to have a &amp;quot;different interpretation&amp;quot; of those passages I linked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a sad reality... difficult to accept; difficult to consider a possibility in our own lives... but reality none the less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T18:04:59.130" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7615" CreationDate="2012-05-15T22:04:23.447" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read a lot of the Puritans and those that follow them and have as a result I do practice a lot more self examination.  However, I have not found in my reading that this was necessarily a major topic for them.  On the other hand I tend to find it threaded throughout their works in a more natural way.  It was simply a part of the Christian life for them.  There are however some specific works on the topic which Kazark has noted in his answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the Puritans I have personally found that the writings of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Burroughs#Biography&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeremiah Burroughs&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_%28theologian%29#Works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Watson_%28Puritan%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thomas Watson&lt;/a&gt; have had the greatest effect in driving me to self examination.  Particularly Burrough's Gospel Fear and Gospel Conversation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Puritans would have looked to the self examination of Paul &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+3:12&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phil 3:12&lt;/a&gt; and his exhortation to the Corinthians to do the same &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+13%3A5&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Cor 13:5&lt;/a&gt; as well as other passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their view of examination tends to be an encouragement with two prongs.  First examine your heart.  Do you love Christ.  More specifically do you love the Christ of the Bible.  Do you love the God who is both a consuming fire who will eternally damn sinners in hell as well as the loving Father who will save his Children from their well deserved fate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, examine your actions.  Does this love of God break forth in acts of love to the brethren, to the needy, and to all our neighbors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T22:04:23.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7626" CreationDate="2012-05-15T22:18:52.823" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the spiritual gifts have non spiritual counterparts.  For example there are certainly non Christians who are hospitable or who give generously to causes.  The difference is that there is a spiritual blessing that is given to the recipient along with the normal part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example if someone is exhibiting the gift of hospitality their guests should feel as if they are being blessed in more than just a physical way.  They should feel the blessing of the Holy Spirit, an encouragement to sanctification, etc. along with the other physical or mental blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the gift of leadership that is given to some in the church should in the same way impart a spiritual blessing.  The person being led should feel that they are being encouraged internally by the Spirit to be more holy, and to conform their life more to Christ at the same time they are being led.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2%3A14&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 2:14&lt;/a&gt; therefore those who are not saved will not notice a difference in the leadership. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T22:18:52.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7655" CreationDate="2012-05-15T23:41:33.047" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ananias already had news from God that Paul would become a brother of Christ. Paul probably became a &quot;brother in Christ&quot; during his conversion on the way to Damascus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1650" LastActivityDate="2012-05-15T23:41:33.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7671" CreationDate="2012-05-16T03:56:21.007" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two main reasons: sin and ignorance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin: Some people don't like what the Bible says, and so insist on &quot;re-interpreting&quot; it to conform to what they prefer to believe. Some people want to use the Bible to advance some cause of their own and so pervert and corrupt it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But even without that, even if everyone genuinely sought the truth, we would still have disagreements because humans are fallible. I've had plenty of disagreements about doctrine with other believers whom I am sure are completely sincere. I don't think they're lying or deliberately distorting scripture and I don't think they suppose I am. We just disagree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why doesn't the Holy Spirit prevent such disagreements by miraculously causing us all to have the correct understanding of scripture? Free will, for one. God is not going to dictate to us what we must believe: he gives us the freedom to come to our own conclusions. Also, why would God bother to create billions of human beings if he was then going to insure that they all thought exactly the same?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-16T03:56:21.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="778" CreationDate="2012-05-16T06:13:57.647" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fornication&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; changed its meaning since 1611, so reading its definition in a modern English dictionary does little good. In 1611, &lt;i&gt;fornication&lt;/i&gt; meant prostitution (as abundantly proven ad infinitum on the &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://web.archive.org/web/20110304002348/http://goldenrule.name/Fornication_ENGLISH/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;goldenrule&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; website)and was a perfect translation of &amp;quot;porneia&amp;quot;, which is the activity of &lt;i&gt;porné&lt;/i&gt;, or prostitutes. Though the entry at &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornicate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dictionary.com - fornicate&lt;/a&gt; is misleading, it will tell you what the word meant about the time the KJV was written:  which was to prostitute oneself. Young's Literal translation renders &lt;i&gt;fornication&lt;/i&gt; &amp;quot;whoredom&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God wrote his list of rules for sex, telling us what types of sex were sinful, i.e. &amp;quot;sexual immorality&amp;quot;. The most convenient list is in Leviticus 18. You will find no requirement of marriage before sex or condemnation of premarital sex by God in that passage or any other passage. Such teaching is from the tradition of the Church, not from Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The references to &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt; in 1 Corinthians 6 are about temple prostitutes working in brothels that operated for the good of the city and which were fully accepted by the populace of Corinth. The reference to &amp;quot;fornications&amp;quot; (plural) in 1 Corinthians 7:2 is also to these same brothels. &lt;strong&gt;If you read 1 Corinth. 10:8, you will see that Paul uses &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt; to refer to cult or &amp;quot;sacred&amp;quot; prostitution, or joining to an idol by means of sex with a devoted prostitute.&lt;/strong&gt; This fits in perfectly with 1 Corinthians 6, especially when he talks about this being the only sin that a believer can commit &amp;quot;against his own body.&amp;quot; It is unique among all sex sins. There is no sin as harmful as this. Obviously, Paul is not talking about pre-marital sex here. He's saying that when a man has sex with a temple prostitute, he joins himself to that idol. This union invites demonic entrance into his body thus driving out the indwelling Spirit from His temple. This &amp;quot;takes away a member of the body of Christ&amp;quot; and is indeed a uniquely destructive sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason that people have misunderstood 1 Corinthians 7:2 is the failure to translate &amp;quot;have one's wife or husband&amp;quot; accurately – see, &lt;a href=&quot;https://my.bible.com/bible/107/1CO.7.NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;tn Grk (Translation Notes), 1 Cor 7:2a, NET Bible 2005&lt;/a&gt;. It means to have sex or be in a sexual relationship with someone. It doesn't mean &amp;quot;get a wife, so you won't have sex before marriage.&amp;quot; Paul was saying &amp;quot;let every man have sex with his own woman, not with a temple prostitute.&amp;quot; Several other commentaries bring out these points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://enduringword.com/commentary/1-corinthians-7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Principles Regarding Marriage and Singleness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://tinyurl.com/GordonFeeCommentary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The New International Commentary on the New Testament by Gordon D. Fee&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-7-2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (first Corinthians 7:2)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only a couple of translations have made the meaning clear for us, the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_English_Translation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NET Bible&lt;/a&gt; being an example. Here is their note on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;tn Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb ἐχέτω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29). —&lt;a href=&quot;https://my.bible.com/bible/107/1CO.7.NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;tn Grk (Translation Notes), 1 Cor 7:2a, NET Bible 2005&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Richard suggests that Strong's dictionary defines &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt; as &amp;quot;all forms of sexual acts that are not within the confines of marriage&amp;quot; when in fact it doesn't say that at all. As evidenced in Deuteronomy 22:14, when a man paid a bridal price for a girl, she was considered his wife from that day forward; it might be over a year later before they had the marriage feast and he took her as his bride. If this betrothed girl, his legal wife, had sex before her wedding day, she was guilty of a type of adultery and suffered the consequences. Comparing that situation to Exodus 22:16-17, sex with an unbetrothed virgin, the Bible clearly teaches that pre-marital sex is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; a sin.  There was no punishment upon either of them. The man was forced to pay her bridal price for otherwise her family could never recover the lost money.  The marriage was obligatory upon the man if the parents approved it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These passages only talk about virgin girls under their father's care and say &lt;i&gt;nothing&lt;/i&gt; about premarital sex by adult single females or males. There is no passage that speaks against males, whether single or married, having sex with an unattached female. Adultery laws only applied to sex with married women, not unmarried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope people will stop adding their own rules to the Bible; they're like the Pharisees who made the word of God of no effect by their traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What's the proof that premarital sex is an instance of πορνεία (&lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt;)?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no evidence that pre-marital sex is an instance of &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt;, nor is there any prohibition of responsible pre-marital sex stated in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To discover the meaning of πορνεία, we consult the Greek words, dictionary, and usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strong's Greek Dictionary  contains the following entries: G4202: &lt;em&gt;&lt;i&gt;porneia &lt;/i&gt; (&amp;quot;harlotry&amp;quot;)&lt;/em&gt; derived from G403: &lt;i&gt;porneuo (&amp;quot;act the harlot&amp;quot;)&lt;/i&gt;, which comes from G4204: &lt;i&gt;&lt;em&gt;porné&lt;/em&gt; (&amp;quot;harlot&amp;quot;)&lt;/i&gt; which along with G4205 &lt;i&gt;&lt;em&gt;pornos&lt;/em&gt; (&amp;quot;male prostitute or whoremonger&amp;quot;)&lt;/i&gt; comes from the Greek for &amp;quot;to sell&amp;quot; (akin to the base of G4097).  Young's Literal Translation renders &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt; as &amp;quot;whoredom&amp;quot;. A study of the origin of the word &lt;i&gt;fornicate&lt;/i&gt; shows that it originally meant &amp;quot;to prostitute,&amp;quot; the word being derived from &lt;i&gt;fornix (gate)&lt;/i&gt;, the location of the brothels (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornix?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;fornix.&lt;/i&gt;)&lt;/a&gt;   Nevertheless, the word has changed its meaning since 1611 and is no longer an accurate translation of &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when we look especially at the usage of this word in certain New Testament contexts, it seems to have a broader meaning than just &amp;quot;prostitution.&amp;quot;  It is used in Matthew 5:32 to describe grounds for divorcing one's wife (probably due to unfaithfulness while betrothed - as was thought of Jesus' mother. (Matt.1:19)).  In 1 Corinthians 5:1 it is used to classify incest, and in Jude 7 it is used to refer to homosexuality.  It seems that the Greek-speaking Jews (Hellenists) had adopted &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt; as a universal term for any type of sexual sin prohibited by the Law of God.  A handy list of these sexual taboos is found in Leviticus 18:6-23. Any of the sins listed could be considered fornication (sexual immorality.)  But these specific examples of incest, homosexuality, and adultery are not the primary usages of the word. The primary usage of &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt; is regarding prostitution; not just ordinary prostitution, but rather sacred or cult prostitution in idolatry.  In my opinion this is the primary usage and meaning of the word &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt; in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, we have to remember that the New Testament sexual prohibitions were based upon the Old Testament Law (2 Tim.3:16), and the Old Testament did not forbid a woman from being a prostitute unless she was a priest's daughter (Lev.21:9), nor was any man condemned for sex with a prostitute (Judges 16:1). Prostitution by a married woman was warned against repeatedly in Proverbs. The only type of prostitution that was forbidden was cult prostitution (Deut.23:17) &lt;strong&gt;When Paul warned against fornication in 1 Cor.10:8, he referred to the events of Numbers 25:1-5, cult prostitution, or idolatry through sex.&lt;/strong&gt; Without taking more room here, I will say that this is what is in view in Acts 15, 1 Cor. 6:18, 7:2, and Rev.2:14. Thus, the word &lt;i&gt;porneia&lt;/i&gt; has nothing to do with pre-marital sex.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish scholars readily admit that God's Law, the Torah, did not prohibit premarital sex (see&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/sex.html#Promiscuity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt; &amp;quot;Kosher Sex&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;, from &lt;i&gt;The Jewish Virtual Library&lt;/i&gt;.)  The only passage that discusses it is in regard to an unbetrothed virgin living with her father (Exodus 22:16-17).  There is no sacrifice demanded and no punishment given. Since her father had prospects of obtaining a bridal price for his daughter, he was still entitled to that money and the family would decide whether to permit the marriage.  There is a passage in Deuteronomy 22:14 about a man complaining that his bride wasn't a virgin on her wedding day who could be put to death for her sin; but remember the Jews regarded a betrothed girl as married, so the sin in view there is a type of adultery against her husband who had paid a steep price for a virgin.  There were no prohibitions against adult single women having sex with whomever they pleased, but these situations were probably a rarity in those days and in essence, prostitution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the Jews, there were three ways of obtaining a wife: by contract, by money (e.g. a ring), or by sex. Any of these three were sufficient and lawful (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm#Acquire&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Acquiring a Spouse&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; by Tracey R. Rich, &lt;i&gt;Judaism 101&lt;/i&gt;).  When acquiring a virgin, all three would ordinarily be included.  So, in Biblical times, beginning a consensual sexual relationship with a woman established a marriage.  The traditions of a contract, vows, etc. were added over time and served to protect all parties involved. We have good marriage traditions, but the idea that there can be no sex outside of marriage isn't really in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1494" LastEditorUserId="38446" LastEditDate="2020-12-04T06:04:11.760" LastActivityDate="2020-12-04T06:04:11.760" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7675" CreationDate="2012-05-16T10:42:53.617" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would believed that this issues falls under church polity. The conduct of the local body of Christ is not always clear in the Bible. There are no verses, that I know of, that state how long the mandate of an elder most be. Historically, an office was hold as long as you qualify to it. A carpenter would be exercising the same profession all his life. This is why I think the Bible does not tackle the question of a term. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In today's thinking, we have the idea that power corrupts, and therefore is almost a sin to hold a position of power, and the influence of our political model might be the reason why we are considering this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Bible perceptive, as long as an elder fulfills the requirements from Titus and Timothy, I do not see a biblical recommendation on the question of time or term. This question presents another aspect of our Christian liberty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This being said, elders have a huge responsibility. If an elder does not qualify, not merely as a result of a sin, he should give his resignation (not wait the end of the term) to protect the glory of God in the local body. (The idea I have in mind in this case, could be a young father that cannot take an adequate time with is family. A husband that is always out of the home. These are not sin, but that they are unwise may be patent.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.9marks.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.9marks.org&lt;/a&gt; is a good resource on the question of church polity. I know that I am greatly influenced by them in my thinking on this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-08-11T18:09:00.963" LastActivityDate="2012-08-11T18:09:00.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7675" CreationDate="2012-05-16T12:56:30.400" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 20:21-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Jesus commissions his disciples as apostles, and that commission is repeated to those whom they ordain, in that time and now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no intimation in what Christ said that the change wrought in the apostles was time-limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this answer is given from a Catholic perspective. Once a person is ordained, he's ordained and the Spirit effects an ontological change &amp;mdash; a change in his very nature &amp;mdash; to conform him more closely to Christ. That change cannot be undone. Even if a priest [or deacon] resigns his orders and is released from vows and no longer permitted to act according to his orders, he cannot be re-ordained because it's already been done once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-05-16T12:56:30.400" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7691" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7692" CreationDate="2012-05-16T14:52:31.213" Score="2" ViewCount="284" Body="&lt;p&gt;With ascension day coming up so quickly, I have a question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible, why did Jesus leave? I've read some ideas but few have any actual Biblical backing. Could anyone point me in the direction of this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-24T14:18:54.580" LastActivityDate="2015-09-24T14:18:54.580" Title="Why did Jesus leave?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;ascension&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7691" CreationDate="2012-05-16T15:13:44.237" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible is pretty clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/16-7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 16:7 (NLT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don't,&#xA;the Advocate won't come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus left so that the Holy Spirit would come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-16T15:13:44.237" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7693" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-16T15:18:43.637" Score="9" ViewCount="1495" Body="&lt;p&gt;When do Calvinists consider an elect person to be regenerate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is at birth, then is it odd that someone who is &quot;regenerate&quot; is living in sin, up until the point of faith in Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if it is at a later time, such as at faith in Christ, then how is that faith in Christ prompted in an unregenerate person?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I may not fully understand the definition of &quot;regenerate&quot; (and particularly its distinction from &quot;salvation&quot;), so answerers would be kind to also explain that definition from a Calvinist perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: This question arose out of comments made in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7660/971&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2017-10-18T17:06:00.823" Title="What is the Calvinist perspective on regeneration?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;regeneration&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7693" CreationDate="2012-05-16T15:36:41.040" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It largely depends on which Calvinist you ask :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author of one of the more famous Systematic Theology works (can't remember if it was Shedd, Berkhof, or Hodge... I remember reading it in a defense of Classical Arminianism by Picirilli) said that predestination is not unto faith. This indicates that predestination is unto regeneration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is required is a definition of Calvinistic regeneration. &lt;a href=&quot;http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.com/2010/02/talking-about-regeneration.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is Berkhof's take on regeneration (too long to post, please read. Also read the discussion. It's highly interesting.). Essentially, regeneration is a change in a man's condition, from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive. Once a man is spiritually alive, he has the ability to see his rebellious condition. Because of this, he has an irresistible urge to be saved and have faith in Christ, and he does. Regeneration and salvation are not something that are considered to happen in a chronological order whereby one happens then the other. That regeneration precedes faith and therefore salvation is only a logical ordering. In actuality, the chronological ordering is simultaneous. An important note, though. In Romans, we see that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;faith comes by hearing, and hearing by preaching.&lt;/a&gt; We also see in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ephesians+2.8-10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians&lt;/a&gt; that faith is a gift of God. So, simply put, the faith is given to the believer by God, and the believer comes upon this faith by hearing the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a second question, how sin affects a regenerate's life. The first point is that regeneration occurs at a point in time. An elect man is born into original sin and rebellion toward God, and regenerated at a later point. He does not necessarily emerge from the womb in a regenerate state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, even if this was the case, a regenerated man will still sin! This does not mean that this is accepted by God, but rather that through the man's faith in Christ, he has access to the forgiveness brought through Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&#xA;It has been asked, &quot;Is faith a gift of God? Does the verse from Ephesians necessitate this interpretation?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, whether or not an individual believes faith to be a gift from God is not the question at hand. We're talking about a Reformed interpretation of the doctrine, so for point of this answer, faith is a gift from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More importantly though, is it good to consider faith as a gift from God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A cursory glance at the verse in Ephesians says no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.&#xA;  (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not a Bible languages scholar, but the commentaries I've read all say that &quot;It's&quot; antecedent is &quot;grace,&quot; not &quot;faith&quot; because the gender of the words in question. So, we can make the argument from language that &quot;it&quot; refers to &quot;grace,&quot; not &quot;faith.&quot; However, we have not established that faith is not a gift in this verse, only that the antecedent of the gift is &quot;grace.&quot; If we're going to use this information to determine that faith is not a gift, we're going to need to say that grace is a gift from God, but the channel through which grace is applied is not a gift from God and is instead resident within the believer. This is shaky ground for Arminians and Calvinists alike (and Lutherans, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Calvinist position is that the mechanism whereby God applies His grace is also a gift, or at least the ability to act on that mechanism. If the believer had present within himself the channel through which Grace is applied, in addition to the ability to employ the channel, and chose to employ this channel when another did not, this would give the believer a right to boast over the non-believer that &quot;I was wise enough to act upon something within me, whereas you were not.&quot; The Reformed interpretation of this verse completely blows this argument out of the water: none of salvation is by works, it is all of grace. A common answer to this is that &quot;faith is not a work,&quot; but if it is something that the believer &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; and something an unbeliever &lt;em&gt;does not&lt;/em&gt;, then why should we not consider one's faith a work? Without considering faith as a gift of God, we are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faith-work/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;relegated to consider faith a work and are no better off than demons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other places too, we see faith as being something God can administer. In Romans, we see that God assigns a measure of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.&#xA;  (Romans 12:3 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Mark, we see that Christ does not rebuke the man who begs his Lord to &quot;help with his unbelief,&quot; and rather the Lord blesses the man through the healing in the passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.” And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, “He is dead.” But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Mark 9:23-29 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2012-07-24T21:28:04.157" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T21:28:04.157" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2012-05-16T15:37:38.280" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy it is known &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.saint-katherine.org/articles/mary%20_of_%20egypt.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the life of the saint Mary the Egyptian&lt;/a&gt; (+522), which is an example of repentence, overwhelming for the human nature. From very young age she left her parents. Far from home, she spent 17 years into lechery. One day happened a miracle in her life and she realized how sinfull she was. Very ashamed in front of the God, she felt so much guilt. Counting on the help of the Virgin Mother of God, she left the world and she went deep in the desert spending there 47 years in very wild places, without to see any human face, without food and loosing her few clothes in a short while. Her surviving there was a miracle. One year before to die, God sent abba Zosima, a monk, to find this treasure hidden deep in the desert. When he met Saint Mary, he implored her to tell about all her life from early ages until the last day. Abba Zosima was very impressed, crying all the time when he heard her story, but in the same he was amazed about the fact that she cited words of Scripture, knowing in the same time that she never learnt from the books and she never heard anyone who sang or read these words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saint Mary told to abba Zosima:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The word of God are alive and active, by itself teaches a man knowledge.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/John_Chrysostom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;saint John Chrysostom&lt;/a&gt;, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/522&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Homilies on Matthew&lt;/a&gt;, explains that God gave us His word, not using ink and paper, He writes directly in human hearts with Holy Spirit. God didn't gave writtings to Noah, to Abraham, to his offspring, to Job, to Moses. Instead of writtings, He gave to the apostles, the Holy Spirit saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(John 14:26) &lt;strong&gt;He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Jeremiah 31:33) &lt;strong&gt;I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2 Corinthians 3:2-3) &lt;strong&gt;You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And saint John Chrysostom, concludes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200101.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Homily 1 on Matthew&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course: the written Scriptures.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his Homilies, saint John Chrysostom tell that even in his times, 347-407, the Scriptures had many enemies trying to change them, to cut them or to destroy them completely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:12-15 And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ “And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is known that Orthodoxy is a very &amp;quot;conservative religion&amp;quot; with everything old and everything hard to be understood by our modern minds. But its Holy Tradition, is not tradition made by men, is the way to keep everything revelated from the the God, in its original form as much as possible, unaltered, unreformed, uninfluenced by the temporary teachings of humanity. It is made only by saints, to remain Holy. And the Scriptures are part of this Holy Tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if some texts of the Bible were altered by &amp;quot;academic&amp;quot; translations, re-writtings, the good news is the word of God cannot be changed, or losed definitively, because the finger of God will write His word every time in humble hurts looking for Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-21T19:53:48.393" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7696" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-16T18:14:18.207" Score="5" ViewCount="5306" Body="&lt;p&gt;What, specifically, did Esau lose when he lost the birthright, and what did Jacob gain? What did the birthright represent, and why was it so highly prized by Jacob?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-05-18T12:43:49.990" LastActivityDate="2014-10-26T03:46:57.983" Title="What was the Birthright?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;&lt;esau&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7696" CreationDate="2012-05-16T20:08:19.220" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Esau lost his birthright, he lost a greater ownership of his father's property, as well as the position of leader of the family (thinking of family as a whole tribe of people). Jacob may have prized the birthright out of greed, but it's worth mentioning that God spoke to Rebekah in Genesis 25:22-23 and told her that the younger of her sons would rule over the elder. While it doesn't say that this is the case anywhere in the Bible, If Rebekah had told Jacob of this, perhaps he felt he was doing the will of God. This might also explain why Rebekah helped him in deceiving his father (Genesis 27). Again, this is only speculation on my part. You can read more about the Hebrew birthright here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BIRTHRIGHT/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BIRTHRIGHT/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="242" LastActivityDate="2012-05-16T20:08:19.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7648" CreationDate="2012-05-16T21:04:31.880" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible has a long history of textual issues, but none of them have any bearing on the core of our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Textual and translation errors&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are interested in a fairly detailed and scholarly (yet highly readable) account of the transmission issues of New Testament texts, I highly recommend  Bart Ehrman's &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/Prof.BartEhrman-MisquotingJesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Misquoting Jesus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  Remarkably the book is available online via &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#Rights&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;archive.org&lt;/a&gt;.  It's &lt;a href=&quot;http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2005/12/review-of-bart-ehrman-misquoting-jesus_31.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;not a perfect book&lt;/a&gt; and his theology seems &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;mis-aimed&lt;/a&gt;.  Nevertheless, it's required reading for anyone interested in the subject.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Experts continue to address problems of &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/textual-criticism&quot;&gt;textual criticism&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/translation&quot;&gt;translation&lt;/a&gt;, and even &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/contradiction&quot;&gt;contradictions&lt;/a&gt;.  The remarkable thing is that many of these problems are solvable.  Compared to &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/730/73&quot;&gt;other ancient thinkers&lt;/a&gt;, we have a high degree of certainty that we know what the authors of the New Testament intended.  Counter-intuitively perhaps, &lt;a href=&quot;http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the more copies&lt;/a&gt; of a text we have, the more likely we are to a complete and accurate understanding of authorial intent.  Imagine if we only had &lt;a href=&quot;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Aristotle&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;em&gt;Eudemian Ethics&lt;/em&gt; and not &lt;em&gt;Nicomachean Ethics&lt;/em&gt;&amp;mdash;our understanding of the Philosopher's ethical though would be irrecoverably impoverished.  Given two separate copies of the work, we can apply simple logic to recover not only his ideas, but even their development.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Theological implications&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I read through Ehrman's examples, I'm impressed by the triviality of the variations.  As has been noted over the years by &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;many scholars&lt;/a&gt;, none of these variations would alter Christian theology in the least.  We could toss &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1156/68&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 14:34-35&lt;/a&gt; and it would do no harm to our belief the &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.blogoverflow.com/2012/04/09/easter-as-a-historical-event/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus rose bodily from the dead&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/284/914&quot;&gt;are Christians&lt;/a&gt; who believe that &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; variation (i.e. &quot;imperfection&quot;) in the Bible undermines the credibility of Christianity.  My impression is that Dr. Ehrman was one of those Christians.  I submit that this idea was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Significance_in_Islam&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;imported from Islam&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#Clarifications&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;not a part&lt;/a&gt; of historical Christian theology.  In many ways, the real question we ought to ask is not &quot;Is the Bible without error?&quot; but &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Does the Bible have authority?&lt;/a&gt;&quot;  While there are many disagreements about the first, all Christians that I know answer the second in the affirmative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What we do when we don't understand the Bible&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to take a moment to discuss the deeper question you ask about what we do when we find something we don't understand.  Perhaps the easiest way is to walk through how I come to grips with my least-favorite verse in the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.&amp;mdash;Mark 12:25 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, the problem is that I love my wife and I can't imagine a (good) future without being married to her.  Jesus' teaching (repeated in all three synoptic gospels) is clear, however: marriage does not carry over to the resurrection.  Now if I had examined Jesus' teaching and found it generally untrustworthy, there's no question I'd dismiss this bit of the Bible along with the rest.  We aren't surprised when a fool says something foolish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I've discovered after many years, that Jesus' teaching in the Bible &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; proved trustworthy in my life.  When, for instance, I follow his suggestions to be humble, gentile and to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;turn the other cheek&lt;/a&gt;, I find that it &lt;em&gt;works&lt;/em&gt; to avoid escalation of conflict and that I feel a deep sense of &lt;em&gt;peace&lt;/em&gt;.  And it's not the case that he is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.  No.  In my experience, Jesus is always right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is fundamentally what it means to trust Jesus and to have faith in him.  So when I go back to the idea that I won't be married in the Resurrection, I must struggle with the idea that not only is it's &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt;, but that it's &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt;.  I don't believe that it can be, but I believe that Jesus taught with authority.  So I must echo the father of an epileptic boy who could not be healed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe; help my unbelief!&amp;mdash;Mark 9:24b (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+9/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-05-16T21:04:31.880" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7170" CreationDate="2012-05-16T23:43:05.020" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I don't know of any other attempts to sample the Bible, I don't see any reason another method couldn't be tried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I would be reluctant to endorse another method that focuses on individual verses because context matters a great deal when it comes to exegesis (i.e. interpretation).  Take for instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.&amp;mdash;Mark 12:25 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+12/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken alone, this presents a host of problems:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It says that people neither marry nor are given in marriage in the resurrection, but in context it's clear that Jesus means there is no marriage relationship between men and women.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While the verse implies we become like angels in the resurrection, that only refers to whether we are married to each other.  Apparently his audience was more familiar with angelology than the theology of resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This verse implies that we will rise from the dead to heaven, but that idea is contradicted by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Revelation+21/&quot;&gt;Revelation 21&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As N. T. Wright &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm&quot;&gt;says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I remember a well-known Preacher saying that he thought a lot of Christians used the Bible as an unsorted edition of Daily Light.  It really ought to be arranged into neat little devotional chunks, but it happens to have got all muddled up.  The same phenomenon occurs, at a rather different level, when People treat it as an unsorted edition of Calvin’s Institutes, the Westminster Confession, the UCCF Basis of Faith, or the so-called ‘Four Spiritual Laws’.  But to treat the Bible like that is, in fact, simply to take your place in a very long tradition of Christians who have tried to make the Bible into a set of abstract truths and rules—abstract devotional doctrinal, or evangelistic snippets here and there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some ways, Knuth's sample does encourage us to ask questions of our Bible and seek the bigger picture.  Everyone knows (or thinks they know) why John 3:16 is in our Bible, but what about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes.&amp;mdash;Judges 3:16 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Judges+3/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?&amp;mdash;Hebrews 3:16 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Hebrews+3/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully such verses cause at least some people to hunt down that all-important context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-05-16T23:43:05.020" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7700" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7722" CreationDate="2012-05-16T23:52:54.407" Score="11" ViewCount="3998" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 19:1-6 New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and&#xA;  went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large&#xA;  crowds followed him, and he healed them there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful&#xA;  for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator&#xA;  ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man&#xA;  will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the&#xA;  two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one&#xA;  flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus said “&lt;em&gt;Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female&lt;/em&gt;&quot; I believe he was referring to Genesis 5:2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 5:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 He (God) created them male and female and blessed them. And he named&#xA;  them “Mankind” when they were created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to the unity of one man and one woman, how did the Pharisees as well as others listening to Jesus &lt;em&gt;(Matthew 19:2-3)&lt;/em&gt; interoperate what Jesus meant &lt;em&gt;(Matthew 19:4-6)&lt;/em&gt; when they would have also known that Abraham and King David had &lt;strong&gt;multiple wives&lt;/strong&gt; and/or &lt;strong&gt;concubines&lt;/strong&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; I don't want this to be about how Christians view polygamy &lt;strong&gt;today&lt;/strong&gt; but rather how did those &lt;strong&gt;listening&lt;/strong&gt; think/feel/interperate (through &lt;strong&gt;1st century&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;eyes&quot;) what Jesus was now saying compared to the &quot;views/actions&quot; of their forefathers. Prior to Jesus referencing &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 5&lt;/strong&gt; and clarifying that the unity of male and female was orignially intended for one man and one woman, did those practicing Judaism and those following Jesus recognize a difference in what was once practiced and what is now being said; or did everyone already &lt;strong&gt;know the original intent of male and female&lt;/strong&gt;, specifically in terms of how Jesus stated it to be in &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 19&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="1584" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T16:46:52.633" LastActivityDate="2015-03-07T08:15:59.350" Title="Multiple wives and concubines | male and female &quot;original&quot; intent" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="19" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2012-05-17T04:22:40.400" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the Pharisees understood quite well that their ancestors were not perfect. The fact that they did X does not make X right. The example of David that you bring up is a case in point: He was guilty of adultery and murder. The Bible is unusual in that it holds someone up as a hero at the same time that it freely recounts his character flaws -- sometimes big ones like this. I don't think the Pharisees supposed that murder was okay because David did it, or would have found this in any way confusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Ever notice that most history books and biographies tend to present their heroes as 100% good? Their character flaws are often whitewashed: he was forced into it by circumstances; this was accepted practice at the time, etc. There are exceptions, of course, but I see this a lot. But the Bible goes to rather the opposite extreme, being quite emphatic about its heroes’ sins.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the Old Testament does seem to at least tolerate polygamy. There are some clues in the OT that indicate that God intended marriage to be monogamous. For example, Gen 2:24 &quot;Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.&quot; Note &quot;wife&quot;, singular, not &quot;a man shall be joined to his wives&quot;. Etc. But these are subtle enough that one could debate them, and I don't know of anything in the OT that clearly, explicitly mandates monogamy. There are plenty of places where a person's sin is called out, and I don't know of anyplace where polygamy is called out as a sin. I'm interested if anybody else here can point to such a verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Flimzy notes, Jesus was condemning divorce, not polygamy. That doesn't mean polygamy is okay, of course, I'm sure there are lots of sins that the Bible does not record Jesus discussing. But that's not what he was talking about here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-05-17T04:26:29.340" LastActivityDate="2012-05-17T04:26:29.340" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7696" CreationDate="2012-05-17T04:32:34.503" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mainly it appears to be a right to a double share in the inheritance. That is, if a couple had two sons, the first inherited 2/3 of the property and the second inherited 1/3. I've read some discussions that he also had additional responsibilities which made this fair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Side note: Modern Bible teachers routinely talk about how sneaky and dishonest Jacob was in buying the birthright. But it's interesting to note that the only editorial comment the Bible makes about it is not, &quot;Thus Jacob stole his brother's birthright&quot; or &quot;Thus Jacob tricked his brother out of his birthright&quot;, but, &quot;Thus Esau despised his birthright.&quot; (Gen 25:34b) Thus the position of the Bible appears to be, not that Jacob , was at fault, but that Esau was an idiot. He was a classic case of immediate gratification, giving up (say) a million dollars several decades in the future in exchange for twenty bucks today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-17T04:32:34.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7703" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7735" CreationDate="2012-05-17T05:20:37.557" Score="27" ViewCount="7800" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is common these days to hear questions like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The most important thing is your personal relationship with Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible never uses this phrase.  Jesus certainly had personal relationships with his disciples, but after his death, Paul never tells the churches in Corinth or Rome that they need better &quot;personal relationships with Jesus.&quot;  The other epistles don't talk about ways to &quot;strengthen&quot; that &quot;personal relationship,&quot; etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How long has a &quot;personal relationship&quot; with Jesus been talked about in Christian culture?  Where did this &lt;strong&gt;term and related language originate&lt;/strong&gt;, and what is its history?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; Please note I'm not specifically looking for Biblical references to support this concept (although that could certainly be part of a good answer!)  I'm asking about the cultural history of this concept.  And while I can appreciate that even Jesus made statements that can be easily interpreted as supporting a personal relationship, he definitely did not emphasize this aspect of Christian culture.  When, where, how did the concept of a &quot;personal relationship with Jesus&quot; enter Christian culture as a prominent theme? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-07T15:28:37.143" LastActivityDate="2016-12-11T09:27:50.373" Title="What is the history of the concept of a &quot;personal relationship with Jesus&quot;?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;relationships&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7170" CreationDate="2012-05-17T09:44:00.920" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found a bunch of poster presenting different aspect of Christianity theology explain. Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;https://s3.amazonaws.com/Challies_VisualTheology/Trinity_LowRes.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link to the  poster explaining trinity&lt;/a&gt;. You can find the list of poster available at http://www.imagekind.com/challies-posters (sorry it is a store :( ) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it images like theses you were looking for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-05-17T09:44:00.920" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7696" CreationDate="2012-05-17T09:58:17.360" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's worth mentioning that inheritance included father's blessing. Orthodox professor of theology Lopukhin thinks that those blessings had mystical meaning - the son being blessed becomes continuator of testament between God and Abraham, takes ability to &quot;speak&quot; with God and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also i like Jakob's blessing of Joseph, it's so poetic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1645" LastActivityDate="2012-05-17T09:58:17.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7706" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-17T10:01:29.613" Score="1" ViewCount="854" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been recently watching documentary on LaVey Church of Satan and, I caught myself in a feeling that I actually envy a bit as those people were evidently having good and harmless fun and anyway had a good and understanding company.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What should be the right Christian attitude to The Church of Satan (I'm not talking of any other schools of satanism just of The Church of Satan). Should it be regarded as a crazy old-fashioned curiosity or should it be condemned? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:26:11.053" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T20:13:31.257" Title="What should be a Christian attitude to the Church of Satan?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-12-11T03:44:03.063" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7706" CreationDate="2012-05-17T12:15:50.800" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul's sentiments towards the nation of Israel give us a good model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they&#xA;  may be saved. Romans 10:1 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our desire and prayer to God for the Church of Satan should be that they may be saved.  According to the Scriptures, they are living a lie, they are deceived, and they are blind to the reality.  People can certainly have &quot;good times&quot;, but we were created to know God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the&#xA;  unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the&#xA;  glory of Christ, who is the image of God.  2 Corinthians 4:4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we were temporal beings, then temporal pleasures would be our highest goal.  But we are not temporal beings.  Since we are beings with immortal souls, if all we ever experience are temporal pleasures, we should be pitied.  We were created to know God eternally and experience the eternal pleasures of that relationship.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is&#xA;  fullness of joy; at your right hand are &lt;strong&gt;pleasures forevermore&lt;/strong&gt;. &#xA;  Psalm 16:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hell will be no party or place of pleasure.  That's part of the deceit.  So, we should have great compassion and concern for those in the Church of Satan, despite any perception that they have good times or harmless fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-05-17T12:15:50.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7709" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7711" CreationDate="2012-05-17T13:37:11.063" Score="2" ViewCount="394" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard, seen, and been in religious debates in the past where one of the participants eventually falls back on a line something akin to &lt;code&gt;&quot;it's a sin because the Bible says not to do it&quot;&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;&quot;it's a sin because God said so&quot;&lt;/code&gt;. Understandably, this sounds and feels like a cop-out to many people, especially people who have not acknowledged the sovereignty and authority of God. It is not surprising that they want to know the reasoning, to understand the &lt;strong&gt;why&lt;/strong&gt; and not just the &lt;strong&gt;what&lt;/strong&gt; of an imposition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am far from an expert on the Bible, having only read it in its entirety the once. However, it is my instinctual estimation that most, if not all, of the sins (and requirements) that the Bible enumerates are given at least some degree of justification, either inline with the admonition or elsewhere in scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know, however, that this is just an instinct, which is why I'm bringing the topic up here, in hopes of finding either support or reasoned contradiction of the theory. This leaves a few questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can you cite any examples of commands, admonitions, prohibitions, etc. in the Bible where there seems to be no explicit justification?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there any scripture that talks about whether God explains His commands or not?&lt;/strong&gt; For (slightly comical) example, does God ever say &quot;I will not give you commands you do not understand&quot; or conversely &quot;I'm the boss, deal with it&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If there is a command without scriptural justification, what is the right course of action in defending the command?&lt;/strong&gt; (I realize this last question is more about apologetics, but I am curious about this, too)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastEditorUserId="168" LastEditDate="2012-05-17T14:47:30.040" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T02:04:26.953" Title="Biblical support for why something is a sin?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7706" CreationDate="2012-05-17T14:35:09.443" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a disciple of Christ, you should talk to them and explain the differences between the two religions.  Be careful to not become confrontational. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 12:31 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no&#xA;  commandment greater than these.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does NOT say, love them if and only if they believe what you believe.&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;It is not our job to judge them.  It is our job to enlighten them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-05-17T16:41:53.280" LastActivityDate="2012-05-17T16:41:53.280" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7709" CreationDate="2012-05-17T14:48:37.157" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's like when your kid asks questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Kid: &quot;Why do you work?&quot;&#xA;Me: &quot;To earn money.&quot;&#xA;Kid: &quot;Why do you want to earn money?&quot;&#xA;Me: &quot;So that I can support you and mommy.&quot;&#xA;Kid: &quot;Why do you want to support me and mommy?&quot;&#xA;Me: &quot;Because I love you and mommy.&quot;&#xA;Kid: &quot;Why do you love me and mommy?&quot;&#xA;Me: &quot;I love you and mommy because Jesus told me to love you and mommy.&quot;&#xA;Kid: &quot;Why did Jesus tell you to do that?&quot;&#xA;Me: &quot;Because he loved us first.&quot;&#xA;Kid: &quot;Why does he love you?&quot;&#xA;Me: &quot;Ummm.....&quot;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, every question we ask about anything in scripture will ultimately come down to an &quot;Ummm...&quot; at the end of it.  In other words, at some point, we have to accept that some things are true and good, simply because they're true and good, and are based in the character of who God is.  Why he is who he is will always be a matter of &quot;Ummm...&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue comes, of course, when a person's own instincts about right and wrong don't agree with the scriptural, Biblical concept of right and wrong.  Of course, this comes down to the person's understanding of who God is.  Our own depravity is our handicap when it comes to determining right from wrong, and also our handicap when it comes to having the humility under God to admit that we might be wrong.  Combine that with our educated society, and you have a culture of people who won't believe anything they can't understand.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark Driscoll puts it this way: Our education has surpassed our intelligence.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with your first question, is that any explicit justification that would be given anyways would ultimately come back to the fact that God gave us the command, which would ultimately be based in his character.  Love is defined by God (because God is love), not by us, and the great problem in dealing with explanations of sin, is that these conversations usually have two people who start with different presuppositions.  Given that, we can't properly defend a command, without both parties understanding the nature of God.  Without God as anchor, we're all lost at sea.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's the answer, if there's a command without scriptural justification?  Don't try to defend the command, try to change the presupposition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only way to change presuppositions is to point people towards Jesus.  Those who don't believe in Jesus have nothing to gain from &quot;cleaning up their act&quot;.  They're still fallen, and without Christ.  The best they could hope for is a nice, sanitized, relatively nonviolent life that would still end with their soul in hell.  Pointing the unbeliever to Jesus, and explaining his unconditional love, and his death on the cross is the best way to bring about a realization of what is right and what is wrong in that person's life.  Just as a child doesn't want to disappoint a good father, one who is in Christ will ultimately grow to grieve disappointing his heavenly father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Every commandment ultimately, when put up to a depraved mind demanding answers about why, will ultimately fail when presented with &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; justification regarding any sin.  It's only when we stop demanding justifications that we begin to accept the command as right.  Some people stop when the justification is &quot;so that it doesn't offend someone else&quot;, and some people stop when the justification is &quot;so that it doesn't offend God.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any scripture that talks about whether God explains his commands or not.  Some he does, some he doesn't.  Sometimes, the best explanation is &quot;For I am your God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The right course of action is to not defend the command, but to present Christ, and allow the introduction of the Holy Spirit into a person's life defend the command for you.  Those who do not have the Holy Spirit don't need to obey a command, they need Christ.  If the person's refusal to acknowledge the command as right is preventing the person from admitting their own need for Christ, switch to a different command, then use the fact that it is broken to point them again to Christ.  On the other hand, for those who are believers, you should hopefully be able to point towards the Bible, and hopefully that will be enough. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a practical note, I once knew a guy who believed that some of the Bible was true, and some of it wasn't.  I told him to get a magic marker, find 2 Timothy 3:16, and mark it out, then proceed through reading the Bible, marking out all the parts he disagreed with.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He gave up pretty quickly.  The Bible is meant to be accepted as a whole, and not in part. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-05-17T14:48:37.157" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7709" CreationDate="2012-05-17T15:07:31.590" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The professor of russian Orthodox Church Osipov defines sin not as law given by God to human, but as advice. &lt;code&gt;Human, don't do this, this will cause you to bleed. Do not harm yourself&lt;/code&gt;. So your question is actually about why this or that thing is harmful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you think about love to enemies, holding off your own wishes and other words of Christ, you definitely will see that fulfilling them brings joy for human and disobeying them causes him to suffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1645" LastActivityDate="2012-05-17T15:07:31.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7709" CreationDate="2012-05-17T16:17:56.630" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why Sin is Sin&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is not sin because the Bible says so.  Sin is sin because it is contrary to the nature of God, it separates mankind from God, and it is self-destructive.  Indeed, the thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, sin is not sin just because the Bible says so.  Sin is sin because of what it is.  The role of the Bible is to identify for mankind what sin is and what it is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Moral Compass&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that most all of us accept the idea of right and wrong, good and evil.  In many cases, there is widespread agreement, but there certainly is disagreement in significant areas as well.  However, while most everyone would agree that murder is wrong, many in Germany in the 1940's believed it was not wrong to murder Jews.  In fact, there are many today who still believe it is morally right to murder people of other faiths or those who convert to other faiths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, then, is how can humanity discern &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; is right and &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; is wrong about &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; is right and &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; is wrong?  We can't vote on it, because a majority who believe genocide is alright are still wrong.  That leaves us with really only one solution, and that is to allow the Moral Lawgiver to define morality.  If He says it's wrong, it's wrong--despite what we believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If He says adultery is wrong, then there is no valid excuse an adulterer can give.  If He says it's wrong to blaspheme His Name, then the blasphemer has no excuse.  If He says it's wrong to lie, then politicians are all in trouble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Word of God is the moral compass, and we must allow God to be the final word to moral issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two Responses&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, most &quot;sins&quot; are pretty self-evident.  Most people know inherently that lying, cheating, stealing, rape and murder are all wrong.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem comes with things that are disputed.  For this, we have the option of either accepting or rejecting God's input on the matter.  If we read the Bible and we disagree with its position, there are two responses we can have.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One person sees the disagreement and concludes that God is wrong.  This person believes that he himself knows better than God or discounts the relevance, accuracy, or authority of the Word of God.  Such a person, by definition, is a follower his own way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another person sees the disagreement in the Bible with his life or ideas and concludes that he himself must be wrong.  Such a person, by definition, is a follower of the Bible and of the God of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-05-17T16:17:56.630" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7715" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7719" CreationDate="2012-05-17T20:01:33.380" Score="-1" ViewCount="2362" Body="&lt;p&gt;At Church (Calvary Chapel) I don't remember exactly what the pastor was talking about but he mentioned the phrase &quot;cosmic energy&quot; when relating to what it is to be in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was surprised just by the fact that he mentioned &quot;cosmic energy&quot; and wasn't knocking it but rather comparing it in a positive light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any connections to Christianity, Bible, apostles, stories, theories, Jesus, etc and cosmic energy and what are they? Are there concepts, such as the holy spirit telling someone something, the same as cosmic intuition? Just diffent ways of describing the same thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a really good introduction video on cosmic energy - for a reference to this topic:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=&amp;amp;esrc=s&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=1&amp;amp;ved=0CFgQtwIwAA&amp;amp;url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWttCv0p6WQ&amp;amp;ei=HlS1T_PpF8Pu2gWUsrg9&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNGfLTEP54ouLIJFH0MLfZFThRAUQA&amp;amp;sig2=lNnmgn61GunzNnAcgTXyww&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spiritual Reality Power Of Meditation - YouTube&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-05-17T22:55:01.043" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T02:54:06.943" Title="What is the correlation between cosmic energy and Christianity?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-05-23T12:26:47.577" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7693" CreationDate="2012-05-18T00:14:17.133" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This passage, I think gives a good quick perspective on the Calvinist understanding of regeneration [especially when read in light of the Calvinist reading of ideas like &quot;dead in transgressions and sin&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:1&lt;/a&gt;) and God's act of replacing a man's hard heart with a new one (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2036:26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 36:26&lt;/a&gt;)]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%203:3-7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Titus 3:3-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For  we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But when  the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, &lt;sup&gt;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; he saved us,  not because of works done by us in righteousness, but  according to his own mercy, by  the washing of regeneration and  renewal of the Holy Spirit, &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; whom he  poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; so that  being justified by his grace we might become  heirs  according to the hope of eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, it's interesting, because we are identified as having been foolish, disobedient, etc...essentially &quot;in sin.&quot;   What's key here though, is that salvation is provided &lt;em&gt;by&lt;/em&gt; the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.   The washing of regeneration is the avenue by which we receive salvation, and it is the process by which we are transformed from foolish, sinful people to new creatures capable of receiving faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think San Jacinto answered it well.   To a Calvinist, regeneration is a &lt;em&gt;logical&lt;/em&gt; precursor to faith, though as far as we can tell, it's not nec. a &lt;em&gt;chronological&lt;/em&gt; precursor (or at least not in a way that we can perceive it).  Being &quot;born again&quot; is a very apt description...I don't remember my birth, but I do remember moments of my awareness of being alive.   We may not nec. have a distinct moment where we &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt; regeneration, but as time wears on, we gain in our understanding and application of faith, which, too, is evidence that we have been made alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="701" LastEditDate="2012-05-18T14:33:05.080" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T14:33:05.080" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7717" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7720" CreationDate="2012-05-18T02:00:15.983" Score="3" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1st John 5:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John seems to be both liberal and absolutistic in his statement here: on one hand, he doesn't add any more prerequisites for a human to be a regenerate (while today's main stream Christianity would most likely add some more like believing that Christ is God,  that Christ and God the Father are the same One God, etc.), on the other hand, he says &quot;whosoever&quot;, which sounds like he is very explicit about his statement being true for all cases that meet his prerequisite (which is believing that Jesus is Christ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the arguments of those who believe that the prerequisite stated here by John is yet not sufficient for being born of God? I know that many Christians don't consider, for example,  Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be regenerate (because they don't believe that Jesus is the same God as God the Father). However, both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses seem to meet this prerequisite stated here by John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-05-18T08:25:31.367" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T07:38:22.717" Title="What are the arguments of those who believe that the prerequisite stated here by John is yet not sufficient for being born of God?" Tags="&lt;regeneration&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7709" CreationDate="2012-05-18T02:32:49.177" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is Sin?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before we ask, &quot;why is something sin?&quot;, we must ask &quot;what is sin?&quot;. The Bible doesn't give an explicit and all encompassing definition of sin. Based on what has been revealed to us about sin, the Catholic church defines sin as follows - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as &quot;an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law. &lt;strong&gt;Sin is an offense against God&lt;/strong&gt;: &quot;Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done &lt;strong&gt;that which is evil in your sight&lt;/strong&gt;... (Psalm 51:4)&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1849.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1849-1850&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why is something evil in God's eyes?&lt;/strong&gt; (i.e. why is something sin?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is the objective standard of morality. Without God, there is simply no objective morality as Ravi Zacharias explains in this short &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7mhQ8fEq0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;video&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before going to God, let's ask, &quot;why is something evil in my eyes?&quot; I answer, &quot;It is evil because I KNOW it is evil. It is evil because it contradicts what I know is good and right.&quot; I don't need God to tell me that murder is evil. I know within my heart and mind that it is evil, because my conscience (Romans 2:14-15) tells me so.&quot; Where does my conscience come from? My conscience comes from God because God created me and gave me a conscience. However, because of the fall of man, my conscience is distorted and therefore, my conscience cannot always tell me whether something is objectively evil or not. See Romans 14:14 for an example of this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, something is evil in God's eyes because God KNOWS what is good and evil (Gen 3:5). And he knows it perfectly. Since God, by definition, is the Supreme Good itself, anything that goes against God's will or against his nature is evil and God knows it. So, for eg. sexual relations between a man and an animal is evil, because God didn't intend it to be so. God knows it is not good for man. But man may not always know this, because of his fallen nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the ultimate analysis, as David Morton said, we have to trust God, because he is the objective standard of morality. If God says it is evil, then it must be evil, because &lt;strong&gt;he is the only standard of objective good and evil&lt;/strong&gt;. He knows what is good and evil; we may not always know. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T02:32:49.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7715" CreationDate="2012-05-18T02:47:58.450" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Give me one biblical example of where any such stuff was mentioned. Sorry for the short answer (:P) but either power is ascribed to God or Satan. I tend to think of &quot;Cosmic Energy&quot; as nonsense, but where it to exist, I'm not sure the distinction between it and supernatural (God or Satan) forces. To say there's a relationship between Jesus and such stuff would be, in my opinion, to imply that there is a third side in spiritual warfare, something I'm not at all prepared to accept. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anywhere the Holy Spirit is mentioned, it has always been clearly and explicitly attributed as such, with nothing left to fill in. No such &quot;intuition&quot; is found anywhere. Nothin in relation to anyone else either. I would question your pastor strongly on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1432" LastEditorUserId="1432" LastEditDate="2012-05-18T02:54:06.943" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T02:54:06.943" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7717" CreationDate="2012-05-18T12:58:36.110" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;We must be always cautious when we remove a sentence from its context, because it can often lead to misunderstanding.  The verse you quoted was in the context of an entire letter.  It was not intended to be separated from that context.  Authorial intent is a critical consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the audience should be considered as well.  The people to whom John wrote the letter believed certain things about Jesus, so He wasn't addressing misconceptions or heresies about who Jesus is.  They didn't have those misconceptions or heresies, while some who read that letter today certainly do.  It is important to note that Scripture can never mean what it was never intended to mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we do divorce this verse from the context and the audience, we would have to conclude that someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, but who didn't die on the cross, was not the Son of God, wasn't resurrected, wasn't sinless, and that salvation comes through the works of the law, and that adultery and lying and cheating are alright for him, would still be considered born of God.  Is it rational to assume that the Apostle John, if asked for clarification, would have agreed with this?  Of course not.  This is absurd, of course, and is an improper manner in which to treat Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those that read this letter from John originally understood his intent.  Had they been believing heresy, like the Galatians, John would certainly have taken a different tone altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from the perspective of a Biblical literalist, everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and Spirit, who died on the Cross the make atonement for our sins, and who rose from the dead, and trusts the work of Jesus for salvation and forgiveness, is born of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T12:58:36.110" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5185" CreationDate="2012-05-18T14:38:01.477" Score="-1" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people think that God doesn't spoke never. The atheists.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people think that God spoke to humans only until Abraham. These are the muslims, disconsidering all the profets after and their prophecies, Jesus, Son of God, the Father, the apostles, saints after them. Rejecting every information about Kingdom of Heaven, staying in the same dark as people from the 4000 years ago, believing instead the tricks of Mohammed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people think that God spoke to humans only until Moses. They miss-interpret or dis-consider all reveletions after Moses. These are jews.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people think that God spoke to humans until apostle Paul wrote his last letter and apostle John wrote Revelation book. They ignore all the saints after apostles. These are the protestants, the &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot; believers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people think that God spoke to humans until to holy fathers in 7-th ecumenic council from Nikea, or until around 1054. They ignore all the real saints after this council. These are the catholics.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people think that God spoke to humans until around the first world war, or until 1923. They lost the apostolic way, ignoring all the saints from the last centuries. These are orthodox new-calendarists.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people think that God spoke to humans until nowadays, and He will speak uninterrupted until the end of the world, as the loving Father. Who are these people?!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are an atheist, you will think that Sodom and Gomorrah story is a genocide, is not an act of God, and cannot be any acceptable God like this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are jew or muslim, you will think that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, was an act of justice.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are a protestant, you will understand that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, was a logic act of the God. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are orthodox, keeping with discernment all He revealed to humans in all times, you will know that what happened there was an act of love. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The opinions regarding the narration of Sodom and Gomorrah, as with every biblic narration, variates based on this diversity in receiving of God's revelation.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The different views on this subject comes from the understanding of the subjects: &quot;What is a human?&quot;, &quot;What is the purpose of human life?&quot;, &quot;Which is the will of God?&quot; .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer to these questions, an atheist will consider everything the science has recorded about humanity along the time: medicine, anatomy, astronomy, physics, maths, ... Because he will not perceive anything beyond the 5 human senses and the scientific tools as their extensions (microscope, telescope), the atheist will conclude: Sodom and Gomorrah is a genocide story as other stories from bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The muslim and the jew will think: From God is everything: life, death, health, disease, food, starvation, etc. Everything is decided by Him. God is just. So, what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah is an act of justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But understanding starts to work, to have some kind of logic, when a human is considered in his integrity as a living being. If the human is composed only from a zillions of cells, that can be seen on microscope, then YES: was a genocid. But if a human has: body, soul and spirit, then NO: what happened there is only a small part of a big picture. Some bodies burned there, but what happend with the souls? What happened with the spirits of these people? What significance has the 2000 years later Resurrection from Death of Jesus Christ, regarding of them? etc... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy is known that God revelated His knowledge to the saints and lets other humans to learn about His revelations from them, by applying in the same time: &lt;strong&gt;faith and discernment&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the year 1389, on June 15, the serbian prince Lazarus died in lost battle against Turkish Emperor Amurat, a battle between christians and muslims. On night before the battle, Lazarus was visited by one of the great angels of the God to offer a choice between an earthly or a Heavenly kingdom. Lazar opted for the Heavenly kingdom, saying immortal words: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;perishable is earthly kingdom, but forever and ever is Kingdom of&#xA;  Heaven!&quot;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Lazar_of_Serbia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;orthodoxwiki.org/Lazar_of_Serbia&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before to die, being in death agony, he start to bend about his choice made in the name of his country, invaded now by muslims. The angel came again and answered to all his questions which torture his soul. One of the question was: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;what is the most necessary thing for a man at death's door to ask of&#xA;  his God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angel of God answered him: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;At the end and at the beginning of the earthly journey, as well as on&#xA;  every step of that journey, it is most important for the earthly&#xA;  wayfarer to ask God for two things: first, the forgiveness of sins;&#xA;  and second, the bestowal of the Spirit of God. Everything that is full&#xA;  must first be emptied in order for it to be filled. It must be cleaned&#xA;  first, and then adorned. The Spirit of God does not enter a house&#xA;  occupied by a demonic slave of sins, and He does not adorn an unclean&#xA;  home with either His presence or His heavenly gifts.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then the angel explained to him, and to all humans through Lazar, the complete anatomy of the human, having body, soul and spirit, how important are each of them, which are their roles and component parts they have ... reveling many other mysteries about: proto-parents Adam and Eve, about Heaven, love, superior minds, gold freedom, significance of cross, ... &lt;a href=&quot;http://tzarlazar.tripod.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://tzarlazar.tripod.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this light can be seen that people of the Sodom and Gomorrah, or people from the Noah times, they lost the purpose of their life completely, and decadence or their souls were continuous growing, reversing the values of life from truth to lie, from freedom to slavery, from joy to suffering, from real love to carnal lusts, all these translated in separation of God, ie eternal suffering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only in the light of Traditional Orthodoxy, somebody can understand that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, or in Noah times, and in all the times, are acts of a loving God. And His love for humanity is overwhelming, cannot be understood entirely or comprised by a human mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditDate="2012-05-19T18:27:30.400" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T18:27:30.400" CommentCount="0" CommunityOwnedDate="2012-05-19T18:27:30.400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7700" CreationDate="2012-05-18T15:19:17.347" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;However, my question is still did the Pharisees as well as the rest of the crowd have any confusion...&quot; - I think they definitely had a confusion in their minds at that moment and didn't right away realize the difference between God's original intent and God's forbearance toward His people already in the fallen state. The following verses show both their confusion (verse 7) and the Savior's pointing out to that difference (verse 8: &quot; because of the hardness of your hearts ... but from the beginning it was not so&quot;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T15:19:17.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7723" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7791" CreationDate="2012-05-18T16:16:59.363" Score="8" ViewCount="3714" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Paul famously made an extensive series of missionary journeys around the eastern Mediterranean (in various company, and stopping off in some places for months or years, also getting shipwrecked at one point). These are described in Acts and in the letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am curious about the rough &lt;strong&gt;financial cost&lt;/strong&gt; of these travels, in terms of the means of typical first-century people. Basically, how wealthy would you have to be in order to make these trips (assuming you're paying for it all yourself)? How much support might therefore have been required from other Christians in order to finance the voyages?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not after exact numbers - just an estimate of where these trips fall on the scale of &quot;Paul could easily have paid for the whole thing out of his own money&quot; to &quot;this was a major outlay for the whole church community&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QO6n7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;The missionary journeys of the Apostle Paul (from Wikimedia Commons)&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMap13.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Image from Wikimedia Commons - JWooldridge CC-BY-SA&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-26T18:37:33.203" LastActivityDate="2015-11-26T18:37:33.203" Title="How much did Paul's travels cost?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;economics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7726" CreationDate="2012-05-18T17:37:38.437" Score="-4" ViewCount="716" Body="&lt;p&gt;In inspired by this question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7486/did-paul-preach-jesuss-message&quot;&gt;Did Paul preach Jesus&amp;#39;s message?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which apostles quoted Jesus and which ones did not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Paul meet Jesus in person and did he ever quote Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T14:28:49.897" Title="Which apostles quote Jesus?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-05-20T02:32:48.293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7725" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7727" CreationDate="2012-05-18T18:54:54.817" Score="2" ViewCount="766" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard it said many times in religious/spiritual and/or typical conversation that &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;there is more to know than that which is written&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; [in the bible].&quot; Is this comment scripturally inspired? If so where can the comment or its inspiration be found in scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="1584" LastEditDate="2012-05-18T19:42:25.833" LastActivityDate="2018-08-24T21:08:58.563" Title="There is more to know than that which is written" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;wisdom&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7724" CreationDate="2012-05-18T18:57:37.153" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a difficult question to answer, due to the sparsity of the record.  We have no indication that Paul ever met Jesus during his mortal life, and in at least one place, we have Paul claiming to quote Jesus but giving a doctrine not recorded anywhere in the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:35&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 20:35&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to&#xA;  support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he&#xA;  said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This should not surprise anyone who's familiar with the last verse of the Gospel of John, of course.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we don't have surviving works of all the apostles, (and it's reasonable to assume that we don't have &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the important writings of the apostles whose work we do have some of today,) so it's impossible to say if any of them did not quote Jesus, though I find it unlikely on a simple logical basis: they were sent out specifically to teach his message; how could they do that accurately without using his words?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T18:57:37.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2012-05-18T18:59:41.953" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Try the very &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;last verse of the book of John&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;— &lt;em&gt;New International Version&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beside that, it is obvious that much of the minutia of daily life is missing from the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2018-08-24T21:08:58.563" LastActivityDate="2018-08-24T21:08:58.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7728" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7916" CreationDate="2012-05-18T19:06:17.670" Score="22" ViewCount="2418" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do Young Earth Creationists account for the fact that some cultures have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2012/01/kung-hei-fat-choi-gong-xi-fa-cai.html?cid=6a00d8341c582a53ef01676100dd28970b#comment-6a00d8341c582a53ef01676100dd28970b&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;continuously measuring the years for almost five millenia&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-09-21T08:53:54.387" LastActivityDate="2016-09-21T08:53:54.387" Title="How do Young Earth Creationists account for civilisations with histories going back five thousand years or more?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7729" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7739" CreationDate="2012-05-18T20:29:31.993" Score="6" ViewCount="612" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4/why-does-judaism-celebrate-sabbath-on-saturday-and-most-christians-celebrate-sab&quot;&gt;Why does Judaism celebrate Sabbath on Saturday and most Christians celebrate Sabbath on Sunday?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First-of-all i would like to say That i am A Seventh-Day Adventist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would Like to know (your opinions) why do some Christians not choose Saturday as &quot;their&quot; Sabbath?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it not the 4th Commandment that thou should &quot;Remember the Sabbath&quot; and keeping in mind that God said Remember knowing that we would forget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1659" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T20:46:16.240" Title="Sabbath vs Sunday - Why and who" Tags="&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-05-19T20:44:07.913" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2012-05-18T20:42:34.473" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Orthodox catechism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 John 1:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink.&#xA;  Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that&#xA;  our joy may be complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 10:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is&#xA;  heard through the word of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:19,20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the&#xA;  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching&#xA;  them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you&#xA;  always, to the very end of the age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 2:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses&#xA;  entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 11:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain&#xA;  the traditions even as&#xA;  I delivered them to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Thessalonians 2:15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were&#xA;  taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy the valid interpretation of the Scripture can be made only by Holy Spirit, through saints. Other than their interpretations, are just opinions. According to this approach, inside Orthodox church cannot exist 2 different confessions, both them valid, because Holy Spirit cannot separate or contradict Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 3:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's&#xA;  Spirit lives in you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is a collection of books established inside Holy Tradition of the Orthodox church. These books where collected by the disciples of the apostles, transmitted to the disciples of the disciples, in so on, for almost 4 centuries. In this time a multitude of apocriphal writtings, came up, and recognition of the autentic books became a problem inside the church. The canon of the Bible were proposed to by the saint Athanasios the Great (+373), saint Gregory the Teologian (+389), saint Amphilochios (+403). Because only temples of the Holy Spirit could recognize which are the books inspirated by Holy Spirit, the holy fathers approved in ecumenic councils (Laodicea, Carthage) which books can be included in Holy Scripture. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://symeon-anthony.info/BibleCanon/CanonicalBibleBooks.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://symeon-anthony.info/BibleCanon/CanonicalBibleBooks.htm&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon of the Holy Bible, was only one canon from a multitude of other canons. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://theocacna.tripod.com/canonsaa.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://theocacna.tripod.com/canonsaa.htm&lt;/a&gt;)&#xA;Saint Atanasios the Great which proposed the canon of Holy Scripture most closed by the one accepted today wasn't an adept of &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot;, because he wrote for the church another book called: &quot;The life of Saint Anthony the Great&quot;, which was his spiritual father. And the canon 46 of council from Cathage states one of the practice of the apostolic church: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The passions of the Martyrs may be read when their anniversary days&#xA;  are celebrated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Orthodox Tradition the life of the martyrs and the teachings of holy fathers of the egyptian desert or sinai are another precious tresures similar to the Bible. The Bible can be seen as the THEORY, and the life of the martyrs and desert fathers can be seen as the PRACTICE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T20:42:34.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7731" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7740" CreationDate="2012-05-18T21:13:53.520" Score="3" ViewCount="5249" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was listening to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=kwave&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=2&amp;amp;ved=0CGMQFjAB&amp;amp;url=http://www.kwave.com/kwve-flash-stream.html&amp;amp;ei=M7u2T4_8OeiC6AHlvvTfCg&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNEfcUQfEVdoPWZDWuanR3n7AiOJOQ&amp;amp;cad=rja&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;K-WAVE&lt;/a&gt; yesterday and there was a lot of talk about sexual sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the expected results of sexual sin? &#xA;(More specifically focusing during this life, not the after life or going to hell.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, what are the effects for the person who cheats in marriage or a single man who masturbates?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it make the person feel emotionally oppressed on some level or does it just separate them from God spiritually without any effect here? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Looking for biblical supported answers that translate to real life examples. According to the program, this is a very big devastating issue that is taking over. They even mentioned that pastors were calling into the anonymous line, asking for help with addictions to pornography, that sex has taken over our schools with kids &quot;sexting&quot;, and is used to sells products.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this &quot;take over&quot; must be very destructive for us - but how ?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-01-22T01:32:29.757" LastActivityDate="2013-01-22T01:32:29.757" Title="What are the expected results of sexual sin?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-06-14T06:12:24.897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7725" CreationDate="2012-05-18T21:18:03.890" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverbs 3:5-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart&#xA;      and lean not on your own understanding;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This tells me we really don't know anything and that there is much more than what is written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember working with children with disabilities and thinking this is what it must be like for God working with us, saying to himself they can't see or understand all these things but I will help them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T21:18:03.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7728" CreationDate="2012-05-18T21:27:34.807" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;If these &quot;historical records&quot; could be trusted as absolute truth then this would be a problem for Young Earth Creationists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, ask any ancient historian and they will tell you that there has been some major corruption in the so-called &quot;historical records&quot; of ancient cultures.  This is due in part to the &quot;age wars&quot; which took place between various ancient societies, each of which was attempting to show their people were the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; people!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember - if you dig up an ancient scroll or tablet you don't know the words on it are true.  Historians have to make assumptions just like scientists, theologians, philosophers, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard secular historians state that Jewish history is generally considered to be the most reliable.  &lt;em&gt;(Of course, they wouldn't include the &quot;creation week&quot; or &quot;worldwide flood&quot; due to the modern scientific position that these things didn't happen.  But that's another topic.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Young Earth Creationist considers the Bible to be the only historical record which is absolutely true and reliable.  Therefore, the YEC (by the same logic) could ask &quot;how do skeptics account for the fact that their beliefs about history conflict with the objective truth of Scripture?&quot;  But that would be rhetorical.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T21:27:34.807" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7703" CreationDate="2012-05-18T21:49:37.517" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the first letter from John, the first chapter, there something that could be interpreted as &quot;personal relationship&quot;, with God and Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. [...] If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;code&gt;fellowship&lt;/code&gt; here is the greek &lt;code&gt;koinōnia&lt;/code&gt;, which according to Strong has the following meaning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: - (to) communicate (-ation), communion, (contri-), distribution, fellowship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I do think the &quot;personal relationship&quot; is biblical and an early christian concept. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1660" LastActivityDate="2012-05-18T21:49:37.517" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7703" CreationDate="2012-05-18T21:51:03.057" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary:&lt;/strong&gt;  As you noted, the concept of a &quot;personal relationship with Jesus&quot; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be argued from Scripture, but it is certainly not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;emphasized&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; in any way.  Relationship with God is almost exclusively described in Scripture as a &lt;strong&gt;communal&lt;/strong&gt; experience.  The emphasis on &quot;personal relationship&quot; is a modern emphasis, and is rooted more in Enlightenment thinking than in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Biblical Emphasis&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An Individual &lt;em&gt;Death&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every last person matters to God; He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:9,%201%20Timothy%202:3-4,%20Acts%2017:30,%20Titus%202:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;wants everyone to be saved&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:7,%20Ezekiel%2018:27-28,%2032,%20Acts%203:19,%202%20Corinthians%207:10,%20John%206:40,%20John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;no matter how &quot;bad&quot; they are&lt;/a&gt;.  So there is certainly an open invitation to every person - and this has always been emphasized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, what many people do not understand is what God is inviting us &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;into&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  He is inviting us to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:20,%20Colossians%203:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;die to our &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;self&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;live for Him&lt;/a&gt;.  This is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014:26-33&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;cost&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of following Jesus.  This is not &quot;the real &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;, or &quot;a better &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;... this is &quot;&lt;strong&gt;a dead &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;!  In other words, we are called to shift our focus from &lt;em&gt;ourselves&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;strong&gt;others&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the individualistic language in Scripture is either used to describe the entry of sinners &lt;em&gt;into&lt;/em&gt; the Kingdom, or the rebellion of heretics &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; the Kingdom, but not &lt;strong&gt;life in the kingdom&lt;/strong&gt;.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22if%20anyone%22&amp;amp;version1=49&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;bookset=2&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Communal &lt;em&gt;Life&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we join the Kingdom of God, we become a part of something special.  There are many ways this &quot;something&quot; is described in Scripture.  Here are a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:4-5,%201%20Corinthians%2012:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;A body of interdependent members&lt;/a&gt;, with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:18,%20Ephesians%204:15,%205:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Christ as the head&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:4-7,%20Ephesians%202:19-22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;A spiritual house made up of many living stones&lt;/a&gt;, with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Christ as the cornerstone&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;A vine with many branches&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;A fellowship - with one another and with God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical picture of life in the Kingdom is far from individualistic; it is one of interdependency - we grow in our relationship with God &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; one another and &lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt; one another.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%203:17-19,%20Ephesians%204:11-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Enlightenment Emphasis&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Rise of Individualism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Enlightenment drastically changed the way people viewed the world.  One of the most significant shifts in thinking was from a &lt;em&gt;communal&lt;/em&gt; focus to an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;individualistic&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;three fundamental ideas ... encompassed everything the Enlightenment would stand for. &lt;strong&gt;First among these was individualism&lt;/strong&gt;, which emphasized the importance of the individual &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/enlightenment/section1.html&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-source&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the secular realm, this shift in focus led to a new emphasis on &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&amp;amp;id=6164&quot;&gt;individual rights&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;My Personal Relationship&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This global shift in thinking from &lt;em&gt;communal&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;em&gt;individualistic&lt;/em&gt; also led to a new emphasis in the teaching and evangelism in the churches.  No longer was the believer merely a part of something bigger, suddenly the believer was the central focus.  This minister summarizes it well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The spirit of the Enlightenment has blossomed in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries... &lt;strong&gt;In the church this individualism translates to: &quot;All I need is my Bible and my God.&lt;/strong&gt; Anything and anyone else is a threat to my freedom.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=31&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-source&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, all that matter is &quot;my personal relationship with Jesus.&quot;  As long as I have that, I'm OK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Clarifications&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; claiming that believers are disconnected from God in any way, or that God is not a &quot;Person&quot; who loves His people intimately.  God is &quot;personal&quot; in many senses of the word, and we are each &quot;individually&quot; invited to come to Him.  However, the individualistic &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;emphasis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; on &quot;personal relationship&quot; is not rooted in Scripture; The emphasis in Scripture is on an integral, interdependent, communal fellowship with God and all His people.  We grow in Christ &lt;em&gt;together&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am also &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; claiming that there never lived a person prior to the Enlightenment who emphasized individualism in the Church... I am simply saying that we can thank the Enlightenment for the &lt;strong&gt;prominence of this theme&lt;/strong&gt; in churches today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-19T16:26:59.493" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T16:26:59.493" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7729" CreationDate="2012-05-18T22:19:40.357" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Orthodox catechism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first day there are more reasons to celebrate:&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;del&gt;it is sunday - the day of the sun - the first day when sun arised&#xA; (Genesis 1:3 And God said, &quot;Let there be light,&quot; and there was light.)&#xA;&lt;/del&gt; (not in catechism, Muke comment -&gt; false assertion)&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In this day He created the univers - one verset -&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the day when the Lord Jesus Christ rise from death, the day when death was defeated for the human nature.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,&#xA;  Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The true reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the day when Holy Spirit come down to the earth in the day of pentecost&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:1,3 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in&#xA;  one place.  Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came&#xA;  from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.  They&#xA;  saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest&#xA;  on each of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everybody could observe, not only that the Lord Jesus choose the first day to bring us the good news. &#xA;Also, the Holy Spirit choose the same first day to come to us.&#xA;What kind of Christian could ignore these proves and to not take the first day as the day of joy?! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the day of first liturgy, the day when first christians &quot;break bread&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break&#xA;  bread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each one of you&#xA;  should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it&#xA;  up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first day is called Lord's Day. What day we can celebrate other than Lord's Day?! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 1:10 On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard&#xA;  behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion (which is not so important) the 10 commandments must be understood in their context.&#xA;The context was that, the Jewish people, after spending centuries in Egypt, became seek with egyption disease: idolatry.&#xA;They were so seek, because after they saw the miracles from the dead see, at short time after, the same people with same eyes and minds, made a calf from melted metal thinking to it as the savior from the Egyptian's hands.&#xA;Today for us seems to be very unbelievable to embrace this kind of illusion. (meanwhile God teach us and cured us.)&#xA;So God, gave them a reason to not forget and to not delude their-self with illusions, and to remember Who is their savior and protector, by celebrating the seven day as a law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we today what to remember? The Sabbath? The exod of Jewish people? This is not so clever. We have more important reasons to celebrate, to remember, directly regarding to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To understand that God cured us (in the first day), we should not forget that the same kind of idolatry (illusion) was very spread 2000 years ago. &#xA;The most civilized cultures, Greek and Roman, had many gods in that time: gods for everything: for food, for water, for fertility, for beauty, for hunt, for war etc.&#xA;How they dissapeared in 300 years? What happened? &#xA;The answer: God make a fire to Golgotha. And the martyrs spread that fire around the world.&#xA;Through apostles, God bring civilization, hospitals, schools teaching us real wisdom and philosophy of the life: Christianity. &#xA;Not pitagoreic schools, or previous academies, neither followers of Socrates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we celebrate the rise from death of the Lord of the life, Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditDate="2012-05-19T16:07:35.223" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T16:07:35.223" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7709" CreationDate="2012-05-19T02:04:26.953" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several related topics here. I'll address each one separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&quot;I want to &lt;em&gt;understand&lt;/em&gt;!&quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;let me know Your ways&lt;/strong&gt; that I may know You &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2033:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Exodus 33:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, I want to emphasize that &lt;strong&gt;it is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%202:2-5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good to seek understanding.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  It is also good to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2051:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;help others understand&lt;/a&gt; His ways.  Seeking to know the reason behind a command is &lt;strong&gt;not sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Philip ran up and heard [the Ethiopian] &lt;strong&gt;reading&lt;/strong&gt; Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you &lt;strong&gt;understand&lt;/strong&gt; what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him... Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:30-35&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Acts 8:30-35&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowledge of scripture will only take you so far; at some point you need to &lt;em&gt;understand&lt;/em&gt; what you are reading - and often times you need someone to be there to help you understand.  If Philip had not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;explained&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the Scriptures to the Ethiopian, he would not have &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;understood&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and would not have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:36-38&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;converted&lt;/a&gt;.  We should be careful how we respond to a person who is seeking to understand God's ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;General Justification&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your hunch is correct - all sin in Scripture does indeed have &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; degree of justification, although it may not be specific or explicit.  I tell my kids not to eat batteries... because if they do they will die.  Similarly, God tells us not to sin... because if we do we will die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:8,%2016&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God is love&lt;/a&gt;.  Believe it or not, all of His commandments were given &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-40,%20Romans%2013:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;to teach us love&lt;/a&gt; - and to show us our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:10-18,%20Romans%203:23,%20Romans%207:7,%20Romans%205:12-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inherent inability&lt;/a&gt; to love - so we would &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;return to God&lt;/a&gt; through Christ!  His commandments are an elaborate attempt at urging us to return to &lt;strong&gt;Him&lt;/strong&gt;!  The law was given to teach us about God's very nature - that which is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207:7,%20Romans%207:16,%201%20Timothy%201:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good and right&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is a rejection of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%204:17,%201%20John%205:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;what is good and right&lt;/a&gt;; a rejection of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God's law&lt;/a&gt;; a rejection of His ways; a rejection of &lt;strong&gt;Him&lt;/strong&gt;.  Sin &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2059:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;separates us from God&lt;/a&gt;.  If we choose sin, we choose separation from God - He cannot &quot;embrace separation&quot;, &quot;accept rejection&quot;, &quot;fellowship with those who flee Him&quot;... If we die in this state, we experience &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%201:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eternal separation&lt;/a&gt; from Him, also referred to as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:10-15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;torment&quot;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12,%20Romans%206:23,%20James%201:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;death&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The general justification of every command is the same.  It is good to follow God.  It is bad to reject God.  Sin creates a separation between you and God.  This is really bad for you, so you should forsake sin and return to Him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;No Explicit Justification&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are examples of commands in the Bible which have no explicit justification.  Here's one random example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, and one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and you shall make a gold molding around it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2025:10-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Exodus 25:10-11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why those specific dimensions?  Why acacia wood?  I don't know.  I am sure there was a good reason - and perhaps there is a Bible scholar out there who can explain it using Scripture.  But to my knowledge no &lt;strong&gt;explicit&lt;/strong&gt; justification is given in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Does God Explain Himself?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God invites His people to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%204:7,%2016:16,%2023:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;seek understanding&lt;/a&gt;.  He is in the business of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%202:6,%20Mark%204:33-34,%20Luke%2024:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;explaining things to us&lt;/a&gt;.  Indeed, He promises to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2028:5,%20Matthew%207:7-8,%20John%2016:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lead us into the truth we seek&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, God has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2014:6,%20James%204:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;no interest in granting understanding to scoffers&lt;/a&gt;.  If a person wants to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040:1-8,%20Romans%209:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;judge God&lt;/a&gt;, they will be met with rebuke, not explanations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Proper Handling&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question here was, &quot;If there is a command without scriptural justification, what is the right course of action in defending the command?&quot;  First - be cautious about entering into the activity of teaching others about the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- James 3:1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:11-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;called to teach&lt;/a&gt;, make sure you know what you're talking about before you begin making confident assertions about things...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they &lt;strong&gt;do not understand&lt;/strong&gt; either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:6-8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- 1 Timothy 1:6-8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God has gifted you to teach, and given you understanding about the topic you are discussing, the proper method of teaching is summed up pretty well here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:24-26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- 2 Timothy 2:24-26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teacher must also be led by the Spirit and should function within the context of the other members of the body of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the most formulaic approach I can concisely offer for how to properly defend a command from scripture.  I hope that helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T02:04:26.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7728" CreationDate="2012-05-19T03:10:17.467" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clarence Larkin's chart on the table of nations suggests that Noah himself, after the flood, was the father of the Asian races.  His lifespan happens to date back 5 millenia.  So, it certainly would be possible that the Chinese date back five millenia.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that their language changed at the Tower of Babel does not mean that all history was lost at that time either.  The people at that time didn't just forget everything that happened before their language was confused.  They very well could have all been keeping track of dates since Noah, the father of all the earth, was born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Admittedly, we can't know for sure at this point, but this is certainly a reasonable possibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T03:10:17.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7729" CreationDate="2012-05-19T04:45:41.047" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll answer in case this post doesn't get closed...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the passages used in explaining our perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a &lt;strong&gt;Sabbath day&lt;/strong&gt;— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Colossians 2:16-17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another?... &lt;strong&gt;One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike.&lt;/strong&gt; Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind... for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord... But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God... Therefore let us not judge one another anymore... I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014:1-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Romans 14:1-14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was criticized several times for His and His disciples' actions on the Sabbath:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”... Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath...” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:24-27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Mark 2:24-27&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrews we receive some more teaching on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, let us fear if, while &lt;strong&gt;a promise remains&lt;/strong&gt; of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it... So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:1-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- Hebrews 4:1-11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was once convinced that Saturday should be &quot;the Sabbath Day&quot; for all Christians.  One day the Spirit pressed me to read Galatians. I considered the book in light of passages such as those above, and I now have a different perspective.  I now believe that while taking a day of rest is part of God's design for healthy living, it is ultimately a foreshadowing of something yet to come.  So, in my view &quot;remember it and keep it holy&quot; relates more to our view of what is to come than our rituals in this life.  I believe that it is good to worship, minister, fellowship and serve on Saturday... and Sunday... and every day.  I believe it is good to remember the coming Sabbath rest for the people of God.  I also believe there is value in taking a day off (without becoming a slave to it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I am only sharing my views.  I will not attempt to convince you to believe what I believe, because as Romans 14 teaches, each one should be fully convinced in what they do and should not judge the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T04:45:41.047" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7731" CreationDate="2012-05-19T07:06:20.713" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verses in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%206&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot;&gt;1 Cor 6&lt;/a&gt; make clear that sexual sins are a special kind of sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commentary of David Guzik about this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul isn’t saying sexual immorality is worse than any other sin; but he does teach that sexual sin has a unique effect on the body; not only in a physical way, but also in a moral and spiritual ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How this should be interpreted is however not exactly clear. I heard mentioning somewhere: if someone falls in sexual sins and his missteps are somehow made public, it is hard to see this person without thinking about those particular sins he committed. But that is just one interpretation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One consequence is certain. Sexual immorality will hinder the spiritual life because they pollute the temple of the Holy Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1660" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T07:06:20.713" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7724" CreationDate="2012-05-19T14:28:49.897" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul quoted Jesus directly in 1 Cor 11:23-25.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For I received &lt;strong&gt;from the Lord&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;em&gt;not from the other apostles&lt;/em&gt;) what I also delivered to you, that the&#xA;  Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he&#xA;  had given thanks, he broke it, and said, &quot;This is my body which is for&#xA;  you. Do this in remembrance of me.&quot; In the same way also the cup,&#xA;  after supper, saying, &quot;This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do&#xA;  this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.&quot;&quot; (1 Cor&#xA;  11:23-25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Paul meet Jesus in person? It's not known whether Paul met Jesus in Jesus' earthly life and it seems very unlikely. However, Paul did meet Jesus &quot;personally&quot; in the sense that Jesus spoke to him personally as he indicates in the above passage and also in several other places. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from&#xA;  heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice&#xA;  saying to him, &quot;Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?&quot; And he said,&#xA;  &quot;Who are you, Lord?&quot; And he said, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;I am Jesus, whom you are&#xA;  persecuting&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; - Acts 9:3-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The following night the &lt;strong&gt;Lord stood by him&lt;/strong&gt; and said, &quot;Take courage, for&#xA;  as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness&#xA;  also at Rome.&quot; - Acts 23:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T14:28:49.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7743" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="68579" CreationDate="2012-05-19T16:53:56.403" Score="6" ViewCount="645" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just read a wiki page on Jehovah's witnesses, visited their official website, and was quite surprised that in the list of their believes there is a striking absence of the definition (or at least description) of their concept of the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to what I can see at the moment, they are only using the word &quot;church&quot; or plural &quot;churches&quot; in reference to the numerous religious groups in the main-stream Christianity (which they consider all to be in apostasy), while they themselves prefer to speak about the Kingdom, rather than the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it a result of their special translation of the Bible (in which many words were translated quite differently from the way it is done in the majority of Bible translations, for example, in many places the word that is translated in other translations as &quot;fellowship&quot; in their translation is rendered as &quot;sharing&quot;) or am I simply missing out on something here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's their concept of the Church? What's their teaching on the Church? When did it start? How long has it been around? Has it always existed since it was started or, perhaps, it was over at some time and then re-stated again? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-02-10T08:40:18.720" LastActivityDate="2019-02-10T14:52:48.023" Title="Jehovah's Witnesses's teaching on the Church" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7744" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7806" CreationDate="2012-05-19T17:04:27.747" Score="5" ViewCount="165" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prior to Luther's Reformation, has the matter of salvation - whether it is by works or by faith alone - ever been considered on any councils of the Catholic and Orthodox churches? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-05-23T10:43:28.463" Title="Has the matter of salvation - whether it is by works or by faith alone - ever been considered on any councils of the Catholic and Orthodox churches?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7501" CreationDate="2012-05-19T17:59:26.877" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are taught to hate the sin and not the sinner. We are called to love every brother. This would include Osama.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="984" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T17:59:26.877" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7743" CreationDate="2012-05-19T19:58:17.347" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;church&lt;/em&gt; has various meanings. It can be used to refer to an physical building. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3348/214&quot;&gt;Witness churches are called Kingdom Halls&lt;/a&gt;. It can also be used to refer to a group of believers in a specific area. For sense of the word, Witnesses use &lt;em&gt;congregation&lt;/em&gt;, which I believe is quite common for many branches of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the word &lt;em&gt;church&lt;/em&gt; has another meaning, and it is this meaning I think you're asking about. The &quot;church&quot; as the united body of all believers. For this sense, Witnesses don't have a direct word. They do use the word &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; in a very narrow sense, to refer only to themselves. Perhaps that's their nearest equivalent. And yes, they do believe that &quot;true Christianity&quot; essentially died out after the First Century, and (with the exception of a few brief flames here and there) was reborn with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;church&lt;/em&gt; may also be the &lt;strong&gt;organisation&lt;/strong&gt;, the institution, as distinct from the individual members thereof. For that sense, the Witnesses use various words, notably, the word &lt;em&gt;organisation&lt;/em&gt; itself. They may also talk of the &quot;Faithful and Discreet Slave&quot;, which is the teaching body of the organisation (basically, the group that define the doctrine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The finer points of how the Faithful and Discreet Slave is distinct from the Governing Body have now escaped me. I used to know that. I've forgotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-05-19T19:58:17.347" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7754" CreationDate="2012-05-20T20:14:51.580" Score="19" ViewCount="2903" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I'm on vacation in Utah (and still compulsively thinking C.SE!), and so I attended an LDS service. In the morning, I heard a reading from one of the Presidents of the church during the &quot;Quorum of the Elders,&quot; then went to Sunday School, and finally witnessed the Sacrement of the bread and water. (I guess it makes sense there was no wine, but it did make me go &quot;Huh!&quot;) After that, there were testimonies from missionaries and some music - but nothing that struck me as a sermon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was I missing something, or was this an atypical service? I guess I was trying to understand what the &quot;pastor&quot;s role in the service was supposed to be - or again, is it just that Mormons are even more Baptist than baptists?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone could explain how instruction and exhortation are primarily conferred in the LDS church Id appreciate it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T03:24:34.887" Title="Where is the sermon in a Mormon church service?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7753" CreationDate="2012-05-20T23:06:30.153" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm surprised this hasn't been asked here yet. Mormon services are a bit different, as you discovered. In the United States, there is generally a block of 3 meetings back-to-back including a sunday school, a mens' and women's time for instruction, and a sacrament meeting where the general congregation meets together. It sounds like the first meeting you attended was Priesthood meeting where the brothers study the words of scripture and modern Church leaders. Those classes usually have a single instructor each week. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/worship/&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sacrament meeting is where any equivalence of a sermon would be heard. The primary difference between Mormon services and some others is the focal event of church meetings. The purpose behind holding a sacrament meeting is to take the sacrament and renew covenants made at baptism. The actual administration of the sacrament is the most sacred public meeting to Mormons. Hearing people speak and even interpersonal communion (socializing) is only secondary, though important. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/faq/church-welcome-visitors/&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Members of a ward, or local congregation, are invited to speak by the bishop or his counselors (the basic equivalent of a pastor) and will have some time to prepare a talk. Talks should draw from the scriptures, personal experience and testimony, and focus on the Savior. Note that comments made by church members over the pulpit at a sacrament meeting do not necessarily reflect the Church's official position on a topic or even Church doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The talks are meant to urge, inspire, and exhort all in attendance to come to Christ, to give them an opportunity to feel the power of the Spirit, and to strengthen their faith. Often, members will come with questions in their hearts and find answers in the words that day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Counsel from leaders like a bishop sometimes occur over the pulpit, but usually this is private and individual, based on personal circumstances. The bishop and his counselors are supposed to meet with members regularly in interviews. &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/faq/no-paid-clergy/&quot;&gt;There is no paid clergy&lt;/a&gt;, so all the service is volunteer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each member is also assigned two &quot;home teachers&quot; which visit their family once a month to share a gospel message, check on well-being, and be a friend and support especially when needed.  [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/home-teacher&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;]  In this way, instruction is given which might also help replace a typical sermon pattern. The bishop, his counselors, and others he calls on help organize these efforts. (It has also proven to be very quick and effective during disaster response, as home teachers immediately report in on who they teach, and bishops coordinate an effort if needed. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-moves-mormons-during-emergencies&quot;&gt;Source 1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/local-churches-teach-how-to-plan-for-disasters&quot;&gt;Source 2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what you saw was apparently quite normal. Even once a month (the first Sunday), a fast and testimony meeting is held during sacrament meeting, where members forgo preparing talks and instead bear their testimonies about Christ and the gospel for the hour as they feel a desire to do so. Instruction is very member-to-member, you might say, but is guided by the direction of a bishop and other church leaders who also inspire and instruct. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/bishop&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-08-21T03:24:34.887" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T03:24:34.887" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7753" CreationDate="2012-05-21T00:30:38.030" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;pastor&quot; in an LDS congregation is called a Bishop, and his role in meetings can be understood rather literally as that of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/episkopos.html&quot;&gt;episkopos&lt;/a&gt;, or overseer.  Instead of preaching a sermon himself, the Bishop calls upon members of the congregation to prepare and then present the sermons in coming weeks.  The Bishop presides at the meeting and he or one of his counselors directs matters according to the schedule, but the talks are given by the members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes sense in the context of Mormonism because the Bishop (and all clergy members, in fact) is a layman with other personal and professional duties to attend to throughout the week, in addition to his ecclesiastical responsibilities.  He doesn't have time to prepare a sermon every week the way professional, dedicated pastors from other faiths do!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So instead, that burden/opportunity is spread throughout the congregation, with each Sacrament Meeting usually seeing two or three talks by members.  (The exception being Fast Sunday, which Matt mentioned.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other two meetings divide the congregation up in different ways and present instruction in more of a classroom-style format, where active participation and discussion is encouraged.  These meetings use pre-planned lessons from standardized lesson manuals developed by the church, though the manuals only cover the material to be taught, not any techniques or guidelines as to how to present it.  Because of this, the tone of these meetings tends to be influenced pretty heavily by the people attending them, and by the teacher's style.  (This is a contrast to the highly formulaic Sacrament Meeting, which is always similar in format and style no matter where or when you attend.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the use of water instead of wine in the sacrament, the doctrinal basis for it actually predates the dietary revelation proscribing the use of alcohol by about two and a half years.  Joseph Smith was told &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/27.2?lang=eng#1&quot;&gt;in a revelation&lt;/a&gt; that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye&#xA;  partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single&#xA;  to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down&#xA;  for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The use of bread and water has become standardized by custom, but stories exist of rare occasions when a congregation had no bread available and found other things to use on short notice, such as thin-sliced potatoes.  (While this is doctrinally acceptable, such stories tend to be a bit contrived and I can't help but wonder how accurate they are.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-05-21T00:30:38.030" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7757" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-21T01:25:41.593" Score="6" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an example, what about examining Jesus' interaction with the Roman Centurion using historical documents explaining how the Roman Army was run? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1669" LastActivityDate="2012-05-27T17:41:48.900" Title="Does the doctrine of Sola Scriptura prohibit the use of empirical information to understand the bible?" Tags="&lt;sola-scriptura&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7757" CreationDate="2012-05-21T03:46:33.860" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will answer, because (as you may have noticed from my other answers) I'm about as &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot; as they come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;No.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, we believe that Scripture was given by God as the &lt;strong&gt;standard&lt;/strong&gt; for His people to use in determining truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- 2 Tim 3:16-17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Titus 1:9&lt;/a&gt;.)  Since Scripture adequately equips you to correct false doctrine, that implies it is &lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; standard of truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the point is this:&lt;/strong&gt; If a person teaches something &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%201:8-9,%20Matt%204:1-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;contrary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; to Scripture, they are &lt;strong&gt;wrong&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is not to say that everything &lt;em&gt;outside&lt;/em&gt; of scripture is wrong (or &quot;not from God&quot;)... just everything &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;contrary&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  Therefore we &lt;strong&gt;reject&lt;/strong&gt; any teaching which opposes what we &lt;strong&gt;know&lt;/strong&gt; (based on Scripture);&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2010:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;- 2 Cor 10:5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the only safe bet is to use Scripture as the &lt;strong&gt;foundation&lt;/strong&gt; of all of your doctrine.  &lt;em&gt;(Additional elements include &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Tim%201:3-8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;understanding&lt;/a&gt; the Scriptures, being &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:26,%2016:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;led by the Spirit&lt;/a&gt;, recognizing the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%204:4-16,%201%20Cor%2012:29,%20Jas%203:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;teachers&lt;/a&gt; God has given, etc.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as I said, the answer to your question is &quot;no.&quot;  In fact, studying history is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;incredibly&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; helpful in understanding Scripture.  &lt;em&gt;(When preparing for sermons, I have often found the NIV Archaeological Study Bible very helpful in bridging contexts between the ancient world and our own.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the big distinction between Sola Scriptura and opposing views is that if the Bible says &quot;X&quot; and an external source says &quot;Y&quot;, we consider the external source rubbish, whereas others may attempt to reconcile the two, sometimes by re-translating the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-05-21T03:46:33.860" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7723" CreationDate="2012-05-21T12:57:39.547" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a Jewish biography of Paul, known to the Jews as &lt;a href=&quot;http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13232-saul-of-tarsus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Saul of Tarsus&lt;/a&gt;.  As you might imagine, it's not very complementary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what we know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul was a tent maker. (Acts 18:3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what we can deduce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul was not a wealthy man.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul was epileptic. (Galatians 4:13, outside sources)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that the local Christian churches supported Paul's missionary travels, by providing meals and lodging while he preached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to how he traveled from place to place, probably on foot or hitching rides on wagons or ships as goods were transported from place to place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edited to add: I don't think there was much difference between a tent maker and a sail maker in the first century.  Perhaps, Paul was able to sail by trading sail making or repair for the voyage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="583" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:23:18.920" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:23:18.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7761" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7764" CreationDate="2012-05-21T14:21:12.623" Score="6" ViewCount="683" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am convinced that the scriptures teach of a God who is completely sovereign in salvation. I am a monergist. I can cite several passages that make me think this way. I think if you look at some of my answers on this SE, you'll see that I'm a Calvinist. However, this does not mean that I'm a blind Calvinist. I arrived where I did by many years of study and internal deliberation. I am having another internal deliberation at this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we examine passages like the first half of Ephesians 2, we see that it was our nature to sin, and that we had the spirit of Satan working within us. In the same place, Paul refers to us as being dead in our sins. By all accounts, it looks to me like plain support of a Reformed interpretation of the doctrine of regeneration. In the first two chapters, we see plainly that we have been unified with Christ: he in our death, and us in His life. Because of this unity we have with Christ, God made us to be alive as He made His Son to be alive (and now, being united with Christ, we are sons and co-heirs with Christ). This all paints a beautiful monergistic picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the course of my studies this past weekend, preparing for a Bible study that I lead, I happened upon this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.&#xA;  (Colossians 2:11-12 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I get it most of this. Most of it still even paints a monergistic picture, with the phrase &quot;circumcision made without hands,&quot; and the whole idea of being &quot;raised&quot; from the dead (the imagery being that it doesn't really involve an act of man's will that he should become alive while he is already dead).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I have a problem with the phrase &quot;raised with him through faith.&quot; I see a logical contradiction that I need help working through (and a non-Calvinistic perspective on the passage does not solve the problem).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dead men cannot have faith (again, read Ephesians 2). We need to be made alive. However, this passage cites that we are raised &lt;em&gt;through faith&lt;/em&gt;. What should I make of this contradiction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can think of two options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The reformed interpretation of regeneration is wrong. Men have the capacity to believe in God before they are regenerate (Wesley's idea of Prevenient Grace would therefore be inapplicable). This simply cannot be. Again, those with faith were once under Satan's influence. A house divided against itself cannot stand; we cannot serve two masters. There was nothing in us to make us want to believe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faith must be inherent in regeneration. Not tied to it, but faith would be regenerating. This would mean that predestination would be unto faith, and I've read Reformed authors who would quite disagree with this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope I've made the problem clear. I would appreciate some insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please allow me to clarify, I welcome explanations from traditions other than Calvinistic/Reformed. However, I would like these to address the basic doctrinal problem I am discussing. Please see @Eric's comment and my answer to his comment to get an idea of what I mean regarding this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-11-16T12:51:20.503" LastActivityDate="2015-11-16T12:51:20.503" Title="Calvinist Regeneration, Interpreting Colossians 2:12" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;regeneration&gt;&lt;colossians&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7761" CreationDate="2012-05-21T19:34:56.357" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;My friend and bible study teacher Patricia Peterson has written 2 wonderful books about the order of salvation/redemption history, election and God's decree. The &lt;em&gt;Ordo Salutis&lt;/em&gt; (her 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; book) &amp;amp; &lt;em&gt;Whatsoever Comes to Pass ~ The Absolute Nature and Precious Comfort of God's Decree&lt;/em&gt;. I pulled some of this from her 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; book The &lt;em&gt;Ordo Salutis&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith comes from hearing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Romans%2010:17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom 10:17&lt;/a&gt;. God calls His chosen ones through faith in the truth &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202:13-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Thess 2:13-14&lt;/a&gt;. Truth is the word of God &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=John%2017:17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 17:17&lt;/a&gt;. The call is effectual because the elect sinner is &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in Christ&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; &lt;strong&gt;FROM&lt;/strong&gt; eternity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not enter the &quot;in Christ&quot; relationship when we are called. God chose the elect sinner &quot;in Christ&quot; before the foundation of the world, in the covenant of redemption &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=Ephesians%201:4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eph 1:4&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&amp;amp;search=2%20Timothy%201:9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Tim 1:9&lt;/a&gt;. The Father elected from eternity, but He elected in Christ. There was no election of the Father in eternity APART from Christ. There has never been a time when those &quot;in Christ&quot; were not &quot;in Christ&quot;. Christ is the object of our faith. Maybe some food for thought? Patrictia Peterson's books have been a blessing to me.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1674" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T03:22:34.220" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T03:22:34.220" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7765" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7767" CreationDate="2012-05-21T21:22:15.973" Score="10" ViewCount="2187" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Baptist, while I don't know of any specific requirements for a pastor, it is generally accepted that a head pastor would have some sort of seminary education, be it a Masters or even a Doctorate degree. That is certainly the way that it has been at all of the churches I have attended in America. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that the notion of a seminary, at least the sort of seminary that we have today, didn't exist when the Bible was written. But is there any biblical basis for requiring that a pastor or other leader have some level of training or education? I can appreciate the fact that people can serve in different ways regardless of their education or background, but in what ways does the Bible support the pastor or leader being educated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1545" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T05:31:44.110" LastActivityDate="2015-08-02T05:31:44.110" Title="What is the biblical basis/justification for requiring a pastor be educated?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;religious-education&gt;&lt;clergy&gt;&lt;pastor&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7761" CreationDate="2012-05-21T21:32:30.483" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, &lt;strong&gt;there is none who seeks for God&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:10-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Romans 3:10-11&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So though we were once &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:1-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dead in our sins&lt;/a&gt; (and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;not even able&lt;/a&gt; to do good, as you indicated), God &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:4-6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;made us alive by His grace&lt;/a&gt;, having &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:29,%201%20Peter%201:1-2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;predestined us according to His foreknowledge&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In His sovereignty, what method did He choose by which to accomplish this?  It was to be accomplished &lt;strong&gt;through&lt;/strong&gt; faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;you were also raised up with Him &lt;strong&gt;through faith&lt;/strong&gt; in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Colossians 2:12&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This transforming event which is accomplished &lt;em&gt;through faith&lt;/em&gt; is also when you become a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;son of God&lt;/a&gt;, when Christ begins to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%203:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dwell in your heart&lt;/a&gt;, and when we &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;receive the Spirit&lt;/a&gt; as God's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%201:22,%20Eph%201:13,%204:30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;seal and promise&lt;/a&gt; to us that we are in Christ and will be raised in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what is the source of this faith?  &lt;strong&gt;God is!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved &lt;strong&gt;through faith&lt;/strong&gt;; and that &lt;strong&gt;not of yourselves&lt;/strong&gt;, it is the &lt;strong&gt;gift of God&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Ephesians 2:8&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Now this is where many people get confused into thinking God arbitrarily predestined some for Heaven and some for Hell, and that we have no free will... but as I mentioned, God's predestination was not arbitrary - it was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:29,%201%20Peter%201:1-2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;based on His foreknowledge&lt;/a&gt;.  But that's another topic altogether.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-05-21T21:32:30.483" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7765" CreationDate="2012-05-22T00:17:38.250" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 3&lt;/strong&gt; spells out some requirements for being bishops (and deacons). For example, verse &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's evident that a bishop (or pastor, from &lt;em&gt;episcopos&lt;/em&gt;, meaning &quot;overseer&quot;) should be trained or experienced such that he is not &quot;a novice&quot; (from the Greek &lt;em&gt;neophyton&lt;/em&gt;, referring to one who is newly converted).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul lists similar and other requirements to Titus, in &lt;strong&gt;Titus 1:5-9&lt;/strong&gt;. Interestingly, most of the requirements described by Paul are related to worthiness, not intelligence or education.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several instances of scripture where the seemingly less-qualified men were chosen as leaders. Old Testament prophets such as David and Amos were called by God in their simplicity. (See &lt;strong&gt;1 Sam. 16:1-13&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Amos 7:14-15&lt;/strong&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all prophets, pastors/bishops, and leaders have been poor or simple, however. Moses was raised by Pharoah's daughter and almost certainly had access to the royal libraries. (This is one reason I've heard for explaining how Moses knew he would be the one to deliver Israel, as mentioned in &lt;strong&gt;Acts 7:25&lt;/strong&gt;. He was educated and knew the prophecies of Joseph.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the verses in Titus I mentioned, Paul tells Titus to &quot;set in order ... and ordain elders.&quot; Paul also recalls that He was &quot;ordained&quot; in &lt;strong&gt;1 Tim. 2:7&lt;/strong&gt; to be a teacher, preacher, and in his case, an apostle. (Jeremiah was also, see &lt;strong&gt;Jer. 1:5&lt;/strong&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We will recall that Christ found fishermen and other common laborers, invited them to follow Him, and He and &lt;em&gt;ordained&lt;/em&gt; them to be leaders, as in &lt;strong&gt;John 15:16&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Church leaders continued to call local leaders in a similar manner, as mentioned in &lt;strong&gt;Acts 14:23&lt;/strong&gt;. Similar ordinations to positions of leadership, seemingly regardless of educational level, happened in the Old Testament from Samuel, Moses, and Isaac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After having done a little bit of research now, I can't seem to find any real consistency in the Biblical text about the need for pastors to be educated. It's apparent that they ought to be experienced, have a sure testimony of the gospel, and meet standards for worthiness, but in ancient texts it's not easy to find any need for formal, or even informal, education: something uniquely common in our era. The Lord prepares whom He will to serve in those capacities: with or without formal education. (Though I'm sure He encourages learning and studying!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose there's an emphasis on it today because our society demands that those who instruct us be scholars and have a degree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T00:17:38.250" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7765" CreationDate="2012-05-22T00:41:26.990" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are a few potentially relevant angles to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Preparation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2017:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;shepherd&lt;/a&gt; until he was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%205:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;anointed king at the age of 30&lt;/a&gt;. Jesus was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;carpenter&lt;/a&gt; until it was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:1-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;His time&lt;/a&gt; to begin His ministry (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;at the age of 30&lt;/a&gt;).  Examples such as these may indicate that God desires to bring us through times of preparation prior to entering into our calling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Discipleship&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202:2-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Elisha clung to Elijah&lt;/a&gt;, and after the death of his master, Elisha &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202:9-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;received Elijah's mantle along with a &quot;double-portion&quot; of his spirit&lt;/a&gt;.  Jesus spent 3+ years with His disciples teaching and modeling kingdom living, and then &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;released them to do the same (and greater!) things after He was gone&lt;/a&gt;.  Examples such as these may indicate that God desires discipleship to happen with the older (i.e. wiser) imparting truth to the younger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=younger%20men&amp;amp;qs_version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- 1 Peter 5:5&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Teachers&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and &lt;strong&gt;teachers, for the equipping of the saints&lt;/strong&gt; for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%204:11-12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Ephesians 4:11-12&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gave teachers to the body for a reason, and there &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;aren't supposed to be very many&lt;/a&gt;, so we might have to share... :)  It is certainly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;very important to value this gifting&lt;/a&gt; and learn from these folks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Personal Opinion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many modern Christians have become completely disconnected from the learnings of the great men of God who came before them.  Seminary can be a great opportunity to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Connect with some of the foremost &lt;em&gt;modern&lt;/em&gt; Bible teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Become acquainted with the teachings of some of the greatest &lt;em&gt;historical&lt;/em&gt; Bible teachers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Learn valuable lessons through study of church history (including careful consideration of past mistakes, and how to avoid these today)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Define your own beliefs about key topics of scripture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Learn alternative perspectives - this is especially helpful in ministering to folks with different beliefs than your own&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, God can do whatever He wants... Noah (presumably) had never built an ark before God told Him to, neither had David been king, or Moses led a nation... but beyond the extreme cases of &quot;supernatural impartation&quot; lies a realm of &quot;wisdom&quot; and &quot;learning&quot; where we can take responsibility for pursuing sound doctrine as faithful, serious servants of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary, I see it as &lt;strong&gt;valuable&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; valuable if you're going to be a teacher), but probably not &lt;strong&gt;required&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T00:41:26.990" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7769" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-22T02:44:00.390" Score="0" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;Right now, I'm reading &lt;em&gt;When Heaven Invades Earth&lt;/em&gt; by Bill Johnson. I just came across this sentence: &quot;If I am filled with anxiety in any given situation, it becomes hard for me to release peace--because &lt;em&gt;I can only give what I have.&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (Emphasis mine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase by itself is a good and noteworthy one, but the reason I'm posting this question is that I've heard this phrase used before, spoken by Mike Cavanaugh. Both Bill Johnson and Mike Cavanaugh have done many great things by following the Lord, both are senior pastors, and both have used this phrase. This suggests to me that there's an earlier source that both have read and drawn from. Hence, I ask: does this earlier source exist, and if so, what is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I kept reading and I came across &quot;As glorious as the gift of tongues is, it is an entrance point to a lifestyle of power.&quot;, which is another thing Mike Cavanaugh said. The answer to this question may very well be a negative in that Mike may have drawn from this book, not an earlier source. If this is the case, an answer should show this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-31T12:12:42.993" LastActivityDate="2014-07-31T12:12:42.993" Title="What's the source of &quot;I can only give what I have&quot;?" Tags="&lt;origin&gt;&lt;phrase&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7761" CreationDate="2012-05-22T04:43:37.223" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a Calvinist, but I don't see a problem for Calvinism in this particular passage.  The problem that you have, it seems, arises &lt;em&gt;by assuming that being &quot;raised with him&quot; is the act the enables us to have (saving) faith&lt;/em&gt;.  Thus, you find yourself in a contradiction, for how can we be required to have faith in order to get faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I don't think that the text warrants the interpretation that being raised with him is how we are enabled to be saved.  Rather, being raised with him refers to salvation itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians%202:12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 2:12 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;    having been buried with him in baptism, in which    you were also raised with him through faith in    the powerful working of God,    who raised him from the dead.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that the death that the reader is being raised from is not a spiritual death that keeps us from seeking God.  Paul is not talking about total depravity when he talks about death (burial) here.  He is talking about death in the sense that we died with Christ (were buried with Christ), and will be raised with Christ (as baptism symbolizes).  See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%206:3-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:3-10&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 2:11&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One objection to this interpretation may arise from the following verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians%202:13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 2:13 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;    And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God    made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some might argue that this indicates that Paul &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; speaking about total depravity in the previous verse, and God's select regeneration of the lost from that depravity.  But I don't think we should ignore how well verse 12 parallels what Paul is talking about in Romans 6.  And I don't think that we can ignore that there &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; two kinds of death talked about in this passage: death with Christ &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; sin (v12) and death without Christ &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; sin (v13).  It seems much more natural to me to associate the being &quot;raised with him&quot; with the being &quot;buried with him&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I do not think it is necessary to say that being raised with him refers to faith enabling regeneration.  It can easily refer to our salvation itself, as long as you understand that the death we are being raised from in Paul's metaphor is not our depravity, but our death with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T04:43:37.223" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7731" CreationDate="2012-05-22T07:10:18.617" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please note that I'm answering primarily from a practical perspective here; as per the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;More specifically focusing on here, not the after life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am answering primarily about reality in this world, not Biblically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we must define &quot;sexual sin&quot;; I'm first going to assume we mean fairly &quot;light&quot; things, such as masturbation, consensual sex of unmarried persons, contraception, same-sex sex, sex acts between a couple that can't lead to procreation, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, here the expected results are pretty much... minimal. I would be making assumptions in here such as safe-sex to avoid unwanted physical effects such as STDs (if promiscuous), or an undesired pregnancy. You aren't going to be struck blind, get hairy hands, or outright die from masturbation. The most &quot;immoral&quot; cities are not smited (smote?). The most likely outcomes are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an increase in adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin - &quot;feel good&quot; hormones&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;emotional closeness; for example, I &quot;lived in sin&quot; with my now-wife for many years before we got married; we've been together nearly 20 years now, but many of those years would have been judged &quot;sinful&quot;. This was part of our relationship, and was very emotionally valid&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;as an aside, we no longer live in small villages, where marriage options are limited; likewise, human personalities are deeply complex. I could not find it in me to recommend &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; couple get married without living together first, to see that they are compatible. There's a difference between seeing someone a few times a week for a few hours on best behaviour, and living with someone full time, warts and all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;equally, I see marriage as a partnership of equals, not a master/subordinate thing; this change (gradually over the last 50? 60? years) has had a significant impact on changing the dynamic of relationships, much for the better in my opinion - but with two strong individuals there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; more chance of friction (or more correctly: one partner, typically the woman, isn't expected to silently &quot;put up and shut up&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;realisation of self, for those that cannot find attraction/happiness in a heterosexual relationship - a stable homosexual relationship can be deeply rewarding and fulfilling, the same as a stable heterosexual relationship&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moving on, we get into areas such as pornography and adultery (just as example); the first is deeply complex, and frankly I'm not qualified to comment - the are, of both genders, proponents and opponents, people who say it enslaves and people (including women) who say it liberates. Those that say it harms society and objectifies the participants, and those who say the opposite. I'm not going to wade into that, but: access to pornography (in an Internet age) is at an all-time high, but sexual crime has not increased to match (indeed, is generally reported as falling). I make no analysis of that, due to lack of qualification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adultery, these days, is not likely to get you stoned to death in the village square. In the majority of cases this is done as a secret and clandestine thing, which can (when discovered) negatively impact (or destroy) a relationship, and otherwise is likely to (as a side-effect) cause a combination of excitement (adrenalin etc), but other emotions too (guilt, furtiveness, stress). In some more.... &quot;open&quot; relationships, it is not a betrayal of trust, obviously. I'll let people decide on what their own relationship is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not going to go into sexual &lt;em&gt;crime&lt;/em&gt; as sin, as the effects in this world are well known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does it make the person feel emotionally oppressed on some level or does it just separate them from God spiritually without any effect here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the former; quite the opposite. Recognising one's own sexuality is &lt;em&gt;liberating&lt;/em&gt;. It is the &lt;em&gt;denial&lt;/em&gt; of sexuality that is oppression. Feeling guilt at masturbation is infantile; feeling shame at recognising (say) same-sex attraction causes harm, both in loss of happiness, and (quite often) harm to others when those feelings &lt;em&gt;don't go away&lt;/em&gt;, and lead, quite often, to a &quot;need&quot; to pursue those inner drives, but often in more secretive ways, which is harmful psychologically, and even more harmful if it becomes public knowledge later. We all know of the many &quot;upsets&quot; caused when even some of the most vocal anti-homosexual voices have been exposed in secret homosexual liaisons. This &lt;strong&gt;demonstrably&lt;/strong&gt; points to &lt;em&gt;massive&lt;/em&gt; cognitive dissonance, guilt, shame, repression, etc. Not healthy. And equally, there are some very religious and good people who would be classified as sexual sinners &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; they acknowledge the reality of their feelings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the latter (separation from God), I am not well-placed to comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sex, in a lot of animals (especially primates), not just man, is a lot more complex than purely procreation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;tl;dr; no evidence of Biblical style punishment &lt;em&gt;in this world&lt;/em&gt; is evident (nobody struck down, no cities destroyed). However, like must things in life, if we lie and cheat (etc) that can harm our relationships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T07:10:18.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7776" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:43:02.937" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the specific sacrements of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, as well as their equivalents in other churches, including both the rites themselves and the theology underlying them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:53:15.003" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:53:15.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7777" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:43:02.937" Score="0" Body="Sacred rites, especially those of the Catholic and Orthodox churches." OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T19:36:46.133" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T19:36:46.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7778" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:49:47.670" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for either the book or for the events described therein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:51:09.080" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:51:09.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7779" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:49:47.670" Score="0" Body="The second book of the Bible, describing the departure of the Israelites from Egypt." OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T19:37:17.053" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T19:37:17.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7780" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:50:38.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the doctrine of God's all-knowingness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T19:37:40.983" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T19:37:40.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7781" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:50:38.200" Score="0" Body="The doctrine that God knows all things." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:51:45.523" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:51:45.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7782" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:53:14.983" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for all questions about pre-set formats of worship services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T19:37:56.677" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T19:37:56.677" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7783" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:53:14.983" Score="0" Body="A form of worship service laid down in advance and often taking the form of a standard pattern." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T16:53:51.493" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T16:53:51.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7784" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:56:57.300" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the Old Testament tithe, or by the compulsory contribution levied by the church. Consider using 'offering' for questions about modern-day voluntary contributions to the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T17:02:59.327" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T17:02:59.327" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7785" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-22T16:56:57.300" Score="0" Body="A contribution of one tenth, mandated in ancient Israel, and also sometimes levied by the church through its history. The term is also sometimes used for modern-day contributions to the church." OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T19:38:12.713" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T19:38:12.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7769" CreationDate="2012-05-22T17:41:19.853" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't &lt;strong&gt;know&lt;/strong&gt; the original source, but if it is based on Scripture (which certainly seems plausible), here are some passages which may relate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When [the beggar] saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began &lt;strong&gt;asking to receive alms&lt;/strong&gt;. ...But Peter said, “&lt;strong&gt;I do not possess silver and gold&lt;/strong&gt;, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%203:3-6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Acts 3:3-6&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter and John had a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:42&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;command from Jesus&lt;/a&gt; to give to anyone who asked of them - but they &lt;strong&gt;couldn't&lt;/strong&gt; give the beggar alms because they didn't &lt;strong&gt;have&lt;/strong&gt; any money.  &lt;em&gt;(NOTE: Not having it and thinking you can't afford it are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%208:3,%20Mark%2012:43-44&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two different things&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, ...various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? ...All do not speak with tongues, do they? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:28-30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- 1 Corinthians 12:28-30&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are only capable of moving in the &quot;Spiritual Gifts&quot; which we have been given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:34-35&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Matthew 12:34-35&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are only capable of verbalizing that which we already have in our heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and &lt;strong&gt;peace&lt;/strong&gt;, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:6-7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Romans 8:6-7&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mind set on the Spirit has peace.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:22-23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fruit of walking by the Spirit is peace&lt;/a&gt;.  The result is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203:13-18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;making peace through peaceful means&lt;/a&gt;.  Alternatively, if you set your mind on the flesh, you will experience death instead of peace, and the result will be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%203:3-6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;opposite of peace&lt;/a&gt;.  In other words, if you have peace you can impart peace, but &lt;strong&gt;if you don't have peace, you can't impart peace.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T17:47:54.947" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T17:47:54.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7787" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-22T19:32:28.387" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the book of the Bible. Use 'judaism' or 'israel' tags to refer to the hebraic people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T19:35:02.377" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T19:35:02.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7788" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-22T19:32:28.387" Score="0" Body="The New Testament epistle to the Hebrews" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T19:35:05.573" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T19:35:05.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7789" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-22T19:34:43.657" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use 'holy-spirit' for questions about that entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T19:35:09.820" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T19:35:09.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7790" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-22T19:34:43.657" Score="0" Body="The traditional component of a person, distinct from 'body' and 'mind'." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T19:35:17.090" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T19:35:17.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7723" CreationDate="2012-05-22T20:52:44.127" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Searching the web I came across &lt;a href=&quot;http://orbis.stanford.edu/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this fascinating site&lt;/a&gt; which allows you to enter a route and it will calculate the cost of freight and passenger transport as it was in Roman times along that route.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example entering Antioch to Ephesus, and forcing a land route, gives you a cost of around 30 denarii to ship 1kg of wheat, and 1500 denarii for a passenger in a carriage! Remembering that a denarius is about a day's wages for a peasant, this is a not inconsiderable cost. Shipping is noticeably cheaper than land transport, and I'm guessing Paul travelled more cheaply than a passenger in a carriage, but even 50kg of wheat would cost 1500 denarii - a considerable sacrifice for those who sent him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T20:59:50.233" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T20:59:50.233" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7792" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7797" CreationDate="2012-05-22T21:21:56.260" Score="7" ViewCount="1126" Body="&lt;p&gt;In historical Christian belief (of almost any type), it would be considered heresy to say that God the Son was created. The term &quot;begat&quot; is preferred, where this term does not imply creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In such a tradition, Christ &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=KENOSIS&quot;&gt;became incarnate&lt;/a&gt;. Is it correct/acceptable in such a tradition to refer to the body of this incarnation as being &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt;? Why or why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastActivityDate="2019-05-08T15:16:13.637" Title="Was Christ the man created?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7793" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-22T22:54:33.703" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T22:54:33.703" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T22:54:33.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7794" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-22T22:54:33.703" Score="0" Body="Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor, neo-orthodox theologian, anti-Nazi, and founding member of the Confessing Church." OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="1481" LastEditDate="2012-05-22T22:58:20.693" LastActivityDate="2012-05-22T22:58:20.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7795" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-22T23:30:32.807" Score="19" ViewCount="16867" Body="&lt;p&gt;After Jesus cast out demons from possessed people, he made sure that these demons didn't reveal his true identity.  Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:24-34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mar 1:24-25,34 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;“Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  ...&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1079" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-21T22:31:04.507" LastActivityDate="2016-01-25T09:55:45.763" Title="Why didn't Jesus allow demons to say he was God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;messianic-secret&gt;&lt;demon-possession&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-01-25T09:55:54.720" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7792" CreationDate="2012-05-23T01:15:15.773" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem that you run into is John 1 - in which it says of Jesus, that by him all things were made, and there is nothing that was made that He didn't make. This is why the Nicene Creed is so careful to say he was begotten not made. If God the Father made Jesus, then John made a boo-boo. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The incarnation, on the other hand, is merely putting flesh to that which already existed, namely the spirit of Christ in the man Jesus. The physical manifestation is well known to anyone who has watched a science film on conception. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the spirit is eternal, but the flesh is temporary, and created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fun part, however, is that since it is something made, it means that God the Son got to make his own body. (Reminds me of an episode of ST:TNG called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Offspring_%28Star_Trek%3a_The_Next_Generation%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Offspring&lt;/a&gt;, in which Lt. Cmdr. Data's daughter gets to choose her form) I find it interesting that He chose to be so normal and plain- but that's who our God is- he wants so desperately to be with us, that he chooses to be just like us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The debated part of the incarnation is the nature of the Spirit/Soul/whatever of that flesh in relationship to the pre-existant Spirit of God the Son. The relationship of that spirit of God to the flesh of that baby born is the root of most Christological heresies like Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Monophysitism.  Here's the &quot;problem&quot; of each:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinarism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apollinarism&lt;/a&gt;: Says that the flesh that was created had no mind of its own.  The problem with this idea is that God was never actually a man. In its most extreme form &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;docetism&lt;/a&gt; Jesus only appeared to be human, and was in fact, merely a 'phantasm' of the flesh - a solid spirit that had no human substance whatsoever.  That basically denies the incarnation altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nestorianism&lt;/a&gt;: Says that the flesh was just a normal guy whom God the Son indwelt.  In this idea, Jesus was schizophrenic, having two distinct personalities in one body.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Monophysitism&lt;/a&gt;: Says that there was only one nature, in that the human nature was so dissolved in the divine that it basically ceased to exist.  Of the &quot;heresies&quot; listed, this is probably the closest to Orthodoxy, but fails insofar as it denies the existence of a human will.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The orthodox position is the so called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;hypostatic union&lt;/a&gt;.  It says that Jesus was fully God and fully man.  (Hey, Jesus is just 200% that's all!) It's a bit tricky, but the basic idea is to ensure that any Christology recognizes that Jesus was fully able to fully be both things to fully accomplish what he was sent to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-05-24T03:57:28.067" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T03:57:28.067" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4904" CreationDate="2012-05-23T04:47:22.810" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gilbert Le Blanc's answer is very good. More details on how the Mormon Endowment and the rituals of Freemasonry relate are available in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Freemasonry_and_the_Temple&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Freemasonry_and_the_Temple&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the first temple ordinances in Nauvoo, some early LDS leaders understood them to be a restoration of true masonry (letter from Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt, and from the diary of Benjamin F. Johnson).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="903" LastActivityDate="2012-05-23T04:47:22.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2259" CreationDate="2012-05-23T06:54:07.390" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we need to deal with 3 cases:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The government's laws are consistent with God's laws, like laws against murder and stealing. This is a simple and obvious case: the Christian should obey these laws.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The government's laws are debateable applications of valid moral principles. For example, I think U.S. copyright law, which gives the author's heirs rights to his work for 50 to 95 years, is too long and unfair to other creative people. But I can't make a clear Biblical or moral case against the particular numbers in the law. I can't say that 50 years is too long but 49 years would be right, etc. And so the principle of submission applies: I have to obey the law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The government's law violate God's laws or clear moral principles. In some cases in the Bible, people disobeyed an unjust law but announced their willingness to take the consequences, like several stories in Daniel. But in other cases, God condoned or commanded subterfuge and even open rebellion. The book of Exodus is the most obvious example: at God's command, Moses led an open rebellion against Pharoah's government. In a lesser incident in Exodus, the government ordered that all male Jewish babies be killed, but the Hebrew midwives are praised for secretly delivering babies in violation of the law, and Moses himself only lived because his parents broke the law. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-23T06:54:07.390" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7792" CreationDate="2012-05-23T08:42:54.853" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In historical Christian belief (of almost any type), it would be considered heresy to say that God the Son was created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use a neat term here &quot;nicene christianity&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your question - Christ has a complete human nature (human body and human soul) and this nature is created. Christ has accepted our nature with all sinless weaknesses of this nature. We believe this nature is real (unline doketists) and complete (unlike apolinarists). So it's right to say that Christ's body is created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However as it is stated in the subject &quot;Christ the man&quot; suggests, that there are two separate Christs: &quot;Christ the God&quot; and &quot;Christ the man&quot;. This would be nestorian teaching. So rather say &quot;human nature of Christ&quot; than &quot;Christ the man&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-05-23T08:42:54.853" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7744" CreationDate="2012-05-23T10:43:28.463" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first big controversy on this topic emerged with the teachings of Pelagius. His doctrine (about salvation from deeds and about Adam and Christ only &quot;giving example&quot;) were condemned on local councils of Diopolis and Carthage and on the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Search the web for the term 'pelagianism' to learn more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-05-23T10:43:28.463" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2012-05-23T22:01:41.800" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Hi, my name is Chris, and I am an addict. It has been [n] months since I last used...&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seriously though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of things which really helped me. These are three general tools which really helped:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make sure you do not have any latent psychological issues. This is overly simple, but it is really important. I recently adjusted my bipolar meds and suddenly the temptations became &lt;em&gt;far&lt;/em&gt; easier.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have something which makes it an effort to view/use pornography. I have parental controls on my primary workstation. Ideally, give someone else the password.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Have accountability. I'm sure you've read the plethora of verses which say that a man should not go through life without aid from another. Ideally, have someone able to read the logs of all of your requests. Further, as sin loves to hide in the darkness, sharing this will bring the problem into the light and cut the legs out from under it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Make sure your &quot;free time&quot; is spent constructively and (ideally) away from the source of temptation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a more over-arching rule (and I found these to be invaluable for &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of my spiritual growth):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Find a simple prayer (like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus Prayer&lt;/a&gt;). Teach yourself that when you feel the urge to anger, depression, lust, etc. you will say that prayer until you are calm and at peace. Augustine &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/history_monastic_spirituality_l_bresard.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;says&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;in Egypt the brothers use frequent prayers, but very short and thrown out rapidly like darts.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do something with your hands. The ancient monks used to make palm baskets for sale. I make prayer ropes and rosaries which I donate to the local church. The actual &lt;em&gt;physical motion&lt;/em&gt; makes it not only harder to commit the sin, but there is actually a spiritual aspect to it which is hard to explain.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Find some work of mercy which you can do. If it happens to work with the thing you're doing in #2, all the better.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-05-23T22:01:41.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7812" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7866" CreationDate="2012-05-24T07:53:11.393" Score="7" ViewCount="7282" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way I've always seen it, leaders are to be chosen first, and then appointed as leaders. I guess this could be compared to an inauguration. The biblical leadership model in my mind, was in some ways an indirect democracy insofar as the people choosing their leaders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The confusion I had thought I saw was that the &quot;choosing&quot; and &quot;appointment&quot; were mixed up, and therefore church leaders choose and appoint leaders themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only New Testament scripture I can go by is Acts 6 and Acts 14. Acts 6 mentions both the selection and appointment, however Acts 14 just discusses the appointment. Many leaders  I know just go by Acts 14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the scriptures I'm referring to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 6:2-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said,&#xA;  &quot;It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to&#xA;  serve tables. &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men&#xA;  of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint&#xA;  to this duty. &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the&#xA;  ministry of the word.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; And what they said pleased the whole&#xA;  gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy&#xA;  Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and&#xA;  Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; These they set before&#xA;  the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Acts 14:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://moments.nbseminary.com/archives/116-selecting-and-appointing-church-leaders-cheirotonein-in-the-new-testament-acts-1423/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;good article about it here&lt;/a&gt; which discusses the verbs used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, what does the Bible tell us about the way leaders were chosen in the early church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="777" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-05-29T13:08:16.733" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T07:58:47.850" Title="Did the congregation have input into leader selection in the early church?" Tags="&lt;acts&gt;&lt;leadership&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7304" CreationDate="2012-05-24T13:29:51.953" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_history&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; states that Arabic was adopted as a language of liturgy by the Coptic church  &lt;strong&gt;gradually in the 12th century&lt;/strong&gt;. I don't have access to the reference to check it. Nor can I say whether the Coptic church was typical, but since the claim is that it was by action of the Pope of Alexandria it might well have been a transition happening throughout the Easters Orthodox churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T13:29:51.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7815" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7816" CreationDate="2012-05-24T14:09:31.203" Score="8" ViewCount="1623" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard it said many times that it is the responsibility of Christian to participate in their government, specifically that &lt;strong&gt;every Christian has the responsibility to vote&lt;/strong&gt;. Is there some biblical justification for this belief? I know that the government of the US is dramatically different than what existed in Biblical times, but is there some precedent set forward by scripture that would validate this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering about the US system of government specifically, as it is largely based around citizen participation, and as an American.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1545" LastActivityDate="2012-10-04T21:47:54.083" Title="Does a Christian have a responsibility to participate in government?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7815" CreationDate="2012-05-24T14:47:35.553" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there is no Biblical imperative for us to participate in government in the way you describe.  The New Testament doesn't say much about our relationship with government, because the emphasis is on our membership in Christ.  We are to be less concerned with things of the world, and more concerned with the things of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what the Bible does say about our relationship to government:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Give to Caesar what is Caesar's&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:22-25&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Luke 20:22-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Is it lawful for us to give  tribute to  Caesar, or not?” &lt;sup&gt;23&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But he perceived their  craftiness, and said to them, &lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “Show me  a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar's.” &lt;sup&gt;25&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; He said to them, “Then  render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is saying here that since we do live under the authority of a human government, we ought to honor that authority.  This is not an imperative to participate in government, but it is an imperative to obey our government (when it does not conflict with our obedience to God, of course).  In this case, Jesus is referring to paying taxes, but I believe that the principle applies to honoring government laws and regulations in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Submit to authorities&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%202:13-15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 2:13-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; or to governors as sent by him  to punish those who do evil and  to praise those who do good. &lt;sup&gt;15&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For this is the will of God,  that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 13:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  13&amp;nbsp;Let every person  be subject to the governing authorities. For  there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, we ought to submit to authorities.  And again, there is no indication here that we ought to participate in government - only that we ought to submit to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Our true citizenship is in heaven&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians%203:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Philippians 3:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But  our citizenship is in heaven, and  from it we  await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although we are under the authority of earthly governments, we ought to remember that our true citizenship is in heaven.  Participation in earthly government, while acceptable, should not be our focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T14:47:35.553" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6031" CreationDate="2012-05-24T18:18:16.510" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all four gospels?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because mentioning it wasn't important to Mark or John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's really that simple.  The writers of the Gospel accounts &amp;amp; the epistles weren't trying to mention everything that's true.  They weren't even trying to mention everything that matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maher's attempt to turn this into any kind of argument is pretty silly.  (Affable Geek and Narnian say more about that.)  I'm afraid I can't understand how anyone can see his question &quot;How can you believe in the virgin birth if it's only mentioned in two of the gospels?&quot; as anything but an obvious non sequitur.  It's reaching &amp;amp; empty rhetoric, not rational skepticism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1680" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T18:18:16.510" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7818" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-24T21:06:17.123" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about the attribute of 'being wise', and about the personification of Wisdom used in the Bible, or for the biblicl literary genre called 'wisdom literature', of which Ecclesiastes is an example.. Use 'book-of-wisdom' for the apocryphal book also called the &quot;Wisdom of Solomon&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-24T21:19:56.723" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T21:19:56.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7819" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-24T21:06:17.123" Score="0" Body="the quality of understanding and good judgement. " OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-24T21:19:48.043" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T21:19:48.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7728" CreationDate="2012-05-24T21:25:31.330" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;While is true that there are cultures that have written dates prior to the Tower or the Flood, it is also true that there are cultures such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.atitlan.net/maya/mayan-calendar.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mayans&lt;/a&gt; that date their calendar in &quot;days since the flood&quot; and which are quite close to the dates from Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Mayan stories of the Popol Vuh, while not containing an ark story, do contain a universal flood and I find it quite interesting that their dates are so similar to biblical chronology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point is, this issue is something of a non sequitur. Certainly there are records with wide variance from Scripture, but there are also records with quite similar timelines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1342" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T21:25:31.330" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2012-05-24T22:25:08.100" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of the time we get so focused on the negative that we end up reinforcing it. Instead we should look to Christ and focus on the positive around us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like Paul's council in Philippians 4:8 where he teaches us to dwell on the virtuous things in life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Memorize scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Memorize hymns&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be busy serving others&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Be busy learning&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Really pray, commune, and talk with our Father in Heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This talk given by a Mormon Apostle really helped me learn to choose what I think by immersing myself in the teachings of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&amp;amp;locale=0&amp;amp;sourceId=f0d93ca925ce8110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Worthy Music, Worthy Thoughts&quot;, by President Boyd K. Packer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="903" LastActivityDate="2012-05-24T22:25:08.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7815" CreationDate="2012-05-25T06:37:52.920" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of anything in the Bible that explicitly commands participation in government. While the idea of voting was known at the time -- Rome and parts of Greece were republics during periods that overlapped the Old Testament -- I don't know of any mention of it in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the Bible does repeatedly command us to help orphans and widows, to fight injustice, and to defend the oppressed. Sometimes these good things can be done through government. More often government is the source of the evil, and by participating in goverment we can mitigate it. A number of people in the Bible were govenrment officials, like Joseph and Daniel and David, and it's clear they used these positions to further God's work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think that applying general Biblical principles would lead us to the conclusion that Christians should participate in government when there is an opportunity to do good. But I don't know of any specific command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-05-25T06:37:52.920" CommentCount="18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7226" CreationDate="2012-05-25T14:18:13.567" Score="10" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Christ as community (ecclesiocentric)&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his dissertation &quot;Sanctorum Communio&quot; (1927), christology and ecclesiology do basically conincide. Christ is &quot;existing as community&quot; (&quot;Christus als Gemeinde existierend&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The mediator and center&lt;sup&gt;0&lt;/sup&gt;: christocentric alteration&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christ and the world&lt;/strong&gt;. In Bonhoeffer theology since his &quot;christology&quot; lecture (1933), the question of Christ is always connected with the question of the world (Welt).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In his late writings, his prison letters, this is expressed as the question of &quot;Christ and the world come of age&quot;.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Earlier in his Ethics he states: &quot;In Jesus Christ the reality of the good has entered into the world&quot;.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christ as the mediator (&quot;Mittler&quot;)&lt;/strong&gt;. Based on this question, Christ is defined as the &quot;mediator&quot; between humans and God and the humans,&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; since there are no direct relations anymore. As such, Christ is the center (&quot;Mitte&quot;). Bonhoeffers already clarified that in his christology lecture (1933): Christ is …&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the center of human existence (&quot;menschliche Existenz&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the center of history (&quot;Geschichte&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the center of nature (&quot;Natur&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or, as he later says: He's &quot;the center of life&quot;.&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Hence the christology is the middle and fundament of Bonhoeffers theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Relation to Karl Barth&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both, Barth and Bonhoeffer, were accused of a &quot;christological narrowing&quot;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; – a &quot;christomonism&quot;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jürgen Moltmann claims a difference: While Barths christology is &lt;em&gt;Trinitarian&lt;/em&gt;,&#xA;Bonhoeffer's christology is &lt;em&gt;theocentric&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; (since it's fixed on the doctrine of incarnation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;0)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; This description is based on Ernst Feil: &lt;em&gt;Die Theologie Dietrich Bonhoeffers. Hermeneutik – Christologie - Weltverständnis.&lt;/em&gt; Münster 2006&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;Wer Christus heute für uns eigentlich ist&quot;, Wiederstand und Ergebung (WE), p. 178.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;Christus und die mündig gewordene Welt&quot;, WE, p. 218.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;In Jesus Christus ist die Wirklichkeit des Guten in die Welt eingegangen&quot;, Ethik, p. 207.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;Nothing can be known about God nor about the humans until God became a human in Christ&quot; (&quot;Es kann […] weder von Gott noch vom Menschen etwas gewusst werden, bevor Gott in Jesus Christus Mensch geworden ist.&quot;), GS III, p. 230.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; GS III, p. 199 f.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; WE, p. 211&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Cf. Gerhard Ebeling: &lt;em&gt;Die nicht-religiöse Interpretation&lt;/em&gt;. In: MW II 19&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; This accusation was first done by Paul Althaus. According to Gerhard Ebeling: &lt;em&gt;Wort und Glaube&lt;/em&gt;. Tübingen 1960, p. 99. it would also apply to Bonhoeffer. Cf. also Ernst-Heinz Amberg: &lt;em&gt;Christologie und Dogmatik. Untersuchung ihres Verhältnisses in der evangelischen Theologie der Gegenwart&lt;/em&gt;. Göttingen 1966, p. 125&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; J. Moltmann: &lt;em&gt;Herrschaft Christi und soziale Wirklichkeit nach D. Bonhoeffer&lt;/em&gt; in: Theologische Existenz heute, NF 71. München 1959, p. 29&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="70" LastEditorUserId="70" LastEditDate="2012-05-30T13:01:45.947" LastActivityDate="2012-05-30T13:01:45.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2012-05-25T17:54:44.000" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has to do with understanding strongholds.....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 10:4, &quot;For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,&#xA;  but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 8:34 ESV, Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you,&#xA;  everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the first time ever in human history we have easy access to unlimited pornography of all types through the internet. Scientist have been studying the effects of this use and for the first time ever, have quantified and demonstrated how lustful strongholds work - and what we can do about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To understand lustful strong holds, start here:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/doing-what-you-evolved-to-do&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/doing-what-you-evolved-to-do&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and here:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, understand the difference between joy and pleasure:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.innerfrontier.org/InnerWork/Archive/2003/20030623Joy&amp;amp;Pleasure.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.innerfrontier.org/InnerWork/Archive/2003/20030623Joy&amp;amp;Pleasure.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 42:7, &quot;To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from&#xA;  the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/bible_verses.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/bible_verses.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2012-05-25T17:54:44.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7834" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7836" CreationDate="2012-05-26T13:29:34.643" Score="8" ViewCount="5226" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which God do Muslims pray to according to Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant tradition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They believe that God cannot be One and Three at the same time. They believe that God can only be One. They believe that God cannot have a Son equal to Him. Consequently, they believe that God could not have sent His Son (which they believe God doesn't have) to the world to give salvation to those believing into Him (they take Jesus only as a prophet from God). That makes their &quot;God&quot; quite different from Christian God. In fact, if you tell this description of God to any Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant believer, he would tell you that that kind of God does not exist. I know of at least one council that took place in Christian circles (the Orthodox council in 1180) that has declared that &quot;God of Muslims is not the God of Christians, but rather a distorted concept of God created in Muhammad's mind&quot;. Perhaps, same declaration might have been made in the Catholic and Protestant camps of main-stream Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, here is my question: if that kind of God does not exist - especially given the fact that there is only One God in this universe - then which God do all Muslims pray to? Of course, we can say that they are praying to a non-existent God, which is not the God, but rather merely their idea of God, their concept of God. Simply put, they are praying into the air, emptiness. At first, this kind of answer looks fine to me, but if you give it a second thought, then you could tell that their description or their concept of God is in fact the same as the concept that some humans (including Jews) had about God before the coming of Christ. Of course, we can discard all the cases of those humans who believed in the existence of many gods, but Muslims believe in the existence of only One God. Does that mean that all people who lived prior to Christ's coming and believed in the existence of only One God also prayed into the air? A case of the Gentile Cornelius comes to my mind who was praying to God and whose &quot;prayers came up for a memorial before God&quot; (Acts 10:4) and the following words of Peter in his regard: &quot;Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him&quot; (Acts 10:34-35). From this I gather that the Gentile Cornelius did not pray into the air.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-05-27T01:32:43.740" LastActivityDate="2019-05-25T04:59:50.603" Title="Which God do Muslims pray to according to Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant tradition?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;islam&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7834" CreationDate="2012-05-26T14:32:12.170" Score="-1" Body="&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Does that mean that all people who lived prior to Christ's coming and believed in the&#xA;&#xA;existence of only One God also prayed into the air?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who knew about the true God before Christ did not pray to the air. (If they knew about the true God through missionaries)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;then which God do all Muslims pray to?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I, however, believe that the Muhammad did not stumble upon a new God, but actually borrowed Christian beliefs. (and then changed them)&#xA;So, technically, the Islamic God, Allah, should be a changed form of the Christian God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;From this I gather that the Gentile Cornelius did not pray into the air.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gentile Cornelius did not pray into the air since Paul told him about the one and only true God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Does that mean that all people who lived prior to Christ's coming and believed in the &#xA;existence of only One God also prayed into the air?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are talking about Allah, the Islamic God, then yes. If you are talking about Jesus, then no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps. (These are my beliefs)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1650" LastActivityDate="2012-05-26T14:32:12.170" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7834" CreationDate="2012-05-26T18:00:08.043" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Muslims believe Allah and Jehovah are One&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of the Muslim, when they are praying to Allah, they believe they are praying to the same person whom Christians would call God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit. [Quran 29:46]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. '(3:199)'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [Quran 2:62]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Add to the concept of &amp;quot;the people of the Book,&amp;quot; the fact that the most important thing for Muslims is the fact that God is one (as you said), and the fact that Muslims recognize the Old Testament as Scripture, albeit a corrupted one, and it is clearly fair to suggest that Muslims believe that Jehovah and Allah are the same person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christians Have a radically different understanding of God's character&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike Allah, however, Christians see God as far more full of mercy, compassion, and grace. Additionally, while we believe in God's perfection, glory, and holiness, fundamentally we disagree about God's willingness to pursue his people.  Much like &amp;quot;the Return of Martin Guerre,&amp;quot; there is some question as how radically different the character of an individual can still be and have it actually be &amp;quot;the same person&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians, for example, believe that God had a son.  Muslims say that Allah cannot &amp;quot;beget&amp;quot;. Muslims say that Allah cannot become a man. In short, while Allah could be reconciled with God the Father, there is no way to reconcile Allah with God the Son, in the form of Jesus the Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, Muslims are explicit in denying the deity of Christ.  They say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They (Christians) allege: The Gracious One has taken unto Himself a son. Assuredly, you have uttered a monstrous thing! The heavens might well burst thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in pieces, because they ascribe a son to the Gracious One; whereas it becomes not the Gracious One to take unto Himself a son. There is no one in the heavens and the earth but he shall come to the Gracious One as a bondman…. … So We have made the Quran easy in thy tongue that thou mayest convey glad tidings to the righteous, and warn thereby a contentious people. How many a generation have We destroyed before them! Canst thou perceive a single one of them, or hear even a whisper of them? (Surah 19:88-99)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the concept of Trinity is anathema, because it violates the supreme confession of faith, both for Jews &amp;quot;Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;oneness&amp;quot; of God that is demand is the statement &amp;quot;There is one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Biblical Understanding of Other Gods&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Muslims think they are praying the same God, Christians would disagree. Their understanding of the nature, composition, and character of God is so different, that we do not recognize their understanding to be anything close to our conception. It is as god based not on revelation that Christians accept, but rather is a man-made revelation.* It would be no different than a Christian's response to any of the gods to which Hindus pray - they are no gods at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the Old Testament, prophets of &amp;quot;the One True God,&amp;quot; regularly derided idols as &amp;quot;man made gods, capable of neither sight nor hearing.&amp;quot; They were not true gods at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, (in Acts 19), there was even a riot in Ephesus - the New York City of its day, when Paul came to down.  Note the objection of the pagans, when it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. 25 He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. 26 And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. &lt;strong&gt;He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all.&lt;/strong&gt; 27 There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that Paul himself, while clearly not recognizing the divinity of idols, is not himself calling for an intolerant public response - rather he for himself denies the divinity of other gods. He was not being disrespectful, just not accepting divinity. (Indeed, just two chapters earlier, at Mars Hill, Paul openly praised the Greeks for their religiousity in their 'Altar to the Unknown god,' and used that to bring them to a &amp;quot;right knowledge.&amp;quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A side note about revelation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Yes, Muslims believe that Gabriel revealed the nature of God to Mohammed. Likewise Mormons believe that Moroni revealed the nature of God to Joseph Smith. In both cases, Chalcedonian / Nicene Christians reject the revelation given because in general consensus the alterations to the nature of the pre-established God is so different as to make many not accept it.  Christianity is organic in its understanding of who God is, but it is also not uncritical of any revelation.  Christians are in fact exhorted in 1 John 4 to &amp;quot;test every Spirit&amp;quot;, for as it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.his is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nicene Christians dismiss any understanding of God that does not accept that Jesus is not God.  Since Muslims reject this, Christians reject them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to the incarnation (e.g. the OT Jews), there was no incarnated Jesus, and hence this was not a valid test. In the OT, the test was whether or not a prophet was backed up by Jehovah's power (hence Elijah vs. the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 and other miracles).  As Hebrews 1 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, now that he has come, it is for Christians, a definitive test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians would thus say, the God to which they pray is not the same God they know, and as such are praying merely to a god made in their image, rather than the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T00:51:55.220" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7834" CreationDate="2012-05-27T00:11:14.587" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Realistically, there are just 4 possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christians and Moslems are praying to the same God. We all basically believe the same things and believe in the same God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christians and Moslems are praying to the same God. One or the other (or both) have wrong and confused ideas about God, but God is understanding of our ignorance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is more than one God, and Christians and Moslems are each praying to their own.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christians are praying to the true God, and Moslems to a false and non-existant God, or vice versa.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Number 1 is very popular today, but is objectively and provably false. One need only read the Bible and the Koran, or listen to Christians describe their faith and Moslems describe their faith, to see that the two contradict each other on many important points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Number 3 is logically impossible. Both Christians and Moslems believe there is only one God. If there is more than one God, then both Christianity and Islam are false and both are praying to a false God. We can't both be right. Either one is right and the other wrong, or we are both wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That leaves 2 and 4. As this is christianity.stackexchange.com and not islam.stackexchange.com, let me proceed based on the assumption that Christianity is true. Then either Moslems are praying to a false, non-existant God, or they are praying to the true God even though they have many inaccurate beliefs about him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly God hears the prayers of Moslems in the literal sense, that is, he is aware that they are praying and knows what they are saying. But does he accept them as addressing himself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that's very hard to say. Suppose you sent a letter to the president of the United States in which you made some request or suggestion. Would he reply positively? If you mis-spelled his name or showed ignorance about some unimportant fact about him, I doubt it would make a difference. If you indicated that you thought he was a Republican rather than a Democrat and asked him to do things to further Republican policies and hurt the Democrats, I don't think he'd agree to it just because you wrote him a letter. He'd recognize that the letter was intended for him, but so misunderstanding of his actual self, his plans and goals, as to be largely irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, Christians believe that salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. So whether God hears the prayers of Moslems as being to him and not to a false god, if Christianity is true Moslems are not saved, because they very clearly and explicitly reject Christ. That's surely the important point. If a Moslem prayed for God to lead him to truth, I think God would honor that, just as he would if a pagan or an atheist made such a prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Addendum to my answer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After writing this, I happened to read the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. At one point: 'The woman said to Him, &quot;Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.&quot; Jesus said to her, &quot;... You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.' [John 4:19-22, NKJV]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that Jesus didn't say that the Samaritans worshipped a false God or that their worship was in vain because they had important facts about God wrong, he said, &quot;You worship what you do not know&quot;. This seems to imply that God accepted their worship as sincere and legitimate despite their ignorance. I think that indicates that at least some cases of my option 2 above are possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="859" LastEditDate="2012-06-02T08:05:58.870" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T08:05:58.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7839" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7844" CreationDate="2012-05-27T00:44:32.883" Score="6" ViewCount="30945" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the New Testament Biblical basis for making restitution? I've read the story of Zacchaeus, and it's not completely set in stone as to what the structure is. The biggest question I have is if you've tried making restitution and the involved party won't accept your offer, should you do it anyway or is that &quot;dishonoring&quot; in any way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="967" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-02T21:26:51.360" LastActivityDate="2015-05-14T15:16:12.960" Title="What is the biblical basis for restitution?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7839" CreationDate="2012-05-27T02:39:40.120" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Briefly, we know from Scripture that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God's desire is that you repent from your wickedness and follow Him&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Following Him includes loving your neighbor&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God is concerned about the heart first and foremost&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeking to make restitution is &lt;strong&gt;evidence&lt;/strong&gt; of a truly repentant &lt;strong&gt;heart&lt;/strong&gt;; the true value is in the &lt;strong&gt;motivation&lt;/strong&gt; leading to the action more than the action itself.  A person sincerely seeking to make restitution is a person who is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Willing to give up those things he once valued more than God's ways&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Seeking peace with his brother in love&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you repent and seek to make restitution, and the other person refuses you and chooses to hold your sin against you, that is on them.  You can't force love and peace on others... to try would be foolish.  If your heart is sincere, God sees it, and that's ultimately what He cares most about.  In love, the most you could do at that point would be to pray for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-05-27T02:39:40.120" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4743" CreationDate="2012-05-27T10:26:44.540" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the first recorded controversy emerged in the early Church (i.e. circumcision) Peter was wrong. He was corrected by the Council of Jerusalem then. So we clearly see, that Pope cannot be infallible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read about it in Acts 15 1-31 and it is also mentioned in Galatians 2, 11-14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="25885" LastEditDate="2020-03-30T16:41:43.427" LastActivityDate="2020-03-30T16:41:43.427" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7839" CreationDate="2012-05-27T11:56:35.360" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ himself says that we should try to come to an agreement with anybody who has anything against us (Matthew 5:23-24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that&#xA;  your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before&#xA;  the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come&#xA;  and offer your gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul says, in Romans 12:18:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big part here is the &quot;if possible&quot; and &quot;so far as it depends on you.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've tried to make restitution, and somebody has not accepted your offer of restitution, they've not accepted for one of two reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First, they might be too angry to accept your offer of restitution.  In that case, sometimes they just need time and space to forgive you.  Sometimes, they may never forgive you.  While that's unfortunate, some people prefer holding a grudge to forgiving.  It's not the place of the one owing restitution to force the hand of the one sinned against to forgive.  Forgiveness must come from the heart, and some people just can't, or won't do it. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They may be forgiving you, but they might not be willing to accept your gift of restitution, as an act of grace on you.  They understand that you've taken something from them, but they're more concerned about the relationship than the thing they've been deprived of, and, in an effort to show grace, they refuse the repayment. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the former situation, there's really nothing you can do.  You're up against a hard heart, and the best thing for you to do may simply be avoiding that person.  There's no grace there.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the latter situation, accepting the grace is the right thing to do.  There's no way that we can possibly repay God himself, so he offers us grace.  Some people choose to extend that grace to others, because of the grace they themselves have been given.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for giving restitution when someone is refusing, I think that comes down to the individual situation.  Some people may take it as dishonoring, some may not.  If in doubt, I'd say it's a good move to love the person the way they've asked to be loved.  If they refuse any restitution, honor their wishes and don't give the restitution.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this situation, loving a person the best has more to do with how they want to be loved than with how you want to love them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-05-27T11:56:35.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7839" CreationDate="2012-05-27T14:21:46.720" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basis for making restitution is an Old Testament idea that is explicitly reiterated in the New Testament by Jesus.  When asked to summarize the law (the same law that he said he came to fulfill, not to abolish), Jesus uses an interesting formulation.  He said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This is in both Matthew and Luke)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In using this formulation, he was clearly drawing from Leviticus, a book we know he was thoroughly intimate with. (Not only here, but when he was tempted, etc...)  In using this formulation, he is explicitly pointing out that sin is sin against God and your neighbor, and as sin, it must be paid for. There are offerings, mentioned in Leviticus which come into play.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The OT basis for restitution&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical basis for restitution stems primarily from levitical law, and specifically, Leviticus 5 - 7. Leviticus 6, in particular looks to both the reasoning and the implementation of returning that which was taken, plus extra, to both the one offended and to the Lord against whom also the offender has sinned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 [a]The Lord spoke to Moses: 2 “When someone sins and offends the Lord by deceiving his neighbor in regard to a deposit, a security,[b] or a robbery; or defrauds his neighbor; 3 or finds something lost and lies about it; or swears falsely about any of the sinful things a person may do— 4 once he has sinned and acknowledged his guilt —he must return what he stole or defrauded, or the deposit entrusted to him, or the lost item he found, 5 or anything else about which he swore falsely. &lt;strong&gt;He must make full restitution for it and add a fifth of its value to it.&lt;/strong&gt; He is to pay it to its owner on the day he acknowledges his guilt. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 &lt;strong&gt;Then he must bring his restitution offering to the Lord:&lt;/strong&gt; an unblemished ram from the flock according to your assessment of its value as a restitution offering to the priest. 7 In this way the priest will make atonement on his behalf before the Lord, and he will be forgiven for anything he may have done to incur guilt.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Restitution is a fairly simply property idea in law - a thief (however he took it) - should not be allowed to keep what he took, otherwise it makes a mockery of property rights.  Furthermore, the purpose of the law to is keep people from sinning against their neighbors as well as the Lord, so on the one hand, you don't want an incentive to sin, and on the other, you want clear consequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Levitical approach, you will note, deals with both halves of the crime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the victim gets his property back, plus profit (20% to be precise).  Not only does the thief not profit, he loses.  I find it interesting that the 20% &quot;penalty&quot; is equal to &quot;two tithes,&quot; namely one for the Lord, plus one for the neighbor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Restitution for God is required&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the victim's payment, however, restitution demands a sacrifice.  The linkage between the restitution offering and the sin offering is explicitly the same. As it says in Leviticus 7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The restitution offering is like the sin offering; the law is the same for both. It belongs to the priest who makes atonement with it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea in making the parallel explicit is that it highlights that sin is sin against both your neighbor &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the Lord.  After David got Uriah killed so as to cover up his affair with Bathsheba, David makes an interesting statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Against you, you only, have I sinned &#xA;      and done what is evil in your sight; &#xA;  so you are right in your verdict&#xA;      and justified when you judge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'll admit, I tend to think that David also sinned against Uriah, but the point is that David realizes the Lord is equally a party that need be satisfied for this sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Human forgiveness is optional. God's forgiveness is what counts&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why do I keep hammering home the idea that one must &quot;Love the Lord ... and Love your neighbor?&quot;  Because, quite simply, forgiveness comes from the Lord.  If he has been satisfied with your attempt at restitution, you are forgiven. When you sinned, you sinned against two. If the greater one forgives, the lesser one's forgiveness isn't really that relevant. Sure, its nice if you can make up - but the sin was against the Lord, not your neighbor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I doubt, for example, that Zaccheus was able to return an exact accounting for the extra taxes he swindled in a precise 120% return to each individual that he had wronged. Logistically, accountingwise, pridewise (on the part of the victims) - it would have been daunting. But as Zaccheus proclaimed that he would give restitution, surely the Lord the was pleased.  That's the point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Restitution is an outward manifestation of an inward desire for repentance. It is a sign before God and man that the heart has changed. God forgives, man benefits. Both are offended, and the bigger one is clearly reconciled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-05-27T14:36:13.927" LastActivityDate="2012-05-27T14:36:13.927" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2012-05-27T17:29:45.627" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, Jesus endorses the Torah except in cases where it is reformed (which would arguably be consistent with the Old Testament due to the fulfillment of supposed prophecies relating to Jesus meaning that we are now in a period of grace and not law).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is recorded as saying in Matthew 5:17 &quot;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them&quot;; in Matthew 5:20 he says: &quot;For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would mean he certainly endorses the Torah including Deuteronomy 4:2 &quot;Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.&quot; and Proverbs 30:6 &quot;Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could believe in evolution and still be a Christian I think - I'm not aware of the Torah saying anything that would say that the process of evolution cannot happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the order of events described in Genesis for one thing would hugely contradict what is known to have happened on account of the fossil record, genetic studies, lab experiments etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the story of Genesis 30 where Jacob (one of his god's favorites) believes that putting wooden rods in front of mating cattle would lead to an increased number of speckled cattle - God took credit for this insight through a dream.  This shows a clear lack of understanding of how genetic characteristics are passed on to offspring which might show that God has no stock with evolution (he never mentions it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus doesn't categorically say that he believes the Genesis account to be true rather than figurative but he does believe in parts of Scripture which say that God's recorded word is the truth.  This also means however that he believes parts where it is stated that God can and does deceive and cause people to lie, e.g. Ezekiel 14:9 &quot;And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course Jesus would say that God wouldn't lie in his own book which also has many instances where it is said that God cannot lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is the problem though that anything attributed to Jesus in the New Testament may not have been said at all, so you could still be a Christian and believe in the implications of the evidence for evolution, if you for example have an account of Jesus directly from your own conversations with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1698" LastActivityDate="2012-05-27T17:29:45.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7834" CreationDate="2012-05-28T03:20:17.513" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll answer for the &lt;strong&gt;Catholic position&lt;/strong&gt;. According to the Catholic position, Muslims can be said to pray to the one God. For example, the Catholic Church will say the following about &lt;strong&gt;Jews, Muslims and all others who are unaware of the Trinity but worship One God&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in&#xA;  various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall&#xA;  the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from&#xA;  whom Christ was born according to the flesh (Rom 9:4-5). On account of&#xA;  their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not&#xA;  repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues(Rom 11:28-29).&#xA;  But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the&#xA;  Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Mohammedans&lt;/strong&gt;, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us &lt;strong&gt;adore the one and merciful God&lt;/strong&gt;, who on the last day will&#xA;  judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and&#xA;  images seek &lt;strong&gt;the unknown God&lt;/strong&gt;, for it is He who gives to all men&#xA;  life and breath and all things (Acts 17:25-28), and as Saviour wills&#xA;  that all men be saved(1 Tim 2:4).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html&quot;&gt;Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also other passages in the Bible that support this idea. I already mentioned Jews (the entire Old Testament is an example of that!). Here I will show examples from non-Jews who worshiped the one God: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The one you yourself mentioned - Cornelius praying to the one God without any knowledge of Jesus and God answering his prayer (&lt;strong&gt;Acts&#xA;  10:1-4&lt;/strong&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, `To an unknown god.' What&#xA;  therefore you worship as unknown, &lt;strong&gt;this&lt;/strong&gt; (the unknown God) I&#xA;  proclaim to you.&quot; (&lt;strong&gt;Acts 17:23&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.&quot;&#xA;  (&lt;strong&gt;Acts 10:34-35&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The people of Nineveh praying to God and God being pleased with them. They weren't Jews, but they prayed to the one God (&lt;strong&gt;Jonah&#xA;  3:5-10&lt;/strong&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to pray to the one God, there are some basic criteria that should be satisfied - &#xA;1. God is one.&#xA;2. He is eternal.&#xA;3. He is invisible (that rules out idolatry of any kind).&#xA;4. He is not a created thing but is the creator of all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These can be found in &lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:19-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has&#xA;  shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible&#xA;  nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly&#xA;  perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without&#xA;  excuse&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that just by looking at the things God has made, people can come to know certain things about God, even without anyone having preached anything to them. These people can worship the one God so long as they believe that above mentioned things about God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is only the &lt;em&gt;starting&lt;/em&gt; point. These basic beliefs are necessary to pray to the one God. The Catholic Church holds that it has the &lt;strong&gt;fullness&lt;/strong&gt; of the truth about God, whereas other faiths like Judaism, Islam and others who believe in the one God know God partially and might even have distorted ideas about him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T10:05:45.477" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T10:05:45.477" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7849" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-28T03:34:27.147" Score="-1" ViewCount="95" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where could one find complete debates of issues within Christianity (that which separates, creates denominations) or related to Christianity (existence of a Creator)? It would have every argument for or against the issue and replies to the arguments from both/all sides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently, I assume we have to find all books about the issue and map it out ourselves. Wikipedia would be another option, but I'm not sure how up to date it is because of its NPOV and no original research rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no specific issue in mind, so this will probably be closed. I'm looking for any places with a complete debate about any issue and that is updated regularly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T12:25:16.377" Title="Complete Debates?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2012-05-29T06:02:50.467" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7251" CreationDate="2012-05-28T03:35:30.993" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is - &quot;What is the rationale, bible passages, word of God, tradition (or anything else) that allows someone to feel confident calling themselves a Christian?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll answer for myself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian is one who continues in the word of Christ (John 8:31). He who continues in the word of Christ also abides in Christ (John 15:4). He who abides in Christ bears fruit (John 15:5). The disciples and non-disciples of Christ shall be known by their fruits (Matthew 7:20-21). Some bear 100% fruit, some 60, some 30 (Matthew 13:8). But as long as I am bearing fruit, I can know that I am a Christian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even if I may have not reached the level of Mother Teresa (for example) in bearing fruit, I still bear fruit and so I know I am a Christian. &quot;You shall know them by their fruits&quot; (Matthew 7:20).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control&quot; (Gal 5:22).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="1607" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T05:21:17.403" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T05:21:17.403" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7839" CreationDate="2012-05-28T04:31:59.523" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Restitution is made not just to another person, but also to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wish I could explain in my own words, but it's explained so well in the Catechism that I simply feel like quoting-  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;em&gt;comments in italics are mine&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order&#xA;  to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation&#xA;  of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). &lt;strong&gt;Simple justice&#xA;  requires as much&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;em&gt;this means one doesn't need to be told by God to&#xA;  do this, but it's written in our consciences (Rom 1:15); it is natural law&lt;/em&gt;). But&#xA;  sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his&#xA;  relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it&#xA;  does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin,&#xA;  the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing&#xA;  something more to &lt;strong&gt;make amends for the sin&lt;/strong&gt;: he must &quot;make&#xA;  satisfaction for&quot; or &quot;expiate&quot; his sins. This satisfaction is also&#xA;  called &quot;penance&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the&#xA;  penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It&#xA;  must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the&#xA;  sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy,&#xA;  service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all&#xA;  the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help&#xA;  configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all (1&#xA;  John 2:1-2). They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ,&#xA;  &quot;&lt;strong&gt;provided we suffer with him&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (Romans 8:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, &lt;strong&gt;is not so much&#xA;  ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. We who can do&#xA;  nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the&#xA;  cooperation of &quot;him who strengthens&quot; us (Phil 4:13). Thus man has&#xA;  nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in &lt;strong&gt;Christ&lt;/strong&gt; (1&#xA;  Cor 1:31, 2 Cor 10:17, Gal 6:14). . . &lt;strong&gt;in whom we make satisfaction&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  by bringing forth &quot;&lt;strong&gt;fruits that befit repentance&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; &lt;strong&gt;(Luke 3:8)&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to&#xA;  the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1459.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 1459-1460)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T04:31:59.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7853" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7854" CreationDate="2012-05-28T10:59:07.807" Score="4" ViewCount="31695" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some say that name &quot;Ahmed&quot; (the Muslims' prophet who is also known as &quot;Mohamed&quot;) is mentioned in scripture, and it is foretold that he would be a prophet, but his name was censored years after Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does modern Christianity accept this? Are there any references?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that Mohamed was born many years after Jesus, but I'm looking for something in the way of a divination or a enunciation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1693" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-11-16T23:28:58.903" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T20:58:17.750" Title="Is the name &quot;Ahmed&quot; found in scripture?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;islam&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7853" CreationDate="2012-05-28T11:48:54.860" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering that he was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad&quot;&gt;born in 570 AD&lt;/a&gt;, and the last of the books of the Bible were written by contemporaries of Christ in the first century AD and compiled in present form by the 4th century AD, this is an extremely unlikely claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was obviously not mentioned as a historical or contemporary figure, due to the chronology.  And had he been mentioned in prophecies as a future person, and then removed from the record later, it's quite likely that 20th century discoveries of ancient Christian writings would have found it, somewhere in over half a millennium of time in which the uncensored prophecy would have existed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously it's impossible to prove a negative, but as of now, no evidence exists that I'm aware of to support that claim.  If a Muslim wishes to advance the claim, the onus is on him to back it up by producing an ancient document containing the censored prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T11:48:54.860" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7849" CreationDate="2012-05-28T12:25:16.377" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Such a work would be too large for any one resource. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may want to look at:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Theopedia (a Wikipedia like reference)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Cathechism of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and canon law (all of which do a good job of pointing out controversies, says the Protestant)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the Ante and Post-Nicene Fathers by Phillip Schaff. (the Patristics were often writing against heresies of one form or another)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In general, a good systematic theology book (JI Packer has a good concise tome) will also point out the things that a Christian &quot;should&quot; believe. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found it's a lot easier to concentrate on knowing my bible well, know enough about Trinitarian orthodoxy and good Christology, and then just apply it to what I am bring presented with. Heresies are like and endless supply of orcs. There are always enough and battling each one tires you out too much to concentrate on the big bad. Instead, simply &quot;be prepared to give an answer for your faith at all times,&quot; and &quot;insofar as possible, live peaceably with all men. &quot;. &quot;Do not concern yourself with genealogies and disputations,&quot; but rather &quot;put on the full armor of Christ that you can withstand the evil one. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T12:25:16.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7853" CreationDate="2012-05-28T13:00:28.207" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to look at &lt;a href=&quot;https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/is-the-name-of-prophet-muhammad-mentioned-the-bible&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, which is virtually identical. To summarize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a simple matter to &lt;a href=&quot;https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/is-the-name-of-prophet-muhammad-mentioned-the-bible&quot;&gt;search the entire contents of the Bible&lt;/a&gt;. Doing so will reveal no occurrences of the words &lt;em&gt;Muhammad&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Ahmad&lt;/em&gt; or any of their spelling variants. Manuscripts of the New Testament have been found going back to the first few decades after Jesus, and in none of these manuscripts does the name &lt;em&gt;Muhammad&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Ahmad&lt;/em&gt; appear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Claims like this, made by Muslims, are usually referring to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Barnabas&lt;/a&gt;. The Gospel of Barnabas  has never been part of the Christian Bible. It contradicts all of the early Christian documents in many ways, follows a remarkably Islamic point of view, and includes a passage in which Jesus predicts Muhammad. No manuscripts of this gospel, or any description of it, exist from before the 16th Century. (There are mentions of &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; Gospel of Barnabas from the 6th Century - still much later then the canonical gospels -  but we have no way of knowing if this is the same document.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To directly address the 'censored' question: No, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the name having been removed from any biblical documents. There are no manuscripts of biblical documents that contain his name; there are no letters referring to such documents; there are no letters discussing such censorship. Also the canon of scripture was established before Mohammed, and we have many copies of the documents that predate Mohammed, so no: this did not happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:46:42.840" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T16:56:58.337" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7858" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-05-28T13:44:54.907" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T13:44:54.907" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T13:44:54.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7859" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-05-28T13:44:54.907" Score="0" Body="The doctrine that the Virgin Mary was assumed directly into heaven without death." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-05-28T14:00:11.563" LastActivityDate="2012-05-28T14:00:11.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7861" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-05-29T09:02:21.843" Score="19" ViewCount="802" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been wondering if there is any &lt;em&gt;official doctrine&lt;/em&gt; held by Jehovahs Witnesses that would restrict them from talking about their faith in their own words?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have noticed in my interactions with them (through everything from talking to door to door missionaries to hanging out with the families of some of my friends to reading their postings on this site) that instead it is very typical for them to use the exact phrases and constructs found in officially sanctioned publications, often preferring to quote these sources (Watchtower, etc.) wholesale rather than writing or otherwise articulating their views in their own words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Reformed Protestant, I believe there is great value in using words and constructs whose meanings have become well defined and have been tested through time. In particular, I will even direct people to re-frame their own questions in the words Scripture uses for given topics rather than their own because I think this will help bring clarity to the issues they face. At the same time I see great value in meeting people where they are at -- in speaking the same language -- and articulating eternal truths in ways that people relate to and that specifically match the important issues. However much some Theologian may have said something better than I and I might quote them, still I do share the Gospel and articulate my faith to people using my own words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems fundamentally different from the interactions I see from JWs. When you ask them a question, they will seem reticent to stray from a specific track and try to find the closest matching stock answer from their repertoire. Or so it seems. My question is, is that an official stance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a specific teaching or doctrine that binds them to operate this way? Or perhaps a more general doctrine that leads people to that conclusion even if it isn't a requirement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-05-29T12:36:00.263" LastActivityDate="2021-04-22T19:59:13.220" Title="Are JWs restricted from expressing things in their own words?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7853" CreationDate="2012-05-29T09:55:11.430" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since your question does not focus on any specific claim, I will address only the general genre of claims that are made on this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hear two genres of claims being made about Mohamed and Islam in relation to the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Texts containing relevant information and teachings not present in the accepted canon of Scripture have been excluded from Christian study.&lt;/em&gt; This claim usually centers around the (re)-discovery of various ancient texts documenting the beliefs of various historical groups that held teachings heretical to Christianity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One such example can be seen in this news article. In reference the recent find a well preserved copy of the &lt;em&gt;Gospel of Barnabas&lt;/em&gt; being discovered last year in Turkey:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 1,500-year-old Bible in which Jesus is believed to have foretold the coming of the Prophet Mohammed to Earth has attracted attention from the Vatican this week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to note that this article isn't well researched. The find is not a 1500 year old Bible, it is a possibly 1500 year old copy of a book purporting to be the Gospel of Barnabas, which is NOT EVEN CONSIDERED PART OF THE BIBLE. While Barnabas was one of Jesus' disciples and the claim is often forwarded by skeptics that the testimony of someone in that position should not be ignored, the currently suggested date for the manuscript in question is hundreds of years after the texts we have from other apostles and it has not been established that this book even represents the teachings of Barnabas. Seeing as how the witness is also contrary, it makes little sense to hold these writings in esteem not granted to the earlier accepted manuscripts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article goes on to point out two claims:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“In one version of the gospel, he is said to have told a priest: ‘How shall the Messiah be called? Mohammed is his blessed name.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“And in another, Jesus denied being the Messiah, claiming that he or she would be Ishmaelite, the term used for an Arab,” the newspaper added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted above, however oft-repeated these claims may be among those skeptical of or opposed to Christianity, they are not based on documents that have any credible bearing on Jesus, his teachings, or the foundations of Christian faith. It is well accepted in Christian circles that even during the early church there were all sorts of heretical groups around teaching all sorts of divergent things about Jesus. These teachings were systematically rejected as being contrary to the plain and verified teachings of Jesus as witnessed by those closest to him. &lt;strong&gt;The re-discovery of ancient documents from these divergent groups poses no threat to Christianity, nor should their doctrines be taken as having any bearing on Christian doctrine.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Words present in the original language text that point to the coming of Mohamed or of Islam have been misinterpreted either deliberately or though lack of understanding.&lt;/em&gt; There are several variations on this claim using different words from various passages.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common one centers around the Greek world &lt;code&gt;Parakletos&lt;/code&gt;, particularly in the John texts. The argument takes about a dozen different forms, but the gist of it is that the Greek text, being a translation of what Jesus would have actually said in Aramaic is confusing and misleading. The claim is that rather than being a reference to the Holy Spirit (this third person of the Trinity, promised by Jesus to come after he left and act as an advocate leading us into truth) this should actually be interpreted as a reference to a later prophet. The claim often includes an accusation that biased later generations of Christians only introduced the idea of the Trinity in later copies and translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These claims simply do not hold water and &lt;strong&gt;are rejected by all Christian teaching.&lt;/strong&gt; One of the principles we use for interpreting Scripture is using other more clear passages on an issue to shed light on any that we are not sure how to understand. We also use the interpretations of people present (i.e. the disciples for Jesus teachings, etc.) to help guide our own. In this case the verses in John that are in question are clearly and concretely demonstrated to be talking about the same Holy Spirit that was given at Pentecost and dwells with believers. Furthermore, any attempt to render these passages in a different light ends up making a massive mess of the rest of Scripture turning it to testify against itself (a pretty sure sign you've read it wrong).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example sometimes cited is in Isaiah where several tributes to a coming elect servant are given. While Christianity universally understands these as describing the coming Christ himself, they don't bear a name. One of them intros &amp;quot;Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights.&amp;quot; An argument is sometimes made that &amp;quot;my chosen&amp;quot; or in context, &amp;quot;God's chosen&amp;quot; translated into Arabic is &amp;quot;Mustafa&amp;quot; (true enough), then claiming that nobody had that name until the founder of Islam came along. Never minding for a minute how many people have the name even to this day, a name alone isn't enough to tie somebody to a prophecy especially when the other parts of the prophecy don't match. Isaiah includes many specific descriptions that even Muslims don't try to interpret as being fulfilled in anyone but Christ. Some of those prophecies being re-directed on a linguistic twist isn't something Christians acknowledge as a link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the above are simply some of the possible examples of this, the universal conclusion of Christian scholarship (and hence, doctrine) is that such techniques represent a poor hermeneutic, not taking into account the whole of Scripture, forcing items out of context and rendering the text to say something it was never meant to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christianity universally and categorically denies that any texts outside of the canon provide an authoritative witness to Jesus' teachings &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; that the words brought into question as possible references to Mohamed or Islam have anything to do with the subject.&lt;/strong&gt; On the contrary, any such teachings are expressly contrary to the vast weight of scholarship on the issue. It is not a point of common understanding between faiths, and anything built off of such a &amp;quot;bridge&amp;quot; invariably ends up being contrary to other Christian doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-16T22:40:28.270" LastActivityDate="2020-11-16T22:40:28.270" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7861" CreationDate="2012-05-29T12:41:16.027" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not have access to the materials that the elders use to train people in public ministry, but I suspect that you've encountered Jehovah's Witnesses that were uncomfortable speaking in their own words. The Watchtower website indicates that Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to express things in their own words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/christian-baptism-dedication-to-god/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SHARING BIBLE TRUTH WITH OTHERS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As faith grows in your heart, you will find it hard to keep what you&#xA;  have learned to yourself. (Jeremiah 20:9) You will be strongly&#xA;  motivated to speak to others about God and his purposes.—2 Corinthians&#xA;  4:13.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You might begin to share Bible truth with others by tactfully&#xA;  speaking about it to your relatives, friends, neighbors, and&#xA;  workmates. In time, you will want to share in the organized preaching&#xA;  work of Jehovah’s Witnesses. At that point, feel free to talk things&#xA;  over with the Witness who is teaching you the Bible. If it appears&#xA;  that you qualify for the public ministry, arrangements will be made&#xA;  for you and your teacher to meet with two of the congregation elders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This will enable you to get better acquainted with some Christian&#xA;  elders, who shepherd the flock of God. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2, 3) If&#xA;  these elders see that you understand and believe basic Bible&#xA;  teachings, are living in harmony with God’s principles, and truly want&#xA;  to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they will let you know that you&#xA;  qualify to share in the public ministry as an unbaptized publisher of&#xA;  the good news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the other hand, you may need to make some changes in your&#xA;  life-style and habits in order to qualify for the public ministry.&#xA;  This may include stopping some practices that have been kept secret&#xA;  from others. Hence, before you ask about becoming an unbaptized&#xA;  publisher, you need to be free of serious sins, such as sexual&#xA;  immorality, drunkenness, and drug abuse.—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10;&#xA;  Galatians 5:19-21.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-02T20:14:47.617" LastActivityDate="2015-09-02T20:14:47.617" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7815" CreationDate="2012-05-29T13:36:42.043" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7816/30&quot;&gt;Eric's answer&lt;/a&gt;, but I'm going to give a contrarian answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Philippians 4: 8,9, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ did not speak on every topic.  Peter and Paul did not speak on every topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Paul does not specifically address participation in government in his letter to the Philippians, we can discern from what he did say that we ought to participate in art, literature, and yes, even government so that we can do our part to make these activities true, honorable, just, pure, pleasing, commendable, and excellent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-05-29T13:38:08.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7267" CreationDate="2012-05-29T14:55:42.057" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The field of Biblical numerology can be a pretty mirky pond. There are some clear trends (three for completion, seven for perfection, a thousand for a really big number, etc.) and a lot of speculation and conclusions that may or may not be warranted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case however, the answer is pretty much spelled out in another verse. The 40 years of wandering was an exact calculation, one year for one day, based on how long the spies spent looking around the land before they were originally supposed to enter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=num%2014:34&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Numbers 14:34&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;34&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land,  forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logical next question is, &quot;Why did the spies spend 40 days on their quest&quot;? To that we are not given any definite clues. It does seem like a reasonable amount of time to get around to a bunch of different places on foot and get an idea of the lay of the land without making your movements too obvious and getting caught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are actually quite a few references to 40 in the Bible. The flood. The spies. The wandering in the desert. The reigns of many of the Judges. Moses life has three periods of 40 years each. The temptation of Jesus. The surmised time between the resurrection and the ascension that Jesus spent back on earth. However the connections between these references is faint at best, and &lt;strong&gt;I think it is safe to say, since we are not told explicitly that there is any meaning to this number, that it is of no particular consequence that the spies took 40 days to get their spyin' done.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-05-29T14:55:42.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7812" CreationDate="2012-05-29T17:41:36.617" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the New Testament does not give complete details about the selection process, the role of other leaders is much more clearly documented than the role of congregations, at least in the appointment of &lt;em&gt;elders&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 6, by contrast, involves the selection of &lt;em&gt;servant leaders&lt;/em&gt;, known in most churches today as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacon&quot;&gt;deacons&lt;/a&gt;. The Apostles were too busy to &quot;serve tables&quot;, so they asked the congregation to select seven men &quot;to this duty&quot;. These men were not appointed elders (although at least one, Stephen, did later do some preaching.) The Apostles laid their hands on these servants, possibly as a blessing (see, e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/genesis/passage.aspx?q=genesis+48:14-20&quot;&gt;Genesis 48:14-20&lt;/a&gt;) or a commission (see, e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/numbers/passage.aspx?q=numbers+27:22-23&quot;&gt;Numbers 27:22-23&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 14 specifically refers to the appointment of elders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although Dr. Perkins goes to great lengths (in your linked article) to show that the Greek verb in Acts 14:23 can be used of either appointment or election, the footnote from Alexander Strauch still stands:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the point is, cheirotoneo can mean to elect or appoint. The context, not the etymology, determines its meaning. The context [Acts 14:23] is perfectly clear that appoint is the only possible meaning here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase, &quot;they had appointed elders for them in every church&quot;, can only reasonably be interpreted that Paul and Barnabas chose the elders for the churches. As to whether Paul and Barnabas sought input from the congregations, we are not told.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elsewhere in the New Testament, we see Titus being chosen by Paul to appoint elders:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.&amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/titus/1-5.html&quot;&gt;Titus 1:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, we are not told (nor is Titus, for that matter) how much input Titus should receive from the congregation; however, since the qualifications for the office were listed in the private letter to Titus, it seems likely that the opinions of the congregation would not carry much weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So although congregations may have had some input into the selection of their elders, the New Testament is only clear in stating that elders were appointed by other church leaders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2012-05-29T17:41:36.617" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7868" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7870" CreationDate="2012-05-29T23:46:26.507" Score="12" ViewCount="2392" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to obtain moral, not faith explanation - &lt;strong&gt;In the story about Jesus' crucifixion: how can it be considered moral that God allowed or destined the unjustified murder of His own son?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the reason for Jesus' death was to satisfy his fathers' anger or rule, wouldn't the moral thing be for the father just calm down or change his mind? He did this before: &lt;code&gt;Genesis 18,20-32&lt;/code&gt;. And Paul explains that love should prevail: &lt;code&gt;Corinthians 13&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the whole story was just a &quot;game&quot; or dramatic way to make people think about their sin and need for God, that is, the father knew that Jesus will just experience human dying, but won't be really sacrificed - I mean cease to exist - is that moral to use his own son in this way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus opened the way to salvation for non-Jews somehow, is it moral to achieve such a desired end in such a sadistic way? It is hard to believe the thought behind: &lt;em&gt;a kill will be better than love&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is there any other explanation how such a deed could be moral?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user508" LastEditorUserId="10999" LastEditDate="2016-02-17T11:13:03.770" LastActivityDate="2016-02-17T11:13:03.770" Title="What is the point of Jesus' crucifixion?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-02-19T14:31:43.497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7868" CreationDate="2012-05-30T00:36:16.053" Score="19" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is Holy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is Just&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is Merciful&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The combination of these attributes is the answer to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His Holiness demands that He be obeyed, unequivocally.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His justice demands that He deal with disobedience, mercilessly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His mercy demands that He forgive, lovingly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does one strike a balance in a meaningful manner? The answer is that He who knew no sin became sin, and God poured His wrath upon His Son. Unraveling the Biblical language a little bit, this means that our (the elect's) sins were &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impute&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;imputed&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; to Christ, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and Christ was no longer considered perfect but sinful. Because He took our sin upon Him, we are now blameless before God, but Christ was not. Christ took the merciless wrath due us, satisfied God's justice for those under this covenant of grace, and permits God to show mercy to us because God's justice has been satisfied in Christ. The key here is that Christ &lt;em&gt;became sin&lt;/em&gt; by taking our sin (and the corollary, for another question topic, is that we obtained Christ's righteousness). Only God has the power to do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The work on the cross was more than physical: the penalty Christ paid was much more than just physical death and suffering. I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8jY6wJ0gwQ&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; one-hour video for a more encompassing explanation from a Baptist/Puritan viewpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you understand these points (obedience, justice, mercy), the rest makes perfect sense. There are deeper questions to be asked at this point (and not on this same SE question!) but I think you are better off to think of them on your own at this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit, to Address more questions from the O.P:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The transfer of the sin was not the purpose of Christ's death on the cross. It was &lt;em&gt;part&lt;/em&gt; of the penalty that He paid for taking our sin upon Himself. In the beginning, man disobeyed God (Genesis 3). This man is named Adam. Adam is the head representative of the human race. Because he sinned, his nature changed and he was lost in disobedience without the ability to obey God. Because Adam, who was flesh, sinned, his flesh also became corrupt and he eventually died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I said, the point of Christ's work on the cross was to consume the wrath of God for those whom the work will cover (I know this is a confusing way to word it. I'm trying to avoid opening another topic entirely. If you have a question regarding who the work was intended to cover, it is worth another question entirely). This moral and physical death is called the &lt;em&gt;curse of Adam&lt;/em&gt;. Christ's death on the cross satisfied the physical side of the curse of Adam. Christ's being forsook by His Father satisfied the spiritual aspect of the curse. The physical death took place in order that He would identify with the flesh and conquer sin in the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To use the term &quot;murder&quot; is inappropriate, here. Murder implies malice and an innocent victim. When Christ took our sin, He was no longer innocent and His death was not in &lt;em&gt;malice&lt;/em&gt;, it was in &lt;em&gt;justice&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once God imputed our sins to Christ, if God would not have punished Him, His Holiness would have been denigrated because His justice would not be satisfied, as if to say: &quot;Yeah, it's okay if you disobey me. No biggie.&quot; The distinction is that it is &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; ok to disobey God and simple &quot;forgive and forget&quot; could not work, or else God would be giving up His Holiness. The most heinous act you can conceive of doing to a fellow man is not as heinous as the slightest insult you can think of against God (pretending that there is a way to wrong a man without wronging God in the process).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul Washer's point in the video at 6:20 was that because Christ is God's Son, all of creation and events in time are for His glory, because the Father loves the Son. If we are obeying God because we want to avoid punishment or to &quot;be moral,&quot; then we are doing it in the wrong spirit. All things are to glorify Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2012-05-31T10:32:22.080" LastActivityDate="2012-05-31T10:32:22.080" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7868" CreationDate="2012-05-30T04:21:56.880" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic &lt;strong&gt;assumption&lt;/strong&gt; in these kind of questions is that we can understand God's mind and God's ideas and try to make sense out of them. But who can comprehend an intelligence that designed such a massive thing as the universe and knows each and every minute detail about the millions of galaxies in it? It would therefore be foolish of me to try to psychoanalyze God as though I could understand him. But from my limited human understanding, here is what I think - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simplest answer is &lt;strong&gt;to show us how much he loves us&lt;/strong&gt;. Even among human beings, the greatest love one can show to another human being is to actually lay his life down for him/her. It's no surprise that we revere and honor martyrs so much. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus himself acknowledged this- &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for&#xA;  his friends&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; (John 15:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to actually give up one's own beloved son's life is even greater. For what loving father would not want to die in place of his son? Yet, because it was the Father's will that humanity become the bride of his son, it was fitting that the bridegroom die for the bride. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through my personal experience, nothing has convinced me more of God's love for me than when I am before the cross where I see Jesus hanging for my sins. The cross has convinced me more than anything else of God's love for me (see my &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1607/lovethefaith&quot;&gt;profile page&lt;/a&gt; for more description about this). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, as an earlier poster said, it also has to do with God's holiness and justice. If you murder someone and God simply forgives you, where is the justice for the one who was murdered? Justice demands that you compensate the one you have wronged. Justice demands that you be punished in proportion to the crime you have committed. If this holds for offenses against a fellow human being, how much more does it hold for offenses against God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;no human being could in fact compensate for offenses against an infinitely holy God, which would need a compensation of infinite value - Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. That does not however mean that we don't do our own bit to &quot;pay the price for our sins&quot; even though it may be insufficient. God, in his divine plan has made such a provision, that our sufferings, when united with the sufferings of Christ, can actually have redemptive value. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the apostle Paul says- &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh &lt;strong&gt;I&#xA;  complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions&lt;/strong&gt; for the sake of his&#xA;  body, that is, the church&quot; (Col 1:24) (what is lacking in Christ's afflictions is our &#xA;  participation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with&#xA;  Christ, &lt;strong&gt;provided we suffer with him&lt;/strong&gt; in order that we may also be&#xA;  glorified with him. (Rom 8:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To end, I have the classic verse - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For &lt;strong&gt;the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing&lt;/strong&gt;, but to&#xA;  us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;I&#xA;  will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever&#xA;  I will thwart&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; (1 Cor 1:18-19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human reason alone cannot illumine one to understand the mystery of the cross. It will always seem like madness and foolishness to us. But if we could understand God, then God would not be God, for the finite cannot comprehend the infinite! &lt;strong&gt;It will always be a mystery and no rational explanation will ever satisfy&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-05-30T04:21:56.880" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7877" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7879" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:27:34.217" Score="5" ViewCount="17894" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about when is it too late to ask for salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many death bed conversion stories. One of the most momentous conversions in Western history was that of Constantine I, Roman Emperor and later proclaimed a Christian Saint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any supporting evidence that we can or cannot obtain salvation after death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-08T01:28:38.483" LastActivityDate="2016-03-16T01:24:32.910" Title="When is it too late to ask for salvation?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-03-16T05:41:50.143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7877" CreationDate="2012-05-30T14:38:34.440" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering that the thief on the cross asked and was forgiven as he was dying on a cross near Jesus I'd have to argue that there is never a moment that is too late until you are dead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any teachings in my sect (reformed protestant, specifically Presbyterian) that either allow or prohibit the idea of conversion after death. However, because of the way that we understand sotieriology and the sovereignty of God it seems unlikely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically out theology of salvation/sovereignty is summed up in Romans 8:29-30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short God has predestined his people and calls them. The Presbyterians teach that this calling is irresistible and permanent. Thus, God will call his people to himself when he pleases (even after death, if it pleases him (although that is pure opinion on my part)). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On your final question, the Presbyterian understanding of Baptism is a bit different, it is a sign of the covenant rather than a saving act for salvation. We believe that the baptism that is referred to in your inference is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is permanent and only happens once. Because God is outside of time he forgives all of your sins past and present at the time of your acceptance of Christ (and by extension, this baptism of the spirit). The age at which you receive this baptism is irrelevant as it is effective for all your sins, not only the ones you have done in the past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2012-05-30T14:38:34.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7877" CreationDate="2012-05-30T15:11:02.260" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When is it too late to ask for salvation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is never too late, as long as a person is alive.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2023:42-43&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;thief on the cross&lt;/a&gt; is a good example of this in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What about obtaining salvation after death?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Christians believe that everyone will be given a second chance to believe after death.  Usually the proof text used is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%203:18-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For Christ also suffered once  for sins,  the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.  He was put to death in the body  but made alive in the Spirit.  &lt;sup&gt;19&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits  — &lt;sup&gt;20&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently  in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.  In it only a few people, eight in all,  were saved  through water,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To extract from this passage a doctrine that everyone will have a chance to be saved after death is quite a drastic stretch - especially since it is found nowhere else in Scripture.  While I'm not sure about the meaning of this passage, it simply does not support that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anyone besides the people described heard or will hear Jesus's proclamation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anyone that heard Jesus's proclamation was given a chance for salvation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These claims, which are necessary for the doctrine of obtaining salvation after death, are not supported by this passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it better to wait as long as possible to be saved?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.  It sounds like you may have the notion that when you are saved, you are saved from your past sin, but not your future sin.  If this were true, then no one would be saved - no matter how &quot;good&quot; someone becomes after they become saved, no one is able to meet God's perfect standards.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we are saved, God &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; conform us to the likeness of Christ through sanctification, but understand that no one undergoes this process perfectly.  On the day of redemption, we will be justified - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:8-9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;not because of our works&lt;/a&gt;, or our ability to keep from &quot;screwing up&quot;, but because of our inclusion in Christ, and his sacrifice for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-05-30T15:11:02.260" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7881" CreationDate="2012-05-30T17:19:53.783" Score="47" ViewCount="5216" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was in Utah, I found myself consciously avoiding the term &quot;Mormon,&quot; in favor of &quot;LDS.&quot;  While I understand the term &quot;LDS&quot; means &quot;Latter Day Saint,&quot; what I don't know is either the provance or connotation of the term 'Mormon.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, first off, why and how did the term &quot;Mormon&quot; come denote members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, and secondly, is it at all offensive to use the term?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2020-05-20T01:29:10.943" Title="Is &quot;Mormon&quot; a disrespectful term?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7880" CreationDate="2012-05-30T17:31:07.740" Score="48" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term was originally used as a way to separate Latter-Day Saints from other Christians, due to their belief in the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible.  (Much like the term &quot;Christian&quot;, which was first used by Jews in the early Apostolic period to distinguish &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; sect of Judaism, who believed that Christ had already come, from the more respectable, mainstream Jews.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Because this apparently confused someone, I'm using the word &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ&quot;&gt;Christ&lt;/a&gt;&quot; in the original, literal meaning here. &lt;em&gt;Christos&lt;/em&gt; is the literal Greek translation of the Hebrew &lt;em&gt;messiah&lt;/em&gt;, and was used as a title rather than a name at that time.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early days of the church, the term commonly used by LDS members to refer to each other was &quot;saints&quot;.  (This can be seen throughout the Doctrine &amp;amp; Covenants, a collection of modern-day revelations regarding the church received by Joseph Smith and his successors, and in surviving letters from the period.)  But again like the term &quot;Christian,&quot; Mormons ended up adopting the term once it became ubiquitous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church currently sponsors the well-known Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and runs an official outreach site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormon.org&quot;&gt;www.mormon.org&lt;/a&gt;, so it's safe to say that it's not considered offensive, although the official name of the church does not contain the word and it's considered proper to use the full name, or simply &quot;Latter-Day Saints,&quot; in any sort of formal context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-05-30T22:37:56.803" LastActivityDate="2012-05-30T22:37:56.803" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7877" CreationDate="2012-05-30T18:25:08.930" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an old saying (I believe from Dante) that &quot;the gates of Hell are locked from the inside.&quot; In &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/em&gt; by C.S. Lewis, this is reiterated by a solid one who says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In the end, there are only two kinds of people - those who will say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God must reluctantly say, 'Your will be done.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that hell is a choice. In this understanding, Hell is the place where God's presence is either not felt at all, or is as weak as possible. Hell is an attempt to avoid the reality of God. In such an understanding, it is not that God rejects those in hell, but rather that those in hell reject God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God hardened Pharaoh's heart, for example, it was Pharaoh who resisted God.  God merely strengthened the choice Pharaoh had made, and drew him to its natural conclusion - death. If hell operates like this, then death is not so much a finality of choice as it is a point of no return.  It is not a point after which it is impossible to change one's mind, but it is a point after which it would become much harder and much more rare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way that most people come to Christ in their teens and twenties (and back to Christ after their first child), it is not a preclusion that makes it impossible for someone in their seventies or eighties to do so - but the numbers bear me out on the fact that its not an everyday sort of thing...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-05-30T18:25:08.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7125" CreationDate="2012-05-30T22:02:04.953" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Metaphorically speaking (and as Bruggeman says, &quot;One cannot over-interpret these chapters of Genesis&quot;), the serpent is the forces of Evil (Satan, the Accuser), and the woman &amp;amp; man are symbolic of mankind.  In the battle for mankind, evil is going to lose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will put enmity between you {the serpent} and the woman&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There will be hatred between evil and mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and between your offspring and her offspring;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will be a battle that will occur over many, many generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;he {mankind's offspring} shall bruise your {the serpent's} head&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone, a descendant of Eve, shall defeat the forces of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and you shall bruise his heel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this victory will only come with injury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse is basically a requirement for Jesus' humanity - the one who would defeat evil will be reckoned through a woman. The defeat of the Evil One will be preordained by God but will not be solely carried out through him as a deus ex machina.  Instead, mankind will be able to exact revenge on the evil introduced by the serpent - hence Jesus would become a man, dwell among us, and defeat the scheme of the wicked one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-05-30T22:02:04.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7886" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7895" CreationDate="2012-05-31T06:01:42.410" Score="-3" ViewCount="1074" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems the biblical perspective is that God creates everything, so why did He create Goliath - and choose not to help him in the battle with David? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did Goliath do (or not do) that he was not favored like David?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible support that God does not care the same way for some people or why he doesn't choose other people to express Himself through?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, when the Bible mentions other people, nations, enemies, etc, it comes off as if some other entity created them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The question was not mean to be argumentative and meant to present a very real issue - even possible an issue for people today. The question was more like, why did God create &quot;others&quot; or &quot;enemies&quot; - that like Mark says were born into it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-20T00:11:06.940" LastActivityDate="2015-01-20T00:11:06.940" Title="Why did the Lord create Goliath?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;david&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-06-01T08:43:36.973" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7886" CreationDate="2012-05-31T06:10:08.200" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you take a literal view of the OT, then indeed - God &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; them all, but was rather partial to the Israelites as his &quot;chosen people&quot;. So yes, he supports just one side, and indeed orders (and assists) destruction of other tribes - because, after all, they weren't his believers. Indeed, Saul gets in trouble elsewhere for not &lt;em&gt;being thorough enough&lt;/em&gt; in destroying the Amalekites (by bringing a few sheep and cattle back, to sacrifice).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;God loves everyone&quot; is more a NT thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what did Goliath do? He wasn't an Israelite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-05-31T06:15:43.903" LastActivityDate="2012-05-31T06:15:43.903" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7886" CreationDate="2012-05-31T06:19:52.737" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The whole of the Bible is a story of men who are given the commandments of God and then disobey them to their own detriment. Remember Adam and Eve were the first humans and were taught by God the commandments. Ultimately men like their son Cain choose to follow the devil instead of God and were no longer under the covenant or favor of God. Eventually it got so bad that God started over with Noah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Noah's family on we see again men with the commandments and covenants of God eventually choosing to disobey them. Which leads eventually to Israel and his sons. They are a line of the family of Noah that has kept the covenants and commandments of God. They eventually become the twelve tribes of Israel and the Bible follows the dealings of this people, seemingly the only people to have stuck with the commandments of God, as they struggle to survive and keep the commandments of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for the above explanation is simply to show that while God created everyone and loves everyone there are people who chose, and still choose today, to disobey the commandments of God and they, in the case of Goliath the Philistines, as a people had at some point in their past rejected the commandments of God. So unlike David were not favored by the Lord. Remember when Saul was not following the commandments, and even later in David's life when he transgresses, he is not favored by the Lord either. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we can see that God is just to everyone equally, but the Bible looks as you described it because it is written from the perspective of the line of people that for much of their history(though they struggled - remember they spent 40 years in the wilderness because of wickedness-) followed the commandments of God and were thus favored more by Him then other lines, or groups, of people.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-05-31T06:19:52.737" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7889" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7891" CreationDate="2012-05-31T09:35:17.603" Score="5" ViewCount="9673" Body="&lt;p&gt;In studying through the book of Colossians, I noted that the letter was carried from Paul to the church by some dude named Tychicus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%204:7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Colossians 4:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Tychicus will tell you  all about my activities. He is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There isn't much to go on here, but it seems like he must have played a pretty significant role as a partner in Paul's ministry as well as being the one to communicate in person with a lot of the early churches. I'm aware that he turns up in a list of people active in various ministries &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+20.4&quot;&gt;in Acts&lt;/a&gt;, and of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ephesians+6.21-22&quot;&gt;reference in Ephesians&lt;/a&gt; that indicates he also delivered that letter. One study Bible I have also indicates he carried Philemon along with Onesimus, who seems to have been a frequent travel companion of his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Am I missing other Biblical references about him, how he came to faith, how he came to work so closely with Paul, or what roles he played later in life?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What extra-Biblical sources do we know of that speak to his life and ministry?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular I have a curiosity about people that worked closely with Paul, and what their service to the church looked like when they were on their own. Did Tychicus outlive Paul or go on to some future role other than that of a messenger?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2019-01-07T05:32:45.017" Title="Who was Tychicus?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7889" CreationDate="2012-05-31T15:41:23.240" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tychicus appears 5 times in the NT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of the brethren who accompanied Paul in his deputation for the offering for the Jerusalem church (Acts 20:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He served as the courier for Paul’s letter to Ephesus (Eph 6:21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;... as well as Paul’s letters to Philemon and the Colossians (Col 4:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Paul mentions Tychicus twice in his later letters, first sending him to Crete to be with Titus (Ti 3:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;... and later mentioning to Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus so that he was no longer with him (2 Tm 4:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Baker's Encyclopedia of the Bible states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Determining whether Tychicus accompanied Paul all the way to Jerusalem or whether he stayed in Miletus when Paul stopped there to greet the Ephesian elders is difficult. Though Acts 21:8 speaks of “Paul’s company” (kjv) as if all of the delegation remained with him, the fact that Tychicus is not mentioned with Trophimus in the Jews’ charge against Paul would seem to indicate that Tychicus was not in Jerusalem (v 29). Since he is often mentioned with Trophimus, Tychicus was likely also a native of Ephesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most believe that he was also one of the two brethren (with Trophimus) who accompanied Titus in the delivery of 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 8:16–24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidently Tychicus and Paul were close friends as well as fellow workers since Paul frequently refers to Tychicus as a “beloved brother.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eerdman's Dictionary also suggests he became a bishop in Chalcedon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian from Asia Minor, described as a beloved brother, faithful minister, and fellow servant (Col. 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:12; Titus 3:12) who served as a messenger and letter carrier for Paul (Col. 4:7, 16; Eph. 6:21–22). Tychicus (Gk. “fortunate”) accompanied Paul and delegates from the gentile churches in delivering gifts to the Jerusalem church (Acts 20:4). The name is attested in nine inscriptions from his native region of Magnesia. Late Greek tradition holds that Tychicus was one of the first bishops of Chalcedon.&#xA;Bibliography. S. L. Cox, “Tychicus: A Profile,” Biblical Illustrator 21 (1995): 79–80.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, he died a martyr's death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also sent Tychicus to Ephesus on one occasion (2 Tim. 4:12) and possibly to Crete on another (Titus 3:12). Tradition holds that he died a martyr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to Philemon, the Intervarsity Press Dictionary supports the position that Tychicu was Paul's trusted &amp;quot;faithful minister&amp;quot; and was actually the more important character in Paul's letter to Philemon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This point is highlighted by the chiastic pattern of the text itself. Recall that a chiasmus is a literary device that arranges words and ideas into two parallel and inverted passages, with an odd member placed at the vertex, where the two passages intersect (ABCDC´B´A´). The odd phrase found at the vertex (D) helps the reader locate the passage’s principal idea. Consider verses 7–9 in this light:&#xA;A   Tychicus will tell you all the news about me (v. 7a).&#xA;B   He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord (v. 7b).&#xA;C   I am sending him to you for the express purpose that you may know about our circumstances (v. 8a)&#xA;D   and that he may encourage your hearts (v. 8b).&#xA;C´  He is coming with Onesimus (v. 9a),&#xA;B´  our faithful and dear brother, who is one of you (v. 9b).&#xA;A´  They will tell you everything that is happening here (9c).&#xA;The chiastic shape helps us to identify the most important ingredient in the instructions Paul sends to the Colossians: that [Tychicus] may encourage your hearts. Paul’s chief interest is that his ministry continue through Tychicus during his imprisonment (see Lohse 1971:171). The chiasmus also subordinates Onesimus to Tychicus, for it is the latter who is central to Paul’s plans and additionally is called faithful minister. The credential added to Onesimus, who is one of you (4:9), suggests that his task is to help Tychicus gain entry into this Colossian community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-05-31T15:47:19.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7280" CreationDate="2012-05-31T15:55:55.830" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;C.S. Lewis actually made an argument in favor of the division of the church - namely, that an institution with a single earthly head could be far more easily swayed by the Devil. By fragmenting the church, Christ has protected it from the deceit of the Evil One.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free —and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is my personal observation that different denominations do different jobs in the &quot;church&quot; as a whole.  Some denominations are better at social gospel ministry, others are more scholarly, and yet others are better at encouraging worship.  By having different part sof the body develop particular strengths, the body as a whole can learn from itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be remembered that even Paul understood that the point of preaching was to &quot;become all things to all men&quot;, for as he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if Christ is preached out of impure motives, that doesn't matter either. As Phillipians says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that the fragmentation of the church is actively &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt;? No.  But even still, even in its broken state, God can use it to accomplish things He desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-05-31T15:55:55.830" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7886" CreationDate="2012-05-31T16:49:55.060" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God created Goliath for the same reason he created Pharaoh, the Canaanites, and every other foe he sent to challenge his people - namely, to show his Glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Chronicles 16, he says as much:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7At that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah and said to him: “Because you relied on the king of Aram and not on the Lord your God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped from your hand. 8Were not the Cushitesb and Libyans a mighty army with great numbers of chariots and horsemenc? Yet when you relied on the Lord, he delivered them into your hand. &lt;strong&gt;9For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.&lt;/strong&gt; You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may sound vainglorious, but God is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Jealousy_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;often&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.doxologypress.org/passion.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;jealous for his glory&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. In Exodus, Moses even uses that &quot;against&quot; God to keep him from smiting his own people.  That God is justified in desiring that His people know his glory is simply his prerogative, because it is in the interests of his children to know that he he is great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-05-31T16:49:55.060" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7886" CreationDate="2012-05-31T19:25:11.520" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Romans 9 gives a pretty good explanation of God's prerogative in creation and his reason for creating &quot;vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:11-23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 9:11-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of  him who calls— &lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; she was told,  “The older will serve the younger.” &lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; As it is written,  “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; What shall we say then?  Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! &lt;sup&gt;15&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For he says to Moses,  “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For the Scripture says to Pharaoh,  “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” &lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For  who can resist his will?” &lt;sup&gt;20&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But who are you, O man,  to answer back to God?  Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” &lt;sup&gt;21&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump  one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience  vessels of wrath  prepared for destruction, &lt;sup&gt;23&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; in order to make known  the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he  has prepared beforehand for glory—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-05-31T19:25:11.520" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7897" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7898" CreationDate="2012-05-31T21:20:44.207" Score="4" ViewCount="356" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romans 9:17  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 In the Scriptures God says to Pharaoh: “I made you king so that you&#xA;  could do this for me. I wanted to show my power through you. I wanted&#xA;  my name to be announced throughout the world.” [d]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God purposefully created the Pharaoh, the Canaanites, and every other enemy in real life at that time &amp;mdash; to challenge His people to show His Glory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are his creations who are made enemies, have His salvation and blessings or are they cursed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this have anything to do with why we are commanded to love our enemies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="325" LastEditDate="2012-05-31T21:33:04.893" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T06:37:48.070" Title="Do the people God sends to challenge His people (for His Glory) have salvation?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7897" CreationDate="2012-06-01T00:04:21.357" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the rest of the letter to the Romans can give a thorough answer to this question. Let's bear in mind, first of all, that the book is written by Paul (who formerly persecuted Christians, but was called by God to become his apostle to the Gentiles) to the church in Rome, the capital of the Empire that was occupying the Holy Land, persecuted Jews and Christians, and was the symbolic successor of all the big bad empires of the Old Testament. It's safe to say that the people who first read the letter would be very interested in knowing whether they, as Romans, could be saved, and what might happen to the other Romans who counted themselves against Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theme of the book is set out in the first lines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have an obligation to Greeks as well as barbarians, to the educated as well as the ignorant, and hence the eagerness on my part to preach the gospel to you in Rome too. For I see no reason to be ashamed of the gospel; it is God's power for the salvation of everyone who has faith - Jews first, but Greeks as well - for in it is revealed the saving justice of God: a justice based on faith and addressed to faith. As it says in scripture: &lt;em&gt;Anyone who is upright through faith will live&lt;/em&gt;. (Romans 1:14-17, NJB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the text affirms, strongly, that salvation is available to anyone; and Paul's personal history proves that even previously being an &quot;enemy&quot; does not mean that one is cursed forever. Paul goes on to say that &quot;there is no favoritism with God&quot; (2:11), quoting Deuteronomy 10:17 (which goes on in v19 to say &quot;Love the stranger then, for you were once strangers in Egypt&quot;). Even worse,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are we any better off [than the condemned]? Not at all: we have already indicted Jews and Greeks as being all alike under the dominion of sin. (3:9-10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, faith is available to everybody - it is not the case that acting as an enemy of God cuts one off from salvation. If this were true then there would be no hope for anybody, since we are all slaves of sin. This theme is expounded throughout the letter. In 9:25-26, Paul loosely quotes Hosea, saying&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I shall tell those who were not my people, &quot;You are my people,&quot; and I shall take pity on those on whom I had no pity. And in the very place where they were told, &quot;You are not my people,&quot; they will be told that they are &quot;children of the living God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the governing authorities of Rome are meant to be respected (13:1-7, and likewise 2 Timothy 2:1-2, Titus 3:1). So it is clear from these passages that even those who set themselves up against God may be saved, in the same way as anybody else. This doesn't mean that they necessarily &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; enjoy salvation, just that they are not &quot;cursed&quot;. Paul says in 13:14, &quot;Bless your persecutors; never curse them, bless them,&quot; which is of course a direct echo of the words of Christ, in Matthew 5:43-44, &quot;You have heard how it was said, &lt;em&gt;You will love your neighbor&lt;/em&gt; and hate your enemy. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The remaining issue from your question is whether people like Pharaoh might be &quot;automatically&quot; saved or blessed because they are carrying out God's will. Paul dismisses this possibility in Romans 3:7-8,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You might as well say that if my untruthfulness makes God demonstrate his truthfulness, to his greater glory, then I should not be judged to be a sinner at all. In this case, the slanderous report some people are spreading would be true, that we teach that one should do evil that good may come of it. In fact such people are justly condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no such luck for Pharaoh: just because God managed to make something good out of the bad things he did, doesn't mean he gets a free pass. But, much more importantly, the &quot;enemies&quot; of your question have just as much access to salvation as anybody else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-06-01T00:04:21.357" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7899" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-01T00:11:15.840" Score="13" ViewCount="5362" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term christomonism has sometimes been leveled against &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2009/01/07/christomonism/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Karl Barth&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://timsuttle.blogspot.com/2008/07/macarthurs-christomonism.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John MacArthur&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7826/914&quot;&gt;Dietrich Bonhoeffer&lt;/a&gt;.  But there doesn't seem to be a canonical definition; most mentions of the term are followed immediately by an attempt by the author to explain it.  What is &quot;christomonism&quot; and how is it meant as a criticism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-09-18T01:45:32.973" LastActivityDate="2020-09-18T01:45:32.973" Title="What is christomonism?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7899" CreationDate="2012-06-01T00:11:16.057" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christomonism is the heresy of identifying Christ as the singular representation of God.  It is a heresy because it denies the Trinity, which has been the traditional foundation of orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Douglas John Hall &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=528&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;writes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christomonism and the exclusivity that attends it represents, I believe, a failure of trinitarian theology. For a triune understanding of God, the western tradition especially was always tempted to substitute an undialectical monotheism heavily informed by a christology emphasizing the divinity principle and downplaying Jesus' true humanity. The result, in the hands of the simplifiers, is what H. Richard Niebuhr rightly named &amp;quot;a new unitarianism of the second person of the trinity&amp;quot;—or, in the plain and oft-repeated slogan of popular evangelicalism, the simple declaration: &amp;quot;Jesus is God.&amp;quot; If all we can say of Jesus and of God is that Jesus is God—all the God of God there is—then we have effectively ruled out all other attempts of the human spirit to glimpse the mystery of the ultimate; and this is all the more conspicuously the case when our understanding of &amp;quot;Jesus,&amp;quot; in the first place, is really a dogmatic reduction of his person, his &amp;quot;thou-ness,&amp;quot; to the &amp;quot;it-ness&amp;quot; of christological propositions that, most of them, enshrine little more than our own religious bid for authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barth &lt;a href=&quot;http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1962/v19-2-article2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;responded&lt;/a&gt; to the criticism thusly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question: &amp;quot;In what specific way, Professor Barth, does your theology avoid being Christomonistic?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer: &amp;quot;Sound theology cannot be either dualistic or monistic. The Gospel defies all isms,' including dualism and monism. Sound theology can only be 'unionistic,' uniting God and man. Christomonism (that's an awful catchword!) was invented by an old friend of mine whose name I will not mention. Christomonism would mean that Christ alone is real and that all other men are only apparently real. But that would be in contradiction with what the name of Jesus-Christ means, namely, union between God and man. This union between God and man has not been made only in Jesus Christ but in him as our representative for the benefit of all men. Jesus Christ as God's servant is true God and true man, but at the same time also our servant and the servant of all men. Christomonism is excluded by the very meaning and goal of God's and man's union in Jesus Christ.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I find most examples of supposed christomonism to be off-the-mark.  It seems to me that a deep understanding of Jesus as Christ is required to have a deep understanding of the Triune God.  Jesus put Himself at the center of God's plan to reconcile with humanity, but also predicted the Holy Spirit will continue the plan when Jesus ascended to heaven.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/John+14/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14&lt;/a&gt;.)  When I seek out what Barth, MacArthur, and Bonhoeffer actually wrote or said, I find a heavy emphasis on the idea that &amp;quot;Jesus is God&amp;quot;, but no denial of the idea that the other persons of the Trinity are also God.  It would be remarkable if I did, since the New Testament, and Jesus Himself, had a thoroughly trinitarian theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-01T00:11:16.057" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7897" CreationDate="2012-06-01T05:57:45.283" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you observe the Biblical text carefully, you will find out that God didn't just arbitrarily make Pharaoh an enemy as though Pharaoh had no choice in that matter. God first extended to him a peaceful offer (Exodus 5:1). But Pharaoh did not listen. God then proceeded to harden Pharaoh's heart. This subject was discussed at length in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSNM75FVBCA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; debate on free will. Here is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSNM75FVBCA#t=05m23s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exact location&lt;/a&gt; where the section on Pharaoh begins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line is, God does not make anyone a sinner (or enemy). But if one persists in sin, God allows him to sin more and become more miserable by &quot;giving them over&quot; (Romans 1:24) to more sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation is open to all (John 3:16). Even to those who have made themselves enemies of God. We are called to love our enemies, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (Matthew 5:45). This means that our Father in heaven also loves his enemies, or else why would we be his sons by loving our enemies? A son inherits his Father's nature. This verse gives us an insight into the nature of God, who is love (1 John 4:8). Since God loves even his enemies, it is therefore obvious that the offer of salvation is open to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="1607" LastEditDate="2012-06-01T06:04:13.030" LastActivityDate="2012-06-01T06:04:13.030" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7902" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-06-01T13:21:34.273" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Use this tag for questions about civil laws and government rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use 'mosaic-law' for questions about Old Testament and Jewish law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use 'canon-law' for laws of the Catholic and other related churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-06-01T13:21:34.273" LastActivityDate="2012-06-01T13:21:34.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7903" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-06-01T13:21:34.273" Score="0" Body="Rules and regulations of civil society" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-06-01T13:21:34.273" LastActivityDate="2012-06-01T13:21:34.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7868" CreationDate="2012-06-01T14:07:13.207" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.&quot; John 3:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The snake represents sin. The desert is a hard, bitter place. Moses lifted the bronze snake on a pole, so that the people could be saved from their sin and not suffer the consequences of it, i.e. death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is that Jesus, who is God, becomes sin and is lifted up, figuratively by his ascension, and literally, on a pole. Sin is lifted up to heaven, death is conquered and the divide is healed for all who see and believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1713" LastActivityDate="2012-06-01T14:07:13.207" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4282" CreationDate="2012-06-01T18:18:27.850" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This statement used to confuse me, and I think the root of my confusion was in the expected contrasts.   When Jesus says (paraphrasing) that he &quot;didn't come to abolish the law, but instead...&quot; my mind filled in the gap with something like &quot;uphold&quot; or &quot;maintain,&quot; and I tried to read and understand His statement through that expectation.  It's significant that he's saying that he's fulfilling the law, though.  A major theme of Christianity is that Jesus is the perfect savior and representative for his people, and by being the one that fulfills the law, he does the very thing that the prophets and the law had been looking forward to.  He does the thing that no one else could do; all the preceding &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;types&lt;/a&gt; fell short of being complete fulfillments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's helpful to look at the broader context of this conversation.   Jesus is giving his famous &quot;Sermon on the Mount&quot; and after turning certain preconceptions a bit topsy-turvy with the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes#Biblical_basis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Beatitudes&lt;/a&gt;, he's about to proclaim some new standards that up the ante on the law by prescribing attitudes and thoughts more than just behavior (e.g. it's not sufficient to not murder people; we're also not supposed to hate them).   In the midst of this, which seems like (and I would contend &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;...at least a bit) a revision of the law, Jesus says the following: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  “Do not think that I have come to abolish  the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but  to fulfill them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a common misunderstanding comes from something that's not altogether wrong:  I think people often tend to look at the law as the standard by which man is expected to live in order to earn eternal life...from there the tendency might be to measure oneself in relation to how well one keeps the law.   That premise is true in that the reward for the keeping the law is life and the punishment is death, but the thing I think is often missed is that Jesus is &lt;em&gt;the one&lt;/em&gt; who fulfilled the law: He earned the right to life, and those who trust in him as their savior share in that reward by grace through faith.  As others have pointed out (and as Jesus's sermon would seem to clearly indicate), that doesn't give us free reign to live wanton lives, but it does free us up so that we don't have to feel despair over our lack of ability to keep the law.   He tells us that He fulfills the law, and then proceeds to instruct us to love God and each other wholeheartedly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage, I think, explains it well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:3-4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:3-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For  God has done what the law,  weakened by the flesh,  could not do.  By sending his own Son  in the likeness of sinful flesh and  for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; in order that  the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,  who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians aren't expected to directly fulfill the law (otherwise, we wouldn't need a Savior), but, rather, Jesus himself is the one who fulfilled the law so that those who believe on Him are credited with his righteous obedience rather than their own behavior and merit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="701" LastEditDate="2019-05-13T15:27:37.570" LastActivityDate="2019-05-13T15:27:37.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7906" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7907" CreationDate="2012-06-01T18:32:14.130" Score="9" ViewCount="706" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to several internet sites (for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.generousorthodoxy.org/discourses/movie-reviews/the-chronicles-of-narnia.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospeloferik.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/the-christus-victor-theory-of-the-atonement/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), C.S. Lewis' book &lt;em&gt;The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe&lt;/em&gt; expresses a particular understanding of the Atonement, known as &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the key points of the &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt; understanding of the atonement, and what distinguishes it from other perspectives?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-06-01T20:36:34.020" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T01:38:18.277" Title="What is Christus Victor?" Tags="&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7906" CreationDate="2012-06-02T01:04:31.417" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christus Victor (CV) is, simply put, a understanding of soteriology where Christ paid to Satan a ransom to free man from Hell. In &lt;em&gt;The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe&lt;/em&gt;, Aslan pays the queen the freedom of Edmund. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Calvinist position&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The calvinist position states that Christ gave his life to safe those who would repent. Therefore his death is also for those who repent and not for all. But they also that the sacrifice of Christ as the power to save all. The difference is that the sacrifice of Christ actually saves those who repent and could for those who don't repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This position is different from the CV because Christ pays the debt of sins to pay back the holiness of the Father, not satan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other Theory&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example theory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By is death Christ demonstrated a love that hurts. As he was faithfull to the death therefore we muste be faithfull as he was. In this theory Christ dies as an example, not to pay anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theory of moral influence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar to the previous, but with the difference that the death of Christ influence man to repent and live piously. Here too the death of Christ is not pay, but only to influence man to repent and live differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Governmental theory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This concept suggest that Christ paid to satisfy the moral aspect of sin before the Father. Christ did not paid for all the sins, but the morality of the Father would now allow Him to forgive sinners. In this theory, Christ satisfy the morality of the Father in order that the Father may forgive sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anselme point of view&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anselme of Cantebury (1033-1109) in his book &lt;em&gt;Cur Deus Homo&lt;/em&gt;. God was offended by sin, then Christ died as a substitute to satisfy the honor of the Father. In difference with the Calvinistic position where Christ satisfy the holiness of the Father. It also differs from CV where Satan is not a main player in the equation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theory of repentance by substitution&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ is identifying himself to the culpability of man, he repent and confess that culpability to the Father&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These position are a quick survey taken from some class note from an introduction to doctrine at SEMBEQ, name of the course : Doctrine Essentielles II (Essential doctrines II). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="1168" LastEditDate="2012-06-02T01:19:48.327" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T01:19:48.327" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7906" CreationDate="2012-06-02T01:38:18.277" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several ideas about the atonement that can come under the heading of &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt;. Ultimately, the term could apply to any account of the atonement that accords with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death and the devil. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the reasons why it is a bit hard to pin down is that it is basically a &lt;em&gt;narrative&lt;/em&gt; viewpoint  - it's a way of telling the story of the atonement, in order to bring people to Christ, and it doesn't necessarily propose a coherent, propositional account of the &quot;mechanics&quot; of atonement. It therefore contrasts, both in style and content, with the &lt;em&gt;satisfaction&lt;/em&gt; viewpoints: these not only paint a different picture of the atonement, but they're also more driven by the attempt to give an account that is both rationally justifiable and theologically defensible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under the general &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt; theme, the Aslan story follows the &lt;em&gt;Ransom Theory&lt;/em&gt; of the atonement. This can be traced to the early Fathers, including Origen and Augustine in particular. There is some historical doubt about whether the ransom theory came first, and alternative &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt; explanations accreted around it in response to its flaws, or whether ransom theory is one particular systematization of an earlier, more nebulous collection of &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt; ideas. In any case, the theory proceeds something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Due to sin, human beings were in bondage to Satan.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus offered himself as a substitute. Since Jesus would be a better prize, Satan accepted; we then become free of his domination. Jesus is the &lt;em&gt;ransom&lt;/em&gt; paid to Satan.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;But Jesus could not be held by Satan - he escapes death and is resurrected to eternal life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Narnia, we see step 1 by the Witch's statement,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey, and that for every treachery I have a right to a  kill.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and step 3, as told by Aslan, is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. [...] when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and death itself would start working backwards.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some points to criticize about ransom theory in particular (without necessarily invalidating the &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt; view in general).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It puts some sort of legitimacy on Satan's claim to us: God appears to be &lt;em&gt;required&lt;/em&gt; to pay the ransom. Anselm objected to this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God wins through trickery, like offering fairy gold that disappears in the morning. This is also hard to square with the legitimacy point: if Satan isn't going to be truly paid, then why bother with the charade of paying the ransom?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Augustine used the metaphor: &quot;The cross of the Lord was the Devil's mousetrap; the bait by which he was caught was the Lord's death&quot; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, which to some sounds rather impious.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The resurrection is no longer an essential part of the atonement, but more like an added bonus. We are freed as soon as Christ is accepted as a substitute, so he doesn't need to come back to life in order to complete the atonement.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard contrasting view is the &lt;em&gt;satisfaction doctrine&lt;/em&gt;. Here, the debt is due not to Satan, but to God himself, and it is God's justice (demanding a penalty for sin) that must be met. Christ is the perfect sacrifice, substituted for us, and so justice can be satisfied. This theory has its drawbacks, too. It can make God look tyrannical and bloodthirsty, and there's no obvious link to the &lt;em&gt;life&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;teaching&lt;/em&gt; of Christ - it's all about his death and resurrection. A &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt; account places the gospel as part of the victory, according with the central idea of Christ's defeat of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. Gustaf Aulen, &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt;, 1931 (trans. by A. G. Hebert from the Swedish &lt;em&gt;Den kristna försoningstanken&lt;/em&gt;, 1930).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. C. S. Lewis, &lt;em&gt;The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe&lt;/em&gt;, 1950.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;Muscipula diaboli, crux domini; esca qui caperetur, mors domini&lt;/em&gt;. - Augustine, Sermon 263, beginning &lt;em&gt;On the fortieth day, the ascension of the Lord&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T01:38:18.277" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7909" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7952" CreationDate="2012-06-02T01:53:05.307" Score="4" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife was telling me about how in Spain, it's common practice to just go up to receive communion pretty much at random whereas in my experience I've always filed up (even when I was in Germany for World Youth Day). So I'd imagine some Catholics file up and some go up at random.  Buy what is the reason for filing up, or if that is indeed the more ancient practice (which I somehow doubt it is) what is the reason for going up willy nillly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-06-06T17:18:21.247" Title="Why do some Catholics file up for commmunion?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7909" CreationDate="2012-06-02T03:52:06.980" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming &quot;file up&quot; means going row by row in an orderly manner vs. &quot;random&quot; meaning everyone gets up at once and fills the aisles...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see both in &lt;a href=&quot;http://hrc.rcav.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the church I go to&lt;/a&gt; with my wife.  For important dates, when the Cathedral is packed to overflowing, ushers go to the front of the church and slowly move to the back of the church indicating to each row in turn that they can go up.  The rest of the time, when the church is far less crowded, people pretty much stand up, move into the aisles and line up there.  People who get up a bit later have no problems cutting in or some people wait until the end of the line goes past them then join in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, most times we've gone to mass while on vacation in the US, the more orderly routine with ushers predominates, even with fairly small numbers.  I think it's just a matter of what works for each parish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T03:52:06.980" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7880" CreationDate="2012-06-02T06:44:57.567" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to perhaps clarify one point in Mason Wheeler's answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Mormon&quot; comes from the title of LDS primary scripture, the &quot;Book of Mormon&quot;. &quot;Mormon&quot; is the name of a prophet who is a central character in that book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm tempted to say that the fact that the word is the name of one of their faith's leading prophets should mean that there would be no reason for LDS folks to find it offensive. But I suppose that isn't necessarily so. What makes one word for something offensive and another not is a mysterious and complex thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T06:44:57.567" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7880" CreationDate="2012-06-02T06:59:35.567" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know a very prominent Mormon family in Washington state (where I live).  The father is a county Precinct Committee Officer for the Republican party and an Usher at their church.  I am good friends with them, and have spoken to them about their faith a few times.  In my conversations with them, they indicated that the term is neither offensive or condescending if used in the proper context.  If there is a cynical tone to a phase such as &quot;oh, he's a Mormon,&quot; then of course it could be offensive.  If, however, you are merely using the term as a matter-of-fact to easily identify their religious preference, it is not construed as a negative connotation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1715" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T06:59:35.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7877" CreationDate="2012-06-02T07:02:35.470" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll ditto Eric. But I would add: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible makes it clear that you can be saved on your deathbed, e.g. the theif on the cross (not exactly a death BED, but whatever). But Jesus told several parables in which he made clear that there is some point at which it will be too late. For example, read the parable of the &quot;wise and foolish virgins&quot; in Matthew 25:1-13. We could debate just when that point is, but there is some point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptists routinely say, &quot;there is no second chance&quot;, by which they mean, no chance after death. I don't know of anything in the Bible that explicitly says this, but it's not inconsistent with the combination of accounts of deathbed conversions and warnings about waiting until it's too late. The story of &quot;the Rich Fool&quot; in Luke 12:13-21 could be taken to mean that it's too late once you're dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;If we are baptized once for the forgiveness of sin, does it make less sense to do it at a young age (more chances to screw up)?&quot; It's not like baptism takes care of all the sins you committed before you were baptized but you're expected to be perfect after that. Unless you die within minutes of being baptized, you will almost surely sin again afterwards. Traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus death pays the price of ALL the sins of the saved, not just the sins they commit before baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T07:02:35.470" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7868" CreationDate="2012-06-02T07:31:59.477" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of good points have been made by others; I'll avoid repeating them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You keep referring to the death of Christ as God &quot;murdering&quot; him. But the whole point of Christianity is that Jesus took our sins on himself, he made himself guilty. Therefore, his death was not murder, but an execution. When a convicted killer is executed, we don't call that murder. It's justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's certainly true that our intuitive sense of justice doesn't provide for one person being executed for the crime of another. C. S. Lewis had an interesting discussion of this in one of his books, I forget just where so I can't give the exact quote, bu the gist of it was this: Think of a different sort of punishment. Suppose that you committed a crime for which the punishment was a large fine. Assume that the law is completely just and you are really guilty, so you deserve to be required to pay the fine. But you don't have the money. You'll have to sell everything you own, become a homeless beggar, and any dollar you earn will have to go to pay the debt. Then some very wealthy person comes along and offers to pay the fine for you. That's what Christianity is all about: You owe a huge debt, a debt you cannot possibly pay, but now Christ comes along and offers to pay the debt for you. Indeed, in this case the judge who found you guilty is the same person who is offerring to pay the fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You mention that Jesus forgave others, why couldn't God just forgive sins without anyone paying a penalty. But this is only possible because Christ paid the debt. Suppose you owed a lot of money, and a rich friend came along, went to the bank with you, paid off the debt, and then tore up the loan documents and threw them away. That would all be good and legal. But suppose instead he went with you to the bank, asked to see the loan documents, and tore them up and threw them away without paying off the debt. Surely the bankers would just say, &quot;Umm, sorry sir, it doesn't work that way. You still have to pay the debt.&quot; Jesus could tell people that their sins were forgiven BECAUSE HE WAS ABOUT TO PAY THE PENALTY. Without that it would have been an empty promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T07:31:59.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7812" CreationDate="2012-06-02T07:58:47.850" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acts 6 pretty clearly says that the congregation choose the leaders. Acts 6:2-3 'Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, '... Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation ...'&quot; The apostles told the congregation that the congreation should choose these men. We are not told whether this was done with a formal vote or what the process was. After they were chosen, the apostles prayed for them and laid hands on them, which perhaps indicated that they were confirming the congregation's choice. I don't know what would have happenned if the apostles had decided that the congregation made a bad choice. Would they have said, &quot;No, these men aren't qualified&quot;? Or would they have accepted the bad choice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 14 and Titus 1 indicates that the missionaries (Paul, Titus) appointed leaders for the new churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find any other accounts in the New Testament at the moment of new leaders being chosen that give any indication of the process. It's certainly possible that I'm missing some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an important difference between the circumstances in Acts 6 and those in Acts 14 and Titus 1. In Acts 6 we are talking about an established church, while the other two references are about new churches. One could argue that a group of new believers in a church that has just been organized would not be qualified to select leaders. If the church hasn't even been organized yet, there would be no way to hold a vote, as we don't even know who the members are. In such cases, even people with the greatest dedication to democracy would have to concede that you need some leaders to get things started before you can start holding elections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, Americans love the forms of democracy, like voting, but there's a big difference between a church and a government. If you don't like the leadership of your church and there is no mechanism to replace them, you can go across town to another church, or start your own church. If you don't like the leadership of your government and there is no mechanism to replace them, about the only thing you can do is move to another country. Businesses are not normally democratic in the sense that the employees get together and elect one of their members to be the boss. The boss is the guy who started the company, or who bought it or inherited it. But businesses (in a capitalist society, anyway) are extremely democratic in that if you don't like the way a company is run, you can quit anytime you like and go work for somebody else or start your own business. Churches could be run the same way without trampling anyone's freedom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T07:58:47.850" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7728" CreationDate="2012-06-02T08:40:37.173" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lining up dates from ancient documents and inscriptions is not an easy thing to do. You don't find ancient records that say, &quot;Our nation was established on June 12, 3462 BC&quot;, for the simple reason that our modern calendar did not exist back then. So even when an ancient source gives a date, it is in the calendar they used at the time, and historians have to try to match that up to modern calendars. Scholars debate these sort of things endlessly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the reality is not that ancient Egyptian or Hittite or Sumerian or whatever chronologies contradict the Bible chronology. Rather, it is that SOME INTERPRETATIONS of ancient Egyptian, etc chronologies contradict SOME INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible chronology. Put that way, it's hardly an astounding fact. Reporters trying to describe current events often have difficulty fitting together all the different accounts of an event into a single coherent narrative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When people talk about taking Bible dates literally, they usually eventually refer to James Ussher, who used the genealogies and other information in the Bible to estimate the date of creation at about 4004 BC. Modern young-earth creation theorists generally accept that as at least a ballpark, though many would stretch it out a few thousand years. Some secular historians claim to trace historical records back to circa 6000 BC. So yes, there's a discrepancy to be resolved, but it's on the same order of magnitude. No one claims to be able to trace historical records back a million years or a billion years. The histories of cultures around the world are at least generally consistent with young-earth Biblical chronology. There's no way you could use them as evidence for an evolutionary time-scale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-06-02T08:40:37.173" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7917" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7948" CreationDate="2012-06-02T13:42:32.980" Score="7" ViewCount="1304" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the small baptist churches I've been a part of, (and the LDS service I attended), the communion elements are served to worshippers in the pews. In my Episcopal church, everybody comes up to the rail.  I'm wondering a bit about how this variation in practice arose (Anyone know which came first?) and if there is a way of predicting how any given church will practice it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-26T01:48:23.783" LastActivityDate="2015-10-26T01:48:23.783" Title="Is communion service at the rail vs. in the pews a function of denomination or church size?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7917" CreationDate="2012-06-03T04:02:30.817" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've attended evangelical and Fundamentalist churches most of my life, including Southern Baptist, Regular (GARBC) Baptist, Assemblies of God, Christian &amp;amp; Missionary Alliance, and Evangelical Free Church, and we almost always celebrate communion while sitting in the pews. I've attended a handful of Catholic services and there everyone went to the front of the church for communion. I've generally assumed it was a denominational thing: Protestants do it from the pews while Catholics go to the front. It wouldn't surprise me if Anglicans and Episcopalians did it like Catholics, as their practices are more Catholic-like than most other Protestants. (As they split from the Catholic church over leadership issues rather than doctrine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-06-03T04:02:30.817" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7921" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="33765" CreationDate="2012-06-03T14:23:47.717" Score="4" ViewCount="2320" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 21:25 we see priests and elders reasoning within themselves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they&#xA;  reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he&#xA;  will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question here is how did they not believe him? What exactly did they do that showed that they did not believe him? What things exactly (of what John the baptist was saying) did they not believe? Was it something like they had refused to be baptized from John? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Answers supported by the verses from the Gospel of Matthew are most preferable) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-16T07:43:54.370" LastActivityDate="2014-10-17T14:57:41.493" Title="What things did John the Baptist say that the elders and priests did not believe?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7921" CreationDate="2012-06-03T14:50:21.973" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, in the preceding verses, they were questioning Jesus about his authority.  Jesus answered by asking them about John the Baptist's authority, to draw an analogy.  So the obvious answer would be that they didn't believe John's testimony of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:19-34&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 1:19-34&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and&#xA;  Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the&#xA;  Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am&#xA;  not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer&#xA;  to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make&#xA;  straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if&#xA;  thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there&#xA;  standeth one among you, whom ye know not;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's&#xA;  latchet I am not worthy to unloose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was&#xA;  baptizing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold&#xA;  the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred&#xA;  before me: for he was before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel,&#xA;  therefore am I come baptizing with water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from&#xA;  heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the&#xA;  same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and&#xA;  remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-06-03T14:50:21.973" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7880" CreationDate="2012-06-03T17:46:18.307" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS church tends to waffle a bit on whether or not the term is appropriate.  Leaders of the church often teach members to not use the term.  But then, at other times, the term is used by leaders of the church.  Consider the recent &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Mormon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;I'm a Mormon&quot; campaign&lt;/a&gt;.  If the leadership of the church found the term to be legitimately offensive, then it seems strange that they would willingly brand themselves as such in a nationwide recruitment campaign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a former Mormon and former full-time missionary for the LDS faith, I can state that the term is used regularly within groups of Mormons themselves.  We never shied away from the term, and regularly introduced ourselves as such when serving as a missionary.  There are some who avoid the term, but I would say that they are in the minority.  You'll be fine using the term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1717" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-05-20T01:29:10.943" LastActivityDate="2020-05-20T01:29:10.943" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="7924" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7932" CreationDate="2012-06-03T19:04:58.343" Score="15" ViewCount="990" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is interesting that both of the most prominent Christian fantasy authors (not as in &quot;Christian Fantasy&quot; but Christians who wrote fantasy) put paradise across the sea.  I realize that Tolkien's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BAmenor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Númenor&lt;/a&gt; (the place across the sea in Middle Earth where Elves go, etc.) was not actually an analog of heaven (despite my title's bait wording :), and probably traces more of its mental origins to Celtic myth and legends of Atlantis.  And I imagine that C. S. Lewis may have derived his idea of Aslan's country from discussions of Númenor with Tolkien as part of their &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inklings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Inkling&lt;/a&gt;'s group.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;But&lt;/em&gt; I'm wondering if there is anything in earlier Christian writings or thought (especially the Bible of course) that might have influenced this creative choice?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also find it interesting that &quot;across the sea&quot; seems to have been picked up by some Christian musicians (Jeremy Enigk's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/sunny+day+real+estate/the+prophet_20133646.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Prophet&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and I think there was one by Havalina Railroad Co which I can't find, there may be others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, lest this be considered off topic, I repeat: what is the &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; significance of the idea of a paradise across the sea (if any)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="425" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-25T19:14:43.583" LastActivityDate="2015-09-25T23:58:53.667" Title="Christian significance of Tolkien and C. S. Lewis putting &quot;heaven&quot; across the sea?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;&lt;christian-literature&gt;&lt;tolkien&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7924" CreationDate="2012-06-03T22:51:04.230" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before Elijah was taken away into heaven, he “crossed the Jordan,” and ever since, “crossing the Jordan” has been a metaphor for dying, or crossing over into heaven. By the time of &lt;em&gt;Pilgrim’s Progress&lt;/em&gt; (1670s or so) this was an &lt;a href=&quot;http://streetinsomerset.blogspot.com/2009/03/pilgrim-progress-crossing-river.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;established metaphor&lt;/a&gt; for gaining entry into paradise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, having seen the Jordan River firsthand, I can tell you that it isn’t much larger than a creek in many parts, but in the Western European imagination it grows wider every day. As such, it being compared to a sea (long a metaphor for the underworld of death) is not a stretch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that baptism — immersion in water, even if not practised that way — is explicitly tied with death and paradise in both in the Baptist and Episcopal traditions. In Baptist understanding, when one is dunked under the water they are said to be “buried with Christ and raised again.” In the Episcopal baptism ceremony, explicit reference is made to the parting of the Red Sea as we pass from death into life, all during the thanksgiving prayer over the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C.S. Lewis also places heaven over the sea in &lt;em&gt;The Voyage of the Dawn Treader&lt;/em&gt;, and across space (or at least a Garden of Eden on Venus) in &lt;em&gt;Perelandra&lt;/em&gt;, by the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the water itself is a metaphor both for the death of sin and the passing into new life. Whether it is a river or the Red Sea is just a matter of breadth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T17:51:55.557" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T17:51:55.557" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7926" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7928" CreationDate="2012-06-04T00:02:47.363" Score="20" ViewCount="85256" Body="&lt;p&gt;During bible study I noticed that Acts 8:37 was missing from my bible. Verse 36 goes straight onto verse 38. Some cursory Google searches show that this happens in the NIV but not the KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there some controversy with the verse? A translation error? Hidden conspiracy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there other verses of the bible like this? What is the story here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="997" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-22T14:34:37.750" LastActivityDate="2016-01-22T14:34:37.750" Title="Why is Acts 8:37 missing in the NIV?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;&lt;niv&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7921" CreationDate="2012-06-04T02:47:03.803" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the question Jesus asked them was about the &lt;strong&gt;source&lt;/strong&gt; of John's baptism. Was it from heaven (God-given) or simply by human authority (from men). Obviously, the Pharisees did not believe that John's baptism came from God and therefore they did not believe him when he said that they needed to repent and be baptized. They might have simply shown up for baptism (Matthew 3:7) to gain some favor with the people who believed he was a prophet (Matthew 21:26), but there wasn't any real repentance. John knew their hearts and warned them about &quot;bearing fruits that befit repentance&quot; (Matthew 3:8). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-06-04T02:47:03.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7926" CreationDate="2012-06-04T05:08:23.360" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to understand that we do not have an &quot;original copy&quot; of any book of the Bible.  What we have are copies of copies of copies... (manuscripts), from which &quot;Textual Critics&quot; seek to ascertain the original wording.  It is the &lt;strong&gt;original&lt;/strong&gt; wording that most Bible scholars hold to be perfect and inspired by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many modern Christians view &quot;The Bible&quot; that is sitting on their shelves as the perfect, exact word of the living God, but this doctrine is a bit off.  What is sitting on your shelf is an English rendition of a particular translator's interpretation of the group of manuscripts he studied when writing his translation.  &lt;em&gt;(NOTE: The Bible on your shelf is completely sufficient for understanding God's message to us in 99.99% of cases.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The books of the Bible were not originally divided into verses - this happened around the 16th century.  This was a period in time when a very limited set of manuscripts were available for translation.  The numbering scheme was, of course, based on those manuscripts which were available at the time.  The KJV is one of the translations written around this time.  &lt;em&gt;(It is very interesting to look at how few manuscripts the KJV is based on, but that is a huge volatile topic that I won't go into here.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since that time, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;thousands&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of manuscripts have been excavated, which have given us more insight into what the original wording might have been.  Modern translators (e.g. the NIV translators) seek to faithfully handle the word of God by considering as many reliable manuscripts as possible during translation - which is exactly what the KJV translators sought to do in their day (they just had &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;far&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; fewer manuscripts to work with.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to what some in the KJV-only camp would have you believe, the NIV translators are not trying to lead you into a fiery demise by deceiving you with false translations.  Many of the so-called &quot;missing verses&quot; are referenced in the side-column of your NIV Bible (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.missingverses.com/&quot;&gt;see here&lt;/a&gt;).  The only reason they were left out is that the translators of the NIV honestly believed that the evidence was overwhelmingly against those verses being part of the &lt;strong&gt;original&lt;/strong&gt; writing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2014-08-12T14:16:59.870" LastActivityDate="2014-08-12T14:16:59.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7926" CreationDate="2012-06-04T05:40:56.537" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with pretty much everything Jas3.1 said, but let me add a couple of comments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is certainly true that the manuscripts we have are copies of copies and that some number of discrepancies have crept in through the process. But as I note in my answer to this question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7648/is-it-possible-for-the-bible-to-contain-errors/7667#7667&quot;&gt;Is it possible for The Bible to contain errors?&lt;/a&gt;, most of these discrepancies are trivial spelling errors and the like. None affects any important doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In my copy of the NIV, the verses they omit because they consider them debateable are still included in footnotes. (In other cases they include the verse in the text but then have a footnote saying it is debateable.) Some of my KJV-only friends take the NIV to task to for this. Not to start a fight, but I think it's fair to highlight where there is some debate about the text.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose I can see that this could be construed as a maneuver by someone who doesn't like what the Bible says on a certain subject to try to cast doubt on the doctrine by casting doubt on the reliability of the text. But I don't see any evidence that the NIV has done this. Even without studying the manuscript evidence, there is no pattern to the elisions based on the doctrinal content. If a translation cast doubt on  every verse that relates to, say. the Trinity, that would make me suspicious. But I don't see that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-06-04T05:40:56.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7924" CreationDate="2012-06-04T15:26:09.000" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK. Couple of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As you said, Númenor is closer to Atlantis.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;But Númenor is not &lt;em&gt;supposed&lt;/em&gt; to be heaven, the Grey Havens are, their name in Elvish: Valinor. They are also reachable by boat, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;BUT ONLY BY THE ELVES&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (and special others such as the wizards and the ring-bearers). Man dies and has a fate which is not known to any save the highest of the Valar and Ilúvatar himself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Valinor was once a part of earth, but it was effectively removed during the second age.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as to the rest of your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image of water = death is actually cross cultural (the river Styx anyone?). The obvious, &quot;baptized into his death&quot; is the clearest, most obvious Christian analysis (cf. Rom. 6). But that is not the only point which is made about water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an immediate example in Narnia (there are actually several such, but it would take a good deal of work to make them more obvious): in &lt;em&gt;The Voyage of the Dawn Treader&lt;/em&gt;, they know they are close to the country of Aslan when they get to the place where the water is sweet. This means that the water is fresh and drinkable, as opposed to the salt water which can be found off of the coast of Narnia. In Revelation, the demons and powers of evil are all associated with saltwater. A &quot;river of life&quot;, however, is associated with Christ and goodness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps another example might be that Lewis had the witch in &lt;em&gt;Silver Chair&lt;/em&gt; holding back a great underground flood. This actually seems to be a second variant on the same point made above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the rivers of Lewis are concerned, most of them strike me as references to the rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates &amp;mdash; the location of the Biblical Garden of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem comes in when you try to analyze Tolkien this way. Far better, I think, in the case of Tolkien to say that &quot;across the sea&quot; is more a reference to something very far away (that is how it is treated in the LotR). Yes, Valar is across the water, but it has not always been so. I suppose you could say that this is like how man walked with God in the garden, but once man was cast out he no longer had access, but I think that the metaphor grows very weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the bodies of water dealt with in Middle Earth are rivers. There is some reference to the sea in the LotR, but it really isn't terribly important. You do find several rivers and streams, however: There is a stream in the forest of Tom Bombadil. There is a river guarding Rivendell. There is a lake which Gollum lives by. Long lake is a port of commerce (Lakeport) built in the shadow of Dale. The river is used to send products down to the Elves. None of these seem terribly important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a river in the Shire (Brandywine in the shire, but Baraduin elsewhere). It represents the border between the familiar and the strange.  One can find a little bit more importance in the steam that runs through Mirkwood. If you fall in, you will sleep and not wake up (for some time). The Anduin guards Minas Tirith and Gondor from attack from the East.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I actually have to say that I like @MasonWheeler's comment so much that I think I needed to add that with Tolkien, it really does seem more like it &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;is that a long ocean voyage is a good symbolic analogue for a one-way journey to a place you're not going to return from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-06-04T15:26:09.000" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7924" CreationDate="2012-06-04T18:09:37.100" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aslan's Country is not Heaven - it is Paradise, it is important to read carefully The Last Battle if you want to make a comment on this part in particular. Aslan's country is not unconnected with heaven, as Eden of old and Paradise in concept are a type of Heaven. But if you pay attention to The Last Battle, Aslan's Country is itself only a figure -- Heaven is 'inward and upward' - far beyond Aslan's Country.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for why the image is chosen - across the sea - it is because it is traditional and mythological. It is a tangible symbol of the passage of death, especially to the landbound ancients, and even those that sailed. And we have the connection of baptism with death and resurrection, unsurprising as baptism as a word comes etymologically from the term used when ships were sunk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Tolkien, I'm certain he's borrowing from old myths and not making an analogy at all. He himself stated this, so that if there is a reason why this is an image of paradise or heaven it is only because people throughout the ages thought it so, not because Tolkien decided to foist that image upon his reader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-06-04T18:09:37.100" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7369" CreationDate="2012-06-04T20:27:10.730" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a few notions, but no doctrine, as the domain of doctrine in the Catholic Church is encompassed entirely by the New Testament insofar as it is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, here's a sampling off the top of my head:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tobit &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Archangel Rapahel in the heavenly host&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Respect for burying the dead as a corporal work of mercy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Maccabees &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Understanding of the efficaciousness of praying for the dead.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judith&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Maybe a little to do with Just War Theory?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wisdom&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deeper understanding of who Christ was/is and how He would be treated&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sirach&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love of wisdom personified (may have something to do with Mary's title &quot;Seat of Wisdom&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the state of purgatory and Maccabees, Protestants wholly reject purgatory and they do so because they say it's only in Maccabees, which they also reject. But when Jesus says in His parable about repayment to the last penny, that also informs the Catholic understanding of what purgatory is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-06-04T20:27:10.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7936" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-04T22:11:17.090" Score="5" ViewCount="1157" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading Luther's Larger Catechism, and I came upon the section where he discusses the sacraments. I must confess, as a Baptist with a profound respect for Luther, some of these concepts are very foreign to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember one part in particular where he wrote that one cannot be saved apart from being baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives, and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 24] Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. 25] But to be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;..and Regarding infants&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also remember reading that it does not matter the worthiness or manner in which the sacraments are given, so long as they are given in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (if I have mis-remembered something please correct me but please do not allow it to serve as a distraction). The important thing was invoking the name of God, whereby the sacraments become efficacious to the point where even an evil &amp;quot;Pastor&amp;quot; would be able to administer the sacraments and it would be effective still.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence it is easy to reply to all manner of questions about which men are troubled at the present time, such as this one: Whether even a wicked priest can minister at, and dispense, the Sacrament, and whatever other questions like this there may be. 16] For here we conclude and say: Even though a knave takes or distributes the Sacrament, he receives the true Sacrament, that is, the true body and blood of Christ, just as truly as he who [receives or] administers it in the most worthy manner. For it is not founded upon the holiness of men, but upon the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this now learn a proper understanding of the subject, and how to answer the question what Baptism is, namely thus, that it is not mere ordinary water, but water comprehended in God's Word and command, and sanctified thereby, so that it is nothing else than a divine water; not that the water in itself is nobler than other water, but that God's Word and command are added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seemed as though Luther's &amp;quot;faith alone&amp;quot; was not in the work of Christ, but rather the sacraments, and the work of Christ was the means whereby the sacraments derive their qualification for being &amp;quot;made effectual&amp;quot; by the name of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore I exhort again that these two, the water and the Word, by no means be separated from one another and parted. For if the Word is separated from it, the water is the same as that with which the servant cooks, and may indeed be called a bath-keeper's baptism. But when it is added, as God has ordained, it is a Sacrament, and is called Christ-baptism. Let this be the first part, regarding the essence and dignity of the holy Sacrament...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...Comprehend the difference, then, that Baptism is quite another thing than all other water; not on account of the natural quality but because something more noble is here added; for God Himself stakes His honor, His power and might on it. Therefore it is not only natural water, but a divine, heavenly, holy, and blessed water, and in whatever other terms we can praise it,-all on account of the Word, which is a heavenly, holy Word, that no one can sufficiently extol, for it has, and is able to do, all that God is and can do [since it has all the virtue and power of God comprised in it]. 18] Hence also it derives its essence as a Sacrament, as St. Augustine also taught: Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. That is, when the Word is joined to the element or natural substance, it becomes a Sacrament, that is, a holy and divine matter and sign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know how to ask the questions in my mind. I want to understand this concept, but I just cannot fathom it right now because it is so radically different to my own viewpoint. Could someone provide a broad overview of this soteriology and perhaps link to the pertinent parts of the confessions Lutherans hold (Formula of Concord, for instance)? I will read the confessions more in depth at a later time, but for now I am at a very beginning point in studying Lutheran theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;em&gt;My intent is to learn, not to offend. If I have stated something so incorrect that it could be an insult, it is because of my ignorance of the topic. Please forgive me in advance.&lt;/em&gt; All of the above quotes came from Luther's Larger Catechism, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T15:11:05.180" Title="Martin Luther's Sacramentology" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7924" CreationDate="2012-06-05T12:33:11.013" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I'm wondering if there is anything in earlier Christian writings or thought (especially the Bible of course) that might have influenced this creative choice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When describing the paradise after judgment day in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 21&lt;/a&gt;, the Revelator begins (ESV quoted):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I saw  a new heaven and a new earth, for  the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and &lt;strong&gt;the sea was no more&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you think of seas as separating worlds--as the &quot;Old World&quot; of Europe is separated from the &quot;New World&quot; of America--then you can see this as saying that the sea that is done away with here is an image of the sea of everything that separates us from God's country.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="950" LastActivityDate="2012-06-05T12:33:11.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5116" CreationDate="2012-06-05T20:49:09.617" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there are two reasons protestants may tend to be more relaxed about this than Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first comes down to the word &quot;Sacrament&quot;. Many, perhaps even most, protestants just don't believe in sacraments as such. Sure, we believe there are things we are commanded to do as part of our worship, but instead of rising to the level of a sacrament we would instead say that a Christian who fails to do such things sins, and praise God for the grace made possible by the blood of Jesus. So because of the idea that the sacraments are less directly connected to salvation and membership in the body of Christ, it makes less sense to be strict about rules of who, when, and where.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is that protestants have a more direct line to God, so to speak. We don't seek approval of any priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope, and therefore don't need their permission to participate in any act of worship. Neither would we want to deny that worship to anyone else, but instead want to make the Good News accessible to as many as possible as easily as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-06-05T20:55:45.877" LastActivityDate="2012-06-05T20:55:45.877" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7944" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7949" CreationDate="2012-06-06T00:33:39.870" Score="10" ViewCount="1161" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Piper_(theologian)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Piper&lt;/a&gt; provides a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;list of traits&lt;/a&gt; that he respects about fundamentalists, yet he does not consider himself one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the context of Christianity (of course), what is a fundamentalist?  And especially, how do they differ from mainstream evangelicals such as John Piper?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T00:34:30.283" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T14:44:37.513" Title="What is fundamentalism?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;fundamentalism&gt;&lt;john-piper&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7944" CreationDate="2012-06-06T03:27:10.657" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedea gives an apt enough definition&lt;/a&gt;, but speaking as a fundamentalist, I'll put it in my own words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The defining characteristic of fundamentalists is that we hold fast to the fundamentals of the faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inerrancy of the Bible&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As a result of this point, we take the bible literally (usually including the genesis account of creation, and young-earth creationism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We also, as a result of this point, reject reinterpretation of Scriptures based on modern beliefs and current culturally accepted ideals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holding fast to &quot;old fashined&quot; doctrines&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We tend to prefer old-fashioned hymns, as compared to more contemporary music.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We tend to think that we're holding fast to the &quot;truth of the Word&quot;, and rejecting doctrines that we see as heretical and anti-Biblical.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Prosperity doctrine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The idea that Jesus is a created being, or any other teaching that denies the Trinity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;reinterpreting the Scriptures based on currently accepted scientific theories, including, but not limited to old earth creationism, theistic evolution, the gap theory, the day-age theory, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The idea that there are many paths to Heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, we're old-fashioned, and often seen as the extreme right-wing Christians.  We're the oddballs that the rest of society laughs at, specifically because we hold to such antiquated beliefs.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Evangelicals&quot; as a whole share many of these beliefs.  Fundamentalists are essentially the ultra-conservative branch of Evangelicalism.  The term &quot;Evangelical&quot; is simply more broad.  Fundamentalism is a drill-down term, defining the more conservative subset within Evangelicals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-06-06T03:27:10.657" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7107" CreationDate="2012-06-06T07:18:06.233" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you read The Psalm 21 that Christ quotes here, you will see, that it is a prayer, that despite describing pain and abandonement is also full of hope. From the 19th verse David starts to petition God and surely believes that He will come and help him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if Christ prays with the words of Psalm 21 on the cross, He surely has in mind the future resurrection. And the first verse is here just a painful cry of what He feels in his human nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-06-06T07:18:06.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7107" CreationDate="2012-06-06T08:02:06.397" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was a rhetorical question. Jesus was both fully man and fully God (Philippians 2:5-9) and, as evidenced by the verse you also mentioned (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mt26.39&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:39&lt;/a&gt;), He was conflicted about what was about to happen. He knew that He had to go through with it (&quot;not mine but your will be done&quot;), but His human nature did not want to die. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also have to consider those three days that He would be buried before the Resurrection. The best Biblical reference to this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/nasb95/1Pe3.18-20&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18-20&lt;/a&gt; which addresses that he was &quot;made alive in the spirit&quot;. This suggests a death of the spirit. In the description of the Ascension by Luke (Acts 1:9-11), His spirit is taken up into Heaven, meaning He wasn't there when His body was killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe there is a consensus among scholars about where &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; Jesus' spirit went during that time, but it was not to Heaven. For the first time in Jesus' existence, He was to be separated from The Father. He and The Father and The Spirit are one and that separation must have been extremely painful to consider. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was the perfect man. But He was also man. He knew He would die, He knew it was to God's glory, and He knew that He would be apart from God for those three days. He was very conflicted. His last cry of anguish is the embodiment of that conflict and a clear representation of His humanity, but also His last hours are a clear representation of His Godliness. In the descriptions in Luke and John, His other &quot;last words&quot; are mentioned in which He asks The Father to forgive them, He tells the disciples to love His mother and His mother to love them, and He proclaims the Paradise awaiting them all with The Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to more directly answer your question: He did not have to ask The Father. He knew exactly why it had to be done. But He was still afraid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastActivityDate="2012-06-06T08:02:06.397" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7917" CreationDate="2012-06-06T08:32:59.307" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholic churches, Communion is required by the Holy See to be distributed by a minister (priest, bishop, deacon, etc) and may only be done so by a lay person if there are not enough ministers to do the job. This, and the requirements about how the congregants receive the Eucharist from the minister, suggests that in Catholic churches, altar distribution is the way it goes. This is one of the many Catholic practices that originated in the Catholic Churches need to control its congregants. The ministers have control over whether you receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Episcopal/Anglican churches also practice this distribution by ministers, although I'm not certain about requirements as I know less about the Anglican church hierarchy. Lutheran churches do too, sometimes referring to it as The Sacrament of the Altar. Both of these come from their close ties to Catholicism back in the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the various other Protestant persuasions, the desire to draw away from the rules and rituals of the more orthodox denominations and the belief that God connects directly with all people, not just through the ministers, lead to a significant de-formalization of the communion rite. Also, since most Protestants do not hold the that communion is a sacrament, but rather a remembrance of Christ's death for Christians on the cross, the formal ritual became unnecessary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also because of the lower importance that Protestants place on the Eucharist, it is not celebrated weekly at all churches, including Lutheran and Anglican churches. Catholics, however, are required to take communion weekly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to whether you can tell, at Protestant churches, there is not a sweeping generalization to be made based on denomination or size. That said, you could probably tell by when you walk in if you see a communion table set up with those communion cup-holders stacked on top of each other or if you see somewhere to kneel at the front of the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-01-05T21:14:19.143" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T21:14:19.143" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7944" CreationDate="2012-06-06T12:33:42.977" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Evangelicals stem from fundamentalists, but have diverged since the 1950s. Theologically, they hold much in common, but primarily differ in their approach to dealing with society at large. It should be noted that neither is a &quot;denomination&quot; but rather a reforming trend that is cross-denominational, but bound by common purpose to reform the church, stripping it of historical (and liberalizing) accretions of practice, and returning it to the same position as &quot;the first church,&quot; centering on its devotion to Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fundamentalists sprung up during the &quot;back to the fundamentals&quot; movement of the early 1900s. The seminal Work was a series of essays called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals&quot;&gt;The Fundamentals&lt;/a&gt;, highlighting such luminaries as R.A. Torrey, B.B. Warfield, and E.Y. Mullins. A brief look at the titles of the essays will highlight the issues important to these reformers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This movement was deeply affected by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial&quot;&gt;Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925&lt;/a&gt;, and largely disengaged from society shortly thereafter. While trying to reform the church, fundamentalists eventually came to the conclusion that they must be separate from the wider culture. Evangelists like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Sunday&quot;&gt;Billy Sunday&lt;/a&gt; preached a Gospel of being removed from the society and rejecting all its ways. This included a rejection of politics as well as an eschewment of what the culture at large did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the 1950s, some in the fundamentalist movement like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_F._H._Henry&quot;&gt;Carl Henry&lt;/a&gt; - the editor of Christian Century and founder of Christianity Today, came to believe that fundamentalists must engage the culture. In 1942, he founded the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nae.net/about-us/statement-of-faith&quot;&gt;National Association of Evangelicals&lt;/a&gt;, and the point was to be &quot;in the world, but not of it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With Roe v. Wade, Evangelicals began to become more involved in politics, and helped bring about the rise of the &quot;Religious Right.&quot; In the 1980s, fundamentalist &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell&quot;&gt;Jerry Falwell&lt;/a&gt; introduced an innovation to fundamentalism when he sought to bring fundamentalists also back into the political arena, albeit in a more confrontational, &quot;culture war&quot; sort of way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/theology-unplugged/id165443886&quot;&gt;Theology Unplugged&lt;/a&gt; has two podcasts (7/9/06 and 7/8/06) that do a great job of tracing the history and divergence of the two - but basically boils down to approach rather than belief. John Michael Patton (Dallas Theological Seminary) says &quot;Evangelicals are nice fundamentalists,&quot; by which he means, they engage rather than separate from the culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-06-06T12:39:48.727" LastActivityDate="2012-06-06T12:39:48.727" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7950" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7951" CreationDate="2012-06-06T14:40:40.470" Score="5" ViewCount="1691" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1824/who-saved-people-before-33ad&quot;&gt;Who saved people before ~33AD?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This question I address to those Christians who believe that salvation once acquired cannot be lost. I am specifically after the answer to the following question from that perspective)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have always thought of salvation in the New Testament as of having the eternal life. In the New Testament we are told by John that we can get this eternal life by means of believing into the Only-begotten Son of God Jesus Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that&#xA;  whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting&#xA;  life. (John 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the&#xA;  Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye&#xA;  may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1st John 5:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when I am trying to look at the nature of the concept of salvation in the Old Testament, I get a bit confused about the concept of salvation that had place at those times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, the Old Testament people, of course, didn't have any knowledge of the existence of the Only-begotten Son of God and almost all of them died before this knowledge of Him was given to the human kind. However, it seems that some of them still were saved even though they died before Jesus' first coming:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see&#xA;  Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of&#xA;  God (Luke 13:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this verse we can say that at least Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets were saved even before Christ's crucifixion (I take it as an axiom that anyone who has the right to be in the kingdom of God is a saved person).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the question is at what point of their life were they acquiring that salvation? It seems that in the New Testament this point of time in people's lives is kind of more spelled out - the moment when people turn to Christ in their hearts while hearing the Gospel and pray to Him for the first time, but what about the Old Testament? At what moment of their life it was clear that they were also among those who would enter in the future into the kingdom of God (which means they were also among those who are saved)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-07-08T19:44:20.593" Title="Nature of salvation in the Old Testament" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2012-06-08T15:41:26.757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7950" CreationDate="2012-06-06T15:18:36.070" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Reformed perspective, we look at the Old Testament promises, and the respondents' trusting God as what qualifies them as righteous and grants salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God chose Abraham and made a covenant with Him (a series of 3 promises you can read in Genesis 21). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/romans+4:3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaac was the son of the promise. He was obedient and faithful to his father and God by willingly laying on the altar at Moriah (Abraham was a &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; old dude at this point, and it's pretty unreasonable to assume that Isaac was powerless to at least escape this sacrifice, if not overpower Abraham).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jacob was the son of the promise. His act of faith was recorded with his actions on his deathbed, that he blessed Joseph's sons with the promise of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph was the son of the promise. His faithful acts delivered Israel in a time of famine, and lead to Moses leading the people out of Egypt so that God would display His power to His people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This list goes on. It isn't that each of these men was sinless and trusted Christ, it's that each one was sinful and trusted God in His word that He would bless them (and no small part of that blessing is that they have been included in the bloodline of the Messiah).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over time, we begin to understand more of the promise. The author wrote concerning this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/2+Samuel+7:12-17+/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 7:12-17.&lt;/a&gt; This is a continued promise that God will establish David's kingdom forever and will claim father-hood over this line of people. Isaiah later &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/isaiah+52-53/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;writes&lt;/a&gt; concerning that God's people would &quot;know His name&quot; and God would grant salvation to all ends of the Earth through the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, it has been revealed that Christ was the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and that being a &quot;son of the promise&quot; was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/romans+9:6-8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;not fleshly&lt;/a&gt;, but spiritual, trusting God. Because it has been revealed that Christ was the fulfillment of the promise, by placing faith in Christ, you trust that God has taken care of your sins on His own account and you are adopted as a son of God and are covered by the promise that God made to Abraham. You are saved the same way that Abraham was saved: by believing God (and, as James 2 would add, demonstrating that belief in your actions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2012-07-08T19:44:20.593" LastActivityDate="2012-07-08T19:44:20.593" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7909" CreationDate="2012-06-06T17:18:21.247" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can give you an answer based on my experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I live in Rome, I'm Catholic, and I have travelled quite a lot. Every time I travel I search a local catholic mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can tell you with a 99% of certainty that this is a cultural matter, dependinding on the community. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here in Rome people is more or less ordered and goes in line. In France they have a more complicated 'algorithm': the one who are in the last benches go first, then the line builds up bench by bench from the last to the first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A convincing example is this one:&lt;/strong&gt; I went to the masses for holy week in Amsterdam. That is to say 3 masses: Thursday, Friday, Sunday (Saturday there's no mass in the holy week). As Amsterdam is quite multi-cultural, once I went to the local (Dutch) community mass, once to the french speaking community mass, once to the Spanish community mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the dutch version they went in a line starting from last bench. In the french-speaking, mostly were from Africa and went in a line which was randomly formed. In the spanish community mass, people was much more 'unordered' and they crowded in the direction of the priest giving Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, summarizing, It seems really to be a cultural matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1257" LastActivityDate="2012-06-06T17:18:21.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7953" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7955" CreationDate="2012-06-06T18:34:55.313" Score="23" ViewCount="1943" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is based on my personal experience. Some time ago I had a discussion with a friend of mine who's an evangelical pastor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a very subtle way, he was asserting that I actually believe in a false God, and that the only way to the truth is convert myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was quite astonished of such discussion, both because I follow and love ecumenical movements which tends to find common paths rather than deep differences, and because this vision seems to be integralist to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the discussion truncated there and I didn't want to take it up again because it was really a sad situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my questions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does evangelicalism really consider all non-evangelicals like pagans, because they are worshiping a false God?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which other Christian confessions have this vision?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is evangelicalism really an integralist confession?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1257" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-10-28T20:30:51.480" LastActivityDate="2017-10-28T20:30:51.480" Title="Do Evangelicals see Catholics as pagans?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;pagan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7024" CreationDate="2012-06-06T19:02:25.907" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the answer by RiverC, it is of note that the desert Fathers do have record of the devil inflicting physical hardship at time of prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Theodora] also said, “It is good to live in peace, for the wise person practices perpetual prayer. It is truly a great thing for a virgin or a monk to live in peace, especially for the younger ones. However, you should realize that as soon as you intend to live in peace, evil at once comes and weighs down your soul through faintheartedness and evil thoughts. &lt;b&gt;It also attacks your body through sickness, debility, weakening of the knees, and all the members&lt;/b&gt;. It dissipates the strength of soul and body, so that one believes one is ill and no longer able to pray. But if we are watchful, all these temptations fall away. &lt;b&gt;There was&lt;/b&gt;, in fact, &lt;b&gt;a monk who was seized by cold and fever every time he began to pray&lt;/b&gt;, and he suffered from headaches, too. In this condition, he said to himself, ‘I am ill, and near to death, so now I will get up before I die and pray.’ By reasoning this way, he did violence to himself and prayed. When he had finished, the fever abated also. So, by reasoning in this way, the brother resisted and prayed, and was able to conquer his thoughts.” &lt;em&gt;Wisdom of the Desert Fathers. &lt;/em&gt;Wilson-Hartgrove, Jonathan. Paraclete Press.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="325" LastActivityDate="2012-06-06T19:02:25.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7953" CreationDate="2012-06-06T19:21:58.953" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;Evangelicalism is not in itself a &quot;confession&quot;. It is more of a general grouping of similar confessions. As such, it is a bit hard to pin down on a specific point of doctrine like your question calls for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, we could paint with a broad brush and describe some of general leanings. &lt;em&gt;Every one of these will be wrong for at least some Evangelicals&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are some evangelical groups that consider some other evangelical groups to be apostate* (not true churches). However, these tend to be exceptions rather than the norm. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most evangelicals tend to hedge salvation more on the basis of belief rather than church membership. In other words, even if they believe the Roman Catholic church to be a bogus organization and many of its doctrines to be false, they will acknowledge that some of its members are legitimately Christian.†&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most evangelicals specifically reject many of the doctrines, most of the structure and all of the authority of the Roman Catholic church. Those that do accept any of the above do not recognize it in full, but only in the parts that are in agreement. They would reject almost everything to do with Mary, but might agree one some points about Christ. They will reject the notion that any Pope could ever speak infallibly while agreeing that Scripture invokes a system of appointed leaders over churches.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most evangelicals believe that due to the dangers of the false doctrines woven in among some true ones, it would be a bad idea to place ones self under the sole direction of the Roman Catholic church. As such, people who do are often regarded with much skepticism as the creed they have hence subscribed to is dubiously compatible in any way with their own.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The issue of where to draw a line between a &quot;false God&quot; and &quot;the right God not properly understood&quot; is a tricky one to draw. Most evangelical circles would use some of the more basic and early creeds (such as the Apostles &amp;amp; Nicene Creeds) as a measuring stick for whether the right God was being worshiped. A non-triune God or a religion that doesn't recognize Jesus as God's only son for example would be considered to be worshiping a false God, while if those and some other elements were in place but his works and words were badly misinterpreted it may be just a matter of mistaken doctrine without actually being a &quot;false God&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an overview of the issues involved here, I highly recommend carefully reading a blog post from my friend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kevinbywater.com/?page_id=277&quot;&gt;Kevin Bywater&lt;/a&gt; entitiled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kevinbywater.com/?p=561&quot;&gt;Do Muslims, Mormons, and Christians Worship the Same God?&lt;/a&gt; in which he works to articulate the core theological problem involved no matter whether the right answer is yes or no. As one of the basic points, he notes that &quot;&lt;em&gt;Worshiping God wrongly is tantamount to worshiping the wrong god(s).&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of the previous point, Catholisism started out with some of these same creeds and many participants still hold to them. However evangelicallism would, in general, say that it has wandered very far from them with all the things it has added. In doing so, the waters are so muddy that's its hard to get a pure drink of living water there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Evangelicals also recognize that there are Catholics and there are Catholics. Some in the US might be viewed as partners and there are even major ecumenical talks always going on somewhere or another. On the other hand much of Latin America and Europe are so far gone from even Catholic teaching that it would be impossible for most evangelicals to recognize them as Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One notable reference on this would be the Westminster Confession. While only some subsets of evangelicalism would fully hold to this confession, it is indicative of their varying positions that in it's original format, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html#chap25&quot;&gt;Chapter XXV Article VI&lt;/a&gt; identifies the Pope as the antichrist himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More importantly, it is to be noted that this statement has been removed from the revised version most commonly used in the US and much of the rest of the world in modern Reformed churches. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxi-xxv.htm#chapxxv&quot;&gt;statement now accepted&lt;/a&gt; by most people holding to this particular confession reads simply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* I have avoided using the term &quot;pagan&quot; because the context of your question indicates we probably don't have a common understanding of what it means.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;† My personal stance on this issue is that salvation is a gift from God. Correct belief isn't what saves us. Therefore it is possible for some who believe straight up wrong things about salvation to be saved. However this is no excuse to not seek to learn which doctrines are true, and God uses his word properly preached as an instrument in effecting salvation so we should put high priority on true teaching even though we know it isn't necessarily a matter of salvation whether people believe exactly the right doctrine.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-04-06T09:45:36.267" LastActivityDate="2013-04-06T09:45:36.267" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7953" CreationDate="2012-06-06T20:08:59.710" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Evangelicals most assuredly do not consider Roman Catholics to be pagans.  We realize they worship the same God - we mostly differ over views of church governance (i.e. we don't think the Pope has any primacy) &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most interesting cases in point is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_J._Beckwith&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Francis Beckwith&lt;/a&gt;, one-time president of the National Association of Evangelicals, who, in the middle of his tenure, had been &quot;outed&quot; as an evangelical who had returned to the Roman Catholic church.  This caused quite a stir in evangelical circles, and much debate around whether or not a Roman Catholic could be an evangelical.  In the end, Beckwith voluntarily resigned, but not before the fact of the debate showed support on both sides of the argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-06-06T20:08:59.710" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7958" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7961" CreationDate="2012-06-06T22:46:57.583" Score="28" ViewCount="36912" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just the other day, I heard somebody talking politics and contrasted the Roman Catholic church's political influence with &quot;the Evangelical vote&quot;. In this sense, as is often done in US media, the word seem to be used as a synonym of 'Protestant'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I get the feeling there is another layer to this. Where did the term 'Evangelical' come from and how is it distinct from 'Protestant'. Used properly, what group(s) is it generally understood to include or what world view does it describe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2017-11-15T06:35:14.820" Title="What is the difference between Evangelical and Protestant?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7959" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-06T23:14:16.867" Score="5" ViewCount="316" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of any folklore in Christian mythology about what happens to the soul as it progresses through purgatory and into heaven? (Plus, of course, for systems that hold universal reconciliation to be true, the soul's progression through hell.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please note that I'm specifically asking about folklore and mythology rather than doctrine; the kind of symbolic stories that get carried alongside Christianity rather than being part of it. Although if anyone has any useful references to appropriate bits of doctrine I'd be fascinated to read them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm really looking for anything old, but I'd be happy with anything. I suspect there's not much, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't &lt;i&gt;something&lt;/i&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And yes, I know about Bunyan --- which doesn't count, because &lt;i&gt;Pilgrim's Progress&lt;/i&gt; is an allegory of the soul's progression through &lt;i&gt;life&lt;/i&gt;, not death; and I know about Dante --- which also doesn't count because his narrator is a tourist, and not one of the souls themselves.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1733" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-08-23T17:27:32.903" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T17:27:32.903" Title="The soul's progression through purgatory" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7958" CreationDate="2012-06-07T01:49:51.113" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;For purposes of this question, protestants can be divided up into three main political camps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those that align closely with Catholics, such as Anglicans, older Lutheran groups, and other highly-centralized and liturgical groups. This category tends to either vote exactly as the denomination suggests, or will discount religion in their voting patterns entirely. These denominations are currently more likely to be conservative, but have been liberal as well in the not-to-distant past. Because of the tendency to keep politics and religion separate and the relative small size (compared to Catholics), they don't get a lot of political attention.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fundamentalist purist groups. These are &quot;back to the bible&quot; or &quot;sola scriptura&quot; groups that see themselves as separate from the rest of the culture. As a result of this separation, they have low voter turn-out and may not vote based on their religious views. These groups tend to be conservative and were very large 50 years ago. However, the fundamental purists are shrinking as a demographic, and again combined with their weaker voter solidarity don't get as much political attention any more.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evangelicals. Evangelicals &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; fundamentalists... just a more recent (and large, growing) adaption. Many that would have formerly been purist fundamentals are now aligned with this movement. Evangelicals are distinct from purists in that they also want to engage the larger culture. They have two goals in mind with this effort: make it easier to reach out (evangelize) Christ to others, and to make it easier and more socially acceptable to live a complete Christian lifestyle. The process of engaging the larger culture means that Evangelicals are much more likely to turn out to vote, and when they vote it's also more likely to be based on their religious viewpoints. This has resulted in a lot of attention from political circles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a fairly new movement historically, Evangelicals will often have a progressive or liberal mindset rooted in compassion and sensitive to social justice issues, but tend to vote conservative in spite of this because of a perceived anti-religion and sometimes openly-atheistic stance from other forces in the liberal camp, as well as the liberal position on certain issues (such as abortion) that is abhorrent to many Evangelicals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2013-01-11T05:14:30.663" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T05:14:30.663" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7958" CreationDate="2012-06-07T02:40:57.227" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Evangelical&quot; is certainly difficult to pin down! The &lt;em&gt;Encyclopedia of Christianity&lt;/em&gt; says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[In America] it covers a wide range of not completely harmonious uses, from the Pentecostal churches to the peace churches, Missouri Synod Lutherans, Southern Baptist Convention, Holiness movement (eg Church of the Nazarene), charismatic groups (including Roman Catholics), and evangelicals in the mainline denominations. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and there seems to be a flourishing cottage industry of evangelicals writing books and articles worrying about how to define themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;History&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stott&quot;&gt;John Stott&lt;/a&gt; emphasized that evangelicalism does not see itself as an innovation or deviation from orthodox Christianity. Doctrinally speaking, evangelicals are able to find many precursors - for example, Stott identifies Augustine as a &quot;proto-evangelical&quot;, on the basis of his view of grace. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;term&lt;/em&gt; &quot;evangelical&quot;, which derives from the Greek &lt;em&gt;evangelion&lt;/em&gt; (gospel, good news), does not seem to have been used to describe a distinct group within the church until roughly the Reformation era. Martin Luther picked it up, and today the German word &lt;em&gt;Evangelisch&lt;/em&gt; is not really distinguishable from &lt;em&gt;Protestantisch&lt;/em&gt; - unlike in the English-speaking world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stott and others have identified several related movements that have identified themselves as evangelical. The following listing is from John Hitchen, who argues that evangelicalism has tended to define itself in opposition to tendencies in the church, or society, at large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Reformers - against medieval Catholicism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The First Evangelical awakening - against the 'deadness' of the contemporary church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Second Evangelical awakening - against the Deism, laxity and Unitarianism in the early 18th century church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Clapham Sect and early 19th Century evangelicals - against lack of 'seriousness' and nominalism in the established church(es).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The 'Fundamentalists' of the early 20th century - against proponents of the Social Gospel and Higher Criticism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The mid 20th century evangelicalism - against Liberal theology and Neo-orthodoxy.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other modern listings might include subgroups emphasizing social justice, the gifts of the Spirit, or ecumenism, although the boundaries here may not be very sharp &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Defining attitudes&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all of these cases, the groups involved did share some common doctrines or positions - in particular, they were trying to preserve or restore 'essential' or 'original' Christian practice and belief. They also share a desire for &lt;em&gt;conversion&lt;/em&gt; of the world - in this regard, Stott contrasts it on either side with the fundamentalist position (stand aloof from the world) and the liberal position (adapt to the world) &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David Bebbington identified four ideas that form a 'common core', or 'quadrilateral of priorities':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;conversionism&lt;/em&gt;, the belief that lives need to be changed;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;activism&lt;/em&gt;, the expression of the gospel in effort;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;biblicism&lt;/em&gt;, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;crucicentrism&lt;/em&gt;, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a more 'sociological' classification of evangelicals, in terms of their prevailing attitudes rather than any particular point of doctrine. Evangelicals may be strict about doctrine, but the actual content of doctrine isn't tremendously distinctive from 'ordinary' Protestant beliefs, with the exceptions of (1) a stronger view of Biblical authority than many others have, and (2) a related commitment to 'pure' or 'mere' Christianity &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;. The Bebbington scheme has gained some currency, though Stott for one was uncomfortable with all the -isms, and the low profile of God. He preferred this formulation of evangelical priorities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The revealing initiative of God the Father, the redeeming work of God the Son, and the transforming ministry of God the Holy Spirit. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Politics&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of American politics, I don't think it's straightforward to predict where evangelicals will end up. Moreover, the media tend to use the classification fairly carelessly, as a synonym for 'conservative Christian' or 'Republican churchgoer'. In fact, I think there is a great diversity of political beliefs among evangelicals (though the two-party system suppresses that diversity at the polls). Part of this is generational or age-based, but I also have a sense that some political points spring fairly naturally from the evangelical worldview.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the evangelical environmental movement makes perfect sense within the context of the history above. It's a matter of engaging with the world in a positive way, in order to take care of it (and it can be seen as oppositional, like in the Hitchen list above). Equally, many evangelicals care about social and economic injustice in a manner that doesn't match the stereotype that evangelicals &lt;em&gt;ipso facto&lt;/em&gt; have right-wing views.&#xA;This is not to say that evangelicals are automatically left-wing or liberal either! Probably, most evangelicals would be considered socially conservative, and may even regard such issues as overriding priorities when choosing candidates. For what it's worth, I don't think that an evangelical's 'ideal' US political party would greatly resemble either the Republicans or the Democrats, but they do seem to be the only games in town. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;Encyclopedia of Christianity&lt;/em&gt; (Wm. Eerdmans, 2001) under &quot;Evangelical Movement&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;Evangelical truth: a personal plea for unity, integrity and faithfulness&lt;/em&gt;, John Stott (InterVarsity Press, 2005)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;What it means to be an evangelical today&lt;/em&gt;, John M. Hitchen, &lt;em&gt;Evangelical Quarterly&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;76&lt;/strong&gt;(1):47-64, 2004.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. &lt;em&gt;Evangelicalism in modern Britain: a history from the 1730s to the 1980s&lt;/em&gt;, D. W. Bebbington (Unwin Hyman, 1989).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5. &lt;em&gt;The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem&lt;/em&gt;, J. L. Packer (Latimer House, 1978).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-06-07T02:40:57.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7959" CreationDate="2012-06-07T03:45:45.693" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The post Bl. John Paul the Great conception of purgatory was that it is a 'state' and not a place. So whatever, private revelation I allude to in the following sentences are not indiciative of universal Catholic doctrine (if you find any please report it to the dept. of redundancy dept)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that Purgatory is For the soul's purification in the fires of God's love.  The souls in Purgatory are referred to as the Church Suffering and the suffering experienced in Purgatory will take place for a predetermined length (until the last penny is paid). The only way out of Purgatory is up to heaven. The souls in Purgatory do not haunt the living. But the intercessory prayers of the living may reduce the time spent of a soul in Purgatory.  Such Indulgences may be applied either to the person seeking the indulgence, or purposes of lessening their own time in Purgatory or for a soul in Purgatory. A partial indulgence is what one gets when making the sign of the cross or praying a certain prayer or doing a spiritual or corporal work of mercy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.communityofhopeinc.org/Prayer%20Pages/purgatory%20prayers.html&quot;&gt;Prayers for souls in purgatory &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A plenary indulgence is complete removal of the time spent in purgatory and it can be applied to a soul in purgatory. But it requires a confession with perfect contrition, which is no easy task. Nevertheless an imperfectly attained plenary indulgence is in effect a pretty good partial indulgence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Articles/the-real-truth-about-purgatory.html&quot;&gt;some more info about saints and others who saw souls in purgatroy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also want to check out St Catherine's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/CATPUR.TXT&quot;&gt;Treatise on Purgatory&lt;/a&gt; I believe it was her who saw souls leaving Purgatory whenever &quot;Lord Have Mercy&quot; was said at Mass. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone else'll probably mention it if I don't, but C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce certainly seemed like a souls progression through Purgatory. Even though he denied it was supposed to be that exactly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise,  The Man Who Was Thursday by G.K. Chesterton is pretty Purgatorial. A lot of folks who suffer quite a bit in this world might also be likely to tell you that they're offering up their suffering so as to spend their Purgatory on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd love to read more old Catholic fiction on the subject, but so I hope someone else answers.&#xA;One thing you could do to further your studies is to search the Golden Legend for hints at Purgatory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One last word, since a soul in Purgatory is not a ghost don't try to talk to them, you're more than likely talking to a demon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-06-07T04:13:36.113" LastActivityDate="2012-06-07T04:13:36.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7968" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11852" CreationDate="2012-06-07T18:02:16.430" Score="5" ViewCount="723" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kind of weird and new agey, but I was looking on etsy.com for handmade rosaries and there are all kinds of ones that are apparently used for new age spiritual purposes.  They look just like regular rosaries (except for the steampunk one), but what is the connection to Catholicism to the sellers of these products.  Are they attempting to subvert devotion to Mary by injecting the powers of darkness or are they a splinter organization from the Catholic Church selling products to their own group members?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XF0mT.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. I think I'll be searching for &quot;Catholic Rosary&quot; from now on instead of just &quot;Rosary&quot;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-06-07T18:34:27.687" LastActivityDate="2014-03-02T15:57:16.457" Title="What's a reiki infused rosary?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;rosary&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7968" CreationDate="2012-06-07T18:10:15.197" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of a string of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_beads&quot;&gt;prayer beads&lt;/a&gt; is hardly unique to Catholicism.  They date back several centuries into BC times in various pagan religions.  The term &quot;rosary&quot; adds a uniquely Catholic significance to it, but the term is probably being used here as shorthand: the only example most viewers are familiar with is the Catholic rosary, so that's what the sellers call it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-06-07T18:10:15.197" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7970" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="7974" CreationDate="2012-06-07T20:12:28.437" Score="0" ViewCount="3036" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is about speculations that might have taken place in Christianity on the matter of Cain's destiny - whether he will be in the kingdom of God (which means that he is saved) or he will go into eternal perdition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have there been any speculations on this matter in Roman Catholic, Orthodox or main-stream protestant Christianity (by main-stream protestant Christianity I mean those who believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and God - the same God as God the Father is - but don't consider themselves to be a part of Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy)? If yes, can you, please, share them here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cain was the first murderer in the human history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following verse speaks not in favor of Cain:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished&#xA;  between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be&#xA;  required of this generation (Luke 11 :51)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I don't see any verse in the Bible pronouncing clearly that Cain will go into the eternal perdition. Or, perhaps, I am reading the New Testament in to the Old one here? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2012-06-07T20:48:19.173" LastActivityDate="2016-03-14T15:01:01.617" Title="Is Cain saved or he will go into the eternal perdition?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;cain&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="18" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-03-16T04:16:47.497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1187" CreationDate="2012-06-07T22:13:08.740" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple issues here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strictly speaking in a logical sense this is the best thing a person could do for themself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. Suicide is never a logical solution to any situation. If anyone is in a position where they think it is, they would be best served by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metanoia.org/suicide/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;taking a time out&lt;/a&gt; and then &lt;a href=&quot;http://chat.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/GetHelp/LifelineChat.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;seeking help&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this question is not really about suicide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Premise&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perhaps the greatest thing a person can hope for is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are told that if a person truly accepts God as their Saviour, they promised an eternity in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this in mind, why not just accept Christ and then off ourself? We all want to go to heaven don't we?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest problem with this logic is its premise, the characterization of Christianity as nothing more than &lt;em&gt;accept Christ as your savior so you can go to heaven&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Cost&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in the New Testament does it say it is enough to &amp;quot;just accept Christ&amp;quot;. Rather, when Jesus called his disciples, he told them to &lt;em&gt;follow&lt;/em&gt; him. In the case of four fishermen (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+4:18-22&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:18-22&lt;/a&gt;) this meant leaving behind their boats and nets, their entire way of life, and even their families. Following Jesus meant abandoning everything that came before and starting a whole new way of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus alludes to this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/passage.aspx?q=luke+14:27-28&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 14:27-28&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a cost to following Christ, and the cost is abandoning our own willfulness and sinfulness. We must give up everything that stands in the way of following him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a wealthy tax collector named Zacchaeus, it meant &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/passage.aspx?q=luke+19:2-10&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;paying back those whom he had cheated&lt;/a&gt;. For another rich man, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+19:16-22&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;cost was too high&lt;/a&gt;. For the apostle Paul, it meant &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/philippians/passage.aspx?q=philippians+3:4-9&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;giving up his claims to righteousness&lt;/a&gt;, and indeed, everything that had been his identity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, once we make the decision to, as they say, &amp;quot;accept Christ&amp;quot;, &lt;em&gt;our life is no longer our own&lt;/em&gt;. It's all about what God wants for us, and not about what we want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Reward&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus expresses this as a paradox in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/10-39.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 10:39&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He's not talking (here) about literally losing our lives. He's not asking us to &amp;quot;off ourselves&amp;quot;. He's talking about changing our very identity. This is known as sanctification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our human nature is sinful, bent to our own desires, but when God sanctifies us we live for his desires and not our own. And God does not want us to escape this world (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/passage.aspx?q=john+17:15-17&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 17:15-17&lt;/a&gt;), but rather to let God complete the transformation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-corinthians/3-18.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 3:18&lt;/a&gt;), and possibly help others in their transformation as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle Paul wrestled with this while he was in prison awaiting trial, not knowing whether he would be put to death or released (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/philippians/passage.aspx?q=philippians+1:21-24&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 1:21-24&lt;/a&gt;). (Thanks to Jon Ericson for this reference.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that's why we can't &amp;quot;just accept Christ and then off ourself [sic]&amp;quot;. Even if we may want to skip the hardship and go to heaven right away, becoming a Christian means giving up what we want and giving in to what God wants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-10-11T04:37:07.243" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7936" CreationDate="2012-06-08T04:51:11.447" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fascinating question. I would be careful to connect modern Lutheranism with what Martin Luther believed. Martin Luther developed over time. Also, I view this question as Luther's sacramentology, not soteriology. Section &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php#para29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;29]&lt;/a&gt; of the Larger Catechism seems to well-distinguish between the Water of Baptism being a seal of the promise of God unto salvation, but is not salvation itself. Never believe that Lutherans or Martin Luther believe in a form of Baptismal Regeneration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where as Roman Catholic doctrine sees sacraments as a means of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;communicating grace&lt;/a&gt; the modern Lutheran view sees them more as symbols of the promise of God. See section &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php#para35&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;35]&lt;/a&gt; of the Confession that talks about Baptism being God's work, not ours. It speaks of Baptism of Christ being necessary for faith, and it is the faith that accesses salvation. The sacrament of baptism is distinguished from Christ's Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting that Luther viewed Sacraments as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-sacraments-and-reason-differences.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;part of God's Word&lt;/a&gt;. It's a very different view than the Reformed view which sees Sacraments as Signs and Seals only. Not without power, but certainly not as powerful as Lutheran's appear to view them. Sad-to-say, I am far from an expert in this. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly commend to you the &lt;a href=&quot;http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-sacraments-and-reason-differences.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Beggars All&lt;/a&gt; blog. Jim Swan, who runs it, has impressed me with his study of Luther. I doubt I've done a great job of representing the sacraments here, but the links should be useful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1144" LastActivityDate="2012-06-08T04:51:11.447" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7970" CreationDate="2012-06-08T12:19:58.900" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The same question can be asked of Judas, Goliath, or any other &quot;villian&quot; in the Bible. According to Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same could also be said of Saul of Tarsus, however, prior to his conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cain's &lt;em&gt;curse&lt;/em&gt;, in particular, is known:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note how the entire curse is restricted to this life, and not the next. (Many would argue that the Old Testament does not have an afterlife, based on somethings that David, Job, and Qoheleth write - but that's a different question.) There is nothing that bears on the afterlife or eternal destiny, so no conclusion can be rightly drawn from Scripture to anything that extends &lt;em&gt;beyond the earth&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on one's soteriology, there are Christian positions that range from &quot;God chooses whomever he wants&quot; to &quot;God will accept whoever turns to him.&quot;  The point in all of this is that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a. We don't know, because we don't have enough evidence&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;b. We don't know, because God is ultimately in charge&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;c. We don't know, because we don't know how God chooses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, we don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-06-08T12:19:58.900" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7953" CreationDate="2012-06-08T15:13:16.760" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hope that most Evangelicals would reserve such judgements... the general belief is that this is reserved for God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I think most would also consider Catholics to be &lt;em&gt;grossly&lt;/em&gt; mislead about the scriptures, relying on traditions that are far removed from the original teachings of Jesus and his Apostles, and relying too much on Priests and Clergy to take responsibility of their Faith and Salvation for them, to the point where their salvation is greatly in danger. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No doubt Catholics have a similar view of Protestants :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-06-08T15:13:16.760" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7976" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-08T16:42:08.473" Score="13" ViewCount="1182" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic, I know that I am accountable to a higher law than human/positive law.  The natural moral law is the guiding force behind the formation of my conscience and if human laws are not in accord with the current law, I am obligated to deny/change/protest/ignore them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, is it right, for me, to consider the moral crime of abortion to be equal in all instances to the moral crime of murder? Is abortion exactly the same as murder, under the natural moral law and in the eyes of the Catholic Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1326" LastEditDate="2012-06-09T00:23:07.583" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T21:11:18.830" Title="Does the Catholic Church consider abortion to be murder?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;abortion&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;murder&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7976" CreationDate="2012-06-08T17:36:20.170" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Pontifical Council for the Family abortion has been likened to murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001014_rome-jubilee-of-families-index_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pontifical Council for the Family - Children, Springtime of the Family and Society, October 14-15, 2000&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the notion goes even deeper and predates Christian ethics, as tied to the Hippocratic Oath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the evident synthesis of Hippocratic ethics and Christian morality cannot be contested -both Hippocratic ethics and Christian morality regard all forms of direct abortion or direct (whether active or passive) euthanasia as illegitimate because one is dealing with an act which destroys a prenatal life and with an act of murder which nobody can justify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/rc_pc_hlthwork_doc_30061997_honings_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Charter for Health Care Workers: A Synthesis of Hippocratic Ethics and Christian Morality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I think in the eyes of the Church, abortion is a form of murder. In fact it is the worst possible kind of murder because it destroys the life of a completely innocent human being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-08T17:36:20.170" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7968" CreationDate="2012-06-08T23:18:13.123" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bizarre. The user's profile page names the business as FoxRaven Designs. A quick search led me to FoxRaven's website, which claims:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;FoxRaven prayer beads, malas and rosaries are individually hand-crafted and reiki-charged in Connecticut by Maya, a Karuna and Usui Reiki Master.  Maya creates Christian rosaries and prayer beads spanning many faiths, including pagan, islamic, buddhist, yogic and new age spiritualities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The artist claims to have been &quot;raised in a Roman Catholic/Buddhist environment,&quot; (whatever that means) but now professes to be a &quot;Reiki Master and Shamanic Practitioner.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any connections the artist may have had to the Catholic Church appear to be solely historical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2012-06-08T23:18:13.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1187" CreationDate="2012-06-08T23:50:53.020" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some great answers and comments on this question, and I'd like to try and add in on it: No, suicide does not automatically damn you to hell. If you are born again in Christ, &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; your sins are washed clean, even ones you have not yet committed. If they weren't, then somehow Christ's death on the cross was incomplete. His sacrifice is eternal, the living sacrifice, thus your salvation and redemption is eternal.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see some people have said that suicide is the result of mental illness, depression, etc. When I was young in my faith, I contemplated suicide a couple times for the exact reason mentioned by OP. I wasn't mentally ill; I just wanted to be in heaven! Some people have also said suicide for this reason might reveal a lack of faith, but how could you have what it takes to off yourself (to simply go to heaven early) if you have no faith &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; heaven/Christ? Anyway, that's not important. I think what's important is the response to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Strictly speaking in a logical sense this is the best thing a person could do for &lt;strong&gt;themselves&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must see that is extremely selfish. Do you not know that Jesus came to this earth to live, suffer and die for you? Then should you not live and, if needed, suffer and die for Him too? We are meant to be vessels of God, fit for his work (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20tim%202:21&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Tim 2:21&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%209:23-24&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom 9:23-24&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%204:7&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Cor 4:7&lt;/a&gt;). If you take your life then you are taking away any possible plan that God has prepared for you. Would you expect to hear &quot;Well done, good and faithful servant!&quot; after that? I sure wouldn't. I would have an eternity of shame ahead of me.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look forward to the life God has in store for you, or if he takes you home early, then know it was of divine purpose and not your own selfish will. If you have a mind set on heaven so much that you just want to be there right now, then use that mindset to be as close to God as you can and fulfill His purposes in your life (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%202:17&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 2:17&lt;/a&gt;), &lt;em&gt;in this lifetime now&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2013-11-05T22:21:47.817" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T22:21:47.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7981" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-09T08:26:53.753" Score="10" ViewCount="42889" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the 'Forbidden Fruit' was 'forbidden', why did God keep it in Eden?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God had the intention of keeping Adam in Eden, why did he keep that stupid fruit there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was a test necessary that was bound to be failed by Adam?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who is the best one, other than God, to know that Adam is going to fail the test?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God wanted Adam to be fallen, why didn't He drop Adam on the face of the earth in the first place? Why did He apply the trick? Why was that trick necessary?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1612" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2012-06-09T08:31:20.470" LastActivityDate="2017-05-30T17:41:52.810" Title="Why did God make the &quot;Forbidden Fruit&quot; available in Eden?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-01-04T00:17:42.880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2012-06-09T08:50:39.153" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer to your entire question - we don't know the will or the ways of thinking of God. So we can't give you a clear explanation as to &lt;strong&gt;why&lt;/strong&gt; He did what He did. Only speculation, and consequences that resulted from the fruit being eaten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer aside, God gave Adam and Eve two commandments in the Garden of Eden. One was as you have stated not to eat of the forbidden fruit, the other was to multiply and replenish the earth. Ultimately to fulfill the one (multiply and replenish) they had to partake of the fruit. Remember its not just the &lt;em&gt;forbidden&lt;/em&gt; fruit it provides &lt;code&gt;knowledge of good and evil (gen 2:17)&lt;/code&gt; in that same verse we learn that they will die if they partake of the fruit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads to the conclusion, or at least the inference, that they could not die before that. Which makes sense, sin introduced death to the world and Christ died to pay for our sins that we might all live with God again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also learn in the NT that Jesus was with God before the world was and was prepared to drink the bitter cup (our sins) even then. We also know that this life is a test and how could we be tested if we knew not what good and evil were? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along these lines we can speculate that, since we needed to be tested and couldn't be actually tested in the presence of God (remember Adam walked and talked with God in the garden) we needed someway to be separated from God &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;AND&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to know good from evil. So we get the story of the first 3 chapters of Genesis. God creates the earth, He creates man, and then He gives man 2 commandments which both cannot be fulfilled - which leads to man falling, being tested, and &lt;strong&gt;dying&lt;/strong&gt;. All things that need to happen for us to return to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So do we know &lt;strong&gt;why&lt;/strong&gt; God decided or needed to do things this way? No, but we know what we were put on earth for (to be tested) and we know what the results of the tree being in Eden were, us being tested, failing, and dying, but with a Savior provided. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-06-09T08:50:39.153" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2012-06-09T12:36:05.700" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did God make the “Forbidden Fruit” available in Eden? This is a question I repeatedly ask myself.  Possibly one answer can be derived from Ephesians 1:3-6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus&#xA;  Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with&#xA;  every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in&#xA;  him before the creation of the world to be holy and&#xA;  blameless in his sight. In love 5he c predestined us to be&#xA;  adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance&#xA;  with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious&#xA;  grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice everything was known 'before the creation' and that everything was done to the 'praise of his glorious grace'. This makes the question reasonable as well as providing a hook into an answer. Now I take these versus to mean that mankind's understanding and experience of God's goodness and love, which can only lead us to praise and experience of his grace, is at a 'higher realm' after the fall and salvation of mankind, then if there was no fall at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mankind in Christ is closer to God and more knowledgeable of his grace, goodness, and love then Adam was, or ever could be. Not only in experience and doctrine, but literally being hypostatically united into the God-Man,  mankind is in a higher spiritual state than Adam ever was. Mankind is blessed 'in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ'. This is an achievement that exceeds the life of Adam and so mankind's fall, was in-line with God's higher pupose to bless mankind. This all manifests his exceeding glory, that is makes His goodness, wisdom, love, etc. known to men and angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course by mankind in Christ I mean those 'elect' who put their faith in Him, that is Chrstians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found a quote by Martin Luther on the exact same question and he seems to have held the same view I propose:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If God should be asked at the last judgment, ‘Why did you permit Adam to fall?’ and he answered, ‘In order that my goodness toward the human race might be understood when I gave my Son for man’s salvation,’ we would say, ‘Let the whole human race fall again in order that thy glory may become known! Because thou hast accomplished so much through Adam’s fall we do not understand thy ways.’&#xA;  “There is a threefold light: that of reason, that of grace, and that of glory.” (Luther's Works Volume 54,  P385)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-10T02:47:51.000" LastActivityDate="2012-06-10T02:47:51.000" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7385" CreationDate="2012-06-09T15:26:35.240" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luther viewed Thomas Aquinas as one of his adversaries. He saw him as someone who interpreted the Bible according to Aristotle. There are many references against Thomas in Luther's writings. Here is an example when speaking against indulgences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They are far more foolish than the Pythagoreans who assert only those things which Pythagoras has said. These, on the other hand, assert those things which the Pythagoreans doubted. But let us come to the source and fountains of these rivulets, that is SS. Thomas and Bonaventura. (Luther's Works Volume 31,  P146)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic Saints, Monks and Nuns are generally viewed by Luther as totally lost as they relied on their own works for salvation. However, Luther had his own secret hopes that many of them still found faith on their deathbeds. After referring to St.'Francis, Dominic, and others', Luther says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I do believe, however, that the aforementioned monks recognized and acknowledged their error before they died and finally rested all their hopes on Christ, the true and only Light, through whom alone man is illumined, and not through any other. ...Had St. Bernard not died in this faith, he would have gone to the devil and into the abyss of hell with his monkery and monastic life. It is the same with all the monks in the papacy. No matter how holy and ascetic their life may have been, if they were saved, they must have come to this same realization. (Luther's Works Volume 22,  P52-53)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the salvation of non-famous monks, etc. Luther said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I once saw a monk who took a cross into his hands and remarked while the other monks were boasting of their good works: “I know of no merit of my own but only of the merit of Him who died for me on the cross.” And in reliance on that merit he also died73 In the papacy it was customary to admonish a dying monk to be mindful of his own merits and works and of those of others. And in that faith they died. But just as the pious monk died a blessed death, relying solely on the merit of Jesus Christ, so many a wretched criminal on the gallows has been delivered from sin and saved through faith. That is how St. Bernard was saved. He was an exemplary monk. (Luther's Works Volume 22,  P359)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-09T15:26:35.240" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2012-06-09T16:13:15.553" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a Rabbinic tradition (but one that I cannot find right now) that essentially states that God's desire was either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That they would eat of the Tree of Life first &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That God's desire all along was that they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first case, had they eaten of the Tree of Life, the tradition goes that they would have &quot;passed the test.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the second case (and the one my OT prof. preferred), it should be pointed out that Adam and Eve gained exactly what God said they would gain - knowledge of what was good and what was evil.  In doing so, they also gained mortality - that they would die.  In gaining mortality, however, they also had to &quot;grow up&quot;, in a sense. They were no longer naive dependent creatures, but rather self-aware, self-responsible beings whom God could treat &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; as equals than mere choiceless animals.  In a sense, it is the difference between a toddler and a teenager.  Teenagers break rules out of a unique will that a parent desires to nuture.  Toddlers simply don't know any better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="4517" LastEditDate="2013-06-28T01:31:02.207" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T01:31:02.207" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2012-06-09T21:30:10.253" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that without the possibility of disobedience, there is no obedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gave us free will because He loves us, and because He wants to be loved in return.  Our love for Him wouldn't be real love if it were forced.  We'd be little better than robots, programmed to behave a certain way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the tree was planted there because without it, Adam and Eve wouldn't have had the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;choice&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to obey or disobey Him.  and without choice, there can be no true obedience, or true love, only mindless followers with no will of their own.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-06-10T02:34:37.060" LastActivityDate="2012-06-10T02:34:37.060" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2663" CreationDate="2012-06-10T01:07:16.840" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is a false dilemma. Moral law originates in God's mind, not in His will. It is neither arbitrary nor independent of Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Behold, the man has become like one of us, &lt;strong&gt;knowing&lt;/strong&gt; good and evil.&quot; (Gen 3:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;it &lt;strong&gt;seemed good&lt;/strong&gt; to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these &lt;strong&gt;necessary&lt;/strong&gt; things&quot; (Acts 15:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has knowledge of what is valuable and is therefore obligated by the law of His own mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1744" LastActivityDate="2012-06-10T01:07:16.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2012-06-10T02:45:22.560" Score="18" Body="&lt;h2&gt;A Heart Conducive to Understanding&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before addressing the question, it seems appropriate to address the proper spirit in which such answers should be sought.  There is a very important principle in Scripture which we need to remember;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You will say to me then, “Why does [God] still find fault? For who resists His will?” &lt;strong&gt;On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:19-20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Romans 9:19-20&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is inappropriate to critique God, or to accuse Him of injustice or trickery.  Furthermore, it will not lead to understanding, as the following  verse explains:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none&lt;/strong&gt;, But knowledge is easy to one who has understanding.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Proverbs 14:6&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To learn the answers to such difficult questions, we need to seek the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2028:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Proverbs 28:5&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What We Know About God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we seek answers about the tough subjects of Scripture, it is important to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2010:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;start with what we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing to recognize up front is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20118:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;God is good&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Everything good was created by God&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;everything created by God is good&lt;/a&gt;.  To say it another way, God did not (and cannot) &quot;create evil.&quot;  (I'll answer the obvious questions in a moment.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, it is clear from Scripture that God &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16,%20Romans%208:32&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;would do anything&lt;/a&gt; for His people.  He made salvation &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;available to everyone&lt;/a&gt;, and He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:3-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;desires that everyone would be saved&lt;/a&gt;.  So it would be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2010:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;severely inappropriate&lt;/a&gt; to think that God would put a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;stumbling block&lt;/a&gt; before Adam, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;tempting him&lt;/a&gt; to fail - all for the purpose of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:8,%201%20Cor%2013:4-7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;personal benefit&lt;/a&gt;.  That doctrine is &lt;strong&gt;severely&lt;/strong&gt; inconsistent with Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Defining Evil&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, many wonder, &quot;If God didn't create evil, then why does evil exist?&quot;  I think we need to be careful with semantics here.  Evil is not a &lt;em&gt;substance&lt;/em&gt; to be created or destroyed - it is a &lt;em&gt;way&lt;/em&gt; which is contrary to God's ways.  For instance, if I become conceited, that would be evil (sin) because that is contrary to God's good ways (love, humility, etc.)  But it wouldn't really make sense to ask &quot;Why did God decide to create my &lt;em&gt;conceitedness&lt;/em&gt;?&quot; because it obviously isn't a substance to be created, and if it were, He obviously wouldn't have created it.  Evil only sounds like a substance due to clever wordplay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What God did is speak a perfect, good creation into existence, complete with beings who have the capacity to love and receive love.  Obviously love involves choice, so men were created with a capacity to willingly love Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why The Tree?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created man with the capacity to choose to love God and walk in His good ways.  That would be absolutely pointless if man was never presented with an opportunity to make a choice of any kind!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enter &quot;the tree.&quot;  When we're talking about the forbidden fruit, we really need to take a moment and reflect on the situation prior to Genesis 3.  God has just created an entire &quot;very good&quot; universe and essentially handed it all over to man.  He made celestial objects for signs and seasons, filled an entire planet with creatures and plants, and prepared a paradise garden to walk with them in.  There was &lt;strong&gt;one thing&lt;/strong&gt; they weren't allowed to do.  &lt;strong&gt;One&lt;/strong&gt; rule.  &lt;strong&gt;One&lt;/strong&gt; little ol' tree in the middle of the whole big creation which they were told not to eat from.  We're not talking about the Levitical Law here... this was a pretty reasonable boundary!  Let us keep this in mind as we continue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I mentioned, the tree provided them with an opportunity to &lt;strong&gt;choose&lt;/strong&gt;.  With this one tree being off-limits, they now had an awareness of &quot;right and wrong.&quot;  Make no mistake - they knew it was wrong to eat the fruit - God made that very clear.  That is not to say that they &quot;knew&quot; (had a personal experiential understanding of) evil; just that they &quot;knew&quot; (had the knowledge of) right and wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Q &amp;amp; A&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;If the fruit was 'forbidden', why did God put it in front of man?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;Forbidden&quot; means it was a boundary which God set.  He could have chosen any boundary He wanted - He could have said &quot;don't stand over there.&quot;  He chose the fruit, hence &quot;forbidden&quot; fruit.  &lt;em&gt;(Why did He choose the fruit?  That's another question!)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;If God wanted Adam in Eden, why did he keep the fruit there?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; The tree represented the choice which made willing love possible.  The proximity allowed them a continual choice, which made continual love possible.  It's not that God planted &quot;temptation&quot; and &quot;wickedness&quot; before man's eyes, but rather, that He planted &quot;a choice&quot; in their midst.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Why was it necessary to present Adam with a test which he was bound to fail?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; This question is based on a misunderstanding.  Adam had a choice, and chose to sin.  The idea that he was &quot;bound to fail the test&quot; is false.  (Consider the angels - some fell, some did not.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Who knew better than God that Adam would fail the test?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; This line of reasoning assumes that foreknowledge necessitates fatalism, and eliminates accountability.  Both assumptions are false.  Yes, God knew what Adam would choose - but it was Adam who chose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;If God wanted Adam to fall, why was it necessary to trick him first?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; The premise of this question is a false assumption.  God didn't want Adam to fall.  Also, God didn't trick him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-10T02:56:42.853" LastActivityDate="2012-06-10T02:56:42.853" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2012-06-10T03:56:48.493" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;we are not robots. There was a choice.  Because of his love he wanted to give us the choice of obedence.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It was His choice to give us a choice.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;He made it clear from the beginining that as our Father he would take care of us.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sin came because of our selfishness. We decided to take care of ourselve (gain knowledge we didn't have).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Romans 1:19-20. Point out that there is now excuse. It is clear from the things He made - who He is.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil was made by Him and only help clarify to us who He is.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Without choice what would the blood that Jesus sweat have meant.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It was His choice also not use all the power that he had, but to follow in the same obedience just as Adam should have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="553" LastEditorUserId="553" LastEditDate="2012-06-10T05:07:35.220" LastActivityDate="2012-06-10T05:07:35.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7658" CreationDate="2012-06-10T07:26:45.733" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that your question is a settled part of Church History, judging from &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/faculty/adjunct-faculty-and-visiting-instructors/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David Calhoun&lt;/a&gt;'s lecture &quot;Blowing the Trumpet: John Knox and the Scottish Reformation&quot; (quoting from the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.covenantseminary.edu/resources/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/CH320_T_11.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;transcript&lt;/a&gt;; see the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.covenantseminary.edu/resources/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/11/Course-ReformationandModernChurchHistory-DrDavidCalhoun-Lecture11-JohnKnoxandtheScottishReformation.mp3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;audio recording&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.covenantseminary.edu/resources/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/12/CH320_SG_11.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;study guide&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Knox said women should not rule over men. That was a kind of call for revolution. People could read between the lines and realize that what John Knox really wanted was for men in the two countries to rise up and overthrow the women rulers and bring in Protestant rulers. John Knox wrote the book in Geneva. It was an embarrassment to John Calvin. Calvin explained that when Knox came to him with the idea of writing such a book, Calvin strongly discouraged him from doing it. Calvin pointed to Deborah and Huldah, women in the Old Testament who were legitimate rulers. Calvin was also concerned about Knox's approach, because Calvin was very conservative in his view of overthrowing kingdoms. He told the Huguenots in France that it was better to suffer than to create anarchy and revolution. Calvin did not open much of a door for any kind of revolution. John Knox did open such a door in his First Blast of the Trumpet for revolution in Scotland and elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-23T02:17:20.547" LastActivityDate="2015-09-23T02:17:20.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7626" CreationDate="2012-06-10T16:01:23.807" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with many gifts of the Spirit, the gift of 'leadership' is not described in the Bible directly. The first conclusion I draw from that is the unique operations of The Holy Spirit do not require a user guide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, at Pentecost the Bible says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:4&#xA;  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no mention of 'preparation' for this unusual miraculous gift of speaking in foreign languages without any training. Peter did not say something like, 'Brothers the Spirit is about to come, when he does you will feel a burning and an urge to waggle your tongue. Do not be shy, give in to the waggle.' No the gifts do not need a user guide. The Spirit was powerful enough to produce the effect without any preparation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a general guide for all gifts in the Bible, such as 'love' 'building up the body', etc. (1 Cor 12)  Also these gifts (whichever of them are in operation today) are part of the 'ministry of the Spirit'. That is they are not just natural gifts sanctified by the Spirit, but are things given by the Spirit. They might not be in operation if we are living in sin. Just as Samson was not strong when his hair was cut, a natural born leader cannot lead without faith strengthened by the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to 'leadership' specifically, notice the scripture describes the gifts more by recording those who had them, than by doctrine. For example, we need not doubt that Paul had a gift of teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some in the Bible that were obvious spiritual leaders are: Joseph, David, Joshua, Jesus, Peter, Paul, Barnabas. Every church also has leaders, these are those people who others 'follow'.  After the scripture we see great leaders in Church history as well, someone like Luther for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a final description let me just propose something. A leader is someone aware of the Spirit and burdened with God's love to lead people.  They have an ability from the Holy Spirit to influence others towards Christ. People respect them and follow them, without necessarily realizing it. Leaders, who lead in the Spirit help the ministry of a local church strengthen. They see how others feel and express burdens of their brothers and sisters is a way that helps the church avoid sin. People follow their cue, even without words spoken. These are just random observations, but I think you can see what I mean, as manifest in the leaders I listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this let me add, many leaders are in the making, and many leaders are only recognized by a few. Nobody recognized Noah's lead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an expert analysis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit I recommend, &lt;a href=&quot;http://johnowenquotes.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/johnowenvol-4.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Owen's Works Volume 4&lt;/a&gt;, his second volume on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-11T18:22:45.783" LastActivityDate="2012-06-11T18:22:45.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7994" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-10T18:12:22.143" Score="8" ViewCount="290" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was in a church today that considers itself to hold strictly to the regulative principle of worship (that which is not explicitly commanded for public worship in Scripture is implicitly condemned) and was puzzled that a choir sang an offertory—sang without the congregation during the taking up of the offering. I am wondering, given their position on worship, what the Biblical justification for this practice might be. Is this practice defensible from Scripture, given the regulative principle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastActivityDate="2012-06-12T00:10:07.260" Title="Justification of Offertories according to the Regulative Principle of Worship" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;music&gt;&lt;regulative-principle&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7995" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-10T18:21:31.617" Score="4" ViewCount="879" Body="&lt;p&gt;I commonly hear Christians refer to themselves either with that terms, &quot;Christians,&quot; or as &quot;believers&quot;. However, when I read the New Testament, particularly Paul's epistles, these do not strike me as the foremost terms that are used to refer to the people of God. In the New Testament, and particularly from the &lt;em&gt;Acts of the Apostles&lt;/em&gt; onwards, what terms are used to refer to Christians, and with what frequency? Which are most prominent? I am particularly interested in the relative frequency of &quot;Christian,&quot; &quot;believer,&quot; and &quot;saint,&quot; but an inclusion of other titles would also be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T07:25:31.597" Title="New Testament terms for the people of God" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7996" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-10T19:20:38.907" Score="9" ViewCount="1013" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is becoming popular in Protestant circles to embrace traditional Roman Catholic (RC) mysticism, such as the practice of &lt;em&gt;lectio divina&lt;/em&gt;. For example, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.redeemer.com/connect/prayer/lectio_divina.html&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; on the website of Timothy Keller's church, and also his recommendation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/review/code=3553&quot;&gt;this book&lt;/a&gt;. However, it occurs to me that the original Reformers were probably aware of these forms of mysticism, and had reasons for rejecting them, or they would have been preserved in the Protestant tradition. In light of the current trend, it would behoove those who subscribed to a Protestant and particularly a traditional Reformed position to be aware of and wrestle with these objections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did the Reformers (or later Reformed theologians) teach about RC mysticism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In what works did they critique it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What were their major objections?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did they find anything laudable in it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What alternatives did they offer for spiritual growth?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am most particularly interested in the practice of &lt;em&gt;lectio divina&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastActivityDate="2020-08-08T01:36:42.263" Title="Reformation objections to lectio divina?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;&lt;mysticism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2540" CreationDate="2012-06-10T19:39:21.130" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;James Dolezol, a recent doctoral graduate of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, has written a book (which was his dissertation) on &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1610976584&quot;&gt;divine simplicity&lt;/a&gt; in which he traces the agreement of Reformed scholasticism to Thomist scholasticism on the doctrine of God. I have not yet read this book, but I was told about it by a friend of Dolezol's, and I listened to an &lt;a href=&quot;http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc185/&quot;&gt;interview of him&lt;/a&gt; about it on &lt;em&gt;Christ the Center&lt;/em&gt;. He demonstrates that the Reformed scholastics fundamentally agree with Aquinas on doctrine of God (and the &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; is of course a major work in the development of Aquinas' theology proper—it is the first subject he broaches). My friend who knows Dolezol and is himself a graduate of Westminster and well-read, told me that Aquinas was John Owen's favorite theologian (an assertion which I find astonishing and difficult to believe). Owen is considered by some Reformed scholars to be the foremost Puritan theologian, and the greatest theologian since Calvin up to his time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus &lt;strong&gt;the Reformers did not simply throw out the &lt;em&gt;Summma Theologica&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. I am, however, unversed on their respective positions on natural law, which @gmoothart has addressed briefly in his answer. Francis Schaeffer faults Thomas in &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1581345364&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;How Shall We Then Live?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830834052&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Escape from Reason&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; for his epistemic nature/grace dichotomy, which is the basis of the Thomist conception of natural law. I believe that Schaeffer does this on the basis of his faithfulness to classic Reformed theology. Nevertheless, that is not a direct answer with regard to the original Reformer's position on Aquinas' natural law doctrine. Dolezol and Owen may be a good starting point for a further investigation of the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastActivityDate="2012-06-10T19:39:21.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7998" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-11T04:05:51.593" Score="9" ViewCount="27575" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was preparing a lesson for Sunday school and came across this passage in the teaching material:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?&lt;/strong&gt; Tell Me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, &lt;strong&gt;when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038:4-7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Job 38:4-7)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NIV uses &quot;angels&quot; instead of &quot;sons of God&quot; implying angels were present at the creation of the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is, when were the angels created, exactly?  Was it on day one of the &quot;Creation Week&quot;? ... Was it before the first day of Creation? (How is that possible?) ... Was it &quot;outside of time&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please use Scripture to support your answer.  I am also curious whether the passage I quoted relates to the answer (do &quot;sons of God&quot; refer to angels), and if so, how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1671" LastActivityDate="2015-05-26T03:55:40.227" Title="When were the angels created?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-07-15T19:16:03.627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7999" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-11T04:09:17.163" Score="6" ViewCount="9346" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can someone point me to a OT prophecy about the Messiah being in the tomb for 3 days? As general or specific as you can think of. I think I have one, and it seems pretty obvious to me, but a lot of Bible commentators don't mention it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-02T21:33:21.710" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T21:33:21.710" Title="Can someone point to a prophecy about the 3 days between the cross and resurrection?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;tomb-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-06-16T19:59:04.497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8000" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8003" CreationDate="2012-06-11T06:04:50.927" Score="2" ViewCount="2805" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I am aware most Christians regard the physical and spiritual effects of Cannabis as the same as use of alcohol for intoxication, and that its use is not permitted by their doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrarily, some Christian denominations such as the Rastafari and Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church not only allow its use but strongly suggest its use for meditation and communication with God. Now, I realize that Cannabis use is a controversial topic for many devout Christians and many will not give it a second thought as to whether it has any place in worship. Through some research I have landed upon the following article regarding its use in the time of Jesus: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/06/science.religion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus 'healed using cannabis'&lt;/a&gt;. Cannabis is often referenced in the Bible as Calamus (hebrew 'קנה-בשם' or &amp;quot;kaneh bosm&amp;quot;), as in the following scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Take thou also unto thee the chief spices, of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty, and of sweet &lt;strong&gt;calamus&lt;/strong&gt; two hundred and fifty&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0230.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 30:23&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Vedan and Javan traded with yarn for thy wares; massive iron, cassia, and &lt;strong&gt;calamus&lt;/strong&gt;, were among thy merchandise&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1227.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 27:19&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Spikenard and saffron, &lt;strong&gt;calamus&lt;/strong&gt; and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3004.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Song of Songs 4:14&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no debate that Cannabis was used in the time of the Hebrews and throughout the time of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am neither for nor against the use of Cannabis, I only wish to see arguments for/against its use as an aid in spiritual connection with God and developing a deeper understanding of his Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any insights on this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1230" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-01-18T02:36:45.833" Title="Arguments For/Against Spiritual Uses of Cannabis in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;drugs&gt;&lt;meditation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-18T17:00:45.307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7999" CreationDate="2012-06-11T08:32:41.430" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Old Testament prophecies are sometimes 'thematic', by 'type' or 'metaphor' as in the case of these three days. There are various places in the Old Testament that give special meaning to three days.  The gospels however only refer to the prophecy of Jonah. Christ said that Jonah would be the 'sign' that God would give the Jews, as a rebuke for their obstinacy. (Math 12:39-40). As Jonah was buried in a watery death for three days, then spit out and believed upon by Gentiles, so would Christ be buried in the belly of the earth and spit out miraculously to be believed on by the Romans and Greeks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond this single prophecy, there does seem to be more in the Bible and in rabbinic history that enshrines a three-day significance. The main idea seems to stem from Abraham arriving at Mount Moriah to sacrifice his son, on the third-day (Gen 22:4). This is another resurrection image no doubt. The idea is that Isaac was good for dead all three days until God provided a ram in his place.  From this the third day, there seems to have become some concepts of a third day resurrection, further supported by Hosea 6:2. Notice though that Rabbi's often differed among themselves, just as we do with Revelation, so the three days in Hosea 6:2 was interpreted by some as 3000 years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite the differing historical interpretations by the Rabbis, it cannot be denied that this three-day-theme existed before Christ. Still the bottom line is that in the New Testament Christ's reference to Jonah is enough to fully satisfy the statement that Chris was raised on the third day 'according to the scriptures' (I Cor 15:3-4) The Old Testament three day theme is mostly of supplemental interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a deeper analysis on the three day theme, there is an excellent little article by Michael Brown at JewishRoots.net &lt;a href=&quot;http://jewishroots.net/library/anti_missionary_objections/on_the_third_day.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-13T10:15:37.823" LastActivityDate="2012-06-13T10:15:37.823" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8002" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8010" CreationDate="2012-06-11T09:55:01.903" Score="6" ViewCount="5436" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apart from John's writings, what is the Biblical evidence that Jesus Christ is the &lt;strong&gt;only-begotten son of God&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John makes it clear (such as in John 1:18, 3:18), but other parts of the Bible refer to many &quot;sons of God&quot;, in both the Old Testament and the New.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone help me understand this?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-10-25T03:17:16.130" LastActivityDate="2018-10-25T03:17:16.130" Title="Besides the writings of John, what is the biblical evidence Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8000" CreationDate="2012-06-11T10:42:19.587" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no Biblical argument for any food or drink of any type to 'aid in spiritual connection with God' or in 'developing a deeper understanding of his Word'. However, as you already noticed, the Bible does oppose drinking too much alcohol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? ... nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9%E2%80%9310&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 6:9–10&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alcohol is an interesting subject because it shows that the Bible is not unreasonable or defensive. On one hand, it assigns the destination of hell for all drunkards, yet a little wine it does not condemn.  It is natural therefore that there is no need to concern ourselves with this controversial debate among some scholars, whether there was some Cannabis in the Holy Oil, or whether there was not. It has no bearing on real life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Oil was simply used for anointing physical things in the temple services. The oil was not smoked; it was just dabbed on the utensils used in the service. It was not even allowed to be put &quot;on men’s bodies&quot;. It was also commanded that they &quot;do not make any oil with the same formula.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+30%3A32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 30:32&lt;/a&gt;) So actually, if there was some Cannabis in the oil, the only bearing it would have on life in ancient Palestine, is that it would prevented a wider use of Cannabis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point here is that there is no evidence Cannabis was ever used in a manner that would have any effect on the mental state of the Hebrew worshipper. If it did, the Bible would condemn it just as excessive alcohol was condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible looks on the subject with pity, rather than with anything else.  Basically the Bible say's one is to be pitied, if one allows mind-altering drugs to make them into a lazy fool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+23%3A20%E2%80%9321&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 23:20–21&lt;/a&gt;, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+20%3A1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 20:1&lt;/a&gt;, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-01-18T02:34:17.343" LastActivityDate="2017-01-18T02:34:17.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8002" CreationDate="2012-06-11T11:01:00.750" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;All Christians are 'sons of God', but only Jesus was born of a Virgin by the Holy Spirit. That is what the Bible means 'only son'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” which means, “God with us.” (Mathew 1:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of 'son of God' simply means those who bear his image. Adam and Eve were by nature the 'sons of God'. They stood in relation of 'sons' to God by the communication of his image and likeness. On the same account the angels are frequently called the 'sons of God'. God in His divine wisdom also recovered sinners and re-created his image in them as 'sons' by adoption. This adoption was through Christ, who was Himself the essential and eternal Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the proof that Jesus was the 'Only' son of God refers to God joining Himself with humanity by the Virgin birth.  So your question is actually is there any proof that only Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit.  The answer seems clear if we read the gospel accounts, there is no other Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not recall anyone else claiming to have been born from a virgin and believed to be the Messiah. If there was such a person, I am sure we would find they did not fulfill the scores of other Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-11T11:01:00.750" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8005" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8007" CreationDate="2012-06-11T11:24:36.490" Score="11" ViewCount="2427" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really have a problem at times explaining to the unbelievers the fact that God wants all people to be saved. The problem is the difference between the morality seen in the OT and the morality seen in the NT. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the OT God easily commanded a human to kill 3000 other humans (Exodus 32:27), seemed to be fine to go along with a prophet in his way of proving his genuineness by burning alive 102 other humans, many of which were in fact innocent (2 Kings 1:9-15), and helped some other humans in the way of killing other human beings by stoning them (Joshua 10:11). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the NT, however, we see that He forbids humans to perform such acts against other humans (Luke 9:52-56, Matthew 5:39, 44). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The unbelievers firstly question such a drastic change in His teachings, thus, doubting either about His unchangeable nature or the credibility of Christian faith proclaiming that He is unchangeable, and, secondly, they express a kind of fear (&quot;What if God commands you to kill, will you do that?&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does Christianity deal with such questions? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone, please, provide an overview here? (Answers on behalf of only one tradition are also welcome)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-03-27T20:50:58.800" LastActivityDate="2014-03-27T20:50:58.800" Title="How did God's morality not change between OT and NT times?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7998" CreationDate="2012-06-11T11:51:12.280" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is nothing in the Bible that definitely says when the angels were created. All we know is that it was before mankind, and that they sinned before man sinned. We know this because the Devil tempted Adam and Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is a history of conjecture that put the angel’s creation at the first day. I provide an example quotation here for reference:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the angels were first created, those creatures of light, they found God as it were&#xA;  laying the foundations of the heavens and earth; whereon all those “sons of God shouted for joy,” Job 38:7. They rejoiced in the manifestation that was made of the power and wisdom of God in the works which they beheld. Hence it is justly supposed that they were made on the first day, when only the foundations of this glorious fabric were laid, Genesis 1:2; wherein they were able to discern the impressions of his wisdom and power. (THE WORKS OF JOHN OWEN VOLUME 20, Page 347)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: The idea of 'son of God' simply means those who bear his image. Adam and Eve were by nature the 'sons of God'. They stood in relation of 'sons' to God by the communication of his image and likeness. On the same account the angels are frequently called the 'sons of God'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of John Owen's works can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-11T11:51:12.280" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8005" CreationDate="2012-06-11T13:21:44.063" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although God never changes, He specifically changed in the way in which He dealt with mankind. One way is called the Old Covenant under Law and the other is called the New Covenant under Grace. The Old covenant kills, that was its ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!&#xA;  (2 Corinthians 3:7-9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the Old Covenant brought 'death' but the New Covenant brings righteousness. There was always grace in the Old Testament and there is Law in the new, however, it’s simply a fact that God first more fully manifested His wrath for sin under law and then revealed His infinite grace and love in His Son on the cross. God want to terrify all men in their sin, so that they run to Christ for forgiveness and find his everlasting love. We are all born into the Old Covenant and God want us to enter His love by faith. Furthermore, God became a literal citizen of Israel in the old order of things, so that Israel personally executed his wrath for sin on sinners. God’s kingdom was visible, so when the Hebrew sword cut down the sinner, this was nothing less then a violent entrance into hell under God’s wrath and law.  In the new covenant his grace has been revealed to save men from that very wrath. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you work this idea outward, the result is that the very different moral impressions that one might in their confusion draw, when looking at the Bible on its surface, faith finds as a source of joy. This difference in the covenants is a confirmation of faith for it explains both death under sin and life under grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 12 also compares the two periods, confirming the same. The old covenant is characterize by “fire; to darkness, gloom and storm” in the new covenant you “have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the different miracles between the two illustrate the contrast in color. Under Moses there were many miracles bringing death, as a representation of the ‘curse’ under Law. In the new, Jesus healed every sinner who came to him with faith and need, representing the reversal of that curse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is all harmonious and faith building to him that ‘has an ear to hear’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-11T13:21:44.063" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7996" CreationDate="2012-06-11T15:31:37.743" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This subject is all about balance. Rationalism and Mysticism are the extremes to avoid. Your question does not seem biased to either extreme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think you will find reformers making direct attacks upon particular forms of meditation so long as those meditating, mediated on those objective doctrines that they taught! The moment any type of mysticism crept in that would give cause for someone to claim that their 'inner light' had authority over objective doctrine, they were called fanatics. Thomas Muntzer was a German reformer who went that way. Luther mentions his sentiments when discussing the necessity of the public reading of scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, attend to the public reading. Do not omit it. It seems to me that there is a miraculous spirit in those fanatics. Thomas [Müntzer] began it. So they hold the Word in contempt. “The testimony in my inner being is enough for me.”&#xA;  (Luther's Works 28.329)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the reformers were not rationalists, they felt until the Spirit opened up the objective doctrine you did not know what you ought:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Secondly, you should meditate, that is, not only in your heart, but also externally, by actually repeating and comparing oral speech and literal words of the book, reading and rereading them with diligent attention and reflection, so that you may see what the Holy Spirit means by them. And take care that you do not grow weary or think that you have done enough when you have read, heard, and spoken them once or twice, and that you then have complete understanding. You will never be a particularly good theologian if you do that, for you will be like untimely fruit which falls to the ground before it is haft ripe. (Luther's Works 34.386)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, to reiterate, if one's meditation was not centered on objective truth, and most importantly objective truth of grace, as opposed to works, one's meditation was self-based and idolatry:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The highest forms of religion and holiness, and the most fervent forms of devotion of those who worship God without the Word and command of God, are idolatry. Thus under the papacy it was regarded as an act of the greatest spirituality when the monks sat in their cells and meditated about God and His works, or when their fervent devotions so inflamed them as they genuflected, prayed, and contemplated heavenly things that they wept for sheer pleasure and joy. There was no thinking here about women or about any other creature, but only about the Creator and His marvelous works. And yet this action, which reason regards as eminently spiritual, is a “work of the flesh” according to Paul. Thus every such form of religion, which worships God without His Word and command, is idolatry. The more spiritual and holy it appears to be, the more dangerous and destructive it is; for it deflects men from faith in Christ and causes them to rely on their own powers, works, and righteousness. (Luther's Works 27.87)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From all the references about prayer or meditation in Luther or Calvin that I have read, which is a fair sum, never will you find an encouragement to practice mysticism, nor is the subject important enough for their attention. So long as people held to the doctrines they preached, meditation styles just did not matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T17:59:52.337" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T17:59:52.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8002" CreationDate="2012-06-11T16:12:08.800" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;only begotten&quot; is a translation of the Greek word &quot;monogenes&quot;.  &quot;Mono&quot; indicates one and &quot;genes&quot; indicates kind.  So, the very word itself indicates a meaning of &quot;one of a kind&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word was actually used of Isaac.  It should be noted that Isaac was not, in fact, the only son of Abraham.  He was neither the first nor the last, as Ishmael preceded him and the sons of Keturah came from Abraham's second marriage that followed the death of Sarah.  (Abraham did, indeed, &quot;have many sons&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, Isaac's &quot;sonship&quot; was wholly unlike all the others (&quot;one of a kind&quot;) in that he was the son of the promise and came from a miraculous birth from a woman who was well past the age of childbearing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As @Mike noted, followers of Jesus are called &quot;sons and daughters of God&quot;.  However, this is quite different from the &quot;sonship&quot; of Jesus.  His &quot;sonship&quot; is wholly unlike any other, in that it is eternal.  Indeed, His birth into this world was miraculous as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus is not the only &quot;son&quot; of God, but His &quot;sonship&quot; is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others who are called sons and daughters of God.  He is literally the Monogenes--the One-of-a Kind--eternal Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-12T18:10:27.640" LastActivityDate="2012-06-12T18:10:27.640" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8000" CreationDate="2012-06-11T20:34:48.457" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there is little debate that the ancient Hebrews had access to cannabis, whether it was used is something which is very much subject to debate. The LXX suggests that it was cannabis, while the most reliable Hebrew documents say calamus (which is an entirely separate species), other sources identify that Hebrew word with yet another plant from the ancient Near East.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to whether it is an aid to relationship with God, well, here is another question: is there ever a time where a like action is recommended to a believer (in scripture or in Tradition)? Alcohol is recommended for an upset stomach, but not only is excess alcohol condemned, but it is also something which the Nazerites (you know, like Sampson) were forbidden from consuming and it was expressly forbidden from those who would go an worship at the tent of meeting in Lev. 10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, as a side note, my understanding is that cannabis is actually very effective at prohibiting the intellect and dulling the whit. I find it very doubtful that it would lead to a clearer understanding of a passage than, say, fasting and meditating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-06-11T20:34:48.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7994" CreationDate="2012-06-11T20:39:40.120" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of times that the Psalms have a call and response to them (there is one which has &quot;for his love endures forever&quot; as the second half of every verse). The liturgy which is shown in the book of Revelation has a clear chorus which is separate from the congregation (elders who bow down are separate from the great multitude). If it is possible for one subset of the congregation to sing a part of a song, why would it be impossible for one subset to sing the entire song?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-06-11T20:39:40.120" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8005" CreationDate="2012-06-11T21:00:35.477" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is actually pretty straightforward, but it is very difficult for people to accept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1)&lt;/strong&gt; God's values, desires, teachings, commandments and interactions with man were exactly the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, we learn that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:7-8,%2016&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;God is love&lt;/a&gt;.  Jesus' &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2013:34,%2014:15,%2015:12,%2017&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;new commandment&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is that we love one another.  But this really wasn't a &quot;new&quot; idea...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament we have this big, confusing Levitical Law.  But with a little study we can understand it.  One of the commandments is to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%206:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;love God&lt;/a&gt;, and another is to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;love your neighbor&lt;/a&gt;.  The rest of the commandments were actually &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:35-40&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;based on these two&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:8-10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;love was the fulfillment&lt;/a&gt; of all of them.  Experts in the Old Testament law &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:28-34,%20Luke%2010:25-28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;understood this&lt;/a&gt;.  The impossible commandments were intended to hammer it into our thick heads that we are &quot;broken&quot;; we are not loving people!  For instance, adultery is a very unloving action, and if our consciences were working right, that would be obvious.  As it is, we need a commandment to tell us not to treat people like that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The idea that the Law was &quot;just an Old Testament thing&quot; is false.  The Law that was given in the Old Testament is just as important to understand today as it was back then.  It still teaches us about love, it is still impossible to live up to, we will still be judged by it (unless we are in Christ), and it is still a crucial element in teaching people about God.  (For example, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17-19&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2)&lt;/strong&gt; This is &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; difficult for people to accept, but we are much more concerned about physical well-being than God is!  From God's perspective, the physical realm is kind of a lost cause.  God wants our focus to be on our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203:2,%20Matthew%2010:28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;spiritual well-being&lt;/a&gt;.  Everyone is going to die, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;because we all have sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;!  God can use the timing of our death for His purposes, but death (in some form) is inevitable.  And yet, for some weird reason, when God decides a person's time on this wretched, broken planet is up, we accuse Him of evil for &quot;taking their life.&quot;  I assure you - death was never part of God's perfect will.  Man is responsible for death.  But God can use the timing for His loving purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary:&lt;/strong&gt; So, often times we read the stories of the Old Testament and think God is a horrible, ruthless being who could not possibly be in agreement with the teachings of Jesus.  But the reality is, God is love, and everything He does comes from His loving nature.  We are just hopelessly ignorant and corrupt in our understanding of God, so we see the opposite of what is actually true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q&amp;amp;A:&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;What if God commanded you to kill someone?&quot;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;If&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God commands you to do something, it's probably a good idea to do it.  But the real question is, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Would God command you to kill someone?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; and the answer is, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;No.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  We need to discern the voice of God by a proper understanding of Scripture, and it is clear from Scripture that this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:39,%20Luke%2022:50-51,%20Matthew%2026:51-53&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;not the way&lt;/a&gt; Christians are called to walk today.  &lt;strong&gt;So why were people in the Old Testament called to do these kinds of things?&lt;/strong&gt;  Because the things that happened in the Old Testament were visual &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2015:4,%201%20Corinthians%2010:6,%2011&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;examples&lt;/a&gt; to help us understand &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;spiritual realities&lt;/a&gt;.  Now that we have the examples, our job is to use those examples to teach people about spiritual realities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-06-11T21:00:35.477" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8014" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8017" CreationDate="2012-06-11T22:21:41.437" Score="9" ViewCount="1764" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've known for a while that theatre was banned under Cromwell, because the Puritans disapproved of it. What was their objection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia adds this information:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pastimes such as the theatre and gambling were also banned. However, some forms of art that were thought to be 'virtuous', such as opera, were encouraged. These changes are often credited to Oliver Cromwell, though they were originally introduced by the Commonwealth Parliament; and Cromwell, when he came to power, was a liberalising influence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that's true, in what sense is the opera more virtuous than the theatre?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2018-04-17T14:08:44.143" Title="Why did the Commonwealth Parliament ban theatre?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;puritanism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8002" CreationDate="2012-06-12T01:56:51.073" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;h2&gt;Begotten = Same Nature&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of what it means to be a begotten son. A begotten son of a human, is human by nature. A begotten son of God therefore, is God by nature. This is the key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Nature of God &lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the nature of God? Let's take just one quality of God - &lt;strong&gt;eternity&lt;/strong&gt;. God, by definition, is eternal by nature. He is timeless. He wasn't created, but he himself is the beginning and the end, if we can use those terms for him. A begotten son of God therefore should also be eternal. Indeed &lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ is eternal&lt;/strong&gt; (John 1:1, Revelation 22:13). And he is a son of God (Matthew 16:16-17), and &quot;bears the very stamp of God's nature&quot; (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus is therefore &lt;strong&gt;a&lt;/strong&gt; begotten son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;So far, we have proved that Jesus is &lt;b&gt;a&lt;/b&gt; begotten son of God. Now, we have to prove that he is the &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; begotten son of God.&lt;/i&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Nature of angels and humans &lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who else are the candidates? Angels and humans. The Bible also calls angels (Job 1:6) and humans (Gal 3:26) &quot;sons of God&quot;. But are they &quot;sons of God&quot; by nature? No. Angels were created (Psalm 148:5) and humans were created too (Genesis 1). Therefore, &lt;strong&gt;they are not eternal by nature&lt;/strong&gt; and therefore, they cannot be begotten sons of God. They have to be &lt;strong&gt;adopted&lt;/strong&gt; sons of God (Romans 8:14-15, Galatians 4:5). Through their adoption, they &lt;strong&gt;participate&lt;/strong&gt; in God's own divine &lt;strong&gt;nature&lt;/strong&gt; (2 Peter 1:4) and are therefore sons of God (1 John 3:1). Although the Bible doesn't mention how exactly angels are sons of God, since we know they are created beings, we have to conclude that they are not begotten sons of God but should be adopted sons of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt; Conclusion &lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, the Bible also says that Jesus is the &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; son of God in 1 John 4:9 and also in the verses that you mentioned (John 1:18, John 3:18). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can we conclude from this? The conclusion is that Jesus is the &lt;strong&gt;only begotten&lt;/strong&gt; son of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="1607" LastEditDate="2012-06-12T02:02:00.910" LastActivityDate="2012-06-12T02:02:00.910" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8005" CreationDate="2012-06-12T02:19:01.157" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps a Catholic perspective will help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created the world in a state of &lt;strong&gt;journeying towards perfection&lt;/strong&gt;. Therefore, the morality of the people had to be improved in &lt;strong&gt;stages&lt;/strong&gt;. So, for example, we see that things such as divorce were permitted (Deut 24:1-4) by Moses (not directly by God, as Jesus clarified in Matthew 19:8). This was done because of the &quot;hardness of hearts&quot; (Matthew 19:8) of the people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus came, he uplifted the morality of the people and said that divorce was no longer accepted (Matthew 19:9). He also gave stricter rules of morality, equating &quot;mere&quot; lust to &quot;adultery in the heart&quot; (Matthew 5:28), choosing mercy instead of revenge (Matthew 5:38-40) and so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even now in the church, the morality of the people has progressively improved. For instance, we allow men and women to sit together in church, whereas in the early days it was unthinkable because men were so prone to lust. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God has not changed, but people have changed. Therefore, what was morally permissible in the olden times might not be morally permissible now, because our morality has matured. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-06-12T02:19:01.157" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8014" CreationDate="2012-06-12T05:36:43.480" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not believe this can be explained by the facts surrounding the ban, but it can be (1) explained from scripture. The scriptural explanation can then be validated by (2) interesting facts surrounding the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) This is all about the doctrine of ’weak scruple’s and ’weak faith’ leading to the belief that the art of theater was unredeemable and worthy of a ban. This effectively attributes its practice as 'evil'. Just as banning Christian rap-music today would be attributing that form of music as unredeemable and literally 'evil'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although much more reasonably grounded, some ‘weak brothers’ back in the apostle's days also had ‘weak scruples’ and ‘weak faith’. 'Eating meats' 'sacrificed to idols' even when sold in the common market, seemed very horrible to them, because they could not shake their superstitions. They actually believed idols were real gods and 'evil.'. To this, Paul say's even though those who are stronger in their faith understand that this is not actually a sin (because there are no real gods) they must be careful in love not to offend their brother. They then need to think a bit before practicing their freedom in a way that might offend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. (1 Corinthians 8:10-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, Paul says you can still be free in your private life but not when others bring this question of conscience in your face:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake b— 29the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:27-29)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the doctrine says that it is those of weak faith that assign material things to sin, whether it be drama, music, art, or even as horrible and 'sinful appearing' as food sacrificed to idols! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2)  In the case of the ban of theatre there is an interesting article (secular source) describing these events in detail called, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theatredatabase.com/17th_century/closure_of_the_theaters_001.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;THE CLOSURE OF THE THEATERS BY THE PURITANS&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The facts of the case show that on the 6th of September, 1642, the theaters were closed by ordinance. Then in 1656 they began to reopen. An interesting fact at the same time is one of the most influential Puritan writers, John Owen, was alive and preching in those very same years. He was a highly influential and an academic administrator at the University of Oxford and lived over the years 1616 to August 1683. In 1651, on October 24 he preached the thanksgiving sermon before parliament. This Puritan was very aware of the ban. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These surrounding facts lead to confirming the scriptural explanation, for Owen was a person who seems to have ‘great faith’. As evidence, in all the thousands of pages from his brilliant works, not once did he mentioned 'card playing', 'theatre', or any other similar past-time. He was so Christ focused that he could not be at all bothered, whatever his personal views may have been. I am referring to his published works, written by him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even at this time in 1642, when weak scrupled legalists were embarrassing the name of Christ, by banning theatre, and more pompously by promoting the 'upper class' entertainment of 'opera', strong believers were not bothered to even refer to the subject in their voluminous thoughts on a multitude of subjects. They may have avoided all such entertainments, so as not to offend their weaker brothers, but that only further manifest their maturity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding why 'theatre' was banned and not 'opera', it’s not difficult to imagine that 'sinners' would have enjoyed theatre more than opera. The language of theatre has always delveded more into sexual innuendo, etc. But in the end, not all plays could have been ‘filthy’. Opera would also seemed more proper as it would have appealed to the arrogance associated with the ‘upper class'. In conclusion, if Jesus would have come at that time this verse might have substituted the word 'tax collectors' with 'actors':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” (Mathew 9:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-12T10:39:41.350" LastActivityDate="2012-06-12T10:39:41.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8019" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8023" CreationDate="2012-06-12T11:44:27.053" Score="8" ViewCount="812" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christian denominations think that the spirit is not immortal and that death is like sleeping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ comes back he would resurrect the dead bodies from within the ground (like God made Adam from the earth).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 20:5-6 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the&#xA;  thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed&#xA;  and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such&#xA;  the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of&#xA;  Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions are - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the spirit is immortal what is the meaning of second death? The first death is death of body. Can the spirit also die?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If we go to heaven when we die how does the resurrection work? Would our spirits be taken from heaven and reinserted into a body?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-13T18:10:46.937" LastActivityDate="2018-06-03T06:37:54.043" Title="Protestant explanation of an immortal spirit" Tags="&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7427" CreationDate="2012-06-12T14:31:19.783" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I think there may be a false impression that there was a big difference between these two men. The impression is caused because Cyril was involved in deposing Chrysostom at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_the_Oak&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Synod of the Oak&lt;/a&gt;. However, if you read carefully, it seems that Cyril was not personally against Chrysostom, but rather that Cyril (who was overly aggressive, bordering on cruel by nature) was merely tricked by enemies of Chrysostom to think of him as an Origenists. Origenists held the heresy that all people will be saved without anyone going to hell.  The difference between the two seems only circumstantial and by personality. Cyril was ready to censure and punish heretics and Chrysostom was for a time falsely accused as one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When trying to read some of their works I noticed Cyril is really a very high level thinker that was seemingly brilliant with respect to understanding the trinity, so his impact seems limited to that subject.  There also seems to be less writings from Cyril extant. Chrysostom on the other hand is a less philosophical and more of a nuts-and-bolts Bible commentator. His commentary on Romans and Galatians seems close to a modern day protestant evangelical library. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from my limited knowledge of these two men, I do not find any real theological differences between them. They were very different people wrapped up in very different politics. Cyril seems to have had more power in the Catholic church, but Chrysostom seems to have been more influential and charismatic upon people at large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chrysostom is an interesting read, especially Romans and Galatians. Some of his works can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chrysostom?show=worksBy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I found interesting about Cyril is that in arguing for the trinity he opposed Nestorius who seemed to be trying to separate the nature of the God-Man into two separate units. To oppose Nestorius, Cyril had to emphasize the unity of the God-Man and in so doing he seemed that it was necessary to over emphasis the importance of Mary, in whose womb this unity was created.  I gather that later further elevations of Mary with Catholic history actually stem as an inadvertent unhealthy spin off from Cyril's good effort in opposing Nestorius. Like an accident resulting from a victory. Of course I am looking at things through a Protestant lens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-12T15:52:16.203" LastActivityDate="2012-06-12T15:52:16.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8022" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8027" CreationDate="2012-06-12T15:00:11.380" Score="7" ViewCount="258" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Emperor Constantine who favored Christianity as early as 312, and convened the Council of Nicæa in 325, postponed baptism till 337. Did he provide any reasons for doing so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T23:40:28.503" Title="Did the Emperor Constantine ever present explanations for putting off his baptism?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;constantine&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8019" CreationDate="2012-06-12T17:40:15.550" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand this perspective, it is better to think of &quot;&lt;em&gt;death&lt;/em&gt;&quot; as &quot;&lt;em&gt;a separation&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, rather than &quot;&lt;em&gt;a ceasing to exist&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.  So, when you &quot;die&quot;, your spirit is separated from your flesh, and from this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1)&lt;/strong&gt; The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;second death&lt;/a&gt; is the ultimate &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%201:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;separation&lt;/a&gt; of (the spirits of) sinners from the presence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2)&lt;/strong&gt; Indeed, (the spirits of) those who are &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;resurrected&lt;/a&gt;&quot; will receive new bodies (see below), although we &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;don't yet know&lt;/a&gt; what that will look like, exactly.  But we do know we &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:50&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;won't be raised into the same body&lt;/a&gt; we had here on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?”...  All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts... There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies... So also is the resurrection of the dead...  it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body... Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:35-49&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 Corinthians 15:35-49&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Q&amp;amp;A&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why would a person believe that the spirit lives on when the body is dead?  Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; There are many passages (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;) that indicate that prior to the &quot;first resurrection&quot; and &quot;second death&quot;, the spirits of those who have died are still &quot;alive&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aren't the spirits of sinners already separated from God?  Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; No; not in the ultimate sense.  There is a lot more grace in the lives of sinners right now than people realize.  The separation that comes at the final judgment is too terrible to describe in words.  Clearly sinners are not experiencing the torment of that ultimate separation here on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-13T18:08:32.617" LastActivityDate="2012-06-13T18:08:32.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8025" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8026" CreationDate="2012-06-13T04:00:22.363" Score="3" ViewCount="1285" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do we have any proof from the Bible that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-08-28T04:25:20.203" LastActivityDate="2015-08-28T09:24:01.683" Title="What is the Biblical basis that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8025" CreationDate="2012-06-13T05:15:43.703" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The classic Bible verse to clearly declare that Jesus was the only-begotten son of God before the incarnation is John 1:1-2, declaring Jesus to be fully God, eternally with his Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this eternity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the words ‘One and Only’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Jesus is the Eternal Word, of the Father and is God of very God.  Now the eternal word of God is the express image ‘coming out’ of the Father which is his One and only Eternal Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God the Father Himself declared this Jesus to be his eternal Son, during the Baptism of John:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the only-begotten Son is not a fictitious rapture of his human nature in the incarnation, or resurrection but from eternity. Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will end it here as this subject has been fully proven by so many theologians through history that I would never be able to add anything to it. John Owen (Quoting St. Jerome) indicates to me that we need not fuss over the term only-begotten. The Messiah, the Son of God has so many names referring to the same 'One and Only' as always believed in the Chruch:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jerome, speaking of the effects of this mystery: (Comment. in&#xA;  Ezekiel, cap. 46:)&#xA;  “Ne miretur lector si idem et Princeps est et Sacerdos, et Vitulus, et Aries, et Agnus; cum in Scripturis sanctis pro varietate causarum legamus eum Dominum, et Deum, et Hominem, et Prophetam, et Virgam, et Radicem, et Florem, et Principem, et Regem justum, et Justitiam, Apostolu, et Episcopu, Brachium, Servum, Angelum, Pastorem, Filium, et Unigenitum, et Promogenitum, Ostium, Viam, Sagittam, Sapientiam, et multa alia.”&#xA;  — “Let not the reader wonder if he find one and the same to be the Prince and Priest, the Bullock, Ram, and Lamb; for in the Scripture, on variety of causes, we find him called Lord, God, and Man, the Prophet, a Rod, and the Root, the Flower, Prince, Judge, and Righteous King; Righteousness, the Apostle and Bishop, the Arm and Servant of God, the Angel, the Shepherd, the Son, the Only-begotten, the First-begotten, the Door, the&#xA;  Way, the Arrow, Wisdom, and sundry other things.” (John Owen’s Works Vol 1, P39)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, He was the only begotten Son of God before the incarnation. This has always been one of the core beliefs within both Catholic and Protestant churches, across all the ages. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-13T05:25:17.123" LastActivityDate="2012-06-13T05:25:17.123" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8022" CreationDate="2012-06-13T05:36:45.427" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not think anyone knows as there is huge speculation on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically some see it as his cowardice to confess his faith, others see it as a prudent measure to keep his influence of power until the risk of his own execution for becoming a Christian had passed. He himself does not seem to say. I do not even believe we can prove He was a Christian. Maybe he was? God only knows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does seem though the God used Him to end so much Christian persecution, and it does seem that in some ways, at least initially, Christ overthrew the Gentile world by turning his heart in favor of His people. Quite soon after his death, Christ's kingdom grew like a mustard seed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-15T16:56:24.360" LastActivityDate="2012-06-15T16:56:24.360" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8029" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8043" CreationDate="2012-06-13T08:40:27.023" Score="6" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have there been any attempts made to make a comprehensive list of all scrolls or pieces of scrolls of the New Testament (in original languages) that have ever been discovered by archeologists? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-09T23:16:16.003" LastActivityDate="2016-10-29T14:27:51.507" Title="Have there been such an attempt made to make the comprehensive list of all New Testament scrolls ever found?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;&lt;manuscript&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8030" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8069" CreationDate="2012-06-13T12:25:11.307" Score="8" ViewCount="1720" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32:8-9&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:8–9&lt;/a&gt; (NRSV), part of Moses' song, reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone tell me what this means?  God is one of many gods and he got Israel?  God divided the earth among his angels?  Or is he talking about idolatry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-30T14:26:11.447" LastActivityDate="2015-10-30T14:26:11.447" Title="What is the meaning of peoples being divided up &quot;according to the number of the gods&quot; in Deuteronomy 32?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;deuteronomy&gt;&lt;polytheism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-01-20T09:05:17.747" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8031" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8041" CreationDate="2012-06-13T13:03:08.873" Score="4" ViewCount="7971" Body="&lt;p&gt;Once an orthodox priest told me that Protestants themselves don't know what they need the sacraments for. He said that since they deny the doctrine of transubstantiation and have separated themselves from Apostolic succession of the universal Church, they don't experience the partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) through sacraments, especially through Eucharist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also said that Protestants' assertion that the sacrament of Eucharist is only needed as a reminder is rather ridiculous as &quot;anyone can be reminded of that through hearing a sermon or through reading the Word&quot;. He said he doesn't deny that Eucharist has a function of a reminder, but there are some way deeper things pertaining to Eucharist that Protestants completely miss out on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honestly, he kind of needled me by that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I am asking this question not so as to argue with him in the future, but to find out what Protestants themselves have to say on this regard - how do they view the purpose of sacraments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I address this question to all Protestant Christians, in other words to those Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the very God Himself as God the Father is, and who also believe that there couldn't be one man who would solely be a representative of God to the Church, and those who also believe that the Universal Church can be spread and grow through merely sharing and hearing the Gospel, regardless of whether or not the one who shares that Gospel belongs to the Apostolic succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-06-13T13:23:06.943" LastActivityDate="2015-02-23T17:38:16.893" Title="What's the Protestants' view on the purpose of sacraments?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8030" CreationDate="2012-06-13T13:12:40.917" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm curious which translation you're using?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This should probably be a comment rather than an answer, but I wanted to include some common translations for comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like it's more commonly translated as &quot;sons/children of God/Israel&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:8-9&amp;amp;version=YLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (YLT)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; In the Most High causing nations to inherit, In His separating sons of Adam -- He setteth up the borders of the peoples By the number of the sons of Israel. &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For Jehovah's portion [is] His people, Jacob [is] the line of His inheritance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:8-9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,&#xA;      when he divided mankind,&#xA;  he fixed the borders[a] of the peoples&#xA;      according to the number of the sons of God.[b] &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But the Lord's portion is his people,&#xA;      Jacob his allotted heritage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:8-9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “ When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of [a]man, He set the boundaries of the peoples&#xA;  According to the number of the sons of Israel. &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “ For the Lord’s portion is His people;Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:8-9&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:8-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,&#xA;      when he divided all mankind,&#xA;  he set up boundaries for the peoples&#xA;      according to the number of the sons of Israel.[a] &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;For the Lord’s portion is his people,&#xA;      Jacob his allotted inheritance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-06-13T13:12:40.917" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8031" CreationDate="2012-06-13T15:56:36.253" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Asking &quot;What do Protestants think about the sacraments?&quot; is a bit misleading. There are a large variety of Protestant views, some of them are more traditional than others. The question as to whether Protestant groups are wholly divorced from the Apostolic succession is also not 100% correct. There are a few clearly Protestant groups who have at least some claim to succession (Certain Anglicans, the Old Catholic Church, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/today/communion/&quot;&gt;This is a statement from the Presbyterian Church of the USA (PCUSA)&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the words of John Calvin, sacraments are &quot;a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward [God].&quot; A sacrament is a testimony of God's favor toward the church, confirmed by an outward sign, with a mutual testifying of our godliness toward God. It is a primal, physical act that signifies a spiritual relationship between personal beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/Worship/Learning-Center/FAQs/Sacraments.aspx&quot;&gt;Here's the Lutheran perspective (ELCA):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Contemporary theologians, especially Edward Schillebeeckx, have said that Christ is the &quot;primordial sacrament.&quot; The grace that is received in the sacraments is the grace of Christ. In the two sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist Jesus Christ is the content of the sacrament as well as the minister of the sacrament. In both sacraments it is the whole Christ who encounters us. The sacraments are wonderful ways in which Christ is present to us. This is not to deny that Christ is present to us in other ways as well, but if we look at Christ’s command and Christ’s promise it is obvious that two actions are central.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2247711/k.C611/Communion_Overview.htm&quot;&gt;The United Methodist Church (UMC) has similar thoughts:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Like baptism, Holy Communion is regarded by Protestants as a sacrament. That is, it’s an act of worship ordained by Christ and is a means of grace. This does not mean that we become any more worthy of God’s grace by taking part in Communion. Rather, we open ourselves to the divine love that’s already there; we become more ready to receive that love and to respond to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-06-13T15:56:36.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8030" CreationDate="2012-06-13T16:05:05.650" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'elohiym&lt;/a&gt;&quot; in Hebrew can properly be seen as meaning, &quot;God&quot;, &quot;gods&quot;, &quot;divine beings&quot;. So, you might say that the meaning was that he was keeping house of Jacob apart from the rest of the world and marking it as, &quot;his&quot; in the chosen sense of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This reinforces the idea that being &quot;holy&quot;, in Hebrew, really means being separate, set apart &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6944&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(see Strong's)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-06-13T16:05:05.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7998" CreationDate="2012-06-13T23:11:39.543" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thomas Aquinas cites Psalm 148 in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1061.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;STh Ia 61,1&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Whether the angels have a cause of their existence?&lt;/em&gt;), holding that the word &quot;they&quot; in verse 5 refers to all of what is listed earlier in the psalm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Praise him, &lt;strong&gt;all his angels&lt;/strong&gt;, praise him, all his host!&#xA;      &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars!&#xA;      &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!&#xA;      &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Let them praise the name of the LORD! &lt;strong&gt;For he commanded and they were created&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He seems to be following Augustine here. Compare &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;City of God Book XI, ch. 9&lt;/a&gt;, where Augustine cites Psalm 148 and also cites a similar passage from the &lt;s&gt;Prayer of Azariah&lt;/s&gt; Canticle of the Three Young Men in Daniel 3 (this portion of Daniel is considered apocryphal by some).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine seems to take it for granted that Job 38:7 refers to the angels, and actually uses this passage as the starting-point in his argument that the creation of the angels is included in what Genesis calls the creation of light (because the angels already existed when the stars were created). I don't know what text of Job he would have had, but he quotes it thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Quando facta sunt sidera, laudauerunt me uoce magna omnes &lt;strong&gt;angeli&lt;/strong&gt; mei.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Literally, &quot;when the stars were made, all my angels praised me in a loud voice&quot;. The entire (relatively brief) chapter is basically one fascinating answer to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2012-06-19T20:53:31.337" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T20:53:31.337" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8036" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8039" CreationDate="2012-06-14T00:30:27.243" Score="8" ViewCount="1791" Body="&lt;p&gt;A recent talk by Father Bob Pierson &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; quoted Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict XVI) as saying that the individual conscience &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; overrule ecclesiastical authority. I was intrigued by Pierson's claim and looked up the original source, which is an early commentary&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;  on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudium_et_Spes&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gaudium et spes&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, specifically its &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html&quot;&gt;Article 16&lt;/a&gt;. I've put the section quoted by Pierson in italics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman&quot;&gt;Newman&lt;/a&gt;, conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle. &lt;em&gt;Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.&lt;/em&gt; This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am finding the final sentence quite difficult to parse. It seems like he is saying that &lt;em&gt;genuine&lt;/em&gt; ecclesiastical obedience &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; accept a controlling role for conscience. But then it sounds like one can simultaneously disobey and &quot;genuinely obey&quot;, which is odd. Elsewhere in the text, Ratzinger speaks about natural law and the Golden Rule as standards to diagnose and reshape the &quot;erroneous conscience&quot;, and it surprised me that he doesn't also mention the Church there. Overall, I think I am missing something basic which would help me to understand what he means in the passage above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: &lt;strong&gt;What relationship between conscience and Church authority does the Pope actually envisage?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for answers that draw on his other writings, up to the present day - in particular, sources that illuminate what he personally thinks, as opposed to those which are primarily about what the Church as a whole accepts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/12/1099517/-Awesome-Priest-slams-Catholic-Church-on-MN-amendment-says-Catholics-CAN-vote-no&quot;&gt;Video and transcript here&lt;/a&gt;; I'm linking to Daily Kos because they're the only site I can find which provides a text transcript, not because I endorse Pierson, Kos, etc. The original talk was on homosexual civil marriage, but this question is &lt;strong&gt;emphatically not&lt;/strong&gt;; I'm not asking whether he's right or wrong, just using his quotation to ask a different question.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Monograph by Joseph Ratzinger collected in &lt;em&gt;Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II&lt;/em&gt;, volume 5, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (Herder and Herder, 1969). Translated by W. J. O'Hara from &lt;em&gt;Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Dokumente und Kommentare&lt;/em&gt; (1968). The quoted text starts on page 134.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-04T16:30:32.770" LastActivityDate="2015-09-14T17:54:30.353" Title="How does Pope Benedict XVI reconcile conscience and authority?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;authority&gt;&lt;conscience&gt;&lt;benedict-xvi&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8036" CreationDate="2012-06-14T02:48:12.423" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hmmm. Thanks for this question. First, it prompted me to read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;relevant section&lt;/a&gt; in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; (paragraphs 1776-1802). In brief, the Catechism says this-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Man must obey his conscience&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Man must recognize that his &lt;strong&gt;conscience can be erroneous&lt;/strong&gt; and seek to &lt;strong&gt;inform it&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conscience can remain in ignorance&lt;/strong&gt;, and such ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. So man cannot say that &quot;well, my conscience compelled me to do it, so I cannot be blamed&quot;. (In the case that the priest refers to, this 3rd clause most definitely applies. Those people whose consciences tell them to vote in opposition to Catholic teaching must ensure that they inform their consciences).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can safely assume that Pope Benedict XVI, being a practicing Catholic, holds all of the above three. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, coming to the text you cited, what struck me was the first two words - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;For Newman&lt;/strong&gt;...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that Joseph Ratzinger is referring to Newman's views on the subject. Now, Newman is quoted in the Catechism, paragraph 1778. The  footnote for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#1778&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1778&lt;/a&gt; says - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John Henry Cardinal Newman, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Letter to the Duke of Norfolk&lt;/strong&gt;,&quot; V, in&#xA;  Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II&#xA;  (London: Longmans Green, 1885), 248.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;letter&lt;/a&gt; cited in the above footnote, we find that Newman explains his position on conscience. According to Newman, conscience must always be obeyed. He also says that conscience and papal infallibility can never be in conflict. According to Newman, conscience and ecclesiastical authority can be in conflict in matters that do not pertain to infallibility. But Newman also agrees that it is possible to have an erroneous conscience. I suppose that Ratzinger holds the same, namely that conscience should be obeyed over and above the pope in matters where the pope is not infallible, whereas genuine ecclesiastical obedience is expected in matters where he is.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="1607" LastEditDate="2012-06-15T02:01:52.443" LastActivityDate="2012-06-15T02:01:52.443" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7998" CreationDate="2012-06-14T03:00:48.630" Score="5" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Angels were created&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:11 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and &lt;em&gt;all that in them is&lt;/em&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:3 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;All things&lt;/em&gt; were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (emphasis mine in both verses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these verses we see that angels were indeed created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Job 38 refers to angels&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does seem that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038:4-7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 38:4-7&lt;/a&gt; is referring to angels. The other places in the Bible where this phrase (the Hebrew &amp;quot;ben elohim&amp;quot;) is found are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:2-4&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Job&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 1:6&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Job&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 2:1&lt;/a&gt;. There is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1737/who-were-the-giants-mentioned-in-the-bible&quot;&gt;debate&lt;/a&gt; on whether the &amp;quot;sons of God&amp;quot; in the Genesis passage are angels; however there seems to be a consensus that the Job passages are referring to angels. This, plus a lack any other suitable candidate, suggests that these &amp;quot;sons of God&amp;quot; were angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Angels were created before the earth&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038:6-7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 38:6-7 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God uses a building analogy, referring to the &amp;quot;foundations&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;corner stone&amp;quot; of the earth. He says, in a very poetic way, that when the foundations of the earth were laid (i.e. when the earth was created), the sons of God (angels) shouted joyfully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would indicate that angels were created before the earth. So when was the earth created? The earth is present in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%201:2&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:2&lt;/a&gt; and the first day ends in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:5&lt;/a&gt;, so the earth was created on day 1. For angels to be present when the earth was created, they must have been created on or before day 1. Since angels seem to be within our space-time (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%2010:5-13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 10:13&lt;/a&gt;), I conclude that angels were created on day 1, before the earth.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A survey of Job 38 and related passages indicates that angels were created on the first day. As with anything the Bible does not explicitly state, I would not be dogmatic about the issue, but after searching the scriptures, this seems to be the best solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*This passage says that a demon prevented an angel from contacting Daniel for 21 days. My conjecture is that for this angel be delayed for 21 days, he must be part of our space-time. I freely admit that this is pure speculation on my part, but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="491" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T04:33:52.057" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8031" CreationDate="2012-06-14T03:03:36.643" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me preface this with a note that the view I present does not think it serious to hold a more traditional view. Unity on other matters make this subject peripheral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another common view is among popular evangelicalism that would not try to defend their emphasis on the sacraments, but oppose an over emphasis by others. From their view the need for any kind of visible succession is more or less superstition. The situation with Jesus at the well with the Samaritan would seem similar. The woman was not very spiritual. She could not help worrying about external rites. She did not know which mountain to worship on. Should she worship at the visible, material mountain from her holy men's traditions, or the one from the Jew’s traditions? Jesus said it does not matter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will &#xA;  worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of &#xA;  worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must &#xA;  worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a similar way, most evangelicals think the Catholic Church was like a snowball of superstition. Starting to collect superstitions, around the time of Constantine, until Luther, the snowball formed. At this point the Church and its Traditions had become a molted layer of dead skin, with the 'histoblast' of a butterfly forming, which is the reformation under Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet Luther attached 'spooky' 'superstitious' ideas about Baptism and The Lord's Supper still, so we have not yet arrived at the popular view I am explaining as one alterative view. By ‘spooky” I mean Luther believed that there is “the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Christian Eucharist.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sacramental union&lt;/a&gt;) and although not fully believing in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;baptismal regeneration&lt;/a&gt; (that water baptism was necessary for salvation) he did seem to infer that salvations was more intimately linked to baptism than later reformers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most feel it is easy to forgive Luther on this point because having been raised under so many superstitions; one cannot expect full departure in one man. Therefore during the next generation, or two, or three, we find the lead being taken by the independent Puritans, like John Owen, some of who settled into America, like the Presbyterian  Jonathan Edwards. America, having possibly the most independant evangelical community, now also has a strong contingent of Baptist churches, who in addition to strictly taking a symbolic view of the sacraments, also reject infant baptism altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example John Owen, a leading Puritan in the mid 1600’s, though still quite traditional, said the following with regard to the Lord’s supper:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do the elements remain bread and wine still, after the blessing of them?...Yes; all the spiritual change is wrought by the faith of the receiver” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is clearly different from Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or with regard to the Lord’s supper:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Regeneration doth not consist in these things, which are only outward signs and tokens of it, or at most instituted means of effecting it...The apostle really states this case, 1 Peter 3:21, “In answer whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The outward administration of this ordinance, considered materially, reacheth no farther but to the washing away of “the filth of the flesh;” (John Owen's Works Volume 3 P268)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking great emphasis on the 'inner reality' of regeneration as opposed to the 'external practice' of the Lord’s Supper, Jonathan Edwards (considered by many as one of the most influential evangelicals in American history) was excommunicated from his own church. only latter to be asked the he might forgive them! This was partly because Edwards's became convicted that unless someone is really a regenerate believer, they should not partake in the Lord’s Supper. For people should not perform and external rite symbolizing something that has not actually occurred inside them. His argument was published in a book entitled, Qualifications for Communion (1749). (Refer to Works of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;President Edwards Volume 1, Page 276&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the two sacraments themselves, Baptism primarily is seen as a New Testament version of circumcision, symbolizing the cutting away the sinful flesh, including all of its superstitions by faith. It symbolizes dying to the world and rising in Christ. There was nothing spooky about circumcision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord's Supper, the only repetitive practice, is seen as a very solemn means to enforce the creed that Christ and His works are all that matters, our works have little importance. This emphasis is seen as so important, that if you blaspheme against it as some did in Corinth, you could create scandalous shame that God would have to publicly manifest His displeasure, as He did in Corinth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 That is why many among you are &#xA;  weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians &#xA;  11:29-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So although this large portion of evangelicals largely avoid any link with ancient church tradition, they take their freedom about these matters seriously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their 'succession' of tradition is not through Popes or Saints but faith like Abraham's.  Succession even through one man is enough for them, but even in the dark ages, it was not as bad as Noah's time regarding numbers of true church leaders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is viewed as the only authority on the matter and all ‘holy’ tradition praised or condemned on that basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should mention I am not representing the whole evangelical view, or of even the average view. The fact is, there are many views. But I have presented a view that does not think the emhasis should in any way be placed on the external form of religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-14T15:55:45.037" LastActivityDate="2012-06-14T15:55:45.037" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7703" CreationDate="2012-06-14T18:25:59.557" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus spoke of this personal relationship on at least two occasions. Here is text from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:15-26&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:15-26&lt;/a&gt; with my emphasis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 “If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; &lt;strong&gt;I will come to you&lt;/strong&gt;. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and &lt;strong&gt;you are in me, and I am in you&lt;/strong&gt;. 21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 Jesus replied, “&lt;strong&gt;If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.&lt;/strong&gt; 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But &lt;strong&gt;the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note here that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the personal relationship is not only with Jesus but also with The Father and The Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;eating together was a particular sign of fellowship (or a relationship). Here the reference is to &lt;em&gt;making a home&lt;/em&gt; but the second passage mentions eating together (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%203:20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 3:20&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just for clarity, this is &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the Resurrection and Ascension, implying that this fellowship is available to all, not only those who met Jesus physically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-14T18:25:59.557" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8029" CreationDate="2012-06-14T20:57:49.850" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the New Testament, yes. Though Wikipedia may not be a &quot;scholarly&quot; source I find it good for this sort of thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in at least the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ubs-translations.org/cat/biblical_texts/greek_scriptures_and_reference/new_testament/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UBS&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NA&lt;/a&gt;, there is a list of manuscripts used to compile the &quot;Greek New Testament.&quot; I think that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblia_Hebraica_Stuttgartensia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BHS&lt;/a&gt; contains something somewhat similar for the Hebrew Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastEditorUserId="86" LastEditDate="2012-06-14T21:39:03.653" LastActivityDate="2012-06-14T21:39:03.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8044" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8045" CreationDate="2012-06-14T23:15:24.227" Score="2" ViewCount="17435" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was a show on the History channel stating that some scholars believe Adam and Eve were alive with a third human, Lilith. Lilith disobeyed Adam and Eve, so God sent her to live on earth as a demon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this just Jewish mythology or should it be considered part of the religion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What place does Lilith have in Christianity? Is she part of the devil, an evil angel, is she relevant today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should a Christian view her? For example, Adam and Eve directly effect each of our lives right now, since eating from the tree of knowledge...is there something analogous to this with Lilith?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bitterwaters.com/Lilith_in_Bible.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bitterwaters.com/Lilith_in_Bible.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#In_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#In_the_Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank You.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-06-14T23:43:31.810" LastActivityDate="2020-05-10T15:28:25.390" Title="What place does Lilith have in Christianity? " Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8044" CreationDate="2012-06-14T23:27:19.890" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is based on the Bible.  One of the tenets of Protestantism is &quot;sola scriptura&quot; (Scripture alone).  Lilith is not mentioned in the Bible, and thus has no relevance to Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some parts of Christianity also consider tradition as well as the Bible, but that doesn't sound like Christian tradition either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians can view non-biblical ideas as myths, history, or whatever, as seems appropriate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastActivityDate="2012-06-14T23:27:19.890" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1453" CreationDate="2012-06-15T02:03:44.480" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God created the Earth, but the Earth exists in the universe. The universe and thus all its laws and behavior were also made by God. Darkness is the absence of light, but Darkness is not the same as nothingness. But even nothingness can be questioned, as as we think of 'nothingness' in our universe, would not it be different than before the universe ever existed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-06-15T02:31:45.620" LastActivityDate="2012-06-15T02:31:45.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8047" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8055" CreationDate="2012-06-15T05:10:28.467" Score="10" ViewCount="1024" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the main reasons Jacobus Arminius split with Calvinism was his opposition to the doctrine of supralapsarianism taught by his colleagues at Leiden University.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is supralapsarianism? Is it a commonly held belief among Calvinists?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-03-25T04:34:08.357" LastActivityDate="2018-09-09T05:43:17.690" Title="What is supralapsarianism?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;supralapsarianism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8048" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8112" CreationDate="2012-06-15T06:42:47.693" Score="3" ViewCount="1313" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it true that all the disciples of Christ's apostles (including Paul) considered (in their writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries) the priesthood one of the sacraments? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2012-06-19T19:44:01.847" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T02:25:37.463" Title="Did all disciples of Christ's apostles consider priesthood a sacrament? " Tags="&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8049" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8052" CreationDate="2012-06-15T10:49:52.793" Score="5" ViewCount="4501" Body="&lt;p&gt;How many writings of those who were disciples of the first 12 apostles, plus Paul, are available today? There's no need to include Mark and Luke as their writings are included in the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-20T02:11:09.113" LastActivityDate="2016-01-31T19:46:31.910" Title="How many writings of those who were disciples of the first 12 apostles (plus Paul) are available today?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8050" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8051" CreationDate="2012-06-15T11:18:29.700" Score="3" ViewCount="450" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it true that John Paul II  restored the practice of selling indulgences in the Roman Catholic Church in 2000?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;two sources: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2jubil.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://files.tvspas.ru/popup.php?flv=/Video/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8,%20%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8B,%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8/%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%90.%D0%98.,%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84.%20%D0%90.%D0%98.%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2.%20%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B0%20%28%D0%A2%D0%9A%20%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%202009-09-09%29.flv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T19:03:36.117" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T19:03:36.117" Title="Is it true that John Paul II restored the practice of selling indulgences in 2000?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;indulgence&gt;&lt;john-paul-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8050" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:34:09.620" Score="11" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Answering your question&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.  It is not true.  In any way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sale of indulgences is the sin of simony (selling of holy items) and the temporal punishment is the immediate excommunication of the perpetrator by the very nature of the act. Even accepting money for indulgences has been outlawed since the Council of Trent, which codified it with &quot;let all who disagree be anathema&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What you probably really wanted to know&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Vatican II the question of how the Church would handle indulgences was left up in the air. Paul VI, in &lt;em&gt;1968&lt;/em&gt;, realizing that there was still some spiritual benefits in them, produced a new list of things which included &#xA;partial or a plenary indulgence (assuming appropriate circumstances). They no longer equate to &quot;years of penance&quot;* but rather, &quot;part of the suffering of a soul in purgatory&quot; (partial) or &quot;all of the suffering of a soul in purgatory.&quot; (plenary)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The item you are probably referencing is that John Paul II released a new &lt;em&gt;Enchiridion of Indulgences&lt;/em&gt;, which is the official list of all of the indulgenced acts from the Vatican. Individual ordinaries (heads of diocese, which can be any priest if necessary) are free to amend this within their juristiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* as an aside: indulgences are more properly understood as having to do with the amount of suffering in purgatory, not the length of time there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-07-09T11:06:17.433" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T11:06:17.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8049" CreationDate="2012-06-15T14:36:28.530" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The group you're referring to is known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers&quot;&gt;Apostolic Fathers&lt;/a&gt;. The exact number is unknown, because some writings cannot be dated precisely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These writings we can say with some confidence are from the Apostolic Fathers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html&quot;&gt;1 Clement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, a letter written by Clement of Rome, a disciple of Peter. He may also be the same Clement mentioned by Paul in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/philippians/4-3.html&quot;&gt;Philippians 4:3&lt;/a&gt;. There is also a letter called 2 Clement, but it is generally believed to have been written by a later author.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html&quot;&gt;Polycarp's letter to the Philippians&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Polycarp was a disciple of John, and a martyr in the early second century.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seven letters of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html&quot;&gt;Ignatius of Antioch&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, who was also martyred in the early second century. He was a friend of Polycarp and probably a disciple of John.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fragments of the writings of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html&quot;&gt;Papias of Hierapolis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Papias is known to have written five books, which were often quoted by later Christians. Papias' own writings have since been lost, but the quotes from them survive in later works. Papius was also a disciple of John.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html&quot;&gt;Shepherd of Hermas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; was considered Scripture by some early Christians, and actually appears in some early copies of the New Testament. By later consensus it was excluded from the NT because it came from the second generation of Christians, not the first.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These writings may or may not belong to that generation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html&quot;&gt;Didache&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. The full Greek title translates to &quot;The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles&quot;. Some scholars believe these teachings were collected by the first disciples of the apostles, but other scholars believe this was a later work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html&quot;&gt;Apology of Quadratus of Athens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Quadratus was the first Christian apologist. Unfortunately, like the works of Papias, Quadratus' apology survives only in fragments quoted by later writers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/aristides.html&quot;&gt;Apology of Aristides&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. This  was believed lost for many centuries, until a copy was found in 1889 in St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html&quot;&gt;Epistle of Barnabas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, attributed to Barnabas who traveled with Paul. Most scholars believe this was actually written by someone else.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristo.html&quot;&gt;Disputation of Jason and Papiscus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; attributed to Aristo of Pella. Survives only in fragments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diognetus.html&quot;&gt;Epistle to Diognetus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. The letter is attributed to &quot;Mathetes&quot;, meaning &quot;Disciple&quot;. The author calls himself &quot;a Disciple of Apostles&quot;, but does not otherwise identify himself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/martyrdompolycarp.html&quot;&gt;Martyrdom of Polycarp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, written by someone who knew Polycarp. Whether they were of the same generation, we can't be sure.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-06-15T14:46:32.527" LastActivityDate="2012-06-15T14:46:32.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7703" CreationDate="2012-06-15T15:20:57.987" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's based on when did people start to use the phrase about religious or other subjects. It's not really a church history, but a English language history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It turns out the earliest quote another group found was in 1864, but popularized much more recently into a cliche:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this coming again of Christ by the Spirit, there is included also the fact that he will be known by the disciple, not only socially, but as the Christ, in such a way as to put us in a personal relationship with him, even as his own disciples were in their outward society with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Title: Christ and his salvation: in sermons variously related thereto (page 341) &#xA;Author:  Bushnell, Horace, 1802-1876. &#xA;Publication Info: New York,: 1864. &#xA;Collection: Making of America Books&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read a similar discussion &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/347/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T13:22:34.740" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T13:22:34.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8048" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:08:57.833" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple answer, No. No there is no proof of the assertion by that priest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of Apostolic succession from which the orthodox imposition of hands as a sacrament finds its purpose is not something that can be historically traced. The laying on of hands is in the bible but not for this serious purpose of defining legitimate authority to administer the sacraments through a chain of succession. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As there are little writings after the Apostles before Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD. The best I can argue is by finding the best evidence for the 'imposition of hands' as a holy sacriment to trasmit succession and show it to be no proof at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will not turn to the scripture as there is no evidence there to support this sacrament. The place where you would most expect to find it is in 1 Timothy Chapter 3, as the qualifications for bishops are listed, but nothing is there. This at once proves the requirement not set out as a  scripturally required rite, but looks look at the argument from history alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; Here is a quote by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tertullian&lt;/a&gt; making the best case for a kind of succesion from a [wiki] write up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tertullian,  In his Prescription Against Heretics, he explicitly challenges heretics to produce evidence of the apostolic succession of their communities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But notice four things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; - First, the emphasis is not about laying on of hands. That is a biblical principle, and every church sort of follows that, in prayer and ordination, but its not portrayed as a the-big-thing. The importance is in the fact that the previous Bishop vouchsafed the new one. Its about credibility.&#xA; - Second, every church had a different bishop, passing the torch. There was no super bishop holding all the cards. Even the Apostles did not 'take charge' over churches planted by another Apostle.&#xA; - Third, To trace such succession today would be impractical, for it would be 100,000 times more complex than Christ's genealogies, for any given city. &#xA; - Fourth, although this would have been a wise practice in the early church to prevent heresy from totally destroying it,  there is actually nothing in the Bible that says it needed to be that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore even if one could prove the impossible to prove (due to lack of historical writings), there is nothing in scripture to enforce its continuance, which would be impractical to do anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think God would allow utter silence in his word and in post apostolic history for something as important as this, if there was any truth to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I would find it harder to disprove that God prefers blue over purple, because I see more blue in nature. That does not infer that we can't reasonable conclude God does not prefer blue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-20T00:38:48.427" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T00:38:48.427" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8047" CreationDate="2012-06-15T16:46:08.740" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This word is clearly defined &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Lapsarianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically Supralapsarianism is a big word meaning 'before' 'fall' i.e before the fall. Calvin was what many call today extreme Calvinists or 'High Calvinism'. It refers to those people who believe God chose who will be saved and who damned, sealing their fate, before Adam sinned. Low Calvinists just hold predestination of those going to heaven as something God did after the fall. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin and Arminian are not the only cards on the table:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He [Martin Luther] spoke at length about the idle people who occupy themselves with disputation about predestination beyond the limits of Scripture. It is most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God. (Luther's Works Vol 54, P249)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possibly if Calvin paid more attention to Luther's maturity on the subject of predestination Arminius would have been a Calvinist? Many of us are 90% Calvinists and 10% Arminian, but neither extreme likes us very much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-07-11T11:44:34.093" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T11:44:34.093" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8056" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8070" CreationDate="2012-06-15T17:56:52.573" Score="7" ViewCount="971" Body="&lt;p&gt;Often in stain glass and other art, both Mary and Joseph are seen to have the 'halo' around them that also surround those of saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was once told (by I think my religion teacher) that for Jesus, the son of God, to be born, he had to be born of parents possessing the holiness of God. Other than Jesus having to be of the house of David, were they any other requirements (preferably with a reference)? Or is this a distortion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if this was true, that only those with the holiness of God could parent His son, would that not require that all their parents before them have the same requirements to birth them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, another thing I find interesting is I believe (as do my parents) is that we all possess the holiness of God, as we are all God's children with no favorites. While our decisions in this life effect our outcome in the after life, if not this one, does it in any way effect how God effects our lives other than our lack of letting him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry if I went off topic a bit with some additional questions, but if any of these are possible duplicate would love the link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-11-07T15:19:02.627" LastActivityDate="2016-11-07T15:19:02.627" Title="Holiness of Mary and Joseph" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;joseph-husband-of-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-01-20T14:08:43.150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8057" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8064" CreationDate="2012-06-15T20:33:38.227" Score="11" ViewCount="3860" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Holy Spirit conceives Jesus&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 1:20 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord&#xA;  appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear&#xA;  to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from&#xA;  the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name&#xA;  Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 1:35 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the angel answered her, “The &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; will come upon you, and&#xA;  the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to&#xA;  be born[a] will be called holy— the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Jesus is distinct from God&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly during &quot;life&quot; Jesus was distinct from God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 20:17 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to&#xA;  the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to&#xA;  my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 27:46 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying,&#xA;  “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you&#xA;  forsaken me?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 110:1 YLT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah (&lt;em&gt;LORD&lt;/em&gt;) to my Lord: `Sit at My&#xA;  right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 16:19 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into&#xA;  heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The question&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then, the Holy Spirit must also be distinct.  Is it &lt;strike&gt;better&lt;/strike&gt; proper to say that the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-06-18T13:58:37.087" LastActivityDate="2015-06-17T11:18:54.120" Title="Was the Holy Spirit or God (the Godhead), the father of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-10-25T00:44:32.297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8058" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8063" CreationDate="2012-06-15T20:50:17.140" Score="3" ViewCount="6211" Body="&lt;p&gt;My pastor (Calvary Chapel) referred to God as His father, then once said that God is everywhere and in everything (i.e. - inside each person) and then that God is Love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now I am confused as to what God is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does Christianity describe God? If that is not agreed upon, what are the main Christian doctrines on what God is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if God can be with/inside everyone at the same time and hear all our different individual prayers at the same time, is it wrong to think of Him as a sole entity, like being just a father to me? Should Christians view God as a multidimensional or unquantifiable being?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Christian perspective on the description of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-16T03:22:57.920" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T18:37:26.823" Title="What is the Christian perspective on the description of God?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-03-16T05:40:33.153" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8059" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8060" CreationDate="2012-06-15T21:51:08.257" Score="3" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read several summaries of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Dembski&lt;/a&gt;'s concept of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;specified complexity&lt;/a&gt;, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one by Dembski himself&lt;/a&gt;, and I've got to confess I have no idea what he is talking about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it an attempt to prove God's existence mathematically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-05T20:40:40.633" LastActivityDate="2015-10-05T20:40:40.633" Title="What is specified complexity?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;intelligent-design&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8059" CreationDate="2012-06-15T23:25:44.363" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's an attempt to show that the universe, and all it contains, is too orderly to have originated by chance with no intelligent guiding force.  It simply implies an intelligent Creator, not necessarily the God of the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, it's an argument for creationism, without naming the Creator explicitly, which is what Intelligent Design is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not so much an attempt to prove his existence mathematically, it is, (depending on which side of the fence you sit on) more of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;using mathematics to &lt;em&gt;imply&lt;/em&gt; His existence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;use mathematics to show how His existence &lt;em&gt;is implied&lt;/em&gt; by the evidence around us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-06-16T01:17:45.273" LastActivityDate="2012-06-16T01:17:45.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="694" CreationDate="2012-06-16T02:12:43.873" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;“Fornication” (&lt;em&gt;porneuo&lt;/em&gt;) is often used as a noun in the New Testament, but in 1 Cor. 10:8 is a present tense verb.  Although it is a verb, it still describes all types of sexual sin.  For other places where fornication occurs as a noun see 6:18, and these references in the book of Revelation:  2:14, 20; 17:2; 18:3, 9.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether used as a noun or a verb, fornication describes departures from God’s “religious norms (e.g. homosexuality, promiscuity, pedophilia, and especially prostitution” (Colin Brown, 1:497).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brad Price&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abiblecommentary.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.abiblecommentary.com&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1765" LastActivityDate="2012-06-16T02:12:43.873" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8058" CreationDate="2012-06-16T10:48:44.997" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following recent books are very popular and explore the topic. I have read the first two and heard some sermons from the third. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Books:&#xA;The Attributes of God by A. W. Tozer&#xA;Knowing God J.I Packer&#xA;The Attributes of God by A.W. Pink&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tozer's sermons are easily found, for example here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8130752728&quot;&gt;http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8130752728&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Common ideas or 'attributes of God, go as far back as bible commentary, and many different sorts of commentators surprisingly agree on most of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first key concept of God  is that he is &lt;strong&gt;infinite&lt;/strong&gt; and has no boundaries. The infinitude of God is central to the name God told Moses to use: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 3:14&#xA;  God said to Moses, “ I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘ I am has sent me to you. ’&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'I AM' implies infinity. God always was. This means therefore, whatever God is He is so without any limit, having no beginning.  This leads to the second primary concept, he is &lt;strong&gt;ineffable&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;incomprehensible&lt;/strong&gt;.  This means we can never fully explain Him as the finite can't comprehend the infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although there are few books fully dedicated to the subject, all Bible commentators recognize these attributes when encountering them in a particular bible verse. Attributes, based on what the Bible say’s about God are always explained from an ' I AM' perspective. For example, the Bible say’s God is wise, therefore, He is infinitely wise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One attribute always leads to another. If He is infinitely wise then He must be infinite knowing. Otherwise his wisdom would have a limit or boundary. He could be fooled over things He did not anticipate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Common attributes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Powerful&lt;/strong&gt; - this often implies all powerful, that is all power is derived from Him. He is therefore the sustainer, that is all things are held together by Him. This includes all molecules an even the Devil himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Colossians 1:17&#xA;  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Omnipresent&lt;/strong&gt; - that is He is everywhere but the universe cannot contain Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalms 139:7-8&#xA;  Where can I go from your Spirit?&#xA;  Where can I flee from your presence?&#xA;  8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;&#xA;  if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Omniscient&lt;/strong&gt; - that is all knowing, past and future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 4:13&#xA;  Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All wise&lt;/strong&gt; - He knows the most perfect means for achieving the most perfect ends, using the most prefect ways. He knows the end from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 11:33&#xA;  33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!&#xA;  How unsearchable his judgments,&#xA;  and his paths beyond tracing out!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Self Sufficient&lt;/strong&gt; - that he needs nothing or anyone in any sense. Kind of implied by the name 'I Am' or possibly Psalm 50:10-12 might be a good reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Transcendent&lt;/strong&gt; - that is His excellence, value and glory rises infinitely beyond anything. This is self evident everywhere in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Good&lt;/strong&gt; - that is he desires the utmost good of all creatures (there is controversy among theologians on what this means because Calvin in one sense restricted goodness, love and grace to the elect). I think that was a critical error on his part, though on most subjects I usually agree with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Merciful&lt;/strong&gt; and Full of Grace (this is the most controversial) I take mercy to be preventing judgment for the purposes of His grace. Also implies pity and understanding of our weakness without grace. Grace, that He is infinitely willing to provide His endless riches at Christ's expense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 4:31&#xA;  For the Lord your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors, which he confirmed to them by oath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 3:23-24&#xA;  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Holy&lt;/strong&gt; - that is perfectly without sin. I take this actually to men 100% loving, without any hate whatsoever. (Most theologians would prefer other wording, stinking to just pure whatever else they think pure might be) Example: Leviticus 19:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Just&lt;/strong&gt; - that is never showing any partiality or favoritism but able to perfectly discern what is fair. Example: Deuteronomy 32:4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other attributes can be added to the list, almost whatever is good in a person, God is so perfectly. Virtually every page of the Bible assumes one or more of these attributes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible argues that all mankind can understand some of  God's attributes like His eternal power: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 1:20&#xA;  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some attributes such as his love and grace seem only perceived by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other attributes may be manifest specifically by the incarnation, in the God-Man. For example God's &lt;strong&gt;empathy&lt;/strong&gt; is difficult to perceive in the The bible, except when reading the gospels ad witnessing how much empathy Jesus had for those that were suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some like Tozer argue that no attribute can be greater than another as they are all infinite. Others disagree noting that love is greater than patience and kindness, since they are just subsets of love.  Therefore, 1 John 4:8,  '&lt;strong&gt;God is love&lt;/strong&gt;.' really implies the 'essential attribute'. If it wasn't how do we explain that when we try to be like Him, we are to put love on top?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-16T10:48:44.997" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8057" CreationDate="2012-06-16T11:50:40.073" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus, God the Father is. What you are asking about is the nature of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trinity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians have always believed the Son of God was preexisting before the creation of the world and is God who created the world. The Father spoke through the Son and the Spirit performed the actual creative events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:1-3&#xA;  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God told Moses that His name was ‘I AM’ (Exodus 3:14 ) meaning without beginning and eternal, therefore, when Jesus said the following, the Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 8:57-58&#xA;  “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is also God. He is an eternally existing divine person and the author of divine operations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:2&#xA;  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now all three person of the trinity combined are the Godhead who is One.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:19&#xA;  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is One:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 44:6&#xA;  The Lord, Not Idols 6 “This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems very Biblical to accept the Trinity as believed by the Christian church throughout all the ages.  One definition of the trinity that makes things clear can be taken from John Owen’s Works Volume 2, Page 462:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is one; — that this one God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; — that the Father is the Father of the Son; and the Son, the Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of the Father and the Son; and that, in respect of this their mutual relation, they are distinct from each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What sometimes makes the issue more complex, and more direcct to your point, is that Jesus sometimes speaks from His 'God-ward' side, like when the Jews wanted to stone Him, and sometimes from His 'man-ward' side.  The verses you quote seem to be when He is speaking from his man-ward aspect, like ‘to my God and your God’. The same is true when Jesus refers to his disciples as his 'brothers'.  This is easily understood when we remember although Christ was eternal, the man Jesus was not. Therefore, the Spirit is one person of the Holy Trinity performing the works of the eternal Father’s will through the eternal Son, God's word. That is how in a theoretical-sense the Spirit is kind of a 'father' of the body of Christ, but not really, more like the creative cause, or operation, according to the original Father's will. The God-Man is by no means the Son of the Spirit, He is the Son of God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son is the eternally generated Son of the Father, not the Spirit.  What you have noticed is that the body of Christ was made by the Spirit, so technically, yes, God was the father of the Man Jesus, by the Spirit’s operation and power. The eternal Son was willing to take this body prepared for Him, thereby creating the God-Man, the Christ of God, in order to bring salvation to men. By this means The eternal Son assumed a human body prepared for Him by the eternal Spirit, according to the will of the eternal Father.  All three; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are the 'I AM', the only One and true God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-17T14:35:17.537" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T14:35:17.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8056" CreationDate="2012-06-16T12:01:20.343" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your questions and observations seem quite contrary to the Protestant faith. I am not sure from what faith you are deriving these ideas. However I can say from the Protestant faith that Mary and Joseph were sinners and all are born into sin. Therefore Mary and Joseph did not need to posses the holiness of God; rather they needed the Christ to die for their sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Romans 3:9-18 we see how bad this state is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better d?&#xA;  Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews&#xA;  and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:&#xA;  “There is no one righteous, not even one;&#xA;  11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.&#xA;  12 All have turned away,&#xA;  they have together become worthless;&#xA;  there is no one who does good,&#xA;  not even one.” &#xA;  13 “Their throats are open graves;&#xA;  their tongues practice deceit.” &#xA;  “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” &#xA;  14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” &#xA;  15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;&#xA;  16 ruin and misery mark their ways,&#xA;  17 and the way of peace they do not know.” &#xA;  18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'All are under sin' includes Mary and Joseph, but not Jesus. The Protestant faith thinks that unless Jesus died for Mary, she would have been cast into hell upon her death. Catholics believe that Mary was immaculately conceived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was 'needed' was a virgin for the Spirit to create a body for the Christ, from her womb. God provided a body for the eternal Son to assume human nature through the Virgin Mary.  This way Jesus was the only human not born in sin, because he was born a God-Man. He was God and Man in one person, human and divine.  Mary was only needed so that the eternal Son, who is God, would become a human also. If Jesus has been born from Mary and Joseph, then he would have been a sinner needing a Christ to save him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God needed to assume human nature so that He could offer the human soul and body of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, including the great and many sins of all those people with halos on paintings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-18T05:00:08.200" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T05:00:08.200" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2012-06-16T13:00:33.497" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Strictly speaking, I believe the answer should be no, for reasons as cited already by other responders who have mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:11-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:11,12&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had this discussion recently with somebody where in practical purposes it centered around the issue of gay marriage, and whether it should be legal or not. In my discussion, my perspective was that although the Bible clearly speaks against homosexual relations, I think that whether gay marriage should be legal or not is not so black/white as most Christians think it is. The primary issue to me is the point of your original question: whether biblically we should seek to enact laws that enforce biblical standards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with saying &quot;Yes, we should&quot; is that then we must ask, but why? And one of the immediate objections I can see is that you cannot legislate morality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is clear that the law does not produce righteousness, only the awareness of sin. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in transforming a person's inner man that produces actual righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, an argument could be made that strictly enforcing all biblical standards with legislation might only lead men to become bitter and hardened toward God on account of being forced to practice things that in their inner person they don't agree with. I've seen this same scenario play out even just in church atmosphere's where young people are forced to obey rules by their parents or by church leaders that they themselves don't agree with, only to produce bitterness in their hearts at the leaders/parents who forced them to do those things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then that still leaves the question: &quot;Well then what should our laws be based on?&quot; and &quot;What IS the standard of morality for our legislation?&quot; to which I don't have an immediate answer. I believe it should be the Bible and the example of God's morality that he sets for us, but if we are following the same line of reasoning where do we draw the line between what should be legislated and what should not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the answer to this last question is something along the lines of: things that destroy the life or livelihood of others should clearly by against a nation's laws, as it is the government's responsibility to protect the natural rights of its own people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, very difficult question to address. My answer may have more 'question' than 'answer', but at least you can see my perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="811" LastActivityDate="2012-06-16T13:00:33.497" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7703" CreationDate="2012-06-16T14:08:02.917" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the popularity of the phrase &quot;&lt;em&gt;personal relationship with Jesus&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, and &quot;&lt;em&gt;accepting Jesus into your heart&lt;/em&gt;&quot; among evangelicals comes from the influence of a few evangelical figureheads in the past century such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Billy Graham&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Spiritual_Laws&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bill Bright&lt;/a&gt;, and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the concepts themselves - when understood correctly - can certainly be found in very explicit terms within Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) &quot;A Personal Relationship with Jesus&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; - In speaking to this phrase let me first say what I believe the intent behind the phrase is, when most commonly used: The idea of a &quot;personal relationship with Jesus&quot; speaks primarily to the idea that a person does not just know about the historical character called Jesus the Christ in a purely historical or religious context. It speaks to the fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the message that by placing one's trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of their personal sins they can have restored fellowship with God, and a direct relationship with him where God listens to the individual and relates to the individual through the Holy Spirit, through the Scriptures, and through the Body of Christ (the Church). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase speaks to the personal nature of this relationship and how biblical Salvation is a personal process where God interacts individually with each of the people he is giving salvation to - not just in a generic and disconnected relationship to all of mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we do not read the words as such in the Scriptures, neither do we read any of our English words in the original text - all are an interpretation. But while we don't read these words even in our English interpretation, the concept behind them is very much present in many passages throughout the New Testamant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while I would assert that the actual words in question have been made popular by contemporary evangelical leaders (who started the exact linguistic combination of words I surely don't know), I would also argue that the concept which they actually represent is not unique to our culture, or some post-enlightenment thinking. The idea of personal salvation is very explicitly discussed in the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a few of the passages in the New Testament that make the case:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:23-26&amp;amp;version=CEV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:23-26&lt;/a&gt; which emphasizes the incredibly interpersonal relationship between the person who loves Jesus and God, to the extent where Jesus describes coming and living &lt;em&gt;inside&lt;/em&gt; that person:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus replied:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If anyone loves me, they will obey me. Then my Father will love them, and we will come to them and live in them. But anyone who doesn’t love me, won’t obey me. What they have heard me say doesn’t really come from me, but from the Father who sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have told you these things while I am still with you. But the Holy Spirit will come and help you, because the Father will send the Spirit to take my place. The Spirit will teach you everything and will remind you of what I said while I was with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%203:20&amp;amp;version=CEV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 3:20&lt;/a&gt; which again uses an unmistakably interpersonal analogy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Listen! I am standing and knocking at your door. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in and we will eat together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first century culture of the middle east, eating together was a very personal things. As much as we want to peg the enlightenment with being the source of our individualism (&lt;em&gt;and it certainly was on a certain scale&lt;/em&gt;), it's not as though the idea of personal, intimate relationships were absent from society before that time period. In fact, one of the greatest demonstrations of a personal, intimate interaction you could have with another person in ancient culture was to eat a meal with them. It was a symbol of deep inner fellowship. So for Jesus to say &quot;I will come in and we will eat together&quot; is explicitly language of personal intimacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So though the words in our present form were not combined as such, the connotation certainly existed in very explicit terms in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) &quot;Accepting Jesus into your heart&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; - Although you didn't ask about this phrase, it's very commonly used in conjunction with the other, so it's worth mentioning...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I don't know that this phrase in the cliche form it has become is particularly helpful in sharing the Gospel with others, but it certainly seems to have biblical basis for it's connotation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of &quot;accepting Jesus into your heart&quot;, or &quot;receiving Christ&quot; comes from the biblical notion of &quot;believing in Jesus,&quot; or as some translations say, &quot;receiving him&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. &lt;strong&gt;(John 1:12)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the above passage from the Gospel of John, John is presumably referring to people who &quot;reveived&quot; Jesus as the Messiah, or Sent One from God. While many rejected Jesus (particularly the religious leaders), his own followers &quot;accepted&quot; him as God's Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, on a more conceptual level, the &quot;heart&quot; has long been considered by cultures to be a representative term for the &quot;seat of emotion&quot;, or &quot;the innermost part&quot; of a person's being, or even the place where a person's love originates. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also is used to represent a place of &quot;authenticity&quot; or &quot;sincerity.&quot; If I say, &quot;I mean it from the bottom of my heart,&quot; you know what I'm really trying to say is that I'm being authentic and sincere in the action or words associated with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in this regard &quot;accepting Jesus into your heart&quot; may simply speak to a genuine and sincere belief or trust in Jesus as who is claimed to be, as opposed to an intellectual acknowledgement of his mere historical existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there is another very interesting passage in one epistle where I believe the specific wording about accepting him &quot;&lt;em&gt;into our hearts&lt;/em&gt;&quot; may be actually derived from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the [m]saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. &lt;strong&gt;(Ephesians 3:17-19)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As a point of commentary&lt;/em&gt;: All this being said, I believe both of these phrases when used in the cliche way that most of us have heard them serve little purpose in communicating the real nature of life in Christ. The trouble is that when they are used as a cliche way to tell somebody what it means to be a follower of Jesus, they are often an oversimplification of what the Gospel life is really about. They usually lead to some prayer to &quot;&lt;em&gt;accept Jesus into your heart&lt;/em&gt;&quot; which is more akin to an incantation than to actually beginning a real walk with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="811" LastEditorUserId="811" LastEditDate="2012-06-17T02:51:59.237" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T02:51:59.237" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2012-06-16T18:24:08.107" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that if we would enforce biblical morals in the church, the world would be drawn to us and so would begin following them anyway. Then, when Christians preach God's law to the world, they will not be able to mock because we do what we preach. God gave his law to reveal sin in the world. Jesus brought the power to overcome sin. So this question can superfluous if we don't even judge sin in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I don't mean enforce using force, rather enforce using excommunication. Paul said to put out the brother that sins until he turns from his sin. But if a church doesn't even stand on what God says in scripture and call sin what he calls sin, how then can they ever expect to even influence the world. I think this very thing is one of the reason so many youth leave the church and even turn their back God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 8:2-4 KJV - 2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 2:14-15 KJV - 14: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="725" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-16T18:48:37.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8030" CreationDate="2012-06-16T19:06:56.883" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Footnote from the NLT: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As in Dead Sea Scrolls, which read &quot;the number of the sons of God&quot;, and Greek version, which reads &quot;the number of the angels of God&quot;; Masoretic Text reads &quot;the number of the sons of Israel&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="725" LastActivityDate="2012-06-16T19:06:56.883" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8056" CreationDate="2012-06-16T20:32:15.477" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church has a uniquely developed perspective on this question. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that &lt;strong&gt;Mary was immaculately conceived&lt;/strong&gt; -- or in the words of Pope Pius IX:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that&#xA;  the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception,&#xA;  by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of&#xA;  the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was&#xA;  preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed&#xA;  by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the&#xA;  faithful&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pope lays out the arguments from Scripture and Tradition in the 1854 document from which that quote is drawn, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ineffabilis Deus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. But to briefly address your questions from a Catholic perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yes, Mary is uniquely holy among mere human beings -- and I use the word &quot;mere&quot; to distinguish her from Jesus, who is human but also divine and so uniquely holy among human beings in a different way.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By the same token Mary is uniquely favored. See especially Luke 1:28, 1:30, 1:42 and 1:48, which all seem to indicate fairly clearly (whatever one thinks about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) that Mary holds a special place in God's providence and is worthy of our special attention.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No, there is not an infinite regress of ancestors of Mary who would themselves have needed to be just as holy -- she was personally and individually given a unique grace.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;St. Joseph, being the spouse of Mary and the adoptive father of Jesus, is held in greet esteem in the Catholic Church -- Scripture attests his righteousness unequivocally, and after Mary he would have known the Lord more intimately than anyone else, at least in an earthly sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;But Joseph is not on the same level as Mary, who is called in a true sense the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos&quot;&gt;mother of God&lt;/a&gt;. As the Wikipedia article nicely explains it, summarizing what the Council of Ephesus taught in the year 431 (principally to combat the error of Nestorius about the person of Jesus): &quot;&lt;strong&gt;her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1 For less clear but still evocative indications of Mary's special role, see Luke 2:35, John 2:5, and Acts 1:14. And then there are texts that have additional significance if one already accepts the Catholic perspective, such as John 19:26-27 and Revelation 12:1-6.&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2012-06-16T20:32:15.477" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8071" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-17T02:08:43.497" Score="18" ViewCount="2769" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people believe the King James Version of the Bible is the only version English-speakers should be using, as it is the only inspired translation.  (This is referred to as &amp;quot;KJV-onlyism.&amp;quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the KJV-only position is that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is God's word&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God promises to preserve His word&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;E.G., &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/does-the-second-them-in-psalm-127-refer-to-gods-words&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 12:7 (read this article)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This preservation is accomplished via a perfect translation (one per language)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The KJV is His perfect, preserved translation in the English language&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The reason other English Bibles differ from the KJV is because those other Bibles have been tainted by sin and error&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the main counterarguments to this view?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am specifically looking for answers which would be convincing to an English-speaking Protestant with a high view of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="35942" LastEditDate="2020-11-30T16:23:09.293" LastActivityDate="2021-04-09T12:55:27.513" Title="Counterarguments to &quot;KJV-only&quot;?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;kjv-onlyism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8071" CreationDate="2012-06-17T03:02:55.210" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I fully believe in the Bible as the perfect word of God without any error whatsoever. I also like the KJV. However, there is no Biblical basis for believing in an inspired translation, from one language to another. This would put translators at the same level as prophets and apostles for they would need a special anointing that determines what scripture is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The belief of inerrancy is that the 'original text' was without error, but even here insignificant trace errors have crept into copies of the original texts. I think God allows this partly to keep us from being so insecure about our faith in Him. Our security should rest in Him, in the ideas he has imparted to us through His word, not each syllable. If we are so insecure, that we need to put our faith in men, we will become worshipers of ink, not of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Translation from one language to another can be made by sinners without any inspiration. What matters is if the translation is technically honest to the original text, or no. God has not left the business of translation dependant upon the personal holiness of the translators, otherwise all translations would be fully corrupt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, there is no logical basis to believe that those who translated the KJV were holier than those who have made other English translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God will preserve many good translations to us in various languages. He himself has said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18I warn everyone who hears the words of the&#xA;  prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to&#xA;  them, God will add to him the plagues described in this&#xA;  book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book&#xA;  of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in&#xA;  the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described&#xA;  in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As God has made this warning in the last book of our Bible, and will execute it, we can be confident God is interested enough to preserve the Bible for us. Therefore we do not have to rely on one small group of people who made one single translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this, if a specific conflict arises between two translations, one must identify which is less honest to the original text, whether the weakness is in the KJV or other version, the test must be made for each instance. One cannot not just wildly assert for the whole Bible translation itself, that it is better than another. Each conflict must be argued specifically. It would not surprise me if the KJV is often the winner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-17T09:55:26.013" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T09:55:26.013" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2012-06-17T03:28:12.373" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I'll go ahead and put in my two cents worth of an answer - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, I think non Christians should live under Christian law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Four reasons - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All over the world Christians are forced to live under the Islamic law,&#xA;Communist law, Humanist laws, etc. My point is that unless there is&#xA;anarchy there can be only one law. And if they don’t live under ours&#xA;we’ll have to live under theirs. And as some Christians living in&#xA;those countries can tell you it’s not quite pleasant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Whatever happens in the rest of the society deeply affects us too. Drugs like Krokodil are an epidemic (I left out crime, broken families because that is obvious).  Here in Russia the government is introducing religious classes in schools hoping to curb the moral crisis. Not too long ago, I recall the president was on TV explaining how our religion was part of our heritage. My point – It’s easy to say Christian law isn’t necessary until you have seen the alternatives. Once you do you realize there aren’t many choices.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When the Christians give answers like “no non-Christians shouldn’t live under Christian law”, it’s partly because they don’t want to appear unloving or judgemental. Or that they don’t want to get criticized or insulted. I think if someone wants to follow Christ in these days, getting insulted is something she’ll have to get used to. Secondly, let’s not forget that even our God is not all and all love. When Jesus comes back this time he isn’t coming back with a smiling face to tell you that he loves you. If God is all love and no judgement, let me know, I’ll be the first one to walk out of the faith. Anyone who talks like that hasn’t seen the evil that goes on in this world.&#xA;My point – Justice is established by force. We can’t sit on the sidelines letting our societies turn into zombie fiction for the fear of appearing judgemental.&#xA;You are the salt of the earth. Salt irritates. If you’re not irritating someone you’re not doing your job well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When one says that non Christians should not be required to live under&#xA;Christians law, it seems to me like a relativist humanist disguised&#xA;as a Christian. Such things are easy to say only if you believe&#xA;there are no moral absolutes.  The British stopped widow burning&#xA;system (widows were burned alive along with their dead husbands) in&#xA;India and human sacrifices in native tribes in Africa and South&#xA;America. So I guess they did very wrong. They shouldn’t have forced the&#xA;natives to live under Christian law since they weren’t Christians.&#xA;My point – &quot;I the LORD have spoken..&quot; That is an absolute.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly pardon my grammar, not a native speaker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing.&quot;&#xA; - Edward Burke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.&quot; – Dante Aleghieri &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.&quot; – Martin Niemoeller&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T03:28:12.373" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8074" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-17T04:10:10.607" Score="5" ViewCount="1330" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be &lt;strong&gt;false teachers&lt;/strong&gt; among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-2 Peter 2:1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: &lt;strong&gt;How can you tell if a teacher is a &quot;false teacher&quot;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please support your answer with Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-27T20:07:28.250" LastActivityDate="2015-08-27T20:07:28.250" Title="How do we identify false teachers?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;2-peter&gt;&lt;deception&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-08-29T02:46:16.440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8074" CreationDate="2012-06-17T04:34:51.093" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for &lt;strong&gt;many false prophets have gone out into the world&lt;/strong&gt;. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. &lt;strong&gt;Whoever knows God listens to us&lt;/strong&gt;, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. &lt;strong&gt;By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; (1 John 4:1-6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the biblical answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious followup question would be - who are the &quot;us&quot; today in the &quot;listens to us&quot; part? The &quot;us&quot; in those times were obviously the apostles. But what about today? That's where things get interesting. For me, I believe it's the Magisterium, the college of bishops in union with the pope who are now holding the same &quot;episcopal offices&quot; (Greek, &lt;em&gt;episkope&lt;/em&gt;. See Acts 1:20 and 1 Tim 3:1)  - that the apostles held at that time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T04:34:51.093" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7897" CreationDate="2012-06-17T06:37:48.070" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;first off- my previous answer- no offence, but the bible you practically worship can not possibly be considered 'Gods Word'. it has been edited countless times and written by whoever felt like they were 'touched by god'. then there was the meeting of Nicea, a bunch of old men literally took the bible apart and put it back together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this 'religious council' they removed books and who says they didn't add or edit further. And thats only a microscopic part of the flaws in your 'divine' 'godsent' idol you call The Holy Bible -btw, im 17 and i can prove i know more about Xian beliefs then most who whole-heartedly give thier lives to it (well they say they do)-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if you want to say it like that, then everyone else has no souls seeing your god made them to challenge you. not only that, say they do.. the chance of repent should be nearly impossible seeing your god killed most of them to 'save his people'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, if its like half of you say, whoever ((rapers, killers, abusers, people who might deserve death)yes all of them) can just repent and &lt;em&gt;POOF&lt;/em&gt; all sins are washied away and they can go to heaven to be happy and smiling forever. if you died in childbirth... fiery torment forever. so yes, that is what is being said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1766" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T06:37:48.070" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8074" CreationDate="2012-06-17T12:37:55.077" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 John is really the 'discernment' Epistle showing many ways that false teachers can be identified.  The main thing is to look at the life and doctrine of a teacher to ensure they stick to the basic Christ centred ideas and life of love. The basic rules are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;False teachers do not love Christians and they live in wickedness.&lt;/strong&gt; Real Christians know how sinful they are, confess their daily sins, but do not love the world. Real Christians love God, as proven in their love of those who believe in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, that is God's children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a&#xA;liar and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord's daily prayer included 'forgive us our sins' (Math 6:12). Every Christian knows that they sin every day because nobody loves God with all the heart, soul and mind, which is the greatest command. (Math 22:37)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. (1 John 2:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some may seem correct in doctrine, but live in open sin. For example they may say it is alright to commit adultery, practice homosexuality, or the worship of someone other than God, which is idolatry, etc. Such a person is like the Devil appearing as an angel in word, but betrayed in action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. (1 John 2:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian cannot hate another person in the intense way that this implies. It is impossible for a born again; regenerate should to be filled with hate because God’s Spirit remains in them. This especially holds true for our attitudes towards any who belie in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. This is the ‘brother or sister’ being mentioned. Therefore churches and cults, that consider their denomination as the only group that will be saved, are built upon false teachers. Paul says; let such teachers be ‘accursed’ even if they were a Pope, Saint, Apostle, or even an Angel. (Gal 1:8) Anyone who genuinely believes in Christ, proven by their love of all the others who also believe, will have eternal life. (John 3:16, 1 John 5:11-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. (1 John 2:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who puts money, sex, career, worldly status, or religious status before the gospel loves the world and is not a Christian.  (1 John 2:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This cuts to the spirit of all true Christians. The Holy Spirit is a loving Spirit so if that Spirit is within a soul, that soul will love others.  When somebody loves us we can tell. Not only does this help us discern our own attitudes but if somebody seems right in doctrine but is always angry, impatient, not kind, jealous of others, bragging all the time, always argumentative, selfish, or any other non-loving characteristic, the Bible seems to say we should switch channels and listen to someone else. They are clanging gongs (1 Cor Ch 13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;False teachers deny the incarnation of Christ in one way or another.&lt;/strong&gt; They either deny the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, or they deny the incarnation, or atoning sacrifice of sin on the cross. They might deny the whole gospel by thinking their good works will save them rather than Christ.  Real Christians believe that God assumed human nature in Christ, and that by faith in Christ alone we have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. (1 John 4:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gospel hinges on believing that the eternal Son of God took on human nature to offer his soul and body for the punishment of your sin, and my sin. In fact faith is this one statement determines who Christians are and who liars are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:11–13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian can be sure they have eternal life by relying on the death of Christ for their forgiveness. If they rely on their own works by being a good moral person, or being baptised into a specific church, they may still yet go to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the end, discernment is easy for those who have the Holy Spirit.&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? (Matt 7:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible lists the fruit of the Spirit as love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal 5:22) The nature of fruit corresponds to the type of tree from which it grows, and all Christian have been engrafted into Christ as the root, who’s life is our sap and nutrient. Naturally this fruit is not just the attitude but also the doctrine of justification in Christ by faith apart from the works of the law, as is the argument of the entire Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-21T16:23:06.423" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8071" CreationDate="2012-06-17T20:47:36.397" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some major problems with &quot;KJV-onlyism&quot; lies in the assumptions it makes and some of which you enumerated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an evangelical perspective, we accept the idea that the Bible is, indeed, the word of God.  Specifically, &quot;men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from&#xA;  someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by&#xA;  the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by&#xA;  the Holy Spirit.  2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any&#xA;  priuate Interpretation: 21 For the prophecie came not in olde time by&#xA;  the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the&#xA;  holy Ghost.  2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV 1611&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Preservation via a perfect translation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem starts with the third point you enumerated, specifically that the preservation is via a perfect translation, that is one for every language.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does the preservation have to be in a translation?  Why can't the preservation be in the original languages and those manuscripts?  How could we know that the KJV is the perfect translation into English?  The KJV was certainly not even the first translation into English, as it was preceded by the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishop and Douay-Rheims translations, among others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it follow that the first translation into any language is a perfect translation and should never be updated, no matter how much the language changes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, the KJV has been changed quite a few times since it's original release.  No one reads out of the 1611 edition anymore, as our language has changed significantly since that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the whole idea that there must be a preservation in each language at all times misses the point that most languages didn't have any translation until recently, and there are many that still don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this assumption has a hard time fitting reality and even logic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sin and error in other English translations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The assumption that only one translation can be accurate in any language for all times leads the KJV-only people to assert that any other translation into English must be somehow imperfect, and many even assert that sin is the reason.  The translators of the KJV must have been the holiest of men, and all other people who ever attempt to translate Greek and Hebrew into English today must somehow be sinful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't even make sense.  The English language is different today than it was 400 years ago.  Even if there were a perfect translation at that time, we don't speak that language anymore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, why must experts in Hebrew and Greek today who translate the Scriptures into English be somehow tainted by sin?  Is it not possible that they could also be men and women who fear God as much or more as the translators of the KJV?  There are certainly men and women today who are translating the Scriptures into new languages.  Is it holy and righteous to translate into new languages, but the same people who translate into English somehow introduce sin and error?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The KJV-only teaching is rife with assumptions that are just illogical.  There certainly are poor translations into English.  Translation is not an exact science all the time.  Conveying meaning of one language into another is sometimes quite difficult.  The KJV is an excellent translation, among several others.  If you lived in the 1600's, there was nothing as good as that, even if you wanted to read the Apocrypha (which was in the initial printing).  Today, the language of the KJV is no longer spoken.  The NASB and ESV are probably two of the very best of the bunch, in my opinion.  I also use the NIV. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;There are quite a few other allegations from the KJV only crowd.  It could be interesting to address each of these in separate question.  I know James Melton has a booklet entitled &quot;How I know the KJV is the Word of God&quot;, which has some statements that are absolutely ridiculous in it.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-09-16T19:15:39.503" LastActivityDate="2015-09-16T19:15:39.503" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2012-06-17T22:49:45.887" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would be very careful with this subject. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/galatians/1-8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bible.cc/galatians/1-8.htm&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that scripture really applies more to Mormons and whatnot, but Gods Word does not need to be paraphrased and it is not boring! It is clear as day, and if you don't understand something, pray for understanding!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paraphrasing runs the danger of teaching your flock things that does not line up with God's Word. It leads to doctrines that are not sound! It leads to beliefs being formed from a stretch, assuming that something is this way even though it is not clear!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the wiki page hits the nail on the head... &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_paraphrase&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_paraphrase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1767" LastActivityDate="2012-06-17T22:49:45.887" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="404" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:15:57.680" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who is he? Hebrews gives a few clues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he was the king of righteousness (forget the caps, it won't work for now). Next he was the king of Salem, which many say means Jerusalem. I'm not going to cover that here. Verse 3 says he has no father, no mother, no &lt;em&gt;record&lt;/em&gt; of ancestry, no beginning day, no end of life, made like the Son of God (a copy or facsimile!), and stays a priest for ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I know a lot of people just point blank say who they think it is, but I'm just going to throw this out, and maybe someone can use it. Ok, Jesus definitely has a mother (Mary), but at this point he wouldn't have yet. However, he has always had a Father (God). &amp;quot;Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee.&amp;quot; Furthermore, I just realized that that verse says that Jesus had beginning of days (at least that's what it sounds like). No, Jesus has no end of life (unless you count his crucifixion, which wasn't a permanent end of life).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, if he is a copy (made like) of the Son of God (once again, Jesus has a father), he can't also be the Son of God, because then you technically get a circular reference. OK, granted, he could predate the original (nothing's impossible with God)! But he can't be a copy of the original if he is also the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate this point, God is the standard of good. That means that he neither has a copy of the standard as part of his being, or that he &amp;quot;lives by the standard&amp;quot;, since he is &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; standard. [1]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, some people argue that he couldn't be high priest at the same time as Jesus, but the Bible says he is a priest forever. I'm not actually sure that it says he was high priest, but I guess that is implied since Jesus is and he is in the Melchizedek line. So he doesn't have to be a high priest forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now that I have stated why he might not be Jesus, I will mention that some people think he is Shem, since Shem outlived Abraham, and he certainly would have &lt;em&gt;seemed&lt;/em&gt; to fit all those things. But I'll leave that at that and just say that it's a bit plausible. Also some say that that was a nickname for shem (no idea about whether that is fact).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given all that, there are two ideas which they could be, I think. The first would be the Holy Ghost. That may or may not be the case, it's just a thought I have. The second would be an angel who was delegated to fill the role of priest on earth. However I don't think this is the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually as I'm writing this (and reading some online), there does seem to be some support to the idea of Shem being Melchizedek. Especially if it simply means there is nothing recorded. I don't know. I do believe that scripture is the inerrant, inspired word of God. I also believe that people can misunderstand and mistranslate it (who doesn't?!?!). The Jewish tradition is exactly that, that Melchizedek was a nickname for Shem. And Paul allegedly uses the Jewish tradition quite a few times, so it may have some weight, but I'm not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a somewhat counter argument, one more thing to note is that all three books of Enoch refer to him as Jesus in different ways. So, all this for what it's worth. I'm not claiming that I know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is why he says &amp;quot;Thou shalt not kill&amp;quot; and then kills people himself. He knows who to kill and when in order to hurt as little wheat as possible (The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares). People don't know that, and while he uses people to do it sometimes, it's not unknown for him to do it himself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="725" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T12:33:29.413" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8082" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8084" CreationDate="2012-06-18T00:35:45.743" Score="2" ViewCount="303" Body="&lt;p&gt;My pastor correlates any event going on in the world as a sign of getting closer to the return of Christ, using all different quotes from the book of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013&amp;amp;version=ERV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember Jesus saying something about looking for signs is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it sinful to prophesy what will happen in the future by looking for world events that match some scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-06-18T01:42:03.500" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T02:00:42.423" Title="Is it sinful to prophesy using the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-05-05T17:58:28.130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2727" CreationDate="2012-06-18T01:11:23.440" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;, paraphrasing the Bible for conversational use would not make Sola Scriptura folks cringe.  &lt;em&gt;(There are always exceptions, but in general you should be fine.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Forbidding paraphrases wouldn't make a lot of sense.&lt;/strong&gt;  Everyone paraphrases Scripture - even the writers of the New Testament did this.  (&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1883/529&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;)  In fact, every Bible translation out there is actually a paraphrase; word-for-word translations would make no sense in English.  (Pick up an interlinear Bible some time and take a look at the direct translations from Hebrew and Greek... they are &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; hard to follow!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What Sola Scriptura folks will want to make sure of&lt;/strong&gt; is that any &lt;em&gt;claims&lt;/em&gt; about what Scripture says actually line up with the &lt;em&gt;teachings&lt;/em&gt; of Scripture.  (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7759/1548&quot;&gt;further reading&lt;/a&gt;)  So if you are talking to a &quot;Sola Scriptura person&quot; and you say, &quot;Jesus says, Love one another as I have loved you,&quot; just make sure you're ready to back it up with Scripture and you'll be fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Case in point:&lt;/strong&gt; I'm about as &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt; as they come, and I frequently paraphrase Scripture, but the important thing is that the Scriptures actually do support my claims, regardless of whether I use the exact wording.  (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8013/1548&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T01:11:23.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8082" CreationDate="2012-06-18T02:00:42.423" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two important aspects to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1)&lt;/strong&gt; We are not allowed to attribute meaning to a Biblical prophecy that is different from God's intended meaning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:20-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-2 Peter 1:20-21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2)&lt;/strong&gt; We are supposed to pay attention to prophecy, understand it, and recognize it when it begins to be fulfilled:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Revelation 1:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Mark 13:23&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Mark 13:29&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; Every prophecy of Scripture originated with God, who had a specific meaning in mind when He gave it.  The only appropriate interpretation is the one which retains His original intent.  If a prophecy is truly being fulfilled, we would do well to recognize it.  However, it is inappropriate to make guesses about the meaning based on current life circumstances and then teach it as if it were God's original intent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T02:00:42.423" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8085" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-18T04:17:32.760" Score="8" ViewCount="510" Body="&lt;p&gt;As might be well-known to some, and perhaps especially to Catholics, the name of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Malachy&quot;&gt;Saint Malachy&lt;/a&gt;, a former Archbishop of Armagh, is often associated with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes&quot;&gt;Prophecy of the Popes&lt;/a&gt;. Much of the recent interest in this prophecy appears not to come from within Catholicism itself. Is there a general consensus from within Catholicism on this seemingly important issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1450" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-01-27T13:41:01.380" LastActivityDate="2016-02-03T03:40:43.170" Title="What is the status of St Malachy's prophecy within Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;malachy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6581" CreationDate="2012-06-18T04:49:50.197" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God only intended fellowship of man, why is man bound to this earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God intended man to live in their earthly body forever, why do the end of man and the end of earth coincide?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God created man only to praise him, why did he create man lower than the Angels, but only for a little while? (Psalms 8, Hebrews 2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God created man in “our own image”, the image referenced is not physical appearance.  God has no physical appearance.  The “image” referenced is a single will with God and created without sin.  When Adam sinned, that “image” was broken, and the only way to regain that “image” was through an innocent sacrifice, Jesus Christ.  Because of Adams sin, another will came in to existence, the will of man.  From that moment in time, all men are truly created equal; we are all sinners because of the “sin nature” that has been passed on.  Because all men are sinners, our deeds, sacrifices, or good behavior is not adequate for forgiveness, because we are all guilty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not create man solely for the purpose of fellowship.  Remember God has already created the Angels.  Prior to the creation of man, there was only 1 will in heaven, the will of God.  When Satan fell, because of his arrogance, (Isaiah 14) (Ezekiel 28) he and his fallen Angels were imprisoned on earth. (Revelation 12)  God made the heavens and earth, but during the initial time of the fallen Angels imprisonment on earth, God made the earth void and formless.  This occurred between Genisis1:1 and Genisis1:2.  During his imprisonment, Satan protested that a “just” God would not imprison one of his creations without allowing them an opportunity to prove their case.  God granted Satan the opportunity to prove “he is like the most high”.  God then renewed the earth, created the creatures on the earth, and created man.  This is sometimes called the “gap” theory.  This also explains the dinosaurs, which were on this earth before man, and the ice age.  God released Satan from his imprisonment, and made him the Prince of the earth (John 16) (2 Corinthians 4) to see how well Satan could rule over a lower creation, man.  This is why the world is in such a horrible condition.  Satan has failed.  Man’s only defense against Satan’s schemes is through the word of God, salvation by believing in Jesus Christ as God’s son, and guidance by the Holy Spirit that lives in all believers.  Remember, God is the creator and Satan is a creation.  There is no struggle between good and evil on a cosmic basis, the struggle is within us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 43 tells us that we are to glorify God and we are his witness.  The only way we can glorify God is to acknowledge that we are totally depraved without God, and all blessing are a gift from God, not something we earned or we deserved.  Our witness is to the goodness and grace of God which we all receive, but no one deserves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I Timothy 2 tells us God desires ALL men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.  Galatians 4 tells us that believers are the heir to Gods kingdom.  John 17 tells us that believers, Jesus Christ, God and the Holy Spirit are one.  When all men are born, their names are entered into the “Book of Life”.  The only way our name is removed, is to reject Jesus Christ as the son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ALL the answers are in the Bible, be filled with the Holy Spirit and read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1768" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T04:49:50.197" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8087" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8097" CreationDate="2012-06-18T05:23:18.670" Score="-1" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[a] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:16 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I take works of the law to be moral law here. That is love for God and our neighbor are the works of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if someone loved God and their neighbor their whole life, wouldn't God accept them?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a Protestant answer to this question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-19T00:10:22.603" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T13:48:20.177" Title=" Does God exclude loving your neighbor as a basis for being accepted into heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2618" CreationDate="2012-06-18T10:45:17.797" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. (1 John 4:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have experience this verse myself when encountering a demon possessed woman, who had escaped from a hospital under psychiatric protection.  When I encountered her, her eye’s locked into mine and I sensed an evil like breeze overwhelming me. Her horrid evils eyes grew excited as I fearfully thought that a demon (among many inside her) was trying to leave her and enter me.  I was afraid and had no time to think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instantly a holy anger rose within me overpowering my fear and I can only describe what felt as a wave of peaceful anger flowing back against her. It was like a knee-jerk reaction. She turned her face violently away from me as though she had become frozen. I was a new Christian so I did not attempt to cast the demon out from her. I just left. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this encounter, I have always read this verse differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. (1 John 3:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having also been demon possessed prior to my conversion, due to payers that I had made to the Devil during my teens, I can vouch that anyone demon possessed will experience hatred of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But all Christians have eternal life in them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you see from scripture and first hand accounts, it is not possible by any means that a Christian can become demon possessed. Even a Christian who is so very much afraid of that, this fear can not lead to it actually happening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-18T15:08:36.047" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T15:08:36.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8090" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-18T15:00:33.920" Score="4" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that Historicity of certain Old testament Kings is recognized. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However some like Jonah or Job aren't know to fields of Archaeology or History.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What information, evidence do we have and for what figures? (The list can include both known and unknown or debated figures)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-06-20T12:55:47.910" LastActivityDate="2015-03-06T13:20:05.897" Title="Historicity of which Biblical characters is recognized by Archaeology/History?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-03-06T20:35:11.317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8090" CreationDate="2012-06-18T15:12:28.090" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are tons of resources. I've never seen an itemized list, but I've seen dozens of resources like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irr.org/mit/bible-archaeology.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, you'll find that some findings are disputed, and as is the case with any science, new discoveries often change existing assumptions, so such a list would be ever-changing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48969466.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;list of 61 such people here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More at &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=Biblical%20people%20verified%20by%20archaeology&amp;amp;ie=utf-8&amp;amp;oe=utf-8&amp;amp;aq=t&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;client=firefox-a#hl=en&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;hs=VNz&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;sclient=psy-ab&amp;amp;q=list%20of%20Biblical%20people%20verified%20by%20archaeology&amp;amp;oq=list%20of%20Biblical%20people%20verified%20by%20archaeology&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;gs_l=serp.3...86727.90346.1.91266.8.8.0.0.0.0.152.1149.0j8.8.0...0.0.vY5vquGzDas&amp;amp;psj=1&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&amp;amp;fp=f16fd9087f0f178c&amp;amp;biw=1280&amp;amp;bih=619&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this set of search results&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T15:12:28.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2618" CreationDate="2012-06-18T17:02:59.197" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fr. Gabriel Amorth (at one time the chief exorcist for the Vatican) in his book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0898707102&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;An Exorcist Tells His Tale&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; cites two examples of people who were decidedly Christians (and, in fact were very devout) who were possessed by demons. He goes on to explain that it is his experience that possession by a demon has nothing to do with the state of one's soul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also makes the comment that the belief that somehow churches are immune from the work of demons is patently absurd. It is something which was made up by people in Hollywood. There is no place that is safe from demonic influence. There is no state where the devil is &lt;em&gt;unable&lt;/em&gt; to torment us (though he also says that there are things we can do to make him less willing/interested in attacking).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-06-18T17:02:59.197" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8085" CreationDate="2012-06-19T01:43:34.640" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no consensus, because there is hardly any discussion about this in official Catholic circles. For eg. a google search on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;vatican website&lt;/a&gt; for &quot;prophecy of the popes&quot; (in quotes) or &quot;prophecy of malachi&quot; (in quotes) or &quot;prophecy of saint malachi&quot; (in quotes) yields no relevant results. On the other hand you will find huge discussion on things like the prophecies of Fatima, the revelation to Sr Faustina and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems the official Catholic Church doesn't give so much weight to this prophecy.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;catholic.com&lt;/a&gt;, which is the largest Catholic apologetics site in the world says that &quot;The consensus among modern scholars is that it is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/do-the-prophecies-of-st-malachy-suggest-we-are-living-in-the-end-times&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;16th-century forgery&lt;/a&gt; created for partisan political reasons&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T01:43:34.640" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8094" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8096" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:25:43.290" Score="3" ViewCount="6010" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard from my parents/grandparents that God is in the process of building a new Earth. Where in the Bible does it say God is creating a new Earth? Why would God build a new Earth? I know it says in the Bible that God loves all of man kind, but didn't he also regret creating man once he saw what they did? Why would he do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1771" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-06-04T22:54:45.900" LastActivityDate="2015-06-04T22:54:45.900" Title="Where in the Bible does it say that God is creating a new earth?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;earth&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-06-06T08:54:25.330" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8095" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-19T07:57:54.663" Score="2" ViewCount="3037" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have mostly studied theology by people who have their views labeled as Covenant Theology, by the label makers. Recently, I have studied views of some who prefer the label, Biblical Theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have noticed differences between the two but have not attempted to put those differences into words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, 'What are the main differences between Reformed Protestant &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Biblical Theology&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Covenant Theology&lt;/a&gt;?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not asking about Systematic Theology as this label seems to speak more about style rather than content. I am asking about differences in actual belief, not style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-11-10T00:25:19.437" LastActivityDate="2017-11-10T00:25:19.437" Title="What are the main differences between Reformed Protestant Biblical Theology and Covenant Theology?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;covenant-theology&gt;&lt;biblical-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8094" CreationDate="2012-06-19T11:31:16.553" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;John, I am providing a fairly 'long answer' as you seem genuinely interested. You have tapped into a long historical theme in the Bible with your question. The first occurrence of the actual words ‘new earth’ occurs here at around 700 BC:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. (Isaiah 65:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This prophecy was made by Isaiah to Judah who would be fallen into captivity by the Babylonian Kingdom (roughly around 500 BC) but would again be saved, just as Moses had delivered them from Egypt. So by what might appear on face-value as a hyperbole, this was a promise to Judah that after they became captive they would also again return to Jerusalem. This return would be like a ‘new world’. At least it would be better than the life in Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the language goes far beyond what one might expect from such deliverance and seems ‘heavenly’ so within old Rabbinic interpretation before Christ these verses were taken to apply to the times of the future Messiah who would restore Israel.  For example this does not seem like something normal on earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. (Isaiah 65:20).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of an Old Rabbi’s view from an ancient Midrash before Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But a still more strange application of the verse occurs in the same Midrash (Par. 95, ed. Warsh. p. 170 a), where the opening clauses of it are quoted with this remark: Come and see all that the Holy One, blessed be His Name, has smitten in this world, He will heal in the latter days. Upon which a curious disquisition follows, to prove that every man would appear after death exactly as he had been in life, whether blind, dumb, or halting, nay, even in the same dress, as in the case of Samuel when Saul saw him - but that afterward&#xA;  God would heal the diseased. (Life and Times of Jesus, Alfred Edresheim, Appendix X, P1255).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this Messianic expectation surrounding a ‘new world’ was that the Messiah would bring all Israelites back to Jerusalem and heal everybody in a sort of utopian society.  This is how they would interpret the next verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox (Isaiah 65:25).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can feel the heavenly impression of this peaceful image. This added to a Messianic expectation of a truly ‘new world’. Besides the life after their return from Babylon was not really so exalted, they did not even have their own independent King, but were vassals of other Kings. Therefore this only increased the Messianic expectation leading up to the time of Jesus from Bethlehem.  The Jews were subject to the Romans at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this Messianic expectation that a ‘new’ world would be created, the New Testament picks up on the theme in fulfillment and in prediction of another future fulfillment. First, in the current fulfillment a ‘new’ world was already created by Christ’s death, resurrection and ‘coming in power’ by his sending the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. This was a ‘creation of a new world’, or His ‘kingdom’ and so we call it the new covenant. Those who believe in God are called members of this kingdom and are born again into it, having a ‘new life’ in this ‘new world’. This was like God ‘shaking the whole heavens and earth’, so that a new heaven and new earth would result from what ‘could not be shaken’ (See Haggai 2:6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second the New Testament also indicates that this ‘shaking’ is not yet fully accomplished:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. c That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. (2 Peter 3:10-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So your answer your questions: Jesus has made a new world and is still building it, all are welcome to join by placing their faith in Him. Also there will come a time when the whole world will be destroyed by fire at the second coming of Christ to ‘judge the living and the dead’. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding why God regretted that he made man after the world had become so filled with sin, it is a anthropomorphism, or personification, of God as though he was a man, in order that we can understand what would otherwise be incomprehensible. In other words God has his own reasons for making man, even knowing they would sin and fall, but as we cannot fully comprehend them, He just wanted us to understand that sinful man is far beyond what his purpose was. Yet no worries, now God has shown us how He planned to kill sin, and kill, death, it was in Christ so that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is both, how God made a new world, and how we can enter into it today. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-06-20T17:11:59.033" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T17:11:59.033" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8087" CreationDate="2012-06-19T12:46:03.210" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;A prominent concept in the Bible is that we cannot earn our way to heaven, no matter how hard we work or how much good we do.  The person who lives the holiest life ever lived has still sinned.  The good does not outweigh the bad, any more than giving to charity does not get you out of a speeding ticket or allow you to cheat on your taxes with impunity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not owe mankind anything at all.  Salvation is a gift--not an award.  So, again, no matter how much &quot;good&quot; you do in your life, loving God and your neighbor or sacraments or vows of poverty or anything else, you cannot earn a place in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God &quot;accepts&quot; those who put their faith in Jesus and His work on the cross--not those who put their faith in their own good works of loving God and loving people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made&#xA;  known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 &lt;strong&gt;This&#xA;  righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who&#xA;  believe.&lt;/strong&gt; There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for &lt;strong&gt;all&#xA;  have sinned&lt;/strong&gt; and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are&#xA;  justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by&#xA;  Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,&#xA;  through the shedding of his blood —to be received &lt;strong&gt;by faith&lt;/strong&gt;. He did&#xA;  this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he&#xA;  had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — 26 he did it to&#xA;  demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just&#xA;  and &lt;strong&gt;the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The&#xA;  law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith.&#xA;  28 For we maintain that &lt;strong&gt;a person is justified by faith apart from the&#xA;  works of the law.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T12:46:03.210" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8047" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:31:14.017" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The different &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsarianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lapsarian&lt;/a&gt; views are philosophical explanations of the logical ordering of the meta-narrative of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The chronological order is pretty clear:&#xA;Creation -&gt; Fall -&gt; Redempetion -&gt; Glorification&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And scripture makes it pretty clear that this was the plan since &quot;before the foundation of world&quot; (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:18-21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:18-21&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013:8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 13:8&lt;/a&gt;), so, the question that these views seeks to answer is the logical precedence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supralapsarians will say that the plan for redemption and election superceded the plan for the fall, because his redeemed people nec. need to be redeemed from &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, Infralapsarians will say that the the plan for the fall came first, and from the fallen race of men came the plan for redemption and election.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T14:31:14.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="653" CreationDate="2012-06-19T14:34:41.570" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You ask if you &quot;may&quot;. To answer that, it is necessary to check first what authority are you seeking to &quot;allow&quot; it to you. Do you care about offending other Catholics in some particular church assembly? About crossing the Catholic rules or doctrine? Do you want to know if a particular priest administering the communion will have any objections?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;most protestant churches have nothing against their members participating in Catholic communion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;from the Catholic side there are some conditions&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if you are after official Catholic church doctrine, you need to follow the following rules (see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Who Can Receive Communion?&lt;/a&gt;):&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you need to believe the bread and wine are becoming the body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you should be allowed by a bishop (&lt;a href=&quot;http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.shtml#1401&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1401&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CIC 844 §4&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you need to follow the same rules as Catholics do, i.e:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;do not eat or drink anything else but water one hour before the communion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you need to go to confession before communion (if you're in Mortal Sin). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;in practice, individual Catholics including priests apply much more liberal rules, sometimes they even actively encourage protestants to participate in the communion. If you are interested about this, you need to ask the priest, or the people visiting the church if the priests attitude is known to them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1727" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2015-07-03T04:03:29.180" LastActivityDate="2015-07-03T04:03:29.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7936" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:21:40.897" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had the same thoughts you did until I understood Luther more.  The thing with Luther is that he most certainly believed you are saved by faith only and that even baptism was not necessary. Having said that he puts such weight on Baptism that it almost seems that 'if there was anything needed beyond faith' baptism would be it.  You must not blame Luther for his fear of breaking away from Baptism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His idea was Different then yours and mine. He thought there was a lot of power in Baptism so that many children could have faith when they were baptized.  It was not about saying faith was not enough, it was about not wanting to take that away from children. For example, Luther said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If baptism is not right, that is, without value or help to the children, then I would be guilty of no greater sin than the Word of God had been spoken and his sign given in vain. I would not be responsible for the loss of any soul, but only of an ineffectual use of the Word and sign of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this God would easily forgive me, since it was done in ignorance and more than that out of fear. I did not invent it. It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong. I would have been unwilling to do it, had I been convinced otherwise. It would be very much as when I preach the Word, also according to his command, among the unbelieving and without fruit, or as it is said, cast pearls before swine, or holy things to the dogs [Matt. 7:6]. What could I do? Here, too, I would rather sin in preaching fruitlessly than in refusing to preach at all. (Luther's Works Volume 40, P254). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you see Luther was uneasy to entertain a break from the Catholic church on this point.  The second main idea with Luther, is that he saw Baptism as something that could be like a woman marrying someone they do not love.  A woman may get married without love, but then after falling in love their is no need to remarry. This is because the marriage rite was performed properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But a baptism on the Word and command of God even when faith is not present is still a correct and certain baptism if it takes place as God commanded. Granted, it is not of benefit to the baptized one who is without faith, because of his lack of faith, but the baptism is not thereby incorrect, uncertain, or of no meaning. (Luther's Works Volume 40, P253)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now just to be clear this is the real Luther we all know and love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what we think. When the Holy Spirit makes us aware of the work of Christ and of his merit, outwardly through the gospel and inwardly through his gift, when he bestows this merit upon us and causes us to believe in it, then this faith is nothing else than a living trust and confidence in the merit that Christ has bestowed upon us. We rely upon it from the bottom of our hearts, without doing any works of our own. We are confident that it is not our own works but the work and merit of Christ that destroys our sins, overcomes death, and swallows up hell. This means that no work is required in order to believe in God or to have a true and living faith. (Luther's Works Volume 36, P301-302)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the subject of believers who die before being baptized, Luther, even with his high view of baptism says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a person can’t have access to the sacrament (baptism), faith is enough, according to that word, ‘Your faith has made you well’ [Matt. 9:22]. On the other hand, if he can have it, he should not despise it. (Luther's Works Volume 54, P459)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in summary, Luther never thought of it as adding something to works.  In fact he accused Anabaptists as making baptism a work, for not trusting that faith coming after baptism was good enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is really the key to setting this subject right.  The Anabaptists and Lutherans were actually the same in many ways , they just did not realize it yet, among those violent changing times. As far as the Anabaptists and Luther go in history, they had more in common then history might make it appear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T16:21:40.897" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2089" CreationDate="2012-06-19T16:39:35.377" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason for the different traditions of frequency of communion is that there are a wide variety of views within Christianity about what communion actually is. It is so widely disagreed over that Christians often can't agree over what name to call it. The different theologies give rise to different practices of communion, including different frequencies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be far too long and complicated to discuss in detail the different views of communion here. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; gives a reasonable overview, and I will attempt to pull out some salient points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic view of Mass&lt;/a&gt; (which differs slightly in a technical way from communion, but which we will treat as the same thing for this answer) is that in the Mass &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the body and blood of Jesus become actually present&lt;/a&gt;. Moreover the Mass is an actual sacrifice by the participants, by which the benefits of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross are made available to the participants. (I will state here, because of common misconceptions, that this does not imply that the sacrifice of the Mass either adds to or replaces the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus). While the details are complex, the implication of this is that participation in the Mass is beneficial in and of itself. This explains the Catholic practice of attending Mass frequently - once a week for normal members and even more frequently for priests and other religious. Each attendance brings with it benefits, and the more frequently it is done the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the other end of our oversimplified spectrum is the view that communion is simply a memorial - a ritual in which each person remembers the sacrifice and death of Jesus. This was the view espoused by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zwingli&lt;/a&gt;, and is generally held by Baptists and similar churches. It is usually referred to as Memorialism. The benefit of participating in this memorial is limited to the extent to which it is helpful to the individual, producing thoughts and feelings that assist the participant's spiritual life. Because there is no &lt;em&gt;intrinsic&lt;/em&gt; benefit to attending a service of communion, frequency of attendance is much less. It was thought that since the effects were dependent on the state of the participant's mind, then over-frequent attendance was counter-productive and seen as idolatory by the reformers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many churches hold different views to those, and they can roughly be arranged on a line from 'real presence' to 'entirely symbolic'. Frequency of attendance is typically reasonably correlated with being close to the 'real presence' end. Anglicans and Lutherans typically believe in the 'real presence' without necessarily endorsing the doctrine of transubstantiation, and typically celebrate weekly, with celebrations more frequent than daily being discouraged for everyone. Memorialist churches tend to celebrate once a month, or a few times a year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might mention a few outliers from this pattern: the Salvation Army, which does not celebrate communion at all (thanks to its origins in as a para-church rather than a church organization, and its strongly anti-alcohol stance) and the churches that associate communion strongly with the Jewish Passover, and celebrate communion once a year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know the very early Church shared communion at least once a week, from their specifically celebrating the resurrection on the first day of each week, and the description we have of them celebrating the sacrament whenever they were gathered together.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/mass-h2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;By the middle of the fourth century AD&lt;/a&gt; the Eucharist was given in what is more or less the modern Catholic and Orthodox forms, though the various Eastern Rites probably developed slightly before the Latin Rite (ibid).  The older weekly celebration corresponds more to the modern Sacramental frequency than to the Memorial frequency, which makes sense since the early Church &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache#Eucharist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;held the Eucharist to be sacramental in nature&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Patristic_period&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;additional citation&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2019-08-19T15:51:50.973" LastActivityDate="2019-08-19T15:51:50.973" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8048" CreationDate="2012-06-19T18:42:56.440" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt;  The answer to your question depends completely on how you understand the &amp;quot;sacrament of priesthood&amp;quot;, and on how you interpret the early writings.  To me it seems clear that the early church did not have a singular voice on the topic, and at least some of them did not seem to view &amp;quot;priesthood&amp;quot; the way many Churches today view it.  I think the Orthodox Theologian you referred to was taking a little too much liberty in his teachings.  However, many Churches interpret the writings differently than I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&amp;quot;Sacrament of Priesthood&amp;quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, let's clarify what is meant by the &amp;quot;sacrament of priesthood.&amp;quot;  The idea comes from Scripture.  &lt;em&gt;(I disagree with the interpretation, but that's beside the point.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;selected specific men&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; from amongst his disciples to serve as Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;After He ascended, we also see the Spirit instructing the leaders in the early Church to &lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;set apart&amp;quot; specific men&lt;/strong&gt; for similar duties:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2013:2-3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Acts 13:2-3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that in response to the Spirit's instructions, they &lt;strong&gt;fasted&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;prayed&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;laid hands&lt;/strong&gt; on them, and then &lt;strong&gt;sent&lt;/strong&gt; them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 2:2&lt;/a&gt; we see that &lt;strong&gt;Paul&lt;/strong&gt; taught &lt;strong&gt;Timothy&lt;/strong&gt; and then instructed him to pass on those learnings to &lt;strong&gt;faithful men&lt;/strong&gt; who would be able to teach &lt;strong&gt;others&lt;/strong&gt;.  This is usually taken to imply a &amp;quot;lineage&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;heritage&amp;quot; that continued past the original apostles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Many&lt;/strong&gt; Churches understand these passages to be indications of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sacrament&lt;/a&gt; called &amp;quot;priesthood&amp;quot; (a.k.a. &amp;quot;holy orders&amp;quot;) which is passed on through a lineage of Priests tracing back to Christ.  The following is a pretty good definition of the &amp;quot;sacrament of priesthood&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sacrament of Priesthood is a holy sacrament through which the bishop lays his hands on the head of the elected candidate, so that the Holy Spirit will descend on him and grant him one of the priestly ranks. He is then given the authority to officiate the Sacraments of the church, doctrines, and others. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/7_priesthood.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-source&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: this is also referred to as &amp;quot;apostolic succession&amp;quot; since the idea is that the priesthood traces back through the Apostles to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Support from the Early Church&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of early church fathers who are often cited as being in support of the &amp;quot;sacrament of priesthood&amp;quot;.  &lt;em&gt;(NOTE: The word &amp;quot;sacrament&amp;quot; wasn't in use in the early church, but the &lt;strong&gt;ideas&lt;/strong&gt; of priestly lineage and apostolic succession were.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clement of Rome (AD 96)&lt;/strong&gt; taught apostolic succession (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fisheaters.com/apostolicsuccession.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;), although there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/apostolic-succession-4-st-clement-of-rome/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;some debate&lt;/a&gt; about the specifics of his views.  Here is a decent summary of his position:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clement of Rome states that the apostles appointed successors to continue their work where they had planted churches and for these in their turn to do the same because they foresaw the risk of discord. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#.22Apostolic_succession.22_in_the_early_Fathers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Wikipedia&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Irenaeus (AD 180)&lt;/strong&gt; wrote explicitly in favor of apostolic succession in his book &lt;em&gt;Against All Heresies&lt;/em&gt;.  There are several pertinent quotes available for viewing online &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=720&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hegesippus (AD 180)&lt;/strong&gt; is sometimes referenced as a supporter of apostolic succession, although this does not seem to be a faithful interpretation of the emphasis in his writings.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/259460/Saint-Hegesippus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tertullian (AD 200)&lt;/strong&gt; is often cited as a proponent of apostolic succession, because in his writings he challenged heretics to produce evidence that their priesthood originated with the Apostles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;let them unfold the [record] of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [the first bishop of theirs] shall be able to show [that] his ordainer and predecessor [was] one of the apostles or of apostolic men... For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna ... as also the church of Rome... In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit [their bishops] as having been appointed ... by apostles... &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-source&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (esp. chapter 32)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, a more careful reading of this chapter will reveal the context of these statements.  He is specifically challenging heretics who &lt;em&gt;claim to be teaching apostolic tradition&lt;/em&gt;.  His challenge is for them to provide evidence of this alleged apostolic succession, which he knows they can not do.  He goes on to explain that even if they are able to produce evidence, it will clearly be a fabrication, since their teachings do not align with the teachings of the apostles.  Near the end of the chapter he explains that &lt;strong&gt;any church whose teachings are in alignment with the teachings of the apostles are just as valid as those actually having descended from the apostles!&lt;/strong&gt;  He is not teaching on the &amp;quot;sacrament of priesthood&amp;quot; or on &amp;quot;apostolic tradition&amp;quot;, but rather on ensuring their teachings are in &lt;strong&gt;unity&lt;/strong&gt; with the teachings of the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some folks (like me) will read these passages and quotes from early church fathers and conclude that the answer to your question is clearly &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;; the early church fathers (disciples of apostles) did not believe in apostolic succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;strong&gt;many&lt;/strong&gt; Churches read these passages and quotes and conclude that the answer to your question is &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;, and believe there is clear evidence of this in writings such as those I listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T18:42:56.440" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8113" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8115" CreationDate="2012-06-19T20:23:14.440" Score="7" ViewCount="589" Body="&lt;p&gt;I get that often. I meet a lot of people who have some sort of troubles in their life and they show interest in reading the Bible to heal themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the majority of these people just approach the Bible in the same way they approach an &quot;ATM&quot; machine, and they think that &quot;if God exists&quot; they should just &quot;ask for a matter&quot; and &quot;God should provide in a button press&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How to explain to those friends that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faith is a lifestyle; it requires a &lt;i&gt;one on one&lt;/i&gt; &lt;b&gt;relationship&lt;/b&gt; with God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faith is by giving your life to God and trust His way of guiding you even though you cannot always understand how God thinks, and His ways.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faith is not only by asking, but also by giving to others and not being selfish&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God WILL provide &lt;b&gt;at the right time, the right moment IF what they are asking for is actually what God thinks is beneficial for them&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How to help people to get out of the &lt;b&gt;materialistic&lt;/b&gt; ways of approaching something pure and divine like the Bible and understand there will be easy and hard days through faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Update&lt;/b&gt;:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Even though I do not agree on all (more details at the end of the update) that was mentioned in the accepted answer, but the solution David Stratton gave which is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All we can do with those who have been taught the modern gospel is to take them to Scripture and tell them the truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is in my opinion the correct way to do it. Show the scripture then explain it in a spiritual way so that they stop thinking with a materialistic brain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;What were the points in his answer that i had some comments about?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I do believe God is love &quot;God is love, come to Him and He will fix your broken marriage, drug problem, financial woes, etc.) &quot; &lt;b&gt;If&lt;/b&gt; you build a relationship with him and give him your life and all the steps you make. The Bible says:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God is happiness, religion should not be only a feeling of guilt that we are sinners who deserve hell. of course we are sinners, but that is why Jesus died on the cross to forgive all our sins, and thus we may live and be happy and prosper:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. &quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God does want us to enjoy and help others enjoy life BUT we need a one on one relationship; i.e, every step that we do we must tell him &lt;i&gt;&quot;I put it between your hands and you decide what should happen&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1313" LastEditorUserId="219" LastEditDate="2013-06-01T20:49:58.107" LastActivityDate="2013-06-02T03:42:21.010" Title="Troubled people showing interest in reading the Bible: how to explain to them that faith is a lifestyle and not an &quot;ATM&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;preaching&gt;&lt;faith-healing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-01-20T09:01:55.453" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8113" CreationDate="2012-06-19T20:33:16.940" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think that by the definition of &quot;Christianity&quot; provided by this site, all Christians could agree with your assessment of faith's role in prayer. However, speaking from a Baptist tradition, I am inclined to agree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ prayed in the garden that if it was His Father's will, that the cup would pass from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the conditional &quot;not my will but yours be done,&quot; we can say one of two things: either Christ had little faith or else He was showing good form in making His request conditional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the cup did not pass. We can say either Christ did not have enough faith, or else the cup was not to pass from Him by the will of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same man that taught us how to pray would surely know the proper nature of making his prayer conditional upon the Father's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same man that told us that faith the size of a mustard seed will move a mountain, the same man who withered a fruit tree by command, the same man who made blind men to see, the same man who made lame men walk, the same man who made dumb men speak, the same man who made dead men live again surely had the faith to make the cup pass, if it had been contingent upon that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2012-06-19T20:38:36.590" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T20:38:36.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8113" CreationDate="2012-06-19T21:09:52.627" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the problem is a result of the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-tube/play.php?id=cwnVideo-1817&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Modern Gospel&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. &#xA;(God is love, come to Him and He will fix your broken marriage, drug problem, financial woes, etc.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel as told in Scripture is not even close to what's being preached by most Evangelical Churches today. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(That we're sinners who have offended God by our selfishness, disobedience, and unbelief, and that we have &lt;em&gt;earned&lt;/em&gt; hell, but if we simply rely on His free gift, repent, and trust in Christ, He will save us from an eternity in Hell.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that The Scriptures don't promise an easy life. They promise trials, hardship, and persecution. See my answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6773/how-are-devout-christians-viewed-by-other-believers-when-they-are-not-delivered&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some relevant verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Mark 8:34-36)&lt;/strong&gt; If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life&#xA;  will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s&#xA;  will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world&#xA;  and forfeit his soul?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Acts 9:15-16)&lt;/strong&gt; But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings,&#xA;  and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he&#xA;  must suffer for my name's sake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(John 15:18-21)&lt;/strong&gt; If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me&#xA;  before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love&#xA;  its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of&#xA;  the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I&#xA;  said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you...&#xA;  because they do not know Him who sent Me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, all we can do with those who have been taught the modern gospel  is to take them to Scripture and tell them the truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, un-teaching false doctrines spread by well-meaning, but misguided people is a part of life. I'm sure there are plenty of people un-teaching my mistakes as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T02:29:36.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7995" CreationDate="2012-06-19T22:17:27.813" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;My (limited) understanding is that many of these terms are relatively modern. The early Christians were known as followers of Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth. Our Western language Bibles have inherited the language of the later Roman and post Roman periods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My NIV uses the term &quot;The Fellowship of the Believers&quot; as a heading in Acts 2 where v44 refers to &quot;All the believers were together&quot;. &quot;Believers&quot; is referenced 14 times in Acts in fact so it is clearly a commonly used term - at least as translated to English. &quot;Saints&quot; on the other hand is only referenced 3 times, it seems to be more common to the book of Romans. I'm afraid I'm not enough of a scholar to analyse further than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In truth though, I'm wondering &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; you think this significant? As others have said, there are a number of indirect descriptors of Christians such as &quot;the Faithful&quot;. It would help to understand your thinking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For my own part, it is important for me to be associated with Jesus Christ (e.g. the Son of God, not just a man) since this is the significant difference of my faith. So I am happy to be called a Christian, a believer, faithful or a saint (notice not a capital S there!). Or indeed anything else that makes it clear that Jesus is the Earthly mark of my adoption by the Most High God. (&quot;I Am the Way&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1778" LastActivityDate="2012-06-19T22:17:27.813" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8074" CreationDate="2012-06-19T22:41:04.760" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible clearly talks about the &quot;fruit of the Spirit&quot; (Gal 5:22). It is the outcome of peoples beliefs that mark them for what they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do the outcomes of their beliefs result in the kind of things we see Jesus doing and that we see throughout the New Testament? (John 14:12, Acts 2:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own experience is that those who are true to their Father carry the power and authority of Heaven (as befits those who are adopted by the Father into His kingdom). It makes them &lt;em&gt;interesting&lt;/em&gt; and often uncomfortable people to be around! (It's not just in Acts you can see this stuff happening but throughout the world today)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, it is not only easy to hide wrongdoing but also easy to step off the right path as happened to a church that I used to go to. So it is important for all of us who consider ourselves &quot;citizens of Heaven&quot; to keep watch over the Church and those who claim the authority of God and to hold them accountable. Just as they should hold us accountable for our actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, I believe that we should be doing this as Earthly citizens too - something which would go a long way towards fixing some of the ills of our democratic governments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Jas, sorry I clearly didn't explain everything I needed to. I am &lt;strong&gt;absolutely&lt;/strong&gt; in agreement with you about the dangers. I also &lt;strong&gt;totally&lt;/strong&gt; agree with you regarding the importance of 1 Cor 13, thanks for highlighting that. You are right that, without the evidence of God's infinite love, everything else is not only pointless but extremely dangerous. In fact, that is the point I was trying to make - sadly I didn't manage to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To expand then, the outcomes that I am talking about include the demonstration of and the act of God's love. A Christian who demonstrates the &quot;Gifts of the Spirit&quot; as often recognised (tongues, healing, etc.) without also demonstrating the Love and discernment that also characterises God's interactions with us clearly has something wrong. This was evident in one of the big US churches recently where they were seeing many signs and wonders but were drifting away from the love and intimacy - they ended up with some of the church leaders getting into trouble. I also made reference to this in my fourth paragraph, another case where a strong, dynamic church went horribly wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None-the-less, this does not excuse us from taking hold of the responsibilities that come with being a prince of the ultimate kingdom. God, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, has given us a lot of power and authority. It is not just church leaders who have been given this power, we all have. And so we all have the tools already - to discern right from wrong - to discern good from bad. To make sure we keep these things in perspective, we submit ourselves to the examination and accountability of our fellow Christians as they did in the early church. We also choose to study God's Word to see if what we are thinking and doing matches what He has passed to us through that medium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1778" LastEditorUserId="1778" LastEditDate="2012-06-20T08:29:12.017" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T08:29:12.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8048" CreationDate="2012-06-20T02:18:28.583" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since this statement was made by an Orthodox theologian (note the upper case &quot;O&quot; in &quot;Orthodox&quot;. I think the OP incorrectly used a lower case &quot;o&quot; in the comment section), I think it would be better to first have some definitions in place from an Orthodox perspective.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know the Catholic Church holds the same position as Orthodoxy in regard to the sacraments, so I am borrowing some definitions from within Catholic teaching. Now while the OP seems to be asking specifically about the priesthood being one of the sacraments, I will approach this subject from a slightly different angle and then come back to the priesthood as one of the sacraments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;&lt;strong&gt;sacrament&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; signifies a &quot;&lt;strong&gt;visible sign of a hidden reality&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. The Catholic understanding of &quot;sacrament&quot; is very broad. For eg. the Catechism says in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/774.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 774&lt;/a&gt; -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin by two terms:&#xA;  mysterium and sacramentum. In later usage the term sacramentum&#xA;  emphasizes the &lt;strong&gt;visible sign of the hidden reality&lt;/strong&gt; of salvation which&#xA;  was indicated by the term mysterium. In this sense, Christ himself is&#xA;  the mystery of salvation: &quot;For there is no other mystery of God,&#xA;  except Christ.&quot; The saving work of his holy and sanctifying humanity&#xA;  is the sacrament of salvation, which is revealed and active in the&#xA;  Church's sacraments (which the Eastern Churches also call &quot;the holy&#xA;  mysteries&quot;). &lt;strong&gt;The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by&#xA;  which the Holy Spirit spreads the grace of Christ&lt;/strong&gt; the head throughout&#xA;  the Church which is his Body. The Church, then, both contains and&#xA;  communicates the invisible grace she signifies. It is in this&#xA;  analogical sense, that &lt;strong&gt;the Church is called a &quot;sacrament.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this understanding of a sacrament, for the priesthood to be considered a sacrament, the priesthood has to be a visible sign of a hidden reality, namely Christ. &lt;strong&gt;In the evolution of the English language, the word &quot;presbyter&quot; (for eg. James 5:14) was rendered as&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.drbo.org/chapter/66005.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;priest&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. This is a source of great confusion today, because I believe the Orthodox theologian spoke of presbyters and not the common priesthood of all believers mentioned in 1 Peter 2:9. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From now on in this post, whenever I say &quot;priest&quot;/&quot;priesthood&quot; I mean &quot;presbyter&quot;/&quot;presbyterhood&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So did all disciples of Christ's apostles consider the priesthood a sacrament? I answer thus - if it can be shown that any of the apostles themselves considered the priesthood to be a sacrament, then we can be sure that the disciples of Christ's apostles also did the same, because the disciples followed the teachings of the apostles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, for a priest to be a sacrament, &lt;strong&gt;he has to be a physical sign of a hidden reality, i.e. Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. He has to act &quot;in the person of Christ&quot;. So whatever he does in the person of Christ is done by Christ through the visible reality of the priest. There is one explicit mention of this in the bible - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have&#xA;  pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;in the person of Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. (2 Cor 2:10) - Douay Rheims translation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This notion, of the priest acting in the person of Christ, is how Orthodoxy and Catholicism understand the sacrament of confession, for example; when the priest forgives, &lt;strong&gt;it is Christ who is forgiving, because the priest is only a sacrament&lt;/strong&gt;, a visible sign of the hidden (invisible) Christ who is forgiving. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this statement was made by Paul, who held the office of &quot;episkope&quot;, because &quot;&lt;strong&gt;episkope&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; was the office of an &lt;strong&gt;apostle&lt;/strong&gt; (Acts 1:20). Peter, being an apostle, held the office of &quot;episkope&quot;, but he also describes himself as a &quot;&lt;strong&gt;presbyter&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; in 1 Peter 5:1. This suggests that an &lt;strong&gt;&quot;episkope&quot; is implicity a &quot;presbyter&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;, although it is a higher office than that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be argued solely on the basis of 2 Cor 2:10, that the disciples of the apostles considered the priesthood to be a sacrament. However, there is more evidence for that in some of the writings of one of the known immediate disciples of the apostles - Ignatius of Antioch (the others are Polycarp of Smyrna and Clement of Rome). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of&#xA;  Jesus Christ, and &lt;strong&gt;the bishop as Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;, who is the Son of&#xA;  the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly&#xA;  of the apostles.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while&#xA;  your &lt;strong&gt;bishop presides in the place of God&lt;/strong&gt;, and your presbyters in&#xA;  the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons,&#xA;  who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus&#xA;  Christ...&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians Chapter 6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that Ignatius holds that the bishop is a sacrament of Christ. He does not explicitly mention that the priests are a sacrament of Christ, but that can be deduced if we hold that every bishop is implicitly a priest (which, as a matter of fact, is true in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do have to make the following additional comment though. &lt;strong&gt;The church as a whole is also a sacrament!&lt;/strong&gt; You and me are visible signs of the hidden Christ, because we &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). That is why, when Jesus spoke to Saul who was persecuting Christians, he said to Saul, &quot;Saul, Saul, why do you persecute &lt;strong&gt;me&lt;/strong&gt;?&quot; (Acts 9:4). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while the church as a whole is a sacrament, the priests are sacraments in a special way. &lt;strong&gt;The priesthood, therefore, has to be a sacrament (one of the seven), because it consecrates priests to act in this special capacity.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So my answer to your question is - Yes! Indeed!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="1607" LastEditDate="2012-06-20T02:25:37.463" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T02:25:37.463" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2975" CreationDate="2012-06-20T05:44:22.317" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is both just and merciful.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As perfect creator of the world, God is uniquely qualified and has unique authority to judge the wicked. The enemies of Israel, the offenders of the prophets, the devotees of false gods, and an apostate Israel/Judah itself were the enemies either of God's people and by extension of God, or of God Himself. Since God is good, these therefore identified themselves with evil, and so for God (or His agent at His command; cf. also Rom 13:1–7) to punish them was just.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is also merciful to whom He will be merciful (Rom 9:15). He is merciful to all, insofar as He bestows common grace upon all sinners. He is more merciful to some, whom He saves from the ultimate consequences of their sin. In this mercy, however, God is also completely just. Our sins our not simply wiped from the slate; they are rather accounted to Christ (2 Cor 5:21), who paid for them on the cross. No sin is left unpunished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How a fully just God can impute my sin to a sinless individual and still be just, I confess I do not know. Am I not by rights the one who should have paid it? Nevertheless, I know it must be so. Shall not the judge of all the earth do right (Gen 18:25)? What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid (Rom 9:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a footnote, do not forget the greatest historical demonstration of God's power: Jesus Christ. His incarnation, life, death and atonement, resurrection, and ascension are redemptive, not condemnatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1725" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T05:44:22.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8123" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-06-20T06:41:43.093" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Good and evil&quot; refers to the polar opposites of the moral spectrum. Can refer to secular (i.e. cultural) norms, God and the Devil, the law (secular and Biblical) and general morality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastEditorUserId="38" LastEditDate="2012-06-20T06:57:09.963" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T06:57:09.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8124" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-06-20T06:41:43.093" Score="0" Body="morally positive or negative behaviors, desires, etc.; also for use on questions about the nature of good and/or evil" OwnerUserId="38" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-30T00:22:10.210" LastActivityDate="2015-09-30T00:22:10.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7995" CreationDate="2012-06-20T07:25:31.597" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting question. From what I can tell 'brother' if the most common term, followed by saints and believers, far behind in second place. Christian is what outsiders called the believer so it is last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the hits based on the greek words;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Χριστιανός Christiania; Christian 3 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πιστός pistos -believers,faithful 53&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἅγιος hagios - saints 61&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἀδελφός adelphos -brethren 226&#xA;(brother 113)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My take on these is we are to feel bound to one another as a close knit family. However we need not become legalistic about it, for in our Culture I think we have revised the meaning of Christian to hold that same proud bond we share with each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right brothers and sisters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T07:25:31.597" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8126" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-20T09:10:23.897" Score="7" ViewCount="1213" Body="&lt;p&gt;In recent times authorship of Biblical books has been called into question by modern scholars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is believed that Isaiah didn't write Isaiah, John didn't write John, Matthew didn't write Matthew, and so on. A little concession is given to us by conceding that Mark did write Mark, but he wasn't an eyewitness so his testimony doesn't matter anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How much weight does this kind of textual criticism have? What logic/principles are used to arrive at such kind of results? (Can you give an example?)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What should be the Christian response to such claims? What can a Christian do to educate herself on these matters?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-06-20T13:19:10.577" LastActivityDate="2015-06-20T23:58:11.600" Title="How should a Christian deal with destructive higher criticism of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-06-20T04:45:40.150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8056" CreationDate="2012-06-20T11:45:21.677" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that the Catholic Church exalts Mary above her true status. first, she is not the mother of God; she is the mother of the earthly incarnation of God, which is a very different thing. God Almighty has always existed, and created all things. (Maybe a small point, but an important one) Second, Jesus Himself did not give her special status; in Luke 11:27-28, a woman says, &quot;Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you&quot;, and He replied, &quot;Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and do it.&quot; (NIV) Third, there is a movement in the Catholic Church, which I have heard referred to as the Cult of Mary, which teaches that Mary is equal to Christ in granting salvation, and we can pray only to Mary and be saved. (Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa both believed and promoted this) There is nothing in Scripture that even hints at this as a doctrine. Jesus said (John 14:6, NIV),&quot;I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&quot; He did not say &quot;Mom and me.&quot; Mary is important, but we need to be careful not to give her a status she does not deserve. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1782" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T11:45:21.677" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8131" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8132" CreationDate="2012-06-20T16:35:58.970" Score="6" ViewCount="7285" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin&quot;&gt;Tefillin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; are boxes containing Torah verses, worn by Jews on the head and the upper arm, in accordance with instructions in Exodus 13:9, 13:16, and Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18. There is a great deal of commentary in the Talmud and elsewhere about exactly how this should be done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says that the Pharisees were ostentatious in their wearing of tefillin - Matthew 23:5  (NIV) reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Everything they do is done for people to see: they make their phylacteries&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; wide and the tassels on their garments long. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems from Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56 that Jesus may have worn the same kind of fringes or tassels (tzitziyot), similarly commanded in the Law, albeit presumably his were not as long as those of the Pharisees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would Jesus also have worn tefillin, and why/why not? &#xA;If he did (and his disciples too?) then when did Christians stop? If he didn't, then was this unusual or scandalous?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Tefillin (תפילין), or totafot (טוטפת), or phylacteries (φυλακτήρια)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-06-20T16:56:46.843" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T15:39:16.627" Title="Did Jesus wear tefillin?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8131" CreationDate="2012-06-20T18:00:37.623" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the first council of Jerusalem (In the Acts of the Apostles), we see an outline of the practices which the Jews did that they thought were reasonable to ask of the Gentiles. The wearing of Tefillin is not among them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all likelihood after the destruction of Jerusalem and certainly after the Muslim incursions into the middle east, the number of culturally Jewish Christians was probably close to zero, and thus the practice of wearing Tefillin too would have disappeared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus may have worn Tefillin, we don't have a solid answer for that question. It is reasonable to assume that he didn't given his criticism of the practice. There are no records of him having worn them. It also would have been redundant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T18:00:37.623" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8126" CreationDate="2012-06-20T18:28:32.097" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need to deal with them on a case by case basis. For one, it is helpful to understand that all claims of authorship are always uncertain, even and especially those made by textual critics. As Christians we accept a tradition about who wrote the books along with whatever authorship may be claimed therein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of the Gospel writers, we can take note of two problems in 'identifying' the author using textual criticism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors shared material and did not have a notion of 'plagiarism' - so some stuff may have been shared directly. Additionally there is believed to have been a 'Document Q' which was an early record of many of Jesus' sayings written down by his disciples. It did not survive though most or all of it may actually just be in Matthew, Mark and Luke. This could make analyzing the text for style and origin difficult and subject to a lot noise that would make precise identification impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the case of John, it is traditional that he did not write his Gospel (or Revelation) by hand but in the prior case, the witness - the Gospel - is John's account. The end of the Gospel communicates this, not necessarily that John is sitting there writing (he was old at the time, it is believed that Prochoros was the actual writer) but that he is the witness of these things. With Revelation we know for sure he was having the vision and telling Prochoros about it, who was writing it down. So the result would be a mixture of John and Prochoros, not John alone. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With Hebrews, Paul is traditionally accepted as the writer. Textual critics, in their attempt to identify authorship, may forget that an extremely learned man such as Paul was fully capable of concealing his identity in his writing, as well as utilizing different styles for various purposes. Perhaps they assume that ancient people were all non-self conscious and didn't have the ability to choose words and phrases that were different than their normal style or pattern for some purpose of their own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Isaiah, we must remember again the problem of scribes - so to say Isaiah didn't 'write' Isaiah doesn't say much! How could a prophet write his vision while having it? So with Isaiah we may easily have a collection of works from different eras in Isaiah's life written down by different scribes. Trying to be exact about it simply makes it less clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, Christians must remember that 'Sola Scriptura' is a recent invention and is not the basis for traditional faith. Even the original holders of Sola Scriptura held to various oral and written traditions about the scriptures - such as the ever-virginity of Mary - that are not directly witnessed by the scriptures themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the case of the books of Moses - given the potential age of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy - plus the history itself witnessed by the scripture - we cannot be fully certain (ever) that what we have is word-for-word of what Moses either dictated or wrote. Our trust is in the witness of the Spirit, not in the inerrant words of this or that human (guess what, no humans are inerrant.) If you learn a bit about how human beings interpret visionary works (such as prophecy) it becomes clear that perfect word-for-word accuracy does not necessarily mean accuracy on many points. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus it becomes nearly impossible to debunk the scripture - all attempts have failed really - because on the points on which our faith hangs, such as the divinity of the Son of God, the incarnation of Him, his death, resurrection, ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit, the witness doesn't vary. It is possible that Genesis 3 was added later during the Babylonian captivity (Genesis certainly reflects two different writings, but whether they come from the same person or not cannot be established) but whether it did or not doesn't matter. One reason for this idea is that it attempts to undermine the Christian belief in the fall. But consider how it fails to do so: If it was added in the Babylonian times, that indicates that the teaching of the Fall of Man has been in the people of God since before then, and it is also consistent with other teachings in the scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Textual Criticism - inasmuch as it is a tool to undermine Christian faith - can really only undermine faith based on literal scriptural inerrancy. Those who hold to a tradition (kergyma) about scripture may or may not find such things interesting, depending on their background and talents, but they do not pose a challenge to the faith, since the faith is not just the Bible, but the people (the Church) who have been witnesses of God since the beginning of time. Even if the fall part of Genesis is a later addition, it is consistent with the teaching of the Church and is thus part of the faith anyway. Those 'additions' if they were, were just as inspired as the text they added to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also helps to remember that nobody is going to rediscover the 'real faith' of the Bible at any time. It still exists and continues and most attempts to radically reinterpret the scripture are, as they have been since the time of Christ, the work of Gnostics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-06-20T18:28:32.097" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8095" CreationDate="2012-06-21T05:25:19.430" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proponents of &lt;strong&gt;Biblical Theology&lt;/strong&gt; do not break away from &lt;strong&gt;Covenant Theology&lt;/strong&gt;, but try to attempt to preserve Covenant Theology from the dangers they see in a trend away from objective truth into subjective experience based theology. Even systematic theology (where most covenant theology has been deposited) can turn into just a set of dogmatic asserted by people who have lost the skill of honestly following the gradual revelation of and unfolding of scripture. Dispensational Theology, along with the charismatic movement, are often seen as regions where lack of objectivity festers. However, let’s remember we are talking about labels now, so whatever we say will not be true for many under each banner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before identifying &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in what sense Biblical Theology does depart from Covenant Theology&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, let’s set some definitions of the terms. Unlike Covenant Theology which has various founders in the reformation and puritan age, Biblical Theology is recent and has few founders. Therefore let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) -&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The specific character of Biblical Theology lies in this, that it discusses both the form and contents of revelation from the point of view of the revealing activity of God Himself. In other words, it deals with revelation in the active sense, as an act of God, and tries to understand and trace and describe this act, so far as this is possible to man and does not elude our finite observation. In Biblical Theology both the form and contents of revelation are considered as parts and products of a divine work. In Systematic Theology these same contents of revelation appear, but not under the aspect of the stages of a divine work; rather as the material for a human work of classifying and systematizing according to logical principles. Biblical Theology applies no other method of grouping and arranging these contents than is given in the divine economy of revelation itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The truth of revelation, if it is to retain its divine and -absolute character at all, must be perfect from the beginning. Biblical Theology deals with it as a product of a supernatural divine activity, and is therefore bound by its own principle to maintain the perfection of revealed truth in all its stages. When, nevertheless, Biblical Theology also undertakes to show how the truth has been gradually set forth in greater fullness and clearness, these two facts can be reconciled in no other way than by assuming that the advance in revelation resembles the organic process, through which out of the perfect germ the perfect plant and flower and fruit are successively produced. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/gvbiblical.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as a method of exegesis, that is what Biblical Theology is. It is trying to find the constant unfolding truth of the Bible as presenting it in its natural history. It has a high objective aim, with due respect for the surrounding history and stage of development of each part of scripture.  Very well, I can’t imagine one covenant theologian who would not applaud the effort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference cannot be attributed to this aim for this goal is not really new wit Biblical Theology. From this standpoint many covenant theologians in the 15-17 centuries held to the Biblical Theological framework. For example Jonathan Edwards wrote a word on redemption history that would be considered very similar to the proposed methods of Biblical Theology. In this work he starts with Adam and traces the gradual revelation of God’s word ‘unfolding as a flower’ and finally pointing to future prophecies to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet with someone like Edwards we can see the break. Jonathan Edwards held views about the distinction between Law and Grace that does not appeal to the leaders of Biblical Theology. For some strange reason the break is clearly seen at Princeton’s Theological Seminary, from the transition of Charles Hodge, to Geerhardus Vos, to John Murray.  John Murray, if considered a covenant theologian was near the other side of the spectrum as men like Jonathan Edwards, or Hodge, in terms of his view of the distinction between Law and Grace. Jon Murray studied under Vos as is often quoted by proponents of Biblical Theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To proceed with an answer to this question then, I will first very briefly show each person’s view of Law and Grace. Good, or bad, Luther holds the opposite extreme of Biblical Theology. John Owen, Jonathan Edwards and Hodge sit around the middle point. John Murray takes the other extreme.  Then I will show that under these ‘wide range’ of views distinguishing Law and Grace among the covenant theologians, Biblical Theology has sprouted as a shoot from the more ‘pro-law’ extremity of that range.  This partly explains why those who are somewhat hybrids of covenant theology, but influenced by dispensational theology, or the charismatic movement, tend to have an unsettling guttural rejection of ‘something’ in Biblical theology that they can’t define.  On the surface all is the same-same, but underneath there is a significantly different view of the Law versus Grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let’s start with John Murray and works backwards to Luther:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John Murray&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The disposition to construe the demand for obedience in the Mosaic economy as having affinity with works rather than grace arises from failure to recognize that the demand for obedience in the Mosaic covenant is principally identical with the same demand under the gospel. When we re-examine the demand for obedience in the Mosaic covenant (cf. Exodus 19:5, 6; 24:7) in the light of the relations of law and grace in the gospel, we shall discover that the complex of ideas is totally alien to a construction in terms of works as opposed to grace. Obedience belongs here no more ‘to the legal sphere of merit’3 than in the new covenant. The New Testament believer is not without law to God but under law to Christ. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformationfiles.com/files/displaytext.php?file=murray_lawandgrace.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Law and Grace&lt;/a&gt;, by John Murray)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Murray here is not advocating justification by works, he clearly believes that you are not justified under the law. This quote only goes to show how he interprets the law, or what it means to be ‘under law’.  He, in-line with Biblical Theology sees such a strong unity with the Mosaic covenant and the Gospel that there is not as much difference between them as first imagined by earlier reformers and covenant theologians.  His view clearly departs from his predecessor at the very same University, Charles Hodge. Hodge clearly includes the Mosaic covenant to be a at least in part a renewal of the covenant of works as opposed to grace. Biblical Theology tends to limit the covenant of works with Adam see the ‘covenant of grace made’, with Abraham, renewed by Moses in the giving of The Law. Ironically they also stress the different tone of each covenant, but never really explain why because all is the same-same from the original goal of the exegesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Hodge –&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the &#xA;  covenant of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensations, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Christian. Our Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to &#xA;  inherit eternal life, “What is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right, this do and thou shalt live,” Luke 10:26-28. This is the covenant of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is death. This is all that those who reject the gospel have to fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it its character of law. Viewed under this aspect it is the ministration of condemnation and death. ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=Cl5LAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;output=html_text&amp;amp;source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&amp;amp;cad=5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hodge 2 Cor P75&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice, ‘in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works’. Such a statement would never be made by a leader in the Biblical Theology framework!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jonathan Edwards –&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jonathan Edwards also sees the Mosaic covenant as being different from the gospel as it includes the renewal of the covenant of works that has the ministry of death and cursing, leading sinners to Christ as a harsh schoolmaster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As the law was given at Mount Sinai, so Christ delivered his evangelical doctrine, (full of blessings, and not curses,) to a multitude on a mountain. Matt. v.— (Jonathan Edwards &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=jonathan%20edwards%20history%20of%20the%20work%20of%20redemption&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=1&amp;amp;ved=0CFYQFjAA&amp;amp;url=http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1776_edwards_history-redemption.html&amp;amp;ei=vKriT-OlC42SiAedx5H2Dg&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFzsPA7kROaEyXubFTRt1q1nOoimg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;History of Redemption&lt;/a&gt;, P302)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I think really that the covenant that God made with the children of Israel was the covenant of works. He still held them under that covenant; that is, what is required in that covenant is to them particularly deciphered, and many additional positive commands which answer to the precept concerning the forbidden fruits and God proposes this covenant to them as the condition of his favor, and gives them to understand that none of those promises he had made could be challenged without perfect obedience: but yet gives them to understand so much of his merciful nature and his inclination to pity them and to accept of a propitiation for them, that they, finding that they could not challenge anything from those promises [on the ground] of obedience, trusted only to the mere undeserved mercy of God and were saved by grace, and expected life only of mere mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are indeed now under the covenant of works so, that if we are perfectly righteous we can challenge salvation. But herein is the difference betwixt us and them: to us God has plainly declared the impossibility of obtaining life by that covenant, and lets us know that no mortal can be saved but only of mere grace, and lets us know clearly how we are made partakers of that grace. All ever since the fall were equally under the covenant of grace so far, that they were saved by it all alike, but the difference is in the revelation: the covenant of works was most clearly revealed to the Israelites, to us the covenant of grace. The church, which was then in its infant [state], could not bear a revelation of the covenant of grace in plain terms; and so with them the best way to bring them off from their own righteousness was to propose the covenant of works to them, and to renew the promise of life upon those conditions. God did with them as Christ did with the young man that asked what he should do for eternal life: Christ bids him keep the commandments. And in that sense they were under the covenant of works, that it was proposed to them as the condition of life, that they might try.  To us it is not so. The covenant of grace was indeed insinuated to them and proposed under covert, but 'twas to that they were all forced to fly. The promises seem to be so contrived as to give them to see that they can't challenge anything except they perform a perfect obedience, if God will be strict, but yet that he will of his mere mercy accept them into his favor if they perform a sincere obedience proceeding from the true love and fear of him; so that the fruits of faith are proposed instead of faith itself. But by this, none but such as had faith could hope for life; and by God's contrivance of that dispensation they were led not to depend on these as works, but as a disposition to receive, as so many manifestations of repentance and submission; and they depended on them as such only, for life. (Jonathan Edwards. The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/cC4xMjozNjQud2plbw==&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Miscellanies&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Page P363-363)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With reference to what has been before spoken of the covenant [No. 2]. Covenant is taken very variously in Scripture, sometimes for a divine promise, sometimes for a divine promise on conditions. But if we speak of the covenant God has made with man stating the condition of eternal life, God never made but one with man to wit, the covenant of works; which never yet was abrogated, but is a covenant stands in full force to all eternity without the failing of one tittle. The covenant of grace is not another covenant made with man upon the abrogation of this, but a covenant made with Christ to fulfill it. And for this end came Christ into the world, to fulfill the law, or covenant of works, for all that receive him....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To say that the covenant of works did admit of a mediator, is something improper. The covenant of works mentioned nothing about it; (Jonathan Edwards. The &quot;Miscellanies&quot;. Page P217)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John Owen –&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As usual John Owen teaches with the utmost clarity on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By the sanction of the law, we intend the promises and penalties wherewith by God the observation of it and obedience unto it was enforced. This the apostle hath respect unto in sundry places of this Epistle; the principal whereof are reported in the following dissertation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To represent this distinctly, we may observe that the law falls under threefold consideration; — first, As it was a repetition and expression of the law of nature, and the covenant of works established thereon; secondly, As it had a new end and design put upon the administration of it, to direct the church unto the use and benefit of the promise given of old to Adam, and renewed unto Abraham four hundred and thirty years before; thirdly, As it was the instrument of the rule and government of the church and people of Israel with respect unto the covenant made with them in and about the land of Canaan. And in this threefold respect it had a threefold sanction. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Owens Works&lt;/a&gt;, Volume 17, P654)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Martin Luther –&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther never prances about with constant distinctions around words, pretending to believe something he does not, he just lays it all out there:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who would ever believe that these things could be mixed up so easily? There is no one so stupid that he does not recognize how definite this distinction between Law and grace is. Both the facts and the words require this distinction, for everyone understands that these words “Law” and “grace” are different as to both denotation and connotation.62 Therefore it is a monstrosity, when this distinction stands there so clearly, for the papists and the fanatics to fall into the satanic perversity of confusing the Law and grace and of changing Christ into Moses. This is why I often say that so far as the words are concerned, this doctrine of faith is very easy, and everyone can easily understand the distinction between the Law and grace; but so far as practice, life, and application are concerned, it is the most difficult thing there is. (Luther's Works Vol 26, P143-144)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between them. We must know what the law is, and what the gospel is. The law commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus &#xA;  directed solely to our behaviour and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law, does the very opposite, and says, “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.” (Luther's Works Vol 35, P162-164)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: Biblical Theology is a good discipline that is not opposed to Covenant Theology, however, its leaders identify with only one extreme side of those accepted under the Covenant Theology label. That bias towards 'unifying law and grace' 'more than' many under Covenant Theology, should not be seen as a result of their 'new technique' but as their internal difference of thought and dogma related to their own more narrow systematic theological framework. Having concluded this I am not criticizing Biblical Theology, it is one of several useful things to understand and appreciate the benefits that can be derived from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-21T09:56:27.797" LastActivityDate="2012-06-21T09:56:27.797" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4390" CreationDate="2012-06-21T10:32:13.727" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible presents God's kingdom as gradually growing, but not instantly defeating the Kingdome of Satan.  The Devil took kingship of the world because he tempted the first humans to sin. When they fell they fell into sin, death, hell and under the bondage of the malicious lordship of Satan. (Genesis 3:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gradually over history God established a new kingdom. In Abraham he called out a people to live under his rule. (Genesis 12) Then in Christ he made a new heaven and earth creating a new kingdom (Isaiah 65). This is why Jesus always said the 'Kingdom of God is like...' (Math 13) and John the Baptists said the kingdom of God was at hand. (Mathew 3:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now when Jesus did arrive the Devil was enlivened in terms of Biblical descriptions of his presence in the world (Math 4:1) and all his minions. Before Christ there is very little spoken about the devils or the Devil. (Math 8:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now after Jesus rose, he promised to return in judgment. (2 Timothy 4:1) This is the final building of his kingdom when sin, death, hell and Devil will be bound forever. (Rev 21:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you see the question you asked is not why still the Devil, but why sin, why disease, why sorrow, why not heaven now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is God does all things according to his own eternal plan and this apparently includes a gradual salvation of humanity in Christ. (Eph 1:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-21T10:32:13.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2975" CreationDate="2012-06-21T11:31:00.143" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;See St. Thomas Aquinas's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1021.htm#article1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologiæ&lt;/em&gt; I q. 21 a. 1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Article 1. Whether there is justice in God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Objection 1. It seems that there is not justice in God. For justice is&#xA;  divided against temperance. But temperance does not exist in God:&#xA;  neither therefore does justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Objection 2. Further, he who does whatsoever he wills and pleases does&#xA;  not work according to justice. But, as the Apostle says: &quot;God worketh&#xA;  all things according to the counsel of His will&quot; (Ephesians 1:11).&#xA;  Therefore justice cannot be attributed to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Objection 3. Further, the act of justice is to pay what is due. But&#xA;  God is no man's debtor. Therefore justice does not belong to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Objection 4. Further, whatever is in God, is His essence. But justice&#xA;  cannot belong to this. For Boethius says (De Hebdom.): &quot;Good regards&#xA;  the essence; justice the act.&quot; Therefore justice does not belong to&#xA;  God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 10:8): &quot;The Lord is just, and hath&#xA;  loved justice.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I answer that, There are two kinds of justice. The one consists in&#xA;  mutual giving and receiving, as in buying and selling, and other kinds&#xA;  of intercourse and exchange. This the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 4) calls&#xA;  commutative justice, that directs exchange and intercourse of&#xA;  business. This does not belong to God, since, as the Apostle says:&#xA;  &quot;Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made him?&quot;&#xA;  (Romans 11:35). The other consists in distribution, and is called&#xA;  distributive justice; whereby a ruler or a steward gives to each what&#xA;  his rank deserves. As then the proper order displayed in ruling a&#xA;  family or any kind of multitude evinces justice of this kind in the&#xA;  ruler, so the order of the universe, which is seen both in effects of&#xA;  nature and in effects of will, shows forth the justice of God. Hence&#xA;  Dionysius says (Div. Nom. viii, 4): &quot;We must needs see that God is&#xA;  truly just, in seeing how He gives to all existing things what is&#xA;  proper to the condition of each; and preserves the nature of each in&#xA;  the order and with the powers that properly belong to it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply to Objection 1. Certain of the moral virtues are concerned with&#xA;  the passions, as temperance with concupiscence, fortitude with fear&#xA;  and daring, meekness with anger. Such virtues as these can only&#xA;  metaphorically be attributed to God; since, as stated above (Question&#xA;  20, Article 1), in God there are no passions; nor a sensitive&#xA;  appetite, which is, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10), the&#xA;  subject of those virtues. On the other hand, certain moral virtues are&#xA;  concerned with works of giving and expending; such as justice,&#xA;  liberality, and magnificence; and these reside not in the sensitive&#xA;  faculty, but in the will. Hence, there is nothing to prevent our&#xA;  attributing these virtues to God; although not in civil matters, but&#xA;  in such acts as are not unbecoming to Him. For, as the Philosopher&#xA;  says (Ethic. x, 8), it would be absurd to praise God for His political&#xA;  virtues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply to Objection 2. Since good as perceived by intellect is the&#xA;  object of the will, it is impossible for God to will anything but what&#xA;  His wisdom approves. This is, as it were, His law of justice, in&#xA;  accordance with which His will is right and just. Hence, what He does&#xA;  according to His will He does justly: as we do justly what we do&#xA;  according to law. But whereas law comes to us from some higher power,&#xA;  God is a law unto Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply to Objection 3. To each one is due what is his own. Now that&#xA;  which is directed to a man is said to be his own. Thus the master owns&#xA;  the servant, and not conversely, for that is free which is its own&#xA;  cause. In the word debt, therefore, is implied a certain exigence or&#xA;  necessity of the thing to which it is directed. Now a twofold order&#xA;  has to be considered in things: the one, whereby one created thing is&#xA;  directed to another, as the parts of the whole, accident to substance,&#xA;  and all things whatsoever to their end; the other, whereby all created&#xA;  things are ordered to God. Thus in the divine operations debt may be&#xA;  regarded in two ways, as due either to God, or to creatures, and in&#xA;  either way God pays what is due. It is due to God that there should be&#xA;  fulfilled in creatures what His will and wisdom require, and what&#xA;  manifests His goodness. In this respect, God's justice regards what&#xA;  befits Him; inasmuch as He renders to Himself what is due to Himself.&#xA;  It is also due to a created thing that it should possess what is&#xA;  ordered to it; thus it is due to man to have hands, and that other&#xA;  animals should serve him. Thus also God exercises justice, when He&#xA;  gives to each thing what is due to it by its nature and condition.&#xA;  This debt however is derived from the former; since what is due to&#xA;  each thing is due to it as ordered to it according to the divine&#xA;  wisdom. And although God in this way pays each thing its due, yet He&#xA;  Himself is not the debtor, since He is not directed to other things,&#xA;  but rather other things to Him. Justice, therefore, in God is&#xA;  sometimes spoken of as the fitting accompaniment of His goodness;&#xA;  sometimes as the reward of merit. Anselm touches on either view where&#xA;  he says (Prosolog. 10): &quot;When Thou dost punish the wicked, it is just,&#xA;  since it agrees with their deserts; and when Thou dost spare the&#xA;  wicked, it is also just; since it befits Thy goodness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply to Objection 4. Although justice regards act, this does not&#xA;  prevent its being the essence of God; since even that which is of the&#xA;  essence of a thing may be the principle of action. But good does not&#xA;  always regard act; since a thing is called good not merely with&#xA;  respect to act, but also as regards perfection in its essence. For&#xA;  this reason it is said (De Hebdom.) that the good is related to the&#xA;  just, as the general to the special.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And St. Thomas Aquinas's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1021.htm#article3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologiæ&lt;/em&gt; I q. 21 a. 3&lt;/a&gt;, especially Objection/Reply #2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Article 3. Whether mercy can be attributed to God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Objection 1. It seems that mercy cannot be attributed to God. For&#xA;  mercy is a kind of sorrow, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 14).&#xA;  But there is no sorrow in God; and therefore there is no mercy in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Objection 2. Further, mercy is a relaxation of justice. But God cannot&#xA;  remit what appertains to His justice. For it is said (2 Timothy 2:13):&#xA;  &quot;If we believe not, He continueth faithful: He cannot deny Himself.&quot;&#xA;  But He would deny Himself, as a gloss says, if He should deny His&#xA;  words. Therefore mercy is not becoming to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the contrary, it is said (Psalm 110:4): &quot;He is a merciful and&#xA;  gracious Lord.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I answer that, Mercy is especially to be attributed to God, as seen in&#xA;  its effect, but not as an affection of passion. In proof of which it&#xA;  must be considered that a person is said to be merciful [misericors],&#xA;  as being, so to speak, sorrowful at heart [miserum cor]; being&#xA;  affected with sorrow at the misery of another as though it were his&#xA;  own. Hence it follows that he endeavors to dispel the misery of this&#xA;  other, as if it were his; and this is the effect of mercy. To sorrow,&#xA;  therefore, over the misery of others belongs not to God; but it does&#xA;  most properly belong to Him to dispel that misery, whatever be the&#xA;  defect we call by that name. Now defects are not removed, except by&#xA;  the perfection of some kind of goodness; and the primary source of&#xA;  goodness is God, as shown above (Question 6, Article 4). It must,&#xA;  however, be considered that to bestow perfections appertains not only&#xA;  to the divine goodness, but also to His justice, liberality, and&#xA;  mercy; yet under different aspects. The communicating of perfections,&#xA;  absolutely considered, appertains to goodness, as shown above (6, 1,&#xA;  4); in so far as perfections are given to things in proportion, the&#xA;  bestowal of them belongs to justice, as has been already said (1); in&#xA;  so far as God does not bestow them for His own use, but only on&#xA;  account of His goodness, it belongs to liberality; in so far as&#xA;  perfections given to things by God expel defects, it belongs to mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply to Objection 1. This argument is based on mercy, regarded as an&#xA;  affection of passion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply to Objection 2. God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against&#xA;  His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who&#xA;  pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one&#xA;  hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or&#xA;  mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence&#xA;  committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a&#xA;  gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: &quot;Forgive one&#xA;  another, as Christ has forgiven you&quot; (Ephesians 4:32). Hence it is&#xA;  clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the&#xA;  fulness thereof. And thus it is said: &quot;Mercy exalteth itself above&#xA;  judgment&quot; (James 2:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1787" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T03:17:11.967" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T03:17:11.967" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5155" CreationDate="2012-06-21T13:06:45.187" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 53 is not just about sin. Much more so, it is certainly not just about disease.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a picture of Christ on the cross, so all history leads up to this and all the future feeds back to this. The whole 'curse' of Adam was placed upo Him, and from Him the whole 'blessing' of Abraham is made. This is nothing less than the fall and return to paradise. So in a sense all salvation is here in its primitive kernel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even Rabbinic sources before Christ took the Messiah to undergo physical suffering and that would include the healing of physical diseases, not just sin. This can be seen from the Talmud identifyng th Messiah as the 'leperous one'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Babylonian Talmud (&lt;a href=&quot;http://jewishroots.net/library/prophecy/isaiah/isaiah-53/isaiah-53-talmud.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sanhedrin 98b&lt;/a&gt;): &quot;Messiah ...what is his name? The Rabbis say,' The leprous one'... for it says, 'Surely he has borne our sicknesses' etc. (Isa.53,4).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the New Testament view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.”  (Mathew 8:16-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes it sufficiently clear that these words include demon possession and illnesses of body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (1 Peter 2:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also makes it clear that this means he would take away our sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the idea seems to be that that Jesus is the great Messiah, the Healer, Comforter, Sin Bearer and killer of all; sin, hell, sorrow, death, and sickness, through his atonement.  This does not mean all sickness and death is removed now, for salvation in history had developments and the full achievement of Christ’s work is in the future.  All sorrow and suffering and sickness will not be removed until his future return to judge the living and the dead.  However, when God met mankind, in the God-Man, it was impossible for the bizarre situation not to drive all sickness and demon possession away. The same will be true when he returns in glory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. 17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” (Rev 7:16-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the final dimension of Isaiah 53.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-21T13:06:45.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3154" CreationDate="2012-06-21T14:17:09.810" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The truth is while the gospel was largely 'veiled with types and shadows' under the Old economy God focused on manifesting His wrath for sin. He also showed His grace but this was not fully manifested until Christ was manifested in the flesh. So much capital punishment was one of the ways God showed His wrath for sin, as echoing thunderclaps of the result of the 'cursed' fall. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although men have always been saved from Adam by faith in Christ and by grace, the gospel and the law do differ in many ways. This is one of them. The fact is, when a capital crime was committed under the Mosaic economy not only was the offender to be killed by stoning, strangling or fire, but he was to be hanged on a tree overnight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse. (Deut 21:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the New Testament picks up on this ‘curse’:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” c 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” d 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” e 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” f 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this we see that it is clear that the extreme punishments of the Law were not just a way of managing the world, but were intentionally exaggerated to symbolize man’s curse under the Law. Even a rebellious child was subject to stoning. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) Have you ever hear of a very rebellious child being forced to come to Sunday school and then all the brethren pick up stones? I have asked this from my my own Sunday schools class. Of course this would only be done on ‘high handed’ deep seated rebellion to their parents, but that would include a 'son striking his father' or even sincerely 'cursing them' (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9). So let’s not pretend this was not very harsh. All that was required was two witnesses to launch in upon the execution. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Owen&lt;/a&gt; captures the truth of it well;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It arose from the revelation of the sanction of the law in the curse.&#xA;  Hereby principally “the law gendered unto bondage,” Galatians 4:24; for all the people were in some sense put under the curse, namely, so far as they would seek for righteousness by the works of the law. So saith our apostle, “As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,” Galatians 3:10. This curse was plainly and openly denounced as due to the breach of the law, as our apostle adds, “It is written, Cursed is everyone who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” And all their capital punishments were representations thereof. This could not but take a deep impression on their minds, and render them obnoxious unto bondage. Hence, although on the account of the promise they were heirs, yet by the law they were made as servants, and kept in fear, Galatians 4:1. Neither had they such a prospect into the nature and signification of their types as to set them at perfect liberty from this cause of dread. For as there was a veil on the face of Moses, —that is, all the revelations of the mind and will of God by him were veiled with types and shadows” (Owens Works, Vol 21, P504)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course Christ who 'hung on a tree' took away this curse symbolized by the many bloody stoning, strangling and burning under the old economy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-21T14:17:09.810" CommentCount="0" CommunityOwnedDate="2012-06-21T14:17:09.810" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3154" CreationDate="2012-06-21T15:24:03.523" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to bear in mind is the roles of individuals vs. the roles of the state.   Individuals aren't granted nearly as many rights to inflict punishment on other individuals as the state is.  For example, here in the US, I'm not free to chase people down and demand money from them if I see them running a red light, speeding, etc. and I definitely don't have the right to forcibly lock them away in my basement or something, but the state has the right to penalize (usually in the form of money, jail time, etc.) people for those very same offenses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-06-21T15:24:03.523" CommentCount="0" CommunityOwnedDate="2012-06-21T15:24:03.523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8140" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8143" CreationDate="2012-06-21T16:47:58.537" Score="3" ViewCount="1537" Body="&lt;p&gt;As has been discussed before there are differences between the old and new testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I wish to know is this: How accurate is the word of God written in the old testament? How much of it is/was culture and how much of it God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask this because of a few things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Much of it spans generations, some of which was then rewritten by others and passed on by word of mouth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jews are only allowed to eat foods under specific dietary restrictions. Most meats not allowed are already some of the most 'dangerous' to consume. As such while this may have been a said by God for safety, was it an actual command to only consume these things (or rather, is it a command to protect our health, or our spirit)? (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abcog.org/food.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;interesting article on dietary restrictions&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The old Testament follows much of the history of Israel, so at what point is it truly God's word versus man's?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did God talk to people directly, or as he does now, through an understanding of what must be done? I ask as if he did no talk directly to not only people in the bible, but those who wrote it, much of what was said could have the beliefs of those who he commanded intertwined in them, due to the free will God himself bestowed upon us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In cases the bible follows the life of a single person, whose history we do not know how the writer obtained, even if he had God's blessing to write it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'll admit the New Testament also has some similar problems. Jesus did not have a personal scribe who followed him around, and many books were not included in the bible, as while they followed what Jesus commanded, they were considered to polluted by the beliefs of those who wrote them. Yet I ask about the Old testament as it is much older, written over vast periods of time, and in cases the teachings can be quite different than those expressed in the new testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God chooses who does his biding and knows all. But as seen in much of the bible, it was written such that even a simple man could grasp the words. Depending on the writer, the examples given could vary. Similarly I could know God wishes me to do something, but ultimately how I go about doing it is left to how I feel it should.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a side note, does &lt;code&gt;old / new Testament&lt;/code&gt; get capitalized? Also I tried to remain somewhat objective and not to repetitive, but sorry for any failing of mine on either account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastEditorDisplayName="user1760" LastEditDate="2012-06-21T19:29:01.630" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T05:29:18.217" Title="Old testament accuracy of God's Word" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-18T17:00:22.950" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1177" CreationDate="2012-06-21T19:15:13.400" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;What's written in the Bible is not necessarily intended to be used as a science textbook. While what's written is entirely true and reliable, we do have to read it in the way it was meant to be understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems sensible to me that the creation account in Genesis is not an attempt to describe in precise detail exactly &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; God created the universe. Rather, it is an expression of a far more important idea: &lt;strong&gt;God created the universe out of nothing merely by speaking it into existence&lt;/strong&gt;. As finite beings, we are not likely to fully understand the mind of God or the full complexity of his creation, and so it's entirely likely that what is expressed in Genesis is &lt;em&gt;simplified&lt;/em&gt; so that we can understand some important feature(s) of the underlying facts.&#xA;In that sense, I think it's possible to read precision into what is written. The thrust of this idea is that we should understand that we should have a healthy amount of skepticism of the quality of our own understanding of something (presumably) very, very complex, and that we should focus on the ideas we think God is trying to get across to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That aside, it seems entirely plausible that in the early portion of creation, natural laws had not yet all been implemented. We're told next to nothing about such things directly. If you don't create the entire universe simultaneously, then it makes some sense to me that portions of it would not function the same way as they do now and that not until it was completed should we assume that it would closely resemble the universe we observe today (regarding physical laws, in this case). I see no reason why certain natural laws could not be circumvented or ignored by the Creator during this process. Speaking things into existence is not something I think I can grasp at a scientific level because I have no such power to recreate that phenomenon, nor can I observe it happening (to my knowledge).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than read contradiction into the details of the creation account in Genesis, I think it makes much more plain sense to accept it for what it does say (because it's not incorrect) and attempt to answer those questions that the ultimate author of text &lt;em&gt;intends&lt;/em&gt; to address.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know how light can exist without a source, but then again, I don't know how you could create light out of nothing. God's power to accomplish all these things is quite beyond me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't fault you for wondering how God accomplished all that he did, and I think it's possible to find an answer. I'm just not convinced that Genesis 1-2 is an attempt to provide a detailed answer to that question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastEditorUserId="1757" LastEditDate="2020-10-26T14:09:53.840" LastActivityDate="2020-10-26T14:09:53.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8140" CreationDate="2012-06-21T20:28:17.167" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Christian position is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Old Testament is just as much God's Word as the New Testament is.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are differing Christian positions on how much we should consider the Old Testament to be history. The majority position would be that most of it is considered roughly historical. A substantial number would consider it all to be 100% historical, and a minority would consider it all helpful but not necessarily historically accurate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are many answered questions on this site and elsewhere about specific Jewish regulations, including dietary restrictions, and why they are not followed by present-day Christians. The distinction between 'cultural' and 'commanded by God' is a false one. God may have given the commend at a specific time and place for a specific reason. Your question about the purpose behind these commands should be asked separately.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your other questions also really deserve to be asked separately.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yes, Old Testament and New Testament are proper names denoting specific collections of books, and so should be capitalized.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-06-21T20:28:17.167" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8145" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8168" CreationDate="2012-06-22T00:53:01.063" Score="20" ViewCount="9699" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus spoke about his future suffering it did not seem to register properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Matthew 16:22)&#xA;  Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This raises the question: Did the Jews push the suffering of the servant Messiah (Isaiah 53) to the background of their mind, or was there no expectation that Messiah would suffer at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T23:02:30.633" LastActivityDate="2017-08-19T10:19:01.823" Title="Were the Jews expecting the Messiah to suffer at all?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;suffering-servant&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8145" CreationDate="2012-06-22T01:44:35.287" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It does seem that &lt;strong&gt;the Jews hadn't understood that the Messiah would have to suffer&lt;/strong&gt;, or that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 was the Messiah. Apart from the verse you have quoted, there are other verses which suggest that the Jews didn't understand this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They understood that the Christ would be the &quot;&lt;strong&gt;King of Israel&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (Matthew 15:32), they knew that he would be the one to &lt;strong&gt;govern the people of Israel&lt;/strong&gt; (Matthew 2:6), but &lt;strong&gt;they didn't understand that his kingship was not of this world&lt;/strong&gt; (John 18:36). They expected a &lt;strong&gt;political Messiah&lt;/strong&gt;, one who would save them from their enemies in this world, not one who would &quot;save his people from their sins&quot; (Matthew 1:21). This is why, &lt;strong&gt;King Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him&lt;/strong&gt; (Matthew 2:3), for he thought that the Christ would come and take his political throne from him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even after having the knowledge that he was indeed the Christ (Matthew 16:16), Peter rebuked him for saying that he would have to suffer. Even after he actually suffered and died, two of his disciples seemed to have no clue what was happening and Jesus said to them, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?&quot; (Luke 24:25-26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then &lt;strong&gt;Jesus had to interpret the scriptures for them&lt;/strong&gt;, to show them all the things in the scriptures about the Christ (Luke 24:27). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it does seem that to the Jews, it wasn't plain and clear from the scriptures that the Messiah had to suffer and in fact the evidence shows that they were expecting him to rule like a political king and not undergo suffering.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1607" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2014-11-24T15:45:52.267" LastActivityDate="2014-11-24T15:45:52.267" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8147" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8148" CreationDate="2012-06-22T06:46:18.010" Score="5" ViewCount="16226" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to know that where did Cain Son of Adam and Eve get his wife? As there was nobody except Adam and Eve after he killed Abel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1789" LastActivityDate="2013-01-30T18:49:59.467" Title="From where did Cain get his wife?" Tags="&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;murder&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-04-25T17:02:59.730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8147" CreationDate="2012-06-22T07:34:58.727" Score="13" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As there was nobody except Adam and Eve after he killed Abel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some source of this claim? Because Genesis says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters (Gen 5, 4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to apocryphal Book of Jubilees, Cain's wife's name was Awan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T07:34:58.727" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8140" CreationDate="2012-06-22T08:17:35.710" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Much of it spans generations, some of which was then rewritten by others and passed on by word of mouth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exactly how the text was transmitted is a subject of much debate. There's no concrete evidence that anything in the Bible was passed by word of mouth. There is some evidence that Old Testament manuscripts were edited or annotated after the original writing, for example substituting later place names for old place names. But that's little different from modern history books that include footnotes to explain obsolete place names, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jews are only allowed to eat foods under specific dietary restrictions. ...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not clear how that is an argument against the accuracy of the OT. Jews and Christians have debated for millenia the purpose of the ritual laws. There's a popular theory that rules against eating pork are for health reasons. Maybe so. Maybe, as others have suggested, the purpose was to set the Jews apart from non-believers. Or that it was simply on the same order as rules about how to dress and holidays to celebrate: rituals intended to give people simple ways to act out their faith and to keep it on their minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The old Testament follows much of the history of Israel, so at what point is it truly God's word versus man's?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible claims that God worked in a special way with Israel. That's why we call them the &quot;Chosen People&quot;. Whether you believe this or not, given that premise it is not surprising that the history of how God worked with Israel would be a likely subject for God's word. Like, if you started a history book by saying that Britain showed a particular aptitude for science, it would not be surprising if the rest of the book concentrated on Britain and not, say, China.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Did God talk to people directly, or as he does now, through an understanding of what must be done? I ask as if he did no talk directly to not only people in the bible, but those who wrote it, much of what was said could have the beliefs of those who he commanded intertwined in them, due to the free will God himself bestowed upon us.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The OT doesn't give all that many cases of God speaking directly to people if you add them up. Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, maybe a dozen or so prophets, spread over the course of several thousand years. Maybe God has spoken directly to a dozen or so people since the Bible was written. Or maybe we are supposed to rely on the Bible now rather than new revelations. Even if it is true that in the last 2000 years God has not acted in the way the Bible describes him as acting in the previous 2000 years, that hardly proves that the Bible is false. God could have any number of reasons for acting one way at one time and a different way at a different time. I haven't bought baby bottles or diapers for over ten years but did frequently before that. Is that mysterious? Not really: I no longer have small children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;In cases the bible follows the life of a single person, whose history we do not know how the writer obtained, even if he had God's blessing to write it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could say that about many books. How does the author know the information he reports? Sometimes it's obvious: he claims to have been there or have talked to people who were or done research. But other times the author does not spell out how he knows. This tells us little about the reliability of what he writes. If someone doesn't tell us how he knows, he could just be making it all up. But if he claims to be an eyewitness, he could be lying -- either about being there or about what happened. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T08:17:35.710" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8147" CreationDate="2012-06-22T12:24:46.740" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 4:14 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from&#xA;  your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on&#xA;  the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This appears to suggest that there were &quot;others&quot; besides Adam and Eve.  While someone could take the story of Adam and Eve literally as the first humans, it doesn't imply that they were the only humans - just the only humans that we talk about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore Cain's wife MAY have been one of the &quot;others&quot;.  Else there would have been an incestuous relationship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cain was the first born son of Adam and Eve, and Abel was the second.&#xA;  In Genesis 4 we read how Cain kills his brother and is sent east of&#xA;  Eden where he marries a woman and “lays” with her. Because Adam and&#xA;  Eve were the first humans – assuming ONLY humans – Cain’s wife&#xA;  was his sister – and, consequently, all of the early Biblical&#xA;  relationships were incestuous (with the exception of Adam and Eve).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T12:24:46.740" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8152" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8158" CreationDate="2012-06-22T12:32:48.960" Score="3" ViewCount="886" Body="&lt;p&gt;When God punishes Cain, he replies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gen 4:14&lt;/strong&gt; Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth,&#xA;  and whoever finds me will kill me. (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All are his brothers and sisters? And he is the elder brother of all of them? So who is Cain fearing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-06-22T13:41:54.520" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T16:17:18.703" Title="Why is Cain afraid when he is driven away from God?" Tags="&lt;cain&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-04-25T17:02:39.010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8152" CreationDate="2012-06-22T12:41:09.387" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cain was likely afraid of one of his brothers or sisters taking revenge by killing him.  Yes, he was the older brother, but he was also guilty of murder.  If Cain was willing to kill one of his brothers (Abel), then it is reasonable to think that someone else was willing to do the same.  And, as you mentioned, there was no one else around to fear, so Cain did fear that his siblings would take revenge for Abel's sake and take his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T12:41:09.387" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8126" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:13:06.713" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Differing Conclusions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is believed both that John &lt;strong&gt;did not&lt;/strong&gt; write John AND that John &lt;strong&gt;did&lt;/strong&gt; write John.  There are people on both sides of the issue (as well as Matthew and Isaiah).  Both sides point to evidence for their claims and strongly defend their positions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distinction typically lies in a person's view of Scripture and not with the evidence.  Those that believe the Bible is &quot;God-breathed&quot; and divine in origin typically accept the evidence for John's authorship of John and the early dating of its writing.  Those who view the Bible as less authoritative, of human origin, or who disregard the Bible altogether will accept the evidence that suggests other authorship, later dates of writing, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Higher Criticism is not Infallible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Higher Criticism&quot;, however, is is no way without its own criticism and those that deny traditional authorship are not without their own biases.  It's important to keep in mind that this issue is not one that anyone can come to without some bias, and most approach it with very strong bias.  The fact that someone who dies the divine authorship of the Bible embraces ideas that undermine the divine authorship of the Bible really goes without saying.  Of course they do, but that doesn't make their beliefs legitimate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting to note that those who are 2,000 years removed from the situation believe that they can know more about the authorship of the books of the Bible than people who lived during or very close to the times when the books were actually written.  We should ask, &quot;Why did people in the 2nd and 3rd centuries believe that John wrote John?&quot;  We don't have all the resources that they did at that time, specifically the body of knowledge that had just been passed along from the original sources.  It would seem that the burden of proof would be on the one who is further separated from such knowledge to demonstrate that those much closer to the events themselves were, in fact, wrong.  Eyewitness accounts are much more credible than accounts of people who read about events long after they occurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, whenever there is any question regarding the Bible or Christianity, we should &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Identify our own biases.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Examine the evidence on both sides of the issue.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Draw a reasoned and rational conclusion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Identify the level of certainty that is legitimate regarding the evidence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T14:13:06.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2243" CreationDate="2012-06-22T14:32:40.870" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;i think all sins leads to death , if we do not repent...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 6 tells us - it is impossible to renew them to &lt;strong&gt;repentance&lt;/strong&gt; who leavs the principles of the doctrine of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 6:4&lt;/strong&gt; For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T14:32:40.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8147" CreationDate="2012-06-22T15:41:08.190" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Adam and Eve: The Only Humans Without Parents?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is said to come from one man (Ro 5:12). Adam (and Eve) are pointed to as the &quot;source&quot; of sin/death. The curse that God pronounced upon them in Ge 3 after they disobeyed God affects us because we are their descendants and will inevitably sin (Ro 3:23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God didn't immediately make Eve in the same manner as he made complimentary genders for the other animals. Ge 2 tells of how God showed Adam that he was alone before creating Eve. If God created other humans who were not descendants of Adam and Eve, did he do the same for them? Would he need to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would these others have been in the Garden of Eden, too? When did they sin (presuming they did), and when were they expelled from the garden?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Jomet, Typical readings of the text suggest that once created, every plant/animal reproduced in the manner in which God designed &quot;after [its] kind.&quot; There's no other mention of God (re-)creating any of the creatures (or creating more than one pair). While the text does not exclude the possibility, the mere fact that they are never mentioned (or referred to by other Biblical authors, who occasionally refer to elements of tradition for which there is no mention in the OT) is a reasonably strong suggestion that there weren't any others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attempting to make room for other humans who weren't descendants of Adam and Eve is not completely impossible, given what's written, but it certainly requires crafting some complicated stories to fit the facts if there were any.&#xA;It really sounds like the Biblical account leaves very little room for other people being created simultaneously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cain's wife was almost certainly a descendant of Adam and Eve (most likely their daughter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastEditorUserId="1757" LastEditDate="2012-06-22T15:50:42.213" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T15:50:42.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8157" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8159" CreationDate="2012-06-22T16:15:06.320" Score="1" ViewCount="348" Body="&lt;p&gt;I some times wonder when God made the garden, to beautify it, the trees for example must have been differing height and width.  Therefore, assuming a literal 7 day creation, if Adam were to cut a tree, the day after he was created, would he have found thick trees with several rings? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would Adam really be able to determine how old the world was studying rocks, trees, etc.? Was science prevented from ever understanding creation by virtue of its incomprehensible design on day one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would a rock's radioactive print seem like a billions years old, when only one day old? How would a fully created universe seem like a day old? Would not some things appear to have started motion long ago to reach the place where they were created?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a lot of questions but it is really one: 'Could Adam calculate the age of the earth using science?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-05-01T14:02:23.133" LastActivityDate="2018-05-01T14:02:23.133" Title="Assuming young-earth creationism, could Adam calculate the age of the earth using science?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-05-02T13:59:59.667" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8152" CreationDate="2012-06-22T16:17:18.703" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a lot about the society of the first humans that we don't know. It seems reasonable to me to think that they could have permitted vengeance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that Cain had just killed his brother (probably) out of jealousy. Why wouldn't he assume everyone else thought the way he did and would kill him if properly motivated? It seems likely to me that this fear might have been unreasonable, but someone in Cain's state of mind, he wouldn't necessarily think like most(?) others who might not ever consider murdering someone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T16:17:18.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8157" CreationDate="2012-06-22T16:35:35.500" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to say that he probably couldn't. Naturally, I admit the very real possibility of being wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I use Occam's Razor when it comes to determining which scenario is more likely.&#xA;There are similar questions to &quot;Did the first trees have rings (correlating to actual years of existence)?&quot;&#xA;Did Adam and Even have navels? It's impossible to say for sure, but they certainly didn't &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to have them. To look at Adam moments after he was created (not knowing how he came into being), you would be reasonable to assume that he was once a child and his body would probably show evidence of having lived to adulthood. Even though that would be reasonable, it seems simpler to me to think that God didn't create any sort of false history for Adam, the trees, fossilized creatures, etc. I would guess that Adam had perfectly clear skin without callouses, scars, or any remnants of a childhood he didn't have. Similarly, trees' rings would not correlate to actual years of existence, though God could have (and I'll guess &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt;) created full grown trees with rings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is certainly able to provide evidence suggesting a past when there wasn't really one. Whether the appearance of a past is proof that there actually was one is another matter altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Naturally, the right answer may not be simple, but until I see a compelling reason to go with something more complicated, I'm going to stick with simple (and elegant).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer&lt;/strong&gt;: Adam could extrapolate how old the earth appeared, but it wouldn't have been the actual age of the earth (given your assumption of a literal seven-day creation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastEditorUserId="1757" LastEditDate="2012-06-25T12:58:07.933" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T12:58:07.933" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8160" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8161" CreationDate="2012-06-22T17:23:03.987" Score="5" ViewCount="354" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read that the Friends Service Council (The Quakers) and the American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers) won the Noble Peace prize in 1947. Does anyone know what for exactly. I would think it was for something to do with the second world war, but I'm not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-08-08T20:02:05.953" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T20:02:05.953" Title="For what did the quakers win the Nobel Prize?" Tags="&lt;society-of-friends&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8160" CreationDate="2012-06-22T17:48:00.830" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Friends Service Council (The Quakers) and the American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers) were actually nominated several times for the peace prize prior to winning it in 1947. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;on each occasion the nominations had been influenced by Quaker relief&#xA;  work with the victims of war and famine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the aftermath of World War II, the Quakers continued their work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;providing assistance for the needy without discrimination in Germany,&#xA;  elsewhere in Europe and in Asia, just as they had in the aftermath of&#xA;  World War 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.quaker.org.uk/nobel-peace-prize-1947&quot;&gt;quaker.org&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T17:48:00.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8162" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8165" CreationDate="2012-06-22T20:38:47.147" Score="12" ViewCount="3085" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, in a Facebook argument somebody brought up the fact that Jesus was plan B. That God's original intention was for all of us to live on earth eternally. But then Adam and Even sinned and God's plan fell apart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a different perspective on this. I believe that if God had intended us to all live sinless lives, he would not have allowed Adam and Eve to Sin. But God intentionally placed the trees in the garden and basically locked Adam and Even in there with the trees. Then God allowed Satan to temp them. Seems to me like that was planned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to know what scripture there is to confirm one theory or the other. Please, if you have an answer, I'm not looking for additional opinions on the subject, just merely what the scripture says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T02:27:07.193" Title="Was Jesus Plan B?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-01-07T17:40:24.027" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8162" CreationDate="2012-06-22T21:59:07.930" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Saying Jesus is plan B would indicate that plan A was a failure. And in the story of the garden I really don't think that was the case. In the garden, God gave mankind (specifically Adam) a choice. And God had a plan for whichever path man chose. It may have been God's desire for man not make the choice he did, but for our sake he allowed it to happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike Dan, I think there is a greater plan, as the prophecy in Gen 3:15 implies once man made his choice God put it into action:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will cause hostility between you and the woman,&#xA;      and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike[b] your head,&#xA;      and you will strike his heel. (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastActivityDate="2012-06-22T21:59:07.930" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8162" CreationDate="2012-06-22T23:02:21.197" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that &quot;Jesus was plan B&quot; doesn't make sense from a theological or a logical standpoint.  If God is Omnisicient, then He knew what would happen before He created everything.  He knew Adam and Eve would choose to disobey when tempted.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To claim that Jesus was &quot;Plan B&quot; would indicate that God is not Omniscient, or that God failed. Both go against Biblical doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it's possible that God &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; have prevented them from sinning if He'd wanted to, but that would have meant we had no free will.   If God had wanted to ensure we all remain sinless, He'd have done so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Scriptural/doctrinal arguments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God desires obedience.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 15:22 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight&#xA;  in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the&#xA;  LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than&#xA;  the fat of rams.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However,  without free will, there is no obedience, so there is no such thing as good, because evil is an impossibility.  I believe that free  will is &lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt; because without it, there simply is no good.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The highest form of &quot;good&quot; is perfect, willing obedience to God, which is something only accomplished by one person ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I believe that what we have is the best God could provide us without eliminating free will.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If &lt;a href=&quot;http://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/ten-bible-verses-god-is-omniscient/&quot;&gt;He is omniscient&lt;/a&gt;, then He knows &lt;em&gt;not only&lt;/em&gt; what Adam and Eve would have chosen to do, but &lt;em&gt;each and every decision every single living being that has ever and will ever live would make&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Unless God is fallible, Jesus was plan A all along.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture also backs this up. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Before the foundation of the world&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, we were chosen to be adopted by Jesus Christ Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;  According as he hath chosen us in him before the&#xA;  foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame&#xA;  before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 &lt;strong&gt;Peter 1:20 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of&#xA;  the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-06-23T14:10:41.267" LastActivityDate="2012-06-23T14:10:41.267" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8145" CreationDate="2012-06-23T04:52:44.697" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Jews did expect Messiah to suffer but not not at all in the way in which he did. His suffering was only supposed to be a temporary set back as a King waging war against the Gentiles.&lt;/strong&gt; He was expected to arrive and war with Gog and Magog. During that war against the Gentiles, both He and Israel would suffer, only to gain victory over the entire Gentile world. Then the Gentiles would confess the God of Israel only to later fall way and face the final judgment. His was at first supposed to come, disappear and then reappear to destroy the Gentiles once and for all. His appearance and reappearance was not supposed to be associated with the destructions of Jerusalem as Jesus had said (Mathew 23:39 – 24:2). This idea that Christ espoused would cause nothing but never ending confusion for the Jew. Neither would his suffering be from a rejection from his people, which would seem like defeat to the dream. His suffering would be in the fight with Gentiles for Israel resulting in total victory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For anyone interested in the detail I have provided many below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alfred Edersheim a Jewish historian is, one of the, if not ‘the’ best resource for understanding Jewish expectations before Christ. In general Jewish writings designate a happy period that would succeed the ‘present dispensation’ or ‘world’ (Olam hazzeh). This happy period would begin with ‘the days of the Messiah’ (ימות המשיח). These would stretch into the ‘coming age’ (Aṯid laḇo), and end with ‘the world to come’ (Olam habba). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the Jewish expectation of Messiah was under three progressive stages: ‘the days of the Messiah’, ‘coming age’ and ‘the world to come’.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The ‘days of the Messiah’:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alfred Edresheim summarizes this from ancient Hebrew writings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Birth of the Messiah would be unknown to His contemporaries; that He would appear, carry on His work, then disappear – probably for forty-five days; then reappear again and destroy the hostile powers of the world, notably ‘Edom,’ ‘Armilos,’ the Roman Power – the fourth and last world-empire (sometimes it is said: through Ishmael). Ransomed Israel would now be miraculously gathered from the ends of the earth, and brought back to their own land, the ten tribes sharing in their restoration, but this only on condition of their having repented of their former sins. According to the Midrash, all circumcised Israel would then be released from Gehenna, and the dead be raised – according to some authorities, by the Messiah, to Whom God would give ‘the Key of the Resurrection of the Dead.’ This Resurrection would take place in the land of Israel, and those of Israel who had been buried elsewhere would have to roll under ground – not without suffering pain – till they reached the sacred soil. Probably the reason of this strange idea, which was supported by an appeal to the direction of Jacob and Joseph as to their last resting-place, was to induce the Jews, after the final desolation of their land, not to quit Palestine. This Resurrection, which is variously supposed to take place at the beginning or during the course of the Messianic manifestation, would be announced by the blowing of the great trumpet.  It would be difficult to say how many of these strange and confused views prevailed at the time of Christ; which of them were universally entertained as real dogmas; or from what source they had been originally derived. Probably many of them were popularly entertained, and afterwards further developed – as we believe, with elements distorted from Christian teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The ‘coming age’:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All the resistance to God would be concentrated in the great war of Gog and Magog, and with it the prevalence of all wickedness be conjoined. And terrible would be the straits of Israel. Three times would the enemy seek to storm, the Holy City. But each time would the assault be repelled – at the last with complete destruction of the enemy. The sacred City would now be wholly rebuilt and inhabited. But oh, how different from of old! Its Sabbath-boundaries would be strewed with pearls and precious gems. The City itself would be lifted to a height of some nine miles – nay, with realistic application of Isa_49:20, it would reach up to the throne of God, while it would extend from Joppa as far as the gates of Damascus! For, Jerusalem was to be the dwelling-place of Israel, and the, resort of all nations. But more glorious in Jerusalem would be the new Temple which the Messiah was to rear, and to which those five things were to be restored which had been wanting in the former Sanctuary; the Golden Candlestick, the Ark, the Heaven-lit fire on the Altar, the Holy Ghost and the Cherubim. And the land of Israel would then be as wide as it had been sketched in the promise which God had given to Abraham, and which had never before been fulfilled – since the largest extent of Israel’s rule had only been over seven nations, whereas the Divine promise extended it over ten, if not over the whole earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, during this time some Rabbis thought that that the Law would be imposed onto the Gentiles but others thought that some things in the Law would cease and all would be brought under a new Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jerusalem would be as large as, at present, all Palestine, and Palestine as all the world. Corresponding to this miraculous extension would be a miraculous elevation of Jerusalem into the air&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The land would spontaneously produce the best dresses and the finest cakes; the wheat would grow as high as palm-trees, nay, as the mountains, while the wind would miraculously convert the grain into flour, cast it into the valleys. Every tree would become fruit-bearing; nay, they were to break forth, and to bear fruit every day; daily was every woman to bear child, so that ultimately every Israelitish family would number as many as all Israel at the time of the Exodus. All sickness and disease, and all that could hurt, would pass away.  As regarded death, the promise of its final abolition was, with characteristic ingenuity, applied to Israel, while the statement that the child should die an hundred years old was understood as referring to the Gentiles, and as teaching that, although they would die, yet their age would be greatly prolonged, so that a centenarian would be regarded as only a child. Lastly, such physical and outward loss as Rabbinism regarded as the consequence of the Fall, would be again restored to man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jerusalem would, as the residence of the Messiah, become the capital of the world, and Israel take the place of the (fourth) world-monarchy, the Roman Empire. After the Roman Empire none other was to rise, for it was to be immediately followed by the reign of Messiah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The end of the war with Gog and Magog would close the Messianic era. The nations, who had given tribute to Messiah, would then rebel against Him, when He would destroy them by the breath of His mouth. Israel alone would be left on the face of the earth. Then there would be only one Resurrection and that of Israel alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the final Judgment would then commence, to be held in the valley of Jehoshaphat by God, at the head of the Heavenly Sanhedrin, composed of the elders of Israel. At the time of Christ the punishment of the wicked was regarded as of ’eternal duration’. Although there was some belief that mere annihilation would await the ‘less guilty’, the ‘guiltiest’ were to be reserved for eternal punishment. After pleading for mercy the Gentiles would be punished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The ‘world to come’:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the final judgment, the renewal of heaven and earth would take place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the latter neither physical nor moral darkness would any longer prevail, since the yeṣer hara, or ‘Evil impulse,’ would be destroyed.  And renewed earth would bring forth all without blemish and in Paradisiacal perfection, while alike physical and moral evil had ceased. Then began the ‘Olam haba,’ or ‘world to come.’ The question, whether any functions or enjoyments of the body would continue, is variously answered. The reply of the Lord to the question of the Sadducees about marriage in the other world seems to imply, that materialistic views on the subject were entertained at the time. Many Rabbinic passages, such as about the great feast upon Leviathan and Behemoth prepared for the righteous in the latter days, confirm only too painfully the impression of grossly materialistic expectations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All quotes are from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worthychristianlibrary.com/alfred-edersheim/the-life-and-times-of-jesus-the-messiah/book-5-chapter-6the-evening-of-the-third-day-in-passion-week-on-the-mount-of-olives-discourse-to-the-disciples-concerning-the-last-things/&quot;&gt;'The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah'&lt;/a&gt;, by Alfred Edersheim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2012-08-13T10:37:58.847" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T10:37:58.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7266" CreationDate="2012-06-23T09:21:34.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Daniel is referring to Antiochus IV, while Jesus is recalling that same historical event and applying it to a new prophecy in the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to the phrase ‘abomination of desolation’ beside the reference in Daniel 9:27 to the ‘abomination of desolation’ there is the same idea to be found in early Jewish writing before Christ in 1 Maccabees related to Antiochus. Clearly the Jews knew the meaning of the term from their history on this account, not only from scripture but from its recorded history of fulfillment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was a very proud part of Jewish history where 'Judas the Maccabee' lead after a series of brilliant victories, ober the Syrian army, with just a few undisciplined men. Judas the Maccabee purified the Temple, and restored its altar from the ‘abomination of desolation’ that had been set up in its place by the Syrian king , Antiochus IV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the historical mention of setting up the ‘abomination of desolation’:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;54 Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year,* they erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt-offering. They also built altars in the surrounding towns of Judah, 55and offered incense at the doors of the houses and in the streets. 56The books of the law that they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. 57Anyone found possessing the book of the covenant, or anyone who adhered to the law, was condemned to death by decree of the king. (1 Maccabees 1:54-57)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is mention of Judas the Macaabee removing that abomination on the very anniversary, three years later: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;52 Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, which is the month of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-eighth year,* 53they rose and offered sacrifice, as the law directs, on the new altar of burnt-offering that they had built. 54At the very season and on the very day that the Gentiles had profaned it, it was dedicated with songs and harps and lutes and cymbals.  (1 Maccabees 4:52-54)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the ‘abomination of desolation’ would always be understood as a heathen power bringing destruction and waste upon the temple. There is not doubt that the disciples saw the meaning of this term that way. Therefore when Jesus refers to this happening it can only mean the future event when Rome (the abominable) brought the city and Temple to waste. Some think it actually refers to the very detail of the ‘Roman eagles and ensigns’ that its army brought to ‘stand’ in the holy place. In any case the event occured in AD 70 under Titus. However, this time no new Maccabee would arise, no Christ come, as Israel hoped. Rather over a very long period they would not see Christ until converted Israel, before His second coming, would understand that ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ (Mathew 23:38-39)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many believe from historical records Christian Israelites, on hearing of the approach of the Romans, fled from Jerusalem beyond Jordan, to Pella. This most likely occurred while Vespasian was preparing to besiege the city of Jerusalem, but stopped and went back to Rome due to the suicide of Nero. Those who were less worried, thinking God would save them, or who underestimated the might of the Roman Empire, stayed for the battle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people link this abomination to the antichrist because he brings abominations into God’s church also. However the common word of abomination (βδέλυγμα - a foul detestable thing, like idolatry) is not enough to force Daniel to be speaking about things mentioned in Revelation.  However, indirectly a connection may be made, as many prophecies in the bible are thematic and repeating. In the same way that Jesus referred to Daniel to make a new prophecy regarding Rome, Revelation might be following the theme from both under a future setting. For example, a connection to Rome might be argued as echoing into Revelation. Certainly during the reformation many saw Rome as the antichrist which was in many ways an ‘abomination of desolation’ in that the Pope had virtually destroyed all true religion. A tradition of viewing Revelation, among other things, as predicting a future’ much greater abomination’, under the antichrist, is something prevalent under Christian historical views of the book, without necessarily being dispensational.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-23T09:46:43.960" LastActivityDate="2012-06-23T09:46:43.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7209" CreationDate="2012-06-23T13:41:10.220" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question pertains to the nature of prophecy itself.&#xA;First, Most prophecy of Messiah was intended as not fully understandable, until it takes place. This prevents anyone pretending to do it. This is why prophecy is often in visions, to ensure it is not clear. Prophecy therefore, in part, was set up as an incomprehensible riddle, encrypted with a hidden key. A key that no one could find, like a scroll of history, whether past, present, or future, all was put behind a veil. The scroll was rolled up and sealed with no one worthy to open it.&#xA;However Christ, by His work on the cross is the great collector, descriptor and explainer of all prophecies, which were otherwise ‘scattered in details’ leading to as many questions as answers. He was the great decoder key, where instantly all the prophecies became as a collection, heavenly convincing fireworks. He also was given authority to break the seals of future revelation. (Rev Ch 5).&#xA;Therefore although there were many details in the prophecies about Messiah, like where He would be born, through what genealogy, how He would restore the church that He would suffer, that He would usher in the end of the world, etc., the Jews were not able to fully comprehend the overall picture this presented. Once can see ho Christ’s fulfillment of that collected picture was reprehensible to them, while not disputing on any of the specifics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some understanding of what Messiah the Jews expected see ths &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8145/were-the-jews-expecting-the-messiah-to-suffer-at-all&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, many of the prophecies fulfilled by Christ were prophetic themes, rather than mere details surrounding those themes. For example the priesthood, the kingship, the prophetic offices were all Bible themes that run up into Christ as the great Prophet, Priest and King. Even the Rabbis knew this. In fact the Rabbinic Talmud, &quot;All the prophets prophesied not but of the days of the Messiah&quot; said (כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לימות המשיח Sanh. 99a).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this in mind there are several candidates for the most convincing prophecy.  One could choose the most ‘descriptive’ prophecy such as Isaiah 53, which was understood as Messianic by the Rabbis. One could say that the promise to Abraham Gen 12:2 whereby ‘many nations’ would be blessed was the greatest.  Later this son of Eve was limited to the seed of David. The reason that this is so convincing is that after the destruction of Jerusalem, along with all the genealogical records, to ever prove a Hebrew religious leader was born of David became impossible.  In addition, how rare is it for ‘many nations’ to receive a religion originating from Israel. How else could someone born of David become a religious blessing to other nations? Only one man has been born of David and has been received by gentile nations, Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with the most descriptive and the most impossible to repeat, any prophecy that was ‘great’ must be one that speaks about his incarnation, death or resurrection.   For His incarnation, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son” seems quite rare and difficult to repeat! (Math 1:23) With respect to his death and resurrection, our Lord himself said to a companion who was trying to stop his arrest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;52“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what prophecy was Jesus referring to here? Certainly this prophecy must be great? Yet I do not think it is a single prophecy, but in some ways all prophecy. The ceremonies practiced by the church, where each day animals were killed to atone for the sins of the people were prophecy.  Jonah in the belly of a whale for three days only to be received by a gentile nation was prophecy.  Every history in the Bible, every prophet, every ceremony, all ran up into prophetic themes satisfied in Christ! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There a different groups of prophecy. Some focus on Christ as a King, some as a suffering Servant, some as a unknown humble Branch, some as the killer of sin and the Devil, some refer to his required genealogy, some refer to the timing of his birth, some as casting light unto the Gentiles whereby they enter into the blessing of Abraham, some spoke of the great power of the Spirit in His ministry, some are highly apocalyptic and even reach into the days at the end of the world, some speak of the way he kept his enemies in the dark while teaching those who had ears to hear, yet all are explained and satisfied by Christ. Yet if we remove Christ they all become riddles once again, creating more questions than answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore the fact that only one man, Jesus the Christ can integrate, and explain all of the Bible and that no man can or ever could attempt to do such a thing proves the New testament to angels, demons, saints, sinners and any who have a mind to reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-06-23T13:50:19.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8162" CreationDate="2012-06-23T14:41:38.523" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As God knows everything from the beginning He can't have plan Bs for anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Years ago I used to answer this sort of question along the lines of God did not want robots to love him, so they had to have free will, etc. However this is not really an argument from the Bible itself. That kind of answer aims far to low to be Biblical. The Bible ascribed as things done for the praise of God's grace to the manifestation of that same grace, whereby we can all enjoy that same grace forever.  The reason for everything, even though it seems things went wrong, is according to God's pleasure.  This does not excuse the sinfulness of sin or Gods will that none should sin, it only admits God knew every sin that man would ever commit and planned to provide atonement by the death of His Son before the world was created. God does not live in time, so whatever happens tomorrow is no more distant than what happened before he fell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 1:3-6 is a typical verse declaring this truth, which has always been the position of great theologians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he c predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice everything was known 'before the creation' and that everything was done to the 'praise of his glorious grace'. Now I take these verses to mean that mankind's understanding and experience of God's grace, goodness and love, which can only lead us to praise and experience that grace, is at a 'higher realm' after the fall and salvation of mankind in Christ, then if there was no fall at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is no plan B..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found a quote by Martin Luther on the exact same question and he seems to have held the same view I propose:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If God should be asked at the last judgment, ‘Why did you permit Adam to fall?’ and he answered, ‘In order that my goodness toward the human race might be understood when I gave my Son for man’s salvation,’ we would say, ‘Let the whole human race fall again in order that thy glory may become known! Because thou hast accomplished so much through Adam’s fall we do not understand thy ways.’&#xA;  “There is a threefold light: that of reason, that of grace, and that of glory.” (Luther's Works Volume 54, P385)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther, Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, etc. all held this view. Talking about God not wanting’ robots’ is rather silly by comparison. It's a man center view and fairly earthly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Subject likes this must be resolved into God's own good pleasure and grace, we can only have faith like the Apostle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!  “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”  “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?”  For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-07-01T02:27:07.193" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T02:27:07.193" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8173" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8187" CreationDate="2012-06-23T15:03:36.310" Score="7" ViewCount="595" Body="&lt;p&gt;The are various Bible passages that compare learning to the phase of infancy to adulthood. I assume children and adults have a similar hermeneutic, in terms of logic, yet they do not see things the same way. I wonder how we can broaden our view of exegesis to account for different stages of spiritual maturity. Are there any common ways of looking at scriptures through the eyes of a child, compared to that of an adult?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some samples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.(1 Corinthians 13:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? (1 Corinthians 3:2-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.&#xA;1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God. (Hebrews 5:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T04:42:53.077" Title="How does spiritual maturity affect our hermeneutic (how we interpret the Bible)?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3783" CreationDate="2012-06-23T15:43:40.380" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It means that while the gospel state supersedes and makes the Mosaic Covenant obsolete, it does not do it by opposing it but by becoming the perfection and fulfillment of it.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ceremonial law was made obsolete by Christ as he was what all the sacrifices pointed to. The civil law was made obsolete as the kingdom was no longer a physical Israel but an invisible one.The moral law was made obsolete in that the Mosaic Law was a renewal of the covenant of works and not based on faith in Messiah therefore it was written on stone, but now the law is written as a principle of life through a new birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not mean any aspect of the Law is opposed, or destroyed by Christ. On the contrary by his blood we enter God's Kingdom and obey his laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. (2 Corinthians 3:7-10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice what was glorious, the Ten Commands, the sacrifices, etc. now has no glory, but &lt;strong&gt;just as the Sun does not destroy the Moon when it appears in its blaze of glory, so,the gospel does not destroy the Law.&lt;/strong&gt;  The Moon has no light of its own but only promises that a Sun exists and will come for it reflects its glory.  In the same way the Law was not built on faith but pointed to faith, once faith arrived the Law was fulfilled and made obsolete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” (Galatians 3:12, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:13, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way of looking at it is high school does not destroy kindergarten, but when you come of age adult things make you put away childish things.  Under the Law we were God's people are like little children taught by a tutor, only later becoming adults in the gospel.  Adulthood does not oppose and destroy childhood:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3:23-25, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-11T15:04:27.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2012-06-23T18:58:27.300" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reality is that there are very smart, literate, God-fearing Christians who come down on varying sides of many of the hot-button issues with ample support for whichever angle they find most in-line with their God-given ethical and moral framework. Please note, I'm &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; saying that morality is relative and not absolute. Instead, I believe that we have varying expressions of God's Divine Essence, as imputed through the &lt;em&gt;Imago Dei&lt;/em&gt; and as such certain aspects of God's perfect, absolute moral framework find stronger expression in some than in others. Immigration, Right-To-Life, Gay Marriage, Education (usually in the form of Science Education), and Social Justice (just to name a few) all have well-argued, Bible-based Christian points. Honestly, we need them all since none of us is a perfect manifestation of the heart of God and we need to pay attention to those whose expression of God's ethics may be stronger than ours in various areas. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all of that said, it's easy to toss out all kinds of phrases, many of which are found in the answers and comments here. &quot;No mandate to support &lt;em&gt;state-sponsored&lt;/em&gt; welfare programs&quot; and &quot;the law is poorly-worded&quot; are particularly attention-grabbing. Both of these are anachronistic projections of present-day scenarios onto a culture and time that are not our own. There &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; &quot;state-sponsored&quot; welfare programs, going back to The Law of Moses that required harvesters to leave a portion for the poor to come and harvest for themselves. Again - this divides people into &quot;but, but, but, &lt;strong&gt;see&lt;/strong&gt;, they had to work for it ... teach them to fish&quot; and &quot;yes, but they didn't plant, fertilize, water, or &lt;em&gt;own&lt;/em&gt; that which they took - it was a benefit endowed upon them by the law of the land.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As society evolved, so too did the expression of this. When the Temple was destroyed and the people were exiled, they developed new ways to follow the Law, and the Pharisees eventually emerged as the keepers of this way. They synagogue became the primary location of worship and various means were employed to carry on the sponsored welfare. Contemporary Judaism had the &quot;poor bowl&quot; and &quot;poor basket&quot; available to those in need. The poor bowl was “a weekly dole to the poor of the city and consisted of food and clothing” while the basket was “distributed daily among the wandering paupers and consisted of food.” The &quot;radical&quot; Jewish Essene sect appointed &quot;agents&quot; in cities to provide travelers and the poor with clothing and other necessities. Pious citizens would give while on their way to the temple and people would give food to any of the poor they may encounter. They still kept Torah law which made provision for the poor both for sustenance (e.g. the aforementioned harvest laws) and worship (e.g. sin offering substitutes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So does this make you a hypocrite for not sponsoring state-funded welfare program. It depends. Probably not, but it depends on &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; you do not. We're too eager to seek a cut-and-dry answer that allows us to justify our own feelings, but the heart of the matter is the heart of the person. If you do not wish to support this because you see even better ways to provide aid for those in need and you would rather leverage your resources to support those causes, then great. If, however, you simply cannot give because you're upgrading your gaming rig, or purchasing an LCD TV then you run the risk of being like the man who was blessed beyond measure and decided to create new storehouses to hold all of his goods. He died without being of benefit to himself or others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who challenge you as a hypocrite may be well-founded, or not. The reality is, though, that it provides an opportunity for you to evaluate your proximity to the heart of God in this particular area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastActivityDate="2012-06-23T18:58:27.300" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8177" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-23T19:26:47.867" Score="11" ViewCount="61479" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am  very new to Christanity and so kindly bear with me if my question appears novice. I want to know what is the ruling on eating pork in Christianity as per Bible? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1793" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-11-20T02:48:46.203" LastActivityDate="2016-11-20T02:48:46.203" Title="Ruling on eating pork in Christianity as per Bible?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-08-01T16:32:14.363" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8177" CreationDate="2012-06-23T19:56:46.230" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unlike Judaism, Christianity has no rule prohibiting (or commanding) the eating of pork. In fact, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:9-16&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Acts 10:9-16&lt;/a&gt;, Peter has a vision where a sheet is lowered from Heaven with &quot;all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds&quot; on it. He is then commanded to get up, kill, and eat the animals. To this, Peter is shocked and replies that he has never eaten anything unclean (as per the Judaic Law). To this, God replies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:15&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 10:15 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But the voice spoke again: “Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is of course a deeper meaning, but on the surface, God is telling Peter that nothing is unclean now (that is, no animals are unclean). This includes pigs and pork, so eating bacon and the like is perfectly acceptable (and happens quite often in the United States) among Christians. Another piece of support is that the four things still considered prohibited for Christians are listed in Acts 15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:29&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 15:29 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;29&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of these four actions apply to typical ways to consume pork. So, as a Christian, it is perfectly fine to eat pork.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted by waxeagle in a comment, not &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; Christians consider it acceptable to eat pork. Some sects maintain a kosher lifestyle whereas others abstain from meat entirely. However, these don't compose a significant portion of Christianity. The best course of action is to ask the Christian group you're part of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-06-24T00:37:42.603" LastActivityDate="2012-06-24T00:37:42.603" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8179" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8183" CreationDate="2012-06-24T02:12:05.550" Score="4" ViewCount="4139" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that some worshippers use icons to 'lift up their minds from earthly things to the heavenly things'? I am not interested about those using them as stage-props for a play (in comparison), but in those who do it from a religious sense, of helping them in prayer or worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the Jews ever do this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-05-09T13:06:49.967" LastActivityDate="2019-10-16T14:23:52.213" Title="Did the Jews use icons and images to help them worship as Catholics or Orthodox worshippers do?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;iconography&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8180" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8182" CreationDate="2012-06-24T02:26:11.353" Score="2" ViewCount="811" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a variety of views about Christian use of medicine. I am not looking for answers related to the extreme position that God heals everybody if you only have faith. This seems far removed from the church in which we live. I have assumed that a Christian might need psychiatric medication under some circumstances. I am asking this more along the lines of a real question that a Christian might have if their doctor recommends such drugs. The answer to the question is intended to help such a person in that situation. Any Biblical guidance? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should they take it? &#xA;Is it possible to need these drugs for life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-24T10:48:42.260" LastActivityDate="2012-06-24T10:48:42.260" Title="When might a Christians consider taking anti-depressants or psychiatric medications?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-08-23T17:04:49.943" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8181" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8185" CreationDate="2012-06-24T02:33:11.033" Score="4" ViewCount="1469" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Malachi 4:5 we find:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this verse and possibly also because Elijah had been, like Enoch, resurrected into heaven without dying, the Jews clearly expected him to come before Messiah.  What sort of Elijah were they expecting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am specifically looking for a Jewish perspective as viewed under an Evangelical view to help understand and provide background to passages in the gospels that mention the fulfillment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words how does the actual appearance of Elijah differ from what they expected?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-24T06:44:30.080" LastActivityDate="2014-10-19T07:45:46.523" Title="What kind of Elijah did the Jews expect?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8180" CreationDate="2012-06-24T04:28:26.783" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Medically&lt;/em&gt; speaking, it's a matter for your doctor to discuss with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a &lt;em&gt;doctrinal&lt;/em&gt; perspective, there is no one answer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Group #1: Some traditions hold that there is no such thing as mental illness at all, and that any depression or other mental illness are the result of sin, or demonic influence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Group #2: Others will regard the opinions of the above group as bunk.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Group #3: Yet others will tell you that in some cases, illness (including mental) could be a either/or medical issue or a spiritual one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It boils down to what &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; convictions are. Your convictions are yours alone.  They may be influenced by your church, or your peers, or your family, but they are yours alone.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At judgment day, you will stand before God, not anybody else. &lt;em&gt;Your convictions, or your preferences are not for anyone else to decide.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of that said, I have never once found in Scripture the idea that medical treatment is in any way sinful.  The arguments I hear (and I hear them regularly) about not taking anti-depressants, or getting your kids vaccinated are based, not on Scripture, but on personal beliefs and the opinions of their own peers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The idea that illness is a punishment for sin is one of the oldest pieces of bad advice in the book.  &lt;strong&gt;(See the book of Job.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; seen news stories about people who have died refusing medical treatment and instead, depending on faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I happen to fall into group #3 above, with strong leanings toward #2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; believe we over-medicate our kids, and use drugs to make things easier on the parents in some cases, but overall, I also believe that God gave us medical knowledge, as well as medicine, because He intends us to use it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, it's going to boil down to your choice.  General advice I'd give to anyone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pray about it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Educate yourself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask your doctor questions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do your best to make an informed decision, one that takes your beliefs, convictions, and personal situation and weighs the options.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One might call this &quot;Discernment&quot; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/Wf5.htm&quot;&gt;something we're called to exercise&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suggested reading: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.learnthebible.org/convictions.html&quot;&gt;http://www.learnthebible.org/convictions.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-06-24T04:39:14.340" LastActivityDate="2012-06-24T04:39:14.340" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8179" CreationDate="2012-06-24T09:22:59.507" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Early Rabbinic sources have a very ‘hard line’ against all kinds of images, or pictorial representations on coins, or whatever other form. Not only for using them in gross idolatry, through aids in worship, but in various seemingly legitimate activities.  This is why even the possession of a coin, for example, with Caesars image on it, could constitute idolatry. In this case the image was idolatrous as the coin has an inscription that identified Caesar as God. This may have partly underpinned the dilemma over paying taxes to Caesar. Not only did the tribute to Rome offend the Zealots, but even the conflict of conscience over the coins themselves may have attributed to the ‘tricky question’ asked of Jesus: “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus avoided the tricky question by saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” 21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. (Matthew 22: 18-21) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In trying to control the sin of idolatry, by uses of images, they made distinctions over ‘having such pictorial representations’, buying/selling them fro profit’, ‘making them’ or ‘finding them’. (Alfred Edersheim, &lt;em&gt;Rabbinic Views as To The Lawfulness Of Images, Pictorial Representations On Coins, Etc&lt;/em&gt;.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although there was a ‘hard line view’ about all representations of human beings, the Talmud seems to allow representations of human beings for ornament under certain conditions.  However, the Mishnah forbids any image of a person that carries “in their hand some symbol of power, such as a staff, bird, globe, or as the Talmud adds, a sword, or even a signet-ring”. (The Talmudic Tractate &lt;em&gt;Abhodah Zorah, on Idolatry&lt;/em&gt;. 3. 1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can really understand the idea of ‘pictorial power’ being hotly opposed by any Jew. ‘Any image’, that ‘in any way’ indicated that’ any man’ could be somehow ‘elevated’ into ‘any kind of worship’ -- was gross idolatry and could result in stoning.  For example: “the law as regarded signet-rings, that it was forbidden to have raised work on them, and only such figures were allowed as were sunk beneath the surface, although even then they were not to be used for sealing”. (The Talmudic Tractate &lt;em&gt;Abhodah Zorah, on Idolatry&lt;/em&gt;. 43 b).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this very scrupulous way that the Jews avoided all kinds of images and icons, it seems obvious that using icons and images to help them worship would never be allowed unless the second commandment were to be removed:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (Exodus 20:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2019-05-09T12:26:40.073" LastActivityDate="2019-05-09T12:26:40.073" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8184" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8186" CreationDate="2012-06-24T09:26:09.567" Score="9" ViewCount="1520" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is as simple as the title. I am simply wondering, ‘When is the earliest recorded date of this tradition?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-06-06T00:50:59.220" LastActivityDate="2017-02-09T02:46:58.273" Title="What is the earliest record of using icons to worship God in the Catholic or Orthodox traditions?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;iconography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8181" CreationDate="2012-06-24T10:28:09.363" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Jewish history explains that neither Enoch nor Elijah had sinned, and accordingly they did not die. The traditional expectation and view of Elijah were different from John the Baptist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, Elijah was someone who was always working for the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to one Jewish historian “from the time of his appearance in the days of Ahab to that of his return as the forerunner of the Messiah” Elijah’s relationship to Israel is represented “as continuous, and that he is almost constantly introduced on the scene, either as in converse with some Rabbi, or else as busy about Israel’s welfare, and connected with it.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worthychristianlibrary.com/books/alfred-edersheim/the-life-and-times-of-jesus-the-messiah/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;'The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah'&lt;/a&gt;, by Alfred Edersheim)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to his final ‘coming’ he was supposed to come very closely before the Messiah. However Elijah was not supposed to come in ‘spirit and power’ but in person, in his flesh. He was to have a similar but lesser role to that of Messiah. For example, just as with the Messiah (see this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8145/were-the-jews-expecting-the-messiah-to-suffer-at-all&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt; for what they expected of Messiah) Elijah was “to appear, then to disappear and to appear again in the wars of Gog and Magog” (Seder Olam Rabbah.7.). But after Elijah would discharge his peculiar functions along side of the Messiah, everything else fell under the work of the Messiah only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding Elijah’s close relationship with Messiah he was to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;appear suddenly&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, not on a Sabbath or feast-day, possibly “&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;three days before the Messiah&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;” (Yalkut, vol. 2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse leads to an interesting expectation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, &quot;Your God reigns!&quot; (Isaiah 52:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the first of those three days, “Elijah would stand on the mountains of Israel, lamenting the desolateness of the land, his voice being heard from one end of the world to the other, after which he would proclaim: ‘Peace’ cometh to the world; ‘peace’ cometh to the world! Similarly on the second day he would proclaim, ‘Good’ cometh to the world; ‘good’ cometh to the world! Lastly, on the third day, he would, in the same manner as the two previous days, make proclamation: ‘Jeshuah6423 (salvation) cometh to the world; Jeshuah (salvation) cometh to the world,’” ('The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worthychristianlibrary.com/books/alfred-edersheim/the-life-and-times-of-jesus-the-messiah/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah'&lt;/a&gt;, by Alfred Edersheim)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: Although the differences are substantial, it further conforms that prophecy was never meant to be absolutely understood, but did provide a certain level of expectation that would be satisfied and more fully explained, when the event actually took place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For understanding the conflicting ambiguity and uncertainty of prophecy my recent addition to this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7209/biblical-prophecy-and-fulfillment&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-06-24T10:28:09.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8184" CreationDate="2012-06-24T14:04:33.717" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/gibbon/05/daf05001.htm&quot;&gt;Gibbons&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the public religion of the Catholics was uniformly simple and spiritual; and the first notice of the use of pictures is in the censure of the council of Illiberis, three hundred years after the Christian aera. Under the successors of Constantine, in the peace and luxury of the triumphant church, the more prudent bishops condescended to indulge a visible superstition, for the benefit of the multitude; and, after the ruin of Paganism, they were no longer restrained by the apprehension of an odious parallel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that the creeping in of images was long before the schism that brought about the RC and EO traditions -- so though your question apparently concerns post-schism timeline, I hope this answer is relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also the Catholic Encyclopedia on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05395b.htm&quot;&gt;the Council of Elvira/Elliberis/Illiberis&lt;/a&gt; for arguments on dates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1795" LastActivityDate="2012-06-24T14:04:33.717" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8173" CreationDate="2012-06-24T14:54:30.593" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the difference between the interpretation of the Bible from a child in Christ, compared to a man in Christ, we must first acknowledge that the Bible adheres to two forms of wisdom, heavenly and devilish. Both kinds of wisdom can come from studying scripture. The first comes from studying with faith and submission, the second comes from study not mixed with faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.&#xA;  17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace- loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness. (James 3:13-18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this we see that doctrine is not just intellectual but spiritual.  In fact the first thing to do to attain wisdom is not to go to Bible College (although that is good to do) but to pray for wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (Ephesians 1:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. (James 1:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, when we realize wisdom does not come primarily from study and learning but by God, through His Spirit, we can appreciate that faith is a kind of knowledge, and without it, the Scripture will become meaningless to its reader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What this means to a believer is that obedience to faith in Christ will provide more wisdom than study.  In fact, a person may seek God through His word, obey Him for many years, and attain great wisdom in love and the fruits of the Spirit, then lose most of it through sin.  Just as Samson eventually lost His strength through constant neglect, so we can lose the knowledge we have. Yet Samson (was) renewed in strength again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how does this affect 'How we interpret the Bible?'  How does our level of spiritual growth, or strength, affect our interpretation? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, when we habitually sin, we lose sight of God's grace in Christ.  We no longer believe it the way we did, no matter what we say to ourselves.  Second, the basic things, the milk of God's Word becomes the only thing that remains sensible to us.  We think about what we have done, how we ought to live, How we have been faithful, how we have failed. We no longer have faith to rest our eyes upon God and what He has done. Our focus turns inward in weakness, rather than Godward in joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the child looking at the Bible can only see the rules, what he can do, what he cannot do. The child worries about how he might be punished, and how to avoid it. The adult can only see Christ, what He has done, how glorious He is.  The adult will believe and give His life over to God for that great love, which has been made known to Him in Christ's dying love. The child will judge others, become puffed up through an appearance of wisdom, will argue motivated by jealousy. A child will be envious of the adults' freedom through their faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these different perspectives, the child will rarely see the same things from the Scripture that the adult sees.  Children are fascinated by novelties; the adult is absorbed in realities. The child will question if their parents in Christ understand anything. They will easily follow new theological trends and discount godly men from the past, as being irrelevant to our world today. Yet most children will eventually grow into adults and realize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.(Ecclesiastes 1:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The adult will see nothing but Christ in everything, and all else will be considered folly and shame. This will affect his interpretation of every Scripture, from every angle. This can't be explained under a technical theory of exegesis; it is spiritual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit- taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-25T14:30:36.123" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T14:30:36.123" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8188" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11537" CreationDate="2012-06-24T18:34:48.793" Score="8" ViewCount="255" Body="&lt;p&gt;For individual Catholics, consecration to Mary is a serious commitment not to be lightly entered into. It seems to me that this consecration is seen as an &quot;advanced&quot; step for people who are already accustomed to contemplating Mary, praying the Rosary, etc. For example, Louis de Montfort recommends a three-week programme of prayer before consecration (&lt;em&gt;Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin&lt;/em&gt;, paragraphs 227-233). Regarding Marian devotion in general, Pius X wrote (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum_en.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ad diem illum laetissimum&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, 2 February 1904):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(17) For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them. &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  (20) Whoever moreover wishes, and no one ought not so to wish, that his devotion should be worthy of her and perfect, should go further and strive might and main to imitate her example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar remarks can be found in Paul VI's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19740202_marialis-cultus_en.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Marialis cultus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (2 February 1974), John Paul II's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Redemptoris Mater&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (25 March 1987), and so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But at the same time, the Popes have frequently consecrated large and diverse groups of people to Mary, including on more than one occasion the entire world. John Paul II said at Fatima (13 May 1982):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Mother of Christ calls us, invites us to join with the Church of the living God in the consecration of the world, in this act of confiding by which the world, mankind as a whole, the nations, and each individual person are presented to the Eternal Father with the power of the redemption won by Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and again in Rome (31 December 1984):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now is the hour when every person must make an effort to live faithfully this Act of Consecration to Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This necessarily and deliberately includes people who are not Christian, or who are Christians but who disagree with Catholic beliefs and practices about Mary. That is, it looks like this consecration is a &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; step towards leading people into the Catholic faith, rather than a special additional act by people who are already firmly Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this kind of global consecration in a different category from individual consecration?  What are the intended effects of (repeated) consecration of the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T17:08:33.253" Title="How does societal consecration to Mary differ from individual consecration?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;mariology&gt;&lt;devotion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8184" CreationDate="2012-06-25T02:24:13.767" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The oldest icon I can imagine would be the one written by St Luke of Our Lady holding the infant Jesus &lt;img src=&quot;https://douglawrence.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/marymajor.jpg&quot; /&gt; regardless of whether you give any merit to the tradition that it was indeed done by him who was undoubtably the most well aquatinted man in the early Church with the Blessed Virgin Mary, excepting maybe St John the Evangelist, it is certainly an old picture and has been in the keeping of the St Mary Major for a very long time (~1700 years)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.790" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T02:24:13.767" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8177" CreationDate="2012-06-25T13:04:57.817" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;@gpuguy, Jesus finished with &amp;quot;...until all is accomplished.&amp;quot; Since he didn't go into detail about accomplishment, it might be a point of debate as to what this means. The two ideas I've considered are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the end of time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on other things, like what you've mentioned, it would be complicated to reconcile this statement with others that seem to say that the Mosaic law doesn't apply to us. It would seem that there is some sort of contradiction between being bound by the law and being freed from the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' mission on earth is finished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas, if the accomplishment referred to Jesus' mission as a man (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/john/19-30.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jn 19:30&lt;/a&gt;, &amp;quot;It is finished.&amp;quot;), it is very straightforward (for me) to reconcile this with Jesus' own statements and those of Paul concerning the old law and the &amp;quot;new way.&amp;quot; Jesus death (and eventual resurrection) has some strong suggestions that the Mosaic law (&amp;quot;the law of sin and death,&amp;quot; as Paul says it; Ro 8:2) is a thing of the past, like the veil in the temple being torn in two. Jesus came to fulfill the law (which might, in itself, suggest that the law was no longer needed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus created a new covenant, separate and distinct from the Mosaic law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/jeremiah/31-31.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 31:31&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; &amp;quot;Behold, days are coming,&amp;quot; declares the LORD, &amp;quot;when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/luke/passage.aspx?q=luke+22:19-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:19-20&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, &amp;quot;This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.&amp;quot; And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, &amp;quot;This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul asserts that the Law is good and had a purpose, but that it has been superseded:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/romans/8.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:2&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm willing to entertain arguments about how we (all Christians) are still bound by the Mosaic law, but they would need to address the requirement to obey &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; of the law, including animal sacrifices (which seem completely unnecessary since Jesus is our once-and-for-all atoning sacrifice), temple worship, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(EDIT:Added Conclusion)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;To specifically address the question of whether Christians should abstain from eating pork: There's no reason why they &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; abstain, since the Christians are not under the Mosaic law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T15:00:14.000" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2012-06-25T13:29:40.340" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One big issue with welfare programs today is that they are done in the name of the Government, rather than in the name of Jesus. The result is that, more and more, society looks to Government for things that should be the role of religion. Religious programs are stripped of resources as people take money that would have gone charitably to support competing programs and must spend it in taxes instead. Ultimately, this hurts welfare recipients more than it helps, because it hurts the ability of religion to reach out to the lost among those people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-06-25T14:15:22.477" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T14:15:22.477" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8157" CreationDate="2012-06-25T14:27:45.963" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the sake of not getting into an argument, let's &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;assume&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; a genesis / biblical creation, literal/YEC-style. The &quot;trees/rings&quot; thing is pretty much unanswerable, but fortunately we don't even need to know anything about the garden of Eden / Adam, because what we &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; have is the light from other stars, for which we have good confidence for the distance / trajectory / etc. Under the laws of physics, the light has been travelling for many &lt;em&gt;millions&lt;/em&gt; of years (indeed, the Hubble experts claim to have light from one &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/farthest-galaxy.html&quot;&gt;13 &lt;em&gt;billion&lt;/em&gt; years ago&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leaves us two conclusions inside a YEC/literal genesis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the universe was made fully &quot;with age&quot;, so no: you wouldn't have been able to use science to &quot;age&quot; it (see also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism&quot;&gt;Last Thursdayism&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the laws of physics have been significantly changed, so no: you wouldn't have been able to use science to &quot;age&quot; it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(or of course the option that Genesis is not a reliable source of creation information)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T14:27:45.963" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8193" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8196" CreationDate="2012-06-25T14:57:55.073" Score="7" ViewCount="11633" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once heard someone say that parables are the best way to teach, because Jesus used them.  Of course this makes no sense because parables are very difficult to understand unless explained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said this when the disciples asked why he was speaking in riddles through so many metaphors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. (Matthew 13:10-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is why would Jesus purposefully keep much of his teaching secret through parables? Why would he want some not to see and not to hear?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-23T16:48:44.120" LastActivityDate="2016-04-26T00:13:54.067" Title="Why did Jesus keep some in the dark by using parables?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;parables&gt;&lt;messianic-secret&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-26T05:22:06.327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8194" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8195" CreationDate="2012-06-25T15:09:45.963" Score="20" ViewCount="74751" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus often encountered &quot;Pharisees&quot; and &quot;Sadducees&quot;.  For example,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the &lt;strong&gt;Sadducees&lt;/strong&gt;, the &lt;strong&gt;Pharisees&lt;/strong&gt; got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” (Matthew 22:34-36)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective, &lt;strong&gt;Who were they and how did they differ?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-03T18:01:29.533" LastActivityDate="2017-11-14T23:08:59.073" Title="What was the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;sadducees&gt;&lt;pharisees&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8194" CreationDate="2012-06-25T15:23:29.787" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots were the four primary religious/political factions of the time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pharisees&lt;/strong&gt; were keepers of the Law and held the entire (what we would call) Hebrew Bible as the word of YHWH. They emerged from the exile as the dominant faction because they (correctly) connected Israel's abandoning of the Law as the reason for the punishment of exile. As such, they created &quot;fences&quot; to attempt to keep people from even coming close to replicating this behavior and casting Israel into exile and further punishment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sadducees&lt;/strong&gt; were more affluent and were also more sympathetic to the Hellenistic movement. They acquiesced quite a bit to the influence of the prevailing powers (Greece, and then Rome) because they realized it was economically and politically advantageous for them to do so. They also only held the Pentateuch as their authoritative Scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Essenes&lt;/strong&gt; held themselves to a higher standard of piety - including voluntary poverty, abstinence, and other forms and degrees of asceticism. Additionally, they lived in a tighter community (Jerusalem had an &quot;Essene Quarter&quot;) and may have influenced the early Christian community (of Acts 1-11). Some of them took a more radical approach on this communalism and established the community of Qumran. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Zealots&lt;/strong&gt; were just that. They believed that change could only be affected in the ruling powers through force, and likely had not real religious leader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T15:23:29.787" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8193" CreationDate="2012-06-25T15:34:51.560" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's interesting that Jesus often ends the telling of a parable with the phrase &quot;He who has ears to hear, let him hear.&quot;  (Matthew 11:15, 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8)  During Jesus' life and ministry, much of Jesus' teaching was, indeed, veiled, but only to those who did not have ears to hear.  Perhaps those who really wanted to follow Jesus would either contemplate the parables until they understood them, or as happened to Peter, God would reveal the meaning of the parables to those who had ears to hear.  The scoffers would not be force fed with the teachings of Jesus, but could cast them away.  As C.S. Lewis noted, God cannot ravage--He can only woo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Meaning of Parables was veiled only for a short time&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is really important to note, however, that this veiling only occurred during the three years of Jesus' ministry.  Immediately after the resurrection, the proclamation of Jesus as the risen Lord went out to all people, not veiled in parables, but in clear teaching.  In fact, the more difficult parables that were explained in private to the disciples are now accessible to all people.  In fact, the disciples who freely recorded the meanings in the gospels also likely publicly proclaimed the meaning to all people then as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Many for whom the parables had been veiled likely came to faith in Jesus later&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to the thousands of Jews who had gathered for the feast.  It is quite reasonable to assert that many of these had been among those that had heard the parables of Jesus and had not understood them, and then rejected Jesus and called for His execution.  Peter lays this charge against them as he speaks.  However, we are informed that 3,000 of these people became followers of Jesus on that day alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the fullness of the Gospel was veiled for a short time.  Some people's hearts were hardened, and Jesus did not overwhelm them to the point of thwarting their own free will to reject them.  Others were perhaps not ready at that time, but did accept Jesus later.  Whatever the reason, the veiling was for a very short time, as today there is no &quot;secret knowledge&quot; in Christianity.  Anyone can read the parables and the explanations given to Jesus' disciples in private.  Indeed, the reader is invited into the most exclusive moments in the life of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T15:34:51.560" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8194" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:01:50.777" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8195/30&quot;&gt;answer from swasheck&lt;/a&gt; is pretty good, and more than I personally know.  But I'll put in 2 cents just for fun and completeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sadducees denied bodily resurrection.  Which is why, as any Catechist will tell you, is why they are &quot;so sad, you see&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the Essenes, lots of folks speculate that John the Baptist was one of these folks (although since he was in the desert, who knows how that would affect him) and those same folks would probably say Jesus was too.  But since Jesus has a divine intellect, I'm not sure that partisanship would change His way of thinking on anything. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T09:45:51.017" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8198" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8203" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:04:01.027" Score="6" ViewCount="988" Body="&lt;p&gt;My fiance and I are planning our wedding and are having some trouble because we are from different countries. We are both Christians and would like to have a wedding that is honorable to God biblically. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We plan to be wed in Japan and it is sometimes custom that they will sign marriage documents and turn them into city hall even months before the actual ceremony. These marriage documents legally state that the two are married. It is beneficial for myself since it is required for a visa and job. However, this seems to be a problem as we do not think we are &quot;actually married&quot; since a ceremony wouldn't take place until months later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I am wondering if it is even acceptable before God biblically to allow for this legalization of marriage even before a ceremony. I am also wondering what Bible passages speak about marriage so that we would be able to put in as much consideration to this as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I think I should clarify more about what I'd like information about. I took note about how God was present to ordain the first marriage between Adam and Eve. I'm assuming that the covenant of marriage must be made before God. If &quot;submitting legal forms&quot; before an actual ceremony constitutes as marriage, is that &quot;a covenant made before God&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1585" LastEditorUserId="1585" LastEditDate="2012-06-25T21:06:43.280" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T21:06:43.280" Title="Issues with legal documents and marriage" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-12-14T12:45:34.540" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8198" CreationDate="2012-06-25T16:50:50.507" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you'll find anything other than Christian tradition that makes a lot of prescriptions for &quot;legitimate&quot; marriage. Marriage is essentially defined in Genesis 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/genesis/2-24.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 2:24&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't recall any laws in the OT that make prescriptions for marriage ceremonies or legitimate marriages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Marriage: Covenant Between Two Individuals&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would posit that marriage is essentially a covenant between two individuals, and whenever the two individuals make the commitment, they are as married as they need to be before God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the USA (in most states anyway—marriage is currently defined by each state), it might be a legal requirement to have a sanctioned individual (priest/ordained minister, justice of the peace, etc.) legally certify that two individuals are married, but that would only matter if you cared about being married in the eyes of the law. (I would care, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of evil—but I don't know that it would be an absolute necessity.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't be troubled about turning in a marriage document ahead of time, since that event need not have any bearing on when you decide to make your commitment (to God and each other) and subsequently (presumably) consummate the marriage. It certainly wouldn't be problematic to be &quot;married&quot; for a while before living as a married couple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T16:50:50.507" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8177" CreationDate="2012-06-25T17:25:41.600" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please excuse my comments to this answer as I was in a middle of a debate when typing them.  My opinion is not relevant to the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply Jesus permits the food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 7:17-19 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples&#xA;  asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t&#xA;  you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile&#xA;  them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach,&#xA;  and then out of the body.” (&lt;strong&gt;In saying this, Jesus declared all foods&#xA;  clean.&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AND&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 15:10-20 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What Defiles a Person&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and&#xA;  understand: 11  &lt;strong&gt;it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a&#xA;  person, but what comes out of the mouth;&lt;/strong&gt; this defiles a person.” 12&#xA;  Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the&#xA;  Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” 13 He answered,&#xA;  “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted&#xA;  up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides.[c] And if the blind lead&#xA;  the blind, both will fall into a pit.” 15 But Peter said to him,&#xA;  “Explain the parable to us.” 16 And he said, “Are you also still&#xA;  without understanding? 17 &lt;strong&gt;Do you not see that whatever goes into the&#xA;  mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?&lt;/strong&gt;[d] 18 But what comes&#xA;  out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.&#xA;  19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual&#xA;  immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20  These are what defile a&#xA;  person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-06-25T17:32:40.220" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T17:32:40.220" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8193" CreationDate="2012-06-25T17:27:14.483" Score="4" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Wisdom is for the Humble&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/psalms/138-6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 138:6&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; For though the LORD is exalted, Yet He regards the lowly, But the haughty He knows from afar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/proverbs/3-34.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 3:34&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; Though He scoffs at the scoffers, Yet He gives grace to the afflicted. &lt;br/&gt; &lt;em&gt;(quoted in James 4:6 and 1 Peter 5:5)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+11:25-30&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 11:24-30&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; At that time Jesus said, &amp;quot;I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not seem to be especially disposed to the intelligent (any more than he is to the athletic, beautiful, charismatic, etc.), and so we often see a theme in the Bible that wisdom is not something to be attained without first humbling ourselves before God who &lt;em&gt;gives&lt;/em&gt; wisdom. It seems a reasonable implication that wisdom is not something that can be wholly attained by study or genius apart from the desire to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God desires for people willing to choose to seek him, he frequently gives understanding only &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; obedience. It is only when we demonstrate (to ourselves, primarily) with our actions that we trust him that we begin to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar example of God doing this is found in Isaiah 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/isaiah/6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 6:9-10&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; He said, &amp;quot;Go, and tell this people : 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive ; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' &amp;quot;Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Believing is Seeing&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why hide understanding from people? In the US (and probably elsewhere), we have a proverb: &amp;quot;Seeing is believing.&amp;quot; In God's eyes, it appears that the illogical converse is more true: &amp;quot;Believing is seeing.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T17:27:14.483" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8202" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8209" CreationDate="2012-06-25T18:32:47.013" Score="3" ViewCount="2538" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exodus 3:14 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems appropriate in regard to the Israelites since they have had knowledge of God beforehand, but what about in terms of today and other cultures? Can this as a stand-alone passage be used to describe who God is to a people other than the Israelites and possibly in this present time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I also read Hebrews 8:10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to apply to the Israelites or &quot;His people&quot;, that they should know &quot;I Am&quot; to be the author of these laws which are in their hearts. However, can this be sufficient to those who are not God's people or not Israelites? This passage causes a lot of confusion for those who  live in a culture steeped with traditions of &quot;multiple-gods&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Consequently, when Jesus proclaims himself as God, does that only explain who he is based on previous knowledge of who the Father is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1585" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-11-28T18:32:22.440" LastActivityDate="2015-07-24T02:08:38.617" Title="Does Exodus 3:14 explain who God is to everyone regardless of time and culture?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8198" CreationDate="2012-06-25T18:52:41.183" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read in the comments that you're not looking for an answer from a particular denomination, but a purely biblical answer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, if you're a Christian, then you'd know that the OT laws (besides the 10 commandments) are not what we follow any more, as they have their completion in Jesus. Further, you are aware that you must render unto Caesar what is Caesars.  It would see as though the formalities in civil marriage are little more than a tax on marriage and don't constitute a legitimate marriage in the eyes of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as heresy can shed a lot of light on what the true Church teaches.  Divorce can shed a lot of light on what marriage is. Owing to what Jesus said (Matt 19:8), in the beginning it was not so, in the beginning you had Adam and Eve, the first married couple and the example for all marriage.  The coupling which took &quot;it is not good for man to be alone&quot; to &quot;woah, this is indeed flesh of my flesh!&quot;. If anyone says Adam and Eve weren't married in the eyes of God and didn't have a perfect marriage in the beginning, they'd have a long and complicated argument.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if they had the best possible marriage, if you find it is impossible to be wed in a Church in the way you'd best see fit, getting married in the most prudent possible way is always better than being consumed with fire, as St. Paul might say.  If you want, you can have your marriage blessed later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, to go back to divorce, Jesus says that divorce is only OK if the marriage is unlawful, which means there must be something that makes the marriage lawful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To a Catholic, a lawful marriage requires consent of the man and the woman,  full knowledge of what they're getting in to, nothing previous encumbering the marriage.  There is a biblical pretext for all this, as I think there is for all Catholic tradition, but that's a bit beyond the scope of the question (or at least my capacity to answer)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T18:52:41.183" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8204" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8214" CreationDate="2012-06-25T20:05:00.463" Score="2" ViewCount="318" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was wondering what instructions, if any, the bible places on the creation of art. I imagine anything that is forbid by the Bible would be disallowed to be put in a piece of art, but I can not seem to find any specific passages about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most obvious example to me is of something that is designed to make the viewer think about something sinful, such as a person in clothes that while cover everything, leave much to the imagination. A drawing depicting the beauty of a person is not inherently wrong, and in the end it's the eye of the beholder that is at fault, yet how much is the artist responsible? Is it only the intent, only the result? both?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T12:22:45.463" Title="The Bible and art" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8205" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8207" CreationDate="2012-06-25T20:16:42.170" Score="2" ViewCount="532" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;~ Hebrew 10:26-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Just what is knowledge of your sin?&lt;/strong&gt; Is it being told / someone agreeing with you? Only when the bible says is sin? What if you feel uneasy about what your doing? If feeling uneasy and know your doing wrong is a sin, what about doing something to protect those you love (fighting, not out of rage) or displaying tough love. Or rather, how does the bible separate knowledge of sin, the feeling you've done something wrong, and actual sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-01-18T15:13:20.867" LastActivityDate="2017-01-18T15:13:20.867" Title="Knowledge of your sin" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-20T09:05:56.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8198" CreationDate="2012-06-25T20:42:25.120" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Peter Turner pointed out, the Catholics consider marriage to be a covenant between the participants, and this is followed more or less by other churches. I know of no church that would consider you 'not married' just because you hadn't had a ceremony in a church with a minister. (If you doubt this, imagine asking that same church if it was OK to leave your spouse because you 'hadn't been married in church'. None of them are going to approve that.) As a side consideration, you will be married in the eyes of the church when you sign the civil papers. That should only affect you if you change your mind between signing the papers and the church ceremony, so hopefully not an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question you put in comments, you are not therefore lying to the civil authorities - you really are married when you've filled the forms in. They aren't concerned about the church ceremony, just the legal status. And since the civil marriage makes you married in the eyes of the church you aren't lying to anyone. You might well want to think of yourselves as 'not married' until the church ceremony, and that's up to you, and I doubt God or anyone else will be upset. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T20:42:25.120" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8205" CreationDate="2012-06-25T23:14:26.157" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to try my best, but please correct me if I stated anything incorrectly. It seems that most of your question lies in the separation between:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1) knowledge of sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2) feeling of sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3) actual sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In relation to &quot;the knowledge of the truth&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well first off, what is &quot;knowledge of sin&quot;? Where do we get that? Romans 3:20 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this, we can figure out that God's law is how we become conscious of our sin. This is how we are able to find out we are sinners. If I am correct, this is referred to as &quot;revelation&quot;. Knowledge of our sin is revealed to us through God's Word and His standards (the law). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further we have Romans 7:7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about &quot;feeling of sin&quot; and &quot;uneasiness of sin&quot;? I am unsure about how to answer you for this. Feelings are quite subjective and are hard to use as a basis. However, there is &quot;conviction of sin&quot; which goes a little deeper. This is because feelings are strongly tied to emotions whereas conviction involves a change of attitude toward sin. This is displayed by Joseph in Genesis 39:9 and Isaiah in Isaiah 6:5. They had a change in attitude toward sin. Note that this is different than having simply shame or a guilty conscious that anyone may have without any change in their action. &quot;Uneasiness of sin&quot; may be &quot;conviction of sin&quot; and since &quot;knowledge of sin&quot; is revealed through God's law, that should be the place to go to find out if that conviction is real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actual sin is any act contrary to the will and law of God. This can be through omission or commission. If you are truly concerned with whether something is an actual sin or not, sometimes it's best to check whether it is &quot;definitely good&quot; or &quot;glorifying to God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this, there is Romans 14:23:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Everything that does not come from faith is sin”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And 1 Corinthians 6:12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Everything is permissible for me—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me—but I will not be mastered by anything”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some other passages you can check such as 1 Corinthians 10:31. Hopefully this would help clarify what is &quot;not sin&quot; so that you can know what &quot;is sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1585" LastActivityDate="2012-06-25T23:14:26.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8205" CreationDate="2012-06-26T01:26:13.017" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8207/168&quot;&gt;Chris&lt;/a&gt; referenced the book of Romans already, which deals with this issue in depth. I consider at least the first four chapters very relevant to this discussion, and in re-reading them now I found it difficult to pull out specific verses to address the matter without pulling out whole chapters. But Romans 7:7, as Chris cited, is a good jumping-off point for my answer to your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 7:7:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I want to emphasize from this is the phrase &lt;em&gt;&quot;I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; Knowledge of sin is simply that: knowing what sin is and that it exists. Sin is sin regardless of our understanding, but because we have the law (and the deeper content of the law being completed and perfected in Christ), we are able to have an understanding of the shape sin takes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a simple analogy: If you had never experienced darkness, you would never have developed a concept of light. If you had never experienced sadness, you would never have developed a concept of joy. So too with sin - the Law revealed sin to man just as much as it revealed righteousness to man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T01:26:13.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8202" CreationDate="2012-06-26T01:48:36.430" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the best answer to this question is &quot;Yes...and no.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Yes&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not say &quot;I have always been&quot; or &quot;I will always be&quot; or &quot;I am coming&quot;. He says &quot;I &lt;em&gt;am&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; This verse is often used as part of the common Christian understanding that God exists above and outside of the human understanding of time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse as a summary of God's universal, achronological reality is applicable to all people regardless of time and culture. God's &lt;em&gt;existence&lt;/em&gt; applies identically to all people. No matter your original culture, no matter what era you live in, it is an aspect of Christianity to regard God as a single, powerful, timeless entity*.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;No&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I do not favor attempts to fine stand-alone verses to explain concepts, especially important theological points. While verses in isolation can still carry very important messages, local context (nearby verses) and absolute context (whole Bible) are critical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nature of God is a very fundamental piece of Christianity (and most religions, for that matter). While I think that Exodus 3:14 is a very good member of the list of verses that help describe God, I do not consider it sufficient as a stand-alone verse. It does not address:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's desire for justice&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's desire for mercy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's triune nature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's relationship with mankind.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's role as Creator.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a person raised in the church, it's difficult to guess at other perspectives, but I think that hearing Exodus 3:14 without any other introduction to God would confuse me more than it educated me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still think it's a very important verse, I think it's valuable to include in an exposition into who God is. But if it were sufficient on its own, the Bible would be a lot shorter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I hope that was phrased loosely enough to account for most majors Christian views, I know there are differences on the specifics of this point, please correct me if I am wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T01:48:36.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8210" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8216" CreationDate="2012-06-26T02:09:26.600" Score="12" ViewCount="1120" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question actually centers on the KJV translation itself. It's not hard to find a church in America (particularly in the south) where they believe that the KJV is the one true translation and that all others are inferior. Why is it the KJV in particular that has achieved this status? Is it because it was the primary translation used for centuries?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-03-31T03:25:55.453" LastActivityDate="2017-12-21T23:37:48.013" Title="Why is the KJV frequently said to be the &quot;true&quot; translation?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;&lt;kjv-onlyism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8210" CreationDate="2012-06-26T02:35:30.390" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;A quick Google search turns up an overwhelming amount of information, mostly blogs. Of the ones the I skimmed, I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2005/10/six-arguments-in-defense-of-king-james.html&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt; to be somewhat informative. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to this, I think that it's probably also somewhat of a social phenomenon in that it was the first English translation to really gain mainstream adoption (only slightly younger than the Geneva Bible) and it probably didn't hurt that the primary English-speaking audience of the time were the subjects of the one who commissioned the KJV. So I guess, in addition to the reflective reasons presented presently, it probably &quot;just stuck&quot; within a set of traditions of the Church. People usually like tradition, and as Christians we also like remaining connected to our heritage. The KJV is an important portion of that heritage and may have been unduly venerated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="86" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T02:35:30.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8202" CreationDate="2012-06-26T03:09:03.360" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;By this, 'I AM', God declared that He is self-existent and eternal. He had 'no beginning', He just was who He was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God used this name, it seems, partly because the world was fully flooded by idolatry at that time and the Jews were being singled out as the only people to preserve the truth about the God who is 'One'. Under Moses God showed himself to be more powerful than the gods of the great Egyptian power. This would to all who worshipped other gods that they can't stand in conflict with the One God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gentiles had no excuse in rejecting and suppressing the irrepressible truth of this manifest eternity and power of God, for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:18-22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answers the first question, 'I AM' is the first name by which all mankind always first recognizes God.  Every person, even as a child, while looking into the sky, or sea, has learned this name. Of old they turned those views of sky, sea, sun etc., into an idol. Today we suppress this truth in other ways, not necessarily in an outward idol, though some still do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the second verse about the new covenant written in the heart, this has to do with new birth by faith in Christ. Although Many saints in the Old Testament had faith in Messiah and therefore had a new birth ahead of their time, the laws of Moses were written on stone to signify that they were not yet written by faith into the hearts of the listeners. This is why God was partly unapproachable under those shadows of the Old covenant. In the New covenant those laws have become, principles of life, eternal life springing up from the soul, written onto our heart through a new birth by the Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? (2 Corinthians 3:7-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. (1 Peter 1:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is how words that were only written on a sinners conscience before, words that killed and condemned, now are words of life in a new nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the second question, this is even more relevant today as under the New Covenant the promise of Messiah to Abraham becomes a blessing to the whole world. (Gen 12:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more descriptions of what God is like see this &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8058/what-is-the-christian-perspective-on-the-description-of-god/8063#8063&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T03:09:03.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8210" CreationDate="2012-06-26T03:23:13.040" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The KJV has been the 'standard' English translation for a very long time - in fact literally for centuries. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations&quot;&gt;It had no real rival for popularity until the publication of the Revised standard Version in 1952&lt;/a&gt;. This means that in the early part of the 20th Century a huge number of Christians formulated their doctrine based almost entirely on the KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the more modern translation became available those who had based their doctrine on the KJV had two choices: revise their doctrine, or decry the new translation as 'false'. Those who took the latter route became the KJV-only movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T03:23:13.040" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8204" CreationDate="2012-06-26T03:57:02.330" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt; A drawing depicting the beauty of a person is not inherently wrong, and in the end it's the eye of the beholder that is at fault, yet how much is the artist responsible? Is it only the intent, only the result? both?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It certainly is not the result. Even a Satanic Bible is just ink. Jesus answered the same kind of question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” (Matthew 15:17-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as we approach intent the Bible assumes each person can discern their own intent. The Bible does not under the New Testament externalize intent under various Laws. In the Old Testament, it was slightly different and the Pharisees added a 'hedge' (extra external laws) around the law to help people figure out how to avoid sin. This is the mentality our Lord opposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see this principle in action when the Apostle prescribes rules for a woman's dress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.(1 Peter 3:3-4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice he did not forbid wearing jewelry, or forbid the length of a dress. He just says what their attitude should be. He let's them apply personal rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now regarding lust, a piece of art has not ever tempted me, but a woman curved in the right manner, even clothed by a thick full dress and jacket,  presents more temptation than art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If under this very tempting subject, the Apostle does not even try to formulate an external rule, why would he ever mention art? Even the Roman amphitheater that Herod built in Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Bible.  This is why you will not find what you are looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T03:57:02.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8204" CreationDate="2012-06-26T03:57:28.500" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripture doesn't address this directly.  The closest relevant verses I can think of are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 101:3 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate&#xA;  the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be an example of a (good) decision to not regard (or even look at) certain things.  Things that would be depictions of sinful behavior. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could be as obvious as watching pornography, or stretched as far as a personal conviction would take it.  I may think that WWE Wrestling (does that even exist any more?) is sinful because of the violent behavior, or Betty Boop because she shows so much cartoon skin.  that doesn't mean that you would necessarily agree with me.  &lt;em&gt;(And I don't. Those are just silly examples to illustrate the point.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:28&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a&#xA;  woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in&#xA;  his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would seem to me to apply in the case of pornography.  The point of that type of material is to incite lust.  But where is the line on what is art and what is not?  This doesn't address your question, either.  What I find artistic, you may find lascivious, or vice-versa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, that comes down to a personal conviction.  Unfortunately, there isn't a clear line.  Society, cultural norms, our own background, and our own mental (and possibly genetic) makeup all determine what we find to be beautiful in an artistic sense, and what we find exciting, and arousing in a non-artistic sense. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same can be said for other forms of art.  Music, for example.  Does Heavy Metal incite aggression, or does it give that extra bit of energy when working out?  Theatre, literature, every form of art is different experientially for the consumer, and we may not get from it what the artist intended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, perhaps the most relevant verse is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 14:14 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that&#xA;  there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any&#xA;  thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not something is artistic or sinful is in the eye of the beholder (believer).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hate that answer, by the way, because it opens the door to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; being acceptable.  I don't think that's what's meant.  I believe that we do need to rely on Scriptural guidance, the leading of the holy Spirit, and our conscience (assuming we haven't seared our conscience).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-06-26T04:34:47.077" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T04:34:47.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8210" CreationDate="2012-06-26T06:14:03.340" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The King James (KJV) was translated from a different Greek text than most modern translations. In the early 1500s, Desiderius Erasmus took the best copies of the Greek New Testament available to him, and compared and collated them to create the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus&quot;&gt;Textus Receptus&lt;/a&gt; (TR), the first Greek New Testament to be printed rather than hand-written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The TR was the Greek text used by the translators of the KJV as well as other early translators such as William Tyndale and Martin Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In more recent years, thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts&amp;mdash;including fragmentary copies as old as the 2nd century and whole New Testaments as old as the 4th&amp;mdash;have been rediscovered. Many of the oldest manuscripts consistently disagree with the TR in many places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2 begins simply with &quot;Father&quot; in the oldest manuscripts, but &quot;Our Father in heaven&quot; (matching the wording of Matthew 6:9) in the TR.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most modern scholars agree that it is more likely that Luke 11:2 originally said &quot;Father&quot;, and that later copyists substituted Matthew's more expanded phrase&amp;mdash;either out of reverence or because Matthew's language is more memorable. It makes more sense that the language of the two passages would converge over time than that it would diverge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other similar examples. 1 Corinthians 9:1 says &quot;Jesus&quot; in the oldest manuscripts, but &quot;Jesus Christ&quot; in the TR. 2 Corinthians 5:18 says &quot;Christ&quot; in the oldest manuscripts, but &quot;Jesus Christ&quot; in the TR. Again, it's easier to understand how the language would converge on a standard phrase over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the age of the manuscripts is evidence of their being closer to the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But KJV-only proponents have a different view.&lt;/strong&gt; To them, the fact that these manuscripts were lost in the first place is reason enough to reject them. KJV-only proponents argue that the manuscripts the TR was based on were preserved because they were the most faithful to the original. According to this view, there are no early manuscripts from this tradition because they were used until they wore out; the other, inferior manuscripts were discarded and have only survived by accident.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proponents of this view hold that the TR is the preserved Word of God, and that the modern, scholarly Greek New Testaments are inferior due to their lack of words such as &quot;Christ&quot; in 1 Corinthians 9:1 or &quot;Jesus&quot; in 2 Corinthians 5:18. The KJV, being the most popular English translation from the TR, is held by this group to be the English version of God's preserved Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T06:14:03.340" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8217" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-26T10:36:36.790" Score="2" ViewCount="2764" Body="&lt;p&gt;During a recent small group meeting recently, several questions about the life of Jacob came up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If God had already chosen Jacob to be blessed, why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob?  So that he could repent and be able to be blessed?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When Jacob do not want to let go of God until after the &quot;wrestling&quot;, asking for a blessing first, did God give in? Did God bless Jacob so that he would let go?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If God showed himself to Jacob, how come it didn't become a &quot;big deal&quot; the way later appearances did? Is there a article/commentary the tackles this question?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1800" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-17T02:15:15.190" LastActivityDate="2015-08-17T02:15:15.190" Title="Why did God wrestle with Jacob and why did this appearance not become a &quot;big deal&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;&lt;theophany&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8218" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8220" CreationDate="2012-06-26T10:52:03.757" Score="7" ViewCount="1170" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that in England the Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Hours uses a different translation for the readings from the U. S. (Specifically, the British use Jerusalem Bible in their liturgies (including Mass) and the U. S. uses the N. A. B.) I have not been able to confirm, however, whether they use the Grail Psalms for their Liturgy of the Hours. Do they use a different Psalter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-11-27T00:48:09.003" LastActivityDate="2015-11-27T00:48:09.003" Title="What translation does the Catholic Breviary of England use for Psalms?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;&lt;liturgy-of-the-hours&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8219" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8308" CreationDate="2012-06-26T11:07:30.150" Score="6" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, my dad is a baptized Catholic, but was raised Presbyterian. When he was in his twenties he married a woman in the Catholic Church who left him within a year (and got married to his best man... sad but true). There has never been effort to annul this union (it is moot now, she is dead).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several years later he met an married my mom (another relationship which did not last). According to the Catholic Church this can't be a valid marriage because my dad's first wife was still alive. I was told that I was considered legitimate by the Church but shouldn't I be considered illegitimate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-06-26T13:21:39.240" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T02:58:06.263" Title="Why aren't I considered illegitimate?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8218" CreationDate="2012-06-26T11:29:58.897" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yep, I just looked on amazon.co.uk to find the Divine Office published by Harper Collins for the use in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, etc...  Didn't have a preview or anything, but I did &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adoremus.org/499DivineOffice.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;find this&lt;/a&gt; which says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalms are from the 1963 version of the Grail Psalter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T11:29:58.897" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8204" CreationDate="2012-06-26T12:22:45.463" Score="2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Love is the Greatest Commandment&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While none of the Biblical authors mention art specifically, they do offer some guidance in regards to the use of our freedom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/1-corinthians/8.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 8:13&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt;Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's statement (probably) employs hyperbole, but the point is that nothing else—art implicitly included—is nearly as important as our brothers (and sisters).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have some obligation to help our brothers and sisters (in Christ, at least, but even in a greater sense, everyone made in God's image), and that includes not ignoring their weaknesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The artists himself is obliged to put some thought into how his creation will be experienced. &#xA;It would be impossible to know every possible use, but certainly he could take into account some common points of view (including typical healthy males, who are motivated visually; perhaps even people recovering or in the throes of personal problems with pornography). The extent to which you try to &quot;please everyone&quot; in this regard is not explicitly prescribed, but take note of Paul's example: if he can avoid causing people to stumble (needlessly), he'll do it. I'm sure there are lengths to which he wouldn't go, either, but those precise details are a matter of conscience, and you should listen to your own, because it is for your own heart and actions that you will have to give an account to God. Be prepared, too, to do something if someone tells you that your creation is having an undesired effect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, don't just avoid &quot;bad things,&quot; but actively seek after good things. Such intrinsically good things will give a purpose to the creation and usually offset or negate &lt;em&gt;potential&lt;/em&gt; bad things (as small elements of the populous might perceive them) because it will give your work an overarching purpose whose goal is to draw people closer to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/philippians/4-8.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 4:8&lt;/strong&gt; (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt;Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T12:22:45.463" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8219" CreationDate="2012-06-26T12:54:59.867" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Define legitimate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your definition is - Children born by the union of a man and wife married by God’s law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then what about the following verse –&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' &#xA;  I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. (Mat 3:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would such children be legitimate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God uses the term legitimate in different contexts -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The term is applied to those who aren’t obedient to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“If God doesn't discipline you as he does all of his children, it means that you are illegitimate and are not really his children at all.” (NLT Heb 12:8)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God calls the Israelites illegitimate because their mother Israel&#xA;prostituted herself to foreign gods. (Can't remember the reference though)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God’s perspective on legitimacy is not limited to physical circumstances of one’s birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But supposing that one is born illegitimately, so what? Remember John 3:5? (One must be reborn of the spirit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Shouldn't I be considered illegitimate?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By whom? God? Nope. I don’t think so. &#xA;There are illegitimate parents, but there aren’t any illegitimate children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-06-26T14:04:00.593" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T14:04:00.593" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8223" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-26T14:33:52.567" Score="4" ViewCount="6093" Body="&lt;p&gt;During a Bible discussion for seekers last week, one of them asked a question that led me to ponder this questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the body of Moses (not Elijah since he never died) should still have been in the grave at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus--and would be pretty decomposed at that point.  However, his spirit (and probably souls) would have been in Paradise at that time--still separated from his body until the resurrection at the last day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his&#xA;  brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was&#xA;  transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his&#xA;  clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them&#xA;  Moses and Elijah, talking with him.   Matthew 17:1-3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that is true, then what exactly did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration?  Did they see the spirit of Moses?  Can our spirits be seen with physical eyes?  Were the disciples perhaps allowed to see spiritual things as Elisha appears to have done in 2 Kings 6?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went&#xA;  out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city.&#xA;  And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said,&#xA;  “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who&#xA;  are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open&#xA;  his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young&#xA;  man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and&#xA;  chariots of fire all around Elisha.  2 Kings 6:15-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, the rich man and Lazarus presumably &quot;saw&quot; each other as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for the Protestant understanding of this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T04:35:40.840" LastActivityDate="2020-05-24T12:38:58.303" Title="What did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration?" Tags="&lt;spirit&gt;&lt;peter&gt;&lt;john-apostle&gt;&lt;transfiguration&gt;&lt;james-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8217" CreationDate="2012-06-26T16:16:58.817" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you see how those who knew they were sinners grabbed the gospel from Christ, almost violently pressing in on Him, you see the heart of Jacob. Christ initiates the fight, but sinners will not let Him go. The tax collectors and sinners, whom the scribes and Pharisees thought had  no right to the kingdom, seized the mercy of the Gospel. The self righteous shunned them and the  Devil, Hell, and Sin are all giants that oppose them, but they wrestled against it all until they received the promised Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If man is not absolutely determined to give up his sins and wrestle to find Christ at every expense, his faith can't be compared to Jacob. Even if the difficulties of our life, when our faith in God's love is tested, we are tempted to shrink back and consider God as hard and cruel. However, like a big Dad wrestling with his young child, to take a toy away and only to give it back with hugs and kisses, we will find after that our struggle with God is always with a God that loves us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in Jacob what we really see is the struggle of faith which is nothing less then a struggle with God himself.  Many believe that this angel that Jacob struggled against was the pre-human form of Jesus himself. This view is taken whenever the original Hebrew uses the phrase 'The Angle of the Lord'. See a post on that &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2015/was-the-angel-of-the-lord-the-pre-human-appearance-of-messiah&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to answer the questions specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1-Why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He did so to draw Jacobs faith out and to be an example for us all who equally wrestle with God. Jacob's desire for the blessing was really His desire for Christ, for the blessing was that through Abraham a Messiah would be born to crush the head of the serpent and  bless many nations. (Gen 12:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2-Did he blessed Jacob so he would just let God go?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God seems to let Jacob overpower Him so that Jacob has confidence in his own strength, but then he touches his thigh like a wrestler twisting his joint out. This would be all the more agonizing to be beaten by someone that seems weaker than you. It is meant to show how intense and intimate the struggle is, and how sweaty and tiring. God finally gives in, whenHe decides the struggle is enough for poor Jacob.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice when Jacob walked away limping, it seemed that he had learned the same thing as the Apostle Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3-God showed himself to Jacob, how come there it didn't become a big deal? meaning is there any written article the tackles about it even more?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sure there are many sermons on this and much to find in commentaries. For a deep read I would suggest Martin Luther's commentary of Genesis, but I am not sure how easy it is to find. A good free source for much of the Bible is Matthew Henry, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T17:00:18.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8223" CreationDate="2012-06-26T17:26:00.563" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Jude 9, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “ The Lord rebuke you!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is often taught as the body of Moses was taken into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that Elijah ascended in a fiery chariot in a whirlwind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would mean that the bodies of those mean would have been kept in heaven, so it could very well be that the two men were actually physically present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T17:26:00.563" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8223" CreationDate="2012-06-26T18:54:03.480" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Trying to understand this from the &lt;code&gt;human&lt;/code&gt; perspective is not the right way for God is &lt;strong&gt;spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. Just like trying to understand how Mary became pregnant without having any sexual intercourse. &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;I would say that this is a demonstration of God promise that on &lt;code&gt;His second  return&lt;/code&gt;, those who died in faith will rise along with the living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1801" LastActivityDate="2012-06-26T18:54:03.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8223" CreationDate="2012-06-26T23:26:08.700" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Matthew 17:9, what they saw was a vision, and not the physical bodies of Moses and Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/17-9.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 17:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, &amp;quot;Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-27T16:44:35.330" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8228" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8229" CreationDate="2012-06-27T04:45:33.147" Score="6" ViewCount="9103" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 14:4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Where there are no oxen, the manger is empty,&#xA;      but from the strength of an ox come abundant harvests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been reading proverbs lately, but I haven't been able to understand this verse! What is the context that this applies to? Is there some kind of metaphor? I can understand the second clause &quot;from the strength of an ox come abundant harvests&quot;. This part seems somewhat easily understood. But for the first part, why would you not want oxen in the first place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1585" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-17T12:35:44.887" LastActivityDate="2014-09-17T12:35:44.887" Title="Proverbs 14:4 - What does this mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-09-17T16:32:27.710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8228" CreationDate="2012-06-27T05:12:31.730" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I usually take proverbs to be straightforward about earthly affairs. They often fall under the theme of Ecclesiastes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God (Ecclesiastes 2:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This proverb might be a word of wisdom to farmers, touching on laziness or reluctance to work in the grime of hard labor. A framer might not like working hard with oxen because of the mess they make in the barn. They would prefer the manger to be’ empty’ as indicating ‘cleanliness’ (or’ empty’ could signify poverty). I lean to the cleanliness aspect of the barn resulting in poverty from the lack of harvest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, not only having to feed oxen and getting dirty oneself, but all the dung and waste that they would have had to clean up. However, to really accept the work that we have been assigned by the ‘sweat of out brow’ and the kindness that God provisioned in man’s use of stronger animals, man can reap a good harvest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A farmer, who just wants a tidy place to relax in, will have nothing but poverty.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-27T05:12:31.730" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8231" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8232" CreationDate="2012-06-27T12:32:35.170" Score="4" ViewCount="1649" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is the verse from Hebrews that makes me pose the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently under the Old Covenant they always felt guilty otherwise the sacrifices would have ceased. Why the difference in these covenants from this perspective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2016-08-22T10:22:07.540" Title="Why does the Bible say that people no longer need to ‘feel guilty’ under the gospel, as compared to the Old Testament?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8231" CreationDate="2012-06-27T12:35:59.503" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: I am providing an exhaustive answer as it is difficult to find this subject being answered to any degree of depth anywhere.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the answer can only be found by contrasting how these two covenants differ.  These covenants largely differed: in their time in history, location, atmosphere, persons who inaugurated them, the persons who acted as mediator in them, subject matter, priests officiating under them, method of their dedication, success, permanency of their effects, aims, level of light in them, and the mode of governance that they established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the implicit question is, “How are they different in reality and how does that then specifically explain the difference in ‘feeling guilty’?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following comparisons show the difference between the Law and the Gospel, but it is not indented to imply there was no gospel in the Old Testament. The Old Testament does not just have the Laws given under Moses, it also had the Promise given to Eve (Genesis 3:15), renewed to Noah (Gen. 9:12-16), then made more clear to Abraham (Gen. 17), through David (Sam. 7:12-16), and continuing, running parallel to the Law but not joined in it by faith in the promise (Galatians 3:12), as the Law, as a covenant of works, pointed away from itself to the Promise. (Galatians 3:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the Prophets, under the Law, defended and applied the Law, while also directly pointed to the Messiah as that person who would fulfill all its demands for ever. (Acts 3:24) This is why Moses and Elijah both met Christ on the mountain during his transfiguration, whereby it was understood by them all that He would descend from that hill to the cross from which all the law and the prophets testified. (Luke 9:18-36) Moses was the representative of the Law, while Elijah was the representative of the Prophets as its most zealous defender.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, the same contrasted comparison between Law and Gospel could be made with the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham, versus the Law given to Moses. If we lived before Christ, we could have written such an article. However, as the Promise in the Old Testament was pointing forward to the times of the Gospel, the comparison between Gospel and Law is more properly done with the perspective of the New Covenant being already established. There is much less benefit of making the comparison between the Law and the mere prefiguring shadows of the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the gospel is in the Old Testament, running parallel to the Law, and directed sinners away from itself by commanded full obedience (Leviticus 18:5, James 2:10, Mathew 19:21) it is a different subject not under the focus of the task at hand. We only desire that it should be clear from the outset that the kernel of the gospel was always in the Old Testament as the Covenant of Promise as distinct from the Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is through the Covenant of Promise that men could always be saved even before the Law was introduced (Galatians 3:17). Yet it must also be recognized that even those who were saved by faith, apart from the works of the Law, while being made subject to the Laws of Moses at that time, could not have fully enjoyed the ‘liberty of the gospel’ as will be shown under this comparison.  If they could have, there would have been no reason to change anything. (Hebrews 8:7) We would have kept the daily sacrifice for sins ‘looking back at Christ’ who they prefigured, just as an ancient man, full of faith, may have presented his beast ‘looking forward’ to the Messiah. The truth is that many under the Old Covenant were not circumcised of heart, but flesh only. It was to this sort of person that the Law was principally made for and who it principally speaks to (Hebrews 10:1-3):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers (1 Timothy 1:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under the same token we must add that although the Law was removed in Christ, as to its outward form and power over the conscience, its ruling jurisdiction has always existed since the fall, for it merely took the law of conscience that condemns sinners by nature and expounded on it under commands. (Romans 1:18-21) Therefore, the Law has always been in place since the fall and will always be in place as long as sinners remain. We are all born in sin, under law, even if Moses had not manifested what those Laws were, and all who believe in Messiah, since the fall of man to the return of Christ, are freed from that Law inwardly and are transplanted into grace by the gospel. (Colossians 1:13, Romans 4:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those saints of Old who had to suffer under the legal, ceremonial and civic Laws of Moses, being somewhat contrary to their inward liberty and circumcision of heart, did so as a theatrical service for those who had not yet believed. As Christ had not yet come, the Law assumes all have not yet believed until He came. For although both sinner and saint were circumcised as a child of Moses, the law had to assume they were one, or the other. It is clear that it assume a state before Christ was raised. In a similar but less strict manner, even in the New Covenant believers assume the salvation of those who claim faith and allow them to take part in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Even a Devil we be assumed a saint under the gospel, if faith in Christ is claimed without any scandalous sins to question the claim. This explains why a Jew under the Old Covenant would die if attempting to draw near to God in the Holy of Holies. It was assume that that Messiah had not yet come to tear that curtain from top to bottom (Mathew 27:51, Leviticus 16:2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How the Covenants Differ in Terms of the Spirit of Guilt:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1-They differ in time:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Covenant refers to the covenant inaugurated during the time of Moses. It was a covenant of Law that many have defined under the categories: moral, civil and ceremonial. When the words ‘The Law’ are used in scripture it most commonly refers the first five books of the Bible with respect to the Laws of Moses. The 'moral law' is generally tied to the Ten Commandments, the 'civil law' to various capital punishments and rules related to the 'eye for an eye' precept of justice. The 'ceremonial law' has to do with the Levitical Priesthood and the entire God ordained rules of worship that were conducted in God's Temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Covenant was delivered in the “in the latter days,” (Hebrews 1:1-2) and “in the dispensation of the fullness of times.” (Ephesians 1:10) and it formally made the Old Covenant obsolete during the actual death of Christ when the inner certain of the Temple was torn from top to bottom (Mathew 27:51).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2-They differ in the location that they were inaugurated:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first was declared on Mount Sinai. This mountain is Arabia was the home of Ishmael and his race. The Arabian name for Mount Sinai was Hagar. The New Testament was declared on mount Zion, and the law of it went forth from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Paul takes special notice of this difference of location, because ‘Hagar’ was also the name of the slave who gave birth to Ishmael, Abraham's first lawful child. Hagar's child was a child of Abraham by law, but Isaac was the child that God ‘promised’ to Abraham and his wife in their very old age. Therefore, the Old Covenant is associated with slavery and bondage under the name Hagar the slave. The New Covenant, or the Covenant of Promise, originally established with Abraham, but not fulfilled until Messiah appeared in the flesh, is associated with ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’. It was promulgated from Jerusalem, not from Hagar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 (Galatians 4:22-27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3-They differ in the atmosphere of their establishment.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law of Moses was delivered on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.”[c] 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” (Hebrews 12: 18-21, See also Deuteronomy 5:23-27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this means a spirit of fear and bondage was administered to all the people, so as that they chose to keep at a distance, and not draw near to God, (Deuteronomy 5:23-27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The message from Jerusalem has a free spirit of pure worship and praise without any gloom whatsoever:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. ((Hebrews 12: 2-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4-They differed in the persons that declared them and promised there with:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Covenant the Law was given to Moses by angels and the whole church became subject to the authoritative rule of angels under it. (Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament we find this subjection to the angels was not meant to last. (Hebrews 2:5) Rather the gospel was declared directly from the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:17-18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5-They differ in their mediators.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mediator of the first covenant was Moses (Exodus 32:11-14, Hebrews 3:5) Moses stood between the people and God because the people could not endure the frightening terror and horrible gloom of His presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 And you said, “The Lord our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a person can live even if God speaks with them. 25 But now, why should we die? This great fire will consume us, and we will die if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any longer. 26 For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? 27 Go near and listen to all that the Lord our God says. Then tell us whatever the Lord our God tells you. We will listen and obey.” (Deuteronomy 5:24-27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Moses was a mediator it is sufficiently clear the Law treated those who were under it a sinners who must not approach God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mediator of the New Covenant is the Son of God himself. For “there is one God, and one mediator between God and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6-They differ in their subject matter.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Covenant renewed the commands of the covenant of works. The Law threatened death for sin, any kind of sin with eternal death. The Law promised life only to those who fully obeyed it with sinless obedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ten Commandments is the very words of the covenant (The Covenant of Promise to Abraham is not included under the Law, as it was actually the gospel in its pre-Christ form):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments. (Exodus 34:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Galatians 3:10-14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore under the strict Law had no promise of grace, to communicate spiritual strength, or to assist in obedience. It was therefore hopeless under the Law to obtain eternal life, so in its stead material blessing in the land of Canaan became inseparable with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7-They differ in the manner of their dedication.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the solemnity and manner of the confirmation, dedication, and sanction of any promise or agreement, that gives it the formal nature of a covenant or testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Covenant was sanctioned by the sacrifice of ‘beasts’, whose blood was sprinkled on all the people. (Exodus 24:5-8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament was sanctioned by the sacrifice and blood of Christ himself, which became ‘the blood of the covenant’, which we remember at the Lord’s Supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8-They differ in the priests that were to officiate before God in the behalf of the people.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Covenant, Aaron and his posterity alone were to discharge that office.  On account that those old priests were sinners and had to make sacrifice for their own sins, the priest were many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Covenant, the Son of God himself is the only priest of the church. Not only does his priesthood go uninterrupted so that He is a Priest forever, but as a Priest without sin He can officiate those things that pertain to our spirit, making us spiritually clean:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.(Hebrew 10:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This directly speaks to the ‘guilty feeling’ that we will return to in the conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;9-They differ in the sacrifices whereon the peace and reconciliation with God was proposed and was depended on.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, the sacrifices offered were merely animals. They were designed to prefigure the Messiah as the only proper sacrifice for sin. They could only therefore purify the worshiper externally in order that worshippers may continue to enter into the Temple after they had encountered unclean things, meats, mold, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the gospel the Son of God offered His own Holy soul and body for the sins of the world so that anyone who believed in Him might have eternal life. (John 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;10-They differ in their permanency and effectiveness of their writing.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All covenants were of old solemnly written in tables of brass or stone, where they might be faithfully preserved for the use of the parties concerned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The principal part of the law was “carved in tables of stone” which were kept in the ark (Exodus 31:18, Deuteronomy 9:10; 2 Corinthians 3:7). However God ordained its foundation to be destroyed as soon as it was made, in order to show that none could meet its requirements and that never was it to be viewed as permanent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Covenant the words were not written on stone, rather they were written in the heart. This largely distinguished the two covenants and shows that the New Covenant is not just an unfolding of the same covenant, with the same nature. Rather the Old Covenant is something God himself had ‘fault’ with and God himself made obsolete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. ”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:7-13, Jeremiah 31:31-34)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;11-They differ in their aims.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The principal end of the Law was to discover sin, increase it, to condemn it, and to set external bounds to it through fear of punishment. Therefore it was always accompanied with judgments and punishments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. (Romans 5:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fear prevented sinners from sinning, but yet increased the desire making them ‘locked up’ and leading to Christ from God’s wrath:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. (Galatians 3:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Law was employed in this manner as to hold sinner under the torment of their sin, the scripture refers to the Law as a Law of sin and death.  For although the Law was Holy and good, by the sinfulness of flesh it became a harsh lord over the damned doing nothing else but driving to despair in order to smash the self-righteousness of men who suppress the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The aim of the New Covenant is to declare the love, grace, and mercy of God and by doing so give: repentance, remission of sin, and eternal life. (John 3:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast to the law of sin and death, the gospel is a law of the Spirit of life. As the law brought death on mankind by one man, and so death reigned unto all, the righteousness of Christ and the obedience of one man, brings righteousness to all who believe.  Yet the power of this new law is sin in that it overwhelmed manifold sins, deaths, hells, Satan’s and curses. It came after many sins had increased the aggravation of the first sin. Yet by One man, all these offences, death, hell, curses, etc were killed by Christ death. Therefore the death of death, the death of sin, the death of Satan, the death of guilt, the death of mortality were all made by the death on the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How was this done?  All sin was hammered into the flesh and soul of Christ making Christ the biggest sinner. And as a man who submitted and perform everything the Laws of Moses required including the submission to the baptism of John and all additional requirement that the Law had upon the Messiah as the literal 'beast' to truly remove sin under its legal bench, Christ not only took upon our sin, but released up his perfect obedience that was in turn charged onto our account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if our state under Law is to be found with Christ’s very own righteousness than the law has no more purpose, abandoning its charge of us.&#xA;The Law can't accuse those who have been made perfect. The Law can only see sinners in Christ as having obeyed all its precepts from cradle to grave.&#xA;Therefore if the Devil tries to resurrect the Law and pull Christ down from heaven pointing His finger our way and saying, &quot;Yes but you have committed many big sins, and someone must pay!&quot;.  The believer san say to the Law and the Devil who has tried to resurrect it, &quot;Yes, and what are you going to do about it!&quot;. The devil can only than flee with his attempts and seek someone else to devour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12-They differed in their effects.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first covenant was a “ministration of death” and “condemnation,” it brought the minds and spirits of those that were under it into servitude and bondage. This slavery and bondage was typified under the practices of the temple where none could approach God. The Most Holy Place in the temple, where God’s presence was, was accessible only to the high priest and only once a year. Approaching God in any other way than that prescribed by God was forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 The Lord said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. (Leviticus 16:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those under the Laws of Moses are considered comparatively as and underage sons, or even slaves, for even the servants of a home can boss around children in the household:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. (Galatians 4:1-7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Law (though perfect and holy) increased fear of death due to its condemnation the Devil himself used the Law to increase sin and bring them in further subjection to his malice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil — 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14-15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it was truly the “letter that killed” them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Covenant spiritual liberty is the immediate effect. This contrast between covenants is often attributed to the gift of the Spirit, which is a Spirit of liberty in contrast to bandage and fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13-The level of light to relieve the conscience is different.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Covenant they did have the Promises of Abraham which was the gospel and no law. Some, and at time many were able to enter into the rest of New Covenant from afar. Even in those days faith in the promised Messiah was just as effective in providing eternal life as is faith looking back at Messiah.  However even the Prophets who predicted his coming were under darkness about what they spoke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. (Mathew 13:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even John the Baptist who was the greatest of those prophets since He actually could see He who all the Prophets spoke of was considered less than the least of those who believed after under the New Covenant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Mathew 11:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Covenant believers are able to obtain much clearer knowledge and faith of His incarnation, sufferings, and sacrifice, through which he made atonement for sin. This gives them liberty and boldness in their obedience:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The great difference of light and glory in the two covenants renders the Old Covenant without glory by comparison:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. (2 Corinthians 3:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although there was some grace and truth in the Old Covenant, for all the ceremonies prefigured Messiah and the Law is perfect and holy, yet by comparison the scripture speaks as there was no truth or grace before Jesus Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14-The mode of governance in the level external details and rites are different:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Covenant many ceremonies were required because each was not good enough to foreshadow Messiah. Therefore many laws were added and increased by the yoke of a multitude of laws, rites, and ceremonies, imposed on them. This made the whole of their worship a burden to them, and insupportable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  (Acts 15:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This burden, in addition to sin itself, must have been at least in part the simple appeal of Christ’s call:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Mathew 11:28-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary when we understand that the Law was meant to lead to Christ it must now be obvious that it directed away from itself to the Promise made to Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He suffered them to all sort of fears, bondage, guilt and restlessness so that they might not rest in that state, but continually look out after deliverance. Even those who entered into that faith, they saw things too faintly to full obtain the same freedom and boldness which is now proclaimed under the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under the New Covenant there is freedom from the commanding power of the law as far as it required perfect obedience and increased our sin by making us aware of sin without providing any help to obey. On this account we can consider all our good deed under an accusing conscience as ‘garbage’ and in full liberty cling to Christ’s righteousness alone apart from any of our own efforts of faithfulness and holiness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. (Philippians 3:8-9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Romans 3:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are free from all the condemnation itself because Christ absorbed all its threats and curses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From surveying the difference between the Law and the Gospel we have more than enough knowledge to accurately answer why 'guilty feelings' are encouraged under the Law as part of its bondage and the removal of those feelings by the 'sprinkling of blood' as one of the rests tendered in the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the gospel frees the conscience from the power, condemnation, curse, fear of death, ceremonial reminder of guilt, terrifying civil of punishments and any other thing that might make us feel unworthy of joyfully approaching the throne of grace with boldness in a spirit of liberty we have no reason to carry on under the gloomy dread of guilt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But someone may ask, &quot;Yes but if you sin you must feel guilty?&quot; But this question is not reasonable. Yes we sin every day yet we do not feel guilty every day as Christ was punished for the sin.  &quot;Oh No!&quot;, some might say.  &quot;This is encouraging sin that grace may abound!&quot;. But not true again when looking at the scriptures. A liberated conscience from the curse of the Law brings true holiness and guilt merely increases sin, even when its outward form is bound in prison under fear.  Therefore the person who claims these things only deceives himself and increases his own sin, while judging those who are free. This is why Hagar and Jerusalem are symbols of people today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real relationship of sin to guilt, is that when we do not believe in God's grace with sufficient faith as to thoroughly cleanse the conscience then our minds become subject more and more to the flesh which is still under the Law. As our mind become more and more fleshly we can't get rid of guilt no matter what we do, for guilt can't be washed by the blood of beats which include any fleshly thought we may use to comfort ourselves. No, only faith can clean the conscience from the guilt of sin, and once the conscience is cleansed and a joyful praise resounds in the liberated soul, then and only then does faith go on to produce to holiness and works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Guilt is not cleansed by works, but by faith.  This is the practical application of living by the Spirit and not by the works of the Law.&#xA;Every other notion is madness and sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And by all these and any other instances of spiritual liberty, the gospel frees believers from that “spirit of slavery&quot;, &quot;guilt&quot; and &quot;fear” administered under the Old Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-27T12:35:59.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8233" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8238" CreationDate="2012-06-27T13:06:13.303" Score="3" ViewCount="307" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a seeker's Bible discussion last week, I had explained that God created the physical world and, therefore, existed outside the physical world.  I stated that He entered into the physical world in His incarnation.  It seemed that God would not have a physical form until then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Adam and Eve are said to have walked with God in the garden.  Furthermore, it would seem that God spoke to Abraham regarding the destruction of Sodom.  It is also believed by many that the fourth person in the fiery furnace was the pre-incarnate Christ.  Moses also saw the glory of God.  Jacob wrestled with God.  Isaiah saw the throne of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this brings up the question of how God could have a physical appearance prior to His incarnation.  Were the instances where people were enabled to see spiritual things with physical eyes? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-12T01:04:26.363" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T16:48:53.630" Title="How could God's form be seen prior to His incarnation?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;theophany&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8236" CreationDate="2012-06-27T13:38:23.333" Score="7" ViewCount="4883" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2021:14&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Proverbs 21:14&lt;/a&gt; (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;A secret gift calms anger; a bribe under the table pacifies fury.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading this scripture it would seem to indicate that the Bible supports (at the very least some form of) bribery. Is that really the case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-05-11T22:28:52.297" LastActivityDate="2019-04-22T23:55:06.763" Title="Does the Bible condone bribery?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;money&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8228" CreationDate="2012-06-27T13:55:10.083" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simple meaning is to take care of your tools and work animals, because you'll regret it when they are not there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-06-27T13:55:10.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8234" CreationDate="2012-06-27T13:58:01.490" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proverbs is wisdom literature, and that category seeks to describe things as they are, not necessarily what they should be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes 7:15-16, for example, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:&#xA;   the righteous perishing in their righteousness,&#xA;      and the wicked living long in their wickedness. &#xA;    Do not be overrighteous,&#xA;      neither be overwise—&#xA;      why destroy yourself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 23:8 is clear that bribery is bad:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+23%3A8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 23:8 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;    And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 15:27 says as much as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household,&#xA;      but he who hates bribes will live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Proverbs 17:23 says don't do it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 The wicked accepts a bribe in secret[a]&#xA;      to pervert the ways of justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even Jesus notes the unfairness in life saying in Matthew 5:45, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest way to reconcile all of this is to say that this verse is descriptive rather than prescriptive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-06-27T13:58:01.490" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8233" CreationDate="2012-06-27T15:01:31.950" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're thinking of God the father, when in reality Jesus was the one walking with Abraham and wrestling with Jacob.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;God&quot; used in Genesis is translated from the Hebrew word &quot;Elohim&quot; which is a plural referring to multiple Gods. We see why in Colossians 1 The Supremacy of Christ. In this chapter the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ created everything and sustains everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is God's Word, when God has something to say or do, He sends Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-12-12T16:48:53.630" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T16:48:53.630" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8233" CreationDate="2012-06-27T16:19:00.613" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Methinks that the problem lies with this statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I stated that He entered into the physical world in His incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your multiple examples demonstrate that God &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; manifest a physical form before He was incarnated in Jesus. However, this physical form wasn't necessarily human flesh and blood. Quite possibly a &lt;em&gt;human&lt;/em&gt; appearance, like the angels (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:5-6&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Mark 16:5-6&lt;/a&gt; as an example), but not necessarily human &quot;material&quot;, so to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in essence, God may have had a flesh-and-blood body only after the incarnation, but there's no reason He couldn't have had a physical form (that looked like a human) before the incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-06-27T16:19:00.613" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8239" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8248" CreationDate="2012-06-27T17:38:25.357" Score="10" ViewCount="1821" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I've seen this quoted in The Faith of Millions, and on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/vernacular.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Internet&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul.  If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him:  ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’  and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’  I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough.   I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The source always appears to be other Catholic documents, which I don't have. So, before I put this in an upcoming blog post and forever rue that day, could someone tell me if this is a genuine quote?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-06-27T20:14:36.363" LastActivityDate="2020-11-01T00:15:26.677" Title="Can someone help me cite Luther's explanation of faith alone to Catholics" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8239" CreationDate="2012-06-27T20:03:35.440" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow, it's all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. This quote is part of &quot;Ein sendbrief D. M. Luthers. Von Dolmetzschen und Fürbit der heiligenn&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Appears as if it's translated differently or redacted in some places, but in general it's the same.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Found this quote by way of this &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;lpg=PA25&amp;amp;ots=7ZaM9GsBq-&amp;amp;dq=You%20tell%20me%20what%20a%20great%20fuss%20the%20Papists%20are%20making%20because%20the%20word%20%E2%80%98alone%E2%80%99%20is%20not%20in%20the%20text%20of%20Paul&amp;amp;pg=PA25#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;Catholic assessment&lt;/a&gt; of the statements Luther made. Apparently he would appreciate, upon translating his German bible back in to Latin, that one uses Solum Fide, not Sola Fide (not sure of the difference though). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-06-27T20:03:35.440" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8242" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8262" CreationDate="2012-06-28T01:54:55.570" Score="11" ViewCount="8093" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm questioning my own understanding of the term &quot;Omnipotence&quot; in response so a comment on one of my answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the comment, the poster included a definition of Omnipotence taken from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent&quot;&gt;Wikipeda article on Omnipotence&lt;/a&gt;. (Emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;logically impossible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, i.e., pure agency.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that God, if He is omnipotent could:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a square circle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Create a triangle with four sides&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ever-so-famous create a rock big enough He can't lift it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have personally never understood His omnipotence to mean that He could do logically impossible things as shown above.  Instead, I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis, in his statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible,&#xA;  not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to&#xA;  him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to&#xA;  say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold&#xA;  free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about&#xA;  God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning&#xA;  simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It&#xA;  is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to&#xA;  carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his&#xA;  power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even&#xA;  when we talk it about God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, and in the Christian circles I'm familiar with, the position that I hold, which C.S. Lewis so eloquently states is the commonly held understanding of the word &quot;Omnipotence&quot;, but I run into people here and there that stick to the idea that God &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do the logically impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So rather than sticking to my assumption, I'm asking the community:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any traditions/denominations that hold to the &quot;God can do anything, even the logically impossible&quot; definition of Omnipotence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-06-29T03:28:21.513" LastActivityDate="2017-02-10T01:53:50.507" Title="What is meant by &quot;God is Omnipotent&quot;?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;omnipotence&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8242" CreationDate="2012-06-28T02:33:54.490" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is almost more philosophical, than doctrinal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I see this untied easily.  God is omnipotent, but God is also truth.  Therefore, God cannot do what is untrue, or illogical, as that would contradict Himself. However, what is 'true' may seem 'illogical' to us. Our idea of what is logical is only a pale fragment of the 'logical sense' that God has. He has given us our logical to understand Him in part. Compared to his infinite boundless measure of logic, we are like animals barking at noble prize winning scientists.. Take that difference in intelligence, multiplied by a trillion to the exponent of a trillion and we start to see the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, of course God cannot do the illogical, where He deems it so. Neither is it logical to think we can confine God under reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an overview of God’s attributes visit this post, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8058/what-is-the-christian-perspective-on-the-description-of-god/8063#8063&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-06-28T02:40:29.617" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8057" CreationDate="2012-06-28T06:35:23.860" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you are pushing for more answers, I will go out on a limb and &amp;quot;play the heretic&amp;quot; with a theory I've had for a while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God, in a nutshell.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is difficult to wrap our &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain#Structure&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;3 lb. brains&lt;/a&gt; around a God who &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; love&lt;/a&gt;, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2090:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;eternal&lt;/a&gt;, can do &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20115:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;whatever He wants to&lt;/a&gt;, but yet &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20100:5,%20James%201:17,%201%20Timothy%204:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;only does good&lt;/a&gt;, etc. etc.  Just try to imagine God existing eternally into the past!  &lt;em&gt;You can't!&lt;/em&gt;  That's why skeptics have attacked Christians on this point for centuries.  I mean, He is &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;!  How could we possibly understand Him?  It's not hard to fathom that &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;His thoughts and ways are not like our thoughts and ways&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most central theme in Scripture is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Jn.%204:16,%201%20Tim.%202:3-4,%20John%203:16,%20Matt.%2022:36-40,%20Prov.%203:32,%20Zeph.%203:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the God of love earnestly desires intimate relationship with mankind.&lt;/a&gt;  However, another huge theme of Scripture is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:1-9,%2023,%20Isaiah%2059:1-2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the relationship between God and man was destroyed by sin&lt;/a&gt;.  We no longer have face-to-face access to God &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;like they did in the garden&lt;/a&gt; - now we &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;see in a mirror dimly&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems pretty clear that there is a bit of a &amp;quot;language barrier&amp;quot; between God and man &lt;em&gt;just due to the fact that we aren't God&lt;/em&gt;.  With sin added in, we &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;definitely&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; have trouble understanding Him now.  These &amp;quot;language barriers&amp;quot; severely limit our understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When there is a language barrier between two humans, the solution is to speak in a language that the other one can understand.  For instance, if I were ministering in Russia, I would either need to speak with a Russian who understood English, or I would need to speak in Russian.  God does the same thing.  He &amp;quot;speaks our language&amp;quot; in order to communicate with us.  This is why God spoke in Hebrew to the Jews, why Jesus used a lot of examples about money and farming and spoke in the everyday language, why the apostles quoted from translations that were understandable to their audience (&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1883/529&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;), etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we need to have some humility when we're trying to &amp;quot;understand God&amp;quot;.  I love these verses, and think they apply perfectly here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;O LORD, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes haughty; Nor do I involve myself in great matters, Or in things too difficult for me. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20131:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Psalm 131:1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Psalm 139:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;One Possible Answer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think what God has done is He has attempted to reveal Himself in a way that would make sense to our pea-brains.  In doing so, He has described Himself as &amp;quot;Us&amp;quot; in some places, and &amp;quot;I&amp;quot; in other places.  In some cases He appears unapproachable in His high and holy greatness, and in other cases He appears to be our friend, lover, and co-heir.  At times He has revealed Himself to be sovereign, and at other times, interactive and personal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has shown us that He is our Father, but also shown us that He is our Brother.  He has shown us that He dictates what is right (Father), He has demonstrated how to do things right (Son), and He helps us do what is right (Spirit).  He has shown us that He provides as a Father (Father), that He provides as a Sacrifice (Son), and that He provides as a Helper (Spirit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe God is one, and I suspect that the Father, Son and Spirit may be the different ways God has revealed Himself for the purpose of our understanding Him better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may object, thinking, &amp;quot;why would God put on an act just to illustrate something?&amp;quot;  Consider this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011:41-42&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-John 11:41-42&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Jesus only prayed this so people would hear Him pray it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am also highly suspicious based on passages such as 2 Corinthians 3.  Verse 17 states &amp;quot;the Lord is the Spirit&amp;quot;, and if you study the chapter &lt;strong&gt;very carefully&lt;/strong&gt; I believe verse 18 is teaching that the difference between Jesus and the Spirit is the same as the difference between the fading glory on Moses' face and the unfading glory God has destined us to.  Also, the following quote from Jesus seems to indicate that having the Holy Spirit is better than having Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-John 16:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me this makes perfect sense, because God desires deep intimacy with us, and the Spirit dwells within us, but a relationship with Jesus was external.  In other words, I think God may have been indicating that it is much better to experience internal intimacy with Him (Spirit), than external relationship with Him (Jesus).  I am beginning to think of Jesus as God's way of interacting with us in a familiar form.  Passages like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 22&lt;/a&gt; make a lot more sense in light of this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Semantics&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result, I think it is appropriate to say, &amp;quot;God was the Father of the man, Jesus&amp;quot;, because in the &amp;quot;God is one&amp;quot; perspective, this is true.  It is also appropriate to say, &amp;quot;God (i.e. God the Father) is the Father of Jesus (i.e. God the Son)&amp;quot;, because in the &amp;quot;three Persons&amp;quot; perspective that God has given us, this is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I tend to think it would be inappropriate to say, &amp;quot;The Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus&amp;quot;, because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God has not revealed Himself as the &amp;quot;Holy Spirit Father&amp;quot;, and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This would be a confusion of two perspectives&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is something about the Holy Spirit's activity in the Virgin Birth which makes us think of Him as the Father of Jesus, I would suggest that we need to constrain our language to the boundaries set forth by God in Scripture and resist the urge to use that wording.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgive me for challenging 2,000 years of Church doctrine with my home-brewed theology, but at least now you'll have a 2nd perspective to consider, per your request.  (Looking forward to comments.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-28T06:35:23.860" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8239" CreationDate="2012-06-28T08:53:26.803" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The text you are referring to does not exist in the form you have quoted.  Rather what you have is a combination of some sentences from a lengthy letter by Luther in response to peevish criticisms that some Catholic sophists were making on Luther’s translation of the Bible into German. Luther seems to be in a ‘bad mood’ about it all, as He had used so much work doing something that his critics were unwilling to even try, and yet had to face their endless criticisms on subjects they knew little about (i.e. the German language) This does tend to make those that actually understand what they are talking about frustrated. Yet Luther’s anger does not seem completely excusable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I put in bold some of the fragments collected in your quote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a quote earlier in the letters showing why He is frustrated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a saying, “He who builds along the road has many masters.”10 That is the way it is with me too. Those who have never even been able to speak properly, to say nothing of translating, have all at once become my masters and I must be the pupil of them all. If I were to have asked them how to put into German the first two words of Matthew’s Gospel, Liber Generationis,11 none of them would have been able to say Quack!12 And now they sit in judgment on my whole work! Fine fellows!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the way it was with St. Jerome too when he translated the Bible. Everybody was his master. He was the only one who was totally incompetent. And people who were not worthy to clean his shoes criticized the good man’s work.13 It takes a great deal of patience to do a good thing publicly, for the world always wants to be Master Know-it-all.14 It must always be putting the bit under the horse’s tail,15 criticizing everything but doing nothing itself. That is its nature; it cannot get away from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later on in the letter He really starts to fume. This is where some of your sentences came from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to return to the matter in hand! If your &lt;strong&gt;papist wants to make so much fuss&lt;/strong&gt; about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas.21 We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges. For once, we too are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and as St. Paul boasts over against his mad raving saints [II Cor. 11:21ff.], so I shall boast over against these asses of mine. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they dialecticians? So am I. Are they lecturers? So am I. Do they write books? So do I.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will go further with my boasting. I can expound psalms and prophets;&#xA;they cannot. I can translate; they cannot. I can read the Holy&#xA;Scriptures; they cannot. I can pray; they cannot. And, to come down to&#xA;their level, I can use their own dialectics22 and philosophy better&#xA;than all of them put together; and besides I know for sure that none of&#xA;them understands their Aristotle.23 If there is a single one among them&#xA;all who correctly understands one proemium [preface] or chapter in&#xA;Aristotle, I’ll eat my hat.24 I am not saying too much, for I have been&#xA;trained and practiced from my youth up in all their science and am well&#xA;aware how deep and broad it is. They are very well aware, too, that I&#xA;can do everything they can. Yet these incurable fellows treat me as&#xA;though I were a stranger to their field, who had just arrived this&#xA;morning for the first time and had never before either seen or heard&#xA;what they teach and know. So brilliantly do they parade about with&#xA;their science, teaching me what I outgrew25 twenty years ago, that to&#xA;all their blatting and shouting I have to sing, with the harlot, “I&#xA;have known for seven years that horseshoe-nails are iron.”26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let this be the answer to your first question. And please give these&#xA;asses no other and no further answer to their useless braying27 &lt;strong&gt;about&#xA;the word sola&lt;/strong&gt; than simply this, “Luther will have it so, and says that&#xA;he is a doctor above all the doctors of the whole papacy.” It shall&#xA;stay at that! Henceforth I shall simply hold them in contempt, and have&#xA;them held in contempt, so long as they are the kind of people—I should&#xA;say, asses—that they are. There are shameless nincompoops among them&#xA;who have never learned their own art of sophistry—like Dr. Schmidt28&#xA;and Doctor Snotty-Nose,29 and their likes—and who set themselves&#xA;against me in this matter, which transcends not only sophistry, but (as&#xA;St. Paul says [I Cor. 1:19–25]), all the world’s wisdom and understand&#xA;understanding as well. Truly an ass need not sing much; he is already&#xA;well known anyway by his ears.30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although Luther did not really have to explain himself, he decides to anyway later in the letter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To you and to our people, however, I shall show why I chose to use the word sola—though in Romans 3[:28] it was not sola, but solum or tantum that I used,31 so sharply do the asses look at my text! Nevertheless I have used sola fide elsewhere,32 and I want both: solum and sola. I have constantly tried, in translating, to produce a pure and clear German, and it has often happened that for two or three or four weeks we have searched and inquired for a single word and sometimes not found it even then. In translating Job,33 Master Philip,34 Aurogallus,35 and I labored so, that sometimes we scarcely handled three lines in four days. Now that it is translated and finished, everybody can read and criticize it. One now runs his eyes over three or four pages and does not stumble once—without realizing what boulders and clods had once lain there where he now goes along as over a smoothly-planed board. We had to sweat and toil there before we got those boulders and clods out of the way, so that one could go along so nicely. The plowing goes well when the field is cleared.36 But rooting out the woods and stumps, and getting the field ready—this is a job nobody wants. There is no such thing as earning the world’s thanks. Even God himself can earn no thanks, with the sun, indeed with heaven and earth, or with his own Son’s death. It simply is and remains world, in the devil’s name, because it just will not be anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, in Romans 3[:28], &lt;strong&gt;I knew very well that the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text&lt;/strong&gt;; the papists did not have to teach me that. It is a fact that these four letters s o l a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate.37 At the same time they do not see that it conveys the sense of the text; it belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had undertaken to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our German language that in speaking of two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we use the word solum (allein)38 along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say, “The farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; “No, really I have now nicht money, but allein grain”; “I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you allein write it, and nicht read it over?” There are innumerable cases of this kind in daily use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all these phrases, this is the German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add the word allein in order that the word nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, word nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “The farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a complete, clear German expression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally later on the typical &lt;strong&gt;Luther mentions what really matters to him, the gospel.&lt;/strong&gt; After all the reason why his critics were squabbling peevishly over a word is that they hated the grace of God that Luther offered to sinners. &lt;strong&gt;They wanted faith plus works, not free grace apart from works, like the Apostle Paul argues. There opposition of this word, in Luther’s view was not about words but about their opposition to Paul and Christ. So He argues against this anti-gospel stance as he always did. This was the heart of the reformation and Luther was its leader:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tell me, further: What is the work by which we lay hold of Christ’s death and resurrection? It cannot be any external work, but only the eternal faith that is in the heart. Faith alone, indeed, all alone, without any works, lays hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached by the gospel. Why then this raging and raving, this making of heretics and burning them at the stake, when the matter itself at its very core is so clear and proves that faith alone lays hold of Christ’s death and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and resurrection  [alone] are our life and our righteousness? Since, then, the fact itself is so obvious—that faith alone conveys, grasps, and imparts this life and righteousness—why should we not also say so? It is no heresy that faith alone lays hold on Christ, and gives life; and yet it must be heresy, if anyone mentions it. Are they not mad, foolish, and nonsensical? They admit that the thing is right, but brand the saying of it as wrong, though nothing can be both right and wrong at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover I am not the only one, or even the first, to say that faith alone justifies. Ambrose said it before me, and Augustine and many others. And if a man is going to read St. Paul and understand him, he will have to say the same thing; he can say nothing else. Paul’s words are too strong; they admit of no works, none at all. Now if it is not a work, then it must be faith alone. What a fine, constructive, and inoffensive doctrine that would be, if people were taught that they could be saved by works, as well as faith! That would be as much as to say that it is not Christ’s death alone that takes away our sins, but that our works too have something to do with it. That would be a fine honor honoring of Christ’s death, to say that it is helped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can do too—so that we are his equal in strength and goodness! This is the very devil; he can never quit abusing the blood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The matter itself in its very core, then, demands that we say, “Faith&#xA;alone justifies.” And the nature of our German language also teaches us&#xA;to express it that way. I have in addition the precedent of the holy&#xA;fathers. And the danger of the people also compels it, so that they may&#xA;not continue to hang upon works and wander away from faith and lose&#xA;Christ, especially in these days, for they have been accustomed to&#xA;works so long they have to be torn away from them by force. For these&#xA;reasons it is not only right but also highly necessary to speak it out&#xA;as plainly and fully as possible, “Faith alone saves, without works.” I&#xA;am only sorry that I did not also add the words alle and aller, and&#xA;say, “without any works of any laws,” so that it would have been&#xA;expressed with perfect clarity. Therefore it will stay in my New&#xA;Testament, and though all the papal asses go stark raving mad they&#xA;shall not take it from me. (Luther’s Works, Volume 35, Page 182 - 198)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T11:30:30.690" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8249" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:22:26.680" Score="13" ViewCount="1527" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading the answers to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7412/how-is-original-sin-transmitted&quot;&gt;How is original sin transmitted?&lt;/a&gt;, when it occurred to me: isn't this contrary to scripture? Specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 18:20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does this tie together with the idea of &quot;inheriting&quot; blame from The Fall?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-09-25T17:20:16.817" Title="Inheritance of original sin" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;ezekiel&gt;&lt;original-guilt&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8249" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:41:50.337" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It doesn't tie at all. We are not guilty of original sin. We inherit effects of original sin, but not the blame for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-06-28T11:41:50.337" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8251" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8252" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:44:59.553" Score="16" ViewCount="11060" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many who have pointed out that Luther added the word, &quot;alone&quot; to Romans 3:28 (you can read one such example in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8239/can-someone-help-me-cite-luthers-explanation-of-faith-alone-to-catholics&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;) so that the Luther Bible reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for we reckon a man to be justified by faith alone without deeds of law&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where the Greek reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for we reckon a man to be justified by faith without deeds of law&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2020-11-01T04:55:29.873" Title="Did Luther add a word to Romans 3?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;&lt;romans&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8251" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:45:24.497" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes and no. Yes he added it, no it is not the atrocity that it necessarily implies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of Luther's defense of the translation is that inclusion of the word &quot;alone&quot; is more grammatically correct than its exclusion. While I'm not an expert in German, I do speak enough of it to know that he does have a point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His problem, though, is in the interpretation of the verse. If we're being true to the original Greek the passage is better understood, &quot;of the set &lt;code&gt;{faith, works of the law}&lt;/code&gt; man is only reconciled by faith.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-10-08T18:28:30.837" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T18:28:30.837" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8249" CreationDate="2012-06-28T11:52:20.553" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way I understand it (and the way I've always seen it taught, whether at my Church, or in various other sermons/articles) is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We inherit a sinful nature, meaning that we have a predilection for sin.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evidence is pretty clear from observation.  Nobody has to teach a baby how to be selfish, it's part of our nature.  (Some would call it evolutionary survival instinct).  We don't have to teach our children to lie, to be hurtful, etc.  These traits are all natural, and as parents we spend a great deal of time teaching our children how to behave properly.  Misbehaving, and actions that are considered sinful don't need to be taught, they're simply in us from birth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what is inherited from Adam's original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Because we are born with that sin nature, every one of us has sinned at least once in our lives, and therefore we are guilty of our own sin.  This is what we are held accountable for.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One such article, as mentioned in the introduction can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://omega77.tripod.com/humannatureofchristayarstom.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other interpretations and disagreements on the concept of Original sin, so the way I understand it is not universal. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Original_sin&quot;&gt;Theopedia&lt;/a&gt; covers it from more angles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-06-29T04:07:16.440" LastActivityDate="2012-06-29T04:07:16.440" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8249" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:46:46.813" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is generally a very bad idea to be basing any kind of argument on a single bible verse. The meaning of verses depends very much on the context in which they are written. You always need to be looking at the surrounding passage, and often the whole book that they are written in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the passage from Ezekiel&lt;/a&gt; is talking about punishment for &lt;em&gt;specific sinful acts&lt;/em&gt; of a father and son. There is a proverb quoted at the start:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This indicates a general practice in Israel (and elsewhere) of punishing children for &lt;em&gt;specific things&lt;/em&gt; their parents did. The remainder of the passage is God declaring this attitude to be wrong. Just because the parent committed some horrible crime that doesn't mean the children are responsible for it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things. [...] He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However Original Sin is different from this. It isn't that we are punished for the specific sins of our ancestors, it's that one of the effects of our ancestors' sin is to make us incapable of true righteousness. The other question is sufficient to explain this, so I won't go into more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-06-28T13:46:46.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8249" CreationDate="2012-06-28T13:52:02.977" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I grew up in a Methodist church. I don't know if the following is the official theology of the Methodist church, but it is the understanding I have from my years in that community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Original Sin&lt;/strong&gt; is a big phrase that has more or less import depending who one is talking to; sometimes it simply means &quot;the &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; sin, committed by Eve and then Adam,&quot; and sometimes it seems to mean &quot;the phenomenon if inherent condemnation born into every person as a result of sin entering the world.&quot; Among most of the people I've talked to and learned from, the understanding is much closer to the former. That is, 'original sin' is largely just a name for a historical event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear from the context of the Genesis account of the apple that the &lt;em&gt;capacity&lt;/em&gt; for sin existed in mankind from minute one. It did not occur to either Adam or Eve to sin until the idea was implanted by the serpent, but no supernatural event transpired to &lt;em&gt;enable&lt;/em&gt; Eve to do what had been forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The significance of the original sin in light of this reasoning, then, is not that it somehow caused the nature of man to change, but that it was the first time man demonstrated an element of his nature. To answer your question, if you accept this reasoning, sin is inherited the exact same way as height and eye color and male pattern baldness: we inherit it from our human parents because we are human children. The capacity for sin is innate in what we are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastActivityDate="2012-06-28T13:52:02.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8242" CreationDate="2012-06-28T21:15:04.953" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; When we say &quot;God is omnipotent&quot; we mean &quot;He has the power to do whatever He pleases&quot;.  There are other definitions, such as &quot;capable of doing anything man can think up&quot;, but by such definitions He would not be considered &quot;omnipotent&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Semantics&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As indicated in the wikipedia post you linked, there are many definitions for the word &lt;em&gt;omnipotent&lt;/em&gt;.  As with many of the heavily debated topics in Christianity today, the controversy arises when we begin to mix two different definitions during a debate.  (Other examples: &quot;evolution&quot;, &quot;knowledge&quot;, &quot;free-will&quot;, &quot;love&quot;, &quot;life&quot;, &quot;evil&quot;, and so on.)  The word &lt;em&gt;omnipotent&lt;/em&gt; literally translates as &quot;all-powerful&quot;, but as usual, the &lt;em&gt;meaning&lt;/em&gt; of the word is determined by the person using it, and is clarified by the context of their usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here's the story behind this controversy: Christian theologians have studied the Bible and noticed some things about God (such as His great power), and have summarized those things using simple terms (such as &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent?s=t&quot;&gt;omnipotence&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;).  For a Christian, the word &lt;em&gt;omnipotent&lt;/em&gt; is simply a term used to refer to the teachings of Scripture about God's great power - nothing more, nothing less.  Heathens (in their blindness and ignorance) have noticed Christians attributing &quot;omnipotence&quot; to God, have used a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;different&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; definition of the word which is based on a misunderstanding of the Christian usage, and have then used this heathen definition to attack and accuse Christians.  Modern Christians (in their laziness) often accept the heathen definitions, neglect to study the topic in Scripture, but have faith that God must be omnipotent, and then try to reconcile their view of God with the heathen definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The solution to all of this confusion is for Christians to study the Scriptures and understand what was originally meant by the term &lt;em&gt;omnipotence&lt;/em&gt; in Christian theology, and stop trying to train &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;unreasoning animals&lt;/a&gt;&quot; to understand things which are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%202:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;impossible for them to understand, and which they are unwilling to accept&lt;/a&gt;.  With that said, let's take a quick look at the definition commonly used by heathens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Heathen Definition&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heathens often use the word &lt;em&gt;omnipotent&lt;/em&gt; to mean &quot;capable of doing anything.&quot;  Modern (naturalistic) heathens have a field day in debates using this definition, because it opens up all sorts of nonsensical attacks, such as &quot;can God create a rock so big He cannot move it?&quot;, which is essentially the same as asking, &quot;does God have the power to create a situation in which He is powerless?&quot;, or even more plainly, &quot;does God have the power to not be God?&quot;  As C. S. Lewis pointed out, this is nothing more than shrewd, nonsensical wordplay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A Scriptural Definition&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's look at what the Bible says and see what sort of picture is actually painted in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ who is and who was and who is to come, the &lt;strong&gt;Almighty&lt;/strong&gt;.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Revelation 1:8&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Passages such as this one teach us that God is &quot;almighty&quot;.  It is most accurate to think of this word as meaning &quot;God has unlimited &lt;strong&gt;might&lt;/strong&gt;, which enables Him to do anything He wants to do&quot;, rather than interpreting this to mean &quot;it is &lt;strong&gt;possible&lt;/strong&gt; for God to do anything we can think up.&quot;  The following passage describes this more clearly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;our God is in the heavens; &lt;strong&gt;He does whatever He pleases&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20115&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Psalm 115:3&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, once God desires to do something, He has the power to do it, and He does it.  This does not mean that God has the capacity to do whatever &lt;strong&gt;we&lt;/strong&gt; can think up.  It means God has the power to do whatever &lt;strong&gt;He&lt;/strong&gt; wants to do.  Of course &quot;what He wants to do&quot; is going to be consistent with His nature.  As we learn more about the nature of God, we can better understand what sorts of things He would do, and can better understand how He works, how we should pray, etc.  For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;God is love&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20100:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;God is good&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2030:18,%20Psalm%2089:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;God is just&lt;/a&gt;, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Difference&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, by the Christian definition, there are things God cannot do, because He cannot contradict His nature.  For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%207:9,%20Deuteronomy%2032:4,%201%20Corinthians%201:9,%201%20Corinthians%2010:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;He is faithful&lt;/a&gt;, so He cannot be faithless;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for &lt;strong&gt;He cannot deny Himself&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-2 Timothy 2:13&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example is that since &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6,%20John%2017:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;God is truth&lt;/a&gt;, He cannot lie:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt;, who &lt;strong&gt;cannot lie&lt;/strong&gt;, promised... &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Titus 1:2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So by the Christian definition, God's actions are limited by His nature, while the heathen definition requires that God be capable of &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; -- even things contrary to His &quot;nature.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How to debate with heathens&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heathen: &quot;Christians say God is omnipotent, but that's impossible.  Let me illustrate with a question: Can God create a rock so big He cannot move it?  If you say yes then He can't be omnipotent because He can't move it, and if you say no then He can't be omnipotent because He can't make a rock that big.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian: &quot;That question doesn't really make sense.  The rock you described is a nonsensical object.  The size of a rock doesn't change God's ability to move it.  That's like asking if God can make a ball so green that He can't roll it; the color of a ball doesn't impact God's ability to roll it anymore than the size of a rock impacts God's ability to move it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heathen: &quot;My point is, if God is omnipotent then He should have the power to do anything, but does He have the power to make a contradiction?  Can He create a square circle?  Does He have the power to limit His power?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian: &quot;You are confused about the meaning of the word &lt;em&gt;omnipotent&lt;/em&gt; when it is used by Christians.  We use that word to refer to God's ability to do whatever He wants to do.  Your example is equivalent to asking if God has the power to not be God.  Not only is that nonsensical, but it would require God to act contrary to His nature, which He cannot do.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heathen: &quot;So God isn't really omnipotent?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian: &quot;God is almighty and does whatever He pleases.  There are things He cannot do, such as lie, so if your definition of &quot;omnipotent&quot; includes the capacity and ability to do anything man can think up, then He would not be &quot;omnipotent&quot; according to your definition.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heathen: &quot;So God isn't really omnipotent.  In that case He can't be God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian: &quot;You are using heathen definitions and heathen criteria for classifying a being as 'God' to show that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist.  Not only is this arrogant and insane (since the human brain is far too small to draw such a conclusion), but your method presupposes your conclusion that there is no God.  If God were real, He would be the only one qualified to explain His attributes and nature, and it would be our job to learn from Him.  Christians believe He has done this in Scripture.  If you wanted to see if the Christian view were internally consistent, you would have to look at Scripture, and according to Scripture, you would need to know Him in order to understand His ways.  So if you are interested in knowing the truth, start by seeking God in prayer and reading Scripture.  Once He begins to open up your eyes to the truth, these things will begin to make more sense to you.  If you are not interested in knowing the truth, feel free to continue scoffing at God, but these arguments only 'disprove the possibility of God's existence' from a perspective which &lt;em&gt;presupposes&lt;/em&gt; His non-existence.  This is what the Bible refers to when it says 'the wisdom of this world is foolish to God'.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-07-24T16:43:44.970" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T16:43:44.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8251" CreationDate="2012-06-29T01:10:03.173" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When people translate from one language to another words are sometimes added and sometimes removed (for instances, Matthew 6:1). One can compare any two Bibles and find thousands of words to argue about. Citing &lt;a href=&quot;https://blog.logos.com/2012/04/logos-4-identify-english-words-added-by-bible-translators/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Morris Protoctor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes Bible translators, for various reasons, will both insert&#xA;extra English words and not translate all Hebrew and Greek words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Catholic opposition to Luther's choice of words, and obsession with this one in particular, indicates what the Protestant reformation was all about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="42957" LastEditDate="2020-11-01T04:55:29.873" LastActivityDate="2020-11-01T04:55:29.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8249" CreationDate="2012-06-29T05:09:56.103" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Original Sin&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is essentially a rejection of (or deviation from) God (or His ways).  I tend to think of the &lt;em&gt;event&lt;/em&gt; of Adam's disobedience as the &quot;original sin&quot;, which resulted in mankind being &lt;strong&gt;separated&lt;/strong&gt; from God... as opposed to mankind &lt;em&gt;possessing&lt;/em&gt; a particular &lt;em&gt;kind&lt;/em&gt; of (&quot;original&quot;) sin due to Adam's mistake - if that makes sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words:  We are all born separate from God in the sense that He is not here with us in communion and fellowship with us, due to the Fall.  It is in this sense that we &quot;inherit&quot; separation from God, which could be phrased as &quot;inheriting sin&quot;, or &quot;inheriting original sin&quot; (although the latter is slightly confusing.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a state of separation from God it is impossible to do good (God's definition, not man's), and so every action is essentially sinful, being independent, selfish, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If man dies in this state of separation, he dies eternally separated from God, which we call Hell.  &lt;em&gt;(This of course has to be balanced with an understanding of God's justice, but I'll let that lie for now.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to summarize the first part, our inheritance from Adam is separation from God - a state from which every action of ours condemns us to judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Justice&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, then, is &quot;how is that just?&quot; Essentially we are all headed for the judgment of God because of what Adam did, right?  Actually, this would be true if that were the end of the story; if God judged solely based on &quot;original sin&quot;.  But that is not the entire story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam sold his family (us) into slavery to sin, and now we all sin from childhood - disobeying parents, stealing, lying, hurting each other, rebelling against God, etc.  Although we will not be judged for what &lt;em&gt;Adam&lt;/em&gt; did, we &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; be judged for what we do, even if it is the result of our fallen state, which is the result of what Adam did!  (Hang in there...!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, God couldn't leave us in this pitiful state - He is too loving and too just.  As a result, God provided an opportunity to return to Him through Christ.  Now it is possible for a man with a wicked father to turn to Christ and be saved from judgment, despite his father's actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we have to touch on a much more complicated topic: election.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7584/1548&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;See here&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; for a much more complete explanation, but essentially, God knows in advance who would embrace Him and who would not, and &quot;chooses&quot; His people based on this foreknowledge.  He then intervenes and redeems those whom He has chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When all is said and done, here is the picture painted by Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &quot;righteous&quot; will be justified by their own deeds&lt;/strong&gt;, which are of course accomplished in partnership with God.  These folks only become &quot;righteous&quot; by the grace of God, according to His foreknowledge of their willingness to be so changed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &quot;wicked&quot; will be condemned by their own deeds&lt;/strong&gt;, which are by definition deeds of independence from God.  The wicked would be wicked whether they were placed in the garden prior to sin or born &quot;fallen.&quot;  In God's justice and impartiality these folks are not wicked solely because God didn't intervene; they would have rejected Him regardless of what opportunities He gave them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in the end a man will be justified or condemned by his own deeds alone (which are ultimately the result of his acceptance or rejection of God).  That is where the passage you cited comes in.  Ezekiel 18:20 is a passage about God's justice.  He is correcting the impression that children suffer judgment from God because of the mistakes of their fathers, but God is clarifying that a person is only judged by their own actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of the passage is that God is just (which He is, as we have just seen).  It's difficult to understand without seeing the big picture, because at first glance it looks like Adam sold us out and we're all &quot;up a creek&quot; so to speak.  But God's justice was not thwarted by Adam's decision - ultimately He works it all out properly according to His infinite wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-06-29T05:09:56.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8267" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8337" CreationDate="2012-06-29T05:54:56.817" Score="11" ViewCount="36761" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Eze 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which are the countries/locations mentioned here in this verse?&#xA;When I heard some sermon long back, the preacher was comparing it with some countries. What is the authenticity of that? What present day countries are where Gog and Mogag are/were/will be, and how can we verify this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-06T19:44:47.087" LastActivityDate="2016-06-01T09:21:11.490" Title="Where are Gog and Magog located?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;ezekiel&gt;&lt;geography&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-06-05T04:56:22.220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8267" CreationDate="2012-06-29T06:41:30.987" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Magog is included in the &quot;Table of Nations&quot; in Genesis 10 as one of the sons of Japheth after the Flood. It's generally accepted by conservative scholars that the descendents of Japheth were mostly caucasion people who ultimately settled in Europe, so Magog would likely be white and European.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ancient Jewish historian Josephus says that Magog is the nation that the Greeks call Scythia. (Book 1, chapter 6) Scythia was on the northern coast of the Black Sea. They spread out north and east from there. Thus, their territory would overlap modern Russia. Many people who believe that Revelation will be fulfilled in the near future identify Magog with Russia. (I have no idea if modern Russians are descended from Magog or just occupy a similar territory, or if anyone knows.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gog has been identified with the Goths, a Germanic people who originally came from Scandinavia but then migrated south and settled on the west coast of the Black Sea. (It was Alaric the Goth who sacked Rome and is generally credited with destroying the western Roman empire.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note this puts Gog and Magog occupying adjacent lands. (A fact that I must admit I never noticed until today.) It would thus be plausible for Ezekial to name them together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above is not by any means the only interpretation. I just did some Yahoo searches and found several Moslem sources that identity Gog and Magog with the United States. I found another source that put Magog in modern Turkey. Etc. But I think the theories I mention above are the most popular in conservative Christian circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I'm far from an expert on this subject. If someone here knows more, I'm interested to hear it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-06-29T06:41:30.987" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8267" CreationDate="2012-06-29T13:19:52.033" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find that in a subject like this it is good to compare Christian speculations with Jewish speculations and see if there is any common ground.  I found that both Jewish and Christian sources think the most likely location was present day Turkey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07466.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jewish source&lt;/a&gt; I'm finding more and more useful for Jewish things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“the most reasonable identification put forward is with Giges, also known as Gogo, king of Lydia, and Magog, with his country.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lydia&lt;/a&gt; is in present day Turkey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also a Christian view from &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/ezekiel/38-2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gills Exposition&lt;/a&gt; found here says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in Pliny (o), that the city of Hierapolis in Syria was called by the Syrians Magog; and they fancy the name of Gog is the same with Gyges a king of Lydia, whose country was called from him Gygea, or Gog's land, who was grandfather to Croesus; and which country came into the hands of Cyrus, and from the Persians into the hands of the Greeks, and so to the Seleucidae.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem therefore that Gog, the King of Magog was a people that were attached to Israel in history, and therefore must have lived nearby.  Yet even more importantly we should notice that Gog and Magog in ancient Rabinic literature always refers to the Gentiles who would opposed Messiah in the last days. In fact Jewish mystical interpretation (Kabbalah) superstitiously has a method of calculates numbers from Hebrew letters from the words Gog and Magog = 70. This means all the Gentiles. For details of what the Jews expected see this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8145/were-the-jews-expecting-the-messiah-to-suffer-at-all&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore the New Testament also keeps up the theme. In Revelation we find Gog and Magog representing the Kingdom of the Devil about to wage war against God’s people. The only difference now is that Christians see themselves as spiritual Jews, so the historial meaning of Gog and Magog is very strong in terms of prophetic belief:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth —Gog and Magog —and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:7-10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: Maybe God has purposefully ensured that we have lost concrete history to truly identify this country, because we are no longer to take it literally. Rather we are to take it as representing the world during the last days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-06-30T05:50:49.837" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8249" CreationDate="2012-06-29T15:43:01.540" Score="0" Body="&lt;h2&gt;This sinful nature is not necessarily handed down 'organically' but as we are all born under the same curse, as a punishment under Law, all men are born under the same 'cursed sinful nature'.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;The doctrine of original sin is one of the central doctrines of the Bible that says Adam’s guilt was imputed to all mankind, so that all men are born under the curse of God's offended Law, unto a sinful nature. Under this doctrine we are sinners because we have been judged guilty by God's offended Law before birth.  The sinful nature is therefore passed down legally under God's holy justice.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This depravity under the exposure of that curse is a total one, so that man before conversion to Christ is unable to commit a righteous act. This was the common faith of the reformers during the Protestant reformation. One of the most compelling books on the subject is entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.vi.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GREAT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN&lt;/a&gt;, by Jonathan Edwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although this doctrine directly conflicts with the verse mentioned, it is very easy to resolve this fake contradiction under this most esteemed doctrine.  &lt;strong&gt;The answer is that this verse applies to all people, except Adam or Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA; Generally it is not fair for God to impute the works of one, upon another, unless it relates to national sins and his government of the world. National judgments often hurt the innocent as well as the guilty. For example when Israel went into captivity, prophets also were dragged into Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However on a personal level this verse applies and can be seen in the first two children of Adam. Cain was a murderer but Abel, even though He was born in sin, was saved by faith and righteous. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Adam and Christ, they are federal heads of all humanity.  There are only two of them and never will there be more. In some ways it does not seem fair.  I never asked to be born a sinner and yet I was. I was guilty of sin and cursed before I was born, otherwise I would not have been born with a propensity to sin.  All men have this propensity as a matter of fact, as all have sinned.   Also, It also does not seem fair that after living a wicked life for so many years, God would declare I am perfectly righteous and have never sinned because he imputed Christ's righteousness on me. In both cases the curse and grace do not seem fair to me, but I guess with both in hand it is fair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is Bible 101 and you can find these answers and more from the Apostle Paul directly. Paul makes it so clear that there is no need to doubt any of it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —&#xA;  13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.&#xA;  15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!&#xA;  18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.&#xA;  20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice: the reason why the Laws of Moses were added is so that people would sin more. The Law was not meant for people to live better but to smash self-righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But back to the subject. A strong confident and rejoicing view in Paul's doctrine of original sin is necessary to begin to understand the world. Without deep faith in this doctrine I do not see how one can even begin to understand himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I ever doubt original sin, which I don't because of my own sin, I just watch the news for a few minutes and my faith is restored ;) In reality all I need  to do is just sense my own motives at home, work and play and am fully pursuaded that I sin every day, every hour and every second. Of course I do because I have never loved God with all my heart and the Law requires that I do so perfectly. If a commited Christian like myself is still so evil, what can we say about people like me, before I repented and believed in Christ!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is original sin. It is liberating because it makes you rely on grace alone apart from works. I love the doctrine and any who preach it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-06-30T13:45:11.220" LastActivityDate="2012-06-30T13:45:11.220" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8272" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8280" CreationDate="2012-06-29T16:15:47.443" Score="8" ViewCount="2244" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two subjects that could be construed as contradictory in our Lords sermon on the mount. Here is an instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is Jesus saying? Should we tell others about the good things we have done, being a role model and example to them, or keep those things secret?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T04:15:12.367" Title="Should we 'let our light shine' and tell people the good works that we do?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;sermon-on-the-mount&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8273" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8282" CreationDate="2012-06-29T16:27:20.393" Score="7" ViewCount="17194" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know the story:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”&#xA;  15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. (Matthew 3:13-15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was it necessary to be Baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2015-02-09T07:09:25.810" LastActivityDate="2015-02-09T07:09:25.810" Title="Why was Jesus baptised by John the Baptist?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-02-10T14:53:29.520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8272" CreationDate="2012-06-29T16:47:28.220" Score="15" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;to be seen by them.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;glorify your Father in heaven.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (Matthew 5:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is telling us not to be prideful and boast in front of others. In other words, don't go &amp;quot;Look at what I've done. &lt;strong&gt;I'm&lt;/strong&gt; so great.&amp;quot; But rather, &amp;quot;Look at what &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt; has allowed me to do, isn't &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt; awesome?!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One is self glorifying, where as the other attributes the glory to God. One statement can easily turn other people off, the other one (may) lead people to be curious about God. This is not to say that we shouldn't feel happy regarding the things that God is doing through us, but rather that we should remain &lt;strong&gt;humble&lt;/strong&gt; and always remember that it is through God's grace that we are able to do such things for His kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1813" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-29T16:47:28.220" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8276" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8277" CreationDate="2012-06-29T18:31:12.253" Score="6" ViewCount="2005" Body="&lt;p&gt;Intinction at communion is &quot;the practice of dipping the bread in the cup and partaking the elements simultaneously&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) at their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcaac.org/2012GeneralAssembly/GAHome.htm&quot;&gt;2012 General Assembly&lt;/a&gt; narrowly voted in favor of an amended version of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcaac.org/2012GeneralAssembly/Overture%2030%20Sav%20R%20Intinction.pdf&quot;&gt;Overture 30&lt;/a&gt;, which would prohibit celebrating communion by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intinction&quot;&gt;intinction&lt;/a&gt;. (But this will not actually happen unless 2/3 of the presbyteries, and the next GA, also approve it.) Many lengthy arguments were deployed on both sides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the minor arguments on the pro-intinction side is that the practice is common among Catholics and the Orthodox, and it would be a welcoming gesture if this mode of celebration was explicitly authorized. There are also other Protestant denominations, including Presbyterians, that allow it among other options. I believe that this is indeed the standard way of administering communion in the Eastern Orthodox churches, but I'm not so sure about the Catholics (specifically, Catholics in the USA). The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/&quot;&gt;General Instruction of the Roman Missal&lt;/a&gt; allows it, but the language seems like it's being authorized only as an alternative method.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How common is intinction in Catholic churches in the USA? Is it seen as a relatively normal thing to do, or is it controversial?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2014-12-26T02:06:08.367" Title="How common is intinction in the Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8276" CreationDate="2012-06-29T18:53:50.517" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;All Catholic churches I have attended have you line up to the front, you are given a communion (either placed in your hand or in your mouth), and on the way back to your seat is a wine bearer, who will offer you a sip from the cup. Unless you place the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist#Catholic&quot;&gt;host&lt;/a&gt; in your mouth and then partake from the wine cup, it would not be possible to do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other churches, as you have said, this can be common, but at a standard Catholic church it's not frowned upon as much as not possible following the standard setup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastActivityDate="2012-06-29T18:53:50.517" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8278" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-06-29T20:01:32.233" Score="7" ViewCount="1289" Body="&lt;p&gt;While reading up on intinction I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://theaquilareport.com/the-pca-ohio-presbytery-receives-committee-report-on-intinction/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a reference&lt;/a&gt; to an early practice of using milk instead of wine at communion. This was condemned in a decree of 340AD by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Julius_I&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Saint Julius I&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For we have heard that some, occupied by ambition, contrary to the divine commands and apostolic custom, offer milk instead of wine at the divine sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Audivimus enim quosdam schismatica ambitione detentos, contra divinos ordines et apostolicas institutiones lac pro vino in divinis sacrificiis dedicare.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Translation from the first linked document; the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/0337-0352,_SS_Iulius_I,_Decreta_Decem_Juxta_Gratianum_et_Ivonem,_MLT.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Latin original&lt;/a&gt; is &lt;em&gt;Decreta decem juxta Gratianum et Ivonem&lt;/em&gt;, decree 7.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who were these people that used milk instead of wine? And what does ambition have to do with it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-06-30T23:15:54.070" Title="Who in the fourth century had milk instead of wine at communion?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8273" CreationDate="2012-06-29T22:44:34.450" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;mikvah&quot; or Baptismal rite was a symbol of righteousness amongst the Jews, and was central in John the Baptist's message.  As an outward manifestation of righteousness, it would have served as a signal to those who witnessed it that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a. Jesus was clean&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;b. John the Baptist was worthy to say that Jesus is clean&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-06-29T22:44:34.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8272" CreationDate="2012-06-29T22:53:26.143" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out the easy to read version (more at my level, haha ;) :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 6:1-18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) Jesus Teaches About Giving&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 “Be careful! When you do something good, don’t do it in front of&#xA;  others so that they will see you. If you do that, you will have no&#xA;  reward from your Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 “When you give to those who are poor, don’t announce that you are&#xA;  giving.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next line sums up what he is saying. Don't tell people that you gave. If they find out by alternative means, that's fine - but give no effort to inform someone of what you did. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 In the same way, &lt;strong&gt;you should be a light&lt;/strong&gt; for other people. Live so&#xA;  that &lt;strong&gt;they will see&lt;/strong&gt; the good things you do and praise your Father in&#xA;  heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference is that in 5:16 &lt;strong&gt;people notice&lt;/strong&gt; your good works on &lt;strong&gt;their own&lt;/strong&gt; because you are such a bright spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you are being light, people can feel it on a deeper subconscious level. There is no need to say anything. Your everyday actions and being will say it all. It will make people say things like, Oh, I bet you do a lot of volunteer work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when they hear about something you did from someone else, it is always more impactful than if you told them. (May cause them to change in a positive way too!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a more simple everyday analogy: if you are cool, people know it, you don't have to tell them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That best portion of a good man's life, His little, nameless,&#xA;  unremembered acts of kindness and of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;William Wordsworth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;English poet ( 1770 - 1850 )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T04:15:12.367" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T04:15:12.367" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8281" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8283" CreationDate="2012-06-30T03:03:19.713" Score="6" ViewCount="85854" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/2039/655&quot;&gt;This answer&lt;/a&gt; explains that it happened after Jesus ascended, and might even be something that will happen in the &quot;End Times&quot;, but &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1380/1671&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; says that it happened before Adam and Eve sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about this? I'm looking for an answer that explains all major verses about this event. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2014-01-20T15:58:45.683" Title="When did Satan get cast out of heaven?  Or is that yet to come?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8273" CreationDate="2012-06-30T03:37:27.333" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Baptism of John was calling sinners to repentance. It was unusual in that it was treating the Jews as Gentiles. Everyone was considered impure and needing washing at the door-step of the New Covenant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From wiki we get a clear definition of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jewish Mikveh&lt;/a&gt;. It is correctly stated here that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It signified washing impurity away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More applicable to our text Mikveh was used, and is still used today to convert Gentiles to Judaism. Here is a quote from the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘the proselytes of righteousness,’ who became ‘children of the covenant,’ ‘perfect Israelites,’ Israelites in every respect, both as regarded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (Milah), Baptism (Tebhilah),and a Sacrifice (Qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice) - the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the question remains why did Jesus submit to a baptism calling everyone to repentance for their sins, in preparation of Christ’s appearing?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many views why Jesus was Baptized, some of the better views are; His coming as the Representative of a guilty race, or as the bearer of the sins of others, or of His surrendering Himself symbolically to death for man. However as Jesus came to ‘fulfill all righteousness’ it seems to best to say that He came to perform perfect obedience to Gods Law.  This obedience not only included all the ceremonial, civil and moral laws given to Moses, but as Christ was not only God but man, He must also submit to the ministries of Prophets sent by God. Furthermore the level of consciousness that Jesus, as a man, had of His purpose and ministry seems to have taken a sudden increase after His submission. For it is hear that God declares from a voice from heaven and a visible token of His Spirit anointing Him for His ministry that he has the One whom God loved, that is the King Messiah, and also the suffering servant who He was well pleased with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So His baptism was to fully comply with all Laws in order to have a righteousness that He could provide to sinners while the sins of the world were placed upon Him in return.&lt;/strong&gt;  This is why John says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, &quot;Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (NIV John 1:29)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was presenting Himself as the Lamb in Baptism, to suffer all the sins of men punishable under the Laws of Moses. John was including the righteous Pharisees and sinful tax collectors as equally needing this baptism of repentance for sin. Jesus was the center upon which this baptism had meaning, for water does not cleanse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-06-30T03:37:27.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8281" CreationDate="2012-06-30T04:05:30.567" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may be an issue of semantics.  Here is my impression:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Satan sinned prior to Adam and Eve sinning, as Richard indicated in his answer (which you linked).  At that time he &amp;quot;fell&amp;quot; in the sense that DTest was asking about in his question.  (i.e. &amp;quot;fell from grace&amp;quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, after Satan's initial sin, he appears to have still had access to the realm where the angels stand before God (which we call &amp;quot;heaven&amp;quot;).  This is what I was getting at in my &amp;quot;examples&amp;quot; link in my answer (which you linked).  Here are the verses from Job that I was referring to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Job 1:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%202:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Job 2:1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%203:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zechariah 3:1&lt;/a&gt;)  I also linked a passage from Luke in which Jesus says that He was watching Satan falling from heaven when &amp;quot;the seventy&amp;quot; were rebuking demons.  If he is still &amp;quot;falling from heaven&amp;quot; in Jesus' day, it seems logical to think he still had access to heaven, and must not have yet been banished in any ultimate sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:17-18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Luke 10:17-18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:7-9,%2012-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;passage from Revelation 12&lt;/a&gt; seems to be describing a much more ultimate banishment in which he is forced out of heaven by Michael's armies, there is &amp;quot;no longer a place found for them in heaven&amp;quot;, and he is &amp;quot;thrown down to the earth&amp;quot;, resulting in &amp;quot;woe to the earth&amp;quot; because once Satan realizes what has happened, he has &amp;quot;great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.&amp;quot;  The context of this passage, which I was explaining in my answer (which you linked) seems to be about the End Times, and the casting down seems to happen after the ascension, since the resulting proclamation includes a description of how the &amp;quot;brethren&amp;quot; overcame Satan by the blood of Jesus.  It seems unnatural to interpret this as describing an event that happened back in Genesis 1-3.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarifications&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:12-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 28:12-19&lt;/a&gt;, which may be one of the points of confusion, is a prophecy against Tyre (specifically addressed to the King of Tyre).  However, it is also partially addressing Satan, who was presumably working through the King of Tyre... for instance, in verses 12-15 it says things like &amp;quot;you were in Eden&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;you were the anointed cherub&amp;quot;.  It is true that the passage also says &amp;quot;I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;I cast you to the ground&amp;quot;.  However, we need to read the entire passage and understand it as intended.  For instance, it also says things like &amp;quot;by the abundance of your trade you were internally filled with violence&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;you profaned your sanctuaries&amp;quot;, referring to the city, not Satan.  Furthermore, there are statements like &amp;quot;I have destroyed you... from the midst of the stones of fire&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;I have brought fire from the midst of you; it has consumed you, and I have turned you to ashes on the earth&amp;quot;.  I don't know of anyone who teaches that this happened to Satan - at least not yet (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:10&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014:3-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:3-21&lt;/a&gt; is the same sort of story, but is about Babylon instead of Tyre.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are other passages which seem to contradict this, make a note in the comments and I'll take a look.  This is just my tentative understanding based on the passages I'm aware of.  Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-02T17:36:59.223" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8284" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8305" CreationDate="2012-06-30T12:58:25.443" Score="6" ViewCount="501" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not know anything about the Waldensians. Specifically, do we actually know what their doctrine was and why the Catholic Church opposed them? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-08-05T00:18:34.017" LastActivityDate="2017-08-05T00:18:34.017" Title="Were the Waldensians like a Protestant Church in the Middle Ages?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;waldensians&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8285" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8294" CreationDate="2012-06-30T13:06:52.217" Score="4" ViewCount="5492" Body="&lt;p&gt;He could have fell to Mars, Venus, or GJ667Cc. I understand that he needed to be cast out of heaven, but why to Earth where he has caused more trouble?  Are there any apocryphal books which describe this differently?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-06-30T13:31:08.490" LastActivityDate="2014-02-11T12:33:09.970" Title="Why did Satan fall to Earth?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;apocrypha&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-18T16:59:59.133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8285" CreationDate="2012-06-30T13:22:04.753" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Biblical cosmetology, &quot;Heaven&quot; is the sky, and &quot;Earth&quot; is the ground. Naturally, anything that falls from the sky is going to hit the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="377" LastActivityDate="2012-06-30T13:22:04.753" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8287" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8292" CreationDate="2012-06-30T13:51:27.553" Score="9" ViewCount="6697" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Born again&quot; is a term most often attributed to Christians. Yet what exactly does it mean, and what does the the use of the term encompass?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is a &quot;born again&quot; Christian?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are they of a specific denomination?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where does the term &quot;born again&quot; come from?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-07-05T13:24:55.547" LastActivityDate="2014-12-20T18:04:41.170" Title="Who are &quot;Born again&quot; Christians?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;&lt;born-again&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8287" CreationDate="2012-06-30T13:51:27.847" Score="1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;What is a &quot;born again&quot; Christian?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, a 'born again' Christian is someone who has come to believe in Jesus as their lord and savior in their heart, possibly through baptism. This is not simply believing he exists, but completely giving your heart and soul to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this is the biblical meaning, how it is used and portrayed in different churches and denominations often has an added meaning given to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are they of a specific denomination?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While a 'born again' Christian as according to the bible is anyone who accepts God and is born again in spirit, how the term is used can differ in different denominations and churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being baptized is often considered being 'born again'. While it is common to baptize children in some denominations and churches, other churches baptize those who are older. This is often practiced as unlike a child, an adult will understand the significance of what a baptism means, and will have it performed of their own free will. Yet other denominations feel being baptized later in life is different than as a child when you still are innocent, and as such is different than being 'born again'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the general meaning of the term is to describe someone who has given themselves up to the Lord, it also has another meaning attached to it in society. A 'born again' Christian is often a term given to someone who converted from another way of life, often counter to God's teachings (but not always). While like everyone else they accept God in their heart, the transformation of the soul is so apparent, they can quite literally seem 'born again'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In yet other denominations and churches, it is believed we can not be born again of our own power, but rather only through the direct power of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Where does the term &quot;born again&quot; come from?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One instance can be found in &lt;code&gt;John 3:3 KJV&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be &lt;strong&gt;born again&lt;/strong&gt;, he cannot see the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again shortly after in &lt;code&gt;John 3:7 KJV&lt;/code&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be &lt;strong&gt;born again&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this chapter Jesus converses with Nicodemus, a Pharisee, who says Jesus must be sent by God, as only then could he perform such miracles. While Nicodemus is confused by Jesus saying one must be born again as a physical birth, He says that while one is of flesh, to enter into the kingdom of God, one must be born again of the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another instance of this term is found in &lt;code&gt;1 Peter 1:23 KJV&lt;/code&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Being &lt;strong&gt;born again&lt;/strong&gt;, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This chapter speaks of how Jesus died for us, and consequently was rose again that our &lt;code&gt;...faith and hope might be in God. ~ 1 Peter 1:21 KJV&lt;/code&gt;. This verse then states that through Jesus' death and resurrection, our hearts should be pure, and be be incorruptible by the word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastEditorDisplayName="user1760" LastEditDate="2012-07-12T11:41:28.410" LastActivityDate="2012-07-12T11:41:28.410" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8289" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-06-30T13:56:24.963" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many denominations, being born again is often shown through a baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;born again&quot; is found in the KJV of the Bible. In other versions it is often read as &quot;born from above&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastEditorDisplayName="user1760" LastEditDate="2012-07-13T14:00:38.617" LastActivityDate="2012-07-13T14:00:38.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8290" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-06-30T13:56:24.963" Score="0" Body="A term given to someone who has come to accept God, and has been reborn, or &quot;born again&quot;, in spirit." OwnerDisplayName="user1760" LastEditorDisplayName="user1760" LastEditDate="2012-06-30T14:32:01.113" LastActivityDate="2012-06-30T14:32:01.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8291" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8309" CreationDate="2012-06-30T14:24:51.857" Score="10" ViewCount="11159" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed many Christians say 'we were born in God’s image', but the scripture seems to imply that men are 'born in the image of their Father, the Devil?' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is it then, is man created in God’s image after the fall, or the Devils, or neither? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2016-08-24T01:47:20.757" Title="Is man born in God's image, or was that just Adam?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-08-26T15:44:57.283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8287" CreationDate="2012-06-30T14:58:24.867" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &amp;quot;born again&amp;quot; comes from a passage in John 3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Some translations render &amp;quot;born again&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;born from above&amp;quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept is picked up in other places in the Bible where Christians are referred to as &amp;quot;new creations&amp;quot;. (2 Corinthians 5, Galatians 6). The sense is clear that to be a part of the Kingdom of God, you must undergo a radical transformation, akin to being created anew: &amp;quot;starting over again&amp;quot;. Like birth, this is something that happens to you, not something you do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this basis, the doctrinal position of almost all Christian denominations is that all Christians are by definition &amp;quot;born again&amp;quot;. For many the sacrament of baptism makes you &amp;quot;born again&amp;quot;. For others, whatever makes you a Christian also makes you &amp;quot;born again&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The use of the term &amp;quot;born again Christian&amp;quot; really dates from the 1960s, where it originated with the Jesus People and Christian counterculture. Since then it is generally associated with the Evangelical movement, and is often used by them to distinguish themselves from those they see as 'nominal' Christians. It isn't applied to any specific denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T13:59:20.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8291" CreationDate="2012-06-30T16:06:31.527" Score="-1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;All of mankind is made in Gods own image, not just Adam. We find the pronouncement early in the Bible concerning man being created in God's image:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image,&#xA;in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This image was both on a 'spiritual' plane and on a 'natural' plane.&lt;/strong&gt;  For when the Trinity said in  'our likeness' it refers to the spiritual holy image of God, but the immediate application is that under that image man would 'rule over the fish', etc. This implication is also described in Palms  8. By the word 'natural' we mean not pertaining to spirit, love or communion with God, but pertaining to body, mind, feelings and will, as these may exists separate from God. Even an animal or the Devil has mind, emotion, will, creativity. 'Spiritual' pertains to Gods character and power whereby those natural features are made to reflect God's likeness/image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can see that &lt;strong&gt;the natural image and authority over nature was not fully lost in the fall&lt;/strong&gt; for God said after the fall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (Genesis 9:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However &lt;strong&gt;on the spiritual level, man no longer held the image of God&lt;/strong&gt; for that image is perfect holiness and this is what man lost through sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spiritually we are 'born' with the image of our spiritual parents. Spiritually we reflect Gods image, only if we love Him, otherwise He is not our spiritual father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to them, “ If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father 's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:42-44)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since we were 'all enemies of God', rather than loving God, our spiritual father was the Devil, and so was our image was reflecting evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, although God has a special love for mankind, even when they were His enemies, only Adam and Jesus Christ were born with His image. We do not regain that image again until being 'born again'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:48-49)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man lost the spiritual image of God. Furthermore, it was not just 'marred', but entirely removed and replaced with the image of the Devil. The Devil is said to be the father of that image and kingdom, on account of his introducing sin into the human race. This has always been the faith of Luther, Calvin, etc. and included in the great doctrine of original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For understanding the reformed view of original sin, refer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8249/inheritance-of-original-sin/8250#8250&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have collected a couple quotes direct from Calvin and Luther, as one suggested I was introducing a private and new idea here. Evidently this is simply untrue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin said regarding this image:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. ( Colossians  3:10 , and Ephesians  4:23 .) That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure synecdochee; for though this is the chief part, it is not the whole of God's image. Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. (Calvin's commentary on Genesis Ch 1:26-27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther said it even more simply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God announces the punishment: “On whatever day you eat from this tree, you will die by death,” as though He said: “Adam and Eve, now you are living without fear; death you have not experienced, nor have you seen it. This is My image, by which you are living, just as God lives. But if you sin, you will lose this image, and you will die.” (Luther's Works Volume 1, P63)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T14:49:17.890" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8285" CreationDate="2012-06-30T18:42:38.007" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question would not have even made sense to anyone prior to Copernicus, let alone to anyone who originally heard or received this image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When this story was first received, there would have been no other body for him to land on. The earth was the center of all, and the &quot;wandering stars&quot; aka other planets, were just lights in the sky. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most commonly applied ruled of hermeneutics is that a text can not mean what it could not mean to the original hearers. In other words, if a lie is held widely enough, it must be addressed in terms of the lie. Our cosmology may have changed, but to the original storytellers, it was the truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bear that in mind, and the answer to your question becomes obvious: there was no other place for Him to go. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-07-03T15:17:46.843" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T15:17:46.843" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8278" CreationDate="2012-06-30T23:15:54.070" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some early church liturgies, and continuing even up to the Middle Ages, there was a custom of offering milk and honey to a newly baptized person as part of their first Eucharist. This took place after the bread and before the wine.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; An example is the liturgy of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Apostolic Tradition&lt;/em&gt; of Hippolytus&lt;/a&gt; (c. 215), 21:27-30:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread, &#xA;  which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the &#xA;  symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him; and the milk and &#xA;  honey mixed together, in fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, in which he said, &#xA;  &quot;a land flowing with milk and honey,&quot; which Christ indeed gave, his Flesh, through which &#xA;  those who believe are nourished like little children, by the sweetness of his Word, &#xA;  softening the bitter heart; and water also for an oblation, as a sign of the baptism, so &#xA;  that the inner person, which is psychic, may also receive the same as the body. The &#xA;  bishop shall give an explanation of all these things to those who are receiving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jerome's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.iv.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dialogue against the Luciferians&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (c. 379) also talks about this baptismal custom, though he does not embed it within the Eucharist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the laver, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The symbolism of milk and honey, and its biblical resonance, is pretty clear. There is no reference here to having milk &lt;em&gt;instead&lt;/em&gt; of wine, and it is meant to be only for the &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; communion. The existence of this tradition, though, does demonstrate a background where  milk was not completely alien to the liturgy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clement of Alexandria wrote a long discussion in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Paedogogus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (c. 198) I.6, where he takes the view that milk can represent blood, and even the blood of Christ. Part of his reasoning is that in his view of human physiology, milk is basically blood that has been somehow sweetened and purified.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; He also appeals to 1 Corinthians 3:2, in which Paul likens his teaching to milk and meat. Clement continues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The blood of the Word has been also exhibited as milk. [...] Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine?  [...] The same blood and milk of the Lord is therefore the symbol of the Lord's passion and teaching. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also talks about drinking a mixture of milk and wine (yuck!):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Furthermore, milk is mixed with sweet wine; and the mixture is beneficial, as when suffering is mixed in the cup in order to immortality. For the milk is curdled by the wine, and separated, and whatever adulteration is in it is drained off. And in the same way, the spiritual communion of faith with suffering man, drawing off as serous matter the lusts of the flesh, commits man to eternity, along with those who are divine, immortalizing him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems quite possible that some people, following this teaching of Clement, considered it acceptable to add a milk element to the Eucharist, mix wine and milk together, or to substitute milk for wine completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1 &lt;em&gt;Eucharistic doctors: a theological history&lt;/em&gt;, Owen F. Cummings (Paulist Press, 2005), p34.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;2 Honestly, that entire chapter is pretty startling in a lot of ways. Apparently semen is also blood, that's been whipped into a foam. Thankfully the digression ends there.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-06-30T23:15:54.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8285" CreationDate="2012-07-01T02:42:20.233" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The simple answer is that is was God’s permissive will to send the Devil to where He placed Adam and Eve in the garden.&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;If Adam was on Mars then the Devil would have been sent there. So the answer is similar to ‘Why did God create the tree?’ ‘Why did God allow sin?’ ‘Why did God not turn the Devil into jelly-beans?’ ‘Why did God not prevent the temptation of Eve?’ All such questions have the same answer&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;Sometimes when we have no clear reason why something happened, we can see the purpose in its effects. The initial effects of the Devil and his minions being cast upon the earth and expelled from the spiritual realm of God’s throne in heaven seems contrary to God’s will. The result is that man was tempted and fell under his power.  The result was that sin had filled the world (not Mars) under his malice and control, so that now the world is completely flooded with mutual hatred, strife, envy, lust, anger, pride, fierceness, and rage, against one another; all which are the direct result of his being cast down and set  free to temp Eve. The result is that man learned to hate God. Clearly this was not God’s true will only His permissive will. Yet God’s set the boundaries of many agents of free will to be used to work out His higher purposes of Grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the true result of this great and terrible thing? What is the result of sin multiplied by sin until each generation would be under Noah’s flood if God did not hold back His anger? The answer is that the more sin and hatred of God increased the more exceeding and praiseworthy is the glory of God shining brighter through it! HOW? In its total annihilation of sin and destruction and the redemption of the lost God haters, for which Jesus died!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5: 20-21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact the reason for ‘everything’ even though it seems things went terribly wrong, is that it is according to God's pleasure and perfect will, intentional and permissive will.  This does not excuse the sinfulness of sin or Gods will that none should sin, it only admits God knew every sin that man would ever commit and planned to provide atonement by the death of His Son, before the world was created. God does not live in time, so whatever happens tomorrow is no more distant than what happened before he fell. This includes choosing the location f where the Devil will live and how much power he is garneted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 1:3-6 is a typical verse declaring this truth, which has always been the position of great theologians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he c predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice everything was known 'before the creation' and that everything was done to the 'praise of his glorious grace'. Now I take these verses to mean that mankind's understanding and experience of God's grace, goodness and love, which can only lead us to praise and experience that grace, is at a 'higher realm' after the fall and salvation of mankind in Christ, then if there was no fall at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found a quote by Martin Luther on the exact same question and he seems to have held the same view I propose:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If God should be asked at the last judgment, ‘Why did you permit Adam to fall?’ and he answered, ‘In order that my goodness toward the human race might be understood when I gave my Son for man’s salvation,’ we would say, ‘Let the whole human race fall again in order that thy glory may become known! Because thou hast accomplished so much through Adam’s fall we do not understand thy ways.’&#xA;  “There is a threefold light: that of reason, that of grace, and that of glory.” (Luther's Works Volume 54, P385)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther, Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, etc. all held this view. Talking about God not wanting ‘robots’, is rather silly by comparison. It's a man center view and fairly earthly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Subject likes this must be resolved into God's own good pleasure and grace, we can only have faith like the Apostle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” 35 “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” 36 For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-02T01:08:24.863" LastActivityDate="2012-07-02T01:08:24.863" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8291" CreationDate="2012-07-01T02:57:25.267" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there is a certain amount of room for ambiguity, the consensus of scholars is that in Genesis 1:26-27 God is creating &lt;em&gt;all of mankind&lt;/em&gt; in his own image, not just Adam (or Adam and Eve). It is agreed by most churches and denominations that each person retains at least part of the 'image of God' within him- or herself. Genesis 9:6 would tend to back this up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no universal agreement over exactly what it means to be made 'in the image of God'. A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/imageofgod.html&quot;&gt;typical answer&lt;/a&gt; might be that man is like God creatively, morally (i.e. capable of knowing morality), socially and mentally - i.e. he shares some aspects of God in all those areas. He is not &lt;em&gt;perfectly&lt;/em&gt; like God in any of those areas, even before the fall: e.g. he cannot create from nothing, but he can create new things; he is capable of reason, but not able to know all things. The Fall marred many of these characteristics but did not entirely destroy them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The John passage is talking about something really different. It is talking only on the moral/spiritual plane and doesn't address any of the other issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T02:57:25.267" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8272" CreationDate="2012-07-01T04:18:19.753" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This same question popped up at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Hermeneutics StackExchange&lt;/a&gt;, here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1326/are-good-works-supposed-to-be-seen-or-not&quot;&gt;Are good works supposed to be seen or not?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer there is pasted below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While these two statements may &lt;em&gt;seem&lt;/em&gt; self-contradictory, there is a fine line which differentiates them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR:&lt;/strong&gt;  Matthew 5:16 says you should not ever be ashamed to do God's work in public.  However, Matthew 6:1 warns that you should also not do these works in public simply for the sake of public attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commandment for us to shine our light is given so that we will not allow ourselves to fall into contentment, and simply keep our faith to ourselves.  Jesus wants the world to know of God's glory, and that cannot be done without ourselves committing to a certain amount of exposure.  We shouldn't just simply huddle in our homes and our churches, communing with one another.  Instead, we should also be out in the world and spreading God's word and his love.  Some of this is done through deeds, which should &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; be used as a reflection of God's glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is a certain amount of caution that should be exercised when we do this.  We need to be careful to ensure that the works we do in His name are done &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; in that spirit.  We should not be performing works simply to boast of our own goodness and godliness.  This is the admonition given in Matthew 6:1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To better understand this, these verses need to be put a bit more fully into context.  Let's start with Matthew 5:14-16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, we are told that we are like a lantern.  We are not meant to be hidden or reclusive, but instead allow God's glory to shine out to the world through us.  This bit is fairly simple on its own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, for Matthew 6:1-4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, &lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the slightly tricky bit.  Jesus is not telling us at all to hide our light.  Rather, he tells us that we should not shine it for the sole sake of drawing attention to &lt;em&gt;ourselves&lt;/em&gt;.  Our good deeds, while often done in public before the world, are not always for the whole world to see and hear about.  Every good deed has its beneficiaries, and its audience should not be more than those who will truly see benefit from it.  Anything beyond that is excessive, and is generally done in the spirit of drawing attention more to oneself than to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To further clarify this point, some examples of hypocritical and pagan behavior to avoid are given in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 6&lt;/a&gt; - one of which is already stated above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drawing attention to your good deeds in public, &amp;quot;with trumpets ... in the synagogues and the streets ... to be honored by others&amp;quot;.  (Matt. 6:2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Praying for the sake of being seen praying &amp;quot;standing in the synagogues and on the street corners ... babbling&amp;quot;.  (Matt. 6:5, 6:7)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Making your fasting obvious, &amp;quot;look[ing] somber ... disfigur[ing your] faces&amp;quot;.  (Matt. 6:16)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, the point here is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; that you should abstain from good deeds, praying, or fasting in public.  Instead, you should simply do these things without boasting of them or drawing unnecessary attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;NOTE: All scripture references are copied from BibleGateway's NIV.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="43" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T04:18:19.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8299" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-01T05:16:21.123" Score="8" ViewCount="9254" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is a papist always a Catholic who is wholly supportive of the Pope?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Must one be some sort of cleric or theologian to be considered by detractors as a papist or were every day catholic peasants and bums considered papists by people like Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-08-30T12:20:13.780" LastActivityDate="2019-08-30T12:20:13.780" Title="What's a Papist exactly?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8287" CreationDate="2012-07-01T05:46:22.420" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rebirthing isn't a physical rebirth. One of Jesus' followers asked him &quot;how can one return from the womb from whence man came and be reborn?&quot; Jesus responded by saying &quot;This rebirthing is not a physical rebirthing, it is a spiritual rebirth&quot; I don't have my bible with me so I'm sure that isn't word for word, but the meaning is parallel. I know it is in John if you are interested. &quot;Born again&quot; is pretty literal, when someone is a born again Christian, that means they have accepted jesus as their savior and they have let him into their heart. This is a spiritual rebirth, thus the name: born again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1771" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T05:46:22.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8299" CreationDate="2012-07-01T08:15:04.280" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my own reading of Luther, Calvin, etc., papist is a derogatory term referring to any Roman Catholic who accepts the Pope  as a legitimate authority from God during the time of the reformation. The reformers might not have spoken as harshly against Catholics in previous generations.  After all at some point in time even Luther would have regarded the Catholic church as having legitamate authority before turning away from the gospel of grace, to works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a sample quote from Luther clearly including all Roman Catholics under the term 'papist':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, nobody can deny that we, as well as the papists, have received holy baptism and because of that are called Christians. (Luther's Works  41.194)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T08:15:04.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8287" CreationDate="2012-07-01T09:51:37.747" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a evangelical view from the Protestant tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept of 'birth' means &lt;strong&gt;something that happens to you&lt;/strong&gt;, not as a result of your own work, effort or commitment. The doctrine of new birth pertains to the new life one has the moment they believe the gospel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The necessity for new birth shows that &lt;strong&gt;the old life from Adam can't be improved. It must be completely killed and destroyed.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There Jesus was teaching a highly moral religious leader that to obtain eternal life &lt;strong&gt;we must die and be reborn&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This 'new birth' is spiritual as opposed to our natural birth. In our natural birth we are born sinners. By faith in Christ we are adopted, removed form our first family under the kingdom of the devil, and tranlsated into Chrit's kingdom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This new birth entirely changes the way we live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole subject can be restated by Romans:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Life Through the Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus &lt;strong&gt;the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death&lt;/strong&gt;. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NIV Romans 8:1-4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same ideas is expressed in Ephesians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Made Alive in Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 &lt;strong&gt;made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions&lt;/strong&gt; —it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (NIV Ephesians 2:1-7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New birth is not a new term.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have been &lt;strong&gt;born anew&lt;/strong&gt;. In the third place, this should be done because you are no longer what you formerly were, he says, but are new persons. Works have not brought this about, but for it a birth has been required. For you cannot make the new man. No, he must grow or be born. Just as a carpenter cannot make a tree, but the tree itself must grow out of the earth, and just as we all were not made children of Adam but were born as such and have inherited sin from our father and mother, so we cannot become children of God by means of works but must be born again. This is what the apostle wants to say: Since you are now new creatures, you must also conduct yourselves differently now and lead a new life. Just as you formerly lived in hatred, so you must now walk in love, contradictory in every respect.  (Luther's Works Volume 30, Page 43)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Calvin said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the phrase &lt;strong&gt;born again&lt;/strong&gt; is expressed not the correction of one part, but the renovation of the whole nature. Hence it follows, that there is nothing in us that is not sinful; for if reformation is necessary in the whole and in each part, corruption must have been spread throughout. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This expression shows briefly what is the beginning of Christianity, and at the same time teaches us, that we are born exiles and utterly alienated from the kingdom of God, and that there is a perpetual state of variance between God and us, until he makes us altogether different by our being born again; for the statement is general, and comprehends the whole human race. (Calvin's Commentary on  John 3:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who espouse this term usually mean that committed people in churches (similar to Nicodemus) are still damned, even if they are a minister, priest, have been baptized, go to church, do good works, read the bible, share the gospel, pray, give to the poor, etc. ------&amp;gt; until they have a new birth through genuine faith in the gospel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T14:34:05.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3186" CreationDate="2012-07-01T14:02:08.203" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a quote on this that I love, from Alexander &quot;Greek&quot; Thomson, a 19th century Scottish Architect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some say that man can never get beyond his experiences. Whence then come Music and Architecture? There is nothing in Nature like either......they are something that by man or through his agency has been added to the work of God, and that, not presumptuously or sinfully, but by destiny and beauty; for being made in the image of God, man was made partaker of the divine nature so far as to become a fellow-worker with God - in however a humble a sense, a co-Creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just one man's opinion, and a quite eccentric man at that.  As you can see in questions like &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1518/what-does-in-the-image-of-god-mean?rq=1&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, there is no real consensus on exactly what being in the image of God means, but I think it is very significant that the first time the Bible mentions people being filled with the Holy Spirit it is in order to carry out the creative work of building the tabernacle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Moses said to the Israelites, “See, the Lord has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills — to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of artistic crafts. And he has given both him and Oholiab son of Ahisamak, of the tribe of Dan, the ability to teach others. He has filled them with skill to do all kinds of work as engravers, designers, embroiderers in blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen, and weavers—all of them skilled workers and designers. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2035:30-35&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 35:30-35&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="688" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T14:02:08.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8299" CreationDate="2012-07-01T15:13:16.190" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term is a polemic and an epithet describing anyone who, in the estimation of user, is more beholden to the Pope than to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan unfortunately expresses an opinion of the following sort:  (From Section 4, The Valley of Humiliation &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.covenantofgrace.com/pilgrims_progress_shadow_of_death.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.covenantofgrace.com/pilgrims_progress_shadow_of_death.htm&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now I saw in my dream, that at the end of this valley lay blood, bones, ashes, and mangled bodies of men, even of pilgrims that had gone this way formerly: and while I was musing what should be the reason, I espied a little before me a cave, where two giants, POPE and PAGAN, dwelt in old time, by whose power and tyranny, the men whose bones, blood, ashes, etc., lay there, were cruelly put to death. But by this place CHRISTIAN went without much danger; whereat I somewhat wondered. But I have learnt since, that PAGAN had been dead many a day; and as for the other, though he be yet alive, he is, by reason of age, and also of the many shrewd brushes that he met with in his younger days, grown so crazy and stiff in his joints, that he can now do little more than sit in his cave's mouth grinning at pilgrims as they go by, and biting his nails, because he cannot come at them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This sort of polemic rightly earns John Bunyan the adjective &quot;anti-Papist,&quot; and truly the term originates as an anti- thing, rather than the thing itself.  Being anti-Papist means you are against the Pope, and anyone who gives him succor is your enemy.  (I feel dirty even typing this, Peter, and I do apologize that this is what my church was going through at the time)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Merriam-Webster notes, the term originates in 1535, and says;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;pa•pist•ry \ˈpā-pə-strē\ noun&#xA;  1535 usually disparaging : the Roman Catholic religion&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his commentary on Acts, John Calvin makes the point, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;f the Papists have left him any of these things, let them have the Church on their side. But if the Pope, oppressing men’s consciences with his fierce and more cruel tyranny, have disannulled and taken away Christ his government; if he have brought in a form of government altogether contrary to the gospel; if he have invented a new and strange priesthood, that he may thrust-in himself, being but a mortal man, to be the mediator between God and the world; if he have forged daily sacrifices, that he may trot them in Christ’s place; if he have invented a thousand satisfactions for sins; if he have brought reigned washings from the lake of hell, to make dry the blood of the Son of God; if he have put in his place infinite patrons; if he have torn in a thousand pieces that righteousness which must be set [sought] wholly from him; if, instead of the Holy Ghost, he have erected man’s free-will; it is, without all question, that the true Christ is banished far from Papistry. For this cause have I said that the Papists make boast of a dead carcass instead of the lively body of Christ, because, though they have extinguished the doctrine of the gospel, (which is the true soul of the Church, and which duly doth quicken the same,) yet they do greatly boast of a shadowish and trifling kind of Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can see in the above quote that it is the Pope who is being villified and seen as contrary to Christ - and the Papist would be anyone who support him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-07-01T15:18:32.283" LastActivityDate="2012-07-01T15:18:32.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8284" CreationDate="2012-07-02T09:53:50.930" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most information about the doctrine of first valdensians that survived till today is contained in the inquisition protocols. According to &quot;New Advent&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...denial of purgatory, and of indulgences and prayers for the dead. They denounced all lying as a grievous sin, refused to take oaths and considered the shedding of human blood unlawful. They consequently condemned war and the infliction of the death penalty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;are among their doctrines that contradicted roman catholic faith, so I think, that yes, they can be view as sui specie 'protoprotestants'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contemporary Waldenses were 'assimilated' into reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T16:36:13.043" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T16:36:13.043" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8284" CreationDate="2012-07-02T17:45:29.407" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well. Some of what they said makes sense from a Protestant point of view, but not all. The biggest doctrinal &quot;Holy cow I can't believe they said that,&quot; is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Holding that the validity of the sacraments depends on the worthiness of the minister (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would mean that if your local pastor was shacking up with someone, any baptism they performed would come into doubt. That goes against Augustine's teachings and all (I believe) of the thoughts of the first Reformers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia also implies that they borrowed from the Cathars, which would have put them clearly within the realm of &quot;heretic.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=szgQAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA468&amp;amp;lpg=PA468&amp;amp;dq=Reinerius%20Saccho&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=JJEtOrbqpd&amp;amp;sig=Moyv_86Dd5XgWkJ-agMnJSSMObE&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=strxT5CgDImn6wHN7PDYBg&amp;amp;ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Reinerius%20Saccho&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this book&lt;/a&gt;, one curious point is their outright rejection of asceticism. This, of course, goes directly against Christ's statement that certain demons could only be removed by &quot;prayer and fasting&quot; and Paul's allusion in 1 Cor. 9:27 (he speaks of &quot;beating his body.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some things listed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/reinerius.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; which are concerning (though it is hard to tell which is Cathar/Albigenses and what is Waldenses. Of course, they are interbred). Most importantly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Their second error is that all vices and sins are in the church, and that they alone live righteously. (they're sinless?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That we are not to obey Prelates; but only God. (Prelates are to be followed according to Peter)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That the clergy ought not to have possessions (Ask your pastor if he agrees that this one &lt;em&gt;isn't&lt;/em&gt; heresy)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This paragraph just deserves a church-lady, &quot;Well, isn't that special&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Also, they condemn the sacrament of Marriage, saying that married persons sin mortally if they come together without the hope of offspring &lt;strong&gt;[this is different from RCC which teaches that there can be no &lt;em&gt;artificial impediment&lt;/em&gt; to having children]&lt;/strong&gt;-also, they disregard compaternity-also, they despise the degrees of affinity, carnal and spiritual, and the impediments of Orders, and of public decency, and of ecclesiastical prohibitions-also, they say that a woman after child-bearing does not require benediction, or introduction-also, they say that the church has erred in prohibiting the marriage of the Clergy, while even those of the East mary - also, they say that the continent do not sin in kisses and embraces. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bit of a side note: it seems that the first and foremost reason they were condemned was that they did not submit to the local authorities. They were instructed to visit with the bishop (who, at that time, was a lord) and they refused. When this obstinacy continued they were de facto criminals endorsing criminality (if you are summoned to court, you &lt;em&gt;go to court&lt;/em&gt;. God does not give us free passes to get out of traffic tickets). Once they were condemned for this behavior by the local synod of bishops (a synod represents a small geographic area), their doctrines started to diverge from Catholic (and I would argue eventually even what could be passed as Christian) thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-07-02T17:54:48.633" LastActivityDate="2012-07-02T17:54:48.633" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8307" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8310" CreationDate="2012-07-02T19:51:12.103" Score="12" ViewCount="2582" Body="&lt;p&gt;Back in the late 300s, the big heresy was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism&quot;&gt;Donatism&lt;/a&gt;.  The basic idea was that if a Priest cracked under the pressure of persecution that it somehow &quot;proved&quot; he was never really worthy of administering the sacraments in the first place, and therefore any baptism, eucharist, or other thing he administered was somehow invalid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine, however, issued a powerful defense of the idea that a sacrament doesn't depend on the one administering it, but rather the one receiving it.  In reading a recent question about the Waldensians, however, I was surprised to see that they really were much-later Donatists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then, is this - Are there any modern / extant churches that subscribe to this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2014-01-15T23:19:10.547" Title="Are there any modern churches that subscribe to the Donatist heresy?" Tags="&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8219" CreationDate="2012-07-03T02:58:06.263" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, apparently (or at least according to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/07/on-alec-baldwins-wedding-and-his-daughters-illegitimate-status/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;deacon who is citing a canon lawyer&lt;/a&gt;), Canon law would say that my parent's marriage was putative and, as such, I can be considered a legitimate son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T02:58:06.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8291" CreationDate="2012-07-03T04:19:09.560" Score="11" Body="&lt;h2&gt;All of Humanity is (Individually) Made in God's Image&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis does not seem to leave the matter open to much interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/genesis/passage.aspx?q=genesis+1:26-27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:26-27&lt;/strong&gt; NASB&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; Then God said, &quot;Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.&quot; God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Adam and Eve were made in his image, and by simple inference, it would seem to extend to all humanity. He later told them to be fruitful and multiply, then repeats the part about dominion, as if to say that their progeny would be like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could perhaps argue that since the fall, man may be fundamentally different in the matter of being made in God's image. I do not think a straightforward reading of the text provides any real grounds for such a conclusion, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/genesis/9-6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 9:6&lt;/strong&gt; NASB&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; &quot;Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This command to Noah after (sin, death, and) the flood I read to be an affirmation of an enduring unity between &quot;humanity&quot; and the &quot;image of God&quot; that not even the presence of sin can take away. It is as if the image of God is some sort of indelible mark on each human that cannot be marred or lost and whose value is not something we earn or lose. It is who we are. It is perhaps the thing about us that God finds valuable enough to redeem at awful cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question didn't really include anything about the &lt;em&gt;meaning&lt;/em&gt; of imaging God, so I won't attempt any discussion on that here, though it might be interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Image of Other Things&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second piece of the question mentioned being &quot;born into the image of God or the Devil.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One definition of the word for &quot;son&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/huios.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;υιος&lt;/a&gt;; 5207) is &quot;used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower,&quot; and this is frequently used when biological sonship/fatherhood is not thought to be possible, &quot;sons of the prophets,&quot; &quot;son of hell,&quot; &quot;son of the devil,&quot; &quot;You are of your father the devil,&quot; etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowhere is there any link made between being a &quot;son of&quot; someone and being born/made &quot;in [his] image.&quot; We are all (still) made in God's image, even if we are &quot;sons of the devil,&quot; because imaging God is a defining human characteristic and being a son of the devil is a description of our behavior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I forgot about Genesis 5:3, although I would consider that tangential to the point. The question has to do with being a &quot;son of God&quot; or &quot;son of the Devil,&quot; and imaging that &quot;father.&quot; When these phrases are used in the New Testament, they are referring to behavior. I would consider it dangerous to draw too strong a conclusion from Genesis 5:3 and Genesis 6:2. Seth resembles Adam, though not only in the ways that Adam (or any human) resembles God. The language of Genesis 6 is too &quot;wonderful for me&quot; to speak with certainty as to its precise meaning, but I don't think it's attempting to elucidate the concept of &quot;imaging&quot; in any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastEditorUserId="1757" LastEditDate="2014-01-11T04:34:03.200" LastActivityDate="2014-01-11T04:34:03.200" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8307" CreationDate="2012-07-03T04:40:15.113" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on how strictly you define Donatism (sacraments and their efficacy aren't a &quot;given&quot; for most modern movements), it could be argued that many historical movements have been (and are) Donatist when they create a class of Christians who are superior to others and denounce others as non-believers because they are not as devoted. Some have argued that the Anabaptist movement was Donatist, and others have argued that various hyper-conservative movements within denominations or within other movements are Donatist. This can be as subtle as making a distinction between &quot;Spirit-filled&quot; and &quot;nominal&quot; believers, or by other class distinctions whereby one group is repudiated as being inferior because they are less dedicated or do not share the same experiences as the &quot;superior&quot; group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm glad that the apostles didn't adopt that approach, because we'd only be able to read the gospel of John if that were the case ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T04:40:15.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8311" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8331" CreationDate="2012-07-03T05:08:52.593" Score="3" ViewCount="1447" Body="&lt;p&gt;By damaged emotions or physiological problems I am not referring to unusual things like the fear of the outdoors. I am referring to more common problems that many of us have, including: excessive irritability, perfectionism, defensiveness, fear, guilt, worry, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase 'damaged emotions' is obviously not part of the vocabulary of Biblical times. Therefore, my question is &lt;strong&gt;'What Bible references can be used to support the claim that healing for emotions can be obtained through God's word and what would that 'healing' therefore mean?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T04:35:46.643" LastActivityDate="2015-08-02T04:35:46.643" Title="From what biblical basis can it be argued 'God heals damaged emotions or physiological problems through the Bible'?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;healing&gt;&lt;emotions&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8312" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8318" CreationDate="2012-07-03T05:13:21.153" Score="5" ViewCount="6050" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any Christian at some point will be labeled an extremist. Also every Christian at some point will call other Christians extremists.&#xA;Even in any given local church, some will label each other this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is from what Biblical basis can we say 'balance is good', and therefore what kind of extremes should a person avoid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, most Christians would agree that never reading God’s word but just being blown around by the Spirit would be an extreme position. In the same vein, always reading God’s word but denying the importance of the Spirit for understanding the Word would be the opposite extreme. Is this Biblical for me to paint extremes as bad things this way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the scriptural basis for balance and what might be some commonly held views that are considered 'extreme' by most Christians, regardless of denomination?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2015-07-28T17:25:57.193" LastActivityDate="2015-07-29T11:07:58.007" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the concept of 'balance' between 'two extremes'?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:20:10.943" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8311" CreationDate="2012-07-03T09:37:16.287" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here are a few verses that might shed some light on the question&lt;/strong&gt; (sorry, being a new user, I can only give you links for context for the first two due to SPAM protection on stackexchange):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://proselyte.me/scripture/christianity/psalms@27#1&quot;&gt;The book of Psalms, Chapter 27, Verse 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://proselyte.me/scripture/christianity/psalms@56#3&quot;&gt;The book of Psalms, Chapter 56, Verses 3-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee.  In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The book of Isaiah, Chapter 41, Verse 10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The book of Isaiah, Chapter 41, Verse 13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The book of Psalms, Chapter 34, Verse 17-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.&#xA;The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.&#xA;Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The book of Psalms, Chapter 94, Verse 18-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O LORD, held me up.&#xA;In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The book of Proverbs, Chapter 18, Verse 1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The book of Isaiah, Chapter 40, Verse 31&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 15, Verse 4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 15, Verse 13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The way in which positive emotions seem to be created and negative ones eliminated seems to be mainly through the belief that one is doing God's will, and that it is the way to salvation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1822" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T09:37:16.287" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8312" CreationDate="2012-07-03T12:12:17.030" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; indeed support the idea of balancing between two extremes, even if only indirectly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:13-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:13-14 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;“Enter through the narrow gate.   For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly enough, when I recalled this verse before looking it up, I had this mental feeling that to go to either the left or the right side of the road would be on the path to destruction (likely influenced by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCvvC2O3soU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this scene&lt;/a&gt; in Facing the Giants). However, as I realized when I read it, Jesus is actually talking about two separate roads. So, I had to get the don't-turn-to-the-left-or-right part from somewhere else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+1:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joshua 1:7 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;“Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey   all the law   my servant Moses   gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left,   that you may be successful wherever you go.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+4:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 4:27 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Do not turn to the right or the left;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;keep your foot from evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both of these verses (and at least five others), there is this idea that going straight is the only good way. Hence, this can be combined with Matthew 7:13-14 to say that narrow and straight is the road that leads to life, so to turn away from it is to invite destruction. There is also the fact that turning off a road usually wasn't (and isn't, especially at high speed) a great idea, given all the bandits, wild animals, and other dangers were off the road.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there you have it. Stay on the road and don't turn to the right or left. Balance between two extremes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: I didn't answer your secondary question. That could easily be its own question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T12:12:17.030" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8312" CreationDate="2012-07-03T15:13:56.503" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes 7 is even more direct:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:&#xA;  the righteous perishing in their righteousness,&#xA;      and the wicked living long in their wickedness. &#xA;  16 Do not be overrighteous,&#xA;      neither be overwise—&#xA;      why destroy yourself?&#xA;  17 Do not be overwicked,&#xA;      and do not be a fool—&#xA;      why die before your time? &#xA;  18 It is good to grasp the one&#xA;      and not let go of the other.&#xA;      Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_%28philosophy%29&quot;&gt;Golden Mean&lt;/a&gt; is primarily Aristotelean in origin. That alone does not exclude it from Christianity, becuase much of Aristoltelean thought was incorporated into the Church's doctrine in the first few centuries of the early church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galileo, for example, was really having quibbles with Aristotlean cosmology, moreso than anything in Scripture itself.  The notions of perfect spheres and earth-centricity are not found in Scripture, but had been accepted as dogma by the Church, and as such were defended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T15:13:56.503" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7924" CreationDate="2012-07-03T18:11:25.853" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are etchings theologically speaking of Heaven being across the sea - specifically the Crystal Sea. For example, Revelation 4:6 and 15:2 speak of the saints standing on the sea that is as smooth as crystal (e.g., Crystal Sea). Based on the context, the two different groups of saints are standing before the Almighty's glorious throne on the Crystal Sea.  This occurs in the Outer Court of Heaven (note Ezek 10:5), prior to them being glorified and entering Heaven's wondrous Inner Court that contains the New Jerusalem. Much more could be said about our passage across the sea. Please check out Our First 22 Days in Heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1825" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T18:11:25.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8321" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8341" CreationDate="2012-07-03T18:29:52.617" Score="4" ViewCount="14211" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Morality changes over time&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Morality is not a constant; what a group of people finds to be morally acceptable or morally unacceptable evolves over time, generally because of an increased understanding or awareness, and generally this occurs (we like to think) in a more progressive, positive direction. &lt;em&gt;Note: it is irrelevant whether our moral views have or have not progressed in positive direction; all that matters is that it has &lt;strong&gt;changed&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, 100 years ago (and still to some extent today), many white people (Christians included) believed that blacks were an &amp;quot;inferior race&amp;quot;. Before that, slavery was considered acceptable in many parts of the world. Before that, the mistreatment and subjugation of women was acceptable. Today, there are still people who think it's wrong to be homosexual, and I'm sure as with the others those views will fall more a more out of favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Bible doesn't change&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as you know, the Bible is static; it's words don't change and it is never updated. The lessons it gives are supposed to be independent of the time or age you are born in. But it is quite clear from reading the Bible that some of passages espouse a morality that is no longer accepted today. How is this reconciled with today's views?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For example&lt;/strong&gt;, imagine a father reading portions of the Bible to his son back in 1610. He comes to &lt;em&gt;Leviticus 27:3-7&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty&#xA;shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a&#xA;female, set her value at thirty shekels; 5 for a person between the&#xA;ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels&#xA;and of a female at ten shekels; 6 for a person between one month&#xA;and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver&#xA;and that of a female at three shekels of silver; 7 for a person&#xA;sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels&#xA;and of a female at ten shekels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This father would have just told his son that women are worth less than men. Back in 1610, that might have been an acceptable moral view, so he thinks nothing of it. But zoom forward to 2012: a father reads the same passage to his son. Surely he must say something about that passage, lest he wants his so to think women inferior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should you choose to personally re-interpret this passage as being morally acceptable, that's fine, but there are numerous other passages in the Bible which suitably demonstrate my point just as well. For example, it's generally understood in the modern world that &lt;strong&gt;beating our children with a rod&lt;/strong&gt; (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, 23:13-14) is a little... &amp;quot;Old Testament&amp;quot;, to say the least. Even if you still think beating your children is okay, I doubt you think it's okay to &lt;strong&gt;kill them if they talk back&lt;/strong&gt; (Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, Matthew 15:4-7, Exodus 21:17). I doubt most of you still &lt;strong&gt;support slavery&lt;/strong&gt;, which is supported in both the Old and the New Testaments (Matthew 10:24/24:45-46, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-4), or find it okay to give your daughter as a slave (&amp;quot;maidservant&amp;quot; in some of the prettier editions). &lt;strong&gt;Let's be real here, there are passages in the Bible which contain morally questionable messages; this isn't a bold claim.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Since most Christians seem to be normal, decent people, what's going on here?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I honestly just don't know because my own parents—while religious—never even tried to explain the Bible to me. In fact, my parents for the most part completely &lt;em&gt;dismissed&lt;/em&gt; the Bible, and engaged in Christianity in a more organic, &amp;quot;everyday positive lessons&amp;quot; manner. But for those who actually take the time to sit down and read the Bible, whether in Church or at home, what do you do when you come across passages such as these? Do you simply pass them off as historical relics of a long-expired moral past, or do you try to justify it as some sort of metaphor that accords with our beliefs today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="676" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-11-26T07:55:50.837" Title="How is modern day Christian morality reconciled with the morality of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-11-27T15:50:27.297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8311" CreationDate="2012-07-03T21:07:48.263" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the perspective to your question from one of the biggest Christian radio stations in the world - KLOVE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Scott and Kelli both have a deep desire to reach out to the lost and&#xA;  be used by God for His glory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every day, God uses K-LOVE to make a difference in millions of lives.&#xA;  By providing positive music and inspirational stories, K-LOVE helps&#xA;  people draw closer to God. Unlike other radio stations, K-LOVE has a&#xA;  full time ministry team that processes over 100 phone calls a day of&#xA;  listeners in need of guidance. The pastors and staff at K-LOVE pray&#xA;  for over 1,000 prayer requests every day, and on average, &lt;strong&gt;intervene&#xA;  in one suicide case per day&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.klove.com/djs/bios/scott-and-kelli.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.klove.com/djs/bios/scott-and-kelli.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The songs they play are all about healing damaged emotions, damaged life situations.&#xA;(As I am listening right now they are advertising their program about teenagers with addictions and how Jesus can change their heart.)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.klove.com/listen/player.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.klove.com/listen/player.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical basis can be shown in the work of Norman Vincent Peal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thought Conditioners&lt;br&gt;&#xA;By Norman Vincent Peale&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forty powerful spiritual phrases that can change the quality of your life&#xA;Since happiness and effectiveness depend upon the kinds of thoughts we think, it is absolutely impossible to be happy if we think unhappiness-producing thoughts. One of the wisest men who ever lived was Marcus Aurelius, who said, &quot;A man's life is what his thoughts make of it.&quot;&#xA;If you put into your mind thoughts of fear, you will get thoughts of fear out of your mind. Fill your mind with resentment thoughts, and resentment attitudes will emerge. And in neither case, of course, can you find happiness-inducing thoughts. Whatever the condition of your mind, the Thought Conditioners I am going to suggest are so powerful that they will displace unhealthy thoughts. Indeed, displacement is the only way you can drive a thought from the mind.&#xA;In my experience through many years in working with people, I have discovered that the most vital, creative and positive thoughts are those stated in the Bible. Its words are alive. The Bible itself states what its spiritual words will do. “If ye abide in Me and My words abide in you ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.”&#xA;This means, simply, that if you fill your mind with spiritual words so that they sink from your conscious to your subconscious mind by a process of spiritual osmosis, you will so condition your personality with spiritual power and sensitivity that God's will can operate in you. Every great value of this life, the ones that really matter, shall then be yours. The words of the Bible are powerful Thought Conditioners. They are capable of revolutionizing the entire personality.&#xA;Over the years, I had noticed that certain passages from the Scriptures had a particularly potent effect on human beings. I began, therefore, to list the life-creating words from the Scriptures that had done me the most good. Many of these I had recommended to others. Some of them had been called to my attention by people in whom there had occurred the most astonishing demonstration of new life and joy. When I applied them to myself, I found they did indeed possess tremendous effectiveness.&#xA;The process I have used both personally and in counseling, which has accomplished most impressive results, is simply that of committing these great passages to memory. One puts them in the mind as in a sort of spiritual medicine cabinet, each to be drawn out as needed for specific ills or maladies of the personality, or to meet life’s situations as they develop.&#xA;As suggested above, the method is also to conceive of these thoughts as having displacement value, crowding out injurious thought patterns.&#xA;The best results are gained by utilizing spare minutes to say these Scripture passages, or Thought Conditioners, over and over. As you are riding on a bus or train, or washing the dishes, or waiting for an appointment, utilize fractional moments to dwell and meditate upon the meaning of these texts. As you do so, there will flash out from them new insights, new perceptions of truth. Gradually, by a deep therapy, they will drive into the mind until presently your life will become a living demonstration of God’s power.&#xA;The booklet contains 40 creative and vital passages. Why 40? Perhaps because in His own deepest spiritual experience, Jesus spent 40 days in the desert withstanding temptation. There is no magic to the number 40, but it so happened that when I finished my list it totaled 40.&#xA;There are many more vital passages. In fact, you can read and re-read the Bible for a lifetime and never exhaust its wisdom.&#xA;This is my 40, and when you complete these and feel that they are in your permanent possession, explore the Scriptures further and find the many others that will have the same health-giving effect in your life.&#xA;Now, the method for using this booklet:&#xA;1. I suggest that you read it through quickly at one reading to get the over-all impact of 40 of the greatest gems of thought ever spoken.&#xA;2. Start at the beginning and memorize one verse a day. Meditate upon the brief message given with each. Then practice the simple techniques suggested.&#xA;3. It may be that one or two or more of these will have a particularly strong effect upon you. In that case, I suggest that you remove it from the book, put it in your pocket, under the glass of your desk, or on your dressing table so that you can see it every day and thus it can become your dominating thought.&#xA;These are not arranged according to problems or categories. Neither are they selected on any basis of relative importance. I have listed them just as they have come out of my own mind, one after the other. Perhaps God sorted them for this particular purpose. I give them to you with the prayer that these brief spiritual Thought Conditioners may add to the happiness and usefulness of your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The things, which are impossible with men are possible with God. —Luke&#xA;  18:27&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  This text shows how to do an “impossible” thing. Size up your&#xA;  problem, pray about it, do all you can about it. If it seems&#xA;  impossible, don’t give up, but affirm, “The things which are&#xA;  impossible with men are possible with God.” Keep relaxed. Don’t worry.&#xA;  Avoid getting panicky. Never think, “This can’t be done.” Declare, “It&#xA;  can be done, it is being done because God is doing it through me.”&#xA;  Affirm that the process is in operation. The final outcome may not be&#xA;  entirely what you now desire. But, handled in this manner, the&#xA;  solution will be what God wants it to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;you can read the rest of the 40 here:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.drcolvard.com/thtcond.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.drcolvard.com/thtcond.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T21:07:48.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8324" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8352" CreationDate="2012-07-03T21:09:59.727" Score="3" ViewCount="669" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I've been thinking about apologetics recently, and I've come to a rather nasty knot which I've not been able to unwind. It is relatively easy to get from the idea, &quot;there must have been a first thing&quot; to God if we assume causality, but what if someone is not willing to stipulate causality? How do we argue for God when we cannot even agree on causality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-07-05T16:18:06.963" LastActivityDate="2012-07-07T02:42:21.387" Title="How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8321" CreationDate="2012-07-03T21:30:22.767" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Biblical Christianity has not changed in its definition of morality and will never change, since it is based on the Bible, which, as you pointed out, does not change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is an  important distinction between Gentile believers and the Old Testament Jewish Law.  The Law was a specific covenant with a specific people for a specific time, but it was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:16-17,%20Hebrews%2010:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;a shadow of things to come&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the New Testament did not usher in a differing morality, the ceremonial law was no longer in effect, and it was never applicable to Gentiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Biblical Christianity, adultery, theft, lying, deceit, slander, gossip, malice, lust, profanity, pride and homosexuality have always been immoral and will always be immoral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage regarding women, as X-Zero pointed out, has to do with the value that each gender could contribute in an agrarian society.  Having grown up on a farm myself and being 6'4&quot; 250+ lbs., I have no problem stating today that men still are much more suited to hard physical labor and are, consequently, more productive.  In fact, my perspective is that I as a man should perform very laborious tasks (and very dirty task as well), so that women don't have to.  Equality does not mean equivalence.  Man != Woman.  So, this is not an antiquated passage.  The principle still holds today.  If you could hire me or a typical 5'6&quot; 1xx lb. woman to work in your fields, you would likely offer me more money, since my capacity and production in your fields would be much greater.  Yet, if you could hire me or a woman for a job that is not labor-intensive, then you might offer the woman more if she is more qualified, more experienced, or just does a better job.   So, this example is really a moot point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-04T18:23:21.250" LastActivityDate="2012-07-04T18:23:21.250" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8324" CreationDate="2012-07-03T21:53:08.290" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a logical impossibility.  If time had no beginning and no Beginner, then there is an infinite amount of time before now.  If there is an infinite amount of time before now, we would never get to today, since you cannot traverse an infinite amount of anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it's logically absurd to suggest that time had no beginning.  It did have a beginning and therefore has a cause (that is outside of time--and space and matter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone is embracing logical absurdities, then rational discussion is probably not possible.  You may as well suggest there both was and was not a first thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T21:53:08.290" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8327" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8328" CreationDate="2012-07-03T22:46:44.347" Score="6" ViewCount="28682" Body="&lt;p&gt;At my church (Calvary Chapel) we have guest speakers from time to time. Many of them mention the same phrase &quot;living in darkness&quot;, refering to the time before they were saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there Biblical (or more specifically New Testament) references to this concept and a description of what it entails or is it just a relative and subjective phrase coined by man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-07-04T12:11:38.160" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T04:08:29.983" Title="What is meant by the expression &quot;living in darkness&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8327" CreationDate="2012-07-03T23:59:47.317" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Variants of the phrase appear several times in 1 John&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:5-6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 1:5-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5 &lt;/sup&gt;  This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that  God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. &lt;sup&gt;6 &lt;/sup&gt;  If we say we have fellowship with him while we &lt;strong&gt;walk in darkness&lt;/strong&gt;, we lie and  do not practice the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:9-11&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 2:9-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9 &lt;/sup&gt; Whoever says he is in the light and  hates his brother &lt;strong&gt;is still in darkness&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;10 &lt;/sup&gt; Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no  cause for stumbling. &lt;sup&gt;11 &lt;/sup&gt; But whoever hates his brother &lt;strong&gt;is in the darkness&lt;/strong&gt; and  &lt;strong&gt;walks in the darkness&lt;/strong&gt;, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Darkness is contrasted with the picture of God as light, and describes living in sin without knowing or seeing God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-03T23:59:47.317" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8312" CreationDate="2012-07-04T01:09:09.817" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self- control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of these words tend to draw images of somebody flipping out along an extreme. Love may be the most balanced emotion, in that it alone can direct all other emotions without causing internal conflicts. The word self-control also speaks directly to the subject, for it implies that as humans we are tempted towards excessive behavior, that even moralists like someone else pointed out, the Greeks, condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, where self-control is not followed, as in the case of excessive drinking, the Bible contrasts this extreme, as opposite to being filled with the Spirit on account of it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly the word debauchery (ἀσωτία) means 'excess', or 'riot'.  Is being excessive not being extreme? This is really what many mean when they say, 'Well that's pretty extreme' often followed by laughter. It means someone hast lost their balance, or 'cool' and is acting to 'excess'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excess often takes the form of excessive emotion that do not seem to match what the circumstances call for. From this standpoint extremism is simply long term emotionalism indicating damaged emotions. Sometimes a perfectionist acting like a theological cop on the beat, is just a sincere person who had a father that did not accept him, so there all stressed out poking themselves into other people business when not invited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For extremism related to damaged emotions refer to this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8311/from-what-biblical-basis-can-it-be-argued-god-heals-damaged-emotions-or-physiol/8331#8331&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt; as God is in the business of healing us regularly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kinds of extremes have I encountered (or have been terribly guilty of)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too much into God's word, neglecting the fruit of the Spirit that makes a person relaxed and loving&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too much into the Spirit wondering if it 'God's will' to buy this chocolate bar versus that one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too much into church, neglecting family and friends&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too much  friends and family time, with no time to meet new people at Church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too much insistence on traditions of a single church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too little respect for anybodies traditions, or the beliefs of previous generations&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too many opportunities for sharing the gospel where its actually just rude pushiness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too little concern and sharing with others about God's love in the gospel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too much involvement in politics so that the gospel message takes a back seat while abortion, poverty, etc. grab all the attention.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too little concern  for our community or church, resigning everybody to hell as we whistle and skip along our merry way&#xA;-Too lazy to get a job or work hard in the crummy one that we have&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too ambitious and greedy in our career to stop to think what matters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not believing in the supernatural at all&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thinking their is a demon lurking around every corner&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Giving all you have to the poor but not calling them to repentance and faith in Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Giving all to yourself and wondering why you don't receive the proper respect for your knowledge and wisdom?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judging yourself by standards nobody has ever lived up to&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Congratulating yourself for getting out of bed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway the list could go on forever but love avoids all extremes and balances justice and mercy. It made Jesus tough and tender, serious but relaxed, among many other perfect excellencies of virtue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fruit of the Spirit leads to a balanced mind and heart, so 'yes' although the word 'extreme' may not have been common in Biblical days, the Bible inherently avoids all extremes. Extremes are to be avoided unless they are extremely good, like total abandonment to faith, love and hope in Christ. Such a person is extremely balanced all the way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-07-04T03:46:41.687" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1977" CreationDate="2012-07-04T01:21:20.963" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many answers here claiming that welfare is contrary to Christianity. Here's another way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes, to be totally opposed to welfare is wrong and contrary to Christian teaching.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that will come as a surprise to the American Christians here (much less to Christians in any other part of the world) but a close reading of the Gospels would really make it clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clearest thing is that Jesus quite clearly commanded us to be generous to the poor, and to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. The parable of the sheep and the goats is all we need to be sure of this, but there are plenty of other places we are commanded to generosity in the New Testament alone. The duties in the Old Testament to look after those unable to look after themselves are equally clear. I hope that no Christian reading this is any doubt about the matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's move on to some reasons people are giving for not supporting welfare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people are claim that there are welfare programs that are extravagant. or corrupt, or misused or taken advantage of. Some welfare programs are indeed like that, but that's not an argument for abolishing welfare. If something isn't working the way it should then you reform it, you don't get rid of it. If the police wasn't doing its job you wouldn't conclude that we don't need a police force - you'd work to get a better, more effective police force. Note that I'm not saying you have to support &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; welfare as a Christian - you can certainly oppose corrupt, extravagant or ineffective welfare.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some claim that it's wrong to compel people to contribute to welfare. Welfare should be voluntary, they say, and its especially wrong to force non-Christians to contribute to it. I'm wondering why we don't apply this to the other commands of God - should we to allow people to opt out of of &quot;Thou shalt not murder&quot; if they don't believe in it? Or &quot;thou shalt not steal?&quot; You might notice that in practice most non-Christians are in fact quite happy with the idea of contributing to welfare. Are you going to take that opportunity away from them?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some claim that it's not the government's job to be doing this, it should be up to Christians. That's a nice sounding argument, but Christians had the opportunity to do this in the 19th century and the Great Depression, and millions of people died and lived destitute. Is that what we want to happen now? It may be &quot;the role of religion&quot; to be doing this, but religion didn't do a good job the last time it was left to it. The government is the servant of the people, and if the people want to do the right thing - the Christian thing - and support the poor, is it really the place of Christians to oppose that?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some claim that making a thing mandatory removes the ability for people to make a moral choice to do the right thing. That's true, but remember that at the same time as you would be getting your brownie points by doing the right, voluntary, thing, people would be starving without welfare. Is that the calculation you want to make? Your moral righteousness is more important than someone else being fed? If so then you may have lost the plot somewhere. You may also want to consider that you can &quot;do the right thing&quot; by voting to approve welfare. That's as much a moral choice as giving.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some claim that there is no mandate to create government programs for welfare. That may be, but Christians do a lot of things that don't have a direct biblical mandate - vote, drive a car, use the internet. It is pretty clear that Jesus wants us to use whatever power we have to help the poor. One of the powers we have is to vote, and if by voting we can help people we should do it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final note - I haven't used the word 'hypocrite' anywhere in here. it's much to strong a word. There are many reasons why people do things we think are contrary to God's will, and I do as many as most. I wouldn't give the label 'hypocrite' just for that. And I' certainly not saying that Christians must support ALL welfare programs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-07-04T02:42:08.850" LastActivityDate="2012-07-04T02:42:08.850" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8311" CreationDate="2012-07-04T03:12:42.217" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does directly speak of healing our minds and hearts which is just another way of saying in the vernacular --&amp;gt; 'damaged emotions'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in predicting the Messiah, the prophet Malachi describes his work as 'healing':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 “For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. (ESV Malachi 4:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This speaks well to damaged emotions as one who is suffering them feels like a animal locked into a stall. The free emotions which children play with are long over by the time sin and abusive relationships  have damaged them.  In contrast to this, 'salvation' makes us leap out of the stall, like an animal that is free to frolic in the fields with nothing but the wind in its face to restrain him. This freeing of the soul under the healing of Christ's rays speaks to the question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other things the bible has to say in this regards but I will only mention a couple and then explain how God regularly heals my own damaged emotions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (NIV Matthew 11:28-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the subject of 'guilt' refer to this very lengthy &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8231/why-does-the-bible-say-that-people-no-longer-need-to-feel-guilty-under-the-gos/8232#8232&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt; intended to fully drive it away from the free  leaping deer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way that God heals my damaged emotions is primarily through worship. When I enter into worship I come expecting to encounter God by His Spirit who is there whenever two or three people meet in His name. (Matthew 18:20).  Usually during this time God sprinkles the blood of Christ on my guilty conscience and I sense how holy I am in His sight, on account of Christ's righteousness being imputed against me while I was yet a sinner and his enemy. With a cleansed conscience, free from Satan's accusations, I leap in love for God as I am reminded of His love for me.  Second, all the hurts and sins that I have given and received over the past week, becomes apparent and I realize I have collected a burden that He would like to lift. I am not proud, so I usually give it up and admit I am such a foolish sinner. I am usually brought to a tear , or two, but resist as much as possible because I am naturally a stoic. I leave worship rejoicing, relaxed and ready for another battled with the Devil all week long. This is really practical Christian living, I know know other kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think what I described is a real life application of how to 'put on' an important piece of 'spiritual armor' which directly protects your heart, that is your affections:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place (NIV  Ephesians 6:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means know the truth of the gospel which tightens all your armor into place and prevents you from running off with a flying tunic that trips you! Also with faith in Christ's free righteousness charged to your account(not your own although this faith does also create that) in order to protect your emotions from the Devil. For we must not be unaware of him who hates us and is called 'the accuser of the brethren' (Rev 12:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather instead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.(1 John 3:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I challenge you. Next time you enter worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. (1 Peter 5:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And see if this is not true in your close relationship with Him during worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. (Ephesians 3:20-21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-04T03:45:00.940" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8327" CreationDate="2012-07-04T08:38:01.607" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Language is loose and everyone develops a certain lingo to describe theological concepts. The speakers you heard may have had a particular idea in mind when they said that phrase. E.g. They might have been thinking of particular sins in their lives. Even when you read &quot;darkness&quot; in the Bible, each occurrence of the word may be used differently and have a nuanced meaning. So it is good practice to look at the way the word is used in its own context within the Bible to determine what it actually means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, it's safe to say that &quot;living in darkness&quot; general means &quot;living in sin&quot;. And while &quot;sin&quot; can be described in terms of actions, like murder or fornication, it ultimately means &lt;em&gt;rebellion against or rejection of God&lt;/em&gt;. Christians are those people who no longer walk in darkness because they live with God as their king. Non-Christian people, even if they &quot;live a good life&quot;, continue to reject God and therefore remain in darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19  And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20  For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God. (John 3:17-21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here's the paradox of the Christian life (which was expressed in those 1 John verses): Christians no longer walk in sin ... but we kinda do. What I mean is, Christians are those who acknowledge that God is king and therefore turn away from their life of rejecting God. But in practice, we see that Christians do still sin everyday. That's why we need Jesus as our saviour, because we never will be able to do it ourselves. Through Jesus we become perfectly righteous in our standing with God, as though we have a place in God's kingdom as his children already. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of this (no pun intended), when the New Testament commands Christians to keep turning away from their sins, it tells them to live out the reality of their heavenly status. It does not say to keep trying because you've slipped back over the fence to the darkness. Rather, it says don't go back because you don't belong there anymore. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, &lt;em&gt;but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light&lt;/em&gt; 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. (Eph 5:7-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="682" LastActivityDate="2012-07-04T08:38:01.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8333" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8335" CreationDate="2012-07-04T11:29:02.717" Score="8" ViewCount="10717" Body="&lt;p&gt;Until recently I was under the impression that Catholics are unanimous in their beliefs and don't have the kind of fragmentation that Protestants have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I’ve learned that there are several small groups/institutions within the main church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are traditionalist catholics that reject reforms of Vatican council. &#xA;There are breakaway churches that maintain same doctrines but do not submit to authority of Rome. Then there are terms like Conclavist Catholics and Sedevacantists (I have no idea what it means I'm not knowledgeable on the subject).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is - In the 2000 years of history what significant factions have existed within the Catholic church? How have they been different from each other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-07-04T17:15:46.230" LastActivityDate="2014-08-13T22:24:52.520" Title="How many kinds of Catholics are there?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8327" CreationDate="2012-07-04T15:13:02.267" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Despite your question asking about darkness, I will probably speak more about light. Because darkness and light interact (or I suppose &lt;em&gt;do not&lt;/em&gt; interact).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Darkness, as the other answers have already stated is the lack of &quot;light.&quot; And this is light, as described by Psalm 119:105. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in a sense, darkness is like being lost. That type of lost that describes not being physically lost, but lacking a direction and a purpose in life. Or maybe there is a direction, but it's the wrong direction. And God's word, is a light that guides us back to the correct path and directs us out of the darkness and towards God. This is still quite surface level. Let's go a little deeper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned by the other answers, the word &quot;darkness&quot; is often used in the bible to describe a life of sin, a life that rejects God. If you think of the word darkness, and think about real life physical darkness, it is often very hard to see in the darkness. And in the darkness, you can hide a lot of things that you do not want people to see. (In the case that we're talking about, these 'things' are our sins.) stevenl mentioned Ephesians 5:7-11. Particularly, I want to look at Ephesians 5:11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's light purges the darkness and reveals sin. However, I'd like to add that this is not done in a condemning way, but rather in a way that will lead people to God and that will glorify Him rather than in a way that turns people away from God, as stated also in a verse that stevenl mentioned, John 3:17.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not share God's light with the world to condemn, but rather to save.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in conclusion, (there's kind of a bunch of off-topic stuff as well, but it's necessary) living in darkness is essentially to us, being lost. The people who are lost do not think that they are lost. They believe that the direction that they are chasing will lead to happiness and joy. The direction that they chase often leads into sin and disappointment, sometimes causing them to become more lost. We however, know that the true direction is to chase after God. That path should lead us away from sin (&lt;em&gt;though we sometimes stray&lt;/em&gt;). When we interact with those who are &quot;in darkness&quot; we should be revealing the sin in their lives to them, not in a condemning way (this is hard), but in a way that leads them to the same path that we're on, into repentance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this answer helped! If you need more clarification about something, please do not hesitate to comment!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1813" LastEditorUserId="1813" LastEditDate="2012-07-04T15:20:36.020" LastActivityDate="2012-07-04T15:20:36.020" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8333" CreationDate="2012-07-04T17:37:42.200" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one Church. There are hundreds of factions (after all, any organization of sufficient size will have political infighting). Then there are many people who claim to be Catholic but are really heretics in sheep's clothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sedevacantists are people who deny the validity of the current Pope as well as the Second Vatican Council. That is more-or-less like denying Nicea. You can't do it and manage to escape the title &quot;heretic.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclavists are (most often) sedevacatists who have gone so far as to say, &quot;since VAII was heresy, the bishops who supported it are heretics. Heretics are incapable of properly electing a pope. Therefore, there is no pope and the See is vacant.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do think that it is a good idea to expand a bit on your title, even though that is not your full question. There are quite a few different liturgical and spiritual groups inside the Catholic Church. Most commonly, you will find Byzantine and other Eastern groups who closely resemble the Orthodox in both practice and theological expressions, but there are other, smaller sub-organizations in the Church (such as the Ambrosian Rite (which is largely liturgical) and the Anglican Ordinariate (which is only a few years old and closely resembles the ways of the Anglican Church)). Depending how you subdivide it, you could even argue that every major order (or even every abbey) can be considered a subset with its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. For that matter, even within a diocese, you will find different parishes behave different ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now, a joke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why is it easier to convert an atheist than a conclavist?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;At least an atheist believes that there's a Pope.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-10-05T03:19:27.370" LastActivityDate="2013-10-05T03:19:27.370" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8321" CreationDate="2012-07-04T19:48:00.513" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Morality is not a constant ... evolves over time ... in a positive&#xA;  direction”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don’t think I’ll agree with this premise. &lt;strong&gt;You are basing positivity on chronology of time.&lt;/strong&gt; Change doesn’t necessarily mean improvement. Ancient Rome switched from Republic to Monarchy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, implicit within that argument is assumption that the morality you now have is a good development. How do you figure? I’m sure there are plenty from other countries that’ll disagree with your perspectives on criminal and civil code (Middle East). &lt;strong&gt;What is to say that what they’ve evolved is inferior to yours?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thirdly, metaphysically and hypothetically speaking could morality even evolve? If yes, what could be the state of morality in a billion years from now? Would rape become acceptable? Would hatred be preferable to Love? What set of values would you like to see inverted? &#xA;If you say none, then you are holding what you have now to be a constant/absolute. In other words &lt;strong&gt;everyone who lived before you had to evolve but not you&lt;/strong&gt;. This I find in contradiction to your assertion that morality must evolve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to your references to Old Testament, if you are making those assertions to show that Old Testament God is evil, I can’t help it much. As you already have an idea and are presenting collected evidence for it. My refutation of that evidence would only evoke a search for new material. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However if you are a Christian who wishes to understand it, I’ll throw in my two cents.&#xA;I think in its present form your argument is a straw man fallacy. &lt;strong&gt;Straw man is making someone say what he/she does not (or what she said, but out of context) and then attacking that&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Above you mention the fact that Bible condones slavery with all the syntax highlighting and repeat emphasis. However you omit other pieces of information that might help one make a judgement on the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Missing pieces – &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The people Israelites enslaved were the Canaanites, Moabites etc.&#xA;   These were cannibal tribes that God drove out before Israelites as a&#xA;   form of divine judgement, warning the Israelites that they would&#xA;   suffer the same fate if they adopted the practices of these nations.&#xA;   Later under Israelite rule they learned to live lawfully. (Much as&#xA;   the Indians, South Americans, Africans today don’t practice human&#xA;   sacrifices, thanks to the British System of Laws). This form of&#xA;   slavery even exists today. The criminals in prisons are often made&#xA;   to work on community projects such as road building or mining. They&#xA;   are given no freedom and are forced to work without pay, and I’m yet&#xA;   to see anyone complain about it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The term servant/slave is overloaded with different meanings and has a lot of psychological&#xA;baggage. It immediately creates a mental picture of purchasing&#xA;someone with money and doing with them whatever you want. We cannot make up a mental image of whatever it means to us, and then insist it must be the exact same thing it means to God aswell. We'll be guilty of trying to make a straw man out of Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“It okay to give your daughter as a slave”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I am sorry but ancient Israel was an agrarian society and the&#xA;       Joint Stock Company did not exist back    in those days. The term&#xA;       servant/slave in those days would have been    similar to what we&#xA;       call employee nowadays. You would buy them with    money much as a&#xA;       company would buy you with a stipend or package. And    you couldn’t&#xA;       do with them whatever you want. The principle of eye    for eye,&#xA;       tooth for tooth held for them just as it would’ve held for    a free&#xA;       or rich man. Today we have fanciful words for workers. A maid    is&#xA;       a housekeeper, door to door shoe seller is Marketing Executive,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;       and pizza boy is a Delivery Agent. But a wordplay with terms does not change the concept.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And though in the modern world the word slave has gone the concept hasn’t. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Present_day&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;There are more slaves today than at any point in history.&lt;/a&gt; &#xA;Women and children are trafficked for sexual and labour exploitation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our so called “positive evolution of law” and “increased understanding or awareness” has not helped us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It never would, so long as we believe in our own laws and not in the one who delivers from under the curse of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1759" LastEditDate="2014-11-09T03:44:00.607" LastActivityDate="2014-11-09T03:44:00.607" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8267" CreationDate="2012-07-05T04:39:52.853" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a professional archeologist.  Many end times aficionados believe that Magog represents Russia and that Russia will soon come to invade Israel.  However, the ancient Assyrians had dealings with Magog, which was also called Lydia, and their Court records clearly identify Magog and it is not Russia.  For decades Christians have been deceived and have been unwittingly deceiving others about who is to be involved in the prophesied invasion of Israel.  Russia has absolutely nothing to do with Magog and being the nation that will lead an invasion of Israel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Assyrian Royal Court dealt with each of these nations directly about 100 years before Ezekiel wrote, and their records are reliable, clear and detailed. These are the same records that are referred to in &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/ezra/4-15.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezra 4:15&lt;/a&gt; and the same records used to verify the historical events written about in scripture from circa 800 B.C. to 400 B.C. These records represent the primary source on this subject as opposed to secondary sources which are often not based on facts and very often the product of mischief, bias or lack of study. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any reference to Josephus is of no avail because historians and archeologists know from a multitude of written records, that the Greeks (such as Herodotus) did not call Magog the Scythians.  All of our earliest copies of Josephus come from eleventh century Monks and the passage that is often referred to is clearly a forgery for several reasons obvious to historians and archeologists who study the ancient Near East. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please consider taking the time to read my report Debunking the Russia/War of Gog and Magog Myth on this important subject that recently appeared in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.christianpost.com/guest-views/debunking-the-russia-war-of-gog-and-magog-myth-8754/#more&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christian Post Blogs on March 15, 2012&lt;/a&gt;. This report can also be found on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newscientificevidenceforgod.com/search?updated-max=2012-03-19T18:07:00-07:00&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my blog site for 2/9/12&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1828" LastEditorUserId="13767" LastEditDate="2015-03-22T02:33:55.420" LastActivityDate="2015-03-22T02:33:55.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8324" CreationDate="2012-07-05T05:02:11.613" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do you mean that this person rejects the idea of causality itself? i.e. that he believes that things happen with no cause? Or that he rejects the idea that there must be a First Cause?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he rejects causality, he is rejecting science as well as Christianity. You could, perhaps, propose experiments to show that the universe is predictable. Like, I hold a rock at arms length and let it go. Every time I perform this experiment it falls to the ground: it never hovers motionless in midair or flies off at an angle. Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he postulates an infinitely old universe as an alternative to a First Cause, I'd point out the Second Law of Thermodynamics: entropy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it tends to become more evenly distributed over time. After some amount of time, all the energy in the universe will become completely evenly distributed. As doing useful work requires energy differentials, at this point the universe would be dead. Physicists refer to this as &quot;heat death&quot;. We can debate how long this will take, but it is a finite amount of time, so if the universe was infinitely old, it would have reached this state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people try to get around this by postulating speculative theories, but none of these have any foundation in science: they are pure philosophical speculation. As far as the evidence goes, entropy is a well-established theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-07-05T05:02:11.613" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7472" CreationDate="2012-07-05T05:53:29.873" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;My simple answer: the Holy Spirit promised to guide the Church into all truth. The Orthodox believe that He has fulfilled His promise. Now for my lengthier response:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is somewhat of an implied dichotomy in Western thought that must be called out right off the bat: the distinction between Scripture and Tradition. In Eastern thought, there is no distinction, as the Church and its apostolic tradition existed before the New Testament was written. Scripture is part of tradition, indeed it plays the preeminent role in Tradition. Tradition is not opposed to Scripture nor does it contradict it any point, rather it explains Scripture. But I do not have time to address this fully, nor is it exactly the question at hand. Suffice it to say that in Eastern thought (and increasingly also in modern scholastic Western thought), &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/28773/1304&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; is a myth&amp;mdash;a logical fallacy&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Everyone&lt;/em&gt; appeals to tradition when interpreting scripture - we just don't agree on which tradition, and many deny that they have any such tradition (and this ignorance is even more dangerous). Hence the 23,000+ denominations in Western Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 16:12-13, Jesus said, &quot;I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.&quot; It should be noted that in both instances, the word &quot;you&quot; is plural. This promise was not made to individuals, but to the disciples, they that would become the Church and form the apostolic tradition that was to be guarded and passed on (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). Keep in mind that many churches were planted before the New Testament was written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When early heresies threatened to corrupt the gospel, early Christians turned to the apostolic tradition to defend the faith (such as when Christians appealed to apostolic succession to refute the Gnostics' claim that Jesus had secret teachings and that there were alternate gospels. Note that no official canon of scripture was adopted until the 16th century in the West, and no official canon has ever been declared in the East). When heresies threatened to divide the unity of the entire church, the church came together with bishops (&lt;em&gt;episkopoi&lt;/em&gt;) representing the Church in various geographic regions, including both East and West for the first seven &quot;ecumenical&quot; (church-wide) councils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When considering this question which was directed to the East, a broader one comes to mind: how can &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; in Christianity-whether Eastern or Western-be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? For instance, the Church preserved certain texts which were eventually accepted as the canon which we today call the bible, and they chose to repudiate other texts. Even still, not everyone was unanimous on the 66 books included in the modern Protestant bible (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;antilegomena&lt;/a&gt;), not to mention the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;deuterocanonical books&lt;/a&gt; found in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bibles. The reality is that everything we have in the Christian faith, including our bible, comes from tradition. Studying history helps make sense of it (I highly recommend Jaroslav's five-volume set on &lt;em&gt;The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine&lt;/em&gt;, and his concise book &lt;em&gt;Vindication of Tradition.&lt;/em&gt; Pelikan is a renowned ecclesiastical historian).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The East has critically evaluated the Church's many theologians, such as the Cappadocian fathers repudiating how Origen and Irenaeus integrated Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought into their theology. Also note that with the exception of Martin Luther and some recent scholars, most Western Christians have never considered how Aristotelian thought and scholasticism has impacted Protestant theology. Western Christianity's ignorance of history prior to the 16th century has lead them to unquestionably adopt many heretical and worldly philosophical viewpoints, and this can be seen clearly in the rampant division and individualistic soteriology that has marked Western Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A close examination of history shows a remarkable unity in the history of the Church for over 1000 years before the bishop of Rome excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. Prior to that event the Church had always decided issues via ecumenical councils, but the bishop of Rome wished to have sole authority over the entire Church, which was an innovation and was not the apostolic tradition (contrary to Roman Catholic teaching that Peter was the head over all the apostles-we can see already in the New Testament that Paul corrected Peter and that James appears to preside in some way as a leader over the Jerusalem council in Acts 15). Suffice it to say that while there are anomalous events such as the council of Hiera, history shows that these decisions were local and thus not widely accepted and passed on in the Church. Despite many challenges to the faith and Church unity, She maintained remarkable unity throughout history, especially in the East.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, the East trusts that the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the Church into all truth. Eastern theologians are generally very knowledgeable about Church history and they &quot;give their ancestors a vote&quot; when interpreting scripture. Most Protestants do also, they simply aren't honest about it in most cases and don't look much further in the past than the 16th century for theological guidance, except to occasionally use the content of early conciliar creeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not have time to write a history lesson about the many interconnected issues that are requisite knowledge for a more in depth discussion of the trustworthiness and value of tradition, I have merely hinted at some of the notable data. I hope that I have given a basic response and good resource recommendations to learn more. I hope that this response has not come off as demeaning. I frequently hear Western Christians critiquing Eastern Christians for being uncritical towards Christian history, when the exact opposite is generally the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2014-06-17T15:34:27.123" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8321" CreationDate="2012-07-05T05:56:36.617" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two issues here: the general and the specific.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the general: The idea that morality is changing in a positive direction is at best chauvinistic and at worst logically inconsistent. If your idea of morality is different from your grandfather's, by what standard do you say that your standard is &quot;better&quot; than his? Are you assuming that your standard is right and his is wrong? Who says? Presumably he would say the opposite: that your different standards show that the culture has degenerated since his time. To make any judgement between such conflicting standards, you would have to have an absolute standard to compare both your code and his against. And if you acknowledge the existence of such an absolute, timeless standard, than you are saying that morality has NOT changed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't deny that there are ideas about morality that are popular in Western culture today that differ from moral teachings in the Bible. By what standard do you say that your standard is right and the Bible is wrong? I don't know what argument you could give other than your subjective opinion. You can't even claim that it's the concensus of humanity or anything like that: as you yourself point out, people in other cultures have different standards. People in your own culture in the past had different standards. Many moral issues are subjects of debate within Western culture today. (e.g. abortion, gay marriage) So I think I could fairly say: You're saying that a book that claims to be the Word of God, and that has been accepted as the Word of God by literally billions of people from all walks of life across many cultures over thousands of years, should be overruled by the subjective opinion of some guy who posts on a web forum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the specific: For any given Bible verse that you believe advocates a standard of morality that you consider unacceptable, there are several possible responses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(a) In some cases I would say that you are mis-reading the Bible. For example, I don't know of any place in the Bible that describes slavery as a positive good. The Bible acknowledges the existence of slavery, and attempts to limit and regulate it. Perhaps this is in the same category as what Jesus said about OT laws on divorce: it is not God's ideal, but God recognizes that people will not accept a prohibition. (Matt 19:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(b) Frankly, I think many such criticisms of the Bible are strained. Like, I can't help but notice that in your discussion of the cash value of personal vows, you criticize the Bible for valuing women less than men, but you make no mention of it valuing children less than adults and the old less than the young. Didn't you consider this important? Is this because your moral standards have not evolved sufficiently to recognize equality regardless of age? Or is it because you accept that the labor of a child or an old person might be worth less than the labor of an adult? And if so, maybe at that place and time the labor of a women was worth less than a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, you are clearly suffering from an excessively materialistic attitude, assigning value to people solely in terms of their economic contribution. I've seen studies lately claiming that women are paid less than men, and that this indicates a reprenhensible undervaluing of women. These studies are often done by universities. The same universities that proudly boast that their graduates make more money than non-graduates. Doesn't this indicate that society devalues people based on education? Isn't this just as reprehensible as devaluing based on sex? Are mentally retarded people less valuable as human beings than geniuses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(c) As I said above, maybe the Bible is right and you are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-07-05T05:56:36.617" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8321" CreationDate="2012-07-05T06:52:37.840" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK, after our brief dialog (in the question comments, above), I think I understand your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; It depends on your definition of &quot;Christian morality&quot;.  Some (such as myself) would say this term is synonymous with &quot;Biblical morality&quot;.  In that case, the apparent discrepancy would be cause for recalibration of society to the standard of Scripture.  Others would say &quot;Christian morality&quot; does change over time, and we merely need to learn what we can from &quot;Biblical morality&quot; and apply it intelligently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allow me to separate society into three groups for the sake of illustration:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Group 1: Christians who adhere to the teachings of Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group strives to understand those teachings God has provided in Scripture and adhere to them -- regardless of when the reader was born, regardless of what nation they live in, regardless of the implications to their personal life, regardless of how society reacts, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The morality of this group does not change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group would respond to changes in the morality of a society by saying, &quot;anything contrary to the teachings of Scripture amounts to 'winds and waves' of false teachings&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group would respond to Biblical morality by saying &quot;it's the only right way to live&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Group 2: Heathens who could not care less about the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group believes all sorts of different things, depending on when they were born, what nation they live in, what the implications are to their personal life, how society reacts, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The morality of this group changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group would respond to changes in the morality of a society by saying, &quot;we are learning, we are growing, our morality is improving&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group would respond to Biblical morality by saying &quot;it's archaic and barbaric&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Group 3: Christians who &quot;think for themselves&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group believes all sorts of things, some from Group 1, some from Group 2, some from their own minds, depending on what makes the most sense to them at the time, given the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The morality of this group changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group might respond to changes in the morality of a society by saying, &quot;there is some good and some bad&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group might respond to Biblical morality by saying &quot;it was true and relevant in their day; we need to learn what we can from it and see if there is anything applicable to our lives today&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Assessment:&lt;/strong&gt; Both Group 1 and Group 3 could be considered &quot;Christian&quot;, and thus, the morality of either group could be considered &quot;Christian morality&quot;, but the two groups differ widely in their idea of how to reconcile the morality of society with Biblical morality.  Thus, the answer depends completely upon what definition of &quot;Christian morality&quot; we are using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2013-05-20T17:49:40.530" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T17:49:40.530" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8343" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-05T11:56:20.563" Score="7" ViewCount="14593" Body="&lt;p&gt;In first Corinthians and other places, there is a lot of talk about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. (NIV 1 Corinthians 12:7-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith;  if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach;  if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.(Romans 12:6-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were these gifts just for those early Christians, or are some or all of them still active in some churches today? If only some how can we tell which ones?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-06-30T04:20:07.043" Title="Are the gifts of the Holy Spirit still active today?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-06-30T20:58:19.170" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8344" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8345" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:24:29.863" Score="17" ViewCount="7801" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some common definitions from a dictionary for ‘literal’:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does it mean then to ‘take the Bible literally?’ Which definition are we referring to when we say ‘I take the Bible literally?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2014-01-13T06:31:09.153" Title="What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8344" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:34:14.203" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a spectrum of literal biblical reading, but basically it boils down to the degree to which one believes in the historicity (in the modern sense) of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Archeological evidence only goes back as far as a steele mentioning the &amp;quot;House of David,&amp;quot; so for modern academics, the historicity of say, Moses, Abraham, and Adam and Eve are all at least suspect.  Opinion varies as to whether, say, a baby boy who should have been murdered was actually set adrift in a boat made of bull rushes. A literalist would say, yes, this literally happened, and a liberal would say that it is a mere birth narrative to set the tone for who Moses would be.  Likewise, a liberal would say that clearly a few Hebrew slaves probably escaped across a &amp;quot;Reed Sea&amp;quot; (a swamp) whereas a literalist would, with no evidence to the contrary, state that in fact 525,000 Israelite men plus their wives and children pass through the Red Sea, with the waves held back on either side and Charleton Heston in front holding a stick.  The same analysis holds for an actual Adam and Eve, whether or not a woman named Tamar really did seduce her father-in-law, and a whole host of other stories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As one who is probably more literal than most, I would suggest there are a few categories in which to consider the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Parables and other stories identified as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, he pretty clearly identifies it as such.  Now, I've driven through the West Bank up from Jericho to Jerusalem, and along the way, you can pass the &amp;quot;Inn of the Good Samaritan.&amp;quot;  Some people will say that is in fact a real event in history.  This is an extreme form of literalism which negates the possibility of Jesus using metaphor- a stance mostly restricted to ultra-conservatives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Historical events that have miraculous involvement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very few scholars would &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt; argue that there was no King David.  Very few also doubt that there was a big Philistine named Goliath whom he killed.  The question is typically along the lines of, &amp;quot;Was he really just a boy with a sling?&amp;quot;  As a literalist who believes that God does intervene in history, I tend to view this as an actual event that occurs more or less as the Bible describes it.  Could it have been four stones in his pouch instead of five?  For me, that would be an irrelevant detail - for an inerrantist it would be a requirement.  For a liberal, the entire story was probably an embellishment after a real knock down, drag out battle, and the details grew in the retelling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Prehistorical / Other more figurative:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1 -11, parts of Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation are special cases, in that scholars often disagree as to whether or not these were meant to be understood as history or legend.  Along these lines, Job appears in the section of the Old Testament called the &amp;quot;Ketuvi'im&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Writings&amp;quot; alongside Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.  It may be that the original author intended this as a story all along, or it could be real, or it could be &amp;quot;historical fiction.&amp;quot;  As there is no title page on the book of Job, it could be analagous to finding one of Shakespeare's plays - and that could mean anything from Henry V to Romeo and Juliet.  Imagine if you had no historical reference to figure it out.  Likewise, Daniel is not billed as historical (it's in the Nevi'im), and yet it has more historical detail in certain points than many textbooks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question with all of this then is the degree to which a reader ascribes historicity to a narrative.  Keep in mind that prior to Thuycidides, even the very notion of a story that attempts to merely describe historical events (while still making a point) wasn't really even an idea, and you'll see why there is controversy.  People can argue hermeneutics (the science of how a text should be interpreted) and archeology all day long - the fact is that there is a choice that must be made &lt;em&gt;a priori&lt;/em&gt;, and understanding the implications of that for one's theology is the real heart of the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T19:36:06.793" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8344" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:40:55.587" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The easiest example is that of Creation, the very first part of the Bible presented as historical fact. Some believe that the Creation story is more of a myth or legend, and never really happened. Some, on the other hand, will say that the word &quot;days&quot; used there doesn't mean &quot;days&quot;, but rather refers to spans of thousands or millions of years, during which time the earth was actually evolving, not being created as the Bible says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A literal interpreter, on the other hand, will take the story at face value, believing that in seven days (that is, periods of 24 hours), God made the earth and all that is in it. They won't believe that he used some sped-up evolution.  They will interpret &quot;created&quot; to mean that out of nothing, God made something just by speaking it in to being. That is a literal interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is just one example. There are many stories and historical events mentioned throughout the Bible that can be interpreted as being allegories or myths or legends, not fact. A literal interpreter, however, will always take the words of the Bible at face value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1829" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-05T17:56:13.887" LastActivityDate="2012-07-05T17:56:13.887" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8344" CreationDate="2012-07-05T12:42:18.800" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;A literal interpretation is often in contrast to a symbolic or metaphoric interpretation.  A literal interpretation accepts the text as written to be historical and factual, while a metaphorical interpretation will often reject the historicity of a particular account and accept the moral or principle of the account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that literal interpretations force everything to be historical, like the parables of Jesus, but it accepts narrative as historical, poetry as poetry, and prophecy as prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Bible says God created Adam on the sixth day, a literal interpretation accepts that as historical and factual, while a metaphoric interpretation would likely see the whole creation account as unhistorical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-05T12:42:18.800" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2012-07-05T15:30:18.753" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spiritual gifts are an important part of Latter-Day Saint theology.  In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Articles of Faith&lt;/a&gt;, (a simple set of beliefs written by Joseph Smith to describe LDS theology to a journalist, which was later accepted by the church as a canonical description of basic beliefs,) we find:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions,&#xA;  healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in fact, the Book of Mormon takes it a step further, asserting that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.27-38?lang=eng#26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;such gifts are not only present, but &lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased because Christ&#xA;  hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God,&#xA;  to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the&#xA;  children of men?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 For he hath answered the ends of the law, and he claimeth all&#xA;  those who have faith in him; and they who have faith in him will&#xA;  cleave unto every good thing; wherefore he advocateth the cause of the&#xA;  children of men; and he dwelleth eternally in the heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles&#xA;  ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to&#xA;  minister unto the children of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these&#xA;  things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto&#xA;  you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true,&#xA;  and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has&#xA;  he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long&#xA;  as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one&#xA;  man upon the face thereof to be saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are&#xA;  wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men;&#xA;  wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men,&#xA;  for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save&#xA;  they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have&#xA;  ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for&#xA;  they are as though there had been no redemption made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-07-05T15:30:18.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2012-07-05T15:58:26.837" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its important to point out that some of the gifts listed are an essential part of Christian life. Faith, for example, is essential to all Christians and there is no question that it is, and should be, active today. Likewise wisdom. The only controversy is the 'supernatural' gifts (which are often called 'charismata'), so I'll restrict the rest of the answer to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are differing opinions within Christianity about this. While there are variants of belief, most Christians fall into one of three camps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes absolutely, and Christians today should be exercising these gifts.&lt;/strong&gt; All the promises made by Jesus about miracles, and all the things that Paul and other writers said about the Gifts of the Spirit are still applicable today.  However God does not give gifts indiscriminately, and not everyone gets any particular gift. Denominations that believe this sometimes also believe in a 'second experience', the &lt;em&gt;Baptism of the Holy Spirit&lt;/em&gt;, which comes after conversion and which these gifts are associated with. Some denominations believe that every Christian is given the Gift of Tongues as a witness of their true conversion. For Pentecostals the view that supernatural gifts are for widespread use today is virtually a defining belief. This view can also be held by groups or individuals within denominations that don't officially hold it. Those that subscribe to this view are often called 'Charismatics'.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes, but the supernatural gifts are now very rare.&lt;/strong&gt; This is the official view of many denominations, including Catholics. Such denominations do not encourage the practice of supernatural gifts, but do not necessarily condemn them either. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Absolutely not.&lt;/strong&gt; The gifts of the Spirit were for a limited time in order to  act as a witness to the truth of the Gospel and draw people to the early church. In most cases it is believed that the supernatural gifts died out either with the end of the Apostolic age, or with the definition of the Biblical canon. The witness to the truth of the Christian message is now provided by the Bible, without the need for supernatural evidence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many denominations take no view one way or another, and different people within them can hold either view. Many Christians also hold a &quot;not really sure&quot; view, or the pragmatic view that the Gifts of the Spirit &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be manifested in modern times, but we're not really going to focus on them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Some arguments&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The chief argument in favour of the Gifts of the Spirit being for all time is the fact that the NT writers just assume the normalcy of supernatural events in the life of the church. There is no clear indication from the writers that these gifts are for a limited time. On the other hand the epistles particularly were written to specific groups at specific times. Paul may not have seen the need to point out to his readers (if he had thought it true) that these gifts would cease in a few hundred years. The one Bible passage that does talk about the far future (Acts 2:38-39) is clearly talking about the Spirit himself, and not about any of his gifts. The Spirit might well fulfil that promise by continuing to be present, without giving supernatural gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise the chief argument for the cessation of the gifts is simply their absence. The supernatural events we find considered commonplace in NT times do not occur with anything like the frequency only a few hundred years later. Nor do we find any writers who lament this state of affairs and wish for the return to the days when tongues and miracles were commonplace. The church experienced some of its most rapid growth in that time, without the need for widespread supernatural events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-07-09T16:52:29.580" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T16:52:29.580" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8344" CreationDate="2012-07-05T17:36:54.423" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;People who take the bible literally would (for example) claim that the Earth was created in 6 days.  That the Genesis story is not a parable and that it's historically accurate; however these are the types of people I consider &quot;hard core&quot; literalists.  Whereas some people would rationalize the story by saying that 6 days is not the same as 6 days is now.  Non-literalist would say that the story is to be reflected on and not taken as actual fact.  They point to the words in the bible about Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 13:34 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say&#xA;  anything to them without using a parable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This causes a problem with taking the bible literally, how can you take the stories literally when Jesus himself spoke in parables?  It becomes a reciprocating problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, where does it stop?  For example, if I believe that the world wasn't created in 6 days, or that Jesus didn't really walk on water, where do you take the bible literally?  You've just jumped down the rabbit's hole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, somethings in the bible are to be taken literally and something are to be taken as a parable.  Which passages are which?  Who knows, we'll find out when we get there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further reading: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-07-05T18:33:18.870" LastActivityDate="2012-07-05T18:33:18.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8351" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-05T18:43:02.773" Score="4" ViewCount="578" Body="&lt;p&gt;Affable Geek's answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8344/what-does-it-mean-to-interpret-the-bible-literally&quot;&gt;What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally?&lt;/a&gt; mentioned the possibility of non-literalists interpreting the story of David and Goliath as a &quot;tale that grew in the telling.&quot;  This reminded me of something I read many years ago in a Bible commentary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It mentioned that several odd discrepancies exist in the details surrounding the story of David and Goliath, making it appear as if another story had been clumsily inserted into the middle of the text by some scribe. Unfortunately, the book was borrowed and I no longer have it, and I don't remember all the points that were made, but the one I remember clearly, because it was so blatant, was how David, once he volunteered to fight Goliath as Israel's champion, was introduced to King Saul as if for the first time, even though he had been serving in the King's court as a musician for quite some time prior to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course a literalist must necessarily reject this idea that the story is full of later interpolations.  How would one account for the apparent discrepancies in the story of David and Goliath, then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-01-22T23:24:28.490" Title="How does a biblical literalist interpret the tale of David and Goliath?" Tags="&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8324" CreationDate="2012-07-05T18:47:18.027" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question (currently) is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8324/how-do-we-argue-when-someone-posits-a-non-causal-universe#comment23205_8324&quot;&gt;unclear&lt;/a&gt;, but I think I can give some general advice for you to try out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Challenge them to &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/1701/73&quot;&gt;disprove&lt;/a&gt; the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;principle of sufficient reason&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When philosophers talk about causation, they are normally talking about the idea that everything happens for a reason.  Sometimes we &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt; like misfortune dropped out of the blue for no reason, but all of us &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; that some chain of events lead to that event happening.  We might never know what caused a particular event, but we generally agree that &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt; caused it.  It is, in fact, a sign of rationality to believe this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the odds are very low that anyone actually believes that causeless events actually occur.  Even if a person says that they deny the principle of sufficient reason, they probably behave as if there is a cause for every event.  For instance, they feel safe from lightening on a clear day.  So simply pointing out that denying causality is denying a foundation of reason might help clear up this point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Determine if they believe in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;static universe theory&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;something like it&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until fairly recently, the state-of-the-art model of the universe was that it has always existed and can reasonably be expected to always exist.  Such a universe need not have a cause because it's beginning is not an event.  (This, by the way, is why God as a uncaused being is a logical possibility.)  Since &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Edwin Hubble&lt;/a&gt;'s great discovery, this theory has faced some serious difficulties.  How does one explain the expansion of the universe without having a definite coming-into-being event?  And since we believe every event has a cause (see #1), why should we make an exception for the universe itself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philosophically speaking, we can make an argument that the start of the universe is different.  The trouble is that such an argument requires making our causality model more complex with no obvious gain except to avoid answering the question &quot;What caused the universe?&quot;  It can be argued that that line of thinking is circular.  Similarly, people get around the &quot;problem&quot; of the beginning of the universe with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;theories&lt;/a&gt; that account for expansion, but don't require a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Big Bang&lt;/a&gt;.  From what I can tell, these are motivated less by a desire to more accurately model the history of the universe and more by a need to find a model that satisfies the philosophical precondition of not requiring a cause for the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Switch to a different tactic if you want to convince someone that God is the cause of the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going back to at least Aristotle, the question of what put all events into motion has been asked.  The Philosopher's answer was, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Unmoved Mover&lt;/a&gt;.  Naturally, us theists are quick to identify the cause of all other causes as God.  But there's no particular reason to believe that.  Certainly, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagus_sermon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Aristotle's students&lt;/a&gt; through the ages felt free to continue worshiping a variety of gods.  Having convinced the other that there must exist a sufficient reason for the universe itself, neither side is compelled by the argument to except the other's given reason.  A different approach must be found.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I've never found this type of apologetic to be helpful in &quot;converting&quot; someone who does not share my fundamental beliefs.  We need Christian philosophers to engage on these topics as Christians, but ultimately it's God who will be able to convince people He exists, not us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-07-05T18:47:18.027" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2012-07-05T19:18:28.843" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; There are all sorts of opinions on this topic, but I will present what I believe to be the most clear and coherent argument - from Scripture, logic, history, and observation - which is that the gifts have always been &quot;offered&quot;, but not always &quot;accepted&quot;.  Thus, it can be seen that both the cessationist and non-cessationist views are built upon some truth: the former, historical; the latter, doctrinal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I grew up in conservative churches (Nazarene, etc.), got &quot;saved&quot; and &quot;baptized in the Spirit&quot; in a Latter-Rain Movement church, spent some time in an Assemblies of God church, and am currently serving in ministry at a Baptist church.  I have heard, accepted, and believed each of the major positions at various points, and now feel that I understand the topic well enough to make a claim about the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Scriptural Groundwork&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First&lt;/strong&gt;, &quot;receiving the Holy Spirit&quot; is the same as &quot;the baptism in the Holy Spirit.&quot;  (&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/2097&quot;&gt;See here&lt;/a&gt; for full justification.)  As such, there are &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; two classes of Christians (the &quot;saved&quot; and the &quot;charismatic&quot;); if you are born again, you have been baptized in the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second&lt;/strong&gt;, this baptism is a promise to all believers for all time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For &lt;strong&gt;the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off&lt;/strong&gt;, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38-39&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Acts 2:38-39&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage is in the context of an explanation of the &quot;baptism&quot; of Acts 2, not the isolated (and often misinterpreted) statement of John 20:22.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third&lt;/strong&gt;, the gifts are given according to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:4-7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;will of the Spirit&lt;/a&gt;, and are exercised according to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;obedience of the individual&lt;/a&gt;.  That is to say, if you don't speak in tongues (for instance), either the Spirit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;hasn't given you that gift&lt;/a&gt;, or you aren't walking in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fourth&lt;/strong&gt;, the gifts &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;cease&quot; (as far as we can tell) after the time of the Apostles.  There may be exceptions, but let's face it, the scene in Acts was not the scene in AD 500.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, it would &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; be correct to say that &quot;because the gifts ceased, it must have been because God wanted them to cease.&quot;  That's just bad logic.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It would also &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; be correct to say that &quot;because the gifts ceased, they are not for today.&quot;  It is entirely possible that the gifts are not in widespread operation today because modern Christians are unwilling to step out and look like a fool (by claiming to have a message from God, for example.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A More Subjective Argument&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To argue that &quot;the Spiritual gifts are not for us today&quot;, one would have to show that the Spirit does not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; believers to move in these gifts today.  Since the gifts were given to empower the church for ministry, build the church, and edify the church, I think it is strange to argue that they were only needed during the time of the Apostles; the job is not yet complete!  We still need His help!  The argument becomes stranger when we consider that there is not a single passage of Scripture to support this!  If we were to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;just look at Scripture&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and ignore history for a moment, it would seem clear the gifts were intended for every generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The confusion comes in when we look at history and ask &quot;why do they appear to have ceased?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some claim that God didn't want them in operation anymore, but this argument is unfounded.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The alternative is: the church began to reject the gifts of the Spirit - or at least, those gifts which were most uncomfortable!  (People generally don't claim that &quot;teaching&quot; or &quot;evangelism&quot; or &quot;exhortation&quot; has ceased... but when it comes to &quot;healings&quot; or &quot;tongues&quot; or &quot;prophecy&quot; they get nervous.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all of that &quot;reasoning&quot; aside, I can testify personally to the fact that all of the gifts are in operation today, but are not in &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;widespread&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; operation.  There are some who give themselves over to the Spirit when He leads them to lay hands on a person for healing; some who will prophesy; some who will give with liberality.  But let's face it - this stuff is 100% rejected by modern post-Enlightenment (humanist) thinking.  It's not &quot;science&quot; so it can't be true.  But &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;it is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I can also testify that there are &lt;strong&gt;many&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;charismatic&quot; things going on that are driven more by emotion and mimicry than the Spirit.  If a &quot;prophecy&quot; about the future doesn't come true, it wasn't coming from a &quot;Spiritual gift&quot; in the first place.  If a person can &quot;pray in tongues&quot; before they are even in relationship with God, it wasn't coming from a &quot;Spiritual gift&quot;.  (Not to mention some of the made-up gifts modern churches have invented.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2014-06-30T04:20:07.043" CommentCount="25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8354" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8355" CreationDate="2012-07-05T20:30:09.040" Score="0" ViewCount="581" Body="&lt;p&gt;If a Christian &quot;converts&quot; to Judaism or Islam (or any of the Abrahamic religions), is he still considered saved as a Christian?  What if he/she converted from Trinitarian to Uniterian?  This is a general Christian question, so I am requesting an overview of Christian positions on such conversions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2017-01-23T18:25:15.107" LastActivityDate="2017-01-23T18:25:15.107" Title="Converting to Judaism or Islam vs Trinitarian or Uniterian" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;islam&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;&lt;christian-identity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2017-01-23T22:05:50.790" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8354" CreationDate="2012-07-05T23:32:07.443" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no consensus among Christians on this question.  Assuming that the conversion is genuine and permanent, rather than momentary weakness, the three main schools of thought that apply to this issue are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conditional Security&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_preservation_of_the_saints&quot;&gt;this view&lt;/a&gt;, Christians can lose their salvation.  Thus, a Christian who converted to another religion would be seen to have lost his salvation, if he had it in the first place.  Christians who hold this view, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism&quot;&gt;Arminians&lt;/a&gt;, would answer &quot;No&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perseverance of the Saints&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another school of thought is that Christians &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints&quot;&gt;cannot lose their salvation&lt;/a&gt;, and that true believers will persevere till the end.  According to this view, although true believers may fall and stumble temporarily, they will never fall away permanently.  A supposed Christian who permanently converted would be seen as having never been a genuine Christian &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;in the first place&lt;/a&gt;.  Like the first view, Christians who hold this view would answer &quot;No&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Free Grace Theology&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Grace_theology&quot;&gt;Free Grace Theology&lt;/a&gt; is a view in which Christians cannot lose their salvation, and may fall away permanently.  This view teaches that the saved may or may not become disciples, and may or may not undergo the process of sanctification.  Christians may believe in Christ at one point, and subsequently forsake any identity with Christianity.  Christians who hold this view would answer &quot;Yes&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-07-06T03:28:16.630" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T03:28:16.630" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8356" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-06T01:05:28.397" Score="6" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of my new neighbors is a &quot;Pentecostal Catholic&quot; from India.  I have heard of this denomination before, during an Evangelical Missiological Society conference, but didn't have a reason to investigate further until now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a &quot;Pentecostal Catholic&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm familiar with Catholicism and Pentecostalism, so feel free to explain it in terms of the main differences between one (or both) of those denominations if that makes it simpler.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;NOTE: I am not looking for an exhaustive explanation of all of their doctrines, just a &quot;what you need to know&quot; sort of thing; i.e. What do they emphasize?  What's the back-story?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T01:16:04.487" Title="What is a &quot;Pentecostal Catholic&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8356" CreationDate="2012-07-06T01:16:04.487" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only time I've encountered similar labels was when people were talking about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Charismatic Renewal&lt;/a&gt;, which is a Catholic approach to speaking in tongues, baptism of the Spirit, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having come from a Protestant denomination, the outward manifestations do not strike me as terribly different, but the Catholics are clearly Catholic in other practices and theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T01:16:04.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8307" CreationDate="2012-07-06T01:22:50.967" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclavism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Conclavists&lt;/a&gt; all believe that. A fundamental tenet is that as the entirety of the College of Cardinals has fallen into either material or formal heresy, they are no longer capable of electing a successor to the Pope. I think that belief fits Donatism very clearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I will definitely say that there are others I've encountered (radical Charismatics come to mind, but I have seen this in certain extremists in other groups), this seems like a slam-dunk &quot;yes&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T01:22:50.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8351" CreationDate="2012-07-06T01:36:55.613" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was a literalist, I believe my take was simply that the text does not demand that it was chronological (and having studied Hebrew since, one does have to admit that the use of the word &quot;wa&quot; similarly does not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;demand&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; chronology, only some form of relationship between the two). So, if the narrative is taken as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;16 Saul needs a musician and is told about David.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;17 is a story about how David and Saul first met.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;18 continues from 16.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This actually does make some sense: how would the servants of the king have known of the harp abilities of a shepherd from Bethlehem unless they had some relationship with the boy already?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Addendum:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This position is supported with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; on creation which (while overall supporting an old earth mentality) does make one comment that is on topic here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-07-09T11:05:13.303" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T11:05:13.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2012-07-06T04:19:21.390" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;My view of the entire subject does not fall into either standard camp. I think both sides of the camp represent two Biblical emphases but fall short of properly respecting the other aspect. I realize as I prepare I can’t answer my own question without writing a small book, so I will limit to a very high ‘top-10’ level and may later post my own personal beliefs about what each gift actually means against someone else’s question. If I can’t find a suitable one, I will raise another question for a storage location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Top Ten Observations:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-1-&lt;/strong&gt; People in the Old Testament already had the Holy Spirit by faith in Messiah and some were also ‘clothed’ with an ‘unusual external empowerment’ that went beyond a normal internal experience by faith and holiness. For example, the Prophets when they prophesied did so by ‘gifts of the Holy Spirit’. When Samson slew scores of Philistines single handed with a jaw bone, it was the Holy Spirit that fell upon Him and gave him a gift of unusual strength.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-2-&lt;/strong&gt; The prophecy in Joel 2:28 concerning the times of Messiah was that this ‘unusual outpouring’ of the Holy Spirit in an ‘external manner’ would no longer be experienced by a special few but be given out liberally to everyone. This was Christ ‘coming in power in His kingdom’ (Mark 9:1). After being exalted into heaven Christ returned in power in ACTS Chapter 2. This was in one sense a single instance and in another sense a ‘repeated event’ throughout ACTS apparent to anyone who has read it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-3&lt;/strong&gt;- Extraordinary miracles attended the forming of the Old Covenant under Moses. These attended miracles partly validate the writings of the associated scriptures that were established at this time, upon which the covenant is continually supported by afterwards. Those miracles did largely cease after the covenant was established indicating that there purpose was partially in the establishment of a great covenant from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-4-&lt;/strong&gt; Not all ‘extraordinary miracles’ ceased after the death of Moses until the coming of Christ, making complete cessation not a traditional biblical principle. There is no reason to assume that from the time of Christ first coming until His second that there will be no similar miracles. This is entirely unwarranted from proper scriptural exegesis.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-5-&lt;/strong&gt; During the ministry of Jesus the Christ it hardly seems proper that any disease, or demon possession should go without cure, as he was ‘life ‘and the guarantee of the final heavenly state of paradise, where their will be no suffering or tears  (revelation 21:4). Furthermore, it was necessary that His words should be established above all (John 10:38).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-6-&lt;/strong&gt; After Christ returned in power in His kingdom He established his new church through the Apostles and early believers with the most unusual amount of miraculous gifts ever to have been recorded in all history. Just as during the establishment of Old Covenant, this New Covenant was established and God’s associated words of the covenant written in scripture for future generations under divine attestation of those miraculous powers.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-7-&lt;/strong&gt; Miracles from God were not fake things in secret closets but ‘public manifestations’ that none could deny, without attributing them to the Devil or some other cause. For example, if God were to heal someone today for the purpose of drawing attention to the gospel (which most, arguably all, miracles in the Bible were accomplished for) people publicly deformed like blind famous singers, or paralyzed famous scientists would be healed and every news station in the world would be lit ablaze with the story, causing many to take interest in the persons that seemed involved and what they were teaching. I have not seen this in the news recently, so I remain skeptical about any fantastically miraculous healing, etc. The burden of proof is on God. I do not doubt that He might help healing people through direct involvement and with the support of medicine and surgery, etc., but we must not despise God’s normal way of miraculously supporting us, from his abnormal extraordinary ways.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-8-&lt;/strong&gt; If you carefully read ACTS, Christ visited groups in power more than once and that some people who were in the house that ‘shook’ may have also been among other groups to receive this outpouring again, at least Peter would have been in more than one group.. Remember individually everyone had the Spirit when they believed and I am talking about an external extra ordinary outpouring of the Spirit, not regeneration and new birth. Even Abraham, etc. had the Spirit in ever sense of the word before ACTS, just to a lesser degree.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-9-&lt;/strong&gt; History has recorded that Christ has, for some reason known to Him alone, visited certain churches in power making them overturn the world, or on a smaller scale their local community for Christ in an unusual manner. We generally refer to these phenomena as Revival, and like a tornado landing, swirling and then quickly leaving; these revivals suddenly came and suddenly stopped without any holiness or sinfulness of the people involved that would imply men can pull heaven down to earth regardless of Christ’ sovereign will. The reformation and the next couple hundred years after seems to have been the time of the greatest occurrences of these outpourings since the times of the apostles to our own time and although many gifts of the spirit such as faith, discerning of spirits, etc. were present in those times, healing, miraculous tongues, raising the dead were not accompanied with this period. I do not imply that under these sovereign chosen times of blessing individual responses did not have bearing on individual experience of those blessing as Jesus often did not heal a lot among people without faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-10-&lt;/strong&gt; It is predicted (in some sense) that the Devil does or will ‘deceive the nations’ through false displays of God’s miraculous power, or ‘fake gifts of the Spirit’, therefore we must be very suspicious, test and try the spirits to see whether the doctrines of those claiming such activity holds to the strict truths of the gospel. (Revelation 13:13, 20:8) I somehow doubt that the Devil will be proposing faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins according to orthodox doctrine when he goes about deceiving the nations. This is where critics of the charismatic movement in some way act as a blessing, for in some respects each denomination is another limb of Christ’s body to battle the Devil on earth. We sometimes overestimate the divisions we have created. I have met many believers impressively filled with the Spirit, who believed in total cessation. I have also met many charismatic pastors who seemed not to have the first clue about the power of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Future Expectation:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I am not a dispensationalist, I think before Christ returns we may have an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that approximates to, or even exceeds those extraordinary miracles in Acts. I believe this in relation to my traditional interpretation of Romans 11:15 to infer that the greater part of Israel as a nation will one day convert to Christianity and this will cause the greatest revival the world has ever witnessed. Although it is possible that extraordinary miracles will not be needed at this time as the event in itself would be staggering. My views of Revelation are not currently established but I sense this great ‘end of days’ revival to be a long precursor of a sudden quick apostasy, so that when Christ returns there will be few believers left. (Mathew 24:37)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, the gifts are still active but God chooses which ones, and at what times. When they are manifested they are not ‘spurious claims ‘but accompanied with real convincing power extending God’s kingdom on earth and bringing attention to the doctrine of Christ and his gospel. A revival that brings attention to the Spirit is not biblical; the attention must proceed to Christ alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T04:19:21.390" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1029" CreationDate="2012-07-06T05:20:08.140" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you haven't accepted an answer, I'm assuming you are looking for something more explicit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Hate the sin&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a clear call in Scripture for the people of God to hate sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The fear of the LORD is to hate evil&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%208:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Proverbs 8:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hate evil&lt;/strong&gt;, love good, And establish justice in the gate! &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%205:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Amos 5:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Transgression speaks to the ungodly within his heart;&lt;/strong&gt; ... he has ceased to be wise and to do good. ... he sets himself on a path that is not good; &lt;strong&gt;he does not despise evil&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2036:1-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Psalm 36:1-4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Love the sinner&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following passages should make it clear that we are called to love sinners:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, &lt;strong&gt;love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you&lt;/strong&gt;, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-45&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Matthew 5:43-45&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is about the toughest group to love, to be sure: your enemies, and those who persecute you.  Jesus uses this extreme to show that His call to love is all-encompassing.  Notice also that the reasoning for this is that we will be more like our Father, who is gracious to everyone - righteous and unrighteous - as seen in His provision of sun and rain to both groups.  &lt;em&gt;(Of course, numerous other examples of God's grace could be given - indeed everything good that the sinner has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:3,%20James%201:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;comes from God&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/em&gt;  Why would God provide like this?  Because He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:8,%2016&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; love&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “&lt;strong&gt;You shall love the Lord your God&lt;/strong&gt; with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; &lt;strong&gt;and your neighbor as yourself&lt;/strong&gt;.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” &lt;strong&gt;But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:25-29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Luke 10:25-29&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lawyer has been caught by his own words, and realizes that if the criteria for inheriting eternal life includes 'loving your neighbor', his eternal security depends heavily on the definition of 'neighbor'!  In response to the lawyer's question, Jesus goes on to tell the story of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:30-37&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Good Samaritan&lt;/a&gt;.  Jesus ends the story by telling the lawyer that &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;he&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; is responsible for &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;being&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; a neighbor to those in need.  In other words, anyone you come across is your neighbor if you are fulfilling your duty to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” &lt;strong&gt;and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”&lt;/strong&gt; Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:9-10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Romans 13:9-10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I could pick a &amp;quot;most important passage in Scripture&amp;quot; for interpreting the Old Testament, it would be this one.  All of the commandments can be summed up by saying &amp;quot;love your neighbor&amp;quot;.  This was God's message from the beginning.  And of course, this includes sinners.  &lt;em&gt;(Hopefully that is clear; It would be quite a stretch to argue that it's OK to covet your neighbor's wife, as long as your neighbors aren't Christians!)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &amp;quot;hate the sin, love the sinner&amp;quot; appears to be a catchy teaching comprised of two Biblical doctrines, presented together for mutual clarification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T05:20:08.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8351" CreationDate="2012-07-06T05:43:17.603" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Saul seems to have promised wealth to the family, or at least excempt the father from taxes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the Israelites had been saying, “Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his family from taxes in Israel.” (NIV 1 Samuel 17:25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from the lack of need for chronology, among other reasons, is it not possible that the King (who may have noticed the unnoticeable boy around here and there among the many of the Kings servants) was simply more interested in who 'his father was' by the question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;55 As Saul watched David going out to meet the Philistine, he said to Abner, commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is that young man?” (NIV 1 Samuel 17:25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Whose son are you, young man?” Saul asked him. (NIV 1 Samuel 17:58)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really would never have even noticed this 'contradiction', if it was not brought forward. I think we have to read the Bible in a believing state of mind and then put more effort into trying to figure out the cases where a contradiction really does 'seem' to exist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am speaking from a literalist point of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T05:43:17.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8354" CreationDate="2012-07-06T12:45:58.087" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Apostle John addresses this issue in his first epistle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;They went out from us&lt;/strong&gt;, but &lt;strong&gt;they were not of us;&lt;/strong&gt; for &lt;strong&gt;if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.&lt;/strong&gt; But &lt;strong&gt;they went out&lt;/strong&gt;, that &lt;strong&gt;it might become plain that they all are not of us.&lt;/strong&gt;  1 John 2:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This teaches that those who leave [Christianity] were never really Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T12:45:58.087" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7792" CreationDate="2012-07-06T15:50:24.450" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Traditions can be good or not so good. When ideas are reduced to mantras people stop thinking.&#xA;It is acceptable to say things in a way that gets people thinking rather than labeling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Unbegotten Only Son made his own DNA from materials he himself created and it was planted in Mary by the Holy Ghost where he became the Only Begotten Son, who died on the cross becoming the Usurping Second Son (second Adam). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is important, not the specific formulation of the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="932" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T15:50:24.450" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8367" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8376" CreationDate="2012-07-06T16:08:04.640" Score="5" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that some people worry and pray about every aspect of their life, while others only sweat the big stuff. For example, I doubt any believer does not pray about whether they should marry a certain person or not. But for less significant matters, some pray about what God's will is and others just make a decision without prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should you pray about what career you should choose? About what book you should buy? At what point should you just make a decision?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible indicate an answer to this question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I found a similar question &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8377/does-the-holy-spirit-ever-choose-not-to-lead/8390#8390&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T06:16:59.253" Title="At what level of detail does God lead His children?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-12T12:17:57.360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8368" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-06T17:10:01.287" Score="13" ViewCount="37688" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most people understand that the Scriptures teach that the body in which Jesus was crucified was the same body that came out of the grave.  But regarding the body in which He now dwells, was that changed or transformed in His ascension into heaven? If so, how do we know from scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-01T16:23:31.777" LastActivityDate="2015-10-01T16:23:31.777" Title="Was Jesus' resurrected body the same as his glorified body that he now has in heaven?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;ascension&gt;&lt;resurrection-body&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8369" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8370" CreationDate="2012-07-06T17:12:08.273" Score="8" ViewCount="9800" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said there will be no marriage in heaven, but after He rose He ate food. Does Jesus eat food in heaven? Is there any reason for us to suppose He does not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the kind of question kids ask me in Sunday School.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2014-03-08T04:56:28.647" LastActivityDate="2015-07-19T16:39:50.453" Title="Does Jesus eat food in heaven?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-07-20T02:22:29.807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8369" CreationDate="2012-07-06T17:27:28.470" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I must admit, I chuckled at &lt;code&gt;This is the kind of question kids ask me in Sunday School.&lt;/code&gt;. Anyway...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, Revelations 19 has a wedding &lt;em&gt;feast&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 19:9 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Then the angel said to me,   “Write this:   Blessed are those who are invited to the &lt;strong&gt;wedding supper&lt;/strong&gt; of the Lamb!”   And he added, “These are the true words of God.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can't really have a &lt;em&gt;feast&lt;/em&gt; without food or drink. There is also the promise of Jesus that He will not drink wine again until this very same feast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26:29&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 26:29 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Mark my words—I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14:25&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 14:25 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22:18&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:18 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This statement takes place immediately after Jesus offers wine and bread at the first Communion. Now, if there weren't any grapes in Heaven, could there be wine? Now, obviously, God could very easily simply produce wine on the spot, and a miracle should never be excluded from the set of possibilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to actually answer your real question: we can't really know. I know of no verse that talks about whether or not there is any food or drink being consumed in Heaven right &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt;. That said, what is there to keep Jesus and other people already up there from enjoying the gift of eating that God gave them? I mean...I could totally imagine Jesus munching on some fish with Peter, James, and John right now...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T17:27:28.470" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8368" CreationDate="2012-07-06T19:23:41.443" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The resurected Jesus appears to have a pretty normal body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:36-43&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 24:36-43 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among&#xA;  them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” 37 But they were startled and&#xA;  frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Why&#xA;  are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my&#xA;  hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. &lt;strong&gt;For a&#xA;  spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.&lt;/strong&gt;” 40 And&#xA;  when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 And&#xA;  while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to&#xA;  them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of&#xA;  broiled fish,[b] 43 and he took it and ate before them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast Jesus' ascended body appears to be quite different:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%201:9-1:20&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelations 1:12-18 (NLT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  12 When I turned to see who was speaking to me, I saw seven gold&#xA;  lampstands. 13 And standing in the middle of the lampstands was&#xA;  someone &lt;strong&gt;like the Son of Man&lt;/strong&gt;. He was wearing a long robe with a gold&#xA;  sash across his chest. 14 &lt;strong&gt;His head and his hair were white like wool,&#xA;  as white as snow. And his eyes were like flames of fire. 15 His feet&#xA;  were like polished bronze refined in a furnace&lt;/strong&gt;, and his voice&#xA;  thundered like mighty ocean waves. 16 He held seven stars in his right&#xA;  hand, and a sharp two-edged sword came from his mouth. &lt;strong&gt;And his face&#xA;  was like the sun in all its brilliance.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead. But he laid&#xA;  his right hand on me and said, “Don’t be afraid! I am the First and&#xA;  the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever&#xA;  and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now trying to make a literal interpertuation from Revelations can be very tricky, but I think there are a couple things interesting here. Jesus didn't appear exactly like he did here on earth John (who new him personally), says he looked &quot;like the Son of Man&quot;. We know it is Jesus based on verse 18, so Jesus in a way resembled what he looked like here on earth. But has obiviously been given a new body that looks amazing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-07-06T19:34:57.677" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T19:34:57.677" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8372" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8393" CreationDate="2012-07-06T19:56:00.327" Score="-1" ViewCount="1343" Body="&lt;p&gt;We sometimes call this or that group/singer a 'Christian' while we do not call others as such. I've once asked here if a certain group could be considered Christian and received vastly different responses. On the other hand there are openly 'Christian' groups whose performances are so stupid one would not wish them be associated with Christianity. So, what are the defining qualities and how one can check if a certain group/singer/songwriter is Christian in their/his/her work&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastActivityDate="2012-07-08T17:15:31.847" Title="What are the defining qualities for a Christian band/singer/songwriter?" Tags="&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2012-08-23T17:27:14.417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2573" CreationDate="2012-07-06T20:31:41.790" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my Christian point of view it is Jesus' life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The blood of Jesus in the last supper signifies his lifeblood.This was symbolised by wine (or grape juice) in the chalice which was given to his disciples to remember him when ever they drink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus pleaded with his Father in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus knew his time was short before Judas came, so he wanted the agony to end quickly, however it was his father god's will that Jesus sought for, which showed the almighty's courage in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1831" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T18:59:49.210" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T18:59:49.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8368" CreationDate="2012-07-06T23:30:19.973" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(For simplicity, I will accept your presupposition that He only had one body prior to the ascension - both before and after the resurrection.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But someone will say, &lt;strong&gt;“How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?”&lt;/strong&gt;... All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts... There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies... So also is the resurrection of the dead... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body... Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.  Now I say this, brethren, that &lt;strong&gt;flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God&lt;/strong&gt;; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:35-50&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 Corinthians 15:35-50&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people use the visions in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:14-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 1:14-16&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%205:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5:6&lt;/a&gt; to make arguments about what Jesus looks like in Heaven, but this is bad hermeneutics in my opinion.  The visions in Revelation are symbolic, hence the need to interpret each symbol &lt;em&gt;(as in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1:20&lt;/a&gt;, or within &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%205:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5:6&lt;/a&gt; itself.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is, any claim to the affirmative will have to deal with 1 Cor 15:50, which clearly states the affirmative is impossible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-07-06T23:39:11.993" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T23:39:11.993" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8369" CreationDate="2012-07-06T23:56:48.187" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to argue &quot;&lt;strong&gt;yes&lt;/strong&gt;, most likely&quot;, but from an unorthodox perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical picture of &quot;Heaven&quot; is a lot different than our modern idea of it.  When everything prophesied in Scripture is said and done, we are not going to float on clouds playing harps, or dissipate into spiritual la-la land... we are going to live on a new earth.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22new%20earth%22&amp;amp;qs_version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;examples&lt;/a&gt;)  The picture is one of redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since there was food in the garden prior to sin, and it was all &quot;very good&quot;, I suspect there will be food in &quot;Heaven&quot; (i.e. on the new earth) once the original design is redeemed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-06T23:56:48.187" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8367" CreationDate="2012-07-07T00:24:11.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would argue that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;ideally&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the Christian life would be &lt;strong&gt;fully&lt;/strong&gt; marked by the leading of the Spirit.  &lt;em&gt;(Don't get too nervous about this - God isn't a taskmaster - His will is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011:28,%20Romans%2013:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;not oppressive&lt;/a&gt;, contrary to popular belief.)&lt;/em&gt;  Here is the Biblical basis for this argument:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first is a statement from Jesus, our perfect example, our Rabbi of which we are to be disciples and immitators:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John 5:30&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify our calling as Christians, here is Paul's post-ascension teaching on the matter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-2 Corinthians 5:15&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, one of the sins which condemned Saul was not inquiring of the Lord:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, &lt;strong&gt;and did not inquire of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2010:13-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 Chronicles 10:13-14&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other passages, but this should suffice.  Our mindset needs to be: 100% devotion to the leading of the Spirit, 0% devotion to living for our own purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;practically&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; speaking, there are times to rest, times to fellowship, times to have a drink, times to read, times to gaze at the stars, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;At what point should you just make a decision?&lt;/strong&gt;  Well, technically, at &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; point.  Everything you do, whether &quot;led by the Spirit&quot; or &quot;led by your flesh&quot; is technically &quot;a decision&quot;, so in every case you should &quot;just make a decision&quot; -- with the understanding that in every case you should &quot;be sensitive to the leading of the Spirit&quot;, if He is leading, and in every case you should &quot;guard against the lusts of the flesh&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-07T00:24:11.570" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8377" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-07T01:46:46.767" Score="5" ViewCount="422" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Somewhat related to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/at-what-level-of-detail-does-god-lead-his-children&quot;&gt;At what level of detail does God lead His children?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, I am going to make a couple assumptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The person has the Holy Spirit in them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The person follows the Holy Spirit's leading at all times (or as much as they can).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what I'm wondering is: does the Holy Spirit ever say something like, &quot;Up to you&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Scriptural justification for the idea that the Spirit will explicitly give the Christian &lt;em&gt;a choice&lt;/em&gt; (instead of a mandate) when the Christian asks for guidance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2015-08-12T00:29:11.597" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the idea that the Holy Spirit will sometimes choose not to lead?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8368" CreationDate="2012-07-07T02:28:57.507" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this pretty deeply, and as I suspected, his answer was yes, Our Lord's risen body was a glorified one.  Although it differed in glory in some way from His body in Heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: &quot;It is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory.&quot; Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said (John 12:27): &quot;Now is My soul troubled,&quot; which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: &quot;Father, glorify Thy name,&quot; whereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Question 34, Article 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (14, 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[summa theologica part 3 question 54 article 3 ](&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One good, convincing point St Thomas makes is that in no way could one consider Jesus' body given to corruption after His resurrection. He did as He chose. He came and went as He pleased. He appeared in the manner which He desired. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-07-07T02:28:57.507" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8324" CreationDate="2012-07-07T02:42:21.387" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Those that are not impressed with God's early work may be impressed with His later doings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If find such a person who can get through Mark's Gospel without appreciating the earnestness with which the events in Jesus mission are portrayed; the rapidity of His miracles and signs; the wisdom which He chose to codify as His Gospel of love, then you've got a hard case and can probably wipe the dust from your sandals and move on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just saying, as much as its a good thing to believe in the infiteness of God, simply accepting that and becoming a deist is not the most grace ridden method for salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-07-07T02:42:21.387" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8377" CreationDate="2012-07-07T09:57:45.883" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we look at Pauls life, he had a call to preach the Gospel. But I think it's safe to say that within that call he had a big freedom. He used the brain God had given him to plan his journeys:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 20:13-16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We went on ahead to the ship and sailed for Assos, where we were going&#xA;  to take Paul aboard. He had made this arrangement because he was going&#xA;  there on foot. When he met us at Assos, we took him aboard and went&#xA;  on to Mitylene. The next day we set sail from there and arrived off&#xA;  Chios. The day after that we crossed over to Samos, and on the&#xA;  following day arrived at Miletus. Paul had decided to sail past&#xA;  Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in&#xA;  a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there where other situations when the Holy Spirit intervened in Pauls plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 16:6-9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and&#xA;  Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word&#xA;  in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they&#xA;  tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them&#xA;  to. So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. During the&#xA;  night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging&#xA;  him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue that this also applies to us. God has a great plan for all of our lives. But that doesn't mean that he always care about all the details. Some people like repairing cars, so they make the decision to work with that. But within that context, the Holy Spirit leads them to speak to customers for example. But for other people God intervenes in their plan and call them to do something else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But maybe I read to much out of these texts ;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1600" LastEditorUserId="1600" LastEditDate="2012-07-07T10:44:09.527" LastActivityDate="2012-07-07T10:44:09.527" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8385" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8386" CreationDate="2012-07-07T10:59:47.577" Score="5" ViewCount="499" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is somewhat triggered by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8354/converting-to-judaism-or-islam-vs-trinitarian-or-uniterian&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;. I felt a plethora of emotions when I thought about the right way to approach answering it, and I felt it would be better to express these sentiments in another question rather than as an answer to that question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sentiments are as follows: Judaism and Islam are two religions whose devotees display (quite frankly) an incredible and exceptional level of devotion to God, a level of devotion which I could not personally dare to imagine myself undergoing. When I think of the number of commandments which adherents of Judaism have to follow, and think of the common image of adherents of Islam bowing to God in humble submission, I feel nothing but utter respect. From the point of view of Christianity, this level of devotion might appear misguided, as salvation is through Jesus Christ and nothing else. Agreed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But with all the above mentioned factors in play, how does one go about even thinking about this issue? How does one go about approaching it? Is there a balance that can be sought in discussions on the topic? How can one aptly say, &quot;yes, salvation is through Jesus Christ, but the amount of devotion to God which adherents of Judaism and Islam display is frankly admirable, even to (certain) Christian eyes&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apologies if the presentation of the question is a little unclear, but I hope you get what I mean. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1450" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-09-13T20:19:33.743" Title="In light of grace, How does a Christian consider the devotedness of Muslims and Jews?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;islam&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8385" CreationDate="2012-07-07T15:14:32.000" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Find the most dedicated Jew or Muslim and you probably won’t find anyone more dedicated to God under his moral Laws than the &lt;strong&gt;Apostle Paul before he became a Christian&lt;/strong&gt;.  Paul said he was blamelessly devoted to God before knowing Christ but after becoming a Christian he counted all that devotion as mere rubbish:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:  circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for &lt;strong&gt;righteousness based on the law, faultless&lt;/strong&gt;. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.  What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them &lt;strong&gt;garbage&lt;/strong&gt;, that I may gain Christ (NIV Philippians 3:4-9 Bold mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pharisees in the Bible were precisely known for the &lt;em&gt;‘incredible and exceptional level of devotion to God’&lt;/em&gt;, a level of devotion which most could not personally dare to imagine or undergo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We sometime forget how dedicated they were and how much &lt;em&gt;respect they obtained&lt;/em&gt; from the general population for that 'holy behaviour'. We forget this wisely, because Jesus said doing holy things for God for the respect that man will provide is evil. This respect you have is what a self-righteous person works for, so they would be very happy to hear you speak this way. However, Jesus looked at it quit differently. &lt;strong&gt;If good works are not done by faith in Messiah, they are not done by faith in God&lt;/strong&gt;. Also &lt;strong&gt;anything that is not done by faith is sin&lt;/strong&gt;, therefore all good deeds done in unbelief is not good at all -- it is sin -- and the deadliest kind -- for it makes a person self-righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;everything that does not come from faith is sin. (NIV Romans 14:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And without faith it is impossible to please God (NIV Hebrews 11:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus took a different view to those 'committed to God', but were not committed to faith in Him, for the forgiveness of their terrible and huge sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religious people without faith in Christ can be very &lt;em&gt;dedicated in converting others&lt;/em&gt; to their zeal for God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. (NIV Mathew 23:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religious people without faith in Christ can &lt;em&gt;sacrifice many material things&lt;/em&gt; in their devotion to God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. (NIV Mathew 23:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religious people without faith in Christ can sacrifice &lt;em&gt;impress others by outwards commitments to God&lt;/em&gt;, but their unrepentant hearts by rejecting Christ shows the true state of their inwards perversity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. (NIV Mathew 23:25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religious people without faith in Christ &lt;em&gt;seem like very good people&lt;/em&gt; and its sometime hard to tell what is going on inside but Christ shocked everyone by having a fiery discernment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. (NIV Mathew 23:27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could keep going and going but I think you get the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these highly impressive people who were extremely dedicated to God at the times of the Apostles had doubts whether Jesus was the Messiah, or not. Some had converted to Christianity but not with real sincere faith yet. Their religious convictions and how they perceived the faith of their holy forefathers made them seriously doubt the gospel. There were struggling with a deadly poison - unbelief. It was a heaven, or hell, tuype of decicision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Epistle to the Hebrews (Jewish people) was written to them, to ensure they do not get confused. In that Epistle we find some of the most severe warnings in all of scripture, because turning away from Christ to Judaism is exposing your soul to the danger of hell – with a sort of 'fast track' direction. For having been exposed to the truth anf grace of Christ and then rejecting it! and turning to another religion is possibly the greatest sin a man can commit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth (&lt;em&gt;i.e. turn away from faith in Christ and return to Judaism&lt;/em&gt;), no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them (&lt;em&gt;i.e. disrespecting the blood that brought them into an external knowledge of the gospel, offering them eternal life which they were about to possibly reject!!&lt;/em&gt;), and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?  For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people. ”It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (NIV Hebrews 10:26-31 Italics mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you see there is nothing here but a &lt;em&gt;disappointing answer&lt;/em&gt;. The Bible does not just sprinkle sugar on all our fears and worries. Sometimes it says something pretty tough, and I know this can be very hard at times. The Bible has knocked me down many times, but God’s love pulls me back up! The Bible wants us to 'hang in there' and 'do not get discouraged' about all this. Gods grace is much bigger than our sins, whether they are ‘white’ sins of self-righteousness like those in religion, or those lesser evils, those ‘black’ sins of sexual perversity, drunkenness, greed for money, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-07T15:22:45.017" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8388" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8391" CreationDate="2012-07-08T05:48:48.740" Score="2" ViewCount="9460" Body="&lt;p&gt;God &lt;strong&gt;wrote&lt;/strong&gt; the Ten Commandments with His own finger, on tablets of Stone, in Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2031:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Exodus 31:18&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also frequently &lt;strong&gt;spoke&lt;/strong&gt; to His people in Hebrew.  And of course, we now have Hebrew &lt;strong&gt;records&lt;/strong&gt; of all of these divine words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: &lt;strong&gt;Why Hebrew?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;em&gt;(I am assuming this is not because God speaks Hebrew in Heaven...)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it because Hebrew was the ideal language for communicating the truths of the Old Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it simply because His people happened to speak that language?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there any Old Testament passages which show God speaking (or writing) in a different language?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also love it if you could include a comment about whether this teaches us anything about the nature of God.  Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-09T04:25:51.130" LastActivityDate="2017-04-26T13:04:13.157" Title="Why did God speak Hebrew?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8368" CreationDate="2012-07-08T06:31:13.633" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The body of Christ now in heaven has little resemblance of the body he had while on earth, in terms of ‘glory’.&lt;/strong&gt; The body of Christ and its appearance is mentioned in several parts of scripture making it a worthwhile subject to consider seriously. In his incarnation from Eternity the Eternal Son of the Triune Godhead took assumed a human nature into His own person. &lt;strong&gt;This assumption of the human through the virgin birth made him appear ‘not beautiful’, or not ‘glorious’.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore straight away we must understand that the glorification of that same human is something altogether different from the impression that his body made to men while on this earth. &lt;strong&gt;His very presence in the earth was part of his ‘humbled’ state.&lt;/strong&gt; (Philippians 2, 6-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. (NIV Isaiah 53:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was the chief end or purpose of his taking human nature? Was it not &lt;strong&gt;to act as a Priest with something to offer&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Hebrews 5:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Jesus offered his own soul and body for the sin of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose for taking human flesh was to save humans; otherwise he might have taken on spiritual angelic flesh (Heb 2:5). But no, &lt;strong&gt;Jesus did take upon Himself a 'ten-fingered flesh and blood' human nature with His own eternal person forevermore.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil —  and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.  For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants.  For this reason he had to be made like them, &lt;strong&gt;fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God&lt;/strong&gt;, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. (NIV Hebrews 2:14-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if this Jesus was to represent His sacrifice before the Father, that we might enjoy eternal cleaning and justification before God’s throne forever and ever, was it not important that his human life appeared before the throne in the Most Holy Place after laying his sacrifice down on the alter? This He did not do externally nutil after he rose, until he ascended to His father in glory. Althouhg in a sense He did do it when He said it is finished and the Father did accept it, thus the curtain in the most holy place was torn from top to bottom. I am referrig to his external entrance into that most holy place in heaven for we are refering to his physical body here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the glorification of the man-ward side of the God-Man, was made Lord over the entire universe in his glorification into heaven. Jesus, as a man, was not Lord before his ascension into heaven, though as God He was Lord eternally. &lt;strong&gt;The glorification of Christ respects principally the human exaltation into Lordship&lt;/strong&gt; and glory fro the Son was already infinitely glorious respecting his divine nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly therefore, &lt;strong&gt;the unimpressive body of Christ after His resurrection was not the Christ who now reigns as Lord and Eternal Priest forever&lt;/strong&gt;, when he appeared to many for those forty days before His glorification, there was still nothing in him that seemed beautiful or glorious.  The transfiguration on the mount, the view of Christ in many prophecies including in Revelation, and Paul’s meeting with him under a blinding light, all confirm that his body appears nothing like the one He rose with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this does not mean Jesus does not now have a human body. Of course he must have a human body! for he would not otherwise still be human and would be unable to act as our Priest. &lt;strong&gt;A Priest can only mediate for those of his own flesh.&lt;/strong&gt; This seems to be one of the principle reasons why he appeared to so many after his resurrection. &lt;strong&gt;He is not a ghost after his resurrection but a human still.&lt;/strong&gt; He has ten-fingers and most likely &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8369/does-jesus-eat-food-in-heaven&quot;&gt;eats food&lt;/a&gt;. It’s just that &lt;strong&gt;His body is not like the weakness of an earthly body and is exceedingly glorious&lt;/strong&gt;. In many ways his body is still ‘flesh and blood’ (1 Corinthians 15:35-50) he means flesh and blood fallen under the curse, for Adam and Eve had flesh and blood before the curse, to which Messiah came to restore. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Owen&lt;/a&gt; the great puritan theologian of the sixteen century sums it up well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This flesh he carried entire with him into heaven, where it still continueth, though inwardly and outwardly exalted and glorified beyond our apprehension. (Owen’s Works, Volume 20, Page 617)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was referring to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:10-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We will have a body like His, still flesh and bone, but glorious, which is a glorious hope for us. I am not sure a human could physically live under the tensions of witnessing the full glory of a heavenly body.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea clearly from scripture is that in some way the resurrection body is from the same material but different as the earthly one. That is the idea of 'wheat' being 'different material' from the 'seed' that it was derived from, but of some common property that associates both. Clearly human seed is not like an apple seed, and a human not like an apple. (1 Corinthians 15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: I do not reject St. Thomas’s consideration, and other many good theologians who hold a similar view, for possibly this was Christ’s glorified body and somehow its 'glory' was fully hidden, until He was properly glorified as Lord? But as it was at minimum 'fully hidden', I prefer to say it was not the same body, being represented as something so different than his current one.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-07-12T05:07:27.680" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8377" CreationDate="2012-07-08T11:44:40.680" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Even in great distressing situations God does not always immediately answer.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”  Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” (Mathew 15:21-23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet in this case the silence was only used to bring out the great faith of the inquirer. Is it not possible that God does the same thing with us but over a longer period with less distressing situations? Job 19:7 seems to say the affirmative to this question but again his position was very distressing. What about David who struggled so deeply with this issue as a type of Messiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?  Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest. (NIV Psalm 22:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in day-to-day worries, I think God usually answers by lifting our cares away and giving us wisdom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. (NIV 1 Peter 5:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to the details obviously God does not lead a person to decide if it God’s will to brush his teeth, or other detail like that. God’s will is very wide open; he may even leave your career to you. To marry, or not to marry, is even your choice. &lt;strong&gt;The Bible is filled with ‘God’s perfect and detailed will’&lt;/strong&gt; and it is very hard for us to live it. ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’. He wants us to use our 'brains' in devotion to the service of others in love. Is there any other ‘will’ of God? Do we really need to seek Him in prayer to find out what that is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this I am very insecure about a lot of things without at least making a quick prayer before proceeding. I have made too many mistakes saying things, I wish I had not! I even pray before sending emails at work, as I often get caught up in the flesh and need to check my attitude before responding to politics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-07-10T06:14:45.077" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T06:14:45.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8388" CreationDate="2012-07-08T12:24:22.333" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oftentimes, the simplest answer is the correct one.  So here's the obvious answer:  He spoke and wrote in Hebrew because he was dealing with Hebrew-speaking people at the moment.  Had God spoken to them in English, Latin, or Chinese, they would not have understood him!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, being omniscient, knows all human languages.  This means that he has no trouble communicating with the Hebrews in Hebrew, or with you and me in whatever our native tongues may be.  So why make it more difficult than it has to be, especially given people's tendency to get his commandments all wrong even when they're spelled out in perfect plainness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a parallel to be found in the Day of Pentecost, where the Gift of Tongues was dramatically made manifest as the Apostles preached their sermon.  People from a wide variety of nations and regions were present, and all heard the sermon in their own language.  But remember that these were people who had traveled to Jerusalem.  It's not at all unreasonable to assume that most of them knew at least enough Hebrew (or whatever language was commonly in use at Jerusalem at the time) to get by.  And yet, the Lord gave them the message in the language that they were most familiar with, to facilitate effective communication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-07-08T12:32:49.670" LastActivityDate="2012-07-08T12:32:49.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8392" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8404" CreationDate="2012-07-08T16:45:44.960" Score="4" ViewCount="3497" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Guti%C3%A9rrez&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gustavo Gutierrez&lt;/a&gt; is the theologian most associated with the concept of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Liberation Theology&lt;/a&gt;, a theology that is highly popular amongst liberals and South Americans. Some of its main points include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus' &quot;preference for the poor&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A call to social action&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;and a bias against all institutions, including the church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can understand the &quot;preference for the poor&quot; by looking at the overall tone of Luke, but I'm having difficulty understanding the Scriptural basis that the Gospel as primarily a call for social action.  Where does this come from? (again, outside of Luke.  I do get the whole Magnificat thing)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the underlying scriptural basis of liberation theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2019-02-17T13:52:25.957" Title="What is the scriptural basis for liberation theology?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8372" CreationDate="2012-07-08T17:15:31.847" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much like the definition on this site, the definition of a &amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot; artist tends to be &amp;quot;any group that claims itself as such.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of the rise of Western Music can be attributed to the harmonization of the mass and other sacred music - Bach would sign his work &amp;quot;S.D.G,&amp;quot; sola Dei gloria - for God's glory alone - but he is rarely considered a &amp;quot;Christian musician.&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=700&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Robert Greenburg in How to Listen to and Understand Great Music&lt;/a&gt; delves much more deeply into the historical connection of the church and western music.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contemporary times, &amp;quot;Christian Contemporary Music,&amp;quot; including the likes of Michael W. Smith, Petra, Degarmo &amp;amp; Key, Amy Grant, Steven Curtis Chapman, and similar people, is itself a branding term that tends to encompass a certain style of music that often gets picked up by &amp;quot;praise and worship bands&amp;quot; at contemporary churches.  Indeed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jonacuff.com/stuffchristianslike/2012/06/how-to-avoid-getting-caught-looking-at-the-lyrics-during-praise-and-worship/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jon Acuff (Stuff Christians Like)&lt;/a&gt; mentions that these P&amp;amp;W bands often release their own CDs, and clearly fall in this category.  Many of the luminaries of the band (e.g. Michael W. Smith) serve as Worship Ministers in their own churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amy Grant, however, helped to define the term when she transitioned from being a &amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot; musician to a more mainstream one.  (Russ Taff did the same move but didn't get nearly the same amount of press.) When she released &amp;quot;Baby, Baby,&amp;quot; she did so explicitly under the guise that she wanted to do more mainstream stuff.  In reaction, many Christians still wanted to claim she was a &amp;quot;Christian artist,&amp;quot; despite Grant's desire to &amp;quot;move on.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/11/us/religion-journal-a-chastened-singer-returns-to-christian-basics.html?pagewanted=2&amp;amp;src=pm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NY Times, 5/11/02&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A writer in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today criticized Ms. Grant's 1997 release, ''Behind the Eyes,'' for its ''complete absence of explicitly Christian lyrical content.'' The ensuing controversy prompted the Gospel Music Association to adopt content requirements for its annual Dove Award entries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2009, Bob Carlisle's secular &amp;quot;Butterfly Kisses&amp;quot; won the coveted &amp;quot;Song of the Year&amp;quot; from the Gospel Music Association's &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.doveawards.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dove Awards&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; - the premier CCM award. According to industry insiders, the GMA was embarrassed that a song without any &amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot; content was voted the coveted &amp;quot;song-of-the-year&amp;quot;. To that end ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gospel Music Association (GMA) Awards and Criteria Committee has created criteria for eligibility of Dove Awards based on lyric contents. The definition states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Gospel music is music in any style whose lyric is: substantially based upon historically orthodox Christian truth contained in or derived from the Holy Bible; and/or an expression of worship of God or praise for His works; and/or testimony of relationship with God through Christ; and/or obviously prompted and informed by a Christian world view.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only previous requirement for Dove Awards was simply — Christian retail store distribution. In other words, if it was sold in so-called Christian stores it was eligible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.av1611.org/crock/smithcan.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reference&lt;/a&gt;, but be warned, it gets weird...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, &amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot; is as much a brand as an actual adjective.  The wide spectrum of CCM has no branding authority, so it kind of is was it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-08T17:15:31.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8388" CreationDate="2012-07-08T17:21:26.490" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The prophecies of Daniel are chiefly written in Aramaic, thereby providing a non-Hebrew example of a revelation, ergo God spoke to Daniel in a language other than Hebrew.  If they were first written in Aramaic by an Aramaic and Hebrew speaker (The Book of Daniel is actually written using both languages in different chapters), then it seems a stretch to argue that the vision itself had to be in Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, John the Revelator most likely did not speak Hebrew (he also spoke Aramaic and possibly some Greek), suggesting that when John received the vision, Jesus was probably not speaking to him in Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Jesus himself raised Jairus' daughter in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/mark/5-41.htm&quot;&gt;Mark 5:41&lt;/a&gt; using the words &quot;Talitha Cumi&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus&quot;&gt;which are in Aramaic, not Hebrew&lt;/a&gt;. (I realize this is NT, but if Hebrew were God's ideal language, I'm surprised that Jesus himself wouldn't choose to use it, especially when evidencing his divinity.) Indeed, when quoting the 22nd Psalm, as he was dying on the cross, he cried out, &quot;Eli, Eli, Lama Sabbatchani&quot; in, you guessed it - Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a tradition that God spoke Hebrew in the Garden of Eden, but there is nothing Scriptural to assert even that &quot;fact.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-08-05T18:10:14.803" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T18:10:14.803" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8395" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8399" CreationDate="2012-07-09T03:23:21.640" Score="7" ViewCount="722" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen the word &quot;heresy&quot; used on this site a lot recently &lt;em&gt;(and have used it myself a couple of times in jest)&lt;/em&gt; but I was wondering if someone could explain the meaning of this term as it is used within Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does &quot;heresy&quot; simply mean &quot;I believe that view is false&quot;, or is it something stronger?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does &quot;heresy&quot; mean &quot;If you believe in that, then you are not my brother in Christ&quot;, or something less severe?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand each Church will have a different take on whether or not a particular doctrine is heresy, but I am curious if there is a generally agreed-upon &quot;definition&quot; for the word as it is used within Christianity?  If the modern usage is different than the usage in previous church eras, please indicate this in your answer.  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I didn't want to merely take a secular Dictionary's definition, since at times they miss the mark of the usage within a subculture like Christianity.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T20:50:22.570" Title="What is &quot;heresy&quot;?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;global-christianity&gt;&lt;division&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8396" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8397" CreationDate="2012-07-09T04:24:07.000" Score="10" ViewCount="11561" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since Paul &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/908&quot;&gt;said&lt;/a&gt; that divorce is forbidden, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6627/are-pauls-letters-to-be-taken-as-gods-word&quot;&gt;Paul's letters are to be taken as word of God&lt;/a&gt;, why do some Protestant churches (Church of England for example) permit divorce?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1837" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2016-07-06T08:18:25.690" Title="Why are Protestants from the Church of England allowed to divorce?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;anglicanism&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;&lt;church-of-england&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8396" CreationDate="2012-07-09T04:58:10.937" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there are two basic answers to your question.  The first, and simple answer is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many Protestant churches do not allow divorce.  Some congregations deny membership rights to people who are divorced.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more direct, and also more complex, answer to your question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Many protestant churches permit divorce because there is simply nothing they can do about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Divorce is a legal right in most places, regardless of whether the church allows it.  Many Catholics get divorced, too.  Although in the eyes of the Catholic church, such a divorce (and possible remarriage) is not recognized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The consequences of divorce within the church are usually rather minimal.  A divorced person cannot remarry in a Catholic ceremony, for instance. Many protestant churches and pastors will have similar restrictions, refusing to allow a ceremony of a divorced couple in their facilities, or refusing to officiate the ceremony for a divorced person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, beyond refusing to allow or officiate marriages, and possibly refusing membership rights to divorcees, there's very little any church &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do to prevent divorce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true of practically any practice that is considered sinful in the eyes of the church.  A church can only do so much in &quot;discipline.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A second issue, beside the fact that churches are essentially powerless, is the concept of forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many churches are willing to forgive pass transgressions such as divorce, especially if they happened prior to conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T04:58:10.937" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8395" CreationDate="2012-07-09T06:51:57.413" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Heresy (αἵρεσις) means &quot;choice,&quot; and &quot;a heretic is one who chooses what he wants according to his own ideas and opinions, selecting certain parts of the Christian Tradition while rejecting others&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/sources-of-christian-doctrine/the-fathers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;OCA&lt;/a&gt;). Some additional insight from &lt;a href=&quot;http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/sources-of-christian-doctrine/the-fathers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By his actions, a heretic not only destroys the fullness of the&#xA;  Christian truth but also divides the life of the Church and causes&#xA;  division in the community.... Generally speaking, the Orthodox&#xA;  tradition regards the teachers of heresies as not merely being&#xA;  mistaken or ignorant or misguided; it accuses them of being actively&#xA;  aware of their actions and therefore sinful. A person merely misguided&#xA;  or mistaken or teaching what he believes to be the truth without being&#xA;  challenged or opposed as to his possible errors is not considered to&#xA;  be a heretic in the true sense of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/267/423&quot;&gt;once posited&lt;/a&gt; that we are all heretics because we all choose what to believe over and against other beliefs, however I was (lovingly) corrected by @Bruce Alderman &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/275/423&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. I now agree with him that the label &quot;heretic&quot; has been applied throughout church history to silence a false teacher (they used to kill them). If someone is a heretic, no one should listen to him. It is a very strong term that should be used only when someone is teaching serious doctrinal error and refuses to receive correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T15:49:15.583" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T06:51:57.413" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8395" CreationDate="2012-07-09T08:53:06.190" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that one can define heresy as, &quot;voluntarily chosen teaching contrary to orthodoxy&quot;. However the question &quot;what is orthodoxy?&quot; and &quot;how to find what is orthodoxy?&quot; will be answered differently by various christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Orthodox Christians&lt;/strong&gt; believe there is an immutable orthodoxy that lives in Church, but there is no sole institution that is a protector of orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Roman Catholics&lt;/strong&gt; also believe that there is a strict, immutable orthodoxy, but also, that Bishop of Rome is infallible protector of orthodox teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Various &lt;strong&gt;Protestant&lt;/strong&gt; churches generally have less strict view on orthodox teaching (they tend to intercommunion with communities holding different views).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-07-09T11:49:29.967" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T11:49:29.967" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8401" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-09T10:54:53.923" Score="1" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hope you will allow me to ask another question. We all know that there are many harsh statements in the Bible (Matthew 12:31-32, Hebrews 10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, these harsh statements are along the lines of &quot;If such and such a condition is fulfilled, then there is no hope left for such and such a person to whom the condition applies&quot; - i.e. the implication is that such and such a person is doomed to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: Sometimes, a given person does not even know if he or she has fulfilled one of those conditions. To my knowledge, people have tried to give explanations of these scenarios, but I do not know if there is a total, definitive, absolute, verdict, on what these conditions actually are that doom someone to hell without hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In life, we usually do not know things with absolute certainty, and a certain amount of belief in positive outcomes of uncertain events is usually needed to preclude a descent into total nihilism. Colloquially, one might say that as long as a person believes there is light at the end of the tunnel, he or she would be able to pick himself or herself up the next day and make an attempt to continue walking with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if this person is faced with uncertainty over eternal salvation, can it trigger nihilism and despair?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there ever a situation (or can there be such a situation) where fear over damnation to hell due to the scenarios described led a person who need not have borne such fear, to descend to unnecessary nihilism and hence give up on Christianity with the attitude &quot;well, since I am already condemned unconditionally, what is the point of seeking God any longer?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(It is true that no one can really be sure of having been condemned unconditionally by the scenarios in Matthew 12 and Hebrews 10, but what if pessimism led the person to progress from the idea that he or she might have committed an unforgivable sin to a belief that he or she had committed it, with the resulting nihilism described above?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1450" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-26T20:35:54.233" LastActivityDate="2015-08-26T20:35:54.233" Title="Harshness and nihilism" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;emotions&gt;&lt;unforgivable-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-29T02:44:12.390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8401" CreationDate="2012-07-09T11:18:32.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To the bold part of your question, I would answer: I am reasonably sure it has happened, but I cannot name a specific case. Dispair of salvation, and belief that one is &quot;beyond hope&quot; or belief that God &quot;cannot forgive me&quot; are not unheard of. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;To your second question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To the first part:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Catholic teaching is that no one is beyond redemption prior to the moment of death.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrews is taken to mean, &quot;If you decide to live a sinful life after having believed, you will be condemned.&quot; (and, based on other passages in the Bible, it will be worse than had you never believed)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dying in sin is what &quot;blaspheme of the Holy Spirit&quot; means.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To the second part:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dispair of salvation, no matter the circumstances, is still dispair of salvation. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If someone will not accept forgiveness, for whatever reason, that person will be condemned.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T11:18:32.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8396" CreationDate="2012-07-09T11:28:10.730" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the biggest issue is the exception in Matthew 5:32:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, &lt;strong&gt;saving for the cause of fornication&lt;/strong&gt;, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church takes that phrase to mean, &quot;except in the case of unlawfulness&quot; (which is why there is an annulment process), but many take it as an &quot;out.&quot; Regardless of the merit of such an interpretation, it seems that that &quot;escape clause&quot; has been used a bit more than it should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T11:28:10.730" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8392" CreationDate="2012-07-09T11:50:22.007" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, Liberation Theology != Catholic Social Doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/CjMqt.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/CjMqt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://wdtprs.com/images/11_04_10_JP2_Ernesto_Cardenal.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;wdtprs.com&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, it is extruded by some process out of the latter of the two halves of &amp;quot;Catholic Economic Virtues&amp;quot; subsidiarity and solidarity.  Whereas subsidiarity is clearly in the Bible from Jethro's advice to Moses to divide up his duties down to one person judging for just a handful of families.  Solidarity is not so much in the bible, but certainly borne of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic Catechism, which was compiled and published after most of this mess in the interval between Vatican II and the present, the whole of the expectations for economic activity is under the Seventh Commandment, &amp;quot;thou shalt not steal&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P11Z.HTM#CATHL.JAM.5.4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;220&lt;/a&gt; In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. &amp;quot;Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.&amp;quot; Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8D.HTM#$2GD&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2434-2435&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And specifically, with regard to the injustice between &amp;quot;capital&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;labor&amp;quot; the grave injustice mentioned above is referenced in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;You shall not defraud or rob your neighbor. You shall not withhold overnight the wages of your day laborer. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P35.HTM#PENT.LEV.19.13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lev 19:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;You shall not defraud a poor and needy hired servant, whether he be one of your own countrymen or one of the aliens who live in your communities. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P53.HTM#PENT.DEU.24.14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut 24:14-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P11Z.HTM#CATHL.JAM.5.4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 5:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, also the 10th commandment (and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#vrs5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1st beatitude&lt;/a&gt;) addresses and balances the disordered desire to envy the rich and gives consolation to the poor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2547 The Lord grieves over the rich, because they find their consolation in the abundance of goods. &amp;quot;Let the proud seek and love earthly kingdoms, but blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.&amp;quot; Abandonment to the providence of the Father in heaven frees us from anxiety about tomorrow. Trust in God is a preparation for the blessedness of the poor. They shall see God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8D.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2547&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-02-17T13:52:25.957" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8401" CreationDate="2012-07-09T12:21:38.427" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Is there ever a situation&quot; essentially makes this a non-sensical question.  Even is so far no one has done so, we can't answer whether anyone ever would.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone is different, and everyone reacts differently.  I know several people who have left the Church or rejected it all-out for similar reasons.  I'm sure there are millions of cases where people have given up on (or rejected) Christianity for just that reason.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want solid examples, there are enough posts on this site where one atheist or another condemns Christianity as &quot;immoral&quot; or &quot;evil&quot; because of such interpreted cruelty, harshness, or impassiveness on the part of the God of the Bible. It could be argued that this stems from the same understanding of the nature of God that leads to the despair and hopelessness that you describe.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;We all filter objective facts through the lens of our own experiences, genetic makeup, and adopted worldviews.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two people may read the same verses and have completely opposite reactions - For example, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of&#xA;  God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor&#xA;  adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10&#xA;  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor&#xA;  extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One person may read that and think &quot;Well, I like to drink, so there's no point in me bothering&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Another may read it and say &quot;Not only did cheating on my wife cost me my family, it is also a sin against God.  Thank God, the blood of Jesus is enough to save me and that God's forgiveness isn't due to my own goodness, but the righteousness of Christ imputed unto me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(those are two actual reactions of people I know, by the way - paraphrased, to be sure, but actual reactions to the same two verses.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate, even though I think the question is phrased to be too open-ended, the answer is &quot;of course, there are people who have responded to Biblical teachings by assuming they aren't worthy enough, and have given up or fallen into despair because they thought they missed the mark.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T12:21:38.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2012-07-09T19:20:14.703" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two Questions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You pose and interesting question, &lt;em&gt;&quot;Where did the idea come from that &lt;strong&gt;everyone&lt;/strong&gt; can interpret the bible for themselves?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An equally valid question is, &lt;em&gt;&quot;Where did the idea come from that &lt;strong&gt;any believer cannot&lt;/strong&gt; interpret the Bible for himself?&lt;/em&gt;  Every believer has the Spirit of God dwelling within him (1 Corinthians 6:19), so why would that believer have to be dependent on others, specifically a certain group of individuals, to understand the Scriptures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The real question then is in determining where the burden of proof lies&lt;/strong&gt;.  Does it lie with those who claim only a select group of believers have the authority to interpret Scripture, or does it lie with those who claim any believer, within whom dwells the Spirit of God, can read and interpret Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Arguments for Sola Scriptura&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Bible written to All Believers&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the New Testament epistles are addressed not to clergy, but to &lt;strong&gt;all believers&lt;/strong&gt;.  The Gospels seem to be written for the benefit of both believers and unbelievers.  From the earliest times of Christianity, the gospels and epistles were copied and passed on to be made available to a large audience.  Therefore, we conclude that the Bible was intended to be read or heard by all people and not just a  select group.  Therefore, it would seem counter-intuitive to assume that all people were given the Word of God to read but then prevented from interpreting it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...To the churches of Galatia.&quot;  Galatians 1:1&#xA;  &quot;...To the saints who are in Ephesus&quot;  Ephesians 1:1&#xA;  &quot;...To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi...&quot; Philippians 1:1&#xA;  &quot;To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae...&quot; Colossians 1:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Priesthood of All Believers&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament also teaches that God has made all believers priests, and that there is no mediator between God and men except for Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people&#xA;  for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him&#xA;  who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.  1 Peter 2:9&#xA;  ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men,&#xA;  the man Christ Jesus.  1 Timothy 2:5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if there is no mediator between God and men anymore, then there would be no need for an &lt;strong&gt;interpreter&lt;/strong&gt; between God and men either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;No Biblical Teaching for Restricted Interpretation&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, there is no place in Scripture (at least of which I am aware) that specifically restricts the interpretation of Scripture to a select group.  If it were really the intent of God to restrict the interpretation of Scripture to a select group of people, then He would certainly have made that blatantly obvious in the Scriptures themselves.  Yet, since there is no such teaching in Scripture, the source for that teaching must be extra-Biblical itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problems with Limited Authority for Interpretation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that God did, in fact, restrict interpretation of Scripture to a select few, then it seems the purpose for this would be to make sure error and heresy never crept in to the church.  The result would be that throughout church history, God would always work through the select group of people to maintain sound doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when we look at the Catholic church, which holds to this doctrine, &lt;strong&gt;we do not find a consistent teaching throughout history&lt;/strong&gt;.  Many doctrines have changed, including the celibacy of the priesthood, indulgences, the language of mass, eating meat on Fridays, etc.  So, if the teachings have changed over time, then it would seem that the leaders wrongly interpreted Scripture at various times through history, unless we hold to the idea that truth can change.  Therefore, the basis of limited authority for interpretation is undermined by the variance in teachings by the select group over the 2000 years of church history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, 1) since the Bible is given to all people to read and hear, 2) the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers, 3) there is no specific teaching in Scripture that would restrict interpretation to a select group of people, and 4) history has shown that the teaching of the select group has been inconsistent and contradictory, &lt;strong&gt;the conclusion&lt;/strong&gt; seems reasonable that &lt;strong&gt;all believers have the authority with the indwelling Holy Spirit as a guide to read and interpret Scriptures apart from any mediator or interpreter.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T19:20:14.703" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="73" CreationDate="2012-07-09T19:56:26.553" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference as to do with God's commandments for individuals and God's commandments for the governing of His covenant people.  God commands individuals not to murder, but the penalty for murder, prescribed for God's covenant people while that covenant was in effect, was capital punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &quot;murder&quot; is distinguished from &quot;capital punishment&quot; by God Himself.  Do both result in a person's death?  Yes, yet one is sin and one is mandated by God as the punishment in this life for that crime, again for God's covenant people while the covenant was in effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Capital punishment actually preceded the Law of Moses, as it was first instituted in the time of Noah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for&#xA;  God made man in his own image.  Genesis 9:6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T19:56:26.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8409" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8417" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:12:52.253" Score="10" ViewCount="2808" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;L&quot; in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=FeQC61SE_4QC&amp;amp;pg=PA72#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death&#xA;  secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect),&#xA;  in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all&#xA;  humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the&#xA;  post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist&#xA;  circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God&#xA;  could not have intended that Christ die for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We already have a question asking for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/70/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-limited-atonement&quot;&gt;the Biblical basis &lt;strong&gt;for&lt;/strong&gt; Limited Atonement&lt;/a&gt;, so my question is what is the Biblical argument &lt;strong&gt;against&lt;/strong&gt; Limited Atonement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2020-12-20T14:50:32.100" Title="What is the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;&lt;limited-atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8395" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:35:40.497" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A heresy just means that a view is not the &quot;orthodox&quot; view, orthodox coming from Greek ortho-, &quot;right&quot; + Greek doxa, &quot;opinion&quot; (from dokein, to think; see dek- in Indo-European roots). Orthodoxy is then simply &lt;em&gt;a right opinion&lt;/em&gt;. A heresy is a choosing of a faction that is not the majority opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have pointed out, what makes for a &quot;right opinion&quot; depends on the opinion that one is already convinced of.  Also as such, every heretic, by definition, thinks his own opinion to be &quot;orthodox,&quot; and those that disagree to be the heretic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In looking at the broad history of the church, the vast majority of Christians have subscribed to, among other things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicene&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles&amp;#39;_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apostles&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Athanaisan&lt;/a&gt; Creeds.  (Ironically, Athanasius was at times, condemned as a heretic)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the first &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Seven Ecumenical Councils&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the works of the early &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patristics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patristic&lt;/a&gt; theologians like Origen (occasionally called a heretic), Justin Martyr, even Augustine. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(As a shorthand, I tend to refer to these things as the basis of '&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/what-is-mainstream-christianity&quot;&gt;Chalcedonian Christianity&lt;/a&gt;' and gone into great length about that in the link.)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that &quot;non-Scriptural&quot; is not necessarily &quot;heretical&quot; nor is &quot;heretical&quot; non-Scriptural. Many heresies are actually from Scripture - although are often &quot;peculiar&quot; in their interpretation. As a classic example - both &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nestorianism&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Monophysitism&lt;/a&gt; are both grounded in a reading who Jesus was - they each simply emphasize different details in the life of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This base of commonality is a reed or measuring stick against which new or &quot;novel&quot; innovation is typically measured. The point of theology is often as much about consistency as it is about whether or not something is &quot;right,&quot; and as such heresy simply means that a position is at odds with what the vast majority of Christians since Chalcedon have believed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestantism as a whole is thus a heresy when compared against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but is rarely viewed as such, because so many subscribe to it.  Marcionism, on the other hand, denies the legitimacy of the Old Testament for Christians, and is not something that many Christians since Marcion have pushed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point, then, that a theologian makes with &quot;heresy&quot; is not that a heretic is somehow obviously going to hell - only that his views are out of step with the majority of Christian thought.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T20:50:22.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8411" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8440" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:38:57.687" Score="3" ViewCount="3945" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for a link or reference to the four decrees from Diocletian in 303 re the Roman Persecution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1115" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T11:23:01.240" Title="Diocletian's four decrees &amp; Persecution of christians" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8395" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:41:56.020" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church used to define heresy as a rejection of any point of dogma. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heretic – a baptized person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church.  Heretics are &#xA;automatically excommunicated from the Church (ipso facto) without any declaration for rejecting an authoritative teaching of the Faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:  “No one who&#xA;  merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard&#xA;  himself  as a Catholic or call himself one.  For there may be or arise&#xA;  some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and,&#xA;  if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope St. Pius X, Editae Saepe (# 43), May 26, 1910: “It is a certain,&#xA;  well-established fact that no other crime so seriously offends God and&#xA;  provokes His greatest wrath as the vice of  heresy.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T20:41:56.020" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8396" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:47:26.770" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Matthew 19:18 states,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, &quot;Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is clearly pointing out that divorce is, in fact, legal.  It is bad, but it is permissible. To turn it into an iron-clad law is then much like laws concerning the Sabbath - Jesus values the individual over the institution, even an institution as great as marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: Not advocating, just explaining the rationale!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T20:47:26.770" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8409" CreationDate="2012-07-09T20:52:27.233" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Limited atonement brings with it the implication that not anyone can be saved by Christ - only those for whom he atoned.  The language used in the Bible to describe salvation is inclusive.  It is described as being presented to whosoever wills.  In 1 Timothy, Paul claims that God desires all people to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:3-6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:3-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; This is good, and  it is pleasing in the sight of  God our Savior, &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; who desires  &lt;strong&gt;all people&lt;/strong&gt; to be saved and  to come to  the knowledge of the truth. &lt;sup&gt;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For  there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  who gave himself as a &lt;strong&gt;ransom for all&lt;/strong&gt;, which is  the testimony given  at the proper time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would make little sense in light of limited atonement, and in fact, the presence of the phrase &quot;ransom for all&quot; seems to directly contradict it.  If God desires all people to be saved, then why would salvation not be even theoretically available to some?  If God desires all people to be saved, then wouldn't he offer it to the entire world?  John tells us that this is exactly what he did:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “For  God so loved  the &lt;strong&gt;world&lt;/strong&gt;,  that he gave his only Son, that &lt;strong&gt;whoever&lt;/strong&gt; believes in him should not  perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-07-09T20:52:27.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8422" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-09T21:43:03.503" Score="7" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just reflecting on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8410/1548&quot;&gt;an answer&lt;/a&gt; to a question I recently asked, and began to wonder... &lt;strong&gt;How do we know the conclusions of a given Council were true?&lt;/strong&gt;  Are all findings by Christian Councils authoritative?  If not, what is the criteria by which we can judge the findings of a Council?  Is it decided democratically amongst those claiming to be Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is indeed a &quot;standard&quot; by which Council findings are evaluated, why would we consider the Council findings as &quot;authoritative&quot;, as opposed to simply considering the &quot;standard&quot; to be authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The answer may not be as straightforward as it seems.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-21T03:41:00.133" LastActivityDate="2020-06-25T09:28:32.340" Title="What makes a Council's conclusions authoritative?" Tags="&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;authority&gt;&lt;epistemology&gt;&lt;church-council&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8422" CreationDate="2012-07-09T21:57:37.290" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, there have been four sources of theology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tradition&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reason&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Experience.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This formulation goes back quite a ways.  Scripture is always first, Tradition is always second, and reason and experience are a distant third and fourth. The fun comes in when one realizes that it is not possible to read Scripture without a tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a very banal example, in the Hebrew text, YHWH has no vowels, and yet traditionally the vowels of &quot;Adonai&quot; are used, resulting roughly in &quot;Yahweh&quot; or &quot;Jehovah.&quot;  The tradition informs the reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The position of the Catholic Church is actually quite rational in this regard - it reserves to itself the power to declare what is traditional and non-traditional when reading Scripture. In a way the standard of what is acceptable within the Roman Catholic Church is what the church says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Councils are like that, only unlike a single interpretation (namely that of the Bishop of Rome,) the Ecumenical Councils were the best attempt at the time to convene all of the spectrum of Christianity.  When, in 325, Constantine gathered the church, the whole point was to get as broad a consensus as possible.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;statement at Nicea&lt;/a&gt; had no more legal authority or scientific power then a petition signed by, say, 55 leading landowners in the American colonies in 1776.  But, the attendants were sufficiently representative and authoritative that it made sense for them to be considered the standard bearers of what &quot;Christianity&quot; meant at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were they &quot;right?&quot;  That's actually a non-answerable question.  What they were was representative of what the vast majority of influential Christians believed.  Sure, they asked for the Holy Spirit's guidance, and these were good men - but did God actually physically appear and say &quot;This is my beloved council in whom I am well pleased?&quot;  No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then again, did he ever do that when King James' translators presented their work to the King? Or when Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul dropped their parchments in the mailbox? No, again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe wholeheartedly that the way the Christian Faith is practiced is both what God intended and still manages to fall woefully short of what is &quot;right.&quot;  Trust me when I say, of all the indiginities God suffered, his church is by far the most recent. It is a flawed creature - but like a little child it seeks to please its Father as best it can. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a hermeneutic, Christians tend to put more emphasis on those closer in time to Christ. As a matter of practice, we tend to defer to people better at theology than us (I, for one, cannot take on Polycarp or Irenaeus or Augustine, or even the Bishop of Rome).  As an agreed upon set of rules, then we traditionally defer to the traditional interpretation out of traditional accepted theology.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it &quot;right&quot;? Who knows. But it is representative of the &quot;standard&quot; against which we measure theology? Indeed, it is the very definition of &quot;the best we can do.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2012-07-11T14:16:16.043" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T14:16:16.043" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8425" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-09T23:55:45.740" Score="8" ViewCount="650" Body="&lt;p&gt;Adherents to &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt; basically believe that Scripture should be the foundation of all doctrine.  &lt;em&gt;(NOTE: That is not to say that outside sources cannot be used to aide us in understanding the text - &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7759/1548&quot;&gt;see here&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on what we know about Jesus from Scripture, could Jesus be considered an adherent to this philosophy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2015-08-24T12:36:30.537" Title="Was Jesus an adherent to 'Sola Scriptura'?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sola-scriptura&gt;&lt;epistemology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-08-24T18:00:15.047" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8426" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-10T00:55:28.427" Score="2" ViewCount="359" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am very interested in learning more about the Trinity. I love God, and really want to understand Them better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;..I mean Him.  This came to my mind earlier, and I laughed, but then caught myself, because Scripture speaks of God in the plural in at least one place:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt; said, “Let &lt;strong&gt;us&lt;/strong&gt; make mankind in &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; image, in &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; likeness &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Genesis 1:26&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realized, this passage must be talking about &quot;The Godhead&quot; which is comprised of the Father, Son and Spirit.  (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5874/1548&quot;&gt;explained here&lt;/a&gt;), &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other passages which clearly identify one or all of them distinctly, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever confesses that &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; is the &lt;strong&gt;Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;, God abides in him, and he in God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 John 4:15&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, what about all the other verses (especially in the Old Testament) that are not so obviously talking about the Godhead or one of the Persons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of the doctrine of the Trinity how can we tell if a passage is referring to one of them or all of them?  And if one, how can we tell which one?  For example, is &quot;YHWH&quot; always referring to the Father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2015-07-14T15:51:44.293" Title="How can we tell when Scripture is talking about one of the persons of the Trinity and when it's talking about all three?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8425" CreationDate="2012-07-10T02:07:28.820" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is simply: No.&#xA;One way to prove it, is to take the verse where Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (Luke 10:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means, that whatever the apostles say, is Jesus' teaching. Then we can take Paul's words to the Thessalonians in chapter 2 verse 15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is saying to hold to the scriptures &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; oral teaching. One link that might prove helpful is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/03/sola-scriptura-vs-the-magisterium-what-did-jesus-teach/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, asking: &quot;Sola Scriptura vs. the Magisterium: What did Jesus Teach?&quot;. One that deals with just Sola Scriptura can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1n.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://explaining-the-catholic-faith.com/id49.html&quot;&gt;One link&lt;/a&gt; that might have an answer, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did not Jesus say, &quot;Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. . . .&quot; [Matthew 28:19] Of course this admonishes them to teach; it says nothing about writing. And the Bible itself says nothing about it being the sole source of God’s revelation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, that is just my opinion and it may be a little biased. One thing to think about, is that for the first couple hundred years, there was no &quot;New Testament&quot;. The last of the gospels by John, was written by A.D 85 or later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with you that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If a person teaches something contrary to Scripture, they are wrong.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But sometimes things may seem contrary and actually be true to each-other. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/contradictions.html&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a link that explains some things that seem to contradict each-other in the bible, but just need a little explanation (I know that that is both sources from the bible, but it is basically the same).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just to let you know, I'm &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; Roman Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T02:07:28.820" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8428" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8430" CreationDate="2012-07-10T02:58:27.807" Score="6" ViewCount="855" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel&quot;&gt;Tower of Babel&lt;/a&gt; episode in human history is known to many. This can be found in Genesis 11. As we know, it resulted in the languages of mankind becoming confused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question: Are there opinions, speculations, conjectures, or a consensus anywhere on what the pre-Babel language was? Are there linguistic clues in modern languages spoken today that can shed light on this topic? We do not really know the exact mechanism used by God to confuse the languages. Is it possible that the mechanism is something amenable to investigation from the fields of neuroscience/computer science?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1450" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T08:22:23.800" Title="What was the pre-Babel language and what can be said about the mechanism used to confuse the languages?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8426" CreationDate="2012-07-10T03:29:24.007" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, when the bible talks about God, it means the Trinity or Godhead, while when it says one of their names, such as the Father, it means the Father. But as the Trinity is known--Three in person, One in essence--Then if you talk about the Father, you must be talking in a round-about way, of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, &lt;em&gt;though all are separate&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.real-god.com/en/archives/1383&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;One link&lt;/a&gt; I found, says that there are 4 rules to the Trinity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are three persons who have a complete divinity, not a part of divinity, therefore, The Father is a complete God, the Son is a complete God and Holy Spirit is also a Complete God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Each person is separated from the others, i.e. the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is neither of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is only one true God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is an equality characteristic between the persons of trinity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Trinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;As the Orthodox Church believes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers, the Church believes that the Trinity is three divine persons (hypostases) who share one essence (ousia). It is paradoxical to believe thus, but that is how God has revealed himself. All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist. God is beyond and before time and yet acts within time, moving and speaking within history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The source and unity of the Holy Trinity is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and also from whom the Spirit proceeds. Thus, the Father is both the ground of unity of the Trinity and also of distinction. To try to comprehend unbegottenness (Father), begottenness (Son), or procession (Holy Spirit) leads to insanity, says the holy Gregory the Theologian, and so the Church approaches God in divine mystery, approaching God apophatically, being content to encounter God personally and yet realize the inadequacy of the human mind to comprehend Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So don't get exasperated &lt;strong&gt;when&lt;/strong&gt; you can't comprehend the Godhead. God are impossible to fully realize and know. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gometropolis.org/orthodox-faith/the-holy-trinity/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here is a nice story&lt;/a&gt; that shows this (Actually only the first part is the story, but it is all good).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, what about all the other verses (especially in the Old Testament) that are not so obviously talking about The Godhead or one of the Persons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it just says God, then take them all, they're all One though Three. If it just says the Father, then take them all, they're all Three though One.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, have you ever &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.classicly.com/read-flatland-online-free/page/1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;read&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;watched&lt;/a&gt; Flatland? Somewhat on topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T03:29:24.007" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8428" CreationDate="2012-07-10T03:35:35.687" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is held by some to be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamic_language&quot;&gt;Adamic language&lt;/a&gt;, properly named, though Midrash and Talmud say it was Hebrew. See wikipedia on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_of_tongues&quot;&gt;Confusion of Tongues&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T03:35:35.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8422" CreationDate="2012-07-10T04:15:56.773" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(The answer may not be as straightforward as it seems.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As in, different theologies will purport different ideas about the authority of various councils, yes. But I think the general principle can be summarized easily enough, at least to your title question, which is different from your actual post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What makes a Council's conclusions authoritative?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the men on the council have authority, then the conclusions of the council are more or less authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How do we know the conclusions of a given Council were true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6802/are-there-truths-that-can-only-be-known-through-spiritual-means&quot;&gt;One way to know truth is through spiritual means&lt;/a&gt;. In some cases, it is the only way. If men disagree, how else can your soul know for sure one way or the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are all findings by Christian Councils authoritative?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depends who you ask, but generally no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If not, what is the criteria by which we can judge the findings of a Council? Is it decided democratically amongst those claiming to be Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, do the men on the council have authority from a source you believe to be legitimate? For example, monarchists would argue that legitimacy, or authority, comes through family heirloom. Republicans/democrats alternatively believe that true legitimacy comes from a vote of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, we of course have a common belief in Christ and we know that He is the King, the Head, and it makes sense that He is the giver of authority and legitimacy in the Church and its councils. But exactly how that authority is manifest to men varies from church to church. Some believe in education; others in receiving the Holy Spirit; yet others in laying on of hands... the diversity goes on and on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and finally... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If there is indeed a &quot;standard&quot; by which Council findings are evaluated, why would we consider the Council findings as &quot;authoritative&quot;, as opposed to simply considering the &quot;standard&quot; to be authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Affable Geek touched on this. The way things &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; been, or &quot;the standard,&quot; is sometimes overruled by new revelation. A famous council was convened over the issue of circumcision. You know of it: the so-called Jerusalem Council, where the apostles met and discussed the need for converts to be circumcised. The decision was that they were &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to be, which was a &quot;violation&quot; of the standard. Yet it was apparently the correct, or true, decision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T04:21:14.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8428" CreationDate="2012-07-10T08:22:23.800" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The names of people who lived before the Tower of Babel often have meaning in Hebrew. Like &quot;Adam&quot; is the Hebrew word for &quot;human&quot; because he was the first human. &quot;Eve&quot; sounds similar to the Hebrew for &quot;to live&quot;, because, Adam said, she was the &quot;mother of all living people&quot;. &quot;Enoch&quot; sounds like the Hebrew for &quot;dedicated&quot;. Etc. Other mentions of language in pre-Babel days make sense in Hebrew, like Adam calling Eve &quot;ishah&quot; (woman) &quot;because she was taken from &quot;ish&quot; (man). Etc. This rather implies that the pre-Babel language at least shared a lot of vocabulary with Hebrew. If, say, the pre-Babel language had been English (obviously absurd for dozens of reasons, but I'm making a point), the explanations of these names and other words would not make sense. Why would God call the man &quot;Adam&quot; because he was the first human? What does being human have to do with the word &quot;Adam&quot;? Etc. So it's plausible to suppose that the pre-Babel language resembled Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RE the mechanism: This is highly debateable. I think the answer is a definite maybe. Whether the mechanism for a miracle is completely unique and involved a special creative act, or whether God used things already in place in the universe, could be hard to say. Perhaps with sufficiently advanced science we could identify exactly what God would have had to do to people's brains to change their languages. I don't know of anyone who's demonstrated anything in this particular area, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T08:22:23.800" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8425" CreationDate="2012-07-10T08:28:58.160" Score="-7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestants are going to say yes. Catholics are going to say no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I presume any Christian is going to consider this question equivalent to, &quot;Is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura true?&quot; I mean, who is going to say, &quot;I am a Christian, I believe Jesus to be the all-knowing God made flesh ... but when on this very important point he said X, he was completely wrong.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T08:28:58.160" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8437" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8473" CreationDate="2012-07-10T09:31:09.623" Score="7" ViewCount="2074" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward,&#xA;  and fell to the ground (John 18:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all), if not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-23T13:59:37.340" LastActivityDate="2015-09-23T14:03:17.203" Title="“Jesus said to them 'I am'&quot; (John 18:6) - Did Jesus break a taboo here?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8437" CreationDate="2012-07-10T09:43:29.030" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;One cannot say that Jesus broke a Taboo here. There are several instances in Bible where Jesus gave a clear indication about His divinity. At John 1:18 &quot;No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known&quot; Again in John 10:30 Jesus says &quot;The Father and I are one.” Again in John 10:38 it Says &quot;But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. ...John 14:7 &quot;If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him.”... John 14:9 &quot;Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? ...John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, but if you do not believe me, believe because of the miraculous deeds themselves..&#xA;So we see that  Jesus gave these indications many time while He preaching to his desciple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1821" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T09:43:29.030" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8439" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8444" CreationDate="2012-07-10T10:50:04.630" Score="10" ViewCount="753" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any one unique characteristic that would be common for all the books of the Bible besides being chosen by the Church to be a part of canon? I am interested here in the main-stream Protestant tradition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-23T21:24:15.883" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T15:38:07.520" Title="Is there a unique characteristic for all canonical books?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8411" CreationDate="2012-07-10T11:23:01.240" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I am aware, we do not have the original texts of any of the Diocletian edicts. The course of events is recorded, however, by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eusebius&lt;/a&gt; in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Church History&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (c.323-324) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.ucalgary.ca/%7Evandersp/Courses/texts/eusebius/eusempaf.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Martyrs of Palestine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (after 311), and by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lactantius&lt;/a&gt; in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.ucalgary.ca/%7Evandersp/Courses/texts/lactant/lactperf.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Deaths of the Persecutors&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (c. 316-321). Our knowledge of the &amp;quot;four edicts&amp;quot; is compiled out of these sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First edict&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month Dystrus, called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Saviour's passion was near at hand, that royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom. (&lt;em&gt;Church History&lt;/em&gt; 8.2.4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next day an edict was published, depriving the Christians of all honours and dignities; ordaining also that, without any distinction of rank or degree, they should be subjected to tortures, and that every suit at law should be received against them; while, on the other hand, they were debarred from being plaintiffs in questions of wrong, adultery, or theft; and, finally, that they should neither be capable of freedom, nor have right of suffrage. (&lt;em&gt;Deaths of the Persecutors&lt;/em&gt; 13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second edict&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not long after... a royal edict directed that the rulers of the churches everywhere should be thrown into prison and bonds. (&lt;em&gt;Church History&lt;/em&gt; 8.6.8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third edict&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other decrees followed the first, directing that those in prison if they would sacrifice should be permitted to depart in freedom, but that those who refused should be harassed with many tortures. (&lt;em&gt;Church History&lt;/em&gt; 8.6.10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fourth edict&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the course of the second year [=304], the persecution against us increased greatly. And at that time Urbanus being governor of the province, imperial edicts were first issued to him, commanding by a general decree that all the people should sacrifice at once in the different cities, and offer libations to the idols. (&lt;em&gt;Martyrs of Palestine&lt;/em&gt; 3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further context, the story of the Diocletian persecution is told in &lt;em&gt;Church History&lt;/em&gt; chapter 8, and in Lactantius chapters 7-19. See also Wikipedia on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Diocletianic Persecution&lt;/a&gt; for many other accounts and references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T11:23:01.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8441" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8443" CreationDate="2012-07-10T12:31:19.633" Score="9" ViewCount="3735" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is NOT &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/901/does-god-have-free-will&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been reading a lot about Arianism and this is an interesting point that they have: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right&#xA;  and wrong, and that &quot;were He in the truest sense a son, He must have&#xA;  come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was&#xA;  not, and hence He was a finite being,&quot;[37] and was under God the&#xA;  Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John&#xA;  14:28: &quot;the Father is greater than I&quot;, and also Colossians 1:15:&#xA;  &quot;Firstborn of all creation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then, before being on the cross, did Jesus (being 100% man) have free will to make mistakes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2015-01-03T18:47:13.707" Title="Did Jesus have Free Will? (Arianism)" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;nicene-creed&gt;&lt;arianism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-03T19:06:52.087" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8437" CreationDate="2012-07-10T12:56:30.110" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something to point out here is that most likely Jesus did not speak Hebrew in everyday conversation, he most likely spoke Aramaic (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6450/was-the-first-gospel-written-in-hebrew&quot;&gt;see this question&lt;/a&gt;), so saying I AM here (in Aramaic) would not have been the same Hebrew YHWH (the tetragrammaton) that was in the Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T18:32:45.740" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8441" CreationDate="2012-07-10T12:57:46.533" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would be the heresy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism&quot;&gt;monophysitism&lt;/a&gt;  (or, pushed to an extreme docetism)  to deny Jesus' free will.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The classic text on the matter is in this matter is Luke 22:42 -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus had no free will, this statement has no meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Hebrews 4:15 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, if Jesus did not have the ability to sin, this statement makes no sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, even Satan realized that Jesus could sin. Otherwise, why would he have even attempted to entice Jesus to break his fast, worship him, or put God to the test, in the wilderness in Luke 4 / Matthew 4?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-07-11T18:05:46.263" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T18:05:46.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8439" CreationDate="2012-07-10T13:00:11.057" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key Christian idea is that &lt;strong&gt;scripture it is perfect and self-evincing in and of themselves without requiring any approval or acceptance from human authority&lt;/strong&gt;. From this standpoint it is the &lt;strong&gt;‘internal perfection of scripture’&lt;/strong&gt; that places it above all other texts. Any other text a man can easily prove some foul idea, or some imperfection, is contained in them, or some doctrinal error as compared to scripture. So in theory without any church council who previously determined what scripture canon was; the scripture carries its own full authority and self-evincing nature. The result of this power in the scripture is that any group of sound believers would commonly choose the same books of the Bible based on the Spirit's own internal and absolutely persuasive voice emanating from them as did previous believers under previous generations. I say ‘in general’ because not always has every book in our Bible been considered as scripture by all people. However, &lt;strong&gt;over time a general consensus of their internal perfection is made that proves those books which can’t be overthrown by man’s opinion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in addition to the neat and basic true answer, I would like to add lesser &lt;strong&gt;‘external characteristics’&lt;/strong&gt; that separate the scripture from other texts in other ways. These characteristics do not prove what the scriptures are (only their internal perfection does that) but they serve as 'additional points of interest' to understand how they are unique since they are perfect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They are very, very old. This may seem funny but it is believed that God would not leave man without any truth so scripture must start as far as history recalls, otherwise we could say, ‘Oh look at this book that fell from the sky. It is scripture and God never bothered to communicate to man before this.' Is that not funny and unlikely?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They have been miraculously preserved. Any objective person who has looked into the scriptures is amazed at what high quality there is in the manuscripts, while non-biblical ancient manuscripts rarely have the same quality of preservation, indicating God’s hand in it. Not only so, but many times human powers in the world have tried to exterminate the scriptures but have failed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The scriptures from Genesis to Revelation have a beginning, middle, and end.&#xA;Other books that are proposed to be slotted in have no place to properly fit and contents inside of them contradict contents inside the current scriptures. Not only so but the scripture have a perfect gradual unfolding of one uniform truth that goes beyond human comprehension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The scripture is unique in that it covers so many subjects without having any internal contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All scripture speaks in a tone that comes with a full authority of God. Scripture never say this might be the way it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most of the scripture were written during periods of divine attestation from God himself through extra ordinary miraculous displays of his power and acceptance of those persons who wrote, or whose words and actions were written about, in scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Many of those who write the scriptures suffered as martyrs showing a content rejection by the world of the content of the scripture making their unexplainable power and preservation all the more miraculous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the scriptures seems to have often overcome the world and turned it upside down even in the face of its attempt to reject them further indicates the internal power of their voice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in answer to your question it is simply that the scriptures are miraculous and perfect and so those who have believed in them and collected them, carefully preserved them, and they have by this means fallen into our hands and we accept them on the same grounds. Obviously it takes faith in God to believe in scripture. This is the foundation that they assume we will stand on, when falling under their divine and total authority over our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: most of this is simply a paraphrase of some arguments found in ‘The reason of faith' by John Owen, &lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Owens Works&lt;/a&gt; Volume 4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-18T15:38:07.520" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T15:38:07.520" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8437" CreationDate="2012-07-10T13:09:59.030" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know at the time of Jesus there was no actual legal prohibition on pronouncing the name of God. The biblical prohibition is against using the name of God &lt;em&gt;in vain&lt;/em&gt;. That was later translated into the practice of never using the name at all largely so that you could be sure of never using it unworthily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if found guilty of speaking a taboo word, that wasn't going to bring the kind of punishment the priests were looking for. It certainly wasn't going to get the Romans involved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T13:09:59.030" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8439" CreationDate="2012-07-10T13:11:08.633" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically, the only &quot;criteria&quot; for canonicity is widespread acceptance.  Looking at canonical lists up through the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Festal Letter&lt;/a&gt; canonicity was always based on &quot;what seemed most profitable to the reader&quot; at the time. That said, the Council of Trent said&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All New Testament Books share a claim to apostolic authority:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew &amp;amp; John were disciples&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke (&amp;amp;hence Acts) travelled with Paul&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mark was probably a close friend of Peter's&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All of the Pauline Epistles (Rom - Philemon) were written by Paul, who is considered an aposotle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrews was mistakenly attributed to Paul&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;James &amp;amp; Jude were brothers of Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peter (I &amp;amp; II) &amp;amp; John (I, II, III, and Revelation) were disciples &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament books had their authority by the Jews, and several theories including the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Council of Jamnia&lt;/a&gt; have been put forward that describe their assembly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, the NT Apocraphya (Acts of Thecla, Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of Peter, etc...) were never widely held to have been of apostolic origin, and the Church Fathers (the Didache, I Clement, Matrydom of Polycarp, etc...) were written by people who were more than a generation removed from Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-10T21:54:55.840" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T21:54:55.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8437" CreationDate="2012-07-10T13:14:25.230" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taboo? He is meant to break them. That is the law. He is an example for us as written in&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:&lt;/strong&gt; There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in&#xA;  Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is the one that condemns. No one can condemn him. As Romans said, no one can lay any charge against the elect of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the accussation, I think they were only concerned about his political crimes, something that could motivate the rulers against him. They wanted to pitch him against the rulers [Herod, Pilate, Ceasar] as opponents/opposition/competitor so they could bring him down&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man subverting our&#xA;  nation, forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar and claiming&#xA;  that he himself is Christ, a king.” (Luke 23:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Him saying &quot;I AM&quot; might not have impressed Pilate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T13:14:25.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8437" CreationDate="2012-07-10T18:40:08.273" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, Jesus broke taboos quite frequently.  However, when Jesus broke a taboo, the taboo was wrong--not Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the other taboos Jesus broke include the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Breaking the Sabbath&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish&#xA;  leaders began to persecute him. (John 5:16 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Claiming Equality with God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he&#xA;  breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father,&#xA;  making himself equal with God.  (John 5:18 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Forgiving Sins&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?  (Mark 2:7 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Associating with tax collectors and sinners&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  (Matthew 9:11 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Claiming the sacred name of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”  (John 8:58 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I would say that, yes, Jesus was breaking a taboo.  He was the only one who had the authority to claim the sacred name of God, so no one else could break that taboo.  Yet, He also broke several other taboos as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T18:40:08.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8450" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8455" CreationDate="2012-07-10T19:11:00.240" Score="4" ViewCount="2320" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Christian but also I have a strong belief in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni_%28folklore%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;demons Japanese&lt;/a&gt; (no better Tototro &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096283/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096283/&lt;/a&gt; why edited anyway) style like beer demon, wine demon maybe cigars demon anyway good food demon. Now this belief helps a lot because from that I understand they are strong forces and shall be treated with respect but controlled. But then the Bible says little about demons and almost always like 'pagan gods' or something. That is not exactly it, I think. But then as Christian Colridge style I have my doubts maybe I shall not believe in such demons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A brief description from Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Depictions of oni vary widely but usually portray them as hideous,&#xA;  gigantic creatures with sharp claws, wild hair, and two long horns&#xA;  growing from their heads. They are humanoid for the most part, but&#xA;  occasionally, they are shown with unnatural features such as odd&#xA;  numbers of eyes or extra fingers and toes. Their skin may be any&#xA;  number of colors, but red and blue are particularly common. (totoro is not like that)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastEditorUserId="1646" LastEditDate="2012-07-10T21:13:41.673" LastActivityDate="2012-12-30T23:32:14.340" Title="Can a Christian believe in Oni  (Japanese Demons)?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-23T22:05:19.533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8450" CreationDate="2012-07-10T20:36:18.910" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that you're reading enough of the bible.  Here are a couple examples of demons in the bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 5:1-20 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; (Too much to quote)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Restores a Demon-Possessed Man&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 4:33-36 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 In the synagogue there was a man possessed by a demon, an impure&#xA;  spirit. He cried out at the top of his voice, 34 “Go away! What do you&#xA;  want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know&#xA;  who you are —the Holy One of God!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 “Be quiet!” Jesus said sternly. “Come out of him!” Then the demon&#xA;  threw the man down before them all and came out without injuring him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, “What words&#xA;  these are! With authority and power he gives orders to impure spirits&#xA;  and they come out!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 16:16-18 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paul and Silas in Prison&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a&#xA;  female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She&#xA;  earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. 17 She&#xA;  followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of&#xA;  the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” 18 She&#xA;  kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he&#xA;  turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I&#xA;  command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible usually describes demons as more spiritual and not physical entities such as you're describing.  However I would be interested in reading the passages that you mention here: &quot;...says little about demons and almost always like 'pagan gods' or something&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-07-10T20:52:00.203" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T20:52:00.203" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5125" CreationDate="2012-07-10T21:56:04.323" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dave Mortons Comment here is supplemental to this question:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6494/how-can-we-apply-relying-on-jesus-in-situations-where-it-appears-we-have-to-rely&quot;&gt;How can we apply relying on Jesus in situations where it appears we have to rely on ourselves?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I don't think there's a huge distinction. Paul gives us some&#xA;  instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:17-21, that we should remain in the way&#xA;  we were when we were called, but if a slave can gain freedom, then he&#xA;  should. Obviously there's tons of freedom here to make decisions using&#xA;  our brains, and make the best life we can, always realizing that it's&#xA;  God's decision in the end whether or not he'll bless us. There's&#xA;  enough overspiritualization within the church today, that I don't&#xA;  think I need to add to it. Love God, avoid sin, love others, and do&#xA;  what you're good at. Read Ecclesiastes for more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T21:56:04.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22870" CreationDate="2012-07-10T22:31:52.757" Score="4" ViewCount="838" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having read &lt;a href=&quot;http://markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesuslanguage.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/what-language-did-jesus-speak-why-does-it-matter/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, I am convinced now that Jesus spoke Aramaic. However, I also know that many times He was quoting Septuagint, which is a translation of the Old Testament into Koine Greek. I am a little bit confused now. Does it mean that when He was talking to His disciples or to the Jews and was quoting Septuagint, He was switching from Aramaic to Greek? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If yes, then it sounds a bit contradictory to me. Why would He need to switch to Greek while He was talking to the Hebrew people, not to the Greeks, about their own Holy Scripture (Jews' aversion toward the Greek is quite evident from the book of Acts)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If no, then how can we say that He was quoting Septuagint (as I know Septuagint was written only in Greek)?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T21:39:09.493" LastActivityDate="2016-03-06T16:34:41.157" Title="Jesus' quotation of Septuagint - Greek or Aramaic?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;greek&gt;&lt;septuagint&gt;&lt;aramaic&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8453" CreationDate="2012-07-10T23:17:36.627" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The normal explanation is that Jesus quoted the scriptures in Aramaic*, but as the LXX was the readily available translation of the Greek (and the Gospel writers probably had large portions of the Greek memorized), the Gospel writers would defer to its translation instead of translating directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*Because the authors of the LXX had different resources than those which are available today, it is possible that Christ would have used similar source documents to those in the LXX. I do not believe there is sufficient information to judge this matter.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-10T23:17:36.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8450" CreationDate="2012-07-11T00:57:07.677" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding Christianity in Japan, one useful bit of previous experience is the history of Christian missionaries in the 16th-17th centuries. Francis Xavier, founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) was one of them! They encountered particular issues with how best to introduce Japanese people to Christian belief, and one of the biggest problems they faced was the tendency to syncretism - the instinctive attempt to meld Christian beliefs into existing Buddhist and Shinto practice. In 1598, the confessional text &lt;em&gt;Salvator Mundi&lt;/em&gt; / &lt;em&gt;Sarobat&amp;#333;ru Munji&lt;/em&gt; challenged Kirishitan (Japanese Christian) believers by asking:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Have you worshipped &lt;em&gt;kami&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;hotoke&lt;/em&gt; since you became Kirishitan? If you have, how many times?&lt;br/&gt; Have you worried about the punishment of &lt;em&gt;kami&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;hotoke&lt;/em&gt;? Also, have you thought that they could give human beings punishment or providence?&lt;br&gt;Have you, according to pagan practices, performed the worshipping of the sun and the moon (&lt;em&gt;tsuki machi hi machi&lt;/em&gt;), or called for a  &lt;em&gt;miko&lt;/em&gt; and an &lt;em&gt;onmy&amp;#333;ji&lt;/em&gt; for prayer ritual (&lt;em&gt;kit&amp;#333;&lt;/em&gt;) and incantation?&lt;br&gt;Have you participated in pagan events even if you have remained Kirishitan inwardly?&lt;br&gt;Have you performed fortune-telling for yourself or made others do it? &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the &lt;em&gt;oni&lt;/em&gt; may be regarded essentially as a special kind of &lt;em&gt;kami&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, at least for our purposes here. These early missionaries certainly saw regard for the &lt;em&gt;kami&lt;/em&gt; as problematic, and tried to stop people from worrying about such issues as how to placate them through worship or offerings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A belief in &lt;em&gt;oni&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;kami&lt;/em&gt;, along the lines of traditional Shinto practice, is not compatible with the Christian world-view, since Christianity has different opinions about the nature and origin of spiritual beings. While Christianity does include a concept of &quot;demon&quot;, these are not the same as Shinto &quot;demons&quot;; it's not reasonable to drop &lt;em&gt;oni&lt;/em&gt; into the context of normal Christian belief. That is, it doesn't make sense to combine orthodox Christianity with a belief in &lt;em&gt;oni&lt;/em&gt;, as &lt;em&gt;oni&lt;/em&gt; are traditionally understood in Japanese culture. Indeed, the history of Christianity in Japan shows some problems with this approach. During the suppression of the religion, one form of &quot;underground&quot; Christianity transmuted into a blend of ancestor-worship/Shinto/Buddhism, with a few Christian-looking elements, but without any real connection to the core of the faith. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4998/545&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; by AffableGeek on the Kakure Kirishitan.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1. From &lt;em&gt;Christianity in Early Modern Japan: Kirishitan Belief and Practice&lt;/em&gt;, Ikuo Higashibaba (BRILL, 2001), p 36-37&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. &lt;em&gt;Encyclopedia of Shinto&lt;/em&gt; (trans. of &lt;em&gt;Shinto jiten&lt;/em&gt;, Kobundo, 1994) under &lt;em&gt;oni&lt;/em&gt;, senses 1 and 3, sees &lt;em&gt;oni&lt;/em&gt; as a subcategory of &lt;em&gt;kami&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T03:35:55.793" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8456" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="30691" CreationDate="2012-07-11T00:57:59.270" Score="25" ViewCount="16649" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a young believer I was quickly turned on to the idea of learning some things about the &amp;quot;original languages&amp;quot; of the Bible.  After all, how could you understand &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:15-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 21:15-17&lt;/a&gt; without understanding the difference between &amp;quot;agape&amp;quot; love and &amp;quot;phileo&amp;quot; love?  Jesus was using specific words for a specific reason, right?  That's pretty basic sermon stock right there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shortly after my conversion I was talking with a Mormon friend of mine, and suggesting that we need to look at the Greek in certain cases to understand exactly what was meant by certain phrases in Scripture.  He looked at me with a strange look and asked why I thought the original language was Greek, since Jesus spoke Latin (or Aramaic... or something like that.)  This was news to me!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be honest, it is a bit hard for me to accept that the Hebrews wouldn't have spoken &lt;em&gt;Hebrew&lt;/em&gt;... given that their entire culture was built around &lt;em&gt;Hebrew&lt;/em&gt; Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, can someone sort all of this out for me?  Did Jesus speak Latin? ... or Greek? ... or Hebrew? ... &lt;em&gt;or something else?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, please explain how we &lt;strong&gt;know&lt;/strong&gt; what languages He spoke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2021-04-13T22:08:29.423" LastActivityDate="2021-04-13T22:08:29.423" Title="What languages did Jesus speak?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8453" CreationDate="2012-07-11T00:58:30.067" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If no, then how can we say that He was quoting Septuagint (as I know&#xA;  Septuagint was written only in Greek)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if your assumptions are all correct, there's still no problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus was speaking Aramaic, he could quote verses written in Greekmthe same way I can quote, in English, a Bible verse written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, I can also quote a Klingon saying like &quot;It &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; a good day to die&quot;, even though it was probably originally a Klingon saying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether He was speaking Greek or Aramaic is not doctrinally important, as far as I know.  He could be quoting anything, translating it as necessary. He is, according to most traditions, God in the flesh, after all. That would mean He should have no trouble translating accurately.  Such a feat should pose no problem for an omniscient God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-07-11T01:04:05.850" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T01:04:05.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8458" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8477" CreationDate="2012-07-11T01:22:48.937" Score="6" ViewCount="9088" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clearly Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden affected everyone.  And clearly if you murder someone, or commit adultery, it affects others.  But are there sins which do &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; affect other people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am wondering for this question is if &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; sin affects other people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an extreme example, suppose God has spoken a promise to me, and I doubt it for a moment, but then repent and have faith.  During my time of doubt, I never speak or do anything - it is all internal.  Would that sin affect others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I am asking is that often times, non-Christians define &quot;evil&quot; as that which does harm to another.  By this definition, they justify things which are explicitly forbidden in Scripture, because in their eyes, it doesn't affect anyone else.  I also often hear Christians define &quot;sin&quot; as that which does harm to another.  One of the many passages used to support this teaching is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Romans 13:10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is &quot;evil&quot; defined as &quot;that which harms another&quot;?  If not, it seems like Christians need to stop using this secular definition in their teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2017-08-07T18:08:06.390" Title="Does every sin affect other people?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-08-09T11:08:02.517" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8458" CreationDate="2012-07-11T01:26:43.647" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, not EVERY sins affectS other people (&lt;em&gt;directly, at least.&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lust, covetousness, idolatry are three examples of sins, neither of which affects anyone else, unless acted upon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All are sins, whether acted upon or not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lust: &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:28&lt;/strong&gt; But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to&#xA;  lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Idolatry: &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:3&lt;/strong&gt; Thou shalt have no other gods before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;covetousness: &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:17&lt;/strong&gt; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt&#xA;  not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his&#xA;  maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy&#xA;  neighbour's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for whether Christians should stop using secular definitions for doctrinal terms, from a Biblical Literalist, Sola Scriptura standpoint, I'd say, &quot;duh!&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(No offense meant, just using that slang for emphasis.  It seems stronger than just &quot;yes&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the easiest way to win a debate is to redefine terms, and I've always fought back against that form of attack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that from a Christian perspective, I'd sidestep the definition of &quot;evil&quot; and stick with the Biblical definition of &quot;sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:4&lt;/strong&gt; Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;sin is the transgression of the law&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All scripture quotes KJV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caveat:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have to say, @user1539 has a good point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theory, the sins I listed are sins even if not acted on, but practically, as it applies to real-world probability and human nature, all of these would probably be manifested in some sort of way that does affect someone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The odds that they would be &quot;not acted on&quot; in other words, is not very likely, and these sins would result in us committing other sins that &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; affect people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while &lt;em&gt;some specific sins may not &lt;strong&gt;directly&lt;/strong&gt; affect others&lt;/em&gt;, they do affect others &lt;em&gt;indirectly&lt;/em&gt;, because human nature being what it is, the sins do lead to actions that affect others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Although this may be splitting hairs.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-07-11T12:26:08.247" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T12:26:08.247" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8456" CreationDate="2012-07-11T01:34:04.760" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus&quot;&gt;At the time of Jesus&lt;/a&gt;, and even for many centuries before, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language&quot;&gt;Aramaic&lt;/a&gt; was the vernacular or common everyday language. The Tanakh is mostly in Hebrew (in particular, the Torah) but there are a few Aramaic sections - notably, in Daniel. Hebrew was therefore the &quot;high&quot; language of religion but Aramaic was the &quot;low&quot; language of normal life. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism&quot;&gt;Hellenized Jews&lt;/a&gt; would also have spoken Greek. The Roman occupiers, also being Hellenized, would have mostly used Greek, with a bit of Latin.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In just the same way, Aramaic was the common language of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Assyrian_Empire&quot;&gt;neo-Assyrian empire&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, while they simultaneously maintained &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language&quot;&gt;Akkadian&lt;/a&gt; as their &quot;high&quot; language. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Babylonian_Empire&quot;&gt;neo-Babylonians&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; followed the same pattern: people spoke Aramaic in the marketplace but used Akkadian, or even &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language&quot;&gt;Sumerian&lt;/a&gt;, for  formal purposes. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek&quot;&gt;Koine&lt;/a&gt; (common) Greek is distinct from literary Greek, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin&quot;&gt;vulgar Latin&lt;/a&gt; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin&quot;&gt;classical Latin&lt;/a&gt;. You can also think of European scholars until  recently using Latin as a common written language, while speaking their own English/French/German/etc. in the street.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the languages Jesus knew, we have the following evidence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the context of where Jesus grew up, he would undoubtedly have known Aramaic as the default language. Some well-known phrases in the gospels have Jesus explicitly speaking Aramaic, like &lt;em&gt;Eli, eli, lama sabachthani&lt;/em&gt; (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34); &lt;em&gt;racha&lt;/em&gt; in the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Given that the majority of the people he interacted with would have spoken Aramaic as their first language, it's plausible that he himself spoke Aramaic most of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luke's gospel also demonstrates knowledge of Hebrew: Jesus reads from the Torah scroll (4:16-20) and even as a child could discuss religious matters with the teachers at the Temple, also probably in Hebrew (2:46-47). The Samaritan woman (John 4) would have spoken Hebrew rather than Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are several occasions when Jesus talks with Romans, including Pilate. These conversations would have taken place in Greek, the customary language of the eastern Empire, rather than Latin; Aramaic is possible instead if the Romans would stoop to it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a definite yes to Aramaic and Hebrew, with Aramaic being his first language, and a maybe-to-yes for Greek. Of course, this excludes any languages that he might have been able to use by miraculous means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1. The &lt;strong&gt;Neo-Assyrian Empire&lt;/strong&gt; had a run of about 300 years of dominance over the Near East, ending about 612BC with the fall of their capital, Nineveh (the place that Jonah really didn't want to go). Their hobbies included &lt;a href=&quot;http://englishhistory.net/byron/poems/destruct.html&quot;&gt;coming down like the wolf on the fold&lt;/a&gt;, making &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aHuman_headed_winged_bull_facing.jpg&quot;&gt;sculptures of winged bulls&lt;/a&gt;, and ruling over their neighbours. They gained considerable prestige from the conquest of Babylon (and failed to conquer Jerusalem) but...&#xA;&lt;br&gt;2. ...the &lt;strong&gt;Neo-Babylonian Empire&lt;/strong&gt; overthrew them. This empire didn't have much to do with the original Babylonians apart from being based in the same city; the leadership were all ex-Assyrian. That's why they tried to legitimize themselves by copious use of Sumerian, and giving themselves Babylonian-sounding names. The most famous of their kings is Nebuchadnezzar, who appears in the book of Daniel.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2012-07-11T02:54:10.790" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T02:54:10.790" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8458" CreationDate="2012-07-11T02:45:45.403" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose we could say, In what sense? One could argue that everything you do affects other people in some way. Of course some sins afect other people very directly. If you steal from someone or beat him up, you are clearly doing him direct harm. Other sins are less direct. If a husband struggles with lust for other women, surely at some point this will negatively affect his relationship with his wife. Even if he never actually has an affair, it's got to be a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, nowhere does the Bible define sin as things that harm others. Such a definition is too simplistic. If I owe someone money and he demands I pay, he is harming him, but I don't think asking someone to live up to an agreement is a sin. If I tried to kill someone and he killed me in self-defense -- or even just knocked me down so he could get away -- he is harming me, but that would not be a sin. You might say, yes yes, of course I mean that it is a sin to harm someone else UNJUSTLY. But then how do we decide what is &quot;unjust&quot;? This turns it into a circular argument: it is morally wrong to harm someone else except when it is not morally wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible for someone who lives alone on an island to sin? He can't harm anyone. But according to the Bible, yes, he can. He can't kill or steal. But he could blaspheme God. He could lust. He could hate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T02:45:45.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8450" CreationDate="2012-07-11T03:08:30.350" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Demons like Totoro remind me of what Mark Twain wrote in his book concerning St. Joan of Arc &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the several traditions were as I have said, some believing one and some another. One of them I knew to be the truth, and that was the last one. I do not say anything against the others; I think they were true, but I only know that the last one was; and it is my thought that if one keep to the things he knows, and not trouble about the things which he cannot be sure about, he will have the steadier mind for it—and there is profit in that. I know that when the Children of the Tree die in a far land, then—if they be at peace with God—they turn their longing eyes toward home, and there, far-shining, as through a rift in a cloud that curtains heaven, they see the soft picture of the Fairy Tree, clothed in a dream of golden light; and they see the bloomy mead sloping away to the river, and to their perishing nostrils is blown faint and sweet the fragrance of the flowers of home. And then the vision fades and passes—but they know, they know! and by their transfigured faces you know also, you who stand looking on; yes, you know the message that has come, and that it has come from heaven. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2874/2874-h/2874-h.htm#2HCH0002&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Personal Reflections of Joan of Arc - Chapter 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Western culture has largely lost its &quot;fairy culture&quot; and with it, has abandoned mythology (with the strange exceptions of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy).  Not having beer and cigar demons stifles the imagination, but having them doesn't do a lot for a personal relationship with Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take medieval Christianity with its fairies and dragons and contrast it with what you may hope to get out of a blend of paganism with Christianity in Japan, you'll realize that there are a few differences:  For one thing, Christ can never be put in the pantheon with Japanese spirits.  God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the Boss;  Good spirits had better be pointing to the one true God, not ends in themselves; Bad spirits should be avoided (or better yet thrown into Hell). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is certainly a lot children can learn from fairy stories or demon stories or whatever you want to call them.  Totoro and Ponyo are good examples of stories I have no problem letting my kids watch. Harry Potter, not so much, it's just not as innocent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, since you asked the question, you can't be that naive. Therefore, the concrete answer is, avoid anything that would conflict with the first commandment &quot;I am the Lord your God, you shall not have false gods before me&quot;. (I don't think that means though shalt have false gods after me). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T03:08:30.350" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8466" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8468" CreationDate="2012-07-11T04:25:18.517" Score="19" ViewCount="820" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has there been a project that traces the genealogy of each verse of the scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I.e., for each verse, it traces back through all the documents it was translated from, the default translations at the time, ... all the way back to historically verifiable fragments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not talking about a generic &quot;this book of the bible came from XYZ&quot;. I'm talking about details at the grainularity of a single verse. I.e, for each verse, trace it's lineage, through all the translations, back to the original inspired writers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-01-02T19:59:38.763" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T20:57:30.910" Title="How do I track the history of changes to a given verse's actual text? How do I discover it's &quot;lineage&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2351" CreationDate="2012-07-11T10:24:47.703" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation chapter 12 says there was a war in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:7-9&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 12:7-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan and his angels, fought Michael and his angels, but could not win.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before that, it said that Satan's tail swept a third of the stars. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:4&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 12:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;meaning 1/3 of the angelic host fell with him in his rebellion, for they rebelled also. Thus scripture lets us know that they were thrown out with Satan, losing their &lt;b&gt;First Estate&lt;/b&gt;. If they weren't chained in prison, they would be creating havoc among the people of the Earth. Thank God for this!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1842" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T19:51:05.887" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T19:51:05.887" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8466" CreationDate="2012-07-11T10:26:17.750" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;The type of work you are looking for is called an apparatus, such as Bruce Metzger's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/3438060108&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament&lt;/a&gt; which explains the choices made in compiling the UBS4 &lt;strike&gt;Nestle-Aland 27&lt;/strike&gt; (one of the best Greek texts, pulling together most of the known codexes, manuscripts, and papyri out here)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When using an apparatus, you should become familiar with the distinction between the texts (Say, codex Sinaiticus, an aleph, vs. Codex Vaticanus, a B, what a papyri is, what an Mss. Is, etc.) This &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.bethel.edu/~pferris/otcommon/Hebrew/hebrew-guides/HEBSTGD007.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;, a guide to the critical apparatus of the BHS (Biblica Hebraica Stugartensia) does a pretty good job of explaining the approach that scholars use in determining the lineage of a text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will talk about what &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;manuscripts&lt;/a&gt; inform the current text out there, and it will discuss why a particular variant should be chosen. Additionally, it grades the certainty with which the scholars believe it to be &quot;original&quot;. &#xA;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.ovu.edu/tc/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; is not comprehensive, but gives an excellent overview of some of the more problemmatic variants. An example variant would be described as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 John 12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;TEXT: &quot;so that our joy may be made full&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EVIDENCE: S K L P Psi 104 614 630 945 2495 Byz Lect syr(ph,h)&#xA;  TRANSLATIONS: KJV RSV NASVn NIV NEB TEV&#xA;  RANK: C&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;NOTES: &quot;so that your joy may be made full&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EVIDENCE: A B 33 81 1739 1881 lat vg cop(north)&#xA;  TRANSLATIONS: ASV NASV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;OTHER: &quot;so that my joy may be made full&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EVIDENCE: cop(south)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;COMMENTS: In later Greek the words for &quot;our&quot; and &quot;plyour&quot; were pronounced alike. It is likely that copyists misheard &quot;our&quot; as &quot;your,&quot; influenced by the two previous occurrences of &quot;you&quot; in the verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this instance, particular attention should be paid to the &quot;Evidence&quot; entry.  Each letter or abbreviation refers to a particular manuscript that contains the variant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://net.bible.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Net Bible&lt;/a&gt;, their public domain text has incorporated the apparatus into the footnotes in most places where there is any question. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 tc ‡ Most witnesses ([א] A P 1739 Ï sy) have καί (kai, “also”) before the article τόν (ton). But the external evidence for the shorter reading is significant (B Ψ 048vid 33 pc sa), and the conjunction looks to be a motivated reading in which scribes emulated the wording of 4:21 (ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τόν, agapa kai ton). NA27 places the conjunction in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, notice the 'most witnesses' and the list of manuscripts.  The 'A' representing Tischendorf's stolen Codex Sinaiticus is properly called א in this work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2014-03-07T17:19:13.037" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8469" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9931" CreationDate="2012-07-11T11:19:01.520" Score="16" ViewCount="967" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas&quot;&gt;Gospel of Barnabas&lt;/a&gt; is a text that has turned up in the form of 16th century manuscripts in Italian and Spanish. The text claims to be the witness of Jesus' disciple Barnabas, however its content runs quite contrary to Christian doctrine in every major tradition that I know of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secular media, however, loves to trumpet its claims and it periodically makes the rounds in pop culture. Sometimes it is touted as an alternate rendition of the Biblical New Testament account (either to be considered the true one if you discount the NT or a bogus one if you trust it). While the media doesn't tend to cover this, most scholars recognize that it's teachings are hugely divergent from those of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Christian traditions have come down with official statements with direct bearing on this text either approving or rejecting it's claims? What secondary positions (creeds, confessions, etc) could be shown to directly address it? Have any Christian traditions ever given it's teaching any authority?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-04-06T13:41:03.447" LastActivityDate="2018-04-06T13:41:03.447" Title="What official statements represent Christianity's position on the Gospel of Barnabas?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;&lt;pseudepigrapha&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8441" CreationDate="2012-07-11T11:32:27.167" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. (NIV Hebrews 4:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me (NIV John14:30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus had free will, but not the ability to sin, that is considered impossible by many Christian leaders around the world.  The fact is &lt;strong&gt;there are two sides to this interesting question.&lt;/strong&gt; Both sides agree that Jesus did not sin, so I suppose this debate is only theoretical, but its all about whether theoretically he could have sinned. Those who hold to &lt;strong&gt;“impeccability”&lt;/strong&gt; believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to &lt;strong&gt;“peccability”&lt;/strong&gt; believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think when you think about it one must fall for the “impeccability” belief because it alone can maintain the idea of the God-Man. To assert peccability we are basically denying the scripture that says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (NIV Hebrews 13:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus would no longer be infinitely unchangeable in his nature if He sinned. The problem is that when God assumed human nature into His own person forever, God could never be separated from the man Jesus. The Christ was both God and Man to separate them would be to destroy both God and Man, which is impossible. Free will does not require absolute freedom to sin, but the divine nature does require absolute inability to sin, even though God has the most free will of all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question therefore is almost like saying could God send himself to hell, for that is the theological conclusion of the God-Man sinning. It would mean God sinned himself for Christ was not just man, but God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Of course Jesus could have never sinned otherwise He could no longer be said to be God.&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus’ human will would have had to be ‘infinitely powerful’ and opposed to God, or opposed to Himself, in its supposed ability to sin for if he had sinned he must suffer eternal hell, but if he was also God than God would also suffer eternal hell. The whole notion is ridiculous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cause of the confusion is we often exaggerate how much free will we have as humans. In various was we have very limited free will.  The Bible has a different view. In fact it says that although Adam did have a unique aspect of free-will that no other man has ever had, being that He was specifically tested to choose life or death in the garden of Eden as a federal head of humanity, humans are born sinners with no such free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A sinner is born a slave to sin without the free will of living holy. This can’t happen until they are born again in Christ and become slaves to righteousness. In fact I heaven we will no longer be free to sin, just as Christ never could because He has become the source of our life and we will not be able to reject our own life, just as Christ was not able to reject His.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. (NIV Romans 6:17-18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course we are not fully slaves to righteousness until we enter heaven, but as believers we no longer have the freedom to allow sin to control our lives for our life is Christ who lives in us and who can’t sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not that difficult to show this belief in &lt;strong&gt;the Impeccability of Christ has been a common belief held by mainstream Protestant leaders&lt;/strong&gt;, for example John Owen was one of the leading theologians and academic administrator at the University of Oxford in teh 1600s, he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are tried and tempted by Satan, and the world, and by our own lusts. The aim of all these temptations is sin, to bring us more or less, in one degree or other, to contract the guilt of it. Of times in this condition sin actually ensues, temptation hath its effect in us and upon us; yea, when any temptation is vigorous and pressing, it is seldom but that more or less we are sinfully affected with it. It was quite otherwise with our high priest. Whatever temptation he was exposed unto or exercised withal, as he was with all of all sorts that can come from without, they had none of them in the least degree any effect in him or upon him; he was still in all things absolutely “without sin.” Now, the exception being absolute, I see no reason why it should not be applied unto sin with both the respects unto temptation mentioned. He neither was tempted by sin, such was the holiness of his nature; nor did his temptation produce any sin, such was the perfection of his obedience. (Owens Works Volume 20, P528)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are various good theologians that reinforce this doctrine, I have not read this article but it seems good from what I could tell. “&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.berbc.org/Library/Arthur%20Pink%20-%20The%20impecability%20of%20Christ.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Impeccability of Christ&lt;/a&gt;” By Arthur W. Pink&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T11:32:27.167" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8409" CreationDate="2012-07-11T12:02:34.993" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I face this issue I think &lt;strong&gt;sometimes it’s just about semantics&lt;/strong&gt;. For example, of course only those who are saved, Christ died for, because as He knew all men from eternity. He knew who He was dying for, in terms of actually providing real forgiveness to. However, with the hyper Calvinistic view (which I think you are referring to for Calvin did believe it) I think Calvin was overreacting to the opposite view, Pelagianism. Calvin does not seem to know how to reconcile man’s free choice and God’s desire to save all mankind, with the doctrine of election. This view actually gets itself into theological knots and even some of my favorite theologians have been sucked into it. In the extreme case it is actually proposed that Christ is not even truly offered to all and that He actually does not really love all in the same way that he loved the elect. From this extreme view, God only chooses some and does not choose others. &lt;strong&gt;This extreme form of Calvinism is not shared by all Calvinists. I do not think Luther thought this way at all&lt;/strong&gt;. A window into Luther’s attitude about it all can be found &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8047/what-is-supralapsarianism/8055#8055&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way out of this quagmire is simple for me. I accept the doctrine of predestination and consider myself a Calvinist. However, where Calvin does not follow the more mature Luther on this subject, I lean to Luther. I do not speculate so much about God’s election of those who will ultimately inherit eternal life, like Luther. Plus, I take the commandment to love our enemies as meaning God must love them also. Luther often seems to be filled with this faith; Luther never clarifies when offering Christ to sinners that ‘Oh by the way this might not be for you.’ Its simple, if God commands us to love His enemies, then He must love them and offer that love through the death of Christ for them. &lt;strong&gt;It makes no sense for God to command us to love His enemies if He does not love them.&lt;/strong&gt; God commands us to love them because He wants us to be like Him. Love must include desiring what is eternally best for them, or else love if hate and hate is love and the Devil could be God and God could be the Devil. The whole thing is nonsense when taken to the extreme through vain speculation. Besides, those who go to hell will go there primary for rejecting His love in Christ. If that love was not offered, then it is no sin to reject it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only sure thing we know is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV John 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you get into the original Greek and somehow argue that this verse is not applied to all but only the elect (which is what these people actually do) - it makes no difference. God must love the world or He would not ask us to and He does mean the whole world in the verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T12:02:34.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8469" CreationDate="2012-07-11T12:12:45.633" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The clearest statements I know of are its exclusion from the N.T. That alone suggests that it was either not present at the time the N.T. was codified or that, if it was present (doubtful as there are no references to it prior to the Renaissance), then it was not viewed as having a substantial claim as being Apostolic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a minimun, however, the very fact that scholars believe that he may have &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas&quot;&gt;borrowed from Dante&lt;/a&gt; make all of the claims of authenticity outright laughable if not mockable. I will go ahead and say that I do not believe any church should be held responsible for condemning every single forgery that man can create: if they were, then the churches would likely do little else. The very fact that people even think this document plausible makes me think of the quote, &quot;What do they teach in school these days?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T12:12:45.633" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8437" CreationDate="2012-07-11T12:27:52.730" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus seems to have followed, out of courtesy, the taboo by the Rabbis on pronouncing the Lords name (יהוה‎) Yahweh as though there was something sacred about it.&lt;/strong&gt; This was not the original practice of the Hebrews but a ban on pronouncing the name &lt;a href=&quot;http://jewsandjoes.com/did-yeshua-jesus-teach-his-disciples-how-to-pronounce-the-great-name-yhvh.html&quot;&gt;started to appear&lt;/a&gt; around the time of Antiochus IV (175 BC).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply from the fact that the New Testament never brings up any kafuffle about the name it is clear Jesus respected the superstition as a man of peace. &lt;strong&gt;The Jews wanted to kill him for declaring He was Jehovah, not for simply pronouncing the name.&lt;/strong&gt; Curiously there is ‘another modern movement' based on seeming high degrees of confusion over the so called ‘sacred name’, and there is even a website dedicated to arresting its development &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/JesusSaidYahwehContents.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse itself seems to simply mean that when Jesus spoke, his breath was like his infinite power bringing his enemies to their knees. &lt;strong&gt;It signifies that Jesus could have destroyed them all in a ‘burp’ but it was His will to surrender as a Lamb to be slain.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the taboo itself as it is not even mentioned in the Bible anywhere it was never considered significant enough to respond to, or even record the history of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T12:27:52.730" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8469" CreationDate="2012-07-11T13:12:12.957" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an English translation of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm&quot;&gt;Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipendis et Non Recipiendts&lt;/a&gt;.  The Decretum Gelasianum was issued by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome 492-96].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the apocryphum mentioned is &quot;the Gospel in the name of Barnabas&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the document floating around in the present day is probably a 16th century writing, just based on content analysis.  However, a version that existed in the 5th century was rejected by the Roman Catholic church as apocryphum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T13:12:12.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8458" CreationDate="2012-07-11T13:42:40.140" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple: Every sin does affect every person because it weakens your faith and ability to love others. The more you sin the less good you are to everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T13:42:40.140" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8422" CreationDate="2012-07-11T13:49:54.110" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A council’s authority has authority so long as they do not cross the authority of God’s word, at which point all authority is demolished. We believe they have authority only because we trust they have made decisions that are complaint with God’s word. When they generally do not cross God’s word then they still maintain their authority generally, but not where they fail to maintain Gods word. Ultimately the only authority is God’s word. It alone is an infallible guide. Even if the councils were angels in heaven or the Apostle's themselves, if they crossed God’s word, we are free to consider them as Devils:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (NIV Galatians 1:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T13:49:54.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8458" CreationDate="2012-07-11T18:01:10.247" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I am of the opinion that all sins affect those around us in at least the second degree, and they have a third degree effect on the whole world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the thought. In life you are either walking towards God or away from him. As you walk towards him you gain a docility of the spirit and become more Christ-like. If you walk away, you diminish in this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if I decide that I am going to sin, &quot;in private&quot; that will still mean I have less of a disposition to Christ when in public. The lesser the disposition in public, the more likely I am to be less charitable with those around me, even if the sin is something completely unrelated. Thus, while we may not be hurting people directly, it is causing us to hurt them through second-hand folly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(But, you say, what if one were to make amends before returning to the public? Well, what if, instead of making amends the same effort were put into prayer after never having sinned to begin with?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say that it affects us all in a &quot;third degree&quot; because the sins in the world make the world less righteous. Not only can it be said that you can never catch up to where you were had you not sinned to begin with, and that will carry over in both obvious and direct ways, and in more remote and indirect ways. One example might be that if you snap at someone, it may make that person more inclined to snap at another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One might try to say, &quot;but it would be but a drop in an ocean,&quot; and I would be inclined to agree but for the fact that there are almost 7 billion of us with droppers and all of us are putting a little in every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-11T19:37:12.743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T19:37:12.743" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8437" CreationDate="2012-07-11T18:48:41.783" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, Jesus frequently broke taboos, even saying that often 'the traditions of men are not of GOD.' And Yes, I'm convinced that &lt;strong&gt;Jesus spoke YHWH out loud&lt;/strong&gt;, because the scripture is very clear that &lt;strong&gt;JESUS taught the Name YHWH to those whom He was told to.&lt;/strong&gt; And YES when you READ Jesus Saying &lt;strong&gt;&quot;I AM&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; in the Neew covenant JESUS knows HE is offending the religious leaders and &lt;strong&gt;their tradition&lt;/strong&gt; of not &lt;strong&gt;pronouncing the Name&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Now, we don't really know how YHWH is actually pronounced...today, the closest is probably Yahweh, and definitely NOT Jehovah, because there was no J in the alphabet of Greek or Hebrew, and it was not invented until (1478–1550) when it was explicitly used to distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the one (technical law) that was cited to hang JESUS on the cross, (for blaspheme (&lt;strong&gt;literally this means HE spoke the sacred name&lt;/strong&gt;), as well as considering Himself equal with YHWH (which He was). 'If you knew the Father, you would know Me..'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ELOHIM never said NOT to use HIS personal Name YHWH. &#xA;IN FACT GOD/ELOHIM said to &lt;strong&gt;KEEP His Name YHWH Holy, as a memorial for all time&lt;/strong&gt; Exodus 3:14,15. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the same clear message that Jesus taught: &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be YOUR NAME&lt;/strong&gt;...&quot; JESUS KNEW the power of the Name of GOD, KNEW the tradition of the teachers of the law, and did everything HE could do reestablish the power of the Name, shining the light squarely on the Rabbis tradition which had been ongoing from about 350bc, the process to remove GOD's Name YHWH from all scriptures, and teachings, this was Man's tradition, and one that Jesus did NOT approve of, and the main one satan fights to this day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of what is missing here is a basic understanding of what you are asking. This is not a simple subject and can take years of research to connect all the dots, and it is still a mystery. The subject of the Name of GOD: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YHWH has been studied by kings and priests, Rabbis and Pastors, Academics, Philosophers, for thousands of years... it's as simple as the Name of GOD, as complex as the Name of GOD, hated by Satan above all else, and received by YAH Saves = Yeshua = Jesus. The Name of YHWH is in the name of JESUS. But this is a revelation that many still fight even in the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JESUS Yehshua didn't actually say: &quot;I AM,&quot; this is the English translation from the written GREEK New Covenant, which was translated from vocalized Aramaic.... ALL of which would be referring back to the old Covenant written in ancient (Paleo) Hebrew @ Exodus 3:14. Did I lose you there? ;-) &#xA;[Someday maybe we'll uncover (like the dead sea scrolls) ancient Hebrew versions of the second covenant, but for now all we have is the GREEK translation, taken from vocalized Aramaic, which was said earlier, was the common language of the Jews at the time of Jesus era.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here's the answer as simply as I can make it. &#xA;YES. Jesus was in fact stating a shortened version of the Name of GOD &quot;HWH&quot;.. He would have been referencing Exodus: &#xA;Ehyah Asher Ehyah, (without vowels it was written as HYH or ancient version: HWH SHR HWH.)&#xA;YES, this is YHWH saying first Person: &quot;I AM,&quot; which is a very Hebrew way of saying I EXIST, or I BREATHE. FISRT PERSON MEANS THAT WHEN JESUS SAID HWH HE WAS CLAIMING TO BE GOD, MOST NEVER CATCH THIS POINT, AND IT IS HUGE. THIS IS WHY THE TEACHERS WERE SO UPSET AT HIM FOR CLAIMING TO BE GOD. HE CLAIMED TO BE GOD BY USING THE NAME OF GOD &lt;strong&gt;IN THE FIRST PERSON&lt;/strong&gt;. JESUS WAS NOT MEARLY REFERRING TO THE SACRED NAME IN THE THIRD PERSON. It's what HE SAID TO MOSES... this is why the teachers were furious enough to throw stones at Jesus or hang Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extremely INTERESTING that the New Covenant JESUS uses this as you point out: HE BREATHED ON THEM.... YET another key clue to the BREATH of GOD and the Name of GOD intertwined. BUT JESUS DID NOT USE THE FULL YHWH Tetragrammaton with the YOD at the beginning YHWH. Jesus uses I AM &quot;HWH&quot; a LOT by the way throughout scripture, (now you'll begin to notice this over and over)...THESE are all clues to WHO JESUS is, and He clearly did this to show His Power in wielding the Name of GOD, because it was HIS name, and HE wanted everyone to Know His Name and begin calling worshiping HIS NAME again. Erasing GOD or making &lt;strong&gt;YHWH&lt;/strong&gt; vain was a violation of the 3rd commandment or statement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that JESUS is YHWH.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this truly helps us all desire to know GOD, by first knowing HIS Name: HWH SHR HWH, YH, and YHWH. To grasp the concept of Erasing GOD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1844" LastActivityDate="2012-07-11T18:48:41.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8479" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-11T23:19:59.247" Score="4" ViewCount="935" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his book The Pursuit of God, A. W. Tozer has this phrase:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'The sacraments' were first two, then three, then four, until with the triumph of Romanism they were fixed at seven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What were these first two sacraments? The third? The fourth? The last three? As the title asks, what order were they established?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not exactly asking when they first arose, but rather when they were officially &lt;em&gt;declared&lt;/em&gt; as sacraments in the early Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-07-13T01:37:34.037" LastActivityDate="2012-07-13T01:37:34.037" Title="In what order were the Sacraments added?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7280" CreationDate="2012-07-11T23:57:01.707" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading &lt;a href=&quot;https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/629/138&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; on the new Islam Stack Exchange, and it suddenly dawned on me that that schisms often fall along linguistic lines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Great Schism&lt;/a&gt; divided Latin-speaking Christians from Greek-speaking Christians.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation#Literacy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Protestant Reformation&lt;/a&gt; divided those who worshiped in Latin from those used the vernacular.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;approximately 38,000 Christian denominations&lt;/a&gt; have definite historical connections to particular languages.  For instance, I grew up in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Covenant_Church_of_America&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;denomination&lt;/a&gt; that owes its existence to the desire of Swedish immigrants to worship in their first language.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there are a great many other reasons for these divisions; schisms have theological components as well.  I'll address that aspect below.  We read in Genesis that God is the source of language division:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and &lt;em&gt;this is only the beginning of what they will do&lt;/em&gt;. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.”&amp;mdash;Genesis 11:6-7 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we have the story of a group of people trying to reach heaven by working together and God intervenes by confusing their language.  Why is that?  Why should God give humanity the power to make something great of themselves and then prevent them from doing it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Piper wrote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/desiring-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Desiring God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (p. 44):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God loves to behold His glory reflected in His works. So the eternal happiness of the triune God spilled over in the work of creation and redemption. And since this original happiness was God’s delight in His own glory, therefore the happiness that He has in all His works of creation and redemption is nothing other than a delight in His own glory. This is why God has done all things, from creation to consummation, for the preservation and display of His glory. All His works are simply the spillover of His infinite exuberance for His own excellence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Piper explains in an appendix (p.310), the story of Babel is the story of God preventing humanity from making a name for itself to replace God's glory with our own.  The church has, over two millenia, &lt;strong&gt;tried to reconstruct Babel&lt;/strong&gt;.  Left unchecked, there would have been no limit to what the church could have done.  And so, God had to thwart our plans.  The Holy Roman Empire was not allowed to permanently supplant the Secular Roman Empire, because, if it had, there would have been no room for God to display His glory via the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I think there's an even more compelling reason for church divisions in God's plan: the ministry of reconciliation.  John's Revelation tells a reverse-Babel story:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and &lt;em&gt;languages&lt;/em&gt;, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with &lt;em&gt;a loud voice&lt;/em&gt;, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen.”&amp;mdash;Revelation 7:9-12 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Revelation+7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Voices from &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; language will, before this age is over, join in &lt;em&gt;one voice&lt;/em&gt; to glorify God.  Jesus will accomplish this and has accomplished it through His extraordinary sacrifice.  You don't have to look very far to see that such a reconciliation could only be accomplished by the sovereign will of God.  Whatever mighty works humanity can do, it can't unite itself by itself.  Only God can claim credit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why are there theological differences?  I'd like to suggest they exist because no one person or organization can really grasp the depth and breadth of God's glory.  One of my friends got excited about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hesychasm&lt;/a&gt; a while back and told me about the incredible Christians who live on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mount Athos&lt;/a&gt;.  That anyone could spend all of their waking moments in continual prayer seems simultaneously inspiring and tragic.  On the one hand, they are missing out on so much of what God is doing, and on the other, I am missing out on so much of what God could be doing through me.  It's remarkable to me that God simultaneously encourages His people to explore the full range of His creation while encouraging other to mine in one place for His richness buried under the surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Protestant, I find that I can agree with almost everything that my Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters proclaim about God.  Generally, the problems come with a few edge cases and with emphasis.  In that main, we are in agreement.  Further, our differences will sort themselves out when Jesus returns to take us as His bride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:49:09.287" LastActivityDate="2012-07-12T16:58:52.467" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8479" CreationDate="2012-07-12T02:46:22.897" Score="6" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Marriage was the proto-sacrament. It became a sacrament after Christ came.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eucharist was the second. It first appeared on Maundy Thursday.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is ambiguous. The baptism of John was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; sacramental. I believe that it became a sacrament after the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ordination can be seen between the resurrection and Thomas's acceptance of that fact. It can also be seen at the beginning of Acts (before confirmation).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Confirmation can be seen at Pentacost/at the Baptism of Cornelius.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Extreme Unction&quot; or &quot;Anointing of the sick&quot; is seen in James.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Confession is a bit ambiguous. It clearly was a sacrament in the Ante-Nicene period, but it did not gain its current form until several centuries later. Meanwhile the basic form of the other sacraments was codified much earlier.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Response to edit:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is little evidence to suggest that what are now called &quot;the seven sacraments&quot; were not always called sacraments. That said, I believe &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1438sacraments.asp&quot;&gt;this document&lt;/a&gt; might be of use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Greek Christianity these various Christian rites were called &quot;mysteries&quot;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; [i.e. things to be hidden from unbelievers] and the exact number of them was defined in a variety of ways. Even though Orthodox Christians today will usually agree that there are seven sacraments, but will also want to include such important rituals as funerals and monastic vows as &quot;sacramental&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first document it links to is a&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;profession of faith demanded of this Byzantine Emperor when he converted to Roman Catholicism in 1274. This seems to have been the first important Church document which listed the seven sacraments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*The word &quot;mystery&quot; is a reference to Ephesians 5:32. In Latin it is rendered, &quot;sacramentum.&quot; Generally theologians will agree that they have the same intended meaning&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-07-12T12:16:06.713" LastActivityDate="2012-07-12T12:16:06.713" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8479" CreationDate="2012-07-12T03:57:43.143" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's pretty lame, the author didn't even say which sacraments he's talking about!  Here's my idle speculation from what I've learned about what Protestants assume about the sacraments here on Christianity.SE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first two would probably be Baptism and the Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first to be added must be Holy Orders to establish apostolic succession to keep up with the demand on the first two sacraments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next thing probably was Confirmation since that's a most ancient and apostolic thing to do to a baptized person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then come what may be seen as the functions of the episcopate: last rites, reconciliation and matrimony (even though it's not something a priest does). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, it's a pretty much a red herring to even consider this question as having anything to do with churchy developments over the years. The emphasis on the seven sacraments is about God's mysterious presence being felt and His covenants with us as individuals. It's not about numbers and or a gradual deepening in the Church circles (like degrees in freemasonry).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-07-12T03:57:43.143" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8484" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8487" CreationDate="2012-07-12T04:47:01.083" Score="9" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can’t imagine the cross would have become an art-piece while the Romans were still killing Christians. The cross symbol during the persecutions must have in some way seemed similar to the Nazi symbol of the swastika during the death concentration camps, but later (unlike the swastika) it became a good symbol of Christ’s atonement and resurrection.  I was wondering when it actually became a Christian icon. Of course I understand from the Bible that the icon was immediately gloried in, but the cross as a doctrine did not necessarily turn into popular art right away, or did it? When did it show up on artifacts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not associate any particular meaning to the cross as an icon myself; this is more of a general curiosity question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-12T12:17:41.610" Title="What is the earliest point in history where the cross icon started showing up on artifacts related to Christianity?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8484" CreationDate="2012-07-12T12:17:41.610" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross#Early_Christian_use&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the 2nd century, as is indicated in the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius[6] of Minucius Felix, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-12T12:17:41.610" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8469" CreationDate="2012-07-12T14:41:30.120" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Barnabas (original referred to in the Gelacian Decree) is a complete mystery, but the extant copy held in the National Library of Vienna is hardly a mystery. The novel A Deceit To Die For makes a very compelling case that it is connected with the Lead Books of Sacromonte, the Morisco conspiracy in Spain after the Muslims were defeated by the Christians but before they were kicked out of the country. If the novel is close, then the Gospel of Barnabas was an incredible forgery. Today, Muslims around the world believe the Gospel of Barnabas was suppressed by the Church and contains the closest representation of what Jesus taught. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1847" LastActivityDate="2012-07-12T14:41:30.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8490" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8493" CreationDate="2012-07-12T19:37:17.650" Score="16" ViewCount="27339" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book in the world.  What is the current total of languages into which the Bible, or part of the Bible, has been translated.  I would also be interested to know if there are any predictions about how long it will be before the Bible is translated into every language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2017-06-04T10:55:58.030" Title="Into how many languages has the Bible been translated?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8491" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8495" CreationDate="2012-07-12T21:05:49.937" Score="6" ViewCount="3218" Body="&lt;p&gt;Original Question: Is it possible to give some brief description of Christian faith to non-believing listeners without exposing them to context requiring faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If yes, can you provide one? Any term requiring faith (like God, prayer, sermon) should be clarified in the answer using terms clear to non-believers (like love or selfishnes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By &lt;em&gt;brief&lt;/em&gt; I mean to be able to say it under 1 minute in normal speed speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user508" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-07-13T16:25:51.687" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T19:04:32.810" Title="How do you explain the Christian Message to people who have no Christian vocabulary or context?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8492" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8494" CreationDate="2012-07-12T21:07:10.940" Score="8" ViewCount="2420" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the most translated book in the world.  It seems that giving the Word of God to all the world is considered part of the Great Commission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the LDS church holds the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, just like the Bible, what is the current total number of languages into which it has been translated.  I would also be interested in statistics for the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-12-27T03:29:28.867" Title="Into how many languages has the Book of Mormon been translated?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;&lt;pearl-of-great-price&gt;&lt;doctrine-and-covenants&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8490" CreationDate="2012-07-12T21:30:17.387" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a moving target as more translations are being completed all the time (a friend of mine went to the dedication of the Inuktitut Bible only a few weeks ago). The Bible is also usually translated in stages, so the number of languages with &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; of the Bible translated is higher than those with &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of it translated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/news/904-bible-in-ten-more-languages-new-testament-in-27/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;United Bible Socities&lt;/a&gt; in October 2011 said that there were &lt;strong&gt;469 languages&lt;/strong&gt; with a complete Bible, and 2527 with at least some portion of scripture translated. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30064&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Biblical Federation&lt;/a&gt; in October 2008 said there were 438 complete translations and 2454 partials - close enough to be considered agreement. According to UBS ten languages acquired a complete Bible last year. 135 have the deuterocanonical books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latter reference claims that there are 4500 languages left to go. However it is very difficult to make predictions based on those numbers. Many of those languages have very few speakers, and the language may die out before a translation is done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Corroborating statistics from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wycliffe.net/resources/scriptureaccessstatistics/tabid/99/language/en-US/Default.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wycliffe&lt;/a&gt; as of 2013 (portions would combine some projects in progress with those with the New Testament and complete Bible)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Number of Languages in the World                           6918&#xA;Languages w/o translation (and needing one):               2000+&#xA;&#xA;Number of languages with Bible portions:                   1010&#xA;Number of languages with New Testament:                    1294&#xA;Number of languages with entire Bible:                     513&#xA;&#xA;Total World Population:                                    7 billion&#xA;Number of people who speak languages with no translation:  ~350 million&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-06-05T17:10:06.383" LastActivityDate="2014-06-05T17:10:06.383" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8492" CreationDate="2012-07-12T21:32:35.060" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/the-book-of-mormon-another-testament-of-jesus-christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Currently, 150 million+ copies in any of 82 languages.&lt;/a&gt; (from the Mormon Newsroom)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since it was first published in English in 1830, the Book of Mormon&#xA;  has been fully translated into 82 languages, and printed copies have&#xA;  totaled more than 150 million.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll add a note that I've seen at least a dozen incomplete translations (&quot;Selections from the Book of Mormon&quot;) into more obscure languages. Interestingly, I have also met people who, for existing translations, are assisting in making better translations for difficult languages like Farsi where current translations are lacking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product3_715839595_10557_22031_-1__195551&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This page on the LDS Store&lt;/a&gt; has 37 languages in the list for the Triple Combination, which includes the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/understanding-the-process-of-publishing-the-book-of-mormon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here's an interesting article&lt;/a&gt; about the publishing of the Book of Mormon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-12-27T03:29:28.867" LastActivityDate="2013-12-27T03:29:28.867" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8491" CreationDate="2012-07-12T23:05:04.477" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This was the original point of &quot;The Four Spiritual Laws. In that scheme:&#xA;1. Sin separates us from God&#xA;2. We cannot pay for our sin&#xA;3. Jesus did pay for that sin by dying on the cross&#xA;4. If we trust him, he will take us to heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even that assessment, however, (substitutionary atonement at its best!) is a bit technical and theological  Below is how I would relate the Gospel to a &quot;newbie&quot; (And note, I am not using them exactly as stated)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You were created to be a good thing, but like all all of us, you haven't lived up to that full potential. None of us is good enough to be what it is that God (the Supreme Being and Creator of all that is) designed us to be. (Gen 1:27, ISA 53:6, Eph 2:10)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Because we are not living up to what God would have us be, there is a penalty- an inability to be with God. Justice demands that as people who fall short of God's glory, we cannot stand in God's presence. (Because God is perfect, and we are not, how could we truly stand to be with someone totally holy? It's like when all those Nazis looked into the Ark of the Covenant and saw the angel of the Lord!  We just aren't strong enough or pure enough to look upon absolute pure holiness. ) (Ex 34:2, Mal 3:2, Rom 3:23, rom 6 &amp;amp;7)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Because of that gap, God realized that he had to make the first step- and here is that good news: that God so loved the world, that even though he was God, he chose to empty himself of being God, in order to find a way that he could both pay that for that penalty, and show us how to live with Him once he returned to his full God-like nature. (John 1, 3:16, Phil 2:5-12)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If we are simply willing to completely trust Him, he is willing to make us fit to stand in his presence, blameless, with great joy! (Prov 3:5-6, Jude 24, 25)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He will cause us to suffer, he will discipline us, and he will command us to do all sorts of things completely contrary to what our&quot;common sense&quot; will tell us to do- but if we completely trust him- if we take Him at his word, we will become his children- heirs in a legal sense. He talks to us through the Bible, through prayer, and by causing things to happen in our lives that force us to learn how to discern his will and lean on him for the strength to do what he would have us do. (Heb 12:1-6, James, Rom 8) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The primary thing that God would have us be is loving. God is love. God desires what is best for us, even if it is not the thing that gives us the most pleasure. He trains us to do the same thing- to love others in the way that he loved us. (Heb 12:1-6, (1 John, 1 Cor 13)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-07-15T19:04:32.810" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T19:04:32.810" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8491" CreationDate="2012-07-12T23:50:06.360" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a Christian view presented by Solomon that thinks in terms without direct faith in God. I think when we remove words about faith in God we arrive at the sane destination:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Meaningless! Meaningless!”&#xA;  says the Teacher.&#xA;  “Utterly meaningless!&#xA;  Everything is meaningless.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess what I am proposing is that it is not possible to answer your question because without describing and beleiveing in God as someone who sent His Son to die for the sins of the world, Christian faith is also meaningless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-12T23:50:06.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8491" CreationDate="2012-07-13T00:56:07.160" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jan, you're on a wrong and very dangerous path. This is the road that leads to watering down the truth in order to cater to unbelievers. Can you show me one instance where Jesus or His apostles ever attempted to do what you're asking? Why don't you follow in the footsteps of the apostle Paul and not be ashamed of the gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice how it says it is the power of God to everyone who...&quot;believes.&quot; If people won't believe, they are condemned already (John 3:18). If they won't believe, we are to shake the dust off our feet and move on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 10:14 Jesus said, &quot;Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they won't believe then they are doomed. It is impossible to please God without faith. It is not our job to &quot;get&quot; them to believe...God does that. Our job is to be faithful in preaching the unadulterated truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read Ezekiel 37. How do the dead bones live?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1849" LastEditorUserId="1849" LastEditDate="2012-07-14T19:14:48.473" LastActivityDate="2012-07-14T19:14:48.473" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8426" CreationDate="2012-07-13T05:28:30.820" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be &lt;strong&gt;two ways to identify the Trinity in the Old Testament&lt;/strong&gt;. By the &lt;strong&gt;names used to refer to God&lt;/strong&gt; or by the &lt;strong&gt;special quality of the operations that God seems to be doing in the context&lt;/strong&gt;.  Although in general some names seem to refer to the different persons of the trinity, it does not seem, from what I have read on the subject that one can strictly say, ‘Wherever this name is used it means the Holy Spirit, or wherever this name is used it always means the Son.’ In stead each name is a proper name of the’ One true God’. When the ‘name’ is placed within a context indicating the peculiar operations of one person in the Trinity, than it can be said to refer directly to that person. Even if the name generally refers to the Father, under a given context is may actually refer to the Son:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (NIV Isaiah 9:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will not speak directly about each name, to try and assign which ones are more frequently used for which person, or if they are at all, as that would be a thesis statement for a doctorate in theology.  I will only mention that, in addition to the title of the Messiah which we understand points to Christ, the one name of God that most commonly is assigned to Christ is 'Jehovah'.  But as in the quote above and other references, the following 'name samples' appear to be used for Jesus Christ specifically on occasion: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Adonai, (Psalm 110:1),Elohim, (Psalm 45:6,Hebrews 1:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main subject to consider is not the specific names but the operations of God and how &lt;strong&gt;each person of the Trinity has distinct operation in the relation to the other persons&lt;/strong&gt;. When the Old Testament refers to ‘God’ in general, then no particular person of the trinity is being identified because &lt;strong&gt;all three persons of the Trinity are undivided in their operations and roles&lt;/strong&gt;. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit as acting by the same exact and undivided will, wisdom, power. All three are the author of the operation. God is generally referred to in this way because of the perfect Unity of all three persons with same essence, likeness and divine nature. However, even when there is no distinct mention of a given person in the Trinity by name, because each person has a distinction from the other two and therefore a relation to them, &lt;strong&gt;each can be said to distinctively operate where ever God is referred to as operating&lt;/strong&gt;. This existence, and mutual relation between each person within the single existence of God has been called their &lt;strong&gt;‘subsistence’&lt;/strong&gt;. Each person has an eminent distinction and relation to the others in their subsistence. When any special impression is made of the special property of any person on any work; then the scripture is drawing attention to that work as assigned peculiarly to that person.  Not that any person is passing the ‘baton’ as it were to the other and no longer acting, because all three are always joined in One performing it, but outwardly and as described in scripture special attention is given to one person of the Trinity at special instances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we collect the many places in the Bible where particular persons are mentioned under the acts that are being performed, or specifically and directly by their name, as is often the case in the New Testament, we can recognize patterns, or characteristic properties, to look out for. For example I gleaned these characteristics from &lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Owen's&lt;/a&gt; Discourse on the Holy Spirit, in the third volume of His works, which I read around ten years ago and it still impacts me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Father:&lt;/strong&gt; The fountain of the Godhead, beginning of divine operations, power and authority, sending &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Son:&lt;/strong&gt; Eternally born of the Father, proceeding from the Father, condescension, grace and wisdom of the father, subsisting, establishing, upholding, making a consistency, making a permanency. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spirit:&lt;/strong&gt; Proceeding from the Father and the Son, condescension, immediate works, concluding, finishing, immediately enabling, completing and perfecting acts and mysterious concluding works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I have not tried to collect Bible versus that illustrates these characteristics because anyone familiar with the Bible will recognize them. However, just referring to major events like the Father 'sending' the Son to be 'incarnate' and the Spirit 'enabling' the Son to 'establish' the work of atonement and 'send' the Spirit to 'perfect' Christ’s holiness in us, gives a big window into the truth of the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-22T03:18:38.167" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T03:18:38.167" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8499" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8501" CreationDate="2012-07-13T05:35:55.850" Score="15" ViewCount="1685" Body="&lt;p&gt;In providing this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8426/identifying-the-three-and-the-one-in-scripture-in-light-of-the-trinity/8498#8498&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; with respect to recognizing the Trinity in the Old Testament, I noticed that Jesus is called the Father which could be confusing when trying to understand the Trinity. &lt;strong&gt;In what sense is Jesus the Father but certainly not the Father?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, &lt;strong&gt;Everlasting Father&lt;/strong&gt;, Prince of Peace. (NIV Isaiah 9:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please do not answer unless your answers uphold the doctrine of the Trinity&lt;/strong&gt;. I do not want the debate about the trinity to confuse the question. The answer must assume the Trinity is true, that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal yet different persons that share the same single divine nature and therefore are called the One and true God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2014-12-27T05:59:34.803" Title="Why is Jesus the Son called the Father in Isaiah 9:6?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8500" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-13T06:41:17.063" Score="12" ViewCount="29328" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the&#xA;  Abyss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside. The demons&#xA;  begged Jesus to let them go into the pigs, and he gave them&#xA;  permission. 33 When the demons came out of the man, they went into the&#xA;  pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was&#xA;  drowned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why did the demons need to go inside the pigs? Would that be the only way to avoid abyss? Why not request to roam around in a desert or sit on a tree?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why then did they kill the pigs? I thought they wanted to live in a body.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why did Jesus send them into pigs instead of sending to abyss where they belonged?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Am I to make some spiritual/moral sense of this story or is it just a historical record?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-17T14:25:45.310" LastActivityDate="2015-11-03T13:49:24.523" Title="What does the account of pigs and demons mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-25T00:42:26.700" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8499" CreationDate="2012-07-13T07:30:34.193" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;And why is he called Counselor? These are adjectives used to describe/praise him. These are metaphorical descriptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is also a brother and a son - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 12:48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49&#xA;  Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my&#xA;  brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my&#xA;  brother and sister and mother.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is both, the son of David and Lord of David - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 22:42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The&#xA;  son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that&#xA;  David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The&#xA;  Lord said to my Lord:“Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies&#xA;  under your feet.”’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think His description as an everlasting father is supposed to illustrate a point that He will watch over and protect His disciples whom he considers as His own children - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 14:18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: &#xA;I would like to make an addition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question reveals one of the mistakes that non-trinitarians make. Attempting to define God in human terms and concepts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The concept of father, mother, brother, sister did not exist before God invented the family unit.&lt;/strong&gt; It would've been meaningless to call someone your brother before Adam and Eve had sons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God who created these concepts, is not defined/limited by these. He is above these concepts and yet he is the perfect fulfillment of them.&lt;/strong&gt; He is not the brother of anyone. Yet he is the perfect model/example of a good brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am a sister. I had no choice, I was given this role. But He voluntarily takes upon these roles for our sakes, becoming our friend, counselor, brother, father, shepherd&lt;/strong&gt;, and everything else it takes for the expression of His love towards us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-07-13T08:11:31.850" LastActivityDate="2012-07-13T08:11:31.850" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8500" CreationDate="2012-07-13T08:10:07.217" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the case of the devils wanting to have permission to enter the pigs rather than be cast into no particular place it seems to be under a simple desire of destruction. The demons are enraged to destroy and in this story we clearly see the bounds of the destruction they seek are under the power of God. They are tied to a divine leash, not being permitted to destroy without boundaries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why Jesus actually permits them might be as an opportune time to prove to those watching that the demons were not imaginary but as they left the man who then had peace of mind, external evidence showed that they were real by immediately destroying the pigs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore we see the curse for sin brought on man includes a curse upon nature and even animals. Jesus did not make his primary mission to protect the rights of animals or upholding good environmental practices but to put an end to the power of the Devil by his death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil —(NIV Hebrews 2:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-13T08:10:07.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8504" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22895" CreationDate="2012-07-13T11:13:31.047" Score="11" ViewCount="34845" Body="&lt;p&gt;What explanations have been offered for why Jesus never addressed God in His prayers by the name &quot;Jehovah&quot; or &quot;Yahweh&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-11-09T14:56:10.243" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T14:56:10.243" Title="Why did Jesus never address God by the name &quot;Jehovah&quot;?" Tags="&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8504" CreationDate="2012-07-13T13:12:29.143" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jehovah were an exclusive name for God the Father, then it would be appropriate for Jesus to have used that name, along with a myriad of other names (Jehova-Jireh, El Shaddai, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if the name &quot;Jehovah&quot; applied to the Trinity, then it would seem odd for Jesus to refer to the Father with a term that also referred to Himself as part of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus most often uses &quot;Father&quot; when addressing the Father, which is a relational term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, &lt;strong&gt;Father&lt;/strong&gt;, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, &lt;strong&gt;Father&lt;/strong&gt;, for such was your gracious will.  Matthew 11:25-26 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “&lt;strong&gt;My Father&lt;/strong&gt;, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”  Matthew 26:39 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “&lt;strong&gt;Father&lt;/strong&gt;, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.  Luke 23:46 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “&lt;strong&gt;Father&lt;/strong&gt;, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you.  John 17:1 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And now, &lt;strong&gt;Father&lt;/strong&gt;, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.  John 17:5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. &lt;strong&gt;Holy Father&lt;/strong&gt;, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.  John 17:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Father&lt;/strong&gt;, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.  John 17:24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;O &lt;strong&gt;righteous Father&lt;/strong&gt;, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.  John 17:25 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-13T13:21:13.513" LastActivityDate="2012-07-13T13:21:13.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8504" CreationDate="2012-07-13T13:24:13.557" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah&quot;&gt;Jehovah&lt;/a&gt; is a Latin version of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton&quot;&gt;Tetragrammaton&lt;/a&gt;, usually considered the Hebrew name of God. Most scholars consider Jehovah &quot;a hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai&quot;, and not to have been used before 1100AD. Obviously Jesus would not have used a word invented 1100 years after his earthly life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is widely thought that Jesus DID use the Hebrew name of God, in John 8:58:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reaction of the hearers was such that they clearly believed he was using the name of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was the practice of the Jews not to use the name of God at that time, so he may simply have wished to not muddy the waters by giving offence. Technically the name YHWH applies just as much to him as it does the Father, so that may have accounted for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-07-13T13:50:01.873" LastActivityDate="2012-07-13T13:50:01.873" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8504" CreationDate="2012-07-13T19:41:01.137" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Miriam (Mary) call her son Jesus?  Nope his name was 'yeshua ben yosef' (which in itself is just an approximation due to language and alphabet limitations).  Similarly, Jesus would never address God by 'Jehovah'.  However he could have addressed him as any of the names of God: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Names of God in Judaism (Wikipedia).&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible may have translated the name used to 'Jehovah' to remain consistent for the reader who may not understand the different names of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, my personal favorite is &quot;El Roi&quot; which sounds like &quot;El Row He&quot; or &quot;Elroy&quot; from The Jetsons: God Who Sees me (All seeing God, sometimes denoted by the eye of providence); Hagar's name for God when He saw her affliction (Gen. 16:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or El Kanno which sounds like &quot;El Can Know&quot;: The Jealous God (Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Jos. 24:19; 1 Ki. 19:10, 14; Ezek. 39:25; Joel 2:18; Nah. 1:2; Zech. 1:14; 8:2). Suggests that God watches us lovingly and closely, like a faithful and passionate bridegroom watches over his betrothed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2016-11-09T14:54:27.073" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T14:54:27.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8508" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8510" CreationDate="2012-07-13T20:35:07.560" Score="12" ViewCount="3559" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of groups who believed that after the time of the Apostles, God withdrew miracles from the world (please correct me if that is the wrong understanding). But the book of James clearly says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who believe miracles were limited to the times of the Apostles, then why does James say this? Why would there be an anointing if no miracles are even possible? Or do I misstate their definition of miracles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2016-08-14T14:44:26.207" LastActivityDate="2017-08-11T00:51:15.057" Title="If miracles stopped after the Apostles, then why are there admonitions to pray over people?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;book-of-james&gt;&lt;cessationism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8508" CreationDate="2012-07-13T22:37:25.193" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe in cessationism, but I will explain one answer used by cessationists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;sick&quot; in the passage you quoted can also be translated &quot;weak&quot; (i.e. in faith), and thus, the verse can be interpreted to mean that if a brother is weak in faith, he should come to those who are stronger in faith for the purpose of support, prayer, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In such an interpretation, there is no reason to believe that James was promising &quot;Spiritual gifts of miraculous healings.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard a sermon on this a few weeks ago at a church I was visiting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-13T22:37:25.193" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2" CreationDate="2012-07-14T01:31:47.403" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is very valid, and I sincerely wish more of my &quot;fellow Protestants&quot; understood what I am about to explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The point of the Reformation was not to drive each individual Christian to interpret the Bible for themselves!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is abundantly clear from Luther's writings that this was not his goal, but for some &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;strange reason&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, this has become a defining characteristic in Protestantism.  It is &lt;strong&gt;wrong&lt;/strong&gt;, it is a &lt;strong&gt;tragedy&lt;/strong&gt;, and it needs to be &lt;strong&gt;fixed&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luther had a problem with the Catholic church &lt;strong&gt;making things up&lt;/strong&gt; that were &lt;strong&gt;clearly contrary&lt;/strong&gt; to the teachings of Scripture.  His response was &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura!!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;  He just meant that the Church needed to go back to Scripture and stop teaching lies.  The Church did not respond favorably, and so they &quot;parted ways.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luther did &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; have a problem with having a Church, or with spiritual authority, spiritual disciplines, learning from others, and so on.  Not everything about the Catholic Church was evil!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The modern tendency for each individual Christian to interpret the Bible for themselves is the result of pride, post-Enlightenment individualism and rebellion, and lust (a desire to find a comfortable interpretation.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical picture of the church is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012,%20Ephesians%204&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a body with many members&lt;/a&gt;, including teachers, which builds itself up (collectively) in love.  We should be learning and growing together as brothers united in love.  We should not be rejecting one another or seeking our own interpretations and truths.  &lt;em&gt;(We also should not be making things up!)&lt;/em&gt;  We need to reject the corruption that has entered the church as a result of the Enlightenment.  (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7735/1548&quot;&gt;See here&lt;/a&gt; for more on this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-07-14T01:31:47.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8513" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8514" CreationDate="2012-07-14T09:28:55.127" Score="1" ViewCount="192" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been reading on St. Teresa recently. She says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;as water penetrates and is drunk in by the sponge, so, it seemed to me, did the Divinity fill my soul&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that mean that God is present in the world as water is present in a sponge? (Because the world is present in St. Teresa as in any human being and God fills St. Teresa's soul therefore God is present in the world as water in a sponge)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That strikes me as a little bit non-Christian but rather and again demon-like Japanse style (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8450/can-a-christian-believe-in-oni-japanese-demons&quot;&gt;Totoro&lt;/a&gt; here). Does that mean that the mystics do not have Faith crystal clear but rather obscured by their mysticism and/or feelings? Because how a Lord can be water? How then can he come and judge and, more importantly, how can I then say I have no other gods but My Lord? Because water here is no different from water over there (or differences are not relevant).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please help me understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2016-05-25T06:46:03.860" Title="Sponge in water vs water in sponge how to understand St. Teresa properly?" Tags="&lt;mysticism&gt;&lt;communion-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-05-25T12:53:31.763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8513" CreationDate="2012-07-14T11:48:51.207" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key understanding for this is that God is present everywhere (omnipresence) but He is not Present (capital intentional) everywhere. That is, God doesn't make His Presence manifest everywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, the quote becomes a bit clearer. At the outset, a sponge doesn't have any water. Put it in some water though, and the water will start seeping into the sponge. The water fills up the tiny voids present all throughout the sponge and at the end, the sponge is saturated. (Note also that the sponge expands a little; it doesn't drastically change size.) Similarly, most human souls (Christians included) are dry like a sponge, but if we spend time in the Presence of God, His Divinity will slowly fill us up until we are saturated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many, &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; attributes of God that we don't have vocabulary for, so we say it is &lt;em&gt;like&lt;/em&gt; this or &lt;em&gt;like&lt;/em&gt; that, which typically implies that the two are not the same (nor do they even have to correspond fully). St. Teresa here uses &quot;as&quot; in the same function. She says God's Divinity filling up the soul is &lt;em&gt;like&lt;/em&gt; water filling up a sponge, which is her intended comparison. She didn't intend to imply that God's Divinity had other characteristics of water or that God fills up the world like a sponge; both are out of the scope of this metaphor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-07-14T11:56:08.590" LastActivityDate="2012-07-14T11:56:08.590" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8508" CreationDate="2012-07-14T13:20:10.513" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this verse means to that &lt;strong&gt;we should pray for those people who are physically sick&lt;/strong&gt; and in some ways I partially believe in a kind of limited cessation. You can see a very lengthy response to the state of all the gifts here &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8343/are-the-gifts-of-the-holy-spirit-still-active-today/8360#8360&quot;&gt;Are the gifts still active?&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although at the time this letter was written the healing may have commonly been &lt;em&gt;extra ordinarily miraculous&lt;/em&gt;, however, &lt;strong&gt;just because we pray for someone that is sick does not mean that God will not answer by normal means such as bed rest&lt;/strong&gt;, even at that time in history. Whether God answers miraculously, or just supporting the person under a time of temptation and giving him and his doctors wisdom to take the proper care, or whether God’s answer is to simply bring that person home into heaven the next day, of course prayer should be offered! So this verse does not relate directly to the question of cessation or not cessation. Whenever we are in distress we should seek prayer especially when we are truly sick. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Going to God in payer simply assumes that God could heal, or otherwise help us in our sickness. The answer to all of us, at some point in our prayers, will be comfort and strength to face a death we are peacefully prepared for.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would we expect any Church not to encourage sick people to be prayed for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-07-14T15:12:40.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8517" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8518" CreationDate="2012-07-15T00:54:01.090" Score="7" ViewCount="11450" Body="&lt;p&gt;My pastor mentioned the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, through man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where does this concept come from (rather than just written by wise or experienced men)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than direct references to Jesus, how do we know the rest is not just man's ideas and are indeed God inspired or &quot;written&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a chapter in the Bible that states this or is it tradition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-07-19T22:46:27.940" LastActivityDate="2016-07-19T22:46:27.940" Title="Where does the belief the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit come from?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;bible&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8517" CreationDate="2012-07-15T02:02:58.690" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The short answer&lt;/strong&gt; is that Paul made a general statement to this effect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All Scripture is inspired by God &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &amp;quot;inspired by God&amp;quot; is literally translated as &amp;quot;God-breathed&amp;quot;.  So the Bible is not merely a collection of wise men's writings, but is actually authored by God, through men, by the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, on to more specific examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prophecy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but &lt;strong&gt;men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:20-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-2 Peter 1:20-21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly prophecy is the work of the Holy Spirit.  (Also see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%201:1-9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 1:1-9&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2023:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 23:2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%203:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 3:18&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:15-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:15-17&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, many people teach that &amp;quot;not all Scripture is prophecy&amp;quot;, and they use the division of &amp;quot;Law, Psalms, and Prophets&amp;quot; to signify the three chunks of the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalms&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David...&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Acts 1:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“For it is written in the book of &lt;strong&gt;Psalms&lt;/strong&gt;, ‘Let his homestead be made desolate, and let no one dwell in it’; and, ‘Let another man take his office.’ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Acts 1:20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two passages being quoted in verse 20 are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2069:25&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalms 69:25&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20109:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalms 109:8&lt;/a&gt;.  Although these were &amp;quot;Psalms&amp;quot;, clearly they were prophetic utterances by the Holy Spirit, which &amp;quot;had to be fulfilled.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Psalms were the work of the Holy Spirit, and could also be considered &amp;quot;prophecy.&amp;quot;  (See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:41-44&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:41-44&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Law&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all know that the 10 Commandments were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%204:13,%2010:1-5,%20Exodus%2031:18,%2032:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;written by the very finger of God&lt;/a&gt;, but what about the rest of the Law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%203:22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 3:22&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207:37&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 7:37&lt;/a&gt; show that Moses, the writer of the Law, was also a Prophet!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have a nice exposition of some &amp;quot;Law&amp;quot; stuff in Hebrews which shows clearly that the things written in the Law also carried the intent of the Holy Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. &lt;strong&gt;The Holy Spirit is signifying this,&lt;/strong&gt; that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:6-10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Hebrews 9:6-10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gospels&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of Jesus words and His actions were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:28,%2012:48-50,%2014:10-24,%205:19,%2030,%206:38&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;authored by God&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%203:16,%20Luke%204:1,%2014&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Spirit-led&lt;/a&gt;.  But what about the records of them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, &lt;strong&gt;the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, whom the Father will send in My name, He &lt;strong&gt;will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:25-26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-John 14:25-26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, the Gospels are also Spirit-written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Epistles&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:14-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:14-16&lt;/a&gt; shows that the epistles are also part of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly given the event of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2&lt;/a&gt;, explanations of the Spirit's ministry through us (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 12&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4&lt;/a&gt;, etc.), and constant claims such as the following, it can be safely assumed that the New Testament Scriptures were also Spirit-written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:37&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-1 Corinthians 14:37&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All Scripture is authored by God via the Holy Spirit.  A case can also be made that all Scripture is prophecy, which makes it even more clear that the Spirit was the instrument of God for authoring Scripture.  Beyond the generic statements, we have a number of specific examples which support this doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T02:13:55.730" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5389" CreationDate="2012-07-15T03:30:54.073" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;During Abraham's time the law hadn't been written against a man taking his father's daughter as his wife. After the law was written in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2027:22&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 27:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; ‘Cursed &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it forbade such a practice even today, but the lineage of Christ was coming through Abraham and Sarah.   This also shows what happens when we are faced with fear that our faith is too weak to overcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1855" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T18:57:08.200" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T18:57:08.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4431" CreationDate="2012-07-15T03:45:51.923" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The confusion comes in when we conflate &quot;salvation&quot; with &quot;ending up in Heaven for eternity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Salvation&quot; has three meanings in Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Initial conversion (being &quot;born again&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sanctification (of believers)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ultimate redemption (resurrection, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that the first two can happen without the person necessarily ending up in Heaven for eternity, given the many passages that clearly show that a person can &quot;fall away&quot;.  &lt;em&gt;(Really, a case could even be made to include the last sense of the word as well based on passages like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:1-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:1-14&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who ends up in Heaven for eternity?  Only God knows, but we can trust that He is just, so we don't really need to worry about messing that up.  Truth be told, I'm not even convinced a person has to be born for Him to make this decision justly.  (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7584/1548&quot;&gt;See here&lt;/a&gt; for more.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that said, the value in praying for someone to &quot;get saved&quot; or &quot;continue to experience salvation&quot; or &quot;be saved on the last day&quot; is the same as the value in praying that an unbeliever would experience a clear sign from God, or begin to seek God, or recognize that God is trustworthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;strong&gt;good&lt;/strong&gt; to experience the kindness of the Lord.  If you love them (which you should), you should do good to them and desire good for them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can join God in His efforts to draw His &quot;lost sheep&quot; to Himself.  God's preferred method of blessing is often via the prayers of His people.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even if you pray and they &quot;get saved&quot;, but the person never ends up in Heaven for eternity, at the very least they will have no excuse on judgment day.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary, the value in praying for a person's salvation is the same as the value in praying for any good thing for another person; It is loving, it is partnership with God, and it is a witness to the &quot;wicked&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T03:45:51.923" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8521" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8523" CreationDate="2012-07-15T04:36:51.310" Score="8" ViewCount="2670" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Bible impose any type of mandatory prayer that you have to offer at particular time or particular day? If so, what are some important prayers? Is a prayer at Church more worthy than a prayer at home?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T03:31:51.900" LastActivityDate="2018-11-22T03:55:42.590" Title="Are there any mandatory prayers in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8173" CreationDate="2012-07-15T04:42:53.077" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's look at each passage you cited individually and see what they are talking about.  (We shouldn't assume they are all linked in meaning via the word &quot;child&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this passage Paul is making a point that the Spiritual gifts are nothing compared to love.  He is explaining that the gifts will all pass away some day, but love will continue into eternity.  He compares the life we live now to childishness, and the life we will live in Heaven to maturity.  &lt;em&gt;(This comparison is not unique to this passage; consider, for instance, Ephesians 4.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lesson here is to focus on eternal values (esp. love) - those values we will have when we are finally &quot;mature&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 3:2-3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this passage Paul is rebuking the Corinthians and explaining that because they were so &quot;fleshly&quot; (in their thinking and behavior), they still needed &quot;milk&quot;, and were unable to receive &quot;meat&quot; like a mature Christian could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious exhortation here is to put to death the deeds of the flesh and walk by the Spirit.  As we grow in Christ we are able to handle more and more &quot;meat&quot;; that is, those teachings which mature Christians can handle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 5:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This statement came in after discussing Melchizedek, which is not &quot;light doctrine.&quot;  Here is a more complete look at the passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Concerning him [i.e. Melchizedek] we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have a contrast being drawn:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the same way that children need milk, the immature Corinthians needed someone to teach them the elementary principles all over again (outlined in the last sentence.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the same way that meat is for the mature, those doctrines (such as those about Melchizedek) which are &quot;hard to explain&quot; are for those who are &quot;accustomed to the word of righteousness&quot;, and who &quot;because of practice have their senses trained to discern&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lesson here is that we should &quot;press on to maturity&quot; from a state of needing someone to continually explain the basics to us, to a state where we have trained our senses to discern good and evil, and are thus better able to process the more difficult teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Effect on Hermeneutics&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of this, how does spiritual maturity affect our hermeneutic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One mark of Christian maturity is being more conformed into the image of Christ, which will of course enable you to better be led by His Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As we grow in Christ, we become more &quot;accustomed to the word&quot;, which enables us to be taught more of those doctrines which are &quot;hard to explain&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, as our maturity in Christ grows, our discernment grows, and this definitely helps us handle the &quot;meatier&quot; topics of Scripture more faithfully&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Postscript&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a humorous side-note, it is human nature to think of yourself as &quot;above-average&quot; in those things you value most, and I have witnessed this reality in Christianity as well.  Older Christians consider themselves more mature due to their natural age.  Experienced Christians consider themselves more mature due to their spiritual age.  Younger Christians recognize that age is not directly tied to maturity, and find &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119:99&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;passages&lt;/a&gt; to justify viewing themselves as more mature than their elders.  In reality, there is one way to Christian maturity, and that is the grace of God.  How can we &quot;tap into the font of grace&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble &lt;em&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=God%20is%20opposed%20to%20the%20proud&amp;amp;qs_version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you want to be more mature, lower your self-image a bit and bow down before God, submit things to the Church, be willing to listen to the voice of the Lord - even through &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a younger Christian&lt;/a&gt; (or even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2022:28-30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a donkey&lt;/a&gt;) - and recognize that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%204:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;you have nothing other than what you've been given&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Where it gets really funny, though, is when people begin to proclaim their own superior humility!)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T04:42:53.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8521" CreationDate="2012-07-15T05:27:14.363" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The closest would be the model prayer given in Matthew chapter 6 as part of the Sermon on the Mount. This prayer is understood by most to be an example, or model, rather than something to be repeated verbatim. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no, there are no specific mandatory prayers given in scripture, other than that we are to pray &amp;mdash; and to pray without ceasing. Mandatory prayers reflect an ethos that is more about rule keeping. While there are rules, Christianity is not really about rule keeping: it's about building a relationship with God, and by extension your fellow man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-07-15T05:51:15.153" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T05:51:15.153" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8524" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8538" CreationDate="2012-07-15T06:00:53.203" Score="5" ViewCount="14008" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two verses connected two 'palm branches' are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, &amp;quot;Hosanna!&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Blessed is the King of Israel!&amp;quot; (John 12:13, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (Revelation 7:9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that this ‘palm waving’ is understood by everybody as a symbol of triumph and victory, but which culture did this practice come from? Was it a Jewish tradition, or was it only Jewish tradition as part of a wider cultural tradition at that time of world history?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course by asking the question I do not have any hidden agenda against Palm Sunday, its just a curiosity as I have not researched an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-03-19T06:30:27.630" Title="Does ‘palm branches’ in Palm Sunday draw meaning from Jewish culture, or Greco-Roman culture that the Jews adopted?" Tags="&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;&lt;jewish-culture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8525" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8528" CreationDate="2012-07-15T06:37:38.790" Score="7" ViewCount="915" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard many times that Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m. and remained on the cross till 3 p.m.. How do we know that? The Scriptures say something like the third hour:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Matthew 15:25:&lt;/sup&gt; And it was the &lt;strong&gt;third hour&lt;/strong&gt;, and they&#xA;  crucified him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how do we know that the third hour was exactly 9:00 a.m.?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we draw information on that point exclusively from Scriptures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it something like a known fact from Hebrew tradition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, perhaps, something else ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T07:19:20.540" Title="How do we know that Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m.?" Tags="&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8526" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8529" CreationDate="2012-07-15T06:37:53.203" Score="10" ViewCount="8178" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Tradition&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;). The whole writing can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html&quot;&gt;Apostolic Tradition&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized 'nude', which I assume means that only deaconesses were overseeing the baptism of woman. Am I reading this correctly, or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water. (Hippolytus, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html&quot;&gt;The Apostolic Tradition&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-10T01:51:38.380" LastActivityDate="2020-01-18T13:35:16.787" Title="Does any church follow the Apostolic Tradition of Baptism ‘in the nude’, or was that never the tradition?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;historic-customs&gt;&lt;nakedness&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8527" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8534" CreationDate="2012-07-15T06:55:59.343" Score="11" ViewCount="582" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to this article ‘&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechumen&quot;&gt;Catechumen&lt;/a&gt;’ means one receives instruction from “a catechist in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism”. I understand that some churches have this before baptizing people. I do not criticize this practice, but I am curious when this idea may have developed. In the scripture people are baptized immediately upon believing and there does not seem much delay in the matter. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (NIV ACTS 8:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Tradition&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;). The whole writing can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html&quot;&gt;Apostolic Tradition&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized only after three years of catechism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Catechumens will hear the word for three years...When the teacher finishes his instruction, the catechumens will pray by themselves, separate from the faithful...After the prayer, the teacher shall lay hands upon the catechumens, pray, and dismiss them. ...When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be examined. (Hippolytus, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html&quot;&gt;The Apostolic Tradition&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering is there any evidence that this switch occurred before 215-400 AD, or not? Do some churches still practice a three year regiment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-04-20T08:44:57.360" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T08:44:57.360" Title="When did Christians switch from an ‘immediate baptism’ to ‘after years of instruction and scrutiny’ baptism, such as in the Apostolic Tradition?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;catechumenate&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8525" CreationDate="2012-07-15T07:19:20.540" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;We do not know that the third hour was exactly 9:00 AM - that is an estimation for the purpose of providing an understandable translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jewish day started at dawn and ended at dusk.  There were 12 hours, which were each 1/12th of the stretch between dawn and dusk. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.torahcalendar.com/HOUR.asp&quot;&gt;More info&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For simplicity, if we consider dawn to be roughly 6:00 AM, that would make the 3rd hour about 9:00 AM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T07:19:20.540" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8526" CreationDate="2012-07-15T07:41:44.840" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the deaconess assumption is unsound and contradicted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their  heads. 15Then he shall ask, &quot;Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was  born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16When each has answered, &quot;I believe,&quot; he shall baptize a second time. 17Then he shall ask, &quot;Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?&quot; 18Then each being baptized shall answer, &quot;I believe.&quot; And thus let him baptize the third time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it could just be translation (and a lack of a gender-neutral single pronoun), but that is a lot of &quot;he&quot;. It continues in the same tone for quite some time. Note that is also seems to describe all the participants present at once, not individually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is nothing improper in this nakedness. It is not associated with any indecent act, humiliation, or lack of basic needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also keep in mind: this is ancient Rome. Their views on nudity could be quite different from yours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T07:41:44.840" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8531" CreationDate="2012-07-15T11:47:47.350" Score="7" ViewCount="1536" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible Jesus encounters Roman soldiers but does not tell them to 'quit their day job'. Jesus encountered a centurion with 'great faith' as recorded in Matthew 8. Peter as well baptized a centurion, named Cornelius. A centurion was a higher ranking soldier over a hundred strong experienced Roman army men underneath him. (One can only imagine what a man like that would have had to go through to be honored with such a rank especially in the brutal history of Rome). After preaching and praying the Holy Spirit 'fell upon' those they were gathered among Peter and Cornelius and Peter exclaimed in surprise and excitement;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (NIV Acts 10:47-48).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we find Peter not only 'accepting the soldier', but calling for an 'immediate baptism' -- both against the 'Apostolic Tradition' handed down from Peter?!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Understandably, when Christians were on the ‘hit list’, a Christian soldier, faced with having to kill a Christian, would have had to switch sides and become a martyr.  In these same conditions, I assume that serving in the Roman army almost became synonymous with the ‘anti-Christian’ beast of Rome, so in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html&quot;&gt;Apostolic Tradition&lt;/a&gt;, I can partly accept the rejection of soldiers from the church (actually rejection of soldiers, actors and others):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If someone is an actor or does shows in the theater, either he shall cease or he shall be rejected. ... 11The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. (Hippolytus, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html&quot;&gt;The Apostolic Tradition&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am wondering was, 'Is there any indication in this tradition by Hippolytus of Rome that the Church in Rome was supposed to have kept this Apostolic Tradition, or was this just a temporary measure of the church in Rome at that time? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2014-01-23T16:29:05.057" Title="Was the Apostolic Tradition of rejecting soldiers from the church ‘permanent’, or was this ‘tradition' briefly enforced?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8530" CreationDate="2012-07-15T13:38:10.820" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer is based on the article &lt;em&gt;Christians and the Roman Army AD173-337&lt;/em&gt; by John Helgeland (&lt;em&gt;Church History&lt;/em&gt; 43(2):149-163, 200; 1974). The start date of AD173 is the year when we have the first evidence (after the NT) of Christians in the military - in Legio XII Fulminata (the Lightning Legion) under Marcus Aurelius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prohibitions on members of the (Roman) military becoming Christian were not universally enforced, and there was disagreement among the Fathers as to whether it was possible to be Christian and a soldier at the same time. Certainly Christians should not take part in persecutions. Torture and capital punishment (for which officers were responsible) were also identified as wrong. On the other hand, the ordinary work of the army was not necessarily considered to be bad. Clement of Alexandria (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.x.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Protrepticus&lt;/em&gt; 10&lt;/a&gt;) sees it as just another profession, and Tertullian in his early writings urged Christians to pray for the Empire and her armies (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Apology&lt;/em&gt; 30&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Cæsar, an emperor would wish. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origen believed (&lt;em&gt;Contra Celsum&lt;/em&gt; 8) that while Christians should not personally serve as soldiers, they should still pray for Roman victory (in wars which were just). In this view, it's not that there's something inherently morally wrong about being a soldier - but only that it is problematic for a Christian to serve in a non-Christian army, for a non-Christian empire. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A related problem was that Roman military service was bound up with Roman religion; Tertullian's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On idolatry&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; identified the taking of an oath to the state to be un-Christian, and moreover, Roman military standards (&lt;em&gt;signa militaria&lt;/em&gt;) were given special reverence, placed in a sanctuary in the camp so that soldiers could pay homage - these were signs of the gods-given authority of the emperor. Origen, similarly, said that since all authority comes from God, it is not right to give this honour to Caesar. Several Christian soldiers were martyred towards the end of the third century for refusal to perform army rites, objection to the idolatrous nature of the &lt;em&gt;signa militaria&lt;/em&gt;, etc. This was intensified under the persecution of Diocletian, who issued edicts to require all soldiers to take part in sacrifices and other rites - the intention being to get rid of Christians in the army, which implies that there must have been a substantial number of Christians there to be purged. So any prohibition on military service, on the part of Christian leaders, was not being well enforced at this time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the conversion of Constantine to Christianity, the force of many of these objections was removed, and subsequent authors find little difficulty in commending Christians to military service. This is the case for Lactantius and Eusebius for example, who were both very pro-Constantine and regarded him as being on a divinely-approved mission. After Constantine we find many graves of soldiers whose inscriptions record their Christian faith in addition to their military service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, Helgeland argues that the prohibitions in Hippolytus and elsewhere should not be construed as objections to military service in general, but only to the specific idolatrous and persecuting nature of the contemporary Roman army. Moreover, Christian responses differed - some said that Christians should avoid military service entirely, while others would allow it, but on the assumption that the soldier should refuse to participate in evil activities (and accept the consequences).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2012-07-16T15:13:23.493" LastActivityDate="2012-07-16T15:13:23.493" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8491" CreationDate="2012-07-15T17:42:07.817" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed that all the views here appear to only present salvation as substitutionary atonement, which is one scriptural portrayal of salvation among many others (adoption, Christus Victor, recapitulation, theosis, etc.). There is nothing wrong with this portrayal, but it was never used in the same sense we have it today in the Church prior to the 11th century (thank you Anselm and Aquinas). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that the gospel presentation is somewhat contextual. Even our language is contextual ('Jesus' is a Greek rendering of 'Yeshua,' best transcribed into English as 'Joshua'). For some cultures and individuals, adoption may best help them connect with God's love for us in Christ, while in others Christus Victor may best help. None of these views are invalid by any means, we must simply remember that they are all attempts at explaining the miraculous and profound mystery of salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found that without any context of the biblical narrative, simply presenting the 'Four Spiritual Laws' tends to create an individualistic message devoid of things like repentance, baptism, becoming part of His Body (the Church), becoming citizens of His kingdom, becoming disciples/apprentices of Jesus, the return of Christ, and the future hope of a bodily resurrection. The gospel challenges Western culture and shares how God's kingdom is breaking into this world, invading enemy territory. I don't really present the Gospel under a minute anymore, but I can give snapshots of it and point people to Jesus, mostly through parables. If we reflect, Jesus did the same. He didn't try to tell the whole story, He told parables to provoke thought and to challenge people, then He moved on. Those who wished to follow, did so (and even then He turned many away because they would not forsake all for the sake of the kingdom). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we do a disservice to our faith when we condense it into a short presentation. The gospel is all about becoming connected to a person, Jesus Christ, not just a historical event. Not to mention, the condensed gospel message has been used in America for quite some time now. We can see its fruit in American Christianity today: an individualistic faith (all I need is me and Jesus) where God came to help ME fulfill MY purpose. Not to die to myself and follow His purposes....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T17:42:07.817" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8527" CreationDate="2012-07-15T17:50:48.180" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cyberfaith.com/examining/historyof_index.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A history of the catechumenate: the first six centuries&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by Michele Dujarier (Sadlier, 1979), the development of a longer initiation period predates Hippolytus (assumed to be writing in 215AD) by at least a few generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Rome, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;First Apology&lt;/em&gt; of Justin Martyr&lt;/a&gt; (155-157AD) attests to preliminary instruction in the faith, prior to baptism (though not necessarily for three years, and it was not organized systematically). Dujarier writes, &quot;Some Christians dedicated themselves more particularly to the task of awakening faith and of teaching and opened 'schools' as did philosophers of this period. These were private initiatives and were not institutionalized. The hierarchical Church had not yet assumed the direct responsibility for the teaching given in them. But the fact is clear: the laity themselves carefully ensured the evangelization and instruction of converts. [...] The witness of Justin thus manifests the essential aspects of stages and, catechumenal requirements. In the course of the following decades, these stages and requirements were codified more and more strictly.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Alexandria, there was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechetical_School_of_Alexandria&quot;&gt;school of catechesis&lt;/a&gt; (using that word!). Jerome says it was founded by the apostle Mark; at least, it was in existence in 176AD. Clement of Alexandria taught there from 190AD. There is some doubt, however, about whether the term &lt;em&gt;catechesis&lt;/em&gt; here should be understood as including pre-baptismal instruction, or whether it refers to teaching in general.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Other writings around 200AD refer to catechumens, proselytes, auditors, recruits, or novices. This includes work by Tertullian and Cyprian. Dujarier deduces the existence of a catechetical period in Carthage in 200-210AD from this history.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Apostolic Tradition&lt;/em&gt; is therefore recording a more formal version of a method that had been happening for a long time - certainly since the time of Justin Martyr. The justification seems to be both pastoral and practical; it is not only that new converts should be truly converted in their lives, but also relates to the effort to ensure orthodox belief, in the face of various heretical movements of the time. After Constantine, a further reason was that some people were seeking to become Christian in order to gain social status (condemned by Augustine, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1303.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The first catechetical instruction&lt;/em&gt; 5&lt;/a&gt;), so it was important to distinguish between real converts and pretend ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as current practice goes, I don't know of a church which specifically holds to a three-year period before baptism, though it is unusual not to have &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; period of instruction (at least in the case of adult baptism). There is nothing particularly special about three years, though; and as Dujarier records, that length was not universally observed, and the span of time is less important than the content of the instruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-07-15T17:50:48.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8521" CreationDate="2012-07-16T02:46:38.193" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Truly, there is no place in the Bible where you can find MANDATORY prayer. But Jesus gave us some guidelines on how we should pray and what the content of our prayer should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recommended is the Lord's prayer which I found sufficient to cater for all needs of a christian. This doesn't mean you have to pray it verbatim but reflect on every part of it and pray it in your own words. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord's prayer encourages approaching God in prayer like a child to Father, that every christian should anticipate the coming of christ and value doing the will of God. Daily provision of food, Deliverance from evil, grace not to fall into temptation, forgiveness of sins and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sticking to this alone is enough for a christian to be sustained in life journey and the christian journey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-07-16T03:31:13.210" LastActivityDate="2012-07-16T03:31:13.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8537" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8540" CreationDate="2012-07-16T04:34:34.277" Score="-1" ViewCount="183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am aware of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Bible/King_James_Version&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Bible/King_James_Version&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, all the text there is in the same color.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering if there is a public domain (or free to share with the world) Bible where Christ's words are in Red.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2012-07-16T12:10:17.310" Title="Public Domain KJV Bible w/ Christ's Words in Text" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-07-16T12:52:43.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8524" CreationDate="2012-07-16T05:25:39.083" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This use of Palm branches was common among ancient Greeks, Romans and Hebrews. It seems from the Hebrew use, palm branches symbolized ’rejoicing’ during the Feast of Tabernacles. During the feast Hebrew people were commanded to take branches of palms, with other trees, and rejoice before God.(Leviticus 23:40) However this was just not palm branches, but other ‘leafy branches’ as well, along with fruits. Later on the specific use of palm branches also agrees closer to with the meaning used in Greece, for example in 142 BC, when Simon Maccabees liberated Jerusalem from the Greeks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the twenty-third day of the second month, in the year 171,[c] there was a great celebration in the city because this terrible threat to the security of Israel had come to an end. Simon and his men entered the fort singing hymns of praise and thanksgiving, while carrying palm branches and playing harps, cymbals, and lyres. (1 Maccabees 13:51)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the time of the Maccabees, Greek Hellanodikai ( judges at the Olympics) awarded winners with ‘palm branches’ and crowns (&lt;a href=&quot;http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/olympics/g/Hellanodikai.htm&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most vivid and powerful was the waving of palm branches by the &lt;strong&gt;Romans&lt;/strong&gt; as they celebrated military successes with palm branches and most relevant to Palm Sunday, &lt;strong&gt;welcomed royalty by waving them&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some times the best historical records are printed on coins as they do not deteriorate as much as paper. According to ancient coins:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Palm fronds had been used for centuries before the Romans as an &lt;strong&gt;attribute of winged Νικη (Nike), the goddess whose name is the Greek for Victory&lt;/strong&gt;. The Hellenic bronze coin on the near right is from Sinope, 120-63 BCE, and shows Nike carrying her palm frond over her shoulder. Her name has been anglicized into a &lt;strong&gt;well-known brand of sportswear&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_branches.html&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Waving and use of palm branches during the time of Christ was a &lt;strong&gt;multicultural symbol symbolizing victory, praise and the presence of royalty&lt;/strong&gt;. It also shows us that although God speaks to any given people within their culture and that His word condescends into it, speaking in familiar ways, the culture itself does not have to have any ‘deeper meaning’ beyond what it meant at the time. With a basic understanding of historical culture, Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem when greeted by throngs of people making a make-shift carpet for him out of the branches and coats,  or in Revelation where the saints are holding them before the throne. It simply meant he was being treated as the 'future King' in the gospels and as the 'present king' in revelation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-16T05:25:39.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7553" CreationDate="2012-07-16T05:32:46.070" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible there is a routine reference to the fruit of the vine. Which is a direct reference to Jesus. Grape juice is used today because it and only it can be representative of the Blood of Jesus. In Biblical times the grapes were fermented, which made for strong drink ( wine) as we would know it today. But the difference in the time of Jesus is that the fermented grapes were mixed with three parts water to one part fermented grapes, which would weaken the drink. The juice from the grape is the representation of the Blood of Jesus. So in that case it is not only proper, but also a Biblical must that the church use grape juice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1859" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-07-13T04:10:47.380" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T04:10:47.380" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8537" CreationDate="2012-07-16T12:10:17.310" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/bible/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://christiananswers.net/bible/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;also offers other versions, but meets your exact request.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-07-16T12:10:17.310" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8544" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-17T12:25:03.167" Score="10" ViewCount="637" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luther's 95 Theses were a refutation of selling indulgences on the part of the Catholic Church.  Did he, or others, believe that the Church was saying that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The only way to be a good Christian was to purchase an indulgence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were indulgences a public or private matter (I mean, did you show them off)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The sale of indulgences was a benign form of alms giving&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The sale of indulgences were a form of extortion by the Catholic Church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The only way to assure one of salvation was through the purchase of indulgences&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Neglecting the purchase of indulgences assured one's soul of eternal damnation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did Luther's viewpoint compare to that of the common man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2021-02-17T17:40:15.273" LastActivityDate="2021-02-17T17:40:15.273" Title="Were paid indulgences compulsory prior to the Reformation?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;indulgence&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8545" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8548" CreationDate="2012-07-17T12:59:45.093" Score="6" ViewCount="2054" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am aware of the Latter Day Saints and the Reformed Latter Day Saints, both of which, to my understanding, recognize the Book of Mormon as Scripture and follow the teachings of Joseph Smith.  I have heard, though, that there are other groups as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How many groups/denominations recognize the Book of Mormon as Scripture or follow the teachings of Joseph Smith?  Also, who are they (What do they call themselves?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-24T15:00:54.597" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T23:49:42.943" Title="How many different groups are there that base their teachings on the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;joseph-smith&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8544" CreationDate="2012-07-17T16:07:14.703" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not think Luther thought of them as being advertised as only good Christians would purchase them, or that people would show them off, definitely not thought of as a benign form of alms giving, but more along the lines of the last bullet points.  The indulgences, in Luther’s mind, were simply taking advantage of people with a guilty conscience and &lt;strong&gt;promising salvation for cash.&lt;/strong&gt; Instead of preaching the gospel of grace, handing over a piggy bank and for every coin dropped, more security for the soul was obtained. Basically &lt;strong&gt;motivated by simple devilish greed, the Church used indulgences to extort people by manipulation of their conscience through fear and guilt and then relieving the terrified conscience on a cash basis.&lt;/strong&gt; The following quotes help us understand &lt;strong&gt;Luther’s view&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They sold the indulgence as the divine grace which forgives sin. Thereby Christ’s blood and death were denied and blasphemed together with the Holy Spirit and the gospel...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through it they defrauded and fleeced the whole world out of immeasurable sums of money with shameless greed and lies...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the indulgence they sold good works to all of Christendom and absolution, too, as something special, which, however, the gospel forever gives the whole world free of charge. Thus consciences were led astray from the gospel and from Christ to the works of men...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They praised the indulgence more highly than all works of love...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They deposited the merit of the saints, beyond what they needed for themselves, as a treasure of indulgence, as though Christ’s suffering were not sufficient for the forgiveness of all sins....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They finally exalted indulgence so high that they taught if someone had even slept with the mother of God, through indulgence it would be forgiven...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They taught that when the penny rang in the money box, the soul rose to heaven...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One need have neither contrition nor sorrow to receive the indulgence. It was enough that one now deposit the money...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Peter himself could not grant a greater grace than the indulgence represented...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Luther’s Works Volume 34 P15-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-17T16:07:14.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8547" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-17T17:57:40.653" Score="8" ViewCount="306" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I listened to the introduction of Russell Shorto's &lt;em&gt;T&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nyhistory.com/reviews/island_center_westbrook.htm&quot;&gt;he Island at the Center of the World&lt;/a&gt;: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America&lt;/em&gt;.  When he talks about the New England colonies, he uses language such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Something was happening that was quite unlike the unfolding of society at the two English colonies to their north, where the &lt;em&gt;rigid&lt;/em&gt; Puritans, who arrived in 1630, and the even more &lt;em&gt;rigid&lt;/em&gt; Pilgrims maintained, in their &lt;em&gt;wide-brimmed piety&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;monocultures&lt;/em&gt; in the wild.&amp;mdash;p. 61 (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan&quot;&gt;Puritan movement&lt;/a&gt; was escaping religious persecution in England, it's surprising that in they &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan#Opposition_to_Quakerism&quot;&gt;persecuted Quakers&lt;/a&gt; (including executing &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_martyrs&quot;&gt;four martyrs&lt;/a&gt;).    Further, especially in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Puritan_culture_and_recreation&quot;&gt;New England&lt;/a&gt;, they largely dedicated themselves to pious amusements and hard work rather than a broad range of culture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, they universally rejected the principle of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erastianism#Works_and_Erastianism&quot;&gt;Erastianism&lt;/a&gt;, which justified placing the church under the authority of the government.  Many Puritans were &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinist&quot;&gt;Calvinists&lt;/a&gt;, but by no means were all.  The very name, &quot;Puritan&quot;, began as an insult bestowed by outsiders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Puritans see themselves as &quot;rigid&quot;?  Was their mission to create an island of monoculture on the edge of the American wilderness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-07-17T19:34:05.137" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T10:01:34.850" Title="Is the popular image of the Puritan as purveyor of an intolerant monoculture accurate?" Tags="&lt;puritanism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8545" CreationDate="2012-07-17T19:59:05.083" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you have said, there are essentially two major sects in the Latter-day Saint movement which hold the Book of Mormon to be scripture and a base for teachings. They are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Community of Christ (descendent of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a group that did not migrate to Utah)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The former represents the largest sect of the Latter-day Saint movement whose origins are from Utah and Brigham Young's leadership in the 19th century. The latter represents the largest sect among those that did not recognize Young's succession. Members of these sects represent the vast majority of adherents to Mormonism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, there are several hundred LDS sects that can essentially be categorized as belonging to one of several origins:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fundamentalist sects which broke off from Mormonism in the 19th century over issues related to the abolishment of polygamy. Many still practice it. Most are headquartered in the intermountain west.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Josephite sects who trace their leadership through at least a few of Joseph Smith's descendents. Most are headquartered near Missouri.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sects who recognized some other successor to Smith that was not Young nor any of Smith's posterity. Most are also headquartered near Missouri or thereabouts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Various breakoff sects from modern Mormonism over various issues (i.e. Homosexuality, etc.) Most of these have been founded in the 20th and 21st centuries and are a breakoff of the largest sect (the first one listed above).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those which have completely independent origins and are merely founded on some Latter-day Saint beliefs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I am aware, all of these sects accept the Book of Mormon to be true with various degrees of advocacy for its use. The Community of Christ, for example, in recent years has reduced its emphasis on the Book of Mormon. Most, however, have different views on what literature originated by Smith is official canon. Some, for example, do not accept some or all of the Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price. Perhaps it is safe to say that all of them claim to base their teachings on those of Joseph Smith, and hold him to be a prophet. However, what this means in the context of each sect's teachings will vary wildly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has an excellent summary of modern and defunct LDS sects and their origins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-17T23:49:42.943" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T23:49:42.943" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8549" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-17T21:22:51.597" Score="3" ViewCount="276" Body="&lt;p&gt;How many Anglo-Catholics (I.e. members of the Traditional Anglican Communion or derived churches) are there in the world today and how many have joined the Ordinariate set up by the Roman Catholic Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1864" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-07-27T16:07:24.183" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T16:07:24.183" Title="Anglo-Catholics and the Ordinariate" Tags="&lt;anglicanism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8544" CreationDate="2012-07-17T21:59:29.437" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the 95 Theses were first published, Luther actually supported the idea of indulgences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;#75. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem was that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were being &quot;sold&quot; (you had to donate to get one, actually &lt;em&gt;selling&lt;/em&gt; them had been excommunicable for something like 100 years at that point)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were being treated as a &quot;get out of jail free&quot; card (people were saying that they did not need confession because they had indulgences).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He did not see why the Pope didn't simply empty purgatory.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was not commonly taught that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Neglecting the purchase of indulgences assured one's soul of eternal damnation&quot;. Indulgences have to do with purgatory, not hell. If that is something which the Catholic Church has been accused of, then it is something which only happened recently.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;You were not a good person if you didn't buy.&quot; There is no real record of this position either. Indulgences had to do with forgiveness. Theoretically, a person who was good enough should not need them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as showing them off, well, they were on pieces of paper, so people could. I don't really know why you'd want to though... it's a proclamation that you've sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-17T21:59:29.437" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8551" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8552" CreationDate="2012-07-17T22:04:28.043" Score="17" ViewCount="1135" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand the LDS Church recognizes the Book of Mormon and the Old and New Testaments as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other works are also considered Scripture?  Any Apocryphal works? &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/doctrine-and-covenants&quot;&gt;Doctrines and Covenants&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T03:38:53.853" Title="What works do the LDS Church recognize as Scripture?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;&lt;doctrine-and-covenants&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8551" CreationDate="2012-07-17T22:37:11.870" Score="23" Body="&lt;h1&gt;What &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; considered scripture&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Standard Works&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS Church accepts 4 volumes as &quot;standard works&quot; of scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The KJV Bible&lt;/a&gt; (minus Apocrypha)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Pearl of Great Price&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Doctrine and Covenants&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each book is esteemed basically equally with the others as pertaining to their scriptural value. Of course, Mormons will emphasize the Book of Mormon since that is the book which mainly sets the LDS religion apart from other Christian faiths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/standard-works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/standard-works&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The inspired words of modern prophets&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the standard works, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/prophets&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Latter-day Saints acknowledge&lt;/a&gt; the inspired words of &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/faq/modern-prophets&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;prophets and apostles&lt;/a&gt; since the Restoration began in about 1820 as the revealed word of God in our day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/articles-of-faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Articles of Faith&lt;/a&gt; mention living prophets as God's spokesmen on the earth today, and their importance is reinforced with Biblical teachings by prophets like Amos, Jesus, Paul, and Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; prophets and apostles, seers and revelators, say might be scripture. They are human, and have candid moments as anyone would. So the LDS are careful to distinguish their opinions and other, non-authoritative statements from actual, prophetic teachings over the pulpit in, say, a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10080/what-is-an-lds-general-conference&quot;&gt;General Conference&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8630/1003&quot;&gt;Teachings of modern prophets are given considerable weight&lt;/a&gt; as they have the authority to reveal anew the will of God atop older revelations contained in ancient scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The current LDS Church leadership (general authorities)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Patriarchal blessings&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all scripture is &lt;em&gt;general&lt;/em&gt;, meaning, intended for everyone. In an abstract sense, any truly-God-inspired words are scripture. But that inspiration may have a narrow scope in some cases, applying to only an individual or a small group of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/patriarchal-blessings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patriarchal blessings&lt;/a&gt; are important instances in a Mormon's life, as these blessings contain their declaration of lineage and also inspired counsel from a patriarch, who can receive such revelation. These blessings become very personal and sacred scripture to individuals. They don't apply to everyone and aren't usually shared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Official declarations (and similar)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There have been only &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;two Official Declarations which are published in the Standard Works&lt;/a&gt;, but similar declarations, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Family&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/testimonies-of-him/articles/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Living Christ&lt;/a&gt;, are equally important. Many Mormons have one or both of these hanging on the walls of their home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What &lt;em&gt;is not necessarily&lt;/em&gt; considered scripture&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are likely to contain truth and may be cited reliably, but they are more like &lt;em&gt;secondary&lt;/em&gt; sources, in that they draw upon more authoritative scripture from prophets or the standard works to lay their doctrinal foundation, or their main purpose is to edify and uplift, or inform: not necessarily declare doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These items may have truth in them, but any readings of these &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;should be done carefully with the guidance of the Spirit&lt;/a&gt; to discern truth from error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New doctrine/revelation for the church will never originate from these sources:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cesdevotionals.lds.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CES Devotionals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://speeches.byu.edu/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Speeches at BYU&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Books written by general authorities (though these are often opinion)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Publications from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Maxwell Institute&lt;/a&gt; at BYU&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Content on LDS Church websites (just because it's on lds.org, mormon.org, or mormonnewsroom.org, or others, doesn't mean it's scripture)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Things said by general authorities away from the pulpit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Talks by members of the Church in sacrament meetings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scripture reference material&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Student manuals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scripture footnotes, chapter headings, approximate dates, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Apocrypha&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It quickly becomes apparent that Mormons believe that God will reveal His truth in a very organized and specific way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;What &lt;em&gt;is not at all&lt;/em&gt; considered scripture&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that these also may not be affiliated with the LDS Church in any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12535/what-are-the-journal-of-discourses-viewed-as&quot;&gt;The Journal of Discourses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fairlds.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;FAIR&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any secular publication or statement, esp. not by the LDS church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Videos / multimedia (scripture is written)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have I missed anything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T03:38:53.853" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8553" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8567" CreationDate="2012-07-17T22:47:52.277" Score="7" ViewCount="7614" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fred Clark wrote in his blog entry &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/07/17/suburban-is-not-the-same-as-theologically-conservative/&quot;&gt;Suburban is not the same as theologically conservative&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (17 July 2012):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The suburbanization of American Christianity has altered our theology in other fundamental ways. Consider, for example, the church-growth movement and its focus on the archetypally suburban idea of the “homogenous unit principle.” Could there be a more radical rejection of Pentecost than that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the &lt;em&gt;homogeneous unit principle&lt;/em&gt; and how does it relate to the traditional geographic idea of the &lt;em&gt;parish&lt;/em&gt;? How did the principle come about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T13:34:47.133" Title="What is the &quot;homogenous unit principle&quot; of church growth?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8554" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-18T02:55:41.557" Score="13" ViewCount="2213" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am curious why the books of the Protestant Bible are in the order that they are in?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone told me they thought the books were in some sort of chronological order - is that true?  (I know the content isn't chronological, but are they in the order written or something like that?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1671" LastActivityDate="2014-08-01T15:20:12.943" Title="Why are the books of the Protestant Bible in the order that they are in?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;protestant-bible&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8554" CreationDate="2012-07-18T03:10:39.150" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;They're sorted chronologically within their particular subject matters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the 5 books of the Pentetuch are packed together, these are all fairly chronological. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, comes the narrative history of the kingdom of Israel ( all of Jesus' glorious, inglorious and vainglorious ancestors) culminating with the exile and return of the Jews to their homeland. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I think you've got the Wisdom books (Job, lamentations, song of songs, psalms and proverbs) these are packed together because theyre not really chronological and they weren't exactly each written in one sitting either. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally you've got the Major Prophets and the minor prophets. Major Prophets are prophets who wrote a lot, minor prophets aren't. The confusing thing here is that some writings of the prophets (Jonah and Jeremiah) seem more like narratives and and you can kind of start wondering why Jonah getting swollowed by a fish is right next to PROPHECY AGAINST THE MELEKITES. But that's the reason, Jonah was a prophet (even if he never really got it)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh yeah, and then the New Testament.  The Gospels are describing the same times. Acts is right after that (it's the sequel to Luke, but it comes in the Bible after John because they group the 3 similar accounts (Matthew, Mark and Luke together). The Letters of Paul, James, Jude, John and Peter aren't chronological in nature.  They do all come after Acts (but weren't necessarily written down after acts).  Revelation, the last book, is probably the last chronologically, although it's more like the works of the prophets in the OT, it just comes last because it comes last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-07-18T03:58:56.183" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T03:58:56.183" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8556" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-18T03:28:02.713" Score="0" ViewCount="3143" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and you; intercede with the Lord, that He may remove the serpents from us.” And Moses interceded for the people. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.” &lt;strong&gt;And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2021:6-9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Numbers 21:6-9)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone recently told me that this was symbolic, and that the serpent is a symbol for sin, and that this was foreshadowing Jesus becoming sin for us and being lifted up and crucified so that we would live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, how do we know that this is the right interpretation, and not just an interesting idea that someone had?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1671" LastActivityDate="2015-01-25T16:54:23.110" Title="Was the serpent in the wilderness a foreshadowing of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;foreshadowing&gt;&lt;numbers&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8557" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8577" CreationDate="2012-07-18T04:03:30.330" Score="14" ViewCount="3155" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having attended Baptist Churches for years, I've often heard the term &quot;age of accountability&quot; bandied about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that if a child dies at a young age - before reaching the &quot;age of accountability&quot;, that child will go to Heaven, because he or she is not yet responsible for his or her sins.  He or she is &quot;too young to understand the Gospel&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This age is not a specific age, but is understood to be different for everyone.  I'm &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; asking what this age is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What I am asking, is where is the Scriptural evidence to support such a doctrine?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quite frankly, one of the reasons I stick to Baptist Churches is not because I consider myself a Baptist, but because it's the one denomination where in my (admittedly limited) experience, Pastors consistently say &quot;If I ever preach anything that's not in the Word, or contrary to the Word, don't believe me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, I can find no Scriptural evidence for such a doctrine.  Am I missing it?    If so, where is it in Scripture?  If it exists, please point me  to the verses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is it a doctrine based on supposition, attempting to reconcile the idea that a loving God, and the horrific idea that child could go to Hell simply for not being old enough to understand their lost state, repent, and put their faith in Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-10-06T13:49:38.637" LastActivityDate="2016-10-06T14:47:30.903" Title="Basis for the concept of an &quot;Age of accountability&quot;" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;infants&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8556" CreationDate="2012-07-18T05:05:45.640" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The snake that Moses raised up, symbolized the snakes that God sent into the Israelite camp as punishment for Israel's sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Numbers 21:6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and you; intercede with the Lord, that He may remove the serpents from us.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So snake == punishment. And as the Israelites looked up at the snake they were saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way Jesus was lifted taking on the punishment for our sin and all those that believe in him will be saved. As Jas3.1 points out, Jesus actually draws the connection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:14&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-18T06:30:50.950" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T06:30:50.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8559" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-18T05:34:28.440" Score="20" ViewCount="20176" Body="&lt;p&gt;In most of the western countries the minimum age for marriage is 18 years. (Some would like to argue that this could be 16 or 15 but none would argue it to be 9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian I take pride in the fact that Christianity does not support the horrible custom of child marriage (which is still practised in some parts of the world). &#xA;It is one of those things that you don’t think much about because it seems so very basic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it recently crossed my mind that I’ve never seen a Biblical backing to it. Could it be that it’s only a cultural concept that I think of as a Christian concept?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question: Does the Bible define an age of marriability? If not, then on what Biblical basis should Christians oppose child marriages?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-05T10:30:23.810" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T10:30:23.810" Title="On what basis should Christians oppose child marriage?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T13:27:20.360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8557" CreationDate="2012-07-18T06:19:08.073" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two aspects to the Biblical basis for this doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) Rationale&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a rationale, theological argument that God is just, and would not impute sin where there was no knowledge of sin or no opportunity to choose Him.  This is based on Old Testament passages like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2024:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 24:12&lt;/a&gt;, as well as New Testament passages such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;sin is not imputed when there is no law &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Romans 5:13&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Precedence&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the main argument comes from a story in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2012:14-31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 12:14-31&lt;/a&gt; in which God takes the life of David's newborn son as punishment for his sin.  After his son is dead, David makes the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? &lt;strong&gt;I will go to him&lt;/strong&gt;, but he will not return to me.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2012:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-v.23&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is generally taken to mean that David expected to see his son again in Heaven some day, even though he died as an infant, and never had the chance to accept or reject God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious question though, is &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; did David expect to see his son again?  The popular answer, of course, is that all such children go to Heaven.  After all, the alternative is unthinkable - surely God would not judge an infant with eternity in Hell if they never had a chance to hear the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Assessment&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, I think the doctrine of an &quot;age of accountability&quot; is based on a lot of misunderstandings and bad hermeneutics.  However, we can rest assured that God is perfect in His love, justice, and wisdom.  For an alternative view to the &quot;age of accountability&quot; see my post &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7584/1548&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-05-10T13:03:44.957" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2012-07-18T06:25:32.657" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Indeed, AFAIK the Bible doesn't make any overt statements on this subject. It is, however, usually accepted that Mary was &lt;em&gt;around&lt;/em&gt; 14 when giving birth, and was married at that time. In many ways it is perhaps fortunate that the Bible &lt;em&gt;doesn't&lt;/em&gt; wax lyrical on the subject; your description of child marriage as a &quot;horrible custom&quot; sounds &lt;em&gt;largely&lt;/em&gt; a product of culture (or dare I even say, &quot;moral relativism&quot;?). There is obviously also an issue of comparison, with radically different life expectancy and life-style (education in particular, and a harsher life, leading to a shorter childhood), &lt;em&gt;historically&lt;/em&gt; at an age of around 14 (not the younger 9 that you cite) the majority of females would be fertile (or rapidly approaching fertility), about as educated as they were ever going to get, and with limited years ahead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Islam, of course, has a glitch here in that it needs to accommodate the marriage of Aisha (often taken to be around 9) with the view of Muhammad as the ideal Muslim, which makes it rather hard for Islam to make a statement that such marriage is &lt;em&gt;inherently&lt;/em&gt; wrong. However, even in Christianity (and OT in particular), the fact is that many (not all) of the laws around marriage are more about &lt;em&gt;property laws&lt;/em&gt; (with the wife being the property) than of human rights-of / decency-towards the wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads me to conclude that we aren't going to get much &lt;strong&gt;direct and literal&lt;/strong&gt; guidance from the Bible on this subject, and must resort to other arguments. Perhaps arguments such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/factbox-child-marriage-threatens-girls-health-and-rights/&quot;&gt;these&lt;/a&gt;, or from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Child_Marriage.pdf&quot;&gt;unicef&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-07-18T06:34:56.547" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T06:34:56.547" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8562" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8563" CreationDate="2012-07-18T07:08:17.407" Score="10" ViewCount="1630" Body="&lt;p&gt;The new testament talks of not being yoked with unbelievers - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14 &quot;Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old testament forbids intermarriage with other nations - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 7:3 &quot;Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your&#xA;  daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For modern day Christians, is there &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; reason where marrying a non Christian is a good idea?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-07-18T07:42:51.183" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T13:42:42.560" Title="Should Christians marry non-Christians?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2015-01-20T22:04:30.320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8562" CreationDate="2012-07-18T07:36:26.230" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, there are no reasons that would make this a good idea.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament we see an explicit prohibition on people inside God's chosen people marrying those outside of it on the grounds that it would cause them to turn away from serving their God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%207:3-4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 7:3-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods.  Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see no change brought to this concept in the New Testament, however it should be noted that the outlook on &quot;nations&quot; is a little different now than it used to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Originally, it was primarily to the nation of Israel to whom God extended the offer of grace and salvation. There were some exceptional cases where outsiders were brought into that covenant, but the marriage restrictions were indicative of the fact that national lines were also belief lines. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the actual coming of Christ, the floodgates are opened in a new way and gentiles are grafted into the people of the promise. The national boundaries are no longer important because they do not symbolize a difference in reception of God's grace. The terminology is now to be understood in light of the spiritual family of those that have been called by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marrying outside of (and becoming one with) someone outside of God's family WILL cause a rift in your fellowship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians+6:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-07-19T08:25:11.300" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T08:25:11.300" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8564" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-18T08:29:55.513" Score="14" ViewCount="12882" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was born and raised in the Catholic religion. In the beginning I was, as far as I can judge, a good Christian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I never felt any connection to God while praying. It was like talking to myself. Nothing special happened. I’m not talking about God granting me anything earthly, but a little sign, maybe the feeling that he was watching would have been enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As time passed, I started to doubt more and more and eventually lost all interest in religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, several years later, I have a good (material) life. But it seems empty&amp;mdash;no sense to it. People who believe appear happier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can understand why God would not want to manifest himself to me now. I've sinned a lot. &#xA;But why didn’t he talk to me when I was younger and sinless? I didn’t need anything fancy like a bush on fire, but just a few words to keep me on the right path.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do you think?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1867" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-07-25T13:24:36.200" LastActivityDate="2014-06-25T13:58:09.840" Title="Why has God never spoken to me?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8564" CreationDate="2012-07-18T09:38:13.703" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, disclosure: I too am an ex-Catholic atheist (secular Humanist, actually), so I can relate - but understand how that may influence/bias the answer too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect the typical Biblical answer here would be along the lines of &quot;God is not a performing monkey, doing magic tricks for your benefit&quot;, or &quot;if he openly revealed Himself, it would undermine the value of faith&quot;, or &quot;God does talk to &lt;em&gt;me&lt;/em&gt;, but in subtle ways, such as outcomes&quot; (which, when you think about it, could also be compared to how astrology &quot;works&quot;). There's also a category of people who claim a very literal &quot;God talks to me&quot;, but it is very tricky to know where to draw the lines between each of &quot;prophet&quot;, &quot;blessed&quot;, and &quot;delusional&quot;, when they present identically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are genuinely interested in re-kindling your faith, then there is almost certainly a local preacher you could talk to. You might want to consider what the origin of your doubts were - it may be the Catholic position on things was part of that. That said: I am entirely of the (non-scriptural) view that people can lead very happy, satisfied, constructive, productive, and (for want of a better word) &quot;good&quot; lives both with and without religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this is Christianity.SE, I should of course note that the Christian position would be that turning your back on God means you're doomed to exclusion from God in the afterlife. As a &quot;threat&quot;, this presumably means more if you actually believe in God and an afterlife in the first place, which it sounds like you don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will, however, make a small objection to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;People who believe look appear happier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, I've never been happier than when I formally and finally renounced religion. The release of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance&quot;&gt;cognitive dissonance&lt;/a&gt;, and the realisation that I am doing good things &lt;em&gt;for their own sake&lt;/em&gt; (and not on the instruction of some &quot;higher being&quot;, or as &quot;credit&quot; towards some elusive promised goal) are very liberating and powerful. There's another common view on this, too: &lt;em&gt;hypothetically&lt;/em&gt; (I'm not talking about Christianity specifically here): just because a view makes someone &lt;em&gt;happy&lt;/em&gt;, that doesn't by any stretch make it &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But it seems empty, no sense to give to it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a conflict here, if (as per the question) you are viewing the world without religion-coloured glasses. Indeed, the conclusion must be that there is no &lt;em&gt;pre-destined&lt;/em&gt; purpose or sense to our existence - one would have to conclude that we're the product of a combination or randomness and &quot;survival of the fittest&quot; from primordial slime. That, however, &lt;em&gt;doesn't&lt;/em&gt; mean that our &lt;em&gt;lives&lt;/em&gt; are without purpose or sense: we can &lt;em&gt;make our own&lt;/em&gt; purpose. Welfare and happiness of others, ourselves and the planet, and furthering our understanding of the universe would be good starters. As would be: taking simple joy in &lt;em&gt;what is&lt;/em&gt;, and the company of friends and family. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whichever path you choose, be happy (after all, this &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be the only life we get). Whatever your philosophy, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule&quot;&gt;Golden Rule&lt;/a&gt; (which is present in Christianity, but also in pretty much every other belief system) goes a long way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-07-18T09:43:57.203" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T09:43:57.203" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8564" CreationDate="2012-07-18T10:14:28.447" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reasons (my rantings) we can't talk to God - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Result of our sin.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 3:23 &quot;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all inherit the sin of Adam. Adam could talk directly to God but as we fell from grace we lost access to divine grace. But one day we would talk to Him directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As a test.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one could see God face to face, Adolf Hitler would be singing glory hallelujah with tambourines and drums. No one would commit a crime in front of the police. Absence of God from the scene serves to separate the wheat from the chaff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For our own good.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who could be in the presence of God and behaved as we did would drop dead in a second. As Christians we are supposed to go through this life building character and learning to resist sin so that we could be in the presence of Holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God doesn't like hollywood style dramatic dialogues.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And neither does Satan. In real life you will never see Satan appear as Pazuzu. He comes in much more subtle forms. Its the whole concept of free will. Both Holy Spirit and Satan will only suggest things to you. You have to act upon them of your own free will. If Satan or God appeared before you and commanded you to do something there's very less of free will left. This is why God appeared to Ezekiel in all His glory but not to Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 1:4 &quot;I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north&#xA;  —an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant&#xA;  light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he had appeared to Israel in that form they would've repented in ashes. But then as He says elsewhere &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Opinions 3:1 &quot;Thou shalt repent if thou art sorrowful in thine&#xA;  heart, not because I am the master of special effects.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Speaking to God won't produce faith.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam spoke to God, that didn't keep him from sinning. So did Cain, Solomon and most importantly - Satan.&#xA;The disciples had the same doubt as you do - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, &quot;But, Lord, why do you intend to&#xA;  show yourself to us and not to the world?&quot; Jesus replied, &quot;If anyone&#xA;  loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we&#xA;  will come to him and make our home with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we do not love or obey Him nothing will produce faith - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 16:31 &quot; ... they will not be convinced even if someone rises from&#xA;  the dead.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perhaps the same reason why the president won't talk to me.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's not be proud and forget our own positions in relation to God. It amazes me how I usually assign more respect to my earthly masters than to God himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes 5:2 &quot;God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your&#xA;  words be few.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perhaps He's afraid that once he engages me I just won't stop chattering. (True story)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T10:14:28.447" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8553" CreationDate="2012-07-18T13:29:01.870" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dr. Donald McGavran's definition of a homogeneous unit is &quot;a section of society in which all members have some characteristic in common.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In plainer terms, a homogeneous unit is a group of people that have ethnic, linguistic, social, educational, or vocational similarities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of a church congregation, ethnic, social, and educational commonalities are the most important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People feel more comfortable when they feel they are part of a group.  I suspect that people are comfortable in a church where they don't have to cross racial, linguistic or class barriers.  In my county in the United States, there are white United Methodist Churches and there are black United Methodist Churches.  I attend a white church.  I've visited a couple of the black churches as a lay leader, but I'm more comfortable worshiping in a white church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The invention of the automobile allowed people to ignore geography (parish) and worship in a church they feel more comfortable in (social, educational).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The principle of homogeneous units describes what almost anyone can observe.  People like to gather as tribes, and feel part of the group (in).  Unfortunately, there are also people outside the tribe (out).  Part of Christ's message was to accept all people into one tribe.  That part of the message is lost on some Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the information in this post came from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lausanne.org/en/documents/lops/71-lop-1.html&quot;&gt;The Pasadena Consultation - Homogeneous Unit Principle&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="583" LastEditDate="2012-07-18T13:34:47.133" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T13:34:47.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8564" CreationDate="2012-07-18T15:45:35.270" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dare I suggest that perhaps the answer is that he was but you did not recognize the voice as God's? The interaction with Samuel and Eli is a very dramatic example, but the situation exists with those of us who are more mundane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T15:45:35.270" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8570" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8571" CreationDate="2012-07-18T18:14:12.180" Score="6" ViewCount="2168" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS church recognizes, among other writing, a book called &lt;em&gt;The Pearl of Great Price&lt;/em&gt;.  What is the origins of this work and how did it become accepted as Scripture by the LDS church?  Also, do any other groups recognize this work as Scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T18:32:17.513" Title="From where did the Pearl of Great Price come and how did it become recognized as Scripture in the LDS church?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;pearl-of-great-price&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8570" CreationDate="2012-07-18T18:32:17.513" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Pearl of Great Price is not a cohesive book in the same way as the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants are.  It serves as more of a &quot;miscellaneous&quot; collection: two significant elements from the unfinished Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (the books of Moses (excerpted from the start of Genesis) and &quot;Joseph Smith--Matthew&quot; (towards the end of the Gospel of Matthew)), one translation of an ancient document not found in the Bible (the Book of Abraham), Joseph Smith's personal retelling of the sacred events that led up to the founding of the church (Joseph Smith--History), and a short set of simple declarations by Joseph Smith about basic LDS doctrines that has been accepted by the church as a canonical declaration of belief (the Articles of Faith.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to BYU's &lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Pearl_of_Great_Price&quot;&gt;Encyclopedia of Mormonism article&lt;/a&gt; on the subject, it was originally published in 1851 by the president of the British Mission as a response to requests for more information about the church, and at the time it contained several other revelations which have since been moved to the Doctrine and Covenants.  It was accepted by the church as an official, canonical collection of scripture in 1880.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article doesn't mention anything about LDS offshoot sects accepting it as scripture.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_of_Great_Price_%28Mormonism%29&quot;&gt;The Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; mentions that it is accepted by &quot;some other Latter Day Saint denominations,&quot; but does not elaborate or provide any references on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T18:32:17.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8564" CreationDate="2012-07-18T19:00:16.587" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pascal wrote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18269&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pensées&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (513):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why God has established prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To communicate to His creatures the dignity of causality.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To teach us from whom our virtue comes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To make us deserve other virtues by work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(But to keep His own pre-eminence, He grants prayer to whom He pleases.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Objection: But we believe that we hold prayer of ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is absurd; for since, though having faith, we cannot have virtues, how should we have faith? Is there a greater distance between infidelity and faith than between faith and virtue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this theory, which I agree with, God uses prayer to help us draw a line of causality from God to the good things in the world.  Among those good things is our very virtue.  According to Pascal, God wants us to use the scientific method (among other things) to discover Him.  But if anyone can pray and God always answers, we might mistakenly assume that human action (i.e. saying a prayer) causes the result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shortly after the passage I quoted, Pascal notes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saint Augustine has distinctly said that strength would be taken away from the righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a deep paradox here, which is amplified by reading about the conversions of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal#Adult_life.2C_religion.2C_philosophy.2C_and_literature&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pascal&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_%28St._Augustine%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Augustine&lt;/a&gt;.  These are men with virtually unlimited talent, but their genius was only unveiled after they were humbled in their ambitions.  Only after God brought them to their knees could they fulfill the promise that was their birthright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus talks of humbling ourselves, becoming like children, taking up crosses, and so on.  He told the rich man that he lacked &lt;em&gt;one thing&lt;/em&gt; and in the end the man's possessions possessed him.  He told the Pharisees that He came for sinners because it's the sick who need a physician.  In other words, there's a good chance that God is speaking to you now, when you know that you are a sinner, rather than before, when you were a &amp;quot;good Christian&amp;quot;, precisely because He wants you to rely on Him for all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you forgive my quoting an Englishman, C. S. Lewis wrote in &lt;em&gt;The Problem of Pain&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T19:00:16.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8564" CreationDate="2012-07-18T20:14:41.400" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow.  Good question.  I am a Christian that prays as often as I can, not nearly often enough.  I can share with you what I have learned in my walk with Christ.  I agree alot with what Monika says above, I would like to add that if you are not getting answers from prayer there could be a couple of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where's your heart at?&lt;/strong&gt;  God can see directly into our hearts.  He knows all of your secrets and everything that you hide from eveyone else.  You are an open book to him.  So where is your heart at?  Luke 12:34 says &quot;For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also&quot;.  What do you treasure most?  Often when I find that God doesn't seem to be listening I need to take a good look at myself.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do you pray?&lt;/strong&gt;  We don't know how to pray.  Romans 8:26 states: &quot;And the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. For example, we don't know what God wants us to pray for. But the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words&quot;  I was baptised in the holy spirit.  Not sure if Catholics believe in that, but I pray often in the spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do you humble yourself before God?&lt;/strong&gt;  Going to God in prayer with a prideful heart or attitude will not yield any results.  Go to him in prayer and be humble and brief.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do you get an answer, just not the one you expect?&lt;/strong&gt;  Many, many times my prayers have been answered, just not in the way I expected.  I have been guilty of having preconceived notions about what to expect when I ask God for something.  Sometimes you don't get an answer, sometimes God will speak directly to you.  Often times you will get an answer, and it will not be what you expect.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an example.  When my second child was born we were a little strapped for cash.  We had just moved into a new house and were adjusting to the increase in bills.  I went into prayer and asked God to provide a way for me to meet these obligations.  My expectation was that money would just fall from the sky, seriously, I thought I would just find a check in the mail or something and that would be my answer.  Well a month went by and then God told me that a project would be offered to employees at my work, I was to take the project, and not be concerned with how many other employees applied for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, the day came that I got an email about a project I (and many others) were qualified to do.  So I did as God asked and applied for it.  At the initial meeting with Management we were told that they only needed one person.  There were 10 people that applied.  At the end, about two weeks later, there were 4.  And then a week later all had dropped out of the running.  I was the only one left.  That project helped me exceed the financial obligations of moving into the new house.  I took some money that I made from that project and put it into a ministry that teaches the Gospel to our brothers and sisters in the Middle East.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as you can see, prayer does get answers.  I am living proof.  But I also wanted you to know this.  I have asked for a sign before, and I have never got one.  Don't be concerned about a sign, just pray and follow the advice above.  I am sure you will get an answer to your prayers.  God bless!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1869" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T20:14:41.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8564" CreationDate="2012-07-18T21:02:27.020" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God speaks to many people throughout the Bible and history, but no-where does it say that he is obligated to speak to everyone, or cause an emotional reaction in us.  We are given commands to pray, to trust, to learn, to love with all our hearts, minds, souls, and strength.  He has made promises to us as well.  But nothing that says we'll have some emotional reaction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Emotional reactions can come from lots of sources, and are much more suspect than truth.  Searching for truth has much more value than searching for some feeling.  As for hearing from God: have you read and re-read the entire library he wrote to us?  Isn't that hearing from God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastActivityDate="2012-07-18T21:02:27.020" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8562" CreationDate="2012-07-19T04:40:30.347" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is based on the comments on Caleb's answer, rather than the original question, but still somewhat applies to the original question&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree completely with Caleb's answer, but would add this:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ideally, you'd want to marry someone who has the same beliefs as you, and someone who's close to where you are on the scale of spiritual vs. carnal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thank God every day that I did this.  I have close personal friends that have a lot of stress in their households that I don't have to deal with simply because of a discrepancy between husband and wife on what they believe to be truth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's hard enough for, say, a Baptist to be married to a Catholic - or a Lutheran to marry a LDS member - or a Young-Earth Creationist (denomination not important) married to a Secular Humanist.  There are enough doctrinal differences between some of the denominations - things that each denomination teaches/views differently - that it can be a real contention point.  Arguments over how we are to live our day-to-day lives are more likely. Our actions and worldview is so intricately tied with how we see God that it's simply inevitable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once kids enter the picture, it's a whole new ball game.  Who gets to teach the kids what?  And if one spouse thinks the other is leading the kids into error, and possibly Hell, that's simply a no-win situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing I've seen that has torn marriages apart is when one spouse is very faithful, very spiritual, and the other is more worldly. One tends to think the other is a religious nut-job, while the other things their partner is either not saved in the first place, or just not living the way he/she should.  Even with the same basic doctrinal beliefs, a discrepancy in how strongly those beliefs affect day-to-day living can cause issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being equally yoked is very good advice.  Being unequally yoked is simply not a recipe for a harmonious home.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-07-19T12:30:50.603" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T12:30:50.603" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8576" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8597" CreationDate="2012-07-19T05:48:37.243" Score="34" ViewCount="199163" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament&#xA;  (Letter of Jude 1:14-15), and is there attributed to &quot;Enoch the&#xA;  Seventh from Adam&quot; (1 En 60:8). It is argued that all the writers of&#xA;  the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in&#xA;  thought and diction. &amp;mdash; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical by major Christian denominations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-15T05:21:28.397" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T05:21:28.397" Title="Why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;jude&gt;&lt;book-of-enoch&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8557" CreationDate="2012-07-19T07:16:03.420" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it is difficult to discuss the concept of accountability without putting it into the context of other views of similar sorts, from which this concept seems to be derived from their rejection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically the Baptist tradition comes from the earlier Anabaptists of history who in many ways were largely defined because they could not accept views of infant Baptism that implied the child baptized received the full measure of Christian grace as did an adult who was converted to Christ and then Baptized. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In rejecting infant baptism a security blanket was thrown aside in terms of parents and their practical concerns over their children.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's back up a bit.  Let me explain things in terms most acceptable to a Baptist for ease of communication. First, what might be considered the extreme end of support for infant Baptism, parents think that their child was elect and that their decision to baptize the child is only a symbolic right confirming that God chose this child to be born under the covenant of their parents, before the foundation of the world. In this sense God may also see fit to actually regenerate the infant with new birth during the actual Baptism and dedication of the child to God. This belief necessitates a wide view of the possible sins a Christian can commit because often these children go through a deep wilderness before finding God in outward profession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more &lt;strong&gt;moderate stance on infant Baptism can be seen here presented by John Owen&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.covenantofgrace.com/owen_infant_baptism.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On Infant Baptism&lt;/a&gt; (keep in mind that Owen was a kind of Job; he had 17 kids, 16 of whom died as infants with the 17th daughter also dying shortly after being married).  On this stance there does not seem to be an absolute belief that every child is actually reborn in infant baptism, but there is a strong assumption of the “Age of accountability” implicit in the protected state of a child who has been baptized as an infant but this 'security' blanket is not there for the child who has not.  Some difficulty is presented here because even when past writers are very clear about various aspects, the exact meaning of infant baptism seems to be partially avoided. In any case, Owen seems also to have some degree of faith in God's election as protecting children before a kind of &quot;age of accountability&quot; under the faith of their parents and he imagines the same kind of thing to occur under the Old Testament with circumcision. Owen would be the last reformer to say that circumcision still protected children once they had rejected the faith of Abraham, but there is definitely &lt;strong&gt;an age of protection by grace upon infants until they are old enough to be properly accountable.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The other reformed extreme can be presented by a person like Jonathan Edwards&lt;/strong&gt; who in some ways was more cynical about infant Baptism then Baptists are. &lt;strong&gt;Edwards supported infant baptism but often indicated a belief that infants were often escorted into hell under judgments such as the fire that rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah, almost taking the reverse view of an elect protection, which he also seemed to hold, but rather an election to damnation represented by lively figures of flames engulfing children in their cribs.&lt;/strong&gt; What can we say about that except even average Baptist would back away bit from the red-hot sermons of an Edwards.  This could partly indicate why some of his congregations complained about having suicidal thoughts. But this is not about Edwards, so I digress. For an excellent survey and analysis on Edwards thoughts and how they fit into historical views, read this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apuritansmind.com/covenant-theology/dr-jonathan-edwards-on-baptism-part-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards, Infant Baptism&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why have I put all this history forward? Well it answers you question in a round about way. &lt;strong&gt;Baptists simply reject the sacrament as a means of rebirth but prefer to wait and baptize those who actually have faith. However as the security blanket that comforted parents in the old regime (the baby) was thrown out with the bathwater (pun intended) Baptists need to recreate an “Age of accountability” to infer the mystery of protection by grace according to election.&lt;/strong&gt;  I do not think there is a doctrinal basis for the belief, nor is this ‘temporary protection’ believed by all Baptists, as many are more similar to Jonathan Edwards.  &lt;strong&gt;The problem with the idea of ‘temporary protection’, regardless of its origin, is that it is like the argument of the beard. How many whiskers make a beard? Each person has a different answer. So how old is accountable? Two months, two years, twenty years? It all depends on who you ask.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the whole matter is better resolved by looking at Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac.  He had faith and did not need to make complicated conjectures. Have faith and dedicate your children to God.  I partly feel that if the sacrament was not abused by those who claim absolute regeneration through baptism, then the Anabaptists would never have existed. Also because there are those that take false security in their child’s baptism, and so do not make every effort to ensure that their children come into the faith of the gospel. Even if God did intend that parents baptize their children as infants, God also accepts the Anabaptist practice on account of its rejection of a twisted corruption of the original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the end a parent who loses a child must put their faith in God. Even parents who lose their children as adults, who seem to have forsaken the way, must have 'hope against hope' or believe even when we have little supporting evidence. (Romans 4:18)&lt;/strong&gt; The idea that our children could be in hell is too terrible to bear, regardless of whether we believe in an age of accountability, or infant Baptism, or not. &lt;strong&gt;Every parent shares the same concern and the same doubts that God alone to comfort us by faith. Faith does not always need logical explanation when it pertains to eternity, election, time and children.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the few subjects where I accept pretty much everyone’s views on the subject, aside from the extreme end where baptism is enough to save a child, even if he turns out reject the faith or even to become Hitler. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2016-10-06T14:47:30.903" LastActivityDate="2016-10-06T14:47:30.903" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8579" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8588" CreationDate="2012-07-19T11:00:16.027" Score="17" ViewCount="13297" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/488/did-jesus-spend-time-in-hell-between-the-crucifixion-and-resurrection&quot;&gt;Did Jesus spend time in Hell between the crucifixion and resurrection?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus died and was raised from death on the third day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where did Jesus go during the period from His death to resurrection? Was He was with God or still on Earth? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the significance of three days?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some believe that He was in purgatory. However, He died for our sins because He was sinless - in that case, this belief (regarding purgatory) is questionable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a biblical answer, or one within the realm of Christian faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T20:11:18.440" Title="Where was Jesus during the period from His death to resurruction?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2012-11-29T14:05:19.117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8549" CreationDate="2012-07-19T13:12:12.970" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/01/14/traditional-anglican-bloc-eyeing-union-with-rome-is-far-flung-group/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FaithWorld article&lt;/a&gt; says that the higher estimates of the membership of the Traditional Anglican Communion as about 400,000 worldwide. This compares with about 85 million Anglicans worldwide. However the TAC does not represent all Anglo-Catholics. Anglo-Catholicism is not a well-defined group, but it is certainly much larger than 400,000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Ordinariate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a good article on the Anglican Ordinariates&lt;/a&gt;, which includes a list of churches and groups which are part of an Ordinariate. Most of these groups number a few thousand at most. Even members of the TAC groups sometimes refuse to join an Ordinariate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T13:12:12.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8576" CreationDate="2012-07-19T13:13:53.787" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the easiest answer is that it was excluded because it was never properly included. None of the groups who formed a version of the canon felt that this book accurately reflected Jewish values sufficiently to be included in the Tanak or the LXX. Christians just followed suit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just because a book is cited by the Bible, that does not make for automatic inclusion. Just because a book is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; cited by the rest of the Bible that does not mean that it would be right to exclude it (Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes come to mind)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T13:13:53.787" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8579" CreationDate="2012-07-19T13:49:50.590" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox Liturgy (paschal troparion) says about this time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the tomb with the body and in Hades with the soul, in Paradise with the thief and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit, wast Thou, O boundless Christ filling all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know however how other traditions say about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T13:49:50.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8583" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8594" CreationDate="2012-07-19T13:57:55.600" Score="2" ViewCount="526" Body="&lt;p&gt;This has always seemed strange to me that the Pope would not want to distance himself with emperor worship as much as possible. If pointifex maximus was a term used by the government of Rome in its emperor worship, wouldn’t the Pope’s PR men advise using a different title? Or am I not correct in the initial assumption?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I have seen on occasion that he used a pointy hat (the original pontifex maximus) does the Pope ever wear similar clothes as well? Or is there no similarity in dress at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-07-19T14:06:03.330" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T12:57:17.720" Title="Is it true the term 'pontifex maximus' was the name of the high priest of the Roman Cult of Emperor Worship, before being adopted by the Pope?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8584" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8600" CreationDate="2012-07-19T14:40:34.203" Score="5" ViewCount="1720" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the nature of God and, specifically, Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common Christian belief is that God is One in Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge this?  If not, what specifically do they believe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T22:55:44.090" LastActivityDate="2021-02-13T16:44:54.113" Title="What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the nature of God?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8585" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-07-19T15:11:39.983" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pearl of Great Price&lt;/a&gt; is one of the standard works of scripture of &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints&lt;/a&gt;.  In addition to an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/introduction?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;introduction&lt;/a&gt; it contains the following books&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Abraham&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-m/1?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph Smith—Matthew&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph Smith—History&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Articles of Faith&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1687" LastEditorDisplayName="user1687" LastEditDate="2012-07-19T15:22:09.070" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T15:22:09.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8586" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-07-19T15:11:39.983" Score="0" Body="The Pearl of Great Price is one of the standard works of scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." OwnerDisplayName="user1687" LastEditorDisplayName="user1687" LastEditDate="2012-07-19T15:22:02.050" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T15:22:02.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8579" CreationDate="2012-07-19T15:20:52.910" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus' &lt;em&gt;body&lt;/em&gt; was in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:59-61&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;tomb&lt;/a&gt; (Matthew 27:59ff; cp &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015:45-47&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Mark 15&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:52-56&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Luke 23&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:40-42&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 19&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' spirit was in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:42-44&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Paradise&lt;/a&gt; (Luke 23:42ff) - else He could not have truthfully promised the thief crucified with Him that &quot;today you will be with Me in Paradise&quot;. See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Luke 16:19-31&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus paid our debt in completion while on the cross - while He absorbed the full wrath of God to be our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:16-18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;propitiation&lt;/a&gt; (Hebrews 2:16ff; cp &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:24-26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 3:24ff&lt;/a&gt;), He was not put into the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:9-15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Lake of Fire&lt;/a&gt; (Revelation 20:9ff) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;pulled back out&lt;/a&gt; (Revelation 19:20), as that would have been a victory for the Devil whom Christ had already &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;broken&lt;/a&gt; (Genesis 3:15) by becoming our atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three days is significant for a variety of reasons, both in foreshadowing, and in practicalities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it is a finite period of time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the body won't begin to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2016:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;decay&lt;/a&gt; yet (Psalm 16:10)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;compare to Lazarus in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2011&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 11:17 &amp;amp; 39&lt;/a&gt;:&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days.&quot; &amp;amp;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Jesus said, 'Remove the stone.' Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, &quot;Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.'&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it was presaged by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:38-40&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Jonah&lt;/a&gt; (Matthew 12:38ff; cp &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah%201:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Jonah 1:17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;it was how long the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2010:21-23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;plague of darkness&lt;/a&gt; lasted in Egypt (Exodus 10:21ff)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:61&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;said&lt;/a&gt; it would only be three days (Matthew 26:61; cp &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:63&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;27:63&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208:31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Mark 8:31&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;John 2:19&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-07-19T18:06:31.333" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T18:06:31.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8579" CreationDate="2012-07-19T17:00:26.107" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very little is said in the Bible of where Jesus was and what he was doing during the three days, but here's what we do know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He promised the thief on the cross that they would be together in paradise after death. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:39-42&quot;&gt;Luke 23:39-42&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Mary recognized him in the garden after his resurrection, he told her that he had not yet been to heaven. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:15-17&quot;&gt;John 20:15-17&lt;/a&gt; )  From this we can deduce that Heaven, where God is, is something distinct from Paradise, where Jesus had been while he was dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While he was dead and in paradise, he &quot;went and preached unto the spirits in prison.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18-20&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18-20&lt;/a&gt;)  This shows that he wasn't simply laying around relaxing, but continuing his ministry on the other side, preaching the gospel to sinners just as he had in mortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, the Bible doesn't have much to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T17:00:26.107" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8549" CreationDate="2012-07-19T17:47:55.107" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Numbers in the three current Personal Ordinariates are the easy part of the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;UK (Our Lady of Walsingham): about 90 clergy and 1300 lay people;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;US (Chair of S Peter): about 100 clergy and 1400 lay people;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Australia (Our Lady of the Southern Cross): single figures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Australian Ordinariate was only set up a month ago. It appears not even to have a website of its own yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As DJClayworth has written, gauging the number of Anglo-Catholics is not really possible. The TAC doesn't have an enormous membership in England, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the Church of England is concerned, which has fairly well-defined metrics such as membership of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_in_Faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Forward in Faith&lt;/a&gt; or the adoption of various &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1993/2/section/3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Resolutions&lt;/a&gt;, even there those metrics double-count some and leave out others. And while one might count the 100-strong congregation of an &quot;Anglo-Catholic&quot; church as Anglo-Catholics, only 14 adults (and seven children) from mine joined the Ordinariate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T17:47:55.107" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8590" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8592" CreationDate="2012-07-19T18:39:44.917" Score="4" ViewCount="1238" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the answers to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8570/from-where-did-the-pearl-of-great-price-come-and-how-did-it-become-recognized-as&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, the Pearl of Great Price contains a work of antiquity called the &lt;strong&gt;Book of Abraham&lt;/strong&gt;.  Where exactly did the Book of Abraham come from and how did it become recognized as Scripture by the LDS Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T01:15:13.023" Title="From where did the Book of Abraham come and how did it become part of LDS Scripture?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8590" CreationDate="2012-07-19T19:04:53.453" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sigh&lt;/em&gt;... the reference manuals and official sources say it so much better than do I... So here's some quotes and links.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/introduction&quot;&gt;Introductory Note of the Pearl of Great Price&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came&#xA;  into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the&#xA;  patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times&#xA;  and Seasons beginning 1 March 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. (See History&#xA;  of the Church, 4:519–34.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://institute.lds.org/manuals/pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/pgp-3-a.asp&quot;&gt;An institute student manual&lt;/a&gt; has more to say on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How Did the Church Obtain the Book of Abraham?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On 3 July 1835 a man named Michael Chandler brought four Egyptian&#xA;  mummies and several papyrus scrolls of ancient Egyptian writings to&#xA;  Kirtland, Ohio. The mummies and papyri had been discovered in Egypt&#xA;  several years earlier by Antonio Lebolo. Kirtland was one of many&#xA;  stops in the eastern United States for Chandler’s mummy exhibition.&#xA;  Chandler was offering the mummies and rolls of papyrus for sale and,&#xA;  at the urging of the Prophet Joseph Smith, several members of the&#xA;  Church donated money to purchase them. In a statement dated 5 July&#xA;  1835, Joseph Smith, declaring the importance of these ancient Egyptian&#xA;  writings, recorded: “I commenced the translation of some of the&#xA;  characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the&#xA;  rolls contained the writings of Abraham. . . . Truly we can say, the&#xA;  Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth” (&#xA;  History of the Church, 2:236).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/the-book-of-abraham-a-most-remarkable-book&quot;&gt;This article by Dr. Andrew&lt;/a&gt; Skinner of Brigham Young University goes into more detail (formatting lost in the copy operation):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the year 1799, an intensified interest in ancient Egypt was kindled&#xA;  in the Western world when the Rosetta Stone was discovered near&#xA;  Alexandria, Egypt. Made of black basalt, the stone was found by an&#xA;  officer of Napoleon’s engineering corps. It bore inscriptions in three&#xA;  ancient languages—Egyptian hieroglyphics, demotic (a simplified script&#xA;  that succeeded hieroglyphics), and Greek. Among the European linguists&#xA;  who began to work on deciphering these inscriptions was the young&#xA;  French scholar Jean Francois Champollion. Hieroglyphics, the written&#xA;  language of ancient Egypt, had been a riddle to scholars for many&#xA;  centuries. Working from clues found in the last inscription on the&#xA;  Rosetta Stone, written in Greek, Champollion was finally able to&#xA;  decipher the other two inscriptions. In 1822 he published the results&#xA;  of his work and the science of Egyptology was born, allowing scholars&#xA;  to begin to read the most ancient texts of Egypt. 3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These developments involving the Rosetta Stone and Champollion&#xA;  contributed to the coming forth of the book of Abraham in a&#xA;  significant way. As one writer put it, during the early 19th century&#xA;  “worldwide interest in Egyptian antiquities fanned itself to a searing&#xA;  blaze. Egypt was soon overrun with scientific expeditions,&#xA;  adventurers, soldiers of fortune, and robbers of catacombs and ancient&#xA;  burial sites.” 4 Into this atmosphere entered Antonio Lebolo, an&#xA;  Italian excavator of Egyptian antiquities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to Oliver Cowdery’s account written in 1835, Lebolo and his&#xA;  work crew had discovered several mummies in one of the catacombs near&#xA;  the place where once stood the renowned Egyptian city of Thebes. 5&#xA;  After Lebolo’s death, these mummies and two papyrus rolls and some&#xA;  papyrus fragments that had been placed in some of the sarcophagi&#xA;  eventually found their way to New York City and then into the hands of&#xA;  Michael Chandler. 6 He was told that no one could translate the&#xA;  papyri’s inscriptions. He learned, however, that a man named Joseph&#xA;  Smith Jr. claimed some kind of special power that allowed him to&#xA;  decipher ancient writings. The Prophet’s name continued to come up,&#xA;  mostly in derision, at the various places where Chandler stopped to&#xA;  display his traveling mummy show. 7 In 1835 Chandler finally made&#xA;  contact with the Prophet Joseph Smith in Kirtland, Ohio. An entry in&#xA;  the Prophet’s history dated 3 July 1835 reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit&#xA;  some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with&#xA;  some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures&#xA;  and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he&#xA;  brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation.”&#xA;  8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Prophet Joseph Smith was then inspired to raise money to purchase&#xA;  Chandler’s mummies and the accompanying papyri even though he did not&#xA;  know exactly what the writings would disclose. Kirtland Saints&#xA;  contributed the funds for the purchase. The price was $2,400—not an&#xA;  inconsequential sum considering that the temple was under&#xA;  construction, but the faith of members who knew the Prophet and his&#xA;  works led them to help. 9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After the purchase, the Prophet Joseph began to translate some of the&#xA;  papyri with the assistance of scribes W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery.&#xA;  (Warren Parish was later called and employed as scribe.) This is what&#xA;  the Prophet recorded in his personal history: “With W. W. Phelps and&#xA;  Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the&#xA;  characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the&#xA;  rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of&#xA;  Joseph of Egypt, etc.,—a more full account of which will appear in its&#xA;  place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the&#xA;  Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.” 10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no doubt that the Prophet Joseph Smith regarded the manner in&#xA;  which these writings came to him as the result of divine intercession.&#xA;  The testimony of W. W. Phelps is no less certain: “God has so ordered&#xA;  it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church.”&#xA;  11 This happened only after the Lord had prepared his Church and the&#xA;  world to receive the book of Abraham. The rekindled spirit of&#xA;  excitement about ancient Egyptian writings in the 19th century, owing&#xA;  to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and Champollion’s work, was one&#xA;  step in that preparation. Speaking of the way the Lord has guided&#xA;  discoveries and achievements of the human family to further his&#xA;  purposes, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“There has never been a step taken from that day [ancient times] to&#xA;  this, in discovery or invention, where the Spirit of the Lord … was&#xA;  not the prevailing force, resting upon the individual, which caused&#xA;  him to make the discovery or the invention. … Nor did the Lord always&#xA;  use those who have faith, nor does he always do so today. He uses such&#xA;  minds as are pliable and can be turned in certain directions to&#xA;  accomplish his work, whether they believe in him or not. …&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Now, do you think that these discoveries and inventions … have come&#xA;  just because these men have been sitting down and concentrating their&#xA;  minds upon these matters and have discovered them though their thought&#xA;  or accidentally? Not in the least, but the Spirit of the Lord, the&#xA;  Light of Christ, has been back of it. … We are ready for these&#xA;  discoveries, these inventions, and they all have a bearing upon the&#xA;  restoration of the gospel and preparation for the time which is yet&#xA;  future, but which is shortly to come, when Christ shall reign on the&#xA;  earth, and for a thousand years peace shall be established.” 12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hence, this remarkable book of Abraham was brought forth in a&#xA;  remarkable way to help prepare us for the Second Coming of the Savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend following the cited cross-references (History of the Church, and other linked documents and articles) because the information in them is fascinating history and they go into much more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2012-07-19T19:04:53.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8590" CreationDate="2012-07-19T19:29:34.870" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the early 19th century, there was a major popular interest in egyptology which led to the raiding of Egyptian tombs with their contents paraded in exhibitions across Europe and the United States. It was during this time that an acquaintance of Joseph Smith purchased some papyri from such traveling exhibition and presented it to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith subsequently claimed that it contained &amp;quot;ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs [sic] of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.&amp;quot; He proceeded to produce a translation. The content of the work contains many unique doctrines in the theology of Mormonism, such as God's creation of multiple inhabited worlds beyond Earth, an explicit portrayal of the Creation as not being ex-nihilo, and doctrines on the priesthood and its lineage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The work was not considered canon until the late 19th century when the LDS church adopted it officially as part of the Pearl of Great Price through approval of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Prior to that it was merely among the many religious materials Smith produced that were published in periodicals of his day but were never adopted as official canon. The Book of Abraham, along with Smith's translation of the Bible, were never deemed complete by Smith himself; he worked on them periodically until his death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern analysis of fragments of papyri believed to be those which Smith had in possession shows that they portray a standard Egyptian burial, as such scholars generally reject Smith's translation. It is also worth noting that many LDS scholars also agree that the papyri do not contain a translation as produced by Smith. They have, however, produced excellent apologist work in defense of the Book of Abraham and have posed multiple theories as to how it could have been produced. One such is the fact that the majority of the papyri were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire, and therefore it is contended that perhaps the translation is based on papyri which have been lost. Some of the apologetics are based on an analysis of the content of the work and not of its origin. Much of this work can be found at BYU's Maxwell Institute online.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I was mistaken on a doctrinal point above, the Book of Abraham does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; treat explicitly the concept of multiple inhabited worlds. It does, however, speak of many stars created in the heavens and of Abraham's learning about them. He &amp;quot;saw those things which [God's] hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.&amp;quot; A similar vision is encountered in the Book of Moses also in the Pearl of Great Price, and in that account the idea of multiple inhabited worlds is presented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-18T01:15:13.023" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T01:15:13.023" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8576" CreationDate="2012-07-19T22:18:20.377" Score="22" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jewish canon was still in a state of flux when the New Testament was being written.  Therefore, early Christian authors drew freely from a wide variety of works, some of which were excluded from both the Jewish and Christian scriptures at a later date.   1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Enoch falls into that category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early church probably held theological views most similar to the Pharisee sect of Judaism.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7140/914&quot;&gt;That meant&lt;/a&gt; that they would have accepted a larger selection of books than just the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), but not the full range of texts that have been found in the Qumran library.  Enoch was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; found in the 132 BCE translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (the Septuagint).  Most likely, the text was not in it's final form at that time.  However, many church fathers quoted Enoch, so it must have been translated into Greek by the first and second century CE.  Only a few &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#Greek_and_Latin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;fragments&lt;/a&gt; of Greek copies remain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear that the author of Jude directly quoted &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe004.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Enoch 1:9&lt;/a&gt; and properly attributed the quotation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was also about these that &lt;em&gt;Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying&lt;/em&gt;, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”&amp;mdash;Jude 1:14-15 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Jude/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether he had a Greek translation available or translated it directly from Aramaic (or some other language) is unknown.  There are textual variations, but we can be pretty confident that this quotation comes from Enoch and not &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Deuteronomy+33/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 33:2&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tertullian directly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.iii.i.iii.html#fna_iii.iii.i.iii-p13.1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;addresses the issue&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that “every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.”  By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ.  Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive.  To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His argument uses an &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/2216/68&quot;&gt;ingenious interpretation&lt;/a&gt; of 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy to show that Enoch was inspired because it contains prophecies about Jesus.  He also argues that it was rejected by the Jews for that same reason.  That &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_the_Apostle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jude&lt;/a&gt; quoted a portion is merely secondary evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this promising start, why didn't the church accept Enoch?  Ultimately, I think the answer lies in the difficulty the church had in deciding on the Christian texts to be included.  Even at the time of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eusebius&lt;/a&gt; the question of which texts belonged in the New Testament was disputed.  2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; Peter, for instance, was considered doubtful.  The Old Testament was a less pressing matter and it seems that the church generally accepted the Jewish Scripture.  Eusebius quotes Origen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the numbers don't quite add up.  Even the smallest reckoning is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#Content&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;24 books&lt;/a&gt;.  But the point is that Christians began to accept the Jewish canon as authoritative.  That meant ignoring books like Enoch that weren't broadly accepted by 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; and 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; century Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jerome&lt;/a&gt;, most Christians simply used the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/32/68&quot;&gt;Septuagint&lt;/a&gt; (or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Latin translations&lt;/a&gt; of it) because it was convenient, it was quoted (and therefore used) by the apostles, and some (such as Augustine) considered the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;translation itself inspired&lt;/a&gt;.  Obviously, Enoch was not found in that collection.  After Jerome, the Latin church shifted to using the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Vulgate&lt;/a&gt;, which also didn't include Enoch.  So for the vast majority of Christian traditions Enoch simply fell out of use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that at 108 chapters and about the same number of pages in a modern edition, Enoch is a relatively long book to be copied and translated.  Before Gutenberg, a text really needed to justify its value in order to be propagated.  While the text contains much detail that isn't found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the material is fairly esoteric and not terribly applicable for the early church (unlike Revelation).  The formation of the canon (from a historical viewpoint) was a chaotic process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a ton of interesting things in Enoch and other non-canonical works, but as a Christian, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5853/914&quot;&gt;I don't feel&lt;/a&gt; like we are missing out on much by not reading them.  God has used the Church, with all of her missteps and human failings, to produce a canon that fully describes His character and plan for the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:40:42.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8583" CreationDate="2012-07-20T00:09:16.290" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, &quot;pontifex maximus&quot; means &quot;highest pontifex.&quot; The Pontifex were, at one time, the priests of the Imperial cult, but over time the meaning of the word broadened and it was used as a word for, &quot;Bishop.&quot; The Pope's (unofficial) title is used in that context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Refusal to use the term (where it clearly applies) would be akin to refusing to use the word, &quot;Tuesday&quot; because it is etymologically linked to the Norse god Týr. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-20T00:09:16.290" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8579" CreationDate="2012-07-20T01:15:54.053" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Here's the &quot;tl/dr&quot; summary: Article four of the Apostles' Creed says Jesus &quot;descended into hell&quot; between the time that he was buried and the time that he rose from the dead.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's a good question. I'm aware of no specific place in scripture that provides an extensive &amp;amp; thorough, &quot;He was at [location] to accomplish [goal]&quot;-type answer, although there are some important references, such as 1 Peter 3:18-20. The Apostles' Creed is one widely regarded, but extra-biblical source frequently used to address the issue, and many people believe it is entirely consistent with biblical teaching. It is an ancient set of statements that outline the basic tenets of Christianity, as they are understood by a significant number of believers, and it is used by Roman Catholic church and several Protestant denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's author &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Philip Schaff's&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; description of the Apostles' Creed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Philip Schaff, in his Creeds of Christendom, writes of the Apostles' Creed, “As the Lord's Prayer is the Prayer of prayers, the Decalogue is the Law of laws, so the Apostles' Creed is the Creed of creeds. It contains all the fundamental articles of the Christian faith necessary to salvation, in the form of facts, in simple Scripture language, and in the most natural order—the order of revelation—from God and the creation down to the resurrection and life everlasting.”1 The simple doctrinal statements within this creed are clear and concise, and their meaning cannot be misconstrued. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brannan/hstcrcon.iii.html?highlight=apostles,creed#highlight&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(source).&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia's&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; brief description:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A formula containing in brief statements, or &quot;articles,&quot; the fundamental tenets of Christian belief, and having for its authors, according to tradition, the Twelve Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Article four of the Apostles' Creed says that, between the time that Christ was buried and the time that he rose from the dead, he &quot;descended into hell.&quot; Cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Peter 3:18-20&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Apostles' Creed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The third day he rose again from the dead:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;I believe in the Holy Ghost:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;I believe in the holy catholic* church: the communion of saints:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The forgiveness of sins:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The resurrection of the body:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;And the life everlasting. Amen. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* Note that, in this context, the word &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;catholic&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&quot; in article nine refers not exclusively to the Roman Catholic church, but to the church consisting of all who have a saving faith in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also this Christianity.SE question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/488/did-jesus-spend-time-in-hell-between-the-crucifixion-and-resurrection?rq=1&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the concept that Jesus spent time in Hell?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some additional sources you might want to consult:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/apostles%27%20creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian Classics Ethereal Library: Commentaries on the Apostles' Creed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College: Text of The Apostles' Creed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reformed.org: Text of The Apostles' Creed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/Christ_in_hell/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Excerpt from Calvin's &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; on the text &quot;[Christ] descended into hell&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: Entry on the Apostles' Creed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-07-21T23:48:33.890" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8576" CreationDate="2012-07-20T02:49:06.827" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; The Book of Enoch is not Scripture.  As such, the Holy Spirit did not lead the church to include it in the canon of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Controversy&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:14-15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Jude 1:14-15&lt;/a&gt; says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This quote from Enoch is not contained in the Bible, which has led many to wonder where Jude got this information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1956, during the excavation of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls&quot;&gt;Dead Sea Scrolls&lt;/a&gt;, a book called &quot;1 Enoch&quot; (a.k.a. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch&quot;&gt;The Book of Enoch&lt;/a&gt;) was discovered.  &lt;em&gt;(NOTE: The excavation uncovered a variety of texts, many of which were not Scriptural.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enoch 1:9 says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy [all] the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works [of their ungodliness] which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners [have spoken] against Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly this is very similar to Jude 1:14-15.  The question is: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Why?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was Jude quoting The Book of Enoch?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If so, does this mean the Book of Enoch should be considered Scripture?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Were The Book of Enoch and Jude both quoting from an earlier text (i.e. the actual account of Enoch)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was the author of The Book of Enoch actually quoting from Jude to make their book look more credible?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we &lt;em&gt;don't know&lt;/em&gt; is when The Book of Enoch was written, who the author was, or what Jude was quoting.  &lt;strong&gt;:)&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;em&gt;(The best I can tell, the Biblical figure Enoch was not the author, but rather, someone who lived closer to the time of Christ, or possibly even after, based on some of the references.)&lt;/em&gt;  There are many arguments on all sides of this debate, but the real question in the back of many Christian minds is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Is it Scripture?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the Holy-Spirit inspired word of God?  This is where we can pretty confidently say &quot;&lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.  If it were Scripture, we would expect it to be free of false doctrine.  What we find instead is that false doctrine is one of the most prevalent themes in the book!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking a cursory look at the text up through Chapter 59, I found the following false doctrines.  &lt;em&gt;(I may be off on one here or there, but it should be sufficient to get my point across.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1:1  Implies restoration during tribulation - not congruent with scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1:8  In conflict with the doctrine that peace was made at the cross.  Also, in the last days tribulation will increase for the righteous - this &quot;verse&quot; seems to dispute that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;2:2-3  Appears to contradict 2 Pet 3:3-7&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;5:4  Is an admonition to some unknown party - this is very irregular relative to the scriptures (i.e. authentic ancient writings by God-fearing Jews)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;6:3  Semjaza seems to be listed as the leader of the angels, which is not scriptural&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;6:3,8  None of these angels are mentioned in the Bible&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;8:1  Azazel isn't even listed in 6:8 as one of the angels that fornicated with women&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;8:3  Araqiel and Shamsiel aren't listed in 6:8 either&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;10:2  Enoch allegedly wrote about Noah, even though the Bible teaches that Enoch was taken up to heaven years before Noah was born.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;10:4-6,12  Implies angels can be bound &amp;amp; hid in holes under rocks.  This is contrary to scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;10:8  Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel - not scriptural.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;10:15-11:2  Seems to imply that permanent restoration took place after the flood - clearly not true.  It seems the true author of this book confused scriptures pertaining to the future restoration.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;13:5-6,14:4-5,7  Implies fallen angels can't talk to God - this contradicts Job.  Also implies that angels were repentant, but weren't received back by God - very strange doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;14  Gives a very strange description of Heaven that conflicts with many scriptures&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;15:8-10  Very strange doctrine about &quot;evil spirits&quot; proceeding from unredeemable giants&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;17-18,21,23  Gives a very strange description of the earth &amp;amp; universe which is clearly not true.  Also alludes to the ancient model of astronomy that held that there were 7 stars (the closest planets) which burned like the sun (they don't.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;19:3  Discredits all other prophecy about the consumation of the ages.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;20  Lists strange angels not in scripture, and incorrectly assigns the roles of Michael (the warrior) and Gabriel (the messenger)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;21:7-10  Seems to contradict Biblical descriptions of the present &amp;amp; final judgement places for the fallen angels&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;22  Contradicts the Biblical descriptions of past, present &amp;amp; future dwelling places for the righteous who die&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;32:2-6  Seems to imply the Garden of Eden was still in existance after the Flood&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;33:1-2  Says Heaven rests on a foundation that is at the Eastern edge of the earth&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;33:3  He claims he counted the stars &amp;amp; individually mapped them, which is impossible scripturally (&amp;amp; scientifically)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;34  Says the winds come out of a &quot;portal&quot; at the Northern edge of the earth&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;36:3  Says the stars come out of portals at the Eastern edge of the earth &amp;amp; move West&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;38:5-6  Contradicts Daniel &amp;amp; other prophecies about the Mellinial Reign&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;39:1-2  Very strange implications here about the &quot;seed&quot; of angels dwelling with men at the end... this contradicts the scriptures&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;40:7  Talks about the &quot;Satans&quot; - plural, different than the Bible, who gives that name to only one fallen angel.  Also, implies Satan can't stand in God's presence, contrary to Job.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;40:9  Once again mixes up the roles of the 2 Archangels &amp;amp; adds more names in.  Michael's role in scripture is related to conquoring nations &amp;amp; fighting spiritual wars, while Gabriel's relates to bringing messages &amp;amp; visions to people.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;41:1-2  Says the Kingdom of God is divided - it's not &amp;amp; can't be scripturally.  Also describes sinners being repelled from a mansion, which is also not scriptural, unless you look at a parable Jesus told, which was not intended to be literal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;41:4-5  Says the sun, moon, winds, etc. are stored in chambers &amp;amp; released at appointed times.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;41:6-7  Implies the sun &amp;amp; moon move opposite of each other&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;43:1-3,44  Very weird model of the nature of stars &amp;amp; lightning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;47:4  Says God requires the blood of the saints... very strange&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;51:1  Says Sheol &amp;amp; Hell will give back to the earth, which isn't scriptural - also Hell is a NT term, not OT&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;51:2  Disputes the Biblical doctrine that we are chosen.  (We don't have to wait until Christ's return to be chosen.)  This isn't scriptural.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;General:  Seems to imply Enoch came back down to earth after being taken up to Heaven, which is not scriptural.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Paul's words are very pertinent here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may &lt;strong&gt;instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths&lt;/strong&gt; and endless genealogies, &lt;strong&gt;which give rise to mere speculation&lt;/strong&gt; rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. &lt;strong&gt;For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2014-01-08T04:40:10.840" LastActivityDate="2014-01-08T04:40:10.840" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8556" CreationDate="2012-07-20T11:01:27.797" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From John 3:14 we know it was a foreshadowing of Christ, but I think the desire for absolute certainty concerning any foreshadowing image or shadow of Messiah party misunderstands the concept of a shadow. A shadow is by definition an obscure and fuzzy outline of a real object. This is why we will find invariably numerous perspectives on any given shadow. With Christ having been revealed  we can cheat a bit and take the answer back to the clue but this does not always give us absolute clarity on the circumference on the shadow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, your question contains a great answer because Christ was made sin for us. Another answer given that a serpent represents punishment is also good, for Christ was punished for us. From my own preference I would just say that the serpent represents the curse of sin brought on by the Devil, as Christ bore the curse of sin, hell, death, punishment, etc. He was like a brass snake held up to heal us of the 'curse'. Yet I may find that I still prefer how someone else phrases it, further confirming the situation. We are all speaking about the same fuzzy shadow of Christ's work on the cross. There is no perfect magic wording to describe what is a little unclear but many good answers approximate the cast shape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-07-21T01:06:18.133" LastActivityDate="2012-07-21T01:06:18.133" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8584" CreationDate="2012-07-20T11:56:13.760" Score="7" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Only Jehovah is God; Jesus Christ is Michael the&#xA;archangel. He is different from the other angels in that he was the&#xA;first one created. They quote the following verse to prove that he&#xA;is Michael: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:14 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command,&#xA;  with the &lt;strong&gt;voice of the archangel&lt;/strong&gt; and with the trumpet call of God, and&#xA;  the dead in Christ will rise first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Only Jehovah is the true creator. Jehovah created Jesus and then used him to create everything else. So Jesus&#xA;is the creator of everything except that he himself was created by&#xA;God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:3 &lt;strong&gt;Through him&lt;/strong&gt; all things were made; without him nothing was&#xA;  made that has been made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Only Jehovah is omniscient. Jesus does not know&#xA;everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels&#xA;  in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Only Jehovah is completely holy, not Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 10:18 &quot;Why do you call me good?&quot; Jesus answered. &quot;No one is good&#xA;  except God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, being an angel, cannot be completely holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Job 4:18 Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Only Jehovah is the eternal King and true Judge. He has submitted&#xA;the judgement of this world to Jesus for the time being but&#xA;ultimately all authority will return to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15:28 When he has done this, then &lt;strong&gt;the Son himself will&#xA;  be made subject to him who put everything under him&lt;/strong&gt;, so that God may&#xA;  be all in all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Holy spirit is Jehovah's active power. It is an impersonal force just&#xA;like wind or fire and does not have a mind or will. This is from&#xA;the July 2006 issue of &lt;em&gt;Awake!&lt;/em&gt; magazine, published by The Watchtower Bible &amp;amp; Tract Society:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Mary, the mother of Jesus, visited her cousin Elizabeth, the&#xA;  Bible says that the unborn child in Elizabeth’s womb leaped, “and&#xA;  Elizabeth was filled with holy spirit.” (Luke 1:41) &lt;strong&gt;Is it reasonable&#xA;  that a person would be “filled” with another person?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John could hardly have been referring to the holy spirit as a person&#xA;  when he spoke of baptizing people with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not unusual for God’s Word to personify things that are not a&#xA;  person. These include wisdom, discernment, sin, death, and undeserved&#xA;  kindness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The holy spirit is not a person simply because in some instances it is&#xA;  personified.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-12-21T17:29:44.083" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T17:29:44.083" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6224" CreationDate="2012-07-20T12:27:28.680" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea of delusion is &lt;strong&gt;very important&lt;/strong&gt; in christian tradition and I am amazed that the two answers given suggest there is no christian perspective for this. The spiritual delusion (called prelest' in slavonic) is one of the greatest dangers that await people praying. I think the most concise study of this subject can be found in this short treatise of Saint Symeon the New Theologian:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/symeon_threeways.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/symeon_threeways.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-07-20T12:27:28.680" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8602" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8605" CreationDate="2012-07-20T14:44:41.723" Score="12" ViewCount="9204" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Revelation refers to 144,000 servants of God who will be sealed in two different places.  I have heard that the Jehovah's Witnesses often refer to this number.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who, exactly, do the Jehovah's Witnesses believe these people to be?  Are they members of the Jehovah's Witnesses who lived in the past, who are living in the present, or who will live in the future?  Or are they male Jewish virgins, as the text suggests, who will live at some point in the future?   &lt;em&gt;(male virgins - &quot;who have not defiled themselves with women&quot;; Jewish - &quot;from every tribe of the sons of Israel&quot;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the&#xA;  earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might&#xA;  blow on earth or sea or against any tree. Then I saw another angel&#xA;  ascending from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God,&#xA;  and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given&#xA;  power to harm earth and sea, saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea&#xA;  or the trees, until we have sealed &lt;strong&gt;the servants of our God&lt;/strong&gt; on their&#xA;  foreheads.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I heard the number of the sealed, &lt;strong&gt;144,000&lt;/strong&gt;, sealed &lt;strong&gt;from every tribe&#xA;  of the sons of Israel&lt;/strong&gt;:   12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed,&#xA;  12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, 12,000 from the tribe of Gad, 12,000&#xA;  from the tribe of Asher, 12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, 12,000&#xA;  from the tribe of Manasseh, 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, 12,000&#xA;  from the tribe of Levi, 12,000 from the tribe of Issachar, 12,000 from&#xA;  the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, 12,000 from the&#xA;  tribe of Benjamin were sealed.  Revelation 7:1-8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;144,000&lt;/strong&gt; who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many&#xA;  waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like&#xA;  the sound of harpists playing on their harps, and they were singing a&#xA;  new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and&#xA;  before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who&#xA;  had been redeemed from the earth. &lt;strong&gt;It is these who have not defiled&#xA;  themselves with women, for they are virgins&lt;/strong&gt;. It is these who follow&#xA;  the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as&#xA;  firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found,&#xA;  for they are blameless.  Revelation 14:1-5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-06-30T20:24:50.833" LastActivityDate="2021-04-14T21:49:37.237" Title="According to Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelation?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8603" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8606" CreationDate="2012-07-20T15:57:34.800" Score="8" ViewCount="910" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a good friend who is Jewish, and he often refers to being one of the &quot;Chosen People&quot;.  I understand that God &quot;chose&quot; Abraham and his descendants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a New Testament perspective, as the answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3679/who-and-what-are-the-chosen-people&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; indicates, Christians are &quot;chosen people&quot; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, for what specific purpose were Abraham and his descendants &lt;em&gt;chosen&lt;/em&gt;?  Being chosen seems to have no meaning unless we know the reason and purpose for which they were chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that's my question.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-07-21T17:12:47.237" Title="For what purpose were the &quot;Chosen People&quot; chosen?" Tags="&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-03-26T03:48:16.330" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8603" CreationDate="2012-07-20T17:02:50.663" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;em&gt;chosen&lt;/em&gt; can also be interpreted as &lt;em&gt;favored&lt;/em&gt;. In the most general sense, the seed of Abraham is &lt;em&gt;chosen&lt;/em&gt; in the sense that Christ would come through Abraham's lineage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the Priesthood, or the authority to act in God's name on earth, would be passed down through the descendents of Abraham:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abraham 2:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any follower of Christ (regardless of lineage) is considered Abraham's seed by adoption, which allows those who are not direct descendants of Abraham to hold the Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galations 3:29&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1877" LastActivityDate="2012-07-20T17:02:50.663" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8602" CreationDate="2012-07-20T17:04:23.923" Score="12" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Witness doctrine:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;God's original plan was for humans to live forever in paradise conditions on Earth.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;But&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Then Adam and Eve rebelled and threw a spanner in the works.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's &lt;em&gt;purpose&lt;/em&gt; (ultimate goal) didn't change, but his &lt;em&gt;plan&lt;/em&gt; (the way to get there) did. Now there had to be all that complicated business with sending his son down to Earth to die as a redeemer and suchlike. Still the end result will be the same: humans living forever in paradise conditions on Earth. Some will live through the Great Tribulation at the end of this system, others will be resurrected from the sleep of death after that Tribulation. They will live on Earth and be ruled from Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The government in Heaven will have Jesus as its head, but there are 144,000 &amp;quot;co-heirs with Christ&amp;quot;, the &amp;quot;Kingdom of priests and a holy nation&amp;quot; who will rule alongside him. These are the few, the minority of humans who go to heaven to be rulers. (Obviously the majority of humans stay on the Earth, or there would be no one for them to rule over.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;anointed class&amp;quot;, those selected to go to heaven when they die, are not particularly special. In fact, in the first century, all Christians were in that class. They died, and were &amp;quot;asleep in death&amp;quot; (unconscious, dead, door-nail) till 1914, when they were resurrected to heaven. But the number of 144,000 is not quite made up. There's still a few left here on Earth. (It is expected that now the numbers are mostly made up, only particularly experienced Witnesses will be picked to make up the remainder.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you know whether you're one of them? The spirit will move you. So as you read the Bible and read the descriptions in Revelation of a cleaned up paradise Earth, does that move you? Or when you read the descriptions of being &amp;quot;caught away in the air&amp;quot; into the heavenly city, does that move you? Generally speaking, any Witness who claims to be of the anointed class is accepted as being so. And it makes no difference to your status in the congregation. The only noticeable difference is that (a) when the bread and wine are passed at the annual Memorial, you will &amp;quot;participate&amp;quot; by eating and drinking some, and (b) if for some unavoidable reason you miss the Memorial, provision will be made for you to celebrate it a month later, in accordance with Jewish practise of the Passover; such provision is not made for non-anointed Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In actual practise, most anointed Witnesses are (a) elderly long-serving members, or (b) recent converts from other branches of Christianity which talk a lot about Heaven. Draw your own conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Memorial participants are counted and reported in the annual statistics. Non-Witnesses who attend the Memorial and participate of the emblems are not counted. (The bread and wine are called &lt;em&gt;emblems&lt;/em&gt; because the Witnesses believe they are symbols only.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The status of being &amp;quot;anointed&amp;quot; is not thought of as a fixed thing. An anointed person can lose that status, and even be expelled from the congregation (disfellowshipped). This does not necessarily mean that they were lying and never had that status to begin with. (It may mean that, but not necessarily.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both brothers and sisters may be of the anointed class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-20T20:07:07.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8603" CreationDate="2012-07-20T18:56:24.780" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Scripture, they are chosen to do a number of things, for several reasons, all of which serve God's purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were chosen to produce the Messiah.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were chosen to demonstrate God's power, as demonstrated in his dealings with Egypt, and throughout Scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were chosen to record Scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were chosen to be the example, to teach us about God's nature.  We learn almost everything we know about God through His dealings with His chosen people&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His attributes and nature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His attitude toward sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We learn that he blesses those who love and obey Him, and judges those who rebel, and grants forgiveness when His people repent,  as seen throughout the history books. (Kings, judges&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure the list could go on and on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-07-20T18:56:24.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8603" CreationDate="2012-07-20T22:27:34.880" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a story from the Oral Torah which I believe adds an interesting element to this idea of God having &quot;chosen&quot; or &quot;favored&quot; one particular people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_abrahamidols.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_abrahamidols.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... when Abraham was still a young child, he realized that idol worship&#xA;  was nothing but foolishness. To make his point, one day, when Abraham&#xA;  was asked to watch the store, he took a hammer and smashed all the&#xA;  idols - except for the largest. His father came home aghast. &quot;What&#xA;  happened?!&quot; he shouted. &quot;It was amazing, Dad,&quot; replied Abraham. &quot;The&#xA;  idols all got into a fight and the biggest idol won!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The idea, of course, was to show his father how ridiculous it is to&#xA;  ascribe power to such idols!There was no way for his father to&#xA;  respond; deep down he knew that Abraham had tuned into a deeper truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, in a sense, we have Abraham &quot;choosing&quot; God.  Or, if you will, cooperating with God's Will rather than the more common idea of God choosing/electing/predestining Abraham.  It's a remarkable parallel to the synergism/monergism debate.  IMO, the Covenant makes more sense in this light than in the arbitrary selection by God of one particular tribe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-07-20T22:27:34.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8603" CreationDate="2012-07-21T10:07:38.783" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the other answers suggest, there are lots of reasons why God has a &lt;strong&gt;chosen people&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just want to add few points. &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Lets go back to the creation where God decided or chose to create heaven an earth. He also chose to create humanity to populate the earth. And then begins a privileged relationship between God and his creation. In this relation was a covenant between God and Man. But this relationship is broken by sin and so is the covenant. As time goes, the population on earth increases along with deviant behaviors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe God didn't want His first intention in &lt;strong&gt;creation&lt;/strong&gt; to be lost. So He chose a man with whom He would have a covenant as &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 12&lt;/strong&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord had said to Abram, &#xA;      “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; &#xA;       I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;&#xA;       and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And through that chosen person, God would reach out to the entire humanity.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;Jesus is the &lt;strong&gt;finalization&lt;/strong&gt; of God's purpose, which is to have a new covenant with not only His chosen people (Israel) but to all humanity, which is resumed by &lt;strong&gt;John 3:16 - 17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, so that whoever &#xA;      believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life.&#xA;      For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So through Abraham, God intended to restore His covenant with His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1801" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-07-21T17:12:47.237" LastActivityDate="2012-07-21T17:12:47.237" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8579" CreationDate="2012-07-21T10:39:49.447" Score="0" Body="&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Where did Jesus go during the period from His death to resurrection?&#xA;Was He was with God or still on Earth?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;code&gt;1 Peter 3: 18-20&lt;/code&gt;, when Jesus died, he went to preach the gospel to  &lt;code&gt;spirits in prison&lt;/code&gt; which could be referring to souls being held by the devil. It's probably the grace of God to all humanity, He gave them the opportunity to ear the gospel but the decision was theirs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;What is the significance of three days?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said in &lt;code&gt;John 2:19&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was telling that He would be kill but will rise from the dead. It was to accomplish this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some believe that He was in purgatory. However, He died for our sins because He was sinless - in that case, this belief (regarding purgatory) is questionable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This depends on everyone's understanding of the scriptures. I believe Jesus came to earth and died for our sins. He asked us to be His representative here on earth, which is to live the same life He lived. However He was God and human and we are just humans; so we may fall in sin. When it happens, scriptures say in &lt;code&gt;1 John 1:9&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to me that belief is questionable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1801" LastActivityDate="2012-07-21T10:39:49.447" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8610" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8613" CreationDate="2012-07-21T17:11:52.413" Score="22" ViewCount="1989" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically with respect to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html&quot;&gt;Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapter 3, paragraph 3 and 4, where it states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and&#xA;      angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to&#xA;      everlasting death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are&#xA;      particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and&#xA;      definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why or how would they justify that by using the scriptures? Having justified that, why are only &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; people predestined for certain salvation and &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; others for certain damnation, with presumably the rest being left for fate or whatever choice those people decide to make (A concession for Arminianism)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1444" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-01-06T20:13:34.027" LastActivityDate="2015-01-06T20:13:34.027" Title="Why are only some predestined?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;westminster-confession&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8610" CreationDate="2012-07-21T19:35:09.750" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think we're going to resolve the whole predestination vs freewill debate here, so I'm not going to go into the arguments for either side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But let me try to clarify the debate. The whole idea of predestination is that God has determined in advance who will be saved and who will not. As Arafangion points out in his comment, a Calvinist would not say that someone who is predestined to be saved will therefore go to Heaven regardless of his beliefs and actions and vice versa. That is, Calvinists do not say that if God chooses Al and not Bob that that means that Al will be saved even if he rejects Christ and is a serial killer and a rapist, etc, etc, while Bob will be condemned even if he is the most holy person in the world. Rather the Calvinist says that God decides who will turn to him and who will not. Those whom God has chosen will accept Christ and try to serve him; those whom he has not chosen will reject Christ and have no desire to follow his commands. Thus, if you had some list of who is saved and who is not, and you compared this list to what you could observe about people's lives, this would give NO EVIDENCE one way or the other about whether predestination is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the Calvinist would also say that it is not a matter of some are chosen to be saved, some to be condemned, and &quot;the rest left to fate or whatever choice those people make&quot;. Rather, everybody is predestined either to be saved or to be condemned. There is no third category. Those who are predestined to be saved will accept Christ. Those who are predestined to be condemned will reject him. There is no third possibility: you do or you don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to scriptural justifications, the most obvious is Epehesians 2:8, &quot;For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.&quot; Your faith is a &quot;gift of God&quot;. The Calvinist says that God decides who will have faith and who will not. Or Romans 8:29-30, &quot;For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.&quot; Again, God predestined certain people, these people he &quot;called&quot;, and then they responded. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key scripture for Calvinists is Romans 9:10-21, &quot;... But when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! ... You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not a Calvinist -- or maybe even if you are -- this is a tough passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-07-21T19:35:09.750" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8610" CreationDate="2012-07-21T21:22:34.330" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Note that this response has been divided into two parts: the first is the original response, and the second tries to elaborate based on a comment from the OP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Part 1&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great question. This response includes a very brief description of some of the basic points of predestination/election, and some references with in-depth, historic information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few main points of predestination/election, which it sounds like you may already be aware of. Again, these points are part of Reformed/&amp;quot;Calvinist&amp;quot; theology, and there are many that would disagree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reformed theology emphasizes God's motivation to glorify himself, to &amp;quot;bring glory to his name.&amp;quot; Note that, according to reformed theology, this does not make him selfish, because man was designed and created to worship God, so glorifying God is what is best for man. (See John Piper, &amp;amp; what is sometimes called &amp;quot;Christian Hedonism.&amp;quot; Resources at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;DesigingGod.org&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All are considered guilty in Adam, and therefore &amp;quot;deserve&amp;quot; the torment of hell (see the doctrine of &amp;quot;original sin&amp;quot;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because God is sovereign, he does not &amp;quot;owe&amp;quot; salvation to anyone, and would be justified in sending all of humanity to hell.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is glorified in the greatness of his mercy by electing some to salvation, which they cannot earn.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is glorified in the greatness of his wrath, by sending others to hell -- either those who are &amp;quot;not elect&amp;quot; or who are &amp;quot;elected to damnation&amp;quot; (see the doctrine of &amp;quot;double predestination&amp;quot;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, from the perspective of reformed theology, it is important to note that those who are predestined for salvation are in no way &amp;quot;deserving&amp;quot; of God's mercy, and there is no way to &amp;quot;earn&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;merit&amp;quot; redemption. (See the doctrines of &amp;quot;monergistic&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;synergistic&amp;quot; regeneration).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How God has decided specifically which individuals will go to heaven&lt;/strong&gt; is explained either as &amp;quot;random&amp;quot; or as one of the &amp;quot;mysteries&amp;quot; not revealed to man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some brief history and additional reference material. Your question is about the Westminster Confession and what it says about predestination; the Confession was published in 1646, but the question of predestination had been ongoing for sometime. One important document where it is addressed directly is the Canons of Dordt (sometimes &amp;quot;Dort&amp;quot;). Several followers of Arminius published a &amp;quot;Remonstrance&amp;quot; in 1610 in Holland, refuting some elements of reformed doctrine, and the Synod of Dordt was created to respond to their assertions. The Synod published their conclusions in a document called the Canons of Dordt in 1618. It is generally considered the source of the &amp;quot;five points of Calvinism,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;T.U.L.I.P.&amp;quot; -- Calvin himself never actually outlined the five points in that form -- and addresses predestination in some detail, with scripture proofs. Here are two links to the Canons of Dordt, with scripture proofs: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Reformed.org&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/canonsofdort.toc.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;CCEL&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism/#History&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;here&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; for a quick explanation of the history of the five points of Calvinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to your question about &amp;quot;[w]hy or how would they justify that by using the scriptures,&amp;quot;&#xA;the Westminster Assembly included extensive scripture proofs that, in their interpretation, justified all of the statements in the Standards. A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;full copy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of the Confession, with the original proofs, can be found on the Reformed.org page linked in your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also that you can find an in-depth, detailed discussion of the creation of the Westminster Standards in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, published in 1853 by William Maxwell Hetherington.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a very detailed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.ix.viii.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;chapter on the Westminster Standards&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; in Philip Schaff's &amp;quot;Creeds of Christendom,&amp;quot; published 1876.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Schaff's &lt;em&gt;Creeds&lt;/em&gt; is a widely regarded, historically important book, one that is likely to be found on the bookshelves of many historians and theologians. Hetherington's work is new to me, but I see that it is linked alongside other important historical titles by sources I have found to be credible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Part 2&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the OP's comment on 'Part 1' of this response, he gives an analogy to further clarify the question, which I'll paraphrase here: 'if, for example, 1/3 of the people on earth are predestined for heaven, why are the other 2/3 not predestined?' I've added this &amp;quot;Part 2&amp;quot; in an attempt to better address the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a preface, please note that I don't claim to be an expert on predestination, but I'll try to share what I've learned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is what could be described as a 'subtle' difference in two basic forms of the doctrine of predestination, with the variant being described as 'double predestination,' or 'reprobation.' This doctrine says that God has predestined some to go to heaven, and others to go to hell, and that all people are predestined for one or the other. Another version is that God has predestined some to go to heaven, and has simply &amp;quot;passed over&amp;quot; the others, leaving them to be condemned by their own guilt, which they inherited from Adam and compounded through their own actions, since &amp;quot;all have sinned&amp;quot; (Rom 3:23). The end result is the same, from the perspective of the individuals and where they spend eternity; anyone who is not elected to salvation doesn't make it to heaven, according to the doctrine of predestination. Also, note that in neither case is there a &amp;quot;third category.&amp;quot; In predestination, every person is either elected to salvation, or &amp;quot;passed over.&amp;quot; In double predestination, every person is elected to either salvation or reprobation. Here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/books/bunyan/reprobation/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;a work from John Bunyan&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; that examines the doctrine of reprobation in detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that you've stated that your question is not about predestination, but, since these matters are all intertwined, a thorough understanding of it may help to resolve your question. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5273/1873&quot;&gt;This C.SE post by Caleb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; does a great job of explaining things, and I think it's relevant to our discussion here. He also does a good job of explaining the role of substitutionary atonement, in a very concise manner -- that is, how God can offer salvation to guilty sinners who are deserving of punishment, without being unjust, although you may already understand all of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question of why God has chosen a certain number of people to be saved&lt;/strong&gt; is a matter of his sovereign will. Since he doesn't owe salvation to anyone, and no one besides Christ is capable of &amp;quot;earning&amp;quot; salvation, God can choose to have mercy on as many or as few as he chooses -- it's a free gift that he is not required to offer. An interesting reference here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:13-14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:13-14&lt;/a&gt;, which tells us that &amp;quot;many&amp;quot; [ESV] will go to hell, and &amp;quot;few&amp;quot; will go to heaven, although I haven't checked the original languages on that verse. OTOMH, that's the only reference that I know of that suggests the numbers/ratios involved in who will go to heaven and who won't, although I expect there are likely references to be found in Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might enjoy a read of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%209&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 9&lt;/a&gt;, esp. v. 19-29, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:29&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I suppose God could have chosen to apply Christ's atonement to everyone.&lt;/strong&gt; (Edit: See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A3-7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Tim 2:3&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, a verse sometimes seen as complicating defenses of predestination). No doctrinal references that discuss the matter come to mind, and I generally seek to avoid providing my own exposition. I do know that there is nothing that would obligate him to apply Christ's atonement to all people, and that the consistent teaching is that God did not create sin, and that he remains perfectly holy and free of all guilt in choosing to bar unforgiven sinners from his paradise. Christ's atonement is sometimes described as being &amp;quot;sufficient&amp;quot; for all, but &amp;quot;efficient&amp;quot; only for the elect -- so, the infinite merit of Christ's sacrifice means that God could justly elect to salvation as many as he willed, and he chose to save a certain number, which is not disclosed to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might seem to conflict with many people's understanding of God's character. It is important to remember that Reformed theology, in an effort to accurately reflect the teachings of the bible, emphasizes God's sovereignty, as well as his motivation to glorify himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this response doesn't seem unnecessarily complicated; your question, as I understand it, seems fairly simple at first, but it actually addresses some very contentious areas of theology that have been debated for centuries. Countless sermons, treatises, and expositions have been written on the matter. I encourage you to consult some of the sources I've linked to, especially those in the second section of part 1; I'm sure they can explain things more clearly than I can, though I suppose I could still try to revise -- and hopefully shorten! -- this answer. Cheers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T17:44:01.763" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8614" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8615" CreationDate="2012-07-21T22:15:26.030" Score="16" ViewCount="2293" Body="&lt;p&gt;I noticed on &lt;a href=&quot;http://islam.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;islam.SE&lt;/a&gt;, Ansari &lt;a href=&quot;https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/1463/143&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; refers to &quot;Christian practices during the slaughter&quot;, which made me raise an eyebrow - as an ex-Christian, I can't remember anything of this form coming up (I was RC, if that skews things). After querying this, Ansari replied:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe some of the Eastern Christianity sects have some ritual requirements, in particular, the mention of God's name. For example, in the Syriac-language Nomocanon of Barhebraeus (d. 1286), a Christian butcher is instructed to recite the phrase ba-shma d'elaha haya, “In the name of the living God.” Gregorius Barhebraeus, Nomocanon, ed. Paul Bedjan (Paris: Harrassowitz, 1898); (citation taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/PEvqWE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When trying to look this up, I can only really find references to it on Islamic sites, and it doesn't sound like something with a Biblical basis (but please correct me if I am mistaken).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I guess, both on the specific point above, and in the more general: are there any &lt;em&gt;explicit&lt;/em&gt; Christian practices (generally, or in specific sections of Christianity) of slaughter / butchery / preparation that I am being ignorant of? (I'm not talking about &quot;fish on Friday&quot;, here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:49:09.287" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T03:01:35.287" Title="Are there any specific food / slaughter / butchery / preparation rites in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8614" CreationDate="2012-07-21T23:43:49.603" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure how definitive an answer I can provide to this question, but thought I'd contribute a few thoughts that came to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;law,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;law of Moses,&amp;quot; was codified by the Rabbi's in ancient times into the &lt;em&gt;mitzvot&lt;/em&gt;, a collection of 613 laws compiled from a close reading of the Pentateuch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;mitzvot&lt;/em&gt; consists of &amp;quot;positive&amp;quot; (ie &amp;quot;do this&amp;quot;) and &amp;quot;negative&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;do not do this&amp;quot;) requirements, and is traditionally divided into three basic categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &amp;quot;ceremonial law&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &amp;quot;judicial law&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &amp;quot;moral law&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christians, believing that Christ is the &amp;quot;fulfillment of the law,&amp;quot; believe that his atonement rendered the ceremonial and dietary laws void. Peter's vision in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2010&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Acts 10:9-15&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is sometimes offered as a proof that the Old Testament dietary law does not apply to Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that the requirements in the &amp;quot;moral law&amp;quot; category still apply, because, AFAIK, they are consistent with -- and, essentially, the basis for -- Christ's teachings about how to love others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; A link to the mitzvot follows -- however, please note that I am no scholar of Judaism, and I don't know if the site is credible or not. It's apparently a personal project maintained by a Tracey R. Rich, and is currently ranked fourth for a Google search of &amp;quot;mitzvot.&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Judaism 101&amp;quot; link.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Their list uses a different set of classifications, which the page says was created by the site's editor. Some examples of the Jewish dietary laws can be found in items 143-169.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;lt; /edit &amp;gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Corinthians 10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is also germane to the question; see v. 14-31, esp. v. 25-30. In 1Cor 10, Paul emphasizes that what's important to God is Christians' love for one another, rather than their legalistic compliance with things like dietary requirements. See v. 28-30. This is consistent with the Christian concept of God's grace, and its priority over legalism. The section headings in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;NIV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; translation are helpful in this chapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Acts 15&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, Luke quotes James as elaborating the requirements that would apply to Gentiles who wanted to join the church. In verse 20, he says that they are not to eat meat from animals that had been strangled, and they are not to drink blood. I think I recall hearing at some point that strangulation of animals was a common practice in pagan ceremonies of the time, and that the overwhelming majority of the meat that could be purchased in the market in cities like Corinth had been slaughtered in such ceremonies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wish I had some references to good commentaries to substantiate more of this response for you, but I'm a bit out of my depth here. And I'm not familiar with the teachings &amp;amp; traditions of the Eastern Orthodox church, so I can't address that element. FWIW, I hope this response provides something of a starting point for further inquiry. Cheers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Also useful here is Paul's discussion of vegetarianism in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%2014&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 14&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Here are a few related Christianity.SE questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2836/1873&quot;&gt;Does Christianity have any dietary guidelines?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8668/1873&quot;&gt;Did the ancient Hebrews believe that blood had unique spiritual properties?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8666/1873&quot;&gt;Have the dietary prohibitions of Acts 15:20 been applied to Christians today?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T03:01:35.287" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8616" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8617" CreationDate="2012-07-22T03:32:18.020" Score="9" ViewCount="890" Body="&lt;p&gt;In our worship to God many times we utter phrases like &quot;God I magnify you&quot; or &quot;God be magnified&quot;. I used to wonder, is God really magnified by saying those words? How can we really magnify God or have him magnified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-09-06T19:25:40.427" LastActivityDate="2015-01-18T11:05:13.820" Title="What practical effect do stock worship phrases, like &quot;God be magnified&quot;, have?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;&lt;praise&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8616" CreationDate="2012-07-22T06:48:36.907" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clearly, those phrases can't mean that we have the ability to alter God in any way.  I don't think that the definition of &quot;magnify God&quot; in these phrases means to actually make God &quot;bigger&quot; or &quot;greater&quot;. I understand them to mean &quot;Make God more prominent in my life, our culture, etc.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Magnification doesn't make objects bigger, it alters our perception of an object, making it appear bigger to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, magnifying God doesn't make Him bigger, it means He becomes more prominent to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;God, I magnify you&quot; simply means &quot;I am making you greater (more important) in my life, and putting you first, because you are my focus and priority.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-07-22T06:48:36.907" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8610" CreationDate="2012-07-22T09:00:39.740" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is a bit of a long response -- please read it to the end as I realize I appear to be derailing from the original question at first.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell, Jesus made it &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; clear that it comes down to John 3:16. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:16 (NLT): &quot;For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence, it comes down to the following: Man chooses where they go based on their decision to believe in Jesus Christ and repent of his sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has foreknowledge of all things, as he is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. Therefore, he knows who will choose to pick up his cross and follow Christ, and who will not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblically, there are verses that use the term 'predestined', however, it should be looked at more as 'foreknowledge'. God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), and as such he has given everyone the ability to come to Jesus in repentance and accept him as their saviour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;That being said:&lt;/strong&gt; There is no justification for those scriptures. While it's true that God has chosen key people in history to do his will, even those people had a choice. God did not bend their will to move them towards his will. Just as it's possible now, back in the biblical times there were people who said 'no' to God's plan for their life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't a matter of &quot;I guess&quot; or &quot;in my opinion&quot; -- the simple truth is that it's not written anywhere in the Hebrew and/or Greek biblical texts that God has explicitly created someone with the intent to send them to hell. We have 100% free will -- we can make &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; decision we want without him twisting our will. He may convict you and/or call you to do the right thing (he also may not), but he will never use his sovereign authority over us to bend our will. (As then it's no longer free will)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, we are all born into sin and as such must seek out Jesus, or fall victim to our sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1880" LastActivityDate="2012-07-22T09:00:39.740" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4431" CreationDate="2012-07-22T09:25:25.633" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolutely! It's impossible for nothing to happen when you pray. (Even if it looks like nothing will happen at all.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it is written in Romans 4:9 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Abraham's faith was &lt;strong&gt;credited&lt;/strong&gt; to him as righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is the currency of heaven, and it is through faith and prayer that spiritual battles are won. (Including the battle for the soul of the one you're praying for.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I pray your friend (or whoever you have in mind) comes to the Lord! :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1880" LastActivityDate="2012-07-22T09:25:25.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8620" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8621" CreationDate="2012-07-22T18:44:45.223" Score="10" ViewCount="24081" Body="&lt;p&gt;How is sinning judged after accepting Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there classifications? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are we clear of every sin? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about repetitive sin of the same type?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(All assumed after accepting Christ.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-07-22T18:59:08.130" LastActivityDate="2015-01-30T00:49:16.310" Title="How is sinning judged after accepting Christ?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-01-30T01:00:25.080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8620" CreationDate="2012-07-22T20:19:00.650" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, a sin is a sin, is a sin, whether or not the individual is a believer. The difference is that believers are forgiven and are accepted by God because they have Christ's righteousness &quot;imputed&quot; to them by faith. (See &quot;Sola Fide,&quot; &quot;Salvation by Grace through Faith&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%203:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is one text often offered as proof that, from a biblical perspective, all people are guilty of sin. Many denominations also teach that Christians necessarily continue to sin, even after they are saved (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%205:21-30&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mat 5:21-30&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;). (A notable exception to this is found in the Methodist &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/perfection&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;doctrines of &quot;Christian Perfection,&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; taught by the Wesley brothers in the eighteenth century). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%207:13-25&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 7:13-25&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is another text often offered as proof that believers continue to sin -- it is frequently interpreted as teaching that Paul recognized sin in himself, post-conversion. See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%206&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 6&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic notion of forgiveness in Christianity is that all human beings are guilty of sin, and there is no way that we can earn our way into heaven by doing good deeds; once we've committed one sin, we're as guilty as if we had broken every law in the book (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jas%202:10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;James 2:10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;). In order to glorify himself, God has chosen to have mercy on some sinners and save them, but since he is perfectly just, &lt;em&gt;someone&lt;/em&gt; had to be punished for the sins that had been committed by the people he chose to save, and that person could only be one that had not first incurred his own debt of sin. So, God punished sinless Christ, and -- without getting into doctrines like election, free will, universalism, monergism vs synergism, etc. -- he applied that atonement to believers, who are then seen &quot;in Christ&quot; as sinless and so are accepted by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One common point of confusion is the notion that &quot;all sins are equal.&quot; There is a wide consensus that such is not the case, though there are those who will argue the point. A simple Google search on &quot;are all sins equal&quot; will return a wealth of results, so I won't elaborate further here, except to clarify the basic idea. (BTW, remember to consult only credible, verifiable sources, whichever perspective they advocate). While some sins are, in God's sight, worse than others, as soon as a person has committed one sin of any sort, they have become &quot;unclean,&quot; and are permanently barred from heaven. God takes sin so seriously that all sin must be punished, and the punishment associated with any one sin is such that it could only be paid by Christ. That being said, it is possible for one person to incur a greater &quot;sin debt&quot; compared with another, but in any case, all sin is forgiven when one receives Christ. (Note that there is reference in the NT to something called the &quot;unforgivable sin,&quot; which is a weighty and contentious doctrinal issue in and of itself).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Westminster Larger Catechism&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, questions 150 - 153.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some denominations teach that a saved person can &quot;backslide&quot; and become involved in sin, and that such a person needs to be &quot;restored.&quot; Other denominations teach that the presence of &quot;significant,&quot; or ongoing, repetitive sin in one's life is a potential indication that one was not truly saved in the first place, since regeneration places the love of God in one's heart, and sin both angers &amp;amp; grieves God. Some teach that once a person is truly saved, he can never become &quot;unsaved&quot; (see &quot;Perseverance of the Saints,&quot; &quot;T.U.L.I.P.&quot;); others believe that it is possible for a person to &quot;fall away&quot; and &quot;be restored&quot; many times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also commonly taught that the rewards that individual believers receive in heaven will be commensurate with the righteousness of the life they lived on earth. The most commonly referenced reward that I have heard about relates to the &quot;number of cities&quot; that one will rule over in heaven. Some also teach that there are varying degrees of punishment in hell. Some examples of passages that are offered by those who support such teachings are the parables at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2019:11-27&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Luke 19:11-27&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Luke 12:47-48&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Addendum:&lt;/strong&gt; I thought about this topic some more, and it brought to mind something called the &quot;Lordship Salvation Controversy.&quot; It's been some time since I looked into this area of soteriology, but one thing that hasn't changed in the intervening years is the caustic nature of most of the internet discussions on the topic. (Btw, for times like these, it can be useful to bear in mind Paul's exhortation to Timothy in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:22-26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;2 Timothy 2:22-26&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Lordship salvation&quot; refers to one doctrine that claims to describe specifically what God requires of his followers. The alternative doctrine is sometimes called &quot;Non-Lordship Salvation,&quot; or, disparagingly, &quot;easy believism.&quot; I don't feel qualified to attempt a concise summary of the issues, but here are some links that I've tried to vet for you. I encourage you to use caution in consulting the links that result from a &quot;lordship salvation&quot; internet search, as many of them seem to be filled with invective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some useful links:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm very familiar with the ministries of John Piper (Desiring God) and RC Sproul (Ligonier) . Both are well educated, compassionate men, with strong understandings of Reformed theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/letter-to-a-friend-concerning-the-so-called-lordship-salvation&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;John Piper from Desiring God Ministries on Lordship Salvation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (Long list of scripture proofs).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ligonier.org/learn/keywords/lordship-salvation/?type=Article&amp;amp;sort=&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Articles tagged &quot;Lordship Salvation&quot; in the Resources section of Ligonier Ministries' site.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ligonier.org/learn/keywords/lordship-salvation/?type=devotional&amp;amp;sort=&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Devotionals tagged &quot;Lordship Salvation&quot; in the Resources section of Ligonier Ministries' site.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ligonier.org/learn/topics/lordship-salvation/&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;More content from Ligonier.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Here's a site called &quot;Monergism.&quot; Monergism is actually the name of a doctrine, and the site staunchly advocates in favor of their viewpoint, but does so in an intelligent way. In reviewing their extensive list of links on Lordship Salvation I recognized some credible names with historic significance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Lordship-of-Christ/&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Resources at Monergism.com.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm not particularly familiar with Theopedia. A quick look over their pages on Lordship Salvation and Non-Lordship Salvation throws up no immediate red flags. It looks like they link almost exclusively to contemporary teachers for their references, at least for this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Lordship_salvation&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Theopedia entry for &quot;Lordship Salvation.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Non-lordship_salvation&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Theopedia entry for &quot;Non-Lordship Salvation.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And here's a link to a discussion from a few months ago (early 2012) that includes what looks like some intelligent comments on the issue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/soteriology-lordship-salvation-michael-hortons-book-72762/&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;PuritanBoard.com discussion on Lordship Salvation, Feb 2012.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this doesn't seem overwhelming. There's probably enough resources in this post to get started on a dissertation! The teachings of RC Sproul and John Piper are normally very accessible, and a great place to start if you're new to a topic and like a Reformed perspective. Cheers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2012-07-23T03:35:44.883" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T03:35:44.883" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1543" CreationDate="2012-07-22T23:13:31.707" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This response addresses the question from the perspective of Reformed theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 14:23 is often referenced when this topic is discussed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. &lt;em&gt;For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.&lt;/em&gt; (ESV; italics mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an excerpt from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xviii.vii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Calvin's Commentaries&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (associated with / an important source for Reformed theology) on the same verse. It essentially says that &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt;, even what may appear to be a &amp;quot;good work,&amp;quot; can actually be counted as a sin if the heart is not motivated by a desire to glorify and obey God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;And whatever is not from faith, etc.&lt;/em&gt; The reason for this condemnation is, that every work, however splendid and excellent in appearance, is counted as sin, except it be founded on a right conscience; for God regards not the outward display, but the inward obedience of the heart, by this alone is an estimate made of our works. Besides, how can that be obedience, when any one undertakes what he is not persuaded is approved by God? Where then such a doubt exists, the individual is justly charged with prevarication; for he proceeds in opposition to the testimony of his, own conscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%206&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 6:1-4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is also interesting here, if somewhat tangential. As it relates to the example included in your question, Jesus says that if one gives alms to the poor (a traditional &amp;quot;good work&amp;quot;), but does so with the motivation to be seen by others and receive the &amp;quot;praise of men,&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%205:44&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(ref)&lt;/a&gt; that person would receive no reward from God for what otherwise would have been a good work. That particular verse does not describe the action as sin, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T04:05:37.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8620" CreationDate="2012-07-23T01:22:41.783" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Salvation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Accepting Christ&quot; is not the end of the &quot;salvation story&quot;, and does not protect a person from judgment.  &lt;em&gt;(I'll cover this more in my blog post later this month.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After our conversion experience, there is an expectation that we will &lt;em&gt;follow&lt;/em&gt; Jesus' example and &lt;em&gt;follow&lt;/em&gt; God in loving communion and partnership with Him.  This is what we were made for, this is what was broken when man departed from God's ways in the Garden, and this is what God has been calling us back into since that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Protection from Judgment&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a person is a &lt;strong&gt;follower&lt;/strong&gt; of Christ, he is protected from God's judgment.  This protection covers &lt;strong&gt;all sins&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;equally&quot;; &lt;strong&gt;every sin&lt;/strong&gt;, even &lt;strong&gt;repetitive sins&lt;/strong&gt;.  The blood of Jesus is powerful!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if a person chooses not to follow God, they will be judged.  This includes people who have &quot;accepted Christ&quot; but later decide they don't want to follow Him anymore.  If a person is in this state, it's almost irrelevant what sins have been committed, because they all end up resulting in eternal torment due to the biggest sin of all: rejecting God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Spirit is Willing, But the Flesh is Weak&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the big question for a lot of Christians is: &quot;What if I stumble?  What if I make a mistake?  What if I am caught in a sinful habit that I have been unable to break free of?&quot;  This can be a heavy weight to bear.  This can leave a Christian feeling like a disappointment to God; a man so weak in faith he is unable to &quot;tap into&quot; God's freeing power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me assure you, you are not alone!  Every follower of Christ experiences this feeling at some point.  Why?  Because we love God and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to follow Him!  The struggle comes from our inability to live a perfect life as we would like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your deepest desire is to follow God in love, worry not.  You are doing good.  Your sins are forgiven by the blood of Jesus.  Yes, even &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; one!  Press on, repent, and do what God has desired all along: &lt;strong&gt;try&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T01:22:41.783" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8625" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8649" CreationDate="2012-07-23T15:30:25.700" Score="8" ViewCount="2222" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have grappled with this for some  time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the forerunner of Christ, John the baptist was baptising people, preparing them for the coming of Christ. After Christ came, he was baptised and commanded his disciples to baptise converts in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is believed that baptism is a physical washing of our sins (that may be wrong) and Paul said it symbolizes our being dead and buried with him and also risen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have this belief that after Jesus died and shed his blood, his blood does the work of washing sins away, so baptism is no longer necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still believe in the &quot;being dead and buried with him....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-07-23T15:58:04.260" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T16:42:51.563" Title="Water Baptism - Is it still necessary?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-09-09T06:14:47.770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8626" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8630" CreationDate="2012-07-23T16:12:59.533" Score="5" ViewCount="1224" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I know, the Prophet of the LDS Church holds the position of Seer, as Joseph Smith did.  If this is so, what specific privileges and powers come with that position?  Does this include the ability to translate ancient languages as it did for Joseph Smith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-11-13T18:23:14.793" Title="What privileges and powers does the Prophet of the LDS Church have in his office as Seer?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8627" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8628" CreationDate="2012-07-23T16:26:47.863" Score="3" ViewCount="841" Body="&lt;p&gt;As background to my question, I found &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2901/how-does-lds-doctrine-reconcile-monotheism-with-men-becoming-gods&quot;&gt;this statement&lt;/a&gt; by a Mormon that shows Mormons believe that there are many gods in the universe:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“While we believe that there are other gods out there, they are not our God.“&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is this. Since Mormon's claim that salvation is only through Christ, &lt;strong&gt;why aren't those other gods able save their own followers?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author of the quote above goes on to explain:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I find that an analogy helps me think about this clearly: At work, I&#xA;  have one boss. He is my boss and no one else is. There are other&#xA;  bosses, but I do not report to them, they do not affect my quarterly&#xA;  reviews, and I don't really interact with them in any sort of&#xA;  manager-underling relationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't really interact with the other bosses but their subordinates do. And they have to respect and follow their bosses just as I do my own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking the analogy further, what sense would it make for me to try to steal some person from another department into my own? It's not like my department is the only one that pays for work done. Why rock the boat and create all the trouble proselytizing in the name of Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This analogy doesn't fully satisfy me as an explanation. &lt;strong&gt;What is the official LDS doctrine on the ability of gods other than Christ to save people?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T07:00:32.610" Title="In what sense do Mormons believe salvation is only through Christ?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8627" CreationDate="2012-07-23T17:08:04.907" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Prophet in the Book of Mormon Proclaims:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Mosiah 3:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons believe that salvation is only attainable through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, however they believe that a full understanding of the Gospel as revealed through Joseph Smith is necessary in order to attain full salvation. This view was expressed by the late Apostle David B. Haight:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our understanding, belief, and faith in [Joseph Smith's first vision] of God the Father and His Only Begotten Son appearing to Joseph, thereby ushering in this final dispensation with its great and precious truths, is essential to our eternal salvation. &lt;em&gt;Salvation comes only through Christ.&lt;/em&gt; Joseph Smith is the instrument or revealer of that knowledge, divinely called to teach of the terms and conditions of the Father's plan and given the keys of salvation for all mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Speech given at Brigham Young University, March 2, 1986 (Emphasis Added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Doctrine and Covenants also affirms:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we saw him [Jesus Christ], even on the right hand of God; and we heard [a] voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father — that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Section 76: Vs 23-24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The plurality of worlds here has led some church leaders to suggest that Christ is not only the means of salvation for this earth, but also for many other worlds. There has been no official doctrine as to Christ's significance in other realms beyond our own, however statements seem to support a strong opinion that he does indeed play a significant role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as why Mormons believe Christ is the only one who can provide salvation for us stems from the fact that the teachings of Joseph Smith are not solely based on works he produced, but also on the Bible. Mormons do not reject the Bible outright, and believe firmly in all the declarations pertaining to Christ and his providence of salvation. One particular unambigous passage Mormons have no reason to reject is the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-John 14:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Implications that some Mormon doctrines may hold are speculated upon wildly in both Mormon and Non-Mormon literature, yet there has never been official doctrine regarding them. There have never been statements by any leader implying that anyone except our own God and Savior Jesus Christ can provide salvation, and such would contradict not only Mormon literature but also that of the Bible. We can conclude, therefore, that despite the Mormon belief in a plurality of Gods as taught by Joseph Smith, they continually affirm a strong belief in the necessity of Christ's Atonement to attain salvation for all of God's children. God here referring to the Heavenly Father of all mankind. Mormon references to a supreme creator always refers to him and none else. The affairs of other Gods have never been revealed nor have they ever been spoken of by any of the leadership. The reality and necessity of Christ and his atonement has been repeatedly emphasized by them, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastEditorUserId="1863" LastEditDate="2012-07-23T21:00:37.883" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T21:00:37.883" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8626" CreationDate="2012-07-23T17:29:15.400" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Book of Mormon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/8.13-18?lang=eng#12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mosiah 8: 13-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a&#xA;  man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can&#xA;  look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a&#xA;  gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can&#xA;  look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he&#xA;  ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in&#xA;  them, the same is called seer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of&#xA;  Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has&#xA;  this high gift from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and&#xA;  a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the&#xA;  power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given&#xA;  him from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things&#xA;  which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or,&#xA;  rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall&#xA;  come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by&#xA;  them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise&#xA;  could not be known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work&#xA;  mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow&#xA;  beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that a seer is a person who has power and authority from God to reveal that which is not known, including the translation of ancient records, but also knowledge &quot;of things which are past and also of things which are to come,&quot; and that this power works through faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an important point when discussing the hypothetical abilities granted by God to such a person, because in the Book of Mormon we find an explanation of faith that closely parallels Paul's definition from Hebrews 11, but with one important clarification (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32.21?lang=eng#20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alma 32:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, &lt;strong&gt;which are true.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So faith is only valid when it is based off of something that is actually true and correct.  This means that a seer would only be able to use the gifts that God has granted to him for purposes that conform to God's plan, and not for arbitrary or personal use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T17:29:15.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8626" CreationDate="2012-07-23T17:35:23.127" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon talks about seership in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/8.13-18?lang=eng#12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mosiah 8:13-18&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a&#xA;  man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can&#xA;  look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a&#xA;  gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can&#xA;  look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he&#xA;  ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in&#xA;  them, the same is called seer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of&#xA;  Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has&#xA;  this high gift from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and&#xA;  a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the&#xA;  power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given&#xA;  him from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things&#xA;  which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or,&#xA;  rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall&#xA;  come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by&#xA;  them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise&#xA;  could not be known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work&#xA;  mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow&#xA;  beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, President Benson, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1980, spoke about &lt;a href=&quot;http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&amp;amp;id=88&amp;amp;view=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;14 fundamentals to know about following a prophet&lt;/a&gt;. In that speech, he declared some of the authority and rights the prophet has while he maintains his office. I've summarized them here but they all demand further explanation and detail (because, I believe, many of these claims are very bold and forward) -- I recommend an in-depth study of the full article and its references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet will never lead the Church astray.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any&#xA;  time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet may be involved in civic matters.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2014-11-13T18:23:14.793" LastActivityDate="2014-11-13T18:23:14.793" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8625" CreationDate="2012-07-23T17:35:56.980" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer might depend on which group of Christianity you're asking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, yes, it is still necessary, and is a requirement to be raised to the kingdom of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few related points of doctrine accepted by different Christian faiths in various combinations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The blood that Jesus spilt does not make baptism unnecessary.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By receiving water baptism, the cleansing power of Christ's Atonement begins to take full effect&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By receiving water baptism, we become eligible for all the blessings of following Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-07-23T18:53:09.347" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T18:53:09.347" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8632" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8641" CreationDate="2012-07-23T17:44:15.957" Score="5" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard the term &quot;Lordship Salvation&quot; several times now, including in an &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8621/1548&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; I read recently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone explain to me what this is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the official position of any major churches?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a term only used by critics of the view?  (Like &quot;easy believism&quot; or &quot;cafeteria Christianity&quot; - terms nobody would actually associate &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;themselves&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; with!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2017-10-24T07:26:25.227" Title="What is Lordship Salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;theological-frameworks&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8633" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-23T17:58:04.823" Score="25" ViewCount="16736" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah,&#xA;  talking with Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you&#xA;  wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one&#xA;  for Elijah.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am wondering how Peter recognized that the men were Elijah and Moses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Photographs and portraits didn't exist back in those days. If they did, Peter being a fisherman wouldn't have been to school to see them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I doubt Moses and Elijah began their conversation by saying - &quot;Hello Jesus, I am Elijah and this is my buddy Moses.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how would Peter know it was Elijah standing there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="42957" LastEditDate="2018-10-19T07:21:03.470" LastActivityDate="2019-02-25T16:10:17.287" Title="How did Peter recognize Elijah and Moses?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;&lt;elijah&gt;&lt;transfiguration&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8633" CreationDate="2012-07-23T18:05:36.173" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe not in so many words, but that's probably exactly what happened: they introduced themselves, or someone else (an angel not mentioned in the text, the voice of God, etc) introduced them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeing as how Peter &amp;amp; co lived centuries before the development of photography, and Elijah and Moses centuries before them, and given the strong cultural prohibitions on creating likenesses of people, such as statues, that's the only reasonable way they would have had to recognize a historical figure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T18:05:36.173" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8635" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8639" CreationDate="2012-07-23T18:51:46.357" Score="1" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every now and then you hear someone &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping#2011_end_times_prediction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;set a date&lt;/a&gt; for Christ’s return. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such dates are bound to fail –&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 24:36  &quot;No one knows about that day or hour ... &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when they do fail - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Issac Newton) was wary of prophetic date-setting. Newton was worried&#xA;  that the failure of fallible human predictions based on divine&#xA;  prophecy would bring the Bible into disrepute. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.isaac-newton.org/update.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To stop the doomsayers - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In&#xA;  predicting this he said &quot;This I mention not to assert when the time of&#xA;  the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of&#xA;  fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by&#xA;  doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their&#xA;  predictions fail. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views#The_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now my question - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the time or events before which Christ couldn't return no matter what?&lt;/strong&gt; (to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men and satisfy my curiosity)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-07-23T19:49:32.807" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T11:12:24.990" Title="Christ doesn't come back until ______?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-07-30T12:42:40.150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8633" CreationDate="2012-07-23T18:52:39.880" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; We don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There was some sort of heavenly announcement, similar to the voice of the Father at Jesus' baptism (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;reference&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus explained it to them, as He was accustomed to having to do for them.  &lt;em&gt;(Keep in mind that there is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:25&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;lot&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of stuff that wasn't recorded in Scripture!)&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:10-20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;reference&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They recognized it by divine illumination, similar to Peter's recognition of who Jesus really was (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;reference&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Prior to Peter referencing them by name, it says (in verse 3) that Jesus was talking with them.  Perhaps Jesus called them by name and Peter overheard.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My money is on the last one, since that's the only one that draws clues from the passage itself, but as I said, we really don't know for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T18:52:39.880" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3660" CreationDate="2012-07-23T19:10:51.810" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;DISCLAIMER: I do not agree with this justification, I am merely answering your question.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The justification for relying on faith healing over conventional medicine comes from a belief that turning to man is diametrically opposed to turning to God.  In other words, you can &lt;strong&gt;either&lt;/strong&gt; turn to God for help, &lt;strong&gt;or&lt;/strong&gt; you can turn to man for help - but not both.  One passage used to support this is found in Psalm 118:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20118:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Psalm 118:8&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the main passages used to support the application of this doctrine to healing is a story in the Old Testament about a king named Asa:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet. His disease was severe, yet even in his disease &lt;strong&gt;he did not seek the Lord, but the physicians.&lt;/strong&gt; So Asa slept with his fathers, having died in the forty-first year of his reign. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2016:12-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-2 Chronicles 16:12-13&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;faith-healing&quot; advocate would say that Asa's downfall was in turning to the doctor, and that we should turn to the Lord &lt;strong&gt;instead&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you believe that turning to God can &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;include&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; receiving help from man, you would interpret the passage differently.  But now it should make more sense where this doctrine comes from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T19:10:51.810" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8627" CreationDate="2012-07-23T20:17:36.910" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer is in response to edits and clarifications on the original question, and therefore my original response is to the question as it originally stood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon teaches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Alma 30:44&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage explicitly indicates that everything which we can see was created by a Supreme Creator. Mormon theology teaches that God is the father of all the spirits of mankind. This is echoed in statements from the church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of life’s great questions is “Who am I?” A beloved Primary song helps even little children answer this question. We sing, “I am a child of God, and he has sent me here.” The knowledge that we are children of God provides strength, comfort, and hope.&#xA;  You are a literal child of God, spiritually begotten in the premortal life. As His child, you can be assured that you have divine, eternal potential and that He will help you in your sincere efforts to reach that potential.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-True to the Faith, &quot;God the Father&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that in Mormon theology, all things observable to us and all humankind are the offspring of a single entity, God. Additionally, the LDS church teaches the God answers the prayers of all of his children in every religion. Joseph Smith also taught:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Could man exercise faith in God so as to obtain eternal life unless he believed that God was no respecter of persons? He could not; because without this idea he could not certainly know that it was his privilege so to do, and in consequence of this doubt his faith could not be sufficiently strong to save him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Lectures on Faith, 3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems clear from these contexts that Mormon belief is that there is one God who is the God of all which is in the world, and that other religions worship the same God from a Mormon perspective, albeit with some perceived erroneous notions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, Mormons spend energy on proselyting. Not to convert them from one god to another, but to teach them the truth as Mormons believe it. To extend the analogy: All that we see is one single department, everyone we know works for the same Boss; there is none other. He is not a respector of persons. We are only aware of the potential existence of other Departments, but know absolutely nothing about them. Our Boss and our department is the only one we worry about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormonism receives much criticism for the doctrine of the plurality of gods, perhaps with good reason. However, there is widepread ignorance as to how it is interpreted inside Mormonism itself. There is several orders of magnitude more Mormon-produced literature on the nature of God, Christ, and our relationship with them than there ever has been on a plurality of gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T20:17:36.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8635" CreationDate="2012-07-23T20:22:50.697" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the only possible answer to this question, that all Christians can agree with is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For you&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, Christ cannot possibly return any sooner than right now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All anyone can know is that Christ has not yet come, but that he will come in the future.  That may be in five seconds, or in 50,000 years. Biblical prophecies are not specific enough that it is possible to come to any consensus as to what specific historical events they might refer to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that people have been making specific predictions of the second coming for centuries should be the first clue that not everyone will agree there are still specific events that &quot;must&quot; occur before the second coming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; Some believe that Christ's second coming is referring to a person's individual judgment at the time of death. In that view, the second coming has already occurred for everyone who has died, and is still in the future for everyone else.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-07-23T20:36:14.177" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T20:36:14.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8625" CreationDate="2012-07-23T21:10:07.283" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question I think actually comes back to what saves you. Are you saved by Faith alone, or does God require you to perform some works. If it is by faith in Jesus' Death and resurection alone (the belief that you described in your question) then water baptism is not required of a believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of verses that tell us that faith alone saves. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever&#xA;  believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16&#xA;  ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is&#xA;  the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To&#xA;  him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him&#xA;  recieves forgiveness of sins through his name.&quot; Acts 10:42-43&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of other examples which show that there is no mention of water baptism with people coming to believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact in that Acts passage the holy spirit is recieved before the people there are baptised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While Peter was still saying these thigns, the Holy Spirit fell on all&#xA;  who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who&#xA;  had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit&#xA;  was poured out even on the Gentiles (Act 10:44-45 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God chooses to dwell in people who have not been baptised in water. We know from elsewhere that the spirit garuntees our salvation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we&#xA;  acquire possession of it (Ephesians 13-14 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, after God has done his saving work AND garunteed their salvation by pouring out the Holy Spirit, then Peter says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have&#xA;  recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?&quot; (Acts 10:47 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So water baptism is just a sign of salvation. It does not contribute to our salvation, however it does seem to be something helpful to do after being saved to publicly declare that we are saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2012-07-23T21:10:07.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8632" CreationDate="2012-07-23T21:36:05.923" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lordship salvation is basically when you submit yourself to Christ, obeying him, turning from sin, and receiving him as your Lord. The premise: that Jesus cannot be one's Savior without also being his Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a theological dispute, sometimes called the &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation_controversy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lordship salvation controversy&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Lordship Controversy&amp;quot;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rapidnet.com/%7Ejbeard/bdm/BookReviews/gospel.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;One site&lt;/a&gt; that takes this from two views with John F. MacArthur Jr. on one side, and Charles C. Ryrie on the other, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue as seen by those who believe in lordship salvation (e.g., MacArthur) is that someone who is truly saved will produce fruit that will attest to the genuineness of his faith, because he will have acknowledged Jesus not only as his Savior, but as his Lord as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who reject lordship salvation (e.g., Ryrie), believe that someone may have genuine faith in Christ, but the fact that he continues in his sin demonstrates that he has not made Jesus his Lord, only his Savior. According to Ryrie, just because someone sins or acts in disobedience (even habitually) doesn't mean he doesn't have saving faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not really sure if this is the position of any Major Churches; I would guess that it is more of an individual belief, not at all seen as &amp;quot;derogatory&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T01:24:16.150" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8642" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-23T21:45:55.337" Score="13" ViewCount="702" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestants often associate Mormonism with outlandish&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; doctrines like &lt;em&gt;innumerable Gods&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;people living on the sun&lt;/em&gt;, or &lt;em&gt;special underwear that you can't take off&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.  But I am curious what lies at the &quot;other end of the spectrum&quot;; are there any Mormon doctrines which have been so &lt;strong&gt;embraced&lt;/strong&gt; by Protestants as to shape their beliefs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, &lt;strong&gt;are there any common Protestant beliefs which have their origin in Mormon teachings?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I ask is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Like it or not, modern Protestant thinking is influenced by our culture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mormonism is a significant part of our culture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I am curious if &quot;A+B=C&quot;, so to speak; has Mormonism had any significant impact on the shaping of Protestant thinking?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;em&gt;My use of the word 'outlandish' here is not meant to be inflammatory.  Such ideas are commonly viewed by Protestants as 'outlandish' (foreign, strange, etc.); I realize they may not seem outlandish to Mormons, and I realize that many Protestant doctrines would seem outlandish to non-Protestants.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;em&gt;Please note that these are my words, based on things I've heard Protestants say - not the words of modern Mormon theologians.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-06-22T03:52:45.463" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T03:18:21.020" Title="Are there any Protestant beliefs which have their roots in Mormon doctrines?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8643" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-23T23:59:55.113" Score="6" ViewCount="4585" Body="&lt;p&gt;What &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; is the significance of the Bible to Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is Christianity &lt;em&gt;defined&lt;/em&gt; by the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If so, is belief in the Bible the most important (or foundational) belief in Christianity?  Is it the basis of Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If not, what is it defined by, exactly?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can you be a Christian without ever having been taught from the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If so, why is the Bible important to Christianity?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If&lt;/strong&gt; the answer is dependent upon tradition (I don't know if it is), please answer from a Protestant perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-24T22:50:24.367" LastActivityDate="2012-07-26T00:41:57.633" Title="What is the significance of the Bible to Christianity?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;christian-identity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-05-01T14:15:09.590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8644" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8646" CreationDate="2012-07-24T00:35:30.547" Score="9" ViewCount="1574" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't like questioning anyone's faith but one of my friends is a mainstream Christian (Uniting Church) and she believes very firmly in the phenomenon of &quot;rapture&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, rapture is when all the good people will be united with Christ upon His Second Coming. Those who are left behind will go through seven years of hell. The initial years will be OK as the world will move towards a 'one world government' but then everyone will be tagged (the devil's mark) and the horrors will follow. Those who refuse to be tagged will be tortured and if they resist, they would be ultimately saved when Christ comes again after seven years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The worst thing is that there are many dates fixed for rapture, today (24 July) being one of them. These dates are fixed by people who claim that this was revealed to them in some form and they need to share this message with others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really don't want to question anyone faith (whether it is revealed to them or not is their business) but the whole rapture 'thingy' sounds very scary to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any basis of this interpretation in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: With faith based matters, you really cannot claim too much objectivity, so scientific measures do not readily apply here. That said, it makes it even more difficult to understand this claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1883" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-20T21:29:06.200" LastActivityDate="2015-04-20T21:29:06.200" Title="What's the Biblical basis for the rapture?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-04-23T06:05:48.413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8643" CreationDate="2012-07-24T01:14:00.647" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me paraphrase an answer I heard from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sentamu&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York&lt;/a&gt;, on virtually this topic, at a public lecture a few years ago. Any errors in this account are due to me, though. You asked for a Protestant perspective and I believe this counts; it is not the only Protestant perspective and perhaps some non-Protestants would also agree with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're in a city at night. It's very, very dark, and the streets are deserted. In the city is a river, and across the river is a bridge. You want to get to the other side. It's possible that you might stumble across it by accident - but you could also have some guidance, like a map. The map can be relied upon but it is not the only way to get across.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, the Bible is authoritative about certain matters. What it contains is true, and it contains everything necessary for salvation. Those things are not true because they are in the Bible, but they are in the Bible because they are true. The people who set the canon recognised the truths they already knew, in written form, and put the text together in the hope that it would be useful to others. For example, you can test what other people tell you against what's written in the Bible, and reading it can lead you directly towards God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You do not need to have read from the Bible yourself in order to have access to its truths. Other people can teach you, and so can the Holy Spirit. This worked perfectly well before the Bible was finished, and it still works now. God is also capable of leading people across the metaphorical bridge, even if they have never heard of him. But the Bible is one thing that we know &quot;works&quot;, so we should pay attention to it, and tell other people about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, defining who is or is not a Christian is less important than acting towards all people with love. There are certain things that we (everyone!) ought to believe and do, but it's not possible or fruitful to try to draw a sharp line between who's in and who's out (which is ultimately up to God, not us).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T01:14:00.647" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8644" CreationDate="2012-07-24T02:17:54.540" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Rapture is one of the events that is believed will occur during the end-times.  There are several different end-times scenarios that are all based on slightly different interpretations of Scripture, but the three major ones all agree that it will occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(A comparison of some of the views can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.claywatts.com/endviews.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;Rapture&quot; means &quot;Caught up&quot;.  The word itself comes from 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with&#xA;  them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever&#xA;  be with the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The end times events are covered in many books in the Bible, but primarily in the Book of Daniel, The Book of the Revelation, 1 Thessalonians, and Matthew 24.  Your friend's description is known as the &quot;Pre-Tribulation Rapture&quot; interpretation of end-times events, which is held to by many denominations, but is definitely not the only interpretation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One minor point, is that you mentioned that the &quot;good people&quot; will be raptured.  That's not quite right.  The &lt;em&gt;Christians&lt;/em&gt; will be Raptured according to Scripture.  Christians are not Christians because they are good, or because they go to Church, or because they claim to be in a certain religion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Biblical&lt;/em&gt; definition of a Christian is someone who has been saved, or redeemed by Christ.  Christianity isn't about being &quot;good enough&quot; to get to heaven, or about religious traditions, it's about Christ, and the free gift of eternal life that we gain by simply accepting His free gift, by faith. (More &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-comfort/heaven-goodenough.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as predicting the date, that's a fool's game.  Christ Himself said that nobody would know the date, and that it would take us by surprise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 13:28-37 (King James Version)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender,&#xA;  and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass,&#xA;  know that it is nigh, even at the doors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till&#xA;  all these things be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels&#xA;  which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his&#xA;  house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work,&#xA;  and commanded the porter to watch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house&#xA;  cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the&#xA;  morning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The number of people that have claimed to know the date of the Rapture, and have seen that date come and go are countless.  We don't know the dates. We can see the signs of the times - the types of events and state of the world that is predicted, but not down to the date. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be 2 seconds from now, it could be a hundred years from now, or it could be longer.  We just don't know, but it is promised that it will occur, and that we are to watch for it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if the Bible is true, and it is the Word of God as claimed, and Jesus was the Son of God, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://kingjbible.com/john/14.htm&quot;&gt;The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and the only way to Heaven&lt;/a&gt; there's no time to lose.  If you've not already accepted Christ as your Savior, now's the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-07-24T15:49:35.880" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T15:49:35.880" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8643" CreationDate="2012-07-24T02:46:50.467" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may be redundant, but from a Sola Scriptura/Biblical Literalist/Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist view...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is Christianity &lt;em&gt;defined&lt;/em&gt; by the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If so, is belief in the Bible the most important (or foundational) belief in Christianity?  Is it the basis of Christianity?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/strong&gt;  Christianity is the faith in the God of the Bible.  If we believe in a god, any God other than the God defined in the Bible, then by definition, we are following a god that either we made up to suit ourselves, or one made up by men. Either way it's called idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If not, what is it exactly that makes a person a &quot;Christian&quot;?  &lt;em&gt;(Can an Atheist call himself a Christian and be counted as a Christian?)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the rules of this site, anyone can call themselves a Christian, and we act as if that is the case.  So for the purposes of this site, yes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But: Scripture says otherwise.  It teaches of false brethren, false converts - people who think they're Christian but aren't.  It speaks of false teachers.  It defines Christians as those who have accepted the free gift of salvation through faith in Christ alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Bible?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, per the rules of this site, yes, but in reality, I don't think so.  See the first portion of my answer.  Further, if God is who the Bible says He is, and if the Bible is truly God's word, then to disbelieve the Bible is to disbelieve God - to think that he is either mistaken (and therefore not worthy to be called God) or a liar (also not worthy of the title.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Can you be a Christian without ever having been taught from the Bible?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people saved in the New testament didn't have the Bible.  It wasn't completely written yet.  They were taught what would later become Scripture. So it is possible to become a Christian without having someone physically open the Book.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But:&lt;/strong&gt;  the people who were saved in the early Church were told about Christ, they were told the gospel message (as described in the book of Acts) so in essence, they were taught what the bible teaches.  They were just taught it before it was recorded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If so, why is the Bible important to Christianity?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N/A.  &quot;If so&quot; clearly isn't the case.  The Bible is essential to Christianity today.  The events described in it happened thousands of years ago, and if we didn't have this Book of history, recorded exactly the way God intended, and preserved to the present day, we'd have no solid foundation for our faith.  We'd have a million different views on God (as we do today) without the one source of Truth that the Scriptures provide, as a plumb-line against which to measure the truth of the various teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, without the Bible, we could know nothing about God.  We would have no basis for our faith, other than to base it on our own suppositions and the suppositions of those in authority who came before us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-07-24T02:55:50.613" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T02:55:50.613" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8625" CreationDate="2012-07-24T13:17:01.857" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some groups teach that baptism is not necessary because it is a work, and we are saved on Faith alone. Most of the time, these groups will instead use something called the &quot;Sinner's Prayer&quot;, which is only shown in scripture at best a single time (Luke 18:10-14 ...and it's debatable whether this is even the same thing). Aside from this single mention, the Sinner's Prayer is not shown again, whether by command, example, or allusion. How is the Sinner's Prayer any less of a work than baptism? Baptism, by contrast, is mentioned more than 80 times in the New Testament. Here are just a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Matt 28:19    &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Mark 16:16&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?&quot; ... And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. Acts 8:36,38  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ... those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. Acts 2:38, 41&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:24&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One verse I think explains it well is I Peter 3:21:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea I want to share here is not that there is any power in baptism, just as there is no power in prayer. Rather, the power is in the one to whom you pray. Baptism does not wash away your sins; the blood of Christ washes away your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is shown numerous times in scripture as the correct proscribed way to ask God to save you, rather than any Sinner's Prayer. If you are not saved and moved to say such a prayer, you should consider being baptised as well, at any age. Can God still save you if you choose not to be baptised? Of course; he is sovereign. But if you want to be certain, baptism is uniquely positioned in scripture as the way in which you ask him to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-12-24T03:36:18.530" LastActivityDate="2012-12-24T03:36:18.530" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8625" CreationDate="2012-07-24T14:50:11.180" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that baptism is still highly &quot;necessary&quot;, since Jesus Himself, in his final directions to His disciples, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;told them&lt;/a&gt; to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;baptizing&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:15-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;parallel&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus told His disciples, and by extension us, to &quot;baptize&quot;, I think it's still &quot;necessary&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-09-04T16:42:51.563" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T16:42:51.563" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8635" CreationDate="2012-07-24T15:33:16.737" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what the lower limit would be on the &lt;em&gt;date&lt;/em&gt;, but we do have some passages in Scripture which tell us what &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;events&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; must take place before Christ's return.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for &lt;strong&gt;it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202:1-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-2 Thessalonians 2:1-4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is generally taken to be referring to the Antichrist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So, it seems safe to assume Christ won't return until we see a dude sitting in the temple and saying he is God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also talked about a number of things in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24&lt;/a&gt; that are often considered &quot;end-times&quot; events.  There are many interpretations for many of these prophecies, but this one seems pretty clear regardless of where you stand on eschatology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But immediately after the tribulation of those days &lt;strong&gt;the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky&lt;/strong&gt;, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. &lt;strong&gt;And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky ... and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky&lt;/strong&gt; with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:29-31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Matthew 24:29-31&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So when you see the sun go dark and the stars start falling from the sky, there's a good chance you're about to meet Jesus!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T15:33:16.737" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8643" CreationDate="2012-07-24T15:55:24.120" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is Christianity defined by the Bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If not, what is it exactly that makes a person a &quot;Christian&quot;? (Can an Atheist call himself a Christian and be counted as a Christian?)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is defined by belief in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt;.  Here is one version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in one God,&#xA;  the Father, the Almighty,&#xA;  maker of heaven and earth,&#xA;  of all that is, seen and unseen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,&#xA;  the only Son of God,&#xA;  eternally begotten of the Father,&#xA;  God from God, light from light,&#xA;  true God from true God,&#xA;  begotten, not made,&#xA;  of one Being with the Father;&#xA;  through him all things were made.&#xA;  For us and for our salvation&#xA;  he came down from heaven,&#xA;  was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary&#xA;  and became truly human.&#xA;  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;&#xA;  he suffered death and was buried.&#xA;  On the third day he rose again&#xA;  in accordance with the Scriptures;&#xA;  he ascended into heaven&#xA;  and is seated at the right hand of the Father.&#xA;  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,&#xA;  and his kingdom will have no end. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,&#xA;  who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],&#xA;  who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,&#xA;  who has spoken through the prophets.&#xA;  We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.&#xA;  We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.&#xA;  We look for the resurrection of the dead,&#xA;  and the life of the world to come. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8643/what-is-the-significance-of-the-bible-to-christianity/8645#8645&quot;&gt;James T&lt;/a&gt;'s answer is a nice analogy.  The Bible guides us to find out more about Jesus Christ, about God, and to further define what these short phrases of the Nicene Creed mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Highly unlikely, in my opinion.  You can be a Christian and be ignorant of what's in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can you be a Christian without ever having been taught from the Bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what you mean here.  You can be a Christian without the ability to quote Scripture.  It's highly unlikely that you would be a effective Christian unless you've been taught by preachers or teachers that study the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If so, why is the Bible important to Christianity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the guide book.  The more you study the Bible, the more you learn about Jesus Christ, God, and our relationship to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T16:07:09.173" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2215" CreationDate="2012-07-24T16:41:12.480" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add to what has already been said, here are a few other facts to note about the particular hyssop used in the Old Testament. Hyssop blooms in three colors--pink, white, and purpleish-blue--but only the purplish-blue hyssop releases the essential healing oil when crushed (Ex 12:22 - STRIKE the lintel). Since purple is the color of royalty, it would make sense that it was used in the Passover, as Christ is the King of kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The hyssop is also a perennial herb. Christ was 100% man but also 100% God, who has been since the beginning of time (Jn 1). God never changes; He is constant, permanent. Salvation through faith in His blood sacrifice on the cross are also permanent. Once we accept Christ as Savior, no man can take that salvation away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, hyssop is a fairly common herb that grows  throughout the Mediterranian. Christ was born to a common couple and grew up in the common city of Nazareth. The fact that He rejected the vinegar on the cross could also signify, as was mentioned, that though He came from a common root, His sacrifice and our acceptance of it are not common at all. Just as he did not accept the common hyssop for salvation from thirst, we can not accept the common idea of a works salvation from our sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1887" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T16:41:12.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8642" CreationDate="2012-07-24T20:48:28.467" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; No. And, &lt;em&gt;AFAIK,&lt;/em&gt; there are no Mormon teachings at all that have spread to other traditions. Here's why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiologists who study the history of the church sometimes distinguish between four primary &quot;branches&quot; of christendom: the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Protestant church, and the &quot;bible cults.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Protestant&lt;/em&gt; is an umbrella term that refers to theological traditions that are rooted in the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Protestantism is known for its theological diversity, and a quick glance at a &lt;em&gt;World Almanac&lt;/em&gt; shows dozens of Protestant denominations worldwide that each report at least 5,000 houses of worship, extending into the millions for larger denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This diversity of theological traditions is due, in part, to the fact that -- unlike the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches -- Protestantism lacks a single, unifying authoritative leader or leaders that can define for adherents what is and isn't considered acceptable doctrine. In fact, the Protestant Reformation itself grew out of the rejection of the notion of the authority of clergymen and church history, in favor of consulting the bible itself. The event that is regarded as the &quot;official&quot; beginning of the Reformation was Martin Luther nailing his &lt;em&gt;95 Theses&lt;/em&gt; to the door of the church at Wittenberg, Germany, in the year 1517. The central topic addressed in that document was the official [Roman Catholic] church practice of selling &quot;Indulgences,&quot; which Luther believed was an offense against God because, he said, it was not based on sound interpretation of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the word &quot;Protestant&quot; encompasses a wide set of beliefs. In general terms, the Protestant church is differentiated by it's emphasis on the authority of scripture over both church tradition and any extra-biblical teachings of clergymen when seeking to determine what is pleasing to God (see &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Five_Solas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(1)&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/cambridge.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(2)&lt;/a&gt;). There is also a common, though not unanimous adherence to the other &quot;Solas&quot; of the Reformation (see the same references as above). Other than that, however, there are few specifically Protestant points of difference that can be made which will apply to all churches that self-identify as Protestant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history of the Mormon church, on the other hand, extends back to &lt;a href=&quot;http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/sunday%20school.htm/our%20heritage.htm/chapter%20two%20establishing%20the%20foundations%20of%20the%20church.htm#JD_35448005&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1830&lt;/a&gt; (see &quot;Organization of the Church&quot; sub-heading in the reference). The intervening two hundred-some years between when Protestantism began, and when Mormonism later began, provided plenty of time for the development of many doctrines unique to various Protestant theological traditions. By 1830, many denominations had well established, comprehensively defined sets of beliefs. That is, in many cases there was simply no need to adopt additional doctrine, from Mormonism or elsewhere -- and in many denominations, the process of adopting new doctrine is fairly complex. Finally, there is the widespread contemporary categorization of Mormonism as a &quot;bible cult&quot; by many, though not all denominations. (Note that this C.SE response does not attempt to address the issue of whether or not that categorization is accurate, but simply notes that many people do assert such a categorization).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While my familiarity with Mormon doctrine is at a fairly &quot;introductory&quot; level, and based primarily on a number of conversations with some LDS adherents, my present understanding is that at the basis of Joseph Smith's set of teachings is the notion that all translations of the bible, except for his own, are flawed and incomplete, lacking the additional books endorsed by Smith (the &quot;Book of Mormon&quot;), as well as the modifications made to various books in the Protestant OT &amp;amp; NT, which Smith said were provided to him by one he called &quot;Moroni.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/sunday%20school.htm/our%20heritage.htm/chapter%20two%20establishing%20the%20foundations%20of%20the%20church.htm#JD_35448005&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reference&lt;/a&gt;). Since all doctrine established outside of the Mormon church is based on translations other than Smith's, it makes sense that Mormon doctrines remain within those churches that teach Smith's doctrines, and they have not penetrated other traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-08-27T03:18:21.020" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T03:18:21.020" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8657" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-24T21:15:11.657" Score="8" ViewCount="364" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a recent discussion on this site, someone told me that the nature of Biblical Prophecy is such that it &lt;strong&gt;cannot&lt;/strong&gt; be understood prior to its fulfillment; that this is essentially the point of a prophecy: to be understood only &lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; the fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was a new concept to me, and now I'm curious:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are there any examples of Biblical prophecies which were understood&lt;/strong&gt; (by anyone) &lt;strong&gt;before they were fulfilled?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-14T15:53:15.757" LastActivityDate="2015-07-14T15:53:15.757" Title="Were any Biblical prophecies understood before they were fulfilled?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8658" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8664" CreationDate="2012-07-24T21:25:03.197" Score="18" ViewCount="70508" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed that most Kingdom Halls--the meeting place for Jehovah's Witnesses--have no windows in the building.  What is the reason for this?  Is there a Biblical basis for it or does it come from a specific church teaching?  If so, I would be interested in a citation of the official church position on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/JhRPA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;An example pic&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-24T21:47:25.290" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T01:29:20.360" Title="Why do Kingdom Halls have no windows?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;church-building&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8627" CreationDate="2012-07-24T21:31:06.857" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I'm going to write here is how I understand this.  Mason Wheeler, please tell me if anything here seems to be inaccurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are spirit children of God.  Jesus Christ is also one of God's spirit children, but he became perfect like His father before mortality.  Christ was able to pay the price for the sins of those who will repent and was able to be resurrected so that everyone who is born can be resurrected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of Christ, we can eventually become perfect and have immortal bodies like God does if we repent.  We have the potential to become like our father.  Also, God once was in a state like we are now in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem to me from this that there are probably many other gods in this family tree.  However, we do not need to know any details about them to accomplish our missions in this life.  These gods are not the gods of other religions on earth, nor are they the gods of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1687" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T21:31:06.857" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8625" CreationDate="2012-07-24T22:04:06.527" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with any many of life's questions, the answer to &quot;Is water baptism still necessary?&quot; is, &quot;It depends who you ask.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Protestants and Roman Catholics recognize baptism; I'm not sure about the Eastern Orthodox church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most &lt;strong&gt;Protestants&lt;/strong&gt; recognize two sacraments: Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Westminster Larger Catechism&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, questions 161 - 177, esp. 164, 165. Note that, in the diversity of beliefs among the many Protestant denominations, not all denominations agree with the statements of the Westminster Standards, though a significant number do. Whether or not baptism is strictly &lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt; for salvation is, I believe, a question that would need to be asked of individual denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Roman Catholics&lt;/strong&gt;, on the other hand, recognize seven sacraments, including baptism (see &lt;em&gt;Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;#1210&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;). Their beliefs about the necessity of baptism are outlined in statements &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;#1257-1261&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of their catechism. Essentially, their teaching (as outlined in those catechism statements) is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1257: Baptism is strictly &lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt; for salvation for anyone who 1) has heard the gospel, and 2) has had an opportunity to be baptized;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1258: Anyone who dies &quot;for the sake of the faith&quot; is counted by Christ as having been baptized, whether or not they received the sacrament;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1259: A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catechumens&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;catechumen&lt;/a&gt; who dies before receiving the sacrament is saved, if they meet a few conditions;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1260: Anyone who never heard the gospel, but &quot;seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it&quot; can be saved without baptism;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1261: In the case of infants who die before being baptized, the Roman Catholic church will &quot;entrust them to the mercy of God&quot; with the expectation that God will save them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also this C.SE question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/335/biblical-basis-for-baptism-as-a-prerequisite-for-salvation&quot;&gt;Biblical basis for baptism as a prerequisite for salvation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-07-24T22:04:06.527" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8657" CreationDate="2012-07-24T23:00:43.597" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without doing too much digging and research I can think of one example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 2 the priests and teachers of the law knew that the Christ was to be born in Bethelehem as per their interpretation of the prophecy in Micah 5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 2:3-6 (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem&#xA;  with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the&#xA;  people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They&#xA;  told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6  “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,&#xA;      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler&#xA;      who will shepherd my people Israel.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in the Old Testament, dreams foretelling the future were interpreted prior to the events taking place. (Examples in the stories of Joseph and Daniel) However I'm not sure this falls under the category of official prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1890" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-07-25T13:52:15.283" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T13:52:15.283" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8657" CreationDate="2012-07-24T23:12:10.573" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eh? I don't know much about prophecy, but why would that be the case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I grabbed one of the first &lt;a href=&quot;http://100prophecies.org/page3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;sites&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; that Google returned for &quot;list of bible prophecies&quot; just to get a few links, and can't imagine what your conversation partner might have meant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, here are a few examples of prophecies, taken from the first few listed on the above site, that it seems anyone could understand at first glance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isaiah 35:4-6&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The blind would receive their sight, the deaf would hear, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Psalm 41:9&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The messiah would be betrayed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zechariah 9:9&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Messiah would arrive riding on a donkey.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How about Isaiah 53?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are plenty that are difficult to interpret, and plenty that are downright otherworldly -- such as just about anything in Revelation -- but that's certainly not &quot;all&quot; of the prophecies in the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-08-27T03:23:56.093" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T03:23:56.093" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8658" CreationDate="2012-07-24T23:54:40.313" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not always the case with all Kingdom Halls. In fact there are many with windows. About as many as reasons for having no windows. A few common answers are found below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For security reasons. Normally they do not have a parish residence nearby to keep a watch on their belongings. This is a bigger problem in larger cities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cost benefits. Windows are more expensive and time consuming to install. Plus they are not very well insulated raising heating and cooling costs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Volunteer labor. Kingdom Halls are built by volunteer Jehovah's Witnesses within a 3 day time-span: Friday thru Sunday. As mentioned above, windows are time consuming to install, and with a 3 day limit....&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, many people would answer &quot;To save money&quot;, which is kind of a reason behind all the answers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Thought I might as well just put in an image of a Kingdom Hall with windows (taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Hall&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; page):&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/oV23F.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="1838" LastEditDate="2013-09-23T01:29:20.360" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T01:29:20.360" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8643" CreationDate="2012-07-25T01:31:50.997" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question here hinges on whose definition of &quot;Christianity&quot; is used. We could use a Reformed definition, an Arminian definition, a Roman Catholic definition, an Eastern Orthodox definition... or maybe an Anglican, or Episcopalian definition... how about the Pentecostals? The criteria for those are described fairly clearly. We could also use definitions that are less specific: how about an Islamist definition, a secular humanist definition, or a &quot;new atheist&quot; definition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; The difficulty with finding &quot;the bible's definition&quot; of who is/isn't a Christian, or of nearly anything else, is that -- even for those who believe that it has only one Author -- the bible remains is a massive book, written over the course of several centuries, in multiple languages, by many different people, living in significantly different cultures. It requires intensive, thorough interpretation. For any one definition that is offered, several more, often mutually exclusive definitions can be immediately provided -- even when all were develop by teachers that were among the most brilliant bible scholars in all of history. Pick an obscure -- or not-so-obscure -- theological concept, and look up how it was taught by, for example, Aquinas, and Calvin, and Wesley. It can get rather complicated.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;/Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, the word &quot;Christians&quot; refers simply to a group of people, but of those who self-identify as Christian, I anticipate that the majority would offer a more specific classification of themselves: Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, &quot;Assembly of God-ite&quot; (that's really what some AoG adherents call themselves, in a friendly, tongue-in-cheek way), etc. And each of those groups has specific criteria that can be used to determine who is, and who isn't, a member of their community. Most (all?) denominations have a formal &quot;Statement of Faith&quot; describing their doctrinal stance, and many churches require that any individual who wishes to join their membership first complete an extended Sunday-school type course that includes basic doctrinal instruction, perhaps over a weekend. Some also require the study of a catechism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The centrality of the bible results from the fact that it is widely regarded as the official primary source document of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am aware of no groups that officially use the word &quot;Christian,&quot; without qualifiers, to describe themselves. In practice, however, we unfortunately find that there are many who are anxious to claim exclusive ownership of the term, and denigrate any and all who disagree with their particular interpretive stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, if the bible is true, it is the God of the bible who will judge whether or not any particular individual is, or is not, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+11:26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Christian.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2012-07-26T00:41:57.633" LastActivityDate="2012-07-26T00:41:57.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8666" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-25T03:33:09.773" Score="14" ViewCount="3954" Body="&lt;p&gt;An answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8614/1873&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;this question&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; references Acts 15:20, which says --&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(19) Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, (20) but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (21) For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James, in the presence of &quot;[t]he apostles and the elders,&quot; (verse six) is talking about what he believes should be required of Gentiles that wanted to join the disciplines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In Christianity, are there any formal, historical doctrinal statements -- creeds, canons, catechisms, confessions, etc. -- that specifically address dietary regulations such as those found in Acts 15:20?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My current understanding is informed by passages like Acts 10:9-16, 1Cor 10:23-33, and the manifold passages that tell us that Christians are not under the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note the distinction between this question, which asks about regulations for consumption, and the referenced question, which asks about regulations for slaughter. I'll leave it to the moderators to determine whether the two are similar enough to close the present question.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2020-09-29T16:58:56.027" Title="Have the dietary prohibitions of Acts 15:20 been applied to Christians today?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8668" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8675" CreationDate="2012-07-25T05:50:50.537" Score="5" ViewCount="404" Body="&lt;p&gt;I seem to recall learning at some point during an Old Testament study that they did, and that the belief explained things like the significance of the blood that was part of the animal offerings required in the Pentateuch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're trying, in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8666/1873&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;this question,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; to track down the significance behind an apparent New Testament dietary prohibition against the consumption of animal blood, as given in Acts 15:10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T17:15:12.920" Title="Did the ancient Hebrews believe that blood had unique spiritual properties?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8657" CreationDate="2012-07-25T14:45:53.593" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's see...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God told Noah to build an ark to save his family because God was going to destroy the earth with a flood.  Noah built the ark, so he seems to have understood it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all&#xA;  flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I&#xA;  will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopher&#xA;  wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch...&#xA;  17  For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to&#xA;  destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven.&#xA;  Everything that is on the earth shall die.  Genesis 6:13,14, 17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God told Abraham he would become the father of many nations.  That's unambiguous.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and&#xA;  said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2&#xA;  that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you&#xA;  greatly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 4&#xA;  “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a&#xA;  multitude of nations.  Genesis 17:1-4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God told Abraham that he would have a son through Sarah.  That was pretty clear.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not&#xA;  call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her,&#xA;  and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she&#xA;  shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.”  Genesis&#xA;  17:15-16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God revealed to Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar about the four world kingdoms to come.  That was clear.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39  Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a&#xA;  third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. 40 And&#xA;  there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks&#xA;  to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it&#xA;  shall break and crush all these.  Daniel 2:39-40 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God told Moses to go to Pharaoh, because He would set the Israelites free with a mighty hand.  Moses understood and went to Pharaoh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord said, “I have surely seen the affliction of my people&#xA;  who are in Egypt and have heard their cry because of their&#xA;  taskmasters. I know their sufferings, 8 and I have come down to&#xA;  deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out&#xA;  of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and&#xA;  honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the&#xA;  Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 9 And now, behold, the cry&#xA;  of the people of Israel has come to me, and I have also seen the&#xA;  oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them. 10  Come, I will&#xA;  send you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of&#xA;  Israel, out of Egypt.”  Exodus 2:7-10 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list could go on and on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, there are some prophecies that are very clear.  Other prophecies are not as clear.  Sometimes the meaning gets obscured when we try to fit them into our own desires and plans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-26T12:00:48.437" LastActivityDate="2012-07-26T12:00:48.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8672" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8674" CreationDate="2012-07-25T16:31:01.330" Score="11" ViewCount="208" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do we have any writings that are reasonably likely to be written by Apostles, but are not included in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T19:53:46.357" Title="Are any writings of the Apostles non-Canonical?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8673" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8677" CreationDate="2012-07-25T16:55:45.433" Score="14" ViewCount="505" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is my understanding that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8672/971&quot;&gt;all known writings of the Apostles&lt;/a&gt; are considered infallible and are Canonical.  However, I am unclear as to what extent recorded speech of the Apostles should be considered inspired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:11-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:11-13&lt;/a&gt; we have evidence that Peter, an Apostle, is not perfect in his actions. So it seems that, like us, Apostles were subject to sin and error.  What implication, then, does this have on the Apostles' recorded speech?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:19-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 15:19-21&lt;/a&gt;, James makes a statement in which he seems to consider eating meat sacrificed to idols a sin (which seems to contradict many of Paul's writings).  Should his statement be viewed as infallible, because he is an Apostle, or is a possible interpretation of the passage that James was wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers should assume the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2014-06-24T03:50:57.397" Title="To what extent should the Apostles' speech be considered infallible?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8672" CreationDate="2012-07-25T16:57:03.033" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the closest examples would be &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Laodiceans&quot;&gt;Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans&lt;/a&gt;.  Scholarship is divided about the authorship, whether it is Paul or a Marcionite forgery - but the point is that at the time, when canonization was occurring, it was not accepted as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most everything else (Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, etc...) was pretty much rejected even at the time as being inauthentic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oddly, Hebrews was often ascribed to Paul, but not universally.  Still, that was its reason for inclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, even if we could authenticate a new work, that would not automatically make it scripture, however.  Canonization was often supported by apostolic authorship, but it was cemented by common concurrence.  At this point, the canon is closed, by consensus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*P.S.  I've walked through Laodecia, and seen the place on the picture.  It's an amazing place!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T16:57:03.033" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8668" CreationDate="2012-07-25T17:15:12.920" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Such a belief is clearly expressed in both Genesis and Leviticus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 9:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye&#xA;  not eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:11-14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leviticus 17:11-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to&#xA;  you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the&#xA;  blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall&#xA;  eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat&#xA;  blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the&#xA;  strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast&#xA;  or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof,&#xA;  and cover it with dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life&#xA;  thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat&#xA;  the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the&#xA;  blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both cases, the blood-as-life theory is used specifically as the reason why eating blood should be forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T17:15:12.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8676" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-25T17:58:08.380" Score="7" ViewCount="12495" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of Christians seem to think that it's wrong to watch horror movies. Others say that it's just another form of entertainment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know for sure which position is right. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though whenever I watch the Exorcist it usually makes me pray for days on end. So for me it's good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, what are the common objections against it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-07-25T18:08:41.797" LastActivityDate="2013-05-12T19:31:22.687" Title="Should a Christian watch horror movies?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-05-13T19:35:26.743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8673" CreationDate="2012-07-25T18:50:12.650" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6629/1039&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; brings up an interesting verse in 1 Corinthians 7, when Paul distinguishes between his words and the Lord's.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This distinction should, I would argue, is similar to that of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;papal infallibality&lt;/a&gt;. As a human being, the Bishop of Rome is a fallen creature.  As Romans 3:10 would say, &quot;There is none righteous, not one.&quot; And, as Jesus said to the Rich young ruler, &quot;No one is good but God alone.&quot;  From a pure &quot;perfection&quot; standard, God's word would not allow any man's speech to be perfect. Even Roman Catholic teaching says the Pope is only infallable when speaking &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;, or from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly then not &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; things that the apostles said are thus &quot;infallible,&quot; but rather only those things which are &quot;scriptural.&quot;  In other words, if they are in line with what God would have had these men say, then they are perfect. If not, they are the words of any other man.  (I'm reminded of a scene from &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Robe_(film)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Robe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, in which Peter must remind his church that he is not perfect!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, then, is whether or not the words recorded in Scripture are &quot;perfect&quot; or infallable.  Here, I would point out the exact words of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Scripture is breathed out by God and is &lt;em&gt;profitable&lt;/em&gt; for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice my emphasis on profitable. Even Scripture sidesteps the question of infallability over its &quot;usefulness&quot; or it profitability.  Regardless of whether or not the Apostles said the right thing, God uses it to be the exact right thing that is needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe wholeheartedly in the perfection of Scripture, ala &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Turretin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Turretin&lt;/a&gt;, et. al - although I've stopped using the term inerrancy myself. Inerrancy says &quot;This conforms to my standard of what is right and wrong.&quot;  I say that because in order for something to be &quot;without error&quot; it must be judged, and &quot;I&quot; am the subject of that.  That presupposes that &quot;I&quot; am in a position to judge that. That's a pretty high handed stance for a Christian who believes in the completely supremacy of The Word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, the word &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos_(philosophy)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;telos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; or perfection, is a word that:&#xA;a. is in Scripture (see James)&#xA;b. keeps God in charge.&#xA;Perfect implies, as does 2 Timothy, that a thing perfectly accomplishes that which it sets out to do.  It is need of no judge, because it is by definition perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By that standard, the words of the Apostles, like the words of Scripture themselves, are exactly what God intends for our own reproof, correction, teaching, and training in righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T18:55:34.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8672" CreationDate="2012-07-25T19:53:46.357" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is another example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epistle of Barnabas&lt;/a&gt;, which suffers from some of the same questions of date and authorship that the letter to the Laodiceans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T19:53:46.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8676" CreationDate="2012-07-25T20:58:16.393" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians Paul writes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All&#xA;  things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. (1&#xA;  Cor 6:12 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things&#xA;  are lawful,” but not all things build up. (1 Cor 10:23 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no law against watching horror films, however is it going to be helpful to build you up in Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you need to remember who you are seeing the movie with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but&#xA;  rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way&#xA;  of a brother (Romans 14:13 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While something may be lawful for you to do, out of love you should give up that freedom if it causes others to &quot;stumble&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2012-07-25T20:58:16.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8680" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8713" CreationDate="2012-07-26T07:43:45.953" Score="22" ViewCount="15129" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the book of Job, as best as I can see, God ruined Job's life over a bet (Job &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201:9-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1:9-12&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%202:4-6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2:4-6&lt;/a&gt;). People and livestock who weren't even involved died (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201:13-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Job 1:13-19&lt;/a&gt;). Moreover, God literally made this deal with the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Job's life (and the lives of his children and livestock) is just a game or one big cosmic joke to God and Satan. We can explain Satan's behavior by saying he's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John+5:19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;evil&lt;/a&gt;. But God is supposed to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20145:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;all-good&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John+4:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;all-loving&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do Christians reconcile God's bet with Satan with a God of love?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Important Note:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;This question is not about the problem of evil. It has nothing to do with Job. It's about God's behavior in the &lt;em&gt;book&lt;/em&gt; of Job, i.e. the bet with Satan. If your answer has anything to do with why the righteous suffer, you're probably answering the wrong question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1898" LastEditorUserId="1898" LastEditDate="2014-08-23T18:24:09.887" LastActivityDate="2015-05-30T22:25:59.040" Title="How can a loving God make a deal with the devil?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="17" FavoriteCount="7" ClosedDate="2017-01-23T23:03:08.343" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8676" CreationDate="2012-07-26T08:27:36.663" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We should distinguish between whether you should not watch horror movies in general, and whether you should not watch some particular horror movie. Almost anything that is morally neutral or even a positive good in general might be bad in one particular. Like, I certainly do not think it is bad for my children to have friends, but I might object to one particular friend as a bad influence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I'm hard pressed to think of a scriptural basis for condemning horror movies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should Christians not think about ugly things like torture and murder? But the Bible includes many pretty ugly stories. If God didn't want us to think about ugly things, why did he include them in his own book. Like if someone made a movie of Judges 19:22-29, with rape, torture, murder, and mutilation of a corpse, it could be a pretty gruesome horror movie. I suppose you could say that horror movies are presented for thrills while the stories in the Bible are there to make a moral point. But that gets back to the issue of general versus particulars. What is the moral content of any given movie?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think many horror movies compare favorably in moral content and world-view to other genres. They often have a reasonably Christian view of morality: good and evil are stark opposites, not muddy concepts that are challenging to define, with the only real good being &quot;tolerance&quot;. I don't recall a horror movie where the axe murderer is presented as someone practicing an alternative life style and society is ridiculed for failing to show proper tolerance. Rather, the villain is a villain who must be fought and stopped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Horror movies often present the supernatural as real, the minister or priest or monk as a source of wisdom, and faith as a tool to fight evil. Sure, their conception of the supernatural is often far from what the Bible describes as reality. But you could say that of any movie: as a professional computer geek, I routinely find that Hollywood's idea of computers is far from reality. Police in TV shows work far differently from police in real life. Etc. That's the nature of fiction. What is the dividing line between &quot;fiction&quot; and &quot;lies&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard Christians object to horror movies that use some pagan myth as a basis for the story. Personally I don't have a problem with this, any more than I have a problem with movies that use made-up people as characters or that are set in make-believe places. Again, that's the nature of fiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there are horror movies that appear to glorify violence rather than present the horror of it. One could certainly critique the sexual content of many horror movies, but you could say the same and more for the sexual content of romance movies, adventure movies, and detective movies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see any Biblical basis to condemn horror movies as a class. Any given horror movie, maybe so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-07-26T08:27:36.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8633" CreationDate="2012-07-26T09:15:43.260" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mostly I agree with Jas 3.1. Let me add that Elijah did have a rather distinctive appearance -- see 2 King 1:8. That wouldn't be enough for a positive identification, but it would be a clue. Life if you saw someone wearing a red cape and blue tights with a big &quot;S&quot; on his chest, you might well say, &quot;Are you supposed to be Superman?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's possible that they had other physical descriptions that gave them a clue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter wasn't an educated man but he would have been taught from scripture in the synagogues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-07-26T09:15:43.260" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8680" CreationDate="2012-07-26T10:53:39.707" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First a disclaimer –&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question is another form of the renowned problem of evil. &lt;strong&gt;How can God be loving and kind in light of all the suffering that exists in the world?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is easy to try to give over simplifying answers especially when I myself haven’t gone through the problems many other people have to face. I do not think I can fully answer your question, all I can offer is some speculative arguments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;End of disclaimer.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem of evil is not an easy one and as such one could not expect its answer to be simple (And not expect it to come from a simpleton like me). The problem has been dealt innumerable times by many Philosophers and Apologists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leibniz&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Lewis&lt;/strong&gt; come to mind. (I would recommend The Problem of Pain)&#xA;Nor is the problem essentially a new one. Even the prophets of God had the same confusion – &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Habakkuk 1:2 How long, LORD, must I call for help, but you do not&#xA;  listen? Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save? 3 Why do&#xA;  you make me look at injustice? &lt;strong&gt;Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the crux of your question is the premise that &lt;strong&gt;humans are innocent until they do something very terrible like murder&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Innocent people and livestock died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is this premise that I'll focus on – &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We all think ourselves to be quite innocent. There are a few faults&#xA;here and there but there’s a good reason for those.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverbs 16:2 All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are&#xA;  weighed by the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All our goodness is accidental or circumstantial&lt;/strong&gt;. I have never&#xA;stolen anything in my life. Though I'd like to believe it's all&#xA;because of my good nature it might be because I've never really&#xA;needed to. While we humans can only look on the external actions of a&#xA;person and make our judgement on that basis, God is not fooled by&#xA;appearances. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way of an analogy the user of a software system can only tell&#xA;if a program malfunctions by analyzing the output. On the other hand&#xA;a programmer can read the code and make an estimated guess if the&#xA;code will actually work. &lt;strong&gt;Badly written code executing in an ideal&#xA;environment may work. While a code of mathematical precision may&#xA;break under extensive regression test. In these cases a programmer&#xA;is (and as God is in our case) - not fooled&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is in this context that He says - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 23:26 I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are&#xA;  entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 23:6 &quot; ... first clean the inside of the cup&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our sense of goodness is in out of touch with reality. Have you ever&#xA;watched a documentary on Khmer rouge or the war crimes in World War&#xA;II?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Innocence is the last characteristic one could attribute to the human&#xA;  race. - Monika Michael&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and&#xA;  his word is not in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The more I know of men, the more I respect dogs. (Author Monika can't&#xA;  remember)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 17:9 The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and&#xA;  desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God does not owe His salvation or His favor to anyone&lt;/strong&gt;. Nor does He&#xA;need to explain Himself to anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 50:12 ... all the world is mine and everything in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 20:15  I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have&#xA;  compassion on whom I have compassion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now directly onto your question. We don't know exactly what happened, we aren't given much information. There are two possibilities (in my mind) -  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perhaps Job's sons were wicked&lt;/strong&gt;, not God fearing like their father. (Example,&#xA;David and Solomon, Eli the high priest and his wicked sons) And &lt;strong&gt;God&#xA;decided to use the situation and kill two birds with one stone. Bring&#xA;judgement on his sons and set a personal matter straight with Satan&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end all things even those not in approval to His immediate commands&#xA;will accomplish only His purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perhaps Job's sons were not wicked&lt;/strong&gt;. They died in a dramatic fashion and so we ask the&#xA;question - what was their sin? Again we're judging based on&#xA;appearances. &lt;strong&gt;If someone dies quickly we think it's because of sin.&#xA;If someone dies by age we thinks its all right.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is that &lt;strong&gt;we all have sinned and are going to die one day or&#xA;another. The timing of our death has nothing to do with it&lt;/strong&gt;.  The&#xA;righteous may live few days and the wicked may flourish (I'm in my&#xA;full old testament rhythm today) but in the end each man will get&#xA;what he deserves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Peter was not rescued from the prison because he&#xA;was sinless but so that he might preach the gospel. When he had&#xA;finished his job he did have to die. Similarly &lt;strong&gt;maybe Job's sons were innocent as you say. But they did have to give up their souls to God one day. He took it early. Whether he takes it right now or 60 years later is His prerogative.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end all I can say is - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 9:20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps Jobs sons were holy and righteous (like me) and they died,&#xA;well then - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Philippians 1:23 I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-07-26T11:59:14.990" LastActivityDate="2012-07-26T11:59:14.990" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8633" CreationDate="2012-07-26T12:21:59.207" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the possibility that they were introduced, my understanding is that ancient Jews would have had images not dissimilar from icons (though not as venerated). So I would think it possible that Elijah and Moses could have had some items associated with them &amp;mdash; sort of like how you can tell that it is a picture of St. Peter by the fact that the picture has a man with keys in his hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-07-26T12:21:59.207" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8680" CreationDate="2012-07-26T12:33:22.077" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be an underlying assumption in questions like these, specifically that &lt;strong&gt;if God is &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; loving, then He is obligated to prevent any harm from ever coming to anyone&lt;/strong&gt;.        In fact, He should create a world where everything is perfect--which is actually what He did, but even in that world mankind rejected God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also instructive to note that bad things can often have good results.  In fact, as Romans 8:28, God works out even bad things for our good.  When we experience death and loss in this life, is it not a potent reminder that we were not made for this world, but for another?  When we see evil, is it not a great teacher that all people desperately need the power of God to transform our hearts?  Do not all the trials and frustrations of this life teach us that there is more to life than physical life?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the problem with the question--we view things from a worldly perspective, wanting to see all the blessings of God confined to a few years on this planet, and if we don't, then God must not be loving.  &lt;strong&gt;The Bible teaches about an eternity where all the infinite riches of God's blessing can be experienced&lt;/strong&gt;.  Job will no doubt, as does a woman giving birth, forget the pain for the joy to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story is told of a missionary who spent his life in a distant country bringing the gospel of God to a remote tribe.  In his later years, he returned home on a boat, which, once it came into port, was greeted with much fanfare--none of which was for him.  There was no one to welcome him home or thank him for his sacrifice, even though many had come to welcome home others who were aboard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The man prayed and asked God, &quot;I have given my life and strength for your kingdom.  Why is there no one to welcome me home.&quot;  Then the man felt the Lord saying to him, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;You're not home yet.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, was God playing a cruel joke on Job?  No.  Did He allow evil to happen?  Yes.  In fact, all evil that ever happens could certainly be prevented by God. And if God's ultimate goal was the physical well-being of all mankind, then He would certainly do so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God's ultimate goal is much greater than that--it is the spiritual well-being of all mankind.  God desires for all mankind everywhere to see the vanity of all this world has to offer and to turn to Him that He may bless us richly, not merely in physical ways and not merely in this life.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-26T12:33:22.077" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8686" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-26T13:09:58.273" Score="5" ViewCount="1072" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus died on a Stake (a vertical pole) instead of a Cross.    What is the basis—biblical or other—for this belief?  Does history and archaeology show that the Roman form of crucifixion used just a vertical pole instead of a cross?  Was this unique to Jesus' death alone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-08-02T01:28:57.250" LastActivityDate="2018-07-11T13:43:09.333" Title="What is the basis of the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that Jesus died on a Stake instead of a Cross?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;cross&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8680" CreationDate="2012-07-26T14:45:59.463" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not going to give an involved answer, just a more simple one. I'm also only going to address the &quot;bet&quot; part, not the goodness or supposed evil of what happened to Job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not bet. He exists simultaneously in every place, at every time that has ever, or will ever, exist. He doesn't know the future, he is in the future, right now, and a million years ago. Time is a construct of humanity and our physical system, God is not bound by it. So then, how can you bet against God? He doesn't just know the future, he is in the future. Satan, as he did with the fall, saw himself stronger than God, capable of manipulating those that God had called or that followed Him. God used the &quot;bet&quot; to show Satan his utter weakness compared to Himself. The bet could not be evil, because God cannot bet, it is as simple as that. At least for that part of Job. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1899" LastActivityDate="2012-07-26T14:45:59.463" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8689" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8690" CreationDate="2012-07-26T19:53:25.997" Score="14" ViewCount="2286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that there are certain garments which temple-going Mormons are obliged to wear after going through their initial Temple Ceremony.  My question is regarding the basis for this.  When did it originate?  Was it a new revelation from God?  Is it recorded in any LDS Scriptures or the Doctrines &amp;amp; Covenants?  Does it have any relation to the priestly garments worn by Levites in the Old Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also understand that there are various symbols on them.  What are the specific purposes of those?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I do not wish to be irreverent here.  That would not be constructive, so please observe the same tone in any answers.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-07-26T20:27:08.937" LastActivityDate="2020-01-06T12:07:40.837" Title="What is the purpose and basis for the special garments issued to temple-going Mormons?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8689" CreationDate="2012-07-26T20:35:19.787" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;temple garments,&quot; as they're commonly known, serve as a constant physical reminder of the covenants that the person wearing them have made.  They are associated with the temple ceremonies, as you noted in the question.  These ceremonies were revealed to Joseph Smith, and as they are not meant for the world in general, the details have not been published in works of scripture meant for the world in general, such as the Doctrine and Covenants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not heard of any doctrine that directly equates them to the Levitical priestly garments, though Boyd K. Packer, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave an explanation along those lines at one point, in the spirit of analogy and explanation rather than as solid doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On one occasion one of the brethren was invited to speak to the faculty and staff of the Navy Chaplains Training School in Newport, Rhode Island. The audience included a number of high-ranking naval chaplains from the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish faiths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the question-and-answer period one of the chaplains asked, “Can you tell us something about the special underwear that some Mormon servicemen wear?” The implication was, “Why do you do that? Isn’t it strange? Doesn’t that present a problem?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To the chaplain who made the inquiry he responded with a question: “Which church do you represent?” In response he named one of the Protestant churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He said, “In civilian life and also when conducting the meetings in the military service you wear clerical clothing, do you not?” The chaplain said that he did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He continued: “I would suppose that that has some importance to you, that in a sense it sets you apart from the rest of your congregation. It is your uniform, as it were, of the ministry. Also, I suppose it may have a much more important place. It reminds you of who you are and what your obligations and covenants are. It is a continual reminder that you are a member of the clergy, that you regard yourself as a servant of the Lord, and that you are responsible to live in such a way as to be worthy of your ordination.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He then told them: “You should be able to understand at least one of our reasons why Latter-day Saints have a deep spiritual commitment concerning the garment. A major difference between your churches and ours is that we do not have a professional clergy, as you do. The congregations are all presided over by local leaders. They are men called from all walks of life. Yet they are ordained to the priesthood. They hold offices in the priesthood. They are set apart to presiding positions as presidents, counselors, and leaders in various categories. The women, too, share in that responsibility and in those obligations. The man who heads our congregation on Sunday as the bishop may go to work on Monday as a postal clerk, as an office worker, a farmer, a doctor; or he may be an air force pilot or a naval officer. By our standard he is as much an ordained minister as you are by your standard. He is recognized as such by most governments. We draw something of the same benefits from this special clothing as you would draw from your clerical vestments. The difference is that we wear ours under our clothing instead of outside, for we are employed in various occupations in addition to our service in the Church. These sacred things we do not wish to parade before the world.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He then explained that there are some deeper spiritual meanings as well, connecting the practice of wearing this garment with covenants that are made in the temple. We wouldn’t find it necessary to discuss these—not that they are secret, he repeated, but because they are sacred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preparing-to-enter-the-holy-temple/preparing-to-enter-the-holy-temple?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the symbols on the garment are meant to serve as reminders of specific spiritual truths.  Exactly what they represent cannot be effectively discussed in a setting such as this, where objectively correct answers are desired above all else, because those who have been through the temple ceremonies are under a strict covenant obligation to not reveal the knowledge gained therein to the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that anyone who claims to explain their meaning either have not actually received the ceremony and so they are just making it up, or they have received it and, in telling, are willing to break a solemn vow made to God, and thus their explanation cannot be trusted, especially as in practice, those who do are almost invariably doing so for the specific purpose of trying to make the church look bad, which should automatically call their objectivity into question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2020-01-06T12:07:40.837" LastActivityDate="2020-01-06T12:07:40.837" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8689" CreationDate="2012-07-26T20:36:17.503" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; The LDS Church posted a &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormontopics.org/eng/garments&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;new online resource solely about the temple garments&lt;/a&gt;. The video interviews are quite helpful here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The garment originated back in Biblical times and the concept is related to the priestly garments worn by the tribe of Levi. There are Biblical and other LDS-scriptural references to the temple garments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mormon Newsroom&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Biblical scripture contains many references to the wearing of special&#xA;  garments. In the Old Testament the Israelites are specifically&#xA;  instructed to turn their garments into personal reminders of their&#xA;  covenants with God (see Numbers 15:37-41). Indeed, for some, religious&#xA;  clothing has always been an important part of integrating worship with&#xA;  daily living. Such practices resonate with Latter-day Saints today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS doctrine states that in our day, temple ordinances have been restored to the earth in their fulness, offering great and eternal blessings to faithful members of the Church. Because of the restoration of these ordinances, temples and associated commandments may be found in the Doctrine and Covenants. So in a sense, it was a new revelation from God, but was seen on the earth before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/08/the-temple-garment-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-commitment?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article by Elder Carlos E. Asay of the Seventy&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is written that “the white garment symbolizes purity and helps&#xA;  assure modesty, respect for the attributes of God, and, to the degree&#xA;  it is honored, a token of what Paul regarded as taking upon one the&#xA;  whole armor of God (Eph. 6:13; cf. D&amp;amp;C 27:15). … Garments bear several&#xA;  simple marks of orientation toward the gospel principles of obedience,&#xA;  truth, life, and discipleship in Christ.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, discussion outside of the temple of the specific meanings of details of the garment and of the temple itself is not acceptable by Latter-day Saints and such discussion is often considered offensive because of the sacred nature of these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is commonly said that the temple garment is &quot;an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior&quot; (see Asay's full article above).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-09-01T00:23:24.880" LastActivityDate="2012-09-01T00:23:24.880" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8680" CreationDate="2012-07-27T00:13:18.467" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Concerning the &quot;misfortune&quot; that happened to Job and his family: We live for God, and not for ourselves, as Christ lived for us. I know that if I'm living for God, and I am in good faith, that anything that happens to me that I perceive as negative has some greater good for God's will and/or His kingdom, because God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; good.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were Job, and I knew that by me displaying my faith and devotion to God amidst this horrific situation would be a testimony to the world over for centuries/millenniums to come, I would find &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; satisfaction and joy in that. Even if I were his children, who really got no recognition (everyone knows Job and this incredible story), I would still find much satisfaction and joy in God's divine purpose for the incident (plus God called me home early!), even more so because nothing should be for our own glory, but all is for God's.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMO, God was not making a &quot;bet&quot;. As I mentioned, God used the situation for a much greater purpose.. not to simply show up Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-07-27T00:25:24.677" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T00:25:24.677" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8680" CreationDate="2012-07-27T08:52:53.530" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that this whole story of Job has a very straightforward message:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God by doing this (bet) in case of Job, wanted to proclaim his glory to Satan. God knew that here is a man who will stand besides Him and live up to His expectations, no matter how much He would torment him. This would allow Him to show his glory- the glory that he sought from his creation “Adam and his descendants” through obedience at the time of his creation.  In spite of Job having free will to do things that would have made the Satan the winner of this bet, he continued to be loyal to his Creator. Before we placate God to be not “all-good” and not “all-loving” we can also try and apply this attribute to Job for not caring and  not “all-good” and not “all-loving” about his children and livestock.  Otherwise, he should have done something that which is against God so that God would lose, Satan will win, and everything would be as it is for Job. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is demonstrating to Satan the character of Job, a Hard core devotee of Himself. More than this God demonstrates his pride to Satan, in an ideal man who is so much loyal to him in spite of all the sufferings and that too when Job had the free will to undo everything that God won through these bets with Satan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-07-27T09:01:39.370" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T09:01:39.370" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8694" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-27T09:04:12.173" Score="6" ViewCount="132" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it a high time that we need to impart the young Christians (children) a comprehensive knowledge of all the doctrines of Christianity, or do we tend to raise them as unconvinced Christians susceptible to falter in their faith?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;When a child with an analyzing mind is made to follow a Christian religion but is not made aware of the profound facts about the various beliefs/doctrines of the religion during the catechism classes, he tends to become an unconvinced Christian. When he starts seeking answers to these unconvinced claims from whichever source he finds, he is faced with answers, which sometimes are diametrically opposite to each other, answers that are in confirmation of his belief as well as against it. In absence of right guidance at the time of his growth, some of these young Christians end up in accepting those answers are against the Christian teachings.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Does the Church in general need to revisit and revise its strategy of adapting to the changed world and change the techniques, to ensure the maintenance of the faith in economically advanced countries?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T15:50:21.590" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T15:50:21.590" Title="Does the Church in general need to revisit and revise its strategy in maintaining the faith?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2012-08-04T09:29:37.817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8698" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-27T12:46:08.907" Score="-1" ViewCount="8141" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30/how-is-ignoring-clear-biblical-instructions-in-leviticus-justified&quot;&gt;How is ignoring clear Biblical instructions in Leviticus justified?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a non-Christian, however I have wondered why Christians are not restricted by the Jewish dietary laws as seen in Leviticus -  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 11:7-8 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it&#xA;  is unclean for you.  You must not eat their meat or touch their&#xA;  carcasses; they are unclean for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen many Christians eating pork even though the above lines are specified in their religious book.  Why are Christians not bound by this rule that is clearly stated in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1904" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T13:56:40.367" Title="Christianity and eating pork or other restrictions from Leviticus" Tags="&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-07-27T14:47:38.447" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8698" CreationDate="2012-07-27T12:54:21.177" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is similar to many questions that find a command in the Old Testament and ask if it should apply to Christians today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that the Old Testament refers to the Old Covenant.  God has made several different covenants with different people at different times.  The covenant which is of note here is the one He made with Abraham, the father of the Jewish people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this covenant, God committed Himself to blessing Israel in very significant ways--He would bless their land with rain and crops; He would protect them from their enemies; He would reveal Himself to them; and He would send the Messiah to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This wasn't a one-sided covenant, though.  Israel was obliged to follow not a few rules and regulations, of which not eating pork was one of them.  Also, Israel was to proclaim God and His ways to the entire world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This covenant was in effect until the coming of the Messiah (Jesus).&lt;/strong&gt;  The Old Testament even speaks of a time when God would give a new covenant.  Since Jesus rose from the dead, we are now in this new covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, if you or I were Jewish people living between 2000 B.C. and 33 A.D., then this command would most definitely apply to us.  Since we are not Jewish and do not live in that time period, those rules do not apply to us.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T12:54:21.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8698" CreationDate="2012-07-27T13:08:47.477" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following verse is usually brought up as a reason that Christians are allowed to eat most things.  It is part of the New Testament or as I call it sometimes, &quot;the new deal&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 15:11 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not that which goes into the mouth which defiles a man; but that&#xA;  which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 10:25–28 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of&#xA;  conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat&#xA;  whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.&#xA;  But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then&#xA;  do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the&#xA;  sake of conscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from Paul here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 14:14 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing&#xA;  is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then&#xA;  for that person it is unclean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Bible specifically states that you should NOT refrain:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 4:1–3 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the&#xA;  faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.  Such&#xA;  teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been&#xA;  seared as with a hot iron.  They forbid people to marry and order&#xA;  them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received&#xA;  with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-07-27T13:56:40.367" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T13:56:40.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8701" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-27T13:26:02.617" Score="5" ViewCount="423" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following are some lines in which Jesus (Peace be upon him) mentions &quot;Father&quot; or &quot;God&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Islam we consider &quot;Father&quot; or &quot;God&quot; to be referring to &lt;strong&gt;Allah&lt;/strong&gt; as &lt;strong&gt;Jesus (Peace be upon him) is considered to be a prophet of Allah.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know what these lines are referring to in Christianity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My Father, who has given them to me,  is greater than all&lt;/strong&gt;;  no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.&amp;mdash;John 10:29 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad &lt;strong&gt;that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I&lt;/strong&gt;.&amp;mdash;John 14:28 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if it is &lt;strong&gt;by the Spirit of God&lt;/strong&gt; that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God  has come upon you.&amp;mdash;Matthew 12:28 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “&lt;strong&gt;Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?&lt;/strong&gt;” (which means “&lt;strong&gt;My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?&lt;/strong&gt;”).&amp;mdash;Matthew 27:46 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;) (parallel in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 15:34&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if I drive out demons &lt;strong&gt;by the finger of God&lt;/strong&gt;,  then the &lt;strong&gt;kingdom of God&lt;/strong&gt;  has come upon you.&amp;mdash;Luke 11:20 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2011&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in the next one it is said by Jesus (Peace be upon him) that &quot;he who sent me&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By myself I can do nothing;  I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just,  for &lt;strong&gt;I seek not to please myself but him who sent me&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 5:30&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1904" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T23:07:35.830" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T05:35:57.210" Title="Who is Father or God in Christianity" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2017-01-23T19:47:53.997" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8701" CreationDate="2012-07-27T13:58:20.123" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The god of Christianity is the God of Israel. He is referred to by many names in the course of the Bible, but most Christians (at least in the United States, where I live) usually refer to Him simply as &quot;God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word for the name of God which is found in the Bible is יהוה, usually simplified into the English alphabet as &quot;Yahweh&quot; (pronounced YAH-way). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably the best direct answer to your question, from scripture, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:13-15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 3:13-15&lt;/a&gt;, where Moses asks God who He is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;13&lt;/strong&gt; Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may have heard Christians refer to God as &quot;The Great I Am&quot; before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, the Christian God doesn't really have a name in the sense that most humans have names, like my name is Andrew. God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; his name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="168" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T13:58:20.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8701" CreationDate="2012-07-27T14:48:52.200" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without getting into controversies, here are some references in the Bible that depict God as father&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We are called the sons of God. When Jesus was on earth, he fit that profile&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I said, 'You are &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;; you are all sons of the Most High.'&#xA;(Psalm 82:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Adam was called son of God. Jesus(as man) and we are descendants of God so we are his sons&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;...the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.&amp;quot;&#xA;(Luke 3:38)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Angels were called sons of God. Jesus is better than the angels, so what could he have been&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GENESIS 6:1-2&lt;/strong&gt; Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,  that the sons of&#xA;God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus had a special treatment than the angels&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For to which of the&#xA;angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?&#xA;Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”&#xA;(Heb 1:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he&#xA;that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee (Heb&#xA;5:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus makes us God's spiritual sons&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:12&lt;/strong&gt; But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By these references, God is referred to as Father. Jesus is the First born of Creation (pre-death and after death) [I'll put a reference to this later]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T15:06:37.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8701" CreationDate="2012-07-27T15:07:46.773" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The above answer is in a way incomplete which I will try to complete with the following explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To know Jesus one need to have an open mind and read the New Testament without a prejudged mind or else you will never know true Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said about these people who would try to understand him: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mathew 13:14-17 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;&#xA;      you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.   For this people’s heart has become calloused;&#xA;      they hardly hear with their ears,&#xA;      and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes,&#xA;      hear with their ears,&#xA;      understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’[a] But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they&#xA;  hear.  For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed&#xA;  to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but&#xA;  did not hear it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are utterances of Jesus in New Testament with Human nature as well as with divine nature. To know this requires understanding which only chosen few will have.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It is in these contexts as having a human nature that Jesus said the statements quoted by you. He said similar things when he was suffering on the cross like “My God my God , why have you forsaken me? Here he was saying this in human nature when his human body was suffering on the cross.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;**Concerning Divinity of Jesus there numerous citing in New Testament about the divinity of Jesus. It says in &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mathew 1:21-23 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name&#xA;  Jesus,[a] because he will save his people from their sins.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the&#xA;  prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and&#xA;  they will call him Immanuel”[b] (which means “God with us”).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:18 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God&#xA;  and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again in &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;em&gt;John 10:30 NIV *&lt;/em&gt; Jesus says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I and the Father are one&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again in &#xA;&lt;strong&gt;John 10:38 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; it Says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the&#xA;  works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and&#xA;  I in the Father&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:7 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you really know me, you will know[a] my Father as well. From now&#xA;  on, you do know him and have seen him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:9-11 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been&#xA;  among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the&#xA;  Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?&#xA;  Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in&#xA;  me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather,&#xA;  it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.&#xA;  Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me;&#xA;  or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To say God the father had a son is as blasphemous to Christians as to Muslims. This Son of God is not to be taken in the literal sense but same as God.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;It has to be understood that God became man and that God-made-man is the individual Jesus Christ and is said as Son of God.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;The Person of Christ refers to both the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ as they co-exist within one person&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Islam claims the bible to be corrupted but in cyclic reasoning again is quoting the same bible. I do not understand the logic in this.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-07-27T15:23:51.990" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T15:23:51.990" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8701" CreationDate="2012-07-27T16:04:40.643" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty important question, so it will take some time to address.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, Jesus refers to God as &lt;em&gt;Father&lt;/em&gt;, and the &lt;em&gt;Father&lt;/em&gt; did, indeed, send &lt;em&gt;Jesus&lt;/em&gt;.  However, Jesus Himself claimed to be God.  This is only reconcilable as we understand the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, it should be noted that &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; Christians do not believe that God (the Father) had sexual relations with God (the Mother) to produce Jesus (the Son).  To most Christians, this is as unthinkable as it is for Muslims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Understanding the Trinity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image of God is seen not only in mankind, but in all of creation, as every creation reflects the image of its creator.  This answer reveals something about me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Physical Universe&lt;/strong&gt; is itself a trinity, consisting of &lt;strong&gt;1) Time, 2) Space, and 3) Matter&lt;/strong&gt;.  The three coexist, and one cannot exist without the other two.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Time&lt;/strong&gt; is a trinity as well, consisting of &lt;strong&gt;1) past, 2) present, and 3) future&lt;/strong&gt;.  The past is not the present; the present is not the future; the future is not the past.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Space&lt;/strong&gt; is also a trinity, existing in &lt;strong&gt;three dimensions&lt;/strong&gt;--length, width, and height.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matter&lt;/strong&gt; also consists of three distinct forms--&lt;strong&gt;1) solid, 2) liquid, and 3) gas&lt;/strong&gt;.  Water (H20 - 3 molecules/one substance) coexists as ice, water and vapor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mankind&lt;/strong&gt; is a trinity as well, consisting of &lt;strong&gt;1) body, 2) soul, and 3) spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.  One's soul is not his body; his body is not his spirit; and his spirit is not his body.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, creation reflects the image of its Creator, as can be seen in many different ways.  God is understood by most Christians to be a Trinity--Father, Son, and Spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relationship of &quot;Son&quot; to &quot;Father&quot; does indicate reproduction or time with God, who is beyond time, space, and matter (since He created those).  The Father sends the Son (and the Son sends the Spirit).  So, there is a Divine Order, but not Divine generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in the Old Testament, God says, &quot;Let &lt;strong&gt;Us&lt;/strong&gt; make man in &lt;strong&gt;Our&lt;/strong&gt; image, in &lt;strong&gt;Our&lt;/strong&gt; likeness.&quot;  Genesis 1:26  The Koran affirms that God's word cannot be changed, so both the Old and New Testaments can be trusted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus is God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John 1:1-14 is fairly explicit.  Here, Jesus is introduced to us with the title &quot;The Word&quot;, who was 1) in the beginning, 2) was with God, and who 3) was God.  The Word became a man.  This reveals that it is Jesus who was the Word who became a man and lived among us.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In John 8:58, Jesus identifies Himself by the name with which He introduced Himself to Moses in Exodus 3--the I AM.  The people responded by picking up stones to stone Him, because they knew exactly what He was claiming, and that was not merely that He was 2,000 years old, but that He was God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also, the Jews proclaimed that the very reason they wanted Him crucified was that He claimed to be God.  (John 19:7)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 1, Jesus also calls Himself &quot;The Alpha and the Omega, the Almighty&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, Jesus is &quot;The Son&quot;--not that He was conceived by a father and mother, but that this is His relationship to the First Person of the Trinity, the Father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God eternally exists as a Trinity&lt;/strong&gt;, just as the physical universe itself, time, space, matter, and we ourselves all exist as trinities, reflecting our Creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;REFERENCES&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3  All things were&#xA;  made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was&#xA;  made...  14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have&#xA;  seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of&#xA;  grace and truth. John 1:1-3, 14 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”  John 8:58 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”  John 19:7&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty&lt;/em&gt;.”  Revelation 1:8 ESV*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of&#xA;  the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over&#xA;  every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in&#xA;  his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he&#xA;  created them.  Genesis 1:26-27 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also&#xA;  of the tree of life and eat, and live forever”  Genesis 3:22 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T16:04:40.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8708" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-27T16:23:15.853" Score="6" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3971/the-effect-of-poison-on-christians&quot;&gt;The effect of poison on Christians&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should I understand the following verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they&#xA;  drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place&#xA;  their hands on sick people, and they will get well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/serpent-handling-pastor-profiled-earlier-in-washington-post-dies-from-rattlesnake-bite/2012/05/29/gJQAJef5zU_story.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some context&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-07-28T06:50:36.307" Title="Can Christians handle rattlesnakes?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2012-07-28T08:43:19.540" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8708" CreationDate="2012-07-27T18:00:18.307" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd answer this exactly the same as I did the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3971/the-effect-of-poison-on-christians&quot;&gt;other similar question&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at how God's method of communication has changed over time, it should not be surprising that such &quot;gifts&quot; are not as common as they were.  When it came to the Apostles and the early Church, God was specifically working  to establish His Church. These signs and wonders were accompanied by preaching of the Gospel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, if you look at the miracles performed by Jesus Himself, you'll see that He performed them as a demonstration of His authority, and if you look at them in total, they display that He is God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/miracles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/miracles.htm&lt;/a&gt;  In other words, He didn't perform them merely to amaze people, He did them to support His teaching, authority, and claims about Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the Apostolic miracles, and those of the early Church, the pattern is similar.  The miracles accompany the preaching of the Gospel, or serve to establish the authority of the Apostles, and early Church.  Once the authority has been established, there is no further need for God to &quot;prove Himself&quot;.  He's already done so.  He had already revealed Himself, and He did say specifically that if we don't believe in the Scriptures, why would we believe Him. (John 5:46).  How many times does He have to prove Himself before we believe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar pattern can be seen throughout Scripture.  In the beginning, He walked with Adam and Eve and spoke to them personally.  With Moses, He spoke from a burning bush.  Later, He spoke to the people through Moses, and then through the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, God had shown anger several times throughout Scripture towards them that seek after signs, when He had already revealed Himself.  He tolerates it at first, even though He recognizes it for what it is (temping God) (Exodus 17:7) but He is still angered by it.  (Psalm 78:18-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees for the same thing.  (Matthew 16:4) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there are still those around today who believe that these verses are to be taken literally, and that they still apply today.  These would be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;snake handlers in a few Pentecostal denominations and sub-groups&lt;/a&gt; that so many people love to make fun of.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for me, personally, I don't dare practice these rituals.  It's not that I don't think that God could protect me from snakes and poisons.  It's more that I know that this would be, to me, a test of whether or not He truly would.  In other words, my actions would be a deliberate tempting of God.  I fully believe that He could do it, but I don't want to make Him angry because He could just as well let me die simply because I had the audacity to test Him.  Who am I to test Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T18:15:57.140" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8701" CreationDate="2012-07-27T19:32:13.717" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It helps me to think in terms of nature vs. person like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7 The person&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The person is not a nature. God is one nature in three persons. The nature of God is common to the three persons. Each of the&#xA;  three persons, however, is unique.The fact that God created man &quot;in&#xA;  the image of God&quot; implies, among other things, that in man, as in God,&#xA;  the same distinction exists between nature and persons. And like God,&#xA;  man is one in his nature, but many in persons. What makes us all human&#xA;  is our nature which is common to all of us. What makes each of us a&#xA;  unique and unrepeatable being is our person. We have seen what our&#xA;  nature comes from and how it was created. Our person, however, is a&#xA;  mystery. Although it is something we experience daily in ourselves and&#xA;  in the people around us, it is a totally intangible mystery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/75080212/The-Six-Dawns-by-Dr-Alexander-Kalomiros&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/75080212/The-Six-Dawns-by-Dr-Alexander-Kalomiros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T19:32:13.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8694" CreationDate="2012-07-27T21:03:12.843" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In considering the causes of the lack of in-depth doctrinal and apologetic instruction provided to Christian youth, we might do well to consider the extent to which many, if not the majority of adults who self-identify as Christian are equally untaught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of us are called to in-depth study of the bible; some of us are naturally drawn to a comprehensive study of world religions; some of us are fascinated by human nature, and see the study of religion as providing key historical insights into how the human mind and personality work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect, however, that the majority of people around the world see the pursuit of entertainment as a more effective use of their spare time, as a way to relax from the stress of life. Add the fact that religious study is -- as with study of most topics -- necessarily academic, and regarded by many as &quot;dry,&quot; &quot;stuffy,&quot; and even &quot;boring,&quot; and one can see how religious study can only be &quot;exciting&quot; to those with a particular way of looking at the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to provide an excuse for lack of religious ferver, but simply to acknowledge what, to one way of thinking, is the actual state of things for many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With reference specifically to Christianity, many would agree heartily with criticism of the instructional methods, or lack thereof, used in many denominations. For example, critical analysis of what is often called the &quot;emergent/emerging church movement&quot; will sometimes describe lack of effective religious instruction as a causal factor in the formation of many of the beliefs espoused by some within the &quot;movement.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of that being said, I know of no effective ways of resolving the situation. The lack of effective religious instruction of youth can be traced to the lack of effective religious understand in many adults, and is the lack of effective religious understanding in many adults a symptom of anything other than tepid faith -- that is, one that does not present an overwhelming desire to know God, and to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2010:27&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;love God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; with all of one's heart, soul, strength, and mind? Exhortation to a more consuming faith, as an attempt to counter lack of religious ferver, is, after all, among the central topics addressed in scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T21:03:12.843" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8680" CreationDate="2012-07-27T23:58:34.743" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do I, as a Christian, reconcile the story of Job with a God of love?  What part of this story demonstrates any hatred by God towards Job?  Satan presents himself in front of God, &lt;strong&gt;requests&lt;/strong&gt; that God &lt;strong&gt;remove&lt;/strong&gt; his protection from Job.  God grants his request.  There is no bet, and no hatred on the part of God.  Who killed the livestock and the children?  Satan.  Who is responsible for his suffering?  Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All things in the Bible are written for our instruction.  This story of Job is an example of how to praise God even when there seems to be no reason to do so.  It also demonstrates that there are things that happen that we may not understand, Job got some things wrong and comes to some faulty conclusions as all this is happening to him but he keeps his faith in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job also understands that everything we have, including our children are a gift and that these things belong to God, as demonstrated in this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 1:20-22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship &#xA;  21 and said:&#xA;  “Naked I came from my mother’s womb,&#xA;      and naked I will depart.&#xA;  The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; &#xA;      may the name of the Lord be praised.” &#xA;  22 In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job is wrong though, the Lord did not take these things away, Satan did.  If I give my child a gift, I don't take it away.  Someone else may, and I may allow someone else to take it, but that does not demonstrate hate, or evil on my part.  What the person took away I can restore.  It is the same with God.  We see that after Satan is done, failing to get Job to curse God, that God then doubles what Job had to begin with.  And even blesses him with more children.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 42:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1869" LastActivityDate="2012-07-27T23:58:34.743" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8714" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8730" CreationDate="2012-07-28T00:00:00.170" Score="2" ViewCount="2185" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 5:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 The acts of the &lt;strong&gt;flesh&lt;/strong&gt; are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and&#xA;  debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy,&#xA;  fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy;&#xA;  drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that&#xA;  those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 So I say, walk by the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, and you &lt;strong&gt;will not gratify&lt;/strong&gt; the desires of the &lt;strong&gt;flesh&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 But the fruit of the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; is love, joy, peace, forbearance,&#xA;  kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and &lt;strong&gt;self-control&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  Against such things there is no law. 24 &lt;strong&gt;Those who belong to Christ&#xA;  Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, most (if not all) Christians do (or confess they do) the acts of flesh. Some say they are imperfect, they fight with this and so. But according to these verses  they don't walk by the Spirit, so they don't enjoy the fruit of self-control, they didn't crucify the flesh and therefore: they don't belong to Christ! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there &lt;strong&gt;some other valid&lt;/strong&gt; point of view possible? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user508" LastEditorDisplayName="user508" LastEditDate="2012-07-28T13:04:58.940" LastActivityDate="2012-08-04T11:43:21.083" Title="Do the acts of the flesh reveal false Christians?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-23T19:48:15.623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8714" CreationDate="2012-07-28T00:15:16.807" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...you will fully know them by their fruits.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Matt 7:20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nobody is perfect (except you know Who).. If we could be, then we wouldn't need Christ. We will do sinful works of the flesh until the day we die. However, the more we grow in God, the more good fruit we will bear. But it is not for us to judge the salvation of others. I have much more self-control than I used to, praise the Lord, but I still lash out at times. That doesn't mean I'm not saved. Only God can judge.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if someone is obviously bearing no good fruit and shows no change of heart or real repentance of their sin, it is right to be cautious of their salvation, and it would be a good thing to try and talk to them about their walk with God and reprove them in love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastActivityDate="2012-07-28T00:15:16.807" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8714" CreationDate="2012-07-28T01:22:28.977" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there are some traditions that teach that after being saved, Christians no longer sin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/perfection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Wesleyan&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, and some strains of fundamentalist tradition, for example), most Protestant theologies, and also the Roman Catholics, teach that believers necessarily continue to sin. AFAIK, Eastern Orthodox also recognize sin in saved believers. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%205:21-30&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mt 5:21-30&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Westminster Larger Catechism #79&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;: &amp;quot;May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, &lt;strong&gt;and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with,&lt;/strong&gt; fall away from the state of grace?&amp;quot; (emphasis mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The three basic phases of the Christian life, in chronological order, are: Justification; sanctification; and glorification. Your question addresses sanctification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Justification&lt;/strong&gt; is an &lt;em&gt;event&lt;/em&gt; that takes place when Christ's atonement is applied to a person that has either &amp;quot;received faith&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;chosen to believe,&amp;quot; depending on the whose theology one consults. The person is then counted as righteous in God's sight, because their sins have been transferred to Christ, and Christ's righteousness has been transferred to them. (This is called &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;double imputation&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sanctification&lt;/strong&gt; is an ongoing &lt;em&gt;process&lt;/em&gt;, which takes place throughout a Christians post-conversion life, of &amp;quot;putting to death&amp;quot; the works of the flesh, and &amp;quot;living by the spirit.&amp;quot; That is, over time, a Christian's life should have less rebellion against God (&lt;em&gt;sin&lt;/em&gt;) and more obedience to God (&lt;em&gt;righteousness&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Glorification&lt;/strong&gt; is an &lt;em&gt;event&lt;/em&gt;, and takes place when a believer gets to heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%207&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 7&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also find &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8621/1873&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;this C.SE response&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also entirely possible that an individual who considers himself saved is not, in fact, regenerate, and some traditions deny the possibility of assurance of salvation altogether. Jesus addressed the issue of false assurance specifically at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21-23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mt 7:21-23&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-28T01:44:31.780" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8721" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-28T04:01:17.247" Score="-1" ViewCount="262" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1148/should-biblical-laws-apply-to-non-christians&quot;&gt;Should biblical laws apply to non-Christians?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible (old and new testaments) there are various laws, some controversial but clearly written otherwise. Are these laws supposed to be part of a Christian Government? Who will implement them if anyone will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples are&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The eating of fat is prohibited forever ~Leviticus 3:17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed ~Leviticus&#xA;  20:9&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and&#xA;  rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father&#xA;  fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated&#xA;  her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives ~Deuteronomy&#xA;  22:28-29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="14185" LastEditDate="2017-11-17T14:10:52.683" LastActivityDate="2017-11-17T14:10:52.683" Title="Are biblical laws supposed to be part of Government?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;divine-law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-08-04T08:55:21.683" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8714" CreationDate="2012-07-28T06:48:59.187" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple answer - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are reading too much into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 7:19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I&#xA;  do not want to do--this I keep on doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul couldn't possibly have meant that Christians could never commit acts of flesh when he himself admits doing the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The principle of interpretation you are using is called letterism, and I wouldn't put my money into it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastActivityDate="2012-07-28T06:48:59.187" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8708" CreationDate="2012-07-28T06:50:36.307" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this question is actually answered simply by showing the entire of Mark 16:18, emphasis mine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; &lt;strong&gt;they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question of &quot;can Christians handle rattlesnakes?&quot; is no different to the question &quot;can Christians cure people by laying-on-of-hands?&quot; (I could also have chosen poison for the example). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the question of healing, the answer is pretty much universally a resounding &quot;no&quot;. There are of course anecdotal claims to &quot;yes&quot;, and I really don't want to get into that debate again, but &lt;em&gt;at least in the general case&lt;/em&gt;, the answer is &quot;no&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same applies to snakes. There will of course be anecdotal people who handle snakes; not getting bitten is merely a combination of luck, handling, and probably more than a little understanding of the animals behaviour. That doesn't make it risk free, any more than Roy's handling of tigers was risk free (although right until the end of his career all evidence would have suggested otherwise).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-07-28T06:50:36.307" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8666" CreationDate="2012-07-28T10:15:07.803" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There never were any dietary Laws enforced in the New Testament aside from polite rules derived from brotherly love and the desire for peace during the time of transition between the shadows of the Old Testament and the realities found in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” (NIV Matthew 15:10-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. (NIV Romans 14:14-15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rule established in Acts 15:20 for new converts does not contradict the truth that no food is unclean in itself, even blood! as established by Acts 10:15, Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 8, etc. In Acts we simply find instructions being given to Gentiles to bring a noble death to specific matters that would enflame, outrage, shock their prejudices and cause discord among Jewish converts. In a sense many Jews would need to have been treated as 'weaker brothers' in the matter of blood and certain meats sacrificed to idols, etc. because after having learning to associate God's ceremonial displeasure with these activities, though not sinful in themselves, for so long, it would have been difficult for them to unravel these symbolic things from their consciences. This natural revulsion on things morally neutral would be hard to unlearn especially when they had learned to hate them so much and to distinguish themselves from Gentile sinners partly by these differences. This created a situation where new converts should 'become a Jew unto a Jew' on harmless abstinence, for any behavior otherwise would be inflammatory actions ruining the love of Christian fellowship. It would give occasion for scandal and all over nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul adopts the same 'love principle' in advising believers to abstain from eating meats sacrificed to idols, if in so doing it harms a brother's faith. There is really nothing special here in Acts that contradicts Paul. What might make this decision in Acts appear strange is that real sins are joined up with neutral matters. The similarity is not in that they are all sins but that they all especially would bring discord, inflammatory reaction, provocation to anger and general destruction to the gospel taking shape within synagogues around the region.  In addition, in all these things the Romans and Greeks had no moral objection to and all had some role within their idolatries, especially those that had temple prostitutes. This rule maintained a peaceful atmosphere for the true liberty of the gospel to grow and allowed a natural and noble death of some of the harmless shadows and ceremonial symbols of the Old Testament in brotherly love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, there is some Jewish history that proves this temporary kindness to weaker brothers was related to the Jewish expectations on Gentile converts before Christ based on the covenant God made with Noah.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. (NIV Genesis 9:3-4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this covenant with Noah is considered to have been made with all mankind, Jew and Gentile, the Jews called 'the seven Noachic commandments', which, according to them, were binding upon all Gentile proselytes. These were a prohibition  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1)  of idolatry,  (2)  of blasphemy,  (3)  of murder,  (4)  of incest,  (5)  of robbery and theft,  (6)  of eating blood and strangled animals, and  (7)  an injunction of obedience to magistrates. (Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament - Vol 1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This further explains the theological footprint or Biblical context at this critical time of history.  All the more reason for Gentiles to gain respect of outsiders and Jewish brethren at a time of incomprehensible changes and upheaval of religion and not force a shock on the community unnecessarily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the situation then, looking for creeds or canons about an old shadow of the realities found in Christ is not to be expected and if one turned up most Christians would simply reject it as being opposed to the arguments in the scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-28T10:15:07.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8676" CreationDate="2012-07-28T10:45:12.510" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not going to give you a deep,y theological answer I am doing what I rarely do, provide a pastoral answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not like Horror movies since becoming a Christian, but I do not think we should bother making general rules about something like this.  Personally I would find the assertion for or against watching 'horror movies' as unbiblical. Of course there is some point where 'enjoying' the watching of evil actions would be sin, but watching evil things is not necessarily enjoying them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I do like watching cop shows, where people are often doing evil things. I like the idea of justice catching up with the villain. I love to hate the villains.  In the same way I can imagine someone liking the good overcoming the evil, even in a horror movie, but the point is 'what is going on in our hearts.' Are we enjoying evil or not? Only you can answer your own conscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I would advise is that one should maintain a hatred for evil and a love for good, no matter what movie one watches. I find that sometimes the most wholesome TV shows offend me more than a horror movie would, because self-righteousness is asserted. At least a horror movie seems to support the doctrine of original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth is almost every single movie and TV show promotes the view of the world and is a filthy portrayed of life.  I am not saying throw your TV in the garbage, I am just saying the world is evil and so is all of its entertainment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this I watch a lot of movies and TV shows. As evil as these things are they are not as evil as my encountered with sinners in the world, and God has not called us out of this world.  Even my non Christian parents who I love have filthier minds than what I often see portrayed in movies. What God wants us to do, therefore, is separate ourselves in our hearts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I return to the same point. Do we sense God's presence when we watch a movie and hate what is evil and love what is good, or as soon as we turn on the TV do we live a double life and never once think of God as we allow the worlds garbage into our hearts? So when watching a thriller, action, movie, or even possibly a horror movie, do it unto God in worship, hating all that is evil and loving all that is good. Trust me, if you do this you will know what movies make it difficult for you to do this and what movies do not. Do you finish a good movie rejoicing in Christ or craving more sinful things and disliking the idea of entering into worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I have found that some movies are temptations to some people, and do not bother others at all.  For example, if you are prone to depression than you should watch more cheerful movies. If your are prone to fear you should avoid scary movies. If you are prone to lust, you should avoid movies that have scantly clad good looking models, etc.  You decide and ' if you eye offends you pluck it out' - even things not bad in themselves might be a temptation for you personally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said all this I must confess I sometimes tune God out when watching a movie and this is sin. Then again I tune God out when at work, and even sometimes at Church.  Living holy is not easy but at least trying to is better than most. So getting back up after sin and running to God rejoicing in love after sinning is better than pretending we never fall and making a lists of external rules that makes us feel faithful, when our hearts are far from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. (NIV Romans 12:9-10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. (NIV 1 Corinthians 10:31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-07-28T10:45:12.510" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8721" CreationDate="2012-07-28T11:40:47.340" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Biblical Laws are intended to be used by all governments and all governments do use them.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. (NIV Romans 13:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However God uses his laws through secular governments not under the authority of his word but of conscience common to all sinners:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) (NIV Romans 2:14-15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course it is understood that since the church is represented as a minority in an evil world, the role of government is not considered a church role. The church is tasked with proclaiming the gospel, not managing the affairs of the lower world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of how good Christians look at specific laws of Moses with respect to the world I turn to Martin Luther, who clearly had a stance on the subject. I do this because we might be tempted in thinking that religion, even old outdated shadows of the Old Testament should enforced on unbelievers but this in unbiblical. Rather the role of the church is to offer the free grace of Christ and respect a sinners decision to reject that grace if he wills without forcing ourselves upon a sinners's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The law of Moses binds only the Jews and not the Gentiles&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  Here the law of Moses has its place. It is no longer binding on us because it was given only to the people of Israel. And Israel accepted this law for itself and its descendants, while the Gentiles were excluded. To be sure, the Gentiles have certain laws in common with the Jews, such as these: there is one God, no one is to do wrong to another, no one is to commit adultery or murder or steal, and others like them. This is written by nature into their hearts; they did not hear it straight from heaven as the Jews did. This is why this entire text does not pertain to the Gentiles. I say this on account of the enthusiasts. For you see and hear how they read Moses, extol him, and bring up the way he ruled the people with commandments. They try to be clever, and think they know something more than is presented in the gospel; so they minimize faith, contrive something new, and boastfully claim that it comes from the Old Testament. They desire to govern people according to the letter of the law of Moses, as if no one had ever read it before.&#xA;  But we will not have this sort of thing.  (Luther's Works Volume 35, P163)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-28T11:40:47.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8714" CreationDate="2012-07-28T15:50:57.553" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before salvation a person fulfil the deeds of the flesh deliberately and glory in them but after salvation the same person should only do them involuntarily and if deliberate he is to ask for forgiveness, forsake them and move on&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But any christian saying we cannot be perfect is trying to justify himself instead of focusing on God's grace to overcome those weaknesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true we are imperfect human but what God has given to us is enough to overcome our imperfection. Jesus was made example for us as the bible said he was tempted as we are but did not sin. We shall be tempted too but we should not yield. Jesus almost did in Gesthemane but called himself to order and God strenghtened him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul describe one of the effects of being saved as being made alive from dead conscience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:1-2 - And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses&#xA;  and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this&#xA;  world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who&#xA;  now works in the sons of disobedience&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before salvation you could do all those &lt;em&gt;deeds of the flesh&lt;/em&gt; and brag about them, enjoy the company of bad friends and so on. But after salvation, you become a new person [in heart] and you won't feel comfortable about those things any more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike before you feel remorseful everytime you do those things. This is because the Spirit of God is now active in you. That's what God is looking at, a broken spirit, a contrite heart, a sober mind. You will still do them but the frequency would reduce day by day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If after being remorseful you keep doing them over and over, you will go back to your previous state - dead conscience&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8:13 - For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you yield to God's Spirit then you will drop those things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8:13 but if ye through the Spirit do mortify (put to death -&#xA;  NLT) the deeds of the body (Sinful Nature - NLT), ye shall live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is very important that we surrender our hearts to the Holy Spirit because it is only through this we can do it. ... &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (Romans 8:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the fruit of the Spirit, it is complete opposite of the deeds of flesh. Holy Spirit is very important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you LOVE you can't HATE&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you like PEACE there will be no DISCORD-ENVY-JEALOUSY &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and one leads to another&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 7:21 - Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the&#xA;  kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in&#xA;  heaven will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in&#xA;  heaven will enter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A christian who justify his sinful habits is not a true christian or may be slipping away&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus&#xA;  Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly&#xA;  places in Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything we need to succede as a christian has been provided in christ according to that verse and we have them at our fingertips [The Word, The Spirit, Constant Fellowship with God and much more]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-07-28T20:44:47.930" LastActivityDate="2012-07-28T20:44:47.930" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8721" CreationDate="2012-07-29T00:04:21.970" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Baptists, in particular, are vehemently opposed to any attempt by a secular government to create religious laws.  One of the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://baptistdistinctives.org/articles/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Baptist Distinctives&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (a term describing those principles that are generally held amongst all Baptists, as defined by the early Baptist confessions) is the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baptistdistinctives.org/wpassets/article25_11_21_05.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;separation of church and state&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptists, in particular, came of age in the United States during a period of establishment churches, such as the Anglican church in Virginia.  Itinerant Baptist preachers like John Leland&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; were often imprisoned for &quot;preaching without a license&quot; and as such, early Baptists began to arrive at a consensus that the state should not be in charge of any church law, whether or it was Christian or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all Christians believe in this separation however.  The Orthodox, in particular, tend to blur the lines of state and church (witness the Russian Orthodox church, for example), when there is sufficient mass to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that can be universally held is that it is no way essential to Christian doctrine that specific works, especially that which is aidaphora, should be legislated in some fashion. Indeed, the Pharisees were the ones who pushed for that, and we all know how well Jesus liked them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Please note: I am not taking a position on the distinctive, merely stating that it is an identifying mark of all Baptists.  And yes, there is such a thing.  It is called, a Baptist distinctive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;Yes, it probably is ironic that as a Baptist in Virginia, I attended the John Leland Center for Theological Studies, and am now an Anglican.  Regardless of the name of my seminary, however, John Leland is in fact a notable Baptist of the Revolutionary Period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-07-29T00:04:21.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8735" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8737" CreationDate="2012-07-29T06:54:30.853" Score="10" ViewCount="1320" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 10:8, disciples were told to even freely &lt;em&gt;heal&lt;/em&gt; people, since it was freely given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul, in order to not be a burden to others, made tents to support himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this, why are most Christian books written today copyrighted, rather than in the public domain? [Yes, I know that some are freely available online; but most are not.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One might ask: how would having such works in the public domain be useful to Christianity? For one, it would be useful to build a gigantic index, sorted by topic, where for each topic, one could look up all the well known Christian authors and read segments of their books related to the topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to the original question: why are most Christian books not public domain?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2016-03-14T18:34:59.313" Title="Why are Christian books not Public Domain?" Tags="&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8736" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8927" CreationDate="2012-07-29T08:12:26.853" Score="2" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, it's a technique used by bible students to better understand the original languages in context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does one go about using a tool such as Robinson's Morphological Analysis Codes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I've also asked &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/2243/691&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;this same question&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; on Hermeneutics.SE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-08-05T23:58:37.563" Title="What is morphological analysis, as it applies to bible study?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;&lt;greek&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8735" CreationDate="2012-07-29T08:41:41.140" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason why Christian books (and music) are valid objects to have copyright protection is simply because the great deal of effort in making them and in some cases a livelihood based on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. (NIV 1 Corinthians 9:9-10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A book is just a sermon in print so the laborer deserves wages for his work.  Having said this any good part of these works is God in them and not properly objects of copyright, but the copyright is for the effort of the person in the work regardless of quality. Additionally publishers make available old works providing new translations in modern language and other enhancements which qualify as a service worth payment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very good books will eventually be read long after their copyright expires, so in a sense God does provide them all free.  The best ones actually are free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-29T08:41:41.140" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8547" CreationDate="2012-07-29T09:20:04.743" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As this question does not seem to be eliciting many responses I will add my own view. My perspective comes from reading many books written by Puritans, in fact this has been my main diet as a Christian.  Unfortunately my view is limited by my knowledge of the history of the early colonies in America.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my own perspective the Puritans as a group of more or less independent Calvinists, settling among the early colonies of America, were nothing more than Christians getting caught up in a part of the world seeking opportunity and wealth in a new frontier.  Among the population of the general crowd, filled with ambition and greed over the many new opportunities, the Puritans would have been seen as intolerant for sure.  Also it would have been no surprise that some Puritans were truly judgmental and even racists, as we would still find people in churches today with that disposition.  On the other hand, among the colonies there would have been many brave and regular 'good folk' who have taken a chance at a better life and would not have been caught up with the greed of the industries, but would have been simply wanted a quite life and kinship among townsmen, etc.  Here there were probably be less of a contrast with the Puritans among them, for this simple life of hard work and honest living is somewhat Puritanical. These sorts of people would have many things in common with the Puritans and the churches in those communities would have probably been less criticized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from the typical stage that a movie might present the old west and the little church within in it, when reading the actual writings of the Puritans what I find is a big emphasis of love and charity which opposes the concept of casting an intolerant monoculture. Among the Puritans there was also efforts to bring salvation to the native Americans.  I think this is where the picture has its truth on both sides.  Some in the name of religion tried to eliminate native culture and stole the children to be 'educated' etc. Possibly even sexually molesting some of them. However, I think this trend was not so much the Puritans but other denominations, especially Catholic as we find similar things today.  Yet considering the great racist and vile attitudes of the colonies against the natives, some of that prejudice and racism and rigid monoculture values of the British, that plagued many parts of the world, would have also infected even loving and holy British men to some degree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find this specifically true of the accounts that Jonathan Edwards has in his diary of attempts to be a missionary to the natives.  You can tell he loved them but there was some monoculture and rigidity in his words. I perceive them as trace elements reflecting the wicked arrogant white-man society in which he lived, not his own sentiments. In fact when trying to understand how to show liberal compassion and love, I like to read Jonathan Edwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question, &lt;strong&gt;I think the new frontier for many Europeans was a place to force their rigid and mono-cultural ideals upon weaker races and this would have stained, to a degree, even the good hearted puritans that sought a simple life to honor God.&lt;/strong&gt;  Among these groups some Europeans especially those who were physically attracted to other races would have probably spent their liberal days in local saloons and would have cursed the Puritans just as party goers curse holy people today.  Sinners often feel judged by holy people even when they are not judged. Drunkards and fornicators would have been more 'easy going' and less ridged, yet also the most ridged when facing races where no attraction or mutual financial benefits existed, such as with the natives.  So really we have many aspects to the answer that are probably not that different than how things are today. &lt;strong&gt;Are we rigid and trying to force a monoculture today? In some ways people would say we are but in many ways, especially in our love, we are truly not. Many people would think Jesus was rigid and monocultural in that he required every nation to repent of their idols, but that does not make the insult true.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-29T09:20:04.743" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8735" CreationDate="2012-07-29T10:17:31.603" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Argument in Favor&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It produces better quality work. If Christian authors have to support their families by themselves, writing becomes of secondary importance to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul was supported by the donations of various Churches on his trips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 11:9 ... the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied&#xA;  what I needed.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 8:3 ... they gave as much as they were able, ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without their help he might not have been able to focus on his preaching work as well as he did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Argument Against&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Publishing books and magazines has become a lucrative business.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 2:16 Then he told those who were selling the doves, &quot;Take these&#xA;  things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not uncommon to see Christian authors and ministers go around in private jets asking for charities for the Lord's work. Maybe hidden somewhere in there is a clue to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastActivityDate="2012-07-29T10:17:31.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8742" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8754" CreationDate="2012-07-29T16:10:18.213" Score="11" ViewCount="37727" Body="&lt;p&gt;When and how did Martin Luther arrive at the justification by faith teaching? Was it something that he came up with as a result of his stance against the indulgences and later against the Pope, or did he arrive at this teaching even prior to those events? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastActivityDate="2017-10-28T02:11:54.093" Title="When and how did Martin Luther arrive at the justification by faith?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;justification&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8743" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-29T17:13:17.520" Score="21" ViewCount="9310" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's pretty universally accepted that God is wholly good.  Indeed, many sources, including lots of answers on this website, are based on the belief that God is the perfect standard of goodness.  God is also widely believed to hate evil, hence why transgression from His perfect standard of goodness (sin) is taken so seriously and required such amazing grace to save His people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in church this morning we were looking through 1 Samuel 16 and verse 14 alarmed me somewhat:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 16:14&lt;/strong&gt; Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and &lt;em&gt;an evil spirit from the Lord&lt;/em&gt; tormented him. (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would never have believed that an evil/harmful spirit could be from God had I not seen it in the bible.  On further investigation, it appears there are several other examples in the bible of God purposefully bringing evil things into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 45:7&lt;/strong&gt; I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Amos 3:6&lt;/strong&gt; Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?  Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Thessalonians 2:11&lt;/strong&gt; And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd always been told that God may allow us to be exposed to evil but doesn't bring it upon us Himself.  This is clearly false in light of the above.  It's therefore also possible that evil is God's will, which is particularly disappointing and devastating to one's faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone please offer any explanation as to how a totally-good God can create evil deliberately and still remain holy and righteous?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1913" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-05-22T03:53:35.677" Title="How can a Wholly Good God Deliberately Create Evil?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;theodicy&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8742" CreationDate="2012-07-29T17:45:34.237" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Luther's own testimony, it was after an in depth study of Romans. Romans 1:17 in particular (often called Paul's thesis statement for the book of Romans) says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That last line (from Habakkuk) convinced Luther that no work of man, and hence no religious decree of the Church, trumped Faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-07-30T13:45:51.327" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T13:45:51.327" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8735" CreationDate="2012-07-29T20:32:30.603" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Both of the currently existing responses answer the question well. This response looks specifically at some of the costs associated with modern book publishing.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Book publishing is a massive industry, and it takes a significant number of people to bring a book to market. There are authors, editors, marketers, executives, administrators, accountants, lawyers (copyright &amp;amp; otherwise), HR departments, clerical staff, printers, supply chain logistics companies (distribution centers, warehouses, trucks, etc.), individual booksellers, and more. Each of them is integral to the process of getting content from the author's thoughts to the customers' shopping carts in a modern economy, and each of them needs to cover their own costs and make a profit, so that the people involved can pay their mortgages and put food on the table. Think about the number of people necessarily involved in producing a title that sells several million copies and is eventually translated into multiple languages for distribution around the world.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we do find cases of contemporary resources being provided gratis, it usually has been made possible by a sizable donation contributed by a wealthy individual or a financially successful ministry, sometimes in the form of the author's own ministry selling the item at or below cost. As economist Milton Freidman was fond of saying, &quot;There's no such thing as a free lunch&quot; -- that is, even when something is nominally &quot;free,&quot; it took work to produce it, and somewhere, somebody either donated their own work, or payment was made by a benefactor on behalf of the end recipient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also worth taking note of the extent to which the &quot;e-reader revolution&quot; -- the Kindle, Nook, etc., as well as fully functional tablet computers -- is causing massive disruption in the publishing industry. Profit margins are being decimated, there's an ongoing antitrust investigation into Apple and Amazon re price setting on e-books, and on and on. Several magazines have recently moved to online-only format because it's the only way they can stay viable in the face of competition from blogs that have next to no overhead and can fund their efforts entirely though advertising; SmartMoney Magazine is one recent example. Online publishing has effected Christian teaching ministries in that it has made it possible to provide resources to the public &quot;for free,&quot; while incurring significantly fewer costs than would be involved in publishing the same material in print form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of that being said, I agree with Mike's statement: Many of the best resources are long out of copyright, and are available &quot;free.&quot; See, for example, the great resources available at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/index/title&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christian Classics Ethereal Library,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; paid for by the generous folks at Calvin College. The majority of the resources there are centuries old. It says something about the quality of a book when it is still being read and studied hundreds, even thousands of years after it was written, and in fact, we still know many of the authors by name -- Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Augustine, Aquinas, Josephus, Tertullian, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* If it's not too far off topic, here's a fascinating video where economist Milton Freidman explains how free markets encourage peaceful cooperation between many different people to create products that none could produce on their own: &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/4ERbC7JyCfU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Lesson of the Pencil&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. If you watch the video, just think about a book instead of a pencil; the principle still applies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2012-07-30T05:30:44.483" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T05:30:44.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8746" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-29T21:48:37.013" Score="8" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Servetus Controversy&quot; tells of a man named Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake for heresy -- not by Roman Catholic Inquisitors, but by Protestants in 16th century Geneva, France.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calvin.edu/meeter/resources/servetus.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Here&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is a brief description of the event in a document at Calvin.edu, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/h7-YQ9WZmw8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;here&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is a link to a Youtube video of a panel of Calvinist pastors discussing the topic at a conference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are there any authoritative historic documents that shed further light on what Calvin's involvement may have been?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-22T20:44:32.827" LastActivityDate="2015-09-22T20:44:32.827" Title="The Servetus Controversy: What was Calvin's involvement?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8748" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8749" CreationDate="2012-07-30T03:24:05.050" Score="8" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been under the impression that Christ's teaching is very much along the way of &quot;Christ is the only path.&quot; If so, what's going on in this passage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:49-50&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 9:49–50&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;49&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;50&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this mysterious individual casting out devils without being a follower of Christ, and how is Jesus implying that this mysterious fellow is an ally?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-12-28T22:59:57.263" LastActivityDate="2016-12-28T22:59:57.263" Title="How can Luke 9:49–50 be reconciled with the idea that Christ is the only way?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8748" CreationDate="2012-07-30T07:25:13.017" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In verse 49, as you have quoted it, this fellow is casting out demons &lt;em&gt;in Jesus' name.&lt;/em&gt; As such, Jesus is still the one and only Way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' point here is not that there is another name under heaven by which men can be saved, but rather that just because someone is 'not part of the group' doesn't mean they can't be a follower of Christ. In other words, it could be a support for the notion that &lt;strong&gt;Jesus is more important than the Institution that proclaims him.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, it is much like Paul's admonition in Phillippians, where he says he doesn't care whether Christ is preached out of selfish ambitions or good ones, &lt;em&gt;as long as Christ is preached&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-07-31T13:05:36.590" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T13:05:36.590" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8750" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8755" CreationDate="2012-07-30T09:40:37.963" Score="7" ViewCount="11681" Body="&lt;p&gt;What view of the tribulation do Calvinists generally tend to take?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am aware of the eschatology espoused in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Westminister Confession&lt;/a&gt; , but I don't see anything related to the tribulation there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason that I ask for a &quot;Calvinist perpective of Tribulation&quot; is that I believe in pre-destination / TULIP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know if this belief supports / contradicts certain views of the tribulation, and would like to better understand this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, what is the Calvinist perpective on the tribulation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="31596" LastEditorDisplayName="user1694" LastEditDate="2018-03-22T03:38:01.713" LastActivityDate="2018-03-22T03:38:01.713" Title="What is the Calvinist Perspective on the Tribulation" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;premillennialism&gt;&lt;tribulation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8751" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-30T10:17:52.343" Score="9" ViewCount="178" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard a religious definition of death as separation from God. This makes the death of Christ--God himself--a matter of incomprehensible existential crisis. Adding to this the imputation of sin on the Son, and the wrath of the Father poured out on him, it makes me wonder if this event does not affect the relationship of the members of the trinity in some permanent way. Is there any evidence of this in scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2012-08-01T03:52:42.577" Title="Did the cross permanently affect the intra-trinitarian relationship?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8751" CreationDate="2012-07-30T10:38:51.350" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Phillippians 2 says that because of Jesus' death, God the Father exalted Jesus. As 2:9 specifically says (and note the &lt;em&gt;therefore&lt;/em&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore God exalted him to the highest place&#xA;      and gave him the name that is above every name, &#xA;   that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, &#xA;      in heaven and on earth and under the earth, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This theme is picked up by Athanasius, in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm&quot;&gt;De Incarnacione&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. His soteriology says our redemption was a gift that the Father gave the Son for his willingness to go through this separation. It's probably my favorite theory of how salvation works. The idea is that being God, both God the Father and God the Son already had everything. But out of an abundance of love, God the Father gave God the Son the opportunity to redeem that which was lost.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-07-30T13:20:46.157" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T13:20:46.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8635" CreationDate="2012-07-30T11:12:24.990" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original context of &quot;No man knows the day or the hour&quot; was exactly so that people would not think Christ's return was far off. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a man knew when the strongman was coming to break into the house...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Jesus told other parables to warn people that they needed to be ready:&#xA;The parable of the foolish virgins (the one where 5 of the virgins use up all their oil) is but one example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, it is actually just as counter biblical to say &quot;Christ cannot return until &lt;strong&gt;__&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; as it is to say, he will be here on Tuesday. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T11:12:24.990" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8742" CreationDate="2012-07-30T13:41:45.513" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;First to understand the background to the story that Luther recalls,  &lt;strong&gt;Luther used to hate Romans 1:17&lt;/strong&gt;. He struggled with this verse in particular, and the phrase 'God's righteousness' in particular, because he always read it in the sense which it was preached by the Catholic theologians at the time. At that time this verse was understood as the &amp;quot;formal or active righteousness&amp;quot; with which &amp;quot;God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner.&amp;quot; In other words, Luther while believing in God and having some faith in Christ struggled with Romans 1:17 before his 'confidence burst' and his faith began to posses him more violently. This is why Romans 1:17 is brought up in his recollections but actually plays little part in his explaining his actual beliefs later on. This he did, regarding justification by faith, most fully in his lectures on Galatians, although Romans as a whole still held an important place as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;His experience or turning point in breaking through on his understanding of Romans 1:17 is referred to as his 'Tower Experience' because  it occurred in the tower of the Black Cloister in Wittenberg (later Luther’s home) at an undetermined date between 1508 and 1518.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther, before overcoming his doubts about Romans 1:17, used to think 'God's  righteousness' in the gospel 'was revealed', not in giving perfect righteousness freely to sinners forever apart from the fact they were sinners, but in punishing sinners and rewarding the righteous.  Luther, originally as a monk, viewed the gospel as an extension of the law, not a way to find freedom from its curse. Only later did he discover that a person is saved by faith, without works of the law entering into the equation.  He always saw that faith produced many works, but not allowing those works to take part in the subject of justification, where we 'passively receive' righteousness as a gift, apart from our own merit, was something he learned later on. I think the Romans 1:17 'tower experience' that he had was probably during his lectures on Romans which began in the year 1516.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before this experience He says he had faith but it was not clear yet:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a long time I went astray [in the monastery] and didn’t know what I was about. To be sure, I knew something, but I didn’t know what it was until I came to the text in Romans 1 [:17], ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ That text helped me. There I saw what righteousness Paul was talking about.82 Earlier in the text I read ‘righteousness.’ I related the abstract [‘righteousness’] with the concrete [‘the righteous One’] and became sure of my cause. I learned to distinguish between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of the gospel. I lacked nothing before this except that I made no distinction between the law and the gospel. I regarded both as the same thing and held that there was no difference between Christ and Moses except the times in which they lived and their degrees of perfection. But when I discovered the proper distinction—namely, that the law is one thing and the gospel is another—I made myself free.” (Luther's Works, Volume 54, P442).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; In 1545, he describes his own experience at greater length. He seems to take a longer view if it, like a growing faith and struggle that begins by referring to his days as a monk, his weak faith in his earlier days as a Biblical Professor and finally his overwhelming sense of what Romans 1:17 really meant. He recalled these experiences  when describing the events that occurred in the year 1519 when he got into trouble with the Pope. To understand at what point in his thinking 1519 occurs it is helpful to know that Luther first lectured on Romans at around the year 1516, he also lectured a preliminary version of Galatians and Hebrews shortly after this time. However, he did not lecture on Galatians, formally, in the format in which they were published, until around 1531. It took around 16 years for his faith to really explode in the form of Galatians, long after he had kicked the hornets nest in Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, this gripping realization of justification by faith made him revisit his old lectures and begin to rewrite them as early as 1519. It is just before this time that he made his breakthrough in the 'tower experience'. Removing his misunderstanding of that verse, his faith seems to have broke into a full confidence and the verse that used to trouble him became an anchor that symbolized his overwhelming conviction that began slowly years before and grew more and more years later. Here we find he began to revise his work on the Psalms in 1519 and his breakthrough over his doubts about Romans Chapter 1:17 that had 'stood in his way' until this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, I had already during that year returned to interpret the Psalter anew. I had confidence in the fact that I was more skilful, after I had lectured in the university on St. Paul’s epistles to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the one to the Hebrews. I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart,but a single word in Chapter 1[:17], “In it the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.  (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.  (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He continues to explain the effects of his experience about Romans 1:17 and how he later found additional support through Augustine. He  already had his doctorate in theology in October 19, 1512 and may seem strange that he did not encounter Augustine's work on the subject until years later, but it is a very specific one which Luther mentions, called 'The Spirit and the Letter.' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine’s The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God’s righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although this was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God’s righteousness with which we are justified was taught. Armed more fully with these thoughts, I began a second time to interpret the Psalter. And the work would have grown into a large commentary, if I had not again been compelled to leave the work begun, because Emperor Charles V in the following year convened the diet at Worms.49. (Luther's Works, Volume 34, P336-337).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The truth is although Romans was the place where he made his initial breakthrough it was not the place where his faith finally rested on. For this we must turn to Galatians.  In fact Luther hardly has any comments at all under Chapter 1:7 in his works on Romans, but in every verse of Galatians, Luther uses as one more opportunity to pound and pound away at the doctrine that changed his life forever. No bible commentary on any book in the Bible since can pretend in any way to have had the same impact on the world.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result of the revolutionary changes in Luther and his dramatic growing faith is there is a problem with Luther's Works in that he had to re-write many things and where the need was not urgent he seems to have left them as they were.  Romans is a little thin on doctrine compared to Galatians, as he wrote it years before, it is also was not needing much revision, so Luther probably found most of it still acceptable to him even under his enlarged views years later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His commentary on Galatians was when he was crystal clear in 1531 and he does not seem to have had enough time to fully rewrite everything before to measure up to his final stage of assurance and knowledge.  Therefore regarding the timing of his understanding of the doctrine that in many ways resulted in the Protestant church, I would say that his faith was crystallized around 1517 with Romans and from there it grew until it exploded with Galatians in 1531.  He seems to have hung his faith not on Romans at all by this point. Galatians was his eventual favorite work and the essential Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For anyone interested in reading Luther, He wrote his works on Genesis after Galatians so they are not in any need up of updating at all and are a good place to start after Galatians. Some of his earlier works however must be viewed and even possibly corrected by comparing them to Galatians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;After all his years Luther clearly favored his writing on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians&lt;/a&gt; above all else. I am sure he would have instantly agreed to the burning of all his books if he might keep his work on Galatians. It is here where you find Luther's views in the doctrine of salvation by faith, apart from works. One can't understand Luther at all without reading it. Anyone who has read it will understand why. I challenge anyone interested in Luther to read his work on Galatians in order to begin to understand him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther described his relation to the epistle in more vivid terms. “The Epistle to the Galatians,” he once said at table, “is my epistle, to which I am betrothed. It is my Katie von Bora.”  (Luther's Works, Volume 26, Introduction)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-29T04:05:56.823" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8750" CreationDate="2012-07-30T14:06:55.930" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Calvinists and someone who has mostly read books from the 1500 to 1700s I have never encountered any other view beside Christ's second coming as the end of the world.   In other words there is no talk about a rapture other than the final one at the end of the world. (I am not saying there is none to be found, just that among the main Calvanists leaders I have never encountered it). Sorry I have not listened to the audio you linked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I have noticed in reading old commentaries for around 30 years now, is that there is a general expectation that we will one day experience a great revival and this will be related to the Jews accepting Christ as their Savior. (Romans 11:25) Not all believe this but it is a strong trend, especially with someone like Jonathan Edwards.  Secondly, I have noticed a general common trend that when Christ does return there will be few Christians on the earth, and that after the revival, their will be a great Apostasy before he comes.  This is typically associated with Christ saying the world will be 'like the days of Noah' during the second coming. (Mathew 24:37)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What this final tribulation means, someone like Edwards is again a good reference and he sees it as the world surrounding the church and ready to persecute it but actually before any real harm is done Christ returns to save the church and judge the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In summary a common reformed idea is that a great revival will occur in Christianity most likely caused by the shock of the majority of Jewish people turning to Christianity.  This great time might continue for a long period, but then suddenly the church will fall away during some unknown generation.  This will trigger the world to unite against Christians in the most apocalyptic way, but before any real action is made, Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not provided proofs to my answer as it would begin to amass a very long post, I am only speaking from the point of being a Calvinists and having read many thousands of pages of Luther, Calvin, John Owen and Jonathan Edwards, which represent very key leaders of Calvinism through the period of 1500-1800. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure if this is of any help to you, but that is all I can really say about end times tribulation from a traditional perspective. Matthew Henry seems to do a pretty good job in capturing typical views in his commentary on Revelation if you would like more detailed accounts on end times perspectives from standard historical Calvinists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I should add, once we leave the 'traditional Calvinists' around the late 1700 and early 1800s and arrive at modern day Churches, many who are Calvanistic in their view of salvation do not hold traditional views about a symbolic millennium. In stead many believe in a literal millennium and tribulation with a rapture before or after and whatever other possible combination. In this sense a Calvinistc view can be anything even though Calvin himself thought the idea of a literal millennium as 'too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-07-30T16:17:52.230" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T16:17:52.230" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8756" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8763" CreationDate="2012-07-30T14:29:42.810" Score="13" ViewCount="2869" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have consistently heard rumors that the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics will be reconciling at some point (at least to the point of Catholics being able to receive Orthodox sacraments). Sometimes the rumors are that it will happen &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/28/orthodox-church-elects-modernizer-as-patriarch/&quot;&gt;during a reigning patriarch&lt;/a&gt;, but other voices among the Orthodox have suggested that such a gesture is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athos_popevisit2006.aspx&quot;&gt;impossibility&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. So, which is it? Is reconciliation possible (and close), or will things continue as they have for nearly a millennium?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-02-02T18:54:31.017" LastActivityDate="2014-06-10T06:30:31.097" Title="Is Roman Catholic reconciliation with the Orthodox likely (or possible)?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8756" CreationDate="2012-07-30T15:39:36.207" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic understanding is that the lack of reconciliation is due to a lack of love when Catholic and Orthodox share in full all doctrines that would make full communion appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox position is that there is much more than the clause in the Creed and Catholics are saying, in effect, &quot;Let us restore communion despite our unresolved differences.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is my own experience that Catholics who seek reconciliation &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; seek to resolve the unreconciled differences or otherwise acknowledge what they have to repent of for any &lt;em&gt;appropriate&lt;/em&gt; reconciliation to be possible. The Orthodox experience here is kind of like the Catholic experience when Anglicans or Baptists want to share the chalice without changing any of their doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(See my own &lt;a href=&quot;http://JonathansCorner.com/ecumenism/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Open Letter to Catholics on Orthodoxy and Ecumenism&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1917" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T15:39:36.207" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2012-07-30T16:40:34.800" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is not that different from God hardening Pharaohs heart.  It has never personally bothered me though many other things have. They way many take this is simply that for sin, God often punished sinners by heading them over to greater sin.  God can't properly temp men to sin or directly create sin, or cause more sin, but indirectly through sinful men, and sinful demons, he can arrange it so that sinners are given over to greater sins.  It is more like He withdraws himself from sinners as a punishment.  Even his holy laws are said to increase sin indirectly on account of mans sinfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the scripture as you have quoted, also describes this withdrawal in an active sense indicating the punishment.  This means God withdraws his mercy in a particular way designed to accomplish his providential will.  The same applies to his hardening Pharaoh's heart.  If a man deserves eternal burning is it really a surprise that God might postpone that eternal punishment and use lesser forms of punishment to accomplish his will? Even for those he loves, is it not possible that God allows us to be tempted, in order that our sins might be exposed that would otherwise remain hidden in our hearts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole notion implied is fairly standard in terms of describing God's management of sinners in this world. Paul makes specific arguments about why the world has become so wicked, partly because God punishes sin with more sin. Yet God is not the tempter but sin is drawn out of sinners because the desire is already there and temptation is loved before it is encountered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.&#xA;  26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.&#xA;  28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. (NIV Romans 1:24-28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must not think of God tempting sinners when he allows their sinful dreams to come true, and arranges things in order to draw out their lusts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full- grown, gives birth to death. (NIV James 1:13-15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see men sin, and men cause sin, but God can judge it by giving sinners over to their bondage under the Devil who is their rightful master while they remain cursed and slaves of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T16:40:34.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2012-07-30T17:17:20.507" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Isaiah and Amos, this is an issue in translation.  The Hebrew word for &quot;evil&quot; is [ra'].  This word also means: bad, spoiled, calamity, hurt, trouble, etc.   So [ra'] could be used to both describe spoiled milk, and a city leveled by an earthquake.  In english evil is evil.  You wouldn't call spoiled milk evil, you would say it is bad, or spoiled.  In Hebrew it's the same word translated differently.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the scriptures you referenced there are some good resources on the web to explain those.  I will provide some excerpts here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these,&quot; (Isaiah 45:5-7).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Notice that the context of the verse is dealing with who God is, that it is God who speaks of natural phenomena (sun, light, dark), and it is God who is able to cause &quot;well-being&quot; as well as &quot;calamity.&quot; Contextually, this verse is dealing with natural disasters and human comfort issues. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc. This is consistent with other scriptures&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?&quot; (Amos 3:6).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Also, take note that Isaiah is presenting contrasts. He speaks of &quot;light&quot; and &quot;darkness,&quot; &quot;well being&quot; and &quot;calamity.&quot;  The word &quot;well-being&quot; in the Hebrew is the word for 'peace,' &quot;Shalome.&quot;  So, in the context, we are seeing two sets of opposites: Light and dark, peace and non-peace, or well being and calamity. The &quot;evil&quot; that is spoken of is not ontological evil, but the evil experienced by people in the form of calamity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again here we are dealing with the proper translation of [ra'].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the verse from Samuel once the spirit of the Lord was no longer with him, he was open to evil spirits and God allowed the spirit to take possession of Saul.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;when the Bible says that the “distressing spirit” that troubled Saul was “from the Lord,” the writer was using an idiom to indicate that the Lord allowed or permitted the distressing spirit to come upon Saul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1869" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T17:17:20.507" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8761" CreationDate="2012-07-30T17:49:18.797" Score="1" ViewCount="1305" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the Trinity considered Homoousios in spirit only or also in matter?  We are taught that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  That would be a problem if Jesus was Homoousios physically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2017-05-05T17:56:37.747" LastActivityDate="2017-05-05T17:56:37.747" Title="Is the Trinity, particularly Jesus, considered Homoousios in spirit only or also in matter?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8760" CreationDate="2012-07-30T18:03:30.370" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible specifically reveals God as &lt;em&gt;spirit&lt;/em&gt;, that is, not physical (John 4:23).  So, Jesus took on flesh (the physical dimension), but this was something new.  God--the Father, Son, and Spirit0--exist outside of the physical universe.  God created the physical universe, so He cannot be inside the physical universe.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no, Jesus took on flesh, but neither the Father nor the Spirit did so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that the law that states matter can be neither created nor destroyed is a &lt;em&gt;natural&lt;/em&gt; law and applies to natural things.  Obviously, when God created the heavens and the earth, matter was created.  This was done supernaturally.  So, we have to make sure we apply natural laws only to natural processes and not force them upon God.  Jesus certainly was not bound by natural law when He fed the 5,000, raised the dead, healed the blind and many other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T18:03:30.370" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8746" CreationDate="2012-07-30T18:18:00.383" Score="2" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Calvin's involvement&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin's involvement and even leadership in having a man guilty of heresy put to death according to the civil laws of his day does not seem something that can be denied based on his personal letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the one most often quoted as the strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shows he openly admitted his involvement and direct leadership in the affair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;My opinion on Calvin's sinfulness&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the question is not whether Calvin sinned or not, for he should have sought to remove the ability of the sate to punish heretics, but rather how big was his sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is difficult for us to imagine a world where heretics were considered just like thieves and murderers liable to capital punishment as under the Old Testament. This does not excuse Calvin at all in my mind, but when we cast the first stone we are probably just as guilty ourselves in the unwarranted anger we have had against our neighbors.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (NIV Matthew 5:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sins of the world at that time appeared to have infected Calvin. I do not think we can defend him, or overly judge him. After all Calvin was just a man, and though pretty clever, I have never imagined him the most holy. I find him sometimes precocious and annoying on a personal level.  Even though I agree with much of what he wrote, I often feel as though I would not have liked him personally. Luther I feel I would have loved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say this a a long-term Calvinist who is not really surprised or bothered in finding out Calvin's guilt in this matter. We sometimes romanticize church leaders above the realm of sin, and clearly such views of men are ungodly. Furthermore at a time in history so different from our own, we need not fall into shock over their failings.  They would probably faint if they had a glimpse into the great sins of our generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose some might not like my indifferent attitude but it comes from a man that believes in the total depravity of human nature, even more than Calvin. The sin of anyone does not surprise someone as skeptical as me, neither do I believe those who claim to be so much holier than Calvin and ready to 'cast the first stone.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's keep in mind the greatest sin is rejecting the love of God in the gospel, either by our doctrine or by our actions. Servetus probably did it both ways, every day, but Calvin also failed terribly in some of his actions also, especially in this one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it help to recall that King David was more guilty in his sin, as he first slept with the man's wife before 'arranging' his murder?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-22T20:39:16.707" LastActivityDate="2015-09-22T20:39:16.707" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8756" CreationDate="2012-07-30T19:02:36.177" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;As to the differences from a Catholic man's perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The metaphysical dispute over the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque&quot;&gt;Filioque&lt;/a&gt;, wherein is asked &quot;whence comes The Holy Spirit&quot;?  A Catholic person says, when reciting the Nicene Creed, that The Holy Spirit &quot;proceeds from The Father and The Son&quot;.  Unofficially, this wording brings to mind the theory of procession put forth by St. Augustine (namely that The Father's contemplation of Himself is ontologically creative, becoming The Son; and that The Love between The Father and The Son is similarly ontologically creative, becoming The Holy Spirit).  The Orthodox Church would see this formulation as diminishing the fullness of Godhood of The Holy Spirit, feeling that it subordinates The Holy Spirit to The Son and The Father---that is making Him less than co-equal with Them.  The Catholic Church would deny that this is the intent of the formulation as adopted by Her, although it allows the formulation of St. Augustine as a perfectly valid one.  More fruitful discussions between the two Churches has centered on asking what Each means by &quot;comes&quot; in the question &quot;whence comes The Holy Spirit?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Furthermore, the Orthodox Church is quite upset that the Catholic Church unilaterally decided to insert &quot;and The Son&quot; into the Nicene creed, when it was not there before.  They believe that modifications to the ancient creeds can only be done through the participation in an Ecumenical Council.  In fact, one of the Popes in the Middle Ages agreed with this complaint from the Orthodox Church, but was ineffective in changing the practice of the West.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;On Church governance &amp;amp; the role of the Pope vs. Bishops.  Both Churches could fully agree, in principle, that the Bishop of Rome is &quot;first among equals&quot; regarding his relationship to other Bishops.  But whereas the Catholic Church emphasizes &quot;first&quot; and regards this designation to mean that the Pope has &quot;ordinary and immediate&quot; jurisdiction over every parish (bypassing the Bishops altogether, in principle), the Orthodox Church emphasizes &quot;equals&quot;, and thereby would place supremacy over the faithful on their Bishop, regarding the designation &quot;first among equals&quot; as a matter of honour only.  Thus, the Orthodox Church sees the Pope's claim to supreme governance as a power grab which diminishes the dignity and office of the Bishop.  It doesn't help matters at all that, historically, the Orthodox Church has felt slighted, disrespected in their laws and traditions, and imposed upon by the Pope over the centuries.  While the Catholic Church firmly defends the prerogatives of the Pope's power of governance, She denies that such exercise diminishes the dignity and office of the Bishop, and continues to uphold that the office of the Pope (when it comes to governance) is a necessity of the communion of Bishops, and that the Pope is only the &quot;first among equals&quot;.  The difference in governance which causes so much ecumenical trouble between these two Churches can be summarized as the difference between a monarchical republic versus a true confederacy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Cultural&quot; differences.  For these two Churches to be united, they must agree that they follow the same Faith of times immemorial.  From the Catholic perspective, this is easy enough: except for questions of the filioque, they see themselves as following the same Faith (that is, the same teaching).  On the other hand, the Orthodox Church places a great deal of more emphasis on liturgy as part of Faith than the Catholic Church does.  To the Orthodox Church, if a liturgy is recent, it is inferior.  To them, the best liturgies are the ones that go back to eons ago, and if possible, to the very beginning.  They barely put up with liturgical translations. They see the Catholic Church as having succumbed to the times in adopting novel---and therefore not good---things in their liturgy (beginning with the filioque in the Middle Ages and continuing to the recent changes in their liturgies to make them &quot;more modern&quot;).  If the Catholic Church is seen as parochial for trying to keep a semblance of homogeneous liturgical practice by other Christian groups, then they certainly have not taken a good look at the Orthodox Church.  Thus, to achieve union between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, these issues of &quot;culture&quot; wherein the Catholic Church is seen as &quot;modernist&quot; by the orthodox Church must also be resolved.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is it likely that these two Churches will reunite?  It is the hope and prayer of every Catholic person that they will.  It should be the hope and prayer of every Christian that 'all [Christians] may be one', such as The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are.  At the same time, both of these Churches do believe that a union without a consensus on the deep issues that divide them is artificial, and not a real union at all.  Thus, they both believe that they need to work on these fundamental issues beforehand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And herein lies one of the problems.  For, while the Pope can speak for all Catholic Bishops, ratifying their declarations, there is no one in the Orthodox Church that can similarly speak for everyone.  If, and when, reunification takes place, there will always be a substantial amount of Orthodox Bishops which will renounce the reunion as heretical and will refuse to reunite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another problem: there are some teachings that the Catholic Church deems as irrefutable, due to the dogma of infallibility.  To go back on these teachings would amount to a declaration that the Catholic Church is not infallible, which I fear She cannot do.  The best The Catholic Church can do is to recast (re-explain) those same infallible teachings on a new light, perhaps making it logically possible to come to a formulation of the teaching which is also acceptable to the Orthodox Church.  Given that both Churches have very gifted and careful theologians who feel themselves in the right, it is very difficult to see how this might be possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THEREFORE, what are the chances that both Churches would unite?  Very unlikely, if you ask me.  History may force them to reunite (and force them to work out those differences), if a world-wide effective persecution of both Churches should occur, but other than that, all we can do is hope and pray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1919" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-07-30T19:10:36.210" LastActivityDate="2012-07-30T19:10:36.210" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2012-07-30T19:29:56.977" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I struggled with this for many years until I read the book of Romans 9:12-23.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially, these verses say it all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he&#xA;  will he hardeneth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who&#xA;  hath resisted his will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the&#xA;  thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is what I discovered&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) God knows the end from the beginning but we are short-sighted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The children of Israel suffered at the hands of Pharaoh for almost&#xA;400 years IN AGONY and GREAT PAINS for the sins they did not commit.&#xA;But God was preparing them for the coming of Moses and the great&#xA;salvation. The result is PASSOVER is one of the memorable event in the&#xA;history of Israel. They actually learn in the end how great God is._&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Joseph went through difficult times so he could be positioned to fulfil the&#xA;prophechy of God by bringing Israel into the land of Egypt to suffer though he was not aware of it_&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The evil spirit on Saul: may be God want David to be brought to the palace somehow to fulfil some kind of purpose e.g. being close to the throne he would inherit, learning the ways of the palace or royal people, being friend with Jonathan who made a significant impact in his life later, I can't say._&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) If you are not the chosen you are in trouble because you will be used to service the chosen. Imagine the number of people God destroyed and sent out of their lands for the children of Israel to occupy - that is not fair in human reasoning&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) This kind of overlap with No.2: We are nothing and worthless, we are his properties, but it is God who decides to place importance on us. So he decides what to do with us whenever he wishes. &lt;em&gt;That is the essence of grace&lt;/em&gt; That is why the first might become the last and we need to pray for God to have mercy. Our righteousness cannot save us it is only God's mercy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 9:20&lt;/strong&gt; Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) In the case of Pharaoh: God wants to bring the Greatest glory to himself among the gentiles and for his people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 9:22&lt;/strong&gt; What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath&#xA;  fitted to destruction&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5) Some position themselves for destruction. We position ourselves for destruction when we endlessly struggle with God/Holy Spirit. That is seen in the case of Ahab when the lying spirit was sent to him. He wanted to hear sweet words and he even tried to bribe/cajole Micaiah to speak sweet words. You need to read the passage carefully&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Chronicles 18&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might enquire of him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man,&#xA;  by whom we may enquire of the Lord: but I hate him; for he never&#xA;  prophesied good unto me, but always evil&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to this (and Thessalonians 2:11) was in &#xA;(verse 10) &lt;em&gt;and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved&lt;/em&gt; which you overlooked&#xA;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Micaiah knew he wanted sweet words but he finally told the truth which the king did not take.&lt;/strong&gt; 14 And when he was come to the king,&#xA;  the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramothgilead to&#xA;  battle, or shall I forbear? And he said, Go ye up, and prosper, and&#xA;  they shall be delivered into your hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The king was trying to influence the prophet to speak sweet words but he knew it should never be so he pressed him&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And the king said to him, How many times shall I adjure thee that&#xA;  thou say nothing but the truth to me in the name of the Lord?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is the case of Judas. Judas already fit the profile of destruction so he was chosen. He was covetous and loved money. He was tempted by money to betray Jesus because he had the tendency. When the woman with the alabaster box was ministering to Jesus, Judas was concerned about how much the oil and the box worth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several other verses but if I had to speak more on this it will span multiple pages. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might not be the best answer but I hope you could pick some points from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God bless you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-07-31T10:51:51.213" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T10:51:51.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8765" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-30T22:11:05.380" Score="8" ViewCount="516" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard both of these claims, and they seem to have irreconcilable differences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God does his part (the call/invitation), now you do yours (respond in faith)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God not only gave his son for you, but he will give you the faith to believe it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm less interested here in the broader question of the doctrine of election; I'm focusing specifically on the second bullet point: is there scriptural evidence that faith is a gift or something that we receive from God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-30T23:19:38.860" LastActivityDate="2015-08-16T13:26:28.307" Title="What is the scriptural evidence that faith comes from God?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8765" CreationDate="2012-07-31T00:27:13.737" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a tough topic, because it really brings strong opinions. Typically, this amounts to a lot of heat and not a lot of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three common views of Justification and faith's role in it. As such, the source of said faith varies as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Justification by infused righteousness, such as is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm&quot;&gt;Roman Catholicism&lt;/a&gt;, says that an individual's will was weakened to the point of such frailty that they cannot shake the penalty and grip of sin. This is called original sin. A person (or that person's parents, deciding in their place) can choose to become regenerated by being Baptized. In this act, God has graciously infused righteousness within the individual and the nature of this righteousness is such that if God were not to honor this righteousness as worthy of saving the individual, then God would be unjust. So in this perspective, the individual has retained the capacity to have faith and the faith must originate from within him. This is contrasted with the paradigm of &lt;em&gt;imputed righteousness&lt;/em&gt; ,which is outlined in the next two points.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism#Similarities&quot;&gt;Classical Arminianism&lt;/a&gt; (and those traditions in the Wesleyan branch) holds that the individual's will is bound by sin to the point that the person cannot, under any circumstance, have saving faith in God. God quickens every single person to His word, and each individual has the power to reject this quickening and harden themselves or else receive Christ (called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace&quot;&gt;Prevenient Grace&lt;/a&gt;). In this perspective, the ability to overcome the fall and to have faith comes from God, but the faith comes from the individual (or at least the desire not to reject it, which seems functionally identical to me).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reformed Christianity (and to a large degree, Lutheranism) holds that the individual's will is bound by sin to the point that the person cannot, under any circumstance, have saving faith in God. Moreover, they see an inconsistency with Arminian theology in that if God quickens all people to the point that they can either receive or reject Christ without effects of the fall and original sin, then the reason why one believer chooses faith and another does not must be because of the individual himself. This means that there must be some &quot;island of&quot; righteousness within the individual that was unaffected by the fall (which they reject) or else God dispenses quickening grace inequitably (which they accept, but clarify that this inequitable nature is unfair but not unjust). Additionally, if faith is not a gift of God, it is considered a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faith-work/&quot;&gt;work&lt;/a&gt; and thus useless for salvation. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html&quot;&gt;The Pelagian Captivity of the Church&lt;/a&gt; is a long, but good read on the topic.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2012-07-31T01:20:17.123" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T01:20:17.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8765" CreationDate="2012-07-31T00:29:50.463" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;My position is that faith comes from God. Justification, the act whereby God pardons our sins and gives us the righteousness of Christ, is by grace through faith. There are a number of passages that illustrate this doctrine (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonah 2:9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I with the voice of thanksgiving&#xA;      will sacrifice to you;&#xA;    what I have vowed I will pay.&#xA;      &lt;strong&gt;Salvation belongs to the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; &lt;strong&gt;it is the gift of God&lt;/strong&gt;, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 4:19:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We love because he first loved us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this faith give to us by God is a living and active faith. It is no dead faith, but produces good works (obedience to the law). As James tells us, if the faith we have does not produce works, it is a dead faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastEditorUserId="1618" LastEditDate="2012-07-31T01:57:56.750" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T01:57:56.750" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8771" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8786" CreationDate="2012-07-31T01:55:56.437" Score="2" ViewCount="29546" Body="&lt;p&gt;The goal here is NOT to compare preachers/pastors, and create arguments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question came from the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I found a book on Amazon on a topic on Christianity that I like&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the author is Derek Prince&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I know nothing about the person&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I looked at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Prince&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, it's not obvious to me if this person is mainstream christianity or heretic&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To a first approximation, I don't know how to judge a book besides by the reputation of the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, I'm curious of how Derek Prince is viewed in mainstream Christianity (as compared to the likes of John Piper, John MacArthur, Paul Washer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-09-25T09:42:00.060" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T09:42:00.060" Title="How is Derek Prince viewed by mainstream Christianity" Tags="&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-10-25T12:25:05.170" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2012-07-31T02:11:52.487" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;So you're asking &quot;how&quot;. The best explanation I've heard is an analogy with Shakespeare writing the story &lt;em&gt;Macbeth&lt;/em&gt;. In the story, Macbeth kills the king. Now, in the context of the story, is Macbeth guilty for killing the king? Absolutely: he did it! Is Shakespeare guilty of killing the king? No, he didn't kill anyone. Could Macbeth have done differently? No, because that's the way Shakespeare wrote the story! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God ordains evil to happen (there's loads of verses here to support this, including ones you've pointed out and the Isaiah 45 passage that @dcreight mentioned), but is not Himself the author of it - that is, He is not guilty of evil Himself. It's this same kind of &quot;difference in level&quot; or &quot;difference in existence&quot; between God and man as there is between Shakespeare and Macbeth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastEditorUserId="1618" LastEditDate="2013-05-27T16:06:24.503" LastActivityDate="2013-05-27T16:06:24.503" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8760" CreationDate="2012-07-31T02:17:59.720" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a big difference between &quot;homoousios&quot;, which means &quot;same substance&quot;, and &quot;homoiousios&quot;, which means &quot;similar substance&quot;. It was precisely this difference that caused such a ruckus at the Nicene Counsel. Homoousios is the correct term as chosen in the Nicene Creed, and it refers to the spirit, since God is spirit and has not a body like men. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The divine nature of Jesus Christ is homoousios with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. The human nature of Jesus Christ is fully man, like anyone alive today, only without sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T02:17:59.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8735" CreationDate="2012-07-31T06:05:56.423" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because the Bible specifically commands it! :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 9:13-14, &quot;Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a practical level -- and I don't want to get into politics here, but I think this is pretty elementary economics -- you often hear people say how much better it would be if such-and-such was free, how then everyone could get as much of it as they wanted or needed, how the poor would have as much access to it as the rich, etc. This is not just incorrect, but the exact opposite of the truth. If something is required by law or custom to be given away for free, then no one gets very much of it at all, because the supply dries up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose that tomorrow Christians all agreed that all Christian books must be given away for free. The immediate result would be that the number of Christian books published would plummet. I suppose there are some writers who hope to get rich by writing Christian books, and some who see writing as a more pleasant job than digging ditches or whatever. You might say that these people cannot be very sincere in their faith and we're just as well to not have them writing anyway. (Though someone could write a good book from bad motives.) But consider event the truly dedicated writer, whose over-riding goal is to bring people to Christ or to help Christians better live their faith. Still, if he is not paid for his books, then he must get some other job to support himself and do his writing in his spare time. This is not easy. Many would never manage to finish their books. Some would do less study or research or editing to get it done and out. At best a writer could not complete as many books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose some rich person might support writers. But how many generous rich people are there out there who would take on such a project? And if we ended up with a small number of rich people sponsoring all the Christian writers, they would presumably only support writers whose ideas they agreed with. Maybe they'd even pressure writers to change the content of their books to get support. Even if this rich patron didn't actually say to writers, &quot;Change your book to support this doctrine that I believe in or I won't support you&quot;, still, if writers figure out that only authors who espouse certain doctrines get support, they might conclude they have no choice. I think that would be a very dangerous situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I have published a Christian book and I do not give it away for free. I've also published a computer book and I don't give that away for free either. I haven't sold anywhere near enough copies of either to enable me to quit my day job. So maybe I'm the worst of both worlds: I don't give my book away for free to help Christians regardless of their financial situation, but I also don't make enough money from it to be able to devote myself full-time to Christian ministry. On the other hand, the reason why I haven't written more books is because I don't have time while trying to work a full-time job and raise three kids as a single father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T06:05:56.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8778" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-31T07:33:19.193" Score="4" ViewCount="1230" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8765/from-whom-does-faith-come#comment24335_8769&quot;&gt;a comment conversation on another question&lt;/a&gt; I suspect (at the chastisement of my interlocutor) I may have misused the term &quot;synthetic theology&quot; (or, perhaps, theological synthesis?). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I had in mind that the term intends bringing together multiple passages to form a cohesive theology. Am I off-base here? What is meant by this term?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-07-09T19:09:16.713" Title="What is synthetic theology?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;systematic-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2012-07-31T07:55:51.770" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question I will try to answer is:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Can anyone please offer any explanation as to how a totally-good God can create evil deliberately and still remain holy and righteous?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will attempt to explain this from the point of Original Sin. This is becuse I myself struggled to understand this for some time and found that this can be explained better from that point of time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is difficult to understand the mind of God and we as humans are definetly far short of knowing His wisdom. Over the time, God has made himself known to mankind in various ways and but it is through Jesus that He demostrated His Kindness and His love towards His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the very beginning, man held a special and unique place in God’s creation as he was created &quot;in the image of God&quot;. In his own nature, man unites the spiritual and material worlds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God’s gift of free will.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created Adam and Eve with unique characteristics called free will and gave them a choice: to obey Him or disobey Him which is same as choosing good or evil.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is a personal being and the greatest passion of personal beings is the desire for personal relationships with other personal beings. Therefore, God, as a personal being, created us in such a way that He could have a meaningful, personal, and loving relationship with us. Nevertheless, this had a severe price.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise. If you have the capacity to, not to love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity and meaning. You cannot have a love relationship with a computer. It is pre-programmed to serve you. Without that choice, man would have been like puppets, able to do only what God wanted.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God therefore wanted to demonstrate his glory through humans, which had their own free will. When he receives the glory and obedience from humans in spite of having with them the free will, it is an immense satisfaction for Him. God expects that his most important creature would give greater glory to Him by remaining obedient, in spite of having free will with them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;But why God created evil?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not create evil as nothing evil can come from good God. Satan and other demons were at first good angels, created by God, but they became evil by their own doing. This &quot;fall&quot; also came from the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. Their aspiration was to become like God, which is reflected in the tempter's words to our first parents: &quot;You will be like God.&quot; It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. So we see that evil is a side effect of existence of free will and choice.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature - to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but &quot;we know that in everything, God works for good with those who love him.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why then did God do this when he knew in advance that the result of free will and evil would be so disastrous?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many questions comes to mind at this stage. Questions like Did this God of love not care that war, murder, rape and so much senseless violence would be the result of his choice to give us free will?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why an all-powerful God did not eliminate evil? Since the implication is that the removal of all evil would permit a better, more loving world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A truly loving God, would have desired and created such a world because it is clearly superior to the one we have.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any God that did not follow this logic was not a God of love, but an evil tyrant. &#xA;Answer is bit difficule as I have mentioned at the begining as we do not have the intellect to understand the almighty God. But a simple story I read comes close to explaining this mystery:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose a mother had three children and one of them died. If you could go back to the time before she had any children, with the knowledge that one of them would die this horrible death, would she attempt to have children?&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A mother would definitely say yes. Because, the love and the joy and the happiness that parents received from their children, far outweighs the pain, suffering and misery they experienced from the loss of that one child.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this there is an incredible insight as to why God allows free will and evil to exist. A loving God can allow an evil state of affairs to exist, since in allowing it to occur, it brings about an even better state of affairs.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because He is outside time and knows all things, He knew that there would be tremendous pain and suffering as a result of His decision to create a people with the capacity of choice and, consequently, the capacity to sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But God, like this mother, knew that the love He and his human creatures would experience, would outweigh the pain and suffering that would result from His decision to create us as He did. The consequences of God's decision were not unforeseen. They were foreknown!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moment evil is taken out from this world you also remove the choice from the nature of human. The existence of evil is the &quot;side effect&quot; of creating a world with a thirst for love.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A world possessing both evil and love, is far superior to a world where neither is possible. For God to eliminate evil, He would have to eliminate our capacity of choice and thus our capacity to do both evil and good. And such a world is inferior to the one we have: one where love is possible, despite its inherent evil. What kind of God would do this? Only one kind. A God of love.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;On the other hand, there is another question. Is God a &quot;limiting God&quot; and not omnipotent?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is based on flawed logic. It's the same logic flaw atheists use when they say, &quot;If God can do anything, can He create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?&quot; There are logical impossibilities and there are things God cannot do. (Lie, be wrong, learn, sin)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Finally, we come to the first instance of Adam’s disobedience to His creator. What is The tree of the knowledge, and why does God put it in the garden?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like putting your children in the backyard to play and saying, &quot;By the way, don't jump in the pit with the spikes lining the bottom that I dug in the back corner by the swing set, okay?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;God was giving a simple message to man: &quot;Evil&quot; is the things that you're not supposed to do, &quot;good&quot; is the things that you should do. The only thing you need to know about &quot;evil&quot; is don't eat from that tree.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam was in the state of original holiness whence he was not able to differentiate between good and evil for he was yet to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree. Adam is not able to differentiate between good and evil for his nature was such that he was not in a position to recognise the difference. It is like a computer, which is unable to recognise a PDF format of a file unless an adobe reader is installed on it. The computer knows that PDF file exists but will not execute it, because it does not have that capacity to recognise it. Adam knew that evil exists but he is neither able to recognise it nor he was able to execute it. Under these circumstances, neither God wants that Adam should know about the good and evil by forbidding him from eating that fruit and continue in his present state.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this, he has to only obey God’s commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree. But here also there is a glitch, because there was no way Adam could exercise his free will, in absence of his knowledge about good and evil and show his obedience to God. The only way God could know the obedience of Adam was to tell Adam not to eat from this tree, which would allow Him to know the free will choice of Adam about his obedience to Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a consequence of free will, God kept the CD containing the programme “Adobe Reader” (tree of knowledge) in the garden which will enable Adam to recognise the PDF file format (good and evil) and also allow him to execute the file with PDF extension. There are two aspects here. First – till the time Adam obeys God’s command and do not eat from this tree, he will exercise his free will and be obedient to God. Till that time this programme was not installed on Adam, he would not be able to read and execute this file (evil). The moment Adam disobeys God, Adam will exercise his free will and this programme will be installed on Adam and will recognise the good and evil as well as able to execute it (evil) also.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the fall, they were having a nature that made them to do only the good and the power to do evil was beyond their area of understanding. This understanding and the change of their nature would come only when they disobey God and eat the fruit from forbidden tree. With this, one obedience Adam was supposed to live a life doing everything good and not knowing or doing evil.  The obedience would have kept him barricaded from being dying.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources: Many and few of them are &#xA;www.y-jesus.com/  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;www.gotquestions.org/  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;www.khouse.org/  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;www.newadvent.org/bible/  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;PS. My apologies for this answer being so lenghty but I could not make it any more shorter, though I tried.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T07:55:51.770" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8778" CreationDate="2012-07-31T10:17:01.520" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, this is the same as &quot;systematic theology&quot;. Systematics looks at the Bible in a logical fashion, whereas biblical theology looks at the Bible in its revealed order and tries to make sense of the overarching flow and history of redemption. Many commentators believe that systematics has nothing to do with exegesis or biblical theology, but nothing could be further from the truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you start from the doctrine that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant, and inspired (which I do), and that they are the only ultimate rule for faith and practice, then I think the best way to think of both systematics and biblical theology is an ever-evolving, constantly re-calibrating synthesis of all understood passages in Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture (analogy of faith). Whenever a particular interpretation of a passage comes to be known as incorrect, you have to root out all misunderstandings based on that misinterpretation, and then incorporate the better interpretation into your systematics and biblical theology. Systematics and biblical theology both work this way. The difference is in the emphases and the order in which they go about looking at Scripture. a_hardin has posted a useful answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4000/what-is-the-difference-between-biblical-and-systematic-theology?rq=1&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that gets at what I'm saying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T10:17:01.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8781" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8908" CreationDate="2012-07-31T14:10:22.720" Score="4" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8757/1748&quot;&gt;comment&lt;/a&gt; by Mr. Hayword, the Sacred Heart was something which was originally opposed in Catholicism, but I have not found clear evidence of this, only a citation of an Anglican who cites Orthodox priests whose criticism are not undisputed (you might look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-latin-cultus-of-sacred-heart.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;comments here&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not provide analysis of WESTERN condemnation of the practice, though, or even Western censure. Does any such document exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-08-04T05:07:23.633" Title="Were Catholics originally offended by the Sacred Heart?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8748" CreationDate="2012-07-31T15:10:12.293" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are examples in the Bible of people go to God before the Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Kings 2:11 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is debatable as the Old Testament didn't really talk about people going to heaven.  And some people believe that the word should have been &quot;sky&quot; and not &quot;heaven&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, since Jesus, it is the Christian tradition that he is the only way.  There are several things that modern Christians sometimes forget.  Such as Jesus really preached about the now.  To be good people now, to love one another.  It wasn't to get into heaven, but to be a good creature for the creator among others.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, God did things to teach us a lesson.  If it were not already written, we may say these things were bad or from Satan since they were bad.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible also talks about other people with &quot;gifts&quot; such as interpreting dreams (Jacob).  So it's not unreasonable that other people had &quot;gifts&quot; to &quot;casting out devils&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T15:10:12.293" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8785" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8794" CreationDate="2012-07-31T16:07:41.020" Score="13" ViewCount="111166" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When Christians say &quot;Jesus died for our sins&quot;, what do they mean?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;I went to Catholic school for 5 years and all I heard was &quot;Jesus died for our sins&quot;, &quot;Jesus sacrificed himself for us!!&quot;, and &quot;Jesus was the Messiah!&quot;. What do you mean by this?&#xA;As far as I'm concerned, everyone still &quot;sins&quot; all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Which brings me to my next point...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Why call Jesus a messiah? Was it impossible to be a good person before he &quot;sacrificed himself for us&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;This isn't meant to be a hostile question... I really want to know what you mean when you say this kind of stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1926" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-05T17:18:18.463" LastActivityDate="2015-10-05T17:18:18.463" Title="What does it mean to say &quot;Jesus died for our sins&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-02-12T19:51:36.507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8771" CreationDate="2012-07-31T16:16:41.917" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was young I was tormented by many false teachers so I looked the guy up for you. Derek Prince looks like a not so bad guy among some pretty bad ones.  Yet he also seems pretty bad under the names you provided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an Arminian with a very strong almost hyper Charismatic bent and bizarre over emphasis and horrible obsession with demonic activity, you can be sure people like John Piper and John MacArthur would throw up red flags all over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To show how this guy is at his worst he claims to have cast seventy some demons out of a woman and each demon had a name of a false doctrine, and one was called 'eternal security.' Well that is more or less saying Calvinism is demonic and Piper and MacArthur are in bondage to demonic heresies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Anyway safe to say, I would stick to more mainstream people as you mentioned. They would not get along with this guy.&lt;/strong&gt; To supplement people like Piper and MacArthur I would also find out what older Bible commentaries they like to read and read one. Christian books are ok, but Christian Bible commentaries are generally much, much better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I found almost your same question and a few insightful responses &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/derek-prince-45436/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; while I was looking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T16:16:41.917" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8785" CreationDate="2012-07-31T16:34:37.920" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: You're going to get a lot of different answers here as well because Christianity is not exempt from theological diversity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe when it says Jesus died for our sins, it means that he has saved human beings from physical death. It is often said that death is a consequence of sin, and when Jesus died on the cross he defeated sin, therefore death was defeated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But people, plants, animals, and even stars in the cosmos die. People still sin. So how did Jesus exactly save us from physical death? Through something called the resurrection. The typical view that most mainstream evangelical Christians have about the resurrection is that when they physically die, their &quot;souls&quot; will be taken up to a place called Heaven where they will live eternally in a disembodied state. In other words, resurrection to them is having consciousness after dying, but usually in a disembodied state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Christian theologians like &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0061551821&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;N.T. Wright&lt;/a&gt; say that this is an incorrect view of the afterlife, and an incorrect view of the resurrection. If we physically die, doesn't resurrection mean a restoration of our physical bodies? &lt;strong&gt;&quot;In the end of time&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;, I believe that all human beings will be physically raised from the dead, judged, and for those who have been faithful their bodies will be restored as a new spiritual body as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:35-44&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paul has said.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's what I think it means when we say &quot;Jesus died for our sins.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. A physical resurrection and renewal of our bodies also comes with a renewed Earth, and God's love, justice, and mercy winning in the end. See &quot;new heavens and new earth&quot; in Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgot to answer your question on why Jesus is called the Messiah. During Second Temple Judaism, Jews often thought of their savior as someone who was going to come down with a sword and wipe out all the pagans and particularly their Roman oppressors. That's what they thought their Messiah, their savior, was going to do: return land to the Israelites and destroy their enemies, just like in the Old Testament. What they didn't expect was Jesus Christ. Jesus turned the tables on that kind of thinking. I think today, we've hijacked the word messiah to mean that Jesus is our savior in the sense that (at least from my perspective) he will save us from physical death as I've mentioned above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1928" LastEditorUserId="1928" LastEditDate="2012-07-31T16:51:12.303" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T16:51:12.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8785" CreationDate="2012-07-31T16:52:58.650" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One short set of Bible verses that capture many answers to your question is here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (NIV Romans 5:8-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Jesus died for my sin means:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) God was angry with me but in love he took the guilt and fifth of my sin and placed it on Jesus.  This means Jesus was made to be a sinner for me and I was made to be righteous in the exchange. Not righteous in all my behavior but righteous in how God sees me.  This is what 'justified by his blood' means.  &lt;strong&gt;This is the ancient notion of an animal sacrifice in the Bible.  The priest would put his hands on the head of the animal, transmitting the guilt of the people onto it and then kill it as it had become guilty of the sin placed on it.  Jesus was like a lamb sacrificed for sin in this way.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) When my sins were put on Christ, it was as his enemy so after believing in him I never need to worry that the guilt for my sin might come back. In other words as his enemy he died for me, not as his friend. Now that I am his friend I need not worry about loosing my justification before him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) The result of having my sin placed on him, and his perfect righteousness placed on my account, even though I still have many sins, is that I have 'peace with God' and He is no longer angry at me looking for a sacrifice to make atonement for sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: To explain some big words in the Bible here. 'Reconciliation' is just a big word that says former enemies have found peace. There is no longer anger (wrath) dividing them. 'Atonement' is a word with the same meaning, i.e. literally 'at-one-ment', but in the Bible it includes the idea of the animal being killed to create the peace and remove the anger for sin, causing reconciliation. This process of making a criminal free from guilt before heaven's court is called 'justification'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (NIV Romans 5:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; He died for sins means there is an exchange. He takes sins and gives back peace, righteousness  and eternal life in return.  We start dead, evil, condemned, going to hell, etc., then after the exchange, we are forgiven, more holy, have eternal life and are going to heaven, etc.   This is what 'Jesus died for our sins' in simple terms means, but unless we believe in it, the Bible says we do not take part in the exchange personally.  Repentance and faith must occur, before the exchange of sin for righteousness happens.  Jesus died for all but not all have received that gift. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-07-31T17:09:35.460" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T17:09:35.460" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8789" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-07-31T18:02:41.157" Score="-1" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is NOT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical view of contraception?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Biblical teaching that simultaneously:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;allows for temporary contraception AND&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;disallows for permanent contraception? (vascetomy / tubal ligation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To avoid the question of &amp;quot;when does life technically begin&amp;quot;, assume that both forms of contraception prevent the egg from being fertilized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1929" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-03-24T18:49:53.180" Title="Biblical View on Temporary vs Permanent Contraception" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;contraception&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8789" CreationDate="2012-07-31T18:23:02.323" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering the fact that many would say that &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://onemoresoul.com/contraception-abortion/church-teaching-contraception-abortion/what-does-the-bible-say-about-contraception.html&quot;&gt;contraception statements&lt;/a&gt; in the Bible are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/does-the-bible-permit-birth-control&quot;&gt;misinterpretation&lt;/a&gt;, I would say that the answer is, &quot;it is not in the Bible.&quot; Either both are allowed or neither is. (To me, this makes sense, for the moral effect of &quot;permanent&quot; contraception is not fundamentally different from using &quot;temporary&quot; contraception multiple times).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose if one were trying to make a counter-argument, one might try saying that tattoos and piercings are both limited/forbidden, but as those are part of the Levitical code (and not really found elsewhere in the Bible), that is a bit of a hard sell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-07-31T18:28:07.747" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T18:28:07.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8791" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8815" CreationDate="2012-07-31T19:05:26.613" Score="29" ViewCount="1739" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize this question could also be addressed on &lt;a href=&quot;http://philosophy.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Philosophy.SE&lt;/a&gt;, but I am very interested to get specifically the Christian perspective on this issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was raised Catholic, but have left the Church in the last few years because of conflicts between my beliefs and the Church's. My lack of belief has definitely negatively affected my relationships with my family and I would really like a reason to believe once more. I suppose my real problem is that I have a hard time seeing a scenario, given what we have learned about the universe, that requires God to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question I would like to pose is, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;According to Christianity, why must there be a God?&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1930" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-26T16:23:30.383" LastActivityDate="2016-09-24T17:32:21.623" Title="What reasons does Christianity give for &quot;Why There Must Be A God?&quot;" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;existence-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="9" ClosedDate="2016-09-30T15:15:52.833" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8785" CreationDate="2012-07-31T19:10:49.617" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus died for our sins&quot;,&quot;Jesus sacrificed himself for us!!&quot;, and &quot;Jesus was the Messiah!&quot;.  What do you mean by this?  As far as I'm concerned, everyone still &quot;sins&quot; all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Leviticus the Bible talks about offerings to God.  One such offering is the Sin Offering.  The point behind the offering was simple, only by the shedding of innocent blood, in accordance with the instructions of God, could one’s sins be atoned for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was the final sin offering for all of us, past present and future.  All of our sin was placed on Jesus.  He died in our place, so that we would not have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yes, you are correct Christians still sin.  While our sins are forgiven the consequences of those sins are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why call Jesus a messiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 53 spoke of the Messiah, whose shed blood would atone for men’s sins.  There are more scriptures that talk about the Messiah long before Jesus is born.  In his lifetime he fulfilled all of those prophecies including dying on the cross.  This is why he was the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Was it impossible to be a good person before he &quot;sacrificed himself for us&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By God's standards yes, by mans, no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1869" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T19:10:49.617" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8791" CreationDate="2012-07-31T19:30:41.777" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I totally understand your situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best argument for me is &quot;First Cause&quot;:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The First Cause Argument.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a scientifically minded person, arguments from Design tend to fall very short, unless you're talking at the cosmological scale, ie. the &quot;fine tuning&quot; of the various constants that allow the universe to exist at all and for us to have evolved to observe it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also read some about Natural Law, and it has helped me to see God in a different light than the caricature from childhood stories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-09-24T13:29:07.493" LastActivityDate="2016-09-24T13:29:07.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8785" CreationDate="2012-07-31T19:44:54.023" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus died for our sins&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we (and the Bible) mean by the phrase &quot;Jesus died for our sins&quot; is that all sins have a penalty.  We see the same thing in the justice systems of nations--for every crime, there is a penalty.  When the penalty is paid, we say that justice has been served, and that's a good thing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our sins are really rebellion against God, and they carry a weighty penalty.  The penalty is death--not just physical, but spiritual as well.  In physical death, our bodies are separated from our souls and spirits.  In spiritual death, we are separated from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus died for our sins&lt;/em&gt; in that He paid the penalty for our sins.  As you point out, this does not mean we stop sinning.  What it does mean is that the penalty incurred by our sins is satisfied by the payment made by Jesus Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By way of illustration, if you committed a crime and the penalty for that crime was $1,000,000, you could not pay it.  However, if you happen to be the son of Warren Buffet, he could pay the penalty on your behalf.  The penalty is still paid.  The victim is still restored.  The cost is still real.  Yet because of the generosity and sacrifice of your father, you are not bound to pay the penalty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus died for our sins and paid the penalty for them out of His love and generosity, allowing us to avoid paying the penalty ourselves if we accept that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus, the Messiah&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is not merely &lt;strong&gt;a&lt;/strong&gt; Messiah--He is &lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; Messiah.  He is not merely one of many good people who made sacrifices for others.  That is not what the word &quot;Messiah&quot; means.  Indeed, many people have done good things and made sacrifices for others, from Mother Theresa to many others.  Yet, while people may make notable sacrifices, no one but Jesus could die for the sins of another.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All other people are only human and have their own sins to deal with.  Only Jesus, the eternal Son of God who existed before the world and time began, has the authority to die to pay the penalty for the sins of anyone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, Jesus is the Messiah--the only one who could pay the penalty for the sins of the world.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T19:44:54.023" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8791" CreationDate="2012-07-31T19:52:22.113" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Logical Existence of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a very cogent line of reasoning presented in the book, &lt;em&gt;I don't have enough faith to be an atheist&lt;/em&gt;, that goes something like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The physical universe consists of time, space, and matter.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Science has proven that the universe had a beginning--the Big Bang.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nothing can create itself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Whatever caused the universe to begin had to exist outside the universe of time, space, and matter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This Creator is God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, the God who reveals Himself in the Bible is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Outside of time--eternal&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Outside of space--omnipresent&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Outside of matter--spiritual&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-06T12:54:30.437" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T12:54:30.437" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8791" CreationDate="2012-07-31T22:58:02.730" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas outlines &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae&quot;&gt;five ways&lt;/a&gt; of knowing, from reason alone, that God exists. These are tough to understand without a background in classical philosophy -- it's commonly assumed, for example, that the first and second ways (Unmoved Mover and First Cause) depend on demonstrating the absurdity of an infinite series reaching back &lt;strong&gt;in time.&lt;/strong&gt; But properly understood the arguments have nothing to do with time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Richard Dawkins famously dismissed the first three of the five ways as &quot;essentially the same&quot; in &lt;em&gt;The God Delusion&lt;/em&gt;, which is, understood charitably, a bit of a misreading of Aquinas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My 2nd-year theology class in &lt;a href=&quot;http://thomasaquinas.edu/&quot;&gt;college&lt;/a&gt; spent ten weeks discussing and arguing about the five ways (which all told would take up a couple of pages in a standard textbook), and I felt like we had barely scratched the surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just now starting to read Edward Feser's &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/Aquinas.html?id=uWdCAQAAIAAJ&quot;&gt;Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; -- which has a great reputation and is apparently exactly what its title suggests: A user-friendly introduction to the thought of St. Thomas. Among other things it includes a discussion of and defense of the Five Ways (chapter 3, I guess).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2012-07-31T23:17:16.060" LastActivityDate="2012-07-31T23:17:16.060" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8789" CreationDate="2012-08-01T03:23:11.293" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Biblical times there were methods of contraception practiced. For example &lt;strong&gt;Aristotle and others in Biblical times, recommended that woman use oil, honey or cedar resin to prevent sperm from ‘penetration of sperms into the uterus cavity’.&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bmj.sk/2007/10803-12.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;, P165).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Biblical history the church seems to have generally used the story of Onan (Gen 38:9) and the general principles of ‘multiplying and filling the earth’ as reasons to oppose birth control. This can be understood culturally, because until recently many wanted large families (could in a sense afford to) and it was almost even seen as a sign of God’s blessing and status to have a large family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However when we come to the Bible, considering the fact various methods of contraception were used in ancient Greece and Rome, the bare facts are that &lt;strong&gt;the Bible simply does not engage with the subject.&lt;/strong&gt; Also, having read many thousands of pages from the Reformers in the 15 – 17th Century I have never comes across the subject either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just because the Bible does not touch upon a subject does not mean it positively allows it though.  The Bible dos not complain about the Roman Amphitheatre, but it can be understood that killing men in a theatre as a form of entertainment is not Biblically supported.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;strong&gt;when we find subjects that the Bible is not interested in, then each person is responsible to make up their own mind using Biblical principles.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In my own mind I would never have my conscience disturbed about temporary or permanent contraception.&lt;/strong&gt; It may even be the ‘moral’ thing to do depending on the situation.  For many Christians this subject simply is not an issue. Until I saw this question I do not think in the last 30 years of studying the Bible I have actually thought abut the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this, this might be like the ‘eating meats’ sacrificed to idols issue. In other words some one else might have their conscience bothered by such things so for them it becomes a sin and we must not use our liberty is such a way as to disturb our brother. So &lt;strong&gt;we should allow other’s to have their views on the subject and not be dogmatic about our personal and more private choices and beliefs.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-01T03:23:11.293" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8791" CreationDate="2012-08-01T03:37:09.580" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never thought about it much because no other explanation seems to answer my basic questions. My basic question is why am I here, why do I sin and do I have to die? This led me to God years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For basic beliefs in God I think that ’eternity’ can be sensed in space, sky. Also the beauty of nature speaks of someone else bigger than us. Most people throughout history have always believed in a God, or at least gods, simply from this basic observation. Therefore we can say all mankind generally believes in God because of what they see in nature and no other theory has been able to make them disbelieve what seems obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is no need for a detailed philosophical argument as though it was not clear and plain by itself.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact the Bible insults anyone's state of mind when they do not believe in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fool says in his heart, &quot;There is no God.&quot;  (NIV Psalms 14:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not meant to insult you. I share it as encouragement to help you avoid a need of a clever argument. &lt;strong&gt;Just believe what you already know in you heart and take your doubts to God.&lt;/strong&gt; He is in the business of removing doubts when you seek Him. Reading the Bible yourself will help you in this a lot. I would start with the gospels, Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-02T13:07:40.067" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T13:07:40.067" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8751" CreationDate="2012-08-01T03:52:42.577" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never thought about it that way.  Here is my view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of separation is the loss of fellowship and peace due to sin. Christ, as a man lost this peace and fellowship from God when becoming sin for us, but as God he lost nothing and can never loose anything. As God, Christ could endure the whole weight of sin, which as a man he never could have. As God he could bring the human soul and body back up from the separation.  &lt;strong&gt;I see no temporary or permanent change in the Son with the Father. This was human nature taking the punishment of human sin, but as God this could not destroy the God-Man.&lt;/strong&gt; The result of this work was the exaltation of the human nature of Christ into his glorious kingdom. The Eternal Son was not exalted, per se, as God can’t be made higher than He eternally is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the immutability of God is the controlling idea here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-01T03:52:42.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8785" CreationDate="2012-08-01T07:42:59.420" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sometime question arises &quot;If Jesus died for us, then why are we still dying?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that we are still dying in spite of Jesus dying for us shows death is more than what we know it to be. There is something called &quot;second death&quot; in the Bible (See Revelation 20:6, 14).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;“20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And again it says at Rev 21:8 But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually immoral, and those who practice magic spells, idol worshipers, and all those who lie, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. That is the second death.”&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is a second death, then logically there has to be a first death.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible elsewhere always makes it clear which death is referred to. Therefore the Bible has not to be just read, it has to be studied carefully and prayerfully as Jesus Himself said &quot;Search the scriptures&quot; John 5:39.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the first things God told Adam was regarding the forbidden fruit. He said: For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:17) The same day they were supposed to have been paying the penalty for their disobedience and die. But they didn't, because: God so loved the world. (John 3:16) He loved them so much, that He Himself decided to pay the price in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. &lt;strong&gt;A substitute was found and therefore the penalty of sin was differed.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible says: Adam lived... nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (Genesis 5:5)  Was he paying the penalty of sin after nine hundred and thirty years? No! Jesus paid the penalty for Adam's sin and for all the sins of mankind. Adam's probationary period of overcoming sin was over at nine hundred and thirty years; his lifespan ended.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact the Bible uses word sleep, many a time, when talking about the death that comes at the end of a lifetime. Talking about Lazarus' death, Jesus himself called it sleep. He said:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 11:1, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This word &quot;sleep&quot; has been used several times, both in the Old and in the New Testament, in reference to the first death or the natural death that all have to face in this sinful world. (For e.g. See Job 14:10-12, 1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16). All the people who ever died on planet earth died only the natural death or the first death; and first death is the consequence (natural result) of sin-because of Adam's fall-and not the wages (punishment) of sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The death of Christ and also His resurrection were divine acts, and not natural acts. Death had no power on Him, as He did not sin. For us to die is natural, for Christ it was not. He was doing something that otherwise would not have happened. Just before Jesus could go to Calvary, this is what He said about Satan:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. (John 14:30)&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan had no power over Christ, as Christ did not yield to temptation. He laid His life down as a voluntary act for our salvation. He was paying the penalty of the human race on the cruel Cross. He was dying the death that we deserved.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which death was it that He died-the first or the second death? It has to be the second death that Christ died. For if He died the first death, then why are we still dying? Remember He paid the penalty for our sins, so that we need not have to pay it in the lake of fire. For:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first death is a natural consequence of sin. Whether one is a believer or unbeliever, the first death is for all, whether a saint or a sinner. It is the close of probationary time, either to make it or break it to Heaven. When Adam and Eve were told that they would die the day they ate the fruit, was it a reference to the first death (the end of this probationary time) or was it a reference to the second death (the eternal extinction)? It was the eternal extinction-the second death-that God was referring to.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between the first and the second death is that the first death physically destroys the body, but it is not an eternal destruction, as there will be a resurrection. But the second death is the eternal destruction of the person. So the second death is the real death, the complete death. The first death has only a part of the second death in it. The second death has the first death and more in it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ died the second death, the complete death. It is technically incorrect to say He died the first and the second death together, as the second death embraces the first too. When the impenitent die in the lake of fire, it is called the &quot;second death&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Rev 20:6, 14, 15; 21:8), and not &quot;first and second death&quot;, as the second death is the complete death.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who die the second death have no resurrection. But Jesus rose from the dead even though He died the second death. Well, because He was sinless, He was dying a substitution death. He was not dying for His sin (He did no sin), but for the sins of the others (the whole world).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we die the first death, we can afford to smile and die, and even sing while burning at the stake, because we know it is only the first death, and there is a resurrection.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is at the final death, the second death, when people pay the wages of sin, they would feel the bitter agony of being forever cut off from God and from life, and then all will cry and weep and gnash their teeth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ has conquered death and grave and has the keys of both. At His second coming, He will resurrect all His saints and bring them out of their graves, and bestow immortality to them. And the wicked, later, will be resurrected from the first death to face second death-to pay the wages of sin in the fires of hell according to the amount of sins committed, and then face the &quot;second death&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the reason we still die today is because Jesus died the &quot;second death&quot; for us, and not the first death.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many times we see the word death in the Bible having a reference to the second death, and not just first. Look up the following texts. All of these refer to the second death and not the first. (See Genesis 2:17; Ezekiel 33:11; John 5:24; John 8: 51, 52; Romans 6:23; Romans 8:6, etc.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-08-01T09:32:31.280" LastActivityDate="2012-08-01T09:32:31.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8785" CreationDate="2012-08-01T10:08:24.760" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a good question and I wish more people stopped to think about this. The following is the Bible's very logical answer. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to fully appreciate what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah and to die for our sins, it helps to understand the answers to the following questions: What did the first human couple give up? What events lead up to the Messiah's appearance and sacrifice? What effect does this sacrifice have on people in the past, present, and future?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God explained to Adam that if he disobeyed the command not to eat from a specific tree, he would die. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/2/#v1002017&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17&lt;/a&gt;) Later, both Eve and Adam ate from this tree, and eventually died. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/3/#v1003006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:6&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/5/#v1005005&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 5:5&lt;/a&gt;) Death only occurred as a consequence of their disobedience. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/3/#v1003017&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:17-19&lt;/a&gt;) Since death was a consequence of their sin, if they had remained obedient they would have gone on living forever. They sinned before having any children, resulting in their offspring inheriting sin and death from them. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/5/#v45005019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:19&lt;/a&gt;) We are born with a defect: We all have an an inborn tendency to sin, and we all die. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/8/#v1008021&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 8:21&lt;/a&gt;) Adam and Eve were not created with a tendency toward sin. They were also given free will (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/#v1001026&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/#v1001031&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;31&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What could be done about this predicament? God immediately knew what to do, and thus the first prophecy is recorded in the Bible about a seed who would rectify the situation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/3/#v1003015&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:15&lt;/a&gt;). Over time it was revealed which family line this Messiah (meaning appointed by God to a special position) would be born through. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/22/#v1022017&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 22:17, 18&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/28/#v1028010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 28:10-15&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/49/#v1049010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 49:10&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-samuel/7/#v10007011&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 7:11-16&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was born through this line and proved to be the Christ (the word rendered &quot;Christ&quot; from the Christian Greek scriptures is the equivalent of the word rendered &quot;Messiah&quot; from the Hebrew scriptures). (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mathew 1:1-16&lt;/a&gt;) Jesus allowed himself to be killed as a ransom sacrifice to cover our sins. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/ephesians/1/#v49001007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 1:7&lt;/a&gt;) What was different about Jesus that made his death so meaningful? Jesus was alive in heaven before being born on the earth as a human. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/6/#v43006038&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 6:38&lt;/a&gt;) Jesus mother Mary, was a virgin at the time she became pregnant. God performed a miracle, and transferred the life of his Son to Mary's womb. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/1/#v42001030&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 1:30-35&lt;/a&gt;) This means that Jesus was born without any inherited defects. He lived his entire human life without sinning. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/hebrews/4/#v58004014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 4:14, 15&lt;/a&gt;) He paid the equivalent of what Adam lost, a perfect human life. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/15/#v46015045&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:45&lt;/a&gt;) Three days later, Jesus was resurrected in spirit form. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-peter/3/#v60003018&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18&lt;/a&gt;) A few weeks later, he returned to heaven and presented the value of the sacrifice to his Father, and it was accepted. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/hebrews/9/#v58009024&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 9:24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This opened the opportunity for all humans to have the forgiveness of their sins along with the everlasting life that Adam gave up. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/3/#v43003016&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;) The value of the ransom also applies for all time, even to those who died before it was offered. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/hebrews/9/#v58009026&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 9:26&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two hopes for those who hope to receive everlasting life, one earthly and one heavenly. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/5/#v40005003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:3&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/5/#v40005005&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5&lt;/a&gt;) Some will be resurrected as spirit creatures to serve in a specific position in heaven. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/5/#v66005009&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 5:9,10&lt;/a&gt;) Most however, will get to live on the earth forever. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/37/#v19037011&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms 37:11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/37/#v19037029&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;29&lt;/a&gt;) Once the value of the ransom gets fully applied to mankind, God will restore humans to perfection and they will no longer grow old and die. Thus God's original desire for mankind to live forever on the earth under enjoyable conditions will be realized. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/#v1001028&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:28&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/15/#v46015026&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:26&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/21/#v66021003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:3,4&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2014-04-30T01:23:43.220" LastActivityDate="2014-04-30T01:23:43.220" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8807" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8808" CreationDate="2012-08-01T11:45:05.063" Score="7" ViewCount="7814" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are we &quot;basically sinful&quot; or &quot;basically good&quot; (are we born fundamentally sinful, or are we born holy but then &quot;fall to temptation?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I really want are the names of the doctrines associated with that age-old question - not the answers themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I seem to think that it's a &quot;Lutheran vs Methodist&quot; argument, am I right? (But...  They seem to focus more on day-to-day living, not the &quot;born sinful&quot; part).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1444" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T15:32:20.517" LastActivityDate="2017-11-17T19:40:05.057" Title="What doctrines teach that people are inherently good or bad?" Tags="&lt;total-depravity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8807" CreationDate="2012-08-01T14:46:23.647" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine that says that we are all born fundamentally sinful is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity&quot;&gt;total depravity&lt;/a&gt;.  It is held by the vast majority of protestants - Lutheran and Methodist alike.  This is one area of agreement between Calvinists and Arminians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although not quite teaching that we are &quot;basically good&quot;, one step closer to that is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_depravity&quot;&gt;limited depravity&lt;/a&gt;.  It is the belief that we are born sinful, yet with enough good in us to accept Christ.  This may be similar to the Catholic view, although I am sure there are some finer points in which it differs (perhaps a Catholic can comment on this).  I am not aware of any other mainstream branches of Christianity that hold this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormonism does teach that human beings are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; &quot;basically sinful&quot; (though they do not claim that human beings are &quot;basically good&quot;), as a part of their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/12/the-restored-doctrine-of-the-atonement&quot;&gt;restored doctrine of atonement&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to Christ’s original doctrine as restored through Joseph Smith, the Fall made both possible and necessary the Savior’s atoning for our sins. Human nature is neither inherently evil nor inherently good. We become evil or good based on interaction between the Lord’s influence and the choices we make—choices unavailable in the garden before Adam and Eve fell and only made possible because of the Savior’s atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-08-01T14:46:23.647" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8807" CreationDate="2012-08-01T16:13:17.110" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because John Wesley is often called Arminian, we sometimes think he and the Methodists deny that the guilt of Adams sin was imputed against mankind, but this is not the case at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Both Calvinists and Methodists adhere to the doctrine of original sin which rests on Adams guilt being imputed against men, so that before we are born we are guilty of sin.&lt;/strong&gt;  From this guilt we are cursed to a sinful nature so that as soon as we have the ability to make moral choices we add out own sin to the original guilt of Adam's sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays people are not aware that this is the basic teaching of all Protestants, so even those who call themselves Calvinists are more Arminian than John Wesley when they discuss this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, &lt;strong&gt;John Wesley in arguing for the imputation of guilt&lt;/strong&gt; said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;that guilt was imputed to the scapegoat, to the children of wicked parents, and to our blessed Lord himself, without any personal sin.&quot;  (The Complete Works of JOHN WESLEY, V9, P 369)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now the people famous for not believing in the imputation of guilt for Adam's sin are the historicaly Pelagius.&lt;/strong&gt;  (Arguably Arminius also, but as some later Arminians later support the imputation of guilt, the waters become murky, more detail can be found at this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9126/did-arminias-believe-in-adams-actual-guilt-imputed-against-all-humanity/9135#9135&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt;.) These are those historic men who denied the imputation of guilt upon Adam's offspring and considered the sinful nature not as a curse for guilt, but a kind of weakness that God allowed to pass onto humanity. Some Arminians thought that God would never judge the innocent, so until a person willfully sins they can't be properly judged. This opposes both Calvinists and Methodists, or at least their founding church fathers, who support the imputation of guilt upon humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see what a person believes about original sin and imputed guilt, all you have to do is look for their comments of this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. (NIV Romans 5:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example here is how &lt;strong&gt;Luther asserts imputed guilt&lt;/strong&gt; on his comments of Rom 5:16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From which it is clear that original sin is the actual sin of Adam himself, because the apostle says, “Many died through one man’s trespass.” Therefore this one sin of the one man is the sin of all, by which all have died with him. &lt;strong&gt;Moreover, original sin is the same as the actual sin itself which Adam sinned, which all his sons bear, and of which they are all guilty.&lt;/strong&gt;  For together with his nature he also transmitted his sin to all men, because just as he himself by a sin of this kind was made a sinner and an evil man, so nothing is born of him except sinners and evil men, that is, men prone to evil, who find it difficult to do good. (Luther's Commentary on Romans)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Calvin argues for imputation of guilt&lt;/strong&gt; on the same verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is especially an explanation of what he had said before, — that by one offense &lt;strong&gt;guilt issued in the condemnation of us all&lt;/strong&gt;, but that grace, or rather the gratuitous gift, is efficacious to our justification from many offenses. (Calvin's Commentary on Romans)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could go on and quote hundreds of men who recognize the imputation of guilt cursing all humanity into a depraved sinful nature, prior to birth, but maybe it is best just to leave it with Kind David who said it so well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalms 51:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the Arminians and Pelagians (as opposed to the Calvinists and the Methodists) have no solid ground to stand on when opposing imputed guilt and condemnation for Adam's sin because if men are born innocent that God was unjust to curse David into sin before he was born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why it is important for us to learn the doctrine of past generations like this one, is that it is exactly the same way in which Christ's righteousness is imputed to sinners who have not actually committed righteousness.  In both cases an imputation of guilt or righteousness occurs without the other person committing it.  It might seem weird, even unjust to some, but this has always been the way God has judged men, i.e. under the federal head of either Adam or Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are either sinners or not based on whether we have been born from Adam or born again in Christ. When we are first born we are born wicked and condemned because we are under the guilt of Adam's sin. When we are born again all the guilt is put on Christ and His perfect obedience imputed to us.  The beauty of grace is that in a sense it is not fair and on that account we have much to rejoice over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T00:02:24.907" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8812" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8857" CreationDate="2012-08-01T17:52:57.270" Score="2" ViewCount="1676" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the sports we play today expose the participants to physical dangers they would not otherwise have been subject to. Examples could be skiing, surfing, high speed car races or stunt biking. Other sports even put the lives of opponents at risk at the hands of the players as a direct result of the nature of the sport. Boxing would be one example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Christians tend to view participation in these sports? Are there any current or historical statements where a particular Christian tradition has taken a stand one way or the other on participation in such sports? If so what traditions and what did they base their belief on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other doctrines that play into this? Does holding a particular belief on a different issue tend to correlate with a particular stance on this one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-04T09:07:08.210" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T06:00:07.387" Title="How does Christianity view participation in dangerous sports?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8812" CreationDate="2012-08-01T18:29:45.497" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the participants in those sports do it because they like to. They don't do it because they were coerced or forced. If they want to do something else, they are perfectly free to do so. Sure, it provides a paycheck, but there are other ways to get that open to these people. Some of them even use the celebrity that sometimes accompanies the performance as a platform to help promote Christ. Certainly, at the professional level a certain amount of talent is present, and we are definitely encouraged to use our talents/gifts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-08-01T18:29:45.497" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8791" CreationDate="2012-08-01T21:27:55.153" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several classical arguments for believing in God, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;cosmological argument&lt;/strong&gt;, which says that (logically) everything exists because it is caused by something else or because it has always existed. It says that everything that has been caused by something else must be caused by something else and so on until you get to something that is without cause. A thing without cause must always have existed. The first cause is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;teleological argument&lt;/strong&gt; argues that the universe looks as if it has a design and a purpose. It argues that this is because it has a designer who gave it a purpose. It asks for a reason for the order in the universe, for natural laws and principles, and finds an explanation in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;ontological argument&lt;/strong&gt; argues that God must exist if you can imagine that He exists... I'm not sure why, to be honest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;moral argument&lt;/strong&gt; says that naturalistic explanations of morality, love etc. are inadequate to explain the existence of morality, love etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of these arguments has received considerable attention by philosophers and theologians, with counter-arguments and counter-counter arguments having been debated for centuries. At the very least, however, some version of these arguments may remove intellectual barriers to faith and position you to accept the possibility that God is real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, even if you accept the veracity of one of these arguments, the God in its conclusion isn't necessarily the God of Christianity. Nevertheless, the conclusion of these arguments does appear to be compatible with Christianity. Moreover, some writers suggest that the cumulative effect of the arguments is to validate the Christian world-view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For most Christians, rational argument is only a part of why we believe. Instead, we choose Jesus on the basis of religious experience or because he fills an emotional or pragmatic need. In my view, nobody can be &lt;strong&gt;certain&lt;/strong&gt; of God's existence (or non-existence), but you can look at the balance of probabilities. As such, we each have to take responsibility to look at the arguments in the light of our experience and then decide for ourselves what to believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2012-08-01T21:27:55.153" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8816" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8817" CreationDate="2012-08-01T22:38:17.630" Score="4" ViewCount="8027" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis, Before Jacob dies, he has a conversation with his son, Joseph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 48:1-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some time later Joseph was told, “Your father is ill.” So he took his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim along with him. 2 When Jacob was told, “Your son Joseph has come to you,” Israel rallied his strength and sat up on the bed.&#xA;3 Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty[a] appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me 4 and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.’&#xA;5 “Now then, your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine. 6 Any children born to you after them will be yours; in the territory they inherit they will be reckoned under the names of their brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is up with this passage? Why is Jacob insisting that Joseph's sons were his?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-06-13T00:00:27.867" Title="Why did Jacob insist that Joseph's sons were his?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;&lt;joseph&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8816" CreationDate="2012-08-01T22:55:58.470" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This appears to be essentially a bit of pragmatism.  The foremost heir would inherit a double share of the father's inheritance, (this is what Elisha was referring to in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202:9&quot;&gt;2 Kings 2:9&lt;/a&gt;,) and Joseph had been given this honor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the inheritance was to be passed down throughout generations, and Joseph had two sons, Jacob essentially said &quot;we'll do it like this: each of your two sons gets a full share, and that takes care of your double share.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-08-01T22:55:58.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8818" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8870" CreationDate="2012-08-01T23:25:43.063" Score="5" ViewCount="771" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are the teachings of Tim LaHaye as found in the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Left Behind&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; series consistent with the teachings of either reformed theology or Calvinism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More generally, is the notion of &quot;Biblical Fiction&quot; considered as something that would help or mislead the reader?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-03-30T22:08:40.707" LastActivityDate="2016-03-31T05:44:11.440" Title="How do the reformed view the &quot;Left Behind&quot; series?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;christian-literature&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4521" CreationDate="2012-08-02T00:03:32.000" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, with mental illness, especially in its most severe forms, there is little ability for the sick person to choose his actions properly. I know this from first-hand experience, when I have fallen into a depressive state (related to bipolar), I am not only less able to think clearly, but I find that I behave in a way which is &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; different from how I might otherwise behave. I get short tempered, bitter, and sometimes paranoid. In one such episode, I could think of little else but the overwhelming despair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While depressed, I am more likely to be less than charitable, but that is not something I can choose. I may be responsible for hurting someone's feelings, but that responsibility is necessarily diminished in the same way we would view a child as less culpable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the Bible, well, there is a bit of ambiguity there. The closest I can think of to a parallel is the case of someone being &quot;known&quot; outside of marriage. If a woman is raped (no choice involved), then her culpability is null (Augustine has pointed out that if a woman &lt;em&gt;enjoys&lt;/em&gt; it, then there is moral culpability, but that, I think, would be a truly rare phenomenon). While I admit that the situations are not parallel in a strict sense, I cannot help but believe that a similar standard applies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T00:03:32.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8820" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-02T00:46:39.310" Score="2" ViewCount="12080" Body="&lt;p&gt;In ancient times, the only people who were offered a chance to become the priest were Aaron and his sons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would not this be unfair? There might have been people who were better suited for the position. It has been shown throughout the Bible that sons of people with the position of priest were not always good (Eli's sons, Samuel's sons, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was the reason for this strictness regarding the position of being the priest?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T20:40:42.977" LastActivityDate="2018-08-22T13:46:44.547" Title="Why were Aaron and his son only ones eligible for being a Priest?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;aaronic-priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8821" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8822" CreationDate="2012-08-02T01:15:54.200" Score="7" ViewCount="754" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Calvinist theological view, is it possible for God to predestine that XYZ be saved, but for XYZ to reject the doctrine of predestination throughout his or her life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-07-16T22:22:31.637" LastActivityDate="2015-07-16T22:22:31.637" Title="Do Calvinists believe that it is possible to be saved without believing the doctrine of predestination?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8821" CreationDate="2012-08-02T01:57:34.570" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Without any question any person who never believes in predestination can still be considered a saved and regenerate predestined Christian by a Calvinist.&lt;/strong&gt;  All that is required to be considered 'predestined' in the eyes of men, is that a person believes in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.  Anyone who truly 'confesses Christ' in this sense will be saved, regardless of how clear, or confused they may be on the surrounding doctrines of their salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (NIV Romans 10:9-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing how Calvinists leaders have thought through history, I can assure you if someone added a requirement like 'faith in the doctrine of predestination' to be needed in addition to 'faith in Christ' they would have denounced it. It is a 'person' who died for our sin that we must put our faith in, not a textbook statement phrased by church leaders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-08-02T17:41:35.353" LastActivityDate="2014-08-02T17:41:35.353" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8820" CreationDate="2012-08-02T03:21:24.543" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If your notice how the Levites were chosen as the priests, it actually goes back to Pharaoh and the plague that God sent to kill the firstborn of every family. Since those who had blood on the doorframe from the Paschal lamb were ‘redeemed’ from the death,  every family owed 'the God of Moses' their firstborn.&lt;/strong&gt;  Not only so but as God also spared them of the first born of their cattle and also did not destroy their crops etc, the idea of all the firstborn or first-fruits as ‘belonging to God’ arose.  Therefore as God brought them out of Egypt and into a land to be His people, Israel owed the first-born and first fruit of everything to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord also said to Moses, “I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine, for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether human or animal. They are to be mine. I am the Lord.” (NIV Numbers 3:11-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possibly to make it more organized, and also to better &lt;strong&gt;foreshadow the future priesthood of Christ by the calling of God, under the symbol of high priest, who offered atoning sacrifices for sin.&lt;/strong&gt; God ordained that in instead of selecting each firstborn the whole tribe of Levi would be set apart as dedicated to God.  The dedication has nothing to do with personal holiness or fitness for the job, the dedication is by calling.  The idea is that only God can create the Priesthood. Aron and Christ are the only two properly called priesthood heads. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may wonder why I say ‘only two’ when we know Aron’s sons were included in the priesthood.  Well that is because Aron made an imperfect shadow of the future reality in Christ. Since Aron was not good enough to be a good shadow of Christ, in that he had to die, many priests came after him, representing the same single office. This is the highest reason of the priesthood, to prefigure Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ‘calling’ of the priesthood can be seen here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. And no one takes this honor on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was.  In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” (NIV Hebrews 5:3-5)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that the old priesthood was imperfect partly because ‘the priests died’ but Christ’s priesthood is superior, as he ‘lives forever’, representing the true Priesthood (or true High Priest for under him all believers are priests under him) can be seen here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.  Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. (NIV Hebrews 7:22-24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; So ‘Why were Aron and his son only ones eligible for being a Priest?’ Because the priesthood represents Christ’s priesthood and this can only be derived by the ‘calling of God’, not from the dedications of men. It is as a symbol of Christ ‘redeeming the firstborn’ who are every person who has his blood spread on the doorframes of their heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T03:21:24.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8820" CreationDate="2012-08-02T04:40:47.820" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What was the reason for this strictness regarding the position of&#xA;  being the priest?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have come to believe that most of the commandments from God have a logical backing. And one simply has to image herself being present in the situation and position of God to understand it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose you were setting up a software company. How would you go about hiring good programmers? The first thing might be to put an advertisement for people with a computer science degree. Now why this strictness about having a college degree? Though it is possible to find good programmers who don't have one, these cases are rare and exceptional. A degree though just a piece of paper shows that the person has put substantial time, effort and money in systematic study of the field. And since - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Practice makes a [wo]man perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence our strictness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Levites were a tribe that had a special job. They were not supposed to take up other professions like agriculture, metalworking or trading etc. Their life was made up of these things - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Recite and memorize the scriptures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Give sermons and practice oratory skills &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Meticulously copy manuscripts by hand and double-triple check them for copy errors.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Clean up and maintain the temple.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Coordinate social ceremonies and religious celebrations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that others could not excel in these things but that the probability was very less. Much less than in modern times because of these reasons - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There were no schools, no books and no internet to gain information not relevant to your profession.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Life was much more busy. Cooking food on coal fire, cleaning up the barn and walking to the next village took entire day. This left little time for independent research for pursuing your ideal profession.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now put yourself in the situation. You are setting up a temple. What would your advertisement read? Why your strictness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:14 For many are eligible but few are qualified. (Monika's&#xA;  Translation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T04:40:47.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8791" CreationDate="2012-08-02T04:47:20.540" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is there not to prove his presence for us. It is we, who have to seek and know Him and then He Makes Himself known to us. It is we, who have to make efforts to seek him and understand his presence in our daily life ad not vice versa. If we pretend to be blind for whatever he has done in this universe and to us then it is our problem and not God’s. He is always there to make Himself known to us and what is required is our will to acknowledge his presence out there.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a real life example of boarding a plane to travel to a distant city. How we are sure that we will reach there safely and at that designated arrival time.  Some one will say that I know nothing would happen because the ground staff would take care of everything and carry out all the pre flight checks to ensure that everything is fine for the plane to take off/land.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, how we can be content that these technicians did their job flawlessly. We have no way of checking it nor has time to do it every time we board a plane. We only ‘believe’ that they have done their job correctly, would also ‘hope’ so and also ‘trust’ in their ability in doing it precisely and also keep ‘faith’ in their sincerity so that they have not missed deliberately any critical checks and also know that it is their duty to do it diligently etc etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all these assumptions but with no concrete way of verifying it our self, we relax in our seat with an assurance that we will reach our destination safely at the predetermined time.  That is exactly the way religious people believe in God. However, unlike these ground technicians, the only difference is that innumerable people experience God when they have proper relationship with Him and this happens with only the chosen few and the rest of us at least have to believe these chosen few for assuring the presence of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Atheist put forth argument that the universe is in place and the it is there so, in that orderly manner owing to physical laws but fail to explain how these laws came into existence. We need to understand that Creation of universe by God is akin to developing a computer or a computer programme step by step and running it to get the desired results. Scientists and programmers are doing exactly the same for a PC to get the desired results. Ultimately, what layperson understands is that it is the PC that has given the desired output, when in fact the real architect is the programmer or the maker of PC. That is what happened when universe was formed. God programmed all these laws and left them to do the rest, the way HE desired including the “evolution” if it is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis it says that the land was initially a huge single mass.  Even scientists say that it was a deformed earth earlier and after the movement of the land mass, it took the shape as it is now. Some places where it went too high, it became hills and mountains. It is a known fact that Indian sub continent was earlier touching  Australia and after slow movement(drifting) of land mass, which still continues to happen even today, it got separated and that’s how Himalaya is also formed. Initially when God created land, he probable was instrumental in accelerating it at much faster rate as He was the author of everything.  It is like making a PC to run as you want by developing a suitable programme to get the desired result. Only the inventor of a PC would know how to make it work the way he desire and then leave it to the PC to do it s work on its own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T04:47:20.540" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2957" CreationDate="2012-08-02T05:47:11.027" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you correctly pointed out, it would have been against God's will for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter. (Deuteronomy 12:31) Yet the account shows that God approved of his vow. This is seen in that God’s spirit was acting upon Jephthah when he made his vow. (Judges 11:29) Right after Jephthah made the vow, God blessed his endeavor. (Judges 11:32) The Scriptures speak well of Jephthah for his faith and for the role he played in connection with the divine purpose. (1 Samuel 12:11; Hebrews 11:32-34) Therefore, Jephthah must not have meant a human sacrifice in a literal sense. Jephthah evidently meant that he would devote the one whom he met to the exclusive service of God. The Mosaic Law provided for the vowing of souls to God. For instance, women served at the sanctuary, perhaps drawing water. (Exodus 38:8; 1 Samuel 2:22) Little is known about such service or even whether it was usually permanent. Jephthah apparently had such special devotion in mind when making his vow, and it seems that his promise implied permanent service. Jephthah’s daughter was determined to carry out her father's vow. The sacrifice included never getting married. For Jephthah, fulfilling the vow meant losing the company of his beloved only child. Judges 11:36-39. That Jephthah did not use his daughter as a human sacrifice is seen in that his daughter wept, not over her coming death, but over her &quot;virginity&quot;. (Judges 11:38)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2012-08-03T06:40:28.707" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T06:40:28.707" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8828" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8834" CreationDate="2012-08-02T05:58:47.977" Score="11" ViewCount="1128" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming one believes that the bible is the word of god, believes that the bible says homossexuality is wrong (or commonly quoted, an abomination), and because of that gays should not marry, how come one says same-sex marriage should be unlawful and homosexuality itself should not? In other words, if one wants to prohibit same-gender marriages because homosexuality is an abomination, shouldn't one be proposing to make it unlawful just to be gay or act upon homosexuality such as build a household or simply have sex with someone of the same gender? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I would like to clarify the point of my question a little better. I am not really interested in if Gay Marriage should be outlawed or not (I personally believe it should not, but that's besides the point). Of course I am also not suggesting the viability of attempting to outlaw homosexuality itself, which is absurd in our society.&#xA;My point is that I see people DEFENDING certain rights of homosexuals' such as the right to have homosexual relationships, public display of affection, the right to constitute a family, adopt, etc, and at the same time say their marriage should be banned because homosexuality is a sin/abomination. That is the disconnect I am trying to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1945" LastEditorUserId="1945" LastEditDate="2012-08-02T11:58:11.893" LastActivityDate="2015-03-24T14:46:11.377" Title="How can Christians reconcile the request to prohibit same-sex marriage and the lawfulness of homosexuality itself?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8829" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8852" CreationDate="2012-08-02T06:06:01.197" Score="2" ViewCount="7688" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (NIV Mark 2:27-28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a connection with the Sabbath being made for 'any man' and from this proposition, 'the Son of Man' , that is the second Adam, has all the more right to change the Sabbath, or at least at a minimum use it as it was intended to the first Adam, if he so chooses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I sense an argument here but can't immediately find the words for it.  Has anyone heard of a good explanation? I looked up a couple commentaries but nothing seemed to be that good at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-20T11:39:53.340" LastActivityDate="2014-10-20T11:39:53.340" Title="Why did Jesus say the Son of Man was Lord over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-07-24T17:23:13.907" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8830" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-02T06:07:48.053" Score="6" ViewCount="1567" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did God hate unborn Esau?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good&#xA;  or bad ... 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I&#xA;  hated.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does this square with the concept that God loves everyone? How should I know He didn't hate me as a child?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T01:21:20.710" Title="Does God hate unborn children?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2012-08-02T06:23:18.370" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question really asks to what degree should government impose the truth on the world.&lt;/strong&gt; The Bible does condemn homosexuality but it does not in my view vilify the homosexual beyond the sins of any regular sinner, in which it accuses everyone.  I say this because I do not think it s Biblical for homosexuals to feel more sinful than thieves, or adulterers, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I myself have never been tempted to have homosexual thoughts, but if I had, and been a homosexual, I do not think this would have made me a worse sinner. I was a great sinner and still sin in many ways after finding Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have digressed but because in the confusion on a political topic, we must first state a Biblical position on homosexuality.  Now when it comes to marriage most western laws are probably defined from a Judeo-Christian context, so most people feel gay marriage is a further sacrilege against God's intended purpose of marriage.  It is a kind of blasphemy that's considered worse than homosexuality itself. However, this only explains the attitude not the answer. Should the government outlaw blasphemy? Most would say no.  Should the government outlaw adultery? That would be hard to pass through legislation wouldn't it? Should the government outlaw gay marriage? I think it is good enough to let the government decide.  The church does not need to spend its time trying to govern the world, but preach the gospel.  Let the world govern the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I was asked to vote, I would vote against, but other than that I think the church need not worry so much about the many blasphemies of this world. Did the Apostles try to change the sodomy practiced by Greeks and Romans, yes, but not through lobbying the government. I think the main point is such a marriage is not honored by God, but if the state honors it, I guess that's of secondary concern. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; Should gay marriage be outlawed?, ask your government. Should one avoid homosexual activity? ask the Bible and it will say yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-06-02T17:24:32.030" LastActivityDate="2014-06-02T17:24:32.030" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8830" CreationDate="2012-08-02T07:10:32.473" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible clearly says that there are people that God does not love, such as the verse you cite, the Pharoah of the Exodus, God rejecting Saul, etc. I don't know any place in the Bible that says that God loves everyone in the world. There is, of course, the well-known John 3:16, &quot;For God so loved the world ...&quot;, but in the broader context this apparently does not mean every individual. Like if I say, &quot;I love Michigan&quot;, that doesn't necessarily imply that I love every single person in Michigan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that God loves everyone is a very popular religious belief in America today, but is not a Christian idea, or at least not a Biblical idea. (Rather like the idea that the way to get to Heaven is if your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A believer in predestination would answer simply that the verse you cite is not compatible with the idea that God loves everyone: The Bible says that he chose some and not others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A believer in free will would say that God knows in advance who will come to him and who will not, and so he loves those whom he knows will come to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T07:10:32.473" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8821" CreationDate="2012-08-02T07:45:56.747" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes, absolutely.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a common point of confusion for people who haven't been exposed to much Reformed theology, so let me try to state this briefly and directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination fits into a larger framework of doctrines, all built on scripture and playing off of each-other. If you try to transplant the doctrines like pieces from a puzzle and fit them into a different puzzle, they will stand out and look wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, our understanding of Predestination goes hand in hand with our understanding of salvation as a grace bestowed upon us by God. Just like we believe salvation cannot be earned through doing good works, we believe that it cannot be merited by believing the most sound doctrine. Quite simply this means that even people who actually hold some WRONG beliefs about God and salvation are going to be saved just because God wills it to be so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the flip side, we do believe that it pleases God for us to know how deeply we are indebted to his grace and that the closer we come to holding and promoting sound doctrine the more we will be transformed to be like him. While someone who insists on believing that it was their personal choice to follow God may well be saved by God's grace, an area of their life is held hostage to a kind of pride that thinks they accomplished something. One who deeply understands that they did not merit their salvation through their own actions or beliefs is setting the stage for a more humble and thankful life of grateful service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, belief in the doctrine of Predestination isn't necessary for salvation, but we do believe it serves a purpose in the life of a believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-08-02T17:44:06.910" LastActivityDate="2014-08-02T17:44:06.910" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2012-08-02T07:51:43.423" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know anyone who says that he believes homosexual marriage is bad but homosexual sex in general is okay. The nature of the current legal debate is that homosexuals are demanding a change in the laws regarding marriage, which some who believe homosexuality to be a sin are opposing. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you see an inconsistency if someone opposes gay marriage but does not at the same time campaign to make gay sex in general illegal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's the nature of political debate, isn't it? You can't deal with every possible issue at the same time. It's not inconsistent to fight for or against one particular law without simultaneously campaigning for or against every other law that exists on any related topic, plus every law that you can imagine that might be passed. You can't deal with everything at once. You can only fight so many battles at one time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose during the 1950s someone campaigned against racially segregated schools. Would you say that he is &quot;inconsistent&quot; because he does not also campaign against job discrimination? Maybe he doesn't have the time or resources to conduct both campaigns. You have to pick your battles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also the whole big question of the relationship between law, morality, and religion. Should Christians work to make everything that the Bible calls a sin made illegal? Or, even assuming that that was politically possible, would that be an inappropriate role for government?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a case could be made that the government should have laws defining and regulating marriage, because these are relevant to taxation, inheritance, and other things that are routinely considered legitimate functions of government. And if the government must define it, then it cannot escape the question of whether a gay couple can or cannot be considered married. But what gay people do in their own homes does not necessarily impinge on legitimate functions of government. (Personally, I'm not really convinced by this argument, but I think it's reasonable.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T07:51:43.423" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2012-08-02T08:16:50.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It all comes down to: is your country run essentially as a theocracy, with law deriving directly from religion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many countries where this is the case, &lt;em&gt;homosexuality is indeed illegal&lt;/em&gt;. Which is a deep shame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing you're asking more from a western perspective; here, the problem immediately becomes a conflict; national law is usually derived from rational analysis taking into account civil liberties, impact, benefit, practicality, etc. Homosexuality ultimately doesn't do harm (remember we're talking about &lt;em&gt;this world&lt;/em&gt;, not the particular afterlife of any particular religion); however, making people suppress their sexuality and identity &lt;strong&gt;does&lt;/strong&gt; do real demonstrable harm. For this and many other reasons, homosexuality is not illegal. However, the laws on marriage in many places prevent them from expressing this fully, and enjoying the full recognition of marriage. In the US in particular, this is visible especially in things like end-of-life, insurance, inheritance, etc - where there is a big difference, for no good reason. There is a common claim &quot;give them civil-union instead&quot;, but different-but-same &lt;em&gt;never is&lt;/em&gt;. If they are the same: call it the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to marriage, it is more the case of trying to catch up with the general population's acceptance of homosexuality; indeed, the main barrier here is the simply fact that there are a lot of lobbyists, predominantly religious, and predominantly Christian, who shout &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; loudly whenever anyone broaches the subject. Frankly, though, I think it is now a question of &quot;if&quot;, but &quot;when&quot;.  I actually think Christianity would save itself a lot of self-harm by accepting this sooner, and handling the transition in a rational and grown up way; right now it is genuinely embarrassing itself and driving away a lot of congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the people doing the lobbying generally do not represent any &lt;em&gt;concensus&lt;/em&gt; position, but rather - their &lt;em&gt;own&lt;/em&gt; position. So the &quot;n million Christian's say...&quot; is rather misleading. Indeed, plenty many Christians do not take a far-conservative approach on this, and are entirely satisfied with this in terms of the bible. To sanitise an existing parody on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/2fGIB.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, I just don't get it: nobody is asking &lt;em&gt;the people doing the shouting&lt;/em&gt; to engage in a homosexual relationship. There are far more important issues in this world. It would please me greatly if we could spend that energy on more important topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T08:16:50.317" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8836" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-02T09:06:01.520" Score="12" ViewCount="5663" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was talking to a Jehovah's witness who did not believe in the immortality of soul and he pointed out a scripture to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold ... lest he put forth his&#xA;  hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the soul is already immortal what was God afraid of? Did he mean to say: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and his&#xA;  soul shall stick to his body forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Protestants explain this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-07-26T15:46:24.100" LastActivityDate="2016-07-26T15:46:24.100" Title="What did God mean when He said 'lest they live forever'?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;souls&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8791" CreationDate="2012-08-02T09:30:21.793" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Universe without a Creator?  It is a simple impossibility.  If so then why so much of order and so much of compatibility.  I have already said about order existing in the universe in my earlier answer. Now a little probing about the compatibility. It is impossible to get compatibility in the living things by the process so much hyped by atheist and called evolution.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming for the sake of argument that evolution is tenable, then   the least we can accept that a evolution can do is to evolve a creature to a better creature,  but not create a compatible mating creature to it. &lt;strong&gt;My question is, how the existence of male and female in every type of creatures came into being through evolution.&lt;/strong&gt; A male cannot evolve into female over the years. What a fallacy to believe that it happened through evolution? Take the simple case of organs for reproduction. They are exactly compatible to each other. How this can happen through evolution? Unless there is some external force who made this happen and the other intricacies in them, which I would not like to dissect further here.  There are so many other things which are both unique as well as compatible between male and female and unless there is a master designer this would be impossible to imagine that it happened through evolution.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can understand God and know Him only through faith and not by human reasoning. If that was the case then He would be just like a creature not Creator...Think of Stephan Hawkings.. such a genius..Possibly this is God's way of preventing humans from knowing too much about Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The posts that I see which are against existence of God appears to be from well informed people and from those who have mastered science.  Be it known that there are many renowned scientist who have done deep research in many fields of science and yet they are still believers in a Creator. With miniscule knowledge of science and relying on the books from authors who in way have any scientific background to their repute can be dangerous. They are only misleading by ignorance of not having complete knowledge of science. I am sure none of those who have posted these answers, have actually witnessed any of the experiments that these scientist claimed to have proved and I would not expect them to do so. Yet they believe what is told to them just because it is recorded lately and not 2000 years back. You know what I mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that I found, out of place in a para of quantumSoup is “why not follow teachings of Muhammad?  This looks like firing from shoulder of foe in arms. Why to follow the teaching of Mohammad?  @Shredder has already clarified in his comment and I would append that the message that is emanating from his preaching is diametrically opposite to that of Jesus. Sporadic preaching about indulging in violence and participating in that violence towards some refusing to follow him and his ultimate death completely contrasts to Jesus who preached love and only love to the extent of loving your enemy and practiced these teaching in his lifetime. This too, leaving aside his Divinty which is a different topic. He even mingled with sinners to make them change their lives and to bring them on right path...and death could not over power him but was raised to life after death. Draw your conclusion from this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-08-02T14:33:41.400" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T14:33:41.400" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8836" CreationDate="2012-08-02T11:09:29.097" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe &quot;live&quot;, in this context, refers to the body, not the soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be consistent with most usages of &quot;death&quot; referring to the body rather than being thrown in hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, I would not interpret &quot;lest&quot; as a form of fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Examples of &quot;death&quot; referring to body rather than soul:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 25:11 (in the Lazarus story, we know for a fact Abraham's soul is alive)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25:11 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahairoi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 26:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26:18 And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorDisplayName="user1694" LastEditDate="2012-08-17T00:46:16.667" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T00:46:16.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8840" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8845" CreationDate="2012-08-02T11:47:26.880" Score="2" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is different from: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8821&quot;&gt;Do Calvinists believe that it is possible to be saved without believing the doctrine of predestination?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One asks &quot;Does A =&gt; B?&quot; the other asks &quot;Does B =&gt; A&quot; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A18-19&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 22:18–19&lt;/a&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm very hesitant to argue about salvation apart from &quot;believing in Jesus&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, intuitively, it seems to me that it's very hard to believe in the doctrine of election without believing in Jesus. However,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+2%3A18-19&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 2:18–19&lt;/a&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, even demons intellectually believe in the doctrine of predestination, yet it does them no good – thus perhaps there is the possibility that humans can intellectually believe in the doctrine of predestination, yet somehow not believe in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway – these are my conflicted thoughts. Insights?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2016-07-07T12:51:28.653" Title="According to Calvinism, is it possible to believe in predestination, yet reject Christ?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2012-08-02T13:47:45.517" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a very significant distinction between what is &lt;em&gt;moral&lt;/em&gt; and what is &lt;em&gt;legal&lt;/em&gt;.  The Bible clearly states that there are many things that are &lt;em&gt;immoral&lt;/em&gt;, such as lying, deceit, adultery, greed, envy, jealousy... and homosexuality.  All of these things are legal (in the USA), unless you lie under oath.  &lt;em&gt;(However, politicians are generally expected to lie.)&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The laws in the United States do not enforce all morality.  They enforce only a small part of morality.  You have the legal right to be a very immoral person without suffering any penalty for it from the government.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as Christians, we hope to influence the laws of the government to encourage righteousness as much as possible.  The more unrighteousness there is, the more our society degrades.  Indeed, if pornography, strip clubs, extremely violent movies and violent video games were all outlawed, most people would agree that society would be healthier.  If less women went through the trauma and dangerous health effects of abortions, that would be better as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective, God is the one who created marriage between a man and woman and even designed sexual intercourse to be between a man and a woman.  So, Christians hope to maintain a definition of marriage in our society that corresponds to the definition of marriage that comes from God Himself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is really nothing to reconcile here.  No matter what is deemed legal, that does not change what is moral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I do expect that one day homosexual marriage will become the law of the land.  That still will not change the morality of it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T13:47:45.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8830" CreationDate="2012-08-02T14:27:30.310" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romans 9:13 is quoting one of my favorite verses in all of scripture - Malachi 1:2-5.  Here's what it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet &lt;strong&gt;I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated,&lt;/strong&gt; and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals. ”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this is what the Lord Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the Lord—even beyond the borders of Israel!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few things to note about the context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even this &amp;quot;hatred&amp;quot; is in the context of love. The whole point is God telling Israel how much He has and does love Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This &amp;quot;hatred&amp;quot; is a comparative preference for Israel over its enemy Edom. If, say, my wife hates Rosie O'Donnell, she would, most likely, expect me to hold her in contempt as well.  (Note: I'm not saying what one &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; do, but rather, what one is likely to do. In any case, with Rosie O'Donnell, it's pretty universal, so the point is moot.) God blessed Jacob, just as he promised he would - and he didn't out and out give up on Edom. But, comparatively speaking, he clearly preferred Israel over its enemy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is talking not about unborn children, but about nations. Notice how the text seemlessly moves from Esau to his descendants, the nation of Edom. (Incidentally, Obadiah lists some of the complaints against Esau / Edom.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T14:27:30.310" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8840" CreationDate="2012-08-02T14:33:15.867" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a bit unclear in the question, but I believe what you are asking is essentially, &quot;Can a person be so theologically informed as to believe in predestination, and yet not be truly saved?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to this is absolutely, yes.  Academic assent to God's existence or to various doctrines does not imply an authentic salvation.  Authentic salvation is characterized by a commitment and surrender of one's life to Christ as Lord and Saviour.  It is quite possible to subscribe to something academically, and not commit one's life to Christ.  The passage you quoted from James illustrates this, as does this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:21-23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:21-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;21&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  “Not everyone who  says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will  enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who  does the will of my Father who is in heaven. &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  On that day  many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not  prophesy in your name, and cast out demons  in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ &lt;sup&gt;23&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  And then will I declare to them, ‘I  never knew you;  depart from me,  you workers of lawlessness.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When someone commits his life to Christ, he is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:13-14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sealed&lt;/a&gt; by the Holy Spirit, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:15-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;evidence&lt;/a&gt; of this is a changed life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T14:33:15.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2012-08-02T15:26:18.663" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In answering &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7598/what-is-a-christians-justification-for-a-legal-prohibition-of-homosexual-marria&quot;&gt;What is a Christian&amp;#39;s justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage?&lt;/a&gt;, I wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is an active endorsement of a sin, as opposed to mere toleration as would be the case with merely allowing activities that are otherwise sinful. Indeed, all of what is listed could be considered adiaphora - it is clearly not good stuff, and is actively discouraged amongst those who choose to follow &quot;The Way,&quot; but there is no justification for legal compulsion to the contrary. In contrast, a government explicitly deriving its power from the consent of the governed is making a explicit endorsement of the normative nature of same-sex relationships in declaring marriage &quot;equal&quot; to heterosexual relationships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Defining marriage is a positive action that implicitly must make a judgement call.  It says &quot;We actively endorse this behavior.&quot; Not outlawing homosexuality is more benign - it says, &quot;This may be bad, but it does not rise to the level of must be prohibited.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the distinction&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T15:26:18.663" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8847" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8887" CreationDate="2012-08-02T16:06:11.523" Score="14" ViewCount="10247" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are generally two&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; views of Man&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_dichotomy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dichotomous&lt;/a&gt; (Soul &amp;amp; Body)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotomy_%28philosophy%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Trichotomous&lt;/a&gt; (Soul, Spirit, &amp;amp; Body)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notably, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6870/69&quot;&gt;A W Pink&lt;/a&gt; ascribes to the Trichotomous view (or Tripartite).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also notably, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=DC-TRU4tEvsC&amp;amp;lpg=PT156&amp;amp;ots=TvaN8tCFza&amp;amp;dq=r%20c%20sproul%20trichotomous&amp;amp;pg=PT156#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=r%20c%20sproul%20trichotomous&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;R C Sproul&lt;/a&gt; views the Trichotomy as heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I believe that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Platonic&lt;/a&gt; Tripartite view is dangerous or heretical, but the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bible&lt;/a&gt; does seem to indicate at least some type of trinitarian mirroring of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26-27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;image of God&lt;/a&gt; in Man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is an overview of these two perspectives and how much support is found in the Bible for both?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;sub&gt;An argument can be made for a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Quadrichotomous&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;view&lt;/a&gt; (Body, Soul, Mind, Spirit), but can be covered in another &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8848/69&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2017-02-19T07:52:42.717" Title="Overview of Trichotomous vs Dichotomous views of Man" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;trichotomism&gt;&lt;dichotomism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-03-27T02:43:12.153" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8848" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8864" CreationDate="2012-08-02T16:11:38.490" Score="3" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two common views of the Nature of Man - &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8847/69&quot;&gt;the Dichotomous, and the Trichotomous&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, a Quadrichotomous view can also be drawn from Jesus' answer to the challenge of what is the greatest commandment (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 10:27&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he answered, &quot;You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 12:30&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other verses/teachings support the four-fold view listed in Luke and Mark? Is this a valid view, or is it something akin to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebraism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebraism&lt;/a&gt; using repetition to enforce a point?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T15:45:07.560" Title="Biblical support of a Quadrichotomous view of Man" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8830" CreationDate="2012-08-02T16:19:04.783" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here is why God can't hate any man or unborn child.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First &lt;strong&gt;God is good&lt;/strong&gt; and infinitely so this means he desires the good all all creatures or he is not good at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV John 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. (1 Timothy 2:3-6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, &lt;strong&gt;God command us to love his enemies&lt;/strong&gt;, if he did not love them then He has not commanded us to be like Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third &lt;strong&gt;Jesus loved everyone, and Jesus was God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth, God command us not to show partiality, that is favor one man over another, because &lt;strong&gt;God does not show partiality&lt;/strong&gt;, that is he does not love one man more than another. (1 Timothy 5:21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the meaning of a verse like 'God loved Jacob but hated Esau' as used in Romans, simply means that before Jacob or Esau had any chance to 'will anything' or perform any 'good work' that could obtain favor, their fates were sealed and predetermined.  Therefore, this hatred is not sinful hatred but showing God's absolute preference for Jacob according to election.  For although God loves all men, only those who believe in Christ enter into God's grace and become objects of that love. Love that is allowed to be applied and made real is a higher love according to election and comparably without it, it is like the strong disfavor of even hate. The same strong difference of emotion is called hate in Luke 14:26 where he are told to 'hate'. Therefore, to speculate that this hatred is the evil hatred of 'wishing bad things towards another', is to imagine God is sinful?! What is strange is that many very strong Christians put their brains into ptrezels and actually suppose this theologically!?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, I do not think this idea of God only loving the elect rises more than a meaningless philosophical conjecture. A human can't really believe God hates people without having an emotional breakdown.  There is a difference between philosophical conjectures and real beliefs even when there are strenuously defended. Calvin over speculated this way and even my favorite theologian argued this way in the 1700s. I forgive them because they were fighting against vile Arminianism and good men often over-reach when defending the truth, in this case, of God's election.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My fellow Calvinists may accuse me of being non Calvinistic and shocked at my fully support God's boundless love for all men, but I say just because I am a Calvinist does not mean I follow every single thought and conjecture of Calvin as though he was a God.  God forbid that I would deny God's love, no matter who speculated against it.  What I beleive is absolute eternal election of those to salvation and those to hell, yet at the same time beleive in God's love for all men and think it is unbiblical to deny it.  It appears that I contradict myself but so did Luther so I am in good company.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luther had a more mature view about predestination than Calvin did&lt;/strong&gt;, simply put. Calvin was less humble in my view and could not resist being a precocious school man and speculating to far. Luther was more humble and knew when not to speculate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is Luther's typical attitude about it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He [Martin Luther] spoke at length about the idle people who occupy themselves with disputation about predestination beyond the limits of Scripture. It is most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God. (Luther's Works Vol 54, P249)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact Luther argues  that the phrases used by the Bible oppose speculations about it and insists that we believe in contradictions allowing them to be resolved in a mystery beyond our comprehension:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew reads this way: “I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy, and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious” (Ex. 33:19). This is said in an indefinite sense as it were and as if He were offering mercy by chance, without reference to predestination. In the same way He also says in Ex. 3:14: “I am who I am,” or “I shall be who I shall be.”&#xA;He seems by these words to be rebuffing those who are anxious and curious about the predestination of themselves or of others, as if to drive them away from thoughts and questions about predestination. As the common saying goes: to whom it comes it comes, and whom it hits it hits. It is as if He were saying: “No one will know to whom I will be merciful and to whom I will be gracious, nor can anyone be certain about it because of his merits or his works or anything else.”   (He [Martin Luther] spoke at length about the idle people who occupy themselves with disputation about predestination beyond the limits of Scripture. It is most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God. (Luther's Works Vol 25, p386)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luther's work on the will, where he argues we do not have free will in terms of our being saved, but that only God's grace can save a man, the introduction says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet Luther acknowledges that man possesses a capacity for response to God’s grace which other creatures do not (see p. 67); and elsewhere he can explain why God elects this man and not that by saying: “This difference is to be ascribed to man, not to the will of God, for the promises of God are universal. He will have all men to be saved. Hence it is not the fault of our Lord God, who promises salvation, but it is our fault if we are unwilling to believe it”. (Introduction to Luther's Work 'The Bondage of the Will', LW Volume 33)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To confirm Luther's view against God's love for only some:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He tells us to pray for all men, because such a prayer for men is acceptable, even if they are wicked. The grace of God is one and the same, even for the faithless. We must therefore pray not only for the faithful but for all men. That prayer offered for them is both heard and pleasing, because He wants it so and desires to save all men. (Luther's Works Vol 28, p261)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to show not every Calvinist sided with Calvin on this point, but rather was more along the lines of Luther, here is another famous Calvinist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly—it is the same thing—created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever.  (A Sermon (No. 241)  January 16th, 1859, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So does God hate an unborn child, as in wish them harm, of course God alone could NEVER as He LOVES all unborn children with infinite love.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T01:21:20.710" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8830" CreationDate="2012-08-02T16:28:47.503" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verbs for love and hate in Hebrew refer to degrees of emotion.  In the New Testament, this idea is also carried out in the verses that speak of &quot;hating your father and mother&quot;.  It is not that we should hate our parents, but that our love for God should supersede all other affections in this life.  Indeed, we are also commanded to love our wives, our neighbors, and even our enemies.  This makes perfect sense when we understand the Hebrew language and perspective.  Attempting to fit it into our language with our own perspective on the words leads to confusion and misunderstanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no, God did not hate Esau in the way we understand hate in English.  God has never hated an unborn child in that way.  He did have a special plan and purpose for Jacob, but He still loved Esau in the way we understand love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T16:28:47.503" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8829" CreationDate="2012-08-02T16:40:50.410" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you are getting hung up on Son of Man being a divine title. We take it as that, but it doesn't mean that fundamentally. It means something along the lines of the Ideal Man, the Best Man, the Representitive Man. It doesn't imply divinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' point then is that the Sabbath was created for the good of people. That's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%202&amp;amp;version=CEV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;how the CEV translates it&lt;/a&gt;. JB Phillips translates it &quot;for the sake of man&quot;. In other words the purpose of Man is not to keep the Sabbath - the purpose of the Sabbath is to keep Man operating as (s)he should.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, Jesus is saying, if the rules of the Sabbath are actually getting in the way of people doing the right thing, then they should be changed and Man has the power to do that. It should of course be noted that the &lt;em&gt;precise&lt;/em&gt; details of what was permitted on the Sabbath were not direct commands of God; the violation was only of the current &lt;em&gt;interpretation&lt;/em&gt; of what constituted Sabbath-breaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T16:40:50.410" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8820" CreationDate="2012-08-02T16:44:23.703" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aaron was originally assigned to be Moses' spokesman to Pharaoh because Moses tried to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%204:14-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;argue with God&lt;/a&gt; over his inability to speak well (ironic, considering he had grown up in Pharaoh's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;house&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In keeping with many of God's directives, lineage was important to carry-on the traditions, types, and shadows of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perfect One&lt;/a&gt; who would eventually come to rescue not only the nation of Israel, but openly make it possible for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;world&lt;/a&gt; to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;saved&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God also chose &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2049:8-12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judah&lt;/a&gt; to be the &quot;host&quot; tribe for the proper royal lineage of Christ. A quick glance at several of the descendants of David (we can even start with him) show some highly undesirable folks in the line to Christ - it doesn't make God's choice any less reasonable. (Indeed, the Israelites rebelled against God when they chose Saul as their first king because he was not of the tribe of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%209:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judah&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human sin and disobedience does not make God wrong - it makes humans &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wrong&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sidebar&lt;/strong&gt;: Interestingly, God chose the Levites to be the tribe set aside for duties related to worship. Levi and Simeon were the two brothers who &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2034:25&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;killed every man&lt;/a&gt; in Shechem after the prince raped their sister Dinah. (Whether Dinah was at all complicit in the event is potentially debatable.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T16:44:23.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8816" CreationDate="2012-08-02T16:47:16.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In patriarchal times, inheritance was [almost exclusively] passed-on to actual offspring of the family. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jacob in essence is adopting Joseph's two sons so that he can bless them and &quot;legally&quot; pass-on  their inheritance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T16:47:16.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8829" CreationDate="2012-08-02T16:47:23.957" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Then he said to them, “Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (NIV Mark 2:27-28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon more thinking and searching more commentaries, I think the amplified version of this verse, detailing the logic, could read as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God made Adam before he made the Sabbath, to give his body rest and to provide other benefits to man. He made the Sabbath for him to enjoy.  The Sabbath was not meant to be a burden, but a rest.  In this sense the Sabbath was a work 'in service of man' and so men were above the Sabbath in so much as it was made for them.  In the same way, the Son of Man, that is the New Adam, or federal head of humanity, is over the Sabbath, but much more so.  As God, He could not fully be made to be 'under Law' but is Lord over the Sabbath and all Laws of God. As a man, He was born under Law but as God he could not be brought fully under His own Law. Furthermore, as Lord of the Sabbath not only could Jesus properly teach the meaning of the Sabbath to the Pharisees that misunderstood it, but He would soon act as 'Lord over it' by dying on the Sabbath and rising to make a New Covenant where the Father would be pleased with His work of salvation and would rest and delight in this work as a new never ending Sabbath, that could give eternal rest four the soul by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, &lt;strong&gt;the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (in the first creation). Therefore, in the same way and even more so, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (as is shown by his application of its true meaning and abolition of the Old Sabbath in the new eternal Sabbath he will soon create).”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-27T12:12:28.323" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T12:12:28.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8812" CreationDate="2012-08-02T17:07:54.657" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have tried to answer this question by showing some Christian teaching on the &quot;extreme sports&quot; of previous centuries, which are pretty extreme by modern standards too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jousting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jousting&lt;/a&gt; was very dangerous and many people were killed and injured; other tournament sports such as the melee also had a high casualty rate. In the twelfth through fourteenth centuries, the Catholic Church tried to discourage jousting, partly because of the possibility of these sportsmen killing themselves or others. The following is typical - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM10.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon 14&lt;/a&gt; of the Second Lateran Council (1139):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We entirely forbid, moreover, those abominable jousts and tournaments in which knights come together by agreement and rashly engage in showing off their physical prowess and daring, and which often result in human deaths and danger to souls. If any of them dies on these occasions, although penance and viaticum are not to be denied him when he requests them, he is to be deprived of a church burial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar prohibitions were stated in the Council of Clermont (1130), of Rheims (1131), Lateran III (1179), and Lateran IV (1215), and in Papal decrees (eg of Clement V, Pope from 1305 to 1314). They were annulled by Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) because the penalties were felt to be too harsh, and were catching too many people. Some effort had also been made, in terms of technique, better armour, etc., to make the sport safer for the participants. (&lt;em&gt;Jousting in medieval and renaissance Iberia&lt;/em&gt;, Noel Fallows, Boydell Press 2010, p173-4.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is certainly in line with Catholic / general Christian thinking on the value of human life, including one's own life; deprivation of church burial was also characteristic for suicides. However, these decrees do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; impose a penalty of, say, excommunication; and it was accepted that jousting was legal under the &lt;em&gt;civil&lt;/em&gt; law. So this attitude towards jousting doesn't seem to me to be so &quot;strong&quot; - it's just that the particular way the sport was practiced at the time was felt to be excessively dangerous, and a later pope ultimately rescinded the decrees. Modern sports, even the ones you mention, are far, far less risky. There is also a strong ethos for safety and responsibility among the participants in extreme sports, including use of proper equipment, having plenty of training, and so on. This reduces the danger and the moral objection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other considerations might include the frivolous nature of these events. Football, for example, was banned by the Puritans in England for this reason, in addition to the violent way the game was played, and its connection with betting. The objection on the grounds of danger is basically similar to the jousting case. Philip Stubbes wrote (&lt;em&gt;Anatomy of Abuses&lt;/em&gt;, 1581):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As concerning football playing, I protest unto you it may rather be called a freendly kinde of fight, then a play or recreation; a bloody and murthering practise, then a felowly sport or pastime. [...] hereof groweth enuie, malice, rancour, cholor, hatred, displeasure, enmitie, and what not els; and sometimes fighting, brawling, contention, quarrel picking, murther, homicide, and great effusion of blood, as experience daily teacheth. Is this murthering play, now, an exercise for the Sabaoth day? is this a christian dealing, for one brother to mayme and hurt another, and that vpon prepensed malice, or set purpose? is this to do to another as we would wish another to do to vs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, modern sports are a bit better at avoiding brawling and homicide. It's true that the objections &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; than danger still apply - on that basis, someone could argue against tiddlywinks - but if participants are being responsible about threats to life and limb, it's harder to say that a sport should be considered immoral in itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2012-08-06T20:09:11.237" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T20:09:11.237" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8836" CreationDate="2012-08-02T17:12:00.563" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we must take the trees as &lt;strong&gt;literal but also symbolic&lt;/strong&gt; because of &lt;strong&gt;God's promises annexed to them. The tree of life represented the case of Adam obtaining eternal life by obedience to God and in resisting the tree of death.&lt;/strong&gt; In other words Adam could never be allowed to eat from the tree of life so &lt;strong&gt;the concern is hypothetical only, God would never and could never, have allowed it.&lt;/strong&gt; God is saying 'Now that Adam is a sinner he must not obtain eternal glory as a holy saint, reversing the effects of eating from the other tree.  No my judgment must stand, there are no second chances.  Adam must die as I warned him he would if he had sinned.  Adam can't work his way back into life but must be thrown out of the garden entirely.' If Adam could have eaten from the tree than according to the promise God annexed to it, Adam would have been born again against God's means of actually providing it, so it could never happen. If Adam had resisted sin and eaten from the tree of life than we would have all been born sinless and no Messiah would have been required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The view that these trees are equal and opposites is common and the most congruent with scripture:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The situation with the tree of life I believe to have been wholly the same; not by its inherent character but through the efficacy of the Word was the tree life-giving. And so, because the Word was still attached to that tree, Adam would have been restored to his former life if he had eaten from it. (Luther's Works Vol 1, P227)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bible does not say one tree was 'big' causing death to soul and body and the other was 'tiny' only causing life to the body.&lt;/strong&gt; They are equal symbols of the results of the covenant of works God made with Adam, obedience to eternal life, soul and body, or disobedience to eternal death, soul and body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-21T00:07:44.527" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T00:07:44.527" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8848" CreationDate="2012-08-02T18:22:50.683" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you are reading too much into the text literally, which is very dangerous with something as the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the point of this verse is not to propose a Quadrichotomous view, but rather simply Love the Lord with everything you have. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1946" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T18:22:50.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1600" CreationDate="2012-08-02T18:38:40.917" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are not born sinners. Think about it, if we were, then Christ would have been a sinner and therefore the entire story would collapse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:4&lt;/strong&gt; Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You do not break any of God's laws by merely being born, as by his design, nor by being in existence, as per his design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ISAIAH 7:16&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV) For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see that every child has the option to Obey or Disobey God in Isaiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 18:1-4:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the&#xA;  greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I&#xA;  tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children,&#xA;  you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles&#xA;  himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see Jesus telling us to be like the children. If the Children were sinners, Jesus would not have likely condoned their activity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="15" LastEditorUserId="15" LastEditDate="2012-08-03T16:57:09.773" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T16:57:09.773" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8848" CreationDate="2012-08-02T18:47:35.883" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The four words that come in this scripture come from a variance in the translation of Deuteronomy 6:5. The Greek Septuagint translates &quot;strength&quot; as &quot;mind&quot;.  This translation of what Jesus said in Aramaic accommodated both the familiar Greek translation as well as the more accurate Hebrew translation of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not, however, suggest a Quadrichotomous view of man, even though that is a pretty cool word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorDisplayName="user1946" LastEditDate="2012-08-02T19:46:59.710" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T19:46:59.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4521" CreationDate="2012-08-02T19:36:55.770" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not that the Bible does not have a concept of mental illness (that would be silly, of course there were mentally ill people back in those days) but I believe mental illness is more of a modern term. They usually referred to those who were mentally ill as &quot;the dumb&quot; or more generally, just simply those with &quot;afflictions&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few examples in the bible of what society today deems as a mental disorder/illness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bib.ly/Ps102.1-11.KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Depression&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bib.ly/1Sa16.14-23.KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Anxiety&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bib.ly/Jm1.2-8.KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bi-polar&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1946" LastEditorDisplayName="user1946" LastEditDate="2012-08-02T20:01:52.990" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T20:01:52.990" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8836" CreationDate="2012-08-02T19:54:56.283" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;One possible interpretation is that the tree of life would have given them eternal physical life.  After the Fall, this would have been in a state of separation from God.  So, God prevented them from living forever in this state of separation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's purpose was that they live forever in communion with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T19:54:56.283" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8830" CreationDate="2012-08-02T20:24:49.130" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that God loves everyone is what we grew up with. It is true that God loves everyone but if you don't love him back you are against him and you cannot expect him to keep loving you. Loving someone who doesn't love you back is very hurtful. This is evident in &lt;strong&gt;John 3:16&lt;/strong&gt; that most of us are quoting. The verse said &lt;em&gt;&quot;that whoever believes in Him should not perish&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and what happen to &lt;em&gt;&quot;whosoever does not believe&quot;&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;but he who does&#xA;  not believe is condemned already&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God sees the end from the beginning and he knew those who have the tendency of rejecting him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were God and you have the power to see from the beginning to end of these people before they were born how would you feel, hate or love?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pharaoh - made the children of suffer great pain and blaspheme their God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Jews that influenced people to have Jesus killed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Herod killing all the children because of Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judas Iscariot that betrayed Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adolph Hitler&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people I mentioned can only receive God's mercy to be pardoned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that&#xA;  offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God decides to hate, it will be justified. It is not justified for humans because God, an higher authority said so. God judges all but he is not judged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-08-02T23:55:24.810" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T23:55:24.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8818" CreationDate="2012-08-02T22:19:08.403" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt; The Left Behind series is A) entirely fictional and B) based on Dispensationalism.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/dispensationalism&quot;&gt;Dispensationalism&lt;/a&gt; is almost universally at odds with &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reformed-theology&quot;&gt;Reformed theology&lt;/a&gt;. The basic problem lies in the understanding of the way God relates to his people. Understanding this relationship in the context of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/covenants&quot;&gt;covenants&lt;/a&gt; that get renewed with unfolding detail but don't fundamentally change (a defining feature of Reformed and Calvinistic theology) is substantially different and at odds with an understanding it which God's relation to men is set in the context of separate dispensations each with their own distinct characteristics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvanism is not quite as broad a structure as Reformed theology and it is harder to draw a correlation to eschatology just from the points that it considers, but I think it is fair to lump them in together because it basically sets the stage for Reformed theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few groups that use the label &quot;Reformed&quot; as an adjective rather than a noun. Rather than being &quot;Reformed&quot; they are &quot;Reformed X&quot; where X is something else. By this they could mean a variety of things, but usually it means they have incorporated some of the doctrines considered Calvinistic or some of the practices developed by Reformed churches, but they still hold onto another identity as their primary doctrinal framework. Among these are some groups who would hold to a Dispensational/Premillenial eschatology, but these are definitely a minority among those using the label &quot;Reformed&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key aspect of your question is that you asked about the &quot;teachings&quot;. Even as somebody who disagrees with the interpretation from beginning to end, as a mental exercise in reading fiction -- reading with the same eye as I would read Tolkien or watch Batman -- it is possible to enjoy the the books as apocalyptic fiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I agree with your labeling them as &quot;teachings&quot; because at the end of the day, without a strong theological background, it is almost impossible to listen to the Bible talked about and real verses analyse and commented on even inside a fictional setting and not take away something. The author is a professing Christian, the books match his own theology and he has made every claim of intending the books as a way to further people's understanding of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, I think it is fair that the contents be treated with the same scrutiny that a theology textbook would be. It is, after all, more theological than anything many professing Christians will bother to study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this light, it is worth noting that even some modern Dispensational Premillenialists take issue with the some of the interpretation work that is scattered between the pages pure fiction. As for anybody with a different eschatology, it is almost inconceivable that they could even stomach the read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* Please note I am refraining from commenting on whether A==B.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2016-03-31T05:44:11.440" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4775" CreationDate="2012-08-02T22:39:26.740" Score="-7" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Please read this with an open mind, this explanation must necessarily be very long—I am trying to debunk centuries of human error after all!—Mind you, &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; humans are full of error, except of course for one person crucified some 2,000 years ago. Don't think that I am trying to attack anyone, I am merely stating my faith, since none of us are perfect we are going to have disagreements.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would actually say that Jesus was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; silent on the issue of homosexuality. It should be mentioned that the whole idea of sexual orientation, and the term homosexuality, is quite new. &quot;Homosexual&quot; was not in the english language until it was coined in the late 19th century. Thus, any inclusion of the word in the Bible was added by contemporary translators to make certain passages more clear for modern readers. However, I am quite confident that a certain quote from Jesus is specifically referring to the natural nature of homosexuality, and this has not been changed to the modern word &quot;homosexual&quot; because of the inherent sin of humans—that is to say, the &lt;em&gt;human&lt;/em&gt; translators refuse to include the term if its inclusion is at odds with their hatred and judgements—essentially slandering Jesus to suite their own &lt;em&gt;sinful&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;human&lt;/em&gt; desires; we are all sinners and imperfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quote comes from Matthew 19. The Pharisees (the most conservative. scripture-affirming sect of Jews) asked Jesus if a man could divorce his wife for any reason, which is allowed under Mosaic law in the old testament (Deut 24:1). Jesus then tells them that a man and woman become one in the eyes of god, and that you shouldn't thus split that which is one in the eyes of god. It should be noted that Jesus is explicitly disagreeing with scripture, which he does in other places, thus disproving the rather new concept of &quot;Biblical inerrancy&quot;. It is hard for modern readers to see this, but Jesus is actually saying in his response in Matt 19:8 that &quot;I, god, like &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; of the things in your scripture, but you're mostly full of s**t, listen to what I have to say&quot;. Some use Jesus's statement of &quot;he made them man and woman&quot; to justify their hatred against homosexuals, or that this is the only sexual orientation, but this is taken out of context: he was asked a question about &lt;em&gt;husband and wife&lt;/em&gt;, so he gave an answer regarding &lt;em&gt;husband and wife&lt;/em&gt;, he was not condemning homosexuals. After he says that you shouldn't divorce your wife (notwithstanding adultery), his disciples say to him that it is better not to marry. Jesus then says that not all can accept their statement: some are &lt;em&gt;born eunuchs&lt;/em&gt; (more on this later), some are made eunuchs by others (obvious that this refers to castration), and others make themselves eunuchs for the sake of god (meaning they remain celibate, the answer his disciples have come up with), and that only people whom &quot;god helps&quot; can be a &quot;religious eunuch&quot; or someone that remains celibate for god; clearly not everybody who is saved falls into this third category. What could Jesus have possibly meant when he said that &quot;some are born eunuchs in their mothers' wombs&quot;? Unless he is talking about some poor toddler that suffers from erectile disfunction, or some poor fetus whose mother stuck an exact-o knife up her hoo-ha to castrate him, Jesus is &lt;em&gt;clearly&lt;/em&gt; talking about homosexuals, and he is saying that they are born that way. Under Roman law (which provided legal definitions for all under its rule, including the jews), there were two types of eunuchs: the castrated variety, and the natural, un-castrated variety who had no interest in women (which we would now call homosexuals, what Jesus was talking about). If you don't believe me, read the Roman Legal document Lex Julia et Papia. Thus, at the very least, one has to accept that Jesus said homosexuals are &lt;em&gt;born that way&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Jesus specifically did decry certain behaviors. For instance, Jesus says that it is not our place to judge others ( like condemning others for their sexual orientation) for we are not the judge, and that we may see the problems in others' lives but not the greater faults in our own (Matt 7, Luke 6, to name a couple places). So, even if Jesus thinks homosexuality is a sin, though I don't believe that he does, it is not our place to be the judge. In simple terms: It does nothing to serve god or his interests to judge and hate others and prevent gay people from marrying, nor does gay marriage harm straight marriage, society, or the faith and salvation of others, while there is a strong possibility one will be judged on par with their own judgment. People should question who they are serving when they don't allow gay people to live their lives in a natural way, god or their &lt;em&gt;own&lt;/em&gt; sinful, hating nature (we all sin and hate from time to time, I am not trying to be pious or judgmental). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that one's sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complicated process of genetic and environmental causes. Talk to any gay Christian that has struggled with the issue for most of their lives, look at the &lt;em&gt;overwhelming&lt;/em&gt; psychological and genetic evidence (the penetrance rate of homosexuality and its location on the X chromosome). Unless you are of the minority christian view that says science is wrong you must accept this (science and faith do not need to be in conflict, Jesus himself did not take old testament scripture as literal inerrant truth as evidenced by some arguments I have made, and if science is wrong then God is a liar and has gone to inconceivable lengths to obscure the truth from us). To think that people make the choice to be gay in a gay-hating society is kind of like covering your ears, closing your eyes, and going &quot;lalalala&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the issue of Paul, he is probably wrong. Many people say the bible (and Paul's writings in it) is the 100% inherent word of god, but this view is demonstrably incorrect. This did not become the defining, integral nature of certain Christian movements until the Niagara Creed of 1878, and the Bible is not necessary for Christianity (how else did it grow from nothing in the 3 centuries that it existed before the orthodox biblical cannon was created?). Each of the Gospels give different and sometimes contradictory accounts, and there are contradictions throughout both testaments (such as the salvation through faith alone view of Paul vs. the faith and good works view of Peter, also read Mark 2:26 and 1 Samuel 1-6 see if you can find the error). Furthermore, unless Jesus wrote something (he didn't, we only have what &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; people said he said), I don't care how divinely inspired you are, you are only an imperfect human and you are not capable of writing the inerrant word of god. If humans are capable of such perfect divine revelation, I question the necessity of Jesus' existence in the first place, or all of the disagreements we humans have. Paul, while divorcing Christianity from a lot of the incorrect teachings of Judaism, was an imperfect human and made some mistakes by keeping certain traditional jewish views (like ordering women to cover their head during prayer in 1 Corinthians, or the 3 statements he made from a Jewish perspective on homosexuality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, we have to ask whether homosexual marriage is a fundamentally legal or religious issue in 21st century America. Since we do not live in a Christian Theocracy, since Marriage is a legal term that influences benefits and taxation, since we are even having a discussion about the legality of gay marriage, we are talking about a fundamentally legal issue. This legal issue certainly has religious connotations within church's, but church's are allowed to limit their views on marriage in their own church, not in the country as an entirety (gay marriage would not force church's to accept and practice it, and marriages independent of any religion already exist). I hope that I have substantially made the case for Jesus's message: love, not judgment. I know most people who actually read this far will disagree with me, and that is fine—I am merely a human, I am not perfect, it is possible I have made a mistake, but it is equally as possible every other human has made a mistake as well. Have a blessed day, and praise god.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1949" LastEditorUserId="1949" LastEditDate="2012-08-02T22:48:05.743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-02T22:48:05.743" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8875" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8876" CreationDate="2012-08-03T03:19:45.100" Score="2" ViewCount="1684" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always wondered why homosexuality is a sin. The most common argument I hear though is that &quot;They can't procreate and be fruitful, which is an integral part of God's design for us&quot;. But I notice a few things wrong with that claim:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that homosexuality being a sin is taking about the act, wouldn't doing &lt;b&gt;anything&lt;/b&gt; other than having sexual intercourse be a sin? It seems that by that definition anything that doesn't result in procreation is a sin. The act of homosexuality does not prevent someone from being able to procreate, so what is the problem?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the &quot;lifestyle&quot; of homosexuality is a sin for that reason, why isn't abstinence a sin as well? Like homosexuality, abstinence is a sure fire way to ensure that you're never fruitful and populate the earth as is God's plan. That being said, if someone said that abstinence was a sin, I'm sure most Christians would laugh.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole &quot;fruitful&quot; thing is the only plausible explanation that I can think of for why homosexuality is a sin. The above are things that I've never really understood, and as someone who was raised Christian all her life, I really don't want to believe that I was taught something that is completely ungrounded and unfair. Thanks for reading my question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1950" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T11:59:35.810" Title="if homosexuality is a sin, why isn't abstinence?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-08-03T18:27:32.880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8875" CreationDate="2012-08-03T05:03:53.377" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you've given a very good argument why it's implausible to theorize that homosexuality is a sin because it does not produce children. I agree: that line of reasoning doesn't hold up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's not the only conceivable (no pun intended) reason why the Bible would say that homosexuality is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest answer would be to say, &quot;it just is, just like all others sins are sins because they just are&quot;. Why is murder a sin? It just is. People often answer, &quot;because it hurts another person&quot;. Okay. So hurting another person is a sin? Why? What makes hurting another person a sin? All you've done is push the question back a step.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could say that there's a general principle in the Bible that sex is good and beautiful within a marriage between a man and a woman, but wrong in any other case. Thus pre-marital sex is a sin, adultery is a sin, beastiality is a sin, and homosexuality is a sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is sex outside of marriage wrong? We could, I suppose, discuss the health problems and social problems and emotional problems it causes. Just like we could talk about the economic problems that would be created if murder was allowed. But again, that just pushes back the question. Are veneral disease and broken homes &quot;bad&quot;? Who says? Why? Again, all you've done is push back the question. At some point you have to say that some things are good and others are bad because they just are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that in general, things that God forbids as sins do in the long run hurt the people who do them or those around them. Murder obviously hurts the victim, and violent people have a tendency to meet violent ends themselves. Adultery destroys relationships and broken homes hurt children. Etc. But I'd be very cautious about saying that that's the entire reason why God forbids something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T05:03:53.377" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8875" CreationDate="2012-08-03T05:51:56.083" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the easiest answer is that homosexuality is &quot;unnatural&quot; (cf. Romans 1). Now, before someone tries to correct me and say, &quot;it happens in nature all the time,&quot; I am not talking about &quot;nature&quot; in the same sense you might turn on the Discovery Channel and watch flying shark vs flying crocodile. After all, rape is something which is found in a number of different species and I would also call that &quot;unnatural&quot;. No, &quot;nature&quot; in the Romans 1 sense has to do with how man and woman were created, how they were &quot;from the beginning&quot; (cf. Matthew 19). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God created Adam and Eve, he created a mystical pairing whereby both parties partake in a supernatural act of self-gift (Paul calls it a &quot;profound mystery&quot; in  in Ephesians 5). It is a pairing which is so profound that their bodies are &lt;em&gt;actually designed&lt;/em&gt; to fit together and complete each other &amp;mdash; so profound that the two become one flesh (Genesis 2). Not only that, but one of the primary results of this act is the creation of life (John Paul II basically said that sex is where we are the most like God in that we freely choose to create life).*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Homosexual acts are unable to properly demonstrate this pairing. While there may be love (and perhaps profound love, in a sense) between two individuals, if they are the same gender they are not compatible. It is not in their combined natures to unify that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose someone might try to say, &quot;So, it isn't in their nature, why is that wrong?&quot; Well, is it in your forehead's nature to pound nails into walls? If you try, you will very quickly find that acting against your forehead's nature will cause you not a little bit of pain. Similarly, using any part of your body in a way which deviates from the original intent will prove damaging, even if that may not be the most obvious at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* I think it is important to note that while it is one of the primary results of intercourse, children are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the point of sex. Using sex exclusively for the purpose of having children and divorced from the unitive and self-gift aspects is &lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt; placing the other as a means to an end.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-08-03T11:59:35.810" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T11:59:35.810" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8886" CreationDate="2012-08-03T06:32:00.117" Score="6" ViewCount="10491" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. - &lt;strong&gt;KJV John 19:26,27&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not seeing Joseph near cross? Why did Jesus hand over his mother to his disciple? Where are his brothers and his father? Is there a history attached to it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-02-09T21:41:22.537" Title="Why the disciple took Jesus' mother unto his own home?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;joseph-husband-of-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8882" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-03T09:55:28.937" Score="7" ViewCount="4529" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't understand the concept of God in Christianity. Based on what I do know, there is God, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit -- doesn't this add up to 3 Gods?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity, is there there One (True God) or are there three gods? If there are three gods, what is the role of each one? And who was the original God? Who is the father to the &quot;Son of God&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1951" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-27T14:16:12.513" LastActivityDate="2015-11-26T10:22:13.997" Title="Is the concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) three Gods or One?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-11-26T13:31:43.733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8882" CreationDate="2012-08-03T10:50:05.043" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, the Trinity is not Tritheism. This is the classic argument of the Muslim against Christianity, but it is not valid. It is not valid, because the formulation of the Trinity specifically states that God is one being who exists in three persons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Athansian Creed&lt;/a&gt; (a very ancient creed dating to the fourth or fifth century predating the Orthodox / Catholic / Protestant schims and accepted by at least &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/888/1039&quot;&gt;97% of all Christians&lt;/a&gt;) in particular states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is not in the formulation, but rather in attempts to make an analogy to explain it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;There are great light-hearted attempts at analogy, but each suffers from a defect of some kind.&lt;/a&gt; No analogy is possible, because there is no terrestrial equivalent that properly holds the tension of the fact that three people with distinct energies, capable of perfectly relating to each other, are thus so close as to be One being. Every Trinitarian heresy comes out of an attempt to force such an analogy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tritheism&lt;/strong&gt; in particular was endemic to those areas of Christianity that are now under Muslim control. Tritheism emphasizes the distinct personalities to the detriment of their unity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed so close as to be one, in the same way a Muslim would agree that a man and wife are one flesh. Sometimes the analogy of the egg (shell, yolk, and white) is used to describe this relationship, but really it doesn't convey the simultaneous distinction and sameness of personality.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Modalism&lt;/strong&gt;, on the other hand, makes the opposite mistake. It says that the Three manifestations of God are just different aspects of the same entity. (For example, some will say water is ice, fluid, and steam, or a man is father and husband)  That, however, precludes the ability of, say, God the Father to exalt God the Son (Phillipians 2:9). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the primary means of differentiating the three persons of the Trinity is by their observed actions in history:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God the Father is the primary actor in the history of Israel and the Old Testament. He is identified by his love, jealousy, and protection of his people. For his own glory, he rescued his people from Egypt, and showed himself powerful on behalf of those whose hearts were perfect toward him. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God the Son is known primarily through his actions as the incarnated Jesus of Nazereth.  According to John, he existed from the beginning of Creation, and he made all things. By him there is nothing made that was made. He chose to temporarily give up the rights of godhood in order to become a man. Being found in human likeness, he was obedient unto death, even the death of a cross.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God the Holy Spirit is known primarily through his actions in the church.  God the Son sent Him to dwell amongst his people, and was most visibly manifest at Pentecost. He is the source of the gifts manifest amongst Christians and is present in His church.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of these actors acts out of accord with any of the others, and they all have the same character and purpose. They do have unique wills, but willingly subordinate them to each other in perfect harmony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth is there is no analogy because there is no terrestrial equivalent. That said, both Muslims and Christians would agree that God is so far above humans that his Nature could be incomprehensible to his creation. That God is both Three &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; One is the core tenet of our understanding of who God is. In no way do Christians believe there is more than one God, but how we express that remains a paradox we cannot or have not resolved since his nature was revealed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T15:49:03.177" LastActivityDate="2013-09-27T14:18:42.600" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8791" CreationDate="2012-08-03T11:40:51.733" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is better for you to believe in God who rules the universe (and keeps it in perfect order) than NOT believing. When you believe in God, you turn out to be a good human. If you believe there is no God but in the end there turns out to be One on the Day, you will loose. However if you believe there IS a God, you are not loosing anything at all, so &lt;strong&gt;it is better to believe (with no cost) than to not believe (at the possible cost of punishment).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human has limited senses to perceive each and everything in this universe. There are certain things you don't feel but have to believe in. Not believing in God because you don't feel or perceive Him sounds absurd, you can't prove He doesn't exit to those who believe. You need to explore the nature, working of a cell to anything, you would notice complete order in everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human nature calls for help automatically when in troubles and adversities which itself is a proof that there is One, the Creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1951" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T11:40:51.733" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8875" CreationDate="2012-08-03T11:52:24.070" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question seems a bit problematic from the very beginning.  If doing something is wrong, why isn't doing nothing also wrong?  Or why isn't &quot;not doing it&quot; wrong?  Just because God forbids one thing does not mean He mandates another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to the question really lies in why anything at all is wrong.  There is a moral law, and it is not subjective, but objective.  The Moral Lawgiver defines what is right and wrong.  Sin is anything that is contrary to His purposes or plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible states that God created one man and one woman for one marriage at the very beginning.  That is the precedent that He set.  He affirms later that this was, indeed, His plan and purpose, and that homosexuality in particular is contrary to that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also observe a specific design inherent in men and women.  They were designed for each other, but it is fairly obvious that women were &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; designed for women, nor were &lt;em&gt;men&lt;/em&gt; designed for men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adultery is also contrary to the pattern and precedent and purpose in marriage, and God identifies that as sin as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, homosexuality is a sin, not just because it cannot produce offspring and heterosexual relationships can.  Homosexuality is a sin because it is contrary to God's specific design in marriage for one man and one woman, His purpose and plan for sexual fulfillment, and His establishment of the family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abstinence, on the other hand, is actually required until a person enters into marriage, so it certainly is not wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T11:52:24.070" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8880" CreationDate="2012-08-03T12:15:53.560" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;SO, according to Tradition, Joseph had long since passed when Jesus even began his ministry, making him ineligible. The next question is &quot;Why didn't Jesus entrust his mother to one of his step-brothers then?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no substantial evidence that he &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; step-brothers. As the Aramaic word for &quot;brother&quot; is better understood &quot;kinsman&quot;, it is quite possible that Christ had no step-brother, only kinsmen (meaning that he may have only had cousins)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Apostle John &lt;em&gt;WAS A COUSIN&lt;/em&gt; of Christ. The point is made &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20041022.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, but if you really want a better explanation you should contact Dr. Glasov at Seton Hall University. He has a cool chart and some nifty textual criticism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As both a cousin and &lt;em&gt;the beloved disciple&lt;/em&gt;, John was in the unique situation of being both the most faithful to Christ and a close blood relative. As such, he was probably the best choice to be given this honor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2012-08-07T19:38:17.053" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T19:38:17.053" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8847" CreationDate="2012-08-03T12:27:57.917" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which is the &quot;safer&quot;/&quot;more Biblical&quot; view, and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My instinct is that it might be safer to understand the Dichotomous view primarily based on my own experience in transitioning from a Trichotomous view early in my Christian life.  Having said that, someone like A.W Pink probably has a healthy version of the a Trichotomous view and I would not call it heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My introduction to the Trichotomous view was very early in my Christian life by reading Watchman Nee and just a few years later I tossed out his books as I had then encountered Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and saw a clear difference between Biblical exposition and a kind of mysticism that Nee promoted. The reason why the Trichotomous view (in this case) led to a sort of mysticism is that the ‘spirit’ as ‘opposed’ to the ‘soul’ was focused on as the true Godly part, and one was encouraged to sort of ignore the mind, emotions and will and try to reach out for a more ‘spiritual’ state ---- in communion with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I started to read older Bible commentaries and works from reformed theologians from the 16-18th centuries, I noticed a switch to a Dichotomous view that seemed more aligned with a spiritual sense of God through understanding of his Word. To make a long story short I sort of adopted the Dichotomous view without really thinking about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now many years later I will just summarize the perspective that I have found in various older Bible commentaries, in support of the Dichotomous view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First let me quote a book that others have noted that provides a good summary of both views:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The dichotomous theory.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;   Strong states the theory thus:&#xA;  The immaterial part of man, viewed as an individual and conscious life, capable of possessing and animating a physical organism, is called psuche; viewed as a rational and moral agent, susceptible of divine influence and indwelling, this same immaterial part is called. The pneumu, then, is man’s nature looking and capable of receiving and manifesting the Pneumu the psuche is man’s nature looking earthward, and touching the world of sense. The pneumu is man’s higher part, as related to spiritual realities or as capable of such relation. Man’s being is therefore not trichotomous but dichotomous, and his immaterial part, while possessing duality of powers, has unity of substance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The trichotomous theory&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;   This theory holds that man consists of three distinct elements: body, soul, and spirit. The body is the material part of our constitution, the soul is the principle of animal life, and the spirit is the principle of our rational life. Some add to this last statement “and immortal life.” This can, however, not be made an essential part of the theory. Those who take this extreme view hold that at death the body returns to the earth, the soul ceases to exist, and the spirit alone remains to be reunited with the body at the resurrection. (Lectures In Systematic Theology, Henry Clarence Thiessen, P160)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second let me explain why a good understanding of the dichotomous theory does have some similarities with the trichotomous theory, but better explains that commonality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic situation when looking at many places in scripture where the soul or spirit are spoken of, one quickly finds that the meanings overlap but also convey separate senses. Therefore in general the spirit means something different than the soul even though they are indicating the same vital non physical lfe of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a basic standpoint of occurenes in the Bible in the Old Testament נָ֫פֶשׁ (soul) is used almost always as the English ‘soul’ but commonly just ‘life’ or functions of the mind, will or heart that are more often related to ‘desire’. In the New Testament ψυχῆς (soul) is alsmot always ‘soul’ or ‘life’.  Looking at the word ‘spirit’ we find similar but different meanings.  ר֫וּחַ (spirit) in the Old Testament is almost always ‘Spirit’, ‘spirit’, or ‘wind’. In the New Testament (πνεύματος) it is almost always just ‘Spirit’ or ‘spirit’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this establishes Strong’s definition quite well for the soul is therefore the essential life of man ‘looking earthward’ and the ‘spirit’ that same principle of life breathed (like wind) into man from God, that can look towards and experience God.  One must accept this different cast used by spirit or soul upon the principle of life in man, because later the idea of carnal and spiritual are assigned to these different aspects. This is where the commonality of both views occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 we have a phrase a ‘natural man’ does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. Here the natural man is ψυχικὸς psuchikos (natural, of the soul or mind) is used which has a strong relationship to the word soul (ψυχῆς - psychēs).  In verse fifteen in contrast to the carnal man, we find the phrase 'he that is spiritual'. Spiritual πνευματικὸς (pneumatikos) has a strong relationship to the word 'spirit' πνεύματος (pneumatos).  So sometimes 'soul' indicates an identification with the unregenerate parts of man' soul (or essential life) being considered 'carnal' and the regenerate parts of man’s soul (called spirit) being spiritual.  This division is what commentators often notice. For example, in Hebrews where the word of God is said to divide spirit and soul, the carnal and spiritual parts of a man might be understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing of notice, that I have found commentaries often do, when they context does not allow a carnal or spiritual division, is refer to the 'seat of emotions' as the soul  and the 'mind' denoted by spirit, such as loving God with 'soul and mind', or 'who knows the thoughts of a man accept the spirit of a man'? (Math 22:37, 1 Cor 2:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; A  dichotomous view is a safer view as it seems more grounded in the Bible and in reformed theology. In an in-depth analysis of the soul and the spirit, one finds different aspects of the 'same single vital immaterial life God breathed into Adam' called soul or spirit. However, the soul and spirit often denote different aspects of that life. In a believer, in the struggle of sin, they often denote the difference between the carnal and spiritual mind and affections, for the soul looking heavenward (spirit) is very actively opposing its former lusts (soul looking earthward). When this distinction is 'over pressed', however, a 'Trichotomous view' is established that is not common with earlier theologians. In its more extreme version, like in Watchman Nee, it starts to promote ‘super spirituality’ and ‘mysticism’ that could become ‘less safe’ as it no longer rests on spirituality by God's word but by 'inner motions' and 'senses' - actually encouraging a carnal view of the spiritual life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-07T08:41:54.363" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T08:41:54.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8812" CreationDate="2012-08-03T14:33:21.413" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like this question.  Basically this is asking about the morals related to risks that we take.  For example when we drive without our seat belt, or choose to ride a motorcycle, we may cause irreparable harm to ourselves when we could have easily avoided it.  If we are single, than the consequence might not hurt to many but as a Father supporting a family who depend on your simple wreck less ness can cost many people great pain.   So the ethics turns into &lt;strong&gt;How much risk can one take before it is no longer loving to those that might be affected by a negative outcome.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To provide a biblical answer we must focus on love as this is always where the Bible focuses its ethics on.  A little consideration will quickly make us realize that this must be evaluated by each individual because only they know the risks that they are taking.  For example a very coordinated athlete might play a sport that could be very dangerous but the truth is that they are so skilled that the risk of serious injury is quite small.  In addition the benefits in what they can provide their family is quite large, so the ethics are largely removed.  For another person, the risks of injury is high and the level of benefits are low.  At some point the risk outweighs the gain for all concerned and love would back away from a harmful choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We face risks everyday in our life.  We may start speeding in our car and our conscience is saying slow down, but we might be angry with traffic and frustrated so we risk our life over nothing.  In another case a taxi driver may always speed a bit but is a very good driver and has never had an accident so their conscience does not bother them. &lt;strong&gt;No matter how we look at it, this is about personal 'risk analysis' considering all those that are affected by the choice and doing what is most loving to ourselves and our neighbor. It not a place to make up legalistic rules to be placed upon another persons's conscience, but a subject for personal and sober choices.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, on the extreme end of negligence we will probably find &lt;strong&gt;greedy sports franchises that intentionally put players at serious risk&lt;/strong&gt;, all to fill their deep pockets full of cash.  For example, I am sure Christians on football teams in America,  if pressured to play while injured, would have to face this unethical aspect of sports first-hand. Canadian hockey also has had trouble in the past when it's skilled players are beaten down by strong tall players, with much less skill, using dirty techniques all which appeal to the crowd wanting to see a fight and support the profits of the owners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T14:33:21.413" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8602" CreationDate="2012-08-03T15:23:27.283" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to TRiG's and Terri's answer, I feel some clarification might still be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses feel it is quite clear that a part of the description of the identity of the 144,000 must be symbolic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the christian Greek Scriptures, and especially the book of Revelation, make clear that jewish aspects were being used in a symbolic way or were given a new meaning (see e.g. 'heavenly Jerusalem' in Hebr. 12: 22 and 'new Jerusalem' in Rev. 3:12 and Rev. 21:2) and christianity was - slowly but surely - distantiating itself from Judaism. Essentially they were no longer teaching that salvation only belonged to the Jews. So it would be rather surprising if the author was implying that the 144,000 would be exclusively Jewish.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the Jewish tribes mentioned in Rev. 7:7-8 do not (all) correspond with the ancient tribes of the sons of Israel, because there never existed (territorial) tribes 'Levi' (priesthood) or 'Joseph'. Besides, the tribes 'Ephraïm' and 'Dan' are not mentioned.&#xA;These changes seem intentional and so it is quite possible that the author was making a point not to take the 'Jewish' aspect literal. So it doesn't seem unreasonably that the 144,000 are not exclusivily Jews (in flesh). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses feel there is also no good reason to take the 'male' (see Gal. 3:28) and 'virgin' (pure state) parts literal in the hihgly symbolic book of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses believe however the number 144,000 to be literal, because they are specifically enumerated and directly contrasted with 'a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peopels and tongues' (Rev. 7:9). If the number 144,000 were to be symbolic for a 'great crowd which no one could number' than there is no point in attaching a specific number to it and/or 'contrasting' it with another such great crowd directly afterwards.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in short, JW's believe that 144,000 are people who will not live forever on paradise earth, but in heaven. They are selected since Jesus' death throughout the entire christian history (so most persons among the 144,000 predate by far the modern history of Jehovah's Witness, 19th century). God's spirit itself bears witness with their spirit that they are God's children, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ of the heavenly kingdom (Rom 8:16-17).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1954" LastEditorUserId="1954" LastEditDate="2012-08-03T16:52:57.937" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T16:52:57.937" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8848" CreationDate="2012-08-03T15:45:07.560" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we should love God with all our emotions, mind, will, body, personality, gifts, imagination, heart, etc. but expressing different aspects of the 'body and soul' does not imply absolute divisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T15:45:07.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8897" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8898" CreationDate="2012-08-03T16:08:10.157" Score="3" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, recently I had the thought: suffering is irrelevant. I arrived at this conclusion using the idea of limits in Math.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Say that suffering could be measured in units as a function of time (frowns per second? Level of pain * frowns / consolation???. It doesn't really matter how it is measured though).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In heaven, suffering is 0, meaning that once someone is in heaven, suffering becomes a constant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heaven is also eternal (time approaches infinity).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore, since the suffering is a constant, and it is being expressed in terms of an infinite value, it follows that all suffering normalizes to 0 (even if we do care about suffering in heaven... which we won't).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this thought makes sense, I can't help but feel that somehow this is too simplistic of an explanation. Have I missed some piece of logic? Is this a heretical thought somehow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-08-03T16:31:22.217" LastActivityDate="2016-05-12T14:15:07.660" Title="Does suffering in this life really matter?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-05-12T14:15:41.553" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8897" CreationDate="2012-08-03T17:01:18.003" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Deriving some formula on your own then trying to figure out whether it &quot;fits&quot; somehow is a dangerous way to live your life. You'll get yourself into all sorts of scrapes of your own making and miss out on most of the blessings God has in store.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, you should learn to use Scripture as a sort of lens or framework by which to understand the world. If you had approached the issue of suffering by starting with the Scriptures then applying what you found there to the world, you would come to a different conclusion about the importance of suffering. Most significatly, I think you would find that it has meaning / purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Scripture, suffering is not a divide by zero equation, it produces something:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%205:3-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 5:3-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that &lt;strong&gt;suffering  produces&lt;/strong&gt; endurance, &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, &lt;sup&gt;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; and  hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore we know that besides just some end product, the actual process has value:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 2:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For this is a gracious thing, when,  mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, making suffering out to be of no consequence would clearly conflict with Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the math issue, it's probably worth noting the kind of time based math we currently operate in is not the same order that God operates in or that we will eventually be ushered into. This creation (and it's timeline) are just a created capsule sustained by God's will for a purpose for a time. It will have an end. The economy of what survives and is of eternal value and what will perish and will &quot;not matter&quot; is defined by God's rules. Physics, chemistry and even theoretical math do not govern what does and does not have eternal consequences. Neither do any philosophies of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-08-03T17:01:18.003" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8559" CreationDate="2012-08-03T20:04:45.533" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know of no specific references in scripture to what age is &quot;best&quot; for marriage, though I have read historical accounts that state that the traditional age for marriage in ancient Jewish culture was the late teen years. Josephus might have something to say on the matter, and if he doesn't, I'm sure Edersheim does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also worth taking a historical view of the concept of marriage. The contemporary understanding that places a primary importance on the affections and desires of individuals is a distinctly modern concept. Throughout much of history, marriage was in a many ways a necessity for survival; mutual affection was of course always preferred, but was generally viewed as an ideal that was rarely found in reality. The option of being an &quot;adult bachelor&quot; was restricted to the very wealthy, those who could afford to maintain servants to complete the many tasks essential to daily life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of our modern ideas about marriage developed during and prior to what is called the &quot;Romantic Period&quot; of history, in the 18th and 19th centuries. While that time was defined by  many more ideas than what we would today associate with the common understanding of the word &quot;romantic,&quot; it marked a substantial cultural shift from the prevailing ideas of the Enlightenment. (See also the German &quot;Sturm und Drang&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes we take for granted the number of labor-saving devices that enable the type of life that we have become accustomed to in the 20th and 21st centuries. Throughout much of history, however, life was defined by a struggle to survive against the elements. Life in an agrarian cultures, especially without the benefit of electricity and internal combustion machinery, could be brutal, and often required laboring from dawn to dusk. Roles that required greater physical strength were generally considered part of the male domain; women were expected to complete everything else, and neither gender could ever expect much in the way of &quot;spare time,&quot; unless they were part of a wealthy family. For women, the labor involved in obtaining potable water, preparing food, and completing laundry -- not to mention caring for children -- could alone easily occupy the majority of an individual's waking hours, though the completion of several additional tasks was normally expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for much of history, marriage was more of an individual economic necessity used to support life. The role of the family in the individual struggle to simply &lt;em&gt;exist&lt;/em&gt; was of vastly greater importance than it is today, and arranged marriages provided families with a means by which to ensure the continued expansion of their wealth and influence within their communities, which would increase the status of every member of the family. It would also be interesting to consider the extent to which there was what would today be considered a strict separation of the genders, which could make it much more difficult for young men and women to meet and get to know each other than it is in contemporary times. That is, arranged marriages greatly simplified &quot;courtship&quot; -- a distinct historical process, in contrast to today's &quot;dating.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please take note that this post is in no way intended to support the practice of arranged marriage, or young marriage -- or anything else, for that matter. Especially in light of the extent to which we have thus far &quot;conquered the elements,&quot; there is ample support for the view that arranged marriage is a reprehensible infringement on personal liberty. This response is intended simply to provide some historical background that might facilitate an understanding of some of the functional roles of marriage throughout history. Cheers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T22:58:22.783" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T22:58:22.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8904" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-04T02:12:54.067" Score="35" ViewCount="5596" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my little knowledge I believe any form of punishment is a way of curbing crimes or wrong doings and for others to learn not to do wrong. When this life ends some would be in heaven and the rest in hell fire as punishment for their wrong doings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is why should there be punishment &lt;strong&gt;forever&lt;/strong&gt; since there is no one to learn from these people any more and they cannot even repent? Why not just annihilate them and be remembered no more? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What am I missing? Is my understanding of punishment different? How does Christian doctrine approach the issue of the duration of hell? What purpose do they see it serving that makes it an eternal necessity? What basis do they cite for their understanding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-20T19:12:16.937" LastActivityDate="2016-10-02T14:12:44.473" Title="Why should a sinner suffer forever in hell fire?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="19" FavoriteCount="10" ClosedDate="2016-10-03T18:12:25.143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8781" CreationDate="2012-08-04T05:07:23.633" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;By the 1796 Janenism, which disdained devotion to the Sacred Heart, was very roundly condemned by Pope Pius VI in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02068b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Auctorem Fidei&lt;/a&gt; one paragraph stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The doctrine which rejects devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus among the devotions which it notes as new, erroneous, or at least, dangerous; if the understanding of this devotion is of such a sort as has been approved by the Apostolic See,—false, rash, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Apostolic See.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, prior to this, in the nearly 8 centuries of practicing the devotion in the Church, there may have been some who said made a big todo about those who over-did it.  Jansenists, who started as a movement within the Catholic Church, were certainly among them.  They'd say that it's inappropriate to worship a portion of Jesus, especially a wholly material and fleshy part. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But seriously, in reading through the Catholic Encyclopedia article and not finding one condemnation of suspicion of the authentic devotion.  I doubt that the cult was ever suppressed (if that's the right thing to say about Our Lord) like it might be for some saint of dubious origin or some aesthetic practice taken too far.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-08-04T05:07:23.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8714" CreationDate="2012-08-04T06:55:02.800" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%208:2&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 &lt;/sup&gt; For the law of the Spirit of life [which is] in Christ Jesus [the law of our new being] has freed me from the law of sin and of death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%202:20&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 2:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;20 &lt;/sup&gt; I have been crucified with Christ [in Him I have shared His crucifixion]; it is no longer I who live, but Christ (the Messiah) lives in me; and the life I now live in the body I live by faith in (by adherence to and reliance on and complete trust in) the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%205:17&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;17 &lt;/sup&gt; Therefore if any person is [ingrafted] in Christ (the Messiah) he is a new creation (a new creature altogether); the old [previous moral and spiritual condition] has passed away. Behold, the fresh &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; new has come!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%208:6&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:6b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6 &lt;/sup&gt; [...] But the mind of the [Holy] Spirit is life and [soul] peace [both now and forever].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%208:13-14&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:13-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;13 &lt;/sup&gt; For if you live according to [the dictates of] the flesh, you will surely die. But if through the power of the [Holy] Spirit you are [habitually] putting to death (making extinct, deadening) the [evil] deeds prompted by the body, you shall [really and genuinely] live forever. &lt;sup&gt;14 &lt;/sup&gt; For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice all these things are past tense ... reality - you ARE a new creation. He lives in you &amp;amp; brings all His qualities, strengths, truths, love, faith, etc with Him - &lt;em&gt;it is not by might, nor by power but by My Spirit says the Lord.&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zec%204:6&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zec 4:6&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As soon as you sin (separation from God) your spirit will detect this - repent (change how you are thinking), acknowledge the sin &amp;amp; turn your mind to Jesus -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%207:25&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;25 &lt;/sup&gt; Therefore He is able also to save to the uttermost (completely, perfectly, finally, and for all time and eternity) those who come to God through Him, since He is always living to make petition to God &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; intercede with Him &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; intervene for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%206:18&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 6:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;18 &lt;/sup&gt; Pray at all times (on every occasion, in every season) in the Spirit, with all [manner of] prayer and entreaty. To that end keep alert and watch with strong purpose &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; perseverance, interceding in behalf of all the saints (God’s consecrated people).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%204:8&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 4:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8 &lt;/sup&gt; For the rest, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of reverence &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; is honorable &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; seemly, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; lovable, whatever is kind &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; winsome &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; gracious, if there is any virtue &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think on &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; weigh &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; take account of these things [fix your minds on them].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As all things on earth are &amp;quot;impure&amp;quot; turn your attention to Father, our Lord Jesus &amp;amp; heavenly &amp;amp; divine things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203:2&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 3:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2 &lt;/sup&gt; For we all often stumble &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; fall &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; offend in many things. And if anyone does not offend in speech [never says the wrong things], he is a fully developed character &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; a perfect man, able to control his whole body &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; to curb his entire nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:9&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 1:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (AMP)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9 &lt;/sup&gt; If we [freely] admit that we have sinned &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; confess our sins, He is faithful and just (true to His own nature and promises) and will forgive our sins [dismiss our lawlessness] and [continuously] cleanse us from all unrighteousness [everything not in conformity to His will in purpose, thought, and action].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1959" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-04T11:43:21.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8913" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-04T10:44:38.220" Score="2" ViewCount="1317" Body="&lt;p&gt;Science claims that men originated through evolution. Christianity claims that men originated from Adam and Eves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How Christianity respond the claims of modern science? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1612" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-04T11:34:59.687" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T14:02:12.840" Title="How does Christianity respond to scientific theory that Man originated through evolution?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;&lt;origin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2012-08-06T15:44:06.640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8913" CreationDate="2012-08-04T11:13:59.307" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Asking this question against all of &quot;Christianity&quot; turns this into an overview question of a very broad scope. In order to answer such a broad question, one must paint with broad strokes. There are two basic approaches taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Deny the validity or applicability of any scientific claims that directly conflict with the origin of man being God's direct creation. In general this position is held using one or more of the following ideas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Science is based on presuppositions about reality, what kinds of things can be understood through observation/testing, etc. Asserting different presuppositions leads to a radically different outcome even using the same reference material. This relegates science to operate only inside a certain realm and refuses to allow it to draw conclusions about matters outside of that realm. Historically most of Christian theology has taken this approach. *&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The actual nitty gritty of the science can be disputed. Facts, measurements, conclusions, methods of reasoning, the way unknowns are filled in, can and are often called into question. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Many&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creationism.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;modern&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Creationists&lt;/a&gt; take this primary approach to the problem.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Explain away the creation account as metaphorical and not relevant to an actual historical understanding and adopt the current understanding of secular science. Those who take this approach usually fall along a scale, but we can still generalize two groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some take the entire body of Scripture to be non-applicable to the physical world, only applying it in a &quot;spiritual&quot; sense. Very often, this position can be summarized as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Non-Overlapping Magestaria&lt;/a&gt;, a principle which limits the ability of religion and science to make dogmatic pronouncements about each other.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some take the content and try to reconcile it the content with modern scientific beliefs, producing things such as Theistic Evolution or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Intelligent Design&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In between these two extremes lie several genres of belief depending on how much reign science is given, what premises it is allowed to operate under, and how the Scripture is to be understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you would like more details on a particular view, ask a specific question rather than an overview one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* My personal affiliation is here. By presupposing that the account we have in Scripture is true divine revelation, our understanding of the world as a spiritual reality with an aspect of physical manifestation makes all the pieces fall into place. Science has great value, but can only be trusted when it is based on these same presuppositions, often coming to faulty conclusions when those premises are altered or removed. It serves a very valuable purpose by informing our interaction with the created order, but steps out of bounds when it tries to define its own existence. See also my answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1684/30&quot;&gt;How do Christians understand the omniscience of God in relation to the Uncertainty Principle&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T14:02:12.840" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8904" CreationDate="2012-08-04T12:04:39.600" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never had a problem with the idea of God punishing someone forever. &lt;strong&gt;It is based on the concept of infinity, if God is infinitely excellent and glorious than sin against him is an infinite crime.&lt;/strong&gt;  We do not get it because part of our sinfulness is to deny His absolute glory. Love hates hatred; it does not just want to reform it, but to punish it for how harmful it is. If we die wrapped up in unforgiving hate, which is the nature of sin, we are bound under its rightful eternal ruin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if back in the times of Kings, a King of England known for punishing criminals approached a criminal who repeatedly raped his wife, while she had been held hostage by bandits, we might not find it shocking that the man is put to death.  However the distance between a criminal and a King in old England is a minor one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say for instance the criminal appeals to the King and say’s: “What is so bad about my crime, most every day I lived a good life, only once I day I raped your wife?’  This would seem ridiculous.  Yet when we say ‘Oh, I am only human and only sin a little’, we do not realize our crimes are immeasurably more than a criminal raping the wife of a King. We have sinned against God the infinite and immeasurably glorious and excellent King! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe in my daily sins as a Christian (who has drawn my sword against sin by faith) still, with each new moment, deserves anew to be punished forever, for not one moment has been spent loving God with my whole heart. However, in God’s great love He sent His son to remove this punishment and this is the glory of God in the highest. Praise his holy name forever and let all the angels sing! As a result, not believing in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, is the highest form of hatred towards God that a human can ever do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why there is no annihilation of demons or sinners is not directly mentioned in the Bible as far as I know.  For some reason when God made angels and men He chose that their spirits would live forever. It might be simply that sinners and devils in hell continue to magnify God’s glorious justice to those who are not in hell. So instead of undoing his creation of devils and sinners, he still makes use of them to benefit others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2014-09-10T20:29:50.413" LastActivityDate="2014-09-10T20:29:50.413" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8913" CreationDate="2012-08-04T15:03:42.990" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis tells us how God created man in His own image. It gives us another specific details that they were created as male and female.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1:26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.” &#xA;1:27 God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible says God created Man but does not give any step by step details of the process of creation of man. This leaves us with a broad space and scope for arguing that the process of creating man by God may not be an instantaneous one. On the contrary He may have devised a process (Evolution) for achieving this desired result.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible says that the “time span” or “time scale “for God, is not the same as that which we comprehend. The time of “millions of years” may be just a split of second for God.  So evolution may have been the process adopted by God to create man, but evolution cannot execute by itself without a Creator and that is God Almighty.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I myself though has Masters in Mechanical Engineering,(Of course it is un related to theory of Evolution but with this scientifc background) find it difficult to accept evolution  as a workable scientific process without God being architect and driving force behind it.  This is my view also with all the laws of physics whihc are widely used in Mechanical Engineering. God is the architect of all these laws and He has left them to take care of the universe with the aid of their pre defined parameters, so that everything works in orderly manner.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the most Christianity would accept the evolution as a tool that was in process with God at the helm of its affairs. There cannot be any &quot;creation&quot; without God being its &quot;Creator&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-08-04T15:09:00.690" LastActivityDate="2012-08-04T15:09:00.690" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8904" CreationDate="2012-08-05T02:06:36.353" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;I immediately thought of C.S. Lewis' &quot;The Great Divorce&quot; upon reading this question. In the book, he puts forth the idea that separation from God is what sinners desire, and God gives them what they desire. I did some digging and found this blog (written by Bird) on the topic: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The idea of Hell being something of a choice for the damned fits hand-in-glove with the idea represented by C. S. Lewis who said that the damned souls are in some sense successful rebels to the end, and, as Lewis' character George MacDonald says in The Great Divorce, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;There are two types of people in the world. Those who say to God,&#xA;  'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will&#xA;  be done.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll end with another Keller quotation from...(The Reason For God): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want,&#xA;  including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://thinklings.org/members/minds-eye/categories/cs-lewis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Hope all things about your brethren&quot; &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1962" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-10-02T14:12:44.473" LastActivityDate="2016-10-02T14:12:44.473" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8904" CreationDate="2012-08-05T02:49:16.927" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, punishment is not only to correct the wrong-doer and promote good behavior. Sometimes punishment is about protecting the innocent. You may be locked away in prison not only as a consequence that will help demonstrate to you or others that you should not do this act, but because we can no longer trust you to function in society without harming others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think heaven will work in part in a similar way. All your &quot;physical&quot; &lt;em&gt;needs&lt;/em&gt; will be met. The nature of place is that nearness to God should satisfy your wants. There won't be a prison, and there won't be a police force; even God won't fill that role. You won't lock your doors (assuming we have doors). We won't need those things anymore, because no one who would ever harm anyone else, whether physically, emotionally, or spiritually, will be there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is in the nature of a person that they would ever harm someone else, even though their needs are satisfied, and even after having met God face to face at Judgement, then I would bet that the love of God is not in that person, and it will &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; be in that person, even through all eternity. Such a person would be excluded from Heaven, not only for their own punishment but because their absence is part of what would make Heaven work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-08-05T02:58:09.753" LastActivityDate="2012-08-05T02:58:09.753" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8921" CreationDate="2012-08-05T09:32:53.210" Score="6" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dietrich Bonhoeffer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die. It may be a death like that of the first disciples who had to leave home and work to follow him, or it may be a death like Luther’s, who had to leave the monastery and go out into the world. But it is the same death every time—death in Jesus Christ, the death of the old man at his call. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jim Elliot:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question: [Disclaimer: This is purely intellectual. I don't want to set off red flags.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I truly believe 16:25, then why would I not purchase a one way ticket to the most anti-Christian country in the world, preach there, get thrown in jail, die after a few decades, and have my ticket to heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I believe 16:25, then it seems it's impossible to live a lifestyle similar to those who believe in the prosperity &quot;gospel.&quot; Therefore, if I live in a life style of prosperity &quot;gospel&quot;, it seems like either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I doubt the words of Christ or&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I love the world more than I love God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically / logically, is there any other way to explain this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, what greater act of faith is there than the willingness to sacrifice all in this life on an utterance of Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T16:23:51.643" Title="Dying for Christ" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-02-09T15:54:23.733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8919" CreationDate="2012-08-05T13:44:55.317" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there is another way to explain this that. Assuming that &quot;losing ones life&quot; means getting this body of flesh killed off is to ignore the testimony of the rest of scripture. As it turns out there is a much harder and more sacrificial way to lose your life than just dying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 12:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God,to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Losing your life, in the context of Scripture, means turning all of it—including how ever many years of it you have left—over to God for His use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea is also expressed in the imagery of dying to ourselves and that of taking up our cross or being crucified with Christ (not referring to dying on a tree).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Galatians 2:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="44" LastEditDate="2012-08-06T12:07:00.793" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T12:07:00.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8919" CreationDate="2012-08-05T19:00:35.877" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just keep in mind, that magical thinking is contrary to Christian doctrine. There is no &quot;easy ticket&quot; by misusing a technicality, and you cannot &quot;force God&quot; to do something because you performed certain acts or rituals or whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simplified: it's the intention what counts. It's not what you do, but how you do it. Remember the story when a poor widow sincerely donated a small amount of money, and a guy donated a large sum just to show off to others? Jesus said about them, that God values the smaller donation of the widow much more, because of the intention of those two people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, if you really devote your life to preach in a dangerous location because you care for those people, and get persecuted is (I think) valued much more than just going there to &quot;trick God&quot; to give you a &quot;free ticket&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This above was written from a kind of &quot;sola fide&quot; point of view, so there might be people who disagree, but I doubt that there is any serious Christian denomination which teaches that you can trick God to reward you, by performing some acts or some rituals without doing it &quot;from you heart&quot; (it might sound cheesy, but I can't find a better formulation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastActivityDate="2012-08-05T19:00:35.877" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7598" CreationDate="2012-08-05T19:47:47.720" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Isn't this just terminology? Marriage already has a definition, which was unchanged for many millennia. In many Western countries where same-sex marriage is not allowed, &lt;strong&gt;there exists another form of social contract also applicable for same-sex couples, which is essentially the same as marriage, in all but name.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question can be inverted: what is the justification to (forcibly) change the meaning of a word in the English language (or other languages) to mean something different that it meant for many thousands of years? Homosexuality is decriminalized, so homosexuals can pretty much do &lt;strong&gt;legally&lt;/strong&gt; whatever they want. Yes, some people might harass them, but that would be illegal, even if the harassment is supported or tolerated by part of the population.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of Christians, they have no objections against homosexuality in itself (if they do it in private and don't parade naked through the streets), but they have an objection against taking a word which is sacred for them *, and using it for something else. I can bet that if you made an institution in the US which works exactly as marriage, but is called differently, there would be a &lt;strong&gt;lot&lt;/strong&gt; less objection against it. However, the sad thing is that for a lot of politicians, it can be advantageous to fight for the &quot;right&quot; to be called a &quot;marriage&quot;, because they can feed on the outcries of a lot of offended people, ridicule them, and build a political career out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* for example, Muslims would be offended if you had a donkey and named it after their prophet. They would probably not object the fact that you have a donkey, nor would they care what you do with it in private, but if you brought it to a public place and declared how you named it, they would be (rightfully) offended. &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastActivityDate="2012-08-05T19:47:47.720" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8925" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8926" CreationDate="2012-08-05T21:10:25.170" Score="3" ViewCount="1180" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah chapter 66: 3-4, God had this to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 But whoever sacrifices a bull &#xA;      is like one who kills a person,&#xA;  and whoever offers a lamb&#xA;      is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;&#xA;  whoever makes a grain offering&#xA;      is like one who presents pig’s blood,&#xA;  and whoever burns memorial incense &#xA;      is like one who worships an idol.&#xA;  They have chosen their own ways, &#xA;      and they delight in their abominations; &#xA;  4 so I also will choose harsh treatment for them&#xA;      and will bring on them what they dread. &#xA;  For when I called, no one answered, &#xA;      when I spoke, no one listened.&#xA;  They did evil in my sight&#xA;      and chose what displeases me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But did not God tell Israelites to sacrifice animals to cleanse their sins? Wasn't the sacrifice of animals unnecessary? Why does God tell them this now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2017-07-01T16:15:02.267" Title="Apparent discrepancy in Isaiah 66:3-4" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8925" CreationDate="2012-08-05T22:51:24.107" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;This lamentation/complaint against Israel's wickedness and their practices of sacrifice is interesting because it is not only found in Isaiah 66 (the last chapter) but also in Isaiah 1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel&#xA;  doth not know, my people doth not consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers,&#xA;  children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have&#xA;  provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away&#xA;  backward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more:&#xA;  the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness&#xA;  in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not&#xA;  been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your&#xA;  land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as&#xA;  overthrown by strangers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a&#xA;  lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we&#xA;  should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the&#xA;  law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith&#xA;  the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed&#xA;  beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of&#xA;  he goats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your&#xA;  hand, to tread my courts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;&#xA;  the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away&#xA;  with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a&#xA;  trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from&#xA;  you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are&#xA;  full of blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from&#xA;  before mine eyes; cease to do evil;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the&#xA;  fatherless, plead for the widow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your&#xA;  sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red&#xA;  like crimson, they shall be as wool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword:&#xA;  for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theme is the same at the beginning of Isaiah as at the end of it: &lt;em&gt;frustration.&lt;/em&gt;  It could be phrased in modern terms as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You are missing the point,&quot; the Lord says.  &quot;I gave you a law of&#xA;  sacrifices so that you could repent of your sins, but you aren't&#xA;  actually using it to stop sinning!  You are treating sacrifice as 'the&#xA;  cost of doing business,' as a price to pay to make sins acceptable,&#xA;  instead of as an act of contrition as part of the process of&#xA;  repentance, and I'm sick of it!  What I truly want is &lt;em&gt;repentance,&lt;/em&gt; and&#xA;  a people who make a real effort to follow my commandments, and without&#xA;  your heart being in the right place, killing a bunch of animals really&#xA;  means nothing to me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is consistent with Paul's declaration in Galatians 3 that the Law of Moses was intended as a &quot;schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ&quot;.  The sacrifices themselves had no innate cleansing power; their virtue was in the act of obedience to God's will, and in pointing their hearts towards the true sacrifice that they prefigured, the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  If Israel forgot about that, when it was the entire point of the law, no wonder the Lord was annoyed with them!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-08-05T22:51:24.107" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8736" CreationDate="2012-08-05T23:58:37.563" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question was &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/2243/691&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;answered&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; on Biblical Hermeneutics.SE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Morphological analysis codes are used in the study of the original languages of the Bible. For example, a word might be listed with the morphological code &quot;A-NPM,&quot; which would indicate the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A-NPM&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Part of Speech: Adjective&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Case: Nominative (subject; predicate nominative)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Number: Plural&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gender: Masculine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Follow the link provided above for more information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-08-05T23:58:37.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8928" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-06T02:54:47.177" Score="9" ViewCount="617" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just started reading Luther's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/tabletalk&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Tabletalk&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/tabletalk.iv.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;preface&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, written by Dr. John Aurifaber in 1569, roundly condemns the Roman Catholic Church, presenting an analogy which compares Christians' &quot;servitude&quot; under the ecclesiastical and political authority imposed by the Church of Rome prior to the 16th century with the Israelites' captivity in ancient Egypt. Over the course of several pages, Aurifaber uses striking language to enumerate the specific flaws that many Reformers claimed were evident in the Papal system, and he echoes Luther's oft-heard refrain which equated the Pope with the antichrist described in the First Epistle of the Apostle John, and the &quot;man of lawlessness&quot; described in Paul's prophesies in Second Thessalonians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have heard these condemnations of, and accusations against the Church of Rome repeated by countless Protestant leaders and teachers in every intervening century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excepting things like Luther's Papal Bull and the Diet of Worms, which were intended to accomplish other ends, &lt;strong&gt;has the Roman Catholic Church ever issued an official response to / defense against the accusations of the Reformers, such as those recounted by Dr. Aurifaber in his preface to Luther's &lt;em&gt;Tabletalk&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2012-08-06T03:36:32.900" LastActivityDate="2015-02-16T04:47:01.810" Title="Has the Roman Catholic Church ever issued an official response to the accusations of the Reformers?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8904" CreationDate="2012-08-06T08:02:04.300" Score="1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Answering the question first (tldr;)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see hell as not a punishment, but a double exercise of mercy. On the one hand, God is not withdrawing the goodness he has given us which is our very existence. It would be a worse punishment for him to remove them from existence than it would be for him to leave them where they are. (though, strictly speaking, it would be easy to argue that in order for Him to do this it would involve a contradiction as He would be calling something &quot;not good&quot; which He defined as &quot;good&quot;). The other mercy is His respect for our free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason hell is eternal (and their is no repentance) is the very fact of this free will. Once we have chosen to separate ourselves from the divine presence so directly and completely, the corruption and bitterness in our hearts only &lt;em&gt;increases&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever we are at death will increase forever after the final judgement. Those in heaven will forever race toward God, completely unencumbered by the flesh. On the other hand, a soul in hell forever races away. It cannot repent because after a thousand years it is more repugnant than it was than it first in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why would someone go to hell?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that this is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; strictly part of the question, but it does have a very strong effect on my view of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on conversations I've had with other Christians of late, I think I may need to mention that there is a delight in sin. There is a revelry in corruption that most of us have either forgotten or have never considered. I do remember a time in my life, however, that I actually enjoyed watching the corruption of others. I can totally imagine that in such a state I would have turned my soul away from the divine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also had times when pride has spoken far louder than humility. I was once challenged to act righteously at such a point and I chose not only to reject righteousness, but I also turned from the friends who so desperately tried to turn me from pridefulness. The tremendous feeling of indignation and self-righteousness caused me to fall, and fall hard (it took a year and a half to resolve that act). I can see that easily leading to destruction too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I know what it is like to turn from God in despair and swear against Him, expecting that it would result in my death. And at that moment, I did not care what His opinion was for I called Him dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see judgement this way: if I, who know Christ and was taught to love Him in my youth can stray so incredibly far, can I really believe that there are those who have &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; made similar judgments? If I were to reach such a purifying state as we will see in the eschaton while in those states, I can very easily believe that I would have rejected God perpetually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What do I base the doctrine of hell ON?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I also should address why I do not believe that hell should rightly be thought of as punitive, despite the many images in scripture as a place of &quot;blows.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find the images of hell in the Bible actually fit the image of systematic &quot;putrification&quot;. After death those who have little will find even the little they have taken away (parable of the talents), and the foolish will have their houses swept away in the flood. Since we know that the only thing a man has after death is the condition of his soul, this, to me, means that those who do not go to heaven lose the last semblance of righteousness that they contained. Further, anything which is placed in perpetual, unquenchable fire will be more and more burned up. Even if the level of pain remains constant, that will mean that it will still increase by virtue (he... virtue) of the fact that it has lasted longer (any pain which lasts longer will be worse than any pain which ends sooner).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, the testimony of Saints say that hell is a place deprived of love for God (Little Flower once said that if possible, she would even dwell in hell if only to increase the love for God there. How awesome is that?). If love is absent, only its opposite can exist. Such bitterness (or hate, or anger, whatever you would list as what is left when the last vestige of love for anything but the self is removed), combined with the very pains of hell (which are more tortuous than we can even imagine), can only lead to greater corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that the most depressing thing about hell (and perhaps the most damning) is that people in hell will likely refuse to even admit to fault. They will blame God because they will not be able to admit to their own faults (for without love, pride grows faster than thistles and thorns). They will not turn from sin, in part, because their very existence is one denial and excuse after another. They will not be able to admit that they have committed a wrong and I would even guess that they get to the point where they would rather spend eternity in hell than admit to the slightest of errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why would removal from existence fail divine mercy?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two reasons. First God has made us ontologically good. We are His likeness and image. There is no point where God ever removes that reality, and, if He did, it would involve the statement that a person has the ability to change His worth through his thoughts and actions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is something which is repugnant to Christian doctrine. If a man has the ability to change his value, then all value is subjective we can start doing things like killing the infirm, ignoring those in need, and catering to the wealthy. No, we have an objective, intrinsic worth, even if we are corrupt. We are worth so much, we are so important to God (even the least of us) that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh to redeem us from our corruption. His blood was not shed that whoever follows Him might have eternal life. He did not die for the righteous, but the sinner. That speaks not to subjective but to objective worth (for you would not sacrifice all for something which had no value whatsoever).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second reason, the respect for free will, also cannot allow for the destruction of the soul. A soul which is so corrupt likely feels that it has not done nothing wrong. If it has done nothing wrong, then it would absolutely choose existence over non-existence (and I would even argue that no person would ever truly want to &lt;em&gt;stop existing&lt;/em&gt;). The corrupt soul will choose hell because it views it as the best option, as perverse as that may sound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-08-27T05:34:27.953" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T05:34:27.953" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8928" CreationDate="2012-08-06T10:32:46.173" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only response I know of it the counter-reformation amount the Catholics : &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;period of Catholic revival beginning with the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and ending at the close of the Thirty Years' War, 1648 which is sometimes considered a response to the Protestant Reformation. The Counter-Reformation was a comprehensive effort, composed of four major elements:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ecclesiastical or structural reconfiguration&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Religious orders&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spiritual movements&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Political dimensions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T10:32:46.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8928" CreationDate="2012-08-06T11:55:44.817" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The closest thing you'll find is the Council of Trent, the catechism which resulted from it and the structural reforms shortly thereafter. But, for the most part, those addressed what were considered abuses within the Church and not the criticisms of the reformers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be honest, it is relatively normal for breakaway groups to indulge in fairly vehement polemic against the Catholic Church (a practice which dates back to the Gnostics in the second century). Often the Church's official response is to simply clarify the points of doctrine which were in dispute and move on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T11:55:44.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8919" CreationDate="2012-08-06T16:23:51.643" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an interesting place to bring up calling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Living out a prosperous life as a Christian is not the prosperity gospel. The &quot;Prosperity Gospel&quot; is a teaching that those who &quot;truly follow Christ&quot; will become wealthy (or healthy, or some other beneficial state). The Gospel only promises to meet our needs and that really only spiritually, there are plenty of examples of people who are very devout Christians who have struggled to just get their &quot;daily bread.&quot; I see the traditional meaning of &quot;Prosperity Gospel&quot; to be a misread. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the way it's used here seems to be more of a &quot;is it wrong to be prosperous and a Christian.&quot; To this I must say &lt;em&gt;Absolutely not, but be careful.&lt;/em&gt; Wealth can be an impediment to faith, but it does not have to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people are &lt;em&gt;called&lt;/em&gt; to a life of ministry, or to put themselves in danger in order to spread the gospel. However, not all are called to this. Many are called to live more ordinary lives as programmers, doctors, teachers, garbage men, or any other vocation. We can serve Christ just as well in our mundane ordinary jobs and lives as missionaries and pastors and other &quot;vocational ministry&quot; type positions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again: &lt;em&gt;not everyone is called to vocational ministry.&lt;/em&gt; This does not mean we should not be &lt;em&gt;ready&lt;/em&gt; to lay down our lives for Christ if the need arises, but it also means we shouldn't foolishly throw ourselves into bad situations unprepared (there are times when this is called for, but those times are rare). Missionaries who go to closed or otherwise dangerous countries should be properly trained for the dangers they may face (there are groups here in the US that help train you on how to deal with being a hostage or other dangerous situation, not sure about other countries). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8921/49&quot;&gt;Caleb&lt;/a&gt; covers the more spiritual side of &quot;laying down your life.&quot; But I think we really should be reminded that we aren't all called to go do something dangerous outside our daily lives. We need Christians who are teachers, doctors, programmers and in every other walk of life. We need these for many reasons here are a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are people in those professions who need to hear the gospel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most jobs provide a valuable service to their company or the public at large&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Churches and missions ventures need funding, one way we can all participate is by giving to our churches and other missionaries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If we were all called to be martyrs there would be no one left to carry on Christ's work.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T16:23:51.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8936" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8937" CreationDate="2012-08-06T18:31:16.643" Score="2" ViewCount="609" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen different pastors use the Old Testament to fill gaps and sometimes to override information in the New Testament.  However, the New Testament is supposed to be part of the new deal which is to describe the new covenant post-Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What purpose does the Old Testament have in Christanity today?  Should it still be part of the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="42818" LastEditDate="2018-11-30T13:44:12.017" LastActivityDate="2018-11-30T13:44:12.017" Title="What purpose does the Old Testament have today?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8936" CreationDate="2012-08-06T18:40:11.813" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the Apostle Paul specifically states that the things written in the past were for our instruction, for encouragement, and to give us hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whatever was written in former days was written for our&#xA;  instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of&#xA;  the Scriptures we might have hope.  Romans 15:14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the Old Testament is not merely a bunch of rules.  On the contrary, it is filled with stories of God's faithfulness, God's ways, God's purposes, God's power, God's mercy, God's justice, God's plan, and God's heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, even though the ceremonial laws of the temple do not apply directly to us today, the story of the Creation, the Exodus, the Fall, God's grace to Hannah and Rebekah, and many other things all reveal God to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can have confidence that as God has delivered His people in the past, He can do so today.  Since God has answered prayers in the past, He will answer prayers today.  Since God saw the affliction of His people in Egypt, He will see the affliction of His people today.  Since God executed justice in the past, He will certainly do so today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no, Levitical laws do not apply to us today.  We are, indeed, under the New Covenant.  Yet the Old Testament still reveals God to us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, it also gives us the promise of the Messiah and the prophecies that were later fulfilled in Jesus, giving us confidence to its truthfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Covenant allows us to know God more fully.  The Old Testament help to teach us who He is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-06T19:13:28.530" LastActivityDate="2012-08-06T19:13:28.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8936" CreationDate="2012-08-06T19:44:13.530" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament points to the New Testament. It bridges the gap between Creation and the Birth of Jesus for history, and from the Fall to the Resurrection for spiritual authority. As such, the Old Testament can inform and strongly influence how we interpret New Testament scripture. It has a place in establishing context for New Testament teachings. It is also the fore-runner to the New Testament, and therefore it can speak where the New Testament is silent. But it is now subordinate. It should not over-ride New Testament commands or teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-12-19T21:09:17.223" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T21:09:17.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8936" CreationDate="2012-08-07T05:05:22.433" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course pretty much every Christian believes the Old Testament should still be part of our Bible as the shadows of Christ, still edify and prove that Jesus was the Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tomothy 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament is possibly not even understandable, without the gradual revelation of the Old Testament leading up to it. However, contrary to what people might think &lt;strong&gt;the meaning of the Old Testament 'as it should be applied today' is one of the most controversial subjects that can ever be raised among protestants&lt;/strong&gt;.  To explain the tension over the issue it is best to divide the Law into its three traditional parts and then comment on how Christians view them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law is commonly divided into &lt;strong&gt;ceremonial, moral and civil.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity it is agreed by most that Christ fulfilled the meaning of all that was &lt;strong&gt;ceremonial&lt;/strong&gt; and that therefore when the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom these laws became 'obsolete'. From this standpoint all ceremonial laws, of which the High Priest offering sacrifices in the temple were probably the most sacred, are no longer application by obsolescence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same manner most Christians believe that the &lt;strong&gt;civil&lt;/strong&gt; laws that were used to govern Israel, such as the many capital punishments by stoning, burning, or strangulation ceased.  These are also viewed as being symbolic of man's need for salvation under the 'curse of the Law'. Also as the invisible church of Christ replaced the literal outward church of the Jews, God no longer directly governs the Jewish people.  There are some Christians who still think that God in some way governs the Jews. (I think dispensationalists still hold some ideas about this but am not sure of the details, as I am not that familiar with this unique view).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The controversy is mostly about how God’s &lt;strong&gt;moral&lt;/strong&gt; law in the Old Testament should be applied today, or if there is any change to it at all.  Most Christians who propose the idea that 'nothing changed' to God’s moral Law at all in Christ’s death, commonly refer to this verse where Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (NIV Mathew 5:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common verse referred to by those that believe the entire Law (moral, ceremonial, civil) was 'nailed to the cross', so that even its moral nature was modified in Christ, commonly refer to the verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (NIV John 1:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even among traditional reformed theologians many are divided over this question about the moral law.  I am of the camp that you can’t divide the Law at all, so that all aspects were fulfilled in Christ and so nothing remains exactly as it was. For example, the Law said we should love our neighbor as ourselves, however it did not provide any ability to do so but condemned to hell any offence.  In Christ however, under the liberty of grace, a stony heart has been replaced by a soft one, and an uncircumcised heart has been circumcised, therefore, Christians have love in the heart and can follow the command. Therefore, even the moral law has not gone un-crucified as it was formerly written on stone but now in a 'Spirit of liberty' it is written in a believer’s heart.  In this way, Christ abolished even the moral law in the sense that he fulfilled all its requirements and then imputed that righteousness to believers, which in turn, infused the holiness required by the law as a basic 'principle of life and liberty' into Christians.  In this sense the Bible say’s we are ‘no longer under law' (that is the moral law).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This last verse I quote is at the heart of the debate for depending on which theologian you consult the moral law is intended, or not intended, by this and similar verses. As for me I am absolutely convinced the moral law is chiefly intended as described above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For details of specific theologians and their view this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8095/what-are-the-main-differences-between-reformed-protestant-biblical-theology-and/8134#8134&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt; explaining the difference between Biblical Theology and Covenant Theology. Biblical theology has the sole ambition of answering how the NT naturally develops from the OT. Covenant Theology carries both options about the view of the moral law. Another recent trend that has its own twist on the subject is called New Covenant Theology. &lt;strong&gt;I recommend reading Jown Owen’s and Luther’s view at the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8095/what-are-the-main-differences-between-reformed-protestant-biblical-theology-and/8134#8134&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt;, regarding how to best view the 'moral law'.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T07:14:00.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8936" CreationDate="2012-08-07T05:40:29.847" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Without the Old Testament, the New Testament has no foundation. It would make no sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus came to save us from sin, and we need such a savior because we are all born sinners. But how did we come to all be born sinners? Because of Adam. See 1 Cor 15:20-28, which explicitly discusses Adam, who of course is from the OT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another important doctrine is that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, and thus satisfied the requirements of the sacrificial law. What sacrifical law is that? The laws of Moses, in the OT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without the Old Testament, the New Testament would be like saying, &quot;The answer is 42&quot;, without telling you the question. Without knowing the question, the answer tells you nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And by the way, Jesus specifically said that his coming did not make the Old Testament irrelevant or obsolete. Matt 5:&quot;17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T05:40:29.847" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8812" CreationDate="2012-08-07T06:00:07.387" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of anything in the Bible that says, &quot;Don't play dangerous sports&quot;. People played games just as dangerous back then as those around today, maybe more so, so you can't say that it's because such a question was irrelevant in the cultural context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you could link it to the concept of stewardship. Several posters here have said things along those lines. But this gets very vague. A rule that said, &quot;You can never do anything that creates danger for you or others&quot; would simply be impossible to follow. Getting out of bed in the morning creates the possibility that you will fall and hurt yourself. You could get hurt playing checkers -- you might accidentally knock a checker onto the floor, bend over to pick it up and bang your head on the table, or some such dumb accident. (I'm sure we've all had such dumb accidents while doing some seemingly innocuous activity.) So it becomes a question of balance and degree, not of absolutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T06:00:07.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8943" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-07T07:14:59.743" Score="17" ViewCount="2065" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's well established and accepted by most Christians that God is triune, consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, while talking with a friend earlier about Wisdom (from Proverbs), I mentioned that Wisdom could almost be considered a fourth Person. This suddenly made me wonder why there are exactly three Persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Biblical evidence as to why God &quot;decided&quot; to be a Trinity, as opposed to a Duinity or a Quardrinity? Barring that, what about a doctrine that even touches on this? Though I now call myself non-denominational, I grew up Wesleyan, so I'd prefer Protestant viewpoints, but a Catholic or Orthodox perspective is acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-03-17T13:52:17.357" LastActivityDate="2016-03-17T16:15:49.413" Title="Why is the Trinity a Trinity?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;wisdom&gt;&lt;persons-of-the-trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-03-17T23:21:37.510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8944" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8955" CreationDate="2012-08-07T07:33:25.633" Score="23" ViewCount="2431" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the doctrine of transubstantiation maintains that bread and wine &lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt;* become the body and blood of Christ... yet it is impossible to detect this. That is, they do not materially change, so we don't and can't notice, nor can we scientifically show any change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm curious: how do Catholics support this view? Especially considering Jesus' statements that the bread and wine were His body and blood could easily be taken as symbolic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;sub&gt;In the literal sense of &quot;literally&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="10999" LastEditDate="2016-08-09T06:48:17.857" LastActivityDate="2016-08-09T06:48:17.857" Title="How do Catholics support transubstantiation?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;transubstantiation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8943" CreationDate="2012-08-07T07:42:03.923" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is there any Biblical evidence as to why God &quot;decided&quot; to be a&#xA;  Trinity, as opposed to a Duo or a Quartet?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't say much about transcendent nature of God and relations between Hypostases. It doesn't also say anything about God &quot;deciding to be Trinity&quot; or &quot;why is God a Trinity&quot;. These are things beyoun human understanding. However God &lt;strong&gt;revealed himself&lt;/strong&gt; as a Trinity (during the Baptism in Jordan or when Christ commanded to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T03:22:04.850" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T03:22:04.850" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8946" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-07T08:04:15.253" Score="15" ViewCount="11030" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, Wisdom can be (and is, and was) identified as Jesus. However, there is this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs%208:22&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 8:22 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  22&amp;nbsp;&quot;The Lord formed me from the beginning,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;before he created anything else.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hold on a moment...I thought God the Son wasn't created, having coexisted with God the Father since before time? How is the identity of Wisdom established as being that of the Son and how is Proverbs 8:22 handled? If it makes a difference, I grew up Wesleyan, so I'd prefer Protestant doctrines although Catholic or Orthodox doctrines would be interesting too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2019-01-07T01:01:02.737" LastActivityDate="2019-06-29T18:54:58.817" Title="According to trinitarians, especially Protestants, who is Wisdom in Proverbs?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;&lt;wisdom&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="8947" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8951" CreationDate="2012-08-07T10:12:43.610" Score="0" ViewCount="12700" Body="&lt;p&gt;In II Timothy 4:14-15, Paul writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord&#xA;  will repay him for what he has done. You too should be on your&#xA;  guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul wants God to repay Alexander the metalworker. In other words Paul wants him to be punished. Why Paul wants a man he hates to suffer? Paul very well knows what a &quot;Christian Love&quot; is, and What Jesus did to those who treated him enemies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any specific reason why he did so? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="131" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T14:59:18.487" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T14:59:18.487" Title="Why did Paul want God to repay Alexander the metalworker?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;punishment&gt;&lt;2-timothy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8946" CreationDate="2012-08-07T10:24:39.377" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Note: Most on-line commentaries seem ascribe this verse to mean the Son of God and the Arian heresy tried to use it as a means for arguing that  the Son was created and therefore not eternal. See these commentaries &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/proverbs/8-22.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, when thinking of the Eternal Son as the wisdom of God we run into the idea that the Son was eternally begotten of the Father. That is, the Son from eternity is the express image and word of the father, proceeding from him.  Absolutely considered we can’t say that He was ‘formed’ so it seems when the Bible refers to the Son in this way, it is also looking at this with the eternal counsels of God’s will, in the future plan of incarnating the Son and saving the world, before he ever created it. In this sense the Son is both the ‘power and wisdom of God’, before the creation of the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when we regard that God was planning from eternity to create and redeem the creation by the Son, the Son is said to be God’s wisdom. It is from eternity, in the thought of this undertaking by the Son, that the verse you mention seems to comprehend. We can see that this wisdom, or counsels of God’s will through His Son, were from eternity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. (Ephesians 1:3-6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T05:07:02.230" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T05:07:02.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8947" CreationDate="2012-08-07T10:45:19.513" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;In asking this question, you have added a layer of interpretation onto the text that I do not see there. You introduce the word &quot;want&quot; which does not exist in the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact I don't see any indication in the text that Paul has a desire for personal vengeance or that he wants Alaxander to get what's coming to him. In fact is is quite likely based on what we know of Paul's responses to other people and his consistent teachings on related subjects that he would actually want the opposite for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However Paul is under a charge and has a responsibility here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He must warn the congregation about a real danger to its health. We are sent out as lambs among wolves, but we are also told to be wise as serpents. That includes identifying the wolves. By name if need be. As a shepherd Paul had to guard the congregation against somebody who would damage it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He must also warn Alexander that the consequences of his actions are eternal. People must be informed that while they may not experience punishment in this live, that does not excuse their actions and they stand under God's judgement. In phrasing his warning this way, he also makes it clear that it is not he (Paul) who will seek or meter out justice while still making it clear that justice will be served.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems consistent with everything else we know from Scripture -- that vengeance is God's and that those who oppose his work on this earth will find themselves opposed by God. Paul can at once long for ultimate justice to be done and God's people set free from their persecutions and even rejoice in the knowledge that the wrong will be set right -- while not having a personal desire to see somebody punished and not raising a finger against them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protecting the church and warning those in the world that they will be judged by God is not the same thing as what you imply. There is nothing here to indicate that Paul &quot;hates a man&quot; or &quot;wants him to suffer&quot; and his response is not outside the bounds of Christian Love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Particularly in the West, we often compromise truth in the name of something we call &quot;love&quot;, yet it is no love that does not proclaim the truth including making clear the severity of God's anger against those who oppose him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-08-07T17:53:48.390" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T17:53:48.390" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8947" CreationDate="2012-08-07T11:11:36.563" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sensus-plenior&quot;&gt;sensus plenior&lt;/a&gt; would simply indicate that Paul was human. Ministry leaders have feelings, too! Paul is 100% committed, and when he gets crossed, I would assume he gets cross. Throughout the New Testament, all of the writers are forever on guard against false teachers. They talk about how much damage they do in the church. As one who loves his flock, I too take it personally when someone harms my church. Of course I am going to wish that someone would &quot;dash their infants' heads on the rocks.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, there seems to be this idea that somehow everyone mentioned in Scripture is somehow super human and super holy. If you add up the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5, for example, you find that Methuselah died in the same year as the flood. There was this legend that grew up that said he died a week before the flood in order to preserve his supposed holiness but I have to ask, what evidence is there that Methusaleh was holy? Doesn't it make more sense that he died in the flood and that he was just as wicked as everyone else on the planet (save Noah)? Even with Noah, what's the first thing he does when he gets off the ark? He gets totally drunk!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point is that just because people are in the Bible doesn't mean they are somehow super holy. To me, Paul sounds angry. Furthermore, as one who does what he did, I suspect he had good cause. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T17:00:21.233" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8946" CreationDate="2012-08-07T13:55:35.573" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can tell you who wisdom is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/sir024.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in Sirach&lt;/a&gt;... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wisdom shall praise her own self, and shall be honoured in God, and shall glory in the midst of her people,  and shall open her mouth in the churches of the most High, and shall glorify herself in the sight of his power,  and in the midst of her own people she shall be exalted, and shall be admired in the holy assembly.  And in the multitude of the elect she shall have praise, and among the blessed she shall be blessed, saying:  I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures:  (Sirach 24:1-5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a lady! Not sure if your doctrines forbid ascribing female characteristic to God, but feminine wisdom and feminine motherliness is palpable throughout the Bible. So I think in the eternal sense (aka the anagogical sense):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, &quot;leading&quot;). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. CCC 117&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;we can interpret these eternal truths in an eternal fashion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wisdom gives birth to great ideas and is justifiably considered a woman!  Wisdom, like our mother, is our First Teacher. All these things could also be said of the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For addtional Wisdom, check out Sirach's offspring Jesus (no relation) who wrote the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15666a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book of Wisdom&lt;/a&gt; and for additional confusion, consider the title given to Mary &quot;Seat of Wisdom&quot; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/wis007.htm#verse27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wisdom 7:27&lt;/a&gt; which says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The soul of the righteous is the seat of Wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... Mary, seat of wisdom, Holy Tabernacle of the Lord, model of the Church etc... Models our souls as the place where Wisdom resides. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-08-07T15:22:17.917" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T15:22:17.917" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8880" CreationDate="2012-08-07T14:12:13.867" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has anyone ever argued that it was &quot;because God wanted him to go on to write Revelation and needed a model of the Heavenly Jerusalem&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know, beyond that, Catholics believe that Jesus &quot;Gave us His Mother&quot; at that point  and we all should take her into our home. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The words of Jesus to the beloved disciple: &quot;Behold your mother&quot; (Jn 19:27), assume a particular depth in the life of consecrated persons. They are invited to consider Mary as their mother and to love her as Christ loved her. More especially, they are called to take her into their home, as John &quot;took her into his home&quot; (literally &quot;among his possessions&quot;--Jn 19:27). Above all, they must make room for her in their hearts and in their life. They must seek an ever greater development of their relationship with Mary, model and Mother of the Church, model and Mother of communities, model and Mother of all whom Christ calls to follow him. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950329en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Pope John Paul II, Mar 29 1995 Audience)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether this is scripture interpreting scripture or useless conjecture is up to you to decide. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T14:12:13.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8944" CreationDate="2012-08-07T14:42:59.160" Score="17" Body="&lt;h2&gt;On the Meaning of Transubstantial&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, the prefix &quot;trans&quot; is the key.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Trans&lt;i&gt;formation&lt;/i&gt; is change of form&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Trans&lt;i&gt;mutation&lt;/i&gt; is change of shape&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Trans&lt;i&gt;figuration&lt;/i&gt; is change of appearance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tran&lt;i&gt;substantiation&lt;/i&gt; is the change of substance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While often one will be related to another, it does not follow that there is a co-dependence. So, while it is possible that something will change forms but not substance or shape (ice will change to water to steam and back and, given the right circumstances, that  can all be in the same shape), it is also possible that the substance of a thing can change &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; a change to the form, shape, or appearance (this is not to discount Eucharistic miracles where both the form &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; substance of the host changed). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Admittedly, it is difficult to give an example of &quot;change of substance&quot; in nature, because so much of nature is of the same substance. But, there are two things we can use to inform our understanding. First, an example might be found in a piece of paper. A piece of paper, so long as there are no intelligible writings on it, is merely a piece of paper. Once it has intelligible markings, however, it becomes significant. It becomes a letter or a pamphlet or a list. Admittedly, this does have some easily detectable change of form, but the change in significance is far greater than any change in appearance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other fact we might use to inform ourselves on the nature of substance is the Creed. Recently, the Catholic Church &lt;em&gt;finally&lt;/em&gt; corrected the english translation of the Nicene creed to read, &quot;Consubstantial with the father&quot; (I say finally because for forty odd years it was &quot;one in being&quot;, which is a fundamentally incorrect translation of the Latin word, &quot;consubstantialis&quot;). This word implies that we should see the universe as having at least two meta-substances: natural and temporal vs. divine and eternal. It is in this sense that Catholics understand the word, &quot;transubstantial.&quot; It is a piece of matter which becomes of the divine substance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;On Justification of the Doctrine&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;A hint of Scripture&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The words of Christ have been debated quite frequently and it is very difficult to say that they &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be held as figurative. While I am not willing to enter that debate fully at the moment (that would take quite a bit of time and effort), I will say that it is apparent that communion in the New Testament was something &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; important (celebrated daily) and that it was very significant (leading to illness if it was mistreated). Both of these strike rather substantial blows against a &lt;em&gt;purely&lt;/em&gt; symbolic view of the breaking of the bread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Theological Archeology&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there is ample evidence from the first 1500 years of the Church that it was the universal belief that the eucharist represented a sacramental reality. This is known in two ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;By &quot;sacramental reality&quot; we &lt;em&gt;do not&lt;/em&gt; mean, &quot;an outward and visible sign of an inward invisible grace,&quot; but rather that a sacrament is, &quot;a symbol which effects itself.&quot; Now I know, that word, &quot;symbol&quot; does become a bit vague, but the phrase is understood (in context) to mean, &quot;something which represents something else bringing about and becoming that which it represents.&quot; Therefore baptism is not merely the symbol of washing, but it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; washing. Marriage is not simply two symbolizing unity, but it is two becoming unified. Eucharist is not merely a symbol of us receiving Christ, but it is &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; the divine meal. This belief of the nature of the sacraments is something which is clearly present from the earliest of days.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even if that sacramental understanding were missing, there is direct testimony to transubstantiation itself. I know of one eucharistic miracle which predated Constantine. And Ignatius of Antioch (my patron) may not say the word, &quot;transubstantial&quot; directly, but it is harder to say that he &lt;em&gt;did not&lt;/em&gt; believe in it than it is to argue that he did (this plus Occam's Razor...). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="454" LastEditDate="2014-08-14T09:37:45.550" LastActivityDate="2014-08-14T09:37:45.550" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8956" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17129" CreationDate="2012-08-07T14:55:20.210" Score="15" ViewCount="767" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation--that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus.  It seems that the sacrament of taking the body and blood gives the partaker a special grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus introduced this by saying, &quot;This is my body which is broken for you&quot; and &quot;This is my blood which is shed for you&quot; prior to His crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is this.  Does the Catholic Church teach that the bread and wine taken by the disciples &lt;em&gt;prior&lt;/em&gt; to the Crucifixion was all the &lt;em&gt;literal&lt;/em&gt; body and blood of Jesus?  If so, did they also receive the grace of the sacrament at that time as well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-10-19T22:24:47.633" LastActivityDate="2018-10-21T23:19:58.287" Title="Does transubstantiation apply to the Last Supper, which occurred prior to the crucifixion?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;transubstantiation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8958" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8960" CreationDate="2012-08-07T15:50:52.907" Score="24" ViewCount="7698" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many historians and religious scholars ... attest to the influence of&#xA;  Greek or Platonic philosophy in the development and &lt;strong&gt;acceptance of the&#xA;  Trinity doctrine in the fourth century&lt;/strong&gt;.  ... the famous Greek&#xA;  philosopher &lt;strong&gt;Plato ... believed in a divine triad of &quot;God, the ideas,&#xA;  [and] the World-Spirit,&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucg.ca/booklets/GT/greek-philosophys-influence-trinity-doctrine.asp&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest way to verify the authenticity of this claim would be to check if any of the early church fathers believed in trinity. (Please note by early I mean the &amp;lt;= 300 AD)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastActivityDate="2016-02-08T22:02:48.447" Title="Did early church fathers understand the doctrine of trinity?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8958" CreationDate="2012-08-07T16:16:34.383" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed&quot;&gt;Apostles Creed&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/strong&gt; referenced as early as 390 A.D., quite clearly articulates an understanding of our faith revolving around the three persons we identify as the members of the Trinity as core to the faith. It makes up almost half of the total text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe in God, the Father Almighty,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;    the Maker of heaven and earth,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;    and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;    born of the virgin Mary,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;    suffered under Pontius Pilate,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;    was crucified, dead, and buried;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clearly understood both today and in its time that this creed was affirming a belief in One God and at the same time identifying how he is revealed to us. While it doesn't use the term Trinity nor define the mixed natures as clearly as later creeds and confessions, it is unlikely that such a creed would have seen the near universal acceptance as articulating the core of Christian belief if it went against the teachings of the church fathers of the previous three centuries. The lack of controversy on this topic is remarkable. We do know people who taught otherwise, such as the Gnostics and Arians, but part of the purpose of this Creed was to emphatically reject them, a standard that has continued throughout mainstream Christian history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before moving on, it would be remiss not to point out that the most emphatic and authoritative writings on this matter in the first couple centuries are in fact &lt;strong&gt;the Scriptures themselves&lt;/strong&gt;. Looking in material written by &quot;early fathers&quot;  for clues about what they did or did not believe without first and foremost considering the teachings found in the pages of the Bible their actions as church fathers helped to canonize would be a disservice to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said we do have clear evidence that the early Fathers did believe in the Trinity. Few of them used that word, but the words they did use fit the formula. For example &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp&quot;&gt;Polycarp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; lived from 70 A.D to somewhere in the mid second century. Here's how he prayed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While that statement was simply an affirmation of the three persons without directly trying to define their relation to each other, other early Fathers such as &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch&quot;&gt;Theophilus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; from the late second century did remark on how they relate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr&quot;&gt;Justin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (another Martyr and church leader from the second century) had this to say about baptism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly the three persons were at the center of the faith people were being inaugurated into. In another place, he comments specifically on the relation of these three persons to each other:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the first decade of the third century, we have quite a collection of declarations about the Trinity. Here is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian&quot;&gt;Tertullian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And at the same time the mystery of the &lt;em&gt;oikonomia&lt;/em&gt; is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list goes on. I can't quote them all here but &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch&quot;&gt;Ignatius&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the Bishop of Antioch, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus&quot;&gt;Irenaeus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, a disciple of Polycarp and later Bishop of Lyons, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache&quot;&gt;Didache&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolytus_of_Rome&quot;&gt;Hippolytus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novatian&quot;&gt;Novatian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen&quot;&gt;Origen&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and other Fathers through the second and third centuries can all be quoted with emphatic articulations of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact formulation and best way to articulate this mystery has been widely debated in every age and language since. The above Fathers certainly had varying ideas about just what it meant to have a single God with three persons. We still struggle to wrap our heads around this today. And that's ok as long as we do not err on the side of either denying either the unity or diversity of his nature. We must not make out the persons of the Trinity to be separate beings nor deny that the one being is revealed to us in thee persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-04-07T14:07:09.880" LastActivityDate="2015-04-07T14:07:09.880" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8958" CreationDate="2012-08-07T16:23:50.523" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;To quote the wikipedia article on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#History&quot;&gt;Trinity&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first of the early church fathers recorded as using the word Trinity was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch&quot;&gt;Theophilus of Antioch&lt;/a&gt; writing in the late second century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia) in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early third century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the &quot;Praxean&quot; heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theophilus of Antioch died around &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch#cite_note-2&quot;&gt;185 AD&lt;/a&gt;. He did not use the word &quot;trinity&quot; to directly describe the triune nature of God as we understand and believe today, but it &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; in reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch#cite_note-21&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt; &quot;God, his Word (Logos) and his Wisdom (Sophia).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems from the history with which I am familiar, that there were other pressing matters before the church in the first couple centuries, and a formal adoption of the term &quot;trinity&quot; and 'officialization' of the doctrine as a stance which the church took did not happen until the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea&quot;&gt;Council of Nicaea&lt;/a&gt; in 325 AD, and it was taken to directly address the heresy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism&quot;&gt;Arianism&lt;/a&gt;, which loosely states that Jesus is not equal to God, rather was created by God for the purpose of redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now - as to whether others taught it in recorded writings before the early 4th century, we do not know today. Trinitarians today will argue that because the doctrine is well-supported by both Christ and the Apostles that it &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; have been widely believed in the church, and only needed to be &quot;addressed&quot; when it came under attack (personally, I am of this belief), as was the case with some Apostolic writings wherein specific heresies are addressed (eg the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers&quot;&gt;Judaizers&lt;/a&gt; in Galatians).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T16:23:50.523" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8947" CreationDate="2012-08-07T17:11:36.290" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;A better wording would be &quot;Did Paul want God to repay Alexander the metalworker&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all we know, Paul is merely stating a fact that God will repay (&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;vengeance is mine, I will repay says The Lord&lt;/a&gt;&quot;) Alexander - but that repayment may or may not be &quot;bad&quot; ... it could just as easily be that Paul is leaving it up to God, and God may choose to save him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading a 'desire' on the part of Paul into this statement seems dangerous and an example of &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;not putting the best construction on the words&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;failing to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis&quot;&gt;exegete&lt;/a&gt;, instead it is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis&quot;&gt;eisegesis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;missing the larger context of the letter which, while recorded and applicable to all the Saints, was distinctly written to Timothy in a personal, pastoral form&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;doesn't look at the very next verse (16):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;which seems to indicate that others ran away from or railed on Paul, and Alexander is just one of them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T17:11:36.290" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8964" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8965" CreationDate="2012-08-07T17:36:46.617" Score="-1" ViewCount="1111" Body="&lt;p&gt;Typically, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exegesis&lt;/a&gt; is used when interpreting scripture, so that value, meaning, and instruction is derived &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; the words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eisegesis&lt;/a&gt;, or reading-into scripture, a valid interpretational technique?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2017-02-12T18:49:26.633" Title="When, if ever, is eisegesis a valid interpretation of scripture over exegesis?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-02-13T20:25:52.840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8964" CreationDate="2012-08-07T17:45:06.000" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This seems like an odd question.  The only answer that seems reasonable would be that &lt;strong&gt;you read into Scripture the meaning you want it to have when you disagree with the actual meaning.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To read into Scripture what is not there is to put oneself as somehow over Scripture as more of an authority on the matter than the Scriptures themselves.  There are definitely two distinct approaches to the Scriptures.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Two people will see in the Scriptures something that differs from either their own ideas or their own deeds.  One person will conclude, &lt;strong&gt;The Bible&lt;/strong&gt; must be wrong, and then misinterprets it to make it agree with him.  Another will conclude, &lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; must be wrong, and changes his ideas or his life to agree with the Bible.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue that only one of these is a true follower of Jesus and of His teachings.  Eisegesis is &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; appropriate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T17:45:06.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8964" CreationDate="2012-08-07T17:45:27.913" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Peter says pretty clearly that that's not ever a good idea:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:20-21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Peter 1:20-21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any&#xA;  private interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the scriptures should not be interpreted through eisegesis, but by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which is the same power by which they were originally given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T17:45:27.913" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8880" CreationDate="2012-08-07T18:03:43.603" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Orthodox/Catholic tradition (mariology), in this moment Mary is given to the beloved disciple (john), and all the faithful so that she would be in a position to pray for her children (the church) as a physical mother does. As the mother of Jesus (Mother of God), Jesus honers Mary in a unique way. (Honor your father and mother). Catholics see The Wedding Feast at Cana as evidence that Jesus takes his Mother's petitions very seriously. Seriously enough, in fact, that his first miracle (recorded), and the beginning of his public ministry would be at the petition of his mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 2:3-5&#xA;  New Living Translation (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 The wine supply ran out during the festivities, so Jesus’ mother told him, “They have no more wine.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 “Dear woman, that’s not our problem,” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 But his mother told the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1920" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T18:03:43.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8968" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-07T18:27:08.630" Score="17" ViewCount="58873" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 19:34 &quot;one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear,&#xA;  bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this is supposed to be something great as in the next verse the apostle tries to ensure us just how true this is - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 19:34 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He&#xA;  knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may&#xA;  believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is so significant about this? Is it symbolic of something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-28T22:54:39.440" LastActivityDate="2017-01-08T13:31:12.603" Title="What is the significance of water from Jesus' side?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="15" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-08-07T17:32:24.297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8968" CreationDate="2012-08-07T18:44:42.993" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a sign that a person is dead.  When the blood separates, only water would come out.  The testimony is just to say that when he said that Jesus was dead, he was really dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found this information too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There came out blood and water ... There has to be some element of the&#xA;  miraculous in this. Naturalistic explanations have some plausibility,&#xA;  as for example that of Dr. Stroud quoted by Westcott, who supposed&#xA;  that &quot;the blood rapidly separated into its more solid and liquid&#xA;  parts, which flowed forth in a mingled stream.&quot; But the trouble with&#xA;  that explanation is that blood serum is not water; and there is also&#xA;  the time factor, there having been insufficient time for such a&#xA;  separation to have taken place. In addition, as Westcott pointed out,&#xA;  &quot;the separation of the blood into its constituent parts is a process&#xA;  of corruption.&quot; The Father did not permit the Holy One to see&#xA;  corruption (Psalms 16:10 ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also find more information about what happens to blood when we die &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/169882&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, the blood separates into the solids and the fluids. If you were&#xA;  to puncture someone who had been dead what would come out would be&#xA;  watery (thus the reason the soldiers punctured the side of those&#xA;  crucified to test if they were dead yet -- if you got &quot;water&quot; instead&#xA;  of blood the person had died). Eventually, as the body decompses&#xA;  (assuming no mortuary's involved) the fluids would evaporate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Read more: What happens to the blood in our body when we die? - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/169882#ixzz22t6cDysy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Answerbag&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2017-01-08T13:31:12.603" LastActivityDate="2017-01-08T13:31:12.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8968" CreationDate="2012-08-07T18:45:17.647" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any symbolic importance of this, beyond the obvious: this is very unusual!  Blood is blood, water is water, and they don't show up together inside the human body.  When was the last time you saw someone bleed like that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's interesting is that such a condition is actually quite consistent with modern medical knowledge, under a very specific set of circumstances: &lt;a href=&quot;http://the-crucifixion.org/death.htm&quot;&gt;this sounds a lot like a cardiac rupture&lt;/a&gt;.  Intense and prolonged emotional and physical stress can cause the heart to rupture, which brings a very fast death and causes other fluids around the heart to mix with the blood, which are much thinner and less colorful.  If the soldier's spear went in at the right place, it could have let this mixture out, which would have appeared to be &quot;blood mixed with water&quot; to an observer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not how a person being crucified usually died, by the way.  Crucifixion was a long, slow torment that eventually ended in gradual death by exhaustion.  Someone who was only a few hours in crying out with a loud voice and then suddenly expiring was quite out of the ordinary!  John's point here seems to be that, while Jesus died &lt;em&gt;on&lt;/em&gt; the cross, he did not die &lt;em&gt;of&lt;/em&gt; the cross.  Instead, as he had claimed earlier on in his ministry, he had life in himself, and he had the power to lay it down and to take it up again, and no one would take his life from him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T18:45:17.647" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8968" CreationDate="2012-08-07T19:02:50.110" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8970/30&quot;&gt;Mason&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8969/30&quot;&gt;Dan&lt;/a&gt; have both noted the literal significance of the blood/water issue. It was a medical indication that A) he was dead and B) he didn't die as the direct result of the crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On practical thing we can note from this is that Jesus was in control of things right up to the end. We know from Scripture that nobody forced Jesus's life from him, he gave it up willingly. This is rightly applied to Jesus' willing submission to his captors, even stopping his disciples from fighting his arrest. However, we see this is true all the way to the end, when it is Jesus who surrenders himself to his Father and lets go of his own life rather than the physical reality of the cross actually taking his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luk%2023:46&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 23:46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;46&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another practical result that came out of the deal was that finding him already dead at such an early time frame, they did not go on to break his legs to induce a quick death by suffocation as would have been required otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, something that was said about him in the OT that could have been understood figuratively, also literally happened in spite of the odds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Psalm+34/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 34:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He keeps all his bones;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;   not one of them is broken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T20:04:54.487" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8964" CreationDate="2012-08-07T19:59:01.487" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer would depend on who you were asking. One man's &quot;eisegesis&quot; is another man's &quot;orthodoxy,&quot; and it's not altogether uncommon to hear the former term levied as an accusation against any that disagree with a speaker's stance on any particular theological issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Westminster Confession of Faith, which many Christians believe to be entirely consonant with Scripture, is one example of a document that seems, in articles 1.9 and 1.10,  to state a very clear position wholly against eisegesis, in favor of a &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt;-style &quot;interpret-the-Scriptures-by-the-Scriptures&quot; exegetical approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;WCF, Chapter 1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T19:59:01.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8968" CreationDate="2012-08-07T20:26:23.010" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc5.John.xx.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew Henry&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, in his ('Complete') commentary on John 19:31-37, says that the &lt;strong&gt;blood and water&lt;/strong&gt;, which both had important meaning in the law, represented &lt;strong&gt;justification and sanctification&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;...blood for remission, water for regeneration; blood for atonement, water for purification.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastActivityDate="2012-08-07T20:26:23.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8976" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8979" CreationDate="2012-08-08T00:58:52.710" Score="6" ViewCount="542" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question regards the reformed doctrine of predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Predestination states that God, even before the child has been born, decides whether the child is saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any biblical evidence as to whether this decision is dependent upon the actions of the parent? [I.e. God chooses to give zealous parents a saved child; and parents that he doesn't like very much an unsaved child]?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-30T23:10:15.733" LastActivityDate="2015-07-30T23:10:15.733" Title="Is one's predestination influenced by one's parents?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;parents&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8946" CreationDate="2012-08-08T01:31:12.153" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Wisdom&quot; in the context of these verses isn't anybody.  It's wisdom, as you or I would understand the word, literally, but in this particular context, Solomon is Anthropomorphizing the character trait of wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never once seen a commentary, or heard a message that gives any indication that &quot;Wisdom&quot; in these passages means anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Solomon would Anthropomorphize wisdom isn't surprising.  The Proverbs have a very poetic style, almost equaling that of the Psalms.  And Solomon valued wisdom.  When God offered to give Solomon anything he wanted, Solomon asked for wisdom. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%203&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Kings Chapter 3&lt;/a&gt;)  It's quite common in literature to use anthropomorphism when describing non-living objects, or even concepts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this particular proverb, Solomon is simply expressing the importance of, and value of wisdom using poetic language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T01:31:12.153" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8976" CreationDate="2012-08-08T02:01:07.477" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This response addresses the question from a Reformed perspective, informed by concepts such as monergistic regeneration and&lt;/em&gt; sola gratia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Westminster Assembly, in the &lt;em&gt;Confession&lt;/em&gt; (quoted below), taught that the elect were chosen by God &quot;before the foundations of the earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your question as to God's choice of the elect &amp;amp; the sins of the parents, I'm tempted to simply say, &quot;No -- God doesn't/didn't choose the elect depending on any parents' sin, or the sin of anyone at all, for that matter.&quot; (Bear in mind the doctrinal framework that is being used for this response, as noted above).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, then, we don't actually know how God chose the elect.* All of the references I've ever read have been similar to what was provided by the Westminster Assembly: that God made his decision of who to elect &quot;according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will&quot; (WCF 3.5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then, again, when it comes to the idea of choosing the elect based on parents' righteousness or sinfulness, we have verses such as the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is not, nor has he ever been a &quot;respecter of persons.&quot; That is to say, he's not impressed, and he doesn't &quot;play favorites.&quot; (Rom 2:11, Acts 10:34, etc.).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everyone is guilty in his sight (Rom 3:23), and all of our righteousness is like &quot;filthy rags&quot; (Isa 63); even the angels aren't good enough (Job 4:18), and rightfully so, because God is surpassingly holy, so much so that sin cannot even enter his sight (Habakkuk 1:13 &amp;amp; many more).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I was thinking of working in an Ezekiel 18 reference, but that's a complex chapter, especially when one tries to reconcile it with Exodus 20, the doctrine of original sin, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, before this response becomes more disjointed, I think I'm simply going to segue to the Westminster Confession with the quote that follows. It may help to get further research started.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* Note: Several groups throughout history have offered variations on the idea that God elected the people that he &quot;foreknew&quot; would choose him. And that interpretation, and the associated verse from Paul, has been at the heart of disputes for centuries. Many groups still believe that interpretation, and many don't; the Reformed doctrines are in the latter camp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter three, article five&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;before the foundation of the world was laid,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,(9) out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;(10) and all to the praise of His glorious grace.(11) &lt;em&gt;(emphasis added)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the scripture proofs, referenced in the original:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;(9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians 1:4, &quot;According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians 1:9, &quot;Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians 1:11, &quot;In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans 8:30, &quot;Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Timothy 1:9, &quot;Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:9, &quot;For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;(10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans 9:11, &quot;(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans 9:13, &quot;As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans 9:16, &quot;So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians 1:4, &quot;According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians 1:9, &quot;Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;(11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians 1:6, &quot;To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephesians 1:12, &quot;That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T22:26:20.067" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T22:26:20.067" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8976" CreationDate="2012-08-08T03:21:09.693" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is clear how Christ feels about children in Matthew 18:2-4,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3&#xA;  And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like&#xA;  little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4&#xA;  Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the&#xA;  greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such&#xA;  child in my name welcomes me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a child is born among unfaithful or non-believing parents, God still elects to save the child.&#xA;1 Kings 14:13. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He is the only one belonging to Jeroboam who will be buried, because&#xA;  he is the only one in the house of Jeroboam in whom the LORD, the God&#xA;  of Israel, has found anything good.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Conclusion: God is sovereign in all His Doings. I do not believe it depends on the parents what so ever. It ultimately depends on God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1946" LastEditorDisplayName="user1946" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T16:17:01.250" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T16:17:01.250" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8982" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-08T04:39:22.083" Score="7" ViewCount="20930" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Dome of the Rock is right beside Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it considered a sacred place in Christianity? If so, in what way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-05-24T04:44:19.470" LastActivityDate="2019-05-10T11:26:26.233" Title="Does the Dome of the Rock have any importance to Christianity?" Tags="&lt;israel&gt;&lt;islam&gt;&lt;jerusalem&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8976" CreationDate="2012-08-08T04:47:42.187" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course we are speculating about things not fully revealed in scripture, so we must start be saying we are looking for an opinion on the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is my opinion which assumes God’s elections stands before the creation of the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God chose all the elect (parents and children) before the foundations of the world, a parent’s behavior has no bearing on the election of a child. &lt;strong&gt;The very meaning of election (as used by Calvinists) excludes the will of humans because it is made before they are born, or rather before all humanity was born, so a dependency on parents can’t exist.&lt;/strong&gt;  However, a simple observation of how the elect have been chosen as it falls out into the situations of this world; show that &lt;strong&gt;more Christian families raise Christians than non-Christian families do.  Therefore, it seems that God chose many of the elect to be born from the elect.&lt;/strong&gt; This could be seen as a blessing, because many elect have their prayers answered by God’s choosing to give them elect children. However, all of these things are ordained before the foundations of the world, so we can’t assume Christian parents with Christian children raised their kids and better than Christian parents with unbelieving children. That would be a cruel conclusion for all those faithful and praying parents who have no yet obtained the answer to their prayers for their children’s salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T04:47:42.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8982" CreationDate="2012-08-08T05:08:05.460" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Dome of the Rock is located at the visual center of a platform&#xA;  known as the Temple Mount. It was constructed on the site of the&#xA;  Second Jewish Temple, which was destroyed during the Roman Siege of&#xA;  Jerusalem in 70 CE. In 637 CE, Jerusalem surrendered to the Rashidun&#xA;  Caliphate army during the Muslim conquest of Syria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity,of course, has its roots in Judaism, and as the site of the original Jewish Temple, it would have historical significance, as well as being recognized as a Holy site, reserved for Israel, God's chosen people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Temple#Dispensationalist&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of the end-time scenarios&lt;/a&gt;, the Antichrist will make some deal that will allow the temple to be rebuilt, and this will mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Dome on the Rock itself is not significant to Christianity or Judaism, other than that it's a shrine to another god, from another religion, that exists on the property where the temple &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T04:56:54.927" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T04:56:54.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8982" CreationDate="2012-08-08T05:17:33.453" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say that the site itself is important but the Dome of Rock is not. This site is believed to be the place where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. But this is only a Jewish tradition and hence not all Christians would agree with its importance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Dome contains the following inscription (also from Wikipedia) - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;So peace is upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!&quot; 34. Such is Jesus, son of Mary. It&#xA;  is a statement of truth, about which they doubt. 35. It is not&#xA;  befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory&#xA;  be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, &quot;Be&quot;, and&#xA;  it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This of course would not be well received by most Christians. So I don't think that the Dome is important to Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T07:32:25.010" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T07:32:25.010" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8986" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8988" CreationDate="2012-08-08T06:40:06.067" Score="9" ViewCount="456" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor: 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, if we look at the great Protestant theologians: Charles Spurgeon, John Owens, John Calvin, Martin Luther; as well as modern days: John Piper, John MacArthur, Timothy Keller, Paul Washer -- they're all married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is there this disparity between Paul's advice and the great thinkers in reformed theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T07:04:01.757" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T14:08:10.147" Title="Paul's suggestion to not marry vs Great Protestant Theologians" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8968" CreationDate="2012-08-08T07:10:40.203" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the heretofore mentioned physiological significance, Catholic Tradition says that this also signifies baptism (water) and Eucharist (blood). This position (and much besides) can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://thecatholicvoyager.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-did-blood-water-flow-from-christs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T20:06:35.527" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T20:06:35.527" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8986" CreationDate="2012-08-08T07:13:51.650" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is in the verse just prior:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. (NIV 1 Corinthians 7:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, &lt;strong&gt;given the 'present crisis' marriage posed various difficulties&lt;/strong&gt;.  The present crisis was the crisis of religious upheaval that would lead to great persecutions. In situations that call for potential martyrdom, a single life would release a person from the addition worries and fears about their close loved ones. Can you imagine a father's worry over wife and child, or a child's horror at seeing their mother killed? It would simply be better, in many ways, to be without family during those days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand - and in support of Paul's application the the current crisis - if a person did not have a strong urge to be married (which is a special gift) even in days without 'crisis', there are benefits to a single life (verses 32-36). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's just not considered as 'necessary' to be a great leader. Moses and Peter and the majority of leaders in the Bible had wives - only few went without, just like today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T14:05:03.483" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T14:05:03.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8989" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-08T07:40:59.977" Score="7" ViewCount="531" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are of course a number of different approaches to, and interpretations of the book of Revelation. When I read theological works on end times I stumble upon some of those. But I never really understand how widespread those are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Approaches: Idealist approach, the futurist approach, the church historical approach and the preterist approach (among others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different views on the millennium: Historic premillennialism, premillennialism (and dispensialism), postmillennialism and amillennialism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am interested in is some statistics of &lt;em&gt;present day Christianity&lt;/em&gt;. Are there any estimates on how many people that support those different approaches and views on the millennium (I'm most curious of the later). And what kind of Christians do generally hold on to which view?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1600" LastEditorUserId="1600" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T20:27:43.513" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T18:26:51.470" Title="The extent of different approaches to Revelation" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8990" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8994" CreationDate="2012-08-08T08:42:45.500" Score="4" ViewCount="656" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Assume&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;doctrine of predestination&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Calvinism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;10 Talents (Matthew 25):&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.&#xA;  He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  His lord said unto him, &quot;Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Then he which had received the one talent came and said, &quot;Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  His lord answered and said unto him, &quot;Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.&quot; &quot;Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 Corinthians 3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that salvation is predestined. Are heavenly rewards / crowns that one wins also pre-destined, or is that free will: i.e. God gives you a free ticket into heaven; but the rewards received in heaven is up to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T14:11:34.350" LastActivityDate="2015-05-26T15:46:54.800" Title="Do Calvinists believe that Heavenly Rewards are predestined?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8991" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="8997" CreationDate="2012-08-08T08:48:44.060" Score="5" ViewCount="922" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Old Belief [held for decades]&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a person dies, the person sleeps until Judgment day, and is then awakened and goes into either heaven or hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;New Belief (realized only yesterday)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Immediately after a person dies,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the soul separates from the body&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the soul goes to either heaven or hell (A)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;at final judgment, soul + body are united, then the person either goes into heaven or hell (same place as in [A])&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This new belief is backed by:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/&quot;&gt;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/52-17&quot;&gt;http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/52-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-311/what-happens-when-a-christian-dies&quot;&gt;http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-311/what-happens-when-a-christian-dies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, the Lazarus / Abraham story was literal, and not fiction -- after one dies, one can &quot;see&quot; everyone else who has died (and whether they belong in heaven and hell.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think my Old Belief is wrong, and the New Belief is correct. Is New Belief inline with mainstream Christianity? [I suspect Yes, but want to double check.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-11-13T12:43:14.977" LastActivityDate="2015-11-13T12:43:14.977" Title="According to mainstream Christianity, what happens after one dies?" Tags="&lt;death&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;souls&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-11-17T19:16:37.323" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8990" CreationDate="2012-08-08T12:17:05.503" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvinists generally believe that our works and resulting rewards are also predetermined from eternity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (NIV Ephesians 2:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the absence of our will is never included in the concept, either in receiving Christ or in doing good works; rather we are predestined to will all those things under God's influence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To what level our will exists and in what sense we have 'a will', is a little more debatable and Calvinists can vary in this to some degree. In any case, it is usually understood that we are 'not robots' without a will, but that both our will and God's are united according to his eternal plan.  In fact when he saves us he frees our will to do his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (NIV Philippians 2:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are books devoted on the subject, for example Martin Luther's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Free-Will/&quot;&gt;The Bondage of Will&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T12:53:11.930" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T12:53:11.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3033" CreationDate="2012-08-08T12:47:54.593" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I have always understood James as referring to the &quot;jealousy&quot; of God as brought forward in many OT passages. For example;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 34:14 (RSV)  14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the&#xA;  LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 4:24 (RSV)  24 For the LORD your God is a devouring fire,&#xA;  a jealous God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 6:15 (RSV)  15 for the LORD your God in the midst of you&#xA;  is a jealous God; lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled&#xA;  against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joshua 24:19 (RSV)  19 But Joshua said to the people, &quot;You cannot&#xA;  serve the LORD; for he is a holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not&#xA;  forgive your transgressions or your sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 39:25 (RSV)  25 &quot;Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Now I will&#xA;  restore the fortunes of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of&#xA;  Israel; and I will be jealous for my holy name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joel 2:18 (RSV)  18 Then the LORD became jealous for his land, and had&#xA;  pity on his people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nahum 1:2 (RSV)  2 The LORD is a jealous God and avenging, the LORD is&#xA;  avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and&#xA;  keeps wrath for his enemies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Zephaniah 1:18 (RSV)  18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be&#xA;  able to deliver them on the day of the wrath of the LORD. In the fire&#xA;  of his jealous wrath, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full,&#xA;  yea, sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Zechariah 1:14 (RSV)  14 So the angel who talked with me said to me,&#xA;  `Cry out, Thus says the LORD of hosts: I am exceedingly jealous for&#xA;  Jerusalem and for Zion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When coupled with the verses about God putting His Spirit in His chosen/elect.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 42:1 (RSV)  1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in&#xA;  whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring&#xA;  forth justice to the nations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 44:3 (RSV)  3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and&#xA;  streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your&#xA;  descendants, and my blessing on your offspring. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 59:21 (RSV)  21 &quot;And as for me, this is my covenant with them,&#xA;  says the LORD: my spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have&#xA;  put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the&#xA;  mouth of your children, or out of the mouth of your children's&#xA;  children, says the LORD, from this time forth and for evermore.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 36:27 (RSV)  27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause&#xA;  you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 37:14 (RSV)  14 And I will put my Spirit within you, and you&#xA;  shall live, and I will place you in your own land; then you shall know&#xA;  that I, the LORD, have spoken, and I have done it, says the LORD.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 39:29 (RSV)  29 and I will not hide my face any more from&#xA;  them, when I pour out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, says the&#xA;  Lord GOD.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joel 2:28 (RSV)  28 &quot;And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will&#xA;  pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall&#xA;  prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall&#xA;  see visions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joel 2:29 (RSV)  29 Even upon the menservants and maidservants in&#xA;  those days, I will pour out my spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Haggai 2:5 (RSV)  5 according to the promise that I made you when you&#xA;  came out of Egypt. My Spirit abides among you; fear not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Zechariah 4:6 (RSV)  6 Then he said to me, &quot;This is the word of the&#xA;  LORD to Zerub'babel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,&#xA;  says the LORD of hosts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:17 (RSV)  17 `And in the last days it shall be, God declares,&#xA;  that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your&#xA;  daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and&#xA;  your old men shall dream dreams; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:18 (RSV)  18 yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in&#xA;  those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1978" LastEditorUserId="1978" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T12:57:12.613" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T12:57:12.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8991" CreationDate="2012-08-08T13:09:29.640" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If mainstream Christianity did not believe ‘Option B – your new belief’ (I beleive it does) then it would logically have to change its view as that’s the Bible’s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (NIV 2 Corinthians 5:8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered him, &quot;I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.&quot; (NIV Luke 23:43)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think when the Bible says the dead are 'sleeping' it is referring to the body as sure of waking up one day. It does not mean that our soul loses our conscious state but rather we should expect to be more alert as soon as we die, That that there is no harm in death for the Christian and that the body is just taking a nap and will be joined to the soul later on is what it means to say the dead are only sleeping. Sleep also means various other things in the Bible besides death, such as being lazy or spiritual laziness, etc. In each case the idea is that you can awake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, paradise and hell are seen in a sense as 'temporary places' where the bodiless souls of the living and the damned are placed  until the final judgment. After, the souls (wicked and righteous) are united into resurrected bodies, the wicked in their new bodies will be thrown into the lake of fire and the righteous will live on a new earth.  Hell itself (death and hades) will be thrown into the lake of fire which is the permanent place for the damned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (NIV Revelation 20:13-15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those righteous souls will live in their resurrected bodies on a new transformed earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. (NIV Revelation 21:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-08T15:17:42.823" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T15:17:42.823" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8991" CreationDate="2012-08-08T13:18:03.167" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Athanasian Creed&lt;/strong&gt;, which is accepted by most christian, (esp. catholic, orthodox, anglican, Lutheran, etc.) reads thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then, also, in Luke, Jesus says quite clearly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered him, &quot;I tell you the truth, &lt;strong&gt;today&lt;/strong&gt; you will be with me in paradise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 23:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus doesn't imply any form of waiting here. (though there is an interesting discrepancy here because Jesus descends into the place of the dead, and rises again on the third day).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, most christians hold that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sin causes separation: Man from God, will from actuation (we must work, and strive to survive cf. Gen 3:17-19), and Body from Soul&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus's sacrifice 'tears the Vail' between us and God (bridges the separation) (cf Matthew 27:51) and allows us to enter into the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because of bullet 2, at the end of our earthly lives (or, in catholic doctrine, after the refining of our souls in purgatory, the souls of the faithful go to heaven where they await the coming of the end of time, where they will 'give an account for their own works', and see God create 'a new Heaven, and new Earth...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.&quot; (Rev 21:1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1920" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T13:18:03.167" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8999" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-08T15:05:30.087" Score="9" ViewCount="8771" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many who go around blaspheming much worse and nothing happens to them. The reason I've heard is that God does not interfere and manipulate. He lets things run their course and has set aside a day for judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 12:23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an&#xA;  angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then why did God strike Herod immediately? Why didn't he wait to judge him on judgement day like he does for others? Herod's sin seems trivial compared to what you can see at the 9 o'clock news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T02:47:30.863" LastActivityDate="2017-10-14T10:33:36.780" Title="Why did God strike Herod down?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;punishment&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8999" CreationDate="2012-08-08T15:59:35.493" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not anywhere indicate that the ‘most’ evil people are killed directly by God. God rather often, according to the purposes of his will, postpones the eternal judgment for sin a long while.  Even the very worst of criminals may live long and prosperous lives and we must not expect full justice in this world.  The injustice in the world is part of the judgment for Adam’s sin.  It is only in certain situation that God hastens judgment directly to bring attention to certain things that people might otherwise think God is not that concerned about, or for other mysterious reasons according to Him ‘who works out everything to the good to those that love him’. (Rom 8:28).  Things that everybody knows are evil God often overlooks as know special point needs to be made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might be asked ‘Why does not God kill more people, or even all people, like in the days of Noah? But God’s postponement of justice is not the absence of justice, which is what hell is for. It is only his mercy and intentions of grace in Christ (signified by the rainbow) that keeps God from killing more swiftly each new generation. Death itself is in a sense God killing mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it turns out on this earth, it sometimes almost seems ‘random’ who God directly causes to die and he alone knows his sovereign purposes. &lt;strong&gt;When God does miraculously step forward to execute sudden judgment he seems to be sending an important message in line with his purposes at that time of history.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example in the Old Testament he killed Uzzah for Touching the Ark while trying to prevent it from tipping over (2 Samuel 6:6-7) which makes it seem singled out to be made an example. Meanwhile, while others did more wicked things God may have had no direct interest to intervene according to his own purpose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most cases however, it seems God takes direct actions when the people involved are committing public, almost symbolic sins, to put fear in the hearts of those observing and to therefore prevent similar sins by others.  For example, Ananias and Sapphira lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts 5:1-10.  &lt;strong&gt;In the case of Herod he was busy persecuting the newly founded church and allowing others to worship him as a god, all the while pretending to be a Jew and a king of Jews.  This was simply something, according to God's direct purposes for his church, that God wanted to publicly show as not acceptable.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, just because the Bible does not mention God's involvement in killing other wicked men, history is filled with crazy dictators and especially vile public figures  that have all died sudden and horrific deaths at young ages or otherwise killed themselves such as Judas, Nero, Hitler, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am not aware of God directly killing (or other dramatic judgement) a person for private sins &amp;mdash; it seems always related to 'scandalous public affairs'&lt;/strong&gt; that if gone unpunished in the eyes of men might affront God's purposes among certain groups at certain times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2017-04-29T19:22:41.123" LastActivityDate="2017-04-29T19:22:41.123" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9002" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9035" CreationDate="2012-08-08T17:24:54.803" Score="4" ViewCount="2693" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 5 we are presented with the account of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:1-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Annanias and Saphira&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;they sold a piece of property, and then determined to lie to the Apostles and the Holy Spirit about its value, and give only a portion of the sale to the church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;they were struck dead for conspiring to lie to the Holy Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;they were &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; struck dead for giving only a portion of the sale to the church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Question&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were Annanias and Saphira guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and thus ineligible to be saved and/or &amp;quot;lose&amp;quot; their salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask not to try to determine if they will be in heaven (the record does not give an indication), or to try to speculate too much, but because I wonder if there is a Biblical argument to be made that this is a prime example of the unforgiveable sin (which, as a Calvinist, I would say meant their &amp;quot;salvation&amp;quot; was never &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; in the first place, and it was only an act).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is not, are there any given examples of such a sin in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T15:38:35.703" Title="Were Annanias and Saphira guilty of the &quot;unforgiveable&quot; sin?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-07-31T06:24:01.050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8999" CreationDate="2012-08-08T18:49:52.700" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you read the account linked to in Peter's comment, it sure doesn't sound anything like what you might imagine from the Bible verse alone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The disease then seized upon his whole body and distracted it by&#xA;  various torments. For he had a slow fever, and the itching of the skin&#xA;  of his whole body was insupportable. He suffered also from continuous&#xA;  pains in his colon, and there were swellings on his feet like those of&#xA;  a person suffering from dropsy, while his abdomen was inflamed and his&#xA;  privy member so putrefied as to produce worms. Besides this he could&#xA;  breathe only in an upright posture, and then only with difficulty, and&#xA;  he had convulsions in all his limbs, so that the diviners said that&#xA;  his diseases were a punishment.&#xA;  But he, although wrestling with such sufferings, nevertheless clung to life and hoped for safety, and devised methods of cure. For&#xA;  instance, crossing over Jordan he used the warm baths at Callirhoë,&#xA;  which flow into the Lake Asphaltites, but are themselves sweet enough&#xA;  to drink.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;His physicians here thought that they could warm his whole body again by means of heated oil. But when they had let him down into a&#xA;  tub filled with oil, his eyes became weak and turned up like the eyes&#xA;  of a dead person. But when his attendants raised an outcry, he&#xA;  recovered at the noise; but finally, despairing of a cure, he&#xA;  commanded about fifty drachms to be distributed among the soldiers,&#xA;  and great sums to be given to his generals and friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then returning he came to Jericho, where, being seized with melancholy, he planned to commit an impious deed, as if challenging&#xA;  death itself. For, collecting from every town the most illustrious men&#xA;  of all Judea, he commanded that they be shut up in the so-called&#xA;  hippodrome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And having summoned Salome, his sister, and her husband, Alexander, he said: 'I know that the Jews will rejoice at my death.&#xA;  But I may be lamented by others and have a splendid funeral if you are&#xA;  willing to perform my commands. When I shall expire surround these&#xA;  men, who are now under guard, as quickly as possible with soldiers,&#xA;  and slay them, in order that all Judea and every house may weep for me&#xA;  even against their will.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's more, but the point is he apparently suffered a long, slow, agonizing disease all the while he continued to commit evil acts of cruelty.  The entire episode is glossed into the single verse in question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found that a lot of the Bible is missing crucial context like this.  I'm finding that I often learn a good deal more by reading &lt;em&gt;about&lt;/em&gt; a book of the Bible than by reading the book itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T18:49:52.700" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8956" CreationDate="2012-08-08T19:58:51.470" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Eucharist, celebrated at every Mass, connects us back to the last supper, uniting the celebrant priest to the High Priest, and the congregation to the witnesses of the institution of the Eucharist. So it seems to me that since we hold Consecrated Eucharist from every Mass to be the true body and blood of Jesus, we must hold the bread and wine at the last supper to be the body and blood of Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, since it is truly Jesus's sacrifice at each mass, and not the priests, the priest can only &lt;em&gt;consecrate&lt;/em&gt; the Eucharist insofar as Jesus does, and since he did so at the last supper, it must be valid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides all of this, Jesus said very clearly, as he held up the bread, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;this&lt;/strong&gt; is my body.&quot; And when Omnipotent/Omniscient God makes a declaration, unless he's actively lying, it &lt;strong&gt;must&lt;/strong&gt; be true in some sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1920" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-10-19T22:26:24.400" LastActivityDate="2015-10-19T22:26:24.400" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8976" CreationDate="2012-08-08T20:50:54.123" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say no, the decision is not based on the parents, for a variety of reasons, but mostly the story of the blind man whom Jesus healed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://olivetree.com/b/Jn9.1-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 9:1-3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;“It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T20:50:54.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9002" CreationDate="2012-08-08T21:18:23.390" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe that they necessarily did, though it is certainly possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The unforgivable sin, in my understanding, is living your life without remorse or repentance to God for your sins. Annanias and Saphira sinned just before they died (were killed), but that doesn't mean they weren't previously saved. After all, all Christians sin after being saved, but the difference is that we do not continue to have unrepentant sin patterns which control us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible that God was just using Annanias and Saphira as an example, as Paul writes to the Corinthian church in &lt;a href=&quot;http://olivetree.com/b/1Co11.27-30&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:27-30&lt;/a&gt;. The Corinthians in this case were sinning by profaning the practice of communion with gluttony, and as a consequence God made them sick to the point of death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Piper has a good talk on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/what-is-the-unforgivable-sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;unforgivable sin&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastActivityDate="2012-08-08T21:18:23.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9008" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9066" CreationDate="2012-08-08T23:33:31.957" Score="4" ViewCount="10982" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 1:1-17 provides a genealogy of Jesus, traced back to Abraham:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Family History of Jesus the Messiah:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  .  .  .&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Abraham was the father of Isaac&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  .  .  .&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Matthan was the father of Jacob.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Jacob was the father of Joseph.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Joseph was the husband of Mary,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah. (from &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201%3A1-2%2C%2015-16&amp;amp;version=ERV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:1-2, 15-16&lt;/a&gt;, ERV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, next it says that Joseph had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus: that Jesus was born of the seed of the Holy Spirit, not Joseph's seed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah happened. His mother Mary was engaged to marry Joseph. But before they married, he learned that she was expecting a baby. (She was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.) (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201%3A18&amp;amp;version=ERV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:18&lt;/a&gt;, ERV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Joseph woke up, he did what the Lord's angel told him to do. He married Mary. But Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And he named him Jesus. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201%3A24-25&amp;amp;version=ERV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:24-25&lt;/a&gt;, ERV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201%3A1-17&amp;amp;version=ERV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:1-17&lt;/a&gt; the family history of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as any family lines were involved in Jesus' birth as a human, shouldn't Mary's genealogy be Jesus' family history? (I truly don't get this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-10-10T11:00:40.993" LastActivityDate="2016-02-20T17:34:46.320" Title="Shouldn't Mary’s genealogy be Jesus' family history?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;&lt;joseph-husband-of-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-02-24T15:28:01.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9010" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9018" CreationDate="2012-08-09T00:48:54.967" Score="2" ViewCount="9016" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eating meat and potatoes for lunch after missing breakfast, I was thanking God for such delicious foods. Then I came up with a question; will we be able to eat in Heaven?&#xA;I love eating, and I wouldn't be able to stand not being able to eat chili-dogs for eternity in Heaven.&#xA;Is there any biblical backups that states whether or not will we be able to eat anything once we die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T12:59:07.800" Title="Will we be able to eat anything in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-06-18T14:13:46.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9011" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9012" CreationDate="2012-08-09T01:15:50.130" Score="2" ViewCount="198" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking for books on what happens after death on Amazon, and came across &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0849946158&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back&lt;/a&gt;. I found this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/02/book-review-heaven-is-for-real/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;interesting review&lt;/a&gt; but I didn't get anything conclusive out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that there is a very fine line between using external sources to illuminate Bible verses and being deceived by the devil as in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 11:14&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical/Christian way to deal with this book (and others just like it)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;completely ignore it (since the Bible is sufficient)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;read it, but only skeptically at an intellectual level&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;be prepared, because weird things = the end is near&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;[your answer here] ...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T21:08:09.653" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T19:31:16.017" Title="How does mainstream Christianity view &quot;Heaven is for Real&quot;?" Tags="&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9011" CreationDate="2012-08-09T01:29:55.790" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many, many things out there that claims similar events happening in their lives. &#xA;Obviously, it is common sense not to believe all those stories.&#xA;One story consists of someone visiting hell; one story consists of person going heaven and back.Some stories even tell the tale of being on footsteps on heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do we deal with these stories?&#xA;Here is the general answer:&#xA;Use Bible as Reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check every aspect of the story to the Bible. If they disagree on certain aspects, than the story is &lt;em&gt;definitely&lt;/em&gt; wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible is not just some sort of story we consult. Bible is The Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.&quot; - John 1:1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything in the Bible is true, and will be proven true. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.&quot; - Matthew 5:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2013-04-08T19:31:16.017" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T19:31:16.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2012-08-09T01:52:27.010" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it was for the same reason that Jesus was Baptized and the same reason Mary was purified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt; Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. (Matt 3:15 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt; When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord   (Luke 2 22-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' recorded genealogies go through His foster father Joseph to &quot;fulfill all righteousness&quot; and solidify him as a son of kings and of prophets under the law. Mary was purified, even though she was without sin and knew no man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted, that Mary, as tradition has it, was also a daughter in the line of David and probably a not terribly distant relative of her husband. So, for the most part, the genealogy is Mary's as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T16:16:21.350" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T16:16:21.350" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9010" CreationDate="2012-08-09T03:59:52.837" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, Jesus was able to eat after His resurrection, so I assume we will, too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 24:39-43&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and&#xA;  see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his&#xA;  feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said&#xA;  unto them, Have ye here any meat?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 And he took it, and did eat before them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However there is no evidence in the Bible (that I know of) indicating that &lt;em&gt;spirits&lt;/em&gt; can consume food. You might have to go hungry until the resurrection. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T03:59:52.837" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2012-08-09T04:53:49.693" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing that I found disturbing in comments for this question is to read that God was the father of Jesus. For Christians, it is blasphemous to say that God had a son. Jesus being called the Son of God was to portray that Jesus was same in likeness as God which meant that He was God incarnate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding lineage of Jesus it just a notional that Jesus was assigned to an earthly father and mother. Jesus was prophesied to come to a family with a lineage link to king David.  Gospel of Mathew gives us the lineage of Jesus from David towards Joseph and Luke gives the lineage of Jesus from David towards Mary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew is indicating that Joseph is from David through Solomon and Luke is indicating that Mary is also from David through Nathan. That is why we see differences in the lineages given by Luke and Mathew. Luke’s lineage is thru Jesus maternal grandfather Eli.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke’s text says that Jesus was “a son, &lt;strong&gt;as was supposed&lt;/strong&gt;, of Joseph, of Eli”. This been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth. The parenthetical expression: “a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli” indicate that Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor on His mother side. A variation on this idea is to explain “Joseph son of Eli” as meaning a son-in-law, perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary. An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called “Jair son of Manasseh” but was actually son of Manasseh’s granddaughter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T18:52:31.660" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T18:52:31.660" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9010" CreationDate="2012-08-09T05:07:14.790" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I very much worry about this myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I become a spirit and am full of energy I might not feel sleepy at all. In that case I won't have the pleasure of napping on a Sunday afternoon after some hot soup and pirozhoks. :-( &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I suspect that these pleasures would be replaced with other kinds of pleasures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope nobody thinks I'm blaspheming by making this analogy but have you ever interacted with anyone addicted to drugs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who are addicted to heroin would tell you that it feels like being in the arms of God. People on meth say that they feel full of energy like superman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point is that since human mind is capable of experiencing these emotions it probably was made for such experiences but the fall from grace cut us off. (I'm in no way advocating drugs just making a point)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another example, we humans are capable of seeing only a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that we call as light. Just imagine if we were able to see the entire spectrum. I suspect we might spend the first few decades in heaven walking around heaven marveling at the new colors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 2:9 No eye has seen, no ear has heard, &lt;strong&gt;no mind has&#xA;  conceived&lt;/strong&gt; what God has prepared for those who love him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence I think that there would be new sorts of pleasures beyond anything that we can even imagine. And once we've experienced those we may not even remember about the old things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you're too adamant about it I think you can eat chili-dogs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the old testament we can see the angels taking on a human form and eating food prepared by Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combine that with - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 4:3 If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become&#xA;  bread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it might be easier than here actually. All you have to do is command some stones to become chilli-dogs and munch away. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T05:07:14.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9017" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-09T05:15:05.943" Score="3" ViewCount="4847" Body="&lt;p&gt;When one considers the example Jesus set during his time on earth, and compares it with how individuals often treat each other, the sharp contrast between &quot;how the world works&quot; and &quot;how things should be&quot; becomes visible -- and, at times, rather tiresome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we don't know how many people will get to heaven, it seems that it will certainly be &quot;a lot&quot; -- far more than could reasonably expect to have extensive conversations with Christ on a regular basis, for example. And I imagine that the Son of God probably will be (or &quot;is&quot;) quite busy with very important matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, will (or &quot;do&quot;) individuals, or groups of, say, ten or a dozen people in heaven have an opportunity to interact with Jesus, independent of massive crowds?&lt;/strong&gt; Is there some equivalent of going fishing with Christ? Or will he be like a celebrity who, under normal circumstances, often finds it necessary to maintain a certain distance, because of the crowds? Will there be something like &quot;town hall meetings,&quot; where he stops by different parts of heaven every so often and talks with the local residents? Will those who lived more righteous lives and so &quot;stored up more treasure in heaven&quot; have preferential access to God's time? Or is there some other alternative?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Clarification:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; This question assumes: 1) Christ, in heaven, will / does exist in a resurrected body; 2) Many people will vie for his time, resulting in frequent crowding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the assumptions are wrong, what makes them so?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the assumptions are correct, would Christ somehow still be able to regularly interact with his followers, independent of the crowds?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;/Edit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that some responses will include citations of historic authors, exegesis supported by substantial commentators.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2017-03-29T20:48:41.907" LastActivityDate="2017-04-14T03:01:07.163" Title="Will (or &quot;do&quot;) people in heaven get to interact with Jesus, independent of massive crowds?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9010" CreationDate="2012-08-09T06:41:23.840" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A great deal of this is copy-pasted from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8370/58&quot;&gt;my answer to another, similar question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, Revelations 19 has a wedding &lt;em&gt;feast&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 19:9 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Then the angel said to me,   “Write this:   Blessed are those who are invited to the &lt;strong&gt;wedding supper&lt;/strong&gt; of the Lamb!”   And he added, “These are the true words of God.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can't really have a &lt;em&gt;feast&lt;/em&gt; without food or drink. There is also the promise of Jesus that He will not drink wine again until this very same feast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26:29&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 26:29 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Mark my words—I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14:25&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 14:25 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22:18&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:18 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This statement takes place immediately after Jesus offers wine and bread at the first Communion. Now, if there weren't any grapes in Heaven, could there be wine? Now, obviously, God could very easily simply produce wine on the spot, and a miracle should never be excluded from the set of possibilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to actually answer your real question: &lt;strong&gt;we can't really know&lt;/strong&gt;. I know of no verse that talks about whether or not there is any food or drink being consumed in Heaven right &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt;. That said, what is there to keep Jesus and other people already up there from enjoying the gift of eating that God gave them? I mean...I could totally imagine Jesus munching on some fish with Peter, James, and John right now...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read a great book several years ago - Heaven by Randy Alcorn - that essentially showed from Scripture how the New Earth would be like the Old Earth in pretty much every way, just bigger, better, and without sin and its effects. I also recently read another great book - Beautiful Outlaw by John Eldredge - that developed the personality of Jesus far beyond a shallow reading of the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, remember when Jesus met the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection? (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:13-34&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 24:13-34&lt;/a&gt;) I mean, c'mon! &quot;What things?&quot; (Verse 19)? He &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; have been practically &lt;em&gt;smirking&lt;/em&gt; there! This is the same Jesus that generously produced nearly a thousand bottles of wine at the wedding in Cana and the same Jesus that fed a total of about 25,000 people on two separate occasions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same God made our taste buds that allow us to enjoy the delicious food He provided for us. Also, we will have bodies in Heaven (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:3&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:3&lt;/a&gt;). Such enjoyment that we have now...why would He deny us that in Heaven? Ha! I'm gonna have my cake and eat it too! Probably with Jesus at some point! I promise you, &lt;em&gt;you'll&lt;/em&gt; have your chili-dogs! :D&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T08:04:14.080" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9017" CreationDate="2012-08-09T08:14:44.473" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basis and inspiration for this answer is a great book named Beautiful Outlaw by John Eldredge. This book delves into the personality of Jesus by taking well-known stories in the Gospels and bringing them to life. We tend to think of Jesus as being too Holy for us, when in fact people &lt;em&gt;flocked&lt;/em&gt; to Him and He was the most human man ever (He was fully God and fully man, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:6-7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;emptied Himself&lt;/a&gt; of His divinity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was just as human as the rest of us. He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4:15&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dealt with our temptations&lt;/a&gt;, He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2011:35&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;cried&lt;/a&gt;, He got &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:66-67&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;lonely&lt;/a&gt;, He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:46&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;felt the need to be by Himself&lt;/a&gt; after &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:27-29&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the death of His cousin&lt;/a&gt;, He got &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=jesus+clears+the+temple&amp;amp;qs_version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;angry&lt;/a&gt;, He was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2015:11&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;joyful&lt;/a&gt;, He was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2024:13-35&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;playful&lt;/a&gt;, He was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+7:9&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;capable of surprise&lt;/a&gt;, and He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206:16-21&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;took shortcuts&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Crowds flocked to Jesus wherever He went, to the point that even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:22-25&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;going across a lake didn't keep them back&lt;/a&gt;. People with disabilities were constantly seeking Him out and going to Him for healing, like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020:29-34&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;two blind men that called out&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%208:43-44&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;woman who had been bleeding internally for twelve years&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021:14&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the blind and lame&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;immediately&lt;/em&gt; after Jesus clears the temple. The guy that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:54-62&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;denied Jesus three times&lt;/a&gt; (and then had Jesus look &lt;em&gt;straight&lt;/em&gt; at him) was the same guy that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:7&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;put on his clothes, jumped into the water, and swam at least a mile to shore to Jesus&lt;/a&gt;. Jesus was also willing to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:1-2&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;get up in the middle of the night&lt;/a&gt; to talk to a true seeker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was extravagantly generous (what else do you call &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:6-10&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;605-908 bottles of the &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt; wine&lt;/a&gt;?) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;loved everyone equally&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:13-15&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;even the children!&lt;/a&gt;). Jesus was also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9:2&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;quite personal and intimate&lt;/a&gt; and will personal and intimate be in Heaven as well (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:17&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the white stone engraved with a name that only two people know&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we don't know how many people will get to heaven, it seems that it will certainly be &amp;quot;a lot&amp;quot; -- far more than could reasonably expect to talk to Christ on a regular basis, for example. And I imagine that the Son of God probably will be (or &amp;quot;is&amp;quot;) quite busy with very important matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, will (or &amp;quot;do&amp;quot;) individuals in heaven have an opportunity to interact with Jesus?&lt;/strong&gt; Is there some equivalent of going fishing with Christ? Or will he be like a celebrity who, under normal circumstances, maintains a certain distance? Will there be something like &amp;quot;town hall meetings,&amp;quot; where he stops by different parts of heaven every so often and talks with the local residents? Will those who lived more righteous lives and so &amp;quot;stored up more treasure in heaven&amp;quot; have preferential access to God's time? Or is there some other alternative?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2010:30&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus is God&lt;/a&gt;. If He wants to talk with multiple people in person simultaneously, nothing's stopping Him. Also, given what I've pointed out, there's NO WAY that Jesus would let &amp;quot;very important matters&amp;quot; keep Him from interacting with the people He loved (and loves) SO MUCH that He died for them. I don't see why Jesus wouldn't go fishing with someone who loved fishing, and He definitely wouldn't be distant like a celebrity. Nor would He spend more time with people who had been believers longer (cue &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020:1-16&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this parable about vineyard workers&lt;/a&gt;). Ha, if anything, He'd spend more time with those who &lt;em&gt;weren't&lt;/em&gt; believers all their lives! (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:12-13&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Finding that one lost sheep was cause enough for great joy.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14:2&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus Himself is preparing a room for us&lt;/a&gt; and we'll get to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians+5:10&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;live there for eternity&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T08:14:44.473" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9017" CreationDate="2012-08-09T09:49:55.973" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the christian soterology, not only in heaven you can interact with Christ, but also here, on earth. We know from the lifes of saint Silvan of Athos or saint Seraphim of Sarov that they have seen Christ himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there are people who believe that this form of interaction isn't a real interaction with God. It is only some created thing that we can see from the God's will. This view was however condemned by saint Gregory Palamas. So this is at least what Orthodox Christians firmly believe. If you are not Orthodox, you may not accept it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand - if we are unable to interact with Christ in heaven, then what kind of heaven it would be? Why would it be desireable for us? Imagining heaven as full of bodily pleasures is rather muslim thing not christian. For a christian the main goal is always Christ and his love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two quotations from Bible to support the idea:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be &lt;strong&gt;with me&lt;/strong&gt; in paradise (Luke 23, 43)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, &lt;strong&gt;and to be with Christ&lt;/strong&gt;; which is far better (Philippians 1, 23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T09:49:55.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9021" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9024" CreationDate="2012-08-09T10:43:41.577" Score="4" ViewCount="1001" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John &lt;sup&gt;14:25&lt;/sup&gt; These things have I spoken unto you, being &lt;em&gt;yet&lt;/em&gt; present with you. &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; But the Comforter, &lt;em&gt;which is&lt;/em&gt; the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.&amp;mdash;KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the doctrine of the trinity, God consists of: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Much has been written about the Father and the Son&amp;mdash;yet, there seems to be surprisingly little about the Holy Spirit. This seems somewhat unfortunate given that the Holy Spirit is sent to help and guide us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are told to pray to the Father, to study and be conformed to the image of Christ. What are we to do with the Holy Spirit? How do we interact with the Holy Spirit? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; I'm only interested in well-respected theologians who expound on the dynamics &amp;amp; interaction with the Holy Spirit.  Please cite your sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T17:57:39.757" LastActivityDate="2012-08-11T01:53:14.297" Title="What are the mechanics of interaction with the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9023" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9029" CreationDate="2012-08-09T12:01:09.433" Score="12" ViewCount="31291" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Peter made his famous confession, Jesus responded by saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (NIV Mathew 16:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – &quot;a mass of connected rock”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, ‘What is the point of bringing in two types of rocks in response to Peter’s confession?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-09T03:52:46.113" LastActivityDate="2015-10-13T16:24:14.440" Title="When Jesus gave Peter his name (rock) what is the significance that he then said upon a ‘different’ kind of rock he would build his church?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;peter&gt;&lt;greek&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9021" CreationDate="2012-08-09T12:01:48.840" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: This response was written in response to the question as it was &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/revisions/9021/1&quot;&gt;originally worded&lt;/a&gt;, which was in the form of a request for reference works.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like you're looking for works in the discipline of &lt;strong&gt;&quot;pneumatology,&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; the study of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prefatory blathering,&lt;/strong&gt; because I like to write:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great men have lamented the extent to which scholars' pens have neglected the work of the Holy Spirit throughout history. The protests of venerable Christian leaders notwithstanding, books about the one whom the Bible calls the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Spirit of Truth&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; are almost rare when compared with the vast numbers of pages devoted to the Father and the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth reflecting on the fact that the Holy Spirit is the one who enables, encourages, and facilitates Christians' efforts to grow in conformity to God's Son, and one of the primary resources provided for Christians who seek to do so is the Bible -- that is, disciples follow Christ by learning (through reading and/or hearing) about his life and teaching, and putting what they learn into practice. One of the primary roles of the Holy Spirit is to enable Christians to understand what they learn about the triune God; AFAIK, he does not provide separate teachings distinct from what is offered through the Father and the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A few actual resources:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Volume 1, chapter 8 of Hodge's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge?show=worksBy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Systematic Theology&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is about the Holy Spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John Owen, an important Reformer, wrote a thousand-plus page book called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/pneum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pneumatologia&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; that could keep anyone busy for a lifetime.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abraham Kuyper wrote a book called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kuyper/holy_spirit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Work of the Holy Spirit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; that looks interesting. He was a nineteenth century Dutch Calvinist, and I'm not familiar with his work, but the biographical sketch that I read looks clear.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeongems.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Spurgeon sermons&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, numbers: 278, 738, 167, 630, 465, 2907, 3048, 2382, 1532, 1708, 1662, 2074, 1870, 1877, 201, 574, 178 -- and more.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are, of course, many more resources out there, but those titles provide a good place to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-08-11T01:53:14.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9026" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9027" CreationDate="2012-08-09T12:17:34.303" Score="4" ViewCount="3084" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament we find various rules of accommodating others in the spirit of love and peace. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. (1 Corinthians 9:20, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand this to mean that to those who considered themselves still under obligation to observe some ceremonies of the law, though they had begun to believe the Gospel, Paul became like them under the same obligations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when the Pharisees pointed out that the disciples did not wash there hands before eating Jesus did not accommodate them at all, but used the opportunity to show that he was in direct opposition to traditional Rabbinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!&quot; (Matthew 15:2, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is: Why was it so important to Jesus NOT to accommodate the seeming neutral rule about washing hands before eating bread? What was the harm in accommodating the Pharisees?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-04T15:29:48.050" LastActivityDate="2015-09-04T15:29:48.050" Title="Why did Jesus refuse to accommodate the Pharisees insistence on washing hands before eating bread?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;pharisees&gt;&lt;jewish-culture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9026" CreationDate="2012-08-09T12:52:09.043" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, they were &lt;em&gt;traditions&lt;/em&gt;--not &lt;em&gt;commandments&lt;/em&gt;.  Jesus actually rebuked them for rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep their traditions, calling them hypocrites for doing so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as&#xA;  it is written,  “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their&#xA;  heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as&#xA;  doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God&#xA;  and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a&#xA;  fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish&#xA;  your tradition!   Mark 7:6-9 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem the Pharisees had &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; their tradition, because in following it they believed they attained righteousness before God by their own efforts.  Jesus defied the traditions and called them hypocrites to reveal that they could not attain righteousness in such manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T12:52:09.043" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2012-08-09T13:07:22.090" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just because someone is not literally born of a specific man, does not discount him from that lineage. Joseph was not the cause of Jesus' birth, but he certainly accepted Him into his family and helped raise him well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see this in the story of Abraham, where even his servants under his household were instructed to receive the symbol of circumcision, and thus were considered to be from Abraham's line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were born in his house and all&#xA;  who were bought with his money, &lt;strong&gt;every male among the men of Abraham’s&#xA;  house&lt;/strong&gt;, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very same&#xA;  day, as God had said to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That very same day Abraham was circumcised, and his son Ishmael;27 and&#xA;  all the men of his house, born in the house or bought with money from&#xA;  a foreigner, were circumcised with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that Day forward they were all considered to be descendants of Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1946" LastEditorDisplayName="user1946" LastEditDate="2012-08-09T16:48:22.227" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T16:48:22.227" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9023" CreationDate="2012-08-09T13:15:38.393" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;A large, solid rock that served as a foundation to build something upon that nothing could wipe out calls to mind the end of the Sermon on the Mount:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:24-25&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:24-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,&#xA;  I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew,&#xA;  and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a&#xA;  rock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we know that Jesus was familiar with this sort of imagery.  The question, then, is what he was referring to in this specific passage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics claim that this is the point where Jesus established the church, and its authority, in the hands of Peter, naming him the first Pope, the small rock, an individual example of the large rock (the office of Pope that holds the authority over the church.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet this answer feels somewhat unsatisfying.  Popes are human too.  &lt;em&gt;Peter&lt;/em&gt; was human too.  Peter was hotheaded and a bit boastful, and he had some serious problems with his faith.  When Jesus invited him out onto the water to walk to him, he was actually able to do it, but then, after it had already been proven to him beyond any doubt that he was in the middle of a bona fide miracle, &lt;em&gt;he doubted!&lt;/em&gt;  Peter the Rock began to sink like a stone and Jesus had to run over and save him from drowning.  And who can forget his cowardice in the face of Jesus's trial and crucifixion, denying his Lord three times just hours after he had boasted of his willingness to follow him even unto death?  This is not the picture of a solid foundation that will uphold the church no matter what bad weather beats against it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if we reject this interpretation, we are under the necessity of providing a better one, because Jesus did still say that he was going to build his church upon &quot;this rock&quot;.  So the question becomes, what is &quot;this&quot;?  For that, we need more context.  Let's look back a few verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13-18&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:13-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his&#xA;  disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some,&#xA;  Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of&#xA;  the living God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon&#xA;  Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my&#xA;  Father which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I&#xA;  will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against&#xA;  it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see what it is that they were talking about when he said this.  Peter was blessed for the testimony he had received, not by men but by revelation from God, of the divinity of Jesus.  Men don't understand who Jesus is--they have all sorts of weird and conflicting theories--but by the power of God, men can have the truth revealed unto them.  This revelation, being from God, is infallible, and if the Church is built upon it, it can never fall.  Simon was named &lt;em&gt;petros&lt;/em&gt; because he was the archetype, the first (of his contemporaries at least) to have received this personal revelation from God.  (See Matthew chapter 4, where he and his brother Andrew are named as the first two of Jesus's disciples.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T13:15:38.393" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9032" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-09T15:18:59.457" Score="10" ViewCount="4904" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus Christ know as a baby that He was the Son of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When He worked carpentry with Joseph, His earthly father, did He know then Who or What He was? Did He sense in anyway prior to being a young prodigy (learning and eventually teaching in the temple) that He was the Anointed One?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do the Scriptures say anything about this issue? &lt;strong&gt;Do any church traditions or the writings of the Early Church Fathers offer any perspective?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1584" LastEditorUserId="1584" LastEditDate="2012-09-05T02:34:56.960" LastActivityDate="2015-06-05T04:51:34.013" Title="Did Christ know who He was as a youth?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-06-22T07:11:43.413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9032" CreationDate="2012-08-09T15:36:12.897" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know almost nothing for sure about the life of Jesus before starting his public ministry. From the Gospels we have only the birth narratives and &quot;boy Jesus in the temple&quot;, which are really very little to go on. From those we can deduce a couple of things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mary knew quite a lot about the destiny of her son, that he would &quot;redeem his people&quot;. It's not known whether she chose to pass this knowledge on to Jesus. I don't know if that counts as 'knowing' in the way you mean.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus clearly knew he was unusual in some way, from the temple narrative. He must have known that it was not usual for young boys to be disputing theology with the teachers; at least he would have been told that afterwards&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus clearly had foreknowledge of his destiny by the start of his public ministry&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a number of ancient extra-biblical traditions regarding the infant Jesus, in which he performs miracles. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancythomas.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Infancy Gospel of Thomas&lt;/a&gt; is an example. If these have any credence at all then they would tend to support the view that Jesus at least knew he was not a normal child at an early age. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T15:36:12.897" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9002" CreationDate="2012-08-09T15:38:35.703" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The unpardonable sin is mentioned here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is further explained here, by showing those who commit is make it 'impossible to bring them back to repentance: (This is a great description of how Judas responded to the tasting of the Spirit in his life as he cast out demons, etc. and followed the Lord in his ministry until gradually finding that he just did not believe)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. (Hebrews 6:4-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the idea is that a man can blaspheme God the Father, and the Son, but it is the immediate influence of the Spirit that makes the Father and the Son known to us, so if a person resists the Holy Spirit to an extreme they can't ever believe in Christ, making it unpardonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trying to figure out who has possibly committed it is difficult because we can't ultimately say if a person died unrepentant or not. However, there certainly are some who seem like they have committed it.  Anyone who seems to have been exposed to an outpouring of the Holy Spirit and has had a violent reaction against that work and continues rejecting every sign of God's work begins to appear to have committed it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some good candidates in my mind would be Judas, the two you mentioned in Acts, many of those figures in history that apostatized from the church and started their own heresies, and any other religious leader fully aware of the doctrine of grace and yet contain to deny it and assert some kind of works salvation, to name a few.  However, no matter how much it may appear that a person has committed it, if they repent, they never did.  Paul the Apostle would seem like someone who appeared to have committed it as he persecuted the church but later repented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, it seems rare then to commit this sin as it seems there must be a very intimate and powerful outpouring of the spirit upon someone followed by a very perverse resistance of that Spirit, such as in the case of saying Christ healed the sick by the power of the Devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T15:38:35.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9032" CreationDate="2012-08-09T15:44:18.623" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luke 2 tells the story of Jesus as a boy in the Temple.  His parents had taken Him to a feast there and had left Him behind on their return trip. When they returned to Jerusalem to find Him, Jesus asks His mother a question--&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the Temple was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; where Joseph lived, but was the House of God.  So, from that very early age, Jesus understood who He was and that His Father was not Joseph, but God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the&#xA;  Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to&#xA;  custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy&#xA;  Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but&#xA;  supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then&#xA;  they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances,&#xA;  and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching&#xA;  for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among&#xA;  the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who&#xA;  heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when&#xA;  his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him,&#xA;  “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been&#xA;  searching for you in great distress.” &lt;strong&gt;And he said to them, “Why were&#xA;  you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's&#xA;  house?”&lt;/strong&gt; And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. &#xA;  And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to&#xA;  them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.  Luke 2:41-51 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T15:44:18.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6548" CreationDate="2012-08-09T16:11:44.583" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus didn't condem Contraception per se, but there is a stong traditon running back to Genesis, that children are a good thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and&#xA;  fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea,&#xA;  and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the&#xA;  earth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another (Psalm 127:5):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed is the man that hath filled the desire with them; he shall not&#xA;  be confounded when he shall speak to his enemies in the gate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1663" LastEditorUserId="1663" LastEditDate="2012-08-09T17:20:25.053" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T17:20:25.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9038" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9046" CreationDate="2012-08-09T17:18:26.587" Score="7" ViewCount="1940" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since it appears that Jesus had brothers and sisters, did Mary have other children?  If not, how many wives did Joseph have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:46–47 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers&#xA;  stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your&#xA;  mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 13:56 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this&#xA;  man all these things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-11-16T22:12:55.470" LastActivityDate="2016-11-16T22:12:55.470" Title="Did Mary have other children?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;joseph-husband-of-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-08-09T01:33:24.757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9038" CreationDate="2012-08-09T17:58:14.867" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;There is one ancient source&lt;/a&gt; which lists Joseph as a widower and that the &quot;brothers of the Lord&quot; were only half(??? step???) brothers of Christ. It does not appear to be a listing of the number of wives that Joseph had, simply that he had had at least one (and thus &quot;widower&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are those, however, who would say that Joseph was similarly celibate and that the words, &quot;brother&quot; and &quot;sister&quot; are better understood as &quot;kinsman&quot; and &quot;kinswoman.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-08-09T18:04:12.443" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T18:04:12.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9038" CreationDate="2012-08-09T18:25:22.213" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no source in the bible (or anywhere else that I know of) which states how many other wives Joseph had. There are many a scripture which talk about Jesus's 'brothers. (Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Mk 6:3) which is troublesome, but the notes in my bible read thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In semitic usage the terms 'brother' and 'sister' are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers and half sisters; cf Gn 14:16;29:15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a greek word should be sought in the first place from semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the hebrew &lt;em&gt;'āh&lt;/em&gt; by the Greek word &lt;em&gt;adelphos&lt;/em&gt;, &amp;quot;brother,&amp;quot; as in the cited passages, a fact that may argue for the similar breadth of meaning in some new testament passages. For instance, there is no doubt that in [mark 6:17] , &amp;quot;brother' is used of Philip, who was actually the half-brother of Herod Antipas. On the other hand, mark may have understood the terms Literally; see also Mt 3:31-32, 12:46, 13:55-56, Lk 8:19; Jn 7:3, 5 The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary's perpetual virginity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That passage is taken from a note on the text of Mk 6:21 (NAB)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other then biblical commentary, I know that since life didn't last very long 2000 years ago, it was very possible for Joseph to have had a wife or two before Mary --its entirely plausible that they simply died before the beginning of our Gospels, and the children of these women end up living in the same House or community as Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This way, we can reconcile the text of 'brothers' with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (which not every christian acknowledges...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I am pretty sure I read somewhere that Augustine held an opinion similar to the above. Just saying...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1920" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T18:25:22.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9041" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9045" CreationDate="2012-08-09T18:47:38.633" Score="1" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John, Jesus is speaking of Heaven.  However in Matthew he's talking about a physical temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:2 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have&#xA;  told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;VS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 21:12-13 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying&#xA;  and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and&#xA;  the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to&#xA;  them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are&#xA;  making it ‘a den of robbers.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do we know for sure that he's talking about Heaven in John and not a physical temple / Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-09T21:53:14.367" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T11:28:51.160" Title="John 14:2: a literal house / temple or heaven" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9023" CreationDate="2012-08-09T18:49:41.913" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, so the reality is that there is the appearance of a Discrepancy of sorts in the bible, Peter being called &quot;Pétros&quot;, and The church being built on &quot;pétra.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic heres how we interpret this scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the Aramaic word kēpā'  meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kēphas is the name by which peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ('Peter'). It is translated as Petros (&quot;Peter&quot;) in Jn 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of jesus' statement would have been in English, &quot;You are the Rock (kēpā') and upon this rock (kēpā') I will build my church.&quot; The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciples new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock)  may be dew to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male.Although the two words were generally used with the same meaning, &quot;rock&quot; ... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thats found in the note on Mt 6:18 (NAB) in my bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So another words Jesus used the same word to refer to peter and 'the rock,' which is why Catholics believe that Jesus &quot;built the church&quot; on Peter, and the other popes. Of course, Faith is a gift given by God, and if it wasn't for that faith, Peter, and the rest of the Papacy, and their flock could have never started the church that we know today. So it does make sense, in a way, to say that Peter is a 'little rock' and upon the 'Big rock', the faith Of the head of the body of Christ, (which is given to peter) Jesus builds his church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1920" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T18:49:41.913" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2099" CreationDate="2012-08-09T20:49:20.337" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freeanointing.org/The_Fire_Baptism_Continued.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.freeanointing.org/The_Fire_Baptism_Continued.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&quot;Are you unwilling to be anointed with the Oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.&quot; Theophilus of Antioch (181AD)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After water baptism, &quot; We are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, (a practice derived), from the old discipline, wherein on entering the priesthood, then were wont to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. Whence Aaron is called &quot;Christ.&quot; Tertullian of Carthage &quot;On Baptism.&quot;(160 - 225 AD)&#xA;Link: Found! The Holy Anointing Oil Container of James the Just and the Apostles.http://www.freeanointing.org/freechristian.htm&#xA;&quot;The ancient Aramaic is transliterated as, &quot;La Shemen Ruehon&quot; (For the Oil of the Spirit)&quot;&#xA;And your yoke shall be removed because of the anointing oil&quot; Isaiah 10:27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Etymology (from Wikipedia): &#xA;The word cannabis is from Greek κάνναβις (kánnabis) (see Latin cannabis),[4] which was originally Scythian or Thracian.[5] It is related to the Persian kanab, the English canvas and possibly even to the English hemp (Old English hænep).[5] In modern Hebrew, קַנַּבּוֹס qannabōs modern pronunciation: [kanaˈbos] is used but מַעֲלֶה עָשָׁן maʿăleh ʿāšān modern pronunciation: [ma.aˈle aˈʃan] (smoke bringer) is the ancient term. Old Akkadian qunnabtu, Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian qunnabu were used to refer to the plant meaning &quot;a way to produce smoke.&quot;[6][7][8]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ancient Israel: Sula Benet ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Benet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Benet&lt;/a&gt; ) (in 1967) claimed that the plant kaneh bosm קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם mentioned five times in the Hebrew Bible is cannabis,[35] although most dictionaries of plants of the Bible typically identify the plant in question as either Acorus calamus or Cymbopogon citratus.[36]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also interesting to note that the Darby Bible makes a number of reference to &quot;fragrant drugs&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1988" LastActivityDate="2012-08-09T20:49:20.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9041" CreationDate="2012-08-10T00:15:48.843" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, &lt;em&gt;for sure&lt;/em&gt; is never really possible, but let me give this a shot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no difference between the two words in Greek—just like the English translations you provided. Both use the generic Greek term for house, &quot;&lt;em&gt;oikos&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; However, it's important to note that the second quotation (Mt. 21) is itself a quotation from Isaiah 56:7. In Hebrew, the word for house, &lt;em&gt;bêt&lt;/em&gt;, is also used frequently to refer to a &quot;temple&quot; (cf. with the archaeological sites of &lt;em&gt;bet shemesh&lt;/em&gt;, et al.), and in fact is the word used in Isa 56:7, which is unquestionably referring to the Solomonic Temple. The Greek word &lt;em&gt;oikos&lt;/em&gt; does not include this connotation in contexts other than translation. In other words, referring to the temple as &lt;em&gt;oikos&lt;/em&gt; in Matthew is a semiticism preserved by a literal translation and is not part of the usual semantic domain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in John 14 there is no reason contextually to assume that Jesus has in mind a &quot;temple&quot; when he says &quot;house&quot; because there are perfectly good words in Greek that &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; mean temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T02:43:04.260" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T02:43:04.260" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9038" CreationDate="2012-08-10T00:33:55.233" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As noted above by Igantius Theophorus, there exist some early Christian documents that attempt to deal with the conflict between the presence of Jesus' siblings and the perpetual virginity of Mary—Joseph as a widower seems to have been a favorite. So, for example, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aGiotto_-_Scrovegni_-_-20-_-_Flight_into_Egypt.jpg&quot;&gt;Flight to Egypt&lt;/a&gt; as depicted artistically often includes Jesus' brother James leading the donkey—since he was putatively from an earlier marriage. That said, there is nothing in the &lt;em&gt;biblical&lt;/em&gt; text that demands that Mary remained a virgin, was immaculately conceived, or assumed into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, such doctrines are matters of faith and perfectly fine to hold to, but no serious biblical scholar would argue for the historical reliability of such documents—whatever the reality may have been.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T00:33:55.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8943" CreationDate="2012-08-10T00:55:41.913" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to remember that the Trinity as a doctrine was &lt;em&gt;inductively&lt;/em&gt; defined. That is, the doctrine exists because it explains (most Christians would argue) the data present in the New Testament, namely that Yahweh, Jesus, and the Spirit all &quot;are God,&quot; but that God is &quot;one&quot; (cf. Deut 6:4-5). In order to avoid sounding like polytheists, Christians had to come up with a way of reconciling their inductive, experiential belief that Jesus (and the Spirit) were &quot;God,&quot; with the Second Temple Jewish ideal of monotheism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, it's tautological—which is shown in your title &quot;Why is the Trinity a Trinity?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T00:55:41.913" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9032" CreationDate="2012-08-10T00:57:32.677" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best Biblical Scholars on the gospels that I know of implies that Christ was in many ways like a normal baby. &lt;strong&gt;Not only would he have not known that he was the Messiah when he was two, but he may not have been potty trained yet.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know his visit to the temple is seen as a potential place Jesus began to really become conscious that he was the Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And &#xA;  yet this awakening of the Christ-consciousness on His first visit to the Temple,&#xA;   partial, and perhaps even temporary, as it may have been, seems itself like the&#xA;  morning-dawn, which from the pinnacle of the Temple the Priest watched, ere he&#xA;   summoned his waiting brethren beneath to offer the early sacrifice. (Alfred Edersheim, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah&lt;/a&gt;, P243)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to be a valid suggestion because in many many places in the Bible even as an adult, where Jesus as a man was not aware of things that he naturally knew as God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. (NIV Luke 2:52)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-15T12:10:48.487" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T12:10:48.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2012-08-10T01:10:10.367" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to understand that the purpose of the genealogy is literary, and not scientific. The Gospel of Matthew has a primary focus on Jesus as a great and authoritative teacher (like Moses)—notice how the genealogy starts at Abraham, the father of the Israelites. By contrast, Luke's genealogy (Lk 3:23ff.) traces Jesus' lineage back to Adam, which many have speculated is meant to illustrate the universality of Jesus prophetic message of liberation found in Luke–Acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, since the purpose of the genealogies is not scientific, which parent the lineage goes through doesn't matter; but the father is clearly preferred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T01:10:10.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9050" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9054" CreationDate="2012-08-10T01:27:38.840" Score="2" ViewCount="13007" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any known conflicts between the teachings of A.W. Tozer and those of Reformed Theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My concern is sparked by his relation to the Christian &quot;mystics&quot;, which sound potentially heretical. This question arose from finding numerous books related to the Holy Spirit written by Tozer when browsing Amazon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note this question is NOT &quot;Is A.W. Tozer a Christian?&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T10:38:16.673" LastActivityDate="2018-06-28T22:53:53.233" Title="Are there disagreements between Reformed Theology and the teachings of A.W. Tozer?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;aw-tozer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8964" CreationDate="2012-08-10T01:55:08.657" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know that I've ever heard the term &quot;eisegesis&quot; used in anything but a polemical tone, so I suspect you aren't going to have anyone telling you that it's a good practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the exegetical approach that most Christians typically espouse (cf. Fee &amp;amp; Stuart &lt;em&gt;How to Read the Bible for All its Worth&lt;/em&gt;), &quot;The text can never mean what it never meant&quot; has serious flaws. Hermeneutics are intrinsically tied to epistemology—and the truth of the matter is that we &lt;em&gt;cannot ever&lt;/em&gt; know &lt;em&gt;for sure&lt;/em&gt; what any text &lt;em&gt;meant&lt;/em&gt;, and therefor have no way to verify whether we are in fact committing [that most grievous of sins] eisegesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, while most moderately informed Christians try to pull meaning &quot;out&quot; of a text (hence &quot;exegesis&quot;), the NT authors and most early Christians had no such sensibility. This is why so many OT texts are re-appropriated as prophecies about Jesus. The &lt;em&gt;locus classicus&lt;/em&gt; is Isa 7:14. Who is Isa 7:14 about? Hezekiah. What does the NT say? It's about Jesus. Or better: Isa 40:3 was re-appropriated by both early Christians (referring to John the Baptist), and also by the Qumran community as a reference to themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own personal worldview values very highly a historical–critical approach to the Bible. That said, if we say that an exegetical approach is the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; faithful way of interpreting the Bible we exclude all those who interpreted the Bible for the first 1500 years of the Church. This is not acceptable in my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:39:01.683" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:39:01.683" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9053" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9055" CreationDate="2012-08-10T04:32:05.897" Score="8" ViewCount="692" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2028&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1st Samuel 28&lt;/a&gt;, Saul gets the witch of Endor to summon Samuel back from the dead.  Is this really Samuel or some demon impersonating Samuel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is the real Samuel here, how does this woman have the power to pull Samuel from Abraham's bosom (re: the story of Lazarus) back into this world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-16T23:57:19.650" LastActivityDate="2017-10-23T14:53:08.947" Title="Who is &quot;Samuel&quot; in the story of Saul, Samuel, and the Medium?" Tags="&lt;1-samuel&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-10-24T15:08:43.453" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9050" CreationDate="2012-08-10T04:51:59.123" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Although not a Tozer ‘fan’ per se, I would not label him as a mystic, although he does falsely appear that way a bit, in that he highly emphasised the Spirit and was also a poetic sort&lt;/strong&gt;. A.W. Tozer is an interesting person to compare with the reformers. On one hand he was more like them than most who claim to be like them and on the other hand he certainly felt in some areas he had a better understanding then them, but so do many in one way or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What makes Tozer most different from reformers is simply that he did not believe in the cessation of those highly miraculous gifts of the Spirit, but rather urged that we should pray for them now.  This does not make him a mystic it simply makes him a modern day charismatic.&lt;/strong&gt;  Among charismatics I would say Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and Tozer are among the best. From my memory of some of his audio sermons that fed me spiritually quite a bit as a young believer, I would say &lt;strong&gt;Tozer had a very clear sense of the cross and an in-depth knowledge of early church father theology as well as reformed theology and generally preached accordingly&lt;/strong&gt;. I would say that Tozer was closer to Calvinistic in his view of the atonement rather than anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where &lt;strong&gt;I would criticize Tozer to some degree&lt;/strong&gt; is where he personally found it most humorous.  I remember him making fun of one of his critics by calling him &lt;strong&gt;a ‘spiritual perfectionists’&lt;/strong&gt; and as funny as it sounds I think this label fits to some degree. If you ever read Tozer and notice to what degree he expected a Christian to be sanctified and holy, inwardly truly following Christ, it is almost as though the Apostle Peter would have come way to short for him! Paul may have just made it! This is really what Tozer was about he was a unique charismatic holiness preacher. He seemed to be a man of prayer and very serious in his reverence for God’s word. He would have not approved of Christian rock music for example (something I like a lot). In some ways my criticism seems like a compliment and it is, but at some point it just starts to rub the wrong way and I do not think Tozer books on their own create a balanced diet. Tozer is possibly a good supplement to a balanced diet. One needs to put him in perspective during a generation that was influenced by the charismatic movement and holiness movements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, I still have to say &lt;strong&gt;I like Tozer as a person, he was so very genuine and honest. I would not place him among the ‘bad guys’ or ‘mystics’ but let him sit over with ‘the good guys’. I would not recommend his books on the Spirit (if you are Charismatic I would read Lloyd-Jones). I would highly recommend his book on the ‘Attributes of God’ as possibly the best on the subject.&lt;/strong&gt; This is merely my opinion on having read several Tozer books and much more reformed books. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe the best compliment I can give Tozer in how he was received by those most reformed is, by quoting J.I. Packer, who seems to like Tozer even more than I do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Through all of Tozer’s books and articles there shines a passion for God that puts our shallowness to shame. Reading him is like drinking at an oasis in the desert.” (J.I. Packer)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T04:51:59.123" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9053" CreationDate="2012-08-10T05:16:33.210" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very tricky set of verses to interpret. &lt;strong&gt;Some think it is the Devil taunting Saul, but others think God used the very vices that Saul sought in his guilt to reprove him and prophecy against him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I prefer the second option&lt;/strong&gt;, that is this apparition is not of the Devil, but quite contrary to the woman’s satanic powers God used the occasion to overwhelm Saul so that wherever Saul turned God’s frown would follow him as a horrid curse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To wonder whether Samuel appeared objectively or by a vision, I would lean towards &lt;strong&gt;merely a vision because his soul appears to have come out of the earth&lt;/strong&gt; in the vision.  Naturally there was a belief that holy disembodied souls lived in heaven and &lt;strong&gt;if the vision was meant to be assumed as objective, the real soul of Samuel would probably have come from the sky down to the earth&lt;/strong&gt; as that would have been more in keeping with how Enoch, Elijah and Jesus left the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Addition&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to what one might think today there were some Jewish beliefs before Christ of the soul going to paradise, or the Bosom of Abraham. The Sadducess did not probably hold this view but Jesus mentioning the Bosom of Abraham was probably in line with some of the views held in the traditios of the Pharisees.  In any case the famous Jewish historian says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the carrying up of the soul of the righteous by Angels is certainly in accordance with Jewish teaching, though stripped of all legendary details, such as about the number and the greetings of the Angels. (Alfred Edersheim &lt;a href=&quot;http://m.ccel.org/browse/bookInfo?id=edersheim/lifetimes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Life and Times of Jesus, P858&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another sample, in the Hebrew writings of the Maccabess we have similar ideas in accordance with the jokes that people have today about Peter meeting us at the pearly gates:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if we so die, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will welcome us, and all the fathers will praise us. (4 Maccabees 13:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although it may be difficult to prove when the Hebrews started to beleive in paradise as recording in ancient rabbinic literature, there seems to be logical grounds for assuming very early on. It is plausable that before Isaac was born Abraham had faith that his soul would go to his ancestors when his body was burried. His belief that God could raise Isaac from the dead is described in the New Tetament as the reason why he was willing to kill him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. (NIV Genesis 15:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-14T01:14:46.783" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T01:14:46.783" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9056" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9057" CreationDate="2012-08-10T06:02:08.487" Score="3" ViewCount="382" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I understand &quot;Total Depravity&quot; from Calvinism -- apart from God's grace, there is nothing good within us -- we are miserable, evil creatures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of this, I have some questions about the rich man in Luke 16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 16:27-28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;27&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, &lt;sup&gt;28&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why does he wish well for his family (rather than an attitude of: I don't care about anyone, if they go to hell, they go to hell)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why does he wish well for heaven (the heaven rejoices whenever a sinner repents])?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why does he still have what appears to be compassion despite having not been elected?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T09:14:57.400" LastActivityDate="2014-02-04T15:27:22.413" Title="Total Depravity vs the Rich Man" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;total-depravity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9056" CreationDate="2012-08-10T06:47:20.353" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have actually asked myself this question before. I have &lt;strong&gt;two answers.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One, we can't assume everything in a  parable is to be taken literally.&lt;/strong&gt; In this case the concern he has is not real but is there to fill in the picture of the parable's main point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second, which I prefer as seeming more natural, is this.  &lt;strong&gt;Total depravity does not mean men are without affection that seem good and are a reflection of true virtue (but not the reality).&lt;/strong&gt;  For example a parents strong love for their children can exist in the most evil of hearts. However, these natural affections actually have no moral value in them in that they are selfish based and more like an emotional appetite, like craving food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;True virtue and love comes&#xA;from faith in Christ and flows from faith in his love for us. True virtue does not arise from our natural affection without such faith.  In this sense maybe it is possible that people in hell are further tormented by having other loved ones there and worrying for them in their anguish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding this kind of natural affection these words of Jesus seem to assume:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (NIV Matthew 7:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either case, I do not think we need to infer anything against total depravity from the parable and speculating to far along the details of a parable (something I may have just done)  is not the parable's intention. Actually I am still divided over which answer is better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T06:47:20.353" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9056" CreationDate="2012-08-10T06:55:47.660" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you've got a misunderstanding of the concept of &quot;Total Depravity&quot; and of the definition of the word &quot;good&quot; from a Christian perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total Depravity does not mean that we are totally evil. It doesn't mean that we have no good within us whatsoever.  Everybody on earth has some good in them, so it would be utter foolishness to interpret the doctrine in such a way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, &quot;good&quot; in our understanding is a relative term.  We can do good things, we can think good thoughts.  Someone who is generally caring, loving, and giving is considered a good person. But such a person is not perfect.  Everyone has a flaw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the context of Christianity and salvation, &quot;good&quot; is a black and white issue.  &quot;Good&quot; would mean 100% in line with God's thinking - in thought and in action.  In other words, it would be completely without sin.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-comfort/heaven-goodenough.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Even one sin in our life disqualifies us from the level of &quot;goodness&quot; needed to earn our way into heaven&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet stumble in one point, he&#xA;  is guilty of all.” &lt;strong&gt;(James 2:10)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which brings us back to total depravity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't mean &quot;devoid of any good thing&quot;.  It means &quot;Separated from God, and completely unable to do anything, whatsoever, that could do anything to assist in our own salvation.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In non-technical, layman's terms, it means that salvation is completely, 100% the work of God, with no action, not even one of surrender on the part of the believer.  Totally depraved simply means completely separated from God, with no power whatsoever to do anything in the least to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is contrasted with the belief of partial depravity, which goes hand-in-hand with resistible grace espoused in Arminian theology, which says we do have the power to do one thing - accept the free gift of salvation offered to us.  In Arminianism, we believe there is an act of accepting the gift on the part of the believer.  The believer has the power to choose.  Grace is resistible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Calvinism, that power doesn't exist, or is an illusion because even if the believer thinks he is choosing to put his faith in Christ, the fact is that God predestined that believer to do so.  The believer has no choice.  Grace is irresistible, because God has ordained that person to believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, however, both &quot;Total depravity&quot; and &quot;Partial depravity&quot; see no issue with the Rich man's ability to do good things.  Again, everyone is capable of doing &quot;good&quot; just not the type of &quot;good&quot; that leads to salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-02-04T15:27:22.413" LastActivityDate="2014-02-04T15:27:22.413" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9059" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9091" CreationDate="2012-08-10T09:02:59.050" Score="1" ViewCount="3390" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently bought a copy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0718020685&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Chronological Study Bible&lt;/a&gt;. According to the preface, the Bible takes all of the verses of the KJV bible and rearranges them (with some debates on certain verses) into chronological order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read through the KJV Bible a couple times in years past, but have pretty much always gotten lost in terms of the time period (i.e reading was more mechanical than understanding.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly most study Bibles are not in chronological order. Why is this? What are the disadvantages of arranging a Bible in Chronological order?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T10:05:28.653" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T13:05:33.417" Title="Are there disadvantages to Chronological Study Bibles?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:13:27.283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9061" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-10T11:33:54.483" Score="0" ViewCount="532" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am interested in researching the history behind the Bible's canonization. I am particularly interested in writings of early historians, or books that compile facts from these historians in an unbiased manner. Secular works would be great if they exist. I am trying to avoid books about the authority/infallibility/etc of the Bible. Where should I start?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New Testament canon is my focus, though I'm interested in Old Testament as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secular works are great, but that's not to say I'm uninterested in the nonsecular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="440" LastEditorUserId="440" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T15:04:11.840" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T17:24:58.550" Title="Resources to learn about Bible canonization" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-23T20:17:08.590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9062" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-08-10T12:05:05.007" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T12:05:05.007" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T12:05:05.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9063" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-08-10T12:05:05.007" Score="0" Body="The formal name of the denomination commonly known as the Quakers." OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T12:38:45.277" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T12:38:45.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2012-08-10T12:07:52.903" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a good brief overview, Wikipedia has the following link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&lt;/a&gt; that may prove useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Some Authors to Consider&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a respected secular scholar, Bart Ehrmann's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0060738170&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Misquoting Jesus&lt;/a&gt; is probably your best bet. I'm not endorsing what he says, and I'm not going to say he is unbiased (he has explicitly rejected his Christian faith and openly wishes others would do the same), but he is well respected and has a good grasp of the chain of events. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to his book, the Teaching Company has a [series of lectures he did on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=656&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Testament&lt;/a&gt; and on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=6538&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Church Fathers&lt;/a&gt; (the documents, not the people!) which illustrate the early church development of practice. The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=6577&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;History of Jesus to Constantine&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=6593&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lost Christianities&lt;/a&gt;&quot; in particular would probably give you the secular development case the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_B._Wallace&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel B. Wallace&lt;/a&gt; will give a more orthodox understanding of why particular books were accepted, and lend credence to the traditional canon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Breif Overview&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, the best way to understand the &quot;process of canonization&quot; is to understand the unique contribution of each book in the canon to the Bible as a whole. Remember, there was no committee that sat down and said, &quot;This is the authoritative list, and everything else is just a book!&quot; Rather, over time, there was a general consensus amongst Christians as to what really was Scripture, and what wasn't.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marcion would be a good example. He was one of the first to compile a &quot;canon,&quot; and his consisted solely of the letters of Paul, and the Gospel of Luke. He considered the Old Testament to speak of a different god, and thought it useless.  What Marcion, thought, however, wasn't nearly as important as the reaction of the majority of Christians in contrast.  They said, &quot;No, the Old Testament is part of who God is.&quot; The general consensus that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Marcionism&lt;/a&gt; is heresy was pretty well established by about 200AD, and led most then to accept that the Old Testament is part of the canon.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar processes occurred around the adoption of the Johnanine corpus - the Gospel, the letters, etc... Likewise, the Gospel of Thomas - purported collection of 115 of Jesus' sayings - proved to be more Gnostic than Christian, and so it was rejected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key point is that all of this happened over time.  It isn't until Athanasius' Festal Letter of 367 that we even have the first &quot;complete&quot; canon listed anywhere - and Patristic scholars continued to quote other works for some time as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even today, there are certain Christian authors who are considered &quot;more important&quot; than others.  If you asked me to pontificate about who is canonical, for example, I'd want to throw in C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesteron, Augustine, and a couple of others.  David Barton, Joel Osteen, Tim Lahaye, not so much.  And, I would clearly reject, say, (and I only speak for myself) anything by Joseph Smith or the Watchtower society.  Why do I say that? Because my canon speaks to what is important to me. Many Evangelicals would probably agree with me, and do, as can be shown by what other Evangelicals tell others &quot;should be read.&quot; The point is not what I've picked, but rather that the same process was in place 2000 - 1600 years ago.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, Why did the canon close? is really the only remaining question, and that has already been answered elsewhere on the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T16:59:46.067" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T16:59:46.067" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2012-08-10T13:30:41.437" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Narnian is right. Everyone is going to have some sort of bias one way or another (otherwise I don't think we would have all these different sects of Christianity!) Your best bet is to just check out resources on the first Council of Nicaea and read both Roman Catholic and Orthodox writings. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ignatius of Antioch&lt;/a&gt; certainly comes to mind. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/index.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fordham University&lt;/a&gt; has done extensive research into the early texts and early councils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: Interesting, I didn't notice at first but the site that contains information on Ignatius also has links to other early Christian authorities. Check out the links to the left of the page! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1946" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T13:30:41.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2012-08-10T13:38:11.760" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some debates about this because these genealogies do not have every name along the branches but certain representative names. Most sources I have encountered think &lt;strong&gt;Matthew proves Christ was legally entitled to the throne of David as a legal ancestor to David through his father by law.  Luke on the other hand traces the  the physical lineage through Mary, who also was a descendent of David.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case as far as I can tell, although we have lost all the genealogical records when Jerusalem was destroyed, these records did not seem to cause any controversy among the early christians but effectively added further proof of the legitimate claims that Jesus was the Messiah.  To those who knew about the genealogies at the time this was important. For us we can only take that 'battle won' as historical proof.  Furthermore, with these records now lost no new Messiah can claim to have the correct genealogical record. Jesus was the Messiah, or there never was such a thing - case closed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T13:38:11.760" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9067" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9070" CreationDate="2012-08-10T13:47:51.677" Score="7" ViewCount="29038" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lamech said to his wives,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   “Adah and Zillah, listen to me;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    wives of Lamech, hear my words.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   I have killed a man for wounding me,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    a young man for injuring me.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   If Cain is avenged seven times, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;    then Lamech seventy-seven times.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Genesis 4:23-24, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the significance of Lamech's boast? What role does it play in the Genesis narrative?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-07T04:17:39.490" LastActivityDate="2016-07-16T17:05:18.123" Title="What is the significance of Lamech's boast?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;murder&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9067" CreationDate="2012-08-10T14:10:44.360" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has no answer to this question.  We do not the man's name or anything about him, other than that he was a young man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The importance, then, is not who died, but rather who the murderer was.  Lamech was a murderer, just as Cain was.  Additionally, we see that Lamech appears to be unrepentant.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting to note that Cain's response to God's judgment was &quot;My punishment is greater than I can bear&quot;.  His focus was on his inability to bear up under the punishment for his crime rather than on the horror of his crime.  Lamech also appears to refuse to see the evil he has done, choosing rather to wish for an exemption from capital punishment greater than that of Cain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As an addendum, we know that Lamech did not kill his wife, with whom he was talking, or Abel, who had already been killed previously.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-20T13:27:46.490" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T13:27:46.490" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9053" CreationDate="2012-08-10T15:40:57.190" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mike gives two possible interpretations here.  There's a third one as well: that &quot;Samuel&quot; here is... nobody at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that the witch is the only one who &quot;saw&quot; Samuel, and she had to describe him to Saul. Everything in the message could have been deduced as a good guess by anyone with a decent knowledge of the current political situation.  This passage reads like like a classic description of a &lt;em&gt;séance&lt;/em&gt;, a deception that hangs entirely upon the customer's willingness to believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T15:40:57.190" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9067" CreationDate="2012-08-10T16:15:24.587" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lamech killed some younger man. Lamech represents the fifth and last generation mentioned of the Cainites, who by that time were probably a large multitude occupying cities. Lamech represents the culmination of those that turned away from the promise of the Messiah to Eve, in contrast to the Sethites which were the early church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we have in Lamech's short poem to his wives, whose names in Hebrew mean 'ornament' and 'shade', is &lt;strong&gt;the height of violent boasting.&lt;/strong&gt;  He essentially say's 'I will kill (and have) who I want and anyone who avenges it shall suffer!'  Grabbing beautiful wives (a polygamy of ornament and 'shade', possibly cast from the lovely flowing hair by his second wife) and having children that were committed to establishing crafts and skills and building cities, implies that in addition to the violence of this people, they were vain, lustful and seeking permanent settlement into the pleasures and ambitions of this world.  The Sethites on the other hand were more like visitors to the world, looking for a better life by faith. &lt;strong&gt;Basically Lamech's great boasts, lusts and violence was the early version of Heathenism later represented so well by Greece and Rome.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: In my answer I have mostly summarized points learned from Alfred Edersheim's '&lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-bhot/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Bible History, Old Testament  Volume I&lt;/a&gt; ' but the idea of two races developing with different agendas early in Genesis is common to most Bible Commentaries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2014-06-26T09:46:54.460" LastActivityDate="2014-06-26T09:46:54.460" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2246" CreationDate="2012-08-10T16:25:47.587" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The classic works on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis&quot;&gt;Documentary Hypothesis (DH)&lt;/a&gt; are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellhausen&quot;&gt;Julius Wellhausen&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;em&gt;Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=f061b0TKi-UC&amp;amp;ots=yIZtgO9HID&amp;amp;dq=prolegomena%20to%20the%20history%20of%20ancient%20israel&amp;amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=prolegomena%20to%20the%20history%20of%20ancient%20israel&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;Prolegomena to the History of [Ancient] Israel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (the latter of which, incidentally, is available in English for free via google books). The theory is generally attributed to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Graf&quot;&gt;Karl Graf&lt;/a&gt;, but it was Wellhausen who brought it to the forefront of biblical scholarship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic premise of the &lt;em&gt;Prolegomena&lt;/em&gt; is the identification of certain contradictions throughout the Pentateuch that point toward a progression toward the &quot;Judaism&quot; of the Exilic and second Temple period. The arguments are very nuanced, but Wellhausen's attention to detail is staggering. Central to his argument is the apprent change of opinion regarding the centrality of Jerusalem for the worship of Yahweh. The earlier strata seem unconcerned by, for instance, Solomon (or Samuel, Elisha, etc.) making sacrifices to God outside of Jerusalem, which is strictly forbidden in the later D and P sources. Moreover, none of the above mentioned people were &lt;em&gt;Levites&lt;/em&gt; who were the sole practitioners of the temple cult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical scholarship has come a &lt;em&gt;long&lt;/em&gt; way since Wellhausen, but one would be remiss to toss out his work as &lt;em&gt;passe&lt;/em&gt; or otherwise &quot;disproven.&quot; The DH is broadly accepted by nearly every serious scholar of the Hebrew Bible (with modification and individual nuance, of course) for good reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't accept (or reject) the theory just because someone on the internet said so; read the first few chapters of the &lt;em&gt;Prolegomena&lt;/em&gt; (with a Hebrew Bible next to you if you can)--the man was truly brilliant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Post Script&lt;/strong&gt;: Incidentally, Wellhausen was a devout Christian--keep that in mind when you read about his theories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2012-08-10T16:32:24.633" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T16:32:24.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9061" CreationDate="2012-08-10T17:24:58.550" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;For NT canonization, a really nice (and short!) work was done by Harry Gamble &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1579109098&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. Also you should take a look at Bruce Metzger's &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0198269544&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Metzger (Deceaced, formerly of Princeton Theological Seminary) and Gamble (UVA) are recognized as experts in the field, and are well respected by secular and confessional folks alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, the matter is a bit more complex, but any good OT intro should include at least &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt; on the matter. You should look at MCDonald &amp;amp; Sanders' &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0801047080&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Canon Debate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, which is a collection of essays about canonization of both the OT and NT and Evans and Tov's &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0801032423&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. The latter I have not actually read, but both authors are stellar and to be trusted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make sure whatever you choose was published by a reputable academic publisher. The danger in many &quot;popular&quot; works is that they are made to &lt;em&gt;sell&lt;/em&gt; rather than to convey historically accurate or peer-reviewed data--this goes for both secular and confessional types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T17:24:58.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9053" CreationDate="2012-08-10T17:52:59.713" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The important thing to note about the story is that Saul 1) had just cast-out the mediums from the land, and 2) that Yahweh would not answer Saul &quot;in dreams&quot; etc. In other words, Saul's actions should be viewed as both hypocritical and circumventing Yahweh--In other words, it's showing Saul's depravity and separation from Yahweh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the actual seance is concerned, we, as the readers, have to decide what &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; happened. While I myself am skeptical of how effectual seances are, etc., there was no such skepticism in most of the ancient world--including ancient Israel. I don't think there is any reason to suspect that the author thought it impossible that a medium could actually communicate with the dead. You might have a look at the bibliography in Brian Schmidt's &lt;em&gt;Israel's Beneficent Dead&lt;/em&gt; if you are in to that sort of thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as Mike's comment is concerned, his statement that &quot;Naturally there was a belief that holy disembodied souls lived in heaven&quot; is unsupported by contemporary biblical scholarship. On the contrary, in the Hebrew Bible &quot;heaven&quot; is the abode of God. When humans die, they go to &quot;Sheol&quot; (the &quot;grave&quot; or &quot;shadowy place&quot;) whence they shall be resurrected. You should check out Jon Levenson's book &lt;em&gt;Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel&lt;/em&gt; if you want more evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2012-08-13T16:40:34.100" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T16:40:34.100" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8943" CreationDate="2012-08-10T17:58:28.710" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;CS Lewis discusses this in Mere christianity! (excellent book) &#xA;From what I remember:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is the 'Father.' The 'I AM that I AM' The prime mover, the ultimate reality, the fountain from which all flows. He just is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The son: Lewis talks about a thing being 'begotten not made': before our timeline begins, Jesus is 'the firstborn of all creation.' when you say 'Beget' you are saying that you are creating something like yourself, not unlike. When you 'make' something, you are creating something unlike yourself. Humans &lt;em&gt;beget&lt;/em&gt; humans, humans &lt;em&gt;make&lt;/em&gt; cars, televisions, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lewis argues that he can only imagine that there must only be one begotten son of God because its inconceivable to think that there be more then one son. How would you differentiate between multiple sons? Therefore, only one begotten son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spirit: Lewis asks: have you ever been in a meeting, or in a club where people walk away talking about the collective 'spirit' in the room? How, when united, multiple people of a like mind can form a unique atmosphere that takes the form of a distinct personality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lewis argues that The Holy spirit is the realization of the unity of mind and spirit (and ultimately, love) between the first 2 persons of the trinity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I would quote CS Lewis, but I don't have the book on me at the moment! hope this helps a bit)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1920" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T17:58:28.710" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2012-08-10T23:58:47.323" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The lineage in Matthew follows Joseph, which would be Jesus' &lt;em&gt;legal&lt;/em&gt; lineage to David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lineage in Luke follows Mary, which would be Jesus' &lt;em&gt;natural&lt;/em&gt; lineage to Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both run through David, which qualifies him as an heir by either natural or legal lineage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1996" LastActivityDate="2012-08-10T23:58:47.323" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9077" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10075" CreationDate="2012-08-11T00:16:21.573" Score="2" ViewCount="1135" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to be Omnipotent, or all knowing, as well as Omnipresent and all powerful wouldn't a supreme being have to be so far removed from concepts of &quot;Good&quot; and &quot;Evil&quot;?  Those are just terms and ideas that Man created, therefore how can something that is literally the sum total of everything be one or the other?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1997" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T22:56:55.450" LastActivityDate="2014-08-23T14:19:36.443" Title="How can an all powerful supreme being be either good or evil?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="16" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9078" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9089" CreationDate="2012-08-11T00:23:50.910" Score="6" ViewCount="3929" Body="&lt;p&gt;To a first degree approximation, is the following correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reformed Theology: Spiritual gifts ceased after the apostolic age. The gifts were important to setup the initial church, but after the initial church was setup, they were no longer necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentecostalism: People who believe that spiritual gifts are still being handed out. Furthermore, upon openly declaring this belief, they either voluntarily or involuntarily left their (cessation of holy gifts) church to a (holy gifts still exist) church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Charismatic: People who believe that spiritual gifts are still being handed out. However, they stay with their church rather than leave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somewhat confused after reading the different Wikipedia entries on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostals&quot;&gt;Pentecostalism&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Movement&quot;&gt;the Charismatic Movement&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Note:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to previous questions; I'm actually not looking for resources; I'm merely trying to understand the distinctions when people throw these terms around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2012-08-11T01:59:22.967" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T14:35:42.313" Title="Reformed Theology, Pentecostalism, and Charismatic Movement on The Holy Spirit" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;pentecost&gt;&lt;charismatic&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9077" CreationDate="2012-08-11T01:31:22.850" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If you're asking for an answer from a Christian perspective, which implies that you will accept, for the purposes of the answer, the presuppositions inherent in a &quot;Christian answer&quot; such as that God is who the Bible claims he is...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're making a false assumption in the question.  Good or evil are not concepts that man made up and applied to God.  Good and evil are concepts defined by God, and understood by us, his creation.  As the Creator of the universe, &lt;strong&gt;it is He who defines what anything is&lt;/strong&gt;.  He created things as he saw fit, and if He says something is this, or something is that, it is so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We, as His creations merely understand, through the senses and ability to reason that he created in us, or through his revealed word to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore God defines what good and evil is.  Being God, it makes sense that &quot;Good&quot; is defined as according to His word,in line with His character, and as revealed to us by Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is only from an atheistic mindset that one could claim that &quot;good and evil are traits we made up and applied to God&quot;.  The ability to say that cannot exist without the presupposition that God is imaginary, and a creation of man.  From the Christan perspective, this is exactly the opposite of the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-08-11T01:31:22.850" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9081" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-11T03:08:19.080" Score="10" ViewCount="67488" Body="&lt;p&gt;The title almost says it all:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What's the difference between the Gospel and the Bible? Does one contain  the other or what?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What does each one include?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Where did each one come from (or who authored each, if possible)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please forgive my ignorance; if the question is encyclopedic then answering the first item is enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1998" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-06T00:05:06.237" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T15:37:45.530" Title="What's the difference between the Gospel and the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9081" CreationDate="2012-08-11T03:29:30.173" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From an Evangelical perspective, &quot;The Gospel&quot; means &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Etymology&quot;&gt;The Good News&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. The news, specifically that even though we are sinners, hopelessly separated from God, unable to save ourselves, Christ dies for us, to pay the penalty for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the good news that is revealed to us in the Bible. The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Bible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is the collection of 66 books (Genesis-Revelations), written over a long period, by different authors, from different backgrounds, yet revealing one unified message, and the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gospel&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is the message they tell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose a good analogy would be in standard literature, you have the book (the Bible) and you have the plot (the Gospel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To muddy the waters, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Gospels_%28disambiguation%29&quot;&gt;first four books of the New Testament are called &quot;the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gospels&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. Each is an account of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ told from the perspective of one of the disciples, who knew Him personally.  (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-08-11T03:35:28.233" LastActivityDate="2012-08-11T03:35:28.233" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9084" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9094" CreationDate="2012-08-11T05:42:22.510" Score="3" ViewCount="4786" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:7-15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:7-15&lt;/a&gt;, we see Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;telling his disciples to not use vain repetitions as the heathens do&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;giving a specific example of how to pray&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's furthermore noted that prayer is a rather powerful technique given:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus prayed right before his death &lt;a href=&quot;http://kingjbible.com/luke/22-39.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:39-46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;some demons can only be removed via prayer &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/mark/9-29.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 9:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I get the impression that prayer is something that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;was very important to Christ and his disciples&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;unfortunately, for some reason, not explained explicitly in the Bible (i.e. no 8-step prayer program)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other Biblical truths that are &quot;hidden&quot; -- like Trinity / TULIP -- they're in the Bible, but often times hard to see unless someone shows it to you. Prayer seems to be along these lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who were the most influential Church fathers on how we should pray? And what did they say about it? [Please cite resources.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorDisplayName="user1694" LastEditDate="2012-08-11T21:12:14.033" LastActivityDate="2012-10-11T10:20:31.023" Title="What does the Bible say about how we should pray?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-25T00:48:59.777" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9081" CreationDate="2012-08-11T05:53:02.127" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, the Bible is the entire collection of Jewish scripture (known by Christians as the &quot;Old Testament&quot;) and Christian scripture (which also includes the &quot;New Testament&quot;) as recognized by modern Christian groups.  Most Protestant Christian groups recognize 66 &quot;books&quot; (or individual pieces of literature) as their Bible. Greek Orthodox and Catholics recognize 73.  See the Wikipedia entry for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bible&lt;/a&gt; for a more in-depth look of what is contained within the Bible, and how various groups have different definitions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, moving on to the term &quot;Gospel.&quot;  The term &quot;Gospel&quot; has two meanings within Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of the books of the Bible which tells the story of Jesus' life.  The four gospels are Gospels of (or according to) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_matthew&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_luke&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John&lt;/a&gt;.  In this sense, the term &quot;Gospel&quot; serves to designate these four books (and some groups include additional gospels) as distinct from the other &lt;em&gt;types&lt;/em&gt; of books contained in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, the Gospels (plural) are part of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Gospel&quot; also means simply &quot;The Good News.&quot;  So when someone says &quot;Jesus preached the Gospel,&quot; they don't mean &quot;Jesus told the story of his life,&quot; but they mean &quot;Jesus preached the Good News.&quot;  That &quot;Good News&quot; is essentially that God forgives sins.  It can also be considered the entire story of the Bible, including the details of man's rebellion against God, and God's desire and attempt to redeem man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, the Gospel (singular) is either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;specifically, the message that Jesus came to redeem man.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;generally, the entire message of the Bible.  In this sense, &lt;em&gt;The Bible&lt;/em&gt; is to &quot;The Gospel&quot; as &lt;em&gt;Moby-Dick&lt;/em&gt; is to &quot;the story of Captain Ahab's quest for the White Whale.&quot;   That is, the former is the title of the book, and the latter is a description of the story the book tells.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2019-07-19T11:24:22.020" LastActivityDate="2019-07-19T11:24:22.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="9089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9078" CreationDate="2012-08-11T15:59:00.407" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking you are correct but I would not say people left their own denominations to join the Pentecostal church, rather like all new denominations just some of the initial founders did, but as it grew it became its own proper denomination with its majority being its own converts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting to look at the Holy Spirit under the heads that you have mentioned because if you put a wide-angel lens on the entire history, we could almost say the whole movement should have been expected as well as a kind of expected counter-movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me explain the high level history as I see it and this will give a good explanation of each of the term in context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Starting with the &lt;strong&gt;Reformation&lt;/strong&gt; (Luther, Calvin, etc.) it is true they taught the cessation of extra-ordinary gifts. The subject rarely comes up and when it does it is usually under the simple explanation as to why those extra miraculous gifts had ceased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early Church the Holy Spirit was sent forth in visible form. He descended upon Christ in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:16), and in the likeness of fire upon the apostles and other believers. (Acts 2:3.) This visible outpouring of the Holy Spirit was necessary to the establishment of the early Church, as were also the miracles that accompanied the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul explained the purpose of these miraculous gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 14:22, “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.” Once the Church had been established and properly advertised by these miracles, the visible appearance of the Holy Ghost ceased. (Martin Luther, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Commentary on Galatians&lt;/a&gt; 4:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in his Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give luster to the gospel, while it was new and in a state of obscurity. It is possible, no doubt, that the world may have been deprived of this honor through the guilt of its own ingratitude; but I think that the true design for which miracles were appointed was, that nothing which was necessary for proving the doctrine of the gospel should be wanting at its commencement. And certainly we see that the use of them ceased not long afterwards, or, at least, that instances of them were so rare as to entitle us to conclude that they would not be equally common in all ages. (John Calvin, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.li.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That they are not communicated unto any by a sudden afflatus or extraordinary infusion, as were the gifts of miracles and tongues, which&#xA;were bestowed on the apostles and many of the first converts That dispensation of the Spirit is long since ceased, and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastic delusion; for as the end of those gifts, which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties, is ceased, so is their communication, and the manner of it also. Yet this I must say, that the infusion of spiritual light into the mind, which is the foundation of all gifts, as hath been proved, being wrought sometimes suddenly or in a short season, the concomitancy of gifts in some good measure is oftentimes sudden, with an appearance of something extraordinary, as might be manifested in instances of several sorts. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Owens Works&lt;/a&gt;, Volume 4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet this is not the whole story. Among reformers there is a wide range of emphasis of the spiritual life, awareness of the Spirit, necessity of the Spirit, etc.  Among those who seemed always mindful of the Spirit in the following generations, among the Puritans in the tradition of reformed theology, were men like John Owen. Possibly the most extreme, among 'the reserved Puritans', was Jonathan Edwards, who claimed to experience a revival and outpouring of the Holy Spirit in his own church.  After reading his accounts of that revival it seems very hard to deny it as nothing less than a genuine extraordinary work of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We now naturally find the stage for the &lt;strong&gt;Pentecostal movement&lt;/strong&gt; in Los Angeles.   The most insightful thing I have ever heard a preacher say about the Devil is this: First the Devil will do everything to keep you from fully committing your life to God, once you finally give everything to Him, the Devil changes his tactics and he tries to get you into extremes, to make you over-committed to one thing in order to neglect another.  During the birth of the Pentecostal movement you had a few people zealously seeking God in prayer, in hopes that they could experience a revival, like that experienced by Edwards, and this was a good thing.  However to add to this good zeal, a devilish doctrine was added which said no such revival is real unless accompanied by speaking in tongues.  In other words, there was a doctrinal lie inserted into the movement at its root that basically did not recognize the biggest outpouring of the Holy Spirit ever since the gospel times, which was during the reformation!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem we face when trying to form an opinions about 'revivals' claimed by people like the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, which gave birth to the Pentecostals, is that we feel they must be fully good or fully bad, but can't be both.  We make this incorrect assumption because with Christ this was true. To deny the 'revival' in Christ and to accuse his works to be of the Devil, was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  So it seems to follow that we must not question any 'great work of the Spirit' without putting ourselves under the same risk of danger.  However, this is simply not true, even under the most amazing and genuine outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament records, we find both the work of God and the Devil can run side by side.  For example, the Corinthians seemed to have been experiencing the gifts more than any other church, yet the Devil was at work in them more than any other church also. (I am not assuming in the pentecostal revival that it was the work of the Holy Spirit as I was not there, but hypothetically assuming there were a mixture of sincere ad insincere believers, all intently calling upon God, some may have had genuine experiences with the Spirit while others with the Devil, or their own ecstatic psychological state, all at the same location.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We now naturally expect a &lt;strong&gt;Charismatic movement&lt;/strong&gt;.  Imagine if you will, God meeting the answers of people prayers and truly manifesting his presence to sincere hearts going to Azuza Street. Now comes the cynic.  Contrary to their expectation a minister goes to see what's going on, expecting to find a good reason to reject it, yet to their surprise 'boom' they fall under the presence of God and are amazed to find his love revealed to them and they renew their commitment to him.  What is going on? how can this be? At the same time imagine the Devil pressing people to extremes, adding false teachings.  Also imagine basic weirdos joining in, acting strange, bringing dishonor to God' part in  it.  Well what happens? What happens is some people want the Holy Spirit experience, but start to recognize the Devil, so there is an acceptance plus a backlash.  This is the general charismatic movement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the charismatic movement calms down, some balance will be insisted like 'tongues is not the evidence'. Next messages like we must keep Christ the central message, not the Holy Spirit. Then God's sovereign  will decides when there is a revival, you can't always expect it.  Many have prayed for revival for years and it has not come, etc.  All of this avoidance of extremes exists among many mainstream Charismatics.  As the cycle completes, we find we are basically back at Jonathan Edwards as a state of total commitment and eager desire for the Spirit, yet without all the extremes that the Devil is so eager to push us into. However because the whole thing is a kind of theological whirlwind you will find good strong balanced believers scattered across all the denominations among many bad examples also crowding into each denomination.  True some denominations may be far healthier than others, but each and all of us are in a deadly all encompassing war over our souls and faith transcends one's particular station in life and denominational biases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-12T08:29:07.450" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9090" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-11T19:46:40.310" Score="9" ViewCount="1884" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No –&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 4:12 ... &lt;strong&gt;Do not&lt;/strong&gt; put the Lord your God to the &lt;strong&gt;test&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes –&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Judges 6:39 “Allow me &lt;strong&gt;one more test&lt;/strong&gt; with the fleece, but this time&#xA;  make the fleece dry and let the ground be covered with dew.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No -&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 12:39 A wicked and &lt;strong&gt;adulterous generation asks for&lt;/strong&gt; a miraculous&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;sign&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes -&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Kings 20:8 Meanwhile, Hezekiah had said to Isaiah, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;What sign&lt;/strong&gt; will&#xA;  the LORD give &lt;strong&gt;to prove&lt;/strong&gt; that he will heal me and that I will go to the&#xA;  Temple of the LORD three days from now?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No –&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 6:16  You shall &lt;strong&gt;not test&lt;/strong&gt; the LORD your God, as you tested&#xA;  him in Massah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes –&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 15:8  But Abram said, &quot;O Sovereign LORD, &lt;strong&gt;how can I know&lt;/strong&gt; that I&#xA;  will gain possession of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T22:54:16.447" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T22:54:16.447" Title="Should we put God to test?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9059" CreationDate="2012-08-11T19:51:55.807" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my theological vantage-point, I always wish to emphasize that the Bible is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; a single book, but a collection of &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; books written by different people, at different times, and with differing opinions. When you jumble all that together, you effectively uproot every verse of the Bible from its literary context and risk taking verses out of context. This is the same reason that I personally don't find &amp;quot;harmonization&amp;quot; (e.g. of the Gospels) very helpful, because each Gospel has its own particular emphases and literary style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, these Bibles only consider the &lt;em&gt;narrative&lt;/em&gt; chronology and don't pay heed to &lt;em&gt;compositional&lt;/em&gt; chronology. For instance, much of Chronicles runs parallel to Samuel–Kings, but Chronicles hails from the Persian period, whereas Sam–Kngs hails from the Babylonian period—but both talk about events from the Monarchy. Likewise, the &lt;em&gt;narratives&lt;/em&gt; of Daniel (Babylonian per.) and Jonah (Assyrian per.) were most likely written well into the Persian (Jonah) or Hellenistic (Daniel) periods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there are certainly advantages to getting a &amp;quot;birds-eye&amp;quot; view of the chronology of the Bible—and a chronological study Bible may be helpful in that respect. You may also consider buying a good single-volume commentary (&lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0891125213&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Like this one&lt;/a&gt;) or an accessible introduction to each testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;N.B. on Canonical Order&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The New Testament Canon&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament Canon follows this order: 1) Gospels (earliest-to-latest), 2) Acts, 3) The Letters of Paul to Churches (arranged longest-to-shortest), 4) Letters of Paul to individuals, 5) Catholic Epistles (longest-to-shortest), 6) the Apocalypse of John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament varies depending on the church/religious group. &lt;strong&gt;Jews&lt;/strong&gt; follow their traditional order of 1) Torah, 2) Prophets, 3) 'Writings' (Where the Torah is the Pentateuch, the prophets are the 'historical books' [minus Chronicles] and the Major prophets, and the 'writings' are the Psalms, minor prophets and the rest [including Chronicles, which is at the end]). &lt;strong&gt;Protestants&lt;/strong&gt; use the same books as the Jews, but put them in order by genre: 1) Pentateuch, 2) Historical Books, 3)Major Prophets, 4) Minor Prophets. Note that the Christian OT always ends with Malachi, because it dovetails so nicely with Matthew. &lt;strong&gt;Catholic and Orthodox Christians&lt;/strong&gt; follow the same basic order that the Protestants do, but include books that the Protestants removed from their Bibles (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ben Sirah, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T13:05:33.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9092" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9163" CreationDate="2012-08-12T00:57:31.450" Score="1" ViewCount="505" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that new churches are to be started (eg the ministry of the Apostle Paul in partial fulfillment of the Great Commission), what is the New Testament model or process for how this should be done?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it vary culturally?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can (or 'how can') one know when it is time to plant another church in the same town\region, and when to encourage people to come to an established local body?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most specifically, I'm looking for models\processes surrounding &quot;independent&quot; or &quot;non-denominational&quot; churches - ie not Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, PCA, etc who all have formal processes for starting new churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-08-16T18:18:17.947" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T03:02:41.193" Title="What is the New Testament &quot;process&quot; for doing a church plant?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;missions&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9084" CreationDate="2012-08-12T03:37:07.907" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As pointed out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvdvP-J_XaA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paul Washer&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2J1PYKB-R4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Piper&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;the correct way to pray is to pray for the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, instead of &quot;God, please let X happen&quot; pray &quot;God, if X will glory you, let X happen; if !X will glorify you, let !X happen.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, prayer is for advancing the kingdom of God, not our personal needs (i.e. Piper's line on war time walkie talkie, not home butler service.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2012-08-12T03:37:07.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9084" CreationDate="2012-08-12T06:34:44.977" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The subject of prayer during the reformation also took on a revised meaning.  The reference I think best illustrates this is John Owen’s Works Volume 4 - ‘A Discourse of The Work of The Holy Spirit in Prayer; With a Brief Inquiry into the Nature and Use of Mental Prayer and Forms.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this work Owen makes several key concepts, which to me, represent the ‘reformed view’ of prayer and opposed some previous traditional views that were seen as apostasy from the biblical view. The traditional views being rejected by Owen were any view that pretended of some ‘secret steps’ to prayer as possibly proposed by monkish institutions or ‘prayer books’ that sought to replace the personal need of prayer according to ones own peculiar situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this work Owen argues the following basic tenants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First Owen uses a prophecy in Zechariah to stress that prayer is a general work of the Holy Spirit in all believers. Not only so but it is a primary function of the Spirit in our lives and hence of our faith itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. (NIV Zechariah 12:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He further establishes the root of his argument here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” (NIV Galatians 4:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. (NIV Romans 8:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reduce his many words into a summary, this lays the foundation of the reformed view, for basically as the Spirit is the Spirit of the ‘Son’ and of ‘supplication’, prayer is what binds us into communion with God by faith in Christ whereby we learn what to pray and how to pray and are enabled to do so with a Christ centered faith and power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all &lt;strong&gt;without the Spirit we do not know what to pray&lt;/strong&gt;.  Inwardly the Spirit desires that we conform to the image of Christ by faith, but we are not even aware of our own sins or needs, without the Spirit groaning for our deliverance with in us and manifesting our needs to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit makes know to us how the atonement and work of Christ is able to provide an answer to what we need&lt;/strong&gt;. As we learn what our needs are and bring them to God and the study of his word, the Spirit by faith in Christ opens up his word and assures us in particulars, according to our private needs, what God’s will is and that he is able to supply all our needs accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit makes us feel as God’s children with ‘bold-free access’ to God. Children trust that their parents will help them and so frequently approach them with all their requests over and over.&lt;/strong&gt; Often it is ‘hidden guilt’ that keeps us from coming to the throne of grace boldly, which explains our atheistic prayer-less life. This is actually unbelief and I have made a very &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8231/why-does-the-bible-say-that-people-no-longer-need-to-feel-guilty-under-the-gos/8232#8232&quot;&gt;very long post&lt;/a&gt; against the work of guilt and fear in our secret hearts here and is related to our desire to approach God by prayer.  With guilt we may be compelled to the duty of prayer but will never know what it is to pray in the Spirit, for that work will be a work of the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The end result of a reformed view of prayer is that it is entirely connected to our relationship with God.  &lt;strong&gt;Prayer takes the gospel, digests it and expresses the desire for God’s will and kingdom in our lives, in the desire, love and earnest seeking of his will for ourselves and our neighbors – it is our 'faith-pulse' even if we are barely ware of it.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The result of prayer, therefore, is that our whole state of faith depends on it, and if our faith is weak, we need quite time with God to strengthen it in order to do the more difficult matters such as the reference made to casting out a powerful demon, which the Apostles who were at the time weak in faith, we not able to do. &lt;strong&gt;This type of prayer, though extending into verbal public prayers as occasions will require, cannot be replaced by any supposed ‘secret method’, or published ‘prayer book’ but is the most intense, intimate and personal aspect of our relationship with God and his word.&lt;/strong&gt;  Some of the best types of prayers, as illustrative examples, are those offered by the Apostle in some of his epistles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-12T06:34:44.977" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9090" CreationDate="2012-08-12T07:18:39.620" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If we define ‘tempting God’ as provoking him and to anger through unbelief, when our own experiences and God’s own manifestations of his power has clearly confirmed to us the certainty of his promises, the tension is dissolved.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let’s show by example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 4:12 ... Do not put the Lord your God to the test. (In other words I am so satisfied with my father’s care and confident in his promise that I need not veer any way off it seeking another).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 6:39 “Allow me one more test with the fleece, but this time make the fleece dry and let the ground be covered with dew.” (In other words God’s will was not yet so fully clear and do to the weakness of his faith Gideon asks for further proof which God allows and does not consider it a provocation but like the man who humbly said ‘I believe but help me with my unbelief’. Mark 9:24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 12:39 A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! (Clearly only a wicked generation would not recognize the abundant proofs already shown by Christ and greatly provoked God to anger in resisting it!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 20:8 Meanwhile, Hezekiah had said to Isaiah, &quot;What sign will the LORD give to prove that he will heal me and that I will go to the Temple of the LORD three days from now?&quot; (The King Hezekiah is in a similar situation as Gideon in Judges 6:39 like the man who said ‘I believe but help me with my unbelief’)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 6:16 You shall not test the LORD your God, as you tested him in Massah. (This exactly the evil provocation that the Jews in the Jews in the desert provoked God through their unbelief after so many miraculous proofs, that truly defines the wickedness of this ‘tempting’)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 15:8 But Abram said, &quot;O Sovereign LORD, how can I know that I will gain possession of it? (Again this is a humble request of a man filled with faith, rather than being a provoking of the Lord, Abraham is known for such a great faith he had with such little evidence made to him!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So we see there are no conflicts though admittedly on first glance it does appear to conflict and is a god question.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-12T14:22:49.947" LastActivityDate="2012-08-12T14:22:49.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9090" CreationDate="2012-08-12T20:50:36.603" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a manner of speaking, there are &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; kinds of tests. These two kinds of tests correspond to two kinds of doubt: the &quot;I &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; want to believe&quot; doubt and the &quot;I &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; want to believe&quot; doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unbelieving doubt&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where someone doubts a statement or a miracle because they don't want to believe it. Prime examples are the multiple times where Jews doubted the miracles of Jesus and repeatedly asked Him to show them a sign. In fact, there is this exchange:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:24-25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 10:24-25 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;The Jews   who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus answered, “I did tell you,   but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me,     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the Jews were called out as completely disregarding all the miracles that Jesus did up to that point, including healing a man blind from birth, which &lt;em&gt;no one&lt;/em&gt; had ever done before (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209:32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 9:32&lt;/a&gt;). There are many other examples in the Old Testament of the Jews scorning the signs God had already shown them, thus angering God and bringing punishment upon themselves. These people doubt because they &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; want to believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Believing doubt&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This kind of doubt is more along the lines of &quot;I want to believe, but I don't think I can/should&quot;. The classic example is the demon-possessed boy's father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:21-24&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 9:21-24 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;“How long has this been happening?” Jesus asked the boy’s father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He replied, “Since he was a little boy. &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;The spirit often throws him into the fire or into water, trying to kill him. Have mercy on us and help us, if you can.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;“What do you mean, ‘If I can’?” Jesus asked. “Anything is possible if a person believes.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;The father instantly cried out, “I do believe, but help me overcome my unbelief!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very clearly, here is the &lt;em&gt;desire&lt;/em&gt; to believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also occasionally the &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to doubt, as in the case of false prophecies, spirits and messiahs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:19-22&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Do not stifle the Holy Spirit. &lt;sup&gt;20&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Do not scoff at prophecies, &lt;sup&gt;21&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;but &lt;strong&gt;test everything&lt;/strong&gt; that is said. Hold on to what is good. &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Stay away from every kind of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204:1&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 4:1 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4&amp;nbsp;Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:24 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform great signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God’s chosen ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in order to identify these falsities, one must test them...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's important here is not the existence of doubt, but the &lt;em&gt;attitude&lt;/em&gt; associated with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2016:7&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 16:7 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But the Lord said to Samuel, “Don’t judge by his appearance or height, for I have rejected him. The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, &lt;strong&gt;but the Lord looks at the heart&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Testing the Lord is not what matters; what matters is &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; you're testing the Lord.&lt;/strong&gt; As a final note, there is one place in the Bible where God actually &lt;em&gt;tells&lt;/em&gt; us to test Him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%203:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Malachi 3:10 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Bring the whole tithe   into the storehouse,   that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates   of heaven and pour out   so much blessing   that there will not be room enough to store it.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-08-12T20:50:36.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9090" CreationDate="2012-08-13T06:23:04.857" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is simple and these fragments all support it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt; - we shouldn't test God. We shouldn't demand revelations, we shouldn't demand signs and miracles, as it is stated in the fragments you are citing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt; - we should test revelations. As Saint John the Teologian states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God (1 John, 4, 1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these people you see in Bible &quot;testing God&quot; received some revelation, but were not sure if it is from God, or if they are in some kind of delusion. They don't doubt there is God. They doubt if the revelation is genuine. That's why they put it to the test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T06:23:04.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9110" CreationDate="2012-08-13T09:02:39.320" Score="2" ViewCount="71" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Context:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently read Tozer's &quot;The Saint Must Walk Alone.&quot; I'm searching for similar material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it's clear that it does not fit under &quot;pre-destination&quot; or &quot;trinity&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest thing I can think of &quot;preservation of the saints&quot; -- but even that is not quite right -- the focus seems to focus more on &quot;solitude.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there some word, on the calibre of christology, eschatology, soteriology -- that describes the type of issues Tozer addresses?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If not, what general &quot;Christian Topic&quot; does Tozer's &quot;The Saint Must Walk Alone&quot; fall under?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T14:39:46.577" Title="What topic in Theology does Tozer's &quot;The Saint Must Walk Alone&quot; fit under?" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9105" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9109" CreationDate="2012-08-13T09:12:09.857" Score="4" ViewCount="885" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tozer's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/tozer/5j00.0010/5j00.0010.39.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;The Saint Must Walk Alone&quot;&lt;/a&gt; starts with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MOST OF THE WORLD'S GREAT SOULS have been lonely. Loneliness seems to be one price the saint must pay for his saintliness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then goes on to discuss Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Moses, Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, he states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The pain of loneliness arises from the constitution of our nature. God made us for each other. The desire for human companionship is completely natural and right. The loneliness of the Christian results from his walk with God in an ungodly world, a walk that must often take him away from the fellowship of good Christians as well as from that of the unregenerate world. His Godgiven instincts cry out for companionship with others of his kind, others who can understand his longings, his aspirations, his absorption in the love of Christ; and because within his circle of friends there are so few who share his inner experiences he is forced to walk alone. The unsatisfied longings of the prophets for human understanding caused them to cry out in their complaint, and even our Lord Himself suffered in the same way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if we are to discuss loneliness, it's hard to miss Elijah in 1 Kings 17:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Kings 17: 2 And the word of the Lord came unto him, saying,&#xA;  3 Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.&#xA;  4 And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.&#xA;  5 So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.&#xA;  6 And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.&#xA;  7 And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The guy drank from a brook and was fed by ravens for who knows how long!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is Elijah not mentioned in Tozer's essay? Was Elijah not considered a Saint a that time? Did Elijah not walk alone enough? Is there some other reason that sets Elijah's life out from the other examples Tozer cites?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-07-31T17:48:12.330" LastActivityDate="2015-07-31T17:48:12.330" Title="Why is Elijah missing from Tozer's &quot;The Saint Must Walk Alone&quot;?" Tags="&lt;prophets&gt;&lt;elijah&gt;&lt;aw-tozer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="144" CreationDate="2012-08-13T10:32:30.333" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, hell is (1) real and (2) eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(for relevant Bible verses, visit the Westminister Confession of Faith links)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXXII.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chapter 32, Section 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXXII.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them:&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXXIII.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.[3] And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.[4] Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXXIII.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chapter 33, Section 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;II. The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.[5]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorDisplayName="user1694" LastEditDate="2012-08-13T11:03:34.923" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T11:03:34.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9107" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9119" CreationDate="2012-08-13T11:01:02.773" Score="0" ViewCount="798" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-264/The-Scandal-of-the-Catholic-Priesthood&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John MacArthur's Scandal of the Catholic Preisthood&lt;/a&gt;, Catholicism is not portrayed as the zenith of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a John MacArthur only view, not held by the majority of reformed theologists or&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a view held by reformed theology -- i.e. there are fundamental beliefs that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Catholicism hold but reformed theology and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. reformed theology require which Catholicism deny&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your choose (1); please cite sources on how Reformed Theology + Catholic Theology agree. If you choose (B); please cite examples of (A) and (B)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2017-04-28T15:14:19.363" Title="According to Reformed Theology, are Catholics Christians?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9041" CreationDate="2012-08-13T11:28:51.160" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:15-21 provides evidence that in Heaven, there is a real city (especially note in Verse 17, where the walls are measured, and that angel/human measurements are the same.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, note that in verse 5,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it seems like if Christ was referring to an earthly house / temple, the conversation might have been of the form &quot;great, what are the cross streets.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like the fact that Thomas not knowing where the house/temple is -- and Jesus responding with &quot;I am the way&quot; rather than &quot;go to the house by the lake&quot; seems to imply that it's heavenly rather than earthly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:15-21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. 16And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 17And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. 18And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T11:28:51.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9105" CreationDate="2012-08-13T14:24:04.870" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tozer does include Elijah he just does not list each name of the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The prophets of pre-Christian times differed widely from each other, but one mark they bore in common was their enforced loneliness. They loved their people and gloried in the religion of the fathers, but their loyalty to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and their zeal for the welfare of the nation of Israel drove them away from the crowd and into long periods of heaviness. &quot;I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children,&quot; cried one and unwittingly spoke for all the rest. (A. W. Tozer, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/articles/the-saint-must-walk-alone.php&quot;&gt;The Saint Must Walk Alone&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the typical insightful Tozer and an excellent sermon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T14:24:04.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9104" CreationDate="2012-08-13T14:39:46.577" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tozer often preaches very insightfully about &lt;strong&gt;sanctification&lt;/strong&gt; by discarding many superficial views that causes us to make Christianity fake and hypocritical.  A man who is truly vexed by the sin of the world, and truly despised by it, can't help but feel lonely.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was a man of sorrow:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces&#xA;  he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. (NIV Isaiah 53:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul had sorrows from his faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. (NIV Romans 9:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that those who enter into mourning for sin, theirs and the world's would be blessed (in a happy state)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. (NIV Matthew 5:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These any many similar subjects about picking up our cross, counting the cost, suffering persecution, being lonely on account of it, mourning for sin, striving in prayer, etc. These can  probably all be classified under &lt;strong&gt;sanctification and practical Christian practice or experience.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; Tozer almost exclusively preaches and writes on this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T14:39:46.577" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9111" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9113" CreationDate="2012-08-13T14:44:34.903" Score="3" ViewCount="431" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every Christian knows the saying that &quot;With God all things are possible.&quot; But is this actually a fact?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I listened recently to a speaker, who said, that God cannot come in contact with anything unclean, or commit any sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, everyone knows the question asked by Believers and non-believers alike, &quot;Since God can do everything, can he make a rock that he can't lift?&quot; Obviously, this is a little bit hard to answer, for Yes or No, will both conclude that God cannot do everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is, are all things possible with God, and what reasons do you have if they are/are not? As a little supplement, maybe you could tell me how we are supposed to answer that one question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T01:09:15.137" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T01:09:15.137" Title="Are all things possible with God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9111" CreationDate="2012-08-13T16:12:23.773" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, the assertion that &amp;quot;With God, all things are possible&amp;quot; is valid and scriptural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;26 &lt;/sup&gt; Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it would be a mistake to assume that God's omnipotence means he can act against his nature.  Hebrews tells us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%206:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 6:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;18 &lt;/sup&gt; God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which &lt;strong&gt;it is impossible for God to lie&lt;/strong&gt;,  we who have fled to take hold of the hope  set before us may be greatly encouraged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not a contradiction.  When Jesus says that &amp;quot;with God all things are possible&amp;quot;, he does not intend to suggest that God can act outside of His nature - and His nature is righteousness.  Similarly I, as a physical creature, am by nature bound to operate within the confines of a physical universe (i.e., I am bound by physical laws).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the other part of your question, no - God cannot make a rock so big that he can't lift it.  That doesn't contradict His omnipotence.  The question itself is silly and irrational.  Another thing God can't do is make a circle with four corners.  If he did, then it would no longer be a circle would it?  By definition, it would be a square.  C.S. Lewis addresses this eloquently:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: &lt;strong&gt;meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.'&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T20:05:17.393" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="82" CreationDate="2012-08-13T19:55:41.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joh 1:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;εν......A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;αρχη....1) beginning, origin    2) the person or thing that commences&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ην......the first person singular present indicative;   to be, to exist&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ο.......the definite article, “the”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;λογος...a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;........reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;και.....And, used  simply joining single words and clauses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ο.......the definite article, “the”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Λογος....a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.........reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ην.......the first person singular present indicative;   to be, to exist&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;προς.....1) to the advantage of  2) at, near, by  3) to, towards, with, with regard to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Τον......the definite article, “the”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Θεον......God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;και......and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Θεος......God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ην........the first person singular present indicative;   to be, to exist&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ο.........the definite article, “the”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;λογος......a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...........reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;εν   αρχη       ην    ο      λογος  και  ο  λογος  ην    προς&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In   beginning  was   the    word   and the word   was   to the advantage (with)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;τον    θεον  και  θεος    ην   ο  λογος  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the    God   and   God    was the word&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not that hard look at the meaning and translate the words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2005" LastEditorUserId="2005" LastEditDate="2012-08-13T20:01:53.473" LastActivityDate="2012-08-13T20:01:53.473" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9116" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9117" CreationDate="2012-08-13T21:49:50.733" Score="7" ViewCount="7791" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Catholic friend and I were chatting once and I said something along the lines of &quot;I swear I'm not lying&quot;. She asked me to promise to her and not to swear since it's discouraged in her religion. I asked the reason and she just said that's what the church told her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this claim true? Is swearing discouraged in Christianity? If so, why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may help to know that I was swearing to &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt; that I was not lying. Is this allowed in Christianity, or is it appropriate only for important situations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2006" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-10-22T19:21:56.730" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T20:53:49.617" Title="Is swearing (making an oath) considered bad in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-12-16T03:40:19.250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9116" CreationDate="2012-08-13T22:09:02.803" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key passages on this are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 5:12 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth&#xA;  or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no,&#xA;  so that you may not fall under condemnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 23:16-22 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple,&#xA;  it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is&#xA;  bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold&#xA;  or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If&#xA;  anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the&#xA;  gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men!&#xA;  For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift&#xA;  sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by&#xA;  everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and&#xA;  by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the&#xA;  throne of God and by him who sits upon it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that the issue here is that everything we say should be true.  We should not need to claim a distinct truthfulness for a particular statement that contrasts to falsehoods in our normal dialogue.  All of our statements should carry the same level of honesty and truthfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In English, I don't think we really use the word &quot;swear&quot; in this way.  Oftentimes it's just an expression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees were distinguishing between the object on which someone was swearing, when it shouldn't have mattered if there were any swearing at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if the person is sensitive to this particular phrase, you could simply explain that you are using the word as an idiom and not swearing by the temple or the gold of the temple or anything like that.  Hopefully, the person can understand that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is actually quite dangerous to just accept church teaching without question.  Knowing &lt;strong&gt;what&lt;/strong&gt; without knowing &lt;strong&gt;why&lt;/strong&gt; can lead to significant problems.  This is where the question of &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Church Authority&lt;/em&gt; collide.  Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for being &lt;strong&gt;more noble&lt;/strong&gt; than the Thessalonians.  The commendation was based on the fact that they didn't just accept what Paul taught, but &quot;&lt;strong&gt;examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;  If the Bereans were commended for this, we would do well to follow that pattern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-07-27T20:53:49.617" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T20:53:49.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7305" CreationDate="2012-08-13T23:54:14.277" Score="2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Material vs. Immaterial&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be clear from Scripture that there is a part of you which is immaterial, and will &quot;live on&quot; once your body is dead.  This is commonly referred to as your &quot;spirit&quot;.  Part of your &quot;material self&quot; is your body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there other parts to you, such as your soul, mind, and/or heart?  Some say yes, some say no, but regardless, the point I want to make is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is a part of you which is not material, referred to as your spirit&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is a part of you which is material (or &quot;physical&quot;), including your body&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly your brain is part of your body, and is material; If we chop it up a bit, you'll have trouble thinking straight.  But even if the brain &lt;em&gt;dies&lt;/em&gt;, along with the body, the spirit will live on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Interactions between the Physical and the Spiritual&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be obvious that the spiritual can influence the physical;  God spoke the universe into existence, angels are recorded in Scripture as slaying men, your free-will influences the choices you make in your body, etc.  And then, of course, there are the numerous examples of demons influencing people in the Gospels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet and come out of him!” And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst of the people, he came out of him&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204:35&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Luke 4:35&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, can the physical influence the spiritual?  It would seem that the answer is &quot;yes&quot;, at least in some cases;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2016:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 Samuel 16:23&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If nothing else, surely we must concede that the spiritual is &lt;em&gt;aware&lt;/em&gt; of the physical, and &lt;em&gt;responds&lt;/em&gt; to it - at least &lt;em&gt;sometimes&lt;/em&gt;.  This should be clear from prayer, sorcery, casting out demons, blood sacrifices, occult practices, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this &quot;impact&quot; must not be assumed to apply to every situation.  If I lose a leg or an arm, I am not suddenly &quot;less&quot;, spiritually; that should be proof enough that not everything that happens to a person physically directly impacts them spiritually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Christian responsibility&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians are called to rule over their bodies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I discipline my body and make it my slave&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%209:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 Corinthians 9:7&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...and not to be ruled &lt;em&gt;by&lt;/em&gt; their bodies/flesh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Galatians 5:17&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But ultimately our war is not against the physical, but against those things which influence the physical against the will of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Ephesians 6:12&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Christians have a physical &quot;aspect&quot;, which will tend toward sin if not &quot;ruled&quot; and forced to submit to the will and ways of God.  This is not due to natural forces, but spiritual forces, which influence the natural as a sort of &lt;em&gt;default&lt;/em&gt;.  We are called to control our physical &quot;self&quot; via our spiritual &quot;self&quot; in partnership with God's Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spiritual realm is real - this is evident from passages about demons influencing people in Jesus' day.  Yes, modern psychologists would call these things medical conditions, but remember, they presuppose naturalism, and don't accept the truth of Scripture.  Perhaps what they are seeing is that there is a physical change with such conditions, but in light of the knowledge that the spiritual certainly &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; impact the physical, that should not be surprising.  But one should not assume that a physical change is the &lt;em&gt;cause&lt;/em&gt; of the condition, or that a physical treatment is the best &lt;em&gt;solution&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Analysis of Dr. Schwartz View&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to the need to &quot;rule over the brain&quot;, &lt;strong&gt;Dr. Schwartz seems to be saying the same thing in a more scientific way; that we must use our mind (which he distinguishes from the brain) to control what our brain does.&lt;/strong&gt;  His emphasis seems to be on the idea that your brain is not in control of your mind, as secular, naturalistic psychologists suppose, but rather, that your brain should be controlled &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;by&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; your mind.  If I understand him, this seems to be correct, since his usage of &quot;mind&quot; seems to be akin to the Christianese term &quot;spirit&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, his &lt;em&gt;methods&lt;/em&gt; (Steps 2-4) rely on attributing the brain's activity to medical conditions, rather than spiritual influences, which seems naive from a Biblical perspective, as I have just explained.  In his view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;these things are &lt;em&gt;caused by&lt;/em&gt; mis-firings in their brain&quot; -(his words)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I have explained, I believe this is an unwarranted assumption.  However, for all practical purposes, his methods may very well be effective on some level despite the theological error in that statement.  But it would be wise not to discount the spiritual cause of this natural &quot;cause&quot;, if that makes sense.  As he admits, a complete cure of the condition is rare:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;what you can do is get it to the point where you can really manage it, and manage it in ways that it really doesn't have very significant impact on your life anymore&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, when Jesus &quot;healed&quot; or &quot;cast out a demon&quot;, the person was &lt;strong&gt;cured&lt;/strong&gt; of the resultant condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2012-08-20T23:09:49.013" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T23:09:49.013" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9107" CreationDate="2012-08-14T00:07:57.883" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to attempt to answer this in a way that is truthful, and accurate, but maybe not exactly what you're looking for. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please be very mindful of where I say &quot;assuming this definition, then...&quot;  On those statements, I am intentionally using that assumption as a logical starting point for assumptions. I am not saying I hold those views, or that I condone or deny them.  I am trying very hard to avoid the mines in this minefield&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;MacArthur's views are not uncommon. The Catholic Church still teaches doctrines that many Evangelical denominations hold to be un-Scriptural, in error, or even according to some views, outright blasphemy. (Note I didn't say &quot;the Catholic Church teaches wrong things&quot; I said &quot;some denominations teach...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is one thing to say that the Catholic Church teaches things that are &quot;wrong&quot;, and quite another to make a blanket statement that Catholics aren't Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you accept the Reformed/evangelical statement that a Christian is defined as someone who has repented of their sins and put their faith in Christ for salvation, and has this been &quot;born again&quot;, you still couldn't make the statement that Catholics are not Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to reformed theology, salvation is an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;individual&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; thing. Denomination makes no difference. Again &lt;strong&gt;assuming the MacAurthur definition of &quot;Christian&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;, the most you can say is &quot;due to the fact that the Church teaches erroneous statements about what it takes to be saved, it's less likely for a Catholic to be saved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-08-14T03:43:47.767" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T03:43:47.767" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9120" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9123" CreationDate="2012-08-14T00:15:56.433" Score="7" ViewCount="1480" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm aware that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationist&quot;&gt;Cessationists&lt;/a&gt; do not believe in spiritual gifts. However, how do they view the process of being filled with the Holy Spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tozer's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=22632&amp;amp;forum=34&amp;amp;4&quot;&gt;How to be filled with the holy spirit&lt;/a&gt; defines the process as a very dramatic, sudden process. Do Cessationists also take this view, or do they view it as a more gradual process?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T18:45:09.347" Title="How do Cessationists view &quot;being filled with the Holy Spirit&quot;" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9121" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-14T00:51:15.060" Score="9" ViewCount="1868" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul Washer has often said this. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From heaven’s perspective, those who break God’s Law are vile and worthy of all loathing. They are a wretched lot, justly exposed to divine vengeance, and rightly devoted to eternal destruction. It is not an exaggeration to say that &lt;strong&gt;the last thing that the accursed sinner should and will hear when he takes his first step into hell is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding God because He has rid the earth of him.&lt;/strong&gt; Such is the vileness of those who break God’s law, and such is the disdain of the holy towards the unholy. (Paul Washer, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/heartcry_missionary_society_radford_va/the_cross_of_christ-paul_washer.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Cross of Christ&lt;/a&gt;,&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/heartcry-magazine-archive&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;HeartCry Magazine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, although this quote sounds logical, I can't find biblical support for it. The closest I can find is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 14:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 19:1-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither verse directly supports Washer's quote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-04-03T19:11:54.990" LastActivityDate="2015-07-07T15:28:57.187" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the idea that creation will applaud the damnation of a sinner?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4508" CreationDate="2012-08-14T01:13:47.223" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The complete writings of St. Maximilian Mary are available in Italian. A good portion are also available in English. A three-volume paperback version was published years ago, probably in the '80s. I don't have anything on hand, but be assured, a good portion of his writing is out there--well worth reading. You can check with Academy of the Immaculate for a copy of his &quot;Roman Conferences&quot;. (Go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marymediatrix.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mary Mediatrix Website&lt;/a&gt; and navigate to the &quot;book store&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2008" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-11T00:35:25.460" LastActivityDate="2016-11-11T00:35:25.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9120" CreationDate="2012-08-14T05:39:44.067" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Cessationists can believe that a person is ‘filled with the Spirit’ in the sense and way described, but generally they do not.&lt;/strong&gt;  An example of a Cessationist that believed in being filled with the Spirit would be Jonathan Edwards but not exactly as Tozer would explain it.  However, at the time of Tozer, the idea of being filled became viewed as a more of a ‘one time’ experience, after conversion, according to the influence of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement.  Later on people like Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones argued that a person can be filled ‘many times’ and this was nothing more than a kind of personal Revival that can happen whenever God in his sovereign will allows it, typically in response to praying for revival. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To confuse the issue, various views and distinction of words cropped up, where people distinguished between ‘being filled’ versus having a revival, etc., as ‘a filling’ could be thought more along the lines of general, slow and steady ‘sanctification’, but an ‘outpouring of the Spirit’ was something else. In this confusing time when every theologian had there favorite terms, I thought it was pretty &lt;strong&gt;clever of Billy Graham to say ‘I don’t care how you get it, just get.’ (regarding the filling of the Holy Spirit)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a very insightful view of &lt;strong&gt;how a Cessationist describes special fillings or outpourings of the Spirit and how it really happens&lt;/strong&gt;, I would read this Faithful &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.viii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls, In Northampton and the Neighbouring Towns and Villages in New Hampshire, In New England&lt;/a&gt;, by Jonathan Edwards. He also has a very acute sense between real and counterfeit experiences during a revival in the book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/affections.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Religious Affections&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T05:39:44.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9124" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-14T06:12:50.120" Score="4" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was recently reviewing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/seminars/tulip-part-1#Depravity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Piper's TULIP notes&lt;/a&gt;. I'm also aware of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/27/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-total-depravity&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical Basis for Total Depravity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, however, is something that I no longer understand. How do Calvinists jump&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;from: &quot;X is sinful&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to: &quot;X is incapable of believing in Christ&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like we need one of two intermediate steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. &quot;X is sinful&quot; -&gt; &quot;everything X does is sin&quot; -&gt; &quot;X is incapable of believing in Christ&quot; or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. &quot;X is sinful&quot; , &quot;no one with sin can accept Christ&quot; -&gt; &quot;X is incapable of believing in Christ&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see biblical scripture for the intermediate steps for either (A) or (B). How do Calvinists make this work? [I'm really looking for Biblical verses, rather than Edwards's Freedom of the Will or Luther's Bondage of the Will]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the intermediate step?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user1694" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2014-11-06T22:18:33.220" Title="How do Calvinists go from &quot;X is Sinful&quot; to &quot;X is unable to accept Christ on his own?&quot;" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;total-depravity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9125" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9134" CreationDate="2012-08-14T06:28:42.587" Score="9" ViewCount="364" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not know a lot about Wesley, but when I encounter him, I tend to like what he says, even though I am a Calvinist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the the other hand when I encounter people arguing for Arminian doctrines in Church history they seem like distrustfull shady sorts of weasles to me.  I just assumed Wesley did not really rely so much on Arminias, since I liked him and that it was a little harsh to accuse Wesley of being a total Arminian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does anybody have historic quotes from Wesley that show whether he truly admired Arminias?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask the question because my answer in this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8807/what-doctrines-teach-that-people-are-inherently-good-or-bad/8811#8811&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt; has been partially questioned and it makes me doubt my perception of Wesley.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T14:52:37.980" Title="Did John Wesley admire and learn from Arminias or did he just have a couple similiar ideas?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9126" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9135" CreationDate="2012-08-14T07:09:12.660" Score="4" ViewCount="392" Body="&lt;p&gt;All early reformers believed in the imputation of 'actual guilt' as far as I know. I am fairly certain, however, that Arminians of the 16th century did not believe in the 'imputation of guilt' as there are books that show Calvinist leaders arguing against them on this issue at this time. For example, John Owen argued against their views in '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/browse/bookInfo?id=owen/display&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Display of Arminianism&lt;/a&gt;' and quotes, in many places, their denial of the 'imputation of guilt.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does anybody have historic quotes from Arminius that shows if he also did NOT believe in the 'imputation of guilt'?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask the question because my answer in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8807/what-doctrines-teach-that-people-are-inherently-good-or-bad/8811#8811&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; assumed Arminius did not believe in the 'imputation of guilt' but that Wesley did. Now I am not 100% certain as I find clear direct quotes from Arminius hard to find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2015-09-24T20:38:49.680" Title="Did Arminius believe Adam's actual guilt was imputed against all humanity?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;&lt;original-guilt&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9127" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9133" CreationDate="2012-08-14T07:59:41.953" Score="4" ViewCount="12963" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that from God the Father's perspective, Christ had to die for the sins of the elect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, from a secular perspective, why was Christ crucified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the Jews were unhappy with Christ claiming to be God -- but secularly, that only makes him insane, not worthy of the death penalty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was the time that he over turned a bunch of tables in the temple; but that too seems like a misdemeanor / felony, not death by crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that he was crucified with &quot;King of the Jews&quot; was the reason that he was guilty of &quot;trying to overthrow Rome&quot; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorDisplayName="user1694" LastEditDate="2012-08-14T21:29:49.187" LastActivityDate="2016-03-29T00:19:15.570" Title="For what human reason was Christ crucified?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-03-31T13:33:46.760" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9127" CreationDate="2012-08-14T09:08:25.663" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was the chief priests and pharisees that wanted Jesus arrested. Matthew 26:47 :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;that only makes him insane, not worthy of the death penalty&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Torah, Leveticus 24:16 makes it clear that blasphemy carries a death sentence (although via stoning). More likely, though, he was simply seen as a rebel and a risk, potentially a flash-point for a more visible and popular uprising. That would be plenty of reason for the religious and political leaders to see... &lt;em&gt;economy&lt;/em&gt; in a prompt but final action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know about a &lt;em&gt;secular&lt;/em&gt; reason, but: perhaps a &lt;em&gt;political&lt;/em&gt; reason that Pilate may have acquiesced to the demands of the Jewish priests; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm&quot;&gt;supposedly&lt;/a&gt; there is evidence to support some previous hoo-hah involving a row between Pilate and the locals relating to some pagan shields - Pilate refused to remove them, the locals complained to the emperor, the emperor expressed his anger at Pilate's approach. This could lead us to suspect that maybe Pilate didn't want a re-run that could put his position (and likely: life) in jeopardy, so was willing to yield a bit to the locals. Especially if it looked like a riot was likely otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-08-14T09:27:39.540" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T09:27:39.540" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9124" CreationDate="2012-08-14T10:07:54.550" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You have it right: &quot;X is sinful&quot; -&gt; &quot;everything X does is sin&quot; -&gt; &quot;X is incapable of believing in Christ without the additional work of the Holy Spirit&quot; --&gt; is the basic belief held by Calvinism.&lt;/strong&gt; One of the best explanations of the doctrine of original sin is by Jonathan Edwards, entitled ‘without surprise’, ‘&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.vi.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended; Evidences of its Truth Produced&lt;/a&gt;.’ Here he argues, among other things, the imputation of guilt on infants as displayed in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell I have found many classic authors, including Luther, Owen and Edwards, often start by using this verse to say that anybody born of ‘flesh’ is only ‘flesh’. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (ESV John 3:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words anyone born in the sinful nature is in ‘entirely sinful.’ This means they can’t do anything good but are totally depraved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of ‘flesh’ is derogatory as ‘human nature separated from God’. Even as a believer who has ‘both’ good and evil natures, as a result of the new birth, only a sinful disposition remains in that nature they first obtained through Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. (ESV Romans 7:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is understood by all classical Calvinists (as far as I know) as a description of Paul ‘as a Christian’.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edwards’ book which I referenced argues the case so very well. Unlike Owen who is difficult to read, I challenge anyone to read ‘even just a dozen pages’ of Edwards and they will quickly understand the concepts of original sin as 'originally taught' by the reformers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-14T23:48:05.127" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T23:48:05.127" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9124" CreationDate="2012-08-14T10:18:27.603" Score="3" Body="&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;A. &quot;X is sinful&quot; -&amp;gt; &quot;everything X does is sin&quot; -&amp;gt; &#xA;     &quot;X is incapable of believing in Christ&quot; or&#xA;&#xA;B. &quot;X is sinful&quot; , &quot;no one with sin can accept Christ&quot; -&amp;gt; &#xA;      &quot;X is incapable of believing in Christ&quot;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither (A) nor (B) are acceptable terminal points in Calvinistic theology. These are not doctrines that are taught, but rather ones that you have probably either misunderstood or else that someone else has misunderstood and passed on to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distinction between Reformed belief and what you mention is the difference between what R.C. Sproul calls &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/depravity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Utter Depravity&lt;/em&gt; vs. &lt;em&gt;Radical Corruption&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. It's not just that we're sinners and so therefore we cannot receive Christ (although the Holiness of God does make this true), it's that our wills are bound by sin so that we have no desire whatsoever to focus on the things of God and to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll filter out Piper's verses to show the most pertinent ones:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see that the mind set not on things of the spirit is not capable of being subject to the Law of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8:5-9 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh  is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is our natural state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:1-5 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You asked what the &quot;middle point&quot; was so that we come to receive Christ, even though we are incapable. The answer lies in the end of the Ephesians passage cited. God made us alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other verses he lists summarize it quite well and offer more support, but these two are probably the crux of the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T10:18:27.603" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9121" CreationDate="2012-08-14T10:25:52.583" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes we may be quick to judge another brother, not knowing exactly what they mean, so I will not argue for or against this quote, but I will show a way that it is not true, and a way that it could be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In contrast&lt;/strong&gt;, if it is implied that God, or the saints, rejoice in the destruction of sinners, that cannot be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 18:23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In support&lt;/strong&gt;, if it is merely implied that creation is nature and has been put into bondage by the sin of Adam and groans to have sinners and sin to be taken out of it, this is a personification of nature that seems to be supported by the Bible and may be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope  that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:20-22 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-04-03T19:16:43.443" LastActivityDate="2015-04-03T19:16:43.443" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9132" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-14T13:22:35.893" Score="8" ViewCount="1691" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any Christian denomination that views man's ability to reason &lt;strong&gt;properly&lt;/strong&gt; as a gift by the Holy Spirit? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2010" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-14T14:21:35.093" LastActivityDate="2014-08-11T17:45:25.440" Title="Is man's ability to reason properly a gift by the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-08-14T14:56:28.223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9127" CreationDate="2012-08-14T13:31:18.900" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming you mean the &quot;political&quot; or &quot;social&quot; reasons Jesus was killed as opposed to the theological significance or motivation of his death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recall that the Judean state had been in tumult since the Maccabean period. The expectation of many Jews for a political &quot;Messiah&quot; (i.e. someone &quot;anointed&quot; to reclaim the throne of David) was at odds with the imperial power of Rome. When Jesus proclaimed the inbreaking of the &quot;kingdom of God/Heaven&quot; he was making a political statement over and against the &quot;kingdom of Rome.&quot; This is why the disciples ask Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?&quot; - Acts 1:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were expecting Jesus to destroy the Romans and reestablish the Davidic kingship. This is also why it was so confusing for the disciples that Jesus would be &lt;em&gt;killed&lt;/em&gt;—especially after, for example, the triumphal entry, which imitated (or mocked, depending on who you ask) a General returning to his city from a victorious campaign. The Qumran community had basically the same Messianic understanding, except they expected &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; messiahs, one a political leader, and the other a priestly figure. The two Jewish revolts after Jesus also provide nice examples. The first, Rome crushed in 70 CE with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and in 74 CE at Masada. The second, in 132-135 CE ended with the death of Simon bar Kokhba, the rebel leader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, Jesus was arrested and killed essentially for for &lt;em&gt;sedition&lt;/em&gt;--the Jewish leaders who were collaborating with Rome wished to keep the peace, and the best way to do that was to silence dissenting voices. The whole &quot;claiming to be God&quot; bit was really more of an excuse (or anyway, according to my understanding of the text). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also caution placing too much blame on &quot;the Jews,&quot; that is, &quot;the Jewish people,&quot; since the Jewish leadership was a very small and powerful group of elites. Parts of the NT (particularly GJohn) border on anti-Semitic at times, but we should be sure to consider the historical &lt;em&gt;sitz&lt;/em&gt; of such writings and understand that it likely is a reflection of tension between Jewish and Christian groups in the late 1st/early 2nd centuries, and not necessarily perfectly historically accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2012-08-14T18:50:46.387" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T18:50:46.387" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9125" CreationDate="2012-08-14T14:52:37.980" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Wesley was a five-point Arminian, but he accepted Calvinists as true Christians. He welcomed Calvinist preacher &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Whitefield&quot;&gt;George Whitefield&lt;/a&gt; into the Methodist movement and sent him out to preach throughout the American colonies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In much of Wesley's own preaching he focused on the things that we have in common as Christians, but you can see examples of his Arminianism in these sermons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/Global-Worship-and-Spiritual-Growth/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-58-On-Predestination&quot;&gt;On Predestination&lt;/a&gt;: Wesley argues for free will; God's foreknowledge is simply a way of saying God is outside time and doesn't see past, present and future as we do.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/Global-Worship-and-Spiritual-Growth/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-85-On-Working-Out-Our-Own-Salvation&quot;&gt;On Working Out Our Own Salvation&lt;/a&gt;: Wesley describes the synergistic nature of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/Global-Worship-and-Spiritual-Growth/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-5-Justification-by-Faith&quot;&gt;Justification by Faith&lt;/a&gt;: Wesley argues that justification is conditional on our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/Global-Worship-and-Spiritual-Growth/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-128-Free-Grace&quot;&gt;Free Grace&lt;/a&gt;: Wesley asserts that grace is available to all, and that predestination is not a biblical doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/Global-Worship-and-Spiritual-Growth/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-40-Christian-Perfection&quot;&gt;Christian Perfection&lt;/a&gt;: Wesley's own contribution to Arminian theology, Christian Perfection is the doctrine that God wants to transform our lives completely until our sinful nature falls away and we willingly obey God in everything. Few people ever reach this state in this life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wesley also wrote a treatise entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/Global-Worship-and-Spiritual-Growth/The-Wesleys-and-Their-Times/What-Is-an-Arminian&quot;&gt;What Is an Arminian? Answered by a Lover of Free Grace&lt;/a&gt;, defending Arminius against Calvinist charges and calling for peace between Calvinists and Arminians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T14:52:37.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9126" CreationDate="2012-08-14T15:39:59.863" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being impatient for answer I looked up the works of Arminias and found right away in Volume 1 - ARTICLES XIII AND XIV,  P228 that &lt;strong&gt;he argues against the imputation of guilt on infants.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, among many other statements against the imputation of guilt on infants, he says (in the words of his friend)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When Adam sinned in his own person and with his free will, God pardoned that transgression. There is no reason then why it was the will of God to impute this sin to infants, who are said to have sinned in Adam, before they had any personal existence, and therefore, before they could possibly sin at their own will and pleasure.&quot; (Arminias, Volume 1 - &lt;a href=&quot;http://m.ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works1.iv.xii.html?highlight=impute,this,sin,to,infants%20who,are,said#highlight&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ARTICLES XIII AND XIV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;He also makes his sentiments known in a very indirect way,&lt;/strong&gt; attributing these ideas ONLY to his friend Borrius whom his intention is merely 'to defend.' Borrius 'denies having ever publicly taught' them but only 'thinks them' and 'discusses them' and 'he considers that it was not unlawful for him so to do' and 'still beleives them unless proved wrong', etc.  &lt;strong&gt;If Arminias admits that these are bad ideas, or that shame is associated with them so as to 'deny that they are taught', why does he argue their merits in such detail as one who 'loves them', without ever opposing the folishness of them (if he actually opposed them) -- and thus -- famously teaches them?!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Arminias seems to be very hard to pin down on this question, I will add two more quotes on the subject to further prove: ‘Arminias opposed the idea of actual guilt being imputed on all humanity, making every human creature no longer innocent but guilty.’ &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arminias does not seem like to mention the ‘imputation of guilt’ so common among Calvinists, even as he argues against them, because he opposes it. But the declaration of ‘innocence’ which is just the same thing in reverse, he does do on a couple of occasions. In fact it is central to his thinking that those born innocent can’t be predestined to hell as this would be unjust.  The idea that a man is born innocent is what my question is trying to determine. ‘Did Arminias believe babies were born guilty of sin, or born innocent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example in arguing against the doctrine of predestination he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If creation be the way and means through which God willed the execution of the decree of his reprobation, he was more inclined to will the act of reprobation than that of creation; and he consequently derived greater satisfaction from the act of condemning certain of his &lt;strong&gt;innocent creatures&lt;/strong&gt;, than in the act of their creation. (THE WORKS OF&#xA;  JAMES ARMINIUS VOL. 1, P195)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or again, he repeats his sentiments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is far worse to predestinate a just man to sin than to predestinate &lt;strong&gt;an innocent man&lt;/strong&gt; to death. Of this we have also, previously, spoken. (THE WORKS OF&#xA;  JAMES ARMINIUS VOL. 3, P369)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please note, I was not asking if Arminias believed in original sin&lt;/strong&gt;, in some other sense than that which is attributed by the ‘imputation of guilt’. I was only wondering about this one question.  &lt;strong&gt;My determination that he did not believe it is not meant to be a criticism against Arminians, or great men like Wesley who did believe it.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-15T06:51:13.353" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T06:51:13.353" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9136" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9142" CreationDate="2012-08-14T16:56:18.387" Score="3" ViewCount="230" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which Protestant churches as of today officially recognize homosexual marriage unions? Is there any such information available?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-09-12T16:32:34.000" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T16:32:34.000" Title="Which Protestant churches as of today officially recognize homosexual marriage unions?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2012-08-15T01:37:48.473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9132" CreationDate="2012-08-14T18:08:00.623" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible certainly says things like your statement. There are the verses quoted in the comments. Closest to your wording that I can think of is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor 12: &quot;1 Now about the gifts of the Spirit ... 4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. ... 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit ...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might also mention:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Westminster Confession of Faith says, (IV.2) &quot;After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge ...&quot; That is, God created humans to have reason and knowledge. Not exactly what you said but pretty close, I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Southern Baptist Convention's Statement of Faith says (section XII), &quot;Christianity is the faith of enlightenment and intelligence. In Jesus Christ abide all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. All sound learning is, therefore, a part of our Christian heritage. The new birth opens all human faculties and creates a thirst for knowledge. Moreover, the cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with the causes of missions and general benevolence, and should receive along with these the liberal support of the churches.&quot; It doesn't specifically say that the ability to reason is a gift of God, but it does say that Christians's should use their reason and is generally consistent with the idea of reason coming from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made a brief search of the statements of faith of  few other denominations that came to mind and didn't see anything specific on this. Of course the fact that a church doesn't mention something in their statement of faith doesn't mean they don't believe it -- I'm sure there are lots of things any given church believes that don't make it into the SOF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T18:08:00.623" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9124" CreationDate="2012-08-14T18:22:32.323" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think your problem comes in your understanding of the statement, &quot;X is sinful&quot;. In context, when a Calvinist says &quot;Fred Jones is sinful&quot;, he does not simply mean, &quot;Fred Jones has committed many sins&quot;. What he means is more like, &quot;Fred Jones mind is totally controlled by sin.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like if I said, &quot;X is wet -&gt; X will never be dry without radical intervention&quot;. If when you read &quot;X is wet&quot; you think of something that has been left out in the rain, the logic doesn't follow. Why can't I bring it inside and dry it out? Won't it dry out when the sun comes out? Etc. But if the person who said &quot;X is wet&quot; was thinking of a fish that lives at the bottom of the ocean, then the logic makes perfect sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Calvinist says that people are sinners, he is thinking of the relationship of a human to sin as like a fish to the ocean, not a rag to the rain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T18:22:32.323" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9120" CreationDate="2012-08-14T18:45:09.347" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hmm, I've never heard the term &quot;Cessationist&quot; before, but the description in that article petty much matches the beliefs of many churches that I've attended. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, most non-charismatic evangelicals that I've known -- fine, I'll call them &quot;Cessationists&quot; -- say that a person is &quot;filled with the Spirit&quot; at the moment that they accept Christ. &quot;Salvation&quot; and &quot;being filled with the Spirit&quot; are seen as either simultaneous events or two names for the same event. Charismatics will normally say that they are two distinct events. A person can be saved but not be filled with the Spirit until a later date.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that charismatics normally say that when one is filled with the Spirit this immediately results in speaking in tongues, and that if you do not speak in tongues you are, ipso facto, not filled with the Spirit. Cessationists say that speaking in tongues is only one of many spiritual gifts, and one that is no longer given to believers. Cessationists distinguish the &quot;sign gifts&quot; of tongues and prophecy from the other spiritual gifts mentioned in 1 Cor 12, etc, like teaching and administration. They then say that we no longer have apostles, as Christ is no longer here to commission them, and we no longer have sign gifts, as they are not necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse most often cited for this is 1 Cor 13:8-10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They then explain that &quot;the perfect&quot; is the New Testament canon: Now that we have the New Testament, we no longer need these sign gifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T18:45:09.347" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2012-08-14T19:24:55.540" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, a definition of perfect. Because God did create us &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;perfect&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a : being entirely without fault or defect : flawless (a perfect diamond)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;b : satisfying all requirements : accurate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;c : corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept (a perfect gentleman)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;d : faithfully reproducing the original; specifically : letter-perfect&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;e : legally valid&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being perfect does not mean that we stayed that way, however. We were created in the image of God (see d). God created us creatures of free will. Indeed, even when Jesus (God made human) was on earth, he had free will (or else his death meant nothing!). Adam and Eve &lt;em&gt;chose&lt;/em&gt; to ignore what God said and become imperfect, they chose a shortcut God explicitly told them not to take, killing them spiritually, and separating them from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did God know they would do this? He exists in all of the spectrum of time simultaneously, and Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, so I would say yes. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean he's at fault for our free will, in fact, he sent his own Son to die so that we could be saved through grace, because of Adam and Eve's failure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1899" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-14T22:07:30.090" LastActivityDate="2012-08-14T22:07:30.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9141" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9164" CreationDate="2012-08-14T19:46:04.027" Score="6" ViewCount="473" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The modern Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, starting with the sunset at the beginning of Nisan 15. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to some interpretations, the Gospel of John (e.g., 19:14, 19:31, 19:42) implies that Nisan 14 was the day that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article mentions that this was the first &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_controversy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Easter controversy&lt;/a&gt; which petered out around the 4&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century and that &quot;Jehovah's Witnesses continue to celebrate the memorial of Christ's death on Nisan 14.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/2269/68&quot;&gt;an answer&lt;/a&gt; on Biblical Hermeneutics asserted that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14.  This indicates the interpretation is still supported in some modern traditions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any denominations that interpret John 19 as placing the crucifixion on Nisan 14?  Do the Jehovah's Witnesses base their memorial on John 19?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2021-03-31T23:31:37.250" Title="Which denominations believe that John 19 indicates that the crucifixion had the date of Nisan 14?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;calendar&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9136" CreationDate="2012-08-15T01:38:18.567" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think these are the same churches that approve ordination of lesbians. You can find a list &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_LGBT_Christian_clergy#section_1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When reading the list keep in mind that some traditional churches have a wide range of different churches under the same umbrella.  For example, one Lutherian or Anglican church might openly preach against homosexuality of any kind, while just a few blocks away, another might ordain a lesbian as their rector or senior pastor! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T01:38:18.567" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9053" CreationDate="2012-08-15T01:44:24.940" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe it really was Samuel coming to confront Saul. Whether the medium knew that she was dealing with demons to deceive those who came to her, or really believed that she was bringing up the dead, this was something she had never encountered before. She did not have the power to bring Samuel, or anyone else, back from the &quot;bosom of Abraham.&quot; (In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham said someone returning from the dead would not convince the rich man's brothers, but never said someone could not return from the dead by God's power.) Mason points out that Saul could not see Samuel, but apparently they spoke to each oter (no mention is made of this conversation being conducted through the medium). Samuel makes prophecies that no one else could have done (the death of Saul and his 3 sons, and the defeat of Israel's army). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2014" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T01:44:24.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9144" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9148" CreationDate="2012-08-15T03:06:13.560" Score="9" ViewCount="2108" Body="&lt;p&gt;In traveling around my diocese I've noticed that there are some parishes that are hand-holders and some parishes that are non-hand-holders and some people in the non-hand-holder parishes who persist in hand holding and some people in the hand holder parishes who abstain from hand holding. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, there are some parishes where it is common to raise up your hands together for the doxology of the prayer. And some parishes where even unheld hands are held up like the priest does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that pure imitation of the priest isn't good (his hands are blessed, mine aren't), but what I don't know is if spontaneous hand holding by the congregation is totally licit and where the tradition came from.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My mom told me it was, &quot;something Protestants did in the 60's that Catholic's picked up on&quot; is that all it is?  Was there ever a Bishop who told his diocese to hold hands or not to hold hands?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T09:30:17.670" Title="What's the tradition behind hand holding during the Our Father at Mass?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;lords-prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9146" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9149" CreationDate="2012-08-15T07:47:50.523" Score="1" ViewCount="14547" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have come across these terms many times but didn’t really come to understand the difference between the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it that a non professing Christians stopped believing in Christianity or is it that they have some other view from mainstream Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-15T10:36:29.770" LastActivityDate="2019-01-20T17:31:28.393" Title="What is the difference between a professing and a non-professing Christian with regards to their faith, beliefs, etc?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9146" CreationDate="2012-08-15T08:08:21.037" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The distinction is not between &lt;em&gt;professing christians&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;non-professing Christians&lt;/em&gt;, but between &lt;strong&gt;professing Christians&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;non Christians&lt;/strong&gt;. The idea of professing is using your mouth to say words that identify you as a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;em&gt;professing Christian&lt;/em&gt; is often used in contexts where the actual status of a persons faith or beliefs are in doubt. A person might claim to be a Christian in name, but if it is not a genuine confession of the heart, their life might not show any evidence of their faith being lived out. When somebodies life does not show any evidence that they actually believe what they profess, this label might apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bob is a professing Christian, but you'd never know it from his behavior at work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Confusingly, it can also have a different more positive connotation. This usage is more rare and you will have to listen to contextual clues in the conversation to know if it is used this way. Some people will use this term as a way to affirm something positive about a person's beliefs, specifically that they are open and honest about them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bob is such a great neighbor. He's a professing Christian and has such a caring family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The alternative is that somebody who does not profess even to be a Christian probably does profess to be something else. Whatever they claim to be, that is their profession. A person could be a &quot;professing Buddhist&quot; or &quot;professing Atheist&quot; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-15T08:23:38.577" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T08:23:38.577" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9144" CreationDate="2012-08-15T09:30:17.670" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not a prescribed part of the liturgy, and appears to be an accretion from Protestant tradition. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1175&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;One authoritative source&lt;/a&gt; says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To find the rubrics (regulations which govern the Mass) concerning these gestures, one may turn to the &lt;em&gt;General Instruction of the Roman Missal&lt;/em&gt; (1970), &lt;em&gt;On Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Outside of Mass&lt;/em&gt; (1973), &lt;em&gt;Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery&lt;/em&gt; (1980), and &lt;em&gt;Instruction on Certain Norms Concerning the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery&lt;/em&gt; (1980).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in all of the liturgical documents for the universal Church or of those particular ones issued by the United States Bishops Conference, no where is the holding of hands during the Lord's Prayer mandated. Frankly, this gesture arose among the various liturgical innovations in the aftermath of Vatican Council II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to surmise (probably accurately)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the holding of hands was introduced with good intentions to highlight the unity of the congregation as they pray, &amp;quot;Our Father,&amp;quot; not &amp;quot;My Father.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you say, there are those whose attitude towards the practice ranges from uneasiness to revulsion, and for those people the practice must be counter-productive!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That same commentator goes on to explain why it's not even necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The unity that is sought really comes later and after a spiritual progression: First, we fall on our knees as the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass: we recall not only our Lord's passion, death, and resurrection but also our need as individuals to offer ourselves to Him. Second, we pray in the words our Savior taught us, the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask, &amp;quot;Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,&amp;quot; even the person next to us in the pew. Third, we offer the Sign of Peace, a gesture found in the earliest Masses to show a genuine unity based on peace and forgiveness. Finally, we receive Holy Communion, which truly brings us into communion with our Lord and with each other. Looking at the logic of this spiritual progression to real unity, the holding of hands at the Our Father is extraneous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least one bishop is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/11/bishop-stop-holding-hands-during-lords.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;reported to have explicitly discouraged the practice&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_northern_kentucky/covington/covington-bishop:-no-holding-hands&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;WCPO&lt;/a&gt; reports that Bishop Foys [of Covington KY] wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Special note should also be made concerning the gesture for the Our Father. Only the priest is given the instruction to &amp;quot;extend&amp;quot; his hands. Neither the deacon nor the lay faithful are instructed to do this. No gesture is prescribed for the lay faithful in the Roman Missal ; nor the General Instruction of the Roman Missal , therefore the extending or holding of hands by the faithful should not be performed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T09:30:17.670" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9146" CreationDate="2012-08-15T13:16:30.603" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professing?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;professing&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; means &quot;to declare openly&quot;. So &lt;strong&gt;a &quot;professing Christian&quot; is one who declares their faith openly&lt;/strong&gt;. This leads to the conclusion that the opposite of a professing Christian is one who does not announce his or her faith. They may believe and practice their Christianity in private. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity Today recently &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2007/fall/1.19.html?start=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;divided Christians into five categories&lt;/a&gt;: Active, Professing, Liturgical, Private and Cultural. Page 4 of the article gives the characteristics of each type. (Not all would consider every one of those five to be true Christians).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all those who &lt;em&gt;profess&lt;/em&gt; Christianity necessarily actually adhere to its beliefs. This has led &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eternallifeministries.org/hendrix.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; to adopt the term &quot;professing Christians&quot; for those who outwardly declare their belief while not actually adhering to it. There is some support for this usage in the dictionary definition given above. In that case &quot;professing Christians&quot; are contrasted with &quot;true Christians&quot;, meaning those who practice their belief as well as declaring it. True Christians (in this usage) may also actually profess their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-08-15T15:12:49.993" LastActivityDate="2012-08-15T15:12:49.993" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9132" CreationDate="2012-08-16T05:24:38.603" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most every church recognizes that &lt;strong&gt;every good thing is a gift of God, including our reason, but I do not think any denomination assigns the ability to properly reason as a unique ‘gift of the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.  However to reason properly about Christ by faith many churches think can't be done without the enablement of the Spirit. assume by ‘properly’ you mean those There are gifts of the Spirit that are given to the church that make use of proper reason such as the gift of ‘wisdom’ and ‘knowledge’ (1 Cor. 12:8).  The main idea behind these gifts is that 'different' people have been given different ones.  Since all men have reason and by faith can reason properly, it can’t be then a special gift. Pure ability to reason is logically is a natural gift and it is likely, among those without faith, that none excels as high as the Devil, for his powers of reason and knowledge of the external form of religion no man could pretend.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; So gifts like Teaching, or having wisdom and knowledge naturally relate to our reason and one who has an ‘unusual ability’ by the working of the Spirit, might have a kind of unusual ability to reason about Christ, displaying unusual knowledge or wisdom concerning him and his work.  But as already mentioned these are not recognized as a ‘gift of the Spirit' by any denomination as far as I know.  A person may be said to have his reason ‘on fire’ and under an ‘anointing’ yet this is not with respect to his ability to reason directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, &lt;strong&gt;what has often marked out spiritual gift is that despite the natural weaknesses of certain men, even without strong powers of reason, people animated by the Holy Spirit have been able to convincingly present the claims of the gospel with extraordinary gifts.&lt;/strong&gt; In the case of the Apostles who were ‘fisherman’ and who subsequently turned the world over with the gospel, the power of God at work in those real 'unnatural gifts' that he gave them, was seen, in contrast to their power of reason, or natural learning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I think these and other reasons has kept any church from attributing reason to a gift of the Spirit, just as good-looks, strength and wealth are also not proper gifts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-16T23:58:35.123" LastActivityDate="2012-08-16T23:58:35.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9152" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-16T05:42:03.353" Score="9" ViewCount="2414" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless I'm mis-reading this passage in John, it seems like Judas was predestined to be lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;John 17:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do those who argue against predestination handle this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-16T09:06:59.727" LastActivityDate="2018-10-24T20:19:50.740" Title="How do Arminians handle the case of Judas?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9152" CreationDate="2012-08-16T15:32:47.343" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Wesley, in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=wes&amp;amp;b=43&amp;amp;c=17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;explanatory notes on John 17&lt;/a&gt;, says, &quot;The son of perdition signifies one that deservedly perishes; as a son of death, 2 Samuel 12:5; children of hell, Matthew 23:15, and children of wrath, Ephesians 2:3, signify persons justly obnoxious to death, hell, wrath. Psalms 109:8.&quot; To say someone deserves to perish is not the same as saying they were foreordained to do so. Calling Judas a &quot;son of perdition&quot; simply refers to the consequences of his betrayal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note especially the wording of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/23-15.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 23:15&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;&lt;em&gt;you make&lt;/em&gt; the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. [emphasis mine]&quot; This indicates that to be a child of hell, or a &quot;son of perdition&quot;, is not a foreordained state but the consequence of acting against God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leading up to this incident, we see that Judas had been one of God's chosen (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/passage.aspx?q=john+6:70-71&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 6:70-71&lt;/a&gt;), and was even given &quot;authority over unclean spirits&quot; and sent out with the other Apostles (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/6-7.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 6:7&lt;/a&gt;), but that the devil had enticed Judas to betray Jesus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/13-2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 13:2&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just days before, Jesus has warned his followers that when hard times come many will fall away, but promised that &quot;the one who endures to the end will be saved.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+24:12-13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:12-13&lt;/a&gt;). Judas failed the test, and had to face the consequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2012-08-16T15:32:47.343" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9152" CreationDate="2012-08-16T18:48:42.200" Score="12" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&amp;quot;Predestination&amp;quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not that Arminians argue &amp;quot;against&amp;quot; predestination - that would be silly, since the term comes from Scripture; Arminians would have to cross out a whole bunch of verses in their Bibles if that were the case.  Clearly &amp;quot;predestination&amp;quot; is a reality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, what does that &lt;em&gt;mean&lt;/em&gt;, and how does that &lt;em&gt;work&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In general, Calvinists teach that predestination &lt;em&gt;means&lt;/em&gt; that God, in His complete &lt;strong&gt;sovereignty&lt;/strong&gt; (i.e. &lt;em&gt;control&lt;/em&gt; over &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt;), &lt;strong&gt;predetermined&lt;/strong&gt; who would be saved and who would spend eternity in Hell, &lt;strong&gt;based solely on His plan&lt;/strong&gt; which &lt;em&gt;He&lt;/em&gt; designed for &lt;em&gt;His&lt;/em&gt; glory.  It is not about us, what we do, what we decide (as if we had some autonomous &amp;quot;free-will&amp;quot;); it is about God's plan for Self-glorification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In general, Arminians teach that predestination &lt;em&gt;means&lt;/em&gt; that God, in His complete wisdom and &lt;strong&gt;foreknowledge&lt;/strong&gt; (i.e. &lt;em&gt;awareness&lt;/em&gt; of every future event), &lt;strong&gt;prepares&lt;/strong&gt; the future &lt;strong&gt;based on His awareness of what men will choose&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where do Arminians get such strange ideas?  From Scripture!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined ... and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:29-30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Romans 8:29-30&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those ... who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:1-2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-1 Peter 1:1-2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&amp;quot;Ridiculous!&amp;quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is easy to think that the opposing view is ridiculous, but we really need to listen more carefully to what the &amp;quot;other side&amp;quot; is saying; one's &amp;quot;opponents&amp;quot; in this debate are not as ignorant as they might seem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Calvinist perspective, Arminians don't believe God is sovereign, because they don't believe He is ultimately behind every &lt;strong&gt;choice&lt;/strong&gt; that is made.  To them the end result is that Arminians don't believe that God is &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an Arminian perspective, Calvinism paints men as mechanical creatures who carry out the actions God programmed them to  carry out, more or less.  The end result is a God who decided that the best possible plan was one where He made billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them in Hell for eternity - all for Self-glorification.  And yet somehow &amp;quot;God is love&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What About Judas?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of Judas doesn't catch Arminians off-guard in any way; nor does it pose a challenge.  Judas chose to betray the Lord, and God knew He was going to do so.  Based on His foreknowledge, He arranged history accordingly, foretold it to His prophets, and then pointed to it when it happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this causes the Arminian to bow in worship to the all-knowing, all-wise Creator and Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the Arminian would not concede that God &lt;em&gt;wanted&lt;/em&gt; Judas to choose evil and inherit eternal torment, but for the Arminian, this is more of a comfort than a concern.  It does not signify that God is not God; only that God is not malicious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-16T18:48:42.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9132" CreationDate="2012-08-16T19:33:51.157" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this really comes down to semantics.  The answer depends on what we &lt;em&gt;mean&lt;/em&gt; by the terms we're using.  I'll attempt to clarify...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pretty much every Christian would concede that every &lt;em&gt;thing&lt;/em&gt;, including our brain, comes from God (though it may be damaged by sin).  Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the Spirit is the Agent by which God brought every &lt;em&gt;thing&lt;/em&gt; into existence.  So every &lt;em&gt;thing&lt;/em&gt; we have - including your brain, and any ability you have to think rationally - came &quot;by the Spirit&quot; in that sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when we talk about &quot;spiritual&quot; gifts, or gifts &quot;by the Holy Spirit&quot;, we are generally using this terminology to distinguish between the natural (physical) &quot;gifts&quot; (such as trees and brains) and those supernatural gifts that are bestowed via divine intervention after (or during) &quot;baptism&quot; in the Holy Spirit.  &lt;em&gt;(Whether you take that to be at conversion or as a separate event.)&lt;/em&gt;  In other words, to say &quot;trees are a spiritual gift&quot; would be nonsensical, since we don't &lt;em&gt;mean&lt;/em&gt; &quot;physical gifts that were part of Creation&quot; when we say &quot;&lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; gifts&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it shouldn't be hard to see that the ability to think rationally is not universal, so I won't put too much effort into proving that.  Point being, our brains are &quot;broken&quot;, regardless of what you take the &quot;cause&quot; of that brokenness to be (whether &quot;genetic entropy&quot;, or &quot;demonic destruction&quot;, or &quot;divine blindness&quot;, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the only way &quot;man's ability to reason properly&quot; could be considered &quot;a gift by the Holy Spirit&quot; (according to the common definitions) is if there was some supernatural influence which enabled their broken mind to start working again.  So in this sense...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, there are many denominations that believe God can open your eyes, heal your mind, cast demons out of you which influence your mind, provide you with wisdom (a sort of not-so-common &quot;common sense&quot;) that you didn't already have, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But If I understand your question, &quot;man's ability to reason properly&quot; (by the common definitions) is a term used primarily to refer to &lt;em&gt;natural&lt;/em&gt; ability, apart from miraculous, supernatural influence (other than, perhaps, Creation).  So in that sense...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;, &quot;man's ability to reason properly&quot;, which is a term generally used to refer to a &lt;em&gt;natural&lt;/em&gt; ability, would not be considered a &quot;gift by the Holy Spirit&quot;, which is a term generally used to refer to &lt;em&gt;supernatural&lt;/em&gt; post-Creation influences.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-08-11T17:45:25.440" LastActivityDate="2014-08-11T17:45:25.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8614" CreationDate="2012-08-16T21:02:55.253" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ansari referred me to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which provides an example of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The food taboos found in the Old Testament are observed by most people as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church prescribes them. The flesh of animals with uncloven hoofs and those that do not chew their cud are avoided as unclean. It is nearly impossible to get pork. Animals used for food must be slaughtered with the head turned toward the east while the throat is cut &quot;In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost&quot; if the slaughterer is Christian or &quot;In the name of Allah the Merciful&quot; if the slaughterer is Muslim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.everyculture.com/Cr-Ga/Ethiopia.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;. This is not mainstream, but is very interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-08-16T21:02:55.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8836" CreationDate="2012-08-17T01:07:31.697" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, the Hebrew Bible does not distinguish between &quot;body&quot; and &quot;soul.&quot; The Hebrew word for life, &lt;em&gt;nephesh&lt;/em&gt; refers to the &quot;vital life forces,&quot; that is, breathing, pulse, etc. There certainly are intimations of afterlife in the HB, but most scholars agree that an eternal soul was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; part of Israelite Religion—at least not in the Platonic sense. The influence of Greek philosophy can be seen clearly by the Septuagint translation of &lt;em&gt;nephesh&lt;/em&gt; as &lt;em&gt;psyche&lt;/em&gt;, which we usually translate as &quot;soul.&quot; New Testament Christianity comes out of this religious milieu, but we can't retroject that back into the text of the HB. This has nothing to do with the &quot;mortality&quot; of the soul, only mortality of &quot;life&quot; which may include some spiritual or metaphysical element.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To answer the question:&lt;/strong&gt; Most scholars who read this narrative from a historical–critical perspective (like me), read it side-by-side with the Mesopotamian myths of &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Eli%C5%A1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Enuma Elish&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra_Hasis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Atra Hasis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; as well as the Ugaritic &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_cycle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Baʿal Cycle&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt; I often recommend people to familiarize themselves with these myths because they help to contextualize the Hebrew Bible literarily, By similarity and distinction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The creation stories of Genesis (1:1ff. and 2:4ff.; to which you refer)—when viewed on their own—paint a picture of Yahweh and his celestial company creating humans &quot;in their own image.&quot; However, it is clear from the narrative that humans are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; gods. The temptation of Adam and Eve by the serpent, then, was to &quot;be like God,&quot; hence the divine declaration (which you cut out of your question!):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’ – Gen 3:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is, in effect the same problem encountered a bit later in the Babel story (Gen 11)—what the Greeks would later call &quot;Hubris.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that Adam and Eve are never said to &quot;live forever&quot; from the outset. The so called &quot;Tree of Life&quot; is enigmatic at best, but the problem is clear: if Adam and Eve eat from that tree too, they will be too much &quot;like God (or the gods).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The long-and-short of it is this&lt;/em&gt;: &lt;strong&gt;the author of Genesis doesn't have in mind an eternal soul&lt;/strong&gt; (as we understand it), so when he says &quot;so that he does not live forever,&quot; that's precisely what he means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2012-08-17T12:38:14.347" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T12:38:14.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9092" CreationDate="2012-08-17T02:48:17.737" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Many independent churches first sprang up after the partial collapse of Catholicism during the reformation possibly using the very same New Testament guidelines and principles you seek.&lt;/strong&gt; The most illuminating case know of that sheds light on the underpinning of New Testament principles at this time is the arguments between Anglican ministers and the independents which has been partially recorded in Johns Owens ‘A Brief Vindication of the Nonconformists from the Charge of Schism’, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Owen’s Works Volume 13&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The situation is very interesting because there was a vacuum created by so many exiting the Catholic church and the Pope’s loss of powers with various princes and Kings, that new or strengthened ‘state approved’ churches formed, or otherwise tried to extend their influence and power. However, as in the case of England, where Anglicanism was by no means newly formed, the established church with its ‘traditions’ wanted every Protestant in its ‘control’ and tried to repress the existence of independent churches. It was under these conditions that John Owen made his response to the Anglican accusation of unlawful and sinful schisms within the Church of England.&#xA;From the independent revolt of the Church of England you get the following New Testament guidelines that the independents argued: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1-State approved Churches carry no more authority than Christ approved churches&lt;/strong&gt;:&#xA;The New Testament nowhere suggests that the church needs approval from government officials, therefore anyone trying to fuse church and state has no solid basis to present an argument apart from its claimed traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2-Rather than external tradition the New testament established a rule of love and forbearance with one another who hold differing views on non-essential doctrines and practices:&lt;/strong&gt; Those claiming the authority of tradition claim it was first handed down by the Apostles but if this was true it would be clearly defined in scripture due to its importance. In reality the Apostles formulated rules of ‘brother love’ while many traditions and ceremonies of the Jews were brought to a slow and graceful death. As the new church was a mixture of Jew and Gentile with some Jews having a weaker conscience concerning some matters such as eating meats sacrificed to idols, the Apostles asked those with free consciences to lovingly submit to meaningless rules so as not to offend their brother. (1 Cor. 8:13). However when a wicked Judaizer insisted that the free follow a particular tradition as necessary for living a godly life, even when the Apostles have already said it was not necessary, then Christians absolutely refused as it became no longer a harmless difference but an attack on the gospel. (Acts 16:3, Gal 2:3, 5:2). These principles can be used when any denomination tries to repress the formation of a church upon grounds of the tradition they hold, for the repression itself on these grounds constitutes a possible good reason for a separation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3-The New Testament, shows that churches naturally sprang up wherever new groups of believers were formed&lt;/strong&gt;, sometimes starting in peoples homes, and were never pressured to join under subjection to a ‘higher’ church or central authority. As these churches later fell into various forms of Apostasy they established their own conflicting traditions, not one universal tradition under an external rule, until later imposed by the Roman government. This free-forming tradition can be seen by the early division over whose tradition should be followed concerning Easter, as mentioned in this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9141/which-denominations-hold-the-quartodecimanist-interpretation-of-john-19&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4 The ideal church in not represented as a ‘mega-church’ or just a few members of a family but a reasonably sized group who by virtue of their differing gifts and in some matters differing ideas, are most suitable for the edification and strengthening in the faith of each member. (1 Corinthians 12:18-27).&lt;/strong&gt; The reason why a family by itself is not a proper church is that members must be freely willing to join and it would not have a wide number of differing gifts unless that family was particularly large. The idea of a mega-church does not seem to suit the ideal New Testament model, for although 5000 were saved in one day, we have no records of a church that big assembling in the New Testament, rather churches sprouted up all over  like a natural vines growing around every natural turn and bend in the existing communities. (I am not saying churches can’t be huge or tiny, only that it does not seem ideal. Of course a mega-church can be divided into many smaller churches that just happen to meet in the same building). This sort of creates a flexible rule that if a church is made for believers (not believers made for churches) a church should bend its structure to best support the growth of believers. If a church is so large that intimate fellowship and properly organized teaching and administration becomes overly difficult, it should reasonably consider forming a new church (whether through subdividing itself, or finding a new location more suitable to many of its members).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5 A new church is not meant as a means to simply collect those who are merely argumentative, proud, or otherwise divisive over disputable matters. (Rom 14:1).&lt;/strong&gt;  A great deal of Philippians’ seems to be related to having humility and striving towards the goal (Phil 3:12-17, 1 Cor 13:12) which includes a goal of a better understanding. While dodging those non-neutral attacks of our faith (Phil 3:2). We also must avoid useless divisions through modelling humility and love (Phil 4, Phil 2).  Since we have never arrived at a perfect understanding, we must allow the fact that everyone is at a different stage of progress and coming from different starting points, so we must chose to serve in such a way as to help each ‘child’ grow and ‘woe to him’ who causing the child to stumble. (Mark 9:42). We ourselves must be like children, not wondering how will be the greatest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6  There may comes a point where a sincere believer or entire body can no longer in good conscience remain within a certain fellowship where disputable matters are no longer allowed to be left in love and humility, are enforced against the conscience of others.&lt;/strong&gt; When an unnecessary saw of constant discord is swung back and forth between believers by argumentative leaders, or other situations arise, making it seem impossible to properly advance in one’s knowledge in Christian love and humility, believers may need to form new churches or join other ones. This has sometimes been the cause of why one party ‘breaks away’ from the traditions of another, because those holding the tradition become aggressive and seek to make everybody rankled over argumentative subjects without any pause for relief. &lt;em&gt;This ungodly spirit of argumentation may even occur on this site, when we seek to only argue with a saw of contention (rather then passionately disagree) or seize upon ‘another’s expressions’ in a way that does not encourage their intended meaning, offering no support in humbly drawing it out to the edification of a very similar faith.&lt;/em&gt; It is best to avoid contact with those in such a state of mind for our own safety.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;7 A church is meant to be established the same simple structure of New Testament church without additional layers of authority invented by men or tradition.&lt;/strong&gt; This can be deduced from the fact that no such layers like ‘arch-teacher’, or ‘lord-deacon’, or whatever title might be created are not present in the New testament which opposes the spirit of humility and love as the true rule the Apostles established for church government. This means the roles of deacons or elders, as well as overseer, teacher and pastor must be established and then formed in the new church on order to have orderly worship as well as ensuring the observance of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism are administered. If there are not sufficiently qualified people with the necessary strengths to effectively support a healthy development of a believing body, this should not be attempted unless there are no other such churches within reasonable distance form ones own community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know if this answers your question as it is an unusually large question with many possible aspects to a solid answer, but this is all I can manage to collect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T03:02:41.193" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9141" CreationDate="2012-08-17T04:56:34.860" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;All denominations, as far as I'm aware, agree that John 19 places the crucifixion on Nisan 14. John 19:14 is clear that this was &quot;the day of Preparation for the Passover,&quot; that is, the day the sacrificial lambs were slain before the Passover feast officially began (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/exodus/passage.aspx?q=exodus+12:5-6&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 12:5-6&lt;/a&gt;). Since Passover begins on Nisan 15, Preparation Day is the 14th.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quartodecimian controversy was whether Christians should celebrate essentially a &quot;Christian Passover&quot; on the 14th every year, or whether they should celebrate the resurrection day, the first day of the new week following the Passover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The practice of celebrating Easter Sunday was soon adopted by the majority of Christians, though some churches continued the Quartodecimian practice for centuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today many churches celebrate a Passover or Seder meal on Thursday evening before Good Friday, but as far as I'm aware only the Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate as the Quartodecimians did, with a meal on the 14th and no special celebration on the following Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-08-17T05:07:19.963" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T05:07:19.963" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8614" CreationDate="2012-08-17T05:03:00.650" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Catholics, the bread and wine offered at Mass must be bread and wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meaning it must contain wheat and fermented grape juice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently made, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wine for the Eucharistic celebration must be from the fruit of the grapevine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is, without admixture of extraneous substances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html#I._THE_BREAD_AND_WINE_FOR_CELEBRATING_THE_EUCHARIST&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;General Instruction of the Roman Missal 320,322&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's been some hoopla about gluten free hosts for celiac sufferers in recent years, but some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.altarbreadsbspa.com/lowgluten.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;diligent and enterprising sisters&lt;/a&gt; found a way &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/march-30-2007/baking-nuns/289/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;around the gluten content&lt;/a&gt; although gluten-free is probably an impossibility since you can't produce wheat starch in a gluten free facility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, similar exclusions for people who cannot, should not, or better not consume alcohol can't be made.  The solution is just to receive Jesus in one species instead of both.  A tradition which, after some experimentation, &lt;a href=&quot;http://whosoeverdesires.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/liturgical-minimalism-in-phoenix/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;some dioceses&lt;/a&gt; are going back to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other ritual concerning food and the laity is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PREPPEN.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eucharistic fast&lt;/a&gt; by Latin Rite Catholics; it lasts one hour before receiving. Which, for some parishes where the homilies tend to go long, only amounts to &amp;quot;don't snack at Mass&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T05:03:00.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9166" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-17T05:42:34.593" Score="8" ViewCount="2963" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not know of a single time period where Christians did not believe that &quot;the end time was near.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For many people in the centuries immediately after Christ's death, it's not unthinkable that they would believe &quot;Well, Christ's returned to heaven; he probably just has to take care of some work, and will soon return for us.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For us, we look at the Book of Revelations -- and we say &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hey, we have the internet -- thus having the tech to fulfill the live stream of the death of the two witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Mark of the Beast? Clearly we're moving towards a society with embeddable chips; so all our credit card, identity, etc ... will be some embedded chip -- and without it, people will not be able to buy / sell.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Earthquakes / wars ... destabilizing in the middle east: yep, yep, yep.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did most Christians during WW1/WW2 view the book of Revelation? Were most of them convinced that the end war near? Given the sheer brutality of the wars, if one squinted at the wraths of God poured out and interpreted them symbolically, perhaps they could have been made to match up with the events happening at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2017-03-04T06:54:09.410" Title="How did Christians of WW1/WW2 view the book of Revelation?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9167" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9215" CreationDate="2012-08-17T13:37:28.300" Score="3" ViewCount="632" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Assuming these verses in Romans 8 apply to the elect, is anything past, present, or future, in all of creation, circumstance, and world events excluded, or is it literally to be understood as an unlimited 'all'?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (NIV Romans 8:28-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I take it for granted that  'glorified' means entry into heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mean this in an extreme sense, like if this was an unlimited 'all' then for example,  'if' it was to my highest good today to win 1 Million dollars, I would, because everything is working out to my highest good -- without exception. On the other hand, maybe their is some theoretical limitation that I can't think of?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Under recommendation from a moderator, here are some facts surrounding the case to contend with as well as a theological framework to use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-1- All things (πάντα - panta)  can literally means all things such as here, where it is used twice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God placed &lt;strong&gt;all things&lt;/strong&gt; under his feet and appointed him to be head over &lt;strong&gt;everything&lt;/strong&gt; for the church. (NIV Ephesians 1:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or it may be highly restricted by its context, again used twice here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What is more, I consider &lt;strong&gt;everything&lt;/strong&gt; a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost &lt;strong&gt;all things&lt;/strong&gt;. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ. (Philippians 3:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-2- Both unlimited and restricted views have been proposed by various theologians with some key related versus requiring synthesis being, among others, these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 8:31-39&#xA;1 Corinthians 3:21-22&#xA;Ephesians 1:11&#xA;Phillipians 4:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-3- It is requested that a theological framework be used which acknowledges God if, not directly predestinating men individually (Calvinistic) at least knows in advance what they will decide (not necessarily Calvinistic) and that he knows all things and has all power, otherwise he would not be able to have a full view of everything and would not be able to proactively work much of anything out to anyone's good.  It must also be accepted that as he is omniscient, he must be able to plan all this working of good things from eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question still remains is this good work with all things, restricted or unbounded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-17T16:35:31.447" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T05:07:09.140" Title="When God works 'all things' for the good, is anything excluded in the word 'all'?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;romans&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2012-08-17T14:22:40.347" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The primary theological problem with theistic evolution is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It renders a literal reading of the foundational book of Old Testament &lt;em&gt;incorrect&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people are highly uncomfortable with the implication of this.  A &quot;best reading&quot; would be that the Old Testament is not a 'timeless book', but a 'book of the times' and must be reinterpreted in light of modern knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many (I'd go so far as 'most') are completely fine with that implication, and already view many parts, if not all, of the Old Testament as either fable, allegory, or metaphor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1083" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T14:22:40.347" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6908" CreationDate="2012-08-17T17:04:53.003" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is something I've come to understand better over the last year. To understand how I got there, let's first take a little side-trip.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Nature of God&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about who God is: the ultimate being, the creator of the universe, all powerful, all knowing, all encompassing. As humans, we cannot possibly begin to understand such a being: his motives, plans, or desires. We have only three ways to understand Him: those limited aspects revealed to use through the Holy Spirit, Scripture, and through studying His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Scripture, God reveals to us ultimate outcomes regarding our behaviors, attitudes, and loyalties. On the one hand, we can align with God and attempt to live the kind of life modeled for us through Jesus in scripture; the outcome is heaven. On the other hand, we can do whatever we want without regard for God; the outcome here is hell, even if doing whatever we want results in living as a &quot;good&quot; person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But what if God's lying?&lt;/strong&gt; God has the same moral obligation to us that we would to a small colony of ants, because we are so insignificant by comparison. In fact, it's even less than that, because without God our little &quot;ant colony&quot; lives would never exist in the first place. It would not be immoral for him to use us as pawns in some sort of cosmic game beyond our understanding. How are we to know that we have any hope at all beyond this life? That anything revealed in scripture will last?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thankfully, scripture also addresses this issue, if indirectly. In scripture, God is carefully presented over and over and over as a being that keeps his promises, and deals only in truth... often even across generations and hundreds of years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Genesis and Faith&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So back to the question. Genesis is understood by a great many Christians to be God's personal account, revealed to Moses, of what He did at Creation. If God lied to Moses, it undermines everything else we understand about who He is. If God lied to Moses here, is he also lying about what happens after we die? As 1 Cor 15 says, if our hopes depend on an &quot;if&quot; such as this, we are to be pitied. Can we be sure any longer that there's any advantage to remaining a loyal Christian? Genesis needs to be an honest account of Creation, or everything else begins to unravel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That should cover the actual question. Theistic Evolution creates theological problems because it can undermine the whole of everything else Christianity asks you to believe. It is possible to go through your whole life believing in Theistic Evolution and a fully allegorical account, but it forces you take a piece of scripture that is seemingly written to be literal and interpret it in an allegorical way, and this can erode Faith over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Implications&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do we resolve the seemingly-strong naturalistic evidence for Evolution with the seemingly literal Creation account? There are a few options. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first is we believe in a God who is big enough to &quot;fake&quot; the evolution evidence, as another kind of cosmic joke. I think most Christians believe God has that kind of power and more. However, this again falls outside of what we understand of His nature, and would undermine Faith no less than would simple Theistic Evolution. God &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; do this, but I don't know many who believe that is what actually happened. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second option is Moses lied, or at least misunderstood things. This is tempting, but it doesn't get us very far because most Christians also believe Scripture to be &lt;em&gt;inspired&lt;/em&gt;. If Moses lied, and the lie was allowed to remain part of scripture, this again undermines much of the rest of what we believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another possibility is the naturalistic evidence for Evolution is wrong, incomplete, badly-misinterpreted, or some combination thereof. Any &lt;strong&gt;real&lt;/strong&gt; scientist needs to admit to this possibility, as that is what makes science, science; there is no such thing as &quot;settled science.&quot; Personally, I think there is &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; of this, but that it's not the whole story.  For example, if you carefully read the Genesis account you see that order of Creation is &lt;em&gt;incredibly close&lt;/em&gt; to the order of Evolution... but not an exact match. It would not surprise me that at some point in the future new fossil finds will require the Theory of Evolution to adjust the proposed order to match Genesis, or that such fossils may have once existed but are now lost to us forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A fourth possibility is a historically flawed literal reading of the Genesis creation account. I've covered this in a few other answers, but it comes down to the biblical definition of the word &quot;day&quot;. We often take the sections that read &quot;and evening came, and morning. The [Nth] day&quot; and apply the modern 24-hour definition to that section. We forget that the ancient Jews had a very specific definition of day: the time from sunrise to sunset. Given the complete lack of a sun for the first several days of creation, it now opens the possibility for an account that strays more to the allegorical, because the &quot;normal&quot; (for the initial audience) literal definition of day had no meaning yet. For that matter, even the &quot;modern&quot; definition is not really 24 hours, but rather the time for the Earth to complete a rotation with respect to the sun, a timespan which is again hard to define when the sun does not even exist yet. This is a position that definitely encourages at least a limited Theistic Evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this is not a completed position. There are still elements of the Creation account that cry out to be read literally. What about the 2nd half of the first week, after there was a Sun for use in marking days? The Creation of Man? Cain and Abel and other early humans? At the moment, I don't have a completed answer. What I do have is Faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2016-05-19T22:12:35.710" LastActivityDate="2016-05-19T22:12:35.710" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9167" CreationDate="2012-08-17T17:46:53.590" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's easy to read this as God being the producer and director of everything that happens, proactively moving the universe towards some desired outcome, but I think it's really a message of perseverence, hope, and conforming to God's will.  It's related to the observation that &quot;bad things happen to good people&quot;, but speaks to what should be the Christian's perspective about those bad things.  God does not cause evil, but God can take the outcome of any evil and mold it into something good.  No matter what happens, if we persevere in our faith we will be glorified in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 1:12-13 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has&#xA;  stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has&#xA;  promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I&#xA;  am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he&#xA;  himself tempts no one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-08-17T17:46:53.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1671" CreationDate="2012-08-17T19:16:16.437" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The greatest sin a man can commit is DISOBEDIENCE to God. The act of disobedience makes you break the rules of God. The sole aim of Satan is to have man disobey God like he did in the garden of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 15:22-23&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 And Samuel said, has the LORD has great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, &lt;strong&gt;to obey is better than sacrifice&lt;/strong&gt;, and to hearken than the fat of rams&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected&#xA;the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Ten Commandments, God said you should not do this and you should not do that. There are other places in the Bible where God said we should not do other things apart from the ones mentioned in the Exodus 20. The life of Israelites/Christian is based on following God's detail instructions. In the passage mentioned above, Saul was the victim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this new age, our daily living and place in christ is centered around hearing from him and following his lead&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 2:1-2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of&#xA;this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who&#xA;is now at work in &lt;strong&gt;those who are disobedient&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is God's commandment to everybody&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 9:7&lt;/strong&gt; And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: &lt;strong&gt;hear him&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also said in &lt;strong&gt;John 10:27&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My sheep &lt;strong&gt;hear my voice&lt;/strong&gt;, and I know them, and they&#xA;follow me&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To follow somebody's lead you have to obey them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:14&lt;/strong&gt; For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply disobeying God makes it the greatest sin of all time. It was the first sin, committed by the first man. It was what took them out of the garden. It was what took Satan out of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-18T21:35:47.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9173" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9175" CreationDate="2012-08-17T19:51:42.097" Score="21" ViewCount="516" Body="&lt;p&gt;One &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9161/69&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; to this previous &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6908/69&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; asks,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the problems I have with theistic evolution is: when did this alleged evolutinary animal/ape/man become accountable for his sins? [sic]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that this is a fundamental problem with TE - it denies the legitimacy of Adam's Fall as being representative for the entire human race (as Paul explains in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 5&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does TE understand\explain awareness of and responsibility for sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T20:19:10.883" Title="In Theistic Evolution, when did the alleged evolutionary animal/ape/man become accountable for his sins?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9173" CreationDate="2012-08-17T22:28:31.167" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;First, a disclaimer: Theistic evolution (TE) is neither a theological system nor an alternative to mainstream evolutionary science. TE is an awkward label applied to people who accept evolutionary theory and also believe in God. Those who claim this label are not a unified group. The following is my own understanding, which is still evolving.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early chapters of Genesis, taken as historical narrative, are impossible to reconcile with mainstream evolutionary biology. To accept evolution as fact is to deny Adam and Eve as history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the &lt;em&gt;typology&lt;/em&gt; of Adam and Eve does not change if they are not historical figures. If the story of Adam and Eve is allegory, then it is an allegory explaining the beginnings of God's relationship with created beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put into a framework of hominid evolution, Adam and Eve represent the first beings capable of living in relationship with God. This is represented by God's breathing the &quot;breath of life&quot; (Genesis 2:7) into them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eating of the forbidden fruit that &quot;opened their eyes&quot; (Genesis 3:7) is a poetic reference to the awakening that transformed amoral hominids into moral agents, capable of distinguishing right from wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that this moral awakening grew directly out of an experience (or multiple experiences) of realizing the consequences of wrong actions. That's one of the lessons of Adam and Eve: actions have consequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no TE does not necessarily deny Adam's fall as being representative of the entire human race. In fact, from a TE perspective we could say Adam's fall is &lt;em&gt;nothing other than&lt;/em&gt; representative of the entire human race.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in answer to the question in the title, the &quot;alleged evolutinary animal/ape/man&quot; became accountable for his sins when he first became aware that he was acting against the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-08-21T20:19:10.883" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T20:19:10.883" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9183" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-18T09:52:24.043" Score="4" ViewCount="1023" Body="&lt;p&gt;1) Most of the people that Jesus healed &amp;mdash; did they believe Jesus was God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) If so, why did they ask for temporary things (let me walk; let me see; get rid of my diseases; heal my son/daughter) rather than &quot;Tell me I'm saved&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, the repentant thief was an absolute genius. He could have probably just as easily asked, &quot;Please, let it be that after I die of crucifixion and be buried, you'll resurrect me a few days later like Lazarus,&quot; but instead, he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 23:42&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question re-iterated: why is that in the Bible there's numerous records of people asking Jesus for earthly deliverance (thus believing that he had great power) &amp;mdash; yet no record of asking him for eternal life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did their belief in Jesus's ability to heal them count as faith towards believing in Jesus and receiving eternal life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-08-18T11:13:47.330" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T23:22:51.053" Title="Did most of the people that Jesus heal believe he was God? If so, why does the Bible not record them asking for salvation?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-14T16:11:26.277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9183" CreationDate="2012-08-18T13:33:22.297" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right to point this out (sort of). If you read Mark's Gospel closely, you'll notice that the question of &quot;who&quot; Jesus is is of central concern. You'll further notice that whenever someone &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; get healed, Jesus will often tell them &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; to tell anyone. The only characters who know &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; Jesus is, are the demons that he exorcises, and, the centurion (aka John Wayne), and as you observed, one of the theieves. Scholars refer to this as the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Messianic Secret&lt;/a&gt;&quot; For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and he shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? – Mark 5:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the above, oddly enough, Jesus &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; tell the demoniac to tell his friends what happened--but that is a matter for another question&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, saying to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’ – Mark 1:43–44&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark's version of Peter's Confession follows this trend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’ And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him. – Mark 8:29–30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, even these passages don't really say that Jesus was &quot;God&quot;—there existed many miracle workers in ancient times, and the claim to be Messiah was only to claim &quot;anointed&quot; status, like that of a king or priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in Greek, the word often used of Jesus' healings is &lt;em&gt;sōzō&lt;/em&gt;, which actually has the connotation of &quot;to save from harm.&quot; The idea is that Jesus not only &quot;heals&quot; physical ailments (perhaps using the word &lt;em&gt;theropeuō&lt;/em&gt;), but heals the whole person—body and soul. Note in the Mark 1 passage that Jesus not only &quot;fixes&quot; a physical problem, but makes the leper ceremonially &quot;clean,&quot; hence allowing him to worship in the temple. This is a common theme in Luke's Gospel too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the long-and-short of it is this: did they &quot;know&quot; that Jesus was God? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that they were &quot;only&quot; physically healed or that being physically healed is entirely separate from spiritually saved. Mainline Christians have been saying this for decades; it is the basis for the so called &quot;Social Gospel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't over-spiritualize this stuff, we aren't gnostics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2012-08-18T13:33:22.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9185" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="44011" CreationDate="2012-08-18T14:21:58.043" Score="8" ViewCount="316" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which books functioned as the New Testament in the ancient &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Church of the East&lt;/a&gt;? For example, what would they have been &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_among_the_Mongols&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in Mongolia&lt;/a&gt; in the days of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genghis Khan&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The books of the Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox New Testament were fixed after &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Church of the East split&lt;/a&gt; from the other branches of Christianity. So I wonder what became the set of the standard books for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="567" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T17:19:15.873" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T17:28:49.637" Title="What was the New Testament in the ancient Church of the East?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9186" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9211" CreationDate="2012-08-18T14:47:39.427" Score="2" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two of the popular ways of analyzing the Bible are: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4000/what-is-the-difference-between-biblical-and-systematic-theology&quot;&gt;Biblical Theology vs Systematic Theology&lt;/a&gt;, Biblical Theology focuses more on verses; whereas Systematic Theology focuses more on topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who are the giants in Biblical Theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the classics / great works in Biblical Theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related question on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9187/what-are-the-classics-giants-in-systematic-theology&quot;&gt;Systematic Theology&lt;/a&gt; (Split into multiple questions as requested.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T02:37:05.990" Title="What are the classics/giants of Biblical Theology?" Tags="&lt;theological-frameworks&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-07-14T16:37:34.747" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9187" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9204" CreationDate="2012-08-18T14:49:31.140" Score="1" ViewCount="505" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two of the popular ways of analyzing the Bible are: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4000/what-is-the-difference-between-biblical-and-systematic-theology&quot;&gt;Biblical Theology vs Systematic Theology&lt;/a&gt;, Biblical Theology focuses more on verses; whereas Systematic Theology focuses more on topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who are the giants in Systematic Theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the classics / great works in Systematic Theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: Related question on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9186/what-are-the-classics-giants-of-biblical-theology&quot;&gt;Biblical Theology&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2015-07-09T18:53:08.453" Title="What are the classics/giants in Systematic Theology?" Tags="&lt;theological-frameworks&gt;&lt;systematic-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-07-14T16:36:20.947" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2651" CreationDate="2012-08-18T17:15:27.153" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fire is indicative of purification and cleansing NOT wrath nor death for sins. Moses was sent to Save the Israelites from the error of their ways. They had gone astray and chosen to live among the Egyptians. They had chosen to follow the ways of the Egyptians. They enslaved themselves through their own 'sinful' desires for material richness-rich foods, things they thought made them happy. We know this because of their backsliding and whining in the desert. They missed the rich foods and all the other Egyptian ways of life. They chose NOT to seek God personally which is Always the wrong way. &#xA;What the bush represents is Gods consuming love that cleanses and purifies. We are not killed by the process anymore than the bush was...Gods holiness is not something to avoid or fear. We can face God and relate to Him- All can. &#xA;I am still questioning if the bush also represents eternal life since Jesus referred to it in Luke 20:37. Is Jesus indicating that eternal life has always been available? I think so. I believe it is also a representation of reincarnation but that is something I am still studying at the moment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2029" LastActivityDate="2012-08-18T17:15:27.153" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9166" CreationDate="2012-08-18T19:19:14.643" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there must have been groups of Christians that understood these times as you suggest, the time leading up to the world wars actually was a time of great progress and optimism. While there certainly were premillennial groups, much of mainline Christianity during the 17-19th centuries was actually post- or a- millennial; that is, many believed that things would continue to get better and better until everyone on earth became Christians, then Christ would return. A nice example of this comes from my own tradition, whence the serial publication &lt;em&gt;The Millennial Harbinger&lt;/em&gt; comes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The increase in popularity of premillenialism (at least as it is commonly expressed nowadays) was actually the &lt;strong&gt;result&lt;/strong&gt; of the great Wars. The wars called into question whether or not things &lt;em&gt;actually were&lt;/em&gt; getting better—many argued that they weren't. So instead of thinking things would get &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; prompting Jesus' return, many people began to assume things would actually get &lt;em&gt;worse&lt;/em&gt;, and would only get better by the direct intervention of God—hence the great tribulation, rapture, etc. of modern premillennialism. Interestingly, this falls nearly perfectly in line with the Apocalyptic movement in Judaism during the Second Temple Period out of which Christianity grew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2012-08-18T19:19:14.643" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9191" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9195" CreationDate="2012-08-18T21:29:56.943" Score="8" ViewCount="5920" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read some articles years ago before I joined Christianity.SE and I will like us to throw more light on the content. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p020627.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; authoritatively states that Satan's dwelling place is in Turkey, according to this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 2:12-13&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things&#xA;  saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat&#xA;  is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even&#xA;  in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain&#xA;  among you, where Satan dwelleth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this passage really saying that Satan has or had a physical dwelling place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-02-12T22:03:08.617" LastActivityDate="2015-08-28T14:58:09.487" Title="Does Satan have a physical dwelling place on earth?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-08-29T02:44:50.123" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9192" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9216" CreationDate="2012-08-19T02:20:36.237" Score="11" ViewCount="941" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, I had the chance to visit the birthplace of Mormonism (Hill Cumorah / Palmayra, NY), and learn the origin of the LDS Scriptures.  In particular, I became quite interested in the Three Witnesses - Harris, Whitemer, and Cowdery. From the stories I read, these three seem instrumental in the translation / dictation of the original vision, and even in the early formation of the church in April, 1830. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet, none of them ever seems to have been prominent in the church since then.  I understand that all three left the church (though two returned), and so I can understand why they never became President - but there seems to be a gap in the record for me as to where Brigham Young came from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When did he enter the Mormon story?  Why was he sufficiently credible to be able to lead the bulk of the church to Utah? What specifically was the &quot;torch-passing&quot; if you will that led Brigham Young to be considered Smith's successor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-06-11T18:18:02.623" LastActivityDate="2015-01-04T13:46:34.910" Title="How did Brigham Young become the most well-known Mormon leader (after Joseph Smith left the scene)?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9193" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9194" CreationDate="2012-08-19T02:23:17.370" Score="7" ViewCount="1583" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am fully aware of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret&quot;&gt;Messianic Secret&lt;/a&gt; in Mark, but I don't understand why &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Harris_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29&quot;&gt;Martin Harris&lt;/a&gt; would feel as though he should be punished for revealing the pages he recorded from Smith's translation of the Golden Plates.  After their loss, it is my understanding that Harris never again served as scribe. Furthermore, according to my tour guide, Smith also claimed responsibility for this loss, stating that &quot;God had to humble him&quot; by &quot;giving into&quot; Smith's desire to let Harris have the pages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was so sacred about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_116_pages&quot;&gt;these 116 pages&lt;/a&gt; that revealing them was so bad?  Was the theology contained therein of particular importance, or was the problem simply that Smith felt he should not have betrayed the command of the Angel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along these lines, I'm curious as to the theological significance of what he translated. What was in this material that needed to be protected? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-08-19T02:40:59.210" LastActivityDate="2015-03-18T17:39:06.643" Title="Why was Martin Harris punished for revealing the Lost 116 pages?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9193" CreationDate="2012-08-19T02:44:54.293" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Lord had &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.42?lang=eng#41&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;commanded Joseph Smith to reveal the manuscripts to no one&lt;/a&gt; who was not involved in the translation. Martin petitioned Joseph three times to show the manuscripts to his (Martin's) wife, and each time Joseph took the issue to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Harris family was wealthy, and Martin was helping pay for the publication of the Book of Mormon. His wife protested and wanted proof of the translation because of his involvement and probably because of the financial burden. Incidentally, she badgered him on the issue and demanded to see the plates -- or &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt; convincing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to Joseph's first two pleas, the Lord denied the request, and I believe He even said to trouble Him no more on the matter (See near the end of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/5?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 5&lt;/a&gt;). The third time, the Lord finally permitted it (kind of like the Parable of the Importunate Widow) -- but not without warning of the consequences for disobedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph conceded to let Martin take the raw manuscript (but not the actual plates), being the 116 pages that had been translated. Later, Martin returned to Joseph and admitted that he had lost the pages. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/3.5?lang=eng#4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph lost his gift to translate and was commanded to repent&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Behold, you have been entrusted with these things, but how strict&#xA;  were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made&#xA;  to you, if you did not transgress them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which&#xA;  thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you,&#xA;  and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as&#xA;  other men, and have no more gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pages consisted of what would be called, probably, the &quot;Book of Lehi&quot; -- writings at the beginning of the plates by Nephi's father, the same Nephi whose writing now starts the Book of Mormon record as we have it today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Book of Mormon, we learn that Nephi &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/19.1-3?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;was inspired to re-write at least some of what his father wrote&lt;/a&gt;, so that nothing too important was lost (see vs. 1-3 in linked scriptures for more context) -- emphasized parenthesis my own:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi,&#xA;  received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more&#xA;  plain and precious parts of them &lt;strong&gt;(Lehi's writings)&lt;/strong&gt;, should be written upon these plates;&#xA;  and that the things which were written should be kept for the&#xA;  instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for&#xA;  other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the writings weren't so sacred that nobody could know what they said, but rather, they had to be carefully handled -- and understandably so. Imagine the frenzy if the translation of a record on &quot;gold plates&quot; was public &lt;em&gt;while it was happening...&lt;/em&gt; especially during a major Christian excitement in the country!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Lord warned Joseph to not re-translate the missing portion because evil men were plotting against them. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10.1-21?lang=eng#0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 10&lt;/a&gt; (chapter heading):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony,&#xA;  Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1828 (see History of the Church,&#xA;  1:20–23). Herein the Lord informs Joseph of alterations made by wicked&#xA;  men in the 116 manuscript pages from the translation of the book of&#xA;  Lehi, in the Book of Mormon. These manuscript pages had been lost from&#xA;  the possession of Martin Harris, to whom the sheets had been&#xA;  temporarily entrusted. (See the heading to section 3.) The evil design&#xA;  was to await the expected retranslation of the matter covered by the&#xA;  stolen pages and then to discredit the translator by showing&#xA;  discrepancies created by the alterations. That this wicked purpose had&#xA;  been conceived by the evil one and was known to the Lord even while&#xA;  Mormon, the ancient Nephite historian, was making his abridgment of&#xA;  the accumulated plates, is shown in the Book of Mormon (see Words of&#xA;  Mormon 1:3–7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole half of the 10th section is relevant here, but in particular:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words&#xA;  which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated,&#xA;  which have gone out of your hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the&#xA;  words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to&#xA;  be written;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan,&#xA;  that he may destroy this work;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they&#xA;  may say they have caught you in the words which you have pretended to&#xA;  translate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall&#xA;  accomplish his evil design in this thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion: The writings of Lehi were about as sacred as the rest of the Book of Mormon record, but it was vital that the work remain protected against those conspiring against it. And yes, Joseph and Martin both should have obeyed the Lord in this instance -- the first time. But the Lord saw it coming, so He prepared a way for us to still have the important parts of what Lehi wrote and allowed Joseph to repent and continue the translation (with a different scribe -- but Martin Harris still sacrificed in many ways, after losing the manuscript, to support the publication of the Book of Mormon and the Church).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-03-17T07:35:41.123" LastActivityDate="2015-03-17T07:35:41.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9191" CreationDate="2012-08-19T02:57:18.353" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having been to Bergama, I can tell you this is an amazing place. An imposing temple stands at the top of a 1200 meter or so mountain. Winds blow at the top that will make you feel you will be blown into the valley below. I remember my wife driving in the valley below, and before we had even entered the town, I looked up, saw the Temple, and said - I know exactly where we are going.  It is a powerful place, and the presence of &quot;the gods&quot; is felt from miles away as one looks to the top of that mountain&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the reference in Revelation as to its position as &quot;Satan's seat&quot; is not that he has a chair there, but rather that it was a &quot;capital&quot; of sorts in Satan's empire. It was a place of power in Greek theology (and remember, Turkey was Greek at the time!) In the same way that Washington, DC is the &quot;seat&quot; of power in the United States, Bergama was the center of power for a particular belief system that emphasized the power of the gods to grant healing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek god &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Asclepius&lt;/a&gt; in particular drew followers from all over to experience healing.  The fact that this pagan influence was so strong would likely have led John the Revelator to say something to the effect of &quot;Satan is very strong here,&quot; as evidenced by the deep pagan influences against which Christianity would place itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this said, this does not address the question of Satan's abode.  As a created being, Satan must, by definition, have a physical presence.  Unlike God who is omnipresent, Satan is a finite being.  As such, he has a place.  When in Job, for instance, he confronts God, it says specifically that he had returned from walking the earth, and seems to indicate that there was a place in which he could come face to face with the presence of God.  Whether the earth was his home or merely on his intinerary is unclear from Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can argue whether it is he who is cast down from heaven in Revelation 12, 18, and other places, or whether he is embodied in the &quot;AntiChrist&quot; or not, but this much is sure: At some point, I'll be able to pinpoint his exact location. It will be in a lake of fire where he'll spend the rest of eternity.  I'd rather not have any closer understanding of his geography than that. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-08-19T02:57:18.353" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8562" CreationDate="2012-08-19T07:19:34.733" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/what-can-i-say-to-my-christian-friend-who-just-got-engaged-to-a-non-christian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;beautiful explanation here by John Piper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paraphrasing, the issue boils down to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;how can a Christian, who believes Christ is Lord, spend their life with someone who denies Christ is Lord?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;this person views their potential spouse as more important than Christ&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, this is a terrible terrible idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2012-08-19T07:19:34.733" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9199" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9232" CreationDate="2012-08-19T12:15:24.370" Score="8" ViewCount="738" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never researched but am very curious &lt;strong&gt;what views of Biblical Inerrancy did the reformers generally hold, such as Luther and Calvin?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found these description about different kinds of views: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detailed Inerrantists&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;claim that a commitment to Scripture's inspiration demands that the original copies of the Bible be considered without error, factual or otherwise. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Irenic Inerrantists&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;agree that the Bible is without error, but believe Scripture itself must determine according to its intent the scope of that inerrancy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Complete Infallibilists&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;reject &quot;inerrancy&quot; as a helpful term for describing the total trustworthiness of the Biblical writers' witness, substituting the word &quot;infallible&quot; in its place. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Partial Infallibilists&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;believe that the authors' intended message is in error at points, but their witness to the gospel is trustworthy and authoritative.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder where among these the Reformers stood, or under a different class altogether? I suspect somewhere between ① and ② but am not sure?  If someone can provide references direct from the reformers writings it would be highly valuable to a good answer. The more detail the better, feel free to post a long answer If you have one. I will read it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-05-21T06:47:13.123" LastActivityDate="2016-05-21T06:47:13.123" Title="What were the reformers' views of biblical inerrancy?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9200" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-19T14:33:32.027" Score="7" ViewCount="15491" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize this question is somewhat vacuous, since one could ask:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Why do the OT prophets exist? Why wasn't the story just: Eve + Adam eat from the tree of knowledge of good + evil. Then, God, immediately sends Christ down, who dies for humanity's sins, QED.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, what is the purpose of John the Baptist's existence / ministry, given that it occured in the same time period as Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a very significant even of John Baptizing Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 3:13-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”&#xA;  15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.&#xA;  16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides that, what is John the Baptist's contribution/significance/utility to Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2016-04-05T02:31:05.140" Title="Why did John the Baptist exist? Did he have any purpose besides Baptizing Jesus?" Tags="&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-02T02:07:19.550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9200" CreationDate="2012-08-19T15:30:44.007" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can think of a few reasons but there are probably much more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First&lt;/strong&gt;, as Jesus was not ordained by the existing authorities and seemed on the surface to take things in a different direction from the Old Testament, a forerunner which was prophesied to herald his coming, not only fulfills prophecies of Elijah's return but creates a smooth transition from the Old to the New Covenant where the prophets directly lead up to the entire end of all their prophecies in Christ. What I mean is John was like a typical prophet denouncing sin and calling for repentance with a kind of rugged Old Testament asceticism and harshness, somewhat different from the meek and mild Jesus that pronounced peace and grace.  When the Jews questioned Jesus on how he derived his authority to preach and to heal (since he was not recognized by the 'authorities' of tradition) he asked them what they thought of John the Baptists (Mark 11:29). The question was intending to show them that they were so cowardly (not admitting that they did not believe in John the Baptists among the crowd) that they were not worth responding to, but still the connection to the Baptists is made regarding recognition of an 'authority', besides the direct testimony of God the Father of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second&lt;/strong&gt;, that a great prophet such as John was, in his humbly recognizing Jesus as so much greater, properly introduced the Messiah. (Matthew 3:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third&lt;/strong&gt;, his baptism of the Jews by John was a kind also used to convert Gentiles to Judaism, so like Elijah he was making a great call to repentance communicating to everyone, even those who thought they were holy, must prepare for full repentance and be prepared to receive the Messiah.  This mission was like Elijah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fourth&lt;/strong&gt;, The idea that Elijah would come just before the Messiah (literally Elijah, not someone like him) was completely expected by rabbinic tradition, so the fulfilled prophecy was no small matter, even though, as many of the other fulfilled prophecies, we're not fulfilled in ways expected, as a whole they became a strong testimony on Christ's authenticity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-19T15:30:44.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9202" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-19T15:42:30.543" Score="50" ViewCount="113246" Body="&lt;p&gt;A simple word search for &quot;baptism&quot; in the Old Testament turns up no matches. However by the time John the Baptist shows up on the scene and starts dunking people and calling it &quot;for forgiveness of sins&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/Mark%201:4&quot;&gt;Mark 1:4&lt;/a&gt;) people seem to already have an understanding of what baptism is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, it seems there might have been other sorts of baptisms practiced at the time other than what John and later Jesus talked about. In particular the questions that pop up seem to be about who was doing the baptizing and on what authority. Nobody seems be too concerned about the act itself -- as if it was a well understood thing already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the OT doesn't seem to speak of it and the NT jumps right in with everybody seeming to understand that such a practice exists (even if there is some question as to who/what/how/when), what happened in between the Testaments? Was baptism something that was done by anybody for any reason? If so by who and what for? Did the religious Jews of the time have such a practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-04-25T02:57:57.810" LastActivityDate="2021-02-14T05:06:15.263" Title="Was baptism practiced before Christ?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;jewish-culture&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9202" CreationDate="2012-08-19T16:09:49.870" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ritual cleansing was a common part of some Jewish sects around the turn of the era. One of the best examples of this (that I know of) comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran&quot;&gt;Khirbet Qumran&lt;/a&gt; (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found)—where there were found several &lt;em&gt;miqvot&lt;/em&gt; (sn. &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh&quot;&gt;miqveh&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;) used for a sort of &quot;baptism.&quot; It is commonly held that the people living at Qumran were &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes&quot;&gt;Essenes&lt;/a&gt;, and some have speculated that John the Baptist may have been a part of this group or one similar to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Qumran community began slightly before the turn of the age and continued into the early 1st century CE, so it was roughly contemporaneous with Jesus. For a really nice intro to the Archaeology of Qumran, see Jodi Magness' &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0802826873&quot;&gt;The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a ton of literature from and about the &quot;inter-testamental&quot; period (usually referred to as the &quot;Second Temple Period&quot; by scholars). I'll point you to the great intro to the corpus by George Nickelsburg, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0800637798&quot;&gt;Jewish Literature Between The Bible And The Mishnah&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2012-09-19T15:34:53.500" LastActivityDate="2012-09-19T15:34:53.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9187" CreationDate="2012-08-19T16:27:08.490" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;strong&gt;the concept of systematic theology and biblical theology is deceptive.&lt;/strong&gt;  I have studied both and I think I can strip away the confusion by providing a non academic answer that sort of throws the curtain in front of the wizard of Ozz to one side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me explain and hopefully this makes sense as I am going out on a branch a bit here with potential negative feedback.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Organizing the understanding that one has when reading the Bible has been termed by somebody as systematic theology.&lt;/strong&gt; It means nothing.  Yes possibly under Newtonian physics where the universe was considered like a clock, some theologians became overly dogmatic. Yes, yes, so what.  Yes, after Einstein and theories of relativity we prefer more organic models of thought and we are post-modern and all that, but who really cares.  Newton still dominates most of physics anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The truth is, an understanding is by nature somewhat systematic&lt;/strong&gt;, in that it organizes what would otherwise appear as just random things, tries to make sense of it, daws conclusions and then tries to fit new things into the 'understanding' as it progresses. When something new (new Bibles verse for example) does not fit (into our theology) then we try to revise our understanding until it does.  Eventually we developed a system of beliefs like 'Calvinism' or Arminianism and people call it a systematic theology.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question then.  &lt;strong&gt;The greats are whoever you consider as having a great understanding.&lt;/strong&gt;  The other side of this coin is not Biblical Theology.  There is no other side of the coin.  Biblical Theology is more like a preferred organic technique of adhering to a natural progression of scripture and avoiding the dogmatic assertions that would otherwise  too quickly digest scripture into ones own belief system.  We as 'organic thinkers' tend to prefer to leave things as they are and not always have a direct link into a system.  In the end however, there is nothing in this method that was not already performed by some systematic theologians. Biblical Theology is therefore nothing but a word in some ways. A word created by people who prefer to explain things in a different way and eventually use it to create their own systematic theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I have explained the basic core subtle difference between the old systematic thinkers and the systematic thinking of Biblical Theology &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8095/what-are-the-main-differences-between-reformed-protestant-biblical-theology-and/8134#8134&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. I consider this subtle difference sinister as Biblical Theology in its quest for the 'unfolding flower' does not like the sudden violence on the cross in how it radically changed the covenant.  When I studied Biblical Theology through one of the colleges who have popularized it into today's world, I found that it tried to synthesize the covenant of the Old Testament to the New as though there really was no difference at all.  All in the name of a slow progression.  Ironically I think this makes Biblical theology is not biblical on this most important point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When we consider our theology to be simply our understanding there is only Systematic Theology and if the term Biblical Theology had never been created it would not have a significant impact on what understanding we have.&lt;/strong&gt;  The emphasis in Biblical Theology that is good and always was understood by the better systematic theologians, is that the scripture is not like a manicured garden, with every leaf in its place.  It is not Calvinism &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;. The scripture is more like nature with a big rock here, where it should not be, and something else there for some strange reason.  Yet the whole of it is much more amazing and beautiful that way.  Ironically the person who said this was Charles Hodge, the last of the systematic theologians at Princeton before his predecessor started the department of Biblical Theology (as though Hodge's Theology needed improvement! ) In my own view this was the beginning of a theological decline at Princeton. Hodge is an excellent Bible commentator that as far as I know has not had an equal from Princeton since.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2014-05-11T21:50:52.517" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9206" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9207" CreationDate="2012-08-19T20:09:18.037" Score="9" ViewCount="53505" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 19: 13-17. Several people tries to drive out demons by using Jesus's name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” 14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?” 16 Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.17 When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Disciples encountered similar situation earlier. In Mark 9: 38-41:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should I understand this? Was this group of people who drove out demons by using Jesus's name any different from the ones that were beaten severely for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T14:09:28.227" Title="Driving out spirits in Jesus's name with discrepancy in Bible" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9206" CreationDate="2012-08-19T21:17:05.107" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Notice that in the Mark case, Jesus is saying, &amp;quot;Don't forbid them from casting out demons,&amp;quot; whereas in Acts 19, it is the demons themselves who are unwilling to be cast out by someone who may use the name of Jesus, but who seems to be trifiling with things they shouldn't be.  In the case of Mark, it would be humans resisting, in the case of Acts, it is demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of the passage in Mark, the question was one of association. As answered in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8748/luke-949-50-christ-is-the-only-way&quot;&gt;another question&lt;/a&gt;, the focus is as much on institution as anything else.  Here, Jesus simply said something to the effect of 'Just because they aren't attending your church doesn't mean they can't do something in my name.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Acts passage, we have someone attempting to cast out demons who is clearly unworthy to do so.  The name of Jesus is being invoked as a talisman of sorts - a magic set of syllables that some one is trying to utter in order to gain control. When this unworthy person attempts to cast out the demon, the demons are the ones who realize the would-be exorcist as a person who may know the name of Jesus, but not really be one of his.  When the demons say to the sons of Sceva, &amp;quot;I know Jesus&amp;quot; they are admitting that Jesus has power over them.  When they say, &amp;quot;I  know of Paul,&amp;quot; it is because they have heard that Paul is one who correctly uses the power of Christ.  These demons know that Jesus is working through Paul, much to their consternation.  But it is one thing to say a name, and another to understand the one through whom power comes. These sons of Sceva apparently know the words, but not the Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The demons are aware of this - and they pounce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue the Acts 19 passage should also be read in light of Acts 8.  In Acts 8, a sorcerer named Simon sought to control demons and harness the power of the Spirit for personal gain. He even offered Peter money to learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter reacts harshly saying this power of Christ is not something that can simply be bought or sold. He says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 ... “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When fighting the demons, Paul says in Ephesians 6 that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice how the fighter is to be strong &lt;em&gt;in the Lord&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;in his mighty power.&lt;/em&gt; Notice that we taken on armor - a defense, not an offense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally note, the only offensive weapon we have is the Word of God, nothing of our own:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Simon, this Jesus' power isn't a game. There are real forces at work that aren't of your control. There is, however, a Jesus who is in control, at whose name demons cringe.  You are not in control - He is. Sons of Sceva, let him fight, for as it says in 2 Chronicles 16:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war. ”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, if you are going to fight demons, make sure you realize how the demons are actually defeated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-19T21:17:05.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8836" CreationDate="2012-08-19T22:21:32.753" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key verse for understanding the punishments associated with eating from Tree of the Knowledge and Good and Evil is Genesis 2:17.  In English:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much ink has been spilt over the question of why that death was not immediate.  For purposes of this argument, I will fall on an assumption that God's mercy was on display here, and he withheld that execution for hundreds  (at least in Adam's case, 930) of years.  That God continually doesn't kill people who deserve it in Genesis (Cain - not killed; Lamech - not killed; World before the Flood- not killed for 120 years; World at Babel - not killed) shows that God's mercy is evident even in the first 11 chapters of Geensis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is important in this context, however, is the nature of death and life, as used in Genesis 2:17 and 3:22. &#xA;In Hebrew, the key phrase of death centers around the &quot;m-t&quot; מוֹת&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;מוֹת תָּמוּת = &quot;in that day you shall surely die&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In every other instance throughout the Hebrew text, the &quot;m-t&quot; words speak of a physical death - the separation of the ru'ach - the breath - from the body.  Other usages imply both natural deaths and execution.  When people were put to death, indeed, their lives were m-t.  (Sorry, couldn't resist!)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could then seem to indicate  at a very simple level that there was no death.  In Revelation 21:4, it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If &quot;the Fall&quot; is indeed a dispensationary event in which &quot;all former things pass away,&quot; then it is not unreasonable to say that prior to the Fall, there was no death. Evidence for this view could be drawn from Genesis 9, another dispensationary event in which &quot;the old order passes away.&quot; After the Flood, Noah is told:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2  The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3  Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the evidence clearly seems to indicate that man was at least not allowed to kill animals, and that animals were not afraid of man.  It is not too much of a stretch to suggest then that had &quot;the Fall&quot; not occurred, there would have been no physical death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, when in Genesis 3:22, the Lord says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;there is nothing to preclude that from meaning a physical immortal life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the wa-hey (to live) and olayim (forever), would connote &quot;go one breathing indefinitely.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;inf. absol, חָיֹה Eze. 18:9, and חָיוֹ 3:21; 18:28; constr. with suff. חֲיוֹתָם Josh. 5:8; with prefix לִחְיוֹת Eze. 33:12; imp. with prefix וֶחְיֵה Gen. 20:7; pl. וִחְיוּ 42:18; fut. יִחְיֶה apoc. יְהִי, וַיְחִי.&#xA;  (1) TO LIVE, a word of very frequent use. Arabic حَىَّ, which form is also found in Hebrew, see חָיַי. Æth. ሐይወ፡ Syr. ܚܝܐܳ id. The original idea of this word is that of breathing; inasmuch as the life of animate beings is discerned by their breathing (compare נֶפֶשׁ); and the more ancient form of this root is הָוָה, which see. The same original idea is found in the Greek ζάω, ζώω, cognate to which is ἄω, ἄημι, to breathe; which, in Æschylus, is applied to the winds as breathing or blowing. Those who are curious in languages may inquire whether the Sanscrit dschîv, to live; Greek βίοω; and Latin vivo; belong to the same stock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gesenius, W., &amp;amp; Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (273–274). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very simple explanation could then be derived as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When Adam and Eve were created, there was no concept of death.  Being made &quot;very good,&quot; could imply that there would be no inherent reason for the body to die of old age, rather it would keep going on forever.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The choice of two trees - a Tree of Life and a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - would have been placed in the Garden, and the named gifts associated thereto be actual powers adhering to the creatures. Indeed, the text clearly states that when the woman and the man had eaten of the tree, &quot;their eyes were opened.&quot;  This seems to indicate that a physical effect of some kind had taken place.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten, the race had been decided - man had chosen &quot;to be like God&quot; over physical immortality.  At that point, the nature of man was cemented.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Tree of Life, which would have cemented the ongoing &quot;Zoe&quot; (life) would itself not have been affected - it still would have &quot;sealed the deal&quot; in the other direction, cementing ongoing breath and spirit within the body.  Had it too been eaten, &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; powers would have adhered to the creatures, making them both &quot;wise&quot; and &quot;immortal.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Had God then seen this as a race to which Tree would be eaten of first, having both powers was not part of the deal.  He thus was compelled to keep the man (but interestingly not the other created beings such as the animals or even the angels) from the Tree, at least until the Flood, lest that power be transmitted as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, when it comes to this notion of life, Psalm 90 should be considered:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before the mountains were born &#xA;      or you brought forth the whole world,&#xA;      from everlasting to everlasting you are God.&#xA;  3 You turn people back to dust,&#xA;      saying, “Return to dust, you mortals.” &#xA;  4 A thousand years in your sight&#xA;      are like a day that has just gone by,&#xA;      or like a watch in the night. &#xA;  5 Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death—&#xA;      they are like the new grass of the morning:&#xA;  6 In the morning it springs up new,&#xA;      but by evening it is dry and withered.&#xA;  7 We are consumed by your anger&#xA;      and terrified by your indignation.&#xA;  8 You have set our iniquities before you,&#xA;      our secret sins in the light of your presence. &#xA;  9 All our days pass away under your wrath;&#xA;      we finish our years with a moan. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;10 Our days may come to seventy years, &#xA;      or eighty, if our strength endures;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, &#xA;      for they quickly pass, and we fly away. &#xA;  11 If only we knew the power of your anger!&#xA;      Your wrath is as great as the fear that is your due. &#xA;  12 Teach us to number our days, &#xA;      that we may gain a heart of wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I will admit, I love the &quot;threescore and ten&quot; but 70 - 80 years is a better translation).  While death is obviously the key facet of the human condition, it should be noted that in God's eyes, it too serves a purpose.  It both reflects God's wrath and punishment (as described in verses 7 - 9) and leads us to wisdom, as it forces us to use what we have wisely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Had Adam and Eve not eaten of either tree, I do not know if their bodies would have worn out.  Had they eaten of the Tree of Life, the implication seems to be that it would not have. But, as it is, we ate of knowledge, and we know good and evil. The serpent did not lie - our eyes were opened, and we became like God, in that we understood what was good and what was not.  With that knowledge, we understand that death is bad.  We are thus constantly reminded that with the power of this knowledge, we must choose to make the most of our earthly time and honor God therein.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Resurrection, if Paul is to be believed, we will see the fruits thereof. 1 Corinthians 15 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God created death, then in the final Resurrection, death is destroyed.  At that point, we would be in the same place we were in the Graden - nothing inherently capable of stopping our breath from our physical forms. We know we will be raised and given new incorruptable bodies - and clearly something would be needed to restore our essence to them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that essence (let's call it a soul) then immortal? Until eternity begins, its really a moot question.  Are those who are not resurrected annihilated? Again - separate question.  The point is back to the proof text given by your JW friend.  The soul is not the point of Genesis 3:22 - it is the breath, the spirit.  In short, your friend's argument, while interesting, is a non-sequitir. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We will die or else we will be caught up in the air with him.&#xA;We will be resurrected and we will know, even as we are known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, God did not mis-speak. The bodies he created for the present must not live forever. Whether or not their souls do rests on a completely different foundation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-08-19T22:41:27.777" LastActivityDate="2012-08-19T22:41:27.777" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9206" CreationDate="2012-08-20T00:21:33.917" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/john-darbys-synopsis-of-the-new-testament/acts/acts-19.html?p=2&quot;&gt;John Darbys Synopsis of the New Testament&lt;/a&gt;, these men were non-Christians, who attempted to use the name of Christ as a sort if magic word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only were they operating without the power of the Holy Spirit, their use was a mockery of Christ's Holy Name. As such, they would not have the power necessary to stand against demons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Certain Jews desired to avail themselves of it for their own&#xA;  self-interest; and devoid of faith, they use the name of &quot;Jesus whom&#xA;  Paul preached&quot; as though it had been a kind of charm. But the evil&#xA;  spirit, whose power was as true and real in its way as that of the&#xA;  Lord which he was forced to acknowledge when it was in exercise, knew&#xA;  very well that here it was not so, that there was neither faith nor&#xA;  power. &quot;Jesus I know,&quot; said he, &quot;and who Paul is I know; but who are&#xA;  ye?&quot; And the man who was possessed attacked and wounded them. Striking&#xA;  testimony to the action of the enemy, but at the same time to that&#xA;  superior force. to the reality of that intervention of God. which was&#xA;  carried into effect by means of Paul. Now, when God shews Himself,&#xA;  conscience always shews itself; and the power of the enemy over it is&#xA;  manifested and ceases. The Jews and Greeks are filled with fear, and&#xA;  many who became Christians brought the proofs of their sorceries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-08-20T00:37:48.010" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T00:37:48.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9186" CreationDate="2012-08-20T02:37:05.990" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may seem rude but as &lt;strong&gt;Biblical Theology as a label is a recent invention and those who willfully take that label are unknown compared to the greats of Christian history, there are none&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are just a few people within limited circles that feel Biblical Theology is the new way to better explain theology. They include such names as &lt;strong&gt;Geerhardus Vos who in some ways is the father of Biblical Theology. Graeme Goldsworthy who is possibly the modern spokesperson of the philosophy. Other names I have seen but have never read are Herman Ridderbos, Meredith and Vaughan Roberts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can tell this view is more popular among evangelical anglicans and specifically and proactively supported by Moore College, an evangelical anglican college in Australia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this I think Moore college is pretty good, compared to most. Also there is a lot about the term that carries very good and refined theological ideas. Its only weakness (in my view) is how it tries to argue that we should not really use the word 'new' in the New Testament and that the Laws of Moses were 'gracious'.  That said the good aspects of showing the 'gradual development and progressive and harmonious revelation' of Gods word are possibly better understood by reading Jonathan Edwards &lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-bhot/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;History of Redemption&lt;/a&gt;, or Alfred Edersheim's &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1776_edwards_history-redemption.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Bible History, Old Testament&lt;/a&gt;, both which show the natural progression of revelation with anointed skill. Although they predate the philosophy of Biblical Theology, to put this philosophy under the best possible terms we could say they are the unrecognized 'greats' of what Biblical theology claims as its modern and  noble aims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T02:37:05.990" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8564" CreationDate="2012-08-20T03:28:54.097" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a great deal of the problem is that much of modern day &quot;Christianity&quot; is content to live without hearing the voice of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Fellowship with Christians vs Fellowship with Christ&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:36-40&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?&#xA;  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.&#xA;  38 This is the first and great commandment.&#xA;  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.&#xA;  40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think Christ meant us to take Law1 + Law2, and take a weighted average of the two. I think it was meant as: First do Law1, then, within Law1, also do Law2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And thus, if we look at modern Christianity, people's contentment with fellowship (good thing), Sunday school (good thing), Christian community (good thing) -- it's very easy -- in pursuit of these good things, to put the love of the fellow Christian above the love of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often times, I wonder -- if there was a Church, that was more than a social club of people who claim to believe in Christ -- if there was a Church, whose sole focus in very meeting is to brutally and ruthlessly mine through the scriptures in a relentless pursuit to understand the nature of God -- what would that church look like?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Solitude&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think most modern &quot;Christians&quot; have nearly as much solitude as either the OT or NT greats that talked to God. Moses / Elijah each spent 40 days fasting (in solitude?) in pursuit of God. I don't think I've ever spent 4 days without internet access -- and definitely not 4 days without human contact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much like how we can't see the stars under the glare of the Sun, I doubt we can hear the whisper of God over the noise of every day life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Martyrdom&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the disciples in the NT who had direct experience with God were martyred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the OT prophets &lt;em&gt;went up against kings&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, much of modern day &quot;Christianity&quot; is about being tolerant -- and being nice, rather than declaring God's judgment on the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, we're not worthy of God talking to us, because we're wimps unwilling to be labeled intolerant / prudish / judgmental for the sake of the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T03:28:54.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8791" CreationDate="2012-08-20T03:38:38.107" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not all Christians claim that there is a reason for &quot;There must be a God&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quoting Tozer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Faith never goes contrary to reason; faith simply ignores reason and rises above it.&#xA;  Reason could not tell us that Jesus Christ should be born of the Virgin Mary, but faith knows he was. Reason cannot prove that jesus took upon Him the form of a man and died under the sins of the world, but faith knows that He did. Reason can not prove that the third day He rose from the dead, but faith knows that He did. Faith is an organ of knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fundamental rationalists say the human brain alone is an organ of knowledge. They forget there are at lest two other organs of knowledge. Feeling is an organ of knowledge, too. All the reasoning in the world couldn't tell you the temperature was 90 today. You felt that it was. I can stand heat like a lizard, but I've had enough of this. And I know it was hot today. I had an organ of knowledge today - feeling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A young man loves a young woman. How does he know it? Does he read the Encyclopedia Britannica and apply reason to it? No. He listens to the ticking of his own heart. He knows it by feeling. Feeling is an organ of knowledge. reason is an organ of knowledge and faith is an organ of knowledge. And we have to believe that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reason can not say, &quot;Jesus rose from the dead.&quot; Faith knows He did. Reason cannot say, &quot;He sits at the right hand of God Father Almighty.&quot; Reason doesn't know, but faith knows that he did. Reason cannot say, &quot;He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.&quot; But faith knows that He will come. Reason cannot say, &quot;My sins are all gone.&quot; But faith knows they're gone. So, all down the line, faith is an organ of knowledge. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T03:38:38.107" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9167" CreationDate="2012-08-20T05:07:09.140" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clearly this verse is saying, ‘we know ----‘ because ‘God foreknew, predestined, etc.’ Therefore, from a basic standpoint &lt;strong&gt;there is no controversy in this verse at all. It is simply saying that since an infinite powerful God has planned before time to bless us then nothing in this world, or in time, can properly harm us as we are destined to be rich in glory.&lt;/strong&gt;  Imagine an infinite God with bags of riches determined to hunt you down and give all of it to you. Would you not in some sense say then that those things in your life, good, or bad, are somehow working a final positive result in your eternal status?  Of course you would unless grossly misunderstanding the Bible along many fronts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All one has to do is look at some sample Bible Commentaries like these, and one will immediately find that most see this involving God’s power, good will, grace and sovereign control over the affairs of this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example from &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/romans/8-28.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt;, just looking at the first two already set the stage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All things - All our afflictions and trials; all the persecutions and calamities to which we are exposed. Though they are numerous and long-continued yet they are among the means that are appointed for our welfare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God's providence is working, his Spirit is working, and they are working Together with him. And whatever troubles, or afflictions, or persecutions may arise, God presses them into their service; and they make a part of the general working, and are caused to contribute to the general good of the person who now loves God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the question is not that God is doing this, but that how far can we say he is doing it, are there any exclusions or limits to this positive view of our own life which faith in God provides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For here we can simply let the scripture interpret itself. &lt;strong&gt;First&lt;/strong&gt; there is the implicit argument derived from this that whatever dangers we face, they can’t break this love we are are 'clutched by' as nothing can harm us but what God permits and at the sime time protects from destroying us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NIV Romans 8:38)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second&lt;/strong&gt; there is the positive aspect that if God is working everything out to our benefit then in a sense we have been made possessor of everything. What is the rich man but our servant? What is the great teacher but our servant? What is the government, the moon, the starts but things put into place to serve us in our entrance ito great riches and glory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future —all are yours (NIV 1 Corinthians 3:21-22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third&lt;/strong&gt; this wealth and comfort rest entirely in God as a Lord of the universe disposing all things in such a way as to execute a grand design, all planned before to the minutest detail before we were born. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (NIV Ephesians 1:11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether Calvinist or Arminian there is no reason to reject the comfort of this truth, however we explain God’s election it is something in conformity with his will which as we are bound under his love by grace can mean nothing but our good. Technically an Arminian can still believe in eternal security from this standpoint as God could simply ensure all who would reject their own faith, die before that happens since God is working out the time of their death to their benefit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fouth&lt;/strong&gt; without such a positive and hopeful view that faith in God alone can bring, how else would we ever begin to practice this verse?:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds (NIV 1 James 2:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see there are no doubts that all, means all without restriction.  The only reason why the question seemed doubtful is that I added a speculation about how winning a million dollars plays into this formula. However, this can neither be answered in the affirmative, or the negative, because we can’t pretend to fathom God’s sovereign will to such formulistic details. &lt;strong&gt;We can only have faith allowing his infinite wisdom to contain the answers on how he rules the world for our benefit and rejoice in that, knowing he is unstoppable, unmovable, unchangeable in his relentless will to bring us into everlasting glory ultimately unharmed by all the malice of the world, devil and sin.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How great is our God! Who can fathom it?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T05:07:09.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9192" CreationDate="2012-08-20T05:37:23.177" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason behind Young's rise to prominence is found in an understanding of the organization known as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Young's role in it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Young joined the church in 1832, 2 years after the church was organized and after the publication of the Book of Mormon, therefore he had no part in the initial roots of Mormonism. In 1834, Joseph Smith organized Zion's camp in Ohio as a military expedition to Missouri in order to fight persecution that the Mormons received there. The camp never actually engaged in any fighting, however there were many who defected and it allowed Smith to gauge who would be loyal to him even in hardship. Brigham Young was a member of this camp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1835 after the return of the expedition, Smith then organized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Most of the members of the the quorum were selected from those who were loyal in Zion's camp. Brigham Young was one of the first ordained and set apart to the quorum but did not have the designation of senior most apostle. As you mentioned many people were excommunicated from the church in those days. Though most of the quorum remained faithful, a few were excommunicated or killed, necessitating calling more people to the quorum. Young quickly became the senior most apostle of the quorum of the twelve. Thomas B. Marsh, who happened to be in the first presidency, was the senior most apostle before his excommunication in 1839. Young was subsequently set apart as president of the quorum in 1840 as a result of his new status as senior most apostle. He held this designation until Smith's death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brigham Young was not considered the second-in-charge to Smith. That was given to Smith's brother Hyrum who was ordained &quot;Assistant to the President of the Church&quot;. Following him, the other natural successors would seemingly be the members of the first presidency. Hyrum was killed along with Joseph, ruling out Hyrum's succession. The subsequent succession crisis ensued; would it be the senior most member of the first presidency, would it be the senior most member of the quorum of the twelve apostles, or was it to be Smith's posterity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several candidates for Smith's succession emerged, and all of them gained some followers. Young contended, using revelations recorded by Smith, that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a body held all the 'keys' of the priesthood that Smith held, and that the first presidency was dissolved upon Smith's death, and that the Quorum held authority equal to that of the first presidency. He was successful in convincing many of his rightful succession. Sidney Rigdon, Young's primary challenger, proposed that Smith have no successor and that he be named &quot;guardian&quot; of the church. The majority of church members rejected that motion. A few others believed that Smith's successor was to be Joseph Smith III (who was not even an adolescent at the time). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Young's personality was forceful, charismatic, and direct. His ability for quick decision making and well-articulated instruction allowed him to emerge as a natural leader following Smith's death. He organized the very difficult colonization of the Rocky Mountains: Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and others; he led the church through federal persecution for polygamous practices; he helped organize the difficult immigration of European Mormon converts to Utah. Under his leadership, vast irrigation projects, roads, bridges and even universities were established in Utah and surrounding areas. There is little doubt that he had the credentials to lead the church at that time. Young led the church for a time merely as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Most of the extant Quorum of the Twelve Apostles followed him and, with the belief that as a body they had the same authority as Joseph Smith, they eventually ordained Young as Smith's successor in 1847, giving him the same power, authority, and title that Joseph Smith had in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the largest LDS denomination and is headquartered in Utah, still follows the same succession practice. When the president of the church dies, the first presidency is dissolved and the senior most apostle is ordained to the office of &quot;Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.&quot; It is believed that the current president has the same power and authority that Joseph Smith had.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information from official sources, see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Zion%27s_Camp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Zion%27s_Camp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Young,_Brigham&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Young,_Brigham&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&amp;amp;chapid=436&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&amp;amp;chapid=436&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5216&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5216&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the Wikipedia articles covering these subjects, though somewhat disorganized, appear to be relatively accurate and present several other views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-11T20:48:14.400" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T20:48:14.400" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8564" CreationDate="2012-08-20T10:35:00.030" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You cannot force God to do your will. It is his will that should be done always. Remember Jesus told his disciples &quot;...this generation want a sign but a sign will not be given...&quot; It is the choice of God to give it not yours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I share your experience  too. Here it is: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was young, every first Sunday of the month we gather in church for Holy Spirit filling. We'll clap, sing and shout. Pastors would lay hands on us. I saw many received the Holy Spirit, Spoke in new tongues, received the gift of prophecy but nothing happened to me, for 7 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I got to University, I actually knew what being a christian was from being a religious person. So I started praying for the Holy Spirit again. I fasted. I read books. I attended seminars. I did night vigils. Nothing happened. So I told God one night that If I didn't receive the Holy Spirit today you won't be my God anymore. But I didn't receive the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot threaten God. That night I realised my foolishness that God will always be my God. I can't disown him. I continued praying for the Holy Spirit but in another dimension, no more threats. I was no more desperate. I relaxed knowing that God is more willing to give me. I begged God. I pleaded for mercy. I told him why I needed the Holy Spirit. I reminded him of his promises in the bible to fill me and to empower me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along the line a pastor told me his experience that he prayed for the Holy Spirit but he didn't know he had received this because he was looking for a specific sign&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't put God in a corner. It is not possible. He is more dynamic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I continued my life trying as much as possible to devote my life to God in praises, reading the word of God, my frequency of prayers. Then one night I had a dream I was walking on an empty street at night and I was speaking in tongue. That's it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To address your question, what do you want God to speak to you. If it is already in the bible I don't think God would want to repeat himself because he must have spoken through your pastors, your neighbours and more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 12:6&lt;/strong&gt; he said, &quot;Listen to my words: &quot;When a prophet of the LORD&#xA;  is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in&#xA;  dreams.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God needs to speak to you he would do. But the good news is that he has spoken to you and he is speaking to you even right now that you are reading this post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God speaks in divers way, obvious in the past but this day he speaks through his Son. This is not a the physical Jesus, but through his manifestation, the Holy Spirit in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrew 1:1-2&lt;/strong&gt; 1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the&#xA;  prophets at many times and in various ways,  2 but in these last days&#xA;  he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things,&#xA;  and through whom also he made the universe&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 16:13&lt;/strong&gt; But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you&#xA;  into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what&#xA;  he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe he does speak to you and you have not noticed. God speaks best in your quiet moment. So if you are a busy person, you might get less of God, but he still speaks in such situation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God speaks through his creations [stars, birds, sky, etc]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God speaks to sinners too.&lt;/strong&gt; The message of salvation is from God. If you are not sensitive to God's bidding, he sends people to you. &lt;strong&gt;The kings in the bible, most of them receive God's message through the prophets, not directly&lt;/strong&gt;. But Solomon was not like that. God also spoke to Nebucadnezzar through dreams. He spoke to Pharaoh through dreams.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where you are (your position in God and from God) determines how he speak to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is willing to talk to you. If you fits in his plan, he wants to discuss it with you. Tell you what you have to do exactly. &lt;strong&gt;God doesn't just talk. He talks to achieve a purpose.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is getting too much already, hope someone would be able to read this. &lt;a href=&quot;http://follow4biblestudy.com/2012/04/05/god-speaks-the-diverse-ways/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-09-01T04:22:55.783" LastActivityDate="2012-09-01T04:22:55.783" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9222" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-20T16:48:12.150" Score="10" ViewCount="2255" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard of different groups, typically technology-rejecting ones, being referred to as &quot;Amish&quot; or &quot;Mennonite&quot;. Is there a difference between those two terms? What do these groups believe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T00:53:39.940" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T00:53:39.940" Title="What is the difference between the Amish and Mennonites?" Tags="&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;amish&gt;&lt;mennonite&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9224" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9228" CreationDate="2012-08-20T16:54:53.373" Score="8" ViewCount="337" Body="&lt;p&gt;Were most of the initial founders of the North American colonies really dissident Christians fleeing religious persecution in Europe? I've heard it said a number of times, but I wondered if it is actually the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T07:26:47.707" Title="Christian founding of American colonies" Tags="&lt;persecution&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9222" CreationDate="2012-08-20T17:01:01.413" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Wikipedia, the Amish (aka Amish Mennonites) are a group that broke off from the Mennonites in Switzerland in 1693, led by Jakob Ammann, from which the name comes.&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite#Jacob_Amman_and_the_Amish_schisms&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Amish reject many modern technological advancements, Mennonites have a broader range of acceptance of such things.  Some Mennonites are quite similar to the Amish, while others accept all modern technology.  I had a friend in college who was Mennonite, and he drove a car, used computers and did everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish&quot;&gt;Amish reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T17:01:01.413" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8904" CreationDate="2012-08-20T18:13:06.283" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Note: The following is primarily a Bible based answer. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-timothy/3/#v55003016&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:16, 17&lt;/a&gt;) This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of your questions and points are very good. Some Christians accept a very simple, Bible based answer. You actually provided this answer within your own question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In my little knowledge, I believe any form of punishment is a way of&#xA;  curbing crimes or wrong doings and for others to learn not to do&#xA;  wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a good point. I don't know if those are the only reasons for God to &quot;punish&quot; someone, but it would certainly need to serve some purpose, for he does not take delight in bringing harm to others. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/ezekiel/18/#v26018023&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 18:23&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My question is why should there be punishment forever since there is&#xA;  no one to learn from these people any more and they cannot even&#xA;  repent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a good question. On top of that, God would certainly not violate justice. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/deuteronomy/32/#v5032004&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 32:4&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/leviticus/24/#v3024019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leviticus 24:19, 20&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why not just annihilate them and be remembered no more?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a good question, and is the answer I am referring to. All your other questions and points point toward this answer: When necessary, God simply takes away the gift of life that he gave. Isn't that the most reasonable course of action?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God stated that as a result of Adam's sin, he would simply return to the dust from which he was made. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/3/#v1003017&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:17-19&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/2/#v1002007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:7&lt;/a&gt;) God did not say that Adam would go to hell or even that he would survive as a spirit. Think about this: Where was Adam before he was created? Since he did not exist yet, nowhere. At death, even our consciousness ceases to exist. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/ecclesiastes/9/#v21009004&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 9:4-6&lt;/a&gt;) Even Jesus compared death to sleep. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/11/#v43011011&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 11:11-14&lt;/a&gt;) When Jesus was on the earth, no man had ascended to heaven yet. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/3/#v43003013&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:13&lt;/a&gt;) The point is that you cannot be in hell or feel pain if you do not exist. That is not to say that there is no hope for the dead, for the scriptures do speak of a resurrection (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/24/#v44024015&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 24:15&lt;/a&gt;). Some hope to have a heavenly resurrection, and some an earthly one. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/5/#v40005003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:3, 5&lt;/a&gt;) A few will be resurrected as spirit creatures to serve in a specific position in heaven. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/5/#v66005009&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 5:9,10&lt;/a&gt;) Most however, will live on the earth again under enjoyable conditions (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/37/#v19037011&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalms 37:11, 29&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/21/#v66021003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:3,4&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point you may be thinking, &quot;Doesn't the Bible speak about people going to hell?&quot; Some translations render certain words as Hell, while others at times just transliterate the letters as Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna. Sheol and Hades refer to the common grave of mankind, from which a resurrection will at some point come. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/job/14/#v18014013&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 14:13&lt;/a&gt;, Job wants to be protected in Sheol. Would he want this if Sheol was a place of eternal punishment? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/2/#v44002025&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:25-27&lt;/a&gt; indicates that Jesus was in Hades for a time, but that God did not leave him there. Surely Jesus did not go to hell when he died. Also in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/2/#v44002027&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:27&lt;/a&gt;, Peter's quotation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/16/#v19016010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 16:10&lt;/a&gt; show Hades is the equivalent of Sheol. Gehenna is the Valley of Hinnom which existed outside the walls of Jerusalem. It is the Greek form of the Hebrew &lt;em&gt;ge hinnom&lt;/em&gt;. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/joshua/18/#v6018016&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joshua 18:16&lt;/a&gt; where &quot;valley of Hinnom&quot; occurs, the Greek Septuagint reads &quot;Gehenna&quot;. Judean Kings Ahaz and Manasseh engaged in idolatrous worship there. This included the making of human sacrifices by fire to Baal, which practice God considered detestable. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-chronicles/28/#v14028001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Chronicles 28:1, 3&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-chronicles/33/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;33:1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-chronicles/33/#v14033006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;6&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/jeremiah/7/#v24007031&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 7:31, 32&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/jeremiah/32/#v24032035&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;32:35&lt;/a&gt;) Later, in the first century Gehenna was being used as the incinerator for the filth of Jerusalem. Bodies of dead animals were thrown into the valley to be consumed in the fires. Bodies of executed criminals who were considered undeserving of burial in a memorial tomb were thrown into Gehenna. No living humans or animals were burned or tortured in Gehenna. So rather than symbolizing a place of eternal torment, Jesus and his disciples used Gehenna to symbolize everlasting destruction. This is in harmony with the criminals being denied burial in a memorial tomb, the symbol of the hope of the resurrection. What would be the point of resurrecting someone if they have already proven they will not repent of their sinful ways?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would you ever punish your child by burning their hand over a stove, even for a few seconds? Would using such a thing on a larger scale ever come into God's heart? (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/jeremiah/7/#v24007031&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 7:31&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-john/4/#v62004008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-hell/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What Is Hell? Is It a Place of Eternal Torment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101995250&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hellfire—Is It Part of Divine Justice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2014-05-01T04:44:37.953" LastActivityDate="2014-05-01T04:44:37.953" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9224" CreationDate="2012-08-20T18:21:23.603" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on the colony -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maryland#Colonial_Maryland&quot;&gt;Maryland&lt;/a&gt; was most assuredly a refuge for Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pennsylvania#British_colonial_period&quot;&gt;Pennsylvania&lt;/a&gt; was explicitly for Quakers under William Penn.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact&quot;&gt;Massachusetts&lt;/a&gt; was founded by Puritans &amp;amp; Baptists who had already escaped once to Holland. The Mayflower Compact (linked above) was an explicitly religious document signed by members of a wayward sect who trying to get to Virginia, but couldn't navigate...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rhode_Island#Rhode_Island_Colony_period%3a_1636.E2.80.931776&quot;&gt;Rhode Island&lt;/a&gt; was founded by Roger Williams, escaping persecution in Massachusetts (drum roll please!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_York#British_colonial_period&quot;&gt;New York&lt;/a&gt; was all about money from the get-go.  The Dutch didn't really do the religious persecution thing that much.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Georgia_%28U.S._state%29#British_colony&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/a&gt; was basically a debtor's prison.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;My own native &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_of_Virginia#Virginia_Company_.281606-1624.29&quot;&gt;Virginia&lt;/a&gt; was all about tobacco. Read John Smith's biography if you don't believe me.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generically, historians have posited there are two influences in American development - God and Mammon.  God is a more northerly thing, and the explanation goes that is the reason the Northeast tends to be more &quot;socialistic&quot; or paternal in its governance.  By contrast, the South was a more money-based thing, in which laisez-faire economics would be more valued - hence Texas' reputation as the reddest of the red states, and Massachusetts' as a blustery blue*.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Spanish influence ostensibly mixed both Religion and Money - but in no event was it the persecuted fleeing Europe. Rather, it was the establishment church in much of the West and in Florida that at least came along for the ride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A decent primer on this is &quot;How the States Got Their Shapes,&quot; an amazing &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0061431389&quot;&gt;book&lt;/a&gt; and an okay &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-shapes&quot;&gt;TV Show&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, short answer - depends on where you're talking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now for the obligatory hand-grenade: (Meaning, I'm being a bit tounge-in-cheek here)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*Personally, I've always thought these colors were backwards, as I used to think of Massachusetts as a pinko-communist sort of place...&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-08-20T20:20:08.237" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T20:20:08.237" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9202" CreationDate="2012-08-21T02:00:27.047" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The ‘rite’ which the Baptism of John  used was not new at all, or limited to sects, but was, based on Old Testament teaching and mainstream rabbinic tradition, however, John used it in an entirely different way.&lt;/strong&gt; The rite, in the way John used it, fully mirrored his preaching, one of repentance.&#xA; &#xA;In the Old Testament those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to ‘immerse’ before offering sacrifice. The symbol goes as far back as Moses, leading Israel through the waters of the Red Sea before the Law was even given. In the Law, for example if anyone touches an unclean bed because a man had a discharge on that bed, they must ‘wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.’ (Leviticus 15:5). There were many such ritualistic cleanings through bathing and these became formal in various ways of immersion under the guidance and administration of priests. It was not called Baptism in the Old Testament though outwardly they are the same thing.&lt;br&gt;&#xA; &#xA;According to the famous evangelical historian and Jew, ‘Alfred Edershem’, who taught Jewish history in the University of Oxford, that Gentiles who became ‘proselytes of righteousness,’ or ‘proselytes of the covenant’ were to be admitted to ‘full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice - the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness.’. &#xA; &#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Therefore, although it had never before been proposed that Israel should undergo a ‘baptism of repentance,’ like the Gentiles, John was using an existing rite in a dramatic way to ensure the way was clear for Messiah, by repentance and readiness for the gospel of forgiveness.&lt;/strong&gt; It was only in preparation of Messiah, as a forerunner should be. Even the righteous under this baptism must consider themselves as Gentiles at this most historic transition from law to gospel.&lt;br&gt;&#xA; &#xA;There was some debate whether this full immersion Baptism, used to convert Gentiles, ‘predated Christ’ but Alfred Edersheim provides ample proof in his appendix on the subject, in the book '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worthychristianlibrary.com/books/alfred-edersheim/the-life-and-times-of-jesus-the-messiah/&quot;&gt;The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah&lt;/a&gt;'- Appendix XII. He quotes that &lt;strong&gt;the subject was actually debated by Hillel and Shammai (the great competing schools of traditionalism at the time of Christ). Shammai allowed proselytes to partake Passover ‘after baptism’ but Hillel forbid it.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T02:00:27.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9199" CreationDate="2012-08-21T05:19:11.987" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sometimes it is best to see a theologian in action to determine their view and attitude about inerrancy. There is a classical error in most of our Bibles in Matthew 27:9 where Matthew means to quote Zechariah 11:13 concerning the 'thirty pieces of silver' but it says ‘Jeremiah’.&lt;/strong&gt;  I have glanced at a few modern explanations about this and it seems sufficiently resolved under several theories, one of which the original did not have the prophets name and the error creped in by a copyist mistake. The Syriac version, for example reads only, It was spoken by the prophet, not naming any.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alright but how would Calvin and Luther approach this when maybe this kind of explanation was not readily available?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here is what Calvin said:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How the name of Jeremiah crept in, &lt;strong&gt;I confess that I do not know nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire.&lt;/strong&gt; The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of Zechariah, ( 11:13 ;) for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor any thing that even approaches to it.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc33/cc33037.htm&quot;&gt;Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 33: Matthew, Mark and Luke&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is what Luther said:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jerome brings up the question why the evangelist Matthew cited this testimony as being from Jeremiah when it never appears in Jeremiah but in this prophet, Zechariah. Briefly, I have this to answer: the evangelists do not generally cite testimonies from the prophets word for word. They merely bring out the sense. This is what Matthew also does in the passage we mentioned above in chapter 9:9, where the prophet said: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem.” Matthew cites this as follows (Matt. 21:5): “As it is written, tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your King is coming to you, etc.” Here, clearly, the words are different. Yet nothing of the sense has been changed. Then, too, Matthew added (Matt. 27:9) “by the children of Israel,” which does not occur in the prophet This Matthew obviously did to explain that buying and selling and to warn that the children of Isarel were responsible for it. As to the fact that He cites the testimony as coming from Jeremiah, I have nothing else to respond than this common answer, that the prophet perhaps had two names or that in the custom of other evangelists, too, Matthew was quoting generally, without any concern for the name of the prophet. Augustine (q. v.) discusses this passage carefully, would not readily believe that the names of the books of the prophets were exchanged because of changed tittles. Then, too, there undoubtedly were with Matthew saintly and learned men, filled with the Spirit, who advised him that the Scripture which he cited was in Zechariah, not in Jeremiah. Admonished by their advice, he could have corrected that slight error, had he wished or had he thought it important. &lt;strong&gt;But there is no reason for us to bother ourselves with these and similar difficulties.&lt;/strong&gt; After all, the life and sum of our faith do not lie in them. Those people who labor over nonessential matters of this sort are more than mad. Yet this is one thing which the prophets of our day try to do when they read Scriptures for the purpose of searching out texts like this which they can use as the handle and material of debate and controversy. In the meantime, they neglect the lifeblood of religion, when they ought to be performing this one duty especially—teaching a ruling Christ, This is something all the apostles do with unanimous agreement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: The reformers certainly believed in the inerrancy of scripture (as they usually make effort to resolve apparent contradictions) but they did not feel the need to resolve every little minute detail and fact and actually did not seem overly bothered if a small fact, unrelated to anything, was wrong.&lt;/strong&gt;  They seemed less obsessed about small unrelated facts compared to us.  They did not seem to put their hands over the ears like Edward Much's famous painting 'scream' and think, ‘If we allow one mistake then who is to say that all is not a mistake, Oh boy, worry me, the sky is falling, what shall we ever do?’  I am not saying there are any mistakes in the original text, but I do wonder at times whether it matters. I think we could learn from the attitude of the reformers a bit on this one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-21T08:59:29.057" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T08:59:29.057" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9233" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9234" CreationDate="2012-08-21T05:29:32.657" Score="3" ViewCount="1226" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are all the references to the instances where where Jesus is offered worship in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am raising this question because some of my friends from some specific denomintations believe only Jehavah as the only God. Quoting references where Jesus is being worshipped in the Bible can help me prove that Jesus is God and will help me partially in explaining trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastActivityDate="2019-01-12T16:33:49.037" Title="All the references where Jesus is offered worship" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9233" CreationDate="2012-08-21T06:41:14.363" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all - Jesus Christ is Jehovah. He states about him &quot;I am&quot; and when He pronouces it it makes his captors fall to the ground. So the name of God &quot;I am&quot; is the name of Jesus, not only of Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least two fragments I can come up with now:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; (Philippians 2, 10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last (Revelation 1, 17, note that unlike angel from the same book, Christ doesn't forbid falling at His feet)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T06:41:14.363" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9224" CreationDate="2012-08-21T07:26:47.707" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think any serious, honest historian would deny that people seeking religious freedom were an important component of the early settlers. Whether they were &quot;most&quot; is probably unanswerable. I don't think anyone took a survey at the time asking, &quot;Are you coming here for religious reasons?&quot; so they could then carefully tabulate 52% yes, 48% no or whatever. Even if someone had, many settlers likely had multiple reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Christopher Columbus said he was going to America to bring the Gospel to the Indians, and also to find a better trade route to the Indies. He negotiated with the king for a percentage of any money made from trade routes he established, and he worked to bring missionaries. (I'm not saying that Columbus was a dissident, he's just a prominent example of someone with multiple motives.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's nothing odd about this. Suppose someone asked you why you took you present job. You likely have many reasons: salary, benefits, working conditions, interesting work, opportunities for advancement, convenient commute, etc etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, you specifically say &quot;dissidents&quot;. Many early settlers were comitted Christians, but not particularly dissidents. Many settlers of South America in particular were committed Catholics, at a time when their government fully supported Catholicism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T07:26:47.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9206" CreationDate="2012-08-21T07:41:08.727" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't really see a discrepancy here. On these two occassions the Bible describes someone attempting to cast out a demon. In one case the person succeeded and in the other case the person failed. There could be any number of reasons why they had different outcomes. Exactly what does it take to successfully cast out a demon? I don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told his followers to preach the Gospel, and the Bible discusses many times that people did this. Sometimes those they were preaching to were converted, sometimes they were not. Is this a discrepancy? No, it's just different outcomes in a complex situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament describes many times that kings of Israel went to war. Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost. Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T07:41:08.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9237" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9243" CreationDate="2012-08-21T09:10:42.020" Score="7" ViewCount="492" Body="&lt;p&gt;From time to time while reading fiction or poetry or whatever I stumble on a certain kind of, so to say, 'satire' of the Paradise the main point of which is that the everlasting live would be meaningless and boring.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For example &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) we would pursue the same pleasures again and again and this would lead to a comic effect. (see Julian Barnes 'The History of the World in 9 1/2 Chapters')&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) other people in Paradise may tend to alienate a certain person, as well, as angels may tend to look down upon ordinary people and thus suffering would not end. (See Tiger Lillies  'Heaven to Hell' song from 'Brothel to the Cemetary' album)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c) We can be separated with our closest relatives as they can be sent to Hell instead (see Mark Twain 'Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven')&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I object?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T21:42:23.630" Title="How should a Christian object to those who say Paradise may be a little boring?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9237" CreationDate="2012-08-21T09:22:43.710" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is that those authors do not understand heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of heaven is worshipping God. [Biblical Belief]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if heaven lost all its angels, even if heaven lost all the elect, so long as God is there, heaven will be heaven. [Personal belief.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can that be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the most exciting biography you've ever read; consider the most fascinating interview you've ever watched. Consider how you were completely drawn into the other person's life and were simply in awe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worshipping God is an infinitely greater version of that. What is greater? (1) re-watching the Bulls two three-peat runs, (2) reading about Alexander's military conquests or (3) listening to God talk about the flood in the times of Noah, the 10 plagues in the time of Moses, the fire from haven in the days of Elijah, and all the hidden battles fought between the angels we haven't even heard of?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would be more fascinating? (1) understanding the internals of an F22 jet, (2) comprehending the balance of nature or (3) listening to God talk about how he created the universe in a week?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What will be more heart moving? (1) the &quot;love&quot; of Twilight, (2) the &quot;love&quot; of Romeo / Juliet, or (3) the love of all the unseen things Christ endured on the cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who fail to understand heaven often (1) judge heaven from the perspective of human opinion, whereas (2) to understand the glory of heaven, we must first seek to understand the attributes of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;References:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happened on the cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/resources/ebooks/76-the-cross-of-christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/resources/ebooks/76-the-cross-of-christ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/resources/ebooks/78-the-meaning-of-the-cross&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/resources/ebooks/78-the-meaning-of-the-cross&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QbWYFsI2G8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QbWYFsI2G8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1694" LastEditorDisplayName="user1694" LastEditDate="2012-08-21T11:57:07.497" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T11:57:07.497" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9239" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9314" CreationDate="2012-08-21T10:00:23.737" Score="9" ViewCount="7055" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on the biblical doctrines, is it possible to achieve a completely holy life without any sin during our lifetime after salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastEditorUserId="2038" LastEditDate="2012-08-23T01:02:20.040" LastActivityDate="2015-01-03T19:07:27.770" Title="Is it possible to achieve a life without sin on earth?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:21:21.990" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9239" CreationDate="2012-08-21T10:31:06.730" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible states that human are born sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51.5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. (Romans 3.10-12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But John Wesley wrote a book  named A Plain Account of Christian Perfection &lt;a href=&quot;http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/wesley/perfection.stm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(short explanation of the book)&lt;/a&gt;. The book is still debated to this day. I do not know any other christian or evangelical demonination that would argue in favor of perfection this side of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T17:50:55.723" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9237" CreationDate="2012-08-21T10:38:08.463" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Saint Paul stated this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, as it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“What no eye has seen,&#xA;      what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”[a]—&#xA;      the things God has prepared for those who love him—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1 Corinthians 2, 9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) So if someone tries to picture the state of Heaven with wordly terms, he would certainly create some caricature. This state is not just pursuing pleasures it is being filled with love of God, who is infinite. We can't get bored of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) If God came down from Heaven and became man, how can anyone &quot;look down&quot; upon another. This is satanic pride. Christ, the saints and angels are full of compassion and love for us. Even if they achieved more than us, they will never &quot;look down&quot;, because they are free from pride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c) This is the hardest of the problems for me, but you must note, that God loves people much more that you. So you can't be more merciful for sinners than He is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T10:38:08.463" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9242" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9245" CreationDate="2012-08-21T10:59:15.497" Score="9" ViewCount="13793" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between baptism of the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit (or being filled with the Holy Spirit)? Do these two mean the same? I am open to the different views given by the denominations that exist today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastEditorUserId="1962" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T18:08:24.933" LastActivityDate="2016-04-06T23:13:57.773" Title="What is the difference between baptism of the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-04-07T18:44:38.543" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9237" CreationDate="2012-08-21T12:34:43.203" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we could envision exactly what Heaven is going to be like, it wouldn't be Heaven, just as if we could comprehend God, He wouldn't be God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as man should not create (in their own minds) a God made in their image, but understand that man was made in God's image.  So too we must not make Heaven in the image of the earth, but understand that earth reflects in part the image of Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we think of playing a harp on a cloud in heaven and singing for eternity, I admit that it doesn't really sound like heaven--even though I love to sing and I think harps are really awesome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me address your three points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) experience the same pleasures over and over again:  This is an earthly perspective.  There is no indication that we will be bound to pleasures that will lose their impact and result in boredom.  Rather, God being God certainly would have the capacity to give us eternal joy.  &lt;em&gt;In fact, if God is infinite, it will take an eternity to get to know Him fully.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) Looking down on others in Heaven:  Angels certainly have a special place in Heaven, having never known sin.  However, we have a special place as well, for we are the only ones for whom God the Son died.  God never became an angel, but He did become a man.  God's glory will be sufficiently wonderful to drown out all sin.  There will be no jealousy as we will all be overflowing with joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c) Separation from people we love:  Wherever you go in the world, it becomes evident that we were created for relationships.  However, we were not ultimately created for relationships just with each other, but for the ultimate relationship with the Ultimate Being.  So, our relationships with others are only shadows of the greater relationship we will experience.  Our joy of union with God will be far greater than all other unions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God created us for Himself, and He will not merely satisfy us, but will give us abundant joy for eternity.&lt;/strong&gt;  God is infinitely able to do immeasurably more than we ask or imagine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-23T21:42:23.630" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T21:42:23.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9237" CreationDate="2012-08-21T13:43:53.980" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know it's trite &amp;mdash; and I don't believe at all that heaven will be boring &amp;mdash; but even if it is &quot;boring&quot;, that sure beats the alternative. Indifference isn't an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, though, I'd like to see people motivated out of love, rather than fear. Find something for them to work towards, rather than run from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-08-21T15:11:01.813" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T15:11:01.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9242" CreationDate="2012-08-21T14:16:20.143" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Note:  The answers here will really depend on your doctrinal perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;baptism&lt;/em&gt; is not a translation from the Greek, but a transliteration.  The word was used when describing the dying of fabrics.  The fabric was plunged into the dye and then changed forever as the dye stayed with the fabric.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, baptism of the Holy Spirit seems to either refer to us being plunged into the Spirit or the Spirit being plunged into us.  Receiving the Holy Spirit, then, would seem to be pretty similar, or perhaps the result of baptism by the Holy Spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps we could say that in baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T14:16:20.143" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9246" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9296" CreationDate="2012-08-21T17:45:15.483" Score="23" ViewCount="7297" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two&#xA;  pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the&#xA;  bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. &lt;strong&gt;52 The graves&#xA;  opened, and many of God’s people who had died were raised from death.&#xA;  53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death,&#xA;  they went into the holy city, and many people saw them.&lt;/strong&gt; -Matthew 27:51&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from Jesus healing people, this appears to me as the biggest supernatural event in the Gospel: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Other people&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;rising from the dead&lt;/em&gt;, out of graves!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is only 1 line given to this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any more details about what happened here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T00:56:03.863" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T00:56:03.863" Title="Where can I find out more about other people rising from the dead, when Jesus died on the Cross?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9237" CreationDate="2012-08-21T18:11:41.217" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We were created to be in a relationship with God, and that will not be boring.  It will be more real and exciting than amything in this life.  When John described heaven, in the book of Revelation, he didn't have the words to describe it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it was someone who asked Billy Graham if his pet dog would be in heaven.  He said, that if his pet was necessary for his happiness, it would be there, but he suspected that the glory of God would eclipse that desire for a pet.  (I should find that exact quote and reference.  Here it is: “God will prepare everything for our perfect happiness in heaven, and if it takes my dog being there, I believe he'll be there”  (Googled &quot;Billy Graham quotes about dogs&quot;))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for depictions of heaven in literature, I recommend &quot;The Great Divorce&quot; by CS Lewis.  It has a picture of both hell and heaven, and hell is boring and unsatisfactory, heaven is exciting and real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastEditorUserId="841" LastEditDate="2012-08-21T20:34:33.510" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T20:34:33.510" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9248" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9249" CreationDate="2012-08-21T18:16:29.243" Score="14" ViewCount="11452" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see some Christian education institutions refer to themselves as &quot;Bible College&quot; and some as &quot;Seminary&quot; and some as &quot;Bible College and Seminary&quot;. What is the difference between those, if any?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-02-05T21:10:01.560" LastActivityDate="2017-11-26T01:56:39.973" Title="What is the difference between a Bible College and a Seminary?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;religious-education&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9248" CreationDate="2012-08-21T18:33:15.630" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the US, a &lt;strong&gt;Bible college&lt;/strong&gt; is typically a 2 year or 4 year school that specializes in Christian undergraduate education. (typically with programs like Biblical Studies, youth ministry, things like that, rather than traditional math/science/teaching programs you'd find at say a Christian liberal arts school)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;seminary&lt;/strong&gt; is typically a graduate school that specializes in training people for the ministry (pastorate, counseling etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A school that advertised as both may offer a double degree or cater to people seeking either a four year degree in something bible related, or people heading into the ministry. Doing both is good synergy and they may be able to save a pastor some time (get under grad and seminary done in 5 years instead of 6 or something).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-08-12T23:49:47.743" LastActivityDate="2014-08-12T23:49:47.743" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9250" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9254" CreationDate="2012-08-21T18:40:11.047" Score="7" ViewCount="497" Body="&lt;p&gt;I borrowed (with permission) &lt;a href=&quot;https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2278/how-do-we-make-sure-that-we-are-on-the-rightful-religion-path&quot;&gt;a question from Ahmed Han&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;People of every religion claim that they are the ones in the right&#xA;  path. Even the people of sects in these religions think that they are&#xA;  on a better path than the peoples of other sects are on. How come&#xA;  could they be so sure?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As a Muslim, how can I be sure that my religion or sect/madhab/path is&#xA;  the rightful one? How can I be sure that there isn't any other&#xA;  religion sent by Allah which is better than Islam, but it is wrongly&#xA;  advertised so that I think that it is wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Change some words and we get:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People of every religion claim that they are the ones in the right path. Even the people of sects in these religions think that they are on a better path than the peoples of other sects are on. How come could they be so sure?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, how can I be sure that my religion or denomination/path is the rightful one? How can I be sure that there isn't any other religion sent by God which is better than Christianity, but it is wrongly advertised so that I think that it is wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:49:09.287" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T09:56:18.913" Title="How do we make sure that we are on the rightful religion/path?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-08-22T18:14:53.697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="720" CreationDate="2012-08-21T18:58:52.243" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am stuggling with this too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This feeling is natural. God created you with this drive. Here the Theology of the Body helped me too.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learn to accept this feeling, channel it towards productive things.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You do not have to &lt;strong&gt;act&lt;/strong&gt; on those &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Corinthians%2010:5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thoughts (2. Cor 10:5)&lt;/a&gt;. They are just there. You &lt;strong&gt;think&lt;/strong&gt; you have to, but God gives you a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Timothy%201:7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;spirit of power (2. Tim 1:7)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Just try not to get distracted/bow under those thoughts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do not trust in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Proverbs%203:5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;your own power (Prov 3:5)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are in a tempting situation then &lt;strong&gt;literally flee&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1429" LastActivityDate="2012-08-21T18:58:52.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9237" CreationDate="2012-08-22T01:37:44.337" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One other thing no one has mentioned so far is that its not just heaven, but a &lt;strong&gt;new heavens and new earth&lt;/strong&gt; (Rev 21:1,2).  Not only will we have a relationship with God to pursue but we will have a creation unstained by the corruption of the fall.  We will also have all the human intuition and wisdom that we can muster to improve upon and explore that second creation (assuming, of course, that God intends us to work &amp;amp; subdue in the second creation as he intended us to work in the first).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most importantly, we will do all of this with pure holiness, in a place where there isn't even the temptation to sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I, for one, am looking very forward to it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2044" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T01:37:44.337" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9250" CreationDate="2012-08-22T02:00:12.270" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yah, I think this is going to be a rather subjective question, but I will take a brief stab at it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the answer to this question comes down to the doctrine of sin.  If you accept the notion of a conscience, then I believe every honest person will admit to doing things they know they shouldn't (i.e. that are against their conscience).  Furthermore, I believe they will also admit that there are things they do wrong over and over again, even though they wish they would stop doing it.  If they won't admit this about their own life, surely they can look out at others and see this at play.  Just drop by your nearest AA meeting or youth counseling office.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they are willing to look to religion to explain this phenomenon, the biblical doctrine of sin is amazingly accurate and powerful in describing this human experience.  Once the doctrine of sin is understood and accepted, it seems natural to look to the Bible for explanations to related doctrines such as corruption and death.  That, naturally should lead you to the doctrine of hell, damnation, and ultimately salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, I know that was quick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, now the obligatory: you can never know &lt;strong&gt;for sure&lt;/strong&gt; like you can be sure that your car battery is dead.  God didn't design it to work like that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We live by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone can kick and scream and complain about the injustice and lack of intellectual honesty in that position (if they are so inclined), but if we are going to be people of Christ, we must be people of His Word and it says we must live by faith in this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people argue that seeing is believing.  What they don't realize is that many people saw the works of Christ and rejected him anyway.  Even some of his disciples saw him after the resurrection and they &lt;strong&gt;doubted&lt;/strong&gt; instead of worshiping him (Matt 28:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are concerned about the authenticity of Christianity, here is my advice: seriously study it, with a humble and prayerful attitude, asking God to give you clarity of understanding and faith.  Hopefully, we will then be able to say with Peter to Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God. (John 6:68,69)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, if you doubt, take your doubt to the Lord.  Be honest with Him about it and ask him to give you faith.  You will not be disappointed if you seek him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him (Heb 11:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2044" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T02:00:12.270" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9250" CreationDate="2012-08-22T03:11:05.907" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the edgy part of this question is that it kind of revolves around the sometimes-sensitive-topic of Christian denominations. So if that is troubling to some, I've tried to make this answer apply more generally, to the question actually contained in the title:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do we make sure that we are on the correct path?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;(simplified slightly by yours truly)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's go to James:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all&#xA;  men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is&#xA;  like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;mdash; James 1:5-6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we ask God in faith, we won't waver with uncertainty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T03:11:05.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9250" CreationDate="2012-08-22T04:11:36.603" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It may not be obvious but this question is the same as &lt;strong&gt;“How do we know Jesus is true and not a liar, or confused?’&lt;/strong&gt; The exclusiveness of Christ’s claims, as noticed by any Bible reader, make him either the proverbial ‘liar/blasphemer, lunatic or the only Christ’.  &lt;strong&gt;If he is the Christ then he is the only Christ, only ultimate prophet, only ultimate way, only God, only ultimate truth:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (NIV John 14:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Standing from a point of unbelief the question is much different and as an outsider to faith the answer would be that we certainly do not know and can not know while we remain in darkness. From the standpoint of faith in Christ, however, the Bible affirms that we can know. Luke wrote his gospel partially ‘so that you &lt;strong&gt;may know the certainty of the things&lt;/strong&gt;’ we have been taught.(NIV Luke 1:4). Jesus also confirmed that we might know. To those who accused Jesus as the liar and blasphemer Jesus said:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you &lt;strong&gt;may know and understand&lt;/strong&gt; that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. (NIV John 10:37-38).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John was concerned that people know with certainty the things Christians believe so he wrote 1 John partly to help people discern all the liars about that tried to twist the faith to arrive at some other truth, rather then the Christian one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true.  And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.(NIV 1 John 5:20)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All other religions reject the claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah who atoned for the sin of the world, calling him a liar or a lunatic. Even within the title of Christianity others say one needs to believe in somebody else other than Jesus only, to be a ‘true’ believer, such as brother Joe or Brother Bob. However the Apostle Paul even refuses himself or angels from interfering with Christ’s exclusive claims:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! (NIV Galatians 1:8)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We can know for certain if we are a Christian living in the light, but if we are not then we know nothing spiritually speaking and certainty is only a dream as we walk around in darkness, lying to one another and hating one another.  (1 John 1:6, 2:9, 2:11, Titus 3:3).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as denominations go that's a side issue to the real question. It simply does not matter in knowing 'the truth' or not knowing 'the truth'. This is because the Truth is a person, Jesus Christ. Therefore, so long as our faith is in the only High Prophet, High Priest, Messiah and Lord, who is Jesus Christ, and that such faith is placed solely in Christ's work on the cross for the forgives of our sins, we can certainly know the truth as the Bible declares.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-04T09:56:18.913" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T09:56:18.913" CommentCount="19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2012-08-22T04:45:18.030" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the other three gospels are silent on this topic and it is not mentioned elsewhere in the NT (that I am aware of and I did some research before posting), I think the honest answer to this question is simply: nowhere.  At least, not in this life.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The MacArthur Study Bible says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew alone mentions this miracle.  Nothing more is said about these people...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the ESV Study Bible says, among other things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No other historical information about this event has been found...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both sources do comment further, but IMO its reasoned conjecture and not really that helpful in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2044" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T04:45:18.030" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9185" CreationDate="2012-08-22T05:15:42.117" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genghis Khan was the founder and emperor of the Mongol Empire around the year 1200. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Montecorvino&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John of Montecorvino&lt;/a&gt; (1247–1328) an Italian Franciscan missionary was said to be possibly the first person to translate the New Testament and Psalms into &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Mongolian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mongolian&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore we can basically assume the New Testament was the Catholic New Testament (which is the same as the Protestant one):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John&lt;br&gt;&#xA;-The Acts of the Apostles&lt;br&gt;&#xA;-The Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon&lt;br&gt;&#xA;-The Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude&lt;br&gt;&#xA;-Revelation  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since poor Genghis died around 1227, he probably never got a chance to read it himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet the Catholic history does not reach the full answer because &lt;strong&gt;although Catholic missionaries may have been the first to translate a full New Testament into Mongolian, there were not the first Christian missionaries into the region.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Mongolia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nestorianism was the first form of Christianity to be proselytized among the Mongols, in the 7th century, and several Mongol tribes became primarily Christian. During the rise of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century, the Great Khans, though mostly Shamanists and Buddhist, were religiously tolerant towards the Nestorian Christians, Muslims, and Manichaeans. Many of the khans had Nestorian Christian wives from the Kerait clan, who were extremely influential in the Mongol court. During the rule of Mongke Khan, Christianity was the primary religious influence. After the breakup of the Mongol Empire in the 14th century, Nestorian Christianity nearly disappeared from the region.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nestorianism was an Eastern sect considered by the West as Heresy for its unique view of the nature of Christ as being two distinct persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.partialobserver.com/davinci/essay.cfm?dvcid=24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;the Nestorian Canon &quot;excludes the New Testament books of Revelation, Jude, Second John, Third John and Second Peter&lt;/strong&gt;, because the use of those books was not attested in the churches of Persia early enough to have been woven into the canonical tradition. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-23T01:08:13.610" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T01:08:13.610" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9259" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-22T08:21:42.123" Score="4" ViewCount="213" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the salvation of a believer depend on the present state of her faith or are the different life transitions taken into account?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose a believer leads a life of faith in Christ. At the end of her life she falls away for some reason, say persecution. Is she saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are verses that seem to support both. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only the end matters – &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt 24:13   But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be&#xA;  saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The life matters –&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour&#xA;  of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have&#xA;  ministered to the saints, and do minister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is salvation a state function or a path function?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-08-22T13:55:36.660" LastActivityDate="2014-01-02T18:38:11.223" Title="Is Salvation a State Function?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2016-12-20T15:18:48.290" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9261" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9270" CreationDate="2012-08-22T10:21:03.497" Score="5" ViewCount="1090" Body="&lt;p&gt;In looking at the opposite of this question posted &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9239/is-it-possible-to-achieve-a-life-without-sin-on-earth/9240#comment25805_9240&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, I realized it seems better to raise this question in the reverse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Assuming the doctrine of original sin, and God's work of the holy Spirit in a believer, can a believer ever do something where the motive becomes sinless?&lt;/strong&gt; This would assume that the motive could not be improved upon any moral ground but was perfect and 100% pure.  In this sense I guess that one idea, or one thought, or act, would be no less pure then our acts and thoughts in heaven?  Maybe it means it would be as pure as Christ's thoughts himself? Is this possible, or impossible? &lt;strong&gt;Does any church body believe in such perfection for at least one moment.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: My own church tradition under Luther, Calvin, St, Augustine, etc. does not believe this is possible, but am curious if any other church does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2014-08-10T06:20:15.970" Title="Does any church denomination believe it possible to go one moment without sinning?" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;sanctification&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9250" CreationDate="2012-08-22T10:29:41.290" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are truly seeking &lt;strong&gt;ask&lt;/strong&gt; God to show you and just read in the scripture. God talks through his scripture. This is one way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or you can study it on an archeological, on the human nature, philosophical level (here I can recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasonablefaith.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Lane Craig&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://rzim.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ravi Zacharias&lt;/a&gt;) or&#xA;on the level of the experiences. With experiences I mean, that you experience what the scripture is promising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know people that are wondering about what happens in the world. They have totally different expectations on how they think the world works.&#xA;But in contrast, for me it is not so strange, because it is according to the reality the scripture describes it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the nature of the things and how they are described.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of great books out there with a lot of really good answers. I can recommend &lt;em&gt;What's So Great About Christianity&lt;/em&gt; from &lt;em&gt;Dinesh D'Souza&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1429" LastEditorUserId="1429" LastEditDate="2012-08-22T15:17:52.437" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T15:17:52.437" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9259" CreationDate="2012-08-22T10:47:09.883" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question presupposed that salvation is acted out by the believer. Coming at it from a reformed/calvanistic point of view here is out I would answer it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation starts  by God in eternity past through his election. Here is how Wayne Grudem describe election in is book &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.ca/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;hl=fr&amp;amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;Systematic Theology chapter 32&lt;/a&gt;. (Sorry could not get a direct link to the page)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then if God calls those who will be save, then the believer receive the gift of salvation. In God eye, the believer is already in heaven. Then salvation is an act of God, and also God is the one responsible for the calling and the keeping on the path of faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how Romans present this thought:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8.29-30) ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God chooses, the christian respond in faith and God keeps the believer during all the life of the believer. &lt;strong&gt;Salvation is then a state matter.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the end matter as well, a Christian is called to perseverance in his faith. If he was to fall he would be sinning, not loosing is salvation. Because God choosed the believer before any good work or any faith on his part. The sinning does not rob salvation, but his joy , his peace and different gifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Jonh one of the test of a true christian is his walk in the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 john 1.6-7) ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a way salvation is a path, but not unto salvation but unto holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T10:47:09.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9259" CreationDate="2012-08-22T13:08:00.997" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're free to convert even unto the last moment (ala Constantine, Oscar Wilde, John Wayne etc. ad. infinitum), then you must also be free to &quot;de-vert&quot; at the last moment, assuming you are free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some say that suicides are destined for hell for this reason, because the moral choice they took at their last moment was one of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04755a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;despair&lt;/a&gt; (which is an offense against the Holy Spirit) or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12403a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;presumption&lt;/a&gt; (which is an offense against the Holy Spirit). But, the modern loving Church has taken in to consideration advances in psychology which make it clear that some actions are not of our own freewill and if no free choice is made in those actions, then we do not bear the responsibility for those actions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully, as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9263/4&quot;&gt;David Laberge&lt;/a&gt; points out, God will keep you a believer all your life.  If you vacillate between belief and unbelief, it's a sign that you need to get deeper with your faith (prayer and &lt;i&gt;Lectio Devina&lt;/i&gt; and retreats can help with this). It certainly is possible to completely dump the religion - don't do this!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T13:08:00.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9261" CreationDate="2012-08-22T13:50:40.457" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No I don't think it is possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All our actions even the best ones are always motivated by some form of selfishness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take motherly love for example. A mother's love may be based in a lot of factors one of which may be a need for old age security. (emphasis on maybe) That could be why a mother has the strongest love for her own children and not for other children roaming in the street.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We could go on from there to all of our other relationships. We make friends that laugh at our jokes and like the same movies. We try to date that guy (or gal) that looks smart and is intelligent. And then we try to marry a guy who is rich, dumb and altogether silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In each of the cases we expect something for ourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even when we may do something at a complete loss, we have at the back of our head an unconscious idea that we won't admit even to ourselves. &quot;I did this, I must be a very good person.&quot; &quot;Psalms says one who gives to poor lends to Lord, so God must be pleased.&quot; Or hundreds of different variations thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now compare this to God. Who does he have to please? What does he stand to gain out of anything? His love is kind of like quantum mechanics. When you hear about it you nod approvingly with absolutely no idea what it's all about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And human nature is kind of like Chemistry. You have few basic elements which can be combined to create an uncountable number of compounds. But all of those different from each other, and just by looking at the them you can't always guess the constituents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The corruption/original sin forms the fundamental element of human nature. Whenever we cook up a thought or action it always finds its way into it some way or other. It may not be directly visible (just as you couldn't tell that water contains hydrogen just by looking at it), but it's always there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything in our life is laced with trace quantities of pride and self love. Our hope and faith in God are laced with a desire to roll around the clouds and send bolts of lightning at will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could ramble on with examples but this my point - I don't think it is possible to achieve the purity of thoughts at the same level as God for even a single moment. Purity and love are defined by what God is/does. And we can't be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better part of our eternity in heaven would be spent in trying to become like Him, and to try to imitate (desperately and hopelessly) the one who - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Job 4:18 ... puts no trust even in His servants; And against His angels He&#xA;  charges error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-08-22T13:56:10.013" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T13:56:10.013" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9267" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9271" CreationDate="2012-08-22T14:51:36.657" Score="3" ViewCount="171" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is the Holy Spirit often referred as the Holy &quot;Ghost&quot;? Does not the term ghost usually used in a negative connotation that relates to &quot;scaring away&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T16:06:17.167" Title="Why is the Holy Spirit often referred as &quot;Ghost&quot;?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9268" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9276" CreationDate="2012-08-22T15:01:25.360" Score="17" ViewCount="6662" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read that there are passages that exist today that are not in some of the oldest scrolls.  Since these passages were added along the way&amp;mdash;maybe to help explain something&amp;mdash;can we trust that the Bible is the same original word of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These possible later additions include the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the ending of Mark, see &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1280/68&quot;&gt;Mark 16&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus sweating blood in Luke (Luke 22:43–44).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/68/68&quot;&gt;the Pericope&#xA;Adulterae&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/12/68&quot;&gt;the Comma Johanneum&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While many of the changes are small and not important, &quot;Comma Johanneum&quot; is the only place in the entire Bible that the Trinity is directly addressed.  So if this wasn't part of the original text, that would be problematic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the original scrolls were inspired, why didn't God preserve them?  Alternatively, how can we trust that the Bible we hold in our hands today faithfully represents the originals? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2015-04-07T06:52:14.650" Title="If the Bible has been changed over the years, can we still trust it?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9269" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-22T15:01:28.933" Score="9" ViewCount="450" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to reformed theology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God, before the foundations of the universe, chose to elect some humans&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God ensures that the elect will come to believe and follow Christ&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For the elect, is loving God a choice? [this appears to be a &quot;no&quot;]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If not, how do the elect differ from robots?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also -- some have claimed &quot;the reason Adam/Eve&quot; was given a choice -- was that it was so that they could prove their love to God by not eating of the tree. Is there a way to resolve this with reformed theology? We appear to come back to the point where -- if God ensures that the elect believe in Jesus -- then the fact that the elect love Christ is not a matter of choice, but a matter of God's works.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2048" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-08-22T20:07:20.577" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T20:48:51.490" Title="According to reformed theology: Is loving God a choice? If not, do the elect differ from robots?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9261" CreationDate="2012-08-22T15:10:49.960" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most Wesleyan/Holiness denominations teach that it is &lt;em&gt;at least theoretically&lt;/em&gt; possible. This would include Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and the Salvation Army, as well as most churches that have &amp;quot;holiness&amp;quot; in their name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doctrine is known as Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification (depending on the denomination) and was outlined by John Wesley in a sermon titled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/Global-Worship-and-Spiritual-Growth/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-40-Christian-Perfection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian Perfection&lt;/a&gt;. Wesley later wrote a book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/perfect.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;A Plain Account of Christian Perfection&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, the teaching is this. God expects us to give up our own desires and live for him alone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-peter/passage.aspx?q=1-peter+4:1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 4:1-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same intention (for whoever has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin), so as to live for the rest of your earthly life no longer by human desires but by the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is God at work within us that enables us to do this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/philippians/passage.aspx?q=philippians+2:12-13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 2:12-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/1-john/5-18.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 5:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God works in us and protects us and enables us to stop sinning, then all we have to do is give up our own willfulness and let God take control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theory it's that simple, but in practice it is far from easy. The Apostle Paul struggled:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/romans/passage.aspx?q=romans+7:19-23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 7:19-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After preaching Christ for many years, Paul wrote from prison that this perfection was still in the future:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/philippians/passage.aspx?q=philippians+3:12-14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 3:12-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And even Jesus was tempted to follow his own (human) will rather than God's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/matthew/26-39.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, &amp;quot;My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God's expectation is that we don't sin any longer. God has promised to protect us and work in us to accomplish this, and with God all things are possible. Therefore, theoretical perfection is possible. Just don't ask me for examples of people who have actually achieved it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T20:26:43.413" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9267" CreationDate="2012-08-22T15:18:17.333" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, language changes over time.  The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Holy Ghost in earlier English translations, such as the KJV and the Douay-Rheims.  At that time, the word &quot;ghost&quot; seems to have had the same connotations as &quot;spirit&quot; does today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it was a great translation then, but today the word &quot;ghost&quot; is too closely associated with the ghosts depicted on Halloween and such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original languages certainly did not intend to associate the Third Person of the Trinity with such images, so &quot;spirit&quot; is a better word in our language today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T15:18:17.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9272" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9273" CreationDate="2012-08-22T15:38:13.100" Score="5" ViewCount="20028" Body="&lt;p&gt;At any point, can the Holy Spirit take control of a person completely so that the person may act beyond his control? I am trying to understand the Biblical view on this. My understanding is that the Holy Spirit is a submissive spirit, but, I have heard people say such as &quot;Holy Spirit was controlling me&quot;. Looking forward eagerly for the answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastActivityDate="2014-01-22T21:06:50.373" Title="Can the Holy Spirit take control of a person completely?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-06-02T05:18:02.163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9272" CreationDate="2012-08-22T15:49:57.057" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether or not it is technically possible, it would contradict the nature of God to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To overwhelm a person dispenses with free will, and most Christians view God as granting mankind the ability to choose him freely.  As illustrated in Hosea &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Therefore I am now going to allure her;&#xA;      I will lead her into the wilderness &#xA;      and speak tenderly to her. (Hosea 2:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Isaiah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;&#xA;      I was found by those who did not seek me. &#xA;  To a nation that did not call on my name, &#xA;      I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’&#xA;  2 All day long I have held out my hands&#xA;      to an obstinate people, &#xA;  who walk in ways not good,&#xA;      pursuing their own imaginations —&#xA;  3 a people who continually provoke me&#xA;      to my very face, &#xA;  offering sacrifices in gardens &#xA;      and burning incense on altars of brick; (Isaiah 65:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's nature is one of patience and long suffering towards his people.  A formulation that occurs throughout the old testament testifies to his longsuffering as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity  (Jonah 4:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the nature of God is to woo, not whelm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is much like the old saw &quot;Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?&quot;  In truth, God cannot, not because he lacks adequate strength, but rather because doing so would violate his own attributes. In the case of the rock, God is all-powerful. His omnipotence constrains him to be all-powerful.  In the case of not overriding free will, his love constrains his action. Because God is all-loving, his attributes constrain him from overwhelming those he loves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit definitely compels people to act in accordance with the will of God (e.g. Acts 20:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, that is a far cry from a demon possession like experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-08-22T21:30:51.057" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T21:30:51.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9239" CreationDate="2012-08-22T16:51:46.093" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic might say, &quot;yes&quot; and point to the doctrines surrounding the Virgin Mary. But, this does not really answer the question as you asked, whether it is possible to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;achieve&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; this life (Mary was exempt from original sin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the testimony of the Saints is unanimous in the fact that you can live in near-sinlessness state (where you are free from mortal sin) (&lt;em&gt;Fire Within&lt;/em&gt; by Dubay goes into some detail about John of the Cross's and Teresa of Avila's thoughts on this), the fact that there is a requirement that the faithful go to confession during Lent suggests that the Church does not believe that it is possible to go a year without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T16:51:46.093" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9268" CreationDate="2012-08-22T17:07:42.593" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to understand something about the origins of the Bible. The authors of the various books within it did not sit down to write &quot;The Bible&quot;. They intended to write stuff that would be helpful to other people for various reasons: in the case of the Gospels, so people would know the true story of Jesus' life and teachings, and for the letters to instruct the recipients in Christianity. These documents were not collected to form the Biblical Canon until much later, around 400AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is certainly true that there exist manuscripts of New Testament documents (primarily the Gospels and Acts) which show variations. Some either have or have not certain passages: some use slightly different wording. However it is important to note that the vast majority of these 'differences' come from before the period where the documents were collected into 'The Bible'. These differences make a lot of sense. If you have a document that describes the life of Jesus, and you also know of a story that you are certain is true about Jesus, you might well add it in. Of course if people disagreed with you about the validity of the story they would not copy your document.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once the Biblical canon has been more-or-less defined the variations become much less - again unsurprising, since making changes to the Word of God is a much more serious matter than to a 'true story'. Such differences as exist are likely copying errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;strong&gt;TL;DR&lt;/strong&gt; : No, the Bible has actually changed very little since it became The Bible. Before that there were different manuscripts with some differences, but in reality not a lot of variation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T17:07:42.593" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9277" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-22T17:31:08.207" Score="4" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus died in order that his death might effect atonement for their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=christ-killer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Over the years, there's been a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of assigning blame for his death.&lt;/a&gt; Why has there been such focus on the bad&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt; intent of the killers, considering that the end result was completely good&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt; in Christian belief&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1090" LastEditorUserId="1090" LastEditDate="2012-08-22T19:11:03.640" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T07:31:05.583" Title="Why blame for Jesus's death" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9278" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-22T18:17:13.767" Score="16" ViewCount="466" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is believed to have been the purpose of this? Specifically, once dead, why not just ascend to heaven in soul form like everyone else? I mean, either way, he gets to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looked at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; and saw only that &quot;Paul explained the importance of the resurrection of Jesus as the cause and basis of the hope of Christians to share a similar experience&quot;, which doesn't make much sense to me (I assume it doesn't mean that it's believed to allow for modern-day CPR), and that Augustine &quot;argued that the death and resurrection of Jesus was for the salvation of man&quot;, which also doesn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1090" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-15T15:35:42.237" LastActivityDate="2018-11-21T17:43:05.050" Title="Why the resurrection?" Tags="&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;ascension&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2012-08-22T18:17:30.660" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just because something is ordained/providential doesn't mean it's good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is able to use things even contrary to his nature to accomplish his will. Like a judo master using his opponent's force to his own advantage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He used neighboring kingdoms to bring judgement upon Israel when they turned away from him and at some places calls even the pagan kings his servants. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 43:10  I will certainly bring my servant Nebuchadnezzar, king&#xA;  of Babylon, here to Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean God approved the practices of these kingdoms or saw them as &quot;good&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly let's consider for a moment that this was ordained/predestined. Then those who killed Christ didn't act by their own. If they didn't what is the credit? How can we avoid the blame by saying that they were forced to do it (by predestination/ordination) and yet demand credit by saying that we did it? That's doublethink. You can't have it both ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible specifically warns against this line of reasoning - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 3:8 &quot;(Some say)Let us do evil that good may result. Their&#xA;  condemnation is deserved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1568" LastEditDate="2012-08-22T18:57:44.060" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T18:57:44.060" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9278" CreationDate="2012-08-22T18:52:40.107" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was resurrected to a physical body, and as Paul says, was the first-born with that new eternal and physical body.  That is our hope now too, because of his resurrection.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colossions 1:15-20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all&#xA;  creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on&#xA;  earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or&#xA;  authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.  He&#xA;  is before all things, and in him all things hold together.  And he is&#xA;  the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the&#xA;  firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the&#xA;  supremacy.  For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,&#xA;  and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on&#xA;  earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on&#xA;  the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we die and then live in Christ, we will not be spirits, we will have physical bodies, just as Jesus did.  He was resurrected so that we know that we have that same hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T18:52:40.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9278" CreationDate="2012-08-22T19:05:08.760" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has been well said that mankind's greatest enemy is death.  Whoever would be the Savior of all mankind must then, of necessity, conquer mankind's greatest enemy.  Had Jesus merely died and returned to Heaven without overcoming death, then man's greatest enemy would remain unconquered.  As it is, we can ask along with the apostle Paul, &quot;Where, O Death, is your sting?&quot; (1 Corinthians 15:55)  Death's sting has been thoroughly defeated.  &lt;strong&gt;So, the first reason is that death had to be conquered.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the resurrection proves that Jesus is not merely a great, albeit misunderstood, teacher, nor is He merely a prophet or a narcissist.  No, &lt;strong&gt;the resurrection proves that Jesus is divine&lt;/strong&gt;, as Paul states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart&#xA;  for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his&#xA;  prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was&#xA;  descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to&#xA;  be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his&#xA;  resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.  Romans 1:1-4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, it was and is the resurrection of Jesus that brings credibility to His otherwise incredible claims.  If there were no resurrection, Christianity would be nothing.  Indeed, Paul also says that very thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are&#xA;  still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in&#xA;  Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;we are of all people most to be pitied&lt;/strong&gt;.  1 Corinthians 15:17-19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also the resurrection of Christ that gives us the hope of resurrection for ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, three significant reasons are 1) to conquer death, mankind's greatest enemy, 2) to prove His Divinity, and 3) to give followers of Jesus the hope of resurrection.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T19:05:08.760" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9282" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9287" CreationDate="2012-08-22T20:34:47.350" Score="3" ViewCount="1821" Body="&lt;p&gt;What types of Christianity promote free thinking or thinking for yourself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more I go to church, the more I feel guilty for free thinking and feel I should be passive to let the Holy Spirit guide me (but I find it is the will of other men that becomes bigger).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does Christianity say about free thinking? &#xA;How and when are we not supposed to think freely?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;What if after deep prayer and meditation and critical thinking, my interpretation of a Biblical concept is different than the logical understanding of it, held by the majority \?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="14185" LastEditDate="2018-07-03T21:01:10.020" LastActivityDate="2018-07-03T21:01:10.020" Title="How does a Christian justify free thinking?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-11-26T17:16:35.060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="9283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9269" CreationDate="2012-08-22T20:48:51.490" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're asking about two different elements of the traditional reformed acronym TULIP:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unconditional Election - That Christ's elect are called without regard to their own merits.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Irresistible Grace - That the elect are drawn to Christ despite the fact that their sin nature keeps them away and this drawing is actually irresistible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The crux of your question is not the unconditional election part. You can sort of have that without the Irresistible grace part, but it makes the election virtually meaningless (We'll get to why in a minute). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irresistible grace is not a method of turning humanity into automatons. It is however, God's way of drawing his people to himself. God is an all powerful being, the fact that we do not desire and worship him &lt;em&gt;is an unnatural state.&lt;/em&gt; Much like all things desire to revert to their natural state, God providing even the &lt;em&gt;ability&lt;/em&gt; for it to become so causes a human to revert to said state. This is much like shorting a circuit. Electrons are content to mill about in their circuit, but the moment a circuit is shorted they make a beeline for the short. This is what Irresistible grace is like. You're milling about aimlessly, but then the most direct path to fulfillment is opened and you make a beeline for it, without even thinking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is how it works on a spiritual level. However, what is apparent in the mind of the person is that it just makes sense, or you feel do down at out that you have no where else to turn. You don't necessarily &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt; the tug. It just happens. Although some people do feel it more than others (Lewis famously described it as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-God-crutch.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;being dragged kicking and screaming&lt;/a&gt;&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I said something at the beginning though that is probably controversial, but it's true. Without Irresistible Grace election is both meaningless and is either impossible or makes God ignorant or impotent. Let me unpack that just a bit. If we start with the assumption that God calls those that he elected, then either he is willingly calling people that he knows will not come or all of those that he calls will come. If not all of the people that he calls do not come, then why does he call them in the first place? If all of the people that he calls do come, don't we have to include that the call itself is compulsive? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not all that come at God's call then what is the meaning of that call? Isn't it effectively meaningless? Can some come that are not called? are all called? Do those that come when called have some kind of merit that distinguishes those from that that do not? (I'm asking a lot of rhetorical questions, hope that's ok)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, in summary: Those that are called must be drawn irresistibly or the call is both meaningless and makes God out to be impotent or ignorant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T20:48:51.490" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9278" CreationDate="2012-08-22T21:23:26.253" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;For one reason, it shows that the body, as created by God is good and made for eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Manichean heresy got this point wrong and constantly pitted the good soul against the evil body.  Christ's example, as being God With Us, in a bodily resurrection codifies that belief. It's a good question you raised, sometimes God teaches us truth by example and not the platitudes we expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teaching of St. Pope John Paul II on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-books/theology-of-the-body-for-beginners/sku/22388&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Theology of the Body&lt;/a&gt; is a good jumping off point if you had more questions regarding the purpose of the resurrection and the inherent goodness of the human body as well as its eternal purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also shows us a meaning for our suffering.  That after we bear our cross (endure the hardships of this life), we will be given a new body, like Jesus, which will be our own, but glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ's Resurrection has revealed &amp;quot;the glory of the future age&amp;quot; and, at the same time, has confirmed &amp;quot;the boast of the Cross&amp;quot;: the glory that is hidden in the very suffering of Christ and which has been and is often mirrored in human suffering, as an expression of man's spiritual greatness. This glory must be acknowledged not only in the martyrs for the faith but in many others also who, at times, even without belief in Christ, suffer and give their lives for the truth and for a just cause. In the sufferings of all of these people the great dignity of man is strikingly confirmed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. John Paul II Salvifici Doloris&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's true for all of us who have bodies, not just professed Christians.  The resurrection is for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-11-21T17:43:05.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="9285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9282" CreationDate="2012-08-22T21:33:33.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our God is a God of reason who gave us the facilities to critically think about all things.  To disallow the use of a gift God gave us is a form of insult to the giver. Indeed, many the Enlightenment scientists understood the purpose of study and reason to be the glorification of God and thankfulness for the facilities he gave us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T21:33:33.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2012-08-22T21:43:20.257" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least as far as Judas is concerned, there is an exact answer in Matthew 26:24:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also heard it phrased &quot;but woe to him through whom it comes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, God is sufficiently great to turn even evil events to his purpose.  Joseph says as much in Genesis 50:20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Romans 8:28 (a verse that it should be illegal to quote without a license!) hints at the same, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;Sup&gt;Disclaimer: I never have, nor never will tolerate any form of anti-Semitism based on &quot;Christ-killer&quot; propoganda.  As a German student who won a trip to Germany for my study, I was personally sickened when, as part of a class, I had to watch a Nazi propaganda film, that pushed this line of thinking.  The question asked for a justification. I am providing that argument, even if I completely disagree with it.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T21:43:20.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9282" CreationDate="2012-08-22T21:57:50.553" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thinking is actually commendable and encouraged for Christians.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Thessalonica, Paul's witness is recorded as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he &lt;strong&gt;reasoned&lt;/strong&gt; with them from the Scriptures, 3  &lt;strong&gt;explaining&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;proving&lt;/strong&gt; that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”  Acts 17:2-3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Paul's method was to &lt;em&gt;reason&lt;/em&gt; and logically demonstrate the truthfulness of the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Thessalonica Paul traveled to Berea, who were commended by Luke as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they&#xA;  received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily&#xA;  to see if these things were so.  Acts 17:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bereans were commended for doing their research, considering what Paul was saying, and searching the Scriptures to verify the truthfulness of Paul's claims.  So, &lt;em&gt;thinking&lt;/em&gt; was commended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout Scripture, God asks us to think, to consider, to contemplate.  Proverbs is full of exhortations to the many who makes wise decisions.  I have heard that the book of Romans apparently used to be used in Law Schools in America to demonstrate how to construct a logical argument.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity proclaims itself as a logical, rational, convincing truth.  It invites the skeptic, the critic, and the scoffer to ponder.  Many of such people have done so and come to faith in Christ, notably Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, among many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T21:57:50.553" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9282" CreationDate="2012-08-22T22:23:41.327" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what you mean by &amp;quot;free thinking&amp;quot; but you make it sound like a combination of &amp;quot;whatever I feel like&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;things I shouldn't be thinking about&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are always free in our thoughts (constrained by our experiences, previous choices, mental faculties, education, etc) but just because we are free to think about anything doesn't mean we should let our minds wander hither and thither just for freedom's sake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thoughts that you dwell upon do have an effect on you and your actions so it is always profitable to think on wholesome things over vile things.  Anger, lust, pride... these are all harmful things that begin as a seed of thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 10:5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against&#xA;the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it&#xA;obedient to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It takes conscious effort to discern the Holy Spirit's guidance.  You don't become a robot waiting for instructions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T22:23:41.327" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9272" CreationDate="2012-08-22T23:12:48.083" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it is possible. However, God prefers you doing what he wants you to do willingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the references&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage is interesting, you should read the whole chapter. Saul went to Naioth to do something else but something different happened&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Samuel 19:23-24&lt;/strong&gt; So Saul (Saul, the king of Israel) went to Naioth at Ramah. But the Spirit of God came even on him, and he walked along prophesying until he came to Naioth. And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that&#xA;  day and all that night. Therefore they say, Is Saul also among the&#xA;  prophets?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The effect of Spirit is likened to being drunk with wine. When you are drunk, you lose control and you do those things you wouldn't do normally. But unlike wine, you'll do positive things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 5:18&lt;/strong&gt; And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be&#xA;  filled with the Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spirit came on Elijah and he ran unlike an ordinary man. Same is Samson.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Kings 18:45-46&lt;/strong&gt;: 45 Meanwhile, the sky grew black with clouds, the&#xA;  wind rose, a heavy rain started falling and Ahab rode off to Jezreel.&#xA;  46 The power of the Lord came on Elijah and, tucking his cloak into&#xA;  his belt, he ran ahead of Ahab all the way to Jezreel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 47 describes the effect of the different level of the Holy Spirit, the highest compared to a river. The more the water, the less your resistance to it until it carries you to wherever it wants&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 47:5&lt;/strong&gt;  Again he measured one thousand, and it was a river that&#xA;  I could not cross; for the water was too deep, water in which one must&#xA;  swim, a river that could not be crossed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read &lt;a href=&quot;http://ezinearticles.com/?Knee-Deep-In-The-Holy-Spirit&amp;amp;id=558044&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; for a better understanding and you are advised to reason with the content. You may not take it as it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I cannot remember where this happened in the new testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastActivityDate="2012-08-22T23:12:48.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9084" CreationDate="2012-08-22T23:55:15.267" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who were the most influential Church fathers on how we should pray?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MARK 11:23&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this&#xA;  mountain, Be removed and be cast into the sea, and does not doubt in&#xA;  his heart, but believes that those things he says will come to pass,&#xA;  he will have whatever he says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus talked to things and taught that a mountain is any obstacle that stands in your way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians pray to God but Jesus told us to speak directly to the obstacle and tell it to be removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;MATTHEW 17:20&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    So Jesus said to them, &quot;Because of your unbelief;&#xA;  for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you&#xA;  will say to this mountain, `Move from here to there,' and it will&#xA;  move; and nothing will be impossible for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Jesus, unbelief keeps us from speaking to our mountains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prayer is important but also needs to be followed up by speaking to the &quot;mountain&quot; - then believe that it has already been removed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://stronginfaith.org/article.php?page=46&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus gives instructions concerning the mountain or problem&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;to believe that you receive when you pray [Mark 11:24, Matthew 21:21] &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;to speak to the mountain or problem you have; rebuke, give directions to the problem, and cast out the problem from you body, circumstance, or environment [Mark 11:23, Matthew 21:21, Matthew 17:20, Luke 17:6, Mark 16:17, Luke 11:20, Matthew 12:28]. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;to say what you want to come to pass, into existence [ginomai] [Mark 11:23]. It shall be done [ginomai], according to God's Word [Matthew 21:21]. O woman, great is your faith! Let it be [ginomai] to you as you desire [Matthew 15:28]. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, be it done unto thee [ginomai] [Matthew 8:13]. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus promises &quot;it will be done&quot; [Matthew 21:21], it &quot;shall come to pass&quot; [Mark 11:23], it will &quot;obey you&quot; [Luke 17:6], and &quot;it will move&quot; [Matthew 17:20]. Jesus says that it is the believer's responsibility to speak to the mountain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-08-23T00:00:34.977" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T00:00:34.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9261" CreationDate="2012-08-23T00:57:16.167" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course, nothing holds true for what &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Baptists believe, but according to the theology taught in our Church, there is a distinction between what we &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; and what we &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt;, or at least, what we currently are doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is upon that distinction that this question can be answered.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From our understanding of the doctrine of original sin, it teaches that we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; sinners from conception on.  It does not teach that we sin each and every moment of our life, but rather that we are, by nature, sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://sbcheritage.com/baptist-statesman-james-boyce-on-original-sin-and-imputed-guilt/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://sbcheritage.com/baptist-statesman-james-boyce-on-original-sin-and-imputed-guilt/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol start=&quot;6&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures plainly assume and declare that God righteously punishes all men, not only for what they do, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;but for what they are&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  Men are indeed represented as more guilty and sinful than they know&#xA;  themselves to be, because, through the restraints with which God&#xA;  surrounds them, their natures have not been fully developed into all&#xA;  the sin towards which they tend. This is the argument of the first&#xA;  part of the Epistle to the Romans, the turning point of which is&#xA;  Romans 2:1. It is also illustrated in the case of Hazael. 2 Kings&#xA;  8:12, 113.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It follows from the facts in these last two statements, that a corrupt nature makes a condition as truly sinful and guilty, and&#xA;  liable to punishment, as actual transgressions. Consequently, at the&#xA;  very moment of the birth, the presence and possession of such a nature&#xA;  shows that even the infant sons of Adam are born under all the&#xA;  penalties which befell their ancestor in the day of his sin. &lt;strong&gt;Actual&#xA;  transgression subsequently adds new guilt to guilt already existing,&#xA;  but does not substitute a state of guilt for one of innocence.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  [Emphasis Added]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Preface: This is from a denomination that believes that you cannot lose your salvation once saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As believers, we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; justified, redeemed, and no longer guilty of sin.  However, we do, as saved believers, still commit sins.  It's just that those sins are also covered by the blood of Christ.  (I'm going to stop there because it's really easy to go off on a tangent here.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, these &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;are fast airplanes&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/jHWqT.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But at the moment this picture was taken, they were not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;going fast&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  The fact that they are not going fast does not change their nature, or negate the fact that they are fast planes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Based on this distinction, the question, can we go a moment without sin is &quot;yes&quot;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; sinners from birth, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and we are always sinners&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, until saved by Grace, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;that does not mean that we are constantly sinning&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  The fact that we may not be sinning at any given moment does not negate the fact that we are sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other comparinsons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A thief can go a moment without stealing, but is still a thief.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A murderer can go a moment without killing, but is still a killer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of the above provides the framework for the argument that it is theoretically possible. Specifically, you asked if any Christian denomination actually thinks it's possible, and the answer is a resounding &quot;yes&quot;. There are more than one, but here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2010/03-12a.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;one Church's view&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John warns that we should never think that we immune to the problem of&#xA;  sin. &quot;If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the&#xA;  truth is not in us&quot; (I John 1:8). Therefore, we must ever be vigilant&#xA;  against sin. &quot;Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he&#xA;  fall&quot; (I Corinthians 10:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, I know of no passage that claims that a person sins daily.&#xA;  Instead, the Christian is told to strive to remove sin from his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&quot;What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in&#xA;    it?&quot; (Romans 6:1-2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;    &#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&quot;Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame&quot; (I Corinthians 15:34).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The goal is not to sin. If we do stumble, we have a way out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&quot;My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father,&#xA;    Jesus Christ the righteous&quot; (I John 2:1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But it would be false to conclude that such sins occur daily or are&#xA;  even necessarily frequently. The Christian is striving to become like&#xA;  Christ, who knew no sin. &quot;But, speaking the truth in love, may grow up&#xA;  in all things into Him who is the head -- Christ&quot; (Ephesians 4:15). We&#xA;  won't reach the perfection that Christ has, but we do strive to&#xA;  imitate him. Thus, in that growth, if we are successful, one would&#xA;  expect to find the occurrences of sin to become less frequent as the&#xA;  Christian gains skills in battling sin. &quot;Therefore submit to God.&#xA;  Resist the devil and he will flee from you&quot; (James 4:7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Think of it this way, did Jesus give the adulterous woman an&#xA;  impossible task when he told her, &quot;go and sin no more&quot; (John 8:11)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-08-23T06:59:47.307" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T06:59:47.307" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2012-08-23T04:55:05.670" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right! dwelling on who killed Christ, was something even the early believers did not do, but rather why he offered up himself to die. Technically speaking the person to blame for Christ’s death is ourselves. &lt;strong&gt;‘You’ are the reason he died, you must blame yourself, because it was for ‘your sin’ that he was punished. To put the focus away from ourselves is a great sin. Only when we understand that he died for my sin, do we become Christian.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course historically the Jewish authorities outwardly killed their own Messiah by making a false charge and pressuring the Romans to crucify him, but that is beside the point. God destroyed Jerusalem as a result of that crime, but they were not guiltier then us when looking at the real reason he died. To switch the focus of our sin, to something that happened so long ago seems to often indicate nothing more than wicked and racist thoughts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way my wife is a Jew (converted to Jesus after we met).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T04:55:05.670" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2012-08-23T05:19:06.037" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is no doubt this truly happened, but in many of the events in the gospels, they are the only records of the history which is why they written.&lt;/strong&gt; I think when one gospel has something and the others do not, we can assume this is not to be central in our view of the ministry of Christ, but that it is important from the angle that the individual writer takes.**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example take Alfred Edresheims way of categorizing the gospels (which I like):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew (Jewish view of the Christ)&lt;/strong&gt; -  has for its main object the Discourses or teaching of the Lord, around which the History groups itself. It is intended as a demonstration, primarily addressed to the Jews, and in a form peculiarly suited to them, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark (general view of the Christ)&lt;/strong&gt; - is a rapid survey of the History of the Christ as such. It deals mainly with the Galilean Ministry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke (Gentile view of the Christ)&lt;/strong&gt; -  complements the narratives in the other two Gospels (St. Matthew and St. Mark), and it supplements them by tracing, what is not done otherwise: the Ministry in Peroea. Thus, it also forms a transition to the Fourth Gospel of the Judæan Ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John (the Church’s view of Christ)&lt;/strong&gt; - which gives the highest, the reflective, view of the Eternal Son as the Word, deals almost exclusively with the Jerusalem Ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this category of Mathew we could say why did Mathew think the many dead raising to life and the thunder was important along side of the curtain tearing?  We must keep in mind the gospels only select certain highlights of the miracles the Lord did and we can assume those that are recorded are only a drop in the bucket, juts as the words he spoke were much, much more than what was recorded. The words in the gospels are just little snippet summaries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One possible answer is that &lt;strong&gt;Mathew, as writing to a Jewish audience, really wanted to stress the end of the Jewish Law and power in Christ’s death to end it. Besides the Jews expected Messiah to bring about a resurrection of the dead soon after his arrival to this earth (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8145/were-the-jews-expecting-the-messiah-to-suffer-at-all&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/strong&gt; The other three may have not have included it in their limited selection of material, perhaps because they felt the focus should really be on the greater event of Christ’s death. So &lt;strong&gt;this is a great miracle and thankfully Mathew recorded it, but we must not let any miracles cloud the greatest event which was Christ’s death.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2014-11-01T01:03:57.657" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9295" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9297" CreationDate="2012-08-23T06:24:10.560" Score="19" ViewCount="77539" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible? What is their reason for not accepting other versions such as the NIV or the KJV?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-03-01T17:46:49.120" LastActivityDate="2021-04-27T03:17:45.990" Title="Do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;nwt&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2012-08-23T06:51:38.487" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, you are right, this would have been a pretty significant event. The fact this story is only mentioned in one of the gospels (and &lt;em&gt;incredibly briefly&lt;/em&gt; at that) is interesting. More interesting, perhaps, is that we have a range of non-Biblical records from a similar time, and this event is not recorded. Frankly, it would have been. Corpses stumbling through the streets &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is not something that people idly dismiss&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Even for the people not all that interested in &quot;yet another prophet&quot;, but just wanted to eke out their existence - this would have been a huge event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this won't be popular, but it seems the most likely explanation is that this was an embellishment, perhaps intended to resonate with a particular audience, but equally perhaps just accidentally added during the oral tradition (IIRC the gospel of Matthew is usually dated between 40 and 70 years after these events).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem, though, is that it is not &lt;em&gt;kosher&lt;/em&gt; to suggest/acknowledge this view, because it raises the ugly question: &quot;if &lt;em&gt;that bit&lt;/em&gt; is an embellishment, &lt;em&gt;what else is?&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, and throws the &quot;divine inspired&quot; into chaos. But: I know plenty of Christians who raise an eyebrow at this part of Matthew, particularly &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; it is so throwaway. Your confusion over this event (I'm looking in particular at your comments on Randy's answer) are not unique to yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-08-23T06:56:44.220" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T06:56:44.220" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9295" CreationDate="2012-08-23T06:56:50.777" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, they do. It's called  &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New World Translation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several verses with a completely different meaning than other translations, such as &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the&#xA;  Word was a god&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quite different than the NIV translation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the&#xA;  Word was God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference is easy to see when you consider how it affects the doctrine of the Trinity, Christ's identity, and the idea of a single God vs. the idea that the word was &quot;a god&quot; - separate from The God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other, commonly accepted translations agree with the NIV translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument I've heard time and time again is that the Bible has been corrupted over time, intentionally, or not, and that they, the one true Church, have the only accurately translated version. (This was from three personal friends, all JW, and from several missionaries that I spoke with. I don't have official statements from the Watchtower Society claiming this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;There are more differences, along the same vein, but I don't wish to get into a discussion on the validity of their claims vs. those of other denominations. Such discussion would be off-topic and frowned upon.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I included the above, only to show that the NWT is more than a slightly differently translated version. Most of the passages are the same,but those few that are different significantly alter the meaning relating to some foundational doctrinal views held by more (traditional? mainstream?) denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="32540" LastEditDate="2017-06-30T20:40:43.060" LastActivityDate="2017-06-30T20:40:43.060" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9278" CreationDate="2012-08-23T07:18:37.320" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jesus had gone directly to Heaven without stopping off on Earth first, how would anyone know that he had, in fact, risen from the dead? He had to return to Earth to show people that he had risen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, he had to come back in body and not just in spirit to demonstrate that we will be resurrected in the same way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T07:18:37.320" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9277" CreationDate="2012-08-23T07:31:05.583" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have said, the fact that good came from Christ's death does not justify those who did it for evil reasons. This isn't specific to Christ's crucifixion. There are times when a crime or other evil action indirectly results in good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, suppose a criminal murders someone. The victim had signed up to be an organ donor, and as a result of his death his organs are used to save the lives of several other people. A lot of good could come out of that person's death. Does that excuse the murderer from responsibility? If at his trial he brought in these people whose lives were saved, would the court find him innocent because of that? I certainly hope not. When he killed his victim, it was not his goal to help these people, he just wanted to get revenge on this person he hated or whatever his motive was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T07:31:05.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9300" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9307" CreationDate="2012-08-23T07:40:31.747" Score="6" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the spies returned from Canaan, to verify the kind of land God was going to gives them, all but two said, among other problems, that there was 'big strong men' there. Therefore, if they tried to take the land they would be killed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only did these spies doubt but the whole camp wanted to stone the two spies that had faith, as they hated their blind confidence on being able to destroy those 'big men'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God himself says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them? (NIV Numbers 14:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of all this, I am wondering whether we can draw the similarity that many who are exposed to Christianity and feel certain 'doubts' they have are 'too big' to kill are really no different then these faithless explorers (assuming these doubts keep them from faith. ) &lt;strong&gt;Is it fair to say biblically that such cases are just modern intellectual honesty, or would it be reasonable to say biblically it is contempt of God, as in the case of the spies? Where does intellectual honesty turn into wicked contempt from a biblical perspective?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am only looking for answers that are made from the scriptures. Is this a fair biblical comparison, or would the Bible not draw these parallels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-31T15:33:52.483" LastActivityDate="2015-08-31T15:33:52.483" Title="Would the bible draw parallels between the spies returning from Canaan and modern biblical criticism?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;&lt;numbers&gt;&lt;historical-criticism&gt;&lt;literary-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9282" CreationDate="2012-08-23T11:15:55.790" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know what you mean by 'free thinking' but God wishes us to engage our brain in our Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 12:2 - Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's quite clear that our intellectual faculties, such as they may be, are an integral part of our growing in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2049" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T11:15:55.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9303" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9304" CreationDate="2012-08-23T13:13:53.013" Score="4" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is similar to this one except that its on Holy Spirit:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9233/all-the-references-where-jesus-is-offered-worship&quot;&gt;All the references where Jesus is offered worship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any reference in the Bible where the Holy Spirit is offered worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T16:35:08.687" Title="Is the Holy Spirit offered worship at any instance?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9303" CreationDate="2012-08-23T16:18:24.977" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not think there is a reference in the Bible to worshipping the Spirit specifically and I can only think of one reference where worshipping the Father  is specifically mentioned (John 4:21). Almost all references simply mean worshipping the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as they are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet we can know that each person of the Trinity has a distinct operation in the relation to the other persons. When the Bible refers to ‘God’ in general, then no particular person of the trinity is being identified.  Almost all references to worship in the Bible are not specific to any particular person in the trinity, therefore by definition all three persons are being worshipped in almost every case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However when any special impression is made of the special property of any person in the words of our worship; then the worship is drawing attention to that work as assigned peculiarly to that person.   For example when the Palms or other songs of worship are sung it the words refer to the original will behind the creation, we might be said to be worshipping the Father.  If mention is made of Gods powerful word in the creation, it could be said we are worshipping the Son.  If we mentioned the perfection and finished works of creation itself we could be said to be worshipping the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T16:18:24.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9306" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9323" CreationDate="2012-08-23T18:07:53.217" Score="9" ViewCount="11477" Body="&lt;p&gt;As noted &lt;a href=&quot;http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; about 1 John:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the&#xA;  majority of Greek manuscripts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which implies that this has been recently added to scripture.  It is also &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12/why-was-the-trinity-doctrine-found-in-1-john-57-8-kjv-kept-in-the-nkjv-when-i&quot;&gt;discussed here&lt;/a&gt; on hermeneutics.SE.  It also happens to be the only place in the Bible which directly addresses the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Trinity&lt;/a&gt; as one.  With that in mind, where did the idea of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Trinity&lt;/a&gt; come from and where else is it supported?&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;This is the only place in the bible where it mentions that the three are one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:7-8, KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there are three that bear record (witness) in heaven, the Father,&#xA;  the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are&#xA;  three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the&#xA;  blood: and these three agree in one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;VS &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:7-8, ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the&#xA;  blood; and these three agree&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The three are mentioned elsewhere in the bible, but not as one.  As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9306/where-did-the-idea-of-the-trinity-come-from#comment25978_9306&quot;&gt;JoaoRodrigues&lt;/a&gt; pointed out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 28:19 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in&#xA;  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be distinct here - not &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;homoousian&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2014-07-20T20:11:46.047" Title="Where did the idea of the Trinity come from?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2014-07-21T14:44:39.410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9300" CreationDate="2012-08-23T18:21:17.283" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am answering the question you asked in bold, not the one in the title. However, I recommend against equating modern biblical criticism with wicked contempt or intellectual honesty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@DJClayworth: This question is totally about Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an deliberate parallel between the ancient Israelites' obstinance and today's encounter with Jesus. The parallel is this: a person who has seen God and does not believe accuses God of not being who he claims. In other words, &lt;strong&gt;the boundary between intellectual honesty and wicked contempt is when God reveals himself to you.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the context of Numbers, God had revealed himself to the Israelites several times; at Mount Sinai for example (Exodus 19). These signs are referred to in the verse you quoted. In spite of the them, the Israelites denied God out of their fear of the Nephilim (the &quot;big strong men&quot;). Their fear produced an accusation that God was not able as He claimed to bring them into the land promised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fast forward to the NT. We find similar examples of unbelief. In a parallel to Exodus 19, the disciples encounter God on a mountain:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led&#xA;  them up on a high mountain by themselves. He was transformed in&#xA;  front of them, and His face shone like the sun. Even His clothes&#xA;  became as white as the light. (HCSB Matthew 17:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet in the following story they don't have the faith to heal a demon-possessed boy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and&#xA;  from that moment the boy was healed. Then the disciples approached&#xA;  Jesus privately and said, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” “Because of&#xA;  your little faith,” He told them. (HCSB Matthew 17:18-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fast forward to a few years ago. When I was considering who Jesus is, I first looked into intellectual matters: How can I reconcile science and faith? Are the Gospel accounts trustworthy? Eventually I had those answers, but the intense question remained: Is Jesus who he says he is? It was no longer an intellectual matter; to answer affirmatively required God to reveal himself in the way he did to Simon Peter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living&#xA;  God!” And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed&#xA;  because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in&#xA;  heaven. (HCSB Matthew 16:16-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had this kind of experience, after which I could not deny Jesus being who he claims while keeping an honest conscience. After that point I would have been in contempt of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1907" LastEditorDisplayName="user1907" LastEditDate="2012-08-26T20:20:29.197" LastActivityDate="2012-08-26T20:20:29.197" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9239" CreationDate="2012-08-23T19:02:43.550" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is disagreement on this.  Many denominations believe that we always sin, some going so far as to say that even our best is still sin to God, even after salvation.  Others, such as the Nazarenes, teach a doctrine called Entire Santification, which claims that by wholly submitting to the Holy Spirit, it is possible to reach a point at which we no longer sin.  In spite of that teaching, I've never met someone who claims that they are no longer sinning.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even Paul wrote of doing what he knew he shouldn't do, and not doing what he should.  None of the Biblical characters are ever depicted as reaching a point of no longer sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T19:02:43.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3937" CreationDate="2012-08-23T20:04:07.520" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Biblical History&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, Biblical history shows that God revealed Himself to Adam and Noah, among others.  Noah was the line of Enoch, who &amp;quot;walked with God&amp;quot;.  Noah Himself &amp;quot;found grace in the eyes of the Lord.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the flood, Noah and his family had the knowledge of the one true God.  That knowledge would have remained common through to the time of Babel.  At that point, the people were &amp;quot;scattered over the face of the whole earth&amp;quot;, yet all of these people would have taken with them a general knowledge and understanding of God, who was known by Noah, their common ancestor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, all the cultures of the world would have begun with a common basic theology.  To varying degrees, this theology would have been distorted by each culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his book, &lt;em&gt;Eternity in Their Hearts&lt;/em&gt;, Don Richardson details accounts of tribes which he calls &amp;quot;people of the lost book&amp;quot;, who bemoaned the fact that their ancestors had lost the record of God, which may refer to the writings of Adam and Noah.  &lt;em&gt;Some hold these to be two of the authors of Genesis, of which Moses was not the author, but the compiler.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chinese characters actually demonstrate a quite remarkable, even baffling correspondence to the stories in Genesis 1-11.  This would fit quite well with the idea that the Chinese came from Babel just like everyone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, all cultures trace their ancestry to Babel and to Noah.  They all began with a common theology.  Through time, that theology was distorted, but each retains, to varying degrees, shadows of the same root.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eternity in their Hearts&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the Scriptures teach that the concept of &lt;em&gt;General Revelation&lt;/em&gt;, that God has revealed Himself to them through nature and perhaps through our spirits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has&#xA;shown it to them.&lt;/em&gt; 20 &lt;em&gt;For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal&#xA;power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived&lt;/em&gt;, ever since the&#xA;creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are&#xA;without excuse.  Romans 1:19-20 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Psalm 19:1 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God has revealed Himself in general revelation to all mankind, so that there will be common understandings among various cultures, since they all receive the same general revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the commonalities between Christianity and other faiths is quite easily explained.  All faiths trace their roots to Noah and His understanding of the One true God, and we all have the same general revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Not All Made Up&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that the commonalities necessitate that all religions were made up is quite a stretch.  It assumes there really is no God without ever giving evidence to that end.  While someone can maintain that opinion, the Biblical accounts provides a solid logical answer to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Accepting Christianity as the one true religion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is inaccurate to suggest that people are only Christians because they inherited this faith from their parents and were indoctrinated into it.  In the past half century, Christianity's greatest growth has been in Korea, China, and Muslim countries.  There may be as many as 100 million Christians in China today, and the number is growing.  They are coming to Christ out of Buddhism and Atheism.  Christianity is actually growing quite quickly in Iran now and many other places where people come to faith in Christ even though they risk abandonment from their families and even death in many cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, it is really a separate question regarding why Christians believe Christianity is the One true religion.  In brief, I would suggest the following &amp;quot;convincing proofs&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Resurrection of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; - Christianity rises and falls on this historical fact.  People have suggested very bizarre alternatives to try to explain this away, but all explanation have failed miserably.  Nothing else accounts for how a small band of unschooled, ordinary men from a rural area of a no-account country under bondage to the Roman empire turned the world upside down by a teaching they learned from a carpenter, in the face of brutal persecution and martyrdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fulfilled Prophecy&lt;/strong&gt; - No other holy book dares to predict the future with such precision and accuracy as the Bible.  The virgin birth, the year of the Messiah's death, the Deity of the Messiah, the birthplace of Jesus, the four world empires, and many other prophecies all came true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Miracles&lt;/strong&gt; - Last, but not least, the dead are raised, the sick are healed, the blind receive sight, the deaf hear... not just in the time of Jesus, but in answer to prayer, people today experience miraculous healing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Transformation of People's Lives&lt;/strong&gt; - No other teaching has shown to transform the lives of so many people so radically.  Countless drunkards, prostitutes, murderers, drug addicts, and many others have been delivered from the most destitute of lives to lives of honor and peace.  As the song says, &amp;quot;A refuge for the poor, a shelter from the storm, He brings peace to our madness and comfort in our sadness, a Father to the orphan, a Healer to the broken...&amp;quot;  Only in the name of Jesus can such things occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-23T20:04:07.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9268" CreationDate="2012-08-24T01:31:41.237" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am going to answer as a layman, from my own experience, as I truly have little knowledge of how our Bible came about and the subject has still never peaked my interest enough for me to learn. What I can say is that &lt;strong&gt;I am absolutely certain that the Bible is our only infallible guide in matters of religion and alone can be trusted.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are my personal experiences and reasons for having no doubts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Personal Experience&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a young man I was a criminal who had literally prayed to the Devil and subsequently suffered demonic possession at the age of 15 years. In fear of what was happening, I started to secretly read the Bible in my bedroom. (My parents floated around somewhere between atheist and agnostic so I was not church raised, so I had to sort of hide my Bible). After a brief period of reading the Bible it fully arrested my thoughts. I cried out to God in faith. The demon departed and never again bothered me in any way. I stopped thieving, fornicating, brawling, using illicit drugs, hating, committing various criminal offences, all by simply reading and believing the Bible. Then I went to church to figure out what happened to me. I have been a Christian ever since. (Think of the thousands of dollars I saved in therapy sessions, psychiatric medication, etc. just by browsing an NIV Bible) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Having experienced this unusual power in God’s word I was irresistibly drawn into the study of it. In so doing I found everything in it pure and perfect in a way I can’t describe. Nature is pure but the Bible is purer still. Nature has beauty but the Bible more so.  In contrast, I have picked up religious books from other religions and I immediately find the absence of this power and purity. That such books would have never been able to exorcise the demon that was in me is obvious to me. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christians worldwide, since the time of Adam all have similar stories of this life changing experience of hearing of or reading God’s word and having transformed lives by the power of believing in its message. (Before Christ Moses and the Prophets looked forward to Christ and since Christ we look back at him but it is all the same faith in Messiah.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although others can’t borrow my faith, for they must have their own, as millions of Christians claim a similar experience from every kind of previous walk of life and background, these experiences creates an intellectual argument in support of the Bible’s claims. The Bible claims to be able to perform these works in those that believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Intellectual Experience&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I am no expert but I have read the Bible is the most miraculously preserved set of ancient texts in al of world history (compared to the manuscripts of Shakespeare, for example). The fact that ancient manuscripts have been recently found that show miraculous similarity with our current Bible is the greatest wonder of the word in terms of artifacts. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I tend to agree on certain sections that the NIV says ‘these verses were not in some of the oldest manuscripts’ is possibly minor corruptions. However, removing them in my mind, or adding them back has no effect on my beliefs. Therefore they are irrelevant. For example the one about ‘He who is without sin cast the first stone.’ As much as I think the story exemplifies Christian truths, I am not convinced it properly records Jewish law as it was exercised at the time, so I do not trust it to be in the original. Then again, maybe it is valid, for one thing is for certain I am fallible? Either way even such a large chunk like this has no effect on the trustworthiness of the Bible for me as it does not affect the doctrinal conclusions I make from the entirety of the scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Encountering these small cracks in scripture has increased my faith; for it makes me aware that the rest of the ‘enormous structure’ is rock solid! This alone makes it absolutely credible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The biggest difficulty I had what when comparing all the gospels and seeing minor differences in how the events of Christ were recalled by different witnesses. In the end I found no contradictions that stood out. I think realizing that these gospels represent 1% or les of all that Jesus did and said (for he was speaking often for whole days and one day would be bigger than the New Testament) solves the problem concerning the style of the gospels. Obviously these statements by witnesses are just summaries. Summaries are always slightly interpretative giving certain aspects of an event the witness is thinking is most worth highlighting. These variances therefore further prove the authenticity of the testimonies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Other religions are filled with legends about their heroes, but the Bible starts by accusing all their heroes of sin. This is so unlike a legend! After a build up of many prophecies over centuries, established with authentic style, Jesus miraculously fulfills many prophecies, which would be impossible to fake. Just one example: It was prophesied that a child of Abraham, and later child of David, would come who would be a ‘blessing to all nations’ so that Abraham would be a father of many nations. Well how difficult would it be for a Jew to start a religion that is accepted by the world, who was born of David’s lineage, born in Bethlehem, fulfills the atonement symbol, becomes a King, etc. If I were to ask you to become a Jew, then convince people that you can have performed many miracles, die, rise again, or have other’s convince people that you have. Then take over the other pagan religions of the world by your new version of your religion. I would say your chance of success is les than 0.000000001. To at the same time fulfill many long recorded prophecies, written over centuries, well we are now taking about the sheer miraculous. Christ’s fulfillment of many prophecies is miraculous and unrepeatable that no person could ever pull off by human juggling. (This alone proves the scriptures are infallible).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Legends often make up entire fables, like cities that did not exist, maybe even entire nations that were non-existent.  In contrast although the Bible is not a history book, but rather the history of God’s kingdom and revelation, it is yet pinned down into real places, times, and events supported by history, archaeology, etc. Sure there are many atheists that try to prove these things are contradictory but this further confirms that validity of the Bible. The Bible predicts men will hate it. The more they unsuccessfully try to fight God’s word the more attested is its miraculous preservation. Their obsession also proves its spiritual nature for if they had no faith, they would not be so desirous to fight it. There actions and the desperation of them, show the influence of the corrupt nature ruling them. I find the tendency for skeptics to irrationally seize on certain words, wrest them out of their proper meaning, assert other doubtful things as certain and basically carry on irrational arguments under the bias of unexplained unbelief, as faith building. I see desperation in it all, proving that they are convicted by God’s word. Christians tend to have a steady calm in all of that while their faith keeps growing, including professors at universities on the very subjects who supposedly contradict their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The scriptures have a very deep explanation of my human experience. Every year I understand others, and myself more than the previous year. It seems there is no bottom to the depth of their explanation. Either the writers were all so much wiser than I am, as I feel I can never find the bottom of their brilliance, or it is God’s word. As I can tell I am as smart as the next guy, I have to conclude this ‘inexpressible depth’ is divine and infallible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did not God put the scriptures into an armoured bank safe, preserving every word? I think the answer is the same as why he chose to speak through prophets, Jesus and the Apostles. He wanted to condescend into our world, miraculously preserving the truth as his infallible guide, while using human tools do so. The small scratches on the surface prove their authenticity just as wrinkles in the face of Jesus proved that he was not just God but also a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; The fact that the Bible is the oldest record of God’s dealings with man, and the most miraculously preserved and the most powerfully effective in bringing salvation to sinners. As it alone answers the questions of life and leads to life, as it has no bottom to its depth of understanding, as no one has been able to refute its claims to the concern of believers, as none could fake the prophetic fulfilment that Christ achieved, etc., it is without doubt the only and infallible guide in all matters of religion. Every Christian who has tried it and tested it knows this is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. (NIV Psalms 12:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-30T03:38:44.297" LastActivityDate="2012-09-30T03:38:44.297" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9259" CreationDate="2012-08-24T04:23:12.563" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Baptist point of view, which holds to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation by Grace through Faith alone, apart from &quot;works&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eternal Security&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The indwelling of the Holy Spirit for all believers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is both.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation is a one-time event that occurs the moment one realizes their lost state, repents, and puts their faith in Christ for salvation. (Salvation by Grace through faith)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once the above has occurred, the person is saved, in the state of salvation. (Eternally secure)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/doctrines_Salvation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Baptist statement on salvation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Salvation is a point of time experience where a sinner goes to God in&#xA;  prayer, asks forgiveness for sin, states his/her faith in the&#xA;  completed work of Christ on the cross, and places faith in the&#xA;  resurrected Saviour.  The result is God's gift of salvation being&#xA;  given freely; a gift that can neither be revoked, taken back, or&#xA;  forfeited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-08-24T04:23:12.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="113" CreationDate="2012-08-24T06:07:40.553" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can know that we have the Holy Spirit living inside of us when we demonstrate the fruits of the spirit as mentioned in Galatians 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, patience,&#xA;  benignity, goodness, longanimity, [23] Mildness, faith, modesty,&#xA;  continency, chastity...  —&#xA;  Galatians 5:22-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastActivityDate="2012-08-24T06:07:40.553" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9239" CreationDate="2012-08-24T06:53:04.363" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Only Jesus was perfect.&lt;/strong&gt; The notion that one has become sinless can only be thought from a heart blinded by wicked pride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (NIV Jeremiah 17:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible makes the model prayer to be a daily confession of our daily sins. The moment any man thinks they have gone a day without sinning is the moment this prayer becomes insincere hypocrisy of the self-righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ’ (NIV Matthew 6:11-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the most holy men that have ever lived never thought for a moment were were free from sin but bitterly complained about the sinfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. (NIV Romans 7:21-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course John Calvin, Luther and all the reformers understood these verses by Paul was a description of his 'Christian' experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sufficient to say &lt;em&gt;there is no biblical warrant to suppose we can for a moment be without sin.&lt;/em&gt; If I ever met a person who loved God with all their heart, which is the greatest command, I would ask them to sign my bible and I would sell everything I have and follow that person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course we know that would not happen as only Jesus was perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2014-05-13T00:37:37.973" LastActivityDate="2014-05-13T00:37:37.973" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9315" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-24T07:32:19.743" Score="4" ViewCount="46222" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible, is it a sin to marry someone who is not a virgin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the purpose of this question, lets exclude dealing with the following scenarios:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the special cases of somebody not being a virgin due to the death of their spouse.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the practical difficulty of being able to figure out if somebody is a virgin. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymenorrhaphy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hymenorrhaphy&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the practical difficulties of meeting people who avoid premartial sex in this modern age.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to hear answers that present a Biblical basis for whether or not the act itself is a sin rather than anything from modern cultural perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2053" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-08-24T11:21:29.647" LastActivityDate="2014-06-22T21:49:50.520" Title="According to the Bible, is it a sin to marry a non-virgin?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9315" CreationDate="2012-08-24T08:45:16.933" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why would it be a sin to marry non-virgin? Jesus said that nothing from outside (e.g. not washing of hands before eating) defiles a man but what comes from the heart. Not being a virgin does not make the person impure or a sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the person is a Christian I don't think it would be a sin to marry such person. It would be practical love if a Christian marries a non-virgin even after having the knowledge beforehand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, God asked Hosea to marry an harlot and have children with her. This did not turn Hosea to a sinner. Whatever God declares pure is pure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If any man is in christ, old things have passed away and everything is new. If she has repented from her old ways then it is ok. We should show love to them and accept them because no matter what we do, God accept them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastActivityDate="2012-08-24T08:45:16.933" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9317" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-24T09:06:11.087" Score="1" ViewCount="129" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7331/can-a-christian-walk-away-from-their-salvation&quot;&gt;Can a Christian walk away from their salvation?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible teaches that when you accept Christ as you personal savior, your name is written in the book of life. Is it written once for ever? According to Bible, can a person lose salvation at any point?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the arguments for an against the doctrine of Eternal Security?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-08-24T12:42:37.047" Title="Can a person lose his/her salvation?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="13" ClosedDate="2012-08-24T20:10:27.960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9315" CreationDate="2012-08-24T09:17:03.200" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I challenge your statement that &amp;quot;meeting people who avoid premarital sex in this modern age&amp;quot; is difficult in practice. Today social networks allow you to find people according to such criteria. Additionally, I perceive the culture to be more morally polarized. In other words, there is less incentive to feign virginity, making it easier to discern who holds themselves to the standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The simple answer to your question is no.&lt;/strong&gt; There is no scripture forbidding marriage to non-virgins. However, there is of plenty scripture forbidding sexual relations of married people with others. It's called adultery. Similarly, sexual relations outside of marriage is fornication. Both adultery and fornication are forbidden, but not marrying a non-virgin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wife is bound as long as her husband is living. But if her husband&#xA;dies, she is free to be married to anyone she wants—only in the Lord.&#xA;(HCSB 1 Cor. 7:39)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, a married woman is legally bound to her husband while he&#xA;lives. But if her husband dies, she is released from the law regarding&#xA;the husband. (HCSB Romans 7:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1907" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-24T09:17:03.200" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9306" CreationDate="2012-08-24T17:38:11.187" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The revelation of scripture which describes God as existing as one being, with three distinct persons, does not hinge on any particular verse, but is gradually revealed from Genesis to Revelation.  If 1 John was removed from the Bible it would have no impact on the concept of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as three distinct persons of the only God. The word Trinity is just a catch word to say Father, Son and Spirit, assuming that only the Father, Son and Spirit are eternal and without any boundaries, being infinite in all their qualities and essence. The Son had no beginning, the Spirit had no beginning, the Father had no beginning and they are the one and only God. All other things that exists, we're the creation of the triune God.  These many Biblical truths are stuffed into the word 'Trinity' as a container for what the Bible clearly teaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the creation of all things, the Trinity manifests that each person of the Trinity has a distinct operation in their relation to the other persons. When the Bible refers to ‘God’ in general, then no particular person of the trinity is being identified, so we just can know it means all three.  However, when any special impression is made of the special works or properties, more specific to one of the persons of the Trinity; then the Bible is drawing attention to that work as assigned peculiarly to that person.   For example, in the creation (creation = all that is not God) the 'original will' behind the creation, is an expression of the Father.  Gods powerful 'word' in the creation, is an expression of the Son. The 'perfecting and finishing' works of creation is an expression of the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One quick proof of the Trinity might therefore go like this:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Originally in the shadows of the obscure revelation under the Old Testament there was only God.  God is, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but not yet known in that full developed sense as we know today. Only known in a weak dark shadowy sense, under the natural and gradual progression of revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We actually see all three persons at work in the creation, but only obscurely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (NIV Genesis 1:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, we do see the Father 'speaking' his original will, we see his 'word' powerfully creating, and we see the Spirit, perfecting and completing the work as it hovers, but this may easily be viewed as just God, who hovered over the waters, not the trinity.  We know it is clearly the trinity looking backwards with our light that we now have, but it can't be said to be so clear at first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how did we get our clear view? Well first there was the Promise of a 'Messiah', then a Temple for the 'Spirit' in the Jewish nation.  The promise for a Messiah is a theme that developed over a long period with certain immersing concepts until he finally came.  One of these central themes regarding Messiah is that he would be a Son. He would've a Son of David, but also a Son born of a virgin, 'God with us'. This is getting clearer for sure, but still not fully clear.  Once the Son arrived then it was clear. jesus clearly distinguished between His 'Father' and the 'Spirit'.  &lt;strong&gt;This is how the trinity became clear, Christ taught it and was the clear manifestation of one of its persons.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First he was manifested as the Son at the inauguration of his ministry:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (NIV Matthew 3:16-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then besides proving his divinity from his power over disease, devil and nature he directly made known his divine per-existent state through argumentation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”&#xA; “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”&#xA; “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (NIV John 8:54-58)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course I AM was the name God (Father, Son and Spirit) gave himself to Moses which means 'always existed'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we have the foundation of The Father and The Son, all we need is the Spirit to complete the revelation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus made it clear the Spirit was not the Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (NIV John 14:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we already saw in Genesis, the Spirit was involved in creation and in the Temple the Spirit dwelled, so as the Spirit is the pre-existent God and 'not the Father', then all three, Father, Son and Spirit are God.  These three are therefore put on the same level, so that when we are made to join in the gospel and in Christ, we are being joined into God, which means all three:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (NIV Matthew 28:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, now that we have the full knowledge of Christ, we can look back and realize things they never saw clearly before. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (NIV Hebrews 1:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Many times and in various ways' indicates the imperfection of how he spoke in the past. Before it was alike a spark, here and there, but now a radiant Sun! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why could the Trinity not be so clearly seen before Christ? Well simply because everything in the days of the Law were faint, weak and dim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. (NIV Hebrews 10:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (NIV Hebrews 8:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore &lt;strong&gt;although the Trinity first came from Genesis Chapter 1, it never became clear until the Son was revealed.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-05T13:50:47.933" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9324" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9325" CreationDate="2012-08-24T17:52:14.420" Score="8" ViewCount="1978" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is as simple as the title.  Some Christians believe we can enter a state without sin.  How did Luther and Calvin view that kind of concept?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-07-25T11:20:05.197" LastActivityDate="2019-09-13T23:40:57.927" Title="How did Luther and Calvin view Christian perfectionism?" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9324" CreationDate="2012-08-24T17:55:10.750" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Martin Luther and John Calvin followed the tradition of St. Augustine in abhorring any theoretical belief in a state of sinlessness, whether for a moment, day, year, or whatever&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They seem to have regarded &lt;strong&gt;sinless perfection as the vain imagination of human pride and a result of our sinfulness&lt;/strong&gt;.  For example, commenting on Psalms  106:6, &lt;strong&gt;Calvin&lt;/strong&gt; said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How very abominable, then, is the pride of those who hardly imagine that they offend in the least possible way; nay, who even, like certain fanatics of the day, conceive that they have attained to a state of sinless perfection! (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 106:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very words ‘sinless state of perfection’ even for a moment amount to near blasphemy in the mind of a person who is aware of himself and has a due regard to the nature of sin and its seriousness, according to the reformers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luther&lt;/strong&gt; explains what it means to live by the Spirit not ‘sinning’ in this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This life, then, is a life of being healed from sin, it is not a life of sinlessness, with the cure completed and perfect health attained. The church is the inn and the infirmary for those who are sick and in need of being made well. But heaven is the palace of the healthy and the righteous. As blessed Peter says in his Second Epistle 3:13 that the Lord will build “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” Righteousness does not yet dwell here, but it is preparing a dwelling place for itself here in the meantime by healing sin. All the saints have had this understanding of sin, as David prophesied in Ps. 32:5 ff. And thus they all have confessed that they were sinners. (Luther’s Works 25.262-264)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In describing what this theoretical state would actually be &lt;strong&gt;Luther&lt;/strong&gt; provides a very reasonable explanation to show this can never happen for a moment on this side of heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we were pure of all sin, and if we burned with a perfect love toward God and our neighbor, then we would certainly be righteous and holy through love, and there would be nothing more that God could require of us. That does not happen in this present life but must be postponed until the life to come. We do indeed receive the gift and the first fruits of the Spirit here (Rom. 8:23), so that we do begin to love; but this is very feeble. If we loved God truly and perfectly, as the Law requires when it says (Deut. 6:5): “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, etc.,” then poverty would be as pleasant for us as riches, sorrow the same as pleasure, death the same as life. Indeed, one who loved God truly and perfectly would not be able to live very long but would soon be devoured by his love. But human nature now is so submerged in sin that it cannot think or feel anything correct about God. It does not love God; it hates Him violently. Therefore, as John says (1 John 4:10), “not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the expiation for our sins.” (Luther’s Works Volume 27.65)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther quotes &lt;strong&gt;St. Augustine&lt;/strong&gt; in another place to show how uniform his view is to that wise old Christian, in times past:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Augustine says in his 29th Epistle, to blessed Jerome: “Love is the power by which a person loves what he ought to love. In some people this is stronger and in others weaker, and in still others there is none at all; but it is never in its fullest degree, so increased, in any man as long as he lives. But as long as it can be increased, what is less than it ought to be comes from sin. Because of this defect ‘there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins’ (cf. 1 Kings 8:46). And because of this defect ‘no man living is righteous before God’ (Ps. 143:2). Because of this defect, ‘if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ (1 John 1:8). Also because of this defect, no matter how much we progress, we are forced to say: ‘Forgive us our debts’ (Matt. 6:12), even though in Baptism all our sins of word, deed, and thought have been forgiven.”  So far Augustine. But the same relation as for Baptism, indeed, a much stronger one, is in force for penitence and indulgences. From all of this it is obvious that there is no sin which is venial according to its substance and its nature, but also no merit. For even the good works which are done while the tinder of sin and sensuality are fighting against them are not of such intensity and purity as the Law requires, since they are not done with all of our strength, but only with the spiritual powers which struggle against the powers of the flesh. Thus we sin even when we do good. (Luther’s Works Volume 25.278)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-25T01:30:58.157" LastActivityDate="2012-08-25T01:30:58.157" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9326" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-24T20:11:34.390" Score="8" ViewCount="460" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible you'll find passages like - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 37 Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits&#xA;  long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high.[a] 2 He&#xA;  overlaid it with pure gold, both inside and out, and made a gold&#xA;  molding around it. 3 He cast four gold rings for it and fastened them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 4 Then he made poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. 5 And he inserted the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. 6 He made the atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 7 Then he made two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 8 He made one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; at the two ends he made them of one piece with the cover. 9 The cherubim had their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim faced each other, looking toward the cover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then some others like - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 46:8 These are the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob and his&#xA;  descendants) who went to Egypt: Reuben the firstborn of Jacob. 9 The&#xA;  sons of Reuben: Hanok, Pallu, Hezron and Karmi. 10 The sons of Simeon:&#xA;  Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jakin, Zohar and Shaul the son of a Canaanite&#xA;  woman. 11 The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath and Merari. 12 The sons of&#xA;  Judah: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez and Zerah (but Er and Onan had died in&#xA;  the land of Canaan). The sons of Perez: Hezron and Hamul. 13 The sons&#xA;  of Issachar: Tola, Puah,[a] Jashub[b] and Shimron. 14 The sons of&#xA;  Zebulun: Sered, Elon and Jahleel. 15 These were the sons Leah bore to&#xA;  Jacob in Paddan Aram,[c] besides his daughter Dinah. These sons and&#xA;  daughters of his were thirty-three in all. 16 The sons of Gad:&#xA;  Zephon,[d] Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi and Areli. 17 The sons of&#xA;  Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah. Their sister was Serah. The&#xA;  sons of Beriah: Heber and Malkiel. 18 These were the children born to&#xA;  Jacob by Zilpah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Leah —sixteen in&#xA;  all. 19 The sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. 20 In&#xA;  Egypt, Manasseh and Ephraim were born to Joseph by Asenath daughter of&#xA;  Potiphera, priest of On.[e] 21 The sons of Benjamin: Bela, Beker,&#xA;  Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim and Ard. 22 These were&#xA;  the sons of Rachel who were born to Jacob—fourteen in all. 23 The son&#xA;  of Dan: Hushim. 24 The sons of Naphtali: Jahziel, Guni, Jezer and&#xA;  Shillem. 25 These were the sons born to Jacob by Bilhah, whom Laban&#xA;  had given to his daughter Rachel —seven in all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wait there's more - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nehemiah 7:7 The list of the men of Israel: 8 the descendants of Parosh   2,172 9 of&#xA;  Shephatiah    372 10 of Arah  652 11 of Pahath-Moab (through the line of&#xA;  Jeshua and Joab)  2,818 12 of Elam    1,254 13 of Zattu   845 14 of&#xA;  Zakkai    760 15 of Binnui    648 16 of Bebai 628 17 of Azgad 2,322 18 of&#xA;  Adonikam  667 19 of Bigvai    2,067 20 of Adin    655 21 of Ater (through&#xA;  Hezekiah) 98 22 of Hashum 328 23 of Bezai 324 24 of Hariph    112 25 of&#xA;  Gibeon    95 26 the men of Bethlehem and Netophah     188 27 of Anathoth&#xA;    128 28 of Beth Azmaveth 42 29 of Kiriath Jearim, Kephirah and Beeroth&#xA;    743 30 of Ramah and Geba    621 31 of Mikmash   122 32 of Bethel and Ai&#xA;    123 33 of the other Nebo    52 34 of the other Elam 1,254 35 of&#xA;  Harim 320 36 of Jericho   345 37 of Lod, Hadid and Ono    721 38 of&#xA;  Senaah    3,930&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is why did God choose to include all this information in the Bible? How would the 760 men of Zakkai help anyone in this age or any past or future age, draw closer to God? Contrast this with how small the important narratives like the flood &amp;amp; Noah or the Crucifixion of Christ are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't seem like God inspiring the Bible to communicate with men. This seems more like random writings of people about their society and culture put together in one book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reason for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2012-08-27T15:13:40.510" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T06:07:52.077" Title="Why didn't God omit non-essential information from the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T19:54:15.420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2828" CreationDate="2012-08-24T21:27:02.150" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think in relationships we naturally submit to each other all the time. But sometimes men are wrong, as they're just human, so submitting to a man just because he's a man is not always logical in regards to his decision making or leading or authority as some people think these verses mean (and yet none of those words are written). But submitting as in being loving and respectful well that makes sense. I think it generally means to co operate and don't be self seeking and if both genders do that then thats best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2058" LastActivityDate="2012-08-24T21:27:02.150" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9084" CreationDate="2012-08-25T12:47:11.663" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;POINT: in all cases, prayers are answered; my point being there is no absolute specific syntax for prayers; everyone's different. God knows, understands and accepts that, thus he has no syntax that we &quot;should&quot; use, &lt;strong&gt;just pray in the style that suits you, that you're comfortable with, and God &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; listen&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EVIDENCE: In the bible Jesus will often pray in the same way as I (and the church, etc) do. that is, Jesus will just say &quot;winds be still&quot; and the wind will die down, &quot;demons, come out&quot; and the possessed are freed from the demons. this suggests that, according to the bible, like I said, it does not matter how you pray&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;COMMENT/CONCLUSION: i don't follow any specific syntax with my prayers. at school, they do the sign of the cross before and after prayers, and the actual prayer is spoken in a &quot;traditional&quot; sort of voice if you know what i mean. i don't use the sign of the cross (at school i do, otherwise i get in trouble), i just say &quot;Jesus, [whatever i want to say]&quot;. at church, they don't use the sign of the cross either. they just speak, and often times they will get a little bit louder, and louder and firmer before finishing off with &quot;&lt;strong&gt;i ask you, Jesus christ AMEN&lt;/strong&gt;!&quot; in a relatively loud and very firm voice. some people pray by saying, for example &quot;Yo God, mah man! how's stuff up there? listen i have a favour to ask. i inadvertently let slip a cuss, will ya forgive me? thanks man! catch ya later dude!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2059" LastEditorUserId="2059" LastEditDate="2012-08-26T02:39:24.483" LastActivityDate="2012-08-26T02:39:24.483" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2012-08-25T13:05:54.850" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can't always know the exact reason why there appears extraneous information in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but there are often discernible reasons why it was important at the time.  To us it seems extraneous, but to them it was not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's explain through the cases you listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First,  the details of the ark.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only the priests on rare occasion could see these holy objects and then only briefly. As they had great symbolic value in representing the future Messiah and as each detail should therefore be pondered on by those ancient worshippeers, to somehow catch a heavenly view, typed out into future prophecy, the details may have been quite important.  To us, maybe not so much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second, the sixty six son's of Israel that went down into Egypt&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we go, yes, some people went into Egypt, became slaves and were eventually delivered by Moses, so what? However at the time a promise was made to Abraham that the Messiah would be born under his lineage, and that he would be made into a great nation.  Now all the ancestral lineage of this family to which the Messiah would be born is important to those who followed it, because eventually it must be proven that Christ descended from that line. Yet in this case there is even more interest to those who later were delivered from Moses.  Was it not worth pondering on the facts that even in servitude to a foreign power that almost tried to exterminate the Jews to control population, yet from these few names over a million were taken out of Egypt! So even under these difficult situations the details of these names would shown to those people at the time that God kept his promise to Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third, Nehemiah's list of families that returned from the Babylonian exile&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To us again these are just names. To Israel at the time this was a great miraculous work of God delivering his people similar to the Exodus under Moses.  That each family retuning to Jerusalem was precious tokens of the prophets who foretold a remnant would return, Nehemiah takes care to record.  Not only would this might spur on other to leave their lives behind in Babylon and join the 'city of God' but to ponder on God's concern for each family and his fulfillment of prophecy to them. Use have kindled Jewish hope after the sorrowful despair and attach on their faith in seeing something they never believed possible, the destruction of the temple of their God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So we see, what is extraneous to us, was important to them, and yet it still teaches us useful things today.&lt;/strong&gt; Not everything was written just for us but God preserved a people of faith since Adam, and they needed many support not to be swallowed whole by a world under the Devil's command, who desired nothing more than to destroy and stamp out any remaining fragments of true faith.  it is a miracle like carrying a candle across a stormy sea, that a people of God, and the lineage of Christ was sustained from the call of Abraham until the birth of a Son from a virgin. Each supporting beam that carried these people fully to the Promise is precious, beautiful, natural, yet divinely rich. Just like Christ, who was a like a tender plant, and a root out of a dry ground, or like Aaron's rod, which seemed like just a dry stick, but became a living branch, budded, and blossomed, so the dry scripture actually rose up into a living support of God's loved people and reach far into the future to safely support the arrival of Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-27T11:54:16.177" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T11:54:16.177" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2012-08-25T16:37:42.177" Score="7" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Answer to Implied Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe every passage you have cited comes from the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They would be there because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the NT wants the lineage, of both Joseph + Mary&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;to the Jews it was important to understand which tribe of Israel they descended from. Thus, they kept detailed genealogical records. (I believe these were later destroyed by the roman general Titus)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;this is important to God. If one reads the book of revelation literrally, 12000 is taken from each tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel. In order to do this, we must maintain genealogical records&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Answer to Actual Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would happily read a bible that had 1000 more pages, where 500 of those pages talked about how God created the universe (rather than the few short verses in Genesis), and 500 of those pages explained Revelation in more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'm not sure what that extra book knowledge would do me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could make the claim -- that supposed we had more details about the Flood, it would make the bible more real -- and more people would believe it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, pre-Flood days -- in Genesis 3:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so presumably, pre-flood, humans head towards the garden of Eden, and see a &lt;em&gt;Cherubim&lt;/em&gt; -- having physical evidence of something super natural -- yet they continued to ignore God / sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, there were people in the times of Christ, ... who upon seeing Christ and his miracles, claimed Christ was from the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given all that, I'm not certain more detailed knowledge in the Bible would help &quot;Christianity&quot; more -- in that the unbelievers will continue in their unbelief; and as for the believers, 2 Corinthians 5:7 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(For we walk by faith, not by sight:) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2060" LastEditorUserId="2060" LastEditDate="2012-08-25T16:43:29.843" LastActivityDate="2012-08-25T16:43:29.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9331" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9332" CreationDate="2012-08-26T18:12:01.603" Score="14" ViewCount="4314" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading about ... hold on, what was I reading about? Nevermind, I was URL surfing. Jumping around from one link to another I somehow got to this -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He [Nero] was known for having captured Christians burned in his garden at&#xA;  night for a source of light. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I rubbed my eyes and squinted at the monitor. I wasn't hallucinating. I would never have believed such an outrageous statement had I not read it on wikipedia. :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it gets progressively worse -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the words of Tacitus, Christians showed &quot;hatred of the human race&quot;&#xA;  (odium generis humani). Christians were thought to use black magic in&#xA;  pursuit of revolutionary aims, and to practice incest and cannibalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Christians are to blame for every public disaster and every&#xA;  misfortune that befalls the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls,&#xA;  if the Nile fails to rise and flood the fields, if the sky withholds&#xA;  its rain, if there is earthquake or famine or plague, straightway the&#xA;  cry arises: 'The Christians to the lions!'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried to visualize and think just why would a belief system grow in such an environment. It seems counter intuitive. Let's look at the points -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Open persecution.&lt;/strong&gt; In modern times most of the countries have laws against religious violence. Persecutions are done by violent mobs but aren't state sponsored (exceptions apply). But with open support of government it would've been much worse.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Small population.&lt;/strong&gt; Hundreds of Christians are martyred nowadays. But since the population is already so large it doesn't have much effect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No written Bibles.&lt;/strong&gt; Imagine hearing sermons from a traveling missionary and then hanging onto that for the rest of your life. Repeated readings of the Bible makes it easier to learn your religion and not forget basic tenets of your faith.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Underground churches.&lt;/strong&gt; No fellowship and support of other people to let you hang on when times are tough.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hard to earn your bread.&lt;/strong&gt; Economic system was organized in a way to favor certain people. In modern times corporate culture has&#xA;removed religion and other personal factors from economy. Christians&#xA;would've found themselves at the bottom of this socioeconomic system.&#xA;And whenever you did catch a fish or log some timber, your house is&#xA;open to robbery. Law enforcement doesn't give a rat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Persecution in Lyon was preceded by mob violence, including&#xA;  assaults, robberies and stonings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cultural isolation.&lt;/strong&gt; Marriages, funerals and family life in general were difficult. You can imagine the difficulty by hearing the complaints of minorities in modern society and multiplying that many times over.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Impracticality.&lt;/strong&gt; There's little incentive to listen to that Babbling missionary when you've just returned from a Saturday night carnage show at the neighborhood Colosseum. You surely wouldn't want yourself to be cast in the next show, do you?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  It astounds my mind; just why would a religion sprout in such an environment? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: Please don't say that it was God's will. And please no quoting Acts 5:39.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T01:06:51.907" LastActivityDate="2015-08-05T01:06:51.907" Title="Why did Christianity survive at all?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;persecution&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="21" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2017-02-21T20:35:39.730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9331" CreationDate="2012-08-26T20:01:51.077" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The clear and correct answer is simply: God's will. God ensured that it happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, suppose one rephrased the question as: how could one explain the survival of Christianity in purely athiest terms -- with no mention of God whatsoever -- what is the closest approximation one could do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Measuring love in units of sacrifice.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's something fundamentally inspiring about someone willing to die for their beliefs. The following two quotes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is no fool who gives up what he can not keep in exchange for what he cannot lose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;has inspired me infinitely more than all the Prosperity &amp;quot;Gospel's&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Want health / wealth / happiness in this world and heaven in the next? Follow me in praying this little prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The willingness of the Christians to die for their beliefs had the following effects:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it inspired their fellow Christians. If Bob and Alex who I talked to last month decided to be lion's fodder rather than reject Christ -- how can I reject Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it drew the curiosity of not-yet-converted. Their sacrifice / martyrdom could not be explained by the selfish desires of humankind. Thus, their actions must have come from some other source -- and they must have really really believed it, in order to sacrifice their life for it. The more Christians that died -- the more gruesome their death -- the more it drew the curiosity of others to wonder &amp;quot;What did these Christians have that I do not have -- that gave them such a purpose in their life?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;No Written Bibles&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're spoiled in the modern age. I have at least 5 physical copies of the Bible in my room, and quite a few more digital copies. I've only read one copy cover to cover. And when I do read it, I feel it's more of an obligation than an intense desire. Those without the Bible probably had a better understanding of the Bible than I do -- because the verses were precious to them -- they memorized it -- they pondered it -- rather than read it for 15 minutes in a morning quiet time, and forget about it through out the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Underground Churches&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In personal experiences, I've found it much easier to perceive theological truths during times of solitude + depression ... than times of social happiness. I think the reason is as follows: almost everything in the world exists for one purpose -- to keep us so busy and occupied from birth to death -- that we lack the time to ponder on God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the early Christians had nothing (will I get into university XYZ, who much will company XYZ pay me / year ...), they had no distractions, and this allowed them to a higher understanding of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Cultural Isolation / Complaints&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think the early Christians complained. Why would they? A perfect Christ died on the cross -- they were instructed to pick up their cross and follow him -- they likely viewed persecution as an honor (to be considered worthy enough) and death to be glorious (yay Heaven!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Overall Analysis&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the fundamental problem is that the question looks at &amp;quot;Biblical Christianity&amp;quot; with a modern view of Christianity (i.e. that somehow this life should somehow be enjoyable).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, I believe that Biblical Christianity -- because it was so heavily persecuted, is a type of Christianity where &amp;quot;conversion = I'm literally ready to be tortured + die for Christ ... because that's what happens to most of the people who convert&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern Christianity, is much like &amp;quot;Yeah, these Christians people are pretty nice; they don't drink or do drugs; they hang out every Saturday to sing songs; I'd like to hang out to them.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And because of this, it's hard to us to understand how the Biblical Christians achieved so much ... much like how we struggle to understand how the 300 at thermopylae did what they did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In summary:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was really God's work. But if we must attribute it to help qualities, it's because the early Christians actually believed in Christ and were willing to die for Christ, rather than be luke warm christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-26T20:01:51.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9300" CreationDate="2012-08-26T21:37:59.467" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, my response, in trying to deal with the &quot;modern&quot; in modern biblical analysis, necessarily refers to non-scripture sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Time of Apostles:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 3:17 (Before Apostles)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2: 37-42&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have often wondered -- why is it for Man's sake that the ground is cursed, that that we shall eat in sorrow all the days of our life? Then I realized -- without pain and suffering -- how would we recognize the separation of God? -- without recognizing the separation from God, how would we accept Christ? -- and without accepting Christ, how would we avoid spending eternity in hell? Thus, indeed for our sake, the ground has been cursed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what I find beautiful in the time of the apostles -- is that they heard the message -- and were converted. It's as if God had already done great works in their heart .. and all that they lacked was the gospel. They were looking for the truth, they found that the human teachings of their time did not satisfy the cries of the heart, that the human teachings of their time did not explain all that went wrong with the world -- and when they heard the gospel, the recognized it as truth, and accepted it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Modern Day Criticism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One interesting question to ask is: where does the source of the modern biblical criticism come from? From what framework are we analyzing / criticizing the Bible from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at public school education in the US. Reading the Bible is banned. Yet, reading all types of classical literature written by non-Christians is acceptable. What does this have to do with modern biblical criticism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All literature is about human conflicts, human desires, human problems -- attempts at explaining why these human issues happen. In a sense, the &quot;wisdom&quot; of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens, Hawthorne, are attempts by humans to explain to humans in human opinions how this world works. And when one accepts this worldly &quot;wisdom&quot; it, in the case of unbelievers, &quot;satisfies / explains&quot; away the cursed-ness of the ground, the eating of the bread in sorrow. And thus, it's natural to criticize it from the framework of the human &quot;wisdom&quot; that one has already built.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, modern education (at least in the US), tends to teach that there is no absolute truth -- that the opinion of the individual (be it college student, high school or middle school student) is just as important as the greats. One is &lt;em&gt;encouraged&lt;/em&gt; to (1) believe that one's own opinion is absolute truth and (2) criticize the works of Shakespeare / Tolstoy / Dickens / ... anywhere it conflicts with internal beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very natural to take this same attitude when reading the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;To actually answer your question of:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Where does intellectual honesty turn into wicked contempt from a biblical perspective?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the foundation of the universe. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that were elected, the &quot;bad&quot; part of their questioning was paid for by Christ, the &quot;good&quot; part of their questioning was trying to cement their understanding of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that were not elected, even their good works are like filthy rags ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2065" LastActivityDate="2012-08-26T21:37:59.467" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9335" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-27T00:10:19.983" Score="15" ViewCount="13927" Body="&lt;p&gt;My friend asked me the other day, why is the word 'Lord' in all capital letters in the Old Testament but not the New Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tend to lean towards the fact that the OT was written in Hebrew and the word for God in Hebrew is YAHWEH, or rather YHWH, and since they believed His name was so Holy, they only used capital letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2066" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T03:53:27.930" LastActivityDate="2021-03-18T11:47:38.247" Title="Why is the word 'Lord' in all caps in the OT but not in the NT?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9335" CreationDate="2012-08-27T01:05:58.227" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;A convention in many Bibles is to do exactly as you say - convert the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) into LORD. To be sure, you should look at your Bible's preface. In the New Testament, which was composed in Greek, the word Kurios (e.g. Kyrie Elesion) is a title as opposed to a Proper Name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To be clear: יהוה (Yahweh) = LORD - specific name, אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) = Lord - title, κύριος = Lord - title&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the Jews took the notion of protection against blasphemy so far, that they would not pronounce the YHWH. Instead, during readings, they would substitute the proper name of God for Adonai, which translates to &quot;my Lord&quot;. When the Masoretes attempted to add the vowels between the 7th and 11th Centuries AD, they did not know the correct vowels to use, because the tradition of Adonai was so long entrenched. As a result, they adopted the vowels of Adonai and added them to the Y-H-W-H to get Yah voh (Yahweh), or as the English wanted to pronounce it: Jeh-hov-ah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2015-01-22T15:34:30.593" LastActivityDate="2015-01-22T15:34:30.593" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9335" CreationDate="2012-08-27T01:19:06.860" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Best bet is to read the introductory notes in your particular Bible.  The translators will usually put info in those notes about special features used in the English texts to denote certain things in the original language.  For example, my NASB has this note under Principles of Translation, The Proper Name of God in the Old Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the titles for God is Lord, a translation of &lt;em&gt;Adonai&lt;/em&gt;.  There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letters YHWH...it has been consistently translated LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2044" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T01:19:06.860" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2828" CreationDate="2012-08-27T01:40:23.237" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Husbands are not called to submit to their wives.  That doesn't mean he uses his authority over her in a domineering way.  In fact, Paul goes on to describe how a husband should love his wife, which would include how he uses his authority.  That is, he should love her like Christ loves the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul relates the submission of wives to the way the church submits to Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the key word &quot;For&quot; at the beginning of verse 23.  Its a grounding word and indicates that what comes next is the purpose for what is before it.  That is, wives should submit to their husbands &lt;strong&gt;because&lt;/strong&gt; the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church.  If the husband is the head, the wife cannot also be the head.  Someone has to lead the marriage and God calls men especially to that role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are going to say that husbands should submit to their wives, then using Paul's logic in the above verse (and therefore God's), you would also have to be saying that Christ should submit to the church.  Is anyone willing to make that argument?  Then you should be careful when arguing that husbands should submit to their wives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main problem with the mutual submission argument is an incorrect reading of the text, missing the intention of the original Greek word and context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So what reason can people give to argue for the &quot;mutual submission&quot;&#xA;  interpretation in Ephesians 5:21? Their argument is based on the&#xA;  expression, &quot;one another&quot; (the Greek pronoun allelous). Here&#xA;  interpreters say that the pronoun must mean &quot;everyone to everyone&quot;&#xA;  (that is, that it must be &quot;exhaustively reciprocal,&quot; which means that&#xA;  it refers to something that every single person does to every single&#xA;  other person). To support this view, they quote a number of verses&#xA;  where allelous does take that sense: we are all to &quot;love one another&quot;&#xA;  (John 13:34) and &quot;be servants of one another&quot; (Gal. 5:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But here is the crucial mistake: interpreters assume that because&#xA;  allelous means &quot;everyone to everyone&quot; in some verses, it must mean&#xA;  that in all verses. When they assume that, they simply have not done&#xA;  their homework-they have not checked out the way the word is used in&#xA;  many other contexts, where it doesn't mean &quot;everyone to everyone,&quot; but&#xA;  &quot;some to others.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That quote comes from Wayne Grudem: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rockvalleybiblechurch.org/ResourceLibrary/MythOfMutualSubmission.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.rockvalleybiblechurch.org/ResourceLibrary/MythOfMutualSubmission.htm&lt;/a&gt;  See that article for a more thorough explanation and discussion of this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand men have often abused their authority and their wives under the pretext of the authority given them in this text. There is no excuse for their behavior and they will have to give an account for their actions.  But, nothing is made better by gutting the meaning of this text.  The meaning is clear, wives should submit to their husbands, and not the other way around.  If you don't like that, ok, let's discuss that.  But let's not try to make the text say what it doesn't say or prevent it from saying what it does say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2044" LastEditorUserId="25" LastEditDate="2012-08-28T13:48:01.930" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T13:48:01.930" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9339" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9346" CreationDate="2012-08-27T05:45:16.783" Score="6" ViewCount="13450" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2109/crucifixion-torture-stake-or-cross&quot;&gt;Crucifixion &amp;mdash; torture stake or cross?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently there were at least three kinds of crosses used by the Romans to crucify criminals. One was called ‘Crux decussate’ in the shape of an ‘X’. The second, Crux Commissa, in the form of a ‘T’. Finally, they used, the Crux immissa in the form of a small 't' like what we usually see in the movies, typcical church crucifixes, or on jewelry, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any ancient records of the symbol of the cross in church history that would indicate what type of cross the Romans actually used to crucify Christ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask this trivia type question only because this is the type of thing my older Sunday school kids will throw at me and I have no answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T14:17:32.373" Title="What kind of Roman cross was used to crucify Jesus?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-08-27T21:39:47.413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9340" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9349" CreationDate="2012-08-27T06:03:22.503" Score="10" ViewCount="16506" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once read somewhere that the 'halo' was inherited by Christianity from ancient worshippers of the Sun.  However, although this seems believable I never bothered to verify its historic credibility - something I suppose would not be that difficult, one way or the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does make me wonder though, 'Where does the halo originate, or similarly the lights behind the portraits of 'holy' men in art, etc'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am specifically wondering at what point in history and for what meaning was the 'halo' 'first' used by Christians and was it 'new' or 'borrowed from pagan practice'? I am not interested if it should, or should not be used.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-20T00:37:43.330" LastActivityDate="2021-03-20T16:54:55.603" Title="Where did the religious symbol of the 'halo' come from?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9340" CreationDate="2012-08-27T06:35:23.097" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you have no credible source for this idea, then why do you mention it? It is impossible to prove that the first iconographers to use halo &lt;strong&gt;didn't&lt;/strong&gt; take inpirations from pagan imaginery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to know if halo is compatible with christian faith, you have to look what is the meaning of light in Scriptures. You can see from many fragments (like The Gospel According to St Jonh the Theologian Prologue) that the light means the life-giving energy of God. We can see that Christ shone with light during His transfigurations. We see prophets seeing light during their revelations. This is why Christ is surrounded by halo in icons (in the icon of Transfiguration this halo is big and surrounds His whole body).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/6UBfv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Transfiguration Icon&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the holy men (I don't know why you use quotes here) could be seen shining this light. There is a wonderful example in this text: &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/wonderful.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Seraphim of Sarov's Conversation With Nicholas Motovilov&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Father Seraphim replied: &amp;quot;I have already told you, your Godliness, that it is very simple and I have related in detail how people come to be in the Spirit of God and how we can recognize His presence in us. So what do you want, my son?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I want to understand it well,&amp;quot; I said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Father Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: &amp;quot;We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son. Why don't you look at me?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I replied: &amp;quot;I cannot look, Father, because your eyes are flashing like lightning. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and my eyes ache with pain.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Father Seraphim said: &amp;quot;Don't be alarmed, your Godliness! Now you yourself have become as bright as I am. You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself; otherwise you would not be able to see me as I am.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I would recommend to reading the whole text)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even if there was some pagan elements of inspiration in this symbol (like e.g. clergy vestments taking inspiration from the roman officials dresses), it is now used for the christian meaning and is fully compatible with what Christianity teaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2021-03-20T16:54:55.603" LastActivityDate="2021-03-20T16:54:55.603" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="9344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9331" CreationDate="2012-08-27T08:12:56.320" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The responses of Christians under persecution are akin to individual experiences that we often come across in our life, when we pass through troubles and hardships.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many instances around the world, Christianity has become more deeply rooted in the hearts of its followers under persecution than in prospering and commanding times. Rather Christians tend to move away from their faith in an environment where there is no opposition to their faith or when everything is conducive in their life. Reason may be because, they are busy enjoying the earthly fruits and pleasures when they are in their comfortable phases of life rather than turning to Christ. During their hard times, Christians tend to turns towards Bible and to Christ and &lt;strong&gt;try to take an inspiration and example from their savior Himself!&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+27:26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew  27:28-31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NET)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  They stripped him and put a scarlet robe around him, and after braiding a crown of thorns, they put it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand, and kneeling down before him, they mocked him: “Hail, king of the Jews!” They spat on him and took the staff and struck him repeatedly on the head. When they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes back on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verses like these in Bible gives immense courage and motivation for Christians who undergo persecution and strengthen their faith further. The application of such verses leads them towards &lt;strong&gt;comparison&lt;/strong&gt; of their life to that of their savior who was God incarnate Himself but lived just like an ordinary man and &lt;strong&gt;suffered humiliations&lt;/strong&gt;.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The comparison may be something like this.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We Christians though just being &lt;strong&gt;ordinary humans&lt;/strong&gt;, will never tolerate in our “real life situations” similar humiliations as suffered by Christ.  Any wrong accusation or undue insult against and there would attempts to tell the world that it is not true by shouting from the rooftops. Many times, they will not even accept or bear a single word said against them by someone, even though it may have been warranted in some circumstances due to their behavior. Compare this with above verse from Mathew.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, Christ though capable of doing wonders (and He did so, to help/heal others and not to show off his powers) to annihilate his detractors and accusers, just surrenders to them meekly. He being the Creator of the very Human being who were insulting Him, Christians acknowledge, how much He tolerated the insults and putdowns from His own creations. With so much of divine power, power even to raise the dead, He could have easily overcome these people humiliating Him. He did not do it because He came for this very purpose.  To suffer and die for sinners.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you acknowledge this behavior of your savior and His suffering for no fault of His, you tend to surrender all the hardships and persecution to Him to take care of them for you. When you do so with a fervent and honest heart and with your mind completely saturated with an urge for having an experience with Him, that is the time you become fully convinced that there is nothing in this world, more appealing than with having a true relationship with your savior and dying for Him. This is the time you become more assured that Jesus being divine did suffer so much then why can’t I, who is just the dust of the earth as compared to the Son of God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also realize that Jesus is truly the God incarnate or otherwise he would have behaved like any other human with a human instinct to demonstrate and use His powers to score points against the humanity by behaving like a powerful king or like an entertaining superman.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So it is sheer convincing power of verses in the Bible and the example of Christ that keeps them going under any troubles and persecution.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-08-27T15:09:02.040" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T15:09:02.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9339" CreationDate="2012-08-27T14:17:32.373" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Biblical evidence is a bit ambiguous in this particular case, but tradition definitely says that it was cross in the shape of a small t, the common one found in classical and medieval art. Some thoughts from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It states the cross shape explicitly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cross on which Jesus Christ was nailed was of the kind known as immissa, which means that the vertical trunk extended a certain height above the transverse beam&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, Biblical proof that it could not have been an &amp;quot;X&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We gather as much from St. Matthew (27:37), where he tells us that the titulus, or inscription containing the cause of His death, was placed, &amp;quot;over&amp;quot;, the head of Jesus Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then confirmation that it was a &amp;quot;✝&amp;quot; with historical evidences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., II, xxiv) says that the Cross had five extremities: two in its length, two in its breadth, and the fifth a projection (habitus) in the middle&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nonnus confirms the statement that Jesus Christ was crucified on a quadrilateral cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, there seems to have been a seat for Christ as well (that fifth extremity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Irenæus... says that the Cross had a fifth extremity, on which the Crucified One was seated&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the foot support probably wasn't there:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[That] the Crucifixion there [was] a wooden support... is very doubtful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T14:17:32.373" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2012-08-27T15:11:31.683" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: Just because it's not important to &lt;em&gt;us&lt;/em&gt; doesn't mean it's not important to &lt;em&gt;someone&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's the phrase that you might hear from time to time: &quot;One man's trash is another man's treasure&quot;.  Though our culture finds those details irrelevant, not all cultures do.  Since the Bible is written to &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; cultures, these details must exist in order to be effective in those places.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, some remaining tribal cultures, such as some of those in Papua New Guinea.  For some tribal cultures, the genealogies are EXTREMELY important.  In fact, for some of those cultures, the genealogies themselves are what validate the truthfulness of the Scripture.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though we may tend to skip over these, as they're more or less culturally irrelevant to us, that doesn't mean that they're culturally irrelevant to all people.  I'd encourage you to read the article below, which lends value to genealogies, and some of the other more &quot;boring&quot; parts of the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bereaninsights.com/article/bible-gem-772-another-boring-genealogy-luke-323-38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bereaninsights.com/article/bible-gem-772-another-boring-genealogy-luke-323-38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T15:11:31.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9340" CreationDate="2012-08-27T16:12:12.290" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;First you should read &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_%28religious_iconography%29&quot;&gt;The Wikipedia article on the halo&lt;/a&gt; to get a good idea of the use of the halo in the past. You will see that it was indeed used by the Romans and possibly the Greeks as well as in Asian art. Wikipedia states (without citation) that it was first used in Christian art around the 4th Century. Roman art in particular used the halo to indicate divine personages, and initial use on Christian art was restricted to Christ. Given Christianity's intimate association with the Roman Empire in the 1-3rd century it is unlikely that the use of the halo was independently invented by Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next thing you should realize is that the halo is simply an artistic convention. Early art was much more 'representational' than modern art. It was not intended to imply that holy figures literally had a glow around their head. It simply indicated who in the picture were 'holy' or 'divine' characters. Because of this it makes no sense to read anything into Christian artists use of the convention - it's simply a way to convey meaning to the the viewers of the art. It would make no more sense to denegrate Christian art for using it than to condemn a Christian comic book-writer for using 'speech bubbles'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The halo fell out of favour when art transitioned to more realistic conventions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T16:12:12.290" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9331" CreationDate="2012-08-27T17:38:10.107" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short Answer = Faith.&#xA;Long Answer = History&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why did it Thrive?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a secular perspective, the history of the church is highly correlated with the success of Western Europe.  What follows is drawn highly from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.librarything.com/work/2009896/book/21462443&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;A World History of Christianity by Adrian Hastings&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Around the time of Charlemange, for example, Christianity was the primary religion in only a handful of countries in the former Roman Empire, including Ireland, England, France, Italy, and Germany.  Christianity was not even officially the religion of Russia, for example, until 988.  By contrast, while Christianity had spread across the East through Syria, Iraq, and all the way to China and Mongolia by 600, the spread of Islam (beginning in 622) drastically reduced the power and influence of the church across the East even through the present day. Indeed, when the Turks were invading Southern Europe from the East and the Moors through Spain in the West, one could argue that the Church faced a geographical &quot;crisis,&quot; that coincided with &quot;the Dark Ages,&quot; being restricted almost entirely to Western Europe. Additionally, the Roman Catholic church was arguably at its nadir in the 1300 &amp;amp; 1400s - a period which corresponded to the aftermath of the Black Death and the isolation of Europe after the heyday of the High Middle Ages in the 1200s and the Crusades in the 1100s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, even though the church in Western Europe was rent by schism in the 1500s and 1600s, Christianity was spread to the Americas, reintroduced into East Asia by the Jesuits, and generally experienced marked growth. During this same period, the Italian Renaissance and the Enlightenment which followed were driving factors in the re-emergence of Western European power. While historians would argue over the relative importance of, for example, the printing press (Gutenberg's Bible in 1453 as the classic example), the Age of Exploration (including Henry the Navigator, Columbus, Magellen, etc...), neither the documented rise of Western Europe nor the general period in which it occurred over its neighbors is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In no way do I mean to denigrate the fundamentals of Christianity in its success.  Additionally, several scholars have argued that Western Europe succeeded because of Christianity, and not the other way around. Max Weber, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Protestant Work Ethic&lt;/a&gt;, argued that the Protestant understanding of Scripture in particular, led to the rise of free markets and wealth. More recently, Rodney Stark &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Victory_Of_Reason.html?id=Q9j6OoeWqK4C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Victory of Reason&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, is subtitled &quot;How Christianity Led To Freedom, Capitalism, And Western Success,&quot; which gives you an idea of what the book is about. Not without controversy, Stark traces property rights, democracy, and the rule of law through Christianity into the rise of Western Europe, as I alluded to &lt;a href=&quot;https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/882/is-there-any-evidence-that-the-catholic-church-reduced-innovation-during-the-mid/975#975&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is that the &quot;success&quot; of the church is highly correlated with that of Western Europe. It would be difficult, in a scholarly answer, to distinguish the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How did it survive long enough to thrive?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, however, is not what fundamentals of Christianity caused it to thrive, but what got it to the place where it could survive in the first place.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Foxe's Book of Martyrs&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetua_and_Felicity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Acts of Perpetua&lt;/a&gt;, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrdom_of_Polycarp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Martyrdom of Polycarp&lt;/a&gt; all point to that answer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They knew God was greater than their present circumstance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There, people fundamentally believed what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:55&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, as Paul would state in Romans 8:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long;&#xA;      we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People, fully committed to an idea, are powerful.  In Genesis 11, God even admits to this, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who know that even death is not an impediment are even more of a force to be reckoned with.  Christianity survived due to God's grace, to be sure, but also because of faith. Those who came before us had tenacity, yes, but faith.  As a result, as Hebrews 11 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 &lt;strong&gt;the world was not worthy of them.&lt;/strong&gt; They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:51.080" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T17:46:28.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9351" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9371" CreationDate="2012-08-27T18:08:18.140" Score="26" ViewCount="112106" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is my understanding that in many countries of the world, it is illegal to print or own a copy of the Bible.  Is there any compilation of which countries have banned the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As an aside, if you know of any other widely banned books, I'd be interested to know what they are.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-08-27T22:15:46.607" LastActivityDate="2013-12-10T22:53:10.187" Title="In what countries is it illegal to own a Bible (the most banned book in the world)?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9352" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-27T18:14:38.157" Score="5" ViewCount="2175" Body="&lt;p&gt;My parish priest uses the example of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A1-23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:18-23&lt;/a&gt; to explain that this one explanation of the parable of the sower was the one that Matthew, wanted to put in his Gospel to drive home some particular point, but Jesus Himself, did not explain His parables when preaching - so there are many interpretations that the listeners (and us) would go home with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, does it fall within the scope of a valid understanding of the Bible, that Jesus' parables have different meanings according to ones station in life?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like a Catholic answer, but any decent answer that doesn't start out by negating the premise of the question (which I don't totally understand and therefore cannot defend)  would be acceptable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T19:10:51.557" Title="Did Jesus' parables have different meanings to the different Gospel writer's congregations?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9331" CreationDate="2012-08-27T20:28:05.987" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of reasons Christianity survived in the face of persecution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, Christianity began at a time when the Romans were working to make it easy to travel throughout the Mediterranean, in order to facilitate management of their growing empire. Paul and other early missionaries were therefore able to spread the gospel faster than any religion had ever been spread before. The Roman historian Suetonius reports that Christians were causing a disturbance in Rome during the reign of Claudius, less than two decades after Jesus' crucifixion. So by that time the church had already spread from Jerusalem to Rome and had gathered enough of a following to cause others to notice. (Priscilla and Aquila, mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/18-2.html&quot;&gt;Acts 18&lt;/a&gt;, were probably involved in this disturbance.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nero's persecution also contributed to the growth of Christianity in two ways. First, it was localized; Christians outside Rome were generally left alone. Second, Nero was not consistent in explaining his reasons for the persecutions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a massive fire swept through Rome, destroying or damaging nearly 3/4 of the city, many Romans suspected Nero of having set the fire himself. To deflect attention, Nero chose a convenient scapegoat. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_%28Tacitus%29/Book_15#44&quot;&gt;Tacitus explains&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So although Nero began rounding up Christians under the pretext of accusing them of arson, he ended up executing them for the vague crime of &quot;hatred against mankind.&quot; The Romans, already suspicious of Nero for the great fire, saw these persecutions as evidence of Nero's cruelty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though Tacitus was not a fan of Christianity, he notes that a number of Romans converted because of the persecutions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians would be persecuted at various times and places for nearly three centuries, but later persecutions followed the same pattern as Nero's; persecution was personality-driven, sporadic and localized, or poorly enforced by distant governors. No persecution was so extensive as to threaten the existence of the global church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian apologist Tertullian, who lived in the late 2nd century, noted the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-05.htm#P478_246152&quot;&gt;connection between persecution and church growth&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[I]t is quite true that it is our desire to suffer, but it is in the way that the soldier longs for war. No one indeed suffers willingly, since suffering necessarily implies fear and danger. Yet the man who objected to the conflict, both fights with all his strength, and when victorious, he rejoices in the battle, because he reaps from it glory and spoil. It is our battle to be summoned to your tribunals that there, under fear of execution, we may battle for the truth. But the day is won when the object of the struggle is gained. This victory of ours gives us the glory of pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal. But we are overcome. Yes, when we have obtained our wishes. Therefore we conquer in dying; we go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued. &amp;hellip; The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T20:28:05.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9335" CreationDate="2012-08-27T20:31:19.230" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew letters roughly corresponding to &lt;em&gt;YHWH&lt;/em&gt; are the name of the Jewish god.  Literally, this is their god's name, just like my name is Kyralessa and your name is Rachel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in order to avoid using God's name in vain, the Jews did not pronounce this name.  Instead, they substituted the Hebrew word &lt;em&gt;adonai&lt;/em&gt;, which means &amp;quot;lord&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the actual Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the consonants &lt;em&gt;YHWH&lt;/em&gt; for the name of God are pointed with the vowels for the word &lt;em&gt;adonai&lt;/em&gt;.  (You can see what Hebrew vowels look like here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Two/Transliteration/transliteration.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrew Nikkudot&lt;/a&gt;)  This means that whenever you're reading aloud, and you come to the name of God, you instead read the word &lt;em&gt;adonai&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't the only case of this kind of substitution, though it's by far the most common.  You can find more qere/ketiv cases here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qere_and_Ketiv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Qere and Ketiv&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading the vowels of &lt;em&gt;adonai&lt;/em&gt; with the consonants &lt;em&gt;YHWH&lt;/em&gt; gives one &amp;quot;Yehovah&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Jehovah&amp;quot;.  This isn't the name of God, however.  Despite its historical popularity, it's simply a nonsensical mixture of two different words.  We don't know what vowels the word &lt;em&gt;YHWH&lt;/em&gt; originally had.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Writing the word LORD in the Old Testament is a way of indicating that in that place, the name of God (&lt;em&gt;YHWH&lt;/em&gt;) is present in the original Hebrew.  &lt;em&gt;adonai&lt;/em&gt; translates as &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot;, so this is a way in English of simulating the Hebrew practice of saying &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; in place of God's name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few cases in Hebrew where &lt;em&gt;adonai YHWH&lt;/em&gt; occurs.  To avoid the awkwardness of &amp;quot;Lord LORD&amp;quot; in the text, Bibles generally render this as &amp;quot;Lord GOD&amp;quot; instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, the capital letters in English don't have any connection with capital letters in Hebrew, because Hebrew doesn't have capital and lower-case letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what about the New Testament?  The New Testament doesn't contain the name of God anywhere.  The word &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; in the New Testament is κύριος &lt;em&gt;kyrios&lt;/em&gt;, and the word &amp;quot;God&amp;quot; is θεός &lt;em&gt;theos&lt;/em&gt;.  It's quite possible that in some cases of the New Testament, kyrios is meant to stand in for the name of God (with the &lt;em&gt;adonai&lt;/em&gt; substition).  But since it's technically not the name of God, the &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot;-in-small-caps convention isn't used in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An analogy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People are so used to hearing &amp;quot;Jehovah&amp;quot; that it may be difficult to comprehend that it's a nonsensical word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose for a moment that my (nick)name, Kyralessa, was the name of a deity.  If we render it in English but take out the vowels, we'd end up with KRLS.  Now suppose that a pious people decides, out of reverence, to use the phrase &amp;quot;He who is&amp;quot; in place of this name: Wherever their holy writings say &amp;quot;KRLS&amp;quot;, you should instead read &amp;quot;He who is&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To indicate this, they add the vowels from the phrase &amp;quot;he who is&amp;quot;, that is, &amp;quot;e o i&amp;quot;, to the consonants KRLS, to indicate the &amp;quot;he who is&amp;quot; substitution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now centuries later, along comes an eager but not-so-bright individual who wants to study this holy writ.  He knows the consonants, and he knows the vowels, and when he puts them together, he gets this: KeRoLiS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aha! he says.  The name of their god was &amp;quot;Kerolis&amp;quot;!  And so he announces it and spreads the word, and soon books and hymns are written extoling the name of the great god Kerolis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But of course the name &amp;quot;Kerolis&amp;quot; doesn't exist.  It's a jumble of two separate words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is exactly the way the made-up name &amp;quot;Jehovah&amp;quot; came about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" LastEditorUserId="429" LastEditDate="2021-03-18T11:47:38.247" LastActivityDate="2021-03-18T11:47:38.247" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="9355" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9366" CreationDate="2012-08-27T20:34:37.250" Score="2" ViewCount="498" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus makes it pretty clear that because of our unbelief we will not see miracles in our life (see below).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, psychological experts warn against the dangers of unrealistic expectations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See Psychology Today:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201003/the-danger-having-unrealistic-expectations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Danger Of Having Unrealistic Expectations&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In summary, unrealistic expectations can lead to very negative consequences, if the outcome is not met.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the New Testament instructs us to believe - in the super natural, in the impossible or in psychology terms: the unrealistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i.e. -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus Gives Life to a Dead Girl:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Matthew:   35 While Jesus was still there speaking, some men came from&#xA;  the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. They said, “Your daughter&#xA;  is dead. There is no need to bother the Teacher.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 But Jesus did not care what the men said. He said to the synagogue&#xA;  leader, “Don’t be afraid; &lt;strong&gt;just believe&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 13:58&lt;br&gt;&#xA;     And so he did only a few &lt;strong&gt;miracles&lt;/strong&gt; there because of&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;their unbelief&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should our life be filled by consistently believing in the impossible - will that end up damaging our faith or just create a denial fantasy world apart from reality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should we be thinking about &lt;strong&gt;unrealistic vs. realistic belief&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus is no longer here in human form, is OK to have unbelief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any good studies or articles on this concept?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank You.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-08-27T20:47:24.487" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T10:45:16.293" Title="Should we have realistic unbelief?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;belief&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-09-18T15:28:59.283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2012-08-27T23:25:00.637" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we need to be careful with our terms here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is good to believe the &lt;strong&gt;truth&lt;/strong&gt;, including a belief in God, and a belief in His ability to miraculously impact the physical realm.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is not good to believe &lt;strong&gt;lies&lt;/strong&gt;.  You were not made for the purpose of believing lies, and it can actually be destructive to you physically (mentally).  I think what Psychologists are observing is the destructive effects of believing what is &lt;strong&gt;not true&lt;/strong&gt;, whether that be &quot;I am a gorilla&quot;, or &quot;I am going to be a gorilla tomorrow&quot; (an &quot;unrealistic expectation&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in that sense, it is not good to believe in the &quot;unrealistic.&quot;  But it is not fair to equate the &quot;supernatural&quot; with the &quot;unrealistic&quot; or &quot;impossible&quot;, as if all that which were possible must exist in the natural (physical) realm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the extent that the supernatural realm is &quot;real&quot;, it would be best to &lt;em&gt;believe in it&lt;/em&gt;.  To reject the God who &lt;em&gt;really exists&lt;/em&gt; would be extremely unhealthy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: Christianity is about &lt;strong&gt;truth&lt;/strong&gt;, not blind faith in unrealistic fantasies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” &lt;strong&gt;-Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:31-32&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 8:31-32&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-08-27T23:25:00.637" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2012-08-28T03:44:29.897" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Daniel 3:17-18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.&#xA;  18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 5:14-15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;====&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, I think the question really is: &quot;Is our 'unrealistic' expectation according to God's will or our own sinful desires?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the latter case, the unrealistic expectation is pure stupidity. In the former case, I think it's faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2068" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T03:44:29.897" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2012-08-28T05:08:27.197" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Surely the question here is what is &quot;realistic&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Few people would say that you should believe things that are false. The question is, What is the truth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you start with the assumption that miracles are impossible, then of course the rational conclusion is that you should not believe in miracles. But that's the question, isn't it? Are miracles possible or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is obviously true that miracles are not common. Not dramatic, obvious miracles like seas parting or water turning into wine, at least. Whether they could be common if only we had more faith, or were better in tune with God's will; or if God's plan does not include more-frequent miracles under any circumstances is a big question that I don't claim to know the answer to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T05:08:27.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9352" CreationDate="2012-08-28T05:18:08.663" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it POSSIBLE for a parable to have two meanings? Sure, the idea is not inconceivable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that a writer or speaker could have more than one point in mind when telling a story isn't particularly radical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the parables are all very short. How much meaning can you cram into a couple of paragraphs? Do you have any examples of two different meanings that could reasonably be derived from the same parable? I can't think of any off the top of my head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T05:18:08.663" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4521" CreationDate="2012-08-28T05:32:09.933" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The bible is not a ‘medical encyclopedia’ so naturally it does not refer to every specific mental problems, but we can assume many came to Jesus to be healed of them and they were called ‘various diseases’.&lt;/strong&gt; Clearly by observing some people mental problems, in the Bible, even if only temporary, they existed. Why else would Judas have committed suicide if he had not become so fully brought under depression and a sense of doom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even &lt;strong&gt;in the Old Testament we can see that people generally understood the idea of a person who had mental illness.&lt;/strong&gt; To avoid trouble for example David pretended to have an extreme mental illness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of Achish king of Gath. So he pretended to be insane in their presence; and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate and letting saliva run down his beard. (NIV 1 Samuel 21:12-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another Old Testament case is where King Nebuchadnezzar actually went insane and than later regained his sanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like the ox. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird. At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. (NIV Daniel 4:33-34)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we approach the New Testament there seems to be an upsurge in ‘demonic activity’, possibly as the doctrines for the church were so corrupt that demons had nothing better to do than wage war on the minds and bodies of sinners who had  opened a door to them through occult practices or whatnot, we do not really know , nor need to understand the secrets of darkness. In any case Jesus directly cast out many demons as part of his ministry and sometimes mental illness and other diseases were was associated with demonic possession and sometimes not. &lt;strong&gt;The Bible therefore clearly distinguishes, between natural mental illness and demonic mental illness.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. (NIV Mathew 4:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the foundation of the early Church, for whatever reason, possibly just because the church became much more powerful, demonic possession did not maintain the same ‘spike’ of occurrences as it did in the ministry of Christ. However this does not mean that on occasion this is still the cause of mental problems. &lt;strong&gt;I have close relationships with people who provide full time pastoral care for Christians and I can assure you many people including Christians suffer mental illness. Many that can be cured, or at least helped by drugs prescribed by doctors, and some, although possibly rare, are also struggling with demons.&lt;/strong&gt;  To distinguish between the two, when scriptures are quoted in relation to the problems a demoniac is suffering, there is a violent reaction to the word of God, but those who are just depressed, or bi-polar, etc. the scriptures help and comfort. Of course typically a worrying depressed by-polar, might worry that they are possessed, even while sincerely seeking God and the scriptures, and the scriptures must then be used to reassure them that such is not the case! If they are believing in Christ and cannot possibly be confessing his name by faith if they were demon possessed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have partly tried to offer comfort to people suffering mental health issues in this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8180/when-might-a-christians-consider-taking-anti-depressants-or-psychiatric-medicati&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt;, unfortunately to the potential loss of comfort for these dear people; it has recently been recently closed as off topic. Please feel free to re-open as I think that is the more wise and mature approach to responsibly render ones vote, regardless of how ell intentioned those that closed the question may have been. Either way, there is a book I would recommend much better than any post, which honestly deals with the subject, written by a famous English preacher who was also, in a previous career, a respected medical doctor! Well what a surprise someone actually understanding what they are talking about, why not read such a person’s book? It is called Healing and the Scriptures by David Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Anyone seriously interested in the subject, or those who are in the medical or counseling field would do well to study it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also speak with some authority on this subject, as I am one of those rare people who did suffer demonic possession and upon believing in Christ was completely and instantly healed, thirty years ago. I also know dear Christian friends who need medicine for mental deficiencies. Some are able to wean themselves off, and others that are not, depending on the condition. We should pray and encourage such people, not judge them, accurse them of being ‘demonized’, or deny their problems. That would be to provide great offence to God! Such people can have very great and impressive faith while struggling with very difficult problems and can be an example to us who enjoy such an easy life in terms of being able to cope in a career and raise our families without having our whole world collapse around us now and again. Thankfully God is able to reach those people and take them out from under the pit, praise his holy name forevermore. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a former demoniac I certainly had a lot of emotional problems to contend with for many years after becoming a Christian. I have tried to show a way for other’s who suffer similar problems, that are not medical based, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8311/from-what-biblical-basis-can-it-be-argued-god-heals-damaged-emotions-or-physiol/8331#8331&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. This post is very dear to me own heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I would only add one caution to the subject.&lt;/strong&gt; The uncontrollable desire to sin which the world suffers and atheistic psychologists and psychiatrists might pretend to manage (compared to their Christian counterparts using biblical principles) should not be diagnosed as a 'mental illness' requiring therapy and or medication. For example, I was a kleptomaniac from the age of six until sixteen, the difference was simply that I was delivered from a life of sin through simple faith in Christ. Most of our generic mental ills are just the ills of sin, which require nothing more than repentance and faith in Christ, followed by a total intent of surrendering our life over to him and his word, both internally and externally. From a general standpoint from our modern perspective we would call a person who enjoys watching others killed as a great mental illness, but in the Bible in the Roman amphitheaters this was just called entertainment and is regular sin. We must limit mental illness to real medically understood anomalies that aredifferent from just intense sinful cravings. Only the church is qualified to administer medicine for sin through the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T06:48:19.087" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9326" CreationDate="2012-08-28T06:07:52.077" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As David Morton says, just because you or I don't see the value of some information, doesn't mean that no one, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, might not have a use for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what do you mean by &quot;non-essential&quot;? It is said that a trouble-maker once asked Rabbi Hillel if he could summarize the whole Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel obligingly stood on one foot and replied, &quot;What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study the commentary.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't mention the &quot;begats&quot;, which are commonly cited in questions such as yours. But they have proven valuable to people trying to establish a chronology of the Old Testament, to attach specific years to events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Table of Nations&quot; in Genesis 10, another long list of names, has proven valuable to people trying to connect Biblical history to secular history by tying people in the Bible to nations known from secular sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the descriptions of the furnishings of the tabernacle, perhaps we are supposed to see symbolic significance. Perhaps someday archaeologists will dig up these artifacts, and the descriptions will help to identify them. Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe Christians 100 years from now will find some information valuable that is of little use to us today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T06:07:52.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9362" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9363" CreationDate="2012-08-28T07:40:35.243" Score="3" ViewCount="4131" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read about satanic symbols and signs and that made me conscious of people around me doing them. Christians, relatives, people I know who I believe cannot belong to any cult. Here are the common signs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/W3MFm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first and last it's claimed to be making obeisance to Satan showing his 2 horns and the middle one is claimed to be representing 3 6's = 666. Note the literal meaning written under the images, it is believed it is coded like that so people wouldn't know the actual meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the image below, captured from wikipaedia - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-ok&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;OK-Sign&lt;/a&gt;, note the highlighted comment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/MrSYE.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do other Christians view this? Does it matter if Christians show them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T03:37:17.703" Title="Christians showing purported satanic signs" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9362" CreationDate="2012-08-28T07:55:40.227" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for &quot;how other Christians view this&quot;, the answer is &quot;it depends on the Christian in question.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Christians, as you pointed out, believe these are signs of the devil, others don't. Just like some Christians see Harry Potter as Satan's way of luring kids into witchcraft, while others think it's a good read and good movies. Some Christians see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/procter.asp&quot;&gt;Satanic symbols in the Proctor and Gamble logo&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://rense.com/general20/666.htm&quot;&gt;the mark of the beast in UPC barcodes&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for whether or not it matters, I defer to Romans 14 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful&#xA;  disputations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak,&#xA;  eateth herbs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him&#xA;  which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master&#xA;  he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to&#xA;  make him stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day&#xA;  alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;.... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is&#xA;  nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be&#xA;  unclean, to him it is unclean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To those that believe these are Satan's signs, it matters. To those that don't, it doesn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T07:55:40.227" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9364" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9365" CreationDate="2012-08-28T08:47:37.597" Score="2" ViewCount="1043" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When is this verse supposed to be fulfilled?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would guess not today (or even tomorrow.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, if in heaven, we are to be like angels, to neither marry nor be given in marriage, where are the children to come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2068" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-09-15T07:29:54.383" LastActivityDate="2019-09-15T10:58:58.533" Title="When is Isaiah 11:8 supposed to be fulfilled?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9364" CreationDate="2012-08-28T10:37:52.673" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like all prophecy, there will be dispute until it happens (and even then...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3131/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-millenialisms&quot;&gt;millenialists&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; would say that this will be fulfilled in the 1000 year reign of Christ. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3131/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-millenialisms/3134#3134&quot;&gt;Sven's diagram&lt;/a&gt; shows when that could be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your second quote is based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:30&lt;/a&gt; which is about marriage &lt;em&gt;in heaven&lt;/em&gt;. Millenialists would say that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2011:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 11:8&lt;/a&gt; refers to &lt;em&gt;Earth&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rondaniel.com/library/23-Isaiah/Isaiah1101.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here is a commentary I found backing up this idea&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T10:45:04.690" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9355" CreationDate="2012-08-28T10:38:20.593" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Hebrews 11:1, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the conviction (one could use the word rebuke here) of things not seen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not that one is called to believe a lie, but rather that a Christian is called to see &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/10/13/seeing-through-not-with-the-eye/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;through and not with the eye&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. There is far more to this world than what can be seen. Faith is merely having the trust in God that says, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/2-9.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;no eye has seen see or ear heard what God has prepared for those who love him&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; (1 Cor 2:9).  Just because we do not see what is truly going on, does not negate the fact that God is still orchestrating a reality unperceieved by our senses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, as verse 6 says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Without faith, it is impossible to please God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, I would argue that yes, indeed, Christians are thus compelled to believe what may not be perceived with the senses, but is nonetheless true. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-08-28T10:45:16.293" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T10:45:16.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4521" CreationDate="2012-08-28T12:20:44.030" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story of King Nebuchadnezzar answers this, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%204:19-37&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 4:19-37&lt;/a&gt;. A summary of the story: Daniel gives a prophecy (from God) that Nebuchadnezzar:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like the ox and be drenched with the dew of heaven. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%204:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 4:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key verse is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%204:34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;34a&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and &lt;strong&gt;my sanity was restored&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; mental illness (&lt;em&gt;insanity&lt;/em&gt; is implied here) exists in the Bible but &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be healed in those who acknowledge God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T12:20:44.030" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8765" CreationDate="2012-08-28T13:11:51.337" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is no airtight prooftext, but it does hint at the idea that faith is given by God, and not spontaneously generated in the would-be believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,&#xA;  (Philippians 1:29 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this verse, Paul is speaking of suffering for the sake of Christ. But the &quot;not only&quot; seems to imply that the readers must already recognize that their belief is something that is granted by God. He expands this concept with which they are already familiar to say that just as they know that their faith is given to them by God, he is now telling them that their suffering is ordained by Him as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="44" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T13:11:51.337" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9370" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-28T14:23:02.450" Score="2" ViewCount="26173" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is another question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2744/what-is-the-significance-of-the-number-666&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that asks for the significance of the number 666.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the answers relate it to papacy, Nero or some other apocalyptic event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read several prophetic websites and they do the same thing. Sum up the numeric value of the alphabets in somebody's name. Multiply it by 2, divide by 3 and it comes to 666.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I was reading my Bible was surprised to find the following verse -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Kings 10:14 The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was&#xA;666 talents,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Chronicles 9:13 The weight of the gold that Solomon&#xA;received yearly was 666 talents,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is how did everyone over look this? Could it be that the number has nothing to do with papacy or Nero.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be some sort of connection with Solomon. If so what is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-11-26T01:44:30.583" Title="Is there a connection between 666 and Solomon?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9351" CreationDate="2012-08-28T15:41:53.490" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regrettably, there are many countries with legal or customary restrictions on the Bible. While a &lt;em&gt;total&lt;/em&gt; ban is comparatively rare (e.g., North Korea punishes &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; possession of religious literature by death or imprisonment), it is more common for ownership or distribution to be limited:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To certain government-approved groups only. For example, China allows distribution of Bibles for churches or seminaries that are part of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement / China Christian Council, and they are sold in some bookshops, but cannot generally be mail-ordered by individuals or unregistered churches. Several other nations require government approval before religious books (or any books) can be printed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To foreigners only. Maldives says citizens must be Muslim, and foreigners are allowed to practice their religion in private; Bibles can be imported for personal use.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In certain languages only. Morocco allows Bibles in French, English, and Spanish, but not Arabic.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can't publish, but can import. Turkmenistan does not allow publication of Bibles. They can be imported, in limited numbers and with permission, by registered churches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Restrictions on attempts to convert members of other religions may also result in de facto bans on Bibles. Similarly, government actions in the name of &quot;public order&quot; may have the same effect, even if there is no law specifically banning Bible publication or ownership. In several cases, effective bans on religious freedom take place despite supposed constitutional guarantees to the contrary. Experiences may vary in different parts of the same country, or at different times. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &quot;illegal&quot; is perhaps the wrong word, and we should instead be thinking of &quot;Can anyone easily obtain a Bible in this country without attracting official difficulties?&quot;. Any such list will have fuzzy edges, of course. One indicator might be the ease with which Bible societies are able to do their work. They are organized groups with a missionary element and so the bar is higher for them than for private individuals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gideons.org&quot;&gt;Gideons&lt;/a&gt; have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gideons.org/AboutUs/~/media/PDFs/General/309-11.ashx&quot;&gt;list&lt;/a&gt; of countries where they are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; allowed to operate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Afghanistan, Algeria, China (People's Republic), Comoros, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, for some of these countries, other groups exist: there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/&quot;&gt;United Bible Societies&lt;/a&gt; chapters for Algeria, Iraq, Morocco, and China, and some presence in Comoros, Djibouti, Mauritania and Somalia. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.c-b-f.org&quot;&gt;Catholic Bible Federation&lt;/a&gt; also operates in Iran. Not all of these efforts may be entirely government-approved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more detailed information, the US State Department issues annual &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/index.htm&quot;&gt;reports on religious freedom&lt;/a&gt; with detailed assessments of the conditions on the ground in each country.  In particular, they distinguish between what the country's law says, how the government acts, and how the wider society responds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T15:41:53.490" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9375" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-28T18:42:10.430" Score="2" ViewCount="25064" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Luke 17:1-3, NIV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to his disciples: &quot;Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. So watch yourselves.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One common interpretation of this passage is that the &quot;little ones&quot; refers to &lt;em&gt;children.&lt;/em&gt; However, that is not obvious in the context, and there are many other possibilities, including sinners, doubters, everyone, and so on. Indeed, its meaning may also hinge on what &quot;to stumble&quot; means here: whether it is to &lt;em&gt;doubt their faith,&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;em&gt;tempt to sin,&lt;/em&gt; or something else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a common agreement on who the &quot;little ones&quot; are in Luke 17:2?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-13T04:02:04.727" LastActivityDate="2016-09-14T13:51:26.867" Title="Who are the &quot;little ones&quot; in Luke 17:2?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-09-16T16:45:46.460" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9375" CreationDate="2012-08-28T20:23:44.907" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 18 also cites Jesus' words regarding little ones, and does so more frequently:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest&#xA;  in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a &lt;strong&gt;child&lt;/strong&gt;, he put him in&#xA;  the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn&#xA;  and become like &lt;strong&gt;children&lt;/strong&gt;, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.&#xA;  4  Whoever humbles himself like this &lt;strong&gt;child&lt;/strong&gt; is the greatest in the&#xA;  kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5  “Whoever receives one such &lt;strong&gt;child&lt;/strong&gt; in my name receives me, 6 but&#xA;  whoever causes one of &lt;strong&gt;these little ones&lt;/strong&gt; who believe in me to sin,&#xA;  it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around&#xA;  his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.  Matthew 18:1-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this context, Jesus specifically identifies a child and speaks of children, then refers to children as &lt;em&gt;&quot;these little ones&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.  So, interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture, it is pretty conclusive that &quot;&lt;em&gt;little ones&lt;/em&gt;&quot; refers to children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-28T20:23:44.907" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9375" CreationDate="2012-08-29T00:50:26.650" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblemaster.com/bible/comm/wen/view.asp?book=lu&amp;amp;chapter=17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wesley's Explanatory Notes&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wesley's Notes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17:2 Little ones - Weak believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I would be interested in seeing what &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt; says about this one too.  I suspect that the original words can be translated a little differently - but similarly / same meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T00:50:26.650" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9379" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-29T00:59:53.863" Score="-1" ViewCount="1082" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are the following three interpretations correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Salvation by Works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You claim Jesus is Savior + Lord. Then you do works. When your works hit a certain level, you are saved.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Salvation by Faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You claim Jesus is Savior + Lord. You are saved. Because of your faith, you will want to do works.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Salvation by Predestination:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus chose you from the foundations of the universe. Jesus works to change your nature. Your works is a effect of Jesus's work in changing your nature.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where I am wrong, please correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2068" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-29T14:36:25.033" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T14:36:25.033" Title="Three Views on Salvation, Faith, and Works" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;works&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-03-31T21:14:52.827" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9379" CreationDate="2012-08-29T01:15:05.373" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even though this is a very simplistic way of explaining these views, and there are nuances of understanding and shades of belief that fall between these three, I really don't see anything incorrect about your summary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does seem to accurately sum up three major views on salvation, each of which are based on Scripture, but with a different understanding of the nature of works vs. faith, predestination, and God's Sovereignty vs. free will.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note that I did &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; say &quot;&lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; three major views&quot;.  There is a lot of room for variance between these views.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is supported by several denominations,including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/new-era/2005/03/tough-topics-are-you-saved-by-grace-or-works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the LDS Church&lt;/a&gt;, and if I'm not mistaken, Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sounds like a fair representation of &quot;Lordship Salvation&quot; as described &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/lordshjm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sounds like what's taught in the following Scriptures:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 36 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit&#xA;  within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give&#xA;  you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you&#xA;  to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 1:6 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-08-29T04:17:39.507" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T04:17:39.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7088" CreationDate="2012-08-29T02:12:28.957" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a simpler answer than all of the others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Sum, why not &lt;strong&gt;believe&lt;/strong&gt; in salvation by grace?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because you don't just &lt;em&gt;choose&lt;/em&gt; what you believe. You believe things because you think they're true. So, even if this argument was valid, it wouldn't be useful, because it recommends a choice that you don't control. The same applies to Pascal's Wager.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="552" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T02:12:28.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2744" CreationDate="2012-08-29T02:52:36.610" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Understanding this number is deeply rooted into how one understands Revelation. I understand it as speaking of a near prophecy of the Roman Empires attack on the church, and in so doing, mirroring a continuous and distant prophecy of the churches existence in the world until the final judgment, with some things principally intending their final fulfilment.  In this contact 666 probably meant something very specific to the readers at the time (which they could decode) as well as being symbolic of something for all time and which at the end of the world may also take on renewed and final significance. History in the Bible is treated as a kind of prophecy so the meaning of 666 may be fulfilled more than once.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The initial meaning has been proposed by those who have studied gematria. Gematria was a popular practice at that time which corresponds letters to numbers, so that summing up a name gives a final number. This was practiced by Jewish mystics. For example, it has been argued by scholars that when the name &quot;Nero Caesar&quot; is spelled with Hebrew letters as נרון קסר (NRWN QSR) — Hebrew is written without vowels — the following addition is made from left to right: 50 + 200 + 6 + 50 + 100  + 60 + 200  =  666.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Emperor Nero may very well have been the initial meaning to the readers. Although our certainty about this is scanty for it seems no standard traditional view developed in subsequent church history, it nevertheless points to the intended meaning. There is little question in my own mind that the beast which is represented by the number was Rome.&lt;/strong&gt; Rome especially as it represented Emperor Worship, making it difficult for Christians to engage in trade, without somehow paying homage to the idolatry of Rome, was ‘the beast’ opposing the church. Not only so but this political system that opposed Christ and enforced idolatry was soon to breakout into full undisciplined persecution against the church, which John wanted to prepare them for.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This naturally leads to a higher symbolic meaning of the number of 666. For it is more than coincidental that the Emperor’s, who represented the fullness of the ‘sinful nature’ in a political system opposed to God, should have a name that is also equivalent to the plain biblical meaning of man-man-man. As man was made on the sixth day, this number is connected to him from the earliest scriptural history. Furthermore as seven represented perfection and holiness, being that this day was made holy, with the opposing facts that man fell and became unholy, he fell short of holiness.  &lt;strong&gt;Therefore the number means ‘unholy-unholy-unholy’ or ‘fallen short-fallen-short-fallen short’. Three, is often meant to mean perfection in the Bible so this ‘sinful nature’ described by six, is said to be a perfectly sinful nature by identifying its fallen state three times.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are now is apposition to see the meaning of 666 in its wider sense. The Roman Empire was a beast, the first beast that came out of the sea (Rev 13:1). The second beast that came from the earth was the religion of Rome in its emperor worship, having ‘all the authority of the first beast ‘ and made ‘the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast’(Rev 13:12). By enforcing idolatry among the various professional guilds and trades in the empire it became more and more impossible for Christians to earn a living without worship the beast.  They must be prepared to be martyred according to the prophecy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who fell into the idolatry of Rome and denied their faith had the mark of the beast on their head, or hand. (Rev 13:16). This implies that if a Christian lived a wicked life, denying Christ and falling under the power of wicked Rome they were effective publishing their sins in an obvious way, on their foreheads, or in a more secret manner on their hands. Another view may be that their minds and actions were rules by the sinful nature.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As history progressed the world has continued to persecute the church with the same pressures of idolatry, whether the pressure to worship sex, career, religion, etc. Also at certain points Rome itself has been interpreted by many Protestant theologians as taken a heightened biblical role again. According to these view, Roman history shows a kind of re-fulfilling of its original role, making people worship saints and other idolatries, even killing Christians in the same manner as the original fulfilment.  It makes one wonder whether Rome might not have some direct relationship to the events marking in the end of the world as well. However, regardless of one’s view this can’t be limited to any one government but represent all secular governments and all the idolatrous nature of man.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-29T06:57:08.917" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T06:57:08.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9375" CreationDate="2012-08-29T02:52:52.687" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Haydock's commentary quotes venerable (is he not a saint yet?) Bede as pointing out the similarity in words used in the parable of the lost sheep&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.  &gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:14 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, little ones means sheep, which usually means whoever follows the shepherd. The shepherd being Jesus. The key component of sheep-hood is obedience and humility (at least the humility of knowing you're a sheep)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, more to your question, there's nothing wrong with having lots and lots of explanations of the Bible. I think that Jesus is talking about real children here because He taught with examples all the time (&quot;see that poor woman over there, she gave more than you bums&quot;). So, the literal interpretation is little ones = little people and that should do a little to give any pedophile priest a bit of pause while reading that Gospel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The metaphorical sense is that little one means freshly minted or potential Christ follower (which would include children) since hindering these folks on their spiritual journey could have gave consequences grave punishement is afforded the purpotrators. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moral sense of &quot;little ones&quot; might be that little ones are those that it is incumbent on all the teachers of the faith to pass on to their students authentic teaching that will not confuse them or encumber their spiritual growth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eternal sense tells us of the punishement due to those who were given much but stink at passing it on. Which is why I approach each year of Catechism Class with fear and trembling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T02:52:52.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9370" CreationDate="2012-08-29T03:12:40.953" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have added a post to your other question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2744/what-is-the-significance-of-the-number-666/9382#9382&quot;&gt;Why is the number 666 considered evil?&lt;/a&gt;, so I can apply it to this question. My post is identical with Narnian’s only largely expanded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our understanding of what 666 might mean with respect to the weight of Gold that Solomon received annually depends on how we think we are allowed to interpret the Old Testament, in light on the New Testament.  For myself** I prefer to avoid reading too much into the symbolism in the Old Testament, unless it is completely supportive of the plain meaning, verified by the New Testament, and admits are certain amount of uncertainty.** The reason why I feel admitted uncertainty about potential symbolism in the Old Testament is good practice is because we are trying to identify the edge of a shadow, which by nature is obscure. Only in Christ do we see the certain meaning of anything that might be argued as an Old Testament type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having put forth my view, I think &lt;strong&gt;I can provide an uncertain possible connection between 666 and this reference without irreverently mangling the plain, literal and intended primary sense.&lt;/strong&gt; The literal sense from the context seems to simply show how magnificent and wealthy Solomon had become. However it also seems to be a transition point at which his own wealth became a snare to him and he verges into extravagance, lust and assumes ‘many wives’ in the next chapter. Something God was not pleased with. Therefore regarding spiritual types, we have a conflict of types.  On one hand Solomon’s wealth represents Messiah as risen Lord, while David might represent Messiah on earth. On the other hand, Solomon’s failure and sinfulness might ‘possibly’ slightly be hinted at by 666. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we assume this uncertain connection, but a connection nevertheless we might imagine that the entire weakness of the image of Solomon and indeed all the types of the Old Testament is being witnessed. Not only do the huge failures of David and Solomon indicate that Messiah must be something far exceeding from those types, but the entire covenant of law is ‘fallen-short, fallen-short, fallen-short’ in terms of its ability to save and bring wealth. Rather a law of grace can only remove the human nature, and the blood of animals can’t cleanse sin. The same imagery is indicated by the Tablets of the law being broken Moses as soon as they were first made, they were never meant to provide what they shadowed but were established as a renewed covenant of works destined to fail due to the weakness of 666. &lt;strong&gt;The Law was added so that sin, or the sinful nature (666) would ‘increase’ according to Romans 5:20. The annual inflow of 666 could indicate this increase of the sinful nature under the shadows of the Law leading to Solomon’s ultimate failure. Clearly as all types of Messiah in the Old Testament he was nothing more than a mere imperfect shadow of a future Christ, proven by the wealth, mirroring Christ's glory, only caused extravagence and a leading to idolatry (like the Roman beast / emporer worship system) to occur.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. (NIV 1 Kings 11:3-4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this symbol of Solomon's wealth still prefigures Christ, but the weakness of those symbols as not having any saving power in themselves, but fully falling short, is seamlessly maintained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some might think I am stretching the meaning too far, but that is a fair comment that I would accept, while at the same time believing I may have found a little hidden nugget of scripture because you brought it to my attention. Thank you very much, I like it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T03:48:50.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9379" CreationDate="2012-08-29T03:14:38.613" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you've got it wrong in every possible way and here's why. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nobody but the most abysmall Pharisee  believe this. The Catholic Church is often portrayed as taking this stance, it's just not what she teaches. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/new-era/2005/03/tough-topics-are-you-saved-by-grace-or-works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mormons&lt;/a&gt; appear to believe this, but I think even they have mechanisms by which you can lose your salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you have faith, the works will come your way, but it's still up to you to do them and if you don't do them, does that mean you didn't have faith? No, but it doesn't help your case in the final analysis. . &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;St. Paul and St. Augustine both do a little more than allude to predestined saints, or the elect, but it is God's plan which He must know or He would not be God. Predestination is Eternal Law (reason applied to the supernatural) not dogma, and as such, it really has no bearing on our own ability to receive sanctifying grace. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yeah, you've described what a lot of people think Catholics, Evangelicals and Calvinists believe about salvation, but, if you want to know what we do believe you should either ask three separate questions to that effect or read the Eschewmenical Blog from July wherein those three traditions are defended. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-08-29T14:19:04.797" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T14:19:04.797" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9362" CreationDate="2012-08-29T03:37:17.703" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;I love you&quot; sign, or Horns, as they're known in the Heavy Metal scene of wherever Heavy Metal is played are attributed to the late Ronnie James Dio of the group Dio (and for a time Black Sabbath). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He got the sign... From his grandmother. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is not wise to trivialize the occult, just saying something has no meaning or no power ignores spiritual realities, as well as powerful psychological forces. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, at a Metallica concert, first you put your fist in the air, then you do the horns and you're going along with the beat so it's almost as of you're worshipping the band by simulating the same postures used for worship by humans throughout history.  And now they're playing Creeping Death and you're chanting &quot;Die die die&quot; with 40,000 other droogs and next thing you know someone's heart is literally being pulled still beating out of their chest while their body is being lowered into a pit of lava. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, that last part was from the Temple of Doom, but the rest is the truth and the only cure, as Frank Zappa said, is to &quot;stick closer to Church-oriented activities&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T03:37:17.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9387" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-29T04:10:31.543" Score="-1" ViewCount="458" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did God, in His omnipotence, allow Satan to fall from grace have something to do with His allowing Adam and Eve to fall which provides first hand knowledge to the elect angels / elect humans in a way that our limited minds can understand?  Is this an opinion that is consistent with reformed theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2077" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-26T04:20:40.903" LastActivityDate="2012-09-26T04:20:40.903" Title="What is the purpose of Satan's fall from a reformed perspective?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-09-26T04:38:38.173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9387" CreationDate="2012-08-29T04:56:28.697" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Correct me if I misunderstand, but I think you are asking 'Is the Devil's purpose meant to help us understand X? Where X is various ideas as understood by reformed theology. Reformed theology has a 'system of understanding' to view many of the events and persons you mention, such as the Devil, pre-destination, the fall, etc. and does support your concept that we can't fathom the purposes and mystery of God's will in them. Reformed theology also supports the fact that what God has put into his word truth about these subjects, in order to 'sort of' provide 'first hand' knowledge about them, but it would never understand the 'actual purposes' of those events and persons simply to communicate 'first hand knowledge' of the reformed view of them. That would oppose reformed theology directly a sit places the purpose in men, or their understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purposes of these things are bound up in 'God's glory' under reformed theology and transcends humanity, or our understanding of them, even in their orignal purpose. Everything was done from, through and to God's glory. This is reformed theology. Our understanding of them plays a much smaller role. However, it is also consistent with reformed theology to recognize God's glory as that which has been manifested to us in Christ. So you seem to be circling around the right concepts just not yet fully arriving as a settled position in terms of reformed theology. &lt;strong&gt;One key to reformed theology is to move the attention away from self, including our understanding, and move everything to God in Christ. Then understand that when Christ has all the attention it is the best, glorious and most blessed truth for us.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-08-29T11:47:56.993" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T11:47:56.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9392" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9413" CreationDate="2012-08-29T05:40:22.673" Score="15" ViewCount="7368" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Latter-day Saints subscribe to a revelation dubbed the &quot;Word of Wisdom&quot; which outlines a code of health which Saints in good standing are expected to live. It's found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 89&lt;/a&gt;. Generally it prohibits use of &quot;herbs&quot; (drugs) such as tobacco for the body, but recommends it for treating cattle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the LDS Church is pretty clear that drugs which are prescribed by a competent medical professional (a doctor) are allowed within the recommendations of the doctor. (This has traditionally meant things like morphine, sleeping pills, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When there is sickness or disease and healing is desired, there are a few recommended courses of action, such as obtaining a blessing with faith under the hands of priesthood brethren. Just as important to Latter-day Saints, however, is seeking care using the best medical knowledge available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen this question online before, but haven't found any answers that are definitive or official: &lt;strong&gt;How does the Word of Wisdom or LDS doctrine in general apply to medicinal marijuana (prescribed by a doctor)? Is it prohibited entirely, are there only some permissible cases, or is it A-OK?&lt;/strong&gt; (Assume it is legal in the politick; Mormons believe in following the law of the land.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I'm posting here because I'm sure it'll attract higher-quality answers than I've seen elsewhere which are more speculation than citing official or declarative sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-29T21:49:05.380" LastActivityDate="2015-12-29T21:49:05.380" Title="Is it against the LDS Word of Wisdom to use marijuana as medicine?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;drugs&gt;&lt;healthcare&gt;&lt;word-of-wisdom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9394" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9402" CreationDate="2012-08-29T07:46:57.557" Score="6" ViewCount="14442" Body="&lt;p&gt;In tormenting Job, Satan had to ask God for permission concerning what he could do (economic damage, family, health).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before sifting Peter, Satan had to ask Jesus for permission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For believers, is there some time mark after which Satan needs to ask for permission (i.e. ask for permission after conversion, but not before?)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible indicate anywhere whether Satan needs to ask God for permission before dealing with Unbelievers? [I suspect the answer might be yes, given that permission was requested even for entering animals (i.e. the pigs going off the cliff)].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2015-10-31T17:09:46.297" Title="The Power of Satan over Believers and Unbelievers" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-11-01T14:25:30.857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9396" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9399" CreationDate="2012-08-29T08:12:00.497" Score="9" ViewCount="916" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reformed theology believes in the doctrine of election.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question: Does reformed theology say anything about whether Satan &quot;recognizes&quot; the Elect while they're on earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-07-25T20:26:00.287" LastActivityDate="2019-08-24T09:43:54.257" Title="According to reformed theology, does Satan know who the elect are (during their time on earth?)" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9396" CreationDate="2012-08-29T10:09:33.517" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;After reading so many books by reformed theologians and never encountering such an idea - 'I don't think so.' Reformed theologians generally do not speculate about things 'within the kingdom of darkness' and maybe there is no value in truly knowing. From what limited information we do have from scripture, I sometimes think the Devil may be in a sense, insane in his sin.  Even though he must have known the scriptures better than anyone else; simply considering his direct interest in them, and how long he had been alive, and how powerful his mind must be, one would think he would have known how Jesus would destroy him, but did not. It seems he failed to realize that in killing Christ, he was killing himself.  He seemed to have thought that destroying Christ would be to his benefit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes me think that the Devil is partially insane in sin, or does not believe everything that is written. He may not even believe in election, he may try to keep people from faith in Christ, thinking that he actually achieves something.  &lt;strong&gt;Having actual knowledge of who are the elect, seems way outside of his knowledge even if he thought clearly about God.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some ways the Devil is the personification of hatred. When you hate someone you do not see them as they actually are, but you have created a false person in your mind, a lie.  Love is truth. Only when you love someone, by faith in Christ's love for us, do you see who they are in truth.  Since the Devil therefore lives in a lie of hate, all that he sees is a lie, even when in form his logic may have correct parts. He is the 'Father of lies', and hates God. Therefore he can't properly understand God. &lt;strong&gt;To love God is to understand God. What I am saying is that since Satan is a slave to lies, even if he understands things we do not, there is no guarantee that he understand anything properly.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T10:09:33.517" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9394" CreationDate="2012-08-29T10:29:42.687" Score="1" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I don't think so. The example of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:31-32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Simon Peter&lt;/a&gt; (which actually applied to &lt;em&gt;&quot;all of you&quot;&lt;/em&gt;) you use shows indeed that Satan needs to ask God's permission to attack a Christian. However, God is under no obligation to grant Satan his request. Rather, the Bible implies that God only allows Satan to attack us if we can bear it (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+10:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paul's example of being tempted only as much as we can bear&lt;/a&gt;). So that question is &lt;em&gt;&quot;how much we can handle?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, not &lt;em&gt;&quot;how long since conversion?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%208:28-34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pigs off a cliff&lt;/a&gt;&quot; situation seems more likely to be because the demons wanted to avoid something worse (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%201:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wandering aimlessly&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+2:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hell&lt;/a&gt;) than &lt;em&gt;having&lt;/em&gt; to ask permission. I don't see any clear Biblical passage to indicate whether or not Satan needs permission to attack non-Christians. However, there must be some kind of limit, otherwise he would have already &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+12:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;led the &lt;em&gt;whole&lt;/em&gt; world astray&lt;/a&gt;. And then how could anyone become a Christian? So, yes, I expect that Satan needs permission even to attack non-Christians, though there is no clear Biblical passage about this that I can find.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth adding &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; God would allow Satan to attack us. As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:3-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paul wrote&lt;/a&gt;, sufferings produce perseverance, character and hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T10:29:42.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9394" CreationDate="2012-08-29T10:51:43.463" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we consider where this 'permission' comes from we can answer points 1. &amp;amp; 2.  First, every molecule in the universe, in a sense needs permission to do anything, because God is infinite in power. &lt;strong&gt;An infinite God can not allow anything to be done, without his permission.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, for the Devil to exist, he needs, in a sense, God's permission. &lt;strong&gt;However the permission you are referring to is an abstraction from that more general permission and pertains to God's particular sovereignty, in rare specific cases.&lt;/strong&gt; Here we are really dealing with God's sovereign control over the universe and we can have a window into it by this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (NIV Romans 8:28-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I have posted some details about this verse &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9167/when-god-works-all-things-for-the-good-is-anything-excluded-in-the-word-all/9215#9215&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which supports this post, if you are interested in more details.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This takes care of (1.) because for the elect God has planned out his blessing from eternity, so there can be no point where the Devil is not 'bound in chains' (Mark 3:27, Rev 20) in terms of the limits of his cruelty which he can unleash upon the elect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to (2.) I would say that the Devil is also clearly under the chains of God to limit his ability to inflict cruelty, otherwise, the whole world would due dead, or worshipping him, or some other great evil which we could not imagine. However this is a different case because he already has permission to rule their minds as he is the prince of darkness and ruler of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with all of this is our understanding of 'permission'.  &lt;strong&gt;In general the Devil does not seem to need permission to carry on his work&lt;/strong&gt;, but as he runs into brick walls of protection by God, he is bound. He is sort of free to cause havoc, without every second running to God for permission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.(NIV 1 Peter 5:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However, in very narrow cases, such as Job and Peter, the Bible moves into a special circumstance when God seems to remove part of his protection for mysterious purposes that align with the Devil's wishes.&lt;/strong&gt; These mysterious cases are called a kind of'permission' with Job and Peter. usually the Bible does not indicate that the Devil is asking God anything, but Job and Peter are on God's and the Devils radar specifically, so there cases have special attention in the bible. In fact God is the one who brings up Job! But these specific cases are still examples that not only work out higher blessing in those two person's lives (Romans 8:28-30) but draw out principles for us all who read them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is not really in line with scripture to think of the Devil as asking special permissions all the time, and God sometimes granting them and sometimes not.&lt;/strong&gt; Rather God has generally granted the Devil to go about as he pleases under strict limits, and sometimes let's him go a little further when it suits God perfect will in working our his mysterious purposes in peoples lives and manifesting his glory to men. Both Christians and non Christians are i this open field of spiritutual warfare. Since this is the landscape God also wants us to enter into the conflict because it is not all going on without the effect of our own choices and decisions. We are to wrestles and pray because it makes a difference to the level of 'protection' we have obtained. This protection is primarily from sin.  Therefore we are to 'wrestle' that means constant, tiring close contact, unlike boxing, or shooting.(Ephesians 6:12) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T12:01:33.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9315" CreationDate="2012-08-29T10:57:10.290" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not sinful to marry someone who is not a virgin. But it is not more holy to marry someone that is a virgin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is my preoccupation with the question. Mariage is the union of one sinner to another. Where both party convenant with one other to be faithful all the way to the end to the other. The problem lies when young men and women view a possible husband or women as less attractive because of that sin, as if that sin was bigger then any other sins. There is no second class christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My heart does out to the young ones who have committed sexual sin before knowing Christ and are now living to please Him or to does who fell in this area. They do get looked down by some christian virgin and that is plain old hypocrisy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did not covert the consequences that are brought in the marriage in consequence of that sin, but on the other hand, all sins bring consequences in the marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T10:57:10.290" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9295" CreationDate="2012-08-29T16:49:23.060" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah’s Witnesses use the standard 66-book Protestant Bible, but usually use their own translation thereof (they do reference other translations from time to time, but generally use &lt;em&gt;The New World Translation&lt;/em&gt;). It’s fair to say that the &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt; is quite, let’s say, &lt;em&gt;distinctive&lt;/em&gt; in places, and has received a fair amount of criticism. The Witnesses do not in any way claim that the translation of the &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt; was inspired by God, and are happy to argue their doctrines from other translations if you ask them to. (Indeed, they did so for many years before the release of the &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt;, and continue to do so in languages which do not yet have a version of the &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some of the distinctive features of the &lt;em&gt;New World Translation&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the specific case of &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1161/177&quot;&gt;John 1:1&lt;/a&gt;, which is always brought up in discussions of the translation philosophy of the &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt;, it’s probably fair to say that the Greek is a little ambiguous, and the &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt; rendering is defensible. They do, of course, provide a footnote and an appendix article on the subject in &lt;em&gt;The New World Translation — with References&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/129/177&quot;&gt;John 8:58&lt;/a&gt; is another controversial passage with major theological implications, but in this answer I intend to focus more on general themes of the translation, not specific verses.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The terminology is slightly different: what is commonly called the “Old Testament” the Witnesses (and the &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt;) call the “Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures”; what is commonly called the “New Testament” they call the “Christian Greek Scriptures” (the word &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; is intended to prevent any possible confusion with the &lt;em&gt;Septuagint&lt;/em&gt;, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures). This is, arguably, more neutral terminology than the usual. I like it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Greek text of the &lt;em&gt;New World Translation&lt;/em&gt; is the Westcott and Hort master text, not the &lt;em&gt;Textus Receptus&lt;/em&gt; used by the &lt;em&gt;King James Version&lt;/em&gt;. There’s a certain amount of dispute in Bible translation circles about which text is better. (The &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt; is far from the only translation based on the Westcott and Hort text.) Textus Receptus is based on the majority of ancient manuscripts found. Westcott and Hort is based on fewer, but older, manuscripts. The argument in favour of W&amp;amp;H is simply that older manuscripts are probably better. The argument in favour of TR is that the Bible was copied very carefully and the few old texts which happened to survive merely because they were in Egypt, which has a better climate for this kind of thing, were probably inferior copies. Some also claim that if W&amp;amp;H was the better text, God wouldn’t have allowed it to be lost for so many thousands of years. All of this debate (and yes, I have read a book on the subject, firmly in favour of the Textus Receptus and the related Majority Text) is rendered somewhat moot by the fact that most theologians say that few of the differences between the various Greek texts are theologically meaningful. Footnotes reference other texts and ancient translations (including the Vulgate and Syriac translations) in places, but in general the translation is based on W&amp;amp;H.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;(The Hebrew text is far more standard. The &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt; uses the Masoretic Text, just like almost everyone else. The footnotes of &lt;em&gt;NWT Ref&lt;/em&gt; occasionally reference the &lt;em&gt;Septuagint&lt;/em&gt;, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and various Syriac translations, but in general they use the Masoretic.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One of the distinctive features of the &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt; is the use of the name &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt;. The Tetragrammaton (four-letter name of God) appears multiple times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Many translations render this as LORD, following the Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Divine Name (though the Jews do &lt;em&gt;write&lt;/em&gt; the name in their scriptures). &lt;em&gt;The Jerusalem Bible&lt;/em&gt; renders the name as &lt;em&gt;Yahweh&lt;/em&gt;, which is a scholarly “best guess” at the original pronunciation. The Witnesses use &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt;, which is almost certainly not the original pronunciation, but is the traditional rendering in English, found in both religious and secular books for many many years. Certainly including some form of the name is more accurate than bowdlerising it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One of the even more distinctive, and certainly less defensible, features of the &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt; is that they also use the name &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt; in the Greek Scriptures, although it is not found there in any extant manuscript. When the Greek text quotes the &lt;em&gt;Septuagint&lt;/em&gt;, they reinsert the name (yes, &lt;em&gt;reinsert&lt;/em&gt;, as they maintain that it was there originally). Certainly there do exist editions of the &lt;em&gt;Septuagint&lt;/em&gt; which contain the untranslated and untransliterated Tetragrammaton, and others which render the divine name as &lt;em&gt;Pipi&lt;/em&gt;, suggesting that they were copied from an earlier version which contained the original Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew letters of which look a little like the Greek letters for &lt;em&gt;Pipi&lt;/em&gt;. (I now feel the need for a fantasy novel in which God is called Pipi. It’s a wonderful name.)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, &lt;em&gt;NWT&lt;/em&gt; includes the divine name in other places too. Sometimes support comes from the existence of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures (some of those Hebrew translations used for support are actually fairly recent, so any support they offer is tenuous at best). The name &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt; occurs many times in the &lt;em&gt;New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures&lt;/em&gt;, each time accompanied by a footnote and an explanation of the rationale in &lt;em&gt;NWT Ref&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, the footnotes and appendices in &lt;em&gt;NWT Ref&lt;/em&gt; are about the mechanics of translation, not theology. They are about tricky linguistic points and textual variants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T21:00:28.780" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9406" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-29T17:56:19.123" Score="8" ViewCount="180750" Body="&lt;p&gt;In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be &quot;predicting the future.&quot; For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the &quot;prophets&quot; of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a &quot;prophet.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is: &lt;strong&gt;Biblically speaking, what exactly is prophecy?&lt;/strong&gt; Is there a Biblical definition that matches the actual practices of the prophets?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If possible, please support your answers using the 66 books of Scripture that are found in the Protestant Bible.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-03-04T01:40:09.990" LastActivityDate="2016-03-04T01:40:09.990" Title="What is the Biblical definition of &quot;prophecy&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;protestant-bible&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9406" CreationDate="2012-08-29T18:30:02.323" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Prophecy&amp;quot; has at least verbal two connotations in the Bible - &lt;em&gt;fore&lt;/em&gt;-telling and &lt;em&gt;forth&lt;/em&gt;-telling. &lt;a href=&quot;http://m-w.com/dictionary/prophesy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Merriam-Webster&lt;/a&gt; defines the verb thusly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;V| to utter by or as if by divine inspiration; to predict with assurance or on the basis of mystic knowledge; to give instruction in religious matters {preach}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Foretelling&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Foretelling is saying what the future will be or hold before it happens. This is the sense in which most people I know think of &amp;quot;prophecy&amp;quot; - the OT predictions of the Messiah, Jesus' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;warnings&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019:44&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;against&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt;, John's Revelation, Daniel's interpretation of the king's dream of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;statue&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Forthtelling&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forthtelling is proclaiming truth (or news). It is likely that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2022&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Baalam&lt;/a&gt; was hired to do this second kind of prophesying by Balak (king of the Moabites).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-29T18:30:02.323" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9406" CreationDate="2012-08-29T18:37:20.580" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps two of the most famous &lt;em&gt;minor&lt;/em&gt; prophets will illustrate that prophecy is not so much about telling the future as the present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonah, for example, only issues a single proclamation about the future:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Forty days, and Nineveh will be overturned,&quot; (Jonah: 3:2 RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this does come to pass.  Nineveh was overturned.  They sat in sack cloth and ashes.  Their hearts were overturned.  If they had not been repented to God then they would have been destroyed but they were indeed overturned.  Amos, another prophet, makes very few predictions about the future, but again, the thrust of his message is that God's people need to shape up!  This is true of Hosea, Malachi, and many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The non-writing Prophets - Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, share the same distinction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, we say that Martin Luther King, Jr. was &quot;prophetic&quot; in many of his missives against segregation in the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is that a prophet is one who is given a message by God.  (Indeed Malach-i means &quot;My Messenger&quot;) The prophet is then told to deliver this message to His people, however God chooses.  When Jeremiah refuses, he says it burns in his bones.  When Ezekiel does what God says, his wife dies and he can't mourn, he ends up lying on his side for years at a time, and generally looking like a nut.  Indeed, when Jesus drives the moneychangers out of the Temple, he is simply called a &quot;prophet&quot; for the act.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is simple that a prophet is a messenger of God.  If that message says something about the future, then it is because God wishes to give a message about consequences.  (Indeed, John the Revelator is apocalyptic, not prophetic!).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="11159" LastEditDate="2015-07-04T15:56:16.323" LastActivityDate="2015-07-04T15:56:16.323" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9412" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-29T21:42:28.220" Score="5" ViewCount="259" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's my understanding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people believe during the tribulation. They make into the 1000 year reign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During this reign, there is peace on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the 1000 years, Satan is released. Some of the descendants of the believers follow Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a final battle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan loses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is final judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New Jerusalem arrives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what is the point of the 1000 year reign here? Is it to prove that Christ can do something that Satan could never do (i.e. real world peace?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2015-06-25T20:38:37.227" LastActivityDate="2018-10-02T19:26:33.327" Title="According to premillenial view, What is the point of the Millenium reign?" Tags="&lt;premillennialism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9392" CreationDate="2012-08-29T21:59:56.267" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, medical use of prescription drugs is compatible with the Word of Wisdom. Opiates, alcohol (e.g., cough syrup), and other drugs are commonly used as medicine but would clearly violate the Word of Wisdom if taken recreationally. A recent article in the Ensign (the official Church magazine) stated, &quot;We should not use any drugs except when they are necessary as medicine. Those who misuse legal or illegal drugs need to seek help so their bodies can become clean again and free from addiction&quot; (&quot;The Lord Has Given Us a Law of Health&quot;, Ensign, Feb. 2012).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, using drugs recreationally with a prescription is by no means the same thing as legitimate medical use. Spencer W. Kimball (12th president of the Church) stated, &quot;We hope our people will eliminate from their lives all kinds of drugs so far as possible. Too many depend upon drugs as tranquilizers and sleep helps, which is not always necessary&quot; (General Conference, October 1974). As with many issues in LDS doctrine, individuals are expected to prayerfully make responsible decisions. A bishop in a temple recommend interview asks a fixed set of questions (which are somewhat vague). A temple recommend holder is considered responsible to God if they are dishonest or insincere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/8qZLy.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Medical Marijuana: The Doctor IS IN!&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Boyd K. Packer's book, The Holy Temple, and the adapted pamphlet based on it, Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, discuss the introspective purpose of temple recommend interviews:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[A temple recommend interview] is an occasion to explore with an ordained servant of the Lord the pattern of your life. If anything is amiss in your life, the bishop will be able to help you resolve it. Through this procedure, you can declare or can be helped to establish your worthiness to enter the temple with the Lord’s approval... The person must certify that he or she is morally clean and is keeping the Word of Wisdom, paying a full tithing, living in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and not maintaining any affiliation or sympathy with apostate groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1471" LastEditorUserId="1471" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T21:04:19.443" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T21:04:19.443" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8521" CreationDate="2012-08-30T02:53:29.013" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;To Catholics, observance of the Sabbath as mandated by the 3rd commandment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember the sabbath day—keep it holy. Six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God.f You shall not do any work, either you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your work animal, or the resident alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/exodus/exodus20:8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:8-11 NABRE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is observed by the precept of the church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: &amp;quot;On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.&amp;quot;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a3.htm#2180&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2180&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and, as a prayer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The Mass is the most perfect form of prayer&amp;quot; -Pope Paul VI&#xA;&lt;sup&gt; (legit citation appreciated)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it ranks right up there. Even if one doesn't consider the Mass a prayer, it certainly contains lots and lots of prayers and lots and lots of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, there is another prayer that all Christians must pray, because prayer is more than verbal.  One must contemplate Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,  to the glory of God the Father.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/exodus/exodus20:8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Phil 2:10-11 NABRE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, in so doing, one must pray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally there's the Lord's Prayer, which has been noted elsewhere, I wasn't going to mention it, but people are claiming that it was never meant to be repeated.  Well...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To many protestants this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Yours is the power and the glory for ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thrice in the day thus pray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May seem more familiar, or at least the end, and they sure as heck didn't get it from the Bible.  I think they got it from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Didache Chapter 8&lt;/a&gt;, the apocryphal, but still pretty holy, book of the compiled wisdom of the Apostles, by way of the Catholic Church which preserved the tradition, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;lost the manuscript&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, owing to the age of this book (certainly older than Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote about it in the 4th century), it's pretty clear that the Lord's Prayer was interpreted as &amp;quot;the what to pray&amp;quot; if you want to be a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T03:09:17.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9416" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-30T03:20:35.880" Score="6" ViewCount="2608" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was trying to source this quote, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Mass is the most perfect form of prayer - Pope Paul VI&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but the Google, in her wisdom, seems to think I only want to see what my fellow zealous Mary lovers have to write in their circa '96 tabular/framed web pages. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually when someone attributes something to a Pope, they say, &quot;at such and such an audience on the feast of St. So and So&quot; but not this quote, it's just left out there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I really want to know is, if the Catholic Church considers Mass to be a Prayer.  I've always heard, and taught, that Mass is the greatest prayer and the Rosary somehow eeks out Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction for the #2 spot (although that logic is troublesome). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find this tidbit in the Catechism, and my personal collection of wonderful Catholic texts are somewhat older that Pope Paul VI, so please, if anyone has his breviary wherein he scrawled this magnificent truth, please let me know!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T19:04:44.967" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T08:21:03.360" Title="When and where did Pope Paul VI say the &quot;Mass is the most perfect form of prayer&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;mass&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9417" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="82793" CreationDate="2012-08-30T03:31:32.693" Score="4" ViewCount="5961" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I was writing an answer to a question a few minutes ago, and I was going to smugly tell all you Protestants that your &quot;thine is the Kingdom&quot; doxology is so non-Biblical, it's apocryphal.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, it is apocryphal, but if anything it's anachronistically apocryphal as no Protestant between the time of the Reformation,  whenever that was, and the time of Martin Van Buren's presidency, whenever that was, would have had access to said tidbit of apocryphal lore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, it's SOOO nearly verbatim. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Didache Chapter 8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as opposed to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory, now and forever.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic's have a similar doxology said during Mass, in English it's: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...the kingdom the power and the glory are Yours now and forever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and I always console myself when praying with Protestants that I'm not doing anything unTraditional in saying their doxology (any more than I am in saying trespasses instead of debts).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, how did it come about, and what, if anything does the English version of the Protestant ending to the Lord's Prayer have to do with the Didache? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-10T17:15:56.677" LastActivityDate="2021-04-18T22:33:25.103" Title="Did Protestants get &quot;Thine is the Kingdom etc...&quot; from the Didache?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;&lt;lords-prayer&gt;&lt;didache&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9406" CreationDate="2012-08-30T05:38:34.517" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes alternate post are not competing with original posts only complimenting them. I seek to compliment and amplify Affable’s post which has already more simply stated. Partly to help me straighten it out in my own mind!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am gathering my results to your question more from a word study using the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, but not quoting him directly. Rather I used his observations to help me collect my own thoughts that I have encountered in many places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The main problem with defining ‘prophecy’ is that you must work your way back to the ‘prophet’ and like many words in the Bible, there are various meanings, not just one.&lt;/strong&gt; For example ‘fear’ in the Bible has so many meanings, sometimes almost contradicting each other, that you need a spreadsheet just to sort them.  It is therefore the concepts that we must learn, and then we can determine the right meaning of the word as it is found in different contexts and apply our knowledge to extract its meaning in that location. Sometimes it seems bad theologians are simply those who fix one meaning to a word and then distort the Bible accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what are the Biblical concepts of ‘prophet’?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the Bible early on indicating who a prophets was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all who belong to you will die.” (NIV Genesis 20:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham did not do a lot of future predictions but as he represented God from among all others and in this instance acted as a mediator in intercessory prayer, he was the basic meaning of a prophet. The things Abraham had to say in general may be considered prophetic, or prophecy, due to his peculiar role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More clearly does this high authoritative role appear in Moses, where when Aaron is made to be his mouthpiece, Moses becomes the symbol of God to Pharaoh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. (NIV Exodus 7:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is the foundation of the high level authoritative office of prophet and the function in it, representing God’s will, currently and sometimes in the future.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also another sense of prophet found later on in the scriptures where there were actual schools of many prophets. For example we meet groups of prophets after Samuel anointed Saul and said to him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you approach the town, you will meet a procession of prophets coming down from the high place with lyres, timbrels, pipes and harps being played before them, and they will be prophesying.  The Spirit of the Lord will come powerfully upon you, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person. (NIV 1 Samuel 10:5-7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These prophets are represented as having an ‘experience of God’ so that it is more ecstatic then it is necessarily predicting the future. &lt;strong&gt;In this sense even inspired worship, even through just instruments at times, in this experience of God is prophecy.&lt;/strong&gt; The musicians were called to prophecy under this sense of the word:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David, together with the commanders of the army, set apart some of the sons of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun for the ministry of prophesying, accompanied by harps, lyres and cymbals. Here is the list of the men who performed this service: (NIV 1 Chronicles 25:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these men were under the supervision of their father for the music of the temple of the Lord, with cymbals, lyres and harps, for the ministry at the house of God. (NIV 1 Chronicles 25:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Old Testament progresses this ecstatic experience of prophecy diminishes and the actual writings of prophets and individual prophets come to the forefront. This may be considered the true developed office. In this sense we find that period of the prophets indicated in the New Testament more frequently:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. (NIV Acts 3:24-25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This final authoritative official office of the Prophets focused on the word of the prophets as they were written and as they foretold of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord was with Samuel as he grew up, and he let none of Samuel’s words fall to the ground.(NIV 1 Samuel 3:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This formal office of prophet ended with John, as the whole purpose of the position was to predict Christ&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. (NIV Mathew 11:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we leave John and transition to the New Testament, the twelve Apostles become the new high authority, even higher than the prophets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However just as the term prophet has many senses even Apostle may refer to something other than the 'high authoritative office of the twelve', who were called by the visible Christ, but that is another subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another difference in the New Testament that carries the word ‘prophecy’ into a new sense. Unlike the Old Testament where the Prophets had high authority and who alone seemed to have the Spirit, in the last days this role would change. Upon the ending of that high role, some aspects of it, namely the experience of the Spirit and even gifts of seeing God’s will for our current situation and even in Acts and other places a gift of prophecy that could predict future events was long foretold by Joel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy,your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women,  I will pour out my Spirit in those days. (NIV Joel 2:28-29)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In this sense under a new meaning of prophecy, after the high official office ended, everyone prophecies by experiencing the Spirit and some may also (at least in those days) have a gift to predict future things by that same Spirit.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to Jesus he is not directly a Prophet, Apostle, Priest, or King but is Messiah making him The Prophet, The Apostle, The Priest, The King and so none who claim to be those things in such a way as to imply there is something more needed are false, apostles, prophets, etc.:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest. (NIV Hebrews 3:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as the Prophets ended in that their primary purpose was to write down those prophecies which were fulfilled as Christ appeared, so as the twelve Apostles established the doctrines of the church in the New Testament, having completed their task the office, in that sense also ceased.  We now have teachers and preachers who make known God’s word to us, and in this sense they maintain this ancient tradition of prophecy. All prophecy speaks of Christ, for this is the current and future will of God, that we adore him, in the Spirit of worship and love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Whether the gift of prophecy in narrow future foretelling sense may, or may not exists today is back into the cessation, non-cessation argument, or somewhere in-between, which is not directly related to the overall meaning of 'prophets' who 'prophecy'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T06:26:14.593" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9421" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-30T07:29:38.300" Score="0" ViewCount="214" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anyone reading the New Testament becomes aware that the early church would avoid practices that offended their brother, out of a spirit of love.  For example, even if it was not technically wrong to eat meat purchased in a market, that might have been originally been a sacrifice to an idol, where it offended a brother's conscience, a believer should avoid exercising his freedom in love.  This subject is described more fully &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8666/do-the-dietary-prohibitions-in-acts-1520-apply-to-christians-today/8726#8726&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am naturally interested in symbols and have posted a few questions about them. For example, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8179/did-the-jews-use-icons-and-images-to-help-them-worship-as-catholics-or-orthodox/8183#8183&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; you can find discussion about how Jews hated every kind of human image, even on coins as 'graven images' were idolatry, if indicating any kind of power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I discovered that the modern halo can be traced back as far as ancient Canaanite and Babylonian Son worship. The brightness behind the head being the Sun. This was a common pagan symbol that seems to have been adopted by the ancient church around  the fourth century AD. At first it was only depicted in art for the divine nature of Jesus and then various versions spread to many other objects such as esteemed saints and Mary, etc. For details one can refer &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_%28religious_iconography%29#In_Christian_art&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question is, as these pagan traditions were so fully detestable by Jewish ethics, even possibly more than eating unclean meat,  why such a aggressive introduction of so many things that would offend?&lt;/strong&gt;  I can only imagine that some Jewish Christians still existed in the 4th century. Besides, even today many, if not most, Protestant Christians are deeply troubled in their consciences over the practice of praying to Saints, using religious icons, etc. So why would Paul say avoid even meats that 'seemed unclean' due to idolatry, according to a weaker brothers faith, but in the fourth century anything and everything that might appear as joining a golden calf to the worship of God was not only no longer shunned but lovingly embraced? &lt;strong&gt;Without even questioning the actual ethics of the individual practices, and even generously and falsely pretending it is the weak conscience that is offended, still it begs the question: 'Why no longer care about a brother's conscience?'&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: Please avoid condemning specifc practices, or justifying specific practices that are offensive to many Christians.  My question is being raised at a higher level, which respects how a brother treats the offended. The actual offences are not central to this current question.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T19:25:03.853" Title="When and why did the ancient church no longer care about offending a brother?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-09-23T07:34:46.720" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9421" CreationDate="2012-08-30T08:36:40.323" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fact that Paul found it necessary to discuss this issue not once, but twice, would seem to indicate that it WAS a problem in the first century church, and not something that the church handled just fine in the first century but then went astray later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More important, there are two sides to Paul's discussion of such offense. He doesn't say, If something offends a brother, don't do it, period end of story. Rather, he has admonitions for both parties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 14 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. ... 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, vv 19-21 say that the brother who sees nothing wrong with X should nevertheless be careful that he does not create a stumbling block for the brother to whom it is a problem. This may mean giving up something that he is convinced is perfectly good and acceptable to avoid offending another Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But before he says that, look at verse 3: The brother who thinks that X is bad but has no clear scriptural justification for saying that, should not condemn the brother who does it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We could debate exactly what Paul meant you should do. I suspect he's a little vague because the answer is not so simple as &quot;never do it&quot;. If that was the rule, then one foolish Christian who condemns things for no good reason would force all the other Christians in the world to give up all sorts of good things. It is no answer to say that you will only give it up if the other person can offer good reasons. Paul's whole point is that he is talking about &quot;disputable matters&quot;. By definition, this is about cases where neither person can give solid, undisputable reasons for his position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose another Christian said that he believed that a Christian should not own a house. Would you burn your house down and live under a bridge to avoid offending him? (You can't sell it -- that would just be encouraging others to sin!) Sorry, I doubt I would go that far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, well, let me take a real case. Many Christians I know believe you should not drink any alcohol at all. I disagree. I won't get into the scriptural arguments here as they're beside the point. I don't belittle Christians who don't drink. I don't try to badger them into drinking, like saying, &quot;Here, have some  wine. How can it hurt? What's the big deal?&quot; etc. I don't drink in front of them, offer them alcohol, or discuss how much I like this brand or whatever in front of them. But I don't totally abstain to avoid offending hem, either. I just don't do it in front of them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, Paul is saying that they should not condemn me for drinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should respect each other's difference of opinion or understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T08:36:40.323" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9426" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-30T11:19:08.650" Score="5" ViewCount="2680" Body="&lt;p&gt;If yes, what is the reference for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this logic, any book before the Bible like the Torah is not the word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Islam, Torah is the book of prophet Moses and Bible is the book of prophet Jesus and Quran is the book of prophet Muhammad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1916" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T00:42:37.313" LastActivityDate="2017-09-08T14:13:57.830" Title="Does Christianity claim that the Bible is God's only Word?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;bible&gt;&lt;word-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-09-08T23:55:46.410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9426" CreationDate="2012-08-30T11:59:06.687" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Torah&lt;/a&gt; is part of the Bible: it is the first five books so is considered by Christians to be &quot;the word of God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the Bible being the word of God first, a verse regular quoted by Christians is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy+3:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the Bible being complete (i.e. no written* &quot;words of God&quot; following), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:18-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 22:18-19&lt;/a&gt; is often quoted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(although some dispute this and say it is only referring to the last book of the Bible, Revelation itself)&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*Some Christian (eg Pentacostal) churches practice &quot;words of knowledge&quot; which are &quot;oral&quot; words of God. It is a whole different topic, but Pentacostals would not accept them as valid if they contradicted Scripture.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T11:59:06.687" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9426" CreationDate="2012-08-30T12:03:17.677" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Word of God Cannot Be Changed&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christians use the word &lt;em&gt;Bible&lt;/em&gt;, they are not merely referring to the New Testament, but to the Old Testament as well.  This includes the Torah.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Quran (as well as the Bible) affirms, &lt;strong&gt;God's Word cannot be changed&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Perfect are the words of thy Lord in truthfulness and justice; &lt;strong&gt;no man&#xA;  can change His words&lt;/strong&gt;; He is the All-hearing, the All-knowing. S. 6:115&#xA;  Arberry&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for them is good tidings in the present life and in the world to come.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;There is no changing the words of God&lt;/strong&gt;; that is the mighty triumph. S.&#xA;  10:64 Arberry&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Recite what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord; &lt;strong&gt;no man&#xA;  can change His words.&lt;/strong&gt; Apart from Him, thou wilt find no refuge. S.&#xA;  18:27 Arberry&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.  Isaiah 40:8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  Matthew 5:18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, because we know God's Word cannot be changed, we know that we can have confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the Old and New Testaments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Warnings from God's Word&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using, then, the Old and New Testament as a foundation, there are a few key points with regard to any new work that proclaims itself the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God's Word warns that there are many deceivers who will attempt to distort the truth about God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.  2 John 1:7 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God's Word warns against the preaching of any other &lt;em&gt;gospel&lt;/em&gt; other than the gospel of Jesus Christ.  In fact, it goes so far to say that &lt;strong&gt;even if an angel of God should preach a different gospel, we are to reject it.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.  Galatians 1:6-9 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Quran's Affirmation of the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quran itself affirms the Old and New Testaments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dispute not with the People of the Book save in the fairer manner,&#xA;  except for those of them that do wrong; and say, 'We believe in what&#xA;  has been sent down to us, &lt;strong&gt;and what has been sent down to you&lt;/strong&gt;; our God&#xA;  and your God is One, and to Him we have surrendered.' S. 29:46 Arberry&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then &lt;strong&gt;We gave Moses the Book&lt;/strong&gt;, complete for him who does good, and&#xA;  distinguishing every thing, and as a guidance and a mercy; haply they&#xA;  would believe in the encounter with their Lord. &lt;strong&gt;This is a Book We have&#xA;  sent down, blessed; so follow it, and be godfearing;&lt;/strong&gt; haply so you will&#xA;  find mercy; &lt;strong&gt;lest you should say, 'The Book was sent down only upon two&#xA;  parties before us,&lt;/strong&gt; and we have indeed been heedless of their study';&#xA;  or lest you say, 'If the Book had been sent down upon us, we had&#xA;  surely been more rightly guided than they.' Yet indeed a clear sign&#xA;  has come to you from your Lord, and a guidance and a mercy; and who&#xA;  does greater evil than he who cries lies to God's signs, and turns&#xA;  away from them? We shall surely recompense those who turn away from&#xA;  Our signs with an evil chastisement for their turning away. S.&#xA;  6:154-157 Arberry&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, whenever any other book is offered as another Word from God, we need to be very careful and &quot;test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.&quot; (1 John 4:1 ESV)  Also, if any other book contradicts the Bible, then it is another gospel and must be rejected.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of the Quran, it was actually claimed to be delivered to Muhammad by an &lt;em&gt;angel of God&lt;/em&gt;.  God's Word gives us a very specific warning about such a claim.  The Quran contradicts the Bible and presents &lt;em&gt;another gospel&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is God's Word--and God's Word cannot be changed.  Therefore, we must conclude that the Quran is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the Word of God, and that is why Christians do not accept it as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T12:52:26.910" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T12:52:26.910" CommentCount="27" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9426" CreationDate="2012-08-30T12:07:56.437" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The assumption that you make is that the Bible is &quot;Jesus' book.&quot; It may or may not be the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_(Islam)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Injil&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; In fact, Jesus neither wrote nor actually authored any piece of the book. Indeed, unlike Muhammed, Jesus did not even receive the Word, but rather &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; the Word of God.  As John 1 tells us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.  ... 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is picked up in Hebrews, where the author states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, while the Bible is our perfect guide to the nature of God, it is to be understood that the Word points us to God because God is holy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Jesus is the exclusive way of salvation is made clear by Jesus' first disciples, Peter and John.  When the Jewish High Priest brought them up on charges, they said of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Jesus himself was clear that he was the exclusive one and only Word, saying in John 14:6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &quot;I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fundamental distinction I am making is this - &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/what-is-mainstream-christianity&quot;&gt;Christians&lt;/a&gt; do not believe Jesus to be a prophet or a teacher. Christians believe him to be God. As God, he was &quot;the Word&quot; (a Greek term &lt;em&gt;Logos&lt;/em&gt; that brings the fundamental idea of being the one through whom all things are created and given meaning.) Muhammed did not claim to be God. Jesus did. The exclusivity of the &quot;Bible&quot; as God's Word doesn't make sense, because Jesus is the point, not the book. Unlike Islam, we do not restrict our understanding of God's Word to a single language, nor do we venerate the Scriptures as Islam does. Instead, we believe that God is &quot;the Word&quot; and that Jesus is God, not a prophet&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible (and I say this as one who has an exceedingly high view of the authority of Scripture!) is not the &quot;ONLY&quot; word of God, because Jesus is the Word. Any would-be Scripture that denies this fundamental tenet of who Jesus is, is by definition, not a Christian Scripture. Jesus, being the fundamental Word, is the only test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike a prophet who merely is God's servant, as Christians, we make the audacious claim that God became flesh, dwelt among us, &lt;em&gt;loved&lt;/em&gt; us, and saved us.  Jesus is not a messenger, but God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T20:54:57.247" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9417" CreationDate="2012-08-30T13:18:08.993" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the record of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6, the additional phrase appears in the 1611 edition of the KJV, the Tyndale Bible, and, it appears, in the German Luther Bible of 1545. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I can't read German, except for &quot;Amen&quot;, but it looks like it's there.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine&#xA;  is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.  Matthew&#xA;  6:13 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And leade vs not into teptacion: but delyver vs fro evell. For thyne&#xA;  is ye kyngedome and ye power and ye glorye for ever. Amen.  Matthew&#xA;  6:13 Tyndale, 1525&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung, sondern erlöse uns von dem Übel.&#xA;  Denn dein ist &lt;em&gt;das Reich und die Kraft und die Herrlichkeit&lt;/em&gt; in&#xA;  Ewigkeit. Amen.  Matthew 6:13 German Luther Bible, 1545&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These translations are at the very beginning of the Protestant Reformation, and Tyndale's even predates it a bit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This phrase does represent a variant in the Greek Manuscripts, but the origin is in the Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this doesn't come from the Didache, but from Matthew's Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T13:18:08.993" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9421" CreationDate="2012-08-30T13:53:55.267" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question makes a lot of assumptions, none of which are necessarily true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your first assumption is a fairly common one, that the early church was perfect in every way and did everything that was preached, living up to its ideals all the time. This was probably not the case - Paul wouldn't have had to write about this twice if the church had always been doing it. In other words: this may not have been something that Christians always did in New testament times, and then somehow stopped doing; it may have been something that Christians always knew they were supposed to do, but have found really difficult in practice - both now and in New Testament times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly you write that &quot;there must have been some Jewish Christians in the fourth Century&quot;. Actually there probably weren't. The split between Christianity and Judaism was pretty definite long before that. There probably were Christian of Jewish descent, but they would have been thrown out of their synagogues and ostracized. Remember that Christianity teaches that it is no longer necessary to adhere to Jewish rituals and customs, even for Jews, once you become a Christian. I very much doubt that there were many Christians who sincerely thought that it was necessary to adhere to Jewish ethics (as opposed to Christian ones) by 400AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your point about 'halos' has already been answered in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9340/where-did-the-religious-symbol-of-the-halo-come-from&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;. They are just an artistic convention, and there is no evidence that using them ever 'gave offence' to anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian representational art has been found dating from the second century AD, so we can presume it was common at that point. I know of nothing to indicate that this art was an &quot;aggressive introduction&quot; as you put it, or that there was objection to it from Christians of Jewish descent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T17:17:00.317" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9434" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9453" CreationDate="2012-08-30T14:00:18.393" Score="2" ViewCount="6364" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we know the story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 21:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold&#xA;  and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the&#xA;  moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we emulate this as Christians? I mean, can we get as angry as this? I can say Jesus was fighting on behalf of God. If we do the same, are we also justified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T20:49:55.203" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T20:49:55.203" Title="Jesus got angry in the temple - should we do that too?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;anger&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-09-15T04:59:31.360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9426" CreationDate="2012-08-30T14:05:39.713" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that Christianity does not consider itself a wholly and entirely different religion from Judaism. Instead Christian belief is that God worked his will through his Chosen People, the Jews, promising them a Saviour (Messiah) in due course. However when that Saviour was sent, some accepted him and some did not. Those that did became Christians, and those that did not continued to call themselves Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Up until the time of Jesus, God acted through the Jews. This included revealing himself to them, and causing to be written holy books of prophecy, teaching and history - the Jewish scriptures. Christians consider those writings to be just as much written by God as anything written in the time of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus do override the Jewish scriptures, because God made a new revelation through him - however they are still considered holy writings, as they reveal God's will for his people &lt;em&gt;at the time they were written&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian Bible therefore contains two parts - the Jewish scriptures are referred to as the Old Testament (more accurately Old Convenant) and the writings about Jesus are the New Testament (New Covenant). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T14:21:37.587" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T14:21:37.587" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9426" CreationDate="2012-08-30T14:12:49.147" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to write a separate answer for what I believe is a separate question. You ask if the Bible is the ONLY word of God. Most Christians would say 'absolutely yes', but the actual position is a little more complex than that. It is certainly true that mainstream Christianity has never acknowledged any additional scriptures, and most consider that the Bible is a 'closed canon', which means that no scriptures &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be added to it. However the 'canon'  is only the acknowledged and approved list of God's writings. Could God cause to be written some other book for some reason? Yes he could. However he would not create a book that contained things &lt;em&gt;necessary for salvation&lt;/em&gt;; i.e. it might contain useful teachings, but not things that a Christian &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; to accept in order to be a true Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T14:12:49.147" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9426" CreationDate="2012-08-30T14:20:57.980" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the context and questions, the &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; question here seems to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does Christianity permit additional works, such as the Qu'ran (in particular), to be the word of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, firstly, the &lt;em&gt;Bible&lt;/em&gt; is not usually taken to be the word of God; it is written by humans, with the emphasis that those words were supposedly &lt;em&gt;inspired and steered&lt;/em&gt; by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for &quot;does Christianity allow the Qu'ran as authentic&quot;: no, it does not, frankly. By simple logic: if a Christian believed the Qu'ran to be the true and authentic word of God, then they would need to follow those beliefs / instructions, which would mean: they were following Islam. This is clearly not the case; it could even be argued that the similarities between the &lt;em&gt;practices&lt;/em&gt; of Christianity and Islam are at best superficial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T14:20:57.980" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9439" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9483" CreationDate="2012-08-30T14:32:06.527" Score="2" ViewCount="459" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not to be confused with this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6694/69&quot;&gt;closed question&lt;/a&gt;, is our use of cultural criticisms (eg some from the list of Carlin's 7 words) approved\allowed\encouraged because Jesus (and later Paul) used cultural equivalents?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees &quot;hypocrites&quot; several times during His ministry (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 15&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;22&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;23&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:56&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 12&lt;/a&gt;, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy#Etymology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; points-out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;hypokrites&lt;/em&gt; was a technical term for a stage actor and was not considered an appropriate role for a public figure. In Athens in the 4th century BC, for example, the great orator Demosthenes ridiculed his rival Aeschines, who had been a successful actor before taking up politics, as a &lt;em&gt;hypokrites&lt;/em&gt; whose skill at impersonating characters on stage made him an untrustworthy politician. This negative view of the &lt;em&gt;hypokrites&lt;/em&gt;, perhaps combined with the Roman disdain for actors, later shaded into the originally neutral &lt;em&gt;hypokrisis&lt;/em&gt;. It is this later sense of &lt;em&gt;hypokrisis&lt;/em&gt; as &quot;play-acting&quot;, i.e., the assumption of a counterfeit persona, that gives the modern word &lt;strong&gt;hypocrisy&lt;/strong&gt; its negative connotation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being called a hypocrite was about as horrid an insult as one could level against a public figure in Christ's day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul called the church in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:1-2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Corinth&lt;/a&gt; worse than the Gentiles, and arrogant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also called Peter effectively a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:11-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gentile&lt;/a&gt;, and frequently used the word &quot;&lt;em&gt;anathema&lt;/em&gt;&quot; or &quot;accursed&quot; in his writings describing those who would pervert the Gospel for their own ends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were these merely cases of calling a spade a spade (regardless of the language chosen to do so), or is it an encouragement/permit to use similar language &lt;em&gt;at least&lt;/em&gt; when confronting sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T16:16:43.197" Title="Do Paul's and Jesus' use of epithets and culturally-harsh criticisms mandate/approve our own?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9440" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9444" CreationDate="2012-08-30T14:48:07.773" Score="-2" ViewCount="11912" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the &lt;em&gt;Book of David&lt;/em&gt; and is it part of the Bible? In Islam we know it as Zaboor (زبور). Is it available today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1916" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T23:40:23.627" LastActivityDate="2015-01-19T23:40:23.627" Title="What is the 'Book of David'?" Tags="&lt;islam&gt;&lt;david&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9440" CreationDate="2012-08-30T15:18:55.817" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;David was not the &lt;em&gt;sole&lt;/em&gt; author of any books of the Bible, but:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He authored most (but not all) of the Psalms, a Jewish Hymnbook that is the Largest book of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He is the primary character in the second half of 1 Samuel and all of 2 Samuel, plus its duplicate 1 Chronicles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_holy_books&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;, the Books of David are often assumed to be the Psalms, but are not so universally held.  Likewise, the Books of Isa are often assumed to be the New Testament, but could refer to an unknown Gospel authored by Jesus himself.  In any event, these are not canonical books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better understanding of the Islamic views on these books would of course be found on &lt;a href=&quot;https://islam.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Islam.SE&lt;/a&gt;, but you'd know that :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:49:09.287" LastActivityDate="2014-01-23T14:34:06.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9426" CreationDate="2012-08-30T15:21:17.520" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lots of good and interesting answers here, but one Catholic perspective is missing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bl. Pope John Paul II's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1932645349&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Theology of the Body&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; made it clear that God one way God speaks through us is through His creation. To be sure, Creation itself, is in the Bible, but the Bible doesn't say. &quot;Men shall be X because I, the LORD your God created them this way and woman shall be X because I, the LORD your God created them that way&quot;.  It does say &quot;Men shall &lt;em&gt;DO&lt;/em&gt; this and women shall &lt;em&gt;DO&lt;/em&gt; that&quot;, but doesn't go into the inherent qualities of the sexes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T15:21:17.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9440" CreationDate="2012-08-30T15:23:53.413" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no absolute agreement about what the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabur&quot;&gt;Book of David (Zaboor or Zabur)&lt;/a&gt; is referring to. The majority opinion is that it refers to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms&quot;&gt;Book of Psalms&lt;/a&gt;, which is a part of the Bible. The majority of the Psalms are traditionally written by David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T15:23:53.413" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8689" CreationDate="2012-08-30T15:26:15.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mason and Matt have answered this quite well, but there's another aspect to the garments that hasn't been brought up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the temple, Mormons are told that the garments represent the clothing given to Adam and Even when they were naked in the Garden of Eden, which can help us understand other things about the garment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Adam and Eve would either had to kill or witnessed the killing of an animal, whose skin would be used to make the clothing.  This would have been the first death that they saw, and is likely when they learned about the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the symbolism of animal sacrifice.  As such, the covering of skins taught them the power of making covenants and developing a relationship with God.  The animal skins do not symbolize modern-day garments; rather the modern-day garments are meant to remind us of the animal skins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T15:26:15.200" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9417" CreationDate="2012-08-30T16:17:15.227" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sort of? Strictly speaking it comes from the medieval manuscripts which the reformation theologians inherited, but it is not quite that simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The text is clearly missing from the most ancient manuscripts of Matthew, but it was present in the Renaissance. Someone in some scriptorium added that passage at a later date. On the other hand, we know that the Didache clearly included that doxology in the first (early second?) century. We also know that the Didache influenced the earliest Christian liturgies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is my interpretation that the text &lt;em&gt;originally&lt;/em&gt; comes from the Didache but was added to Matthew. It seems likely that this was probably the honest mistake of a scribe remembering how it was said in Mass and writing that part from memory instead of sticking to the page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FWIW, the doxology is found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0717.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Liturgy of St. James&lt;/a&gt;, the oldest complete liturgy available to us today:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our Father, which art in heaven: hollowed be Your name... &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  For Yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and for ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; in the Tridentine Mass, nor is it in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/rites/ambrosian-rite.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ambrosian Rite&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T16:31:04.017" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T16:31:04.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9434" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:09:18.893" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer, yes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil (Eph 4:26,27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is saying here that it is possible to be angry and to not sin.  That conclusion can also be reached since Jesus was angry but never sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we need to be very cautious.  Anger has a way of dulling good judgment and, often leads to sinful actions.  Hence the many warnings in Scripture against it such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:19,20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And proverbs dealing with anger abound:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://strengthenedbygrace.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/proverbs-on-anger/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://strengthenedbygrace.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/proverbs-on-anger/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the heart is very deceitful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heart is deceitful above all things,&#xA;      and desperately sick;&#xA;      who can understand it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;we need to be careful that we are not viewing our own sinful anger as righteous anger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, can we emulate what Jesus did in the temple?  Well, remember it was his father's house.  He had the authority to act there.  If I came into my father's house and found a bunch of thieves and robbers, I think it would be legitimate and God honoring to be angry about it and to kick them out.  Likewise, there are evils committed in this world that we should be angry about.  If, however, our anger leads us to sinful actions or attitudes (bitterness for example), then we should be quick to recognize that our anger is no longer God honoring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what its worth, I doubt my own ability to be righteously angry.  So whenever I reflect on my own anger, I start with the assumption that it is sinful, and begin to diligently search and examine to make sure I am not giving an opportunity to the devil (Eph 4:29).  If, after reflection and seeking godly counsel, I can determine that my anger is justified, then so be it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend the following book for a very good look at anger from a biblical perspective: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1596380055&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Uprooting Anger by Robert Jones&quot;&gt;Uprooting Anger by Robert Jones&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2044" LastEditorUserId="2044" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T17:16:27.543" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T17:16:27.543" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9451" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:09:46.817" Score="7" ViewCount="21686" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does such sect inside Christianity exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1916" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-05-08T21:17:35.970" LastActivityDate="2017-05-09T01:51:41.910" Title="What percentage of self-identifying Christians believe Jesus was not God, and instead was a messenger of God?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;non-trinitarian&gt;&lt;demographics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9452" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9454" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:10:33.167" Score="15" ViewCount="2160" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians technically aren't supposed to have a &quot;Canon within the canon&quot; (i.e. a subset of Scripture that is somehow &quot;more scriptural&quot; then everything else) but in practical effect, we do.  If someone is interested in learning the Christian faith, nine times out of ten, someone will say, &quot;Read the Book of John,&quot; if not actually just whip out John 3:16 and start quoting. (Very few, for example, would say 'start with Leviticus'. The truly erudite would say, &quot;Read the Book of Romans,&quot; but I digress...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I've read through Mormon exhibits that tell me about the journey of Lehi &amp;amp; Nephi, of the battle that Helaman fought, and of the final burial of the Scriptures by Moroni - but what I want to know is this - what is the &quot;core teaching&quot; of the Book of Mormon that would be the most fair for me to evaluate? Not to discount the remainder of the LDS scriptures, but is there a &quot;go-to text&quot; that should be looked at first?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, what is the abridged &quot;canon within the canon&quot; of the Book of Mormon?  Where do I begin when the guys in the white shirts say, &quot;read this?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1471" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T18:08:37.383" LastActivityDate="2017-11-28T21:40:10.533" Title="What is the Book of Mormon equivalent of John 3:16?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9434" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:13:24.930" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an interesting bit of detail about the event in Mark 11:11:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He did not allow his anger to control him. This was not an act of rage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another issue at play here, as well. Since Jesus is Himself part of God, the offense committed by the changers in the temple was towards him directly. An analogy is that if you see someone habitually blaspheme God, it's as if that person physically assaulted your mother. But from Jesus perspective, it was as if they were assaulting you directly, or perhaps even assaulting you and your mother at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we are to use Jesus as the great example, we must be careful to remember that, as the creator, he sometimes sees things differently than we do, both through his power to understand people's hearts, and from the fact that he relates to people differently than we do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T17:13:24.930" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9452" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:24:48.900" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;If any such &quot;unofficial canon within a canon&quot; existed in the Book of Mormon, it would have to be in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne?lang=eng&quot;&gt;3rd Nephi&lt;/a&gt;, from chapter 11 to approximately chapter 28.  This is from the record of Nephi, a distant descendant of the Nephi from the beginning of the book, who lived through a time period that our modern calendar counts as the 0030s AD: the time of Christ's mortal ministry, his death and resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This part of the record recounts how, at some point soon after the resurrection of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, (the exact time frame is not given, but it is said to be &quot;in the ending of&quot; the same year,) the resurrected Lord appeared to the people of the Nephites.  He spent some time among them, teaching them about the principles of the Gospel and how the Law of Moses had been fulfilled in him, re-organizing the church among them in light of this fundamental shift in the law, and blessing and healing all who came unto him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, if &quot;the guys in the white shirts&quot; do come by and visit you, it's quite likely that 3rd Nephi chapter 11 will be one of the first things they invite you to read.  This section of the narrative is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful and spiritual parts of the Book of Mormon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T17:24:48.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9452" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:27:59.260" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the very &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng&quot;&gt;title page&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the&#xA;  Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations— ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.32-33?lang=eng#31&quot;&gt;last page of the record (Moroni 10:32-33)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny&#xA;  yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all&#xA;  ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then&#xA;  is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect&#xA;  in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can&#xA;  in nowise deny the power of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and&#xA;  deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of&#xA;  God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the&#xA;  covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become&#xA;  holy, without spot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&amp;amp;type=verse&amp;amp;query=Christ&amp;amp;testament=bofm&quot;&gt;Book of Mormon espouses the doctrine of Christ&lt;/a&gt;: His gospel, ministry, and everlasting Atonement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For another instance, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/33.10?lang=eng#9&quot;&gt;2 Nephi 33:10&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the&#xA;  earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye&#xA;  believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe&#xA;  in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of&#xA;  Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that&#xA;  they should do good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the overall focal point would be in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne?lang=eng&quot;&gt;3 Nephi, chapters 11-28&lt;/a&gt;, which records the Savior's ministry upon the American continent. I have seldom seen Book of Mormon passages referenced in an introductory setting more than those which directly speak of Jesus' gospel: faith, repentance, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon repeats the same doctrine over and over but in different ways... so it's hard to pinpoint a specific verse to answer your question. Typically, missionaries will probably invite you to read in 3 Nephi about Jesus' visit to the Americas, or in 2 Nephi 31 where Nephi preaches on faith, repentance, baptism, and remission of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which passage missionaries assign people to read is chosen on an individual basis. To explain Christianity in a nutshell, they would probably refer you to John 3:16 in the Bible (it is an excellent verse) -- to explain Mormonism in a nutshell, it varies between any of these types of passages, depending on who you are and your situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T17:33:49.673" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T17:33:49.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9451" CreationDate="2012-08-30T17:32:16.443" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;A.) less than 2.2 percent of Christians belong to sects professing to believe that Jesus is not God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;                     Do            Don't         N/A        (in billions)&#xA;Catholicism          1.2   &#xA;Protestantism        0.801  &#xA;Eastern Orthodoxy    0.230 &#xA;Oriental Orthodoxy   0.082&#xA;Restorationism                      0.045* &#xA;Unitarian Universalism                           0.006 &#xA;Nestorianism                        0.006**&#xA;                     2.313          0.051        0.006   &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members#Protestantism_-_801_million_.28including_Anglicanism.29.5B8.5D&quot;&gt;Demographics wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;not the table&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*There are quite a few who would disagree with the assessment of these two groups, including myself, but for the sake of simplicity, if you're going to go looking for groups that deny the Divinity of Christ, start here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**I was just reading about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm&quot;&gt;hypostatic union&lt;/a&gt;, and apparently Nestorian's think it was just luck or something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B.) The answer is too subjective and contentious to possibly answer without inciting a holy war.   The reasons are probably:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They have different or changed scriptures. (Jehovah's Witnesses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were founded by people who called themselves prophets and wanted to essentially start a new religion. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were founded on enlightenment ideals wherein Jesus could not be God because that would mean God exists in a real and profound way in human history. (Deists and Unitarians probably don't believe this) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They exist to fulfill some desire to project a certain idea about God that others don't share. Like dualism (meaning the body is bad and the soul is good), they'd say that Jesus, couldn't have been God since He inhabited a body. (Christian Scientists and older heretics like the Manichean's) or they think that the Body was inhabited by God, but the Body was not God (Nestorians)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-08-31T15:19:31.540" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T15:19:31.540" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9452" CreationDate="2012-08-30T18:09:44.290" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two ways to determine prominent LDS scriptures are the &quot;scripture mastery&quot; lists and citation data from General Conference sermons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Scripture Mastery&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS seminary program encourages youth to increase familiarity with the scriptures by memorizing select passages. This &lt;a href=&quot;http://seminary.lds.org/mastery/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;scripture mastery&quot;&lt;/a&gt; program specifies 25 passages in each of the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. Not that this is somehow a canonical list of the most important verses in scripture, but I suspect the list was chosen based on doctrinal relevance, frequency of use in sermons, etc. So, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://seminary.lds.org/courses/bofm/#scripture-mastery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book of Mormon Scripture Mastery list&lt;/a&gt; is a good place to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;References in General Conference&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One practical measure of prominence is the frequency with which scriptures are quoted in General Conference. &lt;a href=&quot;http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/01/scriptures-most-cited-in-general-conference/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Passages of Scripture Most Cited in General Conference, 1942 – 2004&lt;/a&gt; was compiled using citation data from &lt;a href=&quot;http://scriptures.byu.edu/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://scriptures.byu.edu/&lt;/a&gt;. This list includes passages from not limited to the Book of Mormon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1471" LastEditorUserId="1471" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T19:32:04.600" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T19:32:04.600" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9434" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:15:46.933" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is such a thing as righteous anger.  There is, however, the issue of authority.  Jesus, as the eternal Son of God who took on flesh 2,000 years ago, had the authority not only to be angry but to take appropriate action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We as Christians can certainly have righteous anger and probably do whenever we here of murder and violence throughout the world.  However, we do not have the authority given to us to do anything like what Jesus did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted here what it was that angered Jesus so much.  In the design of the Temple, the largest section was the court of the Gentiles.  Israel was chosen to be a God's light to the world, so this very large place was build specifically for non-Jews.  The Jews turned this area into a marketplace, effectively crowding out the place designed for people from every nation, tribe, and language.  This is what enraged Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark's account identifies this more specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My&#xA;  house shall be called a house of prayer &lt;strong&gt;for all the nations&lt;/strong&gt;’?  Mark 11:17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we can certainly have righteous anger, but we are not given the authority to do what Jesus did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you want to make God really mad, try preventing people from worshiping Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T19:15:46.933" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9459" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9460" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:39:59.067" Score="6" ViewCount="28161" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did the disciples believe that Jesus was God or a prophet?  I presume that their opinion changed when he died.  They called Jesus &quot;Lord&quot;.  However, &quot;Lord&quot; was a somewhat common title back then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-10-09T13:00:37.523" LastActivityDate="2014-11-26T23:18:59.260" Title="Did Jesus' disciples believe Jesus was God or a prophet?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;&lt;divinity&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-11-27T04:59:55.090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9459" CreationDate="2012-08-30T19:51:07.910" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:16 is perhaps the most prominent answer to this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” &#xA;  Matthew 16:16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the disciples became convinced by the miracles, the teachings, and the character of Jesus through His ministry that Jesus was the very Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, it wasn't when Jesus died that their belief and understanding became solidified, but &lt;strong&gt;after His resurrection.&lt;/strong&gt;  The disciples were fearful prior to that.  In fact, many were hiding while He was being crucified.  All fled at His arrest, even though Peter made one valiant act in His defense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus had only died, Christianity would not exist.  It was the resurrection that turned &quot;unschooled, ordinary men&quot; into bold witnesses of Jesus who willingly faced persecution and death for their teaching that Jesus is Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T19:51:07.910" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9459" CreationDate="2012-08-30T20:17:55.447" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes - they thought many things, and at various stages in His ministry, differing &quot;circles&quot; of His disciples expressed different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of His closest disciples (those we generally associate with the term &quot;disciple&quot;, aka The Twelve), Peter declared Jesus to be the Christ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;first&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon Peter answered, &quot;You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.&quot; {Matthew 16:16}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the same Peter who went on to deny Jesus three times during His trial before His crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It took &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:24-29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Thomas&lt;/a&gt; seeing the resurrected Jesus to realize who He is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.&quot; .. Then He said to Thomas, &quot;Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.&quot; Thomas answered and said to Him, &quot;My Lord and my God!&quot; Jesus said to him, &quot;Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.&quot; {John 20:24-29}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly they recognized Jesus to be &quot;important&quot; early on (see how fast they respond to His calls of them), for example when they ask to learn how to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2011:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;pray&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, &quot;Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples.&quot; {Luke 11:1}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When each of the twelve became &quot;aware&quot; of who Christ was is not told to us - certainly it was by Pentecost, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those not close to Christ (or who were only peripherally-aware of Him), did not know who He was - but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:14-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;worried about Him&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, &quot;John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.&quot; But others were saying, &quot;He is Elijah.&quot; And others were saying, &quot;He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.&quot; But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, &quot;John, whom I beheaded, has risen!&quot; {Mark 6:14-16}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-14T00:18:16.807" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T00:18:16.807" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9463" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-30T21:12:00.477" Score="12" ViewCount="535" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, this may seem like a dumb question, but a lot of heads have been knocked around over what is meant by the &quot;Divinity of Christ&quot;.  To a Catholic, I don't think one can have the Divinity of Christ without a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm&quot;&gt;hypostatic union&lt;/a&gt; because it would mean that Jesus was, for a time, not God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The hypostatic union is the doctrine that Jesus has two natures (at the same time) and was always and is always fully man and fully God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is, do the Latter-Day Saints believe Jesus was fully God during His sojourn on earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-08-30T21:22:54.340" LastActivityDate="2018-01-09T12:33:53.213" Title="Do the LDS believe in the Hypostatic Union?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;divinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9416" CreationDate="2012-08-30T22:16:25.407" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've also not been able to find a definitive attribution of this phrase to Pope Paul VI. Google Books has nothing helpful, and neither does a site search on vatican.va (I tried a few variations and keywords, in English and Latin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I did discover evidence that the basic sentiment did not originate with him (whether or not he said that exact phrase at some point in his life). For example, this is from Picart's &lt;em&gt;Religious ceremonies and customs&lt;/em&gt; (1723-1737) &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, as translated by William Burder (1841) &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholics look on the sacrifice of the mass as the most acceptable of all adorations, and the most effectual of all prayers. The Church not only prays herself at this sacrifice, which the priest offers up to God in the most solemn and majestic manner; but Jesus Christ also, by the sacrifice of his own body, is said to offer up to the Father the most perfect adoration that can possibly be paid to him, since it is offered by a God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;original: &lt;em&gt;Nous devons expliquer un peu en détail les Ceremonies du Sacrifice de la Messe ,  que les Catholiques regardent comme la plus excellente de toute les adorations , &amp;amp; la plus efficace de toutes les prieres. Non seulement l'Eglise prie pour elle même à ce sacrifice, qu'un Prêtre offre à Dieu de la maniere la plus auguste que l'esprit humain ait pû concevoir; mais Jesus-Christ lui-même offre à son Pere par le sacrifice de son corps l'adoration la plus parfaite qu'on puisse lui rendre, puisqu'elle lui est rendue par un Dieu.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with many other points of Catholic belief, we can turn to Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo to learn more:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saint Thomas defended the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and he brilliantly articulated the Church's understanding of the sacrifice of the Mass as the most perfect prayer of the Church.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aquinas' &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; contains a lot of material on these points. One relevant passage is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3083.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;II-II 83.17&lt;/a&gt;, where he discusses the &amp;quot;parts of prayer&amp;quot; - supplication, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving - and notes that all are present in the rite of the Mass:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A gloss on 1 Timothy 2:1 says that &amp;quot;in the Mass, the consecration is preceded by supplication,&amp;quot; in which certain sacred things are called to mind; that &amp;quot;prayers are in the consecration itself,&amp;quot; in which especially the mind should be raised up to God; and that &amp;quot;intercessions are in the petitions that follow, and thanksgivings at the end.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;gloss&amp;quot; he refers to is uncited here, but I think it is meant to point to one of Augustine's letters, sent to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulinus_of_Nola&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Saint Paulinus of Nola&lt;/a&gt; (Letter 149), which includes an extensive exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:1, the different forms of prayer named there, and their relations to the Mass. Elsewhere, Aquinas discusses how prayer and sacrifice are related as offerings to God, and records detailed observations about different prayers and other points of the Mass ceremony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, whether or not Paul VI said this, it's certainly the kind of thing he &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; have said! It's also worth noting that this idea depends on the Eucharist being a sacrifice, and not a memorial - otherwise it's not truly an &amp;quot;offering&amp;quot; according to Aquinas - so it's very much consistent with Catholic perception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;Cérémonies et coutumes religieuses de tous les peuples du monde representées par des figures dessinées de la main de Bernard Picard: avec une explication historique, &amp;amp; quelques dissertations curieuses.&lt;/em&gt; 7 vols. Amsterdam: J.F. Bernard, 1723-1737. Online at &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/picart&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/picart&lt;/a&gt;. Quotation can be found at the bottom of vol. 1, p76.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;Religious ceremonies and customs&lt;/em&gt;. William Burder. London. 1841. Page 205.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;Prayer as a journey: Medieval spiritual paths&lt;/em&gt;. Christian Raab, OSB. In &lt;em&gt;The tradition of Catholic prayer&lt;/em&gt;. Monks of Saint Meinrad Archabbey. 2007.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-08-30T22:16:25.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9466" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9509" CreationDate="2012-08-31T01:40:21.540" Score="4" ViewCount="132" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My question is not focused on the doctrinal issue, but on the external practices which were contributing to the division.&lt;/strong&gt; For example, I know there were many 'image breakers' similar to traditional Jewish views, who even took a swing at Luther for having pictures in his Bible, whereas Luther was a little more middle of the road with regards to images and statues. So long as they were not used in anyway that might suggest invocation to Mary, or the Saints, which turned them into proper idols, he did not see a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question therefore, is NOT should this thing, or that thing, be offensive, but 'historically', what was offensive?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-10-09T09:36:08.710" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T09:36:08.710" Title="Besides works versus grace and indulgences, what were the external practices of the Catholics that offended so many reformers?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9468" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-31T03:38:39.440" Score="0" ViewCount="600" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1955/can-humans-become-angels&quot;&gt;Can Humans become Angels?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have always wondered if in the afterlife humans can decide to become angels, and I have always wondered what is the difference between an archangel and an angel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2095" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T14:09:33.547" Title="Can humans become angels in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-09-15T21:04:58.830" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9469" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-08-31T04:01:44.800" Score="4" ViewCount="478" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking on this site in many answers involving the problem of evil I see affirmations of belief in free-will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Calvinist Mark Hausam, who presented &lt;a href=&quot;http://lehislibrary.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/mark-hausam-calvinism-arminianism-mormonism.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a paper&lt;/a&gt; at a conference on Mormonism, the assertion that God gave us free-will and that God created everything ex-nihilo, beliefs that he asserts are held by many evangelicals, are incompatible. He argues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon&#xA;  God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or&#xA;  be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian&#xA;  thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hausam continues to argue that Arminian thought is not all that dissimilar from Mormonism. Mormonism explicitly rejects the notion of creation ex-nihilo and as such resolves the problem of evil as well as the paradox: If God created everything, how is our will independent of him? He argues that Arminians, in order to believe in our having free-will, must reject the concept of ex-nihilo creation as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is directed to those who hold both these views. I am not entirely convinced that these views are irreconcilable as argued, but I cannot produce a good counter-argument. How do you resolve the paradox presented here by Hausam?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: I recognize one way to argue this is that God, being all-powerful, created our free wills out of nothing, but this is still the same paradox. How can God determine (create) something that is undetermined? (free-will). If you could present a logical argument for this view, I would gladly hear it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastActivityDate="2021-01-17T20:22:27.640" Title="Is ex-nihilo creationism irreconcilable with the concept of individual free will?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9469" CreationDate="2012-08-31T04:47:33.830" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;With all due respect to Mark Hausam, the logic just doesn't hold water.  That sounds like a &lt;a href=&quot;http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/category.htm&quot;&gt;category error&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Category Errors&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These fallacies occur because the author mistakenly assumes that the&#xA;  whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts. However, things&#xA;  joined together may have different properties as a whole than any of&#xA;  them do separately. The following fallacies are category errors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Composition (Because the parts have a property, the whole is said to have that property)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Division (Because the whole has a property, the parts are said to have that property)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free will is not dependent on our origins. To illustrate this, we can look at a polar opposite theory of origins and show that the same argument can be stated, and it's equally nonsensical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Creationism implies a first cause, which is God. It deals with the origin of everything. Ex-nihilo creationism claims &lt;strong&gt;God as a first cause&lt;/strong&gt;, leaving the question &quot;where did God come from?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Current Atheistic Naturalism &lt;strong&gt;also assumes a first cause - the Big Bang&lt;/strong&gt;, and question &quot;what existed before it?  Where did the energy, which eventually became matter, come from?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both claim either a first cause, or a first &lt;em&gt;known&lt;/em&gt; cause, leaving the question of whether or not this known first cause is truly first... But I'm getting off the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's rephrase the question attempting to tie free will to this alternate theory of origins:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Big Bang theory implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon&#xA;  energy and matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To which we can only reply &quot;duh.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Big Bang is true, and we have a metaphysical dependence on matter and energy, that has nothing to do with whether or not we have free will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The existence of free will has nothing to do with origins. It doesn't matter if the proposed theory of origins is the Big Bang, or Ex-nihilo Creationism, or the idea that a Turtle god barfed up the universe. (Sorry. I've been reading some odd legends lately.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-08-31T12:03:57.317" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T12:03:57.317" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9468" CreationDate="2012-08-31T05:01:12.167" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have always wondered if in the afterlife humans can decide to become&#xA;  angels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t005.html#1&quot;&gt;Angels are entirely different than humans, created for a different purpose&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;what is the difference between an archangel and an angel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel&quot;&gt;Archangels are simply angels with a higher rank&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T05:01:12.167" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9416" CreationDate="2012-08-31T08:21:03.360" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;James T has identified that the sentiment expressed is Thomist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find anything positively identifying Paul VI either, but I did find &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090503_ordinazioni-sacerdotali_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;something of Benedict XVI&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Eucharistic Celebration is the greatest and highest act of prayer, and constitutes the centre and the source from which even the other forms receive &quot;nourishment&quot;: the Liturgy of the Hours, Eucharistic adoration, &lt;em&gt;Lectio divina,&lt;/em&gt; the Holy Rosary, meditation. All these expressions of prayer, which have their centre in the Eucharist, fulfil the words of Jesus in the priest's day and in all his life: &quot;I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep&quot; (Jn 10: 14-15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[However, see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s2a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 2763&lt;/a&gt;; I'd be interested to know how that apparent contradiction is resolved.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T08:21:03.360" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9477" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9478" CreationDate="2012-08-31T10:28:00.723" Score="5" ViewCount="204" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is as simple as the title. Did Luther have a minor alteration in his view of Mary, or a major one after being born again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: By the way Luther did use the term 'born again' for some reason people think it is a new term. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T16:22:08.150" Title="How did Luther's view of Mary change after his new birth experience?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;mariology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9477" CreationDate="2012-08-31T10:28:00.723" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Originally Luther loved to pray to Mary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I chose twenty-one saints and prayed to three every day when I celebrated mass; thus I completed the number every week. I prayed especially to the Blessed Virgin, who with her womanly heart would compassionately appease her Son.  (Luther's Works V54.340)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After being what he called born again, which is often referred to as his &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8742/when-and-how-did-martin-luther-arrive-at-the-justification-by-faith/8754#8754&quot;&gt;Tower Experience&lt;/a&gt;, he began to see Mary as someone the church used to commit many blasphemies in holding idolatrous esteem of her:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I was as deep in it as all the rest, that we were plainly taught to hold Mary in Christ’s place and office. We held Christ to be our angry judge and Mary to be our throne of grace, where all our comfort and refuge lay, if we did not wish to despair. Was that not a horrible innovation? Where were the bishops who rebuked such new blasphemers and betrayers of Christ who took away Christ’s office and gave it to Mary, who taught us to flee from Christ and fear him as a whipmaster, and directed elsewhere our confidence which we owe to him as the true divine service? We have learned nothing but idolatry from these traitors! (Luther's Works V34.27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T16:22:08.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9479" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9480" CreationDate="2012-08-31T13:26:10.663" Score="4" ViewCount="318" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just wondering in what year the first historical record of the Church in Rome, against the wishes of other churches, that she should impose her tradition on them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I am simply looked for the first factual recorded date in history. I am not making an inquiry into whether the church in Rome had a right, or not, to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-30T09:40:44.223" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T08:11:18.717" Title="When did the church in the city of Rome first try to impose a tradition on other churches?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9479" CreationDate="2012-08-31T13:26:10.663" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The earliest record I have been able to find was between 189-199 AD. This occurred when a dispute over what day the celebration of Easter should occur. This happened betwwen the Christians at Rome and those from the province of Asia. &lt;strong&gt;Victor, the bishop of Rome decided to act dictatorial actually trying to excomminicate whole churches over an extremely non essential matter, naturally greatly offending other bishops.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Victor called a meeting of Italian bishops at Rome, which is the earliest Roman synod known. He also wrote to the leading bishops of the various districts, urging them to call together the bishops of their sections of the country and to take counsel with them on the question of the Easter festival. Letters came from all sides: from the synod in Palestine, at which Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided; from the synod of Pontus over which Palmas as the oldest presided; from the communities in Gaul whose bishop of Irenaeus of Lyons; from the bishops of the Kingdom of Osrhoene; also from individual bishops, as Bakchylus of Corinth. These letters all unanimously reported that Easter was observed on Sunday.  Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. &lt;strong&gt;In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This severe procedure did not please all the bishops.&lt;/strong&gt; Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom. (Catholic Encyclopedia as posted &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cogwriter.com/victor.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems around 90-100 years after the last Apostle died, did the the first historical record appear when church of Rome tried to impose its tradition on other churches who resisted that attempt. This was around the year 195 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-30T09:43:22.413" CommentCount="19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9463" CreationDate="2012-08-31T15:07:52.433" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Affable Geek's comment that &quot;my understanding is that Mormons reject the Credal terminology, but accept the upshot&quot; is pretty much on the money.  In my research to answer this question, it seems that the Catholic concept of the Hypostatic Union is mixed in with a lot of Trinitarian implications that LDS theology rejects.  However, the basic concept of the man Jesus of Nazareth having a unique nature--that of being both a mortal man and a divine God during his life on Earth--is readily accepted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A passage in the Book of Mormon discussing the Atonement, while it does not particularly emphasize Jesus's mortal nature, speaks directly to the issue expressed in the question above as to Jesus's nature as God while in mortality:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/34.8-16#8&quot;&gt;Alma 34: 8-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these&#xA;  things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ&#xA;  shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the&#xA;  transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of&#xA;  the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according&#xA;  to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made,&#xA;  or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened;&#xA;  yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through&#xA;  the atonement which it is expedient should be made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last&#xA;  sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of&#xA;  any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must&#xA;  be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which&#xA;  will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold&#xA;  will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto&#xA;  you, Nay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore&#xA;  there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which&#xA;  will suffice for the sins of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last&#xA;  sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should&#xA;  be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be&#xA;  fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and&#xA;  none shall have passed away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit&#xA;  pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last&#xA;  sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe&#xA;  on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring&#xA;  about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth&#xA;  about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles&#xA;  them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto&#xA;  repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice;&#xA;  therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought&#xA;  about the great and eternal plan of redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, we see Alma using the divine nature of Jesus as a part of his reasoning: if he was not divine, &quot;infinite and eternal&quot; and something more than an ordinary man, it would not be possible for the sacrifice that marked the end of his mortal life to provide an atonement for the sins of mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1983/10/jesus-christ-our-savior-and-redeemer?lang=eng&quot;&gt;a talk given in 1983&lt;/a&gt;, Ezra Taft Benson, who was then the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, (he became President of the Church about two years later,) spoke of Jesus's nature as both God and Man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He came to this earth at a foreappointed time through a royal&#xA;  birthright that preserved His godhood. Combined in His nature were the&#xA;  human attributes of His mortal mother and the divine attributes and&#xA;  powers of His Eternal Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;His unique heredity made Him heir to the honored title—The Only&#xA;  Begotten Son of God in the flesh. As the Son of God, He inherited&#xA;  powers and intelligence which no human ever had before or since. He&#xA;  was literally Immanuel, which means “God with us.” (See Matt. 1:23.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even though He was God’s Son sent to earth, the divine plan of the&#xA;  Father required that Jesus be subjected to all the difficulties and&#xA;  tribulations of mortality. Thus He became subject to “temptations, …&#xA;  hunger, thirst, and fatigue.” (Mosiah 3:7.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To qualify as the Redeemer of all our Father’s children, Jesus had to&#xA;  be perfectly obedient to all the laws of God. Because He subjected&#xA;  Himself to the will of the Father, He grew “from grace to grace, until&#xA;  he received a fulness” of the Father’s power. Thus He had “all power,&#xA;  both in heaven and on earth.” (D&amp;amp;C 93:13, 17.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, it's safe to say that Latter-Day Saints do believe that Jesus retained his divine nature while living as a mortal man, and do not believe that &quot;Jesus was, for a time, not God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T15:07:52.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9439" CreationDate="2012-08-31T16:16:43.197" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sorry for the long post but the question is complex, so I have answered according to various aspects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is pretty clear about using 'foul' language, but what is 'foul' is not always clear. However since the bible endorses brotherly love, if words that you feel free to say at home, offends someone at work, or church, then they should be said at home only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (NIV Ephesians 5:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new testament is never legalistic, so it expects each person to apply a verse like this and there is no need for others to define in great detail what it means by actually listing the words. Regarding Carlins 7 cuss words (I had to look that up) even most non-Christians would define most of them as obscenities.  Basically, if a teacher in a high school could get into trouble for saying a certain word every day in their regular teaching, it is probably viewed as an obscenity by a large population.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But all humor aside, &lt;strong&gt;I think the key idea with obscenity is that it offends.  Even if the Bible did not say, do not use offensive language, it is already given that we should do our utmost not to offend our brother.&lt;/strong&gt; Obscenities are just those words, not evil in themselves, that are generally understood as offensive.  Of course many words lay on the border of offensive or non.  I am often surprise that some words I use, are considered offensive by some people at my own church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What makes a word offensive?&lt;/strong&gt; I think what happens is when we are bitter or angry in a sinful 'cursing' sense we tend to refer to certain word to express our wicked curse.  Although the words themselves could be said by a child without any anger at all, the frequency of their use as a continuer for wicked cursing, by wicked men, eventually bring about a strong cultural opposing to the word itself.  It is these word which would make our talk unwholesome and unloving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as we approach sin, or things we can hate, while being a loving Christian, we are naturally wanting to use words that properly express our disgust.  These are the types of words that Jesus and thenApostle used. Non of these words were considered offensive, but being called by them, would obviously offend, but in a good way.  For example sinner is not a offensive word, but many would be offended if you came up to them and said, 'Hi, did you know you are are a wicked, blaspheming, sinner?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the only question remaining is when can we use words that although not offensive in themselves, are greatly offensive to those we use them?&lt;/strong&gt;  I think this is something each person must decide according to their faith and proper evaluation of their own attitudes.  For example, at home I would say very sharp words about a certain Christian group. I would say they are mostly all deceived. Their leader is a devil.  They have always been filthy blasphemes who hate Christians, etc.  I would say that to my wife as she would not be offended.  At my church I would  not say these things so sharply, as I may offend.  At work I would not say them as it may be considered as harassment and even worth being disciplined.  I would not say these things on this website as it violates the purpose of the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus, the Apostles and even regular Christians may be forced to publically use very offensive language because of what is at stake.&lt;/strong&gt;  For example if false teachers, are deceiving members of a congregation, very harsh language may be needed to rebuke them.  If we just said, well they have their opinions, but we think we are right, others might think it is ok, to consider lies, in place of faith in Christ.  Since the stakes are so high, leaders may need to let people know, chose them, or chose us, there is no in between. One is good, the other is scum, one if righteous, the other wicked.  When it reaches climatic situations like this,** holy men will use the most offensive language, without ever needing to use words that are actually offensive in themselves.**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-08-31T16:16:43.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9484" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9488" CreationDate="2012-08-31T19:23:05.313" Score="11" ViewCount="17336" Body="&lt;p&gt;Alternatively: &#xA;How many books were included in early Bible compilations and then later removed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A book in the bible, to my understanding, is one of the many named divisions in the Old and New Testament.  Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would be 4 different books, and each of Paul's letters to the churchs in the different cities would each be a 'book'    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a certain number of Books in the King James Version, but how many other 'books' or writings did scholars/historians/religious leaders have access to but for one reason or another, were never included in the more modern Bible compilations.  (perhaps due to controversy, or translation disputes, or issues in verifying the author) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we could go back and add all of these books and letters to the Old and New Testament today, how many books would the Bible have? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This questions comes out of curiousity after seeing books in a Catholic printing of the bible that did not exist in the King James version.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming the Apostles or whoever compiled the Bible books, didn't have the whole structure and order down in the exact way they printed now.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2056" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-01T09:53:07.510" LastActivityDate="2014-07-27T19:38:25.300" Title="How many 'Books' never made it to the Bible (Old and New Testament)?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9485" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9486" CreationDate="2012-08-31T19:29:15.820" Score="14" ViewCount="77912" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just curious as to the actual timeline and known dates of the New Testament books.  I know the version fo the Bible I read had the letters from Paul ordered by their size, and not when they were written.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For clarification, I don't want to know in what order the events happened chronologically;  I want to know when each of the Gospels were written and completed, and all the epistles.  So if each book had been published individually, in what order would they have been recieved by readers?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2056" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-01T09:53:39.507" LastActivityDate="2017-03-10T13:46:48.257" Title="In what order were the books in the New Testament written?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9485" CreationDate="2012-08-31T20:16:43.860" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Briefly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Paul's letters were probably first, beginning with 1 Timothy and Galatians. Romans was a middling book, 2 Timothy was probably his last. They range from 52 ad to 62 or 68, depending on what you think about deutero-Pauline scholarship&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Of the Gospels, Mark is usually considered to be first, although some have proposed Matthew. Luke is usually dated after Mark and Q, John is usually considered to be last. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Revelation of John is usually considered to be the latest of the books, and is typically dated to the 80s or 90s. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of the books of the NT were at one time considered to have some apostolic authorship, although Hebrews is no longer considered to be Pauline.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According the Holman Handbook of the Bible, probable dates for each of the books of the NT is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I combed through the Holman Handbook of the Bible to pull out a possible chronology. These are more or less in an order, though dates can differ based on when one assumes certain events to have occurred.  Some of Paul's letters, for example, seem to indicate he left Rome and travelled westward to Spain in a &quot;later&quot; career - other sources say, no, he was beheaded in 62AD. Revelation could have been penned under Nero (68) or Domition (95).  The point is, none of this is an exact science.  Still, here would be my summary for when the books of the New Testament were written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;&#xA;[Author]Book    - notes on the time frame&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Jame]James     - 'early' James doesn't have much church hierarchy, could be one of the earliest&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]Galatians - probably Paul's 1st epistle, 48-52&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]1 Thessal - 51&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]Romans    - 56 or 57AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]1 Corinthi- 55AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]2 Corinthi- a short time afterwards - 55 to 57 AD, at least one theory says that the later part is actually &quot;3rd Corinthians&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Petr]&lt;strong&gt;Mark&lt;/strong&gt;     - late 50s (Note: Marcan v.s Mattean priority is a big question.  I tend to go with Mark being first)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]Ephesians - could be 57-59 or 60-62, depending on the chronology of Paul's imprisonment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]Colossians - 60 or 61, about the same time as Philemon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]Philemon   - 60 or 61&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Luke]&lt;strong&gt;Luke&lt;/strong&gt;-Acts - 62AD  (near the end of Paul's ministry)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]Phillippi - 62AD (Paul is in prison)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]2 Timothy - sounds very much like a farewell letter from Paul&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--- Sources differ as to whether Paul was executed in 62, 65, or 68AD ---&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]2 Thessal - (disputed authorship), later in &quot;Paul's&quot; career&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]1 Timothy - 64 to 67 AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Petr]1 Peter   - early 60s&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Paul]Titus    - (disputed authorship) 65 - 68 AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[????]Hebrews  - mid to late 60s&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Petr]2 Peter   - mid to late 60s.  Shares much in common with Jude&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--- The late 60s included a revolt by the Jews, a diaspora, and finally, the destruction of the Temple ---&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Matt]&lt;strong&gt;Matthew&lt;/strong&gt;   - early 70s, if you assume Marcan priority. An emphasis on Jewish tradition could be a reaction to the Temple&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Jude]Jude     - difficult to date, could be from 65 AD to 80AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[JOHN]&lt;strong&gt;John&lt;/strong&gt;     - sometime between late 60s and 90 AD. John was the youngest of the disciples, and lived to be the oldest&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[John]1 John    - early 90s (?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[John]2 John    - there is very little to go on, but the early to mid 90s is not out of the question&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[John]3 John    - there is very little to go on, but the early to mid 90s is not out of the question. Was being quoted by 95 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[John]Revelation- 68AD(possible), 95AD(more likely)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-01T09:33:34.663" LastActivityDate="2012-09-01T09:33:34.663" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9421" CreationDate="2012-09-01T02:12:59.803" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus came on the scene and brought full understanding. Before he came full understanding was veiled (hidden behind the veil - not understood and not revealed fully). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said, &quot;I didn't come to do away with the law but fulfill it&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17&lt;/a&gt;). Deeper revelation and understanding came with Christ, and with his death and resurrection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The holy spirit came to teach us or lead us into all truth. Paul realized the truth of the matter. True understanding of the teaching of not defiling your self its not about what you eat or drink, or how you wash your hands,  but about your inner man and attitude. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you remember the Old Testament laws about eating and drink mainly were about defiling self, so I'd say it's not so much that the Church stopped doing it, but instead, they gained better understanding of the Biblical truth set before them in the old testament laws &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2101" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-09-22T19:25:03.853" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T19:25:03.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9484" CreationDate="2012-09-01T03:09:30.040" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;books&quot; of the Bible are just that- they are separate works by separate authors in separate contexts. Yes, Luke wrote 2, Moses wrote 5, and Paul wrote somewhere between 7 and 13, but Stephen King has written more than one book, too :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew, for example, was written by the Apostle Matthew. Luke, by Paul's traveling companion. Mark was written by Peter's close friend. The point is, these are different books by different authors that are just assembled into a library of what, by consensus, has been agreed to be the best of the best. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To ask, &quot;what books dind't make it in?&quot; is answered by a simple statement: everything else. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were all sorts of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_gospels&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gnostic Gospels&lt;/a&gt; at the time, but, of course, the main stream of Christianity rejected that. As such, there was never a &quot;conspiracy&quot; to keep out, say, the 115 proverbs that are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Thomas&lt;/a&gt;, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Epistle of Barnabas&lt;/a&gt;, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Peter&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Judas&lt;/a&gt;, or any of the lot. There was simply a general agreement that all of these books had no more place in the Christian canon than Mitt Romney would in the Democratic Convention. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, there were several fictional works, in the same way that today people write historical fiction. Google &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Testament Apocrypha&lt;/a&gt;&quot; for details. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, one accepted criteria for canonicity was an apostolic claim. As such, important Christian works such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Clement&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;martyrdom of Polycarp&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Shepherd of Hermas&lt;/a&gt;, or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Didache&lt;/a&gt; are highly important and good theology in them. They are worthy of study by Christians, but never made the criteria of canonicity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the Bible is really a lot like, say, the New York Times best seller list. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5527/1039&quot;&gt;It is a compilation of what's &quot;best&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. What's not included isn't trash- its just not in the same league. The same is true of the canon. C.S. Lewis is amazing, but he isn't the agreed upon historical consensus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-09-04T15:44:40.767" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9489" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-01T06:00:14.837" Score="5" ViewCount="170" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all know the sorrowful history of the subject. The very early church would have never felt a need to have a council on the subject, just as they would have been no council declaring that Christians should not commit adultery, or theft. However, assuming that the church did degrade itself into this non-Christian behavior when did a council first condemn it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2017-09-22T15:06:44.867" Title="When did a Catholic church council first recognize the need to forbid forcing or outwardly compelling unbelievers to the Christian faith?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9489" CreationDate="2012-09-01T06:00:14.837" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The earliest record I could find is at the fourth council of Toledo in 634AD:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fourth Council of Toledo had declared,... that it was unlawful and unchristian-like to force people to believe, seeing it is God alone who hardens and shows mercy to whom he will. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/practicalinterna00whit&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;,  P238)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately this small sentiment of liberal thinking did no go that deep as it was partly made to stop the forced Baptism of Jews, yet the council still insisted that those Jews who were 'already baptized by force' should be still&#xA;compelled to the observance of Christianity. Therefore, we can regard the declarations of this council as only partially admitted the sin it had become so overcome with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An actual translation into English of the councils decree can be found here;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Praecipit sancta synodus, nemini deinceps ad credendum vim inferre; enim vult Deus miseretur, et quem vult indurat;” — “The holy synod that none hereafter shall by force be compelled to the faith; for God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Works of John Owen, Volume 14, Page 270&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-09T07:13:49.057" LastActivityDate="2012-09-09T07:13:49.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9491" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9492" CreationDate="2012-09-01T07:16:46.393" Score="2" ViewCount="439" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I was told in a chat room on this site that the use of icons in the church 'wasn't offensive to anyone'!? I was so amazed that anyone would ever say such a thing, but since I have never had an interest in this sort of history,  I had some doubts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, &lt;strong&gt;'Well what is it? Were many reformers deeply offended with the use of religious icons in worship, or is this just an unfounded claim?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note: I am now researching many details about real church history on similar topics as I realize I am weak in being able to answer questions about it.  This question therefore is part of a series of historical questions as I learn myself. Please do not think I have fallen into 'negative theology' it is merely an academic quest to sort out some facts.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-03-15T02:40:36.783" LastActivityDate="2017-03-15T02:40:36.783" Title="How did Calvin view the use of religious icons to facilitate worship of God?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;&lt;iconography&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9491" CreationDate="2012-09-01T07:16:46.393" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It does not take much research at all to find out the great offense that many reformers took in the use of religious icons in worship.  They viewed it as nothing less than idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin dedicated a section of his Institutes to explain how this idolatry, though originally opposed by ancient church Fathers (he argues), became an established sin in the church.  For example here Calvin establishes some history of his own to work with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Augustine distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only to worship images, but to dedicate them. And in this he says no more than had been long before decreed by the Libertine Council, the thirty-sixth Canon of which is, &quot;There must be no pictures used in churches: Let nothing which is adored or worshipped be painted on walls. (Calvin's Institutes Book 1, CH 11 - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/html/institutes/1_11.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD. —THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clearly, even from the title of the section, Calvin had a problem with the use of images in the worshipping of God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-02T19:08:55.320" LastActivityDate="2012-09-02T19:08:55.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7230" CreationDate="2012-09-01T09:55:07.057" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the criteria mentioned above, historically there was a claim of apostolic authorship. See:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5527/1039&quot;&gt;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5527/1039&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-09-01T09:55:07.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7230" CreationDate="2012-09-01T15:00:01.923" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would also like to point out that during early christian persecution, &#xA; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution#First_edict&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;destruction of christian writings&lt;/a&gt; was not uncommon. If, then, some Christian at the time had a large assortment of Christian writings, it would be logical for him to select only the best books for preservation for practical purposes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally believe that this is the process which has preserved most of the NT. The Gospels were considered very important, various apostolic letters, revelation, etc. There was a sort of natural criteria for the canon, since an official one could not have been produced under the circumstances of such persecution.  It's resonable to argue that perhaps many other Christian books, both known (ie the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#Lost_Pauline_epistles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lost espistles of Paul&lt;/a&gt;) and unkown were destroyed at this time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastActivityDate="2012-09-01T15:00:01.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9495" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9501" CreationDate="2012-09-01T15:31:08.993" Score="-4" ViewCount="505" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anyone who has studied the New Testament knows that possibly the greatest offense that the Jewish leaders had against Christ was that he did not respect their traditions. Jews at that time put the traditions of the synagogue and their leaders as equal to, if not more important than, the scriptures themselves. In the same way the Catholic church has placed its traditions on &quot;equally authoritative&quot; with scriptures as declared by its council of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#Objects_and_general_results&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trent&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One conflict of holy tradition of the Rabbinic synagogue Fathers and Jesus was recorded here:&#xA; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? (NIV Matthew 15:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly there are many Catholic traditions which most reasonable persons would understand as opposed to the love of Christ and even common sense. For example many councils, starting with the council of Elvira (305AD) forbid Christians sharing meals with Jews! I guess the Jews had become the new tax collectors!  Not only did this council create this tradition but many councils afterwards maintained the tradition . &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For example, the prohibition against sharing a meal with Jews was repeated at Vannes (465), Epaon (517), Orleans III (538), and Mâcon (583)  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04301.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jewish Virtual Library&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the factual non-disputed canon in question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;canon 50 forbade the sharing of meals by Christians and Jews. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Elvira#The_canons&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wiki Article&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is a tradition if not that which is repeatedly maintained by church councils? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question therefore is if Catholic tradition is said to be equal with scripture, just like Rabbinic Tradition was, and if Jesus rejected Rabbinic Tradition because 'it broke the command of God' just like forbidding Christians to eat a meal with a Jew does, what is the difference between Roman Catholic Tradition and Rabbinic Tradition, in terms of its spirit?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask the question because I have encountered many accusations from both Protestants and Catholics where clearly they are both guilty of great sins. For example burning bible translations they do not like, burning heretics, etc. The difference however is that Protestants can repent of these sins and say, 'yes those people sinned terribly,' but Catholics seems trapped because it is part of their tradition approved by its councils that could not be wrong but were infallible and equal to scripture. &lt;strong&gt;All of this seems to be indefensible and only plain rebuke of its hypocrisy would be Christlike. Therefore this one example of banning a simple meal with a Jew, how is this tradition of church councils equal with scripture?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe I am confused and maybe there is a way to say tradition is equal with scripture and still somehow repent of one's own tradition? Someone please explain this seeming unexplainable thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-04T15:58:21.973" LastActivityDate="2012-09-04T15:58:21.973" Title="How did the Catholic canon that Christians could not 'share a meal with a Jew' differ in spirit from the Pharisees traditions concerning Gentiles?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2012-09-25T20:31:26.477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9496" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-01T15:54:51.000" Score="5" ViewCount="13114" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen in a church a cross with a loop off the top that makes the vertical look like a P. Does this symbol have a name? What is its meaning? From what does it derive? Can you supply any more interesting information about it? The loop was to my right, and was more flag-like than a P, so drooping a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2102" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-08T05:53:45.503" LastActivityDate="2015-04-08T05:53:45.503" Title="What is this symbol (cross with P loop atop)?" Tags="&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9498" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9505" CreationDate="2012-09-01T21:31:36.880" Score="7" ViewCount="2973" Body="&lt;p&gt;Beyond the obvious of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus died on the Cross and drank down God's wrath, what do we have to complain about?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All things that happen were things allowed by God to sanctify us.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Read the book of Job&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;what are some deep theological works on avoiding/fighting the victim mentality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is definitely a reference request in that I'm unable to extract this knowledge out of the Biblical verses myself, so I'm looking for a great theologian who has -- and reading their work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, I'm looking for something scripture based. I'm not looking for the prosperity gospel notion of &quot;God wants you to be happy! To have your best life now! Smile! Be Happy! Yay! :-)!&quot; rather I'm looking for something deep -- something that takes the &quot;victim mentality&quot;, reduces it to the fundamental sins / thoughts that gives rise to the &quot;victim mentality&quot;, and shows how to over come it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly, people like Martin Luther, David Brainerd, Dietrich Bonehoeffer, and others ... must have at times been tempted with &quot;victim mentality&quot; -- and surely some must have written about how they overcame it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, if anyone had a right to claim to victim mentality -- it'd probably have to be Christ, who lived a perfect live and became the sacrificial lamb. Thus, if there's work on how Christ avoided the victim mentality, that'd be great too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-21T18:14:04.700" LastActivityDate="2015-10-21T18:14:04.700" Title="Looking for a resource discussing the Biblical principles on how to avoid a victim mentality" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;resource-request&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9495" CreationDate="2012-09-02T06:07:29.460" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Concerning the council of Elvira, which &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;was attended by nineteen bishops from all parts of the Peninsula&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05395b.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05395b.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and could hardly be considered incumbent on the entirety of the Christendom in a place where &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Jews were so numerous and so powerful in Spain during the first centuries of the Christian era that they might at one time have hoped to be able to Judaize the whole country According to the monuments which however are of doubtful authority they established themselves in Spain in the time of King Solomon It is more likely that they crossed from Africa to the Spanish peninsula only about a hundred years before Christ. There they soon increased in number and importance and could energetically carry on their work of proselytizing.  &lt;em&gt;This is the reason that the Synod of Elvira had to forbid to the priests and the laity all intimate intercourse with Jews (can 50)&lt;/em&gt; and especially marriage (Can 16) for there is no doubt that at this period many Christians of high rank in Spain became Jews as Jost shows in his work. &lt;sup&gt;Which is something in German that I couldn't find&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=ifECAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;lpg=PA159&amp;amp;ots=Rs7SNNwtcL&amp;amp;pg=PA158#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;History of the Councils&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the reasoning behind restricting communion for Christians who broke bread with Jews was to keep them apart so they wouldn't draw together and bring in to action Canon 16.  Intermarriage, has been traditionally prohibited by the Catholic Church and always requires &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicweddinghelp.com/questions/unbaptized.htm&quot;&gt;some sort of dispensation&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, at the time, eating together could serve no purpose other than to weaken the faith of the Christian it has no bearing in relation to Rabbinic Tradition.  To denounce it would be like a Pope denouncing the Inquisition for being a bad policy for the protection of Christendom in Spain against the Moors. When &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II&quot;&gt;Pope John Paul II did apologize&lt;/a&gt; I think it it was for the particular acts of evil committed in the name of the Church, not the policy promulgated by the Bishops.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's nothing in there about not eating with sinners and nothing in there that says Jews are sinners with whom one should not eat. It says, do not eat with Jews. I'm not gonna defend it, I'm not going to abide by it, but I'm not going to say that it may not have been a good idea at the time.  Although Spain, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Moors_Ruled_in_Europe&quot;&gt;secular history&lt;/a&gt;, has always been a succession of bad ideas, if not cruel and inhumane ones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond all this, the banning of a simple meal, never could have taken place.  Church laws are mostly self-accusatory unless they bring scandal.  So, a large meal, with Disobedient Christians and Jews, would bring scandal, but a small meal, wherein a Christian family shared a bit of cheese with a Jewish one or vice versa, would not bring scandal.  Likewise a Christian probably would not be allowed to partake in big meals on Jewish feast days.  But, for the most part, a Catholic still isn't allowed to fully partake in big meals on Jewish feast days.  Because of scruples from both religions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not a sin to believe what you believe to the absolute exclusion of all else, especially when what you believe is what you have come to know is the truth. Where there is truth in other sects, the Catholic can participate, but when a practice ardently excludes Jesus implicitly like in Judaism or explicitly like in Islam one must guard ones self against what can only be describe as Jesus-less worship.  You just cannot be Christian and drop in to Jesus-free mode because it suits your tastebuds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-02T06:18:57.867" LastActivityDate="2012-09-02T06:18:57.867" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9502" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9503" CreationDate="2012-09-02T08:27:08.030" Score="1" ViewCount="2810" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look through the Bible we know that Jesus is at the center of everything both in the old and new testament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have some clues like him being beloved or as a reward of what he suffered. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:35&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into&#xA;  his hand&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 2:8-9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became&#xA;  obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Wherefore &lt;strong&gt;God also hath highly exalted him&lt;/strong&gt;, and given him a name&#xA;  which is above every name&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel my clues are not concrete or complete so I would like a broader view or complements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-09-04T08:33:12.207" LastActivityDate="2016-06-13T00:49:47.200" Title="Why is Jesus at the center of everything" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-06-13T12:10:32.073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9502" CreationDate="2012-09-02T09:13:37.260" Score="11" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Reason 1&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to reformed theology, the Bible is about the Glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the Bible is about Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More concretely, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Chosen%20by%20God.htm&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; would go so far as to state that the Elect is the father's gift to the Son (I'm not sure if this can be scripturally verified). That would be further reason for the Bible focusing on Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Reason 2&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without Jesus, these would be no forgiving of sins. Without the forgiving sins, the Bible would be a very different book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2012-09-02T09:13:37.260" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9498" CreationDate="2012-09-02T14:32:04.383" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;For some reason modern popular authors that deal with this subject are more of the autobiographical nature, such as &lt;strong&gt;Joni Eareckson Tada&lt;/strong&gt; who has various books and lectures about taking joy in God's sovereignty, where she herself has been in a wheelchair for over thirty years.  Another person along the same line that I remember is &lt;strong&gt;Corrie ten Boom&lt;/strong&gt; whose story of trying to love and evangelize people in Nazi concentration camp was published under the name'The Hiding Place'.  However, although these show great faith and lack of the victim mindset, they are not theological works but works of example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as theological works go, there really are not many. Some might argue a famous work like '&lt;a href=&quot;http://m.ccel.org/ccel/gurnall/armour/files/armour.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Christian in Complete Armour; A Treatise Of the Saints War against the Devil&lt;/a&gt;', By William Gernel is what you are looking for, and possibly it is. However, although many give this work very high reviews, I found it a little tiring to read and not really delving in the questions you are raising.  It might almost seem to veer slightly into a stoics approach to the 'warfare' of life.  It certainly leaves no room for a victim mentality, but still I would not say 'this is it'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The only book I can think of that properly deals directly with the subject and is a classic, is Dr.  Martin-Lloyd Jones, '&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0802813879&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure&lt;/a&gt;'.&lt;/strong&gt;  The title is a little misleading because although it's been about twenty years since I read it, I remember it would depress a lot of people.  It spends some time showing that the gospel really has all we need to rejoice in our sufferings.  I do not remember it being stoical, but at the same time self-pity is not spared at all in this deep theological work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-09-02T14:32:04.383" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9498" CreationDate="2012-09-02T18:37:38.523" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several spring to mind. In no particular order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%206:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 6:5&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;em&gt;...each one should carry their own load&lt;/em&gt; Principle: don't transfer your burdens to others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Thessalonians 3:10&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;em&gt;For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”&lt;/em&gt; Principle: (similar to above) don't rely on others hard work, earn your own way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+32&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 32:9&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;9 Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.&lt;/em&gt; Principle: think for yourself!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:14-30&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:14-30&lt;/a&gt; (Parable of the talents). One man just buried his talent instead of putting it to use, blaming God for it! &lt;em&gt;Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:24-25&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Verses 24 &amp;amp; 25&lt;/a&gt;) Principle: don't blame others, take responsbility yourself!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, perhaps the best illustration, is in the first ever sin, recorded in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3&lt;/a&gt;. Relevant verses are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:12-13&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;12 &amp;amp; 13&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;em&gt;The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”&lt;/em&gt; The man blames the woman and God, and the woman blames the snake.* Principle: as above, take responsibility for &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; actions!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*As Nicky Gumbel then says, &lt;em&gt;&quot;And the snake didn't have a leg to stand on.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-09-02T18:37:38.523" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9496" CreationDate="2012-09-02T21:25:19.707" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, this symbol is a &quot;tau-rho,&quot; not a &quot;chi-rho.&quot; Instead of being a shortened form of the word &quot;Christ&quot; (Χριστος), generally speaking the Tao-Rho is thought to be a shortened form of the words &quot;cross&quot; and &quot;crucify&quot; (σταυρος, σταυροω). Larry Hurtado has speculated that it may also be the first pictoral representation of Jesus on a cross (the loop of the &quot;P&quot; is the head). See Hurtado's &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0802828957&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Earliest Christian Artifacts&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; pp. 135ff, he calls it a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staurogram#Staurogram&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;staurogram&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2012-09-19T01:18:06.287" LastActivityDate="2012-09-19T01:18:06.287" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9496" CreationDate="2012-09-02T23:02:39.307" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Answering my own question, I found this, which is different: &#xA;Staurogram Christliche Symbolik (Menzel) I 193 2.jpg&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Staurogram (meaning monogram of the cross, from the Greek: ΣTAΥPOΣ meaning cross), or Monogrammatic Cross or Tau-Rho symbol, is composed by a tau (Τ) superimposed on a rho (Ρ). The Staurogram was first used to abbreviate the Greek word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts such as P66, P45 and P75, almost like a nomina sacra.[14]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephrem the Syrian in the 4th-century explained these two united letters stating that the tau refers to the cross, and the rho refers to the Greek word &quot;help&quot; (Greek: Βoηθια) which has the numeric value of 100 as the letter rho has. In such a way the symbol expresses the idea that the Cross saves.[14] The two letters tau and rho can also be found separately as symbols on early Christian ossuaries:[15] the tau was considered a symbol of salvation due to the identification of the tau with the sign which in Ezechiel 9:4 was marked on the forehead of the saved ones, or due to the tau-shaped outstretched hands of Moses in Exodus 17:11.[14] The rho by itself can refer to Christ as Messiah because Abraham, taken as symbol of the Messiah, generated Isaac according to a promise made by God when he was one hundred years old, and 100 is the value of rho. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my take-away is that the symbol derives from save/salvation and cross/Christ, or Christ saves (or perhaps faith in Christ saves).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2102" LastActivityDate="2012-09-02T23:02:39.307" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9466" CreationDate="2012-09-03T03:24:20.970" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Book IV of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion deals with many objections to the practices of the Catholic Chruch, frequently with rather harsh language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The claim that the Roman church is the only church (Chap II.2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The communion as practiced by Catholics is idolatry: &quot;The foulest sacrilege has been introduced in the place of the Lord's Supper.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reliance on Church teaching instead of the Bible (Chap II.4): &quot;Paul reminds us that the church was founded not upon men's judgements, not upon priesthoods, but upon the teaching of apostles and prophets [Eph 2:20].&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elders should be elected (Chap II.15). Reference is made to Acts 14:23, which seems to have a disputed translation, but also to the practices of the early churches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bishops should not have ostentation or pomp (Chap IV.7)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Examinations  of church leaders  was not done, or if done was not based on ability to preach. (Chap V.1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church did not reject interference by princes (Chap V.3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Church titles are conferred without regard to need (Chap V.7)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes on like that for hundreds of more pages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2104" LastActivityDate="2012-09-03T03:24:20.970" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9510" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-03T03:47:45.907" Score="5" ViewCount="6767" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen two views about the laws of the old testament in the bible. One view is  where Jesus himself says &lt;strong&gt;&quot;keep the Law&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; while in the other Paul says that &lt;strong&gt;&quot;the Law has been nailed to the cross&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is odd, but both these teachings are in contradiction. I was hoping to get a clarification if the Law should be kept or nailed to the cross??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please provide some verse of the bible and not personal opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quotes from the bible are below....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the gospel, Jesus says....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven&lt;/em&gt;, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Paul says...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Colossians 2:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2105" LastActivityDate="2017-03-16T01:11:02.850" Title="Keep the law OR nail to the cross?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;torah&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-09-22T15:32:20.663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9511" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9512" CreationDate="2012-09-03T05:05:22.303" Score="3" ViewCount="505" Body="&lt;p&gt;Origen, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen167.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Contra Celsus&lt;/em&gt;, Book VII&lt;/a&gt;, responds to an attack from Celsus: that Christians are just like Jews in rejecting all forms of images without exception. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this rebuttal by Origen, we clearly see that Greek philosophers, specifically Celsus, did not think of idols as 'actual Gods' made of wood, for stone, but as just representations of them only, dedicated to them, in order to facilitate worship. The Greek worship of the gods did not terminate on the physical object or icon, but through them passed into the actual god never resting on the mere medium or icon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek view of images as facilitating higher worship is ridiculed by Origen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For what reasonable man can refrain from smiling when he sees that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them his prayers, or imagines that &lt;strong&gt;by gazing upon these material things he can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Celsus in turn ridicules Christians because they “despise without exception all images” and so do not even have any form of God to facilitate their worship. He further argues that this is contradictory the Christian claim that man was made in the mage of God, therefore God can be represented by physical images and Christians have no excuse not to have images. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question is how did Origen respond to this claim that Christian despised all images without exception just like Jews? Did origin admit such was the case and argue why, or did he think there were actually some images used in the Church to facilitate worship, like Mary or the Cross and that Celsus was simply unaware of them?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-01-18T21:45:50.417" LastActivityDate="2018-01-17T23:01:07.210" Title="How did the early church respond to the accusation that Christianity forbid ‘all uses of images’ even if only ‘representing the Divine Being’?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;origen&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9511" CreationDate="2012-09-03T05:05:22.303" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Celsus believed in the logos that transcended images and idols&lt;/strong&gt;, so he admits that worshipping mere idols, without understanding the spiritual nature of what an image represented was meaningless. His problem with Christians is that they have no kind of image in their own religion so they are like the Persians who worship ‘no god’ because to Celsus an invisible god is nothing, for the gods must have some physical form, as represented by the images of them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us now see what follows. &amp;quot;Let us pass on,&amp;quot; says he, &amp;quot;to another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: 'I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.' &lt;strong&gt;(Origen quoting Celsus)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Celus also admits that philosophers do not confuse the mere ‘wood, brass, or gold’ with the actual god but are merely ‘representing the Divine Being.’&lt;/strong&gt;  It is this refusal to allow physical objects as something to represent the Divine being that most infuriates Cesus against the Christians. Furthermore, not only so but Christians in their rejection of worshiping the one and true invisible God with images actually believe that the Greeks who use images actually only facilitate a worship of demons through them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heraclitus also says in one place: 'Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.' And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons.&amp;quot; &lt;strong&gt;(Origen quoting Celsus)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although later church history would show otherwise concerning the use of images in worship, &lt;strong&gt;Origen admitted that Christians were ‘exactly like Jews’ in this rejection of all graven images&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, &amp;quot;Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;&amp;quot; and this other, &amp;quot;Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;&amp;quot; and again, &amp;quot;Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.&amp;quot; It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God. &lt;strong&gt;(Origen)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why Origen thinks an image has no place in the worship of God is that he says &lt;strong&gt;God is invisible and so we must shut our physical eyes to worship him&lt;/strong&gt; in spirit and truth. He calls this using the yes of the soul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But a Christian, even of the common people, is assured that every place forms part of the universe, and that the whole universe is God's temple. In whatever part of the world he is, he prays; but he rises above the universe, &lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;shutting the eyes of sense, and raising upwards the eyes of the soul.&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt; And he stops not at the vault of heaven; but passing in thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, he offers prayers to God. &lt;strong&gt;(Origen)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All true Christians therefore have the eye of the mind sharpened, and the &lt;strong&gt;eye of sense closed&lt;/strong&gt;; so that each one, according to the degree in which his better eye is quickened, and the eye of sense darkened, sees and knows the Supreme God, and His Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and so forth. &lt;strong&gt;(Origen)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore being that God is invisible Origen defends Christianity for not using images by saying we really need to shut our eyes, not use physical things to help our thoughts, but deny such use of icons and images in the pure worship of God. In this way we can see with the eyes of the mind and soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-03T05:05:22.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9510" CreationDate="2012-09-03T05:39:53.830" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Sun does not destroy the Moon but when it rises the Moon passes away.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will answer this question from a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Covenant Theology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; standpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law is commonly divided into &lt;strong&gt;ceremonial, moral and civil.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity it is agreed by most that Christ fulfilled the meaning of all that was &lt;strong&gt;ceremonial&lt;/strong&gt; and that therefore when the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom these laws became 'obsolete'. From this standpoint all ceremonial laws, of which the High Priest offering sacrifices in the temple were probably the most sacred, are no longer application by obsolescence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same manner most Christians believe that the &lt;strong&gt;civil&lt;/strong&gt; laws that were used to govern Israel, such as the many capital punishments by stoning, burning, or strangulation ceased.  These are also viewed as being symbolic of man's need for salvation under the 'curse of the Law'. Also as the invisible church of Christ replaced the literal outward church of the Jews, God no longer directly governs the Jewish people.  There are some Christians who still think that God in some way governs the Jews. (I think dispensationalists still hold some ideas about this but am not sure of the details, as I am not that familiar with this unique view).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The controversy is mostly about how God’s &lt;strong&gt;moral&lt;/strong&gt; law in the Old Testament should be applied today, or if there is any change to it at all.  Most Christians who propose the idea that 'nothing changed' to God’s moral Law at all in Christ’s death, commonly refer to this verse where Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (NIV Mathew 5:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common verse referred to by those that believe the entire Law (moral, ceremonial, civil) was 'nailed to the cross', so that even its moral nature was modified in Christ, commonly refer to the verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (NIV John 1:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even among traditional reformed theologians many are divided over this question about the moral law.  I am of the camp that you can’t divide the Law at all, so that all aspects were fulfilled in Christ and so nothing remains exactly as it was. For example, the Law said we should love our neighbor as ourselves, however it did not provide any ability to do so but condemned to hell any offence.  In Christ however, under the liberty of grace, a stony heart has been replaced by a soft one, and an uncircumcised heart has been circumcised, therefore, Christians have love in the heart and can follow the command. Therefore, even the moral law has not gone un-crucified as it was formerly written on stone but now in a 'Spirit of liberty' it is written in a believer’s heart.  In this way, Christ abolished even the moral law in the sense that he fulfilled all its requirements and then imputed that righteousness to believers, which in turn, infused the holiness required by the law as a basic 'principle of life and liberty' into Christians.  In this sense the Bible say’s we are ‘no longer under law' (that is the moral law).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This last verse I quote is at the heart of the debate for depending on which theologian you consult the moral law is intended, or not intended, by this and similar verses. As for me I am absolutely convinced the moral law is chiefly intended as described above. Here are some reformed theologians who share my view. There are other theologians who do not but I am not bothering to represent them, as I find their position unscriptural:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Charles Hodge-&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensations, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Christian. Our Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, “What is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right, this do and thou shalt live,” Luke 10:26-28. This is the covenant of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is death. This is all that those who reject the gospel have to fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it its character of law. Viewed under this aspect it is the ministration of condemnation and death. ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=Cl5LAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;output=html_text&amp;amp;source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&amp;amp;cad=5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hodge 2 Cor P75&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jonathan Edwards –&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jonathan Edwards also sees the Mosaic covenant as being different from the gospel as it includes the renewal of the covenant of works that has the ministry of death and cursing, leading sinners to Christ as a harsh schoolmaster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As the law was given at Mount Sinai, so Christ delivered his evangelical doctrine, (full of blessings, and not curses,) to a multitude on a mountain. Matt. v.— (Jonathan Edwards &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=jonathan%20edwards%20history%20of%20the%20work%20of%20redemption&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=1&amp;amp;ved=0CFYQFjAA&amp;amp;url=http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1776_edwards_history-redemption.html&amp;amp;ei=vKriT-OlC42SiAedx5H2Dg&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFzsPA7kROaEyXubFTRt1q1nOoimg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;History of Redemption&lt;/a&gt;, P302)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I think really that the covenant that God made with the children of Israel was the covenant of works. He still held them under that covenant; that is, what is required in that covenant is to them particularly deciphered, and many additional positive commands which answer to the precept concerning the forbidden fruits and God proposes this covenant to them as the condition of his favor, and gives them to understand that none of those promises he had made could be challenged without perfect obedience: but yet gives them to understand so much of his merciful nature and his inclination to pity them and to accept of a propitiation for them, that they, finding that they could not challenge anything from those promises [on the ground] of obedience, trusted only to the mere undeserved mercy of God and were saved by grace, and expected life only of mere mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are indeed now under the covenant of works so, that if we are perfectly righteous we can challenge salvation. But herein is the difference betwixt us and them: to us God has plainly declared the impossibility of obtaining life by that covenant, and lets us know that no mortal can be saved but only of mere grace, and lets us know clearly how we are made partakers of that grace. All ever since the fall were equally under the covenant of grace so far, that they were saved by it all alike, but the difference is in the revelation: the covenant of works was most clearly revealed to the Israelites, to us the covenant of grace. The church, which was then in its infant [state], could not bear a revelation of the covenant of grace in plain terms; and so with them the best way to bring them off from their own righteousness was to propose the covenant of works to them, and to renew the promise of life upon those conditions. God did with them as Christ did with the young man that asked what he should do for eternal life: Christ bids him keep the commandments. And in that sense they were under the covenant of works, that it was proposed to them as the condition of life, that they might try.  To us it is not so. The covenant of grace was indeed insinuated to them and proposed under covert, but 'twas to that they were all forced to fly. The promises seem to be so contrived as to give them to see that they can't challenge anything except they perform a perfect obedience, if God will be strict, but yet that he will of his mere mercy accept them into his favor if they perform a sincere obedience proceeding from the true love and fear of him; so that the fruits of faith are proposed instead of faith itself. But by this, none but such as had faith could hope for life; and by God's contrivance of that dispensation they were led not to depend on these as works, but as a disposition to receive, as so many manifestations of repentance and submission; and they depended on them as such only, for life. (Jonathan Edwards. The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/cC4xMjozNjQud2plbw==&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Miscellanies&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Page P363-363)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With reference to what has been before spoken of the covenant [No. 2]. Covenant is taken very variously in Scripture, sometimes for a divine promise, sometimes for a divine promise on conditions. But if we speak of the covenant God has made with man stating the condition of eternal life, God never made but one with man to wit, the covenant of works; which never yet was abrogated, but is a covenant stands in full force to all eternity without the failing of one tittle. The covenant of grace is not another covenant made with man upon the abrogation of this, but a covenant made with Christ to fulfill it. And for this end came Christ into the world, to fulfill the law, or covenant of works, for all that receive him....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To say that the covenant of works did admit of a mediator, is something improper. The covenant of works mentioned nothing about it; (Jonathan Edwards. The &quot;Miscellanies&quot;. Page P217)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John Owen –&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As usual John Owen teaches with the utmost clarity on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By the sanction of the law, we intend the promises and penalties wherewith by God the observation of it and obedience unto it was enforced. This the apostle hath respect unto in sundry places of this Epistle; the principal whereof are reported in the following dissertation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To represent this distinctly, we may observe that the law falls under threefold consideration; — first, As it was a repetition and expression of the law of nature, and the covenant of works established thereon; secondly, As it had a new end and design put upon the administration of it, to direct the church unto the use and benefit of the promise given of old to Adam, and renewed unto Abraham four hundred and thirty years before; thirdly, As it was the instrument of the rule and government of the church and people of Israel with respect unto the covenant made with them in and about the land of Canaan. And in this threefold respect it had a threefold sanction. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Owens Works&lt;/a&gt;, Volume 17, P654)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Martin Luther –&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther never prances about with constant distinctions around words, pretending to believe something he does not, he just lays it all out there:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who would ever believe that these things could be mixed up so easily? There is no one so stupid that he does not recognize how definite this distinction between Law and grace is. Both the facts and the words require this distinction, for everyone understands that these words “Law” and “grace” are different as to both denotation and connotation.62 Therefore it is a monstrosity, when this distinction stands there so clearly, for the papists and the fanatics to fall into the satanic perversity of confusing the Law and grace and of changing Christ into Moses. This is why I often say that so far as the words are concerned, this doctrine of faith is very easy, and everyone can easily understand the distinction between the Law and grace; but so far as practice, life, and application are concerned, it is the most difficult thing there is. (Luther's Works Vol 26, P143-144)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between them. We must know what the law is, and what the gospel is. The law commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus directed solely to our behaviour and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law, does the very opposite, and says, “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.” (Luther's Works Vol 35, P162-164)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; The Law can't be divided, therefore when the Law was nailed to the cross all aspects of its were made obsolete not by being destroyed but by being fulfilled in Christ.  Christ fulfilled all the ceremonial laws that prefigured him. Christ fulfilled all the civil laws that symbolized the punishments due to sin for which he suffered and was hung on a tree being cursed.  Christ fulfilled all the righteous requirements of the moral law becoming sin for us that we would become the righteousness of God by faith apart from any works of our own. This righteousness imputed to us reconciles us to God that we may live holy and obey all the precepts of the Law wich is to love God and your neighbour in many good works. In this sense Christ fulfilled all the Law and there is no reason to split the law where the Bible does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T01:11:02.850" LastActivityDate="2017-03-16T01:11:02.850" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9495" CreationDate="2012-09-03T14:23:46.370" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I fundamentally object to all of the sources cited. They all seem to fail to appreciate several important points in Tradition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A Council is something which is binding over the entire Church and its rulings on theology can never be ignored unless the Council specifically says otherwise (such as in the case of certain documents of Vatican II).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A synod is a local gathering of bishops which is temporarily binding over a specific region or set of regions. Any theological conclusion may be set aside, even by one of the bishops who originally agreed to the conclusions. There have been quite a few synods which have promulgated doctrines which have been quite dubious.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Normative rulings of the Church are not subject to infallibility unless they deal with the matter of the sacraments (for example, the decree that you must use water for baptism cannot be rescinded).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The council of Elvira was really a small Synod that dealt solely with norms. As such, its rulings cannot currently be considered any more significant than the ramblings of defrocked and excommunicated bishop Milingo.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A note should be made on the Lateran IV (mentioned in one of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04301.html&quot;&gt;your sources&lt;/a&gt; and cited as condemning Judaism). There are a number of rulings related to the state of Jews and Saracens in Christian society (you can find the full text &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). Specifically: &#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is mention of Jews practicing usury (something which could incur excommunication to the Christian). The Council condemns this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is mention of intermarriage with non-believers (and extramarital relations), both of these should have been condemned &lt;em&gt;anyway&lt;/em&gt; (no unequally yoked condemns intermarriage, most of the Bible condemns extra-marital relations).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The only two issues which can even be questionable are &quot;Jews who convert may not become Jews again,&quot; (a normative law), and &quot;Jews are not to hold public office&quot; (another normative rule). While we might not like these types of rules today, they do make a certain degree of sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the final question, I simply say that the answer is simple. Catholic Tradition, while intricate, very often is not binding. Only binding traditions can be held to the standard of infallibility and those can be found (almost exclusively) in the Councils and the (two) infallible statements of the Holy See.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-09-03T14:23:46.370" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9520" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9522" CreationDate="2012-09-03T18:46:09.483" Score="5" ViewCount="1523" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story about Abraham sacrificing Isaac: &lt;strong&gt;Gen 21:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your&#xA;  slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through&#xA;  Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and later: &lt;strong&gt;Gen 22:2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and&#xA;  go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on&#xA;  a mountain I will show you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham used to dispute with God previously (&lt;strong&gt;Gen 18:23&lt;/strong&gt;). If he listened, shouldn't he answer something like &lt;em&gt;&quot;And what about his offsprings, huh?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Couldn't be the point something like &lt;em&gt;Do you remember what I told you?&lt;/em&gt; It is hard to believe that the message is &lt;em&gt;Be fanatic&lt;/em&gt;. The &lt;strong&gt;Gen 22:12&lt;/strong&gt; could be a polite way how to say &lt;em&gt;Stop it, fool!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to know if there is some inconsistency in this explanation and consequently: if Abraham &lt;em&gt;passed&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;fail&lt;/em&gt; his test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user508" LastActivityDate="2018-06-22T04:45:19.033" Title="Did Abraham pass or fail in God's test?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9520" CreationDate="2012-09-03T20:33:23.650" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 11 explains that this was a test of faith: (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that&#xA;  had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead;&#xA;  from whence also he received him in a figure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and given that this passage in Hebrews is specifically showing &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; examples of faith, to illustrate the importance of faith, it's fairly safe to say that, according to the author of Hebrews, Abraham passed the test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-09-03T20:33:23.650" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9502" CreationDate="2012-09-04T04:14:01.810" Score="-2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why is Jesus at the center of everything? If you look through the Bible we know that Jesus is at the center of everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically, he's not. &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt; is at the center of everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians we believe in the Trinity, and the Trinity has three &quot;parts&quot;*: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus is one of these parts, but it would be incomplete to say that Jesus is at the center of everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, your question referred to &lt;strong&gt;The Bible&lt;/strong&gt; and did not qualify the question by saying &lt;strong&gt;The New Testament&lt;/strong&gt;. Surely you'd agree that most of the Old Testament speaks about &lt;strong&gt;The Father&lt;/strong&gt;, and the New Testament, after Pentacost, speaks about &lt;strong&gt;The Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Disclaimer: I realize that the word &quot;parts&quot; is an insufficient word to describe the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="1100" LastEditDate="2012-09-05T11:39:23.380" LastActivityDate="2012-09-05T11:39:23.380" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9510" CreationDate="2012-09-04T14:14:50.717" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are three types of the law in the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;moral&lt;/strong&gt; (part of which are also 10 commandments),&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ceremonial&lt;/strong&gt; (for example Hebrew ceremonial holidays and activities),&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;civil&lt;/strong&gt; (Hebrew &quot;country laws&quot; and punishments)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most christians agree, that ceremonial and civil laws are not binding anymore (ceremonial laws pointed to Christ and ended with the cross).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most interesting question is if the 10 commandments are binding for a christian. Does Jesus want you to &quot;have other gods&quot; or &quot;commit adultery&quot; or steal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think he doesn't want us to do that...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colossians 2:14 is speaking about ceremonial laws (the regulations which were nailed to the cross were Hebrew ceremonial laws), Matthew 5:18.19 is speaking about moral law (10 commandments) and both teachings are in harmony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2115" LastActivityDate="2012-09-04T14:14:50.717" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9268" CreationDate="2012-09-04T16:00:12.643" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The discovery of ancient manuscripts that had been lost for centuries presents a puzzle. We can compare manuscripts and use the tools of textual criticism to make a best-guess effort to recover the original text, but ultimately we can't be 100% certain about its exact words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question of the Bible's reliability is related to the issue of biblical inspiration. I'm going to list three perspectives, which I will call Inspired Message, Inerrantist, and Textus Receptus. These three groups have very different ways of answering this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Inspired Message&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this group, the Bible's reliability is not dependent on our ability to recover the original text. For this group it is the Bible's overall message—its teaching about salvation—that is inspired by God. The Bible stands or falls based on the salvation message, not the presence or absence of the Comma Johanneum or the long ending of Mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Members of this group may talk about the Bible's &lt;a href=&quot;http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;authority&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cresourcei.org/inerrant.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;credibility&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://commonwealmagazine.org/how-bible-true-0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;truth&lt;/a&gt; without making an appeal to the original texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Inerrantist&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group believes that inspiration by God means the Bible is completely free from error of any kind. Where the Bible touches on other areas—history or science, for example—is just as trustworthy as its teaching on salvation. But the salvation message is still primary, and any changes that have been made to the text over the centuries have not changed this message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even to the inerrantist it does not matter that the originals are lost. If we had them we would be able to clear up some questions that arise from the text we have today, but the Bible's salvation message remains clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Textus Receptus&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group believes that God in fact &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; preserve the inspired words of the original text. The manuscripts that were lost, according to this view, were lost because they were inferior. The manuscripts that were preserved and kept in use are God's inspired text. This culminated in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Textus Receptus&lt;/a&gt; (TR) compiled by Desiderius Erasmus in the 16th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group includes King James Only proponents, who believe the King James Version (which was translated directly from the TR) is God's preserved Word in English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TR proponents would argue that the presence of the Pericope Adulterae and the Comma Johanneum in the received text is evidence of these passages' existence in the original, and that the age of other manuscripts is not an indication of their reliability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-05T03:58:59.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9498" CreationDate="2012-09-04T17:13:33.937" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;God Wants You To Be Happy&quot; by James Randall Robison. Good chapter on taking offense and victimhood. Also, &quot;Happiness Is A Serious Problem&quot; by Dennis Prager. Another good chapter on victimhood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2117" LastActivityDate="2012-09-04T17:13:33.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9268" CreationDate="2012-09-04T22:00:28.433" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in&#xA;  part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1&#xA;  Corinthians 13:12 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is important to remember that the Bible is &lt;em&gt;revelation&lt;/em&gt; not &lt;em&gt;dictation&lt;/em&gt;, it is only by looking &quot;through&quot; scripture, per se, that we start to see God revealed.  This is partly why the Gnostic gospels are rejected and the various heresies (most of which were based on scripture) have been put down, and all the way back through Abraham and the history of theology and philosophy we see humanity tuning in to the signal of God amidst all the noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To base your trust on textual inerrancy is to miss the point entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-09-04T22:00:28.433" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9533" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9534" CreationDate="2012-09-05T03:47:06.023" Score="8" ViewCount="5609" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_of_St._John_the_Baptist#Relics&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wiki&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholic tradition holds that the head on display in San Silvestro in Capite in Rome is that of John the Baptist, discovered for the second time, as also maintained by Pope Benedict XVI in August 2012.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.romereports.com/palio/pope-says-to-follow-example-set-by-saint-john-the-baptist-english-7568.html#.UEbNKpad6So&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope said:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pope also spoke about a fragmented piece of St. John's head that is kept as a relic in the Church of Saint Sylvester in Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“In the Roman Martyrology, reference is made to a second finding of the precious relic, transported, on this occasion, in the church of San Silvestro in Rome. These little historical references help us to understand how how and deeply St. John the Baptist is venerated.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also some similar Islamic tradition about this relic mentioned there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is what did Martin Luther think about the 'preserved head' and other equally impressive holy relics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-07-21T01:53:42.380" Title="How did Luther view relics, like the 'preserved head of John the Baptist'?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;&lt;relics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9533" CreationDate="2012-09-05T03:47:06.023" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luther clearly thought all relics were ridiculous nonsense and evidences of a very degraded sense of spiriituality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt; “It is claimed that the head of St. John the Baptist is in Rome, although all histories show that the Saracens opened John’s grave and burned everything to powder. Yet the pope is not ashamed of his lies. So with reference to other relics like the nails and the wood of the cross—they are the greatest lies.” (Martin Luther's Works, Vol 54.131)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, at the time of Luther, the superstition surrounding relics seems to have really been highly imaginative that only an unspiritual mind could ever conjure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Certain men have impudently boasted that they possess a feather from the holy angel St. Michael. The bishop of Mainz claims to have a flame from the bush of Moses. So in Compostella the banner is exhibited that Christ had in hell, and likewise the crown of thorns, the nails, etc., and also some of Mary’s milk.” (Martin Luther's Works, Vol 54.247) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-05T05:02:20.283" LastActivityDate="2012-09-05T05:02:20.283" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9268" CreationDate="2012-09-05T10:44:37.473" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Addition of Mark 16.9 to 16.20, do not in any way lead to any new twist to the event of Resurrection in Bible vis-a vis its depiction in other Gospels. This applies to all other citations in the question also  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these citations do not change or contradict any belief within Bible. We could have argued against these additions, had it been something entirely new and not in consonance with other Gospels and if it is something very much contradictory to some other verses at some other place. The fact that the earlier version exists and points to these citations as “additions” without actually contradicting any other verses or messages, only strengthens the veracity of the Bible that it has withstood test of time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It has proved  that there were no attempts to change its central message as depicted by different Gospels &lt;strong&gt;“BY ADDITION OF THESE NEW VERSES”&lt;/strong&gt; and   &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most importantly it has also proved that there are &lt;strong&gt;&quot;NO REMOVAL OF VERSES FROM ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; for being contradictory with what has been already revealed or written.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need not mention here that it is more serious and pure forgery if any verses are found “removed” from any original versions of any book (Not restricting this only to Bible)(reminds me of satanic verses issue) for being contradictory. If the original verses are itself removed from a book for being contradictory, then everything for which that book stands for, is in doubt. Under this instance, the book will have no authority to contradict its detractors.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In brief the above cited addition are not at all affecting any of the truth for which Bible stand for:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 16.9-11are the same events mentioned in Luke 24.1-12, though summarised form.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 16.12-13 also summarises the same events as are mentioned in details in Luke 24.13-32.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 16.14 is the rebuke of his disciples for their doubting which is mentioned in more details in Luke 24.36-43  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 16.15.20 is the commissioning of his disciples for teaching the Gospel to all nations which is same as mentioned in Luke 24.44-49.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 22.43-44 is an observation that is similar to Mathew 26:37 and  Mark 14:34 and is nothing new in the whole context of Jesus’ suffering in Gethsemane. This only depicts the great spiritual struggle Jesus was passing through.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 7.53-8.11 is not at all contradicting anywhere with what Christ taught in his entire ministry on this earth. (Case of prodigal son Luke 15.11-32)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1John5.7-8 addition is also not something new but found woven through all of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. The idea of Trinity is in no way dependent on this verse but there are explicit references to Trinity at umpteen  places and more distinctively at Mathew 28.19, John 14.26, John 15.26 Mathew 1.18, 1 Corinthians 12.3, 2 Corinthians 3.18, 2 Corinthians 13.13, Ephesians 2.18. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-09-06T16:04:28.890" LastActivityDate="2012-09-06T16:04:28.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9502" CreationDate="2012-09-05T16:03:47.570" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word&#xA;  was God. He was in the beginning with God. &lt;strong&gt;All things were made&#xA;  through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.&lt;/strong&gt; In&#xA;  him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in&#xA;  the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.    (John 1:1-5 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the center of everything because He is the &lt;em&gt;Logos&lt;/em&gt; (ie Reason/Word) of God and everything God created was through Him (ie Reason/Word) and through His incarnation He provides the &quot;touchpoint&quot; between the created and the uncreated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-09-05T16:03:47.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9537" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9538" CreationDate="2012-09-05T18:41:48.927" Score="17" ViewCount="3379" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Temple in Salt Lake has several inverted pentagrams as decorations.  &lt;em&gt;(To see a few, just google &quot;lds temple salt lake inverted pentagrams&quot; and click on images.  Or click &lt;a href=&quot;http://isearch.avg.com/images?s=sideNav&amp;amp;q=lds%20temple%20inverted%20pentagrams%20salt%20lake&amp;amp;sap=dsp&amp;amp;lang=en&amp;amp;mid=8e2de528dcdc47d0ba0fd1681c2200fd-f6cabc1589393c29baf97c23cc761ebfd42eb1c0&amp;amp;cid=%7B6020D23B-7EC3-422C-BE07-73F67E74C58D%7D&amp;amp;v=12.2.0.5&amp;amp;ds=gl011&amp;amp;d=8/20/2012%207:48:41%20AM&amp;amp;pr=sa&amp;amp;snd=hdr&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, the inverted pentagram symbol is used in Neo-Paganism, Satanism, and magick, as well as Freemasonry.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How exactly did it become a symbol of the LDS church?  &lt;em&gt;(It seems like an odd symbol to use, given how it's used by others.)&lt;/em&gt;  What does it represent according to LDS teaching?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-12T08:04:06.893" LastActivityDate="2014-10-14T23:17:59.100" Title="What is the significance of the inverted pentagram symbols on the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;temple&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9537" CreationDate="2012-09-05T18:53:17.533" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;The symbol has no specific meaning within LDS theology, and there are no teachings regarding it.  According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20080229073604/http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Stars.pdf&quot;&gt;an article found among the Wikipedia page's sources&lt;/a&gt;, the pentagram symbol actually has a long history in Christian and Jewish art and architecture, and only first began to be associated with Satanism and the occult in the 1850s.  By this point, the design for the Salt Lake temple had already been drafted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The star symbolism in the temple was included, along with carved depictions of other celestial bodies, as symbolic of heavenly glory, which is described in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, as being similar to the brightness of the sun, the moon and the stars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-09-05T18:53:17.533" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9539" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9540" CreationDate="2012-09-05T23:29:59.550" Score="3" ViewCount="1850" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/dnc-god-jerusalem-platform_n_1859200.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; where representatives at the 2012 Democratic National Convention booed in disagreement over a platform position regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm &lt;strong&gt;not interested in a political debate&lt;/strong&gt; in asking this question; rather I am interested in what is the thought process behind the position that would contest Jerusalem as Israel's capital?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1267" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-09-06T02:13:58.313" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T18:53:10.267" Title="What is the controversy/issue surrounding Jerusalem as Israel's capital?" Tags="&lt;israel&gt;&lt;politics&gt;&lt;jerusalem&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-09-07T15:40:30.817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9539" CreationDate="2012-09-05T23:58:20.230" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This issue isn't really anything to do with Christianity, although it's an issue which Christians sometimes take sides on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the State of Israel was created in 1947-48 Jerusalem was given a special status, not a part of Israel proper:  &quot;The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.&quot; The Israeli capital was established as Tel Aviv&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel took effective control of West Jerusalem in 1948 and the rest of it in 1967, and has retained it ever since, declaring it to be their capital. Many nations, including until now the US, retain their diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv and consider it to be the capital, avoiding the implied recognition of the legitimacy of Israel's control over Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-09-07T18:53:10.267" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T18:53:10.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9542" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9545" CreationDate="2012-09-06T03:59:52.543" Score="8" ViewCount="9547" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christian fundamentalists argue against abortion on the grounds that fetuses have souls.  The argument starts with two premises: that people have souls while animals do not, and that the right to life goes with possession of a soul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It proceeds by asserting that the developing fetus must acquire its soul at some instant; and because no point after conception is special enough to be that instant, it must happen at conception. (It takes hours for an egg and a sperm to unite, but they could choose some brief part of the process as the crucial &quot;instant&quot;.)  Therefore, the argument concludes, the fetus has a soul and the same rights as a grown human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fetus at any given time either has a soul or it doesn't.  There is no intermediate state, no way to change gradually from soul-absent to soul-present, so the change must be instantaneous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is normal in quantum mechanics for an object to change gradually from state A to state B, even though there are no intermediate states between A and B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take for example, an electron's spin can either point up or down (along whichever axis you choose for the measurement); there is no possible intermediate value it can have.  Yet in the proper conditions can reliably and gradually convert spin-down electrons into the spin-up state, over a predictable length of time. What changes is the probability you will find State A vs State B moves gradually from 0% to 100%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is, When does the Fetus Acquire the soul and is it an instantaneous event or a continuous event.  Can someone explain this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user2119" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user2119" LastEditDate="2014-11-07T03:35:22.057" LastActivityDate="2014-11-07T03:35:22.057" Title="Do Fetuses have souls? Is the aquisition of a soul instantenous or continuous?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;souls&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2014-09-29T18:29:23.070" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7477" CreationDate="2012-09-06T04:57:06.637" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Accoding to scriptures women are required to cover their head in public prayer and ministry, wear modest clothing to churches, and barred from teaching or having authority over men in churches. Today most christian churches break these teachings of Jesus Christ through his apostle Paul, to satisfy misled feminists  and gain money from the foolish &quot;sheep&quot; that follow them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding angels, God created man a little below angels (Hebrews 2:7). When women aren't covering their head to show submission to man and God, they are unknowingly submitting their authority to angels. Women of the past did this and had sexual intercourse with angels. Their offspring are the legends of the past whose exaggerated stories are depicted in all ancient mythologies. God never approves this union of woman with angels. God created angels for a different purpose - they are spirits sent out to serve those of mankind who are getting saved. The fallen angels whose leader is Satan, who rebelled in the ancient past (Revelations 12:7) and made the earth formless, void and covered with darkness (Genesis1:2) are what we know as evil spirits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2129" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T04:33:01.870" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T04:33:01.870" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9542" CreationDate="2012-09-06T05:08:00.507" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the risk of making enemies from both sides of the war over abortion, I will merely provide my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no way of knowing when God breathes a soul into a fetus. At conception? Somewhere in the Middle?  &lt;strong&gt;Biblically we know it happens in the womb at some point because babies in the womb respond to God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. (NIV Luke 1:41)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It takes no forced exegesis to naturally assume John the Baptists, 'before he was born' was responding to God, in some way. this implies a living soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophecy concerning him also predicted it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (ESV Luke 1:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I could not refer to the NIV as to be clear the word for womb is koy-lee'-ah in Greek and must mean womb. Some translations for ease of street-language just say 'from birth' but without any doubt  whatsoever it means 'before birth'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore it happens sometime in the womb and one can figure out how old the Baptist was and say definitely before then.  However I do not see the at conception argument made in scripture.  It might be? It might not be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore since we know the soul is in the womb, but do not know one way or another at exactly when, when a woman is thinking about having an abortion, if she believes the Bible, she must assume at a minimum it might be a living soul. &lt;strong&gt;But IMPORTANT if a woman has had an abortion and believes it was a sin, by believing in the Bible, her sin is no greater than the sins we have all committed and she can find perfect full forgiveness and cleansing from guilt, by simple faith in Christ apart from any good work she may want to do to atone for it on her own.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding instantaneous or continuous, I would go with instantaneous as God gave Adam a soul instantaneously by breathing into his human body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-09-06T05:08:00.507" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9547" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9551" CreationDate="2012-09-06T08:03:11.130" Score="0" ViewCount="177" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently started reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pilgrim%27s_Progress&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The format of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;two people talking&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;interspersed with Biblical verses&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is absolutely amazing. I wish more books were written in this format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that other Christian literature are dull; but this book is exciting: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYVF16C24yE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it's Christian literature that makes Avatar look boring&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other pieces of Christian literature is in this format? I'm particularly interested in &quot;classical&quot; literature -- works that have stood the test of time -- say written in Pre 1900 days. [Though great modern works are welcome too.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2123" LastActivityDate="2012-09-06T12:23:03.700" Title="Christian Literature In the format of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2012-09-15T05:02:22.403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9547" CreationDate="2012-09-06T10:48:36.330" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://m.ccel.org/ccel/gregorynyssa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gregory of Nyssa&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Life_of_Moses.html?id=wAJ6fwFAligC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Life of Moses&lt;/a&gt; isn't exactly two characters talking, but as an expository allegory, you may find it right up the same alley. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Nyssa does is to write a biography (a hagiography, really) of Moses, following him through the Exodus and Numbers' narratives, but expounding up the various symbols therein. These symbols are highly allegorical, but still interesting to ponder.  For example, in his Life of Moses, Gregory of Nyssa remarks on the fact that Moses was nursed by his own mother while growing up in Pharaoh's household: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;This teaches, it seems to me, that if we should be involved with profane teachings during our education, we should not separate ourselves from the nourishment of the church's milk, which would be her laws and customs.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that every detail in the text is a symbol to be explored in some way.  Candidly, had Gregory written this in seminary, he would have gotten an &quot;F,&quot; because allegory is highly out of favor - but the story and the symbolism is still interesting, if not the &quot;way we do things&quot; today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-06T12:23:03.700" LastActivityDate="2012-09-06T12:23:03.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9552" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9560" CreationDate="2012-09-06T12:01:56.083" Score="4" ViewCount="1288" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for the idea that worship brings joy to God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2038" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-13T02:26:19.497" LastActivityDate="2015-10-13T02:26:19.497" Title="Does worship bring joy to God?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;joy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-10-13T11:35:20.393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9553" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-06T15:51:42.030" Score="3" ViewCount="381" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Innocents&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Holy Innocents&lt;/a&gt; are the children mentioned in Matthew's gospel (2:16-18) as having been murdered by Herod. Many churches celebrate a Feast of the Holy Innocents, or Childermass, on one of the days following Christmas Day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 124 (or 123 in the Vulgate) is often chosen as an appointed reading, for example in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/Worship/Lectionary/Year-C/Christmas.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Evangelical Lutheran Church of America&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/the-calendar/lect/festivals/innocents28dec.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Church of England&lt;/a&gt;, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/122812.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Roman Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;. Here's verse 7 in the KJV and the Vulgate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: &lt;br/&gt;the snare is broken, and we are escaped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Anima nostra sicut passer erepta est de laqueo venantium: &lt;br/&gt;Laqueus contritus est, et nos liberati sumus.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Musical settings include those by Michael Haydn (offertory &lt;em&gt;Anima nostra&lt;/em&gt;, MH146, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tadLY-pf_0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;performed here by the Vienna Boys Choir&lt;/a&gt;) and Palestrina (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www0.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Anima_nostra_sicut_passer_(Giovanni_Pierluigi_da_Palestrina)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Anima nostra sicut passer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was wondering &lt;strong&gt;when and why&lt;/strong&gt; this psalm text became associated with Matthew's story.&#xA;It is well-represented &lt;em&gt;now&lt;/em&gt; in the lectionaries of several different churches, as shown above, but it does not seem to be referenced in the earliest such texts. For example, the fifth-century &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=qVGESPGL0L8C&amp;amp;as_brr=1&amp;amp;pg=PA166#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leonine Sacramentary&lt;/a&gt; refers to Jeremiah 31:15 (which is clearly directly relevant, since Matthew quotes it!) but not to this psalm. In other words, who decided, and on what basis, that the psalm was a good match for the Holy Innocents?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T04:01:47.787" Title="How did Psalm 124 become associated with the Holy Innocents?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5407" CreationDate="2012-09-06T16:38:35.900" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faith is a gift from God.&#xA;Can you say that you mustered faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue is deeper than the simple, &quot;you gotta have faith.&quot; (implying that the faith you have is from you and not itself a gift) Proper Biblical interpretation comes only from allowing the less clear passages be defined by those which are more clear. With this being the case, ask what a dead person does? Answer: nothing! (with the possible exception of rot) Scripture repeatedly declares that our spirit (or our true being) is DEAD. *see valley of the dry bones in OT if you wish to see an example other than what is found in the NT. God does not change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are dead in our trespasses and sins. We aren't sick or drowning or lame...we are dead. Apart from God's specific intervention, acting on YOU (not a broad stroke of man in general) you are dead. Further, you are not guiltless. Your nature (spirit) is guilty of transgressing God's law. Again, God does not change. Yes, we now have grace but it is God who metes out His grace. He doesn't have a grace convenience store where we can run in and get some grace. He gives it freely. Freely does not mean &quot;to all.&quot; Freely means that He gives it without charge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think this is harsh?&#xA;Read Romans. Who are you to question God. He makes some a vessel of honor and some a vessel of dishonor. Until you reach a point that you understand that believers exist because of God's faith and His mercy and that the very fires of hell declare His righteousness, you don't have a Biblical understanding of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2128" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-18T14:47:48.867" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T14:47:48.867" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9542" CreationDate="2012-09-06T17:00:31.433" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether you actually wanted a Biblical Answer, (there was a &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/christian-thermodynamics&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'christian-thermodynamics'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;christian-thermodynamics&lt;/a&gt; tag until it got nuked) here is the answer, from the undisputed captain of answers like these St. Thomas Aquinas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The human soul, by reason of its perfection, is not a form merged in matter, or entirely embraced by matter. Therefore there is nothing to prevent some power thereof not being the act of the body, although the soul is essentially the form of the body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica - Part 1 - Question 76 - Article 2 - Reply to Objection 4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it's really the premise of the questions that is wrong, as far as theology is concerned, the soul exists outside of time, the body is matter. The soul exists outside of time, it is not matter and yet it has no corollary in quantum physics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the soul has always existed, it was predetermined to haunt a particular carcass the moment the soul enters the body is irrelevant because, just as the embryo was meant to develop into the child, the soul was meant to conform to that same matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The human soul, however is a created thing and it is created along with the body&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the soul by its nature were a complete species, so that it might be created as to itself, this reason would prove that the soul was created by itself in the beginning. But as the soul is naturally the form of the body, it was necessarily created, not separately, but in the body.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1090.htm#article2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica - Part 1 - Question 90 - Article 2 - Reply to Objection 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But clearly, and this is the point I'm trying to make, without becoming Origen and handing in my Catholicism Badge, is that somewhere, God has a plan for sex.  The plan is to make babies who hopefully will worship Him forever and live with Him in Heaven. The plan shouldn't be confounded by human means. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, to your question, there is no funnel which God pours the soul through into the human body.  Aquinas says the soul merely takes the form of the human being as it exists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To all this, I must add the pro-life mantra&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+1%3A4-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 1:4-5 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,&#xA;     before you were born I set you apart;&#xA;     I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-06T19:07:14.980" LastActivityDate="2012-09-06T19:07:14.980" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9542" CreationDate="2012-09-06T19:45:00.663" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you define personhood as &quot;having a soul&quot; then you've already lost because it is then necessary to define such impossible notions as &quot;what is a soul&quot;.  If you then define a &quot;soul&quot; as something that is distinct from a body now you have several problems.  Either the soul has always existed (which creates theological difficulties) or it is a separate creative act from biological conception and now you're stuck trying to correlate these creative acts temporally.  If you say &quot;at conception&quot; then what about identical multiples where the embryo divides after conception?  Does the &quot;soul&quot; then divide accordingly also?  If there's any possibility of &quot;some time after conception&quot; then you've opened the door to abortion being acceptable on a technicality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is something fundamentally broken with the idea that our &quot;soul&quot; is a separate thing from our &quot;body&quot;, or even worse that we have &quot;soul&quot;, &quot;spirit&quot; and &quot;body&quot; which is also a common theme where &quot;biological life&quot; is categorized as a separate thing from physical matter.  These are all artificial divisions of our &quot;person&quot; and serve only to complicate and confuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best explanation for this I've read to date is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/75080212/The-Six-Dawns-by-Dr-Alexander-Kalomiros&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/75080212/The-Six-Dawns-by-Dr-Alexander-Kalomiros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The person is a mystery: the mystery of the divine seal upon the&#xA;  earthen human nature. The mysteries are not familiar to man. But the&#xA;  pagan meaning of the soul held no mystery: a different nature is&#xA;  intertwined and coexists with material nature. It is the spirit that&#xA;  becomes intertwined with matter. The body dies and the material nature&#xA;  dissolves, but the spirit remains as a second, independent nature.&#xA;  These are very easy things for the rationalistic mind to grasp. Thus,&#xA;  for some Christians the meaning of the word soul slowly regained the&#xA;  ancient pagan meaning, and man, at least in the people's mind,&#xA;  became compounded of two natures.  In this way, a spiritual nature of its&#xA;  own was imputed to the personality of man that remains after the body&#xA;  has dissolved. This means, of course, a clear return to paganism.&#xA;  In this conception, man's person is preserved after death because it&#xA;  has its own independent existence and nature, and not because it&#xA;  remains &quot;in the hand of God&quot;, in the knowledge of God which is true&#xA;  existence and is also completely dependent on God. An immortality of&#xA;  this kind, therefore, would be of the same nature as the immortality&#xA;  of God. And even if it were believed to be given by God, in the final&#xA;  analysis, it would be self-sufficient and independent. God, of course,&#xA;  could have given such an immortality outright; it would have been a&#xA;  gift from God by grace. But if it were given, from that moment man&#xA;  would have perceived it as his own natural possession, in other words,&#xA;  as a second nature in man. Thus, he would believe he is compounded of&#xA;  two natures, of mortal matter and immortal spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-09-06T19:45:00.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9552" CreationDate="2012-09-07T00:54:40.677" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;After several searches through various translations, I was unable to find any verse that specifically states that our worship brings God &quot;joy&quot;. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it &lt;em&gt;doesn't&lt;/em&gt; bring Him joy. The overwhelming weight of Scripture implies that our worship (&lt;a href=&quot;http://timeintheword.wordpress.com/2005/11/29/does-your-worship-please-god/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;more specifically, our proper worship&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;pleases&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether this indicates &quot;joy&quot; specifically is up for interpretation.  I &lt;em&gt;personally&lt;/em&gt; believe it does, based on many things, but at least partially because He is angered when we worship anything else. He is &quot;a jealous God&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:2-5 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of&#xA;  Egypt, out of the house of bondage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of&#xA;  any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or&#xA;  that is in the water under the earth: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: &lt;strong&gt;for I the&#xA;  LORD thy God am a jealous God&lt;/strong&gt;, visiting the iniquity of the fathers&#xA;  upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that&#xA;  hate me; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my&#xA;  commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I may be guilty of anthropomorphism here, but the fact that worshiping other gods seems to imply that God wants (and deserves) all our worship. That tells me that our worship pleases Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, idolatry &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2022:53&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;angers God&lt;/a&gt;, again and again in  Scripture we see this. The opposite of anger is joy, so, it seems to me that our proper worship &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; bring him joy. Even if that's not specifically stated, it seems strongly implied. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, worship and sacrifice do not please Him if offered with the wrong motivation, heart, and love. He is more interested in our love, obedience, and faith than in the &quot;things&quot; we give.  Offerings are meaningless in and of themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 51: 15-19 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy&#xA;  praise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou&#xA;  delightest not in burnt offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite&#xA;  heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of&#xA;  Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,&#xA;  with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer&#xA;  bullocks upon thine altar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same goes with phony worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 15:18 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me&#xA;  with their lips; but their heart is far from me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'd put forth that, proper worship, from a contrite heart, one that truly loves and is honoring God brings Him joy, while empty, meaningless worship (just going through the motions, or doing so in an attempt to please Him, rather than simply because you love Him so much that you &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; to worship out of an expression of the love in your heart) does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-09-07T02:30:17.837" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T02:30:17.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9268" CreationDate="2012-09-07T02:22:35.930" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to 2 Timothy 3:16, all scripture is God-breathed, meaning that God is the sole initiator, inspiration and driving force behind it. Therefore, either we believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, or our faith has no basis. No verses have yet been added or removed that change the meaning of the text; whether or not it falls under the purview of Deuteronomy 4:2 &amp;amp; 12:32 and Proverbs 30:6 is another matter entirely. I believe it does, but I also believe that if God has allowed it into the Word that He promises is God-breathed, there's a reason for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1432" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T02:22:35.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9562" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9563" CreationDate="2012-09-07T02:25:11.713" Score="8" ViewCount="6299" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a pretty recognizable and consistent artistic image of Jesus Christ, despite the lack of evidence of what he looked like. Where did this initial image originate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="898" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-13T01:08:40.490" LastActivityDate="2015-04-13T01:08:40.490" Title="Where did the artistic rendering of Jesus originate?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9562" CreationDate="2012-09-07T02:38:37.633" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Popular Mechanics (of all sources) did a good article on &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Real Face of Jesus&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article discusses how the current representations of Jesus came to be.  The European image with long wavy brown hair that we're all familiar with in Western cultures isn't universal at all.  Rather, it seems to simply have been an image that artists rendered, and that we, as a culture, find pleasing.  He looks Kind, loving, gentle, and everything we know Jesus was, but it it, of course, just an artist's interpretation, copied and emulated over the years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the article: (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Further clouding the question of what Jesus looked like is the simple&#xA;  fact that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus described, nor have&#xA;  any drawings of him ever been uncovered. There is the additional&#xA;  problem of having neither a skeleton nor other bodily remains to probe&#xA;  for DNA. In the absence of evidence, our images of Jesus have been&#xA;  left to the imagination of artists. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The influences of the artists'&#xA;  cultures and traditions can be profound&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, observes Carlos F.&#xA;  Cardoza-Orlandi, associate professor of world Christianity at Columbia&#xA;  Theological Seminary in Atlanta. &quot;While Western imagery is dominant,&#xA;  in other parts of the world he is often shown as black, Arab or&#xA;  Hispanic.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully, the above will do for an answer.  I know it's vague. For a more specific answer, I believe you'd have to find the earliest representation of Jesus that you feel represents the western image we're used to.  This would be a difficult thing to do, and still meet with the site's strong bias toward objective answers (or those based upon commonly accepted canon or a specific doctrine.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of artist's depiction of Christ.  Selecting the first one would be like finding a needle in a haystack.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second, whether or not an image seems to match the current accepted &quot;look&quot; is a bit subjective.  (Just look at the results &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=Jesus&amp;amp;oe=utf-8&amp;amp;aq=t&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;tbm=isch&amp;amp;source=og&amp;amp;sa=N&amp;amp;tab=wi&amp;amp;ei=SmBJUOWoEojo2AX9n4GIDQ&amp;amp;biw=1280&amp;amp;bih=619&amp;amp;sei=TWBJUKjAC4Oy2wX19YGoAg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and try to determine which ones do and do not fit.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="1613" LastEditDate="2012-09-10T02:39:18.427" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T02:39:18.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9566" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9574" CreationDate="2012-09-07T03:58:37.723" Score="2" ViewCount="683" Body="&lt;p&gt;Life is so busy and there are so many things to do, so many problems to deal with. But I don't want to walk with God just 'sometimes', I want to see Him in everything, not just in church or when I am reading the Bible. Is there any way to that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2091" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T13:55:27.463" Title="How do I find Jesus in everything?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;lifestyle&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2012-09-07T22:57:25.843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9567" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9570" CreationDate="2012-09-07T05:40:04.750" Score="9" ViewCount="18526" Body="&lt;p&gt;One person told me that since disciples called Jesus rabbi and since he taught in synagogues he couldn't have been a carpenter as only rabbis were allowed to teach in synagogues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has this matter ever been covered in Christianity? If yes, can anyone, please, give an overview on this matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could Jesus have been both carpenter and a rabbi? How did a person become  qualified rabbi in those times?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-14T23:52:25.967" LastActivityDate="2020-03-05T22:57:52.960" Title="Was Jesus a carpenter or a rabbi?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2012-09-07T06:10:08.740" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question &quot;Was Jesus a Rabbi&quot; is covered &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/199&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  Short version: Yes, He was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question &quot;Was Jesus a carpenter&quot; is covered &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4896/do-we-actually-know-that-jesus-was-a-carpenter&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  Short version, &quot;yes, but in typical fashion people dispute the exact meaning of the word, which could also be translated as craftsman.&quot;  In this case, whether carpenter could mean craftsman or stonemason or whatever other occupation doesn't matter.  You're asking how he could have been a carpenter and a Rabbi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not to point out the obvious, but it was a career change.  In His early days, He was a carpenter. Later, He began His true calling - His earthly ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no discrepancy in Scripture referring to Him as a carpenter in one place, and as a Rabbi in another.  Were someone to write about my life (what a boring book that would be) they could just as easily refer to me as a Restaurant Manager and a Software Developer, a Father, Husband, Satellite dish salesman, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the remaining point in your question, the first link above also covers how &quot;one became a Rabbi in those times&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T06:22:22.650" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2012-09-07T06:41:18.393" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a third possibility: He wasn't an ordained Rabbi. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was called rabbi out of sense of respect and he was allowed in the synagogues because of his fame. When he preached at a synagogue it says - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 4:20 &quot;The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This suggests to me an event like that of a visiting celebrity than a routine occurrence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another important thing is the meaning of the word Rabbi. We must ask what the word meant to those who used it, not what it means to us today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 23:8 &quot;Don't let anyone call you 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the people used the word as a title of honor or synonym for teacher that wouldn't make him a Rabbi in a literal sense of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, it seems unlikely to me that Jesus would have joined a synagogue and got himself ordained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He spent a great deal of time criticizing the religious system of that day including the hypocrisy of the Rabbis. He couldn't have stayed quiet in the face of any kind of hypocrisy or superstition. It would be out of character for him. I doubt that with that kind of attitude and vocal criticism of other Rabbis he would've been allowed into any synagogue, much less officially ordained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus couldn't have been a Rabbi, when he so vehemently criticized them. So much so that he got himself crucified for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1568" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-09-07T18:11:00.000" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T18:11:00.000" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9552" CreationDate="2012-09-07T10:36:03.970" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As David Stratton says, it's the heart that counts. God enjoys &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+9:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;kindness, justice and righteousness&lt;/a&gt; and much &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+15:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prefers obedience to our sacrifices&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is probably most explicit in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;first chapter of Malachi&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%202:1-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;first half of the second chapter&lt;/a&gt;, for example in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%201:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1:10&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it looks like the answer to your question is &lt;em&gt;implied&lt;/em&gt; rather than directly stated. God hates half-hearted worship, so by implication enjoys whole-hearted worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T10:36:03.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9573" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9584" CreationDate="2012-09-07T11:21:17.810" Score="30" ViewCount="288424" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do we have a good idea as to which Pharaoh(s) were around during the time of Moses' life? What internal and external evidence exists to back up those claims? Do any Christian traditions attach any significance to correlating the events of Moses' life to the reign of a specific Pharaoh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The movie &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince_of_Egypt&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Prince of Egypt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; mentions Ramses as the name of Moses' adoptive mother's son (and the future Pharaoh, both when Moses kills the Egyptian at 40 and when he returns to Egypt when he is 80), but I don't know what the basis is for this claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-03-04T01:36:02.577" LastActivityDate="2020-07-14T22:07:51.983" Title="Who was Pharaoh when Moses lived in Egypt?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;ancient-egypt&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9566" CreationDate="2012-09-07T13:55:27.463" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mary,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the biggest helps I have had in this area comes from a book by John Piper called &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1433502542&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God is the Gospel&lt;/a&gt;.  In one of the chapters, I believe its Chapter 5 &lt;em&gt;Delighting in God Delighting in Us&lt;/em&gt;, he discusses the idea that our pleasures don't compete with God but should draw us to God.  If a spouse gives you a wonderful &amp;amp; thoughtful gift, the gift is nice, but the purpose of the gift is really to draw your heart to your spouse and vice versa.  In the same way, God wants us to enjoy all his gifts, and as we enjoy them, we should be appreciating the God who gave us such wonderful things to enjoy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason this helps me is because I used to sit down to a bowl of chocolate ice cream and feel guilty about how much I like the ice cream.  Now, I realize that when I sit down to the bowl of chocolate ice cream, God wants me to enjoy it.  So I enjoy it and I try to marvel at God and the grace involved both in my ability to taste and in someone's ability to craft such a wonderful dessert.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we don't have to be either/or.  You can be mindful of God even in the midst of busyness.  So if you are having a hard (or very good) day at the office or with the kids, talk to God about your day.  Remind yourself of the promises he gave you which apply right in those situations.  Look for things to thank him for.  Recognize all the blessings he has given you and wants you to enjoy.  Another very good book which addresses this idea of communing with God in all we do is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1600063004&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Praying Life&lt;/a&gt; by Paul Miller.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2044" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T13:55:27.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9575" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9578" CreationDate="2012-09-07T14:33:39.900" Score="18" ViewCount="1438" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I was looking at some references for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9537/what-is-the-significance-of-the-inverted-pentagram-symbols-on-the-lds-temple-in&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; dealing with the usage of the inverted pentagram in the LDS Church and particularly on the Temple in Salt Lack City, I came across an article that indicated that in the LDS Church (and its Temples) the symbol of the Cross is completely absent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Cross has been a prominent symbol in Christianity for much of its history.  So, my question is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For what reason is the usage of the Cross as a symbol excluded by the LDS church?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T21:02:43.223" Title="What is the reason for the absence of the Cross as a symbol in the LDS Church?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;cross&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9575" CreationDate="2012-09-07T14:56:44.220" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;From  the &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B000EDGSOU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;True to the Faith&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/cross?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;entry for &quot;Cross&quot;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The cross is used in many Christian churches as a symbol of the Savior’s death and Resurrection and as a sincere expression of faith. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we also remember with reverence the suffering of the Savior. But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, Mormonism attempts to emphasize the life and ressurrection of Jesus Christ. It is believed that the cross doesn't adequately portray this perspective and gives too much weight on death, which was conquered by Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T16:03:39.260" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T16:03:39.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9575" CreationDate="2012-09-07T14:59:13.503" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question was answered directly by Gordon B. Hinckley, who was the most recent president of the church before the current one.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/the-symbol-of-our-faith&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;In an article in 2005,&lt;/a&gt; he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian&#xA;  colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and&#xA;  at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and&#xA;  imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross&#xA;  is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration&#xA;  of the Living Christ.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An when asked what then is the symbol of the LDS, he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the lives of our people must become the most meaningful&#xA;  expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our&#xA;  worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this site prefers explanations over quotations, but there really isn't much more that can be added to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T21:02:43.223" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T21:02:43.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9580" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9581" CreationDate="2012-09-07T22:57:17.667" Score="10" ViewCount="27103" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:7&quot;&gt;John 21: 7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the&#xA;  Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his&#xA;  fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into&#xA;  the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was he REALLY naked or just embarrassed? The Holy Bible seems to correlate nakedness with shamefulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2135" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-09T18:02:28.073" LastActivityDate="2016-01-21T16:03:07.617" Title="Why was Peter Fishing Naked (John 21:7)?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;peter&gt;&lt;nakedness&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9580" CreationDate="2012-09-07T23:35:18.113" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ESV renders the verse in question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to contain the implication that he was wearing some kind of &lt;em&gt;inner&lt;/em&gt; garment while working, and likely was not naked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1267" LastActivityDate="2012-09-07T23:35:18.113" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9583" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9590" CreationDate="2012-09-08T02:37:30.657" Score="8" ViewCount="1210" Body="&lt;h2&gt;What this question is not about:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is NOT about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is God omniscient (all knowing?), omnipotent (all powerful?) and benevolent? Then if God foresaw the first sin, and had the power to stop it, why did he not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is also not about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did God predestine Satan revolt? Did God predestine Adam/Eve to fall?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What this question is about:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my understanding, Reformed Theology views everything in terms of the glory of God. Thus, original sin -- Satan's revolt and the fall of men -- exists to glory some aspect of God (either his righteousness, his mercy, his grace, his love, or ...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside:  Erwin Lutzer's &quot;The Serpent of Paradise&quot; somewhat gets into this: namely, the interaction of Satan and God reveals certain attributes of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the main arguments that Reformed Theologists use for how Sin + the fall Glorifies God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please cite references (As great as a 5-6 paragraph essay can be, certain subtleties can only be captured in a 100 page or so book.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Hints&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(none of these are required for a correct answer; they're mainly incomplete thoughts /intuition on my part)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, arguments expanding on thought along &quot;Redemptive history is about the Glory of God in predestinating a group of people to be saved to showcase his grace&quot; ... would be very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Clarifications:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's agreed that Sin + Satan somehow glorifies God. But I think the interesting question is the mechanics of &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; it Glorifies God. In a similar manner, the old testament faithful knew that God was somehow going to redeem humanity, but he fascinating part was how God was going to do it (Christ dying o the cross); similarly, we know that Christ will establish a kingdom, but the fascinating part is how Christ establishes his kingdom (book of Revelations, not as how worldly empires do). Similarly, the fascinating issue here is &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; does Sin / Satan exist to glorify God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T21:04:24.920" LastActivityDate="2018-11-04T22:13:49.910" Title="According to reformed theology, how does the fall glorify God?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;will-of-god&gt;&lt;glory&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9573" CreationDate="2012-09-08T03:18:40.503" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course this is more of a historical-archeological question as the Bible does not directly answer but I have stumbled across a fairly convincing argument that would place &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_II&quot;&gt;Thutmose II&lt;/a&gt; as the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I first came across the argument in Alfred Edersheim’s Bible History. He typically pays attention to ancient monuments and secular history, as he was a historian at Oxford. He was also a Jewish man and Jewish historian converted to Christianity which makes him the most reliable source of Jewish culture and history at the time of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his book he argues that all the records of Thutmose II best fit into the Exodus narrative:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now this Thothmes II. began his reign very brilliantly. But after a while there&#xA;  is a perfect blank in the monumental records about him. But we read of a general revolt after his death among the nations whom his father had conquered. Of course, one could not expect to find on Egyptian monuments an account of the disasters which the nation sustained at the Exodus, nor how Pharaoh and his host had perished in the Red Sea. But we do find in his reign the conditions which we should have expected under such circumstances, viz., a brief, prosperous reign, then a sudden collapse; the king dead; no son to succeed him; the throne occupied by the widow of the Pharaoh, and for twenty years no attempt to recover the supremacy of Egypt over the revolted nations in Canaan and east of the Jordan. Lastly, the character of his queen, as it appears on the monuments, is that of a proud and bitterly superstitious woman, just such as we would have expected to encourage Pharaoh in &quot;hardening his heart&quot; against Jehovah. But the chain of coincidences does not break even here. From the Egyptian documents we learn that in the preceding reign - that is, just before the children of Israel entered the desert of Sinai - the Egyptians ceased to occupy the mines which they had until then worked in that peninsula. Further, we learn that, during the latter part of Israel's stay in the wilderness, the Egyptian king, Thothmes III., carried on and completed his wars in Canaan, and that just immediately before the entry of Israel into Palestine the great confederacy of Canaanitish kings against him was quite broken up. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.levendwater.org/books/v2bhot.pdf&quot;&gt;Alfred Edersheim’s Bible History, Vol 2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What adds striking support of this argument is just this year an online article was published saying a ‘Harvard University educated archaeologist and president of the Paleontological Research Corporation, Dr. Joel Klenck, states an array of archaeological discoveries evidence a crisis during the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose II’. You can find the find the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/archaeologist-reign-of-egyptian-pharaoh-thutmose-ii-suggests-crisis-132349.htm&quot;&gt;article here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this article it is mentioned that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The mummy of Thutmose II is the only corpse of a pharaoh during the Eighteenth Dynasty covered with cysts from an unknown malady. (Paleontological Research Corporation, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/archaeologist-reign-of-egyptian-pharaoh-thutmose-ii-suggests-crisis-132349.htm&quot;&gt;Dr. Joel Klenck&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possibly his body was fished out of the sea and mummified and that the ‘cysts’ were part of the plagues/boils which he had suffered?  This article is really worth reading as it makes a strong case that fits the Moses narrative.  The article does not mention the Bible or Moses, but I find it hard to believe the author is not making the implication but for some reason not stating it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-09-08T03:18:40.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9585" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-08T04:22:40.337" Score="11" ViewCount="1880" Body="&lt;p&gt;Originally: St. Thomas Aquinas on salvation by a drop of Christ's Blood&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard on Relevant Radio a year or so ago something perplexing, I think it was a priest saying it, but it may have been a layman, regardless, he seemed very smart, and seemed to know a lot about the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somewhere, I know not where, St. Thomas said that the Crucifixion was not necessary for salvation and that only a drop of Jesus' blood needed to be spilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where and why did he write/say this and what is the reason for this.  Is it accepted Catholic Doctrine and how much more does the Crucifixion do for us than a single drop of Christ's Precious Blood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-05-03T12:19:41.123" LastActivityDate="2015-07-03T05:41:57.167" Title="Did Jesus need to die, or would mere shedding of blood have been sufficient?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;&lt;blood-of-christ&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9586" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-08T04:26:04.713" Score="10" ViewCount="19500" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ask because I'm trying to understand whether the prohibition against sibling marriage is due to genetic or emotional reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose Bob and Alice marry, have a daughter Eve, and some years later Alice dies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose Chris and Diana marry, have a son Frank, and some years later Chris dies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, suppose Bob and Diana marry -- that would make Eve and Frank stepsiblings with no shared biological heritage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would the Old Testament law, in this case, prohibit Eve and Frank's marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2137" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-25T22:30:21.837" LastActivityDate="2015-07-25T22:38:04.697" Title="Does the Old Testament law prohibit marriage among step siblings?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;incest&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9573" CreationDate="2012-09-08T04:29:16.873" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is: No one knows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might think it would be a simple matter of saying, &quot;The Exodus occurred in such-and-such a year, look up who was Pharaoh in that year, problem solved.&quot; But in practice scholars debate just when the various Pharaohs ruled, and they debate even more when the Exodus happened. I've seen theories that range from Pepi II, generally put about 2200 BC, to Rameses II, ca 1250 BC. Scholars pushing for Pepi have to say that Moses really lived much earlier than generally thought and Pepi much later, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, most conservative scholars put the Exodus about 1450 BC, which would put it during the reign of Thutmose II or Thutmose III. Liberal scholars put the Exodus later, around 1250 BC, in the time of Rameses II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Discussions of the Pharaoh of the Exodus tend to focus on the better known Pharaohs, like Rameses. But a case could be made that this is backwards: the Pharaoh of the Exodus would have gone down in Egyptian history as a failure—someone best glossed over. As Mike notes, Thutmose II was rather undistinguished and lived about the right time, so he may be a good guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(As I write this Mike and I are the only two answers, and we are agreeing. Don't take this to mean there is broad consensus: there are many contrary opinions out there, many with good historical arguments to back them up.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-12-29T01:19:23.327" LastActivityDate="2015-12-29T01:19:23.327" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9588" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-08T04:41:38.227" Score="1" ViewCount="1696" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the beginning of Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place where was a den, and laid me down in that place to sleep; and as I slept, I dreamed a dream. I dreamed, and behold, I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand, and a great burden upon his back.&#xA;  I'm referring to the story Pilgrim's Progress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it was written while he was imprisoned. My question is, did he really &lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt; dream this dream, and write it down, or was it like he had written &quot;in a land far far away ... ?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, Pilgrim's Progress is just filled with Bible verses everywhere (one of the things that impresses me most about the book.) If this book was written while in prison for preaching, how did he have access to a Bible in order to cite all these verses? Or did he have them all memorized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2137" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-08-03T22:01:20.153" LastActivityDate="2017-08-03T22:01:20.153" Title="Did John Bunyan really dream the Pilgrim's Progress? Had he memorized all the verses?" Tags="&lt;christian-literature&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-12-15T02:11:58.203" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9588" CreationDate="2012-09-08T08:20:24.157" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part 1 I think could only be answered by speculation. Personally I would speculate it is simply creative story-telling, but that is just opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For part 2; if we look at his earlier 1666 imprisonment, he is documented (see Wikipedia) as having:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;two books, John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, the Bible, a violin he had made out of tin, a flute he'd made from a chair leg and a supply of pen and paper&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems clear that having a bible in jail (gaol) was no issue. Indeed, at this time it was &lt;em&gt;compulsory&lt;/em&gt; to attend church (his crime was preaching without a license, as the C of E was aggressively controlling).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anything, I would imagine a bible would be easily accessible, even in prison. Additionally, the writing was only &lt;em&gt;started&lt;/em&gt; while in prison - it was only a 6 month imprisonment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-09-08T08:36:42.353" LastActivityDate="2012-09-08T08:36:42.353" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9583" CreationDate="2012-09-08T08:20:48.460" Score="5" Body="&lt;h1&gt;The Fall indeed glorifies God&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reformer that spent the most effort in making his thoughts fully known about this subject is Jonathan Edwards. He wrote two famous books on the topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://edwards.yale.edu/research/major-works/the-end-for-which-god-created-the-world/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dissertation on the End for Which God Created the World&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, popularized in modern times by John Piper's edition, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1581347456&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;God's Passion for His Glory&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://edwards.yale.edu/research/major-works/nature-of-true-virtue/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dissertation Concerning the Nature of True Virtue&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although both of these works appear highly philosophical Edwards derived his thoughts from scriptures and I will try and lay out the very basics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic idea goes like this. God, due to his nature cannot be profited by, or receive anything from the creature as he is perfect. He can't suffer loss or gain outside of himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God is perfection anything &quot;good and valuable&quot; in and of itself itself, &#xA;God values it with an ultimate respect. Also since God is infinitely valuable &quot;in and of himself&quot; God must then be the reason for Creation as he must love himself above all things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That if God himself be, in any respect properly capable of being in its own end in the creation of the world, then it is reasonable to suppose that he had respect to himself as his last and highest end, in this work; because he is worthy in himself to be so, being infinitely the greatest and best of beings. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edwards also notes that it is the final result of Creation that must be the original purpose for it and for all things part of Creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whatsoever thing is actually the effect of the creation of the worlds which is simply and absolutely valuable in itself, that thing is an ultimate end of God's creating the world. We see that it is a good which God aimed at by the creation of the world; because he has actually attained it by that means. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;How it glorifies God&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mechanics of how is dependent on what we think &quot;glory&quot; is. When we define &quot;glory&quot; we can define how it is manifested by the Devil, fall, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Defining glory&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In describing what true virtue, or &quot;God's glory&quot;, is, Edwards says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;true virtue consists in love to being in general &#xA;  (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 95)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Edwards clearly defines what he means by stating the proper objects of perfect love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first object of a virtuous benevolence is being, simply considered; and if being, simply considered, be its object, then being in general is its object; and what it has an ultimate propensity to is the highest good of being in general. And it will seek the good of every individual being unless it be conceived as not consistent with the highest good of being in general.&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;The Works of President Edwards&lt;/em&gt;, Volume 3, Page 97)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words he says perfect virtue, glory seeks to be itself above all things and this is the same as seeking the good of every being. However as Edwards hold the election of the reprobate he adds the limitation of &quot;unless...&quot; which we should treat as off-topic as this goes too far into speculation about the mystery of election. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the second prime object of perfect love, or glory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second object of a virtuous propensity of heart is benevolent being. A secondary ground of pure benevolence is virtuous benevolence itself in its object. (The Works of President Edwards, Volume 3, Page 98)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, not only does pure glory seek to be itself, but its glory is also held in its actual goodness towards any object that it seeks to bless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From defining this &quot;ultimate virtue&quot;, which is God's &quot;glory&quot;, he says love to God is evidently what virtue is in us as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;it is evident, that true virtue must chiefly consist in love to god; the Being of beings (&lt;em&gt;The Works of President Edwards&lt;/em&gt;, Volume 3, Page 101)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He adds that this must lead to an &quot;enjoyment&quot; and &quot;rejoicing&quot; as part of the nature of true virtue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A benevolent propensity of heart is exercised, not only in seeking to promote the happiness of the being towards whom it is exercised, but also in rejoicing in his happiness. (&lt;em&gt;The Works of President Edwards&lt;/em&gt;, Volume 3, Page 104)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will not continue to outline his arguments but from this you can see a reformed framework from which to argue anything about the subject. So to avoid the 17th century difficult language here is modern English verbiage: &lt;em&gt;God is perfect and perfection must love itself above all things being perfectly benevolent. Therefore, the purpose of all creatures must be to serve the highest benevolence of all creatures to the pleasures of God, for which all things are done to the praise of his glory. We must not imagine that the praise of his glory in any way conflicts with our highest good for all manifestations of God's glory is to our highest good as the essential property of his perfection, so the more God is glorified only means the more we are blessed as he can't gain anything from our praise or obedience it is only by these that we obtain the effects of his perfect love towards us.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Regarding sin, the Devil and the fall specifically&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see how this reformed faith is worked out. As God will not and can't suffer any thing but what is for his own glory, seeing that he turns everything he does to the greater and more illustrious advancement of his own glory, the Devil, the fall, sin, all evil, etc. were included in his decision to create the universe and all things in it. For example we would not know how loving and full of grace God was if a fall did not happen, because only by the fall do we see God was willing to suffer Himself in Christ to save His creation. This properly manifests God's perfection to us, more than if it did not happen. Similarly, we would not know how much God hates sin if we did not see the judgment he has made against it, which again makes his perfections known to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;How it relates to providence and predestination&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the specific question as it is tied into the words &quot;predestined&quot;, from the wider standpoint of the term he did predestine it all, however, this predestination included some free choice of its creatures fully bound into the envelope of his sovereign will and determined purposes. In the narrow sense of the word, sin can't be said to be predestined at all, as being part of God's will, for its very nature is defined by its inherent opposition to God's will. This argument won deemed nonsensical and there are no reformers who thought this or taught it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mention a narrow and wider sense of &quot;predestine&quot; to distinguish how we use the word in English. In the Bible, when Paul says predestined, for example, in Romans 8:30, he used the Greek προώρισεν (proorízō). This comes from two root words (pró) &quot;before&quot; and (horizon) &quot;establish boundaries, limits&quot;. &lt;strong&gt;Therefore the term &quot;predestine&quot; means &quot;establish unmovable boundaries before creation&quot;. Therefore, it is the wider sense of the word that should be used and we can then answer Biblically in the affirmative. &quot;Yes&quot;, God predestined everything to the praise and our enjoyment of his glorious grace.&lt;/strong&gt; Yet as already mentioned, not specifically predestined as he did &quot;specifically&quot; predestine those souls who would, when all things are complete, enjoy him forever and ever. Our election is a special subset of God's overall general boundary-setting and providential management of all things and we should not confuse the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In regards to the &quot;mechanics of how&quot; this providential boundary-setting of all things, including those things that oppose God's will, is managed and maintained by God no man can conjecture, but only believe.&lt;/strong&gt; At a minimum we can simply say that all things recorded in scripture manifest the mechanics and this, including all the history of God with Israel: where his holy will was revealed, his hatred of sin and opposition to it made known man's wickedness, his promise of a Messiah to bring salvation, etc. It also includes most importantly the actual sending of his Son, Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection. His resurrection is not for himself or &quot;his own glory&quot; in the wrongly understood selfish sense as though he can be glorified more than his own eternal glory is, but &quot;for us&quot; whereby we become possessors of the universe. &lt;strong&gt;God's glory is simply the manifestation of his perfect love to us by grace, giving him nothing more than he had before creation, but giving everything to us which we did not have.&lt;/strong&gt; In this way &quot;all things&quot; work out for our own benefit as God's grace and our benefit coincide in Christ in an incomprehensible manner (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9167/when-god-works-all-things-for-the-good-is-anything-excluded-in-the-word-all/9215#9215&quot;&gt;taken up more in this post&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T05:40:59.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9586" CreationDate="2012-09-08T13:05:28.357" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't specifically address this. Unfortunately, The Bible isn't clear on the reason for not marrying your sister, and the idea of non-blood relations isn't addressed. There's actually a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_incest#In_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chart on Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; matching verses to types if potential incest, and for step siblings, there's nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say it's okay or not. There are plenty of specifics the Bible does not address specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It does not specifically mention &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48/is-masturbation-a-sin&quot;&gt;masturbation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It does not mention whether or not it's okay to buy your wife flowers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When there is no clear Biblical statement in a moral issue, such things are next determined based on extrapolating Biblical principles. But the answer to your question remains &quot;there's nothing specifically forbidding it, and genetic similarity isn't cited as the reason for the prohibition on sexual relationships with close relatives.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still don't know if that makes it okay, though. A better follow-up question that may have more definitive answers, could ask for the Catholic view on this, or another denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2015-07-25T22:38:04.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9586" CreationDate="2012-09-08T15:40:06.093" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The prohibited forms of incest are found in Leviticus 18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 9 is of the most concern:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 11, however is also interesting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, only children born of the father are considered. As such, a step sibling sired by another man (such as the case you posit) would appear to be fair game.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The complete list disallows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your mother&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;any woman your father marries (honor)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your sister, or the daughters of either of your parents&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your children's daughters (honor)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your father's wife&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your aunt on either side (she is &quot;a close relative&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your daughter-in-law&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;your sister-in-law&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many cases, the point seems to be &quot;don't dishonor your family.&quot;  I suspect (and here I put on my Rabbi hat and accent), the idea would be that you could not seek out your step-siblings, but if the marriage were to occur before your father and her mother were to marry, that they would be dishonoring you, not you them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this, of course, is far more legal and lawerly than Christianity normally gets, but you asks the question, you gets the answer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2013-04-07T21:27:40.057" LastActivityDate="2013-04-07T21:27:40.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9599" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-08T21:15:10.337" Score="4" ViewCount="1565" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; considered scripture? Does it have the same authority as the Bible? If not, what is its place in the church? Is it considered heresy to preach or believe something that is in contradiction with the Catechism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2012-09-09T02:10:07.930" LastActivityDate="2015-06-06T04:07:52.897" Title="Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered scripture?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;authority&gt;&lt;catholic-catechism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9239" CreationDate="2012-09-09T00:59:29.707" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;, and here's why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was young, I went to a Catholic grammar school. The teachers made it perfectly clear: Follow the Ten Commandments if you want to go to Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now you may have noticed - The Decalogue, for the most part, is a list of things that you must &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; do if you want to go to Heaven. So as a child I wondered: If that's the case, and Heaven is what all Catholics strive for, why don't parents prevent their children from participating in society in order to absolutely ensure that they will honor this list of &quot;don'ts&quot; and virtually guarantee their passage to Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, as I got older, I realized how absolutely absurd this idea was, but I actually think that my childhood &quot;literalist&quot; interpretation of the Ten Commandments might help to illustrate my point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To live the life of a Christian is to live the life of &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;. If you &quot;Love thy neighbor as thyself&quot;, to your fullest capacity, every day of your life, then you've done just that. At the risk of sounding irreverent, you may think of the Ten Commandments as guidelines to help you decide how you can &quot;Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that you ignore the Sabbath, and disrespect your parents. I'm just acknowledging that living life at any time in any society will present problems and conflicts. Our imperfect human vessels may &quot;sin&quot; and violate the Ten Commandments from time to time. But at the end of the day, if you endeavor to &quot;Love thy neighbor as thyself&quot;, you really can't go wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2012-09-09T00:59:29.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9278" CreationDate="2012-09-09T01:44:50.790" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an addendum to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9281/1481&quot;&gt;Narnian's answer&lt;/a&gt;. Jesus Christ was raised from the dead so that the people of God could stand before God blameless and holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Forensically: his resurrection completed the justification of the saints (i.e. all of his people, those who he makes holy). The resurrection was God's stamp of approval on Jesus Christ, his public acceptance of his atoning sacrifice. One of the less well-known and understood verses in Paul's letter to the Romans reads,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. —4:25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Experientially: his resurrection completed the regeneration of the saints by giving them new life. As the children of God are united to the Messiah, they participate in his death and resurrection. His death destroyed the power of sin in their lives and his resurrection brought about the power of God in their lives. This is explained in detail in the middle part of Romans, particularly chapter 6.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's another tact that could be taken in making this answer: God does not break his promise, and he had promised that the Messiah, after undergoing suffering would reign in glory, that he would not live in Sheol, the place of shades, of ghosts. Read the Psalms; the alternatives there are not life and nonbeing, but life and Sheol. Clearly there is something deficient for a man to live only as Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Psalm 16:10, David in his office as the anointed of God speaks prophetically of the ultimate anointed of God: &quot;For you will not leave my soul among the dead or allow your holy one to rot in the grave.&quot; This does not apply to David himself; he died and is long decomposed (though he awaits the resurrection on the last day). It applies to the greater Messiah, the last Messiah, the fulfilment of all God's promises, Yeshua from Nazareth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isaiah 53 is abundantly clear both that the Messiah will die, but also that afterwards he will experience life and glory.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;He had done no wrong&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  and had never deceived anyone.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  But he was &lt;strong&gt;buried&lt;/strong&gt; like a criminal;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  he was put in a rich man’s &lt;strong&gt;grave&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;But it was the Yahweh’s good plan to crush him&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  and cause him grief.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  Yet when his life is made an &lt;strong&gt;offering for sin&lt;/strong&gt; [=shedding of blood/death],&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  he will have many descendants.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  He will enjoy a &lt;strong&gt;long life&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  and the Yahweh’s good plan will prosper in his hands.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;When he &lt;strong&gt;sees&lt;/strong&gt; all that is accomplished by his anguish,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  he will be satisfied.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  And because of his experience,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  my righteous servant will make it possible&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  for many to be counted righteous,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  for he will bear all their sins.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;I will give him the honors of a &lt;strong&gt;victorious soldier&lt;/strong&gt; [not of a dead war hero],&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  because he exposed himself to &lt;strong&gt;death&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  He was counted among the rebels.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the second type of answer is that Jesus was resurrected to fulfil the prophecies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-09-09T15:08:34.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9599" CreationDate="2012-09-09T03:26:15.860" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The immediate answer is “No, it is not scripture.” Scripture is scripture and adding to it or subtracting from it is a no-no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to “Does it have the same authority as the Bible?” Well, I suppose the answer is “authority for what?” For some things the authority of the Catechism is superior (certain areas of theology are only hinted at in the Bible). It can be safely said, though, that there is nothing in the Catechism which contradicts the Bible (if the Catechism is taken as a whole and in light of a Catholic understanding of Scripture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you contradict the Catechism without being called a heretic? That depends on how you contradict the Catechism. On certain matters it is more definitive than others and on some matters it is 100% correct. On other matters it is a bit more theologically ambiguous. It is important to remember:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 11&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That word &lt;em&gt;aims&lt;/em&gt; is important, because it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a perfect synthesis and there are many, many finer points which can be debated and there is quite a bit of room for disagreement (you are talking about a Church which has a 1400 year old debate with its neighbor over one word). And it even testifies the the fact that it has not gotten everything perfect for all times and all people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever teaches must become “all things to all men” (⇒ I Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers.... Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of that said, it is very difficult to contradict the Catechism without contradicting some important and definitive doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know of one place, for example, which is phrased &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; poorly (in an attempt to guide pastors to a more compassionate action). My disagreement is perfectly acceptable and reasonable (as I agree with the teaching but not the admonition which goes along with it). On the other hand, if I were to disagree with the teaching behind the phraseological error I actually would be contradicting some very authoritative doctrines in the Church. That would be, at a minimum, a form of heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-06-03T19:12:39.263" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9599" CreationDate="2012-09-09T03:39:13.157" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Catholicism, the Catechism has the same authority as the Bible, its existence is borne out of the same body of folks who brought you the Bible as a compilation of revealed truth in the first place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it can't be conisidered a substitute for the Bible and no, it's not scripture any more than the Evangelical Councils were scripture.  It is the the synthesis of Magesterial Teaching, tradition and scripture.  It owes its existence  to synods of Bishops following the Second Vatican Council placing an emphasis on general Catechesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any Catholic will tell you it belongs right next to your Bible because there is no book which gives so lucid an explanation of the faith. But, it didn't exist until the 1990's so... The more fundamental question is, does preaching against the doctrines of the Catholic Church make you a heretic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism is a 'sure norm for teaching the faith' and a 'valid instrument for ecclesial communion'. It's used for teaching directly, and for adapting down to particular catechisms (YouCat, Adult Catechism, Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA), etc...). So, one caveat in the Catechism is that it is catholic (i.e. universal)  and it does not adapt the doctrine adequately to particular cultures, ages, and spiritual states of the reader and as such there may be reasons for emphasizing certain aspects of authentic Catholic Doctrine that may at first seem at odds with the Catechism, I think this happened recently with the YouCat, which was geared towards the under 30 crowd and had more concrete answers to questions about sex and money that you'd get by reading the Catechism. Therefore, you wouldn't automatically be a heretic if you preach something that only seems at odds with the Catechism, it really has to be at odds with the totality of Catholic Doctine. If you preached for birth control or abortion or same sex &quot;marriage&quot; or euthanasia or divorce you would be on your way I becoming a heretic, but you'd have to persist in your heresy to truly be a heretic. If you completely give up the faith, then you're an apostate and if you preach something that just isn't very Catholic, like &quot;the Pope isn't very smart&quot; then you're a schismatic. But, if you were never a Catholic to begin with, then you can't be any of these things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, because I just read it and I don't know whether you want to know this, but the &lt;em&gt;General Directory for Catechesis&lt;/em&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the catechism of the catholic church is not the only source of Catechesis, since as an act of the Magesterium, &quot;it is not superior to the word of God but at its service.&quot; However it is a particularly authentic act of interpretation of that word, such that the Gospel may be proclaimed and transmitted in all it's truth and purity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-10T12:02:36.760" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T12:02:36.760" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9605" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9607" CreationDate="2012-09-09T09:28:00.963" Score="13" ViewCount="424" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider the important doctrines of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;divinity of Christ&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;doctrine of Trinity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;doctrine of predestination&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider in general, that the Westminister Confession is shorter than most books of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why were these doctrines not &lt;em&gt;explicitly&lt;/em&gt; stated in the Bible? The Westminister Confession ... is a document that reformed theology embraces, but other parts of &quot;Christianity&quot; may reject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, if these books were explicitly stated in the Bible, they'd be canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, according to reformed theologians, why was the Westminister Confession something that had to be discovered via &quot;human reasoning&quot; rather than explicitly stated in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:22:14.340" LastActivityDate="2017-01-19T11:49:21.053" Title="According to reformed theology, why are certain important doctrines not &quot;obvious&quot;? [i.e. why does the Westminister Confession even exist?]" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9278" CreationDate="2012-09-09T17:04:25.630" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have already been several answers here, and I don't usually post an answer to questions that have already received lots of attention, but no one here so far has touched on the central point of this doctrine:  &lt;strong&gt;The Atonement of Jesus Christ compensates for the Fall.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis gives the familiar story of how God gave to Adam and Eve a commandment and a warning: that if they broke it, they would surely die.  So the Fall was the introduction of sin and death to mankind.  Paul reiterates this in Romans 5: 12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus came as our Savior, to fix what had been set wrong by the Fall.  By living a life free of sin, and taking upon himself the sins of the world, he overcame sin.  And by dying and being resurrected, he overcame death, and both made it possible for us to do the same.  By the atoning blood of Christ, we can repent and be cleansed of our own sins.  And through the Resurrection, we will be raised from death into life.  Coming back to Romans 5, we read in verse 19:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, in 1 Corinthians 15: 22 we see the same point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the reason for the Resurrection: to undo death, which is an unnatural state that came upon mankind as part of the Fall, and allow us to be restored to life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-09-09T17:04:25.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9605" CreationDate="2012-09-09T17:44:12.710" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;While this is easy enough to answer from a Reformed point of view, I'd like to start by pointing out that the felt need for extra-Biblical statements on matters of faith is not limited to Reformed circles or even Protestantism. In fact they are common to all traditions and sects in Christendom.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Even your most run-of-the-mill non-denominational half-baked-evangelical Church in Podunk middle-America will have a Statement of Faith somewhere on their Bulletin, website or other literature. These statements serve both a declarative role in announcing what they believe are the key points to the Christian faith and a discerning role in separating them from any group or church that would make a contrary statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the core is &lt;strong&gt;the issue of language&lt;/strong&gt;. Words by themselves are of little consequence until they are interpreted. Lets try an example. Let's say I were to make a simple statement as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I do not deserve to be mistreated by the world! -- Caleb Maclennan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You read that and now you think you know what I meant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe you nod your head in approval—or maybe you wonder what happened to me that I consider myself so mistreated. Maybe it moves you and you start an activist group. You use my statement as a slogan and you gather a bunch of followers. They all are motivated to end the wrongs done by humanity to itself. The only problem is, &lt;em&gt;you completely misunderstood what I said&lt;/em&gt;. Now my name is on a whole bunch of things I do not actually approve of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My statement requires interpretation. Even when you think you are &quot;just reading it at face value&quot;, you are actually interpreting it based on whatever background knowledge you have of the world and myself and of language. You also bring your presuppositions about what is right and wrong, what human rights are, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, if you really knew my perspective on those factors, a different meaning will show up in the same words. I believe that I am a wretched sinner who does not deserve the grace I have been shown in Christ to whom I owe all of my allegiance. As the author and perfecter of my faith was abused and mistreated by this world having done no wrong to deserve it, I having done great wrong feel unworthy of the lesser mistreatment that I receive. Behind my statement lies an understanding that even the world's mistreatment is better than I deserve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The need for Creeds and Confessions stems from this issue of all language requiring interpretation.&lt;/strong&gt; Over time as contexts change and we lose perspective on the original authors, sometimes it becomes necessary to clarify to ourselves in what way we are interpreting the teachings of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reading the Scriptures we each bring different light to bear on them. It is only by comparing our understanding with each others' that we come to realize places where we may have erred, and it is partly by seeing the different outcomes that we come to understand how different presuppositions affect our understanding. &lt;strong&gt;Creeds and Confessions help bring interpretation full circle, demonstrating to others how we have interpreted the Scriptures and affirming our beliefs.&lt;/strong&gt; They are a way of echoing back what we have gleaned from the Bible with the Spirit's help, allowing others to verify our interpretations and hold us accountable to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also serve as a measuring stick for other believers. As a minister of the word ordained by a Reformed denomination, part of the ordination process I went through was an examination of my own beliefs in comparison to a number of Creeds and Confessions, including the Westminster Confession of Faith. I will use the WCF as an example because you mention it, but the principles I'm talking about here and the necessity of such confessions is universal and just as relevant for those who hold a confession that conflicts with the WCF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I actually took exception to a number of points in the WCF. I do not hold it to be an infallible guide or standard of interpretation nor a dictate on my life. However it is incredibly valuable to able to compare my own interpretation of Scripture (particularly in a case like mine where I go on to teach and preach based on said interpretations) against a third party articulation of the Christian faith. Many people use their Bibles to preach sermons, but just because they used a verse or two doesn't mean they are preaching orthodoxy. In fact many of them babble nonsense and even heresy. Having agreed upon fixed standards of interpretation for certain key issues allows other churches, my own congregation and myself to judge my own beliefs and determine if I have wandered from sound teaching. I do not agree with everything in the WCF, but I have made my exceptions known and that gives people a measure with which to evaluate me and keep my teaching accountable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Confessions are not divinely appointed standards, but they are a mutual aide for us as fallible individuals that we are correctly interpreting God's word.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The necessity for these started very early in Christian history. It actually can be traced back before the NT church into creedal statements made that existed as markers between Israel and other nations and in between different sects of Jews. Some of these were as simple as a fragment of a verse from the OT, some as complicated as a law dictionary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But let's pick up some traces from the NT. Please note there are huge gaps between each of these steps, I'm not noting some mile markers along the road here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John%204:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 4:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early church had trouble with this one right away. How were they to tell who was a follower of Christ? Among the very early church (the first handful of generations after the original disciples) articulating their faith in a way that distinguished them as uniquely Christian is what we know as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rule of Faith&lt;/a&gt;. Wikipedia has the following to note on the subject. Understand that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Irenaeus&lt;/a&gt; was writing about 120 A.D. and recording what was already a widely circulated Confession of the time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Christian theology, it is a principle which evaluates religious life and theological opinions by testing them for consistency against what has been firmly believed. The original rule of faith in the Early Christian Church as Irenaeus knew it, included the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;… this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race … :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gradually, these Creeds grew in length. And for good reason. Beset with heresies as each new group and idea came along with some new and unique way to reinterpret Scripture differently than was understood by the early churches under the guidance of the Apostles, it was necessary to add statements on these issues clarifying what was orthodox belief and what was deviant. While sticking to the core details, these expressed in detail the specific things understood about the faith and the teachings of Scripture in a way that set Christians apart from people whose doctrinal systems had other allegiances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apostles' Creed,&lt;/a&gt; known to have been coined by at least 215 A.D but has several variations, of which we typically use a little later more developed one, goes something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary&lt;/strong&gt;, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again to judge the living and the dead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That covers a lot of little details about the person of Jesus, but groups still arose that claimed various teachings that subverted what Christians understood the teaching about Christ to be. The bit I bolded above from 215 A.D looks more like this in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt; from 381 A.D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...] And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could go on and on, tracing the development of longer or more specific Creeds and Confessions in response to heresies and misunderstandings. As the number of ways man invents to deviate from the teachings of the word grows so will the need to state clearly what the orthodox teaching on those issues is. However, I digress from your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Specific points of doctrine such as those you give as examples do not originate with the Confessions that most clearly express them, rather they originate with the Scriptures and are the articulations of orthodox interpretation&lt;/strong&gt; which the church in various ages felt the need to articulate when faced with influxes of teachings that did not match its own yet claimed to be Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One must be clear on this: &lt;strong&gt;Creeds and Confessions do not hold authority over Scripture&lt;/strong&gt; nor is it the confessions themselves that we teach, but rather our interpretation of God's word using the wisdom of the church that has gone before us as a measure or guide to make sure we have correctly understood it. The WCF itself clearly states this in Article 31.4&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many other written confessions include a similar note about themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I do mean &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;. Even sects such as the Bereans who insist on having no creed but the Bible, have as a commonly agreed upon statement that in order to make any doctrinal point, only the text of Scripture can be used. In effect this is their confession. Their collective interpretations also tend to have some unique flair to them do end up documented as statements of faith that set them apart from non-Bereans.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;This is not one of the points to which I take exception. &lt;code&gt;;o)&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="32981" LastEditDate="2017-01-19T11:49:21.053" LastActivityDate="2017-01-19T11:49:21.053" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9608" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-09T23:39:51.410" Score="2" ViewCount="707" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mark 10:17-31, we see Jesus talk to the rich young ruler, and tell him to sell his possessions and give it to the poor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to reformed theologians, is this required of &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; wealthy followers of Christ, or was this merely a test designed for this particular rich young ruler, to show that in his heart, he loved his wealth more than he loved God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those arguing the case of &quot;no, wealthy Christinas are not required to give all their wealth to the poor&quot; please explain how to handle verses like Mark 10:31, and 1 John 3:17.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those arguing the case of &quot;yes, wealthy Christians are required to give all their wealth to the poor&quot;, please explain how to handle the wealth of Job / Abraham, as well as why Zacchaeus, upon giving half his wealth to the poor and repaying 4 fold (did this bankrupt him?) earned the praise of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2141" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-09-10T13:50:08.177" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T00:01:57.473" Title="According to reformed theology, are _all_ wealthy Christians required to give their wealth to the poor?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;wealth&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9605" CreationDate="2012-09-10T00:54:42.487" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9607/30&quot;&gt;Caleb's answer&lt;/a&gt; is far better than this, I think you are asking something more philosophical that is hard to express.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, I think the simple answer is that the &lt;strong&gt;Bible is not written as a system of theology, which a statemt of faith summarizes.&lt;/strong&gt; It does not make precise general assertions with clearly defined logical deductions into a system of specific conclusions.  It has some of this in it, especially Romans and Hebrews but it rather more 'organic.' It is applied theology to specific times and situations, it has customized welds and twists one would never expect.  There is something sublime about the way its truth is conveyed which a systematic understanding of it falls short of.  This is why the Bible will always be the Bible and our creeds just short sided and sketchy notes in the margin. The Bible is not a well manicured garden but a wild natural and endless reposstory of divine truth that no man can search the bottom of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, some mechanical systematic  theology is obvious when reviewing the organic majesty of scripture, &lt;strong&gt;it is not obvious to those without knowledge.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, a reformer will say predestination is an obvious assertion from scripture but not even the existance of God is obvious to an athiests.  Therefore, the extraction of an understanding using systematic theology is not done because it is not obvious, but because it is seen as an obvious result of understanding by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, the scriptures were written in different languages.  &lt;strong&gt;The phrase 'lost in translation' has meaning here.&lt;/strong&gt; I often find after I feel I have truly understood an argument of scripture that I would not have said it that way, because 'I think in English'.  Not only is the bible not a set of creeds we can copy and paste into a confession for the purposes that Caleb outlined, but even if it was, it might be weird to us in the way it was written, as it is not our mother tongue. Anyone who has learned a second language knows that it makes you think differently. Its almost like yout brain shifts under a different perspective when expressing ideas in a different language.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For these reasons it has some value in clarifying our position when we summarize our theoretical test-tube conclusion, devoid of a living application (as presented in scripture) and in our own language, so we clearly identify how we understand the basics of the Bible. It also helps to organize and communicate our positions, and even protect from heresy as Caleb explained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T08:51:15.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9610" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9613" CreationDate="2012-09-10T01:28:48.160" Score="7" ViewCount="604" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some of my other questions, I have read that State and church are kept separate in Christianity. I am curious to know, is there any concept of Christian state where Biblical laws and doctrines are enforced or facilitated? Or simply Christians are never supposed to strive for a Christian state?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="14185" LastEditDate="2017-11-28T21:23:05.407" LastActivityDate="2017-11-28T21:23:05.407" Title="Is there a concept of Christian State in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-11-20T17:47:37.187" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2012-09-10T02:48:20.167" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Pilate asked Jesus about the accusations made against him, that he was calling himself the King of the Jews (and thus implicitly threatening Roman rule), Jesus told him that &quot;My kingdom is not of this world.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:36&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 18:36&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, consider one of the rhetorical traps the Pharisees laid for him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022%3a%2015-21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22: 15-21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle&#xA;  him in his talk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians,&#xA;  saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of&#xA;  God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not&#xA;  the person of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute&#xA;  unto Caesar, or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye&#xA;  hypocrites?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render&#xA;  therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the&#xA;  things that are God's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here again, he draws a clear separation between worldly government and God's spiritual authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are told that after the Second Coming, Christ will reign personally upon the earth, but it seems that until that time, we are not to be blessed with a true &quot;Christian State&quot; as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T02:48:20.167" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9612" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9657" CreationDate="2012-09-10T07:25:35.870" Score="4" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;p&gt;Note: this is NOT a personal question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's of personal interest only because I find that thinking about death separates the important from the trivial, pushes secular needs into the background, and makes it easier to focus on spiritual thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I find it easier to forgive when reading sermons like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/3116.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Preparing to Depart&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0635.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Are you prepared to Die?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I find less temptations for earthly desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the face of death, questions about startups, romance, become significantly less important than what Jesus said.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a certain sense, all Christian literature is about Christ; and one can not talk about Christ without talking about the second coming; and one can not talk about the second coming without talking about death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there's a wide spectrum going from &quot;How to use Christianity to live a better earthly life&quot; to &quot;Foxe's book of Martyrs.&quot; Thus, the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) What has past Theologians written about &quot;preparing to die?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) What theological works continuously bring death back into the picture when explaining the solemn nature of theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T05:23:57.757" Title="What have past theologians written about preparing to die?" Tags="&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2012-09-12T07:26:51.563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2012-09-10T08:44:08.283" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity does not hold a &quot;church and state must be separate&quot; view &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt;; that might be part of the US constitution, but : not universal - and to all intents and purposes it is not even correct in the US, since it is quietly acknowledged that you don't stand much chance of election if you are openly non-Christian (regardless of your &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; views). Indeed, there are still several US states that have, &lt;em&gt;as part of their state constitution&lt;/em&gt;, that you can't hold office unless you believe in God (to all intents and purposes, the Christian God). OK, that sounds like a technicality, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVBF8B4ius&quot;&gt;until people actually try to enforce it&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, let's step away from the US, and look at Europe; there are plenty of places in Europe that have an &lt;em&gt;established church&lt;/em&gt;. Which is to say: the church that is officially recognised &lt;em&gt;and has power&lt;/em&gt;. In England, the Church of England held &lt;strong&gt;massive&lt;/strong&gt; power, and it is only recently waning - but even so, the C of E has unelected bishops that have an automatic place in the highest assembly in the land. That does not sound like separation. This is mirrored in a number of other countries, where the church holds not just social influence, but genuine political power. Historically, this power was put to direct use, often to suppress and enforce the religious statutes of the time. Heresy and blasphemy have been beaten down with sticks and pyres.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point: the premise of the question is incorrect. Whether Christianity &quot;demands&quot; a separation between church and state seems largely a point of interpretation; for many, the &quot;render unto Caesar&quot; view (i.e. separation) is adopted, but conversely Christians of various ilks have worked hard to try to &lt;em&gt;bring about&lt;/em&gt; such a state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastEditorUserId="6" LastEditDate="2012-09-10T09:18:28.883" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T09:18:28.883" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2012-09-10T09:03:06.257" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are in fact different concepts that emerged in christianity during the ages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Early christians that lived under pagan emperors were taught by Saint Paul to respect civil authorities and pray for them so they come to truth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When the persecutions ended and emperors accepted christianity, there was a temptation to accept millenarist view that Rome becomes the Tousand-Year Kingdom. It was however rejected by early Councils. The emperor became protector of christianity and the idea of &quot;symphony&quot; between Altar and Throne was strongly advocated (of course this &quot;symphony&quot; went through lot of crises, as iconoclast period shows)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the West where the secular power was weaker and the pastoral power stronger, Pope managed to create a papo-caesarist model of states.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In the East again some rulers managed to subdue Church. Most notable here is Peter the Great, who destroyed the Patriarchate of Moscow. So the ceasaro-papist states were created.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Today, especially in the west the idea of Christian Democracy is very strong (this is the option present in many european parliaments), which states that christians should defent christian values by participation in democracy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all - christians always believed that a christian should have some responsibilities when ruling others. The models of this participations reflect the shape of countries they lived in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T09:03:06.257" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9608" CreationDate="2012-09-10T11:44:06.103" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very few have ever thought that to be a Christian means selling all we have and give it to the poor, for even some of the Apostles arguably had a house and did not sell it. At a minimum it is undeniable that Christians owned houses as most Churches were house churches.  This means the situation with the rich young ruler was a specific and unusual case.  It seems to me that Christ's demands of him were equal to his boasts of how righteous he was.  Not to say that this young man was a hypocrite but only miserably ignorant of his true sinfulness.  The fact that Jesus appears to have liked him, makes me think he probably became a Christian later and his sorrow was only temporary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The man boasts of being so holy, and in his mind he probably was that naive.  However Jesus was about to suffer on a cross and many who followed him would also soon have to arm themselves to suffer. Therefore if this man really wanted to perfect, that is fully take the present circumstances and throw all of his life into what he situation demanded, not only would Christ's command be actually true to meet his claimed desire, but it would also quickly show him how foolish his boast was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now regarding your other references about loving our neighbor and how insincere our love is when we hold onto our money while witnessing a brother in need.  There is no trick of interpretation that can reasonably relieve the conscience from this.  However I think this touches on the overall teaching about money and the Christian, which I will quickly share my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our life is not perfect, we do not pray as we ought, we do not give as we ought, we are not humble as we ought. If we want to be perfect, or at least grow more and more perfect, we will give more, pray more, be more humble, patient, kind, long suffering, etc.  This will never end in this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, in a sense, yes, so long as we see brothers suffering and we are not willing to lift a finger than we can readily measure how much love we really have.  The ultimate virtue will still not sell all they have, for one must meet one's own needs or else we will never be able to maintain an ability to help other's.  However the general trend of giving, more and more generously is the Biblical view of sanctification in regards to our gifts, which is gradual and steady and not a chore when done by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The weird thing about this is that while the world honors the rich the Bible considering the unequitable nature of wealth in this world, and the moral duty to treat every brother as oneself (a brother always comes before a sinner in ths matter except for one's own family) the rich should consider themselves to have lower external status in the church and greater honor should be given to those who are suffering:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position. But the rich should take pride in their humiliation—since they will pass away like a wild flower. (NIV James 1:9-10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that we should hate the rich and treat them any less than the poor in jealousy of their external blessings from God, but that all should be treated equally and honor paid to any who suffer which is what in many ways were are called to in order to fill up the sufferings of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the bottom line is that yes, if you want to be perfect deny yourself and give your life to others, but be warned you will never be truly perfect in this life and even perfection might mean earning more money to support more ministries and to take care of your ownn family that may also encounter various troubles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically give to the poor and also save for a day of trial. Proverbs would be of some value here to get the balance. Also for those without wealth, there may be other things we can give that are just as difficult to part with in comforting our brother. Our time, attention, affection, service, teaching, and everything else must also be crucified at some point along the way. Especially our evil unbelief in the love and grace of God expressed in the death of Christ, if we are not willing to part with this and rejoice in the free justification of our souls before God by faith, apart from works, than even if we should give all we have to he poor our love will not be faith filled or real and we will be but a useless noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. ( NIV 1 Corinthians 13:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T00:01:57.473" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T00:01:57.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9608" CreationDate="2012-09-10T14:20:24.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to note that the Mark passage records Jesus telling one specific person to sell all his possessions and give to the poor.  Jesus did not give this command to all people in all times.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is inappropriate to take everything Jesus ever said to any person and attempt to apply it to all people for all times.  If we did that, then all of us would be under obligation to go into Jerusalem to get a donkey, throw our nets on the other side of the boat, get out of the boat and walk on water, and fill jars with water in order to get wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' direct command to the rich young ruler applied to that person.  Jesus, in His omniscience, may have understood that this man's wealth would be an insurmountable obstacle to his faith.  We don't know for sure, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generosity, as you reference in 1 John 3:17, is, however, commanded of all of those who are rich in this world and who are following Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that a man who is wealthy and continues to grow his wealth over time can actually give exceedingly more and care for more poor people than a wealthy man who gives everything he has at a single point in time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, a man with $1 million could give it all away at one moment in time and help a certain amount of people.  Another man with $1 million, earning a 10% return on his investments, could give 100% of the increase a year in perpetuity.  That's $100,000 a year.  Ten years later, he's given $1 million and can continue giving for another ten or twenty or thirty years or more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The command is not to become poor, but to be generous.  Money is not the root of all evil--only the love of money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T14:20:24.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2012-09-10T14:52:59.320" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The separation of church and state is a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8721/are-biblical-laws-suppose-to-be-part-of-government&quot;&gt;Baptist Distinctive&lt;/a&gt;&quot; but is not commonly held across the remainder of the Christian spectrum.  To wit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The state church of England is the Church of England (Anglican).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The state church of Scotland is the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most Orthodox denominations (Russian, Armenian, Ethopian) have specific integrations with the state.  In the past, the Greek, Byzantine, and Syraic did as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Historically, the role of the Roman Catholic Church in Italy, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, and many others was exceedingly close.  The story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Barbarossa's pentinence in the snow&lt;/a&gt; was symptomatic and emblematic of a very long standing trend. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, it is not at all a &quot;Christian&quot; tradition by any means to separate the government from the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T19:17:57.693" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9278" CreationDate="2012-09-10T17:44:31.550" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've already received a number of great answers, but this &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a central question of Christianity and the faith has developed &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; ways to answer it.  One answer comes from the early Christian text called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews&lt;/a&gt;.  Written sometime between 50-95 A.D. by someone who was familiar with Paul's letters, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/argument-hebrews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the book&lt;/a&gt; tackles the issue of why the God of Abraham might introduce a new covenant centered on the person of Jesus.  While the whole book is worth a read, perhaps the most direct answer to your question is found in chapter 7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but [Jesus] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.&amp;mdash;Hebrews 7:23-28 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Hebrews+7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The business about &quot;oath&quot; versus &quot;law&quot; picks up on an argument begun in the previous chapter.  But the main point here is that the levitical system was impermanent since:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;high priests were subject to death, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the priests themselves needed to be purified via daily sacrifice before they could offer sacrifice for the people.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to note that the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; century Jewish concept of resurrection was not simply &quot;going to heaven&quot;, but what N. T. Wright &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=6b0nRIKjYxMC&amp;amp;pg=PA457&amp;amp;dq=isbn:0800626796&amp;amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;amp;cad=4#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=life%20after%20death&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;calls&lt;/a&gt; 'life after &quot;life after death&quot; '.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;  What Christians believe happened to Jesus was that he was born into the world with a temporary body, he was killed, and he came back with a permanent body.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;  God, it seems, is determined to play by His own rules and therefore required His Son to suffer death in order to obtain a resurrection body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' death served double duty since it also functions as a final, effective sacrifice to replace the daily temple sacrifices.  This aspect is developed more fully in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Hebrews+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10&lt;/a&gt;.  Scholars are divided over whether Hebrews was written before or after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.  If it were written after, the author missed a further argument for the necessity of the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus: the Temple sacrifices can't occur without the Temple.  Without the sacrificial system, there's no levitical method for atonement of sins and cleansing of worshipers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus needed to be resurrected in order to obtain a permanent body so that he could be our eternal High Priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I simply cannot recommend Wright's &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=6b0nRIKjYxMC&amp;amp;dq=isbn:0800626796&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Resurrection of the Son of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; highly enough.  It's a thoroughly comprehensive study of the concept of resurrection prior to and during the first century of Christianity.  Even reading a sampling of sections is fascinating to any student of ancient history and philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Definitely not a Christian text or authoritative in any way, but I'm reminded of the fictional world of George R. R. Martin and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Drowned_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Drowned God ritual&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Priest:&lt;/strong&gt; Let  your servant be born again from the sea, as you were. Bless him with salt, bless him with stone, bless him with steel.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Response:&lt;/strong&gt; What is dead may never die.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Priest:&lt;/strong&gt; What is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The imaginary ritual resembles the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; century baptism ritual and highlights the connection to resurrection.  (It also involves literal death and resuscitation, but that's a topic for a different Stack Exchange.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T17:44:31.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9625" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9631" CreationDate="2012-09-10T18:51:28.947" Score="8" ViewCount="1350" Body="&lt;p&gt;In chapter 26 paragraph 4 of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc26.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1689 LBC&lt;/a&gt;, the authors called the pope the antichrist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was the reasoning behind labeling a single man/office as &lt;strong&gt;The&lt;/strong&gt; antichrist, when scripture itself does no such thing (and indeed says there will be more than one {&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 2:18&lt;/a&gt;})?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:22:33.107" LastActivityDate="2015-02-14T22:11:32.003" Title="Why did the authors of the London Baptist Confession of 1689 callout the pope as being the antichrist?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9626" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-09-10T19:51:19.423" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A faith statement, of confession, is a brief summation of a person's or denomination's beliefs, doctrines, and practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some famous statements include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LBC 1689&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westminster&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SBC Faith and Message&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apostles' Creed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccr.org.uk/nicene.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;other &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed#Christian_creeds&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;creeds&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;confessions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-10T19:51:19.423" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T19:51:19.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9627" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-09-10T19:51:19.423" Score="0" Body="A faith statement, creed, or confession, is a brief summation of a person's or denomination's beliefs, doctrines, and practices." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-10T19:51:19.423" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T19:51:19.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9608" CreationDate="2012-09-10T19:59:47.203" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course the answer should technically be &quot;It depends on which reformed theologian you ask&quot;, but I hate to leave people confused just because the theologians are...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context for this passage needs to include the fact that God has been trying for thousands of years to teach us that we need to be loving towards one another and God.  This man approached Jesus and asked what he needed to do.  Jesus told him to keep the commandments and love others.  The rich man said &quot;yeah, I do all of that stuff already.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now consider for a moment what this man's life looks like.  He has amassed great wealth for &lt;strong&gt;himself&lt;/strong&gt; by storing up treasures for &lt;strong&gt;himself&lt;/strong&gt; on earth.  Meanwhile, he is surrounded by starving, needy, impoverished people who are in desperate need of daily provision.  Somehow this man thinks that he is a loving person, despite the fact that he is hording the very provision that these people need to survive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Jesus cuts straight to the chase: &quot;Ok, go sell everything you have and give it to the poor and come join me&quot; He says.  And the rich man is suddenly confronted with the one thing he didn't want to hear.  You can't follow Christ unless you surrender &lt;strong&gt;everything&lt;/strong&gt; to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of Scriptures to support the idea of keeping only what you need, providing for those who are in need, not storing up treasures for yourself, etc.  We are just really good at finding creative ways around those parts of Scripture!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding Job, Abraham, etc., it is not hard to find examples of people not doing things in an ideal manner... laughing at God, criticizing Him, taking many wives, telling your wife to lie, etc. etc.   Be careful not to take &lt;em&gt;descriptive&lt;/em&gt; accounts as &lt;em&gt;prescriptive&lt;/em&gt; instructions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-09-10T19:59:47.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9625" CreationDate="2012-09-11T00:01:26.720" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An important note.&lt;/strong&gt; This topic is surely filled with material that is horribly offensive. In the text below, I am trying to &lt;em&gt;describe&lt;/em&gt; various beliefs which I do not  personally hold, and to which my denomination (regrettably, only since 1986) no longer subscribes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;One Antichrist or many?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cited passage from 1 John does indeed talk about many antichrists; it also mentions a unique &quot;&lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; antichrist&quot; who is to come. Several other Biblical passages have been interpreted in support of the existence of a single figure; see for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#Commentary_on_Daniel&quot;&gt;St Jerome's commentary on Daniel&lt;/a&gt;. Augustine (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt; 20.19&lt;/a&gt;) similarly says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As therefore there went out from the Church many heretics, whom John calls many antichrists, at that time prior to the end, and which John calls the last time, so in the end they shall go out who do not belong to Christ, but to that last Antichrist, and then he shall be revealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Robert Lerner (a historian of medieval heresies and millenarian movements) writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet, since the author of 1 John drew a distinction in this very passage between the &quot;many antichrists&quot; who existed &quot;even now&quot; and a great Antichrist who &quot;shall come&quot;, patristic authorities and medieval theologians concluded that the &quot;many antichrists&quot; were any members of the diabolically inspired human society of evil, all of whom helped to prepare the way for the true Antichrist's coming, but none of whom were to be confused with the Antichrist himself. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, before the Reformation, there was a long tradition of belief in a single future great enemy, whose coming would be anticipated by many lesser antichrists. In the passage you quote, &quot;man of sin&quot; and &quot;son of perdition&quot; are taken from 2 Thessalonians 2:3, which is another prophetic warning about someone usurping the position of Christ - typically identified with the same unique Antichrist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Popes and the Papacy&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reformation and earlier opponents of the papacy commonly associated the current Pope, the institution, or both, with capital-A Antichrist. There are a few mutually-supporting reasons, though in some cases this is mere name-calling. One view is influenced by the prophetic idea of Antichrist: he is believed to be a future occupant of the See of Peter, and the Popes until then (keeping his seat warm) could be identified with him since they were all thought to be working towards the same diabolical goal. Less eschatologically, the Popes were seen as &lt;em&gt;representative&lt;/em&gt; of an ongoing system of oppression; they could each be called Antichrist since they were its leaders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples (from &lt;em&gt;1 and 2 Thessalonians through the centuries&lt;/em&gt;, Anthony C Thiselton, Wiley 2010):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_of_Fiore&quot;&gt;Joachim of Fiore&lt;/a&gt; &quot;is the first to associate [Antichrist] with a triumphal pope.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe#Views_on_the_papacy&quot;&gt;John Wycliffe&lt;/a&gt; (of the Lollards) &quot;was still more emphatic about identifying the Antichrist with the pope or the papacy, or even with institutional church wealth and power&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Huss&quot;&gt;John Huss&lt;/a&gt; &quot;sees the Antichrist as the Pope himself as an individual man&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther&quot;&gt;Martin Luther&lt;/a&gt; &quot;insisted that the Antichrist was the Papacy&quot;. See his &lt;em&gt;Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist&lt;/em&gt;, the reply to Leo X's bull of censure &lt;em&gt;Exsurge Domine&lt;/em&gt;, in which he lashes out at those responsible for the letter, in pure invective. But his condemnation was less for the individual than for what he represented:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Luther held that every Pope was Antichrist even though personally exemplary, because Antichrist is collective: an institution, the papacy, a system which corrupts the truth of Christ. That was why Luther could repeatedly address Leo X in terms of personal respect only a week or so after blasting him as Antichrist.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin&quot;&gt;John Calvin&lt;/a&gt; also takes the institutional view, but with the Pope as representative of the corrupted universal church, therefore occupying &quot;the seat of Antichrist&quot; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. Since the 1689 Baptist confession you cite is coming from the Calvinist tradition, this may be the most relevant line of interpretation. The key passage from the &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; is 4.7.25:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul's words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity (Dan. 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man (see Calv. in 2 Thess. 2:3; Dan. 7:9). Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius&quot;&gt;Jacobus Arminius&lt;/a&gt;, citing 2 Thessalonians 2, similarly wrote (&lt;a href=&quot;http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/the-works-of-james-arminius/volume-1/public-disputations/disputation-21-on-the-roman-pontiff-and-the-principal-titles-which-are-attributed-to-him/&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disputation 21: On the Roman Pontiff&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The name of &quot;The Antichrist&quot; belongs to [the Pope] pre-eminently [...] for he is both a rival to Christ, and his adversary, when he boasts of himself as the spouse, the head, and the foundation of the church, endowed with plenitude of power; and yet he professes himself to be the vicegerent of Christ, and to perform his functions on earth, for the sake of his own private advantage, but to the manifest injury of the church of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore&lt;/em&gt;, Robert E. Lerner. &lt;em&gt;Speculum&lt;/em&gt; 60:3, 1985.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;Here I stand: A life of Martin Luther&lt;/em&gt;, Roland H. Bainton. Hendrickson Publishers 2009.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;Institutes of the Christian Religion&lt;/em&gt;, John Calvin. Translated by Henry Beveridge.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T00:01:26.720" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9632" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9634" CreationDate="2012-09-11T00:19:11.077" Score="11" ViewCount="2759" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 6 4-6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Then Jesus said to them, “People everywhere give honor to a prophet,&#xA;  except in his own town, with his own people, or in his home.” 5 &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&#xA;  was not able&lt;/strong&gt; to do any miracles there except the healing of some sick&#xA;  people by laying his hands on them. 6 He was surprised that the people&#xA;  there had no faith. Then he went to other villages in that area and&#xA;  taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like above, there are several examples where He can't heal people because of their unbelief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is a difference: He &lt;strong&gt;won't&lt;/strong&gt; vs. He &lt;strong&gt;cannot&lt;/strong&gt; - heal someone because of their unbelief and this concept is usually overlooked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anyway to determine if His power was drained or weakened by others and what does that mean for a believer today? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean my level of faith (or vice versa) is analogous to this phenomenon described above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see Jesus only recognizes and heals certain people based on their faith or to demonstrate God's will: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10192/why-does-jesus-feel-only-certain-people-that-come-into-physical-contact-with-him&quot;&gt;Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any studies, papers, speeches on this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-10-15T21:55:47.133" Title="Was Jesus' power limited relative to the belief of others?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;non-christians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9632" CreationDate="2012-09-11T01:02:46.237" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not like it's a video game and He needs &quot;faith power-ups&quot;. The idea of God being dependent on us is a a ridiculous heresy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue3.htm&quot;&gt;http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue3.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some claim that Jesus at least temporarily lost His deity. This cannot&#xA;  be true if Jesus is &quot;I AM&quot; as He claimed repeatedly in the Gospel of&#xA;  John, and if He is &quot;the same yesterday and today, and forever&quot; as&#xA;  Hebrews 13:8 asserts. If Jesus was not God at anytime and was&#xA;  therefore dependent on something or someone else to become God, then&#xA;  His &quot;deity&quot; would be contingent and not true deity. Such teachings&#xA;  must therefore be rejected as heretical. Jesus by His eternal nature&#xA;  does not and cannot cease to be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there are plenty of easily found commentaries that explain this verse.  Like this one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible found &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/mark/6-5.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he could there do no mighty work,.... Or miracle; not that Christ&#xA;  had no power in himself to work miracles, though their unbelief and&#xA;  contempt of him were very great; but it was not fit and proper that he&#xA;  should do any there, since such were their prejudices against him: it&#xA;  is an usual way of speaking with the Hebrews, when either it is not&#xA;  &quot;fit&quot; and proper that a thing should be done, or they &quot;will&quot; not do&#xA;  it, to say it cannot be done; see Genesis 19:22; and even it is said&#xA;  of God himself, &quot;So that the Lord could no longer bear, because of&#xA;  your evil doings&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or &lt;strong&gt;The Geneva Study Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he {d} could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(d) That is, he would not: for we need to have faith if we are going to receive the works of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of the commentaries seem pretty united that it doesn't denot a lack of power, but that He simply would not. It's the same basic usage in saying &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo2.htm&quot;&gt;God cannot sin&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not the He does not possess the power to do so, but that it's completely against His nature to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T01:35:49.717" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T01:35:49.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9636" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9639" CreationDate="2012-09-11T11:07:56.133" Score="9" ViewCount="1111" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a sense among many Christians that sins are somehow &quot;less bad&quot; if they were accidental. Leaving aside two salient points, namely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The entire point of grace is that sins are forgiven. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That all sins are equal in the sight of a perfect God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the question is then, how do people get to the place where they look to the intentionality of the sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there denominational confessions that differentiate? Is there a biblical basis for making intentional sin somehow worse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="2044" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T14:04:00.750" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T00:59:22.303" Title="Are intentional sins somehow &quot;worse?&quot;" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-09-12T20:49:03.320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9632" CreationDate="2012-09-11T11:36:08.017" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will try to answer this question from within Bible.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I see it from Bible, some places it is not specifically mentioned that people who were healed had proclaimed their faith in Christ. This is at Mathew: 4:23, Mathew: 12:15, 14.14, Luke: 7:18.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas some places even when there is no faith amongst the audience or the healed person, the healings have taken place. This is evident in the Verses Mathew12.9-13: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mathew: 12:9 Then Jesus left that place and entered their synagogue. 12:10 A man was there who had a withered hand. And they asked Jesus, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” so that they could accuse him. 12:11 He said to them, “Would not any one of you, if he had one sheep that fell into a pit on the Sabbath, take hold of it and lift it out? 12:12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 12:13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out and it was restored, as healthy as the other.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here in fact the audience certainly was without any faith in Him nor was the healed person expecting so. Similar instances are at Luke 14.1-6, Luke 16.19 etc,   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, from this it can be averred that Jesus' power is not limited or relative to the belief of others. He can demonstrate His love to anyone He wishes to or anyone who wishes to draw close to Him. He was and is always full of power.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then in verse 6.5, it is said that &lt;strong&gt;“Jesus was not able&lt;/strong&gt; to do any miracles there &lt;strong&gt;except the healing of some sick people&lt;/strong&gt; by laying his hands on them”.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as said in this verse He did perform healing of some sick people and those were also miracles. What the verse is saying is that He could not do many miracles except theses ones. He was not able to do any other miracles not because he was not having power to do so but because of their lack of faith and He exercised this option with His own authority not because he lacked power.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in the light of Mathew 12.9-13, this becomes clear in the following verse of Luke.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke we see at verse 23:8  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him and was hoping to see him perform some miraculous sign. 23:9 So Herod questioned him at considerable length; Jesus gave him no answer. 23:10 The chief priests and the experts in the law were there, vehemently accusing him. 23:11 Even Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him. Then, dressing him in elegant clothes, Herod sent him back to Pilate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This gives inkling as to why in some instances, Jesus restricted by His own authority, the demonstration of his healing powers. Here Herod certainly was a man without faith and yet longing to see Jesus perform miracles. For him it was just some sort of public performance of Jesus’ powers. For some instead of filling with faith, they compare it to acts akin to some form of magic or to evil spirit. And we already have this in verse at: Mathew 12:22.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mathew 12:22 Then they brought to him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute. Jesus healed him so that he could speak and see. 12:23 All the crowds were amazed and said, “Could this one be the Son of David?” 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this they said, “He does not cast out demons except by the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons!”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-09-12T04:00:21.560" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T04:00:21.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9636" CreationDate="2012-09-11T13:56:24.740" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I don't think:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That all sins are equal in the sight of a perfect God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is a biblical statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered him, &quot;You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the &lt;strong&gt;greater sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; (John 19:11, emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All sin is offensive to our holy God.  I don't think the Bible teaches all sin is equally offensive to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, this parable seems to indicate that intentionality does matter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Luke 12:47-49)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what are the implications of the believer?  Sin is like an infection, the more you partake of it, the more corruption it works on your soul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Gal 6:7-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The person who is sinning intentionally is working harder at sowing to the flesh and will therefore reap more corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2044" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T13:56:24.740" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9636" CreationDate="2012-09-11T15:55:32.610" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes accidental sins are not mortal sins because, and mortal sins have a different effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all (concerning moral sin):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: &quot;Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.&quot; - CCC 1857&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then as far as accidents are concerned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.  - CCC 1860&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a venial sin, is more-or-less a misdemeanor where a mortal sin is a felony, and in cases of accidental sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.  - CCC 1862&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... I'm not sure if you commit a venial sin when you commit an accidental &lt;em&gt;pecadillo&lt;/em&gt;, but I think this answers the question enough.  There is something about accidental sins that lessen the offense.  But, the standard Catholic notion of our pathetic lowly state before the grandeur, glory and perfection of God still applies.  Any offense is a bad offense, but not every offense takes one out of a state of grace. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. - CCC 1863&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Owing to the CCC references, this is certainly only a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic answer&lt;/a&gt;, the Catechism says it's specifically appealing to human reason and tradition here, but maybe it makes sense. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T15:55:32.610" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7304" CreationDate="2012-09-11T17:18:42.433" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different communities adopted Arabic at various times. The earliest community to start using Arabic were the Greek Orthodox of Palestine, who started translating the liturgy and theological books into Arabic in the 8th century. For a more general history of Arab Christianity, I'd consult &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0691146284&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by Sidney Griffith. For evidence of possible pre-Islamic use of Arabic as a Christian liturgical language, browse through the series &lt;em&gt;Byzantium and the Arabs&lt;/em&gt; by Irfan Shahid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2151" LastEditorUserId="33515" LastEditDate="2019-04-19T03:54:20.747" LastActivityDate="2019-04-19T03:54:20.747" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="9641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2759" CreationDate="2012-09-11T20:06:00.427" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 2002 the Church selected &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Seville&quot;&gt;St. Isidore of Seville&lt;/a&gt; to be the official patron of computer programmers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Write a simple letter laying out the reasons why a particular saint would be a good patron for a profession, industry, or hobby and find co-signatories. Then begin sending your letter to Rome. In a big institution there are lots of doors and you should knock on all of them repeatedly. As appropriate try:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pontifical Council for the Laity: www.laici.va&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pontifical Council for the Family: www.familia.va&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pontifical Council for Culture: www.cultura.va&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pontifical Council for Social Communications: www.pccs.va&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization Year of Faith: www.annusfidei.va&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pontifical Academy of Sciences: www.casinapioiv.va&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences: www.pass.va&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Congregation for the Causes of Saints: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also write to your bishop's office.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for a place to find cosignatories, you might try a place where likeminded folks are likely to be present. I work in IT and know what you mean - there aren't that many Christians running around, and few of us are Catholic. But where is the intersection? Set logic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic /\ IT = IT workers at Catholic institutions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try canvassing computer science departments, IT and IS departments, and so on at local Catholic schools, hospitals, Catholic Charities, etc. Contact them with a brief intro to gauge interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe build an online petition they can sign and submit it, with all due respect, to the possibly relevant departments. Make noise. And be patient. Nothing moves quickly in Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then, since computer scientists already have at least one patron saint, maybe we're all cool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Seville&quot;&gt;St. Isidore of Seville&lt;/a&gt;, pray for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2152" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T20:06:00.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9643" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:34:27.433" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;While only directly existing (as the specific term &quot;antichrist&quot;) in a handful of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=antichrist&amp;amp;qs_version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;texts&lt;/a&gt; in the New Testament (only in 1 &amp;amp; 2 John), the concept is prevalent throughout the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Two Senses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The many&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There will be many &quot;false christs&quot; who will rise throughout the &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/church-universal&quot;&gt;church&lt;/a&gt; age&lt;/kbd&gt; proclaiming &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/heresy&quot;&gt;heresy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;, and who will try to lead astray &quot;if possible even the &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/unconditional-election&quot;&gt;elect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&quot; {&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:24&lt;/a&gt;}&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some are mentioned in the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:12-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pergamum&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:18-29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thyatira&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The one&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Several &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/eschatology&quot;&gt;eschatalogical&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt; views of The Antichrist also exist which posit their will arise a singularly charismatic, energetic, and engaging leader (or cadre of leaders) who will lead the world to &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/satan&quot;&gt;Satan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt; in the final days before the climatic battle between &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/jesus&quot;&gt;Christ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt; and the Devil&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:34:27.433" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T21:34:27.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9644" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:34:27.433" Score="0" Body="Antichrist is a term used of prominent individuals who vaunt themselves against Christ, or who claim to be the Messiah between His first and second comings" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:34:27.433" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T21:34:27.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9645" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:37:00.800" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Numbers falls between &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/leviticus&quot;&gt;Leviticus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt; and &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/deuteronomy&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;, encapsulating some of Israel's history while in the wilderness, and an accounting of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:37:00.800" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T21:37:00.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9646" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:37:00.800" Score="0" Body="The fourth book of Moses, falling between Leviticus and Deuteronomy" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:37:00.800" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T21:37:00.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9647" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:41:01.967" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Coming after &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/numbers&quot;&gt;Numbers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt; and before &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/joshua&quot;&gt;Joshua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;, Deuteronomy is the last book of &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/moses&quot;&gt;Moses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt; in which the nation of &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/israel&quot;&gt;Israel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt; is prepared to enter the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua and direction of &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tetragrammaton&quot;&gt;Jehovah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Literally meaning, &quot;second law giving&quot;, much of the book comprises review of God's laws and directions to the Children of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:41:01.967" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T21:41:01.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9648" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:41:01.967" Score="0" Body="Deuteronomy is the last book of Moses, completing the history of Israel before the conquest of Canaan" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-11T21:41:01.967" LastActivityDate="2012-09-11T21:41:01.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9649" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:42:53.853" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Heresy is any teaching on a particular subject that contradicts the established doctrine according to whatever authority is considered normative in any particular tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T08:36:22.313" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T08:36:22.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9650" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:42:53.853" Score="0" Body="A heresy is a false teaching on a particular subject" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-10-09T20:47:42.757" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T20:47:42.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9651" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:43:30.233" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reformed Theology (or Calvinism) is a branch of Protestant Christianity which began with John Calvin and other reformers. It has a few emphases:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the sovereignty of God in regards to both salvation and all of life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;covenants as the means by which God interacts with humanity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an agreement on the importance of the sacraments, though there is disagreement over how exactly God uses them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-20T15:47:34.027" LastActivityDate="2014-07-20T15:47:34.027" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9652" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:43:30.233" Score="0" Body="A branch of Protestantism emphasizing the sovereignty of God and his covenants with humanity.  Also known as Calvinism." OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-28T14:10:57.880" LastActivityDate="2016-10-28T14:10:57.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9653" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-11T21:53:21.657" Score="16" ViewCount="7266" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a claim in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.judaismvschristianity.com&quot;&gt;some circles&lt;/a&gt; that Paul is a &quot;false apostle&quot;, creating a new religion from whole cloth. I fear trying to flesh out any one particular version of such a claim, but one such example is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm&quot;&gt;chapter 7 here&lt;/a&gt;. This seems like a relatively recent historical claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any scholarly discussions of the matter? I know Vermes wrote something from the Jewish perspective awhile ago, making some version of the above argument. I would be especially interested in a robust criticism of this doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2153" LastEditorUserId="6470" LastEditDate="2014-06-19T11:55:32.817" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T03:50:31.963" Title="Scholarly discussion of claims that Paul is a &quot;false apostle&quot;" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9636" CreationDate="2012-09-12T00:59:22.303" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;God's wrath&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul speaks of certain sins as incurring God's wrath:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.&#xA;—Romans 1:18,28–32 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/gods-response-to-hypocrisy-kindness-and-judgment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Piper&lt;/a&gt;, &amp;quot;In Romans 1:18–32 Paul makes his case that all pagan Gentiles are sinners and in need of the salvation God has provided in Christ.&amp;quot;  We see a most bleak picture of the depths that humanity will descend and might assume that these sins are &amp;quot;worse&amp;quot; than others.  Then Paul hits us with a rhetorical left hook:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.—Romans 2:1 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Piper &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/gods-response-to-hypocrisy-kindness-and-judgment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;comments&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the first thing to learn about God and his response to hypocrisy is that God is just, and his just judgment is coming not only on the so-called pagan people who live in sin, but also on the moral and religious people who disdain the pagan people, while doing many things that show they don't trust and love God. That list in 1:29-31 includes things like &amp;quot;greed,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;envy,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;gossip,&amp;quot; unloving,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;unmerciful.&amp;quot; Has any of us been as merciful and loving toward others as he or she ought to be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in terms of God's wrath, no, there's no difference between an intentional sin and any other sin.  That's actually good news, since God's kindness extends equally to those who are redeemed from &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; sins, like murder, as it does to any other offense against God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Human consiquences&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But some sins &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; worse than others in terms of their effects on people.  Paul hints at that in Romans 1:32, &amp;quot;they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.&amp;quot;  Intuitively, we know that intentional sin is worse because it shows a decided disregard for God and His law.  This seems to be the state of humanity that prompted God to destroy it with the deluge:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.—Genesis 6:5 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul, in Romans 7, labels the &amp;quot;intention of the thoughts of his heart [to do] only evil continually&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;the flesh&amp;quot;.  Despite &lt;em&gt;intending&lt;/em&gt; to do good, he finds himself in a struggle with his own intentions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. &lt;strong&gt;For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.&lt;/strong&gt;—Romans 7:21–8:8 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+7-8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether Paul is speaking of his life before or after conversion is an &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1401/68&quot;&gt;open question&lt;/a&gt;, but either way the answer to &lt;em&gt;this question&lt;/em&gt; remains.  Intentionally sinning tends to draw us away from God.  In that sense, the consequences of sin are worse than unintentional sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Jeremiah+17/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Our hearts are deceitful&lt;/a&gt;, so we have a strong urge to justify ourselves.  (&amp;quot;I didn't &lt;em&gt;mean&lt;/em&gt; to hurt her feelings and she's super sensitive anyway.  What I did wasn't &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; bad.&amp;quot;)  We must remember that in God's eyes &lt;strong&gt;sin is sin&lt;/strong&gt;.  We don't get a pass because we sinned unintentionally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there's no better way to shipwreck our faith than to continue in a life of intentional sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T00:59:22.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9655" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9656" CreationDate="2012-09-12T03:54:50.257" Score="5" ViewCount="6961" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic church at the time of Luther  had refined what they called the sacrament of penance.  It consisted in contrition (genuine remorse for one’s sins), confession (to the priest), and satisfaction (making good, on the priest’s orders, what had been done wrong). Its formal aspect consisted in the absolution given by the priest, while the effective aspect consisted in receiving the forgiveness of sins.. This was typically done in a confessional, a booth where this exchange took place.  Technically, the Priest was only mediating the forgiveness which only Christ provided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Luther have a minor alteration in his view of confession and penance, or a major one after being born again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T16:25:47.540" Title="How did Luther view 'confessing intentional sins' to a priest for forgiveness?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9655" CreationDate="2012-09-12T03:54:50.257" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Originally Luther believed that confession to a priest was a holy sacrament. After being what he called 'born again', which is often referred to as his &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8742/when-and-how-did-martin-luther-arrive-at-the-justification-by-faith/8754#8754&quot;&gt;Tower Experience&lt;/a&gt;, he began to see confession and penance differently. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early in the reformation he still maintained that it was still a sacrament, along with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, but the priests involvement was almost meaningless in his explanation, as they were there as mere mouth pieces to declare the gospel of forgiveness, which 'any child' could just as easily do considering the fact it is only reminding sinners of the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here he argues that it does not really matter who you confess to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A pope or bishop does nothing more than the lowliest priest. Indeed where there is no priest, each individual Christian—even a woman or child—does as much. For any Christian can say to you, “God forgives you your sins, in the name,” etc., and if you can accept that word with a confident faith, as though God were saying it to you, then in that same faith you are surely absolved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It follows that the keys or the authority of St. Peter is not an authority at all but a service; and the keys have not been given to St. Peter but to you and me. The keys are yours and mine. (Luther's Works Vol 35.16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet luther had many suspicions and detestations of the way many people used this practice not truthfully acting as a mere mouthpiece but to torment the consciences of those who foolishly sought the help of blind priests. . To Luther they were trying to make it a matter of works, as opposed to the free gospel which the priest should merely affirm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A number of people have been teaching us that we should, and must necessarily, be uncertain about absolution, and doubt whether we have been restored to grace and our sins forgiven—on the grounds that we do not know whether our contrition has been adequate or whether sufficient satisfaction has been made for our sins. And because this is not known, the priest cannot at once assign appropriate penance.  Be on guard against these misleading and un-Christian gossips. The priest is necessarily uncertain as to your contrition and faith, but this is not what matters. To him it is enough that you make confession and seek an absolution. He is supposed to give it to you and is obligated to do so. What will come of it, however, he should leave to God and to your faith. You should not be debating in the first place whether or not your contrition is sufficient. Rather you should be assured of this, that after all your efforts your contrition is not sufficient. This is why you must cast yourself upon the grace of God, hear his sufficiently sure word in the sacrament, accept it in free and joyful faith, and never doubt that you have come to grace—not by your own merits or contrition but by his gracious and divine mercy, which promises, offers, and grants you full and free forgiveness of sins in order that in the face of all the assaults  of sin, conscience, and the devil, you thus learn to glory and trust not in yourself or your own actions, but in the grace and mercy of your dear Father in heaven. (Luther's Works Vol 35.15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After some more thought, as some years passed, his detestations became clearer to him, not only did he no longer consider it a sacrament but fully made known his thoughts about the Papal abuse of it.  In an Exhortation of Martin Luther to All the Clergy Assembled at Augsburg for the Diet of 1530 he made his final sentiments known about the confessional, confessions and penance. As is usual in the world of Luther the practices of the church seemed to have become so horribly perverse but we do not have much history to work from other than to take his word for it as a former monk and teacher. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Concerning Confessionals&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My dear man, was not this, too, a blasphemous trade fair, invented in every respect for the sake of money? As if God had not before through the gospel given all such things freely to all the world, or as if God had forbidden these things, and they were the mighty men who could sell the commandments of God for money. The gospel must be nothing and God must be their merchandise.  (Luther's Works Vol 34.19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Concerning Confession&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I consider one of the greatest plagues on earth whereby you have confused the conscience of the whole world, caused so many souls to despair, and have weakened and quenched all men’s faith in Christ.&#xA;(Luther's Works Vol 34.19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Concerning Penance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the very worst and hell itself! If one were to forgive and remit all abominations, one can never forgive you for this one. This doctrine has filled hell and has troubled the kingdom of Christ more horribly than the Turk or the whole world could ever do. For you taught us that we should by our own works make satisfaction for sin, even against God. And that was called repenting of sin. You have nowhere given so much emphasis to contrition and confession, although you have made works of them also. Now what else does it mean to say, “You must make satisfaction for your sins,” than to say, “You must deny Christ, renounce your baptism, blaspheme the gospel, reproach God for lies, disbelieve the forgiveness of sins, tread underfoot Christ’s blood and death, dishonor the Holy Spirit, and go to heaven by your own effort with such virtues”? Alas, where are the tongues and voices which can say enough about this? (Luther's Works Vol 34.20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T03:54:50.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9612" CreationDate="2012-09-12T05:18:36.017" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not encountered specific works dedicated to the subject, but certain authors seem to permeate everything they wrote with death in mind.  &lt;strong&gt;The subject of death permeates in almost everything written by Jonathan Edwards and Martin Luther.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of all the people I have encountered &lt;strong&gt;Jonathan Edwards&lt;/strong&gt; made me think about my own death more than any other. I was in University when I first encountered his sermons on the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.  After that time I have probably had at least one wondering thought thought every day about my own death and if I am properly prepared to die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is said that Edwards lived a life prepared to die.  Here is some sample snippet that indicates Edwards typical way of arguing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be persuaded for your own safety, to look a little forward and be concerned about your welfare an age hence, and not only what you shall eat, and what you shall drink, and wherewithal you shall be clothed for that little time you are to remain here. Frequently ask yourself the question, what you intend to do if death comes and summons you out of the world, and from all your earthly good things. If you are not prepared to die, you cannot resist the summons: none are able to grapple with the king of terrors. When death comes, he will hale you from all your dear enjoyments, whether you will or no, never to set your eye on those things more. And as there will be no encountering death, so neither will there be any entreating it; he'll not be wrought upon by cries and tears; he is altogether inexorable. He'll not wait for you one minute, that you may have a little opportunity to be better fitted and prepared to go with him. &lt;a href=&quot;http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy45OjEwOjI6MDoxNS53amVvLjExMjc1NzkuMTEyNzU4OC4xMTI3NTkx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards Sermons&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luther also brings up death quite a bit.  He usually is a little more positive about then Edwards and possibly a little more mature about it, but both seem angled in the same direction.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Luther compares death to childbearing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“When a woman is in travail she has sorrow; but when she has recovered, she no longer remembers the anguish, since a child is born by her into the world” [John 16:21]. So it is that in dying we must bear this anguish and know that a large mansion and joy will follow [John 14:2]. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther sees death as a monster we must face and therefore should think about it often ensuring our faith in forgiveness is greater and when death finally comes, not to think of it any longer but to rely on our sense of forgiveness and think of nothing else, for this will be a day of trail:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Death looms so large and is terrifying because our foolish and fainthearted nature has etched its image too vividly within itself and constantly fixes its gaze on it. Moreover, the devil presses man to look closely at the gruesome mien and image of death to add to his worry, timidity, and despair. Indeed, he conjures up before man’s eyes all the kinds of sudden and terrible death ever seen, heard, or read by man. And then he also slyly suggests the wrath of God with which he [the devil] in days past now and then tormented and destroyed sinners. In that way he fills our foolish human nature with the dread of death while cultivating a love and concern for life, so that burdened with such thoughts man forgets God, flees and abhors death, and thus, in the end, is and remains disobedient to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should familiarize ourselves with death during our lifetime, inviting death into our presence when it is still at a distance and not on the move. At the time of dying, however, this is hazardous and useless, for then death looms large of its own accord. In that hour we must put the thought of death out of mind and refuse to see it, as we shall hear. The power and might of death are rooted in the fearfulness of our nature and in our untimely and undue viewing and contemplating of it. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther saw the guilty waving finger of the Devil as like the fiery vipers biting Israel in the desert.  The only cure was too look at Jesus on the cross.  This is the deepest insight into how to face death not being bothered by our sins in the final hour.  He say's you must not be captivated by sin, looking at your own many sins directly, or looking at all the sinners falling into hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You must turn your thoughts away from that and look at sin only within the picture of grace. Engrave that picture in yourself with all your power and keep it before your eyes. The picture of grace is nothing else but that of Christ on the cross. ( (Luther's Works Vol 42.104)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T05:23:57.757" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9658" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-12T05:39:29.287" Score="4" ViewCount="2100" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've stumbled upon &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;q=saint%20wolfgang%20and%20the%20devil&amp;amp;biw=1325&amp;amp;bih=664&amp;amp;um=1&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;tbm=isch&amp;amp;source=og&amp;amp;sa=N&amp;amp;tab=wi&amp;amp;ei=Sh5QUJfwKMf4sga82IBY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this picture&lt;/a&gt; and got interested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this an episode from St. Wolfgang's life? What's the book that the devil is holding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1645" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T05:39:29.287" Title="What's the story behind &quot;St. Wolfgang and the devil&quot; painting?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-09-12T07:39:43.657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9661" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-12T07:53:29.323" Score="9" ViewCount="1111" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both England and Scotland have &quot;state churches&quot;, but what exactly does that mean? How did these special relationships between a church entity and a sovereign state come about and how specifically do the two states/churches handle their relationship differently?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm particularly interested in how the Church of Scotland came into it's current position and if any part of the process was directly influenced by (either modeled after or in opposition to) the status of the Church of England at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-09-13T11:02:43.310" Title="How does the relationship of the Church of Scotland to the state differ from that of the Church of England?" Tags="&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9662" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-12T07:57:41.050" Score="7" ViewCount="91" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does it's status as a &quot;state church&quot; have any affect the beliefs or practices of the Church of Scotland? Are there any doctrinal distinctives that make it unique (particularly among Presbyterian churches) that can be traced to it's unique relationship with the state?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-09-13T11:31:48.687" Title="Does being a &quot;state church&quot; give the Church of Scotland any doctrinal distinctive?" Tags="&lt;presbyterianism&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4709" CreationDate="2012-09-12T10:48:29.523" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The jury is still out on this one.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a doctrinal perspective that is relatively new on the scene, theologians are still busy hashing out where they fall on the matter and denominations are examining how it compares to their established teachings. I know of no denominations that have officially embrassed it as their standard teaching. In fact I don't know of any yet who officially allow even partially, however there are quite a few thinkers these days that have gone this direction and many of the churches&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;While there may not be official adherence, there is certainly official rejection.&lt;/strong&gt; Several denominations* have made statements against the teachings, and several have gone so far as to require all new ordination candidates to write their own refutations as part of their examination process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opc.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OPC&lt;/a&gt; and several other Reformed / Presbyterian denominations.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T10:48:29.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9664" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9686" CreationDate="2012-09-12T11:42:20.223" Score="4" ViewCount="1389" Body="&lt;p&gt;In particular, how do reformed theologians address these questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is hypnosis Biblically warranted?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is hypnosis a form of demon possession?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is hypnosis basically a bad idea?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is the question of hypnosis orthogonal to Christianity? (i.e. is the question equivalent to &quot;How do Reformed theologians think about Scala vs Clojure?&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T16:44:15.333" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T16:44:15.333" Title="How does reformed theology view hypnosis?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;demon-possession&gt;&lt;christian-psychology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9665" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9666" CreationDate="2012-09-12T15:16:51.827" Score="5" ViewCount="303" Body="&lt;p&gt;Will we really go to heaven but it's only until the new Earth comes as described in Revelation (when we're to return to Earth)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 21:1-2 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and&#xA;  the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I&#xA;  saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from&#xA;  God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-09-12T16:15:32.593" LastActivityDate="2015-06-06T00:31:48.197" Title="We're only in heaven for a short time?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-06-09T06:55:45.877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9665" CreationDate="2012-09-12T15:46:16.340" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, you've confused the issue because you aren't familiar with the vocabulary involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &quot;new heaven and new earth&quot; referenced here &lt;em&gt;IS&lt;/em&gt; the &quot;heaven&quot; of generic terminology.&lt;/strong&gt; Pop-culture Christianity likes to think of this as some separate place where everybody is floating on clouds, but this imagery is not the picture painted by Scripture. The language of Scripture is much more tangible, but also more complicated and we don't fully understand yet how all the pieces actually fit together. There are several major views on that cover the mechanical details and timeline heaven, but none of them really matter for the point of your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Revelation is describing here is &quot;heaven&quot;. Even though it sometimes uses the terminology &quot;earth&quot;, it is a &quot;new earth&quot; and should be understood in the context of a complete salvation of creation itself, whether a new space or a complete reforging of the existing creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way this fits into different eschatologies and views of heaven differs a little, but it is generally accepted that the existing &quot;heavens and earth&quot; does not refer to some ethereal other place and this universe but rather is a single unit referring to our physical universe. This includes space (heavens) and the planet we live on. When referring to &quot;a new heavens and a new earth&quot; this is an all new creation of everything including some sort of physical place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T15:46:16.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8658" CreationDate="2012-09-12T18:05:48.327" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been in many many Kingdom Halls in my time. Many in Ireland, a fair few in the UK, and some in France, one in Switzerland, one in Athens. Also a few in the USA, though I was 12 at the time and can't recall that holiday clearly. To the best of my recollection, every single one of them had windows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T18:05:48.327" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="29" CreationDate="2012-09-12T19:03:13.397" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic between the two is over the Christological definition accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where Christ was recognized as being worshiped both 'in' two natures that exist 'inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably'. The Copts and other miaphysites believed that this definition was ambiguous and could be understood in a Nestorian manner. They preferred to speak of Christ being worshiped in one human-divine nature 'out of' two natures. Much of the difficulty here arises from the ambiguity of the term 'nature'-- is it a particular, in the manner the Nestorians used it (equivalent to hypostasis) or a universal (equivalent to 'ousia', essence)? If it is the former, then the story of the Incarnation is the story of the Word of God uniting to a particular human being named Jesus at the moment of his conception, which is in fact how Nestorius and his followers understood the incarnation. If 'nature' is a universal, however, then the Incarnation is the story of the Word of God uniting with human nature and &lt;em&gt;becoming&lt;/em&gt; Jesus. That is, in this theology, the person of Jesus is identical to the person of the Word of God who has taken on humanity, not a person who is somehow united to the Word. In any case, the Second Council of Constantinople of 553 affirms the latter narrative as the understanding of the Incarnation accepted by the Greeks as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, at this point, the differences between Coptic and Greek theology become a very subtle game of parsing technical language. However, the Copts do not officially accept any of the ecumenical councils accepted by the Greeks, from Chalcedon on. This leads to the often-overlooked theological difference of Copts speaking of one will in Christ while Greeks, following the Third Council of Council of Constantinople of 680-681, speak of two wills in Christ, human and divine in perfect harmony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2151" LastActivityDate="2012-09-12T19:03:13.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9670" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-13T02:58:35.843" Score="10" ViewCount="9597" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22%3A14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:14&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For many are called, but few are chosen. [ESV]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between “called” and “chosen” here?  Though I believe in predestination, I struggle to see how this verse deals here with irresistible grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2021-03-24T12:03:19.710" LastActivityDate="2021-03-24T12:03:19.710" Title="What is the difference between &quot;called&quot; and &quot;chosen&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;calling&gt;&lt;irresistible-grace&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9670" CreationDate="2012-09-13T03:18:00.453" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The general consensus from the commentaries I've seen on this, as well as the teachings of my Church, taking all of Matthew 22 in context is that the invitation for salvation is open to all, yet few actually choose to come to salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How this fits in with irresistible grace, or pre-destination is not clear to me. Our denomination does not believe in irresistible grace. (We hold some Calvinist views, but not all).  It's possible that the reason I'm only finding commentaries that support the idea of resistible grace is because my sources are biased, but the commentaries I've found seem to be united on this verse, with the possible exception of the Barnes' Notes on the Bible. (Second commentary quoted below).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt; (Emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many are called, etc. - This verse is wanting in one of Colbert's&#xA;  MSS., marked 33 in Griesbach. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Many are&#xA;  called by the preaching of the Gospel into the outward communion of&#xA;  the Church of Christ; &lt;strong&gt;but few, comparatively, are chosen to dwell with&#xA;  God in glory, because they do not come to the master of the feast for&#xA;  a marriage garment&lt;/strong&gt; - for that holiness without which none can see the&#xA;  Lord. This is an allusion to the Roman custom of raising their&#xA;  militia; all were mustered, but only those were chosen to serve, who&#xA;  were found proper. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Reader! examine thy&#xA;  soul, and make sure work for eternity!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many are called, but few are chosen - Our Saviour often uses this&#xA;  expression. It was probably proverbial. The Jews had been called, but&#xA;  few of them had been chosen to life. The great mass of the nation was&#xA;  wicked, and they showed by their lives that they were not chosen to&#xA;  salvation. The Gentiles also were invited to be saved, Isaiah 45:22.&#xA;  Nation after nation has been called; but few, few have yet showed that&#xA;  they were real Christians, the elect of God. It is also true that many&#xA;  who are in the church may prove to be without the wedding garment, and&#xA;  show at last that they were not the chosen of God. This remark in the&#xA;  14th verse is the inference from the &quot;whole parable,&quot; and not of the&#xA;  part about the man without the wedding garment. It does not mean,&#xA;  therefore, that the great mass in the church are simply called and not&#xA;  chosen, or are hypocrites; but the great mass in &quot;the human family,&quot;&#xA;  in the time of Christ, who had been &quot;called,&quot; had rejected the mercy&#xA;  of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22:1-14 The provision made for perishing souls in the gospel, is&#xA;  represented by a royal feast made by a king, with eastern liberality,&#xA;  on the marriage of his son. Our merciful God has not only provided&#xA;  food, but a royal feast, for the perishing souls of his rebellious&#xA;  creatures. There is enough and to spare, of every thing that can add&#xA;  to our present comfort and everlasting happiness, in the salvation of&#xA;  his Son Jesus Christ. The guests first invited were the Jews. When the&#xA;  prophets of the Old Testament prevailed not, nor John the Baptist, nor&#xA;  Christ himself, who told them the kingdom of God was at hand, the&#xA;  apostles and ministers of the gospel were sent, after Christ's&#xA;  resurrection, to tell them it was come, and to persuade them to accept&#xA;  the offer. &lt;strong&gt;The reason why sinners come not to Christ and salvation by&#xA;  him, is, not because they cannot, but because they will not.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[snip]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The FourFold Gospel&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For many are called, but few chosen. Many guests are invited, but few&#xA;  are accepted; &lt;strong&gt;because some neglect and despise the invitation,&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  andothers cast dishonor upon the one who invites, by the self-willed&#xA;  andirreverent way in which they accept his invitation. In this parable&#xA;  thefirst parties invited represent the Jews; the city of murderers&#xA;  isJerusalem; the persons called from the highways are the Gentiles;&#xA;  theentrance of the king is the coming of the Lord to final judgment;&#xA;  andthe man without the wedding-garment is anyone who will be found in&#xA;  thechurch without a suitable character. The character of Christ is&#xA;  ourwedding-garment, and all the regenerated must wear it ( John 3:5&#xA;  Ephesians 4:24 ; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 3:10 ; Revelation 19:8&#xA;  Revelation 19:9 ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-09-13T03:25:49.370" LastActivityDate="2012-09-13T03:25:49.370" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9672" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-13T06:57:06.293" Score="2" ViewCount="11947" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading 1 Samuel 2:12 et seq, one could say that Eli is treated the same way as his wicked sons, although he tried to dissuade them from doing their sins.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, are parents today responsible/accountable for the sins of their (adult, if it makes a difference) children? More than they are in common for their surrounding to tell the gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="922" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-14T22:40:05.850" LastActivityDate="2015-09-14T22:40:05.850" Title="Are parents responsible/accountable for the sins of their children?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;1-samuel&gt;&lt;parenting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-15T01:49:36.373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9673" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-13T07:54:04.253" Score="4" ViewCount="508" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 7:21-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 2:14-16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, &quot;Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,&quot; but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, &quot;You have faith, and I have works.&quot; Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, &quot;Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.&quot; And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 13:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:23-24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, is the greatest assurance of salvation following the words of Christ? In that -- the teachings of Christ are so impossibly hard to follow for the non-believer that only the true believer can follow them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-14T14:39:17.130" LastActivityDate="2012-09-15T16:55:48.890" Title="According to Reformed Theology, What is the greatest assurance of Salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:19:54.697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9672" CreationDate="2012-09-13T08:01:50.920" Score="5" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been studying the book of Revelation, and haven't looked at OT for a long time. Thus, if I mis-remembered the story of Eli, please correct me. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Answer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 31:30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But everyone shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eats the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not say &quot;die for parents of children's iniquity&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 20:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not say &quot;judged for parents or children's works&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How then does one explain Deuteronomy 5:9?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; understanding is that parents who reject God teach their children to reject God, and thus, the children, in following the parents advice, reject God and thus the sin &quot;punishes for multiple generations.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 6:6-9&#xA;  6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Parentes are commanded to raise their children to follow God. From thus, I would &lt;em&gt;personally&lt;/em&gt; extrapolate that not raising up one's children to follow God is a sin; to not discipline them when they break the commands of God is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; interpretation, the failure of Eli were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;not raising his children to follow God (though I'm not sure how to handle this since I believe in predestination)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;tolerating their evil behaviors (i.e. not removing them from power)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2012-09-13T08:01:50.920" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9661" CreationDate="2012-09-13T11:02:43.310" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church of Scotland is not a state church. It is recognised as &quot;national church&quot;, but it is independent of the state in matters spiritual. The Church of Scotland and the Church of England have very different histories - it is not a question of one trying to imitate the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scottish Reformation of 1560 took place when Scotland was still a separate state. The Reformation was recognised by the Scottish Parliament. A long struggle between Episcoplian and Presbyterian factions ensued; Presbyterianism was finally recognised in 1689-90. The Treaty of Union between Scotland and England in 1707 also guaranteed Presbyterian church government within the Church of Scotland. State intervention, however, proved problematic and was a contributing factor to the &quot;Disruption&quot; in the Church of Scotland in 1843 (over the right of appointment of ministers). To help secure the reunion of the majority of the United Free Church of Scotland and the Church of Scotland in 1929, the British Parliament recognised the &quot;Articles Declaratory&quot; of the Church of Scotland as lawful (by the Church of Scotland Act 1921). The Articles Declaratory express the Church's self-understanding as a national church, yet independent from the jurisdiction of the state in matters spiritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bishops in the Church of England are (technically) appointed by the Queen. &quot;Measures&quot; of the Church of England's General Synod are subject to Parliamentary approval. There is no such state appointment/ratification system applying to the the Church of Scotland; the General Assembly is the Supreme Court of the Church of Scotland - the Queen may observe (or send a Lord High Commissioner in her place); the &quot;throne gallery&quot; is formally regarded as being &quot;outside&quot; the Assembly Hall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2157" LastActivityDate="2012-09-13T11:02:43.310" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9662" CreationDate="2012-09-13T11:31:48.687" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding belief, the Church of Scotland is entirely independent of the state in matters spiritual (and is a &quot;national church&quot; not a state church). Regarding practices, the call to be a &quot;national church&quot; means a self-understanding not to neglect areas of the country which are less prosperous or populous. The Church of Scotland is struggling to maintain a system of parishes, with ministers serving every parish (including very rural parts of the Scottish Highlands and Islands).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church of Scotland has, at times, criticised the policies of the British or Scottish Governments. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has, for example, regularly approved &quot;deliverances&quot; calling for nuclear disarmament - contrary to British Government policy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2157" LastActivityDate="2012-09-13T11:31:48.687" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9672" CreationDate="2012-09-13T19:07:02.690" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple of important points about the story of Eli:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eli is not just a father to Hophi and Phinehas - has is also a fellow-priest, possibly their superior, and responsible for their actions more than a father would be.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no direct punishment on Eli - the punishment that is declared is that his descendants will not live to an old age. Is this actually a punishment on Eli or on his sons?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I don't want to address the general question, I believe that it is not valid to deduce that 'all parents are responsible for the sins of their children' from the story of Eli. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-09-13T19:07:02.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8385" CreationDate="2012-09-13T20:19:33.743" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me say something, Noah was the prophet, his religion was the only one accepted by God at that time so that at those times salvation was just through Noah, this was the case then for Abraham, also for Moses for the sons of Isreal, and then for Christ, PBUT. This was always the case for all prophets of God, if a prophet of God was there in public leading people to God and people were leaving him alone fighting against him you think any chance for them to survive? Certainly not. Now the problem is this, if Jesus is the last prophet then his religion is the last divine one, so salvation would certainly be trough him, but what if he is not the last one? I see Christians believe in Christ not as a prophet for him to be the last one or one before the last one, but they saw him as God himself, this is something that I just cannot understand, but to us now salvation is just through Muhammad, however, it is written in Quran that this will not be true unless we believe in all the prophets of God, not even rejecting a single one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his&#xA;  Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah,&#xA;  His angels, His books, and His messengers. &quot;We make no distinction&#xA;  (they say) between one and another of His messengers.&quot; And they say:&#xA;  &quot;We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to&#xA;  Thee is the end of all journeys.&quot; [Abdullah Yusuf Ali] (2:285)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the last part of this Ayah is what makes a Muslim a real muslim, as the word &quot;muslim&quot; means yielder to the will of God: we hear, and we obey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But about what Mike said in his answers I should have some clarifications. We just believe the same thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said doing holy things for God for the respect that man will&#xA;  provide is evil. This respect you have is what a self-righteous person&#xA;  works for, so they would be very happy to hear you speak this way.&#xA;  However, Jesus looked at it quit differently. If good works are not&#xA;  done by faith in Messiah, they are not done by faith in God. Also&#xA;  anything that is not done by faith is sin, therefore all good deeds&#xA;  done in unbelief is not good at all -- it is sin -- and the deadliest&#xA;  kind -- for it makes a person self-righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;actually, if my memory helps I saw a Hadith wherein an old letter was found and brought to the one of the 14 saints of Shia Islam, he looked at it and announced that the letter is a piece of writing from saint Peter, the succeeder of Jesus, which reads: the best person is a stealth pious, and the worse is one famous pharisee! (maybe not a good translation due to my lame English but hope that it would give you the message). But a point of bifurcation between us is that Mike said: &quot;by faith in Messiah&quot; and certainly it was true for that time but we believe not also after the last prophet came as well, unless faith in Jesus is accompanied by faith in also Muhammad, PBUT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, note that the faith is God is the one single requirement and everything beside it is just a prerequisite of that on its own. So again back to the original question, every worship dedicated only to God is respected by God as he says in Quran, the prayer be Muslim or not:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion&#xA;  that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night&#xA;  long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. (3:113)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is&#xA;  right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the&#xA;  People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are&#xA;  some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.&#xA;  (3:110)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who&#xA;  believe in Allah, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to&#xA;  them, bowing in humility to Allah: They will not sell the Signs of&#xA;  Allah for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and&#xA;  Allah is swift in account. (3:199)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many people in Shia Islams that are known to public as a holy person just after their death, so to speek not all muslims worship God in the sense of the self-righteous people, there are many who do their best to hide their position in front of God as much as possible, behaving just as others, a stranger would never even suspect he may be a holy man, however, there are also people who are discovered before their death, among them is Ayatollah Bahjat, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yasintv.com/musicvideo.php?vid=faad611a1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; is the link to a movie showing a prayer of him in a mosque, don't you feel God in his front?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Godspeed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastActivityDate="2012-09-13T20:19:33.743" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9682" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-13T22:47:38.017" Score="4" ViewCount="280" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1280/what-is-the-christian-definition-of-god&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, but that's not exactly what I want to know about christianity, I just want frank explicit answers, not on the nature of God (that I accept that &lt;em&gt;The full nature of the infinite God cannot be fully understood by the finite human intellect&lt;/em&gt;, mentioned by Patrick Szalapski &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1280/what-is-the-christian-definition-of-god&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) but on &lt;strong&gt;how to be able to distinguish between God and his creatures in practice&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;em&gt;not theory, by counting the God's attributes and explaining the lack of such attributes in his creatures&lt;/em&gt;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let clarify my question better for your answers to be able to be more explicit. Those who believe in divinity of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If God can be incarnated in a human appearance, then why God has sent many prophets before the Christ, instead of himself coming to the earth guiding his creatures? So the first question is &quot;What's the reason for sending prophets?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If God can be incarnated in a human appearance, why can't he be incarnated in animals' appearances, the plants' appearances, the stones' appearances? Is there any constraint to answer why he has come to his created earth only once before and in the appearance of one person, Jesus? If not, i.e. there is no such constraint, can you assure he is not right now somewhere in the form of a human being, an animal, an insect, a fish, a plant, a piece of rock or a star or else in his created universe? If there is a constraint please note it explicitly and if not please mention how you can get sure who/what is creature and who/what is God? (&lt;em&gt;Certainly you should have a criterion for that which turns to be an implicit definition of God, without requiring to touch the quality of his infinite existence!&lt;/em&gt;) Then conclude what's the difference between an idolator and a Christian, both may pray a God in the shape of stones and stars and etc.? And last, is it possible that Pharaohs of the times of Moses and Abraham, who also used to claim to be God, actually have been God? If not they're guilty merely because they introduce themselves as another guy, being simple liers?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How God --creator of the senses-- may himself experience the feeling of e.g. pain, being teased on a cross and eventually die due to pain excess or lack of blood in his body? Is he able to live a life in a world made by himself? Requiring oxygen to breath, food to eat, sleeping, taking bath to get cleaned, going to WC and etc isn't considered as any weakness for a God who is to be perfect? I guess you probably say that wouldn't be a weakness for God the father anyway, but then if two existences are such different that one is perfect and the other is full of need how would you then express them one thing? Maybe you consider them as two aspects of one thing, then the question changes to asserts that the whole concept in general will then no longer be perfect, don't you think so? (&lt;em&gt;A concept being perfect in one aspect and needfull in another aspect is not perfect as a whole, a total perfect should be perfect in all respects, shouldn't it?&lt;/em&gt;) If no, why?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was Jesus PBUH worshipping and fasting any? If yes who was he praying if he was God?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through the few past days that I was studying Christian beliefs these are the most questionable parts to me. I asked a similar question alongside my answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8851/christianity-judaism-and-islam-worship-the-same-god&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, however decided to ask this one to get a clear explicit answer to my misgivings, anyway the Christians can defend themselves better than others defending them not knowing their beliefs as good as themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2155" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-09-16T13:09:37.097" Title="Definition of God in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-09-14T11:25:38.077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9664" CreationDate="2012-09-14T02:44:25.010" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The answer ranges from a bad idea to truly demonic, depending on what form of altered state of consciousness is implied.&lt;/strong&gt; This question is interesting and one might not make the connection between hypnosis and faith healing movements but it does have some overlap into certain fringe movements within Christianity, such as the faith healers like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformedreflections.ca/studies/three-faith-heal.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Oral Roberts, T.L. Osborn and William Branham&lt;/a&gt;. My Uncle actually leads the Branham-ites and the research (even though secular) that I dug up, actually helped me to understand better the occult and quackery side of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. James Braid, the Scottish surgeon coined the word &amp;quot;hypnotism,&amp;quot; after witnessed demonstrations by a French mesmerist in 1841. Therefore, the modern term is too recent to gather good references from reformed heavy hitters.  Yet this need not discourage us, the reformed position can easily be extracted by simply breaking up hypnotism into its historical components and comparing its methods to reformed doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history of hypnosis finds its roots in earlier theories developed by Mesmer.  He in turn finds his roots in ancient medical philosophy like traditional Chinese medicine and even shamanism. The idea had to do with a belief in animal magnetism and ways of manipulating it to heal people. One had to be brought into a 'state' to experience the 'strange' effects of the magnetism of the planets linked to our bodies, like the ying and yang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The subject approaches the circumference of reformed theology in terms of Christian 'religious experience'.&lt;/strong&gt; For example being slain in the Spirit could be basically considered the same state. ( I say may, because I do not discount the possibility of feinting when overcome by a conviction of sin, r wonderful view of God's grace, if a person is feeling a little weak or in a room without a lot of oxygen. )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In some sectors of Christianity there is an overlap between states of consciousness and religious experience, especially among the cults and extreme faith healers that used similar techniques of mesmerists and hypnotizers to bring about a 'frenzied experience' in the hopes of curing psychosomatic illnesses.&lt;/strong&gt; Worse, when brining in a layer of anti Christian doctrine, in addition to the sleep induced manipulations, or spiritsm, it veers into the occult which aggressively crosses the boundary line of Christian ethics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To work from a reformed position of the 'ecstatic' or the state of being in a prophetic 'trance' which historical mesmerists would have discounted but explained as religious phenomena that verified their theories, reformed views establish a position that is 'directly opposed' the techniques used in mesmerism that eventually led to hypnosis. We can see this in how John Owen explains the experience of the Holy spirit to be an 'orderly, voluntary creative work' that does not play 'tricks with our minds', or otherwise 'manipulate us' towards a uncontrolled 'ecstasies' or state of consciousness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration does not consist in enthusiastical raptures, ecstasies, voices, or any thing of the like kind.  Such things may have been pretended to by some weak and deluded persons: but the countenancing of such imaginations, or teaching men to expect them, or esteeming them as conversion to God, while holiness was neglected, is a calumny and false accusation, as our writings and preachings fully testify.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Therefore as to this negative principle we observe that the Holy Spirit usually exerts his power in the use of means, and that he works on men agreeably to their natures.  He does not come upon them with involuntary raptures, using their mental powers as the evil spirit wrests the bodies of possessed persons.  His whole work is rationally to be accounted for, by those who believe the Scriptures and have received the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Indeed, the efficiency of the Spirit in quickening our souls (which the ancients always termed his ‘inspiration of grace’) is no otherwise to be comprehended than any other act of creating power, for as we hear the wind, but know not from where it came or where it goes, so is everyone that is born of the Spirit (John 3:8).  But this is certain, that he works nothing but what is determined and declared in the written word, and that he puts no force on the faculties of our souls, but works in them and by them suitably to their nature.”   &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=qdoOAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA83&amp;amp;lpg=PA83&amp;amp;dq=He%20does%20not%20come%20upon%20them%20with%20involuntary%20raptures&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=3G903zi7sD&amp;amp;sig=oga7rvenaGydS0DjVUhFTF9eCJU&amp;amp;hl=en#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=He%20does%20not%20come%20upon%20them%20with%20involuntary%20raptures&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, By John Owen)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This opposes most of the history of hypnotism including mesmerism and most of the popular forms of hypnotism used in entertainment.  To elaborate a little, interesting and concise details of the history of Mesmerism and early science of hypnosis can be found here at this thesis paper on Mesmerism. (Secular source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bbrilliant.com/mesmerism/MesmerismThesis.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;B. Brilliant&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example regarding rituals common to Mesmerism and early hypnosis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hypnotism and mesmerism share a certain dependence on ritual as a means of concentrating the attention of the subject and impressing upon him that something important and effective is taking place. Hypnotic induction procedures may make use of candles, pendulums, crystal balls, and other objects of focus; hand passes in front of the subject's eyes are often employed; and the verbal portion of the method usually involves leading the subject on a series of steps into deeper relaxation and concentration through directed imagination. For example, the subject may be asked to picture a carpeted stairway that he will descend into a warm, comfortable room, or to imagine himself/herself walking off into a flowery meadow. The subject is led to believe that she/he is, in effect, going somewhere else, into a special state where the rules of everyday life may not apply, so that extraordinary things may happen--even something as extraordinary as giving up smoking. (Secular source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bbrilliant.com/mesmerism/MesmerismThesis.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;B. Brilliant&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First hand subjects of Mesmer indicate how powerful unstable people are when getting together with high expectation and who open themselves to an ‘experience’:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some patients remain calm and experience nothing; others cough, spit, feel slight pain, a local or general heat, and fall into sweats; others are agitated and tormented by convulsions. These convulsions are remarkable for their number, duration, and force, and have been known to persist for more than three hours. They are characterized by involuntary jerking movements in all the limbs, and the whole body, by contraction of the throat, by twitchings of the hypochondriac and epigastria regions, by dimness of vision and rolling of the eyes, by piercing cries, tears, hiccough, and immoderate laughter. They are preceded or followed by a state of languor or dreaminess, by a species of depression, and even by stupor. (Secular source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bbrilliant.com/mesmerism/MesmerismThesis.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;B. Brilliant&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This covers the subject from a charlatan and quackery standpoint&lt;/strong&gt;, and in deed this is the origin of the science, however their also is the demonic element. Extreme religious groups do more or less the same thing as a ‘road show’ entertainment kind of false healing program and when this is accompanied by teachings that run in direct opposition to the gospel, reformed theology can’t be view this as a demonically enhanced version of simple quackery, although both may be primary interested in making money under the abuse of their clients.  For example Mesmersim has lead to Swedenborgianism which is a Christian sect that denies almost every traditional Christian belief as well as supports abelief of out of body experiences with spirits, etc.  Also in the article I have linked to we see the background of ‘Christian Science’:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, vehemently denounced mesmerism and hypnotism, in the apparent belief that they are totally grounded in the physical realm and unrelated to Spirit or God. But since she studied under the mesmerist Quimby, she must have been aware that her doctrine of the mind's influence on health could almost have come directly from Mesmer's writings. It seems that she was, then, simply maligning a rival in the field of healing. (Secular source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bbrilliant.com/mesmerism/MesmerismThesis.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;B. Brilliant&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The occultist history of the science&lt;/strong&gt; is also conveniently found in the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The roots of hypnosis are lost in the abyss of the ages. But the human race has always known and explored altered states of consciousness. The peoples of the ancient world knew many of the keys that open the gates to a different reality, such as fasting, meditation, sleep deprivation--and even dance, as we see in the ecstatic states achieved by the whirling dervishes of Turkey; Haitian and African voodoo dancers; and American Indians in their dance ceremonies. Yogis, fakirs, Persian magi, and Christian mystics such as St. Anthony of Padua and St. Theresa of Avila have all made use of trance states.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These mental transformations could also be chemically induced. The legendary Pythia, priestess of the Delphic Oracle in Greece, inhaled sulfurous fumes from a cleft in the rock within the temple, then spoke her strange prophecies. African witch doctors and other sbamen also prepare themselves by taking a substance appropriate for the ceremony they are to perform. (Secular source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bbrilliant.com/mesmerism/MesmerismThesis.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;B. Brilliant&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is an element of hypnotism that would be more medical and a kind of simple self-induced sleep with simple attempts at the ‘power of suggestion’.  This does not have the same abusive, or occultist implications.  In this sense a man could even whisper to his wife in her sleep, ‘You do not want to buy purses and shoes’ and see if it has any effect without necessarily sinning. The only thing I would say is that considering the dark history of the subject, often overlapping with occult practices and being pioneered by people strongly opposed to reformed views, a reformed position would remain suspicious to say the least. More than that since, the heart of man is perceived as being 'desperately wicked' and 'deceitful above all things' the idea of subjecting your own thoughts, conscious or sleep induced, to another sinner, where principles and guard of aware discipline against all temptation is willingly surrendered, seems to oppose the concepts of sanctification through the study of God's word.  In other words, prayer and discipline are reformed methods for quitting smoking and hypnosis is just various shades of gray, or even black, which can't be as effective or as reasonably reliable. &lt;strong&gt;However, as Medical hypnosis does not have these darker undertones, so it would be slotted more along the lines of a bad idea, rather than the demonic.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-15T11:32:00.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9687" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9688" CreationDate="2012-09-14T07:03:16.007" Score="15" ViewCount="703" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been re-watching Jesus Christ Superstar recently and a thought sprang into my mind: did the real Jesus ever sing? I mean, are there any records to that effect in the Scriptures or elsewhere, perhaps, in apocryphal texts, Coptic texts, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T21:43:01.940" LastActivityDate="2015-08-02T21:43:01.940" Title="Did Jesus ever sing?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;music&gt;&lt;jesus-christ-superstar&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9687" CreationDate="2012-09-14T08:17:44.620" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:30&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 14:26&lt;/a&gt; both state:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When &lt;strong&gt;they had sung a hymn&lt;/strong&gt;, they went out to the Mount of Olives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;They&quot;&lt;/em&gt; here refers to Jesus and His disciples. It occurred immediately after The Last Supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T08:17:44.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9459" CreationDate="2012-09-14T08:22:58.730" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In addition&lt;/em&gt; to the great answers here, I would like to answer the &lt;em&gt;&quot;being God&quot;&lt;/em&gt; bit. When John wrote his gospel (a long time after Jesus' death and resurrection), he wrote these famous words (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 1:1&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and &lt;strong&gt;the Word was God&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T08:22:58.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9682" CreationDate="2012-09-14T10:25:23.793" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One classical definition widely accepted among Christians : God is a pure spirit, infinitely perfect, creator and ruler of all things and beeings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1)There are a lot of explanations, please focus on one or some theologies. One would have to start from the original sin. One explanation is that the world had to be somehow prepared. And God doesn't send prophets the same way he sends the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) In the Book of Exodus, God appears in a cloud or in a fire, so why couldn't he take another form ? One could say that God is everywhere, but &lt;em&gt;more particularly&lt;/em&gt; in some places of objects (example : a tabernacle). This is not a consensus among christians. If you believe that God is perfect and infinite, you assume taking an imperfect human form doesn't limit his perfection (see my answer to your third point). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, God doesn't stop beeing God by &quot;sending his incarnation on earth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharaohs didn't claim to be God, but rather one particular deity among other, which God wouldn't say (For a variety of reasons, it is assumed that God doesn't lie). Before calling them liers, we should focus on what they exactly meant by &quot;gods&quot;, because it was very clear that they were dying just like other humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question of idols is another complicated point. What is &quot;worshipping&quot; ? Christians worship God as a spirit (or at least spirit-like) beeing, so even if God was in a stone they wouldn't worship the stone, but God, the same way worshipping Jesus doesn't mean worshipping his little finger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) First I want to point out the difficulty of defining perfection. I can't because I'm imperfect. If you consider the bodily needs of Jesus, they are no needs for God. Jesus beeing hungry doesn't make God want to eat something. On the other hand, not beeing able to fully feel hunger or experience death can be considered an imperfection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a variety of more or less complicated answers to your point focusing on Jesus: For example, the human and  God in Jesus are separated in essence in Jesus, or Jesus is 50% divine, 50% human. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian point of view is the hypostatic union: Jesus is fully God and fully Human, and (Ratzinger recently wrote about it, I'm trying to express it in English) Jesus is divinely perfect in his following of the will of God (if it wasn't the case there would be no point in a christian &lt;em&gt;religion&lt;/em&gt; or worship), and the rest is bit more complicated to analyse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) There are occurences of Jesus praying, fasting, and beeing tempted by the devil in the Gospels. The rest of your question is rather sensitive and I can't objectively answer it here because it would be very long. I recommend you read the New Testament and be careful about the Transfiguration, and expressions like &quot;Son of Man&quot; and &quot;Son of God&quot; and their meanings or interpretations. Jesus taught his disciples to pray as himself did, addressing to God as Abba, &quot;Father&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2161" LastEditorUserId="2161" LastEditDate="2012-09-16T13:09:37.097" LastActivityDate="2012-09-16T13:09:37.097" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9692" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9695" CreationDate="2012-09-14T11:22:51.390" Score="3" ViewCount="1639" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible and Jesus clearly speak of giving money to the church and in turn fellow Christians should give up all they have and look out for one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is why does this not happen now a day. I know many in my Church who tithes a lot (I do it myself) but it saddens me that my same Church would probably not give me a grant of money If I suddenly lost my Job or something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why has this has happened? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the days of Paul, Jesus and Timothy to now the church now (was outside of the world) and now it appears (the world is in the church).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2162" LastEditorUserId="1481" LastEditDate="2012-09-29T01:02:13.287" LastActivityDate="2014-09-04T15:05:06.213" Title="Church Giving to the Poor" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;money&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9468" CreationDate="2012-09-14T11:28:40.350" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on how close you follow Scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enoch is said to have became 'Metatron' which is a type of Archangel?  So I guess depending on weather your believe the Bible is the only valid book or weather you know these choices were made by men and thus subject to mistakes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude quotes directly from the Book of Enoch so I am going to assume even if this book is not divinely inspired as others are this book should carry some weight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I should not quote Wiki put anyway:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Metatron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2162" LastEditorUserId="2162" LastEditDate="2012-09-14T14:09:33.547" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T14:09:33.547" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7642" CreationDate="2012-09-14T13:43:54.653" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was&#xA;  God (John 1:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Word was eternally with God and was eternally God himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Word became flesh.(John 1:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Word who was eternally God 'became flesh&quot;. St. Paul also agrees, &quot;He (&lt;code&gt;ephaneroo&lt;/code&gt;) became visible in flesh&quot; (1 Timothy 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eternal Word was born of God in eternity (LXX Psalm 110:3; Psalm 45:1) and in the right time God sent forth his Son, was born of a woman, born under the Law. (Galatians 4:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son was born twice to save us and we also need to be born twice to&#xA;  be saved. (John 3:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2163" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2016-03-24T12:46:39.827" LastActivityDate="2016-03-24T12:46:39.827" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9692" CreationDate="2012-09-14T14:02:26.617" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a fallacy in your argument.  You said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bible and Jesus clearly speak of giving money to the church and in turn fellow Christians should give up all they have and look out for one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are conflating two bits of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler (here from Mark)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 4, the early church was clearly looking out for each other&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conflation being made here is that Jesus told the church to live as one.  This communal form of living together arose from a belief that Jesus would return immediately.  (Indeed, as a side point, 2 Thessalonians is written to just such a community)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The possessions that are to be &quot;sold and given to the poor&quot; are given to just that - the poor.  Losing your job may or may not qualify you for that. Indeed, as a pastor, I have specifically hired people in the church who had temporarily lost jobs, and yes, I usually pushed the benevolent fund to church members first, but the point is - it is the poor, not the community that the intended beneficiary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T14:02:26.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9696" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9700" CreationDate="2012-09-14T14:03:30.467" Score="6" ViewCount="4985" Body="&lt;p&gt;A prominent theological understanding in Christianity is that God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, is co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit.  About 2,000 years ago, He entered into creation through a virgin birth and was given the name &quot;Jesus&quot; (&quot;Yeshua&quot; in Hebrew).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why did God the Son choose this particular name as His own at His birth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-07-23T06:03:15.340" LastActivityDate="2017-07-23T06:03:15.340" Title="What is the significance of the name &quot;Jesus&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9692" CreationDate="2012-09-14T14:36:51.580" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is largely going to vary on a per-local-church basis, but in addition to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1039/affable-geek&quot;&gt;Affable Geek&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9695/69&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt;, some churches have chosen as a &lt;em&gt;body&lt;/em&gt; to focus their efforts in a specific area (perhaps a verbal/written commitment to a particular missionary or translation work or homeless shelter etc) - and it would be a violation of their word to renege on those obligations without good cause (eg, having lost the funding themselves).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T14:36:51.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9698" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9699" CreationDate="2012-09-14T15:10:50.480" Score="4" ViewCount="959" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a simple historical Q &amp;amp; A question regarding the rumor that Luther made this fairly inflammatory accusation.  The question is simple. Is there any solid proof that Luther really thought this and made this incredible accusation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it true that Luther claimed Popes and priests commonly practiced sodomy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T15:10:50.480" Title="Is it true that Luther claimed Popes and priests commonly practiced sodomy?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9698" CreationDate="2012-09-14T15:10:50.480" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, surprisingly,  Luther did think this and did make this accusation.  Luther made John the Baptist's accusation against Herod's adultery seem trivial compared to the corruption of the Roman clergy. Clearly he accused the Roman clergy of practicing sodomy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not lying to you. Whoever has been in Rome knows that conditions are unfortunately worse there than anyone can say or believe. When the last Lateran council was to be concluded in Rome under Pope Leo, among other articles it was decreed that one must believe the soul to be immortal. From this one may gather that they make eternal life an object of sheer mockery and contempt. In this way they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life, but that they now wish to proclaim this by means of a bull. &lt;strong&gt;More remarkable yet, in the same bull they decided that a cardinal should not keep as many boys in the future. However, Pope Leo commanded that this be deleted; otherwise it would have been spread throughout the whole world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy.&lt;/strong&gt; I do not wish to mention the pope, but since the knaves will not repent, but condemn the gospel, blaspheme and revile God’s word, and excuse their vices, they, in turn, will have to take a whiff of their own terrible filth. This vice is so prevalent among them that recently a pope caused his own death by means of this sin and vice.In fact, he died on the spot. All right now, you popes, cardinals, papists, spiritual lords, keep on persecuting God’s word and defending your doctrine and your churches!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No pope, cardinal, bishop, doctor, priest, monk, or nun will condemn such an obviously disgraceful life; rather they laugh about it, excuse it, and gloss over it. They incite kings, princes, country, and people to defend such knaves with life and property, with land and people, and faithfully to protect them so that such vices might not be repented of and reformed, but rather strengthened, sanctioned, and approved. Now you are to hazard blood, body, and life just for the sake of Saddling your neck and conscience with this. I could easily mention more examples of such abominations, but it is too shameful; I fear that our German soil would have to tremble before it. But if an impudent popish ass should come along and dispute this, he will find me ready to do him battle, and it will be quite a battle!  (Luther's Works Volume 47, P38)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that he thought this practice was related to the forced abstinence that the priests and Pope had to bear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There Is Danger in Avoiding Marriage May 29, 1539&#xA;Thereupon there was conversation about the delightful institution of marriage. [Martin Luther said,] “Through the papists Satan so defiled it that in his little book on the celibacy of priests Cyprian wrote, ‘If you hear a woman speak, flee from her as if she were a hissing snake.’ That’s the way it is. When one is afraid of whores one must fall into Sodomite depravity, as almost happened to St. Jerome.   ( Luther's Works Volume 54, P357)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T15:10:50.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9696" CreationDate="2012-09-14T15:30:10.347" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yeshoua (Joshua / Jesus) means &quot;Jehovah Saves&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say, that's a pretty good description of what he came to do - he came &quot;to seek and save the lost.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-17T11:04:18.917" LastActivityDate="2012-09-17T11:04:18.917" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9692" CreationDate="2012-09-14T15:32:27.903" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I write here is too long for a comment, though admittedly not a complete answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many churches do help people financially. Mine has certainly done so, and I'm pretty sure it would do so for me if I needed it. Fortunately I have substantial savings, and insurance, and live in a country with a good welfare system, so I would expect that I would never need it. The same is true for almost all of the members of my church, and most churches I am familiar with. The few people it doesn't apply to ARE taken care of. Churches that I know of in places where there is not a good welfare system and much more widespread poverty frequently care of their impoverished members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Denominations such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Order_Mennonites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Old Order Mennonites&lt;/a&gt; make an explicit policy to practice this in a complete form. Members of those communities do not take insurance, and opt out of welfare and healthcare insurance programs, because the community will take care of any members who suffer disasters. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hutterites&lt;/a&gt; go a step further and practice communal living and sharing of property.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-09-14T15:32:27.903" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9696" CreationDate="2012-09-15T08:17:14.537" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The name &quot;Jesus&quot; has an explicit meaning defined in the New Testament itself, as we see here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mathew 1:21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elsewhere, we learn that Jesus is the name by which there is salvation for humanity. We find it innumerable times in Bible, specifically in Acts and Epistles, where apostles used the phrase “in the name of Jesus” to perform healing and miracles.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 3:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  You killed the Originator of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this fact we are witnesses! 3:16 And on the basis of faith in Jesus’ name, his very name has made this man – whom you see and know – strong. The faith that is through Jesus has given him this complete health in the presence of you all.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The power or the uniqueness of this name is also referred to in Philippians:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 2:6-11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2:6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, 2:7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. 2:8 He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death  – even death on a cross! 2:9 As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow  – in heaven and on earth and under the earth – 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, we learn the consequences of rejecting Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:22&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-15T09:13:34.573" LastActivityDate="2012-09-15T09:13:34.573" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9696" CreationDate="2012-09-15T08:28:08.043" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As already mentioned by [Affable Geek], this verse answers the question&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 1:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name&#xA;  Jesus, &lt;strong&gt;because he will save his people from their sins&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-09-16T02:59:53.493" LastActivityDate="2012-09-16T02:59:53.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9712" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9788" CreationDate="2012-09-15T08:56:02.093" Score="2" ViewCount="499" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9696/what-is-the-significance-of-the-name-jesus&quot;&gt;What is the significance of the name &amp;quot;Jesus&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt; and previous readings about the name, the interpretation of Yeshoua means Joshua in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What brought about this differences in interpretation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2016-01-08T05:02:28.850" Title="Why was Yeshoua interpreted as Jesus in the new Testament?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9673" CreationDate="2012-09-15T11:26:08.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This response is inspired by:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-446/a-tale-of-two-sorrows&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-446/a-tale-of-two-sorrows&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us compare the cases of Judas and Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can we learn?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spiritual knowledge is not assurance of salvation. Judas likely knew more about Christ than many of the future great theologians, yet Judas fell away.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Signs is not assurance of salvation. Judas witnessed some of the greatest signs of all time, yet Judas fell away.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Discipleship + being in the right church is not assurance of salvation. Judas hung out with Christ and the 11 true disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then, what is the assurance of salvation? It's likely the love of Christ vs the love of the things that Christ can provide in this world. Peter loved Christ: John 21:15-17. Judas appeared to love what Christ could provide in this world (and thus betrayed him upon realization that the earthly kingdom would not be immediately established.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, this love is manifested as in John 14:15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2012-09-15T11:26:08.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9673" CreationDate="2012-09-15T16:55:48.890" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Ephesians 1, Paul says that in Christ, we have obtained an inheritance. He also says that the Holy Spirit has been deposited into those predestined according to God's will to honor Him in this manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:11-14 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you know that the Holy Spirit has been deposited in you, thus guaranteeing your inheritance? Paul tells us in Galatians that the Spirit bears fruit (and this same teaching is repeated all over the New Testament).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Galatians 5:22-24 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you see this fruit in your life, that is your assurance. If you do not see this fruit in your life and you beg God for it daily so that He would be glorified (knowing that all asked according to His will and in Faith will be granted), this is your assurance (you are to take up your cross daily).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have convinced yourself that you meet each of those fruits to such a degree that it would be unjust for God to punish you, then you have no assurance (Rich Young Ruler) other than what your mind as conjured up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastActivityDate="2012-09-15T16:55:48.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9696" CreationDate="2012-09-16T01:40:23.087" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to suggest another layer of meaning on Affable Geek's answer. This requires a little set up, so bear with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Exodus 20, God thunders from Mount Sinai and begins the Ten Words (or Commandments) with, &quot;I am Yahweh (Jehovah) your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.&quot; Thus introducing Himself as Yahweh, the God who saves His people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In chapter 24, Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up to meet with God on Mount Sinai, &quot;and they saw the God of Israel... And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.&quot; Other prophets, Ezekiel (ch 1) and Isaiah (ch 6) for example, also see Yahweh and live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, Jesus says expressly in John 5 that &quot;the Father who sent me has Himself borne witness about me. &lt;em&gt;His voice you have never heard, His form you have never seen&lt;/em&gt;, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about &lt;em&gt;me&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; And in chapter 14, He says, &quot;I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.” The Son takes on flesh, becomes incarnate through the virgin Mary, becomes the Son of Man so that He might reveal the Father. In taking the name &lt;em&gt;Yeshua&lt;/em&gt;, He is expressly identifying Himself as Yahweh, the God who saves His people. The Son is the one who rescues His people from Egypt and thunders from Sinai. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2170" LastActivityDate="2012-09-16T01:40:23.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8368" CreationDate="2012-09-16T04:56:29.863" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting debate! &#xA;Personally i'm of the view that Christ's resurrected body was spiritual i.e. He was no longer flesh and blood. But, he was able to appear in any form He chose hence the appearance of flesh and blood (Luke 24:39); moving through walls (Luke 24:36); and taking on another guise (Luke 24:16). &#xA;IMHO it is not unlike angelic encounters of the past (Genesis 18-19), for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2172" LastActivityDate="2012-09-16T04:56:29.863" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9724" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-16T17:26:28.110" Score="5" ViewCount="601" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the United States, you've probably seen it.  Many Christians like to put a fish on their cars to show their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the origin of this symbol?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2021-04-11T23:13:38.967" Title="Why is the fish often used as a symbol of Christ?" Tags="&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9724" CreationDate="2012-09-16T17:31:51.660" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fish or &quot;Ikthyus&quot; is Greek, is a very ancient symbol.  In addition to the obvious parallels with Jesus commissioning the disciples as &quot;fishers of men,&quot; there was another reason for using the fish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus&#xA;Christ&#xA;God('s)&#xA;Son&#xA;Savior&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is in Greek&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ίησοῦς &#xA;Χριστός, &#xA;Θεοῦ &#xA;Υἱός, &#xA;Σωτήρ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ΊΧΘΥΣ (the first letter of each word, pronounced 'Ikthyus') also means fish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-09-16T17:31:51.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9727" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9730" CreationDate="2012-09-16T19:41:21.057" Score="4" ViewCount="1776" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no evidence that Jesus had children. But is there anything in the Bible indicating that he certainly did not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for asking about the evidence of the negative: If someone says &lt;em&gt;&quot;Jesus might have children, I might have his blood in my veins&quot;&lt;/em&gt; I may answer &lt;em&gt;&quot;I don't believe that Jesus had children because...&quot;&lt;/em&gt; - is there anything in Bible supporting this attitude? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user508" LastEditorDisplayName="user508" LastEditDate="2012-09-17T20:29:41.517" LastActivityDate="2015-01-01T11:36:20.097" Title="Is there any evidence that Jesus had no children?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9727" CreationDate="2012-09-16T23:04:07.673" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proving a negative is philosophically a very difficult argument to make, and in many cases is impossible. The onus would be on an historian to make a case that he did have children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one disputes that Moses had children. There is a record in Exodus, and a tradition. That Charlemagne had children is &quot;proven&quot; in that there are records of his children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proving that George Washington, for example, had no children is difficult. Saying that he had no legitimate heirs is simply a matter of saying, there is no evidence that he did. (Though with all the Claims, &quot;George Washington slept here,&quot; doubtless some future historian is bound to say he bedded someone!). Proving that he had no children is only as valid as saying that no record of any progeny exists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Jesus, there is zero evidence of any children, and zero evidence he was even married. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the record is so ancient, some might not consider that sufficient, however. That said, there being no evidence for, the only rational answer is to fallback on &quot;you can't prove a negative.&quot; whilest completely true, it will nevertheless be unsatisfactory for those with an axe to grind. As such, I propose a more modern example of the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no evidence for George Washington having any children either, though I'm sure some mischievous person might choose to start a rumor. (don't believe me? Google 'Grover Cleveland' and ' Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha Ha Ha. )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, absent any kind of historical tradition or contemporary account (of which there is none) there is simply no way of &lt;em&gt;sustaining&lt;/em&gt; such a claim. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-16T23:32:58.870" LastActivityDate="2012-09-16T23:32:58.870" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9727" CreationDate="2012-09-17T01:08:25.567" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jesus had children then who took care of them as he wandered from one city to another? He wouldn't be there for his wife and children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was mentioned in the Bible about his father, mother, and brothers but his wife nor children were not mentioned. The people around said &quot;Your mother is here&quot; and he gave the another definition of who his mothers or brethren should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:49-50&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said,&#xA;  Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will&#xA;  of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister,&#xA;  and mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said my meat is to do the will of who sent me, and not to eat every food I see around. Jesus knew what was before him and he couldn't mix pleasure of having a wife, children, family, life activities with the task at hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 19:10-12&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a&#xA;  husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those&#xA;  to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that&#xA;  way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  *&lt;em&gt;kingdom of heaven&lt;/em&gt;*. The one who can accept this should accept it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus fits the third category of eunuchs he described and as a leading and perfect example, I believe he went in that direction so others could follow. The disciples did not ask him &quot;But you are married?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-09-17T01:14:35.450" LastActivityDate="2012-09-17T01:14:35.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9732" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9733" CreationDate="2012-09-17T02:25:39.970" Score="13" ViewCount="2724" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading Wikipedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29&quot;&gt;about exaltation&lt;/a&gt;, and found a reference to people who are physically immortal but who do not advance to heaven. Where do they live? Are they on the Earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2178" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-18T08:20:20.730" LastActivityDate="2014-12-16T21:20:49.463" Title="According to Mormonism, are there immortals on the Earth?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9732" CreationDate="2012-09-17T03:03:33.293" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you're talking about what I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; you're talking about (without seeing the citation I can't be sure)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update / preface:&lt;/strong&gt; I must clarify use of the term &quot;immortal&quot; -- in this answer, I mean it to be living beyond the natural age of life, or in other words, living for very many extended years, and not tasting of death.  Upon further research, I see that Jesus says that John, and for that matter, the three Nephites spoken of below, will be changed from mortality to immortality in the twinkling of an eye and will not &lt;em&gt;taste&lt;/em&gt; of death, though that process is, in fact, the death of their technically mortal bodies. Immortality in that sense means the state of being resurrected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are, that I know of, four immortal physical beings which have not yet advanced to &quot;heaven&quot; (more specifically, to their exaltation) according to Mormon doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's John the Beloved who is an immortal being, still walking the earth (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/7&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here in Doctrine and Covenants&lt;/a&gt; for where the Biblical uncertainty on the topic is remedied; cf. John 21:20-23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons also have record, from the Book of Mormon, of &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/28&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;three Nephites who were granted the same blessing as John&lt;/a&gt; from Christ as He visited the Americas, to walk the earth as physical immortals and minister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3 Nephi 28:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death;&#xA;  but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the&#xA;  children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to&#xA;  the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers&#xA;  of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John and the three Nephites will all receive their full exaltation after their mission is complete at return of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: the newly-linked-to article on Wikipedia in the question references others, but Enoch, for example, and his family and city were taken from the earth, and we know very little about Moses, Elijah, and Alma and their commissions.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-18T08:25:13.517" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T08:25:13.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9479" CreationDate="2012-09-17T05:17:48.377" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm frankly dumbfounded. Unless I'm reading wrongly, @Mike has asked this question, and then provided his own answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, though it hardly seems necessary since you knew your answer before asking your question, before &quot;the church in the city of Rome&quot; tried &quot;to impose a tradition on other churches&quot;, whatever that means, other churches were querying the church of Rome for guidance. Pope St. Clement (+AD 96) wrote to the church of Corinth in response to complaints from its leadership. The presbyters and bishop of Corinth had been deposed and chased out of the city and they wrote to Rome asking its bishop to validate their authority as appointees of the apostles. And this happened perhaps while St. John was still even alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is wise, when wondering how Rome started &quot;imposing traditions other churches,&quot; to remember that while Rome had armies, the church of Rome had none. How, precisely, is the Bishop of Roman supposed to have imposed anything on anyone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The appeal to Rome is always an appeal to moral authority. Even in the heyday of her power, the Church of Rome and the Papal States were by-and-large reliant on other nations' for their military protection. When patriarchs in Constantinople and bishops in North Africa ask for the support of the Pope, they are not asking for his armies - at his most militarized he had precious few - they are asking for his endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2152" LastActivityDate="2012-09-17T05:17:48.377" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9737" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9742" CreationDate="2012-09-17T07:30:29.100" Score="8" ViewCount="5927" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What could be the reason for Jesus not telling His disciples to write down whatever He was teaching them?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He knew His mission here was to bring the Kingdom of God and He knew that the teaching He was imparting to the masses was extraordinary and unparalleled in the history of the world. Recently one member of this site mentioned and it could be true, that in a day whatever He was teaching His followers, would fit into one whole New Testament.  However, we find no record anywhere of Jesus telling His followers to record all that He was teaching them. He however said that when Holy Spirit comes He would teach them everything. Was His plan already in place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-01-13T01:32:14.990" LastActivityDate="2020-01-13T01:32:14.990" Title="What could be the reason for Jesus not telling His disciples to write down whatever He was teaching them?" Tags="&lt;inspiration&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9738" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9757" CreationDate="2012-09-17T11:53:36.847" Score="3" ViewCount="11555" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I don't have a rigorous definition of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;conscious&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;unconscious&lt;/a&gt;&quot; mind, although I think most of us would agree that they exist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question: Is there any verse in the Bible that says anything about the split between conscious and unconscious mind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="2079" LastEditDate="2012-09-17T22:44:01.630" LastActivityDate="2015-06-04T22:09:26.657" Title="Does the Bible say anything about a Conscious and Unconscious Mind?" Tags="&lt;human-body&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-06-09T06:54:30.190" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1618" CreationDate="2012-09-17T13:56:54.960" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eve was made from Adam and all humanity made from Adam and Eve.  This means all came from Adam. This bilogical fact seems to support and illustrate the spiritual counsel of God's will that Adam should be a federal head representing humanity.&lt;/strong&gt;  That Adam could obatin death, or eternal life based on the covenant of works, established by the two trees in the garden made his sin of all importance. In the same way Jesus is the new Adam and a new, second final representative federal head of all the new creation giving the meaning of the term 'the Son of man'. Furthermore, as God already knew about his plan for the second Adam when making the first, Adam properly prefigured Christ's authority over the church by his authority over Eve. Eve prefigured the churches life taken out from his side, loved and dear to him and submissive to his rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (NIV Ephesians 5:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Adam was brought under a covenant of works his actions alone were to achieve life or death for all humanity, as all humanity was subjoined under that covenant in him. As it turned out his actions brought death and Eve's only brought her own being treated as somewhat irrelevant in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-18T14:29:24.403" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T14:29:24.403" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9737" CreationDate="2012-09-17T17:30:43.327" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) Don't assume&lt;/strong&gt; that Jesus neglected to instruct his disciples on this matter.  There are many things Jesus said and did that are not recorded in Scripture.  (The vast majority in fact.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:25&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John 21:25&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2)&lt;/strong&gt; God's plan was for them to hear the words of Jesus, and then later be &lt;strong&gt;reminded&lt;/strong&gt; of them by the Spirit, who would &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;inspire&lt;/a&gt; them to write.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and &lt;strong&gt;bring to your remembrance&lt;/strong&gt; all that I said to you. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John 14:26&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-09-17T17:30:43.327" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9738" CreationDate="2012-09-17T17:55:55.000" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 Peter 2:12 talks about unrighteous men who indulge the flesh. The verse describes them as &quot;&lt;strong&gt;creatures of instinct&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; and &quot;&lt;strong&gt;unreasoning animals&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems significant that they are described as being moved by &quot;instinct&quot; rather than &quot;reason&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to indicate that it is error to be led by the &quot;unconscious mind&quot; at the expense of the &quot;conscious mind&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure &quot;walking&quot; should be classified as &quot;unconscious&quot;, though; indeed, if it were, you may walk into traffic without &lt;em&gt;thinking&lt;/em&gt;, as a sleep-walker might. ;p&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-09-17T18:31:11.457" LastActivityDate="2012-09-17T18:31:11.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9738" CreationDate="2012-09-17T19:00:09.580" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verse that stands out for me here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+32:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 32:9&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read it as: &lt;em&gt;&quot;don't just go on autopilot or on habit, following the crowd. God gave you a brain, &lt;strong&gt;use it!&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-09-17T19:00:09.580" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9737" CreationDate="2012-09-17T19:28:58.817" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I offer this answer to complement &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9742/1100&quot;&gt;Jas3.1's excellent answer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is an interesting question because there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a precendent for Jesus telling one of His disciples to write things down; specifically John in the book of Revelation. He is told to the write words of Jesus to the seven churches, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 2&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;. And this command to write is repeated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why did Jesus not also say this for the message of the four Gospels? (I suspect that we &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; that He didn't because if He did the Gospels would have been completed soon after the Resurrection. However, we understand that it was &lt;em&gt;decades&lt;/em&gt; before they were all written.) Here are some possible answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jews had a strong tradition of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=Write&amp;amp;version1=NIV&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;limit=none&amp;amp;wholewordsonly=no&amp;amp;resultspp=500&amp;amp;displayas=long&amp;amp;sort=bookorder&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;writing the words of God&lt;/a&gt;. Since they &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;clearly believed Jesus was God&lt;/a&gt;, it would have been natural to write down His words, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209:38&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;as natural as worshipping Him&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;reminded them of Jesus' words&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy+3:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;inspired God's followers throughout history to write the Bible&lt;/a&gt;. Perhaps Jesus simply knew this was The Holy Spirit's role, not His. And related to that, I think it was more humble of Him. To me it would seem out of character for Jesus to say, &lt;em&gt;&quot;You guys are taking this all down, aren't you?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, if He &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; instructed them to write down the events of His earthly life, we would likely have had &lt;strong&gt;one book&lt;/strong&gt; authored soon after the Resurrection by &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the disciples. To me, having four separate but complamentary accounts makes their testimony far more believable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-09-23T17:40:58.497" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9746" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9748" CreationDate="2012-09-17T19:35:26.470" Score="0" ViewCount="709" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do remember I've read somewhere that modern Christians are no longer required to believe in Hell. Like, it's optional. I've now googled but no such info appeared again. Therefore asking knowlegeable people here - which Church document says the Hell is optional if it is really so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T22:46:15.610" Title="Does a Christian have to believe in Hell?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-10-28T13:43:53.257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9727" CreationDate="2012-09-17T19:47:58.243" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the clearest is prophecy in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053:7-9&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53:7-9&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By oppression and judgment he was taken away. &lt;strong&gt;And who can speak of his descendants?&lt;/strong&gt; For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-17T20:14:58.557" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9746" CreationDate="2012-09-17T20:33:58.877" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you consider the words of Christ as authoritative for describing Christianity, I'd say &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Ya.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (See Matt. 5:22, 29, 30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 33, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But of course, you can &lt;em&gt;call&lt;/em&gt; yourself a Christian and believe whatever you want.  There don't seem to be any &quot;Christianity police&quot; regulating what people associate with the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Of course, it is also possible to be a Christian and be ignorant of the doctrine of hell, which doesn't necessarily preclude you from being a Christian. (That actually seems to be the norm.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-09-17T20:33:58.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9727" CreationDate="2012-09-17T21:37:39.713" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would find it very hard to believe that Jesus had children. Jesus, during the time of His ministry, took special care to talk to children, and to encourage His followers and disciples to do the same. His ministry, however, would have prevented Him from caring for and being there for His own children during their late pre-teen to early teenage years. While this wouldn't be too terrible if He had no male progeny, as daughters married away quite frequently prior to or around their early teens (although she would have been extremely poor, having no dowry, and would have been extremely devalued in that culture), a male child would have suffered much stigma for having no inheritance, no land, and no home. Additionally, the Bible very clearly labels a man who doesn't provide for his family as being worse than an infidel, yet according to Jesus, He didn't even have a stone to call a pillow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, if He did have children, then He must surely have also had a wife, as having children out of wedlock was &lt;strong&gt;extremely&lt;/strong&gt; taboo in those days in the Jewish culture. Jesus lived by the Levitical law, and would have been required to marry any woman He had intercourse with, unless she refused Him. There's never any mention of a woman traveling with Jesus, so for Him to have been married he would have had to have left his wife homeless somewhere... I think that the implications there are strong that Jesus had no children. There is, however, no conclusive proof that I am aware of in either regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would dare to say that if Jesus did have children of His own it would invalidate nearly His entire ministry, as it would seem quite hypocritical the disparities between His teaching and His life if He did have children and a family for which He obviously did not provide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="105" LastActivityDate="2012-09-17T21:37:39.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9738" CreationDate="2012-09-18T02:32:11.200" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is filled with distinctions between conscious and subconscious. However a clear demarcation in the original languages is not always clear as the those precise terms were not used.  In English we often refer to our subconscious with other words and it is the same way in Biblical Hebrew and Greek&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example εβουλομην often means  'consciously purposed' as here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 Και ταυτη τη πεποιθησει &lt;strong&gt;εβουλομην&lt;/strong&gt; προς υμας ελθειν προτερον ινα δευτεραν χαριν &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because I was confident of this, I &lt;strong&gt;wanted&lt;/strong&gt; to visit you first so that you might benefit twice. (NIV 2 Corinthians 1:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the converse θελω often means 'subconscious desires' as in this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 ου γαρ ο &lt;strong&gt;θελω&lt;/strong&gt; ποιω αγαθον αλλ ο ου θελω κακον τουτο &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I do not do the good I &lt;strong&gt;want&lt;/strong&gt; to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. (NIV Romans 7:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the TDNT by Gerhard Kittel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one finds in θέλειν impulsive and unconscious desire, and in βούλεσθαι rational and conscious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However just as in English these words tend to overlap and can be substitutes for each other. Phrases like  'having a desire', 'seeking', 'wanting' or 'purposing' or 'being ready or inclined' may have to be assigned to the conscious, subconscious, both, or neither, depending on the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T02:32:11.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9758" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9761" CreationDate="2012-09-18T03:32:56.627" Score="2" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;Question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to reformed theology, is there any valid reason to desire to be saved besides it glorifies God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to reformed theology, is it valid to desire to be saved because Hell is rather unpleasant?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to reformed theology, should one pray: &quot;God, if it glorifies you to save me, save me; God, if it glorifies you to send me to hell, send me to hell.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T05:20:14.427" Title="According to reformed theology, is there any valid reason to desire to be saved besides it glorifies God?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9758" CreationDate="2012-09-18T04:35:04.327" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In one sense it is very true to say these things according to a reformed theology but as it is hypothetical is can also be misleading. In fact I have notived many modern teachers and pachers actually confuse themselves on and do not understand it in the same way as those they quote from generations past.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The truth is yes, true virtue must love the goodness of God above all else to the absorption of everything else, therefore ‘if it be thy glorious will send me to hell’ is the hypothetical end of the truth.  In this sense it is true and even said by many reformed theologians. However as God’s goodness is very much enjoined in his desire that he does not send you to hell it could be drastically misleading.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth is, faith makes our own selfish desires fix upon God, so that we believe it is more blessed to give than receive. Faith makes our pleasure or love of things turn into pleasure and love of God. God becomes our ultimate desire, enjoyment, purpose, means and ends.  To love is is to desire and enjoy.  In this sense it is also true to say, within reformed theology, a Christian is the most ‘spiritually selfish person ever’ for they go about seeking their best at every turn (seeking God) while sinners go about foolishly causing themselves harm in ever deed (turning from God).  So by faith worldly selfishness is harming one’s self and selflessness is the perfection of Christian selfishness (that is looking out for what is best for self).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why these ideas can be turned over on themselves is simply that God is good and part of the proof, if not the primary proof, is his good-will towards men in Christ’s dying love. No theologian in the reformation would separate God's glory, from his goodness for men in the love of Christ, for they amount to the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, due to original sin, a sinner can only come to God with empty and sinful motives, coming to a fountain of life who alone can put the love of God and goodness in him.  That ‘needy approach’ or being ‘poor n spirit’ remains strong and steady after conversion as well, this is why the scriptures persuade us to come with both promises and warnings, which appeal to our own selfish needs in order to help us choose what is best day to day. &lt;strong&gt;In this sense the only valid reason to come to God for salvation is a honest selfish one. To pretend that we can come to the fountain of righteousness 'with righteousness' rather then 'empty hands' is an hypothetical concept with know real basis.&lt;/strong&gt; This 'humble selfish needy begging' like morally bankrupt soul's such as we truly hace, very much pleases God and glorifies his grace especially in its blessed and happy results that it brings. Those who come to God like this are those. whose souls are satisfied drinking Christ’s blood and eating his body for nourishment and joyful salvation. There is no other way to come and feed off the death of another but in selfish need amd concern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is some truth therefore in the ‘self’ aspect of the command to 'love our neighbour as yourself'. The fact is God has made you have most power and direct control in taking care of yourself and in the same manner your must care for others. In faith love for God, others and self have no conflict but are mutually implied by each other. God's glory is just the manifestation of his love and good will radiating towards our knowledge, dependence and rejoicing in it. It will even bring us so much joy that we might even say something crazy in rare holy moments, like ‘If it be thy will do things against thy will’. Love for self and others is one stream of love for God, which is the only true holy desire, but this desire can only arise from faith in God's love for us in Christ's work on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-18T05:20:14.427" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T05:20:14.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9765" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9769" CreationDate="2012-09-18T13:14:18.253" Score="5" ViewCount="421" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Context:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was recently pondering on why it took me so long to discover reformed theology, and how my beliefs changed before/after reading reformed theology -- and as I traced my thoughts, it seems like a key point I hit was the doctrine of predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before believing in predestination, my notion of Christianity was something like: God vs Satan is fighting in some huge battle. I get to play a part. I'm important. I choose who to serve, and I can influence other humans in either direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After understanding predestination, it was something like: wow, I'm absolutely useless. There's all these angelic beings worshipping God, God really doesn't need me, and I don't have much influence over whether God or Satan wins, and I don't have much influence even other whether people ultimately get saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This realization then somehow paved the door for understanding reformed theology -- i.e. the focus of the Bible is about &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt;, rather than &lt;em&gt;humans&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, is the doctirne of predestination considered a core pillar of reformed theology? Are there any well known doctrines / documents (accepted by reformed theologists) that argue against predestination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2017-03-10T16:28:08.347" Title="According to reformed theology, does reformed theology fall apart if one removes the doctrine of predestination?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9765" CreationDate="2012-09-18T14:34:13.093" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found this summary of reformed theology very helpful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformedreader.org/t.u.l.i.p.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.reformedreader.org/t.u.l.i.p.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reformed theology emphasizes the doctrines of grace, best known by the acronym TULIP, though this does not correspond to the best possible names for the five doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;U stands for unconditional election. An emphasis on election bothers many people, but the problem they feel is not actually with election; it is with depravity. If sinners are as helpless in their depravity as the Bible says they are, unable to know and unwilling to seek God, then the only way they could possibly be saved is for God to take the initiative to change and save them. This is what election means. It is God choosing to save those who, apart from His sovereign choice and subsequent action, certainly would perish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, one of the &amp;quot;pillars&amp;quot; of reformed theology is Unconditional Election (aka predestination).  If you remove that pillar, I don't believe the theological system you have left could be fairly called &amp;quot;reformed.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more verbose introduction to reformed theology, see this series by R.C. Sproul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2044" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T14:34:13.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9770" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-18T15:33:53.673" Score="4" ViewCount="101" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which Christian Churches today teach that a Christian should not pursue a highest post in the state (like president, chancellor, prime minister, etc.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-09-18T16:06:56.303" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T21:27:08.300" Title="Which Christian Churches today teach that a Christian should not pursue a highest post in the state?" Tags="&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9770" CreationDate="2012-09-18T16:34:42.570" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Baptists and most &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist&quot;&gt;Anabaptists&lt;/a&gt; preach a strict separation of church and state. Historically, this has precluded many from any type of government involvement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mennonites and the Amish, for example, in being called out of the world, believe they should have nothing to do with elected or high office.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T16:34:42.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9772" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9778" CreationDate="2012-09-18T20:38:56.180" Score="3" ViewCount="2633" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus taught us to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:48&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;be perfect&lt;/a&gt; He also taught us to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:29-30&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;be without sin&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, He came to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+12:2&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;make us perfect&lt;/a&gt; and to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:29&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;take away our sin&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: are these two states identical? If I were perfect, I would presumably be sinless. But if I were sinless, would that in and of itself be enough to be perfect? Or would I just be &lt;em&gt;&quot;not doing some things&quot;&lt;/em&gt; but I would need to change other things in my life to meet my redemptive potential?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2017-01-18T02:40:56.160" Title="Is being &quot;sinless&quot; the same as &quot;being perfect&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2017-01-18T12:31:08.340" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9772" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:00:39.190" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can have a house that's halfway through being built.  And the work that's done so far can be flawless, with no problems anywhere, but it's still not a perfect house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, likewise, have a look at Adam and Eve.  They were created without sin, but when temptation came along, they chose to transgress God's commandments.  Jesus, on the other hand, was also without sin, but he &lt;em&gt;stayed&lt;/em&gt; that way even though he was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:15&quot;&gt;tempted in all points, as we are.&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shows the difference between sinlessness and perfection: perfection implies a state of &lt;em&gt;completeness&lt;/em&gt;, in which you no longer commit sin because you've matured beyond the point of yielding to temptation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus's atonement can take away our sins, making up for past wrongdoings in a way that we are incapable of.  But when he commands us to be perfect, that calls for effort on our parts as well, to strive to live the Gospel, to work at improving ourselves until it becomes part of our nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone has some sins that they just don't understand.  Even if they can see how it might tempt some people, the idea of choosing to do it themselves just feels &lt;em&gt;foreign&lt;/em&gt; to them.  (Meanwhile, everyone has other sins that just feel natural and normal to them.)  My understanding of perfection is that, when our faith and humility, repentance and obedience lead us to the point where &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; sin feels that foreign to us--which will most likely not be during this life--that that's the point at which the perfection that Christ commanded of us has been reached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T21:00:39.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9770" CreationDate="2012-09-18T21:06:09.743" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Canon Law, Catholic priests cannot hold public office. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 284.3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But anyone else can and should participate to the best of their ability. Although members of religious orders would be subject to their superiors who would probably have more meaningful duties for them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-18T21:27:08.300" LastActivityDate="2012-09-18T21:27:08.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9777" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-19T04:33:25.230" Score="4" ViewCount="3138" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems clear to most who have read the Bible that it portrays Christians as a minority among a wicked world empire that desires nothing less than the extinction of Christ in his church. Jesus said narrow is the road that leads to life and ‘few’ find it. (Math 7:13) Jesus warned his disciples about the world hating them (John 15:18).  Also, even within the church Christians are said to be persecuted by the legalists who are absorbed with the outward form of religion (Gal 4:28) while denying its internal power. (2 Tim 3:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering this extreme level of conflict that the poor believer finds himself facing (at least according to the biblical proposal) how can he/she avoid spinning 'conspiracy theories' and falling into ‘they are out to get me’ mentality? &lt;strong&gt;Is there any doctrine about sanctification within an Protestant framework that would enable a Christian to eliminate paranoia in a hostile world?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Five mainstream protestant theories of sanctification are conveniently found here (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue1/fiveview.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wesleyan, Reformed, Pentecostal, Keswick, Augustinian-Dispensational&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;strong&gt;Please state the view that the post, is more or less, ascribing to&lt;/strong&gt; and show how this view of sanctification would be applied to enable a Christian to manage paranoia in terms of a specific crisis and long term control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-23T02:14:26.467" LastActivityDate="2016-04-26T18:46:25.720" Title="Is there any biblical doctrine on how to avoid paranoia as a Christian under an Protestant framework? " Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;sanctification&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-04-27T07:20:28.960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9772" CreationDate="2012-09-19T05:05:48.560" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word perfect rarely means sinless in the Bible, it generally means well rounded, or mature. The idea of a sinless Christian is foreign to the Bible, except of course those in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example Paul uses the words translated into English as perfect here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. (ESV Philippians 3:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here paul uses the Greek τελειόω teleioō ; to complete, i.e. (literally) accomplish. It means 'to fulfil', 'to carry out' a required course in the sense of a received commission.  As this rare context does actually imply actual sinlessness in that he aims for heaven, Paul, as our example avoids possible confusion saying he has in no way achieved it, but aims for it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case mentioned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (ESV Matthew 5:48)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word for perfect is similar, it is τέλειος teleios.  Again it means something similar to complete, it means totality or undivided.  It does not mean sinless. From the context immediately before this verse we can understand the logic. God is unrestricted in His goodness, so according the disciples of should be 'total' in their love, even loving their enemies. The totality has to do with loving, not just some, but all.  This love would never have been presumed to be a sinless, pure love; just a total love in its well rounded and broad application without favouritism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-09-19T06:22:30.877" LastActivityDate="2012-09-19T06:22:30.877" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9777" CreationDate="2012-09-19T06:16:12.807" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;What can keep him calm? The ninth blessing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should be happy when you are persecuted for Christ's sake, not afraid. If you have faith in Christ, then you know that persecution is blessing and that God is more powerful than your persecutor. You don't feel a need to revenge or fear. So you are not in a danger of paranoia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-19T18:12:01.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9780" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-19T09:27:30.047" Score="8" ViewCount="7174" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my discussion with some Jehovah Witnesses, they claimed 1914 was the year referred to in revelation and that Satan came to earth. According to their belief, this is why from 1914 the world has never known peace: thus the world wars, famine escalated, and so on...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 12:9-12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the&#xA;  Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out&#xA;  into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to&#xA;  the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down&#xA;  unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a&#xA;  short time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there other traditions that agree with this claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 October 1957 Watchtower: “Satan the Devil failed to prove his false accusation against the chief Son of God. ... That is why, when the kingdom was born in heaven in 1914 and war broke out in heaven and the victorious King Jesus Christ hurled Satan down from heaven to our earth, a loud voice in heaven said: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!” (Rev. 12:7-10) &lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957725?q=satan+1914&amp;amp;p=par&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957725?q=satan+1914&amp;amp;p=par&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="40418" LastEditDate="2018-09-22T15:49:10.007" LastActivityDate="2021-01-19T18:00:13.807" Title="Do any other denominations agree with the Jehovah Witnesses that Satan was cast to earth in 1914?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="9781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7151" CreationDate="2012-09-19T10:52:19.740" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can only answer from the Western bias as I fail to comprehend the Eastern thought even when it is explained. &lt;strong&gt;Western thought properly includes propitiation and expiation it does not toss one out for the other or put them at competing sides.&lt;/strong&gt;  It does not exclude either. However the Eastern thought seems to be uncomfortable with the propitiation involved in the cross and does not seem to me to believe that God’s wrath was poured out on the Son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Western thought &lt;strong&gt;propitiation, which is that part of the work of Christ on the cross, that makes ‘appeasement’ to an offended God, satisfying his wrath for sin&lt;/strong&gt;. The other side of Western thought is expiation. Expiation occurs on the cross (not only to have the punishment of sin removed through propitiation) but to have sins cleansed and removed as well.  &lt;strong&gt;Cleansing and deliverance from the actual power of sin is implied by expiation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cleary both of these aspects are implied by the scriptural view as the idea started with the Passover lamb and as well as the burned 'red heifer'. Both the concept of propitiation and expiation are clearly established under the Old Testament foreshadowing types. First, God’s ‘wrath’ in killing the first-born of Egypt was avoided by the Passover Lamb. The Jews were not cleansed by putting blood on the doorposts but were avoiding a deadly destruction of anger. Second, on the other hand, the burning of the 'red heifer' and collection of ashes oustide the camp clealry implies the actual ceremonial cleansing of the sacrfificial type.  The ashes of the burnt animal were directly used for ceremonial washing buy mixing some ashes with water and sprinkling the unclean. (Ref Leviticus 19, Hebrews 19:13-14))  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can’t properly witness the ceremonial sacrifices of the Old Testament without believing both propitiation and expiation as inseparable objects, each meaningless without each other. First the worshipper or priest would lay hands on the animal to be sacrificed, symbolizing the transfer of guilt. Then the shedding of blood and total destruction of the animal would occur, symbolizing the appeasement to an offended God. Then the blood would ceremonially cleanse the worshipper. Clearly all these things support a proper view and cast grave doubts on any view that might try to limit them to only propitiation, or expiation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both propitiation and expiation are implied by each other in the removal of guilt. An angry God is no longer angry when guilt is transferred to another in propitiation.  The stain of guilt is wiped away from expiation. Both propitiation and expiation are meaningless terms unless the removal of guilt in understood in each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both propitiation and expiation are implied by each other in the removal of guilt. An angry God is no longer angry when guilt is transferred to another in propitiation.  The stain of guilt is wiped away from expiation. Both propitiation and expiation are meaningless terms unless the removal of guilt in understood in each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eastern view is that God changes when he ceases to be angry (according to the Western view) but propitiation does not imply any change in God whatsoever. He still is angry with sin but its guilt has been transferred to another. God can never change or remove his wrath. It must be extinguished on a a subject who bears the guilt of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T08:49:54.417" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T08:49:54.417" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9782" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9785" CreationDate="2012-09-19T12:58:21.907" Score="13" ViewCount="1003" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am wondering why we as Christians are not seeing those great miracles of old and as promised in Mark 11 vs 17 &amp;amp; 18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is it we are failing short or miracles were for a specific period?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-19T13:16:01.770" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T17:23:39.357" Title="Why are we not seeing miracles in our lives?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:11:40.683" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9782" CreationDate="2012-09-19T13:15:25.843" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two major views on this, with several subsets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some (including myself) believe that while miracles do still occur, the kind and frequency is different than we see at the beginning of the church era because the purpose is different; directly binding the occurrences of miracles to the creator. This is generally known as &lt;code&gt;Cessationism&lt;/code&gt;, but there are several flavors. The promises you refer to in Mark and elsewhere are understood in a the framework of the Gospel empowering the Kingdom to grow and the greater miracles  refer to the kinds of supernatural events we do continue to see regularly: the regeneration of people through the message of the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Others believe that we don't see as many miracles today because people don't have enough faith; directly relating the spiritual state of people to prevalence of miracles. In this camp (which could be called Continuationism but more often is just known as non-Cessationist or by the names of specific traditions which hold the view) the Holy Spirit is understood to have varying degrees of control over miracles, from bringing them when he will to only being able to bring them when called on in full faith.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-19T13:20:32.950" LastActivityDate="2012-09-19T13:20:32.950" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9782" CreationDate="2012-09-19T17:43:24.060" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9785/30&quot;&gt;Caleb's answer&lt;/a&gt; is useful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an interesting data point, I have a friend, now dead, who was a translator with SIL (Wycliffe) in a Papua New Guinea Villages, very close to the PNG-Irian Jaya border. This area was much more remote than many and so less influenced by western contact. She said that initially miracles of a biblical nature were relatively common amongst thje Christian community, but that it seemed that they decreased as westernisation and familiarity with external contact increased over many years. Obviously with a sample of one area and one person's observations it is not certain how (inversely) causally related  the miracles and degree of westernisation were, but worth noting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As one who is older than young I have noted over many decades that mountains seem to move when viewed from the corner of the eye and are much less likely to do so when stared at. I also find that that which was absolutely certainly miraculous at the time, is much more questionable at a later date, and increasingly so as time progresses. I am not suggesting that the details are less convincing but that as the effect on attitude and behaviour fade and memories of how real an event was that we tend to let the louder less still voices of cynicism and disbelief increasingly attack the memories. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have personally experienced a few events that seemed to incontrovertibly be miracles by any statistical evaluation - and a few survive as miracles even with long term memory, but even those would have been questioned and / or rejected at the time by those who  feel bound to necessarily reject all such events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm an engineer. I tend to informally and even formally assess apparent probabilities of events when they stick well enough out of the noise to be notable. Some few do this really well. I have experienced a number of events which matched specific requests with probabilities I'd rate in the millions to one. And other events of similar probability which were not absolutely identifiable as specific answers but which &quot;worked together for good&quot; at equally large probability ratios.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While minor by most standards the following was interesting to me: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've never liked &quot;healing&quot; stories which implied a degree of flippancy on God's part (legs being lengthened too much with prayer and needing more prayer to get it right) but even they may have their place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally experienced instantaneous healing of a 'smallish' but significant injury which in normal events would only have been painful and inhibiting while it healed but which was about to cause major problems. I was about to lead a church group on a hiking trip in steep and rugged company with a painful leg injury acquired a few days before through acting &lt;strong&gt;extremely&lt;/strong&gt; stupidly on a motorcycle. My 'fervent' prayer was very specific about why I needed healing and what events had to be covered. Nothing happened and I approached a several day event without healing - I guessed that God's answer at that stage was &quot;No!&quot;.&#xA;At the exact moment of commencement I received essentially complete healing. This lasted for about 3 days and at the exact moment that the &quot;event&quot; ended the healing instantaneously reverted and I then had to heal again in the normal manner. I received exactly what I asked for in order to allow me to meet other people's needs. Interesting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="101" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T17:23:39.357" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8904" CreationDate="2012-09-19T21:43:16.860" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not God that decides who goes to heaven or hell. The choice is man's. The Good news is that God is not interested in punishing the wicked forever as evident in these verses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 33:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in&#xA;  the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and&#xA;  live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house&#xA;  of Israel?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that&#xA;  whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.&#xA;  17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world,&#xA;  but that the world through Him might be saved&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverb 28:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and&#xA;  forsaketh them shall have mercy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore God made a way available to all people to escape his judgment by giving Jesus up as ransom for our sins and a light out of darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Titus 2:11-13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,&#xA;  training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live&#xA;  sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, awaiting our blessed&#xA;  hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus&#xA;  Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not and will not have pleasure putting his creatures in perpetual punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But why are sinners going to be punished forever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 8:44&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your&#xA;  father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to&#xA;  the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his&#xA;  native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before God created the earth, good and evil existed, darkness and light existed. Mankind is given options to choose from. We choose on which side we want to be by our actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good exist with God and the evil exists with Satan and his subordinates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make it to the good side, God has given us commandments, given us Jesus as a pace setter, and the Holy Spirit to teach us how to be good. However, man choose to do evil perpetually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 3:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men&#xA;  loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because there are two sides, therefore, there must be two places. Those who want to dwell on the good side live with God and those who want to dwell on the evil side live with Satan. Because Satan's place is hell, then those who belong to him need to be where he is. When man rebels against God and sins and refuses to repent, he is saying &quot;God leave me alone, I want to live with Satan&quot; and that's what happen in the end. Some do this unconsciously based on their non-challant attitude towards the gospel and towards God's bidding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in the end, Satan goes with his allies to hell and christians go with Jesus to heaven. It is man's decision not God's. If a teacher told his students to read before coming to take class test, it's their choice to read and if they don't they will fail the test and the blame won't be the teacher's. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone chooses where they want to be - those who choose Satan's way belong to him and may/could/should be with him forever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2013-05-07T13:16:48.163" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T13:16:48.163" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9712" CreationDate="2012-09-20T00:28:05.100" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not an issue of interpretation, just the representation of the same name in different scripts. You point out correctly that Jesus' name (in Hebrew/Aramaic) was &lt;em&gt;Yeshua&lt;/em&gt;. This is the same name of Moses' successor, &quot;Joshua.&quot; The difference is that the name &quot;Joshua&quot; (coming from the Hebrew Bible) is a direct transliteration from Hebrew to English (as was pointed about above, the &quot;Y&quot; comes to English as a &quot;J&quot;), whereas the name &quot;Jesus&quot; comes to English from Hebrew &lt;em&gt;through Greek&lt;/em&gt; &lt;code&gt;Iesu&lt;/code&gt;. The vowels are different, and the &quot;s&quot; at the end is just the Greek case ending.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-24T06:30:56.953" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T06:30:56.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9791" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T09:25:19.207" Score="5" ViewCount="11137" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of the prophecy in Genesis about someone who will crush the serpent's head, as well as the parts of Isaiah, especially the Suffering Servant. Which other parts of the Old Testament point to Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T11:41:28.277" Title="Which are the parts of the Old Testament that point to Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2015-01-23T17:01:53.183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9791" CreationDate="2012-09-20T10:28:23.407" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prototypes of Jesus can be thought of as falling into the following categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Prophecies&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these kinds of references, a man of God delivered a message which would be fulfilled in Jesus.  Isaiah 53, to quote one famous example, speaks of a suffering servant who would be &quot;beaten for our iniquities and wounded for our transgressions.&quot; &quot;By his stripes, we would be healed.&quot;  Isaiah 7 speaks of a virgin* who would conceive. (The asterix b/c I know the issues involved in that.) Jonah foreshadows Christ in that a man who was (bascially) dead for three days (&quot;in the belly of the whale&quot;) comes to preach repentance. As Yul Brenner would say, 'etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.'  Hosea marries a prostitute who keeps leaving him, prefiguring Jesus coming to his own, and his own receive him not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primarily prophetic books would be: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ceremonial / Law Fufilment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Torah - aka the Pentetuch - and especially the latter half of Exodus and all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy - record the sacrifices, rules, and details about worship collectively called &quot;the Law.&quot;  Jesus said that he came &quot;not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.&quot;  He came as the sin offering.  He came as the Jubilee.  He came to &quot;cleanse people from their sins,&quot; and so on. When Jesus' parents &quot;redeem&quot; him at the Temple, bringing the sacrifice the poor person is supposed to offer, Jesus identifies with the lowly. In these parts of the Old Testament, the types of Christ are ceremonialily pre-figurative. This is made explicit in Matthew, when John initially refuses to baptize Jesus, but Jesus insists, saying, &quot;this is necessary to fulfill all righteousness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Literary Allusion / Symbolism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &quot;Ketuvi'im&quot; or the Writings (Joshua - Song of Solomon), Jesus is most often seen as the target of an allusion.  In Song of Solomon, a woman is erotically charged as she comes to greet her lover - and for years the church has insisted this is typical of the relationship between Jesus and his bride.  In Psalm 22, a forsaken man cries out, &quot;My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?&quot; the same words that Jesus cries from the cross.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Historical Parallel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Exodus, of course, is God rescuing and redeeming his people. As just one example, the Passover meal is later used by Jesus to prefigure his death, and is later appropriated as what is now called &quot;Communion&quot; or the &quot;Eucharist.&quot;  In 1 Samuel - 2 Chronicles, a kingdom is established through David, over which Jesus would rule forever.  The idea is that the grand sweep of history is often summarized as &quot;Creation. Fall, Redemption&quot; and is seen as the &quot;story of God&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all of these things, Jesus is said to be the one prefigured, because the book is about Him.  Scholars disagree over the exact numbers of references, but most agree that Jesus is prefigured in every book of the Old Testament. (The more liberal ones would say that there are symbols to which Jesu appropriates or s at least alludes when he comes.)  To list them all, however, would be a book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final little allusion, however, that bears some consideration, is the story commonly called &quot;the Transfiguration.&quot;  Jesus goes up to a mountaintop, whereupon Elijah and Moses greet him.  Now, you should know that Jews refer to the Old Testament in two categories - &quot;the Law&quot; and &quot;the Prophets.&quot;  Moses, as the &quot;lawgiver&quot; who brings the 10 commandments off of Mount Sinai.  Elijah was the most famous of the prophets, working miracles and boldly declaring God's truth to a wicked King.  In standing between and amongst these two, Jesus himself declares himself to be &quot;the Law and the Prophets,&quot; a nice little picture saying that indeed, Jesus is the Word this Old Testament has been preaching all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-20T10:53:51.157" LastActivityDate="2012-09-20T10:53:51.157" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9782" CreationDate="2012-09-20T12:36:07.400" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the contrary, I would suggest that miracles do happen fairly often.  There are many testimonies of doctors beginning a massive surgery to remove cancer only to find that the cancer mysteriously disappeared overnight.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, a significant percentage of Muslims who become Christians do so because of a vision or dream where Jesus Himself appears to them.  This certainly could be considered miraculous, as many of them risk their lives to turn to Christianity, which they hated for their entire lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the Bible seems to indicate that God responds according to our faith, so the lack of miracles or answered prayer can be an indicator of a lack of faith in a community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-09-20T12:36:07.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9746" CreationDate="2012-09-20T14:14:42.707" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As one of the comments mentioned your probably thinking of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/006204964X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Love Wins&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. In the book, he does not deny the existence of hell as a real place , rather what he is questioning the &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; of hell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in the same way, to answer your question, I do not believe there is a major branch of Christianity where the existence of Hell is optional, only the &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; of what hell is, is being debated (i.e. who goes there, nature of the punishment, does it last forever or just a time, are the damned forgiven at some point or are they &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;completely destroyed&lt;/a&gt;, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also check out &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310254280&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Ken Boa on this topic, its a short and great read on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2012-09-20T16:35:45.393" LastActivityDate="2012-09-20T16:35:45.393" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9791" CreationDate="2012-09-20T16:57:06.350" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The entirety of the Old Testament predicts, foreshadows, or reveals Jesus in some way.  I've heard it said, &quot;The New [Testament] is in the Old, concealed; the Old is in the New, revealed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's actually a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttS7FH8X4n4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;really cool song&lt;/a&gt; that goes through all of the books of the Bible, telling how Jesus is revealed in each.  (I have to admit, though, I've never tried to answer a question with a song before.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They lyrics to that song are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Genesis, He's the breath of life. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Exodus, the passover lamb. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Leviticus, He's our high priest. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Numbers, fire by night. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Deuteronomy,  He's Moses voice. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Joshua, He is salvation's choice. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Judges, lawgiver. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Ruth, the kinsmen redeemer. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;1st and 2nd Samuel, our trusted prophet. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Kings and Chronicles, He's sovereign. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Ezra, a true and faithful scribe. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Nehemiah, He's the rebuilder of broken walls and lives. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Esther He is Mordecai's courage. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Job the timeless redeemer. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Psalms He is our morning song. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Proverbs, wisdom's cry. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Ecclesiastes the time and season. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In the Song of Solomon, He is the lover's dream. He is, He is, He Is. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Isaiah, He's the prince of peace. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Jeremiah, the weeping prophet. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Lamentations, the cry for Israel. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Ezekiel, He's the call from sin. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Daniel, the stranger in the fire. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Hosea, He is forever faithful.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Joel, He is the Spirit's power. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Amos, the arms that carry us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Obadiah, He's the Lord our Savior. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Jonah, He's the great missionary. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Micah, the promise of peace. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Nahum, He is our strength and our shield. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Habakkuk and Zephaniah, He's the leading for revival. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Haggai, He restores the lost heritage. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Zechariah, our fountain. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Malachi, He's the Son of Righteousness rising with healing in His wings. He    is, He is, He is. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, He is God, man, Messiah. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In the book of Acts, He is the fire from Heaven. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Romans, He's the Grace of God. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Corinthians, the power of love. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Galatians, He is freedom from the curse of sin. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Ephesians, our glorious treasure. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Philippians, the servant's heart. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Colossians, He's the Godhead Trinity. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Thessalonians, our coming King. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Timothy, Titus, Philemon, He's our mediator and our faithful pastor. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Hebrews, the everlasting covenant. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In James, the one who heals the sick. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In 1st and 2nd Peter, He's our shepherd.    -In John and in Jude, He's the lover coming for His bride. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In the Revelation, He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is, He is, He is. The Prince of Peace, the Son of Man, the Lamb of God, the&#xA;  great I AM. He's the Alpha and  Omega, our God and our Savior. He is&#xA;  Jesus Christ the Lord. and when time is no more. He is, He is.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several places on the web that summarize this.  Here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus.org/is-jesus-god/old-testament-prophecies/is-jesus-in-every-book-of-the-old-testament.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one of them&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Christ is the Seed of woman and in Genesis 3:15 we are told He will    one day crush Satan. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Exodus we find the story of the Passover Lamb, and Christ is the sacrificial Lamb given for us. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Leviticus we read of the high priests making sacrifices for the people, and    Christ has become our High Priest, making the perfect&#xA;  sacrifice to    atone for our sins. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Deuteronomy Moses prophesied of a prophet who would come that would be greater than Himself. Jesus is that Great Prophet. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In the book of Joshua, Joshua met the Captain of the Lord's host. That man is Jesus Christ. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Judges, the leaders were judges who delivered God's people, each of them typifying the Lord Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Boaz, the kinsman who redeemed Ruth's inheritance, is a picture of Christ. David, the anointed one, pictures Jesus and Jesus is described&#xA;  as being the Son of David. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In 2 Samuel when the king is being enthroned, the entire scene is descriptive of the Lord Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The books of Kings speak of the glory of God filling the temple and the Chronicles describe the glorious coming king, both referring to&#xA;  Jesus, the King of Kings. Ezra depicts Jesus as the Lord of our&#xA;  fathers. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Job says clearly that the Redeemer is coming! &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Esther offers a picture of Christ interceding for His people. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Christ appears time after time in the Psalms, including when David describes Him as &quot;the    Shepherd.&quot; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Isaiah details His glorious birth. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Jeremiah reveals that He will be acquainted with sorrows. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Joel describes Him as the Hope of His people. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Amos tells us that Jesus is the judge of all nations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Obadiah warns of the coming eternal kingdom. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Jonah offers a picture of Jesus being dead for three days, then coming back to life to    preach repentance. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Zephaniah says that He will be the king over Israel. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Zachariah is the prophet who speaks of Jesus riding on a colt. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Malachi is the one who calls Him the Son of Righteousness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that long quotes from other places are not typically accepted here.  It just seems that these answered the question all too well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-09-21T11:41:28.277" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T11:41:28.277" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9370" CreationDate="2012-09-20T17:21:11.947" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think it's too much of a stretch. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look back at the law for kings in Deuteronomy 17, It prohibits the king from multiplying horses and chariots, wives, and wealth. This is exactly what Solomon is doing in 1 Kings 10-11. Chapter ten begins by commending his great wisdom, but then steps through his decline - that is, he begins violating the rules for kings by multiplying gold (666 talents a year), multiplying horses and chariots, and finally multiplying wives who turn his heart away from following Yahweh. He sets up centers of false worship for all the foreign gods of his wives. So, the number 666 is associated with Solomon in his fall, his abuse of power, and his turning away from true worship of Yahweh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation, Jesus sets up worship interactions under the symbol of business transactions - buying and selling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is picked up in chapter 13 with reference to worship in the false temple - the image set up by the beast which must be worshiped on pain of death. Everyone must worship the image, but no one may do so without the mark. The buying and selling referred to here is of the same kind established by Jesus in chapter 3. It is worship - spiritual transactions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This kind of forced worship of an image set up also has ties back to Nebuchadnezzar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits... And the herald proclaimed aloud, “You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nebuchadnezzar is acting as a beast (and later, even more so) and sets up an image to be worshiped. Again, we have six and sixty associated with worship of a false image on pain of death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this comes together in the name and number of the man - 666. This sums up man in his fallen state. The number carries with it the fallen glory of Solomon, his degraded wisdom, his failure to follow the word of God, his abuse of power, and his allowing himself to be turned aside to the worship of impotent gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't be afraid of symbolism; it's good for you :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2170" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-20T22:42:03.387" LastActivityDate="2012-09-20T22:42:03.387" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9799" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-20T22:40:20.300" Score="5" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the Catholic church teach about the use of the hormone medications normally proscribed for use as birth-control to regulate the symptoms of PMS or other conditions brought on by hormone imbalances? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically in situations where they could not be used as birth control because the person taking these medications is not sexually active.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2190" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-01-03T14:24:47.330" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T14:24:47.330" Title="Are contraceptives ok to treat other conditions?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;contraception&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9799" CreationDate="2012-09-21T02:48:33.603" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm intentionally not reading the non-edited version of this question, because if it is more personal in nature @WaxEagle is right, you should ask a priest (one you know is a really straightforward confessor) for advice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not the medication that is treated as grave matter by the Catholic Church, it's contracepting itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. She opposes it because it’s contraceptive. Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse. In other words, the contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse, and, foreseeing that their act may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility - Christopher West, The Good News about Sex and Marriage&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as far as being prescribed contraceptives by a hospital, you'll know when you get them at a Catholic Hospital (if your doctor says you need them):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any cooperation institutionally approved or tolerated in actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end . . . is absolutely forbidden. -&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;#44 Ethical Religious Directives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not a doctor, I'm not a theologian either (but I play one on the Internets), but I've been told by my wife who is still not a doctor, but is a woman, that prescribing contraceptives to young women to treat other disorders is mostly a rouse to get them on contraceptives in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the harm that contraceptives cause the body may outweigh the benefits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The medical community clearly understands that there are serious medical side effects from the specific use of the injectable or non-injectable hormones. While some claim that the good outweighs the bad, too many healthcare professionals continue to prescribe and/or assist with birth control and abortion with little concern for the consequences. &lt;a href=&quot;http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception-sterilization/defining-pregnancy.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;couple to couple league&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most birth control drugs use a combination of two female hormones, estrogen and progestin, to stop ovulation and thicken cervical mucus, which helps block sperm. For decades many women have reported bloating and mood swings as side effects. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/birth-control-warning-labels-fda-yaz_n_1131438.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Huffington post  12/6/11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as a rule, yes, it's the contraception action which is at issue here, not the contraception itself. But if you dig a little deeper and you want to be ever faithful to the teachings of the Church, it's a bridge that is better left uncrossed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Natural Family Planning Resources&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ccli.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Couple to Couple League&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nfp.marquette.edu/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Marquette Model of NFP&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.popepaulvi.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Paul VI Institute&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Teachings of the Catholic Church regarding Contraception&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://onemoresoul.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;One More Soul - Check out Dr. Janet Smith's &amp;quot;Contraception Why Not&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ncbcenter.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;National Catholic Bioethics Center&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Humanae Vitae (on the regulation of human birth)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T02:48:33.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9801" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:07:46.917" Score="4" ViewCount="279" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm kind of more-or-less asking this because &lt;b&gt;CHRISTIANITY.SE IS GOING TO GET A REAL HAIRCUT&lt;/b&gt; soon, but I was thinking about Christian symbols and Jewish symbols and symbols that everyone agrees one and furthermore everyone feels comfortable &lt;em&gt;engraving&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone's Bible's got this in it&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2025:17-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 25:17-22 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 “Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. 21 Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law that I will give you. 22 There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the covenant law, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And even the Jews who 5 seconds ago were prohibited from making graven images of God are commanded to make some sort of &quot;cherubs&quot;.  So, what would be the reason, if any, for a Christian group today to avoid angels?  What's the most nuanced possible understanding of Exodus 25 that could justify an iconoclast who would even iconosmash the Ark of the Covenant&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T00:29:57.853" LastActivityDate="2015-01-08T19:40:27.320" Title="Do any Protestant Sects object to the existence of angels?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;iconoclasm&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9737" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:28:47.110" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mark 1:44 (NAB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to him, &quot;See that you tell no one anything, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses prescribed; that will be proof for them.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 7:36 (NAB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He ordered them not to tell anyone. But the more he ordered them not to, the more they proclaimed it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 8:29-30 (NAB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he asked them, &quot;But who do you say that I am?&quot; Peter said to him in reply, &quot;You are the Messiah.&quot; Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it just me, or does Jesus not even want anyone to know who He is?  Well, at least not until the &quot;Son of Man is lifted up&quot;.  So, how much worse would it be if His disciples not only disobeyed Jesus by telling everyone the things He said to keep quiet, but also were caught with the evidence of Jesus' acts?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, I think we'd have a perfectly sane and undeniably Christian Church if the Gospels were never written and only handed down through word of mouth.  Of course, then we'd be playing telephone for the last 1800 years and would wind up holding on to every shred that actually was written down.   The epistles were certainly necessary for creating a cohesive and orthodox Church and one would have a hard time keeping Revelation straight if it weren't written down, but I think that most everything Jesus did or said could live through word of mouth alone, as it did for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;probably no more than 30 years&lt;/a&gt; after Christ's death and resurrection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T03:28:47.110" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9791" CreationDate="2012-09-21T03:49:30.750" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most profound types in the Old Testament are the ones alluded to on Easter Vigil Mass and read in the daily office during the season of Lent (which is heavy on the Suffering Servant, which you mentioned). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Protoevangelium  (Genesis 3:15 NABRE) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RCsGu.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Carrivagio - Binding of Isaac&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 3 day journey to Moriah, the ram with it's head stuck in a thicket, God demanding the sacrifice of Abraham's only son, are all indicative of Christ's sacrifice&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The contents of the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in which were the gold altar of incense and the ark of the covenant entirely covered with gold. In it were the gold jar containing the manna, the staff of Aaron that had sprouted, and the tablets of the covenant&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The three items represent Jesus as priest (the Rod representing the Aaron's priesthood), prophet (the bread which comes from Heaven to feed God's people) and king (the tablets indicative of a Law Giver)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the sacrifice of Melchizedek in Genesis is stated in as a type for Christ in Hebrews 7:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This &quot;Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High,&quot;  &quot;met Abraham as he returned from his defeat of the kings&quot; and &quot;blessed him.&quot; And Abraham apportioned to him &quot;a tenth of everything.&quot; His name first means righteous king, and he was also &quot;king of Salem,&quot; that is, king of peace. Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, 4 thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the @Narinan is the most correct in that long litany of where Christ is in the OT, because the entire New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old in Christ.  If you liked that list, you might also be interested in this one from some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncregister.com/blog/tim-drake/every-knee-shall-bow-flash-mob&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;English Monks&lt;/a&gt; it has a few more books in it :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T03:49:30.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9553" CreationDate="2012-09-21T04:01:47.787" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To me, the imagery from the psalm perfectly represents Christ's escape from the killings that were taking place shortly after his birth. The psalm pictures our soul's escape from sin through the destruction of the snare much the same way Joseph's vision foiled the trap that was laid for the Christ. That seems to give the why pretty well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the when, I am still looking for an answer to that question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T04:01:47.787" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9805" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9913" CreationDate="2012-09-21T04:30:07.357" Score="2" ViewCount="664" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the main theological stances on the doctrine of forgiveness vs Reconciliation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think at the far far extreme (or perhaps the most biblical definition is):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;we should forgive others as God forgave us&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God forgives us for our sins, not bringing them into  account&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God treats us with the imputed righteousness of Christ&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;therefore, we should not bring others sins into account and treat them with the righteousness of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in an overview of other theological stances on forgiveness / reconciliation (I suspect there's a spectrum).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ideal answer would be something that present an ordered list, where each item has a name along with a description of how forgiveness / reconciliation is viewed within that stance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2012-09-28T06:43:03.790" Title="Overview on the Theology of Forgiveness vs Reconcillation" Tags="&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;reconciliation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-01-23T20:23:50.333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2744" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:23:52.383" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mike talked about this, but let me clarify a little:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Greek and Hebrew, they use the same symbols for numbers that they use for letters. Basically, they use the first nine letters of the alphabet for the numbers 1 to 9, the next line letters for 10 to 90, and nine more letters for 100 to 900. As neither Greek nor Hebrew has 27 letters in their alphabet, they used alternate forms of letters or extra symbols to pad it out. See, for example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.i18nguy.com/unicode/hebrew-numbers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrew Numbers&lt;/a&gt; for how it's done in Hebrew. Then for the number, say, 123, they would use the symbols/letters for 100, 20, and 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be like in English if we used A=1, B=2, C=3, ... I=9, J=10, K=20, ... R=90, S=100, T=200, ... Z=800, and we'd have to make something up for 900. So the number 123 would be written SKC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this wasn't some little side game people played now and then. This was how they always wrote numbers. So any number you wrote could look like a word, and any word could look like a number. You had to tell which it was from context. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that unlike Hindu-Arabic numbers, where the order is significant so 19 is a very different number from 91, in Greek and Hebrew the order doesn't matter. The Jews normally wrote with the symbol for the biggest number first, but it wasn't essential. (I'm not sure about the Greeks.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So they couldn't help but see numbers in every word they wrote. So let me go back to my comparative English example. (As neither I nor, I suspect, many others on this site know Greek or Hebrew.) So for example if you saw the word GUN, you would naturally think 7+300+50=357. You couldn't help but think of 357 as the &quot;number of the gun&quot;. It would be inevitable that you'd have cases like, you'd tell a friend that you got paid $357 and he'd joke, &quot;What, do you have a job shooting people now?&quot; And you'd both laugh because you'd both quickly get the joke. Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course many words wouldn't be the natural way to write numbers. Like you would normally write 123 as 100+20+3, SKC. But if you saw SKAB, i.e. 100+20+1+2, you would still add it up to 123. So any word could be read as a number, even if it wasn't how you would naturally write that number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when John talked about &quot;the number of his name&quot; being 666, this would be instantly understood by any Greek or Hebrew person as meaning that if you add up the values of the letters in his name, it will total 666.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, the Hebrew version of Nero's name adds up to 666. At least, people give a Hebrew version that adds up. I freely admit that I don't know if this is the way people routinely wrote his name in Hebrew or if it is contrived. Anyway, maybe that means he's the Beast that John was talking about, maybe that's just coincidence, I don't know. I've heard so many conflicting theories about Revelation that I reserve judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me add that there's a game that's played now and then of taking some public figure that you consider very evil and dangerous and showing that his name adds up to 666. Well, it stands to reason that most names would add up to something less then a few thousand. So one out of every few thousand names likely adds up to 666 by coincidence. With 6 billion people in the world today, if we translated all their names to Greek or Hebrew, there should be a million or so who add up to 666. Given that there are often multiple ways to translate a name between languages, and that you can plausibly choose either Greek or Hebrew, and that you could pick first name or last name or both or use initials or middle names or other variations, you probably have at least a 2 or 3% chance that any given name will come out to 666 without any stretching. Then toss in all the games that people DO play, like casually saying &quot;... and if we double the 'r' ...&quot; or &quot;... and add 32 because he became a senator when he was 32 years old ...&quot;, or simply making up their own system of assinging values to letters with no reference to how the Greeks or Hebrews did it, and I'm sure you could get anyone you wanted to add up to 666.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Update in Response to Steve&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others noted, the number 666 is associated with a very evil person, the Beast of Revelation. Of course this doesn't make the number itself evil. When the number 666 comes up coincidentally, like if your change comes out to be $6.66 or a question is the 666th question posted on a web site, people will joke about this being evil. Perhaps some take this seriously. But nowhere does the Bible say that a number is good or evil per se or that such random numbers have any significance. In this case, all that the Bible says about this number is that it is the number of the Beast's name, as I discussed above. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people make much of &quot;numerology&quot;, attaching some sort of mystic significance to numbers -- in the Bible or in life in general. I am not aware of any place in the Bible that endorses making a superstition out of it. Occasionally the Bible does link two numbers in a symbolic way. Like Exodus 20:11 says that, because God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, that therefore people should work six days and rest on the seventh. Or, Matthew 12:40 says that, as Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale or great fish, so Jesus would spend three days buried in the Earth before his resurrection.  Perhaps this indicates some special significance to the numbers seven and three. Personally I think God is just making a point about a comparison between two things by re-using a number, not indicating that the number itself has significance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose a number can acquire symbolic significance just because it is the number associated with something important. Like because grass and leaves are green, the color green has become symbolic of environmentalism, we talk about &quot;green energy&quot; and so on. But I think few see the color green as having any sort of magical properties per se. It's just a color chosen to represent an idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it matter that the number of the Beast is 666 and not, say 523? The Bible doesn't attach a meaning to the number. Maybe that's simply what the number comes out to. Like if the police warn that a dangerous felon has escaped from prison and that he is wearing a green shirt, I don't ask what the symbolic significance of the color green is. I just take it that that is what color shirt he happens to be wearing. I've heard some discussions of why the number 666 is significant. One I recall is that 6 represents man because man was created on the 6th day, and 3 represents God because God is a Trinity, so 666 is man making himself God. Maybe, it's plausible in a way, but the Bible doesn't say this anywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-01-08T13:52:28.470" LastActivityDate="2017-01-08T13:52:28.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9807" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9816" CreationDate="2012-09-21T06:40:03.307" Score="8" ViewCount="1259" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Genesis, God created Adam and Eve. How come we have so many races on earth if we came from the same parent? Is it because people changed physically by adapting to various climates? Or races were made when different languages were introduced in Genesis 11 vs 6-8? How can I explain the human race diversity given the literal Biblical account?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-09-24T16:23:20.123" LastActivityDate="2014-10-16T06:46:43.077" Title="According to the young-earth perspective, when were races created?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9370" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:28:52.993" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I strongly suspect coincidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You comment that, &quot;The Bible is interconnected in many other places. Such as gospels quoting the Old testament&quot;. True, but there's a big difference. Most of these quotes are explicitly identified as quotes. Like Matthew 4:4, &quot;But He answered and said, It is written, ...&quot; There's no question of it being a coincidence. But nowhere does the Bible say, &quot;As the number of the Beast is 666, so Solomon collected 666 talents of gold.&quot; Nor is there any clear connection. One is counting letter values in a name; the other is counting pieces of gold. One is identified as evil; the other is simply stated as a matter of fact with no moral judgement. Etc. The only apparent connection is the number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Random coincidences do not occur like that. In a country if two people die at the same time by the same kind of weapon it probably is coincidence. If that happens in same neighborhood you'd expect some sort of connection.&quot; Exactly. As you add matching facts and conditions, the probability that it is a random coincidence goes down. But the only connection that I can see here is the number. I'm not sure how many numbers there are in the Bible. I just did a text search in an on-line Bible on the word &quot;hundred&quot; and got 559 hits. So assuming that means there are 559 numbers in at least the right general range, and that the probability that one of them would be 666 by pure chance is 1/1000, then the probability that at least one of those numbers would be 666 turns out to be ... punch calculator ... 43%. That's not particularly unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T07:28:52.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9809" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9817" CreationDate="2012-09-21T07:32:27.700" Score="4" ViewCount="217" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm currently watching &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d94tbcidq74&amp;amp;feature=g-high-rec&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d94tbcidq74&amp;amp;feature=g-high-rec&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument here is that, with regard to the word &quot;doulas&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;in the original Greek, our relationship to Christ is described as &quot;slave to Christ&quot; rather than &quot;servant to Christ.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;reading the Bible with &quot;servant&quot; replaced by &quot;slave&quot; provides a different feel&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;most English Bible translations use &quot;servant&quot; rather than &quot;slave&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did this happen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-10T20:20:08.780" LastActivityDate="2015-12-10T20:20:08.780" Title="Why do most translations say &quot;Servant of Christ&quot; rather than &quot;Slave of Christ&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;slavery&gt;&lt;servants&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-12-14T00:06:00.233" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9811" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:24:52.017" Score="4" ViewCount="1580" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do not know if I worded that right.  But was wondering what you call someone who does not believe in organized religion at all.  They may go to church but never as a member or follower of any particular group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-09-21T11:01:02.510" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T03:14:26.047" Title="Is there a name for someone who believes in Jesus as God and Savior, yet follows no sect?" Tags="&lt;religion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9807" CreationDate="2012-09-21T08:52:22.687" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;People have many genetic attributes. Of course genes are passed on to your children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a well-understood biological phenomenon that small populations can lose material from the gene pool. For example: Suppose we have a genetic trait that has possibilities, called &quot;alleles&quot;, big-A and small-a. We have two people who each have both alleles, that is, they both have Aa. Each passes one of the two on to their children. Which the child gets is basically a toss-up. Say that just by the luck of the draw they both pass the big-A to all their children. Then the small-a is lost. If no one from outside joins the community, the small-a is lost forever. Or if they manage to pass both A and a to their children, but more A than a, than in the next generation there may have yet fewer a's, and in the next fewer still, until it dies out. This can happen just by chance, or if there is something in the environment that favors A. Like if a gene makes you allergic to oranges and oranges are the main source of vitamin C in this particular place, then that gene will tend to die out. This is called natural selection. (And by the way, while natural selection is often associated with evolution, it was actually first described in a scientific paper by a creationist, Edward Blyth.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the Flood, Noah and his family must have had the genetic material for all the races that exist today. Perhaps, for example, Japheth was white and Ham was black and Shem was yellow, or perhaps they had the genes for all the races more mixed together between them. Either way, after the Tower of Babel people started to spread out across the world in different directions. The population at that time was still small, and little subgroups that went out would have been smaller still. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for example, the people who went to Africa either happenned to all have the genes to be black and so all their descendants were black, or the people among them with white, yellow, and red genes all died out and only the blacks survived to pass on their genes. It's commonly argued that black skin is better for survival in hot jungle environments and white skin is better for colder environments, so the white gene survived in Europe and the black gene in Africa. I used to think that was established fact, but lately I've heard it argued that it's just an assumption based on the fact that people in Africa are mostly black, etc. I don't know enough about the biology of it to have an informed opinion. Either way, whether non-blacks died out because of environmental factors or pure chance or were never there to begin with, Africa ended up black and Europe white.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as people spread out and sub-populations separated, some genetic diversity in the various communities was lost. Blacks separated from whites separated from asians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that genetically, the difference between races is pretty minor. I read somewhere that race is controlled by just 4 genes. (Sorry, can't give a reference on that, can't swear that it's true.) In India it's not uncommon for families to have a broad range of skin colors, and it's becoming increasingly common in the US as marriage between people of different colors becomes more common. There's no need to theorize that the genes for different skin colors somehow came along later, whether by mutation or some miracle. It would not have been at all difficult for 8 people to have all 8 alleles. Two people could have all the genetic material for all races, as long as they don't have any common alleles between them. (i.e. Adam could have been coal black and Eve lily white or vice versa, or each could have been a middling brown, or some other combination.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T08:52:22.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8500" CreationDate="2012-09-21T09:40:24.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The owner lost the pigs, but did not complain, an illustration that the earth and its fullness belong to God. He allowed demons to kill his pigs.Why would the earthly man complain.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There was no need to cast demons to hell because judgement time was not yet. God keeps his word and promise. He has destined time for everything.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the owner was Jewish, Jesus was telling him he is not even obeying the Mosaic law, which, Jews claim to be serious about. Why keep unclean animals.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being unclean like the pigs  attracts demons to you. Teaching that we need to live a clean life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the owner was a gentile and not subject to the Mosaic law, Jesus was showing him that, he can be destroyed by demons if he does not turn to Jesus who has power over them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He wanted to build the faith of the victim whom he turned into an evengelist to his family members immediately he healed him. Go and tell your family members what the Lord has done....&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He comfirmed the fact that; the devil came to steal, kill and destroy but Jesus came to save lifes of people not pigs that have no life after death.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2191" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-09-21T13:44:27.160" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T13:44:27.160" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9811" CreationDate="2012-09-21T11:05:02.330" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the word you are looking for is 'nondenominational', as in 'nondenominational Christian'. It refers to people who don't adhere to any of the subdivisions of Christianity, such as Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is made slightly confusing because there are now churches that refer to themselves as 'nondenominational', since they do not adhere to any of the larger groupings. However some of those churches are now grouping together, thus effectively creating a 'nondenominational' denomination. But in principle 'nondenominational' is a good description.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T11:05:02.330" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9815" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9818" CreationDate="2012-09-21T11:55:08.967" Score="9" ViewCount="1381" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Word of God says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many televangelist claim miracles happen and profess the name of Jesus. Some have claimed they witnessed terminally ill people get healed and such. There have been some high profile preachers from around the world who have been accused of staging miracles and preaching the &quot;gospel of prosperity&quot; for their own gain. What is the way to test whether they are false prophets taking care not to touch the Lord's anointed? I went through &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8074/how-do-we-identify-false-teachers&quot;&gt;a similar post&lt;/a&gt;, but am concerned with teachers who say they are doing it in the name of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-08-27T17:53:35.693" Title="How does one test the spirits and identify false preachers?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;&lt;prosperity-gospel&gt;&lt;1-john&gt;&lt;deception&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9807" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:02:47.167" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;Based on the wording of your question, I assume you want a literalist/young earth creationist perspective. This isn't the &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; perspective in Christianity. Plenty believe in evolution, or one form of Old Earth Creationism or another. The last portion of this answer, on particular, will likely be jumped on by the OEC and Evolutionist crowds, as it's specifically a literalist/young earth creationist view.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically, from many Creationists point of view (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, me) there is only one &quot;race&quot; . The &quot;human&quot; race.  The idea of dividing up God's people into an artificial grouping based on superficial differences is wrong, anti-Biblical, and offensive in and of itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/origin-races/&quot;&gt;ICR.Org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Race&quot; is strictly an evolutionary concept used by (some) to rationalize&#xA;  their white racism. But from the beginning it was not so! &quot;God that&#xA;  made the world and all things therein; . . . hath made of one blood&#xA;  all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth&quot; (Acts&#xA;  17:24,26). &quot;Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?&#xA;  why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?&quot; (Malachi&#xA;  2:10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thinking described above is known as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism&quot;&gt;scientific racism&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, and is generally denounced today, for good reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting observation, taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-truth.org/race.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.bible-truth.org/race.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The question we must first answer is: &quot;Are there races of men?&quot; The&#xA;  difficulty of classifying man into races has been shown. Perhaps a&#xA;  better term would be &quot;varieties&quot; of man. Even evolutionary science&#xA;  concludes that all existing varieties of man are members of the same&#xA;  species.2   Inter-racial marriages are common and children are&#xA;  produced with no biological difficulties. Prominent anthropologist,&#xA;  Ruth Benedict in her book, &quot;Race: Science and Politics&quot; stated the&#xA;  peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Once supposed biological differences, such as dissimilarity in blood, have proven to be incorrect. Blood is classified according to&#xA;  type, and all types are found within all supposed races of man. Blood&#xA;  transfusions are based on types A, B, AB, and O and are given without&#xA;  regard to race.4   It has also been supposed that different races have&#xA;  differing intelligence levels. The false and racist idea concludes&#xA;  that the Caucasian race is the most intelligent with the Negroid race&#xA;  being the least intelligent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;...content removed...&lt;/suB&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Modern testing of the races has shown that intelligence is not a measurement of race, because intelligence levels differ greatly with&#xA;  individuals within every race. Further cultural influence and&#xA;  advances account for most supposed examples of differing&#xA;  intelligence. 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept of &quot;race&quot; isn't Biblical, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The next question is &quot;Can race be Biblically defined?&quot; The term&#xA;  race does not appear in the Bible. The Bible refers to differing&#xA;  peoples in terms such as family, tribe, people and nation. It groups&#xA;  people according to familial relationships and then into&#xA;  nationalities. An example of familial relationship is found in Genesis&#xA;  10, where the genealogies listed are grouped by family. It should be&#xA;  noted that nowhere are the sons of Noah associated with race or color.&#xA;  An important passage on this matter is found in Genesis 10:5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations&quot;&#xA;  (Gen. 10:5). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The differences in skin color, hair color, curliness/straightness of the hair, and other traits that we, in our society call &quot;different races&quot; are minor variations. They can easily be attributed to simple genetic complexity -the same mechanism that causes my children to not look exactly like me, but similar to me, multiplied over many generations. As families became more spread out over the globe after the flood, the differences became more pronounced within the groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-09-27T12:39:18.053" LastActivityDate="2012-09-27T12:39:18.053" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9809" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:08:03.200" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In America at least, the word &quot;slave&quot; has a connotative meaning that conjures up images of slavery prior to the Civil War, where people were beaten, mistreated, sold indiscriminately, and many other horrors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, slavery was much different.  For one thing, a slave would only be a slave for six years and then had to be set free.  When he was set free, the master had to provide him with a means to live on his own.  There was also a provision that at the end of the sixth year, the slave could say, &quot;I love my master and do not wish to go free.&quot;  If he did so, he could remain with his master.  This type of slavery must have been extremely different than slavery in America to end up with slaves volunteering to remain slaves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the word &lt;em&gt;slave&lt;/em&gt; may be appropriate if we didn't have the images of people being beaten, mistreated, killed, and all sorts of things like that.  The word &lt;em&gt;servant&lt;/em&gt; seems to lend itself more accurately to the actual situation of slavery in the Old Testament, and therefore the likely intent of Paul and others who wrote the New Testament and referred to be a slave/servant of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With Jesus as our Masters, who, out of His love, laid down His own life for us, our response to Him would most certainly be that of the Jewish slave who says, &quot;I love my master and do not want to leave&quot; rather than a slave from an American plantation who would have run away at any opportunity that arose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, servant seems to convey the Jewish idea much better than the word slave because of our cultural context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T12:08:03.200" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9815" CreationDate="2012-09-21T12:29:26.300" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible gives several ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the easiest is if their predictions don't come true:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow&#xA;  not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not&#xA;  spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not&#xA;  be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another is if they speak contrary to Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar&#xA;  spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a&#xA;  people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the Law&#xA;  and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is&#xA;  because there is no Light in them&quot; (Isaiah 8:19-20).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you&#xA;  than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.&#xA;  (Galatians 1:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along the same vein, if you know your Scripture, you'll know what Christ-Like behavior and attitudes are, and will be able to use your malarkey detector to sniff them out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren't gathered from thorns,&#xA;  or figs from thistles, are they? (Matthew 7:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-09-21T12:37:23.783" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T12:37:23.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9811" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:22:18.683" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a growing trend amongst certain Christians to eschew denominational labels in favor of the term &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=christ%20follower&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christ-follower&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;  The implication is that an ad fontes, &quot;it's just about Jesus and me&quot; religion trumps any group politics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is more about this terminology in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6204/what-are-the-reasons-for-calling-oneself-a-follower-of-jesus-rather-than-a-chr&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T13:22:18.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9807" CreationDate="2012-09-21T13:32:14.863" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The historical answer to this question has been that Noah's three sons - Shem, Ham, and Japeth - represent the three major races - the Whites, the Blacks, and the Asians. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rogerswebsite.com/articles/Israel-History.htm&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;, for example, is a reference showing this understanding. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late,_Great_Planet_Earth&quot;&gt;Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth&lt;/a&gt; also made reference to this common myth that Noah's son's were the progenitors of the races. The Table of Nations is Genesis 10 is considered a &quot;map&quot; of the various races, and is used to pin the various movements of Noah's children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Japeth's tents being &quot;enlarged,&quot; for example, explains the high populations amongst Asians.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shem's blessing, since he was White, shows that from the beginning God loved Whites more than Blacks, and his plan was always for the White race to be blessed amongst the rest of the World.  Being as Jesus, the ultimate White Anglo-Saxon Protestant European, descended from Shem,  it just proves how much God loves White people.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And, of course, the fact that Ham was cursed (as was Caanan!) shows that Blacks too are supposed to be subjagted by everyone else, because, after all, Whites are only carrying out God's plan!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(If you haven't figured this out by now, I most definately do &lt;em&gt;NOT&lt;/em&gt; believe any of this.  I'm just trying to reflect what would have been considered a fairly normal 18th / 19th Century understanding of where the idea of race came from.  I feel obliged to say &quot;Thank You, God for changing our understanding!!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-21T13:45:50.360" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T13:45:50.360" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9712" CreationDate="2012-09-21T14:53:36.347" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yeshoua is translated as Jesus as well as Joshua in the Old Testament, even in modern texts, ala the Book of Wisdom by Jesus Ben Sirach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Greek text, the author is called &quot;Jesus the son of Sirach of Jerusalem.&quot; (50.27) &quot;Jesus&quot; is the Anglicized form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς, the equivalent of the Aramaic Yeshua, derived from the older Masoretic Hebrew Yehoshua`. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Sira&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;So Sayth Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-09-21T14:53:36.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9780" CreationDate="2012-09-21T15:10:05.273" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I find the premise factually incorrect (see the comments), I think it might be important to bring up the fact that there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_to_Saint_Michael&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a legend&lt;/a&gt; that Pope Leo XIII had a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stjosephschurch.net/leoxiii.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;vision&lt;/a&gt; not long before that (1884). In this supposed vision, the Devil was given 100 years to destroy the Church. Other versions of the vision have this happening later in Leo XIII's life and saying that the Devil had &quot;chosen the 20th century.&quot; Both of these legends are likely apocryphal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the year 1914, once again, it is relatively easy to show that there have been few years of peace from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%931899&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;18th&lt;/a&gt; century &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%931944&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;onward&lt;/a&gt;. To my knowledge, no major congregation or sizable sect within Christianity holds 1914 to be any more significant than the start of a terrible tragedy. It is certainly not something which is held significant in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be honest, this more has the feel of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Harold Camping&lt;/a&gt;'s dubious numerology. (When was the rapture supposed to be again?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-04-25T02:56:46.587" LastActivityDate="2016-04-25T02:56:46.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9801" CreationDate="2012-09-21T21:14:29.990" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;They are not making an idol or a graven image (an idol) of God by putting a cherubim (These are not the heart arrow cherubs) on the Ark of the Covenant. They are not worshiping the cherubims, they are worshiping God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not found a denomination that doesn't believe in angels (see this &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/denominationscomparison/ss/comparebeliefs1_8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;comparison of denominations&lt;/a&gt;), so for what I know of there isn't (This is not including a few people that don't, this is groups).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to answer your question, there is no reason a Christan group shouldn't believe in angels. Angels are &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/a/angelsbible.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;mentioned 273 times in the Bible&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2134" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T21:01:45.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9352" CreationDate="2012-09-22T02:08:15.580" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a great question that opens the discussion of what the nature of scripture actually is. Your priest sounds like a thoughtful and well-educated man and he's pushing you to think more critically about this biblical passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you are describing is based off of the work &lt;em&gt;The Parables of Jesus&lt;/em&gt; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Jeremias&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joachim Jeremias&lt;/a&gt;. The Basic premise is that the Gospel parables, in this case the parable of the sower, represent different &quot;layers&quot; of tradition. The theory goes that the parable itself likely is an authentic saying of Jesus—which was left open to interpretation (cf. &quot;He who has ears, let him hear&quot;) However, when the Gospels were written (here probably the parallel in Mark 4) an additional &quot;layer&quot; was added to help explain the parable to those hearing the gospel read aloud. In this case the &quot;explanation&quot; is labeled the &quot;Early Church&quot; layer, because the it represents how the early church interpreted this particular saying. Of course the Matthew passage is basically the same, Mark was probably just written first, but that doesn't mean both authors had to use the story to make the same rhetorical points in their gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue of authorial intent and its role in determining church doctrine is a touchy issue. However, since you ask for a Catholic answer, I would hasten to add that this fits well within the Catholic tradition—that is, Catholic dogma has always been and continues to be an active and living tradition informed by the scriptures, but not to the exclusion of reason, nor previous tradition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is just the very earliest part of this traditioning process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N.B. I'm not Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T02:08:15.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9811" CreationDate="2012-09-22T03:14:26.047" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;What I saw in America&lt;/em&gt; Chrsterton used the terms undenominational and unsectarian to describe such folks and to my surprise, it is a real word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adj.  1.  undenominational - not bound or devoted to the promotion of a particular denomination; &quot;undenominational religious instruction&quot;&#xA;  nonsectarian, unsectarian - not restricted to one sect or school or party; &quot;religious training in a nonsectarian atmosphere&quot;; &quot;nonsectarian colleges&quot;; &quot;a wide and unsectarian interest in religion&quot;- Bertrand Russell&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=undenominational&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thefreedictionary.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T03:14:26.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4181" CreationDate="2012-09-22T06:19:47.483" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;JW are allowed to marry outside their faith. I am married to a non-active JW, but it can be very hard at times. JW's seem to think that Christians outside of JW's really do not have the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a Born again believer, Jesus is the truth and as a Christian it was the other way around for me. My husband couldn't marry me until he understood that I would not become a JW. Often times I have been asked to attend meeting and I went to a few. Now I don't attend because no one can give me a biblical reason as to why I should leave my faith which is outside of JW. I feel sorry for my spouse because he often does thing to please the family but my faith is in Christ and I can't help but praise Him because he has done so much for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is natural that I have a relationship with Christ. He is my all and I can feel his presence and for many believers in Christ we gave that - I couldn't imagine stepping into a church or opening my mouth without saying &quot;Thank you Jesus.&quot; I don't see why that is so hard for some to see. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2193" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2012-09-22T15:43:29.117" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T15:43:29.117" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9829" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9830" CreationDate="2012-09-22T08:15:25.063" Score="1" ViewCount="58" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Christianity often comes hand-in-hand with the subject of death we often associate an RIP tombstone with a priest, pastor, or some religious representative at a burial site.  However as we usually live many years before 'meeting our maker' I was wondering if their was any reformed perspective on managing our preparation for that eventual certainty?  For instance, someone like Luther, who represent Protestant thought in so many ways; &lt;strong&gt;Did Luther publish any doctrinal perspectives on managing our death, aside for the obvious rule of faith in Christ to ensure a blessed hereafter?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T08:15:25.063" Title="Did Martin Luther publish any doctrinal material of managing one's own physical death?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9829" CreationDate="2012-09-22T08:15:25.063" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luther brings up death quite a bit.  He usually positive about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Luther compares death to childbearing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“When a woman is in travail she has sorrow; but when she has recovered, she no longer remembers the anguish, since a child is born by her into the world” [John 16:21]. So it is that in dying we must bear this anguish and know that a large mansion and joy will follow [John 14:2]. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther sees death as a monster we must face and therefore should think about it often ensuring our faith in forgiveness is greater and when death finally comes, not to think of it any longer but to rely on our sense of forgiveness and think of nothing else, for this will be a day of trail:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Death looms so large and is terrifying because our foolish and fainthearted nature has etched its image too vividly within itself and constantly fixes its gaze on it. Moreover, the devil presses man to look closely at the gruesome mien and image of death to add to his worry, timidity, and despair. Indeed, he conjures up before man’s eyes all the kinds of sudden and terrible death ever seen, heard, or read by man. And then he also slyly suggests the wrath of God with which he [the devil] in days past now and then tormented and destroyed sinners. In that way he fills our foolish human nature with the dread of death while cultivating a love and concern for life, so that burdened with such thoughts man forgets God, flees and abhors death, and thus, in the end, is and remains disobedient to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should familiarize ourselves with death during our lifetime, inviting death into our presence when it is still at a distance and not on the move. At the time of dying, however, this is hazardous and useless, for then death looms large of its own accord. In that hour we must put the thought of death out of mind and refuse to see it, as we shall hear. The power and might of death are rooted in the fearfulness of our nature and in our untimely and undue viewing and contemplating of it. (Luther's Works Vol 42.100)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther saw the guilty waving finger of the Devil as like the fiery vipers biting Israel in the desert.  The only cure was too look at Jesus on the cross.  This is the deepest insight into how to face death not being bothered by our sins in the final hour.  He say's you must not be captivated by sin, looking at your own many sins directly, or looking at all the sinners falling into hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You must turn your thoughts away from that and look at sin only within the picture of grace. Engrave that picture in yourself with all your power and keep it before your eyes. The picture of grace is nothing else but that of Christ on the cross. (Luther's Works Vol 42.104)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T08:15:25.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1656" CreationDate="2012-09-22T12:56:43.417" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nathanael was given a revelation that before Philip called him, Jesus saw him under the fig tree. The fig tree was significant. A sacred place of prayer,study and meditation. A place of peace and safety in the midst of cruel circumstances. A place of longing for the Messiah to show himself as King.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is awesome that Christ revealed his heart toward Nathanael. He was man of no pretense, no false estimation of himself who had been sincerely seeking the Messiah. Jesus takes note of the fruit or evidence of our faith. In Matt.21 He cursed the fruitless fig tree. Fig tree's bear fruit before foliage. The clothing of the tree (the regalia of worship) was really the biproduct of a fruitful life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;How do you know me?&quot;, Nathanael asked. Oh how he knows the sincerity of our hearts! And with that knowing reveals more of Himself to us. He promised Nathanael he would see greater things! He would from that momment on see Jesus in full revelation as the stairway to heaven, Gen 28. Jesus would from that moment be someone who stood in the Gap between heaven and earth fulfilling the longing of Nathanaels heart indeed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2194" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-22T17:28:19.977" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T17:28:19.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9653" CreationDate="2012-09-22T15:35:52.210" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand the question I have read chapter 7 from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/&lt;/a&gt; and here is my impression of the argument as someone who has spent thirty years studying the scriptures, church history and doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the article is not remotely scholarly nor is there any scholarly debate to support it. Outside of a few confused interpretations of a few biblical events, it does not cite any external history or facts to support the argument. For this reason there is no 'scholarly refutation' of the argument, since the argument is not recognized academically. Therefore, my response may be the closest thing to scholarly as I am at least willing to investigate the claim and provide a reasoned response to it, whereas most scholars would not be bothered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second the article uses information that naturally oppose the argument itself making it not only not scholarly but completely illogical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the argumentation is so flimsy and unsupported by scripture and church history I will only outline the authors primary argument and show how easily it can be dismissed as sham logic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is argued that his Apostleship was unrecognized by the other Apostles.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer: Anyone familiar with scripture would realize that he was fully recognized by all the Apostles, otherwise the letters of the other Apostles would have warned congregations of this 'false Apostle'. Instead they gave him full support. For example, Peter knowing Paul often referred to himself as 'an Apostle' in his letters (because there were false teachers who challenged his Apostleship) said this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.&#xA;  Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. (2 Peter 3:15-17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here Peter infers Paul's letters are also the scriptures which unstable people distort. That means when Paul said he was an Apostle, Peter included the statement as scripture.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse also, so succinctly describes the argument of this author in his article on the website. Everything argued in so contrary to serious thought and expresses such ignorance of the scripture that it must come from an 'unstable mind'. Even a stable minded unbeliever would recognize that if Paul had hijacked Christianity history would have recorded great conflict between Peter and Paul, yet no such conflict is recorded in Christian history. Furthermore, a stable mind that does believe in Christ would find it highly improbable that the Messiah would have established a new kingdom and glorious phase of Salvation history upon a Rock (which the gates of hell could not prevail against) and then immediately allow a false Apostle, quickly overthrowing that kingdom. (Ref Math 16:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of his arguments are similar and as easy to shred into pieces, but since the foundation of his theories are already laid waste there is no apparent purpose to proceed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-04-15T03:50:05.080" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T03:50:05.080" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9834" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="74394" CreationDate="2012-09-22T15:48:06.607" Score="14" ViewCount="1051" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do the proponents of the idea that salvation once received cannot be lost explain the following verses: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 6:4-6: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have&#xA;  tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy&#xA;  Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the&#xA;  world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto&#xA;  repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,&#xA;  and put [him] to an open shame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Hebrews 10:26-29:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of&#xA;  the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain&#xA;  fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall&#xA;  devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy&#xA;  under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose&#xA;  ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of&#xA;  God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was&#xA;  sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of&#xA;  grace?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that both places are about Christians who had once received salvation, but later lost it due to their change in mind or in faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-07-13T00:17:59.860" LastActivityDate="2019-12-02T17:50:42.617" Title="How do the proponents of the idea that salvation once received cannot be lost explain Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;perseverance-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7453" CreationDate="2012-09-22T16:01:37.677" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a member of the LDS faith, I am a bit uncomfortable with parts of Daniel's answer.  We do have a statement which says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Articles of Faith 1:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, the Book of Mormon itself states that its purpose is to &amp;quot;establish the truth&amp;quot; of the Bible (see Book of Mormon &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.40&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1st Nephi 13:38-40&lt;/a&gt;) in an era when many disbelieve and/or discredit the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a life long member of the church I can say that I have always been taught that the Bible is the foundational book of scripture in our canon, and that the Book of Mormon is a second witness of the divinity of Christ and His gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we don't believe the bible to be infallible, nor do we believe the Book of Mormon to be infallible.  Anything written by mortals, even when under inspiration, will be flawed, imperfect and/or incomplete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; believe that God has spoken to us through prophets and that He continues to do so, that the teachings of His prophets and of the Savior can be found in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and that we can learn the truthfulness of these inspired works through the witness of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1075" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T16:01:37.677" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9836" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-22T16:48:21.540" Score="9" ViewCount="3368" Body="&lt;p&gt;On several occations I have seen terms used for &lt;em&gt;active&lt;/em&gt; vs &lt;em&gt;inactive&lt;/em&gt; Jehovah's Witness church members. I have also seen inactive ones referred to as &lt;em&gt;passive&lt;/em&gt; or even with both monikers together as &lt;em&gt;inactive passive&lt;/em&gt;. Based on other experiences with JW's, I imagine these terms have fairly specific definitions. I just don't know what they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes me wonder exactly how membership is defined and what makes the difference between an active an a inactive member? What officially defines a person as one or the other, and what is the process and result of an official status change?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-11T01:21:12.057" LastActivityDate="2019-07-22T18:09:43.300" Title="How do Jehovah's Witnesses define &quot;active&quot; membership?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;membership&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9837" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-09-22T17:38:09.390" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-22T17:38:09.390" LastActivityDate="2012-09-22T17:38:09.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9838" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-09-22T17:38:09.390" Score="0" Body="Use this tag to ask for help to find the source of a quote, or to find a works by Christian scholars and authors on particular topics. Do not use this tag to ask for Bible verses on a topic." OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-08-02T15:57:10.693" LastActivityDate="2016-08-02T15:57:10.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9801" CreationDate="2012-09-23T06:41:01.643" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God created angels, He must have had a good reason so how can we object to them existing?  ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angels appear in the Torah, but it seems that the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7140/914&quot;&gt;Sadducees&lt;/a&gt; objected to the idea of angels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. &lt;strong&gt;For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?”&amp;mdash;Acts 23:6-9 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+23/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A careful reading of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/2422/68&quot;&gt;passage&lt;/a&gt;, indicates that what the Sadducees objected to was not non-human, righteous spirits, but rather the idea that people would become like angels.  They didn't believe in life after death, so they didn't believe people were spirits.  The Sadducees where wrong about lot's of things, but they were right that people don't become angels when they die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Protestants, especially those who are suspicious of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Movement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Charismatic Movement&lt;/a&gt;, de-emphasize teaching about angels.  Despite a great many &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/angel/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;mentions&lt;/a&gt; of the word in the Bible, there is surprisingly little solid information about angels.  We depend on &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?sclient=img&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;gs_nf=1&amp;amp;ds=i&amp;amp;pq=renaissance+angels+art&amp;amp;cp=18&amp;amp;gs_id=3&amp;amp;xhr=t&amp;amp;q=renaissance+angels&amp;amp;pf=i&amp;amp;pws=0&amp;amp;tbm=isch&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;amp;biw=1146&amp;amp;bih=852&amp;amp;wrapid=tljp134838175035020&amp;amp;oq=renaissance+angels&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;renaissance art&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Paradise Lost&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; for much of our popular &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;angelology&lt;/a&gt;.  Calvin expressed reservations about discussing the topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My care, however, must be to keep within the bounds which piety prescribes, lest by indulging in speculations beyond my reach, I bewilder the reader, and lead him away from the simplicity of the faith. And since the Holy Spirit always instructs us in what is useful, but altogether omits, or only touches cursorily on matters which tend little to edification, of all such matters, it certainly is our duty to remain in willing ignorance.&amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xv.html?highlight=angels#highlight&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Institutes of the Christian Religion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, Book I, Chapter 14, Section 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-09-23T06:41:01.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9840" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9857" CreationDate="2012-09-23T07:08:32.603" Score="8" ViewCount="9039" Body="&lt;p&gt;On several occasions the High Jewish priests asked Jesus, that if He is the son of God, then demonstrate by doing X or Y. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume in all of these cases, he could have fulfilled the requests to show who He was - so why not just give them some proof?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus have to beat around the bush ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why not prove Himself for exponentially more followers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-09-24T03:05:11.357" LastActivityDate="2017-06-04T02:14:49.397" Title="Why didn't Jesus give proof to the priests?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-06-06T18:35:47.607" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9834" CreationDate="2012-09-23T09:46:04.407" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;When looking at the overall context of all the warnings in Hebrews we have a situation for the unpardonable sin of fully rejecting Christ even under the sanctifying work and demonstrable power of the Holy Spirit making it absolute, thus unforgivable.  It represents a full grown and stubborn unbelief in the face of a long season of powerful grace and the Spirit's manifested power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All one has to do to understand these verses is to 'think Judas'.  Although never properly sanctified by inner regeneration, his mind had been in a sense 'sanctified'.  What confuses some is they automatically think a person can experience no kind of sanctification except after justification but this is not correct. For example a 'unbelieving' spouse is sanctified in some ways by the believing spouse to make a marriage holy even when one spouse is not inwardly sanctified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (NIV 1 Corinthians 7:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way by being with the Lord every day, having himself been given gifts to preach and to cast out demons when the Apostles were sent out two by two, Judas had 'tasted of the heavenly gift'. Judas was made 'partaker of the Holy Ghost'. Judas certainly 'tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come'. However, Judas was a bad field that did not produce a good crop and was never 'saved'. Therefore, as Judas 'fell away' it was really not possible to 'renew him again unto repentance' seeing that in his unforgivable rejection of eternal life, Judas was  'crucifying the Son of God afresh' leading him into the bowels of hell, which he himself under the horrible misery of sin cast his own life into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very same dangers faced many of the Hebrews soon after the resurrection of Christ.  The gospel had been recently been received by many Hebrews, but their faith was uncertain and some were tempted to reject Christ over Moses.  Such wickedness was equal with Judas' rejection. Even after they had witnessed the power of the gospel in an unusual manner.  Not only witnessing the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the evidence of the risen Christ or testimony of Apostles concerning it.  They also had the word of God proclaimed to them in fulfillment of all that the prophets had spoken and now unveiled by gifted men animated by the Spirit and wisdom and knowledge.  If they were to reject Christ, in preference to Moses, they would be no different than Judas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the history of the first generation of Jews under Moses typified their situation and Hebrews recalls the story forming the context of these verses.  For example, 'What is the deliverance from Egypt but a display of God power?' Did not God provide a means to deliver the minds and bodies of the Jews from the hands of Pharaoh by his mighty hand and then present an opportunity of faith during the testing in the desert? The first deliverance through the Red Sea did not represent regeneration, the second crossing through the Jordan did, as only then did they entered a land flowing with milk and honey, wherein the battle of sanctification would begin. (i.e. the kingdom of God) How did those Jews respond to this tasting of the power of God and sanctification caused by the release under the tyrannical powers of Pharaoh? (Pharaoh is representing the Devil's malice and power to blind a man from having opportunity of faith and rest by faith).  Well they did not believe, so God destroyed them! In other words, nearly the whole generation was a Judas, a reprobate, an unsaved wicked sinner despite the power of God in saving them externally and sanctifying their minds, in order to have the option of worshiping and serving the One true God by the rest of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the context of Hebrews and all the warnings in it.  Early on in the book we find this argument so clearly laid out.  Therefore only those who have genuine faith proven by souls that do not fall away are saved. Those who never had faith prove it by their actions. No matter their confession the Jews in the desert were unwilling to believe so they died:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.&#xA;  We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.&#xA;  As has just been said:&#xA;  “Today, if you hear his voice,&#xA;  do not harden your hearts&#xA;  as you did in the rebellion.”&#xA;  Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies perished in the wilderness?&#xA;  And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed?&#xA;  So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. (NIV Hebrews 3:12-19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth is those who believe that every true believer will persevere by faith (or once saved always saved) these verses pose no difficulty whatsoever.  On the contrary they are the most clear descriptions of cursed men who produce nothing but thorns even when tasting the Spirit in external convictions, powerful displays and convincing demonstration on the truthfulness of the gospel, which they fully reject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-23T11:49:48.923" LastActivityDate="2012-09-23T11:49:48.923" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9836" CreationDate="2012-09-23T10:26:34.840" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The definition of an inactive JW is that they are not active in their primary commission, which is of course the preaching of the good news of God's Kingdom. [Note: This refers specifically to preaching to non-Witnesses, whether in door-to-door &quot;field service&quot; or by some other method. This activity is structured, and time spent is recorded, reported, and compiled.] To my knowledge, this is the case if a Witness does not engage in preaching for a whole calendar month, but extenuating circumstances can be taken into account with the elderly and infirm being able to report much smaller intervals of activity. If a person is inactive they remain classified as this for three months following until they show that they are once again active in the service. Having said this inactivity is can also be accompanied by non attendance of meetings etc, but the primary definition is due to not being involved in preaching which in itself is a condition of &quot;membership&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between an active and inactive member can involve the duties that they are able to perform in the congregation as only those in good standing may be involved in some teaching assignments in the congregation (what would be the point of someone telling others to preach when they themselves do not?). Also persons that become inactive will be given extra attention to try and find the reason for inactivity and help them to return to service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The count of members published per country every year includes only &quot;active&quot; members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2198" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-09-25T20:29:18.257" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T20:29:18.257" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9844" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-23T13:02:52.877" Score="1" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation 11:10-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:&#xA;  11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Is this torment in Hell, or &lt;em&gt;while&lt;/em&gt; they are alive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since it's &quot;for ever and ever&quot;, I'm inclined to believe it's in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) While the Holy Angels + God is watching, are the Saints not watching?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) If it's in Hell, are unbelievers (who did not receive the mark of the beast) treated differently from those who did receive the mark of the beast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) Any additional insights on this vs being thrown into the lake of fire is also welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T17:12:12.217" Title="Torment of Unbelievers vs those who take the Mark of the Beast" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-25T14:00:57.627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9840" CreationDate="2012-09-23T14:24:47.163" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/luke/4-12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 4:12&lt;/a&gt; explains it nicely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &quot;It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the high priests asked Jesus to do X or Y, He had no interest in responding to their cheap tests. The Power of God should never be used in sideshows to perform &quot;magic tricks&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2012-09-23T14:24:47.163" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9840" CreationDate="2012-09-24T00:47:58.823" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Luke, Jesus was asked for a sign - a miracle - to prove he was.  Jesus responded by saying that he would, in fact give them a sign, just not the one they expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 11:28 - 32, he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. &lt;strong&gt;It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.&lt;/strong&gt; 30 For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and now something greater than Jonah is here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his foreknowledge, I would argue, he knew he was going to die and be resurrected. Like Jonah, he knew that he would spend &amp;quot;three nights in the belly of [the earth].&amp;quot; His resurrection would in fact be the proof that was demand.  Later, in the story of Lazarus and Dives, the Rich Man, Dives - who had been sent to Hell, begs Abraham for the chance to at least warn his family not to join him.  Jesus, through Abraham has an interesting reply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Jesus is saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a. even a person being dead and then not being dead won't convince them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;b. the Scriptures (aka &amp;quot;Moses and the Prophets&amp;quot;) already contained sufficient proof, if only people would have listened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be understood that it is terribly easy to blur the line between seeking proof and seeking some cheap entertainment.  Perhaps no one susses this out of Scripture better than Andrew Lloyd Webber in &lt;em&gt;Jesus Christ Superstar&lt;/em&gt; when he shows Herod to be a buffon  demanding that Jesus perform a miracle.  He says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M0tWvdM_qA&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Prove to me that you're divine; change my water into wine.&#xA;That's all you need do, then I'll know it's all true.&#xA;Come on, King of the Jews.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Herod, of course, had no intention of believing that Jesus was Divine, nor would he have ever brooked a rival &amp;quot;King of the Jews.&amp;quot; The coolest part of that song, of course, is that it is entirely scriptural.  As Luke 23 says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform a sign of some sort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and for the record - that was the context in which the High Priest you asked about demand proof, and Jesus remained silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T00:47:58.823" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9851" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9884" CreationDate="2012-09-24T01:04:08.547" Score="13" ViewCount="13266" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I'll admit, I love Andrew Lloyd Webber's &lt;em&gt;Jesus Christ Superstar.&lt;/em&gt;  I've seen it many times, and I've often tried to compare the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070239/&quot;&gt;1973&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B00005AREN&quot;&gt;1999&lt;/a&gt; versions.  Grant you, the acting is a heck of a lot less corny in the later version, but I'm struck by one major difference between the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both versions, the climax of the film is Jesus being crucified.  The last words spoken in each are from Jesus, from the cross.  But after that, there's a huge difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1973, let's film it in Israel version, the musical ends by the cast and crew getting in the bus, but all of them intently watching a sunrise.  A wordless song is played, but it is fairly easy to interpret this as an artistic decision to simply allow for the fact of the resurrection, but due to its ineffability, leaving the fact without comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, the 1999 remake affords no such reflection.  The cross is raised up, and the scene directly ends into the title and the credits.  While there is music, the ending is very definately at the last breath on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question I have then is this - is there any record of the theology of the two producers that would validate this hypothesis? Are either Norman Jewison (1973 director), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1103587-jesus_christ_superstar/&quot;&gt;Gale Edwards&lt;/a&gt; (1999 remake director), or Andrew Lloyd Webber himself on record as having discussed the motivation behind this crucial change?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T02:50:57.327" LastActivityDate="2017-11-02T19:40:28.603" Title="Was anyone making a theological point by changing the ending of Jesus Christ Superstar?" Tags="&lt;culture&gt;&lt;jesus-christ-superstar&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9852" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9862" CreationDate="2012-09-24T01:27:47.763" Score="1" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's wide consensus: The quality and applicability of homilies/sermons vary widely from parish to parish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is something that all Christian churches need to take seriously because people will invariably drift from a faith and drift from a formal religious assemblage if they can't connect the message at Mass with their own lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here's my question:&#xA;- How can a Christian seek out the best Homilists/Preachers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T12:03:53.827" Title="How can a Christian seek out the best Homilists/Preachers?" Tags="&lt;preaching&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2012-09-24T16:58:35.247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9840" CreationDate="2012-09-24T01:59:31.170" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus Himself actually essentially says why He didn't give proof:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2010:24-26&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 10:24-26 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;The people* surrounded him and asked, “How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;25&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus replied, “I have already told you, and you don’t believe me. The proof is the work I do in my Father’s name. &lt;sup&gt;26&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But you don’t believe me because you are not my sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;em&gt;My NLT Bible has &quot;Jewish leaders&quot; instead of &quot;people&quot; at the beginning of the verse.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this point, Jesus has even healed a man that was born blind, which no one else had ever done (John 9), yet the Pharisees didn't believe Him. Jesus goes on to say that &quot;I and the Father are one.&quot; (verse 30), at which the people picked up stones to stone Him. Jesus points out that He did a lot of good acts and asks which one they're stoning Him for, at which they reply that they're stoning Him for claiming to be the Son of God despite being a mere man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this point, it's clear that anyone who asks Him to give proof is not going to believe it anyway, for they are so dead-set** on the idea that Jesus is NOT the Messiah. This is also backed up by the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:30-31&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 16:30-31 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;30&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;“The rich man replied, ‘No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;31&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;“But Abraham said, ‘If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well...not only did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead (and the Pharisees &lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt; didn't believe [John 11]), Jesus Himself rose from the dead...and sure enough, many people didn't believe anyway. Refusing to believe evidence because it doesn't agree with one's beliefs is not just a modern phenomenon...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**Awful pun, I know. Though I guess you could say it's a &lt;em&gt;killer&lt;/em&gt; pun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;...sorry.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T01:59:31.170" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9852" CreationDate="2012-09-24T03:49:12.137" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was a little surprised in finding the answer to this question, from a Catholic perspective at least, kind of reversed the tradition of parishes representing a contiguous geographical area.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the precepts of the Catholic Church is to &lt;code&gt;provide for the needs of the church&lt;/code&gt;, the church being the universal church, the diocese and the local parish where one is a member.  I don't have the old canon reference for it, but anyone over 50 will tell you that one is &quot;not really supposed to a parish across town&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, if this were true, it would still say this in canon law, and it doesn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, is what canon law says about the laity's obligation concerning Mass&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can.  1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you're talking about homilies and sermons, other preaching and teaching is certainly up to you to find, but homilies and sermons would only be in the context of a greater form of worship and are definitely special creatures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, they're not the most important part.  I don't know what the most important part of a protestant service is, but the most important part of the Catholic Mass is in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, not the Liturgy of the Word (which the homily is a part of) and that part, unless some profoundly illicit thing is happening, should have equal awesomeness wherever you go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said a common complaint of apostates and other sorry folks is that, &quot;they're not being fed&quot; when they go to Mass.  Well, in truth, unless they're avoiding communion, which I doubt, they are being fed.  The problem is that they feel the preaching isn't reaching them.  But, that's what G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis are for &lt;em&gt;and those guys aren't even priests&lt;/em&gt; the priest has to talk about the scripture or some part of the Mass, he can't go off on a tangent every week about the horrors of pornography.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, before I go off on a tangent and write more than you want to read :), the best advice I can give is to go to Mass early and pray and occasionally go to a church where you know the preaching is on fire, but make sure you provide for the needs of your local church because they probably provide a lot of important services, besides preaching, which is vitally important to the needs of your, more immediate, community. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T03:49:12.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9840" CreationDate="2012-09-24T04:34:36.837" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus did give them proof, on numerous occasions. He healed the sick, turned water into wine, and raised the dead. He showed how his coming fulfilled prophecy. But they still didn't believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the story of the blind man Jesus healed in John 9. When he was brought to the Pharisees, did they say, &quot;Zounds, Jesus restored the sight of a blind man! He must be a great prophet if not God himself!&quot; No, they didn't. They had the man right there, giving his eye-witness (no pun intended) testimony. And what was their response? They had his parents brought in and questioned if he had really been blind. When they said he was, they demanded that the man explain how Jesus did it. Of course he didn't know. They pressed and pressed, and when he wouldn't recant his story, they had him excommunicated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when they asked for yet another sign, Jesus told them no, he had already given them all the proof they needed. If Jesus had come to some meeting of the priests and performed a miracle right in front of them, I'm sure they would have claimed it was an illusion or a magic trick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's just like some of the demands people make today. Every now and then an atheist will say, &quot;If there really is a God, let him strike me down with lightning right now.&quot; Why doesn't God respond by sending lighting? Because: suppose that an atheist said that, and at that very moment a bolt of lightning tore through the roof and knocked him to the ground. Would all the atheists say, &quot;Wow, we were wrong. God did indeed prove his existence&quot;? I really really doubt it. Much more likely they would say, &quot;Wow, what an astounding coincidence! Just as Bob made that comment about God striking him with lightning, he actually was struck by lightning! You know it would be funny if it wasn't that poor Bob was so badly hurt ...&quot; Right? Does anyone seriously think otherwise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At some point you have to say, he's done all these miracles, he's given you the Bible, you can believe it or not. In Luke 16:31, Jesus says, &quot;If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.&quot; I used to wonder what Jesus meant by this. For of course, if someone really came back from the dead, everyone would have to believe. How could they not? Then stories of near-death experiences came out, people who claimed to have died during surgery or in accidents and then been revived, and who talked about seeing a &quot;being of light&quot; and a heavenly -- or sometimes hellish -- place. Did this end the controversy, and everyone who heard became Christians? No. They said these people were making up stories or hallucinating. Maybe some people became convinced that there is life after death from such testimony, but I suspect it's few. I'm a Christian, I believed in life after death before I heard these stories, and they don't particularly convince me of anything. I don't know what to make of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone doesn't want to believe, no amount of evidence will convince him. God's not going to waste his time giving a 127th proof to someone who wasn't convinced by the first 126.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T04:34:36.837" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9858" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T08:01:35.620" Score="5" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I understand it, the concept of having parishes and parish churches means that regions are divided up geographically, that each region will have a church that is specifically dedicated to that region, and that everybody in that region is expected/required to be a part of that local church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that there is a huge variety when it comes to implementation. What I would like to know is what modern traditions fully embrace this concept to the point of enforcing it on some level. Are there any traditions that would refuse to let members cross parish lines to attend another church? Do any others with perhaps a less hard line rule have specific doctrines encouraging this but define exceptions where it might not be required?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2020-11-03T18:57:50.577" Title="What traditions fully embrace the concept of a &quot;local parish church&quot;?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;church-polity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9859" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9860" CreationDate="2012-09-24T10:02:50.493" Score="7" ViewCount="2269" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I understand there are many people from various denominations who imagine certain places on the earth are 'holier' than other places and that it is good to travel long distances to visit those places.  During the times of the reformation sometimes the travel might be difficult and that this might also be a means in part to show 'penance' for one's sins, not to mention opportunity of purchasing indulgences for the same purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pilgrimages seems quite contrary to the notions of the reformation. I wonder what the leaders of the reformation, specifically Martin Luther, thought about the idea of going on a pilgrimage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-01-09T16:07:52.070" LastActivityDate="2015-01-09T16:07:52.070" Title="How did Luther view pilgrimages?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9859" CreationDate="2012-09-24T10:02:50.493" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther did not condemn pilgrimages as much as several other practices but his loathing of pilgrimages is quite clear in his writings. As with many things in the reformation, Luther's earlier writings moderately condemn the practice and then his comments tend to become more severe as the reformation matured.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early in the reformation, Luther attributed pilgrimages to primarily an indicator of 'boredom' and 'lack of responsibility' to one's own church and family:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who make pilgrimages do so for many reasons, very seldom for legitimate ones. The first reason for making pilgrimages is the most common of all, namely, the curiosity to see and hear strange and unknown things. This levity proceeds from a loathing for and boredom with the worship services, which have been neglected in the pilgrims’ own church. Otherwise one would find incomparably better indulgences at home than in all the other places put together. Furthermore, he would be closer to Christ and the saints if he were not so foolish as to prefer sticks and stones to the poor and his neighbors whom he should serve out of love. And he would be closer to Christ also if he were to provide for his own family. (Luther's Works Volume 31.198)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, Luther thought the desire to go on pilgrimages might indicate which kingdom you belonged to, God's or the Devil's. Luther thought those who had real faith would give themselves up to God, However there were some great errors in evaluating yourself to determine if you have given your life to God and the first error implicates the idea of a 'pilgrimage':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first is committed by those who run hither and yon for the purpose of becoming righteous, of entering God’s kingdom, and of being saved. The one runs to Rome, the other to St. James; one builds a chapel, another donates this, still another one that. However, they refuse to face the true issue, that is, they will not give their inmost self to God and thus become his kingdom. They perform many outward works which glitter very nicely, but inwardly they remain full of malice, anger, hatred, pride, impatience, unchastity, etc.&#xA;  It is against them that Christ spoke when he was asked when the kingdom of God was coming, “The kingdom of God does not come with outward signs or appearances; for behold, the kingdom of God is within you” [Luke 17:20–21]. Christ also says in Matthew 24 [:23–24], “If anyone says to you, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ do not believe it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those whom God has commanded a man to keep in body and soul he leaves behind, and wants to serve God in some place or another, something that was never commanded. No bishop forbids and no preacher rebukes such a perverse practice. In fact, in the interests of their own covetousness the clergy endorse such practices. Every day they think up more and more pilgrimages, canonizations of saints, and indulgence fairs. May God have mercy on such blindness!  (Luther's Works Volume 44.86, 1520) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As is usual with Luther, as the reformation progressed we find his blasts against the practice more severe.  He personally ties in pilgrimages together with the practice of those travelers visiting prostitutes, meeting up for 'sex'. It is not clear if the 'getting together' for 'sex' in reference to the Pope is also bound together Luther's claim of practiced sodomy among clergy, or not: (See this post for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9698/is-it-true-that-luther-claimed-popes-and-priests-commonly-practiced-sodomy/9699#9699&quot;&gt;Sodomy&lt;/a&gt; references).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Every false religion is contaminated by libidinous desires. Just keep an eye on sex. What were pilgrimages [under the papacy] but opportunities to get together? What does the pope do now but besmirch himself unceasingly with lust? In order that they might satisfy lust the more, well-situated places, beautiful fountains, trees, hills, and rivers were sought out for pilgrimages.&#xA;  “The heathen held marriage in more honor than the pope and the Turk. The pope hates it; the Turk despises it. It is the devil’s custom to hate the works of the Lord. He’s hostile to whatever God holds dear—the church, marriage, government. He’d like to have whoredom and uncleanness, for if he does, he knows very well that people will no longer trouble themselves about God.”  (Luther's Works Volume 54.422, 1542)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-01-09T16:07:44.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2764" CreationDate="2012-09-24T11:01:30.553" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Warren's answer is good I thought it might be worth expanding on it though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best explanation I have heard is that the seed was a certain lineage that was gradually narrowed as the revelation of the Old Testament unfolded.  It could never be all Abrahams many seeds as some provided no blessing to the world in any sense, but that special lineage down to the Messiah could be the only means from which a world could be blessed through Abraham.   By the time Messiah was actually manifested in the flesh Paul declares that the seed is actually Christ only, for this lineage means nothing but as it lead up to him and terminated in him.  Furthermore as the whole church, past, present and future gets its life in Him, in this single seed, represents all true children of Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without following the argument along these lines it seems like a very poor argument and dishonest play on words.  So it is not absolutely based on the word, seed versus seeds, but what seed meant versus seeds, that is the narrowing lineage until it hit its final mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T11:01:30.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9852" CreationDate="2012-09-24T11:46:23.897" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;By going to church. Period. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As one who has preached for a long time, I can tell you that fancy oratory, glitzy aids, cool programs, and all the best homeletics in the world cannot make up for a pastor who knows you like a shepherd knows his sheep. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Want to know why I stopped going to mega churches? Because I realized it was too easy to hide. I could be an anonymous consumer of great preaching, but all I did was get spiritually fat. I remember a mega church pastor telling me he felt like he was feeding cake to fat people. In a small church, when I neglect the gospel in my own life, I have four old ladies and several learned men who preach into my life in ways that Billy Graham or Billy Sunday could never match. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what is meant behind the often cliched phrase &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smallgroups.com/articles/2012/lifeonlife.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;life on life&lt;/a&gt;&quot; preaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianity.com/ChurchHistory/11630640/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Broaddus&lt;/a&gt; - almost universally considered &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/broadus/brindex.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the father of homelitics&lt;/a&gt;&quot; said this in &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.founders.org/journal/fj11/article4.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How can we help our pastor&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when he begins to preach, cannot we help him to preach? Demosthenes is reported to have said (and he ought to have known something about it), that eloquence lies as much in the ear as in the tongue. Everybody who can speak effectively knows that the power of speaking depends very largely upon the way it is heard, upon the sympathy which one succeeds in gaining from those he addressed. If I were asked what is the first thing in effective preaching, I should say, sympathy; and what is the second thing, I should say, sympathy; and what is the third thing, sympathy. We should give our pastor sympathy when he preaches.&#xA;  Sometimes one good listener who does not care much about the gospel can put the sermon all out of harmony. The soul of a man who can speak effectively is a very sensitive soul, easily repelled and chilled by what is unfavorable, and easily helped by the manifestation of simple and unpretentious sympathy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That sympaticos - the relational connection which drives home a sermon - can only be developed in person. Nothing else beats it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So bottom line - want real preaching? Stop hiding behind &quot;good preaching&quot; and you'll find out how truly great it can be! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-24T12:03:53.827" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T12:03:53.827" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9863" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T15:11:04.207" Score="10" ViewCount="934" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the basis in the Scripture for the doctrine that those who haven't received salvation during their physical life, especially those who heard of Christ and yet chose not to pray to Him, will still have a chance to get saved after their physical death? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2015-04-28T22:54:53.790" LastActivityDate="2015-10-09T10:40:49.363" Title="What is the scriptural basis for the idea that salvation can still be obtained after death?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9840" CreationDate="2012-09-24T17:07:59.483" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that there are already some wonderful answers to this question, but I thought that I would just add in my two bits, which hadn't already been said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Namely, that besides having already given them signs and proofs through &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; miracles, he also had three other reasons for not fully disclosing His identity as Messiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For the good reason that the Jewish leaders and priests were from the beginning hostile to him, and planning for his death. If he had given his true identity away to them they would probably have crucified him before the right time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Also, for the people's misunderstanding of him as an earthly and political ruler.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And lastly for his desire to evoke genuine faith not based completely on His signs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, now something not totally related, though somewhat as a reply to some comments on El'endia Starman's answer. I was wondering if anybody had read the Gospel according to Nicodemus? It has a wonderful account of the resurrection through the eyes of those risen from the tomb on Christ's descent into Hades. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aren.org/prison/documents/religion/Pseudepigrapha/The%20Gospel%20of%20Nicodemus,%20formerly%20called%20the%20Acts%20of%20Pontius%20Pilate.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is a link&lt;/a&gt;. Just start at page 19. I found that to be very interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgive me if I strayed off topic. &quot;Bearing with one another and forgiving one another...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T17:07:59.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9865" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T18:25:06.147" Score="2" ViewCount="3532" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've watched a lot of horror movies and I can't help noticing Satan or any demons are often portrayed 'diabolically' laughing somewhere in the movie. But then, Satan is supposed to be our prosecutor* at the Last Judgement and a professional prosecutor would NOT laugh for other reasons. So, my question is - are there any facts in the Book or elsewhere confirming that Satan indeed laughs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;sub&gt;I got the idea that Satan will be our prosecutor from the Book of Revelation but please also explain that imagery if my interpretation is wrong.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-25T07:38:14.030" LastActivityDate="2017-05-02T14:40:59.120" Title="Does Satan actually laugh?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-05-02T19:51:14.773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9866" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T19:29:56.733" Score="12" ViewCount="1580" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently re-read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God&quot;&lt;/a&gt; and I was struck by the pleasure &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards&lt;/a&gt; seemed to have taken in describing the imminent destruction of sinners:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can almost see Edwards &quot;rubbing his hands together gleefully and cackling a little&quot; over the plight of unbelievers.  Is this attitude toward the damned common among Calvinists?  Is it a necessary conclusion from their particular set of assumptions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-12-23T19:52:51.157" LastActivityDate="2015-12-23T19:52:51.157" Title="Do Calvinists rejoice in the destruction of sinners?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;wrath-of-god&gt;&lt;jonathan-edwards&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9866" CreationDate="2012-09-24T19:29:56.733" Score="14" Body="&lt;h2&gt;My Thesis&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While you won't find many modern Calvinists preaching firebrand sermons of this sort, that has more to do with the change in American culture than with a change in theology.  The point of the sermon is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to rejoice in the suffering of sinners, but to warn of the very real danger (under Calvin's theology) of falling into hell.  Edwards was warning against a false sense of security based on striving for holiness rather than relying on the grace of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Great Awakening&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's hard to emphasize the difference between the way sermons from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;First Awakening&lt;/a&gt;  are viewed now compared to the way they were viewed at the time.  For one thing, unlike later &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;revival&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Great_Awakening&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;movements&lt;/a&gt;, the target of Edwards' and Whitefield's sermons were very devote, conservative, religious, churchgoing Christians.  In other words, when Edwards says, &quot;he looks upon &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire&quot; we need to picture folks who resemble Westboro Baptist Church&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, not the people they attack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edwards was actually &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;addressing&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinners_in_the_Hands_of_an_Angry_God#Purpose&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a church&lt;/a&gt; that fit into the stereotype of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8547/914&quot;&gt;intolerant Puritanism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! &lt;strong&gt;But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be.&lt;/strong&gt; Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are &lt;em&gt;many in this congregation&lt;/em&gt; now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The picture Edwards paints is not a crowd of Christians rejoicing over the destruction of evil, but a congregation that feels pretty self-righteous and confident that hell is the destination of &lt;em&gt;other people&lt;/em&gt;.  The Great Awakening has sometimes been credited with breaking up the conservative hold on American and fueling (in part) the American Revolution.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Danger of Hell&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists tend to be more sympathetic to this sort of firebrand preaching since they believe a literal hell exists to punish sinners.  Warning people about the danger of hell is actually loving in this context.  If you happen to know that there's a speed trap ahead, it's a kindness to tell the driver that they might want to slow down.  At least part of the revulsion to hell-fire and damnation sermons comes from folks who don't believe hell exists or that sin carries any eternal consequences.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, Calvinists are especially known for believing, along with Paul, that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,&amp;mdash;Romans 3:22-23 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.&amp;mdash;Romans 2:5 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A Gracious Solution&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In our eagerness to read the shocking bits of sermons such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, we skip over or forget impassioned pleas for sinners to find salvation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God.&lt;/strong&gt; Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? &lt;strong&gt;Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield&lt;/strong&gt;, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point wasn't to &lt;em&gt;enjoy&lt;/em&gt; the suffering of others, but to wake people up to the problem and point them to the solution.  Whether or not we &lt;em&gt;agree&lt;/em&gt; that the problem exists or &lt;em&gt;agree&lt;/em&gt; with the proposed solution, we must not assume that Calvinists are pleased to see others suffer anymore than God is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. &lt;strong&gt;Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?&lt;/strong&gt; But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.&amp;mdash;Ezekiel 18:21-24 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ezekiel+18/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, the idea that Calvinists enjoy talking about the damnation of sinners or feel good about themselves for being better/chosen/more-worthy than others is an unwarranted stereotype.  While there are certainly folks who live into that ugly picture, I find most Calvinists to be about the same as other folks in terms of pride, humility, kindness, and cruelty.  If anything, Calvinist theology should lead people to be more humble and kind than normal, though evaluating that statement is beyond our scope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These jerks are by no means the only group giving Calvinism a bad name.  They are, however the most &quot;successful&quot; at leading a compliant media to a juicy, but empty, story.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I was surprised to learn that &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=HgVz-J-lz9MC&amp;amp;pg=PA279&amp;amp;source=gbs_toc_r&amp;amp;cad=4#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the doctrine of universal salvation&lt;/a&gt; is among the beliefs circulating in Edwards' time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T22:00:33.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9865" CreationDate="2012-09-24T19:39:00.090" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the axiom on which this question is presented is also based on the movies. Namely this fellow from Heaven Can Wait.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/kZkyd.png&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, in His mighty majestic omniscience hardly needs the prince of lies, darkness and evil to cough up a laundry list of sins.   At the end of all things, the final judgement (as opposed to particular judgement) all your works will just be exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The judgment will embrace all works, good or bad, forgiven as well as unforgiven sins, every idle word (Matthew 12:36), every secret thought (1 Corinthians 4:5). With the exception of Peter Lombard, theologians teach that even the secret sins of the just will be made manifest, in order that judgment may be made complete and that the justice and mercy of God may be glorified. This will not pain or embarrass the saints, but add to their glory, just as the repentance of St. Peter and St. Mary Magdalen is to these saints a source of joy and honour. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is what Catholic Encylopedia says concerning Satan appearance at the particular judgement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the appearance of angels and demons to bear witness before the judgment seat are regarded as allegorical descriptions (St. Augustine, City of God XX.14). The common opinion is that the particular judgment will occur at the place of death &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;particular judgement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the question of whether Satan laughs is an alright one.  Chesterton says that God's hidden virtue is His mirth.  I'd imagine that Satan's most egregious vice is his wicked chortle.  But, I hardly suspect, if he's read the Bible, that he's laughing on the inside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-25T11:40:37.880" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T11:40:37.880" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9866" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:00:42.603" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you are misreading the intent of the sermon. For some historical context, here is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://brattleborohistory.com/slavery/execution-sermon-sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;excellent essay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jonathan Edwards preached during July, twelve slaves had already&#xA;  been burned and nine were hanged, and the minister had no way of&#xA;  knowing how the horror would end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he was describing what God would do to us, were it not for grace, in the very same terms that were being done to real people nearby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jonathan Edwards did not create terrifying visions of torture in order&#xA;  to hurl his people into despair. The congregation, unwilling to accept&#xA;  any responsibility for slavery and its trade, needed &quot;Sinners in the&#xA;  Hands of an Angry God&quot; to ease the intolerable pangs of conscience&#xA;  that were provoked by the events in New York.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was real evil afoot in America at the time, and Edwards was taking a necessary step towards ridding the country of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2104" LastActivityDate="2012-09-24T22:00:42.603" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9870" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-24T22:23:49.320" Score="5" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people talk about &quot;A Never-Ending Battle Between Good and Evil&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible mentions specific interventions by God and Satan to influence earthly events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac&quot;&gt;'The Binding of Issac'&lt;/a&gt; stands out in my mind as an example of God's intervention.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temptation_of_Christ&quot;&gt;'The Temptation of Christ'&lt;/a&gt; stands out in my mind as an example of Satan's intervention.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do God and Satan celebrate earthly triumphs?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did God celebrate after Abraham did as He commanded him to do after 'The Binding of Issac'?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Would Satan have celebrated if Jesus succumbed to his temptations in the desert?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does either continue to celebrate as we live life on planet Earth?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="1100" LastEditDate="2012-09-24T23:33:25.360" LastActivityDate="2012-09-26T13:40:32.473" Title="Do God and Satan Celebrate Earthly Triumphs?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9870" CreationDate="2012-09-25T00:01:34.623" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the word 'celebrate' implies satisfaction or joy, I don't think we can properly say the Devil 'celebrates' in any thing that he falsely perceives as accomplishing his hate. As the Devil in enraged by cruel ambitions, he can find no real satisfaction or joy. Rather all his efforts would be understood better as an energetic and powerful 'writhing in agony.' As the scriptures do not unveil the secret and loathsome works of darkness, any further speculation on how the Devil feels or perceives things falsely would be out of place. We only know he is suffering death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God on the other hand can be said to rejoice in all his works, taking pleasure in all the good he accomplishes. It is the nature of good to take pleasure in Good and to the degree of that goodness achieved the more God, in a sense, 'celebrates it.' God's rejoicing is not only in Himself but even a believer's joy could be said to be God's joy in the heart of man. The kingdom of God includes joy because by entering it we have communion with God's celebration of all he does and all he is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (NIV Romans 14:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This joy, when eminent with respect to a wonderful work where God takes special joy, is often accompanied by illustration in the celebration of angels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety- nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. (NIV Luke 15:7-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-26T13:40:32.473" LastActivityDate="2012-09-26T13:40:32.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9863" CreationDate="2012-09-25T07:32:22.333" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only passage I am aware of is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18-20&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18-20a&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also &lt;strong&gt;he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed&lt;/strong&gt; long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that this is rather a &lt;em&gt;&quot;standalone&quot;&lt;/em&gt; passage, in that there is nothing similar in Scripture, so it is unwise to base a doctrine on it. However, you could read into this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is here preaching to dead people in hell (implied by &lt;em&gt;&quot;he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed&quot;&lt;/em&gt;) and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He would not preach unless there was hope of their salvation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note though that this is &lt;em&gt;speculation&lt;/em&gt; and not a central belief of any mainstream Christian denomination (that I know of - but see @brillant's comments, below).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-09-25T07:50:52.457" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T07:50:52.457" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9865" CreationDate="2012-09-25T10:11:23.103" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Laughter&quot; has two completely different manifestations: it can be joyous or a cynical sneer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joyous laughter:&lt;/strong&gt; not possible for Satan since &lt;em&gt;Joy&lt;/em&gt; is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:22-23&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;fruit of The Holy Spirit&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sneering:&lt;/strong&gt; not recorded in the Bible from Satan, but certainly used by his followers, see both in the Old Testament (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2057:3-5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Isaiah 57:3-5&lt;/a&gt;) and New when the Pharisees sneered at Jesus, both regarding His &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16:14&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;attitude to money&lt;/a&gt; and His failure (in their perception) to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+23:35&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;save Himself&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Personal note: I'm pretty sure I can hear the sneering when I read Biblical accounts of Satan, e.g. in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:1-5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;his first appearance&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T10:11:23.103" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9876" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9985" CreationDate="2012-09-25T11:22:38.923" Score="2" ViewCount="381" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Book of Revelation I've got the idea that the Satan will be our prosecutor at the Last Judgement. I've got this idea by interpreting the word 'accuser' as 'prosecutor' in the context of the Book of Revelation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I can imagine the Last Judgement as a very civilized trial with a prosecutor and, perhaps, other things similar to what we have here on Earth in civilized countries. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then the Book also says that at the Last Judgement &quot;the deeds of everyone will be exposed&quot;. It can be thought then that no formal procedure is required at the Last Judgement and there will be no prosecutor nor anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, then is it correct to understand that at the Last Judgement the Satan will be our prosecutor? Otherwise how I will even know what I am accused of??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastEditorUserId="1646" LastEditDate="2012-09-25T19:46:05.447" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T21:01:46.643" Title="The Last Judgement: a civilized trial or a barbaric ordeal?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9876" CreationDate="2012-09-25T12:54:06.473" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Neither.&lt;/strong&gt; You're asking the wrong question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Earthly and fallable court systems work one way. As omniscient maker of the universe and its sovereign King, God is not required to work quite the same way. We use the imagery of a courtroom to talk about the last judgement, but it is just imagery. The actual proceedings are a little different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For one thing, there won't be a &quot;discovery&quot; phase. God knows every detail of your life backwards and forwards better than you do -- including your motivations. There will be nothing to argue, nothing to learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You will be found guilty.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What role Satan may play is not terribly important. He is an accuser and would love to remind God of the fact that you are guilty. But God already knows that. You are going to know it too. There won't be any doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only question remaining is, who is your defense. You will either have none at all, or if you belong to Him, you will have Christ who can step up and say, &quot;That one is mine, I paid his ransom, I have removed his guilt and made him a new creation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The guilty will have no chance of slipping through because some evidence against them is inadmissible. There is no jury that might let things slide. There will be no question about the strength of the evidence, whether presented by Satan or whether it's just known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;There is nothing barbaric in this&lt;/em&gt;. You will either be administered perfect justice or you will be redeemed through another having been justly punished in your place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-25T13:26:29.817" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T13:26:29.817" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9876" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:06:56.827" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there are two important pieces you're missing here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God is the perfect judge. He already knows &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the facts of case, including the alleged offense and your intentions. He will take &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; into account. This is important because it seems like you are looking for assurance that justice and due process will be given. The answer is that they will be more perfectly administered than any human court system in existence. There will be no escaping on technicalities, no clever legal maneuvers, no bias for race, creed, position, gender, or national origin (well, maybe for creed :). The correct verdict will be reached, for all of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You want to know what you are accused of. The answer is simple: sin. It doesn't matter what sin; any minor offense against the holiness of God is enough to result in the final separation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You are &lt;em&gt;guilty&lt;/em&gt;. We are &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; guilty (Rom 3:23). In light of this, a fair trial is the &lt;em&gt;last&lt;/em&gt; thing you want. The only thing that can save you from a sentence of eternal punishment is the unfair intervention of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T16:25:41.260" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9876" CreationDate="2012-09-25T16:44:50.213" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Alex, you really don't seem to be taking this seriously at any level. You should probably be aware that some of the language is probably symbolic more than literal. We don't necessarily expect a trial like we understand it on earth, and you certainly shouldn't be worrying about what clothes the participants are wearing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you seem to want to cast this as if it were an earthly trial, there isn't really a contradiction between &amp;quot;the deeds of everyone will be exposed&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Satan is the prosecutor&amp;quot;. I present for your consideration this hypothetical snippet of dialog:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan: I submit, your honor, that this person is a sinner who has fallen short on many occasions and deserves to be punished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God: Where is your evidence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan: I present exhibit A: a recording of everything this person has ever done!!!! &lt;em&gt;(maniacal laugh, or not, depending on where you stand on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9865/does-satan-actually-laugh&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T16:44:50.213" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9883" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9907" CreationDate="2012-09-25T19:52:38.583" Score="-3" ViewCount="671" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me clarify, this is not an attack on beliefs in any way. I changed the title as I see how it came off and it is due to my personal frustration with not understanding how things work - I apologize and am a believer - but with many many questions...any clarification into this confusion is greatly appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lately, I have been questioning my &lt;strong&gt;literal faith&lt;/strong&gt; about God providing the basic necessities like food and shelter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I would like to make sure I am not being arrogant or blind by not taking into account the fact that other people do not have basic needs met, when I believe &lt;strong&gt;without doubt&lt;/strong&gt; that God will take care of me.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can we harmonize a rock solid belief that God Will provide and facts that there are many many people who do not have these needs met?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the collective sin, such as economic injustice, war crimes or greed of others override the promise of God for any of these 925 million who may follow Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 6:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  31 “Don’t worry and say, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’&#xA;  or ‘What will we wear?’ 32 That’s what those people who don’t know God&#xA;  are always thinking about. Don’t worry, because your Father in heaven&#xA;  knows that you need all these things. 33 What you should want most is&#xA;  God’s kingdom and doing what he wants you to do. Then he will give you&#xA;  all these other things you need. 34 So don’t worry about tomorrow.&#xA;  Each day has enough trouble of its own. Tomorrow will have its own&#xA;  worries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Hunger_concepts_and_definitions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;925 million hungry people in 2010&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vKM7P.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please see:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Hunger_concepts_and_definitions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Hunger_concepts_and_definitions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-09-27T17:30:28.583" LastActivityDate="2015-02-27T20:11:12.823" Title="What is the Christian perspective on survival needs not met?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9851" CreationDate="2012-09-25T20:26:27.203" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original concept album (on which the stage and film versions are based) was deliberately ambiguous about whether Jesus was, in fact, anything other than a man. Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice came to the Gospel text with a humanistic premise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;We approached the opera from the point of view of Christ the man, rather than Christ the God,&amp;quot; Rice noted. &amp;quot;We had been well-coached in the mechanics of Christianity and its legends and beliefs. That was drummed into us at school. They treated the legends, so we decided to treat the bloke as a man. We read the gospels very carefully and that was it. What we did not read was eighty-three other people's interpretations of Christ because we didn't want to be affected by their views. We stuck to the text and our interpretation of what we think &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; have happened.&amp;quot; [...] &amp;quot;We tried to humanize Christ, because, for me, I find Jesus as portrayed in the gospels as a God as a very unrealistic figure.&amp;quot; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;We were basically trying to tell the story of Christ as a man,&amp;quot; says Tim Rice. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the title song &lt;em&gt;Superstar&lt;/em&gt;, in which Judas questions Jesus about his actions and motives, was the first one to be written: the rest of the opera is built around it. That certainly comes through in the way that the two creators talk about the work - it's all about that central accusation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rice and Lloyd Webber could not agree about how to handle the resurrection:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Webber has been quoted as saying that he and Rice had arguments, &amp;quot;long arguments, in fact, about the basis of the opera and how it should be treated. We had to decide which events in the life of Jesus we were going to write about - and this was the most difficult area of all in which to find agreement. Eventually we chose the last seven days of His life. Even now, I don't go along with some of the things that Tim has written in the opera. The lyrics are extremely good for any composer to work with, but I don't necessarily agree with all of them. I would have liked to have included the resurrection, but it just wouldn't have been worthwhile. We disagree too much about it.&amp;quot; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, the ending of the opera was deliberately made to be open to multiple interpretations, which might be brought out differently in various stage or film versions. For example, regarding the 1971 Broadway production, Rice said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I think O'Horgan's production hints more strongly at the resurrection than the record does. The reaction of the crowd below [the cross] - going from hysteria to chaos to a beautiful sort of peace. O'Horgan is saying, 'This is not the end.'&amp;quot; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the stage version will invariably end with Jesus coming back for a curtain call - effectively a resurrection! - also changes the way in which the story is perceived, compared to a film adaptation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the 1973 film, director Norman Jewison broke with the two original creators, who had a different opinion about how the movie should be approached. The fact that his film does allow space for a resurrection may spring from his slightly different take on the original text, and the context in which it was made. His idea was to present the events on a human scale (no huge crowds), blurring temporal lines (neither modern dress nor period authenticity) so as to suggest parallels between attitudes then and now. He was also conscious of the possibility of religious offense, especially given that the picture was being filmed in Israel (actually at the same time as the massacre at the Munich Olympics) and previous versions of Superstar had been heavily criticized for anti-Semitism. All of this may lead to a slightly more sympathetic and open-ended view of the story, compared to the accusatory tone of the original libretto. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gale Edwards version (originally also a stage production in 1996) was made partly because Lloyd Webber himself was dissatisfied with the 1970s productions, and wanted to stage a show that was more true to his own image of what the opera text was about.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; By this time, he had a lot more clout than he did in the early 70s, when he was unable to stop the Broadway and film directors from doing their own thing. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Whereas the original album was a compromise between Lloyd Webber (agnostic) and Tim Rice (self-described as &amp;quot;slightly religious&amp;quot;), this version is a purer strain of Lloyd Webber. He is probably not making a particular theological point so much as a dramatic one, thinking the spectacle and the experience would be improved by presenting it in this way.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; A sudden stop is not necessarily saying that there is no more to the story, but it does perhaps startle the audience into thinking about it in a way that a tidier ending might not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did not find any direct reference from Jewison or Edwards about their artistic choices, but I do think that what they did was fairly subtle, within the range of interpretations supported by the ambiguous opera text. Essentially, being true to the original vision of what the opera is about means not coming down too firmly on one side or the other. That said, some productions - particularly those sponsored by churches - have added an explicit resurrection scene or song at the end, which certainly counts as making a theological point. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;Rock Opera: the creation of Jesus Christ Superstar from record album to Broadway show and motion picture&lt;/em&gt;. Ellis Nassour and Richard Broderick. Hawthorn Books, 1973.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2. Life magazine. May 28, 1971.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3. Billboard magazine. Oct 19, 1996.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T20:26:27.203" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5482" CreationDate="2012-09-25T20:57:17.550" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 17:10      And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me&#xA;a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten [shekels] of silver by&#xA;the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went&#xA;in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 18:19      And they said unto him, Hold thy peace, lay thine hand&#xA;upon thy mouth, and go with us, and be to us a father and a priest:&#xA;[is it] better for thee to be a priest unto the house of one man, or&#xA;that thou be a priest unto a tribe and a family in Israel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T20:57:17.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5482" CreationDate="2012-09-25T21:07:35.780" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Wikis noted, Matthew 23 is the passage to which the person was probably referring:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe&#xA;  whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach,&#xA;  but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and&#xA;  lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to&#xA;  move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by&#xA;  others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,&#xA;  6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the&#xA;  synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called&#xA;  rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have&#xA;  one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 &lt;strong&gt;And call no man your&#xA;  father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.&lt;/strong&gt; 10&#xA;  Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the&#xA;  Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever&#xA;  exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be&#xA;  exalted.  Matthew 23:2-12 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that men should not be exalted over us in such roles.  The religious rabbis and teachers of the law were the most corrupt and dishonorable to God.  Jesus commands us to not seek such titles for ourselves, nor give them to others, but to exalt God as Father and Teacher and Master.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T21:07:35.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9883" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:28:38.707" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oddly enough - I'm going to argue this is a duplicate of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7520/1039&quot;&gt;Who is responsible for my life?&lt;/a&gt;, not that any reasonable person would have made the link.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That 1 in 7 are unable to obtain even the basic staples of life is a deadly, miserable fact - but it is not because God doesn't provide it, but rather that his creation is so disordered and improperly stewarded (yes, Adam has failed at his task!) that it is incapable of properly allocating it. (War, Theft, Environmental Change - you name the cause!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the argument still holds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We live in a fallen, disordered world that God never intended, but nonetheless allowed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is not &quot;responsible&quot; for this state, we, as rebellious creatures are&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's character is never to override free decisions. He woos, he does not whelm.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The disorder breaks God's heart, but to pull a &lt;em&gt;deus ex machina&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(pun intended)&lt;/sup&gt; to fix things would violate his nature.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The long and the short of it is thus: God is incapable of rectifying the evils in the world, not because he lacks the power, but because it does not accomplish his purposes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to assume that God's purpose is to maximize the amount and quality of life on the planet is a mistake. God's purpose can be accomplished through life &lt;em&gt;and death&lt;/em&gt;.  Through joy &lt;em&gt;and sorrow&lt;/em&gt;.  Indeed, it is only recent generations that have come to expect their reward in this life at all. And remember, God achieved his mightiest triumph by dying on a cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Teacher said, &quot;to everything there is a season. A time to be born, a time to die. A time for peace, a time for war.&quot; God appoints all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The hope of the Christian is not to avoid these things, but rather to know that God loves him in spite of them.  As Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For your sake we face death all day long;&#xA;      we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”&#xA;  37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T22:36:18.370" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9888" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9894" CreationDate="2012-09-25T22:39:37.540" Score="2" ViewCount="2197" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although it may difficult to cite all the sects, what are some major Christian sects that promote &quot;faith healing&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastActivityDate="2012-09-26T18:28:54.623" Title="Which Christian sects promote faith healing?" Tags="&lt;faith-healing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9888" CreationDate="2012-09-25T23:11:01.827" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christian Science:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Christian Science Journal records the healings and spiritual&#xA;  insights of those who faithfully practice Christian Science. &#xA;  Individuals share how an ever-developing understanding of God has&#xA;  healed, enlightened, and blessed them, expanding their spirituality&#xA;  and ability to heal others.  Below are a few sample articles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Journal also includes a worldwide directory of Christian Science&#xA;  practitioners, teachers, and Christian Science nurses available to&#xA;  anyone interested in spiritual healing, as well as a listing of all&#xA;  Christian Science churches and societies throughout the world.  The&#xA;  directory is here as well as in the right column of this page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Reference:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianscience.com/prayer-and-health/inspiration/publications/the-christian-science-journal&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://christianscience.com/prayer-and-health/inspiration/publications/the-christian-science-journal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2012-09-25T23:11:01.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9890" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9897" CreationDate="2012-09-26T03:23:43.963" Score="16" ViewCount="12570" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any canon, regulation, norm or diocesan norm which requires priests to report confessions of child abuse?  Are priests obliged to follow laws to this effect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not asking in regard to child sexual abuse committed by other priests as has been reported in the news over the last decade or so, but the kind of stuff that, if someone came to a physician or a psychologist for help with, the person involved would have to report to authorities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-26T03:50:49.510" LastActivityDate="2015-12-14T08:56:15.953" Title="Do Catholic priests have to report child abuse confessed in secret?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9891" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-26T03:29:45.517" Score="8" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another year of teaching religious ed. is starting for me next week and one thing our DRE wants to emphasize, with the new diocesan norms mandating tests, of all things, is that we need more parental involvement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm Catholic, but I'd like to know what Protestants do to get the parents of their students more involved in their children's religious education. Mostly, how do you overcome barriers when your student's parents don't attend services or come to many church events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-09-26T21:58:08.770" LastActivityDate="2012-10-17T14:29:47.593" Title="How do protestant youth group ministers reach apathetic parents of religious education students?" Tags="&lt;religious-education&gt;&lt;parents&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9892" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="43923" CreationDate="2012-09-26T04:02:11.467" Score="9" ViewCount="269" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the time canon was formed, when did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-25T13:56:29.863" LastActivityDate="2015-09-25T13:56:29.863" Title="When did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9888" CreationDate="2012-09-26T07:17:26.070" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of &quot;faith healing&quot; is pretty broad and you would need to supply your own definition if you want a very specific answer. Lacking that, here is the general lay of the land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christian traditions actually believe (have faith) that God can and even does heal people. However I doubt this is what you are referring to. Where most denominations back off is when it comes to the recipient being able to demand (in faith?) to be healed and the result is seen as reflecting on the amount of faith rather than strictly God's sovereign will to say yes or no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the latter kind of faith healing, it is most prevalent among Pentecostal and extreme Charismatic groups. It is given varying degrees of importance from a sometimes mentioned subject to a key item used as primary evidence of belief and even for evangelism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few less common groups with less direct ties to Christianity such as the Christian Scientist movement also promote this, although their implementation often varies from the kind of thing you see trumpeted on questionable TV channels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does sometimes pop up in other circles, even Catholic ones, but is generally not well received by other traditions. Again, other traditions may believe that God can and does grant healing and our faith plays a role in that, but the kind of belief and practice that probably comes to mind from watching TV evangelists is mostly the domain of Pentecostal movements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-09-26T18:28:54.623" LastActivityDate="2012-09-26T18:28:54.623" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9890" CreationDate="2012-09-26T12:14:32.370" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If a priest violates the seal of confession, he is automatically excommunicated, period. Even if someone confesses to being a rapist, serial killer that enjoys hitting kittens with a baseball bat, the priest violates the seal of confession, that priest is &lt;em&gt;still excommunicated&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are norms for the reporting of child abuse (and often if a child is willing to mention something in confession, the child will be willing to mention something while &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; in confession) which have developed over the past couple of decades and they vary from diocese to diocese. Paterson diocese, for example, has the standard of &quot;If you suspect a child is being harmed, call DYFS immediately, then call &amp;lt;the person in charge of this type of investigation at the diocesan level&gt;.&quot; They've actually put posters up saying this. While I cannot imagine Newark diocese being any different, they have not put up posters (to my knowledge).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-09-26T12:14:32.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9892" CreationDate="2012-09-26T16:26:11.240" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea shows up very early on, dating back to apostolic times.  We see Paul talking about baptisms on behalf of the dead (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:29&lt;/a&gt;) as if it were a familiar, non-controversial practice, and in Peter tells how Christ went to preach to &quot;the spirits in prison&quot; while he was dead, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:18-20&lt;/a&gt;) and saying that they were sinners who had been disobedient in their lives.  So it's safe to say that the concept has been around since the beginning of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-09-26T16:26:11.240" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9890" CreationDate="2012-09-26T17:56:52.513" Score="11" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Within the Confessional&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon Law specifically and absolutely forbids the priest from divulging anything sacramentally confessed (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Can 983&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, and notwithstanding Canon 980, it would be possible for a priest to withhold absolution from a penitent until she has reported any crime to the authorities herself. The priest may legitimately have doubts about the penitent's penitence until she accepts the consequences of her actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been told that if a priest has plans to travel on a particular plane, and someone sacramentally confesses that that flight is to be hijacked and brought down, the priest must not alter his own behaviour and travel on a different plane. He must act as if he had heard nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is scope for conflict with civil law. In the United Kingdom, it is not normally an offence &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to report criminal activity, but terrorism, money-laundering, treason and the failure to lawfully dispose of a body must be reported. A priest who hears such a confession is bound by civil law to report the crime and by canon law not to do so. Other countries may expand that list of applicable crimes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Outside the Confessional&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The requirement to maintain the secrecy of the sacramental confession does not bind anything confessed outside the sacrament of Reconciliation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the United Kingdom, it is not a criminal offence not to report or make an allegation of child abuse. Even if such a report is made, a priest could not give evidence such as &amp;quot;X told me that she had,&amp;quot; because that's hearsay. Additional primary evidence would be required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In England and Wales, the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.csasprocedures.uk.net/chapters/p_chi_young_peop.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;says&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An adult who provides information should be encouraged to share that information with the statutory agencies, where appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They should be offered support by the Local Safeguarding Representative to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the adult or child providing information about another child request anonymity when the Safeguarding Officer makes the referral to Children's Social Care Services or the Police, those agencies will respect their wishes as far as possible. However, where investigations proceed to Court this may not be possible to maintain at all times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An adult in an official or lay position of trust within the Church cannot expect to remain anonymous when a referral is made. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of an offender confessing outside the Confessional, there is a duty to report, and to encourage the offender to tell the authorities herself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-09-26T18:21:33.990" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9899" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-26T21:31:58.090" Score="8" ViewCount="634" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Judaism, some religions are considered to be &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/12229/581&quot;&gt;Avodah Zarah&lt;/a&gt;, and others are not. So, for example, if &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/89/581&quot;&gt;Christianity&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/12235/581&quot;&gt;certain of its denominations&lt;/a&gt; is Avodah Zarah, that has implications for Jews' interactions with those religions and with their places of worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Islam also distinguishes between religions which are &lt;a href=&quot;https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/7/156&quot;&gt;Ahl-ul Kitab&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/73/156&quot;&gt;ones which are not&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does any major Christian tradition make similar distinctions, or does Christianity generally merely treat all non-Christian religions as non-Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:49:09.287" LastActivityDate="2012-09-30T02:54:26.560" Title="Are other religions treated differently by any major branch of Christianity?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9899" CreationDate="2012-09-26T21:58:06.833" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;General orthodox Christianity believes that there is an exclusivity with Christians.  This is because their interpretation of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:6 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes&#xA;  to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However because of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:30-31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 12:30-31 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and&#xA;  with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is&#xA;  this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment&#xA;  greater than these.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are to have compassion for all people regardless of their belief system.  While other religions are generally considered &quot;Pagan&quot; or worshiping a &quot;false&quot; god(s).  This sometimes gets confusing when some Christians claim that another religion's main god is really Satan in disguise - which is mentioned as an enemy of God in the bible.&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;Judaism has a different type of the relationship with Christianity.  However its definition is not universally agreed upon.  So, is the relationship special, &quot;yes&quot;.  Can I define it?  &quot;No, unless you want to read a book.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-09-30T02:54:26.560" LastActivityDate="2012-09-30T02:54:26.560" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9901" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9903" CreationDate="2012-09-26T22:32:08.637" Score="4" ViewCount="387" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the verse below I believe this is how it was in the garden of eden, and how it should be&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 11:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie&#xA;  down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling&#xA;  together; and a little child shall lead them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the behaviour of animals to man and each other changed after the fall of man and as a result of the fall of  man? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or were they influenced by our new nature and attitudes? Or have they been like they were from the beginning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they have changed, what are the obvious changes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T02:14:55.653" LastActivityDate="2014-03-20T11:39:54.610" Title="The attitude of animals before and after fall" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;relationships&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9632" CreationDate="2012-09-26T23:42:46.500" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short Answer: No&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Complete Answer: The thing we must first understand is that Jesus never used his power on earth, instead he worked in conjunction with God the Father for each and every miracle. We see this time and time again where those healed by him are actually extensions of that person's faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 7&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. 2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.” 10 Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now how was the man healed, by Jesus or his faith? The correct answer is a bit more complicated than either or. It is actually a bit of both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look back to Genesis 1 and 2 there was nothing between man and God, they had no need for an intermediary, in fact they walked and talked together. Then came the fall, and the necessity of an intermediary between man and God because from the fall to the resurrection we separated ourselves from God. That is why God spoke to the people through prophets and no person could be in the direct presence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In steps Jesus and the whole game changes. Jesus bridged the gap of sin between us and God however to do this he had to &quot;give up&quot; his power on earth because to fulfill the law he has to be fully man (even though he was still fully God on earth as well). Another way to look at this is that Jesus is the embodiment of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Previously to atone for your sins the Jews made sacrifices, after Jesus we have an intercessory who stands in for us. So it is like you (the enemy) having the choice between asking a strong man's most beloved wife or an acquaintance of his to ask the strong man to lift a huge boulder. The question can be righteous but the action is not going to come from the person you are asking but the effectiveness of the person asking for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is that most effective intercessory that bridges the chasm of sin between us and God. Faith is a cornerstone of salvation along with grace and scripture (as it is the word of God). So it makes sense that a group's lack of faith would not warrant any miracles because they are not searching for grace but a handout to continue in sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2218" LastActivityDate="2012-09-26T23:42:46.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9901" CreationDate="2012-09-27T01:18:29.060" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The usual disclaimer - this is the Young-Earth Creationist, Biblical Literal view, which is not the only view out there.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Creationists, including Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and others believe and teach that the relationship between &lt;em&gt;man and animals&lt;/em&gt; was changed directly by God after the Flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the Flood, man was vegetarian only:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:29-30 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 And God said, “See, I have given you every&#xA;  herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every&#xA;  tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to&#xA;  everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have&#xA;  given every green herb for food”; and it was so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but after the Flood, man became omnivores.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 9: 1-3 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,&#xA;  and multiply, and replenish the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast&#xA;  of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth&#xA;  upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are&#xA;  they delivered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the&#xA;  green herb have I given you all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to when the &lt;em&gt;animals became dangerous to each other&lt;/em&gt;, the Bible doesn't specify.  Some suppose it was after the banishment from the Garden of Eden, some speculate that it was at the same time the relationship between man and animals changed in Genesis 3.  But Scripture doesn't say for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/are-biblical-creationists-divisive&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Answers in Genesis interprets Genesis 1:29-30 as stating that man and animals were all vegetarian&lt;/a&gt;, which does appear to be the case from a plain literal reading of the verses.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creationtoday.org/tyrannosaurus-rex-was-a-cannibal/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kent Hovind claims the same thing&lt;/a&gt;.  So they would naturally assume that animals became meat-eaters after the Flood as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2014-03-20T11:39:54.610" LastActivityDate="2014-03-20T11:39:54.610" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9899" CreationDate="2012-09-27T05:49:12.330" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians view Judaism differently than we view any other religion. Christians believe Judaism to be true except on the key point of the identify of the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides that, Christians believe that all other religions are false to the extent that they disagree with things that Christians believe are true. And every other religion disagrees with Christianity on vital points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I presume most every other religion will likewise say that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Who would not say that? I mean, who would say, for example, &quot;I believe the world is round, that person over there believes the world is flat, well, we're probably both right.&quot; That's the definition of &quot;controversial subject&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-09-27T05:49:12.330" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9883" CreationDate="2012-09-27T06:36:45.277" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The world is not the place God intended, because people are in rebellion against God. Some sin hurts others; some sin hurts yourself. Either way, you can't blame God for the harm that comes when people do exactly what he said not to do. If you are lazy and a drunkard and so can't hold down a job, perhaps the fault is with yourself and not with God. If a sadistic murderer kills an innocent person, perhaps the fault is with the killer and not with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some verses that are often quoted to say that the Bible promises that once you become a Christian your life will be problem-free. There's Matthew 6 that you quote in your question. There's Philippians 4:13, &quot;I can do all things through Christ[a] who strengthens me.&quot; Romans 8:28, &quot;And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God.&quot; Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But common sense would tell us that the Bible writers could not possibly have meant that the Christian-life is trouble-free. They all were well aware that this is not so. The Philippians 4:13 verse I quoted above comes right after 4:12, &quot;I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.&quot; Paul was well aware that all Christians are not healthy and wealthy, from personal experience if nothing else. The same Paul who wrote the Philippians and Romans verses I quoted also wrote 1 Cor 11:23-28, in which he recounts how he has been shipwrecked, beaten, imprisoned, etc etc. Likewise, the same Jesus who said the words in Matthew 6 also said, just a page or two back in Matthew 5:10-11, &quot;Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.&quot; He was well aware that his followers would be slandered and tortured and killed for their beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard lots of people say that they don't believe the Bible because there is so much evil and suffering in the world. But that makes no sense at all. Nowhere does the Bible say that the world is a place of perfect happiness and prosperity. Quite the contrary, the Bible repeatedly says that the world is full of evil and sin and suffering. We look at the world around us and we see that it is full of evil and suffering. Thus, the Bible has been proven wrong! Um, what? These people have made up their own religion, a religion where God prevents all evil and suffering in the world, a religion completely different from Biblical Christianity. Then they look at the world around them and see it does not match this religion. And so they declare Biblical Christianity to be false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, I think the experience of history is that to the extent that people live according to God's laws, they are free and healthy and prosperous. While of course there is poverty and crime and suffering all over the world, there is a whole lot less of it in places where Judaism and Christianity have historically been strong, like Europe and North America and Israel, than in places where Judaism and Christianity are weak, like Asia and Africa and the Middle East outside of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-09-27T06:36:45.277" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9908" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="42055" CreationDate="2012-09-27T11:17:53.880" Score="20" ViewCount="1253" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did the early Church Fathers have a complete agreement on how to interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20 or did they also have some differences in the way they interpreted these words by Peter? I specifically mean the words highlighted in the verses below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, &lt;strong&gt;in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey&lt;/strong&gt;, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:18-20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who are the spirits?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the prison?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What exactly did Jesus proclaim to them?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2014-09-28T02:44:30.083" LastActivityDate="2015-07-22T09:43:15.487" Title="Did the early Church Fathers have a complete agreement on how to interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20?" Tags="&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;1-peter&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9909" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9911" CreationDate="2012-09-27T18:31:52.137" Score="1" ViewCount="994" Body="&lt;p&gt;Requirements for ordination vary across denominations. Baptists and Pentecostals, for example, will ordain people without even a high school diploma, whereas many of the more liturgical denominations require masters and doctoral level degrees before one can even preach.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How then, is one able to assess the academic qualifications of ordained clergy across denominations?  In other words, is there a resource that would assist one in gauging the stringency of the qualification process before one is allowed to serve as preist, minister, or pastor? And, what common requirements for ordination can be compared across denominations, so as to be able to compare similiar qualifications across denominational lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-10-12T12:16:38.993" LastActivityDate="2020-10-13T01:39:52.367" Title="How to compare Christian pastor credentials?" Tags="&lt;clergy&gt;&lt;ordination&gt;&lt;seminary&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9899" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:06:28.160" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity has a special and unique relationship with one other religion - Judaism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history of these two religions is that thousands of years ago God had a chosen people - the Jews. He made a special covenant with them and promised them a saviour - Messiah. Then (according to the Christian view) God sent this Messiah - Jesus. Some Jews accepted him and some did not. Those that accepted him became called Christians and began to accept non-Jews into their ranks. Those that did not continued to call themselves Jews and began a whole new strand of religion -  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rabbinic Judaism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Opinions within Christianity differed and continue to differ about the status of Jews. Some believe that by rejecting the promised Messiah the Jews have forfeited the promised made by God for their salvation. Some hold that God's promises of salvation made to the Jews still apply to them. Some passages from the new testament would tend to indicate this. In any case it is certain that Judaism has a unique relationship with Christianity because of their shared history and scripture and because of many shared articles of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-09-27T21:06:28.160" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9909" CreationDate="2012-09-27T21:18:09.560" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The kind of comparison you are suggesting is not going to work for a number of reasons. The most prominent one is a huge difference in job description between those that different denominations consider church leaders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic church, for example, ordains priests based on several years of college-level education, as well as other requirements, academic and spiritual. However they often select leaders who do not have any formal education and give them the education required to do the job. Moreover a Catholic church will typically have one priest overseeing a church with many hundreds of members. Various other paid and volunteer workers take on other roles within the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Baptist or other Protestant church of similar size may have several people with the title 'Pastor' on their paid staff. Those people may have different responsibilities. There may be a children's pastor, a music pastor, or even an administrative pastor. There may be an outreach pastor whose job is to work with the homeless and street people. Many of those people are qualified very differently from the Catholic priest, and any attempt to draw conclusions by comparing their qualifications is not going to yield useful results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you were to compare just 'lead pastors' (those in charge of an entire congregation), just because a denomination has no minimum standard of academic qualification doesn't mean they habitually appoint those with no academic qualifications. Most of the churches I know that have no minimum standards routinely appoint people with masters degrees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another significant issue is the one of who appoints church leaders. Catholic, Anglican and many more 'high church' denominations have their leaders appointed (ordained) by the denomination. This means a certain amount of uniformity of their leaders. However in congregationalist denomination each church appoints its own leaders. This means leadership qualifications are decided by every single church. There might be different standards for every single Baptist church in a denomination, as well as between denominations. Not to mention that each church is free to revise its own standards or ignore them if it feels like it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another aside, I don't know of any denomination that requires a masters degree - or any degree - before they are accepted for ordination training.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2020-10-13T01:39:52.367" LastActivityDate="2020-10-13T01:39:52.367" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="9912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9777" CreationDate="2012-09-28T01:54:01.723" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to a reformed position it is the duty of every believer to yield inwardly, under the covenant of grace, to the work of the Spirit, in order to put to death our remaining sinful desires. That this work is never ending, personal and intense, like men wrestling against the smell, sweat, and struggling power of two 'wrestlers' within us, is everywhere affirmed in scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. (NIV Romans 7:21-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That this struggle also extends outward in a battle against invisible wickedness in the world is also affirmed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (NIV Ephesians 6:12-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question before us then is how does paranoia appeal to the flesh and how by the Spirit can we put it to death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Causes of Paranoia&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By paranoia I refer to it not by a medical term but by how we commonly understand and it experience it in regular life.  Generally it implies unjustifiable negative causes. It means exaggerating the perceived intentions of others to do us harm, creating excessive mistrust, worry and fear.  For example, a person at work might begin to think 'management'   wants to fire him because of a recent criticism in a annual performance review, when in actuality their is no such desire whatsoever by management.  The employee may think 'they are out to get me' when the sad truth may be that they don't even notice him, let alone plan to harm him.  Paranoia centers in self and can't help but perceive events and words said by others as having a self-centric meaning even when having none. Therefore paranoia may be partiallu caused by merely the sinful inclination to worry and fear. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though everybody is tempted by paranoia to some extent by concern for self, a Christian can be additionally tempted towards paranoia for additional ad potentially valid reasons, complicating the issue.  First, a believer can discern  into the intentions of the heart and witness the average person is capable of harming his brother more than previously thought.  Second, the 'fragrance of Christ', or a sense of his presence in a believer, although a comfort to some, is the 'fragrance of death' to others. Even the very presence of a Spirit filled Christian can arouse the hatred of Christ out of a sinner, at times merely a subconscious stirring of bitterness, envy, hatred, etc. in the sinner, but strikingly obvious to the tender heart and discernment of the Christian.  It is under these surroundings, especially when at heightened arousal, that a believer may begin to be afraid. In addition believers commonly perceive the Devil to have limited resources and once a Christian enters into a ministry, or 'front line' in the battle, the Devil will pay 'more attention' and arouse more trouble from those in his kingdom against them, and their may be some partial truth to this also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a task? (NIV 2 Corinthians 2:15-16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ways to manage paranoia&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difficulty before us is to properly distinguish between justified and unjustified perceptions of harm from other's by the Spirit.  While the whole notion of 'relying on the Spirit' to enable the death of paranoia is 'foolishness' to those who have not progressed in holiness, or understand its power under the covenant of grace, a reformed view deems it absolutely necessary. In commenting on the mortification of indwelling sin, the puritan John Owen wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The choicest believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, ought yet to make it their business all their days to mortify the indwelling power of sin.&#xA;  The principal efficient cause of the performance of this duty is the Spirit: Εἰ δὲ Πνεὑματι,—“If by the Spirit.” The Spirit here is the Spirit mentioned verse 11, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God, that “dwells in us,” verse 9, that “quickens us,” verse 11; “the Holy Ghost,” verse 14;1 the “Spirit of adoption,” verse 15; the Spirit “that maketh intercession for us,” verse 26. All other ways of mortification are vain, all helps leave us helpless; it must he done by the Spirit. Men, as the apostle intimates, Rom. 9:30–32, may attempt this work on other principles, by means and advantages administered on other accounts, as they always have done, and do: but, saith he, “This is the work of the Spirit; by him alone is it to be wrought, and by no other power is it to be brought about.” Mortification from a self-strength, carried on by ways of self-invention, unto the end of a self-righteousness, is the soul and substance of all false religion in the world. (John Owen, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library/owen_mortification.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mortification of Sin in Believers&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, under the reformed view we might find the following means, by 'the Spirit' to manage paranoia. It is particularly helpful to group some practical reformed views under the 'armor' description in Ephesians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we can have little success in fighting any sin without a general understanding of the covenant of grace in Christ, which is a 'belt of truth'. The Roman soldier had a long cloak and if not kept under a belt, the soldier would trip over themselves as soon as they tried to run, or dodge.  This 'belt' can be compared to  our systematic theology and in my case a Luther/Calvin like view. From this general understanding more importantly to the case before us we derive the 'breastplate of righteousness'. In fact, this one pierce of armor is suffice to defend us from paranoia.  This breastplate protects our feelings and can be nothing less than a dual righteousness.   First an foremost it is the perfect righteousness of Christ, imputed to believers apart from any righteousness of their own.  Faith in this alone can protect our feelings from being ravaged daily by the sinful desires. The second aspect to this 'breastplate' is derived from the primary. Once protecting us, we see the love of God and so its protection is also a working of actual love and righteousness in our hearts, by the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this reformed view and a hand on the breastplate we can now directly apply it to paranoia in particular.   First, by having a living sense of the love of God, our view of the threats surrounding us quickly become more objective.  When 'feeling loved' we are unlikely to feel 'paranoid'. One can't over estimate how powerful this one truth is and how important it is to maintain a sense of God's love in the Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, although God may allow us to suffer He more often prevents evil men from being successful in their devices, so that like David:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You prepare a table before me&#xA;  in the presence of my enemies.&#xA;  You anoint my head with oil;&#xA;  my cup overflows. (NIV Psalms 23:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even while our enemies seek our destruction they, even when much more powerful than us, are forced by providence to sit down at our table an eat with us as friends, as we enjoy the love of Christ, which they so despise.  What a torture this must be for them!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, many unbelievers respond to God's love. One should not underestimate the friendship, compassion and defense that God can work, even in the heart of a sinner, to the defense of a righteous man.  Wicked kings and princess have often defended righteous believers under the  providence of God.  Therefore, under  an objective view by faith in the love and power of Christ, we may find less people are 'trying to get us' than we may have first perceived after loosing objectivity from the suffering of a recent conflict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At last, if God does will that we suffer, then the helmut of the hope of salvation in heaven can sustain our thoughts as we prepare for glory and seek comfort by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-09-28T01:54:01.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9805" CreationDate="2012-09-28T06:43:03.790" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a protestant perspective I think the teaching is clear.  We are to never withhold forgiveness towards an offending brother or sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter asked this question to Jesus himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”&#xA;  Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy- seven times. (NIV Matthew 18:21-22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 'seventy seven' phrase implies unlimited, for as Alfred Edersheim notes, it responds to a 'quantitative question' with a 'qualitative answer'. The whole concept of turning the other cheek and not judging our brother implies walking in constant forgiveness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, although this ensures continual personal reconciliation and prevents us from personally 'judging' (which is implicit in every unforgiving thought which wickedly resents the sins if others) - this is not meant to imply social reconciliation.  On the contrary. For the sake of the benefit of the sinner and society, the murderer, though possibly 'personally' forgiven and reconciled to the families of Christian survivors, must still face prison to be reconciled to society.  The same goes within the church for those who commit scandalous sins which they remain unrepentant of. Such should face excommunication from the local church. With such people, while in that state, we must do our part in opposing reconciliation, while holding no personal judgment or resentment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. (NIV 1 Corinthians 5:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By separating the personal from the social, we can follow the subject of forgiveness an reconciliation as proposed in scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-09-28T06:43:03.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9915" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9917" CreationDate="2012-09-28T09:13:54.617" Score="5" ViewCount="645" Body="&lt;p&gt;One can ask:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if one believes in predestination, then why share the Gospel?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common response one often hears is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;because God also said to share the gospel or&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;perhaps God predestined you to be the one to share the gospel to cause this other person to become converted&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I never quite found either response intellectually satisfactory. I recently came across the following, and wanted to see if it's consistent with reformed theology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;if you share the Gospel, and the person is among the elect, then you glorify God because you've brought someone closer to salvation (i.e. probably one part of a multi step program)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;if you share the Gospel, and the person is not among the elect, then you also glorify God, for you have increased that person's sufferings in Hell, and it glorifies God to punish those in hell&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, one should avoid hyper-calvinism in only preaching to only those that one believes to be among the elect, but rather preach to all: for in either way, God is glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Edit&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both of the responses below are beautiful. The flaw in my question is that &quot;intellectual satisfication&quot; is not a vaild measuring stick for biblical doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="2079" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T11:45:57.250" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T20:28:23.227" Title="Is the following rationale for sharing the gospel consistent with reformed theology?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8989" CreationDate="2012-09-28T10:25:01.007" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have still not found any good answer to this question. But I post some hints that have been helpful to me. Hoping that it might be helpful for someone else and maybe intriguing to give a better answer. The following is a quotation from Steve Gregg, &lt;em&gt;Revelation - four views&lt;/em&gt;, 1997, p. 33-34.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The contemporary conservative protestant scene&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Conservative Protestants commentaries (those that not follow the&#xA;  literary-critical approach) in the 19th and 20th centuries have been&#xA;  divided:&#xA;    The historicist approach continued into the 19th century in&#xA;  the writings of E. B. Elliott (&lt;em&gt;Horae Apocalypticae&lt;/em&gt;, 1847), A. J.&#xA;  Gordon, Albert Barnes, and others. To my knowledge, the only modern&#xA;  commentaries that espouse this view have not come from recognized&#xA;  scholars (not that this fact should condemn them), but from&#xA;  essentially self-published authors who are desirous to reintroduce&#xA;  this viewpoint to a modern readership. Eugene Boring would seem to be&#xA;  correct when he writes, &quot;Although widely held by Protestant&#xA;  interpreters after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, no&#xA;  critical New Testament scholar today advocates this view.&quot;   The&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;preterist&lt;/em&gt; approach was followed in the 19th century by Moses Stuart (1845), and in the early 20th century by James Snowden (1919).&#xA;  Preterism has had a recent resurgence in the writings of Christian&#xA;  Reconstructionists like David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry.   On of the&#xA;  first popular presentations of the &lt;em&gt;futurist&lt;/em&gt; approach, and the most&#xA;  influential, was that of J. A. Seiss (&lt;em&gt;Lectures on the Apocalypse&lt;/em&gt;,&#xA;  1909). In the 20th century, the &lt;em&gt;futurist&lt;/em&gt; approach to Revelation has&#xA;  become most common - especially since the publication of the&#xA;  phenomenally successful &lt;em&gt;The Late Great Planet Earth&lt;/em&gt;, by Hal Lindsey&#xA;  - having its place almost in the very common stock of American pop culture. &lt;em&gt;Futurism&lt;/em&gt; has been advocated by sound scholars, such as&#xA;  Walvoord, Mounce, and Ladd, as well as by innumerable cranks and&#xA;  eschatelogical faddists, who have often given it a bad name by their&#xA;  repeated speculations concerning the date of the Second Coming and&#xA;  their assigning of correspondences between the symbolic visions and&#xA;  specific developments in an ever-changing modern political milieu.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; approach has received wide acceptance in modern&#xA;  commentaries, though various labels have been attached to it. Since&#xA;  Eichhorn, in the 18th century the dramatic nature of the book has&#xA;  intrigues many students of the book. In 1939, William Hendriksen&#xA;  popularized this view in his book, &lt;em&gt;More Than Conquerors&lt;/em&gt;, though it&#xA;  was found in a number of works earlier in the 20th century as well. As&#xA;  I write, there appear to be more new commentaries published advocating&#xA;  a &lt;em&gt;dramatico-spiritual&lt;/em&gt; approach to Revelation than there are&#xA;  advocating any of the other conservative approaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Authors emphasis. All spelling mistakes are (probably) mine. I do, by the way, highly recommend this book (even though I only started).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1600" LastEditorUserId="1600" LastEditDate="2012-09-29T11:31:54.920" LastActivityDate="2012-09-29T11:31:54.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9915" CreationDate="2012-09-28T11:17:55.217" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the two &quot;common&quot; responses are not &quot;intellectually satisfying&quot;, but at the very least, they are both highly biblical:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And He said to them, &quot;Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.&quot; {&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Mark 16:15&lt;/a&gt;}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for &quot;Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, &quot;How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, &quot;Lord, who has believed our report?&quot; {&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:13-16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Romans 10:13-16&lt;/a&gt;}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it glorifies God to preach to all because His Word is being proclaimed, and we also know that His Word never returns &quot;empty&quot; {&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/isaiah/55-11.htm&quot;&gt;Isaiah 55:11&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-58.htm&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:58&lt;/a&gt;}:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While God's Will is ultimately accomplished - whether via displaying His grace or in pouring out His wrath on evil, He does not please Him to punish anyone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,&quot; declares the Lord GOD. &quot;Therefore, repent and live.&quot; {&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/ezekiel/18-32.htm&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 18:32&lt;/a&gt;}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'&quot;  {&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eze&amp;amp;c=33&amp;amp;v=11&amp;amp;t=NASB#11&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 33:11&lt;/a&gt;}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first point you raise, therefore, would be both biblical and in keeping with reformed theology, but the second point (regarding helping to increase punishment to Hell) is both unbiblical, and out of line with reformed thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-09-28T11:17:55.217" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9918" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9921" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:37:40.250" Score="3" ViewCount="1443" Body="&lt;p&gt;Archaeology has found many dinosaur fossils.  Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of dinosaurs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-09-28T15:11:00.363" LastActivityDate="2014-06-19T12:08:14.210" Title="What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-06-19T08:04:33.087" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9920" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:46:56.397" Score="3" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a man protesting against the mass of wealth accumulated by the Pope I was wondering what Luther proposed to do with all the lands and endowments obtained in those regions where the Catholic church lost her influence and ownership of various assets. Also what about the nuns and monks still living in those properties formerly owned by the Catholic church? What did Luther think should be done with them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-09-29T01:37:44.373" LastActivityDate="2012-09-29T01:37:44.373" Title=" Where Catholicism lost influence and property during the reformation,  what did Luther think should be done with the acquired assets?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9919" CreationDate="2012-09-28T13:46:56.397" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering the intensity of the reformation one might possibly imagine some extreme idea like burning down the monasteries and tossing out the monks as heretics, or even burning them, but such is the opposite of what Luther was about at the personal level. Although Luther has said some of the most harsh language ever recorded against Catholic doctrine,  Luther had a very kind attitude towards Catholics themselves, in terms of their welfare.  As a matter of history, Luther in fact directly sought to ensure their protection and economic welfare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to rural monasteries, Luther did no suggest they be burned down, but instead to treat kindly those in error through Christian love, even to support them financially for the rest of their lives:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since no one is to be coerced into faith and the gospel, those who because of their age, their bellies, or their consciences elect to remain in the monastery should not be ejected or harshly dealt with, but should be supported for the rest of their days just as before. For the gospel teaches us to do good even to the unworthy, just as the heavenly Father sends rain and sunshine upon the good and the evil alike [Matt. 5:45]. We must remember, too, that these persons have drifted into this estate as a result of the blindness and error which prevailed generally, and have never learned a trade by which they could support themselves. (Luther's Works 45.171)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those monasteries in the cities Luther thought they could be converted to Christian schools. I presume he meant any monks or nuns who wanted to stay would  be relocated to rural locations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther had the same loving approach with respect to bishoprics, foundations, and chapters which have under their control lands, cities, and other possessions, etc. His aim was to build a community chest for the poor, 'for all who were needy among the Christians.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where the remaining family which originally endowed the properties to the church were now suffering poverty Luther thought it should be divided between the poor and the original family:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the heirs of the founder are impoverished and in want, however, it is fair and in harmony with Christian love that the foundation revert to them, at least a large portion of it, or the whole amount if their need be great enough to warrant it. It certainly was not the intention of their fathers—and should not have been—to take the bread out of the mouths of their children and heirs and bestow it elsewhere. And even if that was their intention, it is false and un-Christian, for fathers are in duty bound to provide for their own children first of all; that is the highest service they can render to God with their temporal goods. But if the heirs are not poor and in need of it, they should not take back their father’s bequest, but let it go into the common chest. (Luther's Works 45.173)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that though Luther strongly condemned the beliefs of Catholics during the reformation his personal attitude to their persons (not their doctrine) was like a caring father desiring to take care of all involved.  This bit of history is somewhat of a surprising liberal and generous position, easily overlooked by the doctrinal passions and battle of the reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-09-28T22:05:53.220" LastActivityDate="2012-09-28T22:05:53.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9918" CreationDate="2012-09-28T14:12:04.613" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oldearth.org/job4041a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;commentators&lt;/a&gt; (such as the Institute for Creation Research) have suggested that Leviathan (otherwise a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapax_legomenon&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hapax Legomenon&lt;/a&gt;) in Job 41 is a dinosaur. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/the-truth-about-leviathan&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Not all agree&lt;/a&gt;, but it is at least &amp;quot;out there&amp;quot; as a theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to the 1820s, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;dinosaurs were unknown&lt;/a&gt; to (modern) man[1], so it is not surprising the are not mentioned in the Bible. (Indeed, the term would have had no meaning).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the case is that Leviathan is a dinsoaur, then we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?&#xA;2 Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?&#xA;3 Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words?&#xA;4 Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life?&#xA;5 Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls?&#xA;6 Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants?&#xA;7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears?&#xA;8 If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!&#xA;9 Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering.&#xA;10 No-one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, they are big and strong, but God is bigger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1]: To be clear, most scientists believe that man was just a mouse during the age of the dinosaur, and even old earth Creationists suspect that the dinosaurs had died out in the &amp;quot;two days&amp;quot; before man.  During the 1800s, I believe it was Paley who suggested that the dinosaurs must have died out shortly after the flood.  A few die-hard Young Earthers (like the ICR) still advocate that, but for the most part &amp;quot;The Land of the Lost&amp;quot; is just that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T01:41:42.957" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9918" CreationDate="2012-09-28T17:41:17.650" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically it is &lt;em&gt;paleontology&lt;/em&gt; and not &lt;em&gt;archaeology&lt;/em&gt; that is concerned with prehistoric fossils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a (mostly) good book that deals with creation and evolution (among other things) in a complimentary way:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1439129584&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/1439129584&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the Six Dawns essay which does essentially the same thing from an Orthodox perspective:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/75080212/The-Six-Dawns-by-Dr-Alexander-Kalomiros&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/75080212/The-Six-Dawns-by-Dr-Alexander-Kalomiros&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, the focus is on this particular verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,&#xA;  and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”&#xA;  So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that&#xA;  moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and&#xA;  every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.&#xA;  (Genesis 1:20-21 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We now know from paleontology that some sea creatures evolved into amphibians and reptiles, and some reptiles into dinosaurs, and ultimately some dinosaurs into birds.  So the entire age of the dinosaurs is glossed over in this one verse.  One could argue that since dinosaurs were extinct by the time this passage was written, their inclusion would have been confusing at best to the people of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-09-28T17:41:17.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9924" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9925" CreationDate="2012-09-28T18:57:33.563" Score="5" ViewCount="4301" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider the following scriptures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 1:2&lt;/strong&gt; Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 11:24&lt;/strong&gt; By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:11&lt;/strong&gt; “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could add more to the list, but the point is probably clear enough in these. In many cases, the Bible seems to expect that not only will Christians suffer, but that we need to be suffering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the NT period Christians were  &quot;stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated.&quot; We know it was a time of persecution - but was that merely descriptive and written for them, or is it perspective, meaning that if one is living an authentic Christian life, we should be expecting these things? Is it accurate to suggest that a wealthy Christian living a life of ease is circumventing the prescribed ordered?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, looking at the whole of Scripture* is it accurate to say that a Christian who is not or has not been experiencing trials, persecution, and other sorts of things that can be called &quot;Suffering,&quot; is not actually experiencing the Christian life? Specifically, are there other portions of Scripture I am not properly taking into account, or doctrinal perspectives that would be highly resitant to this claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*A good answer to this question would reference other Scripture to either support this as a standard &quot;across the Bible&quot; kind of thing, or present Scripture that would seem to be in opposition. Specifically, I am looking to see if this statement is fairly consistent across Scripture, or if, perhaps, I have qutoed these out of context.  I also would like to know what doctrinal perspectives would be resistant to this.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-09-28T21:33:38.770" LastActivityDate="2014-02-27T19:35:34.773" Title="Are Christians supposed to suffer?" Tags="&lt;suffering&gt;&lt;theodicy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-03-12T08:04:02.730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9924" CreationDate="2012-09-28T21:18:56.987" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A majority of Christian traditions recognize on some level that we will and even must suffer. The author and perfecter of our faith was hung on a tree. As his followers, we can expect pretty much more of the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%204:12-14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Peter 4:12-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. &lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact if you comb through the rest of Scripture you will find a huge amount of material covering not only how to deal with suffering, but more warning to expect it and even detailed analysis of how it helps us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The view that current suffering is a necessary part of our Christian walk in so far as it is aspect of how we are united with our Savior is particularly emphasized in the Reformed tradition. More generic Evangelicals also tend to hold generally to the idea that suffering is not without purpose but see it as so much of a requirement so much as probability. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There's a wrong way to do it...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For every truth, there is a perversion. The obvious perversion of a &quot;yes&quot; answer here is the idea of needing to go out and find trouble. Some flog themselves, others stick their necks out on issues that do not further the cause of the Gospel just because they know it will garner a reaction and bring on the suffering. Although I am caricaturizing, these fallacies often require nuanced rebuttals to show how they are bringing trouble on themselves in a way that isn't what Scripture would direct us to even if it promises that trouble will come and is even for our good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We aren't told to seek suffering for suffering's sake, we're told to seek the Kingdom and how to respond to suffering when it does come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There are those who say &quot;No&quot;...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A relatively modern movement, but one that has actually popped it's head up a few times before, is the idea of what is sometimes labeled &quot;health and wealth&quot; gospel. They build a case on excerpted passages that God doesn't want his children to suffer and the only reason we do is our own weakness/lack of faith/etc. You generally won't find espousers of this view even acknowledge verses such as the ones in your question at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-09-28T21:18:56.987" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="802" CreationDate="2012-09-28T22:24:00.127" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's an interesting article I came across which discusses several ancient myths and likely corresponding floods including the Black Sea event:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-biblical-type-floods-real-absolutely-enormous&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Were early farmers in the area forced to flee as their world&#xA;  disappeared underwater? Archaeologists found the rising waters&#xA;  coincided with the onset of the initial migration of farming cultures&#xA;  into Europe and the floodplains of Mesopotamia. Wherever they came&#xA;  from, the first farmers arrived in southern Mesopotamia shortly after&#xA;  the filling of the Black Sea. Did they bring the story of a great&#xA;  flood that destroyed their world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which further links to:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/science/geologists-link-black-sea-deluge-to-farming-s-rise.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Geologists Link Black Sea Deluge To Farming's Rise.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An international team of geologists and oceanographers has&#xA;  reconstructed the history of this catastrophic flood from data&#xA;  gathered by a Russian research ship in 1993. Seismic soundings and&#xA;  sediment cores revealed traces of the sea's former shorelines, showing&#xA;  an abrupt 500-foot rise in water levels. Radiocarbon dating of the&#xA;  transition from freshwater to marine organisms in the cores put the&#xA;  time of the event about 7,500 years ago, or 5500 B.C.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-17T15:47:13.163" LastActivityDate="2016-07-17T15:47:13.163" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1543" CreationDate="2012-09-29T02:28:03.973" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/18-10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 18:10&lt;/a&gt; best exemplifies &quot;doing good while sinning.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Simon Peter used physical violence to prevent a mob from taking Jesus to Pontius Pilate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who among us could blame Simon Peter for doing this? Yet Jesus explicitly instructed his disciples to let the prophecy be fulfilled. He urged restraint. And yet, with the best of intentions, Simon Peter disobeyed Jesus, and did good while sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2012-09-29T02:28:03.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9929" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9945" CreationDate="2012-09-29T02:37:07.427" Score="7" ViewCount="2488" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has some strong things to say about debt. In the total witness of the Bible, is all debt considered sinful? Or can we differentiate between types of debt, and say that some are lawful while others are not? If there is debt that is considered lawful, can we further distinguish a type of debt that would also be wise (or at the very least, not unwise) to engage in, given the right circumstances?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;See related questions on Biblical Hermeneutics: &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/2479/36&quot;&gt;Does Romans 13:8 include a prohibition of taking loans?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/2480/36&quot;&gt;What are the proverbs about giving collateral for someone else teaching about loans?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T20:22:07.843" Title="According to the Bible, what kind of debt, if any, is lawful?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;money&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-04-11T00:44:21.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9929" CreationDate="2012-09-29T03:15:30.187" Score="-2" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When you assume debt, you make a repayment promise to the lender.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you paint yourself into a financial corner, whether it be with too much debt or too much spending, you put your ability to fulfill that promise at risk.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So in a sense, barring exceptional circumstances, if you default on debt or compromise your financial situation to a point where you may not be able to repay that debt, then &lt;strong&gt;you are bearing false witness and violating the 9th Commandment.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Otherwise, there's nothing inherently sinful about debt.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="1100" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T02:24:05.390" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T02:24:05.390" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8469" CreationDate="2012-09-29T05:37:05.040" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both Christians as well as Muslims scholars, for genuinely valid reasons have already rejected the gospel of Barnabas as forgery. Here are a few of these reasons: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to this book, Barnabas was one of Jesus’ original twelve apostles which is not so. Barnabas as an apostle came after the original twelve, and was a fellow missionary with the apostle Paul. In their travels, Paul and Barnabas boldly declared Jesus’ death, resurrection and lordship in the first century. Therefore, this book could not be from Barnabas who was moving with Paul.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If Barnabas really is the author then it is reasonable to expect that he would be familiar with the basic facts of Jewish life at this time. This is not so as evident from this book itself. This ancient Italian manuscript departs from the teaching of the Qur'an by calling Muhammad the Messiah rather than Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The word (Christ) is the Greek translation for the Hebrew word (Messiah). Both these words when translated into English mean the Anointed One or the Chosen One. This word is not an obscure or rarely used word, on the contrary it is one of the most famous words in the Jewish and Christian religions. There is no doubt that a religious Jew like Barnabas would have been very familiar with this word. At the very start of the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus is called the Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“God has during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ (p.2).”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, thereafter throughout this book Jesus denies being the Messiah:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Jesus confessed and said the truth, &quot;I am not the Messiah&quot; (chap. 42).”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It cannot be that Jesus is the Christ and deny being the Messiah when both words mean exactly the same thing. Whoever wrote this book did not know the Greek meaning of the word Christ is Messiah. Barnabas was a Hebrew who lived on the island of Cyprus, a Greek-speaking island, and travelled around the 1st century Greek-speaking world. He was Hebrew, knew Greek, and could not have made this mistake with such a famous word. This another reason that this book could not be from Barnabas of First century.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In chapters 20-21 of this book there is mention about Jesus sailing to Nazareth and being welcomed by the seamen of that town. He then leaves Nazareth and goes up to Capernaum. Jesus went to the sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth. ...Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread through the city all that Jesus wrought (done) ... (then) Jesus went up to Capernaum (chaps. 20-21).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Scholars have found a major error in this account because Nazareth was not a fishing village. In fact, it was about 14 km from the Sea of Galilee and situated in the hills of a mountain range. Capernaum was the fishing village that Jesus arrived at with his disciples, not Nazareth. Nazareth and Capernaum were two towns, which Jesus often visited with his disciples therefore any disciple of Jesus would know these towns well. However, the author of this book does not! This casts doubt over the claim that he was a disciple of Jesus. It also puts aspiration on the author that he ever lived in that region. The Gospel of Barnabas makes basic mistakes about the language and geography of the Jewish world in the 1st century A.D. These mistakes have cast doubt over the claim that it was written by Barnabas in the 1st century  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the news item, they have shown the photographs of the two or three pages of the book where there is a picture of Cross at some places. This is in contradiction to the stated claim of this book. It claimed that Jesus was human being; it rejects the idea of holy trinity and the crucifixion of Jesus. With this claim, prominently displaying the cross on its pages is self-defeating.    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The research by Scholars on the Muslims history relating to the writing on Koran indicates that no Muslim scholar has ever referred this gospel until after 1500. This was true also concerning Christian scholars. It is argued that why the Muslim scholars did not refer to this Gospel when there was an &lt;strong&gt;intense debate going on between the Muslims and Christians about the identity of Jesus between the seventh and 15th century&lt;/strong&gt;. It has been established that not one scholar mentioned about the existence of this book at that period of time.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the Christians scholars like Irenaeus wrote extensively against the existence of various other anti Christians documents, such as Gnostic gospels classifying them as heretical.  Yet not one of Irreaeus letters or documents mentions the Gospel of Barnabas.    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most indicative of its late date is that the Gospel describes medieval life in Western Europe as well as a 100-year Jubilee that was not declared until fourteenth century.   &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only does the evidence argue against it being written by Barnabas in the first century but also scholars believe the gospel is a forgery. Scholarly research has proved that it was a fake. Even Muslim scholars likewise are also of opinion that it is a fake. &lt;strong&gt;The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam states that ”as regards the ‘Gospel of Barnabas ‘ itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery”&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-09-29T10:16:57.797" LastActivityDate="2012-09-29T10:16:57.797" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9915" CreationDate="2012-09-29T05:40:14.443" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem you raise is only a problem because a doctrine has been cherry-picked and used out of context. Taken in step with and understanding of God's Covenant relationship with men and the whole counsel of Scripture, this becomes a non issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;strong&gt;no, your suggestions are not particularly in line with Reformed theology&lt;/strong&gt;, at least not as a motivation for evangelism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, those just are not the Biblical terms this issue is framed with (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9917/30&quot;&gt;warren's answer&lt;/a&gt;). The common responses that you listed as &quot;not intellectually satisfactory&quot; are likewise somewhat lackluster, and even concerning that intellectual satisfaction is being used as a measure of their usefulness. What happened to faith or obedience? Do you find the command 'thou shalt not murder' to be intellectually unsatisfactory? Is that even a valid question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God commands it. If a direct order from the maker of heaven and earth isn't good enough rationale what is? But seriously, to somebody who has &lt;em&gt;first received and been transformed&lt;/em&gt; by this Gospel the order to spread the message is hardly a burden or unsatisfactory assignment. What higher privilege could we be given than to be charged with such a task?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A proper understanding of predestination must be taken in the context of the whole of Scripture, from which we understand not just that God has chosen people, but HOW he works to bring those chosen people to himself. Through His word. How shall they believe if they have not heard? Who is charged will telling them? Who are we told to tell? Everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Election is God's business, it says nothing about what man is going to be able to figure out about other men along the way. This quite has always amused me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If God had put a stripe down the back of every one of his elect, I would walk around London lifting up coattails. Since God didn't, I preach &quot;whosoever will.&quot; -- Charles Spurgeon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Election isn't something you see written on people's foreheads as you approach them with the Gospel. &quot;Hey Sir can I tell you something? I've got this great news about a Savior. See, you're lost and ... wait let me see that ... sorry to bother you, this message isn't for you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has the Gospel done its work in you such that you love lost people the way Christ did? These kind of objections / sentiments seem to come mostly from people who have never actually reveled in the sheer magnificence of what they have heard nor shared that message and watched it do it's work in others. The Word changes people. Transforms them from dead bones to living beings. You watch this happen a time or two and the question &quot;why share these words&quot; stops even being a question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hyper-Calvinism is easily avoided by preaching the Word itself rather than Calvinism&lt;/strong&gt;. The doctrinal framework may help us understand the word, but it itself is not the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you really need a way to think about it, I was once encouraged by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Washer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a preacher&lt;/a&gt; who used my sister as an object lesson. &quot;It's obvious to me you love your sister very much&quot;, he said. &quot;Now, what would you do if she was lost? She has been abducted and is a slave somewhere. Is there anywhere you wouldn't go to find her? Is there anything you would not do to win her back? Would any depth of she might have been plunged to ease your desire to reclaim her?&quot;. By the same token as adopted heirs of Christ, we have family out there that is lost. We don't know what they look like or where they are. We don't know what level of depravity they might have sunk to or under what guise they pass. What we do know (an these are Biblical terms) is that they are enslaved to sin, bound in darkness. Do we love them? If so are we still going to sit around looking for an intellectually satisfying reason to get out there and find them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-09-29T07:17:07.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9929" CreationDate="2012-09-29T09:24:46.407" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question about what is &lt;em&gt;lawful&lt;/em&gt; in the Bible first needs this context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...you are not under the law, but under grace.&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+6:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the literal answer to your question is, &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; debt is &lt;em&gt;lawful&lt;/em&gt;. But is it &lt;em&gt;beneficial&lt;/em&gt;? See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:12&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:12&lt;/a&gt;  &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:23&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:23&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus used debt as an analogy for sin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:21-35&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:21-35&lt;/a&gt;), which indicates what He thought of it. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+22:7&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 22:7&lt;/a&gt; we read that &lt;em&gt;&quot;the borrower is servant to the lender&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. And Paul warned us not to be slaves to anything &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:1&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 5:1&lt;/a&gt; (except &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+6:18&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;righteousness&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while we are permitted to be in debt, we should avoid it where possible. For example, I wouldn't get into debt to buy a car just to get a new car. But if I needed it for a job where I could earn enough to pay the car debt, I would consider it. (There are also other variables to consider like job security.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if we are in debt, we should pay it off as soon as possible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:8&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 13:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-09-29T09:24:46.407" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9934" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9935" CreationDate="2012-09-29T15:06:03.037" Score="21" ViewCount="4428" Body="&lt;p&gt;In several Apologetics articles (including &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6023/what-evidence-is-there-to-support-the-position-that-the-bible-is-truly-the-word/6026#6026&quot;&gt;one answer of mine&lt;/a&gt; on a different question), I see the statement that &quot;there is overwhelming manuscript evidence to support the fact that the Bible has been transmitted accurately through time&quot;.  Often, these sites contain a chart like the following, with no explanation of why the number of copies, or the gap between the original written version and the earliest known manuscript matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/X8MPt.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how does all of this prove anything?  Does it prove the Bible is the Word of God?  If not, what's the point?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2019-01-03T05:08:42.927" Title="What is &quot;Manuscript Evidence&quot; and how is it useful?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9934" CreationDate="2012-09-29T15:06:03.037" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Manuscript Evidence&quot;, as the question implies, serves to provide evidence that the Bible has been transmitted accurately throughout time.  It does not prove that the Bible is God's word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The usefulness of knowing what manuscript evidence means, and what it tells us about the accurate transmission of Scripture through time is to address the statement that &quot;The Bible has been changed many times over the years&quot; - a common charge leveled by atheists and non-Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The manuscript evidence argument stems from a branch of literary criticism, which seeks to identify and eliminate copying errors that occur over time.  Regardless of how careful people may be when copying texts, it is all but inevitable that errors will be made along the way.  The more often a piece of work is copied, the more likely an error will occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In layman's terms, the process of identifying and removing errors is done by comparing various copies of ancient works, and using a rigorous approach to determining what the original document actually contained.  All discrepancies are examined, and the original intent is deduced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How well this works depends heavily on two factors, which are included in the chart in the question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The number of copies is useful because it gives a wider amount of copies to examine.  The more copies there are, the more likely there will be discrepancies.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is good, because it helps to weed out the obvious errors - there will be fewer instances of errors because it's not as likely that various transcribers will make the same mistake.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Similarly, additions to the text, intentional alterations can be detected if they are present only in a limited number of texts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The date between the original writing of the text and the earliest known manuscript is also critical.  Put simply, there is no way to compare copies of the text for manuscripts that do not exist, so if early mistakes occurred, resulting in discrepancies in later copies, it's impossible to ascertain which is more likely to be correct.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the earliest known manuscript of a recorded event is within the lifetime of those who experienced the event, the argument is stronger, as there would be people alive at the time of the writing to correct or dispute inaccuracies.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good example of how comparing discrepancies to ascertain original meaning can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html&quot;&gt;Reasoning from the Scripture Ministries&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document&#xA;  that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different.&#xA;  Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the&#xA;  original must have said. Here are the five copies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the&#xA;  original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are&#xA;  correct? Of course you could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to applying textual criticism to Scripture, the New Testament in particular has overwhelming manuscript evidence.  For the Old Testament, the evidence is not nearly as overwhelming, and the argument for trusting that they have been transmitted accurately through time rests more on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5system_moses/dh13_copyistError.aspx&quot;&gt;extraordinary care that was taken by the scribes&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the Bible (or more accurately, &lt;em&gt;translations&lt;/em&gt; of the Bible) has been changed over the years, due to mistakes (such as the one that resulted in &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible&quot;&gt;The Wicked Bible&lt;/a&gt;&quot;).  Such mistakes resulted in revisions to Scripture, and it is possible that more revisions will come.  However, overwhelmingly, we can place a high level of confidence that the Bible that we have today is very close to the original manuscripts, and that it has been transferred accurately through time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when it comes to answering the atheist's charge that the Bible has been changed over the years, the argument that we can't trust the Bible is based on a distorted definition of &quot;has changed&quot;.  What they are trying to imply is that we can't trust the Bible because it's changed so much, but the fact is that we have such overwhelming manuscript evidence that we can be very confident in the fact that the meaning of the original manuscript wasn't lost. Spelling and copyist errors, there are truly &lt;a href=&quot;http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html&quot;&gt;very few verses that appear to have been &quot;added&quot; or that the common-sense reading is disputed&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above is meant to be a Layman's answer. and is in no way a complete, or in-depth explanation of the concept, or all of the principles applied to textual criticism.  If you're interested, there are plenty of resources on the web discussing this topic.  For further reading, and a deeper understanding of Textual Criticism, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism&quot;&gt;the Wikipeda article&lt;/a&gt; is as good a place as any to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-09-29T15:57:49.017" LastActivityDate="2012-09-29T15:57:49.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9936" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-09-29T15:14:33.467" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-09-29T15:14:33.467" LastActivityDate="2012-09-29T15:14:33.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9937" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-09-29T15:14:33.467" Score="0" Body="Concerns whether Scripture is reliable from various perspectives: Seeks to answer question like &quot;Has it been transmitted accurately through the ages?&quot;, &quot;does it contain errors?&quot;, &quot;can we trust it?&quot;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-09-29T15:14:33.467" LastActivityDate="2012-09-29T15:14:33.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9924" CreationDate="2012-09-29T23:39:29.150" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to this question is always &quot;Yes&quot; in the Bible. If Jesus suffered we ought to suffer as well as we must partake in everything Jesus took. We suffer with him. We die with him. We'll live with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 2:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also&#xA;  will deny us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus was being led to Golgotha&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 23: 27,28,31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women,&#xA;  which also bewailed and lamented him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, &lt;strong&gt;weep not&#xA;   for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in&#xA;  the dry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are meant to face persecution&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 12:51-53&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay;&#xA;  but rather division:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three&#xA;  against two, and two against three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against&#xA;  the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against&#xA;  the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the&#xA;  daughter in law against her mother in law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it depends on what you termed &quot;suffering&quot; but it still comes down to &quot;not being able to do what you want or express yourself the way you like&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true most of the persecutions have been faced by the apostles and they've really done a good job to keep the gospel for us but there is still persecution of the christ-like people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The magnitude of the persecution seems reduced and insignificant but that's not true. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is so because in the days of the apostles, they were the only ones and were outnumbered. But these days, it's like we have more professed christians than unbelievers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christians have blended with unbelievers. There seems to be little difference between us so there is little to persecute us for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Every time the spirit presses it upon me that we have not been living to expectations in our generation. Like we have failed God in some ways. If we live like we should then our lights would shine before men, they'll notice the difference and they would persecute us. Christians have not been role-model to the world. The world is become our role-model.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine how churches have blended with governments and support governments in carrying out bad policies. Imagine how many times the pulpit has been used as propaganda stage for politicians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our sufferings/persecution might not always be physical, they could be emotional. For example, churches that praise bad governments and people would get fat tithes and donations while those who criticize them get little or none.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some part of the world you need to give bribes to get employment or contract, if you are a lady, give your body as sexual pleasure to get favours, otherwise, nothing for you - that is persecution. They are simply telling us to deny our faith (2 Timothy 3:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your friends go to party, get drunk, merry, sleep around with ladies. These you cannot do and they mock you - that's suffering and persecution&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my first bullet, &lt;em&gt;it's like we have more professed christians than unbelievers&lt;/em&gt;, most of us were born in christian homes though they may not go to church. That makes christianity easy. In some home which are dominated by muslims and there comes a convert, he would surely be persecuted and he won't enjoy those things he used to enjoy - that's suffering. Some parents have disowned their children because they claimed to be converted - every school fees, feeding etc. withdrawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my third bullet, that impression used to come whenever I read &lt;em&gt;NARROW/Strait is the way/gate that leads to heaven but only few are walking it&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Those few suffer, that's why it's narrow.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To cut the story short, in the real sense, Jesus said you'll hate your father, mother, families, wife etc if you really want to follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2014-02-27T19:35:34.773" LastActivityDate="2014-02-27T19:35:34.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9943" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-30T06:42:55.293" Score="10" ViewCount="956" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic tradition, confession to a priest is treated with special protection as a sacred rite. The priest is charged with maintaining the confidential nature of the confession, something they take very seriously. However, not everything ever said to a priest is said as part of an official confession. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When is a confession considered sacramental and when is it ordinary? Is there some kind of instantiation procedure to switch to a confession if chatting with a priest? Is it possible to use the language of confessing a sin in the hearing of a priest and not have it be sacramental? Does place matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2016-01-10T21:35:12.240" LastActivityDate="2020-01-07T18:52:10.783" Title="What makes a confession sacramental?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1158" CreationDate="2012-09-30T15:22:22.007" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK so to answer this we first must look at a few different things. First we must answer the question why do we suffer. We suffer because of the sin we created in this world in Genesis 3. It is true that this could only happen because of free will BUT free will itself did not create suffering. Sin is the reason for our suffering. If we look at Adam and Eve in genesis before the fall they had free will but did not suffer. In face they had a face to face relationship to God. Next we need to answer why do we have free will. Is it by design or a fluke. The answer is by design. We were created to worship God and if we didnt have free will would our worship be authentic or just what was programmed into us. Probably the latter. Since we are sinners we all worship something but most of the time we miss the mark and worship something else like money or ourselves. When we do this we suffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next lets look at what we call free will today. Today our free will is tainted by our sin. Paul talks about not being able to do what he wants to do but instead doing what he doesn't want to do. He gives us the basis for what is called limited will. This is where when we have a choice we can only choose to sin. But through the Holy Spirit we do good, not by our own will but by God's. Once we understand this we long for the day when we truly have free will and can choose God ourselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now lets look at salvation and heaven and what we know about that. First we know that through Jesus our sins are wiped clean. So for the first time ever we will be without sin (since we are all born into sin we were never sinless in this world) second we know that when Jesus returns we will share in his resurrection. (This includes resurrection of the body as well) an we will join in with the angels in worship. The question begs will we have a choice in this worship. Here is what I believe: when face to face with God we will want nothing other than to worship him. When faced with choosing between perfection and sin we will choose perfection. God will not take away our free will but since we will be perfect we will be able to choose something other than sin because free will is one thing that makes us fearfully and wonderfully made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2218" LastActivityDate="2012-09-30T15:22:22.007" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9929" CreationDate="2012-09-30T15:49:14.293" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very large subject that might be too big for an answer but I will make an attempt anyway. I apologize for the length.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the answer to the question can be almost fully derived by this fairly long section of scripture, so I quote it all:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for cancelling debts has been proclaimed. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for cancelling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. (Deuteronomy 15:1-11, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may seem odd to appeal to Mosaic legislation to understand the Christian view of debts and our obligations under them, but in many ways all Christian principles are first inlaid in the Old Testament.  From the verses above we can conclude two principle aspects about debts under a Biblical framework:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Both lending and borrowing are not condemned, but actually encouraged when the poor need temporary help. This is a peculiar case of a law for an agricultural society who shared the land God was giving them.  Therefore, we can imagine if a neighbor suffered providential loss, due to bad weather affecting their crops, etc., a neighbor might loan his own seeds, tools, etc., recognizing that he may too need help at another time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is not moral to take advantage of the poor through a loan, as the principle was to forgive the whole loan, where it could not be repaid after seven years.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these two aspects the church at a very early age condemned what was called 'usury'. Usury did not mean a high interest loan, but almost any kind of interest on 'money'.  Interest was not the same thing as 'usury' but if the lender did not in some way take on risk in a loan, then it was considered usury.  An excellent article on the history of interest including church views can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monetary.org/a-brief-history-of-interest/2010/12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Brief History of Interest, Dr. Jurg Conzett&lt;/a&gt;.  The basic idea that has floated around the subject relates to the history of the world changing from an agrarian society to a capitalist trading society.  When we think about it it makes sense.  In the early days, such as under Moses, if you needed some seed to survive, a neighbor might lend some of his seed, or land. They did not necessarily have silver coins, so the payment for seeds would be seeds from a successful crop.  It would be easy to pay a bit of interest as one seed would produce hundreds of seeds.  In this way early lending was fair and the lender assumed risk, because if there was no crop, a payment could not be made, and after seven years the whole thing must be forgiven.  Even Aristotle argued against interest on silver, saying that it did not naturally increase as did seed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see these principles applied under the Mosaic law for among brother 'no interest was allowed' but interest was allowed for loans to foreigners:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, even for a foreigner the interest could not be a kind of 'usury' that exploited the poor, as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. (Exodus 22:21, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To apply this basic ethic to today, or with the New Testaments command that &#xA;'Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another' (Romans 13:8) we can draw the same principles under the gospel light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First, any loan by a person in need is lawful, in order to help the person make a living and take care of his own family.  Second, such a loan should be provided for without exploitation.&lt;/strong&gt; Yet we live in a wicked world, so this is not always possible as that would pretty much end all credit-card usage today as they all charge high interest especially among the poor!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the New Testament is not under a government of God's people following God's laws in Canaan but an invisible church in a wicked world, the New Testament seems to focus more on charity, rather than loans by Christian love, as well as Christian duties for those who have debts in this wicked world. Therefore, for those with debts, the command is to not forsake the obligation of paying them, but work hard at being faithful to our commitments.  It also implies that we must not enter into debt unless necessary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously (Psalms 37:21, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The only way we can really determine what debts or lawful, is not under a legalistic rule, but under the rule of love, which must define all principles of godliness. The question we should ask ourselves when entering into a debt obligation is: 'Can we truly incur and repay this loan, without causing anyone harm?'&lt;/strong&gt; If the answer is no, then the debt is not lawful, for love is the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A student loan, to become employed and a productive member of society would naturally be a good debt, for without such many could not earn income for a family or support church ministries and other charities later in life.  A loan to borrow from your next years predicted savings, to go on a vacation because you are stressed might not pass the rule.  The New Testament drives the idea of obtaining an 'independence' and respect from the outside world, which is included in working towards having no debts, where possible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I myself once took a loan to pay for expenses necessary to adopt an orphan.  I would consider that a good loan.  The question we must ask ourselves when considering to take on a loan, is: 'Do we really need now what we want the loan for, for the benefit of ourself, our family and our brother?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1481" LastEditDate="2012-09-30T20:47:02.867" LastActivityDate="2012-09-30T20:47:02.867" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9946" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9947" CreationDate="2012-09-30T17:18:17.100" Score="34" ViewCount="13944" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many denominations teach that the Bible is the &quot;inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God.&quot;  Detractors of Christianity, and even some denominations within Christianity, disagree with all or some of those three descriptions.  Quite often, they counter with examples of errors in the Bible, or in various translations that show errors (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible&quot;&gt;such as the Wicked Bible's translation of Exodus 20:14&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Various questions and answers on this site have touched on one or all of these three statements, but we've yet to have an answer that describes how all three of these Biblical statements relate to each other, and to the nature of Scriptures.  Granted, there are different understandings, and per the site guidelines, I want to keep this scoped to the classic Fundamentalist understanding of the statement - namely that of the Churches and traditions that hold that the Bible &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the inspired, inerrant Word of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to have this in layman's terms, in order to address the straw-man arguments leveled against the statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2015-12-27T21:22:00.337" LastActivityDate="2017-05-26T10:43:29.420" Title="From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase &quot;Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;&lt;fundamentalism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9946" CreationDate="2012-09-30T17:18:17.100" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;As noted in the question, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;these are layman's terms&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  However, I am providing links to more official definitions, which have been used as source material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definition of the term &quot;Inspired&quot;:&lt;/strong&gt; The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed, that it is a divine product, and, because it is divine, the &lt;strong&gt;original documents&lt;/strong&gt; are inerrant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;inspired&quot; does &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; mean &quot;inspired&quot; in the common sense, as in an artist is inspired to produce a great work, or a football team is inspired to perform better than normal due to a very motivational speech. In the doctrine of Divine Inspiration, the term carries the connotation that the words are the actual words of God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Many cite &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/a&gt; as the source for the term &quot;inspired&quot;.  The term &quot;God Breathed&quot; is translated from the Greek word &quot;Theopneustos&quot;, which conveys the idea of God directly filled the writer with the necessary knowledge - the God &lt;em&gt;breathed&lt;/em&gt; the knowledge into the writer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, we get two possible meanings for the idea of how this worked:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That every thought and word were inspired by God, and that the writer did nothing but merely write as the Spirit dictated.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That God gave the whole matter, leaving the inspired writers to their own language; and hence the great variety of style and different modes of expression.  (This is the understanding that is most common in Baptist Churches in particular, and in most Fundamentalist Churches in my admittedly limited experience.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are many, many verses in Scripture, other than 2 Timothy 3:16, that claim that the Bible is the direct Word of God, not that of man.  A more full treatment, including lists of such passages can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;gospelgateway.com&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Note that inspiration and inerrancy are intertwined, but more specifically that they apply to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the original documents&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  Neither quality is attributed to translations o&#xA;and/or the copies of the original documents.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This leaves open the question of whether the translations we have today, all of which are based on copies, have been accurately transmitted through history.  Fortunately, we can answer that with a resounding &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;Yes, we can be very confident that what we have today is a fair representation of the original manuscripts&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It does mean that the Bible &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the Word of God, not that it &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;contains&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the Word of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definition of &quot;Inerrant&quot;:&lt;/strong&gt; The doctrine of inerrancy stems from  the doctrine of inspiration.  Simply put, if all Scripture is indeed of God, then it cannot be erroneous.  God, being perfect, cannot make mistakes, and He has the power to ensure the original writers wrote down exactly what He intended.  A much fuller and more detailed exposition can be found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Again, as with Inspiration, the doctrine of inerrancy applies only to the original autographs, not to copies and translations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism.  As noted above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we believe God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the writing of Scripture.  Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure of speech.  Example, &quot;I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.&quot;) is allowed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It also does not imply that our interpretation (understanding) of Scripture is necessarily without error.  Verses taken out of context, differences in understanding of meaning and original phrases, cultural differences, and misunderstanding of the meaning of certain phrases at the time the original document was written can (and have) led to many disagreements over the meaning of Scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Infallible&lt;/strong&gt; has a stronger meaning than inerrant.  Inerrant means the Bible contains no errors.  Infallibility means it cannot contain errors; that is, it would not be possible.  Again, this concept is a direct result of the doctrine of inspiration.  The Bible &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; contain errors because it is wholly the inspired word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken together, the statements do not mean we believe that we have a perfect understanding of Scripture.  They do not mean our current Scriptures are perfect, even if we remove our imperfect comprehension and understanding from the equation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;So, what does the phrase &quot;The Bible is the Inspired, Inerrant Word of God&quot; mean to a Fundamentalist?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In simple terms it means God's Word was originally, accurately, and perfectly recorded by the prophets, kings, peasants, fishermen, political leaders, a tax collector, a rabbi, a cupbearer, and ministers that God used.  It was originally perfect, through God's divine power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combined with the evidence that we have that it was, for the most part, transmitted accurately through time, and the high degree of confidence we have in the reliability of today's manuscripts, the phrase tells us we can trust the Scripture we have.  It is therefore up to study it, understand it, and weed out erroneous teachings.  As Christians, we have a responsibility to understand correct doctrine because God has provided us with the information we need to do so.  The phrase means God's word is indeed profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to include this summary, from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy&lt;/a&gt; but it didn't quite fit in with the above answer, as it's not really &quot;Layman's Terms&quot;.  It is clear and concise, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through&#xA;  Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture&#xA;  is God's witness to Himself.&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all&#xA;  matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's&#xA;  instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all&#xA;  that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its&#xA;  meaning.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts&#xA;  in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own&#xA;  literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace&#xA;  in individual lives.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made&#xA;  relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such&#xA;  lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T15:06:46.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9946" CreationDate="2012-09-30T18:51:55.833" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer all three questions at once, here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Pet 1:21&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: &lt;strong&gt;but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.&lt;/strong&gt; (2 Peter 1:21 - KJV, emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Longer Answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inspired means that a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;scribe&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; penned it as a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;prophet spoke&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; what the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;holy spirit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of God had to say. &lt;strong&gt;It was written down by a man, but is exactly what God has to say.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Infallible simply means its the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;complete truth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;it won't ever fail you&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inerrant simply means it is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;without errors&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;mistakes&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;There are no translation errors, the scribe wrote down exactly what the prophet said, the prophet said exactly what God wanted him to say, and we have the correct version of the text.&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-12-27T18:07:22.983" LastActivityDate="2015-12-27T18:07:22.983" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9929" CreationDate="2012-09-30T19:21:32.067" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says &quot;Owe no man any thing, but to love one another:&quot; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom 13:8a&lt;/a&gt; To be in debt, is not a loving arrangement.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament makes a difference between loan making with a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;friend&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; or a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;servant&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and loan making with a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;stranger&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;Surety or loan making with a &lt;em&gt;friend&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%206:1-3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prov 6:1-3&lt;/a&gt; or a &lt;em&gt;servant&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119:122&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ps 119:122&lt;/a&gt; is permitted. But loan making with a &lt;em&gt;stranger&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2011:15&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prov 11:15&lt;/a&gt; is unwise.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The solution to Christian debt is to rely upon your friends to forgive those debts when absolutely necessary, not live beyond your means in the first place, and ask the Lord to provide. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2037:25&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ps 37:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="2228" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T20:22:07.843" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T20:22:07.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9951" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-09-30T19:58:55.757" Score="5" ViewCount="2581" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Exodus 20 (but all of Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy as well) we read of what many refer to as the Mosaic Covenant - enacted at Sinai, where God gives the Ten Commandments (and later the rest of the moral/ceremonial/civil law) to Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At first glance, this seems to be a law covenant - after all, it's Ten &lt;em&gt;Commandments&lt;/em&gt;, but when we consider the gracious aspects of the sacrifices and the understanding of the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40929&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;three uses of the law&quot; as under grace&lt;/a&gt;, it gets confusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's the nature and implication of this covenant? Is it a &quot;law&quot;, bilateral covenant, like the Covenant of Works in the garden with Adam? Or is it a unilateral, &quot;grace&quot; covenant like the Covenant of Grace to Adam through Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T01:01:29.780" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T18:38:01.843" Title="Was the Mosaic Covenant a covenant of &quot;works&quot; or &quot;grace&quot;?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;covenants&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9924" CreationDate="2012-09-30T20:07:57.297" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christians suffer more than others, but all Christians are guaranteed to suffer a little bit due to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:12&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Tim 3:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. You won't have to look for ways to suffer, you &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; suffer primarily because of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%204:29&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gal 4:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. The one born after the flesh (the unsaved world or the carnal nature in a believing Christian) is guaranteed to persecute those who walk in his Holy Spirit. If you aren't suffering then you aren't walking in his Holy Spirit. But remember that his yoke is easy and his burden light &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011:30&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat. 11:30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. So persecution is more than tolerable, if you are filled with the joy unspeakable &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:7-8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Pet 1:7-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, which comes from his holy spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="2228" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T20:30:28.303" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T20:30:28.303" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9918" CreationDate="2012-09-30T22:34:29.500" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historians believe that dinosaurs lived &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; humans. Therefore dinosaurs could be simply mentioned during the 2 days when God created the animals. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%201:20-25&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen 1:20-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God could consider dinosaurs simply &lt;em&gt;animals&lt;/em&gt;, and there would be no reason for him to explicitly mention them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="2228" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T05:48:08.140" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T05:48:08.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9951" CreationDate="2012-10-01T02:25:14.500" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not quite right to emphasize &lt;em&gt;commandments&lt;/em&gt;. They are the Ten Words (&lt;em&gt;dabar&lt;/em&gt; in Hebrew). They express so much more than mere commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, this law that God establishes, these &quot;commandments&quot; and statutes and rules that He gives are founded on the fact that He has already saved His people. We see this in the giving of the law on Sinai. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we see the same reason given by God as instruction for the covenant children in Deuteronomy 6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“When your son asks you in time to come, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that Yahweh our God has commanded you?’ then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt. And Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. And Yahweh showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. And Yahweh commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear Yahweh our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gospel comes first, then the law. Why? It’s not so God can say, “I saved you and now you owe me” or ”I brought you out of Egypt so I can keep my thumb on you.” It’s God saying, “I’ve set you free from this bondage, this slavery to sin – go and sin no more. Go and live in the freedom of the life I’ve given you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the &lt;em&gt;law is grace&lt;/em&gt; because God is entering into covenant with His chosen people. Keeping the law was never merit - God has already shown His salvation. The &quot;Covenant of Grace&quot; we enjoy now is the same. Christ says, &quot;Moses told you..., but I say...&quot; He doesn't make the law less demanding. If anything, He makes it more so. But the law isn't meant to be a burden. It's a covenant relationship like marriage. &quot;Don't cheat on your wife&quot; isn't a difficult rule to follow for someone who loves his wife. It is absolutely necessary for a right marriage, but it is no burden. It is a security and a comfort to have the boundaries clearly established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2170" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T02:25:14.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9951" CreationDate="2012-10-01T02:48:39.340" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Mosaic Law is best understood from its moral code as a renewed &lt;strong&gt;covenant of works&lt;/strong&gt; first enjoined over Adam and the whole human race. However, it was so renewed with an inlaid ceremony, predicting the promise of a better covenant, according to grace in a future Messiah, that it did not contravene the previous covent of grace given to Abraham, according to the promised seed that would bring blessing to many nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept that the Law of Moses was a ‘gracious’ act of God to gives laws to the ‘people of promise’ and that in so doing it was a covenant of grace, and not of works is a more recent theory and one picked up by Biblical Theology.  This makes Biblical theology different from traditional covenant theology, which clearly believes the Law of Moses was a renewed covenant of works not based upon the promise to Abraham, but based upon the birth covenant of Adam. &lt;strong&gt;Some of the names that propose the Law of Moses was a renewal of the 'covenant of works' include Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, etc.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8095/what-are-the-main-differences-between-reformed-protestant-biblical-theology-and/8134#8134&quot;&gt;This post about Covenant Theology versus Biblical Theology&lt;/a&gt; shows the difference as directly quoted from several authors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is more controversy on this question then may be first imagined, and I believe it is possibly the single most important question effecting the average person’s view of the Bible.  The danger to me in thinking that the Mosaic Laws were ‘gracious’ rather than ‘condemning’ with the goal of ‘increasing sin’ (Rom 5:20), is that then one may think we should have the same ‘fear’ and ‘guilt’ under the New Covenant that was natural under the old, and that a legalistic approach to God is all the more difficult to resist. (Heb 12:18) As this problem is so great and the stakes involved so high I have made the largest post ever on the ‘differences’ between the two covenants here. I apologize for the length of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8231/why-does-the-bible-say-that-people-no-longer-need-to-feel-guilty-under-the-gos/8232#8232&quot;&gt;this post about the differences between law and grace&lt;/a&gt;, but there is no question dearer to my heart than this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However to provide a simple straightforward answer I think the scripture is clear.  &lt;strong&gt;The Law was not based on the promise! This is the sticking point.&lt;/strong&gt; If we argue that since the promise was made to Abraham and since the Laws given to Abraham’s descendants, therefore the Law was a gracious gift based upon the promise, we argue directly against the scriptures.  No! The Laws were meant to convict of sin and condemn, in order to lead ‘away’ from them to the promise symbolized under the ceremonies. The Laws point way from themselves, as a covenant of works must be superseded by the covenant of grace:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, &quot;The man who does these things will live by them. (Galatians 3:12, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now when the scriptures say’s ‘faith’ it means nothing less than faith in Christ, which is the covenant of grace.  Therefore the scripture says the Laws of Moses are not based on faith in Christ and the covenant of grace, but are based on works, for the man who ‘does’ these things will live by them, not the man who has righteousness apart from works by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I think this single verse should be clear enough on the distinction showing that the Laws of Moses was a renewal of the covenant in every mans conscience that was first made with Adam and is a covenant of works driving fearful consciences to the Promise of grace.  Under this law &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9462/do-jewish-people-go-to-heaven/9470#9470&quot;&gt;people could still be saved by faith in Christ&lt;/a&gt;, just as condemned souls sensing the guilt under their own conscience today can come to Christ, but Law and guilty condemned consciences are not grace they only lead to it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding sinners without Moses and Christ, they have the same law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them (Romans 2:15, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly this law of conscience in sinners, who do not know Moses and do not know Christ, can’t be based on faith and is not ‘gracious’. To me, in order to understand a large portion of the New Testament one must understand that the Law of Moses and human conscience is absolutely different from grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T16:33:41.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9943" CreationDate="2012-10-01T03:07:42.777" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You know you're in confession if:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you started your conversation saying bless me father for I have sinned. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the priest dons his purple stole &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you can't see the priest you're talking to&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you stood in line to talk to a priest &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you were given absolution for your sins &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you end your conversation by making an act of contrition. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;you don't go in to details, but merely count the number of times you screwed up. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when you knelt down a light changed from green to red. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most relaxed (and personally awful) confession I ever did was in the middle of a conversation. The priest merely whipped out his stole, told me that if I wanted more grace I should kneel and I told him all the awful things I was probably going to tell him anyway. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me know if you want a more canon law answer, rather than an anecdotal one.  I don't think there's any mistaking when you're in confession, the most telling part is the absolution, but if you don't get absolution for whatever reason, I doubt you didn't know you went to confession. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The normal for of confession, according to the handbook of prayers (which is not a liturgical text, but a guide for the laity) is that confession begins with &quot;bless me father... And it's been x number of days since my last confession&quot; then you rattle off your calumnities and the priest gives you a little advice and asks if you're really sorry (you say yes, I don't want to know what happens if you say no, always say yes). Then the priest (acting &lt;em&gt;in persona Christi&lt;/em&gt;) absolves you of your sins  and you say an Act of Contrition (O my God I am heartily sorry, etc...) and the priest gives you some penance (usually a number of prayers to be prayed in earnest nowadays, although in the past, the punishement fit the crime) the most penance I've ever had was flowers and a date night. Then you leave feeling refreshed in body and soul.  (Unless you did something dumb or self righteous in the confessional, then you feel worse than you can possibly imagine.  But it's not so bad, you remind yourself, same absolution same succor of Heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T03:07:42.777" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9961" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9962" CreationDate="2012-10-01T03:09:25.390" Score="8" ViewCount="1509" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;my previous answer on this question,&lt;/a&gt; while discussing Biblical Inerrancy, I stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism. As noted&#xA;  above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we&#xA;  believe that God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the&#xA;  writing of Scripture. Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure&#xA;  of speech. Example, &quot;I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.&quot;) is allowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not necessarily a Fundamentalist belief.  In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/inspire.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;an article at cathtruth.com&lt;/a&gt; (A Catholic site) we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since at times our data are only what we find in the Bible, we lack&#xA;  the necessary information to reconstruct a given incident with all its&#xA;  details. Occasionally the Bible embodies hyperboles, allegories,&#xA;  parables, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Detractors love to claim that you can't have it both ways – that you can't claim to take the Bible literally, and then decide that parts of it are allegorical.  (I've made the same statement myself in a discussion on creation/evolution.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The charge leveled both &lt;em&gt;at&lt;/em&gt; me and &lt;em&gt;by&lt;/em&gt; me was the same:  &quot;&lt;strong&gt;You can't just choose which parts of Scripture you want to believe and assume the other parts are allegorical.  that opens it up to claim that &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; you don't like in Scripture is allegorical.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, are there practical, accepted, time-honored guidelines for determining which parts of Scripture to take literally?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditionally, &lt;strong&gt;what are the hermeneutic rules applied to Biblical Literalism&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;how does &quot;Biblical Literalism&quot; relate to Fundamentalist doctrine&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2015-11-12T19:27:36.613" Title="From a Fundamentalist viewpoint, what does it mean to &quot;take the Bible literally&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;&lt;fundamentalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9961" CreationDate="2012-10-01T03:09:25.390" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disclaimer - I'm not saying that you have to be a fundamentalist to be a Christian.  I'm simply explaining the Fundamentalist perspective on this issue.  it's likely to offend someone.  That's not my intent.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical Literalism, from a Fundamentalist perspective dies not mean hyper-literalism. Instead, we tend toward historical-grammatical method of interpretation, which provides guidelines for determining what content is  to be taken literally, and where a non-literal interpretation is warranted.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.teachingtheword.org/articles_view.asp?articleid=59202&amp;amp;columnid=5772&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Teaching the Word Ministries&lt;/a&gt; gives a fairly good set of principles and rules behind the historical-grammatical method.  Rather than quoting directly, I'll summarize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;Because the Bible is inspired, it is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative&lt;/a&gt;.  No word of fallible man can stand in authority over Scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scripture is intelligible. God &lt;em&gt;meant&lt;/em&gt; for us to understand it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because it is infallible, the Bible is internally consistent. it can't contradict itself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because God meant to communicate truth, and because Scripture is internally consistent, the words of Scripture have only one meaning in context. There may be multiple legitimate applications of a passage of Scripture, but a passage has only one meaning in context. This is what it means to interpret Scripture according to its literal, or normal, sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are to employ passages in Scripture that are more clear on a particular subject to interpret those that are less clear, never vice-versa. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remember that the Bible we are using is a translation, and inerrancy is not applicable, except to the extent that it has been &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;transmitted accurately through time&lt;/a&gt;.  Therefore, it is important for ministers of the church to examine the words of Scripture in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and in their historical and cultural setting in order to accurately understand their meaning in context and to properly translate them into other languages, thus accurately communicating God's truth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Extra-Biblical resources, such as language helps, commentaries, the writings of the so-called church fathers, and archaeological and scientific evidences, can be useful resources in correctly interpreting Scripture. But since they are the words and works of fallible men they are not authoritative.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The &lt;em&gt;Biblical Research Society&lt;/em&gt; out it much more simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other&#xA;  sense;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal&#xA;  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the&#xA;  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths&#xA;  indicate clearly otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from this quote, from Dr. Cooper's perspective,  we see that we are to take Scripture at face value (literally) unless...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The immediate context makes it clear that the passage is not to be taken literally.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Related passages, the literal sense does not make sense&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The literal sense of the passage would contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A shortened version, which I've heard far more often goes like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result&#xA;  in nonsense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Fundamentalists, this is a core doctrine.  It's as central to the Fundamentalist view as the doctrines of Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility, and Divine Inspiration.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the fundamentalist, to stray from the rules of sound Scripture interpretation is to stray into pure conjecture, in which we can make up anything we want about God, rather than worshiping Him in Spirit and in truth.  We can make up a god to suit ourselves (which is also known as idolatry.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;We want a God that says it's OK to lie? That's OK.  We can take that as an allegory.  We want a God that allows disobedience to parents?  We want a religion that teaches there are &quot;many ways to Heaven&quot;?  No problem.  Those are just allegorical statements.  God didn't Mean those things...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man is fallible.  Even those in charge of our Churches are fallible.  Therefore, teachings and traditions can be erroneous, and outright blasphemous.  Only God's Word is infallible.  Put simply, from a Fundamentalist perspective, the disciplined, literal approach to interpretation of Scripture is the only approach that safeguards us from straying into error. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T22:16:13.487" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9963" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-01T05:30:53.867" Score="0" ViewCount="62" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1479/if-god-controls-our-decisions-does-this-mean-we-dont-have-free-will&quot;&gt;If God controls our decisions, does this mean we don&amp;#39;t have free will?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible says that God is omniscient, he knows about you even before you were born, he knew that Adam would sin. That made me think about the question, &lt;code&gt;Do I really have free-will?&lt;/code&gt;.&#xA;If God already knows that I will go to hell how is it possible that I could choose the way of heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an example that quite matches this question. A person offers to you a coin, but this peron knows the future, he knows whether if you are going to accept or not, when you have finally made your choice, how could you had the free will if he already knew if you were going to accept it or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2229" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T05:30:53.867" Title="Do we really have free-will?" Tags="&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-10-01T05:39:42.343" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9961" CreationDate="2012-10-01T06:43:42.390" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To take the Bible literally is to &lt;strong&gt;take the verses which are plain in meaning to you, with the aid of a dictionary if need be, and only those verses&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's extra-biblical teaching that is all the trouble, in my Fundamentalist opinion, not the figurative speech in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's true that some scripture is hard to be understood, the scriptures even say that. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:16&lt;/a&gt;. But we must not slap a &lt;strong&gt;teaching&lt;/strong&gt; on the passage just because we &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; an answer. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2030:6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prov 30:6&lt;/a&gt; Instead we &lt;strong&gt;pass it by&lt;/strong&gt; and pray to God for an understanding. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 1:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest, pray about if you really &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to understand it, and if you don't need to understand it then just pass over the verses to which you cannot ascribe meaning. You will learn more as you allow yourself to absorb more scripture and less external teaching. Don't let some priest tell you what they want those verses to say. Just pass them up for now. They are actually quite few in number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="2228" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T22:47:25.197" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T22:47:25.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9965" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-01T07:27:14.177" Score="6" ViewCount="909" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What sources could one appeal to if trying to argue if a doctrine was or was not consistent with fundamentalism?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7944/30&quot;&gt;What is fundamentalism?&lt;/a&gt; identifies the historical source and some of the main characteristics of fundamentalism. I am more interested in the current usage of the word an identifying when to label something as fundamentalist and when to use a different label.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a lot of overlap beftween the scope of fundamentalist and that of other labels. The media these days bandies the word around* in a way that is generally derogitory, but it isn't exactly clear why. Sometimes it seem to refer to a very specific group as if it were a denomination. Other times it seems to mean just a general theological bent. One minute it is used to pigeon hole far out groups like Westboro Baptist Church, other times it seems to encompass most of mainstream Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hoes does this wide ranging usage affect how Christians use the word for themselves? Particularly among those who take this label on themselves, do they refer to any authority or standard in order to do so? Is there an official authority on when one is a fundamentalist and not just somebody who holds most of the same beliefs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in the Reformed tradition there are specific creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and identifying yourself as Reformed is commonly understood to that place you somewhere close to to these creeds. What sources would a fundamentalist turn to to show that their beliefs were or were not consistent with the way they label themselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;sub&gt; &quot;Evangelical&quot; and &quot;conservative&quot; are viable contenders in the race for meaningless labels.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T09:18:28.793" Title="You might be a &quot;fundamentalist&quot; if ___" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;fundamentalism&gt;&lt;movements&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9965" CreationDate="2012-10-01T07:50:15.803" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is due to fundamentalist having acquired a notion for &quot;a guy with all the right answers&quot; amongst some groups. No one wants to be labelled as fraudulent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal belief is that the labeling is &lt;em&gt;misapplied&lt;/em&gt; by the media, Churches, and individuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I refer to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dictionary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any Church that &lt;code&gt;literally interprets the Bible&lt;/code&gt; is by definition a fundamentalist movement and/or Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="2228" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T09:22:31.863" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T09:22:31.863" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9968" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-01T10:31:53.173" Score="15" ViewCount="39109" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the official position of the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to hell, specifically the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism&quot;&gt;doctrine of annihilation&lt;/a&gt; which says that people will not go on existing, that eventually God will just extinguish some/all souls rather than leaving them in a state of eternal punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2014-11-17T12:52:00.640" Title="Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in annihilation?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;annihilationism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9965" CreationDate="2012-10-01T12:14:21.760" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is going to be a difficult, if not impossible question to answer to everyone's satisfaction for precisely the reason you say it should be defined. It's bandied about so much, not only by the press, but by just about everyone,that I doubt there &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; a universally accepted definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are, however, certain characteristics that could be listed that Fundamentalists share in general.  Even there, there is not universal agreement.  Not all &quot;fundamentalists&quot; agree with all tenets, and plenty of those tenets are shared by those who would not identify themselves as Fundamentalists.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I don't think we can throw a list of absolutely unique individual fundamentalist beliefs, as most of the beliefs are shared with non fundamentalists.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Rather, Fundamentalism appears to being defined as a recognizable combination of beliefs and traits.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't normally just throw a list out there without backup, but this is a unique question, and the format of the question does lend itself to just presenting a list of traits that can fill in that blank.  So here goes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief that the Bible is the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant and infallible Word of God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A strong tendency toward Biblical Literalism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reject the notion that fallible man has any authority over infallibe Scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief in salvation by grace through faith, and not of works. (Sola Fide)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belief in a literal Hell&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evangelical in nature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above three are held to to such a degree that we also, in general:&#xA;(In other words, the following are &lt;em&gt;not definitive Fundamentalist qualities&lt;/em&gt;, but rather &lt;em&gt;commonly held, but not universal beliefs&lt;/em&gt; based on the above three qualities.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have a general disdain for any extra-Biblical teachings.  We see them as man &quot;adding to&quot; the Scripture.  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We don't discount all extra-Biblical teaching, however.  If the teaching can be backed up by applying Biblical principles, as in it's implied by the Scriptures, or in line with the teachings, we will generally accept it, or at least not denounce it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following may or may not be as commonly held, but in my observation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We have a tendency to be Creationists, and in particular young-earth Creationists.  (Literal reading and rejection of fallible man's scientific understanding can override God's clear word.  Yeah, that's been debated ad-nausem on the site, but I'm not defending it here, just listing it.)&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We have a tendency to prefer traditional Hymns like &quot;Amazing Grace&quot;, &quot;How Great Thou Art&quot; to more contemporary Christian music.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And in general we see &quot;Christian Rock&quot; as an oxymoron.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At least in the U.S.A., we tend to be conservative in our politics. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a result of our belief in the strict interpretation of Scripture, the belief that Christ is the only way to avoid an eternity of suffering in Hell, we tend to come off as &quot;pushy&quot;.  We refuse to shut up and stop witnessing, and annoy our loved ones, relatives, friends, and total strangers in our attempt to get them to see their need for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This earns us the labels as being pushy, rigid, legalistic, zealots, judgmental, and a whole host of synonyms. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://paranoidrants.blogspot.com/2011/04/judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Even though that's now how we see it&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T02:22:47.577" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9968" CreationDate="2012-10-01T12:20:21.473" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Longer answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Technically, Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in Hell, but (a) their beliefs about Hell are quite unusual, and (b) they generally don't use the name &quot;Hell&quot;. (So it's simpler to say they don't believe in Hell.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Even longer answer:&lt;/strong&gt; The Biblical words usually translated as &quot;Hell&quot; are the Hebrew &lt;em&gt;She'ol&lt;/em&gt; and the Greek &lt;em&gt;Hades&lt;/em&gt;. Witnesses use these words (more often &lt;em&gt;She'ol&lt;/em&gt;, in my experience, but the two can be used interchangeably), but they can occasionally use the English word Hell to describe the same concept. She'ol is not a place, physical or otherwise, but a condition: it is the state of non-existence. And everyone, when they die, simply ceases to exist (see next paragraph for an exception). This applies even to Jesus: when he died, he died. And then was raised after three days. So too the other resurrections in scripture: they were brought back from nothingness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This applied also to the 144,000 anointed ones. They died. And then they were resurrected to Heaven in 1914. Any anointed who have died &lt;em&gt;since&lt;/em&gt; 1914 are resurrected straight to heaven, in a &quot;twinkling of an eye&quot;. So that's the exception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the new world order, many people from She'ol (Hell) will be resurrected. Those who rebel will, at the end, be thrown into the lake of fire. This indicates complete annihilation: the same sort of non-existence as in She'ol, but without any chance of future resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another term sometimes confused with Hell is Tartarus, which I believe is used only once in the Bible. The Witnesses believe that's a completely different thing: it's the condition of the Devil and his demons cast out of Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T12:20:21.473" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9965" CreationDate="2012-10-01T14:28:56.310" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You might be a fundamentalist if …&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;… you're mean.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term fundamentalist has a broader usage even beyond Christianity or even Theology in some circles.  I've been hearing some people (tending towards the liberal end of the spectrum) trying to label Al Qaeda as Islamic fundamentalists.  The not-so-transparent idea is that if terrorists are fundamentalists, then eventually people will associate fundamentalists with terrorists.  Its already a perjorative, especially on the left.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even John Piper and his followers have been quoted as saying &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/05/what-is-the-difference-between-and-evangelical-and-a-fundamentalist/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Evangelicals are really just nice fundamentalists&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;… you're just a strong traditionalist.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It makes sense to label anybody who has a strict faith and a seeming intolerance for change as a fundamentalist.  Fundamentally, the term originates from a movement called &quot;The Fundamentals&quot; whose sole purpose was to rollback the liberal critiques and scholarship of the late 1800s. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;… you know who &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Turretin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Francis Turretin&lt;/a&gt; is.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A belief in Biblical inerrancy, perspecuity, and sufficiency are all pretty much tied in with the connotation of fundamentalist. Grant you, these are techinical terms differentiating between certain theological points of view, but in the end, if you know who Turretin is, you're probably a fundamnetalist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-10-02T09:18:28.793" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T09:18:28.793" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9972" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9977" CreationDate="2012-10-01T14:41:22.097" Score="15" ViewCount="13689" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an Episcopalian, we technically have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bcponline.org/PastoralOffices/reconciliation.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;rite of Confession and Reconciliation&lt;/a&gt; as one of the things we are supposed to do, but I've never seen it done in actual practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, I know that most Roman Catholics do regularly incorporate the practice, and it seems like a wonderful thing&amp;mdash;tangibly hearing the sacramental words of absolution from a man who is understood to speaking in God's stead. As one who deals with abstract things all day long, it would be nice to hear &quot;God with flesh&quot; sometimes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, would a Roman Catholic priest technically be able to hear the confession of a non-Catholic?  I mean, since I'm not a Papist (I don't mean that pejoratively, I promise!), technically I'm a heretic.  As such, could a Roman Catholic priest hear my confession even if he wanted to? More importantly, can he pronounce absolution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2014-06-24T02:33:59.957" LastActivityDate="2020-01-18T11:19:01.107" Title="Are non-Catholics allowed to go to confession?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;confession&gt;&lt;canon-law&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9973" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:25:43.217" Score="10" ViewCount="59457" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple references in the Gospels indicating what Jesus wore, but not many. His undergarment was 'seamless' according to John 19:23.  He also may have had the 'fringes' or 'tassels' of the garment that Jews wore, as we see a woman touching a 'fringe' of his outer garment in Mathew 9:20.  Many think this indicates that he followed this  Mosaic law with regard to dress:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord said to Moses,  “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. (Numbers 15:37-38, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if Jesus wore these tassels, they would not have been like those 'extra long ones' wore by the Pharisees, for Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long. (Matthew 23:5, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, here are some references to lead to various sub-questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did Jesus wear sandals? Would he have worn a Jewish turban outside?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Would anyone one notice that he was a teacher by his dress, or was he just a regular looking guy? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Or, is this all mere speculation and unanswerable?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, &lt;strong&gt;if we were casting a Jesus movie, what clothes did Jesus most likely wear as a combined set? The question is not pointed at 'one' specific article, but the combination of articles and the impression, if any, that they would make on a stranger, whether Jew or Gentile.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: A related question about the phylacteries or tefillin can be found &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8131/did-jesus-wear-tefillin&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2020-04-12T17:55:30.300" Title="What kind of clothes did Jesus wear?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;clothing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9973" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:33:40.777" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Gospel of John, we learn that He wore sandals:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose &lt;strong&gt;sandals&lt;/strong&gt; I am not worthy to untie.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:27&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;John 1:27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also wore a single piece undergarment, and apparently four other items of clothing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into &lt;strong&gt;four shares&lt;/strong&gt;, one for each of them, with the &lt;strong&gt;undergarment remaining&lt;/strong&gt;. This garment was &lt;strong&gt;seamless&lt;/strong&gt;, woven in one piece from top to bottom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19:23&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;John 19:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T15:33:40.777" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9975" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-01T15:44:16.677" Score="1" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9542/do-fetuses-have-souls-is-the-aquisition-of-a-soul-instantenous-or-continuous&quot;&gt;Do Fetuses have souls? Is the aquisition of a soul instantenous or continuous?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Scriptural basis has been used in Christianity to support the idea that the soul is already in the fetus before the fetus starts breathing, i.e. before it is delivered? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T16:08:36.543" Title="What Scriptural basis has been used in Christianity to support the idea that a fetus posseses the soul?" Tags="&lt;souls&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-10-01T19:11:30.867" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9975" CreationDate="2012-10-01T16:08:36.543" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 1:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This conflicts with Exodus 21:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The implication here is that a fetus is treated as property, not life)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T16:08:36.543" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9972" CreationDate="2012-10-01T16:30:10.773" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps surprisingly, Canon Law appears to allow it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can.  959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So who are &quot;the faithful&quot;? Naturally, that question is answered, too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue, therefore, is whether the penitent regards the priest as competent (in the legal sense of that word) &amp;mdash; does he regard the priest as a priest and able to forgive sins? Many in other denominations would not; it may well be that they do not regard such an earthly representative of the heavenly as necessary at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supplementary issue: if the penitent &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; regard the priest as competent, and presumably does not wish to approach clergy of his own denomination, why is he not a Catholic? That may be a basis for another question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: Although I know where to find things in Canon Law, I'm not a lawyer. We could do with a Catholic priest in these hallowed halls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T16:30:10.773" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9965" CreationDate="2012-10-01T17:44:26.163" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think because of Islamic terrorists being called 'fundamentalists' the term will eventually phase out among Christians, as fewer Christians will say 'I am a fundamentalists' as the media demonizes the term, more and more.  The term probably has its original real meaning in the U.S. and that partially related to the conservative right in American politics.  In this sense a fundamentalist is just an American evangelical who always votes conservative.  (How they will vote with a Mormon running the conservative seat must be a real dilemma.  I guess that virtually guarantees Obama will have a second term). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reality is Evangelical and Fundamentalists have a huge overlap. They all believe in the inherency of scripture, salvation by faith,  respect for the  reformers, belief in a literal devil, new birth or personal conversion, belief in miracles, the virgin birth, resurrection, second coming of Christ, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference in my view is that Fundamentalists, or the extreme right, will be less ecumenical than evangelicals and denounce sin more publicly.  Possibly seem to cranky. Fundamentalists will seem more 'negative' as they have less patience for liberal movements such as feminism, gay rights, evolution or some guys new fancy view of the Bible, especially a new documentary on A&amp;amp;E that question traditional biblical views on the Bible. The man still more or less runs the family, women should not dress to sexy. Conservative views and values color theological application everywhere.  Of course no abortion. Home schooling is probably more popular among the conservative right. People should not expect handouts if they are not willing to work hard! There is possibly a more stoic connotation among the far right.  The subject of hell is more common among the fundamentalist, with an emphasis on its eternity and literal suffering.  There is less patience for philosophy and hardly any interest in that at all.  All of these conservative elements may be found among evangelicals, but it is more rigid on the far right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The media often lumps evangelicals and fundamentalists together as 'just fundamentalists', as they do not see the slight differences that make fundamentalists  proud to imagine themselves as more ruthlessly Cross-centered, and evangelicals proud to imagine themselves more loving and open-minded, they all just seem like pig-headed and stubborn Christians who take the Bible literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, I do not think for the most part we can really distinguish between them, but those on the most conservative or liberal ends of the spectrum will probably disagree. Therefore there still is some meaning to the terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally  I seem to fit the profile of fundamentalist in many ways, but I am not dispensational, love Christian Rap and Rock music and so I am probably somewhere in the overlap where evangelical meets fundamentalist and everything else is a blur. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T17:44:26.163" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9979" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9981" CreationDate="2012-10-01T18:59:12.360" Score="6" ViewCount="491" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most priests wear a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stole_%28vestment%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stole&lt;/a&gt;, a vestment that appears to be similiar to a long &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=tom+baker+scarf&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;prmd=imvnso&amp;amp;tbm=isch&amp;amp;tbo=u&amp;amp;source=univ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=eedpULmqF-OxyQGl_IGQDg&amp;amp;sqi=2&amp;amp;ved=0CDIQsAQ&amp;amp;biw=1680&amp;amp;bih=965&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;scarf&lt;/a&gt;, although it is flat and worn against the chest, rather than 'round the neck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading through the wikipedia article, the suggestion is that the stole is derived from Roman aristocracy - but of that is true, it completely conflicts with the notion that priests wear robes with rope belts because they were the clothing of the poor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is, where did the stole come from? What is the theological statement that is implied by this vestment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T19:12:21.033" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T20:20:12.300" Title="What is the origin of a stole?" Tags="&lt;vestments&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9979" CreationDate="2012-10-01T20:20:12.300" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Stole&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Stole&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to my understanding, it is a Roman adaptation of the Epitrachelion and Orarion - essentially priestly neck-garments. I wouldn't read too much into the clothing style itself, as it changes infrequently and often erratically and illogically. But the garment itself, functionally, is simply the symbol of the priesthood or diaconate, but styled differently. It's also important to note how simple they can be, so it is likely that they were adapted as priestly garments some time after they were in common use by aristocracy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interesting part is that while in the Orthodox tradition the stole is two different garments for the priest and deacon, in the West it is almost the same garment simply worn differently, albeit with the final effect being identical: the priest's is symmetrical and comes down like a beard, and the deacon's is asymmetrical and worn like a sash. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This suggests a common origin to all of the stoles, but does not tell us what the proto-garment was, or if one of the two was the proto-garment. I would be inclined to assume the Orthodox garments, partly because of the Oriental Churches (Non-Chalcedonians):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sor.cua.edu/Vestments/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://sor.cua.edu/Vestments/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/miscellaneous/sacramental.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/miscellaneous/sacramental.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;etc... the naming is Western (stole) but it seems like the garment is mostly unchanged and similar to the Eastern Orthodox one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T20:20:12.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9924" CreationDate="2012-10-01T20:36:21.683" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ancient tradition is clear on this matter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;…if we are ashamed to imitate our Lord’s sufferings, which He endured&#xA;  for us, and to suffer as He suffered, it is obvious that we shall not&#xA;  become partakers with Him in His glory. If that is true of us we shall&#xA;  be believers in word only, not in deed. When deeds are absent, our&#xA;  faith is dead.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;St. Symeon the New Theologian (c 950)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related, St. John Chrysostom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Some think that to enjoy good health is a source of pleasure. But it is not so. For many who have good health have a thousand times&#xA;  wished themselves dead, not being able to bear the insults inflicted&#xA;  upon them….For although we were to become kings and live royally, we&#xA;  should find ourselves compassed about with many troubles and&#xA;  sadnesses….By necessity kings have as many sadnesses as there are&#xA;  waves on the ocean. So, if monarchy is unable to make a life free from&#xA;  grief, then what else could possibly achieve this? Nothing, indeed, in&#xA;  this life&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Homily I8, On the Statues).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This discussion here is characteristic, but make sure to read more than the first exchange: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monachos.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-1451.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.monachos.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-1451.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The lives of the saints are the best! And they not only do not&#xA;  complain about trials and sufferings, but welcome them in joy and&#xA;  gratitude, and when persecuted, are found praying fervently for their&#xA;  persecutors...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suffering is itself a means of self-transcendence, and while being dangerous and difficult, is accepted as being 'the cross' that Christ admonishes us to bear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not a New Testament thing, but starts with Job, the oldest known book, wherein Job's suffering is a gateway to comprehension of the mystery of providence and restoration to life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T20:36:21.683" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9908" CreationDate="2012-10-01T20:47:43.417" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The conclusion of the Fathers is that these words mean the Descent into Hades. The Orthodox Icon depicts Christ raising the dead from beneath the earth (as our hymns say) which occurs eternally, that is, outside of time and at no particular time in relation to our understanding of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, to answer your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The spirits are the dead from all time outside of Christ - who formerly didn't obey refers to the fall of Adam.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The prison is Hades, also known as Sheol, the place of the dead or the grave. The Psalmist calls it 'the Land of Forgetfulness'&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The gospel, by which he raised them from the dead, or by which they were finally condemned, according to the disposition of their hearts as they were shaped by the deeds of their lives and their faith or lack thereof.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_descent_of_jesus_into_hades&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_descent_of_jesus_into_hades&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only disagreement the Fathers seem to have is on who were the Spirits he preached to. However, Orthodox Tradition has come to understand that the 'formerly disobedient' refers even to those who have not yet died and will be outside of Christ. This is not universalism, but on the other hand does not condemn those outside of the Church outright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T20:47:43.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9876" CreationDate="2012-10-01T21:01:46.643" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, the Fathers teach that it will be both Christ (who is the Judge) and the Saints who will judge us. This is from scripture. Satan tries to accuse us, but it will be God and the Saints who will judge us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-3.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a discussion of the matter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?7943-1-Corinthians-6-2-quot-the-saints-shall-judge-the-world-quot&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?7943-1-Corinthians-6-2-quot-the-saints-shall-judge-the-world-quot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second point is that Revelation itself points to a twofold judgement - first of the book of life, secondly of the book of deeds. This means that even those who are in the Book of Life still are judged by their deeds. As to whether this will be a literal trial of any kind, it would be a mistake to take a complex vision like Revelation and treat it like a future-historical narrative. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final point is this: The scripture and the Fathers teach that both the Saints and God will judge us. We will be judged both by our deeds and by our faith, that is, if we are in the Book of Life. Being in the book of Life does not exempt one from having one's deeds examined, nor does having good deeds exempt one from needing to be found in the Book of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T21:01:46.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9986" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-01T21:23:22.907" Score="9" ViewCount="2893" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something that always bothers me which I witness to Catholics: the well-meaning ones tell me I am a Protestant and say that &quot;we protested the Catholic Church&quot;. This isn't true, the Baptist Church was never a part of the &quot;Protestant Reformation&quot; movement, and we don't actively engage in protesting the Catholic Church because we have no roots in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although our theology might sometimes be labelled as &quot;reformed&quot; we call ourselves &quot;fundamentalists&quot; and not &quot;reformers&quot; because unlike Luther there was nothing for us to &quot;reform&quot;. Our teaching does not come from any tradition and we teach solely what comes from the Bible. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9964/2228&quot;&gt;We take the Bible literally&lt;/a&gt; and base our theology off of that and not any tradition. For example, we don't have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=nicene%20creed%20lutheran&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nicene creed&lt;/strong&gt;  a tradition which Lutherans have&lt;/a&gt; which can be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;traced back to Roman Catholicism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you disagree please cite an accurate historical reference that says the Independent Baptist Fundamentalists were an active part of the &quot;Protestant Reformation&quot; and can thus be labelled Protestants or Protestant Reformers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2017-07-06T04:41:44.833" Title="Why are Independent Baptist Fundamentalists labelled Protestants?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;&lt;fundamentalism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9632" CreationDate="2012-10-01T22:14:21.303" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:5-6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 6:5-6&lt;/a&gt; says that Jesus could do no &quot;mighty work&quot;. Since the people did not believe, he was unable to save their soul. That was the &quot;mighty work&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;He actually did preform an amazing feat&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them&quot;. The people just did not believe in him &quot;he marvelled because of their unbelief&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saving the soul is a far more mighty feat than healing somebody's physical body which will get injured again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="2228" LastEditDate="2012-10-01T22:39:05.690" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T22:39:05.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9989" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="9991" CreationDate="2012-10-01T22:52:28.767" Score="13" ViewCount="37750" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:1-13&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204:1-13&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Luke 4:1-11&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus was in the desert for 40 days and tempted by Satan. Of particular interest is the first temptation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204:3-4&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 4:3-4 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Then the devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become a loaf of bread.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan full well knew who Jesus was! There couldn't have been any doubt in Satan's mind as to Jesus' identity, as opposed to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who simply refused to believe. No, Satan isn't really asking Jesus to prove Himself. Rather, he has some other motive...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was Satan's motive in asking Jesus for a sign of His identity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I consider myself non-denominational, but I grew up Wesleyan, so the closer answers are to that, the better. I won't turn away Catholic or Orthodox answers though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2016-12-31T07:50:53.500" Title="Why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9986" CreationDate="2012-10-01T23:02:54.233" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea behind the term &quot;protestant&quot; may have originated in those who literally protested the Catholic Church, but today it has a somewhat broader meaning.  It has come to mean that a church believes that the Catholic Church lost its way, and that it is necessary to teach correct doctrine as described in the Bible, instead of Biblical doctrines mingled with Catholic tradition and philosophy.  This attitude certainly fits the Fundamentalist position, as described in the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, as San Jacinto pointed out in a comment, the Baptist tradition derives from the Anglican tradition, who were Protestants in the original sense, so it doesn't make too much sense to state that Baptists have no roots in Protestantism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T23:02:54.233" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9989" CreationDate="2012-10-01T23:07:50.033" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The recorded three temptations of Christ mirror the steps Satan used to bring sin into the world in the first place:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you are the Son of God ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;vs Genesis 3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Did God actually say ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, like with the first sin, it is related to food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you are the Son of God, jump off ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;vs &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You will not surely die&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God didn't mean what He said (&quot;I even quoted a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2091:11-12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;passage&lt;/a&gt; to prove it!&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And lastly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;if you will worship me ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;vs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;you will be like God ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questioning God's authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is questioning whether Jesus was who He said He was (and whom His Father had just attested to at the baptism) - He was trying to get Jesus to fail in His earthly life so He couldn't be our perfect sacrificial substitute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T23:07:50.033" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9986" CreationDate="2012-10-01T23:10:05.787" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;My first answer wasn't very good; I want to take a different angle. I hope this approach helps make this issue more clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;TL;DR&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't have to stage a protest to be Protestant. It's a matter of heritage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Of fallacies and analogies...&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question commits some basic fallacies that can easily be addressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;cite an accurate historical reference that says the Independent Baptist Fundamentalists were an active part of the &quot;Protestant Reformation&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This step is quite unnecessary. Let's look a few analogous examples to understand why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You didn't fight in the Revolutionary war, but you are an American citizen right? Even if you don't hold the same views as these who picked up muskets to fight for the colonies independence, your very existence has it's roots in that conflict.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By a similar token, I was born in America to third generation American parents. But my last name is Maclennan. Somewhere way back when, I had an ancestor named Lennan and -- whatever my opinion of Scotland may be -- I bear his name and and have my roots in that country.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking of ancestry, let's think about your bloodlines for a minute. I'm a white boy. Nobody looking at me would take me for an Asian or an African. My blood comes from the Anglo-Saxon world. Never mind the fact that I now live in the Middle East, I have roots in a specific world and culture. I may not identify with its values, eat its food or speak its language&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; but there is still a sense in which it is valid to identify me as a Westerner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Now for Theology...&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much like a genealogy, the history of Christian religion may be drawn as a tree. We can start with the NT church&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. I think its safe to say we both consider that a true church. For at least some very initial stages, there was not anything quite like what we know of as denominations&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. As time went on, deviant theologies cropped up, were countered, and some people stuck with orthodox belief and others wandered. Some of these might be considered fundamentals of faith (such as the Gnostics) others might be considered less fundamental (eventual division between the major traditions we have today).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I covered a lot of similar ground on my answer to a question about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9607/30&quot;&gt;what the purpose of the Creeds were&lt;/a&gt;. Your question mentions the Nicene Creed, but it is by no means unique to Lutheranism. In fact &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-nicene-creed.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholics use it as well&lt;/a&gt;. As a matter of fact, so do many Independent Baptists. The statements of that creed are a very basic outline of some basic facts about our faith derived directly from Scripture. Whether you actively use it or not, your fundamentalist baptist beliefs are probably consistent with it as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the only way for your Baptist church to not be considered Protestant is for you to be a cult. The definition of a cult is pretty simple really. It is a group of people who claim affiliation with a larger established religion but, because their beliefs diverge significantly enough, are rejected as unorthodox by that larger body. This is not the case for most independent baptists&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, fundamentalist or otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptists are Protestants. By that, we mean that their beliefs fall under the general umbrella of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox and non-Cult Christian tradition. &#xA;Your individual denomination may trace it's origin to some recent event, but whatever it split off from, it also inherits many of the attributes of its linage. All the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9994/30&quot;&gt;other&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9998/30&quot;&gt;answers&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9990/30&quot;&gt;have&lt;/a&gt; covered the history of Catholic to Anglican to Anabaptist to Baptist history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;All clear now?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't have to actively stage a protest to be one of us. After all you aren't Catholic are you? You aren't Orthodox. Cult?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Welcome to Protestantism, my friend :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Except when it comes to StackExchange, English is not my &quot;daily driver&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;I have started with the NT church only for purposes of keeping this simple, although I would argue we could draw the tree going back to Adam.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;This isn't to say there weren't divisions / factions / sub-groups. There were.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;There are a few possible exceptions here, but you would probably agree on those as well.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T15:07:08.573" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9989" CreationDate="2012-10-01T23:12:19.077" Score="1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Satan hates Christ and wants him to fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What was Satan's motive in asking Jesus for a sign of His identity?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Jesus was going to save people by living a sinless life and dying for them. Satan didn't want that. He was tempting Jesus to fulfill a lust of using God's divine power to satisfy his hunger so that Jesus would fall. Satan could then make Jesus not able to save other on account that he was no longer sinless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2228" LastEditorUserId="2228" LastEditDate="2012-10-02T00:23:38.320" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T00:23:38.320" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9986" CreationDate="2012-10-01T23:14:08.187" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The modern Baptist denominations and adherents descend from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Anabaptist&lt;/a&gt; movement which was part of the 16th century Reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several Baptist churches hold to similar creeds to the Nicene (or, more commonly in my experience, &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/creeds-and-confessions&quot;&gt;confessions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt; of faith or faith statements).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also hundreds of Baptist churches which call themselves &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vor.org/truth/refbapt.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reformed&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (I grew up in one, and know many believers in them all over the world).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Baptists are Protestants because they &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;DO&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; 'protest' aspects of the Roman Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some parts of the country and world, the dominant membership of Baptist churches are those who have converted/reformed out of the Catholic faith into the Protestant faith, and who embrace the freedoms associated with the new home of worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other courses of Baptist History:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/096225083X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Baptist roots in America&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#History&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Southern Baptist Convention - Late 1600s in America (Wikipedia)&#xA;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Baptists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reformed Baptists - Originating ~1630 (Wikipedia)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2016-11-11T13:58:47.007" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9989" CreationDate="2012-10-01T23:14:14.053" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't read that as Satan asking Jesus to prove his identity; rather, it reads as a &lt;em&gt;temptation&lt;/em&gt;.  &quot;You have power.  You're very hungry.  Use your power to take care of your personal problems.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul points out,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 4:15&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan absolutely did know who Jesus was, and why he was there.  And he also knew that Jesus had free will and the ability to make his own choices.  (In fact, we have one recorded instance where Jesus directly stated that his will was in opposition to the will of the Father, in the Garden of Gethsemane, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:38-44&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:38-44&lt;/a&gt;,) but he chose to do his Father's will and not his own.)  And he knew that Jesus needed to be perfect to complete the work that he had come to accomplish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if he could find any way of tempting Jesus to step off the path, even once, it would have destroyed God's plan, which is exactly what Satan wanted.  So Satan tempted him, trying to get him to use his power for physical desires, for fame, and for wealth and earthly power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-10-01T23:14:14.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9996" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-10-02T00:17:57.157" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants&lt;/a&gt; is a book of modern revelations accepted as scripture by the Latter-Day Saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-10-02T00:17:57.157" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T00:17:57.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9997" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-10-02T00:17:57.157" Score="0" Body="The Doctrine and Covenants is a book of modern revelations accepted as scripture by the Latter-Day Saints." OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T08:58:27.893" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T08:58:27.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9986" CreationDate="2012-10-02T00:55:57.747" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a teaching that is very common in Baptist Churches that the Baptist Church has its origins in the New Testament Church, long before the Reformation.  A fair representation of the teaching is found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbministries.org/History/John%20T.%20Christian/vol1/history_01.htm&quot;&gt;Providence Baptist Ministries&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A summary of the teaching consists of the following points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There have always, since the time of the New Testament Church, been believers that believed in the Baptist/Fundamentalist distinctives including, but not limited to:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Local congregational authority&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the belief that baptism is not meant for children. It was always a sign of obedience to God &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; salvation. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The formal organization of Churches such as the Orthodox and Catholic Church is not found in Scripture. Scripture only teaches about two positions: presbyters (pastors) and deacons&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Throughout history, there have always been believers that held to these beliefs, but they have gone under different names&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Post-reformation, this group, which has existed since the beginning of Christianity, was given a name - Anabaptists, because they re-baptized believers in adulthood because of the rejection of infant baptism.  (This is where the Wikipedia version, (and admittedly, commonly accepted version) of history meets the Baptist version of history)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Later, as is commonly agreed, anabaptists gave rise to the modern &quot;Baptist&quot; denomination and the myriad variants that exist within the &quot;Baptist&quot; moniker.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So @dongle26 isn't simply making things up.  This is a very common Baptist teaching.  As to the accuracy and veracity, it's debated.  While I tend to believe that the individual points are probably accurate, I think most people, when presented with this view, would balk.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It reminds me of what a wise Jedi once said to a young one who had just discovered that some of the things he thought were true weren't necessarily as he thought  &quot;You will find that a lot of the truths we cling to depend greatly on your own point of view.&quot;  Yes, I know Star Wars isn't Christianity, but the saying is applicable regardless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These points, if true, clearly say that the Baptist distinctive beliefs have existed since long before the Reformation, and that the Baptist &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;name&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; simply was applied to the existing believers later.  This could be extended to say that, since the Baptist Church isn't an organized Church with a central authority, in the sense that some other denominations are, the Baptist Church is identified by adherence to certain distinctives.  Since these distinctives pre-date the Reformation and stretch back to the original Apostolistic New Testament Church, in a sense, the Baptist Church extends back to it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, as usual, not all Baptists agree on interpreting history this way.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baptisthistory.org/bhhs/baptistorigins/baptistbeginnings.html&quot;&gt;The Baptist History and Heritage Society, for example, flat out refutes the teaching&lt;/a&gt;.  Not all people look at it with the same point of view.  Some would call it revisionist history, and some would call it a deliberate misinterpretation of history, or a flawed interpretation of the historical facts.  (Which is ironic, considering how strongly the concept of &quot;correct interpretation&quot; is to those of us who self-identify as Baptists and Fundamentalists.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, the &quot;rest of Christianity and the rest of the world&quot; may agree with all of the points, but still say that the &quot;Baptist Church&quot; &quot;originated&quot; at the time the name was applied.  Which, also, is true, from a certain point of view.  (And in my head, all I can hear is Luke asking incredulously, &quot;a certain point of view?&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary, this isn't something that is going to be universally agreed on.  The best you can hope for is that people say &quot;Yeah, I can see how you came up with that, but...&quot; regardless of which side of this issue you stand on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering that the vast majority of those who call themselves &quot;Christians&quot; is not Baptist, and not even all Baptists agree with either version of history, the majority of &quot;Christians&quot; agree with the &quot;Baptists are Protestants&quot; or &quot;Baptists are products of the Reformation&quot; view.  And even though being in the majority doesn't make you right (or wrong), it does affect how the issue is perceived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, the only objective answer to the question of why Baptists are called Protestants is that most of the world sees it that way, right or wrong.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-02T01:52:34.087" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T01:52:34.087" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9986" CreationDate="2012-10-02T14:20:51.407" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you're confusing etymology with history. &quot;Protestant&quot; while it may have originally referred to a limited subset of non-Catholic Westerners (specifically, a very small group of Lutherans around the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Speyer_%281529%29&quot;&gt;Diet of Speyer in 1529&lt;/a&gt;), now (generally) means &quot;non-Catholic Christian&quot;  (Rome is not necessarily the definitive standard, however: &quot;Protestant&quot; or may not include Anglican Catholics, Old Catholics, and other, similar groups). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not a matter of opinion, and the historical claims of any given group are frankly irrelevant. It &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Speyer_%281529%29&quot;&gt;is&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protestant&quot;&gt;what&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=define%20protestant&amp;amp;oq=define%20protestant&amp;amp;sugexp=chrome,mod=14&amp;amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&quot;&gt;the&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/protestant&quot;&gt;word&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism&quot;&gt;means&lt;/a&gt; and there is little room for debate on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-10-02T14:44:42.447" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T14:44:42.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9858" CreationDate="2012-10-02T20:17:41.957" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing that any &quot;state church&quot; would have this policy. Also, generally, any religion where local congregations have little autonomy: if the same beliefs, and the same practices, are being followed in every region, why would you choose one over another? Jehovah's Witnesses certainly recommend you stick to the congregation in whose territory (parish) you live. The idea of shopping around for a church that &quot;suits&quot; you would be completely alien.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2012-10-02T20:17:41.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10003" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-02T21:25:14.420" Score="15" ViewCount="5183" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's said that Satan is a very smart creature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan, and 1/3 of the other angels, chose what seems to be a very foolish fate. Knowing that God is all-powerful, we ask, what could have compelled Satan - presumably a rational, intelligent being - to choose what would clearly be, a terrible end for him?  Did he not know that God would win and that he would be punished forever? And what would be so compelling to the heavenly host, that a third of them would choose &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;'to reign in hell, rather than serve in heaven?'&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2237" LastEditorUserId="8641" LastEditDate="2013-11-18T11:12:13.437" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T11:12:13.437" Title="What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9858" CreationDate="2012-10-03T00:03:27.137" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church of England falls into the &amp;quot;partial&amp;quot; category. There is a parish system of around 13000 parishes in England [that's not Wales or Scotland, which have their own autonomous Churches] each with at least one parish church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Residents in the parish can be baptised in their parish church; baptised people can be married in their parish church; people who die can have a funeral either in the church of the parish where they die or where they lived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some exceptions which extend these permissions. Residents can be baptised in another church with their parish priest's permission. There are &amp;quot;qualifying connections&amp;quot; which can be made with other churches to allow marriage — for example where your parents have worshipped. And there is nothing stopping you from attending church outside your parish and joining the electoral roll of the church you attend. That effectively makes you a parishioner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the Church of England is a broad church with a variety of liturgical practice [and associated theological belief] it's not uncommon for people to &amp;quot;shop around&amp;quot; to find a church which suits them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church where I was churchwarden* had a particular ministry to its little bit of the country, an urban situation with a high population of poor and homeless people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shameless plug: Go to this &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.achurchnearyou.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;map on A Church Near You&lt;/a&gt; and enter your location. The parish of the place you select is highlighted, together with local churches. I'm responsible for some of the coding behind that. If you're very lucky you may even find a parish with more than one non-contiguous area, or a tract of land which is not in any parish at all. Anyone resident in such an &lt;em&gt;extra-parochial place&lt;/em&gt; can attach themselves to an adjacent parish. The map is intended to provide a service for potential churchgoers to find their local church, or for engaged couples to find their parish church (in order to simplify the process of a church wedding).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Churchwarden: an ancient layman's elected office in the Church of England with particular legal responsibilities for finance, buildings, ministry and parochial management.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2020-11-03T18:57:50.577" LastActivityDate="2020-11-03T18:57:50.577" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="10010" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10011" CreationDate="2012-10-03T01:39:07.403" Score="6" ViewCount="806" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was Ruth's husband, Boaz named after the column by the temple of Solomon or vice versa?  Or was this a quiescence? Was this a common name for boys?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ruth 2:1 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now Naomi had a relative of her husband's, a worthy man of the clan of&#xA;  Elimelech, whose name was Boaz.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Chronicles 3:17 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He set up the pillars in front of the temple, one on the south, the&#xA;  other on the north; that on the south he called Jachin, and that on&#xA;  the north Boaz.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T23:21:27.540" LastActivityDate="2015-01-19T23:21:27.540" Title="Was Boaz named after the column in the temple?" Tags="&lt;temple&gt;&lt;solomon&gt;&lt;ruth&gt;&lt;2-chronicles&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10010" CreationDate="2012-10-03T01:42:25.480" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;If anything, it would be the other way around. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Boaz was David's great grandfather. Solomon was David's son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Temple wasn't built until Solomon's time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;em&gt;Eerdmann's Dictionary of the Bible&lt;/em&gt;, some scholars believe the names of the columns may have gotten their names from &quot;a dynastic inscription&quot; upon them. Since Boaz is, indeed, in David's lineage, it is entirely possible that the column was named after Ruth's kinsman redeemer, the forefather of the great king. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(That was pretty cool, by the way, hadn't noted the connection before. Thanks!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-10-03T11:48:31.987" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T11:48:31.987" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10012" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-03T02:40:30.947" Score="6" ViewCount="1394" Body="&lt;p&gt;I thought I'd answer a question asked here about non-Catholics receiving the sacrament of reconciliation by using the RCIA book, but in skimming all the steps, there doesn't seem to be much said about confession, I know it's unnecessary for the unbaptized, but don't baptized Christians preparing to be in full communion with the Church have to go to confession first?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-10-03T05:17:25.760" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T14:08:28.810" Title="When do catechumens go to confession?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10010" CreationDate="2012-10-03T02:54:31.367" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As neither the Bible nor any other source that I know of says where Solomon got these names, we can only speculate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's possible he named Boaz after his ancestor. Note he named the other pillar Jachin. The only mention I can find of a Jachin in the Bible before Solomon's time is Gen 46:10 and some related passages where it says that one of Simeon's sons was named Jachin. This would not have been an ancestor of Solomon. As nothing else is said about him, I'm inclined to think he wasn't particularly famous, though of course it's possible that he was famous in Solomon's day but accounts of him are now lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in Hebrew, Boaz means &quot;strength&quot; and Jachin &quot;establishment&quot; or &quot;certainty&quot;. It's possible that Solomon named the pillars with these meanings in mind, and not thinking of famous ancestors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or there may be some different reason entirely that is lost to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T02:54:31.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10012" CreationDate="2012-10-03T03:16:49.560" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechumen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechumens&lt;/a&gt; do not go to confession before reception into the Catholic Church, you were thinking of &quot;candidates for reception&quot; as outlined in Chapter 5 of the RCIA. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Candidates for reception are baptized Christians who express their wish to make a full profession of faith and be received fully into the Catholic Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for their confession,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the profession of faith and reception take place within Mass, the candidate, according to his or her own conscience, should make a confession of sins beforehand, first informing the confessor that he or she is about to be received into full communion. Any confessor who is lawfully approved may hear the candidates confession. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, now you can go answer that other question with some impressive minutiae! Go get 'em tiger. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-10-03T14:08:28.810" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T14:08:28.810" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9972" CreationDate="2012-10-03T03:26:08.363" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Andrew's got the canon law side of things down, but I think a majority of non-Catholic confessions are said by those coming in to the Catholic Church according to the norms of the rite of Christian initiation for adults chapter 5 concerning the reception of baptized Christians (also done for Children in a separate chapter). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any baptized Christian willing to make a profession can (and probably should) make a general confession of sins to any priest prior to reception into the Catholic Church. The confessor should be told of the intention to be received into the Church and will most likely help out with the confession. If extra time is needed, it's a good idea to schedule these by appointment rather than to make the old ladies wait before Mass (lest they have to confess more impatience than they were previously disposed to confess)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: this answer references the RCIA as approved by the North American Bishops, so compulsory pre-entrance confession may exist elsewhere, as it apparently does for those entering the Church en masse from the Anglican Church to Our Lady of Walshingham Ordinariate)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-10-03T10:12:27.363" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T10:12:27.363" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9986" CreationDate="2012-10-03T03:55:57.390" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hmm, I think Ignatius Theophorus has the most historically accurate answer, and yet as of my visit here he has the fewest votes. :-) Let me build on Ignatius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &quot;Protestant&quot; was coined when the Lutheran delegates to the Diet of Speyer protested against the pro-Catholic, anti-Lutheran decisions of that council. But from there the word &quot;Protestant&quot; came to be applied, not just to dissenters at Speyer or even to all Lutherans, but to all Christians who rejected the authority of the Catholic Church and the pope, not including those who were already under the auspices of the Eastern Orthodox Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This all happened almost 500 years ago. The specific debate of the Diet of Speyers is long dead. Few Protestants today are engaged in any sort of active protest against the Catholic Church. The split is long past. Catholics and Protestants today often work together. The fact that you are not protesting doesn't mean you are not a Protestant. For that matter, there are many people who protest many things but who are not &quot;Protestants&quot;. It's just a name now. I have never been to the Caucasus Mountains, but that does not mean that I am not a Causcasian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a Baptist myself, and I've heard this argument that Baptists are not &quot;Protestants&quot; because we don't trace our heritage to Martin Luther, and I simply find it ... weak. Can Baptists trace their heritage in continuous succession back to the Early Church? What do you mean by that? If you mean, have their been Christians since the time of Christ who held to the beliefs that we consider central -- authority of scripture, salvation by grace, etc -- the answer is surely yes. Did the Catholic Church corrupt the Gospel? I think even most Catholics would admit that their church had some bad periods. Did Martin Luther and other reformers revolt against the Catholic Church and re-establish these ideas? Again, obviously yes. Did Luther get his ideas purely by reading the Bible, without any influence from other people? Obviously no: he himself said that he got inspiration from John Hus and the Anabaptists and probably others if I read more of his stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what are we really debating here? Whether a modern Baptist church get its teaching in a long, unbroken line of succession back to Christ and the disciples, or does it get them  from Luther, Calvin et al who got them from a long, unbroken line of succession back to Christ and the disciples. Is the question, then, just whether our heritage goes through Luther and Calvin or through some other line? Given that we are not talking about genetic descent but of ideas, and given that Luther's and Calvin's ideas were widespread, it's hard to imagine how modern Baptists could NOT be influenced by Luther et al.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RE &quot;we don't have any tradition&quot;: Of course we do. We have a tradition going back to Christ and the disciples, and from there back to Moses. Or if by &quot;tradition&quot; you mean a body of human teaching distinct from the Bible, as a fellow Baptist I must just disagree. Well it is the goal of Baptists that all of our teachings should be consistent with scripture, there are surely many ideas and theories that Baptists discuss that do not come word-for-word from the Bible. The simple proof of this is to go to a Baptist bookstore. Are there books there besides Bibles? Yes. Do these other books consist solely of Bible quotes? No. Thus, Baptists try to expand on the teachings of the Bible, apply it to our own time and place, bring in knowledge from science and history and whatever to deepen our understanding, etc etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, as a Baptist I think the Baptist tradition is more in line with scripture than the Catholic tradition or the Anglican tradition, etc. (By definition: If I thought Catholics were closer to the truth, then I would be a Catholic. It would make no sense to say, I think Catholic teachings are mostly right and Baptist teachings mostly wrong, and therefore I am a Baptist. That would just be illogical.) But that doesn't mean we &quot;just have scripture and don't have any traditions&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T03:55:57.390" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9972" CreationDate="2012-10-03T05:08:04.990" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is, &quot;Yes, he can.&quot; At a minimum, the confession of those of us came into the Church, already having been baptized, it is necessary and necessarily efficacious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My RCIA director (a canon lawyer) basically explained that for all practical purposes, a priest has the authority to allow confession and communion to anyone, so long as it is pastorally appropriate. I have a couple of friends who went to confession repeatedly and well before they came into the Church (one left RCIA after first confession but before reception, another went to confession inadvertently and only in doing so realized the power in it (he came into the Church with me)). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2016-05-07T05:35:22.167" LastActivityDate="2016-05-07T05:35:22.167" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10020" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-03T06:56:58.293" Score="7" ViewCount="604" Body="&lt;p&gt;The general concept of Cessationism that I have is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not given these days, having fulfilled their purpose nearly 2000 years ago. What I'm not sure about is whether or not Cessationists believe that miracles &lt;em&gt;don't happen anymore&lt;/em&gt;. That is, no healings, no resurrections, nothing of that sort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it accurate to say that Cessationists believe in the complete cessation of all miracles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T12:42:25.713" Title="Do Cessationists believe that there are no modern miracles?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;cessationism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10020" CreationDate="2012-10-03T12:42:25.713" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suspect the nit-picky answer would be &quot;Some do, some don't&quot;, but in general, cessationists believe miracles still happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I doubt there is a common universally accepted answer to &quot;why&quot; cessationists don't believe in certain miracles.  I'd stay away from &quot;why&quot; because it's not part of the question, but the answer feels too short and incomplete without it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best I can offer is the reason why &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; cessationists believe certain miracles were for the early Church only, and as a result, which miracles we believe have ceased, and a few examples of those we believe in.  And because it's easy, and our Church (Fundamentalist independent Baptist) is cessationist, I'll use teachings from our own pulpit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The strongest Scriptural evidence for Cessationism, in our understanding, comes from 1 Corinthians 13  (NIV) (&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 If I speak in the tonguesa of men and of angels, but have not love,&#xA;  I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift&#xA;  of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I&#xA;  have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.&#xA;  3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the&#xA;  flames,b but have not love, I gain nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,&#xA;  it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not&#xA;  easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight&#xA;  in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always&#xA;  trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;&#xA;  where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is&#xA;  knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in&#xA;  part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When&#xA;  I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I&#xA;  reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind&#xA;  me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall&#xA;  see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as&#xA;  I am fully known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest&#xA;  of these is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the teaching goes like this (and I'm probably butchering it by keeping it short.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verses 1-7 are not speaking specifically of the cessation of gifts, but instead show that the gifts are imperfect.  The idea that they are not perfect gifts comes into play later in the teaching...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verses 8 and 9 tell us that certain gifts will pass away.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 10 tells us that when they will pass away - when perfection comes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verses 11-12 expound on the why they will pass away, and add meaning to the when - they will pass away because at some point they will be no longer needed.  For this next point, it's important to note that the word used for &quot;perfection&quot; and &quot;perfect&quot; can also be translated as &quot;mature&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I realize this can be taken any number of ways, the general understanding in our Church is that this is speaking of the canonization of Scripture and the full understanding of God's revealed Word.  In the New Testament Church, they didn't have the full Word of God.  it was still being written.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the signs and miracles described were always demonstrations of authority.  They accompanied the Apostles as signs to show that they had the power of God, and therefore authority to instruct in His name.  This is consistent with Christ's ministry, as His miracles weren't just for show - they were to establish His power and Authority.  Once the Church was established, there would be no more need for these showy miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to which miracles would cease, we include the ones listed, but also, in general, tend to view Faith Healers as frauds, and reject &quot;showy&quot; miracles  due to the implications of verse 1.  The way most people present these miracles today tends to bring glory and honor to themselves, not to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do believe in God's healing power.  We believe He can miraculously heal the sick.  We have a little girl in our Church, born with half a heart, and given a 10% chance to live that is alive and well in spite of incredible odds, and we attribute this to the power of God, responding to the fervent prayers of His people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We believe in His ability to guide us through the Holy Spirit.  We actually believe He can perform any miracle.  In fact, we do believe He &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;will again&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; use prophecy and tongues.  The two witnesses in Revelation - when they speak and everyone hears them in their own language, and prophesy, that will occur, and will be of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On that note, I'll throw in one other reason that we don't believe in speaking in tongues in particular.  In the New Testament, the example is given in Acts 2:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment,&#xA;  because each one heard them speaking in his own language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has nothing to do with the unintelligible babbling that many call &quot;speaking in tongues&quot; today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Again, this is the teaching of a particular set of believers.  It's not universal.  Views vary.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T12:42:25.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10023" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-03T12:53:53.370" Score="0" ViewCount="1417" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7321/how-could-a-loving-just-merciful-god-have-created-such-an-unfair-test-for-huma&quot;&gt;How could a loving, just, merciful God have created such an unfair test for humans?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's said that death came into the world due to the primary sin of Adam and Eve. &#xA;But if you take a look around you notice that everything dies. From the little ants&#xA;to the immense universe we live in. Then is it fair to say that the little ants and &#xA;the planets, galaxies, the whole universe, all die because one guy ate a forbidden apple?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2237" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T17:07:42.340" Title="Original sin and its consequences" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-10-05T12:40:46.597" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10023" CreationDate="2012-10-03T13:40:28.500" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Death, the cessation of life, and death, the forgetting or cessation or mortality of the immortal soul are two different things. The point in case here is the corruption and mortality of the immortal but passable soul. You can see Athanasius' 'On the Incarnation' about this. Humans are intended and made to be immortal. The immortality of the soul is of course not a form of self-existence but is so in connection with God, or as some say, 'immortal by grace'. So when you look at the death of say, a dog, it is not indicative of anything but that dogs die - it may be the case that dogs are made to die, but in any case, they do not seem to be aware of their mortality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, in patristic literature, this idea of cessation of life is connected with the bestial, or lowering of man from his proper rank to that of brute animals. So even early on you see that the death of plants, animals and so forth is not seen necessarily as a result of man's fall, but as the natural condition of such things, which man falls into in disobedience and separation from God. Thus while this may be natural for a plant or an animal, it is not so for man. Plants and some creatures also don't seem to be individual 'lives' in the same way people are; take for instance the grafting of plants together to form one seamless organism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A second point, is that some think that the original creation, that of paradise, is entirely immortal just as man was immortal, but that in being cast our of paradise, man enters into a chaotic, death filled world, even as he himself becomes chaotic and death filled. This being so that he does not become as Satan is; disobedient, impassible and immortal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T13:40:28.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10025" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-03T13:55:43.223" Score="12" ViewCount="7091" Body="&lt;p&gt;People struggle to enter Heaven, but what guarantees you that once you get there you won't be cast out from Heaven? In the Bible there is no guarantee about that. What will prevent you from making bad mistakes there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2237" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-10-12T17:05:52.390" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T17:05:52.390" Title="Is it possible to get into heaven, but then be cast out at a later date?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-06-27T05:05:01.120" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10025" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:06:56.610" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fairly widely held doctrines that would tend to discount this possibility:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Eternal Security&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:28, typically used to support the doctrine of eternal security, would lend credence to the idea that once saved you cannot be &amp;quot;unsaved:&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is true on Earth, how much more should this be applied to heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Christians cannot sin&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, it should be understood that in many theologies, there comes a point at which Christians &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; commit sin - b/c the law no longer applies. This would be a fairly straightforward reading of Romans 7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not that happens on this side of eternity is moot for purposes of the question - In heaven, there is most likely no law to break.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Grace - It's not like we earn heaven anyway...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Foundationally, for reformed believers, salvation is about a grace - it is not a work of your own lest any man should boast.  There is no amount of sin that makes God love us less, there is no amount of good that can make God love us more.  Were heaven a reward for our behavior, then there would be reason to fear &amp;quot;losing&amp;quot; one's reward (and yes, there is Scripture to that effect).  But, if in fact, heaven is God's gift, then ultimately, it doesn't matter what we do now or in the afterlife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T19:08:59.163" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10023" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:12:15.303" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's funny. This question made me realize something I never noticed before.  It's true.  For almost nothing (a 'mere apple'), Adam knowingly threw away life, heaven, paradise, and eternal happiness - for the whole universe. This makes Adam's sin possibly the greatest ever committed. A million Hitlers could not sin in all their lives as much as Adam did in this one crime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One sin, no matter how small is the closest thing man will approach the infinite for it shows disrespect to the only being who is infinite in goodness and glory. Therefore, the smallest sin can't be repaid in a thousand deaths of the universe. Even if all mankind, animals, forests, planets, etc., were to burn a thousand Hells, the penalty could never approach the infinitude of the crime because a crime is proportional to the object it offends. To cut off the leg of a centipede when angry is not as offensive as cutting off the leg of the American President's new born child in anger. Similarly, to disrespect God is greater than all crimes against all humans, for all of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to add to the infinitude of the smallest sin, the fact that Adam actually did not have a sinful compulsion and yet threw all of life away for just a stupid apple, who can comprehend or express the wickedness of it? We would be less foolish and evil to kill a whole nation with a nuclear bomb for the temptation of a jelly-bean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-10-05T14:11:41.630" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T14:11:41.630" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10028" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10030" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:40:11.707" Score="9" ViewCount="5595" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2662/why-was-lot-let-off-the-hook-for-offering-his-daughters-to-be-raped&quot;&gt;Why was Lot &amp;ldquo;let off the hook&amp;rdquo; for offering his daughters to be raped?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was interested in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, cause I remembered at it as I heard it in my youth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a part where Lot said that the people who wanted to have the strangers could have his two virgin daughters instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 19:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. [KJV]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reason behind this behavior? He protects two strangers (he doesn’t know at this moment that they are angels) before protecting his own daughters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I'm an atheist and a reasonable person, I would preferring protecting my own daughters before some strangers, if I had just one choice. So I can’t answer my question by myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2243" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T14:56:54.683" Title="Genesis 19. 8 Why should he protect strangers above protect his daughters?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-10-05T05:33:56.340" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10025" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:45:07.740" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The solution here is a bit esoteric. I'm having trouble finding the reference, but as I have heard the body of the Resurrection is not subject to the passions, i.e. lusts, hunger, thirst, sickness, poison, rage, greed, etc. Thus we have in Revelation that we will be free of sickness and suffering. This also is in Isaiah's prophecy as well, along with 'They will not need to say to their neighbor, 'Know the Lord!' for he will be written upon their hearts.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Maximus writes that 'All will have eternal being, but not all will have eternal well-being.' Eternal being itself is a different manner of existence, and eternal well-being - this state/place/condition known as Heaven or simply the Life to Come is one not only free from sufferings, but free from the effect of sin, thus free from the temptations and errors that have been compounded both in those we know and in the world they inhabit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, those who dwell in virtue not because of nature but because of choice, and who live free from the effects of sin will have neither a reason to fall away as a choice (like Satan's or Judas') or as an error of ignorance or result of corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes without saying that such a state cannot be attained without the grace of God; but effort is required to 'work out one's salvation with fear and trembling' - once victory is attained and in accordance with how the Life to Come is described in scripture, the reasons for the occurrence of sin (and thus falling away from God and that state/place/condition known as Heaven) will be gone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T14:45:07.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10028" CreationDate="2012-10-03T14:56:39.443" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that in that context Lot would have considered his daughters (and they would have regarded themselves) as his possessions. The Romans later had an idea - a law really - that the ownership of parents, particularly fathers, extended to the right at any time, even after adulthood, of the father to kill his children. It was perfectly legal and understood to be his right as a father to mete out that punishment if he saw fit to do so. One can imagine however, much more responsibility was typically imputed to fathers because of this, so a father could easily be held responsible for even the errors of an adult child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this, we must consider that Lot was so extreme in his practice of hospitality that he would rather sacrifice his most valuable possessions (his daughters) than have his guests - 'the stranger and the alien' the scripture will later say - be treated wrongly. Since in our context we do not consider our children possessions, his expression could not be parsed properly in our context. Thus his actions are entirely consistent with the tradition regarding the way one treats the poor, the stranger and the alien, the weak, the sick, abd so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Lot had not considered his daughters possessions, there would be a completely different meaning to his statement. It was not until fairly recently, IIRC, that children were no longer regarded as possessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again, just to throw a wrench in the works, seeing the stunt his daughters pull later on, maybe his action was somewhat prescient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T14:56:39.443" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10003" CreationDate="2012-10-03T15:18:39.270" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer here is that Satan (as well as other angels) either did not know that God was indeed all-powerful, or what the meaning of all-powerful implies. As a Christian, I have come into many debates about the idea of Omnipotence, and everyone is familiar with the conundrum, 'If God is all powerful and all knowing, how can he be all good?' Satan is obviously familiar with this (in fact, I would not be surprised if he is its inventor.) The implication of this conundrum is that to make sense of God, you need to drop one of those three attributes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Fathers are of the opinion that neither Satan nor the other angels were, prior to this, fixed in virtue and goodness, and thus were in a state where they could either decide to obey God or not. We must not overestimate the knowledge of angels, nor assume that because we now know something (such as the nature of the Trinity) it was always common knowledge of angels. It is clear in the temptation that Satan doesn't realize that the man Christ is God; so Satan repeatedly misunderstands - possibly willfully - who or what God is. To be fair on this one, pretty much no one knew exactly what was going on, even the demons who knew a bit more than the average person, but as Satan evidences, not a whole lot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it seems to be agreed upon in all oral tradition that Satan's pride is the cause of all of this; his misunderstanding of God, (or shall we say, his assuming certain things about God) and his decision to rebel. It seems obvious that if you knew what God is you would never rebel (what would the point be?) but all of us know of people who apostatize - essentially deny what they knew before. Therefore to some extent it is immaterial what knowledge Satan had prior to his rebellion; he rejected it. We see an image of this in the man Judas Iscariot, who despite working miracles and being with the Godman, turns on him anyway. The cause in Judas' case seems to be considered Envy, so we also can't discount envy in Satan's rebellion as well, given its similarity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a story told in our tradition that goes as follows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A certain saint had love for all creatures, even to the point that he&#xA;  prayed for Satan and the demons that they might repent. At the instant&#xA;  that he prayed this, Satan appeared to him and snarled, 'No, it is &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  who needs to repent!'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, there is always the 'mystery of iniquity' as Paul says - the choice of the naked and inexorable will, even over and against all sense, all truth, all beauty and all goodness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T15:18:39.270" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9858" CreationDate="2012-10-03T15:29:19.423" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Orthodox do have a parish system, but it is not mandatory. Partly this relates to the odd Jurisdictional condition in the USA right now because of mass immigration, but even in countries that are traditionally and nationally Orthodox you find that while there is absolutely a geographical division that can be very strict and rigorous, there is not membership the way Anglicans typically have it. People are free to visit other parishes and commune there; typically (unless circumstances dictate otherwise, such as letters from the Bishop and so forth) without any notice at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the Parish-membership system - If I am recalling correctly - relates to the Protestant reformation in England and churches there as instruments or ministries of the state itself. In such a case, parish membership - or the concept of Parish itself was no longer ecclesiastical but was political, and thus held in many cases the force of law. Partly this relates to the disbanding of monasteries and the need to care for the destitute falling on the municipality. Adam Smith goes into this in some detail in Wealth of Nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user304" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T15:29:19.423" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10033" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-03T16:41:59.830" Score="0" ViewCount="3788" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Christianity have any other book beside Bible which narrate stories of the Jesus and Moses and is considered auspicious or sacred? Are there any other such books other than Bible which kind of augments/completes the Bible? In Islam there is the Quran (Bible) and then hadith books which narrates stories of the prophets. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2012-10-03T17:35:20.253" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T18:07:34.560" Title="Does Christianity have any other books besides the Bible that the disciples use for following?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;global-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2012-10-03T18:40:07.237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10025" CreationDate="2012-10-03T16:48:09.123" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Jesus says no:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’ Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, &lt;b&gt;between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.&lt;/b&gt;’  &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/luke/16:24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(Luke 16:24-26 NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, Heaven here is the &quot;bosom of Abraham&quot;, but if this parable has anything to do with us (and all scripture has something to do with us) I doubt Jesus is only talking about Heaven in the moral sense here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Meister_des_Codex_Aureus_Epternacensis_001.jpg/411px-Meister_des_Codex_Aureus_Epternacensis_001.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.923" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T16:48:09.123" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10033" CreationDate="2012-10-03T16:50:28.640" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It really depends on which branch of Christianity you're asking about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) recognize the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.  They also believe in continuing revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses use the periodic publications of the Watchtower as authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church recognizes the Deuterocanon as part of the Bible, which most other Christian faiths do not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Community of Christ, formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, recognizes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Revised Common Lectionary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seventh Day Adventists use the writings of Ellen White.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more comprehensive summary, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article on Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-10-03T18:07:34.560" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T18:07:34.560" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10033" CreationDate="2012-10-03T17:16:01.670" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;For many centuries, &lt;em&gt;The Didache&lt;/em&gt; would have qualified.  Additionally, today, many denominations use a Prayer Book or a Missal as an aide to the practice of the faith, but as far as doctrine goes, no - it's &quot;The Bible,&quot; as defined by the sect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T17:16:01.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10033" CreationDate="2012-10-03T17:54:05.073" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could argue that the New Testament itself is the &quot;other book&quot; in addition to the Old Testament which is based either on the Masoretic text or the Septuagint depending on the tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T17:54:05.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10025" CreationDate="2012-10-03T18:06:32.377" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Rev. says it best:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.(Rev. 21:4 ESV)&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is no more death that means there cannot be hell. If there are no more tears, then there cannot be weeping over how our sins hurt our relationship with God which means there can be no more sin. If there is no more pain, then we are unable to hurt ourselves through self-defilement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T18:06:32.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10025" CreationDate="2012-10-03T19:18:12.600" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Beatific Vision&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic theologians of the middle ages, particularly &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt;, along with with a few &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;protestant denominations&lt;/a&gt;, taught this doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of it, as relates to this questions is that, whereas now God's full glory is hidden from us, once the saved find themselves in heaven, they will see God face to face. This experience is so overwhelming and life changing that, even though the blessed still have free will to choose right from wrong, their will, will have been so altered by this vision, and continued contact with God, they will by no means wish to commit any type of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm#VI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; under the section 'Supernatural character of heaven and the beatific vision', and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T19:18:12.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10041" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-03T19:26:13.733" Score="4" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I have learned from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10020/do-cessationists-believe-that-there-are-no-modern-miracles&quot;&gt;this question of mine&lt;/a&gt;, the general consensus is that Cessationists do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; believe in the cessation of &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; miracles. This lead me to wonder what to call the people that do believe in the complete cessation of all kinds of miracles or supernatural events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any significant traditions that believe that all miracle-working has stopped? If so, what are they? What would the general idea of total cessation be called?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(Note: I expect the answer to the second question to be a small set, if any, so I don't think it's a listy question.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-10-04T03:31:19.410" Title="Are there any traditions that believe in the complete cessation of miracles?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10042" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10045" CreationDate="2012-10-03T20:34:33.787" Score="12" ViewCount="961" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not bow down to them or worship them; &lt;strong&gt;for I, the LORD your&#xA;  God, am a jealous God&lt;/strong&gt;, punishing the children for the sin of the&#xA;  fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (Exodus 20:5, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is only one God, who is God jealous of?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Please see this &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2504/exodus-2050-jealous&quot;&gt;question on Biblical Hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt; about the translation or definition of this passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2014-11-20T02:09:13.880" Title="Of whom is God jealous?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10042" CreationDate="2012-10-03T20:49:26.077" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know about you, but I have seen people get engrossed in things and start excluding their significant others. I know one man who was an alcoholic and another addicted to computer games. In both cases, their significant others (one was married, the other dating) grew upset over this situation &amp;mdash; they felt excluded and were jealous of the others on the computer or at the bar. These men were monogamous, but they still incurred jealousy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From seeing this human jealousy, I can see how the Divine, who has no real rival, can claim a form of &quot;jealousy&quot; when people reduce His role to something trivial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T20:49:26.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10042" CreationDate="2012-10-03T21:00:41.787" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The better question may be &quot;&lt;em&gt;What&lt;/em&gt; is it that God is jealous of?&quot;  He is righteously jealous of the devotion and affections of His people.  This is mirrored in our own lives as a married individual is righteously jealous for the affections and devotion of his or her spouse.  Furthermore, a father or mother is righteously jealous for the affections of their children.  If their children started calling other men and women &quot;Dad&quot; and &quot;Mom&quot;, it would be a tremendous insult to them, because they alone are the ones that have the true parental devotion to their children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God is not jealous of another god or another being, but for the affections of His people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-10-03T21:11:38.513" LastActivityDate="2012-10-03T21:11:38.513" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10042" CreationDate="2012-10-03T21:53:05.407" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Imagine you have a child that grumbles anytime you send him on errand but gladly respond to strangers ready to do anything for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine having a wife/girlfriend who is always complaining when with you no matter how you pamper her but feel more comfortable and excited being with others even in your presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are God's property, he owns us. He has invested greatly in our past, present and future. And who would make such investment and see another person receive the praises for what they did not do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember Aaron when he made the golden calf? God was very angry and jealous because they gave the glory that belongs to him to the golden calf - something that is far inferior to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So also is God jealous when we take sides with Satan, giving him (and his idols) glory, praises etc for what they actually didn't do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It hurts so much when someone you love doesn't give you attention and gives someone who is inferior to you the attention you deserve or worked for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it is not about who, it is more about why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2012-10-13T09:02:06.720" LastActivityDate="2012-10-13T09:02:06.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10042" CreationDate="2012-10-04T00:58:46.793" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Paul, God is jealous of &lt;em&gt;His own creation&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. &lt;strong&gt;Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.—Romans 1:19-25 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Images&amp;quot; references the idolatry found in the Ancient Near East and condemned in Exodus 20 and elsewhere in the Old Testament.  Jesus expanded the definition of idolatry to include &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; that demands the place of God, which isn't God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.—Matthew 6:24a (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The immediate reference, of course, is money, but other worldly things can take God's place as our master:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, but the &lt;strong&gt;cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word&lt;/strong&gt;, and it proves unfruitful.—Mark 4:18-19 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is so amazing that He is able to create things that seem worthy of worship.  But those things are not worth our time, energy and devotion compared to the surpassing glory of God Himself.  God wants us to spend our lives on the one thing that is more valuable than ourselves: Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate what this might mean, consider the career of Blaise Pascal, mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer, philosopher, and all-around genius.  Around the time of his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath558/kmath558.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;conversion&lt;/a&gt;, Pascal wrote a poem called &amp;quot;Fire&amp;quot; that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.users.csbsju.edu/%7Eeknuth/pascal.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;begins&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;GOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;not of the philosophers and of the learned.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;GOD of Jesus Christ.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Deum meum et Deum vestrum.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Your GOD will be my God.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except GOD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He gave up everything (mostly and most of the time) to focus his &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;thoughts&lt;/a&gt; on God—a task that remained unfinished at death.  While he was, perhaps, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal#Last_works_and_death&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;too extreme&lt;/a&gt; in his asceticism, I do not believe that he now regrets leaving the world behind him.  Personally, I consider Pascal one of my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Hebrews+11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;heroes of the faith&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-04T00:58:46.793" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10023" CreationDate="2012-10-04T03:23:38.140" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You mean the &quot;happy fault of Adam&quot;? It's not that bad, seriously it's unspeakably evil, but it's not the end of the world. It's really the beginning of the world, the first Covenant between God and man wasn't until after the fall &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;70      Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.  (CCC 70)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no fall = no redemption. Take, you're pick - this is why we say God is good all the time!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-10-04T03:23:38.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10041" CreationDate="2012-10-04T03:31:19.410" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.renaroadchurchofchrist.com/miracles_church_of_christ.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this message from the Church of Christ&lt;/a&gt;, miracles have ceased completely.&#xA;I don't know that this fits the bill of &quot;major traditions&quot;.  From what I can see, it's not just a single independent non-denominational Church.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.renaroadchurchofchrist.com/area_congregations_of_the_church.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The website does list several of them&lt;/a&gt;.  I suppose it depends on where you draw the line at &quot;significant&quot;.  Interestingly enough, a Google search for &quot;all miracles have ceased&quot; turns up a number of [insert city name] Church of Christ hits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And they're not the only group.  I also found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bassfishing.org/thebiblespeaks/Articles/Miracles/mircease2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this sermon&lt;/a&gt; preaching the same message.  I can't make out any recognizable denomination here.  They simply seem to refer to themselves as &quot;The Church&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTARO76.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible Truths.Net&lt;/a&gt; teaches the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently there &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; those out there that believe in a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;complete&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; cessation of miracles, which is really only one step away from the teaching outlined in my answer to your other question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I look further into this, it turns out that &quot;Cessationist&quot; is a term a bit like &quot;Fundamentalist&quot;.  It means different things depending on who's supplying the definition.  Based on that, although on every site I've run across, &quot;Cessationism&quot; referes to the belief in the end, specifically, of the &lt;em&gt;Charismatic&lt;/em&gt; gifts. (Speaking in tongues, faith healing, resurrection, prophecy, etc.), not all miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the ones that believe in total cessation, I've been searching for a while, trying to find a proper term for the belief, and I can't find a single one.  They're not referred to as &quot;cessationists&quot; by anyone that's cite-worthy.  I've seen the term used in this context on two Tripod websites and a few blogs, but nothing  official that would stand up to the normal test for accepted external source references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So back to an attempt at an answer, &lt;strong&gt;there do appear to be groups, and they may represent a &quot;significant&quot; portion of Christianity, that do believe in the complete cessation of miracles after the New Testament times.&lt;/strong&gt;  But I'm no closer than you were in finding a proper name for them, or their belief, other than an unofficial &quot;Total Cessationists&quot; (which I just made up and doesn't count.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-10-04T03:31:19.410" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10051" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10059" CreationDate="2012-10-04T05:03:12.500" Score="18" ViewCount="1637" Body="&lt;p&gt;For anyone who's unfamiliar with what the Young-Earth view, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1526/what-is-young-earth-creationism&quot;&gt;here's a starting point&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I want to start out by saying that this question is not about whether or not the YEC view it true.  It's not about whether there is scientific evidence for and/or against, or even neutral.  This is in no way, shape, or form, a question about the validity of the YEC view, or any opposing view.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I'm asking why the Kent Hovinds, Ken Hams, and other prominent YEC creationists, and so many Fundamental conservative Christians so married to the YEC view, and so vocal about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the people that self-identify as Christians could care less about the issue.  The idea of creation/evolution is a non-issue.  Debating whether the Genesis account of creation and the flood has no bearing on doctrines they care about, from their perspective.  As a matter of fact, many of them consider Creationists to be an embarrassment, and the idea of speaking out on the topic as counter-productive at best, and some think it's downright dangerous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They open themselves, and as a result, all of Christianity to ridicule because they &quot;refuse to believe science&quot; and stick to ancient stories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the record (for the one or two people that don't already know it)  I am one of those people.  I'm a Young-Earth Creationist, so even though the above may sound like I'm attacking the YEC view, that's not why put all that in there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm looking for is an answer as to why the &quot;Creation Science Evangelists&quot; - the Kent Hovinds, Ken Hams, the ICR, creationtoday.org, and others are willing to go around preaching something that gets them laughed at, ridiculed, and even other Christians wish they'd just knock it off.  Why is it so important to them?  Is there a doctrinal reason, or are they just that stuck in their ways that they're unwilling to change?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2019-04-28T15:08:09.977" Title="Why do Young-Earth Creationists make such a big deal about the YEC view" Tags="&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10051" CreationDate="2012-10-04T05:03:12.500" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Again...  This is not about the validity of the YEC view.  The point of this is not to reveal &quot;Truth&quot;, the point is to accurately explain the doctrinal significance of the view, from the perspective of those who believe the view, so that we have it on record on site.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is quite simple, actually, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/jesus-and-the-age-of-earth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;laid out very well on the Answers in Genesis website&lt;/a&gt;.  The short version is that in the minds of Young Earth Creationists, the issue is not whether the earth is young or old.  It's not whether or not we evolved.  Those are distractions from the real question, which is &quot;Can we trust Scripture?&quot;, and extending it further, &quot;Was Jesus Himself a liar?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;remember - just explaining the position/doctrinal view, not debating the validity.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Every one of the Young Earth Creationists listed, and those of us that follow are among those that believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God as described &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, and in the AIG article I linked to above.  Since the original manuscripts were given by God, it is impossible for them to be erroneous in any way.  And since we have such &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;overwhelming manuscript evidence&lt;/a&gt;, we have every reason to believe that the Bible we have today is reliable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All of them subscribe to a historical-grammatical method of interpretation, which provides guidelines for determining what content is to be taken literally, and where a non-literal interpretation is warranted.  Of course, there is variance in how this is applied, the view held by Young Earth Creationists is that a simple reading of the Genesis account without any external, non-Biblical evidence clearly gives six literal days of creation, one day of rest, a bit of history, and then a global flood. The age of the earth is based strictly on adding up the genealogies (when so and so was x years old, he begat y) and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the method of interpretation includes the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Extra-Biblical resources, such as language helps, commentaries, the&#xA;  writings of the so-called church fathers, and archaeological and&#xA;  scientific evidences, can be useful resources in correctly&#xA;  interpreting Scripture. But since they are the words and works of&#xA;  fallible men they are not authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;when determining what a passage says, we can't refer to things like common knowledge, radiometric dating, currently accepted geology, paleontology, or any other branch of science.  When determining what Scripture says, only the context given within Scripture can be used. In other words, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;no &quot;knowledge&quot; of fallible man can possibly equal the revealed Truth given by God in Scripture&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the only measurement we have to glean the age of the earth is the genealogies.  Without modern scientific knowledge, there would be no need for a gap theory, or a day-age theory.  That's why they refer to these as &quot;compromise&quot; theories - because they are attempting to use external evidence - man's fallible evidence and make it fit into God's word.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Kent Hovind's words, &quot;if you gave someone a Bible, with no idea about the controversy, and said 'read this - tell me what this says', not one of them would say 'Oh, there were millions of years between those days.' or gap theory, or anything of the sort.  They'd say 7 days&quot;.  Dr. Hovind goes on to re-state that you can't use fallible man's ideas to re-interpret Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for Young-Earth Creationists, the reason they view the Day-Age theory, or the Gap Theory, or anything else that tries to tie billions of years into the Creation account as invalid is pretty straightforward.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how about the idea that the Genesis account is an allegory?  Plenty of Christians believe that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, back to the &quot;rules&quot; of interpretation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scripture is intelligible. God meant for us to understand it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because it is infallible, the Bible is internally consistent. it can't contradict itself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because God meant to communicate truth, and because Scripture is internally consistent, the words of Scripture have only one meaning in context. There may be multiple legitimate applications of a passage of Scripture, but a passage has only one meaning in context. This is what it means to interpret Scripture according to its literal, or normal, sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of that rules out an allegorical Genesis account, but how did Jesus treat the Genesis account?  Did He speak of it as if it were real, or did He speak of it as if it were an allegory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Borrowing from the Answers in Genesis article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another way that Jesus revealed His complete trust in the Scriptures&#xA;  was by treating as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament&#xA;  which most contemporary people think are unbelievable mythology. These&#xA;  historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple&#xA;  (Matt. 19:3-6, Mark 10:3-9), Abel as the first prophet who was&#xA;  martyred (Luke 11:50-51), Noah and the Flood (Matt. 24:38-39), Moses&#xA;  and the serpent (John 3:14), Moses and the manna (John 6:32-33, 49),&#xA;  the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-32), the judgment of&#xA;  Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke&#xA;  4:25-27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matt. 12:40-41). As Wenham has&#xA;  compellingly argued,7 Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took&#xA;  them as straightforward history, describing events that actually&#xA;  happened just as the Old Testament describes. Jesus used these&#xA;  accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death,&#xA;  resurrection and second coming would likewise certainly happen in&#xA;  time-space reality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary, for the Young-Earth Creationist, because of the doctrines of an inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, combined with the approach they use toward interpreting Scripture, there is no breathing room left.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus didn't seem to treat the Genesis account as allegorical.  He presented it as actual historical fact.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;by extension, if it were not actual, historical fact, then Jesus was either wrong, or a liar.  Both options end up with Christianity being untrue.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The rules of interpretation of the Genesis account provide no reason not to take the creation period as six literal days, with one day of rest.  And there is nothing in Scripture, anywhere else, that provides even a hint that the account is to be taken as allegory.  The only evidence to that effect is external, non-Biblical evidence.  Therefore, per the rules of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, we must accept that the account is a literal one, not allegorical.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Again, this leaves us with two options:  The Bible is wrong, or the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is wrong.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the Bible is wrong, then we have no reliable record of history, and nothing upon which to base our faith, other than man's fallible teachings, which means Christianity is no more or less valid that Buddhism, or the worship of trees.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is wrong, then we lack a framework for correctly divining the meaning of Scripture, and again, nothing solid upon which to place our faith.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for the Young-Earth Creationist, all of these doctrines combine to force us into a corner where our only option is to believe in a young-earth view.  Any other view would render the book of Genesis as unreliable. Since Jesus referred to Genesis as real history several times, it would make Jesus unreliable.  Since many of Scripture's doctrines can be traced back to Genesis (original sin, marriage, and others), if Genesis falls, the rest of Scripture falls, Jesus is fallible, and therefore not God, so all of Christianity is a sham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Again, one last time.  This is not about the validity of the YEC view.  The point of this is not to reveal &quot;truth&quot;, the point is to accurately explain the view, so that we have it on record on site.  I am fully aware that not all of Christianity holds these views.  I am fully aware that you don't have to be a YEC believer to be a Christian.  I'm not stating that any other view is wrong.  I am merely presenting the thought process, and doctrinal importance of the Young-Earth Creationist view to those of us that hold this view.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-10-04T05:15:25.530" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10003" CreationDate="2012-10-04T07:21:13.600" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question! I don't have a definite answer, but the clues from the Bible are that he wanted to be like God. Presumably, this desire drove him to irrational self belief that he could somehow supplant God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; that the following verses (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014:12-15&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:12-15&lt;/a&gt;) provide part of the answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How you have fallen from heaven,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;O morning star, son of the dawn!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have been cast down to the earth,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;you who once laid low the nations!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You said in your heart,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“I will ascend to heaven;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I will raise my throne&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;above the stars of God;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I will make myself like the Most High.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you are brought down to the grave,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to the depths of the pit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as others have said, it is &lt;strong&gt;pride&lt;/strong&gt;, wanting to be like God (&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;like the Most High&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not just Satan that is irrational, of course. Humans were warned by God that they would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:17&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17&lt;/a&gt;) but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:6&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;they &lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt; did it&lt;/a&gt;. And they too were tempted to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:4&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;be like God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My guess is that this is related to human's desire to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011:4&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;make a name for &lt;em&gt;themselves&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, a recurrent them in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-04T07:21:13.600" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10025" CreationDate="2012-10-04T10:00:18.653" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is absolutely beyond all possibility in every possible term and sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many ways the Bible argues the impossibility. One is simply from the fact that the life of the redeemed is not their own life but a life derived from Christ. Therefore with that life, one can’t go against the power of its own nature, which is Christ’s nature.  But this is all too high doctrine for the level of the question, so why not just let the Bible answer itself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present &lt;strong&gt;nor the future&lt;/strong&gt;, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only possibility of the redeemed being cast out from heaven is if God is evil and his word is a lie. This is impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-10-04T10:00:18.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10051" CreationDate="2012-10-04T11:41:53.110" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rephrasing what you said slightly more succinctly- it isn't about history, it's about trustworthiness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Creationists see all theories that attempt to explain origins as inherently matters of faith. One either trusts that matter could have somehow been there, packed so densely together that it caused a universe creating explosion, and then developed strictly through natural processes with literally astronomical odds, or else one believes there is a Creator. There are no other possibilities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given then that there is a Creator (and here is where Intelligent Designers and YECs technically depart) the YEC'er says that there is no reason to assume that the Bible is not literally a first hand account with &lt;em&gt;complete&lt;/em&gt; and sufficient information. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By tabulating results from a complete record, it is merely a matter of math rather than science, because it falls from the postulate of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bible is complete and sufficient&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That a YEC arrives at the rest of the narrative. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed any successful attack on the YEC position must necessarily be one on the main postulate- otherwise it is only the expression of the science that is dismissed. iCR and the ID movement are scientists- they hypothesize and then then test hypotheses. The only question is the framework in which the hypotheses are developed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T20:23:54.207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T20:23:54.207" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7815" CreationDate="2012-10-04T21:41:00.327" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolutely; for if we don't we become complicit in the results and we can claim no authority to object to the actions of that government's rulers. Sure we can say there's a higher calling and it's heaven but to not participate, even so little as not voting is a poor witness at best; we in essence are throwing our support to the victor whether they're good or bad as the case may be. We must be part of the solution; not part of the problem. God didn't say to sit still, he called us to action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints....&amp;quot;  Ephesians 6:10-18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2249" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-04T21:47:54.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9111" CreationDate="2012-10-05T02:58:36.773" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus says &quot;with God &lt;strong&gt;all things&lt;/strong&gt; are possible&quot; , he means &lt;strong&gt;all things&lt;/strong&gt; that exist or or is possible to exist or is possible to happen. &#xA;All other things do not exist,&#xA;has not existed or will not happen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So instead of saying that it is not possible for God to be not strong enough to lift any stone in this Universe, it will be simpler and equally logical to say that &lt;strong&gt;there was, is and will be no stone that God cannot lift&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2250" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T02:58:36.773" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9077" CreationDate="2012-10-05T03:27:11.577" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nothing exists that does not follow any rule. Everything that exists  follows some rule or the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any set or group. if the members do not follow their rules, they will be dumped, or thrown out of that group and will be considered &quot;&lt;strong&gt;evil&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; by that group. &#xA;Materials that are not fit to become part of our body are excreted by it, and will be considered &quot;EVIL&quot; or unclean. We will keep a distance or isolate them away from us, or keep it &quot;out of sight&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christian belief, out of the set or group of all things created by God, creatures or material that stop following God's laws become unfit to be part of God's Kingdom will be kept out of it. They will eventually be destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes evil or dis-order is deliberately kept alive to teach new members. &#xA;Where they teach to assemble or repair cars, cars are deliberately dis-assembled, and broken or worn out parts are saved (not thrown away) to teach new mechanics how to distinguish unfit parts, and how such parts can prevent the smooth operation of the engine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2250" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T03:27:11.577" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9973" CreationDate="2012-10-05T05:00:44.573" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can tell from the gospels that &lt;strong&gt;Jesus 'looked like a Jew' as it was easy to tell that he did not look Samaritan&lt;/strong&gt;. Therefore the question really asks what was the dress of the ancient Hebrews, as evident within the gospels themselves, particularly Jesus, not all Jews dressed alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food). The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans).(John 4:7-9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible that the facial appearance of Jews could generally be differentiated from the Samaritans but it seems more likely that his dress made it evident to the woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim,  an easy way to distinguish the Jews from the Samaritans was that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ‘fringes’ on the Tallith of the Samaritans are blue, while those worn by the Jews, whether on the Arba Kanphoth or the Tallith, are white. The Samaritans do not seem to have worn phylacteries (Menach. 42 b). But neither did many of the Jews of old—nor, I feel persuaded, our Lord (comp. Jost Gesch. d. Judenth. vol. 1. p. 60).  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worthychristianlibrary.com/books/alfred-edersheim/the-life-and-times-of-jesus-the-messiah/&quot;&gt;The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah&lt;/a&gt;, Chapter 8, Page 409)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the outer garment with its distinctive fringes, ancient Hebrew references have been found that gave  directions for undressing and dressing in the bathroom. According to these instruction there were typically consisted a total of five articles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the shoes, the head-covering, the Tallith or upper cloak, the girdle, the Chaluq or under-dress, and the Aphqarsin or innermost covering. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worthychristianlibrary.com/books/alfred-edersheim/the-life-and-times-of-jesus-the-messiah/&quot;&gt;The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah&lt;/a&gt;, Chapter 26, Page 621)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These garments match up, more or less with the number distributed among the soldiers at the cross.  (John 19:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering that Jesus made negative observations about dressing in such a way as to get attention (Mathew 23:5), it appears he looked like a regular guy, or rather regular Jew.  There was really nothing special about what he wore.  Nothing to make him seem pretentious and nothing to make him seem like an ascetic like John the Baptist, who was noted for his more rugged dress.  &lt;strong&gt;Jesus dressed as an ordinary Jew.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T05:00:44.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9077" CreationDate="2012-10-05T05:42:47.597" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective, you have the question backwards. You're asking how we can say God is good, but we &lt;em&gt;aren't&lt;/em&gt; the originators of that definition. God has defined goodness (and he has defined himself as good) and our definition is only a pathetic approximation of that concept. (This reminds me a bit of when Christ asked, &quot;Why do you call me good when only God is good?&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, does God measure up to our petty, and woefully inadequate standards? I would understand if someone were to argue &quot;not really,&quot; but the failure is in that we, as sinners, have a corrupt view of &quot;good&quot; (planks in our eyes) which is often deficient and self-contradictory. Should God be required to meet such a standard? Absolutely not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on a comment above, I feel that it is only appropriate to state this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arguing that &quot;good&quot; and &quot;evil&quot; are relative, at least to a Christian, is an equivocation. Even if &quot;good&quot; is taken in a philosophical or ethical sense (as opposed to an adjective one might use to refer to one's coffee or &quot;a merchant's goods&quot;), that is not the same understanding of the word that comes from a theological sense. In philosophy, often the highest &quot;good&quot; of man is no more than himself (some might say it is &quot;happiness&quot;, others might argue that it is &quot;the betterment of society&quot; however in both cases the end of &quot;good&quot; is man (and whether that is corporate or individual man hardly matters)), but the Christian views the highest good as something wholly external. Ours is an objective good which is good, whether we like it or not, and whether or not it seems like it profits us as individuals or a society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two approaches are vastly different and yield strikingly different results. In the ethicist's world men are larger than anything else, but they are only capable of reaching so far. &quot;Though I stand on the shoulders of giants, I still cannot reach the stars.&quot; In the Christian world, men are microscopic but they stand on the shoulders of the almighty. &quot;Though I am too small to see through the crowd, I will climb a sycamore and dine this night with God.&quot; In the atheist world, the greatest men strive to be übermensch, in the Christian's world &lt;em&gt;we are already&lt;/em&gt; the likeness and image of God, and God himself has sacrificed himself &lt;em&gt;for our redemption&lt;/em&gt;. We do not strive to be greater than men, we strive to be like God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-10-07T00:03:40.657" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T00:03:40.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10070" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-05T06:44:10.553" Score="3" ViewCount="1081" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some movies, often comedies but sometimes not, they show a priest who is experiencing certain troubles/suffering because he 'has lost his faith'. It is possible, in the course of the movie, that the priest 'restores his faith'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder if such a losing/restoring process has been described more formally in the Bible or elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, I wonder what is the impact on those people to whom the priest preaches, or otherwise serves, while he is in the state of 'having lost his faith'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-10-05T10:11:16.983" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T12:53:16.007" Title="What does it mean for a priest 'to lose faith'?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10071" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-05T07:41:09.700" Score="-3" ViewCount="3702" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8147/from-where-did-cain-get-his-wife&quot;&gt;From where did Cain get his wife?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indirectly, even for a beginner it's clear that outside the Garden of Eden some people lived. One may find more things about this in the story of Abel and Cain. This is nonsense since Adam is supposed to be the first man ever. How is that possible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2237" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T17:06:21.577" Title="How about the outside of the Garden of Eden?" Tags="&lt;adam&gt;&lt;eden&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="14" ClosedDate="2012-10-05T11:00:55.130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10071" CreationDate="2012-10-05T11:08:32.950" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story of the Garden of Eden is only 3 chapters in Genesis. These should be read thoroughly, for as Walter Bruggeman said, one cannot over interpret them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a plain reading, however, the sense is that there was no one other than Adam and Eve. The idea that there were others has no basis and nothing to suggest itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, Adam was alone, and God found it good to make him a companion, per Genesis 2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam had a job - namely to name the animals and steward the Garden. These were jobs that could be done alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam also had free access to God's undivided presence, which human terms (prior to the idea of omnipresence) would have implied aloneness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Expulsion from the Garden was inherently an act of exile from the known populated to the unknown. God speaks of the ground and the brambles, but not of other people. As an angel of the Lord was placed to keep anyone from entering the Garden, one can presume the Garden itself was depopulated of humans  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, when Cain goes into exile, he does fear that others would kill him, which would lead one to suspect that Adam was at least unaware of other people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, while your theory is novel, it is completely unsupported by the text. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-10-05T11:22:31.013" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T11:22:31.013" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10070" CreationDate="2012-10-05T12:36:04.827" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, it sucks.  It sucks eggs. Really. It's like believing the Gospel, but not having any grace to go with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest problem with &quot;losing one's faith&quot; is that your moral compass remains unchanged.  Unlike what I suspect many can do - namely ignore their own internal compass - priests are, by and large, a self-selected lot. People who are attracted to the priestly vocations have a strong sense of right and wrong, and at least in my case, I have a physical reaction to it. At the risk of having too graphic an image, when I act in a way that is contrary to my internal sense of ethics (call it the opposite of integrity), I feel that pain in my stomach that is felt when you need to throw up, but can't.  My heart pounds, my stomach turns, and I feel ill. Stressed seems so quaint a term.  Trust me, its physical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 20:9 has the prophet telling God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if I say, &quot;I will not mention him or speak any more in his name,&quot; his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For many of us, real honesty is fundamental to that integrity.  We cannot preach that which we do not believe, lest that feeling arise. Were losing that honesty and commitment to transparency and integrity something that was lost along with one's belief, it would be easy. We would merely be actors playing a part. Being a charlatan or a hypocrite would have no hold on us. But no, sadly, if its your job to preach and minister, you still have to do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest that there are three categories of &quot;losing one's faith,&quot; and there are different effects of each.  Hebrews 11:6 says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Who ever would come to God must &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;believe that he exists and &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;believe he rewards those who do good.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using that verse as an outline, I would suggest that as Tolstoy said, &quot;Happy [Christians] are all happy alike. But miserable [Christians] are each miserable in their own way.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Category 1a would be what is often called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the long, dark night of the soul&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christian leaders, from Mother Teresa to Billy Graham echo the sentiment of the Middle Ages mystic who describe a period in which God seems to simply be silent. In these cases, the work of ministry is merely a drudge, devoid of the music that God brings.  I would argue this is the least &quot;bad&quot; of the categories of losing one's faith.  No one suggests that God is anything but silent. Your moral compass remains, your theology is in tact, and your ministry can continue as leader and teacher. Individually, it just becomes a matter of work like anything else. You do what you need to do, you don't violate your conscience, and you just eagerly anticipate God's return, both in your life and the next.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Category 1b would be the full on rejection of God's existence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NPR &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151681248/from-minister-to-atheist-a-story-of-losing-faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;had an amazingly good story about a Methodist minister who became an atheist.&lt;/a&gt;. In that story, she describes the same gut-wrenching feeling that I describe, and speaks of the consequences in her life.  She describes how she came to the rationalization that God is a myth. (If you will forgive the commentary, it seems a natural extension of too cereberal and metaphorical a faith.  It can be a very natural progression from mythic to myth.) In her case, she got up and addressed a convention of atheists, much to the applause of that body, but was then somehow astonished that her temporal boss - the Methodist bishop, fired her.  Grant you, if I spoke glowingly about a competitors product at the competitor's function and urged everyone to ditch my own company in favor of the competition, I would expect to be fired too, but I digress. The point is in that instance, she was able to find both solace and connection in a new group of &quot;believers&quot; (albeit atheist believers), and restore her sense of integrity.  For her, &quot;losing her faith&quot; was simply a job change, and in this day and age, job changes are easy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my case as a Baptist minister who found himself desiring a stronger liturgy, changing from the Baptist denomination to the Episcopal one was fairly easy.  I could preach as I wanted, and I could continue to minister. Different clothes but the same God. It doesn't turn your world upside down to modify your faith. It's different when it breaks.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Category 2 is the one that sucks the most.  It says, &quot;God exists, but he is not good.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is my current dilemma. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that the circumstances of my life have made it increasingly difficult to believe that God is good. I can only hold on secure in the knowledge that I am not yet ready to &quot;curse God and die,&quot; but I'm beginning to like Job's wife a lot more than Job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, it's real work to maintain a love for a God whom you secretly hate. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. When a minister loses his faith, the job is the easy part.  Pastors, of course, tend to find alternative employment (I know of one who, after leaving his wife - my college friend and a girl &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; considered marrying! - became a used car salesman.  Talk about about transferrable skills!).  They do this because they cannot be honest with themselves in ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, the hard part isn't the money but the music.  You see, for me, God's love is like music. I can live without it, but life lacks color. It lacks joy. I know in turning my back on Him, I turn my back on myself too. I lack purpose, I lack ... music.  I am left only with that gnawing pit in my stomach: Insufficent to expurgate, but sufficient to cause distress. Were I able to deny the existence of God, I could rewrite my life. Absent that, I left in a state of limbo that churns against my very core.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my case, I console myself with the last lines of &quot;Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing.&quot;  The hymn writer himself was once a pastor, but also gave it up to, in his words, &quot;chase after worldly things.&quot;  He so eloquently phrases it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Prone to wander, Lord I feel it - Prone to leave the God I love. Here's my heart, O take and seal it, seal it to thy courts above!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If only, I think. If only.  You can imagine how much it sucks to know the music, and yet be bereft of the assurance that it will come to pass. I personally tend to &quot;blow hot and cold,&quot; preaching to myself (really the main I reason I preach!) the goodness of God, hoping only that I can convince myself of that fact.  If only I were a better preacher :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that, my friend, is what it means to lose one's faith. It is to choose a personal hell in which you get hit on both sides. You become your own worst enemy, and you cannot rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you will forgive the Ferris Beueller riff, &quot;I most heartily do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; recommend it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-10-05T12:53:16.007" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T12:53:16.007" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9077" CreationDate="2012-10-05T16:27:22.593" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the problem (for me, at least) is thinking of good vs. evil as a kind of left-right spectrum.  I don't know if that makes sense but it does seem to lead to some common questions like &quot;how could a good God create evil?&quot;  Over time my mental model has changed so now I see God more like the center of a circle and all the rest of us are scattered somewhere between that center and the edge.  God, the center, is the Way, the Logos, the Natural law, the divine Order.  The further away from the center you are, the &quot;less good&quot; you find yourself, or the more disordered or out of harmony with God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allowing for mixed metaphors, this is similar to how Lao Tsu described the &lt;em&gt;Tao&lt;/em&gt;, or how Buddhists might describe &lt;em&gt;Karma&lt;/em&gt;.  You are either in accord with Tao or you are not.  You either have Karma or you don't (the pop notion that there is &quot;good&quot; karma or &quot;bad&quot; karma is incorrect).  Conforming yourself to God's will, or discovering the Tao, or ridding yourself of karma... all of these involve ridding yourself of earthly desires and moving towards the center of that circle, God, which is true goodness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T16:27:22.593" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10076" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-05T18:23:40.247" Score="6" ViewCount="4298" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis chapter 42 - 45 recount story of Joseph tricking his brothers who are in Egypt to buy grain, into going back and forth several times from Canaan to Egypt in an attempt exonerate themselves in the (feigned) accusation from Joseph of being a spy. Eventually Joesph reveals himself as their brother, and Jacob and his family move to Egypt as a result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Joseph trick them in this way? I can think of only a few reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He wanted to get all of his brothers and father back to Egypt before he revealed himself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He distrusted his brothers, since they had tried to kill him, and sold him into slavery years prior to this event, he was trying to ascertain if his younger brother and father were in fact still alive.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He was punishing his brothers by making them suffer this way in an act of revenge.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event the author of Genesis spends a lot of precipitous time and space recounting this deception, is there some cultural aspect to this that I am missing? Is there some context to the story that would reveal more about the characters involved or the nature of God or their relationship to him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-27T17:53:53.810" LastActivityDate="2015-08-27T17:53:53.810" Title="Joseph reveals himself to his brothers, why the elaborate ruse?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;&lt;joseph&gt;&lt;deception&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10077" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-05T18:49:07.157" Score="4" ViewCount="893" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just finished reading the Princess and the Goblin and the Princess and Curdie written by George MacDonald, a prolific author of Childrens books and a congregationalist minister (albeit not one enamored with Calvinism) whose writing greatly influenced Chesterton and the works of Tolkien. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reading the Princess and Curdie, and to a lesser extent, the Princess and the Goblin,  I got the feeling that the Great Huge Grandma in the Princess and Curdie was a lot like a precursor to Lewis' Aslan as used as allegory.  The Old Princess shows up in unexpected forms, sends help from above, changes bad into good with fire etc.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, however regarding MacDonald, is there anything in his use of allegory that is contrary to Catholic doctrine?  I could always pick the good parts and avoid the bad parts, but I'd rather take the whole thing.  I'm reading the books to my kids right now and have just left them as books (which I believe to be the proper thing to do, just plant the seed of goodness in them through allegory).  But if there are any themes to revisit in the future, I'd like to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it OK, in allegory to make God an old woman (even a very strong old woman)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does an allegory of God require a death and resurrection, ala Stone Table (and not just a coming and going of old age)? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T22:36:47.033" Title="Does the great great grandmother in George MacDonalds Princess and the Goblin represent a Catholic conception of God?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10077" CreationDate="2012-10-05T22:36:47.033" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I'm a reformed guy, so I can't give the Roman Catholic view but I'll try to give a catholic one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't take the Great Grandmother as a God-character so much, but rather as Lady Wisdom, who instructs and guides. This is a theme MacDonald employs in a number of his other short stories as well, such as The Lost Princess or The Wise Woman, At the Back of the North Wind, and The Golden Key. I have found his fairy tales and Unspoken Sermons very helpful, though I don't agree with all of his theology (most notably his universalism). As with anything man-made, it must be compared to scripture to see where it matches and where it diverges. It's work, but it's worth it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God portrayed as a woman&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, scripture nowhere casts God in the feminine. God is masculine - the creator, the initiator. The creation (and most specifically the church) is feminine - the suitable helper, the receiver. God is the Father, the Elder Brother, The Son. The Church is the Daughter, the Sister, the Bride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Death and Resurrection&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Death and resurrection plays a hugely important part in scripture. There is almost no story in scripture that doesn't have some kind of death and resurrection theme. Adam is put into a death sleep and his bride is built from his side. Israel is in slavery to death and is brought out as a new nation, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see the Grandmother guiding the children through this as Lady Wisdom. Curdie is brave but foolish, immature at first. He must be tried, worked over, before he is willing and able to cling to wisdom. When Grandmother sends Curdie through the fire, this can be seen as a death and resurrection. The old man is put to death, and he receives a glorified fire-body (fire-hands anyway).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2170" LastActivityDate="2012-10-05T22:36:47.033" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10080" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10082" CreationDate="2012-10-06T05:21:06.990" Score="7" ViewCount="606" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tomorrow (Saturday) and Sunday, the Mormon church is holding a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/general-conference&quot;&gt;general conference&lt;/a&gt;, which happens twice a year, in place of regular church meetings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's some basic stuff on their website about it, but I'd like to know more about what it is, how it started, why it is held, its significance to church members, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example: It's a &lt;em&gt;general&lt;/em&gt; conference -- who exactly is invited: is it for members only, like the temples? Is it a collection of sermons or does the format vary? What is discussed, and are there any notable conferences which have impacted Christianity or the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bonus points for scriptural references or parallels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T22:35:47.127" Title="What is an LDS general conference?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;practice&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10080" CreationDate="2012-10-06T13:50:01.837" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I should probably let a member of the LDS Church answer this, as I only attended the LDS Church for a few months.  There was an LDS conference during that time, and I'm going to attempt to answer based on what I can find for official statements and my own memory of the event.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/general-conference/about-general-conference?lang=eng&quot;&gt;From the LDS Website&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is general conference?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;General conference is a semiannual gathering of The Church of Jesus&#xA;  Christ of Latter-day Saints. During general conference weekend, Church&#xA;  members and others gather worldwide in a series of two-hour sessions&#xA;  to receive inspiration and instruction from Church leaders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though the main conference occurs in Salt Lake City, it's something that every member of the LDS Church can attend, in the local congregations.  In the one I was attending, it was shown over a projector, and all of the members attended.  They also use modern technology like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/general-conference/when-conference-materials-will-be-available?lang=eng&quot;&gt;Podcasts, YouTube, and others&lt;/a&gt; to give people that absolutely couldn't attend in person, or in their local place of gathering a chance to see and listen to the entire messages.  On top of that, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ldschurchnews.com/home/&quot;&gt;Deseret News&lt;/a&gt; provides extensive coverage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose is to give the leaders a chance to give guidance to the Church (as a whole - all members of the LDS Church, rather than local Churches), to preach, to exhort, and to instruct.  Also, announcements such as changes to Church Leadership, new direction, new understanding of doctrine based on divine revelation to Church Leadership is all common as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teachings covered here are considered to be authoritative, and according to the following, are considered inspired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/personal-and-family-responsibilities/lesson-17-teaching-from-the-scriptures?lang=eng&quot;&gt;from the official LDS site&lt;/a&gt;: (bold text added by me)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Read Doctrine and Covenants 68:2–4. What “scriptures” do we have today in addition to the standard works? (The inspired teachings of&#xA;  modern-day Apostles and Prophets.) Where can we find the teachings of&#xA;  modern-day Apostles and Prophets? (Church magazines and &lt;strong&gt;general&#xA;  conference reports.&lt;/strong&gt;) How have you been blessed as you have treated&#xA;  their counsel as scripture?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the members, it's a chance to hear directly from those highest in the Church leadership.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As much as I hate quoting from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Conference_%28LDS_Church%29&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, it covers the basics quite well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;General conferences are held on the weekends containing the first&#xA;  Sunday in April and the first Sunday in October. The April conference&#xA;  is known as the Annual General Conference, and the October conference&#xA;  as the Semiannual General Conference. The April conference includes&#xA;  annual statistical and financial reports not included in the October&#xA;  meeting. Both conferences are identified by the number of years since&#xA;  the church was founded in April 1830; thus, the April 2011 meeting was&#xA;  the 181st Annual General Conference, and the October 2011 meeting was&#xA;  the 181st Semiannual General Conference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the significance to the Church members, aside from the obvious implications of the above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not much different than any other annual or semi-annual business meeting for many secular businesses.  It's a chance to make big announcements, and motivation speeches, but of course, related to the Church and revelation from God, rather than the types of things important to businesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For someone who has never attended one, it's hard to describe on one hand.  To say that the Church Leaders give messages is a true statement, and they make announcements, and in general, give direction to the Church as a whole.  That all sounds a bit dry.  The official descriptions don't adequately describe the excitement and adoration that is evident.  It reminds me of how Apple employees reacted to Steve Jobs.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way.  I included it to attempt to convey the atmosphere, which is something I've never seen matched in other Church events. (Clarification - the meetings themselves are not like that - I was referring to the excitement of anticipation, the discussion in the car on the way to the Church, in the parking lot, etc.  Once the general sessions start, the atmosphere was much more reverent, but everyone gave rapt attention to the leaders.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The excitement is understandable, considering that those they hear from include the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Church#President_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&quot;&gt;President of the Church&lt;/a&gt;, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles_%28LDS_Church%29&quot;&gt;Quorum of the Twelve Apostles&lt;/a&gt;.  Considering that the Church teaching is that these people are still receiving divine revelation from God, it's only one step removed from hearing from God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find much more information simply by searching their amazingly well done online &lt;a href=&quot;http://scriptures.byu.edu/&quot;&gt;Scripture Citation Index&lt;/a&gt; for &quot;General Conference&quot;.  For example, from there I learned that Elder Paul V Johnson (one of the Seventy) considers it a sacred responsibility for all members of the Aaronic Priesthood to attend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is a sacred responsibility to address you in this general&#xA;  priesthood meeting. I always look forward to attending these&#xA;  priesthood sessions with my sons. I have great memories of sitting by&#xA;  them in our stake center as we listened to the teachings of the&#xA;  General Authorities. These meetings made a difference in my life when&#xA;  I was a young man, and they continue to make a difference in my life&#xA;  now. I know they have been an influence on my sons and on millions of&#xA;  Aaronic Priesthood holders around the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, not that it's doctrinally important, it's a chance to listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, who are really quite good.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-06T15:25:54.627" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T15:25:54.627" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10080" CreationDate="2012-10-06T14:07:49.730" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;General Conference is literally the oldest tradition of the LDS Church, as the church was formally organized at a General Conference meeting on April 6, 1830.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants&lt;/a&gt; lays out the basic organizational details for the church established during that meeting.  Of particular interest to this question are verses 61 and 62:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;61 The several elders composing this church of Christ are to meet in&#xA;  conference once in three months, or from time to time as said&#xA;  conferences shall direct or appoint;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;62 And said conferences are to do whatever church business is&#xA;  necessary to be done at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The practice of quarterly conferences was changed fairly early on, as the rapid growth of the Church made it impractical.  Traditionally conference lasted for three days, and the April conference would always include the anniversary of April 6, which often proved difficult when the scheduling conflicted with weekday commitments to work or school. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&amp;amp;locale=0&amp;amp;sourceId=3ffc1f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&amp;amp;hideNav=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This was changed in April 1977&lt;/a&gt; and today they are held on a semi-annual basis, the first weekend of April and of October.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general public is openly invited to General Conference.  It is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/general-conference/october-2012-landing-page?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;streamed live on the Internet&lt;/a&gt;, in addition to being broadcast by television, radio, cable and satellite throughout the world.  All stake centers (meetinghouses designated as the administrative center of a stake, or collection of local congregations) and many ordinary meetinghouses have satellite dishes or other equipment installed to receive these broadcasts, and display them to the Church members or any members of the public who wish to stop by.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The format of General Conference tends to be fixed, consisting mainly of sermons delivered over the course of six two-hour sessions by top Church authorities.  Church business is also conducted, such as the calling or release of leaders and a statistical reports on the state of the Church &quot;by the numbers&quot;.  As is common in LDS meetings in general, hymns are sung at every meeting, by various choirs from the Church.  It is common to have the Mormon Tabernacle Choir provide the music for at least one session.  However, all meetings fall under the guidance of verse 45 of the aforementioned charter in Doctrine and Covenants section 20, which states that those conducting meetings are to do so &quot;as they are led by the Holy Ghost,&quot; meaning that changes can be made as necessary.  This was done quite memorably on at least one occasion. (See below.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notable moments in General Conference:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;April, 1830: The organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;October, 1856: Brigham Young, upon receiving word just before the start of Conference that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/library/pio_sto/Pioneer_Trail/28_Martins_Cove.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a large group of Mormon emigrants was stranded by a snowstorm with inadequate supplies and people were dying,&lt;/a&gt; essentially called off the whole conference.  He claimed that the Holy Ghost had &quot;dictated&quot; to him that the highest priority at the moment was &quot;to save the people,&quot; that to live by their beliefs was far more important than to talk about them.  He gave one short sermon in which he explained the issue and ordered the organization of a rescue party to be made ready and depart immediately, and then dismissed the conference so the members could get to it.  (The rescue party headed out later that day and was largely successful.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;October 1890: President Wilford Woodruff read he called &quot;the Manifesto,&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an official declaration putting to an end the practice of plural marriage in the Church.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;April 1998: President Gordon B. Hinckley announced a new plan for building temples at a much smaller scale.  Previously, temples, considered the House of the Lord, had been rather palatial in size and scope, (with the best-known example being the iconic &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_Temple&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Salt Lake Temple,&lt;/a&gt;) and correspondingly expensive to build and maintain.  Less than fifty had been constructed by the Church since its founding in 1830.  By setting up a new option to build more minimalist temples, plans were made over the course of the next  year to bring the total up to 100 or more by the end of the 20th century, bringing the blessings of temple worship to many more people throughout the world.  By the time of President Hinckley's death in 2008, there were 124 temples in operation and several more under construction, due in large part to this &quot;small temples&quot; program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;October 1998: President Hinckley, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/to-the-boys-and-to-the-men?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gave a strong warning about debt from the pulpit&lt;/a&gt;.  He specifically mentioned the importance of buying affordable homes, and he quoted from the Genesis account of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2041:17-32&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pharaoh's dream of seven years of prosperity followed by seven years of famine&lt;/a&gt;, ending on the warning from verse 32: &quot;And God will shortly bring it to pass.&quot;  He stated that he was &quot;not predicting years of famine in the future,&quot; but nevertheless it was very important for Church members to &quot;get their house in order&quot; and get out of debt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;October 2001: Three years later, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/10/the-times-in-which-we-live?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;President Hinckley reiterated this warning,&lt;/a&gt; again invoking Pharaoh's dream, (and this time, notably, &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; saying that it would &quot;shortly&quot; come to pass,) and urged members to pay down their debts and specifically to pay down mortgages quickly.  At the end of September of 2008, almost exactly seven years after this talk was given, the housing market imploded, bringing an end to a largely prosperous time and plunging the entire world into a severe economic crisis that, political optimism notwithstanding, it has yet to recover from.  Church members who heeded their prophet's warning and made the sacrifices necessary to pay their mortgages off (or at least down) quickly were affected far less than most people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW8JXHdp6xA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;October 2012&lt;/a&gt;: President Thomas S. Monson &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-lowers-age-requirement-for-missionary-service&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;announces a change&lt;/a&gt; in the Church's missionary service policy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am pleased to announce that, effective immediately, all worthy and&#xA;  able young men who graduated from high school... regardless of where&#xA;  they live, will have the opportunity to be recommended for missionary&#xA;  service...  [And] able, worthy young women who have the desire to&#xA;  serve may be recommended for missionary service beginning at age 19&#xA;  instead of age 21.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He stated that moving the potential age of missionary service back allowed for greater flexibility, to make it easier to allow members to serve a mission without interfering with other obligations, such as national military service requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-10-06T18:46:27.967" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T18:46:27.967" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10083" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10085" CreationDate="2012-10-06T15:26:40.390" Score="11" ViewCount="359" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a Sunday when a &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Latter-day Saints&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_(LDS_Church)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;congregation&lt;/a&gt; meets, what roles are women allowed or not allowed to play in the service?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2017-01-02T22:31:42.100" LastActivityDate="2017-01-02T22:31:42.100" Title="What roles are women allowed to play in LDS Sunday services?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;women&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10083" CreationDate="2012-10-06T15:34:19.003" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS website gives a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&amp;amp;sourceId=8222f73c28d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&amp;amp;vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&quot;&gt;very succinct answer to this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In weekly worship services and classes, women preach sermons, offer&#xA;  prayers in behalf of the congregation, and teach adults and children.&#xA;  They may also serve as missionaries and as presidents of the Relief&#xA;  Society, Young Women, and Primary organizations. Women participate in&#xA;  councils that oversee congregational activities throughout the world.&#xA;  They also perform a vital work in nurturing and teaching in the home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The page linked to above contains many links to more information, but in short, women hold an important place and serve as teachers and role models, and are in authority in certain positions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are positions they cannot hold: most significantly, the priesthood.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Women,_Roles_of&quot;&gt;From the BYU's wiki&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Particularly, they are not allowed to hold the position of Priesthood,&#xA;  which limits them from holding other positions within the Church that&#xA;  are only available to those in the Priesthood.Women and men, although&#xA;  equal in status, fulfill some separate and different roles in the work&#xA;  of the Church. To men is given the responsibility of holding the&#xA;  priesthood, with many prescribed duties. The role for women is less&#xA;  precisely defined, though no less real. According to Neal A. Maxwell&#xA;  of the Quorum of the Twelve: We know so little about the reasons for&#xA;  the division of duties between womanhood and manhood as well as&#xA;  between motherhood and priesthood. These were divinely determined in&#xA;  another time and another place. We are accustomed to focusing on the&#xA;  men of God because theirs is the priesthood and leadership line. But&#xA;  paralleling that authority line is a stream of righteous influence&#xA;  reflecting the remarkable women of God who have existed in all ages&#xA;  and dispensations, including our own [Maxwell, p. 94].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The duties of the Priesthood are covered &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a?lang=eng&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, which gives some insight, but not specifics of exactly what women are, and are not allowed to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-06T15:43:49.700" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T15:43:49.700" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10083" CreationDate="2012-10-06T15:46:28.853" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, so the big hidden question here is &quot;what comprises an LDS sunday service?&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7753/560&quot;&gt;A related question&lt;/a&gt; covers some of this, so I'll just summarize.  In your average &quot;Sacrament meeting&quot;, you'll typically have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 who presides at the meeting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 who conducts the meeting (may be the same as the one presiding)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 who leads the music&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 who plays the piano/organ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2+ who bless the Sacrament (Eucharist)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;several who pass the Sacrament to the congregation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 who say the opening and closing prayers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;several who give short talks or sermons&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of these, the only thing women may &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; do is preside at the meeting, bless the Sacrament, or pass the Sacrament.  Those are duties of people who hold the Priesthood, and only men hold the Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be very unusual to see a woman conduct the meeting, since that is usually done by the presiding person or one of his counselors.  However, there are some meetings of the Church where women conduct the meetings (for example, the General Relief Society Meeting).  There are also meetings where women preside (again, most meetings of the Relief Society), but that does not happen in a Sacrament meeting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="560" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T16:00:19.087" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10086" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-06T16:30:18.283" Score="7" ViewCount="3861" Body="&lt;p&gt;I noticed in the opening address at the October 2012 &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/10080/30&quot;&gt;General Conference&lt;/a&gt;, that -- at least in the context of a speech -- the terms &quot;sin&quot; and &quot;transgression&quot; were stressed independently and each more than once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The terminology used by the LDS church is often recognizably similar to that of other groups, but the exactly meanings given them is often different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this just a a repetition to highlight the importance of the issue or do the terms have different shades of meanings according to LDS doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2018-06-26T09:49:04.457" Title="Are &quot;sin&quot; and &quot;transgression&quot; different in LDS terminology?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10086" CreationDate="2012-10-06T17:09:19.470" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two terms are often used interchangeably, in line with John's declaration that &quot;sin is the transgression of the law.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 3:4&lt;/a&gt;)  However, there is at least one significant point in LDS doctrine where the two terms are treated as distinct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Article of Faith&lt;/a&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS theology does not recognize the concept of &quot;Original Sin&quot; as it is generally understood in other Christian denominations, the idea that the Fall causes all mankind to be inherently sinful and inherit guilt and condemnation from Adam's actions.  The Fall of Adam is understood to be a transgression of God's law, but not an inherently sinful act, as it was a part of God's plan: in order for God's children to progress, they had to live in an imperfect environment where they would be subject to temptation, that they could learn the difference between good and evil for themselves, and learn to live by faith, and choose good and reject evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the implications of this doctrine is that, as all men are accountable only for their own personal sins, and not for the acts of Adam or anyone else, this means that children are born in a state of innocence and do not require baptism for the removal of the guilt of Original Sin.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moroni chapter 8&lt;/a&gt; from the Book of Mormon lays out this doctrine in clear (and fairly strong) words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T17:09:19.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10086" CreationDate="2012-10-06T17:14:58.113" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes they do have different meanings, though not consistently. Joseph Fielding Smith declared about the fall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dallin H Oaks, referring to the above quote, said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s &lt;em&gt;transgression&lt;/em&gt;”. It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, It has been said that Adam and Eve merely transgressed the law because they did not yet know the difference between good and evil, and thus they were not accountable for sin. A similar argument is used to say that children cannot sin; they are not accountable. They do, however, trangress laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distinction between the two terms is not always clear cut though and invariably the two will be used interchangeably despite the subtle difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T17:14:58.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9077" CreationDate="2012-10-06T19:51:13.057" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you say that God is &quot;removed from concepts of 'Good&quot; and &quot;Evil'&quot;, then you are also saying that God is removed from any concept of a hungry child in pain.  Which makes God less, not more.  In other words, God IS capable of understanding suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as soon as we acknowledge that there is indeed suffering in the world, then there also most be evil.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why - because it puts all of us in a position of either choosing to live in such a way as to increase suffering in the world (evil), OR living in such a way as to reduce it (good).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T19:51:13.057" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10094" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-06T20:26:03.137" Score="14" ViewCount="2410" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm watching the semi-annual LDS General Conference. One segment just went by that was some general business of voting to retain people in various roles or assign new ones. Several thousand people are present and voting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The camera work going into the live broadcast was hard to see, but it looked like the entire audience voted on every issue instantly and unanimously. Having watched and participated in many similar events both secular and in various Christian traditions, this seems inconsistent with what inevitably crops up: human nature seems to dictate that given enough people, there is always some sub-set of nay-sayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do these votes represent? Have these issues been vetted some other way first? What procedure would be followed in the event of some opposition votes? Is it an issue of needing a majority? What personal experiences would somebody expect if they were to vote against an issue like retaining a prophet or one of the other major leadership roles in the LDS church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-10-06T21:59:10.810" LastActivityDate="2016-04-04T22:49:02.763" Title="What would happen to somebody voting in opposition to a proposition at LDS General Conference?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;church-structure&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10095" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10096" CreationDate="2012-10-06T20:34:44.300" Score="5" ViewCount="3118" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a teaching called &quot;Hell's Best Secret&quot; that's been circulating for several years, originally preached by &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ray Comfort&lt;/a&gt;, the a New Zealand-born minister, and founder of Living Waters Publications.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Without going into whether or not the teaching is true&lt;/em&gt;, what is the primary message of the teaching, the Scriptural basis, and its influence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-29T11:48:59.087" LastActivityDate="2019-09-26T09:03:13.017" Title="What is the &quot;Hell's Best Kept Secret&quot; teaching that's circulating in various Evangelical Churches?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10095" CreationDate="2012-10-06T20:37:27.310" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livingwaters.com/helps/HellsBestKeptSecret.pdf&quot;&gt;Hell's Best Secret&lt;/a&gt; teaching is essentially a denouncement on what Ray Comfort calls &quot;the modern Gospel&quot;, and a teaching on what he considers the proper use of Mosaic Law to prepare the heart for the Gospel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early on in the message, he speaks of a certain denomination's evangelism efforts during what they called &quot;the decade of Harvest&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let me make it more real for you. In 1991, in the first year of the&#xA;  decade of harvest, a major denomination in the U.S. was able to obtain&#xA;  294,000 decisions for Christ. That is, in one year, this major&#xA;  denomination of 11,500 churches was able to obtain 294,000 decisions&#xA;  for Christ. Unfortunately, they could only find 14,000 in fellowship, &#xA;  which means they couldn’t account for 280,000 of their decisions, and&#xA;  this is normal, modern evangelical results&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Comfort, based on Church records that he's had access to, something like 80%-90% of those who have &quot;been saved&quot; later fall away.  He blames this on the methods used to get people to come to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Modern Gospel&quot; as he calls it, is one of life enhancement.  Sinners are promised that God can heal their broken marriage, fix their drug problems, alcohol problems, and so forth.  The &quot;Modern Gospel&quot; is, according to Comfort, a misguided attempt to make Christianity appealing by showing how much better the Christian life is than that of the unsaved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He uses an illustration of a man on an airplane, who is given a parachute and is told that it would improve his flight, to illustrate how foolish this is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comfort argues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now listen to what the modern gospel says. It says, “Put on the Lord&#xA;  Jesus Christ. He’ll give you love, joy, peace, fulfillment, and&#xA;  lasting happiness.” In other words, “Jesus will improve your flight.”&#xA;  So the sinner responds, and in an experimental fashion, puts on the&#xA;  Savior to see if the claims are true. And what does he get? The&#xA;  promised temptation, tribulation, and persecution. The other&#xA;  passengers mock him. So what does he do? He takes  off the Lord Jesus&#xA;  Christ, he’s offended for the word’s sake (Mark 4:17), he’s&#xA;  disillusioned and somewhat embittered, and quite rightly so. He was&#xA;  promised peace, joy, love, fulfillment, and lasting happiness, and all&#xA;  he got were trials and humiliation. His bitterness is directed toward&#xA;  those who gave him the so-called “good news”. His  latter end becomes&#xA;  worse than the first: another inoculated and bitter backslider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of the teaching expands on the proper use of the Law, particularly the The pedagogical use (although he doesn't use that term in the teaching), which is to show sinners what sin is, to show them that they are, indeed, sinners, and show them their need of a Savior, and allow repentance.  Without the Law, He argues (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;as does the Apostle Paul&lt;/a&gt;), sinners don't even know what sin is.  How can they repent, if they don't know what sin is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teaching contains a section in which he illustrates using the Ten Commandments on an unrepentant sinner to &lt;em&gt;show&lt;/em&gt; them their sinful nature in it's true light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I say, “Ah, do you think you’ve kept the ten commandments?” He says,&#xA;  “Ah, yeah…pretty much.” I say, “Let’s go through them. Ever told a&#xA;  lie?” He says, “Ah, yeah…yeah, one or two.” I say, “What does that&#xA;  make you?” He says, “A sinner.” I say, “No, no. Specifically, what&#xA;  does it make you?” He says, “Well, man, I’m not a liar.”  I say, “How&#xA;  many lies, then, do you have to tell to be a liar? Ten and a bell&#xA;  rings and ‘ppppbbbbtttt’ across your forehead? Isn’t it true if you&#xA;  tell one lie, it makes you a liar?” He says, “Yeah…I guess you’re&#xA;  right.” I say, “Have you ever stolen something?” He says, “No.” I say,&#xA;  “Come on; you’ve just admitted to me you’re a liar.” I say, “Ever &#xA;  stolen something, even if its small?” and he says, “Yeah.” I say,&#xA;  “What does that make you?” He says, “A thief.” I say, “Jesus said, ‘If&#xA;  you look at a woman and lust after her, you commit adultery with her&#xA;  in your heart’ (Mat. 5:28). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ever done that?” He says, “Yeah, plenty of times.” “Then from your own&#xA;  admission, you’re a lying, thieving, adulterer at heart, and you have&#xA;  to face God on judgment day; and we’ve only looked at three of the ten&#xA;  commandments. There’s another seven with their cannons pointed at you.&#xA;  Have you used God’s name in vain?” “Yeah…I’ve been trying to stop.”&#xA;  “You know what you’re doing? Instead of using a four-letter filth word&#xA;  beginning with ‘s’ to express disgust, you’re using God’s name in its&#xA;  place. That’s called blasphemy; and the Bible says, ‘Every idle word a&#xA;  man speaks he’ll give account thereofon the day of judgment’ (Mat.&#xA;  12:36). ‘The Lord will not old him guiltless who takes his name in&#xA;  vain’ (Ex. 20:7). The Bible says if you hate someone, you are a&#xA;  murderer (1 John 3:15).”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main point of the teaching is that instead of using promises of a better life to lure sinners to accepting Christ, we need to use God's law to show them their need for Christ, and drive them to the Savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As for the influence it's had in recent years:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/ray_comfort.htm&quot;&gt;it's debatable whether Comfort's message is true&lt;/a&gt;, and it's not universally accepted, there's no denying that it has been widely accepted, and influential.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally first heard of the teaching at a Baptist Church, where a member gave me a cassette version of the audio teaching.  I have since been presented with it from members of Assembly of God, Evangelical Free, and Independent Bible Churches.  It's a teaching that's steadily gaining acceptance in a wide variety of denominations, although I've never seen it endorsed officially by any organization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few years back, Kirk Cameron (the actor) joined him in trying to spread the teaching, and as a result of Kirk's celebrity, the teaching has become even more popular.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teaching has had influence in a number of well-known Christian movies, such as the Left Behind movies, Fireproof, and Courageous.  In each of these movies, at least one character is seen using the same basic &quot;have you ever told a lie&quot; use of the law to speak to an unsaved person.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They've also been both on the radio and on Christian TV - with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/way-of-the-master/&quot;&gt;Way of the Master radio&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wayofthemaster.com/tvschedule.shtml&quot;&gt;The Way of the Master television show&lt;/a&gt;, and I've even heard the message preached on the ultra-conservative &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vcyamerica.org/&quot;&gt;VCY America radio&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-06T22:00:59.797" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T22:00:59.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10097" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-06T20:42:25.587" Score="7" ViewCount="1317" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS church uses the imagery of a beehive to represent the way the church [should] function. Notably &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/9575/30&quot;&gt;lacking any sign of the cross&lt;/a&gt; or other usual Christian symbology in the temple, the main pulpit used in the venue hosting the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/10080/30&quot;&gt;General Conference&lt;/a&gt; is adorned with several beehive carvings. The meaning of this symbolism was explained during one of the sessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where else in Christianity has this imagery ever shown up? Do any other theologocal traditions make use of it? Is it widely used in LDS decoration or is this just an isolated case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2018-05-17T12:52:16.227" Title="How widely used is &quot;beehive&quot; imagery?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2932" CreationDate="2012-10-06T20:51:08.140" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am undecided on the YEC, but my admittedly unconventional thinking is close enough to that so that I'd like to try to address this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the universe being created 5 minutes ago, that is similar an concept from physics known as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Boltzmann brain&lt;/a&gt;. Briefly, the problem with the atheist idea that the universe was created by a quantum fluctuation 13+ billion years ago is that the mathematics of quantum fluctuations shows that the recent random appearance of an artificial universe such as you describe is enormously more likely than the gigantic old universe that we see. That is because an artificial universe is much smaller and so the quantum fluctuations that lead to it are exponentially more likely even after accounting for the fact that the structure required for them is more elaborate. So the creation of an artificial world is a very reasonable thing to consider scientifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the supposedly deceptive nature of that type of creation, the concept of a Boltzmann brain shows that an artificial world is a perfectly natural situation that science needs to consider. So there is no more deception involved than the fact that substances such as water are made of atoms when they appear to our senses to be continuous. God has chosen to create us in the manner that he saw fit, and our very limited scientific knowledge is completely inadequate to decide what is and is not appropriate for his purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2104" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T20:51:08.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10094" CreationDate="2012-10-06T21:00:55.010" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;While it may appear similar to a vote, (and is often referred to by that term,) these sustaining votes are not a democratic election, but rather an opportunity for members of the church to show their agreement or opposition to the choices that have been made with regard to leadership positions.  These sustaining votes take place not only at General Conference but also at local meetings when people are called to serve in some position in the congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The principle is known as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Common_Consent&quot;&gt;common consent&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, as described in the Doctrine and Covenants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/28.13?lang=eng#12&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 28:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Latter-Day Saints generally accept as a point of faith that the church is run by inspiration and could not operate without it, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng&quot;&gt;as declared by President Wilford Woodruff in 1891&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, a sustaining vote, when it is called for, is usually answered unanimously in the affirmative.  However, this is not regarded as a formality.  Church leaders are still human, and it's recognized that they can make mistakes, even when attempting to act in all sincerity and soberness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Occasionally when a person is called to serve in some position, if some of the members of the congregation are aware that they are not worthy or should not serve in this position for whatever reason, they are allowed and asked to show their objections here.  If this happens in a local meeting, the person making an objection would talk to the Bishop in private later, and the member who had been called to serve would not be set apart for their calling until things had been resolved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it were to happen during General Conference, I don't know how it would be dealt with, as I've never observed it during my lifetime.  I have heard that before I was born, there were a few instances where anti-Mormon protestors managed to gain admission to General Conference and used this time as an opportunity to shout &quot;NO!&quot; or chant slogans in an attempt to disrupt the proceedings.  As I understand it, their agitations were dealt with by simply ignoring them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-10-06T21:58:20.360" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T21:58:20.360" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10094" CreationDate="2012-10-06T21:04:43.333" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;This originates from a revelation given to Joseph Smith, recorded in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 26&lt;/a&gt;, and is known as the law of common consent. Note that this is different from congregationalism in that in common consent, a decision is already made through prayer and by inspiration, and the decisions are not made by democratic voting, per-se. Those affected by the decision or change then &lt;em&gt;sustain&lt;/em&gt; it, not necessarily &lt;em&gt;vote&lt;/em&gt; on what should or should not be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sustaining leaders is a regular occurrence in the church, even in local meetings. Raising the right hand may be understood, in some way, as a pledge or covenant to help and support whoever is being proposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If somebody opposes, it is generally done because of some first-hand knowledge the opposer has of the person in question. In local settings, that person will be asked why after the meeting (usually the reason must be for some grave sin, or unworthiness to serve in the position, which leaders usually know about anyway as they may help the person through the repentance process).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general conference, there are about 21,000 people in a single session in the Conference Center. The conducting authority will generally conclude with &quot;Insofar as I have been able to observe, the voting in the conference center has been unanimous in the affirmative.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is an opposition in general conference, the person is directed to speak with their stake president who takes the matter, if it merits attention, to higher authorities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; I was in attendance when this happened today, on Saturday, April 4, 2015, during the afternoon session of General Conference. Some attendees opposed and the speaker simply remarked, &quot;Thank you, the vote has been noted.&quot; Instead of saying that voting was unanimous at the end, he said, &quot;The voting has been noted. We invite those who opposed any of the proposals to contact their stake presidents.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-sustaining-of-church-officers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;[Video]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2016-04-04T22:49:02.763" LastActivityDate="2016-04-04T22:49:02.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10101" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10106" CreationDate="2012-10-06T21:39:07.053" Score="2" ViewCount="354" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus ultimately cares about the judgement of our eternal soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it contrary to any Christian belief or doctrine to believe in a Holy deception;  that the reason He made His return unknown and mysterious is to keep us in line or away from sin?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are anxiously awaiting that he can return any moment, we are more likely to stick to His way and in result, preserve our soul?  I am not saying He is lying, but loves us so much that He will give us any impression possible to keep us away from the Devil or Hell.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this go against any other Christian belief or doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice how Biblical passages can look like lies but are not. Please read this very good Christian writers article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/october/26.56.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/october/26.56.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He will rescue you from every trap and protect you from the fatal&#xA;  plague. … For he orders his angels to protect you wherever you go.&#xA;  They will hold you with their hands to keep you from striking your&#xA;  foot on a stone.&quot; [All Scripture citations from the New Living&#xA;  Translation.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At first blush it sounds really good, but that day I had to say what I&#xA;  really thought. Through tears I told the group, &quot;I don't get how this&#xA;  is true. He did not rescue us from a fatal plague. He did not keep us&#xA;  from striking our feet on a stone but, in fact, allowed much worse&#xA;  than that.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2019-11-25T18:16:44.317" LastActivityDate="2019-11-25T19:17:40.447" Title="Is it contrary to any Christian belief or doctrine to believe that Jesus deceives us in order to protect our souls?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;second-coming&gt;&lt;deception&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="10102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10097" CreationDate="2012-10-06T21:39:42.810" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The symbolism actually comes almost entirely from Brigham Young's fascination with one simple verse in the Book of Mormon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/2.3?lang=eng#2&quot;&gt;Ether 2:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Brigham Young worked to establish Mormon colonies throughout the Inter-Mountain West region, the colony eventually petitioned the US government for statehood.  Brigham Young decided that the territory should be called &quot;Deseret,&quot; because he saw the honeybee's industriousness and self-sufficiency as admirable and worthy of emulation.  The proposed &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret&quot;&gt;State of Deseret&lt;/a&gt; was enormous, covering almost all of modern-day Utah and Nevada, and smaller portions of the surrounding states, and Congress ended up denying the petition, and instead allowing statehood to smaller regions.  However, to this day, a beehive icon titled &lt;strong&gt;INDUSTRY&lt;/strong&gt; figures prominently in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3aSeal_of_Utah.svg&amp;amp;page=1&quot;&gt;the official seal of the state of Utah&lt;/a&gt;, also known as &quot;the beehive state.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;em&gt;Deseret&lt;/em&gt; is used in many parts of Mormon culture, particularly in Utah. (See the Wikipedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret&quot;&gt;disambiguation page&lt;/a&gt; for several prominent examples.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that 20th century scholarship and research into ancient Egyptian language and culture has discovered that honeybees were held in extremely high regard by the Pharaohs, and the word DSR.T (vowels removed, as they were not part of the written language) was associated with them. (Nibley, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=48&amp;amp;chapid=297&quot;&gt;The Deseret Connection&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, &lt;em&gt;Abraham In Egypt&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within the church, the beehive symbol is easily recognizable, but is not particularly common.  For example, the pulpit at the Conference Center is decorated with a beehive icon, as noted in the question, but in most local chapels it is not present on the pulpit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T21:39:42.810" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10101" CreationDate="2012-10-06T22:37:32.883" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I know I should probably reference these, but I'm going to appeal to common knowledge&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before answering, I just want to re-emphasize two central teachings that are common to the vast majority of Christianity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's safe to say that almost every denomination, and almost every major division within Christianity agrees that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&amp;amp;article=1383&quot;&gt;God does not and cannot lie&lt;/a&gt;.  I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule, and agnostics/atheists may balk at the idea, but for the most part that's accepted teaching for the vast majority of Christianity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most (but not all) Christian denominations and traditions accept the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Deity_of_Jesus&quot;&gt;Diety of Jesus&lt;/a&gt;.  In other words, Jesus is God. (There are exceptions.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the second point is true, then to say that Jesus lies is to say then God lies.  And the first point flat out denies that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, according to Scripture, as understood by the overwhelming majority of Christianity, it is absolutely a &lt;em&gt;heresy&lt;/em&gt; to say that Jesus would deceive us to protect our souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And most denominations that I am aware of state that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm&quot;&gt;Heresy is a sin&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, to the overwhelming majority of Christianity,  it would be be accurate to say that it's a sin to believe that Jesus would lie to us to protect our souls.  Not only does it go against &quot;any other Christian belief or doctrine&quot; it goes against two central, almost universally held Christian beliefs/doctrines.  The doctrine of God's character and the doctrine of Christ's Diety.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-06T22:43:43.253" LastActivityDate="2012-10-06T22:43:43.253" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10003" CreationDate="2012-10-07T01:20:38.747" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have reseach from other books like the lost paradise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God created the angels he already had in mind to create man but angels were created first.  God told the angels to bow and serve him no one else that was great until God decided to create man.  He called all the the angels together and told the angels to bow and serve man. All 2/3 was willing but Lucifer said no, and he took 1/3 of the angels with him.  He figured he could be a better ruler than God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It took place where God and Lucifer were debating and Lucifer reminded God he told the angels not to bow before anything other than God, now you're telling us to bow before man and serve man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lucifer accused God of deceiving him and God banished him from heaven and changed his name to Satan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why Satan goes after us like he does he blames us of kicking him out of heaven so he kick us out of the garden of eden to  sin.  Satan lost his position in heaven so he made sure man lost his spiritual closest to God and sworn by an oath to destroy mans soul and spirit and take us all to hell to rule us there as god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2256" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-07T02:47:07.983" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T02:47:07.983" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10101" CreationDate="2012-10-07T05:02:52.113" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think to answer your question we have to address some foundational items of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First Christianity is a religion based on being saved by grace. &#xA;Nothing done by you will warrant salvation for your soul.  (Romans&#xA;3:23 (No one is good enough), Romans 6:23 (God gives us the gift of&#xA;salvation), Ephesians 2:8 (Grace saved us)).    It seems that the&#xA;foundation of your argument implies that by telling us He will come&#xA;back at any moment will make us &quot;remain in the faith.&quot;  One could&#xA;argue that you are &quot;working&quot; your salvation.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second I think there is a heart condition behind this statement. &#xA;Think of someone who is living ready for war to break out.  They&#xA;would stockpile food, possibly ammunition, water purifiers, etc. &#xA;They live with a mission in mind.  The same with someone who lives&#xA;as if Christ could return tomorrow, because in reality He could.  If&#xA;I truly believe that Christ is coming back at any moment coupled&#xA;with Luke 12:16-21 would really change how I approach life.   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a fun final note, depending on where you land in Calvinism (a&#xA;good portion of Bible based believers (not talking about people who&#xA;say they are christians but are more of a functional atheist)) then&#xA;God has chosen you to believe and you believe purely based on his&#xA;effectual calling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I probably did not answer your question but I hope I shed some sort of light from some angle.  It is a very interesting question to ask.  As always I  recommend praying through all questions for if God does exist He will answer your questions (in due time).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on the first comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;what if I pray and find that this concept is true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always recommend that if there is a question about the Bible, God, Jesus, etc.. First find what you can from the Bible and pray.  As long as emotions/your view is set aside and a humble prayerful approach is made, I believe all questions can be answered.  They just may not be answered expediently or the way you like. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1453" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2019-11-25T18:20:46.627" LastActivityDate="2019-11-25T18:20:46.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="10107" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-07T06:40:39.517" Score="8" ViewCount="143" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term 'law of nature' such as gravity, condensation, etc. is rarely if ever described in relation to God in modern schools and Universities. Yet I am wondering what the biblical view of the Laws of nature are?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically I am wondering if the Bible presents God as an absentee creator who wound up the 'clock of the universe' and stood back while it 'ticked' according to its designed laws, or is God portrayed as being more intimately involved in moving and being present in each 'tick'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please provide an evangelical supported answer with a referenced quote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T03:10:02.203" Title="Does an evangelical understanding of the 'laws of nature' make God seem more distant or close?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10107" CreationDate="2012-10-07T07:26:46.343" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know from Einstein's General Theory of relativity that space and time cannot be considered separately. There is no absolute time from which God could observe a single &quot;now&quot; moment that applies to the whole universe. So in Genesis 2:1 &quot;Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array,&quot; it seems to me that we should take that to mean that the universe was complete from beginning to end of time as well. After that the Bible begins from Genesis 2:2 onwards to give greater detail to what has already happened. So for the first six days, God was intimately involved in the creation, but not necessary in a temporal sequence as we perceive time, because according to relativity, time progress according to the circumstances of each individual observer. To our senses the differences in the progression of time are not apparent, but they are there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the many verses that describe God's involvement in every aspect of our lives are John 1:3, Matthew 10:29, and Job 12:10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2104" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T07:26:46.343" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10110" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10132" CreationDate="2012-10-07T13:55:15.140" Score="6" ViewCount="609" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recall in my early days as a Christian I remember reading a book called ‘&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_of_the_Presence_of_God&quot;&gt;The Practice of the Presence of God&lt;/a&gt;’ by a Monk called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Lawrence&quot;&gt;Brother Lawrence&lt;/a&gt; in France.  It always baffles me a bit that this book exists at that time and that reformed theologians and evangelicals will recommend it to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some think Protestants admire Mother Teresa, but I would have to say I have rarely seen a book by Mother Teresa in an Evangelical Christian bookstore but have commonly found this little book by Brother Lawrence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am wondering is according to evangelical or reformed thought why would this book above possibly all other Catholic books in the last 1000 years be so appealing? Why would it seem so non-Catholic and acceptable to those who strongly oppose Catholicism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T04:44:02.143" Title="Why do Evangelicals like a spirituality book by a 16th century Catholic monk?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12271" CreationDate="2012-10-07T15:36:37.503" Score="6" ViewCount="1298" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livingwaters.com/audio/way-of-the-master/hells-best-kept-secret&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hell's Best Secret&lt;/a&gt; teaching is very popular, and is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10095/what-is-the-hells-best-kept-secret-teaching-thats-circulating-in-various-eva&quot;&gt;making an impact on Churches and Christians, crossing denominational borders, and having  an influence on Christian movies, television, and radio&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, just because it's popular, and having an impact, does not mean that it's necessarily true, or even doctrinally supportable.  There are plenty of detractors, and those that simply don't agree with the premise, the teaching, or Ray Comfort himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect that the teaching is not supportable from the perspective of Calvinism, because inherent in the teaching is the assumption that sinners have a choice in whether to come to Christ.  Otherwise, what would be the point in talking about an &quot;incorrect motive&quot; for drawing sinners to Christ?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, not being a Calvinist myself, I'm not sure.  Sometimes my understanding is slightly (or way) off.  I'm curious as to whether or not my assumption is correct, and if so, if someone can provide a review of the teaching from a Calvinist perspective.  I'd be curious to see a high-level reaction along with an analysis of how the teaching agrees with, or conflicts with, each of the five points of Calvinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note, this is not a &quot;refute this&quot; question.  I'm not going for &quot;Is the teaching true?&quot;.  Likewise, I'm not looking for other criticisms, such as whether or not this teaches Lordship Salvation, or other critiques, unless if is relevant to the application of Calvinism.  Those would be separate questions.  I'm specifically looking for the application of a &lt;em&gt;specific&lt;/em&gt; doctrinal view to a &lt;em&gt;specific&lt;/em&gt; teaching.  &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;To be honest, I'm more hoping to increase my understanding of Calvinism and applying it, than the truth or error of this teaching.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2016-02-21T01:06:30.090" Title="&quot;Hell's Best Kept Secret&quot; from a Calvinist Perspective" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;&lt;apostasy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10112" CreationDate="2012-10-07T16:48:09.603" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvinism is simply the doctrine of determinism, that the future is determined. But since we are not told what that determined future is (we couldn't be told--- we would just do something else), this has no effect on the necessity of preaching or the quality of the preaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Calvinist is just placing God outside space and time, so that the future is as visible as the past. But this doesn't mean that it is pointless to do stuff, because the future outcome is contingent on what happened. This is the old paradoxes of determinism, and they vanish with careful thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1113" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T16:48:09.603" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9844" CreationDate="2012-10-07T17:12:12.217" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe Hell is just eternal separation from God. The torment will be from those  who have denied Jesus. But the day will come when God will put it onto everyones heart that he is real , it will be too late to repent and this is where the nashing and grinding of teeth will be &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2259" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T17:12:12.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5220" CreationDate="2012-10-07T17:34:25.550" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Necessity is the mother of invention.&#xA;Does God invent new things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man has now found out that the Universe is &quot;expanding.&#xA;Is God similarly becoming bigger, and is He growing in Wisdom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible says that  &quot;In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.&quot;&#xA;That statement begs a question &quot;In the beginning of what?&quot; . But it clearly says that God did create something. which means it did not exist before. God created something because he felt a need for it, which means that he was not satisfied with the situation before the creation, which is why he decided to create something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there must have been a change in God before and after creation, because after each creation, he remarked &quot; that it was good&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And later, God was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and said He was grieved in His heart. &quot;I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them&quot; (Gen. 6:6-7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I [the Lord] regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands (1 Sam. 15:11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God's plans sometimes backfires, and he has to change his plans to correct them. But we believe that He will succeed in the end. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God changing his character must be like how an actor can play double role in a movie, and maintain his true charachter outside the sets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then is God playing roles in this world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people believe that this world is just a make-believe, and does not actually exist. It is just a toy God has made for his children to teach them values and truths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the Bible that says &quot;In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.&quot; also a fairy story written by God for his children to teach them values and truths?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2250" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T17:34:25.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6524" CreationDate="2012-10-07T19:55:07.113" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being born of Spirit and water John 3:5. The water here doesn't refer to aminiotic fluid because that is of the flesh,Jesus clearly explained that born again is not the flesh but the Spirit .If this just qualifies you to see how much more the one that qualifies you to enter the kingdom of God. The water is the Word  of God because in Ephesians 5:26 it says &quot;that He might sanctify her (the church), having cleansed her by the washing of water by the Word. The Word has the cleansing effect of water as the person meditates and act on it continually, washing out your bad habits. While being born born of the Spirit is the regeneration that is brought about by the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2260" LastActivityDate="2012-10-07T19:55:07.113" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10126" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-07T22:23:07.163" Score="4" ViewCount="4439" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Hebrews in the New Testament shares a name with the Hebrew people of the Mosaic Law. Why was that book named Hebrews?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="666" LastActivityDate="2014-04-29T18:24:23.493" Title="Why is the book of Hebrews named that?" Tags="&lt;hebrews&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10126" CreationDate="2012-10-07T23:18:34.633" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's called that because it was written as a letter to Hebrews.  Most of the Epistles are titled after the group they were written to.  (Corinthians was written to the Church at Corinth, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentbooks/a/Book-Of-Hebrews.htm&quot;&gt;http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentbooks/a/Book-Of-Hebrews.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Date Written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction&#xA;  of the Temple in 70 A.D. Written To:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrew Christians who were wavering in their faith and all future&#xA;  readers of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's more similar information all over, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-08T00:16:09.623" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T00:16:09.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8554" CreationDate="2012-10-08T03:55:24.200" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note that this answer refers to the &lt;strong&gt;Protestant&lt;/strong&gt; Bible.  The Catholic Bible, and the Eastern Orthodox Bibles largely follow this pattern, but contain different books.  More on the differences  can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  The differences are also noted below.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, understand that the Bible is not a single book  It's a collection of 66 books, written at different time periods, by different authors (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;but all through the Divine Inspiration God&lt;/a&gt;, a phrase which has a deeper meaning, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;wider implication for the Bible's trustworthiness&lt;/a&gt; than inspiration as you'd usually think of it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;It is also not written in a chronological order.&lt;/em&gt;  It is divided primarily in a &lt;em&gt;topical&lt;/em&gt; manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is first divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament consists of the books that are included in the Jewish Scriptures, but the organization is different.  For more info on the Jewish Scriptures, you'd be better off checking out the &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Judaism Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;.  I include this bit of information here because the roots of Judaism and those of Christianity are the same.  It is at the boundary of the beginning of the New Testament, with the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that Christianity sprang out of Judaism. The Old Testament ends with the Jews awaiting the Messiah.  The New Testament writings begin with the accounts of that Messiah - Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Within the Old Testament the books are grouped into:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Books of the Law, aka the Books of Moses, or the Pentateuch.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This consists of the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Collectively, this is called the Torah. These lay the foundations of the faith, introducing God as Creator, the establishment of his promise with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whose line eventually becomes the Jewish people.  We learn of the captivity in Egypt, the exodus, exile in the wilderness, and the giving of God's law to His chosen people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Jews, this represents the covenant and are the most important books period.  The Sadducees believed no other part of the Bible to be inspired. These books are chronological in their subject matter, with Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers being primarily story.  Leviticus represents the first iteration of the covenant, given at Sinai, in the events that occurred in the Exodus. Numbers recounts what occurs after Exodus, and Deuteronomy (literally 'Second Law') being the re-iteration of the covenant after the wandering of Israel. The names of the books are the first significant words in each book.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Next, come the &lt;strong&gt;Historical books&lt;/strong&gt;, which cover the history of the Jewish people, including the establishment of their kingdom, and various (somewhat frustrating) cycles of turning away from God, punishment for their transgressions, repentance on the part of the people, and healing by God, only to have the people turn from Him and start the cycle anew.  This includes Joshua through Esther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;The Catholic Bible also includes 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Orthodox Bible includes, 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees, as well as 1 Esdras.  Protestants consider these non-canonical, and if they are included at all, they will usually be in a separate section called &quot;Apocrypha&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The events in these books are chronological as well, with the exception that the events of 1 &amp;amp; 2 Kings (also called 3rd and 4th Samuel in older traditions) are repeated in 1 &amp;amp; 2 Chronicles. The difference between Kings &amp;amp; Chronicles is that Kings focuses on the Kings, and Chronicles on the Temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, in the Hebrew Bible, the &quot;Ketu'vim&quot; is placed after the Prophets (the Nevi'im) and thus the Hebrew Bible ends with the Temple in 2 Chronicles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Next are the &lt;strong&gt;books of writings&lt;/strong&gt;, sometimes called &lt;strong&gt;Poetic Writings&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;Books of Wisdom&lt;/strong&gt;.  This includes Job,Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Again, the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles include extra books here: Wisdom and Sirach&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These books are in no particular order - indeed both Psalms and Proverbs are merely collections and are not even chronological within themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The remainder of the Old Testament is made up of &lt;strong&gt;prophetic books&lt;/strong&gt;, broken up into the &lt;strong&gt;Major Prophets&lt;/strong&gt; (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel) and the &lt;strong&gt;Minor Prophets&lt;/strong&gt; (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Major prophets are roughly in chronological order, although there is an argument about Isaiah actually being two books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Minor prophets collectively are smaller than Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, and were often bound together in a single scroll. These books are specifically &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; in any chronological order, but rather are ordered the way they are based on the ending words of one book leading into the start of the next.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Within the New Testament, the books are grouped as follows:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Four Gospels&lt;/strong&gt; (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) which tell of Christ's birth, life, teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection from four different perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, it was believed that Matthew was the first to be written, followed by Mark, then Luke, the John. Modern scholars now often believe in what is called Marcan priority, meaning that Mark predates Matthew - both consensus solidly places John to be the last Gospel to be written.  The events of the 4 Gospels are all roughly contemporaneous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next comes the &lt;strong&gt;Book of Acts&lt;/strong&gt; (or Acts of the Apostles), which begin with a resurrected Christ, and give an overview of the birth of the Christian Church.  The various missionary trips, and some basic doctrines are established in the telling of these lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is very little doubt that Acts is a sequel to Luke, written by the same author, but about the events that occurred after the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Next come the &lt;strong&gt;Epistles&lt;/strong&gt;.  These are letters that were written to specific Churches by various authors.  There are Specific Epistles, and Generic Epistles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First come the &lt;strong&gt;Specific Epistles&lt;/strong&gt;: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews.  Each serves as a message to speak to an individual group of people in that exact place and time, but also apply to every people since then, including today.  The Epistles are named after the group of people they were written to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the exception of Hebrews, these are all written by Paul (the Church erroneously attributed Hebrews to Paul) or a person claiming to be Paul.  These books are ordered by length, and length alone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Following these come the &lt;strong&gt;General Epistles&lt;/strong&gt;: James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within each author, these are also ordered by length.  2 Peter and Jude are so similar that they are often treated as the same book.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the &lt;strong&gt;Book of the Revelation&lt;/strong&gt; is the main prophetic work in the New Testament (although many of the other books contain prophecy as well.)  It is largely symbolic in nature, and interpretations vary, but it speaks to the end times, and the establishment of Christ's final rule, and the creation of a new Heaven and a new Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2014-08-01T15:20:12.943" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10110" CreationDate="2012-10-08T04:44:02.143" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Practice of the Presence of God&lt;/em&gt; is one of a variety of different Christian &quot;classics&quot; which really cross denominational boundaries (&lt;em&gt;Imitation of Christ&lt;/em&gt; might be another). Since the truths it discusses are universal to Christianity and because there is very little in the document which &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be Catholic, its benefits are generally considered to far outweigh the detriments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, here is a counter question: if it is acceptable to read documents by other Protestant traditions/denominations, why is it unacceptable to read Catholic material as well? From the perspective of a devout Calvinist, Bonhoeffer got some things dead wrong, but he was recommended reading in my Presbyterian Church. C. S. Lewis is an Anglican, but you'll often see Baptists reading &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt;. Chesterton is a Catholic, but &lt;em&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt; is one of the better apologetics texts in the English language. If all of these alternate theologians are acceptable, why is it unacceptable to read the writings of a humble monk on how to live one's life? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T04:44:02.143" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10133" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10146" CreationDate="2012-10-08T07:55:38.073" Score="4" ViewCount="713" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1611/are-inter-faith-marriages-prohibited-by-the-bible&quot;&gt;Are inter-faith marriages prohibited by the Bible?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1st &amp;amp; 2nd Corinthians speak of how Christians should not be &quot;unequally yolked&quot; in marriage to non-Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where else does the Bible talk about marriage to non-Christians?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T15:35:41.283" Title="Where does the Bible talk about marriage to non-Christians?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-10-09T02:06:37.250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10134" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10142" CreationDate="2012-10-08T08:25:28.380" Score="11" ViewCount="427" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the LDS teaching is that polygamy  is acceptable, in this mortal life, only when God decides to permit it, and that God has done so twice so far in history (1) during Biblical times (2) during the early history of the LDS church, from when Joseph Smith introduced the practice in the 1830s until the Manifesto of 1890. So offshoots of the LDS church which continue the practice today, are in the LDS belief, disobeying God, by practising polygamy  when He has not allowed it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is then, to what extent could a person express support polygamy without being considered a transgressor by the LDS church? I know that any actual practice of polygamy today is considered transgression by the LDS church, as does any expression of support for that practice continuing today (even though one does not practice it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I can conceive of several ways in which a person could be &quot;pro-polygamy&quot; without practising it today or advocating its practice today:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A person could express the hope (privately or publicly) that God will soon allow it &#xA;again&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A person could pray (privately or publicly) that God would allow it again soon (such &#xA;as by revealing to the President of the Church to that effect)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A person could advocate that current laws against polygamy be repealed, and that &#xA;polygamy be legally recognised. That would not necessarily entail supporting the &#xA;present-day practice of polygamy, since it is entirely possible, and not uncommon,&#xA;to advocate that an act morally ought not to be done, yet at the same time advocate&#xA;that it be legal. Also, insofar as one of the motivations for God revoking permission&#xA;for polygamy was legal opposition, the removal of that opposition might hasten God to&#xA;grant permission for it again&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a member of the LDS church took positions similar to the above, would they be likely to be considered transgression?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastEditorUserId="2263" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T07:52:22.460" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T13:06:29.597" Title="To what degree could a person be &quot;pro-polygamy&quot; yet still obey the LDS church?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;polygamy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10135" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10139" CreationDate="2012-10-08T08:37:03.463" Score="7" ViewCount="12405" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Genesis &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19:30-38&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;19:30-38&lt;/a&gt;, when &lt;em&gt;Lot&lt;/em&gt; escaped out of &lt;em&gt;Zoar&lt;/em&gt;, he went up to the mountains and settled in a cave. While in there, his daughters seduced him while he was drunk so that they could bear children and save their family line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean saving one's family line is/was so important that you could have sex with your own offspring? Was Lot really drunk to a point that he didn't know what he was doing? Were the daughters wrong to do it? If so, why didn't Lot take any action afterward?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2261" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T17:01:06.437" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T17:01:06.437" Title="Why did Lot's daughters seduce their father?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;incest&gt;&lt;lot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="15" ClosedDate="2015-10-01T08:07:23.843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10137" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10152" CreationDate="2012-10-08T09:57:03.330" Score="11" ViewCount="35098" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:15-26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 19:15–26 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city.” &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;And as they brought them out, one said, “Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away.”&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords. &lt;sup&gt;19&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die. &lt;sup&gt;20&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there—is it not a little one?—and my life will be saved!” &lt;sup&gt;21&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;h3&gt;God Destroys Sodom&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. &lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. &lt;sup&gt;25&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The text doesn't answer or indicate why Lot's wife looked back, and Googling the question doesn't really turn up very much that's useful. Is there anything in the doctrines of Protestant denominations (the closer to Wesleyan, the better) that explains why Lot's wife looked back?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-25T18:44:57.327" LastActivityDate="2015-09-25T18:44:57.327" Title="Why did Lot's wife look back?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;sodom&gt;&lt;lot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10138" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-08T11:55:36.960" Score="2" ViewCount="2135" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to these verses and others, God/Jesus purchased/redeemed us with his blood&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 5:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book,&#xA;  and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed&#xA;  us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people,&#xA;  and nation;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 20:28&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit&#xA;  has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he&#xA;  bought with his own blood&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who was the receiving party -  I mean the blood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T12:44:27.880" Title="Jesus Christ purchased us with his blood - parties involved" Tags="&lt;atonement&gt;&lt;blood-of-christ&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-06-25T13:56:05.477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10135" CreationDate="2012-10-08T11:57:05.030" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no denomination or teaching that I'm aware of that approves of this.  Your question shows a lack of understanding of the basic nature of that the Bible &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; a collection of stories, showing heroes in a positive light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; a collection of books including teachings, but also, largely in the Old Testament in the Pentateuch and the Books of History, a book of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;history&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  In a historical book, at least one that is honest and accurate, the failures, frailties, and sins of the people chronicled are not covered up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lot's daughters are not the  only ones whose sin is shown.  Adam and Eve eating the apple, David's sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's pride, lust, and disobedience, and hundreds of others.  The Bible includes these sins because they happened, not because they are somehow approved of.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Far from it, in most of the cases, there are repercussions.  Perhaps not immediate, but they happen.  This is in line with God's nature.  He often gives people the chance to repent of their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count&#xA;  slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any&#xA;  should perish, but that all should come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-10-08T12:17:35.870" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T12:17:35.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10138" CreationDate="2012-10-08T12:44:27.880" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This seems to be a misunderstanding of terms on your part.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember first that our English translations often miss nuances in translation.  Words carry different meanings.  These phrases are generally understood to mean that Jesus &lt;em&gt;paid the price&lt;/em&gt; for our sins.  That &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; certainly connote the idea of a purchase in the normal sense, as in &quot;I paid for my groceries&quot;.  However, it's generally understood in the same sense as a criminal &lt;em&gt;paying the price&lt;/em&gt; for his crimes, as in going to jail, being executed, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless I'm mistaken (and I'd be interested to see references that say otherwise) there isn't any major group in Christianity that actually views these as speaking as a transaction with a buyer and a seller.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, it's an expression of the fact that there is a price attached to sin.  It's a price we sinners can never pay, and since we can't, Christ paid it for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T12:44:27.880" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10134" CreationDate="2012-10-08T13:27:35.937" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edits:&lt;/strong&gt; So, after the question changed... here's the answer to the new question; my original answer is below... though they do mingle some similar points and should both be considered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer reflects my own thoughts on the matter, but I'm of course no clergy in the LDS Church...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;New Answer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS Church doesn't hold &lt;em&gt;opinions&lt;/em&gt; against anyone. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. However, as Christ teaches, we are on safer and higher moral ground when we align our thoughts, hopes, desires, and actions with those of the Savior's. When these are in harmony, there is peace and happiness. When there is friction, often there is temptation and a slippery slope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS Church teaches to stay away from the edge, not see how close you can get to it. In general, I would expect this thinking/hoping to be strongly discouraged by the LDS Church...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question (now) is more about whether the thoughts/desires are transgression of the law or acting out is transgression of the law. However, still the same as my answer below about excommunication, it varies per circumstance and no one can judge but a judge in Israel (again, in LDS theology this is a bishop) and the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see little difference between this type of thinking and the thinking of something like, &quot;I hope that I can lay with that woman&quot; -- or -- &quot;I want God to tell me to sleep with her.&quot; These thoughts, of course, are (implicitly) adulterous, and this in the heart is also a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/4.30&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prophet in the Book of Mormon warns&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;30&lt;/strong&gt; But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, and this makes reference to a piece from earlier and below, the temple recommend interview questions include a question about &lt;em&gt;sympathizing&lt;/em&gt; with groups or individuals who have teachings contrary to the Church. For Mormons to be able to enter the temple, they must make sure this is not the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Original Answer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see this question as more about excommunication than polygamy, essentially wondering, &quot;How close to the edge can you get without falling off?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Naturally, LDS Church leaders have taught against this mentality: stay well within the bounds of the Lord's commandments. Some risks are just not worth taking. Jesus taught this in His higher law: Don't merely love your friends and hate your enemies, but bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. Also His command to not merely not kill somebody, but do not even be angry with them. Stay well away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Above, you present 3 ways in which somebody might tread too close. In situations 1 and 2, the thoughts or desires of the person is contrary to God's commandments, but is not actually acting outright, as the person still apparently wants to stay within the bounds the Lord has set. This behavior of course, requires repentance, as the person is asking either for permission to break God's law or for God to change His law. Martin Harris did the same thing during the restoration of the Church with the 116 pages which became lost in consequence. God commanded both Him &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; Joseph Smith to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all of the above situations, especially the third, the person could potentially be acting out publicly: by means of political activism, or groups or &quot;clubs&quot; or other various ways of expressing his opinion publicly or to rally others for a cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the temple recommend interview questions, a person is asked something like if they are affiliated with, support, or sympathize with any groups or individuals which oppose Church teachings. Of course, temple worthiness is on the far opposite end of the spectrum from excommunication: one who may not enter the temple may not be near disciplinary action. This question is in place for a very important reason, though (obviously) -- one cannot have one foot in Zion and another in Babylon: a house divided against itself will fall. The person, acting in public on his desires, and thus &lt;em&gt;acting upon&lt;/em&gt; the temptation to desire that which is contrary to the Lord's commandments, is probably committing sin...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, excommunication is a personal ordeal for which its reasons vary widely, but in general it is done only to help the person repent and suffer less condemnation in the process. I cannot say whether the person in any of the 3 scenarios above would be excommunicated, except that I think, &lt;em&gt;probably not&lt;/em&gt;, unless the person knew full well what he was doing was contrary to the Lord's commandments and he was coming out in open rebellion against God, was setting a bad image for members of the Church and the Church itself, and was essentially ruining his own life and trying to bring others down in the process. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is rarer than than common for sure, as everyone is tempted to do evil: it is acting on it, and the degree and circumstances upon which we do the action, that is all considered to be needful of repentance, and only the Lord and His appointed judges in Israel (in LDS teaching, the Priesthood leaders such as bishops) can really judge. I'm sure that a bishop would counsel with a member who is indulging in such thought or activity, but disciplinary action entirely depends on the situation, and again, is more rare than common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1&lt;/a&gt; (Official Declaration 1, about practicing polygamy, by Wilford Woodruff.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/polygamy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/polygamy&lt;/a&gt; (Newsroom article: Polygamy)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/why-is-a-mormon-excommunicated&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/why-is-a-mormon-excommunicated&lt;/a&gt; (About excommunication)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/faq/topic/polygamy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://mormon.org/faq/topic/polygamy&lt;/a&gt; (Do Mormons practice polygamy?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T13:06:29.597" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T13:06:29.597" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10144" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10145" CreationDate="2012-10-08T14:05:45.880" Score="10" ViewCount="3923" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently came across &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=434&amp;amp;commentView=itemComments&quot;&gt;the claim&lt;/a&gt; that 80-90% of people who convert to Christianity will eventually revert to their former beliefs/way of life. While I can't speak to the world at large, my experience is that this number is closer to 40%. I was wondering if there were some actual numbers one could look up to confirm this. I was also wondering if there were a way to somehow subtract the number of people marrying into the faith (as that accounts for a number of baptisms/confirmations too).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-10-08T14:22:58.917" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T16:49:23.953" Title="Are there any real statistics on how many people fall away?" Tags="&lt;conversion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10144" CreationDate="2012-10-08T14:57:13.113" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It would appear that the answer to your question that is reliable, and applicable across the board, is a resounding &quot;no&quot;. Within denominational or individual Church/affiliation boundaries, there are plenty, but the numbers vary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Explanation of the short answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found several sources that give &quot;fall away rates&quot; with varying degrees of source citations.&#xA;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.frontlinemin.org/decisionism.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.frontlinemin.org/decisionism.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(and I'm not sure if these numbers are trustworthy - a number of them are vague and dont' give the Church, Crusade, denomination, at all.  They could easily be fabricated.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Charles E. Hackett, the division of home missions national director for the Assemblies of God in the U.S. said, “A soul at the altar does&#xA;  not generate much excitement in some circles because we realize&#xA;  approximately ninety-five out of every hundred will not become&#xA;  integrated into the church. In fact, most of them will not return for&#xA;  a second visit.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In his book Today’s Evangelism, Ernest C. Reisinger said of one outreach event, “It lasted eight days, and there were sixty-eight&#xA;  supposed conversions.” A month later, not one of the “converts” could&#xA;  be found.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 1991, organizers of a Salt Lake City concert encouraged follow-up. They said, “Less then 5 percent of those who respond to an&#xA;  altar call during a public crusade . . . are living a Christian life&#xA;  one year later.” In other words, more than 95 percent proved to be&#xA;  false converts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A pastor in Boulder, Colorado, sent a team to Russia in 1991 and obtained 2,500 decisions. The next year, the team found only thirty&#xA;  continuing in their faith. That’s a retention rate of 1.2 percent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In November 1970, a number of churches combined for a convention in Fort Worth, Texas, and secured 30,000 decisions. Six months later, the&#xA;  follow-up committee could only find thirty continuing in their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A mass crusade reported 18,000 decisions—yet, according to Church Growth magazine, 94 percent failed to become incorporated into a local&#xA;  church.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Sacramento, California, a combined crusade yielded more than 2,000 commitments. One church followed up on fifty-two of those&#xA;  decisions and couldn’t find one true convert.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;A leading U.S. denomination reported that during 1995 they secured 384,057 decisions but retained only 22,983 in fellowship. They&#xA;  couldn’t account for 361,074 supposed conversions. That’s a 94 percent&#xA;  fall-away rate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In the March/April 1993 issue of American Horizon, the national director of home missions of a major U.S. denomination disclosed that&#xA;  in 1991, 11,500 churches had obtained 294,784 decisions for Christ.&#xA;  Unfortunately, they could find only 14,337 in fellowship. That means&#xA;  that despite the usual intense follow-up, they couldn’t account for&#xA;  approximately 280,000 of their “converts.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But another source gives different statistics, way off from the ones above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(and still, I wonder where they get their numbers.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblicalinsights.net/Book%20Reviews/Falling%20Away.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://biblicalinsights.net/Book%20Reviews/Falling%20Away.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In chapter one, Simmons establishes the reality of falling away.&#xA;  Reliable surveys have  been done which show an apostasy rate as high&#xA;  as 40% among adult American Christians.  Others show a rate as low as&#xA;  10-15%. The average apostasy rate is 25% (3). Catholics have a higher&#xA;  apostasy rate than Protestants. In the Church of Christ faith&#xA;  tradition, the apostasy rate is 50% for individuals 18 to 25 years old&#xA;  (3). It is estimated that over 75% of all Mormons will fall away from&#xA;  the faith at some point in their lives (3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the anecdotal evidence supplied from the teaching you linked to in your question, Mr. Comfort gives the source for that particular statistic as a copy of American Horizons Magazine, the official magazine of the Church in question. (Coincidentally, the last one in my first bulleted list...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://internet-churches.com/true-false.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://internet-churches.com/true-false.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I was reading in the American Horizons magazine, which is the official&#xA;  magazine of a very large, or a major, denomination of the United&#xA;  States which has 11,500 churches throughout the US - in 1991, their&#xA;  first year of what they called “the decade of harvest,” they got&#xA;  294,000 decisions for Christ. They found that only 14,000 remained in&#xA;  fellowship. That is, they couldn’t account for 279,000 of their&#xA;  decisions for Jesus. And this is normal modern evangelical statistics&#xA;  when it comes to crusades and local churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as for an official, scientific study, or a survey that follows real methods, I find no evidence.  It would appear that the numbers are based on anecdotal evidence, or as Mr. Comfort states. &quot;Church records&quot; - records shared from Pastors at Churches.   Even in the &lt;em&gt;Hell's Best Kept Secret&lt;/em&gt; teaching, he states that the number is based on Church records that he has had access to. He never claims that this is a universally applicable statistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is, at least, feasible.  I know that in our Church, we keep records of those who have prayed the sinner's prayer, and we have records of who is still in attendance, and who has left, and for what reason. (Church discipline, asked to be removed from membership, etc.)  I'm sure if I talked to my Pastor, I could come up with a calculation for our own Church's &quot;fall away rate&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But is that indicative of the fall-away rate for Christianity as a whole?  no.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And given the fractured nature of Christianity, and even the difficulty in defining what &quot;falling away&quot; really means, I'd say it's not feasible to get such results. How would you define &quot;falling away&quot;?  No longer attending Church? What about those that don't attend a Church at all, but are active in prayer, evangelism, and just don't want to go to a local Church?  If not based on active Church membership, then what?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-08T16:49:23.953" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T16:49:23.953" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10133" CreationDate="2012-10-08T15:35:41.283" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The history of the Israelites from the period of Joshua through the Kings is one big warning about intermarrying with other peoples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joshua adjures the people not to let any men, women, or children in Canaan survive, lest they be a temptation.  (Indeed, Rahab is singled out &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to be killed* as the exception.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Solomon is chastised for taking concubines from other lands&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jezebel, the wife of Ahab is a constant source of temptation to go to other gods, especially Baal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ruth is seen as extraordinary, being a Moabite, but nonetheless willing to become a Jew for inclusion in the promise.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In every case during this period where foreign wives are mentioned, it is considered a bad thing. Only where foreign wives are willing to drop their identity and join the people of the Land is it ever commended in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T15:35:41.283" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2012-10-08T18:36:29.797" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The breadth of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus'&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; message is that if we found ourselves in any position that we thought killing would be OK - The correct response would be to actually love that person instead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The life of the &lt;strong&gt;human body&lt;/strong&gt; is irrelevant to the &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt; life of the &lt;strong&gt;spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;** &lt;strong&gt;We are to Kill the spirit of evil in that person with love.&lt;/strong&gt; **&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Don't forget, evil spirits are transferable and contagious.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean that if they will continue to be a danger to others that they can't be locked up but to kill is the enemy winning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To love is God winning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy. But I came to give&#xA;  life—life that is full and good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John 10:10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Moses gave you the law, right? But you don’t obey that law. If you&#xA;  do, then why are you trying to kill me?” -Jesus - John 7:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 10:28 (NET) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but&#xA;  cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy&#xA;  both soul and body in hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The life of the human body is irrelevant to the eternal life of the spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other answers here are earthly perspectives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which would you rather be - enter the next world from natural causes a few years after killing your enemy or enter the next world killed by your enemy but without murder on your hands ??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus died for His enemies. We are suppose to be little Christs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 9:55: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-9-55.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-9-55.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But he turned and rebuked them.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He turned himself about to them, and&#xA;  looking upon them with a stern countenance, sharply reproved them for&#xA;  their intemperate zeal, their passion of wrath, and anger, and desire&#xA;  of revenge:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;and said, ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  or do not&#xA;  consider that this is not the true spirit of zeal, but of anger and&#xA;  revenge; and is not agreeable to the spirit of the meek and humble&#xA;  followers of Christ, or to the Spirit of God, and those gifts of his&#xA;  bestowed on them, nor to the spirit of the Gospel dispensation: so&#xA;  good men, for want of attention, may not know sometimes from what&#xA;  spirit they act; taking that for a good one, which is a very bad one;&#xA;  being covered with specious pretenses of love and zeal, and the&#xA;  examples of former saints; not observing the difference of persons;&#xA;  times, and things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Love Your Enemies&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 “But I say to you people who are listening to me, love your&#xA;  enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 28 Ask God to bless the people&#xA;  who ask for bad things to happen to you. Pray for the people who are&#xA;  mean to you. 29 If someone hits you on the side of your face, let them&#xA;  hit the other side too. If someone takes your coat, don’t stop them&#xA;  from taking your shirt too. 30 Give to everyone who asks you for&#xA;  something. When someone takes something that is yours, don’t ask for&#xA;  it back. 31 Do for others what you want them to do for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 “If you love only those who love you, should you get any special&#xA;  praise for doing that? No, even sinners love those who love them! 33&#xA;  If you do good only to those who do good to you, should you get any&#xA;  special praise for doing that? No, even sinners do that! 34 If you&#xA;  lend things to people, always expecting to get something back, should&#xA;  you get any special praise for that? No, even sinners lend to other&#xA;  sinners so that they can get back the same amount!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 “I’m telling you to love your enemies and do good to them. Lend to&#xA;  people without expecting to get anything back. If you do this, you&#xA;  will have a great reward. You will be children of the Most High God.&#xA;  Yes, because God is good even to the people who are full of sin and&#xA;  not thankful. 36 Give love and mercy the same as your Father gives&#xA;  love and mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Jesus continued to say to all of them, “Any of you who want to be&#xA;  my follower must stop thinking about yourself and what you want. You&#xA;  must be willing to carry the cross that is given to you every day for&#xA;  following me. 24 &lt;strong&gt;Any of you who try to save the life you have will&#xA;  lose it&lt;/strong&gt;. But you who give up your life for me will save it. 25 It is&#xA;  worth nothing for you to have the whole world if you yourself are&#xA;  destroyed or lost. 26 Don’t be ashamed of me and my teaching. If that&#xA;  happens, I[a] will be ashamed of you when I come with my divine&#xA;  greatness and that of the Father and the holy angels. 27 Believe me&#xA;  when I say that some of you people standing here will see God’s&#xA;  kingdom before you die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry but this commandment means exactly what it says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God and Jesus are telling us &lt;strong&gt;not to take life in any context&lt;/strong&gt; or situation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is all powerful and perfect - if he want's someone gone &lt;strong&gt;He can do it himself&lt;/strong&gt;, He can wipe out an entire continent or the world with a flood if needed. I don't think I need a reference for that one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that said, &lt;strong&gt;why would we think we need to kill any one in any context&lt;/strong&gt;, innocent, non-innocent, enemy, friend, slay in war, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That would be taking the matter into our own hands and &lt;strong&gt;not trusting God&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God can change a killing situation in a second:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two&#xA;  edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,&#xA;  and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the  thoughts and&#xA;  intents of the heart.&quot; (Hebrews 4:12 KJV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is also trying to protect us from being killed:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for&#xA;  all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew&#xA;  26:52, King James Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The commandment is also reiterated from Jesus' mouth.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Matthew 19: 16-18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 A man came to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do&#xA;  to have &lt;strong&gt;eternal life&lt;/strong&gt;?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Jesus answered, “Why do you ask me about what is good? Only God is&#xA;  good. But if you want to have eternal life, obey the law’s commands.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 The man asked, “Which ones?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus answered&lt;/strong&gt;, “‘&lt;strong&gt;You must not murder anyone&lt;/strong&gt;, you must not commit&#xA;  adultery, you must not steal, you must not tell lies about others, 19&#xA;  you must respect your father and mother,’[e] and ‘love your&#xA;  neighbor[f] the same as you love yourself.’[g]”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 20:13 (KJV) Thou shalt not kill.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that there are no unless, or if this, or that...etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament commands to fight wicked nations, but that does not apply in the New Testament. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15/do-we-have-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-bible-if-so-what-laws/506#506&quot;&gt;For example&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church teaches that the Law of Moses (the Old Law) is a&#xA;  preparation for the Gospel, and as such no longer binding. The New Law&#xA;  (the Law of Gospel) is a perfection of it, given through faith in&#xA;  Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is an example of a perfect part: Jesus specifically tells us at the Sermon on the mound we should &lt;strong&gt;not stand up for ourselves&lt;/strong&gt; and that we should pray for such people. When Jesus returns He will then take care of the wicked or will call us to help Him. It is very hard to accept. (Do I personally think I could do it in all situations, I do not know...but looking at Jesus the answer is there.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We forget &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strong&gt;IS GOD&lt;/strong&gt; - FROM GODS MOUTH: read carefully:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a&#xA;  tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever&#xA;  slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone&#xA;  wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.&#xA;  Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who&#xA;  asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from&#xA;  you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor&#xA;  and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for&#xA;  those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:39-44)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doesn't leave much room for killing. Some say it is Jesus using a hyperbole but if He was he would have said so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/14/frazier-glenn-cross-racist-religion/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;violent white KKK Christians&lt;/a&gt;&quot; are leaning more towards what Jesus was trying to say here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Odinism has lately gained in popularity among white supremacists who&#xA;  believe that Jesus is too peaceful and too Jewish to worship, White&#xA;  said. &quot;It's hard to get a violent god out of Jesus.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As followers in Christ, we do not belong to any country, we belong to our Lord. We are told to obey them but not if it contradicts the word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So being a Christian and in the Military IN A POSITION OF KILLING is not really a Christian concept. There are may Christians who during WWII refused to carry a weapon and were pushed into medical care and other service positions.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2014-06-16T07:18:55.443" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10150" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10184" CreationDate="2012-10-08T19:11:04.210" Score="24" ViewCount="142542" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know the word &quot;tithe&quot; has &quot;tenth&quot; built into it, and so some Christians assume that every usage of the word &quot;tithe&quot; in Scripture is referring to &quot;giving 10% of your gross income to the church.&quot;  But I also know that &quot;tithes&quot; in the Old Testament did not refer to this at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They only &quot;tithed&quot; on food (livestock and crops); they had money (i.e. &quot;income&quot;), but the &quot;tithes&quot; did not apply to that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The food went to the Levites, Priests, and needy people - none of whom had land of their own by which they could feed themselves.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Tithes&quot; were not required of everyone - only those who raised livestock or grew crops.  For example, carpenters weren't required to tithe, nor were the Priests and needy people.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly these things have application today; I am not challenging the idea of providing for ministers and needy people with cheerfulness and generosity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: When did the Church begin to understand &quot;tithing&quot; as &quot;giving 10% of your gross income to the Church&quot;?  Clearly this is not what it meant in the Old Testament, and I don't see anything in the New Testament to indicate that the term was redefined by Jesus or the Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, I am not asking &lt;em&gt;whether&lt;/em&gt; this is a good interpretation (or application, for that matter).  I am also not looking for unsupported claims about how &quot;it has always been understood this way, even by Jesus and the Apostles.&quot;  My question is about &lt;em&gt;Church History;&lt;/em&gt; please support your claim with references to &lt;em&gt;historical records.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-09-06T18:43:28.560" LastActivityDate="2016-09-06T18:50:15.887" Title="When did &quot;tithing&quot; come to mean &quot;giving 10% of your gross income to the Church&quot;?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;tithe&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10150" CreationDate="2012-10-08T19:20:35.940" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tithing has its roots in the Levitical law. In Leviticus 27, it states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord. 31 If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it. 32 The entire tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd’s rod—will be holy to the Lord. 33 He must not pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this would have represented the sum total of wealth in those days, it is a fair transition to extend other forms of wealth.  The land (&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel#Etymology_and_biblical_roots&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ha'Aretz&lt;/a&gt;) is the source of wealth.  Anything else is derivative therefrom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that 10% must be set apart and given to the Lord, via the priest.  (My understanding is that in Jewish Law, ten men can form a synagogue. If each of the 10 fulfills his vow, then the priest has enough to live on as well.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the church grew out of a Jewish culture, tithing is simply a carryover from OT law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regard to the question, &quot;Do you tithe on your gross or your net?&quot; no less a figure than Larry Burkett (Crown Financial) used to respond by asking, &quot;Do you want God to bless you on your gross or net?&quot; There is not an exact prescription for tithing in Scripture (unlike, say, in Islam). Rather, the principle is derived from Malachi 3:10, in which God says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,&quot; says the LORD Almighty, &quot;and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That such a question still exists shows that there is no formal &quot;ruling&quot; on the matter, and that tithing is as much custom as command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-09-06T18:50:15.887" LastActivityDate="2016-09-06T18:50:15.887" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10137" CreationDate="2012-10-08T20:25:30.517" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus refers to this episode in Luke 17. Here are verses 28-33 in the NIV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She is used here as an example of people who are too attached to their old life, indicating that she looked back in regret for what she was losing. There is a double meaning: attachment to physical goods, and to the unregenerate life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Wesley's &lt;em&gt;Explanatory notes upon the Old Testament&lt;/em&gt; (1765), which is surely as Wesleyan as could possibly be expected, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Probably she hankered after her house and goods in Sodom, and was loath to leave them. Christ intimates this to be her sin, she too much regarded her stuff. And her looking back spoke an inclination to go back; and therefore our Saviour uses it as a warning against apostasy from our Christian profession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other commentators have made the same interpretation, so it's not exclusive to the Wesleyan school of thought. Here's John Calvin in his Genesis commentary (1563; English translation 1578):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, the desire of looking back proceeded from incredulity; and no greater injury can be done to God, than when credit is denied to his word. Secondly we infer from the words of Christ, that she was moved by some evil desire; and that she did not cheerfully leave Sodom, to hasten to the place whither God called her; for we know that he commands us to remember Lot's wife, lest, indeed, the allurements of the world should draw us aside from the meditation of the heavenly life. It is therefore probable, that she, being discontented with the favor God had granted her, glided into unholy desires, of which thing also her tardiness was a sign; for Moses intimates that she was following after her husband, when he says, that she looked back from behind him; for she did not look back towards him; but because by the slowness of her pace, she was less advanced, she, therefore, was behind him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and here's Augustine in &lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt; 16.30 (5th century):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For what is meant by the angels forbidding those who were delivered to look back, but that we are not to look back in heart to the old life which, being regenerated through grace, we have put off, if we think to escape the last judgment? Lot's wife, indeed, when she looked back, remained, and, being turned into salt, furnished to believing men a condiment by which to savor somewhat the warning to be drawn from that example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T20:25:30.517" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10080" CreationDate="2012-10-08T22:35:47.127" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;General Conference is a meeting held twice a year for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or Mormons).  It is held on a Saturday and a Sunday where the Prophet on earth today gets to speak to the world and apostles and other authorities of the church speak as well. It is a great meeting and if you haven't watched it, you definitely should! It happens the first week of April and the first week of October. It's amazing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2267" LastActivityDate="2012-10-08T22:35:47.127" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1400" CreationDate="2012-10-09T00:41:41.043" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Jehovah Witness teaching, we are currently under the rule of Satan, not that of God (Jehovah). We see the horrid state of the world now as proof that we need God's kingdom to come here on earth as it is in heaven. We also believe that that time is almost here when there will be no more disease, famine, hatred, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989274?q=born%20suffering&amp;amp;p=par%29.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; for more information and Bible Scripture explaining why we believe there is suffering in this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2270" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-10-09T08:05:29.617" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T08:05:29.617" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10157" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10158" CreationDate="2012-10-09T02:04:04.197" Score="1" ViewCount="681" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do Young Earth Creationists defend their beliefs against articles like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://gizmodo.com/5950032/holy-crap-heres-a-100+million+year+old-spider-eating-a-wasp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;100 million year old spider eating a wasp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;100 million years ago, when dinosaurs were still around, this spider&#xA;  had captured a wasp in his web. The wasp was going to be the spider's&#xA;  dinner. The wasp was going to die watching the spider kill him. The&#xA;  wasp was going to—SPLAT. At that exact moment—one hundred million&#xA;  freaking years ago—tree resin flowed over on top of them and froze the&#xA;  two bugs in time for us to see now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-09T12:08:56.490" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T09:46:35.007" Title="How do Young Earth Creationists counter scientific evidence for an old earth?" Tags="&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-12-12T23:46:15.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10157" CreationDate="2012-10-09T02:59:23.123" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10157/how-do-young-earth-creationists-counter-scientific-evidence#comment28485_10157&quot;&gt;@El'endia Starman's comment&lt;/a&gt; is correct.  One of the common assumptions of the young-earth position is that the dating methods that give us billions or millions of years of history are flawed.  I could give hundreds links to support the statement that this is a well-accepted assumption among YEC-ists, but I'll limit myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/dating-methods&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/dating-methods&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm#11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm#11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We'd also counter with &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v26/n2/missing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;If the dating methods are so accurate, how is it the  coelacanth stayed un-evolved for millions of years?&lt;/a&gt;&quot;  and a whole host of other similar questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also point out that the article makes no mention of how the author came to the conclusion that the thing is 100 million years old.  It just states it as if it were undisputed fact with no evidence to back it up, which wouldn't even fly here, as there's no supporting references.  We don't even need to bring up the dating methods for this article. We could just ask where that figure comes from.  (Then we'd need to debunk the dating methods.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer could and probably should end with the above, but in the interest of stemming the all-but-inevitable debate in comments, I'd like to add...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;None of which proves anything, either way.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;   All such questions do is lead to endless pointless debate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither side is likely to throw aside our presuppositions to give credit to the opposing side.  To the atheist, the idea of allowing for supernatural explanations is incomprehensible.  For the YEC Creationist, there'&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10051/why-do-young-earth-creationists-make-such-a-big-deal-about-the-yec-view&quot;&gt;s nothing less than the entire foundation for Christianity at stake&lt;/a&gt;.  And of course, in between those two polar opposite views are hundreds of shades of differences, concern, and apathy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;And note, I did not state that evolution is true or false, I was very careful to stick to &quot;How do YEC defend&quot; not &quot;Is the YEC view true&quot;, despite my well-known opinions on the matter.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1379/what-christianity-stackexchange-is-and-more-importantly-what-it-isnt/1380#1380&quot;&gt;This isn't the place to debate which position on origins is true.&lt;/a&gt;  I answered only because this asked specifically how a certain group within Christianity typically responds to the given statement.  &quot;How they respond&quot; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; answerable objectively.  ;-).&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T07:40:24.350" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2900" CreationDate="2012-10-09T04:44:00.457" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting to me that no one has mentioned how common it is for persons in psychotic states to take on religious themes in their ramblings. Some think they are God, many talk about the things of God and many cling to the Bible and scripture with obsession.  Someone I love has a mental illness.  How I know for sure she was not &quot;demon possessed&quot; is that she took on this amazingly moral personality that went overboard on all she had read in the bible.  She talked constantly about what the bible said and made decisions for religous reasons she wouldn't normally make.  She was definately demonstrating symptoms of psychosis where she would check in and out of reality, giggle loudly one minute and cry the next.  One thing remained and it was her obsession with reading her bible and talking about Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in my view--mental illness is NOT demon possession.  But were the behaviors described in the bible demon possession?  or simply what we have learned today to call mental illness.  Jesus spoke of the illness by telling demons to &quot;leave&quot; and God's word calls it demon possession.  So I am inclined to think there is such a thing as demonic possession, or at least there was in Jesus' time on earth.  What we know about human behavior is that it is basically sinful, so if your brain doesn't work right--you will engage in sinful behaviors. It seems to me that the devil can have a field day with a person with mental illness because they are so easily tempted and led astray when they are unstable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I could get the demons cast out of my loved one and take away her mental illness, that would be an answered prayer.  But I am afraid her mental illness and that of others is mcuh deeper.  So my bottom line answer to this question is this: Mental illness is NOT demon possession, but some of the situations called demonic possession in the bible appear to be symptoms of mental illness.  Jesus may have called the illness &quot;demons&quot; because that is what the people in that time understood.  Jesus also literally cast demons out of people who were not mentally ill, just possessed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2271" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T04:44:00.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1400" CreationDate="2012-10-09T05:28:12.197" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;People are born into famine and starvation mostly because of the greed of people. There is enough food to go around, but it is used as a weapon or, most recently, to make gasoline via a complex process that uses more energy than it produces. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason that God allows than condition to happen is to draw us closer to him for assistance, and to not rely own our own weak flesh. See Romans 8:18-20.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The suffering we experience now is to prepare us to fully experience the glory to come when we are in the presence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2104" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T05:28:12.197" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10161" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-09T11:48:23.263" Score="-4" ViewCount="820" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is God's nature in simplest terms?  What essential principles governs how God interacts within the trinity and with his creation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="331" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T19:20:18.897" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T19:20:18.897" Title="What is God's nature?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-10-10T20:16:17.427" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10161" CreationDate="2012-10-09T12:14:41.353" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simplest terms? There can be only one answer, I think:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:8&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:16b&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the very heart of &lt;em&gt;who the Christian God is&lt;/em&gt;. To answer the second part of your question; it defines how He interacts within the Trinity&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt;; with him I am well pleased.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3:17&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 3:17&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and with His creation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so &lt;strong&gt;loved&lt;/strong&gt; the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;It also shows why there &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; to be a Trinity. God &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; be love if He is just one Person. Instead, it requires one Person to love Another, and that Love between them is Another (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/unique2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt; and also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:5&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:5&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-10-09T14:39:18.633" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T14:39:18.633" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10161" CreationDate="2012-10-09T12:34:43.190" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In His own words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 3:14 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God said to Moses, &quot;I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the&#xA;  Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in centuries of sudy, we still only have a surface understanding of what that means, who He is, and his essence.  We have, from Scripture, everything we need to understand what He wants us to know about Him, but even in a lifetime of study, our understanding changes somewhat with each pass through the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T12:34:43.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10161" CreationDate="2012-10-09T12:43:10.063" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This, being not a philosophy site where all possible natures are to be debated, I will endeavor to simply state the most fundamental ways in which Christianity knows to describe God. This is, at best, a nearly futile exercise, but we have been given a few guides. First as an illustration of how words will never do him justice, note how he chooses to introduce himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Exodus 3:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; [...] “I am who I am.” [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No explanation. No description. No more. Just &quot;I AM&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, he doesn't leave us hanging. Most significantly, the &quot;I AM&quot; revealed himself in both time and space in the person of Jesus Christ, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;The image of the invisible God&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Through him we catch a glimpse of God, and through his own teachings and affirmations of the OT scriptures we arrive at various ways of expressing what sort of thing God is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:24&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 4:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; God is spirit, [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise we know much about his works, that in turn tell us more about what he is. For example, we know he is the creator of all things. This is referenced many times in Scripture, but here is the corresponding statement from the Nicene Creed, one of the basic statements about what Christians believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe in God, the Father Almighty,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;     the Maker of heaven and earth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise we also know some things about his Character which help fill out the picture. For example we know that he is able to have personal relationships and what characteristics he shows in those relationships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 John 4:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet &quot;love&quot; is just one of his attributes. It is hard to say what is most fundamental about him, but if anything, the only attribute that is constantly emphasized by being repeated three times, would be his holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%206:3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 6:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And one called to another and said: “&lt;strong&gt;Holy, holy, holy&lt;/strong&gt; is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this (and many other Scriptures) we get the idea of a perfect God who transcends many of our measurable attributes like time or space, yet who interacts with physical creation and carries on a relationship with those he has made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more detailed statement comprised of information from many parts of Scripture can be found in the many Creeds and Confessions, such as this except from the Westminster Confession:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html#chap2&quot;&gt;WWCF, Chapter 2, Point 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be remiss to touch on this subject without also mentioning the Trinity. God as he has revealed himself to us is but one being yet he has three persons by which we know him. Again we arrive at this picture through a multitude of references and the words of Jesus himself, yet it is very hard to put into words. One of the most valiant attempts I know of is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/athanasian.html&quot;&gt;The Athanasian Creed&lt;/a&gt;, excerpted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. [...] So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T12:43:10.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10165" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10176" CreationDate="2012-10-09T13:11:46.310" Score="14" ViewCount="3747" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul makes it clear that the following section is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a command from God but his own opinion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but &lt;em&gt;I give my judgment&lt;/em&gt; as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. (1  Corinthians 7:25, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that 1 Corinthians 7:26–40 is not the 'Word of God'? If it is, how can this be explained? If it isn't, doesn't this call some other verses, particularly from the epistles, into question, i.e., that they might be just the writer's opinion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="351" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-06-05T18:30:12.117" LastActivityDate="2018-06-05T18:30:12.117" Title="Is 1 Corinthians 7:26–40 not the 'Word of God'?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2018-06-05T14:26:17.763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="10166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10107" CreationDate="2012-10-09T14:32:31.343" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course when we see a tree we see God holding together, beneath the subatomic level, all the elements necessary for a tree to be.  If God ever decided no longer to sustain the tree, a flower, a cloud, the Devil, then it would cease to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Hebrews 1:3, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact as God sustains all things by his own power even the sinner lives in Christ, yet not inwardly by faith but by his mere existence he proclaims God as he has life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘For in him we live and move and have our being. ’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring. ’ (Acts 17:28, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now it is impossible to imagine God is distant when our breath comes from him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind. (Job 12:10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. W. Tozer wrote an excellent book on the nature of God.  In it he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This idea that God is an absentee engineer running His universe by remote control is all wrong. He is present in perpetual and continuous eagerness, with all the fervor of rapturous love pressing His holy designs. If you don’t feel that way about it, it’s unbelief that makes you feel otherwise; it’s preoccupation with this world. If you would believe God you would know this to be true.&#xA;  The goodness of God means He cannot feel indifferent about anything. People are indifferent, but not God. God either loves with a boundless unremitting energy or He hates with consuming fire. (A.W. Tozer Attributes of God, P44)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The 'laws of nature' simply show that God is fixed in his purposes as his power flows along unchanging rules.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-10-09T14:58:26.903" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T14:58:26.903" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="49" CreationDate="2012-10-09T19:09:14.440" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two ways to approach that commandment. Either it is absolute or it is relative: it can either refer to &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of human life, or some subset of human life. Clearly it cannot be the former as the Torah also allows for the death penalty (before anyone tries to argue, &quot;but Christ says...&quot; or &quot;but the woman caught in adultery...&quot; I will counter that the original question is in reference to the 10 Commandments and their context must be the first place we look for the intended meaning). Therefore it must be some sub-set of humans who should not be killed. We also know (similarly from the Torah) that there were circumstances where war was acceptable, so the original, intended meaning of the commandment cannot be said to include war.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based off of the penal laws of the Old Testament, it actually becomes fairly clear that &quot;kill&quot; here, for a private citizen, must mean wrathfully and willfully (Exo. 21:14) or through negligence (c.f. Exo. 21:28). However, if the person is caught in the commission of a crime, that &quot;killing&quot; is licit (Exo. 22:1). As far as a society is concerned, however, it is clear that both the death penalty and war are not only permitted, but at times even encouraged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, to bring this forward to Christianity. While we cannot deny the admonitions to &quot;turn the other cheek&quot;, &quot;he who is without sin&quot;, and &quot;he who lives by the sword&quot;, it should be noted that there is nothing which actually condemns the legitimate defense of one's household and property. If anything, Christ's use of a whip to injure (what else would the whip do?) the money-lenders in the temple should be seen as an expression that sometimes violence is not only justified, but necessary (Christ always did the best thing, overturning the tables and making a whip, therefore, must have been the best thing).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-10-09T19:09:14.440" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10168" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-09T19:38:33.703" Score="16" ViewCount="7242" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been reading George MacDonald as of late and have heard in a few places that he argues for universalism. I though that had something to do with unitarianism, but in looking it up a tad more, I guess it means the idea that everyone will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this theology considered a heresy to the Catholic Church? If so, when where and why was it condemned? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2020-01-07T18:22:11.370" Title="Does the Catholic Church oppose universalism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;universalism&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10165" CreationDate="2012-10-10T02:07:43.773" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9961/from-a-fundamentalist-viewpoint-what-does-it-mean-to-take-the-bible-literally/9962#9962&quot;&gt;basic rules that Biblical Literalists use&lt;/a&gt; when determining what is to be taken as &quot;literally the Word of God&quot;, we find the basic principle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other&#xA;  sense;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal&#xA;  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the&#xA;  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths&#xA;  indicate clearly otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That makes things pretty simple.  In context, this was an Epistle, which is to day, a letter of instruction to the Church at Corinth.  Literally, Paul is saying that this is something he is speaking &quot;with permission&quot; - that is, the author himself is stating that this is his personal position, not something that the Holy Spirit guided him to write.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it is reasonable to believe and understand that these words were not laid upon Paul by the Holy Spirit, but &quot;by permission&quot; indicates that he had the Holy Spirit's permission to write these things.  That implies he sought out the will of God in these things and found no opposition or reason &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to write these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means, logically, that these verses are &lt;em&gt;not the direct inspiration&lt;/em&gt; of the Holy Spirit, &lt;em&gt;but are not in contradiction&lt;/em&gt; to the will of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is all in line with the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol start=&quot;25&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;no commandment of the Lord: yet . my judgment-I have no express revelation from the Lord commanding it, but I give my judgment&#xA;  (opinion); namely, under the ordinary inspiration which accompanied&#xA;  the apostles in all their canonical writings (compare 1Co 7:40; 1Co&#xA;  14:37; 1Th 4:15). The Lord inspires me in this case to give you only a&#xA;  recommendation, which you are free to adopt or reject-not a positive&#xA;  command. In the second case (1Co 7:10, 11) it was a positive command;&#xA;  for the Lord had already made known His will (Mal 2:14, 15; Mt 5:31,&#xA;  32). In the third case (1Co 7:12), the Old Testament commandment of&#xA;  God to put away strange wives (Ezr 10:3), Paul by the Spirit revokes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again, Clarke's commentary states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have no commandment of the Lord - There is nothing in the sacred&#xA;  writings that directly touches this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet I give my judgment - As every way equal to such commandments had&#xA;  there been any, seeing I have received the teaching of his own Spirit,&#xA;  and have obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful to this heavenly&#xA;  gift, so that it abides with me to lead me into all truth. In this way&#xA;  I think the apostle's words may be safely understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which, of course, would indicate that this &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which leaves the concept of a fully inspired Scripture intact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;So apparently the answer to the question is, not surprisingly, &quot;There seems to be more than one point of view on the subject, neither authoritative.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a sige point, this isn't the only place in 1 Corinthians where such a statement is made.  Verse 6 has a similar statement (KJV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which most commentaries interpret to be referring to the preceding verse, but again, interpret differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T02:37:46.510" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10175" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-10T02:36:19.353" Score="8" ViewCount="7967" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do we describe God? Does He have a shape or form? Is He human-like, a light, or something else? Does He have a shape? What does Christianity say about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-11-28T19:05:01.157" LastActivityDate="2016-06-22T20:39:24.467" Title="What is God's shape or form?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-25T14:00:38.437" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10165" CreationDate="2012-10-10T02:41:56.343" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the things it is important to realize about the Bible is that the authors did not sit down to 'write the Bible'. Books of the Bible have to be taken first as what they were intended by their authors to be - a biography of Jesus, a history of the early church, or a letter to one of the churches. Yes, God did inspire those authors to write something that would be infallible and of eternal value, but he did not simply dictate a message for all people for all time which Paul or whoever then wrote down. It's highly likely that Paul did not realize that he was writing Infallible Scripture when he did it. He certainly wrote other letters that are not included in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this we find things in the Epistles which are of unclear value to those of us who read them 2000 years later. Paul asks the church to greet specific people that he knows. That isn't God instructing us to greet those people, it's Paul sending a greeting to people he knows. It's part of God's awesome power that he can use those writings to instruct us, without making everything a direct commend from him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, God inspired Paul to write those words in his letter. The fact that they are Paul's opinion (but a divinely inspired opinion) are unimportant. They are meant to be there, and they are just as inspired as every other part of the Epistle. The Bible also contains many other things that are not the direct command of God - stories of people who did less-than-righteous things; opinions offered by characters that do not necessarily reflect God's opinions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did God cause Paul to write his own opinion as part of Scripture? A good questions, which I don't have a definitive answer for. Maybe it was to draw attention to the fact that Christianity is not just a set of written rules, but sometimes calls for us to use the Holy Spirit that he gave us to work out what the right thing to do is. But I speculate. The answer here is that there is no conflict between Paul writing something that is his opinion, and the fact that God inspired him to write exactly that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T02:41:56.343" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10175" CreationDate="2012-10-10T02:46:55.147" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mainstream Christianity - Catholicism, Orthodox, and the various Protestant denominations, God doesn't have a form. He is &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/god-spirit&quot;&gt;spirit&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/God-omnipresent.html&quot;&gt;omnipresent&lt;/a&gt;, and not confined to a single place.  He doesn't &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; a form. (Although He could manifest one and speak through it, such as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:1-22&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;burning bush&lt;/a&gt;...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, when He came to earth as Christ (&lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t005.html&quot;&gt;as mainstream Christianity believes&lt;/a&gt;) He had a body of flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above is true of most denominations and traditions within Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few denominations do, however, believe that God has a physical body. (One such example, the LDS Church teaches that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/thanks-be-to-god?lang=eng&quot;&gt;He has a perfected physical body of flesh and bone&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is the Father of our spirits.3 He has a glorified, perfected body&#xA;  of flesh and bone.4 We lived with Him in heaven before we were born.5&#xA;  And when He created us physically, we were created in the image of&#xA;  God, each with a personal body.6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T02:46:55.147" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10178" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-10T02:50:37.580" Score="7" ViewCount="821" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to LDS teaching, who goes to hell, and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard that only really bad people and ex-Mormons will go to hell.  Is this true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-10-11T05:18:35.643" LastActivityDate="2016-03-23T15:55:11.220" Title="Who goes to hell in LDS theology?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10178" CreationDate="2012-10-10T03:00:53.497" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/hell?lang=eng&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/topics/hell?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it&#xA;  is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal&#xA;  world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who&#xA;  were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of&#xA;  Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not&#xA;  redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS official teaching is that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; who have died without the knowledge of truth (LDS doctrine), &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that rejected the truth will go to Hell, which is very different than the widely accepted  concept of Hell.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of a place of suffering and torment, it's a &lt;em&gt;temporary&lt;/em&gt; prison where they will get a chance to learn about the Truth, and if they are willing, repent and embrace the Truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who reject it are cast into outer darkness with Satan and his angels, and the &quot;sons of Perdition&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T03:12:42.657" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T03:12:42.657" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10175" CreationDate="2012-10-10T03:44:42.473" Score="9" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Does God have no shape or form?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 1&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of Genesis uses these words to describe man's creation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. (Genesis 1:26 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;therefore, God must look like man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 2&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the Old Testament, the Spirit of God has appeared as moving flames, columns of fire and burning bushes.  Columns of clouds, wind passing over the waters and smiting cedars, and the tiniest whisper. In the New Testament He came as tongues of fire above the heads of the Apostles. Therefore God must have some elemental form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 3&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has appeared to man as a visitor come to dine with and bless Abraham and his family;  A stranger who would wrestle with Abraham's grandson Jacob; and finally as Jesus, the only Son of the Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;On the contrary&lt;/b&gt; God has no physical body, therefore no shape. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;I answer that&lt;/b&gt; even though God chooses to appear as someone or take on a form, it is not His shape nor His nature that has any form.  The shape God chooses to take is not His shape.  An ogre desiring to impress a clever kitten may take the form of the mouse, but the form of the ogre is still ogreish. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 1&lt;/b&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1093.htm&quot;&gt;The Ox Says&lt;/a&gt; &lt;code&gt;God made a spiritual image to Himself in man&lt;/code&gt;. The image which God made man in was after God's spiritual Self, not His physical Self (which doesn't need to exist). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 2&lt;/b&gt; God is made manifest in more than just flames and smoke.  His character is impressed on us at Baptism, confirmed in us soon after and with us for a time when we consume His body, blood soul and divinity in the Holy Eucharist.  God is not further from us than He was from the Israelites or the Apostles and we can't see His shape any better than they can, for it still takes the eyes of faith to see Him.  After the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, some took them for drunkards, others seeing it was too early for drunkards to be roaming about saw, with the eyes of faith, that these men had the Holy Spirit about them and were Baptized soon after&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 3&lt;/b&gt; The means by which God occasioned to visit the Patriarchs is not ours to judge, but we can hardly assume that He spent the rest of His time milling about the desert.  Chances are very good that He passed from place to place as Jesus did, after His resurrection, coming upon the Apostles suddenly, making Himself known occasionally and leaving (or rather, disappearing) at just the right moment.  One thing we believe about the Trinity is that all parts are equal in glory; Father Son and Holy Spirit. So, if the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, was some how created to be the only one with a fixed form, He would be the only one encumbered, as we are, with a fleshly body that puts our soul in one place at a time.  Jesus, begotten, not made and consubstantial with the Father must have the same form as the Father and the Holy Spirit. And, as I said in the reply to Objection 1, it doesn't follow that because Jesus &quot;took on the form of a servant&quot; that His form is that of a servant from the start&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T03:44:42.473" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3783" CreationDate="2012-10-10T04:08:56.883" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I've been able to discern as a High School student in a good Christian school, the Law of Moses is now and always has been relevant only to rewards in heaven, given when you obey the Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it like the relation between dog and trainer, when the dog does something that the trainer wants him to, the dog gets a reward. The Spirit is our trainer and we are the dog. When we follow the law under the Spirits direction, we get rewards in heaven.&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the relation between Matt. 5:17-19 and Galatians goes, Paul had always meant that the Galatians church members were not under the law for salvation like others were telling them, but that they were saved by God's grace. The first commentator also had a good point in saying that Romans explains it better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I think I may have just written a modern parable there!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2276" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T19:20:41.067" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T19:20:41.067" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3634" CreationDate="2012-10-10T09:18:08.177" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;He (God) was referring to the milky way arch. It arches over the earth. Notice in the King James bible it clearly said &quot;set My bow in the cloud; not clouds but cloud. Also that this was over the earth and not in the earth. This was purposely hidden because when you find the milky way you also find Orion which was mentioned twice in the book of Job. 9:9 &amp;amp; 38:28 I think. Definately in Job 38 though. A rainbow is seen when water drops meet the sunlight and again clearly the word in Genesis chp 3 says the rains had stopped and the ground was dry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2277" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T09:18:08.177" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10175" CreationDate="2012-10-10T10:46:05.163" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer is implied in this command:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. (Exodus 20:4, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we imagine God to have a form we make an idol in our mind, when we carve this image into wood or stone then we make that idol visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why imagining a form is idolatry is because God is immense, infinite and boundless, and any boundary or form we imagine limits God's limitless glory and is therefore an unholy thought that does not ascribe due glory to God. ‘Infinite’ essentially means that nobody can grasp it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T14:23:47.007" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T14:23:47.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10150" CreationDate="2012-10-10T11:54:56.070" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Jewish Historian Alfred Edersheim seems to have done a fair bit of research on this subject. Basically, the subject is far more complex than a simple 10%, and would usually have amounted to more under Old Testament law. In fact, I am not sure I fully understand what Edersheim has explained—but that helps to convey just how complex it really was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic idea of the tithe (i.e 10%) was bound up in the first fruit offerings of the land:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two of these firstfruit offerings were &lt;em&gt;public&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;national;&lt;/em&gt; viz. the first &lt;em&gt;omer,&lt;/em&gt; on the second day of the Passover, and the wave-loaves at Pentecost. The other two kinds of ‘firstfruits’—or &lt;em&gt;Reshith,&lt;/em&gt; ‘the first, the beginning’—were offered on the part of each family and of every individual who had possession in Israel, according to the Divine directions in Ex. 22:29; 23:19; 34:26; Numb. 15:20, 21; 18:12, 13; Deut. 18:4; and Deut. 26:2–11, where the ceremonial to be observed in the Sanctuary is also described. Authorities distinguish between the &lt;em&gt;Biccurim (primitiva),&lt;/em&gt; or firstfruits offered in their natural state, and the &lt;em&gt;Terumoth (primitae),&lt;/em&gt; brought not as raw products, but in a prepared state,—as flour, oil, wine, etc. The distinction is convenient, but not strictly correct, since the &lt;em&gt;Terumoth&lt;/em&gt; also included vegetables and garden produce. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple19.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these first fruits and their offerings were complex in the traditional regulations and were largely based on being actually from the Holy Land:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They must be the produce of the Holy Land itself, in which, according to tradition, were included the ancient territories of Og and Sihon, as well as that part of Syria which David had subjugated. On the other hand, both the tithes and the &lt;em&gt;Terumoth&lt;/em&gt; were also obligatory on Jews in Egypt, Babylon, Ammon, and Moab. The &lt;em&gt;Biccurim&lt;/em&gt; were only presented in the Temple, and belonged to the priesthood there officiating at the time, while the &lt;em&gt;Terumoth&lt;/em&gt; might be given to any priest in any part of the land. The &lt;em&gt;Mishnah&lt;/em&gt; holds that, as according to Deut. 8:8 only the following seven were to be regarded as the produce of the Holy Land, from them alone &lt;em&gt;Biccurim&lt;/em&gt; were due: viz. wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates. If the distance of the offerer from Jerusalem was too great, the figs and grapes might be brought in a dried state. . . .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, neither tithes, nor &lt;em&gt;Biccurim,&lt;/em&gt; nor &lt;em&gt;Terumoth,&lt;/em&gt; were to be given of what already belonged to the Lord, nor of what was not fairly the property of a person. Thus if only the trees, but not the land in which they grew, belonged to a man, he would not give firstfruits. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple19.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, when all requirements were considered, the actual amount to be given was more than just the tithe, and would have been around 25% of the overall revenue of the community from the harvests that God caused to be enjoyed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the prescribed religious contributions of every Jewish layman at the time of the second Temple were as follows: &lt;em&gt;Biccurim&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Terumoth,&lt;/em&gt; say &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; per cent.; from the ‘first of the fleece,’ at least five shekels’ weight; from the ‘first of the dough,’ say &lt;em&gt;four&lt;/em&gt; per cent.; ‘corners of the fields’ for the poor, say &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; per cent.; the first, or Levitical tithe, &lt;em&gt;ten&lt;/em&gt; per cent.; the second, or festival tithe, to be used at the feasts in Jerusalem, and in the third and sixth years to be the ‘poor’s tithe,’ &lt;em&gt;ten&lt;/em&gt; per cent.; the firstlings of all animals, either in kind or money-value; five shekels for every first-born son, provided he were the first child of his mother, and free of blemish; and the half-shekel of the Temple-tribute. Together, these amounted to certainly more than the fourth of the return which an agricultural population would have. And it is remarkable, that the Law seems to regard Israel as intended to be only an agricultural people—no contribution being provided for from trade or merchandise. Besides these prescribed, there were, of course, all manner of &lt;em&gt;voluntary&lt;/em&gt; offerings, pious works, and, above all, the various sacrifices which each, according to his cirumstances or piety, would bring in the Temple at Jerusalem. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple19.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edersheim makes it very clear that the Mosaic Laws did not apply to all income, and assumed an agricultural society, clearly dating some aspects of God's purposes for the Mosaic Law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is remarkable, that the Law seems to regard Israel as intended to be only an agricultural people—no contribution being provided for from trade or merchandise. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple19.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Temple - Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ, by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), chap. 19, p. 379&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look to the New Testament we can’t draw real parallels from the Old, for the intention was to support a government as well as the church.  In a sense this means that under the Old Testament, once taxes and church offerings were paid, 75% of most peoples income was left.  Of this, people could still make free will offerings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the original society under Moses in the desert would not have necessarily had any currency, most payments for other services were probably made with produce from the land: meats, etc. (although in some cases silver may have been in use). It is therefore somewhat natural that a tradition under the Old Testament of paying a generic 10% for the tithe on 'all that one earned' is understandable (Ref. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018%3A12&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 18:12&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2014%3A18-20&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 14:18-20&lt;/a&gt;), though not really arguable directly from scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question more specifically by date, as it was first established within Christianity under Catholicism, I refer to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14741b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; that established it around 567 AD:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law, and early writers speak of it as a divine ordinance and an obligation of conscience. The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the canons of the Council of Maçon in 585. In course of time, we find the payment of tithes made obligatory by ecclesiastical enactments in all the countries of christendom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the &amp;quot;Old Law&amp;quot; the text means Mosaic Law. As far as the concept of gross versus net goes, this seems to be a more modern idea by hyper-fundamentalists, and I have not yet found its origin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-09-06T18:33:05.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10168" CreationDate="2012-10-10T13:04:40.560" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15181a.htm&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; (and I'm not expert enough to verify the reliability) the answer seems to be &quot;not any more.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Summary and Some Resources&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The doctrine of universal salvation (also known as Apokatastasis or&#xA;  Apocatastasis) has usually been considered through the centuries to be&#xA;  heterodox but has become orthodox. It was maintained by the Second&#xA;  Vatican Council and by Pope John Paul II and it is promoted in the new&#xA;  Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the post-Vatican II liturgy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was supported by Pope John Paul II  the following are three quotes from him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which&#xA;  human beings are effectively involved in it. (General Audience of July&#xA;  28, 1999)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever ‘clad in a robe dipped in blood’ (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of&#xA;  universal salvation. (Message of John Paul II to the Abbess General of&#xA;  the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is to convince the world precisely of this ‘judgment,’ undoubtedly he does so to continue&#xA;  Christ’s work aimed at universal salvation. We can therefore conclude&#xA;  that in bearing witness to Christ, the Paraclete is an assiduous&#xA;  (though invisible) advocate and defender of the work of salvation, and&#xA;  of all those engaged in this work. He is also the guarantor of the&#xA;  definitive triumph over sin and over the world subjected to sin, in&#xA;  order to free it from sin and introduce it into the way of salvation.&#xA;  (General Audience of May 24, 1989)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the statement that the author claims that the teaching is found in the catachism, here's the rationale:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The new, post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church also gives&#xA;  us to hope that all will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself,&#xA;  it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4),&#xA;  and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one&#xA;  of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’&#xA;  and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good&#xA;  works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays&#xA;  for ‘all men to be saved.’&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although in reading those myself, I don't know that they teach that universalism is &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; but rather that they have &lt;em&gt;hope&lt;/em&gt; that it is.  But, clearly, if the have hope that it's true, it's not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;opposition&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to the teaching.  And much searching has failed to turn up recent statement denouncing universalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T13:04:40.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10168" CreationDate="2012-10-10T15:22:44.977" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two different ways to look at this question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On the one hand, outside of the Church &lt;em&gt;there is no salvation&lt;/em&gt; (known in Latin as &quot;extra ecclesiam nulla salus&quot;, that is an opinion that has been ratified through Council and Creed and it is still true).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On the other hand the teachings related to &quot;Baptism of desire/Baptism of blood&quot; muddies the waters considerably.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, &quot;extra ecclesiam nulla salus&quot; is a bit less clear than the cut-and-dry &quot;if you don't die Catholic, you're damned.&quot; The last man to try to get away with this was actually in a major, public way was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney&quot;&gt;Fr. Feeney&lt;/a&gt; at the beginning of the 20th century. He, and his followers (&quot;Feeneyites&quot;), were excommunicated in 1953 for a strict and literal interpretation of this doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following is an excerpt of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt&quot;&gt;letter which was sent to Fr. Feeney&lt;/a&gt; explaining the limits of salvation and how it can apply to those inside and outside of the Church (Emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will&#xA;never cease to preach is contained also that &lt;b&gt;infallible statement by&#xA;which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church&lt;/b&gt;. &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;However, this dogma &lt;b&gt;must be understood in that sense in which the&#xA;Church herself understands it&lt;/b&gt;. For, it was not to private judgments&#xA;that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained&#xA;in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there&#xA;is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He&#xA;explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe&#xA;all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least&#xA;place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into&#xA;the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain&#xA;united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a&#xA;visible manner governs the Church on earth.&lt;em&gt;[The baptized get first place... no shock there]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Therefore, &lt;b&gt;no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been&#xA;divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the&#xA;Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff&lt;/b&gt;&lt;em&gt;[People *knowing* that Church is God's Church cannot be saved if they refuse to follow here (also not a surprise)]&lt;/em&gt;, the Vicar of&#xA;Christ on earth.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the&#xA;Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation&#xA;without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory. &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for&#xA;one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed&#xA;toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by&#xA;divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances&#xA;when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see&#xA;clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to&#xA;the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of&#xA;penance (&amp;lt;Denzinger&gt;, nn. 797, 807).&lt;em&gt;[Basically, &quot;we know that people are spared if, for some reason beyond their control are unable to get to confession before death&quot;]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far&#xA;as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may&#xA;obtain eternal salvation, &lt;b&gt;it is not always required that he be&#xA;incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is&#xA;necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;However, this desire need not always be explicit&lt;/b&gt;, as it is in&#xA;catechumens; but &lt;b&gt;when a person is involved in invincible ignorance&#xA;God accepts also an implicit desire&lt;/b&gt;, so called because it is included&#xA;in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to&#xA;be conformed to the will of God.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want an analogy from literature, in the book &lt;em&gt;The Last Battle&lt;/em&gt;, there is a Calermine soldier who &quot;worships Aslan by another name&quot; who gets to go to the &quot;new Narnia.&quot; The thought is that, given the option this man (and real men like him) would have actually worshiped God properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All things considered, it is quite possible that God has created some &quot;great baptismal font in the sky&quot; which gives all the opportunity, in their last breath, to repent and be saved. I don't know how likely that is, but it is not incompatible with orthodox thought. I will also say that the clear teaching of the Church is that purgatory &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; be avoided without the sacraments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A final note is that the Church is purposefully vague about who, exactly, is in hell. We are not even willing to condemn Judas outright. The most we can say is that there will be more than one person (according to the mystics it is quite a few more than two, but that is not infallible) in hell because scripture uses the plural form, but, unlike Dante, we cannot say who or how many there are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T15:22:44.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10187" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10190" CreationDate="2012-10-10T19:24:09.143" Score="5" ViewCount="1433" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, if someone says, &quot;God is&quot; or &quot;God is not&quot; or &quot;God looks like&quot; or &quot;God doesn't look like&quot; they've limited him and he's no longer omnipresent, omnipotent, or omnificent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then, how can God be omnipotent and be limited to only love?  Love cannot be hate.  Good cannot be evil.  The light cannot be on and off at the same time.  Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive but not both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;only God understands how this can be&quot; is not a valid answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But does that mean, he is only love?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T19:30:27.717" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T23:49:04.100" Title="God is love, pure, and all good, and omnipotent?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10187" CreationDate="2012-10-10T19:40:53.027" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's take the comparison to a human level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could say @warren is male. Does that limit my Americanness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course not!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is Love. God is Omnipotent. God is Pure. God is Holy. God is many things - His attributes are myriad and perfectly displayed throughout His person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T19:40:53.027" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10187" CreationDate="2012-10-10T19:44:05.643" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;God is omnipotent&quot; does not mean &quot;God is everything&quot;. If we say &quot;God is good&quot; then it means &quot;God is not evil&quot;. It means &quot;God does not do evil things&quot;, but that is a limitation imposed by his nature, and not by lack of power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a word for the view that God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; everything, and the word is &lt;em&gt;Pantheism&lt;/em&gt;. It is not a part of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T19:44:05.643" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10187" CreationDate="2012-10-10T20:00:43.097" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The assertion that God's omniscience, omnipresence, and omnificence somehow means that God must be everything is false.  God's omniscience means God knows all things.  God's omnipresence means that God is everywhere present.  God's omnificence means that He has all creative power.  None of these mandate that God must be both love and evil.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is certainly &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; everything.  He is holy--not unholy.  He is just--not unjust.  He is good--not evil.  He is infinite--not finite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is truly &lt;em&gt;indescribable&lt;/em&gt;, though, in that He cannot be completely defined by words.  Indeed, I'm not sure any person could be completely described by words, even as finite as we are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created the physical universe of time, space, and matter, so He is completely outside of those things--beyond space, beyond time, and matter--and is not limited by those things.  Yet, again, that does not mean He is everything--or everyone.  He is only Himself and not His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As an aside, hate is often misunderstood as the opposite of love.  However, apathy seems to be a better candidate for this.  The fact that one does not love a particular person does not necessarily mean he hates the person.  He may not know the person at all, so he would be apathetic towards him.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T20:47:41.603" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T20:47:41.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10187" CreationDate="2012-10-10T20:11:30.257" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you have described is the essence of what is known as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;apophatic theology&lt;/a&gt;&quot; or the &lt;em&gt;via negativa.&lt;/em&gt; It is especially popular in Eastern Orthodox circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than saying &quot;God is love,&quot; for example, the preferred thought would be &quot;God is not hate.&quot;  Thinking of it graphically, to say God is Love, is to pigeonhole him in a circle that is &quot;Love.&quot;  To say, &quot;God is not Hate&quot; or &quot;God does not hate,&quot; on the other hand, draws a circle around that which does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; describe him, and assume he is everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say that God is not hate is a true statement. It affords consideration of the entire spectrum of love and indifference, whilest at the same time communicating the attribute of malevaloance and hatred does not characterize his nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea has a long history behind it, and can help expand one one's mind about the fullness of God, whilest still communicating a useful image - at least by understanding what he isn't, it affords space for what he is - namely loving - while not limiting him either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-10-10T20:31:14.037" LastActivityDate="2012-10-10T20:31:14.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10192" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10202" CreationDate="2012-10-10T22:37:08.980" Score="4" ViewCount="2205" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 8&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 A woman was there who had been bleeding for twelve years. She had&#xA;  spent all her money on doctors, but no doctor was able to heal her.&#xA;  44 The woman came behind Jesus and touched the bottom of his coat. At&#xA;  that moment, her bleeding stopped. 45 Then Jesus said, “Who touched&#xA;  me?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They all said they had not touched him. And Peter said, “Master,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;people are all around you, pushing against you&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;46 But Jesus said, “&lt;strong&gt;Someone touched me. I felt power go out from me.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this passage I can only imagine all these people pushing and shoving against Jesus but this one small &lt;em&gt;gentle&lt;/em&gt; touch - He feels so powerfully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we concluded anything about the other people who touched Him, where He didn't feel anything like that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were they all not in need of any health that touching Him had no effect on them or Him, does it mean they were all unbelievers, incapable of understanding what Jesus was trying to tell them or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-10-11T10:19:15.297" LastActivityDate="2014-10-18T09:05:43.773" Title="Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2573" CreationDate="2012-10-11T00:29:06.163" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's wrath&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Listen to how Paul Washer puts it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Did you know that some years after Jesus was crucified, some of His&#xA;  followers were persecuted, tortured and crucified?  Many of these&#xA;  followers went to their death singing hymns and praising God in the&#xA;  process.  Do you for a moment think the captain of your salvation,&#xA;  Jesus, would be scared of a Roman whip?!  He laughs at Roman legions!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't want to diminish the sufferings that Christ endured on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the gospel, that Christ took God's wrath on our part.  Oh how amazing this Jesus is!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2281" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-11T02:17:48.390" LastActivityDate="2012-10-11T02:17:48.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10194" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-11T03:04:06.120" Score="4" ViewCount="1144" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in&#xA;  unrighteousness;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even&#xA;  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had this discussion in small group about how everyone undoubtedly knows who God is through creation (verse 20). But when &quot;they are without excuse&quot; does that imply that those who have not heard the gospel, but know that there is God, through creation, can be saved? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The questions arose amongst the group on whether or not people in this situation can be saved without hearing the gospel? Or are they presented with the gospel in a different way (not ways of spreading the word)? Or is there something wrong/missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine did quote a passage from the book &quot;Radical&quot; by David Platt that when we ask the question about how people in 3rd world countries can be saved if they were never given the chance to hear about the gospel. Platt tells us that the problems lies within the question itself, that by asking it assumes that these 3rd world country people who have never heard of the gospel are innocent, when we are all sinful in nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But going back to my original question, referencing verse 20, are we all &quot;without excuse&quot; even if we have not heard about the gospel? &lt;strong&gt;Is there another way the gospel can be presented?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user2282" LastEditorUserId="14794" LastEditDate="2021-01-15T13:46:16.880" LastActivityDate="2021-01-15T13:46:16.880" Title="For since the creation... men are without excuse" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;romans&gt;&lt;gospel&gt;&lt;general-revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="10195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10192" CreationDate="2012-10-11T03:12:37.047" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This will seem highly unsatisfying to some, obvious to others, and deeply comforting to yet others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no indication that Jesus didn't know or feel the needs of anyone else. The passage simply shows that He &lt;em&gt;chose&lt;/em&gt; this woman above the others. So the question becomes, &quot;why did He choose &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; woman?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious answer is &quot;for the same reason He did anything. Because she suited His purpose and the will of the Father.&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, when it comes to the miracles Jesus performed, not one of them was just for the sake of performing a miracle (showing off, having fun). Every miracle is accompanied by a lesson, a claim of authority, a claim to deity, or a claim to the power to forgive sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we need to ask, again, why &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; woman? That's pretty straightforward. This woman had been unclean for years due to her illness. His healing of her demonstrated all of the above.  Healing her showed that He had the power to make clean the unclean.  It was a beautiful picture of salvation in an easy-to-understand demonstration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To paraphrase how the Oracle might have said it, What's really going to bake your noodle later is, would she have been unclean, had Jesus not needed her to demonstrate His ability to make the unclean clean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is yet another fine demonstration of &lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:28 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we know that all things work together for good to them that love&#xA;  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-09-02T16:52:02.567" LastActivityDate="2013-09-02T16:52:02.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10194" CreationDate="2012-10-11T03:31:08.000" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I'm sure you know, if you continue to read on, you will eventually come to Romans 2:12, which reads: (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:&#xA;  and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Romans 3:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that this is true, and also that Christ was not a liar when He said&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,&#xA;  but by me&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and also assuming that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;Scripture is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God&lt;/a&gt;, we must assume that people who have not come to Christ, and know nothing about Old Testament law, much less salvation through Christ are lost.  The only way to reach them is by getting the Gospel to them, and having them understand, repent, and turn to Christ for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general thrust of your question has been answered &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5017/does-my-monk-go-to-heaven&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1763/what-happens-to-people-who-have-never-heard-about-jesus&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-10-11T03:31:08.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10187" CreationDate="2012-10-11T04:07:05.527" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;At first sight, it does appear that there is a logical contradiction in saying that God is both infinite in power, creativity etc. and at the same time claiming that God is limited by being loving, good and pure. However, &lt;strong&gt;a more precise understanding of what we mean by the &quot;Omni-s&quot; leads to the conclusion that there is no such contradiction&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, it is worth establishing that &lt;strong&gt;something can be both infinite and limited at the same time&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, consider normal counting numbers - 1,2,3...etc. These are known as integers. Mathematicians tell us that, logically, there are an infinite number of integers. However, we also understand that integers have limitations. That you can't represent 1.5 using them, for example. They are unlimited in that there is an unending sequence of these numbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, we'll use analogy to help us understand the kind of limitations we might be talking about. &lt;strong&gt;Hopefully, this will help us understand what kind of question we're considering&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine a torch with a nice bright beam. Obviously, you can use that torch to illuminate things that are in darkness you can observe them. Someone might claim that you can use that everything illuminated with that torch can be seen better. And this is a perfectly legitimate claim. It appears that the torch can illuminate an infinite number of things that are in darkness to make them visible. However, someone else might claim that, if you shine your torch on darkness (on a shadow, say) then that darkness becomes &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; visible. Therefore the torch is limited. How can a torch be both infinite in its capacity to illuminate and at the same time be limited in that it can't illuminate things like shadows?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, &lt;strong&gt;we will establish that a more precise definition of the 'Omni-s', and look at what these definitions imply about God's limitations&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we say that God is &lt;strong&gt;Omniscient&lt;/strong&gt; (all-knowing), we understand that he knows everything that is true or could possibly be true. However, there are some things that God cannot know. For example, He cannot know something that isn't true. For example, God cannot know that 1+1=4 as that simply isn't the case. In that sense, God's Omniscience is limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we say that God is &lt;strong&gt;Omnipresent&lt;/strong&gt; (present everywhere), we understand that God is everywhere throughout all time. Does this mean that God is present in places that don't exist? Presumably not. Does it mean that God can remain Omnipresent and at the same time choose &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to be present in, say, my kitchen? It does indeed (which is not to say that He has to make his presence known - he has to be present, but that doesn't mean we have to be aware of Him). In the sense that it would make no sense to speak of God as both present and not-present, God is limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we say that God is &lt;strong&gt;Omnificent&lt;/strong&gt;, we are saying that He is unlimited in creative power. He can create anything that can be created. Does this mean that He can create something impossible like a square circle or an eternal thing that ceases to be? Presumably not (although some philosophers have attempted to remove this limitation by suggesting that God could remove the laws of mathematics and logic. Even if this is possible, however, we see that God is limited in the sense that He can't achieve these things without this kind of drastic re-engineering of reality).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the most debated and controversial of the &quot;Omni-s&quot;: God's &lt;strong&gt;Omnipotence&lt;/strong&gt;. When we use this term, we mean that God can do anything that can possibly be done. We don't, however, mean that God can stop being God and remain Omnipotent. A classic question is whether God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. There are various possible approaches to answering this. You could say &quot;yes&quot;, but that he chooses not to. Or you could say &quot;no&quot;, otherwise He would cease to be God. Or you could say, &quot;yes&quot; but the laws of logic would need to change. Each of these solutions implies some kind of limitation on God. We might argue that these apparent limitations are either self-imposed by God, or that they are necessary in the sense that God cannot be simultaneously God and not-God. Nevertheless, there is some kind of limitation here. It is worth noting, however, that no other entity in the Universe can overcome these limitations either, so God still retains His place as supreme being despite these logical necessities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, &lt;strong&gt;we'll examine the claim that God's Omni-s are incompatible with the characteristics ascribed to Him by Christians&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most importantly, &lt;strong&gt;Christianity don't necessarily claim that God is unlimited&lt;/strong&gt;. On the contrary, many of us understand God to be intrinsically limited. For example, we believe that God &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Temporary&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evil&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Confused&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Created&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apathetic&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;strong&gt;the fact that God cannot do certain things doesn't invalidate the claim that God is characterised by the various &quot;Omni-s&quot;, it just clarifies what we mean by them&lt;/strong&gt;. Nor does it make God anything but God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering some of the characteristics of God that you mentioned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Love&lt;/strong&gt;: When the Bible says that &quot;God is love&quot;, this doesn't imply that God is &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; love. Indeed, most Christians would say that God is also justice, for example. The important point here is that &quot;God is love&quot; doesn't imply that God can't hate. He loves &lt;em&gt;us&lt;/em&gt;, certainly, with a love beyond measure. However, this in itself implies that he hates injustice, cruelty and other evils because not to do so would be unloving towards human beings. (The reason Christians often emphasise love is because we're interested in how God feels about &lt;em&gt;us&lt;/em&gt;, not because love and hate are mutually exclusive). Love provides no challenge to God's omnipotence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Goodness&lt;/strong&gt;: Certainly, we believe that God cannot be evil. It would appear, then, that we humans can be something that God can't. However, it is reasonable to think of evil as an absence of goodness. From this perspective, for God to become evil he would have to limit his ability to be good. Therefore, His omnipotence would be &lt;em&gt;reduced&lt;/em&gt; by his being evil rather than being enhanced by it. Furthermore, you could argue that whilst God cannot &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; evil (because that is against his nature), he certainly has power &lt;em&gt;over&lt;/em&gt; evil, and in that sense he remains omnipotent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Purity&lt;/strong&gt;: When we talk about purity, we mean that God cannot be not-God. He must be completely true to Himself in all ways and at all times. Again, this doesn't limit his omnipotence any more than in the ways we've already discussed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is perfectly valid, then, to accept that God has certain characteristics - love, purity, goodness - whilst maintaining that God is Omnipotent etc. Indeed, &lt;strong&gt;it is arguable that these are freedoms rather than limitations&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I do want to address some of the minor &lt;strong&gt;misconceptions in the question&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, your assertion that Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive but not both is in direct contradiction to the most commonly held interpretation of quantum mechanics, the so-called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat#Interpretations_of_the_experiment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Copenhagen interpretation&lt;/a&gt;, which states that the cat is indeed both dead and alive until you look in the box.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, Christians don't typically make claims about what God looks like. (True, he wrapped himself in a human body to pay his creation a visit, and we can say something about the appearance of his &quot;flesh suit&quot;. However, that says no more about God's appearance than my telling you that I sometimes wear a blue jumper tells you about the appearance of my kidneys).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you said that &quot;only God understands how this can be&quot; is not a valid answer. However, whenever we talk about the infinite we must contend with the fact that our minds are finite. We cannot possibly develop a complete answer to the kinds of questions you're asking. I appreciate that this is intellectually unsatisfying. Moreover, I would agree that recognising that our task is impossible is no excuse for providing no answer whatsoever. Nevertheless, when it comes to discussing God's limitations, we must first recognise &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; limitations. We may never be able to satisfy our longing for a full and complete answer in this area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(What God demands of us, however, is that we live by the light we have received, and respond to Him in on the basis of the things we &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; understand about Him, regardless of how limited that understanding might be.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditDate="2012-10-11T05:07:13.660" LastActivityDate="2012-10-11T05:07:13.660" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10199" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-11T07:45:13.417" Score="3" ViewCount="488" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I'm sure you're aware, people in English-speaking Christian countries often use the words &quot;God&quot; and &quot;Jesus&quot; or other Bible-related words like &quot;damn&quot; and &quot;Hell&quot; as swear words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do people in non-Christian cultures use words from their own religions as swear words? Like, if someone in a Muslim country bumps his head does he say &quot;Mohammed damn it!&quot;? Do Buddhists who lose something say, &quot;Oh, Nirvana!&quot;? Or whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just curious whether the idea of using &quot;religious words&quot; as swear words is something unique to Christian cultures, or is found in the cultures of other religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-11T07:45:13.417" Title="Do people in non-Christian cultures use swear words related to the dominant religion?" Tags="&lt;comparative-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2012-10-11T07:47:34.040" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10192" CreationDate="2012-10-11T10:11:57.210" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Jesus Himself said &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%208:46&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Luke 8:46&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know that power has gone out from me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So presumably He noticed the touch &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; at the same moment power had gone from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer the rest of your question, why only this person? Here it helps to notice that this story is also told in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%209:18-26&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Matthew 9:18-26&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%205:21-43&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Mark 5:21-43&lt;/a&gt;, because they draw out different details. (By the way, the quote in your question ends before the relevant verse - the full story is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%208:40-56&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Luke 8:40-56&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%208:48&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;v48&lt;/a&gt;) we read that Jesus said to her:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this faith is further detailed in the other Gospels, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%209:21&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Matthew 9:21&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%205:28&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Mark 5:28&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary:&lt;/strong&gt; her faith caused the power to go out from Jesus, which caused Him to notice the touch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your other questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Can we concluded anything about the other people who touched Him, where He didn't feel anything like that?&lt;/em&gt; Only that they did not touch Him in faith, expecting healing. Indeed, they were a crowd doing what crowds do - crowding (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%205:31&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Mark 5:31&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Were they all not in need of any health that touching Him had no effect on them or Him, does it mean they were all unbelievers, incapable of understanding what Jesus was trying to tell them or something else?&lt;/em&gt; The text doesn't tell us. The fact that this woman alone (of the crowd) is mentioned as an example in the three Gospels implies that she was indeed an exception - the only one who touched Jesus in faith.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-10-11T10:11:57.210" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9585" CreationDate="2012-10-11T19:37:08.303" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa&lt;/a&gt; answers this nicely with a resounding, &quot;Absolutely not.&quot; I'm lazy, so I'll just put Part III Question 46 Article 4 Objection 1 here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;As Chrysostom [Athanasius, Orat. De Incarn. Verb.] says: &quot;Christ had come in order to destroy death, not His own, (for since He is life itself, death could not be His), but men's death. Hence it was not by reason of His being bound to die that He laid His body aside, but &lt;b&gt;because the death He endured was inflicted on Him by men&lt;/b&gt;. But even if His body had sickened and dissolved in the sight of all men, it was not befitting Him who healed the infirmities of others to have his own body afflicted with the same. And even had He laid His body aside without any sickness, and had then appeared, men would not have believed Him when He spoke of His resurrection. &lt;b&gt;&lt;em&gt;For how could Christ's victory over death appear, unless He endured it in the sight of all men, and so proved that death was vanquished by the incorruption of His body?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that pretty much sums up that Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;HAD to die&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;HAD to die violently&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The violence MUST have come by man.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose that strictly speaking it would be possible to have all of this happen with no blood being spilled, but that is not the theology of Aquinas. Article 1 makes it clear that &lt;em&gt;his blood was shed&lt;/em&gt; and in Article 10 he cites the book of Hebrews and notes that Christ could not have fulfilled the law save by an immolation &amp;mdash; something which requires a good deal more than one drop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-10-11T19:43:18.200" LastActivityDate="2012-10-11T19:43:18.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10208" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12102" CreationDate="2012-10-11T20:53:03.683" Score="7" ViewCount="1440" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfee.info/Billy_Sunday_name_it_and_claim_it_evangelist.htm&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sfee.info/&quot;&gt;The Society for Effective Evangelism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Up until Billy Sunday, altar calls were invitations for seekers to come to an after-meeting or inquiry room where counselors would help people understand their heart condition. These ministers worked in concert with the Holy Spirit to help seekers repent and yield to God, and to pray that God would save them. Someone was saved only when they were born again&amp;mdash;when the Holy Spirit came into them. Conversion and being born again meant the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, I've been to &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; Christian events that feature altar calls and even more where the speaker simply asks non-Christians to &quot;pray the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=sinner%27s%20prayer&amp;amp;aq=0&quot;&gt;Sinner's Prayer&lt;/a&gt;&quot; with them.  I assumed the practice went back at least to Revivalists such as Charles Finney, but according the the article, evangelists before Sunday provided individual counseling before telling people they were saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any evidence the practice of &quot;salvation by altar call&quot; is older than Sunday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T20:41:17.330" LastActivityDate="2016-05-27T17:57:59.213" Title="Was Billy Sunday the first evangelist to equate the &quot;altar call&quot; with salvation?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10209" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-11T21:00:57.387" Score="2" ViewCount="51" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might not be the best place to ask, and I apologize if this is off-topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his of the &lt;em&gt;Truth of the christian religion&lt;/em&gt;, Hugo Grotius quotes on several occasions the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.fr/books?id=l-dw-KtxGEEC&amp;amp;pg=PA57&amp;amp;lpg=PA57&amp;amp;dq=orphic%20verses%20grotius%20demetrius&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=FBR7tSKMJL&amp;amp;sig=C17PptYD2Rfs8q5Onp9KnGzF0HE&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=1zJ3UILTNcuXhQfft4CwCw&amp;amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=orphic%20verses%20grotius%20demetrius&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Orphic verses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. I cannot find any reference to this work anywhere else. What is it, and where can they be found (if anywhere)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T13:25:58.793" Title="Grotius and the Orphic verses" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-10-12T14:05:48.583" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10210" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-11T22:15:26.080" Score="23" ViewCount="12298" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I understand correctly, Calvinists believe that God selects certain people for salvation based solely on His will... that is, the selection has nothing to do with the people themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is about the following passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who &lt;strong&gt;desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:3-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 2:3-4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, &lt;strong&gt;not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Peter 3:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. . . . For &lt;strong&gt;I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live.”&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2018:27-32&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 18:27-32&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems ... like God wants everyone to be saved and &amp;quot;live&amp;quot;, and does not want people to die and go to Hell.  If this is the will of God, and God decides who will be saved based solely on His will ... then why isn't everyone going to be saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-01-18T19:37:00.187" Title="&quot;God desires all men to be saved&quot; from a Calvinist perspective?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;will-of-god&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10076" CreationDate="2012-10-12T00:45:59.993" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think all of your points are at play, except possibly he was not seeking to punish them, but to &lt;strong&gt;sift their motives bringing them into desperate sates in order to fully recognize their past sins and God's mercy in sparing them.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine a more ordinary story and you can see how natural Joseph's actions are. Imagine your Father was a cop and his father cops. You and all your bothers went into a police academy but your brothers took bribes, robbed drug dealers and laughed at you for staying clean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You actually admired your older, cooler and stronger brothers and wished to be with them but your conscience was too tender.  Meanwhile great dangers were occurring in the police force and the President marked you out for the highest post not even making his plans known to your own Dad. You were young and foolish and told your brothers so they beat you up leaving you almost dead. Then you were transferred to another city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually the time had come for your dreams to come true. As you had risen to the highest post an opportunity presented itself where you could hang out with your brothers again! The police force was infiltrated with spies from an evil country and your brothers had stopped many of their bad habits as they were much older and mature.  You did not even know if they were still alive but a blessed coincidence brought them into your power sphere. Now was your chance to enlist your brothers to your cause but not without ensuring their hearts were truly prepared for the blessings you were about to hand out.  Also not before every last one would join them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make them sensible to their past crimes and to prove they were no longer wicked, you throw them in prison under false charges, knowing their consciences would feel it is just that their past sins had caught up with them.  Also by manipulating events you prove that they are willing to face dangers to themselves in protecting the next youngest, which they never would have before. Finally by always keeping one, you had the family under control so that they would not run away before receiving all the good you had in store for them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The whole ruse would be very necessary for the enlistment and to train them up for what was ahead but it would have been difficult emotionally.&lt;/strong&gt;  On one side you would be so ready to cry to see your long lost family, also to finally fully understand God's purposes originally promised and now coming true, would be overwhelming. Now the reason for all the pain of past years would be truly understood causing great tearful release of joy. To hold all these feelings in and have to act stern for the valuable training and induction of the whole family into your cause that this opportunity presented would have been very trying to say the least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T00:45:59.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2112" CreationDate="2012-10-12T01:11:56.453" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the kingdoms of the world are standing in opposition to Gods kingdom and will be brought to ruin. A Christian should take no part in the politics of the world. Any Christian organization that is involved with politics is a false religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2293" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T01:11:56.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10214" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10220" CreationDate="2012-10-12T02:51:12.543" Score="5" ViewCount="2710" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 14 Jesus tells the disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them. Isn't it that heaven was already founded from creation?  So, what place was he referring to? Was this just a figure of speech?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T00:39:31.217" LastActivityDate="2019-12-01T15:17:41.677" Title="What Place was Jesus going to prepare" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2112" CreationDate="2012-10-12T04:55:19.733" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians throughout history have differing interpretations of how the faithful should approach civil governments. I would point you toward a seminal work addressing this topic called Christ and Culture by H. R. Niebuhr. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One position (Christ against culture), advocated by those like Mennonites, argues for total withdraw from the political sphere. Another position (Christ of Culture) sees politics as interwoven in salvation history and essential for Christian life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Niebuhr goes on to list three other interpretations. Each, I would argue, are biblically viable and have strong places in the history of doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this is certainly an important question. And Christians of all traditions will answer it very differently. It is also a Biblical question. And Christians of all traditions will interpret the Bible differently as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you study and make up your mind, please remember this is far from a clear-cut issue. Some of the answers already posted strike me as approaching an unhealthy, black-and-white dogmatism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2296" LastEditorUserId="2296" LastEditDate="2012-10-12T05:45:08.120" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T05:45:08.120" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10210" CreationDate="2012-10-12T05:35:39.233" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be fair to Calvin, why not go straight to the horses mouth. Calvin did not believe this kind of verse (1 Tim 2:3) implied God's desire to save every man. Here is where we discover limited atonement as proposed by Calvin and is various different ways supported by the most eminent Calvinists that have ever lived, including in my mind one of the greatest theologians ever, John Owen. (I disagree with these men that I admire but have some support in Luther, so the balance is even).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life. Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. &quot;If God&quot; say they, &quot;wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition.&quot; They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the: will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man. But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. (John Calvin's Commentary 1 Timothy)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even Luther took this approach before Calvin regarding this specific verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), and He gave His Son for us men and created man for eternal life. Likewise: All things exist for man, and he himself exists for God that he may enjoy Him, etc.39 These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 “everything for the sake of the elect.” For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because He says: “This is My blood which is poured out for you” and “for many”—He does not say: for all—“for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 14:24, Matt 26:28) &#xA;  (Luther's Works Volume 25.376)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a 90-95% Calvinist (If I was a 100% anything this might constitute idolatry!) I am persuaded to agree with Luther and Calvin with respect to these particular verses but at the same time believe that God does love all men beyond the elect and that how this pertains to free will is not as cut and dry as Calvin thought. Luther also used  1 Tim 2:4 to argue about God's general care for all mankind in a separate Volume. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this post arguing against limited atonement&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8409/what-is-the-biblical-argument-against-limited-atonement/8471#8471&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also do not think it was so cut and dry in Luther's mind, see here an argument for God even loving those 'predestined to damnation'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8830/does-god-hate-unborn-children/8849#8849&quot;&gt;Does God hate unborn children?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strictly speaking as a Calvinists I depart from Calvin on this one point. I consider it Calvin's point of weakness and failure. So do many others who deeply identify with Calvinistic theology and who are comfortable being called by that label.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T05:40:50.383" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="893" CreationDate="2012-10-12T05:46:47.260" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have noted the two keys theories: (a) angels mated with human women, or (b) descendants of the Godly line of Seth intermarried with the sinful line of Cain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible uses the phrase &quot;sons of God&quot; to refer to angels in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 28:7. It uses the phrase to refer to Christians in Matthew 5:9 (sort of) and Galations 3:26. It appears to use both meanings in the same sentence in Luke 20:36. Note that the exact meaning of the phrase in all these cases is debatable. I suppose advocates of the angels theory have an advantage here in that the phrase in Genesis and the phrase in Job are the exact same Hebrew words (&quot;bni Elohim&quot;), while the statements in the New Testament are in Greek, not Hebrew, and thus different words. Thus the connection is a little more tenuous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I find both theories problematic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RE angels: Is it physically possible for angels to interbreed with humans? I suppose an advocate of this theory could reply, Who can say? How do we know whether it's physically possible or not? In many cases in the Bible angels appeared to people as human males. Often people didn't realize they were not ordinary human males until the angel told them he was not or revealed himself in some way. If angels can appear as human males with apparently-functioning arms and legs, mouths that can speak, etc, perhaps they also have or can have other parts that function like a human male. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, Jesus said that angels do not marry. But does this mean that they don't have sex, or that in Heaven there is some other institution for the expression of sexuality? That's a whole other question by itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any Hebrew scholars here? The King James says that the sons of God &quot;took wives&quot; from the sons of men, but the Hebrew simply says &quot;they took women&quot;. As I understand it, Hebrew does not have a word that specifically means &quot;wife&quot;. Rather, a man refers to her as &quot;my woman&quot;. (Likewise there is no word for husband, but a woman says &quot;my man&quot;.) So I don't think this verse necessarily says that they married these women, just that they had sexual relations with them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;RE Godly line of Seth: There's some justification to say that &quot;sons of God&quot; might mean believers, and therefore perhaps by extension a tribe of believers. But I don't know of any place else in the Bible that uses the phrase &quot;daughters of men&quot; (&quot;bnuth e adam&quot;) to refer to sinful people, i.e. that &quot;daughters of men&quot; means people who are not righteous. Perhaps the writer invented the phrase here as a natural contrast to &quot;sons of God&quot;. But it's an awfully odd way to put it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But more problematic, how would intermarriage between &quot;good people&quot; and &quot;bad people&quot; result in a race of heroes? (Whether &quot;nephilim&quot; means &quot;giants&quot; or more like the KJV translation, &quot;mighty men&quot;, it still tells us that the result of this intermarriage was notable, famous men.) It makes a lot of sense to say that if angels could interbreed with humans, the result would be something extraordinary. But why would good people and bad people intermarrying result in notable offspring? They're both human, one would think their offspring would be ordinary humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMHO, the angels theory is the more natural reading of the text. Instinctively I find it implausible, but it seems to be what the Bible is saying. The Seth/Cain theory just doesn't really make sense. Or maybe there's some totally different explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T05:46:47.260" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10214" CreationDate="2012-10-12T05:56:56.403" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically, I don't know of any place in the Bible that says that the saved go to Heaven when they die. It says they go to &quot;paradise&quot;, that they go to be &quot;with Jesus&quot;, etc, but I don't know any verse that says this is Heaven. Exactly what the place where the saved go is called is not entirely clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the place that Jesus went to prepare is the New Jerusalem of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or if it is the same Heaven mentioned throughout the Bible, this would not really cause a problem with this verse. To &quot;prepare&quot; a place does not necessarily mean that you are creating it from nothing. He might have meant that he was preparing Heaven to receive the saved. Like someone might say, &quot;Oh, I have to get home to prepare the house for the party tonight.&quot; They don't mean that they're building a new house, but that they are going to decorate their existing house, arrange furniture, put out clean towels, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T05:56:56.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10221" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10223" CreationDate="2012-10-12T11:25:45.480" Score="9" ViewCount="1898" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_salvation#The_.27anointed.27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses believe&lt;/a&gt; that &lt;em&gt;&quot;exactly 144,000 faithful &lt;strong&gt;Christians&lt;/strong&gt; go to heaven to rule with Christ in the kingdom of God.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in Revelation the 144 000 are from Israel &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207:4&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 7:4&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 &lt;strong&gt;from all the tribes of Israel&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207:5-8&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;next four verses&lt;/a&gt; detail the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2310/what-happened-to-the-tribe-of-dan-in-revelation&quot;&gt;tribes from which they came&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So do Jehovah's Witnesses believe the 144 000 are from Israel? If not, how do they explain this text?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Should go without saying, but just for clarity: I'm &lt;em&gt;curious&lt;/em&gt;, not trying to start an argument!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T18:08:18.697" Title="Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe the 144 000 are from Israel?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10221" CreationDate="2012-10-12T13:53:48.407" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's Revelation 7:4 from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/revelation/7&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New World Translation&lt;/a&gt; of the Bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty‐four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the article &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001762&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Great Crowd&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; in the Watchtower Biblical/theological encyclopaedia &lt;em&gt;Insight on the Scriptures&lt;/em&gt;, we find:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle [Paul] wrote: “He is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit.” (Romans 2:28, 29) Why, too, would there be no mention of any ‘sealing’ of the Gentile Christians in this divine vision? And why would not the Gentile Christians be able to master the new song sung by the 144,000? (Revelation 14:3) It thus seems clear that the 144,000 sealed ones are of spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel—hence include both Jewish and Gentile Christians.—Galatians 6:16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 144,000 sealed ones are of spiritual Israel.  In other words, adopted into one of the tribes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a further explanation from the article &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011405&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Do All Faithful Christians Go to Heaven?&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; in the 1 June 2011 issue of &lt;em&gt;The Watchtower&lt;/em&gt; magazine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, too, with this heavenly Kingdom. Jesus, the Lamb of God, rules with 144,000 co-rulers “bought from among mankind.”—Revelation 14:1, 4, 5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;True, 144,000 is a small number compared with the number of all faithful ones, past and present. But this is understandable because the 144,000 are resurrected to heaven for a specific sacred assignment of work. If you were to build a house, would you contract all the skilled builders in your area? No. You would need only as many as were required for the job. Similarly, not all faithful ones are chosen by God for the unique privilege of ruling with Christ in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-13T00:11:46.897" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10194" CreationDate="2012-10-12T15:45:12.860" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of those questions that everyone has had but the Bible does not address it clearly.  The only place I can think of where the Bible dies seem to answer it is here, where Paul is arguing the importance of spreading the gospel to the Gentiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”&#xA;  14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” (Romans 10:13-15, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However Nature is another kind of scripture, only much weaker in light. &lt;strong&gt;Therefore although the ordinary means of salvation is only through the gospel preached, I think their is some  merit to the idea that God could theoretically save a person by His Spirit through the testimony of nature.&lt;/strong&gt;  The argument might be weak, but I do imagine that I could have believed in Christ by nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, say you lived on an Island with only yourself and animals.  You would eventually understand death, you would sense and eternal power by the sight of the sky, Ocean, etc.  Therefore you would conclude the designer of the world you live in is angry and you might become depressed and afraid of dying and facing his wrath.  This part is reasonable, what is more difficult to imagine is does nature manifest God's love and grace in order that you could believe in a vague concept of Messiah and be saved. Even the idea of life being given for life could create a subconscious sense of grace, for men and various animals live by eating the life of another. Every day the innocent die to give life to the guilty (though the food is not willing, like Christ was, yet still Nature seems to provide it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although nature does not indicate God's love as much as His power and his finitude, there are some signs.  For example, when you lay down at night is this not death, yet you rise in the morning.  At night you see little, yet the Sun will rise promising hope.  The birds of the air find food as though someone cares for them. Jesus himself drew attention to the birds and the lilies proving the care of an infinite God.  The fact that God is angry yet you still live implies the infinite power is kind.  So yes even a vague gospel seems present in nature.  Therefore an ignorant man living on an Island could possibly become convicted of his sin, fear death, and cling onto the goodness, mercy and of God in nature.  Yet in general this seems unlikely and certainly any such faith, if it existed, would immediately respond to the gospel if afterwards it was heard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion &lt;strong&gt;I would not rule out faith in Christ through nature as possible but I have never met such a person.&lt;/strong&gt;  Actually I did read a book from a Missionary many years ago who met a tribe far removed from civilization that had a tradition that someone would bring them a message, and nearly the whole tribe became Christian as soon as the Missionary preached the gospel to them, but I forget the name of the missionary and the tribe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-10-12T15:54:17.920" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T15:54:17.920" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10187" CreationDate="2012-10-12T19:10:34.203" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A distinction must be made between &quot;God is love&quot; and &quot;God can only be love&quot;.  1 John 4:8 describes what God &quot;is&quot; not what he can be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more concrete analogy, the statement &quot;I am alive&quot; does not mean &quot;I cannot die&quot;.  &quot;I am alive&quot; describes my current state.  &quot;I cannot die&quot; describes my probable state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &quot;God is love&quot; is a statement describing God's current state, and does not deny his capability for maintaining a different state.  The same can be said for the statement &quot;God does not sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1525" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T19:10:34.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4364" CreationDate="2012-10-12T21:08:22.090" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is funny to me that the Bible does not mention in any prophecy that the mother of the Messiah would be a redeemer or mediator or queen of anything. All biblical scripture before Jesus points directly to Him, and all scripture after Jesus tell us about his ministry and finished work on the cross. This man made belief that Mary is all these things is not supported by scripture, and the word says to test everything with it. It does not ever say that Mary would be a virgin forever, not even a slightly remote hint of it exist in the Bible.&#xA;Mary calls Jesus her savior, if she was a virgin and pure with no sin, she would not need a savior. An in depth study of the book of Hebrews will help to understand exactly what God's plan was and how He accomplished it. It also reveals to us the greatness of Jesus and no person, angelic being, or prophet; is greater than Jesus. Hebrews 7 in particular reveals Jesus as our High Priest and our connection with God, and there is no other way to connect with God except through Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2302" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-10-18T16:26:56.853" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T16:26:56.853" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4145" CreationDate="2012-10-12T21:51:32.880" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faithful members of the LDS church have the opportunity to be married in the temple in a ceremony called a temple sealing.  This sealing is one of the most sacred ordinances performed in the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a couple is sealed and married they don't hear the usual, &quot;Until death do you part&quot;.  This union doesn't end with death, rather it continues on into the eternities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a couple that has been previously sealed has children the blessing of the sealing extends to their children, as long as the parents have kept their covenants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a couple gets sealed after having children, the children enter the temple and the parents are sealed as husband and wife, and the children are sealed to their parents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This sealing ordinance enables family ties to continue beyond death.  This is why the family is a strong focus in the LDS church.  The people in your family were likely close to you before you came to this earth, and if we keep our covenants, then we never have to lose them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2303" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T21:51:32.880" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5490" CreationDate="2012-10-12T21:59:20.603" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS church teaches that Christ, Lucifer, and all beings that live know, have lived and will live here are God's spirit children.  That makes Christ and Lucifer brothers, and all of us their siblings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before we came to earth God asked one of His children to play the role of a savior.  That person would have to carry out the atonement so that both justice and mercy could be satisfied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were two volunteers. Jesus Christ was willing to obey God's plan. This plan allows the rest of us to choose whether or not we would follow God's commandments and give the glory to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lucifer wanted to force us to obey the commandments and he wanted the glory for himself.  One third of God's children wanted it Satan's way and a war broke out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lucifer and his followers were cast out and not allowed to gain a body and live a life on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the LDS church teaches that Lucifer is our spiritual brother and Christ's as well.  That doesn't mean that he has our best interests in mind.  He's jealous of our physical bodies and the experiences we get to have and so he and his followers try to get us to abuse the bodies we have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2303" LastActivityDate="2012-10-12T21:59:20.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10235" CreationDate="2012-10-12T23:58:58.777" Score="8" ViewCount="770" Body="&lt;p&gt;In LDS theology, there are &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/462/are-there-multiple-levels-to-heaven/466#466&quot;&gt;three levels of Glory&lt;/a&gt; for the Saints.  What are the requirements for reaching each level?  (In other words, what determines who goes to which?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, who goes to Hell (The temporary Spirit Prison), and what determines if one escapes from Hell, or gets cast into Outer Darkness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture references, links to the official statements, and teaching from the Church are all welcome as valid supportive references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2016-12-28T22:52:58.983" Title="What are the requirements for each of the three levels of Glory?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10234" CreationDate="2012-10-13T00:23:35.567" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The three degrees of glory are the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial. Each kingdom is on the order of the law it represents: Telestial law is the law of the world, effectively lawlessness (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/15.40-41#39&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;in the scriptures&lt;/a&gt;, this is compared to the glory of the stars), Terrestrial law is a &quot;middle&quot; law (compared to the glory of the moon), and the Celestial law is God's law (compared to the glory of the sun).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's not exactly a checklist of requirements to pass off before inheriting a higher kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/41&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;In the Book of Mormon, Alma teaches&lt;/a&gt; that individuals are resurrected with (he uses the term &quot;restored to&quot;) a physical body comparable to the law they lived. In other words, individuals who live a telestial law will be raised to a telestial body and thus will inherit that kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A revelation to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon opened up the windows of heaven to them, which is detailed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.81-113#80&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 76&lt;/a&gt;, and it explains the status of those in each kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidently, those in the telestial kingdom will have not chosen to receive a testimony of Jesus, they rejected the gospel, and are &quot;thrust down to hell&quot; (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10178/who-goes-to-hell-in-lds-theology&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; to learn more how this phrase is interpreted), yet they did not deny the Holy Ghost (in other words, they did not come out in open rebellion against God). They will be resurrected last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those in the terrestrial kingdom will have received the Spirit and gospel (since LDS theology teaches that &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; will have the &lt;em&gt;opportunity&lt;/em&gt; to receive it at some point, either in this life or the next), but did not receive its fulness, by their choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.50-70#49&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Those who inherit the celestial kingdom&lt;/a&gt; have faithfully accepted the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, having: entered into baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those in authority. Within the celestial kingdom are all those who are pure and holy, and even those who have achieved exaltation, God's greatest and eternal blessing to His children, that they become like Him. These souls will be resurrected first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, your question about &quot;hell,&quot; being the temporary spirit prison or the eternal darkness. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/40.11-13#10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;In LDS theology, after death, there is a &quot;spirit paradise&quot; and a &quot;spirit prison.&quot;&lt;/a&gt; Often it's taught in Sunday schools that they are separate places, like two buildings across the street, but the more I study it, the more I'm realizing that it's two &lt;em&gt;states&lt;/em&gt; of being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spirit prison is a state for those who already chose not to accept the gospel or would reject it when it is preached to them. Spirit paradise is a state inherited by they who lived the gospel, or at least its teachings, whether or not they received it. Those who &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; receive it, though, preach to those who did not. Peter mentions this work in 1 Peter 3:18-20. D&amp;amp;C 138 also talks about this work in detail. These spiritual states are only temporary, while the resurrection is awaited. To &quot;escape&quot; that hell, I suppose one would have to accept the gospel, implying repentance and some payment for sins...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the eternal sense of the word hell is reserved for those who reject God, refuse the gospel, and deny the Holy Ghost. It's understood that these will be relatively few in number, but the sons of perdition, having departed in a sense the family of God, will not receive any glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people use terms I've used in my answer a little differently in some contexts, but the differences are minute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-10-13T01:56:28.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10214" CreationDate="2012-10-13T01:31:17.013" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/10220/58&quot;&gt;Jay's answer&lt;/a&gt; has got the general idea right, but the meaning of what Jesus said is much deeper and much more significant. I first heard about this in a sermon earlier this year, but you can find corroboration of this online (like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mayimhayim.org/JewishWedding.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Biblical times, the Jewish custom of marriage was such that even after the bride and bridegroom were married (after the bride accepted the cup), the bride didn't go and live with her &quot;husband&quot; nor did they build a new house and move there. Rather, the man went back to his father's house and built a room that added on to his father's house. When the room was finished, the husband could go back and get his wife. However, it was the man's &lt;em&gt;father&lt;/em&gt; who decided when the room was done, when it was satisfactory. Once the father finally said that the man's room was done, then the man could go and get his bride with much fanfare, bring her back to his house, and they would have a feast - the wedding feast.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I love this stuff!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sound familiar? It should! Jesus offering the Cup of the Covenant is His proposal! However, His bride couldn't go and be with Him just yet; He had to prepare a place for us first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2014:2&amp;amp;version=CEV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:2 (CEV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;There are many rooms in my Father’s house. I wouldn’t tell you this, unless it was true. I am going there to prepare a place for each of you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When His Father finally tells Him that everything is ready, then He'll come back and get us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2014:3&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:3 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the rooms are completed, Jesus will be released to come and get His Bride - the Church!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact identity of this place (God's mansion) isn't explicitly given in the Bible, but it's most likely the New Jerusalem (where 20 billion inhabitants could each have a room that was a cube half a mile long, wide, and high). Heaven may have been one of the first things God created, but by no means does that mean Jesus can't continue creating, either in Heaven or on Earth. If anything, God consistently and frequently shows that He likes to be intimately involved with His creation, fiddling with the little details and enjoying watching things unfold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to directly answer your questions, Jesus was talking about Heaven, and He wasn't using a figure of speech at all. He meant it literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-10-13T01:51:50.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10237" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="10242" CreationDate="2012-10-13T02:15:21.467" Score="11" ViewCount="1845" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know it's different than most Christian faiths' beliefs, and I know the missionaries teach it... I know it's a big part of Mormon curriculum and doctrine, and this site is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4620/what-does-the-lds-church-teach-about-the-pre-existence-of-each-person-prior-to-c&quot;&gt;replete&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6119/what-roles-do-faith-and-works-play-in-the-lds-mormon-understanding-of-salvation&quot;&gt;with&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4145/why-does-the-lds-church-mormon-put-so-much-more-emphasis-on-the-family-than-m&quot;&gt;questions&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10234/what-are-the-requirements-for-each-of-the-three-levels-of-glory&quot;&gt;about&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10178/who-goes-to-hell-in-lds-theology&quot;&gt;seemingly&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8627/in-what-sense-do-mormons-believe-salvation-is-only-through-christ&quot;&gt;every&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4760/according-to-the-mormon-doctrines-who-created-the-universe&quot;&gt;part&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5504/what-does-the-lds-mormon-church-teach-about-who-jesus-is-and-where-he-came-fro&quot;&gt;of&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/according-to-lds-mormon-teaching-who-was-the-first-god-who-began-the-eternal&quot;&gt;it&lt;/a&gt;, but would someone connect the dots and piece it together here in an overall summary? Why is it needed in LDS doctrine, what questions does it answer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2020-03-12T14:31:37.967" Title="What is the Plan of Salvation in LDS theology?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;purpose&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10238" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-13T08:12:26.907" Score="5" ViewCount="7044" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a common Christian belief that sex outside of marriage (whether extra-marital or pre-marital) is sinful. But what about common law marriage? In 10 US states and the District of Columbia (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#United_States&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;), a marriage can be contracted by a cohabiting couple putting themselves forward as married - beyond mere cohabitation, there is a necessity to present one's selves as being married. (Which as a practical matter is not hard - many people will assume that a cohabiting couple are married, so in a common-law marriage jurisdiction, a cohabiting couple can become married simply by doing nothing to disabuse others of the perception that they &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; married.) So, if a couple have a legally recognised common law marriage, are they sinning by living together and having sexual relations? Is a marriage ceremony or a legal document morally necessarily to be married? (If it is, did Adam and Eve have a ceremony or a contract?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the jurisdiction in which the couple live matter for the purposes of its moral status? Is a cohabiting couple, presenting as married, in a common law jurisdiction in which such presentation is sufficient to become married, not sinning by having sexual relations, while a cohabiting couple, making the same presentation, in a jurisdiction which does not recognise common-law marriage, sinning? (Many jurisdictions which used to recognise common-law marriage no longer do - that is true of most US states, most Canadian provinces, Scotland, among others.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the legal status of the relationship is relevant to its moral status - what is the moral relevance of jurisdictions (like Australia or France) which provide legal recognition to cohabiting couples which is legally distinct from marriage? (i.e. &lt;em&gt;de facto&lt;/em&gt; status in Australia, &lt;em&gt;pacte civil de solidarité&lt;/em&gt; in France). If legal recognition is morally significant, does it morally matter whether a jurisdiction considers a relationship established by repute to be equal in status to formal marriages, or to have some distinct legally recognised status?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(In this question I am only asking about heterosexual couples who are exclusively monogamous, who are freely consenting, adults, of sound mind, and not related.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastEditorUserId="2263" LastEditDate="2012-10-13T08:42:43.700" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T15:00:00.913" Title="What is the moral status of common-law marriage?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-04-09T02:47:10.660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10238" CreationDate="2012-10-13T10:13:30.230" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Allowances of the law have little or no bearing on the moral standing of marriage or any other Christian practice. Where applicable we are bound to follow relevant laws in addition to the prescription of our doctrine, but this is in addition to not in place of them. Common law does not define marriage, although it may or may not make an applicable legal hoop necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of marriage practice among Christians boils down to tradition, but the traditions are built on principles. While much variation is found in the details, the principles guiding what is or is not done are pretty fixed. Marriage is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman entered into by profession before men and sealed by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How you go about that, the pieces have to all be there.  Where the profession is made -- in church or on a lawn, whether officiated by an uncle or pastor or even not at all -- doesn't matter nearly so much that a declaration is made public that two people are now married. Where they sign state paperwork before our after our not at all if not required doesn't change anything. Making such a declaration, then sleeping with someone else would be a violation of that covenant no matter where the state stands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity even honors marriage as sacred when entered into by two non Christians with a purely secular profession. God's role in the covenant relationship is something we believe just is -- even if the parties involved ignore him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obeying the law of the land is required, but our duties do not end where the law stops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-10-13T10:29:55.223" LastActivityDate="2012-10-13T10:29:55.223" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10237" CreationDate="2012-10-13T18:42:56.143" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS Plan of Salvation can be found on the official LDS website &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&amp;amp;sourceId=45af9daac5d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&amp;amp;vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, the following are the main points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We all once lived as spirit children of God in our premortal life.  While we were in our Premortal life, our Heavenly Father presented us with his plan of happiness, as described in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3.22-26?lang=eng#21&quot;&gt;Abraham 3:22-26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We chose, in our premortal life, to come to this earth, this existence, to follow the plan of Eternal Progression.  We are now in our Mortal Life.  During our mortal life, we are able to grow in ways we couldn't in our premortal life. The purpose of our current life is to grow, to prepare to be worthy of eternal life, to prove ourselves worthy, and to help others to know of God's plan.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When we die, we will be judged and received into a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&amp;amp;sourceId=d1ef9daac5d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&amp;amp;vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&quot;&gt;Kingdom of Glory&lt;/a&gt;.  The level of glory we inherit will depend on the depth of our conversion and our obedience to the Lord's commandments&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, of course, only scratches the surface, and the LDS Plan of Salvation encompasses not only salvation, but exaltation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most basic LDS explanation of what Salvation is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,&#xA;  the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings. As used in&#xA;  Romans 10:9-10, the words “saved” and “salvation” signify a covenant&#xA;  relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship,&#xA;  followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal&#xA;  consequences of sin if they are obedient. “Salvation” and “saved” are&#xA;  also used in the scriptures in other contexts with several different&#xA;  meanings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are actually six definitions of Salvation in LDS theology, all defined &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. (Click the &quot;view more&quot; link.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation from Physical Death&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation from Sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being Born Again&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation from Ignorance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation from the Second Death&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eternal Life, or Exaltation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A somewhat shorter version than the one linked to at the beginning of the article can be found &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/topics/plan-of-salvation&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for how one achieves Salvation, the teaching differs from mainstream Christianity.  Whereas the vast majority of Christianity believes that salvation is by Faith alone, with no works attached, LDS teaching is different. In LDS theology, only General Salvation is attained through Faith in Christ alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/salvation-and-exaltation?lang=eng&quot;&gt;Elder Theodore M. Burton&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assistant to the Council of the Twelve&#xA;July 1972:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As I listened to the radio a few days ago, I heard a minister tell his&#xA;  listeners: “Confess Christ and you shall be saved. Admit Christ into&#xA;  your heart and he will save you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he quoted Ephesians 2:8 for his clinching argument: “For by grace&#xA;  are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift&#xA;  of God.” [Eph. 2:8]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he gave his final advice: “Is this too much to ask of you?&#xA;  Thousands and hundreds of thousands have found lasting peace and&#xA;  happiness by accepting Christ as their Savior. Join with us in&#xA;  Christian faith and you shall be saved.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I wonder how many people have been lulled into a false sense of&#xA;  security by such teaching. As a missionary knocking at the doors of&#xA;  people, I had literally hundreds of people tell me that they were not&#xA;  interested in learning more about Jesus Christ, for they were already&#xA;  saved. The shocking thing about this is that they were right. What&#xA;  that minister said was true, but the difficulty is that it was not the&#xA;  whole truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...snip...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The true value of the sacrifice of Christ means much more than this&#xA;  general salvation which comes to all mankind. There is an additional&#xA;  salvation that God has planned for his children. This additional&#xA;  salvation is an individual salvation and is conditioned not only upon&#xA;  grace, but also upon obedience to gospel law. One of the prophets in&#xA;  the Book of Mormon explained why he and his associates were so&#xA;  concerned about teaching more about Jesus Christ, as he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the general salvation is through faith in Christ alone, but that's just the beginning.  There are, in Salvation, more than one level of Glory, which is, as stated above &quot;conditioned not only upon grace, but also upon obedience to gospel law.&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this is not seen within LDS teaching as a works-based salvation, even at this level.  There is somehow, in LDS theology a difference between obedience, and earning your way in.  More from the article quoted above expands upon this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exaltation comes as a gift from God, dependent upon my obedience to&#xA;  God’s law. No works I do solely of my own power can bring this to&#xA;  pass. Only by the grace of God has this course been opened to me, but&#xA;  only through obedience to the laws of God can I claim my inheritance&#xA;  in the celestial kingdom of my Heavenly Father as a son within his&#xA;  family. I cannot be exalted in my sins, but must work until I overcome&#xA;  them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Amulek the prophet explained this most clearly as he said of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for&#xA;  I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can&#xA;  inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except&#xA;  ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in&#xA;  your sins.” (Alma 11:37.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But later on in the article, Burton again teaches that works are a result of faith.  But the fact remains that in LDS theology, works are required. Perhaps not as a way of &quot;buying&quot; our way in, but as a sign, in that, if we don't have works, it's a sure sign that we don't have faith. Often, the following is quoted as support for this belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:14-26 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but&#xA;  does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is&#xA;  naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them,&#xA;  “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the&#xA;  things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus&#xA;  also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me&#xA;  your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by&#xA;  my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even&#xA;  the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish&#xA;  man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our&#xA;  father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?&#xA;  22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by&#xA;  works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which&#xA;  says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for&#xA;  righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see&#xA;  then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she&#xA;  received the messengers and sent them out another way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works&#xA;  is dead also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also, the lack of good works/righteousness as a sign of not really being Faithful is stressed in Matthew 15:8, which is heard in almost every Sunday School class I attended when I was attending the LDS Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from&#xA;  me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Burton goes on to define those works: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those works, which follow the true exercise of faith, include&#xA;  repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and continued&#xA;  righteousness to the end of our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Burton expands a bit on those who do not obey the Law in full:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God said of those who were not willing to pay the full price of&#xA;  exaltation through full obedience to his whole law: “Therefore, when&#xA;  they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in&#xA;  marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are&#xA;  ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far&#xA;  more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the opposite of Mainstream Christianity, which believes that as imperfect beings, we cannot be fully obedient, and thus is the distinction - the splitting of hairs between the &quot;mainstream&quot; understanding of &quot;by faith alone&quot;.  Mainstream Christianity says &quot;I can never be good enough to add a single iota to my salvation.  I am miserable and wretched, and I rely solely on God's mercy because even my righteousness is as filthy rags to Him.&quot;   The LDS teaching, on the other hand, is that we &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be fully obedience, and we are &lt;em&gt;able to be&lt;/em&gt; fully obedient, and those that achieve this attain the highest form of exaltation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-14T00:22:59.733" LastActivityDate="2012-10-14T00:22:59.733" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10238" CreationDate="2012-10-14T03:23:05.777" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously a common law marriage is not a sacramental marriage. But, as it is part of the social compact in some places, someone who is common law married has the same moral standing. If you attempted some form of bigamy with a Catholic, the priest would ask you in accord with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can.  1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Are you currently married&quot; and you would say, yes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, there is no impediment for cohabitating couples to have their marriage sacramentalized by the Catholic Church (except a good long confession by both parties and maybe some other penances as prescribed by the priest). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, if a common law married man abandons his common law wife to marry another woman, he must get a divorce from her before trying to get a sacramental marriage through the Church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to keep in mind is the assumption of the automatic nature of common law marriage might not be what you think it is. I was told the same thing you described, but in researching a bit, I think a couple still needs to make a formal declaration, so the marriage isn't just something that falls in your lap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-10-14T03:23:05.777" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8388" CreationDate="2012-10-14T03:39:02.187" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first identification of Hebrew as a language was around the time of Noah after the flood and before the tower of babel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the tower the bible states all men spoke the same language (Hebrew).  God punished the builders by confounding their ability to communicate not only with each other but also with God.  During the time that followed we see the chosen people communicating in Hebrew with God until Pentecost, when all language and peoples were blessed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until Pentecost the will and nature of God was only given through Jewish followers (Hebrews).  Simple Christian understanding with assumption that Adam and Eve were also given Hebrew as a way to communicate with their creator. So, yes, I would assume it is the language of Gods choosing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3306" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-08-05T18:10:57.150" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T18:10:57.150" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11243" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-14T03:43:10.527" Score="4" ViewCount="1386" Body="&lt;p&gt;So Augustine, Aquinas and King agree that we, as Christians and free people are not required to follow human laws that do not comply with the natural moral law&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;. One may well ask: &amp;quot;How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?&amp;quot; The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that &amp;quot;an unjust law is no law at all.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's well and good for the evil that men do, but what about the pointless things that men do. Both in terms of the laws of government  like those &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/wisconsin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dictating the use of butter substitutes in the dairy state&lt;/a&gt; and those edicts in our every day lives and offices such as, &amp;quot;all men on yhe second floor must poop in the basement even though there's a bathroom close by&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the natural law, which has a lot to say about man's inherent dignity, override ones moral duties to follow laws and command which are, not wicked or unjust, but just either below ones dignity to follow, not a matter of gracious obedience or self-perfection, or just plain dumb?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-09-16T16:24:55.980" Title="Does natural law override silly human laws?" Tags="&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;obedience&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-16T23:00:31.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11243" CreationDate="2012-10-14T19:22:22.923" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure about an answer that applies to all of Christianity. but as it happens, the subject of obeying rules we think are dumb came up in Sunday School this very morning.  So, from a Baptist perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 13:1-2 (KJV) says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no&#xA;  power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.&#xA;  2 Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God:&#xA;  and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no mention in Scripture of a principle by which we are allowed to ignore authority because we don't understand a rule/law, or because we think it's silly.  The only exception is if the law goes directly against the Law of God.  We would be allowed to disobey an authority that tried to force us to worship idols, for example, or commit adultery, murder, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we would be completely unjustified in disobeying a law that required us to wear a giant panda bear as a hat in honor of National Panda day, as wearing such a hat is not against the Law of God.  It's silly, but not amoral. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dignity, in one sense, is a matter of pride, and therefore selfishness, and is not a justifiable defense. There is no concept of personal dignity being equal to God's law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;The above statement does not include the basic dignity that all human beings are afforded as creations of a loving God.  The dignity I'm referring to is the pride masquerading as dignity. As in &quot;I'm too dignified for that&quot;, or &quot;Such silliness is beneath me&quot;.  That's completely different than dignity in the sense that we have intrinsic value as human beings - creations of a loving God.  The dignity that we should not be discriminated against or denied entry because some bigot thinks we have less intrinsic value&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a matter of fact, the Bible gives a few very clear examples of where a person is told to do something that seems silly and undignified on God's command.  One such example is in 2 Kings 5 where Naaman is told to go dip himself in the Jordan seven times to be healed of his leprosy.  He's told to go wash in the stinky, dirty, smelly Jordan, and he balks at first because it seems silly, but when he obeys, he is healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no, there is no justification for disobeying silly rules that we don't understand and think are undignified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;End of official answer&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;The rest of this may go beyond a doctrinal answer and into &quot;Pastoral Advice&quot;, but I think it bears on the original question and puts it in a different light.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an importance in following authority as Christians as well, even if we see it as silly.  For the Christian, the foundation of all authority is the fact that all authority is ordained by God, whether we agree with it or not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those of us with children, one of our responsibilities as parents it to teach them to respect, and be subject to authority, whether they like it or not.  If they see us disrespecting and disobeying authority, how are we going to teach them that they must respect and obey it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they see us refusing to obey our boss, for example, how are we supposed to teach them to respect their teachers and future employers?  We'd be hypocrites, and our children see through that pretty quickly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, our peers see though our hypocrisy as well, so from the perspective of letting Christ shine through us, we would be bound to honor silly laws in the name of not being a stubmling block for others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-15T00:10:32.300" LastActivityDate="2012-10-15T00:10:32.300" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11250" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11255" CreationDate="2012-10-15T05:00:54.577" Score="11" ViewCount="4297" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. (Matthew 10:29-31, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is true that God even loves a sparrow and nothing can happen under his all powerful hand without his consent, why does God allow the great injustice of the wicked prospering while his dearly loved often suffer in this world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does the Christian view reconcile the sufferings of a Job with the gentle care of a sparrow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:31:49.293" Title="Why does God often permit his children to suffer in this world more than the wicked?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9585" CreationDate="2012-10-15T05:04:30.047" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The statement &lt;strong&gt;“Crucifixion was not necessary for salvation and that only a drop of Jesus' blood needed to be spilled”&lt;/strong&gt; could not have been from St. Thomas Aquinas. This is because it obliquely implies that there was no need for Christ to die, which is grossly against the tenets of Christianity.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas was one of the supreme advocates of Eucharistic devotion and exponents of the nature of the mysterious process by which the host becomes the &lt;strong&gt;Body and Blood&lt;/strong&gt; of Christ.  Indeed, it was St. Thomas Aquinas who not only explained transubstantiation but also provided for the first time the word for it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his famous works “Summa theologiae” several times, St Aquinas stresses the importance of sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion&quot;, whereas, &quot;it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth&quot; (Summa, III, 75, 1, c.).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Eucharist is, as it were, &quot;the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments&quot; (Summa, III, 73, 3, c.).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The reason for this, St Thomas explains, lies in the fact that whereas the energy — &quot;vis&quot; or &quot;virtus&quot; — of the Passion of Christ is active in the other sacraments, the Eucharist contains &quot;Christ's own Body&quot; (Summa, III, 73, 1, 3m); ); in Scholastic language, Christ is present as &quot;the common spiritual good of the whole Church... contained substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist&quot; (Summa, III, 65, 3, 1), in order to bring man to full communion with Christ in the Passion (cf. Summa, III, 73, 2, 3m).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St Thomas Aquinas also writes that   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;in our pilgrimage, [Christ] does not deprive us of his bodily presence, but unites us with himself in this sacrament through the truth of his Body and Blood&quot; (Summa, III, 75, 1, c.), always seen in their sacrificial condition&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, this statement is not in line with Catholic doctrine.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;And how much more does the Crucifixion do for us than a single drop of Christ's Precious Blood?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While a single drop of Christ’s precious blood could cleans us from all sins, His &lt;strong&gt;death and resurrection&lt;/strong&gt; was necessary for us to overcome the eternal damnation that came on us from our first parents. Our salvation is a result of death and resurrection of Jesus. The whole episode of crucifixion, including the circumstances leading to His crucifixion has been phrased as the passion of Christ and Jesus' physical torture including crucifixion was part of His punishment for our salvation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The definitive plan of salvation began with the Fall of our first parents and the establishment of animal sacrifice as the one means of dealing with sin. Sin separated God's children from Him. There had to be a means to prevent eternal separation and that “means” became animal sacrifice by &lt;strong&gt;killing&lt;/strong&gt; them and &lt;strong&gt;spilling their blood&lt;/strong&gt;. Leviticus 17:11 explains God’s plan for forgiving sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God said to our first parents: For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:17). If we were to take this “death” that God mentioned, as physical death then the same day they were supposed to have died. Here God was telling them about the eternal death not the physical death, which Adam died 930 years later (Genesis 5:5).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Physical death physically destroys the body but it is not an eternal destruction. The eternal death destroys the soul. Christ crucifixion, death and resurrection was necessary to overcome the power of this eternal death. With resurrection of Christ there will be a resurrection of all those who believed in Christ as He overcome the power of eternal death by His resurrection from death.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Just as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man who should overcome the devil. And since man deserved death so it should be a man who, by dying, vanquishes death. That is why it is written: 'Thanks be to God who has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 15:57]. Summa Theologiae 3:46:4.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. May be what Priest/layman said on Radio Relevant was: Death not necessarily by Crucifixion but by any other means. Or it may  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/St.%20Augustine%20and%20St.%20Thomas%20Aquinas%20on%20the%20suffering%20and%20death%20of%20Jesus.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;THIS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-10-15T08:02:04.163" LastActivityDate="2012-10-15T08:02:04.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11250" CreationDate="2012-10-15T12:14:47.757" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I guess I'd question whether or not God's children really &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; suffer &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; than the wicked.  We all suffer in this world, and while some Christians suffer horrific things, so do non-believers.  But assuming the premise is true...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the great philosophical questions to which there are many answers given.  There are several possible reasons for any given instance of suffering, which all add up to suffering as a whole.  The final answer is &quot;because it serves God's purpose&quot;, but since that seems unsatisfying, let's look at a few other things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first things to point out is that God never promised that Christians would not suffer.  In fact, He promises the exact opposite.  There's a tract that I like that expands on this concept &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.looktotheeast.com/God_loves_you_and.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Small excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is true that God loves you, but you decide if His plan is&#xA;  &quot;wonderful.&quot; If you have heard that happiness comes through Jesus&#xA;  Christ, you may like to think again. The first thing Jesus said of the&#xA;  Apostle Paul (who wrote most of the New Testament) was that He would&#xA;  show him &quot;how great things he must suffer for (His) name's sake.1&#xA;  Three times Paul was beaten with rods, once he was stoned, three times&#xA;  he suffered shipwreck, a night and a day he spent in the sea. There&#xA;  were times when Paul was so unhappy, he wanted to die.2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bible says, &quot;All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer&#xA;  persecution.&quot;3 It says we enter the Kingdom of God through much&#xA;  distress,4 and that we were appointed to afflictions.5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said if we followed Him we would be reviled, persecuted, hated,&#xA;  and all manner of evil would be said against us falsely, for His sake.&#xA;  He warned that we would have to take up our cross daily, deny&#xA;  ourselves and follow Him, saying, &quot;In the world you shall have&#xA;  tribulation,&quot; and even that we may be called to die for our faith.6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what purpose could suffering possibly serve?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From many sermons I've heard on the subject, here are a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To teach us to rely more fully on God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To correct wrong behavior.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://scripturetext.com/hebrews/12-6.htm&quot;&gt;He loves us and chastens us when necessary&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.faith-bible.net/2009/03/txt-why-does-god-test-my-faith/&quot;&gt;test our faith&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.articlesbase.com/christianity-articles/how-do-you-prove-your-faith-1804585.html&quot;&gt;prove&lt;/a&gt; our faith&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To show us how He can overcome obstacles if we rely on him (strongly related to the first point)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To show non-believers that He can overcome all obstacles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To give us an opportunity to witness to others by showing them the peace and joy in Christ that survives through persecution&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So that we can more effectively offer comfort to others going through the same thing - to make us better ministers and evangelists.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/psalms/66-10.htm&quot;&gt;To refine us&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there are others, but this will do for a start, and again, remember that God didn't promise an easy life. He promised trials, suffering, and tribulation, and the one thing we can be sure of is that it serves a His perfect purpose, which isn't always apparent to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for why Christians would suffer &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; than the unsaved, we can look to Hebrews 12:5-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as&#xA;  unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord,&#xA;  nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom&#xA;  he receiveth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what&#xA;  son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without&#xA;  chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not&#xA;  sons. 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected&#xA;  us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in&#xA;  subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they verily&#xA;  for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our&#xA;  profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. 11 Now no&#xA;  chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous:&#xA;  nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of&#xA;  righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just one final thought on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:28&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV) says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we know that all things work together for good to them that love&#xA;  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; mean that all things by themselves are good.  It means that He causes all things to result in a good end.  Kent Hovind uses an example to illustrate.  (Paraphrasing):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Suppose you were hungry and I offered you a cup of lard.  No?  O.K., &#xA;  How about a couple of cups of flour.  No?  Some raw eggs?  No? &#xA;  Supposed I mix them all together and make pancakes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suffering should not be something that destroys our faith in God.  If we are truly His, it will strengthen our faith and relationship with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-15T12:39:55.973" LastActivityDate="2012-10-15T12:39:55.973" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5650" CreationDate="2012-10-15T14:27:52.597" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;some people think Jesus's words to the weeping women were about abortion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3312" LastActivityDate="2012-10-15T14:27:52.597" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11250" CreationDate="2012-10-15T18:09:34.083" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, sparrows do suffer and die.  So Jesus was not saying God will keep you from all suffering.  Some sparrows die of starvation in the cold.  Jesus was rather saying, look at the sparrows, these little birds, they make nests, they gather food, they have feathers to keep them warm - that God provides for them too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only answer given us in the Bible directly and clearly, is in the book of Job (the oldest book in Bible btw).  And there, the only answer God gives is, &quot;who are you to question me?&quot; and &quot;Trust me.&quot;  Those answers don't go very far, especially today, but there is some deep truth there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may be that we CAN NOT, as in not literally possible, for us to understand why there is suffering in the world.  That actually makes sense to me.  That God would be completely beyond our perception.  Even physics and the natural world we explore with science is beyond our ability to comprehend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-10-15T18:09:34.083" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5650" CreationDate="2012-10-15T20:38:44.123" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea is based on the following logic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%201:15-22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus&lt;/a&gt; we learn that while Israel resided in Egypt under the oppression of the Pharaoh, God planned to bring a deliverer to His people: Moses.  However, when Moses was born, Pharaoh had issued a decree to slay the firstborn sons.  Moses was spared from this slaughter by the providence of God, and went on to lead God's people out of Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew&lt;/a&gt; we learn that Herod sought to prevent the birth of the Christ by slaughtering all male children.  Christ was also a Servant of God and a leader to God's people, destined to lead God's elect out of the hand of their enemies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some conclude that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In both cases God was bringing someone to lead His people out of captivity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In both cases the enemy attempted to thwart that plan through a slaughter of children&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a final deliverance that is yet to come (in the end times)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prior to that deliverance certain key people will be born which will lead God's people&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Since Egypt is a type of &quot;the world&quot;, and Israel a type of &quot;the church&quot;, perhaps the slaughter is also a foreshadowing of a slaughter on the generation destined to lead God's people in the end times&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We see abortion happening and it is an atrocity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abortion must be that slaughter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, take it for what it's worth, but that's the origin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-10-15T20:38:44.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11250" CreationDate="2012-10-15T21:01:19.353" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simple reason Christians may suffer more is because more is expected out of us! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare being humble and meek, give our life for His cause, turning the other cheek vs. being prideful and boasting, live for our carnal desires, and seeking revenge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hmmmmm, which one would you naturally pick? There is a theory of mind (can't remember official title) but basically states that humans naturally seek maximum pleasure and minimum pain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have met and seen Christians who are miserable and suffering based on their interpretations of beliefs, just holding on until Jesus comes. There is an expectation to suffer based on some of the Lords word and for some Christians and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. For others, they don't expect it and still suffer. Some are here on earth for a vacation - have all needs and wants met, extremely happy with life, believer and non-believers but those are more rare but are a reality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a spectrum of suffering and rains on the just and unjust alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, add the self-fulling prophecy and standards to live up to for His sake, it is easy to see why Christians appear to or do suffer more.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, through my spiritual evolution, I have noticed that God wants us to enjoy being here in the physical world too! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have His OK to be OK - and joyful! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all, it is His will we are here and we must celebrate that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 16:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will&#xA;  receive, that your joy may be full.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 126:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He who goes out weeping, bearing the seed for sowing, shall come home&#xA;  with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see these: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/joy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.openbible.info/topics/joy&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the concept of a Christian always suffering is &lt;strong&gt;not the Lord's whole picture&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rather the Christian life is suffering and joy, &lt;em&gt;in parallel&lt;/em&gt;, then we pick which one to focus our attention on.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another very important aspect is to realize how personality and brain disposition effects spiritual and religious interpretation. Studies show that highly sensitive people are more likely to feel they must surrender all for the sake of Christ, including happiness, jobs, money, self confidence, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a very good read and study of this see:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Highly Sensitive Person: by Elaine N. Aron, Ph.D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joel Osteen is a preacher who actually only focus on the positive parts of God, which is why he gets a lot of heat, but his messages are still true and powerful. For example, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=joel%20osteen%20joy&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=1&amp;amp;cad=rja&amp;amp;ved=0CCAQtwIwAA&amp;amp;url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp8KixxAk60&amp;amp;ei=N4R8UM_7Fujo0QHujICwDA&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNF9fWNZjcC39Va3TELWotYZjmaDLw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;his sermon on holding onto joy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While he is in the category of Biblical inspiration, he can be a necessity to a complete and whole Christian walk. see his blog for more info:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ww2.joelosteen.com/HopeForToday/Pages/JoelVictoriasBlog.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://ww2.joelosteen.com/HopeForToday/Pages/JoelVictoriasBlog.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also important to notice that the reality of this philosophy is followed by the #1 biggest church in America and is an specific example of these  concepts supported by scripture - of joy, happiness, promotion, health and strength as a Christian - while still acknowledging the suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see: Nehemiah 8:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for the joy of the Lord is your strength;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to rejoice, as the Lord commanded them on such days as these, was a means both of increasing their bodily strength and their inward strength, and of fitting them the more to perform their duty to God and men with cheerfulness, which sorrow and heaviness made unfit for; and the joy which has the Lord for its object, and comes from him, is the cause of renewing spiritual strength, so as to run and not be weary, walk and not faint, in the ways of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/nehemiah-8-10.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/nehemiah-8-10.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:31:49.293" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:31:49.293" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11258" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11262" CreationDate="2012-10-16T02:18:34.967" Score="19" ViewCount="37022" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why don't more Christian women wear a covering? Most people today might associate the idea with the Old Testament, but references to the custom are actually found in the New Testament too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:6 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off;&#xA;  and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved&#xA;  off, she should cover her head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any mainstream denominations that continue to promote head coverings for women? For example is this what the Amish do? When and why did this tradition stop among most orthodox Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2014-10-21T07:34:45.583" LastActivityDate="2014-10-21T14:58:54.650" Title="What happened to the the practice of women covering their heads?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;amish&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11259" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11260" CreationDate="2012-10-16T03:26:29.040" Score="7" ViewCount="21580" Body="&lt;p&gt;'Magnify' can mean to make something look bigger than it is, but this is not possible to do with God.  Certainly God can't obtain more glory than the infinite worth he had from all eternity. So if we can't make God seem bigger or more glorious than he already is, what does it mean for God to be magnified or glorified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I am not asking 'what' magnifies or glorifies the Lord, but what does it mean in our understanding of God that he is 'magnified'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2016-05-25T12:59:27.083" Title="What does it mean to magnify or glorify the Lord?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-05-26T16:07:38.470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11259" CreationDate="2012-10-16T03:52:08.833" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd give the same answer I gave on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8616/what-practical-effect-do-stock-worship-phrases-like-god-be-magnified-have&quot;&gt;this similar (but not quite duplucate) question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, those phrases can't mean that we have the ability to alter God in any way.  I don't think that the definition of &quot;magnify God&quot; in these phrases means to actually make God &quot;bigger&quot; or &quot;greater&quot;. I understand them to mean &quot;Make God more prominent in my life, our culture, etc.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Magnification doesn't make objects bigger, it alters our perception of an object, making it appear bigger to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, magnifying God doesn't make Him bigger, it means He becomes more prominent to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;God, I magnify you&quot; simply means &quot;I am making you greater (more important) in my life, and putting you first, because you are my focus and priority.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-10-16T03:52:08.833" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11259" CreationDate="2012-10-16T04:32:58.423" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine says of the Blessed Virgin Mary (whose soul magnifies the Lord):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What the Lord magnified in her was, that she did the will of the Father, not that flesh gave birth to flesh. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701010.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Augustine of Hippo - Tractate 10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's what Mary magnified, as a handmaid, her soul magnifies the Lord. Augustine goes on to talk about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;May they ever say, “Exalted be the LORD who delights in the peace of his loyal servant.” (Psalm 35:27b NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which in his translation must have clicked with the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) because his says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord be magnified, they that wish the peace of His servant&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, exalting (or &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2438/i-will-lift-your-name&quot;&gt;lifting the name of&lt;/a&gt;) God, it's an action of the soul, which we desire God to do to us.   Mary's &quot;Yes&quot; meant something, it meant that she desired that her soul would be open to accept the Holy Spirit. While at the same time she, like John, must decrease as well as suffer, so her Son could increase. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on your understanding or opinions regarding the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05749a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;faculties of the soul&lt;/a&gt; it would seem as though there's not a lot a person can do to influence one's soul.   A devout prayer that God should allow a soul to magnify Him (and this is a prayer, in the Psalms and the Gospel) is the an excellent way, an perhaps one of the only ways, to open ourselves up to God's grace.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-10-16T04:32:58.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11258" CreationDate="2012-10-16T05:18:31.420" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; provides a good summary of the historical and current practices within Christianity regarding head coverings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically for large portions of Christianity wearing some kind of head covering before the 20th century was the norm, even for Protestants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Among the Protestant reformers, Martin Luther's wife, Katherine, wore a headcovering in public worship and John Knox and John Calvin both called for women to wear headcoverings in public worship. Other commentators who have advocated headcovering during public worship include John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, A. R. Fausset, A. T. Robertson, Harry A. Ironside and Charles Caldwell Ryrie. In fact, until the 20th century no Reformed theologian taught against head coverings for women in public worship. While Anabaptists, Amish, and Mennonites advocate the wearing of headcoverings at all times, as a woman might pray or prophesy at any time, the Reformed teaching is that &quot;praying and prophesying&quot; refers to the activities taking place in public worship, as the Apostle Paul is dealing with public worship issues in 1st Corinthians, chapter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For current practice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Headcovering, at least during worship services, is still promoted or required in a few denominations and among the more traditional Catholics.Among these are Catholics who live a plain life and are known as Plain Catholics. Some Anabaptist denominations, including the Amish, Old Order Mennonite and Conservative Mennonites, the Old German Baptist Brethren, the Hutterites, and the Apostolic Christian Church; some Pentecostal churches, such as the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, The Pentecostal Mission, the Deeper Christian Life Ministry, and the Christian Congregation in the United States; the Plymouth Brethren; and the more conservative Scottish Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches. Though most Protestant denominations have no official expectation that women cover, some individuals choose to practice headcovering according to their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However to properly understand this phenomena of changing practices I think it is necessary to understand Paul's literal teaching. There is both a cultural and natural basis that explains both the submission to the rule and its abandonment. To Paul one should become 'a Jew to a Jew and Gentile to a Gentile', therefore if a given culture communicated submission to her husband by wearing a purple cone on her head, a Christian woman in that culture should also wear a purple cone on her head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's look at the Apostles meaning, this well then explain why in many churches this practice has ceased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible times regarding head dress were not that different than  various places in the Middle East today, where the social meaning is the same (or similar) as it was at the time of Christ. One must  realize woman should keep their head covered in these places otherwise it is seen as a huge protests against a woman's submission to her husband. To do so while praying would almost seem like blasphemy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However what complicates the issue is when Paul argued this case against some sort of biblical radical 'feminists' who were ready to throw away the authority of men under the new changes of the gospel, he appealed to nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:14-15, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe we must accept the scripture everywhere without forcing the language and then handle the 'damage' to our own ideas after the fact, as well as resolve any seeming contradictions without twisting the original statements.  Therefore, I think Paul is now referring to something here that is 'not cultural'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I accept this unchanging rule, while opposing the enforcement of the cultural rule, only relevant in the Middle East, is this way.  First, Paul in referring to nature is simply pointing out what most people realize.  In general men look silly with long hair (with some exceptions) and in general women look beautiful with long, flowing, gorgeous hair (with some exceptions).  Nobody would ever be able to deny this, just looked at models in magazines.  Why is this the case? Paul argues it is a natural symbol that shows a woman under the headship of the man.  In a man's case his headship is not in this world but invisible, so when praying to God the open air is a better symbol.  Not that a woman does not ultimately have Christ as her head as well but that she came from the man, i.e. wo-man, as symbols of societies organization from the original template of Adam and Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I would never imagine for a minute that Paul intended to refer to the natural observation to become legalistic, so that a woman can't be bald in modern day, if she chooses, or that a man can't have long hair and play in a christian rock band, or try out for a Jesus movie, where for some odd reason Jesus is depicted as having long hair. Rather, as a bald woman was a great cultural shame back then, and that not keeping her head covered was interpreted as rebellion, the natural images of nature should not at all be rebelled against. That was Paul's argument.  Why rebel against a cultural ceremony if it even has some support in nature? However, once a culture no longer has that meaning, the natural element of beauty is purely a personal matter.  Really its about looking good for the opposite sex, or what takes the least amount of time to get ready in the morning, or suits your career image, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even God did not always follow his own natural symbolism, therefore neither do we need to as a matter of law.  For example, the Nazirite was instructed to go against this symbolism as a revised symbol of his 'dedication'. Interestingly his hair may have possibly become a symbol of Christ in the flesh, for when it became large it may represented his 'head' on top of his own head, whereby his 'commitment' actually became part of the fellowship offering.  Whenever something is burned in offering to God, it is reasonable for us to draw imagery of Christ in the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘Then at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that symbolizes their dedication. They are to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering. (Numbers 6:18, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore in the Bible an open airy head may indicate the headship of God as the divine Christ, yet long hair could be the human manifestation of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today in most countries we can do whatever we please, even die our hair purple or green and no particular cultural message is being communicated that would be necessarily offensive to Paul.  The natural order of things no longer has a direct ceremonial and cultural significance as it once had for most countries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This explains why the practice for many has been abrogated. There was no Biblical command inaugurating it, but while a culture communicated its values with this symbolism, there was no reason to oppose it. Now that many cultures do not put much weight on outward appearance in terms of the male-female role, there is no reason to oppose to forms of cultural communication.  If Christianity attached undue importance to clothing than it could be argued that men should wear tunics and sandals to pay respect to Christ's culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-10-17T23:52:27.340" LastActivityDate="2012-10-17T23:52:27.340" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11263" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-16T15:13:15.980" Score="17" ViewCount="36770" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 22:20-22 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That night God came to Balaam and said, &quot;Since these men have come to&#xA;  summon you, go with them, but do only what I tell you.&quot; Balaam got up&#xA;  in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite&#xA;  officials. But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the&#xA;  LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey,&#xA;  and his two servants were with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God said to Balaam to go with them. But when he went, God became angry with him.&#xA;Why did God become angry with him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2245" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-10-17T15:05:42.203" LastActivityDate="2014-03-10T15:21:26.980" Title="Why did God become angry with Balaam?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;numbers&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11259" CreationDate="2012-10-16T17:10:42.830" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sure, nothing we can do will make God more powerful or more holy than he already is, but we can acknowledge his greatness and make others aware of his greatness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like, suppose that a great orchestra is coming to town to give a concert. I tell a friend how great this orchestra is and encourage him to attend the show. Does me telling my friend this make the orchestra perform better? No. I'm just making my friend aware of how well they perform. Likewise, we can't make God greater, but we can tell others about his greatness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a different vein, suppose a man tells his wife how beautiful she is. Does his saying it make her more beautiful? No. (Well, it might, if it encourages her to put more effort into her hair styling or make-up or whatever. But let's assume she's already doing all she can.) But it pleases her to hear him say it. Likewise, our praise does not make God greater, but it pleases God to have us acknowledge him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-16T17:10:42.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11243" CreationDate="2012-10-16T17:45:10.273" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree that just versus unjust is an insufficient classification for this purpose. Let me suggest three categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just laws: Those that reiterate God's laws, like laws against murder and theft. This is the easy case. Of course we should obey these. Even if the government didn't make such a law, we should be doing this anyway because we are obeying God's law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unjust laws: Laws that require us to do something God has forbidden or forbid us to do something that God has required. The Bible clearly says that we must, as a matter of principle, disobey these. From Daniel defying the law that forbid him to pray to God to the Hebrew mid-wives refusing to kill babies, &quot;we must obey God rather than men&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Administrative laws: When many people live together, at some point you need regulations to keep society functioning smoothly. Like, &quot;drive on the right side of the street&quot;. There is nothing fundamentally immoral or unethical about driving on the left side of the street. But for society to function smoothly, we all have to follow a convention, one side or the other. This implies that there must be some authority to establish the convention. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is the type of law that Paul had in mind when he said to obey civil government. (Clearly Paul could not have meant that we should obey unjust laws, as he himself broke laws that the government considered serious enough that they called for capital punishment. Well, unless you suppose that Paul was a hypocrite, but it's not like he broke these laws for his own personal benefit, but rather as a matter of principle.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least in general, then, a Christian should obey administrative laws even if he thinks they are foolish. As others have noted, there is a certain arrogance in supposing that you know which laws are wise and which are foolish. Maybe the people who made the laws know more about the subject than you do. Of course, there is also an arrogance about government officials supposing that they know more about how people should run their lives than the people themselves do. I certainly would not say that all laws are good. Frankly I think most of the laws passed in the history of the world are bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But ... Sometimes people say, &quot;We should obey the law as long as we believe that it is right.&quot; A moment's thought will show that this is no different from saying that we will ignore the law and do whatever we please. If I obey the law whenever the law tells me to do what I wanted to do anyway, and disobey the law when it tells me to do something that isn't what I wanted to do, how is this different from just doing whatever I want? The law is irrelevant. You're just saying that if the law happens to agree with what you wanted to do anyway, then you'll give lip service to the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the tough question is, At what point does a law cross the line from &quot;foolish&quot; to &quot;unjust&quot;. That is, every foolish law, by definition, causes people some harm. The harm may be trivial. Like, perhaps you've seen the news stories lately about the police shutting down children's lemonade stands because the kids didn't have a food service permit. I think such laws are stupid. (If you disagree and think these are vital safeguards for public health, well, that's not the point here.) But the harm is minor. It interferes with kids ability to earn money and learn the value of work, but it doesn't cripple them for life. But many countries thoughout history have passed permit and licensing laws whose deliberate goal is to oppress some group of people. Like in the Middle Ages many countries in Europe prohibited Jews from owning land. The first minimum wage law in the United States was passed with the stated goal of preventing poor black people from taking jobs away from whites. Etc. At what point does a law cross the line from being a &quot;stupid nuisance&quot; to being &quot;active oppression&quot;? A law that requires someone to get a $10 permit to be allowed to start a business may or may not be rational and fair, but is surely not oppressive. Take that same law and change the fee to $10,000 and it quite arguably becomes a means to keep poor people from becoming independent. Change it to &quot;$10 for white people and $100 for black people&quot; and it clearly becomes racist. Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-16T17:45:10.273" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11263" CreationDate="2012-10-16T17:57:49.523" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you look further at the story, it becomes clear why God was angry at Balaam: he knew his heart, and he knew that his heart was not in the right place.  God did not want Balaam to curse the Israelites or to bring trouble upon them in any way.  But when his patron kept asking and insisting, Balaam kept trying to get God to reconsider.  And when God wouldn't reconsider, Balaam decided to bring trouble upon them in a different way, by enticing the Israelites to serious sin so that they would lose God's favor of their own initiative instead of having to have someone else curse them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you knew someone was going to try and do that to &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; people, wouldn't you be angry too?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-10-16T17:57:49.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10238" CreationDate="2012-10-16T18:15:29.707" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically I agree with Caleb, but let me add a few comments too long to fit in a comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the best of my knowledge, nowhere does the Bible specify any particular ritual or vows about marriage. Is it even necessary to say: Failing to follow human marriage customs does not make you any less married. Like, if you had a wedding with no bridesmaids or if you had &quot;wedding donuts&quot; instead of &quot;wedding cake&quot;, I think few people would suppose this makes your marriage invalid. If you fail to update your relationship status on Facebook to &quot;married&quot;, this does not make you any less married. Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, then, is just how God defines &quot;marriage&quot;. I don't know of any single Bible verse that says, &quot;Thus spake the Lord, to be married in My sight thou must ...&quot; But the Bible does make a number of statements about the nature of marriage that give strong clues. Like Gen 2:24, &quot;Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.&quot; Matt 19:6, &quot;Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.&quot; And 19:9, &quot;And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.&quot; 1 Cor 7:3-4, &quot;Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.&quot; Etc. You can pick up numerous other statements here and there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So putting a little interpretation on this, I conclude that basically, in God's eyes, a marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman that for as long as they are both still alive they will live together, and limit their sexual activity to each other and not deny each other. Maybe you'd add something in there about raising children or other points I'm skimming over, but I think that's the bare essentials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my humble opinion then, if a man and a woman make such a commitment to each other, even if they do it sitting on the porch with no one else around, then they are married. If later one of them has sexual relations with someone else, that makes it adultery. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We could certainly debate how serious their intentions must be and whether they need to consummate the marriage. I presume that's part of why societies have built up rituals. If it was accepted that all it took to get married was for one person to say, &quot;Hey, you want to get married?&quot; and the other to say &quot;okay&quot;, there would surely be many confused situations where one person thought they were getting married and the other didn't, like one person meant &quot;right now&quot; and the other meant &quot;someday&quot;. But if you both go through an elaborate ritual and recite vows, there's surely no question of your intent. But on the flip side, if two people are in a plane crash and stranded on an uninhabited island and they decide they want to get married, the fact that there is no minister around to perform the wedding, no government agency to issue the license, no place to buy a wedding gown, etc etc, would be largely irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the government requires married couples to register in some way, than presumably Christians should comply with that in accordance with the general principle of obeying civil authorities. But getting a government-issued marriage license isn't what makes you married, any more than getting a government-issued birth certificate is what makes you be born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-16T18:15:29.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11269" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11287" CreationDate="2012-10-16T23:09:33.683" Score="7" ViewCount="407" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not asking about a justification or an attack on Pascal's Wager.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just curious how/if Blaise Pascal, being an intelligent and analytical fellow, reconciled his famous gambit with 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Psalm 50 in which we are effectively instructed not to give out of compulsion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I presume many here are more versed in his writings than I am.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt; To expand a bit on what discrepancy I see, Pascal deduced that belief was a logical choice based on the risk of infinite loss. Yet a &quot;faith&quot; predicated on fear of loss is hardly the sort which interests God. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;I paraphrase the verses referenced that God doesn't want &quot;risk averse&quot; faith.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Indeed, Kierkegaard seems to come by the &lt;strong&gt;opposite&lt;/strong&gt; approach as Pascal: that faith does and should involve chosen risks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2146" LastEditorUserId="2146" LastEditDate="2012-10-18T16:13:44.963" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T19:27:25.987" Title="How did Pascal reconcile his wager with 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Psalms 50?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;tithe&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11271" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-17T03:46:24.743" Score="8" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis&quot;&gt;Crimen sollicitationis&lt;/a&gt; a 1962 document by the Catholic Church describing how various matters should be handled by Church law. I have heard differing claims from various people as to whether the penalty of excommunication applied to a victim reporting their case to the civil authorities. Can anyone confirm how this document was applied?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="896" LastActivityDate="2012-10-17T15:24:14.297" Title="Did Crimen sollicitationis threaten excommunication for victims reporting crimes to the civil authorities?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="445" CreationDate="2012-10-17T11:56:36.177" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why not take a look at the same question from the Muslim perspective, which is actually very informative:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/357/how-does-muslim-teaching-on-the-person-of-jesus-differ-from-that-of-christian-te/361#comment8489_361&quot;&gt;How does Muslim teaching on the person of Jesus differ from that of Christian teaching?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Muslims believe Jesus (Isa Masih):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;is the Word of God, Spirit of God and other similar titles that are present in Christianity also, but they believe these attribute are not necessarily unique to Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;was one of the 5 great prophets (Noah, Abraham, Moses, JESUS and Muhammad)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;is a creation of God not creator and certainly not a son of God (as opposed to the Christian belief)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;was the messiah but does not save through dying on the cross&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;will come again, same as Christians but for a different purpose and in a different way&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:49:09.287" LastActivityDate="2016-10-05T14:03:21.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11271" CreationDate="2012-10-17T12:43:26.750" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never heard of instruction before you brought up the question, but I figured I'd better actually read a bit of it before making a judgement.  Because I am a Catholic, I always know the Church is teaching the right thing even if it is misunderstood or poorly applied. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here it is, by the way, so you can read for yourself and find out what's not in there&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“A member of the faithful who, in violation of the (aforementioned) prescription of Canon 904, knowingly disregards the obligation to denounce within a month the person by whom he or she was solicited, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, which is not to be lifted until he or she has satisfied the obligation, or has promised seriously to do so”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, one is excommunicated if they don't report the crime to church authorities&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, a little farther down you might read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the one making the denunciation is dismissed, he is to be administered the oath to maintain confidentiality, as above, if necessary under pain of excommunication reserved to the local Ordinary or to the Holy See&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And think, that if someone reported the same crime to the police that they reported to the church that they would incur excommunication. But, why on earth would someone report the crime to both places?  Nothing in the document says that it is a crime for the laity to report a crime to the police.  However, in the time of this writing sexual harassment and a whole host of other perversions were not dealt with by the police the way they do now, so this may have been the only recourse some people had (and this is a global document and a translation of one at that) so it may have greater weight in more Catholic countries than the USA and Australia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as for implementation, the National Catholic Register has a good interview with priest who says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts. But this was not so. Secrecy during the investigative phase served to protect the good name of all the people involved; first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right - as everyone does - to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Church does not like showcase justice. Norms on sexual abuse have never been understood as a ban on denouncing the crimes to the civil authorities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read more: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/promoting_justice_prosecuting_paedophiles#ixzz29YkcXKcv&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/promoting_justice_prosecuting_paedophiles#ixzz29YkcXKcv&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there it is, it's never been understood as a ban on denouncing crimes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-17T12:43:26.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9891" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:24:01.920" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;My Background&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That... entirely depends. I am a former Protestant and have spent several years helping in Catholic youth ministry. My wife is a former DRE and now acts as a consultant DRE/retreat coordinator for a couple of parishes. We often talk about how those parishes run their ministry and how it might be improved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What I did as a Protestant&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One major difference: a lot of the youth-oriented ministry happens in parallel or in the stead of Sunday services. Sunday School is something very foreign to the Catholic Church, even when &quot;children's liturgy of the word&quot; is available. Much, if not most, catechesis happens during that period. This model means that if the parents don't go to church, neither do the kids. In that sense, outreach to parents &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; outreach to kids.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There will often be other ministries which meet and try to bring kids in. In the church I was raised in, it was not unheard of for parents to have limited or no involvement in these groups (or in the church as a whole). Come to think of it, I remember that one's parental involvement could be summarized: &quot;drop the kids off.&quot; The impression I got was that the purpose of the ministry was &lt;em&gt;for the kids&lt;/em&gt; and the youth minister would do his best to talk with kids outside of that if the kids wanted to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember another ministry that was purely focused on giving kids a safe, drug free place to hang out. There would be a testimony at one point in the evening, but it didn't really exist for the purpose of catechesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why whole-family is particularly important to Catholics&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that it also might be important to note &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; there is an emphasis on family catechesis in the Catholic Church. Unlike many Protestant denominations where the accepted doctrine is, &quot;know your Bible,&quot; the Catholic Church has a defined set of dogmas which cannot really be disagreed with (well, you can disagree, but you're wrong). This places a special emphasis on getting parents to be aware of what the Church teaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, there are many people who were Catholic at some point, but then faded. However, they still want their kids to receive the sacraments (this phenomenon does not frequently occur in Protestant settings, because, for the most part, there is no major sacrament between baptism and marriage). Whole family catechesis, as a requirement, affords the catechetical ministries of the Church the opportunity to preach to these people and try to get them to at least &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; about what it means to be Catholic and why they want their kids to receive the sacraments to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a final note, the whole-family models are most often associated with sacramental preparation. Many Catholic churches will offer ministries which are similar to the youth ministry I grew up in. While these ministries will actively seek adult volunteers (parents are &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt; at helping set up and tear down, let me tell you), more often the focus is on helping the teenagers grow in their faith, even it the teen is not Catholic (I knew one girl who was baptized because of one of these programs) or does not have Catholic family (all too often).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-10-17T14:29:47.593" LastActivityDate="2012-10-17T14:29:47.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11263" CreationDate="2012-10-17T14:51:02.593" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;When God said he should go with the men this was the second embassy of men from Balak to request Balaam's help.  &lt;strong&gt;On the first occasion we see Balaam thinking he was a 'god dealer' trying to manipulate God and Balak, hoping to make the God of Israel give up on the Israelites and entice Him into league with Balak and at the same time get money from Balak for this service.&lt;/strong&gt; Balaam sees God's working with him as recognition of his 'magic powers' and he is therefore acting as a mediator between God and Balak with the end goal of removing God from His allegiance with Israel.  We must remember that in paganism the gods are often motivated by the same kinds of sinful desires that we have and are not omnipotent but influenceable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we see with the first embassy that God gave Balaam a message but Balaam only passed on parts of it, hoping to bring both parties together. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God said to Balaam, “Do not go with them. You must not put a curse on those people, because they are blessed.” The next morning Balaam got up and said to Balak’s officials, “Go back to your own country, for the Lord has refused to let me go with you.” (Numbers 22:12-13, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see Balaam purposefully left out most of God's message and had no plans of 'saying what the Lord had told him'.  One can't properly imagine the type of perverse mind Balaam had. Balaam's version of God's message implied an ungrounded arbitrariness on the part of God and confirmed Balak to hope for better results under more favorable circumstances. Possibly when God was not so moody, God would reconsider?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was under these circumstances that a second embassy from Balak came again to ask Balaam 'to curse this people'. Refusing in the first embassy to yield himself willingly to God, he would now be made the unwilling instrument of exalting God. And thus God gave him leave to do that on which he had set his heart. However because of his blinded self-satisfaction, in which the next morning he accompanied the ambassadors of Balak, 'God’s anger was kindled because he went'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words the idea is God gave Balaam over to his lusts in such a way that God would manipulate him, while he thought he was manipulating God.  &lt;strong&gt;Yet due to the insane contradiction of reality as he should be going in obedience but his actual going was in deluded belief that he was controlling the situation, God lets him know that he was 'dumber than an ass', before sending him fully on his way.&lt;/strong&gt; 'Yes I send you, but realize you are a dumb ass who knows not what you are doing when you go'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Balaam's actions were as dumb as Simon Magus when he offered the apostles money to give him the power of imparting the Holy Ghost. Therefore Balaam goes down in history renown for his greed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness. (2 Peter 2:15, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-12-18T16:52:01.780" LastActivityDate="2013-12-18T16:52:01.780" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11271" CreationDate="2012-10-17T15:24:14.297" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I want to say that most of the abuse did not start coming to light until the mid 1980's, and that the 1983 Code of Canon Law has language that removes the teeth from that document (in 1983, all previous canon laws end extra-canon penal definitions were made void).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;text of the document&lt;/a&gt; at Vatican.va, but I found the supplemental documents in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PDF from CBS&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The TLDR; version is that there is little in the document which actually refers to layman. The only way one can be excommunicated is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the layman is made aware that he has a duty to bring this to the attention of the local Ordinary (Ordinary = bishop, unless the diocese does not have one at the moment) but fails to act. (cf. 18)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The local Ordinary excommunicates him (which is pretty much in the Ordinary's authority anyway)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-10-17T15:24:14.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5061" CreationDate="2012-10-18T01:50:34.693" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The method of deducing each date, along with the difficulties associated with each method, are documented at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.html&quot;&gt;cresourcei.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The older date (1440 BC)&lt;/strong&gt; is primarily based on the assumption that the Bible is a reliable historical document, with the passage of time based solely upon dates and time periods given from within Scripture.  Example: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1) 1 Kings 6:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6:1 In the four hundred eightieth year after the Israelites came out&#xA;  of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over&#xA;  Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to&#xA;  build the house of the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This verse gives a time period of 480 years between the exodus and the&#xA;  beginning of Solomon’s work on the Jerusalem temple. From John&#xA;  Bright’s chronology, Solomon ascended the throne around 961 BC, which&#xA;  would make the fourth year of his reign and the beginning of temple&#xA;  construction about 959-957 BC (see Israelite Kings). If we assume that&#xA;  the number 480 is to be taken as a precise number of years much as we&#xA;  would count years on a calendar today, working backward from this date&#xA;  we arrive at a date around 1440 BC for the exodus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;more recent date (1290 BC)&lt;/strong&gt; is primarily based on external archaeological and external evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1) Edom and Moab&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Archaeology surveys and excavations on the eastern side of the Jordan&#xA;  river (Transjordan), pioneered by N. Gleuck, reveal that there was no&#xA;  settled civilization in the Edomite and Moabite areas of the southern&#xA;  Transjordan until about the late 14th or early 13th century BC. Also,&#xA;  the earliest record referring to the Edomites is an Egyptian letter&#xA;  dating to the 13th century. There is scarcely any evidence of&#xA;  settlement in these areas in the 15th century BC. Since we know from&#xA;  the traditions that Israel encountered settled people in this area&#xA;  (e.g., Num 20:14), it seems that a 13th century date for the exodus is&#xA;  more likely and less problematic than a 15th century date. Also, the&#xA;  Moabite city of Heshbon was the first city taken by the Israelites in&#xA;  the Transjordan area, becoming a part of the tribal territory of&#xA;  Reuben (Num 21:21-24, 32:37). Thorough excavations at what has been&#xA;  identified as this site reveal that the city was not occupied until&#xA;  around 1250 to 1200 BC. Allowing for the 40 years in the desert, this&#xA;  suggests a date for the exodus at the beginning of the 13th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are not the only evidences for each date. It should be noted that there are various assumptions and difficulties with either date.  I am not about to list them here, as they are all well documented on the page I linked to above.  Suffice it to say that the evidence for each is seen as tenuous, at best by those that hold the opposite belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in the sections above, note that I said that each position is based primarily on either internal Biblical evidence or external evidence.  That does not mean the position is based &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; on those two things.  Each position is just as much based on an understanding of the difficulties of the opposing view.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which date we hold to is likely to fall along the lines of how much we trust the Bible for historical accuracy, and how much we trust our interpretation of it, as well as where we draw the line on literalism. (Many of the arguments for a more recent date point out scenarios where a given time span can be interpreted as something other than the direct literal reading.  Sounds like another debate about dating certain events that we're all quite familiar with.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-18T01:57:12.880" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T01:57:12.880" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11280" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11281" CreationDate="2012-10-18T02:16:15.623" Score="8" ViewCount="1054" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was born in a predominantly Catholic country in Latin America and baptized a Roman Catholic, but I have no physical confirmation of my baptism outside of my recollection of my Catholic upbringing (since I was too young to remember the baptism itself). Having not attended Catholic church since leaving home about twenty years ago, will I need to be baptized again or go through the OCIA (Order of Christian Initiation for Adults)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I attended Anglican church services in the UK and various other church services in other countries, but I have never taken communion at another church. I'm looking to attend a Catholic Church in the states now, but I feel I should ensure that I have all the necessary documentation first. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1830" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T03:05:15.427" Title="Do I need to be rebaptized to take communion in a Catholic Church if I have no proof of my original baptism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11280" CreationDate="2012-10-18T03:05:15.427" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Explain your situation to your priest, they may be able to get your baptismal record from your original home parish or just excercise his prudential judgement and allow you to receive communion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is pastoral advice, which isn't the norm for this site, but it may be good to confess attending worship services with other Christians, you'll usually see that mentioned in guides to examinations of conscience (don't want to offend my Protestant friends here, but it is an occasion of sin for Catholics to participate in your services). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, there is no such thing as re-baptism (even for those validly ordained in other Christian sects )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1246 &quot;Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot;&gt;CCC 1246&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that bit of doctrine probably justifies this question.  If you know you were Baptized the Church's ministers will probably give you the benefit of the doubt. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T03:05:15.427" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2945" CreationDate="2012-10-18T03:25:15.207" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The &lt;em&gt;Biblical Research Society&lt;/em&gt; put it simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other&#xA;  sense;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal&#xA;  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the&#xA;  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths&#xA;  indicate clearly otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from this quote, from Dr. Cooper's perspective,  we see that we are to take Scripture at face value (literally) unless...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The immediate context makes it clear that the passage is not to be taken literally.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Related passages, the literal sense does not make sense&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The literal sense of the passage would contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A shortened version, which I've heard far more often goes like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result&#xA;  in nonsense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T03:25:15.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="138" CreationDate="2012-10-18T08:47:27.923" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When interpreting the scriptures you must be sure to have all the facts that are available to ensure you understand what it is you are reading. The approach that you take when studying your bible is what will shape your understanding, so the best thing you can do is ensure your approach to your own bible studying is as effective as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the steps I take when I read the bible I:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Firstly&lt;/strong&gt; take a few moments to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to be present with me and when I have managed to calm myself and can 'feel' the presence of the Holy Spirit I will then begin to read. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Secondly&lt;/strong&gt;, and very importantly, I try and read a section entirely from beginning to end, rather than taking verses on their own because that is a sure way of taking a verse out of context too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thirdly&lt;/strong&gt;, I will then try to imagine what the scripture would have meant to the people of the day and do a bit of research around that to be sure I have a good idea of the cultural significances and try to make myself aware of any other things which may be relevant through that research. Usually with a concordance, Strong's for example to be sure of the important words that have been translated in the text I am reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fourthly&lt;/strong&gt;, I will then try to understand how this can be relevant to me and my society today in modern times and then how it can be applied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Finally&lt;/strong&gt;, I would try to read in a few versions NKJV, ESV, AMP, NASB and others and maybe even the Message to be sure that I am not being confused. All in all I try to engage my spiritual and intellectual self and by inviting the Holy Spirit to be there to aid me in my learning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Almost forgot&lt;/strong&gt;, it is best to read a translation not an interpretation of the scriptures; also share what you read with other people to cross examine your understandings of the text. This will help you interpret the messages contained in the bible and how to apply them to your life more effectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastEditorUserId="3322" LastEditDate="2012-10-23T14:58:06.447" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T14:58:06.447" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1450" CreationDate="2012-10-18T12:29:51.117" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;At one level, this question is easily answerable.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus is who He claimed to be.  And He said, in John 14:6 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father&#xA;  except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if Jesus is who He claimed to be, then Christianity must be the only true religion, because He said &lt;em&gt;specifically&lt;/em&gt; &quot;No one comes to the Father except through me&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;At another level, there are other answers, but too large to fit in a single answer here.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for external evidence, there's an entire field of study, known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/apologetics&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apologetics&lt;/a&gt; that seeks to provide a defense for the veracity of Christianity, its teachings, the identity of God, and the Truth of the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are volumes of information available (as well as counter-points arguing against the Truth of Christianity).  Put simply, there's much too much information to make your question answerable in this forum. A Google search for &quot;Apologetics,&quot; however, is a good place to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2016-01-10T15:37:22.147" LastActivityDate="2016-01-10T15:37:22.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1450" CreationDate="2012-10-18T13:25:07.000" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Logically, there can only be one true religion.  If it is, indeed, true that Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, who became a man when He was born of a virgin 2,000 years ago, lived a sinless life, died a vicarious death and rose from the dead, and if it is, indeed, true that salvation is available to mankind through faith in Him, then Christianity is, in fact, the truth.  &lt;em&gt;(I understand that this does not define the beliefs of all that are accepted as Christian on this site.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, any religion that claims that Jesus is not any of those things is not true, if, in fact, Jesus really is all of those things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, then any religion that does not teach that is in error.  If Jesus became a man through the virgin birth, then any religion that does not teach that is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Christianity makes truth claims and claims that those claims are actually true (of course).  Every other religion does the same thing, so every religion claims that their set of truth claims are, indeed, the ones that are true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-10-22T10:08:19.877" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T10:08:19.877" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11286" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-18T17:23:42.637" Score="8" ViewCount="275" Body="&lt;p&gt;During Religious Ed. last night the review book had a question that we didn't see explained in the text (using &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/faithandlife/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Faith and Life Series&lt;/a&gt; for 7th Grade).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It asked, &quot;what part of scripture was not inspired?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The kids were like, &quot;um, Judas?&quot; and I thought that was a good answer, but said we do learn a thing or two from him.  The answer key however, said &quot;the literary style&quot; is not inspired. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did not understand this and couldn't explain it to the kids. I just told them, the fact that some of it is poetry and some of it isn't is not in it self inspired. I can't for the life of me see how this tidbit will help them to understand the Bible or even how thinking that a poem can be inspired in and of itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean that the literary style is not inspired and why is it not inspired?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;This is asked from a Catholic perspective, but I think any tradition that doesn't hold that the literary style was in fact inspired (whatever that means) could help me answer this question.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2017-07-16T02:01:03.157" LastActivityDate="2017-07-16T02:01:03.157" Title="Why is literary style not inspired?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11269" CreationDate="2012-10-18T19:07:41.707" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/103/73&quot;&gt;I don't think&lt;/a&gt; Pascal intended the Wager to be pulled from &lt;em&gt;Pensées&lt;/em&gt; and used as an independent, discrete argument for God.  But don't take my word for it, here's what the man says himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us now speak according to natural lights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, &lt;em&gt;stultitiam&lt;/em&gt;; and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs, that they are not lacking in sense. &quot;Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it.&quot; Let us then examine this point, and say, &quot;God is, or He is not.&quot; But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.&amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm#SECTION_III&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pensée&lt;/em&gt; 233&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Stultitiam&lt;/em&gt; is Latin meaning &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.google.com/#la/en/stultitiam&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;folly&lt;/a&gt; and is a direct reference to: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 1:21 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Pascal rejects the Aquinian project to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Nature_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;prove God&lt;/a&gt; and proceeds to defend the Christian's warrant&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; to nevertheless believe that &quot;God is&quot;.  It is a practical demonstration of the flaws of René Descartes' skepticism.  Life is more complicated than merely acting on true beliefs and not acting on false ones.  In fact we generally don't know the outcome of our decisions until long after they are made.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;  But that doesn't prevent us from making those decisions&amp;mdash;Pascal asserts that by merely existing, we must make the Wager; we must decide what our purpose in life is to be.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pascal's further point is that even when we don't know the probabilities, the payoff of one of the choices may be so large as to make the decision of which horse to bet on easy.  Again, let's let him speak:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The end of this discourse.&lt;/em&gt;&amp;mdash;Now, what harm will befall you in taking [the Christian] side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pascal argues that even if God is not, giving up &quot;poisonous pleasures&quot; will cost nothing since they will be replaced by other pleasures &lt;strong&gt;in this life&lt;/strong&gt;.  So the Wager isn't so much believing in order to avoid the loss of heaven, but substituting one type of pleasure for another in the expectant hope of an infinite reward.  In fact, he seems to be giving the same advice that David gave:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!&#xA;    Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!&#xA;Oh, fear the LORD, you his saints,&#xA;    for those who fear him have no lack!&#xA;The young lions suffer want and hunger;&#xA;    but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;Psalm 34:8-10 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Psalm+34/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pascal isn't arguing that the Christian life is something to be entered into on the off chance that we will win the cosmic lottery.  Rather, he is proposing that Christians are not wrong to believe what they cannot prove.  Or as Jim Elliot &lt;a href=&quot;http://www2.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/faq/20.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;wrote&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For a more comprehensive defence, see Alvin Plantinga's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/plantinga/warrant3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Warranted Christian Belief&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of the most monumental decisions in my life was to attend UCLA to study Atmospheric Sciences.  But the ripple effects of that decision are still not settled.  I've already won the bet in the most unexpected ways, including finding my wife.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:21.153" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T19:27:25.987" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11288" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11291" CreationDate="2012-10-18T22:22:51.253" Score="21" ViewCount="35991" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering if there are any passages/prophecies about salvation for the Gentile world in the Old Testament. If you know any, please share.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-10-18T22:49:40.717" LastActivityDate="2015-06-06T14:00:29.970" Title="Are there Old Testament Scriptures that mention salvation for the Gentiles?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;gentile&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-06-09T06:53:33.177" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11286" CreationDate="2012-10-18T22:23:01.517" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a helpful clarification on what exactly Christians mean by &quot;inspired&quot;. Specifically, we don't mean that each word and punctuation mark was dictated (mechanical inspiration or dictation theory). Instead the prevailing understanding is that the scriptures came about through God revealing truths and concepts to the minds of the apostles and prophets and even guided the minute details of expression while also allowing that each text to be characterized by the author's own way with words and thus the Biblical books –while fully divine and authoritative down– also bear the mark of the earthly author in the actual diction (verbal plenary inspiration).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing that God didn't make the writers into robots helps us understand both God's work in our lives as well as better handle his words, knowing that the things being said are true and divine while also being a reflection of the pen that scribbled them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2017-07-15T08:10:55.607" LastActivityDate="2017-07-15T08:10:55.607" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11286" CreationDate="2012-10-18T22:24:19.147" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The understanding of inspiration understood by Baptists (and many others) is that God allowed the authors to use their own literary style, but still write the exact meaning He wanted them to convey. This makes sense, because each book, each author clearly does have their own style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view is known as &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Plenary verbal inspiration&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. It is not the only view, but but is the one that allows for the author's literary style to show through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Inspiration_of_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.theopedia.com/Inspiration_of_the_Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Plenary verbal inspiration&lt;/strong&gt; (emphasis mine.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word plenary means &quot;full&quot; or &quot;complete&quot;. Therefore, plenary verbal&#xA;  inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the&#xA;  Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and&#xA;  doctrinal details. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration&#xA;  extends to the very words the writers chose. For example, in Acts 1:16&#xA;  the Apostle Peter says &quot;the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake&quot;&#xA;  (KJV). Paul calls all scripture &quot;God-breathed&quot; in 2 Timothy 3:16&#xA;  (referring to the Old Testament). Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the&#xA;  writers along (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21) &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;while allowing their own&#xA;  personalities and freedom to produce the Bible we have today.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; This&#xA;  view recognizes and asserts both the human and divine element within&#xA;  Scripture. This understanding has sometimes been compared and&#xA;  contrasted to the understanding of the two natures of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Opposing understandings include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Neo-orthodox&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dictation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Limited inspiration&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All are covered on the page I linked to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-19T09:05:47.427" LastActivityDate="2012-10-19T09:05:47.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11288" CreationDate="2012-10-18T22:51:22.720" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;YES&lt;/strong&gt;, there are!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The footnote in my NLT Bible for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2011:1&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Acts 11:1&lt;/a&gt; has a list of Old Testament verses that say that salvation is for &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; people, not just the Jews. Below, I've reproduced the list and for two of them, I've directly quoted them because they're the clearest and most direct with regards to this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2012:3&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Genesis 12:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2022:27&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Psalm 22:27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2042:4&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Isaiah 42:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2049:6&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Isaiah 49:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2049:6&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 49:6 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; He says, “You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; I will make you a light to the Gentiles,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2056:3-7&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Isaiah 56:3-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2060:1-3&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Isaiah 60:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2016:19-21&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 16:19-21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%202:11&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Zechariah 2:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%202:11&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Zechariah 2:11 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Many nations will join themselves to the Lord on that day, and they, too, will be my people. I will live among you, and you will know that the Lord of Heaven’s Armies sent me to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=malachi%201:11&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Malachi 1:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2015:9-12&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Romans 15:9-12&lt;/a&gt; (These are different wordings of Psalm 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-10-18T22:51:22.720" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11293" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-19T06:44:13.557" Score="4" ViewCount="383" Body="&lt;p&gt;For many years, I've held the idea that every place where the phrase &quot;an angel of the Lord&quot; (as opposed to just a plain angel) appears, the angel is actually God taking the form of an angel. Is there any particular reason for believing this rather than just seeing the phrase as a sort of generic add-on, like &quot;Jesus of Nazareth&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was raised Wesleyan, so the closer to that, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-10-19T07:08:19.063" LastActivityDate="2015-02-18T23:32:36.330" Title="What is the support for the idea that the &quot;angel of the Lord&quot; is actually God?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;theophany&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11293" CreationDate="2012-10-19T08:41:54.767" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our church also teaches this.  In a recent sermon, our Pastor taught that the Angel of the Lord can be used interchangeably with Christ.  As we believe in the Trinity, this means the Angel of the Lord is also God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following is some (but not all) of the Scriptural evidence used to support this teaching:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/angel-of-the-lord.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Baker's Evangelical Dictionary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The connection between the angel of the Lord and the preincarnate&#xA;  appearance of the Messiah cannot be denied. Manoah meets the angel of&#xA;  the Lord, and declares that he has seen God. The angel accepts worship&#xA;  from Manoah and his wife as no mere angel, and refers to himself as&#xA;  &quot;Wonderful, &quot; the same term applied to the coming deliverer in Isaiah&#xA;  9:6 ( Jud 13:9-22 ). The functions of the angel of the Lord in the Old&#xA;  Testament prefigure the reconciling ministry of Jesus. In the New&#xA;  Testament, there is no mention of the angel of the Lord; the Messiah&#xA;  himself is this person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scriptural instances when the Angel of the Lord speaks as if He were God:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 16:9-12 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed&#xA;  exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with&#xA;  child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because&#xA;  the Lord hath heard thy affliction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and&#xA;  every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of&#xA;  all his brethren.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 3:2-4 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and,&#xA;  behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why&#xA;  the bush is not burnt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto&#xA;  him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said,&#xA;  Here am I.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 2:1-2 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 1 And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have&#xA;  brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said,&#xA;  I will never break my covenant with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye&#xA;  shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why&#xA;  have ye done this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(There are more, but I'll stop here.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Angel of the Lord also accepts worship:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 6:19-21 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 19 And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a&#xA;  basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him&#xA;  under the oak, and presented it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the&#xA;  unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth.&#xA;  And he did so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Then the angel of the Lord put forth the end of the staff that was&#xA;  in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there&#xA;  rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the&#xA;  unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the Lord departed out of his&#xA;  sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Also, like Christ, there are times when the Angel of the Lord is treated as distinct from God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 13:9 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 9 And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field:&#xA;  but Manoah her husband was not with her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Like Christ, the Angel has the authority to forgive sin.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Zechariah 3:3-4 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying,&#xA;  Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold,&#xA;  I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee&#xA;  with change of raiment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-19T09:14:16.780" LastActivityDate="2012-10-19T09:14:16.780" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11295" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-19T09:26:29.547" Score="11" ViewCount="23701" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain what the song is all about? I read it and found out that the characters are not husband and wife. I want to understand the context in which the poem is written and a gist of the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1797" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T00:44:12.323" LastActivityDate="2015-11-10T19:04:45.623" Title="Why is the Song of Solomon in bible?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;song-of-songs&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11295" CreationDate="2012-10-19T10:45:50.727" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, there have been two primary understandings of the Song of Solomon -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It prefigures the love that Christ has for his church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is an erotic love story&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I find it nearly impossible to accept the first, however. I submit, on the basis of SOS 5:3-6, the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have taken off my robe—&#xA;      must I put it on again?&#xA;  I have washed my feet—&#xA;      must I soil them again?&#xA;  4 My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening;&#xA;      my heart began to pound for him.&#xA;  5 I arose to open for my beloved,&#xA;      and my hands dripped with myrrh,&#xA;  my fingers with flowing myrrh,&#xA;      on the handles of the bolt.&#xA;  6 I opened for my beloved,&#xA;      but my beloved had left; he was gone.&#xA;      My heart sank at his departure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd argue any sensus plenoir of the text is very simple - it's a man and a woman gettin' it on.  It's pretty straightforward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The characters themselves are pretty straightforward - there is a man, a woman, and a chorus of friends, pretty standard for any dramatised work of the period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one accepts this is a man and a woman, then the next question is, what is the relationship between man and woman in the context of the work -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the case is often made that this is a newly married couple.  SOS 5:1 has the man saying to the woman:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sister term must be clearly metaphorical, however, because 8:1 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If only you were to me like a brother,&#xA;      who was nursed at my mother’s breasts!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That understanding of bride, along with the common repeated refrain&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;can suggest an innocent interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the only unequivocal statement that can be made is that these people are desperately in love - and they understand that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;love is as strong as death.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as wisdom literature goes (and this is clearly wisdom literature) the point is simple - love is wonderful, but &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;do not arouse or awaken love, until it so desires.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Passion is great, you will be swept away by it - so be careful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-10-19T12:27:18.503" LastActivityDate="2012-10-19T12:27:18.503" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11297" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11302" CreationDate="2012-10-19T11:25:39.617" Score="6" ViewCount="847" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5604/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-multiple-judgments&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 12:1 says &quot;There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus&quot; and 2 Cor 5 :17 says we are new creations and the old has passed away. I take it that this means our past life is cleaned out and we start afresh. So on the judgement day Christians will not be judged as the slate is new, right? How does this reconcile with Heb 9:27 which says &quot;.. just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment&quot; . This Hebrews verse seems to say there is going to be judgment  no matter what. Please shed some light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-10-19T14:52:15.523" Title="Will Christians be judged?" Tags="&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-10-22T02:35:48.033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="286" CreationDate="2012-10-19T13:13:21.790" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The purpose of His response may have been two fold.  The first purpose was to encourage the disciples to faithfully follow Him.  The second purpose and perhaps more importantly, was to teach correct theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First-Century Jewish Burial Practices&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a body was placed in a burial cave, it was left to decompose.  The family mourned for seven days.  This initial mourning period was followed by a less intense 30-day period of mourning, called shloshim.  However, the entire mourning period was not fully over until the flesh of the deceased had decomposed, usually about a year later.  The Jerusalem Talmud states: When the flesh had wasted away, the bones were collected and placed in chests (ossuaries).  On that day (the son) mourned, but the following day he was glad, because his forebears rested from judgment. The final act of mourning, the gathering of the bones into a bone box called an ossuary, was called ossilegium, or secondary burial.  According to the Rabbinic sources, the decomposition of the flesh atoned for the sins of the dead person (a kind of purgatory) and the final stage of this process was gathering the bones and placing them in an ossuary (Meyers 1971: 80-85).  Jesus confronts this contrary theology.  Only faith in Christ's redemptive work on the cross can atone for sin, not rotting flesh or any other work or merit of our own (Heb. 9:22, 26; Acts 4:12; Eph. 2:8, 9).  Jesus may have rebuked the disciple rather harshly because they were following the corrupted practice of secondary burial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The setting of the saying:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospels record two incidents where disciples approached the Lord to request a leave of absence from following Him.  The first request is recorded in Matthew 8.  Jesus was about to take the Twelve across the Sea of Galilee to the Decapolis city of Gadara.  Chronologically, this trip is the first recorded journey of Jesus to minister in Gentile territory. Maybe the disciple hesitated, probably because he did not want to go to those Gentiles so he made an excuse: Let me first go and bury my father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He most likely appealed to the Jewish burial practice of ossilegium, or secondary burial, which would remove him from following the Lord for up to eleven months.  Jesus saw this as an excuse not to minister to the Gentiles.  As a result He rebuked him with a statement of irony and challenged the disciple to follow Him. I got most of the information from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ldolphin.org/deaddead.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LET THE DEAD BURY THEIR OWN DEAD.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-17T14:53:45.263" LastActivityDate="2016-07-17T14:53:45.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11299" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11303" CreationDate="2012-10-19T13:34:50.243" Score="5" ViewCount="331994" Body="&lt;p&gt;to my understanding the following is what comprises Sexual immorality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Male homosexuality, incest, adultery, and bestiality.  &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to know if oral sex is included even if it's done in marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2014-06-21T21:11:19.670" LastActivityDate="2014-11-03T19:05:22.207" Title="Clarification of what sexual immorality is?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-11-08T18:44:31.600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11299" CreationDate="2012-10-19T14:02:27.487" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it certainly does fall into the category of sexual immorality. The simple reason is that if you are participating in such an activity then you will uncertainly be thinking sexually immoral thoughts and most likely be causing the other participant to also be thinking sexually immoral thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our thoughts are extremely important for in &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5: 27-28, Jesus said,   &quot;You have heard that it was said to&#xA;  those of old, &quot;You shall not commit adultery.  But I say to you that&#xA;  whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed&#xA;  adultery with her in his heart.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for if it is immoral within marriage I am unsure, but I would leave it to the husband and wife to decide if they feel it is appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to bring to mind &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 6:13, &quot;And do not go on presenting the members of your body to&#xA;  sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God&#xA;  as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of&#xA;  righteousness to God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not entirely sure if this relating to a persons body parts but if it is then it could be an indication of whether it is right to use your body in such a way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastEditorUserId="3322" LastEditDate="2012-10-19T14:13:08.287" LastActivityDate="2012-10-19T14:13:08.287" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11299" CreationDate="2012-10-19T14:14:25.270" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul is very clear that sexual immorality is a condition of heart as much as body.  He says in 1 Corinthinas 6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, whenever you are uniting two bodies in spirit you are having &amp;quot;sex.&amp;quot;  The physical intimacy is the point of sex, and the thing that can be perverted.  If, simply put, you join together that which God has not already put together (i.e. in marriage), it is a misuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-19T14:14:25.270" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11297" CreationDate="2012-10-19T14:52:15.523" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes everyone will be judged:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 5:10 New King James Version (NKJV) - For we must &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;ALL&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive&#xA;  the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether&#xA;  good or bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but not all will be condemned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8:1 New King James Version (NKJV) - There is therefore now no&#xA;  condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk&#xA;  according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastActivityDate="2012-10-19T14:52:15.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11299" CreationDate="2012-10-19T16:28:35.740" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Note: this answer comes from a reformed, Presbyterian perspective, YMMV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sexual immorality is defined pretty clearly by Jesus in Matthew 5:28 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That puts everyone who managed to live through puberty squarely in the guilty category here. So let's start from there. We're all guilty of sexual immorality, that's the fact. That's not to say that instances of sexual immorality are not serious and shouldn't be dealt with seriously. But just to introduce some levity, we're all guilty here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you assumed that 4 things fall squarely in this category, I don't want to argue that list, but at least 3 are pretty expressly forbidden by scripture and the fourth falls squarely into lust for the most part so we'll accept the list. But the point of the first passages is that sexual immorality is even broader. It's deeply embedded in our hearts and minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then of course you drop the bomb, is oral sex immoral? I'm actually going to take this a step farther and get the question you're really asking. Is it OK for married Christians to have anything but normal intercourse? But let's handle a side issue first. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Positions on sex before marriage and any kind of sexual contact outside of marriage vary.&lt;/em&gt; However, in my opinion (and it's one I share with a pretty wide swath of mainstream Christianity) it's both unwise and immoral to engage in sexual contact or sex prior to marriage. This is a well supported argument and it's made &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/778/is-premarital-sex-porneia&quot;&gt;elsewhere&lt;/a&gt; on this site, so it's really not necessary to delve into it here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The crux of this question is whether or not things that are believed to be inappropriate outside of a marriage are appropriate inside of one. For normal vaginal sex, the answer is obvious. One of the functions of marriage is to provide a home for children and well to have kids you've gotta have sex (obvious caveats for in vitro, adoption etc). But what about non-procreatory sex acts? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me be clear. The Bible contains no clear prohibitions on non-procreatory sex acts (in fact a couple of passages in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song%20of%20Songs+2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Song&lt;/a&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song%20of%20Songs%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Songs&lt;/a&gt; may refer to oral sex specifically and in a very positive way). Although being intentional about being non-procreatory when you are culturally obligated to may have disastrous effects (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Onan&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes it up to the man and the woman in the relationship to set boundaries and decide what is right and wrong &lt;em&gt;in the context of their marriage.&lt;/em&gt; For that the guiding principal has to be Ephesians 5:5 (NIV). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage in Ephesians is much maligned in modern society, but the crux is that we should faithfully submit to one another. It's hinged on respect. In the case of your question that means that &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; that you do that is outside of the boundaries set in your marriage can and should be considered sexual immorality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings us back to the passage I mentioned at the outset. Sexual Immorality is not something that has strict definitions. If even &lt;em&gt;looking&lt;/em&gt; at a woman with lust in your heart qualifies, then the definition is far broader than any specific act or set of acts. In the context of marriage this means that you must work and communicate with your partner to set your boundaries and decide what is welcome and what is off limits between the two of you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-10-19T16:28:35.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11304" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-19T17:25:53.647" Score="9" ViewCount="1154" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read books on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Premillennialism&lt;/a&gt; (including &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Left Behind&lt;/a&gt;) and heard many people preach on the topic but I've never heard an explanation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%204:16-17&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:16-17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and &lt;strong&gt;the dead in Christ will rise first&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, I have heard of those &lt;strong&gt;who are alive&lt;/strong&gt; suddenly being Raptured but no mention of the &lt;strong&gt;dead going first&lt;/strong&gt;. That is, in this verse it appears to consist of &lt;em&gt;two separate events&lt;/em&gt;: first those who are dead, and then the living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that matter, the Rapture is often depicted as a silent affair but here there is a &lt;em&gt;&quot;loud command&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and a &lt;em&gt;&quot;trumpet call&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Has any prominent premillennialist discussed this issue?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(On Wikipedia's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rapture&lt;/a&gt; page this verse is mentioned but the explanation of the &quot;dead rising first&quot; is not discussed.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T16:23:09.140" LastActivityDate="2020-12-19T17:29:58.910" Title="Premillennialist view of 1 Thessalonians 4:16" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;&lt;premillennialism&gt;&lt;1-thessalonians&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11305" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11307" CreationDate="2012-10-19T18:02:08.523" Score="9" ViewCount="4999" Body="&lt;p&gt;From this question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2759/how-can-a-particular-trade-of-modern-times-get-a-patron-saint/9641#9641&quot;&gt;How can a particular trade of modern times get a patron saint?&lt;/a&gt;, I learned that St. Isadore is the patron saint of computer programmers, a group of people in desparate need of a saint if there ever was one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, as a Protestant, I'm not exactly sure what St. Isadore is supposed to be doing for computer programmers.  I know that saints aren't worshipped, nor are they even prayed &quot;to&quot; in the sense that they would answer prayers with something magical - but what exactly is their function? I'm assuming that if the church is going to go through all the trouble of recognizing and naming a saint, there's gotta be a reason for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2021-03-26T14:20:37.057" Title="What exactly is the purpose of a Patron Saint?" Tags="&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7976" CreationDate="2012-10-19T19:40:11.383" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the eyes of natural moral law and the church direct abortion is tantamount to murder (whether the legislature agrees or not).  Direct abortion is when one chooses to intentionally abort a fertilized egg.  However, indirect abortion is not tantamount to murder.  Indirect abortion is when one does something that is not intended to harm the child, but the outcome is that the pregnancy is terminated (i.e. a woman with cancer has exhausted all treatment options that will not harm her baby and opts for a treatment which results in the death of her child).  This is not a light decision for a mother, but is not seen as morally abhorrent and the choice would be left to the woman (although I think it should be highly prescribed in cases where if not treated both the woman and child would be lost).  If any of this is confusing, here is an article which discusses the topic I have presented in more thorough detail. cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicmoraltheology.com/international-symposium-on-maternal-health-direct-abortion-never-medically-necessary/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;International Symposium on Maternal Health: Direct Abortion “Never Medically Necessary” | Catholic Moral Theology&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3328" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2014-10-03T05:27:42.627" LastActivityDate="2014-10-03T05:27:42.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11305" CreationDate="2012-10-19T23:29:10.233" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/saints/patron.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.catholic.org/saints/patron.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Patron saints are chosen as special protectors or guardians over areas&#xA;of life. These areas can include occupations, illnesses, churches,&#xA;countries, causes -- anything that is important to us. The earliest&#xA;records show that people and churches were named after apostles and&#xA;martyrs as early as the fourth century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of a Patron saint is two-fold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One purpose is that they are someone to use as a model - to pattern our behavior after them in a certain area of our life, or,  as the article says, we can follow their example.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I do also say it is well to keep before our eyes the supreme adventure of a virtue. If you are brave, think of the man who was braver than you. If you are kind, think of the man who was kinder than you. That is what was meant by having a patron saint.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;– G.K. Chesterton (“The Supreme Adventure,” Utopia of Usurers)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The other is that we can turn to them for intercessory prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, we can ask them to pray to God for us, which is an alien though to most protestants, but common among Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Catholic practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2021-03-26T14:20:37.057" LastActivityDate="2021-03-26T14:20:37.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9272" CreationDate="2012-10-20T00:35:23.577" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I must take offense with answer #2. One of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control. Therefore if the Spirit completely overtakes you it violates who He is and is at enmity with Himself. This is absolute proof that this &quot;Holy laughter&quot; and &quot;being slain in the Spirit&quot; cannot possibly be the work of the Holy Spirit. I have no doubt that &quot;spirits&quot; are involved but it is not God's. If the Holy Spirit takes control of you , you personally have lost all self-control. This is totally against the Nature of God. The Spirit of God will certainly empower you but never take your self-control. The scriptures used by answer #2 show this clearly. In every case they were led to do something, compelled to obey God, and were empowered to accomplish what they were called to do. It therefore must be either a &quot;different&quot; spirit that would take your self-control or the Bible is a lie. Being &quot;controlled&quot; by the Spirit is much different from obeying the Spirit. Obeying constitutes having a choice . You may well have a negative outcome from disobeying the Holy Spirit but you get to make that choice . Hope this helps. Amen&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3329" LastEditorUserId="3329" LastEditDate="2012-10-20T00:58:14.513" LastActivityDate="2012-10-20T00:58:14.513" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11250" CreationDate="2012-10-20T03:51:52.303" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a complement to Hebrews 12:5-11 cited by David Stratton, one might consider Romans 1:24 (which speaks of giving the wicked over to their desires).  Although that verse specifically relates to sexual corruption, the idea that God allows people to receive their hearts' desires as a form of judgment seems evident.  Just as suffering (the discipline of a father toward his true children) can be seen as a grace, the pleasures of the wicked can be seen as a first act of judgment.  The pleasures of the world, when received without proper gratitude or as ultimate goods, can corrupt the heart much as suffering, when properly received, can purify the heart.  Allowing people to accumulate wrath for the day of wrath (Romans 2:5) may be viewed as a very harsh judgment.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 5:1-6 speaks of wrongly possessed wealth testifying against rich people; one might reasonably extend this to worldly good in general, acquired wrongly or received and/or handled wrongly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 73 seems to speak to this issue as well, hinting that an abundance of worldly good can lead to or be associated with arrogance and a sudden and extreme falling into judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who have their lives together may be the least inclined to repent or recognize that they are not becoming more alive but more dead; the sick with unpleasant or disquieting symptoms are more likely to seek a physician.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2012-10-20T03:51:52.303" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11313" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11316" CreationDate="2012-10-20T05:48:22.913" Score="8" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;How did the old ceremonial sacrifices made atonement? What was really going on externally and internally to the person who brought the ‘sin offering’ to God? What did it mean that their ‘sins were atoned for’? Did it make a difference if the sacrifice was made by faith or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I am specifically looking for an answer under a ‘protestant framework’ that assumes all real forgiveness must be by ‘faith in Christ alone’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T18:52:19.213" Title="According to a ‘forgiveness in Christ alone’ framework how did ‘sin offerings’ make atonement for sin under the Mosaic Law?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;justification&gt;&lt;leviticus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11315" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11319" CreationDate="2012-10-20T11:47:36.243" Score="8" ViewCount="1323" Body="&lt;p&gt;During lent a Roman Catholic may not consume meat other than that of a fish. However, there are some non-fish animals that have been considered okay to consume during that time, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver#In_dietary_law&quot;&gt;like beaver for example&lt;/a&gt;. What other non-fish animals are okay for a Roman Catholic to eat during lent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1283" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T02:14:42.793" LastActivityDate="2016-01-27T06:12:57.773" Title="Eating of which non-fish animals does not go against the dietery law of the Roman Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;diet&gt;&lt;lent&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11313" CreationDate="2012-10-20T11:59:43.653" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok here is my stab at this rather important question which goes deep into the Christian faith.&#xA;Let me start with these verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 6:23 New King James Version (NKJV) For the wages of sin is&#xA;death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:12 New King James Version (NKJV) Therefore, just as through&#xA;one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death&#xA;spread to all men, because all sinned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;without shedding of blood is no remission of sins&amp;quot; (Heb 9:22, 26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verse set the premise that it is sin that requires death in order for it to be 'satisfied'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Some more verses to study: Eze. 18:4; Heb 10:3-4; Rom 5:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Covenant, i.e., The Old Testament, the Israelites were given the Law by Moses to fulfil two things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prescribed the technique that should be employed in order to permit a way to temporarily deal with their sin (I will talk more on this further down).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The other purpose, and many will argue the more important reason, is to show the Israelites where they were going wrong; it was not meant to be a permanent system to deal with their sins. It was there to make it obvious they could never meet the high standard of God. Romans deals with this whole question really but look at Romans 3 and especially verse 23 for this point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, talking about dealing with their sin, my first point. The sacrifices they made were made so that the blood of their sacrifices would make the remittance of sin possible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;without shedding of blood is no remission of sins&amp;quot; (Heb 9:22, 26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is actually a symbol of Jesus, which is partly why we call him the lamb, the worthy sacrifice. The point that needs to be made is by the first scripture (Romans 5:12) '...one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...&amp;quot;, the first man being perfectly created namely Adam and the second perfect man Jesus. The Sin Offering was a temporary fix but it wasn't until the perfect man was sacrificed by His father that the permanent fix could be established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, doing works of the law could not possibly justify:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 3:20 New King James Version (NKJV)&#xA;Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified&#xA;in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 9:9 New King James Version (NKJV)&#xA;It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and&#xA;sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed&#xA;the service perfect in regard to the conscience-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is only by grace through faith that we are able to receive the justification and atonement to regain our place as people of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9 New King James Version (NKJV) For by grace you have been&#xA;saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift&#xA;of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word 'works' actually means works of the law it should not be confused with James 2:17 &amp;quot;...Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.&amp;quot;, because that is talking about an inward change being manifested outwardly in our changed attitudes to serve our brothers, sisters and communities to the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the answer to your question is that when sacrifices were made they had to be with a faithful heart, with the desire to honour God. Take Abel and Cain, Abel was said to have offered a sacrifice that pleased Him and in Hebrews 11 it says his offering still speaks today. When a sacrifice was made it was with utmost reverence!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word 'atonement' has been told a 100 times to many a bored sunday school kid to be the same as at-one-ment, to be at one with God. The whole purpose of the human race is to be with God like Adam and Eve in the garden, walking with him and having relationship with Him. that is what atonement is trying to achieve, and it is fully and completely achieved by Jesus dying on the cross being the propitiation, that is suffering the wrath of God on every ones behalf because, if you remember, the wages of sin is death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps you get what you are after, or at the very least aid someone else in trying to answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a list of the verses that talk specifically about Sin Offerings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+4&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+4&amp;amp;version=NKJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+5&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+5&amp;amp;version=NKJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+6&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+6&amp;amp;version=NKJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+16&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+16&amp;amp;version=NKJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please read the whole of the chapters to ensure it is kept in context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-20T12:50:44.980" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11318" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-20T14:16:00.393" Score="6" ViewCount="417" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is well known that &quot;God is Love&quot; but, is there ever a time, according to 5 point Calvinists, in the bible when God is not loving? If so, according to 5 point Calvinists, what causes God to act as such?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="331" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-02-19T19:12:02.307" LastActivityDate="2016-08-18T13:53:44.327" Title="According to Calvinism, is God always loving?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11315" CreationDate="2012-10-20T18:12:13.677" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/f/Fasting_Rules.htm&quot;&gt;Canon Law 1251 says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Abstinence from meat, &lt;strong&gt;or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference&lt;/strong&gt;, is to be observed on all Fridays [...] (emphasis mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words it is to be determined by the bishops exactly what constitutes abstinence. The bishops of Quebec can simply state that beaver meat is OK to eat on days of abstinence. They don't have to declare it 'fish'. I would imagine that this is common practice in areas where fish is very hard to come by and meat is a staple food. In areas where meat is a rarity, giving it up would be little sacrifice and the rules might again be changed. As &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/p/Abstinence.htm&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; puts it, &quot;when we abstain, it's not because the food is impure; we're voluntarily giving up something good, for our spiritual benefit&quot;. The exact nature of what is given up is of secondary importance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-10-20T18:12:13.677" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11322" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-21T06:13:23.830" Score="5" ViewCount="1119" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be more specific (and also more broad), are there any major groups within Christianity that consider Hell not to be a specific place, but rather a specific &lt;em&gt;state&lt;/em&gt; of being?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I expect the list to be short, so this shouldn't be a bad list question.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T19:07:58.963" Title="Are there any denominations that teach a Hell that is not a place?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11318" CreationDate="2012-10-21T09:36:44.957" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bible has depicted all God's intent as out of love for His chosen people and consequently through them to the whole of humanity .  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is always loving but this cannot be generalised universally as to force or expect Him to love what is evil and bad. Just because God is 'love' does not mean He is supposed to show  love and affection to what is evil and consequently  take out hell from existence and allow devil to go scot free (that is what some of us are expecting Him to do). If it is so then Devil would have won against God, hands down.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When man takes side of devil  and his ways, God has to correct man to bring him back on track. Remember the saying 'doctor hurts to heal' or else there would be no cure. . &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T12:12:29.807" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T12:12:29.807" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11313" CreationDate="2012-10-21T13:17:06.763" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Briefly, this is exactly the problem that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dispensationalism&lt;/a&gt; was trying to address. Scofield, Darby, et. al hypothesized that at different times, there were different ways to secure Gods favor. Key to this concept were the ideas of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28biblical%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;covenant&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_%28Christianity%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;progressive revelation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Progressive Revelation, in a nutshell, says that the Bible should be considered chronologically.  If it &quot;hasn't happened yet&quot; in Scripture, then God hasn't yet revealed that as a condition or requirement.  In other words, covenants must be explicitly borne out. Since Grace or even sole fide are not &lt;em&gt;explicitly&lt;/em&gt; mentioned as being covenantial, an alternative dispensation (namely the sacrificial system) was required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the scheme proposed by the dispensationalist, there were different covenants in place. Before the flood, it was to have fellowship with God. During the days of Israel it was through sacrifice. During the church age, it is through grace. During the tribulation it will be through avoiding the mark. The point is that dispensationalism teaches that history provides different mechanisms at different times. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dispensationalists look to Hebrews as evidence of this system.  Hebrews claims that Jesus was the fulfillment of the sacrificial system.  Look, for example, at Hebrews 10:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the covenant relies on ongoing sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In being the sacrifice on the cross, Jesus, the High Priest overturns the sacrificial system.  It says in v 12 - 14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this sacrifice, Jesus is able to overturn the old covenant.  As it says in verses 15ff:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:&#xA;  16 “This is the covenant I will make with them&#xA;      &lt;strong&gt;after that time&lt;/strong&gt;, says the Lord.&#xA;  I will put my laws in their hearts,&#xA;      and I will write them on their minds.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, under this system, God changes the rules.  Pure and simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-10-21T18:30:15.010" LastActivityDate="2012-10-21T18:30:15.010" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11313" CreationDate="2012-10-21T15:39:32.880" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the only thing we can say for certain is that if the offerer presenting a sacrifice to atone for sins, did not do it with  faith in Messiah (who actually providing that atonement) then no such atonement was obtained, except possibly an external kind of 'accepting the worshiper into the temple practices. '. In other words &lt;strong&gt;faith in Christ alone is the only way to obtain atonement but the external atonement of being accepted into the external form of worship, symbolizing true atonement, could be obtained by an animal.&lt;/strong&gt; If we at any time imagine that real atonement for sins could be obtained in any other way than faith in Messiah, Christ died in vain.  If atonement and favor of God could have been obtained without a direct link to Christ's death, then Christ did not need to die as that  method could have obtained salvation without any further help by a God-Man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore these different ways of obtaining God's favor must have been expressions of faith just as the Lords supper is for us.   Atonement and God's favor is not at all obtained by them, but faith in Messiah is expressed by them and that has always been how man found favor with God and no other way is possible and capable of atoning for sins.  Sin deserves infinite punishment for offending the glory of an infinite God, making sin an infinite crime.  Only the God-Man could endure such a punishment.  In fact the smallest sin could never be even partially atoned for by all the goats, lambs and bulls ever born from Adam to now.  These were symbols not realities as Hebrews argues and as the Lords supper proclaims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants have two sacraments, baptism and the breaking of bread, but they had hundreds of sacraments under a symbolic and externalization of faith representing a reminder of sins and  a promise of better things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.  Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. (Hebrews 10:1-3, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However due to the waekness of that system by its use of animals to pay for human sins the worshipper could never have full confidence. They knew the object was not appropriate for the need, like to not answer like. Furthermore the clearness of the meaning of Messiah was still to vague in their minds. Therefore the sacraments were not fully 'able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.'  This must have been part of the burden that Jesus wanted to alleviate when he said 'come unto me all whomare heavy laden and I will give you rest'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see the New Testament light on those ancient practices:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings —external regulations applying until the time of the new order. (Hebrews 9:6-10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-10-21T15:39:32.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11313" CreationDate="2012-10-21T17:11:52.713" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How did the old ceremonial sacrifices made atonement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They didn't. Old Testament sacrifice was only able to atone for someone who followed the Mosaic law &lt;em&gt;perfectly&lt;/em&gt;... a feat which is beyond any of us, especially as most of us are not Jews, and even if we were the Altar and priests are gone. The whole point of Jesus' sacrifice is that the former sacrificial system was inadequate. Sin offerings succeeded only until &quot;just the right time&quot;, when Christ made one sacrifice for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-10-22T18:52:19.213" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T18:52:19.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11322" CreationDate="2012-10-21T17:44:12.260" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This seemingly simple question is going to require a relatively complex answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good place to start is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;. As it shows, there is Christian disagreement on whether Hell is primarily a state, or primarily a place, and that disagreement is not necessarily along denominational lines. Even those that describe Hell as a place may consider that language symbolic: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope John Paul II stated on 28 July 1999&lt;/a&gt; that, in speaking of hell as a place, the Bible uses &quot;a symbolic language&quot;, which &quot;must be correctly interpreted … Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Evangelical Protestants, asked to define Hell, would usually say &quot;Hell is separation from God&quot;, rather than define it as a place where torture and pain occur: eternal separation from God is sufficiently painful that no other punishment is necessary, and the language of fire and brimstone is simply a picture of that pain (an atheist would of course contend that separation from God is no punishment at all). Billy Graham defines Hell in that way in his seminal evangelical book &lt;em&gt;Peace with God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the definition of Hell is separation, that does not necessarily imply that Hell is not also a place. For separation to be real there must be no interaction, and it is therefore implict that those separated from God (and others who have chosen to be with him) are in 'a different place' in some sense. However for mainstream Christians the 'being in a different place' is secondary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are significant numbers of Christians who would disagree with this view - even some that literally believe Hell is at the centre of the earth - but since they frequently do not divide along denominational lines, any attempt to produce the list the question asks for is doomed to failure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good introductory read (which should itself be taken as allegory rather than a theological treatise) is C.S. Lewis &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/em&gt;. A simple Google search will also turn up all sorts of views on Hell and its nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should also read the answers to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1017/what-exactly-is-hell&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T02:35:50.223" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10210" CreationDate="2012-10-21T17:56:14.757" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;With verses such as 1 Timothy 2:3-4, the exegesis of the verse needs to be looked into rather than just the direct implication of it. I do not believe it's all people, but all types of people (nationalities and races). Also, in Romans 9, specifically verse 22, it states God has objects of wrath (for example, Pharaoh in Egypt).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-10-22T02:06:20.070" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T02:06:20.070" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1017" CreationDate="2012-10-21T18:03:26.517" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The conventional definition of Hell is that it is 'separation from God'. Both Pope John Paul II and Billy Graham have defined Hell in this way, so its is safe to say that this represents the mainstream view of Hell in Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However this definition does not give any details of what Hell is like. Few Christians would consider the ancient view, of a place with devils and pitchforks, to be anywhere near accurate. While some might agree that there is explicit punishment, for the most part it is considered that eternal separation from God is punishment enough. (An atheist would of course disagree).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians again agree that the Biblical descriptions of Hell are largely picture-language - that (for example) the fire, brimstone and darkness indicate the quantity and quality of suffering caused by separation from God, rather than actual physical pain; Biblical literalists would be the main dissenters from that view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of online references giving treatises about Hell. My own recommendation for a starter is C.S. Lewis &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/em&gt; - though again I would caution that it is intended as allegory and not theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-10-21T18:03:26.517" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10210" CreationDate="2012-10-22T01:12:51.293" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your assumption &quot;that is, the selection has nothing to do with the people themselves&quot; is not correct. In &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; Book I, Chapter XV, Section 8, Calvin says, &quot;Here it would be out of place to raise the question of God's secret predestination because our present subject is not what can happen or not, but what man's nature was like.&quot; In other words, God has created a plan in which each of us lives according to the facilities, such as reason and emotion, that he has given to us. We can do no other than what our nature is. So his plan of who is elect is carried out by our own actions as he as designed. So it is his will that ultimately determines our future, but it also has everything to do with who we are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God's desire is that all be saved, but because of who we are we cannot all be saved while also fulfilling his plan for our purpose. It would be possible for him to save us all, but that is not his plan. Nevertheless he loves all of us and desires each of us to be saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is like we have several children in a race, and we want them individually all to win. However, they cannot all win without ruining the idea of the race. Thus your quote from Ezekial simply says to the slower children, &quot;run your best because I don't want you to lose.&quot; While you genuinely feel pain at them losing, the race is important to run, and someone has to lose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bigger question is fundamentally why everyone isn't going to be saved. We don't know the full answer, but some some glimpse can be had from the idea that if everyone was saved then salvation would be nearly meaningless. From Institutes Book I, Chapter II, Section 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are&#xA;  nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every&#xA;  good, that they should seek nothing beyond him - they will never yield&#xA;  him willing service. Nay, unless they establish their complete&#xA;  happiness in him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely&#xA;  to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While that might carry some tone of burden placed on us, that's not what is meant. It is simply that our nature is that unless we feel like something has been accomplished, we will simply be resentful of everything that happens to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2104" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T01:12:51.293" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11335" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11347" CreationDate="2012-10-22T06:48:26.647" Score="2" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize that the prevailing interpretation is that Jeshurun is another name for Israel. However some people think that Jeshurun refers to some type of end-times figure. What reason do they have to think that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deu 32:15  But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked. You grew fat, thick, and satisfied. Then he forsook God who made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="666" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T00:30:26.113" Title="Why do some people consider Jeshurun to be an end-times figure?" Tags="&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1450" CreationDate="2012-10-22T08:59:10.810" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I tried making this a bit short but every time found that whatever that is there is relevant for question.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity gets this tag from its scripture itself and the Divinity of Jesus. A Test for a true religion can be on two counts:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To know how it directs its adherents in this earthly life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And to know how convincing is its claim of everlasting after-life.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To know the answers for these two premises, we need not look further than the respective religious scriptures and get to know what they depicts, for scripture is like genome of any religious belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First Premise: A true religion, irrespective of its ultimate aim of bringing all humanity under its fold, will ensure equality, peace, love, justice etc. to all humanity irrespective of cast, creed or religion.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a true religion needs to have such a scripture, which clearly states these characteristics of “goodness for all” and become a force for good, making this world a better place for all humans in their earthly life. A religion will evidently exhibit this trait of “goodness for all” if exists in its scripture in a manner it deals with all other humans and also this trait is noticeable to the would-be adherents from the scripture itself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&lt;strong&gt;A note of caution:&lt;/strong&gt; Whether every follower of any religion will follow or has followed in the past, of what is spelled out in their scripture is a different matter since that would be due to the weakness of human nature not scripture. But what is to be judged is, whether in first place, the scripture has this in its content or not. If any of the religious scripture &lt;strong&gt;does not teach&lt;/strong&gt; these traits of “goodness” to their neighbor, irrespective of cast, creed or religion or has content that teaches otherwise (to hate, to kill etc. etc) (whether to their followers or non followers), &lt;strong&gt;then how would anyone can expect&lt;/strong&gt; the followers/adherents of that religion to practice it and attempt to bring peace, equality and happiness in the society.]  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you apply this test to the New Testament, (Not Old testament because that stage was like &lt;strong&gt;molding and preparing&lt;/strong&gt; God’s chosen people into special people compared to others, for receiving the Messiah in the world) and if you weigh it against message of any other religion, the message taught by Jesus is beyond any comparison as well as it is unique.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture of other religion may teach their followers all that is good. But Christianity stands apart in a sense that it teaches to love your neighbor to the extent of loving &lt;strong&gt;your enemy&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;It teaches to be humble, be servant not masters and so on&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;strong&gt;Matt. 5:38-48, Matt. 7:1-5, Matt 22:39-40&lt;/strong&gt;). Jesus Himself practiced all this and &lt;strong&gt;mingled with sinners, rode on a donkey, washed His disciples’ feet and so on&lt;/strong&gt;. It teaches that it is the patient that needs a doctor not a healthy man and that Jesus came to seek the sinners not the righteous (Mark 2:13-17, Matt. 9:9-13). Imagine, God with His immense love for you, comes searching you, so as to reform and save you from hell. These are the revolutionary teachings which no other religion has in their scriptures which strengthens the claim that the Good News that Jesus preached is Divinely inspired and much relevant to lead an  earthly life in peace will all humans.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second Premise:&lt;/strong&gt; If we take the case of some of the major religions in the world, the eastern religions (Hinduism) teach that you can become fully “enlightened” through a reincarnation process by doing enough good deeds. Islam teaches you must follow the teachings of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths and accept Mohammad as God's true prophet for the hope that Allah may grant you entrance into paradise. We see that all these religions began with founders (Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) who lived and died too. They never said &lt;strong&gt;that they are from above&lt;/strong&gt; except Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus taught that He was God in the flesh, who came to Earth in human form to die for the sins of mankind, so that “whosoever would believe on Him would not perish, but have everlasting life”. So whatever Jesus said about salvation and after life is like hearing from God Himself (Horse’s mouth). [If one wants to know the truth regarding any event/incident, it is always trustworthy to hear from the Horse’s mouth rather than from the third or fourth eye witnesses]  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the only “religious leader” who actually claimed to be God on Earth, in the flesh. Of course, He was the Son of God while in human flesh, and yet also fully God and fully human. With this claim from Jesus, Christianity easily proves that it is a true a religion.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what we find in the Christian scripture to support the claim of Jesus. In Isaiah 9:6 it is prophesied the Messiah that comes to Earth in the flesh will be called “Mighty God, everlasting Father”.  See Isaiah 7:14 also. Also John 3:31, John 6:41, John 8:23-24, John 10:30, John 8:58 and John 11:25. Gospel of John we find verses that clearly depicts Divinity of Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the only founder of any religion who allowed himself to be worshiped as recorded in places such as John 9:38 and Matthew 14:33. In the Old Testament we see that God is a jealous God and declares that no one besides God is to be worshiped, so for Jesus to allow Himself to be worshiped establishes that He did in fact consider Himself to be God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus backed up His claims by doing things no regular human being was able to do and He did it with a claim that He is same as God, unlike Moses who did it with the help of God. He changed the weather with his spoken word, walked on water, changed water into wine, instantly healed the blind, the deaf, the paralyzed, created fish and bread to feed thousands, brought the dead back to life. In spite of these awesome supernatural powers He never tried to take control of either people or political system &lt;strong&gt;forcibly&lt;/strong&gt;. On the contrary He shunned it as is seen at John 6:15.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1871" LastEditorUserId="1871" LastEditDate="2012-10-22T09:05:14.530" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T09:05:14.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="901" CreationDate="2012-10-22T12:53:17.833" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Philosophically, there is a theorem called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Law_of_noncontradiction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Law of Non-Contradiction&lt;/a&gt;&quot; that has gained wide traction in Christian Apologetics circles.  (See especially Ravi Zacharias.)  The &quot;law of non-contradiction&quot; is a simple premise - a thing cannot be both A and not A.  Anything less is nonsensical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theological extension of this is that God cannot violate his own nature.  God is incapable of lying, for example, not because he could not, but because he would not. To lie would be to vioilate his nature to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, because God's will is perfect, he cannot do that which is outside his nature, because he is, by definition perfect. To act outside of what is perfect is, by definition, less than perfect. Ergo, God does not do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say he &quot;cannot&quot; act outside of his own will is thus technically accurate, but missing the point. Whether or not he &quot;could&quot; is irrevelant. He simply won't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T12:53:17.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2275" CreationDate="2012-10-22T13:01:22.363" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;While not discounting the fact that Jesus in fact fulfills the office of prophet, it is not the only interpretation.  Indeed, a common rule of hermeneutics is that a verse cannot mean what the original audience could not have understood it to mean. As the concept of Messiah is exilic and the Deuteronomical law is considered at latest to have been 800BC or so, the Messiah is not the what the original audience would have understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, we can safely say only that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God will raise up men to speak for Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When He does so, people should listen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, God raised up prophets many times throughout the history of Israel. And again, clearly the greatest of the prophets was Jesus, for as it says in Hebrews 1 (NIV):   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question raised in the Deuteronomical passage is &quot;Is there only one prophet?&quot; The answer is, is it really important? If this is fulfilled many times over the course of history, it remains equally valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, is Jesus a prophet to which this refers? Certainly. Is he the only one?  There seems to be nothing in the text to support that claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1757" LastEditDate="2014-01-30T20:36:03.200" LastActivityDate="2014-01-30T20:36:03.200" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11340" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11343" CreationDate="2012-10-22T16:04:21.400" Score="7" ViewCount="392" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally, Catholics and Protestants read Scripture differently.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe that any private interpretation of Scripture is subject to the teachings of the church, whereas Protestants, subscribing to the priesthood of all believers, afford more latitude for private interpretation. Within that &quot;private interpretation,&quot; however, is the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Clarity_of_Scripture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;perspicuity&lt;/a&gt; – a term that ironically means that Scripture is always clear.  (Ask any congregation to define it, and I'll bet 75% can't!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, however, is how this doctrine developed.  Is it Scriptural, for example, to say that the Bible proclaims itself as having obvious application?  (The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing)  Or is it more of a historical reaction? (The answer to Pope is not to install a new Pope)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, where does this doctrine come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-01-20T05:44:58.473" LastActivityDate="2017-01-20T05:44:58.473" Title="What is the origin of the doctrine of perspicuity?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;clarity-of-scripture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="138" CreationDate="2012-10-22T16:13:23.160" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Books can and have been written on this subject. Different traditions have different ways of interpreting the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Catholic approach is that the Church interprets the Bible. Biblical interpretation requires careful study, deep knowledge, and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. An average Christian is unlikely to have all of these, and can get themselves in real trouble by applying what they &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; the Bible means.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Evangelical Protestant approach is that the Bible stands entirely on its own and that every individual Christian is responsible for interpreting it themselves - typically with the guidance of books, pastors and fellow-Christians, but with nobody else's interpretation being necessarily better than yours.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The approach of the Orthodox churches, and a number of Anabaptist groups, is that the church interprets scriptures &lt;em&gt;in community&lt;/em&gt;. This is different from the Catholic approach, where the formal heirarchy of the church does the interpretation: in this approach groups of Christians gather together to interpret scripture to and for each other, submitting also to groups of those groups.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have Protestant leanings, and wanting to do your own interpretation (in a group or alone) &lt;strong&gt;there are whole classes of books written about this, collectively called &quot;Introductions&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (a misleading term - they are not in any way basic or primers). I recommend my personal favourite: &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.ca/How-Read-The-Bible-Worth/dp/0310246040&quot;&gt;How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-10-22T17:07:21.950" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T17:07:21.950" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11340" CreationDate="2012-10-22T17:36:37.763" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This concept originated with Martin Luther. In his 1525 treatise &lt;em&gt;On the Bondage of the Will&lt;/em&gt;&amp;mdash;a response to Desiderius Erasmus' &lt;em&gt;On Free Will&lt;/em&gt;&amp;mdash;Luther makes the case that God has made the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.vii.ii.html&quot;&gt;message of Scripture&lt;/a&gt; plain for all to understand, and has given us the Holy Spirit to guide our understanding. According to Luther, if anyone does not understand, it is a failure on their part and not a lack of the Scripture's clarity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All the things, therefore, contained in the Scriptures; are made manifest, although some places, from the words not being understood, are yet obscure. But to know that all things in the Scriptures are set in the clearest light, and then, because a few words are obscure, to report that the things are obscure, is absurd and impious. And, if the words are obscure in one place, yet they are clear in another. But, however, the same thing, which has been most openly declared to the whole world, is both spoken of in the Scriptures in plain words, and also still lies hidden in obscure words. Now, therefore, it matters not if the thing be in the light, whether any certain representations of it be in obscurity or not, if, in the mean while, many other representations of the same thing be in the light. For who would say that the public fountain is not in the light, because those who are in some dark narrow lane do not see it, when all those who are in the Open market place can see it plainly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther explains that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.vii.iii.html&quot;&gt;God has provided&lt;/a&gt; everything we need in order to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;WHAT you adduce, therefore, about the darkness of the Corycian cavern, amounts to nothing; matters are not so in the Scriptures. For those things which are of the greatest majesty, and the most abstruse mysteries, are no longer in the dark corner, but before the very doors, nay, brought forth and manifested openly. For Christ has opened our understanding to understand the Scriptures, Luke xxiv. 45. And the Gospel is preached to every creature. (Mark xvi. 15, Col. i. 23.) “Their sound is gone out into all the earth.” (Psalm xix. 4.) And “All things that are written, are written for our instruction.” (Rom. xv. 4.) And again, “All Scripture is inspired from above, and is profitable for instruction.” (2 Tim. iii. 16.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a building block for Luther's claim about God's sovereignty. Luther states that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.ix.ii.html&quot;&gt;our sinfulness&lt;/a&gt; utterly prevents us from seeking God on our own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The will of God, nevertheless, which rules over our mutable will, is immutable and infallible; as Boëtius sings, “Immovable Thyself, Thou movement giv’st to all.” And our own will, especially our corrupt will, cannot of itself do good;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.ix.i.html&quot;&gt;God works things out&lt;/a&gt; according to his own will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: &lt;em&gt;That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the ways God accomplishes this is by making the message of the Scriptures as clear as possible, and by providing us with everything we need in order to understand that message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T17:36:37.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11344" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-22T18:23:31.543" Score="11" ViewCount="2707" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that there were two points of Catholic doctrine in Aquinas' Summa Theologica that were later successfully defended to the contrary.  One, I think is the Immaculate Conception of Mary (although I don't know where that is in the Summa) and I'm not sure what the other one is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excluding things that might not exactly measure up to modern science. What are the points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2021-02-11T22:20:10.467" Title="What's wrong with the Summa Theologica?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;&lt;summa-theologica&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2275" CreationDate="2012-10-22T18:53:30.133" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;De 18:15–19. CHRIST THE PROPHET IS TO BE HEARD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet—The insertion of this promise, in connection with the preceding prohibition, might warrant the application (which some make of it) to that order of true prophets whom God commissioned in unbroken succession to instruct, to direct, and warn His people; and in this view the purport of it is, “There is no need to consult with diviners and soothsayers, as I shall afford you the benefit of divinely appointed prophets, for judging of whose credentials a sure criterion is given” (De 18:20–22). But the prophet here promised was pre-eminently the Messiah, for He alone was “like unto Moses” (see on De 34:10) “in His mediatorial character; in the peculiar excellence of His ministry; in the number, variety, and magnitude of His miracles; in His close and familiar communion with God; and in His being the author of a new dispensation of religion.” This prediction was fulfilled fifteen hundred years afterwards and was expressly applied to Jesus Christ by Peter (Ac 3:22, 23), and by Stephen (Ac 7:37).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the commentary: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)&#xA;By Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Also please note Mathew 17:5e&lt;/strong&gt; 5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. &lt;strong&gt;Hear Him!&lt;/strong&gt;” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Hear Him&quot; commandment alludes to Deut 18:15b &lt;strong&gt;&quot;You must listen to him&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="910" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T18:53:30.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9116" CreationDate="2012-10-22T19:38:43.410" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard this too, but I don't know where it comes from and I've never read it in any of the Catechetical texts I use for teaching the faith. Certainly, there's a Biblical edict against swearing like that as @Narnian makes quite clear. But, there's another side to swearing.  Which is making a vow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vows are very central to Catholicism, all of the Sacraments are essentially vows.  All the covenants are vows.  Everything in Catholicism is swearing, on your honor that you'll up hold your end of the bargain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what's really to be avoided is an oath made in vain. Because that would be a violation of the 2nd commandment to not use the Lord's name in vain (or invoke His holy name for a pointless reason).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, even rash vows have a place in Catholicism. Love itself, is a vow and to say, because it was entered in to on a whim, is not even vanity, it's closer to Godliness and it makes one freer as one binds themselves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The revolt against vows has been carried in our day even to the extent of a revolt against the typical vow of marriage. It is most amusing to listen to the opponents of marriage on this subject. They appear to imagine that the ideal of constancy was a yoke mysteriously imposed on mankind by the devil, instead of being, as it is, a yoke consistently imposed by all lovers on themselves. They have invented a phrase, a phrase that is a black and white contradiction in two words—'free-love'—as if a lover ever had been, or ever could be, free. It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/%7Emward/gkc/books/The_Defendant.html#A_DEFENCE_OF_RASH_VOWS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;GK Chesterton - In Defence of Rash Vows&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if I ever find out where that teaching came from, I'll append it to here, but in general, making sacred oaths is about as taboo in Catholicism as wearing a Rosary around your neck &lt;sub&gt;(Read Manzoni's the Betrothed if you've ever had scruples about that)&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-22T19:38:43.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11335" CreationDate="2012-10-22T22:25:36.340" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nation of Israel is an end-times figure in certain end-times teachings... So if Jeshrun is another name for Israel, that makes Jeshrun an end-times figure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short version is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is tied to Dispensationalism, and certain premillennial views. The short version is that we are currently living in the &quot;Church Age&quot; which is a brief respite in the Seventy weeks of Daniel. This is a time period here God's dealings with Israel is suspended. In the pre-tribulation rapture view, the Church will be raptured, which will signl the start of the seven year Great Tribulation, in which God will again be dealing directly with Israel. Those seven years represent the final &quot;week&quot; in the seventy weeks of Daniel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References for further study: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11335/why-do-some-people-consider-jeshurun-to-be-an-end-times-figure&quot;&gt;Why do some people consider Jeshurun to be an end-times figure?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://gracethrufaith.com/ikvot-hamashiach/the-70-weeks-of-daniel/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://gracethrufaith.com/ikvot-hamashiach/the-70-weeks-of-daniel/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.raptureready.com/rr-pre-trib-rapture.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.raptureready.com/rr-pre-trib-rapture.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The usual disclaimer, I'm just outlining the beliefs. Not everyone agrees with these views.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T00:30:26.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11348" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-22T22:42:58.197" Score="7" ViewCount="1570" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication all the nations have fallen [victim], and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the traveling merchants of the earth became rich due to the power of her shameless luxury.”&amp;mdash;Revelation 18:3 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/revelation/18#v-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NWT&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if anyone would be able to explain, in what way(s), &quot;Babylon the Great&quot; engaged in &quot;Fornication&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1882" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T17:27:42.550" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T15:44:54.180" Title="Why is &quot;fornication&quot; used to describe the actions of &quot;Babylon the Great&quot; in Revelation 18?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11348" CreationDate="2012-10-23T00:29:16.783" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In layman's terms, fornication is often used as an allegory for idolatry. In the same way people are unfaithful to spouses by fornicating in the usual sense of the word, idolatry is &quot;cheating on&quot; God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thewholetruthnow.com/2PORNEIA.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.thewholetruthnow.com/2PORNEIA.htm&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/doctrine/fornication_defined.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/doctrine/fornication_defined.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the second link above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Revelation, we again see a clear link between the act of&#xA;  fornication and idolatry:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14   But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a&#xA;  stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed&#xA;  unto idols, and to commit fornication....&#xA;  20   Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess,&#xA;  to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat&#xA;  things sacrificed unto idols.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John is clearly speaking out against the practice of committing the&#xA;  sexual act of idolatry and then eating meat sacrificed to idols in&#xA;  that act of worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you do a word study on Fornication, you will see that it is&#xA;  condemned in context to Idolatry EVERY time.  100% of the references&#xA;  to fornication are in context to idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;similarly, several times in Scripture, idolatry is described as &quot;whoring after other gods&quot; such as in &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judges 2:17 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a&#xA;  whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned&#xA;  quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the&#xA;  commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-23T00:58:43.983" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T00:58:43.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10210" CreationDate="2012-10-23T05:07:29.683" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I will post this answer as a second post that presents a real 100% Calvinist view as observed by classical Calvinists using their preferred way of expressing their view, rather than my modern preferred way as a 95% Calvinist.&lt;/strong&gt;  The truth is many versions of Calvinism today have a slight mixture of Arminianism in them.  The basic difference is that &lt;strong&gt;within classical Calvinism mans choice to receive Christ is predominantly and 'outcome of election' and that God 'effectively calls' all for whom Christ died, and all who he does not effectively call, Christ did not strictly die for. In some sense this means God does not effectually love all. This does not mean a Calvinist does not think God is loving and loves all, it has more to do with our understanding of what 'God's will' really means.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I refer to a classical treatment on the very subject you question by John Owen entitled '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onthewing.org/user/Owen_Death%20of%20Death%20-%20Modern.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The death of death in the death of Christ&lt;/a&gt;':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most apparent, then, it is that the new covenant of grace, and the promises thereof, are all of them of distinguishing mercy, restrained to the people whom God did foreknow; and so not extended universally to all. Now, the blood of Jesus Christ being the blood of this covenant, and his oblation intended only for the procurement of the good things intended and promised thereby,—for he was the surety thereof, Heb. 7:22, and of that only,—it cannot be conceived to have respect unto all, or any but only those that are intended in this covenant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice Owen arguably the leading Calvinist of his time says &lt;strong&gt;Christ did not die for all&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is no uncertain matter to the Calvinist. The word all simply does not mean ‘all’ without exception.  Owen lists several reasons why this is so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First Owen argues that the &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘word all being in the Scripture most commonly used in this sense (that is, for many of all sorts)’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second Owen argues that in the case of 1 Timothy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;after he hath enjoined us to pray for all, because the Lord will have all to be saved, he expressly intimates that by all men he understandeth men of all sorts, ranks, conditions, and orders, by distributing those all into several kinds, expressly mentioning some of them, as “kings and all in authority.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, Owen actually clarifies that scripture says ‘we should not pray for all’ although not quoting it he is obviously referring to 1 John 5:16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth, Owen argues that no man can resist God’s will so since not all are saved not all were willed to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fifth,  Owen argues that God would have no more to be “saved” than he would have “come to the knowledge of the truth.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These two things are of equal latitude, and conjoined in the text. But it is not the will of the Lord that all and every one, in all ages, should come to the knowledge of the truth. Of old, “he showed his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them,” Ps. 147:19, 20. If he would have had them all come to the knowledge of the truth, why did he show his word to some and not to others, without which they could not attain thereunto? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we basically get the idea. &lt;strong&gt;Calvinists insist that only those who are elect before the foundations of the world will be saved. The choice to receive Christ, or not, based on a provision of salvation for all, is not the determining factor, rather it is God's will and election that counts.&lt;/strong&gt; The concept that God provisioned for all and then we simply decide, yes or no is actually more Arminian than Calvinistic.  However what complicates the issue for most is that receiving Christ is not strictly a 'work' so modern Calvinism might allow some relationship to man's choice in God's election but this concept is not really supported by classical Calvinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having posted two posts to the question I should add that I actually have no objection to 100% Calvinism and do not object to saying that Christ did not die for all and even to say in some sense he does not love all.  (The Bible does say:  &quot;Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated&quot; so there is a point of distinction between loving &quot;all&quot; or not) But we must be careful about words for I fully support that Christ did die for all and that God does love all.  To be fair we must listen fully to a persons arguments and slowly understand what they mean be each term and sense in their explanation.  Although I prefer to use different terms and senses as expressed in my original post where I confess I am no longer 100% Calvinists, to be honest I actually find the alternate phrases and senses by a 100% Calvinist (when properly understood) to be virtually no different then my own. Sometimes it is simply a preferred way of saying the same thing, however some peoples preferred way can be highly confusing to others! &lt;strong&gt;To me and many other Calvinists one can put all salvation is God's choosing and effectual calling to the elect 'only', while believing that God in some real sense truly loves all, but refer to my second post for that 'preferred way of expressing these terms'.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="11159" LastEditDate="2015-07-06T21:07:02.860" LastActivityDate="2015-07-06T21:07:02.860" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3935" CreationDate="2012-10-23T08:10:48.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians believe two things (among others):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is the only route to heaven; without him, you go to hell.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's our job to love everyone.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you believe those two things, then you &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to try to get everyone to accept Jesus.  Letting them go to hell isn't loving them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might agree or disagree with those two beliefs, but if you want to know more about them, that'd be best suited for a separate question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1326" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T08:10:48.390" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11352" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-23T09:46:44.220" Score="12" ViewCount="9674" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any modern sects who originate from or claim affiliation with Christianity that still practice any sacrificial rites? If so, who are they and what specifically is their understanding of the nature of sin and forgiveness in relation to sacrifice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think I understand the general position of orthodox Christianity on the issue. I'm specifically looking for anybody who both claims the label &quot;Christian&quot; and acknowledges Christ as the Messiah, but still sees a need for ongoing animal sacrifice -- and why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2014-02-05T10:04:59.530" Title="Are there any sects of Christianity that still practice animal sacrifice?" Tags="&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11352" CreationDate="2012-10-23T14:50:08.227" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/dec/15/no-role-animal-sacrifice-christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt;, there are local churches in Israel that still practice animal sacrifice.  It says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although slaughter for sacrifice contradicts a basic belief of Christianity, it is practiced by local Catholics, Greek Orthodox and other Christians at the ruined Byzantine church of Saint George in the village of Taybeh, 20 miles from Jerusalem. &amp;quot;Around 70 to 80 lambs are sacrificed here each year,&amp;quot; said the Roman Catholic priest, Father Raed. Similar sacrifices are also made in the towns of Lodd, Jaffa, al-Khadar and elsewhere in the Holy Land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike traditional sacrifices, the meat is then distributed to the poor rather than to the priests, but the purpose is very similiar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The sheep are always facing east when a sharp knife goes through their necks,&amp;quot; Khoury explained. &amp;quot;Sometimes sacrifices are offered as gratitude for the birth of a healthy child, help with a relation surviving a deadly illness or a major operation, or thanks for survival from a car accident.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the killing, prayers are offered in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost and accompanied by entreaties to al-Khader (Saint George) to act as an intermediary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Qleibo, although a Muslim himself, insists that Christian blood-sacrifice cannot be explained away as a Muslim influence: &amp;quot;Blood sacrifice was an important part of the ancient Canaanite religion and numerous pagan cults. Semitic blood sacrifices have persisted.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this said, it seems to be a peculiar practice of a place, not so much as a denomination.  Syncretism is apparently not the sole province of the Samaritans...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T20:41:59.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1102" CreationDate="2012-10-23T16:35:44.487" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there was fear in Jesus by telling his disciple not to tell anybody that He is the Messiah. In the the bible Jesus is warning us to fear not almost 365 times. So the fear does not come in. He is the God of order, He is doing things at right time. When her mother approached him at the wedding, He told his mother my time is not yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3346" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T16:35:44.487" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4282" CreationDate="2012-10-23T19:47:03.643" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;To those who would mistakenly argue that certain Mosaic laws such as the tithing, dietary, festival, and Saturday Sabbath laws have been abolished, I ask them: how do you explain Galatians 5:18 which says: “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”? If you interpret this verse as further proof that many Old Testament laws no longer need to be obeyed, doesn’t that idea conflict massively with many other major verses, especially two “gold standard” verses: Acts 2:38: “Repent, and ….. be baptized ….. for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive ….. the Holy Spirit” and 1 John 3:4: “…… sin is the violation of the law.”? To get the vital Holy Spirit in the first place you need to repent of sinning, which 1 John 3:4 clearly defines as breaking the law or torah. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN STOP BREAKING THE LAW IS TO OBEY THE LAW!!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Therefore the only interpretation possible of Galatians 5:18’s “not under the law” and similar verses such as “released from the law” and “freed from the law” is that Holy Spirit led Christians are no longer under the penalty (automatic death penalty for many sins) part of the law, but still are under the obedience part of the law,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; excluding primarily circumcision and the various sacrifices the apostles “went out of their way” to explain as abolished. Romans 8:2: “….. Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death” shows that death, the penalty part of the law, no longer applies to obedient, law (torah) abiding Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 5:18 when turned around also reveals that all non-Christians ARE under the law, showing that the law was never really abolished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://TithingHelps.us&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://TithingHelps.us&lt;/a&gt; to become more knowledgeable about Galatians 5:18 and other pro-law verses that mathematically seem to outnumber by more than 2 to 1 the supposedly, at first glance anti-law verses in the English translations of the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3347" LastActivityDate="2012-10-23T19:47:03.643" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11356" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-23T21:00:28.137" Score="12" ViewCount="9979" Body="&lt;p&gt;While &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11351/1326&quot;&gt;answering&lt;/a&gt; another question, I made a statement that I thought was universal in Christianity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus is the only route to heaven; without him, you go to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there Christian denominations that disagree with this statement?  If so, which ones and why do they disagree with this statement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1326" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2017-11-27T15:49:15.013" Title="Are there any Christian denominations that don't believe Jesus is the only way to salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11356" CreationDate="2012-10-23T22:38:32.447" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not a denomination, but there are a number of people that would call themselves  &quot;Christian Atheist&quot;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christian Atheism&lt;/a&gt; rejects the existence of God, but follows the moral teaching of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There isn't an official &quot;Church&quot; or denomination. (Why would there be?) It seems to be more of a movement and growing trend. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;At least one Reverend from the Protestant Church in the Netherlands would fit the profile, and teaches this view from the pulpit.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They wouldn't consider Jesus to be the only way to Heaven, because to them, Heaven is a myth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-10-24T01:44:28.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-24T01:44:28.397" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11356" CreationDate="2012-10-24T02:00:47.527" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose that depends what you mean by &quot;Christian denominations&quot;. I'd say that anyone who rejects the idea that salvation is by Christ is, by definition, not a Christian denomination. But if you mean, groups that call themselves Christian, then the answer is clearly yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried to find some clear references from doctrinal statements of churches on the web. Frankly, it's a lot of work. Few are going to directly say, &quot;We don't think Jesus is the only way ...&quot;, for the simple reason that people rarely say what they don't believe, they say what they do believe. What you're more likely to find is that people who believe in Jesus as the only way say so, and those who don't have vague statements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most obvious example is Unitarians. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www-distance.syr.edu/sammaybelieve.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www-distance.syr.edu/sammaybelieve.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presbyterians. See &quot;What about people of other faiths&quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/today/jesus/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/today/jesus/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anglicans. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stjohnsroslyn.org.nz/guide_to_the_anglican_church.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.stjohnsroslyn.org.nz/guide_to_the_anglican_church.html&lt;/a&gt; Note that it tosses in Islam and unspecified others as on a par with Christianity. Or more directly, &lt;a href=&quot;http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/presiding-bishop-jesus-is-not-the-only-way-to-god-cen-41709-p-7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/presiding-bishop-jesus-is-not-the-only-way-to-god-cen-41709-p-7/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would have said Mormons, though this page, &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/jesus-christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://mormon.org/jesus-christ&lt;/a&gt;, from the Mormon's web site in fact says that salvation is only through Christ. While they don't believe in the Trinity, they do say Jesus is the only path to salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I once attended a meeting of The Way in which the speaker said that Jesus was just a man, a good man, but a man. I read similar statements in a book given me by a United Methodist minister. But I'm reluctant to make statements about a denomination as a whole based on what one representative said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-24T02:00:47.527" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11352" CreationDate="2012-10-24T02:04:10.890" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Santeria is kind-of sort-of a Christian denomination, and they practice animal sacrifices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-24T02:04:10.890" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11344" CreationDate="2012-10-24T02:18:46.660" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, to say that Thomas Aquinas was wrong presupposes that the person making this judgement knows the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, maybe you mean, What did Aquinas say that the Catholic Church later rejected?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a Baptist, which means I've come to different conclusions than Aquinas did on a number of points. (I've only read scattered fragments of the Summa, so I can't claim to know even a fraction of what Aquinas says.) But I think anyone who reads the Summa with an open mind must agree that Aquinas was a brilliant man with many valuable insights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a forum like this, the idea is to ask, What does this or that group believe and why? and limit debates about who is right. In that context, perhaps the better question would be, How does Aquinas differ from X? Or pick a specific conclusion from Aquinas and ask what the arguments for and against it are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-24T02:18:46.660" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11356" CreationDate="2012-10-24T03:13:55.980" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe that Only those baptised in Jesus' name will go to heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we also believe that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot;&gt;ccc 1257&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is hope for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People who never have heard of Jesus, even those born before him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Children or catechumens who die before baptism. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People who die a holy death, but lived a bad life. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These people receive a different kind of the same Baptism one would receive in a Church, and it's all done through Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-10-24T16:45:53.223" LastActivityDate="2012-10-24T16:45:53.223" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2779" CreationDate="2012-10-24T04:38:00.107" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;dispute&quot; between Michael and the Devil over Moses' body comes from the Book of Enoch or an earlier work called &quot;The Assumption of Moses&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&amp;amp;article=1179&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Aside from Jude 9, there is no biblical record of any “contention” or meeting between the devil and Michael the archangel. Many scholars, based on the writings of Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin, and Didymus (Guthrie, 1962, p. 918; Earle, Blaney, and Hanson, 1955, p. 411), assume that Jude 9 is a reference to an apocryphal book called The Assumption of Moses, a work that is extant only in fragmental form (in Latin and in a translation from Greek). The fragment now known as The Assumption of Moses presents the account of Moses’ appointing of Joshua as his successor, and a description of the future of Israel during the conquest of the Promised Land. According to Richard Lenksi, scholars believe that the missing portion of The Assumption included “an elaboration” of Deuteronomy 34:5, the biblical account of Moses’ death, showing how God used angels to bury Moses (1966, pp. 601-602). It is thought that The Assumption of Moses, at this point, used Zechariah 3:1-2 as its basis for the use of the phrase “The Lord rebuke you!” It has not been proven, however, that Jude intended to quote from The Assumption of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if you'll permit a bit of personal exegesis - The word &quot;disputing&quot; comes from the Greek - diakrinomenos - which means to &quot;to take issue.&quot;  The full text is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;tw diabolw diakrinomenoV dielegeto&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The root of that word - krinimos, means to make an accusation against.  That it is followed by dielegeto (to converse, discuss) seems to indicate that this &quot;dispute&quot; is more of a claim / counter-claim thing than a fight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the devil is saying - &quot;Hey, Moses' body belongs to me, not you!&quot;  He need not be in Hell to make a claim to the body.  Indeed, as Deuteronomy 34 says, the location would have been on Mt. Nebo in Moab - not Hell!:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him[a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also that it is the body and not the soul.  Since at least some debate whether or not the ancient Jews had the concept of an afterlife, it may be fair to characterize this as a battle in which eternal death and resurrection are competing, in a sense, for Moses' remains.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, we know the outcome from a much more accepted source, however.  During the Transfiguration, Moses appears, along with Elijah.  Elijah had been &quot;caught up into heaven&quot; without dying, and it may be that Moses did the same.  Regardless, the Devil didn't win here, since Moses was present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-10-24T04:38:00.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11365" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11366" CreationDate="2012-10-24T05:28:52.817" Score="13" ViewCount="4914" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible quotes God assaying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, &quot;You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.&quot;  (Genesis 2:15-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible goes on to quote Eve and the serpent talking: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'&quot; 4 But the serpent said to the woman, &quot;You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.&quot; 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. (3:3-7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the devil tells Eve that she will not die and that she will gain the knowledge of good and evil. Which happens from what the Bible describes. God also specified that they will die on the day that they touch the tree, which does not happen, so it wasn't truth that God told Eve. Even if God said it as a metaphor, it was a metaphor that neither Adam nor Eve understood, because Eve told the serpent they they will surely die. And God is all-knowing, so he had to know that they will misunderstand him.  So, he deliberately told a metaphor, which he knew was going to be understood literally, and he knew it would be taken as literal interpretation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In either way God provided Eve with misleading information. (It could be a possibility that something is lost in translation, but if not, it would take interpreting the text completely opposite to what is written in order to come to a different conclusion - and if we do, then why bother taking the rest of the Scripture as it is written?)    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that we must redefine our definition of lying? &#xA;Maybe lying excludes lying to children for example to save them from a greater harm &#xA;(like taking drugs for example) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If something is too complicated to explain to a child, maybe the Bible suggests that it's OK to lie to them. I feel like a lot of parents already do that making up stories to keep their children from making noise in church (for example). Telling them that if they misbehave the ghost will get them etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or maybe lying overall means something else in the 10 commandments. &#xA;I really wonder about that, because I see situations when it might be good to tell a lie. &#xA;I'm Polish, so I always think of the story If I was holding a Jew in my house and Nazis would come in asking if I had any Jews in the house. I know that I couldn't tell the truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I just wonder If God lied?&#xA;If so, is lying sometimes ok according to this passage?&#xA;If God doesn't lie, then what is the definition of lying?&#xA;If God told the truth that they would die, then is devil lying that they will not die? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm only interested in the Catholic perspective of this scripture as I was raised Catholic and this question bothered me for most of my life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3351" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-03T14:09:57.867" LastActivityDate="2019-02-25T17:34:12.247" Title="Does God lie? And does the devil tell the truth?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;deception&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11365" CreationDate="2012-10-24T06:43:32.797" Score="30" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not necessarily a Catholic perspective, but I suspect the exegesis would pass muster.  (Feel free to ignore if you wish)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faulty Premise #1: God is lying&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not lie. In the day she ate of it, she became subject to death. Her body (and Adam's) began to decay, and went from immortality to mortality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, she and Adam were, in fact, separated from God &lt;em&gt;which is a type of death&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question has specifically been asked, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1589/what-is-the-specific-meaning-of-die-in-genesis-2&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and there is more to the explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, most priests would disagree with the premise that God is lying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faulty Premise #2: The Devil is incapable of telling the truth&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the Devil is &quot;the Father of Lies,&quot; it does not follow that the Devil is incapable of telling truth (or at least using Truth) when it suits his purposes.  The Devil's aim is to deceive, not to lie.  He deceived Eve by suggesting that God was lying (see above) and that God was withholding something &quot;good&quot; from her.  Neither was the case.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, it is often said that every lie contains a truth, if only so that someone will believe it.  If I knew that everything the Devil said was false, for example, I could always discern the truth by negating what he said.  Simple Logic - Everything A becomes !A.  Ergo truth.  Again, not the Devil's problem.  The Devil merely deceives and destroys. If he can use accuracy to get there, he will use it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have little doubt that a Priest would agree with me on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faulty Premise #3: Honesty is the supreme value&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Here is where I become a Protestant again), the highest duty of man is to love.  As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6469/marital-relations-and-lying&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; shows, our duty is to love.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Nazis were clearing the Ghetto, they might have asked, &quot;Are there any Jews here?&quot;  A Christian could rightly &quot;lie&quot; and say &quot;No,&quot; simply by re-framing the question in higher terms - &quot;Are there any Jews here whom we may kill?&quot;  No, you may not kill them, since love bids me to protect them. If I must lie, then that too is a sin - but being unloving is worse.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, here, I &lt;em&gt;suspect&lt;/em&gt; that most RC Priests would accept this premise, but I defer to Roman Catholics to weigh in on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, God isn't lying, the Devil is still deceiving even when he appears to be telling the truth, and we are under no obligation to answer deception in the terms handed to us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2019-02-25T17:34:12.247" LastActivityDate="2019-02-25T17:34:12.247" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11367" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11369" CreationDate="2012-10-24T08:20:14.213" Score="8" ViewCount="11742" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 23:43 - Jesus answered him, &quot;I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At first glance, I casually assumed &quot;paradise&quot; was referring to heaven, but if Jesus was dead for 3 days after His crucifixion and didn't ascend to heaven until much later, what is He referring to here? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A prerequisite question may be: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8579/where-was-jesus-during-the-period-from-his-death-to-resurruction&quot;&gt;where was Jesus during the 3 days after crucifixion&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3353" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2016-12-28T22:56:59.570" Title="What is the &quot;paradise&quot; that Jesus references in Luke 23:43?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-05-12T16:06:31.673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11367" CreationDate="2012-10-24T12:29:46.247" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;While this isn't a universal view, many traditions believe that Paradise is distinct from Heaven. Our Church (a Baptist Church) teaches that &quot;Paradise&quot; is a temporary holding place for those who have died and are awaiting Christ's return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other references that point to Paradise being a temporary place, distinct from the final Heaven promised to those who have been saved:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-uk.com/paradise.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.bible-uk.com/paradise.htm&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So what IS Paradise?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The concept of a place of limbo, somewhere between heaven and earth,&#xA;  some kind of celestial waiting room is not one that will be found in&#xA;  the pages of scripture. What about a park or garden? Now we are on a&#xA;  firm biblical path! We know of a garden from the early pages of&#xA;  Genesis, called the Garden of Eden. We know, because Adam and Eve were&#xA;  thrust out of it (Genesis 3:24) and were unable to get back in again,&#xA;  which fits well with original Persian concept of Paradise being an&#xA;  enclosed garden. Equating Paradise with Eden is not something new or&#xA;  unusual. It is the rationale behind Milton's book, &quot;Paradise Lost&quot;,&#xA;  for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/november/24.79.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/november/24.79.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wor.org/Books/p/Paraking.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.wor.org/Books/p/Paraking.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many more, so I'll stop here. I'd also like to post a disclaimer that I don't agree with all of the things said in the last article linked to. It was included just to show that diverse traditions hold the view, and that it's not a &quot;fringe&quot; view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2016-12-28T22:56:59.570" LastActivityDate="2016-12-28T22:56:59.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11356" CreationDate="2012-10-24T16:37:51.450" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;emerging church&quot; in general, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://brianmclaren.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brian McLaren&lt;/a&gt; in particular, have often been accused of holding this position. Like good Agile developers, they hold to a set of core principles that are more important than others. In particular, they hold that Jesus' preference for people over doctrine means that any doctrine that excludes people is wrong. Some extend this to mean that the Emerging Church would say that no doctrine (including the &quot;idea&quot; that Jesus is the Way, the truth, and the life) can trump one's eternal worth or destiny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Unitarians&lt;/a&gt; consider themselves to be Christian but reject both Jesus as God and Jesus as the only means to God. Flying directly in the face of Lewis' trilemma, they regard Jesus as a good teacher but nothing more. Additionally, Unitarians are members of the &quot;Unitarian Universalist&quot; association - a group that encompasses both Christian and non-Christian groups. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-10-25T12:09:03.797" LastActivityDate="2012-10-25T12:09:03.797" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11374" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-24T17:06:43.943" Score="5" ViewCount="239" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot;&gt;on Baptism&lt;/a&gt; that there are several types of Baptism, one of which is for those fellow eternal-soul-endowed humans who have never heard of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, what does the Church say about those who have heard of Jesus; know a little bit of what the Church teaches;  received validly all the sacraments of initiation; but then, because what they know (or think they know) was so shoddily taught they wholly reject every lick of the Catholic Church in favor of Buddhism, Islam or Atheism because they never remotely understood what they had in the Church since it was presented in such an ineffective manner&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they apostates or can we apply the logic, &quot;to whom much is given, much is expected&quot;, to posit that this person was given nothing so nothing is expected? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* I'm looking for Catholic doctrine, not criticism of my straw man, I think he or she is the best kind of person. Who, actively seeking the truth was presented with none by a wall of bad Catechesis in the Catholic Church.  As a kid, I had very little notion of a global church and nearly never went to any parish except my home one.  I could have easily been this person having only understood the Church through the easily forgotten texts used during Religious Ed. class had it not been for my mom and one excellent priest.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-11-05T18:55:04.843" Title="Expectation of salvation for the poorly catechized" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11375" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-24T19:35:42.357" Score="8" ViewCount="297" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;God is merciful and He wants all people to be saved, thus, all the humans, even the worst ones, having fully redeemed themselves from their wrongdoings by spending some adequate time in the hell, will finally make it to the paradise...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's the official name of this doctrine? I heard something like &quot;optimistic eschatology&quot;, but I am not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also, I heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church has condemned this doctrine as a heresy. If it's true, when and where (on which counsel) did this take place? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-01-10T02:38:12.233" LastActivityDate="2020-01-10T02:38:12.233" Title="What's the name of this doctrine and (when) did the Eastern Orthodox Church condemn it?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;&lt;universalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11375" CreationDate="2012-10-24T19:53:26.293" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you are looking for the theology called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism&quot;&gt;Universalism&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that it has been explicitly declared a heresy, but the Catholic, Orthodox many Protestant churches have made formal declarations that are in disagreement with it, so they presumably do consider it a heresy. Look at the 'disagreements' section of the article.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-10-24T19:53:26.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11379" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-25T09:30:31.547" Score="8" ViewCount="1576" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any teachings that state that there is anything unique to a Christian marriage that non-Christian marriages are deprived of? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A slightly different question but similar enough:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does a couple that &quot;goes to city hall&quot; and enters into (what they believe to be) a strictly legal agreement of marriage also unwittingly enter into the same holy covenant that Christian spouses have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along these lines, from the question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10238/what-is-the-moral-status-of-common-law-marriage&quot;&gt;What is the moral status of common-law marriage?&lt;/a&gt;, Caleb states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christianity even honors marriage as sacred when entered into by two&#xA;  non Christians with a purely secular profession. God's role in the&#xA;  covenant relationship is something we believe just is -- even if the&#xA;  parties involved ignore him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Could someone provide scriptural references for this assertion?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming what Caleb states is true, I understand the idea that a Christian marriage will have the privilege and benefits of working with God instead of against or in indifference to Him, as in a secular marriage. My question is not about the effect of the &quot;quantity&quot; of God in a marriage - rather, is there any special qualitative distinction between the two marriages? For example, the Holy Spirit dwells in a Christian, but not a non-Christian - is there anything analogous to this for the two kinds of marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm mostly interested in this from a protestant perspective. It goes without saying, but in order to minimize opinion and open discussion, please derive any answers from scriptural references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3353" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T21:01:43.170" Title="Is there anything unique to a christian marriage that non-christian marriages are deprived of?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2012-10-25T10:53:38.993" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: &lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel like this question requires much more in-dept answer then it has received. &#xA;Christianity is a super-set of many religions all of which share a common belief in Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believes of different Christianities varies greatly. You are definitely a Christian if you believe that Jesus Christ is a Son of God and the savior of humanity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some specific churches would not call you a true believer of their doctrine if you accepted that evolution is a fact. (that doesn't mean you cannot call yourself part of their church but you might be excommunicated if you admit to believing in evolution publicly)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some churches would still call you part of their church they would just claim you are wrong about evolution. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other Christian churches accept evolution as a fact &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its also important to point out that evolution (the fact that species change over time and can become new species) is different from abiogenesis (chemicals becoming first life forms which has to do with genesis as the name suggests). Evolution says nothing about how life originated so it does not contradict creation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there are different believes even within evolution. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Micro-evolution - which name is misleading but it's evolution where no speciation (formation of new species) takes place. This is like dog breeding. (notice that different breeds of dogs can look very different. The changes in microevolution can be profound and they can take place over long periods of time. Thats why the name is misleading) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Macro-evolution - which is a formation of new species. This evolution takes place when there is a separation within one specie.  Micro-evolution can take place over quite small periods of time and changes might be minute. (two species of frogs can be indistinguishable in looks but will not be able to breed so they are two species) This evolution is not accepted by many Christians and Christian Churches.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are also those that accept that (some form of) evolution is happening right now but was not happening in the past (or at least was not the origin of animals). Animals were created by God and then they begun to evolve. So humans are not the result of evolution but literal creation of God. Those man still believe in evolution they simply deny theory of Common Descent which is also proposed by Darwin at the same time as evolution in his book &quot;The Origin of Species&quot;. For this reason Common Descent is commonly confused as same thing as evolution. Yet its possible to not accept Common Descent and still believe in evolution. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So its important to realize that you might not be called a true Christian by your church, if you believe in some forms of evolution. This does not mean that that church forbids belief in all forms of evolution. But by definition a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ so You can definitely be a Christian and believe in evolution, but you might not be called a true Christian by some communities. This doesn't mean you are not!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3351" LastEditorUserId="3351" LastEditDate="2012-10-26T15:25:24.747" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T15:25:24.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11382" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-25T13:30:30.253" Score="7" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the different main views existent in Christianity on how 1 Peter 4:6 must be interpreted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,&#xA;  that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live&#xA;  according to God in the spirit (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone, please, give an overview? I am especially interested in who has been understood as the &quot;dead&quot; in this verse.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T17:41:24.263" LastActivityDate="2014-12-29T14:04:26.823" Title="What are the different main views existent in Christianity on how 1 Peter 4:6 must be interpreted?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;1-peter&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11384" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11392" CreationDate="2012-10-25T14:31:12.187" Score="5" ViewCount="787" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always been puzzled by this in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone clarify these points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus was speaking of reality then 'The End' had technically already come. Is this correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Hell it would appear we can see Heaven and speak to people in Heaven as they can see us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last point I have comes from Revelation.  We are taught that in the end everyone will live on earth.  It speaks that the pure and holy will walk past those who are un-pure and un-holy day after day to worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also states that there are gates to Heaven which again have people outside them.  Can I assume then that Hell is basically everything outside of Heavens gates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why would Heaven even need gates?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2162" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-06-10T11:21:03.760" LastActivityDate="2018-06-10T11:21:03.760" Title="How is the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus interpreted?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2018-06-12T15:04:36.700" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11384" CreationDate="2012-10-25T14:56:10.797" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this passage Jesus is telling a Parable. Parables are stories intended to make specific points. They are not descriptions of reality. They are not &quot;true stories&quot;. If you try push them too hard you will lose the point that is being made. We have no reason to think that there actually was a person called Lazarus to whom this happened. There is no reason to assume from this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That Heaven actually has gates&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That &quot;The End&quot; has come. Jesus could be speaking about something that was going to happen in the future, or just describing a hypothetical interaction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That people in Heaven and Hell can really interact&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nor can you say that &quot;Hell is everything outside Heaven&quot;. Clearly we live in a place now which is neither. On the basis of other Christian doctrines it is true that &lt;em&gt;eventually&lt;/em&gt; every &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; will be divided into those who are with God, and those who are not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-10-25T14:56:10.797" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11386" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11388" CreationDate="2012-10-25T16:18:58.060" Score="7" ViewCount="7350" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.timberlandchurch.com/about-us/what-kind-of-church-is-this.html?start=1&quot;&gt;popular&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://ucmpage.org/news/comment_salon.html&quot;&gt;line&lt;/a&gt; that exists in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/club-or-church-allan-quak-sermon-on-church-purpose-of-86774.asp&quot;&gt;sermons&lt;/a&gt; (heck, I've even preached it myself!) that says something to the effect of &quot;a church is not a social club.&quot;  A church is not the local Kiwanis, it is not the local Boy Scouts, and it sure as heck isn't supposed to just be another &quot;community center.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In what concrete ways is a church different than any other faternal or social organization?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2014-12-13T01:09:21.820" Title="What is the difference between a church and a social club?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2014-12-13T02:22:37.733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11386" CreationDate="2012-10-25T18:04:36.187" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;A church is a comunity. Where people with the same beliefs come together. God gave the church to unite Christians. Being Christian is not something you do in a Church. You are Christian everywhere. At school, at work, at home, and you come together with other Christians in church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A social organisation, sports club or whatever, is something where you come, do your thing together, go home, live your life, come back after a week and again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between the activities in a social organisation and church? A social organisation is for yourselves. You come there to share with others, laugh, sport or whatever. In church you may find this too, but the real difference is that you are not there for yourself. You come to church to worship, glorify God. And in second place be together and be united with other Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3355" LastActivityDate="2012-10-25T18:04:36.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11386" CreationDate="2012-10-25T18:59:29.507" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church is presented as the Body of Christ (an organism, not an organization [e.g., 1 Cor. 12:12+]) and as the household of faith (a family, not a club [e.g., Gal. 6:10]--also sons of God, brothers and sisters).  As the Body of Christ there is an implication of a different kind of life (this may address a spiritual nature), an implication of diversity (different parts), unity (one body), and completeness.  Both the body and family metaphors point to the lack of choice of individual members in who else is part of the collective--one does not choose one's relatives.  Both also point to a fundamental identity in and with the whole (an eye cannot just pop itself out and reject its being part of the body; the parts suffer together and rejoice together).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a practical level, this should mean that the common boundaries of social status, personal interests, etc. should not be separating factors in the Church as they tend to be in social organizations (e.g., Gal. 3:28).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the Church is God's (new) creation rather than a human formation (e.g., John 1:12-13) also has implications for persistence(e.g., Phil. 1:6), righteous action (e.g., Eph. 2:10), and ultimate success (e.g., 1 John 3:2).  (This might be analogous to the difference between Scripture and human writings.)  (The Church might also be viewed as something like the Holy Spirit as &quot;earnest&quot; or the resurrection of Christ as a first fruits--a sample of what the new creation in its fullness will be like and an assurance that this fullness is coming.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2012-10-25T18:59:29.507" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11389" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11390" CreationDate="2012-10-25T20:45:23.590" Score="4" ViewCount="2096" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was surprised to read the comments on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1406/is-insert-famous-pastor-here-on-topic-for-this-site&quot;&gt;this meta question&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; about &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Bell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rob Bell&lt;/a&gt;. I don't know much about him (except I watched some of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOOMA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NOOMA films&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Evangelical Christian problem with him? Why has he been called &lt;em&gt;&quot;heretical&quot;&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I fully appreciate the irony of the question, in light of the meta question.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2015-04-08T06:07:11.567" Title="What is the Evangelical Christian argument against Rob Bell?" Tags="&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11389" CreationDate="2012-10-25T21:30:41.380" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rob Bell is identified with a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3/what-are-the-main-tenets-and-or-beliefs-of-the-emergent-church&quot;&gt;Emergent Church&lt;/a&gt; despite not self identify as a member of the emergent movement. However, he tends to advocate many of the ideas of that group. Case in point, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/006204964X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Love Wins&lt;/a&gt;, which came out last year, was hugely controversial, since it was putting forward a view on the nature of hell which is not held by many evangelical Christians. Many had accused him of being a universalist. Prior to the publication of this book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B0042P5KD6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile&lt;/a&gt;, came out, which is many would classify as an extremely liberal gospel interpretation (he uses the gospel to criticize US foreign policy for instance). These types of views are extremely controversial to many evangelical Christians many of whom tend to (justly or not) fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also he wrote a book called, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0062197231&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality&lt;/a&gt;, which having read it, I can say is not nearly as scandalous as the title suggests. But, the point is, Bell meant to stir put feathers by publishing a Christian book with a title like that, and that tends to be his modus operandi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update, a little bit more on those that believe Bell to hold to heretical beliefs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On February 26, 2011, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Piper_%28theologian%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Piper&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://twitter.com/JohnPiper/status/41590656421863424&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;tweeted&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Farewell, Rob Bell&quot; and linked to an article accusing Bell of being a universalist with his new book &quot;Love Wins&quot;. The implication was that Bell had strayed so far from the Christian camp as it were, that he no longer considered Bell to be part of the Christian community (that's my personal take on the meaning of the tweet). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real issue here is not whether or not Bell was enunciating universalism or not (Bell in a sermon the week after publication said &quot;I am not a Universalist&quot; and made &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.restoringpangea.com/2011/03/rob-bell-answers-critics-on-cnn.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the same statement&lt;/a&gt; to various members of the press, for what that is worth), but what does it mean to be heretic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My take is that if you take a look at his main critics, especially Piper and Chan, they tend to fall into the Calvinist camps, that not to say they all do by any means. But I think if you look into the heart of the controversy about Bell, who is an arminian by any measure, it may have more to do with justification than anything else. For Bell, we choose God, for Reformed thinkers, God chooses us. Beyond the specific ways in which each sides is interpreting scripture, each side holds fundamentally opposing theological views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more info on Bell critics, see Francis Chan's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0781407257&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Erasing Hell&lt;/a&gt;, Mark Galli's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1414366663&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T14:20:53.163" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11384" CreationDate="2012-10-26T01:19:47.060" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off I'd like to state that this is, in my opinion, clearly not a parable because the Bible does not state it as one like it does in these many citations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Matthew 13:18&#xA;Luke 6:39&#xA;Luke 12:16&#xA;Luke 15:3&#xA;Luke 18:1&#xA;Luke 18:9&#xA;Luke 19:11&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If Jesus was speaking of reality then 'The End' had technically already come. Is this correct?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer this question, Jesus was in fact not only speaking of reality but also of a real happening. Lazarus and the rich man was not a parable, it was real. However, &lt;code&gt;The End&lt;/code&gt; has not yet come. In fact, Hell is going to be destroyed as well and is simply a holding place for the souls that are lost. Revelation speaks of it in Revelation 20:14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that both death (the fact that man must die for his sins) and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Furthermore, that is where the devil will end up according to Revelation 20:10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the end has not yet come, but it's on its way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From Hell it would appear we can see Heaven and speak to people in Heaven as they can see us.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This now makes more sense now that we have revealed that hell is a holding place for souls, but let's concrete this a bit more and see clearly that heaven is a holding place for souls as well. So, let's look at Revelation 21:1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see that heaven, which is the holding place that Lazarus ascended to, is also destroyed and a new heaven and a new earth is built. So yes, those souls in hell can see those souls in heaven until both are destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It also states that there are gates to Heaven which again have people outside them. Can I assume then that Hell is basically everything outside of Heavens gates.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say you don't assume that everything outside the gates of heaven is hell, the earth is outside the gates of heaven but is clearly defined as the earth in Genesis 1:1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So hell is a different creation all by itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2015" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-10-30T15:52:30.293" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T15:52:30.293" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11386" CreationDate="2012-10-26T02:03:52.450" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;First and foremost I want to say that I think it's pretty much just an old cliche and I've heard it mostly used when people are talking while the preacher is preaching. I think the idea behind the cliche is generally saying that we aren't here to socialize we are here to worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, let's see if we can take that cliche a little deeper and let's start with one scripture that just about sums it up, Matthew 21:13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in context this verse alone isn't enough because Jesus was speaking of some very specific activities outlined in the previous verse, Matthew 21:12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, let's see if we can concrete this some more right? How about we go a little deeper to 1 Corinthians 6:19-20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we gain an understanding of the temple as its known today, our own body, and Jesus said in John 4:21-24 just what He's after when it comes to the body:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically take note to this &lt;code&gt;for the Father seeketh such to worship him&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if He's seeking those to worship Him, we can't do that by socializing. Worship is not a form of socializing, worship is a form of praise, thanks, and communication with Jesus that's much deeper than the superficial gatherings of clubs like the Kiwanis or the Boy Scouts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, with those scriptures I think we can see that the temple is meant for praise and worship rather than socializing. However, let's not get carried away because that's what we love to do, the Bible &lt;strong&gt;does not&lt;/strong&gt; condemn gathering together to socialize with one another. What we do before and after service, that's socializing, and it's necessary for the saint to stay saved. Take note to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a lot here but I'm going to try and keep it simple. &lt;code&gt;Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers&lt;/code&gt; is letting us know, we can't commune, or today you might call it socialize, with unbelievers for the vast majority of our time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we see the same theme here that I pointed out previously, and that is that we are in fact the temple, &lt;code&gt;And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God&lt;/code&gt;, and so God is saying we have got to stick together and spend time together with like minded people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you have a clincher with this one, &lt;code&gt;Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,&lt;/code&gt; clearly stating that we need to come out from among those that God saved us from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate, it's still not saying you can't spend time with them, it's just letting them know that you have to be spending time with each other because if you get too close to the fire you're going to get burned. You have to spend time with those that aren't in church or you'll never get them in church, but they should be somewhat uncomfortable around you at times even because you're different, you're separate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alright, I'm going to have to quit now before I go on forever, but I hope this has helped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2015" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T02:03:52.450" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11367" CreationDate="2012-10-26T04:18:16.913" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the difficulties with this question is that the likely answer is not discussed very much in actual scripture and comes more from Jewish tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=150&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a general analysis of what the different ideas are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I have read, the Jewish tradition was essentially that when a righteous man died, he went to a place that was similar in concept to hades, called &quot;Abraham's bosom.&quot; The belief is that in order to be &quot;with God&quot; one has to be completely void of sin, which before Jesus' death and resurrection, sin was not 100% paid for, so prior to the resurrection people could not enter God's presence and therefore heaven. Instead of going to heaven, they instead went to a special set aside place in hell called Abraham's bosom, (also referred to as &quot;paradise) where they would wait until Jesus' resurrection. This is elluded to in the story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lazerous and the rich man&lt;/a&gt; and may also be where the idea in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apostles' Creed&lt;/a&gt; comes from about Jesus descending into hell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3366" LastEditorUserId="3366" LastEditDate="2012-10-26T18:02:46.617" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T18:02:46.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11367" CreationDate="2012-10-26T04:25:44.453" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It may be wortwhile to note that, during the time of Jesus, the Jews had a concept of two places in the afterlife: &lt;em&gt;Geihinnam&lt;/em&gt; (variant spellings exist), and &lt;em&gt;Gan Eden&lt;/em&gt;, also known as &quot;the Garden of Eden.&quot; The Talmud and &lt;em&gt;midrashim&lt;/em&gt; are replete with such mentions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this have to do with &quot;paradise&quot;? Well, we derive the English word &quot;paradise&quot; in the KJV and other English translations from the Greek word παράδεισος, the same word translated into English as &quot;paradise&quot; in Luke 23:43. (Yes, there is an earlier Old Iranian root, but that's not the point.) This same Greek word is used in the Septuagint (LXX) to translate the Hebrew phrase גַן־עֵדֶן (&lt;em&gt;gan eden&lt;/em&gt;) in the Tanakh. What this tells us is that &quot;paradise&quot; is equivalent to &quot;the Garden of Eden.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, Jesus was saying that the thief on the cross would be with Jesus in the Garden of Eden that day. Did this happen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some insist that it did not because Jesus' body was 3 days and 3 nights in the sepulcher (&quot;the heart of the earth&quot;). This is true, but Jesus wasn't just a body. His spirit went to paradise that very day, along with the spirit of the thief on the cross. If you carefully read Paul's writing in 2 Corinthians 5 (e.g., &quot;in this we groan&quot; --- what does &quot;this&quot; refer to, and who does &quot;we&quot; refer to?), it should become evident that we continue to exist although our bodies remain in the grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T04:25:44.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11295" CreationDate="2012-10-26T04:57:47.233" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am indebted to Dr. Peter Leithart for his writings and lectures on the Song of Songs. For further reading, you can visit his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leithart.com/category/bible-ot-song-of-songs/&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt;. These thoughts might help in approaching the book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wisdom literature&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is helpful to consider the book’s position in the canon as part of the wisdom literature. In Proverbs, the king exhorts his son to seek wisdom and throughout the book, wisdom is personified as a great and righteous lady. She is contrasted with the harlot Folly, the strange or foreign woman who tempts the simple to turn aside to their ruin. “In the final chapter, we find that the prince has chosen well: He has made Lady Wisdom his bride.  As King Lemuel’s mother urged, he has renounced the women who destroy kings (31:3) and embraces the woman who enables him to rule well.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leithart.com/2011/05/19/proverbs-3110-22/&quot;&gt;Leithart&lt;/a&gt;)&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes follows on this theme and shows the limit of wisdom. Wisdom is rightly prized and sought, but it is not ultimate. This life, this creation, is good and is meant to be enjoyed, but, to borrow a phrase from Doug Wilson, that joy is on a tether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Song of Songs displays the King’s desire for his Bride, the one in whom he delights. It is a love poem, to be sure, but it reaches beyond individual human relationships. It is the height of wisdom literature and the height of poetry. It is the Song of Songs - a verbal construction that parallels the Holy of Holies - the Most Songy Song, the Greatest Song Ever Written. As such, it is elusive, difficult to get a solid hold on. It is also allusive - it reaches out and pulls in imagery and ideas from all over the rest of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Land Imagery&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The beauty of the Bride is often expressed in geographic or agricultural terms. Her body is like a rolling landscape, her breasts like spiced mountains, her hair like goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead (4:1). Her neck is like the Tower of David, set with warriors’ shields (4:4). She is beautiful as Tirzah, lovely as Jerusalem (6:4). Her eyes are pools in Heshbon, her nose like the tower of Lebanon, her head crowns her like Mount Carmel (7:4-5). This is the love of the King for his country, his people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who is this who looks down like the dawn,&#xA;  beautiful as the moon, bright as the sun,&#xA;  awesome as an army with banners?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This alludes to the gathered host of Israel encamped under the tribal banners around the tabernacle (Num 2). The people surround the King as the Bridal City, the New Jerusalem, which is decked out in royal splendor and surrounds Christ, the Husband, and which outshines the sun and moon with the reflected glory of God (Rev 21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edenic Imagery&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The Song is full of the imagery of Eden.  Solomon uses the word “garden” eight times (4:12, 15, 16 [2x], 5:1; 6:2 [2x]; 8:13), and the poem frequently refers to trees, fruits, flowers, springs.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leithart.com/2009/10/21/sermon-notes-39/&quot;&gt;Leithart&lt;/a&gt;)” The lovers are a sort of idyllic, unfallen Adam and Eve, maturing in their passion and love for one another. He describes her as a tree which he climbs to gather and eat her fruit (7:8), reminiscent of the fruit trees in the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Four times Solomon calls her “my sister, my bride” which brings to mind Adam’s statement of Eve, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.&quot; ‘Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ is a statement of kinship. It is nearly the same greeting Laban gives Jacob (Gen 29:14) and different groups claim kinship in similar terms (cf. Jud 9:2, 2 Sam 5:1, 19:12, 13). The Hebrew behind the ‘Woman’ and ‘Man’ is &lt;em&gt;Ishah&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Ish&lt;/em&gt;. Up until this point the man has been called &lt;em&gt;adam&lt;/em&gt; because he was formed from the dust of the ground, &lt;em&gt;adamah&lt;/em&gt;. The word &lt;em&gt;Ish&lt;/em&gt; is almost exactly the same word as &lt;em&gt;Esh&lt;/em&gt;, fire. So, the dirt-man becomes fire-man in union with his bride. He is transformed and glorified. This is the same thing Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:7, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” The woman lights up and glorifies her husband, making him better than he would be on his own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Temple Imagery&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Eden’s garden was Adam’s original sanctuary, and the imagery of the garden in the Song shades over into imagery of the sanctuary.  The house where the lovers meet is made from temple materials – cedar and cypress (1:17), and like the temple the garden of love is a place of feasting (2:4; 5:1).  Solomon frequently mentions the fragrances that waft from the garden, reminding us of the pacifying smoke from Israel’s sacrifices.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leithart.com/2009/10/21/sermon-notes-39/&quot;&gt;Leithart&lt;/a&gt;)”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both the Bride and the Beloved are described in terms of temple imagery. She is pictured as a lily, with cheeks like halves of pomegranates, like the lily-topped and pomegranate-encircled pillars in the temple court (1 Kg 7:21ff). Again, she herself is like a pillar that the Beloved climbs, a palm tree like the palm groves carved into the walls of the temple (1 Kg 6:29). Her aroma is that of frankincense, myrrh, cinnamon and spices, like the perfumed anointing oil used in the sanctuary (Ex 30:23ff).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is described like a statue of a man with a head like gold - the Holy of Holies; eyes like doves - the seven branched lampstand*; cheeks of spices - the altar of incense; lips of lilies - again, the lily-topped pillars; body of ivory, legs of alabaster and gold, appearance like cedar - the foundation and structure of the temple. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The interweaving of imagery in the Song hints at the double reference of the poem: It is a poem of ideal human love, the lovers like unfallen Adam and Eve, but it is also a poem about Yahweh’s trysts with Israel in the love-garden of the temple.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leithart.com/2009/10/21/sermon-notes-39/&quot;&gt;Leithart&lt;/a&gt;)”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sexual Imagery&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a love poem, it expresses in very passionate terms the desire of the Bride for the Beloved, and that of the Beloved for his Bride. In Ephesians 5, Paul points out that the fundamental meaning of the sexual relationship between a husband and wife is that it is an image, a type, of the relationship of Christ and the Church. “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture, especially in the prophets, frequently refers to Yahweh as Husband and Israel as Wife (cf. Is 54:5, Jer 3:20, 31:32, Hsa 2) Ezekiel 16 is a retelling of the history of Israel in Husband/Wife imagery:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yahweh brought His people out of wallowing in the blood of Egypt to bring them to His mountain and establish His covenant with them. He washed them by baptism in the Red Sea (1Cr 10:2) and by the sprinkling of blood at Sinai (Ex 24:8). He anointed Aaron and the whole tabernacle with oil, setting them apart for holy use. He adorned them with the glory of the tabernacle: gold, silver, embroidered cloth and leather - plunder from the Egyptians. The rendering of the story in Ezekiel highlights the covenant of Sinai as His marriage covenant with His people. But despite all this, Israel turned away and whored after other lovers, other gods, and lusted after the gods of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, or anyone else who happened to pass by.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Song shows desire set over against lust. The desire of the two lovers for one another is full, passionate, mature. Each is fully longing for and seeking after the other and will not turn aside to any other. “As a lily among brambles, so is my love among the young women.” He is captivated by her beauty. “You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride; you have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes... Turn away your eyes from me, for they overwhelm me.” By the end of the Song, the Bride has taken on the name of the Beloved. She is the Shulamite, a feminine form of Solomon’s name. She has become  the radiant, glorious, spotless Bride - a Bride fit for the King.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If what Paul says is true, that marriage is a picture of God with His people, Christ with the Church, then here we see the complete devotion and passionate desire of Christ for His Bride and of the Church for Christ. This has implications for how the Church should be viewed. How often was Israel led astray? How often is today’s Church led astray by lovers less wild than Jesus? The Song shows an idyllic relationship, one that has not been born out in the Church (at least with our limited perspective on history), but Paul says it will and that Christ will “present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;em&gt;the Spirit who descends as a dove at the baptism of Christ and as flames of fire on Pentecost is the same ‘seven Spirits (or seven-fold Spirit) of God’ in Revelation 4:5, and the seven flaming eyes of Christ in Revelation 5:6.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2170" LastEditorUserId="2170" LastEditDate="2012-10-26T13:06:48.547" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T13:06:48.547" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11389" CreationDate="2012-10-26T14:12:17.350" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianpost.com/news/has-john-pipers-farewell-rob-bell-prediction-come-to-pass-56382/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article at Christian Post&lt;/a&gt; summarizes the controversy pretty well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The beginning of the disagreement came when Rob Bell published a book called &lt;em&gt;Love Wins.&lt;/em&gt; In it, he espouses a theology of hell which many read as universalism, the idea that God saves everyone, and that hell is not eternal.  In response, John Piper simply tweeted &quot;Farewell, Rob Rob Bell.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To compound matters, Bell resigned from the church he started - Mars Hill - to begin a speaking tour. As Rick Warren calls it, doing that created a situation in which there is &quot;full visibility and no accountability.&quot;  To phrase that far more bluntly, he was basically saying that Bell was neglecting the Gospel and becoming an &quot;attention whore.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, many prominent evangelicals find Bell's actions to be inconsistent with an authentic Evangelical witness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T14:12:17.350" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11401" CreationDate="2012-10-26T15:02:36.503" Score="4" ViewCount="12689" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, the following account of John the Baptist's introduction of Jesus is given:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the&#xA;  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of&#xA;  whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was&#xA;  before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came&#xA;  baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And&#xA;  John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove,&#xA;  and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but &lt;strong&gt;he who sent&#xA;  me to baptize with water&lt;/strong&gt; said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit&#xA;  descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34&#xA;  And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”  John 1:29-34&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John specifically states that the one who sent him to baptize with water was the one who informed him that he would be able to recognize the one for whom he himself was the predecessor.  The indicator would be that John would see the Spirit come down and remain on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Who was it that sent John to baptize with water and who told him how he would be able to recognize Jesus?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  Is there anything in church tradition or elsewhere in the Bible that informs us who this was?  An angel?  God Himself?  Another prophet?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2015-09-20T23:15:02.490" Title="Who sent John the Baptist to baptize with water?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11344" CreationDate="2012-10-26T15:03:27.473" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two types of errors in the Summa. The first are of the type caused by a Medieval understanding of science and biology. The second are actual theological dead ends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most famous of both has the first causing the second. Thomas believed that the entirety of the body was in the man's &quot;seed&quot;. Because of this he argued that the Virgin Mary was purified from sin in the womb. The current Catholic teaching, of course, is that the purification was at conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that it really does become difficult to say that there are &quot;points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law&quot;. There are competing perspectives which have been proposed, but that does not mean that that Thomas was wrong, simply that there are other, valid views and vocabulary which have been used to express the same thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T15:03:27.473" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11399" CreationDate="2012-10-26T17:03:51.083" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the angel came to Zechariah to announce the birth of John, he said that the child would be &quot;filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. (Lk 1:15)&quot; Also, Jesus said of John that &quot;all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. (Mt 11:13)&quot; It seems most reasonable to view him as a prophet like those of the OT, that he was commissioned and sent directly by God, and that he received inspiration and revelation directly from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2170" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T17:03:51.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11382" CreationDate="2012-10-26T18:12:28.043" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see two main references to the &quot;dead&quot; in the Bible.  The first are the physically dead, King Solomon talks about them in Ecclesiastes 9:5.  In that verse he tells us that the &quot;dead know nothing&quot;.  This confirms what we already know, that the physically dead cannot benefit from teaching or preaching.  They are dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second are the spiritually dead.  But I believe this verse is talking about the physically dead.  Why physically dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you go back to Chapter 3 verse 18, you see: &quot;He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.&quot;  The verse is talking about Christs sacrifice.  If you apply that to this verse you see that there are followers of Christ that will lose their life (&quot;judged according to men in the flesh&quot;) but be alive in the spirit.  He goes on to talk about suffering for Christ, this would include being martyred as many early Christians were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at chapter 3 and 4 as a whole you see that he is talking about turning away from an old lifestyle, living for God, and preparing for the judgement of men that will come as a result of that.  This judgement could include the loss of your life, which is still true in some parts of the world today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1869" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T18:12:28.043" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5151" CreationDate="2012-10-26T18:22:21.427" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the rise in Christianity is to the the economic development. Post war, Korea was broke and aid starting coming in from the West. Along with the aid came the missionaries. Think about it. All they are doing now is emulating what they saw. Korea's Christian population is mostly Protestants. Ironically the largest group of Western missionaries that came over there. Korea now sends out the highest number of missionaries in the world. See, they are just replicating exactly what they are seeing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your neighbor starts to get ahead in life, he's a Christian. You become Christian, you get ahead in life...etc. It's not a complex notion. Pre-war Korea was probably like 10% Christian. Post-war korea is now like 75% Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3368" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T18:22:21.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11295" CreationDate="2012-10-26T19:13:01.317" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of interpretations about the Song of Songs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is possible that this is just a love story.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a lot to be said of Christ's relationship to the Church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It also could be about Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would take me a very long time to explain everything, but I find difficulty in both Israel as an analogy because she doesn't have sisters, the Church (also doesn't have sisters) is never &quot;dark&quot; (as in &quot;dark but comely&quot;), and I don't generally like taking scripture as, &quot;Well, the whole thing's just irrelevant anyway,&quot; especially since the first verse declares the work to be both the greatest of songs as well as a song of peace (Solomon means &quot;peace&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, I think that this is the story of a Saint. A saint is someone who has sisters and someone who received beatings. A saint is someone who is dark (generally a condition of poverty (tan from working in the fields) as well as a possible reference to sin) and yet is redeemed by the beloved. But, the thing which I find the most conspicuous is what I view as the hidden prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the woman likens describes herself in the opening verses, she drops a very subtle hint as to where she is from. She uses a borrowed word (from Arabic) and through the rest of the text it becomes more and more clear that she is supposed to be from the area the Danites dwelt. She would have been from Israel and yet she comes to Judah to wed. She was poor (and likely provincial), but she is now a queen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we can see this as a prophecy by looking to the life of Christ. Christ was born in Judah, but he is raised around where this maiden would have lived. Finally, he travels down to Jerusalem for the act which will marry them. It is almost like he is not only reuniting the pieces of Israel, but he is also taking the maiden from her place of weakness and abuse and exalting her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the references to the girl's sister are also explained. So many Saints have died praying for others. Wishing that God would favor those around them and the maiden treats her sister in kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:28:23.760" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:28:23.760" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11379" CreationDate="2012-10-26T19:21:27.983" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It may be helpful to do a little set up first. There is a difference between indicative and imperative statements. An indicative is a statement of fact; there is no &lt;em&gt;ought&lt;/em&gt; in it. The chair is brown; the ship is tilting, etc. An imperative is a command; it tells what we must do. Close the door; turn off the tv, and so on. Paul says, &quot;'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5:31-32)&quot; He's not saying that this is the way it ought to be, but that this is what marriage is, what it means fundamentally. As he goes on, he fleshes out the picture with instruction (imperatives) for husbands to love their wives and for wives to submit to their husbands. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every marriage is a picture of Christ and his bride, the church. The scripture makes no distinction between good and bad marriages in this regard, whether heathen couples or believers. All marriages proclaim to the world how Christ relates to his church. Because of sin and rebellion, many of these pictures are slanderous lies concerning Christ. But a husband can never stop talking about Christ and the church by how he acts. If he is obedient to God, he is preaching the truth; if he does not love his wife, he is speaking apostasy and lies – but he is always talking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In another sense, a &quot;generational &quot; or &quot;covenantal&quot; sense, there is a difference. Paul says, &quot;If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Cor 7:13-14)&quot; So in this sense, an unbelieving couple would be outside the covenant body of Christ, while a couple with even one believer sanctifies, or covers the children and they are counted as covenantal members. This is not to say that they are 'saved' but that they are connected to the body covenantally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2170" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T19:21:27.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11379" CreationDate="2012-10-26T21:01:43.170" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the key to this is properly defining marriage in the eyes of Jesus. As stated in the below text, Jesus defines marriage as having intercourse with one another:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:16, 17 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see here the correlation of man joining himself to a woman just as Christ joins himself to us. Now clearly this is speaking of marriage for a number of reasons, but not least of which is the fact that we are the bride of Christ and he is relating how the man joins himself to the woman. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, let's concrete this a little more by going back into the old testement and prove that intercourse is in fact the marriage of a man and woman. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. (Genesis 38:8 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see the world today gets ceremonies mixed up with everything. Marriage has nothing to do with a ceremony, and nothing to do with mans laws, in the eyes of Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark 10:2-9 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, with this scripture we can finish the foundation of this answer. Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and explaining marriage a bit more to make it clearer. They saw marriage just like the world sees it today, legalistically. However, as Jesus stated, from the beginning it was defined as a man and a woman cleaving to each other and becoming one flesh (which finishes lining up the scripture from Corinthians).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, because of the hardness of mans heart Jesus was forced to allow a writ of divorcement so that the institution of marriage (as defined by two becoming one flesh during intercourse) could continue. You see, the Bible stated from the beginning the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that hasn't changed just because two people are incapable of staying together and resolving differences for whatever reason. Therefore divorce had to be instituted so that marriage could continue. But the definition of marriage, as you can see from when Jesus defined it, has not changed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, now that we've got that out of the way we can answer the question, what do those that involve Jesus in their marriage have that others don't? Simple, they have a foundation and a rock to hold them together through the hard times and help them make good decisions as He guides them through their lives. But marriage itself has nothing to do with a priest, a law, or anything else - just two coming together as one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2015" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T21:01:43.170" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8579" CreationDate="2012-10-26T23:38:27.123" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;For three days Jesus was &quot;with the dead&quot;.. meaning that he was &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This underlines that he was separable from God, and under his own authority, and it contrasts to Jesus' being the only way to eternal &lt;strong&gt;life&lt;/strong&gt; (with God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is common for people to talk about &quot;Hell&quot; as his destination for these days, and most churches even recite the Apostles Creed to this effect. But if you consider the text of the creed and the Hellenistic world at the time it isn't the proper conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latin word &quot;inferos&quot; depicts the Hellenistic premise of a &quot;land of the dead&quot; ... but the inference of this into the Pan-European &quot;Fiery&quot; Hell is so pervasive that you'll find that if you enter that latin line &lt;em&gt;in its entirety&lt;/em&gt; into a translator you'll come up with &quot;hell&quot;... but if you enter just the word &quot;inferos&quot; you'll come up with something like &quot;underworld&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hellenistic culture (which we find as a significant audience to the ministry of Jesus &amp;amp; the apostoles) had a cultural understanding of &quot;Hades&quot; as an &quot;underworld&quot; where &lt;em&gt;everybody&lt;/em&gt; went to journey until they reached Elysium or Tartarus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first stage of Hades, Asphodel, was effectively a place of wandering. This parallels the Judeo-Christian premise of where humans went after they left the Garden (Nod, wandering) and what the Israelites had to wander between slavery (as the Gospel notes &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; are slaves to sin) and the fulfilled promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Jesus speaks to the thief next to him about &quot;paradise&quot; which parallels the concept of Elysium. The audience at the time would understand Jesus to be telling the man he *&lt;em&gt;will not&lt;/em&gt; go to a place of Torment, but to a place of joy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why &lt;strong&gt;three&lt;/strong&gt; days? Many answers in this thread have addressed this well: rotting bodies, plague of Egypt, &quot;because he said he would&quot;, the rebuilding of the temple.... and these are all great examples of the underlying premise of the symbolic nature of &quot;three&quot; in Hebrew numerology to mean something like &quot;a good amount, but not too much&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is contrast with the importance of things like &quot;seven&quot; to mean &quot;a whole lot!&quot; and Jesus' use of &quot;seventy-seven&quot; to mean &quot;way more than a whole lot!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2146" LastActivityDate="2012-10-26T23:38:27.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11410" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11413" CreationDate="2012-10-27T01:37:26.630" Score="7" ViewCount="1307" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, goes into great detail about the specific ways of doing certain worship-related things. For example, The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the ceremonial aspect of all the rituals laid out in the Sinaitic law, the specific guidelines for priests and sacrifices, and the ceremonial and symbolic nature of communion and baptism, is there any biblical basis for rejecting ceremony and ritual? In the worship service, this would be a question for non-liturgical churches. For things like weddings and the like, please give biblical support for why the ceremony or ritual of the wedding service itself would be considered unnecessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2170" LastEditorUserId="2170" LastEditDate="2012-10-29T17:19:16.000" LastActivityDate="2014-07-27T16:28:16.157" Title="What place do ritual and ceremony have in the church today? (Non-Liturgical POV)" Tags="&lt;church-universal&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;ritual&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11410" CreationDate="2012-10-28T02:09:08.160" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Protestant evangelical under the New Covenant in contrast to Jews under the Old Testament, or various forms of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox denominations, the answer is pretty clear comparatively - &lt;strong&gt;ritual and ceremony have almost no place in the church today.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;At the top level of the idea this is merely a division between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.&lt;/strong&gt;  For most Protestants there are only two rituals   enshrined under the word &lt;strong&gt;'sacrament'&lt;/strong&gt; which force an external observation that would not necessarily occur spontaneously out of worship for God. These two rituals are baptism and the Lord's supper.  In contrast to this I do not know how many sacraments existed under the Old Testament but would imagine if they were counted it would be over a hundred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why the transition by God of over a hundred sacraments to two? A common starting point is often traced to Jesus himself who predicted how things would be aft he died, but left it to the Apostles to have those things revealed to them and subsequently taught by them after Christ ascended into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will recall that all the ritual and ceremony of the Old Covenant was integrated and based upon worship in the temple of God on Mount Zion. In predicting the new order of things Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in &lt;strong&gt;Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship&lt;/strong&gt;.” Jesus said to her, “ Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But &lt;strong&gt;the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth&lt;/strong&gt;, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. (John 4:20-23, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice Jesus made a contrast between the location of worship and its implied rituals with the 'truth' and 'in Spirit'.  Clearly Jesus was contrasting the 'external form' of religion with the inward 'truth' of it.  This contrast of ritual verses truth, implied that the ritual was within the old order primarily to foreshadow the reality but the worshippers often never had the reality within themselves. That is the point of ritual, it does not rely on the spontaneous sincerity of the people but prescribes an external rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This foundational statement of Christ is further established by the church in Acts that broke away from ceremony but in stead practiced brotherly love and community within peoples family homes.  Furthermore the Apostles established this freedom form ritual and the need to have genuine love in the Spirit in their writings and when referring to the God ordained rituals of the past said things like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. (Hebrews 10:1, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as subsequent traditions and ceremonies that may have been established in churches such as when performing marriage, burial, etc. These are not to be made inflexible rules but for those cultures that find more meaning with more structure around them, let them be free to enjoy such structure and form those who enjoy less structure and ceremony let them enjoy less.  The Apostles always relied on brother love and forbearing with each other's differences and the rule of church government.  It was only later that some denominations took upon the form of pagan governments designed to enforce top down authority as like a Monarchy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding those churches who do enforce top down government and want to return to many outward forms, most Protestants feel it is a betrayal of the Spirit of Christ and the liberty of the gospel so that it is a denial of the inward reality in accordance with predicted apostasy of the church among many:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. (2 Timothy 3:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore &lt;strong&gt;although some tradition is alright and may be highly valuable to some, the external forms of tradition rather than the invisible doctrinal forms, are often considered the enemy of Christ if they become abundant and made mandatory as this opposes 'the spirit and the truth' in the gospel.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-10-28T23:42:31.500" LastActivityDate="2012-10-28T23:42:31.500" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11410" CreationDate="2012-10-28T12:23:02.087" Score="-1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is the ceremonial aspect of all the rituals laid out in the Sinaitic law, the specific guidelines for priests and sacrifices, and the ceremonial and symbolic nature of communion and baptism relevant or important?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, the ritual you're referring to here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion is a type of Jesus and the two thieves. The explanation of this is far too long for this answer, but there another person out there that I agree with wholly at this point, you can find that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/the-ordination-of-aaron-and-his-sons-as-a-type-of-jesus-and-the-thieves-on-the-cross/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, with that being the interpretation of the ritual we can see that this ritual has no more significance because a sacrifice is no longer necessary for our salvation, a pure and Holy sacrifice was made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I would like to focus on the following text for a minute:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;...and the ceremonial and symbolic nature of communion and baptism...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two &lt;code&gt;ceremonies&lt;/code&gt; are still very relevant and in fact 100% necessary to our salvation. Let's break each one of them down here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Baptism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's start here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: &lt;strong&gt;(1 Peter 3: 18-21 KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly baptism is still very necessary for our salvation. But let's not just concrete this on one account, let's get another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;16&lt;/strong&gt; He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. &lt;strong&gt;(Mark 16:15-16 KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, now we have both Peter and Jesus speaking about the necessity of baptism for our salvation. But how do we do it right? I mean there must be some instruction. Let's start with Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: &lt;strong&gt;(Matthew 28:18-19 KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alright, but what is the &lt;strong&gt;name&lt;/strong&gt; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Let's start with the Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. &lt;strong&gt;(John 5:43 KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I don't think we need to review the name of the Son, so let's move on to the Holy Ghost:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. &lt;strong&gt;(John 14:26 KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alright, so now that we know the name to baptize in, let's find out how:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. &lt;strong&gt;(Acts 2:38 KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I think we can see now that baptism is absolutely essential to our salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Communion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as communion goes, it's still a very necessary part of our salvation, and the process by which it should occur is pretty summed up by Paul. The emphasis is mine but it's an attempt to show what parts would need to occur in the service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt; For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt; For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;24&lt;/strong&gt; And &lt;strong&gt;when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt; After the same manner also he took the cup, &lt;strong&gt;when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt; For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt; Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt; But &lt;strong&gt;let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;29&lt;/strong&gt; For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;30&lt;/strong&gt; For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;31&lt;/strong&gt; For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;32&lt;/strong&gt; But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. &lt;strong&gt;(1 Corinthians 11:20-32 KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I'd like to point out as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...this is not to eat the Lord's supper&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see they were calling it the &lt;code&gt;Lord's supper&lt;/code&gt; even then, and Paul let them know, that's not what this is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I understand that Jesus fulfilled the law, but do these rituals as rituals inform our worship of God today?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, the act of worship today can be summed up pretty easily. In fact, you can see that worship began changing with David when he danced out of his clothing. Worship began to become more spontaneous. This would have never occurred with Moses or Aaron.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;EDIT&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Would you mind expanding your answer to include a discussion of this nature as a whole?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to this, I believe that just about every ritual that existed in the old testament you will either find was fulfilled by Jesus (as shown with Aaron's sacrifice) &lt;strong&gt;or&lt;/strong&gt; you will find that it still exists and that there is a prescribed way like with baptism and communion that still exists in the new testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you will find that there are ceremonies created by man which have confused the meaning of things. The one that comes to mind the quickest is marriage. Marriage is clearly defined in the bible as intercourse between a man and a woman and a ceremony or federal law have nothing to do with marriage in the eyes of God. But there is &lt;strong&gt;nothing wrong&lt;/strong&gt; with the ceremony, I went through one with my wife :) ... you can find a more exhaustive explanation from my point of view on marriage &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11379/is-there-anything-unique-to-a-christian-marriage-that-non-christian-marriages-ar/11408#11408&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2015" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-10-29T02:31:50.867" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2662" CreationDate="2012-10-28T14:30:41.980" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lot's visitors were &quot;men of God.&quot; His daughters were &quot;mere&quot; human beings, and as Muke has suggested, may have been &quot;less unwilling&quot; to be raped than Lot's guests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, Lot was faced with a choice of evils. So he offered his (human) daughters to protect God's messengers, consciously choosing the &quot;lesser&quot; evil. (In this regard, his actions may have been similar to that of Abraham &quot;offering&quot; his son Isaac to God on Mount Moriah.) Such actions or intentions, would make Lot (and Abraham) &quot;righteous&quot; in God's eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course God wouldn't stand for this, however well intentioned. So he ordered his &quot;messengers&quot; to intervene, just as God himself had intervened on Mount Moriah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastActivityDate="2012-10-28T14:30:41.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="952" CreationDate="2012-10-29T00:34:19.470" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure this can't be taking The Lord's name in vain since his name is Jesus. I don't think we need to argue the name of the Son of God is Jesus, but let me concrete this a bit more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. (John 5:43 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, here we have it, there is &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; God whose &lt;strong&gt;name&lt;/strong&gt; is Jesus, regardless of the manifestation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2015" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-29T15:32:30.117" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7080" CreationDate="2012-10-29T06:52:02.453" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;and a good question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can find, Jesus never said this, however, He did say, &quot;Follow Me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you read the Gospels, Jesus makes clear that it is He who lays down His life, shedding His blood, the purpose?  So that those who believe in Him can receive the gift of eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To believe, in the times of Jesus, what he meant, is exactly what He means today.  To believe in something and not do anything about it, means you actually don't believe according to the teaching of Jesus.  As John the Baptist put it, your life and the way you now live is the proof you have repented.  Repent means to recognize a truth by applying it to your life and the way you live. If you believe the plane does not have enough fuel to get across the Atlantic, do you get on knowing it will crash in the sea? No you don't, you will find the pilot would refuse to fly such a plane with such knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing who Jesus is, The Son of God who by His death takes away the sin of the world, you need to decide what you are going to do about it. Accept it and do nothing? or Accept it and do what He said those who believe in Him must to keep your life at His coming! Strong words!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider Matthew Chapters 5, 6 &amp;amp; 7, at the end Jesus points out that those who carried out His teaching are &quot;wise builders&quot; those who don't are not. Those who don't do what He said, He will say; &quot;I never knew you; depart from me, you that work iniquity.&quot; Jesus is referring to the unwise builders who built there life on sand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be a Christian is actually to be a disciple of Jesus, one who follows His example, He obeyed His Father, disciples follow Jesus in the same way by obeying the teaching of Jesus and applying such to their life.  Jesus pointed out, if you want to follow Him you need to &quot;deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me&quot;, to be an obedient disciple of Jesus means saying no to your desires if they ever come into conflict with His teaching and put His teaching first, taking up your cross is the walk of denying what you want in such circumstances and go on to follow His example which He laid down, He obeyed His Father above all else, we are to obey what Jesus taught above all else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you consider yourself to be a christian and have not lived this way, His way, then it is time to consider if you are prepared to pay the price. There is the opportunity to repent offered to those who recognize and accept the truth about Jesus but have lived a life in opposition to His doctrine, His teachings, read Revelation Chapters 2 and 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 7 Churches in Revelation are an example of believers who Jesus points out they are living in disobedience, or at least 5 of them are.  Jesus tells them to repent, to change the way they are living, the way they are thinking about Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above in today's world appears to be unpalatable and some think unreasonable in today's modern society, do you not consider, in the day that Jesus lived, it was not radical, challenging and very unpalatable, however, Jesus said, &quot;repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.&quot; In that day, some felt it worth it, to receive the gift of complete forgiveness for their sins and follow Jesus so as to keep the gift of eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me put it this way; By repenting and believing in Jesus, you begin to change the way you think about everything, at the same time, by the presence of The Holy Spirit, you are sanctified.  God provides you with wedding garments, clean and white so that you can go to the wedding of His Son Jesus.  Your job now is to keep your wedding garments clean. You change the way you live by living how Jesus said live, He also gave tips on how to walk, 'do unto others how you want them to do to you', so you, forgiven by Him forgive others.  So your walk of following Jesus begins, if you trip and fall, get up, clean off the dirt and repair your wedding garments by repenting, recognizing your error and saying sorry, then move on, this time on your guard not to make that mistake again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the life of a disciple of Jesus, walking each day, one day at a time, keeping your eyes on Jesus and pondering His words in your heart, living a life of daily 'Asking Him', 'Seeking Him', 'Knocking on His door', and knowing, when you ask, according to His teaching, He answers your requests, your daily walk of getting to know Jesus and His Father better day by day.  Storms will come, hardship will come, the walk is not easy, but, the reward, when you stand before Him, the garments you were given, gleaming white, because you looked after what He paid the price to give you, what an amazing experience that will be!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't stand before Him in your righteousness but in His gift of righteousness, however, He will reward you for valuing and caring for the wonderful gift He gave you to look after by the way you think and live here on this world as a follower of Jesus!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is my interpretation of 'giving your life to Jesus', when in fact it was His life He gave for YOU!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3378" LastActivityDate="2012-10-29T06:52:02.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5615" CreationDate="2012-10-29T10:58:26.880" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The same power that raised christ from the dead is present in every born again christisan(ephesians 1) and i have seen the demonstration of this power even in todays generation.&#xA;this power is above everything.&#xA;all of the satan's power is like an ant in comparison to the power a christian posses in him which is given . by God on believing on christ jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3379" LastActivityDate="2012-10-29T10:58:26.880" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11423" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11424" CreationDate="2012-10-29T15:44:34.937" Score="14" ViewCount="1290" Body="&lt;p&gt;To extend this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/11384/69&quot;&gt;previous question&lt;/a&gt;, what about the text of the story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lazarus and the Rich Man&lt;/a&gt; indicates whether it should be considered a parable or an &quot;actual&quot; account?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2021-01-27T22:19:54.370" Title="What about the story of the &quot;Rich Man and Lazarus&quot; indicates whether it is a parable or not?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;parables&gt;&lt;literary-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11423" CreationDate="2012-10-29T16:55:57.870" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing that seems to distinguish parables from accounts of actual events is the absence of specific names for the people in the parables.  In the parables we read, &quot;A sower&quot; (Luke 8), &quot;A rich man&quot; (Luke 12, 15), &quot;A man&quot; (Luke 13, 14), &quot;A Samaritan&quot; (Luke 10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in the account of the Rich Man and the Beggar, we are actually given the name of the beggar.  This is quite a distinction from all the other parables.  In addition, Jesus tells us that the rich man saw another specific man--the patriarch Abraham.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the fact that the rich man's name is withheld does support the idea of this being a parable.  Yet, the fact that two other specific people are identified by name seems to be stronger evidence to support the idea that this was an actual historical event with actual people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The significance of this story comes in the reference to someone rising from the dead, as Jesus states that even if someone rises from the dead, some will not believe.  This is fulfilled in the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and even the chief priests of the day continued in their refusal to believe in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and&#xA;  who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor&#xA;  man named &lt;strong&gt;Lazarus&lt;/strong&gt;, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with&#xA;  what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and&#xA;  licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels&#xA;  to &lt;strong&gt;Abraham's&lt;/strong&gt; side.The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in&#xA;  Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw &lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt; far off&#xA;  and &lt;strong&gt;Lazarus&lt;/strong&gt; at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father &lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt;, have&#xA;  mercy on me, and send &lt;strong&gt;Lazarus&lt;/strong&gt; to dip the end of his finger in water&#xA;  and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But &lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good&#xA;  things, and &lt;strong&gt;Lazarus&lt;/strong&gt; in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted&#xA;  here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and&#xA;  you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass&#xA;  from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to&#xA;  us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my&#xA;  father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them,&#xA;  lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But &lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt; said,&#xA;  ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he&#xA;  said, ‘No, father &lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt;, but if someone goes to them from the dead,&#xA;  they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and&#xA;  the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise&#xA;  from the dead.’”  Luke 16:19-31 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-10-29T16:55:57.870" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11425" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-29T17:17:42.540" Score="3" ViewCount="1317" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've already asked &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/11410/3447&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; to get a non-liturgical point of view and now I would like to see an answer from a liturgical Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, goes into great detail about the specific ways of doing certain worship-related things. For example, The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it has been argued that these external forms have passed away and that all (or nearly all) that remains is the inward truth. Given the fact that Christ has come to fulfill the law (Mt 5:17) and that He has brought an end to the sacrificial system as it was (Hbr 9:23ff arguably implying an end to all the surrounding ritual as well), what biblical basis is there for keeping ceremony and ritual? This would apply both in the worship service and outside, for things like weddings and the like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2170" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-11-23T16:24:46.257" Title="What place do ritual and ceremony have in the church today? (Liturgical POV)" Tags="&lt;church-universal&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;ritual&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11425" CreationDate="2012-10-29T18:29:41.683" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest that all ritual in general did not pass away simply because the edicts of the old law was fulfilled. There is a lot that Tradition speaks to in terms of ritual use within the context of the Church as evidenced by what we know early Christians did, however, since you asked for a biblical reason, I might point you to the passages surrounding the Last Supper as it is the basis for the very essence of almost all liturgy in all catholic rites (whether Roman Catholic or Orthodox). In particular, we see Jesus not only institute this, but actually issue a command to observe this ritual in Luke 22:17-20.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have to be careful not to dillute the religion of Christianity into a philosophy by only looking at the acceptance of particular truths. In the scriptures, Jesus establishes a church, practices and commands particular ritual, and gives truths. If we ignore the first two facts of the previous sentence, then we fundamentally change Christianity into something that it's really not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more in-depth liturgical POV (Roman Catholic), the following link might provide to be useful: &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html&quot;&gt;http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3381" LastActivityDate="2012-10-29T18:29:41.683" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4385" CreationDate="2012-10-29T18:46:28.313" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would just like to expand on @Dan's comments regarding the catholic (lower-case c) perspective on faith and works. In the Roman rite of Christian Orthodoxy (aka Roman Catholic), the concept of salvation is explained by sola gratia (as in salvation only by grace), rather the the sola fide doctrine conceived by Martin Luther. If one is truly coporating with God in the reception of his free gift of grace, both faith and works will be evidenced (due to the salvific and empowering nature of God's grace itself). If not, only one or the other, or nethier will be visibily demonstrated from the individual professing Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3381" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2014-06-06T02:18:25.350" LastActivityDate="2014-06-06T02:18:25.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11384" CreationDate="2012-10-29T19:51:23.593" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that most English translations use the word &quot;Hell&quot; to describe two completely different things: &quot;Hades&quot; (the realm of the dead) and &quot;Gehenna&quot; (the lake of fire). Before Christ, there was no salvation. Jews that kept God's covenant went to a place called Paradise or Abraham's Bosom, while the rest went to Hades. As already mentioned, we are not told that this story is a parable like we are in the other parables (though that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't). We cannot be certain if its a parable or not, and since we can't be certain about that, we also can't be certain if there was/is a way for people in Hades and Paradise to see and speak to each other.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since &quot;Hell&quot; in this story is referring to Hades, we cannot infer 'the end' has come, since people were going to Hades since long before Christ. I believe your references to Revelation are speaking about the millennial reign of Christ on Earth. During this time Christ comes to rule the nations/world from Jerusalem. Hell is not outside Jerusalem, and Heaven is not inside. It is still just Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-10-29T23:47:16.163" LastActivityDate="2012-10-29T23:47:16.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11429" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-29T22:48:41.927" Score="4" ViewCount="13264" Body="&lt;p&gt;While poking around the internets for &lt;a href=&quot;https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/23122/what-is-the-origin-of-the-idea-of-god-needing-a-voice-in-dogma&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; in SciFi&amp;amp;Fantasy, I was reminded of one of my curiosities that had come about from watching the same film.  After watching &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_%28film%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Kevin Smith's Dogma&lt;/a&gt;, my cousin mentioned something along the lines of Loki being actual Catholic dogma according to a friend of his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find any sources on the internet to confirm this.  In fact &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11197b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA&lt;/a&gt; lists him in a paragraph describing the beliefs of 'Teutons and Celts' confusing me more, since I'm quite sure Celts had nothing to do with Loki.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia#Denmark&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; describes the blending of Christian and Norse belief systems in a short paragraph without giving any easy references to go off of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find it difficult to drop the idea because I find it a lovely example of Christian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;syncretism&lt;/a&gt;.  I ask in the hopes that some of you may have had interesting discussions in catechism that would have covered this, or perhaps you know where to look better than I do, and can confirm or reject this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Was the Norse mythological being Loki incorporated into the Catholic belief system, and if so, in what way?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3382" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:43:40.407" LastActivityDate="2017-02-17T16:41:43.170" Title="Is/Was Loki a figure in catholic dogma?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11429" CreationDate="2012-10-29T22:54:33.990" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The article you linked to is about magic and the occult, and speaks of magical concepts from many cultures, including Norse mythology. It mentions Loki only once, at the end of that section.  In the very next paragraph, it says that &quot;magic as a practice finds no place in Christianity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this, it seems pretty clear that Loki (and all the rest of the mythological figures mentioned in the article) are being used here as illustrative examples only, and don't hold any doctrinal significance in Catholicism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-10-29T22:54:33.990" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4385" CreationDate="2012-10-30T03:07:32.780" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, the two doctrines are quite different, you cannot be saved by your works, but there must be works &lt;strong&gt;with&lt;/strong&gt; your faith for you to find salvation. In other words, it's not the works that saves your soul, but without the works your faith is in vain and of none effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I keep telling you that I believe the chair in front of us will hold me up, but I never sit in it, I don't &lt;strong&gt;really&lt;/strong&gt; believe that the chair will hold me up do I? My faith in the chair should cause me to sit in it. The same holds true with Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though grace by faith alone is what applies the salvation to your life (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/eph.2.8.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eph 2:8&lt;/a&gt;), faith without works is dead (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/jas.2.17-18.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jam 2:17-18&lt;/a&gt;). But we can see that spoken by Jesus too, so I'm hoping we can all agree on that (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/mrk.16.16.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mk 16:16&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the faith that exists in you should cause you to keep the commandments of The Lord (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/jhn.14.15.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jn 14:15&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/mrk.16.16.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mk 16:16&lt;/a&gt;), and you see those works during the process of salvation when the Church came into existence in Acts (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/act.2.37-38.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:37-38&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/act.8.12-17.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:12-17&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/act.10.44-48.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 10:44-48&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/act.19.1-6.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 19:1-6&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2015" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T03:07:32.780" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11365" CreationDate="2012-10-30T03:29:48.530" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first scripture that comes to mind is that God cannot lie nor can he repent (i.e. change) (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/num.23.19.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Num 23:19&lt;/a&gt;). The next one that comes to mind is that Satan has no truth in him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/jhn.8.44.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jn 8:44&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, though it is less accepted, they did in fact die in the day they sinned because  God's time is much different than ours (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/2pe.3.8.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2Pe 3:8&lt;/a&gt;). One thing to note to support the aforementioned notion is that no man has lived to see 1,000 years. The oldest man in The Bible, Methuselah, lived to be 969 years old. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/1/gen.5.27.kjv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen 5:27&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2015" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T03:29:48.530" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11436" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11442" CreationDate="2012-10-30T10:42:58.853" Score="7" ViewCount="2895" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the New Testament was written&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, were the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John already considered Scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1 Acts - Revelation. Obviously there is overlap in when these were written (they are not included in the NT in chronological order), but were the known Gospels considered Scripture?&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T18:51:57.030" LastActivityDate="2016-08-02T07:58:32.573" Title="Were the Gospels considered Scripture when the rest of the New Testament was written?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11436" CreationDate="2012-10-30T10:45:46.863" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least &lt;strong&gt;Luke&lt;/strong&gt; was considered Scripture by Paul. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205:18&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 5:18&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”&lt;sup&gt;[a]&lt;/sup&gt; and “The worker deserves his wages.”&lt;sup&gt;[b]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;[a] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2025:4&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deut. 25:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;[b] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:7&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 10:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Paul clearly calls both Deuteronomy and Luke, &quot;Scripture&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of John was likely written after Paul's letters, and so is not commented on. But Matthew and Mark share a lot of common texts with Luke, so if they were known by Paul it is likely they also would have been considered Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T10:45:46.863" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11438" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11716" CreationDate="2012-10-29T23:10:29.113" Score="2" ViewCount="531" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;The Godfather&lt;/em&gt;, can anyone that is more familiar with the Catholic faith, tell me if Michael would be considered absolved of his sins considering that he agrees to &quot;renounce satan and all of his works&quot;? Having done this after all of the hits of the crime bosses are carried out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CDlBLvc3YE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Baptism Murders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3386" OwnerDisplayName="dmcgill50" LastEditorUserId="3386" LastEditDate="2013-01-31T19:20:59.803" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T19:20:59.803" Title="The Godfather Baptism Killings" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;godparents&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11438" CreationDate="2012-10-30T01:06:52.127" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, Michael Corleone would not be absolved, because he was not answering for himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A godparent at an infant baptism speaks &lt;em&gt;on behalf of the infant&lt;/em&gt;.  When the priest asks, &quot;Do you renounce Satan?&quot; and the other questions, he's asking this of the infant to be baptized, not of the godparent. The godparent answers because the infant can't speak for him/herself at that age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An older child or adult being baptized would answer the questions for him/herself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="429" OwnerDisplayName="Kyralessa" LastEditorUserId="429" LastEditDate="2012-10-30T21:27:35.043" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T21:27:35.043" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11436" CreationDate="2012-10-30T13:15:02.833" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The confusing part of this question is that there was no &quot;New Testament&quot; until after everything had been written. And so yes, by the time that the canonical list of New Testament books was compiled (a process that took about 400 years, although the individual books were &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9486/1039&quot;&gt;composed within the first 70&lt;/a&gt;) was considered Scripture.  Because they were considered Scripture, they were included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be understood that the four Gospels, while only four of many, were the most popular four.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Iraneus&lt;/a&gt;, in &lt;em&gt;Against the Heresies&lt;/em&gt; is insistent that there needed to be four:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there were many to choose from.  The four we have - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were widely considered the best.  Many others (Barnabas, Peter, Judas, Thomas) were either just collected sayings or heretical Gnosticism.  Beyond that, others, like Marcion, tried to make their own from scratch.  Despite this, these four kept being the most popular, the most profitable, the best for reproof, doctrine, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bruce Metzger argues that the symbolism may be more of an &quot;after-the-fact&quot; thing, however, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Among &lt;strong&gt;minor&lt;/strong&gt; [canonical] criteria that the ancients sometimes applied was what may be called 'number-symbolism', of which we have conspicuous examples in Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon....It is no doubt true that this use of numbers was more often a symbolical interpretation of the facts after the settlement of the different parts of the canon than as a means of determining that settlement.&quot; (The Canon Of The New Testament [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], n. 5 on p. 254)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over and over again, when seeking to portray an accurate account of how Christians should think and live, however, the stories of these four Gospels kept coming back to the fore as the most important.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T15:30:58.663" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8986" CreationDate="2012-10-30T13:53:42.970" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther's primary objections seem to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Most of the impediments to marriage that the Pope condemns (earlier in the sermon) are works of Papistry&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The command in Genesis to be &quot;fruitful and multiply&quot; trump Paul's relative assignments&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The body is made for marriage.  In other words, Paul is correct when he says &quot;It is better to marry than to burn&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There's nothing wrong in growing the church the old fashioned way (i.e by birthing it) (Ironic, now that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholics are the ones typically known for large families&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's not that celibacy is bad - it's just that its a gift that God doesn't give to all.  As such, it need not be a requirement.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key points come towards the end of his sermon &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/Reformations441/LutherMarriage.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Estate of Marriage&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; He says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is certainly a fact that he who refuses to marry must fall into immorality. How could it be otherwise, since God has created man and woman to produce seed and to multiply? Why should one not forestall immorality by means of marriage? For if special grace does not exempt a person, his nature must and will compel him to produce seed and to multiply. If this does not occur within marriage, how else can it occur except in fornication or secret sins? But, they say, suppose I am neither married nor immoral, and force myself to remain continent? Do you not hear that restraint is impossible without the special grace? For God's word does not admit of restraint; neither does it lie when it says, “Be fruitful and multiply” [Gen. 1:28]. You can neither escape nor restrain yourself from being fruitful and multiplying; it is God's ordinance and takes its course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Physicians are not amiss when they say: If this natural function is forcibly restrained it necessarily strikes into the flesh and blood and becomes a poison, whence the body becomes unhealthy, enervated, sweaty, and foul-smelling. That which should have issued in fruitfulness and propagation has to be absorbed within the body itself. Unless there is terrific hunger or immense labour or the supreme grace, the body cannot take it; it necessarily becomes unhealthy and sickly. Hence, we see how weak and sickly barren women are. Those who are fruitful, however, are healthier, cleanlier, and happier. And even if they bear themselves weary, or ultimately bear themselves out that does not hurt. Let them bear themselves out. This is the purpose for which they exist. It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labour worth while, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him. In all the world this is the noblest and most precious work, because to God there can be nothing dearer than the salvation of souls. Now since we are all duty bound to suffer death, if need be, that we might bring a single soul to God, you can see how rich the estate of marriage is in good works. God has entrusted to its bosom souls begotten of its own body, on whom it can lavish all manner of Christian works. Most certainly father and mother are apostles, bishops, and priests to their children, for it is they who make them acquainted with the gospel. In short, there is no greater or nobler authority on earth than that of parents over their children, for this authority is both spiritual and temporal. whoever teaches the gospel to another is truly his apostle and bishop. Mitre and staff and great estates indeed produce idols, but teaching the gospel produces apostles and bishops. See therefore how good and great is God's work and ordinance!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here I will let the matter rest and leave to others the task of searching out further benefits and advantages of the estate of marriage. My purpose was only to enumerate those which a Christian can have for conducting his married life in a Christian way, so that, as Solomon says, he may find his wife in the sight of God and obtain favour from the Lord [Prov. 18:22].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In saying this I do not wish to disparage virginity, or entice anyone away from virginity into marriage. Let each one act as he is able, and as he feels it has been given to him by God. I simply wanted to check those scandalmongers who place marriage so far beneath virginity that they dare to say: Even if the children should become holy (I Cor. 7:14], celibacy would still be better. One should not regard any estate as better in the sight of God than the estate of marriage. In a worldly sense celibacy is probably better, since it has fewer cares and anxieties. This is true, however, not for its own sake but in order that the celibate may better be able to preach and care for God's word, as St Paul says in I Corinthians 7 [:32-34]. It is God's word and the preaching which make celibacy, such as that of Christ and of Paul, better than the estate of marriage. In itself, however, the celibate life is far inferior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I focus on Martin Luther, because he was so adamantly against the practice of denying priests the ability to marry. It was, in part, a protest when he married Catherine, and from what I remember, she sort of signed up for it.  Many of the other Protestant theologians were really just following Lither's lead on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-10-30T14:08:10.147" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T14:08:10.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11436" CreationDate="2012-10-30T17:28:58.050" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given the clarification of the question, an entirely new answer is in order.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quick answer is that most of the rest of the NT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;was written before the Gospels, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;was sourced by eyewitnesses in any event.  Every writer was in some way written by somebody who had &lt;em&gt;first-hand&lt;/em&gt; knowledge of Jesus.  As such, there would have been no need to go back and read somebody else's book.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dates of the New Testament books can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/in-what-order-were-the-books-in-the-new-testament-written?rq=1&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The entire Pauline corpus (Romans - Philemon), if authored by Paul, predates the Gospels.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul was executed in either 62, 65, or 68 AD, and all of this excludes John (95), Matthew (post-70), and Luke. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark may have been been &lt;em&gt;written&lt;/em&gt; prior to Paul's execution, but even given the earliest date for Mark and the latest for Paul's execution would have given only 10 years.  In any event, many eyewitnesses to the Resurrection were still alive at this point, and so Mark would have just been one more eyewitness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest one could come to making a case for Scriptural recognition of Mark would be Paul's use of the Eucharistic formula, &quot;Take, eat, this is my body,&quot; but again there, the question remains whether this was simply eyewitness account or drawing from the book.  Most scholars believe it to be background knowledge of the account, rather than Paul having read Mark's account.  (For that matter, &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/galatians/1-18.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Paul probably learned about it directly from Peter&lt;/a&gt; (Galatians 1:18), who is often seen as Mark's source!)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, James and Hebrews pretty clearly pre-date the Gospels, so again, no.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acts, which chronicles the life of Paul, was written by Luke, and is clearly the second half of Luke-Acts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Luke begins Acts, he speaks of his own Gospel as &quot;my former book&quot;. As such, Luke, when writing Acts, probably was unaware of his own inspired status, but he surely believed what he wrote to be an accurate account of the life of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The only candidates for NT books after the &quot;Synoptic Gospels&quot; (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are the Johannine (1, 2, 3d John) books and the Petrine Books (1 &amp;amp; 2 Peter, and Jude which clearly borrows heavily from 2 Peter)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of these,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John, if it is the same same, did author his own Gospel, and so again, we have the &quot;are you aware of your own Scriptural status&quot; problem.  If it is a different John, the author is still closely indebted to John the Apostle, and so would have considered the John the source, not the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Peter, if written by the Apostle Peter (and yes, some doubt whether or not &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; books were written by Peter), would have had the same status of John.  John was an eyewitness, Peter was an eyewitness.  Peter would have been more influenced by what he saw than what he wrote.  Furthermore, Peter is most commonly ascribed the source of Mark's Gospel, so again, his own self-awareness in regards to inspiration is doubtful.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What may be most useful in answering your question is what Polycarp - a Christian matryr who died in 150AD, thought.  He considered &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew, Mark, and Luke&lt;/a&gt; to be Scripture, along with Acts, the Pauline, and Johnanine corpuses.  Polycarp was a contemporary of John the Apostle, the last of the Apostoles to die.  He's about as early a figure as you are going to get, and he's already really close to the actual writing.  My guess is that he didn't include John in his recommendation list, either because he was so closely associated or it was really too recent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Remember that one of the classic marks of NT canonicity was apostolic claim to authorship.  In other words, every one of the books was, at one time or another, considered to have been written by an apostolic eyewitness of Christ.  This means all the works of the NT would have been written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;at the same time (more or less)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;by people who had some knowledge of each other&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;first-hand knowledge of the Christ whose life inspired the books in the first place.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;No, the authors of the epistles didn't see the &lt;em&gt;Gospel books&lt;/em&gt; as Scripture - they considered the eyewitness accounts as Scripture. Most of the books you are talking about were authored &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; the Gospels, but while many of the eyewitnesses were still alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-05-13T12:52:39.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11443" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11444" CreationDate="2012-10-30T18:00:19.163" Score="4" ViewCount="400" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put God’s Kingdom First&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 Jesus said to his followers, “So I tell you, don’t worry about the&#xA;things you need to live—what you will eat or what you will wear. 23&#xA;Life is more important than food, and the body is more important than&#xA;what you put on it. 24 Look at the birds. They don’t plant, harvest,&#xA;or save food in houses or barns, but God feeds them. And you are worth&#xA;much more than crows. 25 None of you can add any time to your life by&#xA;worrying about it. 26 And if you can’t do the little things, why worry&#xA;about the big things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 “Think about how the wildflowers grow. They don’t work or make&#xA;clothes for themselves. But I tell you that even Solomon, the great&#xA;and rich king, was not dressed as beautifully as one of these flowers.&#xA;28 If God makes what grows in the field so beautiful, what do you&#xA;think he will do for you? That’s just grass—one day it’s alive, and&#xA;the next day someone throws it into a fire. But God cares enough to&#xA;make it beautiful. Surely he will do much more for you. Your faith is&#xA;so small!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 “So don’t always think about what you will eat or what you will&#xA;drink. Don’t worry about it. 30 That’s what all those people who don’t&#xA;know God are always thinking about. But your Father knows that you&#xA;need these things. 31 What you should be thinking about is God’s&#xA;kingdom. Then he will give you all these other things you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don’t Trust in Money&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;32 “Don’t fear, little flock. Your Father wants to share his kingdom&#xA;with you. 33 Sell the things you have and give that money to those who&#xA;need it. This is the only way you can keep your riches from being&#xA;lost. You will be storing treasure in heaven that lasts forever.&#xA;Thieves can’t steal that treasure, and moths can’t destroy it. 34 Your&#xA;heart will be where your treasure is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After reading this it is obvious to ask - is going to work everyday putting God's kingdom second?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would we have enough to survive if we all did missionary work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the image Jesus wants us to follow here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T14:32:49.410" Title="Luke 12 and going to work everyday" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-07-10T18:13:09.727" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11443" CreationDate="2012-10-30T18:04:08.507" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &amp;quot;vocation,&amp;quot; the word that many people use to describe their line of work, means &amp;quot;calling.&amp;quot;  To say that vocations outside of the ministry are not part of God's work is deny what many protestants believe about work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to cite one prominent example, Martin Luther writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is milking the cows through the vocation of the milkmaid&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;vocation is a &amp;quot;mask of God.&amp;quot; He is hidden in vocation. We see the milkmaid, or the farmer, or the doctor or pastor or artist. But, looming behind this human mask, God is genuinely present and active in what they do for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, God uses our work to be glorified.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&amp;amp;var1=ArtRead&amp;amp;var2=881&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;same article&lt;/a&gt; goes on to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther's Doctrine of Vocation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To understand fully the doctrine of vocation, one should begin not with the Puritans-who tended to turn the doctrine of vocation into a work ethic-but with Luther and with Lutherans, from the composers of the Book of Concord to modern theologians such as Billing and Gustaf Wingren. It goes something like this: When we pray the Lord's Prayer, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread. And he does. The way he gives us our daily bread is through the vocations of farmers, millers, and bakers. We might add truck drivers, factory workers, bankers, warehouse attendants, and the lady at the checkout counter. Virtually every step of our whole economic system contributes to that piece of toast you had for breakfast. And when you thanked God for the food that he provided, you were right to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God could have chosen to create new human beings to populate the earth out of the dust, as he did with the first man. But instead, he chose to create new life-which, however commonplace, is no less miraculous-by means of mothers and fathers, wives and husbands, the vocations of the family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God protects us through the vocations of earthly government, as detailed in Romans 13. He gives his gifts of healing usually not through out-and-out miracles (though he can) but by means of the medical vocations. He proclaims his word by means of human pastors. He teaches by means of teachers. He creates works of beauty and meaning by means of human artists, whom he has given particular talents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many treatments of the doctrine of vocation emphasize what we do, or are supposed to do, in our various callings. This is part of it, as are the various aspects that I outlined above, but it is essential in grasping the magnitude of this teaching to understand first the sense in which vocation is God's work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sense of God acting in vocation is characteristically Lutheran in the way it emphasizes that God works through physical means. Luther and his followers stress how God has chosen to bestow his spiritual gifts by means of his Word (ink on paper; the sound waves emanating from a pulpit) and Sacrament (water; bread and wine). And he bestows his earthly gifts by means of human vocations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T18:04:08.507" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11443" CreationDate="2012-10-30T18:29:39.680" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To put it simply Paul stated that work is very necessary (2 Thessalonians 3:10). In fact Paul was a tent maker. To further this point Solomon spoke of the usage of money (Ecclesiastes 10:19). And to finally concrete this point Jesus spoke of paying taxes (Matthew 22:21). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you decide, but I think the mentioned section is far from telling you that you should quit your job and mission, but it's trying to teach you how to keep from loving money (1 Timothy 6:10) and to rather love Jesus and stop worrying about money. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2015" LastActivityDate="2012-10-30T18:29:39.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11443" CreationDate="2012-10-31T00:05:49.097" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is Jesus commanding us to do in this passage? Different translations word it differently, but basically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don’t &lt;strong&gt;worry&lt;/strong&gt; about the things you need to live &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don’t &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; think about what you will eat or what you will drink (our needs). Don’t &lt;strong&gt;worry&lt;/strong&gt; about it  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't &lt;strong&gt;fear&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seek his kingdom / you should be thinking about God’s kingdom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Kingdom of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word translated &quot;kingdom&quot; throughout the New Testament is the Greek word basileia, which denotes &quot;sovereignty, royal power, [and] dominion&quot; (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, &quot;Kingdom&quot;).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/what-kingdom-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/what-kingdom-god&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, it is the sovereignty of God. To seek the kingdom of God (in Christ Jesus) is to seek the sovereignty of God in your life, the lives of fellow believers, and bringing this sovereignty to those who do not know him also.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is telling us to not have our minds set, or be overly anxious, or fear about our needs not being provided, but to have it set on his kingdom. This doesn’t necessarily mean you need to quit your job and go into full time ministry (@Affable gives a good answer about that). Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2012&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 12&lt;/a&gt;: We are all members of one body performing different functions. Romans 12:1-2 tells us how we can test and approve of God's will in our own lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/lord_traditional_king_james.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Lord's prayer&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus teaches us to pray that our needs are provided &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; praying for His kingdom. I think there is some significance in that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize, Jesus is telling us not to &lt;em&gt;fret&lt;/em&gt; over our needs. As He says, it reflects “little faith”; not a good testimony.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:33&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 6:33&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-10-31T00:15:10.713" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T00:15:10.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11425" CreationDate="2012-10-31T02:23:53.913" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The altar and the sacrifice of the Mass are Sacred tradition, but the sacrifice of the Mass is not a guilt offering or a sin offering, but a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-theology-of-thanksgiving&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thanksgiving offering&lt;/a&gt; and a thanksgiving offering is one that can still be offered even in these last days, after God Himself came to save us from our sins. The first possible day for the Apostles to worship God in the temple by means of a thanksgiving offering, after the sabbath, is the same day we have always worshipped God, the Lords day.  And if there is a day which is set aside for man to worship God especially, it is natural, traditional and good that we should do it together. &lt;b&gt;It is as necessary as the third commandment.&lt;/b&gt; It is also a precept of the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the custom of altars and the priesthood and the liturgy is one of man's universal customs. (As is abolishing them)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When I asked for an altar, I was told that we needed none, for men our brothers gave us clear oracles and one creed in their universal customs and ideals. But if I mildly pointed out that one of men's universal customs was to have an altar, then my agnostic teachers turned clean round and told me that men had always been in darkness and the superstitions of savages. - GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, if it is a universal custom to have an altar, priests, religion etc... then there's no real difference between the forms that Catholicism employs and it should all be cast off, because true Christianity needs to distinguish itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The religions of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do greatly differ in what they teach. It is as if a man were to say, &quot;Do not be misled by the fact that the CHURCH TIMES and the FREETHINKER look utterly different, that one is painted on vellum and the other carved on marble, that one is triangular and the other hectagonal; read them and you will see that they say the same thing. The truth is, of course, that they are alike in everything except in the fact that they don't say the same thing. ibid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth is, true Christianity distinguishes itself by its teaching and, as the old song goes, by its love. In this way, the Mass is a traditional way of showing God that you care and you're paying attention (it's more than that, but it is also that). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I must go and make my wife a waffle, because I love her an I am paying attention. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-10-31T12:01:46.927" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T12:01:46.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11448" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-10-31T02:34:09.413" Score="5" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since it's not in the Bible, are Evangelicals taught to ignore or disapprove of the teachings of such folks as Aristotle and Plato?  Would they belive a redacted version of the Summa Theologica or City of God where all the Aristotelean and Neo Platonic stuff is gone and only the Divine Law stuff remains?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-12-01T13:57:47.623" Title="What's the Evangelical take on the Natural Moral Law?" Tags="&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;&lt;summa-theologica&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11448" CreationDate="2012-10-31T07:38:44.087" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the founding ideas of Protestantism was &quot;sola scriptura&quot;, meaning that we view the Bible as the only ultimate authority. That doesn't mean that we refuse to read any other books. The existence of thousands of Baptist bookstores should be adequate proof that that's not true. What it means is that we do not view any book other than the Bible as having any authority beyond the weight of the writer can convince us of by the force of his arguments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, I suspect most rank-and-file Protestants don't know who Aquinas, Augustine, etc are. (Well, does the average Catholic know who they are?) Among the more intellectual Protestants, of course we read and quote and discuss Greek and Scholastic philosophers and the Church Fathers. We just read them with the attitude that we will agree with some things they say and disagree with others. We don't need &quot;redacted&quot; versions -- we're grown-ups, we can handle the fact that we may not agree with everything we read. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T07:38:44.087" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11443" CreationDate="2012-10-31T14:32:49.410" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis, God gives Adam work to do before He even gives Him a wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden &lt;strong&gt;to work it&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;and keep it.  Genesis 2:15 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a&#xA;helper fit for him.”  Genesis 2:18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several other verses that encourage work as well.  Colossians 3:23-24 affirms that working is rewarded by God Himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever you do, &lt;strong&gt;work heartily&lt;/strong&gt;, as for the Lord and not for men, 24&#xA;knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your&#xA;reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.  Colossians 3:23-24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever &lt;strong&gt;works&lt;/strong&gt; his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless&#xA;pursuits lacks sense.  14 From the fruit of his mouth a man is satisfied with good,&#xA;and the work of a man's hand comes back to him.Proverbs 12:11, 14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever is slack in his work is a brother to him who destroys.  Proverbs 18:9 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits&#xA;will have plenty of poverty.  Proverbs 28:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, work is honored and rewarded by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage in Luke addresses &lt;strong&gt;not work&lt;/strong&gt;--but &lt;strong&gt;worry&lt;/strong&gt;.  Work diligently, but trust God to provide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T14:32:49.410" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11451" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11452" CreationDate="2012-10-31T15:45:51.033" Score="6" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the United States, specifically on the Right, many Republican / Tea-Party, Evangelical Christians have very little problem in ascribing a moral motive for a tight fiscal policy which restricts &quot;wealth redistribution.&quot;   On the left, evangelicals such as Jim Wallis (Sojourners), have promoted the opposite (&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/03/jim-wallis-and-the-what-would-jesus-cut-campaign/&quot;&gt;What would Jesus Cut?&lt;/a&gt;&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I understand the kernels of the arguments on either side (on the Right, it is unfair to redistribute wealth; on the Left, there is an extension of the &quot;Blessed are the Poor&quot; theology), I'd like to understand how it is that any fiscal policy is supposed to have the imprimatur of a &quot;Biblical&quot; theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, does anyone have a reference for the first religious argument on whether the United States government's budget should be larger or smaller?  Is this a product of the &quot;Culture Wars&quot; of the 80s, or does religious justification for fiscal policy predate this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, who is responsible for injecting Jesus into discussions of taxation and other fiscal matters? And, once we've established who conflated the two, what was the biblical rationale for doing so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-11-01T16:22:44.713" Title="What is the basis for ascribing any fiscal policy to Jesus?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11451" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:17:23.427" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a fellow Screwtape letters reader, you'd know what C.S. Lewis says about using Jesus to support this or that economic theory; and that it's not a good thing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, that doesn't mean that the Church herself should be absent from the discussion of economic theories, as one of the important, but not critical, functions of Christian Churches is to provide for the needs of the poor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Neither must it be supposed that the solicitude of the Church is so preoccupied with the spiritual concerns of her children as to neglect their temporal and earthly interests. Her desire is that the poor, for example, should rise above poverty and wretchedness, and better their condition in life; and for this she makes a strong endeavor. By the fact that she calls men to virtue and forms them to its practice she promotes this in no slight degree. Christian morality, when adequately and completely practiced, leads of itself to temporal prosperity, for it merits the blessing of that God who is the source of all blessings; it powerfully restrains the greed of possession and the thirst for pleasure-twin plagues, which too often make a man who is void of self-restraint miserable in the midst of abundance; it makes men supply for the lack of means through economy, teaching them to be content with frugal living, and further, keeping them out of the reach of those vices which devour not small incomes merely, but large fortunes, and dissipate many a goodly inheritance.  - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum #28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church's teaching on subsidiarity, especially through Rerum Novarum did a lot to influence G.K Chesterton's and Hilaire Belloc's thought on their economic theory of Distributism, which can be simplified as every family being able to get three acres and a cow to live off of (not everyone being &lt;em&gt;given&lt;/em&gt; three acres and a cow though). These economic theories grew up right along side with outright socialism and were just as much a reaction to capitalism, but were not adopted by governments (mainly, I think, because they give too much political and economic power to families). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;E. F. Schumacher&lt;/a&gt;, the economist and author of &quot;Small is Beautiful&quot; attributed his conversion to the truth he found in the social encyclicals of the Popes. So, prior to the Culture Wars, the social teaching of the Catholic Church was being developed and that social teaching couldn't really be untied from economics because everything big is tied to economics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other side of Catholic Social teaching, solidarity, which is required to ensure that the poorest and most unconnected are not bereft of their acreage was exemplified by Pope John Paul II and Lech Wałęsa's example in Poland during the 70's and 80's. So, the reaction to communism, as well as the seemingly communist theories, both exist and complement each other within the social teaching of the Catholic Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T18:17:23.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11520" CreationDate="2012-10-31T18:28:12.680" Score="14" ViewCount="25562" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember hearing someone make the claim that Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin prior to his conversion to Christianity.  Is there any evidence for this claim?  If so, what is it?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2018-08-02T21:32:34.083" Title="What evidence is there that the Apostle Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11455" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11458" CreationDate="2012-10-31T19:03:23.920" Score="17" ViewCount="84859" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard people say over the years that it is likely that the Apostle Paul had been married at some point, perhaps prior to his conversion.  However, there doesn't seem to be any biblical evidence to this end.  What, then, is the evidence in support of this position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2021-04-16T04:12:20.427" Title="What is the evidence that suggests that the Apostle Paul was married?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5389" CreationDate="2012-10-31T22:01:22.130" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Abraham just lacked faith at that time and was telling lies. He did not trust God to protect him, so he used his wife and her beauty instead – that's why God kept revealing and exposing him where ever he went.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3391" LastEditorUserId="85" LastEditDate="2012-11-01T15:05:51.620" LastActivityDate="2012-11-01T15:05:51.620" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11455" CreationDate="2012-10-31T22:01:58.280" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had not previously heard that there was a debate going on about whether the Apostle Paul was married. I found an excellent resource here at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dennyburk.com/was-the-apostle-paul-married/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Denny Burk's Blog about the subject&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mr. Burk seems to indicate that the Greek word (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblesuite.com/greek/22.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;agamos&lt;/a&gt;) that Paul uses in his writings and the way in which he addresses those that are married, unmarried and virgins seems to suggest that Paul is making a distinction for those that have been married previously, but that are no longer married. He clearly indicates that he is unmarried in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.us/100/1co.7.8.nasb&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:8&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author also points out that a &quot;Hebrew of Hebrews&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Philippians%203.5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philippians 3:5&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;would have more than likely have been married as was the custom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no definitive evidence that we can ascertain from the Scriptures except that he was not married during the time of his writings, but very well could have been previously been married and widowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3386" LastEditorUserId="3386" LastEditDate="2012-11-02T18:06:29.117" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T18:06:29.117" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11455" CreationDate="2012-10-31T22:02:51.927" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;The evidence for Paul being married is fairly scant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He writes in 1 Corinthians 9:5:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication could be made that Paul was complaining about leaving some wife behind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Galatians 1:14, Paul says:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the traditions, especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin (which he never outright claimed), is that eventually he would be married.  That said, there is nothing to say that he had necessarily progressed far enough to require a wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other side (that Paul was not married), the evidence is far more convincing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 9:5 clearly implies there &lt;em&gt;wasn't&lt;/em&gt; a woman travelling with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7:1-7 has Paul declaring that he has the gift of celibacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7:8 has Paul directly saying that he is not married -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tense of the verb is ambiguous as to whether he was at one point married, however. As an &lt;a href=&quot;https://english.stackexchange.com/a/84132/12586&quot;&gt;aorist verb&lt;/a&gt;, the tense is de-emphasized in any event. In at least the NIV, the ‘[a]’ is a reference to a note that the Greek word is also used for ‘widower’.  Of the 4 occurrences of this word in the NT (all in this chapter) this is supposed to be the only nonadjective form and is supposed to include a masculine suffix.  Here and also at verse 40 in the context of widows, Paul personalises the message.  When read as ‘widowers’ this chapter has a natural flow of topics but as ‘unmarried’ there is repetition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, however, it is clear that even if Paul &lt;em&gt;had been&lt;/em&gt; married at some point, by the time he had been to Corinth, he no longer was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="53660" LastEditDate="2021-04-16T04:12:20.427" LastActivityDate="2021-04-16T04:12:20.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11455" CreationDate="2012-10-31T22:10:46.703" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard some people say that the following scripture suggests he was once married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. (1 Corinthians 7:8 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They say that because he mentioned widows, and then stated &quot;even as I&quot;. However it's not terribly compelling evidence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that generally speaking, it's just a guess, and not really spoken of. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2015" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T22:10:46.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11304" CreationDate="2012-10-31T22:41:54.767" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always understood this Rapture event as being &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-52.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;near instantaneous&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also always envisioned this event to be something like &lt;strong&gt;flying&lt;/strong&gt; with those that had died in the faith before the living, as they meet the Lord in the clouds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This scripture reference seems fairly clear, but you were curious if there were any prominent speakers or scholars who have attempted to address this issue. There are quite a number. Here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/premillennialism-and-tribulation-%E2%80%94-part-ix-conclusion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a resource that I found helpful&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3386" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T22:41:54.767" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="952" CreationDate="2012-10-31T22:43:14.030" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the commandment say &quot;don't &lt;strong&gt;speak&lt;/strong&gt; His name in vain&quot;, &quot;don't &lt;strong&gt;use&lt;/strong&gt; His name in vain&quot;, or &quot;don't &lt;strong&gt;take&lt;/strong&gt; His name in vain&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it says not to &lt;strong&gt;take&lt;/strong&gt; His name in vain, we would first need to consider what it means to &lt;strong&gt;take&lt;/strong&gt; His name.  Once that is established we could consider what it would look like to do that in a vain (empty) way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a marriage the woman often takes the name of the man, thereby identifying herself as being a part of him / his family.  Along those lines, some interpret this commandment to be a warning against identifying yourself as a man (or woman) of God in an empty fashion.  For instance, to call oneself a Jew / Israelite / Christian but refuse to follow His ways (love, etc.) would be to take His name in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T22:43:14.030" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11455" CreationDate="2012-10-31T22:46:16.950" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main argument I have heard is that Paul was a Pharisee, and being married was a requirement for being a Pharisee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I have heard others claim that since he referred to Timothy as his son, that meant he must have been married, but that is clearly not what Paul meant by calling Timothy his son in the Lord.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-10-31T22:46:16.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11365" CreationDate="2012-11-01T04:28:35.750" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;God cannot lie:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&amp;amp;c=23&amp;amp;t=KJV#19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Numbers 23:19&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Tts&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Titus 1:2&lt;/a&gt;, Heb 6:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first link is the word of God directly given to Balaam who was summoned by the king of Moab out of fear regarding the encampment of Jews near them and the possibility of war with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is written by the apostle Paul in the preamble to his epistle to Titus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third is from body of Paul's epistle to the Hebrews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All are direct and unequivocal in their statements that plainly God does not lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that God knows all truth and does not lie is a bedrock foundation for Christians.  Our own faulty processes of reason and emotion which help us understand the world around us but through which we can make mistakes in our understanding because of our own limitations even though we are led by the Holy Spirit in our lifelong search to understand and follow the truth of God's word is a human quality.  The fact that we lie is a human quality.  God should not be seen through the lense of these two fallibilities of humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knows all truth and knows all the world and the universe he created from their beginning to their end.  And, unlike our own fallibility, God is infallible and not only has the capability to never lie to us but according to these clear declarations simply does not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God were to lie to us it would water down his message and make the truth as revealed to us by him confusing to grasp and we would always be wondering - did God lie about that?  What was the truth from God, and what was a lie?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can know with comfort and peace that God has and will always speak the truth to us.  It is from this bedrock foundation of knowledge of the absolute truth of the revelation of God that we can indeed have infant-like faith in his Word.  That faith is indeed the ultimate foundation not only of our relationship with God but of our very salvation through Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also take comfort in his promises, or covenants, with us.  We can know that the promise to Noah as symbolized by the rainbow to never again send a flood to destroy most of the world would be honored as long as this temporal universe exists.  We can know that the covenant with Abraham that his people would become numerous as the sands and be a blessing to all nations will never be broken by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most importantly we can know that his free gift to us of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, taken as our Lord and Savior which leads to eternal life in Heaven, is a pure and absolute gift with no possibility of withdrawal by God for anything we might do, however bad (except the one exceptional sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3393" LastEditorUserId="3393" LastEditDate="2012-11-02T09:43:00.073" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T09:43:00.073" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11425" CreationDate="2012-11-01T14:58:37.330" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand why religious ritual and ceremony are still important, we must first understand what it means to say that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. Fulfill does not mean abolish (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/5-17.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the ceremonial law was to serve as a visible reminder to the Jews of the invisible God they worshipped. For Christians, Jesus serves as that visible reminder. This changes both the way we read Scripture and the way we worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, a faithful Jew will see in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/hosea/passage.aspx?q=hosea+11:1-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hosea 11:1&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;Out of Egypt I called my son,&quot; a reminder of the exodus. But Christians, familiar with the story of the Magi and the Holy Family's flight to Egypt in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 2&lt;/a&gt;, see a different meaning in these words. Jesus has become the fulfillment of this Scripture because for Christians it now points to his life and not just to the original meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For similar reasons, Jews worship on Saturday, the seventh day, as a reminder of the creation story in Genesis. Christians, however, worship on the first day as a reminder of Jesus' resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The liturgy gives us additional reminders of Jesus throughout worship. We recite the Lord's prayer as a reminder of how Jesus taught his disciples to pray. The liturgical calendar takes us through the entire story of Jesus' life every year. The Eucharist or Lord's Supper reminds us of what Jesus taught his disciples the last night before he died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of ritual is to help us focus on Christ, to give us tangible reminders of his story, and to involve us in that story. The rituals themselves are worthless if we just go through the motions without considering their meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-11-01T15:06:05.737" LastActivityDate="2012-11-01T15:06:05.737" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11451" CreationDate="2012-11-01T16:22:44.713" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11451/what-is-the-basis-for-ascribing-any-fiscal-policy-to-jesus/11452#11452&quot;&gt;Peter&lt;/a&gt; answered your first question, I'll attempt to answer your second question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, once we've established who conflated the two, what was the biblical rationale for doing so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus spoke of doing good to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 25:35-40 - ...for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All Bible quotes in this post come from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul spoke of doing good to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:16 - Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philippians 2:4 - Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no question that Jesus and Paul wanted us to help others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The contemporary question is whether Jesus and Paul wanted individuals and groups (churches) to help others, or have the government help others.  Generally, United States conservatives favor individual assistance, while United States liberals favor government assistance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scripture is not clear on this question.  What we do have is Jesus' words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:17-21 - Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?’ But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ Then he said to them, ‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This scripture has been interpreted to support both individual assistance and government assistance.  Unfortunately, there is no clear cut answer from the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that's why the individual assistance and government assistance debate continues and will continue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-01T16:22:44.713" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11468" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11474" CreationDate="2012-11-01T20:15:52.650" Score="16" ViewCount="42626" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, biblically, Satan comes as &quot;an angel of light.&quot; and yet, in the popular imagitation, he is usually wearing a red costume with a pointy tail, a sharp beard, and a pitchfork. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When and how did this characterization develop?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2016-04-12T17:37:10.713" Title="What is the origin of the Devil's red pointy costume and pitchfork?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11468" CreationDate="2012-11-01T20:30:58.803" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the belief that Satan's greatest weakness was his pride, believers in the Middle Ages created imagery of him like you describe in order to mock him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ligonier.org/blog/satan-proud-and-powerful-part-1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;As detailed on Ligonier's blog.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastActivityDate="2012-11-01T20:30:58.803" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11365" CreationDate="2012-11-01T23:51:55.477" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know denominational or traditional perspectives, but God didn't deceive or mislead Eve. Eve lacked faith in God. She did in fact die on that day; whether it was a spiritual death (probably more likely how God meant it), or her body started the decaying process and died in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:8&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;day&lt;/a&gt; in the eyes of God (as mentioned by BigM).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We (or at least I) am not at liberty to say when lying is okay, even if you think it will save someone's life (not necessarily saying I wouldn't do so..), because, in a sense, it might also lack faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible does not teach us to lie and scare our children into obeying and behaving. They should just obey and, if appropriate, tell them the truth of why in a way that they can understand. The bible teaches us to discipline our children (moderately) to obey and behave.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Prov. 22:15  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Withhold not discipline from the child; for if you strike and punish him with the [reedlike] rod, he will not die.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Prov. 23:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left undisciplined brings his mother to shame.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Prov. 29:15  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In those verses the devil told them they would have the knowledge of good and evil, which was true. Also a demon tells the truth of Jesus' identity in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%201:24&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 1:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What have You to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-11-02T18:45:44.263" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T18:45:44.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11471" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11486" CreationDate="2012-11-02T01:38:46.920" Score="11" ViewCount="3321" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the theories about the authorship of Hebrews is that Priscilla (the wife of Aquilla) wrote Hebrews.  While it is by no means universal (indeed &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5820/1039&quot;&gt;many suggestions have been made&lt;/a&gt;), and at least in my estimation not even the most persuasive case, some have suggested female authorship for this epistle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What factors, other than simple desire on the part of some that there is a female author in the Bible, led people like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;von Harnack to believe that Priscilla was the author&lt;/a&gt;.  While the wikipedia article mentions why a female name would have been blotted out, it doesn't really point to any evidence for the case.  What textual clues led von Harnack to even make the case? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-03-26T20:32:55.220" Title="What was Adolf von Harnack's case that Priscilla wrote Hebrews?" Tags="&lt;hebrews&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4385" CreationDate="2012-11-02T02:57:06.243" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;@David Stratton probably said as much in his response and the subsequently linked articles, but to be succinct, a faith without works isn't real faith. Works are a demonstration of that faith, not essential as if they are tallied somewhere, but a proof (perhaps more to yourself than anyone else) of what you &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might add that we're not saved &lt;em&gt;by&lt;/em&gt; faith, rather by &lt;em&gt;grace&lt;/em&gt;, but faith is the acceptance of God's gift. God does not save someone against his will. We must accept the gift, but that acceptance does not make us in any way worthy of it, as if we could demand it of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T02:57:06.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11473" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11492" CreationDate="2012-11-02T03:05:40.747" Score="5" ViewCount="367" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have to admit this one's personal for me.  A friend of mine from years back has become a member of a Church that self-identifies as &quot;The Crossing&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been able to find some information on the Church via multiple Google result hits, but everything I'm finding is solely from an individual, specific, local Church.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thecrossing.com/&quot;&gt;Example&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm very interested in knowing the history of this Church.  Is it considered a denomination?  Is each Church independent? Is the doctrine sound (or at least in-line with standard protestant evangelical theology)?  From what I've been able to dig up it looks like a Church similar to  Evangelical Free Churches - doctrine based on salvation by faith alone, but with a strong focus on doing good works, community involvement, and the expression of Christian love.  It also looks to be quite liberal in the teachings, and likely the music, and the focus on &quot;being a good person&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know of the background - the origins and underlying teachings, and is this considered a &quot;denomination&quot; in the same way &quot;Assembly of God&quot; Churches are?  Or is this more of a free-thinking, liberal movement that is loosely organized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-11-04T13:52:43.397" Title="History/teachings of &quot;The Crossing&quot;" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11468" CreationDate="2012-11-02T03:48:28.777" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;These attributes are a bizarre combination of images, some inherited from classical mythology, that don't particularly belong together (though there is a reason behind all of them, and even a smidgen of Scriptural support). Our modern image is a blend between:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Satyrs, the lust-filled tempters (goat legs, horns, beard) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pluto, ruler of the Underworld (pitchfork)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fairly generic colour imagery (red and black)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The mediaeval bestiary (bat wings)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In more detail:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cloven hooves, horns, tail, shaggy legs and pointed beard - These are the attributes of fauns or satyrs. Compare - though perhaps not if at work, due to goat penis - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aSatyros_Cdm_Paris_DeRidder509.jpg&quot;&gt;this image from Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, a plate from c.520-500 BC. Satyrs are generally associated with lust, barbarity, and bad behaviour, more or less because goats are randy, willful, and eat all your food.. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Boys&quot;&gt;Thomas Boys&lt;/a&gt; (1792-1880), writing in &lt;em&gt;Notes and queries&lt;/em&gt;, 5 November 1859, suggests the link is with the Hebrew &lt;em&gt;se'irim&lt;/em&gt; (hairy wild beasts, probably the object of pagan worship) in Isaiah 13:21, 34:14, etc. In the Septuagint these are &lt;em&gt;daimonia&lt;/em&gt; (demons!) and English translations like the KJV often use &quot;satyrs&quot;. There may also be some sheep-and-goats connection going on.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pitchfork - This comes from Pluto/Hades, the Greek god of the underworld. While his usual attribute is a sceptre, indicating his sovereignty, this was sometimes depicted as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bident&quot;&gt;bident&lt;/a&gt; or two-pronged pitchfork (for reasons that we're not really sure about). His brothers Poseidon and Zeus also used forked weapons - in some sense they mirror one another, as rulers of their respective realms. In the post-classical era, the bident became part of the standard representation. Satan got the same tool because he was put in the same role as Pluto.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For the colour, the devil is not invariably red in mediaeval imagery - in Chaucer, he's green! - and the most common colour is black. Grimm (&lt;em&gt;Deutsche Mythologie&lt;/em&gt;) attributes this to the association of the devil with darkness in general, as God is associated with light (most famously in John 1). The night also suggests hiding and secrecy. This has classical precedent - Pluto again - but the notion is pretty generic. Meanwhile, red means blood, violence, and passion. Red-haired people were unfortunately often considered &quot;evil&quot; because of this connection, and Judas was usually shown with red hair. It is also the colour of fire and the New Testament considers hell to be fiery. There's the red dragon in Revelation 12:3 just to cement it further.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bat wings, at least, are not classical. In the Middle Ages, the devil was depicted with a wide variety of monstrous attributes, indicating that he was unnatural and cursed. Bat wings are one example, and of course bats are pretty inherently spooky, since they are scary-looking creatures of the night. Jeffrey Burton Russell (&lt;em&gt;Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages&lt;/em&gt;, Cornell University Press, 1984) says that these wings first appear in the twelfth century, as a corrupted version of (feathered) angel wings.&#xA;Russell's general chronology has the 'monstrous' devil image appearing first, thanks to the third-century Desert Fathers. After a fad for 'humanoid' devils (ie, Satan disguising himself as a normal-looking human) from the sixth to eleven centuries, these dominated for the rest of the Middle Ages. They have not wholly disappeared, as a glance at the nearest death metal album cover will confirm, though the wings are the only monstrous feature to be really ubiquitous now.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This particular combination has become more and more &quot;standard&quot;. Of course, it is helpful for the viewer to have some standardization, so that we can instantly recognize who in the painting is meant to be Satan. But even this collection of attributes allows for some diversity in interpretation: one can draw a caricatured or cartoon Satan, or an imp, or a Miltonic anti-hero.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T03:48:28.777" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7507" CreationDate="2012-11-02T07:16:53.830" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;THe answer to the question.. who was the twelve apostle is simply Matthias.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are quite a lot of apostles who were not mentioned of how they operated or what they did. The reason for this is quite obvious. If they were to keep to the gospel, then the left hand shouldn't know what the right hand was doing. Their goal wouldn't be to glorify themselves, but to spread the gospel. The book containing the story of Christ have no emphasis on the apostles but on Christ. Even Paul's books have no emphasis on what he was doing, but more of the things needed to be known. As for the book of acts, which was designed to tell the story of the acts of the apostles, mere intend was again so that people could understand in broad the work of an apostle, not that a lot of people understood it, but still the book was written. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 12 apostles for a reason. But it is not the reason most people think. Paul was not the only apostle, other than the 12. And when questioned about his apostleship he refered to it as though that of Peter and tried to drew a comparison. Not a comparison to put himself in the same level, but to the understanding of what is gift was. You see there are 12 differrent types of apostles. And in essension, if one didn't understand the function of or how to identify an apostle, it would be extremely hard to identify the office into which an apostle was appointed. Each apostle is send with a word. This word gives him power in times of need, when he struggles. No man can appoint an apostle, though there are those foolish enough to claim to be it. If God appointed one to be an apostle, you would be that from birth, just like if God appointed you, or Samaul, Moses, Jeremiah as a Prophet you would be that from birth. Or more Biblical correct:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jer 1:5  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not something you choose, earn or achieve. It is within the very fabric of your soul. You cannot one day wake up and decide, I am going to be an apostle. You can however decide that you are going to be with Christ or not. Whether you are going to perform the duties of to which is expected of an apostle or not. Let me use a prophet as an example. The purpose and function of any prophet is to motivate, warn and edify. This they do with various methods, but ultimately listen to God. When the prophet see somebody is going to be in a car crash, he can warn that person, or he can not do his duty. What he has seen, he has seen. But he can decide not to fulfill his job. He can sense a spiritual attack on the body of Christ. He can do nothing, but he can also inform the specific target of the attack. Ultimately there are various different types of prophets. This is as clear as day when one perceive the various prophets in the Bible. Moses did not function even remotely the same as David, even though there was similarities which would identify both as being prophets and not something else. But they were both in the role of leading Isreal, yet they did it totally different based on the gift they received. The same it is was with the apostles. Now let's look at the scripture:&#xA;Act 1:22  Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. &#xA;Act 1:23  And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. &#xA;Act 1:24  And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, &#xA;Act 1:25  That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. &#xA;Act 1:26  And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. &#xA;Two were appointed. These two had to meet two criteria... first they had to be an apostle and secondly they had to have been with them since the beginning of the Baptism of John until the end. The reason why there were only two out of two hundred, was because there was only two apostles that was with them from the beginning. For there were many others but they were not apostles and couldn't fulfill the function of the office of Judas. However only one of them were the same type as Judas were. Again born, not chosen by man, but chosen by God. &#xA;And God pointed out that Matthias had the same gift and placing and therefore he joined the twelve. And only once the twelve was completed and in union again could the next step take place. The Holy Spirit filled them and they could minister as their office held.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul was not the only other apostle, but he was well known for the reason that he was literate and wrote to the churches. He was however of the same type as Peter and understood this. He never considered himself as of high rank or value, but emphasised that he must be seen as the least of the apostles because of the persecution that he have done against the Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can think of a couple of the other apostles of the twelve that was also never mentioned or wrote anything. The reason is simple. It was not their purpose. It could even be that they were illiterate and couldn't write. The reason for them not being more evident is not for us to know. But understanding the gospel, these people would have tried to fulfill their obligation without trying to make a name for themselves to earn more in the Kingdom of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3395" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T07:16:53.830" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7507" CreationDate="2012-11-02T12:06:19.187" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acts 1 21-26 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been&#xA;  with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22&#xA;  beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from&#xA;  us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his&#xA;  resurrection.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as&#xA;  Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s&#xA;  heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this&#xA;  apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then&#xA;  they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the&#xA;  eleven apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, scripture tells us clearly that Matthias was &quot;chosen to take over this apostolic ministry.&quot;  I think it is clear here that he became one of the twelve original Apostles.  Second guessing scripture that directly states fact based on reasonable supposition, however compelling, is not in my mind a very good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, consider the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 5:12-16 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And&#xA;  all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. 13 No&#xA;  one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the&#xA;  people. 14 Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the&#xA;  Lord and were added to their number. 15 As a result, people brought&#xA;  the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at&#xA;  least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. 16&#xA;  Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their&#xA;  sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were&#xA;  healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, this statement (when taken in the context of the broader text leading up to it) encompasses all the apostles the way it is stated here - that would include, though not called out by name, all 12 - including Matthias.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, though not one of the original twelve, Paul is clearly an Apostle.  Just because he writes it so himself does not mean it lacks credibility - it is, after all, scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are to withhold belief that Paul was speaking truth in that he is an Apostle, you call into question all his writings that are in the Bible, leading yourself onto that slippery slope of using your own discernment to attempt to codify what you actually believe is truth and what is not in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture, reason, tradition and the Holy Spirit are all needed for us understand the truth.  However, when we start picking apart the Bible piecemeal, that may be a warning sign we are not on the right track.  Are we to disbelieve that Paul's writings were a result of direct teaching of Christ who spoke to him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galations 1:11-12 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I&#xA;  preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man,&#xA;  nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus&#xA;  Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are we to disbelieve this foundational statement also, just because Paul spoke it himself?  Where does our disbelief in Paul begin and end if we start down that path?  I know I see truth in Paul's writings, some of the most important truths in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3393" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T12:06:19.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11448" CreationDate="2012-11-02T13:38:02.513" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not sure about the &quot;Evangelical take&quot;, but as a disciple of Christ who studies and lives and speaks in communion with other Christians, I have come to certain conclusions about truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of &quot;Natural Moral Law&quot;, if you are referring to the idea that one can discern moral truths from pure philosophical pursuits is something I would argue is untenable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture (the most extensive revelation from God) is the foundation of any attempt to find truth.  Reason is a way of interacting in our limited and flawed capacities with ourselves and others to test and affirm the validity of our understanding of Scripture and explore it and comprehend it, though ultimately imperfectly.  Tradition passed down orally and perhaps even by texts and creeds, etc. in an unbroken line from the original eyewitnesses to the history of God's interaction and revelations with people is also paramount.  Finally, the indwelling within our earthly vessels of the Holy Spirit provides direct guidance from God for each of us in our search for the truth, in concert with all these others things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spiritual truth ultimately can only come from God, including moral truth.  Philosophy when reduced to pure mental exercise is fundamentally arbitrary mind play, and can never lead to truth if used alone.  No moral stance can be extracted that can be considered truth from it without proper spiritual guidance.  One only need look at Nazi Germany to realize that they had a very elaborate moral philosophy that, though thoroughly reasoned through and applied by some with real belief that their way was the best way for all on earth (though of course especially for Germans) to understand the horrible outcomes of reasoned morality through philosophical endeavors not predicated on revelation from the one true loving God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One also can cite the proliferation of endlessly competing and disparate though thoroughly well reasoned world views espoused throughout the ages to realize that without guidance from God's authoritative truth we are as a race helpless to define meaningful moral or spiritual truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When tempered by the four pillars used to explore God's truth mentioned above, however, and guided by the Holy Spirit, reason and philosophy that comes from it can be very valuable means of broadening and deepening ones understanding of the one true truth as revealed by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By sharpening the mind and exposing those who spend their time in theological pursuits to alternative though possibly flawed points of view, it can be valuable as an exploratory mechanism to give counterpoint to the truth that might lead to insights for an individual or in corporate study of elements of the truth not realized without some critical thinking.  It can also become just a waste of time, though, if done too much without a good dollop of Scripture, tradition and the Holy Spirit!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3393" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T13:38:02.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11478" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-02T13:50:04.433" Score="8" ViewCount="2105" Body="&lt;p&gt;What did God make the universe from? It seems Himself, since before Creation, only God is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to me to be the most important question for Christianity. NOT why, how, where or who, but what. From what outside or within Himself, could God have made the universe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3396" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-04-25T02:22:56.147" LastActivityDate="2015-05-30T11:22:41.873" Title="What did God make the universe from?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:41:43.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11478" CreationDate="2012-11-02T14:00:54.070" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;As science suggests, the physical universe of time, space, and matter is not eternal.  It had a beginning.  Thus it was created.  It was not arranged or mixed or reassembled, but created out of nothing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1 repeatedly uses the phrase, &quot;God said, 'Let there be...', and there was...&quot;.  God spoke, and what previously did not exist began to exist.  So, specifically, &lt;strong&gt;God did not make the universe from anything at all.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, God did not make the physical universe from Himself, because He Himself is &lt;em&gt;outside&lt;/em&gt; the physical universe.  In fact, God is &lt;em&gt;spirit.&lt;/em&gt;  This is in contrast to the idea of pantheism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 11th chapter of Hebrews, we read this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command,&#xA;  so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo&quot;&gt;ex nihilo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; power is reserved to God alone.  All other creations that mankind does is simply to take what is already made and rearrange it into another form.  We never really &quot;make a cake&quot;--we merely assemble ingredients into a different form.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-02T14:12:30.407" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T14:12:30.407" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11478" CreationDate="2012-11-02T15:46:39.483" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:1-2 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the&#xA;  earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the&#xA;  deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems from this first creation story pretty clear that God created the universe - there really is nothing more to this universe physically than the heavens (space) and the earth (terra).  It also seems apparent that God's spirit was there, &quot;hovering over the waters.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the word &quot;create&quot; here mean?  Does it mean form from something that was already in existence or create from nothing?  It does not spell it out clearly here.  However, in John, we have another creation story:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:1-5 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the&#xA;  Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all&#xA;  things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4&#xA;  In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The&#xA;  light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Word&quot; here means Jesus Christ.  God and Christ and the Holy Spirit were clearly in existence before the creation of the universe from what this says along with the Genesis passage above, it appears to me. Here he uses the word &quot;made&quot; and indicates all things were made through Christ.  It appears to me from this passage that taken with the Genesis passage that only God, the Father and the Son were in existence, though other parts of the Bible seem to lend creedence to a Heavenly Host as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to Genesis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:4-7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were&#xA;  created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet&#xA;  sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there&#xA;  was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth&#xA;  and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God&#xA;  formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his&#xA;  nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, God tells us about the fact that &quot;the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking this simple statement with all those previous, I just get the strong feeling that indeed &quot;created&quot; and &quot;made&quot; mean from nothing - not like clay being formed into a pot, but through the Word - most literally through speaking things into being through Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to Genesis 1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:3 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:6-7 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate&#xA;  water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water&#xA;  under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:9 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,&#xA;  and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so on and so forth.  God is literally speaking through the Word (Christ) the universe into creation.  There seems to me to be no indication of forming from something, other than &quot;through&quot; the Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I would add that the single most important question in Christianity is whether you believe Christ died on the Cross for your sins and do you take him as your Lord and Savior.  After all, there are only two places that choice can lead you to - eternal paradise, or eternal damnation.  That has the biggest ramifications long term for any soul ever in existence, and we seem to forget the fear that we should all have for the unutterable suffering one might face if the choices you make take you to the place no one should want to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3393" LastEditorUserId="3393" LastEditDate="2012-11-02T15:55:17.373" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T15:55:17.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11374" CreationDate="2012-11-02T16:32:31.643" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are all equal before the eyes of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seemingly, the only premise needed to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven is to take Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior - to believe he existed, died for our sins as living sacrifice then was resurrected on the third day to ascend to the right hand of God and realizing that only through taking him as the sole means of salvation from sin can we receive atonement and go to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not clear on the need for baptism by water to enter the kingdom of Heaven, unfortunately.  If anyone can help me on that, please do.  My current thoughts lead to the idea that if one is not baptized by water, you may still go to Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In tension with salvation by grace through faith is doing good works after you have been justified.  Our fleshly vessel, which contains our soul, receives into it fully through the rebirth of ourselves into a new life walking with Christ the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not freed from the commandments and the law, but guided by the Holy Spirit and reborn via our faith, we are expected and do naturally walk ever more toward sanctity through our relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we backslide and disbelieve after the above events have happened, some argue that the spirit will never let you fall back to your old self before the rebirth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My current thoughts are that if that were the case, you are pushing the point of judgement to the time of salvation, not after death.  In so doing, you are losing free will in the process by becoming a puppet of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think if we backslide and disbelieve and do not walk in the paths of righteousness, we can lose our ticket to Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, unlike much of what you write in the above, I do not think there are degrees of expectation in ones salvation - you are either saved or not by grace through faith.  If you have not received the good news, that makes it pretty hard to be saved, so it is all of our duties to help those who have not been informed hear the good news and at least have that chance.  But I cannot see that knowing less or more makes it harder or easier for you to be saved by some kind of sliding scale standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the idea of teachers and leaders in faith being held to a stricter standard of word and deed is clearly spelled out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I would add about the need for studying and agreeing to or discussing a catechism or taking a class as a prerequisite to Baptism can be indicated by the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2:40-41 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them,&#xA;  “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted&#xA;  his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to&#xA;  their number that day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, 3000 people could not have heard the word, accepted God's message and been baptized all within one day if they had to do the catechism thing.  Would not the original Church on its birthday and its practices which were under the direct supervision of the original 12 apostles who were actual eyewitnesses and companions to Christ himself be more authoritative than any additions made later in a more modern Church that have been added on extra-Biblically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, though you are seeking an answer within Catholic doctrine, maybe your answer lies more with Scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this is just my current understanding born of reading Scripture, both individually and in community, tradition, reason and my own experiences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3393" LastEditorUserId="3393" LastEditDate="2012-11-02T17:06:04.160" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T17:06:04.160" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5042" CreationDate="2012-11-02T18:28:58.813" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Jehovah's Witness in doing research on these Holidays I found that they are celebrations founded  when Rome in the years 100-300ad  tried to unite all the different beliefs practiced at that time they took the names of the pagan holidays and gave them Christian names . They are still Pagan and created back in the days of Nimrod . He built the tower of Babel. The Extended Babel is found in Rev 17-18, called Babylon the Great. In Rev 18:4 God warns us to get free from her and her practices. We therefore have nothing to do with those  holidays which were and stil are founded by Satan through Nimrod. this is a condensed version but I hope it helps &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3398" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T18:28:58.813" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10221" CreationDate="2012-11-02T18:34:24.533" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;in Galation chapters 3 and 4 Paul explains the whole thing. He also identifies the &quot;women&quot; in Gen 3;15 as the Jeruselem above and he explains that she is thier mother and they are adopted as Christ's brothers to rule in her. The literal nation of Jews was disowned by Christ after his death and Given to a nation producing it's fruits&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3398" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T18:34:24.533" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11478" CreationDate="2012-11-02T19:39:07.413" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a certain paradox where the uncreated, eternal, infinite God makes a place for the created, finite universe:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In essence there's no real way to answer your question.  Science takes us back to an instant after the big bang.  From there you can either put your faith in some as-yet-undiscovered materialistic process, or the mystical idea that the uncreated, infinite, eternal God reasoned it into existence.  I agree that neither is initially satisfying to the intellectually curious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This dilemma leads us to the truly most important question about creation, which is &quot;why?&quot;  We're either here to share in the creative act with God, or we are just really really lucky artefacts of semi-random processes.  I spent many years in the latter camp for various reasons, but have since come around to the former because only there is true hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-11-02T19:39:07.413" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8958" CreationDate="2012-11-03T00:34:36.617" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The victors write the history, and the losers become labeled heretics. The &quot;Trinity&quot; was always a controversial subject and the idea that Jesus and God were one and the same was also always a controversial subject. The Trinity didn't become orthodoxy until the Pagan Emperor (NEVER a Christian) Constantine shoved it down Christianity's throat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Constantine worshiped Sol Invictus and at that time it was a tenant of that pagan religion that ALL GODS were an expression of Sol Invictus. Constantine basically surrendered to the fact the Christianity swept over the empire and was the dominant religion. He needed to make peace with the Christians and bring them into the fold if he was to preserve the Empire. There was a titanic problem, however; Christianity back then was almost as diverse as it is today (there being - no lie- about 43,500 different Christian denominations worldwide today). He needed Christianity united and so HE called the first council at Nicea in 325 AD and demanded that the Christian bishops get their act together and form a single dogma/statement of faith and get their religion under one umbrella.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, they couldn't. The entire block of Bishops from the east (Greece, Armenia, modern day Turkey, etc.) held to a tradition where God was God and Jesus was NOT God, but his son, separate and distinct from him. Noetus of Smyrna (circa 190 AD) got booted out of the church for declaring God and Jesus as one and the same. Noetus came and settled in Rome where he picked up followers to follow his philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Trinity also falls into this discussion where it was fiercely argued against. Prior to 325 AD it was one church arguing against another and then Constantine ended the argument at Nicea where he got tired of the arguing and stepped in to declare that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were all expressions of one god as he believed and learned from his religion of Sol Invictus. Arius, the famous church historian Eusebius and other bishops who did not believe in the Trinity or that God and Jesus were one and the same were kicked out of the Council for disagreeing with the Emperor and the Bishops who did believe in the Trinity. With these expelled bishops left the entire eastern contingent of bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Years later Eubebius was able to get Constantine to reverse his edict but the seeds were already set. By 390 AD the Roman Emperor Theodosius was thoroughly Christian (unlike Constantine) and his brand of Christianity embraced the Trinity &quot;denomination&quot;, and his radical belief in it caused him to declare all other brands of Christianity to be heresies punishable by death if anyone was caught practicing, promulgating any of these other denominations or caught using any other scriptures other than the canon (which was imposed on Christianity by Constantine and Theodosius).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It started another round of persecutions of Christians who didn't adhere to Theodosius' orthodoxy. This is why the Nag Hammadi scrolls were buried by those who regarded them as inspired because if caught with them they would have been put to death. The Trinitarian Orthodoxy has nothing to do with the truth, but more to do with the victor writing the history. Luckily enough fragments survive of the oppositions' views. In this scholar's opinion, the first Apostasy was the idea God and Jesus were one and the same and the Trinity falls right in there too with God now being three expressions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3399" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-11-03T03:23:18.443" LastActivityDate="2012-11-03T03:23:18.443" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11471" CreationDate="2012-11-03T06:11:30.393" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The authorship of Hebrews cannot be known for certain, but we can know several things about the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The early church counted Hebrews among the letters of Paul, even though it does not bear Paul's name. Clement of Alexandria and Origen noted that the writing style did not match Paul's, but did not consider it a forgery. This indicates that they believed Hebrews contained teaching from Paul and likely was written by someone who traveled with him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The author quotes extensively from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible) and has an extensive Greek vocabulary. This indicates a highly educated Jew who was also a Roman citizen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Acts provides us with several names that fit this profile:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/4-36.html&quot;&gt;Acts 4:36&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/18-24.html&quot;&gt;Acts 18:24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aquila, native of Pontus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/18-2.html&quot;&gt;Acts 18:2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Priscilla&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke, the author of Acts&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original intended audience of Hebrews also may provide clues as to its authorship. Harnack (among others) suggested the original recipients were in Rome, for the following reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of all Paul's letters, Romans is the most similar to Hebrews in terms of its treatment of Jewish law and customs.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second century Roman Christians quoted Hebrews much earlier than Christians in other locations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The mention of the recipients' previous suffering, persecution, imprisonment, and confiscation of property (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/hebrews/passage.aspx?q=hebrews+10:32-34&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:32-34&lt;/a&gt;) appears to be a reference to Nero's persecution of Christians after the fire in Rome.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The reference to &quot;those from Italy send their greetings&quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/hebrews/13-24.html&quot;&gt;Hebrews 13:24&lt;/a&gt; Harnack took to refer to Christians who had been exiled from Rome by Claudius (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/18-2.html&quot;&gt;Acts 18:2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the letter was addressed to Roman Christians, Priscilla and Aquila are the most natural candidates for authorship. They had hosted a house church in Rome (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/romans/passage.aspx?q=romans+16:3-5&quot;&gt;Romans 16:3-5&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were also known to have &quot;explained the way of God more fully&quot; to Apollos (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+18:24-26&quot;&gt;Acts 18:24-26&lt;/a&gt;). Furthermore, the author of Hebrews sometimes uses the pronoun &quot;I&quot; and sometimes &quot;we&quot;, which would make sense if Priscilla and Aquila both had a hand in organizing the material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Harnack argued that because of the lower status given to most women in ancient times, Priscilla would have had a greater incentive to have written anonymously than any of the other possible authors. (Or alternatively, that the original recipients would have had a greater incentive to delete her name from the beginning of the letter before distributing it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-11-04T07:01:40.963" LastActivityDate="2012-11-04T07:01:40.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4763" CreationDate="2012-11-03T07:26:49.493" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have yet to find a difference in events that take place in 1 Thess. 4:17 and events that other scripture speaks of when referring to Christ's 2nd coming (as in Matt. 24) (if anyone can point any differences out, please do), so I'm not certain about that verse.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I think that this verse might:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 But take heed to yourselves and be on your guard, lest your hearts be overburdened and depressed (weighed down) with the giddiness and headache and nausea of self-indulgence, drunkenness, and worldly worries and cares pertaining to [the business of] this life, and [lest] that day come upon you suddenly like a trap or a noose;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  35 For it will come upon all who live upon the face of the entire earth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  36 Keep awake then and watch at all times [be discreet, attentive, and ready], praying that you may have the full strength and ability and be accounted worthy to escape all these things [taken together] that will take place, and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2021:34-36&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 21:34-36&lt;/a&gt; (Amp)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus tells us this after telling us about end-times 7 year tribulation events. I would say He could've meant to have the strength to escape the desolation of Jerusalem, but what He says to escape from is coming upon on the entire earth. Perhaps by strength, He means the strength to endure our sinful carnal urges (as in Rev. 3:10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;[Be careful because that day will come upon you like a trap, for it will come upon the entire earth.]&quot; We will/would be trapped with nowhere to escape to..except into His presence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another verse that might speak of rapture:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%203:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 3:10&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-11-03T21:13:40.957" LastActivityDate="2012-11-03T21:13:40.957" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11488" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7239" CreationDate="2012-11-03T08:00:09.527" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Jesus does tell us about rapture in Luke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 Keep awake then and watch at all times [be discreet, attentive, and ready], praying that you may have the full strength and ability and be accounted worthy to &lt;strong&gt;escape&lt;/strong&gt; all these things [taken together] that will take place, and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2021:36&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 21:36&lt;/a&gt; (Amp)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say Jesus could've meant to have the strength to escape the desolation of Jerusalem, but what He says to escape from is coming upon on the entire earth. Perhaps by strength, He means the strength to endure our sinful carnal urges (as in Rev. 3:10).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;[Be careful because that day will come upon you like a &lt;em&gt;trap&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; it will come upon the entire earth.]&quot; We will/would be trapped with nowhere to escape to..except into His presence.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this isn't 100% proof there is pre-trib rapture. I think it could however support the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-11-03T21:06:24.627" LastActivityDate="2012-11-03T21:06:24.627" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11489" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11490" CreationDate="2012-11-03T17:50:29.660" Score="1" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 1:14 says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Throw in your lot with us, we shall all have one purse&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but John 13:29 says Judas had the common purse.  Surely Jesus would not have allowed a common purse among the disciples if Proverbs says not to!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3400" LastActivityDate="2012-11-03T18:25:41.893" Title="Proverbs 1:14 compared to John 13:29" Tags="&lt;proverbs&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11489" CreationDate="2012-11-03T18:18:02.443" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In context, Proverbs 1 here is talking about joining with sinful men, plundering and gambling. It is a completely unrelated passage of Scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here it is in-context with the surrounding passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Warning Against the Invitation of Sinful Men&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction&#xA;      and do not forsake your mother’s teaching. 9 They are a garland to grace your head&#xA;      and a chain to adorn your neck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 My son, if sinful men entice you,&#xA;      do not give in to them. 11 If they say, “Come along with us;&#xA;      let’s lie in wait for innocent blood,&#xA;      let’s ambush some harmless soul; 12 let’s swallow them alive, like the grave,&#xA;      and whole, like those who go down to the pit; 13 we will get all sorts of valuable things&#xA;      and fill our houses with plunder; 14 cast lots with us;&#xA;      we will all share the loot”— 15 my son, do not go along with them,&#xA;      do not set foot on their paths; 16 for their feet rush into evil,&#xA;      they are swift to shed blood. 17 How useless to spread a net&#xA;      where every bird can see it! 18 These men lie in wait for their own blood;&#xA;      they ambush only themselves! 19 Such are the paths of all who go after ill-gotten gain;&#xA;      it takes away the life of those who get it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, the condemnation is in pooling your resources with sinful people, not just pooling your resources altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To try to link the two is a logic flaw. It would be like claiming that 2 Corinthians 6:14 says not to be yoked to (joined to, in a partnership with) &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness&#xA;  and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with&#xA;  darkness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14 is speaking only of being yoked to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;unbelievers&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, just as the Proverb you cited is clearly about joining with evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9961/from-a-fundamentalist-viewpoint-what-does-it-mean-to-take-the-bible-literally/9962#9962&quot;&gt;basic, commonly accepted rules for reading, understanding, and applying Scripture&lt;/a&gt;. One of them is not taking a single verse out of context with the surrounding text, intended audience, and meanings of words/statements at the time it was written. In context, it's clear there is no conflict here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-11-03T18:25:41.893" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11491" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11493" CreationDate="2012-11-03T19:51:16.293" Score="2" ViewCount="879" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a passage in the New Testament that says, I paraphrase:  Every morning I wake up a new person. Or: Every morning I am born a new man. I think Apostle Peter or Apostle Paul is speaking it. Can someone help me track the exact quote with textual reference? Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3401" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-07T18:26:11.437" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T13:30:21.520" Title="Passage in Bible saying: Every morning I wake up a new person?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11473" CreationDate="2012-11-03T20:08:30.893" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I'm still no expert, but I've been able to determine the following through research and reading of the site's content as well as watching a few of the messages.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Crossing Church noted in the question seems to be a collection of Churches in the state of Minnesota, and don't appear to be directly related to other Churches with the same name elsewhere in the country, although the theology and style are similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Church falls squarely in the &quot;Purpose-Driven&quot; &quot;Emergent Church&quot; category.  As such, there is quite a bit of theology that falls in-line with &quot;mainstream&quot; Protestant Christianity, and also, quite a bit that could be considered controversial, and even heretical by many standards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church's Statement of Faith reads like almost any other Protestant denomination's Statement of Faith. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crossing-church.com/files/Crossing/PDF%20FIles/Statement%20Of%20Faith.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Link to their statement in PDF format, sorry, it's all they offer.&lt;/a&gt;)  The statement covers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Biblical inerrancy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Trinity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Virgin birth and identity of Jesus as fully God, and fully Man&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Man created in God's image, separated by sin, original sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus' death as a substitutionary payment for our sins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The coming personal, visible return of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;bodily resurrection of the just and unjust, eternal joy of the saved, enternal, conscious punishment of the unsaved&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Indwelling of the Holy Spirit for the saved&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism by immersion for believers as a sign of obedience (not as necessary for salvation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Participants in the Lord's Supper should be believers, in good fellowship with Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Universal Church - all believers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also list &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crossing-church.com/files/Crossing/PDF%20FIles/08_2012-TheCode.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Code&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (also a PDF link), which makes it very clear that they are intensely focused on evangelism, using any means possible to reach the lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than listing all the bullet points, here are a few that stand out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We are united under the visionary.&lt;/strong&gt;  The Crossing is built on the vision God gave Pastor Eric.  We aggressively defend our unity and his&#xA;  vision.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We are an invasion force, not a fortress.&lt;/strong&gt;  We invade our city with Christ; we don't hide from the city and condemn people.  We are&#xA;  always missional.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We are all about the numbers.&lt;/strong&gt;  Every number is a life influenced.  We unapologetically set goals and measure progress so God&#xA;  can influence more lives or His kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:  This next section could clearly be simply the opinions of disgruntled ex-members.  It's included to answer the &quot;Are their beliefs in-line with mainstream Protestant Christianity.  I've cited sources, but cannot vouch for their reliability, having no first-hand experience myself.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going beyond their own website, we start to see some statements by ex-Church members that would because for concern in more conservative mainstream Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://apprising.org/2011/07/29/eric-dykstra-and-the-crossing-church/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://apprising.org/2011/07/29/eric-dykstra-and-the-crossing-church/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Putting untrained, struggling people in a leadership position.  Most Churches consider Godly living, and strong personal testimony to be a requirement for eligibility in a leadership position.  This Church appears to take a different approach, encouraging people that are &quot;not qualified&quot; to become leaders in the hopes that this will strengthen their walk with the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In July 2009, my wife and I were in counsel with “Pastor” Bruce Rauma.&#xA;  We were going through a lot of stressful personal things, and I was&#xA;  still grieving my Mother’s death that had happened in May of 2009. &#xA;  Bruce called a meeting with us to meet him at the Church and told us&#xA;  that he thought we should become Small Group leaders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I explained to Bruce that we were not ready to shepherd people, as we&#xA;  were broken ourselves.  He said “no” that we were ready, and that&#xA;  running a group would help us with our own problems.  So we became&#xA;  Small Group leaders.  There was no training, no interview of our&#xA;  backgrounds, nothing.  Then we were recruited to by “Pastor” Chris to&#xA;  leave the Elk River Campus and plant the Zimmerman Campus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allowing non-believers to be Pastors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There was a young man named Jeremy who was on our FIT team.  He was a&#xA;  seeker who started going to The Crossing.  One week he took me aside&#xA;  and told me that he was planning on moving to Florida and did not&#xA;  think that he “buys” into this Jesus thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The following week, he was running around telling everyone that he was&#xA;  now going to become the next “campus pastor”.  I asked my leader what&#xA;  was going on, and how that it Biblical, he said that Eric thinks that&#xA;  Jeremy H. needs to be challenged to push him along in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above practice seems to be in line with the philosophy of  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Hirsch&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alan Hirsch&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;we need to reframe evangelism within the context of discipleship…even&#xA;  “the Twelve” (and “the Seventy”) were all what we would call&#xA;  “pre-conversion disciples.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0801013437&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church is also, apparently, very harsh to those who choose to leave the fold.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://randalljquick.blogspot.com/2011/10/open-letter-to-eric-dykstra.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the history, it appears that the main Pastor, Eric Dykstra, was &quot;given a vision by God&quot; to start the Church.  (See point 1 in &quot;The Code&quot; above.)  This is a theme that seems to be quite common in the Emergent Church as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently, the Church operates in four different campuses, all near Minneapolis Minnesota.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other, completely unrelated Churches go by the name &quot;The Crossing&quot; and seem to be similar in many respects - boilerplate statement of faith, but with strong indication that they fall squarely into the definition of &quot;The Emergent Church&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-04T13:52:43.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-04T13:52:43.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11491" CreationDate="2012-11-03T20:15:15.680" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you're thinking of &lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things&#xA;  are passed away; behold, all things are become new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not &quot;every morning&quot; but it is the passage that comes to mind with the teaching that we are made new.  It deals with out new relationship in Christ after salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, there is &lt;strong&gt;Lamentations 3:22-23 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his&#xA;  compassions fail not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If neither of these are what you're thinking of, you can search many versions of the Bible at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+3%3A22-23&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+3%3A22-23&amp;amp;version=KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-11-03T20:15:15.680" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11496" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11498" CreationDate="2012-11-05T04:19:53.010" Score="6" ViewCount="817" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the LDS practice of &lt;em&gt;home/visiting teaching&lt;/em&gt;? Are they the same thing? Where did this originate, as I don't know of other sects which have the same practice... at least with those terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2017-01-10T17:49:53.240" Title="What is home and visiting teaching in LDS tradition?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10237" CreationDate="2012-11-05T05:26:51.247" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard to follow after &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/10242/1003&quot;&gt;David's very good, exhaustive answer&lt;/a&gt;, but here is a different approach, which emphasizes more the procedural flow of it as a literal &quot;plan&quot; (David's first few bullet points).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer is a summary, or in some cases, a re-statement, of what is found in the LDS missionary manual, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___00_00_Complete__36617_eng_.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Preach My Gospel&lt;/a&gt; (Chapter 3, Lesson 2). All references  and/or quotes would point there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Plan of Salvation is God's plan for the salvation of His children (us). The Plan of Salvation has been on the earth whenever the Gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed in its fulness. It answers three main questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where did I come from?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why am I here?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where am I going after I die?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS theology teaches that the fulness of the Plan of Salvation is in the Bible and Book of Mormon together: that one without the other is, in a sense, incomplete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Premortal life&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are God's children. We lived with God as spirits before we came to earth. We weren't like God, because we didn't have the glory, experience, and power that He has. Since God loves all His children, and is in fact our heavenly &lt;em&gt;parent&lt;/em&gt;, He wants us to &quot;grow&quot; and become like Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the center of God's plan is Jesus Christ, who would suffer the Atonement to redeem each of us so that we may return to live with God, and be like Him, to have immortality and eternal life. We chose to accept this plan before we came to Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, Satan (the devil) is an enemy to God's plan. He rebelled and was cast out. We were given &lt;em&gt;agency&lt;/em&gt; in our pre-mortal dwelling, which is the free will, or &lt;em&gt;power&lt;/em&gt;, to choose. We must choose to follow Christ or follow Satan. Since we chose to come to earth and accept God's plan, we would be separated from His presence for a very important purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Creation&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To carry out the plan, Jesus Christ created heaven and earth, as a place for us to come and be separated from God's physical presence, where we would forget our pre-earth life, gain experience and learn to walk by faith and not by sight. The creation was for us (and God's joy), and it is one of the most glorious events of eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Adam and Eve&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God placed Adam and Eve on the earth, in the Garden of Eden, as the first two of His children to obtain physical bodies. They had agency, and lived in God's presence, but were innocent while in the garden. They did not know good from evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. God also commanded Adam and Eve to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. While they obeyed this commandment, they could live in God's presence, but they could not progress by experiencing opposition. They couldn't be happy because they couldn't be sad in contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, we all know what comes next. Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan to eat the forbidden fruit, and they did so. They were cast out of God's presence, and became subject to death: physical death, which means that their bodies would eventually die, and spiritual death, or separation from God. This is called the Fall, and it is vital to God's plan, and was no surprise to God. (The Atonement was prepared to redeem men from it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve could now choose between good and evil (they now had &lt;em&gt;moral agency&lt;/em&gt;), which means they could learn and progress spiritually, and continue to carry out the plan. They could also have children, so the rest of God's spirit children could obtain bodies and come to earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were taught the gospel, so they could know of Jesus Christ and the Atonement which would be to come. Thus, they were able to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Earth life&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here in mortality, we have great opportunities and blessings to learn, gain valuable experience which we could have no other way, and eventually become like our Heavenly Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our experiences here should teach us and our righteous choices will bring us joy. Following God's path and commandments will bring us happiness, whereas following Satan's temptations will draw us away from God and bring us sorrow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have two major obstacles to overcome while here. One is physical death: God has a perfect, glorified physical body, and we must have one to be like He is, and it must never die. The other is spiritual death (sin): we make mistakes here on earth because we are tempted by Satan, and because we are out of God's presence, the flesh is subject to carnal nature. We cannot overcome either by ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must follow and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness, by having faith, repenting, being baptized, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. But even that would not be enough without Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Atonement&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ came in the meridian of time to accomplish what is the most significant, important, earth-shattering (literally) event in all of history: the Atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since we cannot become like God on our own from our fallen state (with sin and death), we need not only a perfect example to follow, but we also need a Redeemer who can save us from both sin and death. Jesus Christ was chosen in the pre-mortal life to perform the Atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To save us from death, Christ laid down His life on the cross and suffered (a vile form of) death. He was then resurrected, which loosed the bands of death and opened the gate for all others to be resurrected. All who have lived on Earth -- past, present or future, good or evil -- will eventually be resurrected and receive a perfect, glorified, immortal body of flesh and bone, thanks to the Savior's resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also need to be saved from sin. The Atonement covers this as well. Christ paid the penalty of sin for all of us so that we can accept His terms and be forgiven, and made as new. Of course, it doesn't mean we don't have responsibility: we must follow His gospel, and then through the Atonement we can return to live with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Spirit World&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we die, our bodies and spirits separate. Our spirits go to a place known as the Spirit World. This is a necessary part of God's plan, since we must be transformed from mortality to immortality. It doesn't change who we are, our desires for good or evil, or our personalities, it is simple a change of state from physical to spiritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who lived good, respectable lives, it is a sweet experience, and they will live in joy and happiness, and have rest from their troubles and sorrows. Those who chose not to obey the gospel or lived lives contrary to it (and did not repent) will be consigned to a state of misery and pay for their sins. The gospel is preached to all who did not receive it on Earth. (This is the purpose for LDS temple and family history work.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Resurrection and Judgment&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually, all will be resurrected: their physical bodies will re-unite with their spirits never again to be separated. This is a mercy of the Atonement, and will be given first to the righteous, then later to the wicked. Through this, we overcome physical death. This is &lt;em&gt;immortality&lt;/em&gt;, but not necessarily &lt;em&gt;eternal life&lt;/em&gt;, which is living immortally in the presence of God. (This is not re-incarnation.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We will be judged and rewarded &quot;according to our works and our desires.&quot; (to quote PMG). Eternal life is granted to those who do all that is required of them and live their lives such that they earn exaltation, which is living with God in eternal families. This is knowing God and Jesus Christ, and being like them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Kingdoms of Glory&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on how we lived our lives, we will be given an eternal abode in one of the three kingdoms of glory. Essentially, our bodies will resurrect and inherit a glory compatible to how we lived and who we have become, thanks to Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's good to note that each individual will be comfortable with the kingdom which they obtain, since that is the quality of life they chose to live. (For instance, a beggar would not be comfortable in a mansion! -- that's not an LDS analogy, that's my own comment.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lowest level of glory is called the Telestial Kingdom. It is compared to the glory of the stars (which are nice to look at, but don't emit much light; they don't illuminate). People who &quot;continued in their sins and did not repent in this life&quot; will be rewarded here (which, it's said, is still more glorious than this earth is currently).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who lived good lives but did not accept the fulness of the gospel will inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom, compared to the glory of the moon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But those who lived good lives, and &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; accept the fulness of the gospel, who were washed of all their sins, will live with God and Jesus Christ in the Celestial Kingdom. Those who qualify for exaltation through the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (eternal marriage in a temple) will receive the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom, and literally become like God, and have all that He has. This reward is achieved by making and keeping sacred covenants. These will receive a fulness of joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-11-05T05:26:51.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11496" CreationDate="2012-11-05T14:43:11.977" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Home and visiting teaching are assignments given to church members to visit with one another, in order to uplift and strengthen each other, and to identify needs which each members may have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basis for this can be found in LDS scripture, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.46-47?lang=eng#45&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine &amp;amp; Covenants 20:46-47&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament, and &lt;strong&gt;visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret&lt;/strong&gt; and attend to all family duties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, during a home teaching visit, the home teacher will talk with the family, find out what's going in their lives, and usually share some spiritual message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most men in the church are given this responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between home and visiting teaching is that home teaching is done by the men, and they visit with the whole family, while visiting teaching is done by the women, and they only visit with other women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3408" LastEditorUserId="3408" LastEditDate="2017-01-10T17:49:53.240" LastActivityDate="2017-01-10T17:49:53.240" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5122" CreationDate="2012-11-05T15:57:25.527" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mark 3:28 Jesus stated that those who lie to the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven and their punishment will be eternal condemnation. It states in Acts that both Ananias and Sapphira both lied to the Holy Spirit. If scripture is our guide, then they are both condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3409" LastActivityDate="2012-11-05T15:57:25.527" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11374" CreationDate="2012-11-05T17:07:41.410" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe this concern is explicitly addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lumen Gentium&lt;/em&gt; - Chapter 2, paragraph 16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the  Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, &quot;Preach the Gospel to every creature&quot;, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we'd only consider an explicit choice to deny God, properly understood (though never fully understood), as a truly damning sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, we couldn't claim that every atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or &lt;em&gt;whatever&lt;/em&gt; is engaged in a sincere quest for truth. But, those that are engaged in &lt;strong&gt;sincere&lt;/strong&gt; truth-seeking (and conformance) are headed in the right direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, this does not relieve our obligation, nor should it relieve our desire, to deliver the truth as we know it, with all due respect -- and &lt;strong&gt;tact&lt;/strong&gt;! It is much easier to lose interest in the quest for truth, or become perverse in that quest, if one is not actually &lt;strong&gt;presented&lt;/strong&gt; with the truth! (in charity)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2012-11-05T18:55:04.843" LastActivityDate="2012-11-05T18:55:04.843" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11505" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11507" CreationDate="2012-11-06T01:25:32.483" Score="-1" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Christianity explain the differences between pleasure and joy like in some far east religions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I found this description:&lt;br&gt;&#xA; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.innerfrontier.org/InnerWork/Archive/2003/20030623Joy&amp;amp;Pleasure.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.innerfrontier.org/InnerWork/Archive/2003/20030623Joy&amp;amp;Pleasure.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does Christianity address the difference between joy and pleasure and how to manage them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-06T15:31:49.263" LastActivityDate="2012-11-06T15:31:49.263" Title="Does Christianity address the difference between joy and pleasure and how to manage them?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-11-06T20:25:13.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11505" CreationDate="2012-11-06T03:16:36.200" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the big branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; Protestants) definitely draw a distinction between pleasure and joy. This can be seen in Christ Himself, who says in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/15/#51015011&quot;&gt;John 15:11&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;“I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete,&quot; and then goes to die on a cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;basic&lt;/em&gt; formula for acquiring the joy (and freedom) necessary to joyfully set aside physical pleasure, even willfully handing oneself over to a torturous death, is seen immediately prior to Jesus' ministry: &lt;strong&gt;Prayer and Fasting&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In prayer&lt;/strong&gt;, you surrender your mind to God (I AM WHO AM) for training. And &lt;strong&gt;in fasting&lt;/strong&gt;, you offer your body for training against your impulses, more or less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Out of this process, you gain freedom and receptiveness to Truth Itself, you start to find joy everywhere. Your train-wreck of a morning is somehow delightful, a spectacle to be enjoyed, even if suffered, rather than an simply offense to suffer -- and nothing else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the vast majority of Christians have this basic strategy underpinning their doctrine (or lack thereof). When you get into particular sects (namely the big, old ones), I think you'll find more detailed and well-established spiritual direction offerings, some of which include a host of helpful insights and strategies for opening oneself up to the eternal joy we're been promised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as David Stratton said, &quot;Christianity&quot; does cover a broad range of beliefs. I'm speaking in regard only to those with whch I've had personal contact and about which I know the most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2012-11-06T04:36:33.337" LastActivityDate="2012-11-06T04:36:33.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8958" CreationDate="2012-11-06T05:00:47.367" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can find evidence of trinitarian beliefs scattered throughout the Church father's writings and prescriptions, particularly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/trinitarian-baptism&quot;&gt;those regarding baptism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I'd posit you need to look no further than the gospels to show a belief in the Trinity. Specifically and most notably, refer to Matthew 28:19.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the&#xA;  Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have Christ being quoted, not as using a term like &quot;trinity&quot;, but speaking effectively of &lt;strong&gt;a trinity&lt;/strong&gt; in a manner &lt;strong&gt;equating&lt;/strong&gt; its members, at least one of which is commonly understood to be God by the readers. And while this is given as a quote from Christ, we must recognize that the gospels were not written by Christ; they were compiled by the first believers, the Church Fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A thorough review of the gospels would reveal there are no vain details included. And, they're written by the early believers (Church Fathers). Hence, we can reasonably assume that distinct trinitarian language in the gospels is a clear indication of trinitarian beliefs in the early Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-11-06T05:00:47.367" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2012-11-07T01:11:36.933" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question can only be answered by stating which biblical laws.  The dietary laws of the old testament?  The stoning disobedient children law?  Should non-christains be forced to attend schurch services?  No one in his right mind, even the most ardent athiest, and I am one, could disagree with basic morality, ie don't kill, don't steal, don't lie because those laws help to protect us and others.  So which specific &quot;biblical laws&quot; are youtalking about?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3421" LastActivityDate="2012-11-07T01:11:36.933" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10178" CreationDate="2012-11-07T05:07:10.163" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll attempt to shed a little light on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While some refer to spirit prison as 'hell' it is not actually referred to as that in any official church teaching. It is as @David said a temporary place where people have a chance to accept the gospel of Christ. See:  &lt;code&gt;1 Peter 3: 18-20&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all actuality no place in LDS teachings is actually called hell. The 'Sons of Perdition' are relegated to outer darkness, after the final judgment (as opposed to right when you die) So after the second coming of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of a Son of Perdition would be Cain. He walked and talked with God then rejected Him to serve the devil by killing his brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-11-07T05:07:10.163" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11518" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11521" CreationDate="2012-11-07T08:21:00.473" Score="4" ViewCount="12704" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that murder is a sin because I don't have rights on another person's life in the same way that another person doesn't  have rights over my life. Likewise stealing would be a sin because I don't have rights over another person's property nor would I like anybody else to take what is mine. On the other hand smiling would not be a sin because I don't encroach on another person's right when smiling and they may actually like being smiled upon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament David (considered a prophet) did not sin when he engaged with concubines and slave girls who were not legally wives. If adultery is defined as having sex with another man's wife, David has not broken the law. Or did he? However today if two (unmarried) consenting adults have sex, that's adultery by Biblical standards. From my understanding its encroaching on another person's right that seems to define sin. Here I don't see an encroachment of the rights of any person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a married person is involved in extra marital sex he sins, because he has broken his marital vows. Why is the sexual act a sin when two people have fun by mutual consent and not encroaching on each others freedom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="635" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2014-02-03T19:06:51.667" LastActivityDate="2014-02-03T19:21:49.793" Title="Why is sex between two consenting adults sin?" Tags="&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;divine-law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-02-03T19:16:31.217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3732" CreationDate="2012-11-07T09:30:53.890" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on my personal experience as a lifelong Roman Catholic, I offer the following brief insight.  First, the sign of the cross is just the that: the sign of the CROSS, the cross upon which Christ's blood was spilled in atonement for our sins and to redeem us. That's powerful in and of itself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, in a Catholic mass, when the sign of the cross is made, accompanying it is usually the phrase, &quot;In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.&quot;  Obviously, that is an affirmation of the Trinity, a doctrine to which Christians of many traditions subscribe.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, when we make the sign of the cross, we often refer to it as &quot;blessing yourself.&quot; You are invoking God's blessing and protection.  There is also one place in the mass where we trace the sign of the cross on our foreheads, then on our lips and finally over our hearts.  This is connected to the Old Testament scripture (and practice of the Jews) praying, &quot;May the thoughts in my mind, the words on my lips and the meditations of my heart be acceptable to You, my God and my Redeemer.&quot;  As you can see, there is nothing whatsoever superstitious about it.  If you look at it not in a denominational context, it seems to have intrinsic worth for all Christians.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3423" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-11-07T18:46:09.600" LastActivityDate="2012-11-07T18:46:09.600" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11453" CreationDate="2012-11-07T10:41:37.020" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stephen was stoned by the Sanhedrin and Paul (then named Saul) was present. The full story is told from Acts 6:8 to 7:60 but the relevant verses are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%206:12&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Acts 6:12b&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They seized Stephen and brought him before the &lt;strong&gt;Sanhedrin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%206:15&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;6:15&lt;/a&gt; also shows they were in the Sanhedrin.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Paul's presence is shown in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207:58&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;7:58b&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named &lt;strong&gt;Saul&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Final note: in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+23:6&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Acts 23:6&lt;/a&gt; Paul himself appears before the Sanhderin and calls himself a &lt;em&gt;&quot;Pharisee&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2012-11-07T10:41:37.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11518" CreationDate="2012-11-07T13:28:24.740" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin is not merely defined by one person encroaching on another person's rights.  Pride, greed, envy, bitterness, and many other such things are sins, but they do not encroach on anyone else's rights.  So, then, why are these considered sins by God?  It seems the key point is that each of them is a departure from the righteousness of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of two consenting adults, you assume that each of these people have title to their own lives.  According to the Bible, &quot;a man's life is not his own&quot; (Jeremiah 10:23), but belongs to God Himself.  So, we should certainly consider the consent of the other person, but we cannot forego the consent of God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When David prays his prayer of repentance over his sin with Bathsheba in Psalm 51, he says, &quot;Against you, you only have I sinned...&quot;  (Psalm 51:4)  David understood that the primary infraction was not again Bathsheba or even Uriah, but against God.  It is His standard and His holiness that matters--not the consent of any mere mortal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another note is that the eating of the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden did not infringe on any other person's rights--but it still went against the command of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not&#xA;  in man who walks to direct his steps.  Jeremiah 10:23 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your&#xA;  sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in&#xA;  your judgment.&quot;  Psalm 51:4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,&#xA;  for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.”  Genesis&#xA;  2:17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-11-07T13:28:24.740" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11522" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11526" CreationDate="2012-11-07T14:57:37.293" Score="17" ViewCount="41825" Body="&lt;p&gt;I met a man in Philadelphia who was keen to tell me about his group, the &quot;Church of God&quot;. They seem to have some unusual beliefs. From our brief conversation, these included:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In addition to God the Father, there is God the Mother. He identified her with the Bride and the heavenly Jerusalem from Revelation, and also cited Galatians 4:26. She apparently is responsible for birthing all life. It was not clear to me whether she was envisaged as a separate god, or as another aspect or person of a single God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The church has been in apostasy for most of its existence, certainly since Constantine. This explicitly includes the Reformation, wherein various non-Biblical doctrines were invented. He mentioned Martin Luther specifically as being wrong.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The marks of this apostasy include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Use of the cross symbol.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Keeping the Sabbath on the wrong day (should be Saturday).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Communion - which he regarded as a pagan-inspired ceremony, not a sacrament or even a memorial, saying that the Last Supper was a one-off event. &quot;Do this in remembrance of me,&quot; in his view, was a command to continue celebrating Passover.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not recognizing God the Mother.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible should be interpreted literally, and studied at all times. He showed me his Bible, which had the name of his church printed in the front. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Not sure if I understood this one properly.) The second coming of Jesus has already occurred, without most people noticing, but we are still waiting for his final appearance, per Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought he might be a Seventh-day Adventist, but points 5 and especially 1 don't seem to fit what I know about them. Of course, there are enormously many churches called &quot;Church of God&quot;, but I'm curious about who these particular people are, where they come from denominationally, and what led them to have these (in my opinion, very peculiar) beliefs. If it helps, the man was Korean. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that this question is not &quot;too localized&quot;; I certainly got the impression that there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a group involved, and not just this one man. Also, it seemed that the Mother thing was a central and important belief, as he kept coming back to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2014-11-01T10:57:56.487" Title="Which &quot;Church of God&quot; believes in &quot;God the Mother&quot;?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11491" CreationDate="2012-11-07T19:12:07.623" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is where Paul says, &quot;I die every day.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus&#xA;  our Lord, &lt;strong&gt;I die every day&lt;/strong&gt;! 1 Corinthians 15:31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-11-07T19:12:07.623" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3732" CreationDate="2012-11-07T20:53:31.283" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no prohibition against using the sign of the cross as a Protestant.  Yet, there is no Biblical command to use it either.  The same is true of closing your eyes when you pray, and even praying before meals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, the sign of the Cross, as I understand it, is used at the close of prayers.  We are commanded to &lt;em&gt;pray&lt;/em&gt; in the Name of Jesus, but not that of the Father and the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will&#xA;  receive, that your joy may be full.&quot;  John 16:24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we are commanded to &lt;em&gt;baptize&lt;/em&gt; in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a]&#xA;  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.&quot; &#xA;  Matthew 28:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, praying in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit actually seems to be somewhat contrary to the command of Jesus.  We pray &lt;em&gt;in the name of Jesus&lt;/em&gt; and we pray &lt;em&gt;to the Father&lt;/em&gt;.  Adding the name of the Father and Holy Spirit is, again, not specified in Scripture, so it's likely just a tradition of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, a reasonable conclusion to draw is that if we &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; commanded to pray &lt;em&gt;in the name of Jesus&lt;/em&gt; and not in any other name, including that of the Father and the Spirit, then that is probably what we ought to do.  Had God wanted us to pray in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit in addition to the name of Jesus, it seems He would have mentioned that when He told us to pray in the name of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-11-07T20:53:31.283" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11525" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11530" CreationDate="2012-11-07T21:21:31.900" Score="15" ViewCount="16413" Body="&lt;p&gt;A very common Christian practice is to &quot;say grace&quot; or to &quot;give thanks&quot; before each meal.  What is the Biblical precedent or command for this?  In other words, why do we give thanks then and not before going to bed or going to work or any other common occurrence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2016-12-29T01:03:07.470" Title="What is the Biblical or traditional precedent or command regarding praying before meals?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11522" CreationDate="2012-11-07T21:42:16.227" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you're talking about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://english.watv.org/&quot;&gt;World Mission Society Church of God.&lt;/a&gt; Or Church of God for short. It was founded in Korea in 1985 by Ahn Sahng-Hong, and according to them has almost two million members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After browsing their website for a short time it definitely falls in line with the following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They do specifically cite &lt;a href=&quot;http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_mother.asp&quot;&gt;Galatians 4:26 and 4:28&lt;/a&gt; for this belief as well as others. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This one is a bit harder to find but &lt;a href=&quot;http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_feast.asp#05&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; alludes heavily to it, if not out right says it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These were a bit harder to find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I could not find this&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is spelled out &lt;a href=&quot;http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_fundamental.asp#01&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is covered &lt;a href=&quot;http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_feast.asp#01&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_mother.asp&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; is their page about Heavenly mother but it doesn't mention the apostasy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://english.watv.org/truth/sermon/content.asp?idx=619&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; it states &quot;We should not understand this word just literally but put it into practice.&quot; but that is the closest I could find.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_secondcoming.asp&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; one is pretty much everywhere. This page says &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Just as salvation was withheld from those who were stuck on the name&#xA;  of Jehovah and failed to receive Jesus as their Savior in the age of&#xA;  the Son (Rom. 15:4), salvation will never be given to those who are&#xA;  stuck on the name of Jesus in this age.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and then goes on to say &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Please believe in Christ Ahnsahnghong, our Savior in the age of the&#xA;  Holy Spirit, so that you may receive eternal life!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note Ahnsahnghong is the name of the founder of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your confusion on the first point makes sense because of the following found under the link in #1 above. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bible clearly testifies that our heavenly Mother exists, and that&#xA;  only our heavenly Mother can give us eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the below is after quoting Gen. 1:26-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The above verse states that God has two images—a male image and a&#xA;  female image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; page about them paraphrases much of this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-08T01:28:32.817" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T01:28:32.817" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2012-11-07T22:04:41.200" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In answering this, I'll assuming you mean &lt;strong&gt;religious morals&lt;/strong&gt; when you say &lt;strong&gt;biblical morals&lt;/strong&gt;, given that folks don't always agree in their interpretations of biblical law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three approaches to answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;First&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We assume the &lt;strong&gt;secular legislation&lt;/strong&gt; can be and &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; distinct from &lt;strong&gt;religious law&lt;/strong&gt;, but that the &lt;strong&gt;secular world&lt;/strong&gt; agrees to adhere to at least one common &quot;secular moral&quot;: &lt;strong&gt;The survival of society is good.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On this path, we need to make one trivial logical leap about &lt;strong&gt;secular legislation&lt;/strong&gt;. Namely, we need to assume that the &lt;strong&gt;purpose of any law is to protect each member of a society from a destructive behavior which can threaten the survival of the whole society&lt;/strong&gt;. I think it's important to note here that we can only justifiably legislate for or against behaviors based on the immediate, small-scale impact and then treating each individual involved as a representative of the whole society. It is generally impossible to examine a single action and accurately know whether it, in itself, will be the downfall of the society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For instance&lt;/strong&gt;: If only one person kills another person in a society of 1 million persons, this behavior does not immediately threaten &lt;strong&gt;the whole society&lt;/strong&gt;. However, with both the killer and the victim as representatives of the same society, the behavior of murder is seen to threaten society. That is, if the behavior were performed either en mass or as an act by and against the society, the society is effectively committing suicide. Hence, killing should not be tolerated beween members of the society, should it wish to survive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, we could not reasonably claim that killing is bad for society because a single act of killing will lead to a chain reaction that eventually causes some society-ending calamity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I should also clarify: Only those behaviors which can be &quot;calculated&quot; as threats to society, are shown to have large or growing impact, and which &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; be reasonably managed are &quot;worthwhile&quot; to actually legislate (probably). We would probably not in sound judgement, for instance, legislate against clipping one's toe-nails &quot;too close&quot; -- even though, if &lt;strong&gt;everyone&lt;/strong&gt; did this, we might see outbreaks of infection that could threaten the society. And while this action certainly &lt;strong&gt;could&lt;/strong&gt; amount to society killing itself with a rusty set of clippers, we have no indication that this is a tendency people actually have, the threat is very low, most of the time it's likely unintentional, and finally, it's nearly impossible to enforce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this line of reasoning, each religious moral must be judged on its own as to whether it fits the purpose of &quot;secular legislation.&quot; In doing so, we must, if we are honest, confess that we are finite humans with differing and half-baked opinions. As such, &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; beliefs regarding the societal impact of a behavior are justified in being nominated for legislation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, it's no leap at all to suggest that our &lt;strong&gt;religious morals&lt;/strong&gt; not only overlap in the goals of survival, but that our morals are very good for the secular mission. And since we're all just folks with differing, half-baked opinions, the strict secularist, is he's honest about his own limitations, will have to serious qualms allowing &quot;divinely inspired&quot; behavioral insights into the legal forum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't need to prove, for instance, in any scientific study or grand philosophical discourse that adultery is bad for society. It should be sufficient to state that &quot;we have a very good sense&quot; that it's destructive, whether by our own intuition or by divine inspiration. This doesn't mean the society at large must agree with us on any point -- only that we should feel &quot;justified&quot; in bringing important morals to the table.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Second&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We assume that, since &lt;strong&gt;secular legislation&lt;/strong&gt; must be founded on at least one commonly shared moral value (the survival of society), which in itself is a religious value, &lt;strong&gt;all legislation&lt;/strong&gt; is inherently religious. This is a much more philosophically sound approach, in my opinion (though it obviously won't appeal to the strict secularist). But, the root of this approach is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is nothing in nature, nor in the scientific method, to insist that &lt;em&gt;existing&lt;/em&gt; is better than &lt;em&gt;not existing&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Got that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when a society agrees that continuing to exist as a society is &lt;strong&gt;good&lt;/strong&gt;, they're already making a religious statement. That said ... well, we don't need to go into more detail. The society is already religious. Religious values, at that point, are rightfully the driver in all legislation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good luck convincing any strongly secular person of that though :) Hence, I presented a First approach that doesn't make this &quot;assumption&quot; ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Third&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps more to the heart of what I think you're asking, God sows His seed everywhere, even where the soil cannot welcome the seed. Regardless of what a religious person feels the nature of &lt;strong&gt;secular legislation&lt;/strong&gt; ought to be, it ought to be the devout religious person's inclination to save everyone. Hence, the devout religious person's motivation should be to bring their &lt;strong&gt;religious morals&lt;/strong&gt; into the public forum, via legislation if needs be. (Legislation shapes the conscience of the people!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2012-11-08T05:52:49.447" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T05:52:49.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11528" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11529" CreationDate="2012-11-07T22:43:04.520" Score="14" ViewCount="17839" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was recently informed that the LDS Church teaches that the Apostle John never actually died and is, presumably, still on earth somewhere today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical and/or other basis for this teaching.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if he is still alive and on the earth today, is there any church teaching regarding where exactly he may be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2015-10-19T02:38:32.480" Title="What is the basis of the LDS (Mormon) belief that the Apostle John never died?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;john-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11528" CreationDate="2012-11-07T23:07:58.017" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an interesting passage towards the end of the Gospel of John, after Jesus's resurrection:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=&quot;&gt;John 21:21-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is&#xA;  that to thee? follow thou me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple&#xA;  should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If&#xA;  I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, John seems to be saying &quot;no comment&quot; on a certain rumor that had gone around in the church, leaving it deliberately ambiguous.  The Book of Mormon actually gives an authoritative answer to the question, and this is where the LDS belief comes from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/28?lang=eng#&quot;&gt;3 Nephi 28&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And it came to pass when Jesus had said these words, he spake unto&#xA;  his disciples, one by one, saying unto them: What is it that ye desire&#xA;  of me, after that I am gone to the Father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And they all spake, save it were three, saying: We desire that&#xA;  after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein&#xA;  thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto&#xA;  thee in thy kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing&#xA;  of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall&#xA;  come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three,&#xA;  and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am&#xA;  gone unto the Father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto&#xA;  him the thing which they desired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have&#xA;  desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my&#xA;  ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death;&#xA;  but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the&#xA;  children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to&#xA;  the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers&#xA;  of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come&#xA;  in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from&#xA;  mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom&#xA;  of my Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-11-07T23:07:58.017" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11525" CreationDate="2012-11-08T01:12:21.497" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is definitely precedent:&#xA;As Christians, we should be following the example set by Christ, who gave thanks before feeding the multitudes in Matthew 14:19-21 and Matthew 15:34-36. He also did so in Luke 24:30.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 14:19-21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took&#xA;  the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he&#xA;  blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the&#xA;  disciples to the multitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the&#xA;  fragments that remained twelve baskets full.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women&#xA;  and children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 15:34-36&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said,&#xA;  Seven, and a few little fishes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and&#xA;  brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the&#xA;  multitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 24:30 (King James Version)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread,&#xA;  and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also did so in Acts 27:35.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 27:35&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God&#xA;  in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could go on, citing verses that tell us to be thankful in all things, to pray without ceasing, but those would be weaker, and not specific to your question, so I'll stop with these three examples as Biblical precedent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; a command in Deuteronomy about giving thanks &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the meal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 8:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the Lord&#xA;  thy God for the good land which he hath given thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-08T01:35:36.710" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T01:35:36.710" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11525" CreationDate="2012-11-08T07:40:55.847" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Grace before meals is a Jewish tradition that was in some respects followed by Jesus and also Paul, but is not technically 'commanded' in a legal sense from scripture.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the overall origin of 'grace before meals' I would say it was established in all the ancient sacrifices which included eating portions of the sacrifice.  Very early under the Levitical ceremonies food was associated with religious significance. It is no wonder then that a tradition around food has always accompanied various forms of Judaism and Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the rabbinic tradition found in Berakhot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Benedictions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“It is forbidden man to enjoy anything of this world without benediction,” b. Ber., 35a. “At good news one says: Blessed be He who is good and who does good. But at bad news one says: Blessed be the judge of truth … Man has a duty to pronounce a blessing on the bad as he pronounces a blessing on the good,” 54a. (TDNT, Kittel, p 9.410)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can witness Christ followed this Jewish custom (he followed many of them) in the miraculous feedings. (See Matthew 15:36).  This does not mean that he or his disciples fastidiously  had grace 'before every meal'. The Pharisees who did every thing with 'caution' and a reverence to the 'external', attacked Jesus' disciples on one occasion for eating without even washing their hands so it would not be improbable that they also neglected whatever prayers might have been expected upon them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alfred Edersheim the Jewish historian actually confidently affirms that most likely Christ's prayer would have been the typical 'thanksgiving':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘Blessed art Thou, Jehovah our God, King of the world, Who causes to come forth (הַמּוֹצִיא) bread from the earth.’ (Alfred Edersheim , &lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/&quot;&gt;The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah&lt;/a&gt;, 1.64)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the context of scriptures reference to Christ's observance is a large formally religious gathering in a prayerful need that is about to be miraculously answered. Hardly can this be translated into a legalistic rule mandating prayers of thanks before eating Chicken McNuggets on the run. However there are a few scarce stands of scripture in the Epistles that keep up with this theme, although somewhat always on the circumference of other subjects. First in Acts when Paul is on the stormy ship 'he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat.' (Acts 27:34). Note that this occasion was also a formally religious one with calls of help and salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also 1 Corinthians 10:30-31.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However here is what we should really conclude (in my own mind).  Paul's main use of 'thanksgiving' was in how he opened many of his letters with prayers. It was a way of life and although it also extended to formal religious meals, meals are not set aside as more special than the thanksgiving for all the good things we receive. The idea that any family who sits down at a table to eat without a prayer of thanksgiving is somehow inferior to one that does, is more of an interpretive cultural notion not directly established in scripture. In fact beyond the few references that I have mentioned little in the entire Bible would suggest 'grace' before meals as expected behavior for all Christians. The silence of the Bible on the subject is a strong argument against its legalization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament 'thanksgiving' was most formally identified with singing and in the 'thanksgiving' sacrifice.  In the New Testament it is sincerely giving our lives to God, in totality and in love to God and our neighbor.  This high and extreme thanksgiving must toss aside all other forms as inconsequential especially those having to do with 'food and drink'. If I was to personally become legalistic in my thinking about 'grace', I would probably insist that public prayers be offered in the 'harvest in gathering' during our monthly salary banking transactions. Falling onto one knee in our cubicle when sighting our payroll deposit, which comes from God to buy our food and so much more, would be more in-line with Mosaic Law than saying a few words before a meal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this prayer and thanksgiving is a very good thing, so neither should we judge anyone who feels a duty to formally receive all food in a prayer (whether snacks and drinks are included in this 'duty' I leave it to those who concern themselves over it). In either case, whether offering prayers outwardly, or just being happy inwardly, in God's presence, in all occasions, we should receive in thanksgiving all that we receive, including gratitude for all those blessings contained in brothers and sisters in Christ, that may have their own view about these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T07:40:55.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11532" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11533" CreationDate="2012-11-08T12:23:40.787" Score="14" ViewCount="2120" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;cult&quot; gets bandied about quite a bit, but is there an official definition or some kind of formula which can be used to consistently identify whether a group is a cult or not? Baring an absolute standard, what are the various usages and who tends to use each possible meaning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, I am interested in focusing on the sense in which the word is able to adapt to apply to both one man whack jobs such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh&quot;&gt;David Koresh&lt;/a&gt; as well as larger stable groups such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism&quot;&gt;Mormons&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&quot;&gt;Jehovah Witnesses&lt;/a&gt; but not for the major traditions such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church&quot;&gt;Catholics&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism&quot;&gt;Protestants&lt;/a&gt;? What definition is used in Christian circles that makes this usages make sense?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2021-01-08T17:13:52.407" LastActivityDate="2021-01-09T15:26:36.070" Title="In what different ways is the word &quot;cult&quot; used as a label inside Christianity?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;cult&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11532" CreationDate="2012-11-08T12:23:40.787" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Cult&lt;/em&gt; is not an easy word to define.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In popular culture usage&lt;/strong&gt;, it is often used to refer to any &quot;group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. This easily explains the bulk of the general usage, particularly by media. It is an easy label to slap on any group small enough if their practices are abnormal or bizarre enough to attract attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I would argue that this definition is roughly meaningless in the context of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;During the period the term was first established&lt;/strong&gt; in English, it often carried the connotation of being &quot;new&quot;. Any new religious movement, whatever their beliefs were, could be labeled as a cult. This partially explains why faiths new to the world scene (such as Mormonism) were easily qualified as Cults at first, but that label is disputed today. In popular usage, there seems to be some expectation that cults would eventually self-destruct (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege&quot;&gt;Waco&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown&quot;&gt;Jonestown&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group%29&quot;&gt;Heaven's Gate&lt;/a&gt;) whereas any set of beliefs that survived the second generation should be considered a religion (or sect of a religion as appropriate) as opposed to a cult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the context of established religions&lt;/strong&gt; it can have a much more specific and meaningful connotation. This definition is based on the relationship of the Cult to some other religion. The term is used this way to describe cults of other religions as well. The definition I'd suggest as most meaningful goes something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A group of people who claim identity/membership with an established religion but who, because of their beliefs, are rejected by the members of that religion as being unorthodox.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, the term is only useful when combined in reference to what religion they were originally related to. An Islamic Cult would be a group that claimed affiliation with Islam (or even claimed to be true Islam) who's views are divergent enough that are rejected by the larger main body of Islamic teaching. The same would be true for a Buddhist Cult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Applied to Christianity&lt;/strong&gt;, this definition would encompass any group of any size smaller than the whole who claimed to be &quot;Christian&quot; but were identified by more established or larger bodies as being divergent on enough core beliefs to actually make them a different religion. What beliefs qualify as core does vary depending on who you talk to, but not so much as to make it impossible to use this label in a general and meaningful way. The standard issues would be the nature of God, particularly in relation to the Trinity, and the fundamental nature of man and how salvation is accomplished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this definition, it is usually accepted that the major branches that comprise mainline Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) each share enough common ground to be called sects or traditions (even if we massively disagree on important issues) while many other groups get labeled as cults by having divergent views such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;denying the trinity (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism&quot;&gt;Oneness Pentecostals&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;having a radically different view of heaven and hell where a limited number of human souls have eternal existence (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or ascribing to God a physical body and making Jesus and Satan out to be brothers (e.g. Mormons)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this definition, it is also necessary to distinguish between a full blown Cult of another religion and just a &quot;cult&quot; in a generic sense. For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group%29&quot;&gt;Heaven's Gate&lt;/a&gt; mixed some aspects of Christian doctrine in the formulation of their beliefs, but they did not claim to &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; Christian and therefore are not properly a &quot;Christian cult&quot;, just a &quot;cult&quot;. On the other hand, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church&quot;&gt;Westboro Baptist Church&lt;/a&gt; could easily qualify as a Christian Cult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this definition, it is also possible to note that other religions are not &quot;cults&quot;, they are other religions. For example, even if Islam borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity, today it makes no claims of belonging to those religions. Instead it claims to be a true religion in it's own right and should be identified as such. On the other hand, even very large groups (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) that could easily claim independence as a unique religions choose not to do so and continue to be labeled as Christian Cults because they continue to claim affiliation but are rejected because of their beliefs. In fact some of these cults have cults of there own. There are several LDS Cults that claim to be the true LDS church but are rejected by it because of errant beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Interestingly, Christianity was originally considered to be a cult&lt;/strong&gt; of Judaism by the Roman Empire. The earliest people to bear the name &quot;Christian&quot; were a sect or subset of Jews whose beliefs were rejected as being unorthodox by the Jewish religious leaders. In time, as the movement grew and the disparity between the beliefs became more pronounced as Jews rejected the more and more established Christian beliefs, Christianity came to be recognized as an independent religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There are of course alternate definitions.&lt;/strong&gt; It is not uncommon to see Christians (particularly Fundamentalists) who use the term Cult to describe any and every religion apart from their own sect. There are reams of articles on the web expounding on how Islam is a cult, Protestantism is a cult, etc. Other definitions provide long lists of attributes, suggesting that you might be a cult if you match enough of them. These list usually include things like dominating leadership, strict adherence to rules, abuse of dropouts, pressure on members to conform, the existence of secret rituals, etc. While many of these are helpful things to understand about cults they are really not a good way to identify them. Everybody has a different list and these are really more of common factors than defining factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR:&lt;/strong&gt; While it is possible to be used in a meaningful way, the variety of uses mean you should always check what the speakers definition is. &lt;em&gt;The usage of the term will often tell you more about the beliefs of the person using it than those being described by it&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;It might be worth mentioning that the scope of this particular site is Christianity and all its heresies, so heterodox teaching is just as much on topic as orthodox, meaning Christian Cults have just as much place here as Christianity itself. Generic cults that do not identify as primarily Christian or other religions maybe off topic.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult&quot;&gt;Wikipedia on Cults&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I got this from student handout notes from an Apologetics class by a seminary professor, which I think he in turn had based on &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0764228218&quot;&gt;The Kingdom of the Cults&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; by Walter Martin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-11-08T13:50:10.003" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T13:50:10.003" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11534" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-08T14:30:44.887" Score="9" ViewCount="2423" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm preparing for a Sunday School lesson that includes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/25?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3 Nephi 25&lt;/a&gt; where Christ quotes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/mal/4?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Malachi 4&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That verse is part of a prophecy that the earth will be cleansed when Christ returns. The cleansing is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/earth-cleansing-of?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;frequently described as fire&lt;/a&gt;, such as in the passage quoted above. How will this happen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse I quoted has figurative language, so it could be assumed that the fire is figurative. But whenever this topic comes up in church, the discussion seems to imply that the burning will be literal with people occasionally going so far as speculating it will be caused by nuclear bombs (that is not doctrine of the LDS church).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-44-the-second-coming-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel Principles&lt;/a&gt; manual also implies that it's a literal burning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus Christ comes again to the earth, He will do the following things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He will cleanse the earth. When Jesus comes again, He will come in power and great glory. At that time the wicked will be destroyed. All things that are corrupt will be burned, and the earth will be cleansed by fire (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/101.24-25?lang=eng#23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 101:24–25&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So which is it? If it's figurative, do we know what the fire represents? If it's literal, do we know what will cause the fire? How will the righteous escape?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-08-06T03:14:43.797" Title="How will the earth be cleansed by fire? (LDS perspective)" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;doctrine-and-covenants&gt;&lt;malachi&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11534" CreationDate="2012-11-08T15:02:18.617" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fire is often symbolic of the purifying power of the Holy Ghost, and I wouldn't be surprised if the &quot;burning&quot; is both physical and spiritual in this case. For example, missionary work may be one way that the wicked are &quot;burned&quot; (cleansed) and are uprooted from their ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T15:02:18.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11532" CreationDate="2012-11-08T16:49:39.273" Score="10" Body="&lt;h2&gt;There are two &lt;em&gt;senses&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;strong&gt;benign sense&lt;/strong&gt;, a cult is any minority group with shared beliefs or practices that intentionally deviate from the majority. The connotation is one of foreignness and friction with a larger group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;strong&gt;malignant sense&lt;/strong&gt;, the psychological perspective is generally applied, and there actually is set of criteria (a &quot;formula&quot;) for determine whether a group is using dishonest (brain-washing) practices to recruit and retain members. A pretty well-accepted list of criteria is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Mind_control&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;summarized on wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a  charismatic leader or group;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They get a new identity based on the group;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Groups that follow the pattern above are &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; dangerous. Variations of this checklists have been published by various PhD's and psychological groups. One example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And an example of &lt;em&gt;how to &lt;strong&gt;start&lt;/strong&gt; a cult&lt;/em&gt;, used to illustrate similar criteria:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/200906/how-start-cult&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/200906/how-start-cult&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Common to both senses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;cult&quot; is a deviation from some norm. And, the label can be accurately applied to any &lt;strong&gt;type&lt;/strong&gt; of group, whether the group's focus is on art, film, history, science, religion, etc.. Thus, in both senses, it's clear that a &quot;cult&quot; does not accurately represent the beliefs or practices of the contextual group (the contrasted norm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be &quot;sub-senses&quot; to each sense of the word. But, I believe the two &quot;primary&quot; senses, as I understand them, are sufficient in most cases. And in &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; cases, it's important to be clear as the speaker/author and request clarification as the listener/reader when the sense is not abundantly obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2012-11-13T15:56:29.137" LastActivityDate="2012-11-13T15:56:29.137" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8188" CreationDate="2012-11-08T17:08:33.253" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;My best understanding on the matter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;word&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;consecration&lt;/strong&gt; can mean a number of things. In the most basic sense, it's a setting apart of something for a purpose. The significance and meaning of a &lt;em&gt;particular&lt;/em&gt; consecration is dictated by the &lt;strong&gt;consecrator&lt;/strong&gt;, the consecrated &lt;strong&gt;thing&lt;/strong&gt;, the consecrated &lt;strong&gt;purpose&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any and all cases of consecration, it is my belief that the &lt;strong&gt;consecrating entity&lt;/strong&gt; holds the primary responsibility for ensuring the &lt;strong&gt;consecrated object or person&lt;/strong&gt; remains properly dedicated to the &lt;strong&gt;consecrated purpose&lt;/strong&gt;. In addition, when a &lt;strong&gt;person&lt;/strong&gt; is the &lt;strong&gt;consecrated entity&lt;/strong&gt;, the person takes on a significant amount of responsibility. In the consecration of a group, the group is also largely responsible; but, only to the extent they were aware of and accepted such a consecration!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, it's a toss-up as to wether a self-consecration is more serious and binding than the Church consecrating someone (like a priest). I might lean towards the Church's consecration of a willing individual being the most binding and significant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in all cases, consecration &quot;simply&quot; sets the person or object apart to be &quot;used&quot; for a particular purpose. Thus, the consecrating entity is &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; responsible for overseeing it's &quot;use&quot; or handing off responsibility properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of consecrating a large community, including secular individuals, as well as the world, I would understand that to mean, &lt;em&gt;we, the Catholic Church are responsible for guiding the community to serve the intended purpose&lt;/em&gt;. I would also posit the effects of reconsecration, &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; -- but do not always, overwrite previous consecrations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T17:08:33.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11538" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11545" CreationDate="2012-11-08T17:09:33.917" Score="18" ViewCount="11240" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was told that people were baptised naked in the early Christian church. Is this true? If so, could you provide references please? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3430" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-08-09T19:19:20.820" LastActivityDate="2017-01-06T21:52:38.087" Title="Is it true that early Christians were baptised naked?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;nakedness&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11539" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-08T17:39:02.227" Score="9" ViewCount="4054" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to LDS teaching on &lt;a href=&quot;http://josephsmith.net/article/the-priesthood-of-god-returns-to-the-earth?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt;, a few weeks after John the Baptist conferred on Joseph Smith the Aaronic Priesthood, Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith to confer on him the Melchizedek Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to other LDS teaching, cited in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11528/what-is-the-basis-of-the-lds-mormon-belief-that-the-apostle-john-never-died&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, the Apostle John is still alive today, but Peter and James were both martyred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is regarding how Peter, James and John appeared to Joseph Smith.  Since John was still living, did he physically appear to Joseph Smith?  I presume that Peter and James appeared to him spiritually, but not physically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the LDS church clarify the manner in which John, in particular, and by contrast James and Peter appeared to Joseph Smith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2017-03-08T02:41:38.847" Title="In what manner did Peter, James and John appear to Joseph Smith?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;john-apostle&gt;&lt;joseph-smith&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11540" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11543" CreationDate="2012-11-08T17:59:51.967" Score="10" ViewCount="702" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://josephsmith.net/article/the-priesthood-of-god-returns-to-the-earth?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Priesthood of God Returns to the Earth&lt;/a&gt;, Peter, James, and John conferred upon Joseph Smith the Melchizedek Priesthood shortly after John the Baptist had conferred upon him the Aaronic Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, LDS teaching also states that the Apostle John never died, but is still alive on earth today.  Since John was one of the three who conferred on Joseph Smith the Melchizedek Priesthood, it seems to indicate that John himself possessed that priesthood.  Since John was still alive on the earth, it would seem, then, that the priesthood never, in fact, left the earth and, therefore, could not be &quot;returned.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what does the LDS church mean when it states that the Priesthood &lt;em&gt;returned&lt;/em&gt; to earth when it was conferred upon Joseph Smith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T20:46:18.287" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T20:46:18.287" Title="Why does LDS teaching say that the Priesthood returned to earth if John never left?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;john-apostle&gt;&lt;joseph-smith&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11539" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:09:14.680" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Peter and James, we infer, have been resurrected already and have physical bodies. The laying on of hands was performed by physical beings to physical beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few references:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-32-the-resurrection-and-the-judgment?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Peter, James, and Moroni have been resurrected&lt;/a&gt; (see Supporting Statement B)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Resurrection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John the Baptist is also apparently resurrected&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2012-11-08T18:14:22.797" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T18:14:22.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11538" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:13:26.527" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache#Baptism&quot;&gt;The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism.&lt;/strong&gt; And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Didache is an early Christian document, probably from around the turn of the 1st century, is a work that contains among other things, detailed instructs regarding baptism. It probably represents what was common practice regarding baptism in Christian communities in the late first century. It speaks about what kind of water to use, what the priest is to say during the ceremony, the person should fast etc. If the Christians of the later part of the first century were performing naked baptisms it would have no doubt been mentioned in this document. Although it is possible that naked baptisms were so incredibly common that the author(s) of the Didache simply didn't think it necessary to mention it, the more plausible explanation is the lack of instructions should led us to believe that they were &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; preforming naked baptisms at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-11-08T18:21:20.237" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T18:21:20.237" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11540" CreationDate="2012-11-08T18:20:30.930" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;John still held the priesthood during that time (as did the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/28?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;three Nephites&lt;/a&gt; who were given the same blessing as John), but the function of the priesthood was limited to his particular, ministerial duties. In other words, the fulness of the Priesthood was not active because its keys did not remain on the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John was not called to be the President of the Lord's church, and thus didn't hold all the keys to the Priesthood. Those keys needed to be restored so that a new prophet (President of the Church) could be called. Peter, James and John together could do this, because they were commissioned by Christ; and Peter, as the president of the primitive Church, held the keys and could confer them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T01:26:22.587" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T01:26:22.587" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11544" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11547" CreationDate="2012-11-08T19:11:56.447" Score="10" ViewCount="541" Body="&lt;p&gt;As it pertains primarily to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other large denominations that not only lay claim to an unbroken successive line, but who also put significant emphasis on it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Didache instructs congregations to &quot;elect&quot; Bishops and Deacons &quot;for themselves.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Chap. XV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Elect therefore for yourselves Bishops and Deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful, and&#xA;  approved; for they too minister to you the ministry of the Prophets&#xA;  and Teachers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My initial understanding of this would be that these communities are in charge of [democratically?] naming their own clergy. That in itself isn't terribly contradictory sounding, but there's no mention of any formal process or Church approval -- let alone a &lt;strong&gt;consecration&lt;/strong&gt; of the &quot;elected&quot; &lt;strong&gt;by the Church&lt;/strong&gt;. The omission of such formality in what appears to be a very formal and detailed early &quot;Church Handbook&quot; seems to call into question the notion that a strict Apostolic Succession was present in the early Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the very least, one might wonder whether some congregations in the early Church &lt;strong&gt;did&lt;/strong&gt; elect their own Bishops, without pre-approval or education by the Church, &lt;strong&gt;blurring&lt;/strong&gt; the line of succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do we adequately square the Didache's instruction with Apostolic Succession?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="42818" LastEditDate="2018-11-30T13:43:54.790" LastActivityDate="2018-11-30T13:43:54.790" Title="How to reconcile the Didache's instruction with Apostolic succession?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;apostolic-succession&gt;&lt;didache&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11538" CreationDate="2012-11-08T19:12:22.483" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quick answer: Yes, nude baptism was practiced in Ancient times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities p 160 ed W Smith &amp;amp; S Cheetam (1875)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A comparison of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that the catechumens entered the font in a state of absolute nakedness. See particularly St Cyril, Hieros. Myst. Catech. ii ad init; St Ambrose, Serm. xx (Opp. t.v. p. 153, Paris 1642)and Enarrat. in Ps lxi 32 (BB t.i.p. 966); St Chrysostom, ad Illum. Cat. i (Migne, tom. ii. p 268). Possibly a cincture of some kind (quo pudori consuleretur) may have been worn, as indicated in some medieval works of art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, I shall necessarily lay before you the sequel of yesterday's Lecture, that ye may learn of what those things, which were done by you in the inner chamber(2), were symbolical. 2. As soon, then, as ye entered, ye put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds(3). &lt;strong&gt;Having stripped yourselves, ye were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree&lt;/strong&gt;(4). For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, ye may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the old man, which waxeth corrupt in the lusts of deceit(5). May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on(6)? O wondrous thing! ye were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed(7); for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed. 3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil(8), from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree(9), and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bishop Hippolytus of Rome:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 1 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2 When  they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring  or a flowing body of water. 3 Then they shall take off all their clothes.The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or  someone else from their family. 5 After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any  foreign object with themselves down into the water.&#xA;  ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each  of them to renounce, saying, &quot;I renounce you Satan, all your service, and all your works.&quot;  10 After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, &quot;Let every  evil spirit depart from you.&quot; 11 Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on  nude to the elder who stands at the water. &lt;strong&gt;They shall stand in the water naked.&lt;/strong&gt; A deacon,  likewise, will go down with them into the water. (Hippolytus. &quot;Apostolic Traditions&quot; of Hippolytus, 21:1-11. Translated by Edgecomb, Kevin P. Derived from Bernard Botte (La Tradition Apostolique. Sources Chretiennes, 11 bis. Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1984) and of Gregory Dix &lt;sup&gt;(The Treatise on the  Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. London: Alban Press, 1992)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding from seminary was that, for modesty, women were baptised in darkness. Eventually, for the same reason, the practice fell out of favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-08T19:47:22.290" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T19:47:22.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11546" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-08T19:20:34.193" Score="4" ViewCount="557" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read a few years ago, that the early church (1st - 2nd century) would start their gatherings by singing choruses and that this went on for a while, before the rest of the liturgy. Unfortunately, my source is in storage, so I can not give a reference. If anyone can, please provide it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But my question is really: &lt;strong&gt;When did this custom stop?&lt;/strong&gt; It must have been sometime between the late 2nd century and 5th century. Assuming it was wide spread, I suppose it gradually faded away. Does anyone know of any records of this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Please note that I ask this question from a church history POV. Post Gregorian worship is not the topic of this question.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T09:54:49.377" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T09:54:49.377" Title="When did the gathered church stop singing choruses?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;music&gt;&lt;historic-customs&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11544" CreationDate="2012-11-08T19:58:52.160" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Henry Chadwick writes about this in his book &lt;em&gt;The Early Church&lt;/em&gt; (Penguin, 1993), on page 50.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First he explains that the role of the &quot;bishop&quot; (episkopos) evolved to be a primus among the elders (presbyters) in the late apostolic or early post-apostolic era. But it would take a while until the bishop received a more formal recognition as a separate &lt;em&gt;tier&lt;/em&gt; of leadership. The writings of Ignatios of Antioch thus do not describe a common practice at his time, but something he recommends, and that gradually became accepted as a way to guarantee unity. The pressure from gnostic movements was the primary influencing factor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The episkopos thus remained a presbyter as well. The first thing that differentiated bishops from other elders, was the power to ordain. He would be the primary layer on of hands, when a new presbyter was ordained, though others might join in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when a new episkopos was ordained, all of the other presbyters would lay hands on him, though &quot;some variations in custom appears&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At Alexandria we are told they did so, until the third century and&#xA;  there is no mention of visiting bishops; but in Rome by the time of&#xA;  Hippolytos (early 3d century presbyter) only the bishops who came from other&#xA;  churches laid hands on the one consecrated, the chief consecrator being chosen&#xA;  by the bishops themselves... The actual choice of the candidate rested with&#xA;  the whole congregation... Election by the people likewise played a large part&#xA;  in the ordination of presbyters and deacons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This of course is a secondary source, but from my reading of other books on Church History, the explanation is non-controversial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-11-08T19:58:52.160" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11548" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11550" CreationDate="2012-11-09T04:29:06.800" Score="2" ViewCount="1857" Body="&lt;p&gt;When packing for a trip, sometimes we forget something small: a toothbrush, shaving cream, or socks. In order to compensate, we simply make a quick pit stop at a nearby convenience or department store to buy a replacement for the missing item.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can confession work similarly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;According to Catholic teaching, if I die before I can confess my sins, can I just confess them to God in Heaven?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you think about it, it would probably be much better to confess your sins to God than any human on planet Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-04-15T15:43:49.380" LastActivityDate="2016-04-15T15:43:49.380" Title="If I die before I can confess my sins, can I just confess them to God in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;reconciliation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11549" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-09T04:49:12.657" Score="2" ViewCount="3859" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible tells us repeatedly that our earthly actions will impact our ability to enter the gates of Heaven. Some Biblical passages say that our earthly actions can improve or lessen our experience of Heaven if we are in fact lucky enough to reach it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that being said, I conclude that we must retain our earthly identities and our earthly experiences. But if that's the case, then I must ask:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do we retain our gender in Heaven?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reason for my question:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person's gender &lt;em&gt;shapes&lt;/em&gt; their experience on planet Earth. Gender is a quality that you simply cannot shake. It opens some doors and closes others (and I'm not talking about the rest rooms :/) On the other hand, the Bible describes Heaven as a state of perfection and a place without bounds. As I see it, gender creates bounds, or at least a lane within which to operate. Such a lane would seem to run contrary to the nature of Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-09T12:34:41.410" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T13:09:42.200" Title="Do we retain our gender in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;gender&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-11-11T05:03:50.713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11548" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:20:07.787" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Catholic teaching&lt;/strong&gt; states that you must make a sincere effort to confess all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm#iii&quot;&gt;mortal sins&lt;/a&gt; in the sacrament of confession. It is often encouraged that all grave sins be confessed as soon as possible, and &lt;strong&gt;certainly&lt;/strong&gt; all mortal sins. However, if the sinner is unable to confess before death, the &lt;strong&gt;effortful intent&lt;/strong&gt; to confess is taught to be valid, provided it is a &lt;strong&gt;sincere and effortful&lt;/strong&gt; intent!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also the Catholic Church's teaching God &lt;em&gt;normally&lt;/em&gt; works through the sacraments of the Church, but that God is not at all inhibited from working outside them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as an important side-note, if the recipient of confession is not sincere, even in making an act of confession, the confession is not valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T05:20:07.787" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11549" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:25:11.223" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;St Augustine says we do and I might as well quote him at length since its way way in the public domain:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Whether the Bodies of Women Shall Retain Their Own Sex in the Resurrection.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the words, Till we all come to a perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ, Ephesians 4:13 and from the words, Conformed to the image of the Son of God, Romans 8:29 some conclude that women shall not rise women, but that all shall be men, because God made man only of earth, and woman of the man. For my part, they seem to be wiser who make no doubt that both sexes shall rise. For there shall be no lust, which is now the cause of confusion. For before they sinned, the man and the woman were naked, and were not ashamed. From those bodies, then, vice shall be withdrawn, while nature shall be preserved. And the sex of woman is not a vice, but nature. It shall then indeed be superior to carnal intercourse and child-bearing; nevertheless the female members shall remain adapted not to the old uses, but to a new beauty, which, so far from provoking lust, now extinct, shall excite praise to the wisdom and clemency of God, who both made what was not and delivered from corruption what He made. For at the beginning of the human race the woman was made of a rib taken from the side of the man while he slept; for it seemed fit that even then Christ and His Church should be foreshadowed in this event. For that sleep of the man was the death of Christ, whose side, as He hung lifeless upon the cross, was pierced with a spear, and there flowed from it blood and water, and these we know to be the sacraments by which the Church is built up. For Scripture used this very word, not saying He formed or framed, but built her up into a woman; Genesis 2:22 whence also the apostle speaks of the edification of the body of Christ, Ephesians 4:12 which is the Church. The woman, therefore, is a creature of God even as the man; but by her creation from man unity is commended; and the manner of her creation prefigured, as has been said, Christ and the Church. He, then, who created both sexes will restore both. Jesus Himself also, when asked by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, which of the seven brothers should have to wife the woman whom all in succession had taken to raise up seed to their brother, as the law enjoined, says, You do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Matthew 22:29 And though it was a fit opportunity for His saying, She about whom you make inquiries shall herself be a man, and not a woman, He said nothing of the kind; but In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22:30 They shall be equal to the angels in immortality and happiness, not in flesh, nor in resurrection, which the angels did not need, because they could not die. The Lord then denied that there would be in the resurrection, not women, but marriages; and He uttered this denial in circumstances in which the question mooted would have been more easily and speedily solved by denying that the female sex would exist, if this had in truth been foreknown by Him. But, indeed, He even affirmed that the sex should exist by saying, They shall not be given in marriage, which can only apply to females; Neither shall they marry, which applies to males. There shall therefore be those who are in this world accustomed to marry and be given in marriage, only they shall there make no such marriages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120122.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Augustine - City of God - Book 22 chapter 17 &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to summarize, yes there are sexes, no there's no sex because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There's nothing wrong with being a woman&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus would have made it more clear when saying folks aren't married in Heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'll bet your wondering if women have beards in heaven? Well that's another question, but somewhere in there I belive he even answers that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T05:25:11.223" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11532" CreationDate="2012-11-09T05:50:54.890" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like so many ordinary and common words, cult has a specific meaning in the Catholic Church which sounds weird from the outside. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a saint is declared a Servant of God by a Bishop, it gives the ok for a local cult to rise up around that holy person. This cult can extend to the entire world once the person is declared venerable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in this case, the cult is the group of people who is asking for the intercession of a particular would-be saint. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a saint's origin is declared dubious, as some have been in the last century, we say their cult has been supressed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T05:50:54.890" CommentCount="3" CommunityOwnedDate="2012-11-09T05:50:54.890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11553" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11556" CreationDate="2012-11-09T09:47:51.107" Score="9" ViewCount="7322" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;restoration of the state of Israel&lt;/a&gt; is a fulfillment of one or more Biblical prophecies. But I cannot find any explicit reference to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this really a fulfillment of prophecy, if so which one(s)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-03-19T23:32:34.877" LastActivityDate="2017-03-19T23:34:48.923" Title="Where in the Bible is the restoration of the nation of Israel prophesied?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-03-19T23:32:43.023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11553" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:06:30.867" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2037&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 37&lt;/a&gt;, the prophet has a vision of a valley of &quot;dry bones.&quot;  When asked if these bones could yet live, Ezekiel wisely says, &quot;You alone know, O Lord.&quot; (v3) After this, the Lord miraculously makes the bones come together and come alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is explicitly stated in that chapter, that this refers to the &lt;em&gt;people&lt;/em&gt; of Israel being re-established in the &lt;em&gt;land&lt;/em&gt; of Israel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’  Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. - &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2037%3A11-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 37:11-12 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additional context is set in the previous chapter where Ezekiel, speaking for the Lord says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘But you, mountains of Israel, will produce branches and fruit for my people Israel, for they will soon come home. 9 I am concerned for you and will look on you with favor; you will be plowed and sown, 10 and I will cause many people to live on you—yes, all of Israel. The towns will be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt. 11 I will increase the number of people and animals living on you, and they will be fruitful and become numerous. I will settle people on you as in the past and will make you prosper more than before. Then you will know that I am the Lord. 12 I will cause people, my people Israel, to live on you. They will possess you, and you will be their inheritance; you will never again deprive them of their children. - &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ez%2036%3A8-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 36:8-12 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hal Lindsey, (The Late Great Planet Earth), for instance, explains how he sees this as the restoration of Israel in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFoKnUKeTJo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this video&lt;/a&gt; Note: Hal Lindsey is a controversial figure, to say the least, but he is the direct inspiration for many premilennial dispensationalists, such as Tim LaHaye (&lt;em&gt;Left Behind&lt;/em&gt;), John Walverood, Ed Whisenant, and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ed Whisenant&lt;/a&gt;'s well-known work &lt;em&gt;88 Reasons why the Rapture will occur in 1988&lt;/em&gt; was fundamentally based on the conflation of this event, Jesus' parable of the fig tree (not a generation shall pass away until these things occur) and the restoration of Israel in 1948.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2016-02-28T06:29:25.817" LastActivityDate="2016-02-28T06:29:25.817" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11549" CreationDate="2012-11-09T12:53:54.283" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gender in Heaven&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not appear to address this specifically.  However, we are given some clues.  In Jesus' account in the afterlife of the rich man and Lazarus, He refers to the rich &lt;em&gt;man&lt;/em&gt; and Lazarus and Abraham all with masculine pronouns.  So, this indicates that there is some continuance of masculinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and&#xA;  who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor&#xA;  man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with&#xA;  what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and&#xA;  licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels&#xA;  to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in&#xA;  Hades, being in torment, &lt;strong&gt;he&lt;/strong&gt; lifted up &lt;strong&gt;his&lt;/strong&gt; eyes and saw Abraham far off&#xA;  and Lazarus at his side. 24 And &lt;strong&gt;he&lt;/strong&gt; called out, ‘Father Abraham, have&#xA;  mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water&#xA;  and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham&#xA;  said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good&#xA;  things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now &lt;strong&gt;he&lt;/strong&gt; is comforted&#xA;  here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and&#xA;  you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass&#xA;  from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to&#xA;  us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my&#xA;  father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn&#xA;  them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham&#xA;  said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And&#xA;  he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the&#xA;  dead, they will repent.’ 31 &lt;strong&gt;He&lt;/strong&gt; said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses&#xA;  and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should&#xA;  rise from the dead.’  Luke 16:19-31 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appear to Jesus as men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his&#xA;  brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was&#xA;  transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his&#xA;  clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them&#xA;  Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord,&#xA;  it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents&#xA;  here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”  Matthew 17:1-4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is reasonable evidence to assume our bodies in the afterlife will retain at least some sense of gender, though we will not procreate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,&#xA;  but are like angels in heaven.  Matthew 22:30 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Nature of Woman&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is nothing deficient or secondary in being a woman.  Yet, even if there were &lt;em&gt;bounds&lt;/em&gt; in being a woman and not having the masculine experience, the reverse would be true as well.  So, the nature of womanhood is distinct but not less honorable or favorable than manhood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Note on Luck in Reaching Heaven&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a note to clarify that according to the Bible, luck has absolutely nothing to do with getting to heaven.  It is by grace through faith--not luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-09T13:09:42.200" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T13:09:42.200" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11553" CreationDate="2012-11-09T13:33:17.413" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 13:14-17 King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from&#xA;  him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art&#xA;  northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 For all the land which thou seest, &lt;strong&gt;to thee will I give it, and to&#xA;  thy seed for ever.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man&#xA;  can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be&#xA;  numbered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth&#xA;  of it; for I will give it unto thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As seen in the Old Testament books, God repeatedly judges Israel, and temporarily removes His people from the land, but when they repent, He keeps that original promise and restores them to their land. It was still their land in God's mind, they were simply temporarily removed from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless God lied, or was mistaken in verse 15 above, the land is promised to them forever. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel's restoration is implied in perpetuity via the promise above. No further revelation is needed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T13:33:17.413" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11399" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:30:49.160" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:6 (KJV)&#xA;There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God the Father sent John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T14:30:49.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11540" CreationDate="2012-11-09T14:58:01.903" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another note I'd like to point out, as far as the LDS have been given, they do not know of them ordaining anyone to the priesthood after the first century AD (IMO they were either commanded not to or knew something about what time the Lord would command it to be given again). According to the LDS, John and the three Nephites had the priesthood but to mankind in general it was closed after it was lost to wickedness. At what point that happened exactly isn't found in LDS scripture, although various individuals have different ideas. All that is known is by the time God and Christ appeared to Joseph Smith is that they said of the churches that there was none. (this can be found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.18-19?lang=eng#17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph Smith history segment&lt;/a&gt; that is included in the standard LDS set of scriptures)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3434" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2012-11-09T16:01:34.950" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T16:01:34.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11553" CreationDate="2012-11-09T15:02:27.853" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question can be answered in two ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Chapter and verse to a specific prophecy that clearly has a 1:1 correspondence to the nation of Israel today.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The sum of biblical teaching and how it evolves from OT prophecies and NT affirmative and clarifying statements.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a matter like this one I think the 2nd option clearly is the best one. I would build my case along these lines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The promises given to Abraham and his descendants over the line of Isaac and Jacob &lt;em&gt;do retain a geographic significance&lt;/em&gt;, even if there are many spiritual and typological/allegorical interpretations that will provide further knowledge. God does not back-peddle on his promises (Rom 11:29). Thus, the church fathers in the 2nd century and later, that substituted the literal meaning for allegorical meanings, were (IMO) wrong, thanks to their general anti-judaism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The promises of restored nationhood given by prophets to Israel, while in exile, where not &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt; fulfilled upon their immediate return, nor were they completely fulfilled in the Maccabean era. This is evidenced by the question to Jesus in Acts 1:6-8, when Jesus is asked post-resurrection, if the time has come to restore Israel. Jesus dismisses the question &lt;em&gt;while not invalidating its basic premise&lt;/em&gt;. It is not for the disciples to know the time and manner, but it will happen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thus, any eschatological scheme must be viewed with great suspicion! A thought corroborated by other words of Jesus. And by the enormous amount of failed claims throughout church history. This is my basis for being weary of making 1:1 claims between specific historic events and single pericopes in Scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be impossible to provide all details of how my thinking has evolved on this issue, but the end result is that I view present day Israel as the probable fulfillment of biblical prophecies in an &lt;em&gt;embryonic&lt;/em&gt; form. I do not think that such belief warrants political support for repressing the Arab population, e.g. as in advocating forced transfer from the west Bank. Ethics must be a consideration, as well as eschatology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if events occurred that would prove today's nation of Israel as just another Maccabean-like era, my faith in God would not be severely shaken, although any such event would surely be the result of a disastrous war or collapse, that would probably ensure a 2nd holocaust. Thus, it should be avoided, anyway, for simple ethical reasons. That means I support the &lt;em&gt;basic&lt;/em&gt; tenant of Zionism - that it is a good idea for the Jewish people to have a national home in their ancient homeland - even if its present day manifestation is not &lt;strong&gt;necessarily&lt;/strong&gt; the product of biblical prophecies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T15:02:27.853" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10192" CreationDate="2012-11-09T15:11:34.987" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek text states that the woman touched &amp;lt;&amp;lt;τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ&gt;&gt; (&lt;em&gt;tou kraspedou tou himatiou autou&lt;/em&gt;). The Greek word κράσπεδον (&lt;em&gt;kraspedon&lt;/em&gt;) is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew word ציצת (&lt;em&gt;tzitzit&lt;/em&gt;) (cp. Num. 15:38-39; Deut. 22:12; Zech. 8:23). The ציצת is the fringe worn by the Israelites on the ארבע כנפות (&lt;em&gt;arba kanfot&lt;/em&gt;), that is, &quot;four corners&quot; of their garment (cp. Num. 15:38-39; Deut. 22:12). The Hebrew word כנף (&lt;em&gt;kanaf&lt;/em&gt;), meaning &quot;border&quot; or &quot;corner,&quot; is translated in the LXX by the Greek word πτερυγίον (&lt;em&gt;pterygion&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Malachi 4:2 (KJV), it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But to you who fear My name, the Sun of righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings (בִּכְנָפֶיהָ); and, you shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English word &quot;wings&quot; is translated by an inflection of the Hebrew word כנף, the same word used to translate the English word &quot;borders&quot; in Num. 15:38-39, etc. So, &quot;wings&quot; refers to the borders of the garment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that the woman had a case of &quot;infirmity&quot; or sickness. Jesus is the &quot;Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings&quot; or borders of his garment. On each of the borders of his garment would have been a κράσπεδον or &quot;fringe.&quot; The woman is said to have touched τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου, that is, &quot;the fringe of the garment.&quot; Remember, the κράσπεδον  is actually the fringe or ציצת, and it is located on each of the four כנף or πτερυγίον.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe power went out from Jesus because he had healing on the fringes on borders of his garment, and the woman &quot;was healed immediately&quot; (Luke 8:47).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2012-11-09T18:22:36.120" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T18:22:36.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11546" CreationDate="2012-11-09T16:22:16.603" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This varies by denomination. Some don't have any music at all. Some have a whole lot of music.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Latter-day Saint, we sing at the beginning and end of each meeting, and usually once somewhere in the middle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Peter Turner said in his comment, they still do this in the Catholic church. When each separate church was founded, they would tend to make this sort of decision about whether or not they would sing in their meetings, and how often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3408" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T16:22:16.603" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11532" CreationDate="2012-11-09T18:01:38.233" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Speaking from experience; in general use I would advise against it. It's used more as a curse than a description, as such it does not achieve anything other than anger, seperation, contention and hate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a technical description all abrahamic religions (IE christians, jews, and muslims) would fall under the term cult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People generally associate a negative context with the term cult due to various historical extreme individuals and groups that were cults. Due to this cultural context, the term cult is often used to belittle others rather than to provide an accurate and informative description of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IF you think something is evil and needs to be avoided, I would advise to be more specific than just using the term cult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dictionary.com - Cult&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3434" LastActivityDate="2012-11-09T18:01:38.233" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11564" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11582" CreationDate="2012-11-09T18:40:29.510" Score="0" ViewCount="125" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Edit&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For anyone that might stumble across this by accident:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not a position that reformed theologists hold. (I.e. my assumption is incorrect.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Original Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I understand reformed theologists correctly, reformed theology revolves around:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God alone matters&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everything for the glory of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Viewed from this perspective, how do non-reformed theologists argue against reformed theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: I understand this question is probably a bit too general. I would appreciate comments on how to narrow this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="2079" LastEditDate="2012-12-25T05:52:26.020" LastActivityDate="2012-12-25T05:52:26.020" Title="How do non-reformed theologists argue against &quot;God alone matters&quot;?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-11-12T10:10:17.943" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9202" CreationDate="2012-11-09T19:17:33.410" Score="25" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Etymology&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English word “baptism” is a loanword derived from the Greek words &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G908&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;βάπτισμα&quot;&gt;βάπτισμα&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G909&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;βαπτισμός&quot;&gt;βαπτισμός&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Both of these Greek nouns are related to the Greek verb &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G907&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;βαπτίζω&quot;&gt;βαπτίζω&lt;/a&gt;, from which is derived the English verb “baptize,” also a loanword.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language&lt;/em&gt;, Ernest Klein wrote,&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/engZW.png&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/engZW.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Hebrew Verb טָבַל and Noun טְבִילָה&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew equivalent of the English noun “baptism” and the Greek noun βαπτισμός is the noun טְבִילָה (&lt;em&gt;tevila&lt;/em&gt;), which is related to the verb טָבַל (&lt;em&gt;taval&lt;/em&gt;), essentially meaning “to dip.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius wrote,&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/PWBP9.png&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/PWBP9.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the noun טְבִילָה does not occur in the Hebrew Tanakh, it does occur often in the Mishna and Gemara (a.k.a. Talmud) and contemporary Jewish literature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the noun טְבִילָה, Marcus Jastrow wrote,&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QUplO.png&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QUplO.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ju6Wj.png&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ju6Wj.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew verb טָבַל occurs 16 times in 16 verses in the Hebrew Tanakh. It is translated in the 1769 ed. of the King James Version as follows: dip (15x), plunge (1x).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following table lists the translation in the LXX of each occurrence of the Hebrew verb טָבַל in the Masoretic text:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Verse        &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Hebrew Text&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Greek Text &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Gen. 37:31   &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וַיִּטְבְּלוּ     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;ἐμόλυναν   &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Exo. 12:22   &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וּטְבַלְתֶּם     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;βάψαντες   &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Lev. 4:6     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וְטָבַל       &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;βάψει      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Lev. 4:17    &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וְטָבַל       &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;βάψει      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Lev. 9:9     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וַיִּטְבֹּל      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;ἔβαψεν     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Lev. 14:6    &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וְטָבַל       &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;βάψει      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Lev. 14:16   &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וְטָבַל       &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;βάψει      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Lev. 14:51   &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וְטָבַל       &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;βάψει      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Num. 19:18   &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וְטָבַל       &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;βάψει      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Deu. 33:24   &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וְטֹבֵל       &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;βάψει      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Jos. 3:15    &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;נִטְבְּלוּ      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;ἐβάφησαν   &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Ruth 2:14    &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וְטָבַלְתְּ      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;βάψεις     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;1 Sam. 14:27 &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וַיִּטְבֹּל      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;ἔβαψεν     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;2 Kings 5:14 &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וַיִּטְבֹּל      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;ἐβαπτίσατο &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;2 Kings 8:15 &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;וַיִּטְבֹּל      &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;ἔβαψεν     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;Job 9:31     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;תִּטְבְּלֵנִי     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;kbd&gt;&lt;code&gt;ἔβαψας     &lt;/code&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew verb טָבַל and its conjugations are consistently translated by a conjugation of the Greek verb βάπτω in 14 of its 16 occurrences, or approximately in 88% of its occurrences. It is translated by a conjugation of the Greek verb βαπτίζω once, in 2 Kings 5:14, and by a conjugation of the Greek verb μολύνω also once, in Gen. 37:31.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Greek Verbs βάπτω and βαπτίζω&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In the LXX&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek verb βάπτω occurs 16 times in 16 verses in the LXX. However, unlike טָבַל, it does not occur in Gen. 37:31 or 2 Kings 5:14, but it does occur in Lev. 11:32 wherein it translates a conjugation of the Hebrew verb &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H935&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;בָּא&quot;&gt;בָּא&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;ba&lt;/em&gt;), as well as Psa. 67:24&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; wherein it translates a conjugation of the Hebrew verb &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4272&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;מָחַץ&quot;&gt;מָחַץ&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;machatz&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the Greek verb βαπτίζω occurs 4 times in 4 verses in the LXX: 2 Kings 5:14, Isa. 21:4, Judith 12:7, and Sirach 34:25. In Isa. 21:4, it is used in the sense of “overwhelm” to translate a conjugation of the Hebrew verb &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1204&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;בָּעַת&quot;&gt;בָּעַת&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;baʿat&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In the Greek New Testament&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek verb βάπτω occurs 3 times in 3 verses in the 1550 Textus Receptus, and it is translated in the 1769 ed. of the KJV in all 3 occurrences by the English verb “dip.”&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; On the other hand, the Greek verb βαπτίζω  occurs 86 times in 65 verses in the 1550 Textus Receptus. It is predominately translated by a conjugation of the English verb “baptize.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the distinction between the verbs βάπτω and βαπτίζω, perhaps most often quoted is the physician Nicander of Colophon (Νίκανδρος ὁ Κολοφώνιος; 2nd c. B.C.), who himself was cited by Athenaeus in &lt;em&gt;The Deipnosophists&lt;/em&gt; (Δειπνοσοφισταί). Athenaeus wrote,&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But they also ate as an appetizer turnips done in vinegar and mustard, as Nicander plainly shows in the second book of the Georgics; for he says: “Of turnip and cabbage, in truth, two families appear in our gardens, long and solid. The latter you wash and dry in the north wind, and they are welcome in winter even to the idle stay-at‑homes; for soaked in warm water they come to life again. But the other, the turnip roots, you cut in thin slices, gently cleaning away the undried outer skin, and after drying them in the sun a little, either dip (ἀποβάπτων) a quantity of them in boiling water and soak (ἐμβάπτισον) them in strong brine; or again, put equal parts of white must and vinegar in a jar together, then plunge the slices in it, having dried them off with salt.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ὅτι δ᾽ ἤσθιον διὰ ἀναστόμωσιν καὶ τὰς δι᾽ ὄξους καὶ νάπυος γογγυλίδας σαφῶς παρίστησι Νίκανδρος ἐν δευτέρῳ Γεωργικῶν λέγων οὕτως: γογγυλίδος δισσὴ γὰρ ἰδ᾽ ἐκ ῥαφάνοιο γενέθλη μακρή τε στιφρή τε φαείνεται ἐν πρασιῇσι. καὶ τὰς μὲν θ᾽ αὕηνον ἀποπλύνας βορέῃσι, προσφιλέας χειμῶνι καὶ οἰκουροῖσιν ἀεργοῖς: θερμοῖς δ᾽ ἰκμανθεῖσαι ἀναζώουσ᾽ ὑδάτεσσι. τμῆγε δὲ γογγυλίδος ῥίζας （καὶ ἀκαρφέα φλοιὸν ἦκα καθηράμενος） λεπτουργέας, ἠελίῳ δὲ αὐήνας ἐπὶ τυτθὸν ὁτὲ ᾿ν ζεστῷ ἀποβάπτων ὕδατι δριμείῃ πολέας ἐμβάπτισον ἅλμῃ, ἄλλοτε δ᾽ αὖ λευκὸν γλεῦκος συστάμνισον ὄξει ἶσον ἴσῳ, τὰς δ᾽ ἐντὸς ἐπιστύψας ἁλὶ κρύψαις.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The History of Pre-Christian Baptism or Immersion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Immersion for Restoring Cleanness/Purity (טָהֳרָה)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sirach 34:25 references the practice of immersion or “baptism” when it describes those who touched corpses as later baptizing themselves or being baptized (βαπτιζόμενος).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a man washes after touching a dead body, and touches it again, what has he gained by his washing? &lt;sup&gt;RSV&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;βαπτιζόμενος ἀπὸ νεκροῦ καὶ πάλιν ἁπτόμενος αὐτοῦ, τί ὠφέλησεν ἐν τῷ λουτρῷ αὐτοῦ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Torah, an Israelite who contacts a corpse is rendered unclean for seven days. In Num. 19:11, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He who touches the dead body of any soul of a man, then he shall be unclean seven days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת לְכָל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם וְטָמֵא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moshe ben Maimon reiterated the process required to become clean (restore purity) after contacting a corpse (cp. Num. 19:12–19). In the &lt;em&gt;Mishneh Torah&lt;/em&gt;, he wrote,&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is a person, unclean from a corpse, made clean by the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=water%20of%20separation&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;water of separation&quot;&gt;water of separation&lt;/a&gt;? A clean man takes three stalks of hyssop and binds them with one bond. Each stalk should have at least one bud. He should immerse the top of the buds in the water of separation while it is in a vessel, focus his intent, and sprinkle it on the [unclean] man or [unclean] vessels, on the third day and on the seventh day after sunrise. If one sprinkled after dawn, it is acceptable. After the water has been sprinkled upon it on the seventh day, he should immerse in a &lt;em&gt;mikve&lt;/em&gt; during the day, wait until nightfall, and then, in the evening, he is clean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;כֵּיצַד מְטַהֲרִין טְמֵא מֵת &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%D7%9E%D6%B5%D7%99%20%D7%A0%D6%B4%D7%93%D6%BC%D6%B8%D7%94&amp;amp;t=WLC#s=s_primary_0_1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;מֵי נִדָּה - water of separation&quot;&gt;בְּמֵי נִדָּה&lt;/a&gt;:  לוֹקֵחַ אָדָם טָהוֹר שְׁלוֹשָׁה קְלָחִין שֶׁלְּאֵזוֹב, וְאוֹגְדָן אֲגֻדָּה אַחַת, וּבְכָל בַּד וּבַד גִּבְעוֹל אֶחָד.  וְטוֹבֵל רָאשֵׁי גִּבְעוֹלין בְּמֵי נִדָּה שֶׁבַּכְּלִי, וּמִתְכַּוֵּן וּמַזֶּה עַל הָאָדָם אוֹ עַל הַכֵּלִים, בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבְיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, אַחַר שֶׁתָּנֵץ הַחַמָּה; וְאִם הִזָּה מִשֶּׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, כָּשֵׁר.  וְאַחַר שֶׁיַּזֶּה עָלָיו בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, טוֹבֵל בַּיּוֹם; וּמַעְרִיב שִׁמְשׁוֹ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא טָהוֹר לָעֶרֶב.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After being sprinkled with the “water of separation” (created with the ashes of the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his uncleanness, the Israelite was to “wash his clothes and bathe in water” (וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם), and then he would be clean after sunset (cp. Num. 19:19). The Hebrew text does not use a conjugation of the verb טָבַל (&lt;em&gt;taval&lt;/em&gt;) to describe the act of bathing in water, but rather, a conjugation of the verb &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7364&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;רָחַץ&quot;&gt;רָחַץ&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;rachatz&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Hebrew Verb רָחַץ&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew verb רָחַץ occurs far more often than טָבַל in the Hebrew Tanakh, 72 times in 71 verses. While it is often translated as “wash” and sometimes as “bathe,” the act of bathing consisted of immersing in a &lt;em&gt;mikve&lt;/em&gt; (pool of water) in order to become clean after contracting uncleanness (i.e., becoming unclean).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Mikve&lt;/em&gt; (מִקְוֶה)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;em&gt;Mishneh Torah&lt;/em&gt;, Moshe ben Maimon wrote,&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All unclean things - whether humans or vessels, whether they were defiled with a severe uncleanness according to the Torah, or whether they were defiled with uncleannesses according to the words [of the rabbis], do not become clean except by immersion (טְבִילָה) in water that is collected in a pool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;כָּל הַטְּמֵאִים--בֵּין אָדָם, בֵּין כֵּלִים, בֵּין שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּטֻמְאָה חֲמוּרָה שֶׁלַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בִּטְמָאוֹת שֶׁלְּדִבְרֵיהֶם--אֵין לָהֶן טַהְרָה, אֵלָא בִּטְבִילָה בְּמַיִם הַנִּקְוִים בַּקַּרְקָע.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The water that is collected in a pool is also known as a &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4723&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;מִקְוֶה&quot;&gt;מִקְוֶה&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;mikve&lt;/em&gt;). There was, as can be expected, laws pertaining to the &lt;em&gt;mikve&lt;/em&gt; and how to properly immerse therein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;em&gt;Mishneh Torah&lt;/em&gt;, Moshe ben Maimon also wrote,&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everywhere that the bathing of one’s flesh or the washing of one’s garments from uncleannesses is stated in the Torah, it is nothing but the immersion of the entire body in a &lt;em&gt;mikve&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר בַּתּוֹרָה רְחִיצַת בָּשָׂר וְכִבּוּס בְּגָדִים מִן הַטְּמָאוֹת, אֵינוּ אֵלָא טְבִילַת כָּל הַגּוּף בְּמִקְוָה&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, immersion (“baptism&amp;quot;) or טְבִילָה was required for lepers,&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; people and objects that contacted seminal fluid (e.g., during sexual intercourse or from a nocturnal emission),&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; the &lt;em&gt;nidda&lt;/em&gt; or menstruant,&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; and so and so on. It is regarding all these baptisms or immersions that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote,&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;concerned only with foods and drinks and various baptisms, and carnal ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν σαρκὸς μέχρι καιροῦ διορθώσεως ἐπικείμενα&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the Greek phrase «διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς» (“various baptisms”) in Heb. 9:10, Franz Delitzsch wrote,&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPSLF.png&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hPSLF.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Immersion of a Convert/Proselyte to Judaism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from being used to remove physical uncleanness (טֻמְאָה), baptism or immersion was one of three requirements for the conversion of a proselyte to Judaism.&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;em&gt;Babylonian Talmud&lt;/em&gt;, it is written,&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Derive from it that one is not a convert until he is circumcised and immerses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;וש&amp;quot;מ אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The requirement for immersion of a proselyte was derived from Exo. 24:8 since אין הזאה בלא טבילה, that is, “There is no sprinkling [of blood] without immersion [beforehand].”&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; It is reasoned that when the mixed multitude entered the covenant, they had immersed before they were sprinkled with the blood by Moses. This conversion made one “like a newborn child.”&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; There is also another noun, βάπτισις, that shares a similar meaning, although it occurs seldomly. See Josephus. &lt;em&gt;Jewish Antiquities.&lt;/em&gt; Book 18, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0145:book=18:section=117&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;§117&lt;/a&gt;. Like English, Latin also possessed loanwords such as &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=baptisma&amp;amp;la=la#lexicon&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;baptisma&quot;&gt;baptisma&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;baptismum&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;baptismus&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Vol. 1, p. 147&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; p. 317&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; p. 516–517&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Psa. 68:23 in the KJV.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; See BDAG, p. 165, βαπτίζω, 3. c.; LSJ, p. 305, βαπτίζω, under &amp;quot;transf.&amp;quot;; Thayer, p. 94, βαπτίζω, I. 3.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; There is also a related verb, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1686&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;ἐμβάπτω&quot;&gt;ἐμβάπτω&lt;/a&gt;, which also occurs 3 times in 3 verses.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; p. 183, Book IV, Ch. 11&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Para Aduma, Chapter 11, Halakha 1&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Mikvaot, Chapter 1, Halakha 1&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Mikvaot, Chapter 1, Halakha 2&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; Lev. 15:2–13&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Lev. 15:16&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; Lev. 15:19–24&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; Heb. 9:10&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; p. 73&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; The three requirements are: circumcision, immersion, and offering a sacrifice (this requirement was only mandatory when the Temple existed).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; Seder Nashim, Tractate Yevamot, Gemara, Chapter 4, Folio &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l3104.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;46b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; Seder Nashim, Tractate Yevamot, Gemara, Chapter 4, Folio &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l3104.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;46b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Seder Nashim, Tractate Yevamot, Gemara, Chapter 4, Folio &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l3104.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;48b&lt;/a&gt;: רבי יוסי אומר גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד, that is, &amp;quot;Rabbi Yose said, 'A proselyte that converts is like a newborn child.&amp;quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;References&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arndt, William; Bauer, Walter; Danker, Frederick William. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.logos.com/product/3878/a-greek-english-lexicon-of-the-new-testament-and-other-early-christian-literature-3rd-ed&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 3rd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Athenaeus. &lt;em&gt;The Deipnosophists.&lt;/em&gt; Books VIII-X. Trans. Gulick, Charles Burton. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1969.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dale, James Wilkinson. &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=jsMrAAAAYAAJ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Classic Baptism: An Iniquiry into the Meaning of the Word ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ, as Determined by the Usage of Classical Greek Writers&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Philadelphia: Rutter, 1867.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dale, James Wilkinson. &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=wuc_AAAAYAAJ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;An Iniquiry into the Usage of ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩ, and the Nature of Judaic Baptism, as Shown by Jewish and Patristic Writings.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Rutter, 1873.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Delitzsch, Franz. &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=4XAuAAAAYAAJ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Vol. 2. Trans. Kingsbury, Thomas L. Edinburgh: Clark, 1872.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gesenius, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm. &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=E80OAAAAQAAJ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Trans. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. London: Bagster, 1860.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jastrow, Marcus. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/jastrow/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; London: Luzac; New York: Putnam, 1903.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Klein, Ernest. &lt;a href=&quot;https://archive.org/details/AComprehensiveEtymologicalDictionaryOfTheEnglishLanguageByErnestKlein&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Vol. 1. New York: Elsevier, 1966.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; et al. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Greek-English Lexicon.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moshe ben Maimon. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/0n.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mishneh Torah&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (מִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה). Ed. Mechon-Mamre. Jerusalem: Mechon-Mamre, 2015.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thayer, Joseph Henry. &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=7wVNDAjFkRoC&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Rev. ed. New York: American Book, 1889.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-12-29T05:04:42.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3624" CreationDate="2012-11-10T02:04:03.243" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Biblical times, censuses were taken for two basic reasons: taxation, and war. David took the census for one (or both of) those reasons, which was against the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel, at the time, was a fragile nation, having barely captured a capital (Jerusalem), thereby uniting north and south, and then driven out the Philistines, which threatened its western border. The country needed a period of peace and prosperity after these tremendous exertions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, David had won his earlier battles with an all-volunteer army. He told the people of Israel what he wanted to do (capture Jerusalem, drive out the Philistines), and through the grace of God, just enough of them volunteered for these projects. Later on, David wanted to conquer neighboring lands and peoples, which created two problems: 1) He would introduce foreign, non-believing people into Israel and 2) he would shed Israeli blood for this purpose. Worst of all, the purpose of the census was that David could DRAFT the soldiers he thought he'd need, instead of trusting God to give him &quot;just enough&quot; (along with God's power to &quot;veto&quot; certain projects by giving David &quot;not enough&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But buoyed (and probably made overconfident) by his successes, David tried to push ahead and expand his kingdom for HIS wealth and glory (not God's). That was the sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="418" LastEditDate="2012-11-10T15:22:38.033" LastActivityDate="2012-11-10T15:22:38.033" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2339" CreationDate="2012-11-10T02:08:16.890" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before meeting Jesus, his disciples led boring, humdrum lives. With his &quot;miracle,&quot; Jesus showed them that he was a competent fisherman, better than they, the &quot;professionals.&quot; Their impression was something like, &quot;If the Jesus fellow can beat us at our own game, what else can he do?&quot; Without fully understanding, they felt that Jesus would take their lives to the &quot;next level,&quot;--and they were right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastActivityDate="2012-11-10T02:08:16.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3624" CreationDate="2012-11-10T03:37:00.793" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was a bad thing because of David's motivation for doing it.  He was afraid of his enemies instead of trusting that God would take care of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Matthew 6:25 Jesus says: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the battles that ancient Israel fought in, they won most often when all the odds were against them.  God always demanded they put ALL their trust in Him and not in circumstance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2012-11-10T03:37:00.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11569" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-10T15:37:15.013" Score="-1" ViewCount="96" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/301/how-to-answer-why-does-evil-and-suffering-exist&quot;&gt;How to answer “Why does evil and suffering exist?”&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doing some study at the moment, one of the questions has provoked a few thoughts between me and my wife but we have no answer for this question that satisfies either of us. Any help?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Using a story or saying from the life of Jesus, give a one-minute&#xA;  reply to the question: &quot;How can you believe in a loving God who allows&#xA;  so much suffering in the world?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not the easiest question in the world, but I thought if there was a place that could provide an answer of some variation, this would be it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quick note: our answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In John 16:33, Jesus says that there WILL be trouble, but that he has&#xA;  overcome it. He suffered during his illegal trial, punishment and&#xA;  death, but that he came to glory through his resurrection and&#xA;  ascension. I believe not because he allows suffering, but because he&#xA;  suffered for us and because of that resurrection and ascension&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for any other inputs!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="136" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-11-11T15:09:24.503" Title="Apologetic on suffering using a reference to Jesus" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-11-12T10:09:14.657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11570" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-10T15:58:46.407" Score="6" ViewCount="519" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus was baptized by John, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove, was the Holy Spirit not with Him up until then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastActivityDate="2015-01-26T23:02:26.953" Title="In the book of John, is the Holy Spirit not in Jesus until the dove descends on Him?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-12-14T02:59:17.890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11569" CreationDate="2012-11-10T17:21:37.180" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me offer you the 5 second answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God makes suffering and death holy by suffering and dying Himself.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-11-10T17:21:37.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11572" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11593" CreationDate="2012-11-11T04:41:48.047" Score="7" ViewCount="1978" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many LDS have a testimony that Joseph Smith Jr was a true prophet. Let us suppose someone studies the life and teachings of Joseph Smith, and reaches the conclusion that he is a true prophet. But, to accept the present day mainstream LDS church, surely it is not just necessary to accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet, but that also Brigham Young was the correct successor of Joseph Smith (as opposed to say Joseph Smith III - as the RLDS/Community of Christ believe, or James Strang, or Sidney Rigdon, or Granville Hedrick, or Alpheus Cutler.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in addition to accepting Brigham Young as Joseph Smith's rightful successor, one must also accept that all the subsequent successors of Brigham Young as President of the LDS Church are his rightful successors, rather than any of them having fallen into apostasy (as many of those who practice plural marriage claim.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So my question then is, do you agree, that to become LDS, it is not enough to just have a testimony about the prophecy of Joseph Smith, but also about Brigham Young and successors? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How in practice do LDS members go beyond a testimony about Joseph Smith to a testimony about Brigham Young and his successors also? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How does one know that the LDS church headquartered in Salt Lake City is the true successor to the church founded by Joseph Smith Jr, as opposed to say the Community of Christ or the Church of Christ Temple Lot?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastEditorUserId="770" LastEditDate="2012-11-12T22:12:37.763" LastActivityDate="2018-11-24T18:46:42.307" Title="How do LDS know that Brigham Young and his successors are true prophets?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11572" CreationDate="2012-11-11T05:05:50.103" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: They trust that God is in control and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that His prophet is in charge of the restored One True Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/prophets-of-the-restoration?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/prophets-of-the-restoration?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ ushered in the Restoration of&#xA;  the gospel and re-established the Church, the voice of the President&#xA;  of the Church has been a witness of divine, eternal truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several LDS Scriptures support the idea as well, and are all listed at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophet?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophet?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small sample:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If there be a prophet, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, Num. 12:6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations, Jer. 1:5, 7&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God hath set prophets in the Church, 1 Cor. 12:28 (Eph. 4:11).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the above, it &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be that the definition of Prophet that you and I understand is not the same definition given in LDS theology.  So, for the record, here it is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A person who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of&#xA;  God, a prophet receives commandments, prophecies, and revelations from&#xA;  God. His responsibility is to make known God’s will and true character&#xA;  to mankind and to show the meaning of his dealings with them. A&#xA;  prophet denounces sin and foretells its consequences. He is a preacher&#xA;  of righteousness. On occasion, prophets may be inspired to foretell&#xA;  the future for the benefit of mankind. His primary responsibility,&#xA;  however, is to bear witness of Christ. The President of The Church of&#xA;  Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s prophet on earth today.&#xA;  Members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are sustained&#xA;  as prophets, seers, and revelators.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-11T05:12:51.343" LastActivityDate="2012-11-11T05:12:51.343" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11570" CreationDate="2012-11-11T14:54:04.927" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: No. Not as an &lt;em&gt;empowerment for ministry&lt;/em&gt;. Up until that moment Jesus had done no miracles, preached no sermons, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is consistent with the depiction in the synoptic gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Longer answer: Define &quot;with&quot;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Spirit &lt;em&gt;descended&lt;/em&gt; and stayed &lt;strong&gt;upon&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus. The accounts about Jesus baptism do not give us much information about what one might call the &quot;metaphysics&quot; of God, i.e. how the persons in the trinity relate to each other eternally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The only major thinkers that thought this was the case in early Christendom were the &lt;em&gt;adoptionists&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All 4 gospels seem to see Jesus' baptism as the transitional event into public ministry. But since there also is an affirmation of Jesus' sonship, one can safely assume that it also was an &lt;em&gt;expression&lt;/em&gt; of how the love the Father has for His Son is &lt;strong&gt;expressed&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditional theology - for God reasons - say that this continual expression of love within God, did not begin with Jesus' baptism, but is in fact eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The empowerment for &quot;Kingdom of God service&quot; in the power of the Spirit, given to the incarnated Christ, began at this moment, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-11-11T14:54:04.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11569" CreationDate="2012-11-11T15:09:24.503" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I won't answer the philosophical side of this question. Faith or the lack of it rarely rests on pure intellectual reasoning. (Just about every single atheist I know of, when talking about their &quot;conversion&quot; to atheism, has given a testimony about personal experiences, not about a pure intellectual endeavor.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question usually burns, because suffering has affected our whole being, not just our logic reasoning capacity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end faith in God is a gift from God. When faced with evil and suffering, the most important thing is that God always brings &lt;strong&gt;hope&lt;/strong&gt; into the equation. Without hope, suffering becomes unbearable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, I think faith in God can help a person to register the pain in ways that otherwise had not been possible. Gods empowerment might not mean that pain goes away, but that we are given courage to &lt;em&gt;face&lt;/em&gt; it, thus in a strange way initially making it worse!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-11-11T15:09:24.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11522" CreationDate="2012-11-11T18:06:25.290" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've encountered these people in Korea a number of times. You noted that you thought there was some similarity with the Seventh-day Adventist church. I've heard, but not confirmed, that the founder was a former member of the Adventist church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, their beliefs that you cited are mostly divergent from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;those of Adventism&lt;/a&gt;. In fact, the only similarities are the Saturday Sabbath and a literal interpretation of the Bible (though that term itself is so broad it's hard to know whether there is any similarity; in my discussions of them, I've found their hermeneutics to be sorely lacking). Everything else on your list is different from what Adventists believe, though we partially agree with point 2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, I'm writing from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2092" LastActivityDate="2012-11-11T18:06:25.290" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="137" CreationDate="2012-11-11T18:50:32.817" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 7:53-8:11, a crowd of men who are about to stone an adulteress to death, fulfilling the Law of Moses, are stopped when Jesus condemns them by asking for the one without sin to go ahead and cast the first stone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Matt. 7:1-2 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also taking into account that New Testament teaches that the Law of Moses is no longer binding (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15), it seems very clear to me that the Bible opposes death penalty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit 1:&#xA;H3br3wHamm3r81 makes a good point that many biblical scholars question the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11). He gives more details in the answer to the question, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11579/is-it-a-sin-in-some-cases-to-follow-the-law-of-moses&quot;&gt;Is it a sin or forbidden to follow any of the parts of the Law of Moses?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1331" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user1331" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T18:01:46.567" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11579" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11580" CreationDate="2012-11-11T19:20:18.963" Score="2" ViewCount="1214" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 7:53-8:11, Jesus condemns fulfilling the Law of Moses when it requires that a crowd stone an adulteress to death. This seems to imply (if these passages are authentic, which is in question) that in some cases fulfilling the Law of Moses is now sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if this passage is not authentic, there are parts of the Law of Moses that now seem rather barbaric. These laws requiring the killing your children if they are stubborn and rebellious (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), killing a rape victim for not putting up sufficient resistance (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), and killing those who commit blasphemy or believe in a different religion (Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13:5-10 respectively).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there some cases where it is sinful or forbidden to follow any of the laws in the Old Testament, now that Jesus has fulfilled these laws (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very good and very similar question is: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply&quot;&gt;To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply?&lt;/a&gt; and also:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15/do-we-have-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-bible-if-so-what-laws&quot;&gt;Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws?&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Even though these are questions that I'm interested in and still find somewhat confusing, in this question I'm looking for additional insights (scripture or scholarly) about whether it is now sinful or forbidden to follow &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; of the Laws of Moses (including the ceremonial laws for which we are no longer bound). Answers meant to address &lt;strong&gt;which&lt;/strong&gt; of these laws are forbidden are better suited for these questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1331" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user1331" LastEditDate="2020-04-07T13:57:57.460" LastActivityDate="2020-04-07T13:57:57.460" Title="Is it a sin or forbidden to follow any of the parts of the Law of Moses?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;capital-punishment&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11579" CreationDate="2012-11-11T22:48:52.147" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The topic of the law in relation to the Gospel is one of the most discussed ones in the entire history of theology. The space here is not sufficient for arguing one view as opposed to the other. I am going to answer your question with a simple &quot;yes&quot;, though. Sometimes a contextless, literalistic application of Old Testament law is in fact sinful, and I am going to base that on three principles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rabbinic wisdom in the tradition of Hillel. When one law contradicts another in a specific circumstance, you must chose the most important one. E.g. when asked by Gestapo about the whereabouts of some hidden Jews, the moral thing is lying. In many instances Jesus aligns himself with this rabbinic school, as opposed to the tradition from Shammai.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Following that principle, there are further moral insights in the New Testament, that will on many occasions make a compliance with the old law an immoral act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The law in the OT was given to serve many purposes. They include instructions on how to evaluate witnesses and administer punishment, including capital punishment. About this four sub-points spring to mind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In comparison to other laws from the same era, e.g. the law of Hammurabi or the Greek law of Draco the laws of the OT are very humane. One is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to cut off limbs of thieves, or go beyond what is a reasonable punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;That contrast, IMO, has a value. The &lt;em&gt;tendency&lt;/em&gt; is instructive, perhaps even more than the individual examples. In a society such as ours today, we had better follow the &lt;em&gt;intent&lt;/em&gt; of the law, than literal words addressed to an early bronze age society. And that's not because I do not believe the words are true. I say that exactly because I believe they are.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Instructions about how to evaluate juridic guilt and punish offenders where &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; given to &lt;em&gt;individuals&lt;/em&gt;, but to &lt;em&gt;the people&lt;/em&gt; as a whole. Just as we today may &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; act as policemen, judges or prison wardens except in an official capacity, so this aspect of OT law never, ever were intended for anything but officially assigned people. And that includes the law &quot;an eye for an eye&quot;. It is not about individual revenge. (Nor is it about inflicting physical damage, but that is another topic.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament focus has shifted away from how to organize a priestly state of a chosen people, to how to build communities, made up from all peoples, that reflect the Kingdom of God. That renders all aspects of the OT law, that concerned the treatment of suspected or convicted lawbreakers, void. It has served its purpose and while it was not wrong, it is not any longer applicable. Trying to apply it as if it were, would be contrary to the Gospel, and thus, yes, sinful&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-11-11T22:48:52.147" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11581" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11615" CreationDate="2012-11-11T22:57:32.033" Score="17" ViewCount="343" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Valdensians preached and celebrated the Lord's Supper in the native tongue of the people, not in Latin. However, every source I've read about their customs focus on what was &lt;strong&gt;spoken&lt;/strong&gt;, while I also want to know what they &lt;strong&gt;sang&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we have any sources that describe their songs, when and how they were sung or indeed if they did sing during their worship services at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course this question is about the oldest era of the Valdensian movement, way before it merged with Calvinistic Protestantism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-08-25T21:53:12.667" LastActivityDate="2019-01-14T17:23:14.147" Title="Are there any surviving hymns from the Valdensian movement?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;music&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;waldensians&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11564" CreationDate="2012-11-11T23:59:43.220" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:37-40&#xA;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy&#xA;  heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 This is the first and great commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as&#xA;  thyself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it is self explanatory that from the second commandment, we are to love ourselves and others as well.  Therefore, I believe this is a very locked-tight argument that all people matter, not just God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer may not directly answer your actual question, because Reformist Theology may not assume God only matters, so the question may incorrect in its assumptions.  However, it does speak to the matter of whether only God matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3393" LastEditorUserId="3393" LastEditDate="2012-11-12T19:59:22.143" LastActivityDate="2012-11-12T19:59:22.143" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11572" CreationDate="2012-11-12T07:12:40.773" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a rather important scripture from the Old Testament that @DavidStratton missed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Amos 3:7 (KJV): Surly the Lord God will do nothing but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the LDS church see's it, if the true chruch of Christ is on the earth, there &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Absolutely&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; must be a prophet on the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to answer your question:&#xA;In the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord laid out the foundation for how the church leadership was to be continued. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The person who has been in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;longest&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, is at the death of the old prophet sustained, and ordained the new prophet of the church. If you look at the history of the Quorum of the Twelve during Joseph Smiths day, Brigham Young was the senior apostle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for the general LDS population, everyone is instructed that they should come to their own belief in not just Joseph Smith but also the current prophet of the church. However if you have a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the revelation he received was from God, then it follows that as long as that revelation was followed each consecutive president would also be a prophet of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Little historical notes:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history is a little messy because of the explosive growth of the church and the many people who either left/were excommunicated during that time. But he (Brigham Young) was the longest serving apostle and the president of the Quorum when Joseph passed away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a note of interest Hyrum would actually have been the next prophet if he had not died with his brother Joseph. However he was not the president of the Quorum of the Twelve because he was the 1st counselor in the 1st presidency of the church. And being the president of the Quorum of the Twelve even today is not necessarily an indication that you are the longest served apostle.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-11-12T07:12:40.773" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11586" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11587" CreationDate="2012-11-12T10:13:20.137" Score="20" ViewCount="8168" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Of course Jesus preached a lot of monologue sermons&lt;/strong&gt;, but I have noticed that Jesus did not usually preach sermons like nearly every church does today. He never seems to have, or at least rarely preached a sermon, or even a mini sermon, or parable without opportunity for discussion and questions afterwards.  Possibly the ‘sermon on the mount’ is an exception as it is almost the length of a short sermon by todays standards without anyone else responding. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today most protestant churches have a one-way sermon where one person preaches a sermon then after the sermon the Lord's Supper, worship, announcements or some other activity follows without ever opening the floor for questions or limited challenges or discussion by the hearers. This simply can't be found in the gospels or in Acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It. seems clear to me that a more interactive method of preaching was adopted by Jesus which might be more similar to what we would today call teaching, interactive lecturing or a dialogue sermon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read in the past that the synagogue at the time of Christ had a time of interactive discussion after a speaker finished. In the New Testament we find arguably a provision made for 'non clergy' members to take turns in standing up and speaking (1 Cor 14:29).  Furthermore as early churches were house churches I can't imagine any speaker could then imagine that they could get away with an impersonal oratory followed by absolutely no discussion, debate or questions afterward.  In Acts the gospel went out with much interaction. I also heard that martin Luther was famous for very gently and generously answering any question after a sermon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So when did the monologue sermon become the norm?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cultural differences seem to have a part in the answer. Street preaching was not abhorred by anyone back then and disciple teacher relationships were also more popular.  Even when Jesus visited the temple as a child an they marveled at his wisdom indicates a provision in the strictest of ceremonies for accessible human interaction that seems less possible in our current culture. My question actually calls for serious historical and objective analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-11-13T00:00:45.553" LastActivityDate="2018-09-04T16:12:57.293" Title="When did the one-way monologue sermon first become a normal feature of church assemblies?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11586" CreationDate="2012-11-12T14:39:13.147" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way the question is phrased means we must look at two historical developments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How preaching evolved in the early church, from Jesus through the pioneer stage of Acts to the early church fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How preaching evolved in the protestant church, from Luther into what we have today.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, one must note the &lt;em&gt;context&lt;/em&gt; of the preaching: Small group, large amount of people; evangelistic setting, instruction in the faith for believers; etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Gospels, especially Matthew and John, we do hear Jesus delivering what one might called uninterrupted sermons. Matthew have five distinct sermons. However, Jesus interacts with followers, opponents and average people throughout the day. There is not really a pattern of distinct worship services, with distinct starts and stops. It's hard to see a model for preaching in a Sunday service in the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts we have a number of distinct sermons as well, but they are mostly ad hoc, in an evangelistic setting. They are very carefully crafted to the audience though. When appealing to Jews or &quot;God fearers&quot;, the apostles used scripture, when appealing to unlearned gentiles, Paul used natural analogies and when appealing to learned Greeks, Paul used quotations from their own traditions. Once again, it is hard to see the kind of preaching we assume today, when the preacher starts with a text (or a few texts) from the Bible and tries to use them for exhortation and instruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see some sermons in Acts ending in dialogue, one ending in a murderous frenzy by the hearers (Stephen's) and some ending in an exhortation to be baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another factor: Most of &lt;em&gt;the epistles of the New Testaments are in fact sermons.&lt;/em&gt; They were supposed to be read aloud. (A side note: Gather a small group, shut your Bibles and have one member read Galatians from start to finish. It will take 16-17 minutes. Do not interrupt and ask what a single verse might mean, but follow the train of thought. The experience is highly instructive!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Paul (or the other authors) naturally could not be present when the epistles were read, this is very much a one way event. &lt;strong&gt;But&lt;/strong&gt; in some letters Paul is addressing specific questions he has heard or specific problems he has heard of, providing a sense of a dialogue by mail or messenger&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early post-apostolic churches seem to have begun formalizing the worship service quite early on. While retaining many parts of the synagogue service, new elements were added. The preacher would sit and the congregation would stand. Sermons seem to be mostly one way. Questions and dialogue would be handled in smaller settings, like in the catechumenate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that era to the time of Luther, there seems to be precious few examples of dialogue being used in the sermons on Sunday services. Preachers like Chrysostomos (early 5th century) are clearly not expecting questions from the congregation. However, in evangelistic settings, like when Bonifatius talked with the heads of Frisia, dialogue occurred. One can also assume this was the case with the friar monks, preaching in public, during the middle ages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther himself seem to have given himself license to do a few things he did not expect other preachers to do. In fact, he strongly admonished most of them to use written sermons, since he had a low opinion about their ability to produce sermons of sufficient quality of their own. To this end he wrote quite a number of postillas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther also seemed to have preached mostly ex tempore, having worked with the texts in earnest when he prepared his lectures at the university, and a bit later, when he translated them into German. Most surviving sermons were written down by his hearers. Once again, it is clear that he expects other preachers to use a script for their sermons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given Luther's low opinion about the state of preachers' abilities, it would be surprising if he would encourage dialogue type sermons, even though I've not read anything myself that clearly says that he did or did not. He, and almost every other notable reformer, did however provide catechisms, that are structured in a question and answer format. In some ways these can be seen as FAQs, but in some ways they also are saying that this is a question one &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within a generation after Luther's death, Lutheran orthodoxy happened, clearly stifling innovation and providing a strong impetus for one way communication, regardless of the setting. &quot;Cuius regio, eius religio&quot; and that meant subjects were expected to conform. Any possible remnant of dialogue (if there ever were such a thing outside of Wittenberg) would probably have died now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, all of this is an attempt to answer the question &lt;strong&gt;when&lt;/strong&gt;. It says very little about the question &lt;strong&gt;how&lt;/strong&gt; we should be preaching &lt;strong&gt;today&lt;/strong&gt;. If anything, I think the lessons from early church age seem to be &lt;strong&gt;pick the format that works best&lt;/strong&gt; in your particular setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T04:40:58.437" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T04:40:58.437" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11586" CreationDate="2012-11-12T15:11:16.980" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have noticed that Jesus did not usually preach sermons like nearly every church does today. Possibly the ‘sermon on the mount’ is an exception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I challenge that premise. How is it that the sermon on the mount came to make it into scripture, if the disciple relating it (Matthew) only heard it one time? Also, how do we account for the similarity to the Sermon on the Plain in Luke? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of the answer is that, in the days before radio, television, and now the internet, indeed, before most people were even literate, if you wanted to reach a large audience you had to travel and go to them in person. A public figure would travel from town to town, and at each stop he would give much the same speech, because it would be almost an entirely new audience each time. This was how to get your message out back then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is likely, then, that what we have recorded in Matthew and Luke are individual re-tellings of that same stump speech. Because they traveled with Jesus, the disciples who related these speeches would have heard them potentially hundreds of times, and were likely rehearsed on them in private (especially as they were members of the 70/72 from Luke 10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the monologue sermon was likely exactly the pattern for teaching established by Jesus Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2012-11-12T15:11:16.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11586" CreationDate="2012-11-12T15:35:31.390" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe this format was already part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_liturgy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jewish Liturgy&lt;/a&gt; services that took place in the synagogue, which would have included prayer, scripture reading, and a homily. Remember that Jesus, the twelve, and most of the early Christians were Jews. Much of what we do in Christianity -- particularly in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the early Protestant branches -- is pretty darn Jewish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in fact, Jesus' ministry appears to start off in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/4#50004015&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 4:16-30&lt;/a&gt; with a Jewish liturgy. After He reads the scripture and sits down, the author states that the crowd stares at Him intently (waiting for Him to speak). I don't think it's much of a leap to say they're waiting for a monologue (sermon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;interactive preaching&lt;/strong&gt; you're referring to isn't part of any worship service, bread-breaking, or religious tradition. It's just a preacher in his daily life, chatting with needy people. And I think the scriptures put this sort of interaction distinctly outside of any religious customs or structures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ADDENDUM&lt;/strong&gt;: The sermon, as part of a worship service, is part of a ceremony that is intended to unite a congregation in a singel act of worship. It is not, therefore, intended to teach the community so much as it is to unite, encourage, and guide the community in living The Word they have already been taught. An open dialogue in the midst of a service would distract from the purpose of focusing the congregation in a single act of worship. Hence, such dialogues simply take place outside the ceremony. And we (at least in most Catholic masses) are encouraged to seek more in depth spiritual direction and education outside the ceremony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2012-11-12T16:57:29.657" LastActivityDate="2012-11-12T16:57:29.657" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11570" CreationDate="2012-11-12T16:29:04.087" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll refer you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4039.htm#article2&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica 3.39.6&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I answer that, As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii): &quot;After&#xA;  being baptized, the Lord baptized, not with that baptism wherewith He&#xA;  was baptized.&quot; Wherefore, since He Himself baptized with His own&#xA;  baptism, it follows that He was not baptized with His own, but with&#xA;  John's baptism. And this was befitting: first, because John's baptism&#xA;  was peculiar in this, that he baptized, not in the Spirit, but only&#xA;  &quot;in water&quot;; while Christ did not need spiritual baptism, &lt;strong&gt;since He was&#xA;  filled with the grace of the Holy Ghost from the beginning of His&#xA;  conception&lt;/strong&gt;, as we have made clear above (Question 34, Article 1). And&#xA;  this is the reason given by Chrysostom (Hom. de Bapt. Christi).&#xA;  Secondly, as Bede says on Mark 1:9, He was baptized with the baptism&#xA;  of John, that, &quot;by being thus baptized, He might show His approval of&#xA;  John's baptism.&quot; Thirdly, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), &quot;by&#xA;  going to John to be baptized by him, He sanctified baptism.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, consider that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are fully present in every place once can be said to be present. Thus, Christ is never without the presence of the Father and the Spirit. It is only for the purpose of sanctifying the human institution of baptism (John's baptism) that Jesus &quot;receives&quot; the Holy Spirit which is already with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4039.htm#article6&quot;&gt;Question 6 of the same chapter of Summa Theologica&lt;/a&gt;, Christ is not so much receiving the Spirit for Himself, since the Spirit is already fully with Him; &lt;strong&gt;He is receiving the Holy Spirit into the sacrament of baptism&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-11-12T16:29:04.087" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6979" CreationDate="2012-11-12T18:34:05.433" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read the Bible from cover to cover 9 times in the last 10 1/2 years... It is a study Bible in the NKJV format, written by John MacArthur...  While I don't 100% agree with every note that John MacArthur makes...I believe the very act of salvation is a mystery that each person must work out on their own...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Paul tells us this, in...Philippians 2:12... Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John MacArthur has written at least 4 versions of study Bibles, and over 80 books...  I was amazed at his statement in the following video, that he wasn't even sure as to how his own salvation came about...  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mleum3jZ1E&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mleum3jZ1E&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe sinners must be drawn in by God first...John 6:44... No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point they have to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the gospel of Christ must be understood and obeyed to be graced by God with salvation...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I spent a day writing on this necessity to become a Christian in the following link...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://brmfam.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/gods-group-thoughts-for-10202012-gods-grace-through-obedience-to-the-gospel-of-christ/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://brmfam.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/gods-group-thoughts-for-10202012-gods-grace-through-obedience-to-the-gospel-of-christ/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also write a daily devotion on Facebook on a page called...&quot;Gods group&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;bruce r mills&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3441" LastActivityDate="2012-11-12T18:34:05.433" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11572" CreationDate="2012-11-12T23:10:51.633" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are encouraged to get a testimony of each of those prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1.I don't disagree with you. However, I would think that a testimony of the current prophet, would be enough. If you know the first to be true, and today's to be true that should be enough. If &lt;strong&gt;you&lt;/strong&gt; decide that one in the middle isn't a true prophet, but you have a testimony of the current one, does that mean the entire church is now wrong but led by a true prophet? No, that wouldn't make sense. Personally, I would Look at Joseph Smith Jr. and the current prophet before joining, and look at the others after joining. If you change your mind latter, you could always leave. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It boils down to a question of what do you think is the bigger sin, ignoring a prompting from the holy spirit, or following a prompting before studying it out? and I don't think I can answer that here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; So I was pointed to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-9-prophets-of-god?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=%22stands%20as%20president%20of%20this%20church%20to%20lead%20you%20astray.%20it%20is%20not%20in%20the%20programme.%20it%20is%20not%20in%20the%20mind%20of%20god.%20if%20i%20were%20%22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Statement&lt;/a&gt; by a previous president, I would think this is a shortcut, gain a testimony of this and they you can not worry about the other prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as&#xA;  President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the&#xA;  programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that,&#xA;  the Lord would remove me out of my place” (Teachings of Presidents of&#xA;  the Church: Wilford Woodruff [2004], 199).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2.They do encourage this from what I understand. There is even a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/introduction?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;manual&lt;/a&gt; about this. It is an &quot;institute&quot; manual which I believe means it is a college level course. The introduction states: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The purpose of the Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual is&#xA;  to &lt;strong&gt;help you strengthen your testimony of living prophets and their&#xA;  teachings.&lt;/strong&gt; It discusses our need for living prophets, the role of the&#xA;  President of the Church, the divine order of succession in the&#xA;  Presidency, the Quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the&#xA;  Twelve Apostles, and the importance of general conferences. &lt;strong&gt;President&#xA;  Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) taught, “It is not alone sufficient for us&#xA;  as Latter-day Saints to follow our leaders and to accept their&#xA;  counsel, but we have the greater obligation to gain for ourselves the&#xA;  unshakable testimony of the divine appointment of these men and the&#xA;  witness that what they have told us is the will of our Heavenly&#xA;  Father” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1950, 130).&lt;/strong&gt; A witness of the&#xA;  divine appointment of the living prophets is promised to each of us as&#xA;  we study the counsel of the Brethren and resolve to sustain them&#xA;  through our obedience. This manual will assist you in your study of&#xA;  the living prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/presidents-of-the-church-student-manual?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;manual&lt;/a&gt; with the teachings from each prophet and it is another institute manual. Meaning, I think, They study all of them. They also have a larger book on each prophet (I think it's all of them), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/epub?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scroll to the bottom of this page for the list of links.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3.From what I understand, they just ask you to pray about it and ask God. Seems pretty simple and straight forward. I would guess, that if the holy spirit already helped you out with a testimony of the current prophet, Joseph Smith Jr. and the Book of Mormon, this wouldn't be much more to ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; After talking to a few more members I know, I was pointed to a &quot;seminary&quot; manual, which I believe is used with high school students. &lt;a href=&quot;https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/manuals/seminary-student/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-student-study-guide_eng.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Page 158 of this manual.&lt;/a&gt; I would recommend you read the entire page about succession. The part below talks about the first conference that Brigham Young held:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Brigham Young then spoke briefly, comforting the hearts of the&#xA;  Saints. &lt;strong&gt;As Brigham spoke,&lt;/strong&gt; George Q. Cannon remembered, &lt;strong&gt;‘it was the&#xA;  voice of Joseph himself,’&lt;/strong&gt; and ‘it seemed in the eyes of the people as&#xA;  if it were the very person of Joseph which stood before them.’ William&#xA;  C. Staines testified that Brigham Young spoke like the voice of the&#xA;  Prophet Joseph. ‘I thought it was he,’ Staines said, ‘and so did&#xA;  thousands who heard it.’ &lt;strong&gt;Wilford Woodruff also recalled&lt;/strong&gt; that wonderful&#xA;  moment and wrote, &lt;strong&gt;‘If I had not seen him with my own eyes, there is no&#xA;  one that could have convinced me that it was not Joseph Smith, and&#xA;  anyone can testify to this who was acquainted with these two men.’&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  [Quotations in History of the Church 7:236.] This miraculous&#xA;  manifestation, seen by many, made clear to the Saints that the Lord&#xA;  had chosen Brigham Young to succeed Joseph Smith as leader of the&#xA;  Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastEditorUserId="770" LastEditDate="2012-11-13T16:25:12.017" LastActivityDate="2012-11-13T16:25:12.017" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11594" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11607" CreationDate="2012-11-13T00:35:10.993" Score="10" ViewCount="80740" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%204:16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:16&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's my understanding that most people in the Western world believe in Christian immortalism though. If the dead are already in heaven, how are they rising here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="103" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-01T06:45:34.480" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T00:06:29.467" Title="If the dead are already in heaven, how do they rise at the second coming?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;&lt;1-thessalonians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-06T01:58:02.393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7280" CreationDate="2012-11-13T00:59:00.523" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/130&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, G. K Chesterton argues that Christianity consistently strives to balance two sorts of opposite extremes.  He mentions, for instance, that our religion has been criticized for being far too weak and submissive while being equally faulted for promoting wars and anger.  The paradox extends all the way back to Jesus himself: he was a lion when he cursed the fig tree, rebuked Peter, and turned over the money-changers' tables and a lamb when he taught non-violence, washed his disciple's feet, and allowed himself to die an innocent man.  Chesterton argued that the balance was not maintained in the church by drawing inward to a central (safe) compromise, but rather by exaggerating opposite extremes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church could not afford to swerve a hair's breadth on some things if she was to continue her great and daring experiment of the irregular equilibrium. Once let one idea become less powerful and some other idea would become too powerful. It was no flock of sheep the Christian shepherd was leading, but a herd of bulls and tigers, of terrible ideals and devouring doctrines, each one of them strong enough to turn to a false religion and lay waste the world. Remember that the Church went in specifically for dangerous ideas; she was a lion tamer. The idea of birth through a Holy Spirit, of the death of a divine being, of the forgiveness of sins, or the fulfilment of prophecies, are ideas which, any one can see, need but a touch to turn them into something blasphemous or ferocious. The smallest link was let drop by the artificers of the Mediterranean, and the lion of ancestral pessimism burst his chain in the forgotten forests of the north. Of these theological equalisations I have to speak afterwards. Here it is enough to notice that if some small mistake were made in doctrine, huge blunders might be made in human happiness.&amp;mdash;Chapter 6, &quot;The Paradoxes of Christianity&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Chesterton &lt;em&gt;was not&lt;/em&gt; arguing for schisms.  He, in fact, points to a tradition that I find very compelling as one of the dangers the Church avoided:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob.&amp;mdash;Chapter 6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it seems to me that the very same arguments about avoiding the dangers of destructive doctrine also apply to the Church's avoidance of destructive hierarchies.  Oddly enough, I arrived at that conclusion when reading elsewhere in &lt;em&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If any one wants a modern proof of all this, let him consider the curious fact that, under Christianity, Europe (while remaining a unity) has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate balancing of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the Pagan empire would have said, &quot;You shall all be Roman citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental and swift.&quot; But the instinct of Christian Europe says, &quot;Let the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany shall correct the insanity called France.&quot;&amp;mdash;Chapter 6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We would be hard-pressed to consider Europe as the center of Christendom these days, but the principle of one portion of the whole balancing the opposite tendencies of another portion seemed to be at work in the Church Universal.  In essence, we correct the problem of one branch being weighed down be ritual with another branch that is perhaps too unfettered by it.  We balance the insufficiently grounded faith with another that is deeply rooted.  Rather than turning the tree into a stable stump, we allow both roots and branches to flourish equally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-11-13T00:59:00.523" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11594" CreationDate="2012-11-13T01:18:37.537" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Abstract&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that the saved go to heaven when they die is somewhat anachronistic.  Equally anachronistic is the idea that people will be &quot;raptured&quot; into heaven when Jesus returns.  Paul had another meaning in mind when he wrote this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N. T. Wright explains in &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/Surprised_by_Hope.html?id=XBCLiQ8-qXkC&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Surprised By Hope&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;parousia&lt;/em&gt; occurs in two of the key passages [concerning rapture theology] in Paul (I Thessalonians 4:15 and I Corinthians 15:23), and is found frequently elsewhere in Paul and the New Testament.  It seems clear that the early Christians knew the work well, and knew what was meant by it. People often assume that the early chruch used &lt;em&gt;parousia&lt;/em&gt; simply to mean &quot;the second coming of Jesus&quot; and that by this event they all envisioned, in a quite literal fashion, the scenario of I Thessalonians 4:16-17 (Jesus coming down on a cloud and people flying upward to meet him). Neither of these assumptions is in fact correct.&amp;mdash;p. 128&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wright then explains the two meanings of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parousia&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;parousia&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; that were in play:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The mysterious presence of a god or divinity, particularly when the power of this god was revealed in healing.&quot; (p. 129)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;When a person of high rank makes a visit to a subject state, particularly when a king or emperor visits a colony or province.&quot; (p. 129)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Wright explains it, Paul envisioned Jesus returning to earth to establish His everlasting Kingdom &lt;em&gt;here&lt;/em&gt;, not in heaven.  Therefore, the spirits of the already dead will return to inhabit their resurrected bodies and the bodies of the living will be transformed so that we can meet our King.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-11-13T01:29:13.750" LastActivityDate="2012-11-13T01:29:13.750" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11599" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-13T15:22:50.800" Score="24" ViewCount="2482" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been pondering this for several weeks and I believe that the reformed church (really, the church in general) is woefully unprepared to answer the following question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;How would the church deal with a gay couple that were not Christians when married, that then become Christians?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically when we have passages like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:17&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for relevant biblical quotations, relevant quotes from reformed scholars past and present, and any statements by reformed churches or denominations that have come out in recent years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also interested in how circumstances and views change when 1 partner becomes a Christian, when there are children involved, and when both partners become Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As gay marriage becomes more prominent, legal and prolific in our society, questions like this are going to be more and more relevant and the Church must be prepared to deal with an answer these queries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm specifically interested in reformed sources here as they are most relevant to me, but I would be open to other sources that take a similar view of homosexuality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="16688" LastEditDate="2018-07-01T13:09:24.417" LastActivityDate="2021-04-11T16:55:16.107" Title="How would Reformed Christians deal with homosexual marriage of individuals prior to their conversion to Christianity?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;&lt;same-sex-marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7280" CreationDate="2012-11-13T16:28:37.073" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I basically agree with last two of Jon's answers (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11595/3447&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8480/3447&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), but I'd like to add some Catholic perspective to it.&#xA;As Jon interpreted Chesterton, there have always been different groups in the Church, approaching on extreme or the other. Rivalities between monastic orders within Catholic Church show this quite well: opposition between Franciscans and Dominicans and later between both Franciscans and Dominicans on one side and Jesuits on the other is well known (many Catholic jokes are about this), but all stayed in the &quot;club&quot; mode and in unity with whole Catholic Church, enriching its tradition with their intellectual and spiritual contests. This is easy in Holy Spirit and in love, but hard when sin plays the main role. That's why many groups went &quot;clique&quot; and left the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even more different, and in positive way, are parts of Catholic Church that re-entered full communion after some time away from the visible Catholic Church. It's really enriching to participate in Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom and still know that it is completely the same Church and one faith (not just &quot;one faith, but...&quot;), just different tradition of expressing the one faith. It is highly unlikely that these traditions would have evolved to this richness if full unity would have been maintained from the beginning.&#xA;I believe these are the first fruits of the full re-unification and countering the &quot;Babel effect&quot; as described in the Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Protestants, this unity in difference is not so clear, because Protestant oecumena treat different denomination in a similar manner as different orders and congregations are treated in Catholic church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T15:00:31.507" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11599" CreationDate="2012-11-13T18:00:54.753" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're not going to like this answer, but that's because I think the premise is flawed. Why is homosexuality given a standing all its own? What's wrong with the other hundreds of works and confessions by Reformed thinkers regarding sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is not one of legality, but one of morality. Speaking from a Reformed Baptist perspective (I know, not truly &quot;Reformed&quot;), such individuals would be welcomed as any sinner would. They may attend services and worship freely and should be unharried in their attendance. They are to be treated lovingly, as any other individual would be treated. They must be presented the true gospel, God's grace apart from works of the flesh, just as any sinner would.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the union is not recognized as a sanctified union before God (I don't feel the need to defend this here. It's worth a question all its own) and as such, the couple is to be viewed as two individuals. They should not be considered for any counsel, nor should they be encouraged to partake in the ordinances so long as they willfully consider themselves to be in a union.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such a couple should not be made an example, and at the same time teachers must not shy away from teaching the hard truths in the scriptures that a homosexual union was not given as an object lesson of Christ's work but rather a singular heterosexual marriage is (divorcees who have remarried raise another question, too).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the legality of the practice and the fact that the union is between two consenting adults, the question is functionally the same as that of prostitution (imagining the church is in a location where such practice is legal) or heterosexual cohabitation apart from marriage. If the convert stops uniting himself with a person who is not his wife, then he is demonstrating the beginning evidence of the Holy Spirit's work in his life and should be treated as a brother (with struggles) and gently examined over time for trustworthiness of the faith. However, if he demonstrates no attempt to stop this practice, he should be treated as one who is not a convert but rather one who needs to hear the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has been asked &quot;What of homosexual couples who bring children to church? Should they be told to end their legally-separate union?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off (and this is the Baptist in me coming out), it is not the church's or church members' prerogative to be telling people what they should and should not do in their personal lives, apart from expositing the scriptures. If a homosexual couple is dependent upon each other financially and also has children, this is something of a unique situation. It is unhelpful to tell them &quot;split up and never see each other again, and give your children up for adoption... again.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet we can not shy away from the truth. Speak the truth from the scriptures as you arrive at them. Do not make an example of these people. Pray for them. In God's perfect timing, their eyes will be opened and their minds will no longer think in futility. Incidentally, this is always the answer. All of the other things will work out so long as this precept is first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they want to partake in communion or Baptism, it must be explained that their presence in the church is appreciated, but they cannot take the sign of identification with Christ while they have no interest in repentance of their most obvious and public sins. Additionally, one cannot be in communion with the church (through the supper) while in the same position. If they insist on taking communion, they are guilty of profaning the body of Christ and should be repeatedly, gently asked not to take communion and be given an explanation as to &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is enough to push them out of the body, I'm ok with that. Every effort has been made to be inclusive as far as the scriptures permit. It's a bad situation, and either it will turn biblical or it will not. There's not really a lot of middle ground. We must seek God's approval above man's, even if it means losing those who attend a church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The edit in the question is applying a context that the passage does not warrant. Being circumcised is not a sin, nor is being uncircumcised. Being married is not a sin, nor is being single. However, a homosexual union is sin and is thus not applicable to the passage. One verse in the section sums it up nicely:    &lt;em&gt;For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.&lt;/em&gt; (1 Corinthians 7:19 ESV)&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2012-11-14T22:31:32.973" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T22:31:32.973" CommentCount="21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-13T19:06:47.133" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some quotes from and references to Catholic and Protestant sources that attest to the changing of the Saturday Sabbath to the Sunday Sabbath (to speak simply).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.&quot; - &lt;em&gt;Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia&lt;/em&gt;, August 1900.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the Church, has no good reason for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath.&quot; - John Gilmary Shea, in the &lt;em&gt;American Catholic Quarterly Review&lt;/em&gt;, January 1883.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Ques.&lt;/em&gt; -Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ans.&lt;/em&gt; -Has she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her: She could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for there is no Scriptural authority.&quot; -Stephen Keenan, &lt;em&gt;Doctrinal Catechism&lt;/em&gt;, p.176&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many more quotes from the Catholic Church which I can provide. The Protestant view is presented next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Anglican Church&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day.&quot; -Isaac Williams, &lt;em&gt;Plain Sermons on the Catechism&lt;/em&gt;, pp.334, 336&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Southern Baptist&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;The sacred name of the seventh day is Sabbath. This fact is too clear to require argument [Exodus 20:10 quoted]... Not once did the disciples apply the Sabbath law to the first day of the week,-that folly was left for a later age, nor did they pretend that the first day supplanted the seventh.&quot; -Joseph Judson Taylor, &lt;em&gt;The Sabbatic Question&lt;/em&gt;, pp.14-17,41.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Presbyterian&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;There is no word, no hint in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday. The observance of Ash Wednesday, or Lent, stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday. Into the rest of Sunday no Divine Law enters.&quot; -Canon Eyton, &lt;em&gt;Ten Commandments&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with the Catholic quotes, there are more quotes from the mainstream Protestant churches I can provide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3430" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-12-17T05:17:56.833" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T05:17:56.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11546" CreationDate="2012-11-13T20:06:49.587" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps some early Christians sang choruses at the beginning of worship, but this was not a standard part of the order of worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Testament&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the beginning, worship was centered around the Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament does not contain an order of worship, but Paul mentions worship practices in a few of his letters. He talks about worship songs in two of his letters (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/ephesians/passage.aspx?q=ephesians+5:18-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:19&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/colossians/passage.aspx?q=colossians+3:16-17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 3:16&lt;/a&gt;), but he says these are things we should do at all times, not specifically during the weekly gathering. When Paul does speak explicitly of the worship gathering (e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-corinthians/11.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:18-26&lt;/a&gt;), he focuses on the Lord's supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord's supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, &amp;quot;This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.&amp;quot; In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, &amp;quot;This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.&amp;quot; For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second Century&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Didache&lt;/a&gt;, a late first or early second century document, gives these instructions for worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day.&lt;/strong&gt; But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: &amp;quot;In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Didache also includes specific prayers to offer before and after taking communion, as well as guidelines for how to act toward itinerant preachers and prophets who speak to the congregation. But it does not mention singing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Justin Martyr, in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;First Apology&lt;/a&gt;, describes the typical Christian worship of his day:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CHAPTER LXV -- ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, there is no mention of choruses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But singing is mentioned in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;letter from the Roman governor Pliny the Younger&lt;/a&gt; to the Emperor Trajan. Pliny had been investigating an anonymous document that accused local Christians of subversive practices. Upon questioning the Christians, Pliny found the truth was more innocuous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third Century&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apostolic Tradition&lt;/a&gt; a treatise by Hippolytus of Rome, includes several liturgies for worship and church life. The only mention of singing is in chapter 25, following a community dinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the meal they shall get up and pray, and the children shall sing songs, along with&#xA;the virgins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not been able to find solid evidence that singing choruses at the beginning of worship was widely practiced by early Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-13T20:06:49.587" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-13T20:56:08.487" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Testament clearly retains a distinction between the Sabbath day (seventh day of the week) and &quot;the first day of the week&quot; (cp. John 20:19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2 v. Acts 13:14, 13:27, 13:42, 13:44, etc.). The Sabbath cannot be moved. It is simply the seventh day of the week as defined in the Torah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Christians are not under the Law of Moses (certainly not Gentile Christians who never were) and all Christians rest in Christ, there would be no need to &quot;move&quot; the Sabbath. Although there is no commandment to observe the first day of the week as a specific day of worship, some Christians may insist they do so because Christ resurrected from the dead on the first day of the week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each Christian has liberty to worship &quot;in Spirit and in truth&quot; as the Holy Spirit moves him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-11-13T20:56:08.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11579" CreationDate="2012-11-13T21:02:49.593" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many scholars question the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae (the section of scripture you cited in the original post).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/my-favorite-passage-that%E2%80%99s-not-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bible.org/article/my-favorite-passage-that%E2%80%99s-not-bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professor Daniel Wallace writes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For a long time, biblical scholars have recognized the poor textual&#xA;  credentials of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John&#xA;  7:53–8:11). The evidence against its authenticity is overwhelming: The&#xA;  earliest manuscripts with substantial portions of John’s Gospel (P66&#xA;  and P75) lack these verses. They skip from John 7:52 to 8:12. The&#xA;  oldest large codices of the Bible also lack these verses: codex&#xA;  Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the fourth century, are normally&#xA;  considered to be the most important biblical manuscripts of the NT&#xA;  extant today. Neither of them has these verses. Codex Alexandrinus,&#xA;  from the fifth century, lacks several leaves in the middle of John.&#xA;  But because of the consistency of the letter size, width of lines, and&#xA;  lines per page, the evidence is conclusive that this manuscript also&#xA;  lacked the pericope adulterae. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, also from&#xA;  the fifth century, apparently lacked these verses as well (it is&#xA;  similar to Alexandrinus in that some leaves are missing). The earliest&#xA;  extant manuscript to have these verses is codex Bezae, an eccentric&#xA;  text once in the possession of Theodore Beza. He gave this manuscript&#xA;  to the University of Cambridge in 1581 as a gift, telling the school&#xA;  that he was confident that the scholars there would be able to figure&#xA;  out its significance. He washed his hands of the document. Bezae is&#xA;  indeed the most eccentric NT manuscript extant today, yet it is the&#xA;  chief representative of the Western text-type (the text-form that&#xA;  became dominant in Rome and the Latin West).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When P66, P75, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus agree, their combined&#xA;  testimony is overwhelmingly strong that a particular reading is not&#xA;  authentic. But it is not only the early Greek manuscripts that lack&#xA;  this text. The great majority of Greek manuscripts through the first&#xA;  eight centuries lack this pericope. And except for Bezae (or codex D),&#xA;  virtually all of the most important Greek witnesses through the first&#xA;  eight centuries do not have the verses. Of the three most important&#xA;  early versions of the New Testament (Coptic, Latin, Syriac), two of&#xA;  them lack the story in their earliest and best witnesses. The Latin&#xA;  alone has the story in its best early witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even patristic writers seemed to overlook this text. Bruce Metzger,&#xA;  arguably the greatest textual critic of the twentieth century, argued&#xA;  that “No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth&#xA;  century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the&#xA;  accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it” (Textual Commentary,&#xA;  2nd ed., loc. cit.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, you're establishing a theological concept on a particular passage of the Bible which may not have even been in the original manuscripts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-11-13T21:02:49.593" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11594" CreationDate="2012-11-13T21:19:00.043" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;dead in Christ&quot; (οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ) refers to &quot;those who are asleep&quot; (τοὺς κοιμηθέντας; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Th&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_1115014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Thes. 4:14&lt;/a&gt;). The Greek phrase ἐν Χριστῷ means one who is incorporated into the body of Christ, i.e. a Christian. Thus, οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ means &quot;dead Christians.&quot; Specifically, it is referring to the bodies of Christians lying in the grave, for the soul does not die upon death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, the souls/spirits of the dead Christian believers go go to heaven (or &quot;Paradise&quot;) upon death (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Co&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_1083008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Cor. 5:8&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&amp;amp;c=23&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_996043&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 23:43&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Phl&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_1104023&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phil. 1:23&lt;/a&gt;). When our Lord Jesus Christ returns, the souls/spirits of dead believers will be reunited with their bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle Paul writes (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Co&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_1083010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Cor. 5:10 KJV&lt;/a&gt;), &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that everyone may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-01-04T21:54:51.087" LastActivityDate="2015-01-04T21:54:51.087" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8044" CreationDate="2012-11-13T23:16:55.133" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lilit, from the Hebrew לִילִית, is popularized by Jewish &lt;em&gt;midrashim&lt;/em&gt;. I do not believe it (or she) has ever had a place in Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An excerpt from Gesenius' lexicon on the OT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/WhSjJ.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The comments in brackets are redactions made by S. P. Tregelles when he translated Gesenius' lexicon into English.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word occurs once in Isa. 34:14 where it is translated as &quot;screech owl&quot; by the A.V. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-11-13T23:16:55.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11586" CreationDate="2012-11-13T23:33:42.263" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11587/3447&quot;&gt;Itpastorn&lt;/a&gt; have already well addressed preaching at the biblical times and in time of Luther. I will try to address the time in between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Antiquity, preaching (during liturgical ocasions, not in evangelist settings) was a monopoly of a bishop, the successor of the Twelve (who have ordained deacons to serve, so that apostles and episkopoi had time to preach - see Acts 6,1-6). Other preachers were allowed only to read sermons written by their bishop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Middle Ages, the bishop's role have somewhat changed to a political representant of the Church, so the bishops had fewer and fewer time to prepage sermons and preach. Thats why ordinary priests, especially from monastic background, have started to preach themselves. Around 800, stone ambons/pulpits were only in cathedrals (bishops' churches) and monastery churches. Recorded sermons from that times concern morale, preaching on doctrine was still a domain of bishops. The audience of regular sermons (which were in latin) were mostly monks and candidates for priesthood, laymen were taught outside liturgy and in their language - this &quot;evangelist settings&quot; preaching could have been quite interactive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In High Middle Ages, sermons were more common during Holy Mass, and sermons in local languages occured. On the other hand, &quot;learned sermons&quot; with profound theological argumentation emerged. Most preachers at these times were priest from religious orders, who could preach on doctrine. Other priests lacked the formation to preach on anything more than basic morale. First new books of homilies were written, and homiliaries from antiquity authors (by st. Augustin, Gregor the Great etc.) were copied in big amounts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before 1200, anyone could preach (but in &quot;evangelist setting&quot; manner, not in a church). In late 12th century lay preachers gained popularity, but they were suspect of heresy, at least because lack of education (many of them didn't know that they teach something else than genuine doctrine of Catholic Church, some were deliberately preaching something different, like Kathars).&#xA;A break occured when mendicant orders (dominicans or &quot;preacher brothers&quot; and franciscans) started to preach this way themselves, but on better theological basis. At the same time bishops started to regulate lay preaching. Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated that a preacher needs a licence from his bishop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From 13th century on, wandering preachers (usually from a religious order giving necessary formation to preach well) were very popular. Ideal preacher must have been able to preach anytime, he must have traveled (no one would seem original if he stayed to long on the same place) and address different audiences (from uneducated peasants to university proffessors). While ordinary preachers (all priests were preachers these times, but they had no formal education for it) mostly read sermons prepared by someone else (with no room for interactivity), these exeptional preachers were ready for questions and other reactions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we meet Luther - what itpastorn have written suit perfectly to this pattern of an elite preachers who both preaches and answer question, but doesn't overrate preaching skills of his ordinary colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sum up, one-way monologue sermon was a norm from antiquity on, with ocasional exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T15:02:45.353" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8882" CreationDate="2012-11-14T08:28:41.180" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is as complex as God:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as Theists are unable to give logical explanation to Atheists about the existence of God, so is the case with Christians, where it is impractical to give a logical explanation of Triune nature of God because that which is being attempted to explain (in both instances) refer to same Entity called God. The concept of Trinity is as enigmatic as the existence of God and it is obviously so, because ultimately we are discussing about the same God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Trinity&quot; is an expression used to articulate one of many attributes of one and only one God based on the various references found woven through all of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, which is why the doctrine was formulated. There is equally clearly only one true God in the Bible. Numerous references are available for both. It is simple logic to end up with the Trinity, although how it works in practice must remain to a degree a mystery, since if we fully understood God in His entirety, He would not be God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The search for proof of existence of God is inconceivable in our finite mind and beyond the ability of limited conception of human intelligence &amp;amp; imagination. With this presumption, we get our belief in God and same is true for Trinity since with Trinity we are trying to define same God. In other words just like you cannot define God by your logical and scientific mind, the same is true of Trinity because we are trying to define the same God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You and I are individual personalities, just like every other god of the major religions. The idea of the Trinity has plurality Within unity, a composite unity. This isn’t saying there is more than one God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Way out for accepting it:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Atheist it is the non-belief in (existence) God that keeps him from becoming a theist. For theist it is the “constituents, frame and state” of mind, not the proof, which makes him accept the belief in existence of God. However, in some cases with a presupposed mind, like a person with Islamic background, it does prevent them from accepting the Christian faith because of his inability to accept Trinity in the same “constituents, frame and state” of mind as he is accepting the existence of God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trinity is woven in scriptures:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some argues that when it is not specifically stated anywhere in the Bible about the triune nature of God then why to formulate a Doctrine for it? Why not live and practice Christianity without it?    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer lies in the truth that one cannot be a follower of Jesus if you do not believe in what He said and preached. When Jesus came into this world and preached the Good News about God’s kingdom, the true nature of One Almighty God was also revealed. Most obvious and direct evidence for Trinity emanated from Bible, depicting Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit with Nature of God. Therefore, if Father is God, Son is God and Holy Spirit is God than that’s it. Bible gives us irrefutable references about these claims in amorphous manner in OT and explicitly in NT. It was amorphous in OT, the reason being that it never became that clear until the Son was revealed in NT.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The central issue is, do we believe the Word of God? Despite what many non-Christians believe, Christians – (Mainstreams Christians) – believe that there is only one God. Yes, the Trinity is an odd doctrine, and many don’t like it. But who would make it up? We humans like things to make sense. Only the Trinity is an idea so odd that even after two millennia we still can’t properly understand it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That there is one God, and yet, someone, there are three personalities who are deity, and yet there aren’t three gods but one. It sounds weird, crazy even. Does it seem that humans would make something like that up, or that the devil would? Satan knows that we like things to make sense; he wouldn’t create such a puzzling doctrine, neither would we humans and St. Constantine included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3455" LastEditorUserId="3455" LastEditDate="2012-11-14T08:49:44.233" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T08:49:44.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1044" CreationDate="2012-11-14T09:53:20.010" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the world was created, God saw that &quot;it was good.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Adam and Eve sinned, sin destroyed the &quot;goodness&quot; of creation. Creation was now hostile to mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3456" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T09:53:20.010" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11581" CreationDate="2012-11-14T15:30:42.937" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I contacted the Valdensian Seminary in Rome and got this reply, from Lothar Vogel, professor of Church History:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Gunther,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I thank you very much for your kind request and for your interest in&#xA;  Waldensian history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I can tell you that there are no sources concerning medieval&#xA;  Waldensian hymns or liturgies linked to Eucharistiv celebrations. At&#xA;  the latest from 14th century on the liturgical pratise was factually&#xA;  limited to confession, and the Waldensians participated at the&#xA;  sacramental practice of the &quot;great church&quot; (baptism, eucharist).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is, thus, &quot;no&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T15:30:42.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2012-11-14T15:57:58.613" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a fascinating dissection of Job that I recently read:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bookofjob.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bookofjob.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a pretty long and thorough analysis, but the summary is that God allows evil and suffering to happen because if he didn't then our love would be conditional on his protection from evil and suffering.  Just like Satan says about Job, he only loves God because his life is free from suffering.  God not only gives us free will, but has to allow a situation where we freely choose him out of love rather than in exchange for blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T15:57:58.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2012-11-14T18:15:18.630" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a note, while this answer is compatible with Christianity, it is not, strictly speaking, a &quot;Christian&quot; answer to the question. Basically, it is a Christian's non-Christian approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that the question is misstated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I don't believe in God because of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok. What is evil? Basically, it eventually maps to suffering, so the new quote is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I don't believe in God because people suffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, first whether God exists is completely irrelevant from whether we have the expectation that God should act to prevent all suffering. It is the difference between asking whether a thing exists and what qualities we can expect if we assume its existence. It could be that God does exist and God is evil. In such a world, suffering should exist and that should be the most suffering possible. The question, then, is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Assuming the existence of God, is a good God compatible with the suffering we experience?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer is &quot;No&quot; there are three possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They believe that a good God would allow no suffering &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt;. I personally find this to be very unsatisfying as it reminds me of a parent who does not allow a child to do anything which could lead to the child's injury. This means no running and playing, no interacting with other kids, no exposure to even the slightest germ... We have seen these sheltered people, and while they may not have &quot;suffered&quot;, they have certainly been denied some of the greatest of joys. Further, the ability to choose necessitates the ability to determine the lesser good. In a world without suffering, such a lesser does not exist. This means that all preferences and choices are equal. Such radical equality does not bring about the diversity which is such a boon to mankind.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;It may be possible that someone who comes to the conclusion of &quot;good means no suffering&quot; will agree that all of these outcomes are necessary (at this point, most will fall back to either &quot;God cannot be good&quot; or &quot;there is too much suffering&quot;). But, if someone is willing to posit all of these, then the final metric of their view of God is that their God is that he should be Dionysus. In such a case, one wonders why, exactly, they are debating the attributes of God, instead of involved in bakkheia.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They do not believe that God can be good. This argument is a bit circular. They believe that the suffering we observe is not compatible with a good God because God cannot be good. If their justification for this belief is anything other than, &quot;God is the deist God and does not relate to us individually&quot;, it will clearly be a circular argument and should not be pursued further. If it is the deist argument, then it must be the case that God knows us and has chosen our end. If God knows us and has chosen our end, then it must be the case that God has ordered our end for our benefit or detriment. This means that the deist condition is not an actual answer to the &quot;is God good&quot; question, merely a deferral.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The believe the world is &lt;em&gt;not good enough&lt;/em&gt;. Obviously some suffering is stipulated (if not, see the first point), but why is there so much suffering? Shouldn't we expect less? The failure of this argument is that it is inventing a yardstick which cannot be defined and then insisting that God measure up to their standards. How much suffering would be too much? &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;8&lt;/sub&gt; what we have today? &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;16&lt;/sub&gt;? Why that much? Why not more? Why not less? How have they determined that there is any more suffering on this world than there needs to be? tldr; They haven't. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&quot;But what about babies?&quot; they might ask, &quot;Should they suffer too?&quot; Unfortunately, without some form of yardstick, some form of metric which defines &quot;too much&quot;, the assertions of &quot;God is insufficient&quot; really has no meaning.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From here the conversation will diverge, but the important path forward is that you &lt;em&gt;keep forcing them to define their terms&lt;/em&gt;. Eventually the argument leads to circuity, a self-contradictory definition, or the aforementioned yardstick becomes an arbitrary piece of wood. You may never win this, but so long as you don't let your opponent get away with vague generalities and ambiguously defined terms, they will be frustrated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T18:15:18.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2939" CreationDate="2012-11-14T19:11:07.313" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No textual reason for interpreting Genesis figuratively&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whenever we ask why we should take something in the Bible as literal, we must start by asking ask why we should &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; take it as literal.  Does the text give us any reason to interpret it as being figurative?  In the book of Revelation, and other places where mortal man is given a glimpse of eternity, descriptions employ the use of comparison quite frequently.  It was &lt;em&gt;like&lt;/em&gt; this or &lt;em&gt;had the appearance&lt;/em&gt; of that.  The Genesis account employs no such language.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(By the way, the assumption that the Song of Solomon is figuratively is certainly debatable.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Order of Genesis&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, the Genesis account is written as if it were an actual account with a very logical order.  There are six distinct units in which creative works take place.  Each of these units is described as a day, with an evening and a morning.  (The Jewish and Muslim traditions still follow this pattern by marking sundown as the beginning of the next day.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:2 identifies the nature of the earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The earth was &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;without form and void&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and darkness was over the&#xA;  face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of&#xA;  the waters.  Genesis 1:2 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard this original state of &quot;without form and void&quot; paraphrased as &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;unformed&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;unfilled&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  The first three days of Genesis are dedicated to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;forming&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; while the second three days are dedicated to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;filling&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  What is formed on the first day is filled on the 4th days, whatever is formed on the 2nd day is filled on the 5th, and so forth.  So, there are specific divisions that represent a very orderly process, which aligns better with an actual record rather than a figurative story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Confirmation of Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Warren noted, other places in Scripture affirm the six days of creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is&#xA;  a sabbath of the LORD your God .. For &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in six days the LORD made the&#xA;  heavens and the earth,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the sea and all that is in them, and rested on&#xA;  the seventh day.  Exodus 20:8-11 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problems with figurative interpretations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the figurative interpretation breaks down.  If a days is a billion years, then how did flowers get pollinated when there were no bees in existence for another billion years?  Also, if the sixth day is a billion years from Adam, then we have not yet reached the 7th day of God's rest, since we have a genealogy from Adam that is roughly 6,000 years.  Fictitious characters do not have genealogies.  No one can trace his lineage back to Elmer Fudd or Pecos Bill, yet the Bible details a genealogy from Adam to Jesus Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What reason is there to take it as figurative?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we might ask, from where does anyone get the notion that the Genesis account ought to be taken figuratively.  Quite simply, it comes from teachings based on a portion of scientific inquiry that purports irrefutable evidence of an old earth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is fairly easy to see that a literal interpretation of Genesis does not fit with a very old earth.  The assumption is made, for whatever reason, that it must be the irrefutable scientific evidence that is correct.  The question, then, is what to do with Genesis, and this is answered by reinterpreting it figuratively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main problem with this is the assumption of the truthfulness regarding the selective data that purports irrefutable evidence of an old earth.  The problems and inconsistencies in the evidence are not given to the general public, but appear to be deliberately withheld.  Neither are the lines of scientific evidence that point to a young earth given to the general public.  To be truly scientific, all the evidence and all the data should be made available to all students.  Theological assumptions made by individual scientist, whether they be Theistic or Atheistic, should be withheld.  True science has no ax to grind other than the truth it seeks to find, so it should welcome all inquiry and debate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Genesis account does not give any indication of requiring figurative interpretation.  It actually details a very logical and orderly creation.  Other places in Scripture reference the six days of creation.  Finally, the figurative interpretation doesn't make any sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-14T22:20:36.473" LastActivityDate="2012-11-14T22:20:36.473" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11599" CreationDate="2012-11-14T21:39:09.793" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Piper &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/let-marriage-be-held-in-honor-thinking-biblically-about-so-called-same-sex-marriage&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;addressed a portion of this question&lt;/a&gt; in the context of Minnesota's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Same-Sex_Marriage_Amendment,_Amendment_1_%282012%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Same-Sex Marriage Amendment&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  Having listened to his sermons on Romans 1 and other statements by him, the following principles are his consistent teaching on the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Marriage is created and defined by God in the Scriptures as the sexual and covenantal union of a man and a woman in life-long allegiance to each other alone, as husband and wife, with a view to displaying Christ’s covenant relationship to his blood-bought church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;There is no such thing as so-called same-sex marriage, and it would be wise not to call it that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Same sex desires and same sex orientation are part of our broken and disordered sexuality owing to God’s subjection of the created order to futility because of man’s sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Therefore, same-sex intercourse, not same-sex desire is the focus of Paul’s condemnation when he threatens exclusion from the kingdom of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Therefore, it would contradict love and contradict the gospel of Jesus to approve homosexual practice, whether by silence, or by endorsing so-called same-sex marriage, or by affirming the Christian ordination of practicing homosexuals.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The good news of Jesus is that God saves heterosexual sinners and homosexual sinners who trust Jesus, by counting them righteous because of Christ, and by helping them through his Spirit to live lives pleasing to him in their disordered brokenness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I extracted these from the text of his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/let-marriage-be-held-in-honor-thinking-biblically-about-so-called-same-sex-marriage&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;June 16, 2012 sermon&lt;/a&gt;, but left off the last two points that shifted to the Church's attitude toward political action.  Piper &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/there-is-no-demilitarized-zone-in-the-issue-of-homosexuality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;obliquely addressed&lt;/a&gt; the question of what to do if members of this sort of union were to join his congregation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Churches will be faced with new and unheard of cases of discipline. Suppose two so-called “married” men hear the gospel and one of them believes and comes to your church. Will you council “divorce” and moving out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also quoted 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Peter 2:12's encouragement to engage the world with honor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+peter+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe we can extrapolate from these principles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Like any other sin, homosexual practice should be resisted.  If a new believer continues in their habitual sin, it's the responsibility of the Church warn against the dangers of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, homosexual desire is like any other temptation.  We should not be afraid of it.  Christians resist temptation with the power of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Same-sex marriage is not binding in the eyes of God and nor should it be binding in the eyes of the church.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we can safely ignore the teachings on divorce in this case; divorce as understood in the Bible just doesn't apply.  Instead, I think the actual parallel is to the state of voluntary servitude.  That analogy might seem distasteful, but in the Roman world being a bondservant was actually a respectable position.  Many bondservants performed duties that we would recognize as white-collar professions.  More to the point, it was a civic obligation that Paul explained was no longer binding to believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is Paul's advice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 7:21-22 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it seems to me that a Christian who submitted to a same-sex civic contract before they converted should abstain from sexual intercourse, but honor the other obligations of the union.  That would include financial and parental duties if applicable.  Separation should be seriously considered in order to reduce temptation.  If there is an honorable way to nullify the union, that should be pursued.  If not, nobody should be concerned about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very likely we will see some missteps and controversy in the next generation.  Our society is increasingly approving of same-sex practice, but the church should not be.  I'll let Piper have the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/there-is-no-demilitarized-zone-in-the-issue-of-homosexuality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;final word&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the most powerful things we can do is fold into our churches men and women who have same-sex attraction and surround them with a bigger vision of life and love and relationships that make it possible for them to flourish in families and friendships. These stories may be one of the most authenticating messages for the Christian gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2018-06-29T01:21:00.567" LastActivityDate="2018-06-29T01:21:00.567" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11623" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-15T00:01:08.610" Score="1" ViewCount="305" Body="&lt;p&gt;My friend is struggling right now to discern what is right and wrong in the Church and his Christian life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has been brought up in a Catholic church where he had learned about Jesus and what he did for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through friends (including myself) he has visited other denominations and congregations and is noticing the differences between them. He has attended traditional Church of Scotland churches, to Baptist Churches, to Pentecostal Churches and through each Church he is being told what to believe different things by different Christians. Some Christians have told him that he should not even question the pastor/priest, and must agree with what they tell him, as they are the anointed ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does my friend need to accept &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; the teachings of whatever denomination he chooses to be associated with?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More generally, are Christians required accept the teaching of a denomination when they commit to it?  Or is there some freedom to pick and chose their own personal belief system?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2247" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-11-19T19:49:59.163" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T19:49:59.163" Title="Are Christians required to believe the teachings of their own denomination?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-08-04T09:03:52.360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11623" CreationDate="2012-11-15T00:42:27.520" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should not be &lt;em&gt;forced&lt;/em&gt; to believe anything. All elders/pastors/priests will say something incorrect at one point or another. You are correct that you should be reading the bible as much as you can, as it is the source. Let the Holy Spirit and Word of God speak to you, and also pray and let the Holy Spirit give you eyes to see and ears to listen. Find a church you believe is following the Word of God, and grow with them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a verse that might be relevant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,&#xA;  “God opposes the proud&#xA;      but shows favor to the humble.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%205:5-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 5:5-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T01:09:47.367" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T01:09:47.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11625" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-15T03:38:28.167" Score="12" ViewCount="451" Body="&lt;p&gt;When a someone or groups of people were interacting with God, as recorded in the Old Testament, in general were they simply interacting with person of 'God the Father' within the Trinity? Or were they interacting with the 3 in one at the same time? Or where they sometimes speaking with the 3 in one, and sometimes God the father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding what the Trinity is, but the reason I am asking I because I am wondering if the second and third person of the Trinity ever interacted with humanity prior to the incarnation of Christ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T18:27:21.470" LastActivityDate="2015-01-26T17:24:03.350" Title="What person(s) of the Trinity were the people of the Old Testament interacting with?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11625" CreationDate="2012-11-15T03:53:58.373" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 6:46&#xA;  οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα τις ἑώρακέν εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; this [one] has seen the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nobody has ever seen the Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they saw God in the Tanakh (and, they did), then it was not the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conundrum?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. I can quote many Early Church Fathers who insist that they saw pre-incarnate Christ. But, hey, let's dig a little deeper, shall we?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 12:41&#xA;  Isaiah said these things when he saw his glory and spoke about him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 6:1&#xA;  In the year that king Uzziah died, I also saw Adonai sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, they saw the pre-incarnate Son of God. If you read the targumim (Aramaic translation/ interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh), you will see that in many places where it says that YHVH is interacting with His creation, the targumim say that it is the Meimra d'YHVH (Word of YHVH) interacting with the creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quite phenomenal if you ask me. =)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T15:41:32.670" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T15:41:32.670" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11623" CreationDate="2012-11-15T04:16:40.160" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you misunderstand something. It's not so much that a denomination forces you what to believe. It's that what you believe should determine which denomination you align with. You are free to choose a denomination that is compatible with what you believe, based on study and prayer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a practical matter, people tend to unfortunately choose their denomination based on other factors such as family association, religious history, ethnic background, etc. This could make a denomination feel restrictive or controlling for many individuals, but in this case the blame belongs with the individuals who allowed factors other than religious conviction to choose their religious affiliation, and perhaps with the culture that blinded them to the realization that they have a choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-11-19T14:35:10.177" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T14:35:10.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11623" CreationDate="2012-11-15T06:35:38.127" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Authentic faith should never demand a sacrifice of the intellect!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_4PSgFjtvI&amp;amp;feature=plcp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;From Fr. Robert Barron, Catholic priest&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the signs that you're not dealing with authentic faith is that&#xA;  you've had to sacrifice your mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However&lt;/strong&gt;, it's important to acknowledge the bounds of one's own intellect, giving due respect to religious traditions that have been fed with thousands of years of intelligent thought and &lt;strong&gt;divine revelation&lt;/strong&gt;. Christianity ultimately started in Judaism. Hence, our founding philosophy is well over 5000 years old. And the core Christian addendums, if I may call them that, have been scrupulously pored over and tested for nearly 2000 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't be afraid to bring your intellect fully into your faith. Also, bring your experience, spiritual and otherwise. But, &lt;em&gt;acknowledge &lt;strong&gt;regularly&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; your own intellectual limitations, your ability to be deceived, and your tendency towards self-serving reasoning. Remember &lt;em&gt;again&lt;/em&gt;, that your spiritual advisor is likely trained to help you recognize your self-deception!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that many major traditions only &quot;insist&quot; on adherence to some core set of beliefs. You are generally free and encouraged to roam a vast expanse of practice and thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, since it is likely that your priest or minister will make mistakes, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, etc., &lt;strong&gt;remember:&lt;/strong&gt; If you're in one of the major traditions, your priests have been &lt;strong&gt;sacramentally consecrated&lt;/strong&gt;. They perform a specific, sacramental role which is to be rightfully honored and respected, even when the priest-&lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; is in error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And if I may offer a personal plea&lt;/strong&gt;: Avoid relativistic tendencies. Under the cry of being &lt;em&gt;open-minded&lt;/em&gt;, folks sacrifice their intellect far more than most any &lt;strong&gt;religion&lt;/strong&gt; ever asks of them! The human intellect is pretty insistent that the world is ordered, that reality is what it is, and that there are correct and &lt;em&gt;incorrect&lt;/em&gt; statements -- that truth is absolute. Though you may often cede not to know the right answer, I would beg that you insist, in most cases, that &lt;em&gt;there &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; a right answer!&lt;/em&gt; And that often means the other answers are wrong, regardless of how compassionately we can acknowledge it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T14:50:04.310" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T14:50:04.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11629" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11631" CreationDate="2012-11-15T08:00:02.043" Score="5" ViewCount="5256" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is my understanding that a “demon” (either Greek δαιμόνιον or δαίμων) is an “evil spirit” (Greek πνεῦμα πονηρόν).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 19:13, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then certain of the vagabond Jews, &lt;em&gt;exorcists&lt;/em&gt;, took upon them to call over those who had evil spirits [τὰ πνεύματα τὰ πονηρὰ] the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think most agree that these “evil spirits” are equivalent to “demons.” Furthermore, I did a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=%22evil+spirit%22&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;phrase search&lt;/a&gt; on the phrase “evil spirit” in the Old Testament, which produced the following results:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jdg. 9:23&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Sam. 16:14&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Sam. 16:15&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Sam. 16:16&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Let our lord now command thy servants, [which are] before thee, to seek out a man, [who is] a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Sam. 16:23&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And it came to pass, when the [evil] spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Sam. 18:10&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and [there was] a javelin in Saul's hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Sam. 19:9&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with [his] hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of those use the same Greek expression in the LXX that is found for “evil spirit” in the NT (πνεῦμα πονηρόν or an inflection thereof). Also, the only other time we see the phrase “evil spirit(s)” is in Luke 7:21, 8:2 and Acts 19:12–13, 19:15–16. If we examine those passages in the Old Testament, most if not all say something to the effect of “evil spirit of/ from Yahveh/God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, does God have control over demons? It seems so in the Old Testament. He is the one said to be sending the evil spirit. If this be the case, does God allow people to become possessed by demons, including those said to be possessed in the New Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2017-06-06T00:33:46.907" LastActivityDate="2017-06-06T00:33:46.907" Title="Does God control &quot;demons&quot;?" Tags="&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11629" CreationDate="2012-11-15T08:39:57.937" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God is omnipotent, then God is ultimately in charge of everyone, even demons. No one does anything apart from the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many accept the existence of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two wills in God&lt;/a&gt; - a hidden will of election (hidden or decretal will), and a revealed will. Following that idea, we could say that demons are obedient to God's hidden will (as indeed, everything perfectly is), while disobedient to God's revealed will. But it is his decretal will that they be disobedient to his revealed will, so it is his will that they disobey his will, and their disobedience is itself thus a form of obedience to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer is heavily influenced by Reformed theology, although Luther likewise believed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://thri.ca/archives/527&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two wills&lt;/a&gt;. (I myself am a universalist rather than Reformed, but TULIP is only one step away from universalism - replacing the L with a U.) As I see it, the two wills doctrine is the only way to maintain the omnipotence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess the alternative is to embrace &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_libertarianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;metaphysical libertarianism&lt;/a&gt;, and maybe the sovereignty of God can be salvaged through &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;middle knowledge&lt;/a&gt;. Personally, I find metaphysical libertarianism to be incoherent, and middle knowledge even more so. (I'd also note that both notions are, in my appraisal, alien to the Bible.) But there is no denying this is an alternative possible answer to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastEditorUserId="2263" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T08:54:06.733" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T08:54:06.733" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11623" CreationDate="2012-11-15T08:53:08.810" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think he needs to separate out the theological issue (what are my beliefs) from the practical issue (which church should I attend). These aren't entirely separate, of course - if he is convinced a church is wrong theologically, he should not attend it, no matter how nice the people there are - but he doesn't has to find answers for himself to the great questions of theology in order to pick a church. He should look for a church which satisfies him to a decent degree spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, socially - but he does not need to be convinced it is the &quot;One True Church&quot;(TM). With time he will grow, and he may well outgrow his chosen church and move to a different one - but that doesn't mean the time he spent there was wasted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Separately, I'd encourage him to study the major branches of Christianity, and the doctrinal and practical questions which motivate them. I'd look at the three major divisions of Christianity - Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox - and the differences between them. And then he can drill down further, e.g. differences between different Protestant theologies (Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Arminian, Annabaptist, etc.) Also it is worthwhile to examine those groups whose Christian status is called into question (like LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses) - one really should understand their distinctive beliefs (esp. in Christology) before declaring them wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to make up your own mind, you need to start with a good understanding of what are the questions, and what are the different answers that are proposed; then one is ready to decide for one's self which answer one believes to be right. And one doesn't need to have completed this process to be an active participant in one's chosen spiritual community. (For many years I attended a church, which I've since decided has very many things wrong - but I don't regret my time there, because I learnt from it and I grew spiritually and intellectually from that experience.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T08:53:08.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11478" CreationDate="2012-11-15T09:10:57.987" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One can draw a distinction between &lt;em&gt;creatio ex nihilo&lt;/em&gt; (creation from nothing) vs. &lt;em&gt;creatio ex se&lt;/em&gt; (creation from Himself)? The later seems to be what you are suggesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can say that traditional Christian (i.e. Catholic/Protestant/Eastern) doctrine certainly favours the former - but there is nothing in the Bible which contradicts the latter. &lt;em&gt;Creatio ex se&lt;/em&gt; would imply a form of pan(en)theism - that humanity and divinity are not ultimately separate, but rather that humanity is some kind of lessened state of the divine, but with the potential to return to its original divinity. As Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the LDS Church said: &quot;As man is God once was, as God is man may be.&quot; If all humanity once was part of God, then through Christ all humanity can become God again - and Christ is our forerunner and example in our journey to Godhood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T13:40:51.323" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T13:40:51.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11634" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-15T09:20:21.773" Score="2" ViewCount="320" Body="&lt;p&gt;In light of Joseph being called a righteous man in Matthew 1:19, does this mean that divorce because one of the two was not a virgin at the time of marriage is biblically valid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3461" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T15:35:49.553" Title="Matthew 1:19, Divorce, and Virginity" Tags="&lt;divorce&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11635" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-15T09:34:34.857" Score="9" ViewCount="1769" Body="&lt;p&gt;While there are a few passages in the Old Testament that are taken to condemn male homosexuality (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lev 18:22&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;20:13&lt;/a&gt;), I am not aware of any that condemn female homosexuality. It seems to me that all the Biblical arguments against female homosexuality must either rely on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a single NT passage, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 1:26-27&lt;/a&gt; (is an NT passage good evidence for what the law of Moses says? - &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11637/is-romans-126-a-reference-to-female-homosexuality&quot;&gt;assuming this passage even is about female homosexuality&lt;/a&gt;), or&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;more indirect arguments (e.g. Adam and Eve as an ideal that all human beings are required to conform) - the very indirectness of these arguments supports doubting them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Traditional Judaism considers female homosexuality to be prohibited, but there is disagreement about whether this is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2010/01/homosexuality-in-halakhah-xiv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;biblical or post-biblical prohibition&lt;/a&gt; (and if the prohibition is post-biblical, then it has little value for those outside of rabbinical Judaism)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is it fair to say that female homosexuality is not prohibited by the Law of Moses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2017-11-06T00:00:29.610" LastActivityDate="2018-03-20T12:44:06.490" Title="Is female homosexuality against the Law of Moses?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11629" CreationDate="2012-11-15T09:35:53.747" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11631/3447&quot;&gt;As Zack stated&lt;/a&gt;, God is omnipotent, so He controls even demons. But demons (like all angels and human beings) have free will, so this control is limited. Jesus (or exorcists who act in name and authority of Jesus) casts out evil spirits &quot;by the finger of God&quot; (Luke 11:20) - so Father must have had authority to force the evil spirits to leave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you address here is the old Hebrews' understanding of God's omnipotence and of angels. In most of Old Testament, everything (good and evil) is attributed to God. Everything bad (including actions of evil spirits) was undrstood as God's way to punish the sinful. And the angels (including evil angels, demons) were not clearly distinguished from God Himself in older books of Old Testament.&#xA;During Old Testament times, the understanding of both God's omnipotence (and free will of men and angels) and of the nature of angels has evolved. Book of Job is a sort of a polemic with the idea that everything bad is a punishment for sins, and Satan is first depicted as a  cause of evil independent of God. God still has the final word, evil spirits can't do anything without God's approval. St Augustine wrote that if Devil was free to do anything he wanted, nobody would live.&#xA;Why God don't stop many of evil spirits' plans? The answer is the same as for any other form of evil - see other questions, like &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/301/how-to-answer-why-do-evil-and-suffering-exist&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T15:04:33.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11637" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-15T09:49:57.973" Score="-2" ViewCount="3263" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most commonly, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:26-27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:26&lt;/a&gt; is taken to be a reference to female homosexuality - the sole explicit reference in the entire Bible. However, there is an alternative theory: rather than prohibiting homosexuality, these two verses are actually a prohibition of penile-anal sex (&quot;that which is against nature&quot;, KJV). Verse 26 condemns penile-anal sex as practised by heterosexual women (with a male partner), and verse 27 condemns penile-anal sex as practised by homosexual or bisexual men with other men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any good reason to suppose that this interpretation is wrong, and that the more common interpretation in terms of female homosexuality is right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In support of this interpretation, one might note that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;nowhere else does the Bible directly condemn female homosexuality, so finding this passage not to condemn female homosexuality increases its agreement with the remainder of scripture  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the prohibition of penile-anal sex agrees with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:22&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lev 18:22&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;20:13&lt;/a&gt;, if we understand &quot;Thou shalt not lie with mankind, &lt;strong&gt;as with womankind&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; as referring to anal sex with men specifically (i.e. &lt;em&gt;as with womankind&lt;/em&gt; being a particular kind of male homosexual act, anal intercourse, as opposed to all possible sexual acts between men). This passage then is simply extending the Torah's prohibition of penile-anal sex to include heterosexual acts also&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this interpretation is true, then this passage is not mentioning female homosexuality, is irrelevant to the question of female homosexuality, and we are left with an entire Bible which nowhere directly mentions female homosexuality&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastEditorUserId="2263" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T10:43:31.543" LastActivityDate="2012-11-16T13:16:57.660" Title="Is Romans 1:26 a reference to female homosexuality?" Tags="&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;&lt;romans&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-11-17T17:47:48.463" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11634" CreationDate="2012-11-15T09:58:52.117" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two possible answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mt 1:18 says &quot;his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph&quot; (KJV), which indicates they were betrothed/engaged, but not yet legally married. &quot;Divorce&quot; then is referring, not to a literal divorce, but to breaking off an engagement. So this passage is not relevant to the question of divorce, just to a breaking of an engagement, which everyone must agree is a matter of much greater freedom than divorce is&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Until the angel appears to Joseph (v. 20), Joseph must have assumed, that if his fiance was pregnant, and knowing that he himself had not slept with her, that she must have been with another man. And yet, while other men would become enraged and make a public scene about this apparent discovery, Joseph is mindful to end things quietly - that is his righteousness - when he thinks another has wronged him severely, he nonetheless seeks to deal with matters calmly and mercifully. And his righteousness is rewarded with the revelation that the perceived slight in fact was not&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I don't think this passage tells us anything about virginity as a grounds for divorce. It seems to be about breaking off a betrothal rather than divorce proper. And even if it is about divorce proper, Joseph had good reason to suspect unfaithfulness since the engagement or marriage or relationship had begun, while a mere lack of virginity might long predate you having ever met your marital partner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a person had falsely presented themselves as a virgin and you married them, that &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be valid grounds for divorce. But if they never presented themselves as such (either through openly admitting such a previous sexual relationship, or if they never said but you never asked), then I don't see how that is any better grounds for divorce than simply &quot;I'm tired of you&quot; or &quot;I found someone who I think is better&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastEditorUserId="2263" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T10:08:59.113" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T10:08:59.113" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="301" CreationDate="2012-11-15T10:42:28.627" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;May I propose a &quot;love of particular persons&quot; theodicy. God loves us, not just as persons in general, but as particular persons. Persons in general could exist in a perfect world, but the particular persons whom we are could not exist except in a world of imperfection. In a perfect world, none of us would have ever been born, even though others would be born in our place. God loves us as particular persons, as individuals, and shows his love for us by bringing us into existence; and in order to bring us into existence (as particular persons), he must bring into existence the imperfect world which is necessary for our existence, and all the evils which that entails. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without the suffering of others, we would never be born. Sure, people would still be born, but different people from us. The set of children that are born is determined by who mates with whom, which is determined by many factors which natural disasters, wars, genocides, etc., will have a heavy influence upon. To start with, people die, and thus are removed from the mating pool; thus any children they might have bore will never be born, but at the same time, those partners who would have had kids with them may well instead have different kids with different people - thus the death of others purchases our existence. Disasters make people move long distances, and thus they may meet people and have kids with them whom they never would have met but for the disaster. So Hurricanes and Holocausts and Hiroshimas - these are all ways that God shows his love for us. He shows his love for us by causing us to exist, and he does so by bringing about the evils necessary to our existence. This is the true &quot;original sin&quot; - the sin without which I am not, the sin of my own existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T10:42:28.627" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11634" CreationDate="2012-11-15T10:53:39.173" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know of no doctrine held by any Christian tradition based on this passages that speaks to virginity at the time of marriage in relation to possible divorce. It is simply not the subject matter of the passage and drawing such a conclusion from it would be bad hermeneutics. You would need to find other teachings on previous relationships or extra-marital relationships in order to address that issue in a Biblical fashion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at other Biblical passages, you will note that basically the only valid grounds for divorce is the case of adultery. Even then it is not prescribed / required, only possible allowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look into the marriage traditions of the time, you will find that the issue of divorce was as relevant to Betrothal (engagement of sorts) as it was to marriage. A betrothal could not just be broken off for any reason, it was as good as a marriage vow as far as being binding on the parties, but the relationship was not to be consummated until after the wedding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary getting pregnant during the betrothal was (barring the supernatural) obvious proof of adultery. Having committed herself to marry and be faithful to one man and entering a binding contract with him, Joseph would know he hadn't slept with her so she must have slept with another man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this understanding, we see that the only thing this passage could teach us about divorce is to reinforce the teaching that says adultery is possible grounds for divorce, but that it is not unlawful to NOT divorce even cases of adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T15:35:49.553" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T15:35:49.553" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11635" CreationDate="2012-11-15T13:18:52.530" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quite simply, no, it's not fair to say that.  I do not know Hebrews, but I do know that in Greek, the word anthropos indicates a generic man or person, while aner means specifically a person who is male.  If we went through the entire Bible and applied an exclusive gender wherever it said &quot;man&quot;, it would be nonsensical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for&#xA;  God made man in his own image.  Genesis 9:6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, capital punishment if anyone kills a man, but no punishment for killing a woman?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not&#xA;  the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his&#xA;  riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands&#xA;  and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love,&#xA;  justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I&#xA;  delight, declares the Lord.”  Jeremiah 9:23-24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, men should not boast about wealth or wisdom or strength, but women can?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself,&#xA;  that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.  Jeremiah 10:23 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And a man's life is not his own, but woman's life is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, no, we cannot exclude female homosexuality as being lawful under Mosaic Law just because the word &quot;man&quot; is employed.  At best, it would be an argument from silence, but it really isn't from silence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T13:18:52.530" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11634" CreationDate="2012-11-15T14:12:34.273" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a good question.  Joseph and Mary had entered into the covenant of betrothal for marriage.  The terms of that covenant were that each would maintain purity until their wedding.  When it was found that Mary was pregnant, Joseph knew quite well that the child was not his.  The conclusion was that Mary had been unfaithful to him, even though this turned out to be an invalid conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the issue was that Mary was thought to have broken the covenant of marriage by being unfaithful--not necessarily that she was no longer a virgin.  Indeed, Boaz married Ruth, who had already been the wife of another.  David married Bathsheba, who had been the wife of Urriah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, virginity was not the issue per se, but unfaithfulness was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T14:12:34.273" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11629" CreationDate="2012-11-15T15:28:32.827" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Catholic perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a sense that there &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; be a distinction between the two. Namely, a demon is necessarily a fallen angel, while an evil spirit is any fallen spiritual entity. In my understanding, this can include dead, unrepentant humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I would assume the scripture generally assumes an evil spirit is a demon. And, I would assume we can speak similarly about them, if not identically, for most purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=14-chapter4.xhtml#para391#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God:&#xA;  “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by&#xA;  God, but they became evil by their own doing.” ... The power of Satan&#xA;  is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from&#xA;  the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot&#xA;  prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the&#xA;  world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and&#xA;  although his action may cause grave injuries—of a spiritual nature&#xA;  and, indirectly, even of a physical nature—to each man and to society,&#xA;  the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and&#xA;  gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that&#xA;  providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in&#xA;  everything God works for good with those who love him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find the scriptural references in the USCCB's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=14-chapter4.xhtml#para391#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;online version of the Catechism&lt;/a&gt;, if you're interested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, everything in existence is subject to God's will. And all that occurs is, in the very least, occurring by His &lt;strong&gt;permissive&lt;/strong&gt; will. That is, God does not plan the evil actions of the demons, but He sustains their existence and allows their free action: He wills their free will and action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T15:28:32.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11629" CreationDate="2012-11-15T15:44:14.860" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Divine Providence&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So your question isn't about evil spirits and how the relate to God necessarily, your question really is about how free moral agents can exist if God is in control of everything. As humans, angles, and evil spirits fall into that classification, the whole umbrella doctrinal category as it relates to this question is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_providence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;divine providence&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the central theological debate, between reformed thinkers, and Arminianist/Wesleyan thinkers, and somewhat more recently the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Molinist&lt;/a&gt; thinkers. It may be difficult (or impossible!) to get a non-biased answer as a result as the debate still goes on, and any answer given would have to depend on the view of it's author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, you might check out this Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_providence_%28Judaism%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;divine providence in Judaism&lt;/a&gt; for more info about how the original readers of that text may have interpreted it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-02-04T15:23:21.667" LastActivityDate="2014-02-04T15:23:21.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11625" CreationDate="2012-11-15T19:22:11.823" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's usually unwise to try to separate out the persons of the Trinity from one another, unless two of them are clearly interacting. The nature of the Trinity means that if you are interacting with one, for most purposes you may as well be interacting with all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus talks of &quot;The Father&quot; it's certainly clear to those listening to him that he means &quot;God&quot;; i.e. YHWH. Jesus also identifies himself with YHWH, yet the scriptures also draw a distinction between Jesus and the Father - it is part of these complexities that led to the doctrine of the Trinity. It is clear from other parts of scripture that God is not &lt;em&gt;divided&lt;/em&gt; into three - the whole of God exists in three persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament also clearly speaks of occasions when the Spirit of God interacted with people, by which we have to understand the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the simplest way to approach this is to assume that all interactions in the Old Testament were with God as a whole - unless the Spirit is clearly named. Attempting to make any finer distinction is fairly meaningless, and to insist that the interaction be with only one is to misunderstand the nature of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-11-15T20:27:09.930" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T20:27:09.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9510" CreationDate="2012-11-15T20:10:56.073" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider this, if a man commited a murder and then died before he came to trial, would they pass judgement on his corpse?  If he was alive at the time of the trial he would be judged by the law, however since he died he cannot be subject to the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 7:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing you might have missed in your question is that Jesus was talking to the Jews, they were under the law at that time because Jesus had not yet fulfilled his purpose.  Likewise Paul is speaking of the law &lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus had died for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans goes on to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are dead to the law and can no longer be bound by it.  So in this instance you need to listen to Paul, as he is instructing Christians.  This is not to say that what Jesus said was wrong or a contradiction, just that what he said was correct &lt;strong&gt;at that time&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1869" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T20:10:56.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11637" CreationDate="2012-11-15T20:56:45.067" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what makes biblegateway.com so handy.  If you read this in the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) version, it really clears up the meaning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:26-27 CJB&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is why God has given them up to degrading passions; so that their&#xA;  women exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural; and likewise&#xA;  the men, giving up natural relations with the opposite sex, burn with&#xA;  passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with other men&#xA;  and receiving in their own persons the penalty appropriate to their&#xA;  perversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it is clear; Romans 1:26-27 talks about both female and male homosexuality.  Not specifically &quot;penile-anal sex as practised by heterosexual women&quot;.  I understand the confusion since they mentioned &quot;unnatural&quot;.  However, it specifically says, &quot;... likewise the men... &quot; where it speaks of homosexual relations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastActivityDate="2012-11-15T20:56:45.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7372" CreationDate="2012-11-16T13:18:19.123" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Analogical place in Luke (11:14-28) have this context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;24 “When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ 25 When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. 26 Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first.”&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the fruit of casting demons out without Jesus, or without accepting Jesus by the exorcised person. They may leave, but they will return and everything will be even worse. And often they will go even to the would-be exorcist. It is possible to cast out a demon without Jesus, but not for long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My testimony should demonstrate the trickyness of fighting demons without Jesus Christ.&#xA;Before my conversion, I used to be an occultist. Near the end of my occult period, I met a group that was cursed - several people felt strangling, without any apparent reason. One qirl among them broke this curse several times, but always someone else was cursed soon - the demons of the curse were just moving from one person to another, not really leaving. I become a target of this curse too, and tried to protect myself against it. I thought for a long time that I have been succesfull - only sometimes a weak sensation of touch on my neck appeared. Later, when I became Christian and realized my former &quot;ways to God&quot; like reiki were bad, this strangling curse awakened to full strengh. Thanks be to God - all demons are out now, after two years of infrequent exorcisms, and some are too far away to try to return. And what's best - I grow stronger and stronger in Holy Spirit, so the demons have no chance to return, despite temptation and haunting :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-16T14:16:14.243" LastActivityDate="2012-11-16T14:16:14.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11655" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11659" CreationDate="2012-11-16T15:43:32.260" Score="0" ViewCount="348" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently uploaded a picture to Facebook in the style of the KEEP CALM posters, which said &quot;KEEP CALM, JESUS IS COMING&quot;. I knew before I posted it that I would likely receive spiritual attack from this, however it was something that I wanted to share, so I went ahead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pretty soon after this, I was involved in a debate between a Buddhist believer, and my best friend, who is an Atheist, who, from where I was concerned both seemed intent on attacking my faith trough argument that &quot;there is no proof of Jesus&quot;, and claimed that even the picture I uploaded was offensive and meant for provoking spiritual attack. When I spoke of truth being a part of the spiritual armor, I was again attacked claiming that this was like &quot;Islamic Jihad&quot;... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I stated that the aim of uploading this picture was to share the love of Christ, regardless of their acceptance of it, and to be fair, if they didn't want to accept it, they could have just ignored it, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The debate is so far unresolved, but I feel angered, and disappointed that I have come under such scrutiny, in as far as I'm concerned, a spriritual conflict, which my best friend said: &quot;didn't exist&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But just how far should I go to resolve this, and make my point clear? should I perhaps just walk away, and resolve this at least in my own mind, with prayer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3469" LastEditorUserId="3469" LastEditDate="2012-11-16T15:48:52.700" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T15:08:38.300" Title="Where does one draw the line between spritiual attack and spiritual defense?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;&lt;spiritual-warfare&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2012-11-19T21:20:24.927" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2012-11-16T17:44:31.170" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, understand that a Christian cannot serve God and money at the same time. This teaching has been watered down in Christian circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The manager is compared to the Christian who has still not given up his property: yes, you. And me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean we are not allowed access to the Kingdom of God? NO. There is another option. You can make friends with those who have access. Then when your time runs out, THEY will help you get in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question, the lesson that Jesus taught is that we should use our brains just as the manager used his. Look for the other options.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus taught that those who helped even the most insignificant of his disciples would receive their reward. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He taught that no one could enter the Kingdom unless they gave up everything and followed Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put those lessons together, and figure out that Jesus was offering a second way to access the Kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ETA Jon Ericson's questions and my answers to the questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jon Ericson wrote:&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Hi there and welcome to our Christianity Q&amp;amp;A site!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hi, Jon, and thanks for the welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You wrote:&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;That's an interesting interpretation, but it really doesn't jive with the way I read the rest of scripture. For instance, the parable of the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30) indicates that believers and unbelievers will &quot;grow&quot; side by side.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When are the tares ”outed”, not allowed to grow or survive?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When they lose their camouflage. When they don't have wedding garments on. (Matt 22:1-14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the wedding garments that protect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right living. Apparently, if you don't do stuff that reveals your old nature, you'll not face temporal judgement: Acts 5:4 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Studious living. If you bear fruit, formulate a correct understanding of God's Word: Luke 13:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Productive Living. If you live out your lessons: Matthew 10:39-42&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You wrote:&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;2 John warns about deceivers who will come knocking on our doors. (Or as my Sunday School teacher taught, &quot;Just because you're in McDonald's, doesn't mean you're a Big Mac.)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will only know them by their fruit (incorrect understanding of God's word) if you yourself possess the right understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone knocks on my door and tells me that Jesus has revealed the way to be found pleasing to God ( Luke 12:32-33 NET&#xA;“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide yourselves purses that do not wear out – a treasure in heaven that never decreases, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would receive them as a prophet. Hope this helped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2012-11-17T05:08:15.800" LastActivityDate="2012-11-17T05:08:15.800" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11655" CreationDate="2012-11-16T19:02:38.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm coming from a United Methodist tradition, if that makes a difference&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples asked Jesus why he spoke in parables.  He replied in Matthew 13:11-13 (NRSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Jesus] answered, ‘To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The reason I speak to them in parables is that “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus didn't want to take away from those who have nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Jesus kept his audience in mind when he spoke about spiritual things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'm assuming you have more than 2 Facebook friends.  I would say that you could post spiritual thoughts on Facebook, and you gave the justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I stated that the aim of uploading this picture was to share the love of Christ, regardless of their acceptance of it, and to be fair, if they didn't want to accept it, they could have just ignored it, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right, except that you also confessed this thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I knew before I posted it that I would likely receive spiritual attack from this...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mean this as personal spiritual guidance, but the question you (all of you) have to ask yourselves is, &quot;Am I taking away from those who have nothing?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edited to add TRIG's comment (which I believe goes to the &quot;heart&quot; of posting):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the thought foremost in your mind as you uploaded that picture was other people's negative reactions to it, then you weren't actually doing it to &quot;show your love of Jesus&quot;. You're just fooling yourself. On the other hand, if you uploaded it joyfully, with other people's negative reactions very much in the back of your mind, then you're probably okay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="583" LastEditDate="2012-11-16T19:08:46.313" LastActivityDate="2012-11-16T19:08:46.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6979" CreationDate="2012-11-16T19:04:37.557" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Those who have a ”saving faith” are those who are ”clean”. Everyone is invited to the wedding feast, both good and evil, but those who get to stay are those who have put on the ”wedding garments”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote from&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/parable-wedding-banquet-matthew-221-14/Bible.Org%20Article&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bible.Org Article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The outcome of this man’s situation informs us of the true meaning of the symbolism. We have to say that the proper attire would correspond to all that Jesus said was required for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven--true repentance for sin and faith in Christ, and then a commitment to love and obey the Lord as evidence of saving faith. In Jesus’ day many people certainly wanted to enter the kingdom, but when Jesus started telling them to come to him and take his yoke upon them and learn of him, they went away. And in the day of judgment many will claim to have done good deeds, but Jesus will turn them away because they will not have dealt properly with the basic issue of salvation--they will not be prepared properly and spiritually to be received by the King at the wedding of the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine going to a meeting called by the new sheriff in town where he lays out the rules: no guns allowed. You check your shooting irons in at the town entrance and reclaim them when you leave. You are ”clean”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine being found later with a Derringer tucked in your boots. Its the pokey for you, or may be worse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everybody followed the rules, except Judas. He wasn't clean. Turned out badly for him: he became a vessel of dishonour, fit for ignoble use. IOW, the role you play is decided by your reaction to the Word Jesus teaches you, and your decision to obey or not, to be righteous or evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:70 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied, “Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:10 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied, “The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean. And you disciples are clean, but not every one of you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:3 NET&lt;/strong&gt; You are clean already because of the word that I have spoken to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T16:47:55.343" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11655" CreationDate="2012-11-16T21:35:53.120" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main problem is your friends' world views are fundamentally opposed to yours (or at least to what they understand is yours).  Most &quot;harmless&quot; words of encouragement between Christians fall on, at best, deaf ears to someone who doesn't share your set of &quot;givens&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If&#xA;  you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear&#xA;  you to pieces.  Matthew 7:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason they responded so defensively and violently is because a logical consequence of their worldview is that God is the enemy.  The predominant image of God as the angry Judge who demands infinite sacrifice for the smallest offenses is in the minds of many reasonable people a monster.  When you say &quot;Jesus is coming&quot;, they (consciously or not) probably hear something like &quot;...to send me to Hell for not believing in fairy tales&quot; which is simply unjust in their mind.  What you intended as encouragement therefore comes across as a threat, triggering the fight or flight response you witnessed.  Talk of &quot;spiritual armor&quot; tends to reinforce the image of you as a crusader.  I would give it some time to cool off and if you do come back to the &quot;battlefield&quot;, maybe approach the discussion a different way.  Maybe try asking them what they found so offensive or aggressive about your posts rather than just insisting you're wearing God's truth as armor against their spiritual attack. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be fair, I'm not sure this counts as a spiritual attack anyways since it's really just a debate between opposing theologies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-11-16T21:35:53.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11660" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-17T00:13:14.833" Score="3" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;Previously: Controversy over which Gospel passages to color &quot;red&quot; in &quot;red letter editions&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some editions of the Bible print the words of Jesus in red.  Some limit this to the words He spoke prior to His ascension, while others extend it to post-ascension sayings such as those in the book of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am wondering is whether there are any significant disagreements over which passages &lt;strong&gt;in the Gospels&lt;/strong&gt; to color red (in &quot;red letter edition&quot; Bibles)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The manuscripts aren't color-coded and don't contain punctuation such as quotation marks, so I'm curious if there are any instances where some translators attribute a passage to Jesus while other translators consider it commentary from the author, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To curb the hasty close-votes, I'm simply looking for a &quot;yes or no&quot; answer with some evidence to back it up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-19T19:59:20.890" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T19:59:20.890" Title="What translations differ (and where) in regards to whether a text is a direct quotation of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9510" CreationDate="2012-11-17T08:21:49.903" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt; It's helpful if you can compare it to a situation of living in a foreign country. Let's say the country you are born in requires you to pay tax if you stay home more than six months a year. Let's say you have been taken by your job to another country where there is no tax, but you visit home for a total of 170 days. If your family calls you home and you spend more than 10 days, you are liable to pay tax. Just imagine, spending those ten days in the foreign location and spending the same time at home makes all the difference between being a defaulter and not. You haven't DONE anything. You just happen to be somewhere. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can you be free of this obstacle to going home? If someone changed the law, that should work. Well that's what Christ did. He made home a tax free region. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Home is your body, the tax you pay is for the shenanigans of the body: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 7:20-25 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me.  So, I find the law that when I&#xA;  want to do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of&#xA;  God in my inner being. But I see a different law in my members waging&#xA;  war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin&#xA;  that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from&#xA;  this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So&#xA;  then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I&#xA;  serve the law of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Colossians 2:14 NET&lt;/strong&gt; He has destroyed what was against us, a&#xA;  certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has&#xA;  taken it away by nailing it to the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I engage my energy sharing in Christ's work of removing the debt of others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:24 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my physical body – for the sake of his body, the church –&#xA;  what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:13 NET&lt;/strong&gt; No one has greater love than this – that one lays down his life for his friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-17T14:36:50.200" LastActivityDate="2012-11-17T14:36:50.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11623" CreationDate="2012-11-17T12:51:14.013" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Testament church was different in that everybody participated in the meeting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We used 1 Corinthians 14:26 as one example of what a NT church meeting was like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.paganchristianity.org/answers.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.paganchristianity.org/answers.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's quite likely that the single person monologue seen in church today had its origin in the state backed church Constantine created. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It led to ministry and authority vested in a few, which is antithetical to the New Testament model:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:14 NET&lt;/strong&gt; If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you too ought to wash one another’s feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe a Bible study best resembles the original church, and thus the best place for your friend to get his feet wet (and washed!). I learnt the most in discussions at studies, both online and off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did Jesus purify the Church? By explaining the Scriptures to them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 24:25-27 NET&lt;/strong&gt; So he said to them, “You foolish people – how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Wasn’t it necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into his glory?” Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 5:25-27 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ's work is continued by his disciples who wash each other's feet . How is this different from the one person monologue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are checks and balances built into the process when the disciples imitate Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 17:11 NET&lt;/strong&gt; These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The building action spoken of here are the explanations we extract from the Scripture, which must be buttressed by other Scripture, and based on the teachings of the Apostles, Prophets, which are in turn based on teachings of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 3:12-13 NET&lt;/strong&gt; If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each builder’s work will be plainly seen, for the Day will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire will test what kind of work each has done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 23:28-31 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Let the prophet who has had a dream go ahead and tell his dream. Let the person who has received my message report that message faithfully. What is like straw cannot compare to what is like grain! I, the Lord, affirm it! My message is like a fire that purges dross! It is like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces! I, the Lord, so affirm it! So I, the Lord, affirm that I am opposed to those prophets who steal messages from one another that they claim are from me. I, the Lord, affirm that I am opposed to those prophets who are using their own tongues to declare, ‘The Lord declares….’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, this edification model makes up for what the monologue lacks, by having a regulating mechanism: footwashers using the water of the Word of God to expose truth or lie in claims about the meaning of God's word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3474" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2012-11-19T18:23:48.500" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T18:23:48.500" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11664" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11671" CreationDate="2012-11-17T15:13:25.820" Score="1" ViewCount="118" Body="&lt;p&gt;(King) David, Samson, and Gideon, among others, were all robust slayers of enemies of Israel, most of whom were &quot;bad&quot; men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In at least one instance, David set his hand against a good man, Uriah, for the wrong reason (he coveted Uriah's wife Bathsheba).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was this an exception? Did the biblical heroes often go against an &quot;innocent&quot; good man like Uriah? Or did they go against (formerly) good men turned &quot;bad&quot; (e.g. David or Samuel against King Saul)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastActivityDate="2012-11-21T05:10:44.827" Title="In the Bible, have &quot;good men&quot; often set their hand against each other?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11655" CreationDate="2012-11-17T15:50:45.487" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When truth is the matter (and it is, when we talk about God and religion), it's easy (and just) to see propagation of worldview A as an attack to worldview B. This is worsened by false images of others' beliefs, as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11659/3447&quot;&gt;Kurosch&lt;/a&gt; wrote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two things make difference: the way how you present the truth (your faith in the Truth, Jesus Christ) and your audience's prejudice. These are joint vessels: the more prejudice in the others, the more carefully you have to act.&#xA;I would suggest you to avoid such phrases (for you, statement like &quot;I have armor of faith&quot; or &quot;Jesus comes&quot; are not meaningless phrases, but how could they understand?) and focus on &quot;neutral&quot; chatting and questions. When you try to understand the others beliefs, they would be more likely to listen to you, and you will more easily explain your faith in a way they can understand.&#xA;To apologize your faith might be good to persuade a reasonable people (when they really calm down), but in the first time they usually even more enrage them. In face-to-face situation, I would suggest listening, staying quiet and praying for the other person and for guidance of Holy Spirit, until a) you find out what to say and b) they calm down. Then (or during their offensive) you can ask questions about their beliefs, their motivations and their assumptions about your faith. Ideally, you will help them to realize they have beaten the void, that they critised their assumptions about Christianity and not real Christianity itself. Sometimes even direct attack helps to achieve this goal, but it's risky and you must be extra sure it's from Holy Spirit, and don't try it if you don't have enough practice of peaceful discussion about religion, asking questions and listening to your opposition.&#xA;In medieval disputations, the side who attacked more strongly rarely won, but the one who understood the other's position better usually was the winner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This assumes that you are able to keep calm. If you are hurt by their verbal attacks too much (and try to protect yourself too much), how can they believe that you are not the fanatic they assumed you to be? Test your heart - if you can't bear attacking your faith, try to avoid these situations and to get stronger yourself. Pray for them, try to understand your faith deeper and deeper and try to understand their position. Few tips to consider:&#xA;- What you see as attack might bee seen a a defense by the other side. Defence is not solution, understanding is the solution.&#xA;- Mother Teresa (not exact citation, just as I remember it): &quot;For a long time I thought I have to convert others. Then I realised I have to love them and it's up to God to convert them.&quot;&#xA;- God is greater than anyone mocking Him. Remeber Jesus on the cross - he didn't reply and even though it must have hurted Him, he kept silent and died for them.&#xA;- Do you know they won't become Christians later? And do you know what will help them to believe or what will keep them away from faith? Even the worst opponent can become a devout Christion - remember apostle Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more thing: timing matters too. There is a evangelisation technique called &quot;traffic light&quot; - almost everyone is open to talk about religion (and to listen to the other side), but not always. When the person is not in the mood for profound talking and thinking (&quot;red light&quot;), any mention of your faith only disgusts or enrages the person. Sometimes green light is on and the person is ready to discuss questions of faith. It doesn't have to be easy, still they can be critical, but it's much better. It's not easy to guess which light is on (especially for not very empathic beginers) and it's even more difficult through internet, so your poster might have just arrived to their &quot;red mood&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T15:08:38.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11664" CreationDate="2012-11-17T16:49:56.097" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're asking on specific sin of killing an innocent person by an &quot;Old Testament hero&quot; (a patriarch, prophet, just king etc). This is quite rare in Bible. I haven't made a thorough search and I definitelly don't know all details of Old Testament by heart, but I don't remember any other case of this sin made by a just person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you were asking about sins of just people in general, these were quite common. Abraham didn't wait for God's promise and had a son with Hagar, Moses beated to the rock twice, Aron made the golden calf...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2012-11-17T16:49:56.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11667" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11674" CreationDate="2012-11-17T19:51:59.363" Score="1" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm reading Goethe's &lt;em&gt;Faust&lt;/em&gt; and I came upon this passage, spoken by Mephistopheles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Devils and for spectres this is law: Where they have entered in,&#xA;  there also they withdraw. The first is free to us; we’re governed by&#xA;  the second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the original German, this reads as :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'s ist ein Gesetz der Teufel und Gespenster:   Wo sie&#xA;  hereingeschlüpft, da müssen sie hinaus.   Das erste steht uns frei,&#xA;  beim zweiten sind wir Knechte.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this &quot;law&quot;/superstition have any basis in Christian doctrine? I ask because I was paging through a copy of Paul Verhoeven book, &lt;em&gt;Jesus of Nazareth&lt;/em&gt;, which includes this passage in reference to the Feeding of the Multitudes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/JGSyt.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Footnote 49, after this text &quot;this suggets that he saw the communal meal as an eschatological feast, refers to this passage from &lt;em&gt;Faust.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/okNwZ.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see how these passages are related; is their a relationship that I'm missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1830" LastActivityDate="2012-11-18T02:56:09.327" Title="What relationship, if any, does the Feeding of the Multitudes in Mark have to this passage in Goethe's Faust?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8030" CreationDate="2012-11-17T21:06:35.783" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that the interpretations of gods, sons of God, divine beings, and even guardian angels makes more sense. Before i explain why i just want to make it clear that i am in no way claiming polytheism. It is no mystery that the word elohim or gods is often used in reference to angels, please keep this in mind. First lets look at the context and read it according to one of the interpretations i listed above, lets use &quot;gods&quot; for the sake of my point. &quot;When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; &lt;strong&gt;the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; It is obvious that this points back to the Tower of Babel. After God divided up the nations, in the very next chapter he calls Abraham in genesis 12: 2-3  &lt;strong&gt;I will make of you a great nation&lt;/strong&gt; and will bless you. I will make your name respected, and you will be a blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 I will bless those who bless you,&#xA;    those who curse you I will curse;&#xA;        &lt;strong&gt;all the families of earth&#xA;            will be blessed because of you&lt;/strong&gt;.” God divide the nations and appointed to them gods or sons of God because of their disobedience to go spread across the earth yet according to the promise to Abraham we see that he has not completely forgotten about all the nations. The divine beings he appointed to them do not hold the same position as YHWH for he created them. God gave these gods the nations, to rule over them in his name but these beings did not obey God instead they ruled with injustice. My evidence for this can be found in psalms 82  which talks about &lt;strong&gt;the divine council&lt;/strong&gt;. It reads: &lt;strong&gt;God takes his stand in the divine council;&#xA;    he gives judgment among the gods&lt;/strong&gt;(He is the head of this council, they are in no way his equal):&#xA;2 “How long will you judge unjustly&#xA;    by granting favor to the wicked?&#xA;3 Give justice to the lowly and the orphan;&#xA;    maintain the right of the poor and the destitute!&#xA;4 Rescue the lowly and the needy.&#xA;    Deliver them from the power of the wicked!&#xA;5 They don’t know; they don’t understand;&#xA;    they wander around in the dark.&#xA;    All the earth’s foundations shake.&#xA;6     I hereby declare, &lt;strong&gt;“You are gods,&#xA;    children of the Most High—all of you!&lt;/strong&gt;(if you want to give the argument that these gods are human then surely the next verse won't make any sense) &#xA;7 But you will die like mortals;&#xA;    you will fall down like any prince.”&#xA;8 &lt;strong&gt;Rise up, God! Judge the earth&#xA;    because you hold all nations in your possession!&lt;/strong&gt; Some translation may read &quot;for you shall inherit all nations&quot; Through the seeds of Abraham shall God call all nations back to himself and he has through the Lord Jesus Christ. Because the Bible declares that All power in Heaven and on Earth has been given to him-Matthew 28-13. In a way this sort of explains why every nation and culture had all these gods. I am not saying that i am right am certainly not imposing my point of view on anyone so please feel free to disagree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3476" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-12-21T02:51:06.977" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T02:51:06.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11623" CreationDate="2012-11-17T23:07:46.490" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, I can't add anything to what &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11628/30&quot;&gt;Svidgen wrote in his answer&lt;/a&gt;, but I have some concrete, practical hints, derived from my experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was in somewhat similar situation as Peter's friend in Summer 2010. It was few months after my conversion and in my home town there was no group of young Catholics, so I often spent almost as much time with my pentecostal friends as with in my home church. They encouraged me to study Bible, and I read it, but I have been confused by the differences in the faith of the two denominations, and it inhibited me from accepting Bible as not just a clever book, but as real &quot;word of God&quot;. This changed when I have joint &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.light-life.oaza.pl/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Light Life Movement&lt;/a&gt; (one of spiritual movements in Catholic Church) and learned &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_Divina&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;lectio divina&lt;/a&gt;. Since then, I wasn't afraid that the protestants will lead me to some unorthodoxy through misinterpetation of the Bible, and I have spent more time reading and contemplating Word of God then my friends since then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now my hints:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;definitely continue encouraging him to read Bible&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;focus on &quot;why&quot;, tell him not only what you believe but why you believe so&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;if your goal is not to proselytize him but to help him become a good &#xA;Christian, it's good to encourage him to ask his priest(s) to learn him. 50 years after 2nd Vatican Council, most priests wouldn't force him to blindly believe something, but will help him understand Bible and his own faith and encourage him to try to explain Catholic point of view to you. Understanding one's faith is a necessary prerequisite of any good ecumenical dialogue, and it might lead to rich fruits.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definitely avoid forcing him to believe in anything!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T13:56:02.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11664" CreationDate="2012-11-18T00:38:28.767" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think part of the answer here is to deal with your concept of &quot;Good Men&quot;. According to the Bible, all men are sinful, and so all men deserve death. No one is Good by himself, except God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 18:19 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  &quot;Why do you call me good?&quot; Jesus answered. &quot;No one is good--except God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of the purpose of the Bible is to show that we all need help, that none of us is good enough to make it on our own, and it's only because of the blood of Jesus that any of us has hope. For this reason the Bible shows flaws even in its heroes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for heroes in the Bible, the only person you need is Jesus Christ. He is the only man in the Bible that we can say is Good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-11-21T05:10:44.827" LastActivityDate="2012-11-21T05:10:44.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9968" CreationDate="2012-11-18T02:52:17.297" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that there is a soul that survives the death of the body. We believe that, at death, a person ceases to exist, since the body simply returns to the &quot;dust&quot;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/3/#v1003017&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:17-19&lt;/a&gt;) This makes sense if you think about people who have brain damage (a damaged body): their consciousness is affected by this. Our consciousness is not an independent system from our body that mysteriously survives the death of the body. God created the first man and woman to have a physical body formed from the &quot;dust&quot;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/2/#v1002007&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:7&lt;/a&gt;) This is different from the angels he created which are spirits. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/ezekiel/3/#v26003012&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 3:12&lt;/a&gt;) God is also a spirit. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/4/#v43004024&quot;&gt;John 4:24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in hellfire as it would not represent divine justice from a loving God. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-john/4/#v62004008&quot;&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/a&gt;) He wants us to serve him out of love, not fear of torture. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-corinthians/9/#v47009007&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 9:7&lt;/a&gt;) Some who die will receive a resurrection, but some will not. If God sees that someone has already shown that there is no chance they will conform to his righteous standards, he will simply leave them in a state of non-existence. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/5/#v40005030&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:30&lt;/a&gt;) They have already paid for their sins with death, and he has no desire to torture them. Those whom God chooses to preserve in his memory will at a future time receive a resurrection to life on this earth. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/5/#v43005028&quot;&gt;John 5:28, 29&lt;/a&gt;) They will be given a new body that will be perfect and not die over time. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/21/#v66021004&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:4&lt;/a&gt;) In the meantime they are simply &quot;asleep&quot; in death, resting safely in God's memory. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/11/#v43011011&quot;&gt;John 11:11-14&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/7/#v44007060&quot;&gt;Acts 7:60&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exception is those who are resurrected to spirit life, but this is only a relatively select few who will serve as kings and priests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some references from official websites of Jehovah's Witnesses. I hope that these links remain pointing to the right content, but I really don't know if it may change or not:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101995250&quot;&gt;Hellfire — Is It Part of Divine Justice?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is from a small tract so don't expect tons of detail. It is well written, easy to read, and easy to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are interested in learning more, I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/&quot;&gt;requesting a free Bible study&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that they normally use the Bible study aid &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/&quot;&gt;What Does the Bible Really Teach?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; You can also view this book online and download it in EPUB or PDF format. It has several chapters and appendix sections related to your question. The first chapter is called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/is-this-what-god-purposed/&quot;&gt;Is This What God Purposed?&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to do some deeper research, here is some heavier stuff from the book &lt;em&gt;Insight on the Scriptures&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001136&quot;&gt;Death&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001978&quot;&gt;Hell&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004011&quot;&gt;Sheol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001803&quot;&gt;Hades&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004192&quot;&gt;Soul&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004211&quot;&gt;Spirit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003709&quot;&gt;Resurrection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2014-04-30T05:40:31.413" LastActivityDate="2014-04-30T05:40:31.413" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11667" CreationDate="2012-11-18T02:56:09.327" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Goethe quotation is part of an ensemble of beliefs around the activities of evil spirits, and the ability of humans to control or confuse them by symbolic (ie, magical) practices. You may have heard of the idea that vampires have to be &lt;em&gt;invited&lt;/em&gt; in to your home in the first instance, but thereafter can return as they please. This is similar, saying that demons have to go out &lt;em&gt;in the same way&lt;/em&gt; that they came in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Mark 2 and Luke 5 is the story of Jesus healing a paralytic man, who is let down through a hole in the roof of the house. Some commentators have suggested a parallel with customs surrounding the movements of evil spirits: (1) an Indian custom that someone could be healed of demonic possession by lowering them into the house through the roof, and then expelling the demons outward along the same path, (2) a Roman custom that someone missing, presumed dead, and then found alive should return to their home through a hole in the roof, so that death would not be able to follow them, or (3) that dead people should be carried out of their house by an unusual route, again to confuse the demons. This third one is the one being cited in your footnote. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I think that your footnote 49 is actually for a different chapter in the Verhoeven book - his Chapter 4, as far as I can see from the Amazon preview, covers this miracle, whereas the feeding of the multitudes is in Chapter 5. If the footnotes are separately numbered for each chapter then this is an easy mistake to make! I agree that the feeding of the multitudes has no relation to the Goethe passage.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not necessarily &quot;based in Christian doctrine&quot;, though. It is the kind of belief for which someone who &lt;em&gt;already held it&lt;/em&gt; could &lt;em&gt;possibly&lt;/em&gt; find support in the Gospel passages mentioned, &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; they were sufficiently motivated. But I think van der Loos puts his finger on it when he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Data such as these are definitely most peculiar, and worth mentioning, but since according to the Evangelists the bearers of the sick man acted in this way because they could see no other opportunity of taking the paralysed man to Jesus - in Mark 2:4 and Luke 5:19 this is stated as the motive - there is no reason to look for other motives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=n4geAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;lpg=PA442&amp;amp;ots=2SnhUq-vcw&amp;amp;pg=PA442#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Miracles of Jesus&lt;/em&gt;, Hendrik van der Loos&lt;/a&gt; (Brill, 1965). Pages 442-443 discuss these theories, and footnote 5 on page 442 quotes this Goethe passage. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Das Abdecken des Daches, Mc 2 Lc 5&lt;/em&gt;, Hedwig Jahnow (1925). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zntw.1925.24.issue-1/zntw.1925.24.1.155/zntw.1925.24.1.155.xml?format=INT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 24(1):155-158&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?ei=0E2oUP7KFMjH0QHl9oDIDg&amp;amp;id=PHZbAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;jtp=137#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Die reste der primitiven Religion im ältesten Christentum&lt;/em&gt;, Carl Clemen&lt;/a&gt; (1916). Pages 137ff (cited by van der Loos, and quoting Goethe on page 138).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Roman_Questions%2a/A.html#5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Quaestiones Romanae&lt;/em&gt;, Plutarch. 264D-265B.&lt;/a&gt;  Cited by van der Loos.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-11-18T02:56:09.327" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11675" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11676" CreationDate="2012-11-18T03:12:44.937" Score="7" ViewCount="27843" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quran has a huge number of stories that originally came in Bible. To Muslims, this is almost a miracle that God revealed the same stories to prophet without the prophet knowing about it because he was illiterate (he could not read nor write). What is Christian view of where these stories come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the stories the Quran taken from the Bible are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creation of Earth in Seven days (Bible). God created Earth in 7 days (Quran)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are children of Adam and Eve (Bible). We are children of Adam and Eve (Quran)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noah flood happened (Bible). Yes Noah flood happened (Bible)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flood was global (Bible). Indeed it was global (Quran)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noah ark set on a mountain (Bible). Noah ark set on a moutain (Quran)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many, many other stories some of which many are alteration from the Bible version like crucifixion of the Christ. Quran says Jesus Christ was raised up to heaven before his crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Christian view on all this? How did the prophet, Muhammad, know about this if it was not revealed by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1209" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2012-12-03T21:54:03.657" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T20:58:26.467" Title="Christian view of why there are so many similarities between Quran and Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;islam&gt;&lt;global-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-07-27T02:51:11.020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11675" CreationDate="2012-11-18T04:12:41.323" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not even a Christian perspective that's needed. It's a historical one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity sprang from Judaism, and Judaism and Islam share common roots.  All three are known as &quot;Abrahamic religions&quot; because they trace their history to the covenant God made with Abraham in the Hebrew Bible. All of the events you listed were from before Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Talmudic tradition says that while Abraham’s son Isaac became the forefather of the Jewish people, the Islamic line is descended from Abraham’s other son Ishmael.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The origin of Islam, and the relationship between it and Judaism is easily researchable. Here's a good place to start: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-18T05:26:08.877" LastActivityDate="2012-11-18T05:26:08.877" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10221" CreationDate="2012-11-18T13:50:12.117" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 1:1&lt;/strong&gt; New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 James, a servant of God(B) and of the Lord Jesus Christ,&#xA;  To the twelve tribes   scattered(   among the nations:&#xA;  Greetings*&lt;strong&gt;*&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The twelve tribes had already been dissolved with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in the year 70 AD. That was the minor fulfillment of the Jewish system of things  being destroyed, mentioned in Matt 24, by Jesus.. After that destruction,   all records  were also  destroyed  with the Temple,  no Jew  today  has been able to trace back as to what tribe they came from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James here in James 1:1  is sending Greetings to the spiritual Tribes of Israel.&#xA;Take notice when he names each tribe they are not the same 12 tribes of Israel.&#xA;In fact it will be the  spiritual Israel that will judge the real 12 tribes with Christ Jesus during the thousand year reign of Christ.( their being in the resurrection )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3480" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-18T14:10:56.230" LastActivityDate="2012-11-18T14:10:56.230" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11675" CreationDate="2012-11-18T15:25:43.557" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another &quot;historical approach&quot; remark - there were some Christians in Arabia in Muhammad's times, so even if Muhammad was illiterate, he could ask some of his Christian neighbors and listen to the stories. But most of these &quot;Christians&quot; were not orthodox and many of them belonged to sects today refered to as gnostics, not Christians. Bible as we know it wasn't recognized as Holy Spcripture by all of them, and translations of Bible were rare and often poor. This explains many refences to Childhood Gospel and other apocryphas (for example creation of the birds by child Jesus) in Quran, and also some statements that originated in misunderstanding Bible. For example in Bible John the Baptist was first of this name in his family, but in Quran Yahya (John the Baptist) was the first of this name in general (from all mankind).&#xA;Muhammad simply knew some second-hand &quot;Bible stories&quot;, and we won't find out who originally misunderstood them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, some old testament stories might have survived in Arabic culture since Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT - some sources from both holy writs to back up my example with John the Baptist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:5-25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named&#xA;  Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife&#xA;  Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were upright&#xA;  in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and&#xA;  regulations blamelessly. 7 But they had no children, because Elizabeth&#xA;  was barren; and they were both well along in years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as&#xA;  priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of&#xA;  the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10&#xA;  And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled&#xA;  worshipers were praying outside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right&#xA;  side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was&#xA;  startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do&#xA;  not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife&#xA;  Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John.&#xA;  14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because&#xA;  of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is&#xA;  never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled&#xA;  with the Holy Spirit even from birth. 16 Many of the people of&#xA;  Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on&#xA;  before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts&#xA;  of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of&#xA;  the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old&#xA;  man and my wife is well along in years.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 The angel answered, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God,&#xA;  and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.&#xA;  20 And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this&#xA;  happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at&#xA;  their proper time.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Meanwhile, the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why&#xA;  he stayed so long in the temple. 22 When he came out, he could not&#xA;  speak to them. They realized he had seen a vision in the temple, for&#xA;  he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 When his time of service was completed, he returned home. 24 After&#xA;  this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained&#xA;  in seclusion. 25 “The Lord has done this for me,” she said. “In these&#xA;  days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the&#xA;  people.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And luke 1:57-66&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;57 When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby, she gave birth to&#xA;  a son. 58 Her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown&#xA;  her great mercy, and they shared her joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;59 On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were&#xA;  going to name him after his father Zechariah, 60 but his mother spoke&#xA;  up and said, “No! He is to be called John.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;61 They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who has&#xA;  that name.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;62 Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like&#xA;  to name the child. 63 He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s&#xA;  astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.” 64 Immediately his mouth&#xA;  was opened and his tongue was loosed, and he began to speak, praising&#xA;  God. 65 The neighbors were all filled with awe, and throughout the&#xA;  hill country of Judea people were talking about all these things. 66&#xA;  Everyone who heard this wondered about it, asking, “What then is this&#xA;  child going to be?” For the Lord’s hand was with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the extract from this in Quran (Surah 19 - Maryam, verses 2-10):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[This is] a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His servant Zechariah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When he called to his Lord a private supplication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He said, &quot;My Lord, indeed my bones have weakened, and my head has&#xA;  filled with white, and never have I been in my supplication to You, my&#xA;  Lord, unhappy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And indeed, I fear the successors after me, and my wife has been&#xA;  barren, so give me from Yourself an heir&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob. And make&#xA;  him, my Lord, pleasing [to You].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[He was told], &quot;O Zechariah, indeed We give you good tidings of a boy&#xA;  whose name will be John. We have not assigned to any before [this]&#xA;  name.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He said, &quot;My Lord, how will I have a boy when my wife has been barren&#xA;  and I have reached extreme old age?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[An angel] said, &quot;Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for&#xA;  Me, for I created you before, while you were nothing.' &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Zechariah] said, &quot;My Lord, make for me a sign.&quot; He said, &quot;Your sign&#xA;  is that you will not speak to the people for three nights, [being]&#xA;  sound.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see nothing really new in the Quran version, just omission of many details, and changes concerning the time Zechariah couldn't speak and the detail with previous Johns. This name was definitely not unknown in Izrael before (I remember one John in the Maccabean books, and I don't think he's the only one mentioned in Old Testament).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-12-02T21:59:46.057" LastActivityDate="2012-12-02T21:59:46.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2258" CreationDate="2012-11-18T17:53:16.423" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God loves sin, but loves the sinner (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1029/is-hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner-a-christian-idea&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;'s answers for reasoning). &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2263/3447&quot;&gt;Caleb&lt;/a&gt; addressed the &quot;hates the sin&quot; well, I will go on with the other part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God hates actions, not people. Otherwise He wouldn't have created us, or at least wouldn't have sent His Son to die for us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's similar with a loving father and his little son - if the kid breaks his father's favourite cup, the father would become angry and perhaps will punish the boy somehow, but it doesn't mean he ceases to love his son. The father hates breaking the cup, but he also loves his son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More extreme example: if the son (now a teenager) was a drug addict, the father would hate his son's addiction, but if he is really a good father, he would still love his son. If the son steals money from his parents to buy another dose of drug, it would be legitimate (and reasonable) for the parents not to allow his son to stay with them, but if he returned, asked for forgiveness and shown willingness to get rid of his addiction, the father would forgive his son, accept him back and help him to recover from his addiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to explicitely mention this difference, since many people misinterpret their problems as a sign that God hates them. Whether our problems are sort of punishment from God or not, they are definitelly not in conflict with God's love for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T15:06:29.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2618" CreationDate="2012-11-18T23:17:39.347" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No one of the other answers take into account one thing: there is a big difference between devil's rule over soul (i.e. sin) and over body (possession).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amorth refers cases of very devout people (some of them already died and were pronounced saint) who vere possessed for some time, but they didn't sin, so devil had control over their body, but not soul.&#xA;Real possesion (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see the list of forms of extraordinary demonic activity&lt;/a&gt;) is very rare about these saints, but many catholic saints experienced demonic oppression for some time or even for most of their lifes. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pietrelcina&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Padre Pio&lt;/a&gt; is one of well-known examples of heavy oppressed saints. &lt;a href=&quot;https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/maram-baouardy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Blessed Mariam Baouardy&lt;/a&gt; is one of the few examples of really possessed saints - she was possessed for 40 days. I haven't found exact details online, but I have read in another book by Amorth (in Czech it was called &quot;Vítězit Boží mocí&quot;, &quot;To win by the power of God&quot;, but I haven't found how its English edition is really named) that the demon tried to leave her but wasn't allowed to - he controlled her body, but prayers of her spirit were hurting the demon even more than the evil spirit tormented Mariam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Cor 12:7-9a says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;7 To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not the &quot;messenger of Satan&quot; mentioned in 2Corinthians is a demonic obsession or not is a matter of debate, but it clarify one of the aspects of &quot;why some saints are obsessed/possessed&quot;. This happens mostly to mystics, who might easily go proud about special grace given to them through visions and extasies.&#xA;The other reason is expressed in Colossians 1:24 - this is one of the sufferings a Christian my take to fill up &quot;what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A final disclaimer: it might seem that being born-again doesn't protect you from extraordinary demonic activity at all. Full armor of God helps you in spiritual war against the demons. It's like being in a tank while most others are just infantry. In a tank, ordinary enemy soldiers are no match for you, but enemy anti-armor units who ignore ordinary soldiers will take you as a target. Ignoring the possibility of extraordinary spiritual attacks against new-born Christians is like assuming that enemy has no anti-armor weapons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-18T23:27:39.330" LastActivityDate="2012-11-18T23:27:39.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11682" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11696" CreationDate="2012-11-19T01:32:34.607" Score="8" ViewCount="1348" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15&lt;/a&gt; records the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Council of Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt;, a meeting in about 50AD of early Church leaders regarding whether Gentiles could be Christians  without first becoming Jews. &quot;After much discussion&quot; (15:7) they decide to write a letter to say that converts need not follow the practices of Judaism. What interests me is the terms in which they describe the decision in their letter; verse 28 says (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us&lt;/strong&gt; not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the face of it, this looks a little like the statement attributed to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bernard Montgomery&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;God said, and I agree with him...&quot;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be that the text is simply giving emphasis to the determination of the apostles and elders to carry out what the Holy Spirit has indicated. But the way it's phrased, and the context of the meeting, seem to point to the church having &lt;em&gt;authority&lt;/em&gt; in this moment; that there's something &lt;em&gt;special&lt;/em&gt; about these people being gathered together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which gives them the right to make the decision and send the letter. They are acting jointly with the Spirit in a way that goes beyond mere acquiescence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure that Catholic and Orthodox readers would have no trouble at all here. However, I think that from a Reformed perspective it would be more difficult to admit special authority of this kind. When Calvin writes about later Church councils, for example, he seems to regard them as existing merely for practical &quot;convenience&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; 4.9.13), to elucidate the contents of Scripture, and always in a strictly subordinate role (&quot;it is the right of Christ to preside over all councils, and not share the honour with any man&quot;, &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; 4.9.1). How can that be squared with the &quot;and to us&quot; here in Acts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, from a Reformed point of view, what is the point of mentioning &quot;and to us&quot;, and what relationship do Reformed theologians envisage existing between the Spirit and the Church at this moment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-06-17T11:48:31.733" LastActivityDate="2016-06-17T11:50:43.737" Title="Reformed perspective on &quot;It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us&quot; (Acts 15:28)" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11683" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-19T03:32:11.397" Score="-6" ViewCount="407" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;strong&gt;New question.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity has only been around for a very small percentage of time, when we look at all the prophets and world religions that came before Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were there any &lt;a href=&quot;http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090107220826AAPLoRw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ancient prophets&lt;/a&gt; considered of the same God&#xA;described in Christianity (besides Moses)? OF the far east, near east, south America or Europe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My pastor told us a story that when Evangelicals went to convert believers in far east lands, they would tell people that Jesus was the son of their God - as a way to gain them in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So does this mean that every prophet before Christ was of the same God, some of them or there was no salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank You.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-11-22T01:02:02.947" LastActivityDate="2012-11-22T01:02:02.947" Title="Were there any ancient prophets B.C. considered of the same God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-11-19T14:34:43.030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11683" CreationDate="2012-11-19T04:17:07.090" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Salvation for the Jews (before Christ) was to observe Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation for the Gentiles (everybody before even the Torah was given) was to follow their conscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 2:15-16 NET&lt;/strong&gt; They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their&#xA;  conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, on the day when God&#xA;  will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through&#xA;  Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul tells us that those who followed the law, whether Torah or conscience, all died:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 7:10 NET&lt;/strong&gt;  and I died. So I found that the very commandment that was intended to&#xA;  bring life brought death!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, they did not go to hell. Paul says they were held in protective custody. The law acted as their guardian, pedagogos, until Christ came:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 3:24 NET&lt;/strong&gt;  Thus the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be&#xA;  declared righteous by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IOW, the law could distinguish, and separate, and preserve, those who believed God existed and tried to follow Him, but it could not give life. They were not dead, like the people described here, who had no opportunity to come to God because of their refusal to follow the law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 9:60 NET&lt;/strong&gt; But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for&#xA;  you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were kept safe, but could not taste eternaL life. Eternal life is not just immortality, but also living in synch with God, a mode of living, what Judaism calls chayei olam, the life of the world to come:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Chayei-Olam/chayei-olam.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Chayei-Olam/chayei-olam.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who believe Jesus's message have passed into eternal life, entered the Kingdom:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 5:24-27 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and&#xA;  believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be&#xA;  condemned, but has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the&#xA;  solemn truth, a time is coming – and is now here – when the dead will&#xA;  hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For&#xA;  just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to&#xA;  have life in himself, and he has granted the Son authority to execute&#xA;  judgment, because he is the Son of Man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 5:19-21 NET&lt;/strong&gt; So Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do&#xA;  nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing.&#xA;  For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. For the Father&#xA;  loves the Son and shows him everything he does, and will show him&#xA;  greater deeds than these, so that you will be amazed. For just as the&#xA;  Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life&#xA;  to whomever he wishes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2012-11-19T04:45:58.190" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T04:45:58.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11675" CreationDate="2012-11-19T04:21:34.300" Score="11" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Prepare for your mind to be blown&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp&#xA;  before going any further.  It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It&#xA;  was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It&#xA;  was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon&#xA;  gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary&#xA;  with its rise saw it for what it was_not a denial, but an adaptation and a&#xA;  misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all)&#xA;  heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian&#xA;  Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most&#xA;  heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with.  He&#xA;  sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic&#xA;  doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world on the frontiers&#xA;  of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose&#xA;  territories he had known by travel which inspired his convictions. He came&#xA;  of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the&#xA;  conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans' while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hilare Belloc - The Great Heresies Chapter 4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Belloc's book on the great heresies is the only place I've ever read this;  that Islam is in fact a heresy of Catholicism.  But it makes sense (and if someone knows of a good refutation, I'd like to read it), especially in light of your question. So, you either believe this or you don't because not only does Islam have the same roots as Judaism and Christianity, Muslims truly worship the same one God (from a philosophical standpoint, if there's only one, it's gotta be Him right?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the doctrinal differences that Belloc points out are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Incarnation (That God could be made man)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Trinity (The God is three persons)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The priesthood and Sacraments (That invisible things can be made real by human help)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different heresies through all the years of Our Lord have held similar beliefs, but only Islam held them all and retained the same God.  Some Islamic scholars even preserved the meta-physical tradition of Aristotle which made its way from St. Augustine to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt; by way of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Averroes&lt;/a&gt;. So, Catholic theology and philosophy are linked to Islam (or at least through Islam) and that's not a bad thing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was a bad thing was Islam was taking over Christian lands and souls by force.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/aenrm.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Islam&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that made all the difference. Folks, like Tertullian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologeticus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;would say&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and it would be difficult to say that about Islam, you might say, the blood of other people is the seed of Islam. Although certainly quite a few people were convinced for other reasons and those reasons might include the fact that Islam sounded familiar, but it didn't have the seemingly extraneous fancy stuff you find in the Catholic Church and that made it more palatable to desert folks who couldn't find the time for all the feasting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But beyond that, it's pretty natural that conquered and unconquered people (in Spain and modern day Turkey) would share a lot of their culture. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Africa#After_the_Arab_conquest&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Northern Africa&lt;/a&gt;, Ethiopia, the Holy Land contained plenty of Christians prior to 600 and it took quite a long time for them to be converted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T04:21:34.300" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2618" CreationDate="2012-11-19T05:51:01.573" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It helps to compare the situation with changes in mindset. We know that people who are selfish and immoral act out their worldviews, but some of these actions seem to exceed even the impetus the individuals assign to them. They seem to be reinforced by external forces that amplify these actions, turning them into monstrous deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When individuals come to God, they have a sketchy idea of the relationship. Some look at it as a contract, a quid pro quo arrangement, a cosmic vending machine, a commodity provider requiring an input cost. The fact is, God allows a period of adjustment, a phase where doubts are clarified, after which a change in mindset is required,  literally change of mind, metanoia, often wrongly translated repentance, in the sense of being ready to atone for sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The change in worldview is first, that God requires right behaviour and second, that  right behaviour is possible only with God's help. Since both good and evil individuals are invited to the wedding feast, it is the latter who are required to change their mind, from might is right, to justice is right. It is the latter which makes men distinguishable from animals, reveals the image of God in men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus describes it like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 11:24-26 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “When an unclean spirit goes out of a person, it passes through waterless places looking for rest but not finding any. Then it says, ‘I will return to the home I left.’ When it returns, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there, so the last state of that person is worse than the first.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember Judas? Ananias and Sapphira? They had the same opportunity as the other disciples, to learn, and to believe. Seems they refused to release their old world views, although they had kept them aside in following Christ. More important, their wavering, their attitude of sitting on the fence, left them open to a massive, reinforced onslaught of those old views, with disastrous consequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:3 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, satanic possession differs from satanic attacks. The first causes the ”individual” to do evil deeds, either harming themselves or others. The latter causes ”satan” to do the evil deed. Job and Paul both suffered satanic attacks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-11-19T13:49:28.930" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T13:49:28.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2258" CreationDate="2012-11-19T06:58:05.017" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quote from the CARM article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/questions-dualism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dualism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religious dualism is the belief that there are two opposite powers in the universe: good and evil. Some say that this is manifested in the biblical revelation of God versus Satan. A common representation of these opposites is known from the Taoist religion as Yin and Yang.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dualism is unbiblical since Scripture does not teach that the universe consists of opposites, nor does it affirm that Satan and God are equal and opposing forces. God, according to Scripture, is infinitely greater than Satan and will eventually cast Satan into hell. This could not be done if they were equal and opposing forces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dilemma is not choosing between love and hate, but between good and evil. To not hate evil is evil!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T13:51:48.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11525" CreationDate="2012-11-19T09:14:58.453" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one thing very important that we should always consider: we own nothing, all is for the Creator. If today we have such opportunity to have something good or bad, meal, job, incident, it is per God grace, why not just say: &quot;thank you God&quot;, He knows why, and it is not by our own strength, do not be deceived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3484" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T09:14:58.453" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11660" CreationDate="2012-11-19T18:55:33.040" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is certainly disagreement over whether certain passages are direct quotes of Jesus. For example in John 3, some commentators believes that Jesus speaks the whole of the passage from verse 10 to verse 21, but other believe that Jesus' quote ends after verse 15 and the remainder is commentary written by John. There is also disagreement over whether his next quote ends at verse 30 or verse 36. Because of the absence of punctuation in the original languages there is no way to be definitive about it. The footnoes of the New International Version give some more details. (The choice has little theological significance and doesn't lessen the authority of the passages)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-11-19T18:55:33.040" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11691" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19518" CreationDate="2012-11-19T21:49:37.537" Score="16" ViewCount="51817" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm currently reading about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Christianity&quot;&gt;Eastern Christianity&lt;/a&gt; as a part of my study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the churches that have existed since early times, such as the Nestorians, the Jacobites, the Coptics, and others. But not the Melkite/Orthodox Christianity (I don't include them as Eastern Christianity as in Keith Ward's categorization, he seems to separate them to another major branch besides Catholic and Protestantism).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major differences between them and Western Christianity seem to be their agreement regarding the Council of Chalcedon, regarding the incarnation of Jesus. However besides of that, are there any other major differences? For example, what about the church hierarchy? Or do they have different political cultures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3485" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-29T10:11:28.110" LastActivityDate="2017-01-13T15:15:37.960" Title="What are the key differences between the Western and Eastern Christianity?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;oriental-orthodox&gt;&lt;church-hierarchy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11691" CreationDate="2012-11-20T06:12:20.507" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The shift of the powerbase from the east to Europe caused a fundamental change in the worldview of the Western Church, not the least being from the influences of Greek Philosophy. Concepts such as Original Sin which find no place in Judaism and Eastern Orthodoxy began to find a foothold in Western Christian Theology, with further knockon results:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote from This article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=227&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Original View of Original Sin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Augustine’s association with Neoplatonic philosophers led him to introduce their outlook within the church. This had its effect in the development of doctrine. For example, Jesus was considered immaculately conceived —without sin in that His Father was God. But because His mother, Mary, had a human father, she suffered the effect of original sin. In order to present Jesus Christ as a perfect offspring without any inherited sin from either parent, the church had to find a way to label Mary as sinless. They did this by devising the doctrine of her immaculate conception, though this inevitably leads to further questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Other babies were not so fortunate. Some eight centuries later the Catholic theologian Anselm extended the implications of Augustine’s concept of original sin and claimed that babies who died, did so as sinners; as sinners, they had no access to eternal life but were condemned to eternal damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-01-13T15:15:37.960" LastActivityDate="2017-01-13T15:15:37.960" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11532" CreationDate="2012-11-20T10:50:17.917" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no single definition of &quot;cult&quot;. There are several definitions of which I am aware, and I can't say any of them are necessarily more right than any others. Words only have meanings insofar as people agree to give them the meanings that they do. So we can't say one of these definitions is right and the other is wrong. We can just say they are different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Original&lt;/strong&gt;: in the original sense, &quot;cult&quot; means worship. This sense is sometimes still used, e.g. one speaks of the Roman Catholic &quot;cult of the Virgin Mary&quot;. This sense is neither positive or negative in itself, it's neutral.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sociological&lt;/strong&gt;: a cult is a religious group with a high degree of tension with the surrounding society, and beliefs that are novel for that society. By contrast, a sect has the high tension, but has traditional rather than novel beliefs, and a denomination has neither high tension nor novel beliefs. What is a cult in one society might be a sect in another - thus Hare Krishna are a cult in traditionally Christian countries, but a sect in India. This sense is meant to be neutral - to call something a cult is not to cast judgement on it. According to this sense, Christianity was originally a cult, but is not a cult any longer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psychological&lt;/strong&gt;: a cult is a destructive, authoritarian group, e.g. one that uses brainwashing, one that threatens to result in violent acts or mass suicide or so on. This is a negative sense - by calling something a cult, one is suggesting it is wrong, dangerous, and maybe even ought to be prohibited. Maybe sometimes it is justified, but I feel often this is just a way of smearing religious minorities.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Theological&lt;/strong&gt;: in Christianity, &quot;cult&quot; is used to refer to groups that present themselves as having orthodox Christian theology, but in fact are heterodox. So this excludes groups that make no claim to be Christian (e.g. Hare Krishna, Wicca, Satanism, Scientology, Buddhism, etc), but includes groups which claim to be Christian but the user of the term considers to be outside of normative Christianity. So LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., are commonly included in this group; and some will even add more mainstream groups to this label, such as Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. This is a negative sense. It only really makes sense in the context of intra-Christian discussions; it doesn't make any sense to people who don't identify as Christian.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Popular&lt;/strong&gt;: a &quot;cult&quot; is any purely secular object of adoration and obsession. So Apple is a cult, and Elvis too. This is not necessarily a negative sense, but often is.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2263" LastActivityDate="2012-11-20T10:50:17.917" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11682" CreationDate="2012-11-20T15:02:43.637" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the way [Acts 15:28 is] phrased, and the context of the meeting, seem to point to the church having authority in this moment; that there's something special about these people being gathered together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which gives them the right to make the decision and send the letter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.  The early church leaders had the authority to decide what was and what wasn't Christianity.  Paul's letters were not merely good advice.  They were guidance for the various congregations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, whether a church is part of a large denomination or an independent entity, somebody or some group runs the church.  Administratively and doctrinally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully, this leadership group runs the church with the counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  And the Holy Spirit is willing to guide the leadership group in harmony with God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 16:13-15 (NRSV):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="583" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-24T14:26:40.273" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T14:26:40.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5365" CreationDate="2012-11-20T16:25:42.100" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Barabbas&lt;/a&gt;' name was Jesus.  Many people don't know it because the people who translated the scriptures into English left the original meaning out because of the conflict of interest.  When Jesus was before Pilot and  Pontius Pilate gave the option to release Jesus (the Christ) or Jesus &lt;em&gt;bar-Abbas&lt;/em&gt; (translated son of the father).  The later was a rebel leader against the Roman Empire and many thought him a freedom fighter for the Jews.  Which is why the wanted him released instead.  Jesus was a common name to the Jews, and translated The Hebrew name for Jesus is Yeshua, a name found 27 times in the Hebrew Bible, so we know exactly what his name was. (The name is accented on the second syllable: &lt;em&gt;ye-SHU-a&lt;/em&gt;). Yeshua is short for Yehoshua (= Joshua), which means Yahweh is salvation. The first trace of the name is found in connection with Joshua, the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3488" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-11-20T23:31:28.113" LastActivityDate="2012-11-20T23:31:28.113" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11699" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11700" CreationDate="2012-11-20T17:10:43.490" Score="4" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a child I was an avid Bible reader, now I don't do it anymore, and there are some time  phrases still lingering in my mind from that period. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anybody knows what is the passage when Peter hopes and says that everybody will be saved by the mercy of God? I hope I am not erring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3401" LastEditorUserId="3401" LastEditDate="2014-06-27T13:25:09.867" LastActivityDate="2014-06-27T13:25:09.867" Title="What is that passage in the Bible where Peter hopes that all will be saved?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11699" CreationDate="2012-11-20T17:16:17.623" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:9&lt;/a&gt; ... maybe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2012-12-06T06:50:15.960" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T06:50:15.960" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9863" CreationDate="2012-11-20T21:27:07.327" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One more place in Bible which is (as far as I know) 1Corinthians 3:15. Here I post it with some context (1Cor 3, 10-15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert&#xA;  builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be&#xA;  careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than&#xA;  the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on&#xA;  this foundation using gold,  silver, costly stones, wood, hay or&#xA;  straw, 13 his work will be shown for what  it is, because the Day will&#xA;  bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will&#xA;  test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If what he has built survives,&#xA;  he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer&#xA;  loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the&#xA;  flames.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It definitely talks about those who build on Christ and will be saved, but it recognizes two categories: those who recieve reward and those who will be saved too, &quot;but only as one escaping through the flames&quot;. Catholics interpret this as a reference to fate of those saved after death: they will go to heaven either directly (the reward) or through purgatory (the flames). Or through &quot;something like purgatory&quot; - I think Eastern Orthodox doctrine teaches something like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="770" LastEditDate="2012-11-21T16:20:21.490" LastActivityDate="2012-11-21T16:20:21.490" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11702" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-20T21:31:35.363" Score="6" ViewCount="967" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christians hold that the universe or creation are part of God (panentheism). More often than not, God is said to be both immanent and transcendental in relation to the universe. How can those be accepted if Satan is to be treated as a real entity? While immanence may allow you to say that God pervades being but is external to it, panentheism allows no such move. It would imply there is no &quot;other&quot; in relation to God, only but God and parts of God. And as soon as you introduce parts, you immediately wreck the supposed simplicity of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find the idea of Christian panentheism problematic because I can't see how Satan, a part of creation, can exist if he is encompassed by God, implying that God is privated in some way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please be careful not to confuse PANtheism with PANENtheism. Both are very different. Pantheism identifies the universe with God (like Spinoza) while panentheism situates the universe within God, as it were (a bit like immanence, but without being fully distinct). That the universe is created does not contradict panentheism necessarily. The reason I bring this up is because a number of theologians such as Peacocke and Zycinski (the last of which is an archbishop of the RCC) do propose a panentheistic understanding of God because they reject not revelation but neo-scholasticism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also wish to account for God's immanence in the world given the current science. I'm not sure I agree with them (I can imagine other ways God could be immanent), but this is what's been put on the table. &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=vkXV2MZYLrYC&amp;amp;lpg=PA242&amp;amp;ots=byONGsLxnO&amp;amp;pg=PA242#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here's a link to more information&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3489" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T20:19:57.847" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T23:10:17.847" Title="How can panentheism be reconciled with Satan?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;panentheism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11629" CreationDate="2012-11-20T21:51:56.107" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would highly recommend the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830818855&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God at War&lt;/a&gt; (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=Hj791_BeAF0C&amp;amp;lpg=PA80&amp;amp;ots=utpL4Y7NOB&amp;amp;dq=%22god%20at%20war%22%20saul&amp;amp;pg=PA80#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%22god%20at%20war%22%20saul&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pages 80-81&lt;/a&gt; specifically), written by Gregory Boyd, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=&amp;amp;esrc=s&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;cd=1&amp;amp;cad=rja&amp;amp;sqi=2&amp;amp;ved=0CC0QFjAA&amp;amp;url=http://schooltothenations.com/STN/Student_Assignments_files/God%2520at%2520Warpdf.pdf&amp;amp;ei=heqrUN6eNYWq0AGB5YDYAg&amp;amp;usg=AFQjCNFw3m9a_pZcPR8xqjhsWaEUISLkKw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this summary&lt;/a&gt; of it. It deals with this question as it discusses theodicy from the perspective of spiritual warfare. The author goes through the entire Bible, along with a number of other ancient texts, and demonstrates the constant theme of spiritual warfare, and places events such as Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension into this context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question from what I've learned in this book, I believe that God has delegated some of his authority to created agents with free will, both angels/demons and humans. God is sovereign, and could retake the authority at any time, but chooses instead to work within the rules that he himself has set up in order not to negate free will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this context, the demons sent from God were given a certain amount of limited authority, and were sent as judgment against Saul and Abimelech. The demons acted in an evil manner of their own accord, but God sent them specifically because they were evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God doesn't &quot;control&quot; demons when it comes to them making moral decisions, but he does give them limited authority and places them in a limited universe with rules that he created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1249" LastActivityDate="2012-11-20T21:51:56.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11706" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11708" CreationDate="2012-11-21T06:49:44.163" Score="1" ViewCount="8563" Body="&lt;p&gt;With regards to technological advances, the study of technology and continuing to make medical and convenience advancements that prolong life, and the &quot;playing god&quot; complex. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible have to say about these, in a literal sense(not interpreted).  There's many nay-says that come about when medical or technological advancements come around that seem to push the boundaries of human civilization and knowledge.  Are there any passages in the Bible that denounce the quest for learning, or for advancement in the sense that we could clone life, stem-cell research, etc?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has been a hot topic for me for quite some time, when intellectually arguing these I seem to not have any study material ready.  What does the Bible say about &quot;playing god&quot; to sum it up?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3491" LastEditorUserId="22426" LastEditDate="2018-11-12T20:07:35.070" LastActivityDate="2018-11-12T20:07:35.070" Title="What does the Bible say in regards to technological development?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;bible&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-11-28T14:49:55.970" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1824" CreationDate="2012-11-21T12:44:57.367" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before the Cross, people were saved by obeying the law. Salvation meant being protected. Paul said those who obeyed the law died, but he didn't say they went to damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gal 3:21&lt;/strong&gt; For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Did Paul say that those who believed in God prior to Christ go to hell? No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Was there life for those believers prior to Christ's arrival? No (vv. 21-22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) What was it like before &quot;this faith came&quot; (v.23)? They were prisoners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) Why did God do this? That the law might lead those loyal believers to Christ, and at that time they would receive the &quot;promised&quot; life. They would be a new creation; they would have LIFE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gal 3:14&lt;/strong&gt; He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith ----&gt;we might receive the promise of the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the view in Eastern Catholic denominations. It can be summarised by stating that God saves those who live righteous lives which is manifested in one way by proclaiming His role in making it possible to live that righteous life. God's salvation power is vested in the Church, through baptism of its members, admitted on agreement with God's laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic denominations believe that God saves those who obey His righteous requirements through the administration of baptism. It is baptism that enables agreement with God's laws, since in man  there is no evidence of any good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Arminian view in Western Evangelical denominations follow the Eastern church closely, except that it teaches that men are unable to obey God  because of the effects of the Fall. God's grace touches all men, but men must chose to believe what God requires and that He will provide the grace to obey those requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Calvinist view in the Evangelical West differs in claiming that God's grace touches only some. Those chosen will be given grace to believe and so will be saved, since it is belief that saves. God completes what He starts, giving grace to do good works. Monergism, God enabling belief, with no contribution from man, is what separates the two major Evangelical denominations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2012-11-21T12:50:57.493" LastActivityDate="2012-11-21T12:50:57.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11706" CreationDate="2012-11-21T13:18:54.487" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says nothing &lt;em&gt;directly&lt;/em&gt; about technological advancement. It neither condemns nor condones. The closest you could come to a Biblical statement is the story of the Tower of Babel, in which mankind advances and God intervenes to set us back a bit, for the sole purpose of restraining us. (verses 6-8 below)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 11:1-9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they&#xA;  found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn&#xA;  them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for&#xA;  morter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top&#xA;  may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered&#xA;  abroad upon the face of the whole earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the&#xA;  children of men builded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one&#xA;  language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be&#xA;  restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they&#xA;  may not understand one another's speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all&#xA;  the earth: and they left off to build the city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there&#xA;  confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord&#xA;  scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this isn't so much a denouncement on technology as a denouncement on pride and arrogance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for individual technological advancement, Scripture is silent. On general, it's how we choose to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;use&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; technology that can be addressed Scripturally. The same computer that can be used to steal or view pornography can be used to share medical knowledge and save lives. The technology is neither good not evil in and of itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for &quot;playing God&quot;, that isn't a good fit for the site because the definition of &quot;playing God&quot; is different for different people and groups. I will go no further than to say that clearly, the Bible is not opposed to medicine and following medical guidelines to save and protect lives. &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.baylor.edu/tysonheaton/2012/10/01/old-testament-laws-their-medical-significance/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;For example, many of the Old Testament laws were designed to protect the people from disease.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-22T18:22:53.797" LastActivityDate="2012-11-22T18:22:53.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10208" CreationDate="2012-11-21T14:39:06.243" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;People have been going to the alter in one form or another since the days of Abraham, when John and Jesus were baptizing the Jordan was a form of alter. Throughout history spiritual leaders have been calling their congregations to approach and receive blessings, salvation, communion, etc...  whatever you want to refer to it as being, it is ultimately one thing, the physically committed entrance into the presence of God, a conscious willful act of obedience, an effort to be known by your Father, to be blessed with the covering of His Spirit, acknowledge His existence, accept His offer of relationship and begin to know His LOVE... :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3493" LastActivityDate="2012-11-21T14:39:06.243" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7471" CreationDate="2012-11-21T16:01:46.380" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Briefly, not all papal decisions are &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;, or spoken from the chair. When he delivers statements in this mode, they are matter of doctrine and dogma, and this has seldom happened in history. Nothing every stated &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; has ever been reneged, and if you read what these things are, you'd realize there is no possibility of reneging them without essentially contradicting Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now does this mean that all other teachings are optional? Certainly not. The difference is that the other teachings are knowable without revelation, and can be known through the use of reason or reason augmented by faith. Because scripture is interpreted with the help of tradition (which was abandoned by Protestants, although the Orthodox situation is unclear), the Church is the best qualified to interpret it. The Church is not settled on all matters of Scripture, which is why theologians still debate certain points, but these don't have any larger effect. You have to be careful to distinguish between canon law, unsettled Scriptural matters, and infallible dogma. If you don't distinguish, you become the kind of Protestant who thinks Catholics worship saints, the pope, relics, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to condom and contraceptive, the pope has not made their use acceptable. This is a wild misinterpretation that the media has propagated (and the media in Anglo-America is notoriously anti-RCC). The Church has always, does, and always will maintain that contraception is evil. The pope, in a rather insignificant explanation that a depraved media fixated on, is merely saying that if someone is a male prostitute now (which is an evil state of affairs), then a move in the right direction may involve condom use as part of an incremental shift from a greater evil to a lesser evil. By using condoms, he is reducing other evils (the act and everything else remains just as depraved) such as the rate of HIV transmission (assuming effectiveness). He's not saying it's okay. In fact, if one is a male prostitute, one should stop being one immediately. The pope is merely saying that in such limited cases, a condom can be seen as a step in the right direction. Not that it's a very big move, or a noble move, or one to write home about. He's giving a theoretical account of it. But in reality, his position is no change at all. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and are not made less evil themselves through condom use. Condom use may merely reduce an evil side effect of disease transmission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So be very careful about what the Church is really saying. You make the same mistake with the aforementioned councils. Those who engage in attacks on the papacy are usually unwilling to really learn about the Catholic Church in depth, and prefer to believe a rather erroneous account of it. There are over 40,000 Protestant denominations because every Tom, Dick, and Harry, plus Joe the Plumber decide, with no education in these matters, what Scripture means &lt;em&gt;for them&lt;/em&gt;. Not what it really means, but what they want to read into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3489" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T01:05:51.960" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T01:05:51.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5365" CreationDate="2012-11-21T20:30:14.080" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of people named יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Yehoshu'a&lt;/em&gt;) and יֵשׁוּעַ&#xA; (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Yeshu'a&lt;/em&gt;) in the Talmud, both Babylonian and Jerusalem. Each of these would be the equivalent to the Greek Ἰησοῦς (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Iēsous&lt;/em&gt;) and English &quot;Jesus.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although not all those mentioned in the Talmud lived after Jesus the Nazarene (some lived during BC era), many did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-11-21T20:30:14.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7471" CreationDate="2012-11-21T22:57:35.337" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many Protestants will make the claim that although the Bible was written by various fallible men, that God guided these different men perfectly to create the Bible.  However they reject the similar claim that God could guide the Popes in certain circumstances to be free of error.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to your question, &quot;How can they be sure its correct&quot;, is that its a matter of faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second part of your question states that these people were heretics.  People can err on a matter of faith and still be in the Church.  Its only when they obstinately reject a defined truth of faith do they become formal heretics who automatically incur excommunication from the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:  “For&#xA;  not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature&#xA;  to sever a man  from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy&#xA;  or apostasy.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2012-11-21T22:57:35.337" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11579" CreationDate="2012-11-22T01:09:11.833" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on which part you are talking about.  The Catholic position is that the Old Law ended and it is now unacceptable to follow its religious ceremonies, however, there are certain parts of the Old Law which are still in force, for example, &quot;Thou shalt not steal&quot; remains applicable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “The Holy Roman Church&#xA;  firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter  pertaining to&#xA;  the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into &#xA;  ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s&#xA;  coming… ceased,  and the sacraments of the New Testament began... &#xA;  All, therefore, who after that time (the  promulgation of the Gospel)&#xA;  observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other  requirements of&#xA;  the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith&#xA;  and  not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2012-11-22T01:09:11.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11438" CreationDate="2012-11-22T01:12:23.820" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;He would need to be firmly resolved to not commit another murder again and go to confession to be absolved, or have perfect contrition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Law teaches that sins are forgiven through a priest, Numbers 15:22-25.  Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Law and rendered it void, however the New Law corresponds to the Old Law in many ways.  One of these ways is that confession to a priest is also a characteristic of the New Law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ gave the Apostles to absolve sins in John 20:21-23.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Also in Matthew 18:18 we see Biblical proof of confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is Catholic doctrine that a single &lt;em&gt;Mortal Sin&lt;/em&gt; will remove man from a &lt;em&gt;State of Grace&lt;/em&gt; also known as the &lt;em&gt;State of Justification&lt;/em&gt; or the &lt;em&gt;State of Sanctifying Grace&lt;/em&gt;.  If one dies without the State of Justification, he will be condemned to Hell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When one confesses one's sins to a valid Priest, we say that &quot;he is absolved of his sins&quot;, it means that a person is restored to a State of Grace.   One who is restored to a State of Grace may still have to suffer the fires of &lt;em&gt;Purgatory&lt;/em&gt; for a time.  Purgatory is taught in 1 Corinthians 3:15, the passage ends with &quot;he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire&quot; - this indicates a place with fire that is not Hell and that ultimately leads to Heaven.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Firmly resolved&lt;/em&gt; means that one cannot be planning on committing the sin again in the future.  If one confesses adultery for example, and is still living with his girlfriend, then that confession would be invalid, and the sins would not be forgiven, it would in fact be sacrilegious and the confession itself would be a mortal sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Theresa of Avila tells us that &quot;The majority of Catholics are damned due to bad confessions&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For confession, the fear of Hell is adequate for the sins to be absolved, this is known as imperfect contrition. However &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perfect Contrition&lt;/a&gt; is a form of sorrow that arises from a love of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Practically speaking, a devout Catholic would go to confession.  However if a Catholic found himself on a deserted island, and was in a state of Mortal Sin, then he would not lose all hope, because he can still be restored to a State of Justification. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T00:40:55.570" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T00:40:55.570" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11356" CreationDate="2012-11-22T01:40:58.980" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Modern Catholics believe in &quot;Baptism of Desire&quot; (BoD) which means, even though a person dies a Buddhist or Hindu, etc., and they did not desire baptism or even know of it, God provides that person with a BoD somewhere after death but before Judgement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eight Church Fathers believed in BoD for Catechumens only, however some rejected it altogether, like St Gregory of Nazienzen.  Some later saints believed in Baptism of Desire for Catechumens only, like St Alphonsus de Ligori. Doctrinally, non-water baptism is condemned by multiple Councils, notably Trent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, post Vatican II Popes have extended the concept of Baptism of Desire to basically include everyone in every religion whatsoever.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now considered to be the Pope), Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 207: “The fact that in every age there have been, and still are, ‘pagan saints’ is because everywhere and in every age – albeit often with difficulty and in fragmentary fashion – the speech of the ‘heart’ can be heard, because God’s Torah may be heard within ourselves...”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, almost everyone who would call themselves a Catholic disagrees with your statement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T03:02:55.223" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T03:02:55.223" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9610" CreationDate="2012-11-22T02:00:58.583" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that the Catholic Church should be separate from the state was condemned by Pope Pius IX&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55: &#xA;“The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” &#xA;Condemned.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2012-11-22T02:00:58.583" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11722" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="46973" CreationDate="2012-11-22T12:37:14.070" Score="14" ViewCount="6098" Body="&lt;p&gt;Malachi 4:5: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will send you the prophet Elijah. He will come before the day of the Lord arrives. It will be a great and terrifying day&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says in Matthew 11:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and if you are willing to believe their message, John is Elijah, whose coming was predicted&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says in Mathew 17:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's pretty clear from the above verses that John was Elijah reincarnated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wouldn't the above verses imply that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;reincarnation&lt;/a&gt; is true? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="635" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-16T09:07:08.987" LastActivityDate="2018-02-22T03:59:54.443" Title="Isn't reincarnation affirmed by the Bible?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;elijah&gt;&lt;reincarnation&gt;&lt;malachi&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11722" CreationDate="2012-11-22T12:52:23.667" Score="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faulty Premise #1: John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus asked Peter who people said he was, he answered that some people thought that Jesus was Elijah come back. Peter knew better and said Jesus was the Christ. In any event, John the Baptist himself directly denied the claim (see John 1:19-21). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Jesus more likely was saying in Matthew 11 is that John the Baptist was a prophet in the tradition of Elijah. Elijah was the greatest of the prophets (even if his disciple Elisha inherited a double portion of his spirit). All of the prophets that followed came in the name and spirit of Elijah, in the same way that some of Paul's letters apparently were created after his death. They were in the spirit and tradition even if not the actual man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also Elijah never died - he was taken up into heaven, and people thought he would return. As such, no Elijah was not being thought to have reincarnated- only returned.  Elijah's return was long a part of Jewish custom. Even today, during a Passover sedar, a chair is left empty for Elijah. But again, since he did not die, Jews look for his return, not his reincarnation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faulty Premise #2: The Jewish world view has  any concept of reincarnation at all&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most basic rule of hermeneutics suggests that a text cannot mean what it could not mean to the original audience.  If the Jews had no concept of reincarnation, then any interpretation that says it does has a very, very high bar to clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0385482493&quot;&gt;The Gift of the Jews&lt;/a&gt;, Thomas Cahill advances the thesis that the primary distinctive philosophy of the Jews was precisely that history was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; circular.  Their linear idea of a human life was a departure from others and was an explicit rejection of reincarnation.  As such, a text would need to be exceedingly explicit to a culture that rejected circular life patterns, and the obscure interpretation above (especially in light of the more obvious intepretation) simply doesn't hold water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the book of Hebrews - written to the people into which both Jesus and John the Baptist were born - explicitly reject reincarnation.  As the writer points out in 9:27, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is appointed unto a man &lt;em&gt;once to die&lt;/em&gt; and then the judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we do have an explicit rejection of reincarnation by the followers of Jesus.  There is one death. There is one judgement.  Hence, in any Christian worldview, you don't come back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-24T22:00:30.790" LastActivityDate="2012-11-24T22:00:30.790" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11722" CreationDate="2012-11-22T13:09:13.940" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to Affable Geek's answer, I would like to add this verse clearly showing that reincarnation is incompatible with Christianity, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9:27&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot;&gt;Hebrews 9:27&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... man is destined to &lt;strong&gt;die once&lt;/strong&gt;, and after that to face judgment...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2012-11-22T13:25:38.457" LastActivityDate="2012-11-22T13:25:38.457" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11725" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11728" CreationDate="2012-11-22T13:47:04.710" Score="3" ViewCount="211" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a bit rusty on my Catholic theology, but I don't every recall any specific set of rules or parameters that govern which substances can and cannot be subject to transubstantiation. Basically, the discussion of ingredients of wafers and wine came up in a discussion, and a friend of mine claims there is nothing that specifically proscribes lager (for example) to be transubstantiated in place of wine, especially in a situation where wine may not be available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know the official Catholic position on this, especially within the context of theological debate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3498" LastEditorUserId="3355" LastEditDate="2012-11-22T14:31:25.037" LastActivityDate="2012-11-22T18:55:03.470" Title="Catholic Theology and Transubstantiation" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;transubstantiation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11726" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11729" CreationDate="2012-11-22T14:33:20.950" Score="8" ViewCount="3167" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is aimed at those Christians who believe that someone saved can't become &quot;unsaved&quot; later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least in 1 Corinthians 9:27 apostle Paul says he is not sure whether he will be saved or not (AFAIK there are other verses like this, and of course other places where Paul expresses his hope he will be saved). Here it is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have&#xA;  preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV–1984)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question is simple: how do those Christians interpret this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7331/3447&quot;&gt;Can a Christian walk away from their salvation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6960/3447&quot;&gt;Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/124/3447&quot;&gt;Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? [closed]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4952/3447&quot;&gt;How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2019-02-12T08:27:31.543" LastActivityDate="2020-04-14T09:41:45.393" Title="How is 1 Corinthians 9:27 reconciled with the teaching that losing salvation is impossible?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;assurance-of-salvation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11725" CreationDate="2012-11-22T14:54:45.810" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of transubstantion has a long and storied past within the Roman Catholic Church, dating back at least to Augustine, if not further. It continues to be the dogmatic profession to this day. After all, when Jesus says, Lo, I am with you always, here to it would apply. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you say, the doctrine of transubstantion  states that the wine and the bread become the actual blood and body of Christ in the mystery of the Eucharist. While the &quot;accidents,&quot; I.e. the physical manifestation of the elements is themselves not subject to a scientific analysis that would show a change, in a very real sense, the elements do become the actual body and blood of The Lord Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not wine must the original thing is irrelevant to the mystery of the change. The point is that Jesus is himself present in the elements, and whether he is with (more properly consubstantiation) or is what the elements become. Whether or not Jesus chooses to allow something other than wine to become His blood is an entirely separate question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-22T15:17:06.487" LastActivityDate="2012-11-22T15:17:06.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11725" CreationDate="2012-11-22T15:42:41.893" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Form General Instruction of the Roman Missal (319-324):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Following the example of Christ, the Church has always used bread and wine with water to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition&#xA;  of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The meaning of the sign demands that the material for the Eucharistic celebration truly have the appearance of food. It is&#xA;  therefore expedient that the Eucharistic bread, even though unleavened&#xA;  and baked in the traditional shape, be made in such a way that the&#xA;  priest at Mass with a congregation is able in practice to break it&#xA;  into parts for distribution to at least some of the faithful. Small&#xA;  hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those&#xA;  receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it. The&#xA;  action of the fraction or breaking of bread, which gave its name to&#xA;  the Eucharist in apostolic times, will bring out more clearly the&#xA;  force and importance of the sign of unity of all in the one bread, and&#xA;  of the sign of charity by the fact that the one bread is distributed&#xA;  among the brothers and sisters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The wine for the Eucharistic celebration must be from the fruit of the grapevine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is,&#xA;  without admixture of extraneous substances.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Diligent care should be taken to ensure that the bread and wine intended for the Eucharist are kept in a perfect state of&#xA;  conservation: that is, that the wine does not turn to vinegar nor the&#xA;  bread spoil or become too hard to be broken easily.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he&#xA;  pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into&#xA;  the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the&#xA;  institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice,&#xA;  without being obliged to consecrate the bread again.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus celebrated his Last Supper with bread and wine, so bread and wine is necessary. There is not a consensus between Western and Eastern Christianity whether the bread should be leavened or not. This is based on accounts different evangelist and of Paul whether the original Last Supper of Jesus was a Passover supper with unleavened breads or not; due to this uncertainty, both variants are OK.&#xA;About wine, I've heard that some of early churches celebrated Eucharist with unfermented grape juice, so it could be theoretically possible to substitute this for wine. But lager is definitelly not suitable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Addendum: in bad conditions like a prison (many priests are still being arested in some Christianity unfriendly, usually Islamic or communist countries), any bakery suits for &quot;bread&quot; and even a raisin smashed in water can qualify as &quot;wine&quot;. No priest would approve to celebrate mass with this instead of standard bread and wine if he can choose, but such exceptions are possible in really harsch conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And an anecdote for the end: I don't know where this happened, but once a drunken priest came to a baker's shop and started to pray a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora_%28liturgy%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eucharistic prayer&lt;/a&gt;. Then he had to buy everything in the shop and destroy it with piety, because nobody could be sure what is ordinary bakery and what is Body of Christ, and risking desecration of Eucharist was not an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-22T18:55:03.470" LastActivityDate="2012-11-22T18:55:03.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11726" CreationDate="2012-11-22T17:43:55.233" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's clear from your question that you are assuming &quot;the prize&quot; to be salvation, and that you believe that this verse speaks of our works earning our salvation, or at least our bad works possibly leading to the loss of our salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, to most reformed theologians, this is not the case. A deeper study of the original Greek, as well as application of sound principles of interpretation clears this up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the principles of Biblical interpretation include the fact that Scripture cannot contradict itself. Paul is on record all throughout the New Testament as stating that salvation is by faith through grace, apart from any works or worthiness of man. It would make no sense for him to be saying so here, so we need to dig deeper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking a look at the various commentaries on this verse, most are in agreement that the prize is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; salvation.   For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;strong&gt;Scofield Reference Notes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xvi.iii.html&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; castaway&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gr. adokimos, &quot;disapproved.&quot; Dokimos, without the private a, is&#xA;  translated &quot;approved&quot; in Rom 14:18 16:10 1Cor 11:19 2Cor 10:18 2Tim&#xA;  2:15 Jas 1:12, by the word &quot;tried.&quot; The prefix simply changes the word&#xA;  to a negative, i.e. not approved, or, disapproved. The apostle is&#xA;  writing of service, not of salvation. He is not expressing fear that&#xA;  he may fail of salvation but of his crown. See &quot;Rewards&quot; Dan 12:3 1Cor&#xA;  3:14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another view from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible hints that the prize is simply faithfulness and remaining a faithful servant so that he can achieve the ultimate prize of expanding Christ's kingdom - avoiding becoming a &quot;useless preacher&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I myself should be a castaway, or rejected, or disapproved of; that is,&#xA;  by men: the apostle's concern is, lest he should do anything that&#xA;  might bring a reproach on the Gospel; lest some corruption of his&#xA;  nature or other should break out, and thereby his ministry be justly&#xA;  blamed, and be brought under contempt; and so he be rejected and&#xA;  disapproved of by men, and become useless as a preacher: not that he&#xA;  feared he should become a reprobate, as the word is opposed to an&#xA;  elect person; or that he should be a castaway eternally, or be&#xA;  everlastingly damned; for he knew in whom he had believed, and was&#xA;  persuaded of his interest in the love of God, and that he was a chosen&#xA;  vessel of salvation, that could not be eternally lost: though&#xA;  supposing that this is his sense, and these his fears and concern, it&#xA;  follows not as neither that he was, so neither that he could be a lost&#xA;  and damned person: the fears of the saints, their godly jealousies of&#xA;  themselves, and pious care that they be not lost, are not at all&#xA;  inconsistent with the firmness of their election, their security in&#xA;  Christ, and the impossibility of their final and total falling away;&#xA;  but on the contrary are overruled, and made use of by the Spirit of&#xA;  God, for their final perseverance in grace and holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xvi.iii.html&quot;&gt;Calvin put the same thought this way:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Accordingly, I strive to conduct myself in such a manner, that my&#xA;  character and conduct may not be inconsistent with my doctrine, and&#xA;  that thus I may not, with great disgrace to myself, and a grievous&#xA;  occasion of offense to my brethren, neglect those things which I&#xA;  require from others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you're interested, there's no shortage of commentaries from the great thinkers here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.preceptaustin.org/1_corinthians_927_commentary.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.preceptaustin.org/1_corinthians_927_commentary.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-22T17:53:49.060" LastActivityDate="2012-11-22T17:53:49.060" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7331" CreationDate="2012-11-23T04:03:09.337" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrinal position is that believers are judged by the last state of their faith, confession, loyalty, and it is a multidenominational position as these adherents of the view exist in all denominations, identified by using a biblical theology, rather than systematics. It is popularly represented by the originators of the New Perspective on Paul, but the people who have carried out scholarly research of a high standard of historical documents have not received the same publicity. Coherent views, more coherent than those found in the mainline denominations have been produced by these authors in their respective books:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On the general culture of New Testament times:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honor, Patronage, Kinship &amp;amp; Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture by David A. deSilva&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On the life of Jesus:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder by Richard A. Horsley&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus by Stephen J. Patterson&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On Judaism and Paul:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judgment &amp;amp; Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul by Christ VanLandingham&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On Paul's theology and Atonement:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle's Story of Redemption by David A. Brondos&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Problems with Atonement by Stephen Finlan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On Romans:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rereading Romans by Stanley K. Stowers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On the Doctrine of Atonement:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Idea Of Atonement In Christian Theology by Hastings Rashdall&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, like many other views, there is room for improvement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NPP caused great discomfort amongst the Reformed denominations as a result of its dismantling of Luther's views. Dr Daniel Wallace wrote against it on his site, and later withdrew the article.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The RCC, on the other hand, positively rubs its hands in glee:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.readperiodicals.com/201109/2431732061.html#b&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Thomas D Stegman SJ ARTICLE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, there is much to commend in Wright's analysis. He emphasizes the importance, for Paul, of God's faithfulness to the covenant with Israel - a covenant established for the rescue and restoration of all creation. In doing so, Wright appropriately insists that God's saving action through Christ be understood within the larger story of Israel. He also appreciates the wide scope of &amp;quot;Paul's vision.&amp;quot;4 Wright, who is often associated with the &amp;quot;new perspective&amp;quot; on Paul, brings together elements in his letters that zealous adherents of the &amp;quot;old&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; perspectives tend to keep apart.5 He convincingly demonstrates that Paul's theology focuses both on the forgiveness of sins and on the formation of a renewed people (consisting of Jews and Gentiles); in other words, on both soteriology and ecclesiology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The situation is rather like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/the-biggest-theological-debate-of-the-next-twenty-years&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Andrew Wilson article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(3) Splitting people into teams has become much harder, and this is a good thing. So: is Tom Wright a good evangelical, for defending the historical Jesus and his bodily resurrection, or a liberal scallywag, for denying imputed righteousness? Is Tim Keller the next CS Lewis (hooray), for his brilliant apologetics and credibility with the world, or is he the next CS Lewis (boo), for fudging hell, baptism, church government and evolution? And when I’m caught up in a debate between paedobaptist complementarians and credobaptist egalitarians, whose team am I on: the papists or the feminists? Both, and neither. Which is just as it should be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Original Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is: is it possible for a &lt;strong&gt;saved Christian&lt;/strong&gt; to &lt;strong&gt;choose&lt;/strong&gt; to walk away from Christ and thus lose their &lt;strong&gt;salvation&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good way to study the issue is by defining the terms in use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Saved Christian&lt;/strong&gt;: person depending on Christ and being blessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Choose&lt;/strong&gt;: a situation arises, while depending on Christ, requiring the person to decide if the blessing is still a blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Salvation&lt;/strong&gt;: blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the OT, Abraham  believes God will protect him and obeys His command to leave his birthplace.  He learns that God has intervened and saved him from danger in several situations. Finally God asks him to sacrifice his son. Abraham must choose: is God Himself dangerous? Erratic? Inconsistent? Unreliable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He must chose between depending on his own resources or depending on God. He has seen that depending on himself for results has led to unsatisfactory outcomes (the Abimelech and Hagar incidents) , while when depending on God, it has always been beneficial. Abraham chooses to depend on God, and his choice is rewarded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the NT, Peter believes  Jesus will  bless him and  leaves everything to follow Him.  He ”has tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come”. But some words are hard to swallow, and some disciples decide to leave:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:66 NET&lt;/strong&gt; After this many of his disciples quit following him and did not accompany him any longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following Jesus will label Peter a lunatic! What does Peter do when Jesus asks for a decision?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:68-69 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What were the factors to be considered by Abraham and Peter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Were the things they saw same as having ”experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit”?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was the god they followed the one true Holy God who was above all things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Could it be that the command God gave them, which seemed uncharacteristic of a Holy God, actually holy, justifiable in the future, able to reconnect (re-ligare) Man with God, but incomprehensible immediately?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judas viewed these things differently and left, spiritually. He should have left physically, before he was publicly identified. Why did he decide wrong? It irked him to see that he would not be replacing the Pharisees, who lorded it over everybody. He looked for an opportunity to betray Jesus, cast aside this messiah who did not meet his expectations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:70 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied, “Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one influenced by the devil sees rewarding situations and tries to harness it to forward his unholy ends. Bad call doing it at the celebration of the union of a Holy God with His Holy People:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:11 NET&lt;/strong&gt; But when the king came in to see the wedding guests, he saw a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God called His own, people who knew He existed and rewarded right behaviour. He gave them to Christ. Christ never lost those who came to Him, because God knew those who really feared Him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 22:12 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “Do not harm the boy!” the angel said. “Do not do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who were evil, responded to the invitation, learnt about the requirements, but repented, like Nineveh, could stay. They believed Jesus, abided in Him and were cleansed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:3 NET&lt;/strong&gt; You are clean already because of the word that I have spoken to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who wavered left room for the devil to enter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:10 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied, “The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean. And you disciples are clean, but not every one of you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who stayed and tried to further their selfish ends were judged and served as a negative example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 5:13-14 NET&lt;/strong&gt; None of the rest dared to join them, but the people held them in high honor. More and more believers in the Lord were added to their number, crowds of both men and women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Better to leave before you are found out and used as a vessel of dishonour, meet for ignoble use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The devil can't take you, because God is stronger. All He requires is your unforced decision, not your performance. Good thing, that...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:31-32 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “Simon, Simon, pay attention! Satan has demanded to have you all, to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. When you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the host comes around to welcome the wedding guests, they must decide to commit or not:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 14:32 NET&lt;/strong&gt; 32 If he cannot succeed, he will send a representative while the other is still a long way off and ask for terms of peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T10:31:34.947" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11579" CreationDate="2012-11-23T13:21:01.170" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can still follow the old law, but the condition is still the same: everything is applicable. If you fail in one, you have sinned. The stoners were guilty in the moral realm (adultery) if they commited even a minor infraction in the ceremonial! I recommend you read Deuteronomy 28-30.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:10 NET&lt;/strong&gt; For the one who obeys the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background to the Mosaic Law&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Purpose of the Law&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law was given to make Israel God's People, Abraham's Seed, and to bless the world, to bring it back to God, reverse the expulsion from Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Method&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Israel needed to:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obey the law&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Receive blessings&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Impress the surrounding nations&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Achievement, success rate&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rahab turned to God on seeing the victories given to Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why were the achievements so few?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the observance of law was so insignificant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the law itself was an inferior covenant&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if the people depended on God, and took possession of the land, the pagan nations who were impressed and converted to Judaism would find forgiveness, but not empowerment, ability to live the &lt;strong&gt;eternal life&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;chayei olam&lt;/strong&gt;. Moses quickly realised that this was an inferior glory, but did not want to dishearten the people. He covered his face with a veil so that the people would not be demoralised at seeing the glowing radiance fade from his face. They had just left Egypt, were wanderers in the wilderness and needed all the hope and encouragement they could get. Telling them that full redemption was a future event was not exactly the message they needed to hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus fulfilled the law, He won the rewards associated with Sinaitic Law. God blessed His Nation when Jesus, representing its people, Israel, obeyed the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be pure, the citizen needed to make the right choices with regard to the natural drives of his body: harvesting the fruits of your own land was good, those from your neighbours land, bad. Sex with your wife was good, with your neighbour's wife, bad. The appetites themsrlves, &lt;strong&gt;yetzer hara&lt;/strong&gt;, were themselves not bad, only the wrong exercising of those appetites. Man, made in the image of God, with a moral compass, could differentiate and choose, unlike wild beasts. Hence the concept of justice, as opposed to the law of the jungle, might is right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mercy and love are also what characterize the human race. Only humans do not destroy the weak in their family. They lay down their lives (categorised by the various acts of sacrificing one's own reserve food, shelter and resources, to protect the weak) .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to be the people and the nation God required, Israel found it had to have a right mind and a right body. The mind had to be subdued, by accepting the word of God, and the body had to be broken, to serve the mind, just as a horse needed to be subdued, to be useful for riding. The right mindset in the right body could create the right people in the right nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joshua could not give Israel closure, only God could. The virgin birth proved that. Just as Isaac was possible because of an ovum provided by God (Sarah's womb was as good as dead) and his birth proof of God's causation, Jesus was proof that it was God who provided the Lamb, from a spermatozoon supernaturaly produced and implanted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The blood of Jesus could do what no blood of bulls and goats did. It cleansed Israel and it cleansed her Temple. It cleansed the mind of those who agreed with the Gospel (here was the Messiah who vindicated the righteous and reconciled them with God, and who could redeem them, both their minds and  their bodies, through confession : con&amp;gt;with, fess&amp;gt;speech, agreement) . If you were righteous, you could be vindicated; if you were unrighteous, you could repent and then be reconciled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the Church is to be a pure people in a pure community, its members to have a pure mind in a pure body. An obedient church could now act out that righteousness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 7:24-25 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Original Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are there some cases where it is sinful or forbidden to follow any of the laws in the Old Testament, now that Jesus has fulfilled these laws (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15)?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that the church enjoys the blessings meant for God's People, what remains of the law? Since Jesus won redemption for the church through obedience to the law, obedience to the law now wins redemption for the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:24 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my physical body – for the sake of his body, the church – what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The form in which you follow law could be the Mosaic law, which requires ALL  requirements to be fulfilled, or you could follow the law of liberty and love, the Royal Law, requiring holy living, enabling God to use one for ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 2:20-21 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Now in a wealthy home there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also ones made of wood and of clay, and some are for honorable use, but others for ignoble use. So if someone cleanses himself of such behavior, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart, useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following the Mosaic Law is not sin. Its just impossible, since ALL requirements cannot be met, leading to death, impotency. No benefit is achieved. Mosaic Law observed through faith provides only guardianship care, which is already a obsolete, redundant in the Gospel, which provides restoration and empowerment of the prodigal.  However, however, it is better to misunderstand the Gospel  in seeing the continued necessity of Mosaic Law as a lifestyle, not as salvific, than to misunderstand the Gospel by viewing the requirement of the new, Royal Law to be mental assent to the message that Jesus is the Messiah, the Holy One of God (Free Grace Theology) leading to the gift of immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Would the Jews have been sinners in obeying Law in stoning the adulteress?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Talmudic interpretation makes a right call in its interpretation of Torah. There, even lex talionis, eye for an eye, calls for monetary compensation for accidental bodily injury of another person, and even in that, mercy could be shown to those unable to pay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It boils down to interpretation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 2:27 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is the law made for man, and not man for the law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was supposed to give life!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 7:10 NET&lt;/strong&gt; and I died. So I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life brought death!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hillel&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;Whatever is hateful to you, do not do unto another. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T12:13:50.713" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="73" CreationDate="2012-11-23T14:41:42.447" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you know for sure it's God's will, then killing (not murder; others have addressed the difference) is OK. But how can you be sure that it's God's will (this is not aiming at anyone specifically, just oratory questions)? Did you hear voices ordering you so? Then it's not Him (see answers for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/224/how-does-one-know-if-god-is-talking-to-him?rq=1&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;). Your pastor/priests tells you so? He probably gone mad. Have you interpreted something in Bible as an order to kill someone? You can ask here and we will tell you WHY you're wrong. There are situation when killing someone is not a sin (executing a criminal, probably a righteous war too, and few other ocasions), but this is not the God's will (God doesn't want the sinner to die in his sins, but to live and do penance), it's a tolerated (not wanted) exception for the law of universal love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Old Testament times the situation was different. The Law given to Moses was issued for the people of Izrael (and those living among them) only and valued orthodoxy more than a life of an enemy (love for enemies was introduced as a rule by Jesus, and the culture of Izrael was definitelly not ready for such an idea in times of Joshua). In this context God didn't contradict Himself when he ordered what appears as a genocide from today's perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-11-23T14:41:42.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11734" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15927" CreationDate="2012-11-23T15:25:54.480" Score="12" ViewCount="4493" Body="&lt;p&gt;Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/9863/3447&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and answers for it: what happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine? I'm interested in all variants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T21:02:31.253" Title="What happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6863" CreationDate="2012-11-23T21:50:42.157" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a former volunteer in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospice&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hospice&lt;/a&gt; I believe I have something to say about this, both to Christians and to non-Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would you want to die? At first, people usually say something like &quot;painlessly&quot; or &quot;quickly&quot;. Some youngsters add &quot;young&quot;, most older people would add &quot;after long life&quot;, &quot;after happy life&quot; or &quot;after accomplishing my goals&quot; instead. Many would say &quot;happy&quot;, too. After longer thinking about this, some add &quot;with my familly&quot; and &quot;reconciled&quot;. The same people who appreciated quick death in the beginning often come to prefering values that are usually connected with longer time to face death and to accept it's coming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In modern hospices (or in patient's home, if the familly and nurses can provide him &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;palliative care&lt;/a&gt; there) you won't get quick death, but you can be sure you won't suffer of strong pain (and even of medium-level pain, but it often decrease your capacity to do other things, so some patients don't agree with this), you will be treated with respect, your familly will be allowed to be with you all the time (other question is whether your family wants or can reguralry visit you) and there will always be someone to help you, and who will eventually help you to reconciliation (provided you accept help, but hospice doctors, nurses, chaplains, psychologists and even volunteers are trained to be helpful but not aggressive when offering help). About accomplishing your goals - it's harder and I don't want to talk too much about it, but if it's not possible there will at least be someone who helps you to find other, smaller goals which you can accomplish even in the last days of your life, and toherwise help you to accept that not everything is as we dreamed about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_K%C3%BCbler-Ross&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Elisabeth Kübler-Ross&lt;/a&gt;, there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;five stages&lt;/a&gt; through which the patient goes to the the acceptance of their end. First the patient denies their situation (&quot;I'm OK&quot;). Second stage is &quot;anger&quot; (&quot;It's the doctors' fault!&quot;), third &quot;bargaining&quot; (&quot;Someone must heal me! God, help me!&quot; or &quot;That healer will surely help me, he is my last chance!&quot;), fourth depression (that's the moment when patients call for assisted suicide the most) and the fifth and final stage is acceptance. Acceptance means that the patient is happy, rejoices of every minute of life, giving thanks for everything good in his life, discovering new and new reasons for joy, easily forgiving or asking for forgiveness and perhaps eagerly waiting for the embrace of God. Not everyone gets to this stage, but those who do often see their last days as the happiest time of their life. Sounds strange, in our achievement-oriented culture where dieing is the worst taboo, but it's true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our bodies are temples of Holy Spirit and we believe that Holy Spirit wants us to grow to this final submission to God (or to the acceptance of our life and death as its natural end, for an atheist). Assisted suicide means allowing the person to give up, to fail in this final fight.&#xA;About animals, it's OK, they can't understand and exploit this final stage of life spiritually, but we are human beings, not animals, and we have a higher sense of life. To allow an assisted suicide means to admit: &quot;Yes, your life is totally pointless and there's no chance to change it, your life couldn't have any sense any more.&quot; This should be unthinkable for a Christian - we always have a sense of life in person of Jesus Christ.&#xA;Jesus was pretty careful about not to die before his time, so why should we ask for &quot;merciful death&quot; before our time is here? Raping our Lord's death on a cross as an excuse for a suicide effectivelly means that His sacrifice was as vain as a suicide, that He didn't accomplish anything - that's a really big blasphemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For non-Christians, intrinsic value of might not be as obvious as it should be for a Christian. But even if you don't believe in anything after death, isn't the chance to see your life in a new light and die happy worth goning on and accepting some mild pain?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm deeply convinced that anyone who asks for assisted suicide is either too depressed or never really accepted that there could be a sense of life independent of health, money and social status. Both states can change, even though it doesn't seem possible to a person in such a situation. Neither the first nor the second are crimes deserving capital punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another aspect: giving up too early denies someone's relatives and friends to get to acceptance stage too. Real reasons for most cases of &quot;euthanasia&quot; are that the family convince their terminally ill relative to give up, simply because they don't care. This is usually quite easy, given the state the patient is in. Often there is no bad intention behind it, the relatives just can't imagine any sense of life the dying person could find and think that assisted suicide is the best solution. But wouldn't be better to help both the patient and the familly find better approach to this situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our society is sick with disrespect to life. It's especially our, Christians', work to do everything to heal it, and part of the treatment is telling everyone who might be concerned that there is a good alternative to nihilism. On the other hand, we can't judge those afflicted by this disease of our culture too harshly. This is a disclaimer for those offended by my words about blasphemy - I hope nobody stopped reading at that part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, few words about therapeutical relentness: exact time is important. If someone wouldn't be able to survive without constant medical help, there's no chance of improving the patient's health and either the patient is unconcious with no chance of awakening to conciousness or they deliberately chose to avoid further treatment, it's probably the right time. It's usually not absolutely clear, but usually it's better not to prolong this state for too long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2012-11-23T21:50:42.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11722" CreationDate="2012-11-23T23:14:18.887" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Lord Jesus Christ is called “Israel”&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and “David,”&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; both notable patriarchs. Would you also think that the Lord Jesus Christ is a reincarnation of both Israel and David?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John the Baptist was prophetically referred to as “Elijah.” It has nothing to do with reincarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 1:21, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; And they asked him, “Then what? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” And he answered, “No.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΚΑʹ&lt;/sup&gt; καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν Τί οὖν Ἠλίας εἶ Σύ καὶ λέγει Οὐκ εἰμί Ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Οὔ &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 1:21, John the Baptist responds “no” because the Pharisees wanted to know if he was actually Elijah who had returned. This is because the predominate belief in Judaism was that Elijah &lt;strong&gt;himself&lt;/strong&gt; would return from heaven in order to announce the Messianic advent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matt. 11:14, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; And if you will receive [it], this is Elijah who is going to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΙΔʹ&lt;/sup&gt; καὶ εἰ θέλετε δέξασθαι, αὐτός ἐστιν Ἠλίας ὁ μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, in Matthew 11:14 (and the other synoptics), it is said that John was indeed Elijah. The answer to this is that John was not Elijah himself, but the prophetic fulfillment of Elijah, like Jesus to David and Israel. As Luke says, John the Baptist came in the “power and spirit of Elijah.”&lt;sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews often called others by the name of “Elijah”:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare Targum Jonathan of Exo. 6:18:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He lived until he saw Phinehas, who is &lt;strong&gt;Elijah&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;the Great Priest&lt;/strong&gt;, who is going to be sent to the captivity of Israel at the end of the days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;חייא עד דחמא ית פנחס הוא &lt;strong&gt;אליהו כהנא רבא&lt;/strong&gt; דעתיד למשתלחא לגלוותא דישראל בסוף יומייא&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Isa. 49:3&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Eze. 37:24&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Luke 1:17&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-10-26T20:17:55.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11734" CreationDate="2012-11-24T12:41:37.887" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've searched some answer by myself, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stgeorgegreenville.org/OurFaith/Articles/Paradise&amp;amp;Hell%20-Mellitos.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;'s what I've found.&#xA;According to the linked document, both Paradise and hell are Christ's eternal presence, perceived as bliss by truly faithfull and as burning flames by the others. After death a soul leaves body and goes to Christ, where it experiences bliss (Paradise) or torment (hell). These states grow to fullness after the Final Judgement and ressurection of bodies, when the body is involved too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Addendum: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;another find&lt;/a&gt; addressing the way to Paradise or hell!&#xA;According to it the soul should be going through this world for two days, on the third day be tested by demons and then visit souls in heaven and paradise. Before the 40th day when the Temporal Judgement comes, the eternal fate of the soul can be changed by prayers of the living and of the saints in Paradise (but livings' prayers can be stronger).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-24T14:12:27.707" LastActivityDate="2012-11-24T14:12:27.707" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11471" CreationDate="2012-11-24T19:22:04.260" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have researched and written about the case for Priscilla's authorship of Hebrews. Your summary of Harnack's arguments is good. Please refer to several of my published articles on the following website: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clarksons.org/spiritleads/spiritleads/ruth_hoppin.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.clarksons.org/spiritleads/ruth_hoppin.htm&lt;/a&gt;. My book, &quot;Priscilla's Letter&quot; (&quot;La Carta de Priscila&quot;) has even more details. As for the &quot;masculine participle&quot; in Heb. 11:32, the neuter, identical in form, was likely intended, as customary when persons in general are referred to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ruth Hoppin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3503" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2013-01-23T05:56:14.303" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T05:56:14.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11722" CreationDate="2012-11-25T01:56:19.357" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, I think that It would instead means that It would be at the affected time a prophet like Elijah, not that Elijah himself will born again and walk on earth another time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3507" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T01:56:19.357" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11743" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11757" CreationDate="2012-11-25T05:53:05.630" Score="5" ViewCount="8315" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this might make someone infer that while we have any 'big sin' in our life, like hateful anger for a brother, we should reform our life before approaching God. Clearly such a works based concept is absolutely opposed to the gospel. So the question is what is a valid exegesis of Mathew 5:23-24 that does not conflict with our need to approach the throne of grace to enable this 'leaving the gift at the altar' and attempt of reconciliation with a brother?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there any sin that we must straighten out before approaching the throne of grace?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I was first tempted to ask this question on BH.SE but I realized although asking for an exegesis, this is actually exploring the entire theological framework of reformed theology because the belief that one may have to take care of any sin first, and then approach God is in direct conflict with a reformed position and so the question is more theological than exegetical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-12-02T02:21:04.750" LastActivityDate="2020-07-01T11:53:41.393" Title="How does leaving a 'gift at the altar' reconcile with reformed views of the need to 'approach the throne of grace' in everything?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11744" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:06:34.643" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-25T16:06:34.643" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T16:06:34.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11745" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:06:34.643" Score="0" Body="Hymns, choruses and other uses of music in worship." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-25T18:35:35.277" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T18:35:35.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11746" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:09:34.950" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-25T16:09:34.950" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T16:09:34.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11747" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:09:34.950" Score="0" Body="The law inserted to human nature by God, which we should know by natural reason." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-25T18:35:48.210" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T18:35:48.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11748" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:12:11.750" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-25T16:12:11.750" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T16:12:11.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11749" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-25T16:12:11.750" Score="0" Body="Relationship between an individual Christian and God, and different ways to perceive or live this relationship." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-25T21:55:51.660" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T21:55:51.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11734" CreationDate="2012-11-25T17:41:52.970" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Orthodox Tradition is made by saints, living temples of Holy Spirit. Many times, they let us testimonies for spiritual benefit of posteriority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.ro/books?id=uMDsdb1kps0C&amp;amp;pg=PA213&amp;amp;lpg=PA213&amp;amp;dq=The%20Life%20of%20St.%20Basil%20the%20New&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=rhwZhyXicp&amp;amp;sig=AdMx6_ROImXRMTAcmN0yF1avMIw&amp;amp;hl=ro&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=yT2yULmiJMnStAaHz4HgDg&amp;amp;ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=The%20Life%20of%20St.%20Basil%20the%20New&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'Life of saint Basil the New'&lt;/a&gt; book, written by his disciple Gregory, is described what happened with the soul of Theodora after death, a widow who took care of the saint in her life. Her soul was judged passing through a series of tollbooths: slander, insult, lying, anger and rage, pride and arrogance, idle and obscene talk, usury and deceit, falsehood and vainglory, greed, drunkenness, grudge-bearing, sorcery, gluttony and epicurism, idolatry, sodomy and pedophilia, adultery, robbery, theft, fornication, mercilessness and cruelheartedness, sloth, stinginess, murder, heresy. Remarkable observation is that she passed all of them not by her own merits, but only just prayers of the saint Basil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/vita-antony.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the life of St. Anthony the Great&lt;/a&gt; (written by St. Athanasius the Great), he saw a vision of souls rising towards heaven and some being stopped by a large demon and cast down&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before die, saint &lt;a href=&quot;http://tzarlazar.tripod.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lazar&lt;/a&gt;, the Serbian Tsar, had a complete vision of the world, on the battlefield where his army was defeated by turks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In that instant, there simultaneously opened for Lazar both visions, the physical and the spiritual. And with both visions he gazed over the battlefield around him. And behold, how new and wondrous everything was! The faces of many of his soldiers, who had received communion yesterday at Samodreza, were as radiant as lighted candles. Around their heads shone halos of light, which were slightly elongated in four directions in the shape of crosses. Beside each of these faces thus illumined, there stood, as if suspended in air, a luminous, translucent man just like this heavenly herald, who was speaking with Lazar.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  However, the Prince saw different faces also. These were warriors like the black earth. Behind their heads there loomed and stooped here and there some sort of monsters as black as tar. The Prince realized that the expression of these loathsome monsters corresponded to the black misdeeds and passions of the sinners against whom the monsters were pressing. He understood moreover that on this broad battlefield there was taking place not only a struggle of men but of spirits as well.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Hell and earth and heaven had converged in a dreadful clash. The roaring and the clanging, the screeches and the screams, the thunder and the clatter, the shouting and the death rattles the air was filled with all the sounds and noises that can be heard out of throats and nostrils, from hoofs of horses, from metal, from trumpets, from wooden staves, from bones and teeth, from the tightened skin on drums, from wind and rain. The stabbing with swords and spears, the shimmering of silver armor and the glistening of helmets and silver bridles, the fluttering of the green flags of the Asiatics and of the red and white cross-banners of the Christians, the white faces of the European soldiers, the dark-yellow Asiatics and the coal-black Africans, the snowy turbans and the bright red Turkish trousers, the blue and purple dolmans, the yellow and orange boots, the multicolored horses and dogs, the gray camels and the gray falcons. Will the human eye ever be filled with such a display of color from three continents?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The warriors lunged at each other, some with lightning in their eyes, the others with the pallor of a candle burning down. Horses reared with their teeth exposed by the tightened reins. Every soldier was thinking about how he would slay his enemy or defend himself. The faces of some were a book of horror, of others a book of fury, of others — a book of fright, of still others a book of pain, or of anxiety, or of hope but no feeling or passion was without the utmost tension and the culmination of its strength. One warrior with his eyes closed was expressing his pain with his mouth open. Another with clenched jaws was flashing his scorching wrath in his eyes. Yet another with the creases on his face was showing the mustering of the might of his entire being. Some were falling, struck by the mace of their adversary. Others were pulling arrows out of their body and were clenching their wounds with their hands to stop the bleeding alas, to what avail? In the confusion one soldier kills his closest companion. Another, knocked down, finds death beneath the hoofs of his horse, in which he had trusted as an ally. An arrow overtakes a battler as he flees, while another in the thickest part of the melee remains unscathed.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Neither physical vision could see nor could physical reason understand, why one thing was happening to one man and something else was happening to another. This fabric and rash of fate can be seen and comprehended only by that other, spiritual vision. Only in Lazar, among all the thousands of warriors, was this spiritual vision opened. And with this other mysterious vision Lazar watched and saw the battle of spirits over men. According to the light or the darkness of the soul of each soldier, either spirits of light or spirits of darkness were rushing up to him. Instantaneously each spirit recognized his own and was seizing his own. With a blow of their hand or a puff of air from their mouth, the mighty angels of heaven were beating the demons, who were like ravenous jackals, off the souls of the cross-bearing knights. But the beasts of hell, though trembling before those holy powers, treacherously flew at every human soul as soon as it would leave a warm body. With repulsive boasts they were snarling at the souls of sinners, and with their claws they were hurling them as with a fishhook with claws that reached to their elbows. But as soon as the angels would overtake them swinging their arm, they would scrunch those claws together into snakelike coils, and the demons would scratch themselves in a monstrous rage. Out of them there moreover came a certain smoke and stench, unknown to earth and to men. Both armies would have been smothered within an hour by that hellish stench, had the angels not annihilated it with the heavenly and vivifying ozone that fills their being.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  So Lazar watched and saw, with honor and terror, how the angels would eventually permit the demons to have some black human soul. But the souls of the righteous they would shelter with their wings, and would take them and carry them up into the heavenly heights. Before his flight into heaven, each angel would turn to Amos and warmly greet him. For this was Amos' feast day. Lazar marveled at the great armies of heaven and hell, which were no smaller than the human armies on the battlefield. Their wrestling over the souls of men represented such a rapid and resolute struggle, that it has no parallel anywhere on earth except within man, in whom opposing thoughts are always at war.&quot; (http://tzarlazar.tripod.com/lazar09.htm)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only holy tradition of Orthodoxy recorded many testimonies like these, giving the complete view that can be known about life before and after physical death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-12-12T21:35:39.283" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T21:35:39.283" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11752" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-25T18:25:22.257" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-25T18:25:22.257" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T18:25:22.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11753" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-25T18:25:22.257" Score="0" Body="Doctrine, practice, saints and other topics around Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian etc.) Church." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-25T18:35:27.523" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T18:35:27.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11754" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-25T20:28:18.273" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-25T20:28:18.273" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T20:28:18.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11755" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-25T20:28:18.273" Score="0" Body="Languages spoken by Biblic characters, linguistic approaches in Bible study and meeting of faith and finer points of language such as using God's name in vain." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-28T19:00:54.647" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T19:00:54.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11743" CreationDate="2012-11-25T21:32:52.783" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;this is actually exploring the entire theological framework of&#xA;  reformed theology using this particular verse only&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's a bad idea from a Reformed or any other perspective.  To take one verse and attempt to understand a full theology based on it is simply not possible.  The surest way to misinterpret Scripture is to take verses out of context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; context, this is not speaking about straightening out a specific sin prior to going to the altar, it's about the principle of going to the alter to &quot;worship&quot; with a heart that's far from God.  It's a perfect complement to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%206&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Hosea 6&lt;/a&gt;, which speaks of Israel turning to God with an unrepentant heart simply to achieve personal gain - the healing of their land.  God rejects this, and in verses 6-10, we see the underlying principle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,&#xA;      and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. 7 As at Adam,[b] they have broken the covenant;&#xA;      they were unfaithful to me there. 8 Gilead is a city of evildoers,&#xA;      stained with footprints of blood. 9 As marauders lie in ambush for a victim,&#xA;      so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem,&#xA;      carrying out their wicked schemes. 10 I have seen a horrible thing in Israel:&#xA;      There Ephraim is given to prostitution,&#xA;      Israel is defiled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has nothing to do with salvation, predestination, or any other Calvinistic doctrine.  It has to do with the truth of the condition of our hearts.  It speaks to the pointlesness of following religious ritual, and the superiority of a heart that is turned over to God.  Such a heart will understand that love, kindness, and forgiveness are necessary, and will not worship in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xlv.html&quot;&gt;Calvin's commentary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It amounts to this, that the precept of the law, which forbids murder,&#xA;  (Exodus 20:13,) is obeyed, when we maintain agreement and brotherly&#xA;  kindness, with our neighbor. To impress this more strongly upon us,&#xA;  Christ declares, that even the duties of religion are displeasing to&#xA;  God, and are rejected by him, if we are at variance with each other.&#xA;  When he commands those who have injured any of their brethren, to be&#xA;  reconciled to him, before they offer their gift, his meaning is, that,&#xA;  so long as a difference with our neighbor is kept up by our fault, we&#xA;  have no access to God. But if the worship, which men render to God, is&#xA;  polluted and corrupted by their resentments, this enables us to&#xA;  conclude, in what estimation he holds mutual agreement among&#xA;  ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not a legalistic &quot;do this, get that&quot; type of thing.  There is no &quot;specific sin&quot; to be taken care of first.  It is, as Christ is trying to teach in this passage, a matter of hypocrisy vs. &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; Christian love, which is a result of faith in God and repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T21:32:52.783" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11743" CreationDate="2012-11-25T21:55:22.263" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Approaching the throne of grace is an inward action and would actually be a natural part of going to one's brother to be reconciled (perhaps along the lines of &quot;Thank you God for bringing this issue to mind and please give me the proper words when I go before my brother.&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one was coming before one's king, who is renown for his love of justice, to present a lovely flower arrangement and the king's counselor informs one of some grave injustice under one's responsibility, one's right to come before the king and even to ask for a horse to speed one's handling of the injustice is not in question--one is under the king's favor.  However, the king will not be pleased if one delays the handling of the injustice rather than delaying the presentation of the gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T21:55:22.263" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11743" CreationDate="2012-11-25T23:45:25.913" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Holy Spirit detailed through the golden mouth of &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/John_Chrysostom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Chrysostom&lt;/a&gt; how to understand Matthew 5:23-24 in &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf110/toc.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HOMILIES ON MATTHEW&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf110/npnf1121.htm#P1534_514360&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chapter XVI, paragraph 12&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;O goodness! O exceeding love to man! He makes no account of the honor&#xA;  due unto Himself, for the sake of our love towards our neighbor;&#xA;  implying that not at all from any enmity, nor out of any desire to&#xA;  punish, had He uttered those former threatenings, but out of very&#xA;  tender affection. For what can be milder than these sayings? &quot;Let my&#xA;  service,&quot; saith he, &quot;be interrupted, that thy love may continue; since&#xA;  this also is a sacrifice, thy being reconciled to thy brother.&quot; Yea,&#xA;  for this cause He said not, &quot;after the offering,&quot; or &quot;before the&#xA;  offering;&quot; but, while the very gift lies there, and when the sacrifice&#xA;  is already beginning, He sends thee to be reconciled to thy brother;&#xA;  and neither after removing that which lies before us, nor before&#xA;  presenting the gift, but while it lies in the midst, He bids thee&#xA;  hasten thither....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is there any sin that we must straighten out before approaching the&#xA;  throne of grace?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that &quot;approaching the throne of grace&quot; must have an essence, a content, and God stated the most important one: the love. Physical presence with a gift brought to the altar is an exterior form of the sacrifice, just a symbol for the essence of the sacrifice: changing of heart's state. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2012-11-25T23:45:25.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11579" CreationDate="2012-11-26T01:44:41.917" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Human degree of consciousness applied in historical context decides if a law is good or not. The laws of Moses were useful, in the context when laws and understanding weren't serve the life at that time. The Hebrews infected with idolatry disease taken after long stay with Egyptians, saw the big miracles applied by Moses to punish the oppressors, they went on dry through the middle of the splitted Red sea, and they saw lots other miracles during journey in desert. Still having the same eyes and same minds they considered that a golden calf made by their hands was their saviour against egyption threat. Of course, nowadays is inconceivable for our modern minds to embrace this kind of illusory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because God cured and taught us, in the meantime. The humanity consciousness evolved along history. 2000 years ago, the most civilized cultures, Greek and Roman, still have gods for everything: gods for hunting, gods for fertility, good for food, for wine, for seas, for beauty, for trade ... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How disappeared all these in less than 300 years? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God stated on earth, born as a simple human, he passed all ages from childhood to maturity going through temptations of the sinful nature of human body in all critical ages. Defeating all possible sins that a human can do, he start to teach us with simple words using simple parables, explaining what is good, and what wrong, what is sin and what is virtue, where the sins came from. He make a &quot;fire&quot; on Golgotha, a &quot;fire&quot; of a new understanding, a new wisdom. He sent his witnesses to spread this &quot;fire&quot; through the entire world. Many martirs paid with their blood, and many askets, monarchs, devoutly people has kept His &quot;fire&quot; burning until nowadays &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would has been possible to receive this new level of wisdom without to experience the laws of Moses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think not. Because the laws of Moses served as a unit of measures for our sins. Without having this unit of measure, his words like: &quot;You have heard that it was said to the people long ago ...&quot; (Matthew 5) would not be possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When He stopped the furious crowd to stone the adulteress till death, He wrote in a dust of human heart a new law brought from His Kingdom, unknown from Moses laws: HUMILITY. He point our view from outside to inside, from other's sins to our own sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He didn't forced our understanding, imposing this new law as an almighty God. He appeal to our will as rational beings, respecting our freedom to choose between good and evil. We are free today to think what we want about his pronia, to judge Him, to see Him as a killer god, to reject Him, or to see His overwhelming love for human nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament centered of Laws of Moses is not only a historic record of humanity. Is in the same time history of thoughts to the soul of any human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditDate="2012-12-01T02:31:12.027" LastActivityDate="2012-12-01T02:31:12.027" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11787" CreationDate="2012-11-26T04:38:35.380" Score="1" ViewCount="808" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nepotism: The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, esp. by &lt;strong&gt;giving them jobs.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the secular world giving a friend a salaried position over another person more qualified is seen as having potentially moral conflict.  However, I am not sure such a moral issue exists within a church setting.  Then again I could imagine, especially for a ministry that has high revenue, where the 'leader' could pass the reins down to his son, raising the moral issue.  Also established denominations that have somewhat standardized salaries which are not inferior to secular professions may also consider the issue but in what sense I am not personally clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I was wondering is that is this actually a recognized issue in any denomination or is nepotism fully accepted within Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be honest I have not thought about it enough to have an opinion in if it should, or at least in what sense it should be considered, but that is not my question here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My real question here is: &lt;strong&gt;Do any Christian denominations have any policies to prevent nepotism?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T04:40:03.770" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T01:16:06.617" Title="Do any Christian denominations have any policies to prevent nepotism?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;clergy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2651" CreationDate="2012-11-26T04:57:42.223" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everything that God does is meaningful, significant, and purposeful to the last detail, there is no such thing as an accident or a coincidence, that would imply that God is not in control. Every detail in the Holy Scriptures is there by design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The burning bush is a type of Christ &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Isaiah 53:2  For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fire speaks of jealousy, or zeal, passion - same word in Hebrew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Deuteronomy 4:24  For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And fire can also represent the effect of the Holy Spirit on the heart of a believer &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Luke 24:32  Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sign is very specifically appropriate for Moses, who &quot;lit up&quot; with the zeal for the people of God and got &quot;consumed&quot;, when he murdered the Egyptian, but Jesus Christ never lost control. Even when it could be said of Him &quot;The zeal of thine house has eaten me up&quot;, it is a good thing to be passionate and jealous for the things of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, Paul tells the Ephesians in ch.4:26  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Be ye angry, and sin not&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses had a problem controlling his anger as is seen in several instances,  most notably, when he smote the rock twice with his rod contrary to the command of God, and was not allowed to enter the promised land because of it. (Numbers 20:7-11, Deuteronomy 32:48-52) God was teaching Moses something very important for the ministry that lay ahead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3511" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T13:26:25.330" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T13:26:25.330" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11629" CreationDate="2012-11-26T05:07:02.387" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Similar to humans, the demons have their own freedom to act. God's control can be seen only as a limitation of devil's freedom, in sense that God will not allow to these spirits to affect the freedom of us as humans or other creatures. When Scripture says that &quot;God sends an demon to do something ...&quot; this must be always understood that &quot;God lets/allows an evil to do that ...&quot; because often the demons could provoke indirectly positive consequences, which can be foreseen only by God. Scripture states very clearly that &quot;God will is always good&quot;, and &quot;God is life&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T05:07:02.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11764" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T13:53:44.333" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T13:53:44.333" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T13:53:44.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11765" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T13:53:44.333" Score="0" Body="questions regarding the meaning or usage of Christian terminology" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-28T14:19:11.270" LastActivityDate="2016-10-28T14:19:11.270" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11766" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T13:56:33.163" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T13:56:33.163" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T13:56:33.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11767" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T13:56:33.163" Score="0" Body="The last book of the New Testament of the Bible." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:06:26.287" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:06:26.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11768" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T13:58:29.927" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/mcK3D.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Collection of The Book of Mormon in may languages&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scriptures cherished by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A brief explanation on mormon.org states&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon is another witness that Jesus Christ really lived,&#xA;  that He was and is God’s Son. It contains the writings of ancient&#xA;  prophets. One of these, Lehi, lived in Jerusalem around 600 B.C. God&#xA;  commanded Lehi to lead a small group of people to the American&#xA;  continent. There they became a great civilization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God continued to call prophets among these people. The Book of Mormon&#xA;  is a collection of the writings of their prophets and record keepers.&#xA;  It is named after Mormon, one of the last of these ancient prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These prophets knew about Heavenly Father’s plan for His children and&#xA;  the mission of Jesus Christ. They recorded that Christ appeared, after&#xA;  His Resurrection, to the people in America, taught them His gospel,&#xA;  and formed His Church among them. The book contains the teachings of&#xA;  Jesus Christ, testifying of His Atonement and His love. It supports&#xA;  and verifies the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon concludes with a great promise that those who read&#xA;  it and sincerely pray about it can know by the Holy Ghost that it is&#xA;  true (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.4?lang=eng#3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moroni 10:4&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more detailed explanation can be found in the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Introduction of the Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user14141" LastEditorDisplayName="user14141" LastEditDate="2014-07-23T02:28:58.170" LastActivityDate="2014-07-23T02:28:58.170" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11769" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T13:58:29.927" Score="0" Body="The primary and most well-known work in LDS scripture." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:05:39.080" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:05:39.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11770" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T13:59:56.350" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6537/21576&quot;&gt;What about a denomination-survey tag?&lt;/a&gt; for additional information on this and related tags:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/denomination&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;denomination&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;denomination&lt;/a&gt; is for questions about the concept of &lt;em&gt;denomination&lt;/em&gt; in Christianity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/denomination-survey&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;denomination-survey&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;denomination-survey&lt;/a&gt; is for questions surveying the views of denominations in Christianity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/comparative-christianity&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;comparative-christianity&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;comparative-christianity&lt;/a&gt; is for questions seeking to identify the similarities and differences of two or more denominations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T00:47:31.980" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T00:47:31.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11771" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T13:59:56.350" Score="0" Body="For questions seeking comparisons of two or more denominations.  For the concept of &quot;denomination,&quot; use [denomination], and for surveys of Christian denominations, use [denomination-survey]." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T00:47:31.980" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T00:47:31.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11772" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:01:58.013" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:01:58.013" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:01:58.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11773" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:01:58.013" Score="0" Body="One of Twelve Apostles, who betrayed Jesus." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:15:27.477" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:15:27.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11774" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:05:13.733" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:05:13.733" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:05:13.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11775" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:05:13.733" Score="0" Body="Sacrament of Penance and confession of sins in general." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:15:35.823" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:15:35.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11776" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:06:20.453" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:06:20.453" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:06:20.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11777" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:06:20.453" Score="0" Body="Relationship between the Church and the state." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:27:34.390" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:27:34.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11778" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:07:41.560" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:07:41.560" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:07:41.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11779" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:07:41.560" Score="0" Body="Moral law known through God's revelation." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:27:47.557" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:27:47.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11780" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:09:07.687" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:09:07.687" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:09:07.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11781" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T14:09:07.687" Score="0" Body="Relationship between Old Testament Law and New Testament Gospel." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T14:28:06.170" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T14:28:06.170" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11783" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T20:57:28.130" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T20:57:28.130" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T20:57:28.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11784" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T20:57:28.130" Score="0" Body="Questions about Biblical and church teachings on the handling of and use for money." OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T15:07:08.270" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T15:07:08.270" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11785" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-26T21:05:06.407" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T21:05:06.407" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T21:05:06.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11786" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-26T21:05:06.407" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-26T21:05:06.407" LastActivityDate="2012-11-26T21:05:06.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11760" CreationDate="2012-11-26T23:23:50.327" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do any Christian denominations have any policies to prevent nepotism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short answer: Yes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The modern Catholic Church does, &lt;a href=&quot;http://saints.sqpn.com/ncd05726.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as of June 22, 1692&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Innocent XII. Innocent XII gave nepotism a death blow by his&#xA;  celebrated Bull &quot;Romanum decet Pontificem,&quot; 22 June 1692.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanum_decet_pontificem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it does not appear to have actually ended the practice&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romanum decet pontificem was later incorporated into the Code of Canon&#xA;  Law of 1917 in canons 240, 2; 1414, 4; and 1432, 1.&lt;a href=&quot;http://relijournal.com/religion/the-beginning-of-protestants-lutherans-church-of-england-puritans-and-presbyterians/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5&lt;/a&gt; In 1694,&#xA;  Innocent XII's series of reforms was capped off with an expensive&#xA;  campaign to eliminate the venality of offices while reimbursing their&#xA;  current holders.[6]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, following Romanun decet pontificem, only three of the eight&#xA;  popes of the 18th century did not make a nephew or brother cardinal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sagu.edu/documents/Policy/IPM%202012-2013.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Assembly of God has this rule&lt;/a&gt;: (page 34)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nepotism&lt;/strong&gt; The university may employ persons from the same immediate family when his/her individual qualifications are such that they&#xA;  represent the best possible choice for a given position. However,&#xA;  members of the same immediate family may not be employed in a&#xA;  situation where one member may have direct administrative&#xA;  responsibility for the other. This policy applies to all employees,&#xA;  whether hired on a full-time or part-time status. For purposes of this&#xA;  policy, immediate family shall be defined as father, mother, husband,&#xA;  wife, son, daughter, sister, brother, mother-in-law, father-in-law,&#xA;  brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, and/or daughter-in-law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the &lt;a href=&quot;https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&amp;amp;q=cache%3aNXCzCKsg3BIJ%3amfsaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/general_church_ethics.doc%20&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;gl=us&amp;amp;pid=bl&amp;amp;srcid=ADGEESiptUD-TWDmxLPnl7lC9ZdePqKO_ZYj-FQmo3GsUBF3vWyiHLQdfK6Hi4G7nbZVniQtEgKaNIATFIx0KMvydtObxvIw-HHLvtFe0WUSBizHERr_1plC0L_P1g3JNx0E6wrfM-GG&amp;amp;sig=AHIEtbSjuoTFyGsC_XOcyhva4D4a0DbyQw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;United Methodist Church requires local Churches to address Nepotism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;¶702. Amenability and Program Accountability--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;All official general church organizations, groups, committees, councils, boards, and agencies of The United Methodist Church shall&#xA;  adopt a code of ethics, conflict-of-interest, confidentiality,&#xA;  whistleblower protection, record retention and document destruction&#xA;  and &lt;strong&gt;nepotism&lt;/strong&gt; policies, applicable to both members and employees, which&#xA;  embody and live out our Christian values.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there's more.  I can't find it, but I'd bet that the major Lutheran divisions have policies, considering that &lt;a href=&quot;http://relijournal.com/religion/the-beginning-of-protestants-lutherans-church-of-england-puritans-and-presbyterians/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nepotism was one of Martin Luther's issues with the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T01:16:06.617" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T01:16:06.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2012-11-27T03:46:34.423" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.  John 3:3&#xA; Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God John 3:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3514" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T03:46:34.423" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2012-11-27T04:06:33.057" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer from Catholic dogma is that you must be Baptized, you must hold the entire Catholic Faith and you must be in a State of Grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, &#xA;  “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the&#xA;  Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he&#xA;  will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for&#xA;  eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation&#xA;  of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is&#xA;  the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and&#xA;  firmly, he cannot be saved.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T04:06:33.057" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11790" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11791" CreationDate="2012-11-27T08:56:31.610" Score="4" ViewCount="939" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just last week in the UK, the Church of England voted on the concept of having women bishops (who would then be eligible for appointment to the House of Lords, but that's not relevant.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They voted no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the morning TV show, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007zpll&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Big Questions&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, last Sunday, one of the pundits in favour of that decision stated that the church had &quot;scriptural authority&quot; to back the decision up.  This went unchallenged, and so was not expanded upon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the scriptural authority behind this decision?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1083" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-04-06T00:13:37.900" LastActivityDate="2016-04-06T00:13:37.900" Title="Why shouldn't the UK have women bishops?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;bishops&gt;&lt;church-of-england&gt;&lt;female-clergy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11790" CreationDate="2012-11-27T11:13:29.230" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Full disclosure, I am an Anglican / Episcopalian. I am 100% behind a very, very strong view of Scriptural authority, though I believe in the case of female priests, the old interpretation is not really in line with what Paul or God wrote. As such, I think it's totally okay to have a female priest- but for Scriptural reasons. )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. There is &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; scriptural case for not allowing women any positions of authority in the church&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians, Paul says that he does not permit a woman to speak in church. Additionally, completarian theology reads several passages in Paul's letters to be clear that a woman is not to exercise &quot;headship&quot; over a man. The Scriptural case is laid out pretty well in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2086/1039&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, which basically says that there are many Scriptures that say &quot;Women shouldn't preach,&quot; but that aren't as clear cut as one might assume.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. If a Scriptural case exists, then it is a de-facto ground of support&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether one agrees with the interpretation or not, there is thus &lt;em&gt;an&lt;/em&gt; explicit argument in Scripture that women are not to have priestly authority. In the same way that the Queen of England is bound to certain &quot;constitutional&quot; limits, proscribed by tradition, so to the Church is bound to traditional arguments, including certain interpretations of Scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The central debate amongst Anglicans today is the very question of the role of Scripture.  &quot;Progressives&quot; in the Anglican Tradition believe that Scripture is a source of theology, but not the only one. Traditionalists, including the vast majority of Africans, who outnumber English Anglicans several fold, disagree. As a church of compromise (Anglicans promote the via media - the &quot;Middle Way&quot;), the role of Scripture is the crux of the question- not women themselves. Traditionalists can rightly call on Scripture by looking to Paul, to Judges, and to other references. (Again, will expand when not on a phone)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Pragmatically, the question of women priests has been settled, but bishops are an open case&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because society has changed so much, universal acceptance of denying all female roles is no longer an option.  Many, many congregations views denying women a platform to preach as a societal anachronism.  (Again, full disclosure, when I look at the relative position the early church gave women, see, for example 2 John, which was addressed to the elect lady and &lt;em&gt;her&lt;/em&gt; church, I am convinced that the Gospel was revolutionary in the freedom it afforded women when compared against the original society.)  As such, as the relative status of women has changed so dramatically, many congregations actually desire both male and female teaching and oversight.  Again, the Anglican &lt;em&gt;via media&lt;/em&gt; has a straight-forward solution - let individual congregations decide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue with bishops is that their purview is simply that much larger.  There are thousands of churches, but only hundreds of dioceses.  Additionally, parishes in the Anglican tradition do not have set boundaries, whereas dioceses do* (yes, there are execeptions, but by and large this is true.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, accidents of geography necessarily override individual congregational preferences.    In the same way that both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are forced into the same Congressional seat, so too, both pro-women and anti-women adherents are forced into the same district.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the compromise doesn't scale to the diocese level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the pragmatic solution doesn't scale to the diocesean level, debate exists there. Anglicans haven't settled this issue, and so, until we do, there will be decisions that each faction vociferously hates.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4. The bigger issue is Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, even the deciding factor - meaning the role of Scripture, how it is interpreted, and how it is applied in this context, will have unintended precedent setting effects.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, for example, a female bishop is forced on a congregation that reads Scripture to exclude them, how will they feel when a homosexual bishop is chosen?  The United States has, at the time of writing, two.  Again, remember that this is absolute heresy in the majority of the Anglican world (Uganda, Nigeria, etc...).  Their reading of Scripture would be very simple - 1 Corinthians 5 - expel the immoral brother!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T17:53:59.427" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11315" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:41:34.560" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11319/3447&quot;&gt;DJClayworth&lt;/a&gt; wrote, nowadays it's not a strict rule what you can eat in lent. But in Middle Ages, there were strict rules about it.&#xA;All fish were allowed. But fish were not defined as today, but as &quot;all water animals&quot;, including a beaver or a capybara. Molluscs were permitted too - thats why monks (some order had to fast for most of the year as others fasted in lent) brought Roman snails (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_pomatia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;helix pomatia&lt;/a&gt;) to some regions where it's not native.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T13:41:34.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11793" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:44:18.050" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T13:44:18.050" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T13:44:18.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11794" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:44:18.050" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T13:44:18.050" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T13:44:18.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11795" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:46:01.950" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T13:46:01.950" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T13:46:01.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11796" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:46:01.950" Score="0" Body="Sacrament of anointing of the sick." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-11-01T11:41:12.793" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T11:41:12.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11797" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:47:57.860" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T13:47:57.860" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T13:47:57.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11798" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:47:57.860" Score="0" Body="Biblical Archaeology and archaeological finds connected with Christianity and the history of Church." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T15:03:44.630" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T15:03:44.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11799" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:50:35.267" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T13:50:35.267" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T13:50:35.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11800" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:50:35.267" Score="0" Body="Paul's letter to Romans" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T15:01:46.850" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T15:01:46.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11801" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:51:29.790" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Questions on Mary, mother of Jesus, and her place in doctrines of various denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T15:50:39.853" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T15:50:39.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11802" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:51:29.790" Score="0" Body="Mariology is the theological and academic study of Mary, the mother of Jesus" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T15:52:44.987" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T15:52:44.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11803" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:53:10.880" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T13:53:10.880" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T13:53:10.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11804" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:53:10.880" Score="0" Body="Event of outpouring of Holy Spirit and its reflexions and commemoration in Christianity" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:58:17.857" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:58:17.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11805" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:56:45.443" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;perpetual virginity of Mary&lt;/a&gt; is a doctrine stating that Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin both before and after the birth of Jesus.  The doctrine was widely held in church history and is accepted by Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and some parts of Protestantism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21576" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T01:19:29.703" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T01:19:29.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11806" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:56:45.443" Score="0" Body="The doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin her entire life" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T01:20:18.233" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T01:20:18.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11807" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:59:29.963" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T13:59:29.963" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T13:59:29.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11808" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T13:59:29.963" Score="0" Body="Homilies, sermons, preachers and art of preaching." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:58:02.537" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:58:02.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11809" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:00:39.417" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:00:39.417" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:00:39.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11810" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:00:39.417" Score="0" Body="Third book of Moses, part of Torah." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T15:03:50.963" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T15:03:50.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11811" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:01:40.897" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:01:40.897" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:01:40.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11812" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:01:40.897" Score="0" Body="A period of forty days before Easter, time of fasting." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T15:06:11.867" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T15:06:11.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11813" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:02:45.593" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:02:45.593" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:02:45.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11814" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:02:45.593" Score="0" Body="Mass is the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-07T11:36:15.490" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T11:36:15.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11815" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:03:23.580" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:03:23.580" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:03:23.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11816" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:03:23.580" Score="0" Body="Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T15:05:30.260" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T15:05:30.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11817" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:04:39.693" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:04:39.693" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:04:39.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11818" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:04:39.693" Score="0" Body="Non-Jewish people, typically from a nation other than Israel." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T15:03:19.110" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T15:03:19.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11819" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:05:50.427" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:05:50.427" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:05:50.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11820" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:05:50.427" Score="0" Body="Used for questions about the Gospel of Mark (the second gospel in the Bible) and the doctrines, passages, verses, or teachings found therein.  Questions about the gospel author, Mark, should be tagged &quot;mark&quot;." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="35942" LastEditDate="2018-06-27T00:39:05.650" LastActivityDate="2018-06-27T00:39:05.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11821" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:06:43.093" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:06:43.093" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:06:43.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11822" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:06:43.093" Score="0" Body="Prophet Daniel and his book." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T15:03:24.163" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T15:03:24.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11823" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:07:49.377" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:07:49.377" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:07:49.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11824" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:07:49.377" Score="0" Body="Second king of Israel and author of many psalms." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T15:04:01.963" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T15:04:01.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11825" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:09:06.427" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is a Roman Catholic catechism, or summary of doctrine, first published in 1992.  Pope John Paul II called it &quot;a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21576" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T14:38:55.660" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T14:38:55.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11826" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:09:06.427" Score="0" Body="A summary of Roman Catholic doctrine issued by the Catholic Church." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T14:38:09.490" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T14:38:09.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11827" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:10:01.823" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T14:10:01.823" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:10:01.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11828" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:10:01.823" Score="0" Body="The people and church of Corinth. Use 1-corinthians and 2-corinthians for the epistles." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-21T11:55:36.357" LastActivityDate="2014-10-21T11:55:36.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5419" CreationDate="2012-11-27T14:20:01.503" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two answers: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage in Genesis 8:22 is perfectly applicable to the issue of global warming because it specifically says that summer/winter &amp;amp; cold/heat shall not cease. The seasons will not be interrupted. Someone on this thread said that even global climate change proponents are not saying that the seasons will be destroyed...and then they go on to talk about how spring is longer, summer is hotter, etc. Interesting!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's word is absolute. Cold and heat (meaning extremes) will continue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There IS one scenario where the earth could warm. There's one Biblical way for the earth to warm and not contradict the above-mentioned passage. The Scriptures promised that at one point the earth will melt with a fervent heat. Could it be that God has declared it the end, and has set global warming in motion in order to accomplish this? The promise in Genesis 8:22 says that cold/heat will continue as long as the earth remains, if God sets in motion a plan to destroy it by fire, with the earth gradually warming up to a melting point, both scriptures would compliment one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this is a possibility, I tend to believe that global warming/cooling is cyclical in nature - just like the seasons it's natural and has happened for hundreds of years. Either way, global warming is clearly not man made and Christians would be wise to avoid the attempted manipulation of the populace for a power grab by the ruling elite. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3516" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T14:20:01.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11830" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-27T16:18:33.870" Score="14" ViewCount="4329" Body="&lt;p&gt;The gist of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%206&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6&lt;/a&gt; is that as Christians, we are dead to sin, and thus free from it.  We are no longer slaves to sin, but are slaves to God and righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%206:16-18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 6:16–18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Do you not know that if you present yourselves  to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But  thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the  standard of teaching to which you were committed, &lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; and,  having been set free from sin,  have become slaves of righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I don't think many Christians would say that they &lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt; very free from sin.  In fact, Paul goes on in the next chapter to say that &lt;em&gt;he&lt;/em&gt; is a slave to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%207:18-19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 7:18–19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For I know that nothing good dwells  in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. &lt;sup&gt;19&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;  For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This kind of language doesn't sound very &quot;free&quot;.  If he says that Christians are &quot;slaves of the one whom you obey&quot;, and yet he finds himself obeying the flesh, doesn't that make him a slave to sin? In what way, then, are Christians &quot;free&quot; from sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; Adding the &quot;evangelicalism&quot; tag may have been too subtle, so to clarify, I am specifically looking for answers from an evangelical perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-01-30T15:15:42.417" LastActivityDate="2020-12-06T10:37:19.583" Title="In evangelicalism, how are Christians free from sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;sanctification&gt;&lt;romans&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11830" CreationDate="2012-11-27T16:31:48.980" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are provided with an &lt;em&gt;opportunity&lt;/em&gt; to be free from sin (through Christ); We have the option to choose what's right. No longer do we have to stay in bondage. This doesn't, however, mean that Satan just says &quot;Oh, you're FREE?? Well then, I'll just lay down and quit then.&quot; Paul means here that we have a way to be free of the flesh that is so sinful. But that doesn't mean it's easy. It means that through dying to self and to our flesh, we are free, and this is the freedom Paul speaks of. Actually taking advantage of that and doing so is still quite difficult at times, but at least we have the ability, through Christ, to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1432" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T16:31:48.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:16:09.247" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The framework of this teaching is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Response to Enlightenment/Realisation of God's requirements&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as the dishonest steward realised that he needed shelter to survive after his discharge, Christians realize they need shelter to survive in the afterlife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shelter is available only in Christ. To follow him, one must stop following the world. There is only one God, even demons know that and tremble. They have no choice but to continue. Christians claim to know God's will, but continue to follow the World, even when they have a choice. Ordinary people know that following the world will result in destruction, if God exists, and if there is an afterlife. It is the afterlife which makes life meaningful. But they persist in following the world. Their certainty about God is not high. Their certainty that life is meaningless is higher. Also, the attraction of the world is strong. They have set their sight to make the least effort, to enjoy the maximum benefits and to avoid suffering. They are gambling on the absence of God, and His judgment for wasting His gift of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would be the opinion of the world on someone who had intelligence, resources and opportunity, but avoided the path to improve, through pursuit of knowledge, to fulfil their potential as human beings, if the universally accepted idea of a fulfilled person is an educated person? The dismay at reading about the calamities that fall on ignorant people in personal, career, financial decisions makes one wish that people would become as knowledgeable as possible, with whatever ability and opportunity at hand. The idea that some people had opportunity and failed to utilise it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for those who hear of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if the resources to fulfil what God planned for His children was simply a longing for vindication of trusting God for victory of justice, mercy and love, over  the rampant selfishness witnessed in the wilderness, and in the secular world? The proclamation of the Gospel is exactly that, selflessness is to be rewarded, the righteous redeemed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 4:18-19 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,&#xA;  because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.&#xA;  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives&#xA;  and the regaining of sight to the blind,&#xA;  to set free those who are oppressed,&#xA;  to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who believe that God is the only one to be served, and not mammon,  cannot serve the latter anymore. They must serve God, by giving up mammon and following Him. If their confidence is lacking, they must at least use unrighteous mammon to make friends, to ensure shelter in the afterlife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Belief in the Gospel leads to the giving of the Spirit. The Spirit gifts faith/courage to confess Jesus is Lord. Confession leads to shelter in the Body of Christ in this life. Baptism is recognition by the Body that one is a believer in the coming of the Kingdom, acceptable in the church, and entitled to instruction in the ways of the Kingdom. Justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sanctification is absorbing the teachings and obeying it, agreeing with it leading to the giving of the Spirit who gives faith to follow Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's the ordo salutis right there. Starting with the Spirit, finishing with the Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 3:1-5 NET&lt;/strong&gt; You foolish Galatians! Who has cast a spell on you? Before your eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as crucified! The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Although you began with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort? Have you suffered so many things for nothing? – if indeed it was for nothing. Does God then give you the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not immediate. Some are called early in the day, some late. Even while faith grows, it brings forth fruit. Uncertainty is okay, but as faith grows, so does the fruit. We may not have enough faith to give up everything to follow Jesus, but we can use unrighteous mammon to gain friends. We may not have enough faith or mammon to gain friends but we can still serve God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 17:3-10 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”&#xA;   The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” So the Lord replied, “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this black mulberry tree, ‘Be pulled out by the roots and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.&#xA;   “Would any one of you say to your slave who comes in from the field after plowing or shepherding sheep, ‘Come at once and sit down for a meal’? Won’t the master instead say to him, ‘Get my dinner ready, and make yourself ready to serve me while I eat and drink. Then you may eat and drink’? He won’t thank the slave because he did what he was told, will he? So you too, when you have done everything you were commanded to do, should say, ‘We are slaves undeserving of special praise; we have only done what was our duty.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great faith leads to following Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Little faith leads to supporting His disciples with your worldly goods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't need any faith to serve Him with love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 25:41-46 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not receive me as a guest, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?’ Then he will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.’ And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;................&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;@Judah&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judah wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As a Gentile, Jesus Christ saves you from what exactly? You were never given a Law to keep, so you are not guilty of violating it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am not guilty of breaking the French law, since I am not and never have been a French citizen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Absolutely!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As for the Jews, it's stated repeatedly in the Law of Moses that this law is eternal. Which means: it's eternal, not to be changed. Ever. No matter what. It cannot be replaced by believing in Jesus. Unless you assume God is schizophrenic. For example, see Leviticus 23:31 &quot;Ye shall do no manner of work; it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And no, linguistic gyrations such as, &quot;Okay, I guess the law is eternal, only now it's kept through believing in Jesus&quot; don't really work. They are not supported at all by anything in the text. It's like saying, &quot;I don't cheat on my wife, I love her just the same, only through sleeping with my co-worker.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, no! All the Law must be observed, the minor points as well as the major points. They are the giants that stand between Israel and REST!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 15:26&lt;/strong&gt; He said, &quot;If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 28&lt;/strong&gt; 1 If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 11:32, Deuteronomy 19:9, Deuteronomy 28:15, Deuteronomy 28:58&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as the giants are defeated by belief in God, the Law will be fulfilled by Israel, through belief in Meschiach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 1:30&lt;/strong&gt; The LORD your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did for you in Egypt, before your very eyes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 3:22&lt;/strong&gt; Do not be afraid of them; the LORD your God himself will fight for you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 31:6&lt;/strong&gt; Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joshua 23:10&lt;/strong&gt; One of you routs a thousand, because the LORD your God fights for you, just as he promised. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2012-12-14T13:06:09.113" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T13:06:09.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11834" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:17:33.230" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:17:33.230" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:17:33.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11835" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:17:33.230" Score="0" Body="Questions regarding emotional or physical pain, distress, or hardship. Its relation to Theology, Christian Life and practice." OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2014-06-27T10:30:43.343" LastActivityDate="2014-06-27T10:30:43.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11836" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:19:19.053" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:19:19.053" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:19:19.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11837" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:19:19.053" Score="0" Body="How God's part of authorship of Scripture works." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:45:06.550" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:45:06.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11838" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:20:38.670" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:20:38.670" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:20:38.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11839" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:20:38.670" Score="0" Body="Questions relating to the process by which the Divine became flesh" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:46:59.923" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:46:59.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11840" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:21:42.693" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:21:42.693" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:21:42.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11841" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:21:42.693" Score="0" Body="Questions relating to the manuscript evidence of the LXX" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:46:36.400" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:46:36.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11842" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:23:08.070" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Saint Thomas Aquinas was a well known theologian from the Middle Ages. He is best known as the author of the Summa Theologica, a compendium of all of the main theological teachings of the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T12:11:42.077" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T12:11:42.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11843" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:23:08.070" Score="0" Body="Saint Thomas Aquinas was a well known theologian from the Middle Ages, author of the Summa Theologica." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T12:10:15.773" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T12:10:15.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11844" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:24:39.940" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:24:39.940" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:24:39.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11845" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:24:39.940" Score="0" Body="Book of Proverbs, one of &quot;ketuvim&quot; (&quot;writings&quot;)." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T18:22:10.510" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T18:22:10.510" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11846" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:25:22.527" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:25:22.527" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:25:22.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11847" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:25:22.527" Score="0" Body="Life and spirituality of monks and nuns." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T18:19:44.237" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T18:19:44.237" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11848" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:28:22.693" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:28:22.693" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:28:22.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11849" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:28:22.693" Score="0" Body="A Jewish feast that celebrates the Exodus of the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt." OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2013-03-15T17:51:18.930" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T17:51:18.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11850" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:29:28.633" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T17:29:28.633" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T17:29:28.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11851" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:29:28.633" Score="0" Body="Christian views on physical life outside Earth." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T18:19:53.643" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T18:19:53.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7968" CreationDate="2012-11-27T17:56:50.430" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is frequent belief in New Age that everything &quot;good&quot; is from just one source. Many New Age gurus (including reiki masters) encourage their disciples to very strange forms of syncretism (even in &quot;never stay long enough to learn the language&quot; manner). From this perspective, it seems completely valid to use a reiki-infused Catholic rosary to count Buddhist mantras. The fact that similar items are sometimes called &quot;rosary&quot; even if used by other religions for different practices even deepens this confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this have nothing in common with teaching of Catholic Church. Unfortunately, there are people who say they are Christians (or, particularly, Catholic) and still believe this, and others who just can't see what's bad about it. Sort of a challenge for priest and catechetists.&#xA;I myself used to believe it for quite a long time. This error was deeply burrowed in my head until my conversion and it took me few more months to realize how far from truth it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T19:32:51.823" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T19:32:51.823" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11830" CreationDate="2012-11-27T18:17:19.310" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul is speaking to believers who have been exposed to the teachings of the church, which is that selfishness and greed is sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 16:13-17 NET&lt;/strong&gt; No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”&#xA;The Pharisees (who loved money) heard all this and ridiculed him. But Jesus said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in men’s eyes, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly prized among men is utterly detestable in God’s sight.&#xA;“The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If believers confess/agree the above is true, they are no longer ”sinners”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we are saints in bodies of death, bodies that crave to satisfy the natural appetites, sometimes excessively or in the wrong situation. You may want to indulge your love of rich food to the point of gluttony which may be lawfully available with money of your own. Lawful but unrighteous. You may lust after your neighbours property or wife, which are unavailable because of unlawfulness. Unlawful AND unrighteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 2:21-22 NET&lt;/strong&gt; So if someone cleanses himself of such behavior, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart, useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. But keep away from youthful passions, and pursue righteousness, faithfulness, love, and peace, in company with others who call on the Lord from a pure heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 7:1 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us cleanse ourselves from everything that could defile the body and the spirit, and thus accomplish holiness out of reverence for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 2:1-2, 5-10 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Now this is the gospel message we have heard from him and announce to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him and yet keep on walking in the darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth. But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, forgiving us our sins and cleansing us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us. (My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.) But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One, and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Original Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The gist of Romans 6 is that as Christians, we are dead to sin, and thus free from it. We are no longer slaves to sin, but are slaves to God and righteousness.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 6:16-18 (ESV) Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing what sin is and its consequences, you are set free. The Pharisees did not even know that their behaviour was sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However, I don't think many Christians would say that they feel very free from sin. In fact, Paul goes on in the next chapter to say that he is a slave to sin.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 7:18-19 (ESV) For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This kind of language doesn't sound very &amp;quot;free&amp;quot;. If he says that Christians are &amp;quot;slaves of the one whom you obey&amp;quot;, and yet he finds himself obeying the flesh, doesn't that make him a slave to sin? In what way, then, are Christians &amp;quot;free&amp;quot; from sin?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Solution&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Walking in The Light&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture tells us that when we believe God wants us to conquer the giants of sin, even though we feel like ants and grasshoppers with regard to being up to the task, He will give us victory. Belief, leads to God giving us the Holy Spirit. Read Galatians 3 for details of what happens when the Spirit is given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T18:23:54.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11855" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T19:34:54.673" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For questions relating to subject of the Rosary.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Rosary is a Scripture-based prayer. It begins with the Apostles' Creed, which summarizes the great mysteries of the Catholic faith. The Our Father, which introduces each mystery, is from the Gospels. The first part of the Hail Mary is the angel's words announcing Christ's birth and Elizabeth's greeting to Mary. St. Pius V officially added the second part of the Hail Mary. The Mysteries of the Rosary center on the events of Christ's life. There are four sets of Mysteries: Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious and––added by Saint John Paul II in 2002––the Luminous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The repetition in the Rosary is meant to lead one into restful and contemplative prayer related to each Mystery. The gentle repetition of the words helps us to enter into the silence of our hearts, where Christ's spirit dwells. The Rosary can be said privately or with a group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Five Joyful Mysteries&lt;/strong&gt; are traditionally prayed on Mondays, Saturdays, and, during the season of Advent, on Sundays:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Annunciation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Visitation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Nativity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Presentation in the Temple&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Finding in the Temple&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Five Sorrowful Mysteries&lt;/strong&gt; are traditionally prayed on Tuesdays, Fridays, and, during the season of Lent, on Sundays:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Agony in the Garden&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Scourging at the Pillar&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Crowning with Thorns&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Carrying of the Cross&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Crucifixion and Death&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Five Glorious Mysteries&lt;/strong&gt; are traditionally prayed on Wednesdays and, outside the seasons of Advent and Lent, on Sundays:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Resurrection&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Ascension&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Descent of the Holy Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Assumption&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Coronation of Mary&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Five Luminous Mysteries*&lt;/strong&gt; are traditionally prayed on Thursdays:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Baptism of Christ in the Jordan&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Wedding Feast at Cana&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' Proclamation of the Coming of the Kingdom of God&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Transfiguration&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Institution of the Eucharist&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/rosaries/how-to-pray-the-rosary.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;How to Pray the Rosary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-03-08T02:31:50.017" LastActivityDate="2020-03-08T02:31:50.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11856" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T19:34:54.673" Score="0" Body="For questions relating to subject of the Rosary." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-03-08T02:31:50.017" LastActivityDate="2020-03-08T02:31:50.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11857" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-27T19:40:54.580" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T19:40:54.580" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T19:40:54.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11858" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-27T19:40:54.580" Score="0" Body="Son of Adam who killed his brother Abel." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-27T20:19:06.917" LastActivityDate="2012-11-27T20:19:06.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11860" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11861" CreationDate="2012-11-27T21:20:45.007" Score="4" ViewCount="15796" Body="&lt;p&gt;Confession, specifically the practice of confessing one's sins to a priest, is a quite common practice in the Catholic Church.  When and how did this sacrament first originate and become codified as standard Catholic practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-01-29T09:53:41.963" Title="When did the practice of Confession in the Catholic Church begin?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11860" CreationDate="2012-11-27T23:22:34.200" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;ear confession&quot; as we know it today is an invention of Irish monks (some 6th century? I'm not sure). Before that time, only heavy sins (especially renouncing Christ) were confessed in front of whole congregation. Private confession allowed to confess all sins.&#xA;This practice spread with Irish missionaries quickly. It was codified as mandatory (at least once a year) on IVth Lateran council (1215).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: wikipedia on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance_%28Catholic_Church%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church)&lt;/a&gt; focuses on penance, so the beginning of the practice of confession is bit obscured, but it gives further details and approves the codification in 1215.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT 2: wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity#Penitentials&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Celtic Christianity&lt;/a&gt; gives more details and cites &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity#cite_note-49&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Medieval Handbooks of Penance&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-29T12:10:57.313" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T12:10:57.313" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="488" CreationDate="2012-11-28T01:23:20.110" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;He went to the Limbo of the Fathers which is part of Hell.  The Nicene Creed tells us he descended into Hell and on the third day he rose again.  The Limbo of the Fathers is where the Justified of the Old Testament resided until after the Resurrection.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q: What are we taught in the Fifth Article: He descended into hell;&#xA;  the third day He rose again from the dead?  A: The Fifth Article of&#xA;  the Creed teaches us that the Soul of Jesus Christ, on being separated&#xA;  from His Body, descended to the Limbo of the holy Fathers, and that on&#xA;  the third day it became united once more to His Body, never to be&#xA;  parted from it again&quot;  Catechism of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article&#xA;  of the Creed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Q: What is here meant by hell? A: Hell here means the Limbo of the&#xA;  holy Fathers, that is, the place where the souls of the just were&#xA;  detained, in expectation of redemption through Jesus Christ&quot; Catechism&#xA;  of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article of the Creed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2013-08-21T02:46:57.827" LastActivityDate="2013-08-21T02:46:57.827" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11722" CreationDate="2012-11-28T06:01:43.573" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose if you read those couple of verses in isolation, you could interpret it as reincarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we must ask, In what sense would Elijah return? As Elijah never died but was taken up bodily into Heaven, he could return by coming back from Heaven. Presumably he could be reincarnated, as you mention. Or this might be meant in a non-literal sense, that someone would come along who would be like Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like, during the last election I heard some Republican say, &quot;We need another Ronald Reagan.&quot; Did he mean that the country or his party needs a clone of Ronald Reagan, or some other form of exact duplicate? Surely not. He simply meant that we need another person who is like Mr Reagan in such-and-such ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on Bible verses like the one quoted by Wikis above, the Bible clearly teaches that there is no reincarnation, that we each live and die once. So Jesus could not have meant that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. As John was born in the normal way, he apparently did not mean that Elijah had returned from Heaven, either. Thus, he may have simply meant that John was like Elijah in some ways, e.g. in being a great prophet. Or he may have meant something more specific than this, that there was some spiritual or supernatural phenomenon going on here. We can speculate about that, but I don't know of any scriptural basis to go beyond this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="859" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T06:01:43.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11872" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11874" CreationDate="2012-11-28T13:22:56.430" Score="14" ViewCount="2814" Body="&lt;p&gt;The confessional is a standard practice of the Roman Catholic Church where church members may (or must) go to confess their sins to a priest.  As I understand it, the priest then decides whether or not the person's sins will be forgiven and, if so, what is required of the person in order for that to take place.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it seems that priests themselves are subject to sin like anyone else.  So, I'm wondering if the Catholic Church has confessionals to which priests may or must regularly attend.  Also, do Cardinals attend confessionals, and then lastly, does the Pope himself ever confess his sins to anyone.  For priests, cardinals, and popes, who determines whether or not their sins will be forgiven and, if they will be, what they must do in order for that to occur?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-28T22:02:18.550" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T22:02:18.550" Title="Do Priests, Cardinals, and Popes have a confessional to which they themselves can/should/must go?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11872" CreationDate="2012-11-28T17:42:08.973" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is &lt;strong&gt;yes&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, every priest and bishop, &lt;strong&gt;including the pope&lt;/strong&gt;, is supposed to have a spiritual advisor. The priest they see for confession need not be any special priest, as far as I know. It just needs to be &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; priest. Confession is not a matter of hierarchical authority. It's just a matter of receiving absolution from &quot;the Church.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T17:42:08.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11872" CreationDate="2012-11-28T17:45:46.693" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any priest, or any level of priest, can hear confession from anyone.  A priest will go to another priest for confession.  Similarly, bishops, cardinals, and the pope can (and do) go to priests for confession.  Apparently &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/12/18/DI2006121800546.html&quot;&gt;priests and the pope often have a specific confessor&lt;/a&gt; and are encouraged to visit him with &quot;some regularity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for whether a priest can deny forgiveness, I can't find much information except that they &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do it although it's apparently rare and usually only happens in cases where the person does the same thing repeatedly (like an ongoing affair).  I don't see any reason why a priest confessor to a cardinal/pope would not be able to deny forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3526" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T17:45:46.693" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11875" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11876" CreationDate="2012-11-28T18:37:58.217" Score="7" ViewCount="2033" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, in Roman Catholic practice, people regularly confess their sins to a priest, who then instructs them what they must do in order to be forgiven.  However, it is apparently possible for a priest to deny someone forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, according to Catholic doctrine or practice, what are the specific circumstances under which a priest should withhold forgiveness from someone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T20:49:29.163" Title="Under what circumstances is a priest supposed to deny forgiveness to a person?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;confession&gt;&lt;priests&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11875" CreationDate="2012-11-28T20:46:03.823" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;For ordinary sins, the priest is supposed to deny absolution if there's no sign of contrition (see 1451-1454 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), especially when the sins are grave (mortal).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In case of excommunication, some can be lifted by any priest, some by an Ordinary (usually a bishop) or a priest appointed by an Ordinary, and some only by the pope or some priest appointed by him.&#xA;I have found some canon lawyery on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P51.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. I can't confess I understand it fully, but I'll try to translate it: if the excommunication was explicitly declared, it can be lifted by the bishop who declared it (or someone appointed by him). If it's &lt;em&gt;latae sententiae&lt;/em&gt; (strarted by a sin, not declared like abortion), it's under authority of the Ordinary of the diocesis where the excommunicated person lives. Priests without special authority can lift latae sententiae excommunication temporarily &quot;if it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision.&quot; I don't know what qualifies for &quot;burdensome&quot; here, whether it's almost automatic or just in rare situations like some known danger of death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-28T20:49:29.163" LastActivityDate="2012-11-28T20:49:29.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11879" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-28T23:48:22.047" Score="6" ViewCount="4859" Body="&lt;p&gt;Animals without a doubt go against the commandments of God. There are gay animals, animals that kill each other for no reason, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it say in the bible that the animals are under the curse of sin as well? If so, how is that justified? As in, why should animals suffer the curse of sin when they were not made in the image of God, did not disobey God, and are not descendants of Adam?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T02:14:30.920" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T23:36:41.427" Title="Are animals under the curse?" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-07-31T13:19:35.640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11879" CreationDate="2012-11-28T23:57:46.663" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does it say in the Bible that the animals are under the curse of sin&#xA;  as well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, some groups may or not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; animals are under the curse, but there's no direct Biblical statement. Therefore, it would be a subjective, interpretation issue to address if they are truly under the curse or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many YEC groups believe the curse affected not only animals, but plants, and even the universe itself via the law of entropy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/837/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ICR, for example puts it like this:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The animals, not having moral natures, were not guilty of sin, of&#xA;  course, but they also shared in the Curse, for they were—like&#xA;  Adam—made of the dust of the ground that God had cursed. Like Adam's&#xA;  body, their bodies also must return to the ground. Henceforth, &quot;death&#xA;  reigned ... even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of&#xA;  Adam's transgression&quot; (Romans 5:14). Thus there is death in the world&#xA;  only because there is sin in the world. It is this great truth that&#xA;  causes evolutionists to stumble over God and His word. By stretching&#xA;  the six days of creation into great ages, many evolutionists can put&#xA;  up with the Genesis &quot;story&quot; of creation, but they simply cannot&#xA;  tolerate the record of man's Fall and God's Curse as the cause of&#xA;  suffering and death in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's just ICR. They do not speak for Christianity as a whole, and I refuse to get sucked into a debate over whether their view is correct or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-11-29T12:48:32.187" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T12:48:32.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11879" CreationDate="2012-11-29T00:21:51.257" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; say that &quot;the whole creation&quot; (including animals, presumably) suffers because of the fall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.&amp;mdash;Romans 8:19-22 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+8/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Francis of Assisi is famous for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi#Nature_and_the_environment&quot;&gt;preaching to animals&lt;/a&gt;.  Whether or not this is apocryphal, it illustrates his concern for non-human life.  Wikipedia also notes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Francis preached the teaching of the Catholic Church, that the world was created good and beautiful by God but suffers a need for redemption because of the primordial sin of man. He preached to man and beast the universal ability and duty of all creatures to praise God (a common theme in the Psalms) and the duty of men to protect and enjoy nature as both the stewards of God's creation and as creatures ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Jonah+4/&quot;&gt;final words of God in Jonah&lt;/a&gt; express compassion for both Nineveh and its cattle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, humanity is clearly distinct from the rest of creation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;So God created man in his own image,&#xA;    in the image of God he created him;&#xA;    male and female he created them.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;Genesis 1:26-27 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Genesis+1/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be a mistake equate the effects of sin on animals with their effect on humanity.  It's also clear that creation will be relieved of its curse when we take on our rightful place as children of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible, early Christians and many doctrinal frameworks assert creation has suffered as a result of original sin.  But I don't know of any Christian group that puts the effects of the curse on animals at the same level as the curse upon humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T00:21:51.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11879" CreationDate="2012-11-29T03:09:36.240" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently creation has been given for man to tame, just as a horse would have been given to a bronco buster to break:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:28 NET&lt;/strong&gt; God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at the record, the bad attitude, the lying, blame shifting, disbelief and the actual disobedience, the subduing was to start with the serpent, the adversary, the bodily appetites within Man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/jewishbeliefsatan.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Article from Judaism.About.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Hebrew word &quot;satan&quot; literally means &quot;adversary&quot; and in Jewish thought one of the things we struggle against every day is the &quot;evil inclination,&quot; also known as the yetzer hara. The yetzer hara is not a force or a being, but rather refers to mankind's innate capacity for doing evil in the world. Using the term satan to describe this impulse is not very common though. (The &quot;good inclination&quot; is called the yetzer hatov.)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 4:1-4 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he endured temptations from the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they were completed, he was famished. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone.’” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2012-11-29T03:16:39.570" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T03:16:39.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11883" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-29T03:25:19.433" Score="-2" ViewCount="213" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to understand how accepting the idea of &quot;being born a sinner&quot; contrasts with &quot;being born perfect&quot;... because once someone has the mental capacity to understand that they aren't perfect then isn't the end goal the same?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that both perspectives will have the person trying to do the &quot;right&quot; thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does &quot;being born a sinner&quot; compare to &quot;being born perfect&quot; (in god's image) affect one's outlook on life and solving the problems of life (lust, greed, envy, etc)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="405" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T13:28:45.700" Title="How does &quot;being born a sinner&quot; compare to &quot;being born perfect&quot; affect one's outlook on life and problem solving?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-11-30T08:21:02.940" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6942" CreationDate="2012-11-29T03:32:22.573" Score="-1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 20:29 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, those who accept without proof are more blessed than those who are filled with doubts. What is the blessing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They don't have to be burdened with the need to satisfy those who feel lost without the answers! ;p&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope you don't feel lost about  the answer to this question now!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NASB Luke 11:9&lt;/strong&gt; “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 “For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. 11 “Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12 “Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13 “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 3:5 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Does God then give you the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What should we seek? The Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Kingdom of God is easier to enter for the foolish, the humble, the weak, the poor. Rightly so, because God loves those who believe in Him and depend on Him with a simple faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why the Gospel is such good news for such as they. All it requires is for people to understand that those who turned to God can now be vindicated. That which is foolish to the wise, the message of the Cross, has long been recognised to be the only way to live by the disadvantaged: unless a seed dies, it cannot live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a hard time accepting that salvation is to be entered through getting doubts cleared. Think about it: if the latter were true it would mean that a huge swathe of mankind would be excluded from salvation because clever people are fewer than the simple. It also means that God only intends to save the clever, because intelligence is a gift, not a result of hard work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After studying Scripture, we reach the conclusion that all that is required is to acknowledge God's goodness in helping us, through the Cross, and telling people to turn to Him. The details of the process are unnecessary and not useful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 7:31-32 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “To what then should I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to one another,&#xA;‘We played the flute for you, yet you did not dance;&#xA;we wailed in mourning, yet you did not weep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find that when you reach your destination, the simple folk are already there:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 18:2-4 NET&lt;/strong&gt; He called a child, had him stand among them, and said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T18:28:51.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11885" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-11-29T08:12:55.270" Score="1" ViewCount="438" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read that it's more or less accepted that Jesus did suffer on the cross. &#xA;What I do not understand is whether or not He suffered all possible sufferings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine a war hero captured and tortured by the enemies. The war hero however does believe that his country will win the war and thus he does not experience all the possible sufferings for he does not experience a suffering of a man whose country has been defeated in the war.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However if Jesus does not experience a particular suffering then how Jesus can save a man who suffer such sufferings for then Jesus will not be knowing the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems Jesus did suffer all the possible sufferings on the cross -- but then he must have suffered a suffering of someone who has discovered or wrongly felt that Christianity is false. How can that be, for Jesus surely could not believe that Christianity is false?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1646" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-29T13:37:07.447" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T13:37:07.447" Title="Did Jesus suffer on the Cross in all possible senses?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;cross&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11885" CreationDate="2012-11-29T10:14:04.663" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're thinking too hard, and not quite straight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously Jesus didn't not experience everything. Your example is pretty convoluted but lets do an easier one. As a sinless man, there is at least one emotion Jesus didn't experience: a guilty conscience. God &quot;made him to be sin who knew no sin&quot;, so he experienced in some fashion what it was like to be guilty, but clearly there must be a dimension in which he did not experience it the way we do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's to miss the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is He suffered FAR BEYOND anything we do. He bore the weight of God's wrath against sin in a way that a Christian never will. He experienced far more senses of suffering than we do. &lt;strong&gt;There is left to us no sense in which he would be unable to understand what we experience.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet I still think that whole discussion is missing the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds to me like you're confused about what we are saved from. Jesus doesn't save us from ourselves, our our self inflicted miseries or general sufferings. &lt;strong&gt;His primary work was to save us from the wrath of God.&lt;/strong&gt; Until you understand that this is the central problem which he came to solve, none of the other stuff will quite make sense. When you get that out of the way, in having the broken fellowship between us and God restored through Christ we find that our other woes begin to heal as well -- the new creation we are is able to deal with suffering in a way that it never could before -- and as all of creation will one day be restored, the sufferings of a fallen world will likewise be wiped away with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T10:14:04.663" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11883" CreationDate="2012-11-29T11:42:33.710" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Jeremiah says, the heart is deceitful and wicked above all things, who can know it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of the point of the doctrine of original sin is that man is born so twisted that he is not fully capable of choosing right and wrong, even if our conscious and revealed law were somehow able to guide us correctly. Because we are unable to make a valid choice, God must reach out to sinners to give them the ability to choose him, whether that is ante previsa merita or post previsa merita. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why Christians must rely on grace. Christians (especially those who subscribe to total depravity) fundamentally find our sin condition to render us unable to perfect ourselves. We cry out to God who makes us perfect in our weakness, rather than assuming that we can save ourselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T11:42:33.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11883" CreationDate="2012-11-29T13:28:45.700" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue here is not a matter of preference, but one of reality.  If it were actually true that we were all born perfect, then we should certainly believe that.  However, that is certainly not reality.  Only a very few people ever believe they are perfect and were born that way, and that is not a sentiment shared by those around them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question could be reworded to ask, &quot;Is it better to believe something that is true or to believe something that is false?&quot;  Indeed, the answer is that it is far better to believe what is true.  It is true that we were all born sinners, so we should accept that truth and work from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T13:28:45.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11889" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-11-29T13:35:36.830" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-11-29T13:35:36.830" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T13:35:36.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11890" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-11-29T13:35:36.830" Score="0" Body="Questions about logical reasoning in theology." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-11-29T14:00:55.317" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T14:00:55.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2012-11-29T13:58:35.243" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two kinds of faith: true faith and false faith. True faith will always produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit and will always be accompanied by compassion and benevolent work (Isaiah 58, Matthew 25). In contrast, false faith is either legalistic or complacent and devoid of any love and compassion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;True faith is God's gift to us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.&quot; Eph 2:8-9 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3430" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T13:58:35.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11893" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11894" CreationDate="2012-11-29T18:11:02.557" Score="8" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.npr.org/2012/11/28/166019306/in-russia-pro-putin-youths-protest-mormons-as-cult&quot;&gt;story on NPR&lt;/a&gt;, Mitt Romney's campaign and his anti-Russian remarks have apparently been the impetus for Putin's &quot;Young Guard&quot; to dog Mormon churches in Russia, accusing them of being &quot;a totalitarian cult&quot; and that the LDS church in Russia is a CIA front organization. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, I'm rather skeptical of the CIA front claim. I've worked intelligence long enough to be proud when someone accuses the CIA of being able to run anything.  Still, the claim is sufficiently reminiscent of the old claims that Catholics were supposedly beholden to the Pope in political affairs - enough to kill Alf Landon's chances, and sufficient to make JFK's election very, very tight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lie to the &quot;Catholics are just political tools of the Pope&quot; line, is of course, that there is an American Conference of Bishops that, while it reports to, is distinct from the Vatican.  Additionally, the American Catholic Church has very public disagreements with the Vatican on several issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is what analougues exist to the Russian (or any other countries') Mormon churches.  Politically, is there a national alignment of non-US Mormon churches, and what is their relationship to Salt Lake City?  Additionally, are there any large issues of disagreement that are more pronounced in countries outside of the US that distinguish it from the American leadership?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, how do non-US Mormon churches relate to the US, generally?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T21:57:27.707" Title="What is the relationship between international branches of the LDS Church?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;politics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11893" CreationDate="2012-11-29T19:12:50.680" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;They don't &quot;relate to the US&quot;, except insofar as the headquarters of the church happen to be located in the US.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There aren't &quot;international branches&quot; of the LDS church; there is one worldwide church. The church is organized into individual congregations, known as &lt;em&gt;wards&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;branches&lt;/em&gt; (a branch being a smaller congregation in an area where the church is not yet well established), and several local congregations located close to each other (generally around 10) make up a &lt;em&gt;stake&lt;/em&gt;.  The presidency of each stake is chosen and ordained by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Each stake is fairly autonomous within its boundaries, possessing the authority to direct the business of the church in its area, up to and including granting temple recommends (which are considered valid at any temple in the world) and holding disciplinary councils which can result in a member's excommunication, which again is binding throughout the entire church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several stakes make up an Area, which has an Area Presidency, though this is mostly an administrative grouping; church members have little if any interaction with the church at the Area level.  Areas are determined more by geography than national boundaries.  There are several in the US, for example, whereas when I was serving as a missionary in South America, the Area included all of Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the highest level are the General Authorities of the church, who are headquartered in Salt Lake City.  Basic doctrines, directives and practices for the whole church come from there, and are accepted and followed in stakes, wards and branches throughout the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While stakes, areas and the Church Headquarters in SLC could be seen as roughly equivalent to the Catholic diocese, archdiocese and Vatican organizational model, there is no independent LDS organization equivalent to the American Conference of Bishops.  By &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10094/what-would-happen-to-somebody-voting-in-opposition-to-a-proposition-at-lds-gener&quot;&gt;the principle of Common Consent,&lt;/a&gt; the members of the church throughout the world--including local leaders--sustain and affirm their faith in the leadership of the General Authorities as God's chosen representatives on the earth in our time, twice each year at General Conference.  Under such a principle, there's really not much call for such an organization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And one interesting thing in the linked article that deserves a bit of clarification is the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Young Guard contends that Mormon missionaries in Russia cooperate&#xA;  with the FBI and CIA. They repeat another theme that's common on the&#xA;  Internet as well: that American Mormon missionaries go to work for the&#xA;  U.S. security agencies in disproportionate numbers when they return&#xA;  home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a lot of truth to that, but the reason behind it is much simpler than coming up with shadowy conspiracy theories about the church working for the US government (or vice versa, of course!)  The CIA and FBI (particularly the former) need people with a solid knowledge of foreign languages and cultures.  LDS missionaries in the US frequently get sent abroad and spend two years totally immersed in a foreign language and culture, a practice that was established long before the FBI or CIA even came into existence.  It just happens to be an excellent method of acquiring a core skillset for that particular type of job, (as well as several other jobs that deal in international business,) and agencies that look for people with that skillset when recruiting are aware of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T21:57:27.707" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11895" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11896" CreationDate="2012-11-29T20:36:04.020" Score="11" ViewCount="1312" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand the Book of Mormon has a list of witnesses.  However, I have heard that these witnesses may not have actually ever seen the gold plates that contained the original manuscripts for the Book of Mormon, but were witnesses in a different sort of way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, just how many people physically saw and/or touched the gold plates from which Joseph Smith is said to have translated the Book of Mormon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: Martin Harris, one of the witnesses, later explicitly denied seeing the plates with his physical eyes.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Harris_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29#Testimony_to_the_Book_of_Mormon&quot;&gt;See article.&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-11-29T21:22:25.947" LastActivityDate="2016-11-29T00:25:17.343" Title="How many witnesses are there who physically saw and/or touched the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was reportedly translated?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;&lt;joseph-smith&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11895" CreationDate="2012-11-29T21:02:34.763" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The testimonies of these &quot;lists of witnesses&quot; is included in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng&quot;&gt;the introduction to the Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt;, in which they explain what they saw and experienced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the testimony of the Three Witnesses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon&#xA;  the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and&#xA;  not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of&#xA;  God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes,&#xA;  that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we&#xA;  know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus&#xA;  Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And&#xA;  it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord&#xA;  commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be&#xA;  obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these&#xA;  things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from the testimony of the Eight Witnesses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the&#xA;  plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold;&#xA;  and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did&#xA;  handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of&#xA;  which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.&#xA;  And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith&#xA;  has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety&#xA;  that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both groups include a solemn testimony that they did actually see the golden plates that the record was inscribed upon.  The first group (three men) was shown them by an angel, but they do not claim to have touched them, while the second (eight men) was shown them by Joseph Smith, and was allowed to handle them.  So those eight and three, plus Joseph Smith himself, makes a total of twelve who physically witnessed the original record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of the strength of these testimonies, it was common, back when the men in question were still alive, to make claims that they had denied or recanted their testimonies in some way, as a way to attempt to undermine the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.  The linked Wikipedia article contains a few such claims attributed to Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses, but it also gives his claim that &quot;No man heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon [or] the administration of the angel that showed me the plates.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A discussion of this apparent discrepancy can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/%22Eye_of_Faith%22_and_%22Spiritual_Eye%22_statements_by_Martin_Harris&quot;&gt;the FAIR wiki&lt;/a&gt;, which assumes that Harris did actually say what was attributed to him.  A simpler explanation, of course, would be deliberate incorrect attribution. Fact checking is hard enough even today with the Internet at our fingertips; in the mid 19th century, such a task was exponentially more difficult, which made it much easier for dishonest people to employ flat-out falsehoods in many different causes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, the last word on the subject should be Martin Harris's literal &lt;em&gt;last words&lt;/em&gt;.  On his deathbed, he once again reaffirmed that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I&#xA;  have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold&#xA;  plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to&#xA;  me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had&#xA;  I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the&#xA;  testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not&#xA;  have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these&#xA;  things are true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other two of the Three Witnesses both gave similar reaffirmations on their own deathbeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-11-29T21:43:21.137" LastActivityDate="2012-11-29T21:43:21.137" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11448" CreationDate="2012-11-30T20:03:20.053" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11477/3447&quot;&gt;Aeoril&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The idea of 'Natural Moral Law', if you are referring to the idea that one can discern moral truths from pure philosophical pursuits is something I would argue is untenable.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest that you read Cicero's &quot;De Legibus&quot; (&quot;On the Laws&quot;). Within, you will find that Cicero arrives at many conclusions about of God and His law which approximate Scriptural truth. They are limited and subtly different and for this reason, they are more dangerous at turning a Christian aside than blatant contradictions. It is for this reason that the early Church was turned aside to various forms of &quot;Hellenist&quot; Christianity. Nevertheless, your statement would be found by Cicero and others as untenable. And the conclusions of these pagan thinkers demonstrate the verity of the 1st Chapter of Romans (v 19-20) that an unbeliever can know some things about God from natural revelation, however difficult and unlikely that is. This is important because it means that there is often a point of contact in proselytizing. We don't have to rely on signs and wonders, presuppositionalism, gnostic and pietist witness and Pascal's Wager.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3533" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-12-01T13:57:47.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8701" CreationDate="2012-11-30T20:37:44.223" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Answering from a Catholic perspective ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Basic Trinitarian Beliefs&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I must assume you have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;read up on the Holy Trinity&lt;/a&gt; and therefore &lt;strong&gt;understand&lt;/strong&gt; a few basic dogmatic statements about the God, the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There exists ONE God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is a Blessed Trinity of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Each &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; of the Trinity is both &lt;strong&gt;fully God&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;fully distinct&lt;/strong&gt; from the other two Trinitarian persons&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distinction between the persons of the Trinity is, in my opinion, best stated in terms of their eternal relationships to each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Son is eternally begotten of the Father&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Father eternally neither begotten nor proceeding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence the simple answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Father is the one who is eternally neither begotten of another, nor proceeding from another.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A word of caution&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can make analogies, but they necessarily fall short. The Trinity is the mystery of the inner relationship of God. And it is, ultimately and above all, &lt;strong&gt;a mystery&lt;/strong&gt;. It is &lt;strong&gt;necessarily&lt;/strong&gt; a mystery. And it will, &lt;strong&gt;for the rest of your life&lt;/strong&gt;, be a mystery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's worth peeking at two brief videos as you delve into the theology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMI4rA4cuiM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMI4rA4cuiM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBqG2hjTVjY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBqG2hjTVjY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-11-30T20:37:44.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11579" CreationDate="2012-11-30T23:06:37.837" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matt 5:17 Christ is recorded as saying: &quot;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A second point to consider is that of the idea of dispensationalism, which (in a very brief nutshell) is the idea that we (humans) have lived under different dispensations or covenant styles of God's relationship with man - for example: there was one mode of His dealing with and interacting with mankind prior to Christ's resurrection, and upon the salvation offered to us through his Sacrifice (taking on our sin), a new order or dispensation was established (that noted of salvation and forgiveness), and upon the time at the end of the age and the beginning of the time of the New Jerusalem (see Revelation), there will be yet a third dispensation (relationship style).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, as humans, we have been given The Law (of the Old Testament: see Exodus and Deuteronomy for examples) and nowhere in the New Testament Scriptures are we instructed to now simply forgo respecting those old Laws.  Paul mentions that it is by The Law that we humans come to know and understand our own actions as being sinful or in-line with God's will - so through the Law, we can recognize our failures and recognize sin in our own hearts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also recall, that in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were instructed not to eat of the tree of the “knowledge of good and evil.”  Prior to enjoying this ‘apple’ they we are told that they were naked and that they were not ashamed of this fact – i.e. they did not even know to consider if they should be ashamed or not of their nakedness – they were without the understanding of there being anything about good and evil.  There was only God and the garden in which they lived with God.  When they took of the fruit, they were misbehaving, yes, but in that act they became aware of and knowledgeable of good and evil – and they then started to realize all that was either good or evil in their own existence and ways  – their nakedness for instance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One has to be aware of what is good and what is evil before he can elect to even try to forgo what is evil and follow what is good.  A newborn may act in a selfish manner, but he is no more able to even consider his actions as good or evil, right or wrong, than he could drive a car and know to keep tot eh speed limit.  He is not aware yet of what he is doing could even be wrong or right, (evil or good).  He initially learns these things according to what he is taught within his home as being right and wrong, and later to a greater degree within the culture he elects to respect.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings us to the question (as per the topic point here) as to if Christians are supposed to continue to follow the old Mosaic Laws; and I will place two different law 'types' for an example here, to show that we are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The laws regarding burnt offerings (which clearly no Christian denomination is advocating the continuation of burning animals as sacrifices to God).  There are numerous Old Testament Laws going through nuance after nuance of how and why to make various burnt sacrifices to God depending upon the situation at hand.  These sacrifices were performed as a means of atoning for one’s sins (breaking of the law).  When Christ came though, He took on all mankind’s sins (passed present and future) and became the sacrificial lamb for all when he was sacrificed on the cross.  Upon his resurrection, a new dispensation, a new covenant started, and although the old rules remained, there was now no need for anyone to put forth a burnt offering for their atonement, of breaking the laws, for Christ had already paid that fine, that debt.   De we then, or are we supposed to stone someone for adultery, as the Law stated in the Old Testament?  No.  Why not?  Would that not then be denying the Law?  It would, if it were not that Christ has already paid the fine for that person’s sin – he has already died for that sin.  Does this mean that we are free to sin then?  “May it never be …” (see Romans) for each time we sin, we are in a sense driving a nail into Christ’s hands and feet, and we injure ourselves, for in that sin, we are not embracing the relationship with God, which we are otherwise offered to simply accept, if we would act properly.  But even here, we have a way to be redeemed to that relationship when we repent of the sin, and accept Christ’s death as the ransom for our own sins.  In this way too, we are not to condemn another for their sins, but to point the sin out (in love), and help him repent (see the law of what is right and wrong) ask for forgiveness, and accept the Grace of God as offered to each of us, if – again- we would simply accept Christ as our Savior…and move on to (try and) sin no more.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ also pointed out to us, that the physical action of breaking a Law, was not necessarily the only way to break the Law, for the law can be broken in the heart of man, though he elect not to act upon his sin of the heart (ex: Matt 5:28).        &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Christ forgave the woman, did not equate to Christ saying that the Law was no longer relevant, but rather what the punishment would be, and who should rightfully be doling out that punishment were placed in a new light of His sacrifice (which he was about to undergo) - Him fulfilling the Law and the prophecies, and now taking on our sin (i.e. the woman's as well), and her sin now forgiven (recall he told her sin was forgiven and to go and sin no more), for he did not condemn her.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So...it is not a sin to follow the old Laws, in fact, we are to follow them.  But whereas in the old dispensation, the old time, prior to Christ, the &quot;fine&quot; was to be done by the people (stone someone, or give a burnt offering), in the light of Christ being the sacrifice for all the sins we (or others) do, the aspect of who is in charge of doling out the fine of breaking the Law is now back in the hands of God, and no longer in ours.   see Matt 22:40 for a summary of all the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3534" LastEditorUserId="3534" LastEditDate="2012-11-30T23:31:31.587" LastActivityDate="2012-11-30T23:31:31.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22" CreationDate="2012-12-01T03:22:58.207" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that the &quot;chief end of man&quot;, or &quot;why man was created&quot; can be summed up in what Jesus said when a lawyer asked him a question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 20:36ff &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?&quot; And He said to him, &quot;'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you love the Lord? You love His kids! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 20:39 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love God and love others. This is the &quot;chief end&quot; of man;  in doing these two things you bring glory to His name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3535" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-12-01T18:52:10.400" LastActivityDate="2012-12-01T18:52:10.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8701" CreationDate="2012-12-01T09:13:36.387" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Orthodox perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In one &lt;strong&gt;Father&lt;/strong&gt; (we believe), the beginning, and cause of all:&#xA;  begotten of no one, proceedeth of no one: without cause or generation,&#xA;  alone subsisting: creator of all: but Father of one only by nature,&#xA;  His Only-begotten Son and our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ,&#xA;  and proceedethor of the most Holy Spirit. (saint John of Damascus)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We understand &lt;em&gt;Only-begotten&lt;/em&gt; as not created. When we read &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word&#xA;  was God. (John 1,1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;we understand how the most &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; teaches us through the fathers of the church, that&#xA;the Word already existed when the first creation was made. This first creation is &lt;em&gt;the time&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;in the begining&quot;). When time was created, the Word of God, which is the Son, participated Himself&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He was with God in the beginning. (John 1,2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Entire creation was made through the &lt;strong&gt;Son&lt;/strong&gt; of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that&#xA;  has been made. (John 1,3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we say &quot;The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit&quot;, we not talk about three gods, but only one. Likewise, when we discuss about the sun and the sunshine (born from the sun), and the heat (proceedething from sun through the sunshine), we not talk about 3 suns, but only one. (saints Cyril and Methodius, explaining Trinity to saracens)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God&quot; because Son is not separated from Father, and Father and Son are not separated from Holy Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me (John 14:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the&#xA;  Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me (John 15:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is not son of God, but He proceedeth from Father. In similar way, how Eva is not born from Adam like Set, but Eva is taken from Adam. (saint Gregory the Theologian)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as muslims accept that Christ is the Word of God and in the same time as a creation of the God, results that God is without word and without spirit, and mutilate Him. (saint John of Damascus)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we read: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can&#xA;  snatch them out of my Father’s hand. (John 10:29)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;we don't understand that Father is greater than Son, because the reason is written in the &lt;em&gt;next verse&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I and the Father are one (John 10:30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which means that Father is greater than all others, while Son is not inside &quot;all others&quot; since He is not separated by Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From here we conclude also that the Son of God is greater than all, and the Holy Spirit is greater than all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we read &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If&#xA;  you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the&#xA;  Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;we do not understand any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son (for through His agency He made the ages), or superiority in any other respect save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son just as we say in the same way not that fire proceedeth from light, but rather light from fire. So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we understand it to mean in respect of causation. (saint John of Damascus)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of&#xA;  God has come upon you. (Matthew 12:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;we deduce that to cast out devils is a work of the greatest power, and not of any ordinary grace. And He means indeed that from these things we infer and say, If this be so (and it is), then the Son of God has come (saint John Chrysostom)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli,&#xA;  Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you&#xA;  forsaken me?”) (Matthew 27:46)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;we not understand that He felt these sufferings departed from God, or the divine nature abandoned the human nature on the Cross in order for Christ to feel the pain, the suffering from this abandonment. We understand how father John Chrysostom (temple and mouth of Holy Spirit) says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... after this He speaks, that they might learn&#xA;  that He was still alive, and that He Himself did this, and that they&#xA;  might become by this also more gentle, and He says,  Eli, Eli, lama&#xA;  sabachthani? Matthew 27:46 that unto His last breath they might see&#xA;  that He honors His Father, and is no adversary of God. Wherefore also&#xA;  He uttered a certain cry from the prophet, even to His last hour&#xA;  bearing witness to the Old Testament, and not simply a cry from the&#xA;  prophet, but also in Hebrew, so as to be plain and intelligible to&#xA;  them, and by all things He shows how He is of one mind with Him that&#xA;  begot Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the rabbi told before:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said,&#xA;  'I am the Son of God.' (Matthew 27:43)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew words of the Lord on the Cross, were supposed to remember about fulfiling the profetic words from David's psalm 22, which depicts His passion, crucifixion and triumph: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from&#xA;  helping me, and from the words of my roaring? &lt;br&gt;2 O my God, I cry in&#xA;  the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not&#xA;  silent. &lt;br&gt;3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of&#xA;  Israel. &lt;br&gt;4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou&#xA;  didst deliver them. &lt;br&gt;5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered:&#xA;  they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. &lt;br&gt;6 But I am a worm,&#xA;  and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. &lt;br&gt;7 All&#xA;  they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake&#xA;  the head, saying, &lt;br&gt;8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver&#xA;  him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. &lt;br&gt;9 But thou&#xA;  art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I&#xA;  was upon my mother's breasts. &lt;br&gt;10 I was cast upon thee from the&#xA;  womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. &lt;br&gt;11 Be not far from&#xA;  me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. &lt;br&gt;12 Many bulls&#xA;  have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. &lt;br&gt;13&#xA;  They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring&#xA;  lion. &lt;br&gt;14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of&#xA;  joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth&#xA;  to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. &lt;br&gt;16&#xA;  For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed&#xA;  me: they pierced my hands and my feet. &lt;br&gt;17 I may tell all my bones:&#xA;  they look and stare upon me. &lt;br&gt;18 They part my garments among them,&#xA;  and cast lots upon my vesture. &lt;br&gt;19 But be not thou far from me, O&#xA;  LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. &lt;br&gt;20 Deliver my soul&#xA;  from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. &lt;br&gt;21 Save me&#xA;  from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the&#xA;  unicorns. &lt;br&gt;22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the&#xA;  midst of the congregation will I praise thee. &lt;br&gt;23 Ye that fear the&#xA;  LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him,&#xA;  all ye the seed of Israel. &lt;br&gt;24 For he hath not despised nor&#xA;  abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face&#xA;  from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard. &lt;br&gt;25 My praise shall&#xA;  be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them&#xA;  that fear him. &lt;br&gt;26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall&#xA;  praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. &lt;br&gt;27&#xA;  All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and&#xA;  all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. &lt;br&gt;28 For&#xA;  the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they&#xA;  that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive&#xA;  his own soul. &lt;br&gt;30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to&#xA;  the Lord for a generation. &lt;br&gt;31 They shall come, and shall declare&#xA;  his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done&#xA;  this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This cry of Christ, says that Christ was not abandoned either by His Father or by His own divinity, as if fearing the Passion and shrinking from the suffering of Christ. So what happened? By this cry Christ &quot;stamps on Himself what is ours&quot;. In other words, at that moment Christ is speaking in our place. For we were those abandoned and overlooked and then assumed and saved by the Passion of the impassible One. (saint Gregory the Theologian) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Orthodoxy, by its tradition, conserves everything that God revealed to humanity in all times, through all His saints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditDate="2012-12-03T16:44:14.723" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T16:44:14.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11904" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-01T10:39:58.230" Score="-4" ViewCount="242150" Body="&lt;p&gt;12-1-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know my post is long but I really need some clarification &amp;amp; help!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for answering my post to the best of your ability!!! :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**There are so many versions of the Bible now the 1611 KJV, NIV, THE AMPLIFIED, THE MESSAGE BIBLE, NASB, etc. How do you know which version is correct?? I normally read the KJV, but there are parts of it I just don't understand, so I also compare these verses to the NASB Bible. I purchased a NIV &amp;amp; I was shocked to find entire sentences that are in the 1611 KJV missing or omitted entirely!!!  By omitting these verses it gives the content of what they are talking about in the 1611 KJV Bible an entirely different meaning!!! I also don't understand how they can just change around some of the original 1611 KJV which I know is the best translation they could do back in England from the original Hebrew, Aramaic &amp;amp; Greek &amp;amp; which is worldwide known as the closest you can get to read the original Hebrew, Aramaic, &amp;amp; Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I plan on getting an original Hebrew, Aramaic &amp;amp; Greek Bible that has been translated into English. I even found some website that show you the original Hebrew, Aramaic &amp;amp; Greek translation with the English translation underneath. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;GOD himself said in the book of Revelation 22:18-19 &quot;For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my main question is how can you have Bible versions like the NIV omitting entire verses from the 1611 KJV &amp;amp; as I said by doing that they have changed entirely what the verse or chapter was saying or meant???&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I still stick with the 1611 KJV &amp;amp; little NKJV &amp;amp; NASB when I need more clarification because the NKJV &amp;amp; the NASB talks more in our modern English language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it wrong to have all of these Bible Translations &amp;amp; to compare them to the 1611 KJV???&#xA;And what about what GOD said in Revelation 22:18-19 about not changing one word or adding one word to the writing in this book ~ The Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PLEASE HELP BECAUSE I AM TOTALLY CONFUSED WATCHING PREACHERS ON TV PREACH FROM THE NIV, THE AMPLIFIED, THE MESSAGE BIBLE ETC. &amp;amp; some of the verses or chapters are no where near or in the 1611 KJV Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I must admit the first time I read the NIV it was so refreshing to read!!! I could understand every word of the Bible for the 1st time in my life &amp;amp; I like the way it flows smoothly to me. I am now scared to read the NIV or such versions of the Bible that have omitted or changed GOD'S word around so drastically!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was comparing different translations of the Bible using my parallel Bible &amp;amp; now I don't know what to do because of this verse in the 1611 KJV of the Bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then when I heard different TV ministers saying how the NIV is not the Bible you should be reading &amp;amp; then they started giving examples of missing verses &amp;amp; chapters missing!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was so shocked I googled the NIV missing &amp;amp; sure enough there are entirely different verses &amp;amp; chapters changed or missing in the NIV!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During my google search I came upon this website &amp;amp; it shocked me even more now I really don't know what to do???&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few of the differences between the 1611 KJV &amp;amp; the NIV version that the below website gave as proof &amp;amp; I checked it out &amp;amp; they are right:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the websites that popped up with my Google search about missing verses or chapters from the NIV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.valueoftruth.org/bible/missing.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.valueoftruth.org/bible/missing.html&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; Consider the following sample: KJV &amp;amp; the NIV,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;** You need to pull out your Bibles if you have several like I do or your parallel Bible or go online to fill in the blanks to see what is missing from the above examples above comparing the KJV to the NIV translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I went to &quot;Biblegateway.com&quot; used their parallel Bible search feature which compares whatever verse or chapter you pick out of the Bible &amp;amp; shows you what the difference is. It's much quicker for me than pulling out my actual Parallel Bible &amp;amp; constantly turning pages ~ just a few clicks &amp;amp; the verses &amp;amp; chapters are there side by side. Love this feature :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(KJV) Revelation 1:8 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,&#xA; (NIV) Revelation 1:8 - &quot;I am the Alpha and the Omega,&quot; ______________ says the Lord God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**What is at stake - Clarity that Jesus is eternal, not created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(KJV) Revelation 1:11 - Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, ... &#xA;(NIV) Revelation 1:11 - which said: __________ &quot;....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**What is at stake - Clarity that Jesus is eternal, not created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(KJV) Revelation 5:14 - And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever&#xA;NIV) Revelation 5:14 - ...and the elders fell down and worshipped __________.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**What is at stake - Clarity of the Lord being eternal, not created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(KJV) Revelation 14:5 - And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. &#xA;(NIV) Revelation 14:5 - No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless _____________.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**What is at stake - They weren't faultless or perfect - but their hearts were right ... before man? No, before God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(KJV) Revelation 20:12 - And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; &#xA;(NIV) Revelation 20:12 - And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**What is at stake - Clarity that all the dead shall stand before God...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(KJV) Revelation 22:14 - Blessed are they that do his commandments, &#xA;(NIV) Revelation 22:14 - &quot;Blessed are those who wash their robes,&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**What is at stake - Blessed for obedience or clean clothes??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(KJV) Revelation 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, &#xA;(NIV) Revelation 22:19 - And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**What is at stake - It is no coincidence that the most changed book of the Bible would remove eternal damnation from the very curse for changing God's words!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: Rev. 6:16, 11:17, 16:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**This is only a small sample of the differences between the Bibles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;** What you just read is what the above website I found during my google search &amp;amp; there are thousands upon thousands of websites that show you the differences. You just have to check it out for yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I hope someone can help me with my original question: is it wrong to read some of these Bible translations that are going against GOD'S written word in Revelation 22:18-19.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3537" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-23T22:54:20.503" LastActivityDate="2014-12-23T22:54:20.503" Title="What version of the Bible is closest to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2012-12-03T05:24:11.883" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11448" CreationDate="2012-12-01T11:12:09.923" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless we have an understanding of philosophical methods, we would have no idea of the validity of any work claiming to be an exposition of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could read the Summa, but unless you know how it lacks, it would be pointless. The Divine Law, its requirements, the right approach meet those requirements, all this require a proper understanding of the problem, an area that Hellenistic philosophy fails in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scholastics utilised reasoned, logical thought in their methodology, arguably the basis for modern biblical hermeneutics, the same used by Luther, Calvin and Jonathan Edwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, read the Summa to see how the arguments are made, but be aware of the Greek Anti-material Dualistic basis of those arguments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2012-12-01T11:23:36.223" LastActivityDate="2012-12-01T11:23:36.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11904" CreationDate="2012-12-01T13:31:28.767" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's even better sites for questions about Bible - &lt;a href=&quot;http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;hermeneutics.stackexchange.com&lt;/a&gt;; perhaps this questions should be migrated there. I have searched there and found a few related questions: &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/4/873&quot;&gt;&quot;Which 'modern' English translation of the Bible is considered the 'closest' or most accurate translation?&quot;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/2229/873&quot;&gt;Why do different English translations differ on Matthew 24:36?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being Czech, I don't know details about these English translations, but certain principles are the same for translations from Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic to any language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First: you can't just take a dictionary and translate on &quot;word to word&quot; basis - you would lose idioms and reduce the original word to some nearest equivalent, which often doesn't cover the full meaning of the word in original language or add some connotations that were not in the original language. Some translations focus on the &quot;literal&quot; aspect and are closer to the &quot;word to word&quot; (while meaning of idioms is either recorded in footnotes or lost), while others emphasize meaning and often translate idioms by idiomatic meaning, not by the literal one. There are not binary states but poles, and every translation is somewhere in between. Off course, there are translations which don't pursue any of these two goals very well, but emphasize readability over accuracy.&#xA;Anyway, lot of information is lost. Looking to versions in original languages is good, but unless you understand them quite well, it's easy to miss some meaning. Do it, read the original languages, but remember that no translation is the &quot;correct&quot; and &quot;perfect&quot; one. Every translation catched only a part of the whole meaning just because the languages are different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second: what ancient versions of Bible were taken into account? Even the original manuscripts were not exactly the same, they differed in details. Sometimes the copyists just made an unintentional mistake, sometimes they &quot;corrected&quot; something (usually thinking they're just removing a mistake made by previous copyist).&#xA;For a long time (all Middle Ages, in Catholic Church even longer) all versions of Bible were translated from latin version, Vulgate. King James Bible was translated from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts known at that time. Since then many new manuscripts were found and Bible hermeneutics evolved a lot, so newer translations avoid some mistakes caused by KJV's sources. Today's standard is to use a broad scale of ancient texts, to compare them and to pick the version deemed to be most accurate (which may differ between different schools of Bible scholars).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-12-01T13:31:28.767" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11904" CreationDate="2012-12-01T14:12:54.713" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regina, I am most definitely a Biblical Perfectionst, but even I have to take issue with many of your claims. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One in particular is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;how can u have Bible versions like the NIV omitting entire verses from the 1611 KJV &amp;amp; as I said by doing that they have changed entirely what the verse or chapter was saying or meant??&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faulty Premise #1: What you view as &quot;ommitted&quot; probably wasn't there in the first place.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses that have been &quot;omitted&quot; are ones that were clearly inserted after the inerrant autographs were created. You ask how they could be left out, I ask how did these get in there in the first place. The Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7, for example, illustrates a verse that can be shown to be an addition. The earliest manuscripts simply don't have it. When the Kjv was translated, this was not known. What I can tell you, however, is that i John 5:7 looks suspiciously like an explanation of 1 John 5:8.  As such, just about every scholar who has examined this has came up with the same answer - a scribe accidentally incorporated a &quot;gloss&quot; - just like one of those notes in your Bible today - and made it look just like it was part of the Scripture.  It was an innocent mistake, but it kept getting repeated.  If we go back to the earliest manuscripts, it wasn't there.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over time, scholarship can reconstruct autographs and show what was originally said. Scripture does add a woe to anyone who would add or subtract from His Scripture (or at least the Book of Revelation) but nowhere does it say that God will prevent man from sinning in this way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The manuscripts of the KJV were, by all accounts, a translation of the Textus Receptus - the &quot;received text,&quot; based on the library of manuscripts stored in the monasteries of the Byzantine empire.  Over the course of 1500 years, scribes copied older manuscripts, and as they did, sometimes they accidently incorporated &lt;em&gt;notes&lt;/em&gt; that were added in the margins, or else misspelled words.  These are exceedingly &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6097/what-major-discrepancies-exist-between-versions-of-the-bible&quot;&gt;minor variations&lt;/a&gt; but they are variations.  These texts can be shown to have been copied from one another, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8466/lineage-of-each-verse-of-scripture?lq=1&quot;&gt;using a critical apparatus&lt;/a&gt; one can even see the history of these manuscripts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The KJV was based on manuscripts available in 1611.  We've found many more and many older manuscripts since then.  In the 1800s, for example, Tischendorf &lt;strike&gt;stole&lt;/strike&gt; found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;manuscript&lt;/a&gt; in a monastery in the Sinai Peninsula that does back to about the 400s.  We can see the (exceedingly minor) differences - but we can also see how the scribes messed up.  There are clear things, like for instance, some of the changes you point out, that can be shown to be errors that crept into the text. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then, is whether you believe the original manuscripts to be inspired, or the 1611 translators.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faulty Premise #2: The 1611 translators were perfect.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man is an imperfect, fallen creature. Man makes mistakes. This is true both in copying (remember, the printing press was not around for the first 1453 years of Christianity!) and in translating. The question is, do you want to elevate a group of translators in the early 1600s to the status of God, or are you willing to accept that man is flawed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If man is flawed, then he will always need to contend with change. Our vocabulary changes, our body of manuscripts change (and check out my question on how little that has happened!), and the rigor with which we approach things changes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will not find any reasonable doctrine that hinges on a particular manuscript.  The witness of scripture is too broad for that. And, in any case, I don't worship the words in a Book, I worship the Word, who became flesh and dwelt among us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that Scripture was inspired, and that Paul, the Gospel Writers, the Prophets, etc... were divinely told what to write.  I wholeheartedly believe that.  But, I don't believe that God inspired the copyists or the scribes.  I don't see anything in Scripture that prevents publishers from making mistakes (see, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Adulterer's Bible&lt;/a&gt; for instance.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is - who did God inspire? The original authors (whose manuscripts we know differ in precisely the ways you point out) or the later translators?  I find it hard to believe that God would only bless the English with his perfect Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I take the Scripture very, very seriously. I have read the Hebrew, I have read the Greek. (Ok, I have not read the Aramiaic in Daniel!). As far as translating the sense of Scripture into English goes, the KJV was good but not perfect. But then again, we all agree that anytime man is involved, he never is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faulty Premise #3: We still speak the same language that Shakespeare did&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's charity?  I'm willing to bet that when I use that word, you are thinking about giving alms to poor people, or somehow giving something to people less fortunate than you.  And yet, if you asked William Shakespeare, he would have said charity is that impulse of two people who love each other and desire the best for each other, stripped of all its lustful aspects.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why, if you read 1 Corinthians 13 in a KJV, it says that &quot;Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.&quot;  Modern day translations say &quot;Love.&quot;  Greek scholars read &quot;Agape.&quot;  The point is that our language changes, even if the original Scriptures do not.  Are there etymological roots? Sure!  But don't assume that our language is fixed, because its not!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thee and Thou, in particular, were already relics by the time of the KJV - the translators wanted to preserve the formal and informal you, however, so they used it.  (And, incidentally, Thou is &lt;em&gt;informal&lt;/em&gt; saying that we should approach God as a Father and a close friend, not a formal King!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even 10 years ago, if you were on a facebook, it's because the cops had taken the time to put your face into a collection that witnesses could you to pick you out as a criminal.  Language changes, and that's a large part of why the KJV may not be the best text for today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-12-01T17:24:06.580" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11904" CreationDate="2012-12-01T20:01:20.047" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Holy Scriptures, especially the Gospels, had enemies from the beginning (Matthew 27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,&lt;br&gt;13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.&lt;br&gt;14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. &lt;br&gt;15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, even when apostle Matthew wrote - &lt;strong&gt;until this day&lt;/strong&gt; - the enemies were a reality.&#xA;Saint John Chrysostom mentioned in 4-th century, in his &lt;em&gt;Homilies on Matthew&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For many sects have had birth, since their time, holding opinions opposed to their words; whereof some have received all that they have said, while some have cut off from the rest certain portions of their statements, and so retain them for themselves. But if there were any hostility in their statements, neither would the sects, who maintain the contrary part, have received all, but only so much as seemed to harmonize with themselves; nor would those, which have parted off a portion, be utterly refuted by that portion; so that the very fragments cannot be hid, but declare aloud their connection with the whole body. And like as if you should take any part from the side of an animal, even in that part you would find all the things out of which the whole is composed—nerves and veins, bones, arteries, and blood, and a sample, as one might say, of the whole lump—so likewise with regard to the Scriptures; in each portion of what is there stated, one may see the connection with the whole clearly appearing. Whereas, if they were in discord, neither could this have been pointed out, and the doctrine itself had long since been brought to nought: for every kingdom, says He, divided against itself shall not stand. But now even in this shines forth the might of the Spirit, namely, in that it prevailed on these men, engaged as they were in those things which are more necessary and very urgent, to take no hurt at all from these little matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This sad reality become more intense over the time. Lot of false prophets has mutilated the Scriptures, in books full with heresies, lies, fables, miss-interpretations, false-named as: &quot;Gospel of Thomas&quot;, &quot;Revelations of Abraham, Isaac, Iacov&quot;, &quot;Psalms of Solomons&quot;, etc. The  fathers of the early Church,  guided by Holy Spirit, had ecumenic concils and states lot of canons to keep the church safe from heresies. One of the canons is the &lt;em&gt;canon of Holy Bible&lt;/em&gt; which established the biblic books which we know today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If these were the facts in early ages of the Christianity, what can we say today? &lt;br&gt;Since we have bible scholars, translators, historians, printers, computers, can we say that we succed to keep our books safe and clean? &lt;br&gt;Without have a tradition built upon keeping God's words alive this is not possible. &lt;br&gt;And this tradition is based on this principle: the apostles keep the God's words unchanged, the disciple of apostles keep the God's words unchanged, the disciples of disciples of apostles keep the God's words unchanged... and so on. &lt;br&gt;But how can we keep God's words unchanged? &lt;br&gt;By having super-printers and super-translators, super-scholar academies? &lt;br&gt;No. &lt;br&gt;Words of God are alive, and they will stay with us only if we work in our life these words. &lt;br&gt;Because these words are not letters to be printed on papers. &lt;br&gt;These words are semantics to be collected with hearts. &lt;br&gt;We can reach them only if we dedicate our life to them. &lt;br&gt;But from where we can take these words? &lt;br&gt;From our ancestors which had maintained this tradition: to practice God's words in their life. &lt;br&gt;The best examples we can find in the life of the martirs, parent of deserts, the askets, the monarchs, which run away from a secular life, only for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26-27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To conclude, having perfect translations of the Bible, is not so important. &lt;br&gt;Having a scholar community, doesn't help too much, because our modern minds became weak to keep the God's words. Our saturated minds became lazy, and hearts become hardened, excited by modern pleasures and confort and sins. &lt;br&gt;They cannot keep the spirit, cannot reach the semantics, just only the letters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation cannot be obtained by studying Bible, it comes from the practicing word of Bible (saint Gregory Palamas against heresy of Valaam). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Solution is to read our bibles, not exercising our modern minds, by giving our personal interpretations, or group interpretation. &lt;br&gt;We need to go back to the old texts, to early fathers of the Church, to catch their semantics, and their spirit, and to translate in personal actions of our life, not in discourses to the audience. &lt;br&gt;When we will read their interpretations we will be surprised that we, the &lt;em&gt;moderns&lt;/em&gt;, are not so evolved comparing to them. &lt;br&gt;Actually we are much devolved, our &quot;academic&quot; semantics are too weak comparing with theirs. &lt;br&gt;Within one simple sequence we can see to them one or few heresies destroyed with few words. &lt;br&gt;By killing the heresies from our souls, one by one, we will reach to the semantics of life - ethernal life. &lt;br&gt;Because Holy Spirit, talk through them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A practical exercise is to read again any Gospel of Matthew translation, following the interpretation of saint John Chrysostom, in his Homilies of Matthew: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/522-chrysostom-homilies-matthew-link&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/522-chrysostom-homilies-matthew-link&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;And you'll be gladly amazed and suprised with the conviction that: the teaching of Holy Spirit cannot be changed or stopped. &lt;br&gt;Because this church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is Orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditDate="2012-12-01T20:40:29.417" LastActivityDate="2012-12-01T20:40:29.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11830" CreationDate="2012-12-02T09:17:01.847" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apologize for the length, the question is so good that I am answering not just for you but digging up worthy references for myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good place to start for an evangelical answer is with two evangelical theologians famous for having an acute sense of the sinfulness of man and the nature of God's grace in the Christian.  &lt;strong&gt;John Owen and Jonathan Edwards both wrote extensively on the subject.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The main idea expressed by both of these writers is that a Christian is free from sin because in Christ they are translated from the rule of Law to the rule of Grace.&lt;/strong&gt; Freedom from sin ultimately means freedom from Law because it is God's holy law that condemned man into a totally depraved sinful nature.  Unless this curse of the Law for Adam's sin is removed in Christ's death, on whom our sin is made to be Christ's, so that he both bears the guilt and penal wrath of God for it, then we are not free.  Therefore this freedom primarily means free from the consequences of sin from the legal standpoint under God's holy law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However this freedom from the Law necessarily means new birth into the rule of grace, which means that inwardly the Christian is no longer under the dominion of law and sin but under grace leading to a more and more holy life. This 'holy life' is considered the life of the Spirit as contrasted with the life of the 'flesh' and although the Christian has this dual nature causing intense struggle with sin, the spiritual life is said to 'have dominion' over the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is this subject of 'dominion' where evangelicals do not all agree, the split primarily resting between Calvinistic views and Arminian views of perfection. I will focus on Calvinistic views in my post as I consider Arminian views on this subject as a weakness of faith. As far as the final state in heaven, of course all Christians believe it is absolute freedom forever, so the question amounts to how much sin can we still have in our life and yet still claim to have faith in God and still claim that grace has dominion in our life. Put another way, &lt;strong&gt;'How much freedom from sin can we experience on this side of heaven?' Or again, 'What does it mean that we are no longer under the dominion of sin but under the dominion of grace, when we have so much sin still in our lives?'&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First let's look at typical thoughts by John Owen in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_g18.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;TREATISE&#xA;of THE DOMINION OF SIN AND GRACE; wherein sin’s reign is discovered, in whom it is, and in whom it is not; how the law supports it; how grace delivers from it, by setting up its dominion in the hear&lt;/a&gt;t.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This treatise is based on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First we should take note that the Christian struggle with sin is not a proper cause for our faith to shrink but for it to take consolation for the fact that we have two natures warring with one another. This confirms we are a Christian and means we have the Spirit. The Spirit, accordion to Ephesians Ch 1 is a 'seal'. this seal that both proves we are God's children and is a down payment, or first fruit, guaranteeing the whole future glory of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under this comforting aspect, Owen also provides similar comforting words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where men are engaged in a constant conflict against sin; where they look upon it and judge it their chiefest enemy, which contends with them for their souls and their eternal ruin; where they have experience of its power and deceit, and through the efficacy of them have been often shaken in their peace and comfort; where they have been ready to despond, and say they shall one day perish under their powers,—it is a gospel word, a word of good tidings, that gives them assurance that it shall never have dominion over them. The ground of this assurance is, that believers are “not under the law, but under grace.”  (John Owen's Works, Vol 7, P542)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to now directly answer the question.  John Owen also asks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the inquiry hereon is, how it follows from hence that sin shall not have dominion over us, that sin cannot extend its territories and rule into that state, and in what sense this is affirmed. (P545)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, then, is the present case supposed and determined by the apostle: “You that are believers are all of you conflicting with sin. You find it always restless and disquieting, sometimes strong and powerful When it is in conjunction with any urgent temptation, you are afraid it will utterly prevail over you, to the ruin of your souls. Hence you are wearied with it, groan under it, and cry out for deliverance from it.” All these things the apostle at large insists on in this and the next chapter. “But now,” saith he, “be of good comfort; notwithstanding all these things, and all your fears upon them, sin shall not prevail, it shall not have the dominion, it shall never ruin your souls.” But what ground have we for this hope? what assurance of this success? “This you have,” saith the apostle, “ ‘Ye are not under the law, but under grace;’ or the rule of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, administered in the gospel.” But how doth this give relief? “Why, it is the ordinance, the instrument of God, which he will use unto this end,—namely, the communication of such supplies of grace and spiritual strength as shall eternally defeat the dominion of sin.” (P546)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fine, we have said that a Christian has many sins, but they do not have dominion over him. In other words that is he is not really enslaved to sin as he once was before. What does this mean? A common confusion here is to think in terms of percentages.  A Christian is (some may think) someone whose heart is 80-90 percent pure, or at least more than fifty percent pure, otherwise he can never say Jesus is his 'Lord'.  Some may actually imagine that a Christian can be 100% without sin for maybe even a whole day, but this imagination is quite contrary to the truth of every Christian experience and this type of thinking is not held at all by great evangelical theologians such as John Owen, or Jonathan Edwards. In fact men who really know themselves would never claim to love God even one half as much as they ought to at any given moment, not even for a second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a good place to watch how Edwards handles the concept in his work on Original Sin. First he argues that &lt;strong&gt;even though a Christian is not under the dominion or Lordship of sin, the best of Christians have more of their heart still in a sinful state than a holy one:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sum of our duty to God, required in his law, is love to God; taking love in a large sense, for the true regard of our hearts to God, implying esteem, honor, benevolence, gratitude, complacency, etc. ...It therefore appears from the premises, that whosoever withholds more of that love or respect of heart from God which his law requires, than he affords, has more sin than righteousness. Not only he that has less divine love, than passions and affections which are opposite; but also he that don't love God half so much as he ought, or has reason to do, has justly more wrong than right, imputed to him, according to the law of God, and the law of reason; he has more irregularity than rectitude, with regard to the law of love. The sinful disrespect or unrespectfulness of his heart to God, is greater than his respect to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what considerate person is there, even among the more virtuous part of mankind, but what would be ashamed to say, and profess before God or men, that he loves God half so much as he ought to do; or that he exercises one half of that esteem, honor and gratitude towards God, which would be altogether becoming him; considering what God is, and what great manifestations he has made of his transcendent excellency and goodness, and what benefits he receives from him? And if few or none of the best of men can with reason and truth make even such a profession, how far from it must the generality of mankind be? (&lt;a href=&quot;http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/cC4yOjE0My53amVv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin, Page 140)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However when we look at Romans 8 we must feel that there needs some explanation to be made in Edward's assertion for how can the majority of our heart still be under sin, when we are no longer under its dominion? This seems so foolish to the carnal mind!  For example what about these verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.&#xA;14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. (Romans 8:12-14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edwards get very much into fine detail in his own answer: (I quote him in entirety for my own future reference as it was hard for me to find again and is really a rare gem that expresses the depths of authentic evangelical faith with unusual clarity of mind).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Objection is this: That the argument seems to prove too much, that it will prove, that even good men themselves have more sin than holiness; which also has been supposed. But if this were true, it would follow, that sin is the prevalent principle even in good men, and that it is the principle which has the predominancy in the heart and practice of the truly pious; which is plainly contrary to the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I answer, If it be indeed so, that there is more sin, consisting in defect of required holiness, than there is of holiness in good men in this world; yet it will not follow, that sin has the chief government of their heart and practice, for two reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They may love God more than other things and yet there may not be so much love, as there is want of due love; or in other words, they may love God more than the world, and therefore the love of God may be predominant, and yet may not love God near half so much as they ought to do. This need not be esteemed a paradox: a person may love a father, or some great friend and benefactor, of a very excellent character, more than some other object, a thousand times less worthy of his esteem and affection, and yet love him ten times less than he ought; and so be chargeable, all things considered, with a deficiency in respect and gratitude, that is very unbecoming and hateful. If love to God prevails above the love of other things, then virtue will prevail above evil affections, or positive principles of sin; by which principles it is, that sin has a positive power and influence. For evil affections radically consist in inordinate love to other things besides God. And therefore, virtue prevailing beyond these, will have the governing influence. The predominancy of the love of God in the hearts of good men is more from the nature of the object loved, and the nature of the principle of true love, than the degree of the principle. The object is one of supreme loveliness; immensely above all other objects in worthiness of regard; and 'tis by such a transcendent excellency, that he is God, and worthy to be regarded and adored as God, and he that truly loves God, loves him as God. True love acknowledges him to be God, or to be divinely and supremely excellent, and must arise from some knowledge, sense and conviction of his worthiness of supreme respect. And though the sense and view of it may be very imperfect, and the love that arises from it in like manner imperfect; yet if there be any realizing view of such divine excellency, it must cause the heart to respect God above all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Another reason, why a principle of holiness maintains the dominion in the hearts of good men, is the nature of the Covenant of Grace, and the promises of that covenant, on which true Christian virtue relies, and which engage God's strength and assistance to be on its side, and to help it against its enemy, that it may not be overcome. The just live by faith. Holiness in the Christian, or his spiritual life, is maintained, as it has respect by faith to its Author and Finisher, and derives strength and efficacy from the divine Fountain, and by this means overcomes. For, as the Apostle says, &amp;quot;This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith&amp;quot; [I John 5:4]. 'Tis our faith in him who has promised, never to leave nor forsake his people, and not to forsake the work of his own hands, nor suffer his people to be tempted above their ability, and that his grace shall be sufficient for them, and that his strength shall be made perfect in weakness, and that where he has begun a good work he will carry it on to the day of Christ.   (&lt;a href=&quot;http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/cC4yOjE0OS53amVv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin, Page 145-146)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Only as Christians are we really aware of our many sins and have a mournful daily struggle against them, even to the occasional doubting of the very genuineness of our own faith. However as the Spirit has been given to us to give us comfort and assurance of our salvation, we, bumbling along in our many failures, are aware that we are actually being swept along powers of grace along an unbreakable mighty rule of Christ as our high priest, ensuring our absolute certain arrival into glory where we will forever be free of all effects of sin forever. Even as we doubt this grace as it is 'too good to be true' we are being formed into objects of grace meant to reveal this gracious quality of God to the praise of its excellence, which is the entire purpose of life and salvation. Death is no longer a fearful unknown answering our condemned conscience for the punishment of sin. Rather our daily struggle is a hopeful one, looking at the grave as a curtain behind which everlasting joys are waiting, even as we doubt it. Even in the midst of our doubts of God's grace, his grace will be a dominion that will overcome into everlasting praise.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: This is the second time I wrote this answer as just after my first version someone pickpocketed my iPhone which had my un-posted answer. Needless to say I was all the more determined to re-post this a few hours later as I was not willing that the Devil so easily take away the fruit of my effort ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="42957" LastEditDate="2020-11-30T16:18:00.603" LastActivityDate="2020-11-30T16:18:00.603" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11912" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-02T11:22:00.400" Score="1" ViewCount="252" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's assume both a non-believer and a Christian has a fever. The Christian prays to God for healing of his fever. The non-believer doesn't do anything. 1 week later both recover from their fever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the purpose of praying to God, in these kind of circumstances? Did God heal the Christian's fever? If yes, what is the difference compared with the non-believer, who also recovered? Or did both the Christian and non-believer recover by natural means (body recovering on it's own). Is there a need to pray about these things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3539" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-12-03T01:42:07.577" LastActivityDate="2015-05-23T02:21:20.503" Title="Purpose of prayer?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-05-27T16:23:01.740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6149" CreationDate="2012-12-02T15:21:29.180" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you close your eyes and think of images of Egypt, what do you see?  I think most people will think of pyramids at or near the top of the list. The point is, Egypt is know for these, world wide.  Everyone thinks of Egypt as a place with really outstanding tombs.  So when Moses led the people out of captivity, there they are out in the desert. And they ask Moses ... are there not enough tombs in Egypt?  You had to bring us out here to die?  Too funny!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3541" LastActivityDate="2012-12-02T15:21:29.180" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11912" CreationDate="2012-12-02T19:49:57.123" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the believer in your example prays, he (or she) is acknowledging his weakness and inability before God, and calling out to God for help.  In so doing he is drawn closer into relationship with God.  Praying in this circumstance provides practice of thinking about God in the right way, which can a have a lasting effect on the state of mind the one who prays.  This can occur before any result of the prayer becomes apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond this, God can and does answer prayer, and when he does it reveals his good nature and strengthens the faith of the one who prayed.  To refuse to pray in this circumstance is to shut God out, and to reject relationship with him.  As in your example, not praying does not mean that the person will not get better, but it is harmful to the one who does not pray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christians will be able to give you examples of answered prayers, and many base their faith, in part, in this experience of the action of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course prayer does not work like commanding an genie in a bottle, but that is not neccessary for prayer to fulfil its purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3542" LastActivityDate="2012-12-02T19:49:57.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11916" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-12-02T22:28:44.563" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-12-02T22:28:44.563" LastActivityDate="2012-12-02T22:28:44.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11917" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-12-02T22:28:44.563" Score="0" Body="Questions regarding the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and is considered to be immortal " OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2014-06-27T10:30:40.417" LastActivityDate="2014-06-27T10:30:40.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11918" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11920" CreationDate="2012-12-03T00:18:27.490" Score="4" ViewCount="5242" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suspect that Jesus himself was the first to have the name &quot;Jesus&quot;, but was there anyone before him with the same name? In other words, was the name completely unique when the Angel Gabriel told Mary to name her son &quot;Jesus&quot; or had the name been bestowed to someone else before? Today, the name is not rare (especially in some cultures), but was it so back then also?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2180" LastActivityDate="2020-03-23T20:35:05.437" Title="When was the first occurrence of Jesus being used as a name?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11918" CreationDate="2012-12-03T01:35:25.950" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, to be accurate, are you asking about the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Iēsous&lt;/em&gt;), or the actual Anglicized (English) name, &amp;quot;Jesus&amp;quot;? Or, are you referring to his likely Hebrew/ Aramaic name, יֵשׁוּעַ (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Yeshu'a&lt;/em&gt;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect you're probably talking about his Hebrew/ Aramaic name since that was what he would have been named --- and that is the name that actually has relevance to the phrase, &amp;quot;...he shall &lt;strong&gt;save&lt;/strong&gt; his people from their sins.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, who was the first to be called יֵשׁוּעַ? Well, I can tell you who was the first to be named יֵשׁוּעַ in the Tanakh, but you must understand that the Tanakh does not record the name of every Israelite who has ever been born. So, there may have been people named יֵשׁוּעַ even before the first one to possess that name as recorded in the Tanakh. In any case, the first one to be named יֵשׁוּעַ in the Tanakh (if I am not mistaken) is recorded in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt35a02.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezra 2:2&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel: (JPS Translation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was an early Hebrew variant of the name יֵשׁוּעַ, it being יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Yehoshu'a&lt;/em&gt;). This was the name of the one we known in English as &amp;quot;Joshua son of Nun.&amp;quot; Both the names יֵשׁוּעַ and יְהוֹשׁוּעַ were transliterated into the Greek Septuagint by the proper name Ἰησοῦς.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare Nehemiah 8:17:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן־נוּן&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυη&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with 1 Kings 16:34:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ιησου υἱοῦ Ναυη&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, the KJV translators mistook &amp;quot;Jesus&amp;quot; for &amp;quot;Joshua&amp;quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&amp;amp;b=Act&amp;amp;c=7&amp;amp;v=45&amp;amp;x=0&amp;amp;y=0&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 7:45&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which also our fathers that came after brought in with &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage is not referring to the Lord Jesus, but rather, Joshua son of Nun (Yehoshu'a bin Nun), the successor of Moshe, who brought the Israelites into the promised land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, the Hebrew/ Aramaic names יֵשׁוּעַ and יְהוֹשׁוּעַ are actually quite common in the Jewish culture. For example, you can see many people by those names in the Talmud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T01:39:16.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10094" CreationDate="2012-12-03T04:51:09.377" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just wanted to chime in here though the question has been answered fairly well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For awhile there was a group of LDS that were opposed to one prophet in particular. Every conference they would hold up signs denouncing him and those able to make it into the conference hall would vote against him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I bring this up is to show how this is dealt with at that level. There are actually observers throughout the conference hall and anyone voting in dissent is noted, and given a chance to state their objections to the proper authority then. They are not directed to take it up elsewhere or shuffled off. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dissenters in the group I referred to were - despite it being the same objection every 6 months, and a boundless one at that - given the chance to voice their opinion, and were never barred from the proceedings of general conference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-12-03T19:11:20.337" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T19:11:20.337" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11922" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-03T09:39:32.343" Score="5" ViewCount="392" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming that Protestant Christians believe that some outcomes and events in life are not necessarily God's will (correct me if this is an invalid assumption), what are some alternate explanations for an outcome if not God's will? Does the scripture give us instructions on how to determine (after the fact) if a particular outcome was God's will or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5419/are-there-biblical-reasons-why-a-christian-should-not-believe-that-global-warmin&quot;&gt;discussion on this site regarding global warming&lt;/a&gt;, someone suggests that either God's will is that global warming should happen and therefore it must, or it is God's will that it must not happen, and therefore it won't - in either case, it is God's will and thus unavoidable regardless of what we do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above example seems to be a false dichotomy - what are the other alternatives that a Protestant Christian would allow in this situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3353" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user3353" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T09:29:59.293" Title="What is the scope of God's will?" Tags="&lt;omnipotence&gt;&lt;will-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-07-23T03:06:42.450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11922" CreationDate="2012-12-03T16:03:47.957" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/John_of_Damascus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Saint John Damascene&lt;/a&gt;, father of the Church, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is to be observed that it is the custom in the Holy Scripture to speak of God’s permission as His energy, as when the apostle says in the&#xA;Epistle to the Romans, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one&#xA;  vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour? (Romans 9:21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for this reason, that He Himself makes this or that. For He is Himself alone the Maker of all things; yet it is not He Himself that fashions noble or ignoble things, but the personal choice of each one. And this is manifest from what the same Apostle says in the Second Epistle to Timothy, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but&#xA;  also of wood and of earth: and some to honour and some to dishonour.&#xA;  If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto&#xA;  honour sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto&#xA;  every good work. (2 Timothy 2:20,21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is evident that the purification must be voluntary: for &lt;strong&gt;if&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;a man&lt;/em&gt;, he &lt;em&gt;saith, purge himself&lt;/em&gt; And the consequent antistrophe responds, &lt;em&gt;“If a man purge not himself he will be a vessel to dishonour, unmeet for the master’s use and fit only to be broken in pieces.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wherefore this passage that we have quoted and this, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God hath concluded them all in unbelief (Romans 9:32)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;, and this, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not&#xA;  see, and ears that they should not hear, (Romans 9:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;all these must be understood not as though God Himself were energising, but as though God were permitting, both because of free-will and because goodness knows no compulsion. His permission, therefore, is usually spoken of in the Holy Scripture as His energy and work. Nay, even when He says that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God creates evil things, and that there is no evil in a city that the Lord hath not done he does not mean by these words (Amos 3:6) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that the Lord is the cause of evil, but the word ‘evil’ is used in two ways, with two&#xA;meanings. For sometimes it means what is evil by nature, and this is the opposite of virtue and the will of God: and sometimes it means that which is evil and oppressive to our sensation, that is to say, afflictions and calamities. Now these are seemingly evil because they are painful, but in reality are good. For to those who understand they become ambassadors of conversion and salvation. The Scripture says that of these God is the Author. It is, moreover, to be observed that of these, too, we are the cause: for involuntary evils are the offspring of voluntary ones. This also should be recognised, that it is usual in the Scriptures for some things that ought to be considered as effects to be stated in a causal sense, as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight, that Thou mightest be justifed when Thou speakest, and prevail when Thou judgest (Psalms 51:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sinner did not sin in order that God might prevail, nor again did God require our sin in order that He might by it be revealed as victor. For above comparison He wins the victor’s prize against all, even against those who are sinless, being Maker, incomprehensible, uncreated, and possessing natural and not adventitious glory. But it is&#xA;because when we sin God is not unjust in His anger against us; and when He pardons the&#xA;penitent He is shewn victor over our wickedness. But it is not for this that we sin, but because the thing so turns out. It is just as if one were sitting at work and a friend stood near by, and one said, My friend came in order that I might do no work that day. The friend, however, was not present in order that the man should do no work, but such was the result. For being occupied with receiving his friend he did not work. These things, too, are spoken of as effects because affairs so turned out. Moreover, God does not wish that He alone should be just, but that all should, so far as possible, be made like unto Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these words can be read in &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotark.org/upload/TheFountofKnowledge.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;An exact exposition of the Orthodox faith&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, book IV, chapter XIX, written in century 7 by saint John Damascene. He wrote against those Decrying the Holy Images, against iconoclasts, against those dishonoring relicves of the saints... The enemies of the Truth, could not fight against his words and they cut his right hand used for writtings. But Mother of God, restored his hand miraculously, after fervent prayer before Her icon, to continue to write words like these and to defend Orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditDate="2012-12-03T17:27:09.257" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T17:27:09.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11675" CreationDate="2012-12-03T22:40:44.193" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Muhammad had most likely been in contact with Christian and Jewish influences&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a child/young man, Muhammad, whilst traveling on trading missions with his uncle to Syria, would have no doubt come into direct contact with Christians and Jews, or at the very least those who knew the traditions of those two religions in that part of the world at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact Muhammad, according to many histories, was supposed to have &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_views_on_Christians#Pre-Islamic&quot;&gt;met a Nestorian monk&lt;/a&gt;, named &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waraqah_ibn_Nawfal&quot;&gt;Waraqah ibn Nawfa&lt;/a&gt;, on one of these trips who predicted that Muhammad would become a great prophet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even according to Islamic traditions and as the life of Muhammad himself shows, Muhammad and his contemporaries would have had plenty of knowledge of and contact with these other religions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you could make argument for or against the observation that the similarities are so great that even with contact, an illiterate merchant would not have been able produce so similar a reproduction without divine intervention. I am not arguing for or against that here, only that Muhammad was not operating within a total cultural or historical vacuum in that region, at the time in history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T16:24:19.003" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T16:24:19.003" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11675" CreationDate="2012-12-03T22:47:19.660" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question, &quot;How did the prophet, Muhammad, know about this if it was not revealed by God,&quot; is really an argument from incredulity[1].  You can't (or haven't) imagined a different explanation, so you assume there isn't one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the simplest possible explanation I can think of is that all of these cultures share a historical &lt;em&gt;and mythological&lt;/em&gt; background:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although it mostly died out 1600 to 1700 years ago, Mesopotamian&#xA;  religion has still had an influence on the modern world, predominantly&#xA;  because Biblical mythology that is today found in Judaism,&#xA;  Christianity, Islam and Mandeanism shares some overlapping consistency&#xA;  with ancient Mesopotamian myths, in particular the &lt;strong&gt;Creation Myth, the&#xA;  Garden of Eden, The Great Flood&lt;/strong&gt;, Tower of Babel and figures such as&#xA;  Nimrod and Lilith (the Assyrian Lilitu). In addition the story of&#xA;  Moses' origins shares a similarity with that of Sargon of Akkad, and&#xA;  the Ten Commandments mirror Assyrian-Babylonian legal codes to some&#xA;  degree. It has also inspired various contemporary Neopagan groups to&#xA;  begin worshipping the Mesopotamian deities once more, albeit in a way&#xA;  often different from that of the Mesopotamian peoples.[2]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Mesopotamia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Mesopotamia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastEditorUserId="1729" LastEditDate="2012-12-03T22:56:26.147" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T22:56:26.147" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11927" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-03T23:08:43.117" Score="6" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his prayer for the disciples at the last super, Jesus prays this verse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 17:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world,&#xA;  and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of&#xA;  your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are&#xA;  one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and later in verse 22 and 23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one&#xA;  as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought&#xA;  to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have&#xA;  loved them even as you have loved me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps I have made incorrect assumptions about this verse, but I have always thought that when he says &quot;so that they may be one&quot; he is not only referring to the disciples but the entire Church or all Christians. Also, when he says &quot;as we are one&quot; he means his participation as the second person of the trinity, with God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is correct, I have never understood, in what ways we as finite beings, can be 'one', in the same way, or a similar way, as the persons of the trinity are are 'one'? What is 'complete unity'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T18:01:14.960" Title="In what way are we to be one, as Jesus and the Father are one?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11927" CreationDate="2012-12-03T23:17:22.230" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being of the same &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_%28Christian%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2012-12-03T23:18:13.430" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T23:18:13.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11927" CreationDate="2012-12-03T23:38:14.570" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well I read several versions of the bible (it usually helps to understand) KJV-RVR60-NVI-NIV, and with 'complete unity' mean to be perfect in unity. As you can read He said &lt;em&gt;&quot;I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; this means to had a perfect relationship with God, so when we do what God wants for us and we know Him, we starts to be one as Jesus with the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the unity is with God, but also we are unity as the Church of God (the body of the church), because as you might have read we had to pray with the same purpose as one voice calling Him. So this also refer to the unity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important thing is that you don't take the word so literally as Nicodemus did&#xA;&quot;Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born&quot; John 3:3-4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1970" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T23:38:14.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11927" CreationDate="2012-12-03T23:44:39.843" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Via the Holy Spirit which indwells in Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is called both &quot;the Spirit of the Son&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gal. 4:6&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Pe&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Pet. 1:11&lt;/a&gt;) and the &quot;Spirit of the Father&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=10&amp;amp;t=KJV#20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt. 10:20&lt;/a&gt; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&amp;amp;c=13&amp;amp;t=KJV#11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 13:11&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Christians who possess the Holy Spirit are united with the Son and the Father (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=17&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 6:17&lt;/a&gt;). Hence, it is also written (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=14&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:23&lt;/a&gt;),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do the Son and the Father make their abode (dwelling) in someone? Via the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T23:44:39.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4940" CreationDate="2012-12-03T23:53:16.900" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recommend you read Zane Hodges' book &quot;The Gospel Under Siege&quot; for a full answer to this question, as he deals with 1 John. I am fully convinced that 1 John is a letter to believers and is a test of fellowship, not a test of life. When it says in the original greek that they are &quot;not of God&quot; it is referring to their fellowship with God, not whether they are saved or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3549" LastActivityDate="2012-12-03T23:53:16.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4940" CreationDate="2012-12-04T03:53:05.677" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It all hangs on the interpretation of the term ”eternal life”. Bob Wilkins explains that if one believes in Jesus as the giver of eternal life, then that person receives eternal life, which is immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:47 NET&lt;/strong&gt; I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a backslider is to have immortality taken away from him, it means that the word immortality has been reduced to a nullity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, how can ”be alive permanently” be changed to ”be dead when you grow old”? It means the product was not as advertised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 1:23 NET&lt;/strong&gt; You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mistake is in the interpretation of ”eternal life” as immortality. It should be translated as ”life of substance”, life that leads to accumulation of treasures in heaven as opposed to life that results in perishable treasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believe in Christ, receive a life with the potential to earn heavenly treasure, live that life, and earn heavenly treasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am grateful for the Faithalone.org site for enlightening me by making a distinction that the wrath of God leads to chastening, temporal punishment of varying degrees, even to the loss of earthly life. This while making a point that while the wrath of God remains on Christians, it does not affect their eternal destiny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But while I admire Dr Hodges qualification and skills as a Greek scholar (he taught Wallace at DTS!), I have to differ on his take on 1 John. Which is just that, a take, one of the many possible with the many possible translations of the text!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if we review the teaching, it has the same results as other reformed teaching:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believe in Jesus, receive eternal life. Do good works receive rewards and a warm welcome into heaven. Neglect works and receive no rewards, but still be allowed into heaven, albeit grudgingly, and be consigned to its outer darkness, far from close fellowship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its harmless, compared with Calvinism!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T03:53:05.677" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11927" CreationDate="2012-12-04T05:28:16.703" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word believe is an umbrella term covering a whole range of responses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mental assent&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Loyalty&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Discipleship&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, before even that, belief involves a relinquishing of a former preconception and adoption of a new one, the one proposed by the speaker of the new concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see Jesus explaining His Way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 5:30&lt;/strong&gt; By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:38&lt;/strong&gt; For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 8:28&lt;/strong&gt; So Jesus said, &amp;quot;When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 12:49&lt;/strong&gt; For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 12:50&lt;/strong&gt; I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:10&lt;/strong&gt; Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Belief by setting aside one's own will and believing that God will communicate His will, THAT is living the eternal life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 17:3-5 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent. I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 3:5 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Does God then give you the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:24 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my physical body – for the sake of his body, the church – what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unity is being of one mind. The choice is God's will or our will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T05:28:16.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11935" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-04T05:39:39.483" Score="11" ViewCount="1283" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was critiqued &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11675/christian-view-of-why-there-are-so-many-similarities-between-quran-and-bible&quot;&gt;on this answer&lt;/a&gt; concerning it taking less time out of the day for someone to be a Muslim than a Christian, and that may be untrue for a majority of Christians today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how much time did an Christians between the 600's and the 1200's spend in prayer each day?  Were there novenas, rosaries, the divine office, the angelus, chaplets etc... back then and if so how did they come to be fairly ubiquitous? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would anyone even begin to research what kinds of devotions one's own ancestors may have practiced? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-09-22T16:12:42.817" LastActivityDate="2017-11-20T17:20:01.557" Title="How much time did medieval Christians devote to prayer?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;devotion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-11-21T23:13:44.320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11936" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11949" CreationDate="2012-12-04T06:37:17.293" Score="12" ViewCount="877" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;I have heard many pastors on online and in sermons make the statement that the bible is inexhaustible. I am trying to wrap my mind around that. Isn't it a finite book. can't you know what it says completely?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would love for it to be inexhaustible because I love to learn new things about God and Heaven etc. Maybe people make the claim that it is inexhaustible because it shows us how to have a relationship with God and he is Infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you shed any light on this?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: The above question was asked on my church's website by a seeker.  I have some definite ideas about this, but I would like some input from the community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3551" LastActivityDate="2018-06-14T04:03:12.020" Title="Is the Bible an inexhaustible source?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11936" CreationDate="2012-12-04T10:50:59.473" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems pretty clear that the Bible is inexhaustible to anyone who has experienced its power. The scriptures have no bottom in that there is no end (in this life) to the increasing knowledge of God's glory and grace which we will gain in studying it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some books have a bottom. For example, one could read mathematics books over and over until the reader knows more about the subject than most books explain.  That is, his knowledge would surpass the knowledge conveyed in the book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is obviously not like this.  No man can ever know what is revealed in it anywhere near to its depth.  Strictly speaking I would not say it is infinite (as written in ink) for in heaven we might know more about Christ's glory than what is strictly written, but at least on this side of heaven we can't know how far we have understood even after living a hundred years in intense study of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suspect the most knowledgeable and wise man knowns less than 1% of what is deposited in the riches of the scriptures upon which we also requires the illumination of the Holy Spirit to perceive aright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose one of the reasons for why it has no bottom is that it reveals God's mind on things that humans could not otherwise discover on their own thinking, study, or scientific exploration. Furthermore, what it has revealed it reveals in a way where personal experience with God is necessary in understanding it along the natural endless growth of that relationship. Also, love and truth are not separate, so the Bible demands thought emotions and a spiritual sense to coincide in a unity of living soul to form a proper understanding through a spiritual tasting and experience of the truth in Christ. It is not just a subject of natural study but is life itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more in-depth reasons on how inexhaustible and infallible the scriptures are, I have previously posted here (for any that might be interested in a long read): &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9268/if-the-bible-has-been-changed-over-the-years-can-we-still-trust-it/9311#9311&quot;&gt;If the Bible has been changed over the years, can we still trust it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T15:57:56.043" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11935" CreationDate="2012-12-04T11:04:23.117" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_rosary#Key_dates&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;early forms of Rosary&lt;/a&gt; were known before 1200, although they were probably not as popular as from 13th century on. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer#Origins&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus prayer&lt;/a&gt; popular in Orthodox church was definitely known. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus#History&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Angelus&lt;/a&gt; is prayed outside monasteries since 13th century. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross#History&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Way of the Cross&lt;/a&gt; is even younger. Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novena#History&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;novena&lt;/a&gt; is a stub and brief search didn't find anything much better, but novenas could be known and prayed even in early Middle Ages. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't know very well how laymen prayed before 1200 - we can be sure they prayed, but most of the forms have not been recorded. I would guess that  devout Christians could pray a lot, but there was no prayer practice everyone (including the less devout) was supposed to join except for Holy Mass, which was not so common in some parts of Europe (in Western Europe there could be a net of churches, but in newly evangelized lands this was hardly the case).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T11:04:23.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11940" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11941" CreationDate="2012-12-04T12:20:22.733" Score="6" ViewCount="17706" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I thought that the spirit Christians get from God is the same as the spirit of God. Recently, I heard a sermon that asserted they are different, but gave no more details.  Which verses describe this in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we get the Holy Spirit are we getting the spirit of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T20:14:34.403" LastActivityDate="2017-01-27T09:35:56.817" Title="What are the differences between the spirit of God and spirit of Man?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2017-01-28T01:32:43.753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11940" CreationDate="2012-12-04T13:10:17.553" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It helps to first know what the word &quot;Spirit&quot; actually means, which is more of a question for the Hermeneutics site.  I do see you've been asking questions about the meaning of the word there, so I'll include a brief bit here as introduction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/soul-and-spirit.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/soul-and-spirit.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the New Testament the word for &quot;spirit&quot; is pneuma. Pneuma is&#xA;  translated the following ways: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;ghost 2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Ghost (with Holy) 90&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;life 1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;spirit 151&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Spirit 137&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;spiritual gift 1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;spiritually 1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;wind 1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire article is very long, but it does a good job of illustrating how a simple word can be interpreted different ways based on the context of the verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Spirit&quot; can carry the more religious/supernatural connotation associated with the word today, or it can simply mean &quot;life&quot; or &quot;the breath of life&quot;. Quite commonly it is used as a literary form of personification:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One brief thought before we look at the verses: There are some verses&#xA;  that seem to use &quot;soul&quot; and &quot;spirit&quot; in ways that harmonize with the&#xA;  common concept of the nature of man. How can this be? Is the Bible&#xA;  contradicting itself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here is one suggestion: It was commonplace for the Bible writers to&#xA;  take parts of man’s being and personify them, give them attributes&#xA;  they did not in actuality possess. Perhaps sometimes they personified&#xA;  the &quot;soul&quot; and &quot;spirit&quot; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The most familiar example of a part of a person being personified is&#xA;  the heart. The heart, simply an organ that pumps blood, is said to&#xA;  have qualities that the mind does have, but that the heart definitely&#xA;  does not have. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another example which is not so familiar is the personification of the&#xA;  kidneys, called the &quot;reins&quot; (Ps. 7:9; 16:7; 26:2; 73:21; Prov. 23:16;&#xA;  Jer. 11:20; 12:2; 17:10; 20:12; Rev. 2:23). The kidneys seem to have&#xA;  been made the seat of the affections and emotions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another example is the use of the words for &quot;bowels&quot; (Ps. 40:8&#xA;  (translated &quot;heart&quot;); Cant. 5:4; Is. 16:11; 63:15; Jer. 4:19; 31:20;&#xA;  Lam. 1:20; 2:11; Luke 1:78 (translated &quot;tender&quot;); 2 Cor 7:15&#xA;  (translated &quot;inward affection&quot;); Php. 2:1; Col. 3:12; Phm. 1:7, 20; 1&#xA;  Jn. 3:17). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the light of these scriptures, the possibility that the Bible&#xA;  writers also occasionally personify the &quot;soul&quot; and &quot;spirit&quot; should be&#xA;  considered. In other words, the &quot;soul&quot; and the &quot;spirit&quot; may in some&#xA;  verses be given qualities that they do not in actuality possess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article shows the various verses in which the word &quot;Spirit&quot; is used.  I'll include just a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed&#xA;  into his nostrils the breath (neshamah, pnoe) of life; and man became&#xA;  a living soul&quot; (Gen. 2:7). [God put the &quot;spirit&quot; into Adam's nose.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to&#xA;  destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach, pneuma) of life, from&#xA;  under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die&quot; (Gen.&#xA;  6:17). [Animals have the &quot;spirit&quot; in them too.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;All the while my breath (neshamah, pnoe) is in me, and the spirit&#xA;  (ruach, pneuma) of God is in my nostrils&quot; (Job 27:3). [The &quot;spirit&quot;&#xA;  lives in the nose.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Spirit (neshamah, pnoe) of God hath made me, and the breath&#xA;  (ruach, pneuma) of the Almighty hath given me life&quot; (Job 33:4). [God's&#xA;  &quot;spirit&quot; gives us life.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming your question deals with verses like the last two shown above.  In the context, and general meaning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 27:3 has been translates several ways by scholars, in the various versions of the Bible.  Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)&lt;/strong&gt; 'As long as there is one breath [left] in me and God's breath fills my nostrils,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;American King James Version&lt;/strong&gt; All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both of these clearly indicate that the Spirit of God is distinct from the breath of life (spirit of man).  It indicates that man has a spirit in him, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;given to him by God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, not that the spirit in him is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the same spirit that God possesses&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spirit that God gives may be from God, but the connotation of the word &quot;spirit&quot; when it comes to man is simply life itself.  We each have our own life - our own spirit - our own ?breath that gives us life&quot; that is certainly a gift from God, but is not the same as God's spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also completely different than the Holy Spirit, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5871/are-god-son-jesus-and-the-holy-spirit-same&quot;&gt;which is the third person of God in the Trinity&lt;/a&gt; and, according to most traditions, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthnet.org/Holy-Spirit/5HolySpirit-Indwelling/Index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;indwells us at the point of, and remains in us after salvation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T13:22:28.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11936" CreationDate="2012-12-04T14:36:32.447" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the inexhaustible nature of the Bible is that it acts as glasses that allow one to see things in the visible world more clearly and correctly (e.g., Psalm 19:1a &quot;The heavens declare the glory of God&quot; [NIV]) counteracting tendencies to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18) and as a hearing aid that allows us to more clearly and correctly hear the Holy Spirit (who not only inspired Scripture but works through Scripture [2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Hebrews 4:12]).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Creation is effectively inexhaustible from the perspective of a single human mind (and reflects the truly inexhaustible glory of God) and the Holy Spirit is inexhaustible from any perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T14:36:32.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11922" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:40:01.803" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's will is what will happen no matter what, so regardless of any outcome, it was God's will.  However, since we as Christians cannot know God's will in any specific situation, we must use the Bible to determine what is the right course of action in that situation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:  Someone is sick in the hospital. If it is God's will that the person will die, then nothing can prevent that.  But since a doctor cannot know God's will, he should try to save the person anyway, which is loving his neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3553" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T15:40:01.803" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11936" CreationDate="2012-12-04T15:49:22.317" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the Bible were merely an ordinary book, then its contents would be as exhaustible as any other book. However, the Bible declares itself to be anything but an ordinary book.  Specifically, it describes itself as &quot;living and active&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the word of God is &lt;strong&gt;living and active&lt;/strong&gt;, sharper than any two-edged&#xA;  sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and&#xA;  of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. &#xA;  Hebrews 4:12 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. &lt;strong&gt;The&#xA;  words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life&lt;/strong&gt;.  John 6:63 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, a principle in Luke 6:45 is that a person's words reveals the heart of that person.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good,&#xA;  and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, &lt;strong&gt;for out of&#xA;  the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, then, the words of God reveal the very heart of God Himself, then the Word of God is, in fact, inexhaustible, as God Himself is infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah also speaks of how God's understanding is unsearchable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Have you not known? Have you not heard?  The Lord is the everlasting&#xA;  God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow&#xA;  weary; &lt;strong&gt;his understanding is unsearchable&lt;/strong&gt;.  Isaiah 40:28 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from a Biblical perspective, the Bible, as the very words of God which reveal the nature of God, is, as a result, inexhaustible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God is infinite, it will take an eternity to get to know Him fully.  Fortunately, He has promised to give us exactly that amount of time to be with Him in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As a side note, however, it is likely only inexhaustible for people who are actually Christians.  Many believers attest to the fact that prior to their conversion to Christianity, the Bible was a confusing, lifeless, incomprehensible book, yet it came alive to them after their conversion.  Paul hints at this phenomenon:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to&#xA;  us who are being saved it is the power of God.  1 Corinthians 1:18 ESV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-04T15:59:01.100" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T15:59:01.100" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11927" CreationDate="2012-12-04T16:02:50.727" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You say that you understand that Jesus refers entire Church and His participation in Holy Trinity. This is basically the Catholic view on this topic, so I'll try to clarify it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll try to explain perfect unity on a scriptural example little different from John 17. Genesis 1:27 (&quot;God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.&quot;) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as we Catholics understand it&lt;/a&gt; speaks mainly about image of Holy Trinity written in mankind (need for relationships, especially between a man and a woman) or in a man (unity of body and sould). In marriage man and woman form &quot;one flesh&quot; - the relationship between a man and a woman should form an image of the unity of Holy Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Ephesians 5:21-32, the relationship between Jesus and his Church is taken as an archetype of marriage between a man and a woman. We have shown that marriage means &quot;one flesh&quot; too, and this interpretation is backed by other passages in Bible (1 Corinthians 6:15 for example). John 17:21 (&quot;...that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.&quot;) says the same by different words: we can imagine this &quot;being in Son and Father&quot; as a unity of a perfect familly. Without this unity with Jesus, perfect unity of the Church would be impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-12A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; starts on the topic of unity: Church is one because of Jesus and Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean that we should be the same, unity of Church is unity in multiplicity (it's similar to a marriage: man and woman are different, but this fact doesn't hurt their unity). This is not just an abstract, mystical concept, there are some visible bonds of unity of Church (common worship, creeds, baptism and other sacraments etc.) - this is similar to bonds that help a husband and a wife not to leave each other but form a good familly (wedding, sex, common home...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To conclude, imagine some very good familly (or an old couple - they are often much closer to each other than the young ones), multiply every good aspect of their relationship by 100, add 100 other aspects you even don't know that are possible, and you have something very similar to &quot;complete&quot; (or &quot;perfect&quot;) unity, as is in the Holy Trinity :-) We can, in power of Holy Spirit, get quite close to such a perfection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean that perfect unity is possible only between spouses. I could base it all on other images of the Church and its unity with God, such as one body, spiritual building or a shepherd and sheep, but I think the &quot;familly parable&quot; is easiest to imagine and to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T16:02:50.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11927" CreationDate="2012-12-04T18:01:14.960" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other answers speak of unity, and they're on the right track. However, I'm gonna go a bit deeper and claim that Jesus speaks of &lt;em&gt;intimacy&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, how are the Son and the Father (and the Holy Spirit) &quot;one&quot;? Well, they are one in nature, as they are all God (doctrine of the Trinity). They are also one in spirit, for God is spirit (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4:24&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 4:24&lt;/a&gt;). And...they are also one in intimacy. Before He made the world, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were in perfect intimacy with each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, as has been said in other answers, the intimacy in the Trinity is a picture of how a married couple should be. The relationship between the man and the woman should be one of deepening intimacy. Not only with each other, but also with God. As time passes, these people will approach a state where they know each other so well and they are so close as to be practically the same person, even though they are still distinct. So, the married couple is &quot;one&quot; through intimacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alright, now let's apply this idea to the body of believers, the Church. With this idea of oneness being due to intimacy, Jesus' words speak of all believers becoming intimate with each other. The Father and Son are perfectly intimate with each other, and Jesus is praying to God that the same would be true of us! This is a powerful and mind-blowing idea (at least, it blew &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; mind when I realized this), and it has far-reaching implications. Not to mention, there are great &lt;em&gt;physical&lt;/em&gt; benefits to having intimate relationships with other believers*.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to recap: &lt;em&gt;intimacy&lt;/em&gt; is what's behind the &quot;oneness&quot; of the Trinity and of a married couple, and Jesus asks for this same level of intimacy among believers. The unity that others speak of &lt;em&gt;derives&lt;/em&gt; from &lt;strong&gt;intimacy&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Peter Haas talks about these in Parisectomy (Chapter 4, the section titled &quot;Inconveniently Godly Friendships&quot;). These benefits include increased life expectancy and increased rates of survival for cancer, stroke, and heart disease, among others. In particular, the number of intimate Christian friends a person has is the single best statistical predictor for their spiritual growth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T18:01:14.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11947" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11954" CreationDate="2012-12-04T19:32:30.323" Score="9" ViewCount="4522" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://request.siteworx.com/browse/MASH-3709&quot;&gt;Jay Adams&lt;/a&gt; is probably the most pre-eminent Christian counselor who is still living. His nouthetic style of counseling, as explored in books such as &lt;em&gt;Competent to Counsel,&lt;/em&gt; The Christian Counselor's Handbook and others makes him very well known and respected in the Christian Counseling community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his book &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=F_LjkxiY9EsC&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=disease&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;Solving Marriage Problems&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/em&gt; he makes an interesting claim:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Calling drunkenness a &quot;disease&quot; or a &quot;sickness&quot; rather than a &quot;sin&quot; may seem to thema gracious act, but it is just the opposite. You cannot be more gracious than God. To call drunkenness a &quot;sickness&quot; is to take away hope; there is no pull that will cure such a &quot;disease&quot;. But if, as the Bible says, drunkenness is a sin, then there is real hope, because Christ Jesus came not only to free us from the penalty but also from the power of sin. (Solving Marriage Problems, p14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This strikes me as contrary to worldly ways of thinking to say the least - namely there seems to be an implicit assumption of mine that is challenged here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've long held alcoholism - or at least the genetic predisposition towards it - to be a disease. As a disease of the body, I see this as somehow &quot;less than sin&quot; because, in fact, it is a biological process put in place by God. In the same way that just about every Christian more mature than &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church&quot;&gt;Fred Phelps&lt;/a&gt; doesn't view &quot;blackness&quot; as a sin, I've always assumed that any biological function is simply a fact, and not a &quot;sin.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, Adams seems to then fight his own hypothesis, though, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When, however, there may be an organic reason for any problem, the counselor should always advise the counselee to have a thorough medical evaluation. ... Because organic problems, which result from Adam's sin and the subsequent curse, are not themselves sin, Christian counselors must become thoroughly acquainted with their symptoms and advise counselees accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But therein lies the rub - Adams has made and I have made an assumption that a thing cannot be both a disease and a sin.  It is definitely my gut feeling, but I don't know how I could biblically prove that point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, here's the question - What biblical texts or traditions would bear on the proposition that &quot;Diseases and sins are separate things.&quot;  In other words, how could I make either the claim that &quot;If something is a disease, it is not at the same moral level as sin&quot; or &quot;Just because something is a disease, doesn't mean it's a sin.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-12-04T21:15:17.860" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T03:50:28.327" Title="How does the Bible differentiate between sickness and sin?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11947" CreationDate="2012-12-04T20:43:51.253" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not a full answer, but one place to look is John 9:1-3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus seems to say that the man he went on to heal of blindness was not blind as a result of either his own sin or his parents'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would personally interpret this to mean the disease was not the result of any specific sin at all.  What is the cause or purpose of suffering, of course, is &quot;the&quot; big question, so I won't try to answer that one!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to your example of alcoholism, I think that your quoted author has (perhaps intentionally) misrepresented the position of secular medics.  The purpose of a doctor diagnosing alcoholism as an illness is to give it a label, in order to simplify the process of giving help.  &quot;If patient X is diagnosed with disease Y, then the textbook says give treatment Z.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While many people in society will see a technical name or a medical diagnosis as a way of saying &quot;it's not your fault, it's your disease&quot;, a doctor's professional role is not to assign blame, and not to absolve it either.  We should all see the label in that way, and then act according our love for our neighbour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3542" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T20:43:51.253" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11936" CreationDate="2012-12-04T22:35:58.533" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we talk about the Bible from a Christian point of view (and especially as men preach about it), we cannot separate the Bible itself (a collection of words) from the power of the Holy Spirit who not only inspired its writing, but who also gives light to us as we read and hear the words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can live our whole lives reading the Bible, and the Holy Spirit can continue to shed increasing light on what we understand the Bible to say about who God is and the great works he has done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the Bible a finite book with a finite number of words that have specific meanings?  Yes.&#xA;But we do not get wisdom from the Bible without the work of the Holy Spirit teaching us.  And the God that the Bible speaks of and the Holy Spirit shines light on is truly infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="181" LastActivityDate="2012-12-04T22:35:58.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11947" CreationDate="2012-12-05T02:17:02.053" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the problem in the deffinition of Sin? As an evangelical, I'm going to give what I think is an evangelical view point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is not the act itself, it's the breaking of relationship with God - or to put it another way it is us telling God that we know better than Him and will do it our own way. We live in a sinful world - it is broken and not perfect and a consequence of that our bodies are not perfect (not because of any particular sin, but because of the sinful world).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This however doesn't excuse us from our sin. We are accountable for our words and actions (E.g. Matthew 12:36-37, Romans 14:12). Although there might be a biological reason that we might be pre-disposed to being an alchoholic, doesn't mean that we have to drink. In a similar way, our biology/environment/upbringing/education/experiances might mean that we have a violent nature - this doesn't excuse us from acting on that nature and hurting or killing another human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, there is an argument particularly in the western world today that being gay is not a choice - you are born that way. From a hard line conservative evangelical point of view, even if it is true that you were born that way, it doesn't excuse you from dissobaying God and being in a homosexual relationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically you are born sinful, even before you take your first breath, you are sinful. BUT this does not excuse you from your sin, you are accountable for all of your sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="1379" LastEditDate="2013-01-02T03:50:28.327" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T03:50:28.327" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11947" CreationDate="2012-12-05T05:31:06.563" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The full context of Adam's claims are obviously hidden from us here. However, addressing the visible claims from a lay Catholic perspective, I'd say he's simply off the mark with a few premises.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The First Faulty Premise&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To call drunkenness a &quot;sickness&quot; is to take away hope; there is no&#xA;  pull that will cure such a &quot;disease&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If secular medicine and psychology aren't enough to convince us that disease is not a hopeless state, we can open any one of the gospels and take a peek at almost any page to find healing upon healing upon healing. And these healings &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; denote the forgiveness of sin and the purifying power to go forward and &quot;sin no more.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:24&lt;/a&gt;, which gives us a short list of diseases Jesus cures. This items on this list are very important and relevant, mind you -- they're all conditions that directly inhibit our ability to perform God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;His fame spread to all of Syria, and they brought to him all who were&#xA;  sick with various diseases and racked with pain, those who were&#xA;  possessed, lunatics, and paralytics, and he cured them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or refer to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 8:1-17&lt;/a&gt;, in which healing the diseased is portrayed again as routine operation for Christ. Even more astounding, note how final verse in the list of healings ends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When it was evening, they brought him many who were possessed by&#xA;  demons, and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick,&#xA;  to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: &lt;strong&gt;He took away our&#xA;  infirmities and bore our diseases.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of Christ's missions and trademarks, as explicitly stated in scripture, is to cure the sick, take away our infirmities, and bear our diseases. Thus, I'd submit that &lt;strong&gt;hopelessness&lt;/strong&gt; in the shadow of disease is sin; it rejects Christ's power &lt;em&gt;and mission&lt;/em&gt; to heal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Second Faulty Premise&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adams has made and I have made an assumption that a thing cannot be&#xA;  both a disease and a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure this statement of yours matches Adam's exactly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because organic problems, which result from Adam's sin and the&#xA;  subsequent curse, are not themselves sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can see in your citations, Adam's &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; to leave room for the interpretation that the organic roots of sinful behavior are not sinful, but that the resulting &lt;strong&gt;actions&lt;/strong&gt; may still be sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, since I'm not familiar with Adam's or his book(s), one passage in particular comes to mind. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/9#49009042&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 9:42-48&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to&#xA;  sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around&#xA;  his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you&#xA;  to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed&#xA;  than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. 44&#xA;  45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for&#xA;  you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into&#xA;  Gehenna. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better&#xA;  for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two&#xA;  eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, 48 where ‘their worm does not die, and&#xA;  the fire is not quenched.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this segment, Christ is not &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; addressing diseases, but He is very clearly addressing biological causes for sin. And in doing so, He makes it very clear that the sins resulting from these biological causes &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; condemn us. And while we tend to believe He's speaking in hyperbole here, the importance of earnestly trying to cut oneself off from any and all sources of sin, even those ingrained in our own body, is very important to our salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can certainly distinguish between disease (or any biological cause) and the resulting actions, be they sinful or not. However, a biological cause is neither a hopeless condition &lt;em&gt;nor&lt;/em&gt; a judgement free condition. For, if the biological causes for sin left us guiltless, Christ would neither warn us against them, nor spend His time healing us and &quot;bearing our diseases.&quot; Bearing our diseases is a large part to Christ's mission. So, we're definitely not left hopeless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Catholic doctrine&lt;/strong&gt; teaches that our guilt is diminished to the extent our actions are beyond our direct control. However, &lt;strong&gt;sinful actions are still sinful even when we are guiltless in performing them&lt;/strong&gt;. Thus, if we are complacent in our diseases or sins, I would argue I think with the support of Catholic doctrine, that we &lt;em&gt;regain&lt;/em&gt; the guilt of those sins!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And by &quot;guilt&quot; I mean some measure by which we may be condemned.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2012-12-05T05:37:01.187" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T05:37:01.187" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9951" CreationDate="2012-12-05T08:28:59.520" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Mosaic covenant is not a republication of the covenant of works.  First, &quot;republication&quot; assumes a previous covenant of works, in the garden, and that is a matter of serious dispute. If there were no covenant of works in the garden, then the Mosaic Covenant could not be a republication.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for the sake of argument, I'll assume that the relationship between God and Adam should be characterized as a covenant of works.  Adam failed, and God responded with a broad covenant of grace that manifested itself in various &quot;administrations&quot; running from Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and the New Covenant.  In each of these covenants (which were the unfolding of the one covenant of grace) God sovereignly and graciously imposes the covenant and calls forth a response of faith and obedience. Think of marriage: husband and wife are bound together by covenant and that covenantal relationship is the basis for blessings and obligations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Turning to the Mosaic covenant in particular, note first that Israel clearly is already redeemed.  They have been delivered from slavery in Egypt.  (The better place to see the framework for the duties and obligations of the Mosaic covenant, by the way, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Exodus+19/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 19:1-6&lt;/a&gt;.)  Israel is already &quot;saved&quot; by God's grace&amp;mdash;carried on eagles wings and brought to God.  He then calls them to &quot;obey my voice and keep my covenant...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But someone will say &quot;Look, God says &quot;If you obey ... then you will be my treasured possession... (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Exodus+19/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ex. 19:5)&lt;/a&gt;&quot;  That looks like a conditional covenant based upon works!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three points in response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Remember they are already God's people, already loved, already delivered from Egypt. So obedience is not the basis for Israel's status before God.  Later, it will become evident that obedience is required for the &lt;strong&gt;health&lt;/strong&gt; of her relationship with God, just as faithfulness, etc. is for the blessings and health of a marriage.  But it is not the basis of the relationship.   &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Treasured possession&quot; means, essentially, &quot;God's personal private property for His own use.&quot; (cf. Bruce Waltke, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Old_Testament_Theology.html?id=EbQOCUZYEo0C&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;An Old Testament Theology&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, p. 407).  The point is not, &quot;if you obey, then I will love/treasure you&quot; but rather, &quot;if you obey, you will be my special instrument as a kingdom of priests in the world.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;That brings me to the final point.  The history of the debate about the Mosaic covenant has taken place withing a framework in which the burning issue is personal salvation, or, in other words, the means and method by which God will accomplish blessing his chosen people.  It is quite self-centred.  The whole discussion fails to appreciate the &lt;strong&gt;missional&lt;/strong&gt; dimension of God's calling.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Exodus+19/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 19:1-5&lt;/a&gt; (as well as the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants) have a goal beyond Abraham and Israel and David.  God will bless Abraham, and through him bless the nations.  David will have an heir who will bring justice and righteousness to the nations.  Israel is called out to be a &quot;kingdom of priests, &lt;strong&gt;for&lt;/strong&gt; the whole earth is Mine&quot;, says God.  Israel was not chosen &lt;strong&gt;instead&lt;/strong&gt; of the world, but &lt;strong&gt;for&lt;/strong&gt; the world (well, firstly and ultimately for the glory of God).  The giving of the Torah and the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant is not focused on being saved, but on being &quot;fit for purpose&quot; as God's missionary people in the world (cf. Christopher Wright, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=jKZmH6KA4wsC&amp;amp;dq=the%20mission%20of%20god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Mission of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, among other works).  The conditionality is not focused on being saved, but on being &quot;fit for purpose&quot; as God's missionary people in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the final days of His ministry Jesus sums things up for the disciples in John 13-17. Among other things, Jesus emphasizes that they were &lt;strong&gt;chosen&lt;/strong&gt; to &lt;strong&gt;go&lt;/strong&gt; and bear fruit.  Further they were &lt;strong&gt;sent&lt;/strong&gt; just as Jesus had been sent.  This is the language of &lt;strong&gt;mission&lt;/strong&gt;.  And then, in light of that they are told to &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt;, sacrifice, and &quot;not be of the world&quot;.  That is, in a sense, a summary of what the Mosaic laws were doing (supposed to do) in the Old Testament: separate out the people of God as a distinct and holy people so they could be a light to the nations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This argument is made much more clearly, fully and with proper nuance, by &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&amp;amp;tbm=bks&amp;amp;q=inauthor%3a%22Christopher%20J.%20H.%20Wright%22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CJH Wright&lt;/a&gt;, and I refer the reader to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3555" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-05T18:07:48.020" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T18:07:48.020" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11947" CreationDate="2012-12-05T12:47:49.187" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I took some time to think hard on this one before answering, and also to double-check some Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to things like addiction - alcoholism, drug addiction, sexual addiction, and the like, the Bible never refers to them as &quot;sickness&quot;.  It refers to certain acts as sinful, or foolish.  Drunkenness, for example, is never called a sin outright, but it is called &quot;foolishness&quot;.  Sexual sin is, of course, called sin (when it comes to a sexual addiction).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern psychology does recognized these types of things as illnesses.  Scripture wasn't written with the concepts of modern psychology in mind.  I'm not saying that these things aren't sicknesses or diseases of a sort, but nowhere in Scripture will you find such a claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, from a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;purely Scriptural&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; perspective, with no room for interpretation, Scriptures don't ever state directly that these things are illnesses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there are a lot of things that Scripture doesn't say that are still true.  Silence or lack of Scriptural statement doesn't necessarily mean something can't be true.  Perhaps a silly example: Scripture doesn't say that we will one day use computers to communicate - but clearly we do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also doesn't say that sickness (the more general form) is caused by bacterial or viral infection, improper nutrition, or the like.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.baylor.edu/tysonheaton/2012/10/01/old-testament-laws-their-medical-significance/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;It &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; give practical advice in how to combat sickness.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, it doesn't say that addiction is a sin, but it does say how to combat it - don't do it.  Avoid drunkenness, flee sexual immorality, and i&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume15/TM015091.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;t does address drug use - the original word is Pharmakeia, which is unfortunately translated as sorcery these days, but it's the same word from which &quot;Pharmacy&quot; comes&lt;/a&gt;.  Again, the Biblical advice - don't do it.  It's sin and avoid it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as to whether addiction is a disease... Scripture doesn't say anytyhing, but since a lack of a statement indicating something is true doesn't necessarily mean it's false, all we can say with certainty is &quot;Scripture doesn't say.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, this is one of those questions that can't be answered from a purely Scriptural perspective, as asked.  (That's my answer)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it's likely to be &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=addiction%20sin%20or%20disease&amp;amp;sourceid=ie7&amp;amp;rls=com.microsoft%3aen-us%3aIE-Address&amp;amp;ie=&amp;amp;oe=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;continued to be debated&lt;/a&gt; until we meet God and can ask Him ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going beyond my answer, and just offering some thoughts, that are worth considering, in support for Jay Adam's statement...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read an article several months back (and can't for the life of me find it to link to it) that talks about &quot;the illusion of free will&quot;.  Most of the article is not on-topic for this question, but there was an interesting statement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Paraphrasing from memory)&lt;/strong&gt;  While modern science indicates that free will is an illusion, the illusion of free will has an&#xA;  evolutionary advantage in that acting as if we have free will helps us&#xA;  to survive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article goes on to give some examples.  Crossing the street was one of them.  Someone who believes in ultimate predestination, with the attitude &quot;What's going to happen is what's meant to happen&quot; may just step out into the street without looking, and therefore get hit by a car.  Someone who believes their actions are their choice and that they can control the future( to some point) by predicting likely outcomes and acting accordingly will know that looking both ways first is an opportunity to affect future events by &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;deciding&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; whether or not to step out into traffic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Applied to the question, the thought process used by Jay Adams is somewhat similar.  And I've seen it many times myself.  Telling someone that addiction is a disease, and not their problem often reinforces the idea that it's not their fault, and that it's out of their control.  So rather than working toward a solution, they fall into the trap of self-imposed helplessness.  They see it as something external to themselves, and since it's a disease, not something they've &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;chosen&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to do, they can justify that next drink, or that next hit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, that's not universal.  Plenty of people with a disease fight like crazy to beat it.  And I'm not saying that these things aren't diseases of the sort. But I've seen personally people that have been addicts for years, that believed it was a disease that were transformed both by the saving power of Christ and by changing their mindset (the definition of repentance) and viewing their addiction as sin.  This was the first step in deciding to beat it.  This is the basis of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://reformu.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reformer's Unanimous program&lt;/a&gt;, which is a very successful addiction recovery program based on such principles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, it's not always that way, and I'm sure there are plenty of people that are more effectively helped with the &quot;Addiction as a disease&quot; modern psychology approach.  I am absolutely not stating that it's not a disease, or that it's 100% counter-productive to label it as such.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also not saying that those who treat it as a disease aren't doing the best they can, that they don't mean well, that they're not often effective.  I'm not saying any of that.&#xA;  I'm just expanding on the reasoning and personal examples of support for Jay's statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T02:55:07.117" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T02:55:07.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11955" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11999" CreationDate="2012-12-05T13:31:26.517" Score="8" ViewCount="3351" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard somewhere that at various times in the past, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible &amp;amp; Tract Society) have predicted when the end of the world would be and perhaps when Jesus would return to earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the specifics about these prophecies, and when exactly is the end of the world or Christ's return supposed to occur?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2021-02-22T11:18:35.907" Title="Have the Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the end of the world?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11947" CreationDate="2012-12-05T15:53:33.583" Score="-5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disease and sins are not separated.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;The man having infirmity 38 years heard from God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. (John 5:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disease comes always as consequences of sins, because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (Genesis 1:31)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin (Romans 5:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, the connection between sins and disease are not obvious because the sins are inherited from ancestors:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms (Numbers 14:33)&#xA;  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;because the human nature can carry across generations, from one person to another, not only the sins (from Adam), also the virtutes, also the knowledges, also the blessings and cure(from Lord Jesus Christ). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:6-7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The root of sins are localizable in the human souls, and the diseases in the human bodies.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This is why, medical science cannot address sins, because the soul is not subject of science, or it uses a wrong definition of the soul (in psychology or psychiatry). At most it can record patological manifestations of the sin at the body level, and make statistics, but cannot administer real cures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only a true christian can have a complete view of human anatomy, and can address the true cause of the diseases: the sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1620" LastEditorUserId="1620" LastEditDate="2012-12-05T18:58:15.250" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T18:58:15.250" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9951" CreationDate="2012-12-05T18:02:14.407" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is certainly not unilateral. In a unilateral covenant, only one party must assent to the terms of the covenant in order for it to be ratified. For example, the covenant enacted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=15&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 15:12&lt;/a&gt; is unilateral because Avraham was in a deep sleep when God alone passed between the split animal pieces (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=15&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 15:17&lt;/a&gt;), signifying ratification of the covenant. Since God, who cannot lie (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Tts&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tit. 1:2&lt;/a&gt;), swore by Himself (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 6:13-18&lt;/a&gt;), He showed &quot;the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel.&quot; Had Avraham been required to assent, then it would have been possible for the covenant to be later nullified on account of Avraham's [in]actions or misconduct. However, since God swore by Himself, the covenant is sure, and there is no possibility for it be abolished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the Mosaic covenant (i.e., &quot;Old Covenant&quot;) --- that which was mediated by Moshe, is a bilateral covenant. God delivered the terms of the covenant to Moshe. As the mediator, Moshe then promulgated the terms to the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel had the choice of rejection or acceptance of the terms. They chose to accept the terms, signifying ratifcation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cursed be he who does not confirm all the words of this Law, to do them. And all the people shall say, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Amen&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; (Deut. 27:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Israelites did not keep the terms of the Old Covenant, a covenant based on works (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=10&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom. 10:5&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gal. 3:12&lt;/a&gt;), then God promised a New Covenant whereby their sins would no longer be remebered (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&amp;amp;c=31&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jer. 31:34&lt;/a&gt; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 8:12&lt;/a&gt;), The Old Covenant was not faultless (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 8:7&lt;/a&gt;); however, the fault was not with God's terms, but with the people (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 8:8&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also noteworthy that nowhere in the Mosaic Covenant are there provisions for eternal life in the world to come, but rather, prolonged life on the earth, in the land which God gave to the Israelites (e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deut. 4:40&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T18:02:14.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11959" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11988" CreationDate="2012-12-05T18:21:22.083" Score="10" ViewCount="3959" Body="&lt;p&gt;I seem to remember hearing somewhere that at least some Calvinists believe that, contrary to what seems to be a literal reading of John 3:16 and other verses, that God, in fact, does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; love the world, but only the elect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is there a certain group of Calvinists (denominations) that hold to this belief?  If so, which ones?  Also, what is the explanation for verses like John 3:16 that seem to indicate that God loves not only those who come to Him, but also those who reject them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For &lt;strong&gt;God so loved the world&lt;/strong&gt;, that he gave his only Son, that whoever&#xA;  believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.&quot; John 3:16&#xA;  ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;, looking at him, &lt;strong&gt;loved him&lt;/strong&gt;, and said to him, “You lack one&#xA;  thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will&#xA;  have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”  Disheartened by the&#xA;  saying, &lt;strong&gt;he went away&lt;/strong&gt; sorrowful, for he had great possessions.  Mark&#xA;  10:21-22 -&gt; &lt;em&gt;The rich young ruler who doesn't seem to have been one of&#xA;  the elect.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness,&#xA;  but is patient toward you, &lt;strong&gt;not wishing that any should perish&lt;/strong&gt;, but&#xA;  that all should reach repentance.  2 Peter 3:9 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus said, “&lt;strong&gt;Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Luke 23:34 ESV &lt;em&gt;Jesus asks for the forgiveness of the ones that were rejecting &#xA;  Him and crucifying Him.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T19:06:28.637" LastActivityDate="2021-03-21T14:17:20.037" Title="Do Calvinists believe that God does not love the world, but only the elect?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9951" CreationDate="2012-12-05T18:38:01.843" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a unilateral covenant of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Belief in the covenant leads to fulfilment. What does belief involve?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God promised Canaan to Israel. He commands Israel to face the Canaanites. Does it mean that God will give Canaan to Israel only if she fights Canaanites?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. She has to face the enemy. But God does the fighting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, Israel must face the Law, but it is God who fulfils it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law does not obviate grace. It is a means for grace to manifest. Just as the Canaanites were a means to show how God WINS Canaan for Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T18:38:01.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11961" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12099" CreationDate="2012-12-05T19:23:08.977" Score="9" ViewCount="5624" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question of what the Biblical basis is &lt;em&gt;in favor of&lt;/em&gt; Irresistible Grace has been asked &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/308/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-irresistible-grace&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  However, the question regarding the Biblical argument &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; it does not seem to have been addressed yet.  So, that's the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis or argument against the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace--that is, the doctrine that God's grace to the elect prior to their conversion is irresistible.  The elect person can't help but be drawn into salvation and a relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2018-12-18T20:43:55.610" Title="What is the Biblical basis against the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;irresistible-grace&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11962" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11963" CreationDate="2012-12-05T20:31:03.533" Score="7" ViewCount="701" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there are few of their members today who are part of the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelations.  This implies that most of their members are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; included in that number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the status of these people?  Are they just believers who will go to heaven when Christ returns?  Will they live on earth at that time?  What are they called, and what will happen to them according to the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2018-04-02T10:41:04.753" Title="If most of the Jehovah's Witnesses today are not a part of the 144,000, then what exactly are they?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11962" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:03:54.153" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Watchtower doctrine says that they are in a state of non-existence until the general resurrection. Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Life_after_death&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the general resurrection, God judges mankind. Those judged as righteous would there after live on earth in their resurrected bodies, whereas the 144,000 remain in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2012-12-05T21:16:20.600" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T21:16:20.600" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11964" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11965" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:39:29.413" Score="7" ViewCount="268" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that when people go to confessional in the Catholic Church, the priest will often prescribe certain things for them to do for penance in order for their sins to be forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard people in passing mention doing &quot;Hail Mary's&quot;, and I'm pretty sure they weren't talking about long desperation passes at the end of a football game.  I've also heard mention of &quot;Our Father's&quot;.  I assume these refer to a prayer to Mary and recitation of the Lord's Prayer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, are these the most common thing a priest will prescribe?  Are there any others?  Fasting?  Is there a set pattern prescribed by the Catholic Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-05T21:47:48.707" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T21:53:34.720" Title="What different acts do Catholic priests require of people who go to confession?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;confession&gt;&lt;priests&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11964" CreationDate="2012-12-05T21:53:34.720" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;99% of the time that seems to be the case, even for mortal sins.  I've had a few &quot;take your wife on a dates&quot; but the most prayers I've ever been assigned was a Rosary. Generally it's just a few Hail Mary's.  I think there's a recent historical precedent for this practice, but I don't know off hand what it is, hopefully someone can expand on that.   I've heard of some pretty awesome penances in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that I think is required is restitution, if possible, of stolen goods.  I'm not certain if that's in some rubric or just a teaching, but to be truly penitent it would be assumed that you'd be resolved to try and make good and you usually see that in an examination of conscience following the 10 commandments under the &quot;thou shalt not steal&quot; section.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-12-05T21:53:34.720" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11968" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12021" CreationDate="2012-12-06T00:19:16.627" Score="0" ViewCount="551" Body="&lt;p&gt;Arguably the killing of Jesus Christ was the most avenged killing in history.  There is no other person for whom there were so many other people killed in the name of retaliation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Russian Empire the oppression of Jews was explicitly justified because of their complicity in Jesus' murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder whether those Christians who thought that somebody, either modern or ancient, is guilty in killing Jesus, really believe in his resurrection and immortality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can one avenge a murder of an immortal? Or do those Christians believe in resurrection of Christ only metaphorically/figuratively? Do they think that he was resurrected in the body of the Church or in the spirits of Christians rather than physically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An analogy: your father dead. You think that you or someone else is guilty. Then God miracliously resurrects your father. Do you still feel remorse, guilt or desire for revenge?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is not desire for revenge actually a &lt;strong&gt;disbelief&lt;/strong&gt; in real resurrection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-10-16T02:17:13.130" LastActivityDate="2015-10-16T02:17:13.130" Title="If Christians believe that Christ was a God and immortal (or resurrected), why do some avenge his killing in his name?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;killing&gt;&lt;violence&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2014-09-09T20:34:41.630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11969" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12019" CreationDate="2012-12-06T00:41:32.540" Score="17" ViewCount="1103" Body="&lt;p&gt;If someone quotes e.g. Leviticus 6:7, will this be the correct position no matter the language or translation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3560" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-12T22:57:28.453" LastActivityDate="2020-10-29T12:02:53.890" Title="Are chapter and verse divisions international?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;versification&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11968" CreationDate="2012-12-06T00:46:38.030" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;My opinion on the matter is based on 2 assumptions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are humans and we have a tendency to misunderstand events.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Knowledge of Jesus' death is very widespread.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With these two assumptions in mind, my opinion is almost guessable...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; believe that Jesus died for my sins, because of my sins; if we were sinless, Jesus would have died for nothing. So, to summarize, I (and other Christians I know) believe that &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; killed Jesus, by being a sinner -- the reason he died. So, in my mind, the Jews are just as responsible for Jesus' death as I am.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, because so many people know of Jesus' death and people have a tendency to misunderstand things they see the Jews as being the murderers of Christ without looking deeper. They see the action, but they ignore the cause; they are judging the effect but not the affecter. This is an unfortunate misinterpretation, and it is sad that anyone would be inclined to seek &quot;vengeance&quot; for such things. This is, of course, just my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2025" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T00:46:38.030" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11961" CreationDate="2012-12-06T00:55:42.413" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a simple one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;II Peter 3:9 KJV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count&#xA;  slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any&#xA;  should perish, but that all should come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if the Lord is not willing for any to perish and His grace were truly irresistible, then why hasn't he extended it to all humanity, and why are we not all thereby elect? Could it be because we have the will to choose Christ's grace or reject it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Additionally&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Titus 2:11 states that, &lt;code&gt;the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.&lt;/code&gt; Assuming you are not willing to limit &quot;all people&quot; to mean &quot;just the elect,&quot; this verse implies that (a) anyone may be saved and that (b) this salvation comes through God's grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, is it not contradictory to concurrently believe all the of the following points at face value:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's grace is irresistible to man&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;By his grace &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; may receive salvation (the Titus verse)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He wants &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; to be saved (the II Peter vesre) and He (as good old John 3:16 states) loved &lt;em&gt;the world&lt;/em&gt; enough to have sent his Son to die on the cross, that &lt;em&gt;whosoever&lt;/em&gt; believes in Him will not perish but to have everlasting life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For how could God want the whole world to be saved, and have sent his son to die for the whole world but ultimately only select certain, elect few by irresistable grace? These three views are incompatable with each other, and I reject the non-Biblical one -- that of irresistable grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from rejecting some set of these three views, I can see two other options for making them compatable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When the Bible is saying that God does not want for anyone to perish and that He sent his son to die for whoever would believe in Him, it is exclusively refering to the elect. In my mind this would be a distressing misinterpretation of the scripture. Or, alternatively&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God has split-personality disorder. Although he wants everyone to be saved through Christ's freely available grace, his contending personality just can't let that happen and has to choose certain individuals to call, based on his pre-genesis disposition towards in differentating between people whome (at that time) did not yet exist.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2025" LastEditorUserId="2025" LastEditDate="2012-12-08T19:58:03.443" LastActivityDate="2012-12-08T19:58:03.443" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11969" CreationDate="2012-12-06T01:25:34.870" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 88:5 in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=88&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot;&gt;King James Version&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou rememberest no more: and they are cut off from thy hand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 88:5 in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2688.htm&quot;&gt;Jewish Publication Society&lt;/a&gt; (based on versification in Masoretic text):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am counted with them that go down into the pit; I am become as a man that hath no help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even some verses differ in NT according to which Greek manuscript you are reading from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T01:25:34.870" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7792" CreationDate="2012-12-06T01:49:19.727" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is obvious that Jesus' body was created, or perhaps a better word is, &quot;made.&quot; I choose to use the verb &quot;create&quot; with the subject &quot;God&quot; alone. We humans cannot &lt;strong&gt;create&lt;/strong&gt; anything. We can &lt;strong&gt;make&lt;/strong&gt; many things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning, God created all things, that is, all matter in the universe. From that existing matter is made all things that exist today. I can make a house out of wood, but I did not create the house, nor did I create the wood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, was Jesus' body made? Sure. Just like my body, and just like your body, via the process of conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May I recommend for you the discourse of Thomas Aquinas on the subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q16_A8.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Whether this is true: &quot;Christ is a creature&quot;?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q16_A10.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Whether this is true: &quot;Christ as Man is a creature&quot;?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T01:49:19.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11974" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12042" CreationDate="2012-12-06T01:54:22.953" Score="8" ViewCount="958" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the article on “&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004625&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Word&lt;/a&gt;” in the Watchtower publication &lt;em&gt;Insight on the Scriptures&lt;/em&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This Word, or &lt;em&gt;Lo′gos&lt;/em&gt;, was God’s only direct creation, the only-begotten son of God, and evidently the close associate of God to whom God was speaking when he said: “Let &lt;em&gt;us&lt;/em&gt; make man in &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; image, according to &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; likeness.” (Ge 1:26) Hence John continued, saying: “This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”—Joh 1:2, 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The publication states that the λόγος was God’s only direct creation, the “only-begotten son of God.” Furthermore, it also identifies the λόγος as Jesus Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Christian Greek Scriptures “the Word” (Gr., &lt;em&gt;ho Lo′gos&lt;/em&gt;) also appears as a title. (Joh 1:1, 14; Re 19:13) The apostle John identified the one to whom this title belongs, namely, Jesus, he being so designated not only during his ministry on earth as a perfect man but also during his prehuman spirit existence as well as after his exaltation to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The claim is that God’s λόγος, the Word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ), is a creation (and thus, a creature). If God’s λόγος was created, then it did not exist before it was created. The corollary is that God at one point lacked λόγος, or was ἄλογος. The Greek word ἄλογος means “without reason, logic; irrational; illogical.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G249&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strong’s Lexicon&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29%2Flogos&amp;amp;la=greek#lexicon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greek Word Study Tool at Tufts University&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek letter α (alpha) prefixed to a word signifies absence, opposition, or negation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strong’s Lexicon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the Greek word νόμος (nomos) means “law.” When prefixed with the Greek letter α, it means “without law; lawless.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G459&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strong’s Lexicon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the Greek word λόγος is most often translated simply as “word,” it also possesses the meanings of “reason” and “logic.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3056&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strong’s Lexicon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something which possesses reason, or the ability to reason, is said to be “rational.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dictionary.com Unabridged&lt;/em&gt; (based on the Random House Dictionary)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something that lacks reason is said to be “irrational.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Dictionary.com Unabridged&lt;/em&gt; (based on the Random House Dictionary)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The consequence of the argument that God created the λόγος was that God was at one point ἄλογος, or without reason, illogical, or irrational.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Arians and/or Jehovah’s Witnesses respond when it is said that their God was without reason, irrational, and illogical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this say about God’s supposed immutability?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2014-06-24T20:49:36.163" LastActivityDate="2016-03-18T01:55:29.813" Title="Does the theology of Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses admit that God was at one point ἄλογος?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;arianism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11975" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-06T02:49:08.927" Score="12" ViewCount="86153" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both holiness and righteousness are used to describe God.  Additionally, we as Christians are called to be holy and righteous as well.  These are two distinct words, so they must have distinct meanings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is what distinguishes holiness from righteousness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy&lt;/strong&gt; and have separated you&#xA;  from the peoples, that you should be mine.  Leviticus 20:26 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your&#xA;  former ignorance, 15 but as &lt;strong&gt;he who called you is holy&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;you also be&#xA;  holy&lt;/strong&gt; in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “&lt;strong&gt;You shall be holy&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  for &lt;strong&gt;I am holy&lt;/strong&gt;.”  1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You are witnesses, and God also, how &lt;strong&gt;holy and righteous&lt;/strong&gt; and blameless&#xA;  was our conduct toward you believers.  1 Thessalonians 2:10 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have&#xA;  heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22&#xA;  to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of&#xA;  life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in&#xA;  the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after&#xA;  the likeness of God in true &lt;strong&gt;righteousness and holiness.&lt;/strong&gt;  Ephesians&#xA;  4:20-24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3561" LastActivityDate="2015-05-12T04:28:19.947" Title="What is the difference between holiness and righteousness?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11975" CreationDate="2012-12-06T03:22:28.690" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Holy&quot; means &quot;set apart&quot;, as in set aside for a particular purpose, and implies being &quot;special&quot; and acting accordingly. In particular it means &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art60341.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;set aside for God's service&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Righteousness.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Righteous&lt;/a&gt;&quot; means &quot;made right&quot; (justified), or &quot;being right&quot;, not in the sense of &quot;correct&quot;, but as in &quot;not wrong&quot; - being pure, honest, sinless. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be &quot;not guilty&quot; or &quot;blameless&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two should go hand in hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-06T13:27:09.823" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T13:27:09.823" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6828" CreationDate="2012-12-06T05:38:41.840" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not believe it does at all, infact, i think that is what jesus was teaching after all. Many scriptures support meditation when in fact, all meditation means is concentration. Just because you empty your mind of thought, doesnt make you empty. In fact its very healthy. Thought alone is the main cause of mental illness. Stress, anxiety, fear, jealousy, etc are all caused by thought.. Transendental meditation is about clearing your mind of everything and finding yourself, finding god. I believe the church is more scared of what you will experience and realize, completely changing what the church has framed our minds into believing. I too have realized, being a devout christian and all, one night I hit rock bottom, I prayed with tears and passion, wanting my love for god, that passion to come back. To give me that light to strive for once again. I asked god for the truth, to show me some hope, just something to grab on to to re light my faith, and literally over night my life changed. Its been a series of events, that led me into meditation. A domino affect of still occuring events that still baffle me, even my wife supports me and is witness to the drastic change. I quit drinking over night, began my transendental meditation and a whole new world appeared to me. I still believe in god, and jesus, but my way of belief is different now from what the church has taught. In fact, there is more fact in what I have learned now that makes the bible make sense than the actual church does. Look into it for yourself, try it yourself. Do your research and be passionate, you will find exactly what your looking for and more. Its amazing. remember, prayer is talking to god, meditation is listening to him.&#xA; please, dont get me wrong, im not saying the church is bad. Im just saying the answers about god that you may seek are found in meditation. God will show you who you really are, and who he is as well. You will come to find, he is not very far away at all. Hes literally a prayer away and through meditation, you will find him. just like it says in the bible, the kingdom of heaven is within each and every one of us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3562" LastEditorUserId="3562" LastEditDate="2012-12-06T05:46:02.503" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T05:46:02.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11978" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11980" CreationDate="2012-12-06T06:03:43.713" Score="8" ViewCount="586" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the 4th chapter in the book of Job, it states in verses 17 and 18 that: ‘Can mortal man be in the right before[b] God? Can a man be pure before his Maker? Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;His angels he charges with error&quot;? Do they sin or am I interpreting this incorrectly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T23:35:35.273" Title="In the book of Job, it suggests that angels sin. Do they?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11968" CreationDate="2012-12-06T06:13:24.807" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a stretch to call the &quot;retaliation&quot; you mention a response to Jesus' murder. It is more accurately described as a response to differing belief systems, oppression of belief, etc. It is also widely accepted that early Christians were at least themselves convinced that Jesus physically resurrected, so it would take a lot more than psychology based speculation to overturn our current understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the analogy you offered is a bit misleading. You talk about a father's &quot;death&quot; but Jesus' &quot;murder.&quot; If someone watched their father get murdered, and then resurrected, I would imagine they would at first feel joy and awe (as the early Christians did), and later, especially after the father was gone, begin to feel anger and possibly vengeful (depending on who it was). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the major flaw in your reasoning is that it seems to assume that &lt;em&gt;the desirability of the outcome of an event erases the bad intentions of those who brought it about.&lt;/em&gt; That's simply not true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3563" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T06:13:24.807" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11978" CreationDate="2012-12-06T06:46:48.807" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a Christian perspective based on the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, angels can and did sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Pe&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#4&quot;&gt;2 Peter 2:4 (A.V.)&lt;/a&gt;, it is written, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if God spared not the &lt;strong&gt;angels&lt;/strong&gt; that &lt;strong&gt;sinned&lt;/strong&gt;, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully that settles the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-01-31T23:35:35.273" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T23:35:35.273" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6938" CreationDate="2012-12-06T08:00:58.087" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that the Book of Esther does mention God's name, a few times, but they are hidden in acrostics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the instances:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vQcvi.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T08:00:58.087" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11983" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11984" CreationDate="2012-12-06T08:21:28.590" Score="3" ViewCount="2059" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a group of Christians or confession that believes that Jesus was resurrected metaphorically rather than physically? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes I encountered with opinions that Jesus was resurrected in the minds of Christians and that the Church is the everlasting and immortal Christ's body. I do not know whether such beliefs actually endorsed by the Church though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any Christian beliefs about the resurrection that would parallel these cases among non-Christian beliefs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ancient pagan Proto-Indo-Europeans believed that true immortality is possible only by means of imperishable fame, so if there are poets who sing fame to you, you become immortal in a sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In more recent times the Communists often claimed that Lenin was eternally alive because he lived in their hearts (an idea which could be borrowed from a particular understanding of Christianity).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the former version of the answer by Caleb, this quote from Peter may indicate that he was one of the people who believed that the resurrection was spiritual as opposed to physical death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Peter 3:18 (ESV) 18  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the&#xA;  righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being&#xA;  put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-08T15:40:43.120" LastActivityDate="2015-10-08T20:19:47.130" Title="Is there a group of Christians that believes that Jesus was resurrected metaphorically rather than physically?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;comparative-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11983" CreationDate="2012-12-06T09:48:41.400" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rule is &quot;no&quot;, but like every rule there are exceptions. So &quot;yes&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be stressed that such views are not mainstream, majority or orthodox in any way. However there are groups that claim to be Christian and hold to a metaphorical view of Christ's resurrection. Likewise, there are groups who claim to be Christian but don't even believe that Christ existed or believe that he wasn't &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; Christ (God incarnate) or all sorts of other claims. Again, these are not representative of Christian theology but they do exist in the sphere of people who claim to be Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most obvious early example would be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_and_the_New_Testament#Resurrection&quot;&gt;Gnostics&lt;/a&gt;. Wile Gnosticism pre-dated Christianity, it was syncratistic and embraced pieces of other belief systems. It was not uncommon for Gnostic groups after the first century to claim to be Christian while dening the physical resurrection&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and other core Christian beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Gnostic any resurrection of the dead was excluded from the outset; the flesh or the substance is destined to perish. 'There is no resurrection of the flesh, but only of the soul', say the so-called Archonites, a late Gnostic group in Palestine. -- Kurt Rudolph&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, most Christian creedal statements starting very early on specifically include a note about the resurrection specifically to counter Gnostic and other belief systems that denied this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...] He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, [...] -- The Nicene Creed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In modern times, similar views enjoy wide circulation, esp on the internet among all sorts of backgrounds including those with more modern culture than historic knowledge, heterodox Christians, new-age movements, and even atheists. However popular, the view tends to be vague having no concrete name or identifiable following. The concept of a metaphorical resurrection and ongoing appreciation for a long dead good-moral-teacher* are rather assimilated into some other world view and the whole thing is stamped as &quot;Christian&quot; in the sense that it incorporates some terminology and history from Christianity without subscribing to its primary doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most obvious exception to this modern trend is the Jehovah Witnesses -- a well established sect with organized concrete beliefs that include a metaphorical view of Christ's resurrection. Their belief about the atonement of Christ requires that he stay physically dead: otherwise the work he accomplished in death would be un-done. While orthodox Christian belief has Christ being physically raised from the dead by the power of the Spirit, JW belief says that he was raised &lt;em&gt;as a Spirit&lt;/em&gt; while his body stayed in the grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other major group that bears mentioning because they make their stand on Christ's resurrection being metaphorical would be Baha'i Faith. They do not pretend to be Christian but do co-opt quite a lot of terminology and claim to have the proper interpretation/context&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; that makes sense out of some other Christian beliefs. If you want an article showing where they are coming from, try &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/christliving.html&quot;&gt;How to understand the inner (batin) and outer (zahir) meanings of the Resurrection of Christ in order to successfully prospect and teach Evangelical Christians and other Bible-believers the Baha'i Faith&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you finish with that chaff, go back to Scripture and have a look at some solid ground. Here is Peter's (eyewitness) testimony:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:29-32&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Acts 2:29-32&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;29&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. &lt;sup&gt;30&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, &lt;sup&gt;31&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. &lt;sup&gt;32&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://gnosis.org/naghamm/res.html&quot;&gt;The Treatise on the Resurrection&lt;/a&gt; for an early source describing Gnostic beliefs on teh resurrection. It's confusing because he claims that resurrection is not an illusion but real, but you need to understand that in context with Gnostic belief that the physical world is just at illusion that we must escape to enter the real. The article draws a one to one parallel between Jesus resurrection and ours, this resurrection being an escape from the physical into a different reality.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gnosis (San Francisco: Harper &amp;amp; Row, 1985), p. 190.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bahai-library.com/uhj_resurrection_bible&quot;&gt;http://bahai-library.com/uhj_resurrection_bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* Gag&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-12-06T14:28:18.723" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T14:28:18.723" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9986" CreationDate="2012-12-06T10:29:09.923" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a belief among Baptists known as the &quot;Trail of Blood,&quot; which traces Baptist beliefs back through the Anabaptists, Waldensians and various other groups all the way back to the pre-Nicene church. Take a look at &quot;The Pilgrim Church&quot; by E.H. Broadbent for more info on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I understand the claim, there's really no way to authenticate it one way or the other. Most of the pre-Reformation groups that are labeled Baptist are long gone now, and their writings have vanished with them. Many were violently repressed as heretics by the Catholic Church, but there is no way of knowing just what those &quot;heresies&quot; were. It is a real stretch, though, to find in them an unbroken Baptist heritage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, as an Anabaptist (Mennonite), I consider myself to be neither Catholic nor Protestant. We call our church the Third Way, because this is how our ancestors saw it. I guess it all depends on how you define &quot;Protestant.&quot; If a Protestant is anyone who objects to Catholic theology and tradition, then you could include Mennonites and Baptists in that group. But if Protestants are churches descended from Martin Luther's line, I believe we have a good case for being separate from that. Back in the Reformation era, Martin Luther was busy trying to kill us! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think the Protestant issue is more a question of semantics than anything. The Trail of Blood theory might have some validity in that &quot;Baptist-like&quot; groups may have existed pre-Reformation, but it's highly questionable when taken to its furthest extent. However that doesn't mean that everyone must be Protestant. Given only two options I'd rather call myself Protestant than Catholic, but neither label really fits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3565" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T10:29:09.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6828" CreationDate="2012-12-06T10:47:34.410" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;About meditation in general, I can recommend you &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascent_of_Mount_Carmel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ascent to Mount Carmel&lt;/a&gt; by saint John of the Cross, a famous 16th century mystic. It's not an easy reading, but it's a good guidebook of Christian mysticism. Along with few things that are good to do, author warns against many dangers in spiritual life, which may seem marginal in the beginning but may lead you astray finally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to John of the Cross, meditation and emptying yourself from anything that isn't God is good, but there are many things that &lt;em&gt;seem to be God&lt;/em&gt;, and these are often very hard to distinguish. 99.9% of Christian mystics need some living person to give them feedback and lead them - otherwise they would fall in some of these traps. This guide needs not to be a mystic or even a &quot;perfect&quot; (mystical term for &quot;very close to God&quot;) mystic, but they need wisdom of Holy Spirit and know something about mysticism. Remaining 0,1% are hermits who are so well guided by Holy Spirit that they don't need a human guide (and of course don't need anyone to teach them how to meditate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why I would be suspicious about TM or any other non-Christian meditation. About meat sacrificed to idols, knowing what you believe is enough. But emptying yourself is much more delicate and if it's hard for Christian mystics not to make some grave mistake, it's even harder outside Christian tradition. The meditation techniques may be similar or maybe even the same, but without guidance of Holy Spirit your meditations can't lead to their aim - to bigger opennes to Holy Spirit. If your guide is trained to rely on his own spiritual abilities, they can't lead you on the way of Holy Spirit. And if they are trained in some non-Christian tradition, it's very likely that you will be taught some pagan elements such as mantras invoking Hinduistic gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would definitely avoid such a practice without guidance of someone capable of distinguishing what is of Holy Spirit and what is against him. This means someone full of Holy Spirit with charisma of distinguishing of spirits or at least with great experience with Christian meditation. But such people are usually capable of teaching you Christian ways of meditation, so you don't need to bother with something like TM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a comment to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6829/3447&quot;&gt;David Stratton's note on martial arts&lt;/a&gt;: from martial arts you usually expect to learn to fight. From meditation you expect that it helps you spiritually. It's much easier to distinguish a martial art from spirituality behind it than to distinguish meditation from spirituality behind it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T10:47:34.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11987" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11991" CreationDate="2012-12-06T11:04:31.900" Score="4" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Church attitude to the belief that Jesus had a biological father Josef or another man and that divin conception was only a metaphor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allegedly there was an ancient prophecy that the future king of Israel should be from the king David's lineage, so as I heard, there were some ancient Christian authors who claimed that Jesus descended from king David and even brought the genealogy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder what is the position of the Church and various Christian groups to those Jesus genealogies which trace Jesus' earthy ancestry towards king David?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T13:11:13.960" Title="What is the Church attitude to the belief that Jesus had a biological father?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11959" CreationDate="2012-12-06T12:42:05.347" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If any famous Calvinist could be accused of not believing God loved everyone it would be John Owen one of the foremost Calvinistic theologians. Owen (like Calvin as well) can be misunderstood as those 'who did not believe Christ died for all'. However the more I have read of their works the more I have become convinced that &lt;strong&gt;actually nobody has ever-believed that God does not love all men (that is nobody 'truly Calvinistic')&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is really confusion over terminology.&lt;/strong&gt; It has to do with the way we think of the elect.  Since God is some sense sent his Son for the elect only, as they alone will benefit by his death, we must define 'love' in different senses.  God may love sinners who reject him, but in what sense is that love present when the sinner is bound under everlasting burnings? It is with this in mind that different Calvinists and in some way all Christians grapple with different meanings of the word love, and some accuse others of not believing in love based on the way they define this 'universal love'.  In my case I would simply say as a Calvinist, God loves all men equally but from His eternal planned salvation only loves the elect effectually. But I am not fixed on my current expression. Faith believes in God's love so does not desperately seek exact terms for everything but can repose and rest in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case &lt;strong&gt;here is what Owen say's when accused on believing God did not love all&lt;/strong&gt;: (All quotes from John Owen's Works, P555-557, CHAPTER XXXI Of election and universal grace—Of the resurrection of Christ from the dead)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He notes the following verses implies a general love for all in some sense: John 3:16, 17, 6:33, 4:42; 1 John 4:14; John 12:46, 47; Mark 16:15, 16; Col. 1:23, 28; 1 Tim. 2:1–4; 2 Pet. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:1, 2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That God is good to all men, and bountiful, being a wise, powerful, liberal provider for the works of his hands, in and by innumerable dispensations and various communications of his goodness to them, and may in that regard be said to have a universal love for them all, is granted; but that God loveth all and every man alike, with that eternal love which is the fountain of his giving Christ for them and to them, and all good things with him, is not in the least intimated by any of those places of Scripture where they are expressed for whom Christ died, as elsewhere hath been abundantly manifested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he says that actually it is our faith in God's general love for all that that we are saved by not our faith in his love for the elect, because the Bible does not give us faith in who is exactly elect (not saying that after we are saved we do not have full assurance that we are inn deed elect):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is indeed the only true and solid ground of coming unto God by Christ, that God hath infallibly conjoined faith and salvation, so that whosoever believes shall be saved; neither doth the granting of the pretended universality of God’s love afford any other ground whatever; and this is not in the least shaken or impaired by the effectual love and purpose of God for the salvation of some...We say, though God hath chosen some only to salvation by Christ,—yet the names of those some are not expressed in Scripture, the doing whereof would have been destructive to the main end of the word, the nature of faith, and all the ordinances of the gospel,—yet God having declared that whosoever believeth shall be saved, there is sufficient ground for all and every man in the world to whom the gospel is preached to come to God by Christ, and other ground there is none, nor can be offered by the assertors of the pretended universality of God’s love. Nor is this proposition, “He that believeth shall be saved,” founded on the universality of love pleaded for, but on the sufficiency of the means for the accomplishment of what is therein asserted,—namely, the blood of Christ, who is believed on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But after establishing God's love for all Owen reminds us of some facts about those predestined to glory which might lead some to the confusion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some are chosen from eternity, and are under the purpose of God, as to the good mentioned. Those some are some only, not all; and therefore, as to the good intended, there is not a universal love in God as to the objects of it, but such a distinguishing one as is spoken against: Eph. 1:4, 5, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Here are some chosen, and consequently an intention of God concerning them expressed, and this from eternity, or before the foundation of the world, and this to the good of holiness, adoption, salvation; and this is only of some, and not of all the world, as the whole tenor of the discourse, being referred to believers, doth abundantly manifest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also reminds us that others are predestined to hell:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet farther to evidence that this purpose of God or intention spoken of is peculiar and distinguishing, there is express mention of another sort of men who are not thus chosen, but lie under the purpose of God as to a contrary lot and condition: “The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,” Prov. 16:4. They are persons “whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb,” Rev. 13:8; being “of old ordained to condemnation,” Jude 4; being as “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,” 2 Pet. 2:12. And therefore the apostle distinguisheth all men into those who are “appointed to wrath,” and those who are “appointed to the obtaining of salvation by Jesus Christ,” 1 Thess. 5:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: Nobody really believes God does not love the whole human race:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because &lt;strong&gt;the Heavenly Father loves the human race&lt;/strong&gt;, and wishes that they should not perish. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Calvin&lt;/a&gt; on John 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of John Owen's works can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://theessentialowen.com/the-works-of-john-owen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;Here are a couple posts I have made before about this subject before but when I wrote them I had never found these little nuggets posted here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10210/god-desires-all-men-to-be-saved-from-a-calvinist-perspective/10218#10218&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;God desires all men to be saved&amp;quot; from a Calvinist perspective?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8830/does-god-hate-unborn-children/8849#8849&quot;&gt;Does God hate unborn children?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T13:53:51.480" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11969" CreationDate="2012-12-06T12:50:10.413" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, generally, though not universally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common versing scheme in use today goes back to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Langton&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stephen Langton&lt;/a&gt; in the 1200s.  Other popular schemes include one by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_of_St_Cher&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugo of Saint Cher&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While definitely a respected theologian (he was an Archbishop!), his &quot;sense&quot;-based structure is by no means universal agreed upon.  Indeed, there is an apocryphal tale underlying the seeming lack of any rhyme or reason in the structure that suggests Langton was riding his horse as he inserted the numbers.  The story goes that when his horse's feet touched the ground, he inserted a verse, and when he fell off the horse, he inserted a chapter!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other versification schemes exist, but his is the most common.  Manuscripts that predate this convention are sometimes back-versed, and some translations have reversed the scripts, but most popular translations, such as the KJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NLT, etc... all use Langton's schemes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the versification is so well received that as modern manuscripts cast doubt on the authenticity of some verses (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 5:7&lt;/a&gt;), many modern translations will omit the verse altogether, going directly from 6 to 8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Internationally, those that choose to follow this pretty well received convention tend to follow it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2012-12-13T23:44:56.830" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T23:44:56.830" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11987" CreationDate="2012-12-06T12:57:25.170" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;All Christians that subscribe to the doctrine of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&quot;&gt;Virgin Birth&lt;/a&gt; believe that Joseph was Mary's husband and Jesus' guardian, but that he had no biological material from Joseph.  It is a very, very widely held belief - most Evangelicals (including myself), Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox subscribe to it, but it is not accepted by many more liberal denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is suggested by Isaiah, in which it was (posibly mis-)translated &quot;Behold a Virgin shall conceive.&quot;  The famous phrasing of 7:14 is &quot;Behold, a virgin shall conceive.&quot;  The immediate context, however, is a King who is being told that his enemies shall be defeated very, very soon - so soon in fact, that if a young girl gets pregnant, she will be &quot;delievered&quot; before the child is born.  That said, by the time of the early Christians, it was popularly accepted that this also spoke of the birth of the Messiah, who would be of a girl who had not had intercourse.  The Hebrew of the OT could be young maiden, but the Greek of the NT clearly presupposes a girl who had never lain with a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, the narratives of Matthew (1:18) and Luke explicitly say that the child was put in her by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T12:57:25.170" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11987" CreationDate="2012-12-06T12:58:55.440" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;To most of Christianity it's understood that Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father. He had no earthly biological father. Instead, he played the role of father like a step-father or adoptive father would.&#xA;The significance tracing His genealogy on Joseph's side deals with inheritance if the familial right to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibletruthonline.com/thegeneologyofjesus.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;claim the title of King&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being a step-father to one, an adoptive father to another, and a biological father to three more, I can assure you that not being a biological father doesn't necessarily mean anything when it comes to familial belonging, inheritance, and rights afforded to the children, even today. It's been that way historically in most cultures as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for those who believe that Joseph was the biological father, I'd borrow Caleb's answer on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11983/is-there-a-group-of-christians-that-believes-that-jesus-was-resurrected-metaphor&quot;&gt;your previous question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every rule has an exception, and there are certainly fringe cases. It&#xA;  should be stressed that such views are not mainstream, majority or&#xA;  orthodox in any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T13:11:13.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11992" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-06T13:17:19.903" Score="7" ViewCount="291" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder whether Jesus was given enough opportunities to defend himself, whether his trial was fair and whether the investigation was thorough.  I want to know how it compares with typical criminal, political or treason trials of the time, both in Roman empire and worldwide, and also in comparison with the modern times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-02T03:46:06.857" LastActivityDate="2016-10-02T04:32:56.170" Title="How does the trial of Jesus compare to the judicial standards of the epoch and of the modern times?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11994" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="11997" CreationDate="2012-12-06T14:46:20.613" Score="6" ViewCount="827" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throughout many passages in the NWT (Jehovah's Witness specific &lt;em&gt;New World Translation&lt;/em&gt;), all instances of the pronoun &amp;quot;you&amp;quot; are written in all capitals. Here is an example from &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/bi12/books/acts/2/#v44002038&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:38&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter [said] to them: “Repent, and let each one of ​YOU​ be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of ​YOUR​ sins, and ​YOU​ will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reasoning behind this capitalization? I am familiar with the practice of capitalizing He/Him and similar pronouns when referring to God or Christ, but this appears to be quite different and I have no idea what the rational is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-26T04:58:12.283" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T04:58:12.283" Title="Why does the NWT capitalize &quot;YOU&quot; in many verses?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;nwt&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="11995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11992" CreationDate="2012-12-06T14:54:30.957" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, no and no. But it doesn't matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He was guilty of what he was charged of. Blasphemy. Claiming to be God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The thing he was guilty of did carry a death penalty under Jewish law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Jews couldn't actually administer the death penalty, they had to get something to take to the Romans to get clearance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Roman governor (Pontus Pilate) operated the trial as a political maneuver to stop a Jewish uprising (of the people that wanted to kill Jesus more so than of Jesus himself). He kept the peace by doing what the mob and religious leaders wanted. No claim was ever made of it being a fair trial.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nobody stopped to consider the fact that his claim was actually true. The final proof of that was in the pudding, and that wouldn't be served up for three more days.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nobody has ever claimed the trial was fair or investigation thorough. But nobody cared then and I'm not sure why anybody would care now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T14:32:49.943" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T14:32:49.943" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2609" CreationDate="2012-12-06T14:57:07.557" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many commentators use the scripture in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ezekiel+28/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 28:11-17&lt;/a&gt; to represent, symbolically, the angel called Lucifer or Satan who was involved with worship and was in the garden and was also among the fiery stones. (See Moses on the mountain for this reference.) All of the allusions in Ezekiel seem to say that the person/angel referred to was the devil/Satan/Lucifer. The most obvious interpretation of the scripture is that it is really about the King of Tyre but as in any scripture there is sometimes an immediate interpretation and a future completion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the example in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Isaiah+9/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 9:6&lt;/a&gt;  about Jesus and the  reference to a &quot;virgin birth,&quot; God speaks prophetically, &quot;Behold a virgin shall bring forth a child.&quot; Most historians have said this refers to another event that happened within the life of the prophet; having said this, many of the gospel writers and early church writers have understood this as a direct prophetic word for the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. So the answer to the Question in &quot;Where in the Bible does it refer to Lucifer?&quot; could refer to the story of the King Tyre and the allusions to an angel in the garden of Eden and a perfectly created being that fell because of sin and worship of his own beauty in Ezekiel. There many allusions to Lucifer in Ezekiel in chapters &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ezekiel+25&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;25&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ezekiel+28&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;28&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ezekiel+29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;29&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ezekiel+35&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;35&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Ezekiel+39&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;39&lt;/a&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3566" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-06T17:24:56.000" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T17:24:56.000" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11994" CreationDate="2012-12-06T14:57:17.287" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The capitalized YOU is used to disambiguate singular vs. plural usage. While unclear in English, the difference between singular and plural usage is clear in the original Greek sources of these texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It also makes a distinction between the singular and plural in the 2nd person personal pronoun: &quot;you&quot; is singular, and &quot;YOU&quot; is plural. In English, the word &quot;you&quot; is both singular and plural; in Greek, however, there is a clear distinction. The NWT has used this method to try and preserve this distinction. -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Ver5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION; A Critical Analysis&lt;/a&gt; by Al Maxey&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T14:43:14.493" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T14:43:14.493" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11992" CreationDate="2012-12-06T14:57:50.593" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Caleb just posted and I am saying the same thing, but so my typing does not go to waste:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you read the gospels carefully the trail of Christ was principally held in secret by the High Priest and the Sanhedrin where false witnesses were brought in to trap Christ. They sort of bungled at their attempts but eventually his own confession that he was the Christ easily gave them what they needed to hastily condemn him as a blasphemer.    So to start of with the trial was rigged to simply achieve the murmurous desire of the religious leaders. However at the time of Christ the Sanhedran could not condemn to death, as the Jews were a vassal state under Rome. Under that government the Jews had to refer all capital crimes for a Roman decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Rome did not care about their religious quarrels, the Jews had to further misrepresent the case to get their attention.  Therefore they insinuated that Jesus was a political rebel not willing to submit to Caesar.  Apparently he claimed to be 'King of the Jews', which meant he was like the Zealots who must be suppressed.  The Jews also put it this way so that if Jesus was set free it might appear that the Governor Pilate did not himself respect Caesar.    Basically the Jews gave Pilate no political choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, like a sheep before the shearer Jesus chose not to defend himself as it was his purpose to die as an atoning sacrifice for sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.&#xA;  When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. (Matthew 27:11-12, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now of course this trial would not stand in today's legal system, at least among first world countries, however,  judicially killing an innocent person back then was not entirely rare when we consider the many Christian martyr's just a few years later. Then again, to kill the only sinless man that ever walked this earth, while he being so meek, mild and perfect under every accusation can't really be compared to the injustice anywhere else ever committed in the history of the world. So in this sense there is no injustice quite like it, nor will their ever be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T14:57:50.593" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11955" CreationDate="2012-12-06T16:54:29.300" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe they have for 1914 &amp;amp; 1925, but I may be missing some years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding some info from the below source per request;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1899 &quot;...the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation&#xA;  16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of&#xA;  earth's present rulership, is already commenced,&quot; (The Time Is at&#xA;  Hand, 1908 edition, p. 101).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1918 &quot;Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the&#xA;  return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old,&#xA;  particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the&#xA;  condition of human perfection,&quot; (Millions Now Living Will Never Die,&#xA;  p. 89).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1922 &quot;The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the&#xA;  Scriptures than 1914,&quot; (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1923 &quot;Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the&#xA;  Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to&#xA;  base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming&#xA;  deluge,&quot; (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below indicate the claim to be prophets;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;So does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers&#xA;  and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the&#xA;  affirmative. Who is this prophet?...This &quot;prophet&quot; was not one man,&#xA;  but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep&#xA;  followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible&#xA;  Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses...Of&#xA;  course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God.&#xA;  It is another thing to prove it,&quot; (Watchtower,  Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197).&#xA;  (See Deut. 18:21.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All taken from this &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-their-many-false-prophecies&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3567" LastEditorUserId="3567" LastEditDate="2012-12-06T17:12:29.270" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T17:12:29.270" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12000" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="30842" CreationDate="2012-12-06T16:59:29.053" Score="13" ViewCount="10415" Body="&lt;p&gt;A while ago I was at a resort with a man who for many years worked as a church painter. He introduced me into some pieces of Christian doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He told me that the humans' souls, the angels, demons and the God himself all are the spirits.&#xA;Knowing a spirit's true name gives unlimited power over it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Jesus asked for the demon's name before he expelled it from the man and into the herd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, nobody knows the true God's name which is the highest secret, because anybody who knew it would have God's power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder to what extent this explanation reflects mainstream Christian doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-03-14T08:28:02.183" LastActivityDate="2017-03-15T16:08:58.993" Title="To what extent does mainstream Christian doctrine teach that knowing a spirit's name gives you power over it?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;&lt;spiritual-warfare&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12001" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:00:37.370" Score="11" ViewCount="807" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2012:2-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 12:2-4 (New International Version)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the&#xA;  third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not&#xA;  know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or&#xA;  apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to&#xA;  paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is&#xA;  permitted to tell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Paul is relating a story of an experience that (presumably) he had, where he mentions going to 'the third heaven' also called 'paradise' in the same passage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is he referring to? Is he talking about a distinct place other than heaven, the abode of God'? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this phrase, 'the third heaven' have some meaning in Greek that is lost in English? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How would a first century Corinthian have understood this?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2019-04-17T15:43:52.823" Title="Is there a 'Third Heaven'?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;greek&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12001" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:14:28.363" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Psalms, we read that the &lt;strong&gt;heavens&lt;/strong&gt; declare the glory of God.  In this case, the psalmist seems to be referring to what we call &quot;space&quot;, as he asserts that in the heavens is where the sun resides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his&#xA;  handiwork... 5 In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom &#xA;  leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.&#xA;  6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the&#xA;  end of them,     and there is nothing hidden from its heat. Psalm 19:1, 5-6&#xA;  ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it seems to be an invalid assumption to think that there are three (or more) heavens when heaven is taken to exclude physical realities like space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard the three &quot;heavens&quot; described as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Sky, the domain of birds (and planes), is the First Heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Space, the domain of the stars, is the Second Heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heaven, the dwelling place of God, is the Third Heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T17:14:28.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12003" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12006" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:21:07.327" Score="16" ViewCount="27056" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the crucifix there is sometimes a plate above Jesus' head that has the letters INRI. What does INRI mean or stand for? Why is it there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-23T16:47:07.603" LastActivityDate="2017-06-23T13:45:34.617" Title="What does INRI stand for?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;crucifix&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12003" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:27:44.090" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The actual inscription on the Cross was written in three languages, Latin, Greek and Aramaic.  We know from Scripture that what was actually written was &quot;Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Latin rendering of this has initials I.N.R.I.  I know in Greek there is no &quot;J&quot;, so &quot;Jesus&quot; and &quot;Jews&quot; is rendered with an &quot;I&quot;.  The &quot;R&quot; stands for King.  The word in French for King is &quot;roi&quot;, I believe, which is likely based on Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this is the meaning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I = Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;N = Nazareth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;R = King&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I = Jews&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side,&#xA;  and Jesus between them. 19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it&#xA;  on the cross. It read, “&lt;strong&gt;Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews&lt;/strong&gt;.” 20&#xA;  Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was&#xA;  crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin,&#xA;  and in Greek.  John 19:18-20 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;From Elendia:&#xA;Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T17:27:44.090" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12003" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:29:23.467" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's the initial letters of the Latin inscription Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum &quot;Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews&quot; which Pilate wrote at the Crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. John 19:19 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T17:29:23.467" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12003" CreationDate="2012-12-06T17:32:54.137" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/19/19/t_conc_1016019&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;John 19:19-20&quot;&gt;John 19:19-20&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin &lt;sup&gt;(KJV, 1769)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &amp;quot;Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews&amp;quot; was written in three languages: Hebrew (likely Aramaic), Greek, and Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Aramaic: ישוע נצריא מלכא דיהודיא (see Peshitta)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qktIa.png&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qktIa.png&quot; alt=&quot;John 19:20, Syriac Peshitta&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Greek: Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (See Textus Receptus)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZPgdt.png&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZPgdt.png&quot; alt=&quot;John 19:20, Textus Receptus, 1550&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (See Latin Vulgate)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/sGB98.png&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/sGB98.png&quot; alt=&quot;John 19:20, Latin Vulgate&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;INRI is an acronym meaning &lt;em&gt;Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum&lt;/em&gt;, or &amp;quot;Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-11-23T20:28:48.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12001" CreationDate="2012-12-06T18:06:40.803" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the FaithLife Study Bible, this (three heavens) represents the understanding of the universe held by the Greeks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to ancient cosmology, there are seven levels: the sky, the clouds, the sky above the clouds, the firmament, the waters above the firmament, the heavens, and the heaven of heavens, where God dwells. The three heavens view understands the first heaven to be the visible sky or the “firmament” (see Gen 1:8 and note), the second heaven to either be the “heavens” or the division between the “heavens” (the “waters above the firmament”; Psa 148:4), and the third to be the “heavens of heavens” or “highest heavens” (1 Kgs 8:27; Psa 148:4). All views agree on the places, but they label them differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the first &quot;heaven&quot; is the atmosphere, the sky - the &quot;heavens&quot; that you can imagine a Victorian talking about.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the second heaven is the border between the sky and what we think of as &quot;heaven,&quot; or, what I like to think of as &quot;Space&quot; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the third heaven is that bit with the pearly gates, the gold streets, and free harps. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In identifying &quot;the third heaven,&quot; Paul is saying he was in the presence of God directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="42818" LastEditDate="2019-04-17T15:43:52.823" LastActivityDate="2019-04-17T15:43:52.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="12010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2012-12-06T18:14:44.277" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ is the main subject in the Old Testament &quot;concealed&quot;. God speaks of Him in types and shadows. At Rephidim (Exodus 17:4) God told Moses to strike the Rock.The Rock is Christ (1st Corinthians 10:4), Moses represents the Law. Jesus was struck by Israel for presuming to violate the Law, for claiming to be God, which He is! When He was struck &quot;crucified&quot;, living water (John 4:10) for all humanity who would &quot;believe&quot; was poured out. Moses was told to speak to the Rock at Meribah (Numbers 20:8). As a prerequisite for Jesus to return, to save Israel during the Great Tribulation they must ask Him, (Luke 13:35). So by striking the Rock, Moses messed up God's model or type which would have modeded the 1st and 2nd comings of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to counter this mistake by Moses, He was not allowed to take Israel into the Promised Land which is a type of Heaven, Moses represents the Law, only God's Grace gets you in Heaven &quot;the Promised land, so Joshua took them in! Joshua is Hebrew for Jesus! The Law is the 1st five books of the Old Testament, called the Torah by the Jews, The very next book is &quot;Joshua&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3568" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T18:14:44.277" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12001" CreationDate="2012-12-06T18:18:14.673" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Jewish tradition (which is the milieu in which Paul was educated), there is a mention together of three heavens, as well as seven heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Three Heavens&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Targum of 2 Chronicles 6:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;שמיא עילאי ושמיא מיצעאי ושמיא תתאי&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;the supreme heaven, and the middle heaven, and the lower heaven&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Seven Heavens&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Chaggiga 12b, Resh Lakish said there are seven heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ר&quot;ל אמר שבעה ואלו הן וילון רקיע שחקים זבול מעון מכון ערבות&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vilon (וילון)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Raki'a (רקיע)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shehakim (שחקים)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zebul (זבול)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ma'on (מעון)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Machon (מכון)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aravot (ערבות)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the NT, we see the mention of a third heavem implying the existence of at least three heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T03:27:28.643" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T03:27:28.643" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11968" CreationDate="2012-12-06T18:32:12.583" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nnowhere in scripture, or any Christian theology that I know of, are Christians commanded to avenge Christ's killing. In fact there is good evidence to say that God opposes it: &quot;'Vengence is mine', sayeth the Lord&quot;. So any Christians who are taking revenge on any group because they believe them to be responsible for Jesus' death are not acting according to Christian principles. I'm not of course saying it hasn't happened - but since it's not in accordance with Christian principles then you aren't going to find any logical or theological justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-12-06T18:32:12.583" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12014" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12035" CreationDate="2012-12-06T23:02:51.980" Score="4" ViewCount="690" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of Joseph Arminius' arguments against Calvinism was that God's exhaustive foreknowledge does not require a doctrine of determinism.&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Calvinist%E2%80%93Arminian_debate#endnote_6-Picirilli&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question here is pretty straightforward: Do Calvinists actually consider themselves determinists?  In other words, Is Joseph Arminius disagreeing with Calvinism here, or is this a strawman / caricature of Calvinism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I know there are a whole slew of different views amongst those who call themselves Calvinists; I'm mostly just interested in the views of John Calvin and strict adherents to T.U.L.I.P.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T18:36:24.797" Title="Would Calvinists classify themselves as determinists?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12015" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12020" CreationDate="2012-12-06T23:15:57.750" Score="10" ViewCount="2839" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Calvinist-Arminian_debate&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Wikipedia&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard Calvinism presented in a similar way, where God has designed everything - including evil - just the way it is, all for the maximization of His own glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: &lt;strong&gt;Do Calvinists actually believe that God is the author of evil?&lt;/strong&gt; Or is this a misunderstanding / strawman / caricature of Calvinism?  (If it is, please elaborate.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please restrict the answers to the standard view of strict / classical / 5-Point Calvinists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2017-06-24T11:50:11.553" Title="Do Calvinists believe that God is the author of evil?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12017" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12138" CreationDate="2012-12-06T23:35:16.577" Score="10" ViewCount="3700" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question may seem ridiculous at first glance, but bear with me... As I learn more about Calvinism and Arminianism I am struck with the notion that they are each based on Scripture, and each emphasize important elements of the teachings of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From what I understand, Calvinists believe that God has predestined some to Paradise and some to Hell; They believe that functionally the blood of Christ will only cleanse those who are in Christ; They believe that it is impossible for a man to prevent God from doing what He has purposed to do; They believe that those who are predestined for Paradise will most certainly arrive in Paradise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From what I understand, Arminians believe that God predestines some to Paradise, but His decision is based on foreknowledge of something about that person; They believe that Christ died to provide salvation to anyone and everyone, if they will accept it; They believe that man can choose to reject the grace of God; They believe that those who come to Christ have a responsibility to continue in faith or they will no longer be &quot;in Christ&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Both believe that we are all messed up from birth and unable to choose to do good aside from God's intervention.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: &lt;strong&gt;Are these two views really incompatible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, I think I believe all of the things listed above. Is it possible that both doctrines are rooted in Scripture and each camp could grow in their understanding by learning from teachers on &quot;the other side of the table&quot;? Or, is there something fundamentally incompatible about these two views that extends beyond semantics and strawman arguments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please stick with the standard, classical views, and avoid discussions about &quot;hyper-Calvinism&quot; and other fringe interpretations of these two doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, please let me know if I have misrepresented the views of either camp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-14T15:05:48.380" LastActivityDate="2020-05-16T18:54:49.980" Title="Are Calvinism and Arminianism compatible?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12017" CreationDate="2012-12-06T23:46:34.507" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Arminianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.theopedia.com/Arminianism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Arminianism is a school of theology based on the teachings of Dutch&#xA;  theologian Jacob Arminius, for whom it is named. It is perhaps most&#xA;  prominent in the Methodist movement and found in various other&#xA;  evangelical circles today. It stands in contrast to Calvinism, with&#xA;  which it has a long history of debate. Arminians as well as Calvinists&#xA;  appeal to various Scriptures and the early church fathers to support&#xA;  their respective views, however the differences remain — particularly&#xA;  as related to the sovereignty of God in salvation and the ideas of&#xA;  election and predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Arminian theology&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Arminian party suggested five anti-Calvinist corrections,&#xA;  articulated in the Five articles of Remonstrance of 1610, which gave&#xA;  rise to the historic controversy and are summarized as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(To see how they are summarized, view the page.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arminianism is a response to Calvinism, with opposite views on each of the classic TULIP points in Calvinism, so &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;yes, they are incompatible.  Two opposite statements cannot both be true&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  One or both is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Arminians and Calvinists to agree on quite a bit, in general. It's simply in the five defining points of each - TULIP vs. FACTS &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Note, that is NOT &quot;Facts&quot; is in truth, or &quot;reality&quot; as opposed to fantasy or error.  It's merely an acronym used by several, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://evangelicalarminians.org/Outline.FACTS-of-Arminianism-vs-the-TULIP-of-Calvinism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this pro-Arminian, anti-Calvinist site&lt;/a&gt;)  I am in no way endorsing one over the other, just pointing out where the incompatibility lies.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-02-04T15:25:44.923" LastActivityDate="2014-02-04T15:25:44.923" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11969" CreationDate="2012-12-07T01:51:53.910" Score="10" Body="&lt;h2&gt;In general, yes...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Affable Geek &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11989/914&quot;&gt;answered&lt;/a&gt;, the divisions predate the printing press but were not part of the original texts.  There aren't that many &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ecpa.org/?page=bible_statement&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;publishers of Bibles&lt;/a&gt; and most of them use the same system that English translations have used since Langton.  So if you go to a Spanish-language service anywhere around the world, you can find your place in the text.  (Assuming you understand Spanish, of course.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems likely that this is for convenience and because of the network effect.  Since most tools of interpretation (dictionaries, commentaries, concordances, etc.) use the standard system, most people who purchase a Bible will expect to find it to be compatible to that system.  A publisher would quickly go out of business if they tried to introduce a novel system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;with two exceptions.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Tanakh&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As H3br3wHamm3r81's &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11972/914&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt; notes that the Jewish Bible (what we call the Old Testament) uses a different system.  Since Judaism has a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1272/914&quot;&gt;separate apparatus of interpretation&lt;/a&gt;, Jewish publishers divide chapters and verses in slightly different places.  It's not different enough to cause major problems, but we have experienced &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/638/68&quot;&gt;confusion&lt;/a&gt; over on Biblical Hermeneutics.  One noticeable pattern is that Psalms in Jewish translations often make the short descriptive text (ascription) part or all of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2622.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;verse 1&lt;/a&gt; in contrast to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Psalm+22/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/psalms/22-1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;translations&lt;/a&gt;.  For this reason, I like to quote Bible passages or at least link to them rather than just include bare citations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Psalms&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest Greek translation of the Tanakh included a slightly different &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms#Numbering&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;order of the Psalms&lt;/a&gt; then the Hebrew original.  Since the standard system adheres to the Hebrew order, this is normally not a problem.  But it's something to be aware of if you are talking Psalms across the Eastern/Western divide or if you are reading Catholic liturgy (which uses the Greek system for some reason).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it turns out, Leviticus 6:7 is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the same between the Christian system and the Jewish system:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty.”—Leviticus 6:7 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Leviticus+6/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, in front of the altar.—Leviticus 6:7 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0306.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;JPS&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It turns out the Jewish system puts what we call Leviticus 6:1-7 into the end of chapter 5 as verses 20 to 26.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T02:02:26.193" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12015" CreationDate="2012-12-07T01:54:25.407" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Westminster Confession of Faith (the doctrinal standard for many Presbyterians), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_III.html&quot;&gt;Chapter III&lt;/a&gt;, makes it clear that at least one well recognized portion of Calvinists firmly rejects the claim that God is the author of evil (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby &lt;strong&gt;neither is God the author of sin&lt;/strong&gt;; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Point VII might also be worth mentioning (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;VIII. The doctrine of this &lt;em&gt;high mystery&lt;/em&gt; of predestination is to be handled with &lt;em&gt;special prudence and care&lt;/em&gt;, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This clearly shows that these Calvinists recognized such as a &quot;high mystery&quot; and vulnerable to careless interpretation and application.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the &quot;please elaborate&quot; front, I think Calvinists are trying to embrace God's omnipotence, omniscience, and Goodness (and pancracy--all-ruling, &quot;Almighty&quot; in Revelation) while still recognizing the presence of evil in the world--all of which are strongly witnessed in Scripture.  Accepting God's absolute sovereignty and goodness (so could not be the author of evil) &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the presence of evil results in a logical problem that is resolved by assuming that the understanding of the terms is inadequate (i.e., mystery).  This, of course, does not mean that one should reject one's partial understanding of the terms even when one does not yet know how they are reconciled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T21:30:12.260" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T21:30:12.260" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11968" CreationDate="2012-12-07T04:58:31.453" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is a very good question! Like you, those of us in the historic peace churches do not believe that Jesus' death can or should be avenged by violence. After all, it was Jesus himself who said that vengeance belonged to him alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if we were to avenge his death, who is guilty? Rather, who is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; guilty? If we really believe that Jesus died for our sins, then are we not all responsible for his death? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Antisemitism is a shameful reality in the history of Christianity and I agree that the &quot;Jews killed Jesus&quot; finger-pointing implies a certain disbelief. But how like human nature to point fingers at others and hope that it will assuage the guilt within ourselves! I somehow doubt that those Christians have gotten far enough to consider the Resurrection. For them Christ is still on the cross and justice must be taken into their own hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3565" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T04:58:31.453" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12015" CreationDate="2012-12-07T09:45:05.513" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Again, Calvinism isn't monolithic in its views across the board.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/09/taking-calvinism-too-far-rc-sproul-jr%E2%80%99s-evil-creating-deity/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pen and Parchment article&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I assumed, upon further investigation, Keathley’s assessment was correct: Sproul Jr. has simply taken Calvinism way too far. His father R.C. Sproul Sr., also a Calvinist, has been much more tentative and modest about the question of sin’s starting point; he basically concludes that this is a mysterious matter, stopping well short of attributing the origin of evil to God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Herein lies the problem. Before a person can commit an act of sin he must first have a desire to perform that act. The Bible tells us that evil actions flow from evil desires. But the presence of an evil desire is already sin. We sin because we are sinners. We were born with a sin nature. We are fallen creatures. But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know” (&lt;strong&gt;Chosen by God&lt;/strong&gt; [1986], p. 30).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T19:52:21.167" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12017" CreationDate="2012-12-07T10:00:17.117" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvinists believe that man contributes nothing on the issue of justification. God is the sole source of salvation. Monergism teaches that God creates a desire to believe the Gospel in man, spiritual sensitivity, without which he would not understand, much less accept it. It requires regeneration, being made spiritually alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 2:14 NET&lt;/strong&gt; The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arminians believe that all men receive prevenient grace, enabling them to understand the Gospel. Acceptance of the Gospel results in regeneration. Synergistic salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, Calvinists restrict salvation to those God chooses. Arminians believe the choice lies with all men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:16 NET&lt;/strong&gt; For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The harm caused is not in mission. Calvinists don't choose who they share the Gispel with, they share it with the whole world, ”cosmos”. It is when followers of Christ believe they will never know if they are IN Christ, lack confidence in their election. Calvinists believe a person can make a false confession. Doubt about their own condition can be devastating, psychologically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote from an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1997ii/Wilkin.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;article by R. C. Sproul&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quote&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness that we have from time to time, and suddenly the question hit me: &amp;quot;R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?&amp;quot; Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I tried to grab hold of myself. I thought, &amp;quot;Well, it's a good sign that I'm worried about this. Only true Christians really care about salvation.&amp;quot; But then I began to take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance. My sins came pouring into my mind, and the more I looked at myself, the worse I felt. I thought, &amp;quot;Maybe it's really true. Maybe I'm not saved after all.&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T10:07:00.367" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2012-12-07T11:50:53.970" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A bit of confusion arises when the topic of giving glory to God arises. Giving glory is figuratively like using a highlight pen. It raises the visibility of the object or text, separates it (makes holy?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point in giving glory is to make sure that the cause of the good work is not missed: God.  Not because God is a praise seeking ego maniac, but because He is the only source of good things. Depending on Him is everything, depending on anything else, futile. A very, very, important lesson.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How much glory must be given to God? Enough so that He is unequivocally identified as the cause of the good work:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:22-23 NET&lt;/strong&gt; On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 9:39 NET&lt;/strong&gt; But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, &lt;strong&gt;because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try to locate where Moses said anything good about God in His speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T11:50:53.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11975" CreationDate="2012-12-07T12:12:34.630" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Holiness is what we strive for and is gradually improved in us by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. This is not something imputed to us, but something which we are commanded to become:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;since it is written, &quot;you shall be holy, for I am holy.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 1:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Righteousness is something imputed to us by the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ. While we will often talk about striving for righteousness, I believe the best context to understand it is that our&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;righteousness is as filthy rags&quot; &lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 64:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and that the only way we are considered righteous is by the imputed righteousness of Christ upon us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1342" LastEditorUserId="1342" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T18:16:20.107" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T18:16:20.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12014" CreationDate="2012-12-07T13:03:06.993" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Kind of simple but I think the best way of understanding Calvinism with respect to God's immutable absolute free will and the tiny free will he gave men is like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history of mankind was predetermined like a ship starting at London and arriving at New York.  On the ship are puny humans like grasshoppers who can do whatever they want but they can't leave the ship or alter its course at all. They will always choose to stay on it. Eventually the ship will arrive in New York no matter how hard Devil, circumstance, nations, or whatever seems to be altering it otherwise, only to be achieving it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words the envelope of history and all that we do within it are predetermined in that it is bound under his plan which can't be altered, but the many choices we make within that envelope is our true free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As regards Arminias I do not think he ever really understood Calvinism. Most of his writings are just doubts about what wise men thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to Salvation by faith in Christ, it is included in the envelope, that is predetermined. So is our unavoidable arrival into heaven under his infallible protection. But it also involves choices on the ship, such as faith on Christ. Where the envelope and the activity on the ship cross paths, this is often referred to as the effectual call, in justification. For sanctification it is often referred to as 'the final perseverance of the saints'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where Calvinists differ from themselves is to what depth these matters are personally understood, and to what level they are hid in God and what level they can be explained. I think the more knowledgeable Calvinist will feel less can be explained than the novice. Life sort of works that way in general. Young men seek total certainty, old men seek heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T13:40:20.873" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T13:40:20.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12027" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-07T14:05:23.477" Score="3" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Christianity approve wars to protect or spread the faith or to defeat the enemies of the Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, what are the conditions where faith-wars are endorsed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T14:47:51.770" Title="Does Christianity approve wars for faith?" Tags="&lt;war&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-12-09T00:47:02.487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12027" CreationDate="2012-12-07T14:31:26.493" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pretty much, No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, most Christians reject any idea of coercion in regards to &amp;quot;spreading the faith.&amp;quot; Orthodoxy (from Orthos meaning right, and doxa meaning belief) is typically considered more important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No less a luminary than &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Martin Luther&lt;/a&gt;, in commenting on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12%3A1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 12:1&lt;/a&gt;, for example, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Paul does not say: I command you; for he is preaching to such as are already Christians and godly by faith, in newness of life. These must not be coerced by means of commandments, but admonished to do willingly what has to be done with the old sinful man in them. &lt;strong&gt;For any person who does not do this willingly, simply in answer to kind admonitions, is not a Christian; and any person who wants to achieve this result by force applied to such as are unwilling is not a Christian preacher or ruler, but a worldly jailer.&lt;/strong&gt; A preacher of the Law comes down on men with threats and punishments; a preacher of divine grace coaxes and urges men by reminding them of the goodness and mercy which God has shown them. For He would have no unwilling workers nor heedless service; He wants men to be glad and cheerful in the service of God. Any person who will not permit himself to be coaxed and urged with sweet and pleasant words, which remind him of the mercy of God abundantly bestowed upon him in Christ, to do good joyfully and lovingly to the honor of God and for the benefit of his fellow men, is worthless, and all that is done for him is labor lost. If he is not melted and dissolved in the fire of heavenly love and grace, how can he be softened and made cheerful by laws and threats? It is not a man’s mercy, but the mercy of God that is bestowed on us; and this mercy Paul wants us to consider in order that we may be incited and moved by it to serve God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Just War Theory&lt;/a&gt; as promulgated by the famous fifth century theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Augustine&lt;/a&gt;, said that a war should only be fought when protecting others from egregious harm - an extension of God's protection for the widow and orphan, as well an extension of the Golden Rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good summary of &lt;em&gt;jus ad bellum&lt;/em&gt;, meaning just causes for war are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just Cause: War is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger,” i.e. to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human life existence, and to basic human rights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Competent Authority: The right to use force must be joined with the common good; war must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right Intention: War can be legitimately intended for only the reasons set forth as a just cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last Resort: For war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proportionality: The destruction to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms. Destruction applies in both the temporal and spiritual sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those incidents in which the faith was either &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;extended&amp;quot; by coercion (say, the Inquisition, incidents during colonialization) are typically considered to be negative things by modern Christians today. Even the most right-wing and fundamentalist types like Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell never advocated for a return to these methods. Even Fred Phelps uses &amp;quot;Crusades&amp;quot; as a perjorative! Typically, the most common example of a &amp;quot;faith war&amp;quot; would be the Crusades, and to be sure, religion did play a part in those wars.  Grant you,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(a) that was nearly a thousand years ago and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(b) the Fourth Crusade in particular, in which Christian forces from Italy sacked the Christian capital of Byzantium (1204), shows that there was a lot more involved than just religion,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but it is usually the argument.  Most other &amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot; conflicts, like the Thirty Years War, fall into the same category - they were political conflicts as much as religious ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T14:47:51.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12029" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12034" CreationDate="2012-12-07T14:40:04.733" Score="21" ViewCount="2854" Body="&lt;p&gt;When one is introduced to the Book of Mormon, he is oftentimes asked to pray to find out whether or not the Book of Mormon is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to LDS theology, why is a person simply asked to pray about it, rather than looking at historical, archaeological, prophetical, and other fields of evidence that attest to the authenticity and divine authorship of the Bible?  Also, how exactly is one expected to know whether or not God has confirmed that the Book of Mormon is true?  How is God expected to answer the person's prayer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T14:50:51.177" LastActivityDate="2014-02-24T07:32:43.693" Title="How is one supposed to &quot;know&quot; whether or not the Book of Mormon is true?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12030" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12031" CreationDate="2012-12-07T14:47:18.350" Score="9" ViewCount="1600" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, a good friend of mine posed the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What (or who) is Satan and how do we know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I answered him, saying that Satan is an evil angel because this is what I've been taught since I was a child. However, after further investigation (meaning looking through relevant portions of the Bible) I could not justify my claim. In fact, the only form that Satan is described as having, in my investigation, is the form of a dragon. So, that's my question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the form of Satan? Is he/it a dragon, human, angel, something else, or is his/its form indeterminate? Please use scripture to support your answer, and thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2025" LastActivityDate="2013-12-10T13:22:02.433" Title="Of what nature is Satan?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12030" CreationDate="2012-12-07T14:49:17.200" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 11:14 says that Satan masquerades as &quot;an angel of Light.&quot; From that we can deduce that Satan is, in fact, and angel, Albeit not an angel of light. Still, you are right that there is very little in the Bible about him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that he is &quot;the Accuser of the Brethern&quot; (from Job), and in fact, &quot;Ha-Satan&quot; is Hebrew for &quot;Accuser.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that he is a snake (Gen 3), a lion waiting to devour (Gen 4), and that he is the Prince of the Power of the Air (Ephesian 2:2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 12, he often associated with &quot;the Beast, that evil dragon,&quot; but it is wise to remember that Revelation has all sorts of wild imagery that seems intended as metaphor as much as description.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in Isaiah 14, Christian tradition has said that he is Lucifer, the Morning Star, who was brought down by pride. Ezekiel 28 is another text often applied to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, most everything else we know about Satan is historical tradition.  Paradise Lost, in particular, has shaped many people's beliefs about &quot;the Fall from Heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T21:52:05.010" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T21:52:05.010" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12029" CreationDate="2012-12-07T14:56:00.247" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to LDS history, Joseph Smith was meditating on James 1:5 when he had his first encounter with Jesus. That verse says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That guiding principle has underscored much of Mormon theology since - God gives wisdom to those who ask for it.  As Mormons believe their scriptures to be wisdom from God, then asking God for the wisdom to see that is a natural extension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.blogoverflow.com/2012/09/01/smith-and-james/&quot;&gt;Christianity blog post&lt;/a&gt; by a certain Affable Geek may help with more insight on that meditation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2012-12-09T05:05:39.923" LastActivityDate="2012-12-09T05:05:39.923" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12029" CreationDate="2012-12-07T15:05:18.630" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mormons don't &amp;quot;simply ask&amp;quot; people to pray about it, but to &lt;em&gt;read&lt;/em&gt; the book, to make knowing whether it is true or not the focus of their desires, and &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; to pray and ask God, and &amp;quot;ponder it in their hearts&amp;quot;, and if he has &amp;quot;a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.3-5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moroni 10:3-5&lt;/a&gt;), he will know whether or not it is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply, because historical and archaeological sources are the wisdom of man, but the revelations of God can penetrate the heart. Testimonies of the Book of Mormon come just as Paul, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/1.11-12#10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 1:11-12&lt;/a&gt;, received a testimony of the gospel and learned its truths:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached&#xA;of me is not after man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6802/are-there-truths-that-can-only-be-known-through-spiritual-means/6806#6806&quot;&gt;It is by the Spirit of God that one gains a true testimony&lt;/a&gt;. This can happen in any number of ways, according to God's will and the person's humility. Mormons don't really limit how God will answer another person's prayers. But almost universally, a feeling of peace will enter into their heart and mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, I think I understand why you included &amp;quot;prophetical&amp;quot; in your list along with &amp;quot;historical&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;archaeological&amp;quot; fields, in that you probably know that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6039/is-there-any-biblical-basis-for-believing-in-the-book-of-mormon/6043#6043&quot;&gt;Mormons tend to discourage looking at Bible references for proof that the Book of Mormon is true&lt;/a&gt;. I think that is the difference. When one looks for &amp;quot;proof,&amp;quot; their heart is not in the right place. When one seeks a divine witness, however, they are more ready for the sacred revelations of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this is not to say that scriptures should not be used as a reference. That would be foolish. &lt;em&gt;Use&lt;/em&gt; the scriptures, study them, and use them to reinforce your own understanding, and enlighten your mind, and avoid deception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/book-of-mormon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here's an official page describing how to know the Book of Mormon is true&lt;/a&gt; (scroll down).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, the best thing one can do to know whether it's true or not is to &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;read the book with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; It is not merely a matter of praying about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T15:50:14.527" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12029" CreationDate="2012-12-07T15:14:53.157" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand the answer, it's important to understand the actual invitation.  It can be found in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10?lang=eng#4&quot;&gt;Moroni 10: 4-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye&#xA;  would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these&#xA;  things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with&#xA;  real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it&#xA;  unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all&#xA;  things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this in mind, the answer is that historical evidence can always be disputed.  There's an impressive corpus of &quot;historical, archaeological, prophetical and other evidence and archaeological evidence&quot; that testifies to the truth of the Book of Mormon, but like the evidence in favor of the Bible, it's all subject to interpretation.  It's all made up of things that happened to other people who are dead now. They can't tell their own story, and we never truly know if we have all the evidence or not.  New things are always turning up, and people come up with new theories and interpretations, sometimes based on reading the evidence, and sometimes based on reading something &lt;em&gt;into&lt;/em&gt; the evidence that they want to be there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the witness of the Holy Ghost is testimony from God's spirit directly to yours.  It's a very personal affair, and it didn't happen to someone else.  It happened to &lt;em&gt;you,&lt;/em&gt; and you know what you received from the Lord, and no alternate interpretation from some other person who hasn't experienced it can change the reality of that witness.  Simply put, it's the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; truly trustworthy evidence there is, because it comes directly from the only perfectly trustworthy &lt;em&gt;source&lt;/em&gt; there is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to how one is supposed to recognize the answer, this will probably sound like a cop-out, but the best answer is &quot;you'll know it when it happens.&quot;  The problem is that any description requires a common frame of reference, and the witness of the Holy Ghost is a unique experience that isn't like anything that would be familiar to anyone who doesn't already have experience with it.  It's often described as a strong feeling of peace, and a sensation of warmth, a &quot;burning in your bosom&quot; to use the scriptural language, but it's not the same as physical heat.  But once one has experienced it, they truly know that they have received a testimony from the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T15:20:08.287" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T15:20:08.287" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12014" CreationDate="2012-12-07T15:16:19.853" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say yes.   Though it may seem a cop-out, there does seem to be some philosophical distinction between hard- and soft-determinism, though, and I think most mainline Calvinists would affirm &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/08/compatibilistic_determinism.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Compatabilism&lt;/a&gt;.    By definition, Compatabilism takes a syncretic view of determinism and free agency. So, yes, determinism is part of the equation, but it's not quite as simple as just leaving it at that.  God -- with full omnipotence and eternal omniscience -- creates each man knowing full well what that man will do, but each man does what he does freely (non-coerced) according to his nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this helps, but I think the image of God as author -- which seems to be a fairly prevalent theme in Scripture -- helps me understand this.   Authors obviously control the actions of their characters, but a good author creates his characters in such a way that their actions (fore-ordained as they may be) just seem to naturally flow as extensions of their respective natures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T15:16:19.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11983" CreationDate="2012-12-07T15:25:34.437" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably the most famous modern proponent of this idea is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Dominic Crossan&lt;/a&gt;, a leading member of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus Seminar&lt;/a&gt;.  This liberal group promulgated exactly the theory that you describe - Jesus' resurrection was a metaphor from which the disciples took inspiration, rather than a real event.  The fact that each one of his disciples took so much inspiration that they each willing undertook a martyrs death does not factor into their analyses, as it does not fit their theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Needless to say, most evangelicals and other conservative Christians, like myself, don't tend to think very highly of this group, despite their academic credentials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-12-07T15:36:26.017" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T15:36:26.017" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12030" CreationDate="2012-12-07T18:01:56.813" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religionfaq.org/Judaism/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Religionfaq.org&lt;/a&gt; article&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quote&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Many Jews believe that &amp;quot;the adversary&amp;quot; is simply a personification of our inclinations to evil. Judaism teaches us a path through Torah precept how to overcome the evil incliation. Judaism teaches us how to be accountable for our behaviors, accept responsibility when we do wrong, make amends and choose to do better in our walk with God through Tikkun Olam. ( working as partners with God and fellow humans to repiar and restore the world to righteousness, justice, mercy and harmony) HaSatan can be thought of as the outward projection and manifestation of the impulse to think for self alone and above all else with immediate gratification&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its helpful in most cases to observe continuity with Judaism and its views. I say, in most cases, because, sometimes, Judaism hasn't developed a view on certain issues. So it wouldn't be profitable to look for views on the topic of the afterlife, for instance. There isn't one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Satan, however, Judaism describes HaSatan, the adversary both as a drive, the yetzer hara within man, as well as an entity, one that enters Heaven and accuses men, God's men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's because Judaism has no problems personifying emotions, traits, properties and characteristics of God and men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing is clear though. Satan may be the accuser, but he works for God. He serves a purpose in God's scheme of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T18:01:56.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12014" CreationDate="2012-12-07T18:36:24.797" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Calvin himself, I think the answer is a qualified &amp;quot;yes&amp;quot; - qualified, because his views should be distinguished from a merely mechanistic view of what determinism means (as if the unfolding of time was just a physical system, nothing to do with God). Calvin saw the action of God at work in all things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to inanimate objects, again we must hold that though each is possessed of its peculiar properties, yet all of them exert their force only in so far as directed by the immediate hand of God. Hence they are merely instruments, into which God constantly infuses what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. [...]  Every single year, month, and day, is regulated by a new and special providence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And truly God claims omnipotence to himself, and would have us to acknowledge it: not the vain, indolent, slumbering omnipotence which sophists feign, but vigilant, efficacious, energetic, and ever active; not an omnipotence which may only act as a general principle of confused motion, as in ordering a stream to keep within the channel once prescribed to it, but one which is intent on individual and special movements. God is deemed omnipotent, not because he can act though he may cease or be idle, or because by a general instinct he continues the order of nature previously appointed; but because, governing heaven and earth by his providence, he so overrules all things that nothing happens without his counsel.&#xA;(&lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; 1.16.2-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Events, which may appear to be random or contingent, are only perceived as such by us because we lack the perspective of God, and this includes &amp;quot;the contingency which depends on human will&amp;quot; (&lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt; 1.16.8). The same is true about the future: &amp;quot;All future events being uncertain to us, seem in suspense as if ready to take either direction. Still, however, the impression remains seated in our hearts, that nothing will happen which the Lord has not provided.&amp;quot; (1.16.9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his treatise &lt;em&gt;The eternal predestination of God&lt;/em&gt;, Calvin explicitly denied that Adam in the Fall was exercising his will in contradiction to the divine will. Here, he makes a distinction between God as he appears to us, and God as he really is. His will (as we understand it) may be frustrated from time to time, but the true situation is that God's &amp;quot;decreeing will&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;overruling omnipotence&amp;quot; is always supreme. Now, Calvin &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; believe that Adam &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; a will! Adam's guilt comes from the way that his will was inclined in that moment, and the subsequent action (even though Calvin says he had no real power to will or act otherwise). The view he develops is essentially that our will is not truly a &lt;em&gt;free&lt;/em&gt; will - it is not independent of God - though it seems real to us. We certainly do not achieve salvation on our own, nor even by joint action with God: it's all him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several problems here which Calvin does not adequately resolve (and of which he is aware). He is taking an extreme position, and I think at some points he overreaches rhetorically. I think that the basic thrust of the Calvinistic attitude does not lead inexorably to this very strong view. In particular, there's a conflict between Calvin's view of God's sovereignty, and his view of our salvation, that hinges on whether we are truly morally responsible for evil that God &amp;quot;causes&amp;quot;. He admits himself that he has no answer to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how it was that God, by His foreknowledge and decree, ordained what should take place in Adam, and yet so ordained it without His being Himself in the least a participator of the fault, or being at all the author or the approver of the transgression; how this was, I repeat, is a secret manifestly far too deep to be penetrated by any stretch of human intellect. Herein, therefore, I am not ashamed to confess my utter ignorance. And far be it from anyone of the faithful to be ashamed to confess his ignorance of that which the Lord God has wholly enveloped in the blaze of His own inaccessible light!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-07T18:36:24.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11974" CreationDate="2012-12-07T21:38:53.437" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I’m understanding you correctly, this is your central claim:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If God’s λόγος was created, then it did not exist before it was created. The corollary is that God at one point lacked λόγος, or was ἄλογος. The Greek word ἄλογος means “without reason, logic; irrational; illogical.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Er, no. It doesn’t &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; work like that. Here’s Witness theology, as I recall it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is God. Immutable. Unchanging. “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/39/3/6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Malachi 3:6&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Λόγος is a separate being (better known to us as Jesus, but bearing many other names besides, including Michael). The word is not, in this context, describing a quality of God, or an aspect of his nature. It’s a name. A person’s name. No doubt it’s a meaningful name, and the person so described is wise, but that does not mean that others lack wisdom, discernment, and rationality. Notably, God himself possesses all those qualities. And always has done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How do Arians and/or Jehovah’s Witnesses respond when it is said that their God was without reason, irrational, and illogical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don’t know. I’ve never heard it said before. As far as I’m aware, this question is unique to you. You’ve come up with a novel approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I must say that the concept of an irrational God becoming rational would be a rather artistically pleasing element to a creation myth, but it does not form part of Witness theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2016-03-18T01:55:29.813" LastActivityDate="2016-03-18T01:55:29.813" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8145" CreationDate="2012-12-08T05:22:25.883" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, you must define the term &quot;the messiah&quot;. What criteria make one &quot;the messiah&quot;? Is the fact that there are billions of people who call him &quot;the messiah&quot; enough to make one a messiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope you understand that these criteria should be well defined &lt;strong&gt;before&lt;/strong&gt; the days of Jesus. You don't want your criteria to sound like &quot;If he looks like Jesus, he is probably the messiah - hence Jesus is the messiah. QED.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for example verses that talk about &quot;casting lots for somebody's clothes&quot; are not a prophecy about the messiah, since if this event really happened in Jesus life (doubtful, since there are older versions of the gospels without that story, which shows that somebody tried to fabricate a &quot;prophecy&quot; - but let's assume it did happen) - still, 100 years before Jesus, nobody who would read that verse would say it's something that MUST happen to &quot;the messiah&quot; - there's nothing in that verse that actually points to &quot;the messiah&quot;. To say that it's a messianic prophecy means that it's valid for one to say that all those many verses that Jesus did not have something similar to them happen in his life - are actually messianic prophecies that Jesus failed to fulfill.... otherwise you are clearly choosing your &quot;messianic prophecies&quot; post factum, according to one criterion: did it (apparently) happen in Jesus' life or not....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question: no, the Jews were not expecting the messiah to suffer, because there is not one verse in the Hebrew Bible that says that that man would suffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are passages in the Hebrew Bible that talk about suffering individuals, or suffering groups of people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are passages in the Hebrew Bible that talk about what people later started calling &quot;the messiah&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But all those passages never overlap. When Christians say that passages of the former category talk about the messiah, they do so on faith alone - it's not in the text at all (read those texts for yourself!) - and many times it's clearly against the text and the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you carefully read the passages of the latter type - you'd see that they are not actually concerned with the man himself, but with the age that he ushers, the changes he brings. That man himself is regarded as just a tool of God. The man himself is not to be worshiped - on the contrary, many of the passages show that that man would regard God as his ruler, and would be obedient to him. God obedient to himself?!? I would say that those who missed that point are the ones who misunderstood the text, not the Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3577" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-12-19T09:15:49.070" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T09:15:49.070" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11922" CreationDate="2012-12-08T07:47:22.097" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;These sorts of questions are always difficult to answer as they often require an understanding of God's sovereignty which in many ways is incomprehensible. What a wise being with infinite wisdom, knowledge of all and unlimited power can orchestrate, manipulate, foresee and advert etc. is impossible for us to ponder. In this sense virtually any external event may be used for some higher good as part of the divine 'emergency recovery operations' of a fallen world, even a global catastrophe like a global flood can have its purpose. Yet none of this is 'God's will' in the sense that we benefit from knowing if it is, or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I think your specific question can side step the regular difficulties as you seem to be asking about God's direct will which can be determined to some degree. This is 'God's will' in the sense that he wants us to know it and that knowledge would be beneficial to us. Well from this standpoint his will is that we do not sin.  This really is God's will in the main sense.  We often get lost thinking philosophically about his hidden will, but we only need to concern ourselves with his clear will.  His will is that we love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, and these we can only do by faith in Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question to ask is did an event come about by sin, or by love.  In whatever sense global warming has or will come about by greed it would not be God's will.  If it partially comes about because of attempts to secure shelter, safety and general prosperity for the poor, by faith in Christ it is God's will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately when we limit God's will to this clear scope most everything that happens in the world every day is not God's direct will.  It therefore makes the question less relevant as the answer is almost always no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's will will be followed in heaven.  Until then to whatever degree we rely on the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and so in gratitude to his grace love and delight in God and become generous and kind to our neighbor, being also gracious to them by enjoying them in any way we can while publishing Christ's dying love, we are growing more and more in line with God's will.  But even then everything we do, wether eating or drinking has mixed motives in it, so part of our loyalty to our boss may be God's will and part fleshly and not his will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see it is all about the heart so we will only know in heaven what was God's will and what was not because our hearts are deceitful.  Most likely whatever seemed most like God's will on earth, as viewed by the world, we may find was not. It is by faith we see his will and by faith that we do it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-12-08T07:54:58.733" LastActivityDate="2012-12-08T07:54:58.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12046" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12059" CreationDate="2012-12-08T12:44:33.130" Score="11" ViewCount="965" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is necessary before someone is considered &quot;saint&quot; in Eastern Orthodox Church? Good life/martyrdom, any miracle/only preservation of the body/some other distinct miracle and cult of the saint? Is there something similar to beatification/canonization process, or is the saintness of certain person just pronounced? Who have the authority to pronounce someone saint?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T03:04:21.427" Title="Beatification/canonization process in Eastern Orthodox Church" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17" CreationDate="2012-12-08T17:19:32.493" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Gentile, Jesus Christ saves you from what exactly? You were never given a Law to keep, so you are not guilty of violating it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not guilty of breaking the French law, since I am not and never have been a French citizen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the Jews, it's stated repeatedly in the Law of Moses that this law is &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt;. Which means: it's eternal, not to be changed. Ever. No matter what. It cannot be replaced by believing in Jesus. Unless you assume God is schizophrenic. For example, see Leviticus 23:31 &quot;Ye shall do no manner of work; &lt;strong&gt;it is a statute for ever throughout your generations&lt;/strong&gt; in all your dwellings.&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And no, linguistic gyrations such as, &quot;Okay, I guess the law is eternal, only now it's kept through believing in Jesus&quot; don't really work. They are not supported at all by anything in the text. It's like saying, &quot;I don't cheat on my wife, I love her just the same, only through sleeping with my co-worker.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3577" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-12-19T16:33:10.520" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T16:33:10.520" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12050" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-08T17:45:45.427" Score="5" ViewCount="925" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question, most likely, has the presumption of theistic evolution or at least 'old-earth' creationism, however answers without that presumption are welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suffering and pain exist in our world is because of sin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2024&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 24:2-6&lt;/a&gt; among others); presumably animals and the the entire created universe suffer the &quot;groaning of creation&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:19-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:19-22&lt;/a&gt;) because of sin. And we wait on the redemption of the world through Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, before the fall, or before humans even existed, there must have been countless animals and creatures who suffered horrifically (as many do today). Why were these animals allowed to suffer, as it seems they did, before sin had even entered the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T02:14:19.497" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T00:38:48.580" Title="Sin and Animal Suffering before the fall?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12051" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-08T17:51:54.423" Score="13" ViewCount="9975" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Methodist churches, I usually see the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I believe in the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    the &lt;strong&gt;holy catholic church&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    the &lt;strong&gt;communion of saints&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    the forgiveness of sins,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    the resurrection of the body,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    and the life everlasting. Amen.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do &quot;holy catholic church&quot; and &quot;communion of saints&quot; actually refer to?  Also, regarding the phrase &quot;I believe in the Holy Spirit&quot;, what is the view on that? Shouldn't our belief be in Jesus Christ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3578" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-08T20:40:01.333" LastActivityDate="2017-09-17T03:36:49.373" Title="How do Methodists understand the Apostle's Creed?" Tags="&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;methodist&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12051" CreationDate="2012-12-08T18:18:17.840" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Phrase &quot;Holy catholic Church&quot; does not refer to the Roman Catholic church, but to the &quot;universal church&quot;, i.e. all true Christians, whatever earthly religious organization they belong to. The word 'catholic' just means universal. That and the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_of_Saints&quot;&gt;Communion of Saints&lt;/a&gt;&quot; refers to a belief in the essential unity of all true Christians, whatever disagreements they currently have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Methodists, along with most Christians believe in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity&quot;&gt;God who is a Trinity&lt;/a&gt;; three persons in one God: Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is as much God as the Father or the Son, and is believed in just as much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: The text you quote is only the last part of the Apostle's Creed, the whole of which also includes statements of belief in the Father and the Son. The full text can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, in several very-close versions. The Church of England Common Worship version is probably closest to what Methodists would accept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-12-09T18:57:05.010" LastActivityDate="2012-12-09T18:57:05.010" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12050" CreationDate="2012-12-08T21:38:24.823" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the first three chapters of Genesis, it appears that there was no killing in the Garden. Later, when Isaiah prophesied about &quot;the Lion lying down with the lamb,&quot; it is an echo of that state of nature which is so unlike the one today. From a Biblical point of view then, I would have to disagree with your premise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-12-08T21:38:24.823" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12051" CreationDate="2012-12-10T01:40:40.063" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Catholic&quot; is like the opposite of a word such as Jacuzzi, Xerox, or Kleenex. The latter are brands that have become synonymous with a specific meaning: hot tub, copy machine, tissue. The former had a specific meaning, and is now associated with a &quot;brand&quot; of Christianity. The former meaning is that you can think of the word &quot;Catholic&quot; as a synonym for the word &quot;Universal&quot;. That should clear up the first item in your question: there is one universal church of Christ. Don't let all the denominations fool you: depending on which group you subscribe to, the meaning here is either that they are all part of the Lord's church, if perhaps misguided on some point of doctrine or other, or not really Christian at all (though today this latter view is rare). Stating belief in this church in the creed is stating your full acceptance of all that the Church teaches&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In talking about &quot;communion of Saints&quot;, the creed is not referring only to those who have been granted the formal title, such as Saint Augustine or Saint Paul. It refers to everyone who is &lt;em&gt;sanctified&lt;/em&gt; by the blood of Jesus... in other words, all Christians. When the creed says that they are in communion, it reminds us that we are all followers of Jesus: not Calvin, not Luther, not the Pope, but Jesus, and reminds us of his prayer in John 17 that &quot;they may all be one.&quot; It also refers to a connection we all have to Jesus, through the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Side note to the answer, but within the context of a denomination, this often refers specifically to the teachings of that said denomination, and sometime even for the denomination to assert authority over it's supplicants. This is one reason why the denomination I belong to does not support the use of &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; creed. We believe it's up to the individual to study and find out for themselves what God's word says, and a big part of formal church worship time is to help and support you along that road.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2015-05-03T20:37:36.900" LastActivityDate="2015-05-03T20:37:36.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8982" CreationDate="2012-12-10T02:45:34.683" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to it's location as the site of the original Temple, and the place where Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac, the Dome of the Rock does still play in Christianity today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, the Crusaders thought it &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; Solomon's Temple, so they let it stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More importantly today, however, many evangelicals see the Dome of the Rock in End Times prophecy.  Many dispensationalists believe that in order for Jesus to return, the Temple must be rebuilt.  Because the Dome of the Rock is where the Temple was, many Evangelicals believe that the Dome of the Rock must be destroyed in order to usher in the End of Days. (No, no Mehdi here, we don't believe it &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be destroyed, just that it will.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This particular understanding has led to many attacks on the Dome of the Rock over the years, leading psychologists to coin an ideas called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jerusalem Syndrome&lt;/a&gt; in which self-appointed Messiahs will sometimes take it upon themselves to be this agent of the End Times coming. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T10:17:50.373" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T10:17:50.373" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12046" CreationDate="2012-12-10T03:04:21.427" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can tell you of the &lt;code&gt;Russian Orthodox Church&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;code&gt;Synodal Commission&lt;/code&gt; which examines the issue and has the authority to glorify the person as a saint. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;code&gt;locally venerated&lt;/code&gt; saints, which are venerated in a eparchy, and &lt;code&gt;commonly venerated saints&lt;/code&gt;, which are inserted to the calendar common to all the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eparchial veneration is sanctioned by the Patriarch and common veneration is sanctioned by the Сouncil of Bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main criteria are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;righteous life&#xA;irreproachable orthodoxy&#xA;popular veneration&#xA;working of miracles&#xA;imperishable relics&#xA;martyrdom&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the material confirming a person's sainthood is submitted to the Synodal Commission by the Eparchy or other body, it checks if there are evidences of a righteous life by the contemporaries, documented and verifiable miracles, if relics are present and if the claimed genuinely professed Orthodox Christianity and was in communion with the Patriarchate Church, and it recommends the Patriarch or the Council to affirm the claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, there are different titles to the saints in Orthodox church, describing their life position - clergymen/laymen/marthyrs etc. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eastern_Orthodox_saint_titles&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://aliom.orthodoxy.ru/arch/021/021-tert_kanon.htm&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt; in Russian:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What i wrote is from the Internet, I have no personal expertise or experience in canonisation process, so use this info with &quot;limited warranty&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3582" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T03:04:21.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12060" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12068" CreationDate="2012-12-10T12:41:36.613" Score="5" ViewCount="3977" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is it that some denominations follow the ordinance of humility as described in John 13 while others do not? What reason is there for not performing the foot washing ceremony before partaking in the Lord's Supper?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3430" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T23:46:07.453" LastActivityDate="2016-11-02T19:14:23.937" Title="Why do some denominations not wash feet before taking communion?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12061" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12062" CreationDate="2012-12-10T12:57:46.300" Score="4" ViewCount="4583" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is it that many denominations partake of leavened bread and wine during the Lord's Supper when the bread and wine of the original Supper was unleavened? The Passover coincides with the start of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3430" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T13:30:21.577" LastActivityDate="2019-06-20T08:47:38.930" Title="Why do some churches eat leavened bread and wine for the Lord's Supper?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12061" CreationDate="2012-12-10T13:29:10.633" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theologically, Episcopalians liken the leaven to the power of the Holy Spirit giving lift and rise to the loaf. As an Episcopalian myself, however, my pragmatic analysis is that this is primarily because they like the taste better (silly 'Episcopalians).  I, too, however dislike the symbolism, because in my mind, leaven is associated with sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T13:29:10.633" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9915" CreationDate="2012-12-10T15:59:51.547" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two aspects seem inadequately covered in the previous answers: the natural human response to good news (Gospel) and the glorification of a person one loves (particularly a hero).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One would think it odd if a citizen of Berlin did not become a bit evangelic about the fall of the Berlin wall but just went about as if nothing special had happened and when told about the good news of great joy just said something like &quot;I already knew about this wonderful news and have already taken a piece of the wall. Now I need to get back to work.&quot;  There is something human about wanting to share good news.  (Of course, fear, doubt, and other factors can suppress this natural inclination.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The motive of glorifying one's beloved is also a very natural, human motive.  One might think it a bit odd if a husband did not want to tell the world about some great accomplishment of his wife (though this sort of boasting seems more common with parents and children).  The husband would naturally try to convince others that the accomplish is great which includes expressing the relevance to each individual.  This aspect may be expressed in 1 Peter 2:9b: &quot;that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light&quot; (NIV).  Even Christ as a hero should naturally generate boasting (e.g., consider how some boast of the accomplishments of sports heroes; I suspect that such boasting would occur even if the boaster &lt;em&gt;knew&lt;/em&gt; the other would never be convinced beyond &quot;okay that person is not the worst athlete in the world&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if there was no love of neighbor, no awareness of the command, no appreciation of being an active part of this grand plan of redemption, I suspect basic human nature would provide some motivation for sharing this Good News; so part of the answer to &quot;why evangelize&quot; may be &quot;because one is human&quot; (the perfecting of this humanness may 'simply' be part of sanctification; so true humanness plus an awareness of the goodness of the news with a love/admiration of the hero behind the news would lead to spreading the news).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T15:59:51.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11348" CreationDate="2012-12-10T17:51:53.907" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church is called the Bride of Christ.  Fornication indicates that the Church is not faithful to Christ, but it is promoting the worship of false gods.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Babylon the Great&lt;/code&gt; is a church that appears to the the True Church, but it is a counterfeit which is engaged in the promotion of false religions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John Paul II, March 21, 2000:  “May Saint John the Baptist protect&#xA;  Islam and all the people of Jordan&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a video on the topic with references available &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNCMaa6r5oY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T17:51:53.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12060" CreationDate="2012-12-10T17:53:49.103" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I am not familiar with any denomination that practices footwashing as part of communion celebrations, I can address an issue that is implicit in the questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Descriptive&lt;/strong&gt; is not the same a &lt;strong&gt;prescriptive&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, just because the Bible describes some people as doing something that doesn't mean all Christians should always do that too. As an extreme example the Bible tells us of bad things done, even by people described as 'righteous, such as the adultery of King David, and Peter's denial of Jesus. We are not expected to follow their examples. We have to use judgement, and follow Biblical guidelines, as to what is an example to be followed and what is description.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord's Supper itself is not just descriptive. As well as describing what happens, Jesus' command is recorded: &quot;Do this as often as you eat/drink it&quot;. No such command is attached to washing the disciples feet. In fact Jesus makes it pretty clear that what he is doing is not actually about feet, but about leadership and humility. Jesus expects leaders to act with humility towards their followers and be their servants. Actual literal footwashing may or may not be involved. Most Christians would say that a leader who carried out literally the act of washing people's feet, but behaved arrogantly towards the people they lead was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; carrying out Jesus wishes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T17:53:49.103" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12069" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-10T19:03:10.640" Score="6" ViewCount="505" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am aware that some, but certainly not all, Protestant denominations employ the practice of foot washing in their services.  I understand that this is based on John 13, where Jesus washes the feet of His disciples.  However, how and why did this practice become adopted as a literal practice rather than a general principle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the origin of this practice in churches?  Does it predate the Reformation or was it practiced before that in either the Orthodox and/or Catholic church?  What denominations employ this practice today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2012-12-26T22:06:39.523" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T01:14:15.710" Title="Why did foot washing become a common practice in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;ritual&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12070" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-10T20:28:08.740" Score="4" ViewCount="44" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/488/did-jesus-spend-time-in-hell-between-the-crucifixion-and-resurrection&quot;&gt;Did Jesus spend time in Hell between the crucifixion and resurrection?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the dutch traditional creed, is written that Jesus went down to hell. And sometimes people say Jesus overcame the grave, the death or hell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But also, Jesus says to the thief next to him at the cross that he will be in paradise with him today. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering, where was Jesus' soul/spirit or whatever when his body was in the grave?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3355" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T15:33:31.170" Title="Where did Jesus go after he died at the cross?" Tags="&lt;easter&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-12-10T23:29:52.020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12072" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-10T20:31:53.103" Score="9" ViewCount="22974" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is before creation, so where does water come from? why it exist before the first day? And if there is face of water, there seems to me should be some gravity somewhere, what's the stage of universe at this time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1960" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-13T00:38:34.220" LastActivityDate="2015-10-27T18:09:30.383" Title="How and when did the water come into being?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-10-08T03:07:08.237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12072" CreationDate="2012-12-10T20:52:16.300" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, you see, when two atoms of hydrogen love an atom of oxygen very much...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I was a literalist (and it seems you are looking through those glasses) my interpretation was that when God created the heavens and the earth (&lt;em&gt;Gen. 1:1, &quot;In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;), that would have included the waters. Since the waters and the lands and the waters above the heavens and the waters on the earth were not separated yet, then it is a bit difficult to nail down the dimensionality of it all, but simply because we cannot conceive of a world where there is little boundary between gaseous and liquid state that does not means that it could not exist. Of course, fog exists, so it is quite possible that water was originally created as a liquid suspended in air.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might be reading too much into &quot;over&quot;. To say that God is literally and exclusively &quot;over&quot; something is as nonsensical as saying he is literally and exclusively &quot;under&quot; something. Time and space are never literal in such a context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2012-12-10T20:58:00.623" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T20:58:00.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12069" CreationDate="2012-12-10T21:00:53.590" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sacrament&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outward sign of an inward grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 7:38&lt;/strong&gt;  Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 4:14&lt;/strong&gt;  but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has the same connotation as the Eucharist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6&lt;/strong&gt; :53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:8&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;No,&amp;quot; said Peter, &amp;quot;you shall never wash my feet.&amp;quot; Jesus answered, &amp;quot;Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 5:25-27 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Scripture, words like water, bread, wine, chicks, children means interpretation of Scripture. Israel was given Scripture, the vineyard, and expected to ”harvest”  life giving wine from it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 21:33-35 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a fence around it, dug a pit for its winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went on a journey. When the harvest time was near, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his portion of the crop. But the tenants seized his slaves, beat one, killed another, and stoned another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man shall not live by (physical) bread alone? This parable was told right after the Pharisees were informed that prostitutes and tax collectors would enter the kingdom of God before they themselves would.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its parallel is here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 23:37 NET&lt;/strong&gt;“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bread and wine is the Word of God, metonym  for Message, which is the meaning, revelation, interpretation of Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 5:39 NET&lt;/strong&gt; You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 10:4 NET&lt;/strong&gt; and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T03:28:09.940" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12072" CreationDate="2012-12-10T21:13:27.980" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the dogmas of the larger denominations, &lt;strong&gt;the creation story isn't literal chronology&lt;/strong&gt;. And the question is nonsensical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's why -- the question is takes the thought from verse 2 out of context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Firstly&lt;/strong&gt;, it's out of the context of any Christian or Jewish dogma. The accounts of creation are held by most Christians (the large denominations) to be largely symbolic of God's creative effort and personality. They're not a detailed, literal, chronological retelling of everything God did in precise sequence. A good indicator of this, even outside any particular tradition, is that simple fact that there are &lt;strong&gt;two&lt;/strong&gt; creation stories in Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;And those two creation stories do NOT agree.&lt;/em&gt; In the first story, humans are the last-made creature. In the second story (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/2/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:4-25&lt;/a&gt;), man is first, then the garden, then animals, and woman last. Thus, the larger Christian denominations (and most Jews) are in agreement that Genesis is not a literal, chronological account of creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Secondly&lt;/strong&gt;, it's taken out of the immediate literal context. There's more to Gen. 1:2 than wind sweeping over waters. And the full content of Gen. 1:2 is in the context of a larger thought that begins in the previous verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(1) In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth — (2) and the&#xA;  earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a&#xA;  mighty wind sweeping over the waters—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;even if I were defending a creationist viewpoint&lt;/strong&gt; (I'm not), it's clear from the two verses combined that the earth and heavens already exist in a primitive, chaotic state. (What the author means by &quot;earth&quot; and &quot;heavens&quot; is debatable.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Also notable&lt;/strong&gt;, &quot;the waters&quot; (referring to the sea) in biblical language is almost always a metaphor for chaos. The &quot;wind&quot; in Genesis 1:2 is sweeping over the &quot;primordial chaos.&quot; We can extrapolate then that first creation story illustrates the point that God creates (from nothing) by bringing order &lt;em&gt;out of chaos&lt;/em&gt;. (That is, a chaos which He creates for the purpose of bringing about an ordered creation.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-12-10T21:13:27.980" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12076" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-10T23:34:29.540" Score="6" ViewCount="955" Body="&lt;p&gt;This seems like a simple question, but I cannot find a clear answer. The book of Genesis (1:29,30), implies that Adam just ate &quot;plants and herbs&quot;. So I think it is safe to assume animals were not eaten? Now if animals did die, my question would be &quot;why&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1882" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-08T04:50:05.620" LastActivityDate="2016-01-08T04:50:05.620" Title="Before the fall of Adam, did anything die?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;eden&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-01-08T13:38:15.903" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12077" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12080" CreationDate="2012-12-10T23:56:53.200" Score="3" ViewCount="13880" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:39:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite&#xA;  thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this mean? Not to fight evil? Does it mean one should ignore evil?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3401" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T21:26:10.153" LastActivityDate="2016-04-10T15:23:42.357" Title="&quot;Resist not evil&quot; (Matthew 5:39) - What does this mean? not to fight evil?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-11T00:44:27.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12072" CreationDate="2012-12-11T02:40:21.653" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The literal read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;So this was before creation, so where does water come from?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not if you read verse one first &quot;&lt;em&gt;In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.&lt;/em&gt;&quot; By creation of earth water was also created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Why it exist before the first day?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 1 to 5 as day one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;And if there is face of water, there seems to me should be some gravity somewhere, what's the stage of universe at this time?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God uphold the universe. He is a God of order and laws – thus all natural laws is a part of the creation. Gravity is one part. The exact state is not described.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding as a note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapter two is a more in detail account of some of the events. Not chronological but nor contradicting chapter 1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say i.e. Genesis 2:18-22:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an ingress. But instead of jumping directly to the creation of Eva we are told that off all creatures this far created there was no mate for man, and as such woman is created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1 and 2 are two different accounts/tales. It was not like they had bibles with chapters and verses. In Genesis 2 we are (therefore) told how animals were created. As it say &lt;em&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;And&lt;/strong&gt; out of the ground …&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and not &lt;em&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;And then&lt;/strong&gt; out of the ground …&quot;&lt;/em&gt; it can be interpreted both as &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;and then&lt;/em&gt;, – but as Gen 1:26 is rather clear on the matter one can conclusively say it is &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; in the sense of &quot;and&quot; and not &quot;and then&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does verse 20 &lt;em&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt; contradict verse 19 because had had already named them there &lt;em&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3587" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T02:40:21.653" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12077" CreationDate="2012-12-11T03:44:54.823" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It does not mean:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;do not fight temptation to sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;do not defend yourself&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-44&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;context&lt;/a&gt; in which the passage is found:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, &lt;strong&gt;An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;39 But I say unto you, &lt;strong&gt;That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, &lt;strong&gt;Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;44 But &lt;strong&gt;I say unto you, Love your enemies&lt;/strong&gt;, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus here rejects conventional wisdom to return evil with evil, and to hate one's enemies. Instead, he says we should be humble and love (will the good of) those who do evil to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Try the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:39&amp;amp;version=ASV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ASV&lt;/a&gt;: &amp;quot;resist not him that is evil.&amp;quot; In the KJV, &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; seems to mean &amp;quot;evil actions directed toward you&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;evil in others.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1632" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T03:51:43.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7477" CreationDate="2012-12-11T05:54:04.593" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:2 NET&lt;/strong&gt; I praise you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I passed them on to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditions are a views arrived at as a result of rejecting false views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:3 NET&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The head here signifies a leader, a king, a protector. Israel done bad asking for a king.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:4-6 NET&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Praying or prophesying publicly is a dangerous task, equivalent to laying down one's life, picking up one's cross, work done by Jesus between His baptism and His atoning work.. When one uses any of these terms, they serve as metonymy, synechdoche. If someone talks about a 9/11 category event, all circumstances included in that event immediately come to mind. Compare this event with Christ's ministry:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 7:53-60 NET&lt;/strong&gt; You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.” When they heard these things, they became furious and ground their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked intently toward heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look!” he said. “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” But they covered their ears, shouting out with a loud voice, and rushed at him with one intent. When they had driven him out of the city, they began to stone him, and the witnesses laid their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul. They continued to stone Stephen while he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Then he fell to his knees and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” When he had said this, he died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the East, a woman shaves her head when she is widowed, signifying her loss of protection, possibly the need to fend for herself and make her own provisions for her personal safety.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A woman ministering in public should not be endangered. The work of a martyr is a man's job. Not that women are not brave enough, but the role is a picturization of Christ and His Church. Just as it would be a bit  inappropriate to use potato crisps and CocaCola to do the ministry of picturising the lifegiving work of Christ as symbolised by the Communion sacrament, it would be inappropriate to let women be at the forefront of prophesy. Thus the headcovering: her identity is hidden. A bare headed prophetess is picturizing an unprotected Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 5:25-27 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11 NET&lt;/strong&gt; 7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Men are the picturisation of God sacrificing Himself for His children&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11 NET&lt;/strong&gt; 8But the woman is the glory of the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Women represent the one whom men sacrifice themselves for. Sidebar: ask Korean men why they don't cook after marriage!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:9-14 NET&lt;/strong&gt; For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man. For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final decider in order of things is the Creation order. Apparently there is an ordered taxonomy in heaven with regard to our guardian angels appropos their rank and orientation. Children's angels ALWAYS face God!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:15 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A man with long hair signifies a male who doesn't take sacrificing himself for his loved ones seriously. Spartans tied their hair up before war. Gladiators shaved their heads. Long hair is a serious handicap, and long haired combatants indicate either nonparticipation or over confidence. Not the signal you want to convey to your family. A woman with long hair conveys the message she is confident her protector is up to the task and she need not assist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T06:14:57.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4615" CreationDate="2012-12-11T07:05:32.040" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You ask for what groups besides the LDS have alternate views on the meaning of this passage. There is group knows as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branhamism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Branhamists&lt;/a&gt; (or by their own internal name of &lt;em&gt;Message Believers&lt;/em&gt;) who, like me, believe that the fourth Elijah mentioned in Malachi came to earth in the person of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Branham&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Marrion Branham&lt;/a&gt;. Like the LDS, this is a reconstructionist faith and we believe the original apostolic faith of the Bible has been lost and a new prophet sent to restore it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3589" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-12-12T08:15:29.590" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T08:15:29.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11922" CreationDate="2012-12-11T09:29:59.293" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It can help to start out with some of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/attributes-God.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;attributes&lt;/a&gt; of God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.allaboutgod.com/attributes-of-god.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/qt/biblefactsgod.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I proclaim the name of the Lord: Ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is holy and can't have relations with sin. With the fall of man sin entered the world and thus death – as absence from God is death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's creation was perfect, but after the fall it started to deteriorate. We still live under some &lt;em&gt;guidelines&lt;/em&gt;. Man was set to rule over the world. By this it also means that we are to preserve – not plunder, desecrate and spoil. To rule is a blessing but also a big responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of &lt;em&gt;what is Gods will&lt;/em&gt;, one can ask &lt;em&gt;what does God want&lt;/em&gt;. He want to have relationship with his children - man. He want us to live in harmony with him and have good fulfilling lives concluding with eternal existence with him in a new heaven and a new earth without death and suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further it is a difference between will, and letting happen. One also has to remember one fundamental thing – man has free will. We live in an imperfect world. By sin came death. What does this actually mean? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not only biological deterioration and the fact that we have a limited lifespan as humans – it is a lot more. It also means that we act in defiance to God. It means we have death in thought and own will. Man is in revolt against God. The entire creation is in havoc. Everything from man the earth and beyond as a whole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A central question would be what is the will of man – and what is the scope of our will and the consequences of our actions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing is the suffering we cause one another. There is also Satan and his rulers. We read about The Prince of Persia and the Prince of Greece. Legion,  demons and other dark powers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By discarding God and going against him man also throw away his blessing. That does not only affect our personal lives, but also our society, nations etc. I believe that by this also the dark spiritual realm is given freedom - because of the absence of God's blessing and protection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that God &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; to leave man – but that man chooses to leave God. The consequences of this is always catastrophic. It being the fact that we live in a imperfect world with decease and death but also what we do to one another of evil things, and attacks by evil spirits, etc. The fact that the world is out of synch also result in natural disasters and so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next one can read up on what we are promised trough God. Ultimately salvation trough Jesus Christ. Looking at a life as a whole it is both intricate and simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to global warming that is so politicised and a filed filled with such a big pile of true human &quot;qualities&quot; that I normally avoid debating it. And as this is not a debate site I'll leave it be. But:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I firmly believe we are set to preserve and care for the creation. Thus everything from animal cruelty to throwing away food and plundering the earth is against Gods will. But that does not mean God does not &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; what will happen. Then again knowing is not the same as willing – precisely because we also has a will. Then it also becomes a question of restrictions on will of man etc. Tho God can stop us, or stop natural events or cause them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an extremely complex and multi-multi-layered question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3587" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T09:29:59.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12084" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:53:01.157" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T10:53:01.157" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T10:53:01.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12085" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:53:01.157" Score="0" Body="Questions about Christianity in general, as a summary of all denominations." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T11:38:15.180" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T11:38:15.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12086" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:54:56.037" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T10:54:56.037" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T10:54:56.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12087" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:54:56.037" Score="0" Body="Relationship between Church/Churches/Christians and the government." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T11:32:07.780" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T11:32:07.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12088" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:58:09.773" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T10:58:09.773" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T10:58:09.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12089" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:58:09.773" Score="0" Body="Eden is either the garden mentioned in Genesis or the time period and state of being before the fall." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-12-11T11:30:52.570" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T11:30:52.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12090" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12095" CreationDate="2012-12-11T10:59:11.943" Score="11" ViewCount="18651" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 2 Tim 3:16, Paul writes &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,&#xA;  correcting and training in righteousness (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for&#xA;  reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that all scripture (the whole Bible) is from God and of equal importance, or are there some parts of the bible which we need to take more seriously than others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, are Jesus' words more important than Paul's?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a Protestant/Evangelical point of view, but I'm interested in others too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-06-16T08:30:14.917" LastActivityDate="2017-08-25T05:33:13.667" Title="What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12090" CreationDate="2012-12-11T12:30:42.207" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As covered in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase &amp;quot;Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God&amp;quot; mean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definition of the term &quot;Inspired&quot;:&lt;/strong&gt; The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed, that it is a divine product, and, because it is divine, the &lt;strong&gt;original documents&lt;/strong&gt; are inerrant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;inspired&quot; does &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; mean &quot;inspired&quot; in the common sense, as in an artist is inspired to produce a great work, or a football team is inspired to perform better than normal die to a very motivational speech. In the doctrine of Divine Inspiration, the term carries the connotation that the words are the actual words of God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Many cite [2 Timothy 3:16][1] as the source for the term &quot;inspired&quot;.  The term &quot;God Breathed&quot; is translated from the Greek word &quot;Theopneustos&quot;, which conveys the idea of God directly filled the writer with the necessary knowledge - the God &lt;em&gt;breathed&lt;/em&gt; the knowledge into the writer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, we get two possible meanings for the idea of how this worked:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That every thought and word were inspired by God, and that the writer did nothing but merely write as the Spirit dictated.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That God gave the whole matter, leaving the inspired writers to their own language; and hence the great variety of style and different modes of expression.  (This is the understanding that is most common in Baptist Churches in particular, and in most Fundamentalist Churches in my admittedly limited experience.)  This is known as Plenary Inspiration.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More possible meanings are available at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Inspiration_of_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.theopedia.com/Inspiration_of_the_Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T12:42:15.807" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12092" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12094" CreationDate="2012-12-11T15:22:25.277" Score="7" ViewCount="476" Body="&lt;p&gt;A common position among many Christians in America is that the use of tobacco, alcohol, and other types of drugs (marijuana, etc.) is immoral and sinful.  Paul seems to indicate that, in the context of food at least, nothing should be considered forbidden:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart&#xA;  from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and&#xA;  teachings of demons, &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; through the insincerity of liars whose&#xA;  consciences are seared, &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; who forbid marriage and require abstinence&#xA;  from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those&#xA;  who believe and know the truth. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;For everything created by God is&#xA;  good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with&#xA;  thanksgiving&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.  (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+timothy+4%3A1-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 4:1–5, ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the Biblical basis for why the use of tobacco and other types of drugs are considered by many to be immoral or sinful?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-09-23T18:27:05.713" LastActivityDate="2016-09-24T04:07:54.370" Title="What is the biblical basis against the use or overuse of tobacco and other types of drugs?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;1-timothy&gt;&lt;drugs&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12092" CreationDate="2012-12-11T15:37:17.523" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, beware of false premises.  Food provides sustenance to the body. It contains calories and vital nutrients.  Drugs do not, so it would be a mistake to equate them with food.  In fact, drugs tend to have the opposite effect from food: instead of nourishing the body, they harm it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, simply because &quot;everything created by God is good,&quot; that does not mean that &lt;em&gt;every possible use&lt;/em&gt; of everything created by God is good.  Otherwise, there would be no such thing as sin at all.  Hemp contains very useful fibers that make it good for building ropes, for example, and tobacco has medicinal properties that make it quite good for treating bruises.  Neither of these require the plants to be taken internally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7800/is-smoking-weed-a-sin/7802#7802&quot;&gt;as I pointed out in another answer to a related question&lt;/a&gt;, a lot of modern drugs were not known in Biblical times, but abuse of the one they did know about, alcohol, is strongly condemned in the Bible. (Including by Paul, the same guy who wrote the 1 Timothy passage quoted in the question.)  So it stands to reason that the use of other drugs should likewise be considered sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T15:37:17.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12092" CreationDate="2012-12-11T15:57:22.513" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mason Wheeler's answer covers a lot of ground. There are some other approaches to this that are also worth considering though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One is to look at &quot;the law of the land&quot; - in many countries, many drugs are illegal and therefore the Bible passages that urge us to obey and respect the laws of our countries therefore apply to drug use/misuse as well. (Example passages: Deuteronomy 17:2; Ecclesiastes 8:2-5; Matthew 22:21; 23:2-3; Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 2 Peter 2:9-11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another consideration is that self-control is listed as one of the Fruits of the Spirit - something we should strive for. Many drugs diminish, remove or inhibit our ability to control ourselves - either as immediate results of taking them or by causing us to become addicted to them - and this can be construed as a Biblical argument against them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thirdly, there is 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit&#xA;  within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were&#xA;  bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context of this passage is actually talking about sexual immorality, but it's frequently used to support a wider assertion that we should look after our bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T15:57:22.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12090" CreationDate="2012-12-11T16:49:05.667" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;God-breathed&quot; is a translation of the etymological roots of the Greek θεόπνευστος. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-timothy/3-16-compare.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Most English versions of the Bible&lt;/a&gt; translate this Greek word as &quot;inspired by God&quot;. (&quot;Inspire&quot; is derived from the Latin word &lt;em&gt;inspiratio&lt;/em&gt;, which like πνευστος, originally denoted breath or spirit.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no consensus on what it means to say that all Scripture is inspired, even among Evangelical Protestants. In an essay titled &lt;a href=&quot;http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?&lt;/a&gt; Evangelical Anglican scholar N.T. Wright dispenses with the notion of the Bible as a collection of &quot;timeless truths&quot;, in which each verse is authoritative on its own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A regular response to these problems is to say that the Bible is a repository of timeless truth.  There are some senses in which that is true.  But the sense in which it is normally meant is certainly not true.  The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is culturally conditioned.  It is all written in the language of particular times, and evokes the cultures in which it came to birth.  It seems, when we get close up to it, as though, if we grant for a moment that in some sense or other God has indeed inspired this book, he has not wanted to give us an abstract set of truths unrelated to space and time.  He has wanted to give us something rather different, which is not (in our post-enlightenment world) nearly so easy to handle as such a set of truths might seem to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, Wright recommends reading each Bible book &lt;em&gt;as a book&lt;/em&gt;, rather than a set of verses. Only in this way can we understand the context of what God has to say to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In private reading, and in informal group meetings, we need again to experiment with new ways of reading scripture.  Anyone who has heard an entire biblical book read, or even acted (think of Alec McCown on Mark, or Paul Alexander on John; I have heard the same done with Galatians, and very impressive it was, too) will realize that such things as chapter-divisions, or almost any divisions at all, can be simply unhelpful.  We need to recapture a sense of scripture as a whole, telling and retelling stories as wholes.  Only when you read Exodus as a whole (for example) do you realize the awful irony whereby the making of the golden calf is a parody of what God wanted the people to do with their gold and jewels . . . and only by reading Mark as a whole might you realize that, when the disciples ask to sit at Jesus’ right and left hand, they are indeed asking for something they do not understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wright argues that thinking of inspiration in terms of inerrancy or infallibility can lead us into traps, but that we can avoid these traps by taking the Bible seriously as a whole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we really engage with the Bible in this serious way we will find, I believe, that we will be set free from (among other things) some of the small-scale evangelical paranoia which goes on about scripture. We won’t be forced into awkward corners, answering impossible questions of the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ variety about whether scripture is exactly this or exactly that. Of course the Bible is inspired, and if you’re using it like this there won’t be any question in your mind that the Bible is inspired. But, you will be set free to explore ways of articulating that belief which do not fall into the old rationalist traps of 18th or 19th or 20th century. Actually using the Bible in this way is a far sounder thing than mouthing lots of words beginning with ‘in—’ but still imprisoning the Bible within evangelical tradition (which is what some of those ‘in—’ words seem almost designed to do).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But rather than giving a single answer about how God speaks to us through Scripture, Wright insists that whenever we truly engage with the Bible and seek to understand what God has to say to us, we find that God not only speaks to us but transforms our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Bible, clearly, is also to be used in a thousand different ways within the pastoral work of the church, the caring and building up of all its members.  Again, there is much that I could say here, but little space.  Suffice it to note that the individual world-views and God-views of Christians, as much as anybody else, need to be constantly adjusted and straightened out in the light of the story which is told in scripture.  But this is not to say that there is one, or even that there are twenty-one, ‘right’ ways of this being done.  To be sure, the regular use of scripture in private and public worship is a regular medicine for many of the ills that beset us.  But there are many methods of meditation, of imaginative reading, ways of soaking oneself in a book or a text, ways of allowing the story to become one’s own story in all sorts of intimate ways, that can with profit be recommended by a pastor, or engaged in within the context of pastoral ministry itself.  Here, too, we discover the authority of the Bible at work: God’s own authority, exercised not to give true information about wholeness but to give wholeness itself, by judging and remaking the thoughts and intentions, the imaginations and rememberings, of men, women and children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-12-13T18:32:20.450" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T18:32:20.450" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12096" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-11T18:04:26.257" Score="6" ViewCount="1375" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Doctrine of Eternal Security (also called the Perseverance of the Saints) teaches that once a person truly experience salvation, that person's eternal destiny of eternal life is immutable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis or biblically-based argument for this doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2021-03-01T00:34:19.237" LastActivityDate="2021-03-01T00:34:19.237" Title="What is the biblical basis for the doctrine of Eternal Security?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;perseverance-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="12097" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12126" CreationDate="2012-12-11T18:07:25.210" Score="8" ViewCount="3038" Body="&lt;p&gt;In contrast to the doctrine of Eternal Security, many denominations believe that a person can, in fact, lose his or her salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the biblical basis or biblical argument for the doctrine of the Loss of Salvation?  Put another way, what is the biblical argument against Eternal Security?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2021-02-28T03:58:43.147" LastActivityDate="2021-02-28T03:58:43.147" Title="What is the biblical basis for the doctrine that salvation can be lost?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="12098" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-11T18:17:42.800" Score="9" ViewCount="267" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christian traditions believe that one can lose his or her salvation, even after a genuine conversion experience and years of faithfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who teach this doctrine, what is an &lt;strong&gt;overview&lt;/strong&gt; of the following:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what specifically does one have to do (or not do) to go from having salvation to a state of not having salvation?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;does it take just one sin, just one known sin, various degrees of sin or something else?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what is the biblical basis for these conclusions?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how are responses to the &quot;unlosable&quot; position countered?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="50422" LastEditDate="2021-02-27T21:54:39.503" LastActivityDate="2021-02-27T21:54:39.503" Title="What is an overview of beliefs on how one can lose salvation?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11961" CreationDate="2012-12-11T18:21:51.130" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The argument against irresistable grace is centered in the Biblical teachings that, on the one hand, God desires everyone to be saved and has made his grace available to all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-timothy/passage.aspx?q=1-timothy+2:3-4&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:3-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-peter/3-9.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/titus/2-11.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 2:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, we are asked to make a choice and salvation is said to be contingent on our response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/joshua/24-15.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Joshua 24:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/ezekiel/passage.aspx?q=ezekiel+18:21-22&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 18:21-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/john/1-12.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/romans/10-9.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 10:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[I}f you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The flip side of this coin is that if we don't respond or don't follow through, we won't be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/7-21.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not everyone who says to me, &amp;quot;Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+24:12-13&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:12-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-corinthians/passage.aspx?q=1-corinthians+9:26-27&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 9:26-27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we can &amp;quot;be disqualified&amp;quot; or fail to &amp;quot;endure to the end&amp;quot;, it stands to reason that God's grace can be resisted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God wants everyone to be saved, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He has made his grace available to everyone, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He asks us to respond to his grace, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He promises salvation to those who respond but not to those who fail to respond or fail to follow through, then&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it's hard to make the case that God's grace is irresistible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T18:21:51.130" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12100" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-11T20:40:43.783" Score="6" ViewCount="401" Body="&lt;p&gt;I seem to recall hearing or reading that Augustine posited that perhaps evil as such did not exist, i.e., that evil is more a void or absence of existence.  I think this line of reasoning is used to indicate that God did not create evil as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a documented extension of this reasoning along the following lines: In order for God to cause to be an other that is not God (the term begetting would presumably be used for causing to be an other that is God), some absence or void would be necessary and that this void is constrained to include evil (whether because any conceivable void of this nature is &quot;unGodly&quot;/evil or because God's will to maximize the glory of God &quot;compresses&quot; such a void [i.e., one could conceive of a non-Godly but not evil void but maximizing the expression of &quot;Godlikeness&quot; constrains the void to be evil] or perhaps some other reason)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(This line of reasoning occurred to me and I wondered if anyone had already considered it and thought it plausible and worth recording.  It seems a basic enough extension of a known argument that it probably came to someone's mind at some point, though it might have been rejected as absurd or useless or just not worth recording.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T18:26:24.910" Title="Earlier use of this argument for the necessity of evil?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;theodicy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12101" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12103" CreationDate="2012-12-11T21:55:57.580" Score="15" ViewCount="645" Body="&lt;p&gt;Am I right in saying that we can never use science to find the physical existence of God, neither could we disprove that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am in academic, I am surrounded by so many &quot;science-is-the-ultimate-answer&quot; friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to hear and learn from you how you guys are sharing the Gospel with non-believer friends who are so believing in modern scientific achievement. My way is usually this, but I am not sure, if this is a good one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Science is correct as long as it is telling the truth;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Science have never and will never disprove the possibility of God;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You will always have an ever-enlarging unknown zones if you are trusting science;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is fully logical and possible (50%) and make sense if a supreme God is in control;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So you are disbelieving, is not because science shows God is not there, but because you choose to interpret scientific results with a no-God conclusion, you are shutting down the other 50~100% percent of possibilities.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To know God, actually one has other ways (then I will go special revelations, like Bible, sin, testimony, even though most of them are not supernatural)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ask him/her to think about her personal life, the problems, the families, the relationships. Which means I will go in this part ask him/her to think many un-scientific data.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Any goog books that are very updated and also sound in teaching that I can read? Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1960" LastActivityDate="2019-08-27T15:21:18.627" Title="Is it correct to say &quot;any effort using scientific way to prove or disprove God is in vain&quot;?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10208" CreationDate="2012-12-11T22:58:47.090" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The altar call predates Billy Sunday, though possibly not by that name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/finney.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Charles Finney&lt;/a&gt; pioneered many evangelistic methods in the 1820s and 1830s, including what he called the &quot;anxious seat&quot; or &quot;anxious bench&quot;, where sinners could come forward to receive instruction and counseling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;William and Catherine Booth, founders of the Salvation Army, used &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7832&amp;amp;forum=36&amp;amp;9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;similar techniques&lt;/a&gt;&amp;mdash;although they renamed the &quot;anxious seat&quot; to the &quot;mercy seat&quot;. Like Finney, the Booths considered the altar call to be just the first step toward salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sometimes people would stay there all night, and on a few occasions, even a few days, weeping and confessing their sins with broken hearts. There were always some who would stay right there to instruct them further, encouraging them to make a clean sweep of sin from their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ezinearticles.com/?DL-Moody,-Preach-the-Gospel-of-Salvation&amp;amp;id=340189&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dwight Moody&lt;/a&gt; began having altar calls after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 killed more than 300 people and destroyed Moody's church building, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=82&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;just after he had preached about repentance&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moody asked his congregation to evaluate their relationships to Christ and return next week to make their decisions for Him. That crowd never regathered. While Sankey was singing a closing song, the din of fire trucks and church bells scattered them forever, for Chicago was on fire. The Y.M.C.A. building, church, and parsonage were all to be lost in the next 24 hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the fire Moody vowed never to delay in asking his listeners to make a decision for Christ. Moody, however, stressed that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/may2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;altar call itself did not bring about salvation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not our work to make them believe. That is the work of the Spirit … I cannot convert men; I can only proclaim the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, by insisting that they make an immediate decision, Moody began to blur the line. &lt;a href=&quot;http://baptistmessenger.com/the-invitation-a-historical-perspective/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;At least one reporter&lt;/a&gt; understands Moody's methods to imply a connection between the altar call and salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moody was quick to point out that only the Spirit awakens sinners, and the individual’s trip to the altar is simply a sign marking one’s salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's fair to say that no preacher prior to Billy Sunday explicitly equated the altar call with salvation, but it's possible that the &quot;immediate decision&quot; that Dwight Moody asked of his listeners could have been understood that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="126" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T16:25:30.947" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T16:25:30.947" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12101" CreationDate="2012-12-11T23:17:14.757" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may look into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig&quot;&gt;Dr. William Lane Craig&lt;/a&gt;, who is a preeminent Christian philosopher/apologist, especially his book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1434764885&quot;&gt;On Guard&lt;/a&gt; covers a lot of material related to your question. You might also look into &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga&quot;&gt;Alvin Plantinga's&lt;/a&gt; book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0199812098&quot;&gt;Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is that you can make philosophical statements for the existence or non-existence of God, and you can use scientific evidence to support any premises made in that argument. For instance the cosmological argument goes like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The universe has a beginning of its existence;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The universe has a cause of its existence. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can use science to back up points 1 and 2 (for instance the scientific evidence for the existence of the big bang in the second point) or you could use science to disprove those points as well (some people have claimed quantum physics can disprove the 1st point), but the conclusion is philosophical one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with science is that it has an epistemological boundary of only being able to make statements of truth about empirically observable phenomena. When you are talking about God you are talking about something that transcends the universe, and is by definition then is not something that is empirically observable (and if he was then he wouldn't be transcendent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now science can proof or disprove specific claims, like I could claim that God made my severed arm grow back and science could present evidence for or against that having actually occurred. Likewise archaeology could potentially prove or disprove events in the Bible. But if you start going down the path that nothing does exists aside from what is empirically observable by science then you have fallen into the pitfall of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism&quot;&gt;scienstism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2012-12-11T23:17:14.757" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12106" CreationDate="2012-12-12T01:07:59.383" Score="7" ViewCount="1314" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which branch(es) of Christianity takes the stance that there is a God who creates all things but once the creation is here on this earth, does not intervene?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard an argument between coworkers that the Christian founding fathers of the United States had similar beliefs but not sure as there is a lot of debate there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also heard this position in the scientific community and am wondering if there are Christian denominations that hold this view and how popular it really is ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2012-12-13T19:56:53.127" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T19:56:53.127" Title="What are Christians called who believe in a non-intervening God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12104" CreationDate="2012-12-12T01:24:17.610" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term you are looking for is 'Deism'. It says there is a God, but doesn't say that he does much. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson in particular, and several of the Foubding Fathers were in fact Deists, leading Benjamin Franklin to the aphorism, &quot;God helps them who help themselves&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter, by the way, mentions that in the last days, there will come scoffers saying that since the Creation, God has essentially fallen asleep. Much of the Bible seems to indicate that God is a present and active force, leading many to call Deism non-Christian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T01:24:17.610" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12104" CreationDate="2012-12-12T01:25:49.360" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea of a God that set things in motion but does not, and has not intervened since is a concept central to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Deism&quot;&gt;Deism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The view has a long history, and has had a few supporters, but is not by any means the predominant view within Christianity.  Deists also reject the notion of divine revelation, including Scripture.  It's not necessarily a Christian concept, but there are people who might self-define as Deists and also as Christians.  They would, however, be more likely to have more in common with &quot;Christian Atheists&quot; than with mainstream Christians.  Rather than seeing Christ as the Son of God, or as God Incarnate, they'd see him as a good moral teacher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few sites on Christian Deism in the 'net including &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiandeism.com/&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T01:25:49.360" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12108" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12287" CreationDate="2012-12-12T03:49:02.893" Score="22" ViewCount="10204" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is this true that in the Orthodox Church there are still two quite opposite views existing, one of which holds that everybody will sooner or later be delivered by God from the hell, and another one stating that those who are not saved will be tormented in the hell forever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-02-11T21:54:35.303" LastActivityDate="2018-04-02T02:52:24.200" Title="Universalism in the Orthodox Church?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;universalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8233" CreationDate="2012-12-12T04:12:57.313" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 33:20 NET&lt;/strong&gt; But he added, “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does a God who can not be approached safely interact with man? Every instance of God communicating with men in some physical sense would require Him to assume some form that enabled that communication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quotes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tektonics Article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dunn puts it succinctly: &amp;quot;What pre-Christian Judaism said of Wisdom and Philo also of the Logos, Paul and the others say of Jesus. The role that Proverbs, ben Sira, etc. ascribe to Wisdom, these earliest Christians ascribe to Jesus.&amp;quot; [James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making,167] This conception of Wisdom parallels a less significant, general Jewish explanation of how a transcendent God could participate in a temporal creation. The Aramaic Targums resolved this problem by equating God with His Word; thus, in the Targums, Exodus 19:17, rather than saying the people went out to meet God, it says that the people went out to meet the word of God, or Memra.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nor is a trinitarian concept entirely foreign to Judaism. O'Neill [JCO.WD, 94] records the words of the Jewish historian Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, who laid out this exposition upon the three men who came to visit Abraham in Genesis 18:2, and were presumed to be divine figures: ”...the one in the middle is the Father of the Universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one would question that Philo was a Jewish monotheist; yet here we have an exposition perfectly compatible with the Trinity: the Father, The Creative Power (the Son, or the Word), and the Royal Power (the Holy Spirit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T04:12:57.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12098" CreationDate="2012-12-12T16:36:21.350" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many christian groups teach that if you do not continue to repent of each sin, you can lose out on the salvation. Rather than talk about that or compare how different faiths teach that (I'm sure someone else will do a great job answering that way) I would like to point out the one and only unforgivable sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 3 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see that to &amp;quot;blaspheme against the Holy Ghost&amp;quot; will cause you to &amp;quot;hath never forgiveness&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is said again in Matthew 12 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is restated again in Luke 12:8-10 and in a less direct way in Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:26-29&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have talked to a couple of different faiths in the past and found that different faiths have different views of what it takes to blaspheme the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics state that while it is an unforgivable sin, there is no sin that cannot be washed away by baptism and penance. So you can have this sin washed away. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=5101&amp;amp;repos=5&amp;amp;subrepos=8&amp;amp;searchid=947338&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Cathechism 1864&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Calvin believed that this sin could not be committed by believers. He came to this conclusion because of Hebrews 6:4-6. See Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III Chapter III Section 22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;William W Combs summed most of these beliefs up &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2004/Combs.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt; He said that someone would have to have witnessed a sign miracle and then rejected the holy ghost, and he states that sign miracles no longer occur so today believer or not, you can't even commit the sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general consensus of protestants that I have found so far that if you commit this sin, you are no longer able to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS church &lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Unpardonable_Sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;agrees&lt;/a&gt; with protestants about forgiveness not being possible, but they have specifically spelled out what it takes to commit this sin. It is very difficult for someone to commit it. If you do, (as far as I know) it is the only way someone living today can end up living with Satan in &amp;quot;outer darkness.&amp;quot; Basically becoming a &amp;quot;son of perdition.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not been able to find the view of Orthodoxy churches on this. Specifically if they disagree with the Catholics or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T21:28:10.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12098" CreationDate="2012-12-12T17:30:41.737" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1864    “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.”136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. (2091, 1037)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the way I understand this, Salvation can only be lost if one completely rejects the Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="3593" LastEditDate="2012-12-12T19:21:22.260" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T19:21:22.260" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12115" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12116" CreationDate="2012-12-12T17:45:09.450" Score="4" ViewCount="97" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is sometimes a misunderstanding or differing opinion of who wrote what in the Bible.  Is this issue relevant to any particular Christian sect?  Does the topic play an important role?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2012-12-14T19:12:20.260" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T19:12:20.260" Title="Does an understanding of how the Bible was written, play a strong role in any Christian sect?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12115" CreationDate="2012-12-12T18:04:29.443" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic, you study the books of the bible taking into account to whom the books were written. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic faith is based on Scripture and Tradition (with a capital 'T'). We realize that in the early church, many things were passed down by word of mouth. In other words from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;82      As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, there is not great importance placed on who specifically wrote a book, but the author is taken into account while reading the scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T18:04:29.443" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12076" CreationDate="2012-12-12T19:28:49.053" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The views of Christians on this matter can basically be divided into two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key passage here is Romans 5:12-21, which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Young Earth Creationists - before Adam sinned, nothing died&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the literalist view, the interpretation of the passage above is that Death is punishment for sin, and nature as subservient to mankind shares in Adam's fall. Therefore all death, even of animals, is a result of sin, and did not occur until Adam sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage is used as one of the chief Biblical arguments that Genesis 1 should be taken literally and not metaphorically. If there were indeed millions of years of evolution before Adam, then these could not have happened without death and this passage would be contradicted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you already stated, Adam and Eve were vegetarians, so there was no need for there to be animal death in order for them to eat. (In fact it is not until Noah that humans are allowed to eat animals). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other Christians - Physical death of animals did in fact happen before the fall&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do not hold to the Young Earth beliefs then it is clear that death of animals must have occurred before the fall. The interpretation of the Romans 5 passage is that it is about only the death of humans - death for animals is entirely natural and not the result of sin. (The NIV quoted above takes this line in its translation, but not all translations do). Some also take it to mean 'spiritual death' - i.e. that humans were always destined for a physical death, but that people would know that they were destined to pass on after death to be with God, and it would be entirely natural and nothing to be afraid of. After the fall humans would also suffer spiritual death, i.e. eternal separation from God. The Bible does elsewhere use the word 'death' to refer to spiritual death and not physical death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you hold that the Fall is metaphorical rather than literal then it isn't an issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-12-12T19:28:49.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12119" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12144" CreationDate="2012-12-12T20:38:30.867" Score="7" ViewCount="475" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Old Testament prophecies many different things about the Messiah who was to come, including the virgin birth, His suffering, His resurrection, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, is there anything in the Old Testament that indicates the time in history in which He would come, or is it just &quot;some time in the future&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-13T13:13:54.713" LastActivityDate="2021-02-14T20:47:52.137" Title="Does the Old Testament foretell the time in history in which the Messiah would come (the first time)?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12119" CreationDate="2012-12-13T02:11:20.383" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures pretty much don't seem to give absolute dates (i.e. in 3000 years this will happen), but rather times in relation to specific events. Although some could interpret the 7 days of Creation to represent 7000 years which the last 1000 could mean the 100 year reign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out these for further thoughts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%207:14&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 7:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;14 &lt;/sup&gt; Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mar%2013:30&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 13:30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;30 &lt;/sup&gt; Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T09:20:54.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12096" CreationDate="2012-12-13T02:39:15.480" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There many verses that use the word salvation, but they make more sense of you see salvation (check out the Greek tenses and cases of this word) as a processes that will be completed over a period of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can think of the following if I may take the liberty of quoting them out of context!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Old Testament&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20138:8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 138:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;28 &lt;/sup&gt; The Lord will perfect that which concerns me;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Your mercy, O Lord, endures forever;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Do not forsake the works of Your hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New Testament&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joh%2010:28-29&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 10:28-29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;28 &lt;/sup&gt; And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. &lt;sup&gt;29 &lt;/sup&gt; My Father, who has given &lt;i&gt;them&lt;/i&gt; to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch &lt;i&gt;them&lt;/i&gt; out of My Father’s hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Pe%201:9&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9 &lt;/sup&gt; receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of &lt;i&gt;your&lt;/i&gt; souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T09:30:34.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12101" CreationDate="2012-12-13T08:16:01.950" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first thing I would say here is: read about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/06/a-fire-breathing-dragon-lives-in-my-garage-sagan/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Carl Sagan's dragon&lt;/a&gt;, which discusses this theme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure your 7-step conversion program is going to be very workable...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Science is correct as long as it is telling the truth;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word Science there could be replaced with &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt;, without changing the meaning; the more interesting question, then, is how we evaluate &quot;truth&quot;. &lt;em&gt;That&lt;/em&gt; is what science brings to the table: a mechanism for discussing verification and testability of claims.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Science have never and will never disprove the possibility of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the definition of God claimed by most Christians is very non-testable, so is not very applicable to regular science. What science &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; discuss is the things &lt;em&gt;claimed&lt;/em&gt; in scripture, but of course even when something is scientifically impossible, &quot;miracle&quot; and &quot;omnipotent&quot; make that hard to apply. It can also discuss the claims of observable effects of God in this world (for example, prayer efficacy) - and every time that is done in proper conditions, the answer is &quot;no observable effect&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You will always have an ever-enlarging unknown zones if you are trusting science&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(also noting your meaning in comments); the unknown zone has not changed just because we are aware of it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is fully logical and possible (50%) and make sense if a supreme God is in control;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a huge claim; I'd go back here to Carl Sagan's dragon: is that &quot;logical&quot;? is it &quot;possible?&quot;; is it &lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So you are disbelieving, is not because science shows God is not there, but because you choose to interpret scientific results with a no-God conclusion, you are shutting down the other 50~100% percent of possibilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, since it is not testable, the scientific conclusion is not &quot;no-God&quot;, but &quot;the claim of God has not been proven&quot;; not proving something is different to disproving something. But: what makes that &quot;50-100%&quot; of possibilities? Do you &quot;shut down&quot; fairies in your garden? Thor? Where is the line?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To know God, actually one has other ways (then I will go special revelations, like Bible, sin, testimony, even though most of them are not supernatural)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, this comes back to how we evaluate truth; all of the things mentioned have many simpler, non-religious answers; since you say science shuts down supernatural possibilities, is it not true that you are ignoring possibilities too? &lt;em&gt;simpler&lt;/em&gt; possibilities?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ask him/her to think about her personal life, the problems, the families, the relationships. Which means I will go in this part ask him/her to think many un-scientific data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not sure how this relates to the context.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a reason &quot;modern scientific achievement&quot; is respected: it gets demonstrable results that are too numerous to list. Many people can find a way for these two things (religion and science) to co-exist, but there comes a point when to many, Christianity is just another dragon in the garage, alongside many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess I'm just saying: don't be too upset if some people don't spontaneously agree with you and convert to Christianity - they have reasons for &lt;em&gt;their&lt;/em&gt; world view too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T08:16:01.950" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12097" CreationDate="2012-12-13T09:47:47.380" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Biblical Basis comes from the following verses (whether interpreted literally, figuratively, or out of context - these are the main texts used):&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Core Verses&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA; - Galations 5:1-5 &quot;fall from grace&quot; &#xA; - Romans 11:18-22 being &quot;cut off&quot;&#xA;  - Rev. 22:19 unforgivable sins &#xA; - Ephesians 5:3-5, 1 Cor 6&quot;9, Galations 5:19, Revelation 21:6-8 unforgivable sins&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Supporting&quot; text&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA; - Matthew 6:5; 19:21-35; 10:22-32&#xA; - Luke 12:41-46&#xA; - 1 Cor. 15:1-2&#xA; - Colossians 1:22-23&#xA; - Hebrews 3:6, 14&#xA; - 2 Peter 2:20-22&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical basis is clear based on these texts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Gal 5:1-5, Paul warns of those who have &quot;fallen away from Grace.&quot; &#xA;Again in Romans 11:18-22 he warns not to be &quot;cut off&quot; and many people who believe you can lose your salvation interpret this to mean that God will &quot;prune&quot; the saved (those who have fallen away). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:6-8 has a list of people who will burn in the fire and sulfur and those who believe you can lose your salvation state that once you sin after salvation you are adding sin to the Cross and therefore taint it again. Therefore, these verses show that if you are a liar you cannot enter heaven which means you have lost your salvation and need to accept Christ again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again in Revelation 22:19 it says that &quot;God will take away his share in the tree of life&quot; which leads the reader to believe that someone who once was saved has been stricken from the &quot;book of Life.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course Hebrews 6:4-6 where the author refers to &quot;falling away&quot; after being enlightened. This, as Drew put it, is the main text along with Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32 which cover the &quot;unforgivable sin.&quot; They claim that if someone commits the unforgivable sin after accepting salvation then they MUST lose their salvation because the sin is, well, unforgivable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other verses I have listed make small references to either falling away, lists of people who cannot enter the kingdom of God, or other minute details that might mean we can, in fact, lose our salvation. I hope that answered your question for the biblical basis/argument for it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3596" LastEditorUserId="3596" LastEditDate="2012-12-13T18:33:21.920" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T18:33:21.920" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12128" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12132" CreationDate="2012-12-13T11:59:44.880" Score="6" ViewCount="830" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;God the Son&quot; is generally agreed to be Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do reformed theologians agree that &quot;God the Father&quot; is &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt;, or is this only something claimed by the denomination calling themselves Jehovah's Witnesses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-07-23T19:31:11.863" LastActivityDate="2020-01-22T19:31:46.680" Title="Do reformed theologians call &quot;God the Father&quot; Jehovah?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12101" CreationDate="2012-12-13T13:26:27.017" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was impressed by your question because I had a similar experience along the last 5 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also an academic (I work in scientific institution),and before changing institution and job, I was also used to be 'cut into pieces' during the lunch I had with my colleagues because they are also &quot;science-is-the-ultimate-answer&quot; people, and criticized me a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, I think there are two different kind of approach to talk about God and faith, when talking with non - believers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the philosophical/academic approach&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the personal experience approach&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the Philosophical or Academic&lt;/strong&gt; approach you talk about doctrine, faith, philosophy, view of the world, historical facts. In this sense, you can find very valuable resources in this forum, like the good answer of @aceinthehole. I can contribute just suggesting you to read this Enciclical letter, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fides et Ratio&lt;/a&gt;, from the former Catholic pope John Paul II, which in its foreword explains the spirit of the book saying &quot;Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Science is not in contrast with faith at all, because God created us, created also our brains and gave us the responsibility to use them. &#xA;Using science for proving or disproving the existance of God is something that many tried to do in the past, but unfortunately it cannot be studied by science because He is not a natural phenomena, He has 'his toughts', 'his freedom'... He's an existing and living being.&#xA;I differ a bit from what @aceinthehole was saying because I do not agree that God or 'what God does' is not empirically observable. On the contrary it is (think about the miracles), the great problem is that it is not repeatable.&#xA;So, we have observability but not repeatability --&gt; it is out the scope of what science can study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, this kind of approach is good  (in the sense that it can bring to a REAL dialgue) if you have the resources (I mean if you studied a bit philosphy and history) and if the people you talk with are really willing to discover something about faith (this is more or less my view of the episode of Nathanale in the Gospel of John 1, 43).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The personal experience approach&lt;/strong&gt;. After years of being murdered by the number of criticism by my colleagues, I understood the following things which are valid in the most of the cases (NOT ALL):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The most of times, non-believers in science field have many prejudices about believers and faith. They think it is something silly, for kids, for which you don't have to think and use your intelligence. This is for a number of reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1.1 their knowledge about faith is - in many cases, NOT ALL cases - the knowledge of a 14 years old guy, because they stopped to follow the church because it was &quot;not cool&quot; during their adolescence. Hence, there is a huge problem of understanding each other. Maybe that if you talk about participating to a cult (or mass) you think about relationship with God, while a non believer thinks about loosing 1 hour of his time in doing something meaningless. These 'onthology' and semantic problems have to be taken into account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1.2 some non-believers think  that believing means do not use only your brain as an approach to reality and it scares many. you have to trust&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1.3 Non - believers in science field, are often angry with churches for what they did in the past. Which can be reasonable, even if in my experience this criticism is exasperated and exagerate &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Very very often at least in the case of my working place, when non-believers talk about faith, God and all those matters, they are actually talking about something else. You can even arrive to demonstrate that God exists. Well, do you think something would change? I can say that a few people would be interested in this. Mostly, they had bad experiences with the church, priests. They received some uncorrect informations about faith by the medias (newspapers, tv...). So, often they are talking about their personal experience, some blessure they had in the past from church-people.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some non believers think that reason and science are against faith. Many thinks that faith has to do with feelings or abstract things. This conception is false in my opinion. As an exaple I can cite a colleague of mine becaming a believer because, during his PhD in biophysics, because he was amazed about the physics laws which where behind the behaviour of the cells in contact with a metal target.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In conclusion of this long (sorry!) answer&lt;/strong&gt;, I hence come back to your question and your  7 points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning your question, I would say that science can be used as a path which lead to the the experience of God. It cannot be the only instrument which lead to him because the experience of God covers us entirely (mind, spirit, body).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning your 7 points, my comment is that I would concentrate only on the last three, which I agree with. The first thing I would do is to listen, rathern than trying to demonstrate that God exists. Secondly, I would try to understand if they really refer to the subject they are talking about or it's just a consequence of some other hidden issue. &#xA;Then I would talk about this &quot;hidden issue&quot;. There is an high probability that this hidden issue do not only implies 'science' but also more personal issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I succeded in doing this, I discovered that my colleagues were much more open to a dialogue and that it was very fruitful both form them and for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would really trash away any theoretic discussion because they do not lead to nothing if they are not linked to our lives. Faith is indeed, in last analysis, something that deals with our lives, not an academic matter of discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I apologize for the long and personal answer, but this is the fruit of my experience and thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1257" LastEditorUserId="1257" LastEditDate="2012-12-13T13:50:18.223" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T13:50:18.223" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12096" CreationDate="2012-12-13T14:02:56.623" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously there are much longer answers, but I wanted to share the one that speaks the most to me (emphasis is mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%201:9-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 1:9-12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9 &lt;/sup&gt; He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, &lt;sup&gt;10 &lt;/sup&gt; but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. &lt;sup&gt;11 &lt;/sup&gt; And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. &lt;sup&gt;12 &lt;/sup&gt; That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet this is no cause for shame, because I know whom I have believed, and am &lt;strong&gt;convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's another good one from Hebrews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%207:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&#xA;Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from one of my favorite passages in scripture (read the whole context, it's great!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20peter%201:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;I Peter 1:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&#xA;who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following passages speak of us being 'sealed' (i.e. a completed transaction, we now belong to God). Or to quote from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology: &amp;quot;A seal, in biblical times as today, is used to guarantee security or indicate ownership&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/seal.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 1:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%201:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 1:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a down payment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This page is a great resource as well: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/assurance-eternal-security&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://bible.org/seriespage/assurance-eternal-security&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="959" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T14:40:50.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12128" CreationDate="2012-12-13T15:22:21.970" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jehovah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is an English rendition of the proper name of God from the Hebrew Bible, also rendered &quot;Yahweh&quot; or YHWH, which means I AM and is referred to as &quot;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tetragrammaton&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. It isn't specific to Jehovah's Witnesses, and can be found in many older English translations of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) the doctrine of the Trinity isn't really formulated (Jews would say it isn't there at all) so there is no concept that the name for &quot;God&quot; applies to only one person of the Trinity. It is usually thought that the name(s) refer to &quot;God as a whole&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus in fact equates himself with Yahweh (Jehovah) when he says &quot;Before Abraham was, I AM&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8%3A58&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 8:58&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-07-23T19:10:12.137" LastActivityDate="2015-07-23T19:10:12.137" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2653" CreationDate="2012-12-13T15:38:33.573" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is truth and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:24.  Celebrating anything with roots outside of what God deemed as acceptable (Christmas, Easter, etc., as both have pagan roots) is detestable (Leviticus 18:30, Dueteronomy 7:25,26; Dueteronomy 18:9) in the sight of God.  Yes, Christ came to fulfill the law so we are no longer judged by it, but why would a christian want to commit an act that is detestable to God?  I challenge all christians to identify the real reasons we want to celebrate secular holidays and use them to &quot;thank or glorify God.&quot;  If we are honest with ourselves we will realize it is not out of obediance to God, but a desire to fit with the secular world and our family, friends and memories attached to these holidays.  I urge all to read what happened to the sons of Aaron (Nadab and Abihu) when as chosen priests they offered to God as worship what God did not deem as acceptable in Leviticus 10:1,2.  God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) and the truth is... God accepts worship how He wants because He can.  For us to jusify attitudes, beliefs, and actions that are not scriptural is offensive to the one who created us if for nothing other than the sole reason we have elevated our views above His.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3598" LastEditorUserId="3598" LastEditDate="2012-12-13T15:43:35.527" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T15:43:35.527" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8287" CreationDate="2012-12-13T16:19:52.947" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Born again is not simply believing that Christ is our savior.  Scripturally, one must be baptized as in John 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are &lt;strong&gt;born of water and the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we ignore verses such as these we deceive ourselves and the world about a God given command to be baptized (submerged completely in water).  Christians or those who desire to be so must search the scriptures ourselves so as not to be deceived by those who are deceived.  Our salvation comes from first our love of Christ as it preached and taught, but also our obediance to a just and holy God who cannot lie.   &amp;quot;Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins&amp;quot; (Acts 2:38)  We are not raised to a newness of life (born again) until we are baptized (or buried with Christ in death, which occurs as we are lowered into the water and completely submerged) and then come out of the water.  This is the point we are &amp;quot;born again&amp;quot; christians... when we have obeyed God how He requires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3598" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-12-20T18:04:41.170" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12101" CreationDate="2012-12-13T16:48:48.227" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer to the high-level question: Yes. Science, nor any line of reasoning, can ultimately prove or disprove God. God is &lt;em&gt;trans&lt;/em&gt;-rational.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you might find some interest in a lecture given by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Coyne&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fr. George Coyne&lt;/a&gt;, former Director of the Vatican observatory in Tucson. He's a very bright &lt;strong&gt;scientist&lt;/strong&gt; (and priest, of course). And I'd argue you won't find a man more zealous about keeping his science pure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the course of his talks, he makes a few notable points. Firstly,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Faith is a &lt;strong&gt;gift&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not something you reason yourself into. &lt;strong&gt;It is a gift&lt;/strong&gt;. And while you can present &lt;em&gt;good reason&lt;/em&gt; for believing in God, you cannot present &lt;em&gt;absolute proof&lt;/em&gt; of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The climax of his lectures generally occurs when he &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/MzRvEGxmHAQ?t=49m46s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;poses a question&lt;/a&gt;, referring to the natural processes that brought the universe and life to their current states, &quot;Did God do it?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He answers like so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I don't know&lt;/strong&gt;. There's no way I &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; know. I'm doing science. I'm&#xA;  seeking natural explanations for natural events. So, if I haul God in,&#xA;  I'm betraying science -- and God by the way. Or if I throw God out,&#xA;  I'm betraying science -- and God by the way. So, we have to separate&#xA;  the two. We have to be very careful that we cannot conclude from&#xA;  this&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;  to the existence or the nature or the fact that God&#xA;  created the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And an abridged quote from his QA section of the lecture at another university (watch a few minutes starting at &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/Wi0QZTgWTj4?t=1h19m33s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this point&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Faith is not irrational. ... But faith is arational. It goes beyond&#xA;  reason. It transcends reason. ... But look at our human lives. I am&#xA;  not a walking intellect, I hope. You know I have emotions. I have&#xA;  stomach aches. I have headaches. I like being with this person better&#xA;  than that person. You know, all of these things in our lives that are&#xA;  not based on reason. ... Life is not just thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to make it clear that God is not an &lt;em&gt;explanation&lt;/em&gt; for things. He can't be. He shouldn't be. Rather, &lt;strong&gt;God is love.&lt;/strong&gt; (Which, by a Catholic understanding, is not an emotion, but a &quot;seeking the good of another &lt;em&gt;as other&lt;/em&gt;.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also encourage you to take a glance at a few videos by Fr. Robert Barron, who stresses the notion that God, &lt;strong&gt;properly understood&lt;/strong&gt;, is not in competition with science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZkHv8iTJPo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZkHv8iTJPo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in a few other videos, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_4PSgFjtvI&amp;amp;feature=plcp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;, Fr. Barron makes a relevant claim:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the signs that you're not dealing with authentic faith is that&#xA;  you've had to sacrifice your mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;More directly to your question&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You cannot lead disbelievers of any sort down a scripted path to belief. Faith is a gift. If anything, people are convinced one way or the other by the poetry of their lives, not by reason. Reason only reinforces what we've already intuited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I had a few suggestions, they might be ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Understand God properly&lt;/strong&gt;. Understand that God is a mystery, and that God is not a being among beings; but that God is &lt;em&gt;the shear act of being&lt;/em&gt;. Refer to the &quot;name&quot; of God revealed to Moses, &lt;em&gt;I am who am&lt;/em&gt; / &lt;em&gt;I am who I am&lt;/em&gt; (Yahweh). And make sure your atheist friends are clear on this -- there's no point in discussing anything if they perceive God as &lt;em&gt;one being or thing &lt;strong&gt;in the world&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cede that God, &lt;strong&gt;properly understood&lt;/strong&gt;, is beyond provability or disprovability -- particularly by scientific methods, which necessarily measure phenomena in &lt;strong&gt;nature&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Note that science is a limited study. It has little, if anything, to say about the &lt;em&gt;qualitative&lt;/em&gt; realities that compose the &lt;em&gt;bulk&lt;/em&gt; of our lives.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Avoid the &quot;God of the gaps.&quot; God is not an explanation for things we don't understand. It's almost always only a matter of time before another suitable explanation shows up.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remember that people are not convinced primarily by reason, but by &quot;poetry.&quot; That is, people believe what they do, whatever they believe, as intuited by their experience. Science and reason only serve supporting roles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Religion should never demand that you sacrifice your intellect. No &lt;strong&gt;truth&lt;/strong&gt; can disprove the real God. And I'd personally posit that all truths have the potential reveal something about God's &lt;em&gt;personality&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Don't evangelize because you think you're smart or right, or because someone else is wrong. Evangelize because your relationship with God makes you joyful enough to want to share that joy. &lt;strong&gt;If you're not thrilled with God and your relationship to Him, you're not preaching a God I'm interested in.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The contents of the lecture, in which he briefly explains many of the natural processes that brought the universe to its current state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2012-12-13T18:02:51.953" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T18:02:51.953" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12017" CreationDate="2012-12-13T18:20:31.220" Score="11" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although Calvinism and Arminianism are often presented as polar opposites, they have a common heritage. Jacobus Arminius studied under Calvinist teachers and was himself a Calvinist when he began his ministry. So it's not a surprise that the two systems share a common framework.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Arminius eventually questioned some of the tenets of Calvinism, and his disciples published a document titled &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_articles_of_Remonstrance&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Five Articles of Remonstrance&lt;/a&gt; outlining what they believed Calvin had gotten wrong. Calvinists in response developed &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Points_of_Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;their own five points&lt;/a&gt;, which have become well known by the acronym TULIP.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Differences&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The differences between Calvinism and Arminianism is expressed in these five points, but at the core, there is really only one significant, irreconcilable difference between these systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists believe God alone determines who is saved and who is not, and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. Arminians believe that God expects us to cooperate with him in order to bring about our salvation, that God will not save someone against that person's will. There is no way to reconcile these two positions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists and Arminians also disagree about God's fundamental character. For Calvinists, God's sovereignty is his most important attribute. For Arminians, God's most important attribute is his love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that Calvinists believe God is not loving, or that Arminians believe God is not sovereign. But a Calvinist would reject any teaching (e.g., libertarian free will) that might imply God is not completely sovereign. Likewise, an Arminian would reject any teaching (e.g., limited atonement) that might imply God is not completely loving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, this is not necessarily an irreconcilable difference; a case can be made that the difference is more a matter of emphasis than of complete disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Similarities&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite their differences, both Calvinists and Arminians share a faith in the same Christ. We use the same Bible and we both take it seriously. We share a common heritage going back through the early Reformers. Both Calvinists and Arminians should be equally comfortable with the professions of the Nicene Creed and other early ecumenical statements of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinism and Arminianism are defined as theological systems solely in how they differ from each other, but the points we have in common are much more numerous than our differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are Calvinism and Arminianism compatible? Not if the goal is to agree on all our theology. But if the goal is to worship and glorify Christ, then Calvinists and Arminians both have something to contribute, and we can learn a lot from each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T21:45:35.470" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12097" CreationDate="2012-12-13T19:33:37.313" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Those who believe Christ have passed into eternal life, are living it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 10:17 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Then the seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their names are written in the book of life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 10:20 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Nevertheless, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names stand written in heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are enlightened about the process:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 12:24 NET&lt;/strong&gt; I tell you the solemn truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it produces much grain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some find new teachings hard to accept:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:53-60 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.”&#xA;   Jesus said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples, when they heard these things, said, “This is a difficult saying! Who can understand it?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is referring to the teaching that one needs to abandon the idols of Egypt/the world, which are basically vending machines (they served men!), and not replace them with newer vending machines, but with a God who taught servanthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of persevering and finding out what it involved, some quit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:66 NET&lt;/strong&gt; After this many of his disciples quit following him and did not accompany him any longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Belief is what gets your name into the book of life. Unbelief gets it blotted out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 3:3-5 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, remember what you received and heard, and obey it, and repent. If you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will never know at what hour I will come against you. But you have a few individuals in Sardis who have not stained their clothes, and they will walk with me dressed in white, because they are worthy. The one who conquers will be dressed like them in white clothing, and I will never erase his name from the book of life, but will declare his name before my Father and before his angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thief on the cross next to Jesus believed. That is what counts, being conquerors at the point in life you are in. Not the progress made, nor how mature you have grown (and cynical).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastActivityDate="2012-12-13T19:33:37.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12100" CreationDate="2012-12-14T04:06:55.383" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right that the idea of evil as the absence of good is traditionally associated with Augustine. As far as I understand your specific idea, you are positing that 'absence of good' is necessary for anything that is not God, or that nothing aside from God can be wholly good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This reminds me, more than anything else, of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gnostic&lt;/a&gt; world-view, wherein all created beings emerge as &quot;emanations&quot; from the Godhead, and are more and more corrupted as they get further out from the source, like light from a candle in a dark room. In particular, the material world is inevitably impure (but can be transcended through spiritual discipline, perhaps thanks to some spark of goodness from above that is embedded in each human soul). There are many nuances within Gnostic traditions, and a lot of mystical / esoteric stuff, but this is the broad thrust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In relation to Christianity, there is a fascinating history of conflict - though as usual, we almost always get the orthodox perspective, which may not be entirely fair to what actually happened. The problems early Christians encountered with Gnosticism include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inherent sinfulness of the world, perhaps created by Satan / the Demiurge &lt;em&gt;versus&lt;/em&gt; God's love for the world - he created it, nurtures it, and considers it good.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unimportance of moral behavior in the physical realm &lt;em&gt;versus&lt;/em&gt; Obligation to behave correctly and do good works&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God as pure inaccessible Spirit &lt;em&gt;versus&lt;/em&gt; Christ incarnate as a man (living, suffering, dying)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Esoteric practice (levels of initiation into mystical secrets) &lt;em&gt;versus&lt;/em&gt; Exoteric (proclaim the gospel to all)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the difference in Christology was the key marker of Gnosticism as heretical. The Gnostic version of Christianity held to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;docetism&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; whereby the incarnation was an illusion, the true Christ being only spirit. This belief is contrary to certain passages in Scripture which we believe to have been explicitly written against Gnostics (e.g. 1 John 4:2), and it was definitively rejected at the first ecumenical councils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T18:26:24.910" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T18:26:24.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2012-12-14T08:28:33.113" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In studying Scripture , we must be careful to avoid making category errors, assigning properties and attributes to a situation meant  to be assigned to a different situation. In 1 John, it says those born of the Spirit cannot  sin. But if we do sin, if we confess our sin, Christ is faithful  and will cleanse us of all unrighteousness. Obviously the writer is talking about different situations, different uses of the word sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Law (Torah) does&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was no moral law in the Garden, so where there is no law, no transgression takes place. You could say Adam could commit murder and still not be guilty (a parallel seen in the situation of minors in modern society, who commit adult crimes: they have immunity). The only act capable of incurring death, separation from God was choosing to judge good and evil, be autonomous, like God, but a huge task, something they were not equipped  for. Still huge, BTW.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the Fall, Adam was placed in a world where moral law existed and was enforced. Now there is no immunity. Even when men do not commit Adam's sin, choosing autonomy, they still suffer death, separation from God.  TRANSGRESSION has appeared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law was given because of this transgression which leads to separation from God. Those who believed God requires moral rectitude (even without Torah, such as the righteous Gentiles) were given protective custody, (the pedagogos was the trusted family servant who ensured safety till shelter was reached, till Christ came). There was no separation from God for those who observed the law, but  there was also no provision for eternal life. Moral living, meeting the requirements of the Law, Torah, provides protection  from separation from God, both to Jew and Gentile alike, with or without the Torah. Torah was given because of the appearance of law, post Fall, which brings transgression into play.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eternal living was only possible when Jesus came, who provided it, in addition to immunity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eternal life is the Garden life. Immunity from moral law, of which Torah is a subset (in moral law, even looking at a woman lustfully is sin, and divorce is not allowed. It's a superior law, the bar of which has been raised, as seen in the Sermon on the Mount).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are not under the jurisdiction of the moral law, compliance is not required, it's penalties  blunted. You were once enslaved to it , not as in addicted, but rather coming under its whip. You can now commit adultery or do drugs with impunity , but that would lead to slavery, addiction. You would then come under God's wrath, explained as the termination of your opportunity to successfully serve God, and to thus receive eternal life in the world to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why not instead be a slave to Christ, who has provided immunity, empowerment through the Holy Spirit leading to putting to death the sins  of the body through the Spirit leading to the privilege of participating in Christ's ministry, the ability to offer a perfected sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law to be obeyed then is the Royal Law, the Law of Liberty and Love, the law of doing the works God has given you to do, to confirm the Gospel  you share.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T08:28:33.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12096" CreationDate="2012-12-14T10:51:32.267" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no question that all Christians are eternally secure. The root argument for this doctrine is ‘predestination’.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one looks at individual Bible verses on other subjects, pulls them out of context and then tries to conclude eternal security ‘yes’, or ‘no’, one never really finds any certainty. On the other hand if one just looks at the doctrine which directly speaks to the subject all confusion vanishes instantly. There is no doubt. It is as certain as the doctrine of God existing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in Romans 8:30 we see the full certainty of salvation from beginning to end. From calling to glorification in heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Rom 8:30, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now predestination means God chose a person ‘for salvation’ (not salvation and then destruction). He did this ‘before the foundations of the world’:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us (Eph 1:4–5, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of predestination means specific ‘individuals’ are called and that God knows them by name, calling each one.  In fact every Christian are called ‘the elect.’  ‘The elect’ is not some mysterious concept but a title for any Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there is some common sense to be had here.  &lt;strong&gt;If God chose you before your were born and called you ‘elect’ this is a ‘title of blessing.’  If God knowing you before you were born and knowing everything you will do in your life decided to given you a title that implies ‘great blessing’, God would be very much an evil liar if you ended up in hell, which is impossible. Therefore there is only one rational conclusion. All who are elect, that is Christians, are blessed, from the standpoint of eternity and nothing in time can ever possibly alter that.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eternal security is pretty central to understanding the gospel. Those who reject the scriptures concerning the doctrine of election can still be among the elect but it can only cause much confusion in understanding the various scriptures that discuss the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T10:51:32.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12119" CreationDate="2012-12-14T11:23:20.280" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes. Daniel, who wrote during the Babylonian Empire prophesied that Messiah would come after four succesive Kingdoms. One which had already existed, the Babylonian, would be taken over by the Persian, then the Persian taken over by the Greek. The Greek then taken over by the Roman, then Messiah overthrowing the Roman.&lt;/strong&gt; This is not just a Christian re-interpretation but an actual Jewish expectation that Messiah would overturn the Roman Empire.  Of course the common Jewish expectation was that Messiah would lead by sword, not by conversion to an 'invisible' kingdom, but nevertheless, both traditional Jewish and Christian interpretation of Daniel Chapter 7 puts Messiah after the formation of the Roman Empire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wiki article on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_kingdoms_of_Daniel&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;four beasts of Daniel&lt;/a&gt; has it right:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The following interpretation is a traditional view of Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews, who typically believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Neo-Babylonian Empire &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Medo-Persian Empire&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Macedonian Empire of&#xA;Alexander and his successors to the Ptolomaic and Seleucid Empires&#xA;together, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was the scheme described by Jerome in his Commentary on Daniel.[7] Within this framework there are numerous variations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet this is not all. &lt;em&gt;Many respectable theologians believe that Daniel was more particular in foretelling the time of the coming of Christ than ever any prophet had been before. In Daniel 9 of his prophecy, it is foretold that it should be '70 weeks', i.e. 70 weeks of years, or 70 times 7 years, or 490 years, from the decree to rebuild and restore the state of the Jews till the Messiah should be crucified.&lt;/em&gt; There is much calculation by various people to argue that this was the very year that Christ died dated from the commission granted to Ezra by Artaxerxes in Ezra 7. Naturally this is fairly complicated to prove and there would be much debate about the details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However &lt;em&gt;this exactness to the precise year does not appear to have provided any Rabbinic traditions to expect Messiah at the time of Christ exactly, rather according to the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim there was many guesses from around 4000 years after the Creation to around 729 A.D.&lt;/em&gt; based on an extended view of a five monarchy prediction where after Rome somehow Ishmael was added without any scriptural warrant. Yet even in this confusion and speculation some interesting Rabbinic opinions can be found concerning Daniel. First around the time of Messiah as predicted by Daniel some thought that the second temple would be destroyed which is surprisingly accurate considering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dan. 9:24. In (The Talmudic Tractate Nazir, on the Nasirate. 32 b) it is noted that this referred to the time when the second Temple was to be destroyed. So also in Yalkut vol. ii. p. 79 d, lines 16 &amp;amp;c. from the bottom. (Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (P734)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, a kind of disappearance and reappearance of Messiah was thought of. Although not seen as 3 days in the grave a 45 day disappearance is again a pretty good guess:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dan. 12:11, 12. These two verses receive a peculiar Messianic interpretation, and that by the authority of the Rabbis. For it is argued that, as Moses, the first Redeemer, appeared, and was withdrawn for a time, and then reappeared, so would the second Redeemer; and the interval between His disappearance and reappearance is calculated at 45 days, arrived at by deducting the 1,290 days of the cessation of the sacrifice (Dan. 12:11) from the 1,335 days of Dan. 12:12 (Midr. on Ruth 2:14, ed. Warsh. p. 43 b). (Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (P734).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These predictions are all quite remarkable and they shows us how precise and speculative those were who pondered them, yet somehwat accurate still. Also it should give us pause to consider how miraculous that these prophecies did predict events which arguably occured. Of course after the fact we are able to see the predictions more clearly but that is partly the purpose of prophecy, to prove that events which have occurred were clearly predicted by an omniscient God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-12-14T15:56:42.620" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T15:56:42.620" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7033" CreationDate="2012-12-14T12:27:39.967" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it is wrong, in this day and age where everyone is on the internet and information is readily available, there is no excuse for ignorance. With just a few searches anyone can find out about the groups of people living in the Roman controlled Greek Kingdom of Judea. Jesus' mother was not 'jewish' as a lot of what westerners consider jewish are actually european jews whos families fled europe during WWII. His mother would have been closer to Israeli. He would not have looked arab or saharan. Believe it or not, semetic peoples are actually caucasian as caucasian does not mean 'white people' but white is part of caucasian as are afgani, persian, arab, india-indian and turkish peoples, (cauc-asian, asia is the greek word for the reigion we now know as turkey as asia means land where the sun rises and when you are standing in greece, the sun rises in turkey. On a similar note 'orient' is latin for where the sun rises). I digress, Jesus would have been tan with dark hair and a thick beard, not light skinned, anglo-german with light brown hair and a trimmed stylish beard. Look at the early paintings and mosaics of saints and apostles, they are all tan with dark hair. During the crusades there was a demonization of middle eastern peoples and the portrayals of early church figures where changed to look more european. Then the renaissance brought the mannerist and Raphael who furthered the european Jesus style. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3601" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T12:27:39.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12146" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12190" CreationDate="2012-12-14T14:41:39.883" Score="9" ViewCount="252" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2885/what-is-the-mormon-doctrine-regarding-becoming-a-god&quot;&gt;What is the Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lorenzo Snow, a prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that there is a lot of deep theology bound up in that statement (some of which is detailed in this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2885/what-is-the-mormon-doctrine-regarding-becoming-a-god&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;), however none of the answers to that question really answered my fairly simple question in regards to the quote above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;In what manner may we become like God?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all manners? Will we be omniscient, omnipotent? Since we are made in God's image, we are already in several ways &amp;quot;like God&amp;quot; (e.g. our ability to create, we have free-will, a conscience, and as the serpent tempted Eve in the garden we have become like God in our knowledge of good and evil).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the converse the same? (i.e. the manner in which we may become like God is the same manner that God was once like man?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a clarification, I have the image of a worthy individual becoming a god and setting out on his own (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_West,_young_man&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Go west young man!&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;). What I'm wondering is, if it the more correct understanding is that we become &amp;quot;one in purpose&amp;quot; with the Godhead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="959" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T18:07:20.563" Title="In what manner does the LDS believe we may become like God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2012-12-18T18:14:14.700" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12147" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12149" CreationDate="2012-12-14T14:44:19.780" Score="4" ViewCount="302" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2111/if-latter-day-saints-mormons-dont-believe-in-a-holy-trinity-then-who-do-they&quot;&gt;If Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) don’t believe in a Holy Trinity, then who do they believe is God?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My main question is this: What is the LDS view of the Trinity?&#xA;As a Catholic, I believe that the Trinity is One Being (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in three persons (consubstantial).&#xA;I guess my question boils down to this, do they (LDS) believe that the Trinity is One, or three separate beings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T23:49:27.050" Title="What is the LDS view on the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-12-14T20:16:53.383" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12147" CreationDate="2012-12-14T14:52:26.530" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Put simply, they don't believe in it, not the way mainstream Christianity does.  They believe in all three entities, but that all three entities are distinct, separate beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They refer to the three as &quot;The Godhead&quot;. There's more here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that&#xA;  followed the Savior's mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles.&#xA;  This doctrine began to be restored when 14-year-old Joseph Smith&#xA;  received his First Vision (see Joseph Smith—History 1:17). From the&#xA;  Prophet's account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we&#xA;  know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The&#xA;  Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the&#xA;  Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&amp;amp;C 130:22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-14T14:57:34.460" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T14:57:34.460" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12147" CreationDate="2012-12-14T14:57:10.047" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer: three separate and distinct beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng#21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants&lt;/a&gt; (LDS canon), it states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, in Joseph Smith -- History &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.17?lang=eng#16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;he recounts&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David's link also has good information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3603" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-17T23:49:27.050" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T23:49:27.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="12150" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12153" CreationDate="2012-12-14T15:05:33.203" Score="15" ViewCount="988" Body="&lt;p&gt;With the LDS view that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12147/what-is-the-lds-view-on-the-trinity&quot;&gt;the Trinity is three beings&lt;/a&gt; would that mean they (LDS) are monotheistic or polytheistic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2016-07-23T17:13:52.343" Title="Is the LDS's view of Trinity/Godhead considered monotheistic or polytheistic?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2012-12-14T15:07:48.117" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;They consider themselves monotheistic.  They do not consider Jesus, or the Holy Spirit to be God.  Only God the Father is God, in LDS doctrine, and they worship only Him, recognizing the other two to be His agents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=polytheism&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=polytheism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united&#xA;  members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings&#xA;  is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great&#xA;  revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine&#xA;  beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T15:07:48.117" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2012-12-14T16:35:17.900" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is more to polytheism than simply believing in multiple divine beings.  One of the hallmarks of polytheism is multiple gods, &lt;em&gt;each with their own domain and their own agenda.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To use a culturally familiar example, in the Greek pantheon, Zeus was the father of the gods, god of the sky and thunder and lightning. Hera was his consort, and she was constantly squabbling with him because he was constantly cheating on her with mortals. From one such indiscretion sprang a great hero who Zeus named &lt;em&gt;Herakles&lt;/em&gt; (aka Hercules), meaning &lt;em&gt;the glory of Hera,&lt;/em&gt; to try to appease her wrath. (It didn't work. She hated him.)  Meanwhile, they had Ares (God of War,) Hades (God of the Dead,) Poseidon (God of the Oceans,) Aphrodite (Goddess of Love and Beauty,) Athena (Goddess of Wisdom,) and several others.  And they were constantly fighting with each other, either directly or by proxy through meddling in the affairs of mortals.  Similar social interactions are seen in polytheistic systems all over the world, throughout history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, Latter-Day Saints believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are each individual divine beings, each with different roles in administering God's plan, but their &quot;domain&quot; is &lt;em&gt;all of creation,&lt;/em&gt; and they act in perfect harmony and agreement.  Together, they are our (single) God, in much the same way as various forms of governing councils work and act together here on Earth.  (And the more harmonious such governing bodies are, the more efficiently their agenda tends to be accomplished.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that we say that each of the three is a God (a divine being) and that together, they are one God (the ruling body of Creation) is more a failing of the language than a bad description, much like the way a man could say &quot;I love my wife&quot; and &quot;I love chocolate&quot; and mean two different things by the word &quot;love&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T16:35:17.900" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12154" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12156" CreationDate="2012-12-14T22:19:20.167" Score="1" ViewCount="547" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do Christians believe that criminals should be punished on Earth by state authorities? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, why are they not satisfied with the promised divine punishment in afterlife?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2012-12-14T22:39:33.167" LastActivityDate="2012-12-15T00:17:41.127" Title="What is the basis of Christian belief that criminals should be punished on Earth?" Tags="&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12154" CreationDate="2012-12-14T22:26:16.123" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1898    Every human community needs an authority to govern it. (&lt;em&gt;Cf. Leo XIII, Immortale Dei; Diuturnum illud.&lt;/em&gt;) The&#xA;  foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for&#xA;  the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the&#xA;  common good of the society. 1899    The authority required by the&#xA;  moral order derives from God: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there&#xA;    is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been&#xA;    instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists&#xA;    what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”  Rom 13:1-2; cf. 1 Pet 2:13-17.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and here&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1909    Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the&#xA;  stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority&#xA;  should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and&#xA;  its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and&#xA;  collective defence. 1910    Each human community possesses a common&#xA;  good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political&#xA;  community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role&#xA;  of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society,&#xA;  its citizens, and intermediate bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that The Fourth Commandment &quot;Honor thy Father and Mother&quot; can be extrapolated to Honor authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Wikipedia &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_doctrine_regarding_the_Ten_Commandments#Fourth_commandment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on the Fourth Commandment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus, the fourth commandment's responsibilities extend to the greater&#xA;  society and requires respect for &quot;legitimate social authorities&quot;. The&#xA;  Catechism specifies &quot;duties of citizens and nations&quot;, which Kreeft&#xA;  summarizes as: &quot;Obedience and honor&quot; to &quot;all who for our good have&#xA;  received authority in society from God&quot;. &quot;Payment of taxes, exercising&#xA;  the right to vote and defending one's country&quot;. &quot;An obligation to be&#xA;  vigilant and critical&quot;, which requires citizens to criticize that&#xA;  which harms human dignity and the community. &quot;A duty to disobey&quot; civil&#xA;  authorities and directives that are contrary to the moral order. &quot;To&#xA;  practice charity&quot;, which is a &quot;necessity for any working family or&#xA;  society&quot;; it is the &quot;greatest social commandment&quot; and requires people&#xA;  to love God and neighbor. &quot;To welcome the foreigner&quot; who is in need of&#xA;  security and livelihood that cannot be found in his own country. &quot;An&#xA;  obligation for rich nations to help poor nations&quot;, especially in times&#xA;  of &quot;immediate need&quot;. &quot;An expectation for families to help other&#xA;  families&quot;.[55][64]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not a dissatisfaction with the promised divine judgement, it is the governing authority's role from God to &quot;ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="3593" LastEditDate="2012-12-14T22:38:33.203" LastActivityDate="2012-12-14T22:38:33.203" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12154" CreationDate="2012-12-14T23:12:09.807" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basis is that God ordained it.  The Books of the Law prescribe specific earthly punishments for earthly crimes as well as establishing the fact that these are sins that carry eternal consequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of an earthly government, which executes judgement is established in several parts of the Books of the Law, but an interesting, specific set of guidelines for an organized government is given in Exodus 18:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Now Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of&#xA;  all that God had done for Moses and for Israel His people, how the&#xA;  LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt.2Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law,&#xA;  took Moses’ wife Zipporah, after he had sent her away,3and her two&#xA;  sons, of whom one was named Gershom, for Moses said, “I have been a&#xA;  sojourner in a foreign land.”4The other was named Eliezer, for he&#xA;  said, “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the&#xA;  sword of Pharaoh.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was camped, at the mount of&#xA;  God.6He sent word to Moses, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming&#xA;  to you with your wife and her two sons with her.”7Then Moses went out&#xA;  to meet his father-in-law, and he bowed down and kissed him; and they&#xA;  asked each other of their welfare and went into the tent.8Moses told&#xA;  his father-in-law all that the LORD had done to Pharaoh and to the&#xA;  Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the hardship that had befallen them&#xA;  on the journey, and how the LORD had delivered them.9Jethro rejoiced&#xA;  over all the goodness which the LORD had done to Israel, in delivering&#xA;  them from the hand of the Egyptians.10So Jethro said, “Blessed be the&#xA;  LORD who delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the&#xA;  hand of Pharaoh, and who delivered the people from under the hand of&#xA;  the Egyptians.11“Now I know that the LORD is greater than all the&#xA;  gods; indeed, it was proven when they dealt proudly against the&#xA;  people.”12Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and&#xA;  sacrifices for God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to&#xA;  eat a meal with Moses’ father-in-law before God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13It came about the next day that Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from the morning until the&#xA;  evening.14Now when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for&#xA;  the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the&#xA;  people? Why do you alone sit as judge and all the people stand about&#xA;  you from morning until evening?”15Moses said to his father-in-law,&#xA;  “Because the people come to me to inquire of God.16“When they have a&#xA;  dispute, it comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor&#xA;  and make known the statutes of God and His laws.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jethro Counsels Moses&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you are doing is not good.18“You will surely wear out, both yourself and these&#xA;  people who are with you, for the task is too heavy for you; you cannot&#xA;  do it alone.19“Now listen to me: I will give you counsel, and God be&#xA;  with you. You be the people’s representative before God, and you bring&#xA;  the disputes to God,20then teach them the statutes and the laws, and&#xA;  make known to them the way in which they are to walk and the work they&#xA;  are to do.21“Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able&#xA;  men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you&#xA;  shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of&#xA;  fifties and of tens.22“Let them judge the people at all times; and let&#xA;  it be that every major dispute they will bring to you, but every minor&#xA;  dispute they themselves will judge. So it will be easier for you, and&#xA;  they will bear the burden with you.23“If you do this thing and God so&#xA;  commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all these people&#xA;  also will go to their place in peace.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24So Moses listened to his father-in-law and did all that he had said.25Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over&#xA;  the people, leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of&#xA;  tens.26They judged the people at all times; the difficult dispute they&#xA;  would bring to Moses, but every minor dispute they themselves would&#xA;  judge.27Then Moses bade his father-in-law farewell, and he went his&#xA;  way into his own land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is simply no reason to assume that Christ's offer of forgiveness from sin in the eternal has anything to do with doing away with earthly consequences for sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added to that, the fact remains that for the most part, earthly punishment for crimes is a matter of civilian government, not the Church. (Yes, there are exceptions, and we'll leave arguing about those exceptions, such as &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of the inquisitions, for another forum/question).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for why governments have authority from a Christian perspective, you need not look any further than Romans 13:1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 13:1:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)&lt;/strong&gt; Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that&#xA;  be are ordained of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/137/what-does-the-bible-say-about-capital-punishment&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about Capital Punishment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2259/are-christians-bound-to-the-laws-of-their-country&quot;&gt;Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond this is the fact that fear of punishment is a deterrent.  If you've ever seen mob mentality, or riots that occur when government authority breaks down, you can see that authority is in and of itself, good, and necessary for maintaining order and safety for the &quot;good&quot; citizenry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-12-15T00:17:41.127" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12101" CreationDate="2012-12-15T03:25:09.970" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was trained as an electrical engineer and am by nature a scientist. That is, I discard any idea or concept that does not work or make sense regardless of who says otherwise.  However, I take a more drastic approach to the division of science and faith which may or may not be of any benefit to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, simply put, science is nothing. I see science as an elaborate study of rocks. The gospel is everything. I mean this in terms of evangelism which has do do with the soul and its standing before God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bible never tries to argue for the existence of God, and neither do we need to. Every man who is honest with himself knows there is a God and that he has sinned before him. (Rom Ch 1-3)&lt;/strong&gt; I do not pretend with anyone that they can escape the moral obligation that they sense in their own conscience in believing the gospel. Yes, many deny it but I simply do not accept the denial and simply state I do not think that is honest. Its is sin not to believe the truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words if somebody says 'prove there is a God', I say 'no need to.'  This may seem arrogant but it the approach the Bible takes and is more caring to the person who foolishly is thinking their is no God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This basically seems to describe your colleges:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.&#xA;  They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. &#xA;  Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord? (Psalms 14:1-4, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is loving to point out to them that they actually know themselves that there is a God because in the end they will face him in judgment, so why pretend now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not saying that there is no value in apologetics and having friendly intellectual debates, but when fun and games are over, only sharing the gospel can save a soul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nobody can be saved through arguments about science. Also nobody who is saved has ever lost their faith by arguments about science. Its all irrelevant. Rocks and the God who made them are totally different subjects. Science in the end is nothing. The gospel is everything in terms of true life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in terms of evangelism I do not share my 'narrow views' unless asked of me. I will rather remain silent and listen to people's foolish ideas and be a friend. By confidently listening to a child a child will know you are a parent, then when the time comes, and it may be rare, give them Gods word and you may save a man from the fires of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evangelism is mostly about love not about intellectual observations or tricky arguments. If you believe in Christ you are the parent, whether you realize it or not. You therefore have the responsibility to rest in confidence while the rest chatter about whatever foolish idea is the most entertaining for the day. As it is all vanity there is no need to get that personally involved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-15T03:25:09.970" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12061" CreationDate="2012-12-15T22:28:19.987" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't remember details, but Benedict XVI in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.cz/books/about/Jesus_of_Nazareth_Part_Two.html?id=cbzkRUa2j18C&amp;amp;redir_esc=y&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus of Nazareth, volume 2&lt;/a&gt; discussed &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; did the Last Supper happen and concluded that it's more likely that it has been a day &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. I don't remember the places in Bible supporting it (and in fact I would rather wait a week before I can re-read the chapter 5 in Jesus of Nazareth for all the reasoning), but Kaiphas wanted to kill Jesus before the feast. There is a tradition (I think it's rooted in Bible but I'm not sure how firmly) that Jesus died in the same hour when the Passover lambs were killed. Also, Joseph of Arimatia hurried with the burial of Jesus &quot;because it was the Jewish day of Preparation&quot; (John 19:42), which makes more sense if the Passover was on Saturday. John's term of Last Supper (&quot;It was just before the Passover Festival.&quot; - John 13:1) that the Last Supper was &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; Passover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is that it's not so clear that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with unleavened breads. I'll add some more reasoning when I get home and remind what Ratzinger/Benedict XVI writes in Jesus of Nazareth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas Aquinas in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraErrGraecorum.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Contra Errores Graecorum&lt;/a&gt; (almost in the end) cites some suspicious source claiming to be Pope Gregory saying: “The Roman Church offers unleavened bread because the Word of the Father took flesh without any carnal conmingling; but other Churches offer leavened bread because the Word of the Father is clothed with flesh and is true God and true man. So, also, yeast is mixed with flour and this becomes the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2012-12-15T22:28:19.987" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12165" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12292" CreationDate="2012-12-16T11:53:47.360" Score="6" ViewCount="825" Body="&lt;p&gt;Related to: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4502/3447&quot;&gt;Are there any Christian groups that follow Matthew 23:9?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4409/3447&quot;&gt;What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and&#xA;  you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for&#xA;  you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called&#xA;  instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently I was addressed by my academic title (Master, i.e. synonym of &quot;Rabbi&quot;; but maybe it's even less common to address people by this title in English than it's in Czech, I don't know) and I wondered whether some Christians would consider it wrong or not. So I ask this question: is there a Christian group that considers addressing someone as &quot;mister&quot;, calling someone's father &quot;father&quot; or talking about someone as a &quot;teacher&quot; or &quot;doctor&quot; (latin for &quot;teacher&quot;) to be wrong or even a sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: the linked question asks only on forbidding usage of &quot;father&quot;. Mine is more focused on &quot;mister&quot;, &quot;master&quot;, &quot;teacher&quot;, &quot;doctor&quot; etc. They are related, but this question is broader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-11-30T07:11:25.693" Title="Is there any Christian group that takes Matthew 23:8-10 literally?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-11-30T18:26:39.917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12165" CreationDate="2012-12-16T15:25:40.437" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not exactly a group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/januaryweb-only/12.31.0.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christianity Today Article Organic Church not exactly a movement    &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find references to Matthew 23:10 in the following:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://crosswaveglobal.wordpress.com/tag/spiritual-fathering/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Making Disciple Makers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spiritual fathering – a relationship&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All mature believers ought to aspire to be a spiritual father (parent) in the Lord by virtue of relationship and/or stature irrespective of call and grace gifting. Of course, we would only be wise to follow the teachings of Christ and avoid corrupting this precious relationship by turning it into a position or title (Matthew 23:8-10). Thus Billy Graham, for example, would be seen as a father in the Body of Christ. His equipping gift of evangelist has, along with his integrity over many years, given him this platform. But his fatherhood is irrespective of the gift he has. This would also be true of many, many less well-known men and women of God; their fatherhood, gender-neutral of course, is based on their relationship with others and the godly esteem they are held in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-16T15:55:05.643" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7033" CreationDate="2012-12-16T19:41:20.140" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;A phrase in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/53/2/t_conc_732002&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa. 53:2&lt;/a&gt;, which Christians interpret to be referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, says that he was &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; an attractive man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He had neither beauty nor majesty so that we should have regarded him, nor a countenance so that we should have desired him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;לֹא תֹאַר לוֹ וְלֹא הָדָר וְנִרְאֵהוּ וְלֹא מַרְאֶה וְנֶחְמְדֵהוּ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/view.cgi?bk=22&amp;amp;ch=53&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Keil and Delitzsch&lt;/a&gt; commented,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meaning therefore is, “We saw Him, and there was nothing in His appearance to make us desire Him, or feel attracted by Him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, there are some who interpret &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/50/6/t_conc_729006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa. 50:6&lt;/a&gt; as referring to the Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that &lt;strong&gt;plucked off the hair&lt;/strong&gt;: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. &lt;sub&gt;KJV, 1769&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is indeed about the Lord Jesus Christ, we may assume he had a beard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-10-04T20:38:40.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12101" CreationDate="2012-12-17T08:57:58.727" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NO&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I note specifically that you invoke big-G God in your question.  I.e. the commonly used titular name of the Abrahamic deity.  That is, your question is equivalent to &quot;Is it correct to say “any effort using scientific way to prove or disprove Yahweh is in vain”.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is different from the concept of there being &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; deity; the idea that there may be a little-g god.  The latter is a position that cannot be disproved, any more than the concept of there being fairies can be disproved (they &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be tending the toadstools at the bottom of your garden.  But they're also very good at hiding and you haven't caught them at it yet.  Those toadstools do look really well maintained, though!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, once a property is explained, or a prediction is made, a hypothesis becomes a part of science, can be tested and, potentially, disproved.  The Bible is a book which puts forward a hypothesis of how this specific deity works, and how it affects the world and universe about it.  It puts forward testable predictions.  Therefore, this specific concept of a deity is not outside the realm of science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to be inclusive, it's worth saying that the very same argument goes for any other deity whose properties are explained one way or another: Vishnu, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, The Triple Goddess, Ma'at, Hephaestus, Minerva, Mithras, Wadd, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1083" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T08:57:58.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12175" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-17T15:35:26.087" Score="3" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9815/how-to-test-the-spirits-and-identify-false-preachers&quot;&gt;How to test the spirits and identify false preachers&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;one of the gifts of Holy Spirit is the gift to receive Prophecys. (1 Corinthians 12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also warns us in &lt;code&gt;Matthew 24:24&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs &#xA;and miracles to deceive even the elect -  if that were possible.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I am wondering, how can we know that someone is a prophet of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3355" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T16:36:18.610" Title="How do we identify false prophets?" Tags="&lt;prophets&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2012-12-17T19:58:00.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12175" CreationDate="2012-12-17T16:28:19.217" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Test the Spirits&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John gives a fairly straight forward formula for testing just that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 4:1-4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were going to add anything else to this (for the sake of context!) and without just quoting the rest of the chapter, is that John goes on to say that 'God is love, Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him'. So from John, we have 2 criteria&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Do they preach the gospel of Jesus Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) and do they 'live in love'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T16:28:19.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12175" CreationDate="2012-12-17T16:36:18.610" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus speaks of false prophets elsewhere, and lays out the appropriate test:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:15-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:15-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,&#xA;  but inwardly they are ravening wolves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,&#xA;  or figs of thistles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt&#xA;  tree bringeth forth evil fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt&#xA;  tree bring forth good fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and&#xA;  cast into the fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A false prophet, therefore, is someone who claims to be a prophet, but whose works are evil, whereas a true prophet will bring forth good fruit, and his works will be edifying and uplifting of those around him, as per the teachings of Jesus and the principles of the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T16:36:18.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12178" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12232" CreationDate="2012-12-17T18:02:39.013" Score="10" ViewCount="6605" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw a video of Cesar Vidal and he said, that probably, Jesus was a middle-high class in economic sense, during the period of life before public ministry. I need historical references. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="518" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T17:21:40.977" Title="Was Jesus a poor man, in economic sense?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12178" CreationDate="2012-12-17T18:14:49.123" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dr. Adam Bradford wrote a book called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thejesusdiscovery.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'The Jesus Discovery'&lt;/a&gt;, in which he argues that Jesus was probably a (former) member of the religious elite who turned against them. This is  evidenced by their behavior toward him, and and surprising respect they showed him (at least in public). He also makes the argument that the tradition that Joesph was a carpenter comes from a mistranslated Greek word, and that he was probably more akin to a modern day architect than a wood worker, and therefore would have had the means to send his son on to a high level of education.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid=%7BA9CBD098-398F-41ED-B33A-CF4398013DF8%7D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a debate on a UK radio program, between the author and new testament scholar, David Instone-Brewer, about this theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T18:42:12.707" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T18:42:12.707" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3766" CreationDate="2012-12-17T19:33:09.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Indeed, for logic and any other knowledge to exist, there should be directly experienced thing that does not need proving. Yet it is not evident that this thing should necessary have properties, which are attributed by Christians to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As metaphysics tells us via Anthropic principle, it is existence of self that is needed for logic and any experimental facts to exist. In other words, for the universe to exist there should be an observer, for logic to exist, the observer should be conscious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to compare the properties of the self and Christian God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christian God creates the Universe consciously.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The self while necessary for Universe to exist, has limited abilities to affect it consciously.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christian God is almighty&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The self is not almighty definitely. It has limited abilities to affect the things in the universe (freedom of will) though. However, such ability guarantees that the Universe is neither deterministic nor random (free will is incompatible with both determinism and randomness, see Peter van Inwagen).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christian god does not obey physical laws&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The self also does not obey the usual physical laws. Even more, there can be no universally valid physical theory, that is theory that correctly describes a system that contains the self (see Thomas Breuer). Yet this disobedience has own limits: on practice it is usually manifested by the existence of principally non-measurable parameters (subjective decoherence, see Breuer).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christian God is immortal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is unknown whether the self is immortal. Either case, death of the self means disappearance of the universe. There are suggested quite plausible mechanisms through which the self may be immortal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="3559" LastEditDate="2012-12-17T22:15:40.617" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T22:15:40.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12178" CreationDate="2012-12-17T21:44:46.253" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;While this topic is &lt;em&gt;heavily&lt;/em&gt; debated, Scripture records an interesting detail in Luke 2.  When presented at the table, Joseph and Mary bring the appointed sacrifice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[b]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Leviticus 14:21, we understand this was the sacrifice of the poor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and two doves or two young pigeons, which he can afford, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, along with the fact that Nazareth was teeny, tiny village outside of Sepphoris together draws a picture of a poor family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, others have taken the gifts of the wise men in Matthew to suggest that Joseph and Mary eventually came into some money.  (Who knows, maybe Joseph pulled a Gary Coleman on Jesus and sold the stuff for himself!) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, by the time of Jesus' ministry, it is pretty apparent that he is poor. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to square a &quot;better off&quot; Jesus with Matthew 8:20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, &quot;Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, considering Jesus' &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_for_the_poor&quot;&gt;preference for the poor&lt;/a&gt;&quot; in Luke, it all comes together to suggest a less than rich Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless, these Scriptural clues have made the &lt;em&gt;traditional&lt;/em&gt; argument to be that Jesus was poor, although some modern theologians have constructed cases for a richer Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-12-18T01:52:04.697" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T01:52:04.697" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="952" CreationDate="2012-12-17T22:39:12.573" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moshe ben Maimon, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, §62&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The 62nd prohibition is that we are forbidden to swear a &lt;em&gt;shvu'at shav&lt;/em&gt; (a vain oath). The source of this commandment is God's statement (Exo. 20:7), &quot;Do not take the name of YHVH your God in vain.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;המצווה הס&quot;ב האזהרה שהזהרנו על שבועת שוא והוא אמרו יתעלה : &quot; לא תשא את שם ה '&#xA;  אלהיך לשוא.&quot; (שמות כ, ז)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[A &lt;em&gt;shvu'at shav&lt;/em&gt; is] when one swears that something is the opposite of what it actually is; or, that something exists, when in fact it cannot; or, one who swears in order to violate a mitzvah of the Torah. So too if one swears by an obvious and undisputed fact. For example, swearing to God that anything which is slaughtered will die. Behold, this is also taking the name of YHVH in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;והוא שישבע על מחייב המציאות שהוא בהפך ממה שהוא באמת , או על דבר מן הנמנעות&#xA;  שהוא מצוי , או שישבע לבטל מצווה מן התורה . וכן אם נשבע על דבר ידוע שאין עליו&#xA;  מחלוקת ולא ויכוח לשום אדם מן המלמדים , כגון שישבע בה' שכל הנשחט ימות - הרי גם זה&#xA;  נשא שם ה' לשוא.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the expression of the Mishnah: &quot;What is a &lt;em&gt;shvu'at shav&lt;/em&gt;? An oath which contradicts an obvious truth.&quot; One who transgresses this prohibition intentionally is punished by lashes. If done unintentionally, he is exempt [from even bringing a sacrifice], as with many other prohibitions, as explained above. And there (that is to say, in &lt;em&gt;Shvu'ot&lt;/em&gt;), it is said, &quot;This is the &lt;em&gt;shvu'at shav&lt;/em&gt; (vain oath) for which one is lashed if done intentionally and exempt if done unintentionally. The details of this &lt;em&gt;mitzvah&lt;/em&gt; are explained there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ולשון המשנה: &quot;איזו היא שבועת שוא ? נשבע לשנות את הידוע לאדם וגו '.&quot; והעובר על לאו&#xA;  זה במזיד - לוקה, ובשגגה - פטור, כשאר חייבי לאווין , כמו שביארנו . ושם אמרו , כלומר בשבועות: &quot;זו היא שבועת שוא שחייבין על זדונה מכות ועל שגגתה פטור&quot;, ושם נתבארו דיני&#xA;  מצווה זו.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moshe ben Maimon, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Hafla'ah, Hilkhot Shvu'ot, Chapter 1.4-8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 The first type is when a person took an oath concerning a known matter that was not true, e.g., he took an oath that a man was a woman, a woman was a man, that a marble pillar was gold, or concerning other similar factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;הָאַחַת, שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע עַל דָּבָר הַ יָּד וּעַ שְׁאֵ ינוּ כֵּ ן . כֵּ יצַד--כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע עַל הָאִישׁ שְׁהוּא אִ שּׁ ה, וְעַל&#xA;  הָאִשָּׁה שְׁהִ יא אִ ישׁ, וְעַל עַמּ וּד שֶׁלְּשַׁ יִשׁ שְׁה וּא שֶׁלְּ זָהָב; וְכֵן כָּל כַּ יּוֹצֶא בְּזֶה.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 The second: that one takes an oath on a known matter concerning which no one has a doubt, e.g., one took an oath that the sky was the sky, that a stone is a stone, on two [objects] that they are two, and the like. Even though there is no doubt about the matter for a person of sound mind, one takes an oath to strengthen [the appreciation of] the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;הַשְּׁ נִיָּה, שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע עַל דָּבָר יָדוּעַ שְׁאֵין בּוֹ סָפֵק לְאָדָם בָּעוֹלָם שְׁהוּא כֵּן . כְּגוֹן שֶׁ נִּשְׁבַּע עַל הַשָּׁ מַ יִם&#xA;  שְׁה וּא שָׁמַ יִם, וְעַל הָאֶבֶ ן זוֹ שְׁהִ יא אֶבֶ ן, וְעַל שְׁ נַיִם שְׁהֶם שְׁ נַיִם; וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֶא בְּזֶה, שֶׁזֶּה הַדָּבָר אֵ ין&#xA;  בּוֹ סָפֵק לְאָדָם שָׁלֵם כְּדֵי לְצַדַּק הַדָּבָר בִּשְׁבוּעָה.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 The third is one who takes an oath to nullify a mitzvah. What is implied? One took an oath not to wrap himself in tzitzit, not to put on tefilin, not to dwell in a sukkah throughout the holiday of Sukkot, not to eat matzah on Pesach night, that he would fast on Shabbat and the festivals, or concerning other analogous instances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;שְׁלִ ישִׁ ית, שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע לְבַטַּל אֶת הַמִּצְ וָה. כֵּ יצַד--כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁלּ אֺ יִתְעַטַּף בְּצִיצִית , וְשֶׁלּ אֺ יִלְבּ שֺׁ&#xA;  תְּפִלִּ ין, וְשֶׁלּ אֺ יֵשֵׁב בַּסֻּכָּה בְּחַג הַסֻּכּוֹת , וְל אֺ י אֺכַל מַצָּה בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח , אוֹ שֶׁיִּתְעַנֶּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת&#xA;  וְיָמִים טוֹבִים; וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֶא בְּזֶה.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 The fourth - that one took an oath concerning a matter that he is unable to perform. What is implied? He took an oath that he would not sleep for three consecutive days and nights, he would not eat for seven consecutive days or concerning any analogous matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;רְבִ יעִ ית, שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע עַל דָּבָר שְׁאֵין בּוֹ כּוֹחַ לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ . כֵּ יצַד--כְּגוֹן שֶׁ נִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁלּ אֺ יִישַׁ ן שְׁ לוֹשָׁה יָמִים&#xA;  לַ יְלָה וְיוֹם רְצוּפִ ים, א וֹ שֶׁ לּ אֺ יִטְע םֺ כְּלוּם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים רְצוּפִים; וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֶא בְּזֶה.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Whenever a person takes an oath in vain by taking one of these four types of oaths, he transgresses a negative commandment, as (Exo. 20:6; Deut. 5:10) states, &quot;And you shall not take the name of YHVH your God for falsehood.&quot; If he [takes the oath] willfully, he is liable for lashes. If he does so inadvertently, he is exempt entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא מֵאַרְבַּע שְׁבוּעוֹת אֵלּוּ--עוֹבֵר בְּל אֺ תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁ נֶּאֱמָר &quot;ל אֺ תִשָּׂא אֶת-שֵׁם-&#xA;  ה' אֱל הֶֺ יךָ , לַשָּׁ וְא&quot; ( שמות כ ,ו; דברים ה ,י): וְאִם הָ יָה מֵזִיד , ל וֹקֶה; וְאִם הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג , פָּטוּר&#xA;  מִכְּל וּם.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Philo, The Decalogue, Ch. XXIX, §157&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;157 By the third commandment, He restrains people from taking oaths, and limits the objects for which one may swear, defining when and where it may be lawful, and who may swear, and how the swearer out to be disposed, both in his soul and body, and many other minute particulars, concerning those who keep their oaths, and the contrary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Philo, The Decalogue, Ch. XVII, §82-87&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;82  The next commandment is, &quot;not to take the name of God in vain.&quot; Now the&#xA;  principle on which this order or arrangement proceeds is very plain to those who are gifted with acute mental vision; for, the name is always subsequent in order to the subject of which it is the name, being like the shadow which follows the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;83  Therefore, having previously spoken of the existence of God, and also of the honor to be paid to the everlasting God, he then, following the natural order of connection, proceeds to command what is becoming in respect of His name. For, the  errors  of  men  with  respect  to  this  point  are  manifold and  various, and assume many different characters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;84 That Being which is the most beautiful, and the most beneficial to human life, and suitable to rational nature, swears not Himself, because truth on every point is so innate within Him that His bare word is accounted an oath.6F7 Next to not swearing at all, the second best thing is to keep one's oath; for, by the mere fact of swearing at all, the swearer shows that there is some suspicion of his not being trustworthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;85 Therefore, let a man be dilatory and slow if there is any chance that by delay he may be able to avoid the necessity of taking an oath at all. But, if necessity compels him to swear, then he must consider with no superficial attention, every one of the subjects, or parts of the subject, before him. For, it is not a matter of slight importance, though from its frequency it is not regarded as it ought to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;86 For an oath is the calling of God to give His testimony concerning the matters which are in doubt; and, it is a most impious thing to invoke God to be witness to a lie. Come now, if you please, and with your reason look into the mind of the man who is about to swear to a falsehood, and you will see that it is not tranquil, but full of disorder and confusion, accusing itself, and enduring all kinds of insolence and evil speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;87 For the conscience which dwells in, and never leaves the soul of each individual, not being accustomed to admit into itself any wicked thing, preserves its own nature always such as to hate evil, and to love virtue, being itself at the same time an accuser and a judge. Being roused as an accuser it blames, impeaches, and is hostile. And, again as a judge, it teaches, admonishes, and recommends the accused to change his ways, and if he be able to persuade him, he is with joy reconciled to him, but if he be not able to do so, then he wages an endless and implacable war against him, never quitting him neither by day, nor by night, but pricking him, and inflicting incurable wounds on him, until he destroys his miserable and accursed life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-12-17T22:39:12.573" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12178" CreationDate="2012-12-18T07:26:26.963" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the answers already provided, I would like to draw your attention to a passage from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%208:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 8:1-3&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. &lt;strong&gt;These women were helping to support them out of their own means.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Jesus and His disciples had to rely on the donations of &lt;em&gt;women&lt;/em&gt; (many of whom did not have their own source of income and so could not have given much), implies that they were far from wealthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did have some money, though He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:6&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;held it in common with the 12 disciples&lt;/a&gt;. But the Bible gives a strong hint that it wasn't much: when He sent the 12 out, He told them &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%209:3&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;not to take a collection bag or even any money!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-08-01T17:21:40.977" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T17:21:40.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12184" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-18T07:32:00.600" Score="10" ViewCount="1638" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matt 2, the men from east who came to visit Baby Jesus are referred to as wise men. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, now they are also known as three kings. When did they become known as &quot;kings&quot; rather than &quot;wise men&quot; and what is the basis for the description? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, they are often referred to as the 3 magi. What is the basis for each of these descriptors?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3455" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2021-01-04T14:39:26.413" LastActivityDate="2021-01-04T15:58:15.023" Title="How did the &quot;wise men&quot; become known as 3 kings?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;magi&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2012-12-18T07:52:19.470" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;All of you need to understand that the meaning of &quot;wine&quot; itself is very unclear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our modern day English Bible translations all stem from Greek translations, and the Greek word for &quot;Wine&quot; is basically any juice that comes from grapes.  Therefore, it can be alcoholic, or not.  The context of the word is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, Proverbs tells us not to drink the wine once it ferments and becomes alcoholic.  Go to a winery some day and ask the folks there what wine does when it ferments.  It moves and changes color, just like Proverbs says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if any of you think that using an example of someone sinning means its somehow OK to do, you're way off.  David had someone killed just so he could have sex with his beautiful wife.  Does that mean the Bible preaches murder and adultery?  No.  The Bible does not promote getting drunk.  All of the examples given on this page of people getting intoxicated are simply stories of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its very clear:  The Bible does not want us to drink alcohol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. By the way folks, if you're having a party, and everyone is drunk from the wine the host provides (ie: not provided by Jesus), then you don't need to make more alcoholic wine.  Its entirely possible that Jesus just made some high quality grape juice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/hebrew-and-greek-words-translated-wine&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrew and Greek Words Translated as 'Wine'&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3620" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-12T21:27:23.933" LastActivityDate="2016-07-12T21:27:23.933" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1518" CreationDate="2012-12-18T08:12:26.203" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main difference between Mankind and ”fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Made in the image of God vs. Made in the image of animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considers justice, mercy and love vs. Considers only might.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If an animal comes upon food gathered by another animal, it will steal the food: there is thus no consideration for justice, fairplay. If it sees another animal which is steals its food, it will not spare it : there is thus no consideration for mercy, sympathy. If it sees another animal which is hungry, it will not give it food: there is thus no consideration for love, sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T08:12:26.203" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7139" CreationDate="2012-12-18T14:57:22.443" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A simple message for all Christians to abide by. The war of spirit cannot be won by force - you will surely be identified as an enemy. Patience understanding and teaching are our arsenal wielded with our love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3621" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T14:57:22.443" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1518" CreationDate="2012-12-18T15:37:22.753" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are a few notable experts from the Roman Catholic explanation on being made in God's image, as detailed in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=14-chapter4.xhtml%23para356&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Catechism, starting at paragraph 356&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(356) Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his&#xA;  creator.”219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for&#xA;  its own sake,”220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and&#xA;  love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and&#xA;  this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(357) Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity&#xA;  of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of&#xA;  self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and&#xA;  entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace&#xA;  to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and&#xA;  love that no other creature can give in his stead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(362) The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at&#xA;  once corporeal and spiritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's about as concise as I think it can to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I'll try to &lt;em&gt;expand&lt;/em&gt; on the point of self-knowledge, since some creatures and machines could be argued to be self-knowing. The best I personally can come up with is that people are capable of an &quot;elevated&quot; self-knowledge that I imagine depends on a spiritual-corporeal dual nature. We can conceive of &quot;I am&quot; without &quot;help&quot; and &lt;strong&gt;as&lt;/strong&gt; self in a pervasive manner, rather than as a external, finite entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast this to a &quot;self-aware,&quot; self-improving, and self-rewriting piece of software. (Like a well-written virus.) The code could be written such that it examines itself in memory and/or on disk and continually changes itself in an attempt to make its success rate at some task (like finding your banking credentials) higher. But even here, the software has been endowed with some specific, external task -- not notions of good or bad. And the &quot;self&quot; that the program &quot;perceives&quot; &lt;em&gt;as self&lt;/em&gt;; it's a variable that has been pointed at an object which just &lt;em&gt;happens to be&lt;/em&gt; it's own code. It's not pervasive self-&lt;em&gt;awareness&lt;/em&gt;; it's limited, self-&lt;em&gt;manipulation&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that's actually a good distinction, I'd say. Humans are &lt;strong&gt;pervasively self-aware&lt;/strong&gt;. We can appreciate ourselves. Other creatures and things can self-manipulate or &lt;em&gt;operate&lt;/em&gt; on themselves. But, they cannot, like a human, joyfully sit back and sigh with relief,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ahh ... I am.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T15:37:22.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12146" CreationDate="2012-12-18T18:07:20.563" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue here is that your trying to find something that's not there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine is simple and plainly stated by the prophet just as you quoted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's it, there is nothing else to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a scriptural reference from the New Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8:16-17, 16) The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with &lt;em&gt;him&lt;/em&gt; that we may be also &lt;strong&gt;glorified&lt;/strong&gt; together. [bold mine]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the basis of the entire belief for Latter-Day-Saints. We are children of our Heavenly Father and eventually we may become like Him, in &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;ALL&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; His glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T18:07:20.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12191" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12202" CreationDate="2012-12-18T18:35:26.823" Score="4" ViewCount="626" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that disability is a result of Adam and Chavva's sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the logic behind my reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam and Chavva were not disabled according to scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam and Chavva committed sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Disability occurred after their sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore, disability was a result of the introduction of sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does one reconcile the belief that disability is a result of sin, and sin affecting the world, with the following scripture (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exo. 4:11&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And YHVH said to him, &quot;Who made man's mouth? Or who makes the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, YHVH?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-09T17:29:50.057" LastActivityDate="2015-08-09T17:29:50.057" Title="How does one reconcile the idea that physical disability is the result of sin with Exodus 4:11?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;disabilities&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12192" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12194" CreationDate="2012-12-18T19:33:06.810" Score="6" ViewCount="20223" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Testament records that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.  In fact, this was a fulfillment of prophecy, as Matthew records:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now after Jesus was born in &lt;strong&gt;Bethlehem of Judea&lt;/strong&gt; in the days of&#xA;  Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2&#xA;  saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw&#xA;  his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the&#xA;  king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and&#xA;  assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he&#xA;  inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In&#xA;  Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,&#xA;      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler&#xA;      who will shepherd my people Israel.’”  Matthew 2:1-6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the significance of Bethlehem and why did God choose this city, and not any of the other cities in Israel, for the birthplace of the Messiah?  It seems that it should be something more than just a random selection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2020-10-13T17:53:54.897" Title="What is the significance of Bethlehem as the place of Jesus birth?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12192" CreationDate="2012-12-18T19:55:12.667" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Hebrew Bible identifies Bethlehem as the city David was from and&#xA;  the location where he was crowned as the king of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It never occurred to me before, but given that Bethlehem was pivotal in David's history, one could say that any great descendant of his came &quot;from&quot; Bethlehem.  It seems awfully literal to place Jesus' physical birth there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:  Another quote from the Wikipedia article above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Early Christians interpreted a verse in the Book of Micah as a&#xA;  prophecy of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem. Some modern&#xA;  scholars question whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem, seeing the&#xA;  biblical stories not as historical accounts but as symbolic narratives&#xA;  invented to present the birth of Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy and&#xA;  imply a connection to the lineage of King David.&#xA;  The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John do not include a nativity&#xA;  narrative, but refer to him only as being from Nazareth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastEditorUserId="1729" LastEditDate="2012-12-18T20:17:48.133" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T20:17:48.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12192" CreationDate="2012-12-18T19:59:55.427" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is prophesied by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mic&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;v=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Micah 5:2&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you're wondering why Micah would prophesy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, &quot;Bethlehem&quot; is from the Hebrew בית לחם (&lt;em&gt;beit-lechem&lt;/em&gt;), which literally means &quot;house of bread.&quot; The Messiah is the &quot;bread of life&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=35&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_1003035&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 6:35&lt;/a&gt;). I say, what better city for him to be born?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus said to them, &quot;I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-03-20T06:16:39.860" LastActivityDate="2015-03-20T06:16:39.860" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12195" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-18T20:09:19.283" Score="5" ViewCount="10023" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his gospel, Luke records the visitation of the angels to shepherds immediately after the birth of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping&#xA;  watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared&#xA;  to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were&#xA;  filled with great fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for&#xA;  behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the&#xA;  people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a&#xA;  Savior, who is Christ the Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And this will be a sign for you:&#xA;  you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a&#xA;  manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the&#xA;  heavenly host praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in the highest,&#xA;      and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!  Luke 2:8-14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This event is very well popular, indeed.  Yet, why was it so significant that angels appeared to shepherds?  Why were they the only ones to receive such a profound message?  Why not farmers or carpenters or tax collectors or... fishermen (like Zebedee)?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God made a specific choice to proclaim this message to shepherds.  So, why is that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2016-06-30T14:11:45.883" Title="What is the significance of the angelic visitation of the shepherds after the birth of Jesus Christ?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-07-03T01:09:20.947" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12196" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12208" CreationDate="2012-12-18T20:32:34.317" Score="12" ViewCount="624" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I'm surprised this question hasn't been asked already.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:1-2,9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 2:1-2 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2&amp;nbsp;After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem &lt;sup&gt;2&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This star is usually called the Star of Bethlehem, and there are many different theories as to what it was, including a supernova, a planet (such as Venus), or a comet. (An actual star is not among the options because stars don't move and then stop moving.) So, which one was it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2019-01-09T13:01:23.943" Title="What was the Star of Bethlehem?" Tags="&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12197" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12209" CreationDate="2012-12-18T20:44:38.460" Score="13" ViewCount="61404" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luke gives the account of Jesus' birth and mentions that Mary wrapped Him in &quot;swaddling cloths&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling&#xA;  cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them&#xA;  in the inn.  Luke 2:7 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is particular significant about this?  Is there any historical material on whether this was a common practice for newborns or whether it was unique to this birth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-09T15:13:11.627" LastActivityDate="2015-12-25T06:25:21.370" Title="What is significant about the swaddling clothes with which Jesus was wrapped as a baby?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;&lt;historic-customs&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12184" CreationDate="2012-12-18T21:04:00.247" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is mentioned from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia website&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reference to there being three kings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No Father of the Church holds the Magi to have been kings. Tertullian&#xA;(&amp;quot;Adv. Marcion.&amp;quot;, III, xiii) says that they were wellnigh kings (fere&#xA;reges), and so agrees with what we have concluded from non-Biblical&#xA;evidence. The [Catholic] Church, indeed, in her liturgy, applies to the Magi the&#xA;words: &amp;quot;The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents; the&#xA;kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring him gifts: and all the&#xA;kings of the earth shall adore him&amp;quot; (Psalm 71:10). But this use of the&#xA;text in reference to them no more proves that they were kings than it&#xA;traces their journey from Tharsis, Arabia, and Saba.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&#xA;[About there being three]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the Latins, from the seventh century, we find slight variants of&#xA;the names, Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar; the Martyrology mentions&#xA;St. Gaspar, on the first, St. Melchior, on the sixth, and St.&#xA;Balthasar, on the eleventh of January.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason that there are traditionally Three wise men / Magi is because there were three gifts brought (Gold, Frankincense, Myrrh).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be considered, the significance of &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/use-three-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the number three in scripture&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some cases the number three may signify completeness or finality. Thus Pope observes that the number three “naturally suggests the idea of completeness—beginning, middle, end.”34 Beyond this natural expectation, however, is the realization that “the figure three is an evocative image, filled with connotations” so that “three consecutive occurrences of an event serves as a rhetorical signal indicating special significance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T22:19:28.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12197" CreationDate="2012-12-18T21:10:30.133" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's just what people do with newborns:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaddling&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaddling&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We found that wrapping our children with slightly stretchy fabric blankets when they were infants tended to comfort them and help them sleep better than when their limbs would flail about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T21:10:30.133" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12195" CreationDate="2012-12-18T21:14:21.873" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is highly speculative but (I think) not entirely unreasonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shepherds might be considered lower class and were likely grubbier than those in other occupations, especially given that these were night-shepherds in the fields (when all the &quot;decent&quot; folk would be sleeping at home).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;By announcing the message to isolated shepherds, the privilege of evangelizing was bestowed on the hearers.  If the announcement had been made in a town, lots of people would have noticed.  Alternatively, there might be an aspect of messianic secret (cf. Jesus's telling people not to talk about him healing them), perhaps to reduce the number of people interested because of miracles rather than the message the miracles are meant to provide a sign for.  In addition, a degree of secrecy might have delayed Herod's infanticidal actions (people in authority would be unlikely to pay attention to the ravings of shepherds but if a whole town--including its respected elders--was talking about an angelic appearance, then even priests in Jerusalem might give the account some credibility).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Such might be an homage to David and a foreshadowing of Jesus' own identification as the good shepherd.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2012-12-18T21:32:47.923" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T21:32:47.923" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12196" CreationDate="2012-12-18T21:29:33.273" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no way to answer this definitively:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are probably several astrological events that could construe &quot;a rising star&quot; to the ancients, but there's no natural phenomenon that would fit a literal reading of verse 9.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally find this part of the story symbolic.  It's also interesting to note that the Age of Pisces began around the same time as Jesus' birth:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age#The_Age_of_Pisces_.28The_Piscean_Age.29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age#The_Age_of_Pisces_.28The_Piscean_Age.29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T21:29:33.273" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12191" CreationDate="2012-12-18T22:25:10.293" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the post that you are referring to, it is possible that when the person says &quot;disability is the sad result of sin in the world&quot; they are referring to the perfect vs. post-perfect world in Genesis with Adam and Eve. God created Adam and Eve in His own image ( Genesis 1:27) and after the fall death entered the world through sin (Romans 5:12); therefore, physical disability must have come from sin eventually because sin entered through us all from Adam and Eve. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this might not be of what they were referring when they said &quot;disability is the sad result of sin in the world.&quot; I do not think that disability is a direct result of your sin or the inherited sin of your fathers NECESSARILY. I will conclude with two points. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 God does what He wants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I know that the Lord is great,&#xA;      and that our Lord is above all gods.&#xA;  6 Whatever the Lord pleases, he does,&#xA;      in heaven and on earth,&#xA;      in the seas and all deeps.&#xA;  7 He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth,&#xA;      who makes lightnings for the rain&#xA;      and brings forth the wind from his storehouses. - Psalm 135:5-7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 God is smarter than we are. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For my thoughts are not your thoughts,&#xA;      neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.&#xA;  9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,&#xA;      so are my ways higher than your ways&#xA;      and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isiah 55:8-9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why disability exists, plain and simple. Because God said it does. Because sometimes it brings Him Glory even if we can't see it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3596" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T22:25:10.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8943" CreationDate="2012-12-18T22:27:14.480" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As it turns out, the Trinitarian nature of God is actually an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;axiom&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In mathematics, an &lt;em&gt;axiom&lt;/em&gt; is a statement that is taken to be true without a proof. For example, the statement that a straight line can be drawn between any two points is one of the five axioms that comprise &lt;a href=&quot;http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Euclid's Postulates&lt;/a&gt;. To most of us, this statement is obviously true, but it can't be proven as true using any simpler axioms. This is because it is actually &lt;em&gt;assumed&lt;/em&gt; to be true and then the math is carried out from there on that basis. It is indeed entirely possible to assume that some statement is actually false and then go on from there, which is how the non-Euclidean geometries (elliptic and hyperbolic) were discovered - the parallel postulate was taken to be false and it was discovered that the resulting geometric systems were self-consistent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, the fact that God is a Trinity is true because it just &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;. God is uncreated and eternal, which means that He was &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; composed of three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are also no other gods, so the only god in existence is Yahweh, who is a Trinity. In effect, God &lt;em&gt;couldn't have been anything else&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea that such a complex characteristic could be an axiom can be somewhat unsatisfying, and indeed, I'm still coming to grips with it. However, it can help to take the axiom as &lt;em&gt;false&lt;/em&gt; and see what comes of it, just like Janos Bolyai and Nicolai Lobachevsky decided to treat the Parallel Postulate as false and see what happens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One Person (Unitarian) - God has no need for anything and no reason to desire anything. He is by Himself, and this is perfectly fine with Him. There is therefore no reason to create a universe with angels and men.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Two Persons (Duonitarian?) - The two Persons would have a relationship with each other, but there would be no concept of an &quot;another&quot; relationship. They would be wholly satisfied with each other, so there wouldn't be any reason for them to create a universe with angels and men.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Three Persons (Trinitarian, included for completeness) - Multiple relationships exist for each Person, which makes it possible for each Person to desire more relationships, leading to the creation of a universe with angels and men that they can form more relationships with.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Four or more Persons (&quot;Quadritarian&quot; and up) - Again, multiple relationships exist, but this time, there are too many. Any Person could leave or be separated and there would still exist multiple relationships among the other Persons. Loss means less here. By contrast, in a Trinity, if any Person leaves or is separated, the remainder is a Duo, and that has already been established as insufficient.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, if God was Unitarian or Duonitarian, the universe wouldn't have been created. On the other hand, four Persons or more is too many. Therefore, the Trinity is just right in that the concept of intimacy with multiple people exists &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the loss of any Person (such as Jesus' death on the Cross, where He was forsaken by His Father) is a hugely significant event. Yahweh is a Trinity because the other options are insufficient. He didn't &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; to be a Trinity, but He &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; a Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T22:27:14.480" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12191" CreationDate="2012-12-18T22:36:44.277" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disabilities exist because our bodies are biological and biology is messy.  Genetic mutations, environmental pollutions, accidents, disease, old age... there are many things that can result in our being disabled or disfigured.  If these things were the result of sin then shouldn't we expect to see a whole lot more than we do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-12-18T22:36:44.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12205" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-18T23:29:17.373" Score="3" ViewCount="10829" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is the religion of people who consider Jesus to be &quot;The Messiah&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what is the Christian definition of &quot;The Messiah&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Christian theology is based on the notion of &quot;The Messiah's&quot; first coming, what are the criteria that one has to fulfill during their &quot;first coming&quot; in order to be regarded as &quot;The Messiah&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3577" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-19T01:53:58.693" LastActivityDate="2016-04-14T07:24:39.760" Title="What is the Christian definition of &quot;The Messiah&quot;?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12205" CreationDate="2012-12-18T23:45:58.457" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;A messiah is a saviour or liberator of a people in the Abrahamic religions.&#xA;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Messiah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Messiah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mes·si·ah [mi-sahy-uh]  noun&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 the promised and expected deliverer of the Jewish people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Jesus Christ, regarded by Christians as fulfilling this promise and expectation. John 4:25, 26.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 ( usually lowercase  ) any expected deliverer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 ( usually lowercase  ) a zealous leader of some cause or project.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 ( italics  ) an oratorio (1742) by George Frideric Handel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Items 1 and 3 are the general definitions accepted. There have been plenty of messiahs (little m) in the Abrahamic religions. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judaism points to a coming Messiah throughout the Old Testament&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To your specific question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r004.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus is the Ultimate embodiment of the term&lt;/a&gt;. He is &lt;em&gt;The Messiah&lt;/em&gt;.  Christians believe He is the promised one that can deliver us (liberate us) from our sins, and the penalty of those sins.*&lt;/strong&gt; That's where definition 2 comes in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are tons of resources available explaining why we believe that Christ is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Messiah&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (as opposed to &quot;&lt;em&gt;a messiah&lt;/em&gt;&quot;).  For example, a list of Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Christ can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus.org/death-and-resurrection/resurrection/did-jesus-predict-his-resurrection.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Also there is the fact that He claimed to have power over life and death, then predicted His own death, burial, and Resurrection stating that this would prove His claim, then died, was buried, and was resurrected, therefore proving His claim.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for His role as liberator - the ability to liberate us from our sins is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gospelway.com/topics/god/jesus-forgiving-sins.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;based on His words&lt;/a&gt;, backed up by miracles.  Each time He made a claim to have the power that only God could have, such as the power to forgive sins, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus.org/life-of-jesus/miracles/why-did-jesus-perform-miracles.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;He backed the claim up with a miracle as a demonstration of His power, authority, and identity&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For &quot;little m&quot; messiah's it could be liberation from bondage (Moses delivering Israel from Egypt, etc.) That's referred to as a type of messiah, not The Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-19T04:27:56.343" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T04:27:56.343" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12196" CreationDate="2012-12-19T00:01:21.383" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Fredrick A. Larson, this so-called 'Star of Bethlehem' is actually the planet Jupiter. He produced a video documentary called (appropriately enough) &quot;The Star of Bethlehem&quot; that can be found on YouTube (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+star+of+bethlehem+proven&amp;amp;oq=the+star+of+bethlehem+proven&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bethlehemstar.net/&quot;&gt;his website&lt;/a&gt;. In this video documentary, Rick Larson lays out a detailed case for the Star of Bethlehem being Jupiter, which includes the following points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These &quot;wise men&quot; were almost certainly astrologers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;In the east&quot; likely meant that the &quot;star&quot; rose in the east, like all stars do.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jupiter, the King Planet, entered retrograde motion around Regulus, the King Star, crowning it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jupiter then coincided with Venus, resulting in the brightest star that had ever been seen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jupter entered retrograde motion again and appeared to stop over Bethlehem.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Larson then goes on to point out a great number of other significant astronomical events that occurred throughout Jesus' life, but they are not directly related to the Star of Bethlehem, so I won't talk about them here. The main difficulty with this is the fact that most historians place Herod's death in 4 B.C. whereas Larson's explanation depends on Herod's death being in 1 B.C. Larson does reference recent scholarship that support 1 B.C. as being the year of Herod's death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article on the subject has a section about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem#Astrological_events&quot;&gt;astrological events&lt;/a&gt; that might be the Star of Bethlehem, and all of the suggestions in that section include Jupiter. Therefore, it's a safe bet to say that &lt;strong&gt;Jupiter&lt;/strong&gt; is the most likely candidate for being the Star of Bethlehem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T00:01:21.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12197" CreationDate="2012-12-19T02:03:01.430" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't want to plagiarize, but there is a very good Catholic article on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thesacredpage.com/2008/12/christmas-star.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, the significance of swaddling clothes lies both in the fact that it is humble, common, ordinary, and also that it ties to Solomon - specifically the Wisdom of Solomon 7, 3-6.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7:3 And when I was born, I drew in the common air, and fell upon the&#xA;  earth, which is of like nature, and the first voice which I uttered&#xA;  was crying, as all others do. 7:4 I was nursed in swaddling clothes,&#xA;  and that with cares. 7:5 For there is no king that had any other&#xA;  beginning of birth. 7:6 For all men have one entrance into life, and&#xA;  the like going out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per the author of the article, this tie is a reinforcement of Christ's place in the Davidic line, and his rightful place as heir to the Throne of David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may or may not be agreed upon by all denominations,  (The Wisdom of Solomon isn't in the Protestant Bible) or even all Catholics.  The idea of it signifying humble beginnings for the King of Kings does seem to be more universal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another article at &lt;a href=&quot;http://living4jesus.net/dynamic/in.swaddling.htm&quot;&gt;http://living4jesus.net/dynamic/in.swaddling.htm&lt;/a&gt; tells that swaddling cloth used in Scripture is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; swaddling clothes that a normal infant would be buried in, but rather the strips of cloth used in burial rites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Have you ever wondered about &quot;swaddling clothes&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Everyone knows that Jesus was born in a manger, and the 2nd chapter of&#xA;  the gospel of Luke says that he was wrapped in &quot;swaddling clothes&quot; and&#xA;  laid in a manger. In fact, even hospitals today use a cloth that they&#xA;  call a &quot;swaddling&quot; cloth. Unfortunately, it's a misnomer that will&#xA;  soon be over 2,000 years old, because &quot;swaddling clothes&quot; have nothing&#xA;  to do with a child being born!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Middle East, people traveling long distances were often met&#xA;  with many hardships and trials on their journeys. In the event of a&#xA;  death in travel, the body could not continue to be transported for&#xA;  many days. For that reason, travelers wrapped a thin, gauzelike cloth&#xA;  around their waist many times. If someone died on the journey, the&#xA;  others would use this cloth, referred to as &quot;swaddling clothes&quot; to&#xA;  wrap the corpse in before burying them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jesus was born, there was no room in the Inn, and so Mary and&#xA;  Joseph used a nearby stable for Jesus' birth. With no other cloth to&#xA;  use, Jesus was wrapped in Joseph's &quot;swaddling clothes&quot; - the cloth&#xA;  normally reserved for a person's death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The King of Kings and Lord of Lords came into this world in a lowly&#xA;  manger and was wrapped with burial clothes - in truth, He was born to&#xA;  die. To die for the sins of all mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, there can be many deeper meanings read into the significance of Swaddling Clothes.  Whether all are accurate, or simply a part of our tendency to romanticize and look for deeper meaning, I'm not sure, but I thought that each of these was worth sharing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T02:03:01.430" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12205" CreationDate="2012-12-19T02:26:43.650" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there is an assumption behind your question that is not quite right, regarding the Christian conception of &quot;the Messiah&quot;. As David Stratton shows in his answer, the Messiah concept is originally Jewish, and Christians believe that Jesus is that very same Messiah, and the fulfilment of various prophecies. But bear in mind that most Christians historically (1) were Gentiles, and (2) lived long after Jesus did. They are not in the position of &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt; believing the Jewish scriptures to contain true prophecy, and &lt;em&gt;then&lt;/em&gt; figuring out that they are talking about Jesus - as if they might wake up one day and decide someone else is a better fit. It's more like taking the salvation work of Jesus as basic, and &lt;em&gt;afterwards&lt;/em&gt; using that understanding to approach the Jewish tradition. Jesus's Messiah-nature is (pretty much) axiomatic for Christians, and not a conclusion; instead, the facts of his life tell us what &quot;Messiah&quot; ought to mean. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest Christians, at least, &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; steeped in the concept of Messiah. As we know, there was a pre-existing expectation of a religious-political saviour of some kind, diverse interpretations of exactly what that meant, and many claimants to the title. The first Christians were those who came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the same person as the expected Messiah, and they explained this with reference to the Jewish scriptures (consider Peter's speech in Acts 2:14-41, for just one example). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I daresay that in many cases, Jewish people, ancient or modern, would regard a lot of these interpretations as wrong or unjustified (though not all: there are several passages that Jews and Christians agree are messianic, even if they disagree on whether they are talking about Jesus). From a Christian perspective, these passages help us to understand who Jesus was - they do not provide criteria against which he should be judged. Remember that Christians read the New Testament as authoritative from the get-go. If it says that's how to understand what Joel wrote, then there you have it. Moreover, it says very clearly that all expectations about the Messiah are met or exceeded in Jesus (see for example the Letter to the Hebrews). In particular, he is a king, a priest and a prophet - but not in the way people expected - he is the suffering servant, he is representative of Israel, he brings God's truth to the world, he is above the angels, and so on. More than that, he uniquely met and defeated sin in his own person, as &quot;the firstborn of the dead&quot; whose resurrection makes eternal life possible for all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a &quot;weak&quot; version of Jesus-as-Messiah, where &quot;Messiah&quot; was a useful analogy for explaining what Jesus did, to people who were already familiar with the idea. Consider in opposition Acts 17:16-34, where Paul speaking in Athens uses the language of Greek philosophy rather than Jewish prophecy. The title would then be just one of many attributes or analogies used to describe who Jesus was, as he is elsewhere called the bread of life, the lamb of God, and so on. But this isn't really satisfactory, since it doesn't explain why exactly God would choose to be incarnate in this nation, at this time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective, one can understand the entire prior history of Israel, and indeed the world, as leading towards Jesus. This includes the Messiah concept. In other words, the fact that the messianic idea existed should be &quot;explicable&quot; in terms of Jesus. N. T. Wright (Anglican theologian and bishop) writes that for Paul, &quot;In Jesus the Messiah the covenant purpose of the creator for Israel was finally fulfilled&quot; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. In this way the universal significance of Jesus is tied in with the religious and political context of his life, and all of these circumstances were arranged by God. Messiah is not an empty or minor title. It is inseparable from the gospel message. And because of this there is no objective checklist &lt;em&gt;within Christianity&lt;/em&gt; for deciding whether someone is the Messiah. Christian faith presupposes that Jesus is the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here comes a terrible analogy.&lt;/strong&gt; Suppose I am expecting my long-lost uncle to show up for dinner. I've never met him, but I have some idea what he looks like (and perhaps my family can't agree on how tall he is, whether his hair is greyish-black or blackish-grey, or whether he sings bass or tenor). When he does arrive and introduces himself, I immediately &quot;know&quot; that he is my uncle, by what he says and the way he looks and moves, even if he doesn't precisely match my earlier expectation. He may show other forms of proof too. But from now on, because I know who my uncle is, I have &lt;em&gt;updated my uncle-concept&lt;/em&gt; in the light of my new experience. True, there is a definition of &quot;an uncle&quot; as the brother of one of my parents, but my definition of &quot;my uncle&quot;, my idea of who he is, comes from the facts of his existence. My understanding of my family history, and of all the stories in which my uncle featured, has changed now that I have met him. I cherish those stories but I no longer use them as a checklist against which uncle-candidates can be assessed. &lt;strong&gt;Analogy ends.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. N. T. Wright. &lt;a href=&quot;http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans and the theology of Paul&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. In &lt;em&gt;Pauline Theology&lt;/em&gt;, volume 3, ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson. 1995.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2012-12-19T15:25:44.430" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T15:25:44.430" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12212" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-19T05:17:14.487" Score="3" ViewCount="930" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding Mark 16:9-20: To my knowledge, most biblical scholars agree that the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark were added at a later date in order to give a more coherent finish to a seemingly abrupt gospel ending.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are the last 12 verses of Mark an addition to the original manuscript, and if so, does this cast doubt upon the claim that the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3629" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2014-03-17T01:03:07.747" LastActivityDate="2014-03-17T01:03:07.747" Title="Does Mark 16:9-20 Prove the Bible is not the infallible word of God?" Tags="&lt;infallibility&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12205" CreationDate="2012-12-19T05:24:20.713" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What is the Christian definition of &quot;the Messiah&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English word &quot;Messiah&quot; (capitalized or not) is a loanword based on a loose transliteration of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (&lt;em&gt;mashiach&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; This word means &quot;anointed,&quot; and when used as a substantive, it means &quot;anointed one.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;To &quot;anoint&quot; is &quot;to smear oil upon.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Mishneh Torah&lt;/em&gt;, Moses ben Maimon wrote,&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Throughout the generations, no one is anointed with it (the special anointing oil) except the high priests, the priest of war, and kings of the house of David alone. Even a high priest who is the son of a high priest is anointed with it, as it is said (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/lev/21/10/t_conc_111010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Lev. 21:10&quot;&gt;Lev. 21:10&lt;/a&gt;), &quot;And the one who is high priest among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/715Ab.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/715Ab.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How is the priest anointed? The oil is poured upon his head and applied between his eyes in the form of the Greek letter &lt;em&gt;chi&lt;/em&gt; (Χ) as it is said (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/lev/8/12/t_conc_98012&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Lev. 8:12&quot;&gt;Lev. 8:12&lt;/a&gt;), &quot;And he poured the anointing oil on Aaron's head and anointed him to sanctify him.&quot; And the kings of the house of David are anointed [with the oil spread] like a kind of crown on their head. And they should not be anointed on other places [on their bodies], nor should one use an excessive amount of oil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/6xW1i.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/6xW1i.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly, there are many individuals referred to as &quot;anointed&quot; in the Tanakh, whether prophets, kings, or priests. However, we believe that Jesus is &lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; anointed one &lt;strong&gt;par excellence&lt;/strong&gt; because his anointing was greater than all other individuals who were anointed. Hence, we refer to him as &lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; Messiah rather than a messiah. Why so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/psa/45/1/t_conc_523006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Psa. 45:6-7&quot;&gt;Psa. 45:6-7&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; O' God, your throne is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of equity. You loved righteousness and hated wickedness. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, O' God, your God anointed you with an oil of gladness more than your brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ו&lt;/sup&gt; כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מִישֹׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;ז&lt;/sup&gt; אָהַבְתָּ צֶּדֶק וַתִּשְׂנָא רֶשַׁע עַל כֵּן מְשָׁחֲךָ אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן שָׂשׂוֹן מֵחֲבֵרֶךָ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice we have God (the Son) being anointed by God (the Father) with the &quot;oil of gladness&quot; more than his brothers. The oil of gladness is the Holy Spirit (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=10&amp;amp;v=38&amp;amp;t=KJV#38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 10:38&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Messiah is God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He is anointed by God the Father.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God the Father anoints him with the Holy Spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He is anointed &lt;em&gt;more than&lt;/em&gt; his brothers (Jesus has the Holy Spirit without measure; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=34&amp;amp;t=KJV#34&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:34&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;On the City of God&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;De Civitate Dei&lt;/em&gt;), Augustine wrote,&lt;sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who is there, no matter how slow, but must here recognize Christ whom we preach, and in whom we believe, if he hears that He is God, whose throne is for ever and ever, and that &lt;strong&gt;He is anointed by God&lt;/strong&gt;, as God indeed anoints, not with a visible, but with a spiritual and intelligible chrism?  For who is so untaught in this religion, or so deaf to its far and wide spread fame, as not to know that &lt;strong&gt;Christ is named from this chrism, that is, from this anointing&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, cum audiat Deum, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, &lt;strong&gt;et unctum a Deo&lt;/strong&gt;, utique sicut unguit Deus, non visibili, sed spiritali atque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione vel tam surdus adversus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut &lt;strong&gt;Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum&lt;/strong&gt; esse non noverit?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original poster asked in a comment,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But what is the (1st coming) job according to Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to those who experienced the crucifixion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, the earliest Christians believed that the King Messiah (i.e., the King of Israel) would be the one who &quot;redeemed Israel&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/24/1/s_997021&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Luke 24:21&quot;&gt;Luke 24:21&lt;/a&gt;), that is, from the bondage of Gentile nations, especially Rome. However, not long thereafter, the Christians realized that the Messiah would be a redeemer, but not in the physical sense. Instead, he would liberate or redeem man from being enslaved to his sins, for the Lord Jesus Christ said (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/18/1/t_conc_1015036&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;John 18:36&quot;&gt;John 18:36&lt;/a&gt;),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But now my kingdom is not hence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hebrewbooks.org/14200&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Netzach Yisra'el&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (נצח ישראל), Ch. 42, the MaHaRaL (Judah Loew ben Bezalel) wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How shall the Messiah be in this world, which is a carnal world, when all the business of the Messiah is divine, not carnal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/APeat.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/APeat.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnotes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; To be more precise, the English word &quot;Messiah&quot; is a Latin loanword derived from the Latin word &lt;em&gt;messias&lt;/em&gt;, which is a transliteration of the Greek word μεσσίας (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/1/41/t_conc_998041&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;John 1:41&quot;&gt;John 1:41&lt;/a&gt;), which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; HALOT, p. 603; Gesenius, p. 515&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Klei ka-Mikdash veha-Ovdim Bo, Chapter 1, Halakha 7 &amp;amp; 9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Psa. 45:7-8 according to the Masoretic text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Book 17, Ch. 16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;References&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine (&lt;em&gt;Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis&lt;/em&gt;). &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;On the City of God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.augustinus.it/latino/cdd/index2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;De Civitate Dei&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brown, Francis; Driver, Samuel Rolles; Briggs, Charles Augustus. &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://archive.org/details/hebrewenglishlex00browuoft&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; Oxford: Clarendon, 1906.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gesenius, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm. &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://archive.org/details/hebrewchaldeelex00geseuoft&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; Trans. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. London: Bagster, 1857.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judah Loew ben Bezalel. &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hebrewbooks.org/44279&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Netzach Yisra'el&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (נצח ישראל). Jerusalem: 1964.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses ben Maimon. &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/0n.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mishneh Torah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (מִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה). Ed. Mechon-Mamre. Jerusalem: Mechon-Mamre, 2015.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2016-04-14T07:24:39.760" LastActivityDate="2016-04-14T07:24:39.760" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12212" CreationDate="2012-12-19T05:27:05.440" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer, no.  Not at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would count as plausible deniability to the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;straw-man&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; definition of &quot;the inspired and infallible word of God&quot;, but only to the false straw-man understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that, almost no denomination believes that inspiration and infallibility are attributed to modern versions/translations of Scripture.  Inspiration and infallibility are attributed only to the original manuscripts, as recorded by the original authors.  We have always allowed for the possibility of copyist errors, mistakes, etc.  This is explained in great detail here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase &amp;quot;Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God&amp;quot; mean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(That is from a Fundamentalist perspective, but most denominations and traditions agree that infallibility and inerrancy are only attributed to the original manuscripts.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does leave the question of &quot;If the current versions could contain mistakes, how do we know that we can depend on them?  How do we know they haven't changed over time so much that they can no longer be trusted?&quot;  That's also an answered question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;What is &amp;quot;Manuscript Evidence&amp;quot; and how is it useful?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T05:27:05.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12215" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-19T06:38:36.387" Score="8" ViewCount="962" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do any major traditions in Christianity hold any sort of formulated doctrine or is there some Biblical justification tossed around that explains God's &lt;em&gt;a priori&lt;/em&gt; reason for choosing 7 to be significant was? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm specifically curious about the source of 7's significance, not the how (in other words, I'm not looking for examples of significant 7s (covered in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2001/why-is-the-number-seven-special&quot;&gt;Why is the number seven special?&lt;/a&gt; and on &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7389/a-natural-explanation-for-the-significance-of-the-numbers-7-and-40/7393#7393&quot;&gt;Judaism.SE here&lt;/a&gt;) or for how these play out, but for why God picked the number in the first place.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the significance of the numbers 1 and 3 can both be derived from the Trinity. One God, three Persons. But what is the source of 7? Why God &lt;em&gt;chose&lt;/em&gt; seven instead of, say, nine. Or five or eleven, which are also primes (in the mathematical system we use). God seems to have chosen 7 to be significant &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; Creation. He chose 7 to be the number of days in a week. This means that any significant 7 post-creation (including the length of a week) is a significant 7 &lt;em&gt;for the same reason&lt;/em&gt;. Before God created the universe, He picked out 7 to be one of His significant numbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify a bit further, if God decided that 9 was the number of perfection for whatever reason, then we probably would have had an 8-day work week and the 9th day would be the Sabbath. The number of the beast would probably have been 888 instead of 666. Pentecost probably would have come 82 days after Passover (50 = 7*7+1, 82=9*9+1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is truly no source for this and no Christian tradition has forwarded any explanation, the answer may very well be &quot;none&quot;. However if more than one doctrine exists, please explain what the different suggestions are and how they end up on different tracks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-12-26T08:02:51.737" Title="Is there a doctrine or Biblical justification that explains why God chose the number 7 to be so significant?" Tags="&lt;numerology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12191" CreationDate="2012-12-19T09:40:34.593" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is not simple to answer to because what you call 'original sin' can have several meanings and interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logic you presented works hardly: it is very simple and do not take into account other &quot;variables&quot;.  For instance, is the 'first sin' inherited by us? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, according to your reasoning, can you individuate the first passage where, in the bible, it's spoken about disability? Then all the facts/events that happen before could be the cause of disability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just to say that having a rigid logic is not, in my opinion, the best approach to the Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus said, like &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1039/affable-geek&quot;&gt;@AffableGeek&lt;/a&gt; was suggesting, the passage from John 10 contains some answers: &quot;This man was not born blind because of his sin or his parents' sin, but in order that the glory of the Lord might be shown.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this passage, but also other reading other miracles in the Gospel, we understand that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sin is not inherited: to actualize it in our daily life, my interpretation is that there is not direct connection with our parent's sins. Hence if my father killed a man, God is not going to punish me for that (to put it veery simply!). However (and this is an angle of view I really like and use often as an approach to the scripture) it DESCRIBES how things work in real life: if my father killed a man, he will be probably have troubles in his life, and it will negatively reflect on my growth as a child, on my personality... &#xA;So, the evil (sins) around us can create disabilities: pollution, incests, hazards caused by man not respecting nature and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The scripture invites us to understand not much the CAUSES of the disability, but its purposes! It's revolutionary! We always try to understand why something happened, while in Chirst's view is more imortant to understand how the glory of God can manifestate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also worked some time with handicapped people, and I can assure you that staying close to such people OBLIGE you to make a lot of virtuos things like: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;realizing which are the important things in life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;appreciate what you already have &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;give love and care to somebody, thus 'training' your hearth not to be selfish&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... and many others...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer to your question, I think that the best way to reconcile with the belief that disability is a result of original sin, and sin affecting the world, is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;accept the disability&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;accept that it can eventually come from other (or yours) sins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;MOST IMPORTANT: try to live the &lt;strong&gt;real but misterious fact&lt;/strong&gt; that disability is a place where God want to manifestate his presence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1257" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T10:00:13.833" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12215" CreationDate="2012-12-19T10:09:32.600" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Alright we are truly careening into wild specualtion with the question and my answer but for the sheer fun of it, I would suggest this as a possible explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are allowed to make meanings from two numbers added, I would say seven, meaning 'totality' arises from joining 'God' (3) and the world (4) into our daily lives (3+4=7). This gives us totality on the earth.  This sort of 'heavenly' plus 'earthly' number, making a total of seven would then seem to be confirmed in that the four phases of the moon casting its light on the earth occurs over a seven day period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seven just means then that God would like to be in our life to make it complete so that we rest in him on the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do I believe what I just wrote? Just a very, very little bit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T10:09:32.600" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12195" CreationDate="2012-12-19T15:59:02.480" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Psalm 23, David, the shepherd king, proclaims, &quot;The Lord is my Shepherd.&quot;  In doing so, David implicitly ascribes to God the title of &quot;The Shepherd's Shepherd&quot; or &quot;The Shepherd of Shepherd's&quot;.  Elsewhere, God is called the &quot;King of Kings&quot; and &quot;Lord of Lords&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, it was wholly fitting that when God, the Shepherd of Shepherds, became a Man and was born in the city of David, that a proclamation was made to &lt;em&gt;shepherds&lt;/em&gt;.  Who else would you tell of the birth of the Shepherd of shepherds, but shepherds?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was also called the Lamb of God by John the Baptist (John 1:29).  So, it is also noteworthy that it was shepherds who received the proclamation that the Messiah, who would later be called the Lamb of God, had been born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the&#xA;  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!  John 1:29 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and&#xA;  Lord of lords.  Revelation 19:16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T15:59:02.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12221" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12231" CreationDate="2012-12-19T16:22:26.423" Score="13" ViewCount="2299" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a branch of theological study devoted to archetypes, or types of Christ.  Some of these are explicitly defined in the New Testament, as when Jesus speaks of the manna from heaven and calls Himself the Bread of Life and the Bread the came down from heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is whether the nation of Israel itself is considered an archetype, and, if so, what makes it so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2014-01-24T10:14:00.010" LastActivityDate="2016-10-18T22:35:16.697" Title="Is the nation of Israel itself a type of Christ and, if so, how?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;israel&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;archetype&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12222" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12236" CreationDate="2012-12-19T16:28:27.723" Score="5" ViewCount="2820" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Ark of the Covenant was presumably located in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when Titus conquered the city and destroyed the Temple.  Is there any historical indication of what happened to the Ark of the Covenant and the other items inside the Temple at that time, such as Aaron's budding staff, the two tablets of the testimony (10 Commandments), the Brazen Altar, and the Table of Bread?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were the Jews able to hide these things or were they captured?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Assuming, of course, that Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark was not a documentary.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-08-05T16:48:48.887" Title="Is there any historical evidence that would indicate where exactly the ark of the covenant is now located?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;jerusalem&gt;&lt;temple&gt;&lt;ark-of-the-covenant&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12215" CreationDate="2012-12-19T16:40:48.877" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you'll find dogma from any major tradition insisting that God &lt;strong&gt;pre-ordained&lt;/strong&gt; the number 7, that it's integral to His nature, or anything of the sort. In fact, scripture suggests the contrary.  Consider first God's consecration of 7 as the symbol of perfection. It's the final event (or detail) of the first creation account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were&#xA;  completed. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; On the seventh day God completed the work he&#xA;  had been doing; he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had&#xA;  undertaken. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; God blessed the seventh day and made it holy,&#xA;  because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, right off the bat, regardless of whether we assume the creation story is allegorical or literal, we can already &lt;em&gt;start&lt;/em&gt; to make a case that God consecrated the number &lt;strong&gt;post&lt;/strong&gt;-creation. He works for six days, and once everything is to His liking, he declares perfection, which just to happens to be on the &lt;strong&gt;7th&lt;/strong&gt; day. Seven thereby symbolizes perfection. Nowhere else (that I can think of) does God directly reveal 7 as a symbol of perfection; it is seemingly deduced from creation, God's reflection on the 7th day that His work is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those preferring the allegorical reading might suggest that the story takes place in 7 days because the Jews already used 7 to symbolize perfection, or because certain prevalent natural harmonies in the universe made 7 significant, etc.. Those preferring a literal reading can start to sense that God didn't &lt;strong&gt;pre&lt;/strong&gt;-consecrate 7; that consecration occurs distinctly &lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; God creates everything. And in either case, the consecration of 7 &lt;em&gt;as perfection&lt;/em&gt; occurs at a &lt;strong&gt;particular point in time&lt;/strong&gt; in the story -- in fact, it's the point in time &lt;em&gt;itself&lt;/em&gt;, according to the story, that defines the number of perfection, which &quot;ends up&quot; being 7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, one could (and should) object here and suggest that, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, He could simply have &lt;em&gt;planned&lt;/em&gt; to make all things in 6 days and declare perfection on the 7th. He was eternally aware of 7's perfection. And that's a fair point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, we turn to Jesus' own words to weigh in on our speculation. The first story in gospel of Mark wherein Jesus is challenged with a question about the Sabbath is significant. Upon being caught disrespecting Sabbath law, Jesus rebuts with a pretty revealing statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/2/27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 2:27-28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man,&#xA;  not man for the sabbath. &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; That is why the Son of Man is&#xA;  lord even of the sabbath.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This statement points all the way back to creation. The Jews revere the number 7 as the symbol of perfection on account of God's mandate for a Sabbath. And now Jesus is telling the Jews that God made the Sabbath &lt;strong&gt;for them&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is simultaneously subtle and glaring. God doesn't need a Sabbath. And God doesn't need 7 to mean anything. &lt;strong&gt;We do.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, for &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; sake, God chooses the number most beneficial and recognizable to &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; nature to signify perfection and denote cycles of rest and worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God choose seven to serve human nature, not His own. More to it, God doesn't need symbols or special numbers. &lt;strong&gt;We do.&lt;/strong&gt; God just gives us what we need (or ask for) to help us stay on track.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2012-12-19T20:22:56.113" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T20:22:56.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12212" CreationDate="2012-12-19T17:27:56.997" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, absolutely not at all&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is well-known that the Bible was not written down as a single chunk, intended from the start to be taken as infallible. The process by which those writings were declared to be Scripture took hundreds of years, and the addition of the last twelve verses of Mark certainly predate that. So at the point where the canon of scripture was defined, those twelve verses were in Mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T17:27:56.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12215" CreationDate="2012-12-19T19:01:17.950" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that seven contains a sense of completion in that it is the end of a process, while three contains a sense of completion from integration. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give a quick illustration of three, as a person we have activity, a body, and a soul, or as the Divine has the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the the Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seven as in the days of creation illustrate a process or cycle. But this cycle is made of up six days of creation plus the divine addition of rest. As taught in the Ten Commandments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that&#xA;  in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the&#xA;  sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:11 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another passages that illustrates that seven is composed of work plus the addition of one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here is another example of seven being composed of six plus one. And&#xA;  if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee,&#xA;  and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him&#xA;  go free from thee. (Deuteronomy 15:12 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can easily be established as a number indicative of divinty. The Shema (one of the most important passages is the Old Testament) indicates this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hear , O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if seven is six plus one, what does six mean? We can surmise some sense of six and that it means humanity from this passage in the Book of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of&#xA;  the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six&#xA;  hundred threescore and six.(Revelation 13:18 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this context, six or 666 is used to indicate the beast as well as a person. But if seven is six plus one (the divine), then three sixs would indicate a complete separation from the divine (six without the one). Or alternatively, as far as humanity can go without joining together in life with the Divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as to the heart of your question, why is seven special? We are of course entering into speculative territory. I do not know of any Bible passage to support this directly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My supposition rests on the idea of six plus one. Six is composed of two threes. I believe this indicates a the complete integration both inward and outward. We can integrate our hearts, mind, and action. And we can integrate our lives with our identity, the truth of Scripture, and the evidence of the World. We as created beings of the Divine have a capacity of inward and outward integration, but without the rest or grace given through the mercy of the Divine, we are always toiling to maintain ourselves in this integrity (a state of sixness). However, seven is the complete integration of a person inwardly, outwardly, and having been joined to God, which only occurs through process, eg. the days of creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3634" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T19:01:17.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12215" CreationDate="2012-12-19T19:33:32.007" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is far too much detail to dig into, and you could probably spend a lifetime concocting new correlations and patterns, but I think it's interesting to note that the ancients paid a lot of attention to the skies and there were &lt;em&gt;seven&lt;/em&gt; celestial objects which they were familiar with that did not behave as regular stars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_hours&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_hours&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye_planets&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye_planets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astrology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astrology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to that linked answer on the Judaism site, I do not believe that 7 is the &lt;em&gt;natural&lt;/em&gt; cycle for anything.  Can anyone name a single natural phenomenon that cycles over 7 days/months/years/anything?  Neither lunar nor solar cycles divide evenly into 7-day weeks, there's always some leftover no matter how perfect we think 7 is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T19:33:32.007" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12228" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12230" CreationDate="2012-12-19T20:10:28.467" Score="9" ViewCount="501" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rickgrunder.com/BooksForSale/bomhj/bomhj.htm&quot;&gt;these images&lt;/a&gt; of an original copy of the Book of Mormon, it appears that the dates and chapter summaries that appear in modern printings do not appear in the original.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When exactly did these summaries and dates become associated with each chapter and book in the printings?  What authority is behind the dates?  Do these originate with Joseph Smith, or were they included at a later time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2015-07-08T11:42:03.253" Title="Where did the dates at the bottom of the pages in the Book of Mormon come from?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3152" CreationDate="2012-12-19T20:45:02.403" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why don’t Christians generally celebrate Tabernacles now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simplest answer is that Christians never agreed to observe it. The Israelites agreed to keep the Law of Moses at Sinai by confirming an oath in a &lt;strong&gt;bilateral&lt;/strong&gt; covenant.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” &lt;sup&gt;NKJV, 1982&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if one is a Jewish Christian (i.e., a Christian by faith who is of Jewish descent by birth), they died to the Law by their union with the Messiah.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. &lt;sup&gt;NKJV, 1982&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rabbis understood that “as soon as a man dies, he is made free from the commandments.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Since we have died with Christ,&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; we are free from the commandments (this would pertain to those Jews who were formerly covenantally bound to observe the Law of Moses).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gentile Christians never agreed to observe the Feast of Tabernacles in a bilateral covenant; therefore, they were never obligated to observe it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jewish Christians were obligated to observe it, but because they are dead with Christ, they are made free from the commandments and are no longer obligated to observe it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Exo. 24:7&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Rom. 7:4&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Babylonian Talmud, Seder Tohorot, Tractate Nidda, Chapter 8, Folio &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l6109.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;61b&lt;/a&gt;, Gemara: כיון שמת אדם נעשה חפשי מן המצות&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Rom. 6:8&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-05-14T19:08:35.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12228" CreationDate="2012-12-19T20:50:36.687" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Editions_%281830-1981%29&quot;&gt;According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism&lt;/a&gt;, chapter summaries first appeared in an edition published in 1920, under the editorship of James E. Talmage, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but the chapter summaries in modern printings of the Book of Mormon, as well as the footnotes and cross-references, date to the 1981 printing, which was &quot;edited by a committee headed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These chapter summaries were not part of the original text, and are intended simply as summaries, much like those that can be found in many editions of the Bible, giving an overview of the material to be discussed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the dates, they simply count years in the narrative from fixed reference points in time, under the assumption that the birth of Jesus happened in the year 1 AD.  (This date is used for convenience, and is not an actual point of doctrine, so far as I know.)  The beginning of the book is set at 600 BC, because of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/19.8?lang=eng#7&quot;&gt;a revelation that the Savior would be born six hundred years after their departure from Jerusalem.&lt;/a&gt;  The author(s) of the dates clearly did not want to embellish in any way; in spans where the text does not count years, the date on that page simply says &quot;between X and Y,&quot; giving the two known years from the chronology that the current events of the narrative are taking place somewhere between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T20:50:36.687" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12221" CreationDate="2012-12-19T22:14:24.097" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christopher Wright authors the book &lt;em&gt;Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament&lt;/em&gt; to help modern day Christians make a correlation between Old Testament Israel and the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. I think this is the best resource for the answer to this question and the full text can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830816933&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wright begins his book by making the assertion that the Jesus of the New Testament embodies the covenants and promises set forth in the Old Testament by God to Israel (Wright 1992, 62). Wright claims that it “is the contention of [the] whole book that we must clearly face up to the distinctive claims of the Hebrew scriptures if we are to get our understanding of Christ’s uniqueness straight also” (Wright, 35). In the Old Testament, the people of Israel are the chosen people of God. It is through these people that God chooses to bring salvation to the world (Wright, 49). Wright claims that Jesus “had, in a sense, taken on the identity of Israel” in the New Testament (Wright, 182). Jesus came into a historically centered Jewish culture and claimed the identity of the saving grace of the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wright concludes his text by making the claim that “Jesus did not come to teach people new ideas about some new moral philosophy which he called the Kingdom of God,” but rather became the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises entirely (Wright, 251). Wright accurately shows how Jesus not only fulfills the promises of the Old Testament but also adapts it’s philosophies for himself (Wright, 197). Jesus, then, uses the Old Testament to find his own identity, his purpose and his values. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Wright begins to develop his book, his fundamental claim is the Jewish nature of Jesus himself. Therefore, Wright begins Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament by exploring the Jewish culture that surrounded the time of Jesus. His goal is simply to enhance the personhood of Jesus through a deep knowledge of the Old Testament, its history, and its theological values. Just as through Israel God created a universal blessing, through Jesus God has created a universal means of salvation (Wright, 36). Through both Israel and Jesus there occur elements of election, redemption, covenant and inheritance (Wright, 40). Wright affirms this biblically through multiple passages, the foremost being Galatians 3:29 – “If you belong to the Messiah, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” This verse and the assertions of Wright all center around Jesus being the doorway into which modern-day Christians are accepted into the covenant of eternal life and the blessings set forth in ancient times by God to Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, as Wright presses on into the book the reader travels with him into the promises that God makes in the Old Testament to Israel and the other nations. It is here that Wright explains in detail the inter-connectedness of Jesus and Israel and how the people in the time that the gospels were written would have implicitly understood the significance (Wright, 60). As the reader explores all of the ancient covenants that God created with Israel, Wright explains how each one of them was more than just a specific promise to a specific people. “So once again, we find the same combination: the universal, missiological dimension of the covenant, in its ultimate scope, for the blessing of all nations through Israel” (Wright, 92-93). This sets up the historical context for the New Covenant which occurred with Jesus (Israel) and through Him salvation can be expanded to other nations (Gentiles). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wright’s goal of enhancing the person of Jesus through the Old Testament is both clear and powerful as moves forward in the text. Wright then explains how the character of Jesus was formed by the Old Testament’s use of the phrase “Son of God” (Wright, 106-107). Many times in the Old Testament, the people of Israel are referred to as the “sons of God” and are therefore related to Jesus within the text (Wright, 122-123). In Exodus 4:22 God declares Israel to be His firstborn son; therefore, the relationship between Israel and Jesus is very explicit – Israel was the firstborn son of God and Jesus also carried this title. Because of this, the mission of Israel must also be the mission of Jesus. The redemptive abilities of Israel then become the redemptive abilities of Jesus. Through Israel God chose to bless the world and through Jesus He chose to save it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wright also asserts, then, that Jesus gained his mission from the Old Testament as well. Wright claims that “Israel was the servant of God, chosen and upheld by [God], with the purpose of being a light to the nations” (Wright, 162). As Jesus became the embodiment of Israel he also took on the global mission and yoke of Israel. This is the weakest part of Wright’s argument for the purpose of Jesus through the Old Testament. While he provides some Biblical examples in the chapter about Jesus’ purpose, this is the area of his book where he treats the Bible figuratively. Wright produces a firm argument for his case but loses ground in his over-employed metaphor of Jesus acting as every aspect of Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3596" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-22T21:02:27.047" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T21:02:27.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12178" CreationDate="2012-12-19T23:09:01.280" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to address this question I have a few initial notes: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First, in first century Palestine, there wasn't really a &quot;middle-class&quot; in the same way that we think of it. The vast majority of people worked each day for their immediate necessities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Second, we should look at Jesus before his traveling ministry and during his traveling ministry because we can presume that what he did for income was different: before he started his wandering ministry he was most likely a carpenter (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Mark+6/&quot;&gt;Mark 6:3&lt;/a&gt;). When he started his ministry he became an itinerant Rabbi who relied on his audience for income.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Third, we have to first ask what does it mean to be a &quot;poor man&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before he started his wandering ministry, Jesus was a carpenter, meaning that he was of the small artisan class. Artisans were one of the only small social classes that had more economic means than the common class (the plebs) but were not in the highest social strata.  So we can say Jesus came from a family with some, but small economic means.  When he became a itinerant Rabbi, he relied on the charity of others (as was common for itinerant Rabbis) but he had the social clout of being a Rabbi. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In sum, the answer is complicated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Most of this info came from my college course on Wealth and Poverty in Christian History and from &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Good_of_Affluence.html?id=kleFGTU9FncC&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Good of Affluence&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by John Schneider Chapter 5, near pages 123).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3638" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2012-12-19T23:39:25.770" LastActivityDate="2012-12-19T23:39:25.770" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12221" CreationDate="2012-12-19T23:33:49.800" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, I do not believe so. A general theme in the Tanakh (“Old Testament”) is the rebellion and faithlessness of the Israelites. This couldn’t possibly be typical of the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Messiah is indeed “Israel.” Elsewhere in the Tanakh, the Messiah is referred to by the name “David,” his ancestor.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In the same manner, he is referred to as “Israel,” the name of another one of his ancestors.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The “Israel” in Isa. 49:3 is given the task of “bringing back Jacob to Him”&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; and “to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel.”&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Logically, the nation of Israel can neither bring itself back, nor raise itself, nor restore itself. Therefore, the first “Israel” mentioned in Isa. 49:3 must be the Messiah, who is named “Israel,” as Matthew rightfully concludes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, since the Messiah is “Israel,” and we are the body of the Messiah,&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; then we are also “Israel.” Since our union with and identity in the Messiah is spiritual,&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; the Church (the body of the Messiah) is Israel according to the spirit, elsewhere referred to as “the Israel of God.”&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, Paul identifies unbelieving Israel as “Israel according to the flesh.”&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Elsewhere, in his epistle to the Romans, he wrote, “For not all these who are of Israel are Israel.”&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; The meaning is that not all people physically descended from the patriarch Israel (Jacob) are Israel, that is, the Israel of God. Paul further clarifies, “Those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are accounted for the seed.”&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, the Messiah is “Israel,” and thus, his body, the Church, is also Israel. However, the Messiah is not the antitype of the nation of Israel. Rather, he is the antitype of the patriarch Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To emphasize this distinction, consider the servant passages of the Book of Isaiah. The Messiah as “Israel” is described as “My righteous servant,”&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; a light for the Gentiles&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; who magnifies the Law,&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; but the nation of Israel is the blind and deaf servant&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; who “would not walk in His ways nor were they obedient to His law.&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; cp. Jer. 30:9; Eze. 37:24-25; Hos. 3:5&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Isa. 49:3 cp. Matt. 12:17-21; Hos. 11:1 cp. Matt.  2:15&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Isa. 49:5&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Isa. 49:6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; 1 Cor. 12:27&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; 1 Cor. 6:17&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Gal. 6:16&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; «τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα»; 1 Cor. 10:18&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Rom. 9:6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; Rom. 9:8&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; Isa. 49:3, 53:11&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; Isa. 42:6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Isa. 42:4, 42:21&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; Isa. 42:18-20&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; Isa. 42:24&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-10-18T22:35:16.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12238" CreationDate="2012-12-20T02:54:00.540" Score="4" ViewCount="682" Body="&lt;p&gt;Life for humans (Adam and Eve) before eating from the tree of knowledge was extremely different - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as there was no sin&lt;/a&gt; in the physical earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before that time, the two were separate, and evil had only a nebulous&#xA;  existence in potentia. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, eating from the tree of knowledge cursed the rest of humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it is also &quot;known&quot; that God has the &lt;strong&gt;power to do ANY thing&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can God allow humanity ever get back to that previous state (&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;i.e. - we all obey Him perfectly&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;)** here on Earth** or is it never an option and why won't He?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T20:39:12.990" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T10:30:33.597" Title="Can God reverse the fall of man specifically on earth?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12234" CreationDate="2012-12-20T03:10:40.277" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's certainly no doctrine that says it's possible. The very idea would be in direct opposition to the concept of Original Sin, which states that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1600/are-we-born-sinners&quot;&gt;we're all born sinners&lt;/a&gt; because we inherited our sinful nature.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the doctrine of original sin is true (and since it's the starting point of your question, let's assume, for the sake of this answer, that it is) we'd have to be born of a sinless line to escape it. The only sinless person ever to walk the earth was Christ, who isn't recorded as having any Children.  (At least, outside of fiction and imaginative historians that would love nothing more than to debunk His identity.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could, theoretically, come up with some scenario where God could create again, from the dust, a new man and new woman, therefore escaping original sin, and have them conceive before either sinned.  This isn't a logical intrinsic impossibility like creating a rock so big he can't lift it or anything.  Theoretically, is not an intrinsic impossibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there's nothing, no indication in any Scripture, or doctrine, or tradition, or anything outside of someone's imagination to indicate that this is even remotely a part of the possible future of mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quite the contrary, prophecy about end-times that says it won't happen before this universe is destroyed, and a new Heaven and a new Earth is created.  (Revelation 21).  That alone means that if it happens, it won't happen &lt;strong&gt;here on earth&lt;/strong&gt; - at least not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T03:18:11.110" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12222" CreationDate="2012-12-20T03:29:20.233" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;several&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; historical hints to the location of the Ark.  Many of them are contradictory.  The problem isn't so much finding historical evidence that points to possible current locations of the Ark, it's that we have no way of determining which, if any, are valid, true, and reliable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a002.html&quot;&gt;ChristianAnswers.Net&lt;/a&gt; gives several possible locations.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/keepers-of-the-lost-ark&quot;&gt;The Church of Ethiopia claims to have it&lt;/a&gt;.  This is backed up by the writings of Abu Salih the Armenian in the late 1100s.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/ark-of-covenant-resting-beneath-temple-mount/&quot;&gt;WND.com&lt;/a&gt; has a page indicating it might be beneath the temple Mount, and claims &quot;compelling evidence&quot; points to the theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the introductory statement to the article at WND.com pretty much backs up what my original paragraph claims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It would almost inarguably be the greatest archaeological&#xA;  find in history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Movies have been made about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Voluminous books have explored its whereabouts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those voluminous books are filled with historical and archaeological hints to the whereabouts.  But, to this day, if &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; truly knows where it is, they sure aren't offering proof.  Until the actual Ark is revealed, I doubt the world at large will know where it is, regardless of how many hints exist.  The volume of hints actually helps to ensure that it remains safe, hidden, as it lays all sorts of false trails for those searching for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-20T04:46:27.580" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T04:46:27.580" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12234" CreationDate="2012-12-20T04:43:16.237" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Catholic&lt;/strong&gt; answer, as best I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, if your question means to ask, &lt;em&gt;can the current lineage of humanity transition into a state of complete grace, free from the burden of original sin or the fallen nature of the world&lt;/em&gt;, the answer is a simple &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. The doctrine of original sin precludes it: it's a fallen world. And God has already revealed a different solution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I think that &quot;different solution&quot; is worth digging into a little. Because your question could mean, &lt;em&gt;could God's Kingdom arrive in the universe as we know it, transforming everything and everyone at once, or does it need to occur in a completely new universe?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in brief, there are two relevant Catholic beliefs that I think provide an answer to the 2nd question, if that's the question you meant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Firstly&lt;/strong&gt;, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), we believe in the &lt;strong&gt;renewal&lt;/strong&gt; of all things. This belief, if I'm not mistaken, is taken primarily from The Revelation of John, a few of Christ's own words, and from some OT apocryphal segments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness.&#xA;  After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with&#xA;  Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be&#xA;  renewed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church... will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven,&#xA;  when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time,&#xA;  together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely&#xA;  related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be&#xA;  perfectly re-established in Christ.&#xA;  - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=20-paragraph21.xhtml%23para1042&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1042&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The renewal is later said in the Catechism to be a sort of &lt;em&gt;transformation&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so&#xA;  that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no&#xA;  further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing&#xA;  their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.&#xA;  - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=20-paragraph21.xhtml%23para1047&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1047&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Secondly&lt;/strong&gt;, we believe all people are born into a state of original sin, with the exceptions of Jesus and His Mother, Mary. The basic concept of orignal is summed up nicely in the CCC:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not&#xA;  have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.&#xA;  It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature&#xA;  has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers&#xA;  proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of&#xA;  death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called&#xA;  “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace,&#xA;  erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the&#xA;  consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man&#xA;  and summon him to spiritual battle.&#xA;  - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=14-chapter4.xhtml%23para405&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 205&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes on to imply that Adam's sin has an impact on all mankind, and therefore the world of which he is the steward, because he handed his freedom, to some extent, to the devil, who &lt;strong&gt;only then&lt;/strong&gt; is given real power in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Put these doctrines together&lt;/strong&gt; and a picture begins to form. Mankind relinquished his power in an appeal to Satan. Satan is thereby given reign in the world, since it's under Adam's (man's) stewardship. And because this affects the universe on a fundamental level, &lt;strong&gt;it becomes the nature of the universe&lt;/strong&gt;. Thus, the only possible solutions are a &lt;strong&gt;completely new universe&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;fundamental transformation of the universe&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, since the Catholic teaching seems to lean towards a &lt;strong&gt;transformation&lt;/strong&gt; or a &lt;strong&gt;renewal&lt;/strong&gt;, we can draw some conclusions in light of what we also know about the fallen nature of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Everyone must die.&lt;/strong&gt; Necessary because no one is born free of original sin, and our bodies and minds are corrupt. So, we need to give them up.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Everyone must then be raised.&lt;/strong&gt; (Or at least the elect.) If they aren't, we haven't got an eschatology at all! Just a bunch of dead people and a lingering fallen world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Our new bodies must be made perfect.&lt;/strong&gt; Refraining from the more speculative ideas as to what that really means, our bodies and souls are in perfect harmony with each other and with God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The universe must be transformed into perfection.&lt;/strong&gt; I don't know what this means! The Church, I think, suggests that it frees the universe from the &quot;decay.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Satan must be confined to hell.&lt;/strong&gt; He no longer gets to operate in the world of the elect.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the fundamental nature of the world changes without changing its immediate appearance. But, it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; necessary that we all die. And it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; necessary that world-processes be freed from Satan's reign, which likely means that things work somewhat differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All things considered, I think the answer to your question is still &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For, even if the universe is renewed in-place, on-the-fly, we're still dealing with a fundamentally different universe. And we've all had to die, be resurrected with perfected (different) bodies, etc.. We're dealing with something that, in our limited understanding is already very different, even if in God's eyes it's the same material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it's at least provocative that looking at this creation from a physical perspective everything about it seems temporal.  That is, this universe seems created to die; everything about it seems to speak to a beginning and its ultimate demise, inferring that God never created this universe to be our eternal abode. Coupled with scriptural revelation that it will be &quot;renewed&quot; or &quot;created anew&quot;, it would seem to support a totally &quot;new creation&quot; eschtology as opposed to a simple &quot;restoration&quot; of this creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2013-01-08T18:44:15.717" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T18:44:15.717" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12239" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12515" CreationDate="2012-12-20T05:18:43.287" Score="6" ViewCount="313" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll admit, when I was a young'n, I thought &quot;We Three Kings&quot; was a silly song.  I mean, it was just about a star, right?  After all, since I only knew the chorus, and the first verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We three kings of Orient are / Bearing gifts we traverse afar. &#xA;  Field and fountain, moor and mountain, Following yonder star. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O star of wonder, star of night, &#xA;  Star with royal beauty bright, &#xA;  Westward leading, still proceeding, &#xA;  Guide us to thy perfect Light. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I figured, what a tame song.  I kinda wondered what separated this from your standard, pithy 7-11 chorus (seven words, eleven times).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, I started singing the &lt;em&gt;whole&lt;/em&gt; song:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Born a king on Bethlehem's plain, &#xA;  Gold I bring to crown Him again, &#xA;  King forever, ceasing never &#xA;  Over us all to reign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Frankincense to offer have I. &#xA;  Incense owns a Deity nigh. &#xA;  Prayer and praising all men raising, &#xA;  Worship Him, God on high.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Myrrh is mine: it's bitter perfume &#xA;  Breaths a life of gathering gloom. &#xA;  Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding dying, &#xA;  Sealed in the stone-cold tomb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Glorious now behold Him arise, &#xA;  King and God and Sacrifice. &#xA;  Alleluia, alleluia! &#xA;  Sounds through the earth and skies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as I read through through this amazingly, deep, insightful sermon of a text - reading the crucifixion into the gifts of the wise men, I'm kinda blown away.  In five short verses, we have the entire life story of Jesus, prefigured in the verses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that understanding, then, why is this hymn restricted to Epiphany, and not also pulled out during the Lenten preparation for the cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-12-20T16:26:23.437" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T21:45:10.620" Title="Why is &quot;We Three Kings&quot; a Christmas hymn, and not a Lenten one?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12240" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12295" CreationDate="2012-12-20T05:32:02.100" Score="8" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, Christmas is, of course, on December 25th* .  Technically, Advent precedes Christmas, and Epiphany follows it.  But, in several traditions, Christmas is the set of Sundays &lt;em&gt;following&lt;/em&gt; Christmas, regardless of what Macy's wants to tell you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there any &lt;em&gt;church&lt;/em&gt; calendars that include Advent as Christmas, or is Christmas always supposed to follow December 25th?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Historically, did the church celebrate Christmas before or after December 25th?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why has the emphasis on Christmas switched to Advent (the time of preparation)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why is it 8 weeks long?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*(on the new Gregorian Calendar.  for the Orthodox, still on the Julian Calendar, this is 12 days later. For their purposes, it is still December 25th, its just that December 25th on the Julian Calendar corresponds to January 6 or 7 on the Gregorian one.  Please assume I am using the relevant calendar for the relevant tradition.  Mostly, I'm concerned about the order of the seasons.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-12-20T21:22:56.840" LastActivityDate="2012-12-22T08:35:34.410" Title="When is the Christmas Season?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12221" CreationDate="2012-12-20T14:55:45.140" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ecovata.nl/files/downloads/Jesus_and_Israel_july2007.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quite incredible article&lt;/a&gt; on the parallels of Jesus and the nation of Israel.  I remember hearing a few of these before, but not anything close to what he has.  To summarize...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both Jesus and Israel came of miraculous births in the land of Israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both flee to Egypt to avoid danger (Herod and starvation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both are brought back from Egypt.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both come out of the wilderness and go through the water, Jesus through the water of Baptism, and Israel through the water of the Red Sea.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both spend time in the wilderness after the waters, Jesus for 40 days, Israel for 40 years.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where Israel fails to keep the Law, Jesus references the Law to defeat the temptation of Satan.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Israel has 12 tribes and Jesus has 12 disciples&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Both Jesus and Israel suffer at the hands of Gentiles, Jesus with Rome, the Jews with the Nazis, in particular.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-10-18T16:10:31.080" LastActivityDate="2016-10-18T16:10:31.080" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12234" CreationDate="2012-12-20T15:40:47.670" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Transcript of Prof N T Wright's video. The salient points are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Any one living in the ANE reading Genesis 1-3 will understand that it is a description of the building of a Temple .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. The final object to be placed in the Temple is the image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C. The purpose of the Temple is to reveal the Creator to His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D. The Creator is revealed through Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E. Creation is brought out of its futility through worship of its Creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;F. Creation is renewed not replaced through worship of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Transcript excerpts from the video of N T Wright's lecture &lt;a href=&quot;http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=73OA7H4Tjj4&amp;amp;desktop_uri=/watch?v=73OA7H4Tjj4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Being Human&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10min30secs: In John Walton's little book on Genesis, in chapter 1, the point he makes is that anyone in the ancient near east, who knew anything about anything, when reading through the sequential six day creation, would not conclude that this was an actual six day period of 24 hours duration each, or it was relevant, but what Walton thinks was relevant was that they knew that the thing that has just been made was a temple, and that is a very interesting thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11min49secs: And the final thing you put into the temple is the image of the god, so that people coming into the temple know which god they are worshipping. And so God put into His Temple which is His own home within Creation, this human pair made in His image and likeness of who it is Creation is called to worship and praise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24min00secs: This is what it looks like when the genuine image of God is in the Temple: the winds and the waves obey Him. He is what Adam should have been.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this we can see what the first Adam was supposed to do. He was supposed to do what Jesus did. Died to himself. IOW: Not do what he wanted to do, but what God wanted. This is what would have preserved the original state of Creation. That would have continued the worship of God by creation, as seen in the elements and the animals submitting to God. Instead he wanted to take on the yoke of the Law, Knowledge of Good and Evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Original Post&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can humanity ever get back to that previous state here on Earth or is it never an option&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christ, Man has already been brought back to the previous state present in the garden. He is no longer under Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But questions need to be asked in order to see what is involved in being &amp;quot;fallen&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a view from a Vision.Org Article on Original Sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, Paul would have rejected Augustine’s idea of biological transmission. Paul presents a scenario in which humanity is held captive by a spirit being who enslaves them to sin (2 Corinthians 4:4–6; Ephesians 2:1–2). According to Paul, the entire world is held captive to &amp;quot;the prince of the power of the air,&amp;quot; or Satan. Paul mentions that the human spirit can be subject to either the spirit of the world or the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:6–14). He also warns Christians that their battle with sin is against spiritual, not physical, forces (Ephesians 6:10–18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Paul speaks of sin &amp;quot;entering&amp;quot; the world, he is addressing the fact that Adam willingly submitted himself to Satan’s already sinful nature, something that Jesus Christ also confronted but rejected (Matthew 4:3–11; Romans 5:19). By this act Adam ensured that his progeny would be under Satan’s rulership and influence. Hence in Psalm 51 the author speaks of being conceived in sin. It was not that the act of conception was sin but rather that as a result of conception, he was to enter a world in slavery to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Questions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was there sin in the Garden?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was there no sin in the physical earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was the nature of the curse on humanity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe this will help to clarify what sin means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine that you are living in a country where charging interest is legal and you are a private banker. Now imagine you have to relocate to a country where your father has fallen ill and needs your presence and care AND charging interest is illegal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you continue to pursue your profession?&#xA;No!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have you changed your nature?&#xA;No!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The curse is the relocation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that has happened is that you have changed your location. What was legal in one location was not legal in the second. What happened to Adam was that he relocated from the area where there was only one Law to another where there was a full suite of Laws. Even thinking of disobeying God was a violation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rom 4:15&lt;/strong&gt; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens to believers who are IN Christ is that they are back in the Garden. Here they do not have awareness or sense of endangerment from judging good and evil, because they are no longer under the Law. Now they are only to do what they see God does. Obviously,if they do not see anything,they do not have to do anything. If they see God reaching out to someone,they should do it as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 14:9&lt;/strong&gt; This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, whIen he had fixed his gaze on him and had seen that he had faith to be made well,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to continue in this ministry,one has to live:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rom 8:13&lt;/strong&gt; for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To understand the new situation after the Cross and Atonement, the principle is this. The era/age/epoch during which the Law was in force was during the life span of the administrator. The word translated as &amp;quot;mediator&amp;quot; misdirects, as one takes the sense of reconciliation from it, weakens the description, when in reality, Paul meant ENFORCER!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 3:19&lt;/strong&gt; What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 35:26-28 NET&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;But if the slayer at any time goes outside the boundary of the town to which he had fled, and the avenger of blood finds him outside the borders of the town of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the slayer, he will not be guilty of blood, because the slayer should have stayed in his town of refuge until the death of the high priest. But after the death of the high priest, the slayer may return to the land of his possessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law was in effect when the mediator was alive. He was a governor who ruled in place of the king. When he died in office, he was replaced by the new administrator, who could put into force his interpretation of the law, with shelters he introduces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way of seeing the obligations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 7:3 NET&lt;/strong&gt; So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is saying that when Christ was crucified, the High Priest (enforcer) of the Mosaic Law was put to death!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T05:34:01.293" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12244" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-20T15:59:35.270" Score="8" ViewCount="397" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the LDS church regards the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants all as Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, which of these works is most highly esteemed as being applicable and helpful to an individual's life?  Is one generally preferred over another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T15:32:26.330" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T15:32:26.330" Title="Which book of Scripture is most esteemed by the LDS church?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;&lt;pearl-of-great-price&gt;&lt;doctrine-and-covenants&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12245" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12247" CreationDate="2012-12-20T16:11:44.360" Score="9" ViewCount="348" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that LDS members are encouraged to build and maintain a long-term supply of food and other essentials.  From where did this teaching originate and what is the reasoning behind this practice?  What is the prevalent &quot;target&quot; that one is encouraged to achieve?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this have anything to do with LDS end-times theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T16:35:20.057" Title="Why do LDS members (Mormons) maintain a long-term supply of food?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12245" CreationDate="2012-12-20T16:28:09.630" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Emergency_Preparedness&quot;&gt;Emergency Preparedness&lt;/a&gt; explains that this practice is about simple pragmatism.  It really has little if anything to do with eschatology; rather, the concept that members should maintain a stored supply of food is based on the simple reality that disasters and emergencies, both personal and wide-scale, do happen, and often without warning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person who has a long-term supply of food on hand is much better prepared to weather various disasters, ranging from a sudden loss of a job or unexpected medical expenses to societal disruptions such as natural disasters, riots, truckers' strikes or other conditions that make shopping for food difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The recommended target given by the church is to have a year's supply of essential food saved up.  The EoM article references a 1980 General Conference talk by Ezra Taft Benson, then of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which can be found &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/prepare-for-the-days-of-tribulation?lang=eng&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  In the talk, however, he states that this has been the counsel of the church &quot;for over forty years.&quot;  (Which would most likely place the origin of the idea in the 1930s, most likely during the Great Depression, which makes sense. If anyone can find a source to date this counsel back that far, feel free to edit it in here.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T16:28:09.630" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12244" CreationDate="2012-12-20T16:49:33.637" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8551/what-works-do-the-lds-church-recognize-as-scripture/8552#8552&quot;&gt;mentioned over in this answer&lt;/a&gt;, they're not regarded higher or lower than the others, since they are all the word of God. Everyone's individual experience will vary with which scriptures are emphasized. Usually, the Book of Mormon and Bible are read from most often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Doctrine &amp;amp; Covenants are mentioned for a more recent, historical account of God's revelations and on matters of things that are not clearly covered already in ancient scripture. The Pearl of Great Price is probably least often cited, but contains important clarifications and expansion of some of the events in Genesis, Joseph Smith's personal history, and a better account of Matthew 23-24. Not because it's least important, but because it's the smallest book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Mormon is probably the most practical to apply in one's life since it is the only canonized book of LDS scripture which was written not only as a historial record like the others, but the authors of the Book of Mormon indicate they saw our day and wrote their record for us in our time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-12-29T18:31:32.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12251" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12441" CreationDate="2012-12-20T17:11:53.890" Score="7" ViewCount="3006" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several different eschatological (end-times) perspectives in Protestant Christianity, including the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Amillennialists - end times prophecies are largely figurative&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Post-tribulationists - the rapture will not occur until the end of the tribulation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mid-tribulationists - the rapture will occur 3.5 years into the tribulation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pre-tribulationists - the rapture will occur prior to the tribulation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the eschatological view of the LDS church?  Is it one of these or something different altogether?  From what teaching does it arise--the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrines and Covenants, or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The rapture is the catching away of believers, which is believed by some to be taught in 1 Thessalonians 4:13&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The tribulation is the 7 year period of time of great trouble, spoken of in Revelation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-20T18:10:20.087" LastActivityDate="2020-06-16T04:22:04.780" Title="What is the LDS (Mormon) position on eschatology?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12252" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-12-20T17:55:51.543" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-20T17:55:51.543" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T17:55:51.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12253" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-12-20T17:55:51.543" Score="0" Body="Something that prefigures something else in the future.  " OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-20T17:55:51.543" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T17:55:51.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12254" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-12-20T17:59:15.383" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-20T17:59:15.383" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T17:59:15.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12255" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-12-20T17:59:15.383" Score="0" Body="The birth of Jesus of Nazareth." OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2012-12-20T17:59:15.383" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T17:59:15.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12256" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12260" CreationDate="2012-12-20T19:37:10.763" Score="13" ViewCount="6711" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for concrete theological beliefs and practices on where they differ. Christians say that Mormons aren't Christian and yet Mormons call themselves Christian. So it can be quite hard to tell for a everyday person who is who and what is what. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3639" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-06-27T13:03:13.493" LastActivityDate="2018-04-17T18:58:46.187" Title="What are the major differences between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12257" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12262" CreationDate="2012-12-20T19:55:05.473" Score="15" ViewCount="1296" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even though only priests were allowed into the Temple in the Old Testament, all of the ceremonies and furnishings were described in great detail in the Old Testament for anyone, Jew or Gentile alike, to read and understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the details of Mormon Temple Ceremonies are kept secret, and, in fact, non-Mormons are prevented from even entering Mormon Temples. The LDS website says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You can talk about what the interior of the temple looks like, and you can freely share the feelings you have in the temple. However, temple covenants and ordinances, including the words used, are too sacred to be discussed in detail outside the temple. By avoiding discussion of these sacred things outside the temple, we protect them from mocking, ridicule, or disrespect. Do not be casual when talking about your experiences in the temple. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/liahona/2010/10/commonly-asked-questions?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;lds.org&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reason for keep the ceremonies secret? Why are they considered 'too sacred'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2018-10-24T08:14:57.497" LastActivityDate="2018-10-24T08:14:57.497" Title="Why are Mormon Temples Ceremonies kept secret from non-Mormons?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;ritual&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="12258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12256" CreationDate="2012-12-20T20:48:21.697" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply put Evangelicals differ over at least three primary things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. The Nature of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evangelicals believe Jesus to be God - of one being with Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, etc... &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/12151/1039&quot;&gt;Mormons do not.&lt;/a&gt; Mormons believe Jesus to be divine, but a separate person from the Father. Evangelicals tend to subscribe to the historic creeds of the church - Nicene, Apostles, etc... - and are almost invariably Trinitarian.  (I cannot say that I have &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt; run across a non-Trinitarian Evangelical, but as it is a movement and not a denomination, there are always exceptions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Note: In the comments, there was a notion that the creeds only adhered to the &quot;Catholic&quot; church.  Insofar as &quot;catholic&quot; is understood as &quot;universal&quot; or &quot;what most people think of when they think of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/888/1039&quot;&gt;'mainstream' Christianity&lt;/a&gt;, that is accurate.  If that were taken to mean the 'Roman Catholic Church,' that would be precise, but inaccurate, in that most Protestants and Orthodox also subscribe to the Creeds and to the Trinitarian formulations thereof.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. The nature of the &quot;Bible&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Evangelicals consider the canon to be closed&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12029/how-is-one-supposed-to-know-whether-or-not-the-book-of-mormon-is-true&quot;&gt;Mormons have their own scriptures composed well after the period&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. The nature of soteriology&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Evangelicals, by and large, believe salvation to be solely the gift of God&lt;/a&gt;. We believe that all who are saved enter into eternal relationship with God. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10237/what-is-the-plan-of-salvation-in-lds-theology&quot;&gt;Mormons believe that people are rewarded according to the nature of the covenant they believed&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2018-04-17T14:42:42.663" LastActivityDate="2018-04-17T14:42:42.663" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12178" CreationDate="2012-12-20T20:50:59.647" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul describes himself as an imitator of Christ and as an 'architekton' (1 Cor 3:10) -  a master tekton. Slater's lexicon translates tekton as architect. Priests trained as tektons to build the temple of Herod (Josephus' Antiquities).&#xA;It would have taken devout Jewish tektons to train priests. I.e. like Joseph (Matt 1:19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus went to the Temple when lost (Luke 2). Presumably because he was known there + so would get looked after until Mary + Joseph caught up with him. He is admitted there as a 12 year old into the company of the Doctors of Law (Luke 2), presumably because they knew Joseph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The offering for the poor was not means-tested. Any Jew, however rich, could make it, e.g. if they were at odds with the Sadduccee's corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event Joseph received the Magis gifts after that. These were rich Babylonians making kingly gifts because they considered Jesus to be a king. There were enough of them to 'disturb Herod and all of Jerusalem' (Matt 2:3). They opened treasure-chests (plural) of the 3 most expensive items of the day. Much more wealth than needed for 2 years in Egypt. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus had a house in Capernaum (Mark 2:1). He had 'nowhere to lay his head' because he spent so much time travelling and ministering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judas could steal from their money-box without it being immediately obvious (John 12:6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend Bradford's The Jesus Discovery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3641" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2012-12-20T22:18:48.767" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T22:18:48.767" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12256" CreationDate="2012-12-20T20:56:07.267" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Evangelical&quot; movement spreads across an incredibly wide range of beliefs, so it will be hard to nail this down, but a few things come to mind that ought to have broad acceptance and make at least some form of answer possible. For convenience in the rest of this answer, please treat the word &quot;Evangelical&quot; merely as broadly representing &quot;Most Evangelicals&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons believe men can become Gods, or become like God on this earth. Evangelicals believe God is the singular, unique, and supreme being, and any human transcendence takes place after death or Jesus' return.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons see Jesus as a separate entity from God the Father. Evangelicals view God the Father and Jesus as parts of the same entity. It's hard to understate how important this point is, especially in light of the first point: the Mormon view withholds from Jesus some part of God's place as &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; unique divinity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons believe a prophet lead a group of Jews out of Jerusalem to the New World (America) around 600BC, where for a time they flourished. Evangelicals do not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons believe a prophet to that group created a certain set of gold tablets, which Joseph Smith later translated. Evangelicals believe these tablets are utter bunk.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons believe Jesus incarnate visited the North American Continent. Evangelicals do not. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons believe in the writings and teachings of Joseph Smith, that they are related directly or almost directly from God. Evangelicals believe Joseph Smith to be somewhere in between a deliberate con-artist, charlatan, and mentally unstable, and point to serious concerns over the credibility of Joseph Smith's claim to 8 witnesses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons believe the Apostle John is still alive. Evangelicals (with some exception) do not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yes, Mormons have allowed and supported polygamy. Evangelicals, at this time, do not, but there are places in the world and times in history where this does not hold.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons believe in something called Pre-mortal Life. Evangelicals do not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons practice Baptism for the Dead. Evangelicals do not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons practice a ritual known as &quot;Endowments&quot;. Evangelicals do not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mormons believe all men will come to glory, but non-believers will come to less glory than practicing Christians... but there is no hell. Evangelicals believe in eternal punishment for non-believers and all those who refuse to submit to the will of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The root question here, though, is whether or not Mormons are themselves even Christian. To understand this, you need to look at it from both sides. In a broad sense, for our purpose here one is a Christian when one acknowledges the person of Christ as their creator, savior, and Lord. Everything else &amp;mdash; all the denominations, splits, and arguments &amp;mdash; are just details. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, the Non-mormon Christian perspective is that Mormons have been lead astray, and have allowed the teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors to supersede and in many cases replace those of Christ... and so they no longer follow Christ supremely, but (perhaps unwittingly) follow the teachings of Joseph Smith instead. Moreover, since Mormons refuse to grant Jesus full unity with God the Father, but hold him separate from God the Father, it is offensive to mainline Christians to watch Mormons hold up the teachings of Joseph Smith above or before the level of Christ, yet still use the name of Christ to describe themselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Mormon perspective is Joseph Smith's teachings &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; Christ's teachings; Joseph Smith was merely His mouthpiece. They hold both the Old and New Testaments to be scripture (just not all scripture). To be considered &quot;not Christian&quot; is offensive to Mormons, because they still believe Christ died for their sins, just as &quot;regular&quot; Christians do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2018-04-17T18:58:46.187" LastActivityDate="2018-04-17T18:58:46.187" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12261" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12276" CreationDate="2012-12-20T21:59:06.203" Score="8" ViewCount="758" Body="&lt;p&gt;I repeatedly hear Western Christians repudiate mysticism. This post is NOT about the merits or dangers of Christian mysticism. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1942/is-christian-mysticism-an-oxymoron-or-is-it-a-legitimate-path-for-a-christian&quot;&gt;Another question&lt;/a&gt; addresses that sufficiently. This question deals with whether or not Western Christians are accurately defining mysticism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that what is often called 'mysticism' by Western Christians is actually what might be better called 'emotionalism.' This is evidenced by the fact that mysticism always seems to be presented as the opposite extreme of rationalism (which implies that mysticism must be irrational). It seems that the trend of creating this dichotomy began historically in Western culture in the Romantic period. But is mysticism the same thing as emotionalism or is this a false dichotomy that we have inherited from Romanticism? Why or why not? If not, what definition would you offer for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any sources from Christian history (east or west) would also be appreciated when addressing this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2016-01-13T16:29:33.363" Title="Do Western Christians confuse Mysticism with Emotionalism?" Tags="&lt;spirituality&gt;&lt;mysticism&gt;&lt;emotions&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-01-13T22:08:11.690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12257" CreationDate="2012-12-20T22:03:49.360" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be two questions here.  First, &quot;why are LDS temple ceremonies kept secret, seeing as how Old Testament temple ceremonies were not?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is that the Old Testament temples operated under the Law of Moses and were administered by the Levitical priesthood, whereas modern temples operate under the Law of the Gospel and are administered by the Melchizedek priesthood, which necessarily means that things will work differently.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%207&quot;&gt;Hebrews chapter 7&lt;/a&gt;, particularly verse 12.)  Therefore, it's unreasonable to expect that the Old Testament temple ceremonies--many of which had to do with matters of blood sacrifice and similar rituals of the Law of Moses, which were fulfilled in Christ--should be perpetuated in modern temples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the slightly broader question, &quot;why are LDS temple ceremonies kept secret at all?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to this is somewhat subtle, and some people will probably find it unsatisfying, but the Church does not hold them to be &lt;em&gt;secret&lt;/em&gt; at all, but rather it considers them &lt;em&gt;sacred&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The value of a secret is exclusivity.  The less people who know about a secret, the greater the power it confers upon those who know it.  Throughout history, people have been known to go to great lengths to keep secrets, up to and including committing murder to prevent (or retaliate for) the sharing of a secret.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, the Latter-Day Saints do not see the temple ceremonies as something secret and exclusive at all, but rather as something that is highly sacred.  The church has spent a great deal of effort, time and money in both building temples throughout the world, and sending missionaries to teach people the Gospel, &lt;strong&gt;with the explicit intended goal of bringing them to the temple.&lt;/strong&gt;  This is the exact opposite of a secret: it is something that the Latter-Day Saints put a great deal of work into sharing as broadly as possible!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But because these matters are viewed as sacred and highly spiritual, that sharing is done within strict boundaries: only people with a certain degree of spiritual preparation are allowed to participate.  This is quite in harmony with Paul's teaching on the Lord's Supper:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:27-29&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11:27-29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the&#xA;  Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,&#xA;  and drink of that cup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh&#xA;  damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the purpose of the temple ceremonies is to help people along the path to salvation, and not to help condemn them, the church requires that certain standards of preparation and worthiness be met before participating in these sacred ceremonies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T22:03:49.360" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12263" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-20T22:25:03.637" Score="13" ViewCount="7729" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul give forbids women from speaking in church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 14 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to&#xA;  speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to&#xA;  inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home;&#xA;  for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... later&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do&#xA;  not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a&#xA;  fitting and orderly way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am assuming the word in Greek Paul is using here for church is Ecclesia, and that he wasn't, in fact, referring to a physical meeting place, or house, but rather a Christian gathering in general (but perhaps I am mistaken in this). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder how it is that he explicitly forbids them to speak &quot;They are not allowed to speak&quot;, but then a mere four verses later he is instructing 'brothers and sisters' to be eager to prophesy, and &lt;em&gt;speak&lt;/em&gt; in tongues. If not at Christian gatherings, then where else were they prophesying and speaking in tongues? I understand that context is probably the key here, and that things in the Corinthian church had probably gotten very much out of hand, however, It just seems strange to me that if he meant women to speak in tongues and prophesy, he would have said &quot;They are not allowed to speak &lt;em&gt;out of turn&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, or something to that effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-06-16T06:42:55.140" LastActivityDate="2019-01-12T13:20:16.487" Title="How can women be forbidden to speak and yet prophesy and speak in tongues?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11968" CreationDate="2012-12-20T22:48:31.497" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think I've ever heard the argument phrased in quite this way, but Antisemitism is un-Christian.  As it happens, I was thinking of this question while studying one of the standard &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.blogoverflow.com/2012/12/03/a-tradition-even-evangelicals-anticipate/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Advent&lt;/a&gt; texts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;For to us a child is born,&#xA;    to us a son is given;&#xA;and the government shall be upon his shoulder,&#xA;    and his name shall be called&#xA;Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,&#xA;    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.&#xA;Of the increase of his government and of peace&#xA;    there will be no end,&#xA;on the throne of David and over his kingdom,&#xA;    to establish it and to uphold it&#xA;with justice and with righteousness&#xA;    from this time forth and forevermore.&#xA;The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;Isaiah 9:6-7 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Isaiah+9/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first verse should be a familiar text to most Christians.  We believe that Jesus &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; that child.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/2800/68&quot;&gt;The title&lt;/a&gt; is, perhaps, the best expression of what Christians believe about Jesus that isn't written in the New Testament.  It's also an &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/2815/68&quot;&gt;important piece&lt;/a&gt; in the Trinitarian puzzle.  The messianic application of the passage to Jesus won't likely be abandoned by many Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second verse is equally powerful and theologically useful, but it includes some phrases that should be troubling to those who espouse the view mentioned in the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;the throne of David&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The kingdom Jesus will establish is Davidic and that means Jewish.  In both the New and the Old Testaments, it's clear that the King appointed by God will be a descendant of Abraham via Judah and David.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1149/68&quot;&gt;Both Luke and Matthew&lt;/a&gt; show that Jesus fit that lineage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;with justice and with righteousness&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If justice is to be served by punishing the decedents of the people who crucified Jesus, then it will be the Davidic king who will establish righteousness.  But I don't believe that justice would be served.  Jesus did not condemn children for their parent's sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”&amp;mdash;John 9:2-5 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/John+9/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, the Kingdom of God is advanced by God and not merely by the will of people.  Christians believe (and rightly so) that we are the vanguard of God's Kingdom.  But Jesus never commanded us to kill His enemies.  Rather, we are able to help Him break into the world with kindness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.&amp;mdash;Romans 12:14-21 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2012-12-20T22:48:31.497" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12265" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-20T23:02:35.977" Score="23" ViewCount="22976" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 2:23 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what research I have done, it does not seem that any of the prophets who are recorded in the old testament said this, or anything similar. Even the apocrypha does not seem to make reference to this prophecy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even more troubling, is Matthew saying the prophets, plural, have predicted this, making it even more vexing that it is not written in anywhere in the canon today. What was Matthew referencing here? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="13767" LastEditDate="2016-06-08T03:02:11.937" LastActivityDate="2021-04-23T16:49:57.367" Title="Who said &quot;he would be called a Nazarene&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12265" CreationDate="2012-12-20T23:23:04.800" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;My response comes from this article about &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/did-ot-prophesy-jesus-coming-nazareth&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;OT prophecy about Jesus from Nazareth&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It basically states that there is no direct Old-Testament reference to Nazareth. The article postulates two explanations: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) It was a reference that Jesus would be despised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He says 'prophets,' plural. It could be that Matthew was referring to several Old Testament references to the despised character of Jesus (i.e., Psalm 22:6, 13; 69:10; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3; Micah 5:1). Nazareth held the Roman garrison for the northern areas of Galilee.1 Therefore, the Jews would have little to do with this place and largely despised it&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) It might be a play on words for the Hebrew word for branch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;there could be a play on words that Matthew was referring to. In Isaiah 11:1 it says, &quot;Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.&quot; In Hebrew, the word for &quot;branch&quot; is netzer, &quot;NZR&quot; which letters are included in NaZaReth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:29:52.063" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:29:52.063" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12267" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12285" CreationDate="2012-12-21T00:37:08.743" Score="6" ViewCount="407" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every so often, one of my Catholic acquaintances will mention that they will be, or have just attended a Latin Mass.  I know pretty much nothing about a Latin Mass, other than (obviously) that it's performed in Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a spiritual, ritual, historical, or special significance about a Latin Mass?  Or is it more something that people attend simply because they enjoy the uniqueness of it, like it's something that's just &quot;neat&quot; or &quot;interesting&quot; to attend rather than something with a deeper meaning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; a deeper meaning, of course, I'd like to know what it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-11T17:46:03.047" LastActivityDate="2015-09-11T17:46:03.047" Title="Is there a special significance attached to a Latin Mass?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;historic-customs&gt;&lt;latin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12268" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15286" CreationDate="2012-12-21T00:52:36.063" Score="8" ViewCount="1068" Body="&lt;p&gt;The genealogy in Matthew 1 lists the names in 3 groups - From Abraham to David, David to the Exile, The Exile to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just interested to know is this a complete family history for Jesus, or is it done &quot;poetically&quot; so that there are 14 generations in each group?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Matthew trying to highlight something to his Jewish readers by pointing out there are 14 generations between each event?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="1379" LastEditDate="2012-12-21T02:24:45.757" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T16:29:52.613" Title="Is the genealogy in Matthew a complete Genealogy, or did he abreviate it for a specific reason?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12268" CreationDate="2012-12-21T01:09:41.643" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people believe that there are gaps in the Genealogy listed in Matthew.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/do-the-genealogies-of-matthew-11-17-and-luke-323-38-validate-jesus-as-the-messiah/&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; addresses &quot;the primary problems of the Genealogy in Matthew&quot;, and lists the gaps as one of the arguments for &quot;unreliability&quot; leveled by critics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Section I: What Are The Primary Problems Associated With Matthew’s&#xA;  Genealogy And How Are They Reconciled?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are 3 main problems associated with Matthew’s genealogy that&#xA;  most critics point out. They are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Inference That Joseph Was Actually Jesus’ Father&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Promise Of God Against Jeconiah Nullified That The Messiah Would Be As A Result Of His Bloodline. (Jer. 22:29-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Too Many Gaps In The Genealogical Succession Of Matthew Against Known References In Other Texts Prove Discrepancies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;gaps are explained thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The critic often levies the charge that gaps found within the&#xA;  genealogy of Matthew are as a matter of sloppy investigations of the&#xA;  facts and proof that Matthew either made the story up or simply&#xA;  couldn’t seem to get it right even after he wrote it. These type of&#xA;  statements usually claim the historical ignorance of the gospel writer&#xA;  and relegate Jesus to the realm of myth, which is another tired&#xA;  critical argument refuted over and over down through the last couple&#xA;  of centuries. Was Matthew eagerly, erroneously and fallaciously&#xA;  promoting information that even he couldn’t seem to get straight? What&#xA;  are we to make of gaps in Matthew’s account?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Once again this type of observation is clearly and certainly&#xA;  overemphasized, and has no bearing on the accuracy of the narrative.&#xA;  It is a fact that some of the individuals Matthew says “begat”, were&#xA;  grandfathers and sometime great grandfathers and not paternal fathers&#xA;  and sons. One such example is Mt. 1:8 where Joram is said to have&#xA;  “begat” Uzziah. We know that 1 Chron. 3:10-12 states that Joram was&#xA;  Uzziah’s great-grandfather not paternal father. 3 generations are&#xA;  skipped by Matthew in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article does go on further, but from just this last paragraph, we can see that this author, at least, believes that there are gaps, and the genealogy is not complete.  This has been my understanding as well, as it's a common explanation in Apologetic literature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T01:09:41.643" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10112" CreationDate="2012-12-21T02:09:51.207" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The teaching of Sovereign Grace is at odds with the basic premise behind the Hell's Best Kept Secret teaching.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the assumptions of HBKS is that the &lt;em&gt;motive&lt;/em&gt; of the potential convert's desire for salvation matters.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the motive is to have &quot;love, joy, peace, fulfillment, and lasting happiness&quot; - the promises of the &quot;modern gospel&quot;, the ,motive will be impure.  The potential convert will, not understanding the Law, and that they are in violation of it, has no reason to feel repentance, &quot;without which you cannot be saved&quot; as Mr. Comfort says.  In short, they won't even have the ability to repent, because they won't know what they need to repent of. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the Law is used to show the true nature of sin, and the potential convert sees themselves in their true nature, they will have the knowledge of sin that may or may not drive them to true repentance.  They'll at least have the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;chance&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to repent if they understand their lost state.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if the doctrines of Sovereign Grace and Unconditional Election are true, as Calvinism teaches, then the motive of the potential convert is a non-issue.  The technique used to reach the person is a non-issue.  So, in short, the teaching is based, from a Calvinist perspective, on a faulty premise, and therefore, wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T02:09:51.207" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12272" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12273" CreationDate="2012-12-21T02:55:18.227" Score="16" ViewCount="1720" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the charges that is consistently leveled against Biblical reliability is that the Bible is &quot;full of contradictions&quot;.  This is certainly not a new charge, and the field of Apologetics, with its disciplined approach to defending God's word surely has a defined, commonly accepted approach to dealing with alleged discrepancies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is that approach?  In other words, what are the common &quot;rules&quot; (or less stringently, &quot;guidelines&quot;) that are taught and followed in classic apologetics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To be very clear&lt;/strong&gt;, I am not asking &quot;is the Bible reliable?&quot;.  I'm not asking &quot;are the rules used true, correct, or sound&quot;?  I am well aware that skeptics, atheists, and Christians that believe the Bible could contain contradictions will likely disagree with the rules and techniques applied by apologetics.  I'm not asking if the rules are true, I'm simply asking what they are, so that we have a record of the techniques used on the site.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;My hope is that these rules can be referenced later, for questions about such contradictions, to provide a framework for addressing the apparent contradiction questions using the classic apologetic approach.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-07T00:51:01.753" LastActivityDate="2019-11-24T02:22:10.763" Title="Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12272" CreationDate="2012-12-21T02:55:18.227" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic rules and assumptions are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That we are defending the notion that the Bible is, indeed, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;inspired, and therefore inerrant and infallible&lt;/a&gt;.  It cannot contain errors, and if a true contradiction is found, it is, by definition, an error.  Either one is correct and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong.  Either way, the Bible is no longer infallible and inerrant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That God does not change His word. It is Eternal.  (Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The default position is that the Bible is inerrant.  We are answering the claim of someone that is challenging that position.  Therefore, the burden of proof is upon that person, not on the person defending the claim of inerrancy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;reasonable&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;plausible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; explanation can be given for the discrepancy, then the person challenging the inerrancy of Scripture has failed to provide proof.  This does not mean that the plausible answer is &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; truth, but it means that the &quot;discrepancy&quot; does have a plausible, logical resolution, so the skeptic has not proved that a contradiction, in fact, exists.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The definition of Biblical Inerrancy is important.  As described in the link in the first bullet point, inerrancy does not apply to the current translations of Scripture to the point that copyist errors count as &quot;errors&quot;.  Inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts, and we completely accept that copyist errors can and likely do exist in today's manuscripts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using those five basic rules, the vast majority of &quot;contradictions&quot; can be attributed to one of two possible causes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Copyist errors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A misunderstanding of the context.  (Historical context, cultural context, taking a verse out of context with related passages of Scripture, different meanings for words used at the time a translation was written compared to the meaning of the words today, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1&#xA;  Chronicles 21:5.&lt;/strong&gt; (Category: misunderstood the historical context)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not&#xA;  complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe&#xA;  of Benjamin, nor that of Levi's either, due to the fact that David&#xA;  came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the&#xA;  different numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular&#xA;  unspecified groups in the nation. We find another reference to this in&#xA;  1 Chronicles 27:23-24 where it states that David did not include those&#xA;  twenty years old and younger, and that since Joab did not finish the&#xA;  census the number was not recorded in King David's Chronicle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the&#xA;  trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern&#xA;  most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The&#xA;  numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin&#xA;  would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah,&#xA;  either. In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the&#xA;  already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the&#xA;  total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the North&#xA;  and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the&#xA;  Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted&#xA;  (along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was&#xA;  reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total&#xA;  figure of 500,000, even though Joab may not have itemized it in the&#xA;  first report he gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the&#xA;  completed grand total of fighting forces available to David for&#xA;  military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of&#xA;  Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements&#xA;  are true. It was towards the end of David's reign, and David was&#xA;  looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the&#xA;  Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage&#xA;  and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and&#xA;  self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms&#xA;  of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to&#xA;  his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of&#xA;  God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just&#xA;  how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would&#xA;  accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab's&#xA;  warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon&#xA;  as the numbering was completed, God intended to chasten the nation&#xA;  with a disastrous plague which would bring about an enormous loss of&#xA;  life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel&#xA;  24:15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair&#xA;  (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to&#xA;  commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely&#xA;  malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1&#xA;  Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited David to carry it through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences&#xA;  in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in&#xA;  soul-searching testings and trials:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God's&#xA;  purpose was to purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his character by&#xA;  means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan's purpose was&#xA;  purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he&#xA;  would recant his faith in his God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose&#xA;  is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the&#xA;  sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in&#xA;  the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan's&#xA;  purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into&#xA;  self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth. God's purpose for these temptations was for him to&#xA;  triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam&#xA;  to his fall, whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the saviour from&#xA;  his messianic mission.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In the case of Peter's three denials of Jesus in the court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both&#xA;  parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, &quot;Simon, Simon,&#xA;  Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon,&#xA;  that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back,&#xA;  strengthen your brothers.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when&#xA;  he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27),&#xA;  causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord's reasoning behind the&#xA;  crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the&#xA;  foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so&#xA;  that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at&#xA;  the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a&#xA;  relationship which is now eternal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan's&#xA;  motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven&#xA;  by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an&#xA;  entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to&#xA;  eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of&#xA;  the person tested. In every case Satan's success was limited and&#xA;  transient; while in the end God's purpose was well served furthering&#xA;  His cause substantially.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Archer 1982:186-188)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rules taken from various sources, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/101contradictions.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/101contradictions.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.booksofthebible.com/p4992.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.booksofthebible.com/p4992.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/introduction-bible-difficulties-and-bible-contradictions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/introduction-bible-difficulties-and-bible-contradictions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, an amazing resource for finding the resolution to a vast array of  the alleged discrepancies, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T03:10:23.620" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2662" CreationDate="2012-12-21T03:32:43.580" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A natural harmony between Genesis and Peter is found in the harmony between Peter and Paul. Someone who reads the Bible as a disaparate collection of different people's opinions might object that to import Paul is the wrong way to answer the question. But such an approach does not even require a reconciliation between Peter and Genesis. Copies of the Scriptures were not as plentiful as they are now, Peter was an uneducated man, and someone who holds that position has no reason to be puzzled if he practices historical revisionism or drew from a different source about Lot. Thus, to even ask for reconciliation between Peter and Genesis presupposes the reasonableness of harmony between Peter and Paul (i.e. on the basis of the inspiration of Scripture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lot's offer of his daughters was a horrifically wicked action. Any man who does not diligently guard the chastity of his daughter greatly offends a righteous God. A man who would encourage her to be unchaste is worse; but a man who offers not one, but both, of his daughters to not one lone, but a whole town full of men, is a criminal of the first order. Indeed, my own inclination would be to say that Lot's offer of his daughters is more wicked than the men of Sodom. If we do not emphasis the great monstrosity of what Lot did, we do not uphold the moral character of God. The man was vile!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How then is Peter able to hold forth Lot as a righteous man? Because he holds to the same doctrine of righteousness as Paul—alien righteousness through faith in the Messiah. Lot was more righteous than the men of Sodom because he &lt;em&gt;believed&lt;/em&gt; in God. This faith is evidenced by his distress at the wickedness of the people around him, as mentioned by Peter; but were we to tally up his righteousness, his distress at the wickedness of the Sodomites would certainly have been far outweighed by his own lack of moral fortitude. Distress at the wickedness of &lt;em&gt;others&lt;/em&gt; is hardly a thing of positive merit—but it can be a sign of a heart which faith has begun to soften. The only possible way to consider him righteous, then, is to recognize that his wicked deeds were washed away by the blood of the Messiah. This salvation by faith that he experienced resulted in his disgust at the evil around him, even though his faith remained wavering and imperfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Peter's doctrine is to be separated from Paul's, then why not Genesis also? And to man who minimizes the horror of what Lot suggested, what can I say?—may daughters never be born to him! Justification by faith alone is the only viable way to reconcile the two passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="1481" LastEditDate="2012-12-21T21:12:56.533" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T21:12:56.533" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12261" CreationDate="2012-12-21T04:44:32.520" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can tell you what Catholicism has to say about it, for the most part. Though, if you're looking for some survey of western Christians to get some sense of what &lt;em&gt;all of them&lt;/em&gt; think mysticism is, this isn't the forum for that. But, even without a poll, I can say with high confidence that most Christians, especially those from larger denominations like Catholicism, don't know their own doctrines sufficiently. And they likely have no idea what what we mean when we call one of our saints &lt;em&gt;a mystic&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, &lt;strong&gt;proper mysticism is not emotionalism, and it's not anti-rational; it's superrational.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10663b.htm&quot;&gt;Christian mysticism&lt;/a&gt; is the &quot;quest&quot; to come into an intimate, unitive relationship with God, God willing. And since God is well-beyond comprehension, mystical experiences and practices are necessarily &quot;foggy&quot; and &quot;mysterious.&quot;  &lt;strong&gt;However&lt;/strong&gt;, the fruits of a mystical experience (the fruits of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04324b.htm&quot;&gt;contemplation&lt;/a&gt;) can always be verified rationally by comparing their message with that of Word of God and the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the best way to &lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; that proper mysticism is not an emotionalism, I think, is to examine some mystics, their experiences, and their insights. You'll definitely find some &lt;em&gt;emotional&lt;/em&gt; experiences in their bios. And, you should &lt;strong&gt;expect&lt;/strong&gt; to find emotion in a relationship. But, these aren't the highlights of their stories. The highlights are the ecstatic, confusing climaxes of their contemplative experiences, and the fruits that follow. Unlike what an emotional experience can yield, these experiences yield prophetic and/or genius-like insight, transcendent peace, and profound love (in the sense of &lt;em&gt;willing the good of others &lt;strong&gt;as other&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two very notable Catholic mystics.&#xA; - St. Theresa of Avila (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila&quot;&gt;on Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14515b.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;)&#xA; - St. John of the Cross, Doctor of mystic theology (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_john_of_the_cross&quot;&gt;on Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08480a.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I think it has been well-argued that John the Apostle and St. Paul were mystics. And you can refer to their NT writings. The Gospel of John, in particular, has a pretty heavy mystical feel to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's also important to point out that Christianity -- Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the least -- are highly mystical religions. We don't necessarily call every Christian a mystic, but the practices (even basic prayer) have an end-goal that is ultimately mystical. That is, we're trying to unite with God in whatever manner God desires. And, we acknowledge that this relationship is beyond understanding (it's a &lt;em&gt;mystery&lt;/em&gt;),but we work with God to attain (receive) that unity anyway -- &lt;strong&gt;that's mysticism&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, if you're looking for an answer that represent what most Christians believe, regardless of the dogma to which they subscribe, I'd wager most of them have little to no idea what mysticism is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T04:44:32.520" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12277" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12279" CreationDate="2012-12-21T04:45:05.003" Score="6" ViewCount="285" Body="&lt;p&gt;The title says it all.  Is Gregorian Chant merely a style of music, or is there some deeper meaning behind it?  Does it serve some special purpose, or have a usage beyond being a form of worshiping God through song?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-01-03T14:24:30.937" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T14:24:30.937" Title="Gregorian Chant - Is it merely a form of music, like Hymns, or is there a deeper meaning?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12277" CreationDate="2012-12-21T12:16:29.523" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;During the St. Gregory I papacy (590–604) this form of music was collected and codified, and was (and still is) strictly linked to the liturgy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, this is not just a style of music, but it goes together with the Mass and the prayer of &quot;The canonical hours&quot;, consisting of eight prayer services: Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gregorian Chant purpose was hence to accompaign the liturgy, but the liturgy itself was build together with the chant. In this sense it has a deeper meaning. It's part of the liturgy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are the following good links you could view, which give more detail about the chant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/245481/Gregorian-chant&quot;&gt;Gregorian Chant @Britannica&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06779a.htm&quot;&gt;Gregorian Chant @catholic encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, Gregorian Chant is part of the longlasting Church tradition. It is now still commonly used by Order of Saint Benedict and other monastic orders. In this sense you can find a deeper meaning, because it recalls all the monastic tradition ellements: the silence, the prayer of the hearth.. and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this answers to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1257" LastEditorUserId="1257" LastEditDate="2012-12-21T12:23:00.587" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T12:23:00.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12263" CreationDate="2012-12-21T12:34:57.790" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that in Corinthians some women were assuming to much in the equality and liberty that the gospel provided them. They supposed since thy were equal they could 'speak in public gatherings' as though exercising authority over others including men.  There may have been other fellowship gatherings where they could exercise gifts of prophesy such as during worship, more private discussions or teaching children, etc. It is difficult with full accuracy to recreate what the primitive church service was actually like, but there does seem to be some part of it when 'non clergy' could speak with gifts that moved them, one at a time, possibly women included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume in this view that prophetic gifts (wise insights into biblical subjects which may or may, or more usually did not, include future predictions) were not seen as 'always operative on demand' as the regular teaching of a person in authority was. &lt;strong&gt;Rather the nature of these gifts is that they would 'come and go' like the 'wind', so when a person was 'inspired' to speak, 'allowing' them to do so, was not seen as rebellious at all.&lt;/strong&gt; They were seen as humble people being moved by God, even 'daughters' could prophecy under this scenereo per Joel &#xA;2:28. This respect for the inspiration of the Spirit seems to carry its own meek authority removing the concern over the pretense of 'speaking officially' as those in charge that allowed the more ecstatic impromptu sharing. This 'respect for random inspiration' is clearly seen by the fact that 'one person speaking' will 'stop and remain silent' so that another who receives inspiration can start. This switching from one to the next was regardless of the persons involved and how regularily important they may have otherwise been. (1 Corinthians 14:30).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This ancient practice of allowing people to speak in a service seems more or less lost in most churches today. In fact quite soon in the history of Christianity this practice of the ancient synagogue and more miraculous version added by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit seems to have been abandoned or in some sense possibly not Gods will in some aspects. Instead the preacher just gives a one way sermon with no opportunity for any discussion afterwards (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11586/when-did-the-one-way-monologue-sermon-first-become-a-normal-feature-of-church-as&quot;&gt;ref this post&lt;/a&gt;). There are some charismatic groups that try to re-create it, or even to the more fringe movements support 'sales oriented' woman leading whole ministries, but in my experience this is often even worse and carnally based than the dry charismatic resistant churches which I confess to mostly attend as a lesser of two evils. Pray for me ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So one must think &lt;strong&gt;this 'speaking' was some kind of 'public', 'authoritative' and 'official' role which Paul did not at all grant women, nor did any other church&lt;/strong&gt;. This is why he then says about a less private forum such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:35 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems a little harsh to most of us today but we should keep in mind Christianity promoted a status for women and slaves high above what was the norm while not compromising the God ordained structure of the family which most world cultures actually have little difficulty with, recognizing the need for wives to submit and husbands to love and cherish. Actually most wives do not find it that hard to submit to men who genuinely love them. The church was not meant to overthrow these house relationships once various families joined together into community under Christ as their head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T06:31:38.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12261" CreationDate="2012-12-21T13:35:13.793" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very difficult question to answer.  There are some anti-mystic Christians that claim anybody who slightly leans to the appreciation of poetry as an evil mystic.  There are also very emotional people drawn to mysticism to such a degree that they seem incapable of properly thinking through any doctrine at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To get down to the heart of the matter one must understand what a mystery is in the Bible.&lt;/strong&gt;  By the term 'biblical mysticism' I basically understand those truths 'talked around' in scripture but not fully revealed in scripture - they are still hidden on this side of heaven.  The gospel is not a mystery in that sense, for it was hidden before Christ, than it was made known.   A mystic who appreciates those things on the outskirts of the gospel, meditating on them in awe and wonder and having their hearts moved are not mystics in the evil sense, they are just wise. &lt;strong&gt;The 'evil mystic' is actually the person who confuses the idea of 'mystery'. They say the gospel itself is 'still a mystery' and so deny it while glorying in poetic ideas about God, virtue and good works.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this more or less captures the more balanced reformed western views. You do have a point about some overly rationalistic western theologians who seem opposed to even biblical mysticism which is derived from accepting the gospel as intellectually certain and then falling into awesome wonder over its incomprehensible parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T13:35:13.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2911" CreationDate="2012-12-21T14:18:31.453" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;No they were not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The messiah&quot; is a quite marginal concept in the Hebrew Bible. It's actually a workaround, a relatively new concept that started to emerge when things have gone bad (i.e. First Temple was destroyed). It's so marginal that the specific term &lt;strong&gt;&quot;the messiah&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; does not appear even once in the Hebrew Bible (as opposed to the term &lt;strong&gt;&quot;a messiah&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; which occurs in the Hebrew Bible 39 times, and is usually translated by KJV as &quot;an anointed (one)&quot;, except for two occurrences in Daniel (Daniel 9: 25-26) that KJV chose to translate as &quot;the messiah&quot; - even though the Hebrew text simply says &quot;an anointed one&quot;, not &quot;the anointed one&quot;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2008/09/messiah.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some modern translations have corrected this mistranslation.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above might sound quite annoying to the average Christian, and would surely entail a fair amount of downvoting. But bear in mind that Jews (and Christian fundamentalists alike) today, often use a similar argument in order to explain to Muslims why their claim on Jerusalem is bogus - why it's political more than religious: Jerusalem is mentioned zero times in the Koran, while it's mentioned 669 times in the Hebrew Bible.&#xA;And while the Hebrew Bible never uses the term &quot;the messiah&quot;, it's Greek equivalent - &quot;Christ&quot; - is used in the New Testament 240 times.&#xA;The pattern is quite clear: if a matter is important to you, you mention it over and over. If it isn't important to you, you rarely mention it, or ignore it altogether (and of course, by your very silence on that matter, you leave to the future abusers of your writings the possibility for finding &quot;hidden prophecies&quot; or &quot;hints&quot; in your every second sentence).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual term &quot;the messiah&quot; started being used among Jews only after the latest book in the Hebrew Bible was written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the concept is in the Hebrew Bible, it emerged after the destruction of the First Temple, and it's rather marginal in the Hebrew Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? When the Jews lost their temple and their sovereignty over their land, some prophets came up with prophecies that their temple and sovereignty will be restored. Be restored to what state? What was the idyllic period in the history of the Israelites? Of course: David's days. This is why the prophets were talking about a King that will continue David's legacy, even by being his descendent. That King of course would be a human being. It's never stressed directly in the Hebrew prophecies, because it was so obvious - the prophets never imagined that there would come along in the future a religion that would try to hijack their words - they were surrounded by pagan nations that showed no interest whatsoever in the Israeli faith - but even though it's not stated directly in the prophets' words, it's still very clear from an honest reading of the true messianic paragraphs in the prophets' writings, that the king they are envisioning will be nothing but a human being - a very successful one though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian evolution of the term &quot;the messiah&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gentile Christians took it to a totally different place. While the first Jewish followers of Jesus (while he was still alive) sincerely believed that he would be that earthly king that would drive away the Romans, which is why they referred to him as &quot;the messiah&quot; in its traditional Jewish sense - Gentile Christians first used the figure of Jesus as an agent of sin cleansing. This was mainly the result of the theology preached to them by Paul. It made a lot of sense to the Gentiles - since they had no background in what the Hebrew Bible is about. To be a sin cleanser, Jesus of course had to be divine in some sense, which gradually developed to him being regarded as God (with the theology of trinity coming gradually along in the 3rd century as an effort to solve to tension between two Gods: Jesus and the Jewish God, and the concept of one God). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gentile Christians were not actually looking for &quot;the messiah&quot;. The term makes no sense to them: it's a term that is all about restoring the national sovereignty of the Jewish people - but they are not Jews, so how could be Jesus sold to them as the King that restores the Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel? That would be like selling TV's in the desert - there's no need for them there.&#xA;So the Gentiles first got Jesus as God. Then in retrospect, they looked back at the origins of Jesus' story and tried to prove to themselves that the story is valid. What did they still see there, even through the oral stories that became more and more gentile and anti-Jewish? They saw a man who was admired by his followers as &quot;the messiah&quot; (not as God!). From that, the Gentiles concluded, &quot;the messiah&quot; is an honorary title, with no actual practical meaning. But to the Gentiles, Jesus is already God, hence he deserves to be given every honorary title. So let's call him also &quot;the messiah&quot;, said the Gentiles - whatever it might actually mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: The Jews never expected a divine messiah. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7531/why-does-the-messiah-have-to-be-god/12207#12207&quot;&gt;It can be easily seen in the Hebrew prophecies found in the Hebrew Bible.&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;The Gentiles first got Jesus as God incarnate. They also called him &quot;the messiah&quot; as an honorary title, imitating the Jews who called &quot;the messiah&quot; anyone who was believed to be able to restore their sovereignty, without actually understanding what the term meant to the Jews. To Christians, it's not that the messiah was understood to be God. It's God who got the title &quot;the messiah&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3577" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T21:03:53.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12119" CreationDate="2012-12-21T14:46:08.330" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The prophecy commonly known as &quot;Daniel's 70 Weeks&quot; may be the most precise prediction of the time of Messiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city,&#xA;  to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement&#xA;  for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision&#xA;  and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So you are to know and discern that &lt;strong&gt;from the issuing of a decree to&#xA;  restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be&#xA;  seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;&lt;/strong&gt; it will be built again, with plaza&#xA;  and moat, even in times of distress. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off&lt;/strong&gt; and have&#xA;  nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the&#xA;  city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to&#xA;  the end there will be war; desolations are determined. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in&#xA;  the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain&#xA;  offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes&#xA;  desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is&#xA;  poured out on the one who makes desolate.”  Daniel 9:24-27 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Weeks&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word that is translated &quot;weeks&quot; is more literally translated as &quot;seven&quot;.  Consequently, it should not be automatically translated as a 7 day period.  For various reasons, many scholars interpret this to be referring to years.  If this is so, then 70 &quot;sevens&quot; would indicate a time span of &lt;em&gt;490 years&lt;/em&gt; in which the prophecy will be fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Specific Prophecies&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note the fullness of the prophecy.  All of these things would be fulfilled within the 490 years, albeit &lt;em&gt;not all at the same time&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finish transgression&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Put an end to sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Atone for iniquity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bring in everlasting righteousness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seal both vision and prophet&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anoint a most holy place.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The 490 Years Begins&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 490 year time period begins from the &lt;em&gt;issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem&lt;/em&gt;.  Artaxerxes issued such a decree in 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1-8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Cutting Off of the Messiah&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophecy proclaims that after a total of 69 sevens (the 7 sevens and 62 sevens), Messiah will come and will be cut off.  &lt;em&gt;(Some translate Messiah as an anointed one rather than transliterating the Hebrew word itself.)&lt;/em&gt;  Seven times Sixty-Nine equals 483 years.  However, the Jews did not employ our modern solar calendar, so adjusting 483 years to our modern calendar gives us 476 years and 24 days.  So -445 B.C. + 476 years equals 31 A.D., then add one year (since there wasn't a year zero), and you get &lt;strong&gt;32 A.D.&lt;/strong&gt; This is, of course, the time in history when Jesus was crucified.  In His crucifixion, He &lt;strong&gt;atoned for iniquity&lt;/strong&gt; as the prophecy foretold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other Parts of the Prophecy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to remember that all of the prophecies mentioned were to be completed in 490 years and not after just 483 years, when the Messiah was to be cut off.  There are varying opinions on how the 70th seven is fulfilled.  At the end of that time, the remaining prophecies will be fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The destroying of the city and the sanctuary (the Temple) did occur in 70 A.D., as was prophesied:  &lt;em&gt;&quot;after the sixty-two weeks... the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(NOTE:  There are some who compute the years a bit differently, but they all arrive at dates between 27 A.D. and 33 A.D.  Some start at 457 B.C.  Nonetheless, the cutting off of Messiah falls in the narrow range in which we know Jesus was actually crucified.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further reading: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/5_1/timetable&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Messianic Time Table According to Daniel the Prophet&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://jewishroots.net/library/prophecy/daniel/daniel-9-24-27/daniel-9-master-prophecy-page.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Old Testament Prophecy:  Daniel's 70 Weeks&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.friendsofgod.org/history/daniel_70_week_prophecy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel's 70 Week Prophecy for Coming Messiah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T14:46:08.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12284" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-21T15:09:09.147" Score="11" ViewCount="2225" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 24:36 Jesus is quoted saying, that even he does not know when the end of the world will come, only God (the Father) alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in how the major trinitarian denominations explain this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2017-04-25T23:57:24.673" LastActivityDate="2018-07-20T00:29:51.603" Title="How is Matthew 24:36 explained by trinitarians?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12267" CreationDate="2012-12-21T15:33:20.177" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Mass was celebrated in Latin from about the year 400 until the Second Vatican in 1962. With over 1500 years of Catholics celebrating the Mass in Latin, it hold a special place in many people's hearts. There is a uniqueness to it, but for me it is more of knowing that I am celebrating the Mass in the same language as Catholics have for hundreds of years before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, the English(language) Roman Catholic Mass was re-written to better reflect the language of the Latin Masses. Many of the changes are more direct translations of the Latin Mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people felt that the transition away from the Latin Mass in 1962 &quot;corrupted&quot; the Mass and took away from the universality of the Liturgies. In Vatican II, the Church concluded that saying the Mass in the native tongue of the area would be more spiritually fulfilling and revert to when the mass was said in the local language, before the start of the Latin Mass.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="3593" LastEditDate="2012-12-21T17:37:37.717" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T17:37:37.717" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2911" CreationDate="2012-12-21T17:19:43.977" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's my brief survery: &lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) The Essenes were expecting two human messiahs (see my comment under Mason Wheeler's answer) &lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) OT sources like Daniel seem to expect some sort of divine figure to come and destroy Israel's enemies and restore Israel (look for the Daniel &quot;Son of Man&quot; passages). Look at the passage where Jesus tells his disciples for the first time that he is the messiah (Lk 9:20-26). He tells them he's the messiah but immediately explains that means he's to suffer rather than destroy Israel's enemies. Elsewhere in one of the gospels, someone asks Jesus if its time to destroy Israel's enemies or rise to arms (I don't remember where...or maybe I'm imagining it...) and Jesus rebukes them. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;3) A second strand of biblical sources expect Elijah to come again.  We see the roots of this in that Elijiah didn't &quot;die&quot; but was taken up to heaven in a chariot (Somewhere in 2 Kings?).  We see this expectation in Mt 11:14, Mt 17:10, Jn 1:21--repeatedly Jesus is taken to be Elijah come again.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The Jews were a bit conflicted about what sort of messiah was to come, but they most likely did not expect Jesus having the certain Christology that we now know about. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3638" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T17:19:43.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12108" CreationDate="2012-12-21T18:14:52.197" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes and no. In historical Christianity, the term for universal salvation is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocatastasis&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;apocatastasis&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Apocatastasis refers to the restoration of all things to their original state, which includes the notion of universal reconciliation (even going so far as to insist that Satan himself will eventually be reconciled to God). The word appears in Acts 3:21.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of &#xA;  refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ &#xA;  appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time [(this is actually &#xA;  plural in the Greek: 'times')] for restoring [(&lt;em&gt;apocatastasis&lt;/em&gt;)] all the things about &#xA;  which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago&quot; (Acts 3:19-21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this isn't the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt;, I won't get too crazy on the exegesis of this passage but it must be noted that there is an alternate way to translate it. The word &quot;things&quot; is implied in πάντων in the above translation, but the relative pronoun (ὧν) could be referring to 'of times' (χρόνων). The argument boils down to whether there will be a restoration &quot;&lt;em&gt;of all the things&lt;/em&gt; about which God spoke&quot; (as rendered in the above translation), or if there will be a restoration &quot;&lt;em&gt;of all the times&lt;/em&gt; about which God spoke.&quot; This alternate translation may be responsible for some of the early speculation about apocatastasis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15:28 has also historically been used as a justification for apocatastasis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also&#xA;  be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;God may be all in all&lt;/em&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scholars are still divided on where this teaching originated, most pointing the finger at Origen. It is debated whether or not Origen taught apocatastasis and whether this even implied universal salvation. It was certainly a very common belief among many early Church fathers, however. Origen is said to have been posthumously condemned at the 5th ecumenical council along with his belief in apocatastasis as universal salvation. Therefore it is commonly taught that the official teaching of the Christian Church is that universal salvation is heretical. However, many scholars have questioned whether apocatastasis was actually condemned. Origen was also condemned for a number of beliefs he held that were Platonic (such as the preexistence of souls, a heterodox Christology, animistic beliefs, etc.). Scholars have debated whether it was the Platonic foundations that he mixed with apocatastasis that were rejected or the entirety of the doctrine itself. There is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation#Origen_.28c.185_.E2.80.93_254.29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;significant evidence&lt;/a&gt; that suggests that many have misunderstood what was specifically denounced in the 5th council.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea as presented by Origen is that since God will be &quot;all in all,&quot; then in eternity there will be no place that God is not. Since &quot;God is love&quot; (1 John 4:8), wrath is not an eternal attribute of God but rather how we experience His love without being pure in heart / righteous. Therefore hell is not viewed as conscious torment inflicted intentionally by God as punishment nor as a withdrawal of God's presence, but rather as the experience of the unfiltered love of God. For those who have been made righteous, this is a very positive experience. For those who have chosen to reject His love, it is like a consuming fire that causes them suffering. Origen taught that this fire was purifying and that eventually no one would hold out against God's love. Origen believed that all would eventually be reconciled to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some have stated this by using the analogy of wind: God's love is like wind constantly blowing in one direction. When we walk in His will, the wind has our back and carries us along. But when we go against His will, we walk against the wind and experience His love as wrath. Thus God is always continually loving, but we are the ones who don't know what true love is. This can even be observed in human relationships: consider a loved one who hates a family member. Let's say that Helga is the mean and bitter loved one and Cindy is the kind relative. Helga intentionally buys Cindy a mean gift on Christmas - something that Cindy finds offensive. Cindy knows that Helga will be mean but chooses to love her anyways and purchases a thoughtful gift for her. When Helga opens the loving gift from Cindy, she throws it on the floor in anger and shouts, &quot;You did this on purpose!&quot; Perhaps this is even the key to understanding how God's love can be like &quot;heaping burning coals on someone's head&quot; (Proverbs 25:21-22; Romans 12:20). Many Eastern Orthodox believers view God's love in this manner. Many in our broken culture experience true love as a form of suffering. Orthodox Christians believe that eternity will be no different, since God is always love. This is basically the Orthodox doctrine of 'hell' in a simplified (albeit incomplete) way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about universal salvation? It may be true that people will experience God's love as suffering, but will this experience be eternal? Do Orthodox Christians believe that all will be saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must also consider another great saint who taught apocatastasis but was not condemned for it: St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory of Nyssa was one of the Cappadocian fathers who repudiated the Platonic teachings of both Irenaeus and Origen. Yet he never repudiated the teaching of apocatastasis, although he did modify it slightly. Since St. Gregory of Nyssa was never condemned as a heretic nor any of his teachings, it is often thought that perhaps apocatastasis is not heretical, but rather the way that Origen had presented it and infused it with Platonism was the problem (technically neo-Platonism for those philosophy/history buffs reading this). Add to this the fact that universalism may not have even been specifically addressed in the 5th ecumenical council and there is a valid argument that this view may not have been considered heretical by the early Church (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocatastasis#Patristic_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.viii.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These beliefs can be seen throughout both Eastern and Western Christians through the medieval period, all the way up until the Reformation in the West. This hope for an eventual universal reconciliation has continued in much of Eastern Christianity - but not in any dogmatic way (this would be counter to the Orthodox approach to theology, which is a discussion for another time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course you can find Orthodox Christians who vehemently support either extreme, but you can also undoubtedly find Universalists within mainline conservative Protestant denominations as well. The presence of alternate opinions does not imply agreement from all those within a tradition. There are also many underlying related concepts that I do not have time to sufficiently address, such as the notion that heaven and hell are 'places' that exist within space and time, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the apophatic approach to theology&lt;/a&gt;, and much more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way to summarize the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church is perhaps to say that they hold out hope for the eventual reconciliation of all to God. Thus it would be heretical to say that all &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; be saved, but it is legitimate to hope that all &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/129064992/Apocatastasis-in-Patristic-Theology&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a scholarly article tracing Patristic teachings on apocatastasis&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T19:15:46.797" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12268" CreationDate="2012-12-21T20:54:24.873" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thoughts from a minister I know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Matthew passage is more stylized than the Luke chronology…and it’s different too in places. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost all of his Jewish audience would be able to see that he had made omissions. He would have known that too. So we can discount simple error or fraud. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew was simply making stylistic omissions that reflected the importance of the number 7 in Jewish writings (14 is 2 times 7). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T20:54:24.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12284" CreationDate="2012-12-21T21:33:08.027" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. It is not contrary. This going to be a little pedantic, but I'm going to try to get you to look at the more pertinent issue: the person of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two things you asked about don't directly have much to do with each other. The comparison is incongruent. What I suppose you are asking is that because Christ did not know something that God the Father knows, then is God divided?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To obtain proper perspective on this, you have to make some decisions in your line of reasoning. Your decisions influence your answer. My primary assumption is that the scriptures agree perfectly with each other, even in cases when we cannot immediately understand the harmony. In this regard, we must keep in mind the opening chapter of John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John, we read that in the Beginning was the Word. The Word with God and the Word was God. We also read that the Word came in flesh. That's the entire point of Christ: God, the one who made everything, came in flesh. Being God, He has all qualities of God, including omniscience. Yet, there is something He admits not knowing. So the proper question is not whether or not this verse is contrary to trinitarianism but rather &quot;is it contrary to the claims of Christ being God, or is there disagreement between Matthew and John?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why ask it this way? Because there's nothing in our language and understanding of the trinity that directly says that in order for a person to be part of the trinity, he must be all-knowing. Instead, what we have is transitive understanding of omniscience being required in order to be in the trinity: you aren't in the trinity if you aren't God, and God is omniscient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so the answer is: either Christ was all-knowing, or else he was not. If not, then he was not God... except that John says he was. So if he did not know the day or hour, then he was not God. If he did know the day or hour, then it seems that Matthew's quote was wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is the fundamental point: The scriptures claim both; Christ is God and Christ didn't know something. The problem seems to be that there is something incongruent about the person of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In history, the church has opted not to call this incongruence a contradiction but rather a mystery, one that is abstracted by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hypostatic union&lt;/a&gt;. We can only conjecture how Christ did not know something yet was still able to be called God. It's not even that there aren't good theories about how this is possible, it's just that it is indeed conjecture because the scriptures don't speak to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2012-12-23T22:00:35.257" LastActivityDate="2012-12-23T22:00:35.257" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12284" CreationDate="2012-12-21T22:00:56.313" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if this is too simplisitic, but I think the answer is that although God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally God, this does not mean that they are all the same being. We see this when Jesus came to earth, not God the Father; God the Father and Jesus send the Holy Spirit at pentecost - they are not the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see in the Garden that Jesus and God the Father have two different wills:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.&quot; (Luke 22:42 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If all three are seperate and have individual will, then why do we need to say that they all share the same knowledge?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2012-12-21T22:00:56.313" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2911" CreationDate="2012-12-22T05:49:33.520" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not everything was understood by everyone. We have the perspective of hindsight, but they did not have such a luxury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=22&amp;amp;t=KJV#45&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 22:41-46&lt;/a&gt; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;t=KJV#36&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 12:35-37&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&amp;amp;c=20&amp;amp;t=KJV#42&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 20:41-44&lt;/a&gt;), the Lord Jesus Christ asked the Pharisees,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saying, &amp;quot;What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he? They say to him, &amp;quot;The son of David.&amp;quot; He says to them, &amp;quot;Then, how does David in the Spirit call him, 'lord,' saying, 'Yahveh said to my lord, 'Sit on My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.''? So, if David calls him 'lord,' how is he his son?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And no man was able to answer him a word, nor did anyone from that day forward ask him any more questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to that conversation, the Pharisees could not understand how the Messiah is David's lord, which is of course because the Messiah is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-09-20T03:00:25.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12165" CreationDate="2012-12-22T07:03:46.230" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, there are not, or if there are, they do not take it completely literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, the title &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_%28title%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doctor&lt;/a&gt;, someone with a PhD or MD, comes from the Latin verb docēre, which means 'to teach'; doctor means, literally, teacher. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mister, Misses, Miss: These all come from the root, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;master&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, there are no Christian groups that restrict the use of Doctor (teacher) or Mister/Miss/Misses (master), so I conclude that there are no Christian groups that take Matthew 23:8-10 literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T01:47:41.567" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T01:47:41.567" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5804" CreationDate="2012-12-22T07:08:25.270" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any scripture that proves the Son pre-existed is contra-Modalism. For example, John 17:5 wherein Jesus states that he had glory with the Father before the world existed. In order to counter this, Modalists will insist that Jesus had glory with the Father as a &quot;plan&quot; in the mind of the Father before the world existed. Creative, but eisegetical, and thus fallacious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modalists deny the pre-existence of the Son and insist that the &quot;Son&quot; only began to exist when he was born at Beit-Lechem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2012-12-22T07:08:25.270" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12165" CreationDate="2012-12-22T07:55:19.153" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 23:9 must be understood in the traditional Jewish cultural and religious context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Students (&lt;em&gt;talmidim&lt;/em&gt;) would often refer to their teachers by various titles that indicated significant esteem. These titles included רב (&lt;em&gt;Rav&lt;/em&gt;), רבי (&lt;em&gt;Rabbi&lt;/em&gt;), מר (&lt;em&gt;Mar&lt;/em&gt;), and אבא (&lt;em&gt;Abba&lt;/em&gt;). This translate into English as &amp;quot;great one,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;my great one,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;lord,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;father,&amp;quot; respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;מר (&lt;em&gt;Mar&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marcus Jastrow: &lt;em&gt;A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature&lt;/em&gt;, p. 834.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vqLQH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Entry for מר in Jastrow's dictionary.&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 11, Folio 94a (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Sanhedrin.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt;/ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4411.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrew&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where did he deport them to? &lt;strong&gt;Mar&lt;/strong&gt; Zutra said, &amp;quot;To Africa.&amp;quot; Rabbi Chanina said, &amp;quot;To the mountains of Salug.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;להיכא אגלי להו &lt;strong&gt;מר&lt;/strong&gt; זוטרא אמר לאפריקי ורבי חנינא אמר להרי סלוג&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;רבי (&lt;em&gt;Rabbi&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marcus Jastrow: &lt;em&gt;A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature&lt;/em&gt;, p. 1442.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QYPlv.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Entry for רבי in Jastrow's dictionary.&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 11, Folio 94a (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Sanhedrin.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt;/ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4411.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrew&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where did he deport them to? Mar Zutra said, &amp;quot;To Africa.&amp;quot; &lt;strong&gt;Rabbi&lt;/strong&gt; Chanina said, &amp;quot;To the mountains of Salug.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;להיכא אגלי להו מר זוטרא אמר לאפריקי ו&lt;strong&gt;רבי&lt;/strong&gt; חנינא אמר להרי סלוג&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrew רב (&lt;em&gt;Rav&lt;/em&gt;); Aramaic רבא (&lt;em&gt;Raba&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marcus Jastrow: &lt;em&gt;A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature&lt;/em&gt;, p. 1438.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hFkkZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo'ed, Tractate Pesachim, Chapter 9, Folio 92b (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Pesachim.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt;/ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l2309.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrew&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rav&lt;/strong&gt; Nachman said, &amp;quot;It is accepted.&amp;quot; &lt;strong&gt;Rav&lt;/strong&gt; Sheshet said, &amp;quot;It is not accepted.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;רב** ששת אמר לא הורצה &lt;strong&gt;רב&lt;/strong&gt; נחמן אמר הורצה**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Zera'im, Tractate Brakhot, Chapter 1, Folio 3b (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/zeraim/Berachoth.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt;/ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l1101.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrew&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;Raba&lt;/strong&gt; said, &amp;quot;There are two kinds of &lt;em&gt;neshef&lt;/em&gt;: when the evening disappears and the morning arrives; when the day disappears and the evening arrives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;אלא אמר &lt;strong&gt;רבא&lt;/strong&gt; תרי נשפי הוו נשף ליליא ואתי יממא נשף יממא ואתי ליליא&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few others, but I believe this demonstrates the context sufficiently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: To clarify, there is no reason you may not call your own biological father, &amp;quot;father.&amp;quot; It is stated in both the OT and the NT that we are to &amp;quot;honor your mother and father.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue concerns calling those in positions of authority (especially religious) by titles of esteem, especially those in the Church. Yeshu'a said that those who were great and first among us were to be &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; ministers and servants (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=20&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 20:26-27&lt;/a&gt;). A master does not call his servant, &amp;quot;lord&amp;quot;; likewise, we should not call those who serve us by such titles. For example, &amp;quot;Papa&amp;quot; for the Pope, &amp;quot;Father&amp;quot; for priests, &amp;quot;Rabbi&amp;quot; for Jewish teachers. These are exactly what Yeshu'a was referring to. In addition, to think that he told his disciples that they were not to call the Jewish religious leaders &lt;em&gt;Rav&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Rabbi&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Mar&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Abba&lt;/em&gt;, etc., but then Gentile believers can call their religious leaders, &amp;quot;Pope,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Father,&amp;quot; is simply nonsensical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire premise behind this prohibition is that there is one alone deserving of esteem, and that is our Lord (Master). All those who believe in him are his servants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-22T09:13:42.350" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12240" CreationDate="2012-12-22T08:35:34.410" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;My response if focused from the Catholic perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Are there any church calendars that include Advent as Christmas, or is Christmas always supposed to follow December 25th?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Day&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Catholic Church, Christmas Day (&amp;quot;The Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord&amp;quot;) starts on Christmas Eve, December 24th as sundown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Season&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In different Churches, the Christmas Season might end on Jan. 6 (the traditional date of the Feast of the Epiphany), or might last until the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord (usually the Sunday after Epiphany), or might even last all the way to Feb. 2 (the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, 40 days after Dec. 25).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it it interesting that the song, &amp;quot;Twelve Days of Christmas&amp;quot; is referring to the twelve days from Christmas to Epiphany.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Historically, did the church celebrate Christmas before or after December 25th?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Day&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; (section titled &amp;quot;Early Celebration&amp;quot;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians &amp;quot;over curiously&amp;quot; assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus.&#xA;It goes on from there to list many different dates that Christmas (the day as the Birth of Christ) was celebrated on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Season&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Codex Theod., II, 8, 27 (cf. XV, 5,5) forbids, in 425, circus games on 25 December; though not till Codex Just., III, 12, 6 (529) is cessation of work imposed. The Second Council of Tours (can. xi, xvii) proclaims, in 566 or 567, the sanctity of the &amp;quot;twelve days&amp;quot; from Christmas to Epiphany, and the duty of Advent fast; that of Agde (506), in canons 63-64, orders a universal communion, and that of Braga (563) forbids fasting on Christmas Day. Popular merry-making, however, so increased that the &amp;quot;Laws of King Cnut&amp;quot;, fabricated c. 1110, order a fast from Christmas to Epiphany.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why has the emphasis on Christmas switched to Advent (the time of preparation)?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is important to note that Advent is not just the time of preparation for Christmas but for the second coming.&#xA;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/advent/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;USCCB&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beginning the Church's liturgical year, Advent (from, &amp;quot;ad-venire&amp;quot; in Latin or &amp;quot;to come to&amp;quot;) is the season encompassing the four Sundays (and weekdays) leading up to the celebration of Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Advent season is a time of preparation that directs our hearts and minds to &lt;strong&gt;Christ’s second coming at the end of time&lt;/strong&gt; and also to the anniversary of the Lord’s birth on Christmas. The final days of Advent, from December 17 to December 24, focus particularly on our preparation for the celebrations of the Nativity of our Lord (Christmas).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&lt;em&gt;emphasis added&lt;/em&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Advent, this powerful liturgical season that we are beginning, invites us to pause in silence to understand a presence. It is an invitation to understand that the individual events of the day are hints that God is giving us, signs of the attention he has for each one of us.&amp;quot;&#xA;---Pope Benedict VXI, Homily at First Vespers of Advent, November 28, 2009&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the weeks before or during the Christmas season, many people set up a &amp;quot;manger scene&amp;quot; which has its origins from the nativity scene erected by St. Francis of Assisi. This could be taken as either a celebration of Christmas or an Advent celebration (many people will put the figures in the manger only at the appropriate times -Jesus on the 25th of Dec, the magi on Jan 6/7th).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-22T08:35:34.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12284" CreationDate="2012-12-22T09:57:59.193" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This must be understood of Christ as the son of man, and not as the Son of God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Son of God he knew all of God’s purposes and designs; for these were purposed in him. He knew from the beginning who would betray him, and who would believe in him; Otherwise how Jesus, who knew so correctly all the other particulars like not one stone should be left on another, should be ignorant of this day and hour? How he in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, should not know this small matter. How could the Deity which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus might, at one time, communicate less of the knowledge of futurity to him than at another? So he must know also the day of the last judgment, since it is appointed by God, and he is ordained to execute it: but the sense is, that as he, as man and mediator, came not to destroy, but to save; so it was not any part of his work, as such, to know, nor had he it in commission to make known the time: but his Father only; to the exclusion of all creatures, angels and men; but not to the exclusion of Christ as God, who, as such, is omniscient; nor of the Holy Spirit, who is acquainted with the deep things of God, the secrets of his heart, and this among others.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has been also said that the verb rendered &quot;knoweth&quot; means sometimes to &quot;make&quot; known or to reveal, and that the passage means, &quot;that day and hour none makes known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father. They suppose the verb οιδεν to have the force of the Hebrew conjugation Hiphel, in which verbs are taken in a causative, declarative, or permissive sense; and that it means here, make known, or promulgate. This intimates that this secret was not to be made known, either by men or angels, no, not even by the Son of man himself; but it should be made known by the Father only, in the execution of the purposes of his justice.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3455" LastEditorUserId="3455" LastEditDate="2012-12-22T10:04:03.700" LastActivityDate="2012-12-22T10:04:03.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12297" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-22T14:40:46.153" Score="3" ViewCount="54" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3734/when-do-we-as-christians-draw-the-line-on-self-defense&quot;&gt;When do we as Christians draw the line on self-defense?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am referring to turning the other cheek. With all the violence going on I am wondering if we can protect our selves or does the turn the other cheek mean we should just let someone harm us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3645" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2012-12-22T21:24:56.297" Title="Does the Bible allow us to protect our selves" Tags="&lt;killing&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-12-22T23:11:08.033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8625" CreationDate="2012-12-22T15:37:05.563" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Concerning Baptism I went right to the source—Jesus. Acts 1:5: &quot;For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.&quot;&#xA;After Jesus died we no longer need water but only must believe and the we are baptized in the Holy Spirit. John himself also referred to this in Luke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John answered them all, &quot;I baptize you with water, but one more powerful than I am is coming—I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see these verses and and you will see that it was upon believing that the families were baptized: Acts 19:1-6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3646" LastEditorUserId="1481" LastEditDate="2012-12-22T17:10:54.740" LastActivityDate="2012-12-22T17:10:54.740" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12300" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12308" CreationDate="2012-12-22T23:31:36.830" Score="11" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;his 2012 Christmas address&lt;/a&gt;, Pope Benedict XVI said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as&#xA;  male and female pertains to the &lt;strong&gt;essence&lt;/strong&gt; of the human creature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The use of the word &quot;essence&quot; puzzles me here. I wonder whether gender is a property of essence or existence. Does gender still exist in Heaven? Isn't gender a property of the body rather than an attribute of each being?  If so, gender is tied to existence. What is official Catholic teaching on this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="295" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-05T02:39:44.110" LastActivityDate="2015-10-05T02:39:44.110" Title="Why did the pope say gender is a property of essence?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;gender&gt;&lt;benedict-xvi&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12301" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12307" CreationDate="2012-12-23T02:49:47.510" Score="5" ViewCount="1960" Body="&lt;p&gt;The angels told the shepherds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you:you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger. (Luke 2:11-12, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is how would this scene that they found serve to be a sign? Also a sign of what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-01T21:16:31.330" LastActivityDate="2016-12-30T12:08:34.377" Title="How was 'a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger' a sign?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;&lt;signs&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2666" CreationDate="2012-12-23T07:20:21.430" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it is true that some Protestants do not think of any day more holy than any other day.  This is actually my belief, all days are equally holy. Therefore, it really does not matter which days one prefers to go to church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that Protestants generally respect the tradition that Sunday is a sort of preferred worship day as the day he rose, but few are that legalistic about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I confess that Christmas is one of the few days of the year I have never gone to church, because I like to practice the secular traditions associated with it to recall my good childhood memories. Once converted to Christianity I mever really adopted a Christian Christmas per se because all days are equal according to my faith. The truth is I like to sleep in, grab a coffee and open presents then have turkey later on. Adding some vacation and family makes it Christmas for me. That 'Jesus is the reason for the season' makes the secular festival all the more enjoyable for me as I tend to think about the incarnation with joy. But I do it at home. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ironically I heard a sermon this morning that said 'I should' come to the Christmas service, which made me chuckle a bit because he seemed so frustrated with those who did not share his opinion and was so not in the Christmas spirit. Yet it did not matter, I did not let myself be judged but rather let my mind wander into the majestic view of God's glory in the infant Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. (Colossians 2:16, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really like Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-23T07:20:21.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12265" CreationDate="2012-12-23T08:35:12.933" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some think that Samson was a type of Messiah because he was a Nazarite (one consecrated to God - נָזִר nazir) for his entire life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. So then drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’ (Judges 13:7, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this is not the only prophetical book that ties into the Nazarite theme of Messiah. The same Hebrew word 'nazir' is used (set apart) in reference to Joseph who was also a type of Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The blessings of your father &#xA;  are mighty beyond the blessings of my parents, &#xA;  up to the bounties of the everlasting hills. &#xA;          May they be on the head of Joseph, &#xA;  and on the brow of him who was set apart &lt;strong&gt;(נָזִר nazir)&lt;/strong&gt; from his brothers. (Genesis 49:26, ESV - brackets original Hebrew)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore by both Judges and Genesis playing on the theme of 'nazir' it can be said the prophets predicted that Messiah would be called a Nazarite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Alfred Edersheim there is even an ancient Jewish tradition that seems to recognize this Messianic expectation of nazir: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ancient Jewish tradition, in referring to the blessing spoken to Dan (Gen. xlix. 17, 18), applies this addition: “I have waited for Thy salvation, Jehovah,” through Samson the Danite, to the Messiah. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://philologos.org/__eb-bhot/vol_III/ch19.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alfred Edresheim, Bible History Old Testament&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view also seems to have been held by John Calvin, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.txt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-23T08:35:12.933" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12301" CreationDate="2012-12-23T15:34:44.810" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just a Christmas treat for those who enjoy this sort of thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course finding the infant, as lead by the star shining over the animal house, wrapped up and placed in a feeding-trough (φάτνη) is a striking thing to see.  The contrast of this earthly, helpless child to the heralding angelic glory announcing his birth is breathtaking to say the least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But a sign can't be a sign without pointing to something else.  Its seems clear that the sign this scene points to was the suffering of Christ as the rejected and sin laden Christ.  Yet as we see this sign repeated and fulfilled in the gospels God's favor and angelic support remains with him all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout his ministry he stayed in a manger, open and exposed to danger with God alone protecting him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;58 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”  (Luke 9:58, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many times he was in a feeding-trough with God's glory shining all around as well as the ministry of angels.  The desert of his temptations was a feeding trough surrounding him. The accusations by the self righteous who despised his eating with sinners was a feeding trough of beasts. Of course when he was nailed to the cross and buried in a tomb, this was the most humble feeding toughs of all.  The earth itself, filled with dirt yielding thorns was a feeding trough to which God humbled himself into taking the form of as a man and servant, who washed the feet of his own disciples.  All of this and more was what the sign pointed at.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although not directly implied, yet so poetically analogous and true, is that Martin Luther often referred to the swaddling clothes of Christ as the Old Testament, for in it we find Christ wrapped up as our great Christmas present in humble and plain guise, yet what a treasure does it hold!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-23T15:34:44.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8625" CreationDate="2012-12-23T18:33:59.650" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What saves a person is abiding, continuing, in Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 13:8 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet!” Jesus replied, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can find a number of abiding actions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believing in Him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Confessing (agreeing He is the Messiah)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eating His flesh and drinking His blood&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is not what you do, but what is done to you. Baptism is being received into Christ. It happens after confession, but before eating His flesh, drinking His blood, having your feet washed (all terms meaning agreeing with the deeper teachings of Christ):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 8:36 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Now as they were going along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water! What is to stop me from being baptized?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that one can believe that Jesus is proclaiming the Good News, and receive baptism, but as one continues to learn what the Good News is, one can stop ”abiding”:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:11 NET&lt;/strong&gt; But when the king came in to see the wedding guests, he saw a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thief on the cross was not baptised, but he was abiding in Christ. It's helpful to think of baptism as a stricture on the Church to teach the new believer the requirements of discipleship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastActivityDate="2012-12-23T18:33:59.650" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="385" CreationDate="2012-12-23T19:37:01.870" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;St Simmon the Tanner during the papacy of Pope Abraam the 62nd of the see of St Mark has moved the huge Mokkatam Mountain of Egypt. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The then Moslem Caliph Al Moez Ledin Ellah who reigned from 953-975 threatned the Pope that unless a mountain is moved inline with Matthew 17:20: &quot;If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to the mountain, Move from here to there, and it will move, nothing will be impossible for you&quot; that Christians of Egypt (Copts) will get killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Abraam called for a 3 days fasting asking for God's help. Holy Mary asked Pope Abraam, in an apparition, to call Simon a man called Simon the Tanner who leads a good life and has the faith to move the mountain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More than 1,100 years of that miracle Coptic Christian of Egypt fast 43 days being 40 for lent and 3 days in memory of the great doings of the Lord moving the Mokkatam Hill&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is now a Church for Saint Simon carved in the mountain which I have visited more than once and live close to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please refer to this Coptic link  &lt;a href=&quot;http://st-takla.org/Saints/Saint-Simon.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://st-takla.org/Saints/Saint-Simon.html&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you need more information please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3650" LastActivityDate="2012-12-23T19:37:01.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12301" CreationDate="2012-12-23T21:41:02.053" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Signs&lt;/em&gt; in tradition and scripture, can have two basic senses. In the first sense, they are often miraculous indicators of the speaker's trustworthiness, which encourage the listener to believe. In the second sense, they embody or represent a larger or more transcendent truth. The general formula for signs in my first sense is that the speaker first delivers a message, then performs a &lt;em&gt;sign&lt;/em&gt; to reassure the listeners of his authority. We can see this by considering a couple other signs in scripture that follow the format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, let's consider the interaction between Moses and God as God prepares Moses to speak with Pharaoh for the first time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; “But,” objected Moses, “suppose they do not believe me or&#xA;  listen to me? For they may say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The LORD said to him: What is in your hand? “A staff,” he&#xA;  answered. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; God said: Throw it on the ground. So he threw&#xA;  it on the ground and it became a snake,a and Moses backed away from&#xA;  it. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Then the LORD said to Moses: Now stretch out your&#xA;  hand and take hold of its tail. So he stretched out his hand and took&#xA;  hold of it, and it became a staff in his hand. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; That is so&#xA;  they will believe that the LORD, the God of their ancestors, the God&#xA;  of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, did appear to you.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Again the LORD said to him: Put your hand into the fold&#xA;  of your garment. So he put his hand into the fold of his garment, and&#xA;  when he drew it out, there was his hand covered with scales, like&#xA;  snowflakes. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Then God said: Put your hand back into the&#xA;  fold of your garment. So he put his hand back into the fold of his&#xA;  garment, and when he drew it out, there it was again like his own&#xA;  flesh. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;If they do not believe you or pay attention to the&#xA;  message of the first sign, they should believe the message of the&#xA;  second sign. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; And if they do not believe even these two&#xA;  signs and do not listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour&#xA;  it on the dry land. The water you take from the Nile will become blood&#xA;  on the dry land.&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/exodus/4&quot;&gt;Exodus 4:1-8&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, smarter or more patient men than me can likely read some meaning into both signs. But, on the surface of it, Moses is given several miracles he can perform in front of Pharaoh to attest to his authority, or to the fact that he has been sent by God with his message. And, unless my memory is foggy, Moses appears before Pharaoh, first with his message, and &lt;strong&gt;then&lt;/strong&gt; displays the &lt;em&gt;signs&lt;/em&gt; of his authority and mission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, let's consider Jesus' first &quot;sign&quot; according to John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in&#xA;  Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus and his&#xA;  disciples were also invited to the wedding. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; When the wine&#xA;  ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; [And] Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern&#xA;  affect me? My hour has not yet come.” &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;His mother said to&#xA;  the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Now there were&#xA;  six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each&#xA;  holding twenty to thirty gallons. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus told them, “Fill&#xA;  the jars with water.” So they filled them to the brim. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Then he told them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.”&#xA;  So they took it. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; And when the headwaiter tasted the water&#xA;  that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the&#xA;  servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the&#xA;  bridegroom &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; and said to him, “Everyone serves good wine&#xA;  first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but&#xA;  you have kept the good wine until now.” &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Jesus did this&#xA;  as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his&#xA;  glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; After&#xA;  this, he and his mother, [his] brothers, and his disciples went down&#xA;  to Capernaum and stayed there only a few days. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/2/&quot;&gt;John 2:1-12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Admittedly, I feel like I'm contorting John's first sign a little to fit the format, but if notice the portions I've emphasized, the &lt;strong&gt;message&lt;/strong&gt; is clear: &lt;em&gt;do whatever he tells you&lt;/em&gt;. If His mother would not have given the message, &quot;do whatever he tells you,&quot; the miracle would have been neat, but it would not have been a sign. It would have been a magic trick. And without &lt;em&gt;the sign&lt;/em&gt;, the message lacks authority. The wedding guests would have no reason to heed Mary's command to submit fully to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This particular sign is also packed full with pretty obvious symbolism, meaning, and power. And in those respects, the sign is a sign in other senses. The miracle extends a wedding celebration, likely indicating that Jesus' mission is about completing our joy (something He explicitly tells us later). It is significant that the jars used are &lt;strong&gt;ceremonial jars&lt;/strong&gt;. Jesus commands that the ceremonial jars be filled with ordinary water, and by His miracle, he reveals them to be significant or holy -- he condones and makes holy the Jewish ceremony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I don't think the context of your initial quote needs to be broadened, but let's widen the context a little anyway:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and&#xA;  keeping the night watch over their flock. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; The angel of&#xA;  the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them,&#xA;  and they were struck with great fear. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; The angel said to&#xA;  them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of&#xA;  great joy that will be for all the people. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; For today in&#xA;  the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and&#xA;  Lord. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; And this will be a sign for you: you will find an&#xA;  infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host&#xA;  with the angel, praising God and saying: &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; “Glory to God&#xA;  in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/2&quot;&gt;Luke 2:1-14&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the angels deliver a message. (That is their purpose, after all!) The message is that the savior and Messiah has been born. And as I understand it, the message above suggests that this savior is both God and man, Messiah and Lord. And then, to lend credence to their message, they basically tell the shepherds, &quot;Go and see for yourself! This is probably the first and last time you'll see a baby in a food trough!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Admittedly, I don't know how often Jews laid their infants in food troughs. But, these angels make the pretty incredible claim that the Messiah has not only been born, but is God Himself. And as a &lt;em&gt;sign&lt;/em&gt; that they're telling the truth, they tell the shepherds where to find Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, &lt;strong&gt;as a Catholic&lt;/strong&gt;, there's a great deal of additional sign and symbolism here. God is born in Bethlehem (&lt;em&gt;the house of bread&lt;/em&gt;), wrapped in swaddling clothes (&lt;em&gt;He is fully human&lt;/em&gt;), and has been laid in a food trough, &lt;em&gt;a sign that He has been offered up for consumption -- and not just any consumption, and not even implying &lt;strong&gt;reverent&lt;/strong&gt; consumption, but animalistic, carnal, beastly consumption&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the sign of the infant, I think, hits on both senses of a sign. It testifies to the accuracy of the angel's message. And it signals Jesus whole mission: to &quot;condescend&quot; into humanity, thereby making humanity holy, and to submissively offer Himself as the fundamental food for our immortal bodies as &lt;em&gt;regular bread&lt;/em&gt; would have been for our mortal bodies. I.e., Jesus' first &quot;act&quot; is to signal (be a sign of) the Eucharist. And we are meant to devour Him, as hungry beasts from a food trough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-12-23T21:41:02.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12300" CreationDate="2012-12-24T02:22:24.983" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his teaching, &lt;em&gt;The Theology of the Body&lt;/em&gt;, Pope John Paul II argues that the essence of being human is both body and spirit.  He asserts that a human spirit without a body is as much an aberration as is a body without a spirit.  Therefore, either without the other is not entirely human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He makes the very good point that Jesus was raised &lt;em&gt;bodily&lt;/em&gt;, and that Paul taught that we will be raised bodily, that indeed that Christian afterlife is a translation into another realm of &lt;em&gt;material&lt;/em&gt; existence and not a purely spiritual one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also makes the argument that gender is an &lt;em&gt;essential&lt;/em&gt; aspect of what it means to be human.  We will not be raised genderless, but as male and female.  Jesus taught only that there will not be marriage in heaven, not that there would not be male and female. According to JP II the reason for that is because we will be experiencing the fullness of relationship that the Trinity share and the marital relationship, being simple a fore-shadowing of that unity with God, will be superfluous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So all of that to say, yes, as I understand John Paul II's teaching, our sexuality (but not the sexual act) is essential to our being as humans.  That is, to be perfectly clear, &lt;em&gt;sexuality&lt;/em&gt;, that is the state of &lt;em&gt;being&lt;/em&gt; male or female is, according to JP II (and I agree), essential to being human; the expression of love in sexual intercourse may not be.  The latter &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; only be a temporal sign of the marriage of Christ and the Church which will be redundant in the eternal state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-09-01T20:38:03.820" LastActivityDate="2014-09-01T20:38:03.820" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8095" CreationDate="2012-12-24T02:27:37.870" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To try and give a simple answer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Covenant theology and Biblical theology is(are?) apples and oranges. Biblical theology is more in the category with Systematic Theology so to speak. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where Systematic Theology sets out categories and asks &lt;em&gt;what does the Bible as a whole say about each category&lt;/em&gt;, Biblical theology asks &lt;em&gt;what are the theological themes in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, in Paul's letters or in a single book like James&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in Systematic Theology we would have categories that we call doctrines. The doctrine of God, the doctrine of Sin, the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of Salvation and so on.  For each of these doctrines you would take into consideration all that the Bible has to say on that topic.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical Theology would ask what does the Old Testament teach about God, what does the New Testament teach about God, what does Romans teach about the law?  It may ask what are the theological themes found in the Old Testament, or what are the themes found in Romans or the Psalms?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or we could look at how James understands faith and how Paul understands faith and see how them are different or what we can learn from each of them.  In contrast, Systematic Theology &lt;em&gt;would ask how can we take Paul's view and James view and fit them together&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Covenant Theology, it is pretty much the same thing as Reformed Theology. You could also say Calvinism(or Calvinistic Theology). In General these terms are interchangeable. There is probably some nuance to each but your pretty safe using any of them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Covenant(or Reformed) Theology would be contrasted with Dispensational Theology. There are others but on the conservative side of things these are the two main ones. If you want to know the difference between them look it up; there should be lots of info out there.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this fits under the Protestant side of things. It might be helpful to know about the major splits in the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1054 there was the Great Schism where the Eastern Orthodox Church split off from the Catholic Church. At that point you had the East and the West.  Then in the 16th century there was the Protestant Reformation where the Protestant church was born.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3652" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-11-09T15:55:59.573" LastActivityDate="2017-11-09T15:55:59.573" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12284" CreationDate="2012-12-24T02:52:05.740" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think in order to understand things like this it is necessary to come to terms with how Jesus operated in his earthly ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Phillipans 2:5 ff: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ Jesus, &lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt; but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. &lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditional, orthodox Christian teaching is that Jesus, when on earth, was fully God and fully man &lt;em&gt;at the same time&lt;/em&gt;.  In order to attain our salvation, the Godhead determined that the act of disobedience in the garden of Eden would be countered by an equal act of obedience.  To that end, by his own divine fiat Jesus, God the Son, chose to limit himself to an exercise of power equal to that which an obedient &lt;em&gt;human&lt;/em&gt; could exercise.  That is, he emptied himself of his equality with God and for a time operated out of a limited human power.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that he knew while in this humbled state he knew because the Father revealed it to him through the Holy Spirit.  That is why we can do &quot;these things and greater&quot;, because he operated in the same power and revelation that the Holy Spirit grants the church. As he himself said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise (John 5:19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theory at any time, Jesus could have shrugged off the mantel of humanity and resumed his Godly state; but had he done so our salvation would have been lost, perfect obedience would have been broken and the unity of the Trinity would have been shattered.  That last is why I say, in theory, because the area of understanding the dual natures of the Son is a deep mystery that the church can only explore and probe, but never fully understand until we see him in glory in the next life.  Then the great mysteries of God will be revealed to us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when Jesus said that he, the Son, did not know the day or the hour of his second coming, he meant only that as the Son of Man (i.e. Jesus in his limited state during his earthly ministry) the Father had not revealed to him the time of his return, only that he would return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastActivityDate="2012-12-24T02:52:05.740" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12311" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12313" CreationDate="2012-12-24T07:59:40.413" Score="8" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know it was not absolute silence. A few shepherds, a few wise men from a distant land and some close family witnessed the miracle. Also the new star even led to a mad search to hunt and kill the future King. However, this reason for the killings did not seem to have been published and basically the Jewish world at large, let alone the Gentile one, did not seem to notice that Messiah had come very much at all.  In fact there is almost no historical record of anything remotely suggesting the occurrence outside of the gospel accounts. Considering the size of humanity this small fanfare seems more like a little ripple around a pebble slipped quietly into the Ocean. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then is 'Why did Messiah arrive in such silence on Christmas day?'  Why not a more publicly proclaimed entry of the anointed King and only Son of God into the world? Does it make sense that Messiah would enter covertly and in such secret humility?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-25T05:02:15.950" Title="Why did God enter humanity so silently on Christmas day?" Tags="&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9459" CreationDate="2012-12-24T08:20:23.900" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe this is what Dan Andrews was trying to ask (I could be wrong), &quot;did the disciples believed Jesus was God ONLY after the resurrection or was it before drawing from the statement in  Mathew 16:16 as Narnian was pointing out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer that question we would have to know what Peter meant by &quot;Son of God&quot; - there are at least two possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A) Peter believed Jesus was the Messiah prophesied to save Israel who was appointed by / from God or;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B) Peter believed Jesus was the Messiah prophesied and was God himself in the flesh&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the choice, I would imagine, would need to be decided by looking at the Greek and the context of this statement in the Gospel of Matthew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3654" LastActivityDate="2012-12-24T08:20:23.900" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12311" CreationDate="2012-12-24T14:20:20.647" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the reason seems to have been wanting to minimize the drive to direct the Messiah toward worldly goals.  Many people wanted a worldly king, e.g., John 6:15 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again into the hills by himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and there was a desire for &quot;bread and circuses&quot; (well full stomachs and miracles), e.g., John 6:26 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &quot;I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that Jesus' desire for them to follow because of the &quot;miraculous signs&quot; was, I perceive, that this evidence would encourage belief not a desire for them to want to continually see miracles.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Herod's desire to see a miracle, expressed in Luke 23:8, seems to be a typical &lt;em&gt;human&lt;/em&gt; desire.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was trying to draw out true worshipers (John 4:23):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar mysterious secrecy is expressed, e.g., in Matthew 8:4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Jesus said to him, &quot;See that you don't tell anyone.  But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One parallel passage, Luke 5:14, gives a hint of an additional motive for limited fanfare in later life (which might apply in a different way for childhood): inescapable crowds would make solitary prayer extremely difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2012-12-24T14:27:34.133" LastActivityDate="2012-12-24T14:27:34.133" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12311" CreationDate="2012-12-25T05:02:15.950" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;For a God who always seeks to woo and not to overwhelm, this is exactly what you would expect. God could, if he chose, bring more power to bear than any of us could handle. He could force himself into everything, if that were His nature. But, as a person (not a force) who seeks to love and be loved for who He is, this makes perfect sense. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As King Henry walked amongst his troops before Agincourt, he came in disguise that his men could be encouraged by his zeal but not overwhelmed by his title. He would have his men genuinely love him for what was in his heart and not upon His crest. Our God is not different. He is Immanuel. He is God with us. Not over us (though he is), not obliterating us, but lovingly being with us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A God that powerful but also that good must act in such terms if he is to stay true to who he is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2012-12-25T05:02:15.950" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12317" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12323" CreationDate="2012-12-25T09:52:56.783" Score="13" ViewCount="7034" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that the legal age of marriage was quite young in Jewish culture at the time of Christ. I believe young girls at the age of twelve could marry. However, I find it difficult to imagine Mary as young as thirteen years years old around the time of her giving birth, because of the maturity of her words that are found in the gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any tradition that would place a more realistic age of Mary? Or is this just completely unknown even when guessing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-08-26T01:50:38.757" LastActivityDate="2020-01-25T17:29:27.833" Title="Is there any tradition that informs us of how old Mary was when she gave birth to Jesus?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="445" CreationDate="2012-12-25T11:07:51.070" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some opinions of Islam on Jesus which is possibly similar to christian belief-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born from a virgin mother.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was a true prophet, sent to the children of israel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was the promised messiah/christ the children of Israel were waiting for.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preached true word of one God, forbade idolatry.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was able to talk from the first day of his life and performed other miracles.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Came with new ruling for children of Israel from God, including some exemption of previous rules.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will come again on earth to fight the false messiah/anti christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Will rule the world as a king with justice (after Mahdi).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some differing points may be-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being Son of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being part of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Removing all the sins from the believers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3607" LastActivityDate="2012-12-25T11:07:51.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12319" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-25T11:18:48.247" Score="-2" ViewCount="1015" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4581/should-jesus-be-rendered-yeshua-in-english&quot;&gt;Should “Jesus” be rendered “Yeshu‘a” in English?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously not Jesus given that the letter J is a replacement of the actual letter Y. The letter J sounds masculine so in English (only?) language all Jewish names that start with Y is changed to start with J. Jacob are actually Yakub, Joshua are actually Yosua.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some speculate that the name is actually Yehoshua. Which is the same name with Yosua. Not really sure what it really means by the same name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Muslims call Jesus Isa. Is this related to another Jewish name, Yesaya, which in English bible is called Isaiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's the story here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We pray in Jesus' name, yet we don't even know if it's His real name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If possible I would like an explanation of all these alternative names and spelling. For example, why does the Muslim called Jesus Isa. Is there a connection between Isaiah and Jesus' name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2012-12-31T14:42:37.477" Title="What is Jesus's exact name" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2012-12-31T16:55:22.697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12319" CreationDate="2012-12-25T15:50:48.020" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The name 'Jesus' is just an English phonetical representation of his name in the Greek Bible Ἰησοῦς.  This name is also the same name used in the Greek version of the Old Testament (LXX) for Joshua (יהושׁוע).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All three names sort of sound similar but as a name is translated from one language to another it can sound quite different too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we are said to pray in Jesus name it is not related to the sound of his name in any particular language but to pray under the authority of his name in his nature.  It means that by the merits of his death for our sin we can approach God in salvation and by his life in us, pray in his person and by the merits of his salvation. This does sort of lead back to the meaning of his name for Joshua means 'Jehovah is salvation'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2012-12-25T15:50:48.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12321" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-25T17:34:20.970" Score="5" ViewCount="912" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes to make the idea controversial, atheists depict God as a humanly being residing in the space and then compare him to other fairy tale creatures. To counter this, some sort of logical or may be philosophical answer is needed to the question, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Where&lt;/strong&gt; is God?&quot;&#xA;What is an overview of the positions within Christianity about this subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3607" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-08T06:19:58.540" LastActivityDate="2015-07-30T18:09:48.123" Title="Where is God according to Christianity?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12321" CreationDate="2012-12-25T17:58:12.037" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;While this isn't true for &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; branches of Christianity, the vast majority of Christianity believes God to be Omnipresent - that is, everywhere at once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog11.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog11.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is Omnipresent&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The attribute of God by which He fills the universe in all its parts&#xA;  and is present everywhere at once. Not a part, but the whole of God is&#xA;  present in every place. This is true of all three members of the&#xA;  Trinity. They are so closely related that where one is the others can&#xA;  be said to be, also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That page lists several verses from Scripture that support this attribute of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Omnipresence_of_God&quot;&gt;http://www.theopedia.com/Omnipresence_of_God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/050700.html&quot;&gt;http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/050700.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&amp;amp;article=2690&quot;&gt;http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&amp;amp;article=2690&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-omnipresence-of-god/&quot;&gt;http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-omnipresence-of-god/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;em&gt;generally&lt;/em&gt; goes along with the idea that God is Spirit (John 4:24), and not a physical being of flesh and bone.  Although some denominations, like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/faq/nature-of-god&quot;&gt;LDS, teach that God is a being of flesh and bone&lt;/a&gt;, and that omnipresence has a slightly different meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For many Christians, God is also not limited to our universe. As the self-existing Creator &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;of&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the universe, He us greater than it, and not limited &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.everystudent.com/wires/finger.html&quot;&gt;http://www.everystudent.com/wires/finger.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-26T02:57:26.390" LastActivityDate="2012-12-26T02:57:26.390" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12317" CreationDate="2012-12-25T21:08:55.757" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;She was probably between 13 and 14 years old according to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; in the section entitled &quot;Mary's pregnancy becomes known to Joseph&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how old she actually was at the time of the Nativity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastActivityDate="2012-12-25T21:08:55.757" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12197" CreationDate="2012-12-25T23:12:42.420" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As we read the Nativity Story, (esp Luke 2: 7-20)&#xA;Ponder the questions? Why did the angels go to the shepherds first? Why are swaddling clothes twice mentioned, &quot;And this shall be a sign unto you, ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I gave a talk a week ago, on the shepherd seeking the lost sheep, when I found the special significance of this verse Christmas Eve, it brought a special testimony of His birth as the Saviour,&#xA;The shepherds would take the firstborn of the flock for the sin sacrifice offering. To stop the newborn lamb from injuring itself so it would be without blemish they would wrap them in swaddling clothes and usually lay them in a manger until they were stronger and ready to go to the mother. Thus the sign of the firstborn son wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger was of special signifigance to the shepherds, who would share this incredible sign with others who could understand it!&#xA;May He continue to have a significant place in everyone's heart especially on this day of celebration.&#xA;Humbly, in His Eternal Love&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bob Lewis&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3661" LastActivityDate="2012-12-25T23:12:42.420" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12325" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-26T12:35:08.860" Score="3" ViewCount="1610" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always hear people say things like, 'the debt was too large' ... well, why? Why couldn't I pay for my own sin? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't like that Jesus took punishment for me, I would hate for my earthly father to get fined or beaten or imprisoned for me, it would enrage me, it's completely unfair. I want to pay the price myself. Why can't I? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing that seems to make sense is that for some reason there had to be a blood sacrfice and that sacrfice had to be a perfect being (similar to how animals could not be sacrficed if they had any defects.) ... but why? Why does the person/animal dying need to be perfect? &#xA;It doesn't make sense to me yet, I know it's the truth because I believe in God but I feel like there's a block in my understanding, like I'm waiting for a lightbulb moment where I go 'ahhhh ok now I get it.' PLEASE DON'T SAY 'there are some things we will never understand because God is God and mysterious and we just have to deal with that.' I don't believe that is the case with such a critically important issue. The early Christians seemed to have such a good grasp on the whole concept but it's evading me. Please offer your understanding if you get it. Please don't say anything if you're not 100% sure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you so much, I really want to get this so I can move forward in my faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3662" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-26T13:02:56.333" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T07:26:40.680" Title="Why couldn't we reconcile ourselves to God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;&lt;reconciliation&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2012-12-27T21:53:43.363" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12317" CreationDate="2012-12-26T15:08:56.747" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Magificat or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/lk/1:46&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canticle of Mary&lt;/a&gt; (Luke 1:46-56) mirrors Hannah's prayer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1samuel/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 2:1-10&lt;/a&gt; so closely that one would have to think that Mary found her words in through reflecting on scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;And Hannah prayed:                             And Mary said:&#xA;My heart exults in the LORD,                   “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; &#xA;my horn is exalted by my God.                  my spirit rejoices in God my savior  &#xA;                                               For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;&#xA;                                               behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.  &#xA;                                               The Mighty One has done great things for me,&#xA;                                               and holy is his name&#xA;                                               His mercy is from age to age&#xA;                                               to those who fear him.&#xA;I have swallowed up my enemies;&#xA;I rejoice in your victory.&#xA;There is no Holy One like the LORD;&#xA;there is no Rock like our God.&#xA;Speak boastfully no longer,&#xA;Do not let arrogance issue from your mouths.&#xA;For an all-knowing God is the LORD,&#xA;a God who weighs actions.&#xA;“The bows of the mighty are broken,            He has shown might with his arm,               &#xA;while the tottering gird on strength.          dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.&#xA;The well-fed hire themselves out for bread,    He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones&#xA;                                               but lifted up the lowly&#xA;while the hungry no longer have to toil.       The hungry he has filled with good things;&#xA;                                               the rich he has sent away empty &#xA;The barren wife bears seven sons,&#xA;while the mother of many languishes.&#xA;“The LORD puts to death and gives life,&#xA;casts down to Sheol and brings up again.&#xA;The LORD makes poor and makes rich,&#xA;humbles, and also exalts.&#xA;He raises the needy from the dust;&#xA;from the ash heap lifts up the poor,&#xA;To seat them with nobles&#xA;and make a glorious throne their heritage.&#xA;“For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s,&#xA;and he has set the world upon them.&#xA;He guards the footsteps of his faithful ones,  He has helped Israel his servant,&#xA;                                               remembering his mercy,&#xA;but the wicked shall perish in the darkness;&#xA;for not by strength does one prevail.&#xA;The LORD’s foes shall be shattered;&#xA;the Most High in heaven thunders;&#xA;the LORD judges the ends of the earth.&#xA;May he give strength to his king,&#xA;and exalt the horn of his anointed!”&#xA;                                                according to his promise to our fathers,&#xA;                                                to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That scripture, which would have been burned in to her Immaculate Heart, by means of a singular grace would have certainly been with her at a young age when she would be betrothed.  One tradition (not Sacred Tradition), which is mostly forgotten by popular imagery, is in that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia article&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/12323/4&quot;&gt;Drew linked to&lt;/a&gt; which says that Mary was a consecrated virgin raised in the temple, that her parents Anne and Joachim prayed for her and when they got her, gave her up to the temple where she would have been able to absorb scripture like Anna (Luke 2:36-38), who would have certainly known all about her if that were the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-08-26T02:01:35.100" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12325" CreationDate="2012-12-26T15:14:23.483" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two reasons why the sacrifice needed to be perfect.  First, if the sacrifice was not perfect, the sacrifice would only be paying for his own sins.  Second, the perfect life of the sacrifice satisfies the human side of the covenant, so by receiving the righteousness of the sacrifice, the saved person receives the fullness of the promises.  (This is referred to as double imputation.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of the difficulty in accepting this may be in not realizing how impossible it is to come even close to loving God with our all (Deuteronomy 6:5) and that all the things we think of as good deeds are filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An attitude of self-satisfaction (which may be behind a belief that one could save oneself) has two issues.  It is saying &quot;I am good enough by my standards so I should be (must be) good enough by God's standards&quot;; i.e., God is not any holier than I am.  It is also saying &quot;I am just as good as the God-man&quot;; i.e., God is no more capable of saving than I am.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one came before a great king and offered a heap of used tampons (&quot;filthy rags&quot; in Isaiah 64:6 may have referred to menstrual cloths) as demonstration that one is worthy of a relationship with the king, the king would either think one is insane or intentionally offering an insult (&quot;Here, O King, is a reflection of what I think your majesty is worth--icky rubbish!&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I realize that much of the above is dealing with the whole of salvation and not solely the just retribution for sin, but I hope this helps anyway.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2012-12-26T18:32:30.120" LastActivityDate="2012-12-26T18:32:30.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12325" CreationDate="2012-12-26T15:19:04.880" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The real question is:&#xA;why can't you accept to be loved by your Father? Why would it  it would enrage me if your father took punishment for you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You say: &quot;it's completely unfair&quot;.Well, yes, it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this is the difference between Grace and Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law &quot;convinces you of your sins&quot; and tells you what is not good.&#xA;The Grace enables you to love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the old testament the law was leading the relationship with God (Think about Moses and the 10 commandments), and because of the law the man understands he is a sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the new Testament, Jesus does not abolish the Law, but ponts out that the most important  is not only &quot;NOT TO SIN&quot;, &lt;strong&gt;but to love&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under Jesus we are asked for something that is simply impossible for us: love as He loved. Think about Mtw 5,28 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman&#xA;  lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.`&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We need a constant Grace and love by God to 'refine' in some way our humanity, and to be able to really love (who makes us happy).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accepting we are 'sinners' doesn't mean accepting that we are bad, nasty. It just means to accept we are humans, not perfect, we make mistakes, we have the human Nature which is wonderful and complex (body, intelligence, soul... and we try to keep all together) and we need also God. We are not self-sufficient. It doesn't mean we are stupid: it is part of the game that we receive God's love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1257" LastEditorUserId="1257" LastEditDate="2012-12-27T00:14:25.783" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T00:14:25.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4307" CreationDate="2012-12-26T16:48:42.070" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jonah was the only prophet in the Hebrew Bible that was sent to some of the Gentiles. Generally there was no reason to send a prophet to the Gentiles, since they were not given the same set of laws as the Israelites.&#xA;So unless they got totally depraved, God left them as they were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's interesting to note, that even in that case, when the Gentiles needed to correct their ways - they were able to do it without any Jesus. Jonah does not preach to them about having faith in Jesus as the only way to attain forgiveness from God. On the contrary, they are simply told to do it the old (testament) way - avoiding from immoral behavior. Jesus is never mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of Jonah is quite striking to the Christian theology. Not surprising that the only useful moral that the New Testament's writers were able to make out of that story is, to mention that Jesus was believed to be dead for three days (48 hours?), the same amount of days that Jonah spent in the stomach of the whale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3577" LastActivityDate="2012-12-26T16:48:42.070" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12325" CreationDate="2012-12-26T21:08:13.180" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've asked a question like this too, in church. I'll explain what they told my and what made me go 'ahhhh ok now I get it.' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before Jesus died, we had to take care of our own sins. We had to pay for them. How? Read the first 5 books of the bible, which describe the laws given to Moses. Trust me, you do not want to live that way. It is almost impossible to live that way, because you are always doing it wrong or not good enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Jesus died for us, we are free, we can live because God offered his only son for us. The perfect offer, enough to wash away all sin, for ever and ever. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the best answer would be in my opinion: You simply can't pay for your own sins. You'd be offering all day and night, and still not be forgiven for everything. God made the choice for you, that you do not want, and have to pay for your own sins anymore. The only thing which remains, is confess your sins, and ask for forgiveness, every day again. This might be hard enough already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3355" LastActivityDate="2012-12-26T21:08:13.180" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12069" CreationDate="2012-12-26T21:09:57.120" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The act of washing feet predates the Reformation. It was encouraged of the abbot of a Benedictine Monastery to wash the feet of guests by the Order of St. Benedict(c. 530). The washing of the feet is done yearly in the Roman Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know what all denominations practice the washing of feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information, you can read about it in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15557b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The liturgical washing of feet (if we can trust the negative evidence of our early records) seems only to have established itself in East and West at a comparatively late date. In 694 the Seventeenth Synod of Toledo commanded all bishops and priests in a position of superiority under pain of excommunication to wash the feet of those subject to them. The matter is also discussed by Amalarius and other liturgists of the ninth century. Whether the custom of holding this &quot;maundy&quot; (from &quot;Mandatum novum do vobis&quot;, the first words of the initial Antiphon) on Maundy Thursday, developed out of the baptismal practice originally attached to that day does not seem quite clear, but it soon became an universal custom in cathedral and collegiate churches. In the latter half of the twelfth century the pope washed the feet of twelve sub-deacons after his Mass and of thirteen poor men after his dinner. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastActivityDate="2012-12-26T21:09:57.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12325" CreationDate="2012-12-26T22:10:05.830" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're right that a blood offering is needed. In Romans we are told:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can pay for our own sins, but the cost is our death and destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cost of our sin cannot be repaid to God without death. In the old testament that death is the sacrifice of an animal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, he is to bring a female&#xA;  without defect. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it for&#xA;  a sin offering at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered.&#xA;  Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with&#xA;  his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and&#xA;  pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. (Lev 4, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The laying on of his hands is a sign that he is sinful, but he is &quot;transfering&quot; his sin to the lamb, and the lamb is slaughtered and its blood poured out. Note also that the lamb must be perfect to allow it to take the mans sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately it points forward to a time when the perfect spotless lamb comes to die:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or&#xA;  gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to&#xA;  you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a&#xA;  lamb without blemish or defect. (1 Peter 1:18-19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A perfect substitute must be provided for our sin - no matter how hard we try, we cannot pay our debt without death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the other part of your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I don't like that Jesus took punishment for me, I would hate for my&#xA;  earthly father to get fined or beaten or imprisoned for me, it would&#xA;  enrage me, it's completely unfair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree it is completely unfair that we made God die for us so we can live. As a dad though, I kind of get it. I would do anything for my children, including being beaten, imprisoned or die. That's what dad's who love thier children do!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2012-12-26T22:10:05.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12325" CreationDate="2012-12-26T22:17:32.683" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question, as stated, presents an misunderstood view of the economy of salvation. And although it is ultimately a mystery, we can say a fair amount about sin and salvation that makes Christ's sacrifice more reasonable sounding, and the possibility of &quot;self-salvation&quot; far less reasonable sounding. In essence, God created humans to be like God, humans thought they were getting short-changed and disobeyed God (His Word, the law of life), so God had to become fully human to make humans like God again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, God makes man in His image. We can see this directly in scripture. As creation culminates, God creates man and woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them;&#xA;  male and female he created them. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/1/27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, God places man and woman in the Garden of Eden, the Garden of delight. He gives them dominion over everything except the prerogative of good and evil. Based on context, this could mean &lt;em&gt;divinity itself&lt;/em&gt;. The Catholic read on this, as I understand it, is that humanity is initially created in a state wherein they will live &lt;em&gt;joyfully&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;forever&lt;/em&gt;, provided that trust in God's exclusive right to determine good versus evil and who is entitled to what.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of&#xA;  Eden, to cultivate and care for it. &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; The LORD God gave the man this&#xA;  order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you&#xA;  shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/2/15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:15-17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, mankind starts to believe that God is holding out. They believe that, although they were &lt;em&gt;told&lt;/em&gt; they were made in God's image, that they actually far from God-like. They believe that they must take matters into their own hands, and they taste the forbidden fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Now the snake was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the&#xA;  LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall&#xA;  not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The woman answered&#xA;  the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; it&#xA;  is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that&#xA;  God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will&#xA;  die.’” &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; But the snake said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and&#xA;  you will be like gods, who know good and evil.” &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; The woman saw that&#xA;  the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was&#xA;  desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate&#xA;  it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he&#xA;  ate it. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew&#xA;  that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made&#xA;  loincloths for themselves. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:1-7&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, all humans are destined to die. People are finite and stupid, for one. And our pride destines us to die. We simply don't know what it means to be Godlike, nor do we have the power to acquire Godliness. We don't even &lt;em&gt;fully&lt;/em&gt; understand what good and evil are, let alone the power to enact good. Least of all do we understand the full consequences of our actions, nor have the power to understand. Hence, having taken good and evil into our own hands, we cannot fulfill God's purpose for us to be like Him. We simply don't have the ability to raise ourselves to Godliness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth, God rescues mankind. And since the original plan was for humans to be like God, God can accomplish this by entering the full human experience. From birth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim&#xA;  to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; For&#xA;  today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is&#xA;  Messiah and Lord. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; And this will be a sign for you: you will find an&#xA;  infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/luke/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 2:10-12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through daily life, learning, teaching, eating, partying, friendship, betrayal, judgement, and denial to suffering, agony, mockery, and &lt;strong&gt;death&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commend my&#xA;  spirit”; and when he had said this he breathed his last. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/luke/23/46&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke&#xA;  23:46&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the Catholic understanding of this is twofold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, we understand that Christ makes humans like God again by bringing the fullness of God into the full human experience. This is often called &lt;strong&gt;divinization&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;deification&lt;/strong&gt;. Because Jesus was fully God, everything that He was as a human, all that happened to Him, and all that He did is God-like, &lt;strong&gt;including death&lt;/strong&gt;, which we are bound to!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son of God became man so that we might become God.&#xA;  - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria#Quotes_from_St_Athanasius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Athanasius&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not coincidentally, Jesus is risen from the dead, suggesting in a very &quot;loud&quot; manner that we too can be risen. &lt;strong&gt;But not of our own doing!&lt;/strong&gt; Only by accepting God's offer for salvation by &quot;commending our spirit&quot; to God! That is, we can only allow ourselves to be risen by God by allowing God's offer, the power of the cross, to make us like Him again. We cannot do it on our own, for we are not God. It is precisely in an attempt to &quot;do it on our own&quot; that we are apart from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But secondly, and contrary to your request for this question, we understand that the mechanics of salvation are a mystery! It's well and good to talk about deification. It's well and good to say that Christ &lt;em&gt;became&lt;/em&gt; sin, as we often do. It's well and good to talk about paschal sacrifices, the law, the Word Made Flesh, etc. But, that doesn't mean we understand it. And if we start to presume salvation and God are not mysterious, we find ourselves back in front of the forbidden fruit, ready to take that ill-advised bite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2012-12-26T22:17:32.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12336" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12344" CreationDate="2012-12-27T02:41:24.227" Score="12" ViewCount="16957" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't so much a question about theology or denominational teachings as Church history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1382/significance-of-the-origami-deckard-found-in-blade-runner/28548#28548&quot;&gt;an answer to a question on another StackExchange site,&lt;/a&gt; someone posted this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am an Art Historian, and I have recently made a research on the&#xA;  Unicorn symbology in the Middle Ages Art. The unicorn is an&#xA;  christological symbol. In the book physiologus (popular book in the&#xA;  middle ages about magical creatures and so on) the unicorn is&#xA;  described as hard to capture. Only a virgin could do this. This&#xA;  unicorn myth has been used as a symbol (incarnation) of Christ, who&#xA;  has been born by the virgin Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That got my interest, so I searched, and there is some apparent truth to this, and some undocumented statements claim that some monks agreed with this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, from: &lt;a href=&quot;http://glossary.expert/Glossary/Entertainment/Literature/Christological_Figure.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christological Figure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...the unicorn in medieval bestiaries, which would lie down and place&#xA;  its phallic, ivory-horned meekly in a maiden's lap so that hunters&#xA;  might kill it--which medieval monks interpreted as an allegory of&#xA;  Christ allowing himself to enter the womb of the virgin Mary so that&#xA;  he might later be sacrificed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'm curious to see if there is documented writings from the Church (I assume this refers to the Catholic Church, or possibly Orthodox or the Church of England, based on the time period) discussing this.  Is there history to back up these claims?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:43:40.407" LastActivityDate="2017-08-01T03:21:56.497" Title="The unicorn as a Christological figure" Tags="&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12337" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-12-27T03:02:26.967" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Particularly, in Christianity, symbolism deals with symbolic representations of Christian concepts and teachings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-27T03:02:26.967" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T03:02:26.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12338" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-12-27T03:02:26.967" Score="0" Body="The practice of representing things by means of symbols or of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events, or relationships." OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-27T03:02:26.967" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T03:02:26.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12339" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-12-27T03:05:20.057" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Questions dealing with the history of the Church, viewing Christianity as it has been understood throughout history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples might include questions about the ancient church, the medieval Church, the Reformation, counter-Reformation, and more recent schisms and other events. Use the &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/early-church&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;early-church&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;early-church&lt;/a&gt; tag for questions related to the period of the first several centuries of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-28T14:11:06.800" LastActivityDate="2016-10-28T14:11:06.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12340" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-12-27T03:05:20.057" Score="0" Body="The history of the Church following the book of Acts" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-28T14:10:30.777" LastActivityDate="2016-10-28T14:10:30.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12325" CreationDate="2012-12-27T07:19:16.610" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can’t reconcile ourselves to God because we have no power to do enough good, or suffer enough harm to equate the scales of justice.  God’s justice is infinitely opposed to sin and he will not let sin go unpunished.  This simply means were stuck under sin – period, without any wiggle room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let’s for example imagine that a person gives their life to the service or the poor and embraces whatever suffering a selfless life would lead, like Mother Teresa; this would not carry any power to appease God’s vindictive justice. &lt;strong&gt;Trying to obtain our reconciliation is actually like a drug lord trying to bribe the police.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gospel is all about God freely forgiving sin by transferring all its guilt onto the Lamb of God. There is no room for any boasting or good works in light of this. If we could reconcile ourselves to God, we would have reason to boast and Christ would not have had to die. We could say I have done this therefore I deserve reconciliation. I can boast. But this is seen as a wicked attitude in the Bible in the light of God's grace, for all boasting is absolutley excluded.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2:8–9, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire glory of the gospel is that it is unfair, that God unfairly volunteered his own son to pay for our crimes. This is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under the cast of the Biblical notion of sin and our guilt under it, Hitler would have more chances at getting pardon from an international court by reforming his attitudes and helping out his neighbor, after the holocaust, then we could get pardon from God by our own repentance and good deeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-12-27T07:26:40.680" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T07:26:40.680" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12342" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13901" CreationDate="2012-12-27T12:33:11.273" Score="7" ViewCount="1468" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM&quot;&gt;Canonic law&lt;/a&gt;, the minimum age for marryage to be valid for girls is fourteen (it can be and usually is higher for the marriage not to be illicit):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can.  1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age&#xA;  and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot&#xA;  enter into a valid marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Mary gave birth to Jesus at similar age and is important enough to make an example of sort, I guess that tradition of her age at Annunciation may have played a role in forming of this law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question: is this role marginal, non-existent, or important? Are there any sources for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T16:21:53.783" Title="Is there any connection between minimum age for marriage in Catholic Church and tradition about Mary's age at Annunciation?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12343" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-27T14:28:05.867" Score="5" ViewCount="1013" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was doing a chapter in the 7th grade &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/faithandlife/index.htm&quot;&gt;Faith and Life&lt;/a&gt; Religious Ed books with my students and there was a part about &quot;errors concerning the Incarnation&quot;.  It covered Arianism and Docetism and the part about Docetism, which I'd never heard about before, sounded a lot like what I knew about Manichaenism.  I told the kids, since we're from St. Augustine's Parish, that St. Augustine believed all that stuff before his conversion.  But I'm not sure if that was right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning who Jesus was, it seems that both heresies taught the same thing.  That He was only God and not really a man. And both are reduced to the same fundamental body=bad soul=good problem.  So, what is the difference between the two?  Are Docetists always Christian and the followers of Mani pantheists? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T20:25:45.847" Title="What is the difference between Docetism and Manichaenism concerning the Incarnation?" Tags="&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12336" CreationDate="2012-12-27T16:59:28.207" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, this is one of many allegorical meanings attributed to the unicorn. Sometimes it seems that just about every possible meaning is attached to every possible creature, in the medieval mind. The unicorn's main associations are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;power&lt;/strong&gt;, as with any horned creature.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;purity&lt;/strong&gt;: the horn was believed to have the power to magically purify water, counteract poison, and cure diseases.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;divine intervention&lt;/strong&gt;, as the horn suggests divine power reaching, penetrating or transforming the mundane horse - resembling a ray of light striking the horse's forehead.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of this comes from classical sources, such as the &lt;em&gt;Natural History&lt;/em&gt; of Pliny, which were familiar to Christians. Additionally, there are &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; unicorn-references in the Bible which can be made to fit with these classical ideas. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Caesarea&quot;&gt;Saint Basil the Great&lt;/a&gt; makes this connection, for example in &lt;em&gt;Homilies on the Psalms&lt;/em&gt; 13.5 (commenting on Psalm 92:10):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the whole, since it is possible to find the word 'horn' used by Scripture in many places instead of 'glory', as the saying 'He will exalt the horn of his people' (Ps 148:14) and 'His horn shall be exalted in glory' (Ps 112:9), or also, since the 'horn' is frequently used instead of 'power', as the saying 'My protector and the horn of my salvation', Christ is the power of God; therefore, he is called the Unicorn on the ground that he has one horn, that is, one common power with the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other writers to link Christ to the unicorn include Tertullian (&lt;em&gt;Adversus Marcionem&lt;/em&gt; 3.18, &lt;em&gt;Adversus Judaeos&lt;/em&gt;) and Ambrose. The specific interpretation involving Mary's virginity and the conception of Jesus comes about a bit later, influenced by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiologus&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Physiologus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; that you mention, an allegorical bestiary written at some point between the second and fourth centuries, and containing the legend of how the fierce and wild unicorn can be tamed only by a virgin (chapter 36). This, and subsequent bestiaries, developed a more elaborate version of the imagery. By the fifteenth century it could include Gabriel as a hunter who blows his horn to drive the unicorn into an enclosed garden (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortus_conclusus&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;hortus conclusus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;) representing Mary's virgin womb. This is a merging of two separate artistic traditions - the unicorn hunt and the secret garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dense web of symbolism is rather difficult to unpick. Because these traditions are essentially mystical, there are many things simultaneously represented or suggested. And so the purifying nature of the unicorn horn may be connected to Mary's virginity, Christ's purity, his purifying of the world, and even the transformative consecration of the Eucharist. The hunted unicorn may sometimes stand for Christ's death at the hands of his persecutors (&lt;em&gt;Das Buch der Natur&lt;/em&gt;, Konrad von Megenberg, 14th century; &lt;em&gt;Bestiaire Divine&lt;/em&gt;, Guillaume le Clerc, c.1210-1211). Or it may refer to (secular) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love&quot;&gt;courtly love&lt;/a&gt; as the powerful knight-unicorn chooses to submit to a virtuous and virginal lady.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This extravagance did not last, however. It was a source of mounting embarrassment that Christ was being represented by a creature whose existence was doubtful, and of course all this sort of imagery was unacceptable to the Reformation leaders. Within Catholicism, the last session of the Council of Trent (1563) passed &lt;a href=&quot;http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html&quot;&gt;a decree&lt;/a&gt; against superstitious or unseemly images, also ensuring that bishops would have the authority to suppress anything that was confusing, unusual, or tending to excite lascivious thoughts. This was backed up by detailed expert guidance in the following years, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=9Iw8AAAAcAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PP16#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;De picturis et imaginibus sacris&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molanus&quot;&gt;Molanus&lt;/a&gt; (1570). He allows the &lt;em&gt;hortus conclusus&lt;/em&gt; (but without a unicorn) for Mary, as well as other scripturally-supported imagery, such as the lily among the thistles or the city of God, but generally rejects more fanciful allegories and non-Biblical legends. And so unicorn-imagery gradually died out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Unicorn Tapestries&lt;/em&gt;, Adolph S. Cavallo. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Unicorn&lt;/em&gt;, Lise Gotfredsen. Abbeville Press, 1999.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T16:59:28.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12347" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12366" CreationDate="2012-12-27T20:37:13.510" Score="5" ViewCount="1624" Body="&lt;p&gt;We call Jesus the son of God that became the son of man.  And yet, Jesus is God per the doctrine of the trinity.  Why don't orthodox Christians address him as God when talking about him and praying?  Is there a biblical basis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="23657" LastEditDate="2020-01-31T23:09:45.793" LastActivityDate="2020-02-01T03:48:37.127" Title="Why do most Christians call Jesus &quot;Son of God&quot; rather than simply &quot;God&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="12348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12347" CreationDate="2012-12-27T21:01:58.753" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Trinitarian Christians most often refer to Jesus by name or by the title of &quot;The Son of God&quot; to distinguish between the Three Persons of the Godhead.  &lt;em&gt;(The title of &quot;The Son of Man&quot; is a specific reference to a prophecy in Ezekiel with which Jesus identifies Himself.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Doctrine of the Trinity can be explained as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Father is God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit is God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Son is not the Father.  Jesus is not the Spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Father is not the Son.  The Father is not the Spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Spirit is not the Son.  The Spirit is not the Father.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus had a specific role in that He is the One who became a man.  Neither the Father nor the Spirit did so.  So, we often reference Jesus specifically because of His role in redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we may refer to Jesus as God and be correct in doing so.  Indeed, we often say the &quot;God became a Man,&quot; and we mean by this that The Son of God became a Man--not the entire Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer your question, we don't refer to Him as God all the time, because we are identifying and distinguishing Him for His Incarnation, Vicarious Sacrifice, and Resurrection.  Yet, we can and do refer to Him as God at times--just not as often as we refer to Him by His Name or His titles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; for more information on the Biblical Basis for the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2012-12-27T21:32:47.343" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12347" CreationDate="2012-12-28T00:00:02.037" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calling Jesus the &quot;son of God&quot; implies that he is God. This may not be a persuasive argument if it were not for Jesus being the &lt;strong&gt;only-begotten&lt;/strong&gt; son of God. Angels, although sons of God, are not begotten. Christians, although sons of God, are begotten via regeneration, not generation. Only Jesus, the only-begotten son of God, is begotten via generation. He shares the same nature as his Father. His Father is God; therefore, he is God. I am human because my father is human. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, Jesus is the &quot;only-begotten son of God.&quot; That means that he is the same nature as his father, and his father just so happens to be God Almighty. This means that Jesus is also God Almighty. Hence, in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://ateret-tiferet.com/documents/Athanasian_Creed.pdf&quot;&gt;Athansian Creed&lt;/a&gt;, it is written, &quot;&lt;em&gt;Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus&lt;/em&gt;,&quot; that is, &quot;He is God, from the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xv.html&quot;&gt;Oration XXIX&lt;/a&gt;, Gregory Nazianzen wrote, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If you mean that the Uncreated and the created are not the same, I&#xA;  agree with you; for certainly the Unoriginate and the created are not&#xA;  of the same nature.  But if you say that He who begat (i.e., the&#xA;  Father) and he who was begotten (i.e., the Son) are not the same, the&#xA;  statement is inaccurate.  For it is in fact a necessary truth that&#xA;  they are the same.  For the nature of the relation of Father to Child&#xA;  is this, &lt;strong&gt;that the offspring is of the same nature with the&#xA;  parent&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2012-12-28T13:43:11.563" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T13:43:11.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1823" CreationDate="2012-12-28T02:48:17.380" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its a complex one I must say. But I think we must look at the resurrection. It's quite possible that 'until' is inadequate for the conveying the meaning, as there is apparently no english equivalent for the word. However, it must be possible to understand what it means - otherwise God would not have allowed it to enter our translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would suggest the resurrection, that some will not taste death BUT they will see the coming of the Kingdom of God. Thats my feeling of it. It just feels right to me. I tend to think of death as being the destruction that comes in the Lake of Fire. Even Jesus referred to physical death - the first death - as nothing but sleep. So death here does seem to me to signify more than the run of the mill sort of thing that happens daily. After all Jesus isn't a liar. And I don't see him sitting on his throne in Jerusalem yet!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others have said that people may have seen visions and that was the coming of the kingdom that they would see before they died. It's a good possibility that John was standing there when he said that, and his Revelation IS his witnessing of the Kingdom coming, and that is what he meant. After all, John was the beloved disciple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, its nothing to worry about, one day you may understand this verse. Just trust that it is true, and that the whole word of God is totally true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3668" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T02:48:17.380" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12319" CreationDate="2012-12-28T03:02:56.817" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Greek would be pronounced: Eye-he-sous (Iesous) Christ-hos (Jesous Xristos)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrew pronounced: Yah-shuah Ha'Mashiach (Yahshua HaMashiach)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Muslims call Jesus 'Isa' because it is written in the Koran as that. It's possible that's what the Arabs called him - I don't know Arabic so I couldn't really guess. But it's somewhat shorter than Yahshuah, or Jesus. We know that the NT was written in Greek, so we do know Jesus' name. It was Jesus. The only difference is spelling, but it's the same name in Greek as it is in English. If you prefer Yahshuah as Messianic Jews use it, then go with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both are correct: one is Hebrew and one is Greek. It is more likely that he was called Jesus, because Koine Greek was the common language at that time. Some say he spoke Aramaic, but I would guess Jesus used the language most common and understandable at that time, which would have been Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like Jesus coming back today in New York and speaking Chinese, or French. Even in Israel at that time people spoke and read Greek. Hence the Greek NT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3668" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2012-12-31T14:42:37.477" LastActivityDate="2012-12-31T14:42:37.477" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12354" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12355" CreationDate="2012-12-28T03:37:24.300" Score="7" ViewCount="671" Body="&lt;p&gt;For those who are unfamiliar with  the term, or those who have only a passing familiarity, what is apologetics, in relation to Christianity?  Is it &quot;proving the existence of God&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that matter, can the existence of God be proved via apologetics?  And historically, how has the field of apologetics been used to defend the Faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T12:56:41.883" Title="What is &quot;Apologetics&quot;, exactly, and how is it used to defend the Christian faith?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12354" CreationDate="2012-12-28T03:37:24.300" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;From  &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/introduction-apologetics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/introduction-apologetics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word &quot;apologetics&quot; comes from the Greek word &quot;apologia,&quot;&#xA;  pronounced &quot;ap-ol-og-ee’-ah.&quot; It means, &quot;a verbal defense.&quot; It is used&#xA;  eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor.&#xA;  10:5-6; Phil. 1:7; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. But it is the last&#xA;  verse that is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;....but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to&#xA;  make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the&#xA;  hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence&quot; (1 Pet. 3:15,&#xA;  NASB).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jumping ahead to the second part of the question: &quot;For that matter, can the existence of God be proved via apologetics?&quot; the answer is &quot;no&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If nothing else, this site, and the questions on it from the atheists and detractors show that the acceptable level of &quot;proof&quot; of God's existence is variable, and even if God Himself were to appear before a non-believer and demonstrate His power, it's quite possible that the non-believer would still refuse to believe that this is God.  To the true skeptic, no proof would be convincing enough. They would always suspect some sort of trickery, like that used by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ardra&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ardra&lt;/a&gt; in the Star Trek TNG episode &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Due_%28episode%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Devil's Due&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there comes a question of the burden of proof.  Apologetics entails the application of logic and reason to defending the faith, which is quite different than &lt;em&gt;proving&lt;/em&gt; the faith.  When it comes to establishing the burden of proof, the same rules that apply in general debates apply to apologetics.  From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it.&#xA;  This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim&#xA;  of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is&#xA;  assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such&#xA;  cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on.&#xA;  In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant&#xA;  debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For&#xA;  example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until&#xA;  proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As&#xA;  another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the&#xA;  affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of&#xA;  proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot,&#xA;  psychic powers, universals, and sense data). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples of Burden of Proof&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Bill: &quot;I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Jill: &quot;I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bill: &quot;How can anyone be against highway improvements?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bill: &quot;I think that some people have psychic powers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Jill: &quot;What is your proof?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bill: &quot;No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That last one demonstrates the fallacy of thinking that applies apologetics can &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;prove&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the existence of God.  If the Christian faith rested on the ability to conclusively prove the existence of God, we'd be in trouble for the reasons stated above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, apologetics isn't about proving that God exists, or that Christianity is true.  It's about &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;defending&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the faith against the arguments that say it &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;couldn't be&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; true, logically.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put simply, there is, and always has been, a requirement of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;faith&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; within Christianity. Faith has been a central tenet throughout all of Scripture.  The question comes down to whether the faith is a &lt;em&gt;reasonable&lt;/em&gt; faith, or simply a blind, indefensible, fairy-tale faith.  The field of apologetics, as applied to defending the faith from the atheist attacks isn't about proving that Christianity &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; true, but rather that it is not irrational to believe that it &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;can be&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; true.  Once that is established, we can defend the belief based on historical, archaeological, and logical arguments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In effect, the field of apologetics accepts the idea that we &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be wrong - Christianity may be based on faulty assumptions, but does the evidence lean toward that conclusion, or is does it lean toward the idea that Christianity &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Truth?  Can we defend the argument that the Bible is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;inerrant and infallible&lt;/a&gt;?  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;Can we defend the argument that it's reliable and hasn't been changed over the years to the point where we can't trust it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moving back to the first part of the question: What apologetics is....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also from &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/introduction-apologetics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/introduction-apologetics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Basically apologetics can be evidential (often called &quot;classical&quot;) or&#xA;  presuppositional.  Evidential apologetics deals with the evidence for&#xA;  Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection, the biblical manuscripts, fulfilled&#xA;  prophecy, miracles, etc. Presuppositional apologetics deals with the&#xA;  presuppositions of those who oppose Christianity, because&#xA;  presuppositions affect how a person views evidence and reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither can stand on it's own.  Evidential apologetics often deals with unprovable assumptions, but with evidence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the death and resurrection of Christ.  This is the central event that defines Christianity.  If this never happened, then Christianity has no basis whatsoever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, right now, we can't go back and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;prove&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that Christ died, was buried and was resurrected.  Skeptics have offered plenty of counter-arguments to the Biblical accounts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/swoon-theory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Swoon theory&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, for example, gives us an example of how the two complement each other.  The swoon theory, for those that don't know, is that Christ didn't really die - that He appeared to have died, and then recovered.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As evidence for this (evidential/classic apologetics), we have only the evidence from Scripture, and one or two extra-Biblical accounts.  We have historical &lt;em&gt;evidence&lt;/em&gt;, but not &lt;em&gt;proof&lt;/em&gt;.  The skeptic can easily say &quot;Yeah, the only &quot;historical evidence you have is recorded in your made-up Bible, and a few superstitious extra-Biblical accounts from the time.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To counter this, we fall back on presuppositional apologetics - reasoning logically against the presuppositions of the skeptic.  We counter with all the arguments freely available at &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/swoon-theory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/swoon-theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, apologetics isn't so much about &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;proving&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the Truth of Christianity as proving that Christianity is not unreasonable.  That it very easily could be true, and added to that, &quot;this is the evidence that convinces us that it is true.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the historicity of apologetics, it has not always been only about defending the faith from atheistic beliefs.  It was also used to defend Christianity from fabricated charges.  From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#Christian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#Christian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Tacitus wrote that Nero fabricated charges that Christians started the&#xA;  burning of Rome. Other charges included cannibalism (due to a literal&#xA;  interpretation of the Eucharist) and incest (due to early Christian's&#xA;  practice of addressing each other as &quot;brother&quot; and &quot;sister&quot;). Saul of&#xA;  Tarsus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and others often defended Christianity&#xA;  against charges that were brought to justify persecution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the field of apologetics is used primarily to defend the faith against detractors of all types - those who fabricate theories trying to disprove Christianity, those trying to show that it is an &quot;evil&quot; religion, or any other attack.  In general, it's not offensive in nature, trying to force others to believe, but rather defensive, saying &quot;Hey, my belief is reasonable and here's why.&quot;  It's not about proving it as providing the believer with the assurance that their faith is not as silly, unreasonable, and evil as opponents would have you believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T12:56:41.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12357" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-28T06:36:35.050" Score="-1" ViewCount="487" Body="&lt;p&gt;The King James Bible says,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:3-6 KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; Thou shalt have no other gods before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of&#xA;  any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or&#xA;  that is in the water under the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the&#xA;  Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers&#xA;  upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that&#xA;  hate me;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my&#xA;  commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Catholics have lots of different saints and idols.  I understand that they are Christians, but they bow down and serve their saints and images.  I feel that they worship them.  One example is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Nazarene&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Black Nazarene&lt;/a&gt; which has Papal Approval by Pope Innocent X and Pope Pius VII.  From my understanding, many people die because of this idol every year. They claim that this idol can heal people by just touching it.  The Catholic church doesn't do anything to stop (what I consider) worshiping the Black Nazareth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Catholicism a true denomination of Christianity, even if they have these practices which I believe are heretical? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3628" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2012-12-28T13:51:55.683" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T16:49:39.310" Title="Is Catholicism heretical due to perceived idolatry?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2012-12-28T20:44:06.613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12360" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-28T09:39:41.293" Score="1" ViewCount="10061" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12003/what-does-inri-stand-for&quot;&gt;What does INRI stand for?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jesus Cross there is symbol like INRI, What does it exactly means and why they are keeping this still in cross any conditions or story behind this steel plate or this symbol in cross.Please refer the following location : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicdevotionnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/IMG_4007.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;INRI in Cross&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T10:37:26.433" Title="What does it means INRI in Jesus Cross?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;cross&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2012-12-28T15:38:13.527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12360" CreationDate="2012-12-28T10:37:26.433" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM and it means jessus the nazarinean king of jews, it was wrote so that everyone could mock Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3672" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T10:37:26.433" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12362" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12363" CreationDate="2012-12-28T13:52:26.310" Score="7" ViewCount="2524" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is place of suffering called Purgatory where people spend time being purged of the sins they committed on earth.  However, it seems that in the Confessional, a priest absolves people of their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, does Catholic teaching indicate that everyone goes to purgatory, including priests and cardinals and popes, or do some people avoid purgatory altogether?  Would someone who dies immediately after leaving the confessional avoid purgatory completely?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T14:14:00.630" Title="According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, does everyone spend time in purgatory?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12362" CreationDate="2012-12-28T14:07:24.460" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anyone who dies in sin, but not Mortal Sin, goes to Purgatory. This would include Priests and Bishops (the Pope is the Bishop of Rome).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are specific cases that the Church says the person will go straight to heaven. We say Mary was assumed into heaven; she did not go to Purgatory. Martyrs are also said to go straight to heaven according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/practices/honoring_saints/canonization.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;religion facts.&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a person is martyred for the faith, miracles are not necessary to be declared a saint. As mentioned above, the purpose of canonization is to verify that the person is now in heaven, and all those who die as martyrs are believed to go straight to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1030    All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1472    To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84 (1861, 1031)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T14:14:00.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12357" CreationDate="2012-12-28T14:38:54.760" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As stated in your question, it received Papal approval, but as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentals&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sacramental&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sacramentals are material objects, things or actions (sacramentalia) set apart or blessed by the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Churches, the Independent and Old Catholic Churches, and the Lutheran Churches to manifest the respect due to the sacraments, and so to excite good thoughts and to increase devotion, and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin, according to the Council of Trent (Session XXII, 15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many sacramentals, as the article includes Holy Water, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5412/why-isnt-the-cross-considered-an-idol&quot;&gt;the cross&lt;/a&gt;, and a St. Benedict Medal. I think you will find the Examples section on Wikipedia (linked above) helpful in understanding examples of a sacramental, and what it is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information on Sacramentals you can visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13292d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; article explaining them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T16:49:39.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12365" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12372" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:19:38.720" Score="7" ViewCount="347" Body="&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholic teaching states that many people spend a certain amount of time in purgatory after they die before going to heaven.  I remember hearing something to the effect that people who are still living have the power to decrease the amount of time a deceased person has to spend in purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is this true?  According to Roman Catholic teaching, can people who are still alive do things that will decrease the amount of time a deceased person has to spend in purgatory?  If so, what sorts of things can be done and how much do each of them reduce the time?  Is there an understanding of how much time one generally has to spend in purgatory in the first place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2021-02-17T19:17:12.983" Title="According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, what things have the power to decrease a person's time in purgatory?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12347" CreationDate="2012-12-28T15:32:58.910" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The evolved and gradual revealing of the deity starts out with the concept of 'God' based on original words that imply power.  God was a word secular society also used.  It seems to mean the divine being, regardless of wether he is the true God or not. The Bible defines this divine being as actually only One, that is in contrast to all the many gods of the pagans. The concept developed at the time of Moses is that this 'God' is Jehovah (or Lord) which means I AM, the One God defined as he who alone is eternally before all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we find the concept of the trinity more fully developed upon the actual appearance of the Son in the flesh, the name Lord is transferred to Christ so that Jesus takes the title Lord, that is the One and only God.  Therefore if we pray 'Dear Lord Jesus' we are praying 'dear the one and only God - Jesus.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in the clear light of the trinity the word 'God' is generally used to refer to the initial more ancient conception of God as the original powerful one. God is therefore usually pertaining to the Father.  The reason why the Father is most often associated with 'God' is because the Father is in a sense the 'originating person' of the eternal trinity, whom the Son proceeds from.  The Son is like the word 'proceeding' 'from' the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As our prayers are more frequently made to the Father, we often say 'Dear God' meaning 'Father'.  The Father as the originator within the Trinity is the giver of gifts including the Son and the giving of the Spirit, so it is naturally that the normal pattern is to pray to The Father whom we seek help and aid. But although this is the more common pattern the scripture does refer to Jesus as simply 'God' and so we could also pray to the Lord Jesus and say 'God' if we want, it just probably does not happen frequently because when we think of the Son we think of Him as the incarnate God and so we also think of him as a man also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Son is God the scripture sometimes directly uses the term directly to the Son:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But of the Son he says,&#xA;   “ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,&#xA;  the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Titus we see  the terms used as synonyms. First God as the Father, then God as the Son:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To Titus, my true child in a common faith:&#xA;   Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. (Titus 1:4, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-12-28T15:56:35.590" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T15:56:35.590" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1823" CreationDate="2012-12-28T16:17:08.233" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is Prof NT Wright's take on the Kingdom of God &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/nt-wright-christian-heaven-is-wrong_n_1524117.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in a Huffington Post article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quote&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;First-century Jews who believed Jesus was Messiah also believed he inaugurated the Kingdom of God and were convinced the world would be transformed in their own lifetimes, Wright said. This inauguration, however, was far from complete and required the active participation of God's people practicing social justice, nonviolence and forgiveness to become fulfilled.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Once the Kingdom is complete, he said, the bodily resurrection will follow with a fully restored creation here on earth. &quot;What we are doing at the moment is building for the Kingdom,&quot; Wright explained. Indeed, doing God's Kingdom work has come to be known in Judaism as tikkun olam, or &quot;repairing the world.&quot; This Hebrew phrase is a &quot;close cousin&quot; to the ancient beliefs embraced by Jesus and his followers, Wright said.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where  I differ with the article is on the works part. We know that God gave works to Christ to confirm the truth of His message, just as Moses was to convince Israel and Pharoah by doing miracles through the finger of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 5:36 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “But I have a testimony greater than that from John. For the deeds that the Father has assigned me to complete – the deeds I am now doing – testify about me that the Father has sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 11:20 NET&lt;/strong&gt; But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 8:19 NET&lt;/strong&gt; The magicians said to Pharaoh, “It is the finger of God!” But Pharaoh’s heart remained hard, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had predicted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 2:2-5 NET&lt;/strong&gt; For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling. My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 4:20 NET&lt;/strong&gt; For the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my take on the coming of the Kingdom of God in Jerusalem and its surroundings is represented by the bold  preaching of God's message accompanied by signs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:17-22 NET&lt;/strong&gt; ‘And in the last daysit will be,’ God says,&#xA;  ‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all people,&#xA;  and your sons and your daughters will prophesy,&#xA;  and your young men will see visions,&#xA;  and your old men will dream dreams.&#xA;   Even on my servants,both men and women,&#xA;  I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.&#xA;   And I will perform wonders in the skyabove&#xA;  and miraculous signson the earth below,&#xA;  blood and fire and clouds of smoke.&#xA;   The sun will be changed to darkness&#xA;  and the moon to blood&#xA;  before the great and gloriousday of the Lord comes.&#xA;   And theneveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’&#xA;   “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know –&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 19:20 NET&lt;/strong&gt; In this way the word of the Lord continued to grow in power and to prevail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T16:17:08.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12343" CreationDate="2012-12-28T16:38:05.413" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Docetism can best be thought of as one of the Christological heresies into which Manichaenism falls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Docetism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Docetism&lt;/a&gt; is very specific Christological heresy.  It is a Gnostic idea that Jesus was never born, nor was he ever matter.  Gnostics believed that all matter was inherently evil, and therefore it was anathema to them that God could become matter.  In order to avoid this distasteful idea, the Gnostics presupposed that Jesus was merely a &quot;phantasm&quot; an apparation of light that looked like a person.  In other words, Jesus only &lt;em&gt;appeared&lt;/em&gt; to be a man, which is what docetism means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manus, a Persian Philosopher had an entire (if heretical) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Manicheanism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;belief system&lt;/a&gt; which included several gnostic ideas.  Like the Gnostics, he too believed that matter was evil and therefore God could not be born or incarnate in material form.  As such, it is most proper to say that the philosophy / religion of Manichaenism includes a docetic Christology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2012-12-28T20:25:45.847" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T20:25:45.847" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12365" CreationDate="2012-12-28T17:25:44.103" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no spreadsheet or calculator used to decide how long one is in purgatory. But there's no official take on the average sentence, time wise. According to the church, only God knows the exact amount of time a person must spend in purgatory before attaining a state of purity. It's assumed, however, that the severity of one's punishment will be directly proportional to the severity of the crime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few passages in the Catechism that talk about &quot;decreasing time in purgatory:&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1498    Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1475    In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.”87 In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are based on 2 Macc 12: 40-46:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. 41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. 42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. 43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), 45 and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard a really good saint story about this, but I cannot seem to find it. I will edit once I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T17:25:44.103" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12373" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-28T20:46:56.147" Score="6" ViewCount="3943" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvzGA_xFlC8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a clip&lt;/a&gt; from the movie &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455507/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The God Who Wasn't There&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; the narrator says that Paul knew largely nothing of what we call the story of Jesus. That he only reported Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and that he did not place any of these events on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this claim supportable from primary evidence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3674" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2017-04-19T15:06:37.150" LastActivityDate="2017-04-19T15:06:46.110" Title="Did Paul actually report anything about the life of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12373" CreationDate="2012-12-28T21:15:33.417" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faulty Premise: Paul knew nothing of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul summarizes his own life story in Galatians 1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By his own testimony, Paul had at least two weeks' direct contact with Peter (aka Cephas) and James, two obvious eyewitnesses of Christ.  Even if you discount the personal encounter with Jesus in Acts 9, Paul clearly had access to those who did know Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, in his time, Paul was being accused not of not knowing who Jesus was, but rather of trying to claim the other disciples' experiences of his own.  Hence Paul going out of his way in vs. 19 to &lt;em&gt;distance&lt;/em&gt; himself from the apostles...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When he says earlier that the Gospel he preaches is not of human origin, he is referring to his direct encounter with Christ, through whom we surmise he learned of Christ.  Later, Peter, who clearly knew Christ, attests that the encounter was genuine and that this is the same Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say Paul knew nothing of Christ simply does not square with the primary sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-28T21:32:43.857" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12375" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-28T23:25:28.887" Score="3" ViewCount="997" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26-28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26-28&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;27&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; So God created mankind in his own image,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      in the image of God he created them;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      male and female he created them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;28&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God created man not only in his image, but in his &lt;em&gt;likeness&lt;/em&gt;, and in order to rule over the rest of Earth, did he intend for them to be gods themselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user92" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T04:28:48.033" LastActivityDate="2014-10-15T06:33:20.627" Title="Did God create man to be gods themselves?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-10-17T01:39:15.283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12376" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12377" CreationDate="2012-12-28T23:26:50.387" Score="16" ViewCount="3061" Body="&lt;p&gt;Loosely tied to the idea of Biblical Inerrancy, one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that Scripture is reliable.  This includes the idea of being reliable as a source of &quot;doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness&quot; (2 Timothy 3:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with this, comes the assumption that the Bible is reliable historically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the books and passages in the Bible are written as a historic record of events. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Setting aside the fact that many people view some of those events as strictly allegorical, there are events that are clearly written as if they are actual history. The Exodus from Egypt, and the wandering in the promised land, for example. The history of Israel's cycle of turning from God, being punished/conquered/enslaved, then repenting and being liberated by God is another example. The Book of Acts, the life of Jesus, all of these are clearly written as if the events actually happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the more common attacks leveled against Christianity by its detractors is the statement that one event or another didn't really happen that way, or that the Bible isn't a reliable historical document - that we can't claim that the events that are recorded in the Bible &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; happened, because using the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;br&gt;&#xA; - How do you know Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected as recorded in the Bible?&#xA; - Because the Bible says so. (Easy fodder for a non-believer to claim circular reasoning.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, is that really a fair representation of how to judge the historical reliability of Scripture? What, exactly, are the rules and arguments that apologists use to defend the historical accuracy of Scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-07-04T13:07:59.600" LastActivityDate="2016-12-15T17:38:04.747" Title="How is the historical accuracy of the Bible defended?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12376" CreationDate="2012-12-28T23:26:50.387" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to start out by pointing out that history is a murky subject.  We're all familiar with the saying that &quot;history is always written by the winners&quot;.  There are plenty of things that are accepted as historical fact that are either in dispute, or that are later proved false by new evidence.  Just because something is regarded as reliable, accepted historical &quot;fact&quot; does not mean that it is, indeed a &quot;fact&quot; or Truth.  This applies equally to secular history and the historical accounts recorded in Scripture.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another issue here, as well, in dealing with supernatural events as described in Scripture.   It's covered pretty well at &lt;a href=&quot;http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/hartlich.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/hartlich.html&lt;/a&gt; in the &quot;Thesis 2&quot; section.  In summary, it tells us that, as applied to Sacred Texts there is a limit to how much we can actually verify.  It gives the example of Matthew 28 as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here it is related that — as the women came to the grave — a great&#xA;  earthquake took place, &quot;for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven&#xA;  and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance&#xA;  was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him&#xA;  the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to&#xA;  the women...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several paragraphs of detail go into the fact that we could, theoretically, verify that an earthquake took place, but not that it was caused by an Angel of the Lord.  We could also not verify the appearance of said angel, nor the trembling of the guards.  (But neither could we refute it.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;So, from the outset, the apologist acknowledges that we cannot prove or disprove the supernatural nature of events.  We are limited to those things, and those things only that can be proved historically.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Failure to recognize this is to set us up immediately for straw-man attacks, and to be accused of circular reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the first rule in determining historical accuracy to those events that we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; verify is to use the same rules that would be applied to secular historical documents.  Using a different set of rules to determine historical accuracy of Scripture is dishonest, and shows a bias that is not acceptable in applied historical methodology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As much as I hate using &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; as a source, the core principles are defined here in layman's terms much better than what I can find at other sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Core principles&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by&#xA;  two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén&#xA;  (1997):&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than&#xA;  narratives.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description&#xA;  of what actually happened.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite&#xA;  motivations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is&#xA;  increased.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Procedures&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bernheim (1889) and Langlois &amp;amp; Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step&#xA;  procedure for source criticism in history:&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthnet.org/Apologetics/12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the&#xA;  test of critical textual analysis.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it&#xA;  is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most &quot;authority&quot;—that is the source&#xA;  created by the expert or by the eyewitness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately&#xA;  reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with&#xA;  facts known by most contemporaries.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best&#xA;  with common sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this framework, apologists point to the fact that the Gospels, and many of the Scriptures were written by eyewitnesses to the accounts, as well as to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthnet.org/Apologetics/12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;internal textual criticism, additional supporting information from extra-Biblical texts (where they can be found), and from archaeology&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on archaeology alone, we have &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;overwhelming evidence for the historical accuracy of much of the Bible&lt;/a&gt;.  But, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/why-historical-apologetics-is-useless.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;as the atheist point out&lt;/a&gt;, this still proves nothing about the supernatural aspects of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fortunately, the field of apologetics doesn't deal with proving the Truth of Scripture.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12354/what-is-apologetics-exactly-and-how-is-it-used-to-defend-the-christian-faith/12355#12355&quot;&gt;As stated in a different answer&lt;/a&gt;, Christianity assumes a measure of faith.  Apologetics deals with defending what is defensible from detractors, not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;proving&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; anything.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to the supernatural, apologetics doesn't say &quot;We can prove this happened as recorded in Scripture&quot;.  However, arguments can be made, and questions can be asked about which proposed version of events is the most plausible, or reasonable.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, that's a grey area, and personal bias and preconceived notions will likely dictate what any one individual will think is &quot;the most plausible explanation.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the best we can do in trying to defend the supernatural aspects of the Bible is to say &quot;this is one possible explanation.  I believe it makes sense because....  Take it or leave it.&quot;  This falls &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;outside&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the realm of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;defensible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; apologetics and into debates over personal opinion based on interpretation of provable facts.  Those provable facts may well be within the realm of &quot;on-topic&quot; for apologetics, but the unprovable portions are iffy.  They may offer reasonable explanations, but nothing that will satisfy your typical &quot;I won't believe it unless you can prove it to me&quot; skeptic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that providing views on why you believe the supernatural aspects is wrong, or that it doesn't have a place in witnessing, or defending your beliefs.  Just know the difference between what can be conclusively proven and what needs to be accepted by faith.  You can be sure that most of the atheists and non-believers do, and are ready for this type of mistake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2012-12-29T01:56:45.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12380" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2012-12-29T00:50:09.180" Score="1" ViewCount="285" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some Christians say that their faith is the source of moral values, but this is a subject of &lt;strong&gt;ethics&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some say it is personal relationship with God, but personal relationship is a subject of &lt;strong&gt;sociology&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some say it is personal experience with God, but human mind is a subject of &lt;strong&gt;psychology&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there anything about faith that can not be subject of scientific research? I know there's a term &lt;strong&gt;theology&lt;/strong&gt;, but it is not a science, there are violations against fundamental scientific approach:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it assumes God exists (and never question it)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;it doesn't question it's source (the Bible)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;no hypotheses, forecasts etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be subject of &lt;strong&gt;literature&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;history&lt;/strong&gt;. I know there are &lt;strong&gt;religious studies&lt;/strong&gt; but these are not about faith. So &lt;em&gt;what in Christian faith lies behind subject of science&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lot of Christians tend to respond &lt;em&gt;it can not be compared&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;do not try to apply science on my faith&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;it is a mystery&lt;/em&gt; and other non-constructives. I hope to avoid this here, so any help to improve this question is also appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user508" LastEditorDisplayName="user508" LastEditDate="2012-12-29T00:56:57.683" LastActivityDate="2012-12-31T17:08:37.417" Title="What in Christian faith lies behind subject of science?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="17" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2012-12-31T06:01:37.857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12381" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12382" CreationDate="2012-12-29T02:31:02.713" Score="7" ViewCount="820" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the charges often levied against the LDS Church is that the doctrines change over time.  For example, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://20truths.info/mormon/doctrine.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://20truths.info/mormon/doctrine.html&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://wakeupmormons.blogspot.com/p/latest-changes-to-lds-doctrine.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wakeupmormons.blogspot.com/p/latest-changes-to-lds-doctrine.html&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Changing Doctrine Over Time&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In one of his more regrettable statements, Hugh Nibley said that one&#xA;  of the hallmarks of Mormon truth is that it has never changed over&#xA;  time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The gospel as the Mormons know it sprang full grown from the words of&#xA;  Joseph Smith. It has never been worked over or touched up in any way,&#xA;  and is free of revisions and alterations. Joseph Smith took the same&#xA;  elements that have proven so recalcitrant and so hopelessly&#xA;  conflicting in the hands of the churchmen and threw them together,&#xA;  with an awful lot of other stuff, to follow Brodie, into a single&#xA;  wildly chaotic mess. And lo and behold, everything fell into line of&#xA;  its own accord; all the haphazard elements in the bewildering heap&#xA;  fitted together perfectly to form a doctrine so commanding that not&#xA;  even a hint of rhetorical paradox is needed to support it, and no&#xA;  'Gregorian compromise' with a pleasure-loving world has been necessary&#xA;  to assure its vigorous growth.&quot; (Hugh Nibley, No Ma'am, That's Not&#xA;  History)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The facts, however, show otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The site then goes on to list several doctrines that have, clearly, changed over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other arguments levied by more &quot;mainstream&quot; Christians against the LDS Church include references to Malachi 3:6, which starts out &quot;For I am the LORD, I change not;&quot;  The claim is that the LDS teachings are in contradiction with this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They say, &quot;If God never changes, then Truth never changes.&quot;  They cite changing doctrine as evidence that the Truth taught in the LDS Church changes, and therefore, can't really be from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from an LDS perspective, what is the defense to this charge and these changes? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-02-02T13:11:14.027" LastActivityDate="2013-02-02T13:11:14.027" Title="What is the LDS position on changing doctrine" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12381" CreationDate="2012-12-29T02:31:02.713" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=45&amp;amp;chapid=537&quot;&gt;Neal A Maxwell Institute, a dedicated LDS apologetic organization within BYU, this is not a problem&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some may see change in teachings and practices as an inconsistency or&#xA;  weakness, but to Latter-day Saints change is a sign of the very&#xA;  foundation of strength upon which the Church of Jesus Christ of&#xA;  Latter-day Saints is built—that God is always (yesterday, today, and&#xA;  forever) willing to reveal his will to his people if they are willing&#xA;  to listen and obey. Although the eternal saving principles of God's&#xA;  plan of salvation for his children do not change, the revelation of&#xA;  those principles and their application—to whom, when, where, how&#xA;  much—varies to meet a myriad of mortal circumstances and God's&#xA;  purposes and timetable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ believe that there are&#xA;  many great and important things yet to be revealed (see Articles of&#xA;  Faith 1:9); this indicates that our past and current understanding of&#xA;  things is incomplete and may need adjustment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, changing doctrine is not evidence that their &quot;Truth&quot; is wrong, just that it's incomplete:  God hasn't yet revealed everything to us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The official position held by the author at the Maxwell Institute is, in effect &quot;We don't argue that our teachings have changed.  We simply accept that our knowledge is limited, and we're doing the best we can with what's been revealed to us.  As God reveals more, we may have to adjust our understanding.  God doesn't change.  Our understanding of God does.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in perfect harmony with the idea of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/modern-prophets-and-continuing-revelation&quot;&gt;continuing revelation&lt;/a&gt; that is accepted within the LDS Church.  It's not a problem at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-29T03:46:07.063" LastActivityDate="2012-12-29T03:46:07.063" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12383" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12384" CreationDate="2012-12-29T02:39:14.543" Score="6" ViewCount="1696" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is NOT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;what does John Bunyan believe about predestination&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;is predestination biblically accurate?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does &quot;Pilgrim's Progress&quot; take a position on predestination?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And if so, which chapter / section?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-29T02:45:20.830" LastActivityDate="2017-05-18T20:01:41.857" Title="Does Bunyan's &quot;Pilgrim's Progress&quot; state a position on predestination?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;christian-literature&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12383" CreationDate="2012-12-29T02:56:56.423" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't point to a particular chapter but the entire book is written as if the author rejects predestination in the Calvinist sense.  (Meaning irresistible grace)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entirety of the book is written as if our choices matter - as if we have a choice.  Based on that, I'd say that the book does take a position opposed to predestination in that sense, but I can't give one chapter/section that specifically makes an out and out statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2012-12-29T06:32:10.160" LastActivityDate="2012-12-29T06:32:10.160" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12385" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2012-12-29T03:05:51.833" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This topic includes fiction, poetry, allegorical, and devotional works, meant to enrich the Christian by providing works of literature with a Christian world view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-29T03:05:51.833" LastActivityDate="2012-12-29T03:05:51.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12386" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2012-12-29T03:05:51.833" Score="0" Body="Literature that deals with Christian themes and incorporates the Christian world view.  This would include non-Scriptural literature.  Example: Pilgrim's Progress, or the Left Behind series." OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2012-12-29T03:05:51.833" LastActivityDate="2012-12-29T03:05:51.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12380" CreationDate="2012-12-29T04:19:21.623" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;By the word science I understand it as a discipline of studying the physical world, or possible metaphysical world (like the mind) expressed in observable physics. Then by these objective observations, experiments, which must be repeatable, draw logical deductions and inferences. These in turn lead to more study, testing, conclusions until a body of knowledge and beliefs are developed which explain large portions of observed phenomena in the material world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In what sense does Christian faith fall under this discipline? I would say in a few ways and sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, in &lt;strong&gt;analyzing the scriptures and determining which translation is the most accurate&lt;/strong&gt; of the original is according to a scientific discipline.  This naturally brings our faith in some sense under science because the scriptures determine what our faith is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, though to a much lesser extent &lt;strong&gt;the study of history&lt;/strong&gt;, where texts outside of scripture are evaluated for trustworthiness by scientific comparison to other know facts of history, influences what many Christians believe.  This historical science provides context for how many scriptures might be properly interpreted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, in the same way that philosophy can follow rules about what is logical, what is a fallacy, etc. Christian theology based on its premises can is some sense become more disciplined and rigorous &lt;strong&gt;to ensure the thought patters or not illogical and that biblical texts and assumed beliefs are not developed under dishonest forms of reasoning&lt;/strong&gt;. From this standpoint religious beliefs can spout from observed phenomena, such as for every good design, there is high probability that there is an architect or designer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, with all these aspects where Christian faith is influenced or in some sense brought under science, it is probably truer to say that it is brought under science only from the standpoint that it respects reason in whatever valid shape one might find it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When turning to the scripture itself, science is considered, as a lower form of knowledge and &lt;strong&gt;biblical faith is a higher and more certain form of knowledge&lt;/strong&gt;. In other words the knowledge that we can obtain from observing what is not seen, is greater than what we can achieve from what is seen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scripture treats knowledge that comes from God through the Bible as a light.  It means this in a literal sense, whereby the knowledge we might obtain by light, or the sight which we can obtain, is not possible but by faith.  Therefore to simply things, the Bible describes a scientist without faith as more or less a man who is literally blind to higher forms of knowledge. He can see the physical world but not the spiritual.  No matter how hard he tries to ‘see’ he can’t because he has no ‘light’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Naturally the result is that such a blind mind concludes the gospel is just foolishness because he can’t see it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek root of the word ‘discerned’ means to investigate, or appraise. In this sense those without faith are not able to judge, evaluate, or discern the meaning of what is certain and true about God because it seems foolish from beginning to end, having no light which alone comes from faith in the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: There are aspects where Christian faith is under science, these occur where physical and logical elements overlap or influence Christian thinking. Christian faith by nature puts itself above reason and science, and what can be seen with the eye altogether, for it fixes itself upon God, who is above all things whatsoever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2012-12-31T01:34:36.060" LastActivityDate="2012-12-31T01:34:36.060" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6828" CreationDate="2012-12-29T10:36:21.027" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should ask yourself these questions... &#xA;Is my reason for meditation for good or for ill? Do I meditate for God or for myself? Do I replace God with meditation? Does my meditation harm my body, mind, heart, or soul? Does my meditation hinder my relationship with God or does it promote it? Do I do &quot;Christian&quot; meditation or only transcendental meditation (consider doing both)? Does my transcendental meditation cause me to directly sin? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3676" LastActivityDate="2012-12-29T10:36:21.027" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12375" CreationDate="2012-12-29T18:08:25.880" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to this depends very much on the concept of who God is in the first place.  If God is, as evangelical Christians believe, pre-existent, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal, then it would be impossible for there to ever be multiple gods that share all those attributes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A created being cannot become uncreated.  A mortal being, or even an immortal being (that had a beginning but will live forever), cannot become eternal (without a beginning).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to whatever level of authority and power God would ever endow to mankind, we could never attain equality with God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theology, we understand that there are communicable attributes and incommnicable attributes.  The likeness of God within us contains His communicable atrributes.  We are moral beings, intellectual beings, spiritual beings, etc.  Yet, we are not uncreated, eternal, self-existent beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T14:18:34.480" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T14:18:34.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6828" CreationDate="2012-12-29T18:11:12.133" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Christians, the material, buzz words, we come across while thinking about meditation will be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Transcendental Meditation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditional Christian Meditation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern Christian Meditation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical Meditation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are taught to pray, fast and meditate, but lack basic teaching on the last.  It would be helpful to list out, then, a framework to guide us in our efforts. What is good and what isn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Transcendental meditation is removing thoughts, emptying the mind, and calling out to God, through chanting, to touch us. The problem with this is that we don't know if it is the right way, and several cases have been reported about ill effects. Surprisingly, teachers of the technique will admit the results are unpredictable. I have personal knowledge of people requiring treatment for psychological illnesses after practicing TM.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditional Christian Meditation, of which John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila are the names most called to mind, as practitioners, also share the same techniques as other mystics. Their aim is to be touched by God. Their method is to remove worldly thinking and fill the mind with Scripture. The problem is that they treat the actual words of Scripture as entities with power. I'm not surprised they experience the Dark Night of the Soul, spiritual dryness, in the process. It should sound an alarm if the journey from immaturity to wisdom is progressively distressful, when God's Word is described as a Lamp unto our feet, something that brings peace and joy as the destination nears. It saddened me to learn that the longest period of alienation on record is that endured by Teresa of Calcutta, who reportedly suffered depression for nearly 50 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern Christian Meditation adopts some dubious techniques, and when I use the label ”Modern Christian”, I guess I am addressing the problems that writers like Foster throw up when they teach the practices that they do in books like ”Celebration of Discipline”. A little survey of the criticism, in articles on the Internet, he provoked should enlighten one about the grey areas he drifts into in recommending his methods. These border on being parallels to the centering and actualisation techniques taught by New Age practioners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Biblical Meditation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people differentiate between studying the Bible and meditating on the Bible, but I think that the distinction is uncalled for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical meditation IS study of the Bible, carried out in conjunction with praying to God for assistance, and just as water, bread, medicinal cures and light are life giving, so also is the study of the Bible nurturing, healing and enlightening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 4:4 NET&lt;/strong&gt; But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 11:13 NET&lt;/strong&gt; If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit helps in many ways, sending direct revelation of the meaning of the text, as well as indirectly by bringing to our notice people, books, techniques and other resources varying from knowledge about competing philosophical world views to analogies from the world of art, and even technology, to open the meaning of the Scriptural material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:27 NET&lt;/strong&gt; “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. Do not let your hearts be distressed or lacking in courage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 1:67-79 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Then his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied,&#xA;“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,&#xA;because he has come to help and has redeemed his people.&#xA;For he has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David,&#xA;as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from long ago,&#xA;that we should be saved from our enemies,&#xA;and from the hand of all who hate us.&#xA;He has done this to show mercy to our ancestors,&#xA;and to remember his holy covenant –&#xA;the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham.&#xA;This oath grants&#xA;that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,&#xA;may serve him without fear,&#xA;in holiness and righteousness before him for as long as we live.&#xA;And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High.&#xA;For you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,&#xA;to give his people knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins.&#xA;Because of our God’s tender mercy&#xA;the dawn will break upon us from on high&#xA;to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,&#xA;to guide our feet into the way of peace.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2012-12-29T18:11:12.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12244" CreationDate="2012-12-30T00:14:46.963" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because Mormons believe in an open canon of scripture (i.e., that God continues to provide scripture through His living prophet), the words of the living prophet (or president of the church) are esteemed more valuable than ancient records. Every six months the leaders of the church formally address the church and their words in these general conferences are considered modern scripture. (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://gc.lds.org/&quot;&gt;http://gc.lds.org/&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to emphasize that this doesn't devalue the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price. Each is singly taught as the official Sunday School curriculum for a year on a four-year rotation (actually Old Testament; New Testament; Book of Mormon; Church History, incl. Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price; see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/sunday-school?lang=eng&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/manual/sunday-school?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;). The words of the living prophet are just considered more timely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The path to salvation will always be the same (the gospel of Jesus Christ), but present-day temptations like debt and drug use aren't explicitly warned about by Abraham or Noah or Moses because they weren't prevalent during their time. Because they &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; prevalent today, God speaks His warnings the same way He spoke His warnings in times past, through a living prophet who can and does explicitly condemn things like drug use and excessive consumer debt—modern temptations that can make it difficult to live the teachings of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3664" LastEditorUserId="3664" LastEditDate="2013-03-14T20:59:11.283" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T20:59:11.283" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2012-12-30T23:45:11.303" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;HI I don't know if the old marriage laws will hold true.  But I believe we will be able to make a better covenant with our spouses if we are truly soul mates and made for each other.  I don't beleive for one minute that the relationship we cultivated in marriage will simply disappear and not matter.  I can't imagine not being bonded to my spouse in eternity even in the event that one of us should die.  In my heart there is no better match for me out there and I believe that will continue throughout eternity.  So I believe we will continue to have relationships with our loved ones, whether they be family, friends or spouses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3680" LastActivityDate="2012-12-30T23:45:11.303" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12380" CreationDate="2012-12-31T04:24:10.133" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, Ethics is not precisely a science at all. But even if you put that aside, the Christian claim is that a study of ethics without a proper anchor in the absolute truth of God's word will lead to incorrect and flawed ethical judgments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sociology is, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;per Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, the study of human social behavior and it's origins. Since it is limited to human behavior, it would not cover relationships with the supernatural. Additionally, in studying the origin of human behavior, one would be prompted to look further and further back, tracing the line of causality as far as you can. Christians would argue that, as the root cause of the Universe and Humanity, learning about the nature of God could greatly inform sociologists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psychology is, again &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;per Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, the study of mental functions and behaviors. This is not about &quot;personal experiences&quot;, except perhaps in regards to the mind's influence and interpretation of our senses involved in creating those experiences. But even it if were, the Christian claim is that the word of God has much to inform us about proper behavior and nature of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, Science has a very specific domain. It is the study of our &lt;em&gt;natural&lt;/em&gt; physical universe. Science will always be at a disadvantage when studying the &lt;i&gt;super&lt;/i&gt;-natural, because the scientific method begins first and foremost with observation, and the supernatural goes beyond what our physical bodies and instruments are able to observe. I hope this is a little clearer or deeper and explanation to you than a simple &quot;don't apply science to my faith.&quot; Science, by definition, draws a boundary for itself where it will not go. This is not something Christians have done, but something that Science/Scientists have chosen for themselves. They can look for super-natural effects, but they will not find them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2012-12-31T17:08:37.417" LastActivityDate="2012-12-31T17:08:37.417" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12380" CreationDate="2012-12-31T05:43:50.673" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is not in competition with any truth-bound field of study.&lt;/strong&gt; The Christian God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; truth. The Christian God is &lt;em&gt;the act of being itself&lt;/em&gt;. So, the absolute simplest answer I think we could posit is this: &lt;strong&gt;A Christian religion (and most any religion) is a set of devotions, practices, and studies that harmonize us, familiarize us, and bring us into relationship with &lt;em&gt;being itself&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God and religion are therefore not in competition with any branch of science, art, literature, history, trivia, physical fitness, etc.. God and religion are not in competition with &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; human institution or endeavor that is &lt;em&gt;submissive to&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;aimed at&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;truth&lt;/strong&gt;. All truth inherently participates in &lt;em&gt;being&lt;/em&gt;, and all things that are participants in &lt;em&gt;being&lt;/em&gt; are inherently participants in truth. More down to earth, everything that exists is necessarily described by truth, and truth necessarily describes things that exist. Hence, proper religion -- particularly proper Christianity -- does not impede or conflict with truth-bound endeavors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, religion &lt;em&gt;magnifies&lt;/em&gt; these endeavors. It motivates us to have truthful endeavors to begin with. And it impels us to keep our endeavors submissive to truth. We abandon things like astrology, largely because they tend not to correlate with truth. And we pursue things like science (honest science, in particular) because they tend to correlate with truth. And perhaps most importantly, because our religion prioritizes truth (God) ahead of our science, art, literature, physical fitness, history, and so forth, we tend to avoid treating these lesser things as truths themselves or ends, rather than means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We pursue God through Christianity because God is truth. We pursue everything else because it sheds light on God. And our pursuit of God keeps everything else in check.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that's not to say people don't go bad, abandon the truth, lie about their data, start dabbling in impressionism or non-rhyming poetry, etc.. (Obviously the last two are just my opinions, not dogma.) In fact, Judaism and Christianity both point out quite explicitly in the first few pages of our scriptures that people go bad. And, religious leaders aren't free from error either. Our scripture points highlights that too. In fact, our religious denominations disagree about things too -- and truthiness would suggest, in some cases, that one be right and the other wrong on some points of disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in general, our goal is service to the truth. And barring extensive human corruption, Christianity is neither a competitor to any field you've highlighted. Rather, it transcends all of them. None of them exist without truth. They're all different (but lesser) means of approaching the tentacles truth (God's creation, and therefore God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also worth checking out, Fr. Robert Barron (Catholic Priest) talks about &quot;Science v. Religion&quot; a lot, mostly in response to atheistic &quot;science-worship&quot; he comes across.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/3ZkHv8iTJPo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scientism and God's Existence: A Commentary by Fr. Barron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/B8yRWrUjnL8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fr. Barron comments on Religion &amp;amp; Science&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/p8YTre3xqXg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Father Barron Against The YouTube Heresies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2012-12-31T06:03:17.690" LastActivityDate="2012-12-31T06:03:17.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12400" CreationDate="2012-12-31T14:35:22.853" Score="4" ViewCount="292" Body="&lt;p&gt;Per Paul in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:8 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the&#xA;  truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is cross referenced to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 7:11 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and they, the&#xA;  magicians of Egypt, also did the same by their secret arts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 13:8 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed&#xA;  them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Titus 1:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are&#xA;  detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did Paul know the names of the Magicians since they appear to not be mentioned anywhere else in the bible by name?  And how was this cross reference made (how do we really know that he's talking about the same story)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only link that I can find is from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_09984.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Damascus Document&lt;/a&gt; which I was led to from reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=-J6Xn3iGwSAC&amp;amp;dq=annes%20and%20Jambres&amp;amp;source=gbs_navlinks_s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions&lt;/a&gt; by Axel Graupner, Michael Wolter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to ask this over at Hermeneutics too.  However I feel that this is an interesting doctoral question too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastActivityDate="2012-12-31T16:56:41.103" Title="Paul's knowledge of Jannes and Jambres the magicians of Egypt" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12399" CreationDate="2012-12-31T16:56:41.103" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's  in the Babylonian Talmud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Torah comprises the Pentateuch in the main, but also the rest of the OT, as well as the commentaries, ie Talmud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/495/who-were-jannes-and-jambres&quot;&gt;Who were Jannes and Jambres?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2012-12-31T16:56:41.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1656" CreationDate="2013-01-01T02:20:27.830" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe most may be missing this because many forgot or don't know about the two houses&#xA;becoming one again the Northern and Southern tribes, as you can see the verses below show that Yeshua came only to bring the two tribs back  together, so just maybe if you are saved you belong to one of lost the Trib as we know it, you see Nathanael is an Israelite&#xA;and Yeshua is being called the King of Israel, showing that He is the king of all the tribes when they are together is Israel, there is so much more to this then wha tI can go into here, but once you understand this then the word of the Father  will take on  a bigger and New er meaning  to you think of the prodigal son this is the story of the lost&#xA;Tribe. I will stop here now you start in kings where they were spilt, and you should be in Hebrews when it is done, when He noww can remarried his divorce wife back because of the death of the testator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;v.  47  Nathanael  an Israelite&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;V. 48  fig tree = Israel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;V.49    King of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat.10:6  But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. &#xA;Mat.15:24  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3683" LastActivityDate="2013-01-01T02:20:27.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12403" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-01T05:40:03.500" Score="7" ViewCount="5571" Body="&lt;p&gt;This particular question is concerned with John Bunyan's stance, rather than the stance of Pilgrim's Progress, which is addressed in a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12383/does-bunyans-pilgrims-progress-state-a-position-on-predestination&quot;&gt;related question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I learned of Pilgrim's Progress through reading works of reformed theologians (many of who highly recommended Pilgrim's Progress), and thus I assumed that Pilgrim's Progress also believed in predestination.  I'm no longer sure of that, and I'm not even sure if John Bunyan himself believed in predestination. (Wikipedia doesn't seem to say either way)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the question: did John Bunyan take a stance on predestination and irresistible grace?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2019-12-02T03:37:06.737" Title="Did John Bunyan believe in predestination and irresistible grace?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;irresistible-grace&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12403" CreationDate="2013-01-01T07:28:52.143" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to many sources, the answer would be no.  John Bunyan's theological beliefs were Puritan, which differed from pure Calvinism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From  &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/purdef.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Puritanism in New England&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/briefbio.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Donna Campbell&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The concept of a covenant or contract between God and his elect pervaded Puritan theology and social relationships. In religious terms, several types of covenants were central to Puritan thought.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Covenant of Works&lt;/strong&gt; held that God promised Adam and his progeny eternal life if they obeyed moral law. After Adam broke this covenant,&#xA;  God made a new Covenant of Grace with Abraham (Genesis 18-19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Covenant of Grace.&lt;/strong&gt; This covenant requires an active faith, and, as such, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;it softens the doctrine of predestination&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Emphasis mine as this addresses the question directly&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;). Although God still&#xA;  chooses the elect, the relationship becomes one of contract in which&#xA;  punishment for sins is a judicially proper response to disobedience.&#xA;  During the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards later repudiated Covenant&#xA;  Theology to get back to orthodox Calvinism. Those bound by the&#xA;  covenant considered themselves to be charged with a mission from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Covenant of Redemption.&lt;/strong&gt; The Covenant of Redemption was assumed to be preexistent to the Covenant of Grace. It held that Christ, who&#xA;  freely chose to sacrifice himself for fallen man, bound God to accept&#xA;  him as man's representative. Having accepted this pact, God is then&#xA;  committed to carrying out the Covenant of Grace. According to Perry&#xA;  Miller, as one contemporary source put it, &quot;God covenanted with Christ&#xA;  that if he would pay the full price for the redemption of beleievers,&#xA;  they should be discharged. Christ hath paid the price, God must be&#xA;  unjust, or else hee must set thee free from all iniquities&quot; (New&#xA;  England Mind 406).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this is evident in &lt;em&gt;The Pilgrim's Progress&lt;/em&gt;.  While I agree the two questions are different, the theology in Pilgrim's Progress is inseparable from the author, meaning he wrote as he believed.  Puritan theology does not teach irresistible grace, in the purest sense.  In Puritan thought, we clearly have a choice to respond to God's call.  He calls us first, but we can choose to respond or not. This is more in line with the Arminian view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also managed to find a quote from him &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bunyan/grace.iv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;grappling with the subject of predestination in his memoir &lt;em&gt;Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (found in the blog post &lt;a href=&quot;http://pohkok.blogspot.com/2009/01/predestination-troubles-john-bunyan.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Predestination Troubles John Bunyan&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By these two temptations I was very much afflicted and disquieted;&#xA;  sometimes by one, and sometimes by the other of them. And first, to&#xA;  speak of that about my questioning my election, I found at this time,&#xA;  that though I was in a flame to find the way to heaven and glory, and&#xA;  though nothing could beat me off from this, yet this question did so&#xA;  offend and discourage me, that I was, especially at some times, as if&#xA;  the very strength of my body also had been taken away by the force and&#xA;  power thereof. This scripture did also seem to me to trample upon all&#xA;  my desires, 'It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,&#xA;  but of God that sheweth mercy' (Rom. 9.16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With this scripture I could not tell what to do; for I evidently saw,&#xA;  that unless the great God, of His infinite grace and bounty, had&#xA;  voluntarily chosen me to be a vessel of mercy, though I should desire,&#xA;  and long and labour until my heart did break, no good could come of&#xA;  it. Therefore, this would still stick with me, How can you tell that&#xA;  you are elected? And what if you should not? How then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O Lord, thought I, what if I should not, indeed? It may be you are&#xA;  not, said the tempter; it may be so, indeed, thought I. Why, then,&#xA;  said Satan, you had as good leave off, and strive no further; for if,&#xA;  indeed, you should not be elected and chosen of God, there is no talk&#xA;  of your being saved; 'For it is neither of him that willeth, nor of&#xA;  him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By these things I was driven to my wits' end, not knowing what to say,&#xA;  or how to answer these temptations. Indeed, I little thought that&#xA;  Satan had thus assaulted me, but that rather it was my own prudence,&#xA;  thus to start the question; for, that the elect only attained eternal&#xA;  life, that I, without scruple, did heartily close withal; but that&#xA;  myself was one of them, there lay all the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus, therefore, for several days, I was greatly assaulted and&#xA;  perplexed, and was often, when I have been walking, ready to sink&#xA;  where I went, with faintness in my mind; but one day, after I had been&#xA;  so many weeks oppressed and cast down therewith, as I was now quite&#xA;  giving up the ghost of all my hopes of ever attaining life, that&#xA;  sentence fell with weight upon my spirit, 'Look at the generations of&#xA;  old and see; did ever any trust in the Lord, and was confounded?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At which I was greatly lightened and encouraged in my soul; for thus,&#xA;  at that very instant it was expounded to me: Begin at the beginning of&#xA;  Genesis, and read to the end of the Revelations, and see if you can&#xA;  find that there was ever any that trusted in the Lord, and was&#xA;  confounded. So, coming home, I presently went to my Bible to see if I&#xA;  could find that saying, not doubting but to find it presently; for it&#xA;  was so fresh, and with such strength and comfort on my spirit, that I&#xA;  was as if it talked with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Well, I looked, but I found it not; only it abode upon me; then I did&#xA;  ask first this good man, and then another, if they knew where it was,&#xA;  but they knew no such place. At this I wondered that such a sentence&#xA;  should so suddenly, and with such comfort and strength, seize and&#xA;  abide upon my heart, and yet that none could find it, for I doubted&#xA;  not but it was in Holy Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus I continued above a year, and could not find the place; but at&#xA;  last, casting my eye into the Apocrypha books, I found it in&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/study/Sirach_2:10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecclesiasticus 2.10&lt;/a&gt;. This, at the first, did somewhat daunt me; but&#xA;  because, by this time, I had got more experience of the love and&#xA;  kindness of God, it troubled me the less; especially when I&#xA;  considered, that though it was not in those texts that we call holy&#xA;  and canonical, yet forasmuch as this sentence was the sum and&#xA;  substance of many of the promises, it was my duty to take the comfort&#xA;  of it; and I bless God for that word, for it was of God to me: that&#xA;  word doth still, at times, shine before my face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After this, that other doubt did come with strength upon me, But how&#xA;  if the day of grace should be past and gone? How if you have overstood&#xA;  the time of mercy? Now, I remember that one day, as I was walking into&#xA;  the country, I was much in the thoughts of this, But how if the day of&#xA;  grace be past? And to aggravate my trouble, the tempter presented to&#xA;  my mind those good people of Bedford, and suggested thus unto me, That&#xA;  these being converted already, they were all that God would save in&#xA;  those parts; and that I came too late, for these had got the blessing&#xA;  before I came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now was I in great distress, thinking in very deed that this might&#xA;  well be so; wherefore I went up and down bemoaning my sad condition,&#xA;  counting myself far worse than a thousand fools, for standing off thus&#xA;  long, and spending so many years in sin as I had done; still crying&#xA;  out, Oh, that I had turned sooner! Oh, that I had turned seven years&#xA;  ago! It made me also angry with myself, to think that I should have no&#xA;  more wit, but to trifle away my time till my soul and heaven were&#xA;  lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this is not without dispute.  A differing opinion can be found in the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founders_Ministries&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Founders Journal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; article &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.founders.org/journal/fj82/article2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Bunyan and the Extent of the Atonement&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; The author makes an argument for the case that Bunyan was indeed a five-point Calvinist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John Bunyan believed that the Scriptures teach that God's intention in&#xA;  the atonement was the redemption of the elect and them alone, and that&#xA;  this was fully and effectually accomplished on the cross. This&#xA;  conviction regarding the intention and accomplishment of the atonement&#xA;  is evident throughout his writings, but it becomes most clearly and&#xA;  maturely articulated in his later works,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/study/Sirach_2:10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5&lt;/a&gt; particularly as he&#xA;  reflects upon the active obedience of Christ, the high priesthood of&#xA;  Christ, and covenant theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel and the&#xA;  Christian life for John Bunyan. He defended it on numerous occasions&#xA;  from Ranter and Quaker errors, and this doctrine finds expression, in&#xA;  some form or fashion, in almost every tract or treatise he published.&#xA;  For Bunyan, Christ's vicarious obedience not only applied to His&#xA;  death, but His life as well. Christ not only bore the sins of the&#xA;  elect; He fulfilled the whole law in their stead as well.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/study/Sirach_2:10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5&lt;/a&gt; Thus in&#xA;  his later works one can find Bunyan's commitment to limited atonement&#xA;  clearly articulated in various descriptions of Christ's vicarious&#xA;  obedience or active obedience on behalf of the elect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the answer is &quot;we're not sure&quot; and it depends highly on which sources you choose to believe.  In my opinion, the evidence points to Donna Campbell's statement that he didn't completely reject the doctrine of predestination, but rather had a &quot;softened view&quot; on it, meaning that he likely believed in the more Arminian understanding of resistible grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-01-27T16:59:17.787" LastActivityDate="2016-01-27T16:59:17.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12383" CreationDate="2013-01-01T12:08:40.030" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is an argument in favor of Pilgrim's Progress supporting predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The names of the characters defines their behavior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith, Christian, and Hopeful made it to the heavenly kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Timid, Athiest, Ignorance: not so much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, characters do not change their name. [For example, there is, afaik, not a section which details how &quot;Christian&quot; used to be named &quot;Unbeliever&quot; and then later changes his name.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2013-01-01T12:08:40.030" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12410" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12413" CreationDate="2013-01-01T19:11:46.967" Score="30" ViewCount="2465" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Magnificat, Mary refers to God as &lt;em&gt;her&lt;/em&gt; Savior.  According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was born sinless and remained sinless throughout her life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why does Mary refer to God as &lt;strong&gt;her Savior&lt;/strong&gt; if she was sinless (and therefore would not have need of a Savior or even have one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Mary said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in &lt;strong&gt;God my&#xA;  Savior&lt;/strong&gt;.  For He has had regard for the humble state of His&#xA;  bondslave;  for behold, from this time on all generations will count me&#xA;  blessed.  For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy&#xA;  is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation Toward&#xA;  those who fear Him.  He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has&#xA;  scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He&#xA;  has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who&#xA;  were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; And sent away&#xA;  the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant,  In&#xA;  remembrance of His mercy,  As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and&#xA;  his descendants forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1849" LastEditDate="2013-01-01T19:57:36.730" LastActivityDate="2017-06-05T03:37:47.877" Title="According to Roman Catholic doctrine, why does Mary refer to God as her Savior if she was born without sin?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;immaculate-conception&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5307" CreationDate="2013-01-01T19:42:53.080" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!” 8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. 9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the entire psalm, the author writes about a captivity. The physical captivity was in Babylon during Jeremiah. But reported spiritually, the captivity is of a sin.&#xA;The physical act was done when Babylon was conquered, but this is not the message sent by God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelations we meet the Babylon a few times. Every time it is referred as the city of sin and it symbolises the world ruled by Satan. In our perspective this means that the author rejoices every time anyone repays the evil the people in the world do to us. &#xA;You could make a parallel with Revelations 18 where it speaks about the fall of Babylon and it's destruction. (Rev 18:6 is similar to Ps 137:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3687" LastActivityDate="2013-01-01T19:42:53.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12410" CreationDate="2013-01-02T03:08:45.330" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Credit to H3br3wHamm3r81 who actually found this link.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin&quot;&gt;Catholic Answers&lt;/a&gt;, it was because of God's salvation that she was able to be born sinless and remain sinless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paraphrasing, God saved her pre-emptively, preventing (or perhaps keeping/preserving) her from sinning in the first place, something no human could do without God's protective saving power.  In other words, in Catholic doctrine, she was sinless, but only through the Grace of God.  Without the Grace of God and His keeping power, she could not have remained sinless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Catholic Answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church&#xA;  actually agrees that Mary was &quot;saved.&quot; Indeed, Mary needed a savior!&#xA;  However, Mary was &quot;saved&quot; from sin in a most sublime manner. She was&#xA;  given the grace to be &quot;saved&quot; completely from sin so that she never&#xA;  committed even the slightest transgression. Protestants tend to&#xA;  emphasize God’s &quot;salvation&quot; almost exclusively to the forgiveness of&#xA;  sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that&#xA;  salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before&#xA;  the fact:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-04-12T11:24:44.717" LastActivityDate="2013-04-12T11:24:44.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12414" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12415" CreationDate="2013-01-02T03:10:08.077" Score="6" ViewCount="14789" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Philipians 2:7 Paul writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in&#xA;  the likeness of men (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I always understood this to mean that he was humble enough to come into our world as a man to die on a cross. Something that I read recently though suggested that Jesus gave up some of his Godly characteristics to become a man (I'm not sure what charcteristics). This seems wrong to me as I always understood Jesus adds humanity to his Godliness, not removing Godliness to become human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a common protestant understanding of what &quot;emptied himself&quot; means in this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2015-03-26T21:37:53.410" Title="What does Paul mean when he says Jesus &quot;emptied himself&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12414" CreationDate="2013-01-02T03:18:55.573" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The King James translates the same verse as this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are likely to be several different meanings attributed to this, but the most common is the one that you posted - that He took on the humble nature of a servant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barnes' notes on the Bible says this:  (Emphasis mine where added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But made himself of no reputation - This translation by no means&#xA;  conveys the sense of the original According to this it would seem that&#xA;  he consented to be without distinction or honor among people; or that&#xA;  he was willing to be despised or disregarded. The Greek is ἑαυτον&#xA;  ἐκένωσεν heauton ekenōsen. The word κενόω kenoō means literally,&#xA;  to empty, &quot;to make empty, to make vain or void.&quot; It is rendered: &quot;made&#xA;  void&quot; in Romans 4:14; &quot;made of none effect,&quot; 1 Corinthians 1:17; &quot;make&#xA;  void,&quot; 1 Corinthians 9:15; &quot;should be vain,&quot; 2 Corinthians 9:3. The&#xA;  word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, except in the&#xA;  passage before us. The essential idea is that of bringing to&#xA;  emptiness, vanity, or nothingness; and, hence, it is applied to a case&#xA;  where one lays aside his rank and dignity, and becomes in respect to&#xA;  that as nothing; that is, he assumes a more humble rank and station.&#xA;  In regard to its meaning here, we may remark:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(1) that it cannot mean that he literally divested himself of his&#xA;  divine nature and perfections, for that was impossible. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;He could not&#xA;  cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, and most holy, and true, and&#xA;  good.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(2) it is conceivable that he might have laid aside, for a time, the&#xA;  symbols or the manifestation of his glory, or that the outward&#xA;  expressions of his majesty in heaven might have been withdrawn. It is&#xA;  conceivable for a divine being to intermit the exercise of his&#xA;  almighty power, since it cannot be supposed that God is always&#xA;  exerting his power to the utmost. And in like manner there might be&#xA;  for a time a laying aside or intermitting of these manifestations or&#xA;  symbols, which were expressive of the divine glory and perfections.&#xA;  Yet,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(3) this supposes no change in the divine nature, or in the essential&#xA;  glory of the divine perfections. When the sun is obscured by a cloud,&#xA;  or in an eclipse, there is no real change of its glory, nor are his&#xA;  beams extinguished, nor is the sun himself in any measure changed. His&#xA;  luster is only for a time obscured. So it might have been in regard to&#xA;  the manifestation of the glory of the Son of God. Of course there is&#xA;  much in regard to this which is obscure, but the language of the&#xA;  apostle undoubtedly implies more than that he took an humble place, or&#xA;  that he demeaned himself in an humble manner. In regard to the actual&#xA;  change respecting his manifestations in heaven, or the withdrawing of&#xA;  the symbols of his glory there, the Scriptures are nearly silent, and&#xA;  conjecture is useless - perhaps improper. The language before us&#xA;  fairly implies that he laid aside that which was expressive of his&#xA;  being divine - that glory which is involved in the phrase &quot;being in&#xA;  the form of God&quot; - and took upon himself another form and&#xA;  manifestation in the condition of a servant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, per the Barnes' notes, He did not lay aside any of His power or Godly characteristics, He merely did not exercise them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gills' commentary says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...He lost nothing of what he had; the glory of his divine nature was&#xA;  covered, and out of sight;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vincent's Word Studies also agrees:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of&#xA;  existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He&#xA;  laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of&#xA;  His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a&#xA;  servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His&#xA;  self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being&#xA;  changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness&#xA;  of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which&#xA;  animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert&#xA;  equality with God. He was able not to assert it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;as do Wesley's notes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Though he remained full, John 1:14, yet he appeared as if he had been&#xA;  empty; for he veiled his fulness from the sight of men and angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the commentaries that I can find agree with your original understanding of the phrase.  He retained all His power and glory, he merely chose not to exercise it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These, and a whole slew of other commentaries are available at &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/philippians/2-7.htm&quot;&gt;http://bible.cc/philippians/2-7.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-02T03:28:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T03:28:13.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12416" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-02T06:38:40.627" Score="1" ViewCount="278" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen many question and views here on the apostleship of St. Paul. Questions like  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7486/did-paul-preach-jesuss-message&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3755/how-do-we-know-paul-wasnt-a-false-apostle&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9653/scholarly-discussion-of-claims-that-paul-is-a-false-apostle&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; and  Most recently &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12373/did-paul-actually-know-anything-about-the-life-of-jesus&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;.  All seems to basically ask why Paul was chosen as apostle or whether he was really an apostlen. Are we unaware of what  God foresaw in appointing Paul as apostle? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T15:53:35.890" Title="Are we unaware of something that God foresaw in appointing Paul as apostle?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12416" CreationDate="2013-01-02T06:42:13.333" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One possible explanation that God might have done this could be:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There would be no meaning and no purpose fulfilled by Jesus dying on cross, if the events in New Testament are not LINKED to the Old Testament.  And who will be in a better position to link these two Testaments, than a learned Jews Scripture Scholar, that was St Paul. St. Paul was in the best and ideal position to know and understand clearly the Plan that God had since the fall of the first men.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So possibly, it was God’s divine plan to mould St. Paul into what he was before his conversion and impart in him, the  in depth knowledge of Jewish Scripture and then convert him so forcibly and not through the preaching from disciples of Jesus but by His own power by striking him down when he was travelling to prosecute more of Christians population.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever that he has written in the New testament would not have been possible for any other disciples of Jesus and  there would have been no clear understanding about the purpose of Jesus coming in such a manner and dying a kind of death despised very much at that period of time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus disciples were master in the message taught to them by Jesus but were lacking in  in-depth knowledge of Jewish scripture as they were just ordinary people prior to hearing the message from Jesus. So it was like a double edged sword-- Paul with a thorough knowledge of Old Testament and  Jesus’ original disciples with thorough knowledge of message from Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God’s plans are truly marvellous and at time we are unable to understand them and only start to understand them as the time passes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: I have provided an answer to my own question but some body can improve this answer or post another  answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-01-02T15:53:35.890" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T15:53:35.890" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12414" CreationDate="2013-01-02T13:56:39.967" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Greek for &quot;emptied himself&quot; is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis&quot;&gt;kenosis&lt;/a&gt;, now a general theological term for the concept of God choosing to not allow himself the rights and powers of godhood.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Kenosis&quot;&gt;Kenosis&lt;/a&gt; allows for such things as Jesus &quot;being surprised&quot; when power goes out of him (the Syro-Phoenician woman), not &quot;knowing the day or the hour&quot; of his own return, and in general choosing not to exercise any of the things he could do as God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;General Consensus tends to put the motivation for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08617a.htm&quot;&gt;kenosis&lt;/a&gt; as one of not &quot;overwhelming&quot; those whom he came to love.  If God had come with overwhelming force, he could certainly have garnered the respect and awe of His people, but fundamentally not the free choice of radically less powerful people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people have problems with &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/kenosis&quot;&gt;kenosis&lt;/a&gt;, saying that it is inconsistent with hypostatic union. That said, as J. Vernon McGee used to say, &quot;It's ok, they can be wrong if they want to be&quot; :)  [Okay, that part's just opinion!  But I like to let people know both sides]  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In choosing &quot;equality with God as not something to be grasped,&quot; then indeed, God is giving up the &lt;em&gt;powers&lt;/em&gt; of Godhood, if not its nature.  God is who he is - a loving person who desires to be loved by his creation.  It is his nature to love his people more than he loves his own power.  It is that understanding (amongst other things) of a God who loves rather than subjgates his own that makes the Gospel such truly Good News. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-02T14:03:25.670" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T14:03:25.670" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12416" CreationDate="2013-01-02T14:16:11.057" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We do ourselves and all Christians a fundamental disservice whenever we give what sounds like a definitve answer to any question starting &quot;Why did God...&quot;. God's ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. The best we can ever hope to say is: &quot;I believe that one reason God did this might have been...&quot;. Unless God has told us the answer elsewhere, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T14:16:11.057" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12420" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12424" CreationDate="2013-01-02T14:45:35.107" Score="3" ViewCount="4769" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that people today spend time in Purgatory after they die prior to going to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this teaching does not appear to have been taught in the Old Testament or been believed by Israel during that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Catholic Church teach that people who died before the atonement of Christ, like Abraham, Moses, Elijah, etc., also spent time in Purgatory before going to Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2016-10-18T01:24:07.937" Title="According to Roman Catholic teaching, did people who died in Old Testament times spend time in Purgatory?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9008" CreationDate="2013-01-02T15:23:55.653" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus being an Eternal God chose a human instrument to come into this world in a miraculous way, he chose the path as the prophecies predicted his human lineage. So, Jesus getting into a family by a miracle as well as his human lineage, go hand in hand. There is no contradiction, but each complement and give a whole picture for our understanding.&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3690" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T18:52:09.580" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T18:52:09.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12420" CreationDate="2013-01-02T17:05:59.427" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;That depends on how you mean &quot;purgatory&quot;. No one went into heaven prior (John 3:13) to the death of Christ (which opened the Kingdom of Heaven to believers (this is in the Te Deum, but it might be Biblical?)). Those who would have been considered truly righteous (Elijah, Moses, Abraham, etc.) would have been in &quot;Abraham's bosom&quot; (as in Luke 16:22-23), something which isn't heaven but it isn't painful either. That said, there are passages in the New Testament (2 Peter and Jude especially) which suggest that Christ also freed people from some place which was more unpleasant than the spiritual waiting room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be argued that both of these qualify as purgatory. It can also be argued that neither of them really qualify as purgatory but are considered something else. Either way, both places are considered to be different from the post-resurrection fate of the impure we now call &quot;purgatory&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Interestingly, in the old meaning of the word &quot;hell&quot; (the modern maps almost exclusively to Gehenna/Tartarus), these were considered &quot;hells&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T17:05:59.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12423" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12427" CreationDate="2013-01-02T17:24:55.023" Score="1" ViewCount="99" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry if this is not the right place where asking this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to set up a database of cult (or masses) timetables all over the world, starting from Italy, and I would need some source where asking for timetables or grab the data about timetables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to start from Italy, where I found the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vicariatusurbis.org/?page_id=190&amp;amp;TipoEnte=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;site&lt;/a&gt; of Rome diocese with all the curches infos, including masses timetables .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I need is some site where I can find the name of the church and the schedule of the cults (or masses).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anybody know where to find any site (i.e. data-source) like the one I cited where I can grab data?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1257" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-13T14:44:35.897" LastActivityDate="2014-02-13T14:44:35.897" Title="Masses timetable" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;timetable&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2013-01-03T21:10:09.860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12420" CreationDate="2013-01-02T18:02:11.033" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, No. Purgatory did not exist before Christ rose from the dead. They were in the Limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know it is long, but here is the Catholic teaching from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;632   The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;633   Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” — Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483 (1033)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;634   “The gospel was preached even to the dead.”484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption. (605)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;635   Christ went down into the depths of death so that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”485 Jesus, “the Author of life,” by dying destroyed “him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.”486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades,” so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.”487&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great&#xA;    stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth&#xA;    trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and&#xA;    he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began.... He&#xA;    has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep.&#xA;    Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow&#xA;    of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve,&#xA;    captive with him—He who is both their God and the son of Eve....” I am&#xA;    your God, who for your sake have become your son.... I order you, O&#xA;    sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise&#xA;    from the dead, for I am the life of the dead.”488&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T18:02:11.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12425" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-02T18:28:56.933" Score="2" ViewCount="310" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the sake of this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Predestination = from the foundations of the universe, God chose who will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Purgatory = a place where people suffer / are purified, and afterwards, they go to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the difference between heaven and hell is quite large (positive infinity and negative infinity). In the predestination case, the gap between those that go to heaven and those who go to hell is justified as follows: God chose to save some, and Jesus's blood was paid for their debt. In this case, salvation is a binary choice by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the purgatory case, everything looks more continuous: the gap also makes sense in that: depending on how &quot;sinful&quot; one was, one spends less or more time in purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what I don't understand about the Armenian case is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*) there lacks a binary choice by God (since there was no predestination)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*) yet, the suffering/punishment after death is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; continuous -- there's no purgatory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus it seems very weird that on a continuous scale of human sinfulness, in the absence of a binary choice by God, the gain/loss after death is so different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Note&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suggestions / clarifications to this question welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastActivityDate="2018-11-23T10:10:08.630" Title="How do those who reject both predestination and purgatory justify their beliefs?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12425" CreationDate="2013-01-02T19:02:55.987" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is still a binary choice, but it's not God who makes the decision. He leaves it to each of us to choose for ourselves one way or the other, and gives us our whole lifetime to make that decision. God &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; make the decision for us &amp;mdash; He has that power &amp;mdash; and He &lt;em&gt;knows&lt;/em&gt; in advance &amp;mdash; if concepts like &quot;in advance&quot; even have any meaning for a being that exists outside of time &amp;mdash; what choice each of us will make. After all, He made us. What He &lt;em&gt;desires&lt;/em&gt; is for each of us to choose Him of our own will. It is not interesting to Him if the choice is forced upon us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an interesting philosophical question here of whether there is really any difference at all between determining an outcome and merely knowing an outcome with absolute certainty, when those outcomes are produced by a system that one designed, set in motion, and directs for oneself, as God does with us and our environment. God gives us &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt; akin to free will, but is it really free will as we know it if He made each of us in the first place, knows what our choices will be in any situation, and has absolute power over all situations? This is especially interesting when you look at psychology studies that show how human behavior is &lt;em&gt;much&lt;/em&gt; more about programmed responses and brain chemicals than any of us want to acknowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, I don't really find the question of predestination vs free choice very interesting... I tend to think of it as two sides of the same coin. Do we have free choice? Yes! You can say we do. Are we predestined? You can say that as well, and not be entirely wrong about it. This question has historically caused a huge split in Christiandom, but I ultimately see it as more about philosophy than theology. Your answer has implications for how your &lt;em&gt;view&lt;/em&gt; soteriology, but either way you still look to Jesus. Does it really matter how you view soteriology as long as you're looking at the right source? I think also that Jesus would find the question uninteresting... at least in a relative sense. He is far more concerned that look at Him as Lord, and with how you treat your fellow man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2013-01-03T03:13:08.853" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T03:13:08.853" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12423" CreationDate="2013-01-02T19:08:24.120" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would be awesome, but there is no global Catholic Mass timetable. &#xA;for the united states, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.masstimes.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MassTimes.org&lt;/a&gt; is the usual best bet, with going to a particular diocese' website and hoping that they have links parishes you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lots of parishes post their bulletins to &lt;a href=&quot;http://seekandfind.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SeekAndFind.com&lt;/a&gt; so you can build a list of mass times from that.  But that's way, way, way to cumbersome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'd be very interested in making a parish-life aggregator as an open source application because I don't think one exists.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T19:08:24.120" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12428" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12429" CreationDate="2013-01-02T19:26:58.957" Score="21" ViewCount="14011" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is slightly a take-off from: &lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12090/what-does-it-mean-that-all-scripture-is-god-breathed&quot;&gt;What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bible&lt;/strong&gt; as we know it today wasn't canonized and compiled into a single volume until much later. In particular, I am concerned with the reference to all scripture being &quot;God-breathed&quot; (inspired) in 2 Timothy, as it was written long before (varying, based on which &quot;canonization&quot; we consider) any canonization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what was meant/intended by the authors by the term &quot;scripture&quot; at the time of New Testament writings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2146" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T15:51:45.000" Title="What does &quot;scripture&quot; mean in NT writing?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;&lt;2-timothy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12428" CreationDate="2013-01-02T19:59:29.160" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word for &quot;scripture&quot; in the Greek text is (ἡ) γραφή, often occurring in the plural, (τῆς) γραφῆς, which literally means &quot;writing(s).&quot; The word occurs approximately 50 times in the New Testament (depending on the manuscript used it is 50 or 51) and it seems pretty clear to me from a word search that this almost exclusively refers to the Old Testament writings when used by New Testament authors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exception is 2 Peter 3:16, which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our&#xA;  dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him,&#xA;  speaking of these things in all his letters [(ἐπιστολαῖς, epistles)]. &#xA;  Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant &#xA;  and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest &#xA;  of the scriptures [(γραφὰς, writings)] (2 Peter 3:15-16, NET).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse clearly refers to Paul's writings as &quot;scriptures.&quot; Everywhere else it refers to the Old Testament (or to specific passages from the Old Testament).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even by the earliest dating standard for 2 Peter, all of Paul's epistles that are included in the New Testament would have been written by the time this statement was made with the possible exceptions of 2 Timothy (possibly written the same year as 2 Peter, although most likely before as 2 Peter was probably not written until at least 65 and 2 Timothy was almost certainly written in 64) and Hebrews (whose author is disputed anyways). 2 Peter is also considered to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena&quot;&gt;antilegomena&lt;/a&gt;, although it has been widely accepted by the Church throughout history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is thus my opinion that St. Paul was not referring to New Testament writings when he said that all scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), but rather to Old Testament writings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-01-02T20:15:49.967" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T20:15:49.967" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12430" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12583" CreationDate="2013-01-02T20:31:20.543" Score="3" ViewCount="8196" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, originally, I was going to ask, why do Anglicans serve the bread first, then the wine.  The answer, however, is that it really seems to be the order in Scripture, for as 1 Corinthians 11 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, it is bread, then wine.  Still, I keep thinking that way back in my Baptist days (its been 5 years now!) it was the other way - wine first, then bread.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then is two-fold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any traditions that tend to go wine first (if so, which?) and, if that's the case&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2021-04-11T17:18:30.047" Title="Do all churches celebrate communion in the same order (bread-first, wine-second)?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12431" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12433" CreationDate="2013-01-02T20:33:36.207" Score="5" ViewCount="1574" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, when serving communion, I notice that there is a significant number of people who will eat the bread, but not drink the wine. (Note, I'm &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; talking intinction here - rather they eat the bread, then get up before the chalice is offered.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any theology behind this, or is it just a general &quot;ick&quot; factor at potentially drinking out of the same cup?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-03T03:12:17.437" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T03:12:17.437" Title="Is there any theological reason for not drinking the communion wine?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12431" CreationDate="2013-01-02T21:15:23.283" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is, as far as I know, no theological reason for not partaking of the wine. However there are a number of practical ones, more than just 'ick':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are sick and do not wish to infect others, and communion is by common cup. This can normally be avoided by intinction, but if intinction is not practiced then some people will avoid the wine.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are an alcoholic, or are sworn to total abstinence, and alcoholic wine is being served&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T21:15:23.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12431" CreationDate="2013-01-02T21:17:06.817" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure my answer applies, as I don't know whether the Episcopal Church teaches transubstantiation. But, if it does, you could refer to the Catholic Church's stance on the matter. I.E., Christ is fully present in both species, both in the appearance of bread and the appearance of wine. Hence, to receive either one is to receive Christ in fullness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating&#xA;  priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI,&#xA;  c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility&#xA;  of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received&#xA;  whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either&#xA;  species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the&#xA;  communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for&#xA;  salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't read the article in full. But, from what little I've read, this actually seems to be a pretty controversial topic in Church history!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-01-02T21:17:06.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12434" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-02T22:59:15.117" Score="11" ViewCount="1660" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read &lt;a href=&quot;http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; article entitled &quot;What do Christian fundamentalists have against set theory&quot; and was shocked since I grew up (Grade 1 - 8) in several (what could be described as) fundamentalist/evangelical private schools, and I majored in Computer Science / Discrete Math in college and if the two concepts had some sort of conflict I'd be the person to know. However, I had never heard of a Christian objecting to set theory on religious grounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize the article he basically cites this by a christian textbook publisher:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Unlike the &quot;modern math&quot; theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory.&quot; — ABeka.com&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he explains set theory and goes on a rant (which may or may not be derived) against fundamentalists who object to modernism and all things tainted my modernism. Then talks a little tiny bit about how they may be offended by any type of theory that can contain infinities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is actually a valid portrayal of fundamentalist belief, why would they object to set theory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2017-01-02T05:38:12.753" LastActivityDate="2017-01-04T01:25:02.700" Title="Why would Fundamentalists think Set Theory is anti-Christian?" Tags="&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;fundamentalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12435" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12439" CreationDate="2013-01-02T23:06:20.747" Score="16" ViewCount="35629" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that Catholics and Methodists employ the practice of Intinction, that is, the dipping of the bread into the wine during the Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, the bread and the wine are always served separately, which seems to follow the pattern set forth in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,&#xA;  that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;&#xA;  24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My&#xA;  body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same&#xA;  way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new&#xA;  covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in&#xA;  remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink&#xA;  the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.  1 Corinthians 11:23-25 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what specifically is the basis/reasoning/biblical foundation for taking the elements simultaneously rather than individually, with the bread first followed by the wine, which to me appears to be the pattern set forth in Scripture?  When did this practice originate and by whom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-12-22T00:48:37.573" LastActivityDate="2020-12-22T02:59:46.840" Title="What is the basis for the practice of Intinction (the dipping of the bread into wine during the Eucharist)?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;origin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12434" CreationDate="2013-01-02T23:53:56.793" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Is it anti Christian&quot; is a Truth question. Answering in such a way as to avoid that...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a doctrinal or even denominational perspective, the answer is &quot;no&quot;.  Do some Christians think this way?  Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author of the article &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, however, quite accurately describe the mindset of certain types of individuals within more conservative, fundemantalist Churches like those that I favor and prefer.  I am personally friends  who share the type of mindset he describes.  In some of the examples, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; fit the stereotype he's describing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the relevant statements made in the article is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I can tell you from experience that A Beka (and Bob Jones University&#xA;  Press) are stridently against modernism in all its forms. (I'm&#xA;  assuming they're against post-modernism, too, but you have to&#xA;  understand that the opinions and perspectives this sort of Christian&#xA;  fundamentalism has about society and culture were formed between the&#xA;  late 1920s and early 1970s and, because of this, the culture wars that&#xA;  they are fighting often come across as confusingly antiquated.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He's dead-on there.  There is a culture of anti-modernism inherent in Fundamentalist culture and the Fundamentalist mindset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there are certainly individuals that I know that would say, &quot;Amen, brother!&quot; to the A Beka statements.  But none of them would confuse such a thing as a Doctrinal issue. Another hallmark of Fundamentalism is a strong belief in Sola Scriptura, and a rabid belief in sound doctrine. This isn't to say that they wouldn't argue that such things are &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Certainly, there are, as I said, those who believe such, but they know the difference between  such beliefs and doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather they might say that their opposition to modernism is an &lt;em&gt;application&lt;/em&gt; of doctrine. They believe x is evil, dangerous, wrong, etc, because of doctrine y. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So they might argue that set theory is anti-Christian, but that is a personal interpretation and application of doctrine, not a doctrinal statement in and of itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-03T00:23:56.633" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T00:23:56.633" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12437" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12466" CreationDate="2013-01-03T01:36:21.220" Score="7" ViewCount="890" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[LDS] members are encouraged to fast once a month on Fast Sunday and to give the money they save by not eating two meals to the church; those who can afford to be more generous are encouraged to give more than simply the money saved as a fast offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So given that the biblical root of the concept of a fast offering is the exhortation of Isaiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?  (Isaiah 58:6--7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that Joseph Smith introduced the current LDS practice of using the cost of the meal foregone by fasting to support the poor in Kirtland (as later reiterated by the interregnal Council of the Twelve in these words):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let this be an example to all saints, and there will never be any lack for bread: When the poor are starving, let those who have, fast one day and give what they otherwise would have eaten to the bishops for the poor, and everyone will abound for a long time; and this is one great and important principle of fasts approved of the Lord.  (History of the Church 7:413)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a separate modern root or inspiration of this practice?  It doesn't seem to be derived from patristic or medieval Catholicism or Reformation practices as far as I know (which, admittedly, isn't a lot in the area of devotional practices).  Specifically, was this something the Shakers, the Campbellites, or another Restorationist group influential on early Mormonism practiced?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3693" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T06:11:40.663" Title="Did the modern LDS idea of fast offerings have extra-Mormon roots?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;fasting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12435" CreationDate="2013-01-03T03:09:48.130" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's an article &lt;a href=&quot;http://theaquilareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IntinctionPaper.pdf&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that covers the history of intinction quite extensively.  (I apologize that it's a PDF reference.  It's the best article I could find.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article starts out like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The common wisdom among opponents of intinction is that it arose after&#xA;  the doctrine of  transubstantiation, and was a method of preventing&#xA;  Christ's blood from spilling, and that it is associated primarily with&#xA;  Roman Catholicism. Although there are elements of truth in this&#xA;  assessment, the true history of the practice is a fair bit more&#xA;  complicated than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, as far as the history goes, there's no consensus on why the practice as started.  The earliest mention of the practice was in the writings of Julius I in 340 A.D. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the context of rejecting several irregular  practices regarding the&#xA;  Eucharist, he states the following:  But their practice of giving the&#xA;  people intincted Eucharist for the fulfillment of communion is not&#xA;  received from the gospel witness, where, when he gave the apostles his&#xA;  body and blood, giving the bread separately and the chalice separately&#xA;  is recorded&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no mention of the reason for the practice, just that it occurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, the article states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not clear how or why intinction first was introduced into the&#xA;  church. According to William Freestone, the possibility exists that it&#xA;  was a convenience directed towards the administration of the Eucharist&#xA;  to the sick, making the bread easier to swallow. However, this was&#xA;  usually not our modern practice of intincting the bread into the wine,&#xA;  but rather of dipping bread into unconsecrated liquid.  According to&#xA;  the Ohio Presbytery Report, the first mention of it is connected to&#xA;  paedocommunion, to make the bread easier to swallow by an infant.&#xA;  Freestone thinks it more likely that the practice  originated from the&#xA;  fear of accident, and then passed over into communion of the sick&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The remainder of the paper goes on to document various historical disputes over the practice, some of which are quite fiery.  The dispute isn't really on-topic to the question, but it is worth a read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic Church, intinction &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; to be something that is not meant to be common.  I've found several articles (like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=237&quot;&gt;this one)&lt;/a&gt; that state that it &quot; is permitted when done according to Church directives&quot;.  It also states &quot;The Church provides that when Communion is given by intinction, it must be planned beforehand.&quot;, indicating that it's not something to be taken lightly.  But nowhere does it outline &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; it should be given, and in what cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only article I could find that had any sort of official support for there answer was &lt;a href=&quot;http://theaquilareport.com/the-pca-ohio-presbytery-receives-committee-report-on-intinction-/&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With reference to the previous section on the theology of intinction&#xA;  (i.e., responses to Questions 2 and 3), this study committee found&#xA;  strong, compelling biblical and theological support for the practice&#xA;  of partaking of the elements separately – of “eating” AND of&#xA;  “drinking”. Therefore, intinction is out of accord with Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Practical considerations appear to be the primary reasons for&#xA;  intinction. During this study, the committee heard a variety of&#xA;  pragmatic reasons for the practice, including: (a) it is one of the&#xA;  “touch points” for a more meaningful worship, (b) it saves time, (c)&#xA;  it takes longer, (d) it may better appeal to those who come from&#xA;  church traditions that practice intinction (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox),&#xA;  (e) it avoids the Congregationalist practice of distributing the&#xA;  elements in the pews, (f) it better enables communion in the&#xA;  battlefield, and (g) it is practiced in the PCA.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, it points to convenience, or practicality as a reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1948/1948-118.cfm&quot;&gt;Anglican Church&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Resolutions from 1948&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Resolution 118&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Administration of Holy Communion&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Conference holds that administration from a common chalice, being&#xA;  scriptural and having a spiritual meaning of great value, should&#xA;  continue to be the normal method of administration in the Anglican&#xA;  Communion; but is of opinion that there is no objection to&#xA;  administration of both kinds by the method of intinction where&#xA;  conditions require it, and that any part of the Anglican Communion by&#xA;  provincial regulation according to its own constitutional procedure&#xA;  has liberty to sanction administration by intinction as an optional&#xA;  alternative to the traditional method, and that the methods of&#xA;  intinction to be adopted or permitted should not be left to the&#xA;  discretion of individual priests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only guideline appears to be &quot;where conditions require it&quot;.  Implying some special set of circumstances where the traditional method is inconvenient or impractical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did manage to find &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.saintpetercatholic.com/receiving-communion-by-intinction.html&quot;&gt;one specific example that lists a specific reason&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q.      Why does St. Peter’s intinction, rather than using the cup&#xA;  like other parishes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A.      There are several reasons. We have had some difficulty in the&#xA;  past getting a sufficient number of EMHC. And even if we had them,&#xA;  numerous EMHC sometimes make for a rather cumbersome crowd in the&#xA;  Sanctuary at Communion time. There is the additional problem of&#xA;  preparing the proper amount of wine for the Offertory. When the&#xA;  Precious Blood is then distributed, we either run out before all have&#xA;  received, or have much remaining, which then must be consumed by the&#xA;  Priest and/or EMHC. Many people also refrain from receiving the&#xA;  Precious Blood of the Lord from the Cup because of hygiene concerns.&#xA;  Intinction eliminates these problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So (and I'm repeating myself)  it is a matter of practicality for them as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-03T05:05:50.457" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T05:05:50.457" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12440" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-03T03:21:50.117" Score="3" ViewCount="45" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yaroslav Pelikan's final book &quot;Whose Bible Is It?&quot; has two editions.  The first edition came out in 2005 and was sub-titled &quot;A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages.&quot;  The second edition came out the year he died, and the sub-title changed to &quot;A Short History of the Scriptures.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'd like to know is if there are any differences between these two, beyond superficialities such as the sub-titles, publishers, etc. In short, does the text differ at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1095" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2013-01-03T03:28:16.360" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T08:48:46.420" Title="Two Editions of Pelikan's &quot;Whose Bible Is It?&quot;" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12251" CreationDate="2013-01-03T03:35:28.197" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The chronology adopted by Latter-day Saint interpreters (and heavily grounded in LDS scripture) most closely approaches what you would call mid- or post-tribulationist.  (That terminology is not current in Mormonism, in any case, nor is rapture:  LDS prefer to say &amp;quot;those caught up to meet Christ&amp;quot;, which is closely tied in with the return of the city of Zion, and talk also of the trials and wickedness of the last days without attaching a specific phrase to the suffering.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 88&lt;/a&gt; is a good source for the LDS doctrine on the last days, among others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig tree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[more Revelation-type disasters]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there shall be silence in heaven for the space of half an hour; and immediately after shall the curtain of heaven be unfolded, as a scroll is unfolded after it is rolled up, and the face of the Lord shall be unveiled;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is followed, in this chronology, by the sounding of other trumps, presumably analogous to those of Revelation (although this is not explicit in the text).  One distinction that is made is that as Jesus Christ returns with the City of Zion, the faithful are caught up to meet him, and together they return to the earth (rather than ascending to heaven).  This is preliminary to the millennial reign of Jesus Christ over the whole earth, as a key theme of Mormonism is the sanctification and elevation of this earth to celestial status, rather than relegating it to destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of popular LDS books which discuss hypothetical timelines, but officially there is no clear position taken on the order of events in the last days---only that prophecy will be fulfilled.  Other major LDS sources on the last days are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/45?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 45&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/101?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;101&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/133?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;133&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-m/1?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Joseph Smith's translation/version of Matthew&lt;/a&gt; in the Pearl of Great Price.  The Book of Mormon is conspicuously silent on this point, if I recall correctly, with the exception of few messianic Isaiah quotations and the confirmation that a Second Coming is to be expected.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-43-signs-of-the-second-coming?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel Principles manual chapters 43&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-44-the-second-coming-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;44&lt;/a&gt; are a good place to look for more information as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3693" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T03:43:58.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2013-01-03T04:02:10.410" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The standard position I hear often in conversation with members of the LDS church (but it may just be the folks I associate with) is that Mormonism is either monotheistic or henotheistic/monolatrous.  Monotheistic because of the same reasons that Mason noted above, and because God the Father is The God of the Universe and is worshipped by Jesus Christ as well.  Henotheistic/monolatrous because we admit the possibility of becoming joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, and thus gods, but no one besides Jesus Christ is to be worshipped in that sense---and he's really a special case because he was divine before the world was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, I doubt that you'd offend a Mormon by calling them casually tritheistic in conversation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On second thought, the BYU-crowd conceit of using the term henotheistic may be inaccurate, since it implies not only worship of one god but that worship of other gods by other people may be admissible.  So monolatry is probably a better term for it.  But you can definitely find people who took their religion professors at BYU very seriously who will raise the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3693" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T04:02:10.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4903" CreationDate="2013-01-03T04:40:58.597" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Zechariah 1:20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;English: And YHVH showed me four carpenters.&#xA;LXX: καὶ ἔδειξέν μοι κύριος τέσσαρας τέκτονας&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same Greek word, τέκτων, is used in Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Talmud (Sukka 52b) states that the four carpenters are Messiah ben David, Messiah ben Ephraim (i.e., ben Joseph), Malki-Tzedek, and Eliyahu. But, we know that Jesus is both Messiah ben David and ben Ephraim, he is a priest after the manner of Malki-Tezedek, and he is a prophet greater than Moshe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T04:40:58.597" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12444" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12497" CreationDate="2013-01-03T04:44:51.320" Score="5" ViewCount="228" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ran across &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2925/what-is-the-little-office-of-our-lady-in-connection-to-the-scapular-devotion&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, and I'm wondering if someone can give me more information on what a Scapular is, and what, exactly, the significance and/or theology goes along with it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T22:39:28.580" Title="What is a Scapular, and what theology is tied to it?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12150" CreationDate="2013-01-03T08:04:13.567" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mormonism creates definitions for polytheism and monotheism that deviate from traditional or standard lexigraphic uses.  A mere belief in multiple gods, according to traditional and lexigraphic sources, is indeed &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sufficient for polytheism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another responder here stated that Mormons don't believe Jesus is God - and that only the Father is God.  That is not correct.  They are both (G/g)ods to Mormons.  For that matter, even the Mormon belief that &quot;God the Father&quot; is &quot;God of the Cosmos&quot; isn't quite the whole story; Mormons believe that God the Father was a mere man who became divine by the power of a yet another God who existed before him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it is true that Mormons, with their peculiar definition of &quot;monotheism&quot;, consider themselves to be &quot;monotheistic.&quot;  This is best understood by looking at a careful explanation from one of their own prophets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Journal of Discourses 1:56 - p.57, Orson Pratt, August 29, 1852&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  All these beings of course are one, the same as the Father and the Son are one. The Son is called God, and so is the Father, and in some places the Holy Ghost is called God. They are one in power, in wisdom, in knowledge, and in the inheritance of celestial glory; they are one in their works; they possess all things, and all things are subject to them; they act in unison; and if one has power to become the Father of spirits, so has another; if one God can propagate his species, and raise up spirits after his own image and likeness, and call them his sons and daughters, so can all other Gods that become like him, do the same thing; consequently, there will be many Fathers, and there will be many families, and many sons and daughters; and they will be the children of those glorified, celestial beings that are counted worthy to be Gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Journal of Discourses 2:345, Orson Pratt, February 18, 1855&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;But&quot; inquires one, &quot;how are you going to get along with the passage, in Isaiah, where the Lord declared that, 'There is no God before me, nor shall there be any after me?'&quot; How can we believe this, when we believe in the revelation given through Joseph Smith, which says there are many Gods, and that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are Gods, and that all good men in this Church shall become Gods? Paul also speaks of the only wise God. Perhaps some may suppose that it is translated improperly. But you will find the same thing in the Book of Mormon, translated by the Urim and Thummim; the same things are also contained in the new translation of the book of Genesis, given to Moses, where the Lord declares that, &quot;There is no God besides me.&quot; In these expressions, God has reference to the great principles of light and truth, or knowledge, and not to the tabernacles in which this knowledge may dwell; the tabernacles are many and without number, but the truth or knowledge which is often personified and called God, is one, being the same in all; God is one, being a unity, when represented by light, truth, wisdom, or knowledge; but when reference is made to the temples in which this knowledge dwells, the number of Gods is infinite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Journal of Discourses 2:345 - p.346, Orson Pratt, February 18, 1855&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  One world has a personal God or Father, and the inhabitants thereof worship the attributes of that God, another world has another, and they worship His attributes, and besides Him there is no other; and when they worship Him they are at the same time worshipping the same attributes that dwell in all the personal Gods who fill immensity. And hence the Lord says, in one of the revelations of these last days: &quot;Ye are tabernacles in which God dwells, man is the tabernacle of God.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, because each God of each world shares attributes with all Gods of other worlds, these shared perfect attributes (light, truth, wisdom, knowledge) are the embodiment of the Mormon-peculiar definition of &quot;monotheism.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, true monotheism requires much more than mere shared perfect attributes.  Indeed, the notion of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monotheism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;sharing&quot; is problematic&lt;/a&gt; itself.  True monotheism poses God as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0014_0_14128.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;first cause&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  Mormons deny that their &quot;God the Father&quot; is &quot;first cause.&quot;  And yes of course, it also includes the notion that there are no other personal-being gods existing anywhere.  For true monotheists, of a Christian slant, the bible's reference to men as &quot;gods&quot; is a metaphor, not an assertion of multiple divine beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1095" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T08:04:13.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12440" CreationDate="2013-01-03T08:41:12.537" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not uncommon for book publishers to tweak the cover of a book slightly when the book goes for a second printing, due to having sold all of the original copies.  The quick succession (only a year after the original printing) suggests it was simply a reprinting, and not a &quot;new edition.&quot;  And their marketing gurus probably decided that a new cover and a shortened subtitle would help sales.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also appears that the second printing was only done in paperback (judging by availability on amazon), whereas the first printing was both in hardback and paperback.  This could also just mean that they ran out of the first printing of the paperback copies first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not been able to find any hard evidence to support this guess, but it seems logical, and I find no evidence to the contrary, either.  I suppose an email to the publisher, Penguin Press, might set the record straight, if it's that important to anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-01-03T08:48:46.420" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T08:48:46.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12447" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13896" CreationDate="2013-01-03T08:42:24.603" Score="4" ViewCount="184" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is  it a monument  of sort, build by the prophet of Jehovah's Witnesses in remembrance of all the Old Testament prophet? I also understand that there are altars in this building in honour of each of the Old Testament Prophets.  I am not sure how far this is true and would like to know from someone, the beliefs that make this building so special. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3455" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-27T20:08:06.433" LastActivityDate="2013-09-27T20:08:06.433" Title="What is Beth Sarim building built for?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;architecture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12448" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12454" CreationDate="2013-01-03T13:26:58.040" Score="6" ViewCount="970" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I'm not talking salvation here (I understand grace) there is a sense in which some sins are more offensive to God then others.  Scripture is replete with examples of God's hatred for adultery (read pretty much any prophet!) and divorce (Malachi, Matthew, etc...).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, I had a discussion with another pastor who was counseling a person who had created what I believe to be a false dichotomy - the counselee believed himself to be incapable fidelity to his wife, and so felt there were only two options - divorce or adultery.  (The counselee's justification was 1 Cor 7:9 &quot;But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion&quot;). The thing that was interesting to me was that it was suggested that adultery was better than divorce.  The counselor suggested that if the counselee was incapable of being true to his wife, that it was better to have an affair than to terminate the marriage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, leaving aside any personal specifics (this is not a pastoral advice question!), I'm wondering what is the logic of holding the sanctity of marriage over fidelity within it?  In other words, what is the biblical or extra-biblical justification for suggesting that adultery would be preferable to divorce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for either an exegesis of Scripture or Pontifical statement that would be the basis for making such a counsel. Appeals to the sources of tradition for any denomination are accepted - I'm just trying to understand what the justification is for stating that divorce is worse than adultery.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barring that, the inverse - if someone would make the case that adultery is worse than divorce, I'd be interested in that exegesis as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-03T13:37:17.977" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T20:24:49.820" Title="What justification would make divorce worse than adultery?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;&lt;adultery&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12449" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-03T13:46:50.150" Score="2" ViewCount="17418" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that twelve is a number with a lot of meaning in the Bible, and thirteen not so much.  So why not make Paul the twelfth Apostle and just skip Matthias?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later in Revelation the church seems to be still presented as based on twelve as a complete number:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why thirteen? Or why are there twelve Apostles to Israel and only one to the rest of the world? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I am not doubting that Matthias was an Apostle. This question assumes he was. I am also assuming the restricted sense of Apostle as not just 'bearers of the NT message' or 'commissioned representative of a congregation' but those inner circle of Apostles whose offices were directly appointed by Christ in the flesh, Matthias being a replacement of one of those. Therefore, I am excluding Barnabas, James, etc. from the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Please see also the related (but not duplicate) question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7507/who-was-the-12th-apostle-matthais-or-paul&quot;&gt;Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthais or Paul?&lt;/a&gt; That question asked if Paul replaced Matthias, or not. This question assumes he did NOT and then asks 'What is the meaning of twelve Apostles to Israel and one to the Gentiles?' What is the meaning of 12 + 1?&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-06-30T19:05:12.033" Title="Why appoint Matthias to replace Judas only to later appoint Paul as a thirteenth Apostle?" Tags="&lt;acts&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12449" CreationDate="2013-01-03T14:12:16.770" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthias was appointed for a very specific purpose: to fill the void in the Twelve once Judas had died.  We have no record of when or under what circumstances Paul was called as an apostle, but we do know that his ministry coincided with a period of very heavy persecution for the church.  So it's not at all unreasonable to assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that Paul was appointed, as Matthias was, once one of the other existing apostles was killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T14:12:16.770" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12451" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12455" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:00:37.143" Score="21" ViewCount="27983" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church teaches the idea of Purgatory, which is defined by Wikipedia as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Purgatory is, according to Catholic teaching, the state or place of&#xA;  purification or temporary punishment by which those who die in a state&#xA;  of grace are believed to be made ready for the Beatific Vision in&#xA;  Heaven. Only one who dies in a state of grace can be in Purgatory, and&#xA;  therefore no one who is in Purgatory will remain there forever or go&#xA;  to Hell.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Protestant theology typically rejects the idea of Purgatory entirely.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the Protestant argument &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; the doctrine of Purgatory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-01-04T09:41:23.977" LastActivityDate="2018-08-24T04:54:45.123" Title="What is the Protestant argument against the doctrine of Purgatory?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12451" CreationDate="2013-01-03T15:59:18.870" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main books of the Bible that support Purgatory are in, what protestants term, the Apocrypha, which means, to protestants, they are not considered Sacred Scripture, specifically 2 Macc 12:41-46, making atonement for the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that there is no direct reference to praying for the dead in the protestant bible, and drawing from what Jesus said, &amp;quot;Let the dead bury the dead,&amp;quot; the conclusion is drawn that after death, if you have been saved, you are going to heaven, else, hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basis of Purgatory from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1031    The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.iv.html#v.i.i.iv-p89.139&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Trent&lt;/a&gt;. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607 (954, 1472)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1032    This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: (958, 1371, 1479)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-08-24T04:54:45.123" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="12453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12474" CreationDate="2013-01-03T19:16:14.240" Score="7" ViewCount="4532" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been reading through the Catholic Jerusalem Bible and have found a lot of pleasure in the copious footnotes and the surprisingly readable text. However I am aware that there are some issues, particularly in that the Dead Sea Scrolls are only lightly referenced since they were still largely unavailable at that time, and the number of &quot;corrections&quot;  that have been added in footnotes is rather large, particularly in the Old Testament. I have asked on &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2897/what-are-specific-failings-that-have-been-noted-in-the-jerusalem-bible#comment5388_2897&quot;&gt;Biblical Hermeneutics about specific translation issues&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While most of the corrections seem minor&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, it seems the prolificty of minor corrections could raise concerns about its value as a Study Bible in the Christian community. Have any particularly denominations raised this as a concern? Overall, how well received and how widely used is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Consider JB 2 Kings 8:18, which has the footnote &quot;j. 'from the family' corr.; 'daughter' Hebr.&quot;  This is a benign and obvious emendation.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3693" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2015-10-30T03:02:42.547" Title="Have any Christian denominations publicly raised concerns about the Catholic Jerusalem Bible?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12448" CreationDate="2013-01-03T20:24:49.820" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Marriage is more than sex. When you enter a marriage you take on all sorts of other obligations - to love and support your spouse, to care for them in sickness, to provide for your mutual needs, and to act as parent to any children you might have. If you deliberately choose to leave a marriage you are abandoning all those obligations as well as the one to remain sexually faithful. Committing adultery is, well, just sex. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However you should probably avoid trying to read a theological point into a comment made during counselling. The counsellor may be exploring ideas rather than making a theological statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T20:24:49.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12451" CreationDate="2013-01-03T21:38:40.757" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestants would consistently reject certain things connected to the doctrine of Purgatory. Regarding justification by faith alone: the fate of the dead should not be affected by their own suffering (Christ's atonement being sufficient) nor by the prayers and other works of the living. Moreover, Protestants would not believe in a role for the Church here - in granting indulgences and so forth. All of this comes from the &quot;usual&quot; Biblical basis for those Protestant doctrines, without specifically addressing Purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Purgatory is seen only as a place where post-mortem &lt;em&gt;sanctification&lt;/em&gt; happens, things are a bit murkier. That is, if we imagine it as merely a necessary cleansing step before dead people can enter heaven, then is there any Biblical argument against it? (Other than the lack of an explicit argument in favour, of course, as the Articles of Religion say: &quot;a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestant thinkers have tended to argue that sanctification is completed or consummated by the moment of death. John Wesley, for example, taught that the perfection we seek in life is completed at &quot;the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Brief thoughts on Christian perfection&lt;/em&gt;, 1767). If this is so, then there may be a &quot;very brief transition from death to paradise&quot; (&lt;em&gt;The Last Things&lt;/em&gt;, Donald Bloesch, 2004) but not a prolonged period of transformation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is backed up by such Biblical references as 1 Corinthians 15, where the raising of the dead in their already-perfected bodies is essentially instantaneous, and Jesus' words to the thief on the cross, &quot;Today you will be with me in paradise&quot; (Luke 23:43). N T Wright points to Romans 6:6 as indicating that the death of the body entails the death of sin (&lt;em&gt;For all the saints? Remembering the Christian departed&lt;/em&gt;, 2004), and, more importantly, to Romans 8:38-39 for the vivid statement that nothing, even death, &quot;can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot;. Surely, he says, there is no separation for the saved &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these Biblical texts are not absolutely decisive about timescale. Perhaps time is not even a sensible concept here, as in more recent Catholic thought where specific periods of time are not mentioned (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Indulgentiarum Doctrina&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, 1967). But the objections to Purgatory as a place of punishment, and to indulgences remitting punishment, remain even if some kind of post-mortem transformative sanctification &lt;em&gt;process&lt;/em&gt; is accepted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T21:38:40.757" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12456" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12458" CreationDate="2013-01-03T22:26:25.000" Score="5" ViewCount="1033" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Catholic Church, the Pope is regarded as the successor of Saint&#xA;  Peter, the Apostle.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pope | Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As someone who isn't Catholic I don't want to argue how true this is or how significant this is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm interested to know is there an office/title/person in the Catholic church for any of the other 11 Apostles (12 if you include Paul), or is it just Saint Peter because he was the leader of the apostles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2015-01-15T07:17:48.227" LastActivityDate="2019-06-26T17:45:59.857" Title="Apostolic Succession in the Catholic church" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;apostolic-succession&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12456" CreationDate="2013-01-03T23:06:45.973" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other apostles are associated with other Churches. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Mark&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St Mark&lt;/a&gt;, for example, was the founder of the Church of Alexandria; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St Thomas&lt;/a&gt; is believed to have taken Christianity to India; and so on. Only &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John_the_Evangelist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St John the Evangelist&lt;/a&gt; did not die a martyr in a far-off place (at least, Patmos isn't as far as India).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, most of the other apostles do not have such a place as Peter's within the Roman Church, but they do have a similar position as Patriarchs of the Churches they founded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T23:06:45.973" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12459" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12461" CreationDate="2013-01-03T23:09:04.260" Score="3" ViewCount="106" Body="&lt;p&gt;Modern textual critics have adopted the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2896/coherence-based-genealogical-method-vs-local-text-types-theory&quot;&gt;Coherence-Based Genealogical Method as opposed to the traditional Local Text-Types Theory&lt;/a&gt; (reflected in the updated NA28 standard text). Along with this shift in approach to textual criticism comes a belief that it is impossible to reproduce an an &quot;autograph&quot; of any New Testament writing - only an &quot;initial text&quot; (Ausgangstext) can be constructed which is only the hypothetical reconstruction of a text that stands at the beginning of a textual tradition. How does this affect the traditional Protestant Christian beliefs in scriptural inerrancy and infallibility, particularly for those traditions that continue to use the Nestle-Aland (and future UBS) texts for scholarly study of the Greek New Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T00:36:08.360" Title="How does scholars' denial of the possibility of NT autographs affect the Christian doctrines of biblical inerrancy and infallibility?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;&lt;manuscript&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12456" CreationDate="2013-01-03T23:31:24.793" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apostolic succession applies to all successors of the original 12 apostles. Every modern day bishop and priest (including the Pope) has been ordained by Bishops, creating an unbroken lineage all the way back to the original 12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This wikipedia section has it right, as far as I've read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Roman Catholic theology, the doctrine of apostolic succession&#xA;  states that Christ gave the full sacramental authority of the Church&#xA;  to the Twelve Apostles in the sacrament of Holy Orders, making them&#xA;  the first bishops. By conferring the fullness of the sacrament of Holy&#xA;  Orders on the apostles, they were given the authority to confer the&#xA;  sacrament of Holy Orders on others, thus consecrating more bishops in&#xA;  a direct lineage that can trace its origin back to the Twelve Apostles&#xA;  and Christ. This direct succession of bishops from the apostles to the&#xA;  present day bishops is referred to as apostolic succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Catholic_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Catholic_Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as it states, Papal Primacy, which is what you're hinting at, is a different but related matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is an ecclesiastical doctrine&#xA;  concerning the respect and authority that is due to the Bishop of Rome&#xA;  from other bishops and their sees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-01-03T23:31:24.793" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12459" CreationDate="2013-01-04T00:30:08.673" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It doesn't affect it at all. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;Inerrancy and infallibility are only attributed to the original autographs&lt;/a&gt;. It's not applied to translations, copies (even early ones) or modern versions. If it were applicable to translations then we'd have a bigger problem in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wicked Bible&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The belief that we can't reproduce an original autograph doesn't mean there was no initial autograph. And it was only the initial autograph that is inerrant, doctrinally speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with this, the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;Reliability of the translations, meaning we believe they are accurate enough to be trusted as doctrinal sources, is still defensible via manuscript evidence&lt;/a&gt;, so there is still no problem.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have always accepted flaws in modern versions, and even the idea that our oldest known manuscripts are not likely perfect reproductions of the original manuscripts.  However, since we can reasonably reconstruct enough to understand the meaning, minor flaws in modern versions are inconsequential.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's only the straw-man version of infallibility - the one that claims we think modern translations (or even old copies of the original manuscripts like the Textus Receptus) are inerrant - that is knocked down by this method of textual criticism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T00:36:08.360" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12463" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12496" CreationDate="2013-01-04T02:52:51.893" Score="6" ViewCount="294" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just started reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/orthodoxy.v.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;G.K. Chesterson's &lt;em&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and came across this quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this remarkable situation it is plainly not now possible (with any&#xA;  hope of a universal appeal) to start, as our fathers did, with the&#xA;  fact of sin. This very fact which was to them (and is to me) as plain&#xA;  as a pikestaff, is the very fact that has been specially diluted or&#xA;  denied. But though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think&#xA;  that they have yet denied the existence of a lunatic asylum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In context, he seems to be talking about a movement &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;within Christianity&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, not an atheistic movement, that denies the very existence of sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly I've heard atheists make the claim that sin is a man-made concept, and that it's &quot;relative&quot; - what one person considers sin may be perfectly OK for someone else, for example.  But within the bounds of official Christian doctrine and understanding, the concept seems incomprehensible to me.  Why would someone bother self-identifying as a Christian if they didn't need Christ's atonement for their sins?  What would be the point?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My own incredulity aside, there are enough beliefs within Christianity that it wouldn't surprise me to find teachings that deny the very existence of sin, but I've never really paid attention to such things, or bothered to learn about them.  Now my curiosity is piqued.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was there such a movement at the time of the writing of the book, and how widespread was it?  And further, is there still such a belief within recognized traditions (even those considered cults by more orthodox Christianity) that are known for teaching the idea that sin doesn't exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-01-05T22:26:47.067" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T22:26:47.067" Title="What movement was Chesterson writing about in &quot;Orthodoxy&quot;" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;g-k-chesterton&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12437" CreationDate="2013-01-04T06:11:40.663" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I am aware of, no there are no other modern roots to this practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The practice of fasting and then giving offerings to the Lord is very old. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Judges 20:26 Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it's vs &lt;code&gt;27&lt;/code&gt; that is more interesting in the context of our current question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27) And the children of Israel &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;enquired&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of the Lord .... 28) saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And the Lord said, Go up; for tomorrow I will deliver them into thine hand. (emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the offerings part is usually what gets the most attention. The true reason to fast is to show humility and self discipline before the Lord and then ask the Lord some pressing question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just as they did in Israel, LDS often go to the temple during or soon after a fast.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS don't tend to make a big deal of it, but they often fast far more then just the one day a month, depending on their needs, desires or trials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On different occasions of great trial in an LDS community, the Bishop (head of one congregation) or even Stake President (head of many congregations over the bishops) may ask the members to fast for a special purpose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On these occasions a fast offering is not paid. Though a member could pay it if they so desired.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T06:11:40.663" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12467" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12473" CreationDate="2013-01-04T07:32:41.483" Score="15" ViewCount="8537" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it true that Martin Luther was calling in his books for killing Hebrew people and that the Lutherans of the USA in 1983 officially recanted this part of Luther's writings? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-12T15:39:45.787" LastActivityDate="2016-11-10T23:01:06.020" Title="Is it true that Martin Luther was calling for killing Hebrew people?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;jews&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9067" CreationDate="2013-01-04T07:39:58.637" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although there seems to be no direct answer to This question in the bible, I don't think the person Lamech killed was Cain. Lamech is a fifth generation son of Cain. Even if Cain was still alive in the days of Lamech because poeple live long in those days, he wouldn't have been so young that Lamech will refere to him as a young man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As stated in one of the previous answers, the main interest in the passage is not the one who died but on Lamech and his action. He did killed like his father did. Abel did no wrong to Cain but in his case he said the young man wounded him. He might have felt a bit justification compare to Cain to infer that if Cain is avenged 7 times then his should be a lot more (77).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3703" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2013-01-04T14:37:08.233" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T14:37:08.233" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12469" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-04T13:59:24.000" Score="3" ViewCount="1359" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4743/what-are-the-biblical-arguments-against-the-papacy-and-papal-succession&quot;&gt;What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of &lt;strong&gt;Papal Succession&lt;/strong&gt;, that is, that starting from Peter, there has been a line of &quot;Popes&quot; to lead the church.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2358/what-is-the-argument-for-papal-succession&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; addresses the argument &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; papal succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither the Orthodox Church nor Protestant churches in general affirm this doctrine.  &lt;strong&gt;What, then, is the biblical argument &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; papal succession?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T13:57:54.053" Title="What is the biblical argument against Papal Succession?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-01-10T09:05:15.723" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4682" CreationDate="2013-01-04T16:10:11.320" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There maybe one more that I have found and that is Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:3) There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors-no beginning or end to his life. He remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3704" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T16:10:11.320" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12453" CreationDate="2013-01-04T16:13:50.630" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I frequently use the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) for study, as a companion/comparison with the New Revised Standard Version (1989). Personally I think it is helpful to have these different perspectives on the same text. Anecdotally I have encountered some suspicion of the NJB in group Bible study, from people who aren't sure if it is infused with Catholic bias; but I've also heard it quoted from the pulpit in my current church (PCUSA) when the pastor liked its rendering of some particular passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcusa.org/media/uploads/research/pdfs/08-06fullreportwithappendix.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;survey by the Presbyterian Church (USA) from 2006&lt;/a&gt; found the following numbers admitting that the JB or NJB was the version they 'personally most prefer':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Members - 2/474&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elders - 2/585&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pastors - 2/610&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Specialized clergy (= Ministers not serving in a congregation) - 4/276&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not break out JB vs NJB, but in any case it indicates penetration that is low but not zero. As with me, there may be more people that use it regularly while still not having it as the most preferred version. Nobody indicated that it was the version used most often in public worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that in the Episcopal Church USA, both the JB and NJB are on the list of approved versions (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.episcopalarchives.org/pdf/CnC/CandC_2009pp61-64.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon II.2&lt;/a&gt;). I don't know how frequently it is actually used, but this does indicate that the denomination sees no problem with the text for readings in public worship; presumably, then, it is also acceptable as a study Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T16:13:50.630" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12472" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12475" CreationDate="2013-01-04T16:15:21.590" Score="3" ViewCount="753" Body="&lt;p&gt;Several Protestant denominations take an official position on abortion that it can be acceptable under certain circumstances, and that in those circumstances the choice can be made by the woman. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Views on those circumstances differ, but can include cases where the mothers life is in danger, or the baby will be severely deformed, or is the product of rape or incest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, some people who claim to be Christians believe that abortion is acceptable even when it is &lt;em&gt;unnecessary&lt;/em&gt; for any reason (when the life of the mother is not at risk, and the baby is completely healthy and there was no rape or incest).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4549/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-claim-that-abortion-is-immoral&quot;&gt;This other question&lt;/a&gt; asks for the biblical basis for the immorality of abortion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What specifically is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is NOT immoral&lt;/strong&gt;, as many other Christians claim it to be, when it is purely elective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T17:07:28.477" Title="What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is morally acceptable (when there are no complicating factors)?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;abortion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12467" CreationDate="2013-01-04T16:36:29.940" Score="29" Body="&lt;p&gt;Alright I might be one of the few people on this earth that 1) loves the Jewish people, 2) Has married a true Jew by descent, who converted to Christianity after our marriage. 3) Will publish the worst dirt on Luther that can be found. 4) Will then be so crazy as to defend Luther, not against his sin here but in how it should be viewed in context and as still being a man of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: It is not possible for me to be brief on handling this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;First the prosecution of that nasty Luther&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the worst of Luther's writings which is naturally seized upon by any wanting to portray Luther as personally hating the Jews if they refused to accept Christ and it is pretty offensive in deed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of such great and holy children of God?&#xA;  There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses—namely, that God has struck them with “madness and blindness and confusion of mind.” So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.266)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Luther goes on to suggest what should be actually done by the government.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them...Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed...Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them...Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb...Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews...Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping...Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.268 - 271)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: He does suggest they be allowed to live like gypsies in barns or group hostels and thinks the money in 'safekeeping' is there to be returned at least in part if they stop ridiculing the Christian faith and join the national religion, but the rest of these statements can pretty much be understood as is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He only tones his ranting down slightly to distinguish between government treatment of blasphemers under law and personal vengeance by saying regular persons should not curse them are harm them, just see them as wicked while continuing in their blasphemy. He does also offer reverse sentiments and thinks they ought to treat them as 'brothers' if any become Christian, but these sentiments seem much too little and much too late to excuse his fiendish hate:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do—namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.274)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary Prosecution statement:&lt;/strong&gt; Luther was a hateful man that hated the Jews (among others, the Pope being the most hated). Although he did not want people to personally injure them he supported the murder of good Rabbis who refused to stop publicly teaching and supported the heinous inhumane crimes of confiscating or destroying virtually all their livelihood and culture, offering Jews no more than meager slavery in near inhumane conditions. It is simply inexcusable on all accounts, and any Christian worth the name should denounce this part of Christian history forever. In fact Luther might properly be said to have planted early seeds of the Nazi regime, with his attitude leading to the more recently unparalleled crimes of Hitler during the holocaust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The defense of that oh so lovable Luther&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, as deplorable and terrible as this is we should keep in mind at the time in history this was fairly standard treatment throughout the world for heretics and blasphemers. Before modern history, religious crimes were mixed with civil criminal codes and as a consequence Catholic governments burned Protestant heretics at the stake, and some later Protestant governments did similar evils, not to mention what the Turks and Christians did to each other. There was no proper division of church and state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, this is the worst of Luther's writings and I would not equate his sins herein as necessarily worse than the low points of many godly men. He did not personally make love to his neighbor's wife and then personally orchestrate his murder as King David, the man after God's heart, for example. The truth is that we are so evil, even as Christians, which are still so much more righteous than unbelievers, that if our lives are analyzed by the morals of future generations none of us will smell like roses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, although the Jews still believed in the Laws of Moses, Luther did not go so far as to cruelly propose that they be applied to them. If under the law a person simply picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or a child who is rebellious to their parents should be publicly executed. If under the law idolaters should be killed, their land burned, their houses burned, their woman turned into slaves etc., what would the Law prescribe for those who continued to reject their Jehovah in Christ? No, Luther did think, as every nation did at that time, that some of the Laws of Moses were useful for the state to apply, but he even at his worst held the Christian belief that the full extent of the Law of Moses should not be applied to those who owned it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourth, most of his sentiments came from the common belief that Jewish people were getting unfair favorable treatment from the government, while others were being criminally prosecuted for blasphemy and the like, or other injustices, on smaller matters. This was believed to be due to their great deal of wealth and it did not seem right that foreigners to the country should take advantage of the poor German people through high interest rates, while the poor were being often treated so harshly by the rich. I find this to be a weak point of defense but it must be observed that the German people were prone to racism not 'out of the blue' or from mere religious grounds, but out of general jealousies that the poor often have against the rich, who often oppress them. As Christians are also with many sins, it is not surprising that the world's jealousies of the unbelieving German people, would creep in to some degree into the thoughts of Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fifth, once the faith of Luther was almost fully stomped out of Germany, the secular majority of Germans (who were never really Christian to begin with) eagerly received humanistic philosophies in the place of professed faith. The result is just like Christ's parable who said that if a demon is cast out (by natural religious reform) seven worse spirits will come back. That is what literally happened. National fake belief in Christ, like any national faith, was replaced with the belief of 'the survival of the fittest'. This lead to the idea that killing the weak was supported by nature. This lead to Hitler and the holocaust. The rejection of the faith of men like Luther resulted in actual mass murder of the Jews. Whereas Luther's momentary rantings did not actually result in anything. Luther may have been expressing the popular view at that time with the greatest amount of charity, so while accused on great sins, he may have actually been the salt that postponed the eventual racism that possessed the nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary Defense statement:&lt;/strong&gt; Luther never pretended to be politically correct. He expressed his views quite emotionally. Like most religious leaders of that time in history, he felt some part of Old Testament law could be applied to society that most Western countries no longer believe, or comprehend at all. It is hard for us to understand but we would have probably acted poorer than Luther if we had lived at that time. When looking at all of Luther's writings as a whole, he held out the most loving, peaceful and truthful message that could be found anywhere else in the world. Luther was a man of God, and it is difficult to find anyone in history more worthy of the title. Luther was a man after God's own heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was it true he was calling for the murder of Hebrew people? Yes in a weak sense. He positively lobbied for the charge that preaching the rejection of Christ in the synagogue should be considered to be as bad as heresy or blasphemy. No, in that he did not support personal hate or the harming of their persons. All in all I would say, no. Even in the case of blasphemy as a capital crime, the Bible never considers capital crimes, which people are all equally warned of before enacted by the state, as murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Luther's attitude in these passages excusable? I would say not at all. There is nothing in them that is consistent with the volumes of sentiments in the rest of his writings, or much more importantly in the New Testament. His attitudes here are not Christian to me. Do I think Luther was a man of God? Yes, without doubt. I can only say that without blinking for about half a dozen people I have read about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Addendum&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found something quite unexpected that has somewhat lessened my shock of Luther's point of failure. In quite a shocking discovery I have been surprised to find that Luther's basic fault was not breaking free of a well established common prejudice of his time. Not only did the German people and all of Europe have these intolerant views but Luther's recommendation to the government is actually more or less a repetition of a previous Jew converted to the Catholic faith in Germany just under forty years earlier! He actually thought this harsh and biting attitude would help him reach his fellow Jews as a form of a missionary effort. As nonsensical as this is it shows the public view of how conversions and influence could take place is far different from how we see things today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The recommendations were first published by the Jew, Johannes Pfefferkorn in 1507.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Der Judenspiegel (Cologne, 1507), he demanded that the Jews should give up the practice of usury, work for their living, attend Christian sermons, and do away with the Books of the Talmud.[3] On the other hand, he condemned the persecution of the Jews as an obstacle to their conversion, and, in a pamphlet, Warnungsspiegel,[4] defended them against charges of murdering Christian children for ritual purposes.[3] In Warnungsspiegel, he professed to be a friend of the Jews, and desired to introduce Christianity among them for their own good.[4] He urged them to convince the Christian world that the Jews do not need Christian blood for their religious rites and advocated seizing the Talmud by force from them.[4] &quot;The causes which hinder the Jews from becoming Christians,&quot; he wrote, &quot;are three: first, usury; second, because they are not compelled to attend Christian churches to hear the sermons; and third, because they honor the Talmud.&quot;[4] (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Pfefferkorn&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wiki Johannes_Pfefferkorn&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is hardly objective to consider this subject without considering this unusual historical context. Something very hard I admit to even try to comprehend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-01-02T20:21:04.530" LastActivityDate="2016-01-02T20:21:04.530" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12453" CreationDate="2013-01-04T17:19:48.970" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original Jerusalem Bible is apparently still used as the Lectionary of choice for Catholics in many countries like England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa. You can refer to the USCCB's survey of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/liturgical-books-in-the-english-speaking-world.cfm&quot;&gt;Liturgical Books In The English Speaking World&lt;/a&gt; to see what a few [presumably Catholic] folks around the world are using.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's important to note, however, that the Catholic Church does not subscribe to &lt;em&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/em&gt;. In Church history, the bible has &lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt; been treated as a sort of compliment and/or supplement to tradition. All of our beliefs should be affirmed to some extent by scripture. We also draw some insight from scripture &quot;itself,&quot; provided that insight is in harmony with the existing understanding. However, given that scripture in Catholicism is not authoritative alone, the accuracy of the translation, though still important, is not as important as it would be for most non-Catholics -- particularly those subscribing to Sola Scriptura.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Glancing at the Wikipedia article for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Bible#History&quot;&gt;Jerusalem Bible&lt;/a&gt;, you'll see that some portions of it were based on the French translation of the original languages. As such, you'll likely find some &quot;noise&quot; in the translation. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible#Sources&quot;&gt;New Jerusalem Bible&lt;/a&gt; limits the French influence a great deal, relying much more heavily on the original languages. If I subscribed to Sola Scriptura and were choosing between the two, I think I'd drop the JB in favor of the NJB in a heartbeat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-01-04T17:31:19.030" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T17:31:19.030" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12472" CreationDate="2013-01-04T17:43:16.577" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally disagree with this analysis, but typically, if a biblical basis is given, it is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 21:22 - 23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The crux of the matter here is verse 23.  The question is, does the &quot;serious injury&quot; in verse 23 refer to the child or the woman.  Pro-choice Christians argue that the &quot;serious injury&quot; only applies to the woman - not to the baby who is born prematurely.  And, the prematurely suggests that the child does not survive in the medical conditions of the day. If this is the way it is supposed to be read, this implies that the unborn child is property (and hence there is restitution) and not a full live human being. If life for life were demanded, it would be far less ambiguous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, in the church where I pastored, I got roundly criticized for &quot;politicizing my pulpit&quot; when I recounted the story of how the Roe in Roe v. Wade eventually came to renounce her views.  My congregation thought this to be a matter of personal conscience, and not a theological one.  (Did I say I was a pastoring a very liberal church?) I suspect most Christians who are &quot;pro-Choice&quot; arrive at the position first, then seek to find Scripture to back up the position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-04T17:59:45.970" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T17:59:45.970" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12472" CreationDate="2013-01-04T17:59:30.420" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/abortion-issues/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Presbyterian Church of the USA&lt;/a&gt; is one of those that holds that abortion is not always immoral. It certainly doesn't hold that abortion is &quot;morally acceptable&quot; or &quot;NOT immoral&quot; in the general case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some quotes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We affirm that the lives of viable unborn babies—those well-developed enough to survive outside the womb if delivered — ought to be preserved and cared for and not aborted. In cases where problems of life or health of the mother arise in a pregnancy, the church supports efforts to protect the life and health of both the mother and the baby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable [implying that it is sometimes not morally acceptable - ed], though certainly not the only or required, decision. Possible justifying circumstances would include medical indications of severe physical or mental deformity, conception as a result of rape or incest, or conditions under which the physical or mental health of either woman or child would be gravely threatened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The strong Christian presumption is that since all life is precious to God, we are to preserve and protect it. Abortion ought to be an option of last resort&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abortion is unfortunately one of those subjects where there is a tendency to assume that there are only two possible extreme views, and that there is nothing in between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basis for this position is given on the page referenced above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...there are no biblical texts that speak expressly to the topic of abortion, but that taken in their totality the Holy Scriptures are filled with messages that advocate respect for the woman and child before and after birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-01-04T21:08:47.660" LastActivityDate="2013-01-04T21:08:47.660" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12480" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12482" CreationDate="2013-01-05T09:18:16.020" Score="3" ViewCount="1487" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ideally this question is addressed to non-Calvinists...to those who believe in free will and that much of what is wrong with the world (e.g. genetically unhealthy infants) is due to the existence of sin and evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do Christians thank God for having a health baby? For scoring a touchdown? For anything good in life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the one hand we have nothing without God. But why be so specific, since it seems that he doesn't control EVERYTHING because of free will and unless you take the Calvinist route, there is a great deal of fuzziness about how much control God wants to have over such things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking less for an abstract answer than for a simple answer a child could understand. Though BOTH would be nice. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3708" LastActivityDate="2014-02-04T15:30:21.160" Title="Why do Christians thank God for specific things?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7624" CreationDate="2013-01-05T10:11:00.267" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the issue of confession as a Protestant who was a former Catholic I wish to say that we don't need an intermediary other than Jesus however that does not mean that confessing does not have healing psychotherapeutic value . The other 2 matters which raise doubts in my mind are John 20:23 and where Jesus tells Peter that he is his rock and goes on to as in John 20:23 say that the church or apostles have the authority to withhold forgiveness for sins , now I wonder who has inherited such power now and in what circumstances .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3709" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T10:11:00.267" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12480" CreationDate="2013-01-05T13:22:18.793" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I don't know if this is a constructive question per the site's definition.  It is right on the line between being a &quot;Pastoral Advice&quot; question and something that can be answered doctrinally,  but since it can be answered partly based on Scripture (and partly based on subjective reasons) &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the fact that these principles are generally applicable and agreed upon my Christians of all walks, I'll give it a shot.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most probable reason is also the most subjective:  &lt;strong&gt;Because we are appreciative and thankful for specific things.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Addressing your request that is simple enough for a child to understand, the above is probably simple enough for a child under the age of five or so.  The rest is probably too much for that age, but may be OK for kids that are older.  It helps if they know the verses, and the rest explains things in more human terms, using the verses as a framework.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the same reason my kids thank me when I surprise them with a trip to the park to play, or a trip to the ice cream shop.  It's why I thank my wife when she cleans up a mess the kids made so I don't have to or vice-versa. Because we understand the value of little things, and because we love each other and want each other to know we are appreciated.  If we love God, we'll do the same.  It's just a natural extension of love and a thankful spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as reasons that can be backed up Scripturally:  (These Scriptures lay out principles that tie in to the ideas in the more subjective section that follows them.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:18 (King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.))&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus&#xA;  concerning you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 1:17 (King James Version)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down&#xA;  from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither&#xA;  shadow of turning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The meat of your question seems to be in this area: If we believe in free will, how can we think that God gave us each individual specific thing, so I'll address that here.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the belief in free will does not nullify the preceding Scripture.  The belief in free will is one of the foundational beliefs in my perspective, but I still believe all good things come from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To those of us that believe that sin and suffering are a  result of man's free will, it doesn't nullify the fact that in order for something &quot;bad&quot; to happen, God has to &lt;em&gt;allow&lt;/em&gt; it to happen.  There's a difference between &lt;em&gt;allowing&lt;/em&gt; something to happen and &lt;em&gt;causing&lt;/em&gt; something to happen.  In His sovereignty, He is certainly capable of intervening to stop a situation, or to manipulate the situation to alter our decisions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't deny His sovereignty. &lt;a href=&quot;http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/78&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Free will isn't incompatible with the Sovereignty of God from an Arminian perspective&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this, we also accept that the good things come because He has allowed it, or that He has caused circumstances to be such that that the good things have come from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Getting back to more general reasons we give thanks for every little thing, now that the above portion has been addressed...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:17   King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pray without ceasing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last one may not be obvious to everyone as far as why it's relevant here, but one of the easiest ways to pray throughout the day is to simply get in the habit of praying a quick prayer of thanks for the little things, like the ones you're asking about.  Getting back to the subjective (but remaining in the realm of common sense that most people would agree with)... This is a wonderful way to keep God in your thoughts, to keep your relationship strong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also helps us to cultivate that thankful, loving, and kind spirity that we Christians should have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;More subjective - applied psychology or common sense, take your pick&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, keeping God in our hearts and being thankful is a great way to help us to resist temptation to sin.  If we are constantly thinking of how great God is, and keeping an inventory of the good things He has done for us (great and small), when temptation arises, we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be thinking &quot;If God has done all this for me, how can I possibly want to do this and make Him angry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what we should feel for our employers if we think of stealing from them, or what our kids should think of us before they do something that will make us ashamed of them.  It's simply not wanting to hurt/shame/dishonor someone you love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saying constant prayers of thanks helps us to remember that He does do those things for us.  And the more we love and appreciate Him, the less we should want to hurt Him, dishonor Him, or know that He is ashamed of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, we shouldn't be just thankful for the &quot;good&quot; things in our lives.  We should be thankful for &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, even those things that we don't think are good right now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;*&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 8:28 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)&lt;/em&gt;*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we know that all things work together for good to them that love&#xA;  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we truly believe that verse, then we will understand that even the painful things that happen to us are in accordance with His will, and that He will use those things for good.  Keeping that in mind helps us to avoid becoming bitter, it helps us to understand our relationship with Him. (He is God, we are merely created beings subject to His will), and it reminds us to trust Him, having Faith that He will keep His word.  Most Christian denominations teach that &lt;a href=&quot;http://tractsoftruth.net/2012/12/21/the-purifying-power-of-tribulation/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;trials and tribulation purifies us - they make us stronger&lt;/a&gt;.  We should be thankful for that, as well.  That's a bit harder to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-02-04T15:30:21.160" LastActivityDate="2014-02-04T15:30:21.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12449" CreationDate="2013-01-05T14:30:38.670" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had no idea that upon questioning the number thirteen I would find an Old Testament pattern that does seem to reappear in the New Testament. However I have not found this seeming perfect match made notice of by my favorite Bible commentators so I remain in doubt whether this is truly prophetic or just a very convenient coincidence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case it does answer the question, at least making one not be so fussy about twelve, verses thirteen.  The fact is the tribes of Israel started out as 12 but then a double portion went to Joseph, so two of his son's (Manasseh and Ephraim) became their own tribes.  &lt;strong&gt;Technically the tribes of Israel started at twelve and then became thirteen.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, when Jacob blessed the two sons Manasseh, the first born was to have the greater blessing, but Jacob reversed the order saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations. (Genesis 48:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, Ephraim became so prominent that it came to designate the northern kingdom and Judah denoted the southern kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that in some ways then the loss of the one office which needed replacement was possibly resurrected into an unpredicted double portion when the youngest, Paul, became the office that was greater greater, even as 'a multitude of nations' being brought into the blessings of the gospel.  This large blessing to Ephraim, which Messiah was not to have his lineage from, may act as a symbol of the Gentiles being a thirteenth tribe included in the twelve. Under this view Matthias corresponds to Manasseh filling out the Jewish offices and Ephraim to Paul indicating the ministry focused on Gentiles. Literally 'the odd man out' at thirteen, yet became greater than the other which completed the twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Symbolically as the original number was twelve, twelve remains the figurative symbol for all the tribes and apostles.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One has to admit the coincidences are more than singular in the convenient parallels.  Yet it still begs the question why would Paul, not mention this?  Possibly he did not notice it for it was God's blessing on him for always considering himself the least.  In support of the theory, when we read the book of Acts, Paul really is the trail blazer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T14:30:38.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12485" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12486" CreationDate="2013-01-05T15:51:52.750" Score="23" ViewCount="35953" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always thought that the Pope did not recognize the validity of the faith of those outside of the Catholic church, but in comments from a different post I am surprised to find out I may be confused. It may be because I read old books and things have changed in more recent history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Protestants believe that anyone who genuinely believes in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins is saved. I am one of them.  I believe simply believing in Christ without adding anything else to the mix, including church denomination, brings eternal life to anyone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is does the Catholic church accept that Christians like me have eternal life, yes, or no? If so, when did the Catholic church begin to recognize the faith of those outside of her church and understand that as believers they will be in heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not interested in if Catholicism recognizes my baptism, or other sacraments that may have been administered to me, but rather the eternal life which has been granted to me by believing in Jesus.   I am interested to know if my salvation as a whole, outside the Catholic church, is recognized by my trust in Chrst?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-24T07:25:20.470" LastActivityDate="2020-11-10T15:46:35.893" Title="Does the Catholic Church officially recognize Protestants as Christians?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12485" CreationDate="2013-01-05T16:11:09.553" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Catholic Answers article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-no-salvation-outside-the-church-include-non-catholic-christians&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does &quot;no salvation outside the Church&quot; include non-Catholic Christians?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, non-Catholic Christians are specifically addressed in the Catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who&#xA;  are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic&#xA;  faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under&#xA;  the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been&#xA;  properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion&#xA;  with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion&#xA;  is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would&#xA;  permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm&quot;&gt;(CCC 838)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I read this, the answer is &quot;yes, but they don't have the full Truth. If they've been properly baptized and believe in Christ, they are associated with the Church, but imperfectly.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This agrees with Catholic Answers article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-church-and-baptized-protestants&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is the relationship between the Church and baptized Protestants?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Full Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What relationship does the Catholic Church perceive to exist between&#xA;  itself and various Protestants (the baptized ones who still accept&#xA;  their faith)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Validly baptized Protestants are regarded as true Christian brothers&#xA;  and sisters who are in imperfect relationship with the Church. The&#xA;  nature of the imperfections is as varied as Protestantism itself. The&#xA;  idea at work here is that the faith is an incarnational thing, not&#xA;  just a &quot;spiritual&quot; (disembodied) thing—just like Jesus himself. Thus,&#xA;  it is possible to be out of union with the Church &quot;bodily&quot;&#xA;  (structurally, sacramentally, liturgically), yet still have a&#xA;  spiritual unity with the Church. Likewise, it is possible to be&#xA;  &quot;bodily&quot; united to the Church yet cease to be in communion with her&#xA;  spiritually (as an apostate Catholic is if he keeps going to Communion&#xA;  yet rejects the creed or continues unrepentant in grave sin). The&#xA;  latter form of disunity with Church is more serious than the former.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, from EWTN Global Catholic Network article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/dontbelieve.HTM&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Some Things That Catholics Do Not Believe&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (Item # 7):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Catholics do not believe that Protestants who are baptized, who lead a good life, love God and their neighbor, and are blamelessly&#xA;  ignorant of the just claims of the Catholic Religion to be the one&#xA;  true Religion (which is called being in good faith), are excluded from&#xA;  Heaven, provided they believe that there is one God in three Divine&#xA;  Persons; *that God will duly reward the good and punish the wicked;&#xA;  that Jesus Christ is the Son of God made man, who redeemed us, and in&#xA;  whom we must trust for our salvation; and provided they thoroughly&#xA;  repent of having ever, by their sins, offended God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Catholics hold that Protestants who have these dispositions, and who&#xA;  have no suspicion of their religion being false, and no means to&#xA;  discover, or fail in their honest endeavors to discover, the true&#xA;  Religion, and who are so disposed in their heart that they would at&#xA;  any cost embrace the Roman Catholic Religion if they knew it to be the&#xA;  true one, are Catholics in spirit and in some sense within the&#xA;  Catholic Church, without themselves knowing it. She holds that these&#xA;  Christians belong to, and are united to the &quot;soul,&quot; as it is called,&#xA;  of the Catholic Church, although they are not united to the visible&#xA;  body of the Church by external communion with her, and by the outward&#xA;  profession of her faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Very different is the case of a person who, having the opportunity,&#xA;  neglects to learn from genuine trustworthy sources what the Catholic&#xA;  Religion is and really teaches, fearing, that were he to become&#xA;  convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, he would be compelled by&#xA;  his conscience to forsake his own religion, and bear the worldly&#xA;  inconveniences attached to this step. This very fear shows a want of&#xA;  good faith, and that he is not in that insurmountable ignorance which&#xA;  could excuse him in the sight of God, nut that he is one of those of&#xA;  whom it is said in Psalm xxxv. 4, &quot;He would not understand that he&#xA;  might do well.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fairness, no less than common sense, teaches that a man should study&#xA;  and examine the teaching of the Catholic Church from Catholic sources&#xA;  before condemning her. Surely no man ought to reject Catholic doctrine&#xA;  if he has not made himself well acquainted with them. Nor is is fair&#xA;  to form a judgment from misrepresentations made by ill-informed,&#xA;  interested, or prejudiced persons; one should rather, by the study of&#xA;  authorized Catholic works, judge of the truth with that calm and&#xA;  unprejudiced mind which the all-important subject of Religion&#xA;  deserves. Thus having heard both sides, you will be in a state to pass&#xA;  a right judgment and not in danger of being misled by prejudice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our Saviour gave no hope of salvation to the Samaritan woman unless&#xA;  she entered the one true Church of the tine, saying to her who was&#xA;  destitute of a sure guide: &quot;You adore that which you know not; we&#xA;  adore that which we know; for SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS&quot;. (St John iv.&#xA;  22.) So likewise there is no salvation for any one who, having by God's grace come to the knowledge of the truth, obstinately refuses to&#xA;  join the true Church of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That third paragraph on, particularly the very last sentence, indicates to me that the hope of salvation for protestants doesn't extend to those that flat-out refuse to learn about what the Catholic Church really teaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2016-02-24T03:12:42.997" LastActivityDate="2016-02-24T03:12:42.997" CommentCount="19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12488" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-05T18:56:20.357" Score="4" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When I consider how my light is spent&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp; E're half my days, in this dark world and wide,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;  And that one Talent which is death to hide,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;  Lodg'd with me useless, though my Soul more bent&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To serve therewith my Maker, and present&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;  My true account, least he returning chide,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;  Doth God exact day-labour, light deny'd,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;  I fondly ask; But patience to prevent&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  That murmur, soon replies, God doth not need&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;  Either man's work or his own gifts, who best&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;  Bear his milde yoak, they serve him best, his State&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Is Kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;  And post o're Land and Ocean without rest:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;  They also serve who only stand and waite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Miton, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bartleby.com/101/318.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On His Blindness&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:16&lt;/a&gt;, NET.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The face meaning of the parable of the talents is surely &quot;Use what you have, don't bury it&quot; and Milton alludes to that in his sonnet. Milton is saying that God gave him gifts and now, due to blindness, he can't use them.  Someone like Jenkins would, it seems, be totally clueless why that would matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt; adherents say that actual good deeds don't matter (and sometimes, in extreme cases, &lt;a href=&quot;http://enterthejabberwock.com/2007/04/chick-dissection-flight-144/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;seem to strongly imply that doing good deeds is actually a bad thing&lt;/a&gt;), how do they interpret the parable of the talents?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Question inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/04/nra-feeling-bad/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a discussion of the &lt;em&gt;Left Behind&lt;/em&gt; books by Tim LaHay and Jerry Jenkins&lt;/a&gt;, both the main post by Fred Clark (which discusses how the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;sola fide&lt;/em&gt; affects the writing of the books), and the comment by Mary Kaye (which brings up the parable of the talents).)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-05T19:50:32.087" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T19:56:42.153" Title="How does one reconcile Sola Fide with the parable of the talents?" Tags="&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12488" CreationDate="2013-01-05T19:49:32.087" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sola Fide answers &quot;how do you get saved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The parable of the talents addresses, what is my reward, once I am saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the most Calvinistic sole ride adherent still believes that you should work for the kingdom. Whether or not you get to heaven may not be in your control, but how well you have pleased the Master once you are there most certainly is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The beauty of the parable of the talents is not that we can earn anything- indeed, it would be assumed that the Master could handle his own assets best of all. Rather, that we as servants of the most high have the privilege of participating in the work of Christ is pretty cool. True gratitude for the ability to do anything is evidenced by labor for the Kingdom. And again, that God would allow us to join Him in what we do is supposed to &quot;spur us on to good works.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does God need us? No more than a dad needs a toddler. Does anything we do make him love us more or less? NOt at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But God likes us and let's us try. How cool is that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-05T19:56:42.153" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T19:56:42.153" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12485" CreationDate="2013-01-05T19:51:04.300" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's funny to see that we all lack of information (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7953/are-catholics-like-pagans-in-evangelical-vision&quot;&gt;see my answer which asked exactly the opposite, that is to say if some protestant church believed that Catholics were pagans&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, reading the already mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/838.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 838&lt;/a&gt; and also other paragraphs, it's quite clear that Catholic church believes that everybody can find salvation if their heart sincerely searches for God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of&#xA;Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere&#xA;heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as&#xA;they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may&#xA;achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence if through your faith you sincerely search for God, you are saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be careful to some traps that we might fall in, like the one raised by the sentence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Outside the Church there is no salvation&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/846.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 846&lt;/a&gt; reveals the answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the&#xA;Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all&#xA;salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his&#xA;Body:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. &lt;strong&gt;Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last, bolded sentence, includes respect of God for our personality, thoughts, mentality. So if in your conscience you do not believe that the Catholic church is &amp;quot;founded as necessary by God through Christ&amp;quot;, then you are still in the position of searching God with a sincere Heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1257" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-02-23T01:35:55.540" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6588" CreationDate="2013-01-05T20:34:47.097" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well I know that the Gihon River is all gone but a little portion of it left is located in Ethiopia, Africa and the Gihon River used to flow down the middle of the Red Sea gowing through the Sinai Peninsula to the Mediterranean Sea and down through Ethiopia, Africa. The Pison River actually ran kind of east to west across Saudia Arabia from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf. The Pison runs smack down the middle of modern day Kuwait. and both the Hiddekel and the Euphrates both run through modern day Iraq but the Euphrates also goes through Syria but the Hiddekel goes through modern day Turkey. So the Garden of Eden is not in Iraq like they think it is. There is two possible places where the former location of Eden would be located either at the bottom of the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean Sea. And that is where I think it is located.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3712" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-08T18:19:56.357" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T18:19:56.357" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12492" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-05T20:44:27.710" Score="3" ViewCount="414" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, let me say that I'm Christian, and I regularly volunteer at Church. However, I have a question that I'd like some light shed on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity seems to value fairness and justness, but this question seems to oppose this, as, say in Muslim cultures, there is a much lower chance of becoming Christian than in more Christian environments.  Why would God put some people in a culture where the Gospel is readily available, and allow others to live in areas where it's harder, or impossible to hear?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems unfair for someone to not be able to get to heaven because of the culture they grew up in.  If they can't hear the Gospel message, and salvation is only applied to those that hear the Gospel message, that seems like an unfair situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a doctrinal teaching, or a standard apologetic answer to the question of the salvation of those that don't get the same chance to hear the gospel as others?  I'm looking primarily for a Protestant perspective, specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3713" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-07T18:50:02.040" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T18:50:02.040" Title="Why do people have different chances of becoming Christian?" Tags="&lt;justice&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12494" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-05T21:24:03.910" Score="1" ViewCount="107" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1824/who-saved-people-before-33ad&quot;&gt;Who saved people before ~33AD?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)&lt;/code&gt;. Did this apply before the birth of Christ? I've heard that Jews, before and after Christ, believe that the sacrificial lamb was taken literally. Essentially, was there any way of entrance to heaven before Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2177" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T04:50:28.440" Title="Did John 14:6 apply before the birth of Christ?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-01-07T09:43:53.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12463" CreationDate="2013-01-05T22:25:49.500" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chesterton always is talking about German philosophers he despises mainly Nietzsche, even if he doesn't name them.  He also routinely takes on his British contemporaries (and friends) spewing these same philosophies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you're right, he's not talking about George Bernard Shaw or H.G. Wells here.  He's talking about what he saw in British Churches in the early 20th century.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like to go back to what he says in Orthodoxy about Original Sin being the only provable doctrine.  I think what he's saying is that there's a good many Christians who don't think they need 'a washing.  Keep in mind the various ways Protestants and Catholics deal with post-baptismal sin and you'll see where I'm going.  The doctrine of original sin means that we've got a tendency to follow our passions and they will lead us astray.  Not all Christians believe this and a good many believe that if something feels good, that it's OK. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, to your point, who were these people &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R.J.Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, who is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_John_Campbell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;R.J. Campbell&lt;/a&gt;? Well, he's one of the progenitors of the New Theology Movement. And what is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/modernism/newtheo.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Theology Movement&lt;/a&gt;?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The New Theology is a false &quot;religious&quot; system that became popular among Catholics in Europe from the 1920s onward. Because it was recognized as resurgent modernism, it was kept under a lid by the Vatican and was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. Its primary founders were Maurice Blondel, Father Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar. It enjoys an undeserved popularity today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/modernism/newtheo.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Short Catechism on the New Theology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I love short Catechisms that get to the point. So, there was a movement somewhere within liberal Anglican and liberal Catholic circles to apply modernism to theology, which fortunately was quashed rather handily in , but unfortunately oozed out over the 20th century and beyond. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A theology based on Evolution would sincerely deny original sin, since it denies our first parents' existence.  That's one thing Catholics are not allowed to believe in regards to evolution&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, thanks for asking the question (it was fun to track down all those references, I usually just assume I'll never know who he's talking about) and keep reading Chesterton! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T22:25:49.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12444" CreationDate="2013-01-05T22:39:28.580" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scapular was given to St. Simon Stock, a Carmelite monk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the Mother of God appeared to Simon Stock with the scapular of the order in her hand. This scapular she gave him with the words: &quot;Hoc erit tibi et cunctis Carmelitis privilegium, in hoc habitu moriens salvabitur&quot; (This shall be the privilege for you and for all the Carmelites, that anyone dying in this habit shall be saved).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13800a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Simon Stock&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's essentially two small pieces of wool attached by two 18 inch cords with the words (in the vernacular) &quot;Whosoever dies wearing this scapular will not suffer eternal fire&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, I wear a scapular all the time, except when I take a shower and then I am very careful not to drop the soap.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to associate a theology with the scapular, then I guess it would have to be Carmelite spirituality which is austere, loving and personal.  St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross would be good starting points to know about Carmelite Spirituality.  St. Therese of Lisieux too, but she came along long after the first two and her words are, well they're just amazing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, I think the priest who answered my question you linked to gave a good explanation of what one needs to do in conjunction with the scapular.  It's a sacramental and a devotion.  It should be blessed by a priest and the prayers should be recited every night.  But it's not magic and by itself will not pull your soul out of hell.  I think it was made as a small mortification, which fits in excellently with St. Therese's little way.  It's two itchy spots on your chest and back that. If you've got a decision that makes you sweat a little, will pull you back in to reality.  It works a bit better than a WWJD bracelet, but in this sense is the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-01-05T22:39:28.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12498" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-05T22:56:36.353" Score="4" ViewCount="1381" Body="&lt;p&gt;When was &quot;time&quot; created in Genesis? Was it on &quot;day three&quot;, when day and night were created? Please present an overview of differing positions or at least the most common view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is from a literal perspective, where the 6-day Creation literally did happen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2010" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T00:08:04.100" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T00:08:04.100" Title="When was &quot;time&quot; created in Genesis?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;time&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12498" CreationDate="2013-01-05T23:02:35.030" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This can only be answered from a literalist Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) perspective, because to all other perspectives it's a moot point, so I'll answer from that viewpoint.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;I might as well throw in my usual disclaimer that I'm not debating whether the YEC view is true, this is just explaining the YEC view.  Such debates in comments are off-topic and not constructive per site guidelines, and not relevant to the question/answe at hand.  Even though I personally believe in the YEC view, I'm not defending it here, &lt;strong&gt;just explaining it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the definition of time, taken from Mirriam-Webster:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;b : a nonspatial continuum&#xA;  that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from&#xA;  past through present to future&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very first event was in &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:1 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was the first event.  The universe didn't exist at all before this point. At this point, the universe began, thus, at this  point, the continuum of events began.  By definition, this is when time began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 3 would mark the first normal, regular, repeatable events by which could &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;measure&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; time began, but time actually began with space and energy in Genesis 1:1, when God spoke the universe into existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is similar to the answer given on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/08/06/feedback-when-did-time-begin&quot;&gt;Answers in Genesis&lt;/a&gt; site - a Young-Earth Creation and apologetics organization:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although the argument is increasingly common, nowhere in the text does&#xA;  it say that time began on the fourth day. Instead, God made the sun,&#xA;  moon, and stars, which can be used to measure time. Time actually&#xA;  began &quot;in the beginning&quot; (Genesis 1:1), or else it would not have been&#xA;  &quot;the beginning,&quot; which is a time reference. In fact, &quot;day&quot; is a time&#xA;  reference, and there are three of those prior to day four.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revision of the first sentence:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer would also hold true for proponents of the gap theory, day-age theory, and others. The beginning is the beginning regardless of how long it's been since then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should probably be changed to &quot;This can only be answered from tho position that you believe the Genesis account to be true, because to those that don't it's a moot point.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-06T14:17:18.323" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T14:17:18.323" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12492" CreationDate="2013-01-06T01:03:52.180" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question has been asked since the Gospel has been revealed, and Christians have come up with many possible answers.  There's a list of them here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/salvation-christ-comparative-christian-views/13-those-who-have-never-heard-survey-major-pos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/salvation-christ-comparative-christian-views/13-those-who-have-never-heard-survey-major-pos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question is very similar to a question asked previously on this site:  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7323/what-of-all-those-who-just-dont-know/7367#7367&quot;&gt;What about all those who just don&amp;#39;t know?&lt;/a&gt;  but yours is slightly different. Instead of asking what happens to those people, you seem to be asking &quot;Why would God allow this?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To set where I'm going with this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The answer to &quot;What happens to them&quot; isn't agreed upon by everyone.  Some believe that they will be able to be saved based on obedience to their conscience, or via some other mechanism.  For the point of your question, however, those opinions don't matter because if they are saved, we don't have to ask why God would allow it.  So I assume, from the context of your question that you're in the &quot;They will not be saved&quot;camp.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The next question that follows in this line of thinking is &quot;How can a just God allow this?&quot;  Often this comes from those who are trying to prove that the Christian God is not just.  However, several answers have been given to that question.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;One&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of those answers is among the classic apologetic answers, that addresses your question specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 1 touches on the subject of whether or not we are held guilty if we've never heard the Gospel message.  It lays out a few truths:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God reveals Himself to us, and we are without excuse.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our ancestors had access to the truth of God, and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;chose&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to turn from them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:18. (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in&#xA;  unrighteousness; &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;19.&lt;/strong&gt; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;20.&lt;/strong&gt; For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even&#xA;  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;21.&lt;/strong&gt; Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and&#xA;  their foolish heart was darkened. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;22.&lt;/strong&gt; Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;23.&lt;/strong&gt; And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and&#xA;  creeping things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their unbelief and rebellion against God meant that their children, their children's children, and so on were not taught about God.  It's not His fault, it's theirs.  Because they chose to rebel when they knew the truth, and didn't teach their children, they doomed their children to not knowing the truth of God.  This is one reason that &lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 22:6&lt;/strong&gt; is important.  (Again, &lt;strong&gt;KJV&lt;/strong&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will&#xA;  not depart from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;Romans 2 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;11.&lt;/strong&gt; For there is no respect of persons with God.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;12.&lt;/strong&gt; For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by&#xA;  the law;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;13.&lt;/strong&gt; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;14.&lt;/strong&gt; For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law&#xA;  unto themselves:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;15.&lt;/strong&gt; Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while&#xA;  accusing or else excusing one another;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These peole fall into this category, not knowing about the Hebrew God, or Jesus as one who &quot;sinned without the Law&quot;, and Scripture here tells us that &quot;he shall perish without law&quot;. To those that believe they will perish, they will perish because he has sinned, and ignored the conscience that God has placed in each and every one of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in summary, the reason that some people live in areas where it's harder to hear the Gospel, it's because the people in those areas, or their ancestors chose to reject the Gospel and make it hard to have access to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T01:09:16.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8441" CreationDate="2013-01-06T01:59:50.243" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Arianism introduced the teaching that Christ possessed a &amp;quot;conditional deity&amp;quot; therefore His Deity was conferred or gifted by the only -wise God ( The Father ) so according to Arianism it was absolutely possible for 'The Christ' to sin and loose His 'conditional deity' thus resulting in His eternal annihilation by Ultimate God. The Seventh-day Adventists promulgate this very teaching &amp;amp; appeal to a couple texts that the uneducated understand support their position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, according to the Scriptures, knows the end from the beginning &amp;amp; explicitly revealed in the Scriptures what the end would be - the Prophets all did this clearly, God the Father, God the Son &amp;amp; God the Holy Spirit all said Salvation would NOT fail - God would come and God would save.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary foundation of Arianism is that Christ Incarnated with a &amp;quot;sin nature&amp;quot; and as such Christ yearned or longed to sin but because He trusted in His Father ( understood to be a literal Father ) and through reading the Scriptures and prayer He was able to resist His yearning desire to sin and therefore was able to stand as a proper sacrifice for sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only the Arian groups that exist today teach such things - such as the SDA's, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians - they claim that if Jesus couldn't have sinned and lost His own salvation then His coming was a farce and mockery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is absolutely a heretical teaching that must be avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was asked to add more information so that readers wouldn't think the above was a rant against Adventism [ Arianism ] ( which it's not ). I think we would all agree that people will generally believe what makes them feel good &amp;amp; this is the case with creating a belief system that allows for Jesus to have free will to include His ability to sin - again this is heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;1&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ was Eternally the Christ, the Lamb Slain from the Foundations of the world.&#xA;See: 1st Peter 1:19 ( it was foreknown INDEED that Christ would provide Salvation )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;2&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That God would come and God would save was stated repeatedly in the Old Covenant Scriptures.&#xA;See: Isaiah 14:25 - - Ps 33:11 - - - Job 36:5 - - Zeph 3:5 - - &amp;amp; nearly 100 others&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;3&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Peter in Acts 2:22 - 32 explictly states that David, being a prophet said that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; ( IMPOSSIBLE ) for death to hold Christ because he ( David ) was allowed to see the future, specifically the Resurrection of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;4&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that He &amp;quot;always&amp;quot; ( Eternally ) did the will of the Father.&#xA;See: John 6:38 &amp;amp; John 8:29.  We as Christians are called observe that even though Christ was God He didn't use that as an excuse to refuse to do the will of the Father, SEE: Phil 2: 5-10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In closing Jesus' free will WAS TO DO the Will of the Father and to please Him always.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3716" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T08:36:43.330" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12494" CreationDate="2013-01-06T04:50:28.440" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Enoch (Genesis 5) and Elijah (in 2 Kings 2) were both taken away by God and did not die.  Whether they went to &quot;heaven&quot; or not, they did go to God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus is fully God, and is outside time with God, then even before he was born a man and died on the cross for our sins, he was the way, the truth, and the life.  Why should God be limited by time, part of his creation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T04:50:28.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12504" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-06T05:13:46.637" Score="10" ViewCount="24603" Body="&lt;p&gt;For reference, this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2206/what-is-the-difference-between-mans-soul-and-spirit&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; asks whether there is a difference between the soul and spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that there is a difference between the two (i.e., that man's nature is &lt;em&gt;tripartite&lt;/em&gt;), and that your spirit is the heavenly nature of man, is the soul the same thing as mind, as in personality, temperance, intelligence, conciseness, etc.?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="951" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2015-12-30T21:00:38.913" Title="What is the difference between mind and soul (if any)" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;souls&gt;&lt;tripartite&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-03-05T16:33:32.377" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3069" CreationDate="2013-01-06T06:15:01.627" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard to answer while stuck in manmade-law, in end-time &quot;Babylon&quot; with secular govt (not to be obeyed*) ruled by phoney money loaned at interest from the Fed Res conspiracy creators: a kind of treadmill to keep most folks working (for Conspirators &amp;amp; game players), not freed, as was original Eden for Adamites (sons of God, Luke 3:23-38). Not all humans are Adamites (some are pre-Adamites Cain built a city of); or Satan's brood, Gen 3:15, the force at top of the Conspirators, and game-players. Jesus returns to impose his Order (Zech 14:9) over all Earth (Adamites rule other &quot;living&quot; as in Gen 1:26-28), with a (&quot;man's&quot;) Adamite's role set by how well he kept God's laws &amp;amp; prophecy orders, Mat 5:17-19. REWARDS to some for their great actions toward this! Rev 22:12. Grace will save (resurrect) called ones who at least recognize Jesus as KING and got baptized (if not tied on cross!), but rewards and your position in the Kingdom depend upon ACTIONS. (Don't &quot;rapture&quot;/&quot;grace&quot; yourself into conforming to world and doing nothing!) Leave Babylon! Seek its destruction Rev 18. We're to have OUR OWN COURTS: I Cor 6:1-6 logically of Bible Law (perfect Ps 19:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So &quot;higher powers&quot; to obey (incessantly misused Romans 13:1-2) are NOT MANMADE-LAW MEN, but Jesus and the Power (Father) descending from above in clouds (Mat 26:64) and his law! Heb 13:7 speaks of ones with rule over you - being ones who spoke God's Word! (not man's)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we are not to covet/steal what is our neighbor's - used to justify severe private property rights, patents, copyrights - at no time is CORPORATE LAW established by God for having any (often hidden) persons or cartel owning an artificial person (= corporation), contrary to God's order NOT to make stuff in likeness of what he made! Not only is it a technical violation of Second Commandment, but it allows non-Adamites to rule Adamites, and even Satan's brood to gain control, and enslave Adamites - as warned. Our world now! See?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oddly, after Jesus ascended, as a model for our end-time stuggle, the Holy Ghost instructed Christ's folks (told to get out of Babylon in end of end time, Rev 18) to live together as a brotherhood; own all things in common. Act 4:31-5:20 [Vastly different from 1917 Marxism, a Conspirator's scam for a small related group to rule all others with the excuse it would be paradise. Study Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein) got vast funds &amp;amp; guns from Rothschild banker Warburg to push revolution ostensibly for workers. Trotsky was in cahoots with cabal of hundreds who were inner circle of USSR power enslaving others in humanist Marx's name.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now we really are in end of end-times. Time to depart Babylon, set up godly communities, courts &amp;amp; defenders; live in close-knit ethnos brotherhoods of Bible Law. In that grouping is no use for patents or copyrights to become personally/corporately rich. Do do research, create POWERFUL technologies to be free of paper $ economy and stop manmade regime force. Write great things and give it freely! Make music/film to teach our folks the way (freely)! If enemies of God oppose us, and then get pushed out of your area. What of their stuff? Mechizedek got a tithe of what Abraham took from God's enemies (Gen 14); he's like a separatist group's leader. Form brotherhoods. Act. Get rewards. Vast media networks pander to advertisers of lies to bewitch/enslave us. Do they have a right to this &quot;private&quot; stuff?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3718" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T06:15:01.627" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12504" CreationDate="2013-01-06T07:27:03.857" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We tend to think of the soul as the eternal part of a person, as opposed to his temporal part:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 10:28&lt;/strong&gt; (NET)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The explanation is to be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1992/92jan3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this Free Grace article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As a matter of fact,the Greek word psyche,here translated soul,has within its fields of meaning both life and person (see The GES News,Dec 91,p 2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1991/91dec2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For example,the Lord Jesus said,&quot;The Son of Man did not come to be served,but to serve,and to give His life [Gk psyche] a ransom for many&quot; (Matt 20:28). Clearly Jesus Christ did not give up His eternal soul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article was written to  refute the view that good works saved the believer's soul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 1:21 NET&lt;/strong&gt; So put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the message implanted within you, which is able to save your souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wilkins, author of the article, wished to show that &quot;save your soul&quot; could mean &quot;preserve your life&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The categories to differentiate between are spirit and soul . Some explain the first as what you have, the last as what you are. IOW, God could reward you for having a beautiful soul, character, but not for having a long life (long being the desirable quality in generic lives), since it is what He Himself gives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, the mind is what He gives, but the soul is what you make of Life, when used to mean person. It could also be  what God preserves, when used to mean  life opportunity, permission to continue living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2013-01-17T06:40:46.217" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T06:40:46.217" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12504" CreationDate="2013-01-06T07:43:24.823" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you do an in depth study of the the Greek on 'soul' and 'spirit' they are essentially the same thing. However they are different is that one is viewed heavenward, and one earthward. The soul is the essential life of man ‘looking earthward’ and the ‘spirit’ that same principle of life breathed (like wind) into man from God, that can look towards and experience God.   I say 'can look' because the whole spirit/soul, including mind, emotions and will, the higher, as well as lower powers of our nature, are the seat and subject of original sin. The 'natural man' is thereby disabled and made opposite to all spiritual good. Consequently the conflict of which the Scriptures speak between the higher and lower powers of nature,—is between nature and what is not nature, between the old and new man. The new principle is something supernatural communicated by the Spirit of God. The new man is called spiritual rather than soul-ual, because it is the essential nature of man looking heaven ward called 'spirit'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see these ideas at work in this passage.  Just as the soul 'thinks' so the spirit 'thinks'. That is, mind is both representative of the soul and the spirit as part of our essential life.  The spirit is not of a different nature of the soul, the are the same, only under a different perspective.  Only your spirit/soul knows your thoughts. Also receiving the Spirit of Christ is the same as receiving the mind of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For who knows a person 's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.&#xA;   The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “ For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:11-16, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a deeper analysis of the subject one can refer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8847/trichotomous-vs-dichotomous-views-of-man/8887#8887&quot;&gt;trichotomous versus dichotomous views of man.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T07:43:24.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12469" CreationDate="2013-01-06T14:27:02.380" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt; biblical argument against Papal succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The authority of Peter to govern the Church is based on the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. [NIV]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other verses point to Christ's headship and the common work of all the apostles, as in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:4–6, Rev 21:14 [all NIV]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For no-one can lay any foundation other the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you come to him, the living Stone — rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him — you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says, &amp;quot;See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The walls of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These all point to the basis of the Church's faith being faith in Christ, and the contribution of all the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, the dominical words which set Peter up as &lt;strong&gt;the rock on which the &lt;em&gt;earthly&lt;/em&gt; church stands,&lt;/strong&gt; and who has the power and authority to bind and loose on earth what is bound and loosed in heaven, remain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as shown by their writings&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19] ... What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon &lt;em&gt;you,&lt;/em&gt; he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; the keys. (Tertullian, &lt;em&gt;Modesty&lt;/em&gt; 21:9–10, AD220)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]. (Origen, &lt;em&gt;Homilies on Exodus&lt;/em&gt; 5:4, AD248)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and thata one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (Cyprian of Carthage, &lt;em&gt;Letters&lt;/em&gt; 43[40]:5, AD253)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. (Optatus, &lt;em&gt;The Schism of the Donatists&lt;/em&gt; 2:2, AD367)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’. (Council of Ephesus, &lt;em&gt;Acts of the Council&lt;/em&gt;, session 3, AD431)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate. (Council of Chalcedon, &lt;em&gt;Acts of the Council&lt;/em&gt;, session 3, AD451).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last two quotes, from pre-Schism Ecumenical Councils, are significant. The New Testament canon was fixed between AD367 and 405&lt;sup&gt;[2]&lt;/sup&gt;, so the Councils in 431 and 451 would have been particularly aware of what was biblical and what was not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chalcedon calls Leo the Great &amp;quot;most holy and blessed, archbishop of the great and elder Rome,&amp;quot; and lists no other members of the Council in that snippet; this puts the Pope in a position of authority. Ephesus arguably went further, agreeing that &amp;quot;Peter, head of the apostles, even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the early Church prior to the Great Schism agrees that Peter's authority subsists in his successors in Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of this denies the trouble which led to the Great Schism and the Reformation; it seeks to answer the question as stated, &amp;quot;What is the biblical argument against Papal Succession?&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;There is none.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T14:36:26.513" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12469" CreationDate="2013-01-06T15:30:44.310" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I could get nothing as such that could be treated as against the  Papal Succession in Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this, the presence of many verses and references in the New Testament indicates that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13).  Sometimes the apostles were referred to as &quot;Peter and those who were with him (Luke 9:32). Peter was one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41 John 6:68-69) and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt 14:28-32, 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On the Pentecost it was Peter who first preached the crowds (Acts 2:14-40). He worked the first healing in the Church Age (Acts 3:1-7). It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:31-32).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15: 7-11). It was Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptised and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the contrary groups without such a doctrine, display a wide variety of different doctrines and this stems from the doctrine of private judgement, which denies the  infallible authority of the Church and claim that each individual is to interpret the scripture for himself which is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20. The doctrine of private judgement has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to the Christian Source book, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with hundreds new ones being formed each year and virtually all of them are Protestant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-01-07T05:03:08.080" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T05:03:08.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12510" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12526" CreationDate="2013-01-06T18:05:26.030" Score="4" ViewCount="3733" Body="&lt;p&gt;The angel of the Lord only spoke to Zechariah about the name of the child to be born. How did she know about the name? Did the Lord reveal this to her or her husband told her? How she know what the baby should be named?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;59 On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were&#xA;  going to name him after his father Zechariah,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  60 &lt;strong&gt;but his mother spoke&#xA;  up and said&lt;/strong&gt;, “No! He is to be called John.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;61 They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who has&#xA;  that name.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;62 Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like&#xA;  to name the child. 63 He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s&#xA;  astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-07T17:53:39.080" LastActivityDate="2016-12-11T13:53:05.923" Title="How did Elizabeth know the name was &quot;John&quot;" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12511" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12512" CreationDate="2013-01-06T18:22:22.497" Score="4" ViewCount="86187" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Revelation 5:11, there are many:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, &lt;strong&gt;numbering&#xA;  thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand&lt;/strong&gt;. They&#xA;  encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. &#xA;  12 In a&#xA;  loud voice they were saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,&#xA;      to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength&#xA;      and honor and glory and praise!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any doctrines that document/describ how many angels God would have? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are they more than us?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If they are these many, why are there that many? Does it have to be in proportion to God's creations? Is it because of division of labour?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-01-06T23:28:57.297" LastActivityDate="2014-08-21T05:47:37.890" Title="How many are there of God's angels?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12511" CreationDate="2013-01-06T19:48:49.377" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;None of the major branches do. All they say is that it is a large number, and most say that there are more than all humans who have ever existed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t005.html#3&quot;&gt;A Protestant view&lt;/a&gt;: (Drawing from Scripture only)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While the Scriptures give no definite figures, we are told that the&#xA;  number of angels is very great (Daniel 7:10; Matthew 26:53; Hebrews&#xA;  12:22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It appears that all angels were created at one time. No new angels are&#xA;  being added to the number. Angels are not subject to death or any form&#xA;  of extinction; therefore they do not decrease in number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It seems reasonable to conclude that there are at least as many spirit&#xA;  beings in existence as there will have been human beings in all their&#xA;  history on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Author: Dr. Paul Eymann.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm&quot;&gt;A Catholic view&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The number of the angels is frequently stated as prodigious (Daniel&#xA;  7:10; Apocalypse 5:11; Psalm 67:18; Matthew 26:53). From the use of&#xA;  the word host (sabaoth) as a synonym for the heavenly army it is hard&#xA;  to resist the impression that the term &quot;Lord of Hosts&quot; refers to God's&#xA;  Supreme command of the angelic multitude (cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; 32:43;&#xA;  Septuagint). The Fathers see a reference to the relative numbers of&#xA;  men and angels in the parable of the hundred sheep (Luke 15:1-3),&#xA;  though this may seem fanciful. The Scholastics, again, following the&#xA;  treatise &quot;De Coelesti Hierarchia&quot; of St. Denis, regard the&#xA;  preponderance of numbers as a necessary perfection of the angelic host&#xA;  (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica I:1:3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/angels2.aspx&quot;&gt;An Orthodox view&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes: &quot;Imagine how great in number is the&#xA;  Roman people, imagine how great in number are the other barbarian&#xA;  peoples that now exist, and how many must have died even! In a&#xA;  century, imagine how many have been buried in a thousand years,&#xA;  imagine all mankind, from Adam to the present day. Great is their&#xA;  multitude, but it is small in comparison with the angels, whose&#xA;  numbers are greater. They are the ninety-nine sheep, whereas the human&#xA;  race is the one lost sheep. By the greatness of a place one can judge&#xA;  the numbers of those who dwell in it. The earth we inhabit is a mere&#xA;  dot in the heavens, thus the heaven that surrounds it must have a much&#xA;  greater number of inhabitants. As is has greater space, the heavens of&#xA;  heavens hold their innumerable number. If it is written that 'a&#xA;  thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousands of myriads&#xA;  attended upon Him' this is only because the prophet could express no&#xA;  greater number.&quot; When the numbers of the angels are so great, it is&#xA;  natural to assume that in their world, as in the material: world,&#xA;  there are various degrees of perfections and therefore various ranks&#xA;  or a hierarchy of the heavenly powers. Thus Holy Scripture calls some&#xA;  angels and others archangels (I Thess. 4:16, Jude v. 9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a great many teachings of the number of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;types&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  or &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;ranks&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of angels, but no serious writings about the population count.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there may be smaller groups within Christianity that try to pin a number on it, but most of Christianity would discount any such attempt the same way we'd discount all of the various attempts to set a date of the second coming.  It wouldn't be accepted by Christianity as a whole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only exception I can think of - the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; group within Christianity that puts an actual number to it is the group of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism&quot;&gt;&quot;Christian Atheists&quot;&lt;/a&gt; that discount all supernatural altogether.  Those in that group probably put the number at zero.  But that is a small group that does not represent any of the major denominations or teachings (nor do they believe in them except, perhaps, the moral ones they agree with).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-06T19:55:25.493" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T19:55:25.493" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12513" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-06T20:03:43.960" Score="6" ViewCount="890" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did Onesimus feel an obligation to return to be a slave? This seems rather counter-intuitive to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of Faith, I can't see the difference between human master and human slave.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of Secular, Onesimus managed to escape the existing system.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of Morality, Onesimus broke an unjust law of humankind.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, what was Onesimus's reason for returning to be a slave?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2079" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2013-01-07T14:11:08.913" LastActivityDate="2014-10-08T17:37:47.273" Title="Why did Onesimus return to be a slave?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12513" CreationDate="2013-01-06T20:56:54.580" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to start by remembering that in the society of 50AD, slavery was considered an absolutely normal and proper part of society. To suggest in those days that slavery should be abolished would be the equivalent of proposing today that money and wealth should be abolished, or that eating meat was immoral. So your claim that &quot;Onesimus broke a unjust law of humankind&quot; would simply not have been understood by those of the time - certainly by non-Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly it has always been a principle that Christians should obey, except in exceptional circumstances, the law of the land. If the government says they should pay taxes, they should pay taxes. If the government says they should keep off the roads at night, they should keep off the roads at night. So in essence Onesimus has an obligation under the law to return to Philemon, and Paul sends him back to fulfil that obligation. 'Escaping' doesn't free him from that obligation, any more than getting away with a robbery entitles someone to keep the proceeds. Moreover, because Philemon is also a Christian, Onesimus is in effect stealing from a fellow-Christian if he doesn't return. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However there is much more to the book of Philemon than that. Paul makes a great deal of pointing out to Philemon the new relationship between him and Onesimus: as you put it, there being in Christ &quot;no difference between human master and human slave&quot;. He strongly hints without ever expressly commanding it, that Philemon should free Onesimus because of this. He hints rather than commands because he realizes that Philemon is fully entitled to keep and punish Onesimus, and he wants Philemon to &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; do this of his own free will, not because he has been told to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We will never of course be sure that Philemon followed through with this, but I personally like to think so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-04-14T03:04:00.027" LastActivityDate="2014-04-14T03:04:00.027" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12239" CreationDate="2013-01-06T21:45:10.620" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just noticed this during Mass today (Feast of the Epiphany). After the gospel is read, the proclamation of dates for the movable feasts can be read &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/christmas/announcement-of-easter-and-the-moveable-feasts.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/christmas/announcement-of-easter-and-the-moveable-feasts.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, We Three Kings, although often thought of as a Christmas hymn is really the only popular English Epiphany hymn that I know of. And that event may have taken place 2 years after Jesus' birth for all we know. Anyway, it's a pretty good bridge for the end of the Christmas season to the beginning of Lent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and nobody but Lew Wallace is still thinking about the three kings when Lent comes around. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T21:45:10.620" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12492" CreationDate="2013-01-06T22:38:42.460" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It doesn't matter whether some have a greater chance than others, as long as the chance for everyone is &lt;em&gt;sufficient&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- His eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, &lt;strong&gt;so that men are without excuse&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 1:20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-06T22:38:42.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12510" CreationDate="2013-01-07T02:03:16.497" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The text doesn't say directly, so there is no certain answer. It's likely that Zechariah  communicated the name in some other fashion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-07T15:48:17.593" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T15:48:17.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12492" CreationDate="2013-01-07T02:09:52.147" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Reformed take on the answer is that no one becomes a believer by chance, but rather by divine election whereby God utilizes someone to preach the gospel to sinners, and causes the sinner to be regenerated (born-again), such that they receive the gospel as good news and believe in Jesus, and thus receive forgiveness of sins on account of Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T02:09:52.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12520" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12525" CreationDate="2013-01-07T04:18:55.613" Score="6" ViewCount="222" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Raymundi Martini's &lt;em&gt;Pugio Fidei&lt;/em&gt;, there is a section entitled, &lt;em&gt;De Consistorio&lt;/em&gt;. While it seems he is using it in reference to Judaism, it also appears there is an equivalent in Catholicism. So, what is a &lt;em&gt;Constitorio&lt;/em&gt; (Consistory) in Catholicism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-01-26T20:56:57.220" LastActivityDate="2016-12-12T13:11:33.637" Title="What is a Consistory?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12521" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13740" CreationDate="2013-01-07T07:03:48.320" Score="5" ViewCount="329" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism&quot;&gt;preterists&lt;/a&gt; (full or partial) hold to the two-age model of eschatology (the Jewish age ended in 70 A.D., ushering in the Gentile age). How do preterists reconcile this perspective with Jesus' promise in Matthew 28:20 that He will be with Christians &quot;all the days until the completion of the age&quot; (literal translation). Does that mean that Jesus is no longer with us since the age to which He was referring has ended from a preterist perspective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2017-01-24T13:41:53.527" Title="Do preterists who profess the two-age model believe that Jesus is still with us?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12492" CreationDate="2013-01-07T14:13:22.550" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is true that none are without excuse and it is true that before the foundations of the world God chose who would inherit salvation, but he locked up much of his methods in managing the universe to his planned ends under a mystery. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With many subjects, especially those that involve God's all powerful, all knowing and all wise management of the universe, we must start by acknowledging that we would not be able to comprehend how God will absolutely ensure all are judged righteously, and why he seems to give every opportunity to some and none to others, even if God explained it to us.  We only know that he is just, loving and his ways perfect and past finding out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, starting from the standpoint of 'trust' we can believe that he loves the world and he can save any he chooses, just as easily for those with seemingly no chance as those with many opportunity.  The world has a gradient of gospel light shining in it, some are raised up in homes in godly families where the gospel shines every day and some have as little light as many living three thousand years before Christ in a tribe far from Gods people.  Yet it does not matter.  As God is infinite he can reach anyone at any point in history, anywhere in the world equally.  &lt;strong&gt;It only seems like some have more opportunity than others.  God's infinite power in reaching the lost with the weakest means equals the playing field.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing we know for certain is that he has chosen to save people only one way, faith in Christ alone.  He also has chosen to reach the elect by delegating some of the outreach to his church.  Of course where they might failI, he is strong enough to pick up the slack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems hard to imagine how someone who has never heard of Jesus could have faith in him. But with God everything is possible and he is closer to us than our own breath.  The Spirit is referred to as a wind as it blows into the lungs of every creature.  The gospel actually cries out on every corner, of every street. Yet wicked men are so blind that they pay no attention even when it is put before their eyes.  We we all at one time wicked in this way, but God plucked us out of the fire by his mighty hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T14:13:22.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12520" CreationDate="2013-01-07T15:24:51.320" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I looked this up on Google Books - &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=jwI-AAAAcAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pugio fidei&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, page 14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This section comes from the introduction written by Joseph de Voisin, the editor. It is one of a series of notes that touch on the major points of Jewish law, with the overall aim of equipping the reader (presumed to be a Catholic preacher wanting to convert Jewish people) with an understanding of Jewish tradition and of how the Catholic faith could be best described in relation to it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The section &lt;em&gt;De consistorio&lt;/em&gt; is about the Sanhedrin - principally the &quot;Great Sanhedrin&quot; of 71 judges, deriving from the council instituted by Moses (Numbers 11). It simply describes the nature and procedure of the original Sanhedrin, with reference to Jewish texts such as the Mishneh Torah. The authority of the Sanhedrin to expound and interpret the written and oral Law, and its succession from the days of Moses, is traced forward to the Catholic Church and the Pope in a later section (titled &lt;em&gt;Traditiones legis Christi conformes sunt Antiquae, et legitimae Synagogae traditionibus&lt;/em&gt;, p144). The idea is that if you accept the role and succession of the Sanhedrin, then you cannot reject out of hand the similar magisterial authority and apostolic succession of the Church and her Pope. They interpret tradition and execute judgements in the same way, and the Old Testament priesthood prefigures that of the New.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;consistory&quot; is used in Catholicism to mean &quot;the ecclesiastical senate in which the Pope, presiding over the whole body of Cardinals, deliberates upon the affairs of the church&quot; (OED), or &quot;the assemblage of the Cardinals in council around the Pope&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04285a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;letter of Innocent III quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;), or a specific meeting of this body. The Church regularly holds consistories. The most familiar kind is for creating new cardinals - see for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2012/documents/ns_lit_doc_20121124_index-concistoro_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the official information about one in November 2012&lt;/a&gt;. Other meetings may be held for private consultation. The earliest known document to relate this body to the assembly of Moses is a constitution of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_VIII&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pope John VIII&lt;/a&gt; (872-882), &lt;em&gt;De jure cardinalium&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, in the main text by Raymond, he argues (&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=jwI-AAAAcAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA250&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;part 2, chapter 4&lt;/a&gt;) that the coming of the Messiah is related to the meeting-place of the Sanhedrin, the &quot;Chamber of Hewn Stone&quot; (&lt;em&gt;camera dolata&lt;/em&gt;). This is attributed to Jewish tradition regarding Genesis 49:10, &quot;The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes&quot;. According to this idea, the exile of the Sanhedrin from that chamber (forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple) was linked to their inability to inflict capital punishment, and was a signifier of the coming Messiah. This matches the New Testament account, where Jesus had to be handed over to the Romans for crucifixion, about forty years before the Temple was destroyed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Reference: &lt;em&gt;Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Reponse&lt;/em&gt;. Robert Chazan. University of California Press, 1989. Chapter 7 discusses the &lt;em&gt;Pugio fidei&lt;/em&gt; and its Sanhedrin-Messiah connection.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &quot;Quippe cum sicut nostram mansuetudinem Moysi, ita et vestram fraternitatem septuaginta seniorum, qui sub eodem causarum negotia dijudicabant, vicissitudinem gerere, certum habeamus.&quot; &lt;em&gt;De jure cardinalium&lt;/em&gt;, in Migne's &lt;em&gt;Patrologia Latina&lt;/em&gt; vol 126, John VIII &lt;em&gt;Epistolae et decreta&lt;/em&gt; no. 346.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-01-26T20:24:49.327" LastActivityDate="2013-01-26T20:24:49.327" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12510" CreationDate="2013-01-07T16:18:02.667" Score="10" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like&#xA;  to name the child. He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone's&#xA;  astonishment he wrote, &quot;His name is John.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He had all the time prior to this to write it out to her. That is most likely how he would have communicated it to her. Zechariah writing here is just to show everyone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3724" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-01-07T17:46:49.520" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T17:46:49.520" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12528" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-07T18:10:46.387" Score="15" ViewCount="334" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do Catholics view personal scripture study? Are members of the congregation encouraged to do any studying at home?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3726" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T05:23:21.230" Title="Are today's Catholics encouraged to study the Bible at home?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12528" CreationDate="2013-01-07T19:53:30.913" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is yes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian&#xA;  faithful... to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,’ by&#xA;  frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the&#xA;  Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=11-chapter2.xhtml%23para133&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 133&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church offers some strategies and practices for getting more out of scripture as well. One of note is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_Divina&quot;&gt;Lectio Divina&lt;/a&gt;, a pretty old approach in which you are encouraged to approach a passage like so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read it.&lt;/strong&gt; A fairly obvious step. You read the selected passage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Meditate.&lt;/strong&gt; Ponder the Living Word, trusting the Holy Spirit to guide you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pray.&lt;/strong&gt; Speak with God about the passage.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Contemplate.&lt;/strong&gt; Sit in silent, loving attentiveness to the Word of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T19:53:30.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12532" CreationDate="2013-01-07T20:41:37.320" Score="5" ViewCount="444" Body="&lt;p&gt;If somebody &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) has no access to the Bible or any other written document on the Christ&#xA;and b) has no chance of hearing of &quot;him&quot; through the word of mouth either (because he lives in a culture that has no knowledge of the Christ, for instance), could he still &quot;find the Christ&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Christian denomination that would say &quot;&lt;em&gt;yes&lt;/em&gt;&quot; and &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; such a person could &quot;find the Christ&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2010" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-01-07T21:13:47.437" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T02:31:05.250" Title="Somebody was born into a culture that has no knowledge of the Christ - could he still &quot;find him&quot;?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;culture&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12530" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:20:38.810" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In reality it is very hard to imagine circumstances in which someone would have no chance of hearing about Jesus. Living in a non-Christian culture certainly makes it harder, but it would have to be a very strange and isolated culture where there was no chance at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are Christians in virtually every country in the world - and its only a lack of definite information that stops me from saying &quot;every country&quot;. Even countries where Christianity is forbidden or persecuted have Christian communities in secret or semi-secret. There are people who carry out evangelism in places where evangelism is forbidden. In addition there are Christian radio stations that broadcast into places where literature and missionary work are forbidden. The only case where this might be true is a remote tribe entirely isolated from the developed world. There are very few of them - and by definition we don't know about them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in short, the situation your propose is entirely theoretical. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are asking if someone who has never heard of Jesus can be saved, that's an entirely different question (the short answer is 'yes', but I'll let you ask it elsewhere for a more detailed answer)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T21:20:38.810" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12530" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:36:37.243" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible seems to suggest that anyone who sincerely seeks God will find Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your&#xA;  heart.  Jeremiah 29:13 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though this particular verse was written to a particular people, the principle could, perhaps, apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very real way that God has and continues to respond to people in remote tribes who are seeking Him is the sending of missionaries.  In his book, &lt;em&gt;Eternity in Their Hearts&lt;/em&gt;, Don Richardson records actual occurrences where this has happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if this response from God is not excluded, then the answer is a definite &quot;Yes, a person who has no access to the Bible or other Christians can still find Christ if he seeks God, because God can answer his seeking by sending him what he did not originally have.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, however, this means of &lt;em&gt;finding Christ&lt;/em&gt; is excluded, then the answer is &lt;em&gt;definitely&lt;/em&gt;, &quot;Maybe&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past decades, Jesus has been revealing Himself to Muslims at an alarming rate through dreams and visions, even the heart of Islam where Christianity does not even exist and no Bible is available.  (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1414337205&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Which None Can Shut&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/8889127384&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Miracles Among Muslims&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0849947200&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dreams and Visions: Is Jesus Awakening the Muslim World&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0800793242&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I Dared to Call Him Father&lt;/a&gt;, to name a few).  When these people experienced these dreams and visions, some of whom completely hated Christianity, they went in search of Jesus and found Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in these cases, people were not living in a remote tribe, but were, in fact, living in places where there were no Christians and no Bibles, yet they still found Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those people living in remote tribes, it is, perhaps, possible that Jesus could appear to them in similar fashion.  We just can't know for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T21:36:37.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12530" CreationDate="2013-01-07T21:46:23.097" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mormons would be one to say yes. According to LDS belief, any who die without a complete or necessary knowledge of Jesus will be taught about Him in the Spirit World after this life, where they may choose to accept or reject the gospel. (This is why they build temples: to redeem the living &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the dead.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a related note, they also believe that Christ came to more than just the Jews as in the Biblical record, citing John 10:16 and the Book of Mormon, indicating that there may be more people who know of Christ than we think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-01-07T23:49:21.463" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T23:49:21.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12534" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-07T23:03:20.643" Score="9" ViewCount="30632" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been comparing the same events written across different gospels recently, and although I was aware of the differences between the gospel accounts of Jesus's very last moments before death I really was stuck when I started to look at them in depth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark and Mathew are very similar, though once you get to Luke, then John seem to diverge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 15:33-37&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).&#xA;  When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”&#xA;  Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.&#xA;  With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:45-50&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).&#xA;  When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”&#xA;  Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”&#xA;  And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 23:44-46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 19:28:-29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its easy to reconcile many events in the gospels using telescoping (they just skipped over large sections of time, without mention) but here they are talking about such discrete moment in time that its hard to use that explanation. Also, there is a clear cause and effect sequence, especial with Luke (&quot;When he had said this...&quot;) and John (&quot;With that...&quot;), its hard to reconcile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there an answer other than at least two gospel writers just got it wrong? Or they weren't reporting on Jesus's actually words but only making theological points? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And a secondary question is, if presumably Luke had a copy of Mark when he was writing and perhaps a copy of Matthew as well, then why would he deviate when it was right in front of him? And of course John may or may not have had a copy of any of the others in front of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-01-08T19:47:48.460" LastActivityDate="2014-04-21T01:19:39.353" Title="What were Jesus's last words on the cross?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;cross&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12535" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12538" CreationDate="2013-01-07T23:06:30.313" Score="6" ViewCount="494" Body="&lt;p&gt;So after reading the comments &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8552/770&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. I got curious. I see non-mormons citing the Journal of discourses all the time, but have never heard a mormon cite them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; tells me where they come from and what they are, but why do modern mormons not use them and not consider them scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2017-02-28T05:33:59.247" Title="What are the Journal of Discourses viewed as?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12536" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12545" CreationDate="2013-01-07T23:09:02.823" Score="3" ViewCount="774" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was recently reading &quot;Hostage to the Devil&quot; by Malachi Martin, and starting thinking about demonic possession and exorcisms. Naturally, when I thought about exorcisms the movie &quot;The Exorcist&quot; popped up. And then it struck me that &quot;The Exorcist&quot; and the book I was reading were both based on Catholic Exorcisms. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Catholicism, we believe that during an exorcism, the exorcist (highly trained priest specifically for exorcisms) is actually battling the demon. There are certain prayers that go with it and there is a structure to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions is basically, are there any Christian denominations that do not believe in possessions/exorcisms, if not, then are there some that take it only as a very lose possession (a demon made me do it, but it's gone now)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T06:51:33.390" Title="Are there any Christian denominations that do not believe in Exorcisms?" Tags="&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12537" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-07T23:15:41.407" Score="18" ViewCount="17101" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two thing stick out to me in the gospel accounts of Jesus on the Cross:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 15:27-32&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!” In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 23:39-43&lt;/a&gt; One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Were those that were crucified with him 'rebels' or 'criminals'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why does Mark mention that there were two rebels, both of whom were presumably insulting him &amp;quot;Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him&amp;quot;, whereas Luke has one criminal insulting him and the other recognizing his innocence and mission?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-10-23T14:10:10.060" Title="Why were both criminals that were crucified with Jesus abusing him in Mark, and not in Luke?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;thief-on-the-cross&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12535" CreationDate="2013-01-07T23:27:10.117" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article actually covers the answer to this fairly well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early&#xA;  years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published.  ...&#xA;  Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions.&#xA;  Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the&#xA;  accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been&#xA;  documented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For perspective, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Record_Keeping&quot;&gt;the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Record Keeping&lt;/a&gt;.  Among Latter-Day Saints, anything that was not properly recorded is not considered &quot;official&quot;, in order to prevent confusion resulting from inaccurate records.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sermons from the Journal of Discourses were written down unofficially by people in attendance when they were given, and in the absence of modern recording technologies, they were generally transcribed while they were being delivered, in some form of shorthand.  Obviously, this is not an optimal set of conditions for preserving accuracy, especially as it was common practice during those days to throw away the shorthand notes once they had been &quot;decompressed&quot; into longhand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This allows for two places in which transcription errors can enter the material, with no way to verify their accuracy later.  It's not surprising, then, that &quot;some significant mistakes have been documented&quot; in the final product.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, the works preserved in the volumes of the Journal of Discourses, as interesting and historically valuable as they may be, cannot be considered canonical by the Latter-Day Saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-01-07T23:27:10.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12539" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-07T23:45:29.550" Score="3" ViewCount="1876" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've dug up at least one reference that may be a candidate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+6%3A21-23&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 6:21-23&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth. They shall lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of Zion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard some say this verse is talking about the nation of Russia rising against Israel, and that the 'great nation' that is 'raised from the sides of the earth' is a allusion to the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any other verses that people have cited as evidence the USA is mentioned in the Bible?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there anyone (denominations/prominent individuals) who believes that the USA is mentioned in the Bible?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What are the arguments for or against this reference (or any other)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-01-08T18:22:32.433" LastActivityDate="2017-05-18T12:43:13.607" Title="Is the USA mentioned in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12539" CreationDate="2013-01-08T00:47:26.553" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passage is most likely referring to the nation of Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per ESV Study Bible Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jer. 6:22–23 great nation. Babylon. the farthest parts of the earth. Babylon’s army had outposts all over the ancient world. This army has no mercy; its horses are so numerous that their thundering hoofs sound like the roaring sea (4:13, 29).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T00:47:26.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12530" CreationDate="2013-01-08T01:03:24.933" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Molinism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One view not mentioned here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;molinism&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under this theory of divine providence, God, through his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;middle knowledge&lt;/a&gt; (God's knowledge of the results of everyone's free choices, in all possible worlds), knows everyone who would free choose Christ given the choice. God, knowing what people would freely choose, arranged creation such that those who would choose Christ were placed in a circumstances that they would hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not my personal view, but an interesting one none the less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T01:03:24.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12534" CreationDate="2013-01-08T02:04:05.273" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see how to answer this without copying and pasting the entire resolution from the other site, but in summary, each person documented what they heard, and in total we can deduce what he actually said, which is, all in a loud voice, &quot;My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?&quot;, then &quot;Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:&quot;and finally, &quot;It is finished:&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an apologetics site dedicated to showing possible resolutions to Bible discrepancies:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php#17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php#17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, John was nearer to the cross and probably heard things the&#xA;  others didn't. John is referred to in scripture as the disciple that&#xA;  Jesus loved (John 13:23). Notice he is mentioned as being near the&#xA;  cross of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 19:25  Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's&#xA;  sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw&#xA;  his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he&#xA;  said to his mother, &quot;Dear woman, here is your son,&quot; and to the&#xA;  disciple, &quot;Here is your mother.&quot; From that time on, this disciple took&#xA;  her into his home.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Notice, in the verse above, Jesus is speaking only to Mary and John&#xA;  who are directly below the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When John recounts the events at the cross, he's focusing on what was&#xA;  said privately to him at the foot of the cross and what's said to&#xA;  those standing close by - the plea of thirst, the statement of&#xA;  completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother&#xA;  to John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew focused on the words Jesus said &quot;in a loud voice&quot; to all that&#xA;  were there (the crowd).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Last thing Matthew heard was &quot;My god, my God, why hast thou&#xA;  forsaken me? Then a loud cry before giving up the ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke hears the same loud cry that Matthew mentions, but also hears&#xA;  after that, probably because he's closer, &quot;Father, unto thy hands I&#xA;  commend my spirit&quot;. It makes sense that he would say &quot;My God, My&#xA;  God...&quot; in a louder voice than he would say his last words commending&#xA;  his spirit into the father's hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jesus asked for something to drink, he was speaking to those&#xA;  below the cross where John was standing. John heard what the others&#xA;  farther back heard, but also heard the dialogue about asking the&#xA;  people near the cross for water and his quieter statement, &quot;It is&#xA;  finished&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here are the three accounts put together:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli,&#xA;  eli, lama sabachthani?' that is to say, 'My God, my God, why hast thou&#xA;  forsaken me?'....Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice said&#xA;  , 'Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:' (notice the cry with a&#xA;  loud voice is separated from Jesus commending His spirit, probably&#xA;  quieter), then he said softly, 'It is finished:' and he bowed his&#xA;  head, and gave up the ghost.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that this is from one apologetics website, and is an interpretation rather than something we know as absolute fact, but it is answered using &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12272/rules-behind-resolving-alleged-biblical-discrepancies&quot;&gt;the basic principles of resolving Biblical discrepancies&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T02:04:05.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12537" CreationDate="2013-01-08T02:20:19.607" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;This potential discrepancy is addressed in Apologetics Press' question: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&amp;amp;article=768&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Did Both Thieves Revile Christ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possible resolutions to the discrepancies between the accounts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Possibility #1: Initially, both thieves reviled Christ, but then one of them repented. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After hearing Jesus’ words on the cross, and seeing His forgiving&#xA;  attitude, the one thief may have been driven to acknowledge that Jesus&#xA;  was indeed the Messiah. How many times have we made a statement about&#xA;  someone or something, but then retracted the statement only a short&#xA;  while later after receiving more information?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Possibility #2: The discrepancy could be due to a figure of speech called a synecdoche&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synecdoche&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Merriam-Webster definition&lt;/a&gt;: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society)…or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Note that the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;plenary inspiration &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; allow for figures of speech, even as it applies to inerrancy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, from the article in the portion relating to the possibility that this is a synecdoche:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is feasible that Matthew and Mark were using the plural in place of&#xA;  the singular in their accounts of the thieves reviling Christ on the&#xA;  cross. Lest you think that such might be an isolated case, notice two&#xA;  other places in Scripture where the same form of synecdoche is used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noah’s ark rested “on the mountains of Ararat.” Question: Did the ark rest on one of the mountains of Ararat,&#xA;  or did it rest on all of them at the same time? Although the ark was a&#xA;  huge vessel, it obviously did not rest on the many mountains of&#xA;  Ararat; rather, it rested on one.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 21:7 Sarah asked, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old&#xA;  age.” Anyone who knows much about the Bible will remember that Sarah&#xA;  had but one child. In certain contexts, however, one might use a&#xA;  synecdoche and speak of one child (as did Sarah) by using the word&#xA;  children.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2016-10-23T14:10:10.060" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12536" CreationDate="2013-01-08T06:51:33.390" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am personally unaware of any denominations that would specifically deny as part of their creed demon possessions or exorcisms.  However there are many denominations that by ignoring this area of practical theology do about the same.  Many of the &quot;liberal&quot; denominations tend to deny the spiritual nature of things and think of things more in terms of mental issues than spiritual bondage, this attitude would also constitute a practical denial of exorcisms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1109" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T06:51:33.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12537" CreationDate="2013-01-08T09:41:38.250" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;These two different accounts in Luke 23:39 on one side and Mark 15:32 and Mathew 27:44 on other side can be reconciled. by supposing that, at first, both of them reviled the Saviour, and that it is of this fact that Matthew and Mark speaks. Afterwards one of them relented, and became penitent-- perhaps from witnessing the patient sufferings of Christ. It is of this particularly that Luke speaks.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or it may be, that what is true of one of the malefactors, is attributed by Matthew/Mark to both. The gospel writers, for the sake of brevity avoid particularizing, often attributing an instance to many, what was said or done by single persons. Meaning no more than that it was done by some one or more of them, without specifying the one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar instance can be found by comparing:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 7:17  When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His &lt;strong&gt;disciples&lt;/strong&gt; questioned Him about the parable.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 15:15; &lt;strong&gt;Peter&lt;/strong&gt; said to Him, &quot;Explain the parable to us.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;also  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 5:31, And His &lt;strong&gt;disciples&lt;/strong&gt; said to Him, &quot;You see the crowd pressing in on You, and You say, `Who touched Me?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 8:45; And Jesus said, &quot;Who is the one who touched Me?&quot; And while they were all denying it, &lt;strong&gt;Peter&lt;/strong&gt; said, &quot;Master,  the people are crowding and pressing in on You.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 9:13, But He said to them, &quot;You give them something to eat!&quot; And &lt;strong&gt;they&lt;/strong&gt; said, &quot;We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless perhaps we go and buy food for all these people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 6:8, One of His disciples, &lt;strong&gt;Andrew, Simon Peter's brother&lt;/strong&gt;, said to Him,  6:9 - &quot;There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: Barns Notes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-01-08T10:38:41.210" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T10:38:41.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12550" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12563" CreationDate="2013-01-08T12:41:33.207" Score="5" ViewCount="824" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is Typology in the context of Christianity, and how does it help understand, or enhance our understanding of doctrinal matters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is this something that the Church has always believed historically, or is it something that was introduced at a later time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note: I know this is several sub-questions, but I believe that all sub-questions would be needed for a complete answer anyway.  I'm looking for an introduction to the subject for anyone unfamiliar with the term and concept.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-01-08T14:15:09.277" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T02:14:47.960" Title="What is Typology in the context of Christianity, and how does it help understand doctrinal matters?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;archetype&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12425" CreationDate="2013-01-08T15:03:26.533" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that there is an assumption here that unless God chooses who will go to heaven, then people must suffer for their own sins (in Purgatory).  Nothing could be further from the truth in evangelical Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures teach that God declares righteous those who have faith in Jesus--even the ungodly.  In doing so, their sins are completely forgiven--past, present, and future.  &quot;Therefore, there is now no condemnation&quot; for them.  They have been sanctified (made holy), so there is no future purging or purification that they need to gain by their own suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who &lt;strong&gt;justifies [declares righteous]&#xA;  the ungodly&lt;/strong&gt;, his faith is credited as righteousness.&quot;  Romans 4:5 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the beauty of salvation, as Spurgeon discusses in his book, &lt;em&gt;All of Grace&lt;/em&gt;.  God takes an ungodly person and declares him righteous.  Faith in Jesus is the channel through which righteousness is imparted to the ungodly one.  The sinner is declared righteous--and righteous people have nothing to be purged of in Purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Therefore there is now no condemnation&lt;/strong&gt; for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life [a]in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.&quot;  Romans 8:1 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no condemnation--none, zip, zero.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For &lt;strong&gt;Christ also died for sins once for all&lt;/strong&gt;, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;&quot; 1 Peter 3:18 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus died for sons &lt;strong&gt;once for all&lt;/strong&gt;--not once and then there needs to be more suffering by us later, but &lt;strong&gt;once for all&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.&quot;  Romans 5:19 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was the one act of righteousness performed by Jesus Christ that results in righteousness to those who trust in Jesus--it has nothing to do with our own works of righteousness, which merit nothing in God's sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the evangelical perspective which denies Purgatory and denies Predestination justifies the position by the doctrine of salvation itself.  God offers salvation/justification (the declaration of righteousness) to all people who put their trust in Jesus.  God does not require us to suffer for our own sins in Purgatory, because Jesus already suffered for them once for all.  This salvation is available to &quot;whosoever will.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T15:03:26.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12552" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12553" CreationDate="2013-01-08T15:33:06.427" Score="8" ViewCount="4066" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Doctrines and Covenants from which the Word of Wisdom comes (referring to abstinence from hot drinks, strong drinks/alcohol, and tobacco), it also states that meat should be used sparingly, specifically in times of winter, cold or famine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the&#xA;  Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless&#xA;  they are to be used sparingly;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in&#xA;  times of winter, or of cold, or famine.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 89:12-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this continue to be the practice of LDS members today or among any of the sects of Mormonism?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-29T21:51:26.770" LastActivityDate="2015-12-29T21:51:26.770" Title="Do Mormons still eat meat only in &quot;winter, cold or famine?&quot;" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;diet&gt;&lt;word-of-wisdom&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12552" CreationDate="2013-01-08T16:47:48.430" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some ambiguity in interpretation causes confusion. In addition to the passages you cited, I can think of one other in the Doctrine and Covenants with specific reference to meat:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49?lang=eng&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 49:18-19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some argue that D&amp;amp;C 89 stipulates that meat should only be consumed in special circumstances such as emergencies or shortages, while others argue that D&amp;amp;C 49 specifically states that meat is ordained for man's use and should not be some extreme case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commas in verse 13 did not exist in the original text, and thus some have argued that the meaning of the passage is that it pleases the lord to use meat beyond the conditions outlined. Others argue that verse 12 specifically stipulates using meat sparingly, and thus the commas portray the true meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While church leaders have given no specific official interpretation on meat in the Word of Wisdom, various leaders have offered their own interpretations, largely in favor of the latter interpretation above. Lorenzo Snow, the 5th successor to Joseph Smith, opined that members of the Church should become vegetarians. Heber J Grant offered his opinion that his longevity was in part due to his sparing use of meat. Many others emphasized that Latter-day Saints &quot;eat little meat.&quot; I was unable to find any opinion supporting the former interpretation, however it is clear that meat is not prohibited based on the time of year or otherwise. Official church functions involving meals often include some meat as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern medical science has shown that, much like tobacco and alchohol, meat in excess causes a myriad of health problems, heart disease being perhaps the most common. This adds additional credence to the effectiveness of adhering to the Word of Wisdom, a health law predating modern science. Some meat, especially low fat and high protein meat, has shown to have positive health benefits. Perhaps it is for this reason that meat is not strictly prohibited, and indeed appears to be &quot;ordained for the use of man.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although there is much in Mormonism that is strictly defined, there is also much that is not; and it is left to each individual to determine the degree to which he or she must personally abstain from meat. Mormons believe that the Holy Spirit will guide individuals to know what God's will is for them specifically, not only in this matter, but also in any aspect of one's life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastEditorUserId="1863" LastEditDate="2013-01-09T06:33:28.333" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T06:33:28.333" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12554" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13955" CreationDate="2013-01-08T16:54:58.323" Score="10" ViewCount="1461" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy&quot;&gt;Leo Tolstoy&lt;/a&gt;'s charming short story &lt;em&gt;Three Hermits&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Три старца&lt;/em&gt;) of 1886&#xA;has frequently been cited in academic and popular works about prayer.&#xA;I don't want to spoil the ending - the (short!) text can be readily found&#xA;online &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2896/&quot;&gt;in English&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;and &lt;a href=&quot;http://rvb.ru/tolstoy/01text/vol_10/01text/0255.htm&quot;&gt;Russian&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;There's even a film dramatization in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUFwTctEFxE&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Притчи&lt;/em&gt; 2 (2011)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;(19m25 video). Tolstoy, a collector of folk tales, apparently&#xA;did not originate this story, but adapted or expanded it from one&#xA;he had heard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1961 translation by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleb_Struve&quot;&gt;Gleb Struve&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;(&lt;em&gt;Russian Tales&lt;/em&gt;, Bantam Books, 1961) he remarks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At the core of the legend lies a well-known subject, a variant of which can&#xA;  be found in St. Augustine. St. Augustine's version of the legend became known &#xA;  in Russia in the sixteenth century. It is unlikely, however, that Tolstoy used &#xA;  as his source any of the bookish versions; the legend probably&#xA;  came to him in an oral retelling. &lt;sup&gt;p165&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Barthelme&quot;&gt;Donald Barthelme&lt;/a&gt;'s &#xA;short story &lt;em&gt;At the Tolstoy Museum&lt;/em&gt; (New Yorker, 24 May 1969, p32ff),&#xA;later collected in &lt;em&gt;City Life&lt;/em&gt; (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970),&#xA;includes the lines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[&lt;em&gt;Three Hermits&lt;/em&gt;] is written in a very simple style. It is said to originate in a folktale.&#xA;    There is a version of it in St. Augustine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not hard to find other people mentioning an Augustinian connection, but I haven't found anything more specific.&#xA;&quot;In St. Augustine&quot; is not a very helpful citation, given the&#xA;size of his corpus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know where Augustine's version of the story can be found (or indeed any non-Tolstoy version)? &#xA;How does Tolstoy's retelling differ from his Russian sources or from Augustine's original,&#xA;and do any of those differences relate to Tolstoy's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy#Religious_and_political_beliefs&quot;&gt;specific Christian beliefs&lt;/a&gt; (for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism&quot;&gt;Christian anarchism&lt;/a&gt; and its rejection of church authority)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T22:15:28.343" Title="What is Augustine's original of Tolstoy's &quot;Three Hermits&quot; story?" Tags="&lt;augustine&gt;&lt;tolstoy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12555" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12556" CreationDate="2013-01-08T19:41:35.007" Score="3" ViewCount="543" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hypothetically, if you are going through a painful situation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it because God is trying to grow you/redirect you? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Or is it a result of sinful actions?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="960" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2013-01-08T23:41:10.183" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T23:41:10.183" Title="How do you know if you are under a trial or if you are just suffering?" Tags="&lt;suffering&gt;&lt;spiritual-growth&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12555" CreationDate="2013-01-08T19:46:25.970" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his book, &lt;em&gt;Secrets of the Vine&lt;/em&gt; (based on John 15), Bruce Wilkinson addresses this very question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both situations, there is pain, so the presence of pain does not necessarily mean one is under God's discipline, although it could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key thing is to examine one's life to see if there is any unconfessed sin and to ask God  to reveal that.  One could also discuss it with a close friend or pastor to see if there is anything that other people have noticed.  If one is honest and there is nothing that God reveals, then it may be that the issue is purely one of growth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bruce Wilkinson distinguishes between the two by indicating that whenever there is pain because of sin, the pain continues until the person stops sinning.  However, if it is purely a matter of growth, the pain will continue until God has finished His work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T19:46:25.970" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8022" CreationDate="2013-01-08T23:40:28.503" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The chief reason that people put off Baptism had to do with the Roman tendency to be almost magical in their thinking about religion.  Even when they had converted in their hearts, people who had civic duties, which inevitably involved performing some pagan rites, were extremely reluctant to break with tradition.  And Roman society in general didn't tolerate such omissions.  So, a person could only convert when he could finally be sure he wouldn't have to perform such rites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That didn't stop many of the famous martyrs, especially soldiers like St. Sebastian and St. Vincent.  But as an EMperor Constantine simply could not do what was expected of him.  So he hedged his bets, kept doing his imperial thing, and on his deathbed converted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3732" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T23:40:28.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9202" CreationDate="2013-01-08T23:59:22.933" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;John's Baptism for the remission of sins is particularly interesting, because he seems to have performed it in place of the temple rites of purification via sin offerings.  IE, he was competing with the priests in the temple (he was a priest himself, as was his father Zechariah, who came from an Aaronic family and was high enough to be able to offer incense sacrifices).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this means that John made the forgiveness of sins available to those who could not afford the costly temple sacrifices (animals had to be inspected and found ritually pure before being offered--and such animals were sold in the Temple precincts and were expensive); and John's location along the Jordan was more easily accessed by many of the poorer country folk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John's baptizing in the Jordan must also have recalled the entrance into the Promised Land made by Joshua--after they crossed the river Jordan, Joshua set up 12 stone pillars--as the generation of their father at Sinai--a sign of the renewing of the covenant.  Being baptized in the Jordan by John after confessing one's sins was thus a statement of affirmation that one was renewing, on a personal level, the covenant with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it is the practice of requiring the confession of sins that is particularly interesting.  As one offered a sin offering in the temple, it was necessary to mention to the priest that one was making the offering because of having committed a particular sin.  John takes over this oral confession of sins in his baptizing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, I believe, is the origin of the practice of auricular confession within the Apostolic Churches (those directly descended from the Apostles, namely the Orthodox and Catholic Churches). Jesus sent His apostles (many of whom had followed John) out to baptize--and from Acts there is no mention of detailing one's sins; this practice was reserved for sins committed after Baptism--it is the origin of the Sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation; and the whole question of a second forgiveness of sins (ie of those committed after Baptism) became a huge subject of debate in the Roman Church in the early Third century.  The moral lenient position, allowing for forgiveness of serious sins committed after Baptism, won out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3732" LastActivityDate="2013-01-08T23:59:22.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12559" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12560" CreationDate="2013-01-09T00:26:59.297" Score="7" ViewCount="2269" Body="&lt;p&gt;We use the phrase &quot;The Early Church&quot; all the time around here, which leads me to ask...  What exactly &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;the early Church&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New testament Church is easy to define – the fellowship of believers that existed during New testament times.  But I've never come across a definitive date range for the &quot;Early Church&quot; or even a specific event or marker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For comparison, the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Middle Ages&lt;/a&gt;&quot; sounds like it might be a relative term, but the term &quot;Middle Ages&quot; refers to a specific time period – the 5th to the 15th century A.D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does &quot;The Early Church&quot; refer to a specific, commonly accepted time period in the history of the Church, or do we just use it to refer to &quot;Sometime early A.D.&quot; with the definition of &quot;early&quot; being up to open interpretation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-07-18T02:17:06.120" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T02:17:06.120" Title="What, exactly, is the &quot;early Church&quot;?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12559" CreationDate="2013-01-09T01:15:49.887" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Early church&lt;/code&gt; is not a technical term, so it can be used fairly loosely, but generally follows the history and writings of church leaders which are divided by time period into the Ante-Nicene era (prior to the council of Nicaea in 325AD) and the Nicene/Post-Nicene era, up to the scholasticism of the Middle Ages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no period of the church which is devoid of meaningful history, but the early church is often cited as a form of implicit evidence to the earliest interpretations of various traditions, especially when the scriptures do not go into detail about how various doctrines and traditions were practiced. Yet Protestant bodies generally seek to denounce traditions, even early ones, when they are perceived to violate the teachings of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T01:15:49.887" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12562" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12569" CreationDate="2013-01-09T01:48:29.587" Score="5" ViewCount="96" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one has ever seen God[1]; the only God[2], who[3] is at the Father's[4] side, he[5] has made him[6] known. (John 1:18 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have always had trouble understanding what this verse is actually saying, partially because I can't determine which person of the Trinity each noun is associated with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've tagged each eligible noun with a number. Please explain which person of the Trinity is associated with which noun and your reasoning for thinking so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2019-06-07T04:24:00.393" Title="Which persons of the Trinity are attached to which noun in John 1:18" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12550" CreationDate="2013-01-09T02:14:47.960" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Biblical_typology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Theopedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Typology is a method of biblical interpretation whereby an element&#xA;  found in the Old Testament is seen to prefigure one found in the New&#xA;  Testament. The initial one is called the type and the fulfillment is&#xA;  designated the antitype. Either type or antitype may be a person,&#xA;  thing, or event, but often the type is messianic and frequently&#xA;  related to the idea of salvation. The use of Biblical typology enjoyed&#xA;  greater popularity in previous centuries, although even now it is by&#xA;  no means ignored as a hermeneutic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Typological interpretation is specifically the interpretation of the&#xA;  Old Testament based on the fundamental theological unity of the two&#xA;  Testaments whereby something in the Old shadows, prefigures,&#xA;  adumbrates something in the New. Hence, what is interpreted in the Old&#xA;  is not foreign or peculiar or hidden, but arises naturally out of the&#xA;  text due to the relationship of the two Testaments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The use of Typology is useful in several applications.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An understanding of typology demonstrates the harmony between the Old and New Testament, as in the phrase &quot;The New is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed&quot;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Typology is also helpful helping us to gain a deeper understanding of important principles.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Typology helps us to understand who Christ was, and bring deeper meaning of Him by understanding the types that prefigured Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is also used in attempts to understand prophetic works.   Again, from the Theopedia article:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For instance, the promise of Genesis 3:15 is cast in terms of the&#xA;  struggle between men and serpents, and yet it contains the Gospel, as&#xA;  the Seed of the woman crushes the head of the Serpent once and for all&#xA;  on the Cross; it is for this reason that this verse is called the&#xA;  Protevangelium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Typology is commonly used within Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations, it is discounted by many more liberal scholars:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lampe argues that, historically speaking, typology was traditionally&#xA;  understood as the real meaning of the Old Testament - a meaning read&#xA;  into it by the Holy Spirit, even though no one in the OT could have&#xA;  understood it. He concludes that not only is this old fashioned and&#xA;  out-dated, but typology is no longer to be pursued.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gerhard von Rad, who writes from a rather Neo-orthodox perspective,&#xA;  understands typology as just more or less analogical thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; discount typology, many see it as a validation of the doctrinal concepts of Inspiration of Scripture, and infallibility.  To proponents, the clearly visible types and antitypes revealed in the Old and New Testament show God's handiwork throughout Scripture.  The perfect unity and harmony in books written many years apart from each other, by many different authors, with very different backgrounds, yet in agreement in so many points, with prophetic events is seen as nothing short of impossible if we were to try to imagine such things arising &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; divine influence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Typology represents a vital part of early Christian hermeneutics built&#xA;  upon the belief that God is in control and has unified His Word and&#xA;  the events in redemptive history.^[6]^ It is questioned whether&#xA;  typology is prospective (the OT type as a divinely ordained&#xA;  prediction) or retrospective (the NT antitype as analogously related&#xA;  but not prefigured in the type). It is likely that the solution lies&#xA;  in the middle. The OT authors and participants did not necessarily&#xA;  recognize any typological force in the original, but in the divine&#xA;  plan the early event did anticipate the later reality. Thus David's&#xA;  coronation (e.g., Psa. 2, 72, 110) did indeed foreshadow Jesus'&#xA;  enthronement as the royal Messiah, though it was not a direct&#xA;  prediction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether it is valid or not as an approach toe eschatology or hermeneutics appears to be, controversial at best, &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianthinktank.com/typol.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it can be safely said that it is an approach to understanding Scripture that dates back to the earliest days of the Church&lt;/a&gt;.  This is no &quot;new idea&quot; that was snuck into Christianity, or was added to it later. The use of typology is as old as the Church itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul himself found it useful in illistrating certain concepts.  For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 15:45  (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening&#xA;  spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the above passage, we have a Scriptural use of typology - a standard type that is still preached today - Adam as a type of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T02:14:47.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12564" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12571" CreationDate="2013-01-09T02:46:39.743" Score="8" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another way of asking this question is by saying, &quot;When God interacts with praying Christians, how do the persons of the Trinity interact in ways that neither of the other two persons do?&quot; I'm asking from a biblical, Protestant perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-01-11T04:16:28.793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T16:22:11.660" Title="How are the persons of the Trinity distinctively active in a Christian's prayer?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12565" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12566" CreationDate="2013-01-09T02:54:44.707" Score="2" ViewCount="451" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know for certain that Jesus and two other men who were convicted of crimes were crucified on the same hill. Is there any basis for believing that there may have been other convicts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2021-01-18T10:20:53.493" Title="Were exactly three people crucified on Golgotha the night Jesus was crucified?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12565" CreationDate="2013-01-09T03:06:44.273" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not within the Biblical accounts, which is the only recorded history of that particular day/location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no reason to dogmatically state that there were only two others with Christ.  It's certainly possible that others were there, but they aren't recorded as being there.  Other than pure speculation, there's no reason to believe there were others there, and there's no reason to say that there weren't others there.  The Scriptural accounts may only record these two because they were the only two right next to Him, and the only two that the writers bothered to mention.  Or it could be that there were only two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T03:06:44.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12567" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12568" CreationDate="2013-01-09T03:55:34.237" Score="6" ViewCount="741" Body="&lt;p&gt;The topic of how the Bible was compiled, including the determining factors for which books are included is well-documented.  There were some basic criteria as listed at &lt;a href=&quot;http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/how-was-the-bible-compiled/&quot;&gt;http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/how-was-the-bible-compiled/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were the authors either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or at least directly taught about them by the Apostles?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was each book’s teachings consistent with church practice and tradition?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was each book already in general use by the church, and accepted as the Divine Word of God?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We've also had several questions on the site about why [Name an apocryphal book] was not included in Scripture.  However, I've never seen the question asked:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there books that are included in Canon that were once disputed or questioned, that remain in the Bible.  If so, why were they disputed, and why did they &quot;pass the test&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2015-04-13T03:58:10.970" Title="Are there books that are included in the Protestant Bible that were disputed as canonical?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;protestant-bible&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12567" CreationDate="2013-01-09T03:55:34.237" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;em&gt;When Skeptics Ask&lt;/em&gt; (Normal L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, 1990 Baker Books):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following books were in question at one point or another:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews&lt;/strong&gt; because the author is unknown.  However, it was accepted as having apostolic authority, if not apostolic authorship.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James&lt;/strong&gt; because of conflict with Pauls teaching about salvation by faith alone.  Conflict resolved by seeing works as an outgrowth of faith.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Peter&lt;/strong&gt; because the style differs from 1 Peter.  But Peter used a scribe to write 1 Peter (See 5:12), who may have helped him smooth out his Greek.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 and 3 John&lt;/strong&gt; because the author is called &quot;elder&quot; not apostle. However, Peter called himself an elder, too (1 Peter 5:1).  They are also cited in earlier lists of canon.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jude&lt;/strong&gt; because he refers to the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses.  However, he doesn't call them Scripture, and this is seen to be like Paul quoting pagan poets (such as in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12).  It also had wide early acceptance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation&lt;/strong&gt; because it teaches a thousand year reign of Christ, which was taught by a certain cult.  However, it was accepted by the earliest Church fathers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is somewhat of a side note, but it is worth noting that the thought that some of the books now considered canon were ever disputed might cause some confusion over whether the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;right&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; books are in Scripture.  That is a common question both from the faithful and from skeptics.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My intention here is not to raise the question again.  In order to head those questions and comments off, I'll just point out that it's been answered time and time again, as it is here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=1701&quot;&gt;http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=1701&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The question which invariably arises when speaking of the Scriptures&#xA;  is, &quot;How does one know which books in today's Bible are the right&#xA;  ones?&quot; It is important to note at this point that a group of men did&#xA;  not just arbitrarily select a group of books to be used in compiling&#xA;  the Bible. They only officially &quot;recognized&quot; which books had always&#xA;  been upheld as being scriptural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;some details removed.  Check the link if you care to see what's missing.  Conclusion from the article below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A crisis in the fourth century caused the Church to give a formal&#xA;  statement on which books were canonical. In A.D. 397, a Church Council&#xA;  was held in Carthage which endorsed the exact 27 books of the New&#xA;  Testament we now regard as canonical. These 27 books were all&#xA;  apostolic in origin, authoritative in spiritual content, and accepted&#xA;  universally among the orthodox churches. These tests were used at the&#xA;  council to eliminate the spurious gospels and epistles written by&#xA;  heretical groups. This process of canonization has ensured that&#xA;  today's Bible contains only the books which were attested as being&#xA;  inspired by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T03:55:34.237" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12562" CreationDate="2013-01-09T04:58:24.450" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;No man has ever seen God[1]; the only-begotten Son[2], who[3] is in the bosom of the Father[4], he[5] has declared [him][6].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;θεὸν[1] οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός[2], ὁ[3] ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς[4] ἐκεῖνος[5] ἐξηγήσατο&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;[1] the Father&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;[2] the Son&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;[3] the Son&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;[4] the Father&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;[5] the Son&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;[6] the Father (pronoun not present in Greek, but the ellipsis is appropriately supplied according to the context)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, it's saying that the only-begotten Son, Jesus, is in the bosom of the Father, at all times. Nobdoy has ever seen the Father. The only-begotten Son &quot;exegeted&quot; or revealed the Father to us. The Greek verb ἐξηγήσατο, a conjuagtion of the lexical form ἐξηγέομαι, is where we get the English noun &quot;exegesis&quot; from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-01-09T18:27:37.267" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T18:27:37.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12570" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12575" CreationDate="2013-01-09T05:58:33.537" Score="6" ViewCount="746" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do Christadelphians believe that Jesus is completely God and has been God since before the creation of the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, when does Jesus become God (or take on God like attributes)? What is their justification for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-03-05T15:10:30.973" LastActivityDate="2020-12-25T22:05:26.903" Title="Do Christadelphians believe Jesus is God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;christadelphians&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12564" CreationDate="2013-01-09T06:04:04.523" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding from growing up in an Anglican church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We pray to God the Father. He is the one that answers our prayers. Not a perfect verse for this, but the only one I could think of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Again, truly I [Jesus] tell you that if two of you on earth agree&#xA;  about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in&#xA;  heaven&quot; (Matthew 18:19 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We pray through Jesus. He is our Great High Priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into&#xA;  heaven, Jesus the Son of God (Heb 4:14 NIV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think back to the old testament, the High Priest was the one who could go into the holy of holies in the temple and gave access for the people to talk to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit prompts us to pray, and directs us to pray for certain things - e.g. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself&#xA;  intercedes for us through wordless groans. (Romans 8:26 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="1379" LastEditDate="2013-01-10T20:21:47.783" LastActivityDate="2013-01-10T20:21:47.783" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9202" CreationDate="2013-01-09T07:18:04.907" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mikvah is associated with ritual purity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is always associated with discipleship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel was baptized into Moses's teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John's baptism took disciples away from competing rabbis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John considered Jesus's teachings to  be superior to his own, requiring him to be baptised BY Jesus and to follow Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul was reluctant to baptize new believers because he thought  it created division .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was the term baptism used to describe what the competing rabbis were doing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was it a case of using an equivalent  Greek word to convey an existing Hebrew meaning? We know that Adonai, sarx, psyche, etc were used inspite of not being the exact equivalents. Or was it a word used to describe a new ritual or process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel knew that they were still in exile, under judgment even though they were returned from Babylon. Jerusalem was under foreign rule, freedom to worship was controlled, the Temple had been desecrated several times. They searched the Scripture to discover what was needed to please God and be justified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each rabbi had a suite of laws they considered halakhic, required, for justification. Works of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4QMMT and Paul: Justification, &amp;quot;Works&amp;quot; and Eschatology&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ‘works’ commended in MMT, then, are designed to mark out God’s true people present time , the time when the final fulfillment of Deuteronomy has begun but concluded. They are designed (C30) ‘so that you may rejoice words of ours to be true’. These extrabiblical commands will thus enable the sect to the verdict of the last day, when it will be clearly r a [118] the identity and context of the differentia of the in the is not yet at the end of time , finding these anticipate evealed that those who follow this particular halakhah are indeed the true, renewed people of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(3) This brings us to the key comparison between MMT and Paul. Paul, arguably, held a version of the same covenantal and eschatological scheme of thought as MMT; but, in his scheme, the place taken by ‘works of Torah’ in MMT was taken by ‘faith’. Paul, like MMT, believed (a) in a coming ‘last day’ when all would be revealed, and (b) that the verdict of that last day could be anticipated in the present when so meone displayed the appropriate marks of covenant membership. For him, though, the appropriate marks were not ‘works’, either of the biblical Torah or of postbiblical halakhah, but faith: more specifically, faith in the God who raised Jesus from the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_4QMMT_Paul.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John taught the need to follow ALL the Law. Those who followed his teachings were inducted into his group by baptism. In 1st Century Palestine, the term baptism could have come from the word bapto or related words like baptizo. We have a 2nd Century BC document here containing both those words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989. Translated Words KJV (80)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=907&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 3:21-22 NET And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you – not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who went into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels and authorities and powers subject to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the NT, is baptism a ritual for induction to a course of indoctrination or the indoctrination itself. The answer is: both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Induction brings one into the church. Indoctrination saves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel was baptized into Moses (God's People/ecclesia) drank from the Rock (Christ) did not believe, resisted indoctrination, rebelled, perished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The questions are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the OT doesn't seem to speak of it and the NT jumps right in with everybody seeming to understand that such a practice exists (even if there is some question as to who/what/how/when), what happened in between the Testaments? Was baptism something that was done by anybody for any reason? If so by who and what for? Did the religious Jews of the time have such a practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have proposed that baptism had two functions: to recognise participants of a covenant, and to a lesser extent, release the participants from their previous obligations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In between the testaments there were no new covenants made, for which individuals needed to be recognised through baptism as participants. However, the Sinaitic Covenant had been contaminated. God required Israel to perform all the requirements of the law, the minor ones, circumcision, Sabbath keeping and dietary rules, as well as the weightier requirements, justice, mercy and faithfulness. This had devolved into Jews keeping only those rules that identified them as children of Abraham. John corrected them: Abraham was recognised as a friend of God not by circumcision (at the time not required) but by his loyalty, believing God's words. Now Israel must show that same loyalty, by believing God required all His law to be followed. So John's baptism was a baptism between the testaments, calling for Israel to repent, have a change of heart, to revert to the original meaning of the Sinaitic Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the religious Jews of the time have that practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you analyse the situation, all the rabbis were misinterpreting the Old Covenant. They all searched the Scripture looking for the perfect markers of being the children of Abraham. John was the only corrective to this misunderstanding. For the Abrahamic Covenant, justification, identification as participants, was belief that the Sinaitic Covenant required all the law to be followed. Baptism, recognition as particants in the Abrahamic Covenant was given on being faithful to the Sinaitic Covenant, showing fruit indicating agreement to it, changing their existing mindset, repenting, meta-noia-ing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2021-02-14T05:06:15.263" LastActivityDate="2021-02-14T05:06:15.263" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="12574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3004" CreationDate="2013-01-09T08:49:13.920" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Judaism teaches that God binds Himself under Torah just as a Master Architect limits himself to following a blueprint. This finds a parallel in Christianity in Kenotic theory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 2:5-8&lt;/strong&gt; (NET)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;who though he existed in the form of God&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;did not regard equality with God&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;as something to be grasped,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;but emptied himself&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;by taking on the form of a slave,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;by looking like other men,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and by sharing in human nature.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;He humbled himself,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;by becoming obedient to the point of death&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;– even death on a cross!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:9&lt;/strong&gt; (NET)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's creation functions according to His Word. His participation in creation is at a level that is seen in Christ's ministry. IOW, God is not limited by default as described by Open Theology. His limitation is self imposed. He &amp;quot;rests&amp;quot; after creation is set up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T09:49:32.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12570" CreationDate="2013-01-09T12:01:07.970" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quickly from Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christadelphians hold a view of Biblical Unitarianism. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christadelphians&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that leaves us with the question was is &amp;quot;Biblical Unitarianism&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, biblical Unitarianism (or &amp;quot;Biblical Unitarianism&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;biblical unitarianism&amp;quot;) &lt;strong&gt;identifies the Christian belief that the Bible teaches God is a singular person—the Father—and that Jesus is a distinct being, his son.&lt;/strong&gt; A few denominations use this term to describe themselves, clarifying the distinction between them and those churches which, from the late 19th century, evolved into modern British Unitarianism and, primarily in the United States, Unitarian Universalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The history of Unitarianism was as a &amp;quot;scripturally oriented movement&amp;quot; &lt;strong&gt;which denied the Trinity&lt;/strong&gt; and held various understandings of Jesus. Over time, however—specifically, in the mid-19th century—Unitarianism moved away from a belief in the necessity of the Bible as the source of religious truth. The nomenclature &amp;quot;biblical&amp;quot; in &amp;quot;biblical Unitarianism&amp;quot; is to identify the group/s as not having made such a move. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Unitarianism%22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;, emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although, I do not know anyone from this group, the definition of the group and their belief on the Trinity would seem to suggest that they do not hold the doctrine of the trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T12:37:57.687" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12539" CreationDate="2013-01-09T15:26:42.640" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prophetically speaking, there are a few possibilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Great Eagle&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 12, the Scriptures speak of a &quot;woman&quot; who gives birth to a &quot;male child&quot; who is to &quot;rule all the nations&quot;.  It is understood that the woman here is speaking of Israel, as Jesus was born of Israel and will one day rule the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also speaks of a Satan who sought to devour the &quot;male child&quot;.  Satan is thrown down to the earth where he persecutes the woman (Israel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, **the two wings of &quot;the great eagle&quot; were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place&quot; where she stays for 3 1/2 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is conjectured that &quot;the great eagle&quot; could be a reference to the United States, who has long held a close relationship with Israel and who is symbolized the an eagle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Eleventh Horn&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Daniel 7 speaks of a beast with ten horns which represent ten kings.  As Daniel watches the beast, another horn comes up and uproots three other horns.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is thought that the United States could be this Eleventh Horn.  Our existence is quite young compared to other countries that could be represented by the other horns, and we certainly have the military power to uproot other nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing, however, is in any way certain.  There are some other speculations, but nothing really compelling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, we should not despair.  It's not important that the U.S. be mentioned in prophecy.  What &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; important is that our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="13767" LastEditDate="2015-03-19T01:27:56.973" LastActivityDate="2015-03-19T01:27:56.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12577" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12578" CreationDate="2013-01-09T18:02:06.367" Score="14" ViewCount="5070" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of instances where Christians systematically believe something false and directly contradicting biblical teachings, yet they are not deemed to be so errant as to disqualify them from salvation and from fellowship with the universal Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By way of example, predestination unto salvation is a mutually exclusive belief about the nature of God such that some Christians directly deny it and others directly confirm it, yet neither believes the other to be heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet it is almost universally held in Trinitarian Christianity, that denial of the Trinity is a renunciation of Christianity and salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? Why isn't it simply, wrong? Is it mainly due to the early historical discernment of the early councils, or is there a better, biblical argument for this case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm coming from a Protestant perspective. Certainly, a Catholic perspective could get away with saying, &quot;The Church has denounced it.&quot; For a Protestant, what does it take before something is properly known as a heresy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;relevant: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8395/what-is-heresy&quot;&gt;What is &amp;quot;heresy&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2017-09-09T16:00:41.773" Title="Why is rejection of the Trinity heresy, and not just wrong? (Protestant perspective)" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12577" CreationDate="2013-01-09T18:17:44.033" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;A famous quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/essentials-unity-non-essentials-liberty-all-things/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christian history&lt;/a&gt; is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In Essentials Unity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Paul talks about &quot;another gospel&quot; that was being preached to the Galatians, and he uses very strong words regarding those who bring such a gospel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you&#xA;  by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really&#xA;  not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to&#xA;  distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from&#xA;  heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have&#xA;  preached to you, &lt;strong&gt;he is to be accursed&lt;/strong&gt;! 9 As we have said before, so&#xA;  I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary&#xA;  to what you received, &lt;strong&gt;he is to be accursed&lt;/strong&gt;!  Galatians 1:6-9 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept is that there is one true gospel that leads to eternal life.  As Jesus said in Matthew 7, there is one narrow road that leads to life and one wide road that leads to destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we only have unity with those who hold to the essentials of true gospel of Jesus Christ.  To put it another way, we only have unity among those with whom we will spend eternity.  We do not have unity with those who preach another gospel that does not lead to life.  We have charity, but not unity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question becomes centered on what are the essentials.  From an evangelical perspective, the essentials typically include the nature of God (including the Trinity) and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.  Thus, whatever departs from that is considered heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John's first epistle speaks about the necessity of correct Christology and Theology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but&#xA;  because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who&#xA;  is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? &lt;strong&gt;This&#xA;  is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.&lt;/strong&gt; 23&#xA;  Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses&#xA;  the Son has the Father also.  1 John 2:21-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, the &quot;liar&quot; is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ.  The antichrist is the one who denies the Father and the Son.  This is understood by many to deny the nature of Jesus as the eternal Second Person of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, John also writes that anyone who denies Jesus as having come in the flesh is antichrist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not&#xA;  acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver&#xA;  and the antichrist.  2 John 1:7 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In Non-Essentials Liberty, All Things Charity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may disagree with others about election or the end times, and there is freedom in that.  I personally disagree with my pastor about a few things, primarily, but not limited to eschatology.  Yet we still have unity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am exhorted to oppose those who hold beliefs I consider heretical, but I do so with charity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-03-11T21:19:14.417" LastActivityDate="2014-03-11T21:19:14.417" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12577" CreationDate="2013-01-09T18:30:01.767" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; &quot;just wrong&quot;.  It simply means &quot;you are wrong (according to what we accept as Truth) so you can't call yourself (be in communion with) one of us&quot;.  And yes, believing in predestination of salvation does make you a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestant traditions are sometimes a little more flexible and forgiving when it comes to differences in belief, but there are certain things (i.e. Trinity, Salvation by Grace, etc) that are so core to Christianity that most* Christians will consider those with contrary beliefs (i.e. Momons) to be heretics, even if they don't use that word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*for some definition of &quot;most&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T18:30:01.767" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12580" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-09T19:31:46.503" Score="17" ViewCount="4885" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many Protestant and Evangelical churches and Christians view Freemasonry as incompatible with Christianity and teach that a Christian should not be a member of the group. What is the basis, biblical or otherwise, for this position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-11-13T15:03:05.397" LastActivityDate="2015-11-13T15:03:05.397" Title="Why is Freemasonry considered by many evangelicals to be incompatible with Christianity?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;freemasonry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12580" CreationDate="2013-01-09T20:30:14.223" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Freemasonry is a fraternity that does not refuse people due to their specific religious preferences.  But there are some exceptions.  For an example, an atheist is strictly and universally (under the grand lodge of England) not permitted to join.  Because we allow multiple faiths, some people take issue with the fraternity.  Such as Christians are taught to not to yoke with unbelievers &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness&#xA;  and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with&#xA;  darkness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Freemasonry does not support a single specific religion but requests that it members subscribe to a religion and as mentioned &quot;yoking&quot;, some people such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&amp;amp;subsection=show_article&amp;amp;article_id=2956&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sovereign Pontiff. Maximillian Kolbe&lt;/a&gt; believe that implies that they are against Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This mortal hatred of the Church, of Christ, and of His Vicar on earth&#xA;  is not just an outburst of misguided individuals, but rather a&#xA;  systematic action that proceeds from the principle of Freemasonry: the&#xA;  destruction of all religion, but especially the Catholic religion.&#xA;  [Pisma Ojca Maksymiliana Marii Kolbego franciszkanina, Niepokalanow,&#xA;  maszynopsis, 1970; English tr. from The Immaculata Our Ideal, by Fr.&#xA;  Karl Stehlin (Warsaw, 2005), p.39]….&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians who do not believe you should be friends with non-Christians would have a problem with the fraternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Freemason takes obligations or makes promises which some Christians dislike.  So for example, I promise to not allow an atheist to join.  Some Christians feel that you should not make promises like that to yourself or in front of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1054" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditorDisplayName="user1054" LastEditDate="2013-01-19T13:16:45.530" LastActivityDate="2013-01-19T13:16:45.530" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12430" CreationDate="2013-01-09T23:26:11.737" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It appear that you have technically answered your own question by reminiscing to your Baptist days when you received wine first and then bread, so no, not all churches celebrate communion in the same order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a deeper question would be whether any churches establish as doctrine the order of the elements. I am not aware of any that do, but there is always a chance that a group on the fringes has elevated this issue above others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think more likely if any churches have an official position on the order of the element it's most likely to establish consistency in the order of liturgy, rather than for some doctrinal reason. In general, most churches receive either the elements simultaneously or bread first, wine second to follow the order of 1 Cor 11. Since it is most natural to read this passage during liturgy, it is most natural to receive the elements in this order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2013-01-09T23:26:11.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12584" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12585" CreationDate="2013-01-10T04:44:14.013" Score="15" ViewCount="11255" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my understanding the bible is quite clear that Christians should not get drunk. However some denominations seem to go a step further and say that Christians shouldn't drink at all. From what I can work out the Old Testament Law doesn't prohibit drinking, and I can't find a record in the NT banning it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do any of these denominations support their belief that Christians shouldn't drink at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2014-01-02T15:35:08.120" Title="On what basis do some denominations prohibit Christians from drinking alcohol?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;alcohol&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12584" CreationDate="2013-01-10T05:30:43.723" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;My denomination is one that is very strongly in the &quot;Christians shouldn't drink - at all&quot; camp.  Very strongly.  And my Pastor, whom I love and respect, is very strongly in that camp as well.  Yet even he, in his sermons, will tell you that nowhere in the Bible is drinking explicitly called a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in many places, drunkenness and even alcohol consumption is called &lt;em&gt;foolish&lt;/em&gt;.  And to him, and every other Baptist Pastor I've heard preach on the subject (and that's quite a few), the problem isn't so much that drinking alcohol is a sin, it's that drinking alcohol lowers our inhibitions, and sinful behavior often follows.  It's really easy to give into temptation if you're under the influence of alcohol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there are other theories about the prohibition against drinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brucesabin.com/alcohol.html&quot;&gt;http://www.brucesabin.com/alcohol.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the history of Christianity, alcoholic prohibition is a relatively&#xA;  new idea. In fact, alcohol was a normal part of life. In Colonial&#xA;  America, the Puritans expected Christians to drink (Hearn, 1943). In&#xA;  the 1700s, a Baptist minister created the formula for bourbon whiskey&#xA;  (Hailey, 1992). During the 1800s, many Southern ministers operated&#xA;  stills, and sold alcohol (Hearn, 1943). Parishioners who owned stills&#xA;  would tithe their alcohol; and preachers' salaries often included&#xA;  whiskey. All this began to change, however, as the Temperance movement&#xA;  took shape (Hailey, 1992).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So even in Baptist Churches, it hasn't always been that big a deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the article does go on to echo some of the reasons for abstaining altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One that I've heard from the pulpit, and that I personally can't argue with is echoed here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For some Christians, a sense of love and justice leads them to abstain&#xA;  from alcohol. Seeing alcohol's devastating effects on society, these&#xA;  Christians feel compelled to act. Taking a strong stand against&#xA;  alcohol and its consequences is a tangible way that they can&#xA;  demonstrate their faith. These Christians believe that abstaining from&#xA;  alcohol is the best, possibly the only, solution to this societal&#xA;  problem. In addition, abstaining from alcohol guarantees that one will&#xA;  never fall prey to alcoholism (Hancock, 1999).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quite frankly, even though most people never have a problem with alcohol, it can ruin lives.  And in the spirit of &lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 8:9 (King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.))&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a&#xA;  stumblingblock to them that are weak&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's just considered a good idea to set a good example. As my Pastor often says: &quot;People are always watching you.  The lost are always looking for an excuse to say, 'He's not a real Christian - I see him down at the bar all the time  Who is he to try to act all holier-than-thou?'&quot;.  In the interest of maintaining a good witness, and staying credible, it's simply more constructive to abstain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an added list of reasons some Christians believe that it's wrong, I'll include this link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scionofzion.com/drinking.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.scionofzion.com/drinking.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not saying I agree or disagree with any point on the list.  I'm also not debating what my Church preaches is Truth. I'm just presenting it, like the rest of this answer to address why some &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; drinking is wrong, not addressing whether drinking &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; wrong. My own views aside, this isn't the place to determine such things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-10T13:01:56.393" LastActivityDate="2013-01-10T13:01:56.393" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12584" CreationDate="2013-01-10T15:24:51.617" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Biblical Background&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do an in-depth Bible study on alcohol, one finds that... it doesn't take that long.  There really isn't much written about it.  Just don't get drunk, but give it to those who are perishing (Proverbs).  However, there is another key verse of note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:22 is translated in the KJV to be &quot;abstain from every &lt;strong&gt;appearance&lt;/strong&gt; of evil&quot;.  The NAS, ESV, and other translations render this as &quot;Abstain from every &lt;strong&gt;form&lt;/strong&gt; of evil&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word in question is the Greek word εἶδος.  The KJV itself translates the word differently in different places as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;shape 2, fashion 1, sight 1, appearance 1&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a significant distinction between avoiding every &lt;strong&gt;appearance&lt;/strong&gt; of evil and avoiding every &lt;strong&gt;form&lt;/strong&gt; of evil, and it is perhaps this possible mistranslation that has given rise to things such as the abstinence from all alcohol, because the Bible never completely prohibits the consumption of any alcohol at any time.  One would indeed wonder why God created the process of fermentation if its only usage was evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Biblical Application&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logic goes like this...  Drunkenness is strictly forbidden in Scripture, but to avoid the appearance of evil--that is, ever being drunk--one should never consume any alcohol at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also applied to other things as well.  Some movies have scenes in them that give rise to the sins of lust.  Therefore, in order to avoid the appearance of evil--that is, going to see such a movie--one should never go to a movie theater at all.  (I have personally attended a church where this was actually taught.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the list can go on and on... don't eat a restaurant that serves alcohol...  don't have cable... don't have a television... don't go to a movie rental store...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the consumption of alcohol.  As David mentioned, the Bible does exhort us not to use our freedom to indulge the sinful nature or to make our brothers stumble.  Alcohol should be, in my opinion, something that a Christian  is willing to give up entirely.  It should not be a right we demand. It just isn't a big deal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of &quot;avoiding the appearance of evil&quot; may possibly be a mistranslation that has led to the position that no alcohol should ever be consumed by any Christian in any situation--not because it's wrong, but because someone might &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; you could get drunk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-01-10T15:24:51.617" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12588" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12593" CreationDate="2013-01-11T03:53:30.930" Score="16" ViewCount="27253" Body="&lt;p&gt;What purpose do steeples serve? Are they put high up on church buildings as some sort of marketing tool so it can be seen from far away or is there some other reason(s)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-27T20:06:05.597" LastActivityDate="2015-10-21T14:12:04.750" Title="Why do churches have steeples?" Tags="&lt;church-building&gt;&lt;architecture&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12589" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-01-11T03:55:21.900" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-01-11T03:55:21.900" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T03:55:21.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12590" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-01-11T03:55:21.900" Score="0" Body="The highest point on a church building. It is usually in the shape of a cross or some other religious symbol." OwnerUserId="1447" LastEditorUserId="1447" LastEditDate="2013-01-11T13:53:47.680" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T13:53:47.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12588" CreationDate="2013-01-11T04:31:01.197" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because steeples have bells in them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/JEAN-FRAN%C3%87OIS_MILLET_-_El_%C3%81ngelus_%28Museo_de_Orsay%2C_1857-1859._%C3%93leo_sobre_lienzo%2C_55.5_x_66_cm%29.jpg/512px-JEAN-FRAN%C3%87OIS_MILLET_-_El_%C3%81ngelus_%28Museo_de_Orsay%2C_1857-1859._%C3%93leo_sobre_lienzo%2C_55.5_x_66_cm%29.jpg&quot; width=&quot;512&quot; alt=&quot;JEAN-FRANÇOIS MILLET - El Ángelus (Museo de Orsay, 1857-1859. Óleo sobre lienzo, 55.5 x 66 cm)&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See, they know they need to pray the Angelus because the bell is ringing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2015-06-24T21:28:54.577" LastActivityDate="2015-06-24T21:28:54.577" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12588" CreationDate="2013-01-11T04:48:47.477" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting question.  I managed to find an article, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religiousproductnews.com/articles/2007-February/Feature-Articles/The-History-of-Church-Steeples.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The History of Church Steeples&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, that actually addresses this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One reason:  It was simply an architectural style that happens to inspire us to look heavenward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These early church architects designed grand cathedrals and churches&#xA;  that had intricate, soaring steeples. The vertical lines of the&#xA;  steeple helped to visually enhance the lines of the church, directing&#xA;  the viewers' eyes vertically to the heavens. Obviously, this&#xA;  verticality complements part of the mission of the church, to keep us&#xA;  in a heavenly frame of mind, but from an architectural standpoint,&#xA;  this vertical lift gives the architecture a more graceful and pleasing&#xA;  look. The shorter the building, the more squat the appearance; the&#xA;  taller the building, the more graceful it becomes. The early church&#xA;  believed that the church could communicate the truth of the Bible in&#xA;  pictures and symbols to those who were illiterate, such as using the&#xA;  picture in the stained glass to tell stories, as well as the steeple,&#xA;  which helped by pointing upwards devotedly to Heaven. Therefore, the&#xA;  steeple has a dual role in that it helps the congregant in his or her&#xA;  spiritual mindset, and the steeple also helps the architect with a&#xA;  design feature that enhances the overall harmony of the architecture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, there's no doctrinal significance, or symbolic other than the pointing to the Heavens. It's simply a beautiful style that, once done, was imitated throughout the ages until it became expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-10-21T14:12:04.750" LastActivityDate="2015-10-21T14:12:04.750" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12584" CreationDate="2013-01-11T04:56:54.107" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not personally from a denomination that believes drinking alcohol is wrong (we in fact have a theology class that meets in a bar and drink beer during it), but my understanding from talking with Christians that don't believe in drinking tend to stem from the passage &quot;all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial&quot; (1 Corinthians 10:23)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, while it may not be spoken to as a sin, they see it as causing more harm than good and since most would agree that the goal of a Christian lifestyle is to be more Christlike, they seek to remove things that they don't see as beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same argument can be applied to many other things that the broader church more commonly considers to be negative, such as swearing (other than using the Lord's' name in vain which is directly mentioned), premarital sex (only adultery is really strongly spoken against and there are actually cases of use of prostitutes in the old testament by Godly people who were not spoken against (neither was it approved of).  Ultimately though, the core derivation is trying to live a better life and avoiding things seen as having only negative impacts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T04:56:54.107" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12577" CreationDate="2013-01-11T05:02:31.463" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Narnian's write up is quite well done, but to try and distill it down a bit, the core issue is criticality of belief. Typically in Christian circles this revolves around salvation and the nature of the Trinity is considered by most to be critical to the nature of salvation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Effectively, a Christian would believe someone to be a heretic if what they say is so far removed theologically as to be an incompatible belief, whereas they may see someone as simply wrong (that is, incorrect, not morally wrong) if it is in an area seen as non-critical.  (For a soft-ball example, most Christian's don't see it as a critical deficiency in someone's theology if they have a different view of the book of Revelation.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-03-11T21:25:41.853" LastActivityDate="2014-03-11T21:25:41.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12580" CreationDate="2013-01-11T06:46:07.337" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;I want to preface this by saying that I have never been a Freemason, and this answer, necessarily will include items that are likely to be disputed by those within Freemasonry.  This can't be avoided if I'm to answer the actual question.  The question is &quot;Why do Evangelicals consider it to be incompatible&quot;.  It's not asking if it really is, just why they think it is.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;In order to answer that, I need to post the things that those who oppose Freemasonry believe.  I have absolutely no idea if those things are true or not, and I'm not here to claim they are or aren't.  I'm just repeating what's in the literature and what's believed of Freemasonry by Christians.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to use, as my primary resource, a site that's been put up by someone claiming to be an ex-Mason.  It contains much of the same in formation that can be found in other literature.  I've read several books on &quot;cults&quot; and Freemasonry is listed in several of them.  For example, while it's not listed as a cult in this book, the book &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abebooks.com/Difference-Ridenour-Fritz-Regal-Books-Ventura/1077328905/bd&quot;&gt;What's the Difference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; lists Freemasonry in a section called &quot;Nothing New Under the Sun...  Eleven more viewpoints that undermine, challenge, or attack Biblical Christianity&quot;.  At any rate, the claims on this site are compatible with most of what I've said. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all of that out of the way, here are several points about Freemasonry that are incompatible with Christianity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.emfj.org/godbible.htm&quot;&gt;Freemasonry requires each Mason to believe that there is only one God and teaches that all men worship that one God, simply using a variety of different names.&lt;/a&gt;  In the case of the Wiccan, he satisfies the requirement for belief in A Supreme Being by believing in the Horned god of Witchcraft.  The Hindu may satisfy the requirement with faith in Vishnu. &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From a Christian perspective, this is utter nonsense.  &lt;strong&gt;This is also, just about the only point you'd need to show that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity.&lt;/strong&gt;  Any attempt to say that the God of the Bible is the same as (or even functionally equivalent to for some people) the pagan gods, Allah, or any other is blasphemy, pure and simple, from a Christian perspective.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.emfj.org/salvat.htm&quot;&gt;Freemasonry has a plan of salvation&lt;/a&gt;, which is not based on Christ at all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.emfj.org/oaths.htm&quot;&gt;There is some concern about the oaths made in Freemasonry&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Follow this link and you'll find an extensive treatment on several issues that show Freemasonry to be incompatible with Christianity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another site lists other reasons, again, which I've heard before, but can't personally verify.  Again, I'm just answering why some Christians are opposed to Freemasonry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In Freemasonry the god of the secret societies is covertly substituted&#xA;  for the One True God. This false god is identified in the Masonic&#xA;  lodges as &quot;the Great Architect.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Masons think that through masonry one can chisel away layers of oneself, similar to how one creates a beautiful statue out of rough&#xA;  stone.  And they think the end result will be no need for God; because&#xA;  they think the perfect Mason is like God. Pages 50-51 of the Mason&#xA;  handbook makes this quite clear - but not to the initiate. Masons are&#xA;  lied to about everything in the 1st three degrees.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Masons repeatedly are directed to the &quot;Mystery Religion&quot; and the time man found God in nature.  Almost none of Masonry's teachings come&#xA;  from Christianity.  This 'mystery religion' Masons have joined&#xA;  originated from pagans in ancient Egypt, Chaldea, and in China. The&#xA;  Mystery Religion, Freemasonry and all 'ancient' secret societies have&#xA;  one thing in common. They string you along, just to finally tell you&#xA;  that there is no God; and you are a god, because you follow their&#xA;  teachings, which are:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Masonic Lodge everything is symbolic of something else. The&#xA;  name &quot;Lucifer&quot; means &quot;Light Bearer&quot; or &quot;Light Bringer&quot;.  Masons point&#xA;  out that the MORNING STAR is Lucifer.  When Masons speak of the &quot;light&#xA;  of Masonry&quot;, they actually refer to Lucifer bringing forth the light. &#xA;  During the lecture for the 32nd degree, Masons are told that the&#xA;  triliteral name for god is composed of three Hindu gods: Brahma,&#xA;  Vishnu and Siva. Siva is a synonym for Satan! Lucifer is honored and&#xA;  revered by Masons as the TRUE GOD!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-01-11T21:57:00.520" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T21:57:00.520" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12588" CreationDate="2013-01-11T08:26:33.790" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The church has always been recognised as a patron of art as it has needed to use art for teaching and inspiring . Stained glass windows often contained depiction of scriptural teachings, and allegorical interpretation lent itself particularly  well to this form. Common folk found pictorial depiction easier to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the Samaritan would be depicted as Christ,  the wounded man as man under sin's oppression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other way art could be used was for inspiration . Cathedrals have been called prayers in stone, depicting the heavenward soaring of men's words. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People entering a place of worship were inspired to believe they were seeing and hearing men praising God through architecture and music. God was the recipient of this worship, and men's energies were used to create forms in a way that reflected this. Conscious effort was made in the soaring interiors and ethereal singing to convey the idea that God was present in all His Majesty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare this with contemporary architecture  and music, where the end products have the consumer in view. Churches are patronised because they have comfortable seating, climate control and theatre acoustics, the better to hear words that comfort and beats that stir the feet to tap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2013-01-11T08:33:05.623" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T08:33:05.623" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7958" CreationDate="2013-01-11T12:21:58.693" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The RCC has many teachings that are consistent and coherent. They are buried deep in the vastness of the body of works produced by the copious number of academics the RCC had at its disposal. They also had a headstart.  Most of this doctrinal development is lost to the Reformed Church. Luther was quite happy to be Roman Catholic and fully expected to be reinstated after being acquitted for raising what he felt was justified objection to the blatant  malpractice prevailing in the church. That's not how hierarchies work, as he found to his chagrin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first reformers, or the group   who had the French label &quot;Protestant&quot; applied to them, had a very narrow agenda, list of objections . However, the list grew as the movement grew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evangelicals today would be considered a subset of the Protestants, a subset that not only reject the traditions of the Catholic Church, both the Roman and the Eastern, but also those of the Anglican and Lutheran. Most Evangelicals feel Luther didn't go far enough in the Reformation, in limiting the role of church in the dispensation of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They believe God's grace is solely administered through His Word. All the sacraments are memorial, a figurative depiction of the content of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think sola scriptura is an appropriate shibboleth to filter Evangelical from non Evangelical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T12:21:58.693" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5271" CreationDate="2013-01-11T13:48:39.157" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am still learning so any feedback would be useful here, but I do think I have some things to add to this discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We need to keep in mind that in a technical sense, we are driven to the honest answer that if God chose to Save anyone they will be Saved. Since there is not a direct declaration about unborn children, or those with limited mental faculty, we are left to reason with what we know of His character.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although David committed grievous Sin during his lifetime, God described him as a man after His own heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Samuel 13-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Samuel said to Saul, “You have acted foolishly; you have not kept&#xA;  the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you, for now&#xA;  the Lord would have established your kingdom [f]over Israel forever.&#xA;  14 But now your kingdom shall not endure. The Lord has sought out for&#xA;  Himself a man after His own heart (speaking of David), and the Lord&#xA;  has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept&#xA;  what the Lord commanded you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David's life is interesting indeed, but in reference to unborn children - David lost a child, as explained:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Samuel 12-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God&#xA;  of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who&#xA;  delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I also gave you your master’s&#xA;  house and your master’s wives into your [e]care, and I gave you the&#xA;  house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would&#xA;  have added to you many more things like these! 9 Why have you despised&#xA;  the word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down&#xA;  Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife,&#xA;  and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10 Now&#xA;  therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you&#xA;  have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be&#xA;  your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil&#xA;  against you from your own household; I will even take your wives&#xA;  before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with&#xA;  your wives in [f]broad daylight. 12 Indeed you did it secretly, but I&#xA;  will do this thing before all Israel, and [g]under the sun.’” 13 Then&#xA;  David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan&#xA;  said to David, “The Lord also has [h]taken away your sin; you shall&#xA;  not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given occasion to&#xA;  the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to&#xA;  you shall surely die.” 15 So Nathan went to his house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Loss of a Child&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s [i]widow bore to David, so&#xA;  that he was very sick. 16 David therefore inquired of God for the&#xA;  child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground. 17&#xA;  The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up&#xA;  from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with&#xA;  them. 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And&#xA;  the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead,&#xA;  for they said, “Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to&#xA;  him and he did not listen to our voice. How then can we tell him that&#xA;  the child is dead, since he might do himself harm!” 19 But when David&#xA;  saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that&#xA;  the child was dead; so David said to his servants, “Is the child&#xA;  dead?” And they said, “He is dead.” 20 So David arose from the ground,&#xA;  washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into&#xA;  the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he came to his own house,&#xA;  and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have&#xA;  done? [j]While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the&#xA;  child died, you arose and ate food.” 22 He said, “While the child was&#xA;  still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the Lord may&#xA;  be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ 23 But now he has died;&#xA;  why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but&#xA;  he will not return to me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Earlier in the text, it is clear that David is Saved because he is told by Nathan that despite his horrible Sin, it had been washed away by the Lord.  So, we know multiple things here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) David was Saved despite his Sin, because of the Lord's washing it away.&#xA;2) God is the one who killed the child. (God kills 100% of everyone, of course).&#xA;3) David, in his response to God's Justified Judgement, makes it clear that he fully expects to one day be with his now dead child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It cannot be directly stated as I said before that this is the case with all children, surely it is up to the Lord; however, in principle we see here that a Saved man is completely assured he will be reunited with his dead child. He is not corrected or chastised for this either...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the only other things we can go on are the understanding of God's character and how He 'may' apply Election to those in unfortunate circumstances. Again, I cannot speak precisely, only in principle; for lack of direct Scripture on the subject. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 18-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while&#xA;  Abraham was still standing before the Lord. 23 Abraham came near and&#xA;  said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24&#xA;  Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed&#xA;  sweep it away and not [t]spare the place for the sake of the fifty&#xA;  righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from You to do [u]such a thing,&#xA;  to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the&#xA;  wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of&#xA;  all the earth [v]deal justly?” 26 So the Lord said, “If I find in&#xA;  Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will [w]spare the whole&#xA;  place on their account.” 27 And Abraham replied, “Now behold, I have&#xA;  [x]ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. 28&#xA;  Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the&#xA;  whole city because of five?” And He said, “I will not destroy it if I&#xA;  find forty-five there.” 29 He spoke to Him yet again and said,&#xA;  “Suppose forty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it on&#xA;  account of the forty.” 30 Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry,&#xA;  and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?” And He said, “I&#xA;  will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 And he said, “Now behold, I&#xA;  have [y]ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found&#xA;  there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.”&#xA;  32 Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only&#xA;  this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not&#xA;  destroy it on account of the ten.” 33 As soon as He had finished&#xA;  speaking to Abraham the Lord departed, and Abraham returned to his&#xA;  place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this passage we see evidence of how God applies His Righteous Judgement.  We still would concede it is of course, up to Him who He chooses to see as Righteous or Wicked for the purpose of Election so do no forget that; but we have more insight to how Merciful He is. He is so abounding in Grace, and it's a marvel that He saves anyone to begin with. More of His Word may help us to find more assurance in His character:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 5-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 “Blessed are the [a]gentle (meek, humble), for they shall inherit&#xA;  the earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must concede that Election is solely up to Him, that is sure; however, we can also see in principle that His character is reassuring as to how we theorize upon how He decides such a thing. There are no meeker, or gentle souls than those who have not a chance to perform actions; or that suffer from limited capacities. We also should remember, &lt;em&gt;He is ultimately the cause of their existence, their condition, and their death.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this provides a sort of reassurance, not that I can claim all lost children go to Heaven, but that we can find comfort in knowing the Mercy aspect of His character. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, do your best not to worry over these situations - though it may be hard... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God will do exactly what is correct for every soul that exists, according to His own Will&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another alternate, but perhaps less helpful answer to the second question would be in short reply: &lt;strong&gt;God is not as you describe&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3744" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-14T03:50:17.247" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T03:50:17.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4743" CreationDate="2013-01-11T13:55:48.240" Score="-3" Body="&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In simple English, the belief of papal succession includes with it the power of appointing all ‘true officers’ of the ‘true church’. In other words, in practice it is simply the Roman Catholic means of doctrinally excluding all other Christian churches. More to the point it makes any persons personal salvation outside her physical ordained network- 'doubtful to none'.  'Doubtful' if they are not properly introduced to Catholic authority, 'none' if they are and yet adamantly reject it, like most Protestant teachers and pastors.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: To post an answer that respects current Roman Catholic beliefs, I actually had to have something critical clarified in my own mind. I raised this post to really understand the ultimate impact of belief in papal succession: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12485/do-catholics-officially-recognize-protestants-as-christians&quot;&gt;Do Catholics officially recognize Protestants as Christians?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not encountered ‘the’ biblical argument against papal succession but I have run across several versions. The points of argument that have made the biggest impact for me as a Protestant are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no biblical argument for papal succession anywhere to be found in the Bible.  Any attempts that Catholicism tries to make for  an argument seems to be blatant dishonest use of the scripture.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The implication of papal succession is that by it, it denies faith in 'Christ alone' as sufficient for salvation. This is actually a rejection of Christ and his only catholic church invisible. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often the biggest argument against something is that there is no supporting argument for it. The scripture gives tradition no real respect, for it affirms that it was by the tradition of the church that the Jews found reason to reject Christ. This argument, absence of teaching denies its truth,  is only reasonable when the subject has significant impact on church life and would essentially imply God was irresponsible not to inform his children of such an essential matter through scripture. Scripture is what confirms if any tradition should be upheld or condemned. As papal succession is such an important doctrine, which the actual  salvation of souls does depend, and which is possibly the most central teaching of Catholicism, has absolutely no mention of in the scripture,   immediately points to its obvious and most critical error. It is from this ground that many Protestant theologians think of the Catholic external organization as a systematic form of an anti-Christ, if not the anti- Christ for its chief aim is at replacing Christ with a visible church and transferring the authority of Christ to the Pope. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one point for most Protestants actually ends the investigation and is sufficient for its full dismissal with full prejudice. However, there are some further points that may be considered from the biblical context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leaving the obvious error of this teaching we turn to God's word for what is a Christian:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The single definition within the scripture that determines if a visible person should be considered part of the invisible church, is their sincere confession of faith in 'Christ alone' for the forgiveness  of their sins. There visible membership to a church organization counts is merely dust on the scales.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-13, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under the error of papal succession the scripture is grossly and blasphemously perverted into saying,  'whoever believes in Christ...and [put your idol here].  The idol in this case is respect of the physical organization of the papacy. With the second idol, post initiation, as possibly the worship of Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A man's own personal faith directly in Christ and not directly Christ’s ministers or institutions, is the basis of all genuine faith in God. Therefore faith in Christ has the implication of putting all believers under a duty of condemning anyone who preaches a different faith, that is 'faith AND' [put your idol here]. Even if it if an apostle, Pope, or even an angel of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore the authority of the Apostles was not physically held by them so that they could pass it on, rather their authority was in proclaiming Christ AND NOTHING. If they, Peter, Paul, or whoever no longer preached this, they were to be absolutely condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The result with respect to papal succession was the reformation largely lead by Martin Luther. This is how the invisible church was restored to the authority of Christ under his word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is on the foundational doctrine of Christ, that he will build his church upon himself as the rock, not upon the pope and his pretenders, which &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9023/when-jesus-gave-peter-his-name-rock-what-is-the-significance-that-he-then-said&quot;&gt;Peter’s confession&lt;/a&gt; is to be understood. Peter's faith in Christ alone, just as any believers was a 'little rock' upon which all believers are built into the temple of God. This temple is built on this precise gospel teaching that was laid by the Apostles. It here that Protestants and Catholics divide as far as the east of from the west.  Papal succession seizes on the potential confusion that the English translation of this Greek sentence and tries to create an idol out of Peter which will an anchor and protect all their pretended authority over every other Christian body of believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T15:58:53.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2337" CreationDate="2013-01-11T15:42:35.043" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Owen in his introduction to Hebrews, in my mind the best commentary written on Hebrews ever. In it Owen maintains it was written by Paul, denies the inconsistency of styles and explains the lack of Apostolic title as a kind gesture to avoid the bias the Hebrews had against him while also moving somewhat into Peter's office.  To get around this tension he also humbly implies that his own Apostolic ministry was confirmed in what the Apostles heard directly from the physical ministry of Christ by including himself with the dispersed Hebrews.  Just as in Galatians 2:2 the other Apostles confirmed Paul in his Apostleship. Paul never claimed to hear the word of Christ's ministry while he was on the earth yet his calling to the Apostleship was alone directly the word of Christ that he heard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Owen further supports the argument of Peter referring to his letter (2 Peter 3:15) to the Hebrews and denies it was just to a local group of Hebrews, but was designed for all Hebrews readers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally think it was most likely written by Paul directly, its polished Greek must be from the author not a penmen, or the inspiration would become the penmen's for the Spirit chooses the words which makes it perfect. I feel after reading his other letters that I am being spoken to by the same person. Also as I find all the other arguments against his authorship unconvincing, plus ancient tradition assigns Paul as the author, their is no need for me to suppose a different author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the absence of an author's title in Hebrews is not a basis to doubt it was Paul, but is a basis to argue it was Paul.  The author's title in an epistle is provided where the recipients do not already obviously know who the letter is from, but have respect for the authority of the writer, by which adding the name would make the letter better received.  In the case of the Hebrews, Paul would do better calling upon the authority of the Old Testament only, rather than his or anyone's Apostolic authority which they were not sure they believed in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course it really does not matter in the end, more about that here. &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2942/who-are-the-candidates-for-autor-and-would-it-matter-if-their-id-was-revealed/2950#2950&quot;&gt;Who were the other candidates that some argue wrote Hebrews?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-01-11T16:18:54.843" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12607" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12612" CreationDate="2013-01-11T22:23:21.920" Score="9" ViewCount="7256" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Christian Old Testament include exactly the same books that are in the Jewish Bible (called the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tanakh&lt;/a&gt; in Judaism)? Are there any differences between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Bible?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3747" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-09-06T07:34:41.097" LastActivityDate="2015-09-06T07:34:41.097" Title="Does the Christian Old Testament have the exact same list of books as the Jewish Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12577" CreationDate="2013-01-12T01:40:18.293" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me this boils down to idolatry. If you worship a none-triune God, you have constructed a god that is not the same God as the God of the Bible. So it's heretical rather than just simple doctrinal disagreement because you are not even worshiping the same God. It doesn't matter if you call it god, it's not God. &#xA;This goes against the first commandment. But more than that I can say this qualifies as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to say that the Holy Spirit does not exist or is not God. &#xA;Mark 3:29 states &quot;but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastActivityDate="2013-01-12T01:40:18.293" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12577" CreationDate="2013-01-12T02:16:10.943" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to point out that it is not common to jump to the conclusion that someone is a heretic flatly because of their lack of understanding of the Trinity, this can be the case and often is; however, more clarification may help in this discussion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, &lt;em&gt;the Trinity is something that a Saved believer will come to affirm as it is Truth&lt;/em&gt;; however - upon being Justified, there is not necessarily outpouring of all understanding bestowed upon the believer per se'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to become a sincere Christian, and to then grasp onto more Godly concepts as the Lord works out His plan of Sanctification for the believer.  If a newly Born Again adherent is unaware of the Truth of the Trinity at the onset - he is possibly not engaging in active heresy; it may be the case that he or she has not had that aspect of God's Nature revealed to them as of yet. I would contend that this is a rare case, but is certainly possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;That being said, it is proper for Christians to affirm the Trinity, as it is clearly taught in Scripture.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many others have done well to make valid points concerning this topic, but I'd like to take the most simple and effective approach to answering.  We can go all over the Scriptures and see evidence that the Trinity is a sound and rightful Doctrine, in both the Old and New Testament.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I do not have the time presently to show in an exhaustive manner all of these evidences here; also I want to address the topic at hand rather than provide all evidence that it is in fact a Truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, although it can be clearly shown to be a Truth from Scripture, it should be understood that it is not possible for man to fully comprehend it in totality.  It is, however, clearly a reality, despite our inability to fully ascertain the inner workings of God's Nature of Being (Trinity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will conclude with my answer by demonstrating that &lt;em&gt;it is simply not possible for a Born Again believer to maintain in some ongoing fashion a denial of the Trinity by using Christ's own words&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 28-&#xA;The Great Commission&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 [e]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [f]always, even to the end of the age.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ Himself, who is God, not only affirms this aspect of His own Nature of Being, but ties in His direct mention of it with the Great Commission; a foundational command which all true Christians follow.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Christ has ALL Authority in Heaven, and on Earth. (We can know He speaks Truth about all matters as He is God Himself, the second person of the Trinity)&#xA;2) It should be understood that God would never command His own followers to baptize in any other name than His own.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3) Clearly the Trinity is taught by Christ Himself, therefore, &lt;em&gt;all true Christians - upon this truth being revealed to them will affirm it.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps, but a small bit of further clarification may be required, while I explained it may for a time be unclear for a newly Saved believer (simply wrong/uneducated on the Doctrine), &lt;em&gt;ongoing rejection of the Truth of the Trinity would and should be considered Heresy.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As a side note I'd like to add that Catholics do in fact affirm the Doctrine of the Trinity.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3744" LastEditorUserId="3744" LastEditDate="2013-01-14T12:50:06.253" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T12:50:06.253" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12607" CreationDate="2013-01-12T03:05:33.100" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Christian Old Testament is the Jewish Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/451/214&quot;&gt;same books&lt;/a&gt;, but in a &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/8249/581&quot;&gt;different order&lt;/a&gt;. Some Christian churches also add the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/471/214&quot;&gt;deuterocanonical books&lt;/a&gt;, which are not held as scripture by the Jewish Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3751" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2014-04-24T22:25:59.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12613" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12626" CreationDate="2013-01-12T06:05:46.417" Score="10" ViewCount="2873" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the tradition of communion stems from the last supper Jesus had with his disciples.  Jesus had the last supper with just his 12 disciples, not all of his followers.  Does this mean that only priests should take communion, or should we assume that all followers should take communion, and if so why should we assume this from what is written?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3747" LastActivityDate="2019-04-19T16:22:58.257" Title="Who did Jesus intend to take communion?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4743" CreationDate="2013-01-12T06:33:12.353" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the problems with Peter specifically being pope is that the scriptures say he was an apostle to the Jews (see Galatians 2:7). If anybody was going to be pope it would have been Paul (called to be an apostle to the gentiles). And for another thing Paul wrote more of the New Testament than any other author. To complicate things further it was Paul who rebuked Peter(see Galatians 2:11-14). And finally if there is any notion that Paul was somehow not operating in correct authority, Peter implies Paul's writings are scripture in 2 Peter 3:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2014-12-08T13:13:55.590" LastActivityDate="2014-12-08T13:13:55.590" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7476" CreationDate="2013-01-12T11:42:19.493" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well I'd like to make a clarification, having dealt with both, day age theory is not necessarily an attempt to fit evolution into the bible. Day age theory in and of it's self is only an attempt to cram billions of years into the days of genesis to agree with modern cosmological &quot;science&quot;, and usually does not directly endorse biological evolution. Many who hold that claim still claim to take the bible seriously, and Hugh Ross even claims it's a literal interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Theistic Evolution&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theistic evolutionists in my experience, mostly dismiss the parts of the bible that disagree with their worldview. They'll make many claims, usually a shot gun approach to see which one can be accepted such as: The bible has many errors in it, genesis was a compiled creation account similar to other creation myths, it's allegorical not historical, I've even heard it was just poetic, the list goes on. So coming up with a biblical refutation to theistic evolution is not going to do you much good in that situation because for whatever reason you show and no matter how black and white you show it in the scripture, they'll come up with a reason why the scripture itself shouldn't be trusted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you first need to help them determine if they actually believe in God or just think He's a nice idea. Even if you can prove everything, at this point it won't do anybody any good if we establish that God is real, but they won't trust and obey Him.  That's how God works, He doesn't normally go around proving He's God to people who don't want to trust Him. He does all the time to those who will though, as it is written He &quot;resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they decide that they actually do trust God but they are just unsure about the Bible really being what He said, then you need to deal with that. For most theistic evolutionists that should be enough. They usually just don't trust the bible, they know what it says, they just don't believe it. So you need to have them seek God and ask Him to revel it as His truth to them, you need to have them repent of their sin of doubting His word; and you can show them that this was in fact literally the oldest trick in the book . Satan's oldest trick was when he said to Eve &quot;Did God really say you couldn't eat of any tree in the garden?&quot; which did two things, first it was a distortion of what He said to make it sound ridiculous, and second it made Eve doubt God's word. Only when their heart is right should you start to show them hard evidence as to the bible's authenticity (which is another topic all together). Our job is to win people, not arguments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have to realize too that despite the fact that man jotted down what God said, the scripture is not an imperfect representation of mans thoughts on God, but scripture is what God said, not what man thought God said. In Timothy 3:16 it states all scripture is theopneustos (literally God breathed, not simply inspired as we used the term today). And off this topic there is evidence to support the idea that God even chose every letter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Day Age Theory&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to actually get to the biblical problems with Day Age theory. The rest of this assumes that the Bible is now being taken as inspired by God and we are only talking about interpretation. Again here first and foremost we need to be in agreement (us and the old earthers) to humble ourselves before God and invite the Spirit of Truth to lead us into understanding (see John 16:13), because it profits us nothing to lean on our own understanding.(see Proverbs 3:5) So they need to make a decision, is any amount of outside 'evidence' going to overthrow the scripture if you can prove what it says disagrees with their worldview? If the answer is ultimately yes then again this is pointless, there will always be a new argument or 'proof' to discredit scripture, eventually they all prove false, but if your going to be blown about by every wind of doctrine you are unstable at best. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are entire ministries devoted to dealing with this area so I can only make a fairly basic overview, but I'll try to get as much as I can into this(I myself have started a book on this subject). One thing I don't hear people mention that I feel should be obvious is that in the Jewish Calendar the year is 5773, we have records as early as 150ad that they were reconciling this from the beginning of creation, it wasn't till much later that they started reconciling this as the creation of Adam. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most obvious is the fact that the days are numbered, and it makes a point of there being evening and morning. Now the jews didn't recon the days of the week like we do with names they do it by number after the pattern of creation week.(see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar#Weeks&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar#Weeks&lt;/a&gt; ) . You'll note in Genesis 1:5 that God describes exactly what He means by day when He said: &quot;God called the the light day and the darkness He called night and there was evening and there was morning day one&quot;. I find it interesting that instead of calling it &quot;first day&quot;(יום ראשון) as Sunday is called in hebrew(the other days being referred to as second day, third day ... as the rest of genesis 1 reads) He instead called it &quot;Day one&quot; Yom ehad(אֶחָֽד) setting it as unique not to be confused with any other first day(of the week), which is the same phrase He uses in Zechariah 14 to say there will be another &quot;Day one&quot; Yom Ehad in the future where there will be no more evening and no more morning, I think that's a beautiful symmetry to the start of time and the end of time. Now Hugh Ross spoke at my church and said that we could interpret evening and morning as being symbolic for the dawn of an age and the close of an age. But I checked, there is never a time in the hebrew of the Old Testament that evening and morning could mean anything like that. The other most obvious objection is the fact that God wrote in the Ten Commandments the reason for resting on the sabbath day was because In six days the Lord God made the heavens, the earth and the seas and all that is in them and on the seventh day He rested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well as changing the clear meaning of day in Genesis, old earthers also have to deny the flood as being a global event(if it was global all radio dating methods are automatically voided, as the strata don't represent age, taking away almost all of there &quot;proof&quot; the earth is old) and but what is often overlooked is the fact that they don't just have to believe the days in genesis were &quot;Long periods of time&quot; but they also have to have man on earth longer because of the 'evidence' that man has been around 60,000+ years. They generally do this by playing with the genealogies in Genesis 5 claiming that it's just an overview of notable generations, they are telescoped and the word begot just means that they became the patriarch of that family line. Two problems with that theory, 1. even old earth supporting Jews still recognize the creation of Adam as occurring 5773 years ago, and as I said that was no later than 150ab when they started using that, so they definitely did not interpret begat as starting family lines. and 2.  Gleason Archer(Who co-wrote with Hugh Ross supporting the day age theory) wrote &quot;However the statistics of Genesis 5 may be handled, they can hardly end up with a date for Adam much before 10,000 B.C.&quot; in his book entitled &quot;Biblical Difficulties&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Geneses 7 is extremely precise in it's language. The whole earth and every mountain under the heavens were covered with water, and He blotted out every living thing from the face of the land. Gleason Archer(in Biblical Difficulties) agrees it was no local flood. There are plenty of specific claims as to why this was local, but if you just look up each one you'll see most of them are fictitious or disproven else where. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the other Gotcha verses for and old earth view, that I never see used, is Genesis 2:5-7 . Nothing green had grown on earth yet because man wasn't there, and it hadn't rained, then God created man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I must leave now having much more to write, but I encourage you to seek the council of the Holy Spirit and search for the term &quot;since the beginning&quot; in the bible and see what interesting conclusions you can gather. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2013-01-12T11:47:37.897" LastActivityDate="2013-01-12T11:47:37.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12617" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-12T17:38:40.590" Score="4" ViewCount="56" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4521/what-does-the-bible-say-about-people-with-mental-illness&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about people with mental illness?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a friend in Christ who is black/white; all are responsible for their actions all the time.  &quot;Mental illness&quot; is a modern construct that is not Biblical.  Saul, etc. suffered due to their sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suspect her point confuses the &quot;I'm sad, need some excitement so I'll shoot somebody&quot; with &quot;I don't want to live anymore 'cause everyone hates me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a schizophrenic purposely quits taking meds and then hurts someone--yeah I think they're culpable.  If they hurt someone before they're diagnosed, then I don't think they should be held criminally liable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depression, for me, is a bit trickier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Crux (IMHO): Does the Bible support idea that some mental illness is NOT sin and is there a circumstance when a person is not responsible for their actions (outside of knowlingly creating an altered state of being i.e. drunk, taking drugs, etc.)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3753" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-01-12T17:38:40.590" Title="Biblically, is there such a thing as innocent by reason of mental defect?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;justice&gt;&lt;mental-illness&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-01-13T07:55:06.720" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8036" CreationDate="2013-01-12T20:38:45.543" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might give you a deeper understanding of Ratzinger's development of thought on conscience. He gave &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/ratzcons.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a keynote address to Bishops in 1991 titled 'Conscience and Truth'&lt;/a&gt;. There is also a book 'On Conscience' Which contains both this address and an address he gave to in 1984 titled 'Bishops, Theologians and Morality'. He makes some very interesting points and asks some very interesting questions. He does say that we must follow our conscience but he also says we must form them well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper—not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth. For this reason, criminals of conviction like Hitler and Stalin are guilty. These crass examples should not serve to put us at ease but should rouse us to take seriously the earnestness of the plea: &quot;Free me from my unknown guilt&quot; (Ps 19:13).'&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — &lt;sub&gt;From a 1991 Keynote address titled 'Conscience and Truth' by Ratzinger at a workshop for bishops &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously he writes here when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith; I think this coincides pretty well with what the catechism states.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3757" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-01-13T07:51:51.267" LastActivityDate="2013-01-13T07:51:51.267" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4743" CreationDate="2013-01-12T23:06:49.610" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 23:9: &quot;And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly that doesn't leave much room for a pope, which of course comes from the Italian word for father. Since the role of pope is thus ruled out, the question of succession of popes is not to be found in the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is strange that the phrase is apostolic succession, when what is really meant is papal succession. Apostolic succession should simply mean that christian leaders raise leaders to replace them, with the numbers growing as the flock increases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2104" LastActivityDate="2013-01-12T23:06:49.610" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3387" CreationDate="2013-01-12T23:18:18.167" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The myth of a Friday crucifixion came about because of Mary's inability to go and tend the body of Christ on the Sabbath. The confusion came about because it was not the weekly Sabbath the scripture was referring to. It was High Sabbath it was referring to. See                  (  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Sabbaths&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Sabbaths&lt;/a&gt; for a thorough explanation.&#xA;)    People often reject this because they think it was invented by Seventh Day Adventist. Not so. And by the way I'm not Seventh Day Adventist. &#xA;In reference to this being something that has only been around 200, or 300 years....Please consider it has only been roughly the same amount of time people have believed in a rapture occurring. &#xA;    Because the Catholic church grew into a state of apostasy during the middle ages, this important information was lost. It has taken hundreds of years for us to rediscover these truths.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3758" LastActivityDate="2013-01-12T23:18:18.167" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12624" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12625" CreationDate="2013-01-13T08:39:49.603" Score="4" ViewCount="166" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ received the Holy Spirit when he was 30 years old. Wasn't that supposed to take place much earlier?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3762" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-23T05:03:35.810" LastActivityDate="2015-08-23T17:44:10.050" Title="Jesus Christ recieving Holy Spirit" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;timetable&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-08-29T02:44:35.800" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12624" CreationDate="2013-01-13T11:24:26.487" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few angles to answer your question from. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First &lt;strong&gt;the Eternal Son of God, who existed before being incarnated into a baby child through a virgin can never be said to not have the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; for the Trinity if One God, Father, Son and Spirit.  This is the basic view of God within Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, &lt;strong&gt;when the Eternal Son was incarnated the human nature that he incorporated into his person could never be said to not have the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; for the Divine nature and the Human nature are inseparable in his person forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, &lt;strong&gt;as a man Jesus needed additional supplies of the Spirit to resist sin and to obey all that his Father has given to him to do&lt;/strong&gt;.  In this sense of ‘needing’ the Spirit to live a holy life as a man in communion with his Father he must have to be fully human. We can see even in what little record we have of Jesus as a child where the Spirit was mighty in him. In Luke 2 Jesus was separated from his parents and was later found engaging the teachers in the temple courts. When they rebuked him for getting lost while they were worried he said “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”. This implies at an early age he was already deeply aware of his fellowship with the Father which is by the Spirit.  It is then added that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2:52, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This obviously implies that the Spirit of God was causing the boy Jesus to develop in ‘spiritual’ wisdom, not just the human kind, meaning the Spirit was deep at work within him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is from this third aspect that your question is based and the answer is simple. Of course Jesus as a man always had supplies of grace from the Spirit and communed with his Father, but &lt;strong&gt;it was not until his official ministry in preaching the gospel was inaugurated that he received the Spirit in an extra and unusual manner&lt;/strong&gt; in order for him to perform his earthly ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not only true of Christ but of all Christians that ‘receive the Spirit’. It is not something that happens once but over and over again and our needs require and God’s grace supplies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-01-13T11:24:26.487" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12613" CreationDate="2013-01-13T11:47:44.193" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is pretty clear that when Jesus called his disciples together on various occasions was to teach them things that they were to pass on to the entire church, this is one of them.&lt;/strong&gt;  Just as various commands on how we aught to live was only said to them, and not other disciples, so this practice was initiated with only them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The text does not specifically say ‘only you should do this in remembrance of me’ nor does it say ‘tell everyone else to do this in remembrance of me’. Therefore we must turn to other scriptures to confirm that natural suspicion that Jesus must have been changing the meaning of Passover for Christians, just as all Jews used to eat the meal in remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Turning to the Corinthian’s where the subject had come up due to their abuse of the practice we see clearly that all believers who sincerely believe in Christ should partake of the Lord’s Supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(I Cor 10:17, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Notice above ‘we all’ partake, that is all believers.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However Paul makes it clear than this should only be done in a right frame of mind by true believers and is not to be made light of like it was just an opportunity to party and get drunk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(I Cor 11:23-27, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Notice above Paul is speaking to all the believers and saying they should all partake but not to do it in an unworthy manner.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-07-09T02:53:11.410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T02:53:11.410" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12628" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13657" CreationDate="2013-01-13T20:11:02.043" Score="8" ViewCount="1041" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that &quot;Trinity&quot; is not is not used in the Christian Bible to define the three hypostases: God, Christ, and Holy Spirit.  What then is the historical origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, when and from whom did the word &quot;Trinity&quot; come about in relation to the hypostases?  Is there a reason &quot;Trinity&quot; appears in the Christian lexicon rather than referring to the specific hypostasis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3764" LastEditorUserId="3764" LastEditDate="2013-01-14T02:01:24.763" LastActivityDate="2017-11-22T15:17:02.380" Title="What is the origin of the Doctrine of Trinity?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12629" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="42206" CreationDate="2013-01-13T21:13:40.003" Score="13" ViewCount="4767" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A9%E2%80%9311&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:9–11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is&#xA;  a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you,&#xA;  or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female&#xA;  servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.&#xA;  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that&#xA;  is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed&#xA;  the Sabbath day and made it holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is an &lt;strong&gt;overview of Protestant views on the Sabbath&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Caveat: I'm not interested in the Seventh Day Adventist position.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-06-26T13:30:30.200" LastActivityDate="2018-11-15T05:12:05.527" Title="How do Protestants keep the Sabbath?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="12630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12628" CreationDate="2013-01-13T21:46:07.700" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question pre-supposes that, since the word &quot;Trinity&quot; is excluded from the Bible, then the &quot;historical origin of the doctrine of the Trinity&quot; is also excluded from the Bible. However, I would beg to differ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, consider the word &quot;monotheism.&quot; It too is excluded from the Bible; you will not find the word &quot;monotheism&quot; written explicitly in the text of the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Monotheism&quot; is &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monotheism?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;defined&lt;/a&gt; as &quot;the doctrine or belief that there is only one God. The Bible states that &quot;there is one God, and there is no other but Him&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;v=32&amp;amp;t=KJV#32&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 12:32&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Since&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;monotheism&quot; is defined as &quot;the doctrine or belief that there is only one God,&quot; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; the Bible (&lt;em&gt;loc. cit.&lt;/em&gt;) states that &quot;there is one God, and there is no other but Him,&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;then&lt;/strong&gt; we may conclude that the Bible &lt;strong&gt;confirms&lt;/strong&gt; monotheism even though the word &quot;monotheism&quot; itself is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name of a doctrine does not need to be explicitly stated in scripture as long as the elements which define the doctrine are stated or implied. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The historical origin of the doctrine of the Trinity is the Bible. If you would like to know what the doctrine of the Trinity entails, another dedicated question may be in order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-01-13T21:46:07.700" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12624" CreationDate="2013-01-13T22:00:43.823" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you have rightly mentioned in the comments, Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and so was John the baptist. They were filled with the Holy Spirit from their mothers' womb&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 1:35&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come&#xA;  upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:&#xA;  therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be&#xA;  called the Son of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the Spirit came on Jesus not to fill him but to reveal him to John&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from&#xA;  heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 And I knew him not: &lt;strong&gt;but he that sent me to baptize with water, the&#xA;  same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending&lt;/strong&gt;, and&#xA;  remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for the baptism - to fulfill all righteousness. If Jesus did not do it, I think baptism in Christianity would have been history&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: &lt;strong&gt;for thus&#xA;  it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness&lt;/strong&gt;. Then he suffered him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2015-08-23T17:44:10.050" LastActivityDate="2015-08-23T17:44:10.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="286" CreationDate="2013-01-14T00:33:30.520" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Jesus' answer can be taken on two levels.  On the first level he was helping the individual who asked him to let him bury his dead.  Jesus' response to him was that he could have little impact on the person that was already dead and should rather focus his efforts on helping to spread the Gospel that would impact the living before their death and subsequent judgement.  Paul clarified the reason for focusing on the living when he said to the Hebrews in Hebrews 9:27 &quot;And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second level comes in a prophetic form.  Jesus did not waste opportunity to teach us and I think he knew that in future times there would come those who would teach false doctrines spending endless hours doing meaningless ordinances such as baptism for the dead as if the dead could change their outcome by repentance after death.  How much more clearly could it be said since baptism represents burial.  Therefore baptism or burial with Christ was a decision for this life only and would have as little effect on the salvation of the soul of that person as the burial of their bones would ultimately affect their Eternal outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3766" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-14T03:40:50.797" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T03:40:50.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12629" CreationDate="2013-01-14T00:47:52.003" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Using the Westminster Confession of Faith to present a Reformed position, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXI.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chapter XXI&lt;/a&gt;, paragraph VIII states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This presents the Sabbath's purpose of getting people out of their self-satisfaction and self-importance (&quot;own works, words, and thoughts&quot;) and directed toward God (&quot;worship&quot;) while being godly in not neglecting needs of self or others (&quot;necessity and mercy&quot;--&quot;duties of necessity&quot; can be somewhat vague but I believe would include certain work of doctors, police, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(By the way, in paragraph VII, the writers of the WCF present the belief that Sunday is the post-resurrection/Christian Sabbath day.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in cultures with 5-day work weeks (which at least some Reformed persons believe would also violate the 4th commandment, if two rest days are used), there are &quot;slave-driver&quot; employers and workaholics for which the imposition of a ceasing would be a mercy even from an atheistic perspective.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(By the way, the Exodus version draws on the creation relation--all mankind, all time (at least for some interpreters)--and presents it as a blessing; the Deuteronomy version relates it to salvation from slavery and as a covenant command as well as emphasizing likeness to the slave--reminiscent, to me, of Col. 4:1 &quot;Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven&quot;(NIV).)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sabbath has several purposes, including: to reinforce trusting that God will provide (cf. Manna gathering in Ex. 16:19-30), to provide/enforce freedom from work (i.e., work is not to be the master), to provide/enforce rest, to have a dedicated regular (habitual) time to remember who God is and what God has done, to develop a future-oriented mindset (Sabbath requires preparation and is a guaranteed future time, perhaps hinting at anticipation of (and preparation for) the time of the new heaven and new earth with a sense of certainty, the fullness of rest is as certain as one day following another).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even for Christians who reject Sabbath observance as a moral law (I think St. Augustine was one such, so this certainly appears to be a &quot;disputable matter&quot;), the principles of not abusing employees, of regularly remembering that God is God (Creator and Master), of depending on God, and of resting--these principles would still apply.  In addition, such Christians might adopt the pattern of Sabbath (with its related purposes such as those mentioned above) as a practical aid toward sanctification much like a dedicated time of Bible study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that entire books have been written on this subject, a StackExchange answer is not likely to be especially comprehensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-01-14T00:57:08.257" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T00:57:08.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12637" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12638" CreationDate="2013-01-14T02:09:49.100" Score="29" ViewCount="3633" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by Christianity? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously there are three entities involved: God the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but is there more to the definition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3764" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T18:50:55.777" LastActivityDate="2020-06-09T01:21:04.267" Title="What is the doctrine of the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12637" CreationDate="2013-01-14T02:23:09.363" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you already understand, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God, who exists in three persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/trinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/trinity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same&#xA;  person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person&#xA;  as Father.  They are not three gods and not three beings.  They are&#xA;  three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God.  Each has a&#xA;  will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of&#xA;  personhood.  They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one&#xA;  substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful.  If any one of&#xA;  the three were removed, there would be no God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is, though, an apparent separation of some functions among the&#xA;  members of the Godhead.  For example, the Father chooses who will be&#xA;  saved (Eph. 1:4); the Son redeems them (Eph. 1:7); and the Holy Spirit&#xA;  seals them, (Eph. 1:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to expand on that, but there's not much I could expand on that hasn't already been covered in depth on this site.  And while it's really not a complex doctrine, all sorts of heretical teachings come about based on a misunderstanding of it, or a rejection of it.   Rather than going into any more detail here, I'd just recommend browsing &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/trinity&quot;&gt;the various questions tagged &quot;Trinity&quot; here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T02:23:09.363" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12639" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="12640" CreationDate="2013-01-14T02:31:23.950" Score="14" ViewCount="68178" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 16:23:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus turned and said to Peter, &quot;Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus choose the &quot;Get behind me Satan&quot; phrase here?  Is there context for this elsewhere in the gospels or in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3764" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T06:14:46.757" Title="What is meant by &quot;Get behind me Satan&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12639" CreationDate="2013-01-14T03:25:40.970" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;In context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how&#xA;  that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders&#xA;  and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the&#xA;  third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be&#xA;  it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned,&#xA;  and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence&#xA;  unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those&#xA;  that be of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context here is that Peter was suggesting that Jesus take a course of action other than the one that He was predestined to fulfill.  Jesus knew His destiny, and he knew the will of the Father.  What Peter was suggesting was that Jesus go against the will of the Father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, Peter's words were the words of an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;adversary&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of God.  Not consciously, I'm sure.  I have no doubt that Peter sincerely didn't understand what he was suggesting - He just wanted Christ to live.  He loved Jesus, and didn't want to see Him die.  Nonetheless, his suggestion was in direct opposition to the will of God.  The word translated Satan here is usually applied to Satan as we think of him, but it literally simply means &quot;adversary&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Barnes' Notes on the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Get thee behind me, Satan - The word &quot;Satan&quot; literally means &quot;an&#xA;  adversary,&quot; or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our&#xA;  designs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is applied to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of&#xA;  man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this&#xA;  term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that&#xA;  he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense&#xA;  which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may&#xA;  be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him&#xA;  and his plans. His interference was improper. His views and feelings&#xA;  stood in the way of the accomplishment of the Saviour's designs. There&#xA;  was, undoubtedly, a rebuke in this language, for the conduct of Peter&#xA;  was improper; but the idea which is commonly attached to it, and&#xA;  which, perhaps, our translation conveys, implies a more severe and&#xA;  harsh rebuke than the Saviour intended, and than the language which he&#xA;  used would express.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also the understanding in Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Get thee behind me, Satan - Υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα. Get behind me,&#xA;  thou adversary. This is the proper translation of the Hebrew word שטן&#xA;  Satan, from which the Greek word is taken. Our blessed Lord certainly&#xA;  never designed that men should believe he called Peter, Devil, because&#xA;  he, through erring affection, had wished him to avoid that death which&#xA;  he predicted to himself. This translation, which is literal, takes&#xA;  away that harshness which before appeared in our Lord's words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T03:25:40.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12639" CreationDate="2013-01-14T10:30:09.813" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word Σατανα is always translated as Satan in the New Testament, at least in the ESV version that I have looked up. The following verses use this word to indicate Satan in the gospels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt 4:10&#xA;      Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “ ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’ ” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt 16:23&#xA;      But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 1:13&#xA;      And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 8:33&#xA;      But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from the gospels it is also used as Satan as found in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 26:18, 1 Cor 5:5, 2 Cor 2:11, 2 Cor 12:7, 2 Thess 2:9, 1 Tim 1:20, 1 Tim 5:15, Rev 2:9, Rev 2:13, Rev 2:24, Rev 3:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally do not see any reason why the severity of the rebuke should be of any alarm. &lt;strong&gt;‘Get thee behind me’ is  Jesus putting the suggestions of Satan, who had whispered this idea to Peter, out of the way.&lt;/strong&gt;  It is the same as saying ‘Be gone, Satan!’ In Matt 4:10. The only difference is that when Jesus said 'Be gone' the Devil was tempting Jesus to do something wrong. &lt;strong&gt;In this instance Satan is trying to get Jesus 'not to do something he must', therefore the Devil was standing directly in front of Christ's straight path. He must get behind him, if Jesus was to continue his mission.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter was considering only the outward part of his sufferings, with the shame and scandal that it would cause and did not think of it according to faith. Ironically, he had just made his confession of faith which shows how easy a spiritual view can be turned into a carnal one, with the Devil seizing upon the weakness of our ignorance to insert his own suggestion through even godly men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly this was one of the most evil suggestions ever offered to Jesus by any man, thus it was from the Devil.  Peter was opposing the very purpose for which Jesus came into the world with reasons that would be appealing to Jesus as a temptation. This was the Devil putting forward this idea so why not look past Peter and label it for what it was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T10:30:09.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13643" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13644" CreationDate="2013-01-14T11:25:23.363" Score="3" ViewCount="6042" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes we make vows to God that are hard for us to keep and the Bible advised (&lt;em&gt;I couldn't remember this portion: Hosea or Malachi - and Google didn't help too&lt;/em&gt;) that we should not be rash when making  a vow for every vow must be kept&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ecclesiastes 5:4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When you vow a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he has no&#xA;  pleasure in fools: pay that which you have vowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there is another part that talked about it strongly (Hosea or Malachi) but I can't remember.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I made a vow many years ago (less than $5) and I could not fulfill it for a very long time. My finances went off balance until I realized I made a vow and after that peace came to me. Since then I have been cautious of making vows that I can't keep or I wouldn't make any at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My question is&lt;/strong&gt;: Can God forgive someone if he asks for forgiveness after seeing he could not fulfill it or is it a must, you have to pay it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2013-01-14T11:52:15.400" LastActivityDate="2014-11-25T12:25:02.000" Title="Making a vow and defaulting - is there forgiveness?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-11-26T17:20:11.787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13643" CreationDate="2013-01-14T12:06:42.997" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: yes, He can forgive if we make a vow and fall short. I'd specify that this is from [insert denomination] perspective, but I think this is agreed upon by all mainstream denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Longer answer, with support:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. Even to those that believe you can &quot;lose your salvation&quot;, you can repent and confess it. To those that don't believe you can lose your salvation, the &quot;yes&quot; is even more obvious. We believe that He has forgiven all our sins, past, present, and future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/what-is-unique-about-christianity/3983#3983&quot;&gt;The central message of Christianity is that the reason we need  savior in the first place is that we fall short and cannot save ourselves&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-comfort/heaven-goodenough.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;We can't possibly be &quot;good enough&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, 1 John teaches that we all sin. If we try to claim otherwise, we're liars, and that instead if trying to claim we have no sin, we should just confess it, and know that He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare&#xA;  unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we&#xA;  say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie,&#xA;  and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the&#xA;  light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus&#xA;  Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no&#xA;  sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess&#xA;  our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to&#xA;  cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not&#xA;  sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'm with you on refusing to make vows to God. Scripture says it's better not to as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no&#xA;  pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. 5 Better is it that&#xA;  thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, in general, we are to keep our word, so of it is in our power to fulfill our vow, we should. There in nothing in Scripture that relieves us of our responsibility to pay what we owe, if it is within our ability to do so. I'd question whether &quot;repentance&quot; is genuine if the person in question failed to do whatever it takes to try to make it right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T00:54:18.290" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12637" CreationDate="2013-01-14T14:52:50.283" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;On birth of Jesus Christ and His life, Death and Resurrection, it became essential to conceive the Doctrine of Trinity. Most obvious and direct evidence for Trinity originate from Bible depicting Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit with Nature of God. Therefore, if Father is God, Son is God and Holy Spirit is God than that’s it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Father being God is acceptable to many which is as easy as accepting existence of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus as God:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Instead of quoting all those verses from NT, where Jesus is depicted as same as God, here are few more events that leads us to know about this claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To quote Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan, he has pointed out that the oldest Christian sermon, the oldest account of Christian martyr, the oldest pagan report of the church, the oldest liturgical prayer, 1 Corinthians 16:22, all refer to Jesus as Lord and God.   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pelikan said, &quot;Clearly, it was the message of what the church believed and taught that 'God' was an appropriate name for Jesus Christ.&quot; Do you see any possible way this could have developed, especially so soon, if Jesus had never made transcendent and messianic claims about himself? Not unless you're prepared to argue that the disciples completely forgot what the historical Jesus was like and that they had nothing to do with the traditions that start showing up twenty years after his death.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.2.     He was crucified precisely for this charge when He declared that He is the Son of God thus making Himself equal with God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.3. Think of the story of Jesus walking in the water, found in Matthew 14:22-33 and Mark 6:45-52. Most English translations hide the Greek by quoting Jesus as saying, &quot;Fear not, it is I.&quot; Actually, the Greek literally says, &quot;Fear not, I am.&quot; Those last two words are identical to what Jesus said in John 8:58, when he took upon himself the divine name &quot;I am,&quot; which is the way God revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush in Exodus 3:14. So Jesus is revealing himself as one who has the same divine power over nature as Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.4. One of the most striking is his forgiving of sin. If you do something against me, I have the right to forgive you. However, if you do something against me and somebody else comes along and says, &quot;I forgive you,&quot; what kind of cheek is that? The only person who can say that sort of thing is God himself, because sin, even if it is against other people, is first and foremost a defiance of God and his laws. So along comes Jesus and he says to sinners, &quot;I forgive you.&quot; The Jews immediately recognize the blasphemy of this. They react by saying, &quot;Who can forgive sins but God alone?&quot; Not only did Jesus forgive sin, but he asserted that he himself was without sin. And certainly sinless-ness is an attribute of deity.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.5. The way God was going to save the world was by his Son dying. God, in his divine nature does not die. So He had to come as a human being to accomplish that task. And Jesus believed he was the one to do it. Jesus said in Mark 10:45, &quot;I did not come to be served but to serve and give my life as a ransom in place of many.&quot; This is either the highest megalomania or it's the example of somebody who really believes, as he said, &quot;I and the Father are one.&quot; In other words, &quot;I have authority to speak for the Father; I have power to act for the Father; If you reject me, you've rejected the Father.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Holy spirit as God:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;There are these verses and many more that depict Holy Spirit as the Person of Trinity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 2:11; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 2 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians  3:17-18; 2 Corinthians  13:13/14;Galatians 6:8; Ephesians 2:17-18; 1 Thessalonians 1:2-5; Hebrew 3:7-11; 2 Peter 1:21 etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 Cor 13:14 and Mt 28:19 both prove the personality of the Holy Spirit. In both passages, there is a &quot;person, person, person&quot; sequence. (Father, Son, Spirit).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 Cor 13:14 concludes with these important words: &quot;be with you all&quot;. Three things are to be with you: &quot;May Christ's grace be with you. May God's love be with you. May the Spirit's fellowship/sharing/companionship be with you.&quot;  This exactly echoes the promise of the &quot;comforter&quot; in John 14:16-17, &quot;And I [Jesus] will ask the Father, and He will give you another [Gr. allos: of the same kind as Jesus] Helper, that He [the Holy Spirit] may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.&quot;  So Paul's desire in 2 Cor 13:14 for Christians to have the &quot;fellowship of the Holy Spirit&quot; is EXACTLY what Jesus promised in John 14:17 of the Spirit: &quot;He abides with you, and will be in you&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The verse 2 Cor 13:14 says that the &quot;person of Jesus Christ&quot; is the source and supplier of grace, the &quot;person of God&quot; is the source and supplier of Love and the &quot;person of the Holy Spirit&quot; is the source and supplier of fellowship.   &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Trinity is depicted in amorphous manner in OT and explicitly in NT. The reason for it being explicit in NT is when Jesus came into this world, the true nature of One Almighty God was also revealed through His message. God the father was revealed in OT. Second person was revealed by arrival of Jesus and the third person was revealed after Jesus was glorified. That is why we find most of the references to God the father in OT, God the Son in Gospels and majority of the references in explaining God the Holy spirit, after Jesus was glorified.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-01-14T15:38:02.493" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T15:38:02.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13646" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-14T16:05:37.160" Score="4" ViewCount="456" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6519/how-was-documented-dialog-observed&quot;&gt;How was documented dialog observed?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have to say, my memory is not very good, but it is not too bad. (God helps me :) ). But I have a few questions concerning how the Bible authors were recalling that what has happened ,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) How did Moses know the dialog between Abraham and God? Did Abraham write a biography, and how could Moses remember the conversation so clearly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) More stunningly, if go and read Gospel of John, he remembers the LONG conversations, that is very very long, super well. For me I could hardly remember very clearly what happens last week, not to say ACCURATELY recite all a person said last week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is it correct by saying, even though a book of the Bible is affected by the character of its author, the writing style of its author, but basically the Bible is written down as an absolutely miracle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1960" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-09-20T03:26:52.627" Title="Why did they have such a good memory?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-01-15T05:24:48.177" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13646" CreationDate="2013-01-14T16:37:00.210" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the case of Moses, God spoke with him directly (e.g., the forty days on Mount Sinai) and instructed him in everything he was to write on the two stone tablets, as well as the scrolls of parchment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of the apostles, God gave them the Holy Spirit, and regarding the Holy Spirit, it is written (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=14&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:26&lt;/a&gt;),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and &lt;strong&gt;bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-09-20T03:26:52.627" LastActivityDate="2015-09-20T03:26:52.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13648" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-13T09:38:01.903" Score="-1" ViewCount="1027" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a belief out there that God the Father has always possessed a body of flesh and bones. Some of the proponents of this belief don't find it contradictory to John 4:24 (&quot;&lt;strong&gt;God is a Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;) as the verse may be referring only to one part of God without limiting God to being only that one part - just like, for example, in 1 Pet 3:20 (&quot;&lt;strong&gt;eight souls were saved by water&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;) Peter called some humans &quot;souls&quot;, but he didn't mean by that that they didn't posses bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The example of Jesus after His resurrection, Who, while possessing a body of flesh and bones, still retains all the qualities that are usually ascribed only to God, for example, His omnipresence, could go along with this belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder if Biblical hermeneutics, namely the hermeneutics of the Old Testament, allows for this belief. If not, please, point out those places that speak against the validity of this belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" OwnerDisplayName="brilliant" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T01:53:03.827" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T17:00:34.453" Title="God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="20" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-01-16T22:03:17.647" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="130" CreationDate="2013-01-14T19:46:13.183" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Open the Bible to the first book, first chapter, first line. Notice: it says nothing about Christ dying for our sins, nothing about the Second Coming, nothing about His bodily resurrection from the grave. It says nothing about the state of the dead or the Day of Atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first words of the Bible don’t talk about these teachings because they, and the truths associated with them, are meaningless apart from what the first words of the Bible do talk about—and that is, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Creation is the foundational truth of Scripture. All other biblical teachings—the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Second Coming—are founded upon the truth that our world was created by the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That’s why Creation appears not only in the opening pages of the Bible but in the first five books of Moses, in the prophets, in the Psalms, in the Gospels, in the Epistles, in Acts, and in Revelation. And, in almost all cases, the theological context demands that it be taken literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, Paul wrote that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:14&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom. 5:14, NKJV&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul not only links a literal Adam to a literal Jesus, but his context in Romans 5 ties that link to the plan of salvation, a crucial doctrine that we understand in the most literal sense, as well: we are fallen beings who face eternal destruction or eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here’s Jesus Himself quoting from Genesis 1 and 2: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh’ ” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:4-6&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt. 19:4–6, NKJV&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus accepted and taught the Creation account as literal, how can those who claim to be His followers do otherwise? Although working on the assumption that the story is basis of the gospel literal, the central message of the Bible is built upon the historical and the teachings that make us what truth of the Creation story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take, for instance, the gospel. According to Scripture, we are humans were created better than we are now. Jesus came to rescue us from death brought by the sin of Adam and Eve. But in an evolutionary model, the Lord creates through the vicious and pain-fully murderous cycle of natural selection, all in order to abolish death, “the last enemy”(1 Cor. 15:26). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how can death be the “enemy” if it was one of God’s chosen means for creating humans? The Lord must have expended plenty of dead Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis in order to finally get one in His own image (Homo sapiens). If evolution were true, then Jesus came to save humankind from the process that God used to create it in the first place. We can see here that mixing biblical truths with nonbiblical views generates logical absurdities that should be of concern to the honest seeker of truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="343" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T19:46:13.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13648" CreationDate="2013-01-14T20:51:59.587" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is worded a little tricky, but I think you're saying: John 4:24 says that God is a spirit, and you are saying that Mormons respond by saying that it only refers to one part of God (one part is the spirit and the other part is the body), since Mormons believe God has a body. Then you cite 1 Peter as an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not to throw your example a little bit, but Mormons believe that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; ... the spirit and the body are the soul of man.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88.15#14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 88:15&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How do / Do Mormons reconcile God the Father's omnipresence with his corporeal / fleshy form?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, Mormon doctrine does reconcile it, and it's quite simple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The body houses the spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God has a perfect, immortal, and glorified body which houses His spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is not, as an actual being, omnipresent. For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus couldn't visit the Nephites &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; other of God's children at the same time&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have aother sheep, which&#xA;  are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any&#xA;  parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my&#xA;  voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt; But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go&#xA;  unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered&#xA;  among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore&#xA;  I go to show myself unto them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4&lt;/strong&gt; And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am&#xA;  gone ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Since the Holy Ghost is both a spirit (no body) and also a god, His influence can be felt anywhere at once. The Holy Ghost is a separate, distinct being from God Himself, but is nonetheless a member of the godhead. In this sense, perhaps, God is &quot;omnipresent.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2013-01-14T23:21:01.780" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T23:21:01.780" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13652" PostTypeId="7" CreationDate="2013-01-14T21:01:01.397" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christianity - Stack Exchange&lt;/strong&gt; is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's built and run &lt;em&gt;by you&lt;/em&gt; as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="50" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T20:56:03.363" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T20:56:03.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13653" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13648" CreationDate="2013-01-14T23:50:14.443" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The OT is very clear that any static image or representation of the Divine is a very bad thing. The first two commandments are prohibitions of idolatry and the primary charge of the Prophets is against the same. To ascribe flesh and image to God would be heretical to the Jewish writers and authors of the books. As such, using a &quot;primary sense to the primary recipient&quot; hermeneutic would completely fail. Idolatry was so antithetical to the Jewish understanding would have made giving God any flesh or image heretical to unthinkable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said (and I say this as a non-Mormon), the primary problem and setting in which Joseph Smith either wrote or was called in (depending on your belief), was not one in which idolatry was an issue. As such, it is difficult to apply a Jewish understanding to a Mormon prophet. Would a Jew think this silly? Sure. But then again, the idea that God would ever take on flesh even temporarily as the Messiah is equally repugnant, so as an argument there is not much to gain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-01-14T23:50:14.443" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5666" CreationDate="2013-01-15T00:11:58.553" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like many people have said. It is in one sense a reward, while in the larger sense not at all. The Bible says the following in Mathew 10:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.&#xA;  Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in&#xA;  hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, destroying both soul and body would be a terrible consequence. It probably couldn't be seen as a reward at all. The act of destroying your soul means you will live in mental agony. But more than that. Although they might not want to relate themselves to God on Earth, when they are in Hell, they will be begging God to save them. They will not be happy that they are in their current state, and their body will be damaged as well. No win situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, consider the definition of Reward:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a fair return for good or bad behavior&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense. It is indeed a reward. However not a pleasant one. It is the &quot;fair&quot; return for their behavior. Therefore, you are right in the sense that it is a &quot;reward&quot;. However that applies purely based on the English definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we can conclude the following. It is the &quot;fair return&quot; for their actions, and therefore is a reward. However, it is not one they will be even SLIGHTLY happy about. They will live in eternal condemnation by soul and body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't fun to talk about, especially on the World Wide Web, but it is just true. There is no &quot;pro&quot; to going to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3773" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T00:11:58.553" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12637" CreationDate="2013-01-15T00:19:54.277" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of the Trinity is the logical construct whereby three of the most obvious but otherwise seemingly contradictory bits of Scripture are reconciled.  Namely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;That the Creator of the Universe (God the Father), YHWH to the Jews was God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Point one is not in dispute - the work of the Creator who proclaims himself to be God is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;That Jesus, the Incarnate &amp;quot;son of God&amp;quot; was God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Point two - that Jesus the &lt;em&gt;Christ&lt;/em&gt; is God is the defining belief of a &lt;em&gt;Christ&lt;/em&gt;-ian (regardless of what this site's definition may be!).  That Jesus claimed to be God is pretty well established, both throughout the book of John, and in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4464/does-jesus-ever-claim-to-be-god-or-the-son-of-god&quot;&gt;other questions&lt;/a&gt; on this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;That there is only one God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Point three - that there is only one God, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-one-god.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;is made throughout the Old Testament.&lt;/a&gt;  You cannot be &lt;em&gt;mono&lt;/em&gt;-theistic and believe in more than one God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic definition of the Trinity was popularized and credalized in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt;, in which monotheistic Christians declare belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Nicene Creed says that God the Son is &amp;quot;of one Being with the Father,&amp;quot; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds &amp;quot;from the Father &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3926/what-are-the-theological-implications-of-filioque&quot;&gt;through (or and)&lt;/a&gt; the Son.&amp;quot; This is the most widely held formulation of the Trinity - and is accepted by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/888/1039&quot;&gt;all but the most fringe of Christians&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reconciling that God is one, and yet exists as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5792/when-talking-about-the-trinity-what-does-persons-mean&quot;&gt;three distinct persons&lt;/a&gt; is the central &amp;quot;problem&amp;quot; of the Trinity, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7792/was-christ-the-man-created/7797#7797&quot;&gt;most heresies about the nature of God come from over stressing either their oneness or their distinctness&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8883/1039&quot;&gt;not tritheism (meaning that there are three Gods)&lt;/a&gt; nor is it &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5804/what-are-the-biblical-arguments-against-modalism/5806#5806&quot;&gt;one God who just appears in three different forms&lt;/a&gt;. It is not a matter of &amp;quot;1 + 1 + 1 = 1&amp;quot;, but rather &amp;quot;1 x 1 x 1 = 1&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/160941411X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some have said&lt;/a&gt;, that the Trinity can best be expressed as three individuals, so closely intertwined, as to be indistinguishable, and yet of such distinct personality as to form a community even within in itself.  As in a marriage, where two become one, the Trinity reflects that closeness, and, since marriage is often likened to a sign of the Trinity, supercedes it.  (Signs are less than the thing they point to.)  Whatever the nature of the Trinity, it is a core doctrine of all Nicene Christians that rejects any idea that God is more than One and simultaneously less than Three.  It is the &amp;quot;Three-In-One&amp;quot; Godhead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is always &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5792/when-talking-about-the-trinity-what-does-persons-mean/5795#5795&quot;&gt;contentious&lt;/a&gt;. and other questions show why many analogies just don't work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That this &amp;quot;mystery&amp;quot; has no earthly equivalent is not, however, an impossible defect - for it is simply understood that &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:%208%20-%209&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God's ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts higher than our thoughts.&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;  In other words, there is no law that says mortals need to be able to understand God's nature, just because there is no terrestrial equivalent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T17:39:04.727" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13646" CreationDate="2013-01-15T05:10:12.543" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the time of Moses and before, history was recited orally, repeated and re-told, over and over, long before it was ever written down.  In fact, as you read Genesis, you can hear the cadence of an oral telling.  Even in the time of Jesus, most people did not read or write, and they relied on telling their stories and histories.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in addition to the Holy Spirit, as pointed out by H3br3wHamm3r81, the writers used their memories.  The Holy Spirit is VERY important, but he used a people who were used to using their memories.  We rely on books, electronics, photos, internet, and have very little understanding of what our minds could remember.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more modern use of the oral tradition is found in the afterwards of the book &quot;Roots&quot; by Alex Haley.  One of his sources was a historian in Africa who spent hours (days?) telling the oral history that he had learned, histories of peoples from that area, and a history that included the story of a young man who disappeared about 200 years before.  He told names and events of many generations of people.  In the same way, with the guidance of God, Moses wrote down stories that he had heard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="841" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T05:10:12.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12628" CreationDate="2013-01-15T05:59:24.327" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding first part of your question that “Trinity&quot; is not  used in the Christian Bible: answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12637/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; question tries to give the biblical basis for Trinity,   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your second part of the question, on historical origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity, I have come across the following historical notings of Church fathers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostolic Fathers unanimously taught that the &quot;we&quot; in Gen 1:26, refers to the Trinity:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;74 AD Epistle of Barnabas: (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI-- Though this is not part of Canon, we get the insight that the idea of Trinity was being discussed at that point of time)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;150 AD Justin Martyr: (Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew: Chapter LXII.—The Words &quot;Let Us Make Man&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;180 AD Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4:20:1).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;200 AD Tertullian: &quot;If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, &quot;Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; &quot; whereas He ought to have said, &quot;Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,&quot; as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, &quot;Behold the man is become as one of us,&quot; He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, &quot;Let us make; &quot;and, &quot;in our image; &quot;and, &quot;become as one of us.&quot; (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;200 AD Tertullian: (Tertullian, Book V, Elucidations, Chapter VIII.—Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;200 AD Tertullian: (Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Elucidations, Chapter V.—Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;250 AD Ignatius (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, Chapter II.—The True Doctrine Respecting God and Christ.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Origen: &quot;it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, &quot;Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.&quot; (Origen Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter XXXVII)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Novatian: (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XXVI. Argument.—Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book V., VII)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar references are also there form all these apostolic Fathers while they were preaching about the concept of Trinity  by quoting  Genesis 19:24:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;150 AD Justin Martyr: Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter LVI.—God Who Appeared to Moses is Distinguished from God the Father.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;180 AD Irenaeus &quot; (Irenaeus, Book 3, ch 6)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;200 AD Tertullian &quot;That is a still grander statement [of Christ's deity] which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: &quot;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.&quot; There was One &quot;who was,&quot; and there was another &quot;with whom&quot; He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: &quot;The Lord said unto my Lord, ....... but in determinate and simple declarations?&quot; (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, [In which he defends, in all essential points, the doctrine of the holy Trinity.] Chapter XIII.—The Force of Sundry Passages of Scripture Illustrated in Relation to the Plurality of Persons and Unity of Substance. There is No Polytheism Here, Since the Unity is Insisted on as a Remedy Against Polytheism.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;250 AD Ignatius &quot; (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, Chapter II.—The True Doctrine Respecting God and Christ.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;253 AD Cyprian  (The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews. Third Book., Testimonies., 33. That the Father judgeth nothing, but the Son; and that the Father is not glorified by him by whom the Son is not glorified.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Novatian:  (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XXVI. Argument.—Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Novatian  (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XVIII. Argument.—Moreover Also, from the Fact that He Who Was Seen of Abraham is Called God; Which Cannot Be Understood of the Father, Whom No Man Hath Seen at Any Time; But of the Son in the Likeness of an Angel.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: &quot; (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book V. XX. A Prophetic Prediction Concerning Christ Jesus.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T07:13:14.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11375" CreationDate="2013-01-15T06:59:55.677" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term you're looking for is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocatastasis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;apocatastasis&lt;/a&gt;. I would argue that it has not officially been condemned as a heresy, although &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Origen&lt;/a&gt;, the primary teacher of &lt;em&gt;apocatastasis&lt;/em&gt;, was condemned as a heretic at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;5&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; ecumenical council&lt;/a&gt;. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/12287/1304&quot;&gt;my response to your other question about universalism&lt;/a&gt; for more information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="46876" LastEditDate="2020-01-10T02:28:04.200" LastActivityDate="2020-01-10T02:28:04.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="13661" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13667" CreationDate="2013-01-15T13:48:14.987" Score="6" ViewCount="1628" Body="&lt;p&gt;What exactly did Matthew mean when he is talking about Jesus' brothers in Matthew 12:46? From Matthew 12:49, its clear that he didn't mean Jesus' disciples as his brothers. So who are the Jesus' brothers mentioned there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3762" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T00:19:39.487" LastActivityDate="2015-05-28T11:20:26.117" Title="Jesus' Brothers (Matthew 12:46)" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-05-28T14:30:10.657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13661" CreationDate="2013-01-15T13:57:58.257" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Protestant Christianity, it is understood that Mary was a virgin &lt;strong&gt;until&lt;/strong&gt; the birth of Jesus, but not after.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord&#xA;  commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not &lt;strong&gt;until&lt;/strong&gt; she had&#xA;  given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25&#xA;  ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the birth of Jesus, then, Joseph and Mary were like any other married couple and would have likely had other children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul refers to someone named &quot;James&quot; whom he refers to as &quot;the Lord's brother&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.  Galatians 1:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later in Matthew, Jesus arrives in Nazareth, and he is rejected there because that is where he grew up, and people refused to believe he was anything special.  They specifically say that we know his father (who was actually only his stepfather), his mother Mary, and four named brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is not this &lt;strong&gt;the carpenter's son&lt;/strong&gt;? Is not &lt;strong&gt;his mother&lt;/strong&gt; called Mary? And&#xA;  are not &lt;strong&gt;his brothers&lt;/strong&gt; James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all &lt;strong&gt;his sisters&lt;/strong&gt; with us? Where then did this man get all these things? Matthew 13:55-56 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus appears to have had four brothers, namely James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.  It also indicates that Jesus had sisters, but it does not give a specific number.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-15T14:15:53.613" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T14:15:53.613" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6519" CreationDate="2013-01-15T14:51:16.583" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You must believe 2 Timothy 3:16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,&#xA;  correcting and training in righteousness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other translations, God-breathed is replaced with &quot;inspired&quot;, but both come from the greek word &quot;theopneustos&quot;. This directly translates to God-breathed. However, this is still slightly vague.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, note that the root of pneustos is pneuma, meaning breath, wind, or spirit. All of these are words concern the Holy Spirit, so it is not unreasonable to think that these men were &quot;inspired&quot; by the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, we must believe that scripture was actually given to these men via God himself. That it was really God writing the Bible THROUGH the men. Not the men writing it themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On another note, some of these dialogs may have been recorded or made a very significant impact on people. These men who heard such amazing things would not forget it. However, really it comes down to believing all scripture is &quot;inspired&quot; by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3773" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T14:51:16.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13661" CreationDate="2013-01-15T15:28:47.280" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;brothers&quot; mentioned in that context could be referencing to his cousin brothers. The word &quot;brothers&quot; in the Gospels is ambiguous. The Bible does not explicitly state that Jesus had brothers(in the absolute sense).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3762" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-17T14:07:37.867" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T14:07:37.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13661" CreationDate="2013-01-15T16:34:52.517" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt; I have composed this answer from an answer on this site which was posted for some other question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Catholic Church call Mary the 'Blessed Vigin', they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life and there were no brothers to Jesus. The basis for this is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;  Firstly because in Aramaic and Hebrew language there is no word for “Cousin” and as such they were either called brothers or with circumlocution. In Septuagint, the Hebrew word that included both brothers and cousins was translated as “adelphos” which in Greek has same narrow meaning like in English “brother” has. Even though the Greek has a separate word for cousin, the translators of Septuagint used the word Adelphos even for true cousins and the same usage was employed by writers of New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, when Jesus is found in temple at the age of 12, the context suggest that he was the only son of Mary (Luke 2:41-51). In Mark 6:3 Jesus is referred as “the son of Mary” and not “a son”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 6:3 Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt; Also others in Gospels are never referred as sons of Mary, not even when they are called Jesus’ brothers, which is strange in case they were indeed his brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thirdly, in ancient eastern societies the younger siblings seldom gave advice to older. But we find these Jesus’ brethren giving him advice on couple of occasions like John 7:3-4 and in Mark 3:21-where they sought to restrain him. This also eliminates them being his brethren since, if they were not his brethren then why they were referred as Brethren of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, of all the four brethren named in Bible, consider only James, for similar reasoning can be applied to others also. “James the younger’s” mother is Mary. Bible describes the scene at the foot of Jesus' cross in following verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 15:40 There were also women, watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 19:25 Now standing beside Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From above we can say that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. As James is described as son of Alphaeus also at other place in Bible, Clopas and Alphaeus are probably the same person, since Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or Clopas. So probably James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas and who is taken as brother of Joseph the Husband of Mary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another view on this verse is that, if Jesus had brothers from Mother Mary, then we find something awkward or amiss with this verse. Here all those who were closest to Jesus were there at the foot of the cross except his purportedly-existing brothers. This is something unimaginable by any count of imagination. If Jesus had brothers then they would have been definitely standing here.  [I cannot imagine myself to be not there as a brother of Jesus(In case if I were one) especially when my mother and even distantly related women were standing there unafraid of  Jews].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John in his gospel gives us another clue that Jesus had no brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:17 Jesus replied, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 20:18 Mary Magdalene came and informed the disciples, “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what Jesus had said to her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here as per John’s account in his gospel, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene to go and tell His brothers and she tells this to Jesus’ disciples. If Jesus had brothers Mary would have gone and delivered this message to them and not to disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T09:10:49.543" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13668" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13669" CreationDate="2013-01-15T16:40:43.587" Score="5" ViewCount="34769" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3467/what-is-an-apostle&quot;&gt;What is an apostle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3755/how-do-we-know-paul-wasnt-a-false-apostle&quot;&gt;How do we know Paul wasn’t a false Apostle?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is Paul considered an apostle rather than simply a disciple?  What Biblical references show why or why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3764" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T15:07:35.127" Title="Why is Paul considered an Apostle?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-01-16T20:00:08.733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13668" CreationDate="2013-01-15T17:22:06.720" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;An apostle is one sent from God, a disciple is one who studied under God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Decent (albeit imperfect) analogues in the terminology would be Apostle is to Missionary as Disciple is to Student.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 12 disciples included all of the men who studied under Jesus - including Judas. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once Jesus died and rose again, he sent the remaining 11 of them out (obviously not Judas, since he was dead!) to preach the Good News to the ends of the earth (Matt 28:19-20), and later called Paul to do the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul, however, did not know Jesus until his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), well after Jesus' teaching ministry was done. Thus, Paul was sent out (apostolos), but was never discipled directly by Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T15:07:35.127" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T15:07:35.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13670" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13673" CreationDate="2013-01-15T17:43:39.397" Score="4" ViewCount="74" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand, Christians believe the world is inherently sinful and going in a downhill spiral until its end, when Jesus rescues the good and leave the bad. Am I correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I am, are the initiatives to make the world a better place by Christians (without the intent to convert people to Christianity) genuine? In other words, are Christians being cynical when working on such initiatives because they truly believe it is an impossible task?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1945" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-15T17:44:41.910" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T23:40:46.710" Title="Is the betterment of the world impossible?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13671" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13672" CreationDate="2013-01-15T17:50:13.230" Score="1" ViewCount="410" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several high-profile &quot;defectors&quot; (tongue-in-cheek!) or converts from high-church traditions (such as Anglicanism) to Roman Catholicism.  I am thinking in particular of G. K. Chesterton and John Henry Newman.  Are there any corresponding conversions from Roman Catholicism (or another Orthodox/Catholic tradition) to a high-church Protestant tradition, in the last two hundred years or so? (thus excluding the Protestant Reformation itself!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3693" LastEditorUserId="3693" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T02:53:24.403" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T02:53:24.403" Title="Have there been any high-profile converts from Catholicism back to high-church traditions?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-03-28T18:53:05.127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13671" CreationDate="2013-01-15T18:25:06.693" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_converted_to_Anglicanism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an article on people who have converted to Anglicanism&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category%3aConverts_to_Anglicanism_from_Roman_Catholicism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a category for Catholic-Anglican conversions&lt;/a&gt;. Ones specifically listed as converting to Anglicanism from Catholicism as adults include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Madeleine Albright&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fox_%28priest%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew Fox&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Cutie&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alberto Cutie&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dinesh D'Souza&lt;/a&gt; said he converted from Catholicism to his wife's tradition in a Christian's vs. Atheists debate I attended a few years ago.  He still defends the Catholic Church very well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-01-15T18:46:52.983" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T18:46:52.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13670" CreationDate="2013-01-15T19:09:50.793" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians believe that mankind is inherently sinful (original sin) and that the world suffers from the curse of sin in mankind as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true the evil will increase, but &quot;where sin increases, graces increases much more.&quot;  (Romans 5:20)  The Bible informs us that before the end of the world there will be people from every tribe, nation, and language who will name Jesus as Lord (Revelation 7:9).  So, even though things do get worse, at the same time the Gospel continues to spread to more and more people, and they experience the the forgiveness, joy, peace, and fulfillment that is only found in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians are absolutely genuine in their attempts to make the world a better place.  It is instructive to see in John chapter 5 that Jesus heals a man who was an invalid for 38 years, and when people ask him who healed him, the man didn't even bother to get Jesus' name.  Jesus healed the man not to get something out of him, but simply because He delighted in doing good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus said elsewhere, it is better to give than to receive.  &lt;strong&gt;Giving is its own reward&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;as is serving&lt;/strong&gt;.  There is true joy in giving to others and helping them in their times of need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also say it most certainly is possible to make the world a better place.  Jesus actually tells us that we are the &quot;salt of the earth&quot; (Matthew 5:13).  Salt is a preservative.  Christianity ought to hold up a very high standard of moral excellence to which unbelievers can aspire.  Without that standard of morality, the bar is set much lower.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, historically speaking, as Christianity has spread, the world has indeed gotten better.  Only when it decreases does the world get worse.  Europe was full of barbaric people prior to Christianity.  The gospel transformed it.  Orphanages, hospitals, saving girls from forced prostitution, the feeding of the poor, the digging of wells... all this comes from Christian organizations all over the world today.  In fact, it is a sobering thing to think of how dark the world would be without Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T19:09:50.793" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13668" CreationDate="2013-01-15T19:21:37.823" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul was an Apostle because that's what he said he was, and others said he was (see Acts 14:14) &quot;But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:&quot;. &#xA;Paul was not one of the 12 original discipels, he was converted on the road to Damascus when He saw Jesus, who he had been previously persecuting. So Paul really couldn't be called a discipel .&#xA;Most of Paul's letters started with him asserting his Apostleship. See 1 Tim 1:1 &quot;Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,&quot;. And Paul tells the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 9:2 that they are the seal of his apostleship, weather or not anyone else recognizes him. &#xA;Peter even includes Pauls writings with &quot;the rest of scripture&quot; in 2nd Peter 3. further legitimizing his Apostolic authority, and not only that but when Peter himself was in error Paul corrected him(see Galatians 2:11-14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T19:21:37.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1631" CreationDate="2013-01-15T22:23:23.867" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ive been asking that question for years..personally i believe in god not so much man,the bible is the foundation of all christain denominations each has built on the word of god [yes written by man but thats a another debate] which is solid foundation in itself for anyone to build on yet man has created different &quot;buildings&quot; so to speak with house rules some share the same rules plus have different rules to give their denomination an identity yet the bible is the back bone which if one believes in god one must also obey the word of god..the bible...go forth and apply the word of god to your life without the misinterpretations or fear of having too weather you have faith in god or not..no man can tell you weather of not your going to heaven or if you need to be saved or if the life your living is sinful, join a denomination but dont let that take away your identity or freedom of choice as some denominations will do that for you on gods behalf...Love god with heart and soul and treat each other as one would themselves when judgement day takes place we will all be exposed/naked judged individually not as a group..and if its all a lie? at least a productive and love filled caring life on earth was achieved so weather or not one believes in god i strongly believe the bible values are more important then any denomination can add...personal opinion only if one wishes to discuss further feel free too&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3779" LastEditorUserId="3779" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T01:36:36.197" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T01:36:36.197" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13676" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13678" CreationDate="2013-01-15T23:33:31.027" Score="8" ViewCount="13161" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I read something that quoted this verse from the bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:19&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches&#xA;  others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,&#xA;  but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great&#xA;  in the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/a&gt; (Matthew 5:19, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It got me wondering, when Jesus says things like &quot;will be called least in the kingdom of heaven&quot;, does this give evidence that there are different positions in heaven, or was Jesus implying the least position in heaven is not going to heaven at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3747" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-02T02:12:42.267" LastActivityDate="2017-03-24T22:30:37.687" Title="Is one who is &quot;least in the kingdom of heaven&quot; still in heaven?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;kingdom-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-03-31T00:06:44.470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13670" CreationDate="2013-01-15T23:35:28.847" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Making the world a better place is not impossible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Making the world a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;perfect&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; place is humanly impossible. Until God destroys this universe, and creates the new heaven and new earth promised in Revelation 21:1 this world will not be perfect. But that doesn't mean we can't make it &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, we're not being cynical. The purest motivation taught by Christ is to act in love: to do good because we love God and our fellow man.  We're merely obeying God's will to love our neighbors, and to be salt and light for the world. There is nothing in any doctrine or teaching that indicates that we are relieved of the responsibility to do so just because we believe the world is headed for judgement anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it this way... We are all going to die some time, so would it be cynical to eat right and exercise knowing that in the end we will still die?  Of course not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-15T23:40:46.710" LastActivityDate="2013-01-15T23:40:46.710" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13676" CreationDate="2013-01-15T23:44:55.257" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several teachings that indicate that there will be rewards in Heaven. Most commonly this is in reference to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/doctrine-rewards-judgment-seat-bema-christ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bema Seat&lt;/a&gt;. The statement of &quot;least&quot; and &quot;greatest&quot; in heaven is a art of that belief. Being &quot;great&quot; would imply that you've earned it as a reward for meekness, faithfulness, humility, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.precepts.com/StudyMaterials/Outlines/EndTimes/Our_Rewards_in_Heaven.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.precepts.com/StudyMaterials/Outlines/EndTimes/Our_Rewards_in_Heaven.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-knowledge.com/rewards-in-heaven/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.bible-knowledge.com/rewards-in-heaven/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.inplainsite.org/html/rewards_in_heaven.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.inplainsite.org/html/rewards_in_heaven.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt from the last:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This article is essentially a continuation of The Bema or Judgment&#xA;  Seat of Christ... Unfortunately many Christians, draw the conclusion&#xA;  that since all our sins have been forgiven, our works cannot possibly&#xA;  be considered at the judgment Seat of Christ.. Not true according to I&#xA;  Corinthians 3:9-13.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ips-Bar&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Introduction Rewards [mis-thos'] in the Bible means pay for service…&#xA;  literally or figuratively, good or bad…  exemplified by Revelation&#xA;  22:12... &#xA;   - &quot;Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work&quot; (Revelation 22:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The following two verses are one example each of good and bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes,&#xA;  sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with&#xA;  you;  Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin;&#xA;  beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous&#xA;  practices; cursed children:  Which have forsaken the right way, and&#xA;  are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who&#xA;  loved the wages of unrighteousness; [2Peter 2:13-15]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. [1Corinthians 3:8].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The wicked are also ‘rewarded’, but this article concerns itself&#xA;  solely with the ‘good’ rewards’.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rewards Vs. Salvation It will be well to make it clear from the outset&#xA;  that Salvation and Rewards are two totally different things. Salvation&#xA;  is a free gift, but rewards are earned by our works after we are&#xA;  saved. The Bible clearly teaches good works will not get us into&#xA;  heaven. Salvation [forgiveness of sin and entrance to heaven]  is&#xA;  based on Jesus’ work on the cross and God shows no partiality&#xA;  regarding salvation (Acts 10:34).  [See Salvation].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, the Bible also makes it clear that the saved will also&#xA;  receive rewards in Heaven over and above forgiveness and eternal life,&#xA;  and that the level of reward will be based on works done here on&#xA;  earth. Apparently there are those that will make it to heaven, but who&#xA;  have earned little or no additional rewards. Right after assuring us&#xA;  that salvation is not by works in Ephesians 2, Paul says this, &quot;We are&#xA;  God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God&#xA;  prepared in advance for us to do&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is the consistent teaching of the New Testament that God promises&#xA;  to reward believers for their good works… mentioned explicitly in many&#xA;  verses!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works&quot; (Matthew&#xA;  16:27).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;[God] will render to each one according to his deeds&quot; (Romans 2:6).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;He who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor&quot; (1 Corinthians 3:8).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding (excelling) in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil&#xA;  is not in vain in the Lord. [1 Corinthians 15:58]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, because you know that you will receive your&#xA;  inheritance from the Lord as the reward. Serve the Lord Christ.&#xA;  [Colossians 3:23-24]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And implied in many more…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.&#xA;  Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate&#xA;  you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name as&#xA;  evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice in that day, and leap for&#xA;  joy: for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for in the same&#xA;  manner did their fathers unto the prophets. But woe unto you that are&#xA;  rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you, ye that are&#xA;  full now! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now! for ye&#xA;  shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of&#xA;  you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.&#xA;  (Luke 6:20-26).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;knowing that whatsoever good thing each one doeth, the same shall he receive again from the Lord, whether he be bond or free. (Ephesians&#xA;  6:8).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;whatsoever ye do, work heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that from the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the&#xA;  inheritance: ye serve the Lord Christ. (Col 3:23-25).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints,&#xA;  and do minister&quot; (Hebrews 6:10).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some of the good works mentioned in Scripture which will be rewarded&#xA;  include&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;perseverance under persecution (Luke 6:22-23), caring for the needy (Matthew 25:34-36), treating enemies kindly (Luke 6:35), prayer&#xA;  (Matthew 6:6), fasting (Matthew 6:18), and generous giving (Matthew&#xA;  19:21).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T01:20:22.820" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T01:20:22.820" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3871" CreationDate="2013-01-16T00:11:49.337" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Job 1 Satan who is the father of sin goes into the presence of God and speaks to him directly. So to say that God can not be in the presence of sin is wrong. The main reason you are asking this question is because you are struggling with the idea that the trinity is real. lets look at Matthew 28:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the &lt;strong&gt;name&lt;/strong&gt; of the &lt;strong&gt;Father&lt;/strong&gt; and of the &lt;strong&gt;Son&lt;/strong&gt; and of the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; is not one of the three persons of God then &lt;strong&gt;we&lt;/strong&gt; would not be asked by Jesus Himself make disciples or baptize them in &lt;strong&gt;His name&lt;/strong&gt;. He (&lt;strong&gt;the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;) is clearly mentioned as a part of the three persons of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3780" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-27T15:29:34.907" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T15:29:34.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13682" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-16T12:28:02.963" Score="13" ViewCount="352" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do Catholics justify St. Joseph not being able to consummate his marriage with his wife? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem as though the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is at odds with Catholic teaching about the purpose of marriage and holding the Holy Family up as the model for spouses would produce very few children, yet Catholics often produce very many children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why was St. Joseph's marriage destined to be devoid of marital intimacy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3762" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-01-17T17:47:34.940" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T15:54:13.443" Title="Justification of perpetual virginity of Mother Mary" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-09-26T18:53:39.183" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13683" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13684" CreationDate="2013-01-16T16:28:11.733" Score="12" ViewCount="6148" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the comments on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1344/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-into-noahs-ark/&quot;&gt;How did all the animals fit into Noah&amp;#39;s ark?&lt;/a&gt; asked &quot;How does one propose to produce the various species/sub-species simply from 'some sort of cat', after the fact?&quot; This was in response to how Noah brought a 'kind' of cat into the ark and now we have pumas, jaguars, cheetahs, leopards, etc. I was curious myself and another person suggested asking this as a new question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the argument would go along the lines of...&quot;How does a single breeding pair turn into both Chihuahuas and Great Danes in under 5000 years? If Noah’s ark had only 1 pair of each kind, the speed of evolution required to get some of the variation that exists needs to be much faster than reality.&quot; (This was taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://anadder.com/noahs-ark-and-evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://anadder.com/noahs-ark-and-evolution&lt;/a&gt; which has a few other points for this argument)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Young Earth Creationists answer this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2045" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-03-14T14:10:11.873" LastActivityDate="2018-03-14T14:10:11.873" Title="How do creationists explain the genetic diversity of animals after Noah's Ark?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13683" CreationDate="2013-01-16T16:55:21.090" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scientifically speaking, evolution is not required for variations within a species.  The only requirement is that all of the genetic information seen in the species today was present in the first generation.  From then on, species experience the isolation of genes through geographic and other factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The breeding of new species of dogs does not produce new genetic information--it merely isolates particular genetic information that is already present in the species.  This is a key point--&lt;strong&gt;selective breeding does not result in any new information, but actually the loss of information,&lt;/strong&gt; as only the chosen genes are kept.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In cattle, selective breeding often results in weaknesses within a certain breed.  Hereford cattle are quite susceptible to Pink Eye, but if you have Hereford Angus cross, the weakness in the Hereford Breed, that resulted in a loss of genetic resistance to Pink Eye, is merged back with the lost genetic information that is still present in the Angus breed, yielding a herd with higher genetic resilience.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different breeds of dogs can still interbreed with each other, as can different breeds of cattle, so there is no new species and no evolution.  Evolution is the creation of new species--variation within a kind is not evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dogs have, indeed, shown a higher variability than other species, but they are all still dogs.  Another key point, though, is that this doesn't happen in nature, but with a great deal of intervention and unnatural forces brought to bear upon the process (by humans).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word used in Genesis is probably best translated &quot;kind&quot;.  Noah didn't bring Chihuahuas, Poodles, Great Danes, Labrador Retrievers, Beagles, and every other kind of dog.  He brought two mutts, which is basically what you get if you take all the breeds and interbreed them together to undo the genetic isolation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Noah didn't bring a Chinese, a Korean, a Vietnamese, a Russian, an Arab, a European, a Jew, an African, and a Hawaiian.  There were only eight people, but those eight people contained all the genetic information necessary to produce the variations we see today that have been caused by genetic isolation through geographic and other factors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of resources online about this.  Here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/mutant-parade-purebred-dogs&quot;&gt;just one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T16:55:21.090" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13648" CreationDate="2013-01-16T17:00:34.453" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;How could the Creator of the universe have a body of flesh and bones which are products of that universe?  Only by later humbling himself into that form and taking on the nature of the creation.  The OT never states that God the Father did this, and the NT quite consistently reaffirms that only Jesus has ever done this, and that the Father is invisible eternal spirit only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T17:00:34.453" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13686" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13690" CreationDate="2013-01-16T17:13:54.680" Score="7" ViewCount="3311" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is something called the Sin of Presumption, which states that it is a sin for one to believe that he or she is assured of his or her salvation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to follow, then, that one must be, at least to some degree, &lt;strong&gt;uncertain&lt;/strong&gt; of his or her salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the basis for this doctrine, including a biblical basis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2019-01-02T22:02:22.743" Title="What is the basis for the Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Sin of Presumption?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13687" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:35:20.490" Score="9" ViewCount="69286" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are children born ill, blind or have heart or mental issues etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But can an illness be a result of a sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a child is born ill, is it possible because of the parents' sins ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If someone becomes ill, is it because of his sins ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209%20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this&#xA;  happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why the disciples asked him this question ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the christian view in this matter ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These passages might show a relation between sin and diseases/illness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Abraham hid the fact that Sarai is his wife:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2012:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 12:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What God said to Israel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2015:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 15:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 He said, “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%207:12-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 7:12-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 &lt;strong&gt;If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them&lt;/strong&gt;, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors. 13 He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land—your grain, new wine and olive oil—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you. 14 You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. 15 &lt;strong&gt;The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt&lt;/strong&gt;, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. 16 You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2028:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 28:15&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2028:20-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 28:20-24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 However, &lt;strong&gt;if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees&lt;/strong&gt; I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you: ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.[a] 21 &lt;strong&gt;The Lord will plague you with diseases&lt;/strong&gt; until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 &lt;strong&gt;The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish&lt;/strong&gt;. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The Lord will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2028:58-60&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 28:58-60&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;58 &lt;strong&gt;If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book&lt;/strong&gt;, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— 59 &lt;strong&gt;the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3777" LastEditorUserId="3777" LastEditDate="2013-02-13T19:18:18.453" LastActivityDate="2014-01-09T11:00:48.373" Title="Is illness sometimes a result of a sin?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-10-21T02:45:29.337" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13687" CreationDate="2013-01-16T18:44:37.060" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ailments like sickness and bodily weakness are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;a consequence of the Fall&lt;/a&gt;, natural companions to the physical state in which we live. Not all are a punishment or result of sin, but some certainly may be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James Talmage, a Biblical scholar in the early 1900s, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=XY8aKhQpDwYC&amp;amp;pg=PA192#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;has this to say on the matter (in Jesus the Christ)&lt;/a&gt;, considering the healing of a man sick of the palsy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The incident demands our further study. According to one of the&#xA;  accounts, the Lord's first words to the afflicted one were, &quot;Son, be of&#xA;  good cheer,&quot; followed directly by the comforting and authoritative&#xA;  assurance, &quot;Thy sins be forgiven thee.&quot; The man was probably in a state of&#xA;  fear; he may have known that his ailment was the result of wicked&#xA;  indulgences; nevertheless, though he may have considered the possibility&#xA;  of hearing only condemnation for his transgression, he had faith to be&#xA;  brought. In this man's condition there was plainly a close connection&#xA;  between his past sins and his present affliction, and in this&#xA;  particular his case is not unique, for we read that Christ admonished&#xA;  another whom He healed to sin no more lest a worse thing befall him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are not warranted, however, in assuming that all bodily ills are the&#xA;  result of culpable sin, and against such a conception stands the Lord's&#xA;  combined instruction and rebuke to those who, in the case of a man born&#xA;  blind, asked who had sinned: the man or his parents, to bring so grievous&#xA;  an affliction upon him, to which inquiry our Lord replied that the&#xA;  man's blindness was due neither to his own sin nor to that of his&#xA;  parents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In many instances however, disease is the direct result of individual&#xA;  sin. Whatever may have been the measure of past offense on the part of&#xA;  the man suffering from palsy, Christ recognized his repentance together&#xA;  with the faith that accompanied it, and it was the Lord's rightful&#xA;  prerogative to decide upon the man's fitness to receive remission of&#xA;  his sins and relief from his bodily affliction. The interrogative&#xA;  response of Jesus to the unuttered criticism of the scribes, Pharisees,&#xA;  and doctors has been interpreted in many ways. He inquired which was&#xA;  easier to say, &quot;Thy sins be forgiven thee,&quot; or to say, &quot;Arise, and take up&#xA;  thy bed, and walk.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it not a rational explanation that, when spoken&#xA;  authoritatively by Him, the two expressions were of allied meaning? The&#xA;  circumstance should have been a sufficient demonstration to all who&#xA;  heard, that He, the Son of Man, claimed and possessed the right and the&#xA;  power to remit both physical and spiritual penalties, to heal the body&#xA;  of visible disease, and to purge the spirit of the no less real malady&#xA;  of sin. In the presence of people of all classes Jesus thus openly&#xA;  asserted His divinity, and affirmed the same by a miraculous&#xA;  manifestation of power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I had to manually add punctuation, and this may not be a perfect transcription; I also inserted some paragraph breaks!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T22:31:40.623" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T22:31:40.623" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13683" CreationDate="2013-01-16T20:22:04.213" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically there are three ways that genetic diversity happens:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mutation:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sexual combination:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Sex_and_recombination&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Sex_and_recombination&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gene Flow:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Gene_flow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Gene_flow&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these processes do in fact have the potential of generating new genetic information.  Different factors will increase or decrease the rate of variation, but the fact is that the successive combination, recombination, duplication, and mutation of genes will produce new genes.  Throw in horizontal transfers, especially inter-species transfers, and you've got quite a lot going on.  Now add natural (or artificial, in the case of animal husbandry) selection and voila, evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, was there enough time between Noah and now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most breeds of dogs are at most a few hundred years old, having been&#xA;  artificially selected for particular morphologies and behaviors by&#xA;  people for specific functional roles. Through this selective breeding,&#xA;  the dog has developed into hundreds of varied breeds, and shows more&#xA;  behavioral and morphological variation than any other land mammal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose so - at least for dog breeds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastEditorUserId="1729" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T22:38:30.407" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T22:38:30.407" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13686" CreationDate="2013-01-16T20:27:43.117" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question actually touches on two topics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Firstly&lt;/strong&gt;, and most directly, it's asking for some elaboration on the Church's teaching about the vice of presumption. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12403a.htm&quot;&gt;From the Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological&#xA;  virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may&#xA;  be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly&#xA;  regulated reliance on God's mercy and power, hopes for salvation&#xA;  without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins&#xA;  without repenting of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reading onward, several examples or &lt;em&gt;types&lt;/em&gt; of presumption are presented. Ultimately, the &quot;sin of presumption&quot; is the presumption that God will forgive &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; sins, regardless of the sinner's disposition towards those sins, or with minimal effort in repenting. Or, in some particularly twisted cases, one might presume all of &lt;em&gt;their own&lt;/em&gt; sins will be forgiven, somewhat regardless of their effort and sincerity in repenting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while I can't offer an &lt;em&gt;official&lt;/em&gt; list of biblical references to support this teaching, I think, when clarified as such, it becomes more obvious where the biblical basises and echos of this teaching are. I think this is most obvious in cases where Christ forgives someone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they?&#xA;  Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus&#xA;  said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] &lt;strong&gt;from now on do not sin any&#xA;  more&lt;/strong&gt;.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8/10&quot;&gt;John 8:10-11&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ forgives the woman's sins and then &lt;strong&gt;commands her to sin no more&lt;/strong&gt;. Forgiveness comes with a demand for repentance. Presumably, we can reject that forgiveness by neglecting to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a more theological basis, the Kingdom of God entails operating within the confines of God's will. In fact, the delight of God's Kingdom is precisely &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; God's will. Therefore, if we're not actively seeking to refine ourselves into alignment with God, it's not God's Kingdom we're really after. It's our own &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; kingdom -- hell, in a word. And if hell is what we're actively working towards, forgiveness is moot; we're not asking for forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I think the Catholic Church is trying to make it clear, by this teaching, that lip-service and half-hearted efforts are an indication that the sinner isn't really interested in God or God's Kingdom. It's an indication that the sinner is self-interested and self-loving to the point of believing forgiveness is only a formality or a form they need to fill out so they can enter the gate, allowing the rest of God's Kingdom to bask in their own personal awesomeness. And in such a state, while God may still be perfectly willing to accept this charming soul into His kingdom, that charming soul has no sincere interest in being there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Secondly&lt;/strong&gt;, you've noted a sense of uncertainty about one's own salvation. And while I don't know that I could easily locate sources for this, it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a general attitude of the Church that each individuals salvation is uncertain. In general, we claim a great deal of ignorance as to who and how many are saved. Is Hitler in hell, for instance? We have no idea. Some individuals within the Church are pretty certain he is; others are hopeful he isn't -- that no one is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This concept can then be extended into the sin of presumption. In addition to the requirement that we acknowledging that all salvation is an unwarranted gift, it's also a mystery. The Church may believe itself to hold the &quot;keys&quot; to the Kingdom of Heaven. But, by no means can it force anyone through the gate. And we, as individuals, must acknowledge regularly that we get lost, mis-informed, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's seems it's precisely at the moment we attain satisfaction with our triumphs against sin that we're in the greatest danger of damnation. So, we do well to proceed with some uncertainty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T20:46:09.897" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T20:46:09.897" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13687" CreationDate="2013-01-16T22:22:58.837" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Death itself is a consequence of original sin as are all sicknesses.  Specifically, it does seem that some sicknesses are a direct result of sin, sometimes as a byproduct but other times as a direct judgment of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul wrote to the Romans points out that some of the believers were taking communion in an unworthy manner.  He then notes that this results in judgment, and then states that this is why some people were sick and some had even died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in&#xA;  an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the&#xA;  Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread&#xA;  and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without&#xA;  discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 &lt;strong&gt;That is&#xA;  why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.&lt;/strong&gt;  1 Corinthians 11:27-31 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, some sickness can certainly be a direct judgment of God.  Of course, some sins expose people to sicknesses to which they would otherwise not be exposed.  In such cases, it would probably be better considered just a consequence of sin rather than a specific judgment of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, we know that some sickness is not the result of any sin at all, as Jesus told the disciples about the man who was born blind:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples&#xA;  asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was&#xA;  born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “&lt;strong&gt;It was not that this man sinned, or&#xA;  his parents&lt;/strong&gt;, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.  John 9:1-3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is, in fact, a judgment of God, it is good to note the reason for the judgment.  God disciplines us for our good, as a father disciplines his own children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?&#xA;  “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,&#xA;      nor be weary when reproved by him. 6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,&#xA;      and chastises every son whom he receives.”  Hebrews 12:5-6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-16T22:30:12.580" LastActivityDate="2013-01-16T22:30:12.580" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13694" PostTypeId="7" CreationDate="2013-01-17T00:45:00.063" Score="0" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the history of denominations (such as Roman Catholic, Anglican, Church of Christ, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and movements (such as Pentecostalism, Creationism, Calvinism)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint (like those listed above)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;explanations of the beliefs and practices of a denomination or movement&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Biblical basis for a belief or practice&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2015-07-31T05:22:31.763" LastActivityDate="2015-07-31T05:22:31.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13695" PostTypeId="7" CreationDate="2013-01-17T00:45:21.527" Score="0" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a survey of all Christian views on a particular subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what the Bible says about a subject (unless you specify a doctrine/tradition)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;advice on how to handle certain situations (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/q/6018/21576&quot;&gt;pastoral advice questions&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;open-ended &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1487/58&quot;&gt;is &quot;X&quot; a sin&lt;/a&gt; questions, asking whether a certain action or belief is sinful&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3527/we-cant-handle-the-truth&quot;&gt;&quot;Truth&quot; questions&lt;/a&gt; that do not focus on what a specific group of people teaches&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;whether some group or person is &quot;Christian&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-10-19T13:26:50.000" LastActivityDate="2018-10-19T13:26:50.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="13697" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13705" CreationDate="2013-01-17T06:56:12.723" Score="5" ViewCount="1412" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few years ago, the philosopher Alain de Botton gave a TED talk on &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success.html&quot;&gt;A kinder, gentler philosophy of success&lt;/a&gt;&quot; where he quotes St. Augustine supposedly having written in the City of God that &quot;It's a sin to judge any man by his post&quot; though he declares himself to be a &quot;secular&quot; person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have just finished my year-long reading the City of God and found no explicit statement about judging someone by their profession.  I did find Augustine listing what he means by sin close to the end of the reading (eg. books 20 and 22) but I became curious how Alain de Botton came to this interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could this be a misattribution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3788" LastEditorUserId="3788" LastEditDate="2013-01-17T07:01:44.233" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T19:56:02.677" Title="Quote about judging &quot;a man by his post&quot; from the City of God, according to Alain de Botton" Tags="&lt;books&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13701" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13702" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:48:08.907" Score="7" ViewCount="2996" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Matthew starts by stating the names of ancestors of Jesus Christ. Does that have any significance other than to establish that Jesus was a descendant of King David?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3762" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T23:27:54.237" LastActivityDate="2015-12-21T19:52:31.737" Title="What is the significance of Matthew starting with the names of the ancestors of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;david&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13701" CreationDate="2013-01-17T13:59:14.553" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several lessons to be drawn from this genealogy.  One of my personal favorites is the four women mentioned: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary.  Each of these women's stories is mentioned in Scripture, and each has a less than stellar reputation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To wit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tamar played the part of a prostitute, and got her father-in-law to impregnante her, although she was justified in doing so.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rahab was a prostitute, and says as much.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ruth was at very least very, very forward with Boaz.  When she &quot;uncovers his feet,&quot; there is at least the possibility of reading the euphemistic idea of feet as saying that Ruth seduced Boaz by sleeping with him.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mary was pure, but to the outside world, she looked like an unwed mother.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even beyond the women, Jesus takes the good and the bad. Yes, David was good and Solomon was wise - but Manesseh's evil was equally on display. Being God, it is not just &quot;an accident of nature.&quot; God chose each and every one of these - good and bad alike - to be his forefathers and foremothers. He came to seek and save everyone. He came to seek and save the lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the idea - these were not all the pure Queens and noble Kings that the world looks upon.  Prompted by the Holy Spirit, Matthew included some awfully shady seeming characters.  Why? Because the God who became Man came for precisely this kind of person!  Jesus was a King - he was descended from David. But he was not aloof. He came to seek and save even people like this!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T22:15:28.977" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T22:15:28.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13703" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13717" CreationDate="2013-01-17T17:32:51.970" Score="8" ViewCount="4300" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 7:25-27, Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people.  They seem pretty impressed with Him and begin to wonder if He could be the Messiah.  However, one of their objections is that they know where He came from.  They believe that when the Christ comes that no one will know where He came from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, “Is not this the man&#xA;  whom they seek to kill? 26 And here he is, speaking openly, and they&#xA;  say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that&#xA;  this is the Christ? 27 But we know where this man comes from, &lt;strong&gt;and when&#xA;  the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from.”&lt;/strong&gt;  John&#xA;  7:25-27 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where, then, did they get the idea that no one would know where the Christ came from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-08-20T15:25:09.053" LastActivityDate="2020-05-02T07:54:23.883" Title="Why did the people believe that no one would know where the Christ came from?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13697" CreationDate="2013-01-17T18:01:03.133" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Ox&lt;/a&gt; lists honoring a man (as opposed to God) as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3102.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;one of his objections to honoring those in places of dignity&lt;/a&gt; , but I don't know what he's talking about in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;book 10 of City of God&lt;/a&gt; maybe someone else can find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But here's what Aquinas says about it in the Summa&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 1.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that it does not belong to observance to pay worship and honor to persons in positions of dignity. For according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei x), we are said to worship those persons whom we hold in honor, so that worship and honor would seem to be the same. Therefore it is unfitting to define observance as paying worship and honor to persons in positions of dignity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and then&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 1.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worship includes not only honor, but also whatever other suitable actions are connected with the relations between man and man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Persons of dignity, would be those who &amp;quot;have a post&amp;quot;. So, somewhere in there Augustine probably said that it's not right to judge a person by their post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps, but if you've actually read all of City of God, you'll probably know more about it than me with my perfunctory google site search of NewAdvent.org for all things Augustine that pop up on this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T18:01:03.133" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13706" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-17T17:25:03.937" Score="0" ViewCount="1852" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard of the Trinity multiple times and under the basis of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;He is one God, but with three personalities. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But nowhere do I ever see the word &lt;code&gt;Trinity&lt;/code&gt; mentioned in the Bible. If I'm going to believe in a God, wouldn't his name or &quot;nickname&quot; at least be listed once (If that makes any sense)? God has many names listed throughout the Bible, but never is &lt;code&gt;Trinity&lt;/code&gt; listed. If the &lt;code&gt;Trinity&lt;/code&gt; is the &lt;strong&gt;basis&lt;/strong&gt; of &lt;strong&gt;who&lt;/strong&gt; my God and &lt;strong&gt;what&lt;/strong&gt; he is, wouldn't that term of that &lt;strong&gt;basis&lt;/strong&gt; be defined? It's not like the Bible doesn't describe Him. God is omnipotent, all-powerful, etc. God has been given many names and titles, and has been defined and described of who and what he is, but I've never seen the &lt;code&gt;Trinity&lt;/code&gt; defined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also never even see anyone get baptized in the names of the father, son, and holy spirit. Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was never &quot;corrected&quot; by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doing a little Google search, I see that the &lt;code&gt;Trinity&lt;/code&gt; was introduced years ago by the Roman Catholic church to settle a dispute between the Christians and paganists (sp?). (Long story short).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I would have added more tags, but wasn't allowed to add new tags.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3791" OwnerDisplayName="Rob Avery IV" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T21:25:46.270" Title="Where is the Trinity in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-01-18T01:08:55.367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13706" CreationDate="2013-01-17T18:16:25.520" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, once can't distinctly blame the &quot;Roman&quot; Catholic Church for this, it's certainly in the Apostle's Creed which would predate the Protestant reformation and nearly coincide with the final compilation of the Bible in the 3rd century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;table of creeds&lt;/a&gt; in the old Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org for instances of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe the Trinity is part of Sacred Tradition, not Sacred Scripture.  Sacred Tradition is the other half of Jesus' revealed truth.  It's revealed through the Church that Christ established. But it's just a natural extension of a deep understanding of the teachings of the Apostles.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament is littered with references to God the Father (Who did Moses talk to?) and God the Holy Spirit  (What blew over the waters) and even God the Son (What's in the Ark of the Covenant) and in the New Testament Jesus reveals what all these things really mean. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, 3 Persons 1 God is the only suitable interpretation that leaves us a monotheistic religion. 1 Person 1 God would make us Muslims 1 Person multiple Gods would made us Buddhists. The Father loves the Son and that love is the Holy Spirit, that makes us Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T18:16:25.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13706" CreationDate="2013-01-17T19:35:59.947" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus himself said to baptize that way:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the&#xA;  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,      (Matthew&#xA;  28:19 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;trinity&quot; is not a name or nickname, merely an adjective that describes the fact that there are three distinct &lt;em&gt;persons&lt;/em&gt; (not &lt;em&gt;personalities&lt;/em&gt;) that together are God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T19:35:59.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13706" CreationDate="2013-01-17T19:50:23.890" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, I wonder why some Christians are concerned with the true name of the Father and our elder brother Jesus. If the Hebrew names of God and master Jesus are true, why is it a very controversial topic? This verse is very clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(13) And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? (14) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:13–14 King James Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (Luke 1:31 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why Is Master Jesus Only a Mere Man?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you know why? Please read these verses first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 8:20 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 11:19 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 12:32 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:13 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 17:22 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:23 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Then read this important verse.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers 23:19 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The man Jesus learned the things he suffered.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 5:8 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3792" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T19:50:23.890" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13710" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13713" CreationDate="2013-01-17T20:11:00.330" Score="7" ViewCount="11926" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics and several Protestant denominations (and maybe even Orthodox churches) practice Infant Baptism, while many other Protestant denominations do not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7547/what-bible-verses-support-infant-baptism&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; addressed the argument &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; Infant Baptism.  So, what is the argument &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; it?  That is, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Why is Infant Baptism considered&lt;/strong&gt; to be invalid by many denominations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2014-06-06T02:01:20.207" Title="Why is Infant Baptism considered to be invalid by so many Protestant denominations?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13711" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13714" CreationDate="2013-01-17T20:18:53.160" Score="6" ViewCount="2863" Body="&lt;p&gt;The International Church of Christ, as I understand, teach the idea of &quot;Disciples Baptism&quot;, which is distinct from both &quot;Believer's Baptism&quot; and &quot;Infant Baptism&quot;.  It teaches that people who are &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; believers can not be baptized, but only believers who have attained to a certain level of discipleship where they can be considered &lt;em&gt;disciples.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, is the argument &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; this specific teaching?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2020-07-11T03:16:37.420" Title="What is the argument against the ICOC doctrine of &quot;Disciples Baptism&quot;?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13706" CreationDate="2013-01-17T20:47:59.813" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Trinity is not a name of God. It is a doctrine that describes the relationship of the three distinct persons of the godhead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/13655/1039&quot;&gt;a construct that explains this paradox.&lt;/a&gt;  That answer shows how we know each member of the Trinity is god, and that they are all one, and yet three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T20:47:59.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13710" CreationDate="2013-01-17T21:32:28.310" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to be saved, one must follow the order of salvation that the scriptures set forward. Romans 10:14 tells us that the order is 1) preach, 2) hear, 3) believe, and 4) call upon the name of the Lord (baptism, Acts 22:16). Acts 2:38 tells us that repentance comes before baptism, and Romans 10:10 tells us that confession comes after belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But let's look at this logically. How could one believe something that they can not understand or even know about? That does not make any sense. That is the reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many other denominations use infant baptism for the parent's benefit. It is a proof that they WILL help their child grow and believe. Then later, in some denominations, the child is re-baptized. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the argument against it is simply because the Bible says you must believe before baptism. Those who hold to this belief will follow this standard, and consider baptism invalid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3773" LastEditorUserId="3773" LastEditDate="2013-01-17T21:44:04.963" LastActivityDate="2013-01-17T21:44:04.963" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13711" CreationDate="2013-01-17T21:33:52.757" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two main arguments against it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One argument is that it is fairly arbitrary to decide how far advanced in&#xA;discipleship someone needs to be in order to be baptized. Whatever&#xA;level you set, there will be some who never attain that level of&#xA;discipleship - however normal Christian doctrine would say that&#xA;those people are nonetheless true Christians and members of the&#xA;church. Likewise some may attain that level of discipleship and then&#xA;fall from it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The main argument however is that the Bible is full of examples of people&#xA;who were baptized as soon as they were converted. Acts 2, Philip and&#xA;the Ethiopian in Act 8, and a whole host more.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2016-10-31T15:04:56.140" LastActivityDate="2016-10-31T15:04:56.140" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13703" CreationDate="2013-01-17T22:48:18.380" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is quite possible that since they knew the messiah should be the &quot;Son of God&quot;, they assumed he would have just &quot;appeared&quot; from heaven. Even Christians must admit that it is peculiar that God sent Jesus to be born of a virgin (that is, for him to come from a human).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is one of the reasons why we celebrate Christmas. It is quite unexpected. Since many of the people in the age when the Bible was being written, probably didn't have access to the Word Of God, they might not have known he was supposed to come from a virgin. Therefore, since they knew where Jesus came from, he couldn't possibly be the Messiah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3773" LastEditorUserId="14185" LastEditDate="2018-07-03T21:00:43.713" LastActivityDate="2018-07-03T21:00:43.713" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="13717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13703" CreationDate="2013-01-18T01:48:43.190" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 7:27, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, we know where this man is from, but when the Messiah comes, no one knows where he is from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἀλλὰ τοῦτον οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ὅταν ἔρχηται οὐδεὶς γινώσκει πόθεν ἐστίν&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Gospels, &amp;quot;the chief priests and the scribes&amp;quot; understood that the Messiah was to be of the seed of David and born in Beit-Lechem (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 2:4-5&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=7&amp;amp;v=42&amp;amp;t=KJV#42&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 7:42&lt;/a&gt; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&amp;amp;b=Mic&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;v=2&amp;amp;x=41&amp;amp;y=4&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mic. 5:2&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People were cognizant of Yeshua's parents (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=3&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 6:3&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=45&amp;amp;t=KJV#45&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:45&lt;/a&gt; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&amp;amp;b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=42&amp;amp;x=65&amp;amp;y=8&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6:42&lt;/a&gt;) and the town he resided in, Natzaret of Galil (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=21&amp;amp;v=11&amp;amp;t=KJV#11&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 21:11&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=7&amp;amp;t=KJV#41&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 7:41&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, it was prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&amp;amp;b=Isa&amp;amp;c=7&amp;amp;v=14&amp;amp;x=0&amp;amp;y=0&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa. 7:14&lt;/a&gt; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=23&amp;amp;t=KJV#23&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 1:23&lt;/a&gt;) and be the seed of a woman (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=15&amp;amp;t=KJV#15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen. 3:15&lt;/a&gt;). Essentially, a human male would not contribute to the conception of the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&quot;Seed from another place&quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tsel.org/torah/midrashraba/breshit.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Midrash Bereshit Rabba&lt;/a&gt;, Parashat Bereshit, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;…and she called his name Set, for God appointed me another seed…&amp;quot;&#xA;(Gen. 4:25). Rabbi Tanchuma in the name of Rabbi Shemu'el said, &amp;quot;She&#xA;observed &lt;strong&gt;the seed that came from another place&lt;/strong&gt;. And what is this?&#xA;This is the King Messiah.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ותקרא את שמו שת כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר וגו׳ רבי תנחומא בשם רבי שמואל&#xA;אמר נסתכלה אותו &lt;strong&gt;זרע בא ממקום אחר&lt;/strong&gt; ואי זה זה מלך המשיח&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;midrash&lt;/em&gt; states that the seed from which the Messiah would be conceived would come &amp;quot;from another place&amp;quot; — perhaps an allusion to him being of divine origin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&quot;Root from dry ground&quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another scripture which seems to hint at a peculiar childhood of the Messiah is Isaiah 53:2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mekorot/teyman1-2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Epistle to Yemen&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Iggeret Teiman&lt;/em&gt;), Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) said similarly, when he (the Messiah) appears&#xA;without knowing his father and mother and family: &amp;quot;And he will grow up&#xA;in His presence as a branch, even like a root out of dry ground (etc.)...&amp;quot;&#xA;(Isa. 53:2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;וְאָמַר יְשַׁעְיָה כְּמוֹ כֵן, כְּשֶׁיִּרְאֶה מִבְּלִי שֶיודע לוֹ אָב&#xA;וְאֵם וּמִשְׁפָּחָה, &amp;quot;וַיַּעַל כַּיּוֹנֵק לְפָנָיו וְכַשֹּׁרֶשׁ&amp;quot;&#xA;וְגוֹמֵר יְשַׁעְיָה נ&amp;quot;ג ב'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rambam wrote that the Messiah would not know his father, mother, or family. While this isn't true of Yeshua, it demonstrates a traditional Jewish interpretation concerning the Messiah which Rambam received. It is quite possible that this same tradition existed among the Jewish people in the time of Yeshua. That is, some believed that the Messiah's father, mother, and family would be unknown and that the Messiah would appear from obscurity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps one of the reasons Rambam interprets the scripture in such a manner is because the ground is said to be &amp;quot;dry.&amp;quot; A root in dry ground is essentially dead or on the verge of death, as it receives no sustenance. Trees and plants are often used as metaphors in reference to ancestors. For example, the Messiah is said to be the &amp;quot;root of Yishai&amp;quot; (Isa. 53:11). That the Messiah, the root of Yishai, grows up out of dry ground, indicates that he is from an obscure family, contrary to the belief that the Messiah would be a well-known public figure worthy of pomp and grandeur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also read that Raymundi Martini, in his Pugio Fidei, quotes Rabbi Moshe Ha-Darshan in saying that the Messiah would be fatherless, by connecting Zech 6:12 to Isa. 53:2 and Ps. 110:3 (according to the thought of the LXX). I'm currently searching the Pugio Fidei attempting to locate the page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-05T01:16:30.023" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13718" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13719" CreationDate="2013-01-18T01:54:57.507" Score="5" ViewCount="1818" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 And the second command is like the first: ‘Love your neighbor&#xA;  the same as &lt;strong&gt;you love yourself&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Self love, esteem, worth, etc are matters of the spirit and personality - that are foundations for how we live our lives.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the description of self-love Christians are expected to have for themselves and their neighbors?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another issue, what is meant by this in a society where self love is low or rare (and why wasn't that considered when Jesus said this)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2017-03-22T21:59:27.120" Title="Christian description of &quot;self-love&quot; (from Matthew 22)" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-03-30T18:22:57.777" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13718" CreationDate="2013-01-18T02:32:25.307" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before getting into the details of what I've been taught on the subject, for those that don't know, we should first establish the three types of love in common Christian teaching.  They are based on the Greek words used that are commonly translated as love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblesuite.com/greek/5368.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;phileo&lt;/a&gt; - properly, to show warm affection in intimate friendship, characterized by tender, heartfelt consideration and kinship.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Eros.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;eros&lt;/a&gt; - romantic love&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblesuite.com/greek/26.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;agape&lt;/a&gt; - properly, love which centers in moral preference. So too in secular ancient Greek, 26 (agápē) focuses on preference; likewise the verb form (25 /agapáō) in antiquity meant &quot;to prefer&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Agape love is considered the purest form of love. To prefer another is to put their needs ahead of your own, and to esteem them higher than others.  It is the type of love that we are to have for others, but it's the rarest.  It's the type of love that motivates us to willingly lose our lives for those that we love.  A parent sacrificing their life so save a child, for example, or Christ's love for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblos.com/matthew/22-39.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The word that's translated as &quot;love&quot; here is the agape love.&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that, the principle is that we are to put our neighbors first - to prefer them the way we normally prefer ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You mentioned in the question that there is little self-love these days.  That depends entirely on how you define love.  Of the three forms, eros and phileos deal with how we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;feel&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  Agape deals with how we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;behave&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; toward another.  Agape love is a choice and an action, while the other two are simply feelings, which can change.  Generally speaking, agape love is unconditional, and the other two are conditional.  We feel them because being with someone makes us feel good.  When we no longer feel those feelings, we say we fall out of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's this understanding of love that prompts the phrase &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://paranoidrants.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-i-love-my-wife.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Love is a choice, not a feeling&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you think about it, for the most of us, barring those that are filled with enough self-loathing to resort to self-mutilation or suicide, most of us put our own needs first most of the time, even if we don't particularly feel good about ourselves.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We eat, rather than starve. We fight to survive in life-threatening situations.  We value our own opinions over other people's opinions.  We'd rather have our own way, even if we let others have theirs.  In general, whether we do so &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;outwardly&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; we think more about our own needs than we do about the needs of others.  In short, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblebay.org/article/44/lifesavers/a-cure-for-selfishness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;we are selfish&lt;/a&gt;.  It's human nature.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we these things because because we value ourselves.  Whether we like to admit it or not, we prefer ourselves over others most of the time.  Just like we prefer ourselves over God.  &quot;I don't feel like going to Church.  I have too much to do to waste time in prayer&quot;, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse speaks to that and says &quot;Don't be like that.  Instead of saying &lt;em&gt;I'd love to help you move, but I have to (Fill in the blank)&lt;/em&gt; Instead of thinking of what you want to do, think of your neighbor's needs and prefer (agape love) them.  Help them at your own sacrifice.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps put more simply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one who says &quot;I'd love to help you but I need to XXXXXXXX&quot; is preferring himself.  Putting his own needs above the one who needs help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one who says &quot;Can I help you&quot; when they have something else they'd rather be doing, even (or especially) if what they'd rather be doing is a true need is preferring (agape loving) their neighbor as he would love himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's actually just another form of the golden rule.  Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A shorter version can be found in &lt;strong&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The love of our neighbor springs from the love of God as its source; is&#xA;  found in the love of God as its principle, pattern, and end; and the&#xA;  love of God is found in the love of our neighbor, as its effect,&#xA;  representation, and infallible mark. This love of our neighbor is a&#xA;  love of equity, charity, succor, and benevolence. We owe to our&#xA;  neighbor what we have a right to expect from him - &quot;Do unto all men as&#xA;  ye would they should do unto you,&quot; is a positive command of our&#xA;  blessed Savior. By this rule, therefore, we should speak, think, and&#xA;  write, concerning every soul of man: - put the best construction upon&#xA;  all the words and actions of our neighbor that they can possibly bear.&#xA;  By this rule we are taught to bear with, love, and forgive him; to&#xA;  rejoice in his felicity, mourn in his adversity, desire and delight in&#xA;  his prosperity, and promote it to the utmost of our power: instruct&#xA;  his ignorance, help him in his weakness, and risk even our life for&#xA;  his sake, and for the public good. In a word, we must do every thing&#xA;  in our power, through all the possible varieties of circumstances, for&#xA;  our neighbors, which we would wish them to do for us, were our&#xA;  situations reversed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the religion of Jesus! How happy would Society be, were these&#xA;  two plain, rational precepts properly observed! Love Me, and love thy&#xA;  Fellows! Be unutterably happy in me, and be in perfect peace,&#xA;  unanimity, and love, among yourselves. Great fountain and dispenser of&#xA;  love! fill thy creation with this sacred principle, for his sake who&#xA;  died for the salvation of mankind!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-18T03:56:28.573" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T03:56:28.573" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13710" CreationDate="2013-01-18T04:55:45.637" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Protestant denominations that reject infant baptism reject it because they believe that baptism is the mark of justification,  whereas biblically we know that election is the mark of justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is only an acknowledgement that the candidate is entitled to drink from the Rock :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 10:1-6 NET&lt;/strong&gt; For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. But God was not pleased with most of them, for they were cut down in the wilderness. These things happened as examples for us, so that we will not crave evil things as they did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Children are automatically included in the table fellowship from birth,  moving from milk food to solid food. At the appropriate time,  Christians,  both born believers and converts will be &amp;quot;called&amp;quot;,  but only a few are &amp;quot;chosen&amp;quot; :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:11-14 NET&lt;/strong&gt; But when the king came in to see the wedding guests, he saw a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ But he had nothing to say. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Tie him up hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth!’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 2:1-4 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the message spoken through angels proved to be so firm that every violation or disobedience received its just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first communicated through the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him, while God confirmed their witness with signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel witnessed the signs that confirmed Moses's message.  Based on that they left serving Egypt.  While learning to serve God,  they felt it too uncertain and hard,  even though God promised to place them in a land filled with milk and honey.  Their unbelief led to hardening and rejection.  Caleb's belief led to strengthening and election.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 3:7-14, 16-19 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,&#xA;“Oh, that today you would listen as he speaks!&#xA;“Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness.&#xA;“There your fathers tested me and tried me,and they saw my works for forty years.&#xA;“Therefore, I became provoked at that generation and said, ‘Their hearts are always wanderingand they have not known my ways.’&#xA;“As I swore in my anger, ‘They will never enter my rest!’”&#xA;See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has an evil, unbelieving heart that forsakes the living God. But exhort one another each day, as long as it is called “Today,” that none of you may become hardened by sin’s deception. For we have become partners with Christ, if in fact we hold our initial confidence firm until the end. For which ones heard and rebelled? Was it not all who came out of Egypt under Moses’ leadership? And against whom was God provoked for forty years? Was it not those who sinned, whose dead bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear they would never enter into his rest, except those who were disobedient? So we see that they could not enter because of unbelief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is the invitation that a person can fellowship in the Body of Christ, extended to both children and converts. Later, the call is to discipleship,  to overcome the enemy and enter God's rest.  Many are called,  but only a few are chosen. If you want to be chosen,  believe! Believe God's rest is a land of milk and honey. Then your eyes will be opened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 3:2 NET&lt;/strong&gt; The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:3 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:6-7 NET&lt;/strong&gt; What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T04:55:45.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13718" CreationDate="2013-01-18T04:56:03.697" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Providing a Catholic-ish answer and taking some inspiration from David's answer, let's cover the basics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;type of love&lt;/a&gt; referred to in Matthew 22:39 is &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblesuite.com/greek/26.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;agape&lt;/a&gt;. Agape is a relatively simple concept which I often find incredibly difficult to properly comprehend, let alone explain. Peter Kreeft does a pretty good job going into some detail in his article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Love&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Starting here with a fairly raw, well-accepted definition, which you can find reiterated most anywhere agape is written about, it's a type of &quot;appreciation&quot; that embodies a few qualities the other forms of &quot;appreciation&quot; lack:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's active rather than passive&lt;/strong&gt;. Agape is something we do; it's not involuntary, and it's not a feeling, though it may occur in conjunction with feelings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Agape is not necessarily metered by the subject&lt;/strong&gt;. Ideally, we say that agape is unconditional. More accurately, I think, agape &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be unconditional. We can scarcely &lt;em&gt;choose&lt;/em&gt; to feel eros for a detestable person, but we can &lt;em&gt;choose&lt;/em&gt; to express agape for someone regardless of their detestability.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is strictly good&lt;/strong&gt;. Unlike eros and phileo, which may be centered on bad things, agape is always the expression of a desire for &lt;strong&gt;good&lt;/strong&gt; things for its subject. In Christianity, that means agape always seeks &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt; for its subject on a fundamental level, even if imperfectly through finite good (God-related) things.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It's subject is always a person&lt;/strong&gt;. Again, unlike feelings of eros or phileo that can occur in arguably perverse relationships between people and animals, machines, and concepts, agape is always in relation to a person. (The person can be God.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the general sense of agape is the &lt;strong&gt;active&lt;/strong&gt; seeking of good, Godly things for some &lt;strong&gt;person&lt;/strong&gt;. We can choose to perform this love regardless of the subject's detestability. And ultimate, the very nature of agape is to seek the ultimate good, relationship with God (I am who am, The Act of Being Itself, the Trinity of Love, etc.) for the subject, a person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In this sense, I find that self-love (self-agape) is not only quite good, but it's a necessary step to loving others.&lt;/strong&gt; For, if we do not know God, and if we do not have the desire for relationship with God for ourselves, we cannot properly desire it for others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Possibly extending beyond the question a little&lt;/em&gt;, if we are not already filled with love (agape), we cannot love at all. That is, our ability to love is constrained by our relationship with God and the love &lt;em&gt;for God&lt;/em&gt; that God gives us. &lt;strong&gt;The ultimate good we seek for others in agape is precisely a love for God.&lt;/strong&gt; All other goods are just stepping stones to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T04:56:03.697" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13722" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13800" CreationDate="2013-01-18T05:47:00.127" Score="6" ViewCount="341" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that there are three magisterium in Roman Catholicism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the General Magisterium according to Roman Catholic belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-01-18T18:05:34.897" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T04:43:40.570" Title="What is the &quot;General Magisterium&quot; in Roman Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5333" CreationDate="2013-01-18T08:53:47.790" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see you have  all agreed on the same point that Sunday became the Lord's Day, according to my understanding of the Holy Scriptures this is untrue. Jesus called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath which makes the Saturday the Lord's Day (Matthew 12:1-14). Jesus Christ kept the Sabbath, Apostles kept the Sabbath.(Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks). If you understand this verse Paul was in a foreign land which is Corinth. He kept the Sabbath and reasoned in the synagogue 'every' Sabbath. He even stayed the for 18 months (Acts 18:11) attending on the holy convocation called Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With your use of Colossians 2:17, 'shadows of the things to come', why would God transfer the Sabbath to Sunday when He will again restore it in future? We will have to Sabbath as it one of the thing to come. You confuse church meeting that took place on Sunday to collect the things that were to be sent to help other Christians (1 Corinthians 16:2). That was to be done on Sunday so that 'there would be no collection' [when] Paul comes. When would Paul come, on Sunday or on Sabbath? This does not mean they would assembly for worship on Sunday.  In the Revelation again, it does not say Sunday, John was in Patmos for the Word of God and the testimony of Christ. Was John a Gentile? John the Apostle was not the Gentile, He was a Jew. So why would he refer to Sunday as a Lord's day? In the Book of Acts, it is making it clear that Paul and other Apostles still used the Seventh Day as the Sabbath, they still kept it. In another foreign land which is Antioch, we see reference of meeting in Sabbath days i.e. Acts 13:14 c.f. Acts 13:27, 42-44, 15:21, 16:13. There is no where in the Scripture we find apostles saying the First day of the week replacing the Seventh day. It is only from the traditions of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3794" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T08:53:47.790" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13724" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-18T09:44:32.767" Score="6" ViewCount="381" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to alluding to various Jewish proverbs, sayings, and parables, sometimes the Bible seems to directly quote Greek philosophers (Acts 17:28), Jewish oral traditions (Jude 9, 12) or possibly even  pseudepigraphal works . &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under a biblical framework that holds to the infallibility of the Protestant Bible how are we to approach those extra biblical sources being quoted?  Does the scriptures reference of them pass on some kind of dignity or validity to them, or is a extra biblical reference in the scripture neutral not to have higher esteem than it otherwise would have? Or would each case have to be considered on its own and if so, under what guidelines?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T15:25:38.573" Title="When scripture quotes a non-biblical source, without any opposition of the source, does it imply any endorsement?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;deuterocanonical-books&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13725" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13727" CreationDate="2013-01-18T09:45:58.070" Score="2" ViewCount="227" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am pretty sure that within biblical language, knowledge and holiness can't be separated from each other. Even in Greek thought this was the case, the logos was moral not just intellectual. The rational and the moral are one.  However, in the world today, an idea is seen as often separate from a moral state or inclination, and questions are (almost always) good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When trying to determine when it is holy to ask and answer questions, what biblical framework or basis supports a possible answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T18:26:26.430" Title="What Biblical basis supports the idea that questions and answers about Christianity could be sinful?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13726" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13728" CreationDate="2013-01-18T12:43:10.343" Score="9" ViewCount="82674" Body="&lt;p&gt;Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 5:30&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and &lt;strong&gt;hanged on a tree&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 10:39&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and &lt;strong&gt;hanged on a tree&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 13:29&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, &lt;strong&gt;they took him down from the tree&lt;/strong&gt;, and laid him in a sepulchre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 2:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  24 Who his own self bare our sins in &lt;strong&gt;his own body on the tree&lt;/strong&gt;, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 27:40&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down &lt;strong&gt;from the cross.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 27:42&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down &lt;strong&gt;from the cross&lt;/strong&gt;, and we will believe him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 15:30&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  30 Save thyself, and come down &lt;strong&gt;from the cross.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 15:32&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now &lt;strong&gt;from the cross&lt;/strong&gt;, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 23:26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and &lt;strong&gt;on him they laid the cross&lt;/strong&gt;, that he might bear it after Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 19:19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it &lt;strong&gt;on the cross&lt;/strong&gt;. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3792" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T23:25:23.113" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T23:25:23.113" Title="Did Jesus die on the cross or on the tree?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;cross&gt;&lt;greek&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13725" CreationDate="2013-01-18T12:57:44.823" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to start by being slightly off-topic for answering your question and then swing around to tie your question in.  And I'm going to stick to well-known Scriptural principles, so unless someone demands it, I'm going to omit the Scripture quotes that I would normally include, in the interest of keeping this shorter than my usual answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good first question is &quot;Is it sinful to question God?&quot;  Since many questions about Christianity are basically questioning the truthfulness of God's word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before I get into the rest: An analogy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Driving a car is not illegal.  Hitting an unexpected patch of ice, and sliding into another vehicle, killing passengers in either car is unfortunate, but not illegal.  (Unless you are drinking, or the accident was caused by breaking other laws like speeding, negligence, cell-phone use while driving, etc.)  However, using a car to intentionally kill someone is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of the example above is that driving the vehicle isn't the crime.  The vehicle is the tool to commit the crime.  Likewise, questions can be tools used to commit sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripturally, it's quite easy to show that questioning God in and of itself isn't sinful.  Job questioned God repeatedly.  David questioned Him.  Even Jesus questioned God the Father.  &quot;Why have you forsaken me?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are several things that are undeniably considered sins that are acheived via asking questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Justifying your sin, or tempting others to sin by asking &quot;Did God really say that&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Genesis 3:3: 3 &quot;And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Using questions to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;mock&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God.  (Your average refute-this atheist question that tries to show us that the whole idea of Christianity is stupid because God is a figment of our imagination, for example.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure there are more that I could list and think of, but the principle is pretty basic:  Questioning God isn't sinful in and of itself, but if your question is being used to deny, defy, or mock God, it is.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, an honest question seeking an answer, to clarify a point, or even to clarify a point that you understand, in order to help educate others about the Truth of God wouldn't be sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Applied to Christianity as a whole, it's easy to see, as there are dozens of examples even on this site, it's easy to ask questions about Christianity where the sole purpose is to mock God, or deny/defy Him.  In that context, asking questions and answers about Christianity in general can be sinful.  But questions and answers that are honestly seeking would not be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-18T18:26:26.430" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T18:26:26.430" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13726" CreationDate="2013-01-18T13:18:06.857" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, understanding that this is not a site to learn about Truth, but rather to learn about Christianity - what the various teachings are from an academic perspective, the question &quot;Which is true&quot; is off-topic.  However, we could take a couple of approaches that would be within the bounds of the site:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Answering what various denominations believe about the subject&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From an apologetics approach, how do we resolve the apparent conflict?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to take the latter, and provide the answer the is probably the most commonly accepted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before we can address the potential discrepancy, it's important to clarify a couple of key concepts: Mainly what &quot;Biblical inerrancy&quot; means, and what guidelines are used for resolving alleged discrepancies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the basic rules for resolving Biblical discrepancies are documented here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12272/rules-behind-resolving-alleged-biblical-discrepancies&quot;&gt;Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9961/from-a-fundamentalist-viewpoint-what-does-it-mean-to-take-the-bible-literally&quot;&gt;the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration of Scripture allows for authors to use their own literary style, including using allegory, and figures of speech while still allowing for Biblical inerrancy&lt;/a&gt;.  This means that there can be verses within the Bible that are true on a general common-sense, easy to understand level, yet not technically true.  Example:  &quot;I'm so hungry I could eat a horse&quot; is a phrase that anyone can easily see is a figure of speech.  Anyone can see that it simply means &quot;I am very hungry&quot;, but realizes that the &quot;I could eat a horse&quot; is an exaggeration for effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of the above is that it's sometimes a mistake to be hyper-literal when interpreting individual passages of Scripture.  Further, from the perspecrtive of inerrancy, the doctrine is not meant to defend the idea that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, it teaches that the Bible is a reliable source of truth and doctrine.  That said, doctrinally, whether Christ was hung on a tree or a cross isn't doctrinally significant.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One method for resolving this apparent conflict is based on the basic principle outlined above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's quite possible that the word &quot;Cross&quot; and &quot;Tree&quot; were used interchangeably, like &quot;Cool&quot;, &quot;Neat&quot;, and &quot;Awesome&quot; are used in modern slang.  In our modern slang, those words have completely different meanings, techically, but in the way we use them, they can mean the exact same thing.  Since a cross is made of wood, taken from a tree, it is not unreasonable to assume that either people called crosses &quot;trees&quot;.  It also be that they called anything that someone was crucified upon a cross, just because the Romans generally did use a cross of one sort or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, all of that said, the historical evidence suggests that Jesus was probably hung on a cross as we'd normally think of it, since it was the normal method of execution at the time, and also based on internal Scriptural evidence.  More here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gods-word-first.org/jesus-christ/jesus-crucifixion-stauros.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.gods-word-first.org/jesus-christ/jesus-crucifixion-stauros.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small snippet of the article, which shows a small bit of possible internal evidence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The beam that Jesus was made to carry (John 19:17), and that Simon&#xA;  from Cyrene carried for him after Jesus collapsed in exhaustion (Luke&#xA;  23:26), was most likely the crosspiece that was later affixed to an&#xA;  upright pole that was already in place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T18:23:46.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13726" CreationDate="2013-01-18T17:41:48.937" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some believe that Jesus was crucified on a single, upright stake (i.e., no crossbeam).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 20:25, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, the other disciples said to him, &quot;We have seen the Lord.&quot; But he said to them, &quot;Unless I shall see the print of the &lt;strong&gt;nails&lt;/strong&gt; in his hands, and put my finger into the print of the &lt;strong&gt;nails&lt;/strong&gt;, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;nails&quot; is plural. Jesus had the print of &lt;strong&gt;nails&lt;/strong&gt; in his hands. If Jesus were crucified on an upright stake in which both hands were affixed to the stake (see image below) with a singular nail, then we wouldn't see the word &quot;nails&quot; --- but &quot;nail&quot; --- to describe the print in Jesus' hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hat1Tm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Depiction of Jesus Crucified on a Stake&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the word &quot;tree&quot; --- which is equivalent to the Hebrew word עֵץ (&lt;em&gt;etz&lt;/em&gt;), this Hebrew word was used for the &quot;gallow&quot; that Haman and his sons were hanged on in the Book of Esther (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Est&amp;amp;c=9&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Est. 9:25&lt;/a&gt;), so it has a wide semantic range.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-02-19T07:53:10.610" LastActivityDate="2014-02-19T07:53:10.610" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13718" CreationDate="2013-01-18T18:32:27.100" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer is based on a definition of love that is implied in Scripture, but not necessarily spelled out in chapter and verse.  I learned it from Les Feldick's &quot;Through The Bible&quot; program. Any child can grasp the definition of Biblical love.  It's simply seeking the other's highest good.  (and only God is good).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus commands us to love our neighbor as our selves.  We simply seek eternal life for them as we desire it for ourselves.  Jesus further commands his apostles &quot;love one another as I have loved you&quot;  Jesus loved us by doing His Father's will.  Believers love one another likewise, by doing our Father's will.  For some, this love manifests itself in working toward getting God's Word out,  the Gospel of grace, so that every man and woman, boy and girl can come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3796" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T18:32:27.100" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13724" CreationDate="2013-01-18T18:45:08.840" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think sometimes Protestants confuse the infallibility of the Bible with the Bible being the &lt;em&gt;source&lt;/em&gt; of the Truth in describes.  Truth is not Truth because its in the Bible. Truth is in the Bible because it is Truth.  And just because something is not in the Bible doesn't make it not Truth.  All humans have an inherent inkling of Truth &quot;written on our hearts&quot;.  We can still hold the Bible to be infallible without falling into the trap of exclusivity which tends to come across to others as snobbish arrogance.  By acknowledging Truth where you find it, you build connections to people which can help them grow into a fuller understanding and acceptance of the fullness of Truth found in the Bible and Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T15:25:38.573" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T15:25:38.573" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13724" CreationDate="2013-01-18T19:23:22.653" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm hesitant to give an across-the-board answer, but there is a well-established principle in understanding Scripture that applies somewhat here.  It was included in an earlier answer of mine addressing the question of what we are to take literally as opposed to figuratively in Scripture, from a Fundamentalist standpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;[Because the Bible is inspired, it is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative][2].  No word of fallible man can stand in authority&#xA;  over Scripture.&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Scripture is intelligible. God &lt;em&gt;meant&lt;/em&gt; for us to understand it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Because it is infallible, the Bible is internally consistent. it can't contradict itself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Because God meant to communicate truth, and because Scripture is internally consistent, the words of Scripture have only one meaning in&#xA;  context. There may be multiple legitimate applications of a passage of&#xA;  Scripture, but a passage has only one meaning in context.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, the part that I think applies here, important bullet point bolded for emphasis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The &lt;em&gt;Biblical Research Society&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  out it much more simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of&#xA;  Interpretation” which is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other&#xA;  sense;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal&#xA;  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the&#xA;  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths&#xA;  indicate clearly otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;so, from this quote, from Dr. Cooper's perspective,  we see that we&#xA;  are to take Scripture at face value (literally) unless...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The immediate context makes it clear that the passage is not to be taken literally.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Related passages, the literal sense does not make sense&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The literal sense of the passage would contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That last principle can and should, from a Fundamentalist Sola Scriptura, Biblical inerrancy be applicable to anything questionable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does the passage contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Bible includes a passage, and doesn't oppose it in the context of the surrounding verses &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; doesn't contradict axiomatic, fundamental truths, then we can say, at best, that the author isn't opposing the statement, that it's not doctrinally incorrect, and that it's not blasphemous.  I don't think we can go so far as to say Scripture (or the author of that particular passage) &lt;em&gt;endorses&lt;/em&gt; the idea, unless it is clear, within the context of that passage that the author is endorsing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T19:23:22.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13697" CreationDate="2013-01-18T19:56:02.677" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is more of a general summary of Augustine than an actual quote. But I could see where he's coming from in book 1 even when he is sure to not hold soldiers accountable for following orders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3797" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T19:56:02.677" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13734" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13735" CreationDate="2013-01-18T20:01:14.483" Score="4" ViewCount="257" Body="&lt;p&gt;More or less I am asking for a defense of the propitiatory view of atonement in which God changes from being angry to being happy with us rather than sinners being the ones who need to change. Perhaps I misunderstand this model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3797" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-01T01:16:24.550" LastActivityDate="2015-12-01T01:16:24.550" Title="If God cannot change, then why does His wrath need to be appeased?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;&lt;wrath-of-god&gt;&lt;immutability&gt;&lt;propitiation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13734" CreationDate="2013-01-18T20:09:49.880" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You misunderstand the model.  But it's a common misunderstanding.  One that comes up often enough that there's a standard answer from Apologetics.  Here is is in my words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The statement that God doesn't change means that His &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; doesn't change.  His Nature includes many attributes that never change:  Goodness, holiness, He is Just, Righteous, and executes Judgement.  None of these change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His &lt;em&gt;attitude toward us&lt;/em&gt; can and does change.  This is not only consistent with the idea that His nature never changes, it is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; if His nature of righteousness never changes. If God is righteous, He must punish sin.  Therefore, if we are in sin, He must punish us.  If He is forgiving, then His attitude toward us &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be able to change from wrath to forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a parent.  I love my children.  I will always try to do what's best for them, which means I will praise them when they deserve praise, I will punish them when they deserve punishment, I will comfort them when they are hurting, and I will burn with anger if anyone hurts them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that I can be angry with them when they are naughty and please with them when they are good &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;does not mean that I change&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  I remain the same.  Who I am does not change, my nature does not change. Neither does the fact that God can be angry with us, and then forgive us means that He changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More on this at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&amp;amp;article=1166&quot;&gt;Apologetics Press, on the question of &quot;Does God repent?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For instance, during the Patriarchal Age in which they were living,&#xA;  Noah and his contemporaries had received instructions on how to live&#xA;  righteously (see 1 Peter 3:18-20), and as long as they continued in&#xA;  this manner, God’s presence and blessings would abide with them. But&#xA;  when they became sinful and unrepentant, He no longer could condone&#xA;  their actions. As a consequence of their sinful rebelliousness, God&#xA;  withdrew His spirit (Genesis 6:3), and pledged to send a flood to&#xA;  destroy all mankind except Noah and his immediate family (6:7). God&#xA;  was grieved (6:6), not because He did not know that this series of&#xA;  events would happen, or because He somehow “regretted” having created&#xA;  man in the first place, but because, having given man the choice to&#xA;  serve Him or reject Him, man had chosen the latter with such&#xA;  unanimity. When we hear God described in terms such as “sad,”&#xA;  “joyful,” etc. that frequently are used to describe human emotions, we&#xA;  must remember that such descriptions are not intended to imply that&#xA;  God is emotionally vulnerable in the same way that humans are (cf.&#xA;  Acts 17:25). Rather, such descriptions are intended to show that God&#xA;  is compassionate and loving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-18T21:39:10.783" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T21:39:10.783" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13736" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-18T20:32:31.350" Score="7" ViewCount="604" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Eastern theology, the idea of a dispassionate God is common. It is often said that wrath is an energy of God but is not part of his essence. I have even heard Western theologians say that wrath is not an eternal attribute of God (it did not exist in the absence of sin, it only exists in response to unholiness). Does he really get mad or is this just for our benefit, since &quot;God is love?&quot; Or is this an influx from Plato into Christian thought? I am interested in a Western explanation (which often speaks of eternal vs. temporal &quot;attributes&quot; of God rather than the Eastern model of essence vs. energies).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3797" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user3797" LastEditDate="2015-12-01T01:14:55.200" LastActivityDate="2015-12-01T01:14:55.200" Title="Is God's wrath an anthropomorphism?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;wrath-of-god&gt;&lt;western-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="13" ClosedDate="2015-11-04T09:01:16.580" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12521" CreationDate="2013-01-18T20:42:37.213" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not necessarily. Technically one could take the two-age model literally where one age would end in 70 (and thus Jesus would no longer be with us), but most who hold to this believe that the ages overlap. So Jesus was talking about the present age that overlaps the former age when he said it. Thus he will be with us to the end of the current age, which overlapped the former age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3797" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-01-18T22:09:10.230" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T22:09:10.230" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13738" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13739" CreationDate="2013-01-18T20:53:17.147" Score="5" ViewCount="12769" Body="&lt;p&gt;We first confess in our first communion and the priests say that we should always confess our sins, but is it the only way to be forgiven by God ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can't we pray and ask for forgiveness? I've heard of people confessing to a priest before dying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the teaching on this may vary depending on the perspective of the answerer, please limit answers to those that specify the denominational view of the answerer, and make them &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/692/what-makes-a-good-supported-answer&quot;&gt;good, supported answers&lt;/a&gt;.  A survey of the answer from various perspectives would be even better, as it will give information from the perspectives of a wider audience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3777" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2014-06-26T02:54:36.447" Title="Is confessing to a priest the only way to be forgiven?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;confession&gt;&lt;priests&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-07-18T14:23:06.530" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13738" CreationDate="2013-01-18T23:10:24.123" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is confession?&lt;/strong&gt; St. John wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not&#xA;  in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us&#xA;  our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have&#xA;  not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (1 John 1:8-10, ESV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verb used for 'confess' is the first-person-plural form of ὁμολογέω (&lt;em&gt;homologeo&lt;/em&gt;). The word ὁμολογέω literally means &quot;to say the same thing.&quot; It can also mean to &quot;agree with,&quot; &quot;acknowledge,&quot; or &quot;confess&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G3670/homologeo.htm&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People often tend to think of confession as apologizing for our sins, asking for forgiveness. Some as a result believe that they only receive forgiveness for sins of which they ask to be forgiven (and/or apologize for). But confession is less about asking forgiveness for specific sins as it is agreeing with God that our wrong deeds are indeed sinful. It is more of an acknowledgement that what God calls sin is actually sinful. For instance, if we lie, confession means acknowledging that lying is wrong and that you sinned against God. Otherwise, the truth is not in us (and we are living in a state of sin, i.e. unrepentance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning confessing our sins, St. James says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,&#xA;  that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great&#xA;  power as it is working (James 5:16, ESV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly it is good to confess our sins to other Christians, indeed it is essential for our healing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who is a priest?&lt;/strong&gt; There are a few ways to look at this. For the sake of the Stack Exchange community, allow me to explain a couple of these views. But before I do that, let's start where (most) everyone agrees: 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a holy and royal priesthood. Thus all Christians are priests before God. Under the old covenant, the faithful needed a priest to approach God, but now under the new covenant this is not necessary. Because of Jesus' sacrifice, all believers can now approach God's throne with confidence (Hebrews 4:16). Most Christians agree with this thus far. Now here is where they start to differ (&lt;em&gt;understand that this must be brief, I cannot offer an apologetic for the priesthood here, I am giving only a cursory explanation&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In ancient expressions of the Christian faith (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, some Anglicans and Lutherans, a few other groups), a priest is usually someone who has been ordained by other appointed Christian leaders for our good, and is an excellent person to whom we may confess our sins. In the early Church, Christians publicly confessed their sins to the entire congregation. This soon became impractical and appointed leaders (elders, who are spiritual fathers, cf. 1 Corinthians 4:15) began hearing people's confessions privately. Priests of course believe that Christians can confess their sins directly to God, but a spiritual father can also give advice and help a Christian heal by praying for them (James 5:16). This has to do with learning humility and acknowledging that we cannot heal ourselves. Some traditions go so far as to say that priests are appointed by God to stand &quot;in the stead&quot; of Christ, having the ability to forgive (or not forgive) sins on God's behalf (cf. &quot;Office of the Keys,&quot; Matthew 16:19; John 20:23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most evangelical Protestant Christians do not have a functioning priesthood in the historic sense of the term, but they do have the equivalent (a pastor/elder) who will offer advice, but they do not generally view confession of sins to them as any different as to other believers. They do not believe that anyone should function as a mediator between a Christian and God and that the historic Christian priesthood violates this (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So is confessing to a priest the &lt;em&gt;only way&lt;/em&gt; to be forgiven?&lt;/strong&gt; Regardless of which perspective of the priesthood that you adopt, the answer is no. First, remember the meaning of the word 'confession' that was previously discussed. If we die before we had a chance to confess a specific sin, that isn't going to send us straight to eternal torment. It is failure to acknowledge that our actions are sinful (saying a sinful action is not sinful, i.e. &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; saying the same thing as God) that will jeopardize our relationship with God (this is calling God a liar according to St. John). Even traditions which practice the historic priesthood do not believe that this is the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; way to be forgiven (but they do believe that it is a divinely appointed means of forgiveness).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2013-01-18T23:10:24.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12521" CreationDate="2013-01-19T01:26:21.567" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although I'm not a preterist (none of that is important to me), this is the argument you would need to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Teaching them to observe all things, whatever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you always &lt;strong&gt;until&lt;/strong&gt; the end of the age. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν καὶ ἰδού, ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας &lt;strong&gt;ἕως&lt;/strong&gt; τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος ἀμήν&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is natural for us in English to think of the conjunction ἕως (&lt;em&gt;heōs&lt;/em&gt;), translated as &quot;until,&quot; as the &lt;em&gt;terminus ad quem&lt;/em&gt; of an action. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is to say, most read this scripture and think, &quot;Jesus will be with the disciples until the end of the age, but after that, he will no longer be with them.&quot; In other words, the &quot;end of the age&quot; is the &lt;em&gt;terminus ad quem&lt;/em&gt; or &quot;limit to which&quot; Jesus will be present with them, and after the end of the age, he will no longer be present with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, ἕως is a bit more flexible than simply pointing to the &lt;em&gt;terminus ad quem&lt;/em&gt; of an action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider 2 Samuel 6:23.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Mikhal, the daughter of Sha'ul, did not have a child &lt;strong&gt;until&lt;/strong&gt; the day of her death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;καὶ τῇ Μελχολ θυγατρὶ Σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον &lt;strong&gt;ἕως&lt;/strong&gt; τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mikhlal did not have a daughter until she died. Quite plausible, possible, and probable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if ἕως points to &quot;the day of her death&quot; as the &lt;em&gt;terminus ad quem&lt;/em&gt;, then we must admit that Mikhlal had a child &lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; she was already dead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such is impossible. Clearly, ἕως does not always point to a &lt;em&gt;terminus ad quem&lt;/em&gt;. Mikhlal did not have a child to the day of her death, and thereafter. Likewise, Jesus would be present with his disciples to the end of the age, and thereafter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-01-19T01:26:21.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13738" CreationDate="2013-01-19T02:57:44.537" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have a biblical warrant to be thinking in the mindset of confession for the forgiveness of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not&#xA;  in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us&#xA;  our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have&#xA;  not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John&#xA;  1:5-10 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, a larger survey of forgiveness in the Bible yields us with plenty of examples and explanations of forgiveness which say nothing of confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the&#xA;  law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the&#xA;  righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who&#xA;  believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall&#xA;  short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift,&#xA;  through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward&#xA;  as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to&#xA;  show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had&#xA;  passed over former sins. (Romans 3:21-25 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical model of forgiveness is &lt;code&gt;justification&lt;/code&gt;, that is, God's declaration of righteousness, through &lt;code&gt;propitiation&lt;/code&gt; that is, the appeasement of wrath, on the basis of the blood of Christ, which is received by faith, as a gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that when a sinner places their faith in Christ, God's wrath against that sinner is appeased as a free gift to them and accounted on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Confession&lt;/code&gt; generally serves as an expression of faith, although there is no biblical prescription that priests be the sole mediators of this forgiveness. In fact, the idea that a priest would have exclusive authority or office in the mediation of confessions is directly refuted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men,&#xA;  the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is&#xA;  the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Timothy 2:5-6 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual biblical prescriptions of confession are generally either directed to God (e.g. Psalm 51), or to one another:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,&#xA;  that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great&#xA;  power as it is working. (James 5:16 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, there are traditions, most notably Roman Catholicism, which teach systems of sacraments, whereby the Church serves as a type of dispenser of various forms of God's grace. These graces are communicated through sacraments like Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Confession would fall into the wider scope of Penance, and thus the tradition of confession to a priest for forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although Roman Catholic teaching would hold that this system is biblical, personally, I reject this notion of the sacraments. I think that the most biblical case can be made for the forgiveness of sins by faith, and that this faith would express itself as confession to God and to other believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2013-01-19T02:57:44.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13736" CreationDate="2013-01-19T03:24:44.503" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is some confusion about the word ‘anthropomorphism’ as it is found in the Bible. &lt;strong&gt;The basic idea is that anything that is ‘unworthy’ of being attributed to God, which is a human characteristic applied to God in order for us to understand something higher and nobler, is anthropomorphic.&lt;/strong&gt;  For example when the Bible says Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord, the ‘eyes’ are not real physical eyes, but this is an anthropomorphism to say that in God’s perspective Noah was graciously approved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greeks were famous for a different kind of anthropomorphism not found in the Bible. They created gods that seemed like grumpy and resentful children who happened to have a lot of power. This is not the kind of anthropomorphism found in the Bible. The Bible starts 'in the beginning there was God' not man who applied their ideas about themselves to God. God is higher than our nature in every sense and beyond our comprehension in every way. Unlike the Greek god’s created by men, and therefore unholy human traits were projected up to them, God made man and some of our traits are in his image.  &lt;strong&gt;So we see human traits that are ‘worthy’ of God are not anthropomorphisms but attestations that we are created in his image.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to emotions, such as love and righteous anger, these emotions are not anthropomorphisms.  Holy anger is a subset of love, for love hates evil and opposes it. An infinite God who loves without measure must necessarily infinitely oppose sin, or he does not love.  Therefore the human affections that we call emotions, at least those that are encouraged in scripture and evident in the life of Christ, are not anthropomorphisms.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether God is ‘actually angry’ may mean different things to different people. What is ‘actually’? Is it ‘human’ or ‘real’? We can’t pretend to understand how God feels; we can only know that he wants us to understand him as feeling. The best way to see how God ’feels’ and how God wants our emotions to be like, is to read the gospels and see how God in man felt, and how the Christ's emotions were like. &lt;strong&gt;Jesus got angry but was most characteristic as loving - both emotions were real and indicative of how the Father and Spirit 'feel'.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-01-19T04:01:16.317" LastActivityDate="2013-01-19T04:01:16.317" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13701" CreationDate="2013-01-19T03:48:11.733" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Matthew begins, &quot;The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, this is what is intended to immediately capture the reader's attention. And, why is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To Abraham, God said (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=22&amp;amp;v=18&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 22:18&lt;/a&gt;), &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in your seed because you obeyed My voice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The seed of Avraham in which all the nations of the earth would be blessed was Jesus Christ (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 3:25-26&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gal. 3:16&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To David, God said (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=132&amp;amp;v=11&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ps. 132:11&lt;/a&gt;), &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fruit of David's loins was Jesus Christ (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#30&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:30&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Matthew intends to establish the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham and David, thereby declaring that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-12-21T19:52:31.737" LastActivityDate="2015-12-21T19:52:31.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13724" CreationDate="2013-01-19T14:44:25.297" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The scripture records the thoughts of God and at times that includes referencing the opinions of men. When God refers to our thoughts it makes them no better, it only means God condescends to us through his word.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who believe that the words of scripture are actually chosen words of God, no writing can be compared to scripture.  The Bible is a book all on its own that all other words, books and beliefs must bow under in revered submission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now everything in scripture is not necessarily treated as truth, even some of the lies and temptations of Satan are recorded in scripture.  What the scripture does is treat all of the subjects that it treats, truthfully.  It communicates in words, what the Spirit communicates to our hearts, God's mind.  This makes scripture like a great valuable treasure above any other material wealth of this world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many books have truths in them.  God gave us minds full of many truths.  Even animals are born with innate truths within them.  Yet when all these truths are written in all the libraries and data repositories, all of them combined are as a single penny compared to the unmeasurable weight of diamonds filling every word of scripture.  As we properly estimate this immeasurable difference between scripture and any extra biblical work which it might use in its arguments, we would see that it is impossible to pass on any of its glory to them.  When the scripture refers to the opinions of men, they are still 'mere opinions of men'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-01-20T02:06:12.953" LastActivityDate="2013-01-20T02:06:12.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13746" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13750" CreationDate="2013-01-19T20:21:59.740" Score="8" ViewCount="1472" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the spirit of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12584/on-what-basis-do-some-denominations-prohibit-christians-from-drinking-alcohol&quot;&gt;On what basis do some denominations prohibit Christians from drinking alcohol?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10051/why-do-young-earth-creationists-make-such-a-big-deal-about-the-yec-view&quot;&gt;Why do Young-Earth Creationists make such a big deal about the YEC view&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, what this question isn't:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/379/can-people-speak-in-tongues-today&quot;&gt;It is not asking whether the gifts discussed are still valid today.  (That's been asked already).&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is not asking if the Ongoing Revelation as believed by some denominations is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;valid&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's not about asking for a Scriptural reason.  As noted in the question linked to in the first bullet point, Scripture can be interpreted either way on this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put other way, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;this is not a &quot;Truth&quot; question&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  It's a question of the cultural and doctrinal understandings that leads to adherence to a particular view.  In other words, what are some of the reasons some Christians are so wary of a view that other Christians are so willing to embrace?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the Pentecostal denominations believe that things like speaking in tongues, prophecy, and ongoing revelation are still happening today as ways for God to provide us with Truth.  Likewise, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/modern-prophets-and-continuing-revelation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the LDS Church believes in continuing revelation to the Church through the Prophets&lt;/a&gt;, as do &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_revelation#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;others&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/39825&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some of the more conservative/Fundamentalist denominations believe that extra-Biblical revelation stopped with the closure of Canon&lt;/a&gt;, and tend to view modern day practice of these types of personal revelation as false, and even dangerous.  Most people can understand the Scriptural arguments, which would lead to believing that such a view is either true or false, but why &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;dangerous&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2016-04-11T07:04:12.747" Title="Why are some denominations so against the idea of personal revelation as a source of Truth?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;discernment&gt;&lt;truth&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13746" CreationDate="2013-01-19T20:21:59.740" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a loosely related question about the nature of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and external sources of Truth, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7757/does-the-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura-prohibit-the-use-of-empirical-information-to/7759#7759&quot;&gt;Jas 3.1 gave an excellent answer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since Scripture adequately equips you to correct false doctrine, that&#xA;  implies it is the standard of truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the point is this: If a person teaches something contrary to&#xA;  Scripture, they are wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That is not to say that everything outside of scripture is wrong (or&#xA;  &quot;not from God&quot;)... just everything &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%201:8-9,%20Matt%204:1-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;contrary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Therefore we reject any&#xA;  teaching which opposes what we know (based on Scripture);&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in line with, for example, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Southern Baptist statement of belief on the nature of Scripture&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's&#xA;  revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine&#xA;  instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and&#xA;  truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all&#xA;  Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles&#xA;  by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end&#xA;  of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme&#xA;  standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions&#xA;  should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is&#xA;  Himself the focus of divine revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the groups that I am thinking of, the idea of continuing revelation isn't necessarily dangerous in and of itself, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that revelation is in accordance with the teachings of Scripture.  If God doesn't change, any revelation that comes from Him will be in accordance with what He has already revealed to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is, from a Fundamentalist perspective, that many Christians seem to believe that personal revelation is on an equal or higher level of authority as Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the words of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/lawofcon.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Spurgeon&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lots of well-meaning Christians, however, seem to operate with the&#xA;  misconception that biblical revelation is somehow exempt from the law&#xA;  of contradiction. They suggest that God's truth can contravene logic&#xA;  if God is so pleased. They often point to the doctrine of the Trinity&#xA;  or pit divine sovereignty against human responsibility as evidence&#xA;  that revealed truth is sometimes contradictory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But Titus 1:2 tells us that &quot;God . . . cannot lie.&quot; Therefore even&#xA;  God's Word must be in harmony with the law of contradiction. One&#xA;  clear, unresolvable contradiction would be enough to destroy the&#xA;  trustworthiness of the whole. That's why the enemies of truth are so&#xA;  eager to try to prove that God's Word contradicts itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more contemporary preacher, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gty.org/resources/print/articles/A366&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John MacAurthur also addresses this&lt;/a&gt;, nothing the disastrous, destructive results of misinterpreted &quot;personal revelation from God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put simply, from a Fundamentalist perspective, once a person believes that personal interpretation, personal revelation, or personal anything is equal to, or greater than God's revealed Word, that person can believe in anything they want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.karenkober.net/karen.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.karenkober.net/karen.html&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Karen is one of twelve disciples chosen by God to follow His Son,&#xA;  Yeshua.  Called into the desert in May of 2003, she committed to God&#xA;  for His Son.  Upon the commitment, God gave her the Nine Gifts of&#xA;  Discernment.  John the Baptist told her, &quot;As I have opened the  path&#xA;  for Him to come, you are to open the path for Him to come again.&quot;. &#xA;  She is to create a Sacred Garden for Yeshua and His Mother to welcome&#xA;  the masses.  She is to spread the word around the world of His Second&#xA;  Coming.  Yeshua will be seen to her right and the Blessed Mother to&#xA;  her left.  Those with spiritual eyes have already seen Mother walk&#xA;  alongside of Karen.  About 2000 years ago, Maria, Mariamene and&#xA;  Salome/Miriam walked with Yeshua.  Karen was the &quot;Third Mary&quot; at the&#xA;  cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know this woman personally, although I cave been out of contact with her for several years, I can attest that she believes this, as well as all the other stuff on her website to the very core of her being.  She didn't always believe these things.  She believes them now because she rejects Scripture as &quot;man-made&quot;, and also because &quot;God revealed these things&quot; to her personally.  No amount of logic, reason, or Scripture can make a dent in her unshakable faith in the things that have sprung from her own imagination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the perfect example of what is spoken of in Romans 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1: KJV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,&#xA;  neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and&#xA;  their foolish heart was darkened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made&#xA;  like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and&#xA;  creeping things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Fundamentalist standpoint, this is dangerous to her because the embrace of such anti-Christian beliefs means that she will never put her faith in Christ alone.  Her faith is in the &quot;God&quot; that she has created in her own mind.  On a personal level, this breaks my heart.  And she is actively leading others to follow her, which is dangerous to them as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Her beliefs sprung from a belief in God.  She believed in Jesus. (Still does, just not the Jesus revealed in Scripture, but rather one she's invented.)  But she believes that her own personal understanding, and that the revelations that God gave her are of higher trustworthiness than a Bible that was &quot;made up&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where, from a Fundamentalist point of view, personal revelation is distrusted, and seen as dangerous. Not because we believe God can't and doesn't use personal revelation.  In point of fact, we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; believe that God speaks to us through personal revelation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We believe He speaks to us in prayer (perhaps not audibly, but by giving us comfort when we are in His will, and allowing us to sense when we are not - be it unease, uncertainty, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We believe that He reveals His will to us in many ways.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We just believe that God will not contradict Himself, and that any personal revelation &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.keyway.ca/htm2005/20050118.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;absolutely must be measured using the plumb-line of Scripture&lt;/a&gt;.  The danger comes from refusing to check the personal revelation against that plumb-line, and falling into all sorts of false doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Failure to test personal revelation is a failure to apply 1 John: 4:1 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they&#xA;  are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leaves us wide-open to Satan's lies.  He can be pretty convincing, and Scripture warns us that he can disguise himself as an angel of light in order to deveive us in 2 Corinthians 11:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of&#xA;  light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2015-02-20T02:42:54.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13748" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-01-19T20:25:44.870" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Discernment is the activity of determining the value and quality of a certain subject or event, particularly the activity of going past the mere perception of something and making detailed judgments about that thing. As a virtue, a discerning individual is considered to possess wisdom, and be of good judgement; especially so with regard to subject matter often overlooked by others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity, the word &quot;discernment&quot; may have several meanings. It can be used to describe the process of determining God's desire in a situation or for one's life. In large part, it describes the interior search for an answer to the question of one's vocation, namely, determining whether or not God is calling one to the married life, single life, consecrated life, ordained ministry or any other calling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-19T20:25:44.870" LastActivityDate="2013-01-19T20:25:44.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13749" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-01-19T20:25:44.870" Score="0" Body="Discernment is the activity of determining the value and quality of a certain subject or event, particularly the activity of going past the mere perception of something and making detailed judgments about that thing. As a virtue, a discerning individual is considered to possess wisdom, and be of good judgement; especially so with regard to subject matter often overlooked by others." OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-19T20:25:44.870" LastActivityDate="2013-01-19T20:25:44.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13746" CreationDate="2013-01-19T20:51:34.600" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the doctrines of Sola Scriptura, and Biblical Infallibility we already have completed revelation from God in the Bible, and this revelation is sufficient for us to know all that God desires of/for us: &lt;em&gt;&quot;All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.&quot; - 2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that if someone says God told him something (even if it's &lt;em&gt;not unbiblical&lt;/em&gt;), I have no real way of knowing that he is telling the truth (unless it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; clearly &lt;em&gt;unbiblical,&lt;/em&gt; in which case I know that he is either lying or deceived).  In fact, this is why there were signs and miracles at the founding of the Church (before the completion of Scripture): to demonstrate that the apostles' teaching was indeed Truth from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2223" LastEditorUserId="2223" LastEditDate="2013-01-20T21:15:14.550" LastActivityDate="2013-01-20T21:15:14.550" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13738" CreationDate="2013-01-19T21:10:07.353" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;only way&lt;/strong&gt; to be forgiven is to repent of your sins and call upon Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-13), believing that He died on the cross to pay the penalty for sins (Romans 6:23) and rose again after three days and now intercedes in heaven on behalf of those who belong to Him (1 John 2:1).  We can &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; be justified by the work of Jesus Christ, and we can do nothing to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Confessing your sins to a priest &lt;em&gt;in order to obtain favor with God&lt;/em&gt; is &lt;strong&gt;detestable&lt;/strong&gt; to God, because that action says that what Jesus did on the cross was not sufficient for justification.  Jesus is the &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5), and He alone is our Priest (Hebrews 3:1).  Confession to fellow believers is prescribed (James 5:16), but it is not for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2223" LastActivityDate="2013-01-19T21:10:07.353" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13752" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13687" CreationDate="2013-01-19T21:17:34.540" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes: This is very closely related to cause and effect, some cause is of sin - some cause (of illness) is not of sin. i.e - (&lt;code&gt;removed example of sin -&amp;gt; illness, need a better one&lt;/code&gt;)However, eating only processed food or uncooked food because of lack of knowledge on how to cook, nutrition etc, (not sin) can still lead to getting sick, cancer, etc...illness (and for the later one, there are many things we don't know, that we don't understand, that may effect our body).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However, it is very intriguing to point out a fact that there are people who intentionally sin as part of their life style  with exceptional health, wealth and well-being.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this question really fall under the umbrella of of the fall like mentioned above, that all good or bad are susceptible to the effects of &quot;darkness&quot; (evil, devil):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(or the opposite, that God will let &quot;light&quot; be shown to the good and the bad)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefaithlog.com/2005/08/rain-for-just-and-unjust.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thefaithlog.com/2005/08/rain-for-just-and-unjust.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:45&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;45 If you do this, you will be children who are truly like your Father&#xA;  in heaven. He lets the sun rise for all people, whether they are good&#xA;  or bad. He sends rain to those who do right and to those who do wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-01-22T01:29:02.197" LastActivityDate="2013-01-22T01:29:02.197" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13746" CreationDate="2013-01-20T05:31:55.040" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;First let's clarify what the contents of Scripture are. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should put away from our mind that the material is unique, non repetitive. Because it is meant to teach, it adopts the standard practice of teaching by repetition, and by incremental enlargement of the repeated teaching, what the educationists call the educational spiral. Children learn addition in junior class, and multiplication (which is a sophisticated form of addition) in the next class. IOW, building on a previous teaching. Which theologians call progressive revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:16 New American Standard Bible (©1995)&lt;/strong&gt; All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the sense that Scripture is written by God, when men spoke from prompting by the Holy Spirit, no more new revelation is being made. All the teachings are in place, both in in terms of  uniqueness, and in richness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Peter 1:20 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, prophecy today carries the associated meaning of teaching, which is also what it sometimes meant in Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:8 NIV&lt;/strong&gt; Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when the church assembles, prophecy takes place, not as fresh material being added to the corpus, but as CHOOSING of teaching relevant to the circumstances of the church and its interpretation of that chosen text or topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vineyard has been handed to its new tenants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 21:40&lt;/strong&gt;“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the term &quot;personal revelation&quot; is used in the sense of making correct sense of the material of Scripture, then it has not ended. That is because you can transmit the form but not the content. Content can and has been lost with passage of time, as can be seen with churches which hold to interpretations which are distorted doctrine, considered distorted because they have clearly deviated from Scripture, and have been slow to correct those distortions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this regard, new forms of churches have begun to rise, some labeled post modern, others emergent and still others, organic, with varying success in tackling the problem of being faithful to the interpretation of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The views of the organic church is that interpretations are lost and need to be constantly corrected, just as a ship's course needs to be constantly checked and brought back on track, with reference to a map:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 14:26&lt;/strong&gt; What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="3482" LastEditDate="2013-01-20T05:37:58.343" LastActivityDate="2013-01-20T05:37:58.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13754" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-20T05:39:17.383" Score="9" ViewCount="8561" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul does not seem to put the same importance on baptism as he does on other things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Paul was so focused on the gospel as it was the means of 'eternal salvation', why put baptism in the back seat of the process? Baptism does generally seem important in Acts and other parts of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does Paul not think it important to follow up on all his converts and make sure they are properly baptized as though their eternal life depended on it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-24T00:16:12.693" LastActivityDate="2014-12-24T06:32:52.377" Title="Why was the Apostle Paul seemingly not that interested in baptizing believers?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-01T06:54:50.077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13755" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13756" CreationDate="2013-01-20T05:40:37.180" Score="15" ViewCount="24838" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Acts of the Apostles we find that the early believers were every day visiting the temple and afterwards meeting in each others homes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Old ceremonial ways of the Old Testament were finished at the death of Christ (or as other conjecture after Pentecost) why did the church still attend temple gatherings?  Was it because they were not fully aware of the full implication of the New Covenant and may have even offered sacrifices? Was it because they just wanted to get together and evangelize their brethren? Was it some mishmash of both reasons plus possibly more?  What was going on in their heads?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-24T05:31:19.370" LastActivityDate="2019-09-23T14:03:42.100" Title="Why did early Christians in Acts still go to the Jewish temple every day?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;temple&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13755" CreationDate="2013-01-20T06:00:00.727" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/1&quot;&gt;Acts 2:1&lt;/a&gt;, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when the day of &lt;strong&gt;Pentecost&lt;/strong&gt; was fully come, they were all together with one accord (ὁμοθυμαδὸν).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;καὶ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἦσαν ἅπαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see that the first Christians were all together with one accord in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-2-2.html&quot;&gt;Temple&lt;/a&gt; at the time they received the Holy Spirit (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/4&quot;&gt;Acts 2:4&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being Pentecost, &quot;there were, dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/5&quot;&gt;Acts 2:5&lt;/a&gt;), for Pentecost was one of three annual feasts during which men were required to pilgrimmage to the Temple in Jerusalem in order to appear before YHVH (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=23&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/14&quot;&gt;Exo. 23:14-17&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostles desired to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with their brothers (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot;&gt;Acts 2:14-41&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, in Acts 2:46, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they, &lt;strong&gt;continuing&lt;/strong&gt; daily with one accord (ὁμοθυμαδὸν) &lt;strong&gt;in the Temple&lt;/strong&gt;, and breaking bread from house to house, ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, they continued to remain in the Temple, not all day, but rather, during the morning and evening prayers (our 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.) where a gathering of Jews would always be. This crowd may not have been as large as the one at Pentecost (which only lasted one day), but the apostles took advantage of any opportunity to share the Gospel with as many of their brothers as possible. We even see this with Paul who would rush to Jerusalem for a feast in order to share the Gospel (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=18&amp;amp;t=KJV#21&quot;&gt;Acts 18:21&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-01-20T07:36:27.777" LastActivityDate="2013-01-20T07:36:27.777" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13754" CreationDate="2013-01-20T06:11:48.810" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 1:10-14, 16-18 NET&lt;/strong&gt; I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose. For members of Chloe’s household have made it clear to me, my brothers and sisters, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, (I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.&#xA;For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ideas in that passage are that each person was boasting about the superiority of their teachings, when all of them were in fact disciples of the same teaching, which was again, an &amp;quot;inferior“  (foolish) teaching. They had absolutely no grounds for boasting, either in terms of uniqueness or superiority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is the equivalent of recognising a person can now have table fellowship with  God's People. That status must be maintained, just as the observant Jew needed to maintain his clean status and act to rectify any impurity, whether caused accidentally or through carelessness .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 5:11New International Version (©1984)&lt;/strong&gt; But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 18:17 NET&lt;/strong&gt; If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 8:13, 20-23 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed.&#xA;But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that sense, baptism is an acknowledgement of the suitability of the candidate. The Ethiopian eunuch's request was based on that reasoning.&#xA;The Corinthian church had distorted that teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-21T00:34:16.517" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13758" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13762" CreationDate="2013-01-20T07:07:49.587" Score="7" ViewCount="2203" Body="&lt;p&gt;With these solemn words, the priest ends the Eucharistic prayer at the centre of which is the event of the consecration.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Through him, and with him, and in him,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  O God, almighty Father,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  in the unity of the Holy Spirit,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  all glory and honour is yours,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  for ever and ever. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly is the meaning of this and what is the interpretation of this in Catholic theology?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-01-20T12:31:56.070" LastActivityDate="2020-12-26T14:33:25.290" Title="What exactly is the meaning of the text of Doxology in the concluding part of Catholic Eucharistic prayer?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13760" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13766" CreationDate="2013-01-20T15:02:00.633" Score="4" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually we think of God's justice as his perfect judgment in punishing sin and dispensing equity along perfect scales of measurement.  However as we were born in sin, justice is essentially something we fear.  However upon believing in Christ it seems justice switches around:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is it that 'justice' no longer stands as a accuser but a defender? Assuming their is no merit in confession, only admission of guilt, how does the gospel make justice ensure we are always cleansed from sin? In some ways this seems counter intuitive. &lt;strong&gt;How does justice and faithfulness defend the guilty?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-21T19:02:22.473" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T17:58:34.477" Title="How does the gospel turn justice into a defender of the guilty?" Tags="&lt;grace&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;&lt;justification&gt;&lt;justice&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4789" CreationDate="2013-01-20T18:40:31.063" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both men and women are born with original sin/sin nature. But original sin / sin nature is transmitted by man only. Woman are recipient only and do not transmit original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scientific background:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i. Human has 23  pairs (n=46) of chromosomes. Receiving one set (n=23) from each parent. The 23rd pair is either a pair of XX (female) or XY(male)&#xA;ii. All the cells in female body contain only X chromosomes, and no Y. While men has both X and Y chromosomes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Virgin birth is a supernatural act of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b. Miracle one – a virgin birth –  Biologically unfertilized egg inside Mary started to undergo mitotic–division. The process of division is supposed to undergo mitotic division only when it is fertilized. Unfertilized egg degenerates when it travels to fallopian tube from ovary and is discharged from the body through menstruation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c. Miracle two – even if conception occurred without fertilization, because Mary’s body does not have Y chromosome, the offspring will always be a female and never a male.&#xA; &#xA;d. Miracle three – Jesus having the exact same chromosomes (identical DNA coding) as Mary, should have an identical physical feature as Mary- not to mention that the offspring of a virgin birth should have been a girl.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;e. Miracle four – God supplied the Y chromosomes by the power of the Holy Spirit in Jesus for him to become a man (not a woman)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origin and spiritual characteristic of Y chromosomes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creation of Adam and Eve &#xA;a. Gen 2:22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] (a part of) he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God could have made Eve from the dust just like He made Adam but instead God made Eve from a part taken out of Adam. Eve should have identical chromosomes/DNA with Adam, this means Eve should have been a male. Science tells us that the only difference between chromosomes /DNA structure of male and female is the absence of Y chromosome in female. That leads to growing into an entirely different anatomy for female. Reading from the foot prints of God’s creation, God must have taken out the Y chromosomes from the part taken out of Adam when He made Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God took out the Y chromosomes from pre-fall Adam and held it in abeyance until Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:13&#xA;13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 4:15&#xA;because the law brings wrath. And here there is no law there is no transgression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Timothy 2:14&#xA;And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:12  &#xA;[ Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ ] Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—&#xA;Note; (not Adam and Eve)&#xA;Romans 5:14&#xA;Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 3: 16&#xA;Gen 3;16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 3;2&#xA;We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the economy of God, Adam was given the command before Eve and becomes the guardian of the command. God has also put him in charge of everything. At the fall, Adam transgressed the law of God and abdicate his responsibility as the commander in chief. The consequence given to Adam was different than that of Eve because of difference in responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Adam and Eve have sinned. Adam now through procreation passes/transmit his “Depravity” to his offspring. Eve has also sinned and her offspring like her has become the recipient of “depravity”. In other words, Man becomes the transmitter of sin while women are recipient and not transmitter of “depravity/original sin/sin nature”. Like man all women are born depraved, but they do not transmit the original sin. This means Jesus has to be born of a virgin birth- not known by man. Because women do not transmit sin that makes Jesus to have been born sinless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All human comes from a single fertilized cell. Therefore in the embryonic level, Y chromosomes becomes the transmitter of original sin while X chromosomes becomes the recipient and not as transmitter of original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Mary conceived without the help of a man, the fertilized egg contain only X chromosomes and the offspring should have been a female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:35&#xA;The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadowyou. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God took the Y chromosomes He took out of pre-fall Adam and held in abeyance and now put into the egg of Mary resulting in a XY / male offspring. Since the Y chromosomes was taken out of pre-fall Adam and that XX chromosomes/woman/female do not transmit original sin therefore Jesus was born without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3800" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T12:26:14.170" LastActivityDate="2015-08-03T12:26:14.170" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13758" CreationDate="2013-01-20T19:46:41.797" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of several different valid ways to take it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Through&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus as intercessor, the glory and honor is the Father's.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;With&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus as brother alongside us, the glory and honor is the Father's.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus, the Church being his body, the glory and honor is the Father's.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this is one action with the Holy Spirit (as Jesus acts in unity with the other person of the Trinity) who acts in and with all of us (we are unified as we act under inspiration of the Trinity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-01-20T19:52:37.393" LastActivityDate="2013-01-20T19:52:37.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13738" CreationDate="2013-01-20T20:22:09.020" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the Catholic perspective has not yet been stated, and since the OP professed to be a member of a Church which is allied with Rome, it might be a good idea to state the RCC position here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mortal sins are sins which cut off your relationship with God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Venial sins are all of the other sins.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person who dies with venial sins on his soul will go to purgatory. A person who dies with a mortal sin on his soul will be condemned. Venial sins can be forgiven by a large number of things, most commonly, however, is that &lt;em&gt;they are all forgiven (outright)&lt;/em&gt; by the very act of attending the penitential rite at Mass. (You should still confess these, but they will not merit purgatory). The prayer &quot;May the Lord bless us, forgive us our sins...&quot; is actually an absolution (I think the absolution is in the Eastern Trisagion Hymn, but I don't know).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mortal sins are a little more tricky. They are normally (and most obviously) removed in the sacrament of reconciliation. However, it is possible to have them forgiven through &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_contrition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;perfect contrition&lt;/a&gt;, but part of that contrition includes the resolve to go to confession if available. It should also be noted that mortal sin can also be viewed under similar light as &quot;baptism of desire&quot;. I am venturing into slightly ambiguous territory here (I've never actually seen this stated explicitly), but it seems to be consistent to believe that God will not damn a man who is on the way to confess his sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of that said, we should also remember that simply because God has promised to work through the sacraments that does not mean that he will never work apart from the sacraments (Again, see doctrines surrounding invincible ignorance). We should also remember that the forgiveness comes from God and, even if we are using the sacrament of reconciliation, He is the one who is forgiving. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tldr;&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;mdash; forgiveness, even if it is through the sacraments, is still from God and only from God. He is the only way to be forgive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-01-28T04:47:55.437" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T04:47:55.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13760" CreationDate="2013-01-21T00:32:25.033" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As it's been preached to me, justice, here, refers to God's faithfulness to His own promises.  It does not refer to giving us what we deserve, which would be Hell.  Toward us, justice would necessarily mean Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, &quot;Just&quot; refers to the fact that He has promised to forgive us through the cleansing power of Christ's blood, as long as we have repented and placed our faith in Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short version: In this verse, we see that because God is Just, He will keep His promises.  That would be why the word is combined with &quot;faithful&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For doctrinal support, I refer to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_john/1-9.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Barne's Notes on the Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And just to forgive us our sins - The word &quot;just&quot; here cannot be used&#xA;  in a strict and proper sense, since the forgiveness of sins is never&#xA;  an act of justice, but is an act of mercy. If it were an act of&#xA;  justice it could be demanded or enforced, and that is the same as to&#xA;  say that it is not forgiveness, for in that case there could have been&#xA;  no sin to be pardoned. But the word &quot;just&quot; is often used in a larger&#xA;  sense, as denoting upright, equitable, acting properly in the&#xA;  circumstances of the case, etc. Compare the notes at Matthew 1:19.&#xA;  Here the word may be used in one of the following senses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(1) Either as referring to his general excellence of character, or his&#xA;  disposition to do what is proper; that is, he is one who will act in&#xA;  every way as becomes God; or,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(2) that he will be just in the sense that he will be true to his&#xA;  promises; or that, since he has promised to pardon sinners, he will be&#xA;  found faithfully to adhere to those engagements; or perhaps,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(3) that he will be just to his Son in the covenant of redemption,&#xA;  since, now that an atonement has been made by him, and a way has been&#xA;  opened through his sufferings by which God can consistently pardon,&#xA;  and with a view and an understanding that he might and would pardon,&#xA;  it would be an act of injustice to him if he did not pardon those who&#xA;  believe on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Viewed in either aspect, we may have the fullest assurance that God is&#xA;  ready to pardon us if we exercise true repentance and faith. No one&#xA;  can come to God without finding him ready to do all that is&#xA;  appropriate for a God to do in pardoning transgressors; no one who&#xA;  will not, in fact, receive forgiveness if he repents, and believes,&#xA;  and makes confession; no one who will not find that God is just to his&#xA;  Son in the covenant of redemption, in pardoning and saving all who put&#xA;  their trust in the merits of his sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also from Vincent's Word Studies (also available from the same link as Clarke's Commentary)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Just (δίκαιος)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev., righteous. From δίκη right. The term is applied both to God and&#xA;  to Christ. See Revelation 16:5; John 17:25; 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:7; 1&#xA;  Peter 3:18. The two words, faithful and righteous, imply each other.&#xA;  They unite in a true conception of God's character. God, who is&#xA;  absolute rightness, must be faithful to His own nature, and His&#xA;  righteous dealing with men who partake of that nature and walk in&#xA;  fellowship with Him, is simply fidelity to Himself. &quot;Righteousness is&#xA;  truth passing into action&quot; (Westcott).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-21T00:54:21.310" LastActivityDate="2013-01-21T00:54:21.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13767" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13778" CreationDate="2013-01-21T02:19:03.910" Score="15" ViewCount="23039" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that every cultural expression of Orthodoxy has different terms for the orders (roles) from the language of their home country, but I am interested in the English terms. What is the 'hierarchy,' in order, of the ecclesiastical offices/roles in Eastern Orthodoxy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3797" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-02-11T21:54:09.377" LastActivityDate="2017-03-16T06:00:29.050" Title="What is the ecclesiastical 'hierarchy' of the Eastern Orthodox Church?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13768" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13770" CreationDate="2013-01-21T02:40:55.170" Score="6" ViewCount="28564" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume the Jehovah's Witnesses church has structure and organization for its membership.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who are the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and what is their role? From whom do members receive guidance and counsel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2014-05-21T22:38:26.910" Title="Who are the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses church?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;leadership&gt;&lt;church-structure&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13768" CreationDate="2013-01-21T04:11:01.820" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The head of the Jehovah's Witness Church is known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Tower_Bible_and_Tract_Society_of_Pennsylvania&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Watchtower Society&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Sorry for using Wikipedia as a reference, but apparently the JW website doesn't give out much information on them.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the official Jehovah's Witnesses website, we can get the following information:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/congregations-organized/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/congregations-organized/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How Are Your Congregations Organized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A body of elders supervises each congregation. About 20 congregations&#xA;  form a circuit, and about 10 circuits are grouped into a district.&#xA;  Congregations receive periodic visits from traveling elders, known as&#xA;  circuit overseers and district overseers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bible-based guidance and instructions are provided by a Governing Body&#xA;  made up of longtime Witnesses who currently work at the international&#xA;  offices of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York.—Acts 15:23-29; 1&#xA;  Timothy 3:1-7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/founder/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;information about the founder&lt;/a&gt; also helps to understand the organizational structure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The modern-day organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses began at the end of&#xA;  the 19th century. At that time, a small group of Bible students who&#xA;  lived near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the United States, began a&#xA;  systematic analysis of the Bible. They compared the doctrines taught&#xA;  by the churches with what the Bible really teaches. They began&#xA;  publishing what they learned in books, newspapers, and the journal&#xA;  that is now called The Watchtower—Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Among that group of sincere Bible students was a man named Charles&#xA;  Taze Russell. While Russell took the lead in the Bible education work&#xA;  at that time and was the first editor of The Watchtower, he was not&#xA;  the founder of a new religion. The goal of Russell and the other Bible&#xA;  Students, as the group was then known, was to promote the teachings of&#xA;  Jesus Christ and to follow the practices of the first-century&#xA;  Christian congregation. Since Jesus is the Founder of Christianity, we&#xA;  view him as the founder of our organization.—Colossians 1:18-20.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Russell founded the Watchtower Society, which is the head of the Jehovah's Witnesses Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is very difficult to get official information about the governing body from sources within the organization, but if you trust Wikipedia as a source, they do have more information: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governing_Body_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Committees&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governing_Body_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Committees&lt;/a&gt; (and in this case, Wikipedia does seem to have plenty of footnotes and supporting links.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among other detailed information, it lists the current and past governing members, how the members have been selected, etc.  As a sample, here's what it's got listed for current members:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Governing Body members&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses began capitalizing Governing Body as a proper noun&#xA;  in 1971; The Watchtower that year announced &quot;The present Governing&#xA;  Body comprises eleven anointed witnesses of Jehovah.&quot;[82] The original&#xA;  members of the 1971 Governing Body, all now deceased, are indicated in&#xA;  italics in the lists below.[83] Current&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As of September 2012, the following people are members of the&#xA;  Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses[7] (year appointed in&#xA;  parentheses):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Samuel Herd (1999)[84]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Geoffrey Jackson (2005)[85]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;M. Stephen Lett (1999)[84]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Gerrit Lösch (1994)[86]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Anthony Morris (2005)[85]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Guy H. Pierce (1999)[84]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Mark Sanderson (2012)[87]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;David H. Splane (1999)[84]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-22T01:16:41.933" LastActivityDate="2013-01-22T01:16:41.933" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="128" CreationDate="2013-01-21T04:28:41.023" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Polygamy is &lt;strong&gt;not currently&lt;/strong&gt; an acceptable thing to do, previously &lt;strong&gt;was&lt;/strong&gt; an acceptable thing to do, &lt;strong&gt;and will again&lt;/strong&gt; (at least temporarily) be an acceptable thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Polygamy is useful for multiplying populations... especially when the women outnumber the men dramatically, as frequently happened in wars when all the young and middle aged men would go to war on a yearly basis, and get slaughtered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Polygamy helped &quot;replenish&quot; the population, and also provided for and sheltered multiple women when there otherwise wouldn't have been enough men to do the job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In modern times, we are overpopulated, and our male to female ratio is not drasticly overbalanced one way or another, so it'd be selfish for one male to take multiple females or one female to take multiple males potentially depriving others of spouses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why do I say it &quot;will again&quot; be acceptable? Well, if you hold with the second return of Christ, regardless of whether you are post-trib or pre-trib, the saints will be raptured sometime during the end times, the vast majority of the earth killed, and a few survivors will repopulate the earth during our reign with Christ (known as the Millennial Kingdom). Because of the nature of warfare and our cultures, the ones doing most of the fighting (especially when Israel is backed up against the wall, and 2/3rds of Israel is killed or captured) is the men - the men will also do most the dying (Yay?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Antichrist is a equal-opportunity executor of christians, but for the resistors fighting against the Antichrist (especially around Jerusalem), men typically don't send their wives and daughters into battle - though I'm sure there will be some, and the women will definitely be helping in many other ways (like medical needs).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm talking specifically about non-saved gentiles and Jews who resist the Antichrist but who haven't accepted salvation. These are those that are will later be separated into sheeps and goats when all the saints have already been raptured and all the mark-of-the-beast takers have been killed in the final battle. The 'sheep' then accept salvation, in their non-raptured, non-glorified bodies, and are the ones who repopulate the earth. Of these ones, in this time period, the verse specifically addressing post-Second-Coming polygamy comes into play: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Emphasis mine, in the following verse quotes)&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 3:25&lt;/strong&gt; - &quot;&lt;em&gt;Your &lt;strong&gt;men&lt;/strong&gt; shall fall by the sword, And your mighty in the war.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&#xA;(Addressed explicitly to the females, particularily Jewish - verses 16-23 make the gender clear)&#xA;The majority of the males are dead...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 4:1&lt;/strong&gt; - &quot;&lt;em&gt;And in that day &lt;strong&gt;seven women&lt;/strong&gt; shall take hold of &lt;strong&gt;one man&lt;/strong&gt;, saying,&#xA;“We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel;&#xA;Only let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach.”&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&#xA;And the females are saying to those left, we'll provide our own needs, we won't be a burden to you, please &quot;take away our reproach&quot; and &quot;let us be called by your name&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Let us be called by your name&quot; -&gt; Marriage. Taking the family name of the male.&#xA;&quot;take away our reproach&quot; -&gt; The reoccurring reproach of women in the Bible is not being unmarried, but being &lt;em&gt;childless&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most humans are dead:&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 13:12&lt;/strong&gt; - &quot;&lt;em&gt;I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold,&#xA;A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 17:4-6 &quot;“&lt;em&gt;In that day it shall come to pass that the glory of Jacob will wane,&#xA;And the fatness of his flesh grow lean.&#xA;5 It shall be as when the harvester gathers the grain, And reaps the heads with his arm;&#xA;It shall be as he who gathers heads of grain In the Valley of Rephaim.&#xA;6 Yet gleaning grapes will be left in it,&#xA;Like the shaking of an olive tree, Two or three olives at the top of the uppermost bough,&#xA;Four or five in its most fruitful branches,” Says the Lord God of Israel.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Except those in glorified bodies (all the saints throughtout history - possibly several billion) who aren't given in marriage (Matt 22:30), all humans will be scarcer than gold.&#xA;Of the humans left, there are even fewer males than females.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To repopulate the earth, and also because of the gender imbalance, polygamy will be practiced and permitted again - probably for only a few generations, things will balance out quickly, but the exact duration is speculation on my part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Polygamy isn't sin in itself (Unless it's in violation of governmental laws) - unfaithfulness is sin, covetousness of another man's wife is sin, lust is sin, and greedily taking more spouses than is fair would be sin. But in a world in need of re-population, where the males are few in number relative to the females, multiple women marrying one man is the intelligent and acceptable thing to do.&#xA;So while it isn't sin in itself, the actions leading to it in the modern day culture is sin, but in past culture was not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They just have to be careful that they honor and provide for (emotionally as well as sexually as well as shelter/food-wise) all their wives, which the patriarch Jacob did not (Genesis 29:30-31). Leah was provided for sexually (she was bearing the children during that time) and food and shelter-wise, but not emotionally, calling the lack of emotional provision her &quot;affliction&quot; (verse 32) of which the Lord agreed (verse 31).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;em&gt;I'm &lt;strong&gt;not at all&lt;/strong&gt; suggesting that currently saved Christians will get multiple wives! I'm also &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; suggesting that men are better than women, and so one man somehow 'deserves' multiple females, either as some twisted form of 'reward' or otherwise.&#xA;Infact, once we die, we will not longer be married at all (&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:30&lt;/strong&gt;).&#xA;I'm not supporting polygamy as something desirable - just something that has and will be useful at certain times in history until something perfect comes to replace it&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3806" LastEditorUserId="3806" LastEditDate="2014-08-20T18:36:18.740" LastActivityDate="2014-08-20T18:36:18.740" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13772" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13774" CreationDate="2013-01-21T13:14:20.793" Score="11" ViewCount="148368" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basis for this question comes from a conversation I had with a friend. She said to me 'The only reason that two people should get together and get married is because they can do more for the Kingdom of God together than they can do apart.' On the face of it, this viewpoint makes sense and is not without some positive aspects, and it is certainly one that I have heard in the church for years. But I don't believe that there is a specific biblical passage that would support this viewpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This led me to ask myself, and to ask here, what reasons does the Bible give for getting married? Is the notion that married people can do more for the Kingdom a Biblical one, or is there another reason given for getting married?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1545" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-21T13:33:51.937" LastActivityDate="2015-06-08T21:48:03.047" Title="What are the Biblical reasons for getting married?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13772" CreationDate="2013-01-21T13:33:14.403" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, understand that various different denominations may have different views on the subject.  I'm going to answer from a conservative evangelical perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't give a reason or a purpose for marriage other than the fact that it's something that was established by God in the Garden of Eden.  (Whether you take the Genesis account literally or allegorically, the first recorded marriage is there.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before everyone points out that there's no wedding ceremony of mention of Adam and Eve being married, let's look at a few verses: (Emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From Genesis 2:  (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone;&#xA;  I will make him an help meet for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field,&#xA;  and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he&#xA;  would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,&#xA;  that was the name thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and&#xA;  to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help&#xA;  meet for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he&#xA;  slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead&#xA;  thereof;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a&#xA;  woman, and brought her unto the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:&#xA;  she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall&#xA;  cleave unto his &lt;strong&gt;wife&lt;/strong&gt;: and they shall be one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 And they were both naked, the man and his &lt;strong&gt;wife&lt;/strong&gt;, and were not&#xA;  ashamed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been to many weddings,from many traditions, and these verses are read at almost all of them.  Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, across the board, these verses are used in the wedding ceremony, and the Priest, preacher, pastor usually refers to those as the first marriage, and used a phrase like &quot;Marriage was ordained by God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, one Biblical reason for marriage is that it was ordained by God, and therefore, as obedient children of God, we should want to do as He has ordained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Paul, in 1 Corinthians gives another, practical reason: To avoid fornication.  In layman's terms, he's saying that he wishes that all men could be like him and abstain, but since most of us can't abstain, it's better to keep your sexual practices within the bounds of marriage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a&#xA;  man not to touch a woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife,&#xA;  and let every woman have her own husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise&#xA;  also the wife unto the husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and&#xA;  likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the&#xA;  wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time,&#xA;  that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together&#xA;  again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath&#xA;  his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if&#xA;  they abide even as I.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to&#xA;  marry than to burn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the first half is a better answer - We participate in marriage because we believe that God ordained it, but I can't discount the teaching from Corinthians, so I included it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than those two, there are no direct Biblical reasons for marriage.  At least not in the sense that &quot;The Bible says you should get married because...&quot;  There are verses within Scripture that speak about how marriage is good, marriage is beneficial, a good wife is to be treasured, etc, but all of those would be outside the scope of the question, as would speculation about why God wants what God wants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What your friend said may or may not be true.  Since the Biblical answer given above has nothing to do with furthering the kingdom of heaven, I'd question her choice of word in saying that the idea that a married couple can do more is the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; reason to get married.  There are clearly other reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might not disagree of she'd said &quot;The only reason &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; would want to get married&quot; instead of &quot;The only reason to get married&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-21T13:33:14.403" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13772" CreationDate="2013-01-21T13:54:34.467" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say there are several biblical reasons, and one could come up with other good reasons that are non-biblical (but not anti-biblical).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there's the matter of close companionship and mutual support (Gen 2:18: where God himself says, &quot;It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.&quot;). Marriage, like work, was given pre-fall, so it is not an institution given because of sin. In other words, it is good, God-ordained institution for how we should live together. Post-fall, God sanctifies through this relationship like no other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, God has gifted most to desire sexual intimacy and children, for he desires godly offspring (Mal 2:15). God wants to expand his kingdom this way, pre-fall and post-fall. If one is so gifted, one should probably marry, &quot;for it is better to marry than to burn with passion&quot; (1 Cor 7:8f).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, God presents a picture of his relationship to the church in marriage (Eph 5:22-33; Is 54:5; Jer 31:32; Hos 2:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there are also good reasons not to marry. The &lt;em&gt;locus classicus&lt;/em&gt; for this is 1 Cor 7 (cited above in favor of marrying). Under persecution (how most take Paul's phrase &quot;present distress&quot;), marriage can make it harder to stand up and be faithful (e.g., if you're about to be executed unless you recant, you have to consider what will happen to your family). Additionally, Paul notes here that there are earthly concerns related to family that necessarily impede on one's ability to do other things for the kingdom. Family is a godly, kingdom-building activity too (see above), but there are other forms of service that are easier for unmarried persons to undertake. (I knew a fellow who had a strong ministry among the poor who said if he had known the sacrifice required and the many more opportunities he would have to use his time and emotional energy, he would probably not have gotten married. He would have poured himself fully into the community around him.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether one should personally seek marriage is thus based on gifting, opportunities for service to the kingdom, and of course, God's provision of a godly spouse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2014-10-14T21:23:42.040" LastActivityDate="2014-10-14T21:23:42.040" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13772" CreationDate="2013-01-21T15:05:53.470" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes we think about marriage with more religion than the Bible itself thinks of it.  Yes it was originally ordained of God as a pattern to populate the planet.  Yes it actually is an image of Christ and the Church and is a holy relationship.  Yes society is based upon and established by this relationship.  Yes, everything we do should be for the glory of God, including whether we choose to get married or not....but.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reality is God has given us 'freedom' to choose much of what we do in this life.  He sends his sheep into a green pasture to choose where they want to eat, he does not push their snouts into particular blades of grass. The Bible does not desire to take this freedom away. For example, at the time of the early church, persecution was brewing and Paul foresaw how difficult  marriage was and was going to be and actually recommended being single if that was possible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.&#xA;   A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:36-39, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice even when at this peculiar time of trouble it would be better not to get married, the scripture says...but... 'you can if you want'.   &lt;strong&gt;This is actually the biblical reason why you should get married in the New Testament, because 'you want to.' If you don't want to then you should not.&lt;/strong&gt;  Even a woman that was married, and her husband died, was 'free' to marry anyone 'she wishes'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must never let our own scrupulous religiosity restrict the freedom we have to do all kinds of things in this life, simply because we want to.  Exercising this freedom in thankfulness to God, brings more glory to him than self-denial that we actually have no sincere desire of.  I think when Jesus turned water into wine at a 'wedding', as his first miracle, the gospel set the stage as sanctifying regular life, not casting it away in the asceticism symbolized under John the Baptist, who was the last of the Old Testament prophets.  Separation from the world in the new wine of the gospel is internal, eternal and joyful. It encompasses our whole life, marriage, career and church. There is no need to be more religious than the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-21T15:12:44.253" LastActivityDate="2013-01-21T15:12:44.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13767" CreationDate="2013-01-21T18:16:15.737" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you are probably aware, there is not a high degree of unity in Eastern Orthodoxy in English-speaking nations, especially in North America (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Phyletism&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocephaly&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;autocephaly&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_response_to_Orthodox_Church_in_America_autocephaly&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;controversy concerning autocephaly and the OCA&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monomakhos.com/essay-bin/the-role-of-metropolitan-and-its-relationship-within-the-episcopate-a-reappraisal/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;controversy over the broad appointment of metropolitans&lt;/a&gt;). However, there is somewhat general consensus on the orders. But it should be noted that not all Orthodox Christians will recognize all of the titles within the orders, and some consider them to be in a slightly different order. Also, many of the English titles borrow heavily from the Greek conventions, so some of those will be noted. With that said, there are &lt;strong&gt;three major orders in Orthodoxy&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bishop (&lt;em&gt;episkopos&lt;/em&gt;, ἐπίσκοπος)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Presbyter (πρεσβύτερος, more commonly called priest, &lt;em&gt;hiereus&lt;/em&gt;, ἱερεύς; literally &amp;quot;elder&amp;quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deacon (&lt;em&gt;diakonos&lt;/em&gt;, διάκονος)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also &lt;strong&gt;two minor orders&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Subdeacon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reader&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were formerly other minor orders but most have fallen into disuse (such as doorkeepers, exorcists, and acolytes). The major orders can be further subdivided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bishop&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.&lt;/strong&gt; The first in honor among all Orthodox bishops (first among equals, as the Pope of Rome once was prior to schisming). He is a special patriarch (which is often considered equal to an archbishop in various traditions, different only in honor).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Patriarch.&lt;/strong&gt; A bishop who is the head of an ancient or ethnic Church (originally there were only five in the early Church, comprising the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pentarchy&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Archbishop.&lt;/strong&gt; The head of an Orthodox country or capital city (depending on the tradition, these may be above, below, or equal to metropolitans. This is an area of disagreement and difference of practice).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Metropolitan.&lt;/strong&gt; A bishop who is the head of a large city or a diocese (see note on archbishop).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bishop.&lt;/strong&gt; Oversees a diocese or special community of Orthodox Christians. Possesses the full priesthood and may ordain clergy. Chosen only from monastic priests (archimandrites).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Titular / Auxiliary Bishop.&lt;/strong&gt; A bishop who is not in charge of a diocese. Assistant to a diocesan bishop. Sometimes also granted as a role of honor to those whose dioceses no longer exist.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Presbyter / Priest&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Archimandrite.&lt;/strong&gt; A title of honor given only to monastic priests. This originally referred to a supervisory abbot appointed over other abbots and/or monasteries, or to the abbot of a prominent monastery. It has come to more or less be an honorary title for hieromonks. Only archimandrites are eligible to be appointed as Bishops (which is why I've listed it first, although in many ways they are equal to or below protopresbyters and/or archpriests).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Protopresbyter / Protopriest.&lt;/strong&gt; A title of honor given only to non-monastic priests. It literally means &amp;quot;first elder&amp;quot; (some traditions do not distinguish between a protopresbyter and an archpriest).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Archpriest.&lt;/strong&gt; A title of honor given only to non-monastic priests. A priest placed over several parishes may sometimes be appointed to this role (see note for protopresbyter).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hieromonk.&lt;/strong&gt; Literally, a &amp;quot;priest-monk.&amp;quot; A monk who is also an ordained priest.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Presbyter / Priest.&lt;/strong&gt; An ordained elder who may administer the sacraments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deacon&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Protodeacon.&lt;/strong&gt; A title of honor given only to non-monastic deacons. It literally means &amp;quot;first servant/server&amp;quot; (some traditions consider archdeacons above protodeacons).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Archdeacon.&lt;/strong&gt; The senior deacon in a diocese, responsible for serving at hierarchical services (services with the bishop). Usually he travels with the bishop. Some traditions only give this title to monastic deacons (see note for protodeacon).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hierodeacon.&lt;/strong&gt; A deacon-monk. A monk who has been ordained as a deacon.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deacon.&lt;/strong&gt; An ordained servant who may assist the priest in the administration of the sacraments (as well as a variety of other duties).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Minor Orders&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the minor orders, a &lt;strong&gt;subdeacon&lt;/strong&gt; (also called a hypodeacon) may assist the bishop and/or priest in various ways (but not with the administration of the sacraments). The ordination to subdeacon is not performed during Divine Liturgy nor at the altar as it is a minor order. He may be assigned any of the other roles of the minor orders such as Reader (but also former minor orders that have fallen into disuse such as Cantor, Catechist, or other leadership roles in the community). While canon law does consider the ordination of subdeacons to be binding on their marital status, many do not enforce this or consider the ordination to be of a different sort. Thus the canon laws concerning the marriage or celibacy of candidates is generally only enforced for the major orders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;reader&lt;/strong&gt; (or lector) is ordained by the bishop to read during services and in the Divine Liturgy. This role developed due to low literacy rates in past history, so being able to read was a special gift. The only way scripture was normally heard by early Christians was when it was publicly read in the church. He may also be assigned any of the other roles of the minor orders other than subdeacon (such as Cantor, Catechist, or other leadership roles in the community).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-11-22T19:47:41.360" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13760" CreationDate="2013-01-21T18:21:50.073" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Essence of Justice&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Justice is served when the penalty for an offense is paid.  For every crime, there is an appropriate penalty.  We talk about this as having &amp;quot;paid one's debt to society&amp;quot;, by a fine or imprisonment or whatever the sentence dictates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone were to be convicted of theft, the sentence may well be simply restitution of the amount of what was stolen.  An additional punitive amount may be added as well.  Nonetheless, whenever that fine is paid, the guilty party is no longer condemned.  Even if his father generously pays the debt on his behalf, he is free from any further punishment.  The offended party has been restored.  Justice has been satisfied.  The guilty no longer stands condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Justice of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true of our salvation.  It is wrong to think that the sins of anyone incur no punishment.  God would not be just if sin had no penalty.  On the contrary, God requires full payment for the penalty of every sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, God does not demand that every person pay his own debt.  This is the whole reason why Jesus died--to pay the penalty incurred by us.  So, the debt is fully paid.  There is no perversion of justice.  The offended party is restored and fully satisfied.  Justice is fully served.  In fact, if the death of Christ does not serve to pay the penalty for sins, then Jesus really died for nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.  1 Peter 3:18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.  Galatians 2:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, if the guilty party were still condemned after the penalty had been fully paid--regardless of who paid the penalty--that would be a perversion of justice--injustice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in order for God to be just, He must punish those whose debt remains unpaid, but He must not punish those whose debt is fully paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The debt of sin is fully paid by the death of Christ and is appropriated by sinners through faith in Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 &lt;strong&gt;the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe&lt;/strong&gt;. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.  Romans 3:21-24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-21T18:21:50.073" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4508" CreationDate="2013-01-21T23:00:33.710" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might be helpful. I say this and thought of you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.marytown.com/ecommerce/pc-158-7-the-kolbe-reader.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.marytown.com/ecommerce/pc-158-7-the-kolbe-reader.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3814" LastActivityDate="2013-01-21T23:00:33.710" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13754" CreationDate="2013-01-22T01:36:58.317" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The great commission which Jesus gave to the church put a high value on baptism, and it is very closely associated with salvation: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, not only baptism buy out 'confession' of faith is very closely linked with our salvation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” (Romans 10:9-11, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet when looking closely at the words and using common sense neither baptism or confession has any direct relationship to salvation. Both are external testimonies of the salvation which is by faith only.  The Bible does not say 'but whoever does not believe (or is not baptized) will be condemned'. The bible does not say 'For it is with your heart (and your confession) that you believe and are justified'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The reason why Paul puts baptism as a secondary matter is because his primary interest is in providing eternal life to any that believe and joining sinners into the church by faith in the gospel.  To add anything to faith as 'absolutely essential' for salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit, is a concept Paul would never consider.&lt;/strong&gt;  Let others worry about the rest as important as many secondary things are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-09-02T04:47:23.560" LastActivityDate="2013-09-02T04:47:23.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13755" CreationDate="2013-01-22T02:04:37.580" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is that in the very early days the followers of Jesus considered themselves to be Jews. They saw Jesus as the fulfilment of the Jewish laws and prophecies - that he had come to redeem Judaism and the Jews, not to set up another religion. The idea that Gentiles might be followers of Jesus without also becoming Jews would only be controversially considered many years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore it is entirely natural that they would continue to meet in the Temple.  They were also following Jesus' example, who had taught crowds in the Temple only a few months before. The Temple was much more than just the place of sacrifice - it was the central point of the Jewish religion, and the place to go to spread the word to other Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-01-22T02:04:37.580" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13785" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13795" CreationDate="2013-01-22T09:44:43.813" Score="8" ViewCount="265" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the last 100 years, archaeology has discovered many ancient bodies of law including Sumerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian and Canaanite ancient laws. This has caused a lot of significant hoopla among interpreters of the first five books of the Bible. For example Hammurabi's Code has been often referred to in modern attempts at exegesis of the Torah. You could say this is one of the ‘modern’ discoveries of our time. Not quite as significant as the ‘dead sea scrolls’ but significant enough to stir various biblical scholars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One reason for the stir is that it has dismissed earlier false biblical criticisms that the laws of Moses could have never been written at the time they were allegedly written, as nobody had advanced laws at that time. This seems based on a natural non-faith based derivation of scripture but that was the argument.  However as these poor ideas of ‘modern biblical knowledge’ are washed aside, a new theory is taking its place, namely the laws of Moses are basically a collection of some of the best laws at the time. Fully natural to understand them now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question I ask is, does this really explain how the laws of Moses came into being? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I am asking for an answer based on a belief in the infallibility of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T15:57:06.593" Title="According the infallibility of scripture, do ancient near east laws (ANE laws) really explain the derivation of the laws of Moses?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;torah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13785" CreationDate="2013-01-22T12:19:25.850" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;If anything, it says that God is both generous and accommodating. There are two scenarios that should be considered:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God granted the same knowledge of what good governance should look like. This says that God's glory will in fact be shown in all nations, as he himself proclaimed.  (Gen 12 and Psalm 2 come to mind, but there are others)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the other nations derived these laws completely independently of Gods prompting, then it can be argued equally as well that God knew what his people could bear, and strove to make them unique to a point (the sacrifices etc), but also understood that there was a limit to that. When the children of Israel wanted a king, for example, he relented. He knew it was suboptimal, but heard their cries nonetheless. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either case shows that it would not be inconsistent with God's character to repeat Himself or others in choosing optimal laws. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, one oft-cited constraint of perfection is immutability. If something is perfect, it cannot change. There is nothing to suggest that optimality behaves differently. There really is a best way to connect two points, for example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-01-22T12:19:25.850" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13788" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13791" CreationDate="2013-01-22T13:18:13.653" Score="7" ViewCount="579" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation 17 speaks about a woman, but it seems likely that it is figurative rather than literal.  She is attributed with the name &quot;Babylon the Great&quot;.  However, Matthew Henry and other commentators suggest that this is actually referring to Rome rather than Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reasoning behind considering the woman to represent Rome?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T12:11:42.503" Title="What is the basis for the position that the woman of Revelation 17 refers to Rome?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13788" CreationDate="2013-01-22T19:13:11.983" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basis of this identification comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/revelation/passage.aspx?q=revelation+17:9-10&quot;&gt;Revelation 17:9-10&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;seven mountains on which the woman is seated&quot; of verse 9 appears to be a reference to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome&quot;&gt;Seven Hills of Rome&lt;/a&gt;, while the seven kings of verse 10&amp;mdash;in particular the one currently in power when Revelation was written&amp;mdash;appears to refer to the Roman Emperor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supporting this identification of Rome with Babylon is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-peter/5-13.html&quot;&gt;1 Peter 5:13&lt;/a&gt; in which Peter, writing from Rome, refers to his city as Babylon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-01-22T19:13:11.983" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13785" CreationDate="2013-01-22T19:21:39.640" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;What it shows is there is a Natural Moral Law that does not require special revelation to discern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/articles/what-is-natural-moral-law/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.equip.org/articles/what-is-natural-moral-law/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again, these basic principles of moral obligation are absolutes that&#xA;  are knowable (at least in principle) by all people everywhere without&#xA;  the aid of Scripture. What is meant by an absolute here? An absolute&#xA;  is an objectively true moral principle that is unchanging and&#xA;  cross-cultural. It is true whether or not anyone believes it to be&#xA;  true. Natural moral law theory implies that we &lt;em&gt;discover&lt;/em&gt; morality — we&#xA;  do not &lt;em&gt;invent&lt;/em&gt; it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who thinks &quot;Thou shalt not murder&quot; or &quot;Thou shalt not steal&quot; are &lt;em&gt;advanced laws&lt;/em&gt; that &lt;em&gt;could have never been written at the time they were allegedly written&lt;/em&gt; is not thinking clearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-01-22T19:21:39.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13794" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13799" CreationDate="2013-01-22T22:44:31.383" Score="7" ViewCount="3091" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Order of Special Full-Time Servants appears to be a religious order of Jehovah's Witnesses. What &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a religious order in the context of Witness theology? Is it theologically  meaningful at all? To what purpose do people join this order? When do they leave? (Do they leave?) How does the whole thing work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastActivityDate="2021-04-28T05:03:57.723" Title="What is the Order of Special Full-Time Servants?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;religious-orders&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13785" CreationDate="2013-01-22T23:10:46.033" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Catholic-ish answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We shouldn't be concerned with possible influence of X, Y, or Z on divine revelation, whether from the standpoint of scriptural infallibility or otherwise. Specifically in terms of the divine delivery of the Law [and it's state of perfection or immutability], it makes little different whether God said to Moses, &quot;Don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wives, don't eat hoofed animals, etc.&quot; versus &quot;Take the laws of your Egyptian captors, scrap the bit about worshiping the Sun, and add these dietary things to distinguish yourselves from other peoples.&quot; Even a sparse reading of written scripture makes it apparent that God &quot;meets us where we are&quot; and tends to direct us from our pre-existent state towards Himself, rather than &quot;replacing&quot; our experience or knowledge with something totally new or foreign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More generally, the infallibility of scripture should not be confused with a license to read Sacred Scripture out of context (or otherwise careless manners). Sacred Scripture is largely &quot;just&quot; the story of salvation, which is a very &lt;em&gt;long&lt;/em&gt; story about a race of people, in a global society, through which salvation does not occur (is not &lt;em&gt;perfected&lt;/em&gt;) until the climax of the story when Christ is crucified and rises from the dead. Hence, Sacred Scripture is ultimately Christ Himself crucified, and all written scripture is understood appropriately with respect to Christ crucified. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 5:1-14&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=11-chapter2.xhtml%23para134&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 134-141&lt;/a&gt;). Thus, we can reasonably assume - and confirm in our reading - that events and details in scripture other than the basic facts of Christ's identity, particularly His death and resurrection, are not necessarily &quot;perfect&quot; in a globally or eternally applicable sense. Eg, dietary law is perfect, having been God-inspired, but only applies perfectly if you're a pre-30 AD Jew. And illustrating that point, Christ explicitly denounces the global, eternal validity of dietary laws, &lt;em&gt;despite having been inspired and directed by the Father&lt;/em&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, and more to the point, since divine law and salvation were not &lt;em&gt;immediate&lt;/em&gt;, but rather &lt;em&gt;progressive&lt;/em&gt;, we can also assume - and verify in our reading - that the events and details of salvation are built on existing &quot;things&quot; within the reasonable bounds of human malleability. That is, God both instructs people and dwells among them only to the extent that they can reasonably be instructed and dwelt among. These bounds are set &lt;em&gt;in part&lt;/em&gt; by the persons' pre-existing knowledge, experience, spiritual state, and culture. And this should be evident to some extent in every word of written scripture, so we should be able to look at most any passage from written scripture and identify the influence of external forces, be they cultural, historical, personal, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because it metaphorically affirms the hypothesis here, we'll use God's calling of Abram as an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD said to Abram: Go forth from your land, your&#xA;  relatives, and from your father’s house to a land that I will show&#xA;  you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless&#xA;  you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.&#xA;  I will bless those who bless you and curse those who&#xA;  curse you. All the families of the earth will find blessing in you.&#xA;  Abram went as the LORD directed him, and Lot went with&#xA;  him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran. &#xA;  Abram took his wife Sarai, his brother’s son Lot, all the possessions&#xA;  that they had accumulated, and the persons they had acquired in Haran,&#xA;  and they set out for the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of&#xA;  Canaan, Abram passed through the land as far as the&#xA;  sacred place at Shechem, by the oak of Moreh. The Canaanites were then&#xA;  in the land. The LORD appeared to Abram and said: To your&#xA;  descendants I will give this land. So Abram built an altar there to&#xA;  the LORD who had appeared to him. From there he moved on&#xA;  to the hill country east of Bethel, pitching his tent with Bethel to&#xA;  the west and Ai to the east. He built an altar there to the LORD and&#xA;  invoked the LORD by name. Then Abram journeyed on by&#xA;  stages to the Negeb. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis&#xA;  12:1-9&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God takes an existing man (Abram), tells him that he will make a great nation &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; him, that he will populate an &lt;em&gt;existing&lt;/em&gt; land with another nation already dwelling in it. Abram takes his &lt;em&gt;existing&lt;/em&gt; relatives and &lt;em&gt;existing&lt;/em&gt; things on the journey to the land. And his journey is in stages. But perhaps most notably, we don't see anywhere in the text where God gives Abram anything he's totally unfamiliar with, nor does God instruct Abram to do anything that hasn't been done in some capacity before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning, all things were &lt;strong&gt;completely new&lt;/strong&gt;. But, at this point in the story, and at most points in the story, the concepts and commands are permutations of existing concepts. Everything in every moment is new to some capacity; but it's all made from existing material! E.g., abandoning &quot;home&quot; or moving somewhere else was not a new concept. Worshipping God (or a god) wasn't a new concept. Becoming the father of a nation wasn't a new concept. Even the promise of many offspring isn't new -- that promise is ingrained in the sexual act itself! The only thing new here is the combination of these things as specific promises and commands &lt;em&gt;to Abram specifically&lt;/em&gt; in the context of &lt;em&gt;Abram's life&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any and all &quot;new&quot; details here are only small steps away from preexisting &quot;things.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more really obvious and more relevant example before we finalize the point is the command not to murder. It's clear that everyone in Egypt -- or at least Moses, his fellow Hebrews, and Pharaoh -- was already familiar with, if not a law, the general wrong-ness of murder:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On one occasion, after Moses had grown up, when he had gone out to&#xA;  his kinsmen and witnessed their forced labor, he saw an Egyptian&#xA;  striking a Hebrew, one of his own kinsmen. Looking about and seeing&#xA;  no one, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. The&#xA;  next day he went out again, and now two Hebrews were fighting! So he&#xA;  asked the culprit, &quot;Why are you striking your companion?&quot; But he&#xA;  replied, &quot;Who has appointed you ruler and judge over us? Are you&#xA;  thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?&quot; Then Moses became&#xA;  afraid and thought, &quot;The affair must certainly be known.&quot; When&#xA;  Pharaoh heard of the affair, he sought to kill Moses. But Moses fled&#xA;  from Pharaoh and went to the land of Midian. There he sat down by a&#xA;  well. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/exodus/2/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 2:11-15&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then later, God gives Moses the general commandment not to kill (murder).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not kill. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/exodus/20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:13&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, this isn't new information for Moses. It's pretty obvious that he and all of Egypt already knew that murder is &lt;em&gt;nay good&lt;/em&gt;. Running away after committing the crime is a &lt;em&gt;dead&lt;/em&gt; giveaway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, this shouldn't concern us in the slightest. For, not only is all material ultimately God-made anyway (per my personal observation below), but as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/721/david-stratton&quot;&gt;David Stratton&lt;/a&gt; noted in response to Affable Geek's &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/13786/69&quot;&gt;answer&lt;/a&gt;, the Word of God is written on all men's hearts (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/2/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 2:14-16&lt;/a&gt;). Ie, there is virtually no person or culture in which we can claim God is not in some way present. Thus, we can rightly find God and His precepts anywhere we happen to find them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And perhaps the most obvious way we can know that it is God's plan to grow salvation out of existing &quot;material&quot; over time is the simple fact that God does not drop Jesus into the world unexpectedly or immediately after the fall. He endures several thousand years, in fact, so that He can work &lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt; people - with their preconceptions, their culture, their flaws, etc.. He endures several thousand years precisely so that He is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; disorderly or abruptly breaking into the &lt;em&gt;orderly world&lt;/em&gt; He created in an &lt;em&gt;orderly&lt;/em&gt; fashion!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In brief:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't matter whether the Law of Moses was in any way derived from other contemporary laws or concepts. (It's also OK if we &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; see any strict connections.) God is free to inspire and guide us in whatever way He prefers. Our only error or concern should be a perceived lack of harmony with our perception of God and the reality &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt; created, since God cannot be in disharmony with Himself. Ie, the truthful studies of creation (art, literature, history, archaeology, science, etc.) can never conflict with the true God or God's Truth. If an &quot;&lt;strong&gt;obvious&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; reality &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; to conflict with God or scripture, it's not at all inconceivable that we've applied a hasty understanding to the scripture! (Though, we also do well to refrain from applying a hasty understanding to an &quot;obvious&quot; or readily observable reality as well!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A personal observation; not necessarily Catholic dogma:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tendency to work with existing materials is God's &lt;em&gt;preferred&lt;/em&gt; method, as we see in the creation story. The initial creative act is of matter and energy is &lt;em&gt;ex nihilo&lt;/em&gt;. It seems to happen before Day 1 (as &quot;the earth was [already] a shapeless mass&quot;) and during Day 1 (God creates light). But then He creates everything else &lt;strong&gt;with&lt;/strong&gt; that matter and energy (earth, ocean, land, plants, animals, humans) through a process of dividing, grouping, and &lt;em&gt;ordering&lt;/em&gt; the existing &quot;stuff.&quot; And if this is how God &lt;em&gt;starts out&lt;/em&gt;, it's reasonable to assume this is His planned trajectory, which I think we can confirm by noting that Jesus Christ Himself endures the full human process of conception and growth (reorganization of existing matter and energy) - rather than &quot;popping&quot; into the human world out of &quot;nowhere.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's notable that every particular creation is certainly &lt;strong&gt;new&lt;/strong&gt; as well. And many concepts and law that have roots in other things are also &lt;strong&gt;new&lt;/strong&gt; to a large extent. So, I think we should take care not to suggest from this that God doesn't bestow &lt;em&gt;new information&lt;/em&gt; - or at least information that's &lt;em&gt;new to us&lt;/em&gt;. Rather, it's the tendency of God to tie new information to things we're already familiar with. And it's also not uncommon for God to &quot;renew&quot; things! Ie, take something we already know and reaffirm it's goodness or significance. Murder, for instance, was obviously already illegal in most societies, including the Egyptian society that the Jews fled before God told Moses to &quot;legislate&quot; against murder!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T15:57:06.593" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3381" CreationDate="2013-01-22T23:33:06.457" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question isn't really a Christian doctrinal question, I think. But, the most obvious answer here is that they were both kings. And the literal letter of God's law is always enacted by &lt;strong&gt;people&lt;/strong&gt; (like the King's army or guards), who are generally under the rule of &lt;strong&gt;the king&lt;/strong&gt; -- notably as a sort of proxy for God in the case of the Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the king probably has guards, for one. And these guards probably don't question the king's actions or authority. &lt;em&gt;The people&lt;/em&gt;, therefore, are not likely going to form a clan and go up against the king's armed guards because he slept around. They'd just be slaughtered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I.e., no one's going to stone the king unless God explicitly tells the people to do so via a prophet, &lt;em&gt;even if the king should rightfully be stoned according to the letter of the law&lt;/em&gt;! And even then, the king's guards probably need to be in cahoots with the rebels, so to speak, before the people will  actually take action -- or at least any &lt;em&gt;successful&lt;/em&gt; action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, regardless of whether there was a good or strictly &lt;em&gt;legal&lt;/em&gt; reason that David and Solomon shouldn't have been stoned, there's no &lt;em&gt;practical&lt;/em&gt; reason they &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; have been. And there are plenty of practical de-motivators at work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-01-23T01:49:27.637" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T01:49:27.637" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13794" CreationDate="2013-01-23T03:45:27.227" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I spent a great deal of time searching for an answer to this that doesn't make it sound like a scam to avoid taxes and enjoy the benefits of being treated as a religious institution, but I couldn't.  As is usually the case, it's a lot easier to find information from those that stand against the Jehovah's Witnesses than it is to find positive information about them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to outsiders it's little more than a tax dodge as stated in these first few links.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/44225/1/The-Order-of-Special-Full-Time-Servants&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/44225/1/The-Order-of-Special-Full-Time-Servants&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/242403/1/When-Was-This-Term-Coined-Worldwide-Order-of-Special-Full-Time-Servants-of-Jehovahs-Witnesses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/242403/1/When-Was-This-Term-Coined-Worldwide-Order-of-Special-Full-Time-Servants-of-Jehovahs-Witnesses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw425.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw425.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However...  The most complimentary description was found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/TC4708A.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a legal document from the Oregon Judicial Department Apellate Court&lt;/a&gt;  This seems a little less inflammatory.  It describes them as people that have simply dedicated themselves to ministry, and therefore would function in a way that assists the Church.  As such, their right to tax-exempt status is less clear.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this question isn't (as far as I know) about their tax-free status, but about what they are, and what their function is.  Unfortunately, the following is the best, least inflammatory description I could find.  Since they don't have information about themselves online anywhere, this is what I'm settling for providing.  It's not first-hand from them, but presumably it's based on first-hand interviews with lawyers that are familiar with the defendants.  It's better than nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before explaining the particular facts of this case, it is helpful to&#xA;  give some background information on the organizational structure of&#xA;  Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses worship within congregations,&#xA;  each of which meets within a Kingdom Hall. (2) Each congregation of&#xA;  Jehovah's Witnesses is located within a circuit. Taxpayer, for&#xA;  instance, is one of approximately 22 congregations located within&#xA;  Oregon Circuit 6, which stretches from Beaverton to the coast and from&#xA;  Tillamook to Astoria. (3) Congregations are led by Elders and&#xA;  Ministerial Servants, both of whom are volunteers and generally have&#xA;  secular employment. Elders minister to other congregation members and&#xA;  train Ministerial Servants to assume increasing responsibility within&#xA;  the congregation and larger organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Higher up in the organizational structure, Jehovah's Witnesses are led&#xA;  by members of the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of&#xA;  Jehovah's Witnesses (the Order). Members of the Order take vows of&#xA;  obedience and poverty, eschew secular employment, and dedicate their&#xA;  lives to overseeing and directing the spiritual needs of Jehovah's&#xA;  Witnesses. In return, the Order promises its members housing and a&#xA;  minimal stipend to cover living expenses. There are several types of&#xA;  Order members, including Circuit Overseers and Special Pioneers.&#xA;  Circuit Overseers live within the circuit to which they are assigned&#xA;  and work with congregation leaders to meet the needs of each&#xA;  congregation. Specifically, Circuit Overseers supervise the work of&#xA;  Elders and Ministerial Servants by annually traveling to and spending&#xA;  at least a week with each congregation within the circuit. Circuit&#xA;  Overseers usually stay in the homes of local Jehovah's Witnesses as&#xA;  they travel from congregation to congregation. Substitute Circuit&#xA;  Overseers, who fill in for Circuit Overseers when they are temporarily&#xA;  unable to fulfill their duties, are rarely Order members, but instead&#xA;  are usually secularly employed Jehovah's Witnesses. Regarding Special&#xA;  Pioneers, the only kind relevant to this case are those who are on&#xA;  infirm status. Special Pioneers on infirm status, few in number, are&#xA;  often ex-missionaries. They generally do not travel but rather stay&#xA;  with one congregation and serve that congregation, as well as the&#xA;  circuit and religion as a whole. However, few congregations have a&#xA;  Special Pioneer, whether on infirm status or not, assigned to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T03:45:27.227" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13722" CreationDate="2013-01-23T04:36:54.910" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hadn't heard of (or recalled) three layers of Magisterium until seeing this question (and I was hoping someone who was more familiar would post and answer sooner), but I was able to find a page (just one) that refers to three levels. Effectively, this resource claims that the &lt;em&gt;General Magisterium&lt;/em&gt;, i.e., the general teaching authority of the Church on faith, is the full body of Baptized and confirmed and/or ordained Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The general Magisterium&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a. seeks the truth fallibly, includes the possibility of significant&#xA;  error, but is guided by the Holy Spirit. b. this search for truth has&#xA;  the charism of certain fruitfulness. The faithful who seek new&#xA;  insights into the Faith, in accord with the teachings of the&#xA;  Magisterium proper, cannot fail to bear fruit that will last. c. &lt;strong&gt;is&#xA;  exercised by all the faithful by virtue of the Sacraments of baptism,&#xA;  confirmation, or ordination.&lt;/strong&gt; d. is expressed in speculative theology,&#xA;  in discussions among the faithful, in sermons by ordained persons, and&#xA;  in non-official writings and discussions of Popes and Bishops. e. The&#xA;  Holy Spirit guarantees that this search for new insights into the&#xA;  truths found within Tradition, Scripture, and the teachings of the&#xA;  Magisterium proper will bear fruit that will last. f. assent is not&#xA;  required, except that all the faithful are required to assent to a&#xA;  sincere search for truth within Tradition, Scripture, and the&#xA;  teachings of the Magisterium proper g. anyone may dissent from&#xA;  particular ideas expressed in speculative theology, but no one may&#xA;  entirely dissent from the sincere search for truth within the Faith&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as the author begins to summarize this in more plain English, he uses a concept we more commonly hear of, and which can be found more directly in the Catechism and other documents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The difference between the proper Magisterium (the Sacred Magisterium&#xA;  and the Ordinary Magisterium) and the general Magisterium is analogous&#xA;  to the difference between the priesthood of all ordained persons and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;the priesthood of all the faithful&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church teaches that we're all (Catholics) called to be priests, prophets, and kings to some extent. As laity, we're much more limited in our authority and jurisdiction, of course. But, we do have a call to participate in these roles, and therefore a call to teach faith -- more accurately, to forward and/or extrapolate in a &lt;em&gt;non-authoritative&lt;/em&gt; manner on the faith, which is taught authoritatively by the higher level(s) of the Magisterium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks more about the hierarchy and the &lt;em&gt;three roles&lt;/em&gt; of all Catholics, but doesn't phrase it in terms of &lt;em&gt;levels of the Magisterium&lt;/em&gt; so directly. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=18-paragraph19.xhtml%23para871&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christ’s Faithful—Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life&lt;/a&gt; if you're interested in that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-01-23T04:43:40.570" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T04:43:40.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13801" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13816" CreationDate="2013-01-23T04:44:52.487" Score="6" ViewCount="552" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you read any of the ancient near east (ANE) codes such as Hammurabi's Code of Laws there is a strikingly similiar severity in the widespread use of capital punishment. This gives a similiar feel to reading the Mosaic laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the Mosaic laws differ substantially in their higher status and justice, for example rights given to slaves, the Mosaic laws still use capital punishment equally, if not more severely, than the ANE laws. For example, what would seem as a small religious infraction in a post-New Testament influenced culture, such as 'gathering sticks on the Sabbath', the Old Testament strictly mandated group stoning of the criminal (Numbers 15:32)! This might even seem 'severe' and even raise an eyebrow from Hammurabi's people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question I ask then is: '&lt;strong&gt;Under an infallabillity of scripture belief&lt;/strong&gt;, does this widespread and frequent use of capital punishment in ANE &amp;amp; Mosaic laws attest to an innate recognition of God's wrath under the Old Testament economy, or God's tolerance of cruel societies that coincidentally happened to steer towards a more merciful paradigm after the New Covenant? Or something else?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related more general question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13785/according-the-infallibility-of-scripture-do-ancient-near-east-laws-ane-laws-r&quot;&gt;Mosaic Laws derived/related to ANE laws?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-12-01T15:05:16.757" Title="Does extreme use of capital punishment in ANE &amp; Mosaic laws attest to a universal recognition of God's wrath, or God's tolerance of universal cruelty?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;capital-punishment&gt;&lt;wrath-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-12-03T20:14:45.450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13802" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-01-23T04:58:21.310" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A religious order is a lineage of communities and organizations of people who live in some way set apart from society in accordance with their specific religious devotion, usually characterized by the principles of its founder's religious practice. The order is composed of initiates (laity) and, in some traditions, ordained clergy. Religious orders exist in many of the world's religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-23T04:58:21.310" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T04:58:21.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13803" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-01-23T04:58:21.310" Score="0" Body="A religious order is a lineage of communities and organizations of people who live in some way set apart from society in accordance with their specific religious devotion." OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-23T04:58:21.310" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T04:58:21.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13804" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13808" CreationDate="2013-01-23T05:03:22.197" Score="24" ViewCount="119404" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the title asks:  What is the significance of this particular haircut (the tonsure), why is it associated with monks and what is the history behind it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zf3bu.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-10T14:26:00.180" LastActivityDate="2015-10-01T18:13:30.637" Title="What is the story behind a monk’s tonsure?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;monasticism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13805" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13815" CreationDate="2013-01-23T05:12:18.097" Score="6" ViewCount="31295" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Wedding at Cana is &lt;em&gt;the only instance&lt;/em&gt; AFAIK where &lt;strong&gt;Mary asks Jesus to perform a miracle&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any indication or insight as to why she did so ? Was the family very close to her/them ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or was it simply the time for Jesus to perform a public miracle and it came about in this manner?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-01-23T21:09:08.570" LastActivityDate="2014-08-09T12:06:37.250" Title="Why did Mary ask Jesus to make wine at the Wedding at Cana" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13801" CreationDate="2013-01-23T05:16:44.107" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some interpretive options that are valid in Catholicism as well as many other, but not all, Christian denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, we don't need to rule out the possibility that the OT laws in question are &lt;em&gt;perfectly just&lt;/em&gt;. But, we also know that God prefers mercy to justice; justice is the bare minimum. And, we can see this concept in Jesus' explanation of the similarly questionable OT divorce law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; He set out from there and went into the district of Judea&#xA;  [and] across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was&#xA;  his custom, he again taught them. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The Pharisees&#xA;  approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his&#xA;  wife?” They were testing him. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; He said to them in reply,&#xA;  “What did Moses command you?” &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; They replied, “Moses&#xA;  permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your&#xA;  hearts he wrote you this commandment.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; But from the&#xA;  beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined&#xA;  to his wife], &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; and the two shall become one flesh.’ So&#xA;  they are no longer two but one flesh. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore what God&#xA;  has joined together, no human being must separate.” &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; In&#xA;  the house the disciples again questioned him about this. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another&#xA;  commits adultery against her; &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; and if she divorces her&#xA;  husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 10:1-12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In brief, God's OT commandments favored justice over mercy to accommodate the spiritual deficiencies of the culture. However, &lt;em&gt;mercy is better than justice&lt;/em&gt;. And even in the NT, the OT law is still affirmed and accepted to some extent, but &lt;em&gt;living according to the Holy Spirit&lt;/em&gt;, which is governed more by mercy than justice, is strongly preferred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of &lt;em&gt;particular instances&lt;/em&gt; wherein God commands something that is seemingly harsh, wrathful, or less than the NT ideal of mercy, we approach one of two ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Option one.&lt;/strong&gt; Recognizing that God's general commands (Mosaic Law) &quot;meet people where they are&quot; and allows for our hardness of hearts, we can reasonably assume that God's individual commands are likewise. When God speaks, he &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; meets us at our current spiritual state and will &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; mandate &lt;em&gt;something better than we'd do on our own, but not so great than we'll think God is a joke and ignore Him.&lt;/em&gt; (More or less.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Option two.&lt;/strong&gt; We recognize that understanding written scripture requires a contextual lens, a basic understanding that Christ crucified is the heart of scripture, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. With the contextual lens in particular, you don't need to assume a precisely historical read in these cases. And the relation of all scripture to Christ crucified then sheds light on the intended meaning of these types of passages. So you can assume one of a few basic scenarios (two of which I can recall!):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When &lt;em&gt;Person X&lt;/em&gt; is recognized to be a sinner and can be rightfully put to death according to the law, God commands their death in that specific case. The literal account may not be, &quot;according to the law&quot; but rather &quot;God said.&quot; And while this may seem dishonest &lt;em&gt;to us&lt;/em&gt;, it's not necessarily untruthful either. It's simply &quot;connecting the dots&quot; in a sense.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God calls Person or Persons X &quot;abhorrently sinful.&quot; God says, &quot;have nothing to do with Person or Persons X on account of their behavior. Remove them from your presence.&quot; In OT contemporary literature, this might have been recorded is a more extreme and graphic retelling -- &quot;God said, kill the sinner.&quot; And it's important to note, this isn't an infringement on the infallibility of scripture, which is &lt;strong&gt;not always, if ever, meant to fit into the genre of history.&lt;/strong&gt; Rather, when the OT says, &quot;God said kill sinner X,&quot; it often doesn't matter whether this is a literal retelling; the point is, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the sin&lt;/strong&gt; of sinner X is extremely terrible, and probably damning if serious action isn't taken.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Option three.&lt;/strong&gt; We recognize, particularly in a more literal interpretation, that God is omniscient and omnibenevolent. As such, God may sometimes recognize a person's or people's relationship with Himself has become so endangered that he must take or mandate seemingly wrathful or lethal action to communicate the severity of the situation. In such cases, one could assume that God, in his perfect knowledge, knows that such actions are absolutely necessarily to save some or all of those involved without infringing on their free will. (The inspiration for this option is from Mike's answer. And as Mike's answer reminds us, the orientation of Mosaic Law to God makes adherence to Mosaic highly special and important in the &quot;legal&quot; arena.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-01-24T22:47:22.950" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T22:47:22.950" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13805" CreationDate="2013-01-23T05:21:14.030" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There has been no traditional answer to this question that I'm aware of.  All of the commentaries I'm familiar with echo the same sentiment:  That it seems odd that she would expect Him to be able to do something about the lack of wine, even though supposedly, she had never seen Him work a miracle yet.  All of the commentators seem to be scratching their heads asking the same question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that, the only real answer we can give is &quot;we don't know for sure.&quot;  We can speculate, but Scripture gives no clear reason, and no major tradition or teaching has stepped forward with anything other than guesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A list of commentaries can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/2-3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bible.cc/john/2-3.htm&lt;/a&gt;  (scroll down a bit.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few excerpts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They have no wine - Though the blessed virgin is supposed to have&#xA;  never seen her son work a miracle before this time, yet she seems to&#xA;  have expected him to do something extraordinary on this occasion; as,&#xA;  from her acquaintance with him, she must have formed some adequate&#xA;  idea of his power and goodness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When they wanted wine - A marriage feast among the Jews was commonly&#xA;  observed for seven or eight days. It is not probable that there would&#xA;  be a want of wine at the marriage itself, and it is possible,&#xA;  therefore, that Jesus came there some time during the marriage feast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They have no wine - It is not known why Mary told this to Jesus. It&#xA;  would seem that she had a belief that he was able to supply it, though&#xA;  he had as yet worked no miracle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T05:21:14.030" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13804" CreationDate="2013-01-23T05:46:01.607" Score="15" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[...] &lt;strong&gt;MONASTIC STYLES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both men and women traditionally had their hair cut or removed in specific ways when they entered a monastery or convent. These haircuts symbolized religious devotion, group identity, and humility as well as the renunciation of worldly things and personal vanity. The practice may relate to ancient rites in which people in various cultures offered their hair as a religious sacrifice. Monks and nuns also take a vow of celibacy, and hair has historically been associated with eroticism and sexuality and as a means to attract the opposite sex.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;   Historians say that monastic hairstyles also may relate to the ancient custom of shaving the heads of male slaves. Some early monks who began shaving their heads voluntarily referred to themselves as &amp;quot;slaves of Christ.&amp;quot; Such hairstyles thus would show that a person entering religious life intends to subordinate his own will to the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;   Groups of Christian men began to form organized religious communities during the second and third centuries. These men, who became known as monk, lived apart from other people and developed distinctive modes of dress and appearance. Some monks cut their hair short, while others shaved it off completely or shaved part of their head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;   Partial shaving may have its origins in &lt;strong&gt;ancient Egypt&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;Greece&lt;/strong&gt;, and other places where men shaved a circular bald spot on top of their heads to honor the sun god. Some orders of monks who left a narrow crown of hair around their heads said that this signified the crown of thorns placed on Christ's head during his crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;   The distinctive style, which is called the tonsure (from the Latin word &lt;em&gt;tondere&lt;/em&gt;—&amp;quot;to shear&amp;quot;), often is associated with Catholic monks. Historians are unsure about the earliest origins of the tonsure, but church officials came to accept it and then required that all Catholic monks adopt this hairstyle. The tonsure is &amp;quot;a sacred rite . . . by which a baptized and confirmed Christian is received into the clerical order by a shearing of his hair&amp;quot; (&lt;em&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;   In Roman Catholic monasteries, novices who had just entered the community had their hair cut short with scissors. When the novice took his vows to become a monk, he received the tonsure. The hair was cut short and then the hair on top of the head was shaved off, leaving a round bald area on the crown. These haircuts were carried out as part of the initiation into the group and were maintained by monastic barbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;   Three main variations of the tonsure developed among various orders. The eastern style involved shaving the head completely, according to a style attributed to St. Paul, while others shaved just the crown, a style associated with St. Peter and known as the Roman tonsure. A third style, called the Celtic (or transverse tonsure or tonsure of St. John) evolved in the British Isles. Celtic monks shaved the front part of their head from ear to ear but left the hair in the back hanging longer. Some Celtic monks pulled that hair around to form a semi-circle from one ear to the other. [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Reference:&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Sherrow, Victoria. &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=9Z6vCGbf66YC&amp;amp;pg=PA272&amp;amp;lpg=PA272&amp;amp;dq=haircut+of+monks&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=YK3eESqdq6&amp;amp;sig=1QdM6o6xV6a2xFUoiV3AGk9ptKQ&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=2nD_UI6eO8LorAfq3YCwCA&amp;amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=haircut%20of%20monks&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2006. Print.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3792" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T06:10:26.597" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13805" CreationDate="2013-01-23T06:07:18.030" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics love Mary, as you may know. And this particular detail of the Wedding of Cana reaffirms the Catholic devotion to Mary as an intercessor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Gospel reveals to us how Mary prays and intercedes in faith. At&#xA;  Cana, the mother of Jesus asks her son for the needs of a wedding&#xA;  feast; this is the sign of another feast—that of the wedding of the&#xA;  Lamb where he gives his body and blood at the request of the Church,&#xA;  his Bride. It is at the hour of the New Covenant, at the foot of the&#xA;  cross, that Mary is heard as the Woman, the new Eve, the true “Mother&#xA;  of all the living.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=39-chapter18.xhtml%23para2618&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christ is an embodiment of something, that of God's self-proclamation and self-incarnation of His own saving power, Mary is also an embodiment of something, namely the human &quot;yes&quot; to God's will. As such, she is the primary intercessor of the Church to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extrapolating a little: By her acceptance to receive God in her flesh, we acknowledge her mission as an intercessor (Queen among many) from God to man. And by her request at the wedding of Cana (which Jesus was undoubtedly &lt;em&gt;waiting&lt;/em&gt; for), we acknowledge the validity of her mission as an intercessor from man to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-01-23T15:16:43.553" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T15:16:43.553" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2013-01-23T11:12:56.647" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two competing views. This is why &quot;charismatic&quot; denominations are seen as in contrast to &quot;traditional&quot; denominations (called &quot;cessationist&quot; by others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The charismatic view has been described in other answers and refers to scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Corinthians 12 as directed at all believers and exhorting them to desire and exercise spritual gifts, one of which is tongues. One notable thing which was missed from other answers was that the &quot;re-discovery&quot; of the gift of tongues was during the event known as the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azusa_Street_Revival&quot;&gt;Azusa Street Revival&lt;/a&gt;&quot; which is well documented, and considered by some to be the meaning of the phrase &quot;latter rain&quot; in James 5:7 (omitted in some translations).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cessationist view is that tongues have now stopped and did not continue after the apostolic age. This is the view of most of the modern church. Many justify it via 1 Corinthians 13:8 which states that &quot;tongues will cease&quot;. Charismatics view this verse in the context of a comparison of the eternal nature of love with the mortal nature of tongues, and not in a literal sense of tongues ending for good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I am a charismatic believer and often practice the gift of tongues, but I think it is useful to know both perspectives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3825" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-01-23T23:17:13.827" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T23:17:13.827" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13813" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13814" CreationDate="2013-01-23T12:11:07.063" Score="18" ViewCount="37132" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 20:17: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said, &quot;Do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus not want Mary to touch him, remembering that he allowed Thomas to touch him before he went to heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-01T16:27:26.787" LastActivityDate="2017-01-01T16:38:03.360" Title="Why did Jesus say, &quot;Do not touch me&quot;?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;thomas-apostle&gt;&lt;mary-magdalene&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-01-01T19:03:59.303" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13813" CreationDate="2013-01-23T12:34:04.503" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason Jesus said this has been the subject of debate. One common belief is that He didn't want her to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;tarry&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; there, that it was more of a &quot;now is not the time&quot; statemen. Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Touch me not - Μη μου ἁπτου, Cling not to me. Ἁπτομαι has this sense&#xA;  in Job 31:7, where the Septuagint use it for the Hebrew דבק dabak,&#xA;  which signifies to cleave, cling, stick, or be glued to. From Matthew&#xA;  28:9, it appears that some of the women held him by the feet and&#xA;  worshipped him. This probably Mary did; and our Lord seems to have&#xA;  spoken to her to this effect: &quot;Spend no longer time with me now: I am&#xA;  not going immediately to heaven - you will have several opportunities&#xA;  of seeing me again: but go and tell my disciples, that I am, by and&#xA;  by, to ascend to my Father and God, who is your Father and God also.&#xA;  Therefore, let them take courage.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vincent's Word Studies&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Touch me not (μή μοῦ ἅπτου)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The verb, primarily, means to fasten to. Hence it implies here, not a&#xA;  mere momentary touch, but a clinging to. Mary thought that the old&#xA;  relations between her Lord and herself were to be renewed; that the&#xA;  old intercourse, by means of sight, sound, and touch, would go on as&#xA;  before. Christ says, &quot;the time for this kind of intercourse is over.&#xA;  Henceforth your communion with me will be by faith through the Spirit.&#xA;  This communion will become possible through my ascending to the&#xA;  Father.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another, similar to the others, but emphasizing &quot;There are other things to do right now&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;People's New Testament&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20:17 Touch me not. She was probably about to clasp his feet. She is&#xA;  told to discharge a higher duty: to go to the brethren with the glad&#xA;  story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T12:34:04.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13805" CreationDate="2013-01-23T15:26:27.143" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mary Makes No Request&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that Mary never specifically asks Jesus to make wine, but simply states the situation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible she understood that Jesus had the power to do something, because she does tell the servants to do whatever he tells them to do.  Still, there is no direct request by Mary, and it is evident that Mary does not know what Jesus might do, if anything.  It is possible that Jesus could have gone and purchased wine from somewhere else to alleviate the shame of the family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The family would definitely experience shame for running out of wine, so perhaps Mary was concerned for the honor of the family.  This seems to be the most likely reason for why Mary would share this concern with Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mary's Requests Not Always Answered&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that Jesus does not always respond to the requests of his mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 12, Mary and Jesus' brothers comes and ask to talk with him, but Jesus seems to decline their request.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his&#xA;  brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied&#xA;  to the man who told him, &quot;Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?&quot;&#xA;  And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, &quot;Here&#xA;  are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my&#xA;  Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.&quot;  Matthew 12:47-50&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-01-23T21:06:58.290" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T21:06:58.290" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13801" CreationDate="2013-01-23T15:30:04.673" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The stoning of the Sabbath breaker is a good example to show how the laws of Moses were very different from ANE laws, as well as different from the New Testament economy:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the people did not have a desire to kill the man, which the Lord 'tolerated'.  Instead they did not have a clue until 'the Lord said'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few reasons why this new form of severity under the Old Testament was suitable in the context.  First, under the Law God intended fear and dread to restrain external sins as a prisoner, while increasing the inward desire to do so. &lt;strong&gt;The entire purpose of the Law was to make aware of sin and smash self-righteousness.  In this way the Law led to Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;  Second, as the culture of the time had severity for things largely related to preserving one's possessions in pure secular concern, Israel needed to learn that laws of righteousness related to loving God (the first tablet) was more important and therefore the transgression more serious than sins of human social life (the second tablet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Although mercy and love is made prominent as 'the greatest' from the beginning and not something that started in the gospel, their was no example of such love and mercy to weigh the scales against the natural fear and guilt under law until Christ exhibited its meaning in his death and redemption of sinners.&lt;/strong&gt; This naturally has had its effect on the world's secular culture which has moved away further and further from the severity of ancient Laws.  (Some Muslim countries who refuse to ponder the New Testament still seem to be lagging in this regard as they still maintain some principles of ancient laws).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore the original severity of the laws of Moses 'may have' partly been tolerating the vicious nature of man as codified in ANE laws, however its additional pointedness and even more severity on religious respects for Jehovah arises directly from the divine word with no influence from without.  Just as more mercy was found for the poor and the slaves in God's laws, compared to man's, so more severity and punishment was found in God's laws for disrespecting him, then in man's laws.  In addition this severity in the cruelty of man's heart is arguably not separable from man's own hateful and angry sense of his own self under the guilt and condemnation if sin.  &lt;strong&gt;As sinful man feels the sentence of death in his own conscience, he is more willing to inflict death on others.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we arrive at the gospels, where the meek and mild Jesus lays his life down for his sheep, we truly enter a new era for both the church and the world under its new enlarged light.  The truth is the ANE laws are basically irrelevant to the laws of Moses.  Their aims are different, their values are ultimately man centered and godless. Although they do display some conscience and a dim reflection of God's laws in them, they are incredibly inferior poor.  The primary reason why many of these laws 'seem' similar on the surface is that they address similar lifestyles with similar legal needs.  The similar cultures needed  to apply similar judgments between conflicting neighbors over similar controversies. &lt;strong&gt;The Laws of God put God in the center with a promise of a future and better covenant.  The ANE laws, while protecting the powerful and rich with 'an eye for an eye', provide no future hope and no reverence for God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-01-24T13:42:37.963" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T13:42:37.963" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13805" CreationDate="2013-01-23T17:30:28.790" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;She must have been close to have been told about a disgracing issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or was it simply the time for Jesus to perform a public miracle and it came about in this manner?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 3:23 NET&lt;/strong&gt; So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was waiting till He was thirty,  following law.  But God was telling Him that things were going to be different, that from now on He would be controlled by displays of faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith makes Him start his ministry before He is thirty,  where Law insists He wait. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 2:4-5 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus replied, “Woman, why are you saying this to me? My time has not yet come.” His mother told the servants, “Whatever he tells you, do it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith makes him minister to Gentiles,  whilst Law requires he attends only to the house of Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 15:24-25 NET&lt;/strong&gt; So he answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and bowed down before him and said, “Lord, help me!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lack of faith shuts down ministry,  where Law promises unconditional blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 6:4-5 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Then Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, and among his relatives, and in his own house.” He was not able to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:4 NET&lt;/strong&gt; For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are all foreshadowing of the end of the Mosaic Law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T17:30:28.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="379" CreationDate="2013-01-23T17:54:32.220" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flimsy wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible refers to people speaking in tongues--most notably at Pentecost. Is this something that legitimately happens today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul says when he was a child he spoke like a child.  He was comparing tongues use to young church use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:9-10 NET&lt;/strong&gt; For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flimsy wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been in church services where speaking in tongues has happened, but it always seems weird and creepy, and those doing it seem like kooks. How can I know if this is legitimate, or if I'm right in thinking it's strange?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone is kind and nonjudgmental,  and would not like to criticize a practice adopted in other churches.  I believe that is about right.  Those who follow Christ must search for truth.  It's a requirement :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 11:13 NET&lt;/strong&gt; If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Young churches are ministered to by God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:35 NET&lt;/strong&gt; Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out with no money bag, or traveler’s bag, or sandals, you didn’t lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus's faith provided teaching and supplies. The perfected church, the mature church will manifest it's own faith.  To reach maturity,  they must sell even their most precious possessions :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:36 NET&lt;/strong&gt; He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much sacrifice is involved in transmitting the word of God :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 4:12 NET&lt;/strong&gt; As a result, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 15:13 NET&lt;/strong&gt; No one has greater love than this – that one lays down his life for his friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:11-13 NET&lt;/strong&gt; But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:12 NET&lt;/strong&gt; I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous deeds that I am doing, and will perform greater deeds than these, because I am going to the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Teaching mature doctrine requires great effort,  risk and love,  since there could be rejection,  even when the text supports your view. Death in us,  life for the objectors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3482" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T14:16:05.893" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13820" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13831" CreationDate="2013-01-23T19:40:34.103" Score="3" ViewCount="365" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually this phrase may come up during testimonies or used at church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would you explain it to someone who asks &quot;How do you know it was God at work?&quot; (usually an unbeliever)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose someone has gone through major changes after accepting Christ. The saved person might say &quot;God has been working&quot; in their testimony. Another might ask &quot;How do you know it was God at work? How do you know that person didn't make those changes on his/her own will?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What passages might you include?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(If too subjective, leave a comment and the question can be deleted)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3829" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T20:29:27.777" Title="What does it mean / how do you know / how would you explain &quot;God is working&quot; or &quot;God is at work&quot;?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13820" CreationDate="2013-01-23T20:20:12.403" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Early Christians were often exhorted to &amp;quot;test every Spirit&amp;quot; to see if it was of God. (1 John 4:1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Bible was first received, there was very little question of whether or not spirits were at work, but rather which ones.  For this reason, the question &amp;quot;Is it God&amp;quot; isn't particularly within the domain of Scripture - or even doctrine.  God is assumed to be ultimately responsible for it all, so of course, it is &amp;quot;of God.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the question of whether or not a person is saved, there is also a simple test.  As Matthew records Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the key idea is &amp;quot;by their fruits you will know them.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-23T20:20:12.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13822" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13823" CreationDate="2013-01-24T00:27:22.320" Score="1" ViewCount="1430" Body="&lt;p&gt;It goes without saying - Before 'The Flood of Noah', God warned Noah that it was coming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I wonder - If most of humanity turned evil again, and God was about to send another Biblical flood, would He warn us? And if so, would He warn us by way of the Pope? Or would he tell a prophet?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically I'm wondering if there's anything in the Bible or in any Christian teaching which would give us reason to believe that God would send advance warning of another flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-24T13:22:36.833" LastActivityDate="2017-09-10T03:59:34.780" Title="If God were going to send another Biblical flood, would He warn us?" Tags="&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13822" CreationDate="2013-01-24T01:01:50.487" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question seems to assume the Genesis account is literal, so I'll answer from the YEC view, which assumes it's literal.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;The usual disclaimer - not all denominations assume the Genesis account is actual history, I'm just answering as if it is, since the question seems to be looking for that viewpoint.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 9 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And&#xA;  I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after&#xA;  you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl,&#xA;  of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that&#xA;  go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will&#xA;  establish my covenant with you; &lt;strong&gt;neither shall all flesh be cut off any&#xA;  more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood&#xA;  to destroy the earth.&lt;/strong&gt; And God said, This is the token of the&#xA;  covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature&#xA;  that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in&#xA;  the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and&#xA;  the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over&#xA;  the earth, that the  bow shall be seen in the cloud:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the above passage, God promised to never send another flood.  Therefore, if &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&amp;amp;article=1383&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God cannot lie&lt;/a&gt;, there is no chance of Him flooding the earth, so it would be futile to ponder whether He would tell us ahead of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However.. God HAS promised that He will judge the earth in the future. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;strong&gt;Revelation 21 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the&#xA;  first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John&#xA;  saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,&#xA;  prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great&#xA;  voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,&#xA;  and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God&#xA;  himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away&#xA;  all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither&#xA;  sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the&#xA;  former things are passed away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Peter 3:10 even says how it will happen. It will be with great heat, not water. (Again, KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the&#xA;  which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements&#xA;  shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are&#xA;  therein shall be burned up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we can say that if God were to destroy the earth, He &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; warn us - because He already has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-01-24T14:10:11.357" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T14:10:11.357" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13822" CreationDate="2013-01-24T01:16:36.970" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&amp;gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. He already has warned us&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. We refuse to listen&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the conclusion of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16), Lazarus pleads with Abraham to go warn his brothers about the fires of hell. The story continues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication here (listing 'Moses and the Prophets') is that people had been warned &lt;em&gt;via the Scriptures&lt;/em&gt; of the wrath that is to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was likewise asked for signs, and was rather insistent back in Luke 11, when he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and now something greater than Jonah is here.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, He states, people want flashy warnings, but ignore the ones they already have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, 2 Peter invokes the flood as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want you to recall both the predictions foretold by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. Above all, understand this: In the last days blatant scoffers will come, being propelled by their own evil urges and saying, &amp;quot;Where is his promised return? For ever since our ancestors died, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation.&amp;quot; For they deliberately suppress this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water. Through these things the world existing at that time was destroyed when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, by being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point keeps being made over and over again that God has been veritably screaming from the mountaintops that wrath is coming (Read Zephaniah! or Joel! or Revelation!), but the truth is that in the last days, people say that God is asleep; that nothing will change; that people never believe wrath is coming.  Whether it is the parable of the Foolish Virgins, or the Parable of the Vineyard, or the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, Jesus is forever saying, &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVamMjrv3og&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;People get ready&lt;/a&gt;  Judgement is coming.&amp;quot; And yet, people ignore it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal favorite - Paul writes with unassailable logic in Romans 13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wake up! The day of our salvation is nearer now then when we first believed!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People live in willing ignorance, as Jesus says in Matthew 24:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For just like the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. For in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark. And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away. It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one left. There will be two women grinding grain with a mill; one will be taken and one left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, yes, God did say he wouldn't flood again - but He did say He will return, and that will be a scary day.  He is already shouting from the rooftops, &amp;quot;Repent.&amp;quot;  The question is, are people listening?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T14:13:18.937" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13822" CreationDate="2013-01-24T03:18:18.693" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply, Yes, He would:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Amos 3:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T03:18:18.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13827" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13828" CreationDate="2013-01-24T04:20:21.547" Score="-2" ViewCount="2570" Body="&lt;p&gt;Suppose one robs a bank and with the proceeds he is able to buy luxury cars, yachts, mansions. The thief lives enjoying all these things and one day he wants to convert to Christianity and wants to be saved. Restitution, giving up his purchases would probably be a part of his repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what if the sin is adultery? Imagine a married man and a married woman meet outside of their marriages and have an affair. Spouses find out, they are kicked out from their homes but decide to live together and turn the affair into another marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then they convert to Christianity. Would the sin of adultery include some form of restitution? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT AFTER THE QUESTION WAS CLOSED:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Sorry for posting an incomplete question and taking so long to attend to it. I am referring specific to &lt;em&gt;Evangelicalism&lt;/em&gt; when I ask the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1945" LastEditorUserId="1945" LastEditDate="2013-01-29T21:44:11.773" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T21:44:11.773" Title="How to be saved after adultery?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;adultery&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-01-24T12:11:32.503" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13827" CreationDate="2013-01-24T04:54:26.397" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not teach that one must always make restitution for their sins in order to be saved, it's just that doing so is an attitude that is consistent with the contrite heart of repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that King David was guilty of adultery and yet married Bathsheba after the affair. Yet, upon being confronted by Nathan the prophet, David writes Psalm 51, where he confesses his sin with a contrite heart:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Have mercy on me, O God,&#xA;    according to your steadfast love;&#xA;according to your abundant mercy&#xA;    blot out my transgressions.&#xA;Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,&#xA;    and cleanse me from my sin!&#xA;For I know my transgressions,&#xA;    and my sin is ever before me.&#xA;Against you, you only, have I sinned&#xA;    and done what is evil in your sight,&#xA;so that you may be justified in your words&#xA;    and blameless in your judgment.&#xA;Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,&#xA;    and in sin did my mother conceive me.&#xA;Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,&#xA;    and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.&#xA;Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;&#xA;    wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.&#xA;Let me hear joy and gladness;&#xA;    let the bones that you have broken rejoice.&#xA;Hide your face from my sins,&#xA;    and blot out all my iniquities.&#xA;Create in me a clean heart, O God,&#xA;    and renew a right spirit within me.&#xA;Cast me not away from your presence,&#xA;    and take not your Holy Spirit from me.&#xA;Restore to me the joy of your salvation,&#xA;    and uphold me with a willing spirit.&#xA;Then I will teach transgressors your ways,&#xA;    and sinners will return to you.&#xA;Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God,&#xA;    O God of my salvation,&#xA;    and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness.&#xA;O Lord, open my lips,&#xA;    and my mouth will declare your praise.&#xA;For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;&#xA;    you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.&#xA;The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;&#xA;    a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.&#xA;Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;&#xA;    build up the walls of Jerusalem;&#xA;then will you delight in right sacrifices,&#xA;    in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;&#xA;    then bulls will be offered on your altar.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Psalm 51 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what is God's response?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(2 Samuel 12:13 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2013-01-24T19:50:19.533" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T19:50:19.533" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13829" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-24T14:59:00.350" Score="5" ViewCount="84" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocch were beatified by Pope John Paul II.  They were the first married couple to be beatified.  They lived exemplary lives in Fascist Italy during WWII; but I can't find any information regarding a miracle being attributed to them.  For canonization, there must be demonstration of two miracles, one of which must be posthumous.  I thought demonstration of one miracle was required for beatification.  However, I may be mistaken about that detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3833" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-01-24T16:59:07.430" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T17:04:21.287" Title="What was the miracle of Blessed Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocch?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13829" CreationDate="2013-01-24T17:04:21.287" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;That took some digging, but I found it (at the National Catholic Reporter no less)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A miracle — the prerequisite to any beatification — is attributed to the couple. It involves the cure of a young man suffering from a severe circulatory disorder. He is now a 35-year-old neurosurgeon in Milan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2001d/122801/122801a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2001d/122801/122801a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A miracle is not necessary for beatification if they're martyred, but the couple wasn't Martyred. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another couple who has recently been beatified, St. Therese of Lisieux's parents &#xA;Bl. Louis Martin and Bl. Marie-Azélie Guérin.  Apparently in cases of Married Blesseds, which there have not been many, the faithful can pray for their intercession for a join miracle, that's pretty neat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T17:04:21.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13820" CreationDate="2013-01-24T17:35:49.963" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;How do you know it was God at work? How do you know that person&#xA;  didn't make those changes on his/her own will?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergism_%28theology%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;synergistic&lt;/a&gt; perspective , the short answer is &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt;.  God is &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; working.  We can choose to work with Him, in which case it is still Him working through us.  We can choose to work against Him, but choosing that path inevitably leads to discipline and correction, which may be unpleasant but ultimately is a good work of God.  In any of these cases it is valid to say &quot;God is working&quot; because the outcome is ultimately good, and...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from&#xA;  the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to&#xA;  change.  (James 1:17 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even when we are cooperating with God, we still attribute the goodness to &lt;em&gt;His&lt;/em&gt; will rather than our own to avoid any appearance of pride or boastfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you belong to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monergism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;monergistic&lt;/a&gt; tradition then the above doesn't apply, it is &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; God who is ever at work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of an unbeliever, this probably doesn't make any sense at all since they only recognize the will of the person is in play.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T17:35:49.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13820" CreationDate="2013-01-24T20:29:27.777" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is always at work - but it is interesting to point out that so is the enemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evidential result here is someone turning their back to evil and trying to align themselves with God. In that way, they we can describe their interactions and intentions as &quot;God is at work&quot; from the relative perspective of the person. It is more like who are you following and what are the results &quot;work&quot; your life shows?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will hear the phrase in question more in the evangelical and born again churches rather than the traditional. If someone has been a drug addict their whole life and has a religious &quot;experience&quot; or epiphany - it definitely (at least) feels like God is at work, regardless of doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2013-01-24T20:29:27.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13833" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13835" CreationDate="2013-01-24T23:05:32.283" Score="5" ViewCount="2765" Body="&lt;p&gt;My pastor made a general statement (or whole sermon;) and said something to the effect that the more the enemy knows you are in alignment with God the more he tries to knock us off course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, more specifically: does Christianity make any distinction, observation, mention, intention or concept that some people (&lt;strong&gt;anyone - believer, non-believer&lt;/strong&gt;) may be &lt;strong&gt;pursued by the enemy more than others&lt;/strong&gt; - and if so what are the conditions, in what way and how?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank You .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-01-29T02:14:23.223" LastActivityDate="2014-11-05T04:16:43.347" Title="Are some people pursued by the &quot;enemy&quot; relatively more than others?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-07-30T17:18:53.060" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13834" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13840" CreationDate="2013-01-24T23:45:01.300" Score="8" ViewCount="2302" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard from a number of people that in most Catholic churches, only the priest drinks from the common cup in communion. Is this true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming it is true, what is the basis for this teaching?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-02-23T12:16:50.807" LastActivityDate="2017-10-26T13:11:24.790" Title="What is the basis for the Catholic practice of only the priest drinking from the common cup during communion?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13833" CreationDate="2013-01-25T00:09:58.033" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much, nearly all, of the inner workings of the angelic and demonic beings are not disclosed in scripture. However, on this subject &lt;strong&gt;there are some things that indicate each individual is not always 'pursued' to the same degree, which by inference must make us conclude each person compared is not 'pursued' equally. The attacks seem proportionate to our faith but weak faith incurs the greater failure under our attacks, so the result of the battle is no indication of its intensity.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer to use the word 'tempted' over 'pursued' as the second could imply running away (but I know that's not what you meant). There are many examples in scripture to prove we are not 'tempted' by the Devil equally every day, but their is an 'evil day' which we must be on guard for in order to 'resist' the Devil, so he will 'flee'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Ephesians 6:13, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On these evil days it is not unreasonable to assume more powerful temptations, more powerful demons, will be used in the attack. Naturally the stronger faith of the believer the greater the temptation that is required to establish an assault not so easily shrugged off.  We can see this in the life of Christ. The Devil did not send just some weaker demon to tempt him, the Devil personally tempted Christ and took great interest in his every move. He was also interested in the twelve, wanting personally to 'sift' Peter (Luke 22:21) and 'posses' Judas. (John 13:27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in this conclusion we must not think, 'those poor strong Christians have a bigger fight' and therefore can engage in excuses for their failures and have a self-pity party as though others are not equally struggling. For since each God is infinite in power the Devil can't lift a finger against anyone without a kind of permission so that God ensures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also since we are only drawn into sin because of our own lusts under any given temptation, if we fall the failures is ours and ours alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Since God determines what measure of temptation is best for the refining of our faith and increasing of our strength (Col 1:11, Rom 5:4), in some ways the Devil's depth of 'temptation' becomes irrelevant and we may not notice his attacks have gained in strength because God is making us stronger from our previous vexing and struggles.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T00:27:06.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13836" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13842" CreationDate="2013-01-25T02:25:06.993" Score="6" ViewCount="1363" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who were the &quot;Prophets of Zwickau&quot; and what influence did they have on modern Christianity?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in their theology, history, and influence on Christianity in their day, and whether or not their influence continues to today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T14:27:02.117" Title="Who were the the &quot;Prophets of Zwickau&quot;?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13837" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13848" CreationDate="2013-01-25T02:35:03.900" Score="10" ViewCount="3352" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ran across this quote in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01454c.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pope St. Anastasius I&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A pontiff who is remembered chiefly for his condemnation of Origenism.&#xA;  A Roman by birth, he became pope in 399, and died within a little less&#xA;  than four years. Among his friends were Augustine, and Jerome, and&#xA;  Paulinus. Jerome speaks of him as a man of great holiness who was rich&#xA;  in his poverty. It was during the time of the barbarian invasions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I followed the link to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm&quot;&gt;Origenism&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and started to read to see why it was condemned, but (&lt;em&gt;and I really hate to admit this&lt;/em&gt;) the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia just confuse me.  There are so many terms that I've never heard, and am unfamiliar with that I end up having to look those up and then looking up others.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in a nutshell, I'm looking for a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;lay-person's&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; explanation of what &quot;Origenism&quot; is, and if it's not obvious when comparing it to traditional teachings, why it was condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T03:33:24.700" Title="What is &quot; Origenism&quot;" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13837" CreationDate="2013-01-25T04:48:41.077" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd never heard of it before, however a quick search on Wikipedia revealed the following about Origen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During the fifth and sixth centuries, his orthodoxy was questioned,&#xA;  largely because he believed in the pre-existence and transmigration of&#xA;  souls, and apokatastasis, or universal reconciliation, ideas which&#xA;  were discussed among some patristic writers but which were later&#xA;  rejected as heretical.&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would guess that Origenism is someone who follows the teaching of Origen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T04:48:41.077" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13834" CreationDate="2013-01-25T05:17:50.477" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Communion is always &quot;valid under both species&quot; as Catholics would say. That means that if you only receive Jesus under the form of wine or under the form of bread, you're receiving the whole of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For about 20 years or so (depending where you live) in much of North America it has been common practice to offer the cup to the laity at communion for all masses on every day of the week. This is extra-ordinary, and not necessary and seems to be going away. The diocese of Phoenix was the first to go back to the old norms and my diocese (Madison, WI) just went back starting this past advent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rationale out priest gave was that the bishop felt that absence would make the heart grow fonder. And on those occasions when we could recieve from the cup, we'd be more apt to do so.  When half the congregation just passes the Eucharistic minister by like there's nothing in the cup, you get to seeing why absence is necessary for a time. Hopefully, come Holy Thursday or Corpus Christi we can get a few more people considering Who they're passing up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other good (well, I think it's good) thing the new reversion in norms does is limit the excruciating number of Eucharistic ministers (I mean extra ordinary ministers) any time you have to have a dispensation to recieve an indult you're looking at an institution within the church that won't last.  Nothing doctrinal about it, the Church is free to let lay people distribute communion and recieve in both species as well as end that practice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there were enough priests and deacons to distribute communion in the first place the practice might have continued or even spread, I'd imagine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T05:17:50.477" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13841" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13843" CreationDate="2013-01-25T07:29:31.307" Score="12" ViewCount="15120" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:22%E2%80%9323&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;John 20:22-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the sacrament of confession of the Catholic Church is based on this verse. Do we have any other verses similar to this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Catholic teaching, does the priest have the power to remit sins? If not, what do they believe is happening during confession? If so, is this verse the sole basis of the teaching or is there a larger Biblical corpus that they cite for this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-01-25T09:47:35.417" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T18:14:47.403" Title="Does the priest have the power to forgive sins?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13836" CreationDate="2013-01-25T10:41:37.933" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The “Zwickau prophets,” i.e., Nicholas Storch, Thomas Drechsel, and Mark Stübner, etc., claimed to be prophets of God and to have received revelations directly from God.  They were leading an anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, spiritualistic attempt at communism and anarchy based on a view of taking the millennium by force as prophets.&lt;/strong&gt; Thomas Münzer (1490–1525) was a radical figure in the Reformation who became a leader in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524–1525. From this man we get a clear window into all of his associates:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thomas Muenzer, one of the Zwickau Prophets, and an eloquent demagogue, was the apostle and travelling evangelist of the social revolution, and a forerunner of modern socialism, communism, and anarchism. He presents a remarkable compound of the discordant elements of radicalism and mysticism. (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHILIP SCHAFF (Vol 7, Ch4, P75)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He started by being influenced by doctrines of the reformation but quickly became an extremist who was deposed from his church. He hated Luther even worse then the Pope even though before his ‘fall’ he was actually selected by Luther to become a Lutheran pastor in the city of Zwickau.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He was at enmity with the whole existing order of society, and imagined himself the divinely inspired prophet of a new dispensation, a sort of communistic millennium, in which there should be no priests, no princes, no nobles, and no private property, but complete democratic equality. He inflamed the people in fiery harangues from the pulpit, and in printed tracts to open rebellion against their spiritual and secular rulers. He signed himself “Muenzer with the hammer,” and “with the sword of Gideon.” He advised the killing of all the ungodly. They had no right to live. Christ brought the sword, not peace upon earth. “Look not,” he said, “on the sorrow of the ungodly; let not your sword grow cold from blood; strike hard upon the anvil of Nimrod [the princes]; cast his tower to the ground, because the day is yours.” (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHILIP SCHAFF (Vol 7, Ch4, P75)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although it might not seem that these prophets had any influence on the Christian world, Karl Marx did refer to Thomas Münzer in his own writings, so you could say they had an impact on the world's continued opposition to the church. The beliefs of the Zwickau Prophets goes back to a pre-reformation sect in Bohemia who held a, ‘Taborite creed’. Tabor was a city in Bohemia that held control of local gold mines, the citizens joined local peasants to develop a communist-like society.  The key to their quasi-religious communits movement was in their view of the millennial reign of Christ. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taborite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Taborites&lt;/a&gt; lived announced in the millennium there would be no more servants and masters. They promised people would return to a state of pristine innocence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Zwickau, however, was near the Bohemian border, and there Müntzer was converted by the weaver and adept Niklas Storch, who had lived in Bohemia, to the old Taborite creed: in particular, continuing personal divine revelation to the prophet of the cult, and the necessity for the Elect to seize power and impose a society of theocratic communism by brutal force of arms. In addition, there was to be communism of women: marriage was to be prohibited, and each man was to be able to have any woman at will.&#xA;  Thomas Müntzer now claimed to be the divinely chosen prophet, destined to wage a war of blood and extermination by the Elect against the sinners. Müntzer claimed that the &quot;living Christ&quot; had permanently entered his own soul. Endowed thereby with perfect insight into the divine will, he asserted himself to be uniquely qualified to fulfill the divine mission. He even spoke of himself as &quot;becoming God.&quot; Having graduated from the world of learning, Müntzer was now ready for the world of action. &lt;a href=&quot;http://mises.org/daily/3769&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist, Mises Daily: Friday, October 09, 2009 by Murray N. Rothbard)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the influence on communism can be traced, there does not seem to be any lasting influence on Christianity. There is a link between the Bohemian movements and a Christian movement called the Hussites under a Czech reformer Jan Hus (c. 1369–1415) and there are some modern churches who think of themselves to be related to those movements, in particular the Moravian Church, Unity of the Brethren, and the refounded Czechoslovak Hussite churches. However these churches do not resemble the ideas of Thomas Müntzer at all so it seems the lasting impact is more related to the communistic side of things only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-01-25T14:27:02.117" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T14:27:02.117" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13841" CreationDate="2013-01-25T13:04:04.523" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church teaches  that man's sins may be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm&quot;&gt;absolved&lt;/a&gt; by the Church.  Absolution from sin means &quot;To free from sin&quot;, which is pretty much the same as forgiveness of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In lay-person's terms, as I understand it, the Priest is acting under the authority and power of the Church, which, in turn, is acting under the authority and power of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This is probably a really poor analogy, but it helps me to keep principles simple, so here goes...&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my household, my oldest child has no authority over the younger ones.  She can't tell them what to do under normal circumstances, because she simply has no authority to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if I leave her to babysit the younger ones, I give her the authority, and the younger ones understand the principle that she is acting under my authority, and that &quot;to be naughty for her is the same as being naughty for me when I am in charge.&quot;  But if my oldest tells a younger one to hit another one, or to steal, or do anything I would not authorize, then she would not be acting under the authority I've given her because she is asking them to do something contrary to my will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Applying the anology...&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I understand it, the teaching is that the Priest is just a man, not a supernatural being with the power to forgive sins on his own, but when acing under the authority of the Church, which, in turn has been given authority from Christ, and when the Priest is acting in harmony with Christ's instructions, then he has the power to absolve since through the means described and established by the Church in Christ's authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm&quot;&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia says this (small excerpt):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament&#xA;  of Penance, he frees man from sin. It presupposes on the part of the&#xA;  penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of&#xA;  satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the&#xA;  Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, granted by competent authority,&#xA;  over the person receiving the sacrament. That there is in the Church&#xA;  power to absolve sins committed after baptism the Council of Trent&#xA;  thus declares: &quot;But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament&#xA;  of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His&#xA;  disciples saying, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall&#xA;  forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they&#xA;  are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear the&#xA;  consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of&#xA;  forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles, and to&#xA;  their lawful successors for the reconciling of the faithful who have&#xA;  fallen after baptism&quot; (Sess. XIV, i).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-25T13:12:51.727" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T13:12:51.727" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13833" CreationDate="2013-01-25T13:49:16.237" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This idea is actually grounded in Scripture.  Luke records an interesting incident in Acts 19, wherein the &quot;sons of Sceva&quot; attempted to cast out demons in the Jesus' name.  The sons of Sceva, however, really didn't know what they were doing, and it goes horribly wrong. As the demons are about to pounce on them, they say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?” 16 And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication here is that the demons knew of Paul, and at least respected him.  (It's like the classic Jewish response to being the &quot;Chosen people,&quot; saying &quot;God, why do you have to keep picking on us!&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several incidents in Paul's life reflected this special attention he received - In 1 Thessalonians 2:18, Paul expresses a desire to go Thessalonki, but was prevented.  He writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we wanted to come to you--certainly I, Paul, did, again and again--but Satan stopped us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, that yes, effective ministers of the Gospel do receive undue attention from &quot;the enemy,&quot;  but that is nothing to be feared.  After all, we know that Jesus has already won the battle - anything Satan throws is just a delaying tactic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T13:49:16.237" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13837" CreationDate="2013-01-25T13:52:25.580" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Orgien's influence was primarily in inspiring the asectics and ultimately inspiring other Egyptians (most notably St. Antony) towards the monastic lifestyle.  His emphasis on spiritual warfare and putting the flesh to death would find its natural expression in the monasteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Origen’s thinking not only had an impact on later exegetical and theological work. It also enjoyed development in monastic circles. As we can see from Athanasius’s Life of St. Anthony, Egyptian → monasticism of the anchoritic type was influenced from the very first by the spirituality of Origen (involving asceticism, spiritual conflict, warring against → demons, etc.). The monks of Nitria and Kellia included many Origenists who in the late fourth century engaged in highly intellectual speculation and triggered controversies by ruling out any external piety or bodily concept of God. In this regard Evagrius Ponticus worked out a complete theological system (see esp. his Gnostic Centuries) on the basis of Origen’s hypotheses regarding the creation of intelligences by God and the final restoration of original unity. This type of Origenism found supporters among Palestinian monks in the first half of the sixth century. To deal with these developments Justinian in 543 and 553 condemned an Origenism that was closer to the teaching of Evagrius than to that of Origen himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fahlbusch, E., &amp;amp; Bromiley, G. W. (1999-2003). Vol. 3: The encyclopedia of Christianity (859–860). Grand Rapids, MI; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken to an extreme, however, if you believe the flesh is evil, it ultimately leads to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5047/are-there-any-tenets-of-gnosticism-that-are-still-present-in-the-church-today&quot;&gt;Gnosticism&lt;/a&gt;, however. Paul directly refutes this idea, and it was branded as heresy very early on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More on his theology is available here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2.3. Theology&#xA;  In his Principles Origen projected and executed a theological program that had no precursor or competitor among the → church fathers. On the basis of the confession and Holy Scripture (→ Confessions and Creeds), he presented a comprehensive doctrine of → God, humanity (→ Anthropology), and the world (→ Creation). The desire for coherence led him to hypotheses that were later rejected, such as the preexistence of souls, a sequence of worlds until all spiritual beings freely return to God, and the complete equality of the last state with the first (→ Apocatastasis).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Origen’s system decisive roles are played by the goodness of God (→ Good, The) and human → freedom. The fall was the result of a misuse of freedom by the → angels, the first spiritual beings to be created, but the same freedom, being taught and supported by divine → providence, will enable all of us to attain to a perpetual vision of the triune God (→ Contemplation). Origen also took a crucial step forward in developing the doctrine of the → Trinity, especially in what he said about the → Holy Spirit as an individual substance with two modes of operation, the charismatic (→ Charisma) and the → epistemological.&#xA;  The → Christology of Origen is complex. For him the Son is both subordinate to the Father and equal with him. The Son has many functions as revealer and mediator, which come to expression in the terms by which he is known in Scripture (the epinoiai, “conceptions, purposes”). Before the → incarnation he already assumed unfallen humanity. His incarnation became a saving event in the sense of bringing a full → revelation of God and offering a model of the full and free obedience of the human will to God (→ Soteriology).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We attain to the knowledge and vision of God by a spiritual understanding of Scripture and by imitation of the incarnate Christ (→ Discipleship 2). Since we are composed of spirit, → soul, and body, we are at odds with ourselves. The soul, the seat of free will, is subject to passions through the influence of the body, but the spirit, sharing the divine Spirit, draws it to God. The conflict does not take place only within us. It is directly related to that of angels and demons, the background of which is Christ’s struggle with Satan. → Asceticism, → prayer, and practical → virtue are the weapons with which we can win the victory in the fight.&#xA;  The decisive weapons, however, are the power, the → light, and the → love that Christ brings to us as the image of the invisible God when he comes to dwell and to grow in us. Christ gives us a share in the qualities that are proper to him as God’s express image. Believers increasingly develop to spiritual perfection. By union with Christ they attain to the vision of God, but they are never completely perfect on earth. Origen’s ideal was perhaps mystical, yet his writings contain no plain references to mystical or ecstatic experiences per se (→ Mysticism 2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fahlbusch, E., &amp;amp; Bromiley, G. W. (1999-2003). Vol. 3: The encyclopedia of Christianity (858–859). Grand Rapids, MI; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T13:58:12.880" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13847" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13850" CreationDate="2013-01-25T15:49:10.633" Score="11" ViewCount="19548" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Catholic Church forbade people from eating meat on Fridays for many years.  It seems that it is no longer every Friday, but just during Lent.  Also, it is not all meat, but all meat that isn't fish (from what I understand).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did this become considered a sin?  Why meat?  Why Fridays?  Why did it end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2015-03-29T13:06:24.980" Title="Why was eating meat on Fridays forbidden in the Catholic Church for so many years?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13837" CreationDate="2013-01-25T15:49:33.377" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm&quot;&gt;Origen and Origenism&lt;/a&gt;, the &quot;sketchy&quot; doctrines are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Allegorism in the interpretation of Scripture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Origen believed that, being God-inspired and written by human hand, scripture must be interpreted in a manner than is worth of God. As such, some Biblical passages must be interpreted allegorically, lest we think God a tyrannical, blood-thirsty, etc.. It's important to note first, that a &lt;em&gt;strictly&lt;/em&gt; allegorical interpretation of scripture was unorthodox. But secondly, Origen apparently took the allegorical interpretation train a little too far according to some. So, even at though allegorical interpretations may be OK, good, and in some cases necessary; Origen himself is an example of how difficult it can be to get off the allegory train. I.e., it's acceptable and good, but it's dangerous; be careful!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Subordination of the Divine Persons&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The language in Catholic Encyclopedia is confusing (to me) as to whether Origen is &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; the &quot;sketchy&quot; Trinitarian tendencies of subordinating The Son to The Father or to what extent he believed what he did. But, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Subordinationism&lt;/a&gt; clarifies it quite succinctly for us:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most elaborate of advocates in favor of Subordinationism&#xA;  was Origen of Alexandria. Origen taught that Jesus was a &quot;DEUTEROS&#xA;  THEOS&quot; (second God) He also said the Son was &quot;distinct&quot; from the&#xA;  Father. Finally Origen insisted that the Son is other in substance&#xA;  than the Father. It should be noticed that some of these same&#xA;  references are used to defend the concept of the Trinity. However,&#xA;  Subordinationism is not a differentiation or distinction between&#xA;  persons in the Trinity. In this regard they agree. Subordinationism&#xA;  rather suggests that the Son (and Spirit) are other in substance than&#xA;  the Father. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism#Pre-Nicean&quot;&gt;Subordinationism, Pre-Nicean&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other things I've seem suggest that the extreme material distance placed between the Father and Son in this theology isn't actually Origen's intended understanding. Rather, it's termed &lt;em&gt;Origenism&lt;/em&gt; because his ideas paved the way for the more radical, questionable, and non-orthodox understanding. But, I'm not at all 100% sure on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The theory of successive trials and a final restoration.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I didn't quite understand which details of the theology are technically part of this questionable doctrine. But, these are listed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eternal creation - An infinite number of universes/worlds have been and will be created  infinitely backwards in time and infinitely forward in time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Intellectual creation - All intellectual entities were created equal. Some of them got bored and became naughty.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matter exists for the spiritual - More unorthodox, I think, is the subpoint that without matter, the spiritual cannot be. If the matter would cease to be, the spiritual entity it serves would cease to be.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Universal, final restoration - Everything will be returned to its original state of glory and union with God. I.e., hell isn't &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; eternal, it just seems like it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T15:49:33.377" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13847" CreationDate="2013-01-25T16:08:29.543" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was crucified on Friday, so it's natural that Friday became a day of fasting and sorrow, much like Sunday (day of Christ's ressurection) became a day of joy. It's still required for a Catholic to fast/ abstain from certain food (usually all meat or meat except for fish) for all the Fridays except for solemnities and for whole time of Lent. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/f/Fasting_Rules.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an answer to related question on another web&lt;/a&gt; Canons 1250 - 1252 are cited:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can. 1250: The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday &#xA;  of the whole year and the season of Lent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can. 1251: Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the &#xA;  Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all&#xA;  Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and&#xA;  fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can. 1252: The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth &#xA;  year. The law of fasting binds those who have&#xA;  attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year.&#xA;  Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by&#xA;  reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and&#xA;  abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between situation in Western Catholic Church now and before 2nd Vatican (or in Eastern Church, both Catholic or Orthodox) is that these canons are not enforced so strictly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-01-26T23:29:16.127" LastActivityDate="2013-01-26T23:29:16.127" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13847" CreationDate="2013-01-25T17:18:53.930" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://cms.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/lent/us-bishops-pastoral-statement-on-penance-and-abstinence.cfm&quot;&gt;USSCB&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19. Changing circumstances, including economic, dietary, and social elements, have made some of our people feel that the renunciation of&#xA;  the eating of meat is not always and for everyone the most effective&#xA;  means of practicing penance. &lt;strong&gt;Meat was once an exceptional form of&#xA;  food&lt;/strong&gt;; now it is commonplace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20. Accordingly, since the spirit of penance primarily suggests that &lt;strong&gt;we discipline ourselves in that which we enjoy most&lt;/strong&gt;, to many in our&#xA;  day abstinence from meat no longer implies penance, while renunciation&#xA;  of other things would be more penitential.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the implication here is that meat, with the exception of fish, which was commonplace, was at the time of the Church Fathers an exceptional or &quot;celebratory&quot; form of food. Since we, at least in America, treat meat as more of a staple food, it's no longer so strongly associated with celebrations or feasts. That said, abstaining from it is still a worthy form of penance, is still encouraged, and is still required on Fridays during Lent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-01-25T17:18:53.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13851" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13852" CreationDate="2013-01-25T19:29:48.343" Score="24" ViewCount="33034" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, let me start by saying I don't think more or less of a person because of the color of their skin. I consider racism to be both misguided and a sin.  But, when I visualize a person, I like to think of them in ways that at least approximate their actual appearance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am skimming some works of that greatest of the Patristics - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Augustine of Hippo&lt;/a&gt;, later the Bishop of Milan (in Italy), but hailing from what is today, Tunisia.  He wrote the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_God_(book)&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;City of God&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_(St._Augustine)&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Confessions&lt;/a&gt; - two classics still studied more than 1500 years after their creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, as I consider the young Augustine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souk_Ahras&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hippo&lt;/a&gt; - a region of northern Africa, nowadays near the Algerian / Tunisian border - I have this image of a white guy in my head.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/57xT0.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Augustine - Classic&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, he was from Africa.  And indeed, this seems wholly legitimate as well.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/SN46R.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Augustine&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, then I remember, the Arab Invasions that went alongside the rise of Islam also changed the area as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it's a simple question - Was Augustine white or black?  Many of the Church Fathers from Alexandria to Carthage would have probably shared this legacy, and I'm just sort of curious - What did they look like?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-16T16:59:18.553" LastActivityDate="2019-02-18T15:34:22.253" Title="What color was Augustine's skin?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13851" CreationDate="2013-01-25T22:00:13.503" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;He's the product of Patricius and St. Monica.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Monica&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine's mother's name, Monica, is Berber ... the names Monnica and Nonnica are found on tombstones in the Libyan language - as such Monnica is the only Berber name commonly used in English&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Monica#cite_note-1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;From Wikipedia citation of Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fentress, The Berbers, Wiley-Blackwell, 1997, p.71, 293&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Patricius&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Patricius probably was a &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiales&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Curiale&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; and he was definitely a pagan of the Roman sort, not the tribal African sort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my money is that he looked like his mom, who according to scant evidence was a Berber, like these people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/yYr07.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/yYr07.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Berber mosaic&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: &lt;a href=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Berbers_Mosaic.jpg/450px-Berbers_Mosaic.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikimedia.org&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-02-18T14:23:04.993" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="13853" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-26T00:28:48.927" Score="15" ViewCount="7372" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The problem I am submitting to you arises not about prayer in general but only about that kind of prayer which consists of request or petition.... I have no answer to my problem, though I have taken it to about every Christian I know...&lt;/em&gt; ~ C.S lewis&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In  &lt;em&gt;Petitionary Prayer: A Problem Without An Answer&lt;/em&gt; (Clive Staples Lewis;  Christian Reflections. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1967 pp.&#xA;142–151), Lewis observes that that there are two types of prayer, one which he calls the &quot;A Pattern&quot; and the other the &quot;B Pattern&quot;.  The crux of the problem is thus: the first pattern is given in the Lord's Prayer,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;“This, then, is how you should pray:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘Our Father in heaven,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  hallowed be your name.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;Your kingdom come,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  your will be done&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  on earth as it is in heaven.'&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;~ Matthew VI (all quotations from the NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and in the agony of Gethsemane,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  yet not my will, but yours be done.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;~ Luke XXII &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;while the second pattern is seemingly at odds with the first, as in such examples as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; &quot;...I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;~ John XIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;Ask and it will be given to you;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  seek and you will find;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  knock and the door will be opened to you.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;~ Matt VII&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;&quot;...my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;...Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;~ John XVI&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How are we to reconcile these two seemingly diametrically opposed patterns of prayer?  On the one hand we are to trust our Lord and Savior to lead and guide us in what He knows is best.  This, of course, sounds perfectly reasonable.  But at the same time we are told without qualification (except in a few cases where truly believing is requisite) that what we ask for will be granted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I share Mr. Lewis' desire to know the truth, a workable and satisfactory solution to the problem, asking my friends, pastors, counselors, and some (ostensibly) well-studied men and women, to provide some kind of special, as of yet undisclosed insight.  But as yet I am not satisfied.  The problem remains unanswered in my experience, as apparently was C.S. Lewis'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have asked well-meaning, though not highly-sophisticated people, to try to provide answers.  Here is an example of the typical response:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jesus instructed his disciples on how they should pray, he indicated that there was a positive causal role in prayer regarding the coming of the Kingdom. One aspect of the kingdom is the presence of the King, so Jesus could say that the kingdom of God is at hand! Another is the acceptance of kingly leadership and fealty (loyalty). This is imperfectly implemented at best. There is a pitched battle being waged over the seating of the king. Satan has usurped the throne and doesn't want to forsake it. The king of the present age is being defeated by saints who will pick up their crosses daily and follow Jesus and who will pray as led by the Holy Spirit - macro prayers for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven and micro prayers of petition for our individual needs (prayers that stimulate and deepen our individual relationships with God) and prayers of intercession as the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to the needs of others and gives us His heart of compassion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This just doesn't seem to do justice to the question.  It doesn't really address the issue at all.  All this letter is saying, at bottom, is that we are to do both.  I may be missing the point, but to me this letter just doesn't make for a good case.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been extremely frustrated over this issue, and hope that there are insights that have been gained over the many years since Mr. Lewis' question was first posed.  In the meantime, although I draw closer to God in my relations to Him, e.g. in talking to Him about my life, my hopes, and my many other daily considerations, I have not been able to &lt;i&gt;intercede.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In closing his paper, Lewis asks (reasonably), &quot;How am I to pray this very night?&quot;, and many are the nights I have hit my pillow with the same thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do any Christian denominations or &lt;em&gt;prominent&lt;/em&gt; Christian thinkers address the apparent paradox of petitioning God, who apparently promises to answer all prayers, while also yielding to His will?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information, please see&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://musingsofmadmenalpha.blogspot.com/2011/04/cs-lewis-and-petitionary-prayer.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;C.S. Lewis and Petitionary Prayer (De Mentor)&lt;/a&gt;, an overview of Lewis' views of prayer in general, and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ced.cbcm.org/pastclasses20storage/life_files/CSLewisonPrayer_ArtLin511.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;C.S. Lewis on Prayer &#xA;(Dr. Art Lindsley)&lt;/a&gt;, a paper from a biographical viewpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3837" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2017-04-11T01:29:11.407" LastActivityDate="2020-07-20T15:18:10.037" Title="C.S. Lewis's petitionary prayer paradox" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;&lt;intercession&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13853" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:37:40.597" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally I have no difficulty with this apparent contradiction. Rather I expect it. This may be because very early in my Christian life it was explained to my satisfaction. It has to do with our basic view of the nature of prayer. &lt;strong&gt;Prayer is our response to God after he has put his Sprit within us. It is a ‘spirit’ of prayer. It is our unconscious yearning for his will, often expressed in words.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A constant ‘spirit’ of prayer is in the scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;pray without ceasing (1 Thes 5:17, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This spirit of prayer is a key element in the predicted outpouring of God’s kingdom ushered in through Messiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. (NIV Zechariah 12:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” (NIV Galatians 4:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. (NIV Romans 8:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this life we desire many things contrary to our prayers so when we express our desires in vocal prayer, sometimes we are asking what we do not want and what is not God’s will.   &lt;strong&gt;However if we delight in the Lord's will he will gives us the desires of our heart, because our desires will be his will. (Psalm 37:4 ).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the extreme case where God’s will is leading us into everything that is revolting to human nature and naturally opposed by us, even without sinning our prayer would become very difficult as our spirit would be willing but our flesh would be weak.  In this case expressing God’s will in prayer would be to so, if it by thy will let this not happen (as nothing in me natural life desires it), nevertheless thy will be done (as my spirit desires this more, your will in the Spirit of prayer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9084/what-does-the-bible-say-about-how-we-should-pray/9094#9094&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about how we should pray?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-12-13T14:31:39.930" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13853" CreationDate="2013-01-26T02:57:34.753" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this will help, but I tend to agree with your assessment that the answer you received doesn't do justice to the question.  The typical response example that you provided doesn't, in my opinion, address the real issue.  I do agree with the conclusion that it comes to, as my answer will show, but it is immensely unsatisfying because the way it's presented, it's just thrown out there &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;seemingly&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; without a lot of thought behind it.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In truth, there is probably plenty of thought behind it, but it's likely that the person who gave the answer did all the logical calculations I'm about to outline and just gave you the conclusion without taking you through the steps.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like trying to understand math if you're just learning.  You can tell a first grader that 12 x 12 = 144.  They may believe it, but doing so doesn't teach them how to multiply.  They'll probably come back with a &quot;why?&quot;, or they'll just ignore it.  There's groundwork that needs to be understood before they can do the calculations themselves.  Answers like the one you said make me feel like that kid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If &lt;em&gt;that's&lt;/em&gt; the problem for you... If you're saying that you understand that we're supposed to do both, but are looking for more of an explanation of &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; this computes theologically, because on the surface it just doesn't add up, and you'd like to &lt;em&gt;see&lt;/em&gt; and understand how it adds up, &lt;em&gt;maybe&lt;/em&gt; this will help.  If not, then this answer will be of no use to you, and you can save some time and stop reading here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I said in the first sentence, the answer seems to miss the main issue, which is that there is an apparent contradiction - a conflict, where one passage seems to be at odds with another.  (Or several at odds with each other.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are certain established guidelines for understanding Scripture and for understanding apparent discrepancies.  These guidelines are widely accepted in Protestant as well as Catholic and Orthodox doctrine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll attempt to address this using that approach, to show the logical steps that go from &quot;Hey, there's a contradiction here&quot; to &quot;Oh, I get it - both seemingly contradictory statements can be true because...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First, and you're probably already familiar with this, most traditions believe in Biblical inerrancy and infallibility. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is explained in greater detail &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, but the short version is that the Bible can't be wrong because it was given by God Himself, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that doesn't mean you can take it to extremes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The second principle, strongly related to the first, deals with what it means to take the Bible literally.  Hyper-literalism is a mistake, as described &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9961/from-a-fundamentalist-viewpoint-what-does-it-mean-to-take-the-bible-literally&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The authors, per the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;plenary inspiration&lt;/a&gt;, wrote as God moved them, but they were able to use their own literary style.  When reading it, we are simply to use common sense in determining if something is a figure of speech or a real statement.  When you get overly literal, you run into problems.  For example, if a Biblical author were to say, &quot;I'm so hungry I could eat a horse&quot;, a reasonable person would be able to understand that he couldn't really eat a horse - it's just a hyperbole, and what he means is he's really hungry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Next, there are well-defined guidelines for understanding apparent discrepancies, as documented &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12272/rules-behind-resolving-alleged-biblical-discrepancies&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short version: Apparent discrepancies tend to be either copyist errors (only the original manuscripts were considered inerrant) or misunderstandings of the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is here that the conflict is resolvable.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between these verses is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;entirely&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; about the context in which they are used.  And added to that, there tend to be overly-literal interpretations, of some of the verses, that are exacerbating the problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, addressing the &quot;If you ask anything in my name&quot; question...  This has already been addressed on this site.  Someone asked what &quot;anything&quot; means because they saw the same apparent conflict.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3817/what-is-the-meaning-of-anything-in-matthew-1819-20/3821#3821&quot;&gt;Richard gave a detailed, excellent answer&lt;/a&gt;, one that I couldn't shorten without butchering.  Please, take a second to check it out.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read it, you can see that, understanding this verse in context, it is not saying that you can ask for anything at all.  You couldn't ask for God to lie, for example, and expect it to come true. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you read each of these passages &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in context&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; it becomes plain to see that we are to pray differently in different situations.  And these verses are also in passages that are trying to teach different things.  In some, He is teaching us to have faith and be surrendered to God.  In others, He is teaching that we can come to Him and ask for things, having faith that He will answer them, if they're in His will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, it's all about the context.  Taken in context, there is no discrepancy.  It's only when the verses are taken out of the context of the deeper meaning of the full passages they are contained within that there becomes a discrepancy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-01-26T05:09:38.420" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13856" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13921" CreationDate="2013-01-26T03:26:52.383" Score="9" ViewCount="2410" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ran across the term &quot;Black Fast&quot; and looked it up.  The articles I'm finding indicate that it's extreme, and give some information about the types of foods allowed during it, but I keep expecting to find information on when it was performed and why.  In my experience, in Catholic tradition, there is a detailed reason and circumstance for just about everything, and I'm just not finding it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, based on the restrictions, this looks to be something that is intended to be something done for an extended period of time, not just a few days...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The details of the fast, as they were prior to the tenth century, are&#xA;  as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;No more than one meal per day was permitted&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Flesh meat, eggs, butter, cheese and milk were forbidden&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The meal was not allowed until after sunset&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Alcohol was forbidden&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;During Holy Week, the meal consisted exclusively of bread, salt, herbs, and water&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No more than one meal per day would be hard for a few days, but doable, so I have to assume that this fast is meant for extended periods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest I could come to a &quot;how long&quot; answer was a blurb in Wikipedia, but it it about how the Eastern Orthodox Church practices it today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Black Fast is still observed by the Eastern Orthodox on Wednesdays&#xA;  and Fridays and during the 40 days of Lent and three other fasting&#xA;  periods of the year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if anyone can fill in the blanks, and explain &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; it is done, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; it is done, and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;for how long&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; it is done, I'd greatly appreciate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2020-07-30T15:47:56.353" Title="How long, and in what cases did Catholics participate in the Black Fast?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;fasting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13857" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13861" CreationDate="2013-01-26T03:43:24.030" Score="12" ViewCount="5920" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been to a Catholic Church very few times in my adult life.  It's a very different experience than the protestant Churches I'm used to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most of the Protestant Churches, there is generally a time of singing/praise/worship, followed by some general announcements for members (The Lady's Missionary meeting will be meeting on Monday night at Liz's house, for example), followed by a prayer, then a sermon on a particular topic, more singing, and a prayer.  In most Baptist Churches, there's an altar call just before the final prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church also seems to have a very set format, and it doesn't seem to vary much, but that's probably an outsider's perception.  I'm interested to know what the standard format it, and also, what things are the same every week, and were there is variation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give an example, in all the activities in the Protestant Churches I described, each and every one of those activities vary. The sermon is different every week.  The Hymns vary (in our Church they are chosen because the doctrine in the Hymn is directly relevant to the sermon message)  The format stays the same, but the contents seem different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic Church, however, it seems to be much less flexible. I do not mean this to be disrespectful, but it seems that everyone knows when to stand, when to kneel, when to sit, and there's usually a time when the Priest says one thing and everyone else responds in unison.  (&quot;Peace be with you&quot;  - &quot;and also with you&quot; being the easiest to remember.)  I get the impression that this part of the service is the same week after week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in short, could someone post a general format something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Opening prayer - varies&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other activity - standard part of the Mass, always part of the Mass, doesn't change&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even better would be each item listed with the correct Catholic terminology with a layman's or potestnt synonym... Like &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eucharist (communion/Lords Supper)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or if I'm just perceiving things incorrectly, correct my misunderstanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-26T05:50:02.767" LastActivityDate="2018-07-02T20:26:28.253" Title="Format for the Catholic Mass" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;mass&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13858" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13860" CreationDate="2013-01-26T04:34:50.433" Score="5" ViewCount="243" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I'm not mistaken, the claim of the Catholic Church is that Papal Succession is unbroken all the way back to Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a list of popes and the history from Peter to the present day?  If so, where can I find it?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;And just so that your answer isn't a link-only answer, frowned upon on SE sites, maybe include the list if you can copy/paste it as well as citing the source&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-28T16:57:47.920" LastActivityDate="2015-06-30T07:02:49.907" Title="Does a list exist showing Papal succession from Peter through our current Pope?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13858" CreationDate="2013-01-26T05:42:30.340" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;List of Popes from newadvent.org&lt;/a&gt;, which I assume is the same list found in many US Catholic-approved Bibles, with the exception of the Papal &quot;oppositions&quot; listed here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1.  St. Peter (32-67)&#xA;2.  St. Linus (67-76)&#xA;3.  St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)&#xA;4.  St. Clement I (88-97)&#xA;5.  St. Evaristus (97-105)&#xA;6.  St. Alexander I (105-115)&#xA;7.  St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I&#xA;8.  St. Telesphorus (125-136)&#xA;9.  St. Hyginus (136-140)&#xA;10. St. Pius I (140-155)&#xA;11. St. Anicetus (155-166)&#xA;12. St. Soter (166-175)&#xA;13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)&#xA;14. St. Victor I (189-199)&#xA;15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)&#xA;16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)&#xA;17. St. Urban I (222-30)&#xA;18. St. Pontain (230-35)&#xA;19. St. Anterus (235-36)&#xA;20. St. Fabian (236-50)&#xA;21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)&#xA;22. St. Lucius I (253-54)&#xA;23. St. Stephen I (254-257)&#xA;24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)&#xA;25. St. Dionysius (260-268)&#xA;26. St. Felix I (269-274)&#xA;27. St. Eutychian (275-283)&#xA;28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius&#xA;29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)&#xA;30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)&#xA;31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)&#xA;32. St. Miltiades (311-14)&#xA;33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)&#xA;34. St. Marcus (336)&#xA;35. St. Julius I (337-52)&#xA;36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)&#xA;37. St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)&#xA;38. St. Siricius (384-99)&#xA;39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)&#xA;40. St. Innocent I (401-17)&#xA;41. St. Zosimus (417-18)&#xA;42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)&#xA;43. St. Celestine I (422-32)&#xA;44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)&#xA;45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)&#xA;46. St. Hilarius (461-68)&#xA;47. St. Simplicius (468-83)&#xA;48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)&#xA;49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)&#xA;50. Anastasius II (496-98)&#xA;51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)&#xA;52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)&#xA;53. St. John I (523-26)&#xA;54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)&#xA;55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)&#xA;56. John II (533-35)&#xA;57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I&#xA;58. St. Silverius (536-37)&#xA;59. Vigilius (537-55)&#xA;60. Pelagius I (556-61)&#xA;61. John III (561-74)&#xA;62. Benedict I (575-79)&#xA;63. Pelagius II (579-90)&#xA;64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)&#xA;65. Sabinian (604-606)&#xA;66. Boniface III (607)&#xA;67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)&#xA;68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)&#xA;69. Boniface V (619-25)&#xA;70. Honorius I (625-38)&#xA;71. Severinus (640)&#xA;72. John IV (640-42)&#xA;73. Theodore I (642-49)&#xA;74. St. Martin I (649-55)&#xA;75. St. Eugene I (655-57)&#xA;76. St. Vitalian (657-72)&#xA;77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)&#xA;78. Donus (676-78)&#xA;79. St. Agatho (678-81)&#xA;80. St. Leo II (682-83)&#xA;81. St. Benedict II (684-85)&#xA;82. John V (685-86)&#xA;83. Conon (686-87)&#xA;84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)&#xA;85. John VI (701-05)&#xA;86. John VII (705-07)&#xA;87. Sisinnius (708)&#xA;88. Constantine (708-15)&#xA;89. St. Gregory II (715-31)&#xA;90. St. Gregory III (731-41)&#xA;91. St. Zachary (741-52)&#xA;92. Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him&#xA;93. Stephen III (752-57)&#xA;94. St. Paul I (757-67)&#xA;95. Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)&#xA;96. Adrian I (772-95)&#xA;97. St. Leo III (795-816)&#xA;98. Stephen V (816-17)&#xA;99. St. Paschal I (817-24)&#xA;100.    Eugene II (824-27)&#xA;101.    Valentine (827)&#xA;102.    Gregory IV (827-44)&#xA;103.    Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)&#xA;104.    St. Leo IV (847-55)&#xA;105.    Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)&#xA;106.    St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)&#xA;107.    Adrian II (867-72)&#xA;108.    John VIII (872-82)&#xA;109.    Marinus I (882-84)&#xA;110.    St. Adrian III (884-85)&#xA;111.    Stephen VI (885-91)&#xA;112.    Formosus (891-96)&#xA;113.    Boniface VI (896)&#xA;114.    Stephen VII (896-97)&#xA;115.    Romanus (897)&#xA;116.    Theodore II (897)&#xA;117.    John IX (898-900)&#xA;118.    Benedict IV (900-03)&#xA;119.    Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)&#xA;120.    Sergius III (904-11)&#xA;121.    Anastasius III (911-13)&#xA;122.    Lando (913-14)&#xA;123.    John X (914-28)&#xA;124.    Leo VI (928)&#xA;125.    Stephen VIII (929-31)&#xA;126.    John XI (931-35)&#xA;127.    Leo VII (936-39)&#xA;128.    Stephen IX (939-42)&#xA;129.    Marinus II (942-46)&#xA;130.    Agapetus II (946-55)&#xA;131.    John XII (955-63)&#xA;132.    Leo VIII (963-64)&#xA;133.    Benedict V (964)&#xA;134.    John XIII (965-72)&#xA;135.    Benedict VI (973-74)&#xA;136.    Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)&#xA;137.    John XIV (983-84)&#xA;138.    John XV (985-96)&#xA;139.    Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)&#xA;140.    Sylvester II (999-1003)&#xA;141.    John XVII (1003)&#xA;142.    John XVIII (1003-09)&#xA;143.    Sergius IV (1009-12)&#xA;144.    Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)&#xA;145.    John XIX (1024-32)&#xA;146.    Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored&#xA;147.    Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope&#xA;148.    Benedict IX (1045)&#xA;149.    Gregory VI (1045-46)&#xA;150.    Clement II (1046-47)&#xA;151.    Benedict IX (1047-48)&#xA;152.    Damasus II (1048)&#xA;153.    St. Leo IX (1049-54)&#xA;154.    Victor II (1055-57)&#xA;155.    Stephen X (1057-58)&#xA;156.    Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)&#xA;157.    Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)&#xA;158.    St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert (&quot;Clement III&quot;), antipope (1080-1100)&#xA;159.    Blessed Victor III (1086-87)&#xA;160.    Blessed Urban II (1088-99)&#xA;161.    Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf (&quot;Sylvester IV&quot;, 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)&#xA;162.    Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin (&quot;Gregory VIII&quot;), antipope (1118)&#xA;163.    Callistus II (1119-24)&#xA;164.    Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)&#xA;165.    Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti (&quot;Victor IV&quot;) (1138), antipopes (1138)&#xA;166.    Celestine II (1143-44)&#xA;167.    Lucius II (1144-45)&#xA;168.    Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)&#xA;169.    Anastasius IV (1153-54)&#xA;170.    Adrian IV (1154-59)&#xA;171.    Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius (&quot;Victor IV&quot;) (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes&#xA;172.    Lucius III (1181-85)&#xA;173.    Urban III (1185-87)&#xA;174.    Gregory VIII (1187)&#xA;175.    Clement III (1187-91)&#xA;176.    Celestine III (1191-98)&#xA;177.    Innocent III (1198-1216)&#xA;178.    Honorius III (1216-27)&#xA;179.    Gregory IX (1227-41)&#xA;180.    Celestine IV (1241)&#xA;181.    Innocent IV (1243-54)&#xA;182.    Alexander IV (1254-61)&#xA;183.    Urban IV (1261-64)&#xA;184.    Clement IV (1265-68)&#xA;185.    Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)&#xA;186.    Blessed Innocent V (1276)&#xA;187.    Adrian V (1276)&#xA;188.    John XXI (1276-77)&#xA;189.    Nicholas III (1277-80)&#xA;190.    Martin IV (1281-85)&#xA;191.    Honorius IV (1285-87)&#xA;192.    Nicholas IV (1288-92)&#xA;193.    St. Celestine V (1294)&#xA;194.    Boniface VIII (1294-1303)&#xA;195.    Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)&#xA;196.    Clement V (1305-14)&#xA;197.    John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)&#xA;198.    Benedict XII (1334-42)&#xA;199.    Clement VI (1342-52)&#xA;200.    Innocent VI (1352-62)&#xA;201.    Blessed Urban V (1362-70)&#xA;202.    Gregory XI (1370-78)&#xA;203.    Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (&quot;Clement VII&quot;), antipope (1378-1394)&#xA;204.    Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (&quot;Clement VII&quot;) (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna (&quot;Benedict XIII&quot;) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (&quot;John XXIII&quot;) (1400-1415), antipopes&#xA;205.    Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (&quot;Benedict XIII&quot;) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (&quot;John XXIII&quot;) (1400-1415), antipopes&#xA;206.    Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (&quot;Benedict XIII&quot;) (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa (&quot;John XXIII&quot;) (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi (&quot;Alexander V&quot;) (1409-1410), antipopes&#xA;207.    Martin V (1417-31)&#xA;208.    Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy (&quot;Felix V&quot;), antipope (1439-1449)&#xA;209.    Nicholas V (1447-55)&#xA;210.    Callistus III (1455-58)&#xA;211.    Pius II (1458-64)&#xA;212.    Paul II (1464-71)&#xA;213.    Sixtus IV (1471-84)&#xA;214.    Innocent VIII (1484-92)&#xA;215.    Alexander VI (1492-1503)&#xA;216.    Pius III (1503)&#xA;217.    Julius II (1503-13)&#xA;218.    Leo X (1513-21)&#xA;219.    Adrian VI (1522-23)&#xA;220.    Clement VII (1523-34)&#xA;221.    Paul III (1534-49)&#xA;222.    Julius III (1550-55)&#xA;223.    Marcellus II (1555)&#xA;224.    Paul IV (1555-59)&#xA;225.    Pius IV (1559-65)&#xA;226.    St. Pius V (1566-72)&#xA;227.    Gregory XIII (1572-85)&#xA;228.    Sixtus V (1585-90)&#xA;229.    Urban VII (1590)&#xA;230.    Gregory XIV (1590-91)&#xA;231.    Innocent IX (1591)&#xA;232.    Clement VIII (1592-1605)&#xA;233.    Leo XI (1605)&#xA;234.    Paul V (1605-21)&#xA;235.    Gregory XV (1621-23)&#xA;236.    Urban VIII (1623-44)&#xA;237.    Innocent X (1644-55)&#xA;238.    Alexander VII (1655-67)&#xA;239.    Clement IX (1667-69)&#xA;240.    Clement X (1670-76)&#xA;241.    Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)&#xA;242.    Alexander VIII (1689-91)&#xA;243.    Innocent XII (1691-1700)&#xA;244.    Clement XI (1700-21)&#xA;245.    Innocent XIII (1721-24)&#xA;246.    Benedict XIII (1724-30)&#xA;247.    Clement XII (1730-40)&#xA;248.    Benedict XIV (1740-58)&#xA;249.    Clement XIII (1758-69)&#xA;250.    Clement XIV (1769-74)&#xA;251.    Pius VI (1775-99)&#xA;252.    Pius VII (1800-23)&#xA;253.    Leo XII (1823-29)&#xA;254.    Pius VIII (1829-30)&#xA;255.    Gregory XVI (1831-46)&#xA;256.    Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)&#xA;257.    Leo XIII (1878-1903)&#xA;258.    St. Pius X (1903-14)&#xA;259.    Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date&#xA;260.    Pius XI (1922-39)&#xA;261.    Pius XII (1939-58)&#xA;262.    Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)&#xA;263.    Paul VI (1963-78)&#xA;264.    John Paul I (1978)&#xA;265.    John Paul II (1978-2005)&#xA;266.    Benedict XVI (2005—)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-01-28T17:57:56.183" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T17:57:56.183" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13857" CreationDate="2013-01-26T13:34:38.623" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you're looking for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20130706045019/http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/order-of-mass.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Order of Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in General, each Catholic Mass is broken up into 4 parts (It's a little different for Sundays and the few Holy Days of Obligation than it is for weekday Masses; more things are optional for weekday Mass)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Introductory Rite&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Procession in to the Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. Greeting &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C. Penitential rite (there are a few ways this can be done)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D. Let us pray... (This is the prayer that changes, if you go to weekday mass it usually has something to do with the saint whose feast day it is)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Liturgy of the Word&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. OT reading&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. Psalm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C. NT reading (not Gospel)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D. Alleluia&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E. Gospel (usually connected in some way with OT reading)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;F. Homily&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Liturgy of the Eucharist&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Creed (Apostles or Nicene)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. Intercessory prayers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C. Collection and presentation of the gifts ( bread wine and money brought up)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D. Eucharistic Prayer (This is the part that the priest does mostly, but I'll list the parts you'd do if you were at Mass)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i. Great Amen&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ii. Acclamation (what the we say after &quot;the mystery of faith&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;iii. Our Father&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;iv. Rite of Peace (hand shake time)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;v. Lamb of God (and then you kneel)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;vi. Lord I am not worthy...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;vii. Eucharist time!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Concluding Rite&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Prayer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. Lame Joke (that might just be in the Footville order of Mass)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C. Mass has ended...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D. Process out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;E. Eruption of noise as everyone suddenly forgets they're still in the presence of The Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's about the gist of it, the order of mass is what is supposed to happen, some things that aren't supposed to happen are pretty normal ( or at least regional) if you want to see how it's supposed to be done head over to the Guadalupe Shrine outside of La Crosse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorDisplayName="user42098" LastEditDate="2018-07-02T20:26:28.253" LastActivityDate="2018-07-02T20:26:28.253" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="13862" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13865" CreationDate="2013-01-26T19:55:05.807" Score="6" ViewCount="203" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_of_Troki&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Yitzchak ben Avraham of Trakai&lt;/a&gt;, Lithuania, also known as Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, was a Karaite Jew who wrote a polemic against Christians known as &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://faithstrengthened.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Chizzuk Emunah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (חזוק    אמונה), which translates into English as &quot;Faith Strengthened.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to offer some of the arguments he makes (each in a different thread) to the Christianity.SE forum so we may engage them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the first argument I am offering from Chizzuk Emunah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 8:19-20, &quot;And a certain scribe came and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath nowhere to lay his head.&quot; The same saying is recorded in Luke 9:57. &lt;strong&gt;This passage we deem a strong proof of the consciousness of Jesus that he was not God. For, if he had really been filled with such a conceit, why should he have called himself the Son of Man? And moreover, why should he have dissuaded others from relying on him?&lt;/strong&gt; Perhaps he bore in mind the admonition given in Psalm 146:3, &quot;Do not rely on princes nor trust in the son of man, for salvation belongeth not unto him.&quot; Or perhaps the words of Jeremiah in chapter 17:5, &quot;Cursed is the man who relieth on man.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;Had he imagined he was God, why should he have said he had nowhere to lay his head?&lt;/strong&gt; Would he not have considered the whole earth to be his own resting-place; for does not the Psalmist remind us in Psalm 24:1, &quot;That the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof, the world, and the inhabitants therein?&quot; [bold added]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the refutation of Yiztchak ben Avraham's argument?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-06-09T20:32:13.813" LastActivityDate="2017-06-09T20:32:13.813" Title="Refutation of Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. XII: &quot;Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Examined&quot;" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;isaac-of-troki&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13862" CreationDate="2013-01-26T21:13:27.807" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;My first reaction is that this is simply not the accepted understanding of the passage, and that this understanding can only come from a person determined to find fault in it.  But that hardly seems to do it justice, so here's a better, more complete answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One obvious response to the idea that Matthew 8:20 refers to Jesus acknowledging that He isn't divine is that it's odd that a Jew would not know their own Scripture.   Although the phrase &quot;Son of Man&quot; was a phrase of &quot;humilation and debasement&quot;, the phrase actually points to His divinity, as the foretold one, right from the book of Daniel 7:13(KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came&#xA;  with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they&#xA;  brought him near before him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreso, the fact that Jesus would come in humility is right out of Psalm 8:5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast&#xA;  crowned him with glory and honour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for why Jesus would want to discourage this person from following Him, a common understanding is that this scribe expected material gain, and Jesus was just giving him a realiztic expectation of the life he would lead if he followed Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...So that though he was Lord of all, as being the mighty God; yet as&#xA;  &quot;the son of man&quot;, a phrase, expressive both of the truth and meanness&#xA;  of his human nature, the most despicable of creatures in the earth and&#xA;  air, were richer than he. This he said, to convince the Scribe of his&#xA;  mistake; who expected much worldly grandeur and wealth, by becoming&#xA;  his disciple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a matter of fact, Gills Exposition refutes he entire argument put forth by Yitzchak ben Avraham &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Christ styles himself &quot;the son of man&quot;, it is no contradiction to&#xA;  his being God; nor any objection to trust and confidence in him, as&#xA;  the Jew (z) suggests; for he is truly and properly God, as well as&#xA;  really man, having two natures, human and divine, united in his&#xA;  person; so that he is, as was prophesied of him, Emmanuel, God with&#xA;  us, in our nature, God manifested in the flesh: and since he is so, it&#xA;  cannot be unlawful to trust in him; which it would be indeed, was he a&#xA;  mere man. The Jews ought not to object to this name and title of the&#xA;  &quot;Messiah, the son of man&quot;: since he is so called, as their own writers&#xA;  and commentators acknowledge, in (a) Psalm 80:17 and (b) Daniel 7:13.&#xA;  And whereas it is further urged against these words of Christ, that if&#xA;  he was God, why does he complain of want of place? Is not the whole&#xA;  world his, according to Psalm 24:1? It may be replied, that it is very&#xA;  true, that the whole world is his, nor could he be in want of&#xA;  anything, as God; but yet, as man, for our sakes he became &quot;poor&quot;,&#xA;  that we &quot;might be rich&quot;: nor should this be any difficulty with a Jew,&#xA;  when they themselves say, as some have thought, if he (the Messiah)&#xA;  should come, , &quot;there's no place in which he can sit down&quot; (c). Unless&#xA;  it be understood of Nebuchadnezzar, as the gloss explains it; let the&#xA;  learned inspect the place, and judge: the coming of the Messiah is&#xA;  immediately spoken of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As does Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8:18-22 One of the scribes was too hasty in promising; he proffers&#xA;  himself to be a close follower of Christ. He seems to be very&#xA;  resolute. Many resolutions for religion are produced by sudden&#xA;  conviction, and taken up without due consideration; these come to&#xA;  nothing. When this scribe offered to follow Christ, one would think he&#xA;  should have been encouraged; one scribe might do more credit and&#xA;  service than twelve fishermen; but Christ saw his heart, and answered&#xA;  to its thoughts, and therein teaches all how to come to Christ. His&#xA;  resolve seems to have been from a worldly, covetous principle; but&#xA;  Christ had not a place to lay his head on, and if he follows him, he&#xA;  must not expect to fare better than he fared. We have reason to think&#xA;  this scribe went away. Another was too slow. Delay in doing is as bad&#xA;  on the one hand, as hastiness in resolving is on the other. He asked&#xA;  leave to attend his father to his grave, and then he would be at&#xA;  Christ's service. This seemed reasonable, yet it was not right. He had&#xA;  not true zeal for the work. Burying the dead, especially a dead&#xA;  father, is a good work, but it is not thy work at this time. If Christ&#xA;  requires our service, affection even for the nearest and dearest&#xA;  relatives, and for things otherwise our duty, must give way. An&#xA;  unwilling mind never wants an excuse. Jesus said to him, Follow me;&#xA;  and, no doubt, power went with this word to him as to others; he did&#xA;  follow Christ, and cleaved to him. The scribe said, I will follow&#xA;  thee; to this man Christ said, Follow me; comparing them together, it&#xA;  shows that we are brought to Christ by the force of his call to us, Ro&#xA;  9:16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that Jesus &quot;knew He wasn't God&quot; doesn't hold water in light of other Scripture, either.  It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.  The question &quot;Did Jesus claim to be God?&quot; has been answered and addressed so thoroughly, and is such an established teaching, that it's simply ridiculous to try to claim otherwise. One example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crosswalk.com/who-is-jesus/is-jesus-christ-god/did-jesus-christ-claim-to-be-god-11567468.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole argument ignores the basic orthodox Christian teaching that Jesus assumed a humble nature willingly, for His purpose, but knew full well of His divinity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-26T21:26:16.787" LastActivityDate="2013-01-26T21:26:16.787" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13866" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13879" CreationDate="2013-01-26T21:59:28.190" Score="4" ViewCount="110" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Chizzuk Emunah&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://faithstrengthened.org/FSpart2chapter66.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Part II, Ch. LXVI&lt;/a&gt;, 16th century Jewish theologian &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_of_Troki&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Yitzchak ben Avraham of Trakai&lt;/a&gt; wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 10:11-15, &quot;And Peter saw heaven opened; and a certain vessel descending unto him, wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, saying, arise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.&quot; The same is stated ibid chapter 11:9. In Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 10:25, the following doctrine is taught: &quot;Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake.&quot; Mark, (chapter 7:15) declares only such things unclean which come out of the mouth, but not those which go into the mouth. We have already animadverted on the inconsistency of such declarations when compared with the stringent injunction enforced in the very same book, to abstain most rigidly from blood and flesh of torn or strangled beasts. See what we have noticed before, when treating on Matthew 15 in the Second Part of this Work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the refutation of his argument?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-28T16:20:35.100" LastActivityDate="2015-10-28T16:20:35.100" Title="Refutation of Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. LXVI: &quot;Inconsistencies in Christian text regarding food&quot;" Tags="&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;diet&gt;&lt;isaac-of-troki&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13867" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14362" CreationDate="2013-01-26T22:04:48.607" Score="12" ViewCount="5891" Body="&lt;p&gt;Augustine and Jerome wrote several epistles to one another. In these epistles, how did Augustine feel about Jerome producing the Latin Vulgate? What were his concerns?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2015-03-01T02:00:20.403" Title="How did Augustine of Hippo feel about Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate)?" Tags="&lt;augustine&gt;&lt;jerome&gt;&lt;latin-vulgate&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13868" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13870" CreationDate="2013-01-26T22:17:03.687" Score="8" ViewCount="1074" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Vulgate translation of Jonah 4:6–7, 4:9–10, Jerome translated the Hebrew word &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7021&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;קִיקָיוֹן&lt;/a&gt;  (&lt;em&gt;kikayon&lt;/em&gt;) into Latin as &lt;em&gt;hedera&lt;/em&gt;, which is the equivalent of the English word &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ivy&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some, including Augustine, expressed their discontent with this particular translation of Jerome. In response, what was Jerome's personal defense for his translation of the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן into Latin as &lt;em&gt;hedera&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2017-12-08T23:28:01.203" LastActivityDate="2017-12-08T23:28:01.203" Title="What was Jerome's defense for translating the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן (kikayon) in Jonah 4:6, etc. into Latin as hedera?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;&lt;latin-vulgate&gt;&lt;jerome&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3526" CreationDate="2013-01-27T04:09:28.427" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's more likely Matthew and Levi were different disciples than the same. A number of the disciples had other names like we do today, however, the Gospels refer to James the son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18) as a different disciple from Matthew (Mark 3:18). The Bible also mentions a disciple : &quot;Levi the son of Alphaeus&quot; (Mark 2:14). It's more likely this James and Levi are the same person rather than Matthew and Levi. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recall, the Gospels also mention &quot;Simon the Caananite&quot; as well as &quot;Simon Zealotes&quot;. It is from the different lists of the twelve that we know they are the same person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I believe that there were two &quot;receivers of the custom&quot; amongst the disciples because Levi the son of Alphaeus is also mentioned as sitting at the &quot;receipt of the custom&quot; (Mark 2:14). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3844" LastEditorUserId="3844" LastEditDate="2013-01-27T04:28:19.527" LastActivityDate="2013-01-27T04:28:19.527" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13868" CreationDate="2013-01-27T04:22:50.340" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a famous spat between Jerome and Augustine. You may have seen &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://archiveofourown.org/works/602741&quot;&gt;The Very Secret Diary of St Augustine&lt;/a&gt;&quot; that has been circulating recently:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Correspondence Jerome continues. Infuriating. Do not understand why he does not see my point! Translation of &quot;gourd&quot; vital to understanding of gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument plays out in a series of their letters. The basic point is the divergence between the Hebrew, Greek (both the Septuagint and other versions), and traditional Latin. The Septuagint called it a &quot;gourd&quot; (κολοκύνθῃ) but the alternative translation from Hebrew by Aquila of Sinope uses &quot;ivy&quot; (κισσός). These correspond in Latin to &lt;em&gt;cucurbita&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;hedera&lt;/em&gt; respectively. The &quot;Vetus Latina&quot; traditional Latin versions followed the &lt;em&gt;cucurbita&lt;/em&gt; route; the controversy arose when Jerome picked &lt;em&gt;hedera&lt;/em&gt; instead. In the lengthy and snippy correspondence between him and Augustine, this was one of the points of debate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine wrote to Jerome (his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102071.htm&quot;&gt;letter 71&lt;/a&gt; of 403AD) with concern that the bishop of Oea (now Tripoli) had been confronted by an angry congregation, dismayed at the &quot;very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church.&quot; He was concerned not just about the specific gourd issue, but with the reliability of the Biblical texts in general, and the danger of public confusion. Jerome replied (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm&quot;&gt;letter 75&lt;/a&gt; in the &#xA;Augustinian corpus, 404AD):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have already given a sufficient answer to this in my commentary on Jonah. At present, I deem it enough to say that in that passage, where the Septuagint has gourd, and Aquila and the others have rendered the word ivy (κίσσος), the Hebrew manuscript has ciceion, which is in the Syriac tongue, as now spoken, ciceia. It is a kind of shrub having large leaves like a vine, and when planted it quickly springs up to the size of a small tree, standing upright by its own stem, without requiring any support of canes or poles, as both gourds and ivy do. &lt;strong&gt;If, therefore, in translating word for word, I had put the word ciceia, no one would know what it meant; if I had used the word gourd, I would have said what is not found in the Hebrew. I therefore put down ivy, that I might not differ from all other translators.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the commentary that Jerome mentions, he had written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For gourd or ivy in Hebrew we read qiqaion, which is also written qiqaia in the Syriac and Punic languages. It is a type of shrub or sapling with wide leaves like a vine, and which casts a large shadow and is supported by a trunk and often is found growing in Palestine especially in sandy areas. It is interesting to note that if the seed is cast on the ground it germinates quickly and in a few days it can be seen to have grown from a seedling to a bush. &lt;strong&gt;For my part when I was translating the prophets I wanted to just transliterate the Hebrew word seeing that Latin has no word for this kind of tree. But I feared that the men of letters would find in this some argument, imagining those animals of India or the mountains of Boeotia or even other marvels of this type. I have also followed the example of the former translators who translated it as ivy, in Greek chissos, because they had no other word to use.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, then, Jerome wanted to pick some familiar word rather than an exotic/mysterious one, and felt that &quot;ivy&quot; was a better fit than &quot;gourd&quot; for this plant which is a bit like both, but not really much like either. In particular, his commentary points out that the function of the plant in the story is to provide shade, which is more naturally associated with ivy than with a gourd. He goes on to say that rejecting the bad arguments of the &quot;gourd-lovers&quot; shouldn't lead us to ignore the imagery of Isaiah 1:8, where Zion is compared to a hut in a cucumber field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This did not quite satisfy Augustine, who replied (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm&quot;&gt;letter 82&lt;/a&gt; of 405AD):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accustomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves. Wherefore, as to that shrub in the book of Jonah, if in the Hebrew it is neither gourd nor ivy, but something else which stands erect, supported by its own stem without other props, I would prefer to call it gourd in all our Latin versions; for I do not think that the Seventy would have rendered it thus at random, had they not known that the plant was something like a gourd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-01-27T04:22:50.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13871" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-27T06:06:56.987" Score="4" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;Often when discussing the Trinity, Christians refer to Genesis Chapter 1, where 'the Father' says 'let there be', while 'the Son' is that word, and 'the Spirit' brings creation into perfection.  Sure this seems easy to us with an understand of the trinity in retrospect under the light of the gospel, but my question is did the 'pre-Christian church' ever see this?  In particular, I am wondering about the very creation of the world, was this ever though of in connection with the promised Messiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somewhat related question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8145/were-the-jews-expecting-the-messiah-to-suffer-at-all&quot;&gt;Were the Jews expecting the Messiah to suffer at all?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-01-30T23:01:19.507" Title="Did the Jews waiting for their Messiah associate him with the creation of the world?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13871" CreationDate="2013-01-27T06:06:56.987" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Surprisingly some ancient rabbis did actually draw the connection of the Messiah to the creation of the world.&lt;/strong&gt; Under this classical Messianic text, a connection was made:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,&#xA;  and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.&#xA;   And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,&#xA;  the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,&#xA;  the Spirit of counsel and might,&#xA;  the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. (Isaiah 11:1-2, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accordingly there is an ancient rabbinic reference recorded by the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim that understands this Spirit, to be the Spirit of the Messiah in the creation of the world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Gen. 1:2, the expression, ‘Spirit of God,’ is explained of ‘the Spirit of the King Messiah,’ with reference to Is. 11:2, and the ‘moving on the face of the deep’ of ‘repentance,’ according to Lam. 2:19. So in Ber. R. 2, and in regard to the first point also in Ber. R. 8, in Vayyik. R. 14, and in other places. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worthychristianlibrary.com/books/alfred-edersheim/the-life-and-times-of-jesus-the-messiah/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah&lt;/a&gt;, by Alfred Edersheim)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although it is found in scripture that Messiah is also God, it was not commonly understood that the Messiah was God by the Jews until it became evident during Christ's life on earth.  Yet this does not mean that the Messiah was not believed to be pre-existing before his physical appearance.  The idea that he was preexisting and associated with the Spirit of Jehovah was quite commonly understood. Although they did not see things clearly they did see enough to recognize the truth when they finally saw it in Christ manifested in the flesh.  Why else do we suppose so many Jews first put their faith in him as their Messiah and God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-01-27T06:06:56.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13874" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-27T11:24:31.233" Score="6" ViewCount="4368" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Context&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the best of my understanding of Martin Lloyd Jones' &quot;Joy Unspeakable&quot;, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is described as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;not automatically granted to all Christians upon conversion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;not necessarily granted to all Christians even in this life&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the closest one can get to heaven on this side of eternity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;an experience many greats (Spurgeon, Whitfield, Wesley, ...) had gone through&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Christian denomination does Martyn Lloyd Jones beliefs on the Holy Spirit fall under? What else does that particular denomination believe about the baptism of the holy spirit? [Please cite resources so I can read more.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3846" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-12-28T22:42:54.747" LastActivityDate="2016-12-28T22:42:54.747" Title="Baptism of the Holy Spirit according to Martin Lloyd Jones' &quot;Joy Unspeakable&quot;" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13875" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13881" CreationDate="2013-01-27T13:08:14.490" Score="2" ViewCount="342" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a vague recollection of hearing that in Jewish tradition, it was not possible to view God directly because of his holiness/ majesty/ awe.  The only way to survive seeing his face was if it were reflected nine times through mirrors. I'm sure I heard of this tradition in some commentary on the NT passage, &quot;now we see dimly through a mirror...&quot; &lt;strong&gt;Q: Is there such a tradition?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I cannot remember the source. I recently repeated this to some knowledgable friends at a bible study and they were flabbergasted. I cannot seem to find it at Google, but their results seem to pick 2-3 words at random from your query.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T05:09:22.183" Title="Is there tradition in Judaism about seeing God through nine mirrors?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-01-28T18:52:09.697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13875" CreationDate="2013-01-27T17:08:58.037" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know about Judaism, but I did run across something that sounds like what you're looking for.  It's not nine mirrors, but two mirrors, the first with nine &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;facets&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and that we can't see God directly or clearly through either of the individual facets, or even in the first mirror.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A TALE OF TWO MIRRORS&lt;/strong&gt; An Exposition of I Corinthians 13:8-13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An Examination of the Biblical Basis of the Charismatic Movement&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;by B. L. Turner&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://ncbible.org/resources/Tale2Mirrors.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://ncbible.org/resources/Tale2Mirrors.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Note that it is from a Cessationist point of view, a view rejected by those in the Charismatic Churches.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's an interesting read.  It speaks of two mirrors.  The first has &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;nine facets&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  Each of these facets represents a gift, through which we see God, but not fully or partly.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The complete mirror consisted of a mosaic of nine pieces, that is, the&#xA;  nine gifts. Paul asked a series of rhetorical questions which make it&#xA;  quite certain that no one person had all the segments of that first&#xA;  mirror. He asked, “Are all workers of miracles? Have all gifts of&#xA;  healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” (I Corinthians&#xA;  12:29-30). If the advocates of today’s Tongues Movement could impose&#xA;  their will, all Christians would indeed speak with tongues even though&#xA;  that was never the divine intention. Because no one person had all the&#xA;  segments of that mosaic mirror, sometimes Christians in New Testament&#xA;  times could not use that part of the mirror which they did possess.&#xA;  Paul’s command about that issue makes the point clear. He charged, “If&#xA;  any man speaketh in a tongue...let one interpret: but if there be no&#xA;  interpreter, let him keep silence in the church.” (I Corinthians&#xA;  14:27-28) Obviously, had every recipient of those special gifts&#xA;  received all the parts of the mirror, that is, all the gifts, an&#xA;  interpreter would always have been present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To have used one isolated part of that mirror would simply not have&#xA;  given a complete enough reflected image to have been spiritually&#xA;  beneficial or useful. Therefore, it would only have been a novelty or&#xA;  a curiosity. It would have qualified, perhaps, at least, for a short&#xA;  while, as an amusement to the idly curious, such as the Athenians who&#xA;  sought only to hear or tell some novel thing. (Acts 17:20-21) The use&#xA;  of one isolated part of the mirror would not have contributed to the&#xA;  edifying of the church. Since that was the purpose for which the gifts&#xA;  had been given (I Corinthians 14:5), such a perverted use of those&#xA;  gifts was understandably prohibited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;second&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; mirror is Scripture, which is, per the teaching, teh perfect mirror, which allows us to make sense of what we see in the first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From James’ statement it is clear that it is the word of God, not the&#xA;  temporary spiritual gifts which shows the entire image as it truly is&#xA;  and gives complete insight into spiritual reality. If there is any&#xA;  lack of perception where the Scripture is available, it is not because&#xA;  the reflected image is defective. It is because people make a habit of&#xA;  going away (The verb form “goeth” in the older English translations of&#xA;  James 1:24 expresses the habitual or continuous present tense of the&#xA;  verb) and do not habitually continue to look into the word. Similarly,&#xA;  the eth ending of the verbs “looketh” and “continueth” in James 1:25&#xA;  express the continuous present tense of each verb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teaching ends with this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A Tale of Two Mirrors, then, becomes a story of one beautiful,&#xA;  complete and perfect mirror which exists and is available to anyone&#xA;  who wishes to know the truth. It is the written form of the perfect&#xA;  law of liberty, that is, the New Testament. The other mirror used to&#xA;  exist, but even then it was partial and inadequate. Therefore we&#xA;  should not regret its removal nor seek to have it restored, especially&#xA;  since no one can restore it anyway. The alleged restorations are&#xA;  totally anti-scriptural and are, therefore, fraudulent with no more&#xA;  reality than a mirage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every sincere seeker who uses the Perfect Mirror will be able to see&#xA;  the whole picture, the true picture, the past picture and the future&#xA;  picture. Let us, therefore, press on unto perfection! Let us not try&#xA;  to become heirs of those gifts which have passed away, but heirs of&#xA;  “the gift” (Acts 2:38-39) which will abide as long as God is calling&#xA;  sinners to himself, the gift without which, according to Rornans 8:9,&#xA;  no one is a true Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-01-27T17:37:33.357" LastActivityDate="2013-01-27T17:37:33.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13866" CreationDate="2013-01-27T17:54:33.597" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The supposed inconsistency here is clearly that some passages say it's OK to eat anything, but that in Acts 2:15, James judges that non-Jewish Christians should be &quot;not troubled&quot; with the Law except as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are&#xA;  turning to God from among the Gentiles, &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; but that we write to them&#xA;  that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from&#xA;  fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; “For Moses&#xA;  from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since&#xA;  he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in some passages, they say it's OK to eat these things, but in Acts, James says it's not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference in context is, again, obvious.  All of the other passages are clear that eating a particular animal is not a sin.  Meat is meat.  So the question that must be answered is, why the restrictions in Acts 15?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several, but the most consistent with overall Scripture is that it's given so that the Gentiles won't be stumbling blocks for the Jewish Christians, as described in 1 Corinthians 8 (NASV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have&#xA;  knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; If anyone&#xA;  supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to&#xA;  know; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we&#xA;  know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that&#xA;  there is no God but one. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; For even if there are so-called gods whether&#xA;  in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many&#xA;  lords, &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all&#xA;  things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are&#xA;  all things, and we exist through Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed&#xA;  to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol;&#xA;  and their conscience being weak is defiled. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; But food will not commend&#xA;  us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better&#xA;  if we do eat. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; But take care that this liberty of yours does not&#xA;  somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; For if someone sees&#xA;  you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his&#xA;  conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to&#xA;  idols? &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the&#xA;  brother for whose sake Christ died. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; And so, by sinning against the&#xA;  brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin&#xA;  against Christ. &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I&#xA;  will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to&#xA;  stumble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another possible answer is that the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;logic&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;decision&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; recorded in Acts 15 isn't inspired, but is simply an accurate recording of James' own thoughts on the issue.  This would not negate the doctrine of inspiration of the Scriptures, as explained next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This surrounding text makes this a very plausible suggestion, and it's not the only place in Scripture where someone's words and advice are recorded, and in the context it's clear that the advice isn't the direct commandment of God, but the opinion of the author.  See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10165/is-1-corinthians-726-40-not-the-word-of-god&quot;&gt;this previous question&lt;/a&gt; for an example.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are literally hundreds of places in Scripture where one person or another says something that is not the direct word of God.  It's just recording the historical events.  After all, some of Nebuchadnezzar's orders are recorded, but we don't take those as the Word of God.  We have to examine the context, and in this passage, the context could certainly be read that this is just James speaking his opinion and explaining why he holds the opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with the other question you posted in this vein, it seems odd that this would come from a Jewish perspective.  After all, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm#45&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Old Testament has a similar &quot;contradiction&quot; on whether certain types of food are or are not allowed&lt;/a&gt;, a contradiction which is just as easily shown to be a non-issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-10-28T14:53:02.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13874" CreationDate="2013-01-28T00:24:40.543" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones was a minister under a congregationalist background. Basically these churches are non-denominational in that they believe each congregation is its own independent denomination. They have their roots and beliefs in line with the reformed puritans such as John Owen.  Therefore they are generally staunchly Calvinistic and conservative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However Lloyd-Jones particular views on the Holy Spirit are slightly unique. For example, although very similar to John Owen's, he had a slightly higher expectation that God could pour out extra-ordinary gifts during an outpouring or revival.  His emphasis was in the same vein of the puritans, is was not like the Pentecostal or other charismatic movements which put experience above God's word. On the contrary Lloyd-Jones was a through-and-through puritanical, conservative, cross-only preacher who emphasized the objective truth of scripture above experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This made Lloyd-Jones a leader among conservative evangelicals who though not necessarily interested in speaking on tongues, were still feeling like their was more inner renewal and power to be had in the Christian life than offered by tradition based churches that were becoming more and more liberal and ecumenical at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may seem odd, but being very familiar with Lloyd-Jone's theology and having myself been a member of various evangelical churches including,  Non-denominational, Apostolic (Calvinistic Pentecostal), Christian Missionary Alliance, Baptist, Independent Evangelical and now Anglican (in that order) - due to my need to frequently relocate to other cities, I would say &lt;strong&gt;there are no denominations (that I am aware of) that hold the same view as Lloyd-Jone's on the holy Spirit except individual independent evangelical churches and the Christian Missionary Alliance.&lt;/strong&gt; The reason why it is the same as Christian Missionary Alliance is because A. W. Tozer partly founded that denomination.  Tozer and Lloyd-Jones were two very different men but had a similar conservative (anti liberal) emphasis on the Holy Spirit while retaining standard old school Christ centered gospel preaching. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess it is safe to say they were the most balanced leaders in their day among conservative evangelicals that only partially rejected the overall charismatic movement.  Lloyd-Jones specifically opposed the Pentecostal movement as it was against Calvinism and that 'speaking in tongues' as the evidence of 'baptism in the Spirit' was simply unbiblical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: As far as resources go for a more in-depth understanding of the Spirit in the tradition of Lloyd-Jones I would actually turn to John Owen or even J.I. Packer. This is really more in the with Lloyd-Jones than any charismatic writer. You will notice the forward of many of Lloyd-Jone's book are by Packer because they are actually very similar. The thing that slightly confuses things is that in my view Lloyd-Jones confused a term, he identified 'sealing' with 'assurance of salvation' - this was his small mistake, but everything else is really standard reformed views according to Owen.  Actually for his wedding anniversary present he requested the works of John Owen.  I think that's really the place to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-01-28T00:51:23.883" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T00:51:23.883" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13875" CreationDate="2013-01-28T05:09:22.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes this is true&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jewish traditionalism is distinguished into the “Halachah” and the “Haggadah.”&lt;/strong&gt; The Halachah were the settled legal determinations, whereas the Haggadah, according the Alfred Edresheim:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;was legend, or story, or moral, or exposition, or discussion, or application—in short, whatever the fancy or predilections of a teacher might choose to make it, so that he could somehow connect it either with Scripture or with a “Halachah.”...one of these rules—the “Gematria” (geometry, calculation)—allowed the interpreter to find out the numerical value of the letters in a word—the Hebrew letters, like the Roman, being also numerals—and to substitute for a word one or more which had the same numerical value. Thus, if in Num. 12:1 we read that Moses was married to an “Ethiopian woman” (in the original, “Cushith”), Onkelos substitutes instead of this, by “gematria,” the words, “of fair appearance”—the numerical value both of Cushith and of the words “of fair appearance” being equally 736. By this substitution the objectionable idea of Moses’ marrying an Ethiopian was at the same time removed. Similarly, the Mishnah maintains that those who loved God were to inherit each 310 worlds, the numerical value of the word “substance” (“Yesh”) in Prov. 8:21 being 310.﻿ (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_author.cfm?AuthorID=42&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SKETCHES OF JEWISH SOCIAL LIFE IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST BY ALFRED EDERSHEIM&lt;/a&gt;, P289)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were various other similar extravagant rules legitimized virtually any superstition and magical interpretation under traditional Rabbinical exegesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to this fanciful idea the TDNT makes mention:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ἔσοπτρον. “To see in a glass” also means “to see prophetically.” The Rabbis, when they compare Moses’ knowledge of God with that of other prophets, explain that the latter saw God with the help of nine mirrors (Ez. 43:3) whereas Moses needed only one (Nu. 12:8),﻿2﻿ and that the latter saw Him in clouded mirrors, but Moses in a clear one. (THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY&#xA;  OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,GERHARD KITTEL GERHARD FRIEDRICH, p1.178)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Apparently the  Haggadah styled interpreation arises from the noun ראה, which  signifies mirror. The idea of the one and nine mirrors is deduced from the fact that in Nu. 12:8 מַרְאֶה occurs only once, whereas in Ez. 43:3 this and other forms of ראה are found nine times.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T05:09:22.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1102" CreationDate="2013-01-28T06:16:55.273" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus hid his identity from others for 30 years. He began his public speaking at the age of 30. He preached for only 4 years. He didn't want others to know that he was the messiah as an act of humility and humbleness. He came to this earth as the son of God to save us all but not to seek fame. He didn't want fame because he did everything in God's name. He didn't want other people to know that he was the messiah because blessed are those who believe and have faith without seeing. He wanted people to have faith an believe In him without him performing miracles but by simply him spreading the good news. Because after all our faith is what saves us all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3851" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T06:16:55.273" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13884" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13887" CreationDate="2013-01-28T08:41:11.723" Score="3" ViewCount="644" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1589/what-is-the-specific-meaning-of-die-in-genesis-2&quot;&gt;What is the specific meaning of “die” in Genesis 2?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Genesis, God said they would die if they eat from a certain tree&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou&#xA;  shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou&#xA;  shalt surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this verse, it seems to me that man was immortal before they ate the fruit. And after they ate the fruit, God said they should not be allowed to eat from the fruit of life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one&#xA;  of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and&#xA;  take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Did it mean that man would not die or be killed (even by God) if they ate from the tree. Why was God worried they would live forever?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If man was immortal before the fall, the presence of the tree of life had no meaning to them?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T10:06:18.650" Title="Man's immortality in the Garden of Eden" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-01-28T21:36:26.283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13886" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13890" CreationDate="2013-01-28T09:56:43.787" Score="3" ViewCount="577" Body="&lt;p&gt;We as Christians acknowledge the God’s plan of salvation at work first through Judaism  in OT and then through Christianity in NT. So this question does not apply to Judaism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This plan of salvation right from man’s fall in Genesis to the NT, is like a well oiled machine, where the OT and NT are in sync with each other. This I am saying because we accept OT in same spirit as NT and Judaism as from God because that is how God wanted to mould Jewish people to make them ready for receiving His promised Messiah.  Contrary to this we find all other religions not at all compatible with each other and that applies their relation with Judaism and Christianity also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what would be the best viewpoint to take on these other religions? How Christians are expected to accommodate or view them vis a vis our belief. Do we have to treat them as teaching that did not have origin from God but only from human thinking or from some hallucinations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for answers from the Christian point of view only and not from any other position of belief/unbelief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Are all other religions man-made?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-05-20T14:52:14.013" Title="How Christians are expected to accommodate or view the existence and presence of other religions vis a vis Christianity?" Tags="&lt;belief&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;religion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-05-21T01:12:22.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13884" CreationDate="2013-01-28T10:00:52.647" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, if we take the tree to symbolize a pledge to Adam the immortality and all that life required, based on continued obedience to all the commands of God, then the tree was a pledge to Adam that so long as he did not eat from the forbidden tree he would have lived forever. This is reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, by sinning Adam lost that immortality, therefore the pledge must necessarily be removed and access to it be forbidden. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual death of Adam for sinning was not due to anything inherent in the fruit of the tree physically, but in his internal disobedience. Similarly, eating from the physical tree of life could not have redeemed his soul to life, or his body, as there is no such 'magical fruit' that can forgive the consequences of sin, or kill. Rather when God says 'they must not eat of it', he is referring to the eternal life as a reward which presumes full obedience to all his laws. This Adam must no longer physically do, for the act would betray its symbolic meaning. God physically made it impossible to eat from the tree with flaming swords reminding him of his cursed state, in order to maintain the symbolic messages both trees conveyed. &lt;strong&gt;In other words, Adam could not physically eat from the physical tree because he could not internally obey all God's commands in his depraved sinful state and ...live forever in so doing. The tree needed to be replaced by a new tree of life, i.e. Christ dying on a tree, whereby we may eat and live forever.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-01-28T10:06:18.650" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T10:06:18.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13886" CreationDate="2013-01-28T12:19:58.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There are so many bible verses that declare Jesus to be the only true Lord and that all other religions worship in vain that are too numerous to count.&lt;/strong&gt; Here are three for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6-7, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (ACTS 4:11-12, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. (John 15:4-5, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now how we are to view those without faith in Christ is how we are to view lost sinners who pretend to worship God. Those without Christ who pretend to worship God are out of necessity idolaters for they worship images in their own mind that blaspheme the grace of God in Christ. This is not to say there is not some ‘truth’ in all religion, it is only to say that the glory of the gospel is perverted so badly that the end result is the human religion that they use to replace it. God wrath is against all these false religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the time of Christ idols were physical and in some religions they still have them, but religions that hold ideals or beliefs about being saved by their good works, rather then faith in Christ alone, are no less idolatrous than mere idols made of stone. The idols are still based out of their foolish hearts resembling mortal man and not the only Son of God who died as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Current Judaism of course suffers under the same curse for it still rejects its only hope, Jehovah in Jesus, the only Christ of God, the only true God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T13:14:10.653" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13886" CreationDate="2013-01-28T12:33:26.940" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to answer the main portion of the question from a purely Biblical perspective.  I anticipate that this question as well as this answer is going to generate a lot of debate, so I'm framing my answer as one from an in-arguably Christian perspective - one that's based on Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The presence of other religions is addressed in Romans 1.  (Quote below is KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are&#xA;  clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his&#xA;  eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,&#xA;  neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and&#xA;  their foolish heart was darkened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made&#xA;  like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and&#xA;  creeping things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, man decided to reject God, and searched for other gods fashioned after their own imaginations.  The Biblical answer to your question is that yes, all other religions are man-made.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*And yes, I realize that there are plenty who would say Christianity is man-made as well, but that's not what the question is asking.  Answers on this site are supposed to represent a Christian perspective, which is what this is, and is what the question specifically asked for.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1379/what-christianity-stackexchange-is-and-more-importantly-what-it-isnt&quot;&gt;Whether or not this perspective is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; or not is off-topic for this site.&lt;/a&gt;*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2013-01-28T13:08:29.687" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13891" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13894" CreationDate="2013-01-28T18:59:20.340" Score="9" ViewCount="1101" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic prayer referred to as a &quot;Hail Mary&quot; ascribes the phrase &quot;full of grace&quot; to Mary.  The Scriptures describe both Jesus and Stephen as being &quot;full of grace&quot;.  In Greek, this is &quot;πλήρης χάριτος&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his&#xA;  glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, &lt;strong&gt;full of grace&lt;/strong&gt; and&#xA;  truth.  John 1:14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and&#xA;  signs among the people.  Acts 6:8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there doesn't seem to be any place where the Bible describes Mary in this way.  The only place that is close is in Luke 1:28 where the angel greets Mary and indicates that she has been &lt;em&gt;given&lt;/em&gt; grace, often translated as &quot;highly favored&quot; (κεχαριτωμένη in Greek).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, certainly Jesus was &quot;full of grace&quot; and Stephen was identified as being &quot;full of grace&quot;.  Yet, why does Mary also receive this ascription?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-20T02:09:52.050" LastActivityDate="2018-05-30T12:24:58.890" Title="From where did Mary get the attribution of &quot;Full of Grace&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;hail-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13892" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14014" CreationDate="2013-01-28T19:07:10.590" Score="11" ViewCount="584" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rather straight forward question. There have been multiple men declared antipopes. Is it different each time, or generally the same set of circumstances that causes this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T03:17:15.923" Title="What makes someone an antipope?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;clergy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13893" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13899" CreationDate="2013-01-28T21:25:27.947" Score="16" ViewCount="1966" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the United States, the Secretary of Defense just lifted the ban on women in combat.  Many Christians seem to oppose this idea and believe that women should not be put in combat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis or precedent for this position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-08-16T04:50:08.043" LastActivityDate="2018-07-06T14:34:06.097" Title="What is the biblical basis or precedent for restricting women from serving in war?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;gender&gt;&lt;war&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13891" CreationDate="2013-01-28T21:29:27.640" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The English translation of &quot;full of grace&quot; is derived from St. Jerome's Vulgate, the Latin translation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=28&amp;amp;t=VUL#conc/28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 1:28&lt;/a&gt; wherein we find the phrase &lt;em&gt;gratiā plenă&lt;/em&gt;, which translates into English as &quot;full of grace.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gratiā&lt;/em&gt; is a noun in the ablative case (&quot;ablative of plenty&quot;), singular number, meaning &quot;of grace,&quot; and &lt;em&gt;plenă&lt;/em&gt; is an adjective in the nominative case, feminine gender, and singular number, meaning &quot;filled&quot; or &quot;full,&quot; modifying Mary (a female).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-12-10T20:17:19.380" LastActivityDate="2015-12-10T20:17:19.380" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="640" CreationDate="2013-01-29T00:31:12.340" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the issue of &quot;adoration&quot; versus &quot;veneration&quot; is a game of semantics that Catholicism has created in order to continue their glorification of Mary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_creed&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Athansian Creed&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;code&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate &lt;strong&gt;veneremur&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/code&gt;, which Wikipedia and most other English translations of the Athanasian Creed translate as, &quot;And this is the catholic faith, that we &lt;strong&gt;worship&lt;/strong&gt; the one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the Latin word &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veneremur&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;venerēmur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. It is a conjugation of the verb &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veneror&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;veneror&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. From this Latin word is derived the English word &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/venerate?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;venerate&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; But, notice the English translation of the Creed: it states that we &quot;&lt;strong&gt;worship&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; God using the verb &lt;em&gt;venerēmur&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;veneror&lt;/em&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article on &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;veneration&lt;/a&gt;&quot; states,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adoration, which is known as latria in classical theology, is the worship and homage that is rightly offered to God alone. It is the acknowledgement of excellence and perfection of an uncreated, divine person. It is the worship of the Creator that God alone deserves. Veneration, known as dulia in classical Catholic theology, is the honor due to the excellence of a created person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If indeed &quot;veneration&quot; is honor of a created person, then why is the Latin verb &lt;em&gt;veneremur&lt;/em&gt; used in reference to the Trinity in the Athanasian Creed? There is no doubt that Christians &quot;worship&quot; God, and so &lt;em&gt;venerēmur&lt;/em&gt; must refer to worship due to God alone, not a created person. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If only &quot;adoration&quot; was &quot;rightly offered to God alone,&quot; we would expect to see the verb &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adoremus#Latin&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;adōrēmus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, not &lt;em&gt;venerēmur&lt;/em&gt; in the Athanasian Creed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T00:31:12.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12447" CreationDate="2013-01-29T02:42:29.687" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;J. F. Rutherford taught:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be&#xA;  back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/bethsarim.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/bethsarim.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These faithful men of old (probably Abraham and other patriarchs/prophets) would need somewhere to live and Rutherford set aside the house known as Bath Sarim to be that place:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;if and when the princes do return and some of them occupy the&#xA;  property, such will be a confirmation of the faith and hope that&#xA;  induced the building of Beth-Sarim. &lt;a href=&quot;http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/beth-sarim.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/beth-sarim.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Bath Sarim is Hebrew for &quot;House of Princes&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rutherford's predictions of when they would return failed to come true, and the house has been sold (1948).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The belief that the &quot;princes&quot; would be resurrected before Armageddon&#xA;  was abandoned in 1950 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Sarim&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Sarim&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I couldn't find any references to alters being built, or even a complete list of who the princes would be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T02:42:29.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13892" CreationDate="2013-01-29T02:43:39.387" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has a good, though slightly sparse, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope&quot;&gt;article on the subject of Antipopes&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An Antipope was someone who claimed the title of Pope in opposition to a current pope, typically setting up an alternative papacy. The two main groups of Antipopes were those set up by the Holy Roman Emperors during the 11th and 12th centuries, and those established by the French cardinals who claimed in 1378 that the election of Urban VI was invalid, and set up an alternative papacy. The latter was reunited with the Roman church in 1415 by the treaty of Constantinople.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T02:43:39.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13893" CreationDate="2013-01-29T11:41:17.367" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just because there is no explicit prohibition on a thing does not mean that the Bible &amp;quot;endorses it.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unwritten Expectations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is, for example, to the best of my knowledge, no biblical prohibition cannibalism. &lt;sup&gt;Possibly &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/19071/is-human-flesh-a-kosher-food&quot;&gt;it wouldn't fall under definition of kosher, but it is at best ambiguous&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/sup&gt; In spite of this, the author of the text rightfully expects that the reader is revolted when, (in 2 Kings 6:24-33), during a siege, two women concoct a plan to eat their children.  When the second woman reneges and the first brings it before the King, the King rends his garments to show how he too understands how appalling this situation is. That, even in the absence, of an explicit prohibition in the Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the idea of women in combat would have simply been so outrageous as to not need explicit mention.   Women simply did not fight* or if they did, something was wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that every Jewish custom is somehow holy - but &amp;quot;unthinkable&amp;quot; things don't need explicit mention in a contract between two parties - which is what the Old Testament laws were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*But back to that &amp;quot;women didn't fight.&amp;quot;  There are two notable exceptions to that rule, but both fall into the category of '&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the exception that proves the rule&lt;/a&gt;':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Judith&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the apocraphyal book of Judith, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.womeninthebible.net/1.15.Judith.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Judith uses sex and cunning to murder Holofernes&lt;/a&gt;, the invading general.  Scholars all agree, this fictional tale was written, in many ways, for its shock value. Like David defeating Goliath, this story simply assumes the incongruity of the weak defeating the strong in combat, leaving the reader to marvel at the tables being so turned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Deborah and Barak&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within canonical Scripture, however, the most important story to remember is that of Deborah and Barak (no relation to the current President). Here, like in most of Judges, the Children of Israel have been beset by the enemy for their wickedness, and must now rise up and defeat the enemy. The chosen leader, however, is too reluctant.  (Yeah, it really is a different Barak!) He demands that Deborah - the &lt;em&gt;woman&lt;/em&gt; God sent to encourage Barak, must accompany him and assist in leading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Now, on the face of it, you might say: Hey! See - a Woman fighting in combat!  The precendent is not only absent, but wrong!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But here's the rub - God (and Deborah) bring judgement against Barak for his lack of cohones. The author writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 “Certainly I will go with you,” said Deborah. “But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Barak would have no honor from this battle is quite the indictment.  The assumption that a woman should not be in battle is so implicit as to be laughable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Women encourage, Men fight. That's the model.  Are there exceptions? TO be sure - but the Bible is clear its not the model to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T14:19:36.400" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13893" CreationDate="2013-01-29T12:48:53.853" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we go by direct statement, no, the Bible never explicitly states women should serve in active combat.  However, as Affable points out, there are plenty of things Scripture doesn't condemn directly that we can assume are wrong by using principles based on extrapolation of direct statements and &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;precedent&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, in a legal sense.  And since the question asked &amp;quot;or precedent&amp;quot;, here's one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this question, we can look to precedent in that nowhere in Scripture were women appointed to fight in battle.  Only men are chosen for battle in Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 1: (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the&#xA;tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month,&#xA;in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt,&#xA;saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel,&#xA;after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number&#xA;of their names, &lt;strong&gt;every male&lt;/strong&gt; by their polls;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to&#xA;war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of&#xA;the house of his fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 As the Lord commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness&#xA;of Sinai.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 And the children of Reuben, Israel's eldest son, by their&#xA;generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers,&#xA;according to the number of the names, by their polls, &lt;strong&gt;every male&lt;/strong&gt; from&#xA;twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/women_in_the_military/what_the_bible_says_about_the.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; lists several other hints that apply. One example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also Deuteronomy, chapter 20. God’s reference to military&#xA;conscription in time of war (His rules for deferments, exclusions,&#xA;exemptions, etc.) apply to men 20 years or older, only. (Each of the&#xA;exemptions or deferments deal with the preservation of the family.)&#xA;Women are to remain at home front, care for children, maintain the&#xA;family unit, engage in homefront support duties. “The family has&#xA;priority over the military and over warfare. As important as defense&#xA;is, the continuity of life and godly reconstruction is more&#xA;important,” emphasizes Rev. Joseph C. Morecraft, III.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, these aren't direct statements, and it's possible, and even easy to mistake what's said when we try to &amp;quot;read between the lines&amp;quot;, so not everyone is going to agree with the conclusion that it's contrary to Biblical principles to send women to war.  I'm simply presenting the above, not arguing for or against it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T13:13:45.467" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13900" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-01-29T14:40:15.513" Score="6" ViewCount="1507" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of Penance.  As I understand it, this refers to various deeds prescribed by a priest to the confessing person that must do to make amends for his own sin, since mere confession is presumably insufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia says this about the doctrine of Sacramental Penance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a sacramental understanding of the term, &amp;quot;penance&amp;quot; applies to the&#xA;whole activity from confession to absolution. Generally speaking,&#xA;however, &lt;strong&gt;it is used to characterize the works of satisfaction imposed&#xA;or recommended by the priest on or to the penitent&lt;/strong&gt;. Traditionally,&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;penance has been viewed as a punishment&lt;/strong&gt; (the Latin poena, the root of&#xA;pen(it)ence, means &amp;quot;punishment&amp;quot;), and varying with the character and&#xA;heinousness of the offences committed...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must 'make satisfaction for' or 'expiate' his sins.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants generally reject this doctrine.  So, what is the specific biblical argument they use to oppose the doctrine of Penance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-03-30T21:24:43.090" Title="What is the biblical argument used by Protestants against the Catholic doctrine of Penance?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12342" CreationDate="2013-01-29T15:39:26.757" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not think there is any connection in any Church document or scripture to the annunciation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the sacraments have age requirements attached to them as a &quot;rule of thumb.&quot;  A certain level of maturity and knowledge is required to receive a sacrament.  The Church could assign any age it deems necessary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though the ages are 14 and 16 according to Canon Law, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Deacon or Priest in the developed world who would marry a couple this young.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1663" LastEditorUserId="1663" LastEditDate="2013-01-29T16:21:53.783" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T16:21:53.783" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1102" CreationDate="2013-01-29T15:59:06.120" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard it speculated, in sermons, that the Jewish leadership at the time thought the Messiah would come and be a political leader and drive the Romans from Jewish lands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this was not the intent of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1663" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T15:59:06.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13738" CreationDate="2013-01-29T16:16:28.260" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several Bible verses that back confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ granted the Apostles His Authority to forgive sins:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:21 - Since Christ was sent to forgive sins, and he sent the Apostles out to forgive Sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:22 - When the Lord &quot;Breathes&quot; on someone, a significant transformation takes place.  See the reference in Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:23 -  Jesus says, &quot;If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.&quot; In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 9:8 - Demonstrates that the Apostles can forgive.  Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 9:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 2:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 5:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 18:18 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:22-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 18:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Cor. 2:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Cor. 5:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 5:15-16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Tim. 2:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 5:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 19:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 3:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 1:5 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Tim. 6:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 1:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Num. 5:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Sam. 12:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neh. 9:2-3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sir. 4:26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baruch 1:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 5:16-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 12:47-48&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 5:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also tradition in the Early Church Fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See here for more Commentary:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since there is Scriptural evidence going all the way back to the Old Testament, confession is necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1663" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T16:16:28.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13904" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-01-29T16:22:09.083" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia definition of Purgatory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Purgatory is, according to Catholic teaching, the state or place of&#xA;  purification or temporary punishment by which those who die in a state&#xA;  of grace are believed to be made ready for the Beatific Vision in&#xA;  Heaven. Only one who dies in a state of grace can be in Purgatory, and&#xA;  therefore no one who is in Purgatory will remain there forever or go&#xA;  to Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-01-29T16:32:36.607" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T16:32:36.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13905" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-01-29T16:22:09.083" Score="0" Body="Purgatory is a primarily Catholic doctrine (but not exclusively) involving a possibly temporary in-between place that is neither heaven or hell." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-01-29T16:32:41.977" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T16:32:41.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13907" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13914" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:27:50.980" Score="6" ViewCount="2592" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Catholic Encyclopedia, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm&quot;&gt;The Sacrament of Penance (Confession)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As stated above, the absolution given by the priest to a penitent who&#xA;  confesses his sins &lt;strong&gt;with the proper dispositions&lt;/strong&gt; remits both the guilt&#xA;  and the eternal punishment (of mortal sin). &lt;strong&gt;There remains, however,&#xA;  some indebtedness to Divine justice which must be cancelled here or&#xA;  hereafter. In order to have it cancelled here, the&#xA;  penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his&#xA;  &quot;penance&quot;, usually in the form of certain prayers which he is to say,&#xA;  or of certain actions which he is to perform&lt;/strong&gt;, such as visits to a&#xA;  church, the Stations of the Cross, etc. Alms deeds, fasting, and&#xA;  prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential&#xA;  works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance is&#xA;  determined by the confessor according to the nature of the sins&#xA;  revealed, the special circumstances of the penitent, his liability to&#xA;  relapse, and the need of eradicating evil habits. Sometimes the&#xA;  penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases it&#xA;  may require a more or less considerable period, as, e.g., where it is&#xA;  prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the&#xA;  penitent may receive another sacrament (e.g., Holy Communion)&#xA;  immediately after confession, since absolution restores him to the&#xA;  state of grace. He is nevertheless under obligation to continue the&#xA;  performance of his penance until it is completed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that, given a sincerely contrite disposition, the &lt;strong&gt;eternal debt&lt;/strong&gt; debt is satisfied with no further action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On what basis (preferably with scriptural founding) does the Catholic Church teach that an act of penance can satisfy the &lt;strong&gt;temporal&lt;/strong&gt; debt of sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-01-30T09:10:13.063" Title="What is the basis for penance (satisfaction) in sacramental confession?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13908" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:52:38.407" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-01-29T19:52:38.407" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T19:52:38.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13909" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:52:38.407" Score="0" Body="Philosophical approaches in theology and relationship between philosophy and faith." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-01-29T21:28:17.943" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T21:28:17.943" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:22:09.947" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You guys made some good points on this article.  Just wanted to add to something else to support this qiestion.  Moses was also complaining when he said his comments.  The Hebrew word for Complain means: To Remain or Remaining.  Because of this the children of Israel remained in the wilderness for 40 yrs.  Moses also complained and he remained.  They were not able to enter the promise land because they were cursed by complaining, lack of faith, lack of obedience, bitterness, anger.. Etc.  All these acts will hinder all believers to receive the breakthrough to receive the promises of God.  Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted for. (1 Cort.10:8)  Again, now all these things happened unto them for examples:  and they are written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him or her that thinketh he or she standeth take heed lest he or she fall.(1 Cort.10:11-12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3861" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-29T20:24:02.177" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T20:24:02.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13841" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:45:32.373" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I have posted in another question (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13738/is-confessing-to-a-priest-the-only-way-to-be-forgiven&quot;&gt;Is confessing to a priest the only way to be forgiven?&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several Bible verses that back confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ granted the Apostles His Authority to forgive sins:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:21 - Since Christ was sent to forgive sins, and he sent the Apostles out to forgive Sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:22 - When the Lord &quot;Breathes&quot; on someone, a significant transformation takes place. See the reference in Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:23 - Jesus says, &quot;If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.&quot; In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 9:8 - Demonstrates that the Apostles can forgive. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 9:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 2:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 5:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 18:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:22-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 18:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Cor. 2:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Cor. 5:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 5:15-16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Tim. 2:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 5:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 19:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 3:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 1:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Tim. 6:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 1:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Num. 5:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Sam. 12:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neh. 9:2-3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sir. 4:26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baruch 1:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 5:16-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 12:47-48&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 5:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also tradition in the Early Church Fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See here for more Commentary: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since there is Scriptural evidence going all the way back to the Old Testament, confession is necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1663" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T18:14:47.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13912" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13907" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:19:28.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way it was explained to me during my formation is like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we sin we wound our soul, driving metaphysical nails into our spirit, as we drive nails into the body of Christ. Mortal sin, do to its choice to reject God outright, leave grievous wounds in our nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The absolution of sin is the removal of the nail. However the wounds of our sin may remain, much like we are to seek forgiveness and demonstrate true remorse to those who we wrong, so to does this process help heal the wounds that sin leave behind in ourselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Purgatory is for those who leave this world wounded, but have not separated themselves from God. Before one can enter into paradise, these wounds must be healed and our spirit repaired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1318" LastActivityDate="2013-01-29T22:19:28.137" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13907" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:10:13.063" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4D.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; has this to say on &lt;em&gt;satisfaction&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt; Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must &amp;quot;make satisfaction for&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;expiate&amp;quot; his sins. This satisfaction is also called &amp;quot;penance.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, &amp;quot;provided we suffer with him.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of &amp;quot;him who strengthens&amp;quot; us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ ... in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth &amp;quot;fruits that befit repentance.&amp;quot; These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt; DS 1712 (Council of Trent, 1551)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt; ⇒ Rom 8:17; ⇒ Rom 3:25; ⇒ 1 Jn 2:1-2; cf. DS 1690 (Council of Trent, 1551)&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt; DS 1691 (Council of Trent, 1551); cf. ⇒ Phil 4:13; ⇒ 1 Cor 1:31; ⇒ 2 Cor 10:17; ⇒ Gal 6:14; ⇒ Lk 3:8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical references are [all RSV-CE]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rom 8:17&lt;/strong&gt; — and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Rom 3:25&lt;/strong&gt; — ... Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;1 Jn 2:1–2&lt;/strong&gt; — If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for  the sins of the whole world.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Phil 4:13&lt;/strong&gt; — I can do all things in him who strengthens me.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;1 Cor 1:31&lt;/strong&gt; — Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;2 Cor 10:17&lt;/strong&gt; — Let him who boasts boast of the Lord.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Gal 6:14&lt;/strong&gt; — But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Lk 3:8&lt;/strong&gt; —  Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical basis for penance is thus Romans 8:17, the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear to be conformed to Christ who bore his cross for the sin of the world. The penance imposed by the priest is a small suffering in our own life to remind us of Jesus' ultimate sacrifice in his; because of his suffering, he is able to support us in ours. And so, having accepted our own little cross, we might bear the fruits of repentance: the &amp;quot;turning back to God&amp;quot; and the change of life that must engender.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-30T09:10:13.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13900" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:51:51.913" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basis for the necessary rejection of Catholic penance in the reformation was threefold. &lt;strong&gt;a) We need no human priest as we are priests ourselves. b) we have access to Christ our high priest without any other mediator, and c) we never, under any condition, need to do a 'work' to obtain forgiveness - ever.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgiveness can only be obtained by faith in Christ. Confession of particular sins by believers is not to obtain justification or general forgiveness but particular application of our previous justification in cleansing - this is called forgiveness in brining us back into better fellowship with God. That is, as we have already been declared righteous by faith, God has sworn to give himself no other choice, according to the justice of his faithfulness, except to forgive is.  If God has in a sense no choice (from his own gracious decree) how monstrous  is it to imagine that we should approach a man, rather than our own high priest, to declare our forgiveness? Our forgiveness is not optional, rather it is our reasonable expectation to receive of God by faith, apart from any good work. To add to this monstrosity that we should receive an evil insinuation as though we also had to 'work' for forgiveness is a blasphemy against the high priesthood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the scripture say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christ is our high priest who we are to approach, not St. Somebody, Mary, or any earthly priest:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We are all priests:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We obtain full and general forgiveness in our justification without respect to any good work:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. (Romans 3:28, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As a result of full pardon we can be cleansed in particulars that bother our conscience (without any requirement of a work, of course) by simply directly confessing our sin to our only high priest, Jesus;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.(1 John 1:9, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Under these consideration most Protestants fully reject the need for penance as a sinful thing contrary to faith in God.&lt;/strong&gt; Actually, anyone who has performed any kind of penance under the guidance of a Priest would technically have fairly good reason to confess that sin to Christ. One must always go straight to the high priest and not ignore him by devious means and such a show of godliness that denies the power thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-01-30T12:18:13.300" LastActivityDate="2013-01-30T12:18:13.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13801" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:34:45.473" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one point of difference between the Mosaic law and ANE laws which I feel needs to be more fully explained. Whereas modern people look at &quot;an eye for an eye&quot; as being severe, in fact it was more fair than the laws in force at the time. It was stating that the punishment could not be more severe than the crime warranted. Example: a common punishment for theft (still found in Sharia law today) was cutting off the offender's hand. If nothing else, that cut down (no pun intended) on the number of repeat offenders! However, Mosaic law called for restitution, with a penalty added, to make the victim whole again. There is also an element of mercy that is not found in ANE law. Example 1: under Mosaic law the poor have a right to eat. Most people know that they were allowed to glean in the fields (Deu. 24:19-21), but few are aware that anyone could go into a neighbor's field and eat his fill (Deu. 23:24-25; they did not, however, have the right to carry anything away). Jesus' disciples did this in Luke 6:1-2. The Pharisees did not condemn them for theft, but for &quot;harvesting&quot; on the Sabbath. Example 2: an offender to be beaten could not be given more than 40 stripes so he was not humiliated (in practice the Jews never gave a full 40, so they would not exceed that number through a miscount; Paul received the &quot;40 stripes save one&quot; 5 times [2 Cor. 11:24])&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3865" LastActivityDate="2013-01-30T13:34:45.473" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13920" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:49:51.703" Score="3" ViewCount="19973" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Jesus' encounter with Nathanael, Jesus concludes the conversation by indicating that Nathanael, as well as others, would see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and&#xA;  said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city&#xA;  of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We&#xA;  have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote,&#xA;  Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can&#xA;  anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and&#xA;  see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him,&#xA;  “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48&#xA;  Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him,&#xA;  “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw&#xA;  you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You&#xA;  are the King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to&#xA;  you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see&#xA;  greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, &lt;strong&gt;“Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”&lt;/strong&gt;  John 1:43-51 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in what manner did Nathanael &quot;see the angels of God ascending and descending on the son of Man?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-11T20:14:25.033" LastActivityDate="2016-03-23T12:46:58.273" Title="How did Nathanael see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-03-27T02:44:43.093" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13919" CreationDate="2013-01-30T18:19:01.053" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to someone in this &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/318/in-what-sense-would-nathanael-have-seen-in-john-151&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; (moved from christianity to hermeneutics):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, the phrase &quot;the angels of God ascending and descending&quot; links Jesus' statement back to Jacob's dream in Genesis 28. In that story Jacob himself glimpses a new reality. He says, &quot;Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was not aware of it. How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven.&quot; In connecting himself to this, Jesus is perhaps indicating that what Jacob saw, Nathanael will soon see in the Son of Man: namely, the presence of the I AM, the &quot;house of God&quot; and the &quot;gate of heaven&quot; (cf. John 8:58, John 2:19-22, John 10:1-9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/1-51.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;bible.cc&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heaven open - This is a figurative expression, denoting &quot;the conferring of favors.&quot; Psalm 78:23-24; &quot;he opened the doors of heaven, and had rained down manna.&quot; It also denotes that God was about to work a miracle in attestation of a particular thing. See Matthew 3:16. In the language, here, there is an evident allusion to the ladder that Jacob saw in a dream, and to the angels ascending and descending on it, Genesis 28:12. It is not probable that Jesus referred to any particular instance in which Nathanael should literally see the heavens opened. The baptism of Jesus had taken place, and no other instance occurred in his life in which it is said that the &quot;heavens were&quot; opened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As both quotations seem to say that it has something to do with Jacobs Ladder I think that it is safe to say the same. Also it is interesting to note that Nathanael was a descendant of Jacob. This link &lt;a href=&quot;http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/bartholmew-called-nathanael-an-israelite-in-whom-there-is-no-guile/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; also talks a little about this topic, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;this passage shows Nathanael to be a thoughtful and reflective sort of person.  The statements of Jesus Christ about being an Israelite relate to his descent from Jacob, who was certainly a man full of guile and deceit during his early life.  That said, it would appear as if Nathanael was under the fig tree (a common representation of a philosophical sort of person) thinking about the dream of Jacob where angels went up and down the stairway to heaven, showing the relationship between heaven and earth and the possibility of communication between the two realms.  This musing on deep and spiritual matters allows Jesus Christ to call him as a member of the twelve without hesitation or complaint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if people dislike so many quotations, but I found that they all relate quite well to the subject. I don't know. Think what you will from the quotations and links. What i get from it is that it was more of one of Jesus' encrypted sayings, not really meaning &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; what he says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-01-30T18:19:01.053" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13856" CreationDate="2013-01-30T18:41:11.447" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right. Eastern Orthodox still practice this in a way, though it is not called the &amp;quot;Black Fast&amp;quot;. As I am an Orthodox Christian I can tell you that we do fast &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; Wednesday and Friday, though not as strictly as the Black Fast. It's more like eat vegan, basically the same as you listed, but we get 3 meals at the regular times, though some people may do it more strictly including monastics. Also don't eat as much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we also have as we call it the Great Fast, or Great Lent, that starts 40 days before Holy Week. Basically we eat the same as on Wednesdays and Fridays, also trying more then normal to abstain from sin (that's the whole goal right?). Then during Holy Week the rules change and it is a little more strict, namely maybe 1 meal a day, on special days (Holy Friday: the crucifixion) eating nothing at all. Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; for more info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have fasts before the Dormition (two weeks long called the Dormition Fast), a fast called the Apostles Fast, and A fast before Christmas, called Advent. According to Wikipedia, Advent starts on the fourth Sunday before December 25, which is the Sunday between November 27 and December 3. According to my Orthodox Calendar, this year it will start on November 15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I forgot to mention, that on the first week of Great Lent we have a strict fast from Monday to Wednesday, thats a &lt;strong&gt;strict&lt;/strong&gt; fast meaning &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt; food &lt;strong&gt;at all&lt;/strong&gt;. For the weak, (Children, Elderly, Pregnant) there are exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course thats not all the fasts that we do. Check &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abbamoses.com/fasting.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; for more info.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, just checked back at your question and saw that you asked &lt;strong&gt;why&lt;/strong&gt; it is done.&#xA;Um, kind of for the whole going to heaven thing that we're doing as Christians. Depriving the body of food is supposed to help with repentance and to humble the body to the Spirits will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that answers your question! If not I can say even more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T14:42:39.687" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13923" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13927" CreationDate="2013-01-30T18:52:04.013" Score="12" ViewCount="27675" Body="&lt;p&gt;When reading through the law in the Old Testament it seems that there are only sacrifices for unintentional sins. Is this true? How does the New Testament handle intentional sins such as drunkenness, lust, bad habits, etc? And, how does the Old Testament deal with these sins as far as forgiveness goes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1204" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-01-31T14:52:47.717" LastActivityDate="2017-03-18T18:04:39.533" Title="Was there a sacrifice in the Old Testament for intentional sins?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-03-25T12:34:48.367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2095" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:07:37.213" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The church is a gathering of BELIEVERS. It's meant to be a place where Christians gather to be re-energized so they can go back out into the world.  In the beginning, the deal was that an individual believer has the responsibility to evangelize. Once that soul or nonbeliever accepts Christ, then he or she should be invited into the church. We weren't meant to go out, grab a few unbelievers and bring them to our pastor to evangelize. The layman has forfeited his original design.  That's why pastors have resorted to telling their people to invite friends and neighbors to church. The danger comes in when these unbelievers become leaders or influence the church in ways that cause the church to become liberal in their thinking. I always ask - how do you know you'll change them before they change you? Paul tells us not to be yoked together with unbelievers. Why?  Because bad company corrupts.  This is why church should be for believers, not non-believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3869" LastActivityDate="2013-01-30T19:07:37.213" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13925" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13926" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:01:55.550" Score="6" ViewCount="188" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn. He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=226521235&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 21:15-17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does the writer assume that like or dislike of the wife will map neatly to like or dislike of the son? In my experience and reading, this is not necessarily the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In case you're wondering, the line &lt;em&gt;he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked&lt;/em&gt; does, in fact, &lt;em&gt;strongly imply&lt;/em&gt; that he is expected to &lt;em&gt;wish&lt;/em&gt; to do this. Otherwise, the regulation prohibiting it would not be necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-30T22:40:56.623" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T16:07:46.470" Title="Why does Mosaic Law insist on primogenitur even when the dad despises the first born son's mother?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13925" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:32:07.530" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This Mosaic Law on family inheritance is borne out of the story of Jacob and Joseph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you may remember, Jacob loved Rachel, and worked 7 years for her uncle, Laban, in order to be able to marry her.  Sadly, Jacob must have gotten really drunk, because of the day of his wedding, he finds out that Laban has tricked the trickster, and he's ended up being married to Rachel's older sister, Leah.  This being the day of polygamy, Laban says &quot;Hey - don't worry! Just give me another 7 years, and you can have Rachel.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;As a dad whose &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; daughter is named Rachel, I can understand why Jacob would worked 14 years as a bargain. But I digress.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once Jacob has the two wives, the baby-making war begins. God sees Leah's sorrow and devotion, and so opens her womb first.  Jacob's first-born son, Rueben, should, as the first born son, have all the privileges. But, the truth is that Jacob loves Rachel, not Leah. As the story continues, Leah keeps popping out the little ones, but Rachel can't seem to make a baby.  Much fuss ensues, and like any good modern reality series goes, Rachel gets Jacob to make babies with her maid, then Leah does the same thing, and before you know it, Jacob has a lot of boys - but Rachel is still not pregnant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, finally, the big day arrives.  Rachel gets pregnant, and Jacob is way, way, happy.  The boy, Joseph, quickly becomes Jacobs absolute favorite.  Hands down. In fact, Jacob loves Joseph so much that he gives him a technicolor coat and arranges for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-g4rRr2q7k&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andrew Lloyd Webber to write about him nearly 4000 years later&lt;/a&gt;. Well, we all remember what happens from there - big brothers get angry, sell Joseph off into slavery, and pretty much fill out the rest of Genesis.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(Incidentally - bonus points if you know who Rachel's only &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; boy is.  That's right - Benjamin - the son of his right hand. Rachel dies in childbirth, and when Joseph later uses a ruse to put his only full brother in prison, the other boys realize this would pretty much kill their dad, hence the hysterics to get him back.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This part of the covenant then, is as much symbolic as it is practical.  It is direct, received wisdom from the experience of Jacob and his favorite sons.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible for a despised wife to have a beloved son? Sure.  But we don't have any biblical stories about those prior to this law. The more practical point is &quot;Don't gip your boys in the will,&quot; but the precedent that backs it up has its roots in history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-01-31T16:07:46.470" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T16:07:46.470" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13923" CreationDate="2013-01-31T04:21:18.443" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Old Testament is clear that only unintentional sins can be atoned for:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether a native- born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you.&#xA;   “‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native- born or foreigner, blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel. (Numbers 15:29-30, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The idea of 'intentional' is better understood as 'defiant' or 'high handed'.&lt;/strong&gt; Unintentional therefore includes many sins committed due to want of knowledge, through weakness, or where the offender did not really understand his guilt. Intentional sin, is not that you were consciously aware of sinning, like when King David committed adultery, rather it is more of a public defiance against the covenant, like the man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32), just after God had declared that the whole camp should not work on the Sabbath.  This open rebellion during the establishment of the ceremony was like a spirit of mutiny on a ship at sea. This is what 'intentional' means in this context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The punishment of 'cut off' is understood differently by various ancient and modern commentators.&lt;/strong&gt; However as many 'high handed' sins were punishable by death, the term should not be confused with excommunication as some sins incurred but as in literally being put to death. Naturally their is no atonement for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the New Testament this 'cutting off'' is referred to in three ways.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First as 'intentional sin' is actually open unrepentant rebellion to God. This has a corresponding reality in &lt;em&gt;blasphemy against the Holy Spirit&lt;/em&gt; (Heb 6:4).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second in showing when people commit great sins that seem like blasphemy but are not due to 'ignorance', such as Peter's sermon in Acts which implied many Jews killed Christ 'in ignorance' (Acts 3:17). Peter is saying, 'Even though it seems that you have 'intentionally' sinned when killing Christ, many of you did not actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you did it in 'ignorance', so I offer you today atonement even for that sin through Christ.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, for sins where capital punishment was the penalty but not necessarily implying a 'high handed' full rebellion from the covenant, the New Testament provides an atoning sacrifice in Christ, including murder, adultery, etc.   Therefore being put to death for sin in the Old Testament is not to imply that each offender could not be forgiven by faith, just not forgiven by Mosaic Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-01-31T04:41:33.973" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T04:41:33.973" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13928" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13940" CreationDate="2013-01-31T10:00:24.530" Score="11" ViewCount="5106" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we don't count lynchings, have people ever been executed for witchcraft by the Eastern Orthodox Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In western Christianity, the execution of witches was condemned until &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1484&lt;/a&gt;, four centuries after the schism of the eastern and western churches, so I'd guess no, but I'd be glad for some evidence for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T02:19:43.653" LastActivityDate="2016-09-01T15:31:05.923" Title="Have witches ever been executed by the Eastern Orthodox Church?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;witchcraft&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13929" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13933" CreationDate="2013-01-31T11:25:56.323" Score="16" ViewCount="1771" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two Jehovah's Witnesses were here yesterday, and we talked for a while about religion. We mentioned briefly God's killing of all the first born in Egypt in Exodus 12:29, whereupon one of the Witnesses said that it wasn't God who killed them. Not having a Bible close by, I just said I must misremember, and we started talking about something else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, upon rereading Exodus 12:29 I think it's pretty clear that &quot;the Lord&quot; killed the first born. Is there some alternative interpretation of this, that this Lord is entirely separate from God? I'm confused, because the Witnesses otherwise seemed to have great knowledge of the Bible. What am I missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who do Jehovah Witnesses believe killed the first-borns in Exodus 12?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3871" LastEditorUserId="24841" LastEditDate="2016-05-04T01:26:39.277" LastActivityDate="2021-04-28T05:03:13.747" Title="Did God kill the first borns in Exodus, according to Jehovah's Witnesses?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13931" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13943" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:13:52.663" Score="6" ViewCount="1842" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; god, but not God Almighty.  However, this goes against the teaching of the majority of Christian denominations and certainly evangelical denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the biblical basis for the claim the Jesus is not merely &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; god, but is, in fact, God Almighty?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-05T18:16:29.593" LastActivityDate="2018-07-01T20:19:37.903" Title="What is the biblical argument against the claim that Jesus is just &quot;a god&quot;, but not &quot;God Almighty&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13931" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:23:09.160" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To get to the answer, we can look first at whether there is any legitimacy to the claim that the Bible does teach that Jesus is &amp;quot;a god&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of ways to interpret Scripture that might show Jesus as not being &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.  Each of these either &lt;em&gt;denies&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;ignores&lt;/em&gt; other verses that show that &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;He is God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, and therefore, deny or ignore the doctrine of the Trinity.  These verses, &lt;em&gt;taken out of context with the whole of Scripture&lt;/em&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;could&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; lead someone to believe that Jesus is not fully God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:36 King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven,&#xA;but my Father only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken on its own, it seems to show that Jesus and the Father are not the same being.  One knows something that the other does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evidence &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;against&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; such a teaching is simply to look at the whole of Scripture and not ignore obvious claims that He &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; God. Such a claim is simply contrary to Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the&#xA;Word was God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 The same was in the beginning with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made&#xA;that was made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it&#xA;not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all&#xA;men through him might believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into&#xA;the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world&#xA;knew him not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the&#xA;sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of&#xA;the will of man, but of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his&#xA;glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace&#xA;and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 10:30&lt;/strong&gt;  I and my Father are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His clear claim: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/I-AM.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/I-AM.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/trin16.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.letusreason.org/trin16.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;List of the I  AM quotes from Jesus, showing that He is the I AM that spoke to Moses, from the link above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 6:51:&amp;quot;I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If&#xA;anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 8:23: And He said to them, &amp;quot;You are from beneath; I AM from&#xA;above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 8:12: Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, &amp;quot;I AM the light of&#xA;the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the&#xA;light of life.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 8:58 Jesus said to them, &amp;quot;Most assuredly, I say to you, before&#xA;Abraham was, I AM.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:9: &amp;quot;I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved,&#xA;and will go in and out and find pasture.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:11: &amp;quot;I AM the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life&#xA;for the sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:36: &amp;quot;do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent&#xA;into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son&#xA;of God'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 11:25: Jesus said to her, &amp;quot;I AM the resurrection and the life. He&#xA;who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:6: Jesus said to him, &amp;quot;I AM the way, the truth, and the life.&#xA;No one comes to the Father except through Me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 15:1: &amp;quot;I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 19:2: Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, &amp;quot;Do&#xA;not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'He said, &amp;quot;I am the King of&#xA;the Jews.&amp;quot;'&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 7:32: Stephen speaking of Moses' encounter at the burning bush&#xA;&amp;quot;saying, 'I am the God of your fathers-- the God of Abraham, the God&#xA;of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' And Moses trembled and dared not&#xA;look.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 9:5: And he said, &amp;quot;Who are You, Lord?&amp;quot; And the Lord said, &amp;quot;I am&#xA;Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against&#xA;the goads.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The I Am In the Old Testament was whatever man needed. He became, he&#xA;was his all in all. Jesus in the New Testament uses all the examples&#xA;to show who He is. He is everything to man and the only way to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important of all the statements is in  John 8:24 after he&#xA;tells them I am not of this world. &amp;quot;Therefore I said to you that you&#xA;will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am [He], you&#xA;will die in your sins.&amp;quot; ( he is not in the original). He is&#xA;communicating to them he is the same I AM that Moses met at the&#xA;burning bush which commissioned him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that Jesus is a god comes from the claim that &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t005.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;He IS God&lt;/a&gt; (Big &amp;quot;G&amp;quot;, not a god - little &amp;quot;g&amp;quot;)  In other words, he is The God, the one and only, one of the three persons of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as saying that Jesus is &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;a god&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; , there are none.  Nothing in Scripture says that Jesus is &amp;quot;a god&amp;quot;.  It doesn't say he is &amp;quot;a god&amp;quot;, a teaching that would make him equal to Baal, or any of the other false &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be, of course, those that &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;believe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; such a thing, but it's not because it's found in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T00:48:21.637" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13933" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13929" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:54:59.617" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witness have a particular affinity for &quot;Jehovah&quot; as the proper name of God.  One of the issues they often point out is that &quot;the LORD,&quot; which translates the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tetragrammaton&lt;/a&gt; YHVH, is a Jewish superstition that hass somehow corrupted and dishonored the one of whom it speaks.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In [their understanding]  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah&lt;/a&gt;'s_Witnesses_beliefs) of the Godhood (which is assuredly &lt;em&gt;non&lt;/em&gt;-Chalcedonian, and &lt;em&gt;non&lt;/em&gt;-Trinitarian), YHVH is a very different character from the more mainstream perspective. In their understanding, God is a force, albeit an approachable one, rather than a person.  (Note: In this perspective, Jesus as the son of God is not God, but rather &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; god or godlike being.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between these two things, I suspect that the issue of disagreement was less one of &quot;what actually happened,&quot; than of one of terminology - or perhaps &lt;em&gt;the nature of God&lt;/em&gt; in this instance.  The Biblical narrative (which many JW's reject as being corrupt, preferring instead their own NWT) indicates that Jehovah (whom Trinitarians view as God the Father) was in fact the one doing it. Exodus 11 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Moses went on to say: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘About midnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt,  (New World Translation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moses said, “Thus says the LORD: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt&quot; (NET Bible)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then, is what their understanding of &quot;the LORD&quot; is.  From their perspective, it's not God - that is Jehovah. From a Chalcedonian perspective, however, it is a distinction without a difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2016-10-11T19:47:21.643" LastActivityDate="2016-10-11T19:47:21.643" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6166" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:32:45.243" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an archaeologist of Central Europe and adherent of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processual_archaeology&quot;&gt;processual paradigm&lt;/a&gt;, I'd argue that it's (almost) impossible to prove existence of a person archaeologically. But here we can join study of historical texts with archaeology and ignore the boundaries between these two disciplines. Archaeology itself without aid of written texts can say very little on ethnicity and even less about fates of exact individuals (unless we have the body; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-processual_archaeology&quot;&gt;post-procesuallism&lt;/a&gt; tries to change it, but its approach is not very exact).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos&quot;&gt;wikipedia article on Hyksos&lt;/a&gt; says, they probably came from Kanaan and are thought to be multiethnic (some of their names are not semitic, but seems to be indoeuropean - but indoeuropean Hittites lived in Canaan too, so it's no problem). This makes the theory of Hyksos as Joseph and his relatives (plus lots of other people not mentioned in Bible) quite plausible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, from &quot;quite plausible&quot; is a long way to &quot;proved&quot;. &quot;Joseph&quot; is not mentioned in any Egyptian text we have. We don't know all the kings of 15th dynasty, so he could have been lost somewhere around &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakir-Har&quot;&gt;Sakir-Har&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyan&quot;&gt;Khyan&lt;/a&gt;. If we take into account the biblic legend of Joseph being more powerful than the pharaoh, he might have been the same person as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaqub-Har&quot;&gt;Yaqub-Har&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;But all these are wild speculation, nothing worth solid scientific theory or even claim to prove anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T14:32:45.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13935" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:52:43.690" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-01-31T14:52:43.690" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T14:52:43.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13936" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:52:43.690" Score="0" Body="Animal (and human) sacrifices in Mosaic law and similar practices in Christianity. Might be suitable for sacrificial aspect of Jesus' death on cross or of Eucharist too." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-01-31T15:44:49.477" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T15:44:49.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13931" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:47:44.127" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Jehovah's Witness - the primary advocate of the position that Jesus was merely &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; god, the primary proof text comes from the New World Translation of John 1:1.  In this instance, the NWT says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, most mainline churches translate this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Chalcedonian Christians and Jehovah's Witness agree that John 1:1 speaks of Jesus (John 1:14 makes this explicit).  As such, this is a valid case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as to &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; Jehovah's Witnesses claim that this verse says the Word was &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; God, you do have to back to the Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν [ὁ] λόγος.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key question is whether or not the [ὁ] is legitimately definite (&quot;the&quot;) or permissibly indefinite (could be &quot;the&quot; or &quot;a&quot;).  The Net Bible says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;n Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.&#xA;  sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the sense is that the rest of John is pretty clear that Jesus was God - not a God, but this is the argument on which the NWT hinges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-01-31T22:25:36.060" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T22:25:36.060" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13928" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:43:29.133" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Frankly, the more you know the history of the Orthodox Church, the more you would be inclined to say that they would never have executed witches. In fact great portions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches history, is when they have been the ones being executed, whether by pagans or heretics. In fact if someone told me that the Orthodox had executed witches, I would probably think that it was some heretical branch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the Protestant reformers often agreed with Rome, that witches were a clear and present danger. All four of the major western Christian &quot;churches&quot; (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican) persecuted witches to some degree or another. (Eastern Christian, or Orthodox Churches carried out almost no witch hunting).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that if the Orthodox Church ever found a &quot;witch&quot;, they would have tried to purify him/her, and bring that person (back) to the Church. Also, no one was allowed to kill anyone, except as a soldier. Perhaps some corrupt Emperors would have done this, (In fact I know they did), but the Church Fathers would confront that emperor to his face and tell him he did wrong (though this is not an example with witches, I had to call to mind the story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/theodoret-ambrose1.asp&quot;&gt;Ambrose and Theodosius&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you have any doubts and questions, please tell me. I believe that the Eastern Church would never have done this, unless someone in authority was corrupted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then we are all sinners. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T17:43:29.133" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13928" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:03:10.833" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most early Eastern theologians didn't believe in witches (technically, neither did Western theologians, as is evidenced by &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Episcopi&quot;&gt;Canon Episcopi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;), but most common folk did. Without getting into &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0056.html&quot;&gt;the confounded history of witch-burning&lt;/a&gt;, it is generally held that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm&quot;&gt;theologians prior to the 10th century did not believe in witches&lt;/a&gt;. The 9th century &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Episcopi&quot;&gt;Canon Episcopi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; that I mentioned is &lt;a href=&quot;http://bichaunt.org/canon.html&quot;&gt;interpreted by modern historians&lt;/a&gt; to be a renunciation of the existence of witches, not of witchcraft itself (the bible sufficiently denounces witchcraft). For various reasons, medieval Western society changed their tune and began burning witches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20061111140530/http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/WITCH1.HTM&quot;&gt;Stephen Hayes&lt;/a&gt; (the link is now dead but &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20061111140530/http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/WITCH1.HTM&quot;&gt;clicking here will take you to an online archive&lt;/a&gt;),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is perhaps significant that the persecution of witches began in the&#xA;  West after the Great Schism of 1054. In parts of the Orthodox East, at&#xA;  least, witch hunts such as those experienced in other parts of Europe&#xA;  were unknown (Stewart 1991:38). The Orthodox Church is strongly&#xA;  critical of sorcerers (among whom it includes palmists, fortune&#xA;  tellers and astrologers), but has not generally seen the remedy in&#xA;  accusations, trials and secular penalties, but rather in confession&#xA;  and repentance, and exorcism if necessary (Stewart 1991:212f).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have tried to show that the process of accusation, trial, sentencing&#xA;  and execution of alleged witches is not a typical Christian reaction&#xA;  to witchcraft. It was practically unknown in Christendom for the first&#xA;  ten centuries. It then gradually appeared in certain parts of the&#xA;  Christian world, but not in others. It lasted for about 600 years,&#xA;  though the last 200 years of this period were the worst, after which&#xA;  it suddenly disappeared. Such behaviour was fairly common in&#xA;  pre-Christian societies, but was altered when those societies became&#xA;  Christianised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article goes on to elaborate on Orthodoxy and its response to witches (hint: it didn't burn them). The source continually referenced by Hayes in the above quote is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Stewart, Charles. 1991. Demons and the devil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly doubt that the Eastern Orthodox Church ever executed witches (and I have not found any sources indicating that they did). It is far more likely that they tried to lead witches to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2015-01-18T20:45:15.300" LastActivityDate="2015-01-18T20:45:15.300" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13931" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:12:45.013" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many arguments, but these are what I consider to be the greatest arguments against Arianism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;A &quot;god&quot; is a creature&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;god&quot; (the lower-case &quot;g&quot; in English distinguishing the word &quot;god&quot; from &quot;God&quot; where the &quot;G&quot; is capitalized) indicates a &lt;strong&gt;created being&lt;/strong&gt;, i.e. a creature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the &quot;Word of God&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;v=13&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/13&quot;&gt;Rev. 19:13&lt;/a&gt;) and regarding the Word of God, it is written, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;All things were made by him&lt;/strong&gt;, and not one thing that was made was made without him&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/3&quot;&gt;John 1:3&lt;/a&gt;). In other words, Jesus created absolutely everything. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus is &quot;a god,&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &quot;a god&quot; is a creature,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Jesus created all things,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the corollary is that something that had yet to be created must have created itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, that is a logical impossibility. Something that does not exist cannot create itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Was God, ἄλογος?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word λόγος  (&lt;em&gt;logos&lt;/em&gt;) not only means &quot;word,&quot; but also, &quot;reason.&quot; It is written that Jesus is the Word of God who was with the Father in the beginning (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/1&quot;&gt;John 1:1&lt;/a&gt;). However, if, as Arians assert, the λόγος of God (Jesus) was created, then the λόγος of God did not exist at one point. If the λόγος did not exist at one point, then one must admit that God was at one point ἄλογος (&lt;em&gt;alogos&lt;/em&gt;), that is, &quot;without reason,&quot; or simply, &quot;irrational.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture states that God created things in the beginning by His λόγος (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=33&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/6&quot;&gt;Ps. 33:6&lt;/a&gt; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/3&quot;&gt;John 1:3&lt;/a&gt;). But, how could God have created by His λόγος if indeed His λόγος did not exist yet? In fact, if God's λόγος is a creature, and God created all things by His λόγος (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/3&quot;&gt;John 1:3&lt;/a&gt;), then how did God create His λόγος?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I only offer two or three arguments, but the early Church father's wrote tomes against Arianism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T18:12:45.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13931" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:23:18.150" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 1 is probably the key passage the definitely asserts that Jesus is, in fact, God Almighty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 1:8, we have &quot;the Almighty&quot; introducing Himself in the conversation.  The New World Translation identifies this as Jehovah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was&#xA;  and who is to come, the Almighty.”  Revelation 1:8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I am the Al′pha and the O‧me′ga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is&#xA;  and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”  Revelation 1:8 NWT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah also speaks of Jehovah God as &quot;the first and the last&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel&#xA;      and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:&#xA;  “&lt;strong&gt;I am the first and I am the last&lt;/strong&gt;;&#xA;      besides me there is no god.  Isaiah 44:6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘&lt;strong&gt;I am the first and I am the last&lt;/strong&gt;, and besides me there is no God.  Isaiah 44:6 NWT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is &quot;Who is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last?&quot;  The answer is conclusively that it is Jehovah God, the Almighty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus' as the First and the Last&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this, John hears a voice behind him.  He turns to see someone &quot;like a son of man&quot;, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest, with hair as white as wool, with eyes like a flame of fire, feet on bronze, a voice like many waters, and a face shining like the sun.  John faints when He sees this being, who lays His right hand on him and identifies as &quot;the First and the Last&quot;, the living one, who died and is alive forevermore.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his&#xA;  right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, &#xA;  and the living one. &lt;strong&gt;I died&lt;/strong&gt;, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I&#xA;  have the keys of Death and Hades.  Revelation 1:17-18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and &lt;strong&gt;I became dead&lt;/strong&gt;, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha′des.  Revelation 1:17-18 NWT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is quite significant.  The one claiming to be &quot;The First and the Last&quot;, who is Jehovah God, the Almighty, claims to have died as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus as the Alpha and the Omega&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in Revelation 22, the Alpha and the Omega speaks again:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Behold, &lt;strong&gt;I am coming soon&lt;/strong&gt;, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 &lt;strong&gt;I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“&lt;strong&gt;I, Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”  Revelation 22:12-16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is.  I am the Al′pha and the O‧me′ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.  Happy are those who wash their robes, that the authority [to go] to the trees of life may be theirs and that they may gain entrance into the city by its gates. Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying on a lie.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to ​YOU​ people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.’”  Revelation 22:12-16 NWT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, speaks, then identifies Himself as Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, Jehovah God, the Almighty is identified as the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then Jehovah God, the Almighty, asserts that He Himself has died.  We know that it was Jesus who died.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Alpha and the Omega identifies Himself as Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T20:23:18.150" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13931" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:57:50.683" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love Narnian's answer indicating that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. Here are a few other proofs to supplement that answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. There is only one God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I am He, And &lt;strong&gt;there is no god besides Me&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032:39&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Deuteronomy 32:39&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,&#xA;  “And My servant whom I have chosen,&#xA;  So that you may know and believe Me&#xA;  And understand that &lt;strong&gt;I am He.&#xA;  Before Me there was no God formed,&#xA;  And there will be none after Me.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Isaiah 43:10&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: &quot;I am the first and I am the last, And &lt;strong&gt;there is no God besides Me.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2044:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Isaiah 44:6&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I am the Lord, and there is no other; &lt;strong&gt;Besides Me there is no God.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Isaiah 45:5&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;there is no other God besides Me&lt;/strong&gt;, A righteous God and a Savior; &lt;strong&gt;There is none except Me.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045:21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Isaiah 45:21&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God went to great lengths to clarify that there was only one God in all of existence. I see two possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is only one God in all of existence, or&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God just wants everyone to &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt; that there is only one God in all of existence! (I say this tongue-in-cheek, of course; God is not a deceiver; there is indeed only one God.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way it seems extremely foolish to teach anything other than &quot;there is only one God in all of existence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. God Almighty: Lord: Savior: Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses just cited also indicate that the one and only God is the Lord and Savior, but here is further support:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;when Abram was ninety-nine years old, &lt;strong&gt;the Lord&lt;/strong&gt; appeared to Abram and said to him,&lt;strong&gt;“I am God Almighty&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Genesis 17:1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I, even I, am &lt;strong&gt;the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;, And there is &lt;strong&gt;no savior besides Me&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Isaiah 43:11&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have been &lt;strong&gt;the Lord your God&lt;/strong&gt; Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any god except Me, For &lt;strong&gt;there is no savior besides Me.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%2013:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Hosea 13:4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see that God Almighty is the Lord, who is the only Savior. &lt;em&gt;(Note: A number of passages, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%209&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Nehemiah 9&lt;/a&gt; prove that the same &quot;God&quot; is being referenced in both of these passages.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of &lt;strong&gt;our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202:11-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Titus 2:11-13&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;grow in the grace and knowledge of &lt;strong&gt;our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt; To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-2 Pet. 3:18&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our great Lord, God, and Savior is Jesus. If Jesus is not God Almighty, these passages would be blasphemous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. The blood of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd &lt;strong&gt;the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Acts 20:28&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that there is only one God, and given that He purchased the church with His own blood, and given that it was Jesus' blood, we have yet another proof that Jesus is that one true God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-01-31T23:57:50.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13944" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13954" CreationDate="2013-02-01T03:20:04.583" Score="4" ViewCount="910" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS (Mormon) Church has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/locations/independence-visitors-center&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;visitor's center in Independence, MO&lt;/a&gt;, which area is apparently related to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt;. What is the significance of this in LDS theology and what is the LDS belief on this matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T18:08:07.313" Title="What is the LDS meaning of the New Jerusalem?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13945" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13994" CreationDate="2013-02-01T03:36:44.437" Score="9" ViewCount="501" Body="&lt;p&gt;Men may be called &quot;gods&quot; (equivalent to Hebrew אֱלֹהִים (&lt;em&gt;elohim&lt;/em&gt;) or Greek θεός (&lt;em&gt;theos&lt;/em&gt;)) according to office, because they assume God's authority on earth. For example, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=21&amp;amp;v=6&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exo. 21:6&lt;/a&gt;, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then his master shall bring him to the judges...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English word &quot;judges&quot; is translated from the Hebrew word הָאֱלֹהִים (&lt;em&gt;ha-elohim&lt;/em&gt;), the word most often translated into English as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;&quot; in the KJV. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, are there any others besides YHVH who are &quot;G/god/ אֱלֹהִים/ θεός&quot; according to nature, rather than office?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, how does one reconcile that acknowledgment with scripture that state there is &quot;one God&quot; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;v=5&amp;amp;t=KJV#5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isa. 45:5&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;v=32&amp;amp;t=KJV#32&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 12:32&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;v=6&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 8:6&lt;/a&gt;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, how does one reconcile that belief with scriptures such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Co&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;v=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Cor. 4:4&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-27T17:32:22.913" LastActivityDate="2020-04-27T18:37:40.133" Title="Is there only one God (or אֱלֹהִים, or θεός) by nature?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;monotheism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7853" CreationDate="2013-02-01T04:58:54.770" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Have to understand the scriptures were written in sematic (aramic, hebrew) languages not english.  Semetic names often mean something Isacc or  Yizkah could be translated into &quot;one who laughs&quot; or laughing one.  Another example Ishmael is two words and could be translated into &quot;listens the&quot; or &quot;God Listens&quot;.  There are various variations of the name Muhammad that base word though is the letters H-M-D (HA - MEEM - DEL) which means &quot;praised&quot; or &quot;to praise&quot;.  Here is an article on H-M-D on wikipedia that describes how this base word is used in the various semetic languages.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B8%A4-M-D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B8%A4-M-D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes the name is found in the scripture lots of times but used as a word and not to refer to someone.  There are occurances in the scripture were muslims claim the word is actually refering to a person.  In the new testament there are several mentions of the conselor/advocator/spirt of truth that will come after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:16&#xA;John 15:26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The greek word is parakletos.  In Aramic I guess this can be translated in to HA-HE-MEEM-DEL or machmad.  On youtube there are probably 100s of videos of passion of christ scene where the actor playing Jesus is reading some from John 15:20 or so.  Here they take the liberity of translating the word to aramic themselves. This is complicated because there are no original aramic copies of the new testament, oldest copies found are written in greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other thing muslims mention is in old testament.  There is a verse in the psalms song of solomon 5:16 where the word HA-HE-MEEM-DEL-LAMED-HA-MEEM is used.  In the english translations of this is translated as &quot;altogether lovely&quot;.  This english translation is not really correct as this is the word HA-HE-MEEM-DEL is plural form.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of this is Elohim, the third word in the Genesis, in english this word is obviously just translated to God but it is actually a plural form of Eloh (A-L-H).  When it is used in the bible though the nous is plural but the verbs are singular.  I think this is called a royal noun?  On wikipedia they talk about it depth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is unlikely that a form of language used to describe God is used to describe a person.  Muslims add in to this claim the context of the usage.  The main claim for evidence of Muhammad in the bible (which you were probably getting at) presented by muslims is the 10000 saints prophecy.  This is mentioned a couple times in the old testament.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 33: 2&#xA;Isaiah 42: 1-13&#xA;Habakkuk 3: 3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Muslims believe that MT Paran where Abraham brought Ishmael and Hagar is somewhere around their two holy cities Medina and Mecca which may or may not be right.  They claim these mentions of arab sons/tribes (nebaioth, tema, kedar) and mention of 10000 saints coming down MT Paran is the description of Muhammad taking over the city of mecca from the idol worshippers.  They have some books other than the their main book that I am not to familiar with where the actual mention 10000 saints being lead down a mountain or something.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Muslims also claim the description of this man matches a description of Muhammad given in a book written by someone who was alive at the time.  If you read 5:10-5:16 it says best of 10K, describes man like it says it their muslim books, and then &quot;he is Muhammad(s)&quot;.  So here they are saying look in addition to our prophecy it also calls him out by name.  When reading from start to finish though this is actually a sheep herding girl describing here love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in summary yes the name is also a common word that is used lots in the scripture.  Does it refer to a person?  In almost all cases no and in some places it has been questioned but there is no place where it is 100% clear the word is refering to a person. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3874" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T04:58:54.770" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13950" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-01T12:02:36.427" Score="3" ViewCount="2160" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possible Duplicate:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2609/where-in-the-bible-does-it-say-that-lucifer-is-an-angel&quot;&gt;Where in the Bible does it say that Lucifer is an angel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12030/of-what-nature-is-satan&quot;&gt;Of what nature is Satan?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most people refer to the following scripture as support for the fact that Satan was an angel, but I do not see that explicitly stated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 14:12-14&#xA;    &quot;How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: . . . I will be like the most High.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is is Lucifer Satan? Was Satan an Angel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T12:02:36.427" Title="Was Satan an Angel" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-02-01T18:13:05.137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13945" CreationDate="2013-02-01T12:42:27.160" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When looking carefully at the name God gave himself in contrast to all the gods of Pharaoh and the other pagan nations we have a path to a clear answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name? ’ Then what shall I tell them?”&#xA;   God said to Moses, “ I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites:‘ I am has sent me to you. ’” (Exodus 3:13-14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I AM (Jehovah, LORD, Yahweh, YHWH, or however we chose to indicate it) simply means he is the Eternal One with no beginning.  For any being to have no beginning, he must be without any boundaries or limits. Therefore God must be limitless in all his qualities including POWER.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is illogical to pretend there can be any being, or 'god' which does not have its own power given by the ALL POWERFUL, because all power is his. At his breath everything outside him could be destroyed.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore their is no logical basis for imagining their were any other gods under the notion of the term as it is normally used. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name I AM links an admission in our conscience of the only Eternal One, that is why God gave it to Moses so the Israelites would know in their heart who sent Moses. Not only so, but a great part of the purpose of raising Pharaoh up was to display how easily God could beat all the gods of this world, the greatest of which was the Egyptian gods. As Egypt was the most powerful nation, that power under a pagan world was attributed to the gods.  Therefore when God said his name was 'I AM' it was to strike terror into the heart of anyone trusting in the gods of the sea, hills, fire, snakes, frogs, river, or whatever.  It is like the world said, 'Our gods exist' and God said in thunder, 'No. I AM' and I am about to show you who is who.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. (Exodus 9:16, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a sort of 'God 101' for any logical discussion about God. That is why it is established so early on in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: As far as other use of the name god, like the Devil being the 'god of this world' it simply means he is like God in that he has been given power over many others who are his slaves.  The scripture also speaks of other gods which men worship and they are like God in that they are worshipped by many and thought of as having god like qualities by those who commit idolatry under them, even though they do not exists.  But all other uses of the word god mean nothing in that whatever they are they are nothing compared to I AM, so they are not gods in the normal use of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-01T12:59:00.103" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T12:59:00.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:02:05.883" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;An example of God's humor is the instance in which the Israelites were using the Ark of the Covenant like a good-luck charm in taking it to battle, and the Philistines ended up capturing it and placing it in their temple before their idol of Dagon. They came into the temple the next day and found Dagon flat on his face before the ark. They set him back up. The next morning, there he was again, but this time he had his hands and head cut off as a symbol of his powerlessness before the God of the ark (1 Samuel 5:1-5). God’s putting Dagon in a position of submission to His ark is a comical picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3878" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T14:02:05.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13944" CreationDate="2013-02-01T16:54:24.827" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The city of Enoch, which was taken up into heaven, will descend and become the center of New Jerusalem. The reason for it being in Independence MO, is that the area is referred to as &lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Adam-Ondi-Ahman&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adam-ondi-ahman&lt;/a&gt; in by the LDS church. Which could open up about a million more questions, but in short, it is believed to be the actual location of the Garden of Eden. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will have to wait until I am not at work, but involves the Second Coming, among other things.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T16:54:24.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13944" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:08:07.313" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng#9&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;tenth Article of Faith&lt;/a&gt;, given by Joseph Smith to a newspaper as a brief overview of LDS beliefs and later accepted by the church as canonical, states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration&#xA;  of the Ten  Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon&#xA;  the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the&#xA;  earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its&#xA;  paradisiacal glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: The original text stated that it will be built upon &quot;this, the American continent.&quot;  The word &quot;this&quot; was removed after the worldwide growth of the church caused it to no longer make sense for a lot of church members.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article deals with LDS eschatology, and touches on both the Old and New Testaments.  As the Wikipedia article notes, the New Jerusalem is mentioned in Ezekiel, and in the Book of Revelation it describes that the city would not simply be established on earth, but would descend from heaven, already built.  It is frequently equated with Zion by scholars, and as the text of the tenth Article of Faith makes clear, Latter-Day Saints agree with that interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205:21-24&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis chapter 5&lt;/a&gt; tells us of Enoch's surprisingly short lifespan compared to his contemporaries, cryptically stating that Enoch eventually &quot;walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.&quot;  Many Bible scholars interpret this as meaning that he was taken up to heaven without tasting death, much like Elijah.  The Latter-Day Saints accept this interpretation, but also believe that Enoch was not alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/7?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moses chapter 7&lt;/a&gt;, (part of an excerpt of Joseph Smith's unfinished project to produce an inspired translation of the Bible that would restore truths that had been lost and correct the errors of history,) tells of Enoch's work and ministry, describing him as a great prophet and a leader of men. He established a city which was named after the concept that it embodied:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one&#xA;  heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor&#xA;  among them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people&#xA;  of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was&#xA;  called the City of Holiness, even Zion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The chapter closes with a description of the city's fate, just before the Flood:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;68 And all the days of Zion, in the days of Enoch, were three hundred&#xA;  and sixty-five years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;69 And Enoch and all his people walked with God, and he dwelt in the&#xA;  midst of Zion; and it came to pass that Zion was not, for God received&#xA;  it up into his own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying, &lt;code&gt;Zion is Fled&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith taught that the location of Zion, the city of Enoch, had been upon the American continent, and that it was to return from heaven as the prophesied New Jerusalem at the beginning of Christ's millennial rein, and be established upon its original site, in modern-day Missouri, and be joined with the righteous community that was established there in modern times.  He explained that this was an important part of the meaning behind &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202:3&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 2: 3&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the&#xA;  mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will&#xA;  teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: &lt;strong&gt;for out of Zion&#xA;  shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith taught that the last part of this verse was not simply parallelism; it literally referred to two distinct places, and during the Millennium, there would be two world capitols, a political capitol at Zion (the New Jerusalem) and a spiritual center in Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more in-depth treatment of the topic, see Talmage's &quot;The Articles of Faith&quot;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/articlesfaithas00talmgoog#page/n370/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;lecture 20 (covering Zion)&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/articlesfaithas00talmgoog#page/n380/mode/2up/search/zion&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;lecture 21 (covering Christ's millennial reign.)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T18:08:07.313" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12554" CreationDate="2013-02-01T22:15:28.343" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Separating history from legend is often tricky. There is a legend stating that while Augustine of Hippo was writing his treatise &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Trinity&quot;&gt;De Trinitate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (about the Trinity), he was walking along the beach and thinking about the Godhead. There he encountered a boy running back and forth between the ocean and a small hole in the sand, filling it with water. When Augustine asked the boy what he was doing, he replied, &quot;I'm putting the sea into this hole.&quot; After Augustine commented on the absurdity of this notion, the boy retorted, &quot;I will sooner empty the sea into this hole than you will manage to get the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity into your head!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is nothing in Augustine's writings containing this account, only legend. The story is told in the 15th century &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/golden259.htm&quot;&gt;Legenda Aurea&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; written by Jacobus de Voragine, and it is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.augnet.org/?ipageid=1390&quot;&gt;depicted in numerous works of art&lt;/a&gt; from that time until now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible that this legend influenced Tolstoy's telling of &lt;em&gt;The Three Hermits&lt;/em&gt;, but that's somewhat of a stretch since these stories have different points they are trying to make. I am not aware of any other stories related to this associated with Augustine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T22:15:28.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13956" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-01T23:17:12.317" Score="10" ViewCount="1039" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exodus 12:37-38 says that the Israelites numbered about 600,000 men besides women and children (plus non-Israelites and livestock). Numbers 1 gives a similar total. This means there would have been around 3.5 million people. There is little to no archaeological nor practical support for this claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What explanations are given for the apparent exaggeration of the number of Israelites in the Exodus account? I'm not looking for any particular stance, pro or con. I will gladly entertain convincing arguments demonstrating this as scriptural error or showing a reasonable explanation for it (or whatever other options exist).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2016-12-04T04:54:26.687" Title="What explanations are given for the apparent exaggeration of the number of Israelites in the Exodus account?" Tags="&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;numbers&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13956" CreationDate="2013-02-01T23:42:25.370" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't remember the source for this, but I recall reading an article explaining that the Hebrew words for &quot;thousand&quot; and &quot;professional soldier&quot; were very similar, different only in the vowels--which, this being ancient Hebrew, did not get written. (I believe the words were &lt;em&gt;aleph&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;eleph&lt;/em&gt;, or something like that.)  This is why we see accounts of tens of thousands of men being taken on raids against little podunk towns out in the middle of nowhere in Canaan.  Where the original record spoke of something like (just making up numbers) 35 professional soldiers and 80 men to assist them, somewhere along the line that got mistakenly read as 35,000 men and 80 to assist them, and then combined into 35,080 people participating in the raid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's been about 10 years since I read the article in question, and I can't find it now.  If anyone has seen something similar, please feel free to edit this and add links.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-02-01T23:42:25.370" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13956" CreationDate="2013-02-02T03:37:53.057" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;At the time of Nero Egypt had 7.5 million men:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This country is extended as far as the Ethiopians, and Arabia the Happy, and borders upon India; it hath seven million five hundred thousand men, besides the inhabitants of Alexandria, as may be learned from the revenue of the poll tax; yet it is not ashamed to submit to the Roman government, although it hath Alexandria as a grand temptation to a revolt, by reason it is so full of people and of riches, and is besides exceeding large (Works of Josephus, Wars of the Jews 2.385)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know there is not any historical record of any census done in Egypt at the time of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9573/who-was-pharaoh-when-moses-lived-in-egypt/9584#9584&quot;&gt;Thutmose II&lt;/a&gt; (around 1500 B.C.), which is the time we are probably speaking about.  Those who do try to 'guess' at ancient Egyptian populations do so based on “estimates of cultivated area and yields” of the land (a).  In other words how much land did they seem to occupy and how well would that land have supported a population.  Different people make different guesses with a range of around four million variance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as we have a record of 600,000 men leaving Egypt and just for the sake of argument we estimate the 7.5 million Egyptian men were ¼ of its size at that time (for this is really only guess work anyway) we would have around 2 million men. For the sake of skepticism we reduced this some more to around 1.5 million men 1500 years before Nero, then still the Egyptians would still outnumber Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In any case it would seem that Egypt had more men than Israel at any time in the guesses and when we consider what the scripture says as to why the Pharaoh began to deal cruelly with the Jews, it seems that the number 600,000 makes a lot of sense:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. 7 But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them. 8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. (Exodus 1:6-9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that the men of Israel were starting to compete with the numbers of Egyptians so that Pharaoh was worried they would overtake them.  &lt;strong&gt;Therefore the number 600,000 seems realistic and there is no apparent exaggeration from my point of view.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were trying to reconstruct the population of Egypt at the time of Moses I would not bother with supposed &quot;land yields&quot; (this is a sketchy science at best) but just start with a reliable figure like 600,000 Jews. Then I would make a rough guess on the biblical description that the Egyptians were 1.5 to 3.0 times that (900,000 - 1,800,000). Then we would be saying from 1500 B.C. to 30 A.D. the population grew from around (1.5 - 2.4) million to 7.5 million.  There is nothing surprising or unrealistic about this sort of growth at all. If there is supposedly someone who thinks they can with confidence calculate different numbers, I would like to see the calculation and review the assumption they have made.  I am confident anybody could easily find huge holes in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(a) Life of the Ancient Egyptians by Eugen Strouhal, Deryck Viney, Werner Forman and Geoffrey T. Martin (Nov 15, 1992) Page 134.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-02-02T12:00:05.357" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3028" CreationDate="2013-02-02T03:50:23.763" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God wants the nice smell of burnt offering: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/numbers/28-27.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Numbers 28:27&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also he wants this to be done only in one specific place in Jerusalem: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/12-11.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 12:11&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As the sole place of Jewish sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12), the Temple replaced the portable sanctuary (aka The Tabernacle) constructed in the Sinai Desert under the auspices of Moses, as well as local sanctuaries, and altars in the hills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Temple in Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2014-07-29T20:24:58.473" LastActivityDate="2014-07-29T20:24:58.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13962" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13963" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:29:15.983" Score="14" ViewCount="3924" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering why some passages in the NIV are missing when compared to the KJV, like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 17:21&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 18:11&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mark 9:44&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mark 11:26&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mark 15:28&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke 17:36&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;…and more. Also there are some passages where the NIV deletes some phrases as in Matthew 5:44:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NIV: But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;KJV: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do&#xA;good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use&#xA;you, and persecute you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't understand the need to change the Bible from what it was for so many years; I personally find the old versions really rich in culture and those express much more than the new versions do. Also in the old versions, the points and commas were really important to not change the original meaning. And the Bible teaches that God is the one that gives us revelation through the Holy Spirit to understand the scriptures, so there's no need to change the Bible to make it 'more understandable'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1970" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-12-30T05:11:12.027" Title="Why are some verses missing in the NIV?" Tags="&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;&lt;niv&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13962" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:50:25.913" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The NIV has some &quot;missing&quot; verses because it is based on different manuscripts than, say, the King James version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some background, we don't have manuscripts of the original writings of the New Testament.  We have copies of them, and as with text that is copied manually, there is room for copyist error, or for people to add or remove things - purposely or inadvertently.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;Note that copyist errors don't affect the doctrine of inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility of the Word.&lt;/a&gt;  And even though there are slight changes, it's still &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;reliable for doctrine&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses that the NIV &quot;removes&quot; are simply not in the manuscripts used for translating it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's more detail available all over the web.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.missingverses.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This is one such page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2018-12-29T17:28:17.050" LastActivityDate="2018-12-29T17:28:17.050" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="13965" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13986" CreationDate="2013-02-02T21:00:55.710" Score="3" ViewCount="749" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28philosophy%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Accident&lt;/a&gt; being defined as an attribute or property contingent upon the existence of something else, from the Latin word &lt;em&gt;accidēns&lt;/em&gt;, or the Greek word συμβεβηκός (&lt;em&gt;symbebēkos&lt;/em&gt;). Do accidents exist in God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-02-02T22:38:06.833" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T06:09:58.977" Title="Are there any accidents (philosophical term) in God?" Tags="&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13967" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-03T06:48:32.060" Score="1" ViewCount="13253" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is probably more relevant for Judaism than Christianity. However, I am checking both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hezekiah instituted a religious reform that prohibit sacrifice on high places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The justification is a letter in Leviticus saying that God will ordain the place where He will be worshiped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Samaritan think it's Mount Gerissim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews think it's Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where in the Leviticus does it say where?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-03T14:42:43.233" LastActivityDate="2019-09-17T11:13:21.390" Title="Where in the Bible does it say that sacrifice can only be done on the temple?" Tags="&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13967" CreationDate="2013-02-03T08:08:10.837" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The history of the proper locations for offering sacrifices under the Old Testament is like this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First before Moses sacrifices could be made anywhere.  Then once the tabernacle was built, Moses received the command of the Lord that sacrifices could only be brought to the  “entrance of the tent of meeting” per Lev 17:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them, This is the thing that the LORD has commanded. 3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. (Lev 17:2-4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that making your own sacrifice wherever you wanted after the Lord had provided the proper practice within the tabernacle was as bad a shedding blood of a human and therefore punished as severely. &lt;strong&gt;However this law did not seem practical when Israel was about to enter Canaan and be always on the move, therefore this restriction was was temporarily repealed by Moses with an eye to a more permanent re-establishment of it in the temple:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First the plan is to establish the rule in the temple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there. There you shall go, 6 and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, your vow offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock. (Deut. 12:5-7, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then as this is not yet practical, the concession is granted:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer. &#xA;  (Deut. 12:15, ESV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Finally, as this interim period was come to an end and the Temple was about to be ready to replace the tabernacle, the original Lev 17 ordinance was again resumed.&lt;/strong&gt; As about just this time, for example, we find the reason why people still sacrificed as ‘high places’:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the LORD. (1 Kings 3:2, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ‘high places’ although referred to above as simply meaning a place where people sacrificed offering to God, quickly became an offensive term as not only would sacrificing animals there no longer be tolerated as the Temple after the Temple was built, but this was the place where idolatry was also practices to Baal and Ashera idols. Pagans worship their gods there and just like the golden-calf where Israel mixed up the religion of Jehovah with pagan idolatry, so these ‘high places’ became symbols of the same. When Jews worship there is was a corruption and mixture of God and idols. &lt;strong&gt;We see a king doing what ‘is wrong’ as leaving those ‘high places’ in tact.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 He walked in all the way of Asa his father. He did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the LORD. Yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. (1 Kings 22:43, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When a King did ‘what is right’ he removed the ‘high places’. In fact this became a litmus-test phrase to distinguish good kings from bad ones.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And Josiah removed all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the LORD to anger. He did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel. 20 And he sacrificed all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them. Then he returned to Jerusalem. (2 Kings Chapter 23:19-20, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-03T08:51:40.940" LastActivityDate="2013-02-03T08:51:40.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13967" CreationDate="2013-02-03T08:26:43.110" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, the location where sacrifice was permitted was where God chose His name to dwell, as it is written (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deut. 12:5&lt;/a&gt;),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But rather, unto the place that YHVH your God shall choose, out of all your tribes, to put His name there, unto His dwelling shall you seek, and there shall you come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why Shomronim reject Jerusalem as the place of sacrificial worship is because they reject the Nevi'im, and Jerusalem does not become the place of sacrificial worship until Shlomo builds the Temple in Jerusalem (which occurs in the Nevi'im). Until that point, the location depended on wherever the Tabernacle was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-03T08:26:43.110" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13965" CreationDate="2013-02-03T13:17:11.577" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps being forgiving and compassionate might be attributes contingent upon something else, namely the existence of an entity requiring compassion and forgiveness.   God, in and of himself, requires no forgiveness or compassion for weaknesses, as he has no weakness or sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the argument that being compassionate and forgiving might be an accident could easily be offset by saying that those attributes are really only extensions of love, which would be something that would already exist in God on account of the fact that the trinity already expresses perfect love among it's members.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would probably have to vote no on this one.  It is we who change, not God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-02-03T19:48:25.503" LastActivityDate="2013-02-03T19:48:25.503" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6605" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:50:11.417" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is YES, as a starting point.  God understands our hearts, that we are self-seeking and self-centered.  He understands that we have all the animal instincts and an inanimate spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Peter 1:5-7 explains the steps of maturity God puts us on.  First, he offers us all the benies of answered prayer, gifts of the Holy Spirit and peace.  We are trying to answer our fears that hound us.  Second step is doing good for others for more benies.  Not very far away from ego.  Third step is obeying His word for more benies.  He is the God of love, so He will get us to do things that express His love.  That gets us more in the physical habit of goodness.  Ayn Rand would agree with this because this is the extent of what Capitalism offers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fourth step is sanctification.  We find we CAN'T obey and need to call upon His grace to change our heart to be able to obey.  We become accomplices in moving toward love.&#xA;The fifth step is perseverence.  This is where we learn deferred gratification of our benies.  There is another place where we can store up benies for the future - Heaven.&#xA;The sixth step is godliness.  We pray for and put on God's (or Christ's) perspective, his attitude.  We begin to identify with him and what will be ours in Heaven.&#xA;The Seventh step is love of the brethren.  This is a pressure cooker for love, since we are taught to outdo one another in loving each other.  We let down the rest of the guards in this environment.&#xA;The Eighth step comes out of the seventh - walking in the same unselfish love that God has.  It just overflows from the seventh into the eighth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This evolution from total selfism to total unselfishness takes a lot of time.  Mother Teresa walked down this road for 30 years to get where she ended up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3891" LastActivityDate="2013-02-03T19:50:11.417" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2076" CreationDate="2013-02-03T21:02:14.467" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is love.  God is also justice.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His Word never fails (Joshua 21:45).  His promise was that &quot;on the day you eat of it, you shall die.&quot; (Gen. 2:17)  They ate.  Their doom was sealed.  Satan rejoiced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God forgave Adam &amp;amp; Eve, Satan could use that as precedent to insist on the same forgiveness.  What God did was postpone the judgment. That's what MERCY is.  Justice postponed.  In the meantime, they could have kids. The clock ran out for Adam &amp;amp; Eve just before 1,000 years (Psalm 90:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the kids were part of Adam &amp;amp; Eve, so they were under the same judgment and mercy.  The clock was still ticking on the whole race of Adam &amp;amp; Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God surprised Satan with this Messiah concept.  Since Jesus was full human and full God, only humans could become one with Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension to heaven - not demons.  Satan is furious and wishes to kill, corrupt and debase the humans while he has time left.  Then he will take his time to torment the humans that join him in hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3891" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2016-10-11T17:42:00.493" LastActivityDate="2016-10-11T17:42:00.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13945" CreationDate="2013-02-03T21:39:13.477" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there are no other gods that are gods by nature.  That there is only one God is well-established enough that I hope you'll forgive me for not citing Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as how  2 Cor. 4:4 is explained in this light, you answered it yourself in the beginning of the question.  The word &quot;god&quot; is different in connotation than when talking about The God.  &quot;A god&quot; is an idol - anything that we put higher devotion to than God.  Put another way, anything that usurps God's rightful place in our hearts.  Any thing, real or imaginary, that we follow instead of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/no-other-gods.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gotquestions.org&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul’s letter to the Romans indicates the worship of things in&#xA;  creation themselves—not just their images—is wrong in the eyes of God&#xA;  (Romans 1:25). Paul also warns the Colossians against worshipping&#xA;  other supernatural beings: “Do not let anyone who delights in false&#xA;  humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize”&#xA;  (Colossians 2:18a). Jesus expanded the definition of “other gods” to&#xA;  include concepts in addition to images, living things and other&#xA;  supernatural beings. In Matthew 6:24, He warns against the worship of&#xA;  material things. “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate&#xA;  the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and&#xA;  despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money”. The Greek&#xA;  word mammonas, translated here as “money,” does not mean the money in&#xA;  one’s pockets. It is the personification of wealth or money&#xA;  (especially wealth gained through greediness), the love of which, in&#xA;  modern terminology, is “materialism.” The dangers of worshipping&#xA;  material things are clearly outlined in the story of the rich young&#xA;  ruler (Matthew 19:16-26) who turned away from Christ because he could&#xA;  not part with his wealth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also spoke of the fact that these false &quot;gods&quot; aren't really gods at all in Galatians 4:8  (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by&#xA;  nature are no gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for The god of this world&quot;... The &quot;god of this world&quot; is Satan who, for the time being, has the hearts, minds, and souls of most of the people on this earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gotquestions.org&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age”) indicates that&#xA;  Satan is the major influence on the ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and&#xA;  views of the majority of people. His influence also encompasses the&#xA;  world’s philosophies, education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas,&#xA;  speculations and false religions of the world are under his control&#xA;  and have sprung from his lies and deceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-03T22:22:04.447" LastActivityDate="2013-02-03T22:22:04.447" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13979" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13987" CreationDate="2013-02-03T22:21:38.303" Score="1" ViewCount="1007" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, we find an internal representation of God, who is within us. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the&#xA;  kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but there is also an &lt;em&gt;external&lt;/em&gt; representation of God. For example:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in&#xA;  heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Deuteronomy&#xA;  4:39&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears in today's (western) culture, people pray and &quot;look up to the sky&quot; or have a mental representation of talking with a human form of God (praying to the human Jesus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, we also believe that God is Omnipresent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;During prayer&lt;/strong&gt;, what should the mental representation of God be? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should it be a representation of God as the spirit within (so we are focusing inside of our-self during prayer - closing out all the external), to the more external ambiguous God &quot;in the sky&quot;, to a human form (to Jesus) or to something that is more like a &quot;force field&quot; (omnipresent)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-02-04T03:33:29.687" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T19:30:59.603" Title="What is the mental representation of God during prayer?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13965" CreationDate="2013-02-04T00:16:14.130" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There can be no accidents in God but God has created life so that accidents exist for every member of creation.&lt;/strong&gt; The reason why no accidents can occur in God is already couched in your question, I presume rhetorically.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing in God is truly contingent upon the existence of something else. As God alone is infinite, all that he is is without boundary or parts. Being infinite in knowledge and infinitely wise to decide every best choice in time, before he created time, means for want of better words, God chose everything before anything existed to chose between.  As he can not change and can't improve in that decision for want of knowledge or perfection he can't be properly influenced outside of himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In time, to our human understanding he appears to be influenced by many things, for example our desire for him, our prayers, etc.,  but there is much truth to our perception. The only correction needed is that God chose before the foundations of the world that he would be influenced by us at any given movement based on his own properties from eternity in infinite self-sufficiency. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nature, including humans, are in the opposite position on this point. It's properties and attributes are under the influence of many things especially God. &lt;strong&gt;While God can't be influenced man always is.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-04T06:09:58.977" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T06:09:58.977" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3028" CreationDate="2013-02-04T01:05:00.093" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God wants to be glorified by His creatures.  In the Lord's prayer, the first statement we make is &quot;Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name.&quot;  When Moses was appealing to God for the fate of the Israelis, he used the point that He would get disrepute if He killed them.  God repented. (Ex.32:11-14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3891" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T01:05:00.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2095" CreationDate="2013-02-04T01:37:36.477" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a place for open groups and closed groups.  John Wesley of the Methodist movement had the small groups open and the large groups closed.  You had to get a ticket in a small group to enter the large group!  Small groups are for personal ministry; large groups are for teaching, just like in Acts 2.  No anonymity here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3891" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T01:37:36.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12530" CreationDate="2013-02-04T02:31:05.250" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer: yes and I'm proof of it.  I had no interest in Christianity, but a group on the west coast took me on as a prayer project.  I didn't care.  But &quot;coincidences&quot; arranged for me to read an apologetics book on the Bible.  Since I was out of thick books to read, I bought a Bible and started reading it.  When I reached the New Testament, I was amazed at this fellow, Jesus.  I became a Christian out of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 9, Pharisee Saul set out to arrest the Christians in Damascus.  The Christians there were fervently praying for Him.  God came through and saved him on the road.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Muslim countries, Muslims are becoming Christians because of Christians praying for God to visit them in visions and dreams.  Many converted Muslims are reporting that's how they became Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3891" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T02:31:05.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13965" CreationDate="2013-02-04T03:51:50.160" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this directly in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Article 6. Whether in God there are any accidents?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I answer that, From all we have said, it is clear there can be no&#xA;  accident in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, because a subject is compared to its accidents as potentiality&#xA;  to actuality; for a subject is in some sense made actual by its&#xA;  accidents. But there can be no potentiality in God, as was shown (2,&#xA;  3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Secondly, because God is His own existence; and as Boethius says&#xA;  (Hebdom.), although every essence may have something superadded to it,&#xA;  this cannot apply to absolute being: thus a heated substance can have&#xA;  something extraneous to heat added to it, as whiteness, nevertheless&#xA;  absolute heat can have nothing else than heat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thirdly, because what is essential is prior to what is accidental.&#xA;  Whence as God is absolute primal being, there can be in Him nothing&#xA;  accidental. Neither can He have any essential accidents (as the&#xA;  capability of laughing is an essential accident of man), because such&#xA;  accidents are caused by the constituent principles of the subject. Now&#xA;  there can be nothing caused in God, since He is the first cause. Hence&#xA;  it follows that there is no accident in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Briefly, there are no accidents in God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire section on &lt;em&gt;The Simplicity of God&lt;/em&gt; may help to clarify this, if there's any confusion. The main contributing points, I think, are that God's essence and existence are one in the same, that God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; His own essence and existence, and that God is &lt;em&gt;absolutely simple&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T03:51:50.160" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13979" CreationDate="2013-02-04T04:34:14.290" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church has a great deal to say about prayer. Most relevant to the question, I think, are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=41-chapter20.xhtml%23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Expressions of Prayer&lt;/a&gt; found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord leads all persons by paths and in ways pleasing to him, and&#xA;  each believer responds according to his heart’s resolve and the&#xA;  personal expressions of his prayer. However, Christian Tradition has&#xA;  retained three major expressions of prayer: vocal, meditative, and&#xA;  contemplative. They have one basic trait in common: composure of&#xA;  heart. This vigilance in keeping the Word and dwelling in the presence&#xA;  of God makes these three expressions intense times in the life of&#xA;  prayer. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=41-chapter20.xhtml%23para2699&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 2699&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, we're talking about three &lt;strong&gt;expressions&lt;/strong&gt; of prayer. This is notable. Prayer is an expression of the uplifting of ourselves to God. That said, the three expressions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vocal&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;We pray with words, mentally or vocally, giving our prayer &quot;flesh.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Meditatieve&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;According to the Catechism, &quot;There are as many and varied methods of meditation as there are spiritual masters. ... Meditation engages thought, imagination, emotion, and desire.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Contemplative&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The Catechism says, &quot;Meditation engages thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. ... Contemplative prayer is hearing the Word of God. ... Contemplative prayer is silence, the “symbol of the world to come” or “silent love.”&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, while I'd definitely suggest reading the whole article entitled &lt;em&gt;Expressions of Prayer&lt;/em&gt; to get a better sense for what we really mean by these expressions, your question lingers primarily in meditative prayer, wherein our imagination is active. But, exploring each a little:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;vocal&lt;/strong&gt; prayer, we're speaking to God in response to His Word. In a &lt;em&gt;purely&lt;/em&gt; vocal prayer, imagination isn't really required. Whether we're capable of a strictly vocal prayer is debatable -- an imaginations is hard to turn off. But, in the most basic sense, we can pray vocally as though God is an unseen and mysterious person (or three) standing around the corner, listening intently. We don't have to imagine anything, really. We're just aware that our words, mental or vocal, express what we wish to say (presumably to God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;meditative&lt;/strong&gt; prayer, we take steps to engage more of our mental faculties to express ourselves, and perhaps more importantly to &lt;em&gt;hear God&lt;/em&gt;. Thus, we imagine God, His Word, scenes from the Bible from various perspectives, we ponder the lives of the saints, imagine ourselves speaking to God, etc.. I understand this prayer largely as an explorative prayer: with our imagination, emotion, and thought, we &lt;em&gt;seek&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;feel around&lt;/em&gt; for God and His Word. It's important in this sort of prayer, as with any, to avoid clinging to any particular image of God or revelation, checking/validating all things against Biblical wisdom and the general teachings of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;contemplative&lt;/strong&gt; prayer, we sort of silently groan for God, in response to His call for intimacy with us. We unite with Him in a way that no other form of prayer can bring, because this prayer is 100% grace. Our role active, but it's an active &quot;yes&quot; to God's will to bring us into contemplative prayer. As such, where our minds and hearts (and bodies) go in contemplative prayer is beyond recommendation -- God takes them where entirely He wills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In brief, your question centers primarily on meditative prayer. There are a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of recommended methods and approaches for meditation. All of them, as far as I'm aware, are explorative efforts, wherein the valid fruits of our labor will square with our conscience, scripture (Jesus Himself), and the Church in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T04:34:14.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13979" CreationDate="2013-02-04T05:05:31.977" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Should&quot; is going to be contingent upon your faith. I don't pray to an all powerful mystical being that is ready to cast me in to the pit of brimstone and fire... I pray to a loving Heavenly Father, on my knees and with a bowed head, and in the name of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, prayer is an act of the the will of the Father and the will of the child converging. I do not pray to bend the will of God, but to understand His will for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However you actually do pray and what ever the differences in Faiths are, I think it is important to pray often and develop a relationship with your Heavenly Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible teaches how to pray, but I think the O.T. teachings and with animal sacrifices has been replaced by the N.T. teachings after Christ's life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 13:14 teachings to Pray in Christ's name, &quot;And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 16:23-24 also teaches to pray to the Father and in Christ's name, &quot;23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 24 Hither to have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 18:1 states that we should pray often and that we will be strengthened by it, &quot; 1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philip 4:6 teaches that we should give thanks, &quot;Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fist Thessalonians 5:17 teaches to pray very often, &quot;Pray without ceasing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew 6:5-6 teaches to pray in private and condemn the Pharisees the pray in public for the merit of man, &quot;And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew 6:7 teaches that we should pray from our heart at that moment, not a pre-rehearsed or memorized prayer, &quot;But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3893" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-02-04T19:30:59.603" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T19:30:59.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13893" CreationDate="2013-02-04T10:48:59.223" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think the Bible mention about these. But if the Government make rules, then I think we should follow it unless it is a sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:17 (NIV)&#xA;      Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-08-16T00:22:35.333" LastActivityDate="2015-08-16T00:22:35.333" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6782" CreationDate="2013-02-04T11:47:20.313" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see this post is a bit old, but I came across it while preparing for a discussion on the pre-existence with the 12-18 year old young men in our LDS congregation. Since the very first reply above raises the LDS doctrine, I thought I would round out the post by noting a few points about that doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are all God's children, and he created us spiritually before we came to this earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We lived in heaven with God our Father for quite some time, learning line upon line, precept upon precept.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Father presented His plan to send us to earth into mortality to provide us the experience necessary to continue to grow. The plan is known as the Plan of Salvation or the Plan of Happiness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This plan included the Atonement of Jesus Christ, without which, we would be unable to return to God's presence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One of the signature characteristics of the children of God is their Agency, or their freedom to choose, which was bestowed upon us by God at the time of our spiritual creation. God permitted us to choose whether we would follow Christ, the leader of His plan, or Satan, who had presented a competing, though ultimately nihilistic, plan. Every soul who enters mortality chose in the pre-existence to follow Christ and accept the Father's plan.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A veil of forgetfulness was placed over our minds, to give emphasis to the faith that is necessary to grow according to the Father's plan for us. Yet the Father, whose entire purpose is to help us return to Him, gives us the Holy Spirit who whispers to us from time to time that we might, through trial and experience, through faith in Christ, return again, much improved, to our Father's presence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This true doctrine gives depth and meaning to all of the Bible versus cited above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To learn more: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/plan-of-happiness/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://mormon.org/plan-of-happiness/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3.22-28?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3.22-28?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To properly answer the question, I would like to add the following scripture, that I believe supports the idea of pre-existence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even the son of man which is in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3895" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2014-02-10T21:58:25.247" LastActivityDate="2014-02-10T21:58:25.247" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13993" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="13996" CreationDate="2013-02-04T13:02:05.397" Score="3" ViewCount="280" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Apostle's Creed we know that Jesus descended to Hell.&#xA;Dante's Inferno also mentioned how Hell might look like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of Hell was it that Jesus went to?&#xA;Was it,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Mark 9:48 &#xA; where&#xA;‘the worms that eat them do not die,&#xA;    and the fire is not quenched.’&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OR&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Luke 16:22   Abraham’s side.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-04T13:19:25.960" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T06:08:54.400" Title="Harrowing of Hell" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-03-27T03:38:36.167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13945" CreationDate="2013-02-04T16:23:13.520" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the general understanding among Christians is that God, properly understood, is unique in both nature and office when considering His &lt;strong&gt;full nature&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;full office&lt;/strong&gt;. That is, there's no other being that is &lt;strong&gt;is His own essence&lt;/strong&gt; (nature) or &lt;strong&gt;is the creator of all things&lt;/strong&gt; (office). (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Summa, Part 1, Question 3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, your question, as stated, seems to be more of a linguistic question. The words we use to refer to God are ultimately finite and flexible. Even if we had a word for a moment in time that specifically referred to &lt;em&gt;the single being who is His own essence and is the creator of all things&lt;/em&gt;, that word would dissipate in its pure meaning very rapidly. Furthermore, words with strict meanings are often used in other contexts hyperbolically or illustratively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's pretend our word for &lt;em&gt;the single being who is His own essence and is the creator of all things&lt;/em&gt; is &lt;em&gt;Pift&lt;/em&gt;. Thusly, it's proper for me to say,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is only one Pift. And Pift alone is worth our praise and&#xA;  worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I can also, in the very next sentence say,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cast your other Pifts aside. They're worthless!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or even,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That man is a Pift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first statement uses Pift in the proper &lt;em&gt;literal&lt;/em&gt; form. In fact, the first sentence is tautological; it just paraphrases part of our literal definition. The other two statements abuse the strict, literal denotation of the word, but they each have a proper connotation. They're not &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; misuses of the word, nor do they necessarily change the meaning of the first statement or the word itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the second statement, something other than Pift is revered as Pift; and to highlight the reverence inappropriately given to these things, they're called Pift -- or perhaps the reverencers simply know them as Pift(s), and I'm using the term to avoid confusion (possibly counterproductive). In either case, there exist (or possible doesn't exist) some perceived things that is given honor and worship on par with Pift. Hence, they are the &quot;Pifts&quot; of our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the third statement, Pift is clearly just a hyperbole. There exists a man whom we think is awesome for some reason -- perhaps he can run 100 miles without stopping to pee or something equally amazing. To highlight how abnormal or amazing this is, we might call him a Pift. The hyperbole is obvious to an average person, and no harm is done to our word or our first statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the case with God-terminology in the Bible is often of a somewhat different nature, I think. Take a peek at &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/695/what-are-the-different-names-of-god-in-the-bible-and-what-do-they-mean&quot;&gt;What are the different names of God in the Bible and what do they mean?&lt;/a&gt;. You'll see a slew of &quot;names&quot; like Abba, Alpha, Omega, Good Shepherd, Creator, King, Judge, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are all words with other meanings, and fulfillable by numerous other things, used to refer explicitly to God in their context. They don't necessarily come with an explanation like, &lt;em&gt;when I say judge here, what I really mean is God.&lt;/em&gt; Rather, they're [usually] used and understood by context. Take &lt;em&gt;judge&lt;/em&gt; as an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose you get a letter in the mail from your local court system that contains this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You will appear in court on Friday, February 8th. A jury of your peers&#xA;  will determine your guilt or innocence. If guilty, the judge will&#xA;  determine your sentence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The judge&lt;/em&gt; in this context is a person, a particular one of many who have the qualifications and can fill the role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, suppose you get a letter from a concerned (and probably tactless) Christian friend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You will die. Your sins will be weighed against your good deeds. And&#xA;  the Judge will determine your sentence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're talking about a very specific being here. The phrase, &lt;em&gt;The judge will determine your sentence,&lt;/em&gt; is the same. And the denotation is similar, if not identical. But, the connotations and understood meanings are chasms apart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interpretive lens for the titles of God in the Bible fall in this spectrum -- from words that may be intended to mean &lt;em&gt;the only one possible God&lt;/em&gt; to words elevated to illustrate particular offices or attributes of God. In neither case do I think there's any real ambiguity in the educated Christian mind. And in general, &lt;em&gt;these sorts&lt;/em&gt; of ambiguities tend to arise only when we focus too closely on somethings (literal meaning of a word, in this case) and ignore the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T16:23:13.520" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13857" CreationDate="2013-02-04T16:34:27.647" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got this manual from my sibling's homework for their subject, Christian Living Formation. Hope this helps. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Page 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/UJ2jy.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Page 1&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Page 2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tpxna.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Page 3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/EbmfW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Page 4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/E9qNA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt; References: &lt;br&gt;&#xA;1. &lt;em&gt;The Order of Mass&lt;/em&gt;. St. John Bosco Parish Church.  20 August 2010. Web. 5 February 2012. &amp;lt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.saginaw.org/images/stories/PDFs/missal/order-of-mass.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.saginaw.org/images/stories/PDFs/missal/order-of-mass.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&gt;. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;2. &lt;em&gt;The Order of Mass&lt;/em&gt;. Catholic Diocese of Saginaw. 10 June 2012. Web. 5 February 2012. &amp;lt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sjbmakati.com/uploads/2/7/4/3/2743634/new_roman_missal.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://sjbmakati.com/uploads/2/7/4/3/2743634/new_roman_missal.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&gt;. &lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3792" LastEditorUserId="3792" LastEditDate="2013-02-05T09:51:43.183" LastActivityDate="2013-02-05T09:51:43.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13993" CreationDate="2013-02-04T17:16:29.153" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;Bosom of Abraham&quot; was a traditional Rabbinic idea that when righteous people died they went to the &quot;Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From The Legend of the Jews:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;to be in Abraham's bosom&quot;, found in the New Testament, and&#xA;  sporadically also in rabbinic literature (e.g., Kiddushin 72b; Ekah 1.&#xA;  85), has, however, nothing to do with the conception of sacramental&#xA;  character of circumcision. The pious are gathered to their fathers (4&#xA;  Maccabees 12. 17; BHM V, 50), and accordingly, &quot;to be in Abraham's&#xA;  bosom&quot; is abridged from the complete expression &quot;to be in the bosom of&#xA;  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacon,&quot; the three patriarchs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further in the Talmud (taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham&quot;&gt;the Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Kiddushin 72b, Adda bar Ahavah of the third century, is said to be&#xA;  &quot;sitting in the bosom of Abraham,&quot; Likewise &quot;In the world to come&#xA;  Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna, permitting none to enter who&#xA;  bears the seal of the covenant&quot; according to Rabbi Levi in Genesis&#xA;  Rabba 67.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0520.htm&quot;&gt;Hippolytus of Rome, a Christian theologian from the third century, wrote&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the righteous shall obtain the incorruptible and un-fading&#xA;  kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the&#xA;  same place with the unrighteous. For to this locality there is one&#xA;  descent, at the gate whereof we believe an archangel is stationed with&#xA;  a host. And when those who are conducted by the angels appointed unto&#xA;  the souls have passed through this gate, they do not proceed on one&#xA;  and the same way; but the righteous, being conducted in the light&#xA;  toward the right, and being hymned by the angels stationed at the&#xA;  place, are brought to a locality full of light. And there the&#xA;  righteous from the beginning dwell, not ruled by necessity, but&#xA;  enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their&#xA;  view, and delighting themselves with the expectation of others ever&#xA;  new, and deeming those ever better than these. And that place brings&#xA;  no toils to them. There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor&#xA;  thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be&#xA;  always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in&#xA;  heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name&#xA;  Abraham's bosom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that long background out of the way, the answer to your question would depend on why Jesus went to hell in the first place, if Apostle's Creed is to be taken on its word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus went to &quot;hell&quot; to pay for our sins, since that is the eventual punishment for our sins, then it would make complete sense that Jesus went to the hell of Mark 9 above. Acts 2:24 could be used to support that argument:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death,&#xA;  because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. Acts 2:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if the argument based on 1st century Jewish tradition is used, that Jesus died and went to &quot;the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob&quot; or &quot;the bosom of Abraham&quot;, because that is the resting place for all righteous people then we can assume that the &quot;hell&quot; he went to looked like the one in Luke 16 above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; Further evidence to support that Jesus went to &quot;paradise&quot; or a place with no suffering is the following from Luke 23:39-43:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t&#xA;  you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said,&#xA;  “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for&#xA;  we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing&#xA;  wrong.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in&#xA;  paradise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT END&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way there is no definitive answer here since we don't clearly know why Jesus went to hell. And this is where I will give you my personal beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that Jesus died for our sins. Not only did he die on the cross and shed his blood but he was the perfect sacrifice. Being the perfect sacrifice he took on the punishment that we deserved. Seeing that the punishment for sins is eternal punishment in hell where &quot;there is weeping and gnashing of teeth&quot;, I would venture on to say that Jesus went to hell and suffered the fate we were supposed to suffer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer is in no way authoritative so please take it with a grain of salt; but I hope it helps you with your question, nonetheless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastEditorUserId="1160" LastEditDate="2013-02-04T17:28:08.427" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T17:28:08.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6782" CreationDate="2013-02-04T17:47:50.020" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the cryptic references that you mentioned in Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:15-16, there is a clear reference in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Wisdom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the apocryphal book Book of Wisdom&lt;/a&gt; 8:19-20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; or&#xA;  rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body (NRSVCE).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author of this book was almost certainly &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Wisdom#Philosophical_influences&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;heavily influenced&lt;/a&gt; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#Middle_Platonism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Middle-Platonism&lt;/a&gt;. Sometimes understanding the history of an idea sheds more light on it than trying to determine what biblical justification they used after the fact - especially since Plato predates the writings of the New Testament and potentially some apocryphal works such as the Book of Wisdom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a doctrine taught by Plato long before Christianity existed called the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;preexistence of souls&lt;/a&gt;.&quot; According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/josephus-on-the-essenes/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Josephus&lt;/a&gt;, the Essenes affirmed the preexistence of souls. Origen and a couple other early Church Fathers believed this and held the doctrine to be a necessary complement of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality#Ancient_Greek_religion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;doctrine of the immortality of souls&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Implicit in this worldview is the Gnostic idea that spirit is superior to matter. Thus the soul preexisted and is only temporarily imprisoned in the body. In contrast, the Christian Church has always affirmed that we are not inherently eternal creatures, we only exist by the grace of God. To ascribe an eternal nature to humans (apart from God's grace) would be to confuse the creation with the Creator, and thus to deify man. This is why these notions were &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Anathemas_.28544.2C_553.29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;officially condemned&lt;/a&gt; as heretical Christian teachings at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Constantinople_%28543%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Synod of Constantinople in 543&lt;/a&gt;. The consensus of the early church as evidenced by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Apostle's Creed&lt;/a&gt; is that the Christian hope is the resurrection of the body, not the inherent immortality of souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-02-04T20:25:23.423" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T20:25:23.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13998" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:22:06.727" Score="-1" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+6%3A9-10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 6:9–10&lt;/a&gt; (KJV) &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that the word &lt;i&gt;unrighteous&lt;/i&gt; (NIV – &quot;wrongdoers&quot;) would include murderers implicitly, but it seems like it would have been an easy and obvious thing to have included murderers in the list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what about liars?  Why are liars not included?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3837" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-28T11:05:26.800" LastActivityDate="2015-09-28T11:05:26.800" Title="Why does Paul not include murderers (or liars) in First Corinthians 6?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;murder&gt;&lt;lying&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13998" CreationDate="2013-02-04T21:36:24.813" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, Christian teaching, as well as a scholarly understanding, attempts to read intended meaning, rather than the exclusively literal meaning. The author, Paul in this case, doesn't intend to discount the sinfulness of known-sinful actions by their omission from this particular list, which serves one or both of two main purposes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For clarification and/or literary effect.&lt;/strong&gt; It's a fairly normal construct to list examples in writing, whether to make the writing more tolerable or to ensure your readers understand your terms more fully. For instance, if I write to the general public about apples, I might list a few kinds.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;&quot;All apples, Gala, Honeycrisp, Granny Smith, and so forth, are eligible for my apple contest.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;But I'm certainly not going to try my reader's patience or risk omitting an important apple by attempting to list &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; kinds of apples. I just want to quickly make the point that &lt;em&gt;all kinds&lt;/em&gt; of apples are eligible apples in context X, even though I may leave &lt;em&gt;Red Delicious&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Fuji&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;Macintosh&lt;/em&gt; off the list.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To note sins that may have found some degree of acceptance or normalcy in the community.&lt;/strong&gt; Paul wants to remind them that these actions, albiet normal in the community, are sinful and damning. But, it doesn't imply that things &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; on the list &lt;em&gt;aren't&lt;/em&gt; sinful. Bestiality, for instance, is also not on the list, but is a sexual sin like others &lt;em&gt;on&lt;/em&gt; the list. And as you pointed out, murder is omitted -- and no major Christian denomination will dispute the sinfulness of murder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-02-04T21:36:24.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14000" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-04T22:19:23.470" Score="5" ViewCount="674" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming the Young Earth Creationist view that the Genesis account is literal history...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they were condemned to death which caused every subsequent human to bear death's potential. The question is: since animals also die just like each and every one of us, did they also eat the forbidden fruit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3896" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-05-14T02:04:35.143" LastActivityDate="2018-05-14T02:04:35.143" Title="According to the YEC view, did the animals eat the forbidden fruit?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;&lt;animals&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14000" CreationDate="2013-02-05T00:16:44.850" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most adherents to the literal young-earth seven-day creation account believe that when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, God applied the curse to the entire universe, including animals.  Animals didn't need to eat the fruit to be affected by the curse. From the YEC view, whether animals ate the fruit is irrelevant because they weren't made &quot;in God's image&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supporting example, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/museum-guide-corruption&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/museum-guide-corruption&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God had warned Adam and Eve that if they ate of the Tree, they would&#xA;  die. When God came to walk with them that evening, He punished their&#xA;  sin. The earth was now cursed. Death was now part of life; both&#xA;  animals and humans would now die (Genesis 3:19; Romans 8:20–22). When&#xA;  the first humans sinned, it corrupted all of creation. The ground was&#xA;  cursed and would produce thistles and thorns (Genesis 3:17–18).&#xA;  Animals began to hunt and eat other animals. Man would now have to&#xA;  work hard for food, and woman would have pain in bearing and raising&#xA;  her children (Genesis 3:16–17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/837/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Institute for Creation Research (ICR)&lt;/a&gt; says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The animals, not having moral natures, were not guilty of sin, of&#xA;  course, but they also shared in the Curse, for they were—like&#xA;  Adam—made of the dust of the ground that God had cursed. Like Adam's&#xA;  body, their bodies also must return to the ground. Henceforth, &quot;death&#xA;  reigned ... even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of&#xA;  Adam's transgression&quot; (Romans 5:14). Thus there is death in the world&#xA;  only because there is sin in the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-05-14T02:03:25.227" LastActivityDate="2018-05-14T02:03:25.227" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14002" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-05T03:43:42.057" Score="5" ViewCount="1189" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.&lt;/i&gt; ~ Hebrews 8:6 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that the short answer is probably &quot;the Mosaic Covenant&quot;, but is this covenant the Hebrew vow to adhere to the entire Law, and God's promise to establish them as the chosen people, or is there more to it than I know (which isn't very much, frankly)?  Although I find many, many instances of &quot;covenant&quot; in the O.T., I can never really find a summation, or an entry I can point to and say, &quot;Ah, there it is.  &lt;i&gt;That&lt;/i&gt; is the covenant between God and the Jewish people.&quot;  Of course, I have been known to look right at something and not see it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also occurs to me that, according to the context in which the above quotation exists, the old covenant could be between the priesthood and God, because Hebrews 8 begins&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;1 We... have... a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3837" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T21:53:33.897" Title="What is the old covenant of Hebrews 8:6?" Tags="&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;covenants&gt;&lt;covenant-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14002" CreationDate="2013-02-05T05:07:20.683" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it is as easy as you suspect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews does focus on the superiority of the New Covenant a little more from the ceremonial perspective than does some of the other Epistles, as this had more meaning to a Jewish audience. However this superiority of the blood of Christ, versus blood of bulls only has meaning as it &lt;em&gt;satisfies the moral demands of the broken laws under the Mosaic Law&lt;/em&gt;. So it would be untrue to think any other covenant was being referred to besides the Mosaic Covenant, as that is the only Old Covenant there is.  It is the condemnation of the Mosaic moral law specifically that Jesus the High Priest has removed. Jesus, by offering his own body and soul upon an altar, removed the curse of the law, whereby he was so pleasing to God that he was ‘raised up’, higher than the angels that we might rest in forgiveness forever. This is absolutely what Hebrews argues at length by various convincing arguments tailored to a Jewish audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Old Covenant is the covenant God made with Israel under Moses often called the Mosaic Covenant.&lt;/strong&gt; It was an agreement between God and Israel that they would vow to keep all the commands provided by Moses.  These laws include all those laws recorded in the first five books of the Bible and summarized under the Ten Commandments. Ceremonially the highest point of this law was the high priest and all his functions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this is the case we find the tablets actually called the 'covenant laws':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Lord commanded Moses, Aaron put the manna with the tablets of the covenant law, so that it might be preserved. (Exodus 16:34, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Priesthood was fully integrated with the commands and equally part of that covenant it was ratified in blood: &lt;strong&gt;(This is a 'Ah..there it is' location.)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.” Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exodus 24:6-9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Naturally in Hebrews when referring to the Old Covenant both the commands and ceremonies are involved. First respecting ceremonial the Covenants are compared:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!&#xA;For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance —now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9:13-15, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second respecting the commands, the Covenants are compared:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. (Hebrews 8:10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the Old Covenant also included the theocracy, as God was a citizen as it were of Israel and its civil King. This also is included in the Old Covenant and is superseded by the New:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace (Ephesians 2:14-15, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is the Old Covenant the writer of Hebrews refers to, the entire Mosaic Law.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-05T22:59:51.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14006" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14009" CreationDate="2013-02-05T12:52:58.657" Score="0" ViewCount="1751" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Epistle of Barnabas&lt;/a&gt;, it says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Barnabas 15:3 Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the&#xA;  creation; And God made the works of His hands in six days, and He&#xA;  ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Barnabas 15:4 Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six&#xA;  days. He meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring&#xA;  all things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand&#xA;  years; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day&#xA;  of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six&#xA;  days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Barnabas 15:5 And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when&#xA;  His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and&#xA;  shall judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the&#xA;  stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we know that the World (Human History) according to Bible is now almost &lt;strong&gt;6000&lt;/strong&gt; years.&#xA;This means The Second Coming of Jesus will happen within &lt;strong&gt;50&lt;/strong&gt; years from now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Saint Malachy Prophecy&lt;/a&gt;&#xA; we can know that it has the same timeline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should we interpret these things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-18T08:16:01.320" LastActivityDate="2016-06-11T05:23:55.997" Title="How do mainstream Christians handle the Epistle of St. Barnabas' prophecy that Jesus will return in the next 50 years?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;extra-biblical&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13998" CreationDate="2013-02-05T13:01:42.870" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Capital Punishment was likely the penalty for murderers under Roman law.  Unlike today, people probably did not spend years and years on &quot;Death Row&quot;, but received the punishment in a short amount of time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Barabbas was crucified (sentenced to death) for taking part in a rebellion, which would be considered treason.  Paul does not mention treason either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, you would not mention an offense whose punishment was death, because dead people cannot repent or feel conviction.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Svidgen's second point is quite noteworthy as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-05T13:01:42.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14006" CreationDate="2013-02-05T15:27:51.667" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Epistle of Barnabas is not considered canon. Sticking purely to canon, the bible is very explicit that we &lt;em&gt;do not know&lt;/em&gt;. The world could end tomorrow. Or this afternoon. Or 10,000 years from now:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matt 25:13&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man comes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 13:32&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:2&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2013-02-05T15:27:51.667" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14010" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-05T15:38:19.310" Score="4" ViewCount="437" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all I would like to state that this is not an attempt to disprove religion, or the existence of God. There is just a lot of confusion, due to many contradictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to some people, God sends people to Hell because they were misinformed (believed in the wrong God/followed the wrong religion, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this true? And why? If God saw the future, he would know that&#xA;there would be many people, millions even, preaching the wrong&#xA;things. If God had the power to create us all, why didn't He write&#xA;The Bible, and just dump it somewhere on earth for us to find and&#xA;replicate? Thus helping to eliminate the chance of&#xA;mis-interpretation, which is seeming to be a never-ending problem.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What was wrong with the Old Testament? Apparently, the Bible is&#xA;revised because things are mis-interpreted and that's how the New&#xA;Testament came to be.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If God could see the future, why didn't he write a version for each&#xA;language that would be invented my man kind? So that there would be&#xA;no possibility of mis-interpretation in future generations?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do you believe in God, without doubts, when there are so many&#xA;other religions and Gods? What is it about your religion that makes&#xA;you say &quot;Yep. This is the real/only God.&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I will admit that I have not followed religion my whole life but I have never dismissed the idea that there was a God, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I am so confused by everything, and when I read things online, I get even more confused because there are so many Christians out there who preach this, or that, and then I click away to a different website where another Christian will preach the complete opposite of what I just read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can one follow religion when we do not really know the real story? As far as I know, everything we read today about the Bible is just yet another revision of something we have not read yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there an original Bible? I.e. An unedited/authentic version of the Bible that still exists that is being sold, or given away around the world? Or is it merely an artefact preserved in some Museum now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we believe in the right thing when there is more of a chance of us believing in the wrong thing, and never even knowing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3898" LastActivityDate="2013-02-05T19:06:21.653" Title="Different Bibles and Religions" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;global-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-02-05T20:30:11.013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14010" CreationDate="2013-02-05T19:06:21.653" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only reason to believe something is because it is &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all&#xA;  circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do&#xA;  not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but &lt;strong&gt;test everything;&#xA;  hold fast what is good.&lt;/strong&gt; Abstain from every form of evil. (1&#xA;  Thessalonians 5:16-22 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do we test if something is true/good?  By holding it in the light of what we already know to be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some things are true by their very nature.  Some truths are derived through logic or widsom.  Some, we believe, cannot be deduced or induced from nature itself and so are &lt;em&gt;revealed&lt;/em&gt; to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason there are so many disagreements about what is true regarding God and heaven, Jesus, religion, etc is because everyone has their own frame of reference and current baseline that they compare new information or ideas to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-02-05T19:06:21.653" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14012" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14013" CreationDate="2013-02-05T19:36:59.090" Score="10" ViewCount="9508" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently read somewhere that in the LDS observance of communion, water and leavened bread is used.  The practice of communion comes from the Jewish Passover ceremony where wine and unleavened bread was used.  Wine is the fruit of the vine and leaven, or yeast, represents sin, so the bread, which represents Christ's body today, was without leaven, or sinless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christian denominations still follow this pattern today, even though many use grape juice as a non-alcoholic substitute for &quot;the fruit of the vine&quot;.  So, I was quite surprised to learn that Mormons do not follow this pattern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it true that LDS Churches use water instead of wine or grape juice and leavened bread instead of unleavened bread?  If so, where does this practice come from and what is the theological basis for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2019-04-06T12:37:54.483" Title="Why do LDS use water and leavened bread in communion when the Jews used wine and unleavened bread?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14012" CreationDate="2013-02-05T19:56:24.623" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS church proscribes wine (or any alcoholic beverage, really), so water is used instead, although &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/27.2?lang=eng#1&quot;&gt;it doesn't matter what is used for the symbols of the sacrament&lt;/a&gt;, according to Doctrine and Covenants in the LDS canon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;D&amp;amp;C 27:2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It just so happens that regular bread and water are more available and make for a simpler ceremony, especially considering that it's usually the young men in the church who prepare and administer that ordinance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/prepare-for-the-days-of-tribulation&quot;&gt;There are accounts of Latter-day Saints using alternative emblems&lt;/a&gt; for the sacrament. The citation I linked to, about halfway down, mentions French saints making use of potato peelings when that was all they had available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/word-of-wisdom&quot;&gt;The Word of Wisdom&lt;/a&gt;, which is the revelation forbidding the consumption of alcoholic beverages, was not received until later. It could be that this revelation about the emblems was a precursor, in part, to that more general revelation. (Read D&amp;amp;C 27 in context for more information.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-02-05T20:07:54.977" LastActivityDate="2013-02-05T20:07:54.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13892" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:39:19.263" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Frank K. Flinn's &lt;em&gt;Encyclopedia of Catholicism&lt;/em&gt; defines an antipope as &quot;a person who lays claim to the office of bishop of Rome and tries to act as head of the Roman Catholic Church, in opposition to the person duly holding that ecclesiastical office in the eyes of the church as a whole.&quot;  Flinn points out that there have been 39 antipopes in the history of the Catholic Church and that the criteria for papal validity as well as the correct electoral body for the popes has evolved over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first person declared an antipope was St. Hippolytus of Rome (r. 217-35) for his challenging of Pope Callistus (r. 217-222).  The best known antipopes are those from the Babylonian Captivity when the seat of the papacy was moved in 1309 from Rome to Avignon, France where it remained until 1377--these popes were known as antipopes by the Holy See in Rome and a valid pope was elected by that body.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further reading, you can refer to:&#xA;Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 2000)&#xA;Daniel MacCarron, The Great Schism: Antipopes Who Split The Church (Dublin: D.M.C. Universal, 1982).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that helps answer your question some!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All information in this reply came from:&#xA;Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Frank K. Flinn. New York: Facts on File, 2007. 33-34.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Full Disclosure:  I am an MSIS student at the University of Texas' School of Information and am answering this for a class on reference.  I found this source through the Gale Virtual Reference Library.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3899" LastEditorUserId="3899" LastEditDate="2013-02-05T22:45:58.860" LastActivityDate="2013-02-05T22:45:58.860" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14015" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14018" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:36:22.873" Score="5" ViewCount="333" Body="&lt;p&gt;Overheard on a Christian Radio station this morning:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We all know that Jesus said if we are angry without cause, we are in&#xA;  danger of hellfire, and that the Bible tells us to be slow to anger.&#xA;  But did you know that there are situations in which the Bible says we&#xA;  are supposed to be angry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I couldn't listen to the program being advertised,  so I'll ask it here.  Where, in Scripture are we told to be angry, and about what is it OK to be angry?  What is the &quot;cause&quot; that is acceptable if we aren't supposed to be angry &quot;without cause&quot;.  Please include Scripture references.  If applicable, links or comments from official/recognized teachings would be a good addition, particularly if the Scripture reference could be interpreted multiple ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-16T23:55:42.413" LastActivityDate="2014-07-16T23:55:42.413" Title="Biblical references telling us we should be angry" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;anger&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14015" CreationDate="2013-02-06T02:45:14.787" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripture gives several examples of righteous anger.  This is anger towards sin, or injustice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of these show God being angry.  Since God is without sin, it follows that if we in agreement with God, we are safe being angry with the same things He is angry with.  Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God the Father is angry with sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All verses KJV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalms 7:11&lt;/strong&gt; God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Kings 11:9,10&lt;/strong&gt; And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had&#xA;  appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing,&#xA;  that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the&#xA;  LORD commanded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Kings 17:18&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them out of his sight. None was left but the tribe of Judah&#xA;  only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Likewise, Jesus displayed anger at unrighteousness.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 3:4,5&lt;/strong&gt; And he [Jesus] said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they&#xA;  were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their&#xA;  hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He&#xA;  stretched it out, and his hand was restored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 2:13-16&lt;/strong&gt; The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.  In the temple he found those who were selling oxen&#xA;  and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And&#xA;  making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the&#xA;  sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and&#xA;  overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take&#xA;  these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other passage speaks of being angry, and the context seems to say that it's O.K. to be angry, but not to let your anger provoke you to sin, and is followed immediately by a warning to not let your anger consume you - and to forgive as Christ forgives us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Ephesians 4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Neither give place to the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour,&#xA;  working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to&#xA;  give to him that needeth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that&#xA;  which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto&#xA;  the hearers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto&#xA;  the day of redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil&#xA;  speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one&#xA;  another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T02:45:14.787" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14015" CreationDate="2013-02-06T03:35:50.883" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best examples of &quot;righteous anger&quot; in the Bible is the story of Phinehas in Numbers 25:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman&#xA;  into his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole&#xA;  congregation of the Israelites, while they were weeping at the&#xA;  entrance of the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, son&#xA;  of Aaron the priest, saw it, he got up and left the congregation.&#xA;  Taking a spear in his hand, 8 he went after the Israelite man into the&#xA;  tent, and pierced the two of them, the Israelite and the woman,&#xA;  through the belly. So the plague was stopped among the people of&#xA;  Israel. 9 Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four&#xA;  thousand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, son&#xA;  of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by&#xA;  manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I&#xA;  did not consume the Israelites. 12 Therefore say, ‘I hereby grant him&#xA;  my covenant of peace. 13 It shall be for him and for his descendants&#xA;  after him a covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he was zealous&#xA;  for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case not only did a man act in anger or zeal for God but God also rewarded him and his descendants for acting thusly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another interesting (and off topic) thing to note is how God granted him a covenant of peace because of an &quot;act of violence&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question also asked when it was okay to be angry and I would say, based on the above verse and those quoted by David, that it is not only okay but expected of us by God that we'd act in anger when we see sin. And this doesn't just have to be within the bounds of the church for remember that Jesus stood between a prostitute and those who wanted to stone her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think God &quot;looks&quot; at us with disappointment when we just walk on by, without batting an eye, while an orphan or a widow is mistreated right in front of our eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before Israel was sent into exile and before God wrought judgement against them for their sins God said the following in Isaiah 59:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Truth is lacking,&#xA;      and whoever turns from evil is despoiled. The Lord saw it, and it displeased him&#xA;      that there was no justice. 16 He saw that there was no one,&#xA;      and was appalled that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm brought him victory,&#xA;      and his righteousness upheld him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would urge you to read all of Isaiah in its context to be able to fully grasp what was the injustice and what was it that displeased God so much. Isaiah constantly talks about widows and orphans being mistreated and those who commit the offense go free without justice. God expects us to be angry when we see things like this going on. And God, I believe, expects us to step in for those among us who are weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not, ever, asked to be numb to the wrong around us. If God is angry at injustices then it is safe to assume that we can and should be angry about them too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: Sorry about the long answer. I don't mean to preach. It is just my opinion on what the Bible teaches. I hope it helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1160" LastEditorUserId="1160" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T03:41:04.757" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T03:41:04.757" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14015" CreationDate="2013-02-06T03:46:21.437" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anger is one of the passions, according to the Catholic Church. The passions are morally neutral, as they originate in flesh beyond our will. The moral value of each passion is assigned by our response to it, taking into account our &lt;em&gt;ability&lt;/em&gt; to contain, control, or direct the passion for good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These involuntary motions of the passions are neither morally good nor&#xA;  morally bad. They become voluntary in two ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;by the command of the will, which can command the inferior powers of the sensitive appetite and excite its emotions;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;by nonresistance, for the will can resist by refusing its consent to their promptings, and it is bound to resist when their promptings are&#xA;  irrational and inordinate. When voluntary, the passions may increase&#xA;  the intensity of the acts of the will, but they may also lessen their&#xA;  morality by affecting its freedom.&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11534a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Passions&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anger, in particular, is taught to be praiseworthy and justifiable with proper &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15753a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;zeal&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality&#xA;  of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in&#xA;  conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a&#xA;  sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper&#xA;  zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one&#xA;  who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been&#xA;  deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an&#xA;  improper motive. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01489a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Anger&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And with respect to anger specifically, there are two scriptural passages that contrast with each other, giving us a fuller picture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought&#xA;  in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and&#xA;  the seats of those who sold pigeons. &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; He said to them, “It is&#xA;  written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it&#xA;  a den of robbers.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed&#xA;  them. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful&#xA;  things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple,&#xA;  “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant, &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; and they said&#xA;  to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them,&#xA;  “Yes; have you never read,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies&#xA;      you have prepared praise’?” &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021:12%E2%80%9317;&amp;amp;version=ESV;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 21:12-17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, a brief commentary on this passage: The scripture doesn't directly state that Jesus is angry. And while it actually does explicitly say so in other places, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/mark/3-5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 3:5&lt;/a&gt;, the cleansing of the temple makes it far more clear, I think, that a zealous, righteous anger is perfectly acceptable to act on -- in rather unfriendly, uncivil seeming ways at that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the mantra against anger is equally -- if not more obvious in scripture. And we hear it right from the mouth of Jesus (same guy who threw tables around):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will&#xA;  be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister,&#xA;  ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’&#xA;  will be in danger of the fire of hell. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:22&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In brief&lt;/strong&gt;, anger is an emotion. In and of itself, it's largely beyond our control and is thereby morally neutral. If aroused by zeal for righteousness, anger-fueled actions are morally good. But, the tendency for normal people to fuel our anger over trivial matters or allow it to drive us into sin is good reason to caution against anger in most, if not all, circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is effectively saying, &quot;There's nothing wrong with anger. But, you guys can't seem to handle it. So, just try to dispense with it altogether, OK?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T03:46:21.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14019" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-06T06:22:58.243" Score="8" ViewCount="3781" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201:5-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 1:5-13 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. &lt;sup&gt;10&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. &lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. &lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But the angel said to him: “&lt;strong&gt;Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard.&lt;/strong&gt; Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was Zechariah's prayer? One easy guess would be that he was praying for a son, but verse 7 states that his wife was barren and that both were very old, so by this point, why would Zechariah still be hoping or praying for a son? His prayer could also have been something else and God just chose to give him a son as something like a bonus, or a reward, or a gift. At a shallow reading, there don't really seem to be any clues as to what Zechariah's prayer was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, I'm asking: &lt;strong&gt;is there any tradition or exegesis from any branch of Christianity that states what Zechariah's prayer was?&lt;/strong&gt; If there is a small number of different traditions, please list them together in one answer. If there are somehow a large number of different traditions, please say so and give the most widespread/mainstream ones. I expect that there'll be at least a Catholic tradition and/or an Orthodox tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2016-12-04T04:31:52.943" Title="Is there any tradition with regards to Zechariah's prayer in Luke?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14020" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14024" CreationDate="2013-02-06T06:30:48.340" Score="15" ViewCount="51633" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the angel Gabriel said to Zechariah, whose son would be John the Baptist...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201:17&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 1:17 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;He will be a man with the spirit and power of Elijah.&lt;/strong&gt; He will prepare the people for the coming of the Lord. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and he will cause those who are rebellious to accept the wisdom of the godly.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I remember Elijah as an Old Testament prophet that performed many miracles, as did Elisha who requested and received Elijah's power. Yet, I don't remember John the Baptist as having performed any miracles. So then, &lt;strong&gt;how did John the Baptist have Elijah's &quot;spirit and power&quot;?&lt;/strong&gt; I'd prefer answers from a perspective as close to that of Wesleyan as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2015-06-10T12:01:29.837" Title="How did John the Baptist have the &quot;spirit and power of Elijah&quot;?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14019" CreationDate="2013-02-06T07:22:38.573" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Novel &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1400153395&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Nativity Story&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;by Angela Hunt, Zachariah was praying to God for a child while he was burning incense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know how the author came with that idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I think, looking at the context (verse 7-13) the writer (Luke) simply assume that the reader will understand that Zachariah was asking for a child. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be understood if we look back at the time of Jesus. Being without a child was painful and disgraceful. Especially, a male child was considered a great blessing. So, obviously, Zachariah was praying for a child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse itself has a proof in it. It says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife&#xA;  Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we see, first Gabriel mentioned about Zachariah's prayer, and the next words the answer to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me include that story from The Nativity Story:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Page 15: Zachariah inhaled the sweet perfume of incense as he waited&#xA;  for the Levite worship leader's command. He lifted his gaze to heaven.&#xA;  While the worshipers outside this room offered the prescribed prayers,&#xA;  he couldn't but add the habitual plea of his heart: &lt;em&gt;Jehovah my God,&#xA;  your name is from everlasting, and there is no God beside you. If it&#xA;  is possible I have pleased you, my King, once again may I beg you to&#xA;  grant my prayer for a son before I breathe my last-&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-02-07T15:47:09.850" LastActivityDate="2013-02-07T15:47:09.850" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14022" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14027" CreationDate="2013-02-06T10:19:45.967" Score="11" ViewCount="1228" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the &quot;Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung&quot; eleven manuscripts of NT are from within the second century alone, which include: P52 (100-150), P90, 104 (2nd century), P66 (c. AD 175-225), P46, 64+67 (c. AD 200), P77, P103, 0189 (2nd or 3rd century), P98 (2nd century).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It means that P52 was not only written, but had spread to a provincial town in Egypt  by the middle of the second century, confirming the its date of composition, in the last years of the first century. It is presumed that books of the New Testament were written between the years 50 and 100 after Christ. If we assume a later date, than it only shortens the period that elapsed between the composition of the books and the date at which the earliest manuscripts now extant were written.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P52 gives us a physical testimony for existence of the fourth Gospel of NT, at the start of second century.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to say around 80 AD, are there any other references to these “four Gospels as books” in any of these sources?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non Christians and Christians literatures  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From any early Christian Fathers &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Any historians or &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non Christian authors. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T12:54:11.697" LastActivityDate="2015-09-05T05:07:51.173" Title="Are there any references to &quot;four canonical Gospels&quot; prior to 100 AD?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14020" CreationDate="2013-02-06T10:19:55.780" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no record of miracle performed by John the Baptist in New Testament.&#xA;Also, there were very few prophets during that time (if I am correct).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the factors which made John the Baptist having &quot;spirit and power&quot; of Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His miraculous birth (Luke 1:5-25)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His dressing style was that of Elijah (II Kings 1:8, Mat 3:4).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He preached from the words of Isaiah (Isaiah 40:3).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He preached with authority and courage saying &quot;Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.&quot; (Matthew 3:2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Josephus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Flavius Josephus (37–100 AD)&lt;/a&gt; also confirms that John was a famous baptist and religious figure.&#xA;He wrote (from wiki):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army&#xA;  came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did&#xA;  against &lt;strong&gt;John, that was called the Baptist&lt;/strong&gt;: for Herod slew him, who was&#xA;  a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to&#xA;  righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to&#xA;  come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable&#xA;  to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or&#xA;  the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the&#xA;  body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand&#xA;  by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for&#xA;  they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod,&#xA;  who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put&#xA;  it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they&#xA;  seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by&#xA;  putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not&#xA;  bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him&#xA;  repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a&#xA;  prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I&#xA;  before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an&#xA;  opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment&#xA;  upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2014-02-26T05:01:39.023" LastActivityDate="2014-02-26T05:01:39.023" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14020" CreationDate="2013-02-06T10:25:34.183" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The similarity between Elijah and John the Baptists is understood the same way by most Protestant Commentaries including John Wesley’s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is understood to mean:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With the same integrity, courage, austerity, and fervour, and the same power attending his word (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/24911/eVerseID/24911/RTD/JWN&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Wesley's Notes&lt;/a&gt;, Luke 1:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However to understand this brief comment by Wesley one really has to appreciate the history of Elijah to see how truly John the Baptist was almost exactly like him. The problem is simply that nowadays people are not that familiar with Old Testament figures and how the fit it into salvation history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone, after reading the history of Elijah in the Old Testament setting would probably make these sorts of observations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was a large looming figure, surpassing the greatness of most prophets, if not all.  He was almost along the lines of Moses, which makes his appearance with Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration not so surprising as.  Elijah’s greatness is probably due to the impression that the world and especially the apostasy of Israel had reached its lowest point. Prophets were essentially defenders of Jehovah and of the Laws of Moses. Elijah, ‘suddenly’ appeared on this deplorable state of the world, desperately needing reform, with a ‘ferocity’ and ‘stern ruggedness’ that leaps out of the scriptures in fiery, rebukes, challenges and contests. He essentially stands alone saying ‘Repent!’ to Israel with unmoving faithfulness and unflinching fearlessness, like a man with a face of flint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This unbending, unfaltering spirit of sternness and severity, like a man cracking the whip of God, was predicted to come again to usher in Messiah’s entrance into the world. This expectation was a central one in the Jew’s mindset about the coming kingdom. For details refer here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8181/what-kind-of-elijah-did-the-jews-expect/8185#8185&quot;&gt;What kind of Elijah did the Jews expect&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even his and the Baptists appearance ‘with an upper garment of black camel’s hair with a leather belt’ (2 Kings 1:8) so aptly represented their spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John had his raiment of camels' hair - Coarse and rough, suiting his character and doctrine. (John Wesley's Notes, Mathew 3:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is under this perspective that miracles play no part in the idea of ‘spirit and power’, for although miracles are powerful to persuade people that God is speaking it is really the words and message that these men had to Israel, which reflects all the power they had in their spirit.  &lt;strong&gt;Furthermore as the Baptist's mission was meant 'to decrease' while Christ’s 'increased', miracles would have not served the spirit of his mission. His main duty was to call every Jew to a Baptism of repentance in preparation of Christ ‘whose sandals he was not worthy to untie'.  Just as Elijah called Israel back to Jehovah as a lost people under God’s anger, so the Baptist called the Jews to be baptized like Gentile converts, fully emerging into a new life of reformed expectation for a great salvation.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is all these ideas that bring Wesley to make his brief notes on the subject as he does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T10:25:34.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7080" CreationDate="2013-02-06T11:15:54.247" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well as giving your life to i personnel believe we as Christians or human beings we have gone short f God's glory we cant stand in his sight why we are dirt. he can't look at us. So as for that matter Jesus died so that he can restore our original image to God. How ever this need Faith we by you do things because you believe that he s there and infect they is nothing he can not do for you and me as far as he die so he dose all we are in need off. First and for all we need to understand what faith means to us it consist of trust, hope and belief. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and also trust in his promises in absence of solidification of their presence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Give you life and all you have to Jesus its a sign of saying i trust in the as he said keep all you treasurers in heaven where no thief can break in and steel, you only do this with faith knowing that for all your needs he will provide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problems we have as Christians is that we take things and matters into our on imagination and by doing so we are not giving Jesus his roll to make things possible by all means      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus can decide for your in everything only if you give him the room to do so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have a problem of take God's matter into physical action or feeling which is wrong faith does not feel or appear to be physical you can not give its characteristic its only in the spirit as we are of the spirit living in the physical body as Christ did&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be like Christ as he walk in this sinful world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T11:15:54.247" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6689" CreationDate="2013-02-06T11:47:59.270" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What differences will being a Christian make in this life? Am not so sure off the question but i will give a general idea of to people a christian and a none christian  sometimes they might look alike or having same life in you face but the is a big difference to their life and action now we don't talk about church goes but real christian&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning of all things God created everything and he sate down and looked at the earth he released it was lonely something was missing and he said lets create a man in our on image then Adam was created &quot; God never appeared in flesh but he is a spirit being&quot; what dose this means to me and you simple we are of the spirit but not flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference of being a christian in this life is where by you get more understanding of real who you are. This activate your spirit being because by know who you are you will be able to empower you real being over your flesh as it says &quot;dust to dust, Spirit to Spirit&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God himself sent a massage saying fear not the one who destroys or kills the flesh than he who destroys or kill the spirit when you die in this world you have only separated from the flesh now to go to your original home &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some scriptures God said for these things you call them temple they are not my temple you build them for your own interest not mine i have my own temple that i have built with my own hands God was in that massage referring to the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A well equipped  Christian know how to behave in an situation because he is not lead by emotions or feelings but by the spirit of God that lives in him his heart is filled with joy love peace self control and humbleness which leads to righteousness &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the word Christian means Christ like &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be blessed       &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T11:47:59.270" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14022" CreationDate="2013-02-06T12:39:17.957" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not sure  I'm understanding the question. I see two possible things you might be asking...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know about evidences of others &lt;em&gt;calling them the four Gospels&lt;/em&gt; (not sure that's exactly what your last sentence is asking), but there is first century manuscript evidence for at least some of the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is potentially evidence for the book of Matthew in a few fragments, but the dating of it is a matter of debate.  The original, cursory examination gave them a date of the forth century, but a later examination gave them a date of A.D. 66.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/articles/eyewitness-to-jesus-amazing-new-manuscript-evidence-about-the-origin-of-the-gospels/&quot;&gt;http://www.equip.org/articles/eyewitness-to-jesus-amazing-new-manuscript-evidence-about-the-origin-of-the-gospels/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Matthew fragments redated by Thiede are at Magdalen College&#xA;  (Oxford). They are called The Magdalen Papyrus (listed as Greek 17 and&#xA;  p64). There are three fragments written on both sides, together&#xA;  representing 24 lines from Matthew 26:7-33. Two of the three fragments&#xA;  are a little larger than 4 x 1 cm.; the other is smaller, 1.6 x 1.6&#xA;  cm. Another two fragments, located in Spain, are called the Barcelona&#xA;  Papyrus (P. Barc. inv. 1/p67) and contain portions of Matthew 3:9, 15;&#xA;  5:20-22, 25-28.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, while less specific, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/manuscript-evidence&quot;&gt;faithfacts says...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early fragments: John Ryland manuscript 130 A.D. in Egypt; Bodmer manuscript containing most of John's gospel 150-200 A.D.; Magdalen fragment from Mat. 26 believed by some to be within a few years of Jesus' death; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gospel fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dated as early as 50 A.D.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several other sites list the Dead Sea scrolls dating to the first century A.D.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/&quot;&gt;DTS lists another fragment dating to the first century&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? by&#xA;  Daniel B. Wallace on February 9, 2012 in Articles&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Note: Several websites (NT Blog, Gospel Coalition, Andreas Köstenberger, Evangelical Textual Criticism, Hypotyposeis, etc.) have&#xA;  been writing about Dan Wallace's comments to Bart Erhman about the&#xA;  discovery of several New Testament papyri. Dr. Wallace has already&#xA;  written a summary of the debate, and below he clarifies what these&#xA;  papyri might mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on&#xA;  whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This&#xA;  was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000&#xA;  people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been&#xA;  discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of&#xA;  them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in&#xA;  about a year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many&#xA;  as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one&#xA;  from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses&#xA;  are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the&#xA;  first-century fragment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he&#xA;  was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it&#xA;  would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up&#xA;  until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the&#xA;  New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been&#xA;  P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of&#xA;  the second century. It was discovered in 1934.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel.&#xA;  Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had&#xA;  Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This&#xA;  new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Getting back to the distinction I mentioned in the first few sentences of this answer... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're not asking whether we have manuscript evidence from the first century, but rather writings establishing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; canonical gospels....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know that we should necessarily expect the early Church to refer to the four &quot;canonical gospels&quot; in that way. The way canon was established was at least partially on establishing what the established, trusted writings were. The best we could hope for is to establish whether the first century Church accepted these writings, and whether they interpreted this to mean that these four, and only these four are acceptable as canonical (thereby excluding &lt;a href=&quot;http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/noncanonical-literature-gospels/&quot;&gt;others&lt;/a&gt;. For that, we have no evidence, but that is more likely because it wasn't until later that they became concerned with formally establishing canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-canon.php&quot;&gt;http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-canon.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Natural Delivery&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The NT was NOT dropped from heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The NT was NOT delivered by an angel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The NT was NOT dug up in a farmer's field as golden plates like the Book of Mormon.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The NT was NOT suddenly &quot;discovered&quot; in a clay jar with 27 &quot;books&quot; intact like the Dead  - Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The NT canon developed, or evolved, over the course of the first&#xA;  250-300 years of Christian history. If the NT had been delivered by an&#xA;  angel, or unearthed as a complete unit it would not be as believable.&#xA;  Part of the historical validity of the NT comes from the fact that we&#xA;  can trace its development, albeit not as precisely as we might like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T13:32:27.670" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T13:32:27.670" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14028" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:43:28.490" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T13:43:28.490" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T13:43:28.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14029" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:43:28.490" Score="0" Body="Questions on works and thought St. Augustine of Hippo, an early Christian author, philosopher and theologian, and their reflections in doctrine of various denominations." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-02-06T13:59:10.877" LastActivityDate="2013-02-06T13:59:10.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14031" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14032" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:51:17.980" Score="9" ViewCount="5201" Body="&lt;p&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 appears to teach that anyone who kills cannot ever be forgiven.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Does &amp;quot;killing&amp;quot; refer only to murder or to any killing, be it in self defense or as part of a way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. D&amp;amp;C 42:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the LDS Church hold to this position today?  If so, how is God's forgiveness of David reconciled with that as well as the people mentioned in the book of Alma?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nathan said to David, “You are the man... You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites... David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “&lt;strong&gt;The LORD also has put away your sin&lt;/strong&gt;; you shall not die. 2 Samuel 12 (portions) ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that &lt;strong&gt;he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed&lt;/strong&gt;, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.  Alma 24:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-07-30T00:05:55.020" Title="Does the LDS Church teach that murder is unforgivable?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;doctrine-and-covenants&gt;&lt;murder&gt;&lt;unforgivable-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14031" CreationDate="2013-02-07T00:12:25.920" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: Yes, sorta.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Murder is a very serious sin, and while it can't be forgiven it can be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-church-in-ohio-and-missouri/doctrine-and-covenants-42-the-law-of-the-lord-to-his-church?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=unforgivable&quot;&gt;pardoned&lt;/a&gt;. Also it will stop you from doing or holding certain church offices. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=unforgivable&quot;&gt;See paragraph 4 of this article for more on why D&amp;amp;C 42 says it is unforgivable.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to address your scripture reference. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Book of Mormon: Alma 24: 10) And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed and taken away the guilt from our hearts though the merits of his Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-church-in-ohio-and-missouri/doctrine-and-covenants-42-the-law-of-the-lord-to-his-church?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=unforgivable&quot;&gt;this excerpt strait from the D&amp;amp;C study guide on chapter 42,&lt;/a&gt; can shed some light on the Alma scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The second most serious sin is to commit murder—that is, to willfully shed innocent blood. Concerning this sin, the Lord has said: ‘Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.’ (D&amp;amp;C 42:18.) Thus this is an unforgivable sin, which means that Jesus Christ cannot pay for (or ‘atone for’ or ‘forgive’) the penalty demanded by the broken law. This sin is a pardonable sin, however; that is, the sinner can eventually make full payment himself, and be received into a state of pardon. Apparently one reason this sin is unforgivable is that forgiveness is based upon repentance, and a murderer cannot fully repent of his sin for he cannot make restitution of the life he has taken” (Daniel H. Ludlow,A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon[1976], 222).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Missionaries of the LDS Church, have to refer anyone who has confessed to murder and who wants to be baptized, or even taught!, to their direct head, the president of their mission. The president will then refer the case to the First Presidency of the Church (if warranted). The First Presidency then reviews each case and makes a determination on a case by case basis. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS Church views only one sin as truly unforgivable(and unpardonable). That is the sin of Denying the Holy Ghost. This in turn is something that is extremely difficult to do. (I.E not something the average member is going to do).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to do this you must have a sure witness of Christ and then deny Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The easiest example of this is Cain, he &lt;code&gt;walked and talked with God&lt;/code&gt; and yet denied God when he followed the devil and killed his brother. He is referred to as a 'Son of Perdition'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-07T16:07:30.370" LastActivityDate="2013-02-07T16:07:30.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6782" CreationDate="2013-02-07T01:02:29.623" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't want to seem as if I am addressing a different subject, but to clarify let me list a couple of verses.&#xA;Heb 12:9 suggests we should be in subjection to the Father of our spirits (That is why we pray to the Father)&#xA;Zech 1:12 says the Lord formeth the spirit of man within him.&#xA;James 2:26 says the body without the spirit is dead.&#xA;With that information let us look no further than Genesis to address the prior life of God's children.&#xA;In Gen 1:26-27 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God did...vs. 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He them; male and female created He them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This account of the creation is the account of a spiritual creation!!  Otherwise why the explanation of creating male AND female.  See Gen 2:1 which says The Heavens and the earth were finished, and all the HOST of them.  Host refers to people (Isa.45:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please read on because in Gen 2:6-7 There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we can make use of the definitions we started with that explain God is the Father of our spirits; There is a spirit within man's physical body; and the body without the spirit is dead.  Knowing this please follow Gen 2:7 where 1)God forms Adam's physical body from the dust of the ground 2)God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life OR SPIRIT (explanation to follow) 3)Only after both spirit and body are together does God proclaim man as a living soul.&#xA;Explanation of 2) the breath of life or Hebrew Ruach can be and is translated in the Bible as breath, wind OR SPIRIT.  The best translation for this is spirit. In John 3:6-8 Jesus refers to being born of the spirit. I won't include it here as I am getting too long but please read it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see no other explanation of the recounting of two different versions of the creation in Genesis than they are two different creations.  Ephesians does say we were chosen before the foundation of the world or BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.  Peter says God forknew us NOT as an idea but he KNEW us.  The Bible is like a deep mine so if you do not find it's truths on the surface God wants us to keep digging or else it would suffice to just read it once and be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3904" LastActivityDate="2013-02-07T01:02:29.623" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14034" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14035" CreationDate="2013-02-07T05:10:59.427" Score="11" ViewCount="17387" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I understand in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020-23&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 20-23&lt;/a&gt; is that the words in these chapters are continuous words spoken by God. We know that Moses was given two stone tablets, and that the commands were written on them by God's own hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly was written on the two stone tablets?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 20-23 is very long, and to write all that on two stone tablets would be difficult. It could be written with very small characters. Perhaps only the ten important points were written?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-10-02T21:20:28.617" LastActivityDate="2016-03-02T21:25:12.387" Title="What was written on the two stone tablets of Moses?" Tags="&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;moses&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14035" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14034" CreationDate="2013-02-07T06:58:43.927" Score="13" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God. (Exodus 31:18, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to C.F. Keil there were only 172 words—the Decalogue in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020%3A2%E2%80%9317&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:2–17&lt;/a&gt;—that were written on the stones &quot;by the finger of God.&quot; This would have easily fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nothing is said about the dimensions of the tables: at the same time, we can hardly imagine them to have been as large as the inside of the ark; for stone slab 2 1/2 cubits long and 1 1/2 cubits broad, which must necessarily have been some inches in thickness to prevent their breaking in the hand, would have required the strength of Samson to enable Moses to carry them down the mountain &quot;in his hand&quot; (Ex. 32:15), or even &quot;in his two hands&quot; (Deut. 9:15, 17). But if we suppose them to have been smaller than this, say at the most a cubit and a half long and one cubit broad, there would have been plenty of room on the four sides for the 172 words contained in the decalogue, with its threats and promises (Ex. 20:2–17), without the writing being excessively small. (&lt;em&gt;Commentary on the Old Testament,&lt;/em&gt; by C.F. KEIL and F. DELITZSCH, 1.463-464)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-10-02T21:12:21.013" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T21:12:21.013" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14037" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14038" CreationDate="2013-02-07T08:23:35.483" Score="3" ViewCount="50" Body="&lt;p&gt;(I hesitated over asking this here or on &lt;a href=&quot;https://english.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;EL&amp;amp;U&lt;/a&gt;, but I suspect that the language is christianese, so I'm opting for here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been attempting to 'translate' A.N.Groves' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bruederbewegung.de/pdf/grovesdarby.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;amazing letter&lt;/a&gt; to J.N.Darby (&lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; worth reading) into more 'modern' English (as a prelude to getting it translated into French), and am stuck on two phrases (both on page 5) which look like they mean something, but I'm not sure what:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and at the same time you &lt;em&gt;conciliated their heavenly affections&lt;/em&gt;, by&#xA;  allowing all that really was of the Lord&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;they, therefore, &lt;em&gt;appealed from you to your common Head&lt;/em&gt;, both in&#xA;  behalf of themselves and their systems&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="83" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:38:10.840" LastActivityDate="2013-02-07T09:55:56.793" Title="&quot;Conciliated your heavenly affections&quot;" Tags="&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14037" CreationDate="2013-02-07T09:26:51.627" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not read the letter in full and have no idea what it is about but I have read so many volumes of old English theology that the language comes easy to me.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think 'conciliating their affections' is straightforward.  It means pacifying their holy sense.  The context is in reproof.  While reproving someone's wrong you also satisfy their sense of right, if you acknowledge that the person being corrected has some good things in them.  It means while opposing things, they also knew deep inside to be wrong, Darby is described as accepting other things they knew were not wrong.  This pacified their heavenly or holy feelings while correcting their evil parts which their own consciences also did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next line about making an appeal to their common Head this also seems straightforward. The author seems to be saying that Darby no longer pacified their sense of right but judged them unfairly. Therefore they appeal to Darby to consider Christ which is the common Head of the body of Christ, i.e. the head of the invisible Church who judges all men fairly. Or more simply they appealed to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole section your are pondering seems to be saying Darby was rebuking someone and at first the rebuke was received, but then he went too far and lost his authority as an older brother.  Now those who were receptive of his rebuke and leadership were no longer. However as they did not have enough confidence to rebuke him back, as they seem to hold him in some kind of esteem, they appeal to Christ directly hoping that Darby might be smitten in his own conscience and might act like an older brother again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seem much like a dispute within a family.  Its about a struggle between respect and hurt feelings that need to be pacified if any restoration can be made in the relationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-07T09:55:56.793" LastActivityDate="2013-02-07T09:55:56.793" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14040" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14048" CreationDate="2013-02-07T14:43:11.590" Score="6" ViewCount="5330" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church, possibly the Orthodox Churches, and even some Protestant churches practice Infant Baptism.  However, I understand that Catholicism teaches that infant baptism cleanses the infant from original sin, but I am unaware of where this doctrine draws its biblical foundation.  So, that is my question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic doctrine that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-24T13:28:41.270" LastActivityDate="2021-05-28T10:45:52.433" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;infants&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14046" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14057" CreationDate="2013-02-07T19:54:21.340" Score="6" ViewCount="404" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pastor stressed in the last sermon, the main battle between us and the enemy (Satan), is for the mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is, what hope is there for people with severe mental illness like schizophrenia, bi-polar, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would appear that the battle is completely lost in these cases vs. other cases where we can use our free will to turn against the enemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how does this battle for the mind work and are some born into a losing hand to the enemy, as described above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;This is a different question than the posted possible duplicate and here's why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That question focus on &quot;will they still be saved?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While that is important, this question focus on &lt;strong&gt;hope while alive here on earth&lt;/strong&gt;, not the entrance into the next life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If such a person has that type of illness, it is as if they are stuck to live in darkness. It would seem that the enemy wins over that person. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, that person can bring even more darkness to family members - and in extreme cases to many others (i.e. - random school shootings and guns in America).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where is the hope for these people, while here on earth, to live in the light of the Lord?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-02-14T16:41:39.883" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T16:41:39.883" Title="Is the main battle of the enemy for the mind?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-02-08T21:03:35.600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14046" CreationDate="2013-02-07T20:23:14.170" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This answer focuses on the first question, of whether or not the enemy's focus is on the mind.  Perhaps two questions could be made out of this.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that the main battle of the enemy is &lt;em&gt;on&lt;/em&gt; truth in order to deceive &lt;em&gt;the mind&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Father of Distortion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Fall of Mankind, Satan's first statement was to question the truth of the Word of God.  He completely misquotes God, who did not say &amp;quot;You shall not eat of &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; tree in the garden&amp;quot; as he suggests, but actually said, &amp;quot;You may surely eat of &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; tree of the garden...&amp;quot; except one.  So, Satan distorts the Word of God in order to attack the character of God, making Him out to be prohibitive in nature when He is actually generous in nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”  Genesis 3:1 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”  Genesis 2:16-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Father of Lies&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, Satan asserts that there is no consequence to sin, and even asserts that sin will be to their benefit.  This is a complete lie, of course.  The truth is that there most certainly would be a consequence to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  Genesis 3:4-5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Deception of the Mind&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this, the woman's mind was completely deceived, and it was at that point that she sinned against God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Satan's tactic was to deceive the woman.  She believed that God was not as good as she had thought He was.  She believed that there would be no consequence to sin.  She believed that God was withholding something good from her, and that she would actually gain from sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is also called &amp;quot;the father of lies&amp;quot; (John 8:44) and &amp;quot;the Deceiver&amp;quot; (Revelation 12:9).  So, distorting the truth in order to deceive the mind is certainly a primary focus of his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That makes Jesus' prayer in John 17 all the more instructive, that we are sanctified by the truth, and the Word of God is truth.  (John 17:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-07T20:23:14.170" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14040" CreationDate="2013-02-07T20:25:05.300" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are biblical references to baptism as imparting new life in Christ on which to base the practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Peter said to them, &amp;quot;Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.&amp;quot; And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, &amp;quot;Save yourselves from this crooked generation.&amp;quot; [Acts 2:38–40]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [Romans 6:4]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [1 Peter 3:20–21]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church cannot deny the grace imparted by baptism to a child simply because he is a child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called [Cf Col 1:12–14]. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#IV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism holds that infant baptism is &amp;quot;an immemorial tradition&amp;quot;, practised from the earliest days of the Church recorded in Acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole &amp;quot;households&amp;quot; received baptism, infants may also have been baptized [Cf Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-07T20:31:37.437" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14050" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-07T21:37:37.763" Score="3" ViewCount="230" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thomas More&lt;/a&gt;, whose birthday it is today (7 February),&#xA;was a strong defender of Catholic eucharistic theology.&#xA;In his &lt;em&gt;Answer to a poisoned book&lt;/em&gt; (1533),&#xA;a reply to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Huldrych_Zwingli#Eucharist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zwinglian&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;tract probably written&#xA;by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Joye&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;George Joye&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I shall, beside all such spiritual expositions&#xA;  as this man useth therein by way of allegories or parables,&#xA;  declare you the very literal sense of those words,&#xA;  &quot;My flesh is verily meat, and my blood verily drink&quot;:&#xA;  so that that ye may see thereby&#xA;  that our saviour verily spake and meant,&#xA;  not only such a spiritual eating as Master Masker&#xA;  saith he only meant,&#xA;  but also the very bodily eating and drinking&#xA;  of his very flesh and blood indeed. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic dispute&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;depends upon what the meaning of the word &quot;is&quot; is&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;in the words of institution, and&#xA;in other passages &#xA;like the one quoted (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 6:55&lt;/a&gt;).&#xA;Zwingli and Joye thought it meant &quot;signifies&quot;.&#xA;More asserts (among other arguments) that since Jesus had a body of flesh and blood,&#xA;&quot;This is my body&quot; admits a literal reading,&#xA;unlike when Jesus elsewhere says that he &quot;is&quot; a vine, a door, and so on.&#xA;He says that although there are also symbolic meanings, &#xA;a literal one cannot be wholly dismissed, since that would mean ignoring the plain words. &#xA;Moreover, although one has to go to some effort to explain how it's possible (how Christ's body can be present in the Eucharist, at many places and times, appear as bread, etc.), it's more acceptable to believe in miracles than to remove all literal meaning from &quot;is&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At first glance this seems to be the same kind of argument&#xA;made by Biblical literalists today about many other passages. Does More's reasoning - that it is necessary to find &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; plain reading if at all possible - count as a &quot;literal&quot; argument, according to a modern understanding about what that means? What rules or safeguards are present in the modern approach, whereby self-described literalists today are generally not led to consider transubstantiation a viable option in this case, when supernatural explanations are accepted in other cases?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/1557Workes/Answer_poysoned_booke1.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The answer to the first part of the poysoned booke&#xA;whych a nameles heretike hath named the supper of the Lord&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, 1.3. In &lt;em&gt;The workes of Sir Thomas More ... in the Englysh tonge&lt;/em&gt; (London, 1557), p1042.&#xA;Spelling and punctuation modernised by me.&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T16:04:48.580" Title="Is Thomas More's reading of &quot;This is my body&quot; a literal one by modern standards?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14052" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14076" CreationDate="2013-02-07T23:45:30.017" Score="7" ViewCount="14377" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several places where the Bible says that stealing is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20,15 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Thou shalt not steal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But is downloading software content like games, music, or films illegally (i.e. you don't pay for it while you should) a sin too?&#xA;Does it count as stealing?&#xA;Can we tell exactly that this or that counts as stealing or does it depend on the situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that physically nothing is stolen, and the creator do not lose anything, but in the creators purse there will be less money. People would be using the result of his work and he wouldn't get rewarded, while maybe this is his main source of income. Also the downloader enjoys something that he hasn't paid for.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Do we really count something as stealing if the harmed person/company loses something? Doesn't the loss of income count as a loss?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other side, it is easy to tell that this is a sin, but then look to the people of earth. Almost everybody using some kind of illegal content (even faithful Christians). Lots of people say that they can't afford it, while the software is essential to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3913" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-31T04:44:41.257" LastActivityDate="2016-01-31T04:44:41.257" Title="Is illegal downloading a sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-02-08T21:41:16.710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14052" CreationDate="2013-02-07T23:53:21.773" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply, Yes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stealing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;steal  [steel] verb, stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun&#xA;  verb (used with object)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1.to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2.to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3.to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4.to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually followed by away, from, in, into,  etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncpc.org/topics/intellectual-property-theft&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;National Crime Prevention Council&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Stealing intellectual property is cheap and easy. All a thief has to do is copy someone else’s ideas or product. The other person or company—the victim—has done all the work, but thieves can reap huge profits. Intellectual property theft can cost people their jobs, damage the reputation of the original maker of the counterfeited product, cause sickness and bodily harm, deprive governments of desperately needed tax revenue, and even result in the spread of organized crime and gangs—which in turn can damage more lives and destroy neighborhoods. It isn’t a victimless crime&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; defines theft as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2408    The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing... ) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a sin because it is stealing. I think there is even a splash screen on most movies that says illegal downloading is stealing. There are many lawsuits that have been going on right now about when it is considered theft and when it is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, it is still worth considering the original question: is illegal downloading a sin? ... it is ... undeniably a dishonest act, which is sinful. It is also illegal, which calls to mind Paul's admonition in Romans 13: 1 that Christians are required to obey the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, it is a sin of dishonesty....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="3593" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T01:33:42.663" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T01:33:42.663" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14052" CreationDate="2013-02-08T01:11:23.910" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To give any useful answer, it is necessary first to understand what stealing is, and why it is considered a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theft (stealing) is taking possession of something away from its legitimate owner without justification. (Taking something is justified, for example, if it is given as a gift or purchased/traded in a fair deal.)  It is considered sinful because it causes harm to another person, by depriving them of something of value.  Stealing another person's money causes them to not have that money anymore, for example.  This sounds obvious, but it's important to keep in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a copy of something is made, without damaging the original in any way, no harm has been done and nothing of value has been removed from the owner's possession, so in that sense it cannot be considered stealing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see that the assertion that &quot;in the creator's purse there will be less money&quot; is clearly false.  What is true is that in the creator's purse there  &lt;em&gt;will not be more money&lt;/em&gt;, but that's not the same thing unless one assumes that every copy made equates directly to one lost sale.  But this contradicts the stated premise that many people use illegal copies because they cannot afford to buy a legitimate copy.  (If they did not have their illegal copy, they still would not have bought it, because they do not have the money.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, studies consistently show that one illegal copy is equivalent to much, much less than one lost sale.  Depending on various factors, results tend to vary from one copy being 2-3% of one lost sale, to around ten thousand copies equating to one lost sale.  And being unable to afford the purchase (or simply not wanting to pay for it) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130201/12043621854/many-motivations-movie-piracy-notably-absent-i-want-everything-free.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;only one of many factors that motivate illicit copying,&lt;/a&gt; and not even the largest factor in many cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Equating illicit copying with theft is a highly cynical and highly deplorable act that is employed to alter the public discourse.  (If C. S. Lewis were alive and writing &lt;em&gt;The Screwtape Letters&lt;/em&gt; today, he would certainly have mentioned it as one of the more effective fruits of the demons' language manipulation program!)  Ironically, this manipulation of our language has been used to justify several legal and policy changes that greatly facilitate &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; theft and other crimes against real property.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, there have been many many cases where bogus copyright claims have been used on YouTube to deprive video creators of their rights and either place unwanted advertisements on them or redirect the income from existing advertisements to the persons making the false claims.  This represents a direct diversion of income from a person who created something to a person who had nothing to do with it, simply by the thief taking advantage of systems put in place to combat &quot;theft&quot; that is not theft at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, consider so-called &quot;digital rights management&quot; on software and other digital media, which was legitimized by various copyright acts around the world.  Its stated purpose is to prevent &quot;theft,&quot; but its actual effect is to rob a computer owner of their natural right to control their own property.  (While having zero actual, measurable effect on illicit copying.)  In any other context, installing software onto someone else's computer whose only purpose is to take away their control over their system would be considered an act of hacking, and yet the misappropriation of the word &quot;stealing&quot; allows deplorable acts taken to combat it to appear legitimate and justifiable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, it is still worth considering the original question: &lt;em&gt;is illegal downloading a sin?&lt;/em&gt;  Even though there is no reasonable justification for equating it with stealing, it is still undeniably a &lt;em&gt;dishonest&lt;/em&gt; act, which is sinful.  It is also &lt;em&gt;illegal&lt;/em&gt;, which calls to mind Paul's admonition in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 13: 1&lt;/a&gt; that Christians are required to obey the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, it is a sin of dishonesty, but I would argue that calling it &quot;stealing&quot; when it clearly is not is a sin of dishonesty as well.  And if we measure the severity of a sin by the amount of harm that it does, than the misappropriation of the word &quot;stealing&quot; is by far the worse sin of the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T01:42:49.813" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T01:42:49.813" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14055" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14056" CreationDate="2013-02-08T01:14:41.867" Score="5" ViewCount="3122" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Catholicism, is the existence of God self-evident? What do Catholic theologians say regarding God’s existence being self-evident?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-12-14T03:18:18.573" LastActivityDate="2016-12-14T03:18:18.573" Title="According to Catholicism, is the existence of God self-evident?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;existence-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14055" CreationDate="2013-02-08T02:09:28.740" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're not going to find one answer on this.  To some, the existence of God is self-evident, to others it's not.  Then you get into &quot;what does self-evident mean&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of those who say God is self-evident claim so because the complexity of creation screams &quot;an intelligent designer made me&quot;. But that's not self-evident, it's evidence from creation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others claim Romans 1 and 2 - the existence of God is clearly known because He wrote it on our hearts, but that's not self-evident, either.  The may point to 2 Peter chapter 3 as support that we know God, but are &quot;willingly ignorant&quot; because we'd rather walk after our own lusts, but that's not &quot;self-evidence&quot; either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas addressed the question is his &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/GODIS.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa Teologica&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, however, and gives a good answer (that also meets your requested criteria for a quote from a reputed theologian).  &lt;em&gt;emphasis mine in the passage below&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He does an excellent job of defining &lt;em&gt;what self-evidence is&lt;/em&gt;, and therefore showing how the existence of God meets (or doesn't meet) those definitions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First Article&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Whether the Existence of God Is Self-Evident?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We proceed thus to the First Article:—Objection 1. It seems that the&#xA;  existence of God is self-evident. &lt;strong&gt;Now those things are said to be&#xA;  self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in&#xA;  us&lt;/strong&gt;, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says&#xA;  (De Fid. Orth. i. 1, 3), the knowledge of God is naturally implanted&#xA;  in all. &lt;strong&gt;Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Obj. 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are&#xA;  known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster.&#xA;  iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when&#xA;  the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized&#xA;  that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the&#xA;  signification of the word &quot;God&quot; is understood, it is at once seen that&#xA;  God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which&#xA;  nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and&#xA;  mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore,&#xA;  since as soon as the word &quot;God&quot; is understood it exists mentally, it&#xA;  also follows that it exists actually. &lt;strong&gt;Therefore the proposition &quot;God&#xA;  exists&quot; is self-evident.&#xA;  ** &#xA;  Obj. 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever&#xA;  denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and,&#xA;  if truth does not exist, then the proposition &quot;Truth does not exist&quot;&#xA;  is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God&#xA;  is truth itself: I am the way, the truth, and the life (John xiv. 6).&#xA;  **Therefore &quot;God exists&quot; is self-evident.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is&#xA;  self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv., lect. vi) states&#xA;  concerning the first principles of demonstration. &lt;strong&gt;But the opposite of&#xA;  the proposition &quot;God is&quot; can be mentally admitted: The fool said in&#xA;  his heart, There is no God (Ps. lii. 1). Therefore, that God exists is&#xA;  not self-evident.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I answer that, &lt;strong&gt;A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways; on&#xA;  the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other,&#xA;  self-evident in itself, and to us.&lt;/strong&gt; A proposition is self-evident&#xA;  because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as&#xA;  &quot;Man is an animal,&quot; for animal is contained in the essence of man. If,&#xA;  therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all,&#xA;  the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard&#xA;  to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are&#xA;  common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being,&#xA;  whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the&#xA;  essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will&#xA;  be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the&#xA;  meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it&#xA;  happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: &quot;Whether&#xA;  all that is, is good&quot;), &quot;that there are some mental concepts&#xA;  self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are&#xA;  not in space.&quot; Therefore I say that this proposition, &quot;God exists,&quot; of&#xA;  itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject;&#xA;  because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q. 3, A.&#xA;  4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is&#xA;  not self-evident to us; but needs to be, demonstrated by things that&#xA;  are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by&#xA;  effects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply Obj. 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is&#xA;  implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man&#xA;  naturally desires happiness and what is naturally desired by man must&#xA;  be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely&#xA;  that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not&#xA;  the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter&#xA;  who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect&#xA;  good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures,&#xA;  and others in something else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply Obj. 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word &quot;God&quot;&#xA;  understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be&#xA;  thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted&#xA;  that everyone understands that by this word &quot;God&quot; is signified&#xA;  something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it&#xA;  does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word&#xA;  signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can&#xA;  it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there&#xA;  actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought;&#xA;  and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not&#xA;  exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply Obj. 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but&#xA;  the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T13:25:39.047" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T13:25:39.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14046" CreationDate="2013-02-08T05:14:58.123" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Saying that the 'main battle' is for the mind would possibly be an oversimplification.  Better to say the main battle is over 'faith' and the mind is one of the primary faculties which influences our heart in that matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is once we are deceived about the truth in our mind it is very difficult to have faith.  Why else would the preaching of the gospel be so central to our faith, if the mind was not important.  So, for the first part of your question I would say, yes, in some ways it is primarily the mind.  However, having a weak mind does not equate to weaker or stronger faith at all! I have met many people who not only had weak minds but poor theology and who yet under the poor light of it seemed more faithful to God then I was at the time.  This means there is much more going on.  One person may be the most correct theologian and teacher and yet live in much wickedness and another may be quite confused theologically, and be very genuine and sincere in their faith.  How can this be? Who really knows yet it can be!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith transcends mind and emotions and passes beyond the veil of our understanding. People with mental disease and mental weaknesses can cry out to God and be saved. Also the Holy Spirit is able to awaken the mind in a subconscious level, make one sensible of their sin and show hope in the salvation offered in Christ, in ways we can't comprehend.  I am sure many mentally ill people who have took a hold of Christ by faith and through the power of the Holy Spirit, will be surprised to find great rewards awaiting for them in heaven, while some esteemed biblical scholars will arrive in heaven as one escaping through the flames, with nothing but their own soul in tact.  Of course in both cases the joys of heaven will be glorious, I only mean to say that those things which are despised are often valued by God and he will expose the hidden intentions of our heart when we judges all things as they should be judged. God takes into account our situation and rewards accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If I was mentally ill I would take comfort that Jesus was my wisdom. Not my mental or emotional capacity:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not —to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written:“Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:27-31, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God's grace is sufficient to overcome any weakness.&lt;/strong&gt; All weakness expose us to more temptation and sin and where sin abounds grace much more abounds (Rom 5:20). That grace is sufficient to overcome anyone's mental illness is undeniable.  We see the logic of the gospel when Paul himself wanted some weakness to be removed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:8-10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now if God's power can be made perfect in weakness and His grace can abound much more where sin abounds and since he tends to cherishes what the world despises, is it not very Godlike to glorify his name in the soul of a man who has mental deficiencies, while bringing low those who boast about their theological knowledge? You bet he will. He is God and will not share his glory with anyone.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T05:14:58.123" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14052" CreationDate="2013-02-08T06:40:00.293" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the purpose of this answer, I will assume that &lt;em&gt;intellectual property theft&lt;/em&gt; means &lt;em&gt;making or using copies of someone's designs or data without consent or against their terms of use&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the Catholic Church holds several basic beliefs that suggest intellectual property theft is sinful. The mode of sin can be considered &lt;em&gt;theft&lt;/em&gt;, and in some cases, &lt;em&gt;false witness&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, and however insignificant the effect, intellectual property theft requires the intellectual property creator increase the price of their product to yield the intended income from producing that product. That is, stealing intellectual property drives up the price of that intellectual property for other consumers and/or puts the business at risk. According to the Church, this a form of theft, both from the producer of the IP and the &lt;em&gt;intended&lt;/em&gt; consumers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even without a measurable hike in price or loss for the business, it breaches the social contract, wherein the &lt;em&gt;intended&lt;/em&gt; consumers are placed at an economic disadvantage. E.g., if you, doing your civic duty, pay $1000+ for some useless Adobe suite, only to find that I have a pirated copy; you're going to feel cheated. (So would adobe, if they ever found out.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form&#xA;  of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the&#xA;  seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of&#xA;  objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; &lt;strong&gt;forcing up prices&#xA;  by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=37-chapter17.xhtml%23para2409&quot;&gt;CCC 2409&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, it is a breach of contract. Whether this is a breach of contract primarily for the illegal distributor or the illegal consumer is debatable. However, any party privy to the existence of a terms-of-use or acceptable-use contract is morally obligated to uphold the terms of that contract.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent&#xA;  that the commitments made in them are morally just. &lt;strong&gt;A significant part&#xA;  of economic and social life depends on the honoring of contracts&#xA;  between physical or moral persons—commercial contracts of purchase or&#xA;  sale, rental or labor contracts&lt;/strong&gt;. All contracts must be agreed to and&#xA;  executed in good faith. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=37-chapter17.xhtml%23para2410&quot;&gt;CCC 2410&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thirdly, the Church teaches that divulging &quot;trade secrets&quot; is an offense against the respect for truth. Applied here, distributing or intentionally accessing the private 1's and 0's that support the livelihood or &quot;private life&quot; of business owners is sinful. And honestly, the best phrase I can come up with to communicate this concept in non-religious lingo is &lt;em&gt;intellectual property&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Professional secrets&lt;/strong&gt;—for example, those of political office holders,&#xA;  soldiers, physicians, and lawyers—&lt;strong&gt;or confidential information given&#xA;  under the seal of secrecy must be kept&lt;/strong&gt;, save in exceptional cases&#xA;  where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one&#xA;  who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and&#xA;  where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth.&#xA;  Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information&#xA;  prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and&#xA;  proportionate reason. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=37-chapter17.xhtml%23para2491&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  2491&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And lastly, it's not a bad idea to examine the practices of the moral authorities themselves. On the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' website, near the bottom of every page is a copyright notice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;© 2013 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/&quot;&gt;usccb.org&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By participating in the copyright system, &lt;strong&gt;the US Bishops are clearly condoning leveraging of and adherence to copyright law&lt;/strong&gt;. And the &lt;em&gt;expectation&lt;/em&gt; is clear. If you want to use significant (complete portions) of content from their site, it's reasonable to assume that they expect it be to used only by their permission and according to their terms, per the copyright notice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A final note: The Church also makes provisions for those whose livelihood &lt;em&gt;depends on stealing&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s&#xA;  property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft&#xA;  if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the&#xA;  universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent&#xA;  necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs&#xA;  (food, shelter, clothing... ) is to put at one’s disposal and use the&#xA;  property of others.&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=37-chapter17.xhtml%23para2408&quot;&gt;2408&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T06:40:00.293" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14061" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14063" CreationDate="2013-02-08T07:36:05.307" Score="5" ViewCount="1426" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. &lt;em&gt;(Philippians 2:12)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean although a person has accepted Jesus as Lord, they still need to work out their salvation and they might loose it? From the scripture below I took it that salvation is a gift and one does not need to work it out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- &lt;em&gt;(Ephesians 2:28)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you please explain what Philippians 2:12 means?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-15T10:15:59.417" LastActivityDate="2014-12-15T10:15:59.417" Title="What did Paul mean by 'work out your salvation'?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-12-16T00:33:50.260" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14061" CreationDate="2013-02-08T10:30:57.130" Score="13" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. (Philippians 2:12-13, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The idea of working out our salvation means that it is something we already own but must cooperate with the Holy Spirit if we are to enjoy its full benefits.&lt;/strong&gt; If we did not already 'have' salvation residing in us, then we would not be able to work it outwards from that place.  The fact is when one enters the 'kingdom of God' it is heaven entering into them. This new life, generated by the Spirit, is called the inner man and the old sinful life inherited from Adam is called the outer.   Now having entered into heaven and heaven into us, we are already considered to be in heaven. &lt;strong&gt;To work to enter into heaven is silly because a believer is already in heaven and a full citizen of it:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:6-10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As God is in us, and His presence is heaven, we must be fearful as we approach Him in ourselves.  Not only because he is so great and powerful do we revere him, but because his grace and love has overshadowed us in our sin that we must respect how awesome this salvation is.  The carnal believer will see the word 'work' and quickly loose sight of grace because they have little fear of God's salvation.  Paul counteracts this natural wicked inclination by reminding us that both our holy desire and the strength to carry is out into obedience is properly Gd's work in us and not our own.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must be willing cooperators under the influence of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit will not possess us against our wills like a demon, but will fill us with power and desire like wind on a sail. We must just gently swing the sail of our souls into His wind and be blown about, striving under his might with great respect to the magnificence of his gracious power. This will require on our part great sweat and toil for the flesh, Devil and entire world will oppose all of God's works. Any other attitude would be ungrateful, irreverent and lacking in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T10:38:10.523" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T10:38:10.523" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4181" CreationDate="2013-02-08T11:47:32.087" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an old saying, a biblical one: bad associations spoil useful habits. As a JW in my youth I must say the faith system is similar to that of all other true Christians. You are free to do as you want within the boundaries of the faith system. Being a JW requires hard work and dedication to the faith. It's not easy for the modern world to accept sometimes. As far as I know, to be disfellowshipped takes a serious offence to the group like being unrepentant of sins i.e sex, drugs, evil acts, not taking christian duties seriously. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for marrying non-JW, it strikes me as the same reason Catholics would prefer you marry Catholics or any other sect. Its just sectarianism. Every group thinks they have the interpretation of the word down perfectly. But I will say this about JW, they believe in looking into the Bible, not just listening to sermons talking about doom and gloom but a real understanding of scripture and its relevance to us even now in the 21st century and hopefully what lies after this all ends.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3915" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T14:15:35.900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T14:15:35.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14050" CreationDate="2013-02-08T13:22:24.700" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hyper-Literalism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to be a case of taking the Scriptures &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; literally when it is intended to be symbolic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Christians are the &quot;light of the world&quot;, as Jesus said in John 8:12, then all we would need to do to see if someone is a Christian or not would be to turn out all the other lights and see if the person gives off any light himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All people who ever hated anyone would be convicted of murder (Matthew 5).  Jesus is a door to a sheep pen where he keeps his sheep and shepherds them, but He Himself was also a sheep who could talk, or at least half man, half sheep.  No, God became a Man--not a sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bread and the Wine&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason that most Protestants reject the notion that the elements of communion are literally the body and blood of Christ is that when Jesus said those words, He was referring to literal bread and literal wine, neither of which was His body or blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Paul refers to Jesus as our Passover in 1 Corinthians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 1 Corinthians 5:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was the Passover celebration that Jesus was celebrating with His disciples when He spoke of His body and blood.  The bread was unleavened bread.  Leaven was symbolic of sin, so the unleavened bread represented the sinlessness of Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is ample evidence that this was always to be understood as symbolic.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking things as literal when they were mean to be symbolic is definitely problematic and distorts the Scriptures as much as those who symbolize things that were clearly intended to be literal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T16:04:48.580" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T16:04:48.580" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14055" CreationDate="2013-02-08T14:33:36.010" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective, yes, the existence of God is self-evidence.  Paul teaches in the book of Romans about this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I understand that atheists may take offense to this, but none is intended.  This is just the teaching of the Bible.&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness &lt;strong&gt;suppress the truth&lt;/strong&gt;. 19 For &lt;strong&gt;what can be known about God is plain to them&lt;/strong&gt;, because &lt;strong&gt;God has shown it to them&lt;/strong&gt;. 20 For &lt;strong&gt;his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived,&lt;/strong&gt; ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. &lt;strong&gt;So they are without excuse&lt;/strong&gt;. 21 For &lt;strong&gt;although they knew God,&lt;/strong&gt; they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.  Romans 1:18-23 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several key points here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The first step was to suppress the truth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What can be known about God is plain to them, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God has shown mankind the things that can be known about God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's invisible qualities are clearly perceived in what has been made.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mankind is without excuse.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The knew God (past tense), but in their denial of God, they became fools.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, the existence of God is, indeed, self-evident.  However, people can suppress the truth and live in denial of that reality, even vehemently protesting that there is not sufficient evidence for God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other Verses&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few other verses also support this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, &lt;strong&gt;he has put eternity into man's heart&lt;/strong&gt;, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.  Ecclesiastes 3:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The heavens declare the glory of God&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;      and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.&#xA;  2 Day to day pours out speech,&#xA;      and night to night reveals knowledge.&#xA;  3 There is no speech, nor are there words,&#xA;      whose voice is not heard.&#xA;  4 &lt;strong&gt;Their voice goes out through all the earth,&#xA;      and their words to the end of the world.&lt;/strong&gt;  Psalm 19:1-4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T14:33:36.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14068" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14077" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:43:27.117" Score="8" ViewCount="3675" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that Catholicism teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ.  This apparently takes place once a priest pronounces a blessing on the elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is why does it take a priest to do this, and why must a blessing be given in order to achieve this?  When did the teaching originate regarding the necessity of a priestly blessing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T17:01:06.250" Title="Why do Catholics believe that it is a priest's blessing that transforms the elements into the body and blood of Christ?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;transubstantiation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14069" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14264" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:46:20.397" Score="2" ViewCount="1824" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will ask a series of questions concerning individual spiritual gifts (pneumatika/charismata), or manifestations of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first questions are about the gift of &lt;strong&gt;the word (logos) of knowledge (gnosis)&lt;/strong&gt; (1 Cor 12:8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most teaching in the &lt;em&gt;charismatic/neo-pentecostal&lt;/em&gt; movements, this gift is about supernaturally revealed insights about specific facts, usually medical conditions. However, the Pentecostal theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pentecostalpioneers.org/DonaldGee.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Donald Gee&lt;/a&gt; considered this gift to be more of a &quot;turbo-charged&quot; (obviously not his words) natural understanding. This is from his book &lt;em&gt;Concerning Spiritual Gifts&lt;/em&gt;, originally published in 1947.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly suspect that the definition now in use arouse during the healing revival in the 50's and that Gee's view was the mainline pentecostal one before that movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone enlighten me if I am right or wrong. Arguments from original sources are very much preferred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW, when I ask about the view in &lt;em&gt;early pentecostalism&lt;/em&gt;, I mean the view from the leaders and teachers of the first generation (1900-1940).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. I am not looking for what one might consider to be the &lt;em&gt;correct&lt;/em&gt; answer. I've done my exegesis homework and agree with Gordon Fee, that we simply can not know exactly what Paul originally intended. Fee says[1]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most likely, it is a &quot;Spirit utterance&quot; of some revelatory kind...&#xA;  How the content of such utterance makes &lt;em&gt;gnosis&lt;/em&gt; as distinguished from&#xA;  &quot;wisdom&quot; or &quot;revelation&quot;, is perhaps forever lost to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will ask some more questions for additional aspects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From &lt;em&gt;God's Empowering Presence&lt;/em&gt;, Baker Academic, 1994, pages 167-168.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="1407" LastEditDate="2013-02-10T20:00:07.503" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T07:38:45.483" Title="What was the definition of the spiritual gift of the word of Knowledge in early pentecostalism?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;pentecostalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14070" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-02-08T16:22:38.343" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pentecostalism as a global movement includes, but is not limited to, groups that teach speaking in tongues as &lt;em&gt;initial evidence&lt;/em&gt; of spirit baptism. It puts emphasis on the role of Jesus Christ as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Savior&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Healer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Giver of the Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Returning king&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentecostalism includes a world view of active spiritual powers in the world today, i.e. angels and demons as well as the gifts (pneumatika/charismata) of the Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further reading about pentecostalism, see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Walter Hollenweger, &lt;em&gt;Pentecostalism: Origins &amp;amp; Developments Worldwide&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Donald Dayton, &lt;em&gt;Theological Roots of Pentecostalism&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Allan H. Andersson, &lt;em&gt;An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity&lt;/em&gt; (2004)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="1407" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T16:36:44.163" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T16:36:44.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14071" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-02-08T16:22:38.343" Score="0" Body="Pentecostalism is the branch of Christianity that places special emphasis on being filled with the Spirit or baptized in the Spirit. It includes classic Pentecostalism associated with the Asuza Street revival, the charismatic revival in the late 50's and onwards, &quot;third wave&quot;/&quot;empowered evangelicals&quot;, indigenous &quot;Spirit churches&quot; south of the equator or in Latin America." OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T16:23:57.223" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T16:23:57.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14072" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14074" CreationDate="2013-02-08T16:42:40.127" Score="4" ViewCount="816" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will ask a series of questions concerning individual spiritual gifts (pneumatika/charismata), or manifestations of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This second one is also about &lt;strong&gt;the gift of the word (logos) of knowledge (gnosis)&lt;/strong&gt; (1 Cor 12:8), and it is closely related to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14069/1407&quot;&gt;the first one&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did &lt;strong&gt;the pioneers of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healing_Revival&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;healing revival&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (Branham/Coe/Roberts/etc) speak about this specific gift, e.g in the Magazine &lt;em&gt;The Voice of Healing&lt;/em&gt; or in their sermons or testimonies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-02-10T05:42:56.843" Title="How was the gift of the word of knowledge defined by the pioneers of the pentecostal healing revival" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;pentecostalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14068" CreationDate="2013-02-08T16:58:20.863" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we look back to the Gospels, we see that Jesus said in Luke 22:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to&#xA;  them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this&#xA;  in memory of me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the&#xA;  new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is talking to his disciples here.  He commissioned them to spread the word.  By extension, they can only do the Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, going back to our Jewish roots, the priests were the ones offering slain animals on behalf of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, look at 1 Corinthians 11:20-32.  This sets out some additional rules for receiving communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer Narnian's question, Jesus clearly established a special priesthood/church.  The first 12 disciples were the first priests/bishops of the church.  He ordained these men to confect the Eucharist at the last supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1663" LastEditorUserId="1663" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T21:28:02.487" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T21:28:02.487" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14072" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:05:30.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;W. V. Grant&lt;/strong&gt; wrote in THE VOICE OF HEALING October 1953 Page 24 about the word of knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;WHAT IT IS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Spiritual gift of the word of knowledge is certain&#xA;  facts in the mind of God, which He sees fit to reveal to a servant&#xA;  supernaturally by His Spirit. It is only a “word,” or a portion of&#xA;  God's great storehouse of knowledge. God speaks in divers manners,&#xA;  such as dreams, visions, revelation, or in audible voice. It is always&#xA;  conveyed supernaturally as any other gift. This gift can tell the&#xA;  whereabouts, conditions, nature, or thoughts of a person, animal,&#xA;  place, or thing even when it is impossible to learn it in the natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is different from the Spiritual gift of faith in that it lets you&#xA;  know things even when you did not pray for them. The Spiritual gift of&#xA;  faith deals with things “not yet come to pass,” else it would not be&#xA;  faith. It is not a vocal gift, as it makes you to know and not to&#xA;  speak. It is not discerning of spirits, as it has nothing to do with a&#xA;  supernatural spirit. It helps one, to look into the heart, mind, or&#xA;  nature of a man and to know his secrets and intentions. It has helped&#xA;  people find lost articles, but its main purpose is to find lost souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;BIBLE EXAMPLES&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While Peter was lying flat on his back on the house&#xA;  top, the Spirit of God told him three men were seeking him (Acts&#xA;  10:19). Had Peter gone to school one hundred years he could not have&#xA;  gained such knowledge, The all-knowing God gave part of His knowledge&#xA;  to Peter by the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Spirit of God told Samuel that Saul's&#xA;  asses had already been found, and let him know all that was in Saul's&#xA;  heart (1 Sam. 9.19-20). A voice from God told Elijah that God had&#xA;  seven thousand who had not bowed their knees to Baal (1 Kings 19:18).&#xA;  A spiritual revelation!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And before that he wrote, in direct contrast to pentecostal pioneer Donald Gee:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This gift has no mixture with the natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I only need to know if this view was shared by the other leaders during the same era.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T17:05:30.317" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14040" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:40:41.190" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic church believes that among other things, baptism is for remission of sins both original as well actual. Original in case of infants and original as well as actual in case of adults.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Baptism removes original sin:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism is closely related to regeneration or ‘Born again” which is the transformation from death to life that occurs in our souls when we first come to God and are justified. He washes us clean of our sins (original as well as actual) as Psalm 51 points out:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 51:5 Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism gives us a new nature, breaking the power of sin over us, so that we will no longer be its salves but its enemies who must fight it as part of Christian life (Rom. 6:1-22; Eph. 6:11-17).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus taught of this transformation through baptism of water and Spirit in John 3:5. In the water-and-Spirit rebirth that takes place at baptism, we are transformed from state of sin to the state of grace.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter mentioned this transformation from state of sin to grace when he exhorted people in Acts. 2:38-39.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:38 Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receieve the gift of the Holy Spirit'  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:39, For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord out God calls to him'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter explains the removal of original sin from our nature:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Pet. 3:20-21 ‘After they were disobedient long ago when God patiently waited in the days of Noah as an ark was being constructed. In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water. 3:21 And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you – not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Col. 2:11 In him you also were circumcised – not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body, that is, through the circumcision done by Christ. 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine also taught that,   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“ It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated ... when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or “ by the faith of those born again of water and the Holy Spirit’[John3:5]. The water, therefore manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who is generated in Adam”(Letters 98:2)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origen also wrote in the third century that 'according to the usage of Church, baptism is given even to infants'(Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11,AD 244).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be witheld from infants until the eight day after birth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Later Augustine taught,'The custom of Mother Church in baptising infants is certainly not to be scorned ....nor is to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic' (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39, AD 408) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-02-09T06:22:47.457" LastActivityDate="2013-02-09T06:22:47.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14052" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:58:53.490" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let there be no mistake: illegal downloading is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; stealing. It is &lt;em&gt;infringement&lt;/em&gt;, which is something that can be superficially similar to stealing when done in certain ways (like downloading), but in the end is not quite the same thing. Calling illegal downloading &quot;theft&quot; and leaving it there is wrong and distorts the issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is also not correct to say that there is no harm to the owner or creator when you infringe their work. The harm may be small or much less than theft, but it is still real. Trespassing might be a closer analogy, but that's not quite right either... the reality is somewhere in between the two. There is something like &quot;theft&quot;, because you have taken something that does not belong to you, but legally it's more like trespassing, because you have not deprived the owner of any property, in the same sense that if you trespass you can be said to have &quot;stolen&quot; time and use of someone else's land, but did not steal the land itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mostly, though, I think it's important here to think about the harm to yourself. Because there is harm to the creator of the work, and because illegal downloading is, well, illegal, you cannot hope to participate in this activity without creating serious harm to your own conscience. If you do participate in this activity and don't feel any guilt, it is because your conscience is already damaged. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, even setting aside the theft issue, &lt;strong&gt;illegal downloading is most definitely sinful.&lt;/strong&gt; It is harmful to your conscious, it is harmful to the creator and copyright owner, and it violates the law of the land. In addition to the Romans 13 verse used elsewhere by other answers here, I am reminded of Jesus answer to whether we should pay taxes. He said that we should give to Cesar what is Cesar's, and to God what is God's, implying that we must respect the government and it's laws, even when those laws might not make sense to us. I believe the Golden Rule of Matthew 7 also plays a part here. If you were a publisher, you would want others to respect your copyright and whatever licensing terms you chose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2016-01-28T14:34:15.443" LastActivityDate="2016-01-28T14:34:15.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14068" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:02:58.750" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church believes that this has been the tradition since &quot;the beginning&quot; of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, according to the Church, Christ makes it very clear in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh006.htm#41&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 6:41-58&lt;/a&gt; that the literal, physical consumption of His body is ultimately intended. The phrasing used in this passage, particularly in the Greek, is very unambiguous. As compared to other passages, wherein Christ clarifies figurative language, in John 6, when pressed to clarify, he &lt;em&gt;intensifies&lt;/em&gt; the language, using a more animalistic and &quot;gory&quot; verb to denote the eating/gnawing of His own flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the Church sees the Last Supper as the formal establishment of the Eucharist. Christ says a blessing, the exact words of which are not included in the Gospel, but were undoubtedly remembered by the 12 and/or were simply commonplace blessings. He declares the bread and wine to be His body and blood. He distributes it. And He commands the disciples to repeat what He's done (by calling it a covenant in Matthew and Mark, and by also explicitly commanding it in Luke). Especially in the context of John 6:41-58, it's unambiguous in Catholic belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; When the hour came, he took his place at table with the&#xA;  apostles. &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to&#xA;  eat this Passover with you before I suffer, &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; for, I tell&#xA;  you, I shall not eat it [again] until there is fulfillment in the&#xA;  kingdom of God.” &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and&#xA;  said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; for I&#xA;  tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of&#xA;  the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; Then he took&#xA;  the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying,&#xA;  “This is my body, which will be given for you; &lt;strong&gt;do this in memory of&#xA;  me&lt;/strong&gt;.” &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying,&#xA;  “&lt;strong&gt;This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/luke/22/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:14-20&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Speculating&lt;/strong&gt; into the Church rationale a little: It may be worth mentioning that in the general command to eat His flesh and drink His blood is given to a crowd / the general faithful. In this Last Supper discourses, however, Jesus is with &quot;the twelve,&quot; with whom He &lt;em&gt;often&lt;/em&gt; gives special commands and teachings not given to the general faithful. Thus, the Church &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be concluding from this the command to consecrate the bread and wine is given only to the Apostles and their successors.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the framework is set in the Gospel. Christ establishes a set of procedures for the disciples to follow, by which they are to consume His body and blood (of &quot;the new and everlasting covenant&quot;). Historically, the practice is referred to in the New Testament and early Church writings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, for instance, 1st Corinthians makes it clear that the Eucharist was common practice. It's also fairly clear that practice thereof followed a particular pattern, and that reception thereof was to be taken &lt;strong&gt;very seriously&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; For I have received of the Lord that which also I&#xA;  delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he&#xA;  was betrayed, took bread, &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; and giving thanks, broke and&#xA;  said: Take and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you.&#xA;  This do for the commemoration of me. &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; In like manner also&#xA;  the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new&#xA;  testament in my blood. This do, as often as you shall drink, for the&#xA;  commemoration of me. &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; For as often as you shall eat this&#xA;  bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord,&#xA;  until he come. &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, whosoever shall eat this&#xA;  bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of&#xA;  the body and of the blood of the Lord. &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; But let a man&#xA;  prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the&#xA;  chalice. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and&#xA;  drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co011.htm#23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&#xA;  Corinthians 11:23-29&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside the New Testament, the Didache, among copious other writings, confirms the practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First,&#xA;  concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of&#xA;  David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your&#xA;  Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken&#xA;  bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You&#xA;  made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for&#xA;  ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was&#xA;  gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered&#xA;  together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is&#xA;  the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one&#xA;  eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been&#xA;  baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord&#xA;  has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm#chapter9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Didache&#xA;  9&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica, question 75, Article 2&lt;/a&gt; further confirms some historical tradition of the belief in transubstantiation and that it through the act of consecration that the Lord makes Himself physically present in the species of bread and wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, I'd suggest taking a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Real Presence. In particular, see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#B&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proof from Tradition&lt;/a&gt; section.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of why the laity cannot yield the effect of transubstantiation, I don't have an extensive enough knowledge to pin that question down precisely. But, the general tone of the NT letters and the Didache is that ordained bishops and deacons (Apostles) and prophets retain special rights to speak and perform in Church gatherings, Eucharistic celebrations, and so forth. The distinction is made in the Catholic Church between Apostles and Disciples -- anyone and everyone can be a disciple, but not all are Apostles, if I'm not mistaken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a more theological standpoint, bear in mind that Catholic theology is just generally sacramental, wherein specific things, individuals, group members, or entire groups represent  or reveal spiritual realities. As such, it detracts from the sacrament if the symbolism is lost in some way, such as if the priest's Church-given, sacramental, iconic role is confounded or infringed on. The priest is assigned, in ordination, as a sacramental icon of Christ. If &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; is allowed to step in and out of this iconic role at any given time, the sacramental nature is largely lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate that point of Catholic understanding, consider an umpire. Two teams and a host of onlookers assemble and agree, more or less, to operate under the ruling of an &quot;ordained&quot; umpire, whose job it is to represent [and enforce] the rules of the game. If &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; were free to step in at any time to make a call, the rules become blurry -- they have no unbiased &lt;strong&gt;body&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;icon&lt;/strong&gt; on the field anymore. And if an this game, wherein anyone can step in to make a call, were to go on for too long, the rules would change in-play and the game would devolve in to chaos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if we can imagine the loss of integrity and the rise of chaos that naturally takes place in petty human affairs by blurring iconic lines, imagine, says Catholic theology, how much more dangerous it is to blur the lines around &lt;em&gt;sacramental&lt;/em&gt; icons (icons representing spiritual realities). We lose sight of truth very quickly. And in fact, any authority or &quot;real&quot; effect is immediately lost once we desecrate an iconic role -- even in petty human affairs! It makes a huge difference whether someone in the stands yells, &quot;you're out&quot; or the game's designated umpire yells, &quot;you're out!&quot; Much greater is the difference, says Catholic theology, in sacramental affairs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-02-12T17:01:06.250" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T17:01:06.250" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9834" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:18:25.590" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the judgement of the believer may be relevant here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor 3:11-15 &quot;no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is&#xA;  laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation&#xA;  with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work&#xA;  will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be&#xA;  revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort&#xA;  it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will&#xA;  receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but&#xA;  he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then becomes for the ones who have trusted Christ, how long we've spent in the spirit vs the flesh? It's possible for two people to do the same act &amp;amp; for the one in the flesh it could be sin, &amp;amp; for the other in Spirit, (done obediently in faith), it could be eternal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fleshly, (good/philanthropic &amp;amp; evil), works will burn, for the believer &amp;amp; that person will suffer loss, but the believer will be saved as one passing through fire. Fire is used to describe the judgement of the 'believer's works' as well as the 'unbeliever's life.' (&quot;It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.&quot;Mark 9:47,48)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It takes very little to be saved, faith alone in Christ Alone, (&quot;And anyone who believes in God's Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn't obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God's angry judgment.&quot; John 3:36)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're judging Salvation by 'works' done in the outward life, the question becomes how many good works, of what quality &amp;amp; how often do you need to do these 'salvation acquiring works' to demonstrate salvation or to be in salvation for now? The same questions may be asked about evil deeds related to salvation. Salvation trough faith in Christ is inward then outward 'as a man thinks in his heart so is he' (Prov 23:7).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coming to &quot;the Biblical Christ&quot; in simplicity,(as a child) makes salvation all about God not man. Faith w/out works is dead, not necessarily unsaved. False faith, (faith in a non-Biblical Christ), w/works, on the other hand, is not salvation. No one will be justified by works. &quot;we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.&quot; (Gal 2:16 NLT).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 'tasting of salvation' &amp;amp; the sanctification process may not be full blown &quot;Salvation&quot; but a close facsimile. Once saved it becomes about God doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves, one moment at a time, in working out our salvation, just like when we first met Christ by 'faith alone in Christ Alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3916" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T23:30:02.973" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T23:30:02.973" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14019" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:39:56.273" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other interpretation of Zechariah's prayer is related to the specific duty he was performing in the temple that day. The twice-daily incense offering is closely related to the Holy Place and our ability to enter into God's presence. This is especially seen on the Day of Atonement when the incense offering is used by the High Priest in preparation to enter the Most Holy Place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the incense offering is related to the atonement of our sins and our entry into God's presence. Since Zechariah was offering one of these daily incense offerings it would be quite likely that his prayer was related to the atonement of his people and their entry into the presence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;May the merciful God enter the Holy Place and accept with favor the offering of his people.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that idea, perhaps the answer to Zechariah's prayer is that a son will be coming to him to prepare the way for the fully realized entry into God's presence in the physical form of the coming Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea is not original to me. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Luke/Announcing-Forerunner-John&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is one link to this line of thought that Zechariah was offering the traditional prayer for God's people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1342" LastEditorUserId="1342" LastEditDate="2013-02-08T21:05:55.337" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T21:05:55.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14052" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:09:25.127" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I do not believe it would be sinful as stealing, it is sinful as a result of two other different reasons.  First, biblically, it is clear that, in so far as it is not in conflict with scripture, we should follow the laws of the government over us.  As illegal downloading is illegal, it makes it a violation of those laws that is not in conflict with the scriptures and thus sinful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, James 4:17 likely makes this sinful as it says &quot;Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.&quot;  When you consider the loss to the owner of the work by using it without paying for what you use, even if it doesn't directly cost them anything, I think it is a hard argument to be able to say with a clear conscience that it is good to take without compensation when compensation has been asked for in exchange for use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-02-08T21:09:25.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14081" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14090" CreationDate="2013-02-09T05:45:37.427" Score="11" ViewCount="90852" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exodus 24:9-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel&#xA;  went up &#xA;  10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something&#xA;  like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. &#xA;  11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the&#xA;  Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see that Moses and others &lt;strong&gt;saw God&lt;/strong&gt; with their own eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But later, Moses was &lt;strong&gt;not allowed to see&lt;/strong&gt; God's face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 33:18-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front&#xA;  of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I&#xA;  will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion&#xA;  on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my&#xA;  face, for no one may see me and live.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand&#xA;  on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in&#xA;  the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I&#xA;  will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be&#xA;  seen.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Moses already saw the face of God, then who's face was he not allowed to see?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who was covering Moses and preventing him from seeing God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were there two people?. Or Maybe three?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-11T13:32:10.290" LastActivityDate="2015-07-31T06:33:52.693" Title="Did Moses see the face of God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12100" CreationDate="2013-02-09T05:47:03.233" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One could argue that Augustine saw hints of this argument in Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;I am the LORD, and there is no other,&#xA;    besides me there is no God;&#xA;    I equip you, though you do not know me,&#xA;that people may know, from the rising of the sun&#xA;    and from the west, that there is none besides me;&#xA;    I am the LORD, and there is no other.&#xA;I form light and create darkness,&#xA;    I make well-being and create calamity,&#xA;    I am the LORD, who does all these things.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;Isaiah 45:5-7 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Isaiah+45/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah says that God created both darkness and calamity, which seems to contradict (or at least, go beyond) Genesis 1 where God created light out of darkness and everything was good.  Since Isaiah not only knew his Scripture, but was certainly referencing Genesis here, there must be &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; way to reconcile the apparent contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine argues that evil is not a substance which God created:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What, after all, is anything we call evil except the privation of good? In animal bodies, for instance, sickness and wounds are nothing but the privation of health. When a cure is effected, the evils which were present (i.e., the sickness and the wounds) do not retreat and go elsewhere. Rather, they simply do not exist any more. For such evil is not a substance; the wound or the disease is a defect of the bodily substance which, as a substance, is good. &lt;strong&gt;Evil, then, is an accident&lt;/strong&gt;, i.e., a privation of that good which is called health. Thus, whatever defects there are in a soul are privations of a natural good. When a cure takes place, they are not transferred elsewhere but, since they are no longer present in the state of health, they no longer exist at all.&amp;mdash;&lt;em&gt;Enchiridion&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chapter III.&lt;/a&gt;, 11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think &quot;accident&quot; is the best translation (thought I don't know what the original Latin said nor could I translate it).  It seems to me that the translator (Albert C. Outler) used the &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;legal or philosophical definition&lt;/a&gt; of &quot;accident&quot;: God caused evil, but is not responsible for it.  Since evil is not its own substance, but rather the property of lacking some good, God's creation opened the door to evil.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make sense of Augustine, we must recall that he was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Neo-Platonist&lt;/a&gt; by training.  Plato and his followers believed that everything we see in the world around us is merely a reflection or shadow of some ideal &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Form&lt;/a&gt; that exists outside of the world.  Augustine reapplied the concept to Christianity: God's plan of creation becomes the Form that the world must be conformed to.  Any failure to conform to God's plan is evil: falling short of the Good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine used Neo-Platonist philosophy to resolve the logic problem of how God could be the creator of all things and yet not be responsible for evil in the world.  He seems to be the first to put those two pieces together in just that way.  (As far as I have found neither &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s_view_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philo&lt;/a&gt; nor Paul, Jews who were influenced by Plato, made this argument.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2013-02-09T05:47:03.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14081" CreationDate="2013-02-09T06:39:19.983" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It appears from Exodus 24 that they only saw the &quot;footstool&quot; of God as it were and not his face. However, there is a definitive answer to your question. Yes, Moses did see the face of God, some 1500 years later:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Mat 17:1-3 NKJV] 1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Moses saw Jesus face to face on the mount he, as Michael Card so eloquently puts it, &quot;finally saw the face before he'd hidden from.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1342" LastActivityDate="2013-02-09T06:39:19.983" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6782" CreationDate="2013-02-09T14:51:12.820" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is timeless we are not ,this is referring to God being all knowing not limited by anything including time. We only know things of that have beginnings and endings (time limits) God is eternal and  is not so limited. There are no verses that teach about recaination in the Bible. That is mans opinion only and cannot be found on true exegete of any of the above mention verses&#xA;Sorry for typos as I am on a mobile &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3920" LastActivityDate="2013-02-09T14:51:12.820" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14087" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14088" CreationDate="2013-02-09T20:17:10.027" Score="28" ViewCount="1238" Body="&lt;p&gt;The three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are united in an undivided Trinity, in which all are equal in stature, according to orthodox trinitarian Christianity. Given that our language is linear, it is clear that there are six ways that we could list these three persons. In fact, the order of &quot;Father, Son, and Holy Spirit&quot; is overwhelmingly the dominant one - in the liturgy, especially for baptism (Mt 28:19), in creeds&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, and so on. At a distant second is the Son-Father-Spirit order of 2 Corinthians 13:14,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. &lt;sup&gt;NRSV&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which admittedly sees a lot of liturgical use, though still less than Father-Son-Spirit. I do not think that any other orders are used at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why are other permutations of the three persons not used liturgically? Is there a theological reason why the standard order is the best one (aside from simple Scriptural precedent), or conversely is there some reason (aside from surprise) why a novel order would be wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I am looking for answers from 'mainstream' trinitarian Christianity.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* e.g. the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, Reformation confessions (Augsburg, Belgic, Second Helvetic, Thirty-Nine Articles, Westminster), and more recent statements of belief like &lt;em&gt;Baptist Faith and Message&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2017-01-10T20:44:48.507" Title="Why do we use the order &quot;Father, Son, and Holy Spirit&quot;?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14087" CreationDate="2013-02-09T20:45:23.823" Score="35" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe one reason for the order is because of the Great Commission in Matt. 28:19, in which it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΙΘʹ&lt;/sup&gt; πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ontologically, the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Father is neither begotten nor proceeding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;creed&lt;/a&gt; established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., the Lord Jesus Christ is described as “he who was begotten of the Father” (τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα), while the Holy Spirit is described as “the one who proceeds from the Father” (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (cp. John 15:26). Thus, the Father would be listed first, the Son would be listed second, followed by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-01-10T20:44:48.507" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14081" CreationDate="2013-02-10T15:36:52.930" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The use of the word 'face' is different in these two contexts&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the first use&lt;/strong&gt; God is said to speak to Moses 'face to face' that is not from some distant position as in a dream, or vision but speaking audibly to him while under some visible form.  In other words, God spoke to Moses like a person does who is having a conversation.  God spoke out of a burning bush, out of a pillar of cloud, ect. and he spoke as in conversation between friends.  That is Moses could ask questions, God would answer, the conversation would continue, ect.  Speaking face to face was not the normal mode which God communicated with men, or later prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the specific 'form' that God presented to the elders representing the people of Israel, it was actually a 'formless' representation of glorious fire wrapped in a cloud that made the place at which it joined the glorious upper heavens to the spot on earth which they stood, a shining clear blue. The blue a reflection of the sky of heaven. The elders saw the same thing that the people in general saw, only closer. The word 'foot' does not mean that there was some secret form, like for example the more Christlike appearance of Ezekiel 1:26 where the 'appearance of a man' was seen. The foot is meant to be understood as not a human foot but as a base. God's glory in heaven landed on earth making a covenant with his people, that was the base. Certainly if they saw a human form they would have make and idol, something which was forbidden as they had not seen any real form:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice.(Duet 4:11-12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female. (Duet 4:15-16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The second use&lt;/strong&gt; of the phase pertains to the manifestation of God's glory. When you look into the face of someone you can see into their eye's, along with the expression on their face, their essential personality or being.  If you only saw the back of their head, you might not even know who you were looking at.  The idea in Moses not being able to see God's face is that he could not witness the essential glory of God.  No man while veiled in sinful flesh can see God's essential unmasked glory and live:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As our bodily eye is dazzled, and its power of vision destroyed, by looking directly at the brightness of the sun, so would our whole nature be destroyed by an unveiled sight of the brilliancy of the glory of God. (Commentary of the Old Testament, Keil &amp;amp; Delitzsch, 1.476)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore although Moses wanted to penetrate deep into the glory of God he had to accept a limitation and only see the back of God.  God is using human terms to express a limited reflection of his glory.  The glory that must have appeared to him was a deep revelation of the meaning of the very words which were spoken as his 'glory passed by':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:6-7, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that part of this deeper revelation of Jehovah, the I AM that I AM, or the eternal powerful one, is by putting love and grace before wrath. However putting love first was not meant to imply that his infinite justice and wrath for sin would ever be compromised, rather his glory is simply more wrapped up in his grace and love than in his other aspects of his back-parts. Moses must have seen God's love in an extraordinary matter. Infact it made his face shine, but as the Law did not really centre in God's grace but was in a large part a revelation of his holiness, justice and wrath for sin, this glory faded and was veiled until the full manifestation of grace was revealed in the face of God's own Son. (2 Cor 3:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did Moses see God face to face, i.e. see his essential glory? No, not while on this earth. However after he died, like every believer he would have immedietly become awakened into the full glory of God under the bright rays of heaven.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T03:02:57.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14093" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T04:34:08.057" Score="0" ViewCount="2699" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two answers in this question which contradict each other:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11992/how-the-trial-of-jesus-compares-to-the-judical-standards-of-the-epoch-and-of-the&quot;&gt;How does the trial of Jesus compare to the judicial standards of the epoch and of the modern times?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first answer says that Jesus was guilty of what he was charged.  The second claims that Jesus was not guilty at all but intentionally choose not to defend himself.  So was he guilty or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2015-11-04T02:12:42.283" Title="Was Jesus guilty or not guilty by the law?" Tags="&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-02-11T13:49:29.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14093" CreationDate="2013-02-11T05:37:31.527" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A man walks into a court room and long story short, the judge convicts the man of murder in the first degree. However, the man did not commit the crime. Therefore, he is falsely accused, and falsely convicted. Nevertheless, he &lt;strong&gt;was&lt;/strong&gt; convicted, and he &lt;strong&gt;was&lt;/strong&gt; sentenced to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was Jesus guilty of blasphemy? According to the Sanhedrin, yes. Was Jesus falsely accused and falsely convicted? Yes. God (that is, Jesus) cannot be &lt;strong&gt;rightly&lt;/strong&gt; convicted of blasphemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a matter of perspective. The Sanhedrin convicted Jesus of blasphemy because they did not believe he was God, just as the judge did not believe the man was innocent. Essentially, it's unjust judgment on the part of the judges. However, Jesus was God, and therefore, he was falsely accused and falsely convicted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-11-04T02:12:42.283" LastActivityDate="2015-11-04T02:12:42.283" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14095" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14100" CreationDate="2013-02-11T08:04:16.210" Score="12" ViewCount="5958" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that Jesus gave this command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:19 (NIV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore go and make&#xA;  disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and&#xA;  of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But later, we find a statement made by Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:38 (NIV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter replied, “Repent&#xA;  and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of &lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt; for the&#xA;  forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy&#xA;  Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are these two words contradicting each other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-04T00:04:20.573" LastActivityDate="2015-12-04T00:04:20.573" Title="What name was used by Peter for Baptism?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14093" CreationDate="2013-02-11T11:13:25.507" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was a follower of the Mosaic laws and it is a &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/26122/do-jews-find-it-blasphemy-to-be-judged-by-religious-laws-of-the-pagan-country-th&quot;&gt;blasphemy to be judged by pagan courts&lt;/a&gt;, hence he cringed to be judged by the authority he did not deem fit and responding or participating in the pagan roman courts would amount to getting judged by laws other then revealed in the Old testament. This is abundantly clear from the account of Jesus when he barged into the temple and showed contempt of  the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding Jews claiming that Jesus claimed divinity then, It is very clear from the bible that Jews wanted to eliminate Jesus as the Rabbis perceived Jesus a threat to their business of religion. It is worthwhile and noteworthy to see that in spite of Jesus being given a platform in court to preach his so called &amp;quot;divinity&amp;quot; he chose to remain silent. Silence by no means means approval. In this case it certainly means opposition as if it were to mean approval then he would not have responded with  &amp;quot;You said so&amp;quot; when the Judge asked him about his claim of being &amp;quot; King of Jews&amp;quot;. It was like saying &amp;quot;You said so.. I didn't&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to conclude Jesus was not guilty for the sheer reason that it was a false charge, Infact the charge itself was not confirmed by Jesus in court as Jesus refused to be judged by any evil court.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T14:47:15.280" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14093" CreationDate="2013-02-11T13:45:01.917" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Luke answers this question for us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, &lt;strong&gt;I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him&lt;/strong&gt;. 15 &lt;strong&gt;Neither did Herod&lt;/strong&gt;, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him. 16 I will therefore punish and release him.”  Luke 23:13-16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Jesus was not found guilty of anything worthy of death.  Under Roman rule, the Jews were allowed to judge smaller matters, but capital punishment was reserved for Rome alone.  Neither Pilate nor Herod found any guilt in Jesus at all on any matter that was pertinent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews found Him guilty of blasphemy, but that was just based on His claim to Deity.  They never figured out whether He was or not.  Since Jesus was, indeed, God, He was not guilty of blasphemy.  (On this point, I disagree with the answer you cited.  Jesus did, indeed, claim to be God, that was true.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, &lt;strong&gt;Jesus was not guilty&lt;/strong&gt; of any of the crimes of which He was accused, either in the trial among the Jewish leaders or in the trial before Pilate and Herod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T13:45:01.917" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14095" CreationDate="2013-02-11T14:40:50.247" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom: the revelation required to enter into the spiritual kingdom that Jesus came to introduce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and&#xA;  whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and&#xA;  whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also Isaiah 22:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he&#xA;  shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall&#xA;  open.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts Chapter 2, when the people from all around the world were pricked in their hearts by the power of Peter's speech, they wanted to know what they should do to enter the kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:37&lt;/strong&gt; Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart,&#xA;  and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren,&#xA;  what shall we do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter, by the Holy Ghost, gave to them his revelation that &quot;Father&quot;, &quot;Son&quot;, and &quot;Holy Ghost&quot; were titles of one person, the Lord (Father) Jesus (Son) Christ (Holy Ghost). By baptizing in the name (singular) of the Lord Jesus Christ, you would be fulfilling Jesus' commission in Matthew 28:19. His commission was to baptize them in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. &quot;Father, Son, and Holy Ghost&quot; is not a name, it is a phrase. I am a &quot;father&quot; to my children, a &quot;husband&quot; to my wife, a &quot;son&quot; to my father, but none of those are my name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not one time was anyone ever recorded to be baptized other than the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Jews, &quot;Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost&quot; (Acts 2:38).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Samaritans. &quot;They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Gentiles. &quot;And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord&quot; (Acts 10:48). (The earliest Greek manuscripts that we have say, &quot;In the name of Jesus Christ,&quot; as do most versions today.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The disciples of John (rebaptized). &quot;They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus&quot; (Acts 19:5).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Apostles Paul. &quot;Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord&quot; (Acts 22:16).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, the Epistles contain a number of references or allusions to baptism in Jesus' name. See Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 2:12; James 2:7.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Zechariah 14:9&lt;/strong&gt; And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that&#xA;  day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other References&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: &quot;The formula used was &quot;in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ&quot; or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name. The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion. in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the triune name (Justin).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: &quot;The evidence. suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: &quot;At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: &quot;[One explanation is that] the original form of words was &quot;into the name of Jesus Christ&quot; or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: &quot;The trinitarian baptismal formula, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: &quot;The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus, which still occurs even in the second and third centuries.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: &quot;Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'. Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: &quot;It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: &quot;The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning. Baptism into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T14:40:50.247" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4658" CreationDate="2013-02-11T15:02:06.193" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus saw His earthly human body as inherently &quot;limited&quot;.  The man was referencing Jesus as a man.  I think Jesus was simply saying &quot;who is this 'good' teacher you are speaking of? There is no such thing as good men, only God is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus being God (as God) is therefore good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or put another way, Jesus was saying if you address me as a &quot;good teacher&quot; I can not help you, for no man is good.  Only as God can I do anything to help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T15:02:06.193" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14095" CreationDate="2013-02-11T15:36:02.913" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Catholic Encyclopedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There has been a theological controversy over the question as to&#xA;  whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid.&#xA;  Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty.&#xA;  Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be&#xA;  baptized in Christ's name: &quot;They were baptized in the name of the Lord&#xA;  Jesus.&quot; In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be&#xA;  baptized &quot;in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ&quot;. Those who were&#xA;  converted by Philip. (Acts 8) &quot;were baptized in the name of Jesus&#xA;  Christ&quot;, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of&#xA;  the Apostles: &quot;Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus&#xA;  Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles&#xA;  baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and&#xA;  Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they&#xA;  declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other&#xA;  writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such&#xA;  baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the&#xA;  Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the&#xA;  terms &quot;in the name of Jesus&quot;, &quot;in the name of Christ&quot;, either refer to&#xA;  baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish&#xA;  Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether&#xA;  unlikely that immediately after &lt;strong&gt;Christ had solemnly promulgated the&#xA;  trinitarian formula of baptism&lt;/strong&gt;, the Apostles themselves would have&#xA;  substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply&#xA;  quite plainly that they did not. &lt;strong&gt;For, when some Christians at Ephesus&#xA;  declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle&#xA;  asks: &quot;In whom then were you baptized?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; This text certainly seems to&#xA;  declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have&#xA;  heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of&#xA;  baptism was pronounced over them. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm&quot;&gt;Baptism: Form&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the predominating opinion states baptism in the name of Christ alone is against Christ's command and is therefor unlikely. Rather, &quot;in the name of Jesus Christ&quot; refers to performing the baptism &lt;em&gt;at Christ's command&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;for Christ's purpose&lt;/em&gt;, much like you might claim a piece of land &lt;em&gt;in the name of the Queen&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/acts/19&quot;&gt;Acts 19&lt;/a&gt; clarifies the ambiguous language, supporting this opinion, by suggesting that baptized people know of the Holy Ghost from having been baptized in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T15:36:02.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14101" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T15:36:52.567" Score="16" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that after popes die (at least after Bl. John Paul II died) all their unpublished works and letters are burnt and I heard on the radio this morning that Pope Benedict XVI is pretty much going in to hiding, not just as a former head of state, but also to not influence in any way the new Pope. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/papal-encyclical-on-faith-announced&quot;&gt;we were expecting an encyclical on Faith for the year of Faith 2013&lt;/a&gt;, and if it doesn't get published in the next two and a half weeks will it be destroyed or can it (if it even exists) be published &quot;posthumously&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-02-11T16:02:32.990" LastActivityDate="2016-02-10T04:31:52.693" Title="Is the Pope allowed to publish books after resignation?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14095" CreationDate="2013-02-11T16:49:50.257" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We have lost something on the subject of Baptism due to the early apostasy of the church by which it started to elevate the external forms of religion above its internal truth. Worrying about which words should be used, and trying to argue them from scriptures, is much like the woman asking Jesus on what mountain should people worship God. (John 4:20).&lt;/strong&gt;  In reply, Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23-24, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note: I realize the question is not worrying about the words but is merely a question. It is the potential undue nervousness in choosing a supposed 'correct answer' that is not scriptural.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A better concept about Baptism is reflected on Paul’s own:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:17, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Charles Hodge has some very apt comments on this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For indicates the connection. ‘I baptized few, for I was not sent to baptize, but to preach.’ The commission was, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” This does not mean that baptism was not included, but it does mean that baptizing was very inferior to preaching. It is subordinated in the very form of the commission, “Go ye therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them,” &amp;amp;c. The main thing was to make disciples; recognizing them as such by baptism was subordinate, though commanded. Baptism was a work which the apostles seem to have generally left to others, Acts 10:48. &lt;strong&gt;During the apostolic age, and in the apostolic form of religion, truth stood immeasurably above external rites. The apostasy of the church consisted in making rites more important than truth.&lt;/strong&gt; The apostle’s manner of speaking of baptism in this connection as subordinate to preaching is, therefore, a wonder to those who are disposed unduly to exalt the sacraments. (Exposition on 1 Corinthians, Charles Hodge, verse 17-31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The fact is the actuals words that might be spoken during baptism are not prescribed in the Bible, but what baptism means is explained.&lt;/strong&gt; The same is true of the Lord’s Supper, exact words that are to be said when eating the bread and drinking the wine are not defined in the Bible.  The truth of the matter is baptism is principally something one does to say communicate that they personally identify with the death and resurrection of Christ, taking Christ as their redeemer. That they believe and accept Jesus as their Messiah and Lord, in public display and confession -- that is what is established by external baptism.  The external rite is about being submerged into water to reflect what has already occurred inwardly. It is not about any specific words to be spoken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens in the inner version of Baptism? Well, a sinner by faith in Christ is united to him.  This mystical union punishes his sins in Christ, and Christ's perfection and righteousness is charged and imputed upon the sinner, making him have eternal life, apart from any work.  This righteous state brings reconciliation with the Father; therefore the Father gives the Spirit to enjoy forever.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now in the times of Acts mention is only made of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Of course this is the principle meaning for when one receives Christ as the Messiah, they are baptized into the humanity of Christ and therefore reconciled with God. The description of what it means to be baptized (not the words that must be said) simply expands the reconciliation with God to be reconciliation with the Triune God. Therefore there is no difference between baptism in Mathew 28 and all the other references to Baptism in the Bible where the triune aspect is not focused on, such as Acts 1:5, 2:38, 3:41, 8:12-16, 8:36-38, 9:18, 11:16, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, 19:3-5, 22:16, Romans 6:3, 1 Corinthians 1:13, 1:14-16, 10:2, 12:13, 15:29 &amp;amp; Galatians 3:27.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to the illogical exegesis of scripture used by the Catholic Encyclopedia one can hardly follow. &lt;strong&gt;For it was usual in those times, that upon the baptizing of persons, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and endowed them with extraordinary gifts, peculiar to the days of the gospel.&lt;/strong&gt;  Sometimes people received the Holy Spirit before Baptism also, but it became normal afterwards for this reception to occur during baptism.  When Paul found some that had not publically received Christ but had only undergone the Baptism of John before and during the very early part of Christ’s ministry he knew they needed to be baptized as followers of Christ, not of John. This would ensure the receive Christ and the Spirit as all other Christian’s had done. This had nothing to do with the words being spoken. &lt;strong&gt;Nobody ever received the Spirit in the Bible by having the word ‘Spirit’ spoken, but by having faith in Christ.&lt;/strong&gt; The whole notion of attributing power to words is a kind of superstition unknown in scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I had to take a wild guess I would imagine that, if words were used during Baptism, something to the effect of ‘in the name of Christ’ would have been the most direct and logical, and therefore probable. On the other hand the earliest extra biblical record of actual words spoken under a forming tradition are probably found in the Didache (mid to late first century), which uses a Trinitarian formula. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: What words did Peter use? As the exact words are not recorded, I confess I do not know, nor are exact words to be used commanded in any place from scripture. The same is true about words to be spoken during the Lord’s supper.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-12T05:07:46.167" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T05:07:46.167" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14103" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14106" CreationDate="2013-02-11T18:23:44.193" Score="9" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;p&gt;There must be someone to oficially call the cardinals to a conclave. Who is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can't be the old pope - resignation is hardly the normal situation, so the old pope is supposed to be dead. I guess it's some of the cardinals, probably &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camerlengo_of_the_Holy_Roman_Church&quot;&gt;Cardinal Camerlegno&lt;/a&gt;, but I'd be interrested in some proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-02-11T18:59:13.943" LastActivityDate="2013-02-28T15:01:48.323" Title="Who calls the conclave?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14104" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T18:27:19.073" Score="11" ViewCount="824" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the requirements one must meet to obtain an indulgence is to pray for the intentions of the pope. When there's no pope, what's the substitute? I guess it's the conclave and the next pope, but I don't know the exact rules on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-07-21T14:13:16.013" LastActivityDate="2013-07-21T14:13:16.013" Title="What substitutes for prayers for the Pope's intentions during sede vacante?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12100" CreationDate="2013-02-11T19:06:42.763" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Augustine, and other Christian leaders ignore scripture on this point.  Isaiah 45:7 (&quot;I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I am the Lord that does all these things&quot;) and Deuteronomy 30:15-20 (&quot;See, I have set before you this day life and good and death and evil . . . .therefore choose life that you may live, you and your seed; to love the Lord your God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him; for that is your life and the length of your days. . . .&quot;), both make it clear that good and evil were created by God.  Moreover, the verses at Deuteronomy make it clear that the creation of evil went along with the gift of free will, without which we would be robots or hand puppets.  Our task, Deuteronomy is telling us, is to &quot;choose life&quot; by knowing God through study, walking in His ways, following His commandments, and loving Him with full hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The assumption that God only creates good, and not evil, does not come from the Hebrew Scriptures, but appears to demonstrate early influences to the Church by the dualistic views of Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism.  The NT reflects this, too, by its exaggeration of the abilities and independence of Satan, in contrast to the Jewish view, as reflected in Job, for example (that Satan was a prosecutorial angel working at the direction of God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The existence of both good and evil in the world are both essential to the concepts of free will, reward and punishment, and the spiritual and moral development of mankind.  Therefore from God's perspective, the co-existence of good and evil in the world as options for Man serve a Divine purpose and therefore serve an ultimate good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine's position, really, is not from the Bible at all.  Realize that Augustine was heavily influenced by Manichaeism.  Manicheaeism was a Persian religion that, like Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism, had a dualistic cosmology where there were forces that were exclusiviely good opposed to forces that were exclusively evil.  Widengren, Geo Mesopotamian elements in Manichaeism (King and Saviour II): Studies in Manichaean, Mandaean, and Syrian-gnostic religion, Lundequistska bokhandeln, 1946.  Manichaeism was popular from the 3rd to 7th centuries in the Eastern Mediterranean area and was among Christianity's chief competitors.  See Andrew Welburn, Mani, the Angel and the Column of Glory: An Anthology of Manichaean Texts (Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1998), p. 68.  Augustine had been a Manichaean &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=418&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;before converting to Christianity&lt;/a&gt;, his enthusiastic conversion coming shortly after Roman Emperor Theodosius I had issued a decree of death for any Manichaeians in 382 and shortly before he declared Christianity the empire's official religion.  Some modern scholars have suggested that Manichaean ways of thinking influenced the development of some of Augustine's ideas, such as the nature of good and evil, the idea of hell, the separation of groups into elect, hearers, and sinners, and the hostility to the flesh and sexual activity. A. Adam, Das Fortwirken des Manichäismus bei Augustin. In: ZKG (69) 1958, S. 1–25 (cited in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#cite_note-25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Manichaeism&lt;/a&gt;). As these views are contrary to views in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is more likely they were introduced by Augustine from Manichaeism.  It could be argued that, like many Church innovations, these changes were made not only out of Augustine's personal beliefs, but to make Church doctrine more attractive in parts of the world where Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism held influence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3926" LastEditorUserId="3926" LastEditDate="2013-03-07T20:58:53.813" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T20:58:53.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14103" CreationDate="2013-02-11T19:45:13.627" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is the Dean of the College of Cardinals, currently Cardinal Angelo Sodano. This role for the Dean is many centuries old. The present rules for the election of the Pope are mostly found in the Apostolic Constitution &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Universi Dominici gregis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, issued by John Paul II in 1996. It contains the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(19) The Dean of the College of Cardinals, for his part, as soon as he has been informed of the Pope's death by the Cardinal Camerlengo or the Prefect of the Papal Household, shall inform all the Cardinals and convoke them for the Congregations of the College. He shall also communicate news of the Pope's death to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See and to the Heads of the respective Nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although this refers to the death of the Pope, the same provision applies in the case of resignation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(77) I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The citations are to the canons describing how a Pope resigns. UDG §38 confirms the role of the Dean in convoking the cardinals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angelo Sodano, however, is 85 years old, and will not be taking part in the conclave - only cardinals under 80 at the time the See becomes vacant are electors. He is also restricted from presiding over the General Congregation, which is the daily meeting of all the Cardinals held before the conclave begins. He can still attend, but doesn't have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UDG provides that if the Dean is unable to preside over the conclave himself, then his place is taken by the Sub-Dean (aka Vice-Dean). But this is Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, who is 90 years old! So instead, the role falls (UDG §9) to the senior cardinal who is actually able to take part. This will be Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, because he is a cardinal bishop (first tier of precedence), and has been one for longer than the only other cardinal bishop who is under 80, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. (Cardinal Francis Arinze is 80, and Cardinal Jose Martins is 81. The patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches rank just below the other cardinal bishops.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, the formal announcement of §19 above could still be made by Cardinal Sodano himself, since all other mentions of &quot;Dean&quot; in the document include a proviso about the  substitution if the Dean is impeded, and this section just says &quot;Dean&quot;. However, §38 allows another cardinal to do it in his name. This situation arose for the two conclaves of 1978, when both the dean (Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri, 85) and the vice-dean (Cardinal Paolo Morella, 83) were above the age of 80. The next-ranking elector, Cardinal Jean-Marie Villot, was the one who presided over the conclave, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; he also sent the messages of summons. Interestingly, he was both Secretary of State and Camerlengo at the time, which probably added some weight to the idea that he should be responsible for the summons as well. (This took place under &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19751001_romano-pontifici-eligendo_lt.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romano Pontifici Eligendo&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, 1975, the predecessor to UDG, but the relevant law is basically the same; see §§19 and 39.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300856.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic News Service report&lt;/a&gt; of 26 February 2013 quotes Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, saying that the Dean, Angelo Sodano, will send out letters of summons on 1 March, including email or fax versions as well as the hard copies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-02-28T15:01:48.323" LastActivityDate="2013-02-28T15:01:48.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14107" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14124" CreationDate="2013-02-11T19:55:54.590" Score="16" ViewCount="548" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Benedict XVI recently announced his resignation. What other Popes have abdicated in the past? The media keep pointing to Gregory XII, but it is my understanding that he was deposed by the Council of Constance (involuntarily).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T17:41:02.407" Title="What Popes have resigned in the past?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14101" CreationDate="2013-02-11T20:04:00.550" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The ex-pope can't publish anything as a pope - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_election#Death_of_the_pope&quot;&gt;his seal is destroyed&lt;/a&gt; and he has no longer the right to use his papal name in this way. Documents he didn't manage to publish won't be destroyed, but are open to use by his successor, as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://jimmyakin.com/2013/02/first-thoughts-on-pope-benedicts-resignation.html&quot;&gt;site linked in Svidgen's comment&lt;/a&gt; states.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one can forbid the ex-pope to publish books under his civic name, though it's a tradition for an ex-pope to refrain from anything that might have &quot;political&quot; consequences. I personally (with no qualification, I just guess) expect Joseph Ratzinger to publish some of his yet unpublished works (otherwise, someone would publish them posthumously) - I guess he has enough unpublished (or unfinished) materials from his academic times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T20:04:00.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14109" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="32419" CreationDate="2013-02-11T20:38:41.783" Score="9" ViewCount="3706" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Divine office or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Liturgy of the Hours&lt;/a&gt; as it is practiced in Catholic Church there's nothing bad for Protestants (or at least nothing of which I know that Protestants consider bad); prayer is good for all Christians and Psalms are a good basis. However, most Protestants don't pray this way. Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did any of the reformers condemn it? Or did this tradition just fade away over time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I'm adding &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/history&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;history&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;history&lt;/a&gt;, because I'm interrested mostly in the time when Liturgy of Hours vanished from practice of most Protestants (16th or 17th century? I don't know exactly). Modern Protestants' point of view has some value, but the best answer shouldn't rely on practice/ doctrine nowadays. I know that some denominations practice it (especially Lutherans); these are excluded from &quot;protestantism&quot; for this question's sake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imagine citation of some reformer, founder of some denomination, or at least a notable convert who prayed Liturgy of Hours before (i.e. former Catholic priest) or at least knew the practice and wrote anything about it. I'm not sure whether such a source is even available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Less direct citations + few words on context and how it applies to Liturgy of Hours are also OK. For example some of early criticisms against prayer in someone other's words, including words of Bible, by someone who influenced some of the major branches of Protestantism. Such a criticism could apply if it sounds plausible to audience accustomed to Liturgy of Hours, though not necessarily understanding its significance - so &quot;vain repetitions&quot; as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14115/3447&quot;&gt;Narnian&lt;/a&gt; suggested are based on ignorance of the prayer's structure and therefore not acceptable to anyone knowing it, but fear of praying &quot;only at set times&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/32419/3447&quot;&gt;as LCIII mentioned&lt;/a&gt; could be easily accepted by someone who prayed it regularly for a long time, but didn't discover its value as a backbone of constant prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An answer based solely on reasoning and Bible citations can be (temporarily) accepted as well if at least some of its points likely played role in the beginning of Protestantism. However, if some answer with solid historical reasoning and/or citations appears later, I will definitely accept the new one instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2019-10-18T13:05:03.287" Title="Why did Protestants abandon Liturgy of the Hours?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;liturgy-of-the-hours&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14110" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-02-11T20:43:10.017" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-02-11T20:43:10.017" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T20:43:10.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14111" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-02-11T20:43:10.017" Score="0" Body="Questions concerning the office and the role of the pope." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-02-11T20:47:03.820" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T20:47:03.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14113" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-02-11T21:06:34.647" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Liturgy of the Hours or Divine Office&lt;/a&gt; is a practice of praying Psalms and other prayers (both from Bible and other sources) at certain times of day. It's mandatory for Catholic priests and observant Catholics, but laity is encouraged for the prayer too. The book containing the prayers for Liturgy of the Hours is called the Breviary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-12-17T19:24:07.773" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T19:24:07.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14114" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-02-11T21:06:34.647" Score="0" Body="Questions on prayer of Liturgy of the Hours." OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-12-17T19:24:56.040" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T19:24:56.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14109" CreationDate="2013-02-11T21:24:12.540" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The key issue is not what is in the prayers, but that the prayers are repetitive.  It seems to follow from this that prayers would not arise from a person's heart.  Protestants generally believe pretty strongly that prayer should be spontaneous from a person's heart--not words that someone else wrote for them to read or recite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught us not to use &quot;vain repetitions&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when ye pray, use not &lt;strong&gt;vain repetitions&lt;/strong&gt;, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.  Matthew 6:7 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Psalmist also entreats us to &lt;strong&gt;pour out our hearts to God.&lt;/strong&gt;  In order to do this, rote prayers seems counterproductive.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Trust in him at all times, O people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us.  Psalm 68:8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, the Psalms are full of people pouring out their hearts to God.  So, the model appears to be to pray from the heart rather than to repeat what others have written for us to pray.  Of course, Protestants typically believe pretty strongly that we should read the Scriptures pretty regularly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T21:24:12.540" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14116" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T21:26:38.123" Score="4" ViewCount="14714" Body="&lt;p&gt;Temptation, in the common secular sense, seems to indicate an attraction to something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/temptation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Temptation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The act of tempting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The condition of being tempted.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Something attractive, tempting or seductive; an inducement or enticement.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Pressure applied to your thinking designed to create wrong emotions which will eventually lead to wrong actions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tempting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tempting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;attractive, appealing, enticing&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;seductive, alluring, inviting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tempt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tempt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;(transitive) To provoke someone to do wrong, especially by promising a reward; to entice.&lt;br /&gt; She tempted me to eat the apple.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;(transitive) To attract; to allure.&lt;br /&gt; Its glossy skin tempted me.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;(transitive) To provoke something; to court.&lt;br /&gt; It would be tempting fate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as with many secular concepts that overlap religious concepts, there are often explicit theological definitions which allow the terminology to fit into religious, dogmatic, and theological discussions with less ambiguity. In this case, is there any predominating Christian/theological definition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, how is temptation defined or explained in such a manner that allows Christ to have been tempted?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify the problem, if Christ is to be attracted to &lt;em&gt;some thing&lt;/em&gt;, there must be some part or aspect of Christ to which &lt;em&gt;some thing&lt;/em&gt; appeals. More significantly, Christ, in order to be tempted, must desire that thing if we are to say &lt;em&gt;He is attracted to it&lt;/em&gt;. And if Christ is to contain a part or aspect to which some evil may be a temptation, thus arousing a desire, there could be said to be a sinful nature or component in Christ -- a contradiction of His Godliness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate the problem, one might select magnetism (or any natural force) as a natural analogy. For the effect of magnetism (sin) to attract (tempt) a material (person), the material must contain, at least to some extent, a magnetic (sinful) component.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, if we say that Christ is tempted &lt;em&gt;in this understanding&lt;/em&gt;, we say that He has a sinful component.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do we Christians, Catholics, or any denomination that has a well-established concept, define or explain temptation in a non-trivial manner without requiring Christ to have a sinful nature?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-02-11T21:47:05.390" LastActivityDate="2017-06-19T00:21:28.753" Title="What is temptation?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-06-22T07:12:21.527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4398" CreationDate="2013-02-11T21:38:05.117" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any danger of a non-blessed rosary except for omission of prayer just because I don't have a blessed rosary. It's also completely OK to pray the prayer of rosary without a rosary as the item. The item is not really important, the prayer is important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the intent of the blessing is to help my prayer, so it's not useless. You can translate the blessing as a prayer for the wielder of the rosary to pray well. This is not just the priest's personal prayer, it has the authority of the Church. The effect is similar to someone praying with you (probably not as important, but it stacks) - and every Christian know that it's completely OK to pray alone, but prayer of two or three is better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-02-11T21:38:05.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14118" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T21:57:09.070" Score="8" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Eastern Orthodoxy, is it most important for the efficacy of the sacraments that they be administered canonically by an ordained priest (who is in apostolic succession), or the fact that God is the one who works in and through the Holy Mysteries? Or is it both (or something else)? A discussion of canonical decisions made during the Novation and Donatist controversies would be helpful, as well as the decisions of Church councils. I am specifically interested in the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion (the Mystical Supper).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-24T13:17:44.203" LastActivityDate="2016-10-24T13:17:44.203" Title="In Eastern Orthodoxy, what is most important for the efficacy of the sacraments: the right Church or the right God?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4214" CreationDate="2013-02-11T22:06:06.933" Score="2" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;and 3. I guess it has just historical reasons, and it will probably be corrected someday. In most languages, there's just one version of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Patri&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gloria Patri&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In Liturgy of Hours it should still be Gloria Patri, and if you pray it by yourself, the translation shouldn't be important. On the other hand, it shouldn't be replaced by other, though similar, prayers (but I've seen much bigger tresspasses against liturgical rules and AFAIK it doesn't make the whole prayer useless). In Rosary and other uses, it's even more free.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2019-03-06T09:28:35.967" LastActivityDate="2019-03-06T09:28:35.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14120" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14122" CreationDate="2013-02-11T22:33:21.077" Score="5" ViewCount="4714" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading through &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Malachy's Popes Prophecy&lt;/a&gt;, I couldn't understand a particular phrase:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when&#xA;  they are finished, &lt;strong&gt;the city of seven hills will be destroyed&lt;/strong&gt;, and the&#xA;  dreadful judge will judge his people&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been searching the internet for some time now but I have not found any clue. What does &lt;em&gt;the city of seven hills&lt;/em&gt; refer to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-08-03T02:09:52.703" LastActivityDate="2017-08-03T02:09:52.703" Title="What is the &quot;city of seven hills&quot; in St. Malachy's Popes Prophecy?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;malachy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14121" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14154" CreationDate="2013-02-11T22:49:35.430" Score="3" ViewCount="541" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know psalms and other Biblical songs are often sung as hymns, read and cited, but I wonder to which extent is this understood as a prayer by Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be more concrete, is the use of psalms mentioned in Ephesians 5:19 understood as prayer, &quot;strange prayer&quot;, &quot;something related to prayer&quot; or &quot;something completely different&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 5:18b-20:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with&#xA;  psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from&#xA;  your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for&#xA;  everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14115/3447&quot;&gt;This answer&lt;/a&gt; has awakened my old suspition that there is some hidden but grave terminological incompatibility between Catholic and Protestant understanding of prescribed prayer and praising God's name by Psalms and by words of Bible in general. For Catholics, singing/reciting psalms and other Biblic songs with intent to praise God is definitely understood as a prayer, in fact it's a base of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Liturgy of Hours&lt;/a&gt;. The answer for the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14109/3447&quot;&gt;Why did Protestants abandon Liturgy of the Hours?&lt;/a&gt; seems to imply different approach.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;That's why I ask this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T00:05:50.737" Title="How much are psalms and other prayers from Bible understood as actual prayer in Protestantism?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14120" CreationDate="2013-02-11T23:05:36.073" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Latin phrase &lt;em&gt;civitas septicollis&lt;/em&gt;, or &quot;seven-hilled city,&quot; is an allusion to Rome. According to Joseph Lomas Towers in his &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=7740AAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA199&amp;amp;lpg=PA199&amp;amp;dq=horace%20septicollis&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=EIf-NwyTHb&amp;amp;sig=rsTjhmM_tnZ_1d1D0Lb3_uRjvfI&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=G3YZUfDnB4jY9ATtvoGgDg&amp;amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=horace%20septicollis&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Elucidiations of Prophecy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, Ch. XIII, p. 199, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rome was as well known by its situation on seven hills or &lt;em&gt;montes&lt;/em&gt;, as by the name of Rome itself; &lt;em&gt;Urbs septicollis&lt;/em&gt; was never mistaken for any other city, Roman authors have so fully determined the sense of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The seven hills are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aventine Hill (Latin, Aventinus; Italian, Aventino)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Caelian Hill (Caelius, Celio)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Capitoline Hill (Capitolium, Campidoglio)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Esquiline Hill (Esquilinus, Esquilino)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Palatine Hill (Palatinus, Palatino)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Quirinal Hill (Quirinalis, Quirinale)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Viminal Hill (Viminalis, Viminale)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ThKgf.png&quot; alt=&quot;Map of the city showing the seven hills&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Seven Hills of Rome (Italian: &lt;em&gt;Sette colli di Roma&lt;/em&gt;) east of the river Tiber form the geographical heart of Rome, within the walls of the ancient city.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/HoraceEpodesAndCarmenSaeculare.htm#_Toc98670048&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Carmen Sæculare&lt;/a&gt;, the Roman poet Horace wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Sybilline verses have issued their warning&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To innocent boys, and the virgins we’ve chosen,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To sing out their song to the gods, who have shown their&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Love for the Seven Hills (&lt;em&gt;septem...colles&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  O kindly Sun, in your shining chariot, who&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Herald the day, then hide it, to be born again&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  New yet the same, you will never know anything&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Mightier than Rome!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christopher Wordsworth, in his &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=npgYAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA3&amp;amp;lpg=PA3&amp;amp;dq=ovid%20septem%20totum&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=ANqbl3CFhI&amp;amp;sig=OajPuyC-pbaTbS2Uv1dkLJbpBJQ&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=uXgZUf7yCoak8QTftYHACg&amp;amp;ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=ovid%20septem%20totum&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Union with Rome&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, Ch. I, pp. 3-4, also lists several other Roman authors who refer to Rome in a similar manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On another note, I was examining the Latin which states,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus:&#xA;  quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, &#xA;  &amp;amp; Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit po pulum suum. Finis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the verb &lt;em&gt;pascet&lt;/em&gt;, a conjugation of &lt;em&gt;pasco&lt;/em&gt;, can mean to feed an animal (like sheep; cp. Vulgate of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=21&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/16&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 21:16&lt;/a&gt;), it can also mean &quot;to lay waste, ravage&quot; (cp. Vulgate of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mic&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;v=6&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/6&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mic. 5:6&lt;/a&gt;; Lewis &amp;amp; Short, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pascet&amp;amp;la=la#lexicon&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;I. II. 2.&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, this Peter the Roman may not be the one &quot;feeding&quot; or nourishing the sheep, but the one persecuting the sheep. Just something to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-02-12T08:50:10.677" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T08:50:10.677" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14124" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14107" CreationDate="2013-02-12T00:12:33.387" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gregory XII&lt;/strong&gt; resigned by proxy at the Council of Constance. He had appointed Cardinal Giovanni Dominici of Ragusa and Carlo Malatesta to represent him, and Malatesta announced the resignation which was accepted by the Council. That Council deposed Antipope John XXIII and excommunicated Antipope Benedict XIII. Gregory's resignation was necessary to end the Western Schism, and was probably at the request of the Council. However, he was not deposed by the Council of Constance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin V was consecrated Pope a month or so after the death of Gregory XII, who lived two years after his abdication. The &lt;em&gt;sede vacante&lt;/em&gt; period was quite lengthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope &lt;strong&gt;Celestine V&lt;/strong&gt; ruled that a pope had the right to resign the papacy, and he did so after only seven months in office in 1294. In the early church, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12229b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope &lt;strong&gt;Pontian&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; resigned in 235 after being exiled to the salt mines of Sardinia. Other popes who abdicated are &lt;strong&gt;John XVIII&lt;/strong&gt; in 1009 and &lt;strong&gt;Benedict IX&lt;/strong&gt; in 1045, together with &lt;strong&gt;Benedict XVI&lt;/strong&gt; in 2013. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the above, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01031a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; also lists Pope &lt;strong&gt;Gregory VI&lt;/strong&gt; who was held to have procured Benedict IX's resignation and was persuaded to resign to avoid accusations of simony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also the doubtful cases of Marcellinus and Liberius; and the non-resignation of Pius VII &amp;mdash; he had signed a deed of resignation which would only take effect if he were to be imprisoned in France during his trip there for the coronation of Napoleon in 1804.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Benedict XVI visited the tomb of Pope St Celestine V in 2009, laying his pallium on it and pausing for devotion. He visited again in 2011.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/DSW4m.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Pope Benedict XVI at the tomb of Pope St Celestine V&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-02-19T17:41:02.407" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T17:41:02.407" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14104" CreationDate="2013-02-12T00:37:29.607" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not a prayer for the Pope; it's a prayer for the &lt;em&gt;intention&lt;/em&gt; of the Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/indulge/norms.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;From the Enchiridion of Indulgences issued on 29 June 1968:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26. To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill the following three conditions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;bull; sacramental confession,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;bull; Eucharistic Communion,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;bull; and prayer for the&#xA;     intention of the Sovereign Pontiff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the latter disposition is in any way less than perfect or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be partial only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29. The condition of praying for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff is fully satisfied by reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary; nevertheless, each one is free to recite any other prayer according to his piety and devotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although certain functions of the Papacy are carried out during a vacancy under the Cardinal Camerlengo, there is no &quot;Sovereign Pontiff&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that a prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff cannot be properly fulfilled in a vacancy, it would appear that any indulgence will be partial only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T00:37:29.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14116" CreationDate="2013-02-12T02:14:20.123" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Temptation is one of those words that shows just how.... difficult English can be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am assuming that when you talk about the temptations and Christ, you are talking about the temptations that were apart of his 40 day fast and the ones immediately following that fast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the scripture in Matthew reads: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt 4: 1,3 ) 1. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be *tempted &lt;strong&gt;[sic]&lt;/strong&gt; of the devil. 3. And when the tempter came to him he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we have Jesus going up to be tempted, and we have the tempter coming to Him once he is done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as noted in your definitions, Temptation can be applied both as a adjective - when it describes a condition one is experiencing - and as a verb - when it describes an action. No where in these verses, does it apply temptation as an adjective that Christ is experiencing. In both verses it is being used in verbal form. First He is going out to &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; tempted, (&lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; being key here to the verbal application of the word).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then He is confronted with the &lt;em&gt;tempter&lt;/em&gt;, again the verbal form of the word (though it can be confusing because here the verbal form is being used as a pronoun).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you keep reading and come to Christ's responses, it is fairly evident that tempted is not a good adjective for how He feels when presented with the devil's offers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt 4: 4,7,10) 4.But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 7. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 10. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of Christ's answers show any desire to partake of the temptations, or that they provoke any sense of allure in the Savior. In fact He rather forcefully rejects the offers and then casts the tempter out of His presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;strong&gt;TL:DR&lt;/strong&gt; While Christ is presented (verbal form) with temptations, He never &lt;em&gt;feels&lt;/em&gt; (adjectival form) the temptations. Hence He does not have a sinful nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*As a side note, in verse 1 of my KJV of the bible the footnotes offer 'tried' or 'tested' as an alternate translation for 'tempted'. This seems to flow better with the fact that the devil shows up only &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; Christ comes back from the wilderness. (Again, that's just a note and my opinion on the whole scripture, and has nothing to do with my answer!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T02:14:20.123" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14121" CreationDate="2013-02-12T02:31:09.437" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may not be completely answerable in a way that applies to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Protestants, but I'm going to put forth an answer that I believe will apply to a large swath of protestant belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The generally accepted Protestant understanding of what prayer is can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/10-prayer-tips-how-to-talk-to-god/&quot;&gt;http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/10-prayer-tips-how-to-talk-to-god/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Prayer is simply having a conversation with God. There are many&#xA;  different thoughts on what you should and shouldn’t say when you pray.&#xA;  There is merit to many of these ideas. But try to make your prayer&#xA;  life a simple conversation with your Heavenly Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that sense, prayer is not simply reciting words by memory.  That's not a conversation.  Prayer is not repeating words that others have said.  There are many types of prayer recognized by Protestants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prayers of thanks&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prayers of repentance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prayers of confession and asking for forgiveness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Petitions (asking God for something)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prayers of praise.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, we recognize that the Psalms and other recorded prayers in the Bible were prayers of the psalmists, or of those that are recorded as speaking them.  They are to us a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;pattern to emulate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; rather than something to simply be memorized and repeated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Normally I wouldn't use personal items as part of an answer, but this does illustrate the point, so please forgive me if this strays into the &quot;not a well supported answer territory&quot;...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, when talking to people about the definition of repentance, and praying for salvation, in many protestant Churches, we condone a form of recited prayer - we call it the sinner's prayer, and scores of well-meaning Christians when witnessing simply ask the potential convert to repeat a prayer after them, something like &quot;Oh, Lord, I'm a sinner.  I realize I'm lost and can't save myself.  Please forgive me, come into my heart, and save me&quot;, and we call that a prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a sense, that sinner's prayer is no more a prayer than simply repeating a psalm, and I, personally, like to point instead to psalm 51, and say something like, &quot;Look a this.  this is the prayer of someone who knows they're lost, and is truly repentant. Look at how David is begging to be cleansed...&quot; and use it as a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;pattern&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; for true prayer of repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;end of delving into the personal belief portion of the answer&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of the above journey into not constructive territory is that Protestants, to answer your question, view such prayers as examples - as patterns, but would not see simply rote repetition of the prayers as prayer in and of itself.  We would see mere repetition of established prayers as meaningless. To us, it misses the point of a personal relationship with God, because repeating words written by others isn't having a conversation with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps this article sums it up better, but still says basically the same thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_protestants_pray&quot;&gt;http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_protestants_pray&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do protestants pray?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Protestants may pray in silence , in groups or outloud. However , they&#xA;  do not like using formula prayers , and they do not pray to Mary or to&#xA;  saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T02:31:09.437" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14129" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14145" CreationDate="2013-02-12T02:41:59.197" Score="5" ViewCount="419" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw this in a user profile, and would just like a description of what the movement is.  Beliefs, how it varies from &quot;the norm&quot; (if it does) history, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, simply, what is the Light-Life Movement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-02-12T04:49:51.820" LastActivityDate="2018-06-14T08:29:21.073" Title="What is the &quot;Light-Life Movement&quot;" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;movements&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6564" CreationDate="2013-02-12T03:52:18.607" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story of withering of fig tree, apart from reminding for having faith in God's power, depicts a few other things about the persona of Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, he is capable of taking a life and giving it also. So he is the source of life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly to demostrate this, Bible at many places tell us that he brought many to life from death. Though he was in position to take away life in similar manner, he did not do it in case of humans in his entire life time but demonstrated it on a fig tree, indicating love, respeat and precious value for man's life. This indicates the special status of God's most precious creature, the man who was created in 'Their' own image as we find in Genesis.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thirdly this also indicate that he came into this world not to judge and condemn the world but to give salvation and life everlasting to man.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fourthly, though he had the power to take away life by uttering a single word as in the case of this fig tree, he did not resort to this power to overcome his adversaries even unto his death on cross and that is the diffetence between Jesus and founders of other religions. That is the reason one cannot compare Jesus or his teachings with any other religious leader or their teachings for they are not at all compatible with each other no matter how much the followers of other religion try to placate it so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-09-12T04:04:05.110" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T04:04:05.110" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14131" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-12T04:59:59.510" Score="2" ViewCount="463" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard many arguments and debates on the authenticity of bible. But everyone involved was just putting forward his or her own opinions/suggestions. I would like to know a little more about this topic. Could anyone provide me with valid historical, doctrinal... evidences on the same (Bible as a stack of say, 66 books)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3921" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T18:50:43.760" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T18:50:43.760" Title="What is the Authenticity of Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-02-12T19:35:00.033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14131" CreationDate="2013-02-12T13:40:49.720" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a saying that if you need a book to answer a question, the question is too broad.  In this case, the following book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0785242198&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Evidence That Demands a Verdict&lt;/a&gt; by Josh McDowell is your book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Briefly, this work of apologetics is pretty well recommended by many Christian churches.  There are several chapters on the authenticity of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;McDowell has many, many arguments about the authenticity of the Bible, but perhaps the most compelling for me is the sheer number of early manuscripts, when compared against say, Homer, Virgil, or Shakespeare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to whether or not the 66 (or 73) books together are &quot;the Bible&quot; (meaning that it represents the full reading list), search this site for 'canon' and 'canonization.'  There are already several questions that address how the various books came to be in the Bible.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I would recommend:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5527/1039&quot;&gt;What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6536/1039&quot;&gt;Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8468/1039&quot;&gt;Lineage of Each Verse of Scripture&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T13:46:02.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14133" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14144" CreationDate="2013-02-12T15:49:21.930" Score="8" ViewCount="2384" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Journal of Discourses, LDS apostles suggest that Jesus Himself was married, that He had children, and that He and His disciples endorsed polygamy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than &lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ was married&lt;/strong&gt; on that occasion.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://jod.mrm.org/4/259&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Page 259&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did the old Prophet mean when he said (speaking of Christ), “&lt;strong&gt;He shall see his seed&lt;/strong&gt;, prolong his days, &amp;amp;c.” Did Jesus consider it necessary to fulfil every righteous command or requirement of his Father? He most certainly did. This be witnessed by submitting to baptism under the hands of John. “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,” said he. Was it God's commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. &lt;strong&gt;Did he multiply&lt;/strong&gt;, and did he see his seed? Did he honor his Father's law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, &lt;strong&gt;but I will not charge our Savior with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://jod.mrm.org/4/257&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Page 260&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion was evidently based upon &lt;strong&gt;polygamy&lt;/strong&gt;, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;plurality of wives&lt;/strong&gt; caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers.   We might almost think they were &amp;quot;Mormons&amp;quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://jod.mrm.org/1/346&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, Page 346.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was this ever the official teaching of the LDS Church?  If so, what biblical support for these doctrines is there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-12-13T10:44:50.067" Title="What does the LDS Church teach about Jesus being married, having children, and His position on polygamy?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;polygamy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14133" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:10:06.757" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Was this ever the official teaching of the LDS Church? If so, what biblical support for these doctrines is there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. It is not the official teaching. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would refer you to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/12538/770&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; answer for more information on why this has never been official teaching of the LDS church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; is a link to lds.org with a question about the journal of Discourses. Scroll down to the question on it for the pertaining information. I copied the two sentences that I thought were the most important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The original intent of their publication was to provide income for George D. Watt, their stenographer and publisher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no scriptural intent, but they were written to provide income, by someone who was not a general authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So they said go ahead and publish it, but they NEVER said anything in it was canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your title question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What does the LDS Church teach about Jesus being married, having children, and His position on polygamy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing that I know of. I have talked to some people that would say differently, but none of them could back anything up with scripture or official canon. I can find nothing on their site at this time about whether or not Jesus was married.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T01:43:07.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14133" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:23:00.000" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;That was never the official teaching of the LDS Church. The Journal of Discourses is a book and is not, nor has ever been, canonical scripture, or any other type of scripture for that matter, to the LDS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the answers to this question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12535/what-are-the-journal-of-discourses-viewed-as&quot;&gt;What is the Journal of Discourses viewed as?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T16:31:02.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14136" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:31:10.563" Score="13" ViewCount="597" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is well known that the cardinals can choose any baptised male Catholic to be the new Pope, though they typically choose one of their own, and that the election is held under strict conditions of secrecy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What procedure is followed when the chosen candidate is not one of the cardinals already in the conclave, and how is secrecy maintained? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T16:31:10.563" Title="How can a Pope be chosen from outside the conclave?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14136" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:31:10.563" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a fair bit of precedent, though none of it is very recent. The provisions are found not in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Universi Dominici Gregis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; itself, but in the companion book of ritual, &lt;em&gt;Ordo rituum conclavis&lt;/em&gt; (see UDG §90). This 2005 edition is the latest in a series first codified in 1516 and frequently republished.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I do not know if the 2005 version makes any changes to this rule, but if it did, it would be the first since 1516.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The procedure is actually quite simple. Ultimately, the person chosen has to accept or refuse his election, and so either he has to come to the college, or they have to go to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the person chosen is in or near Rome, then he is summoned to the conclave, and asked if he accepts the election. If it's a yes, then he becomes Pope; otherwise, he doesn't, and the cardinals go on to elect someone else. A notable example of this process - and the most recent example of a non-cardinal being chosen - was the election of Urban VI in 1378. In order to preserve secrecy, the conclave summoned several decoy clerics at the same time. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If he is further away (the text says &lt;em&gt;aliquos dies&lt;/em&gt; - a few days' travel) then the election is announced and the conclave breaks up. They draw up documents certifying the election, and send a delegation of cardinals to the person they've chosen. If he accepts, then he becomes Pope, and they all go to Rome for the rest of the usual ceremony. Otherwise, the delegation would return alone, and the conclave would resume - but this has never happened. An example is the election of Gregory X in 1271, who was off crusading with Edward I of England. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In modern times, the second process is quite unlikely to happen. The most plausible candidates for Pope who would not already be in the conclave are (1) cardinals above the age of 80, like Francis Arinze, who might well be in Rome anyway, and (2) bishops of important sees, who would tend to live in major cities that are well-connected to Rome by air travel. But there is no strict dividing line: it's up to the cardinals to decide which procedure would work best in the given circumstances (UDG §5). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The person elected &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; told why they are being summoned - although it wouldn't be too hard for them to guess. They can't tell anyone else, though! (I don't know if the decoys in 1378 knew they were decoys, or if they had a disappointing surprise.) There is no oath provided, unlike for the electors or their assistants, but if there were any doubt about whether secrecy was required, UDG §5 or &lt;em&gt;Secreta continere&lt;/em&gt; (1974) §§7, 10 would seem to give ample scope for imposing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speculation: In the same way, if the cardinals felt it necessary, they could arrange for dummy smoke signals to be sent out. (The white smoke / black smoke system is not prescribed in law: although the ballots must be burned, there's nothing to say what colour the smoke should be.) This would disguise the fact that balloting was not taking place, while they were waiting for the chosen person to arrive, and so the world's media wouldn't be encouraged to start scouring the area, hanging around Da Vinci airport, etc., in the hopes of finding out who had been summoned; and the waiting crowds wouldn't be misled into thinking that the new Pope was going to appear on the balcony quite soon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. The 1516 book &lt;em&gt;Rituum ecclesiasticorum sive sacrarum caeremoniarum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae&lt;/em&gt; contains provisions on Papal election and coronation, from the work of Agostino Patrizi Piccolomini (1435-1495), who was Master of Apostolic Ceremonies and Bishop of Pienza. He drew on less systematic accounts from as early as the seventh century.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T16:31:10.563" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14138" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:34:00.610" Score="4" ViewCount="879" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvin argued for the election of infants, which opposed Roman Catholic faith, which believed that baptism was necessary for salvation (sacramentalists). He was even more forceful about this view than Luther. Under Calvinism and most reformed Protestants, infants could clearly be saved without water baptism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although this might seem less harsh than a sacramentalists position, many Calvinists have since created alternate views. The problem is that in Calvin’s view some infants were also predestined to hell and that contrary to Calvin, it does not seem possible to many people that infants can have faith. For many Calvinists this seems as harsh as the sacramentalists, in terms of reconciling God’s justice with his love. Therefore many modern Calvinists are not strictly Calvinistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two alternate views that many modern Calvinists split from traditional Calvinism are:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Those infants God &lt;em&gt;‘foreknows’&lt;/em&gt; only are saved:&lt;/strong&gt; This is a way many Christians get around the potential severity of infant election to hell, by just saying God foreknows anything that we might do and therefore saves some infants based on the fact that ‘they would have received&#xA;Christ’ is they had lived longer. It seems based on the assumption that infants can't have faith in Christ as they can't understand the gospel preached.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All infants are saved:&lt;/strong&gt; This view which automatically includes all infants. The argument is made that only those who reject the gospel, do not receive it, from God’s standpoint and as infants can’t reject it, by default they have received it and are therefore elect. This assumes infants can't reject the gospel because they can't understand it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both deviations from Calvin's view seem to be based on the belief that an infant can't have faith and that this is more or less common sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Calvin’s original premise seems to be maintained by two possible versions.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First&lt;/strong&gt;, it may be simply ‘resigned into the hands of God’ by faith. In other words, salvation is ‘ordinarily’ obtained through hearing the gospel and personally believing it, however, God is not limited to that means and saves elect infants anyway upon reasons that we need not ask.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second&lt;/strong&gt;, God by His Spirit can generate faith in an infant so that even thought not fully conscious of their choice, they can actually&#xA;personally believe the gospel under a lower intellectual capacity&#xA;than younger children or adults might do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This question is asking for the Biblical basis of the second option as opposed to the first and ideally includes infants in the womb.&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-12T16:45:33.673" LastActivityDate="2019-10-29T11:12:50.423" Title="What is the Biblical basis for asserting that infants can have faith in Christ under a Calvinistic framework?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;infants&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14139" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14141" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:39:35.430" Score="9" ViewCount="258" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-benedict-xvi-announces-his-resignation-at-end&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Benedict XVI is resigning&lt;/a&gt;. I don't know much about Catholic/papal authority as it relates to leading the Church, but as far as I can remember, a pope dies before another one takes the reigns. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14107/what-popes-have-resigned-in-the-past&quot;&gt;Apparently, this &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; happened before&lt;/a&gt;, but how does the &lt;em&gt;living&lt;/em&gt; pope confer that authority to a successor, since he's still alive? Since he resigned, is his authority to lead the Catholic church removed from him, or how does that work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T13:44:45.363" Title="The Pope is resigning. How does a living pope confer his authority?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;authority&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14139" CreationDate="2013-02-12T17:48:53.390" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, as the Pope said in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio_en.html&quot;&gt;his resignation speech&lt;/a&gt;, he gives up the office and it is for those whose duty it is to convoke the conclave and elect a successor &amp;mdash; just as it would be if he had died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a cardinal, he's entitled to attend the conclave (but he probably won't) but he can't vote because he's over eighty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T17:48:53.390" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14142" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14171" CreationDate="2013-02-12T17:49:49.230" Score="5" ViewCount="1796" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the core beliefs of all Calvinists (and many Christians in general) is that of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Total Depravity&lt;/a&gt;.  Fundamentally, it suggests that mankind is inherently fallen, corrupt, and incapable of doing good of his own accord. There is a good question on the site &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/27/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-total-depravity&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, and I will admit, I find it to be a very compelling biblical case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is - what do you call the opposite of total depravity? In other words, if man is capable of being sufficiently good to save himself, (at least in theory if not practice) but just regularly chooses not to, what do you call that doctrine?  And, what, if any biblical support would there be for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2014-11-12T05:14:53.817" Title="What is the opposite of Total Depravity?" Tags="&lt;total-depravity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14143" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14159" CreationDate="2013-02-12T17:54:58.920" Score="10" ViewCount="2291" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having read David's answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14121/how-much-are-psalms-and-other-prayers-from-bible-understood-as-actual-prayer-in&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;How much are psalms and other prayers from Bible understood as actual prayer in Protestantism?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, I wonder whether any Protestants practice &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=41-chapter20.xhtml%23para2705&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;meditative or contemplative forms of prayer&lt;/a&gt;, even if not so-called or even considered to be forms of prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2723 Meditation is a prayerful quest engaging thought,&#xA;  imagination, emotion, and desire. Its goal is to make our own in faith&#xA;  the subject considered, by confronting it with the reality of our own&#xA;  life. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;2724 Contemplative prayer is the simple expression of&#xA;  the mystery of prayer. It is a gaze of faith fixed on Jesus, an&#xA;  attentiveness to the Word of God, a silent love. It achieves real&#xA;  union with the prayer of Christ to the extent that it makes us share&#xA;  in his mystery. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=41-chapter20.xhtml%23para2721&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Expressions of Prayer, In Brief&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Meditation&lt;/strong&gt;, in Catholic terms, is an focusing of the mind beyond simple verbal, communicative constructs. It's an uplifting of the mind to God on a level beyond that of normal verbal conversation. It's an attempt at focusing thought, emotion, imagination, and desire on scripture, God, God's Truths, and is sometimes aided by a sort of mantra or rote prayer like the rosary, the Name of God, a particular verse, etc..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Contemplation&lt;/strong&gt;, in Catholic terms, might be accurately thought of as the &quot;falling&quot; part of falling in love with God. It is sometimes the &quot;next step&quot; after a period of meditation. It's considered to be 100% grace -- you can't induce contemplation, you can only be &quot;invited&quot; in by God. The &lt;em&gt;mechanics&lt;/em&gt; of focus in meditation are generally lost, and the pray-er submits God's awesome, perfect, unifying dialogue (not generally verbal though).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do some/any denominations condone meditative and/or contemplative practices? If so, do they tend to refrain from calling these practices &lt;em&gt;prayer&lt;/em&gt; -- and if so, why are they not considered &lt;em&gt;prayer&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2014-12-15T00:48:52.827" Title="Do any Protestant denominations practice meditative or contemplative prayer?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;meditation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14133" CreationDate="2013-02-12T18:44:46.377" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both @MaskedPlant and @Matt spelled out how the Journal of Discourses is viewed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will add this; the only thing I have ever heard was during the whole &quot;&lt;em&gt;The Da Vinci Code&lt;/em&gt;&quot; hoopla. And that was that the LDS church had no official opinion and that it neither endorsed or found fault with the ideas presented in that book. (Namely of course that Christ was married and had children). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the LDS church has no official teachings on the topic, but if it were to come to light that Christ was in fact married (or even had kids!), the LDS church would have no issue with that information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;I found the official statement made by the church on this subject from 2006:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&amp;amp;sid=266159&quot;&gt;Link to the news article right here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that definitively answers your question and the issue of the Journal of Discourses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2013-02-12T18:51:26.730" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T18:51:26.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14129" CreationDate="2013-02-12T19:23:21.010" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholicism tag is completely OK, as well as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.light-life.oaza.pl/oaza.php?strona=54&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link provided in Gilbert Le Blanc's comment&lt;/a&gt;. The Light-Life Movement (or &quot;Oasis movement&quot;) is Catholic, though oecumenism is one of its priorities and it was influenced by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cru.org/about-us/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Campus Crusade for Christ&lt;/a&gt;, a Protestant evangelist movement. The beliefs of Light-Life Movement don't differ from Catholic &lt;em&gt;norm&lt;/em&gt;, and the stress is on topics that gained importance in Catholic Church after Second Vatican Council, such as evangelisation or understanding the liturgy. It belongs to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Movement#Roman_Catholicism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;charismatic current in Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The aim of the movement is to guide (especially young but not only) Christians to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.light-life.oaza.pl/oaza.php?strona=78&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Christian maturity&quot; through its formation&lt;/a&gt;. The formation consists of three degrees, typically a year long each (15-days retreat in Summer and meeting in a small group during most of the year). The first degree focuses on prayer (especially &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_Divina&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lectio Divina&lt;/a&gt;, called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.light-life.oaza.pl/oaza.php?strona=61&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Tent of Meeting&quot;&lt;/a&gt; in the movement) and personal relationship with Jesus, the second on liturgy and &quot;Exodus&quot; from slavery of sin and the third on the Church and one's place in it. There are slightly different forms of the formation for the young, for families (&quot;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.light-life.oaza.pl/oaza.php?strona=58&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Domestic Church&lt;/a&gt;&quot;) and in Poland, where the movement is strongest, there are many other variants too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.light-life.oaza.pl/oaza.php?strona=64&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;history of the Light-Life Movement&lt;/a&gt; starts during Second World War by conversion of a young Polish named &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.light-life.oaza.pl/oaza.php?strona=74&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Franciszek Blachnicki&lt;/a&gt;. As a guerilla fighter against the Nazis, he was caught and sentenced to death. While waiting for execution, he read books including one about conversions of famous people - this (along with the stress from waiting for death) lead him to renounce his former atheist worldview, to accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Saviour and to promise to become a priest if he survives the war. His death sentence was changed to ten years in prison (sort of a miracle) and he survived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since 1954, Blachnicki lead some retreats for altar boys, a well composed mixture of prayer, education (especially to help the boys understand liturgy - there is a focus on liturgy in the movement since then) and games, which became the base of later Oases, retreats lead by Blachnicki and his successors in the movement. The retreats offered the participants great spiritual gains and virtually everyone wanted to attend retreats lead by this priest - this is the main root of the movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At about the same time, Blachnicki started Crusade for Abstinence, an initiative to encourage people to stop drinking alcohol and to help those who try to recover from their addiction, mostly by prayer and fast (in form of abstinence from alcohol). The original Crusade for Abstinence was banned by communist government, but it was re-established as Crusade for the Liberation of Man in 1977. Abstinence is required for animators (those who guide others through the formation) of the movement in Poland (in Czech Republic, it is just strongly recommended to join the Crusade for the animators, not strictly required).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second Vatican Council was a big boon for the Oasis movement - the Church as a whole turned in the direction in which Blachnicki already went. Blachnicki translated the Council's documents for the movement even before they were translated oficially and the movement took the true teaching of the Council (in contrast to misunderstanding and misuse of the &quot;spirit of the Council&quot;) as one of its goals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even later, there were other important events influencing the movement. I don't know the exact year (I have heard about this from a lecture by current General Moderator of the movement, Adam Wodarczyk, and I forgot some details and didn't manage to find any sources for it online and in English; AFAIK it was in late 60s, but I'm not sure, it might have been later) when Blachnicki learnt of Campus Crusade for Christ and met &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Josh McDowell&lt;/a&gt;. This lead to the evangelist and oecumenical focus in the movement and even strenghened focus on Bible, Lectio Divina and spontaneous prayer. The concepts of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.campuscrusade.com/fourlawseng.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;four spiritual laws&lt;/a&gt; and accepting Jesus as one's personal Lord and Saviour, that became crucial to Light-Life movent formation, have Protestant origin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These were roots of the Light-Life Movement, but it was officially founded in 1973, when it was renamed from “The Movement of the Living Church”. The old name was often criticised (&quot;Does it mean that the rest of the Church is dead?&quot;), so Blachnicki divided those responsible for the movement to ten groups and let each group to propose a new name. All ten groups independently choose &quot;Light-Life&quot;, for one of the basic principles taught in the movement (to let the light of God, his revelation and our faith change our life, or the unity of truth we know and the way we live).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The movement still has the most members in Poland, but it is active in many other countries (I've heard 30, but I'm not sure). In some, it has members mostly between Polish minority (such as in Germany), and in others, Oases have local participants mostly (such as in Czech Republic, where I joined the movement).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-12-19T09:11:30.777" LastActivityDate="2013-12-19T09:11:30.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14109" CreationDate="2013-02-12T19:34:31.160" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Anglican church has not entirely done away with this, and has the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer#Prayer_Books_in_the_Anglican_Communion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book of Common Prayer&lt;/a&gt; which has prayers and Psalms as well as bible readings, confessions, and creeds for each day of the week, as well as for group meetings, communion, weddings, funerals and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The structure of Prayer in Protestant churches is often taught &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0801025699&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;based on prayers&lt;/a&gt; and Psalms in the bible. I don't know of any Protestant teaching that would discourage someone from praying from any bible passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, at our church on Sunday (an Anglican church in Sydney, Australia) we prayed Psalm 51 as a prayer of confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T19:34:31.160" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14138" CreationDate="2013-02-12T19:48:30.420" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think John Calvin taught God elects people before the creation of the world. Predestination is the doctrine that God chooses some people but not others, and he chose them before the beginning of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and&#xA;  blameless in his sight (Ephesians 1:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God chooses people to be holy and blameless (i.e. saved) before they are even born, then I think it's fair to argue that infants who are chosen will be holy and blameless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I don't think this teaches that all infants are saved. Only those who are chosen are saved. Could God have chosen all infants who die as infants? Yes he could have, but we have no evidence of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T19:48:30.420" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14139" CreationDate="2013-02-12T19:59:44.960" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://jimmyakin.com/2013/02/first-thoughts-on-pope-benedicts-resignation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jimmy Akin stated on his blog&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Benedict may follow the pattern of previously resigned popes and&#xA;  spend the rest of his days in a monastery. Alternately, he may live&#xA;  quietly with his brother. Either way, he will do his best to stay out&#xA;  of the public eye so as to give his successor the freest hand&#xA;  possible. (This is the same thing that usually happens when a U.S.&#xA;  president leaves office; it’s traditional for him to more-or-less&#xA;  vanish, at least for a time.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The papal authority is removed completely from the ex-pope. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave#Death_of_the_pope&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, I understood that his ring, seal etc. are destroyed as though he died, though it's not clearly stated there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14141/3447&quot;&gt;Andrew Leach&lt;/a&gt; wrote, as a cardinal the ex-pope can attend conclave, but even if he was younger than eighty, he would be expected not to be very active in the election of his successor (part of the tradition of vanishing from public).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: according to what I found &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14149/3447&quot;&gt;while researching answer for a related question&lt;/a&gt;, there is an aspect of the pope's role he maintains after resignation, or even after death: the obligation and authority to pray for the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another EDIT: as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?id=664243&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Cardinal Lombardi&lt;/a&gt; said, Joseph Ratzinger won't participate in the conclave. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radiovaticana.cz/clanek.php4?id=17821&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Czech version&lt;/a&gt; the Vatican Radio goes to more details, such as that Ratzinger will no longer be a Cardinal, but I didn't find it in English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T13:44:45.363" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14104" CreationDate="2013-02-12T20:41:23.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I made some research myself, and I found that someone tried hard to learn after death of John Paul II. &lt;a href=&quot;http://cnytr.blogspot.cz/2005/04/coolest-thing-ive-ever-done.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is an English translation of a latin answer from the office of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Penitentiary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apostolic Penitentiary&lt;/a&gt;, answering our question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most eminent father;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Geoffrey W. Horton of the Seminary of the of Baltimore Archdiocese&#xA;  under the title of Mount St. Mary's in the city of Emmittsburg, in a&#xA;  letter dated the 4th of April 2005, puts forth the following&#xA;  questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In regards to the prayer prescribed for the intention of the Supreme &#xA;  Pontiff for gaining a plenary indulgence (cf. &quot;The Manual of&#xA;  Indulgences&quot;, 4th edition, Norm. 2. 20 paragraph 1), if in the vacancy&#xA;  of the Apostolic see the faithful are impeded in procuring said&#xA;  plenary indulgence. And to what point they are not be impeded.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;How in this condition, with the Apostolic See vacant, the plenary&#xA;  indulgence is fulfilled. And God, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;April 13th, 2005&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Apostolic Penitentiary responds to the proposed question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To the first question: No, the faithful can seek a plenary indulgence&#xA;  even in the time of a vacant Apostolic See. &#xA;  To the second question:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Even though the Apostolic See is vacant, the conditions of praying for&#xA;  the intention of the Supreme Pontiff are fulfilled (by reciting once&#xA;  the &quot;Our Father&quot; and the &quot;Hail Mary&quot; once; nevertheless, the&#xA;  opportunity is also given to the individual faithful to recite another&#xA;  prayer which pleases them according to the piety and devotion of each&#xA;  one), even if he has fulfilled the duty of his life, since the ends of&#xA;  the Pope's intention, the ends for which one must pray--undoubtedly&#xA;  the spiritual good of the whole Church -- persist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John Francis Girotti, OFM Conv.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John Mary Gervais&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is awesome: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_of_saints#Roman_Catholic_and_Orthodox_view&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Communion of Saints&lt;/a&gt;! It's the pope's job to pray for the Church (and while we pray for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff, we support mainly this kind of prayers). If he does it while living as a member of &lt;em&gt;ecclesia militans&lt;/em&gt;, he will certainly continue in heaven or purgatory.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;There is a problem when a pope doesn't pray for the Church, either because he lives and is prayer-lazy or because he is dead and damned, but I don't think either will be the case of Joseph Ratzinger in March.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-02-12T20:41:23.183" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14150" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-12T21:02:40.567" Score="17" ViewCount="1803" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had always (apparently in error) assumed that the observace of Lent was a Catholic practice, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;according to Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, Lent is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;observed by Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, as well as some Baptists and Mennonites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the practice seems to bridge traditions, I also know of Christians who don't practice it at all. What gives? If it is actually as universal as the Wikipedia description makes out, what would be the reason for &lt;em&gt;not observing&lt;/em&gt; Lent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1948" LastEditorUserId="1948" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T14:10:35.063" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T14:10:35.063" Title="Why isn't Lent observed across all traditions?" Tags="&lt;lent&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14153" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14196" CreationDate="2013-02-12T22:09:23.123" Score="16" ViewCount="4828" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures record that there was three hours of darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus.  This is a pretty significant meteorological event.  Furthermore, the morning of Jesus' resurrection, the Scriptures indicate that there was an earthquake.  Additionally, when Jesus died, the curtain of the Temple was apparently torn in two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now &lt;strong&gt;from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour&lt;/strong&gt;.  Matthew 27:45 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And behold, &lt;strong&gt;the curtain of the temple was torn in two&lt;/strong&gt;, from top to bottom. And &lt;strong&gt;the earth shook, and the rocks were split&lt;/strong&gt;.  Matthew 27:51 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if there are historical records of any earthquakes, eclipses, or such things in any of antiquity.  Yet, I am indeed curious to know if there are, and, if so, if there are any secular historical records that could match up to these events that surrounded the death of resurrection of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2021-03-26T11:24:02.233" Title="Are there any secular historical references to the natural phenomena that occurred at the crucifixion and resurrection?" Tags="&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;extra-biblical&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14121" CreationDate="2013-02-13T00:05:50.737" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;If I understood how it answers my question, singing a musical version of for example Psalm 23 is not considered a prayer of praise, but... what? Just singing? [Something-other-than-prayer] of praise? &quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that most Protestants would consider singing praises to God as a form of Worship, not a prayer of praise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most protestant church services start (and often end) with singing. This time of singing is most often called &quot;Worship.&quot; Even the bands are called &quot;worship teams&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3932" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T00:05:50.737" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5101" CreationDate="2013-02-13T01:59:52.447" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does Jesus not want people to repent and be forgiven in Mark 4? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not that Jesus didn't want people to repent. Remember they were under the Law, he also  had to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. If they understood what Jesus was teaching in the parable of the sower they would have not crucified him &quot;Jesus&quot;. He was take them for a covenant of law to a covenant of Faith and grace. That is the covenant we have, this parable teaches you how The Kingdom of God works. Don't believe me. I'll show you how it works. The word of God was sown in your heart it grew and grew and grew Harvest came in you got born again. Some grow faster than other but it happen, Just like that sown, grew, harvest. That is one area of your life the word produced a hundredfold return for the Kingdom of God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3933" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T01:59:52.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5101" CreationDate="2013-02-13T03:00:31.793" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a brief explanation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus’ invitation to enter his kingdom comes in the form of parables,&#xA;  a characteristic feature of his teaching. Through his parables he&#xA;  invites people to the feast of the kingdom, but &lt;strong&gt;he also asks for a&#xA;  radical choice&lt;/strong&gt;: to gain the kingdom, one must give everything. Words&#xA;  are not enough; deeds are required. The parables are like mirrors for&#xA;  man: will he be hard soil or good earth for the word? What use has he&#xA;  made of the talents he has received? &lt;strong&gt;Jesus and the presence of the&#xA;  kingdom in this world are secretly at the heart of the parables. One&#xA;  must enter the kingdom, that is, become a disciple of Christ, in order&#xA;  to “know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” For those who stay&#xA;  “outside,” everything remains enigmatic.&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=15-chapter5.xhtml%23para546&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  546&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in telling parables, it isn't that Christ wants to withhold salvation from anyone. He's permitting a choice. It's a small reflection of the choice demanded by the person of Jesus' Himself. You see this when He questions Peter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of&#xA;  Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, “Who do&#xA;  people say that I am?” &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; They said in reply, “John the&#xA;  Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets.”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter&#xA;  said to him in reply, “You are the Messiah.” &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Then he&#xA;  warned them not to tell anyone about him&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/8/29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark&#xA;  8:27-30&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And at other times He states the choice-nature of salvation very explicitly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; “And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you&#xA;  will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; For&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;everyone who asks, receives&lt;/strong&gt;; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the&#xA;  one who knocks, the door will be opened. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/11:9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 11:9-10&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, He withholds understanding and salvation only from those who &lt;strong&gt;choose&lt;/strong&gt; not to seek those things. In addition to respecting our freedom, this is simply &lt;em&gt;how it works&lt;/em&gt;. Think of how easily an eager student understands what you're saying versus &quot;that moron&quot; in the chatroom you're arguing with!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And consider the verse that immediately precedes your problem verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when he was alone, &lt;strong&gt;those present&lt;/strong&gt; along with the Twelve questioned&#xA;  him about the parables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The twelve are lumped together with some others who were present who didn't understand either. The difference between them and those who didn't understand is simply whether understanding was &lt;strong&gt;sought&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;IN BRIEF:&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; want them to be forgiven and saved. But it requires them to explicitly choose [understanding,] forgiveness and salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-07-19T15:29:19.840" LastActivityDate="2013-07-19T15:29:19.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14138" CreationDate="2013-02-13T03:25:46.760" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvin puts his own view on the subject most directly in a section of his institutes of religion called “Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the institution of Christ, and the nature of the sign.” In this section he is arguing for the case of infant baptism and one of the arguments from the Anabaptists was that why should you baptize an infant who can’t have faith? Now as Calvin did not think baptism was necessary for salvation, only that he thought it was good to continue the practice, the more serious and important subject of ‘infant election’ is addressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin states his belief that &lt;strong&gt;elect infants can be justified&lt;/strong&gt; and in some sense have faith. He denies the supposition that infants can’t have faith. &lt;strong&gt;First is asserts a form of the First option, i.e. that infants can be justified within a mystery where we do not really understand how it is that they have faith:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter any thing that defileth, (Rev. 21:27.) If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09/cvin4-17.txt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Institutes, Vol.4: Part 17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin does not stop here. &lt;strong&gt;He also moves to the Second, i.e., that infants can have faith by the ‘work of the Spirit’ even in the womb, although admittedly this might be very rare:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But to silence this class of objectors, God gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his mother’s womb, (Luke 1:15,) a proof of what he might do in others. They gain nothing by the quibble to which they here resort, viz., that this was only once done, and, therefore, it does not forthwith follow that the Lord always acts thus with infants. That is not the mode in which we reason. Our only object is to show, that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of God within limits, within which it cannot be confined. (Institutes, Vol.4: Part 17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I find about Calvin’s argument is not any illogical part but that they are simply thin. I guess as he was only arguing about another point he failed to more thoroughly address the subject.  There are two things that make me feel more is required to provide a biblical basis. Two answers still need to be provided. Why is the Bible more or less silent about the subject of the faith of infants and why should we consider that John the Baptist’s sanctification from the womb could have been evidence of faith in Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the first question, &lt;strong&gt;‘Why is the Bible more or less silent about the subject of the faith of infants?’&lt;/strong&gt; It is safe to say that where the scripture does not provide light, we are to be content trusting God by faith without clarity.  The whole problem over these sorts of subjects is that we seek a systematic theology that answers every question, and then we think we have finally ‘arrived’ at the answer. However there are several subjects that God has not made fully know to us and even when our knowledge is very small we have arrived at the answer only because God has taken us in his hand and we have taking his in trust. The greatness of his mind leaves all our sailing thoughts left behind, but we can trust he loves us and loves all children, whether elect for salvation or damnation. Faith trusts God, like Abraham who was willing to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice knowing that God could raise him from the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Too answer the second question, &lt;strong&gt;‘Why should we consider that John the Baptist’s sanctification from the womb could have been evidence of faith in Christ?’&lt;/strong&gt; We must acknowledge that the scripture is mostly silent on this issue and the few places where the womb is talked about are few and could be seen as merely marking out God’s calling on the individual.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some few examples of something happening in the womb that seems to be an interaction with the Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD. (Genesis 25:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could be understood as simply a unlikely movement of infants which Rebekah superstitiously considered as a bad omen, but there are many coincidental things about Jacob and Esau which the scriptures lift up almost centrally to view the subject of predestination with, therefore it could also be a mark that the Spirit of God was moving on Jacob.  We can’t help but notice that this struggling seems to have also resulted in the outcome of Jacob holding Esau’s heel as he was already seeking the birthright from which Messiah would come. Yes these are all seeming coincidences but even later Hosea the prophet matches Jacob’s wrestling in the womb to his later wrestling with Christ for the blessing (Hos 12:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes when the Bible mentions God’s calling from the womb there is no mention of anything actually occurring in the womb so it can be inferred that this is simply a way of describing and eternal calling on one’s life. For example Paul used this idea in Galatians 1:15. Samson was ‘dedicated to God’ from his Mother’s womb (Judges 16:17).  Jeremiah was ‘set apart’ in eth womb (Jeremiah 1:5), etc. However in the case of John the Baptists we again, like Jacob have mention about something literally happening in the womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First John is said to be ‘filled with the Spirit’, even in the womb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But not only so, John literally responds to Jesus in the womb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. (Luke 1:41, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, it could be that again just a coincidental movement of the baby occurred under God’s miraculous guidance to create the ‘impression’ that John was reacting to the nearness of the Christ, or he was actually being filled with the Spirit in the womb and could not help but react literally to Christ. It is the second possibility that Calvin argues as a sample case, to ‘partially pierce the veil of the mystery’ of election, where infants are concerned. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T03:25:46.760" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14143" CreationDate="2013-02-13T04:16:21.120" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am unaware of any protestant denominations that have a special focus on contemplative prayer, but I'm also unaware of any that outright ban it. In my experience it is practiced only by a minority of Protestants, and that they are spread throughout many denominations. Of course it is practiced only by a minority of Catholics too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good place to start is the book &lt;em&gt;Celebration of Discipline&lt;/em&gt;, by Richard Foster. In many ways its the primary handbook for Protestants not just of contemplative prayer, but other 'neglected' (by Protestant) disciplines such as fasting and confession. It has sold over a million copies and was named by Christianity Today as one of the top ten books of the twentieth century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ignatian Spiritual Exercises are also used by a significant minority of Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T04:16:21.120" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13768" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:32:46.707" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Jehovah´s Witnesses have what they call a &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=Governing%20Body&amp;amp;p=par&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Governing Body&lt;/a&gt;. A good reference on their beliefs can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/19252&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Chapter 14 of their publication Bearing Witness&lt;/a&gt; where they show how they interpret Acts 15 as a being similar governing body in the early Christian assembly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Biblical Principles of JW Organisational Structure&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Organisationally, Jehovah's Witnesses try and stick as closely as possible to their understanding of the first century model. They have congregational groups with male appointed members to take the lead**. All members participate in services and both male and female are considered ordained &amp;quot;ministers&amp;quot; and participate both in public preaching and teaching and congregational activities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;THE FIRST CENTURY MODEL&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was their some kind of central council that governed the first century congregations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to reproduce the organisational structure found in the bible - they claim a &amp;quot;theocratic&amp;quot; system where all members are subject in equal measure to the biblical rules and regulations. What is that model?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus left a group of 12 men &amp;quot;in charge&amp;quot; of the first century congregations. They were not democratically elected. Those 12 in turn, by internal vote, appointed others who in turn appointed men, such as the young man Timothy, as &amp;quot;elders&amp;quot; or individual who would take the lead in seeing that what the 12 men in Jerusalem decided was carried out in each congregation (or &amp;quot;church&amp;quot;). Even the Apostle Paul deferred to the decisions of these men that met in Jerusalem. (see Acts 15).These men were ultimately answerable to God, Jesus, The Word and each other (in that order). They were not above bibiblical law nor were they viewed as the &amp;quot;leaders&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They did not have any special titles? (No paid clergy, no special privileges, no special garb (clothing), no special ceremonies. No &amp;quot;Fathers&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Pastors&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Holy Fathers&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Most Reverant&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Most Holy Reverant&amp;quot;) but were considered &amp;quot;brothers&amp;quot; working to see that the group didn't fall apart and kept to the word entrusted to man through scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where all of these non-elected individuals in a position of leadership &amp;quot;inspired&amp;quot; prophets? No, few if any of them were. They were ordinary imperfect men being used by God for a great work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also the following Youtube videos from the Jehovah´s Witnesses &amp;quot;Faith in Action&amp;quot; series:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Part 1 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZF0dc9h4Zs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Out of darkness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Part 2 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX0NUlBaugA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Let the light shine&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3936" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T15:12:43.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8676" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:56:41.643" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;For me the answer is simple. The horror genre glorifies evil. Any film or medium that focuses on evil should be avoided purely due to the fact that it's an affront to God's rule. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evil is not a part of God's original plan for creation, nor has it any part in God's redemptive future. Jesus, God himself, came and died to tackle evil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it's a Christian's responsibility to tackle anything that is an affront to God's kingdom, this includes not watching horror films. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3937" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T09:56:41.643" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14150" CreationDate="2013-02-13T10:56:57.117" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The practice of Lent is hardly unique to the Catholic church. It pre-dates the major church schisms. The practice today involves somewhat different implementations in different traditions. Some are much more developed than others, but the general idea is the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is impossible to draw up a list of traditions which do or do not participate, because individual church adherence varies widely inside traditions. A good example I know of off hand is Presbyterian churches -- some of which practice it with as much pomp and detail as some of their Catholic counter parts, others let the season go by entirely unmarked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a more useful question to answer is not the &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; but the &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; of non-participation. In my experience I see two main reasons for not participating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some level of ignorance or indifference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many churches simply don't believe the seasons is mandated in Scripture in such a way that it should be made into a big deal in the life of the church. Others might play along because they don't see any harm, but also don't take it very seriously. Some quite honestly might have just assumed that the practice belonged to some tradition other than their own and never bothered to learn anything about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reasoned objection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some churches do not participate on the basis that the practice isn't well rooted in the early church and only became an organized practice several hundred years in. A common direction for this argument to take is argue that the practice originated from a pagan set of rituals (possibly ancient Babylonian), elements of which got folded into Christianity during the time when the Roman empire officially made Christianity the state religion. While some traditions don't have an issue &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt; with re-purposed rituals, others feel strongly that these are pollutants on &amp;quot;pure&amp;quot; Christian practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a general trend, I think it's safe to say the practice of Lent is roughly parallel to the degree to which churches emphasis liturgy and a liturgical calendar. On the other hand, cults (particularly restorationist ones who believe that not just one or more branches but the entire Christian religion lost it's way after Jesus) tend to be the most emphatic non-practitioners of Lent. In-between you have a vast array of half baked practice and objection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T23:02:18.207" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14163" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14164" CreationDate="2013-02-13T13:21:46.450" Score="13" ViewCount="47686" Body="&lt;p&gt;Philippians 4:6 uses two words, possibly implying a difference between prayer and petition. Can someone explain what this difference is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%204:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Philippians 4:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-10T02:30:09.587" LastActivityDate="2018-01-13T09:01:29.903" Title="Is there a difference between prayer and petition?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;philippians&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14163" CreationDate="2013-02-13T13:31:49.183" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;A petition, just as it is in the political arena, is a request to a sovereign to take some action.  Any request made of God, is thus a petition. Prayer, on the other hand, is any communication with God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, all petitions presented to God are delivered as prayer, but there are forms of prayer (glorification, confession, thanksgiving) that are not petitions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going to the Greek, we see it is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;παντὶ = in all things&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;τῇ προσευχῇ = in prayer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;καὶ = and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας = in petition with thanksgiving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such one could parse the verse as &quot;in all things .. by prayer (petition with thanksgiving) present your requests to God&quot; as an equally accurate rendering.  This seems like an instrumental construction, meaning that petitions and thanksgiving would be how the prayer is done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, in short - your petition is a kind of prayer, but it is not the only kind of prayer there is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-02-13T22:44:21.910" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T22:44:21.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14142" CreationDate="2013-02-13T13:38:43.243" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The closest thing I know of that automatically rejects total depravity is the doctrine of justification according to the Catholic Church.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total depravity resigns the entire human nature unto the bondage of sin and therefore no part of the will remains which can obtain righteousness, even in conjunction with God’s grace, unless first the soul becomes totally justified, by Christ’s work alone. The Catholic version of original sin removes the ‘Total’ from it, so that a small reserve of freedom in the will exists, which can, while moved by God’s grace, take a role in its own justification.  Therefore instead of a single justification that restores a totally depraved sinner to a righteous soul in an instant, the Catholic version denies such a thing and proposes a justification in stages with a mixture of grace and works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We now come to the different states in the process of justification. The Council of Trent assigns the first and most important place to faith, which is styled &quot;the beginning, foundation and root of all justification&quot; (Trent, l.c., cap.viii). Cardinal Pallavicini* (Hist. Conc. Trid., VIII, iv, 18) tells us that all the bishops present at the council fully realized how important it was to explain St. Paul's saying that man is justified through faith. Comparing Bible and Tradition they could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention and that the faith of justification was identical with a firm belief in the truths and promises of Divine revelation (l. c.: &quot;illumque [Deum] tanquam omnis justitiae fontem diligere incipiunt&quot;). The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God. The same process of justification is repeated in those who by mortal sin have lost their baptismal innocence; with this modification, however, that the Sacrament of Penance replaces baptism. Considering merely the psychological analysis of the conversion of sinners, as given by the council, it is at once evident that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man (Trent, l. c., can. xii: &quot;Si quis dixerit, fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae, peccata remittentis propter Christum, vel eam fiduciam solam esse, qua justificamur, a.s.&quot;). Since our Divine adoption and friendship with God is based on perfect love of God or charity (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13; James 2:17 sqq.), dead faith devoid of charity (fides informis) cannot possess any justifying power. Only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv). But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia &gt; J &gt; Justification&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The long and short of it is Catholic faith infuses our own works in justification, which from a Protestant standpoint is nothing more than self-righteousness and legalism.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics are not alone in holding this sort of view. Eastern Othrodox and even some sections of traditional Protestant churches that no longer hold their founding evangelical teachings, also have a similiar concept of justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-13T14:32:05.417" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T14:32:05.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14142" CreationDate="2013-02-13T14:29:55.533" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Self-Esteem Movement&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Longer Answer:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To find the opposite of Total Depravity, we would have to find a doctrine that presents man as ultimately and only ever good and worthy in his identity.  By definition, I don't think you would ever find this extreme within the Christian church, as any doctrine that would present man as only ever good would reject the need for any level of atonement, and would thus present guilt and shortcoming as nothing more than an illusion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, any doctrine that believes that something is required to commune with God, necessitates, by definition, the belief that something is lacking in either the means or the end goal of communion with God.  Either you're missing the means to commune, or you're missing the communion itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, according to the opposite of Total Depravity, we already have communion with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most common way to achieve this doctrine is to claim the deity of the self, and raise the self up to the divine level.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whitney Houston put it well when she sang the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I found the greatest love of all&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Inside of me&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The greatest love of all&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Is easy to achieve&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Learning to love yourself&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  It is the greatest love of all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we have this belief where loving one's self is the greatest love of all.  I believe this doctrine is the opposite of Total Depravity.  Ironically, it's this doctrine that to love ourselves is the greatest love that most who believe in Total Depravity would point out as being the very paragon of fallenness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an official name, I think it would be called the &quot;self-esteem movement&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Self-Esteem Movement is any movement that seeks to elevate the position, worth and goodness of the individual person above and beyond all else, not simply in the self's action, but in the self's identity.  It's like my 6th grade physical education teacher who would say that there are no bad kids, only kids who do bad things.  This statement affirms an identity of goodness while denying all evidence to the contrary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Total Depravity, by contrast, would say that there are ever &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; bad kids, and this is why they do bad things.  They're simply acting out their true identities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no Biblical support for such a doctrine as the self-esteem movement.  I believe that God makes it extremely clear that we are fallen and depraved (Romans 1-3), and that we are in need of rescue.   Nevertheless, this hasn't stopped some religious institutions arising from the Christian tradition (I hesitate to call them churches), from incorporating the self-esteem movement within their belief systems.  Those institutions typically have as their chief mark, self-actualization, and not the leper's cry of Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy!).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to be sure that I'm not called out as being contradictory in this last paragraph pointing out that some &quot;churches&quot; have indeed incorporated this belief, typically those institutions focus on assuring followers not that they have a need for salvation, but that they have somehow bought into the illusion that they're not good enough.  So the bulk of the time is spent on bolstering the follower's belief that he or she is, indeed, good enough, and is simply ignorant of his or her overall worth.  Thus, the goal is to lead the follower to recognize his or her own worth (not the worth of Christ necessarily), and by this, he or she will find salvation.   I don't believe these institutions ought to be called &quot;churches&quot; at all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T14:29:55.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14142" CreationDate="2013-02-13T15:05:09.307" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;D'Oh!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@SanJacinto answered the question perfectly by reminding me of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pelagianism&lt;/a&gt;.  Pelagiansim is the heresy that posits:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no original sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ergo&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Man is, in theory, if not in practice, capable of perfection, if he were to so choose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In practice never does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T15:25:10.290" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14172" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14180" CreationDate="2013-02-13T16:42:41.380" Score="12" ViewCount="4498" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of the tripartite nature of man--that men and women have a body, a soul, and a spirit--is there a biblical basis for the position that gender is not merely present in the body or the physical nature, but that it is also present in the soul and even a person's spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few other ways to ask the question...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely biological/physical?  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely something that distinguishes a person's body type, but also a person's soul type or spirit type?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there a biblical basis that suggests masculinity and femininity something that distinguishes not just the the body, but also the soul and possibly the spirit as well?  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there such a thing as a masculine or feminine soul or spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is gender identity (being male or female) temporal or eternal? Will we continue to remain as men/women  after our death, in eternity?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-14T16:40:07.520" LastActivityDate="2018-01-11T03:21:25.000" Title="What is the biblical basis for considering gender to be not merely physical/biological?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;gender&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14142" CreationDate="2013-02-13T16:47:15.307" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You just have to look at the &quot;L&quot; for your answer.  They believe in &lt;em&gt;Total&lt;/em&gt; Depravity and &lt;em&gt;Limited&lt;/em&gt; Atonement.  The &quot;opposite&quot; would be &lt;em&gt;Limited&lt;/em&gt; Depravity and &lt;em&gt;Total&lt;/em&gt; Atonement, yes?  Is that not in effect what the opponents of Calvin teach?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T16:47:15.307" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14172" CreationDate="2013-02-13T19:35:37.293" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely biological/physical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that the principal argument in favor of the assertion that gender is not limited to physical creatures, is that God the Father is spirit (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;v=24&amp;amp;t=KJV#24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 4:24&lt;/a&gt;) and invisible (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ti&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=17&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Tim. 1:17&lt;/a&gt;), yet He is always referred to by masculine-gendered pronouns in the New Testament. One would think that, if gender was only a trait possessed by physical creatures, God would simply be referred to by neuter-pronouns (e.g., αὐτό (&quot;it&quot;)). In addition, He is frequently referred to as &quot;father&quot; (and then, never &quot;mother&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is called &quot;father&quot; and referred to by the male gender for several reasons, including: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;primarily, because He is the Creator, and thus, He is the head (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=14&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exo. 6:14&lt;/a&gt;) of His family in heaven and on earth (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;t=KJV#15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eph. 3:15&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;all of creation are His children (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=17&amp;amp;t=KJV#28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 17:28&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He begat a Son (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=16&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-02-13T19:54:44.733" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T19:54:44.733" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14172" CreationDate="2013-02-13T19:45:40.283" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church #239 specifically states that &quot;God is neither man nor woman: he is God&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;239 By calling God &quot;Father&quot;, the language of faith indicates two main&#xA;  things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent&#xA;  authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care&#xA;  for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed&#xA;  by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the&#xA;  intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus&#xA;  draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first&#xA;  representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that&#xA;  human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood&#xA;  and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God &lt;strong&gt;transcends the&#xA;  human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he&#xA;  is God.&lt;/strong&gt; He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although&#xA;  he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make it simple, what I take away from the &quot;whole picture&quot;, is that there is NO difference in the spirit and soul. Made in the image of God, the alpha and the omega, our bodies just express the spirit in different ways, almost to the point that gender is just as analogous to type A vs. type B personality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, &lt;strong&gt;we have male and female bodies made from the dust of the earth, with God (no sex) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&amp;amp;rct=j&amp;amp;q=god%20inside&amp;amp;source=images&amp;amp;cd=&amp;amp;cad=rja&amp;amp;docid=5s2doIvq6sMbRM&amp;amp;tbnid=WXmzAbX1PyZhqM%3a&amp;amp;ved=0CAUQjRw&amp;amp;url=http://christcreds.com/2011/02/24/god-inside/&amp;amp;ei=Qu4bUZuLOqa10AHd0IG4DQ&amp;amp;bvm=bv.42261806,d.dmQ&amp;amp;psig=AFQjCNE24-T9I4gsNN1-FnfH5qDoC63j-g&amp;amp;ust=1360871339628987&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;inside&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2013-02-13T19:45:40.283" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13687" CreationDate="2013-02-13T20:08:25.787" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it is. But you will not go to hell cause you got sick. If any one tells you that look at them and say every BOLDLY get behind me satan. This is the hard part about the word of God. I said word of God, He watches over his word to perform it, not his will but his word, he uses his word to do his will. Read it again. When you understand that it is the word that is being done that is when you will make your words line up with  his &quot;God's&quot; will and the sickness and the sin will leave. Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. This has to be growing in you before it will produce the harvest. That is what you looking for. It is right there Matthew 13, Mark 4 and Luke 8 sow the word of God reap the will of God and that is what over comes the world.      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3933" LastEditorUserId="3933" LastEditDate="2013-02-14T01:04:21.837" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T01:04:21.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14178" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-13T20:38:29.273" Score="6" ViewCount="877" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14172/13677&quot;&gt;my other question&lt;/a&gt;, I asked what the biblical basis was for considering gender to &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be merely physical, but also present in a person's soul and/or spirit.  However, there are some who believe that gender is purely physical, so it seems necessary to ask that question as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the biblical basis/argument/rationale that supports the idea that gender is something that is only physical/biological and does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have any presence in a person's soul or spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-02-05T00:20:36.913" Title="What is the biblical basis for considering gender to be purely physical/biological?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;gender&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14179" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-13T23:24:46.013" Score="9" ViewCount="12699" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may touch a nerve, but why do Christians seek to convert everyone, especially people who have no interest in being converted? It always comes off like a drug dealer saying, &quot;Try it, you'll like it - trust me. Would I lie to you?&quot; If the point is to make the world a better place, wouldn't a less aggressive approach be more effective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1948" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T14:50:43.123" Title="Why do Christians seek to convert everyone?" Tags="&lt;evangelism&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;&lt;missions&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-02T20:25:08.950" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14172" CreationDate="2013-02-13T23:25:55.437" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;You seem to be asking for a definitive verse in scripture that states or implies that the soul has a gender. There is no such verse (it seems), and indexes to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/gender_roles&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;mentions of gender&lt;/a&gt; list nothing concrete. However:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God made humans, &quot;in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them&quot; (Genesis 1:26), and this was so before the fall. This passage is used to show that human persons are male or female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The body will rise, for &quot;It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body&quot;. This passage is used to show that the perfection of a person includes both soul and glorified body. A person is not soul, not body, but the unity of both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A soul is a male soul in the sense of being the soul of a male person: a person with a male nature. Your hand has no gender, your blood has no gender. In that sense a soul has no gender.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible's account of creation assigns gender to persons. Human persons are both body and spirit. So in that sense gender is not purely physical, because humans are not purely physical.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Souls have &quot;types&quot; in the sense of being the souls of female and male humans, of animals (non-eternal gendered souls), of angels (no gender), of God (no gender!, though the human nature of Christ was male (...but this merits its own question), and we have been instructed by Christ to refer to God the Father as &quot;our Father&quot;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Masculinity and femininity can be aspects of souls/spirit. That the perfections of the female as well as the male can be found in the perfection that is God, who is spirit and without gender, can be seen in Isa 49:14-15; 66:13; Ps 131:2-3; Hos 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19 (CCC270). Which perfections are appropriate to male humans and which to female might merit its own question.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there masculine and feminine souls? Of course: the souls of human males, the souls of human females.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For similar reasons, gender is eternal. A person who has her breasts cut off, like St. Agatha, does not cease to be a female. Even a person who has his head cut off, like St. John, does not cease to be a male. Adam and Eve will rise still male and female, as they were even before sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-14T14:41:35.220" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T14:41:35.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14179" CreationDate="2013-02-13T23:47:49.050" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This answer presupposes that the claims of Christianity are true.  Since Christians believe this, and this site is meant to give a &quot;Christian&quot; view of things, that's the presupposition required to properly answer this.  I realize that many people don't believe the claims of Christianity, but the Truth of the claims isn't what's being asked or what's relevant here.  Why Christians act as they do is, and the presupposition is what drives us to act as we do.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This also is geared toward answering from the perspective of the strongly evangelistic among us. Not all denominations, and not all Christians are aggressively evangelistic.  From the question, I am assuming that you are looking for what drives that type, since that type is the ones that are &quot;out to convert everyone&quot;.  The motivation of those that aren't aggressively evangelistic are going to be absent from my answer because it wouldn't apply to the question asked.  But for those of us who are, this is the reason:&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's simple. The idea of anyone in Hell terrifies us.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/heaven-goodenough.html&quot;&gt;We believe that we've all fallen short of the standard God uses to judge us, and are all guilty, and therefore doomed to Hell&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/romans/3-23.htm&quot;&gt;http://bible.cc/romans/3-23.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:6 New International Version&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/14-6.htm&quot;&gt;Christ claimed to be the only way to avoid that fate&lt;/a&gt;, naturally, we want everyone to turn to Christ and avoid that fate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:6 New International Version&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &quot;I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes&#xA;  to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christians feel uncomfortable with aggressive evangelism, stating that they're afraid to scare people away. Ray Comfort replied to this with &quot;where are you going to scare them to, Hell #2?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The non-believer may not agree that Christ is the only way, but belief isn't what determines truth, and if Christ is who He said He is, the only way to prevent someone from an eternity of torture is to tell them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, if someone were standing in the road, and you saw a vehicle rushing toward them, how would you react? By saying, &quot;Please move out of the road!  Try it, you'll like it!&quot; Or would you tell them of the danger, and if they ignored it, try to aggressively push them out of the way, and to safety?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put simply, the point is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to make the world a better place. This world and our present lives are, if Christianity is true, only temporary. The point is to save those around us from eternal suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-04T02:18:38.747" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T02:18:38.747" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14182" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14191" CreationDate="2013-02-13T23:51:31.810" Score="3" ViewCount="2402" Body="&lt;p&gt;The philosophical metaphysics used by the Eastern and Western church's seem to be heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle, respectively. How does this affect each's theology of the substance/essence in the Godhead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3797" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T05:41:10.293" Title="What is the difference between the Eastern and Western views of the one essence/substance of the Godhead?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14179" CreationDate="2013-02-14T00:26:41.967" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;David's view represents a Western, largely Protestant worldview. From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, it is because we can't help but share our loving God with you. But we don't do it by being pushy and trying to compel you to join our church. Instead we love you as God loves us. We don't believe we get people into the doors of the church, that is your choice and it is God who compels you. But we need to leave the doors open. The major difference is that in the East we focus on God's mercy, love, and grace, because God is love (the West tends to focus on God's wrath/anger). We also do not believe that God saves you from God (the Western view is that Jesus died to appease God's wrath in order to reconcile God to us). We believe that Jesus died to defeat man's enemies (sin, death, and the devil), and God's disposition towards all humans is loving, not one of wrath. We are the ones who need to reconcile with God (not vice versa), which is the state we were created to be in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3797" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T00:26:41.967" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14178" CreationDate="2013-02-14T01:21:36.727" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14180/3941&quot;&gt;my answer&lt;/a&gt; to your other question, since it applies here, and provides the necessary biblical quotes and citations. In this question, you seem to be asking for a definitive verse in scripture that states or implies that only the body has a gender. There is no such verse. In both questions, though, you seem to be asking &quot;does the Bible say that gender is in the body, or in the soul?&quot; The answer is &quot;yes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Humans have a male or a female nature, since God created humans male and female. Humans are persons consisting of both body and soul, since human heavenly perfection consists of having both soul and glorified body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A body is a male body in the sense of being the body of a male person: a person with a male nature. Your hand has no gender, your blood has no gender. In that sense a body has no gender. What is the gender of flesh never animated by soul?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might ask: do we have gender because we have a soul, or because we have a body? If that question makes sense, the answer is likely: we have gender because humans have both a body and a soul, and are made male and female by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:30 is sometimes wrongly invoked as saying that there is no gender in heaven, on the heretical assumption that our bodies will not rise again. It reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Jesus is saying that there is no marriage after the resurrection, not that there is no gender. Though this passage also seems to imply that angels do not have a gender (no marriage, so no procreation, so no gender).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T01:21:36.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14150" CreationDate="2013-02-14T01:22:01.733" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Richard Foster identifies &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.renovare.org/1998/10/03/perspective-stream-of-living-water/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;6 traditions of the church&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contempative&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holiness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Charismatic&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Social Justice&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evangelical&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Incarnational&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of these, the traditional Lent celebration is most likely to be practiced by Christians who identify with holiness or who pursue &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.renovare.org/2010/07/05/explorations-virtuous-life/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;an ever fuller life of sacrificial, self-giving love&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  According to the gospels, Jesus began his ministry with 40 days of fasting in the desert east of Jerusalem and so Christians began to follow a similar pattern of fasting leading up to their celebration of Easter.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic and Orthodox branches of Christianity observe regular &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fasts&lt;/a&gt;, including Lent.  The Protestant branch is, as always, complicated.  Early Reformers argued that fasting does not, in itself, have the power to make people holy.  Therefore required and communal fasts, such as Lent, served no purpose but to give the illusion of holiness and unnecessarily burden people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most striking rejection of the Lenten fast was the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affair_of_the_Sausages&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Affair of the Sausages&lt;/a&gt;.  During the 1522 Lent, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Froschauer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christoph Froschauer&lt;/a&gt;, a Swiss printer, served smoked sausage to his workers.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Zwingli#First_rifts_.281522.E2.80.931524.29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Huldrych Zwingli&lt;/a&gt; argued in a sermon that since eating meat during Lent was not prohibited by the Bible, neither was it a sin.  In other areas of church controversy (celibacy of the priesthood, infant baptism, etc.) Zwingli tended to advocate personal freedom of religious practice.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants who are more closely aligned with traditions other than holiness, particularly those who are &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.renovare.org/2011/07/05/explorations-word-centered-life/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;evangelical&lt;/a&gt;, tend to ignore Lent or only observe it individually.  To put it another way, a denomination's attitude toward Lent tends to follow their general attitude toward &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_practice#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;spiritual disciplines&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T01:22:01.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14179" CreationDate="2013-02-14T05:08:37.007" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's because of &lt;strong&gt;The Great Commission&lt;/strong&gt; given by Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;19&lt;/em&gt; Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in&#xA;  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, &lt;em&gt;20&lt;/em&gt; and&#xA;  teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am&#xA;  with you always, to the very end of the age.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the duty of all Christians to share the Gospel which is Salvation through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Any Christian who does not share the Gospel are not completely following the command of Jesus Christ nor truly love Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:15 (NASB)&lt;/strong&gt; “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T05:08:37.007" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14179" CreationDate="2013-02-14T05:25:52.153" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A better question is, why wouldn't we?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have the truth, and the truth is that you may have eternal life by believing in Jesus Christ. Pardon me if I say so myself, and I think I speak for all Christians when I say this, but eternal life is not a bad thing. In fact, if we didn't want to convert anyone, if we just kept to ourselves, it either means 1) we don't think we have the truth, or 2) we're selfish individuals who don't care about the rest of humanity. Neither is the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'll speak for myself. Of course not everyone wants to be converted. That's just the nature of fallen man. Jesus said (John 3:19-20), &quot;And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that's true. When I was in the world, I could have cared less about Jesus and anyone who preached to me about him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-02-14T08:59:46.890" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T08:59:46.890" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14182" CreationDate="2013-02-14T05:41:10.293" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The divine energy of Eastern Orthodox theology defines the divine 'essence' as an abstract definition of what 'God is', while the 'energy' is the ‘working-energy’ of what God does.  The western theological meaning of ‘essence’ includes ‘working energy’ in the definition already.&lt;/strong&gt; For anybody familiar with programming terms, Eastern Orthodox sort of splits God into a class (essence) and eternally substantiated object of that class (energy) both class and object are eternal and uncreated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some reason the eastern Monk Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) came up with a distinction between God’s Essence and God’s energy.  &lt;strong&gt;The Essence-Energy distinction was a theological framework used by Palamas to explain how creation can participate in the experience of God, without becoming God.&lt;/strong&gt; The idea in simple form is that ‘the manifestation of God’ or ‘the experience of God’ must be separated out from the non-experience-able essence of God; otherwise we are left with a Pantheistic view. This Pantheistic view would be seen as Neo-Platonic--Aristotelian. Something the western view is accused of being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Western standpoint, this distinction was never needed as Western theologians simply used current handy Greek terms to explain the problem away in accordance with Christian concepts of God. The use of these terms does not automatically make the western view of God to be like Plato’s or Aristotle’s just because words have been borrowed. More specifically Thomas Aquinas used concepts such as Aristotle’s distinction between ‘Potentiality versus Actuality’ as well as ‘Actus Purus’, to show that to the Christian view of God automatically avoided Pantheism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idiots guide (i.e. my own) to Aristotle’s view of what ‘essence’ is and how it was borrowed and modified under a Christian lens is pretty simple. There is a kind of ‘essence’ beyond the particular embodiment, for example, if there is something called human, then Frank is only an example of, human essence, In addition if Frank is to really be a real human (his potential) he needs to become one actually through an chain of events (working-energy). Applying these terms to God necessarily means that God can’t have any such division of potential versus actualization of potential.  &lt;strong&gt;God is perfect he can’t become actualized and so his essence and working-energy is within the same incomprehensible perfection of his singular being.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To apply this concept to the eastern proposal, a division of essence and energy is rejected. Since God can’t have potential that is not actualized, and actualization implies working-energy, the idea of a separating energy from essence is incongruous to God’s perfection.&lt;/strong&gt; Manifestations of his presence in time and space are not based on any separation within his own perfections and this does not allow for any kind of Pantheistic view by default. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have oversimplified all the lengthy philosophical terms a bit, but I think you get the western idea from this. Hopefully you also sense the somewhat nauseous headache one obtains splicing these terms and how needless they are when approaching the more simple faith of those in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what am I saying, well both camps seem to just use different terms to try and say the same thing. They both resorted to the overly intellectual use of philosophical distinctions, which was probably partly required as a reaction to on the multitude of heresies over the Trinity, etc., which the church suffered at that time faced. However if Palamas meant that the uncreated energies were truly ontologically distinct from God;s essence ,as are the three persons of the Trinity, then Palamas is less innocent that it would appear under my western view.  Some scholars say he did make this true distinction and other say he did not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more complicated review these two articles basically throw in all the controverted points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality#Potentiality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality#Potentiality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-Energies_distinction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-Energies_distinction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T05:41:10.293" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14192" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14194" CreationDate="2013-02-14T06:01:23.563" Score="11" ViewCount="8766" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a Catholic mass, just before the distribution of communion to people, the priest breaks the Host in to pieces and people simultaneously acclaim: &lt;em&gt;Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.......&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the significance of this fraction of bread (Host)?  Does it have any parallel to the act of sacrifice for atonement of sins:  like sacrificing of lambs in OT and then sacrifice of Jesus himself for our sins?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the shape of this fractioned Host is different at different times. Are there any laid down norms for this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-07T12:22:54.517" LastActivityDate="2019-06-22T20:16:03.717" Title="What is the significance of priest breaking the bread (Host) in a Catholic mass?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;mass&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2013-02-14T08:32:40.933" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much of the Old Testament does not apply to our life. For instance, we are not likely to be asked to set our son on fire. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do have complete free will. But that does not mean its for us to use. I prefer to believe that it is intended for us to give it up. We can see evidence of it in the Bible and throughout society regardless of what time period. The will of people leads them down the wrong path every time. We are cursed with the burden of selfishness. We cannot overcome the temptations of this life by our own will. So without God, we are willfully cursed. But by surrendering our will and following His, our life becomes something completely different. Some have said that our will mixes with God's. NOT. We have been told that we cannot serve two masters. It means that our will must be God's and only God's. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about the virtues that comes from carrying God's will. Humility, compassion for others, empathy, modesty, and self sacrifice. Jesus displayed all these things. And He exercised them through self deprivation and constant striving for God's approval. He was a faithful servant in every way. And He told us to do the same. The virtues do not come any other way. For us to be unwilling to sacrifice this life is the same as following our own will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now with those things said, you might wonder, then how can millions of people today even know God at all since they seem to be led by their own will? They don't know God. That is my answer. They are deceived into following a false doctrine. Popular religion is false. The churches carry it. Therefore, one must follow God's knowledge as it is written. You cannot attend church one day a week and learn all there is to know. YOu have to devote yourself to learning and understanding God's will. it must become you overall goal in life. It cannot be a hobby. There is too much to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3945" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T08:32:40.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14192" CreationDate="2013-02-14T09:15:07.317" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The meaning of the fraction of bread is, that Christ is 'distributing himself' to the Faithful. As the prayer in Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom states&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, dropping the part of the Host into the Chalice is a sign of Resurrection - the reunion of Blood and Body, of Body and Soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no specific meaning to the shape of breaking in Catholic churches. The priests typically break the host roughly in half and then break a small particle off one of the halves. (In Orthodox churches and Eastern Catholic tradition, the host is a cube, a quarter of which into the chalice).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2016-10-08T02:51:00.177" LastActivityDate="2016-10-08T02:51:00.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14195" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14200" CreationDate="2013-02-14T10:19:04.313" Score="0" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a young Christian and at times I fall into traps that I read one thing that isn't written in the Bible then I believe it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read the Prophecy of St. Malachy and now I am convincing myself that its 100% real and that after the next pope that is the end.  I understand that Jesus said that 'No one will know the time or the season' but I still wonder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should I understand this prophecy this way? Does the Bible contradict my understanding of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2162" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-29T01:21:06.430" LastActivityDate="2016-01-29T01:21:06.430" Title="Does the Popes Prophecy of St. Malachy indicate that the end times are imminent?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;malachy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-02-14T18:14:23.650" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14153" CreationDate="2013-02-14T11:27:37.440" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taylor &amp;amp; Francis which is in publication of scholarly information of the highest quality and publishes books in Science, Built Environment, Humanities, Social Science, Education, Health, Behavioral Science, and other professional subjects, published “International Geology Review study” authored by Jefferson B. Williamsa, Markus J. Schwabb &amp;amp; A. Brauerb which confirms an early first-century earthquake in the Dead Sea.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abstract&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article examines a report in the 27th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament that an earthquake was felt in Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. We have tabulated a varved chronology from a core from Ein Gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea between deformed sediments due to a widespread earthquake in 31 BC and deformed sediments due to an early first-century earthquake. The early first-century seismic event has been tentatively assigned a date of 31 AD with an accuracy of ±5 years. Plausible candidates include the earthquake reported in the Gospel of Matthew, an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 AD that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments at Ein Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record. If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other links are here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.deadseaquake.info/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.deadseaquake.info/&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About the darkness:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two possibilities:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As reported by Discovery News, Jefferson B. Williamsa had intended to investigate if dust storm deposits coincided with the early this first century Jerusalem region earthquake leading to this darkness.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As per Wiki, Humphreys and Waddington of Oxford University reconstructed the Jewish calendar in the first century AD and arrived at the conclusion that Friday April 3 33AD was the date of the Crucifixion. Humphreys and Waddington went further and also reconstructed the scenario for a lunar eclipse on that day. They concluded that:  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;This eclipse was visible from Jerusalem at moonrise. .... The start of the eclipse was invisible from Jerusalem, being below the horizon. The eclipse began at 3:40pm and reached a maximum at 5:15pm, with 60% of the moon eclipsed. This was also below the horizon from Jerusalem. The moon rose above the horizon, and was first visible from Jerusalem at about 6:20pm (the start of the Jewish Sabbath and also the start of Passover day in A.D. 33) with about 20% of its disc in the umbra of the earth's shadow and the remainder in the penumbra. The eclipse finished some thirty minutes later at 6:50pm.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The arguments against this:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;But eclipses are too brief to account for the crucifixion darkness. The length of the crucifixion darkness described by biblical and extra-biblical sources was more than a full order of magnitude for the totality of eclipses.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' crucifixion took place around Passover, the middle of the lunar month and the time of a full moon. Solar eclipses naturally take place only at the time of the new moon.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Miracle&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For these two reasons, medieval commentators viewed the darkness as a miraculous event rather than a natural one.  Because it was known in medieval times that a solar eclipse could not take place during Passover, it was considered a miraculous sign rather than a naturally occurring event.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To some extent we have a flicker of evidence that these two events did take place in 33 AD. Even then they are difficult to fully explain in scientific terms as both these accounts suggest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, if we were to completely explain these two phenomenon of earthquake and darkness that occurred during this time of period as scientific events, then we cannot link it to something unusual that was happening on the cross and that is dying of Son of God to save sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-04-03T05:03:39.733" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T05:03:39.733" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14195" CreationDate="2013-02-14T13:07:30.413" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know anything about the prophecy you mentioned, but a very strong theme in the Bible is to never succumb to fear. It can be said that fear is the opposite of faith, and through faith in Jesus Christ we are saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many applicable verses, but look at this as some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? &#xA;The LORD is the strength of my life; Of whom shall I be afraid?  &#xA;(NKJV)&#xA;&#xA;Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, &#xA;but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father.'&#xA;(NKJV)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 8:15 does perhaps show us the proper way to respond to fear: Just cry out to God and put your trust 100% in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fear is crippling, faith is enabling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/do_not_fear&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.openbible.info/topics/do_not_fear&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3731" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T13:07:30.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14195" CreationDate="2013-02-14T13:24:51.340" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When was Jesus asked when will the world end, he replied (Mt 24,36):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in&#xA;  heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If even Jesus didn't know, it's highly unlikely that God the Father would tell any prophet when the world will end. Worrying about the end is not our job, our job is to live every single day, hour, minute or even second as God's children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trying to distinguish true prophecies from false ones is a nice hobby, but it gives us little spiritual profit. Prayer, reading of Bible (not just its last book) and meditating on it gives us much more profit than worrying about prophecies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T13:24:51.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14179" CreationDate="2013-02-14T13:48:03.767" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Approaches&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, some people may evangelize in ways that would be considered &quot;aggressive&quot;, but many others are not.  In fact, the situation often determines the appropriate approach, so the same person could approach the same person in completely different ways, depending on the situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When my mother saw me as a child wandering close to the street when no cars were coming, her voice was firm, but not aggressive.  Then one day when we were walking and she saw a snake ten feet in front of me, her voice was quite different.  Also, she has suggested very quietly that one more cookie may not be the best for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Incentive&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Christians do not merely believe that Christianity is something good that everyone would enjoy--like ice cream or a foot massage.  A better illustration--and a biblical one at that--is that every person is infected with a deadly disease that impacts their bodies, their souls and their spirits.  However, many people don't even know they have the disease.  They experience the symptoms--spiritual emptiness, vanity, and others--but many do not even believe they have a spirit, so they don't know how to even self-diagnose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians, we have shared the same infection, but have received the antidote as well.  It has transformed our lives entirely.  We were also given an endless supply of the antidote to share with others.  So, we share freely.  Sometimes we may sound belligerent, but that is not from self-righteous, but from confusion as to why someone would not want to be healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We learn in time that some people simply do not want to know or admit that they have a disease.  People even do this for physical diseases and won't go to a doctor.  So, we have to learn to be tactful in how we share the antidote.  Sometimes it is better for us to talk about how great it has worked for us.  Perhaps that works well because people are more ready to hear they have a disease if they know there is a cure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is, indeed, a cure for the disease of sin and separation from God, and the cure is 100% effective.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope you can understand that even though you may find it annoying, the intent of evangelism typically comes from a very caring, loving and compassionate heart, albeit poorly expressed at times.  Mom pleads with us to take nasty tasting medicine, because it heals and is good for us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, perhaps you can at least appreciate a heart that cares for you.  If someone had a cure for a deadly disease and withheld it from you, you would have reason to hate that person.  Yet, it someone believes you have a deadly disease and aggressively offers you the cure, at least they care.  &lt;em&gt;(This would be true even if it were not true that you had a deadly disease, because they believe that you do.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I understand that many people do not really want to hear about Christianity.  However, there are countless stories of people just like that who end up taking the antidote and receiving the joys that come with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to name a few accounts...  The Unexpected Journey, The Persecutor, Betrayed, Once an Arafat Man.  The list is literally millions of pages long...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T13:48:03.767" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14195" CreationDate="2013-02-14T14:50:39.537" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I also found the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prophechies of Saint Malachy&lt;/a&gt; to be very interesting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it is always quite easy to to make a prophecy sound like the person, the prophecies associated with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John Paul I - &quot;From the midst of the moon&quot; who only lived just one lunar cycle after his election&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John Paul II - &quot;Laboring under the Sun,&quot;  - and indeed, one weighed down by the job&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Benedict XVI - &quot;the Greening of the Olive&quot; - and indeed, the Benedictines are associated with the Olive&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These things were interesting to me.  Furthermore, the idea of &quot;Petrus Romanus&quot; - Peter the Roman, sounded like an antichirst to me too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, two things should be considered:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Confirmation Bias&lt;/a&gt; suggests that humans look for patterns in anything.  Most of the &quot;accuracies&quot; of Malachy are ex post facto justifications.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Malachy himself never said that every Pope would be listed. Just as many Christians see Daniel's &quot;final week&quot; as separated from the 69 previous, so to there is nothing to demand that the successor is clearly Petrus Romanus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond this, there is an incongruency that is hard to overlook:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit&lt;/strong&gt; ... Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations: and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the terrible judge will judge his people. The End.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, even as an Evangelical whose own confirmation bias sees persecution, the truth is that it would be a stretch to call the persecution of the Church in the West &quot;extreme.&quot;  (Indonesia, Nigeria, Iraq, Egypt, China, and countless other places in the emerging world, yes, but not in Rome.)  As such, one should carefully consider this incongruency before leaping to conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As others have said, eschatology can be problemmatic, especially when pinning down a date so definately.  If Jesus didn't know, there is nothing to suggest that Malachy did either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the one thing to remember about &quot;the last days&quot; is this, from Romans 13:11:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. &lt;strong&gt;For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many, many of Jesus' parables (The Wheat and the Tares, The Foolish Virgins, The Wedding Feast, the Parable of the Vineyard, the Cursing of the Fig Tree, etcera, etcera, etcera) all make the same point: Be Ready! As such, it is just as good to continue with Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Live like that, and it doesn't matter who sits on the Papal Throne.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just so you know, you aren't alone in being afraid anti-Christ is right around the corner. In Paul's day, the believers in Thessalonica had the same concerns. Paul gently wrote in 2 Thessaloanians 2 that they shouldn't worry:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,1 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that fthe day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and ithe man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,3 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, when the time does come, you'll know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-02-15T02:31:37.563" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T02:31:37.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7497" CreationDate="2013-02-14T15:50:26.097" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that there are two distinct things that we are commanded to do to those whom we are making disciples--baptize them and teach them obedience to what God has commanded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the mark of a disciple is obedience to what God has commanded (in addition to obeying the Lord in baptism).  It almost seems that there are two distinct things we ought to be doing in order to make disciples.  If we are to disciple someone, we should baptize them and we should teach them obedience to Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not seem feasible that the intent is that we make disciples, then baptize them and teach them to obey.  A disciple without obedience is not a disciple.  By the same token, a disciple without baptism is not a disciple, since that is a basic commandment of God that we are to obey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, with regard to baptism and what this verse is teaching about it, it seems that it is part of the discipleship process to be performed in conjunction with the teaching of obedience to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We would not be able to teach an infant obedience to Christ until perhaps the age of 3 or so.  That would not mean we could not baptize them.  The bigger issue there is the involuntary nature of an infant's baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-14T15:50:26.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14202" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14209" CreationDate="2013-02-14T19:17:16.853" Score="6" ViewCount="1361" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a trend among Christians to put the guilt of killing Jesus on Jews rather than on Romans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Christians go as far as to proclaiming Pilate a saint (as did either Ethiopian or Coptic church if I am not mistaken).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wonder is there biblical basis for such whitewashing of Pilate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, some people on this site claimed in other answers that if Pilate did not execute Jesus, there would be a popular riot or Pilate could be fired from his position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there biblical evidence that this indeed would happen and Pilate acted with no choice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-02T20:17:18.337" LastActivityDate="2015-11-02T20:17:18.337" Title="Is there biblical basis for the claim that Pilate had no choice?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;&lt;pilate&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14202" CreationDate="2013-02-14T19:58:00.097" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, no.  Pilate had a choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jesus' conversation with him, He says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”  John 19:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jewish religious leaders--not all Jews--were guilty of a greater sin than Pilate, even though Pilate was guilty of sin for perverting justice.  Indeed, God sets up rulers &quot;to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right&quot;.  So, Pilate failed in that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 1 Peter 2:13-14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Pilate himself made the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize &lt;strong&gt;I have power either to free you or to crucify you&lt;/strong&gt;?”  John 19:10 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pilate certainly may have wanted to appease the crowd, but with all the might of Rome at his disposal, he certainly was not subject to the Jewish religious leaders in any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, Pilate had already had Jesus flogged at this point.  He could very well have said that Jesus had already been punished and than they needed to shut up and go home.  He was the ruler--they were his subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Pilate most certainly had a choice.  The Jewish religious leaders did all they could to influence Pilate in his decision.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Even if some of the Jewish leaders and the Jewish people of that day could be held accountable, they are all dead now.  People of Jewish descent today can not be held accountable for anything any of the ancestors did hundreds and thousands of years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, all of this was in God's plan, so it is unbiblical, immoral, and ungodly to hold the Jews in any way &lt;em&gt;responsible&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;guilty&lt;/em&gt; for the death of Christ.  &lt;strong&gt;I'm&lt;/strong&gt; the guilty one, and Christ died for &lt;strong&gt;my&lt;/strong&gt; sin.  &lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; am the one to blame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-15T12:55:13.193" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T12:55:13.193" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14205" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14208" CreationDate="2013-02-15T01:32:36.220" Score="8" ViewCount="7877" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was another thread in &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/18670/does-foreign-religious-obligation-takruvas-avodah-zarah&quot;&gt;Mi Yodeya&lt;/a&gt; where a Jewish individual played a &quot;prank&quot; on a Christian in order to get his money ($20) since he figured the Christian was obligated to give it to him if he asked, according to his understanding of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=30&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/30&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 6:30&lt;/a&gt;. Needless to say, this Jewish individual, since he admitted it was a &quot;prank,&quot; didn't have a genuine need for the money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been approached many times by people who were scamming for money. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I am approached by a man/ woman outside a grocery store, as many people are. He/ she says, &quot;My truck broke down and I need to call a taxi.&quot; I tell him/ her I don't have any money on me, which is the truth. I rarely ever do. I go into the store, and as I walk out, I witness the same  individual driving down the street in his/ her car. It was a scam. What were they scamming for? Likely narcotics or alcohol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I had given this individual money, they would have likely used it to buy narcotics or alcohol. Essentially, I would be contributing to and enabling their lifestyle --- a lifestlye which is by no means beneficial for them. In fact, if they bought narcotics with my money, they could very well overdose and die. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A culture of drug abuse didn't exist in the time of Jesus. But, it does today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, my question. Should a Christian indiscriminately give or lend his money (if indeed he has the money on his person) to everyone who asks him? Should a Christian discriminate who and who he does not give his money to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, what are some things that could assist a Christian in this situation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:05.287" LastActivityDate="2015-01-28T19:21:10.807" Title="Does Luke 6:30 imply that the person asking has a genuine need?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;charity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6605" CreationDate="2013-02-15T02:30:13.670" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Men should humble themselves before God and men. We came into the world naked and leave in this world naked. Everything belongs to God. Why should we be proud and self-centered when we don't own anything? We are dependent on God--our breath and life here on earth. He created all things for us. Every good gift is from above. The only thing we are proud of --is what He has done for us. If you are His child--receive Him by faith (John 1:12) you are His child and many  assurances He promised in the Bible. I am secure, I am accepted and I am protected. All what I have came from Him. I used it for His glory not to glorify myself. We have no reason to be egocentric but to humble ourselves. He is My shepherd and I am His sheep. (Psalm 23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3953" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T02:30:13.670" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14205" CreationDate="2013-02-15T03:59:39.007" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see that there's a definitive answer to this.  There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consensus on this one.  Even the major commentaries, which usually find some common ground, disagree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;  (This agrees with the teachings I've heard on this verse.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ask them not again - Or, Do not beg them off. This probably refers to&#xA;  the way in which the tax-gatherers and Roman soldiers used to spoil&#xA;  the people. &quot;When such harpies as these come upon your goods, suffer&#xA;  the injury quietly, leaving yourselves in the hand of God, rather than&#xA;  attempt even to beg off what belongs to you, lest on their part they&#xA;  be provoked to seize or spoil more, and lest you be irritated to sue&#xA;  them at law, which is totally opposite to the spirit and letter of the&#xA;  Gospel; or to speak bad words, or indulge wrong tempers, which would&#xA;  wound the spirit of love and mercy.&quot; Of such as these, and of all&#xA;  merciless creditors, who even sell the tools and bed of a poor man, it&#xA;  may be very truly said: -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Wesley's Notes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6:30 Give to every one - Friend or enemy, what thou canst spare, and&#xA;  he really wants: and of him that taketh away thy goods - By borrowing,&#xA;  if he be insolvent, ask them not again. Mt 5:42.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, having said that there may not be a definitive answer, in context, the principle seems to be that we should assume the asker has a real need.  This has the obvious implications of leaving us open to fraud, scam artists, and the like.  Christ seems to be, in this case, telling us to put the principles of love and faith first, showing the love of God, giving sacrificially, trusting that the asker has a true need, even if we can't know for sure.  In other words, it's better to give willingly and be taken by a con artist than to try to be shrewd and not give at all.  And if we get taken, not to be bitter about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is hard to take for a lot of us. (Me included.)  It's very easy to be bitter about being taken advantage of, and it's very easy to have the mindset that we're not doing thieves a favor by letting them profit by taking advantage of trusting individuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this verse is smack dab in the middle of a slew of verses that teach the same basic principle:  Show meekness, mercy, and kindness to those that do not deserve it.  In my Bible, this section is under the heading &quot;Love thy enemies&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Love for Enemies (NIV) Like 6:27-36&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to&#xA;  those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who&#xA;  mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the&#xA;  other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt&#xA;  from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what&#xA;  belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would&#xA;  have them do to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even&#xA;  sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who&#xA;  are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34&#xA;  And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit&#xA;  is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid&#xA;  in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them&#xA;  without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be&#xA;  great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind&#xA;  to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is&#xA;  merciful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This tells me that this passage, taken in context, tells us to trust, even when it may be foolish to do so.  After all, the things of this world are temporary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, there may be no definitive answer, but taken in context with the surrounding verses, the answer seems to imply that we are to assume there is a genuine need, even if we are skeptical.  It doesn't imply that a genuine need must exists.  It implies that we are to assume that such a need is genuine.  We are to trust, rather than doubt, and show God's love by extending mercy where undeserved.  (And isn't that what the central message of Christianity is all about?  Showing love and mercy where it's not deserved?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-15T04:12:09.267" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T04:12:09.267" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14202" CreationDate="2013-02-15T07:13:17.380" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Of course Pilate is not portrayed as a Christian, or even a good man, let alone a saint.  However, nearly all bible commentators agree that Pilate was trying to avoid crucifying Christ. Undoubtedly it was political pressure from the Jewish leaders that forced his hand against his own will.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First Pilate really did not care about the silly religious infighting of a strange people. He just wanted to govern and avoid major conflicts like any governor does.  He first tried to avoid crucifixion by the penalty of scourging:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him. (John 19:1, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Pilate went out again and said to them, “See, I am bringing him out to you that you may know that I find no guilt in him.” Which shows his intention, that they would recognize this is silly to kill an innocent man over what he saw as just dumb religion. For Pilate, if anything, seemed more like an atheist in his words, ‘What is truth?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He could not avoid the blood-thirst of the crowd, so in exasperation said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.” (John 19:6, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then The Jews threatened him with political pressure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” 8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. (John 19:7-8, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pilate's main ambition was to release Jesus but the fear of seeming disloyal to Caesar made him go against his own conscience:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”  (John 19:12, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To counter his fear of Caesar, he had an opposing fear and reluctance to kill an innocent man, for we find in Luke his wife had a dream (omen) and warned Pilate not to do it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream.” (Mathew 27:19, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under all these pressures from his own conscience and his wife, although not a believer in Christ, but simply from the human aspect of not wanting to kill and innocent man and fearing  what bad luck might follow the 'omen', Pilate feared Caesar more. While making a last ditch effort to free Jesus by offering him up as an alternate to Barabbas, he eventually gives up. The crowd, under the influence of the ‘chief priests and the elders’ was so blood thirsty for Christ that they would rather choose a known criminal and murderer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” (Mathew 27:24, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: Of course Pilate had a choice, but on the other hand it is true that if he chose to ignore the blood-thirsty crowd and released Christ, as his own desire clearly indicated, it could have meant his own trouble with Caesar. Yes even loss of his position as governor, and during those days this could even possibly lead to his own death for failure to manage the people.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T07:13:17.380" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14205" CreationDate="2013-02-15T07:43:58.543" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have any single resource to cite, at the moment. But, I can offer the general understanding that I've gotten listening to Catholic sermons over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the verse in its context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; “But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good&#xA;  to those who hate you, &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; bless those who curse you, pray&#xA;  for those who mistreat you. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; To the person who strikes&#xA;  you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who&#xA;  takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; Give&#xA;  to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours&#xA;  do not demand it back. &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; Do to others as you would have&#xA;  them do to you. &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; For if you love those who love you, what&#xA;  credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; And if you do good to those who do good to you, what&#xA;  credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. &lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt; If you&#xA;  lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit [is]&#xA;  that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same&#xA;  amount. &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; But rather, love your enemies and do good to&#xA;  them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great&#xA;  and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to&#xA;  the ungrateful and the wicked. &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; Be merciful, just as&#xA;  [also] your Father is merciful. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/luke/6:27&quot;&gt;Luke 6:27-36&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of places in scripture wherein Jesus insists that we love the poor. He insists upon this both verbally and in His own actions. But perhaps surprisingly, this isn't one of those places. The poor and needy aren't named here. To the contrary, the only &lt;em&gt;precise&lt;/em&gt; statements we have in this passage about with whom we're dealing is that &lt;em&gt;we don't like them!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They're enemies. They're the folks who attack us, press us into service, take our stuff, extort us, scam us, etc.. Rather than there being any serious question as to whether the one asking &lt;em&gt;actually needs&lt;/em&gt; in this scenario, the assumption here is that they &lt;em&gt;don't&lt;/em&gt; need: they're an enemy, and they want to scam us! Any other assumption betrays the context, I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, clarifying one point of the question midstream, let's assume that Jesus is speaking specifically of those cases wherein we can &lt;em&gt;reasonably assume&lt;/em&gt; someone's attempting to pull one over on us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, let's look at the five &quot;attacks&quot; Jesus presents:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Someone curses us&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Someone strikes us on the cheek&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Someone forcibly presses us into service&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Someone takes our cloak&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Someone asks for money&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, that last one is an odd misfit with the first four if we don't assume the asking party has seemingly malicious intent. But, the response in each case is effectively the same: &lt;strong&gt;Assist the attack.&lt;/strong&gt; In other words, in whatever nature you feel attacked, rather than oppose the attack, assist the attack in its trajectory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Someone curses you&lt;/strong&gt; =&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Bless them.&lt;/strong&gt; There's just no other way to magnify a curse non-violently. Someone says something bad about you, say something nice about them. They'll be promoted either consciously to commit to the hate, or back down.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Someone strikes us on the cheek&lt;/strong&gt; =&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Present the other.&lt;/strong&gt; Notable here, I have been told repeatedly from numerous sources, the left/right indication in this verse indicates that the 2nd strike, should it come, would be considered far more offensive and &quot;dirty&quot; in ancient Jewish culture. The 2nd strike you're offering the attacker, in other words, is far more and &lt;em&gt;noticeably&lt;/em&gt; severe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Someone forcibly presses us into service&lt;/strong&gt; =&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Commit to twice the service.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Someone takes our cloak&lt;/strong&gt; =&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Offer your most basic (under) garments as well&lt;/strong&gt; In modern times, I imagine Jesus would have said, &quot;offer them your boxers as well.&quot; A clear magnification of the attack.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Someone asks&lt;/strong&gt; =&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Give abundantly.&lt;/strong&gt; Repayment, in the very least, would normally be expected here, especially from a non-friend or the &quot;anyone&quot; and &quot;everyone&quot; in question.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By responding with exaggerated compliance, we generally force our perceived enemies &lt;em&gt;and ourselves&lt;/em&gt; to acknowledge the character of an attack -- as well as the character of our own judgement. The nature of the &quot;exchange&quot; changes, and one of a few things can happen. (And as an added bonus, we don't even compromise on the possibility for genuine charity.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our enemy re-commits to their attack. We've somewhat successfully preached the Gospel, in this case, even if it has fallen on deaf ears.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our enemy ceases, having been non-violently and un-offensively made aware of their aggression.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We notice that this isn't really our enemy. &lt;strong&gt;We change.&lt;/strong&gt; We take notice that &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; are harboring hate. And we presumably repent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we also need to be careful not to isolate this from the rest of the Bible. Jesus does not diminish the need for physical well-being. And overall, the Bible calls for &lt;strong&gt;order and discipline&lt;/strong&gt;, even in matters of charity -- be it financial charity, as your question partly addresses, and in matters of spiritual charity, as I think your selected verse addresses. And in fact, in larger cities, &quot;wreckless&quot; giving is often discouraged -- there are more effective channels to care for the genuinely poor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as best as I understand it, the same responses, in many America cities anyway, operate perfectly, both in the context of Luke 6:27-36 &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; that of the general call to serve the poor. They are, &quot;Oh. I'll show you were the shelter is.&quot; or &quot;Oh, let me just buy you some groceries.&quot; or &quot;Oh, let me put you up in a hotel for the night.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 times out of 10 (in my city) the response is the same, &quot;I don't need any of that &lt;em&gt;*&lt;/em&gt;*, man!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in the rare case that someone anxiously indulges the magnification of their request, I feel rightfully humbled. And my &quot;attacker&quot; is rightfully fed. Or clothed. Or whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T07:43:58.543" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14211" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14214" CreationDate="2013-02-15T08:00:25.877" Score="2" ViewCount="614" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is related to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14019/is-there-any-tradition-with-regards-to-zechariahs-prayer-in-luke&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found this verses from Qur'an.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Surah 19:1-7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kaf- Ha-Ya-'Ain-Sad.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;(This is) a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His slave Zakariya (Zachariah).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When he called out his Lord (Allah) a call in secret,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Saying: &quot;My Lord! Indeed my bones have grown feeble, and grey hair has spread on my head, And I have never been unblest in my invocation&#xA;  to You, O my Lord!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And Verily! I fear my relatives after me, since my wife is barren. &lt;strong&gt;So give me from Yourself an heir&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Who shall inherit me, and inherit (also) the posterity of Ya'qub (Jacob) (inheritance of the religious knowledge and Prophethood, not&#xA;  the wealth, etc.). And make him, my Lord, one with whom You are&#xA;  Well-pleased!&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Allah said) &quot;O Zakariya (Zachariah)! Verily, We give you the glad tidings of a son, His name will be Yahya (John). We have given that&#xA;  name to none before (him).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming God (Jehovah) never revealed these things to Muhammad (no offence to Muslims), how did Muhammad know about Zachariah's prayer? &lt;strong&gt;Did he compose it?&lt;/strong&gt; We know very well that there are many twisted stories of the Bible and Torah in Qur'an. I assume that Muhammad overheard these stories from the Jews and Christians around him and recited these stories whichever parts he remembered, which leads to incomplete story or sometimes even twisted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Muhammad did not compose this, there must be some traditional stories or some unauthentic books on this account. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T12:59:34.077" Title="Did Zachariah ask for a son to God?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14211" CreationDate="2013-02-15T11:19:19.490" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was this question on this site: “Was Jesus Crucified?, which I believe was closed and deleted. There were some good answers for that question which made many things clear as to why Quran deviates from Bible on many events and one of this is because Mohamed was more influenced by Gnostic and other literatures than by actual Bible account of the events.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some references from Quran to the events in Bible, which when seen even from neutral perspective clearly shows ignorance of the geographical location and historical dates of these events.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example is the story of Samaritans and Moses where Muhammad places the Samaritans at the time of Moses when such people had not existed at that time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another place he confuses Mary, mother of Jesus with Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses. These two women lived 1500 years apart. The Quran says.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;She brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: “O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought! “O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!” Q. 19:27-28  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is repeated in verse 66:12 where Muhammad calls Mary, daughter of `Imran.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is because Mary and Miriam are both translated in Arabic as Maryam. Muhammad heard Jesus’ mother was Maryam and also Aarron’s sister was called Maryam. He thought the two are one and the same.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also Muslims say that Jesus was not crucified but God deceived them by planting a lookalike on cross.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why would Muhammad say something that is contrary to all Gospels? That’s because Muhammad’s knowledge of the Scriptures was based on hearsay. He personally had not read the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the time of Muhammad, there were Christians groups in the Northern Arabia and Damascus who were called Nestorian. They thought that it is impossible to kill the Son of God. Based on this belief they had developed a doctrine that maintained God must have tricked the Pharisees and the person who was crucified must have been someone else who took the resemblance of Jesus. That is how Muhammad came to know about the story of crucifixion. His knowledge about the Bible was superficial as well as sketchy and shows that he had very little understanding of the Bible.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During his youth days while listening to Christian preachers in the market of Okaz, he heard many Biblical stories, but because he did not read that book personally, he confused many of its events as also the protagonists and this may be one of the reason for Surah 19:1-7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T11:19:19.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14211" CreationDate="2013-02-15T12:27:41.290" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective, the most interesting aspect of the question is not &quot;How did anyone overhear this prayer,&quot; but rather, from whence did this tradition arse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1 tells the story of Elisabeth and Zechariah.  The text begins by saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the prayers that Elisabeth and Zechariah offer are only indirectly referenced. The Angel of the Lord says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, in the earliest manuscripts (for the Gospel of Luke predates the Qu'ran by 600 years), we know that the Angel of the Lord is privy to the contents of the prayer, but we, the reader are not.  As such, there is no &lt;em&gt;biblical basis&lt;/em&gt; for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6519/how-was-documented-dialog-observed&quot;&gt;observed dialogue&lt;/a&gt; of any kind.  Any interpretation that seeks to &quot;fill in&quot; this prayer, would, from a Christian perspective, be theologically an &quot;innovation,&quot; something that is normally frowned upon. The most likely explanation, then, seeing as their is no Scriptural support, is that this prayer was in fact composed by someone else - and Muhammed himself seems as likely a candidate as any other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be fair to Muslims, if in fact the Qu'ran was dictated to the Prophet by Gabriel, then it would not be surprising that the Angel of the Lord would have revealed this to Gabriel - but from a Christian perspective (which tends to deny the Gabrielic recitation), this would be pure composition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke, the focus of the story is not on Zechariah, but rather the birth of John the Baptist (Yah'ya in Muslim scriptures). When Zechariah is told that he will have a son, he, like Abraham's wife Sarai 2000 years earlier, essentially laughs- but unlike Sarai, Zechariah is punished by losing his power of speech.  The miracle only comes after the birth of John the Baptist, when Zechariah confirms that in fact the Angel of the Lord had spoken with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T12:33:20.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6605" CreationDate="2013-02-15T13:23:58.987" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most definitely, the Bible is all out a person seeking one's own highest good--&lt;strong&gt;but not from a world perspective.&lt;/strong&gt;  Rather, we should seek our own highest good from an eternal perspective.  This is what one Christian teacher (I think it was Piper) called &quot;Christian Hedonism&quot;.  So, let's address some obvious questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What will bring me the absolute most pleasure?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The psalmist proclaims that it is God who fills him not with temporal pleasures, but with eternal pleasures.  Temporal pleasures are worth infinitely less than eternal pleasures, because anything eternal is infinitely longer than anything finite. Psalm 16:11 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You make known to me the path of life;&#xA;      you will fill me with joy in your presence,&#xA;      with &lt;strong&gt;eternal pleasures&lt;/strong&gt; at your right hand.  Psalm 16:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if we want the greatest pleasures, we should seek God and let Him give them to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What will bring me the greatest joy?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told His disciples in John 16 that they were about to mourn while the world rejoiced, but He would see them again and they would rejoice--&lt;strong&gt;and no one would take away their joy&lt;/strong&gt;.  The implication is that after Jesus saw them again, it would be after the resurrection, after sin had been atoned for, after Satan had been vanquished, after their pardon had been purchased, after their inheritance in heaven was assured.  So, living in a relationship with Jesus gives us the same joy that was given to the disciples then.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and &lt;strong&gt;no one will take away your joy&lt;/strong&gt;. John 16:22 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Thus, the one who seeks the greatest joy for himself will find it in a relationship with Jesus Christ.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Riches and Wealth&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what about riches and wealth?  Well, it depends on what types of riches and wealth we are talking about.  There are temporal riches and wealth, that are destroyed by moth and rust and are taken away by government (and other thieves).  Then there are eternal treasures that moth and rust cannot destroy and that government (and other thieves) cannot take away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.  Matthew 6:19-20 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if someone wants to obtain the greatest riches possible, he does so by loving and serving God, which will be rewarded by God with eternal treasures in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if someone wants to have the greatest pleasure, possessions, and prominence, he should love God with all his heart, serve God with his life, and abstain completely from sin--since sin is always to our loss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T13:23:58.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14216" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:28:16.157" Score="0" ViewCount="245" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible said that the Jews as a whole accepted the guilt of killing Jesus and declared guilty themselves and their descendants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a&#xA;  riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the&#xA;  crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that&#xA;  yourselves.' And &lt;strong&gt;all the people&lt;/strong&gt; said, 'His blood shall be on us and on&#xA;  our children!'&quot; -Matt. 27:24-25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems highly incredible that a single person (not to say the whole people) would take responsibility of the lawful execution of somebody they perceived as blasphemist, not to say accept responsibility to their own children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do Christians perceive this episode as a God's miracle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-04T20:13:04.847" LastActivityDate="2018-05-09T18:35:17.603" Title="Was it a miracle of God that the Jews incriminated themselves and their children in the blood of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6605" CreationDate="2013-02-15T15:15:02.603" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the Catholic answer, as well as the general Christian answer, is yes &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So firstly, &lt;strong&gt;Yes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The motivation to do good presented in the Bible is &lt;em&gt;often&lt;/em&gt; the attainment of happiness, joy, and heaven. One of the main topics during the sermon on the mount and/or plain is &lt;em&gt;how to be happy &lt;strong&gt;by loving people&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. However, it's also made quite clear, in the course of the whole Bible, in many Christian doctrines, and by the examples of many saints, that this is not the ideal; it's a stepping stone to real love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So also, &lt;strong&gt;No:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Love, in its purest, is not self-interested &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt;. It acts from a state of joy, not a state &lt;em&gt;seeking&lt;/em&gt; joy. It acts &lt;em&gt;from heaven&lt;/em&gt;, not a place &lt;em&gt;seeking heaven&lt;/em&gt;. It acts from the knowledge and sense that &lt;em&gt;God already loves me&lt;/em&gt;, not a sense that &lt;em&gt;God &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; love me if I do good&lt;/em&gt;. Love, in this ideal sense, is fueled by the fact that we're already inexpressibly joyful, per our relationship with God, and that, being able to gain nothing, we desire in a knowingly unquenchable manner to share the joy inherent to that relationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T15:15:02.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2013-02-15T15:41:16.263" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard two great statements from prominent Christian philosophers on this matter. And, I think they accurately represent and explain the core Christian free-will beliefs quite nicely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first is from Professor Peter Kreeft, and I'll paraphrase it because I can't recall which lecture it came from (so, link pending ...). But in effect, everyone who writes any sort of fictional (and sometimes nonfictional) literature can adequately understand the basic concept of free will. You start with a story, and that story has characters. The author writes the characters, but he also allows the characters to be who they are, to make their own choices. They're predestined in some respect and they're placed into the the story by the author. But, a good author doesn't contort them or bend them to achieve his end. He let's them make their own decisions. He lets them develop &quot;on their own&quot; whilst still knowing and zeroing in on the story's ultimate end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the second statement, which fits very well with Kreeft's idea, is from C. S. Lewis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The love of God lights up the fires of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have the full context, but when C.S. Lewis wrote this, I think his intention was to primarily note how the knowledge of, but absence of God's love is what primarily &quot;burns&quot; us in hell. However, it's also notable and implied here that God &lt;em&gt;sustains us in everything we do&lt;/em&gt;. As we make wrong choices, if God cannot change our minds (because He &lt;em&gt;doesn't&lt;/em&gt; infringe on our free will), He essentially enables us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, if Pharaoh's is going to choose a hardened heart, God, by His very nature and role, &lt;em&gt;hardens Pharaoh's heart&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's call and command is to love. But, in keeping with free will and His own love for our being, God ultimately enables and fuels &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; decision we make, for better or worse. He doesn't eliminate characters from the story when the characters turn evil. It would destroy the story. It would ruin the ending, which is ultimately good. Rather, He maintains the integrity of the story, of which He knows the ultimate end is good, and He writes (hardens the heart of) the character &lt;em&gt;as he or she is&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T15:41:16.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14216" CreationDate="2013-02-15T16:03:09.350" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;After the crowd had finally exhausted Pilate's attempts to free Christ, Pilate tries to separate himself from the guilt of what was about to occur in killing this innocent man.  To ensure Pilate did not go back on his decision, a kind of agreed negotiation over the guilt occurred. The Jewish leaders and the people under their influence gladly accepted the potential guilt.  They did not do so in sincerity, but in high confidence that there was no guilt to worry about.  Therefore, they are so bold not only to call upon themselves a curse but even all their children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That they would confess this guilt, while not believing they were guilty, does not seem so much as a miracle per se. Possibly more along the lines of God providential ordering an unwilling witness against themselves prior to the predicted destruction of their nation. For the curse they put upon themselves was later brought to pass in the actual destruction of their nation which occurred in 70 A.D. Their homeless position on the earth did not end until 1948 making the punishment so very great. Although there is what might be called poetic justice in the words, I would not call it a miracle. It simply expressed how confident they were in assuming potential guilt of the decision and how fearless of God they had truly become.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T16:03:09.350" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14216" CreationDate="2013-02-15T16:29:37.820" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not seen as a miracle - but rather an acceptance of the choice they were asked to make.  The Torah specifically disallows &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/24-16.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;children to be punished for the sins of the father - Dt 24:16&lt;/a&gt;, so this is nothing but bravado.  In responding &quot;his blood be upon us,&quot; they are, in actuality just saying, &quot;there will be no consequence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When he is being martyred (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 7&lt;/a&gt;), however, Stephen picks up on the theme.  He says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, even if the vocalizations were not &quot;His blood be upon our children,&quot; the sentiment is still the same - Everybody calling for Jesus' execution is acting the same from generation to generation.  They didn't believe the prophets, they didn't believe Jesus.  This is true in every generation, and the sentiment is that in calling for Jesus' death, they expected no different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T16:29:37.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14222" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-15T17:12:31.627" Score="3" ViewCount="129" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is this true that only at the Quinisext Council it was allowed to draw Jesus on icons as a man, and that before that time Jesus was only depicted on icons as a fish or a lamb? I've looked up the article on the Quinisext Council at the Wikipedia, but it doesn't say anything about that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2013-02-15T19:50:25.040" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T03:14:38.410" Title="Is this true that before the Quinisext Council it was not allowed to draw Jesus on icons in the form of a man?" Tags="&lt;ecumenical-council&gt;&lt;iconography&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14223" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14231" CreationDate="2013-02-15T17:19:45.577" Score="10" ViewCount="4224" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14220/3559&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; user Mike made the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the curse they put upon themselves was later brought to pass in&#xA;  the actual &lt;strong&gt;destruction of their nation&lt;/strong&gt; which occurred in 70 A.D. Their&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;homeless position on the earth&lt;/strong&gt; did not end &lt;strong&gt;until 1948&lt;/strong&gt; making the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;punishment&lt;/strong&gt; so very great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This possibly also includes the Holocaust (although not mentioned by name) because it directly resulted from the &quot;homeless&quot; position and happened before 1948.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus my question is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Christian groups consider the destruction of the Jewish nation in 70 AD, the persecutions of the Jews due to their homeless position until the creation of Israel, discrimination of the Jews in Europe, the pogroms in Imperial Russia, the Holocaust and other misfortunes the Jews suffered from Christians a punishment of God for killing Jesus Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2019-10-12T03:04:05.680" Title="Which denominations believe that the misfortunes of Jews are a result of &quot;God's curse&quot; for their killing of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;israel&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;punishment&gt;&lt;curses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14225" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-15T18:17:43.517" Score="6" ViewCount="1479" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recognize that concerning the mysteries of the faith that Lutherans do not typically like to answer &quot;how does this doctrine work?&quot; type of questions, but I'm hoping for an explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Issues, Etc. has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://issuesetc.org/2011/10/25/issues-etc-reformation-week-confessional-lutheranism-calvinism-with-dr-ken-schurb-10252011/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt; on Lutheranism vs. Calvinism. I'm more or less in total agreement with the pastor on the first two of the five Calvinistic points. However, he loses me when talking about limited atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At 29:37 in the audio, he begins to tell a story about a friend from seminary who was a Calvinist, and this Calvinist's need for assurance of absolution following a grievous sin. The pastor goes on to explain from 31:40 - 32:46 that because Christ has taken the form of man, that he represents all men. Every sin has been paid for, for every man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand and believe this. Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did). How is it that if every sin has been paid for that we are still able to speak in terms of particular redemption, meaning that some set of men will still pay for their sins in eternal hell? What makes this work? How does this doctrine mesh with Paul's argument in 1 Corinth 15:22 that in Christ, all will be made alive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2013-02-19T13:04:05.200" LastActivityDate="2014-11-27T23:20:14.220" Title="Confessional Lutheranism: How does Unlimited Atonement work?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14226" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18133" CreationDate="2013-02-15T18:18:49.443" Score="9" ViewCount="530" Body="&lt;p&gt;Issues, Etc. has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://issuesetc.org/2011/10/25/issues-etc-reformation-week-confessional-lutheranism-calvinism-with-dr-ken-schurb-10252011/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt; on Lutheranism vs. Calvinism. I'm more or less in total agreement with the pastor on the first two of the five Calvinistic points. However, he loses me when talking about limited atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At 29:37 in the audio, he begins to tell a story about a friend from seminary who was a Calvinist, and this Calvinist's need for assurance of absolution following a grievous sin. The pastor goes on to explain from 31:40 - 32:46 that because Christ has taken the form of man, that he represents all men. Every sin has been paid for, for every man. Obviously a Calvinist would disagree with taking the atonement to this extent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the scriptures, Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did). They also say that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). How is it that if Christ is the last Adam and is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world that we still speak in terms of particular redemption and also limits as to who the atonement covers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&#xA;As an example of what I'm asking, please consider John Owen's argument for Limited Atonement that if Christ has paid for the sins of all people and some still end up paying for their sins in Hell, then we have two realities that appear unthinkable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christ's precious, perfect blood was shed in vain for some people.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God's justice was satisfied in Christ, and now he's also executing his justice on those in hell. How can this be justice, then?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These points make the case for Limited Atonement in the Calvinistic sense, but it seems to stand in opposition to the scriptures I cited above. It makes the 2nd Adam less effectual than the first and it means that Christ is not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2 leaves no room for a &quot;potential&quot; propitiation. So how does Limited Atonement harmonize with scriptures such as these?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: At this point in time, I would call myself a Calvinist. I've done so for about 10 years. I'm not new to this, but I'm not as willing to accept the &quot;L&quot; in &quot;TULIP&quot; any longer on ground of logical proceedings that seem to contradict scripture. Thus, I'm seeking to learn what I may be missing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-08-05T18:54:48.037" LastActivityDate="2014-01-31T00:29:44.430" Title="Calvinism: How does Limited Atonement Work in View of the Universality of Christ's Work?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14116" CreationDate="2013-02-15T18:37:31.240" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is sort of an answer to your question: the desert fathers (from the beginnings of monasticism) thought a lot about the beginning of sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin has its origins in &quot;logismoi,&quot; thoughts in our mind floating hither and thither, often from whence we know not. &quot;Logismoi&quot; is usually translated as &quot;thoughts,&quot; though maybe in this usage it would be more suggestive to translate it as &quot;distractions&quot;. Having logismoi is like walking the streets of Las Vegas, where promoters snap packets of prostitution flyers loudly across their hands and extend the flyers toward pedestrians. It is no sin to be assaulted by such advertising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One may (at one's own risk) enter into dialogue with the logismoi to see what holds them together and to see how to help your brother (and yourself) tear them apart when need be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin begins when one &quot;couples&quot; with logismoi, a condition described in depressing detail in our record of the ancestral sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise....&#xA;  (Genesis 3:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One might say sin begins when one seriously considers a wrong choice as an option. Our Lord spoke of this in His sermon on the mount:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have heard that it was said, &quot;You shall not commit adultery.&quot; But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&#xA;  (Matthew 5:27-28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say this is sort of an answer because it doesn't address the use of the word &quot;temptation&quot; in English as such. But I hope it helps illuminate how sin begins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, Christ was, presumably, assaulted by logismoi as much as, and probably worse than, anyone else in human history. But He never coupled with them, so He never sinned. E.g. when tempted in the desert, Christ made it clear with His curt replies to Satan how little He thought of Satan's advances. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More terrifying to consider along these lines was His struggle in Gethsemane. Perhaps it's best for me not to speculate on what was going through His mind then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think @ryan hit on the desert fathers' distinction. The logismoi are the &quot;presentation&quot; of temptations, and the coupling is the &quot;feeling&quot; of temptation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="88" LastActivityDate="2013-02-15T18:37:31.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14230" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-15T19:52:12.753" Score="4" ViewCount="676" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Westminster Confession of Faith God has, in some way, ordained everything that comes to pass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding these two points from Chapter III, what would Lutherans confirm, and what would they reject? What is the defense of these confirmations or rejections? Do any Lutheran doctrines stand in an analogous position to these two WCF points?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T06:43:34.080" Title="Lutheranism, Has God ordained all things?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14223" CreationDate="2013-02-15T21:22:34.577" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even within Christian groups there are differences among individuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. was absolutely a consequence of the corporate sin of Israel, like the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. No difference, really. Why did God allow the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem? Because of Israel's sin. There's no need to whitewash this, and Christians shouldn't be ashamed to state this as a fact. If anyone thinks God allowed the Romans to conquer Jerusalem because He was pleased with Israel, such a one is &lt;em&gt;twisted&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the siege of Jerusalem, there was an interval in which the Roman army under Cestius essentially retreated, giving time for the Christians (who were privy to Jesus' prophetic warning; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=24&amp;amp;t=KJV#16&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 24:16&lt;/a&gt;) to escape and flee before the full onslaught of the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0148:book=2:whiston%20chapter=19:whiston%20section=7&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wars of the Jews&lt;/a&gt;, 2.19.7 (§540), the Jewish historian Josephus wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, &lt;strong&gt;without any reason in the world.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.v.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastical History&lt;/a&gt;, 3.5.2-4, the Church historian Eusebius wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; For the Jews after the ascension of our Savior, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, &amp;quot;Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,—all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He ends chapter 5, stating,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused, that those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God was not long in &lt;strong&gt;executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against the Christ of God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&amp;amp;c=26&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 26&lt;/a&gt; and note all the curses Israel would endure because they refused to listen to God. The curses are &lt;strong&gt;extremely&lt;/strong&gt; severe. I guess many simply skim over that as though God made empty threats; He does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=18&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut. 18:15-19&lt;/a&gt;. Altough it applies to any prophet of Israel, it is also referring to the Messiah (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;t=KJV#22&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 3:22&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=7&amp;amp;t=KJV#37&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;7:37&lt;/a&gt;), the prophet par excellence, who would be &amp;quot;like Moshe.&amp;quot; God commanded the Israelites to listen to this prophet because he spoke the words that God put in his mouth. Again, this applies to every prophet, but especially the Messiah who would be a greater prophet than Moshe (contrary to Judaism which says that he will only be &amp;quot;near&amp;quot; Moshe's prophetic degree).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, pay particular attention to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=18&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut. 18:19&lt;/a&gt;, in which it is written, &amp;quot;And it shall come to pass, whoever shall not listen to My words that He shall speak in My name, I will &lt;strong&gt;require&lt;/strong&gt; of him.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Require&amp;quot; doesn't really capture the meaning of the Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew in this particular context essentially means &amp;quot;exact vengeance&amp;quot; (cp. Gen. 9:5; Ps. 10:4; Eze. 33:6, etc.). Ibn Ezra cited one example of this occurring. He refers to a particular prophet (&amp;quot;man of God&amp;quot;) in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ki&amp;amp;c=13&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Kings 13:1&lt;/a&gt; who did not listen to the word of YHVH (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ki&amp;amp;c=13&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/9&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Kings 13:9&lt;/a&gt;). Long story short, this &amp;quot;man of God&amp;quot; --- yes, he was actually a prophet of Israel --- was riding a donkey in the way when God sent a lion to devour him. The donkey, remained unharmed. The man of God, torn to shreds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus (who was a prophet) repeatedly said that he did not speak his own words but the words of the Father. The Jewish people refused to listen to him. God the Father commanded them to listen, as it is written (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=17&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/5&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 17:5&lt;/a&gt;), &amp;quot;This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unbelieving Jews are still under the Old Covenant, and the curses of the Law (which they acknowledged in an oath), still remain if they refuse to listen to God. It is certainly true that Jews have suffered countless calamities because of their unbelief. With that being said, it does not excuse those who murdered Jews. God will judge both. I cannot emphasize that enough. Also, do note that it is not &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; because they (again, not &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; Jews) had a hand in killing Jesus, but the prophets and other saints of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Addressing Anixx's question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is &amp;quot;no,&amp;quot; because man is not aware of God's predeterminate purpose and will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding Jerusalem during the Babylonian captivity, God said (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&amp;amp;c=34&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/2&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jer. 34:2&lt;/a&gt;), &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;I will give this city&lt;/strong&gt; into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is going to give it. It's His will, His counsel, His purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, Nevukhadne'tzar said (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/30&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dan. 4:30&lt;/a&gt;), &amp;quot;The king spoke and said, 'Is not this great Babylon, that &lt;strong&gt;I have built&lt;/strong&gt; for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Babylon&amp;quot; would have also included Jerusalem since they had captured it and incorporated it into their kingdom.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevukhadne'tzar didn't believe in the God of Israel. He conquered Jerusalem with evil intentions, not thinking He was serving the God of Israel. Accordingly, God judged him for the evil he committed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, Vespasian, Titus, and all those of Rome who conquered Jerusalem did not believe in the God of Israel, nor did they believe they were performing His will. They did so because of the evil in their heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you may say, &amp;quot;What if an individual (e.g., a Christian) does believe in the God of Israel and does believe He is performing the will of God by killing a Jew?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, now we have the true Scottsman fallacy, and unfortunately, it is my response. Any Christian who murders another human being, Jew or Gentile, is going straight to Gehinnam (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;t=KJV#21&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gal. 5:21&lt;/a&gt;). Oh wait...let me make that more precise. Any individual who calls him/ herself a &amp;quot;Christian,&amp;quot; yet murders another human being, is going straight to Gehinnam. Because, anyone who murders another human being is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; a Christian. Christ gave a new commandment (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=15&amp;amp;t=KJV#12&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 15:12&lt;/a&gt;), &amp;quot;Love one another as I have loved you.&amp;quot; He also said, &amp;quot;Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=15&amp;amp;t=KJV#13&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 15:13&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;strong&gt;Nowhere&lt;/strong&gt; does he advocate killing unbelievers, nor does Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand this may not sit well with my Jewish brothers. My ancestors were killed in the Inquisition, burned alive in &amp;quot;autos-de-fe.&amp;quot; Many, many of the Jews on Mi Yodeya and here have ancestors who died in the Holocaust. They may have been killed by individuals claiming to be Christians and supposing to do the will of God. What they know of Christians is likely distasteful, and I cannot blame them. I cannot heal those wounds; only God can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;History has shown that many Jews, despite knowing that so-called &amp;quot;Christians&amp;quot; killed Jews in the name of Christ, reaized that such individuals were not Christians at all and did not represent the teachings of Christ. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_Judaism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;These Jews then later became Christians, most willingly&lt;/a&gt;. Again, there is the unfortunate aspect of forced conversion by both Islam and Christianity. While the Qur'an may advocate forced conversions (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&amp;amp;verse=39&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Qur'an 8:39&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&amp;amp;verse=29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;9:29&lt;/a&gt;), the New Testament never does. After all, one of the most fundamental teachings of Christ is &amp;quot;forgiveness&amp;quot; and loving one's enemies (thanks to David Stratton and svidgen for their comments on that previous thread of mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T00:26:59.363" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14232" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14265" CreationDate="2013-02-15T23:55:41.217" Score="2" ViewCount="617" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder what Christian groups believe that more sinful people suffer more on Earth due to God's punishment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastActivityDate="2013-02-17T15:13:52.040" Title="Do Christians believe that more sinful people suffer more on Earth?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-09-09T15:36:33.223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14226" CreationDate="2013-02-16T00:04:11.083" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm no theologian, and my answer is probably not complete or rigorous by any means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ's sacrifice was and remains sufficient to atone for everyone's sin. I don't think limited atonement denies that. It is only efficient for the elect. This is tantamount to saying that the sacrifice could save everybody from any sin, but there are people who won't accept Jesus and be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Atonement is limited not because Jesus's sacrifice was insufficient. It is limited because not all people will receive it. If a room full of people are dying of thirst, and I start handing out free bottles of water, and you choose not to drink it and die, it's not because my water wouldn't have saved you, it's because you made a bad decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR: Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3957" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T00:04:11.083" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14232" CreationDate="2013-02-16T00:54:49.197" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a note: I am non-denominational (&lt;em&gt;just a Christian&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think there is a difference between Israel and the other nations. Other nations did not make an oath in which they agreed to be cursed if they did not keep all the commandments of the Torah (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&amp;amp;c=26&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lev. 26:14&lt;/a&gt;). However, Israel did (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=27&amp;amp;t=KJV#26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deut. 27:26&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for humanity in general, Jesus said (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;v=45&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/45&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt. 5:45&lt;/a&gt;), &quot;That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and He sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some terrible things that happen to pious Christians, and sometimes generally &quot;bad&quot; people get through life &quot;unscathed.&quot; I don't necessarily believe that bad people suffer more on Earth than Christians. But, at the last day, there will certainly be a different fate for each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T00:54:49.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14236" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14242" CreationDate="2013-02-16T01:59:31.870" Score="4" ViewCount="567" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the position of the Christian denominations about whether a person who commits sins and lives un-Christian lifestyle, yet believes he is Christian, still remains Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is motivated by the claim by user H3br3wHamm3r81 that a Christian who killed 10 people is not a Christian any more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per his request, this is a transcript of the relevant dialogue that occurred between us in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14231/900&quot;&gt;another thread&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14223/who-believes-that-the-misfortunes-of-jews-are-a-result-of-gods-curse-for-thei&quot;&gt;H3br3wHamm3r81's post&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;History has shown that many Jews, despite knowing that so-called &quot;Christians&quot; killed Jews in the name of Christ, realized that such individuals were not Christians at all and did not represent the teachings of Christ. These Jews then later became Christians, most willingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My comment in response to H3br3wHamm3r81's post:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;reaized that such individuals were not Christians at all&quot; I think a question already appeared here whether people who claim to be Christians and commit sins remain Christians. I think the answer was positive. –Alixx&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;H3br3wHamm3r81's comment in response to my comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, X says, &quot;I'm a Christian,&quot; and then he goes out and murders ten people.&quot; He's a Christian because he said so? I can hardly accept that. But, Anixx, I have answered and will let it rest. You're more than welcome to change your vote if a better answer comes along. God bless. – H3br3wHamm3r81&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally thought that to be a Christian one only has to believe in Christ and that there are no sinless Christians, and that to achieve salvation of the soul one has to sincerely repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So who is more correct? Do Christians who sin remain Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2015-07-02T01:09:44.180" Title="Does a Christian who commits sins against Christian doctrine and commandments still remain Christian?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-02-16T15:21:03.307" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14232" CreationDate="2013-02-16T02:48:27.083" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are differences among the denominations, but generally speaking, worldly suffering is not believed by Christians to be punishment for sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no definitive explanation for why God allows (or inflicts) suffering. But suffering is clearly not related to sinfulness or &quot;righteousness&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="448" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T02:48:27.083" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14222" CreationDate="2013-02-16T03:14:38.410" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quite early in Christian history the cross (without a human form on it) became a symbol of Christianity and appears to have become a superstitious symbol as well. Heathens recognized this seeming superstitious behavior, so that by the time of Tertullian heathen called Christians cross-worshippers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are correct though, from what I can tell. It was not until the fifth century the crucifix began to appear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The transition to the crucifix we find in the fifth century in the figure of a lamb, or even a bust of Christ, attached to the cross, sometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom. Afterwards the whole figure of Christ was fastened to the cross, and the earlier forms gave place to this. The Trullan council of Constantinople (the Quinisextum), A.D. 692, directed in the 82d canon: “Hereafter, instead of the lamb, the human figure of Christ shall be set up on the images.” (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHILIP SCHAFF, Vol 3, Chapt 8, 109)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question if before this time the human figure was ‘not allowed’ is difficult to answer. Possibly since nobody ever thought of doing it, it was simply not done? We can’t really say it was not allowed unless people were trying to do it and some authority forbade it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T03:14:38.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14236" CreationDate="2013-02-16T03:19:23.130" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Background: predominantly Southern Baptist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: you can have works without faith but not faith without works. Your faith saves you but your works are evidence of your faith. It isn't that your bad works take away your salvation, they just show that it was never there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9, along with a number of other verses, clearly state that our faith saves us apart from our works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of&#xA;  yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that&#xA;  no one may boast&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 2:14-26 explains that our works demonstrate the existence of our faith. Just as Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. James also explains that faith isn't just an intellectual assent to facts but it is rather a decision to trust in those facts. He says in verse 19, &quot;You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder&quot;. Satan believes in God, but he decided not to follow him. A human can believe that God exists but choose not to place his trust in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians do sin, but it should be a struggle. Paul depicts this struggle in Romans 7:14:25 where he says, &quot;For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate&quot;(v15). We sin, but we hate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 3 talks about this and can initially be confusing. Is says in verse 6, &quot;No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him&quot;. After reading that chapter one could be left wondering who could ever be a christian. I think the key is verse 9 where it says, &quot;No one who is born of God practices sin&quot;, with an emphasis on &quot;practices&quot;. This chapter is talking about habitual sin. You will find this explanation in most commentaries that bring up the Greek verb tense means, &quot;does not live a life style of habitual sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking to draw a line with which you can measure if someone is saved or not based on the quantity of sin in their life, then you will probably not find an answer. I used to struggle a lot with that. In the end I realized that I was asking the wrong question. How would an answer help me? Rather than asking, &quot;how close can I get to the line&quot;, I realized that I should ask, &quot;how close can I get to God&quot;. Then I started living for Him and forgot about the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when you look at a life and you see habitual sin, it should reasonably make you doubt that person's faith and subsequent salvation. There could be people who have good works who don't have faith though. Since I am not God, and therefore do not know the hearts of men, I try not to judge that status of their eternal salvation. However, if their conduct makes me doubt, then I let that drive in me an urgency to make more sure of their salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, 2 Peter 1:5-11:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith&#xA;  supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6&#xA;  and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control,&#xA;  perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your&#xA;  godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8&#xA;  For &lt;strong&gt;if these qualities are yours and are increasing&lt;/strong&gt;, they render you&#xA;  neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus&#xA;  Christ. 9 For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted,&#xA;  having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10 Therefore,&#xA;  brethren, &lt;strong&gt;be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling&#xA;  and choosing you&lt;/strong&gt;; for as long as you practice these things, you will&#xA;  never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal&#xA;  kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly&#xA;  supplied to you&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3958" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T03:19:23.130" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14225" CreationDate="2013-02-16T04:22:29.100" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not familiar with what modern Lutherans might believe, if any different from Luther, but I am very familiar with what Calvin and Luther thought.  They thought the same in many ways but used different lenses. I do not see them at disagreement. They differed in emphasis and detail.  Luther emphasized Christ dying for all (which Calvin also believed). Calvin emphasized election more than Luther (which Luther believed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What makes them seem different is that Calvin speculated deeper on the subject where Luther does not really form an opinion.&lt;/strong&gt; Calvin sees the death of sin as like physical debts. Son can’t be aid for twice, therefore sins are either paid for by Christ or by the sinner.  In Calvin’s view Christ only died effectually for sin. In Luther’s Christ died provisionally for all sin and effectually only for those that receive it.  In other words Christ paid the penalty and then the sinner pays, so the sin is paid for twice – under a Calvinist view of Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther himself would not draw this Calvinistic distinction and was happier leaving something hidden behind a veil of the unknowable.  The end result is the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the recording you had linked to I do not find the Lutheran representing Luther’s view so well. Luther and Calvin both believed that our assurance comes from our belief that Christ died for sin in general, and not faith that we are ‘elect’.  Both Luther and Calvin believed that if we have faith in Christ then we are ‘elect’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other things to remember is that Arminian thought was really not that developed while Luther was writing and even while Calvin was writing minute detailed responses to Arminian beliefs, such as that found in John Owen’s ‘Death of Death, in the Death of Christ’ treatise was not needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both Luther and Calvin, they limited atonement in scope. Calvin limited more strictly in eternity but neither limited the atonement in its power by making it dependent on human effort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to answer the question specifically, 'How did Luther think it worked?' He didn't he did not see much value in thinking too much about things he thought were incomprehensible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Luther did not think about predestination that much some of the more interesting things he said were recorded by his close friends:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. 3655b: Speculations About Predestination Unhealthy December 25, 1537&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He [Martin Luther] spoke at length about the idle people who occupy themselves with disputation about predestination beyond the limits of Scripture. It is flue most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God.” (Luther's Works 54.249)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. 514: Predestination Is an Impenetrable Mystery Spring, 1533&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Paul wasn’t discussing predestination322 with the Jews but was disputing only with those who opposed it and said, ‘We are the people of God, we have the fathers, the promises were given to us,’ etc. He didn’t touch upon predestination except to repudiate the righteousness of the law. Paul said that we should not preach as if we could become good by our works, our fathers, etc. These don’t help. The others, those who believe, have it just as good as those who have fathers, etc. God has decreed it so from eternity. Hence Paul attacks only this.&#xA;“By grace alone are we saved. God doesn’t want to be obligated to anybody. Once we believe, he tells us (and this, too, is by grace), ‘Give, and it will be given to you [Luke 6:38]. You are bound to give in any ease, whether out of pity for the Turks or some other unfortunates, so you may just as well do it when I command it.’ We have no claim on him. So Esau and Jacob also testified to righteousness.323&#xA;“Otherwise one can’t settle the deep questions of theology, but Paul simply argues that it is by grace alone that we are saved. He meant to stick to this. Think what it means that you are not saved by the law, etc., but the Jews have works! Nobody but Christ can solve this. Hence he [Paul] said, ‘O the depth [of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God,’ Rom. 11:33]!” (Luther's Works 54.90)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-17T01:13:15.223" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14236" CreationDate="2013-02-16T06:10:45.780" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Since you did not specify a denomination that you preferred an answer from I will simply point to a part in the Bible that I think is self explanatory. Whether a certain Christian group will follow it or not is a different story entirely.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is best answered by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18 starting vs. 15&lt;/a&gt;. I is often simply called the Matthew 18 principle. As a christian your desire should be to not sin, however, being in a sinful world, it is entirely possible to sin and not know it (which opens more questions, but never mind that for now). Therefore, the Church (body of believers you worship with) may notice your sin and you not. Or because of pride you refuse to admit it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 18 says to forgive, however, is quite clear that you give a christian 'sinner' a few chances to repent and if he does not then separate him from the body and call him a fellow believer no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the answer is this: A sinner who claims Christianity and repents is still a Christian. A sinner who claims Christianity and does not repent at the pleadings of the Church is not a Christian in the eyes of the Church and according to the doctrine of Matthew 18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we must note that the parable of the unmerciful servant immediately follows the principle described above, therefore, I think we can assume that once repentant all are accepted into the fold of Christendom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether saying the unrepentant 'Christian' is no longer Christian or never was Christian is really semantic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-07-02T01:09:44.180" LastActivityDate="2015-07-02T01:09:44.180" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14230" CreationDate="2013-02-16T06:43:34.080" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my study, I have noticed a heavy Calvinist influence on Lutheranism. In fact, Lutheranism is basically medieval Catholicism, which stresses that the sovereignty of God is absolute over all that is. Guess what? That is the exact first point to Calvinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinism logically explorers the idea that the sovereignty of God is absolute. The result is basically this:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;God has all power over all things, therefore, whatever happens God either&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) Let it happen, but it was the doing of a freewill being or reality separated from Him by sin (eg earth)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) Stopped it from happening&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3) Made it happen entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this logic, if you claim that God has absolute sovereignty over all that is, you must also claim that all that happens is ordained by God. Most Christian denominations will claim this, but quite a few do quietly, so as not to disturb the complacency of the congregation. Lutheranism is more vocal about it, but like most, has become quieter and quieter over the last century and a half. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the problem where you might find a paradox, where God is not the author of sin yet he ordains it by this logic is called antimony, which is actually not a paradox. A paradox is manufactured where an antimony is an observation of two facts, although logically derived in this case, that are seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable. Basically, the Calvinist, and subsequently the Lutheran, is willing to admit this seeming contradiction, but is not willing to abandon the entire theology because it starts with &quot;The sovereignty of God is absolute and over all that is,&quot; because it is too well supported in the Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T06:43:34.080" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14232" CreationDate="2013-02-16T09:35:13.220" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible puts God on a throne of the universe judging all nations. Whether they rise or fall it is under his sovereignty:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have rebuked the nations; you have made the wicked perish; &#xA;  you have blotted out their name forever and ever. &#xA;  The enemy came to an end in everlasting ruins; &#xA;  their cities you rooted out; &#xA;  the very memory of them has perished. &#xA;  But the LORD sits enthroned forever; &#xA;  he has established his throne for justice, &#xA;  and he judges the world with righteousness; &#xA;  he judges the peoples with uprightness. (Psalms 9:5-8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God’s omnipotence and sovereignty over the world makes this the only possible relationship that he has to the nations and to individuals:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“ ‘See now that I, even I, am he, &#xA;  and there is no god beside me; &#xA;  I kill and I make alive; &#xA;  I wound and I heal; &#xA;  and there is none that can deliver out of my hand. (Deut 32:39)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the regular ways God maintains justice is through civil law. Nationally sins may often not brings fruits of judgment to the third or fourth generation of continued disobedience. (Exodus 20:5) For a normal providential perspective, He has provided governments that punish sin doing and made prisons for them. However, in all cases, his own mysterious purposes of will is what dictates the history of the world and rising and falling of powers. In fact in God’s wisdom he often allows the wicked to 'prosper' and even wicked nations as a whole 'prosper'. Although the injustice of this prosperity might bother the righteous who often suffer the Bible say's we need not fret about it (Psalms 37:1):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I was envious of the arrogant &#xA;  when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. &#xA;  For they have no pangs until death; &#xA;  their bodies are fat and sleek. &#xA;  They are not in trouble as others are; &#xA;  they are not stricken like the rest of mankind. (Psalms 73-5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when we approach this subject of suffering particularly on a national level we are approaching God on his throne and we can’t discern how he dispenses justice and in many cases the justice is not administered until the wicked die, but in any case it is from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We live in an age that accuses God of being cruel because the innocent suffer, which is just a wicked notion that hold humanity innocent when eternal damnation is its only true desert.  The fact is all suffering is the punishment of Adam’s sin upon all humanity and only in Christ is that punishment transferred to the innocent sin of atonement, i.e. Christ’s soul and body which was presented by himself as our high Priest of a new covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the believer suffering is no longer a punishment as they are righteous and loved but for the wicked the death of their grace is a mild introduction to eternal burning and torment.  The bible presents the suffering of this world easy, light and nothing, compared to those of the afterlife. For believers suffering is all light and easy compared to the glory that will be revealed in us and even a source of joy to our soul as we suffer in this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One should distinguish though between public judgments for national sins, or smaller scale but very scandalous public sins, and God’s seeming endless patience for our own private sins.  If you look at the New Testament we see know miraculous judgments upon people’s private sins.  Even a man sleeping with his own father’s wife in 1 Corinthians did not get sick even though it approached scandal. On the other hand when Ananias, with his wife Sapphira lied to the Holy Ghost during a revival, this was so scandalous that God killed them himself on the spot (Acts 5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Christians are declared righteous and objects of God’s love I do not like to use the world punishment, for when a loving father chastises his beloved children to help them grow, this is different from a penalty for the sake of justice such as one serving time in prison. Punishment is still a valid word for many loving parents ‘punish’ their children in this way, but I am just saying God’s vengeance can never touch his people as Christ removed it all on the cross. In this sense death and suffering has lost its sting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Death is swallowed up in victory.” &#xA;  “O death, where is your victory? &#xA;  O death, where is your sting?” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:54-56)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-16T10:28:21.993" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T10:28:21.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14250" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-16T17:28:11.370" Score="7" ViewCount="1490" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Classical Cessationism asserts that the &quot;sign gifts&quot; such as prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God's revelation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If those people who lived around Christ's time witnessed miracles, and thus believed in God after seeing miracles, how is it that we who are living in the present age are expected to believe in God if we don't see any miracles? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the present day, why is it that we have to believe the humans, normal people who don't perform miracles, that preach the Gospel, that what they say is true? Isn't it &quot;unfair&quot; that we humans today have to believe on what other people preach without seeing any miracles, but people in Christ's time got to see miracles and thus it was easier to believe in God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3809" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-26T00:24:15.020" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T16:53:46.440" Title="How do Cessationists expect people to believe without seeing miracles today?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;cessationism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14252" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14253" CreationDate="2013-02-16T19:40:42.907" Score="1" ViewCount="948" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read somewhere here on Christianity.SE that the Genesis 1 is not taken literally by some people and considered more like a parable than a real historical event ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what Christian denominations don't take Genesis 1 as a historical event, if there are any ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And why people take it as a parable/metaphor ? and is it just Genesis 1 ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3777" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-10T09:22:48.033" LastActivityDate="2015-04-10T09:22:48.033" Title="What denominations/people don't take Genesis 1 as a historical event and why?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-04-15T05:18:20.497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14252" CreationDate="2013-02-16T20:08:10.830" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue here is not the whole book of Genesis, but just the first few chapters. The book is actually a compilation of several writings preserved and assembled at various points. It is widely believed across most Christian traditions that most of the book is literal historical fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue you've heard rumblings of stems from the first couple chapters, specifically the creation story. There are several major views on this and how it is interpreted depends on how different factors are weighed. The issue is certainly large enough that it would be impossible to generalize across all of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the breakdown is not quite as easy as your question makes out, because it isn't a split over history vs. parable. Those are two ends of the spectrum, but most of the major denominations are going to fall somewhere between those two extremes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not going to detail the positions of all the views, but I want to give you a few terms and groupings that will help any further research you do on this issue. First you have your Young Earth Creationists. These folks are going to be roughly what you would classify as &quot;literal historical&quot; in that they read words like &quot;day&quot; at face value as something equivalent to our 24 hours. You also have Old Earth Creationists who believe that the creation account is literal history but that &quot;day&quot; might mean &quot;age&quot; and so we don't have a frame of reference for how long each thing took. Please understand I'm painting with very broad stokes here. In between those, you also have something called the Framework view that takes the Genesis account quite literally, but does some textual gymnastics, classifies the writing as a kind of poetry that we've lost the key to, and puts it all back together in a different order. In a way you could call this &quot;parable&quot; in that the text is trying to give us the gist of what happened without being scientific about the details. However this view is actually not the extreme that you probably hear rumored. Farther out lies the Theistic Evolution view that really discounts the entire creation process except for allowing that God put some sort of evolution in motion and possibly kept it on track. This sort of view must necessarily discount the text as a fictional rendering inspired for some purpose other than to tell us about the actual origins of the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given those major viewpoints (and bearing in mind that there are lots of minor modifications), some generalizations can be drawn about denominations and their views, but it is remarkably hard to do so with any level of meaning when most of the major denominations are actually showing fracture lines along the issue. Some openly embrace multiple positions, some are fighting a loosing battle to claim a single position. Only in smaller (and thus kind of too specific to list here) denominations are there consistently held positions on this matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-02-16T20:08:10.830" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14250" CreationDate="2013-02-16T21:48:01.760" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;On cessationism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cessationism is not a denomination but a doctrine that many denominations adhere to. Generally, the cessationist disallows the addition to Biblical canon, so must therefore say that prophecy and such have ceased because they would add to it. So, naturally, the cessationist is a strict sola scriptura adherent, meaning, roughly, the only authority for righteous living is the Bible (typical 66 book Protestant version, usually). With that in mind I will try to stick to the principles of a strict cessationist and answer the question as if I were one. This means I will only use the Bible to answer the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An issue with the logic in your question (not just cessationists would say this):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You make it sound like it is easier to believe simply because you see a miracle. That may be true for some, but the Bible does say in a few places that seeing and not believing is more common. The Jewish leaders and their followers and the Romans during Christ's time didn't believe, yet they must have seen some miracles. And they continued to persecute the disciples for years after, but there were still miracles being done. Even in the future, Revelation states that when the wicked are raised and see the glory of God from the new Jerusalem they do not repent and be saved, but rather congregate to over-through the city! Right in the face of God! Thus, seeing miracles (or anything supernatural) and becoming a believer are not necessarily related.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now to answer your question (if seeing a miracle is important to you), how can you believe today if miracles cannot provide proof? This is an issue of faith, which can be defined as believing in what you have reason to believe in. You might say that you would have stronger faith if you could see a miracle but that is not Biblical. Most notably is the parable where the wicked rich man and poor Lazarus both die and see each other in Hades and paradise, respectively. After pleading for mercy and not getting any the rich man asks to send someone back and tell his brothers about that terrible place so that they can be spared. Abraham tells him that they have the law and the prophets (meaning the books not people). If that is not enough then nothing will be, even the return of a dead man. This is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&amp;amp;book=Luke&amp;amp;chapno=16&amp;amp;startverse=19&amp;amp;endverse=31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 16&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, now what might give someone reason to believe? Study, prayer and meditation, and fellowship with other believers is a good start. As the parable says the law and the prophets should be enough; if you read, study, and learn them, then do your best to follow them your faith should be strengthened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-18T16:53:46.440" LastActivityDate="2020-11-18T16:53:46.440" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14178" CreationDate="2013-02-16T22:07:59.220" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only &quot;evidence&quot; I have seen for this is the time when the Pharisees are attempting to trap Jesus by asking who would be the husband in heaven of a woman widowed seven times. His answer is none; we will be like the angels in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people think that this automatically means that there will be no sex or procreation and also no gender.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few issues:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus only said there will be no marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven; nothing to do with sex or gender.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Assuming He included sex and procreation, too, in that statement, does not mean that we will be without gender, although gender would seem unnecessary.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Like the angels seems to me that we should examine angels and their lives for an answer on this issue. Frankly, there is very little on angels in the Bible, but quite a bit in the Apocrypha.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, with that I would say only this, assuredly: The angels do not marry and neither will we after our resurrection into the Kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is more support for this viewpoint, I am unaware of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-02-04T23:08:50.807" LastActivityDate="2015-02-04T23:08:50.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14256" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15704" CreationDate="2013-02-17T04:32:52.993" Score="18" ViewCount="42626" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exactly when during the Mass does transubstantiation occur? I am aware that it occurs during the Eucharistic Prayer, but at exactly what moment? Would this change if a priest were to consecrate outside of the Eucharistic Prayer? Why does the Church teach that it occurs at that moment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be helpful to have a direct quote from a document published by the Church that makes a direct statement on when the &lt;em&gt;exact&lt;/em&gt; moment is (for example, does it occur before or after a certain word or phrase is said?), both for the bread and for the wine. If both older and more recent sources could be provided, that would be especially helpful. If there are different views within Catholicism, please include those and explain where they apply. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-24T13:10:55.233" LastActivityDate="2020-11-16T16:41:14.470" Title="When does the bread and wine become Body and Blood?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;transubstantiation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14250" CreationDate="2013-02-17T07:41:31.280" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;A cessationist belief is best understood by finding out why miracles and wonders were performed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We must pay the most careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. &lt;strong&gt;God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.&lt;/strong&gt; (Hebrews 2:1-4, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have the order. Salvation was first announced (i.e. the gospel), then God performed miracles to confirm and testify his approval of this &lt;strong&gt;new doctrine&lt;/strong&gt; that was preached.  More directly God's testimony did not only affirming the truth of what Christ and the Apostles preached, but was &lt;strong&gt;a heavenly vindication and seal of approval on their very persons and ministry as infallible guides on establishing the remaining canon of scriptures.&lt;/strong&gt;  Once these scriptures were completed, they became the final authority in all matters of church practice and Christian living.  In fact the only reason why we believe miracles to have occurred is because the scriptures say so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now in the context of Hebrews the author is showing the differences and similarities between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.  Although Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever, we find God never continuously performed miracles anywhere in the Bible, but only on occasions as he chose. Especially in the founding of each covenant, did he show many wondrous signs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking back at what God did it seems reasonable.  Miracles do not cause people to believe in God (eg. Pharaoh) but they do allow for mammoth shifts in Salvation history, taking people 'by storm' as it were.  It should not be surprising then to see that God used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;some divine work to be established amongst men, by virtue of a new and never-before-heard-of revelation of God’s will, or a restoration of the same, when collapsed and corrupted by the sin of men. ... This we may see in Moses and (after Jesus Christ, anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows to preach the gospel) the apostles. But this may pass, for nothing in such a way shall ever again take place, God having ultimately revealed his mind concerning his worship and our salvation, a curse being denounced to man or angel that shall pretend to revelation for the altering or changing one jot or tittle of the gospel. (John Owen's Works, Vol 13.31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The facts that the Jews wickedly expected miraculous signs (Matth 16:4, 1 Cor 1:22) as though without which it might be considered 'unfair of God' to expect obedience to his word without them, may have partly been due to the history of miracles that God performed in establishing the Old Covenant. The parable of the rich man in hell talking to Abraham was one way in which Jesus tried to expose foolish human thinking that miracles were needed for faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. ’” (Luke 16:31, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wicked expectation of miracles, is due to a want of belief in the power of scripture and the Holy Spirit's ability to convict men of sin and bring them into salvation thereby.  Clearly this lack of faith and desire for miracles in carnally minded and to be loathed if any fear of God should properly quicken a man's soul from death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This begs the question, if miracles do not cause faith, but only God's word does when believed, why do miracles 'confirm' God's word then? To answer we need too look at Moses or Christ and see the effects they had.  When considering how difficult it would be for a person without God's power to arrest the attention of a large body of people and introduce to them a whole new practice of worship and doctrine, we can see the miracles helped just that.  Even Pharaoh had to stop and give attention to Moses and question his own beliefs and decisions.  Also in the life of Christ, his popularity helped spread his fame. &lt;strong&gt;Miracles simply overwhelm human opposition so that even those who hate God and who would never believe, they are yet arrested even if for a moment to allow God's changing of the course of history and establishing of his kingdom as he sees fit. They never were no ever have been God's regular mode of operation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads us to the last question.  Will God ever perform miracles again, not to bring in a new teaching as various cults demonically attempt and sometimes do, but to reform the church, if ever crushed under a mountain of sin? He did after Moses so why not after Christ? The again the prophets kept prophesying of Christ but after the book of revelations there is no more prophecy in terms of additional scripture. Still what about a possible future time?  &lt;strong&gt;Although historical cessation views, such as the views of Luther and Calvin did not absolutely believe this could 'never occur', most have simply stated the facts that it has 'not occurred’.&lt;/strong&gt; In fact the reformation, when one would have expected it, if it were to happen, did not include any miraculous signs.  Having said this however it is recognized that the antichrist in the last days would pretend to perform miraculous wonders, so what is important for believers is to test anyone who claims to have extra ordinary miraculous gifts.  If God ever does see fit to bring about a ‘restoration ministry’ that including miraculous signs (and we have no basis for assuming he must) both the miracles would be undeniable and the teaching fully biblical and believed throughout history. This has not occurred since the times of the Apostles as a matter of common sense and observation. &lt;strong&gt;After all, nobody ever denied Christ's miracles they were easy to believe. That is why they were provided. They did not deny his miracles, they denied him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:37-38, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cessationism is more of a practical awareness of the cessation of extra ordinary miraculous gifts, rather than a doctrine that they should have ceased. If they did not cease it would be obvious to all of us.  I think it is equally obvious that some gifts such as discernment, knowledge and wisdom never did cease as various men, endued by the Holy Ghost have continued to proclaim the gospel throughout the centuries with wisdom and power surpassing all human abilities. &lt;strong&gt;Finally almost every person in history has come to faith in Christ without ever witnessing a miracle, so why would we ever think miracles were required?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-17T08:43:32.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-17T08:43:32.397" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14256" CreationDate="2013-02-17T09:06:43.917" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Transubstantiation occurs during the consecratory thanksgiving during the single act of worship called the liturgy of the Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1377&lt;/strong&gt; The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During Mass the liturgy of the Eucharist begins a particular time and follows this structure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1346&lt;/strong&gt; The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the &lt;strong&gt;consecratory thanksgiving&lt;/strong&gt;, and communion.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form &amp;quot;one single act of worship&amp;quot;;170 The Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The consecratory thanksgiving is the moment when the priest holds up the bread and repeats the words of Christ: &amp;quot;This is my body ...&amp;quot; and so on. Likewise, he says the same for the wine &amp;quot;This is the cup ... &amp;quot; and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1412&lt;/strong&gt; The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: &amp;quot;This is my body which will be given up for you.... This is the cup of my blood....&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;1413&lt;/strong&gt; By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now one might ask: what if the priest does not finish the consecration for some reason? Say he faints. The wording of the Catechism does not address this directly except it does simply say this in the canon law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can. 927 It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/__P39.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/__P39.HTM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seemingly, then, the consecration must be finished despite any circumstances. This bit of canon law also implies that it is possible to consecrate the bread but not the wine, however serious a sin it might be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This further leads to another question: suppose communion, the last part of the liturgy, is not achieved -- is the bread and wine still Body and Blood? It seems yes because of what is stated in &lt;strong&gt;1376&lt;/strong&gt;. The &amp;quot;presence of Christ ... endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.&amp;quot; Once transubstantiated the Body and Blood are Body and Blood so long as they exist. I assume then their destruction by eating or rot or other leaves them as not Body and Blood. However, not finishing the eucharistic celebration may be 'absolutely wrong' as well in light of the Canon Law quote above (I really cannot speak authoritatively on that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Why does it occur at that moment and not some other?&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;1376&lt;/strong&gt; (below) states that it is &amp;quot;Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread&amp;quot; at the last supper. So this statement argues both why transubstantiation occurs and when, and, subsequently, why it occurs at that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The definition of transubstantiation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1376&lt;/strong&gt; The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: &amp;quot;Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't have easy access to older items, however, &lt;strong&gt;1376&lt;/strong&gt; is a quote from the Council of Trent (1500 something).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SOURCES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_INDEX.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Code of Canon Law&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-16T16:41:14.470" LastActivityDate="2020-11-16T16:41:14.470" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14261" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14263" CreationDate="2013-02-17T12:44:33.817" Score="4" ViewCount="1139" Body="&lt;p&gt;Must one believe that there is only one True and Living God to be saved? Obviously the scripture states in various places that God is one (Deut 6:4, Isaiah 45:5), and I do believe this and I am fully convinced by it, but would it be possible for a new convert not to know this truth and still be saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I ask this question is because I am trying to examine presuppositions that I have, and how they influence my interpretation of certain texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please note I would appreciate answers based on Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3954" LastActivityDate="2014-12-30T14:13:27.397" Title="Must one believe that there is only one True and Living God to be saved?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-01-02T12:25:35.393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14261" CreationDate="2013-02-17T14:03:59.627" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When a person recognizes his sinfulness and flees to Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, they believing in God. It is this belief alone that saves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”  (Romans 10:9-11, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The basic formula for salvation, faith in Christ, might seem to allow the possibility of faith in more than one God, but properly speaking I do not think it does.  Here is why.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First&lt;/strong&gt; Christ, which we believe is represented as a single mediator to the One God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second&lt;/strong&gt;, faith in Christ is not to be understood as based on our human apprehension of Christ, but a knowledge that the Spirit reveals to us that we are enabled to believe. We can see this is the very first and famous confession of Christ by Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”&#xA;   Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”&#xA;   Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 16:15-17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As faith is obtained not from human reason but revealed by the Father it only makes sense that the Father reveals this knowledge truthfully, that is the one mediator between man and the one God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third&lt;/strong&gt;, it goes without saying that Jesus is the mediator sent from the God of Israel.  This means God the one and only who created all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fourth&lt;/strong&gt;, faith in Christ is faith in God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we notice Peter's exact confessions was “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Peter did not say your are a savior of some God, but the long awaited Jewish Messiah, who was the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems a basic understanding of Jehovah in man, i.e. the Christ, must be believed in to be saved. However faith in One God without trusting in Christ can never save anyone (James 2:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-02-17T14:03:59.627" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14069" CreationDate="2013-02-17T14:40:04.460" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since asking the question I have now read three books by influential pentecostal pioneers on the issue, and they &lt;strong&gt;do not agree&lt;/strong&gt; on the definition of the gift of the word of knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book &lt;em&gt;on Spiritual Gifts&lt;/em&gt;, a collection of sermons by &lt;strong&gt;Smith Wigglesworth&lt;/strong&gt; (1859-1947), who received the baptism of the Spirit in 1907[1], the gift is described as a &lt;em&gt;quickening&lt;/em&gt; that gives understanding of the Scriptures[2]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is as we feed o the Word and medidate on the message it contains that the&#xA;  Spirit of God can vitalize what we have received and bring forth through us&#xA;  the word of knowledge... As all the Scriptures were inspired by God&#xA;  (2 Tim 3:16) as they came forth from the beginning, and though the same&#xA;  Spirit they should come forth from us vitalized...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is unclear if SW think that the essence of the gift is the act of illumination per se, or if it also must include a speaking forth of the knowledge received to others. The passage in the book is very short and neither exegetically or systematically complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A view more in line with the current understanding within the charismatic movement is given in the book &lt;em&gt;Questions &amp;amp; answers on spiritual gifts&lt;/em&gt; by &lt;strong&gt;Howard Carter&lt;/strong&gt; (1891-1971).[3] The book consist of stenographic notes from a Q and A session at Hampstead Bible College in London. Carter claims that he received his insights on the gifts during imprisonment as a conscientious objector during world war one.[4]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Carter says on page 43:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word of knowledge is a participation, to some infinitesimal degree, in&#xA;  the omniscience of God. If the Lord who knows all things, is pleased to&#xA;  reveal to us by His Spirit any fragment of His unlimited knowledge, then we&#xA;  can claim to have this manifestation of the Spirit, which is designated&#xA;  &quot;the word of knowledge&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Carter says, that the fragment may be received by the mind as a thought, but it is not created by the human, only received (page 53). The process is completely supernatural. It is not the by-product of diligent study, nor is it in any way connected to education (page 38, 46, 49-50. (Carter does not despise diligent study, but it is unrelated to the definition of the gift.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scope of the knowledge includes everything that God knows, which may be worldly facts as when Jesus saw Natanael sitting under a fig tree (John 1:48) or when Ananias was told about the name of the street where Paul was praying after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:11) (Carter:45). But what makes this a very eminent gift is that God has used it to reveal His very own nature to the authors of the Bible (Carter:43-44). Carter is, however, clear that no new insights can be given that conflicts with Scripture or appends new doctrines to it (page 23-24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation about the purpose and plans of God, and of the future are not words of knowledge, but words of wisdom (Carter:17ff).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Carter is very clear that we should not talk about the gift of knowledge or the gift of wisdom, but the gift of the &lt;strong&gt;word&lt;/strong&gt; of knowledge and the &lt;strong&gt;word&lt;/strong&gt; of  wisdom (page 20-21), as we are all expected to grow in wisdom and knowledge through a plethora of means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;very different&lt;/strong&gt; view is offered by &lt;strong&gt;Donald Gee&lt;/strong&gt; in the book &lt;em&gt;Concerning Spiritual Gifts&lt;/em&gt;[5]. The book was originally published 1947, but builds upon earlier works published 10 and 20 years earlier (page 133), and Gee says that his views on this subject &quot;have undergone practically no change&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Gee, the word of knowledge is a teaching gift in the church (page 134. However, before he arrives at that conclusion, he has a few words of warning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Scriptures provide for the task [of defining the gift] no material&#xA;  that is avowedly and unmistakably a manifestation of the word of knowledge...&#xA;  Assumption is not proof... We ought carefully to avoid dogmatizing on this&#xA;  subject. (page 41)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having acknowledged the types of supernatural revelations that Carter speaks of in a way that affirms that Carters view indeed was held by many, Gee proceeds to call such revelation prophecy, neither denying its existence or its value (page 42). But when it comes to the &lt;em&gt;definition&lt;/em&gt; of the gift, he still begs to differ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Gee the setting of 1 Cor 12 is of utmost importance, it is in the &lt;em&gt;gathered Church&lt;/em&gt; that the gifts are to be used, whereas most of of Carters examples are from happenings in individual lives. In agreement with Carter, Gee claims that the gift is &lt;em&gt;completely supernatural&lt;/em&gt; (page 44f), but it is &lt;em&gt;not &quot;spectacular&quot;&lt;/em&gt; (page 45-46).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There come times when the Spirit of revelation is so operating through a&#xA;  teacher exercising an anointed ministry that we become conscious of an&#xA;  illumination transcending all natural ability either to gain or to impart&#xA;  (knowledge). It is in such hours that the sheep hear the voice of their good&#xA;  Shepherd speaking through human lips... We know it because our hearts burn&#xA;  within us as surely as theirs did upon the Emmaus road when Christ &quot;expounded&#xA;  unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself&quot;. By the gift&#xA;  of of the Spirit that Voice still expounds the Scriptures on the sweetest of&#xA;  all themes - &lt;em&gt;himself&lt;/em&gt; (Gee:46-47)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book edition from 1947, Gee has added a whole chapter that was not part of the edition from 10 years before, where he gives a systematic argument in favor of his interpretation. However, those arguments are outside the scope of this question on StackExchange.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In summary&lt;/strong&gt; we see that although Gee argues strongly for his view and he at least is in some agreement with an influential preacher (although he was not a &quot;teacher&quot;) like Wigglesworth, he pleads his case as if he perceives himself to be in a minority view. At least that is how I judge his tone. Thus it seems that Carter's view was more widespread within early pentecostalism. But it did not enjoy complete dominance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later teachings (2nd generation pentecostalism/charismatics/neo-pentecostals) are mostly using definitions similar to carter, but they are, according to the teaching I've read and heard, very reluctant to include revelation about the nature of God, and restrict the gift to worldly knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to the view within the pentecostal movement. I am aware that this view is not shared by all Christians, but it is a significant fact to date the involvement of SW in pentecostalism.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wigglesworth, S. (1998). Smith Wigglesworth on spiritual gifts. New Kensignton, PA: Whitaker House. Pages 76-77&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Carter, H. (1976). Questions &amp;amp; answers on spiritual gifts. Tulsa, OK: Harrison House.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Off topic fact: Pacifism was very common among the early pentecostals.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gee, D. (1980). Concerning spiritual gifts. Sprinfield, Mo: Radiant Books.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2013-02-17T14:40:04.460" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14232" CreationDate="2013-02-17T14:50:00.823" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quite the contrary- the Bible acknowledges that the wicked prosper more than the righteous &lt;em&gt;in this life&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs admits that bribes work wonders and that adultery can have its momentary pleasures. (Prov 17:8 - &quot;A bribe is a charm to the one who gives it; wherever he turns, he succeeds.&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Habakkuk cries out to God wondering how long God will choose not to lift the oppressed and judge the wealthy and wicked. This seemingly never ending perversion of justice is the point of the book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How long, Lord, must I call for help,&#xA;  but you do not listen?&#xA;  Or cry out to you, “Violence!”&#xA;  but you do not save?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Just about every prophet admits, in this life, the wicked will seem to succeed&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Matt 5:45 says the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luke 16:9 records Jesus saying that the wicked are &quot;wiser&quot; in the ways of the world than the children of life.  He even advises the children of light to use their worldly wealth for good - not for this life, but rather in preparation for the next.  That people will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And, don't even get me started on Ecclesiastes. (Eg A wise man who isn't listened to, and the city is lost)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only counter balance to all of this Hebrews 11. Faith, we are told, is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. In example after example it assures us of men who suffered, died, and other things, all in the hopes of a city not yet seen- but one in which the good were rewarded, where justice occurred, where the poor prospered. It is not in this life that the Bible sees the good rewarded, but it is clear that it happens in the next. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 37 expresses it the same:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not fret because of those who are evil&#xA;      or be envious of those who do wrong;&#xA;    for like the grass they will soon wither,&#xA;      like green plants they will soon die away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wicked wither, to be sure, but they have a lifespan too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-02-17T15:13:52.040" LastActivityDate="2013-02-17T15:13:52.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6627" CreationDate="2013-02-17T15:27:08.597" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul says &quot;For we know in part and we prophecy in part...For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then...Now I know in part...&quot; He said these to people to help them understand his letter. Since Paul, the author said that his understanding is not without limitation; we should not take it beyond what he acknowledged.  In contrast, when Jesus spoke to people, He spoke with full authority all the time since “the Word was with God, and the Word was God…The Word became flesh…” as indicated by John 1.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Galatians 1 Paul made it clear and specific that “the gospel he preached” is not something that man made up; rather, he received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.  He didn’t claim that everything he preached was based on revelation.  1 Corinthians 7 also indicates that he had expressed his judgment in his letter without command from the Lord.  So, the letters of Paul are the Apostle’s words.  Within the Apostle’s words, however, there are precious revelations of the Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, should we treat Paul’s letters as Jesus’ words in the Gospels (as unquestionable Word of God) or as a Christian book by a modern author (thus entitled to disagree)?  Clearly the second option is unacceptable.  Books of modern authors do not have equivalent credibility as Paul‘s letters and other Apostles’ documents in proclaiming Christ and preaching the Gospel.  No modern books can match the writings in New Testament for preserving Jesus’ words and teaching.  But, should we then treat Paul’s writing equivalent to Jesus’ words? Paul has the answer for us in his own writing. The Gospel preached by him was directly from God, thus the message should be treated as Jesus’ words.  However, for those teachings with some uncertainty and/or personal influence as noted by Paul within the letters, we should not treat them as Jesus’ words in the Gospels.  Instead, we should let the Holy Spirit to guide us to understand them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3967" LastEditorUserId="3978" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T17:06:24.803" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T17:06:24.803" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14250" CreationDate="2013-02-17T15:47:56.987" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is found in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 4&lt;/a&gt;. The sower sows the word. Here is the word: these gifts are given to you. They are yours to use if you believe they are; if not, you stomp them under your feet. The gifts have not gone away, but you have stopped believing in them. Your fields are growing with unbelief. Whose will are you doing if you don't believe? God trusts his word to work, Jesus knows God's word works and he gave it to you, Satan knows God's word works and he steals it from you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sow the word, you speak it out your mouth. Get your fields growing God's word so the gifts will come out. That is a harvest of God's will. &lt;strong&gt;They are signs for the unbeliever.&lt;/strong&gt; Who is an unbeliever? Those who don't believe in the signs. We're not talking about salvation, we're talking about the gifts of the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Run stop signs and it won't be long before your car is in a wreck. Is your life a wreck because of your unbelief? If it is, attack. Use the word to stop it. If you don't believe it works, then may God have mercy on you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3933" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-26T03:05:49.577" LastActivityDate="2015-08-26T03:05:49.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14261" CreationDate="2013-02-17T19:17:33.300" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mike's answer was good, but I'd like to post a complementary answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Per the doctrine of Sola Fide we are saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We can hardly be said to have faith if we don't believe what Jesus Christ believed and taught.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;According to those Churches that teach that, in addition to salvation by grace through faith, we need to follow the teachings of the Church (whatever the &quot;one true Church&quot; is that's making the claim)&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We can hardly be said to have faith or to be adhering to the teachings of the Church is we believe contrary to what those Churches teach.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Christ taught, and the major denominations teach that there is one God, not many, simple logic is all we need to say &quot;No, according to the majority of Christian denominations you can't believe in multiple gods and be saved.  By definition, salvation is to those who have faith and adhere to the beliefs of either Christ or Christ and the Church, and if you think they are wrong, or liars, then you're not adhering to their teachings.&quot;  You don't even have to get metaphysical to address that one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does, of course, exclude all of the fringe groups that hold non-orthodox beliefs, such as &quot;christian atheists&quot; and &quot;universalists&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-17T19:57:26.137" LastActivityDate="2013-02-17T19:57:26.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14271" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14275" CreationDate="2013-02-18T00:08:26.380" Score="2" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard,&#xA;  lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels&#xA;  proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience&#xA;  received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a&#xA;  great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was&#xA;  attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by&#xA;  signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit&#xA;  distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:1-4 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author appears to be arguing in the past tense, as if to say that every transgression or disobedience &lt;em&gt;has already&lt;/em&gt; received a just retribution, but considering the fact that the day of judgment has not yet taken place, it doesn't seem like that is possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the author of Hebrews mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T13:04:25.253" Title="In what way does the author of Hebrews argue that every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14272" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-18T00:18:36.290" Score="2" ViewCount="586" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels,&#xA;  namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of&#xA;  death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.&#xA;  (Hebrews 2:9 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is no distinction between the Father and the Son, as Oneness adherents believe, how could God who &quot;upholds the universe by the word of his power&quot; (Hebrews 1:3 ESV) die without the universe falling apart?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorDisplayName="user4109" LastEditDate="2014-03-14T17:31:25.090" LastActivityDate="2014-03-14T17:31:25.090" Title="How do United Pentecostals and other Oneness groups interpret Hebrews 2:9?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;oneness-pentecostalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14271" CreationDate="2013-02-18T03:51:51.353" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/2#66002001-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;note in NAB&lt;/a&gt; explains this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The author now makes a transition into exhortation, using an a fortiori argument (as at Heb 7:21–22; 9:13–14; 10:28–29; 12:25). The word announced through angels (Heb 2:2), the Mosaic law, is contrasted with the more powerful word that Christians have received (Heb 2:3–4). Christ’s supremacy strengthens Christians against being carried away from their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a reference to Acts 7:38, 53; Gal 3:19.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 7:38 It was he who, in the assembly in the desert, was with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai and with our ancestors, and he received living utterances to hand on to us.&#xA;  39 “Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside and in their hearts turned back to Egypt,&#xA;  40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will be our leaders. As for that Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’&#xA;  41 So they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifice to the idol, and reveled in the works of their hands. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The letter to the Hebrews is directed to an audience familiar with the Old Testament. The author is calling to mind all the past retributions for transgressions against the Mosaic law. &quot;If then it was so, when God announced it through angels, will it not be all the more so now, since it has been announced through Christ Himself?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-02-18T03:51:51.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14271" CreationDate="2013-02-18T04:03:32.157" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The קל וחומר argument commenced by the author in Hebrews 1 and continuing into Hebrews 2 is intended to distinguish the superiority of the Son from the angels. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the Son, he mentions that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;he became &quot;so much better than the angels&quot; becuase &quot;he inherited a more distinguished name than them&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 1:4&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;all the angels of God worship him&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 1:6&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the angels are created spirits and ministers (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 1:7&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1:14&lt;/a&gt;), while the Son is God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 1:8-9&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Son is the Creator and is immutable (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 1:10-12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The word having been spoken by angels&quot; (ὁ δι᾽ ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος) refers to the Torah of Moshe (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=7&amp;amp;v=53&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/53&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 7:53&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=19&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gal. 3:19&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Torah of Moshe was given by angels, and the Son is superior to the angels, then the word spoken by the Son (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 1:2&lt;/a&gt;) is likewise superior to the Torah of Moshe. Therefore, the people should pay more attention to the word spoken by the Son (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 2:1&lt;/a&gt;). He reasons that if the Israelites received a just punishment for transgressions under the Torah of Moshe, then how much more shall they receive punishment under the Law of Christ, for Christ is superior to Moshe and his word was confirmed by signs, miracles, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-18T04:03:32.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14277" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-18T07:02:03.017" Score="9" ViewCount="8685" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Job 38 angels &quot;shouted for joy&quot;, Luke 2 has angels &quot;praising God and saying&quot;. I've heard that angels are never definitively described as singing in the Bible - that although some translations use the word &quot;sing&quot;, the original word either means &quot;say&quot; or is ambiguous/generic (Hebrew &quot;brn&quot;?). Is this true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any place in Christian scripture (or more broadly in major tradition, including relevant ancient Jewish tradition, or in Church teaching) where angels are unambiguously described as singing? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(Note that I am not asking for speculation on angelic vocal abilities or preferences.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2016-12-22T23:19:01.343" Title="Do angels sing?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14277" CreationDate="2013-02-18T15:03:06.373" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Angelic beings do literally sing praises as depicted in scripture (ref Isaiah 6:2-4 and Rev 4:8; 5:8-10; 7:11-12).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical scholars support this belief. For example some believe that Isaiah's vision of the angels included a antiphonal song, that is a song where small pieces are sung by alternating singers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isa. 6:3. “And one cried to the other, and said, Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of hosts: filling the whole earth is His glory.” The meaning is not that they all lifted up their voice in concert at one and the same time (just as in Ps. 42:8 el is not used in this sense, viz., as equivalent to c’neged), but that there was a continuous and unbroken antiphonal song. One set commenced, and the others responded, either repeating the “Holy, holy, holy,” or following with “filling the whole earth is His glory.”  (Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, 7.124)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Music and singing has always been connected to worship, and worship always connected to the concept of heaven.  Therefore Jewish, Christian and even folklore has held the tradition that angels sing.  Medieval folklore even imagined that those on the top of the tower of babel could hear angels singing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering the view of heaven which the book of revelation brings us to, it is not surprising that we find angels singing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty- four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And they sang a new song, saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“ Worthy are you to take the scroll&#xA;and to open its seals,&#xA;for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God&#xA;from every tribe and language and people and nation&#xA;(Revelation 5:8-9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word for sang means 'sang' it does not mean anything else, therefore we are to imagine these words literally being sung. The four living creatures are understood to be angels. Even if they were not it shows us the practice of those surrounding Christ in heaven.  If the church worships God on earth, why would we not have worship services in heaven, along with angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditional commentaries always consider the angels visitation to the shepherds as words of singing.  This is what various Christmas carols remind us of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,&#xA;“ Glory to God in the highest,&#xA;and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” (Luke 2:13-14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alfred Edresheim the Jewish historian gives very detailed information on Jewish angelology at the time of Christ in the synagogue, part of which covers singing. Although is many unbiblical things that were believed at the time, it still established the ancient traditional understanding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ministering Angels and their Ministry. The ministry of the Angels may be divided into two parts, that of praising God, and that of executing His behests. In regard to the former, there are 694,000 myriads who daily praise the Name of God. From sunrise to sundown they say: Holy, holy, holy, and from sundown to sunrise: Blessed be the Glory of God from its place. In connection with this we may mention the beautiful allegory (Shem. R. 21) that the Angel of prayer weaves crowns for God out of the prayers of Israel.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://m.ccel.org/browse/bookInfo?id=edersheim/lifetimes&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Alfred Edersheim Life and Times of Jesus, Appendix on angelology&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interesting they thought angels were like fire in their quickness to obey God and in their singing, like flames. This has biblical merit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the angels he says,&#xA;“He makes his angels winds,&#xA;and his ministers a flame of fire.” (Hebrews 1:7, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fire is both quick and pure but also often expresses passion which would be filled in their singing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-18T15:03:06.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2326" CreationDate="2013-02-18T16:15:07.587" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;From my understanding of various Catholic explanations of The Incarnation.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, let's acknowledge the mystery. We can talk somewhat intelligently about it. But, the real mechanics, the true significance, the fullness of the sacrifice -- &lt;strong&gt;mystery&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to remember that Christ is the hypostatic union of God and man. Any interpretation of Christ that doesn't acknowledge that He is both fully human and fully God is not a Christian interpretation. And this hypostatic union is important in every detail of Christ's life. Because Christ is God, anything and everything that Christ does is Godly. And, everything that is done &lt;strong&gt;to&lt;/strong&gt; Christ is done &lt;strong&gt;to God&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, we can speak about the significance of Christ's death in two meaningful ways (and probably more).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Firstly&lt;/strong&gt;, Christ &lt;em&gt;brings God into&lt;/em&gt; human judgement, rejection, hate, mockery, suffering, and death. Hence, God is present &lt;em&gt;as God&lt;/em&gt; in all of these human experiences, including death. Thus, a human death is &quot;no longer&quot; simply &lt;em&gt;to die&lt;/em&gt;, it is &lt;em&gt;to be like God&lt;/em&gt;. And since God never dies, neither then do we fully die. And if that isn't enough, in the resurrection, God brings life back into death in a &lt;strong&gt;physical manner&lt;/strong&gt; by rising &lt;strong&gt;bodily&lt;/strong&gt; from the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Secondly&lt;/strong&gt;, Christ turns God into the very real and incarnate target of our judgement, rejection, hate, mockery, suffering, and murder. Therefore, in judging, rejecting, hating, mocking, torturing, and murdering Christ, we are doing so to God Himself. Christ makes our hate for God a physical manifestation. &lt;strong&gt;The passion and death of Christ is the visible and sanctifying incarnation of God's choice to let us hate Him to the greatest extent possible -- unto death.&lt;/strong&gt; And the resurrection, of course, is God's visible, incarnate choice to return to us, despite our &lt;strong&gt;very real&lt;/strong&gt; hate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is God sacrificing? He's literally sacrificing Himself. The human aspect of this, which can be reasonably equated with the suffering and death of any other human, isn't really the significant part of this event &lt;em&gt;in and of itself&lt;/em&gt;. The human aspect is &quot;merely&quot; the incarnation of a more significant, spiritual reality. God, the creator of all things and our Father, willingly puts Himself at our mercy. &lt;strong&gt;He sacrifices His rightful role as &lt;em&gt;the God we love&lt;/em&gt; and becomes &lt;em&gt;the God we hate&lt;/em&gt; in the very same act by which He brings His own divinity to our suffering and death.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(I suspect most parents (and grown-up children) readily recognize this sacrifice in a limited, imperfect fashion.)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-02-18T16:33:30.923" LastActivityDate="2013-02-18T16:33:30.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14282" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14283" CreationDate="2013-02-18T18:40:19.833" Score="5" ViewCount="55621" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 4 living creatures and 24 elders are mentioned numerous times in Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which &lt;strong&gt;twenty-four elders&lt;/strong&gt; sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads. 5&#xA;  From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder. Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne, which are the seven spirits of God. 6 In front of the throne was something that resembled a sea of glass like crystal.&#xA;  In the center and around the throne, there were &lt;strong&gt;four living creatures&lt;/strong&gt; covered with eyes in front and in back. 7 The first creature resembled a lion, the second was like a calf, the third had a face like that of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle in flight. 8 The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming:&#xA;  “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty,&#xA;  who was, and who is, and who is to come.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne and worship him, who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming: &#xA;  11 “Worthy are you, Lord our God,&#xA;  to receive glory and honor and power,&#xA;  for you created all things;&#xA;  because of your will they came to be and were created.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and &lt;strong&gt;the four living creatures and the elders&lt;/strong&gt;, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the [seven] spirits of God sent out into the whole world. 7 He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the one who sat on the throne. 8 When he took it, &lt;strong&gt;the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders&lt;/strong&gt; fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The creatures and elders are directly mentioned again in 5:11 and 5:14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Then I watched while the Lamb broke open the first of the seven seals, and I heard &lt;strong&gt;one of the four living creatures&lt;/strong&gt; cry out in a voice like thunder, “Come forward.” 2 I looked, and there was a white horse, and its rider had a bow. He was given a crown, and he rode forth victorious to further his victories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This pattern is repeated thrice more in the next passages, 6:3-8. The Lamb breaks the next seal, the next living creature cries out &quot;Come forward&quot;, and the next horse and rider emerge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then in Revelation 7, 14, 15, 19:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7:11 All the angels stood around the throne and around &lt;strong&gt;the elders and the four living creatures&lt;/strong&gt;. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14:3 They were singing [what seemed to be] a new hymn before the throne, before &lt;strong&gt;the four living creatures and the elders&lt;/strong&gt;. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15:7 &lt;strong&gt;One of the four living creatures&lt;/strong&gt; gave the seven angels seven gold bowls filled with the fury of God, who lives forever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19:4 &lt;strong&gt;The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures&lt;/strong&gt; fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, “Amen. Alleluia.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does Christian scripture, major/longstanding tradition, or Church teaching tell us about the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note that I am not asking for personal opinions or interpretations of these passages. Please do not post answers that &quot;reason through&quot; the passages, saying &quot;because of X, the elders are probably Y&quot;, unless you are quoting or carefully explaining some source that is considered reasonably popular and scholarly by some body of Christians.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-11-15T01:58:42.820" LastActivityDate="2020-11-16T04:36:12.220" Title="The four living creatures and twenty-four elders in Revelation?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14282" CreationDate="2013-02-18T18:40:19.833" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Traditionally:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The twenty-four elders represent the &lt;strong&gt;twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The four living creatures represent &lt;strong&gt;universal creation&lt;/strong&gt;; on some accounts, the &lt;strong&gt;four evangelists&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Navarre commentary on RSVCE &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.ca/books?id=z0ER64NLWPgC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA54#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;page 54&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian tradition going back as far as St Irenaeus has interpreted these four creatures as standing for the four evangelists because they &amp;quot;carry&amp;quot; Jesus Christ to men. The one with the face of a man is St Matthew, who starts his book with the human genealogy of Christ; the lion stands for St Mark: his Gospel begins with the voice crying in the wilderness (which is where the lion's roar can be heard); the ox is a reference to the sacrifices in the temple of Jerusalem, which is where St Luke begins his account of Christ's life, and the eagle represents St John, who soars to the heights to contemplate the divinity of the Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saint Irenaeus lived 130-202. However, the notes on Revelation 4 in NABRE seem to clarify this, and they read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Universal creation is represented by the four living creatures (Rev 4:6–7) [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lion…calf…human being…eagle: these symbolize, respectively, what is noblest, strongest, wisest, and swiftest in creation. Calf: traditionally translated “ox,” the Greek word refers to a heifer or young bull. Since the second century, these four creatures have been &lt;strong&gt;used as symbols&lt;/strong&gt; of the evangelists Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Twenty-four elders: these represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles; cf. Rev 21:12–14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:12-14 reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 It had a massive, high wall, with twelve gates where twelve angels were stationed and on which names were inscribed, [the names] of the twelve tribes of the Israelites.&#xA;13 There were three gates facing east, three north, three south, and three west.&#xA;14 The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-18T19:38:37.063" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14284" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14291" CreationDate="2013-02-18T19:55:49.330" Score="7" ViewCount="1926" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of Aquinas' proofs are based on Aristotle's writings. But, why did Aquinas rely so heavily on Aristotle? Science proves that Aristotle sometimes erred in his own writings. For example, Aristotle wrote (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kennydominican.joyeurs.com/GreekClassics/AristotleHistoryAn.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;On the History of Animals&lt;/a&gt;, Book I, Sec. 15) that humans had eight ribs on each side,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Common to the upper and lower part of the trunk are the ribs, eight on either side...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Κοινὸν δὲ τοῦ ἄνω καὶ κάτω τοῦ θώρακος πλευραί, ἑκατέρωθεν ὀκτώ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T14:35:42.860" Title="Why did Aquinas place so much credence in Aristotle?" Tags="&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;&lt;summa-theologica&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14286" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14321" CreationDate="2013-02-18T22:10:23.883" Score="13" ViewCount="6564" Body="&lt;p&gt;My coworker asked &quot;Why is Good Friday called good?&quot; when I mentioned that we have Good Friday off, and I unfortunately don't know the answer to the question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a very obvious way to explain to someone why Good Friday is so good when it would seem as though it should be called &quot;very bad horrible no good awful Friday&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-04-03T19:19:44.417" LastActivityDate="2017-11-01T20:13:54.683" Title="Why is Good Friday called &quot;Good&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;good-friday&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14288" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-19T02:35:06.163" Score="11" ViewCount="16471" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity teaches that Jesus died on the cross and on the Third day rose from the dead. His resurection is significant for all sorts of reasons which I don't want to go into in this question. What I'm interested in is why did he rise &lt;strong&gt;THREE&lt;/strong&gt; days later? Why not 4 days, or 2 days?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only thing I could find is that Jonah was in the fish for 3 days, however this just moves the question to why was Jonah in the fish for 3 days (instead of 2 or 4 or any other number).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any significance to Jesus being dead for three days?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2016-03-26T23:02:03.810" LastActivityDate="2016-03-29T19:06:00.403" Title="How is it significant that Jesus rose on the 3rd day?" Tags="&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;numerology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-03-27T02:42:23.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14286" CreationDate="2013-02-19T02:39:47.330" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Normally, I prefer to author my own answer, but in this instance, Johnny Hart (of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.C._(comic_strip)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;B.C. comic strip&lt;/a&gt;) nailed it so well, that I'm just going to repost his answer to this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/TnFVq.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/TnFVq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;B.C. Comic &amp;quot;Who can call Good Friday good?&amp;quot; by Johnny Hart&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who cannot see the image, it reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now, who can call &quot;Good Friday&quot; good?,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  A term too oft misunderstood,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  You who were bought by the blood of &lt;em&gt;His&lt;/em&gt; cross&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;You&lt;/em&gt; can call &quot;Good Friday&quot; good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update, based on the nature of the individual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There was nothing &quot;Good&quot; about Good Friday for Jesus. He was humiliated, hurt, abandoned, and killed in horrible fashion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;But he willingly chose this for one simple reason - He loved humanity with his entire heart.  As such, he choose to suffer these &quot;indignities&quot; in order to give mankind what it sought.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In some fashion that theologians are still debating (Atonement? Satisfaction? Expiation? &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt;?), Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection gave us the ability to become heirs with God.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether this was some legal impediment or moral ability, we don't know, but we do know this: Prior to the Crucifixion, man was unable to stand before God. Afterwards, we had Jesus to stand in our place, that we could be reconciled to him. To me, that's about as good as it gets!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-04-03T19:31:44.567" LastActivityDate="2015-04-03T19:31:44.567" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2311" CreationDate="2013-02-19T02:53:29.850" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of the &lt;em&gt;Logos&lt;/em&gt; or the Word is one that harkens back to Ancient Greek thought.  As an emanation of Truth, the Word is the ideal perfection of thought, and hence is &quot;Truth&quot; perfected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T02:53:29.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14284" CreationDate="2013-02-19T02:58:11.587" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thomas Aquinas definitely took advantage of Aristotle (following the lead of Albertus Magnus) but he was not uncritical in his reception. Aristotle's major writings were only recently rediscovered in the West and were the topic of intense scholarly effort. But at the same time, there was a lot of doubt about whether Aristotle was a suitable source&#xA;of knowledge for Christians - he was not only a pagan, but his work was also seen as potentially 'contaminated' by its transmission through the Muslim world. As a scholar, then, the aim of Aquinas could not have been to simply parrot the teachings of Aristotle, but to reconcile or absorb them into Christian thought. For example, Aristotle argues in the &lt;em&gt;Physics&lt;/em&gt; that the world has always existed, but Aquinas says &quot;that conflicts with our faith&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Sententia super Physicam&lt;/em&gt; 8.2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, for Aquinas and Albertus, the main attraction of Aristotle wasn't just that he was a fertile source of good philosophical material in general. They were &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; interested in his metaphysics, because of the promise it had for establishing a coherent system of thought covering theology, philosophy, science, ethics, and politics. Thomism includes an understanding of 'natural law' and 'natural theology' that is the bridge between revealed truth on the one hand, and observation and reason on the other. In this way, Scripture and tradition can be brought to bear on philosophical questions that would otherwise be inaccessible, since the Bible is not a book of philosophical propositions. It also allows better engagement with non-Christians, since &quot;Muslims and pagans do not agree with us on the authority of any scripture&quot; and so &quot;one must fall back to natural reason&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Summa contra Gentiles&lt;/em&gt; 1.2). Aristotle's ethics were another part of this - Thomas wrote a commentary on the &lt;em&gt;Nicomachean Ethics&lt;/em&gt;, and his natural law approach to ethics is very much due to Aristotle's teleological ideas, again resting on his metaphysics. If you look at modern work in the tradition of Thomas, it's all about this kind of thing: the twenty-four theses of Pius X in &lt;em&gt;Postquam sanctissimus&lt;/em&gt; (1914) are primarily metaphysical (&lt;em&gt;in re praesertim metaphysica&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that there are problems with Aristotle's science which Thomas did not correct. And the same goes for other philosophers he used. The rib issue is pretty harmless but there are other points, like the nature of women, which are not. He follows Aristotle in assuming that women are imperfect men, suffering from a birth defect caused by excessive moisture in the womb (&lt;em&gt;On the generation of animals&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologiae&lt;/em&gt; 1.92.11) and therefore in a state of subjection (&lt;em&gt;Summa&lt;/em&gt; Supplement 39.1). Of course we now know that this is wrong, but it's not reasonable to expect a thirteenth-century man to know what we do. These flaws in Aristotle are evident to us but would not have been so glaring to Aquinas. In any case, Thomas is more interested in the methodology of Aristotle (including his logic and metaphysics) than in his specific data (e.g. that men have more teeth than women, &lt;em&gt;History of Animals&lt;/em&gt; 2.3). Again, the modern iteration of Thomism would be able to reject &quot;anything that ill agrees with the discoveries of a later age&quot; (Leo XIII, &lt;em&gt;Aeterni Patris&lt;/em&gt;, 1879) while still accepting the basic approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T02:58:11.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6537" CreationDate="2013-02-19T04:15:30.330" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes , yes it does mean that the righteous will reside on a paradise earth . Notice verse 10 and 11 of the same chapter . There is certainly by no means an abundance of peace upon the earth now . Especially considering the wars and famine that pervade . However the time is soon for Jehovah to restore the earth to the paradise it once was as seen in the garden of Eden . In doing so Jesus will crush satan and the wicked ones forever as promised at Genesis 3:15 . I hope you will note that this answer was by no means drawn out and vague but concise .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 37:10 -&amp;gt; &amp;quot;And just a little while longer and the wicked one will be no more; And you will certainly give attention to his place and he will not be,&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 37:11 -&amp;gt; &amp;quot;But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.&amp;quot;&#xA;See also (Proverbs 2:21, 22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3980" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T04:11:03.533" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14288" CreationDate="2013-02-19T05:07:10.107" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Numerology in Scripture us often debated, but the number three is significant.  It is considered &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/what-biblical-numerology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the number of divine perfection&lt;/a&gt;, represented in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The three-part nature of man - Body, Soul, Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Past, Present, Future&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Time, Space, Matter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depths, width, height&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Solid, liquid, gas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The number three is seen by some as significant all throughout creation and history.  Others remain skeptical.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, the significance of three days applied to the death, burial, and resurrection is addressed at  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The%20Symbolic%20Significance%20of%20the%20third%20day.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The%20Symbolic%20Significance%20of%20the%20third%20day.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the symbolic language of the Bible, a three day period points to an&#xA;  act of divine intervention which impacts Salvation History.  Genesis&#xA;  22:4 records that Abraham's journey to Mt. Moriah to offer his son in&#xA;  sacrifice, as commanded by Yahweh, was a three day journey.  In the&#xA;  Matthew passage Jesus refers to three days, applying the significance&#xA;  of the three day period to His resurrection and man's redemption.  In&#xA;  the Gospels Jesus often spoke of a three day period prophesying His&#xA;  sacrifice and resurrection. (2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, in Judaism, the number three has this significance: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/608781/jewish/On-the-Meaning-of-Three.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/608781/jewish/On-the-Meaning-of-Three.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The number three symbolizes a harmony that includes and synthesizes&#xA;  two opposites. The unity symbolized by the number three isn’t&#xA;  accomplished by getting rid of number two, the entity that caused the&#xA;  discord, and reverting to the unity symbolized by number one. Rather,&#xA;  three merges the two to create a new entity, one that harmoniously&#xA;  includes both opposites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That can be taken many ways applied to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  A new harmony between sinful man and righteous God made possible by Christ's atoning death, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems likely (but not conclusive if you discount numerology) that there is a significance in the choice of three days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-19T12:46:26.760" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T12:46:26.760" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14296" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14356" CreationDate="2013-02-19T09:34:50.267" Score="6" ViewCount="432" Body="&lt;p&gt;Were the Apocryphal writings the primary motivation behind the cannons and councils of the 4th and 5th centuries or were there other motivations? Did the ancient church leaders cite their reasons for making the canons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T19:37:45.417" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T23:37:25.253" Title="Were the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries primarily to deal with Apocryphal writings?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;apocrypha&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11318" CreationDate="2013-02-19T10:02:35.200" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the God of Calvinism is loving and no, there is never a time when his actions are not loving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The loving nature of God is, according to Calvinism and Reformed theology in general, both perfect and immutable. There is no time in which he is not loving nor action which does not display his love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason many people have a problem with this is that they are using much more limited definitions of love and trying to apply them to God. A mutable fickle loving nature would indeed sometimes act out of motives other than love -- some actions would be loving, others not. As broken humans we tend to default to understanding others actions in this way, however the model does not apply to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's love is both an intrinsic value and an action. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is, however, not self contradictory. His love is not expressed in embracing both good and evil. A complete, whole, rational love that is good must also be complemented by a whole, rational and holy hatred. In order to love what is good, it must also hate what is evil. In order for God himself to be loving in Character, he must be fundamentally opposed to things that are not loving. In other words, his is not only just to punish evil, but loving to do so. It would be no love of the good and innocent to let the evil and guilty go free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The absolutely crazy &quot;exception&quot; to this -- and it's technically not an exception at all because his love is consistent even in this case -- is the forgiveness and reconciliation of sinners to himself through the sacrifice of Jesus. By himself becoming subject to the curse of sin and wrath of God against evil when he himself was good, he earned the right to buy back those whom he chose from death -- to experience God's love of good as one of those good things rather than experiencing his love for good things expressed as his hatred of bad things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-02-19T19:09:23.180" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T19:09:23.180" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14300" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14301" CreationDate="2013-02-19T10:44:48.857" Score="7" ViewCount="15336" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also, what is the history of use and what languages do they come from? Is it a fitting name today or is it outdated? How do the two relate to each other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T18:50:32.977" LastActivityDate="2015-01-15T19:26:13.473" Title="What do the words Catholic and Protestant mean?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-20T22:12:08.593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14300" CreationDate="2013-02-19T11:16:06.580" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic can have a few different meanings. It could refer to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Roman Catholic Church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eastern Catholic churches&lt;/a&gt; in communion with the Pope &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The universal church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nicene creed which is used in a lot of Christian churches that have broken away from the Roman Catholic church still say that they &quot;believe in one holy and catholic&quot;. (note the lower case letter 'c' in catholic.) Catholic in this context does not refer to the Roman Catholic church, but to a holy Universal church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestant refers to churches and/or individuals who call themselves Christians, but disagree with the Roman Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word 'Protestant' derives from the protests made by German princes&#xA;  at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. The Diet voted to end the&#xA;  toleration of those who followed the teachings of Martin Luther within&#xA;  Germany (&lt;a href=&quot;http://protestant.christianityinview.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They generally follow the teachings of leaders of the reformation (e.g. Luther). They are called Protestant because they protested the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. The original Protestant movement came from within the Roman Catholic church. The teachings of the protestant movement disagree with Roman Catholicism and a number of the reformers were put to death because they taught these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do these terms still fit today? I don't think this can be answered objectively, but I feel that they are still a correct fit. Mainstream Protestant denominations still hold to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fivesolas.com/5solas.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Five Soli&lt;/a&gt;. From my understanding, these beliefs do not fit with the Roman Catholic church teachings and so Protestants are still protesting the Catholic Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="3593" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T19:23:49.437" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T19:23:49.437" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14300" CreationDate="2013-02-19T11:27:25.390" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Catholic&quot; is an old term meaning &quot;universal.&quot;  For this reason, even non-Roman Catholics still confess in the Nicene Creed that they believe in &quot;one holy apostolic and catholic church.&quot; As Roman Catholics consider their church to be the one true church descended from Peter, this makes sense. Based on the confession of St. Peter, they believe that they alone have &quot;the keys to heaven,&quot; and that grace can be conferred within the church for the forgiveness of sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants, typically beginning with Martin Luther in 1517, have &quot;protested&quot; this claim to universality. Specifically, they tend to deny that the Pope- the leader of the world's 1.2+ billion Catholics, is in fact the earthly head of the church. (Oddly enough the same protest the Eastern Orthodox have had since the beginning of the church, but formalized with the agreat Schism in 1054). In contrast, Protestants typically believe the Pope to be &lt;em&gt;an&lt;/em&gt; important leader, but not &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; leader, outside of whom there is no means by which grace can be conferred. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T11:27:25.390" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14306" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-19T12:24:12.543" Score="11" ViewCount="45089" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Exodus when God performed miracles through Moses and Aaron, the Egyptian magicians did the same things that God did, How is that possible ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%207:8-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 7:10-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord&#xA;  commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his&#xA;  officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men&#xA;  and sorcerers, and &lt;strong&gt;the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by&#xA;  their secret arts&lt;/strong&gt;: Each one threw down his staff and it became a&#xA;  snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh's&#xA;  heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord&#xA;  had said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%207:20-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 7:20-24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moses and Aaron did just as the Lord had commanded. He raised his&#xA;  staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the&#xA;  water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. The&#xA;  fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians&#xA;  could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret&#xA;  arts&lt;/strong&gt;, and Pharaoh's heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses&#xA;  and Aaron, just as the Lord had said. Instead, he turned and went&#xA;  into his palace, and did not take even this to heart. And all the&#xA;  Egyptians dug along the Nile to get drinking water, because they could&#xA;  not drink the water of the river.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%208:5-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 8:5-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord said to Moses, &quot;Tell Aaron, 'Stretch out your hand&#xA;  with your staff over the streams and canals and ponds, and make frogs&#xA;  come up on the land of Egypt.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the&#xA;  frogs came up and covered the land. &lt;strong&gt;But the magicians did the same&#xA;  things by their secret arts; they also made frogs come up on the land&#xA;  of Egypt.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But lastly they couldn't do like Moses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%208:16-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Exodus 8:16-19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord said to Moses, &quot;Tell Aaron, 'Stretch out your staff&#xA;  and strike the dust of the ground,' and throughout the land of Egypt&#xA;  the dust will become gnats.&quot; They did this, and when Aaron&#xA;  stretched out his hand with the staff and struck the dust of the&#xA;  ground, gnats came on people and animals. All the dust throughout the&#xA;  land of Egypt became gnats. &lt;strong&gt;But when the magicians tried to produce&#xA;  gnats by their secret arts, they could not.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since the gnats were on people and animals everywhere, &lt;strong&gt;the&#xA;  magicians said to Pharaoh, &quot;This is the finger of God.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; But Pharaoh's&#xA;  heart was hard and he would not listen, just as the Lord had said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3777" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-02-19T21:09:40.447" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T08:40:16.747" Title="How could the Egyptian magicians do what God did through Moses?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14271" CreationDate="2013-02-19T13:04:25.253" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In what way does the author of Hebrews argue that every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First What you have to know what you are transgressing, understand are you transgressing the word of God? You will be judged by every word that comes out of your mouth. That is the seed you planted and that will be you harvest. A just retribution. How else could God be true to his word. I will sow that my retribution will be righteous not unrighteous. God does not watch every body like you think he watches over his word so If his word is coming out of your mouth love, joy, peace, healing, Good things, God's will, then retribution can be a good thing, That is what his point was. Not that your bad, but  you are saying out your mouth is make the power God useless in your life. The author of Hebrews is saying  You can do this, look at the people who went before you and they had less than you have. Point is you have a greater covenant with God than they had, and they will expect more out of you. again sow wisely Know what you are Mark-4     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3933" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T13:04:25.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14081" CreationDate="2013-02-19T14:34:35.133" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;No he did not. He was not washed in the blood of Jesus yet. Remission is not redemption the law would only being remission. Christ brought redemption, you are born into sin not that you were born a sinner. That is what your crown is sin. That is why you must be born again Moses did not have that option he was only born through water onto the earth Jesus brought a new birth, one of spirit watch give you access to the presence of God. The old man is washed away that is the child of sin. Moses was still in that nature of the sinful man. If sin looked upon God it dies God did not want Moses dead. So he told Moses hang out here behind this rock and when my shadow passes by you'll know. Cause my word is so powerful it will wash the sin right out of you but sense you are sin there will be nothing left of you it will wash you away. That is why you need to be born again so the word will wash the sin out and leave the body to hold the word without dying in the process. Again remembering this sow wisely understanding what you are Mark-4        &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3933" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T14:34:35.133" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14314" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14316" CreationDate="2013-02-19T15:58:44.390" Score="4" ViewCount="65314" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the title states. God commanded people to kill in the Old testament, does he still command people to kill today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are people who claim God commanded them to Kill. Is this legit? Or is there clear evidence in the Bible that goes against this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Examples of God commanding people to Kill in the Old Testament:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that&#xA;  they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and&#xA;  suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;NUMBERS 21:3 The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel, who&#xA;  &quot;completely destroyed them and their towns.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite&#xA;  children and &quot;kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for&#xA;  yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.&quot; The virgins&#xA;  were presumably raped. (NOTE: How could the soldiers know which women&#xA;  were virgins?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are lots of sources out there:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that most of this makes sense in context of the Old Testament. But what about people who kill today and say God commanded them to? Is this legit? Can we deny their claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3985" LastEditorUserId="3985" LastEditDate="2013-02-19T16:49:15.467" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T17:07:28.813" Title="God commanded people to kill in the Old testament, does he still command people to kill today?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;killing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2013-02-20T19:26:25.333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14314" CreationDate="2013-02-19T17:02:26.820" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;While God did command nations to kill, it's important to remember that he never commanded individuals to kill devoid of their representing a nation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, I don't think you could say that it is legit for any single individual to claim that God commanded them to kill.  On the contrary, one of the ten commandments is, &quot;You shall not murder.&quot; (Exodus 20:13).  The word that God uses for murder is different than the word that is used to mean &quot;kill&quot; when it is carried out in war.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question, yes.  You can deny their claim.  They were not told by God to murder.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read more about the words used &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_murder&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T17:02:26.820" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14314" CreationDate="2013-02-19T17:07:28.813" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One thing to consider is the different role of the individual vs. the role as an agent of the State.   With a notable exception of Abraham and Isaac (and maybe some others I can't think of) the specific command to kill an individual or obliterate a nation, etc. seems to be given to a representative agent of the State as the agent of the State.  Also, bear in mind that Israel underwent a government transition throughout the OT, so in a purely theocratic society, a priest might act as judge and would deliver justice based on revelation.  As the government model changed priests, kings, soldiers, spies, etc. were given orders to kill at times as agents of the State. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the individuals acting on their own behalf don't have the same authority that agents of the State do, and most governments (AFAIK) don't follow the same theocratic model that early Israel did (so, I'm not aware of many courts of law -- especially, ostensibly Christian courts -- killing someone because &quot;God told them to&quot;).   All that to say, if someone claimed that God told him to murder someone, I think we would have &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; little Biblical precedent to consider him anything other than delusional.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a bit of post script: regarding Abraham and Isaac, it's important to remember a few things: Abraham had received a promise that God was going to create a nation from him; Isaac was ultimately spared though Abraham didn't really know how that was going to pan out; and this predated Moses, the law, and the &quot;modern&quot; government body of Israel, so the notion of the State was not really well-defined at this point.   I don't want to try so hard that I'm forcing a fit through rationalization, but I think it could be argued that based on his role within his tribe, Abraham may very well have been acting as the appropriate agent of his State (tribal priest, for example?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2013-02-19T17:07:28.813" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14306" CreationDate="2013-02-19T21:29:06.657" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have my notes on hand but the bible contains multiple examples of Satan performing God like signs to fool Gods people. The book of Revelations is the obvious example this, but there's more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as men performing magic, you also had Bar Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long story short, although it's not exactly a popular opinion, Satan is illustrated as a being with similar (although lesser) powers as God, and it has been written that he has and will use these powers through mankind to gather people to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is illustrated as having powers on a similar level as the Angel Michael which makes sense as he was a great angel (even though Satan was/is  dark on the whole), but in regards to the first answer these powers are not of earthly origins, nor can they be assumed to he bound by earthly restrictions (physics, etc).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3990" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T00:59:52.250" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T00:59:52.250" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14286" CreationDate="2013-02-19T22:50:22.670" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We call that day good on which Christ died because by His death He showed His great love for man, and purchased for him every blessing.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On Our Lord's Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension - Baltimore Catechism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This reflects the most common and appropriate answer among Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Christians reflect deeply on what Christ endured and the great sorrow of that day, all generally agree that what is truly important about that particular Friday is not what men did to God, but instead &lt;em&gt;what God did&lt;/em&gt; for men. God, perfectly innocent, sacrificed Himself and his own life in order to save us from the worst possible fate because of his love for us. There is nothing, not even our own individual conception, for which we should be more thankful. This is the source of every blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a template answer might be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I call it Good Friday because, though it is a very sad day, it is also the day that Jesus, because of his love for us, saved us from the very worst possible sort of death, and through this sacrifice purchased everything that is good. There is no other day that I am more thankful for, no other act or day that is more Good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The intensity of the language can be toned up or down as you see fit, though. Or more briefly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It's the day that the most Good person ever did the most Good thing ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the history of how this phrasing came to be, we're not so sure. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06643a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The origin of the term Good is not clear. Some say it is from &quot;God's Friday&quot; (Gottes Freitag); others maintain that it is from the German &lt;em&gt;Gute Freitag&lt;/em&gt;, and not specially English. Sometimes, too, the day was called Long Friday by the Anglo-Saxons; so today in Denmark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-04-03T19:26:14.783" LastActivityDate="2015-04-03T19:26:14.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14300" CreationDate="2013-02-19T22:56:11.150" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestant refers to groups which originated in protest of many beliefs that (they felt) lead to the authoritative and tyrannical nature of the Catholic Church of the era which spanned hundreds of years. Some people call Protestants the reformers, but it should be noted that the Catholic Church has gone through major reform as well since the era.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major difference between Catholics and Protestants is that original Protestants believed true knowledge of God came from the Holy Spirit alone through the Holy Bible alone, specifically through personal study of the Scriptures as &lt;em&gt;opposed&lt;/em&gt; to being taught within structured and institutionalized organizations which they viewed the Catholic Church as. This isn't meant to discredit modern Churches, it was just seen a major factor in how the Catholic Church was able to work outside of God's word during the era.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word 'Catholic ' is still fitting since much of Catholicism has remained the same. The term Protestant however has become very generalized, to the point that few groups that refer to themselves as Protestants share exactly the same beliefs, and many Protestant groups follow &lt;em&gt;greatly&lt;/em&gt; different beliefs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3990" LastEditorUserId="3990" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T05:38:44.340" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T05:38:44.340" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12375" CreationDate="2013-02-20T01:46:40.113" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To discover the answer, you must define your terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As suggested by Francis Schaeffer, when Christians use the term &quot;God,&quot; they mean personal infinite. If we dissect this definition, therein lies your answer. While people are obviously personal, they are obviously not infinite, so they cannot be a &quot;God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the term &quot;god&quot; can refer to a personal non-infinite, in which case, men are &quot;gods.&quot; Obviously, men are personal and finite - this is indisputable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It all depends on how you defend your terms. If you're trying to say man is a personal infinite you're in trouble theologically and rationally, but if you simply assert man as personal, this is acceptable - you simply must be careful in clarification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God made man in His likeness, He gave man the &quot;personal&quot; part of his nature. How can you know he did not also endow man with the &quot;infinite&quot; part of his nature? Think for a moment - can there really by two infinites? What if they fought? Who would win? This is impossible. There can be only one infinite, but many personal beings. So in our personhood, we are like God, and we are &quot;gods.&quot; Our lack of infinite perfection, wisdom, and power contributed to our fall into sin. Because God is infinite, He, unlike us, cannot fall into sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3992" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T01:46:40.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14326" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14330" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:09:56.073" Score="7" ViewCount="704" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that Jesus is really God. But I'm still confused... I don't get how God could die or be killed by people. Isn't God always there? How can God die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please explain this to me in an easy to understand way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2015-05-16T01:43:40.297" Title="Did Jesus really die?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14326" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:21:50.963" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Christianity, as in Judaism, death isn't &quot;the end&quot;.  It does not mean to cease to exist.  Perhaps the verse that makes this most clear is &lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 5:8 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the&#xA;  body, and to be present with the Lord&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In death, it is only the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;physical body&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that dies.  The spirit/soul continues to exist.  1 Peter 3:18-20 even tells us where his spirit went when his body died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the&#xA;  unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the&#xA;  flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 By which also he went and&#xA;  preached unto the spirits in prison; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Which sometime were&#xA;  disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of&#xA;  Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls&#xA;  were saved by water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' physical body died.  His spirit went on.  When we die, our spirit lives on.  Therefore, we say He died, just as we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also ties in with 1 Corinthians 15, which speaks of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-bodily-resurrection-of-jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;bodily&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; resurrection&lt;/a&gt;. (more &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gci.org/prophecy/resbody&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;)  The implication seems to be that it is the body that dies, and the body that needs to be resurrected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some&#xA;  among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not&#xA;  risen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your&#xA;  faith is also vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have&#xA;  testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if&#xA;  so be that the dead rise not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your&#xA;  sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most&#xA;  miserable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits&#xA;  of them that slept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of&#xA;  the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We experience the same death as Christ, and are promised the same resurrection as Him as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T02:32:50.567" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T02:32:50.567" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14328" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="35894" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:39:06.520" Score="7" ViewCount="622" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example, are any of the following statements correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The humanity subsists in the Divine Person of the Son.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The humanity substands the Divine Person of the Son.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The divine person of the Son substands the humanity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The divine person of the Son subsists in the humanity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: &quot;Humanity&quot; (Latin &lt;em&gt;humanitate&lt;/em&gt; or Greek ανθρωπότης is synonymous with &quot;&lt;strong&gt;human nature&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; It does not mean &quot;human person.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, are none of them? If not, what is the precise way to express the relationship using the English verb &quot;subsist&quot; and/ or &quot;substand&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clarification: The English verb &quot;substand&quot; and its related conjugations would be a precise translation of the Latin verb &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=substare&amp;amp;la=la#lexicon&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;substare&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and its related conjugations and the Greek verb &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%E1%BD%91%CF%86%CE%AF%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B9&amp;amp;la=greek&quot;&gt;ὑφίστασθαι&lt;/a&gt; and its related conjugations. &quot;Substand,&quot; like &lt;em&gt;substare&lt;/em&gt; and ὑφίστασθαι, simply means &quot;to stand under.&quot; A ὑπόστασις (&lt;em&gt;hypostasis&lt;/em&gt;) is technically something that stands under or is the basis of accidents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Boethius, in Book III of his &lt;em&gt;Liber de Persona et Duabus Naturis Contra Eutychen et Nestorium&lt;/em&gt;, wrote, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For what the Greeks say as οὐσίωσις and οὐσιῶσθαι are what we call &lt;em&gt;subsistentia&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;subsistere&lt;/em&gt;. What they [say as] ὑπόστασις and ὑφίστασθαι are what we translate as &lt;em&gt;substantia&lt;/em&gt;  and &lt;em&gt;substare&lt;/em&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a rare word, and probably one constructed to convey the meaning of &lt;em&gt;substare&lt;/em&gt; and ὑφίστασθαι as accurately and precisely as possible into English in the realm of philosophy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Fathers of the English Dominican Province use it in their English translation of the Summa Theologica.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q29_A2.html&quot;&gt;Part I, Question 29, Second Article, Response to Objection 5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reply to Objection 5: The individual composed of matter and form substands in relation to accident from the very nature of matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-12-03T20:13:53.013" LastActivityDate="2015-12-03T20:13:53.013" Title="What is the precise manner of expressing the relationship of the humanity (human nature) to the divine person of the Son?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14326" CreationDate="2013-02-20T03:20:15.097" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sacred Tradition would say yes, the recently reworded Nicene creed says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He suffered death and was buried&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also say it was in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;accordance with the Scriptures&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which means, there's some prophecy that says this had to happen which you can read in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/psalms/22&quot;&gt;Psalm 22&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/53/&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/22&quot;&gt;Genesis 22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Death is the splitting of the body, but not splitting &quot;The Godhead&quot; from the body.  So, no part of Christ ceases to be God upon death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4050.htm&quot;&gt;Summa&lt;/a&gt; has some other pretty good points concerning this question, I'll summarize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All humanity was subject to death because of original sin. Jesus was the only one who, because of who He was, could payback this debt through death.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus proves concretely that He did take on human flesh by dying in it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His death destroys the power of death, knowing God has complete power over death and life gives us comfort.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To set an example of being &quot;Dead to Sin&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So that He could be the first to rise from the dead and give us all hope in the resurrection.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it's clear that He did it for a reason, but you're wondering if it is possible.  Some say God can &quot;square a circle&quot; other's don't.  Naive me says God can make a circle square, but &quot;reply to objection 1&quot; me has learned that God cannot deny himself.  He cannot tell a lie and if he says He's going to send us His Son as a Redeemer who will die, then that's what's going to happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, St. Thomas says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness, lest He should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature: but He endured death inflicted from without, to which He willingly surrendered Himself, that His death might be shown to be a voluntary one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which leaves you hanging, and this is a central point of the Faith, which to wrap around with what I said about the Nicene Creed, is probably why it gets a mention.  If Jesus didn't die, he couldn't have risen and if &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/15:14&quot;&gt;Christ didn't rise from the dead then&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T03:20:15.097" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6290" CreationDate="2013-02-20T04:52:28.167" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your statement was absolutely correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Athanasian Creed states,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus pariter et homo est. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is translated into English as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is equally God and man. He is God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and, he is man, of the substance of [his] mother, born in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T04:52:28.167" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="470" CreationDate="2013-02-20T08:38:26.500" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The personal relationship does not only exist between the Christian and Jesus Christ, but also between the Christian and God the Father. Christians may have a personal relationship with God because the Christian is adopted into God's very own family (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gal. 4:5-7&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom. 8:14-17&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;t=KJV#15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eph. 3:15&lt;/a&gt;). Just as you are familiar with your biological father, you can be familiar&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; with God the Father and His Son. Of course, we must not believe that we can disrespect our heavenly Father, nor His Son to whom he has given all things (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;t=KJV#35&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:35&lt;/a&gt;), for just as we must respect our earthly father, likewise we must respect our heavenly Father and His Son, lest we receive His chastisement (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 12:5-11&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/familiar?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sense 4&lt;/a&gt;: closely intimate or personal&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T08:38:26.500" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14326" CreationDate="2013-02-20T09:09:25.233" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is eternal and inherently immortal. If we dismiss the incarnation in entirety, then we can also dismiss the idea of God being able to die. Therefore, it is because of the incarnation that God could (and did) die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this incarnation, the divine person of God the Son, the Word of God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;v=13&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rev. 19:13&lt;/a&gt;), received humanity (human nature) upon himself (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=14&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:14&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle Paulos wrote (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Phl&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Phil. 2:5-8&lt;/a&gt;),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God, but rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also mentions that the princes of the world &amp;quot;crucified the Lord of glory&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 2:8&lt;/a&gt;), a title which seems to be an allusion to Ps. 24 in which YHVH is referred to as &amp;quot;the king of glory&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=24&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ps. 24:8&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=24&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;24:10&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 24 was understood by Justin Martyr as referring to the ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. XXVI, Justin Martyr wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Psalm of David is this: 'The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and all that dwell therein. He hath rounded it upon the seas, and prepared it upon the floods. Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in His holy place? He that is clean of hands and pure of heart: who has not received his soul in vain, and has not sworn guilefully to his neighbour: he shall receive blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his Saviour. This is the generation of them that seek the Lord, that seek the face of the God of Jacob. Lift up your gates, ye rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty in battle. Lift up your gates, ye rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accordingly, it is shown that Solomon is not the Lord of hosts; but when our Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, the rulers in heaven, under appointment of God, are commanded to open the gates of heaven, that He who is King of glory may enter in, and having ascended, may sit on the right hand of the Father until He make the enemies His footstool, as has been made manifest by another Psalm. For when the rulers of heaven saw Him of uncomely and dishonoured appearance, and inglorious, not recognising Him, they inquired, 'Who is this King of glory?' And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, 'The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All we know is that God the Son did die, because of the incarnation. We do not separate Jesus Christ into two persons, saying that his humanity died but not his divinity (Nestorianism). The divine person of Jesus died. The divine person of Jesus also resurrected himself. This is possible because the divine person subsists in two natures, humanity and deity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one wants to know how such things are possible, like the hypostatic union, there's no way for our minds to comprehend such things. They are beyond our comprehension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T09:09:25.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14326" CreationDate="2013-02-20T10:36:03.653" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the beginning, God has declared the payment for sin is death, and so blood must be shed to cover sin:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 9:22: “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early in the Old Testament God introduced the idea of one innocent being shedding its blood in place of the sinner’s. After the incident in the garden, he introduced the sacrificial system in the Tabernacle-Temple ceremonies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the solution of sacrificing bulls and goats and lambs for the sins of each person’s sin was a temporary fix. The next year, another animal would have to be sacrificed for the same person. A more permanent solution was needed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;That meant a human was needed to die for humans’ sin. But all humans are sinful, so another sin-filled person dying for us just wouldn’t work. A human without sin was needed.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But ever since Adam, every human born is sin-filled, so how could a sinless man happen? The only way was if God did it Himself.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt. 1:23 “Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God became a man, known as Jesus—whose name, Joshua in Hebrew, means “the LORD saves” (1)—and died for us in our place. Therefore, anyone who accepts the sacrifice of Jesus on his or her behalf is covered by his blood and is saved.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What actually is the death and resurrection of body?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinth. 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 15:54 Now when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will happen, “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 15:55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T12:17:23.333" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T12:17:23.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14341" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-20T13:13:38.627" Score="7" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are Roman Catholics required to believe that the Cardinals choice of a new Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, how do we explain &quot;bad&quot; popes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3997" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T16:54:26.430" Title="Is the choice of a new Pope inspired by the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14341" CreationDate="2013-02-20T15:50:34.267" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the principles of denominations which give importance to the sacraments is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the unworthiness of the priest does not invalidate the sacrament&lt;/a&gt;. Even if your priest has himself sinned, that does not prevent the grace of God acting through that priest in the sacraments. Though I can't find a clear statement about it I would expect a similar principle to apply to popes - that God can use an imperfect pope to perfectly guide his church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T15:50:34.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14343" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-20T16:07:28.670" Score="4" ViewCount="808" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be clear: This is not a question about why Catholics and Protestants get married. This is not a question about the biblical support for or against marriage. (I am very much for marriage). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I specifically want to know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there a significance to being married from a religious standpoint for these religions?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If there is, what is it?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give this some context: I was once talking to someone who said she wanted to get married in the church. (She was Catholic, she also couldn't be married in the church as she was a lesbian, but that's not the issue here). What reasons would she &amp;mdash; or anyone else for that matter &amp;mdash; have for getting married in the church? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T18:10:19.333" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T18:10:19.333" Title="What religious significance is there in marriage for Catholics and Protestants?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-01-08T00:21:38.080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14341" CreationDate="2013-02-20T16:54:26.430" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit should be invoked and should guide the election of the Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Bl. John Paul II's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02ud.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apostolic Constitution&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Cardinals over the age of eighty] in particular should lead the People of God assembled in the Patriarchal Basilicas of Rome and in other churches in the Dioceses throughout the world, supporting the work of the electors with fervent prayers and supplications to the Holy Spirit and imploring for them the light needed to make their choice before God alone and with concern only for the &amp;quot;salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In view of the sacredness of the act of election and thus the need for it to be carried out in an appropriate setting where, on the one hand, liturgical actions can be readily combined with juridical formalities, and where, on the other, the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit, I decree that the election will continue to take place in the Sistine Chapel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Pauline Chapel of the Apostolic Palace, where they will assemble at a suitable hour in the afternoon, the Cardinal electors, in choir dress, and invoking the assistance of the Holy Spirit with the chant of the Veni Creator, will solemnly process to the Sistine Chapel of the Apostolic Palace, where the election will be held.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there remains the possibility that the cardinals will fail to discern the will of the Spirit. However, that can no more be determined by the faithful than it can be by the cardinals themselves. So yes, we must believe that the right person has been chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14342/1377&quot;&gt;DJClayworth&lt;/a&gt; is correct that, even if the wrong person is elected, his ministry is not invalidated. God will find a way of making everything good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T16:54:26.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14345" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14357" CreationDate="2013-02-20T16:55:46.973" Score="4" ViewCount="1406" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all know how Judas sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. The thing is he hanged himself before Jesus died on the cross so he went to (supposedly) hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But after Jesus died on the cross he went to the underworld and preached there. Is it possible that Judas might have been redeemed there, or is it safe to presume that the only ones that Jesus preached to in the underworld were those who hadn't heard the gospel in their lifetime?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What church doctrines/beliefs are there on these issues? Are they even related?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T00:58:27.993" LastActivityDate="2015-02-22T18:19:24.430" Title="We might find Judas in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;&lt;suicide&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6627" CreationDate="2013-02-20T17:20:15.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I won't give a long and extensive answer as I think others have covered adequately a lot of what I would say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I would point to the fact that Paul's letters show clearly and accurately how God works both through and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; His children. Paul's statements that are noted as from &lt;em&gt;him&lt;/em&gt; and not from God are no less &quot;God's Word&quot; (meant to be part of the Bible), but are at the same time &quot;Paul's&quot; words. This is similar to how in various parts of the word Paul says &quot;If anyone preaches another gospel other than the one we preach to you let them be accursed&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul could say this because not only does he have a reborn spirit (born of God), but he is baptised with the Holy Spirit as well (Acts 9:17), and because this gospel was verified as true by the other Apostles. Paul had authority to speak and write for God, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is profitable (II Timothy 3:16). Some parts of scripture (such as when Paul says to bring parchments), may same useless, but they are somehow just as powerful - because they are God breathed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="81" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T17:20:15.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14343" CreationDate="2013-02-20T17:27:56.227" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, the scriptural reason for getting married is to portray the image of Christ and the Church through the marriage.  Ephesians 5:22-33 gives not only the reason, but the order of marriage within the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is&#xA;  the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his&#xA;  body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ,&#xA;  so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself&#xA;  up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the&#xA;  washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to&#xA;  himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that&#xA;  she might be holy and without blemish.  In the same way husbands&#xA;  should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife&#xA;  loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and&#xA;  cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members&#xA;  of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and&#xA;  hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This&#xA;  mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the&#xA;  church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let&#xA;  the wife see that she respects her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here's the scripture on husbands and wives, and it clearly lays out why marriage exists:  &lt;strong&gt;Marriage itself is intended to portray the relationship of Christ to the church.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Opening that up a little more, we say that a husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church.  So in that sense, the husband is a &lt;em&gt;type&lt;/em&gt; of Christ, that is, he represents the picture of Christ within the marriage in the way that he selflessly loves his wife.  This doesn't mean he himself is a messiah or savior, it simply means that his role is congruous to the role that Christ plays in respect to the church, mainly by virtue of self-sacrificial love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Countering that point, the wife is to submit to and respect her husband.  Recognizing him as leader within the marriage (and mind you, he ought to be a good leader... see the exhortation to the husband), she is to submit to him and respect him for the love that he selflessly offers her.  Her role is to represent the church in this image, and to portray, in the marriage, the Church's response to Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So marriage is to be an image of Christ and the church, with the husband representing Christ's love for the church, and the wife representing the church's response to Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Brief Aside on Homosexuality's Compatibility with Biblical Marriage&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In her case, I'm not exactly sure that you can separate out the fact that she's a lesbian from the Biblical backing for why she would want to get married in the church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not that two people of the same sex cannot be fond of one another, and that they can't even have sacrificial love towards one another.  They most certainly can.  The problem lies with the roles in the relationship.  They cannot clearly portray the image of Christ and the church, because there is no clarity regarding whose role is whose.  In other words, who, in this picture, is Christ, and who is the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical purpose intended for marriage cannot be supported in a homosexual relationship, &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; the Biblical purpose of marriage is to represent Christ and the church.  The specific roles assigned to the male and female within the institution are what make this possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T17:46:32.343" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T17:46:32.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14350" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-20T17:29:34.973" Score="-1" ViewCount="1395" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see that the letter 'J' cant be pronounced in Hebrew or its parent Aramaic, Hence I wanted to know how was Jesus called by people in those days of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please given evidence from the Gospels only. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T17:50:07.183" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T17:50:07.183" Title="What did people call and pronounce Jesus in Jesus' time" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-02-20T19:27:19.360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14350" CreationDate="2013-02-20T17:33:46.753" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure you can give evidence from the Gospels regarding the pronunciation of Jesus.  That's a linguistical thing.  It's like trying to explain sound to a deaf person.  Unless the original Gospels were audio-books, we have to make our best guess linguistically today. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the Greek for Jesus, which is used in the Bible is Ἰησοῦς.  The pronunciation of the word is three syllables, &quot;Ee-ay-soos&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also variations of his name based on the role his name may play within a sentence (subject, direct object, indirect object, etc), but the main pronunciation, when Jesus name is used as the subject is, to the best of our knowledge, what I have described above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T17:33:46.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14352" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14353" CreationDate="2013-02-20T17:58:07.970" Score="-1" ViewCount="3843" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus pray to God according to the prevalent Jewish customs? How did he pray to God? What does the Gospel say about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T22:30:17.390" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T05:19:21.897" Title="Did Jesus pray to God in the Gospel?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14352" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:04:55.767" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Indeed, Jesus did prayer to his Father, as His Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John 17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this instance, while it may sound like he is &quot;puffing himself&quot; up, it is to be remembered that Jesus and His Father were one. As he says in John 10:28-30 &quot;I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.&quot;  Thus, by glorifying himself, he glorifies the Father, since they are one.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“This, then, is how you should pray:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘Our Father in heaven,&#xA;  hallowed be your name,&#xA;  your kingdom come,&#xA;  your will be done,&#xA;  on earth as it is in heaven.&#xA;  Give us today our daily bread.&#xA;  And forgive us our debts,&#xA;  as we also have forgiven our debtors.&#xA;  And lead us not into temptation,&#xA;  but deliver us from the evil one.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is calling for a very personal approach to prayer here.  He calls God Father, and instructs us to do the same.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;em&gt;many, many&lt;/em&gt; other examples, as this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/faith_in_life/prayer/learning_from_the_prayer_life_of_jesus.aspx&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; shows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus prayed for others. In Matthew 19:13, we read, &quot;Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them.&quot; Despite the fact that &quot;the disciples rebuked those who brought them,&quot; Jesus said the children should not be hindered &quot;for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these&quot; (v. 14). In John 17:9 we read, &quot;I [Jesus] pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given Me, for they are Yours.&quot; This underscores the need for intercessory prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus prayed with others. Luke 9:28 reads, &quot;[Jesus] took Peter, John and James with Him and went up onto a mountain to pray.&quot; Jesus prayed alone, as we'll read below, but He also knew the value of praying with others. Acts 1:14 underscores the importance of Christians praying with one another: &quot;They all joined together constantly in prayer …&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus prayed alone. Luke 5:16 reads, &quot;But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.&quot; As much as Jesus understood the value of praying with and for others, He also understood the need to pray alone. Psalm 46:10 reads, &quot;Be still, and know that I am God.&quot; Sometimes it's important for us to &quot;be still&quot; before God, but the only way to do this, especially in our hectic culture, is to do so alone with God.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T21:45:18.823" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T21:45:18.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13726" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:44:21.427" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 20: 25 How many nails where used in Jesus execution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:25 which speaks of Thomas words &amp;quot;...'Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails [...] I will certainly not believe.'&amp;quot; Critiques of the suggetion that Jesus was impaled point to Thomas indication that nailS [plural] were used and say this implys that a total of TWO nails were used for Jesus' hands (thus indicating he was executed on a cross not an upright stake).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, Jehovah's Witnesses have never said that two nails (plural) could NOT have been used for each hand. In fact, possibly two were necessary to support the weight of a fully grown man. Nothing in scripture excludes the possibility of two nails in each hand on an upright stake**. So...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Two nails could have been used - hands side by side rather than on top of each other.&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Two nails could have been used - hands on top of each other&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Two nails could have been used - one at wrist and the other into the palm of the hands&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... or any other combination of two nails for each hand still allowing for the method of execution to be an upright stake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the pluralization of &amp;quot;nails&amp;quot; could also be referring to the total used (not necessarily the total used in each seperate hand). Thomas actually asked to see &amp;quot;the print of the nails&amp;quot; or the wounds inflicted by the nails, since the absolute minimum number of nails used had to be two (one in the hands and one for the feet) , that would be plural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate: If someone told their doctor &amp;quot;I have tender spotS in my knees and back&amp;quot; The patient could well have single ONE spot of pain in one knee and and another in his back? If so the pluralization of SPOTS would be referring to the total number of spots in his body. Luke reports that Jesus showed Thomas &amp;quot;... his hands and his feet.].&amp;quot; (Luke 24:39), so the &amp;quot;nails&amp;quot; [plural] could be referring to those that went through his hands AND his feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TO IMPALE: The fastening of a victim either dead or alive to a stake, or pole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;MERRIAMS dictionary defines it as: a : to torture or kill by fixing ON a sharp stake&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impale&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impale&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;GREEK&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word translated by most bibles as &amp;quot;crucify&amp;quot; is in fact &amp;quot;stauroo&amp;quot; from the root &amp;quot;stauros&amp;quot; which means (torture) stake; xylon: stake/log; Latin crux: upright stake&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;stauroo cause-STAND ...drive a stake into the ground, fasten ON a stake, IMPALE, now by popular usage, crucify, though there was no crosspiece.&amp;quot;- - pp. 63, 64, Greek-English Keyword Concordance, Concordant Publishing Concern, 1983, 3rd printing of 6th edition of 1976. [CAPs mine]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CRUCIFY&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast Merriam's define &amp;quot;crucify&amp;quot; as: : to put to death by nailing or binding the wrists or hands and feet to A CROSS&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crucify&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crucify&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the meaning of the Greek word used in scripture obviously IMPALE is a more accurate and appropriate choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3936" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T18:44:21.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14355" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14375" CreationDate="2013-02-20T20:08:53.860" Score="7" ViewCount="15559" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had a discussion with some friends last night about the meaning of the phrase &quot;the meek will inherit the earth&quot; in Matthew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:5. NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed are the meek,&#xA;      for they will inherit the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were a whole lot of different ideas flying around. Just wondering, is that talking about this present earth, or the next? Also, is it speaking corporately or individually? Not sure if there's a &quot;right&quot; answer for this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3939" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2014-11-24T13:55:08.870" LastActivityDate="2014-11-25T01:21:48.533" Title="What does inherit the earth mean in Matthew 5:5" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-11-27T05:00:10.473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14296" CreationDate="2013-02-20T20:37:00.913" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure which specific councils you're referring to, but for the sake of this answer I'll assume it's the first four &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ecumenical councils&lt;/a&gt;. The Apocryphal writings were not the primary focus of these councils; doctrinal concerns were (the Trinitarian and Christological heresies). Here is a brief summary of these councils:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nicaea I (325 CE):&lt;/strong&gt; Summoned primarily to deal with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Arian heresy&lt;/a&gt;, clarifying the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. A creed was developed that became the basis of the later &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed&lt;/a&gt;. The date of Pascha (Easter) was also fixed at this council.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Constantinople I (381 CE):&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Arianism&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Arianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;semi-Arianism&lt;/a&gt; were still problems for the Church, so the full &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed&lt;/a&gt; was formulated to refute these heresies (and some others such as those of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sabellius&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinaris_of_Laodicea&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apollinarus&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatomachi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Macedonius&lt;/a&gt;) and to clarify the relationship of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesus I (431 CE):&lt;/strong&gt; This council condemned &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nestorianism&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pelagianism&lt;/a&gt;. Jesus Christ was defined as the Incarnate Word of God and the Virgin Mary as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Theotokos&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chalcedon I (451 CE):&lt;/strong&gt; This council condemned the heresy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Monophysitism&lt;/a&gt; and clarified Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect man in one person (ὑπόστασις, &lt;em&gt;hypostasis&lt;/em&gt;), which is referred to as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hypostatic Union&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the Apocryphal writings, many early Christians considered them to be scripture due to their inclusion in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Septuagint&lt;/a&gt;, with the notable exception of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jerome&lt;/a&gt;. The lists of books considered &quot;canonical&quot; by many groups today were drawn up very early (fourth century and onward), so there was little dispute (with the exception of the Apocryphal works) when official canons were drawn up in the 16th and 17th centuries.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in response to your question, the answer is no, the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries did not primarily deal with Apocryphal writings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T23:37:25.253" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T23:37:25.253" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14345" CreationDate="2013-02-20T20:54:54.537" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is good reason to believe that we will not see Judas in heaven.  Jesus spoke of His betrayer with these words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! &lt;strong&gt;It would have been better for that man if he had not been born&lt;/strong&gt;.”  Matthew 26:24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As @Paul A Clayton noted in this comment, John 17:12 is more emphatic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;None has been lost except &lt;strong&gt;the one doomed to destruction&lt;/strong&gt; so that Scripture would be fulfilled.  John 17:12b NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus said that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born, then it is hard to imagine that he is in heaven now.  Since Jesus is omniscient, if Judas were to have another opportunity to respond to the gospel after his death--which I don't believe he did--then Jesus would have also known the outcome of that and would not have said what He did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judas did, however, feel remorse, but there is a significant, even eternal difference between remorse and repentance.  He certainly could have repented of what he did and returned to Jesus, but it appears he felt remorse and probably shame.  His suicide appears to be a result of that and not of biblical repentance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-20T21:57:28.773" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T21:57:28.773" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14358" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14370" CreationDate="2013-02-20T21:05:51.540" Score="2" ViewCount="514" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any reason behind why punishment differed in Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Kings 15:11-12? What's the context?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of&#xA;them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death;&#xA;their blood is upon them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Kings 15:11-12 And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the Lord,&#xA;as David his father had done. He put away the male cult prostitutes&#xA;out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I saw this in Project Reason, saying it is a contradiction of how homosexuals should be treated. One states death and the other says removal out of the land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2045" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-06T23:14:51.533" Title="Why did punishment differ in Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Kings 15:11-12?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14359" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14385" CreationDate="2013-02-20T22:24:03.650" Score="8" ViewCount="10671" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father? It's a pretty simple question, so I don't really know if there is much I can add to the body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T00:57:35.950" LastActivityDate="2016-02-14T03:33:34.727" Title="Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-02-19T16:03:10.483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14358" CreationDate="2013-02-20T22:39:59.517" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are at least two possibilities.  The first would be that when the Scriptures say he put them away, it might be referring to Asa's actual implementation of the prescribed Levitical punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way to look at it is to divide the two statements.  Asa did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as David his father had done.  He served the Lord with his whole heart and ruled with integrity.  Then the writer goes on to indicate one of the other things he did, that is, to put away the male cult prostitutes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If he did not implement the prescribed Levitical punishment, then he exhibited mercy, but still prevented the practice from continuing in Israel.  Was it the letter of the law?  No.  Would he have been justified in God's sight if he had carried out the prescribed punishment?  Yes.  (Again, he may have actually carried out the prescribed punishment.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, even if he implemented a lesser sentence than what was prescribed, it's only a difference between prescription and practice.  &lt;strong&gt;The prescription is not contradicted just because one person doesn't follow it.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He may have partially failed in this, but still overall did what was right in the eyes of the Lord.  David himself committed adultery and murder, but he is still called a man after God's own heart--not because he never sinned, but that he repented greatly whenever he did and truly sought the Lord with all his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-20T22:39:59.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14361" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-20T23:00:29.290" Score="9" ViewCount="529" Body="&lt;p&gt;How have the Bible's passages concerning slavery been interpreted and applied throughout Christian history, especially passages such as Exodus 21:2-11, Leviticus 25:44-46, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have Christians historically applied these passages to employer/employee relations as many commentators have suggested, or is this an inappropriate cultural parallel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note that I am &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; asking, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4889/why-doesnt-the-bible-prohibit-slavery&quot;&gt;Does the Bible condone slavery?&lt;/a&gt;&quot; You may of course share your opinion on this question when giving your response (I understand that this question is somewhat implicit), but I am specifically interested in how the Christian Church has historically interpreted and applied these passages.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2017-01-07T16:53:16.727" Title="Has the Church historically considered biblical texts concerning slavery to be transcultural or finite?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;slavery&gt;&lt;racism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13867" CreationDate="2013-02-20T23:50:11.080" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In the least, Augustine did not approve of Jerome's preferred translation of the Septuagint (he actually penned two, at least in part), specifically. At most he may have thought it a sin to even use it as scripture. His greatest fear is that it would lead to apparent discrepancies in opinion between Latin and Greek churches and &lt;em&gt;grievously&lt;/em&gt; harm church unity. He did not object to a translation in general (in fact he very much wanted one), but to the source that Jerome choose, the Hebrew versions, instead of the Greek versions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a letter from Augustine to Jerome:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job [which was by the Greek texts].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the other translations Jerome provided where acceptable to Augustine. He even said this to Jerome in that same letter, which largely criticized the translation of the Septuagint:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At the same time, we are in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from the original Greek, because in almost every passage we have found nothing to object to, when we compared it with the Greek Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite Augustine's passionate objection, Jerome's translation of the Septuagint from the Hebrew texts is today heralded as his best work and among many protestants (and somewhat Catholics) one of the best translations of the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Long Answer:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The issue that Augustine had with Jerome's translation was with his source material and was most definitely not about Jerome's ability. In fact, Augustine regularly praised Jerome's work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But concerning news that Jerome was using the Hebrew versions of the text instead of the Greek for the translation, Augustine once stated in a letter to Jerome in AD 394:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint, whose authority is worthy of highest esteem. For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine thought it a waste of Jerome's efforts and ability to translate the Septuagint using the Hebrew texts available, believing that the Greek version was Divinely inspired. Using strong language, Augustine urges Jerome to use the same method for translating Job, which he approved of, which was to use the Greek and not the Hebrew text because the Greek was Divinely inspired in his opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jerome did not heed Augustine's advice, believing that the Hebrew was actually more accurate to the original text. He voiced his objection again to Jerome using the Hebrew in another letter in AD 403, although, he did praise the exhaustiveness of the work, but challenged the motive for the asterisks and obelisks in the translation. See the quote below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine goes on in the letter, reveling his biggest concern with the source material chosen was a matter of Church unity. He feared that the Latin churches would have scripture that was too different than the Greek churches, which might lead to arguments and schism. He favored the Greek texts, on a logical basis, because it was already wide spread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version ... For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine even discusses a certain bishop who 'narrowly escaped' a 'calamity' where he might have lost his congregation forcing the bishop to 'correct [Jerome's] version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated.' Augustine's concern for Church unity and reduced confusion is summed up thusly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You would therefore confer upon us a much greater boon if you gave an exact Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint version: for the variations found in the different codices of the Latin text are intolerably numerous; and it is so justly open to suspicion as possibly different from what is to be found in the Greek, that one has no confidence in either quoting it or proving anything by its help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jerome, however, did not respond favorably and was even somewhat hostile to Augustine's reasoning, which required that Church unity be more important than the exactness of the translation to the original writings. His letter to Augustine in AD 404 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In AD 405 Augustine replied with the same argument and begged Jerome to deliver the translation to him so that it may &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be used in any authoritative church gathering. As far as historians know, Jerome did not respond and continued with the translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SOURCES&lt;/strong&gt; (In order of use)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;A selection of the letters between Jerome and Augustine&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Septuagint Wikipedia Article - Section on Christian use of&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome#Translations_and_commentaries&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jerome Wikipedia Article - Section on Translations and Commentaries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jerome Wikipedia Article - General Reference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-07-11T23:18:47.433" LastActivityDate="2014-07-11T23:18:47.433" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14363" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14367" CreationDate="2013-02-20T23:50:37.350" Score="15" ViewCount="15452" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I remember, there is no rule in the Bible as to who can baptize a new believer. However, I'm almost certain that sometime in the early history of the Roman Catholic church, someone or some group of people decided on some rule, such as being a pastor. Or, perhaps they instead decided that anyone could baptize a new believer. I don't know, so I'm asking: according to the Roman Catholic church, who can baptize a new believer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14364/in-general-in-the-protestant-branch-who-can-baptize-a-new-believer&quot;&gt;In general, in the Protestant branch, who can baptize a new believer?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2016-02-07T15:10:04.063" Title="According to the Roman Catholic church, who can baptize a new believer?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;canon-law&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14364" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-20T23:55:22.337" Score="4" ViewCount="1175" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know quite well that the plethora of Protestant denominations means that there are almost no universal traditions. However, there are a number of particular traditions or beliefs that &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; held by the majority of Protestant denominations. In this sense, then, I'm wondering if there is a general consensus - and what the consensus is - as to who can baptize a new believer. An even better answer would be one that broadly categorizes the denominations that have a particular restriction on who can baptize and the denominations that don't have such a restriction. (Brownie points for an answer with a Wesleyan viewpoint.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14363/according-to-the-roman-catholic-church-who-can-baptize-a-new-believer&quot;&gt;According to the Roman Catholic church, who can baptize?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-12-23T16:07:44.610" Title="In general, in the Protestant branch, who can baptize a new believer?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14363" CreationDate="2013-02-21T00:04:49.523" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is probably a better source, but from my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nccs-bsa.org/emblems/AdAltareDei.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ad Altare Dei handbook&lt;/a&gt;* it says that any baptized male in the Catholic church can baptize another person into the Catholic Church, however, when available an ordained priest is preferred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Link is to a description of the program, it is a program for the Catholic Scouting religious award covering the Sacraments. The handbook is an official publication from the Roman Catholic Church and distributed from the scout store or your local Diocese.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastEditorUserId="770" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T00:13:42.183" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T00:13:42.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14364" CreationDate="2013-02-21T00:44:31.633" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures make no restriction on who can baptize another person.  In the Great Commission of Matthew 28, Jesus tells His disciples to make disciples, to baptize them and to teach them obedience.  It is very plausible to presume, then, that the one who disciples is the one who has the right to baptize and teach obedience as well.  Yet, individuals can play different roles in this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, some Protestant denominations may restrict the privilege to pastors, but when they do so, it is likely not based on clear prohibitions of Scripture.  Many Protestant denominations reject the idea of a clergy class and a laity class, so what a pastor can do, others who are not pastors can also do (except when it comes to legal issues like performing weddings).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”  Matthew 28:19-20 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T00:44:31.633" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14363" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:55:56.783" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In an emergency&lt;/strong&gt; where there is danger of imminent death, &lt;strong&gt;anyone&lt;/strong&gt; (yes, &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt;) who has the appropriate intention can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In all other cases&lt;/strong&gt;, Catholics are instructed to contact their parish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that this only concerns who can baptize: not all persons should &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; baptized. There are certain restrictions regarding the baptism of certain adults, though young children can always be baptized.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The official &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt; addresses this directly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be very clear: in cases where there is danger of imminent death, &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; can baptize. A person does not need to be male or baptized. Even a child can baptize in an emergency, if an adult is not present or incapacitated, though the child must be able to form the appropriate intention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When there is no danger of imminent death, baptism is to be handled by the Church. The relevant Canon law is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can.  861 §1. &lt;strong&gt;The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon&lt;/strong&gt;, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 530, n. 1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can. 530 The following functions are especially entrusted to &lt;strong&gt;a pastor&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1/ the administration of baptism; [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, &lt;strong&gt;a catechist or another person designated&lt;/strong&gt; for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can.  862 &lt;strong&gt;Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission&lt;/strong&gt;, not even upon his own subjects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can.  863 The baptism of adults, at least of those who have completed their fourteenth year, is to be deferred to the &lt;strong&gt;diocesan bishop&lt;/strong&gt; so that he himself administers it if he has judged it Expedient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These rules are in place to ensure that the baptism is, above all, performed in a valid way, but also to ensure that it is recorded appropriately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be unwise and prideful for a person to perform baptism out of accordance with these rules, for the same reason that it would be unwise and prideful for a person to perform life-threatening surgery without the proper consultation of a trained doctor. Though of course, when a person is dying in front of you and there is nobody better able, you will, can, and are obliged to do everything you can to help save them, if they can be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T23:53:17.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14368" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T05:08:53.967" Score="7" ViewCount="853" Body="&lt;p&gt;To take an extreme example, if a person is on a plane that's about to crash, and she wishes to perform a baptism that is valid according to the Catholic Church (and therefore valid according to the many other churches that have the same practices of baptism), should she open the nearest water bottle and:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Say &quot;I baptize you all in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit&quot; while splashing the water towards the heads of the intended recipients of baptism, thus baptizing at least those who had not already been baptized? Or should she:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Say &quot;I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit&quot; while pouring the water onto the head of the nearest person, and then proceed to the next person, and so on until death,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;because the first option would not be a valid baptism? (Assume that this person is a child that cannot hope to land the plane, that she believes in the same God as Catholics, that she intends to bring the recipients of baptism into the fullness of Christ's Church, that air pressure is lost leaving no more-competent passenger conscious, and that the would-be recipients are a large number of lapsed family members, some of which have been putting baptism off for so long that there is reason to believe that their desire for baptism is at least questionable...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put a bit more plainly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a Catholic wishes to administer a valid baptism to many people in danger of death, must she baptize each person separately, or can she baptize all of them in one act, and what would be the correct &lt;em&gt;form&lt;/em&gt; for doing so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T18:07:04.357" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T22:54:17.567" Title="Is it valid to baptize multiple persons at once?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14352" CreationDate="2013-02-21T10:54:00.413" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;During many times in His life, Jesus withdrew from His disciples and the crowds, to be alone to pray. He often went up on a mountainside or went to solitary or lonely places to pray. Sometimes He even went to pray very early in the morning, while it was still dark (Matthew 14:23, Mark 1:35, 6:46, Luke 5:16).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eternal Father and the eternal Son had an eternal relationship before Jesus took upon Himself the form of a man. In John 5:19-27, we get to know this relationship where Jesus says that “whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.” Particularly in verse 23 He says:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 5:23 So that all people will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus taught that He and His Father are one (John 10:30), meaning that He and His Father are of the same substance and the same essence.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, the eternal Son of God, took upon Himself sinless humanity, giving up His heavenly glory (Philippians 2:5-11). Jesus was both God and man in one person. For this reason we see His tempting by Satan (Matt. 4:1-11), accused falsely by men, rejected by His people, and eventually crucified. He had a will.  He ate.  He slept, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was a man.  He needed to be a human in order to bear the sins of people.  He needed to be God in order to offer a sacrifice to God the Father sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.  No mere man could do this.  But the fact is, Jesus was one person -- and still is. Jesus was both God and man at the same time in the form of a single person. It is, therefore, not surprising that Christ did what every God-fearing person is supposed to do, namely pray to God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 17, from verse 1 to 5 Jesus prays to God to glorify him by completing the works that he was to fulfil for the salvation of humanity by dying on the cross though he was God.  In the second part from verse 6 to 19 he prays for his disciples. And lastly from verse 20 to 26 he prays for all the humanity.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this full chapter of John 17, we see that whatever he was communing with his Father was like a conversation.  It is the Son of God in His humanity talking with God the Father, two parts of the tri-unity, along with the Holy Spirit, the Father God, the Son God, and the Spirit God, not three gods, but one God existing as three persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T07:17:46.227" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T07:17:46.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14358" CreationDate="2013-02-21T11:03:14.687" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 20:13 mentions what should be done to Israelites under the Law of Moses. 1 Kings 15:11-12 mentions how a particular King ruled the nations of Israel. It seems from the context that there were some Canaanite idolatry temples within Israel, which practiced cult prostitution. 1 Kings 14:24 indicates that there was actually both male and female prostitutes.  &lt;strong&gt;From what I know about these temples it is most probable that the prostitutes and the priests were not Israelites, so the law was not applicable to them. That the King forced them out of Israel seems to have been a move that God approved of.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that there are many instances when people are congratulated in the Bible when they move in the 'direction of right', without actually going all the way. So even if this was incorrectly understood as a law that was to be applied to foreigners also, there is actually no contradiction in one person’s example being spoken well of, versus the actual prescription that should have been followed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T11:03:14.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14371" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14392" CreationDate="2013-02-21T12:52:58.767" Score="7" ViewCount="1886" Body="&lt;p&gt;Again, this is one I've never heard of.  Inspired by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14368/is-it-valid-to-baptize-multiple-persons-at-once#comment34861_14368&quot;&gt;Peter Turner's comment&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you had a plane full of people's consent to be baptized if they&#xA;  miraculously survived the flight but they died anyway then water&#xA;  baptism wouldn't be necessary, it would be baptism by desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd never heard of &quot;baptism by desire&quot;.  What is it, who believes in it, and how does it relate to &quot;traditional&quot; baptism as far as legitimacy/effectiveness goes?  (Is it considered inferior or equivalent to traditional baptism?)  I assume that &quot;by desire&quot; means that no ordained minister/priest/pastor is involved, hence the question of legitimacy/effectiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T08:34:02.423" Title="What is baptism by Desire?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14359" CreationDate="2013-02-21T12:55:38.273" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally have always pictured the trinity in a particular way, that helps me understand it. I don't believe there's anything biblical to say 'this is how it is' but I don't think it contradicts anything that the Bible says either - if it does I'd appreciate someone pointint that out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I generally see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God - he is outside our time and space, he is the God who knows all and we would generally deem call 'Father'.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus - obviously he's also God, but he was fully human. I don't believe he had the power of God the Father or was all knowing which is why he prayed. He was God in human form that lived within our world and was subject to all it's physical laws.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Spirit - Again, this is God. I tend to picture the spirit as being God the Father manifesting his power in our world. The spirit is how God is able to interact with this world and hence is what fills us with joy, heals us and gives us the gifts of the spirit. The Holy Spirit isn't constrained by our physical laws (hence we can all be filled with the spirit at once - omnipresent).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are all God, like you consist of multiple parts (body, mind, soul), it is difficult to reconcile these things together but combined they all describe who you are. The same is true for God, all these combined represent who God is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="287" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T12:55:38.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14352" CreationDate="2013-02-21T13:03:18.170" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes he did, as a son would, there was many time in the gospels were Jesus would leave his followers and spend time alone with God. There were times when Jesus fasted and prayed &quot;Luke 6;12&quot; Jesus went into the mountain area to pray and he spent the whole night in prayer to God.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3933" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T15:36:39.607" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T15:36:39.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14359" CreationDate="2013-02-21T15:26:55.480" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, That is the part of God that carries out the word of God, or the will of God. God speaks his word and the Holy Spirit makes sure it get don't according to God's will. Genesis 1;2 The Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water, waiting for God to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even today the Holy Spirit is waiting for you to speak God's word, It is hard to be effective witness with out it, in you to carry out God's will. Acts 1; 4,5 this tells you that you need the baptism of the Holy Spirit or you witness will be weak. John baptized with water you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. The world is still happening and it still needs witness, to be a effective witness you need it. We didn't walk with Jesus we didn't see Jesus were not call to be apostle, No but you are called to be a witness. Not a run down and kick in the head witness, But one who has the power of God following out of them to destroy the works of the enemy on the Earth. Read Mark chapter 4 again Don't Kick people or hit them over the head with it either hit yourself over the head with it. Then learn to love people with it. It works.      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3933" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T16:58:58.777" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T16:58:58.777" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14355" CreationDate="2013-02-21T16:15:02.417" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on which tradition you subscribe to.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Present Earth or New Earth?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Covenant theology (with an amillenial eschatology, this would include Presbyterians) would say that the meek are going to inherit the current earth, which will be renewed, while most dispensationalists (with a millenial theology, most Americans in Bible/Baptist backgrounds) would hold to the view that the current earth will be destroyed, and a new earth will be created.  2 Peter 3:13 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new&#xA;  earth in which righteousness dwells.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The covenant theologian would say that this word for &quot;new&quot; really means &quot;renewed&quot; while the dispensationalist will argue that it means &quot;new&quot;, as in a brand new creation, unrelated to the last.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Corporate or Individual?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would have to argue that in both situations, it's saying that the meek will, corporately, inherit the earth.  The word for &quot;meek&quot; in the original Greek is rendered in the plural, so it's talking about a group of meek people, as opposed to a singular meek person.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T16:15:02.417" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14376" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14377" CreationDate="2013-02-21T16:15:40.403" Score="7" ViewCount="531" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Roman Catholicism the clergy is predominantly celibate and hence there is no pressure of sustaining a family.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly is the system in a Protestant clergy? Are they employed in a gainful job, in addition to being involved in preaching? If so, how do they make time for God as well as for family? How do they sustain their family?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T20:56:26.723" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T20:56:26.723" Title="How do married clergy (preachers) in Protestant denominations support their family?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;family&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14376" CreationDate="2013-02-21T16:27:52.017" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no singular answer to this question, and you'd likely see tons of different situations depending on the pastor and his church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At my church, the pastor is full-time, and his salary is paid out of a portion of the tithes given to the church.  However, in some situations, pastors must find another job in order to pay the bills, typically because they're working in a smaller church where the tithes are not large enough to support him.  I've known pastors who are in this situation as well.  They'll work a factory job or something low-key and low-demand so that they can support themselves as they typically treat their clergy role as their &quot;primary&quot; job, even though it doesn't pay well enough to support a family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some protestant churches, however, are also set up in denominations, where the salary is paid by the denomination, and tithe money typically rolls into the denomination and not directly into the church.   It just depends on the situation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each church is different. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for balancing time, again, just like any job, some have effective time management, and some don't.  My brother is a pastor, and he manages his time with his family by simply carving out time that is devoted to the family, and regularly blocking that time out so that he can properly perform his role as father and husband.  Other pastors may not have the same time management skills, and may indeed neglect their families to serve a &quot;higher call&quot;.  This is an unfortunate fact that happens all too often (hence the stereotype of the &quot;Pastor's Kid&quot;, who ends up being a wild child, largely due to his father's neglect).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the married clergyman would have the same approach to supporting his family as the unmarried clergyman would.  He would have to trust God to meet his needs, as well as the needs of his family if he has one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T16:27:52.017" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8785" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:25:19.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok its this simple. We as humans are made up of 3 things; namely, the physical body, the spiritual body and the soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The soul is who we really are.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The physical body is the vehicle or a vessel that carries the soul in this physical world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The spirit is the vehicle for the spiritual world. It also doubles as a connection to God, for God is a spirit and all who worship Him(connect to him) must do so in truth and in SPIRIT... &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now before man had even come into existence, the devil had rebelled and God had planned to destroy him and his followers like a company destroying defective products. Satan just wants to annoy God so when man was created, he caused man to become  'defective' by disobeying God gen 3:1-13. Automatically, we were meant to be  'recalled' and 'disposed off' in the lake of fire along with the devil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now think of the human soul as a laptop with the internet connection being the spirit and the 'tree of life' being the power source to charge the batteries. When man sinned, the 'power cable' was 'unplugged' and  the 'internet connection' blocked as they were sent out of the garden (gen 3:22-24). The batteries slowly died. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After death, man's soul leaves his lifeless body and enters the spirit which is not connected to God so is placed in a 'warehouse' marked 'factory recalled goods' also know as hell where the devil and his minions have renovated and redesigned to make humans as uncomfortable as possible out of hatred. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before Christ came, every one went to hell, even Abraham (the friend of God). But this place was divided into two by a 'great gulf' that was fixed so that no one could cross over to the other side. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now on one side is Abraham and all the people who gave themselves to God and acquired some sort of connection with God. In this place, there  is no suffering. This is what is refared to as heaven. They are safe from the devil and his attacks. On the other side is every one else. This part is the actual hell. (luke 16:19-31.). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Jesus died, he went to hell and set the people on the heaven side free and took them to a place closer to God. They were now fixed so they left the recall warehouse and went to be with God. Now every one who dies or has a 'dead battery' goes to heaven which is with God, as far as he accepts Jesus as his lord and personal savior. This is so because after you are born again, you are given a new connection to God, a new and powerful connection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit. Because of this connection, when your physical body dies, your soul enters your spiritual body and is guided by the Holy Spirit to heaven.(eph 4:30). This is what is going on now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now in the end  of time, all in heaven, hell and on earth would come before Christ. The judgment throne of the lamb. Those marked recall would be thrown into the lake of fire along with the devil and his demons and they would be totally destroyed, like the the terminator at the end of Terminator 2, as he was lowered into the vat of melted metal. This time no one can say ,''I'd be back''... The ones who remain would be given new physical bodies and would be placed in the new city called The New Jerusalem. Where there shall be no more death and  we shall abide with God for ever. These new bodies do not require charging. And God is so close that we are virtually part of Him. No connection needed. Its a perfect place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4003" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T20:28:16.153" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T20:28:16.153" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14382" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:39:15.237" Score="2" ViewCount="769" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13867/how-did-augustine-of-hippo-feel-about-jeromes-latin-translation-of-the-bible-t&quot;&gt;I recently did some study&lt;/a&gt; on the fact that Augustine objected to Jerome translating the OT into Latin from the Hebrew instead of the Greek because there were significant differences in the texts. Augustine argued that the Greek versions were already wide spread and the differences might cause fracture between the Latin and Greek churches. He therefore, urged Jerome to only translate from the Greek. Clearly Augustine thought it was vitally important that the Church remain unified even at the cost of the exactness of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that Augustine is highly esteemed in the Catholic Church and I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church officially takes a position like this. If not then are there historical events that indicate an implied position like this (other then this particular one)? Or from the reverse perspective, is there an official position and/or historical events that indicate the Scripture is more valued than unity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;An anecdote for further explanation&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Years ago while talking to a priest he told me that he believed that many Protestants would return to the Catholic Church if they would read Augustine's writings and take it to heart. I think this shows, at least in his mind, how much the RCC esteems Augustine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2016-01-15T03:03:43.030" Title="Which is more important to the Roman Catholic Church today: Church unity or the actual text of scripture?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14359" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:56:49.107" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to go out on a limb and say &quot;No&quot;, the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit &lt;em&gt;of&lt;/em&gt; the Father.  That would imply the Father is something comprised of Spirit and something(s) else, or that the Holy Spirit is lesser than the Father or the Son.  The general idea is that all three persons of the trinity are co-equal and co-eternal.  The Bible is pretty clear that God is Spirit.  That means all the persons of God are Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't help that the basic creeds describe the Son as &lt;em&gt;begotten&lt;/em&gt; by the Father, or the Holy Spirit as &lt;em&gt;proceeding from&lt;/em&gt; the Father and from/through the Son, as those terms imply causation and temporal ordering.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I think about it currently is there is one &lt;em&gt;uncreated nature&lt;/em&gt; which is God (I find using terms other than &quot;being&quot; or &quot;person&quot; is helpful to disambiguate what we're talking about).  The Father personifies the &lt;em&gt;Will&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Way&lt;/em&gt; of God, the Son personifies the &lt;em&gt;Reason&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Truth&lt;/em&gt; of God, and the Holy Spirit personifies the &lt;em&gt;Life&lt;/em&gt; of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T19:56:49.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14382" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:59:20.477" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't believe that St Augustine was talking about unity at the cost of scripture. In those times, it was much more difficult to obtain original-language manuscripts, and much more difficult to find people who were competent enough to analyze them (as St Jerome was).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Translation necessarily involves at least some change in meaning, and both men recognized that this was just a consequence of translation. We acknowledge this ourselves today when we say &quot;well, let's just look at what the word meant in the original language&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St Augustine seems to have been worried that, in cases where such discrepancies between translations would be subjected to close examination, a schism might result over something minor because &quot;just looking at the original language&quot; simply wasn't an option in those times. This was a very legitimate practical concern. St Augustine would surely have been livid at the idea of changing the meaning of any biblical text for the sake of unity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version ... For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church wants unity, it wants absolutely everyone to be a Catholic, but being true to scripture is much more important. Catholics get their Truth from the infallible Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. &quot;Consensus derived for the sake of unity&quot; is not one of those three. The Church is not going to say &quot;well, I guess we can let that slide, some people just interpret things in radically different ways that will lead them into sin and separation from Christ, but we should just respect their views, in opposition to what we know to be infallible, and they'll be more likely to join the Church&quot;. This is actually exactly why the Catholic Church has been so adamant in its views on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, female priests, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T19:59:20.477" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14359" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:05:23.030" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will answer from the Trinitarian perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The two terms are synonymous...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but &lt;strong&gt;it is the Spirit of your Father&lt;/strong&gt; who speaks in you. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:19-20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Matthew 10:19-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but &lt;strong&gt;it is the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Mark 13:11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;...and yet, while the Father &amp;quot;is spirit&amp;quot;...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-John 4:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;...the Father is not &amp;quot;the Holy Spirit.&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when He, &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He &lt;strong&gt;will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak&lt;/strong&gt;; and He will disclose to you what is to come. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-John 16:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Holy Spirit was just the Father in His spirit form, then He would in fact be speaking on His own initiative. Since Jesus makes it clear that the Spirit will &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; speak on His own initiative, but will do what He is told (basically), that indicates there is One with &lt;strong&gt;more&lt;/strong&gt; authority who is &amp;quot;over&amp;quot; Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; From these passages we can conclude that &amp;quot;the Holy Spirit&amp;quot; is not the Father (though the Father &amp;quot;is spirit&amp;quot;) and yet, the &amp;quot;Spirit of your Father&amp;quot; is synonymous with &amp;quot;the Holy Spirit.&amp;quot; Perhaps the best explanation is that the Spirit is &amp;quot;of&amp;quot; the Father in the sense that He comes forth from the Father, without confusing the two as if they were one Person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-22T18:59:54.763" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14376" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:45:07.370" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www1.salary.com/Pastor-Salary.html&quot;&gt;Salary.com&lt;/a&gt;, the average salary for pastors in the United States is between $70,000 and $90,000, a figure that squares with what I'm familiar with in my area. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/clergy-salaries-rabbis-priests-pastors-imams_n_1204870.html&quot;&gt;Huffington Post&lt;/a&gt; on the other hand, breaks it out, but puts the numbers much lower:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Both Reform and Conservative rabbis earn an estimated average annual salary of around $140,000, while the median salary for full-time pastors at Protestant churches was just $40,000, the Jewish Daily Forward reports. Catholic priests and Muslim imams make even less, with average salaries of about $25,000 and $30,000 per year, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast all of these with the current &lt;a href=&quot;http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml&quot;&gt;U.S. Poverty Line&lt;/a&gt; of $15K for 2 people / $23K for a family of 4, and you will see that in all of these cases, the actual salary is sufficient for a family.  Maybe not generous, but sufficient.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In those cases where you are just starting out, it is low, but usually livable.  And, when it's not, many turn to &quot;bi-vocational ministry,&quot; meaning you take two jobs to make ends meet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What these numbers miss out on, in the United States, however, is probably the coolest benefit of being ordained - namely that your housing allowance is tax free.  If you own your own home (and any pastor with a parsonage does not!), then you get to double dip.  Here's what I mean:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Assume my mortgage is $15,000 / year, with $10 K of that being interest, and $ 5K principal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Because it is a mortgage, I get to deduct that $20K from my AGI, meaning that as a normal person with, say, a $50,000/year salary, I would be taxes on $40,000 of that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As an ordained person, however, I'd arrange with my church to &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; pay me $50K, but rather only $35K + $15K Housing Allowance.  The $15K Housing Allowance is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; taxed.  As such, my AGI is now $35K - $10K = $25,000 a year.  A pastor is thus being taxed a lot less.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ordained persons also have the &lt;em&gt;choice&lt;/em&gt; of paying Social Security or not.  If they don't pay in, they don't get to receive, but they don't have to participate if they choose not to.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the tax advantages of being clergy are pretty great.  With so many deductions, your dollar goes further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Full disclosure, when I had my own church, my predecessor made $36,000/year.  I chose to only take $18,000/year, but I also was pulling in well over six digits from my programmer job.  This was a &lt;em&gt;very, very&lt;/em&gt; small church, and I wanted them to give more away to better causes.  Still, the tithes of that church were able to support each salary at the appropriate time.  Most Baptist churches operate directly from the individual churches' tithes.  More hierarchical denominations sometimes fund vicars directly, but usually each church is responsible for paying its own staff. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I give these numbers to say that pastors won't be rich, but it isn't that difficult to live on it either&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-02-21T20:52:06.390" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T20:52:06.390" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14359" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:45:21.650" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;(Although I'm willing to answer my own question, no one should let that deter them from also submitting an answer. Also, for the record, I'm a Trinitarian.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father. This is proven by many scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt; Synoptic parallelism&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we examine the following synoptic parallelism, Luke and Mark identify the one speaking in the apostles as the &amp;quot;Holy Spirit,&amp;quot; but Matthew identifies it as &amp;quot;the Spirit of your Father&amp;quot; (i.e., &amp;quot;your Father's Spirit&amp;quot;). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=10&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 10:19-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when they deliver you up, do not take thought hor or what you shall speak, for it shall be given to you in that same hour what you shall speak. For, it is not you who speak, but the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit of your Father&lt;/strong&gt; who speaks in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&amp;amp;c=13&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 13:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when they shall lead and deliver you up, do not take thought beforehand what you shall speak, nor premeditate. But, whatever shall be given you in that hour, speak that, for it is not you who speak, but the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 12:11-12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when they bring you to the synagogues, and magistrates, and powers, do not take thought how or what thing you shall answer, or what you shall say. For, the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; shall teach you in the same hour what you should say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.augustinus.it/latino/trinita/index2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;De Trinitate&lt;/a&gt; (&amp;quot;On the Trinity&amp;quot;), Book XV, Ch. XXVI, St. Augustine wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deinde in illa summa Trinitate quae Deus est, intervalla temporum nulla sunt, per quae possit ostendi aut saltem requiri, utrum prius de Patre natus sit Filius, et postea de ambobus processerit Spiritus Sanctus. Quoniam Scriptura sancta Spiritum eum dicit amborum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ipse est enim de quo dicit Apostolus: Quoniam autem estis filii, misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda vestra: et ipse est de quo dicit idem Filius: Non enim vos estis qui loquimini; sed Spiritus Patris vestri, qui loquitur in vobis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Et multis aliis divinorum eloquiorum testimoniis comprobatur Patris et Filii esse Spiritum, qui proprie dicitur in Trinitate Spiritus Sanctus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is translated as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in that highest Trinity which is God, there are no intervals of time, by which it could be shown, or at least inquired, whether the Son was born of the Father first and then afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both, since holy scripture calls him (i.e., the Holy Spirit) &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of both&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For, it is he (i.e.., the Holy Spirit) of whom the apostle says (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gal. 4:6&lt;/a&gt;), &amp;quot;But because you are sons, God has sent forth &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of His Son&lt;/strong&gt; into your hearts,&amp;quot; and it is he (i.e., the Holy Spirit) of whom the same Son says (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=10&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 10:20&lt;/a&gt;), &amp;quot;For it is not you who speak, but &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of your Father&lt;/strong&gt; who speaks in you.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is proved by many other testimonies of the divine word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, &lt;strong&gt;is the Father's and the Son's&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Augustine notes, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both the Son and the Father. Other scriptures in the New Testament also prove this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He who raised Christ from the dead shall also vivify your mortal bodies by &lt;strong&gt;His Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; who dwells in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &amp;quot;of Him who raised Jesus from the dead&amp;quot; refers to the Father. &amp;quot;The Spirit of Him&amp;quot; dwells in the Christian. &amp;quot;He who raised Christ from the dead&amp;quot; is the Father. &amp;quot;His Spirit&amp;quot; is the Father's Spirit, the Holy Spirit, who dwells in the Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is frequently referred to as &amp;quot;His Spirit,&amp;quot; where the possessive pronoun &amp;quot;His&amp;quot; evidently refers to the antecedent &amp;quot;God the Father&amp;quot; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&amp;amp;c=11&amp;amp;t=KJV#29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Num. 11:29&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=48&amp;amp;t=KJV#16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa. 48:16&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 2:10&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;t=KJV#16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eph. 3:16&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 4:3&lt;/a&gt;). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the Father's Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of God&lt;/strong&gt; dwell in you. Now if any man does not have &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of Christ&lt;/strong&gt;, he is none of his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Phl&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=19&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philippians 1:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Pe&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Searching what, or what manner of time &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of Christ who was in them&lt;/strong&gt; did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 4:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And because you are sons, God has sent forth &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of His Son&lt;/strong&gt; into your hearts, crying, &amp;quot;Abba!&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Father!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-02-14T03:33:34.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14388" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14394" CreationDate="2013-02-21T21:16:21.210" Score="13" ViewCount="16421" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might seem like a silly question, but I am not a Catholic, and so I do not know the answer!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do Catholics tithe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2017-01-16T21:02:57.090" Title="Do Catholics tithe?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;tithe&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14388" CreationDate="2013-02-21T21:37:03.290" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I've been to Catholic services, and I have witnessed a basket being passed around wherein money is placed. If tithe is defined as putting money in that basket, then yes, they do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Officially, that is, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, the Catechism, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a3.htm#II&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;§2043&lt;/a&gt;, states&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fifth precept (&amp;quot;You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church&amp;quot;) means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the idea is that you are not commanded to give a certain percentage, although &amp;quot;tithe&amp;quot; literally refers to 10%. Rather, it is expected that one give according to his ability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-21T21:37:03.290" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14391" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T21:37:24.573" Score="4" ViewCount="730" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for requiring a minister to be paid for their work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, what is the biblical basis for supporting the notion of a solely-vocational pastor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note - I am &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;NOT&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; looking for a biblical basis that paying a minister &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt;  is OK: there are myriad passages that could be turned to for that. This is exclusively about a &lt;em&gt;mandate&lt;/em&gt; for such recompense.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-04-26T16:57:59.520" LastActivityDate="2015-12-31T22:09:01.780" Title="What is the biblical basis for requiring that a pastor/preacher/teacher/etc be paid for their ministry?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;tithe&gt;&lt;ministry&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14371" CreationDate="2013-02-21T22:00:19.357" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not just that no priest is involved -- after all, &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; with the correct intention is able to perform a valid baptism, though it is forbidden, except in cases of emergency, to just &amp;quot;do it yourself&amp;quot;. It's that no other persons &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt; are involved. Just the person undergoing a baptism by desire, and God. (Not to imply that God is one person; He is three Persons, one Being).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Baltimore Catechism&lt;/a&gt; addresses this question directly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q. 650. &lt;strong&gt;What is Baptism of desire?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Baptism of desire is &lt;strong&gt;an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Baptism of desire or of blood &lt;strong&gt;is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q. 654. &lt;strong&gt;How do we know&lt;/strong&gt; that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that &lt;strong&gt;love of God and perfect contrition&lt;/strong&gt; can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is as effective as baptism by water. God is always effective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; gives further details:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1259 For catechumens &lt;em&gt;[catechumens are those who are in the process of joining the Church]&lt;/em&gt; who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1260 &amp;quot;Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.&amp;quot; &lt;strong&gt;Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.&lt;/strong&gt; It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that in the above, &amp;quot;will of God&amp;quot; means will of God, not the will of &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; god. 1260 is of special relevance to those who are wondering whether, for example, people in uncontacted tribes can be saved. Short answer: yes, they absolutely can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T05:10:34.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14391" CreationDate="2013-02-21T22:39:37.630" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/9/14/t_conc_1071014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;1 Cor. 9:14&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 9:14&lt;/a&gt;, the apostle Paul wrote, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Likewise, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Gospel should make their living from the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;οὕτως καὶ ὁ κύριος διέταξεν τοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλουσιν ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῆν &lt;sup&gt;(TR, 1550)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-9-4.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;commentary on 1 Cor. 9:4&lt;/a&gt;, John Gill wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Even so hath the Lord ordained&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That is, the Lord Jesus Christ (in Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7-8), it is an order and appointment of his that his ministering servants, who labour in preaching his Gospel, should be sufficiently taken care of, as to a comfortable livelihood; he has not indeed fixed it in the same way as the priests and Levites had theirs under the law; but as the one was just and right, that they should be maintained out of the things belonging to the temple and altar, and live on them, so it is his will and pleasure,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;that they which preach the Gospel;&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;that continue to do so, that &lt;strong&gt;labour&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;not loiter&lt;/strong&gt; in the word and doctrine, who do the work of the ministry &lt;strong&gt;fully and faithfully&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;not bear the name only of Gospel preachers&lt;/strong&gt;: should live of the Gospel; not the Gospel itself, which is spiritual, and not corporeal food; but the sense is, that in consideration and because of their preaching the Gospel, they should be supplied with the proper necessaries of life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bolded what is of utmost importance. I preach the Gospel, but I do not do so &quot;fully.&quot; It is not my sole occupation. I am not fully committed to doing so. But those who are, whose sole purpose is to preach the Gospel, they should be fully supported. Else, how shall they devote themselves to fully laboring in the word?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle even confessed that he had the authority to forbear working (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/9/6/t_conc_1071006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;1 Cor. 9:6&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 9:6&lt;/a&gt;). Would Christianity have grown and thrived the way it did without the apostle Paul devoting his entire self to preaching the Gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-12-30T08:48:22.567" LastActivityDate="2015-12-30T08:48:22.567" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14388" CreationDate="2013-02-21T23:59:42.493" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics are not required to give a tenth of their income.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1351 From the very beginning Christians have brought, along with the bread and wine for the Eucharist, gifts to share with those in need. This custom of the collection, ever appropriate, is inspired by the example of Christ who became poor to make us rich: &lt;strong&gt;Those who are well off, and who are also willing, give &lt;em&gt;as each chooses&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. What is gathered is given to him who presides to assist orphans and widows, those whom illness or any other cause has deprived of resources, prisoners, immigrants and, in a word, all who are in need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this doesn't mean they don't give. And Catholics are obligated to give, according to ability. This isn't just semantics, there's a difference between the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tithe in this context isn't just an offering, it's a specific percentage of a person's salary that the person must give to their church, usually under pain of sin. This was required by the Old Law, but is no longer required. Charity (a special formal word that means &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt;) obliges us to give, though. How the offering is gathered might depend on the particular parish, but it's roughly what you'd expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, some of us even sing a song about this issue (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21mwoEkt8Us&amp;amp;ab_channel=ndrewlee&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Table of Plenty&lt;/a&gt;). Some of the lyrics go:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;♫ O, come and eat without money. Come to drink without price.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;My feast of gladness will feed your spirit with faith and fullness of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By &amp;quot;feast&amp;quot; we mean the Most Holy Eucharist, the Most Sacred Blood, God literally present before us, just as He was Himself present before St Thomas the doubter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We sing that song being mindful of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/55/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 55&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 All you who are thirsty,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;come to the water!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You who have no money,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;come, buy grain and eat;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Come, buy grain without money,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;wine and milk without cost!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Why spend your money for what is not bread;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;your wages for what does not satisfy?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Only listen to me, and you shall eat well,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;you shall delight in rich fare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, again from the Catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2043 [...] &lt;strong&gt;The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the obligation to give, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2corinthians/9/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 9&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 Consider this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.b&#xA;7 Each must do as already determined, without sadness or compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Addressing the Old Law, Romans 13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; &lt;br&gt;for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person who has love for her Church will give an appropriate offering. In the same way that St John took care of Holy Mary, Mother of God, so too do we presently seek to take care of the Christ's Bride until she is reunited with Him at the end of time. In turn, she takes care of those who are in need (the Catholic Church is, among other things, a really, really big decentralized charity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-01-16T21:02:57.090" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14361" CreationDate="2013-02-22T00:16:49.207" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SHORT ANSWER&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One major example is the USA Southern States (The South) in the four or five decades leading up to the Civil War of the USA (1860's). Slavery was very common in The South and using the Bible and other religious arguments was very common to justify the morality of it. Although the verses you site were not as commonly used, except perhaps 1 Timothy 6:1-2 (see long answer), it was very common to quote the story in Genesis 9 of Ham seeing Noah, his father, naked, then Noah cursing Canaan, Ham's son, and all his descendants to servitude. Ham and his descendants later settled the southern parts of the Earth which are largely populated by Black peoples today. However, it should be noted that there was also racial motivation for the continued enslavement of the Black people in America. That same motivation does continue today among Racist/Hate groups, who will use this same argument if they happen to be a Christian of some kind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But one should ask this question: what was the dominant Christian denomination in the South at that time? I will not answer the implications but that group was the relatively new Southern Baptist.&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists#Membership&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;citation&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; The Southern Baptist is still the largest denomination in the South today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for other applications in History I think you are asking too general of a question, however, moral objection to slavery was not common worldwide until the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. Perhaps not many historical examples exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for applying these verses to employer/employee relations is somewhat unknown to me, but, imo, is off-putting, so that might be why I don't hear about it much, although I do not think it inappropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LONG ANSWER&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only example I can think of is in relatively modern history in the four or five decades leading to the Civil War in the USA (1860's), specifically in the Southern States. Slavery, as a moral issue, was not really questioned on a wide scale basis until Great Britain ushered in the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century and Europe and The USA followed suit in the mid 19th century. Inventions such as the cotton gin made large scale manual labor less and less needed. The history behind the Industrial Revolution and its effects on American slavery is long and complicated and beyond the scope of this site, however, how Southerner's religiously defended slavery is not beyond the scope of this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most notable, and I think most quoted, biblical reference to defend American Slavery was the curse of Canaan, Ham's son who was Noah's son (The Noah of the flood in Genesis). This is primarily because American slavery was clearly outwardly shown, where black skinned persons were likely slaves and white skinned persons were never slaves (other races and opinions on whether they should be slaves, according to the people group in question, is not part of this answer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the book of Genesis, chapter 9, Noah 's youngest son Ham saw the nakedness of his father and had him covered, by his brothers. Noah then cursed Ham to be a servant to his brothers forever, Genesis 9:25-26 &quot;Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers&quot;. ... Many interpret Ham's curse as placed upon people of darker skin color, Africans more specifically. The argument is that since Ham's descendants were to be slaves forever and Africans were already slaves and inferior then they should remain in slavery.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, I will note a common misconception that the curse was on Ham. It was actually on Canaan, one of Ham's sons of about 30, which is later shown in Genesis. What is also shown later in Genesis is that Ham and his family moved south to settle the southern region of the Earth, which happens to be predominately populated by black skinned persons today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More references to scripture concerning the morality of slavery abounded: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that &quot;Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... &lt;em&gt;nor his manservant, nor his maidservant&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also noted on occasion was that Jesus even had parables which include slaves (sometimes called servants, which is a blurred line for the ancient Greeks), but never to speak out against it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even without scripture, proponents to slavery argued that slavery was a Divine charge:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Defenders [argued] that [slavery] brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. Slavery was, according to this argument, a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun said, &quot;Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Concerning Ex 21:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ex 21:2-4 was not likely to be fully quoted by slave holding Americans of the 19th century because the status quo for a slave was that freedom can only be granted by the master at his discretion&lt;sup&gt;citation needed&lt;/sup&gt; (further I cannot find any laws that required the release of a slave against the master's will before the end of the US Civil War, except in seizure of property for debts owed). Further, American slave marriages had no legal binding and could be dissolved by the master. The slave typically pledged a marriage vow that read more like &quot;till death or distance do we part&quot; and may have even excluded the typical vows concerning faithfulness, etc.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Although the following statistic implies ignorance to the above scripture it does not necessarily imply practices that contrast with the teaching of Ex 21:3-4. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A study of slave records by the Freedmen's Bureau of 2,888 slave marriages in Mississippi (1,225), Tennessee (1,123) and Louisiana (540), revealed that over 32 percent of marriages were dissolved by masters as a result of slaves being sold away from the family home.&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ex 21:7-11 was also not likely to be discussed because sex with slaves was almost always illegitimate and certainly taboo.&lt;sup&gt;citation needed (although I consider common knowledge)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Concerning Leviticus 25:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The American slave holder may have used this verse, but likely only to show that ancient Hebrew law allowed slavery so long as it was not part of your own kinship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Concerning 1 Timothy 6&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse would most definitely be used by American slave holders because it was New Testament, specifically address slaves respecting their masters, and implies greatly that slavery as an institution is neither good nor bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SOURCES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/slavery/erica.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Purpose of Slavery&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Southern Argument for Slavery&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ibid. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cite.auckland.ac.nz/index.php?p=abbreviations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;?&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible - New International Version&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASveney.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bethany Veney, A Slave Woman (1889)&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASmarriage.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slave Marriages&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible - New International Version&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T00:56:37.587" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T00:56:37.587" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14359" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:30:35.423" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Adonay is referring to the Father, yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Act 28:25-26 KJV] 25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they&#xA;  departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy&#xA;  Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26 Saying, Go unto this&#xA;  people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and&#xA;  seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Isa 6:8-9 KJV] 8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom&#xA;  shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here [am] I; send&#xA;  me. 9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but&#xA;  understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="596" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T03:30:35.423" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14399" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15315" CreationDate="2013-02-22T06:14:00.427" Score="2" ViewCount="1331" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stemming from this question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14368/is-it-valid-to-baptize-multiple-persons-at-once&quot;&gt;Is it valid to baptize multiple persons at once?&lt;/a&gt;, the question gives the scenario of one person baptising multiple people on a plane that is going to crash. The bit that confused me was towards the end when it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and that air pressure has been lost leaving [the one doing the baptising] as the only one conscious&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a comment as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;consent doesn't matter to the validity of baptism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Roman Catholic church, if you baptise an adult who is not a believer and has not asked to be baptised (has not given consent), is that a valid baptism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="42818" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T07:11:18.870" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T07:11:18.870" Title="Is baptizing someone without consent valid? (Roman Catholic view)" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14400" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14409" CreationDate="2013-02-22T07:30:40.883" Score="4" ViewCount="1869" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14388/do-catholics-tithe&quot;&gt;another question&lt;/a&gt; that some Protestants have to tithe. That is, they must give one-tenth of their salary, or more broadly, a specific amount or percentage. That seems a bit strange to me, since I've never had to tithe. I'm not saying it's a bad &lt;em&gt;practice&lt;/em&gt; (after all, there was a time at which God ordained it). I just don't really have any proper conception of how it works among Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are tithing Protestants supposed to submit proof of their salary? What happens if they don't meet the mark? Are they said to sin, and if so, how serious is the sin? Are they barred from entering their parish? Does the pastor frown at them or is some other form of social pressure applied? Are they asked to come in for a meeting to explain their financial circumstances? How does it work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2016-05-09T01:16:37.607" Title="What happens when a Protestant doesn't tithe?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;tithe&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-05-09T14:10:54.257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14401" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="34232" CreationDate="2013-02-22T07:47:13.600" Score="12" ViewCount="2494" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the title asks, how many bilateral covenants occur in scripture between God and His creation (this does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; include bilateral covenants between humans and humans, e.g., a marriage covenant between a man and a woman, or the covenant between Avraham and Avimelekh).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2020-01-01T21:24:58.190" Title="How many bilateral covenants occur in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;covenants&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14402" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-22T08:12:11.683" Score="2" ViewCount="13467" Body="&lt;p&gt;Usually, in Protestant churches, the church's income is mostly from tithes and then offerings, and secondarily from any outside sponsors the church may have. I am less informed how the Catholic church raises their funds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I learned from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14388/do-catholics-tithe&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; that Catholics don't tithe. As a protestant, I wonder how Catholic churches support themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does a Catholic church support itself without the money from Tithe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How generous are Catholics in giving offerings to the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2019-04-07T05:22:15.207" Title="How does a Catholic church support itself without Tithe?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;money&gt;&lt;tithe&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14403" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="36126" CreationDate="2013-02-22T09:17:54.213" Score="7" ViewCount="1048" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll give you an example of a divine person: God the Father.&#xA;I'll give you an example of a human person: the apostle Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy&lt;/strong&gt; (note: cite it), is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T09:35:42.593" LastActivityDate="2019-04-24T20:33:51.773" Title="According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy, is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14403" CreationDate="2013-02-22T09:31:25.970" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Chalcedonian Doctrine (that is shared by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestant churches) Christ is fully God and fully human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ is however one person which is both God and human. He isn't a person of God that dwelled in a separate human person (which is the teaching of nestorianism).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic) churches reject the teaching of Chalcedonian Council, however they mostly declare, they are not monophysitic. The argument here is partly about the meaning of the work 'nature'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="1586" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T09:44:27.877" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T09:44:27.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14402" CreationDate="2013-02-22T11:02:21.053" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question seems to imply there must be some secret source, some behind the scenes force. I'm not sure what you expect to find, but money doesn't grow on trees for Catholics any more than for Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, if anything, Protestants have a harder time with this than Catholics do. The &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14388/30&quot;&gt;question you linked&lt;/a&gt; to has answers that explain very clearly that Catholics are obligated to give. This sort of obligation tends to be taken much more seriously in Catholicism than in Protestant circles. Even in countries where belief is nominal, fulfillment of such obligations often outpaces other aspects of devotion. In addition, since the Catholic church is centralized, the local ups and downs of giving are averaged out and the expenses are spread out over a larger giving base.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just because some Protestants define a tithe as a regular 10% offering doesn't mean that actually happens. In practice it is usually much much smaller than this. Since the funds aren't centralized, this often means local churches may have noticeable shortfalls at various times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I still feel that only offerings may not be sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't matter too much what you feel, the account ledgers say otherwise. Of course they have hard times too and giving shortfalls mean less ability to carry out projects etc, but the fact of the matter is that &lt;strong&gt;Catholics do give&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;these offerings do support the church&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic church benefits from a large member base and their obligation to give out of their ability to the needs of the church. This is the major source of income for the church. End of story. There isn't some vast hidden business network or other money making scheme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2014-02-15T03:53:18.963" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14403" CreationDate="2013-02-22T11:20:24.613" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Chalcedonian Council,  a letter from Pope Leo I called &quot;Epistola Dogmatica&quot;, was endorsed which explains the mystery of the Incarnation.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope declared that :  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“after the Incarnation what was proper to each nature and substance in Christ remained intact and both were united in one person, but so that each nature acted according to its own qualities and characteristics.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chalcedonian Council, also adopted a document saying:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We teach . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,&#xA;  known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without&#xA;  division, without separation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source:&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2019-04-24T20:33:51.773" LastActivityDate="2019-04-24T20:33:51.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14402" CreationDate="2013-02-22T12:14:21.007" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends also on the country. For example in Germany the Catholic church has a deal with government to collect taxes on their behalf. It's called &quot;Kirchensteuer&quot;. (see for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchensteuer_(Deutschland)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchensteuer_(Deutschland)&lt;/a&gt;). If you are an official member of the Catholic church, 8%-9% (depending on state) of your income will directly be deducted from your paycheck and collected together with the federal tax. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church is very protective of this income stream: in order to get out of this, you actually have to show up in court in front of a judge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4008" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T12:14:21.007" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14400" CreationDate="2013-02-22T12:32:20.980" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, most protestants are not required to tithe.  I am a protestant, and I have never had to submit proof of my salary.  If I were, I'd probably leave whatever church that asked that of me.  If I fail to meet a full 10%, then, well, nothing really happens.  The sin, if it's even called that, is simply not giving, which most would say isn't even really a sin.  I've never been turned away from a church on account of my failure to tithe, and again, if I ever hear of anybody turned away on account of their refusal to tithe, I'd probably leave that church, as they're completely missing the point of grace.  I've never been asked to come into a meeting to discuss my financial circumstances, (I'd leave that church, etc. etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, there is sometimes some level of social pressure applied.  In some churches, not giving can lead some people to think you're not &quot;committed&quot; enough to the cause of what's happening, which, in itself, is often an implied sin.  Implying such a thing isn't really a Biblically correct way to handle things, as the Bible says in 2 Corinthians 9:7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or&#xA;  under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe this implication is necessarily conscious, as I think many people are so wrapped up in what they're doing, that they fail to see what it is that God has done for them, and wants to do in them.  Of course, you're going to find this in any denomination, Protestant or Catholic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The proper motivation for a Protestant (or any Christian for that matter) to give to his or her church is simply that they are excited about the message of the Gospel, and they wish to support those whose job it is to share the good news, in the hopes that more may come to know it.  In the end, we know that God forgives even those who might have been called to give, but didn't, on account of Christ's sacrifice, so even our giving or failure to give is covered by the blood of Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will say, anecdotally, that when I do not give, my finances for that month tend to be more constrictive than months when I do tithe.  An argument can be made over whether this is because God has blessed me and my family when we give, or whether my finances are in better order simply because I view them more as a stewardship of what God has given me, and so I'm more careful with my spending, but in either case, there seems to be a correlation between &quot;financial peace&quot; and my giving to the church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T12:32:20.980" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14400" CreationDate="2013-02-22T13:35:00.987" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;No Protestant churches that I know of ever require members to submit proof that they are tithing (though there certainly may be some).  Tithing is generally considered to be something that the members ought to do, but is between them and God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may flow out of the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  Each person is directly accountable to God for his life and actions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Corinthians 9:7 (as David Morton mentioned in his answer), the Scriptures teach us how to give:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver  2 Corinthians 9:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A key part of this is the phrase &lt;strong&gt;not reluctantly or under compulsion&lt;/strong&gt;.  If someone is put under compulsion to give, but his heart is not in it, his giving is not considered to be a righteous act or a good deed in God's eyes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T13:35:00.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14410" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14412" CreationDate="2013-02-22T14:55:53.723" Score="7" ViewCount="9060" Body="&lt;p&gt;In both the Old and New Testaments, we are commanded to &amp;quot;fear the Lord&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fear the Lord your God&lt;/strong&gt; and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name.  Deuteronomy 10:20 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.  1 Peter 2:17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in the first epistle of John, we are told that there is no fear in love, and that love drives out fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is no fear in love&lt;/strong&gt;. But &lt;strong&gt;perfect love drives out fear&lt;/strong&gt;, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.  1 John 4:18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in what sense are we to fear God, and in what sense are we not to fear God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-01-07T20:56:44.967" Title="How is a Christian supposed to fear God when &quot;there is no fear in love&quot; (1 John 4:18)?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;&lt;commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-01-08T18:57:44.260" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14410" CreationDate="2013-02-22T15:35:54.770" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to remember that in the Old Testament, God was giving the nation of Israel a law that they had to follow.  The law they had to follow had blessings and curses based on how they, as a nation, followed the law.  This is what we see throughout the whole Old Testament.  God gives a law, the Israelites break it, he punishes them.  Over and over and over again.  So in the Old Testament, law paradigm, we find that a national fear of God in a theocracy is a very healthy and normal thing.  It does, indeed, have to do with punishment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a contrast however, once the Old Testament Law was fulfilled by Christ.  He accomplished all that was in the law perfectly, doing everything the law required.  Because he accomplished all that is within the law, satisfying God's demand for perfection, and because of his sacrifice, which he did not deserve and which was given for our freedom, we are no longer are bound by the law (Galatians 2:19, Romans 7:4).  So we are no longer bound under the same fear that would have driven the Israelites in the Old Testament.  Our fear is replaced by the confidence that Christ has already accomplished all that needs to be accomplished, and in his words, truly, &quot;it is finished.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we see that it is truly finished, that Christ accomplished the law, we see that we've been set free, and we are no longer accountable to the law on account of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.  Being accountable to no law now frees us to release our fear and live instead in joy and gratitude. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 2:17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the statement in 1 Peter 2:17, stating to fear God, it's important we see the whole context of this verse.  Peter was just exhorting Christians to be subject to the laws in their land.  This verse is a verse of contrasts, and the contrasts are put together in pairs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Honor everyone - Love the brotherhood.&#xA;Fear God - Honor the emperor.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The statement here is drawing a contrast between how we ought to respond to those within the church and those outside the church, and also how we should respond to earthly leaders, in contrast to how we should respond to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are to honor everyone, but we should love the brotherhood.  That is, our first allegiance is to those within the church, and afterwards, we do our best to honor those who are outside the church.  Likewise, our first allegiance is to God (hence the Fear God) part, but we should honor the emperor.  While we seek to live at peace with everyone, Peter is laying out the priorities here by use of contrasting words.  I'm not convinced he's saying that we are to live in abject fear of God, as though we are terrorized or afraid of his punishment.  He's simply stating that our respect for God is over against that of the emperor, and likewise the needs of the members of the church is over against those not within the church.  Note that in the verse before, he states that we are to live as people who are free, but not using our freedom as a cover-up for evil.  He says nothing to the point of punishment if we do.  The freedom is still ours, but his encouragement is that we use it properly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see a similar statement in Colossians 3:22:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters,&#xA;  not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of&#xA;  heart, fearing the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, here, he's saying that servants should fear the Lord and not be people pleasers.  He's using the term fear in contrast to the term obey.  Obey the earthly masters, but fear the Lord, not the other way around.  Don't obey the Lord and fear your earthly masters.  We should do things for the purpose of pleasing God, and not for the purpose of being seen by others.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 2:12-13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On another note, another &quot;fear&quot; verse is Phillipians 2:12-13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as&#xA;  in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own&#xA;  salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you,&#xA;  both to will and to work for his good pleasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now we're saying to work out our salvation with fear and trembling?  Why is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After salvation, the major focus of the Christian should continue to be to avoid falling into a legalistic frame of reference when it comes to living out the Christian life.  To fall into a legalistic frame of reference is to be living by the law, and not by the Spirit.  Doing this implicitly rejects the value of the cross, and is an implicit statement that what Christ has accomplished isn't enough, but that we have to add stuff to it.  Our fear should be of minimizing the cross in that we fail to realize it's worth, not that we wouldn't perform everything according to the law properly, and thus get punished.  In Christ, we won't. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T16:00:03.610" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T16:00:03.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14410" CreationDate="2013-02-22T16:05:50.397" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard it once said that the word fear in the bible has more senses and meanings than almost any other word.  Sometimes we think a word can only mean one thing, but even common words that we use every day, mean slightly different things depending on the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Takes this verse for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Afraid is the Greek word φοβηθητε which is based on the primary verb 'to flee' which developed in the idea 'being startled' and 'running away'.  You may have heard the phrase 'fight' or 'flight'.  When we get nervous, human response either puts our fists up, or we become afraid and we flee.  Therefore, the word can also be fright, panic, terror, depending on degree. As we extend the idea to God it is really as a small human encounters a strong force.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to the question. When a sinner under the Law, encounters a force infinitely opposed to him in holy wrath and vindictive justice, it is natural to be very afraid. It is in this context that in Christ we are no longer to fear, for we are no longer condemned.  However, even when such fear 'that has torment' is removed there is still a fear of humanity encountering a great force, now working for our good. A more joyful fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine a neutral force. If we were to stand at Niagara Falls we would stand in reverent awe at the power.  If we walked along the grand canyon we would be in awe, and would not walk to close to the edge, as we would have a reverent majestic awe of the power of the situation.  In the same sense to approach and all powerful God who has moved the universe on the cross, to reach us with an undying love and rescue us from eternal torments, if we were not to stand in great fear, under such a wonderful power, we must not have a clue about who God is. If we were to abandon a great salvation like that it would be like stumbling into a canyon as a fool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fear as a result of faith makes us run to God, and under the gospel with the boldness and confidence of a child running to the strong arms of his father, with great respect, reverence, joy and love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T16:24:09.563" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T16:24:09.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14399" CreationDate="2013-02-22T16:16:18.897" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You asked:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;According to the Roman Catholic church what happens to a non-believer when they die?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe Rome teaches that a person must have partaken of the sacraments, and believe in Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation...and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain from God, through faith alone, the grace of justification...let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919), Canon IV, p. 119).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to this penance would also be necessary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Penance is...necessary because we must expiate and make reparation for the punishment which is due our sins...We make satisfaction for our sins by every good act we perform in the state of grace but especially by prayer, penance and the practice of charity (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Question #1320).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mass is also necessary to cleanse from sins committed after baptism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this divine sacrifice...that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross...This sacrifice is truly propitiatory...If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice...and that it ought not to be offered for the living and dead for sins, pains, satisfactions and other necessities: let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1910), Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chp. II, p. 180, Canon III).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if an unbeliever did not do these things he would be hell bound according to Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also asked:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there any difference for a non-believer who has been baptised compared to a non-believer who hasn't been baptised?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One must first ask the question, 'Is Catholic baptism valid?'. I do not believe it is. But even assuming that it was, according to the Catholic position, the person would still be bound to hell, as he has not partaken of baptism and has no faith in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, for the sake of openness, I will state that I am not a Catholic, but a reformed protestant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3954" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T16:16:18.897" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14414" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-22T17:25:49.273" Score="-1" ViewCount="2686" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Revelation, there are several references to the beast with seven heads and ten horns rising to world power. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev. 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the &#xA;  name of blasphemy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten &#xA;  horns. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev. 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could the seven heads refer to the G-7 seven nations? And the three extra horns when Russia, India, and China join them? &lt;a href=&quot;https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1786/why-canada-failed-to-emerge-as-a-power-like-uk-or-france/7741#7741&quot;&gt;https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1786/why-canada-failed-to-emerge-as-a-power-like-uk-or-france/7741#7741&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:51.080" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T22:01:12.493" Title="The beast with seven heads and ten horns - Is it possibly the G-7 nations plus three more?" Tags="&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;dispensationalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-02-23T09:51:29.757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14416" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14426" CreationDate="2013-02-22T17:39:03.917" Score="12" ViewCount="95485" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. Why would this be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that it will be hard for e.g. Warren Buffett to go to heaven? Can a rich man go to heaven only by giving away all of his goods to the poor, as Jesus advised one young rich man? And could this be why Warren Buffett set up a charitable foundation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”  Mark 11:23-27 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T17:56:37.643" LastActivityDate="2013-12-29T18:55:24.887" Title="Why is it hard for a rich man to go to heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14416" CreationDate="2013-02-22T17:54:47.863" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Parable of the Sower can probably shed some light on this.  In this parable, there are four different types of soil on which seed is sown.  The seed represents the Gospel and the soils represent different responses people have to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third type of soil/response is described as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but the cares of the world and &lt;strong&gt;the deceitfulness of riches&lt;/strong&gt; and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. Mark 4:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, riches have the potential to deceive those who possess them.  This is not always the case, but it is, indeed, a potential pitfall--so much so that Jesus does say it is quite hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of particular interest for this is the expression of a camel going through the eye of the needle.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/eye_of_a_needle.htm&quot;&gt;This site&lt;/a&gt; lists four possible explanations.  One interesting option is that the word for camel could also be translated as &quot;rope&quot; or &quot;beam&quot;.  Context would determine which is the proper translation.  (We have the same thing, of course.  Is &quot;content&quot; something that you &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; or what something &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt;?)  The page notes that for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, it would have to be unwound.  It would be difficult, to be sure, but not impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, Jesus does say in the passage that with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T17:54:47.863" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14414" CreationDate="2013-02-22T19:42:37.997" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, as with any question concerning prophecy, the answer is always &lt;em&gt;&quot;Maybe.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; It largely hinges on whether you think the prophecy has already occurred or not, and also on whether you think the prophecy will occur relatively quickly or not. Since you seem to be asking from the perspective that it has not occurred yet and will occur relatively quickly I will attempt to answer from that perspective.&lt;sup&gt;1 2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;G-7&lt;/a&gt;, or Group of Seven, is primarily concerned with world economics, and has historically been comprised of nations that contain at least 50% of the world's wealth. The idea that a financial group could be the beast that Revelation refers to, in light of the kind of power that the beast is later said to have, does not seem far fetched. Consider this quote &lt;a href=&quot;https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/7887/what-did-rothschild-actually-mean-by-this-famous-quote&quot;&gt;generally attributed&lt;/a&gt; to a very prominent international banker of the 19th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws&quot; — &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Amschel_Rothschild&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this does not pinpoint the G-7. There are many financial groups that hold very much power over certain nations and their population. With some purposeful ambiguity '7' and '3' of anything can be found in any group. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Federal Reserve&lt;/a&gt;, for example has seven members of its &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fed#Board_of_Governors&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Board of Governors&lt;/a&gt;. One might suppose that the incorporation of three more is the beast. I would not be surprised if this theory does legitimately exist, but here and now I independently conceived it. Which shows my point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The inclusion of these three ambiguous nations into the G-7 is just as ambiguous as the inclusion of three hypothetical persons into the Board of Governors. Especially considering there has already been a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;G-8&lt;/a&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this is said with a healthy amount of skepticism, but not total convincing that there is no way the G-7, The Fed, or any other financial institution is not the beast. As mentioned at the top, it is really hard to tell what prophecy is referring to until it has already occurred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For personal edification I urge you to consider this prophecy as one that might have already happened or is even happening now. I think this idea is largely ignored by Christians.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Misc Notes about Revelation:&lt;/em&gt; This particular book is filled with prophecy. Literally, it is almost entirely prophecy which is what makes it so hard to understand. There is a lot to consider when evaluating something as fulfilling a part of Revelation, therefore, I say that your question is a bit loaded and surely at least 20 pages could be written on the possibility of G-7 being the beast.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:51.080" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T22:01:12.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14420" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14432" CreationDate="2013-02-22T19:55:10.787" Score="11" ViewCount="2412" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the most prominent manner in which Catholics are baptized is by pouring.  However, I saw somewhere that baptism by immersion is not considered wrong by the Catholic Church.  (If this is incorrect, please let me know.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is whether or not a person today can elect to be baptized by immersion.  Obviously, this would not work well for an infant.  So, does this happen?  Has anyone seen this?  How often does it occur or does it occur in certain countries or orders?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T20:24:28.197" Title="Can Catholics choose to be baptized by immersion?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14421" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14719" CreationDate="2013-02-22T19:59:27.413" Score="5" ViewCount="424" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've often thought that, once indwelt by the Holy Spirit and saved by the grace of God, Satan has nothing against me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, is to ignore Satan also to underestimate the potential he has to assault the Christian? What do the apostles and disciples of Christ say with respect to Satan's ability against the Christian? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T01:54:49.883" Title="Is to ignore Satan also to underestimate the potential he has to assault the Christian?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-03T15:54:19.647" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14422" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14428" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:08:10.650" Score="0" ViewCount="1724" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &quot;The Late Great Planet Earth,&quot; Hal Lindsey presents a view of Armageddon referred to in Revelation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is this view considered &quot;valid, and if so, by which Christian&#xA;groups?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is Lindsey considered a &quot;false prophet, and if so, by which&#xA;Christian groups?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Has a consensus yet formed as to whether or not Lindsey's view &quot;holds up?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="418" LastEditDate="2020-01-21T18:23:07.003" LastActivityDate="2020-01-21T18:23:07.003" Title="How is Hal Lindsey regarded in the Christian faith?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14422" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:32:39.767" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is considered valid by many Christians, specifically those who hold to a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.  Those that disagree with this opinion will generally consider him wrong about this issue, but not a false prophet.  Hal Lindsey attempts to interpret Revelation.  He certainly is convinced of this interpretation, but that does not make him a false prophet.  He still holds to all of the essential doctrines of at least Protestant Christianity--the virgin birth, the Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, he is probably wrong about at least some points and maybe even most or all of them, but he believes in salvation by faith alone in Christ alone--just as many other Protestants do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the same token, those who do not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture are not considered to be false prophets by those that do.  It's just a disagreement in interpretation, over which we will have eternity to discuss and perhaps laugh about who was right and who was wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-22T21:43:54.547" LastActivityDate="2013-02-22T21:43:54.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3167" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:36:27.653" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that Satan is PURE EVIL. There is a balance between evil and good. To have pure good in your hearts, you cannot hate, and if we do have hate in our hearts toward Satan, we wouldn't have a 100 percent pure heart. I think it is more of a shame on you, shakes your head, no hope, no trust, disappointment in towards Satan. Why should I hate Satan? Why should I love Satan? I am dissapointed in Satan is all. That is how pure my heart is. God gave us wisdom to know better and use better judgment. Yes, Satan is a fool but, there is nothing anyone can do about it, not even God Himself because again, Satan is PURE EVIL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4010" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-02-23T05:30:12.740" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T05:30:12.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14425" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14699" CreationDate="2013-02-22T21:57:48.243" Score="5" ViewCount="373" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 49:13 is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Zebulon shall dwell by the haven of the sea;&#xA;  He shall become a haven for ships,&#xA;  And his border shall adjoin Sidon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if I take a look on the maps, which are created for the twelve tribes, Zebulon is not near Sidon and neither at the seaside. Instead, Asher has the place I thought Zebulon should get. Was there something I missed, or why was Jacob's words &quot;false&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4011" LastActivityDate="2014-06-23T02:09:51.870" Title="Why isn't Zebulon near Sidon but Asher?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14416" CreationDate="2013-02-23T00:57:00.027" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;As already mentioned, it is entirely possible for a rich man to go to heaven. The problem is that a rich man can more easily trust in his own merits or wealth. There are many proverbs that talk about that, like Proverbs 11:28 (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like a green leaf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we trust in ourselves and don't rely on Jesus and his death and resurrection for our salvation, then we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus told the rich man to go sell everything he was testing him to see whether his trust and security was in Jesus or in his riches (himself).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3939" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T00:57:00.027" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14422" CreationDate="2013-02-23T05:00:41.247" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is considered invalid by many Christians. It's also considered valid by many Christians. The closest you'll get to an objective answer is to look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/031027771X&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Amazon book star-reviews&lt;/a&gt;, which is what I encourage you to do. It indicates that the book is very polarizing. And I suspect that the answers which will accumulate here will look very much like the written reviews there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is absolutely no way to &quot;decide&quot; whether Lindsey's view holds up, so the question is impossible to answer. As you may predict from the book's reviews, you are sure to get quite polarized answers. For example, a random Catholic from the internet says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I recommend Catholics stay away from Lindsey's stuff and go read something by a saint instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/documents/false-profit-money-prejudice-and-bad-theology-in-tim-lahaye%E2%80%99s-left-behind-series&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;an article&lt;/a&gt; on general subject matter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church does not endorse pre-millennialism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: &quot;The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism.&quot; Indeed, the Nicene Creed, which is said at every Sunday Mass, appears to reject pre-millennialism, holding that Christ will return &quot;to judge the living and the dead,&quot; not to reign on earth for a thousand years and then judge the living and the dead. Since the Church is not pre-millennial, the question of a pre-trib Rapture does not arise, as pre-tribulationism is a variant of pre-millennialism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From all this we can only assume that mild answers will range from the mild &quot;well, many consider him ok&quot; that Narnian presents, to the mild &quot;read something better&quot; I quoted above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions you may consider asking instead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Is Hal considered a prophet by any body of Christians?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;What is the view presented by Hal in ... called?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Why does the Catholic Church reject pre-millennialism?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Do [insert denomination that you identify with the most]s like Hal?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T05:00:41.247" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14429" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14431" CreationDate="2013-02-23T08:10:51.570" Score="6" ViewCount="20054" Body="&lt;p&gt;God the Son speaks in Luke &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5:31-32&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God the Father speaks in Mark &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1:10-11&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul tells, in 1Timothy &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1timothy/4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;4:1-2&lt;/a&gt;, of what the Spirit says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...another example of this sort of speaking, in Acts &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;8:29&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not have much of an issue thinking of either the Father or the Son as speaking, but I do not seem to have that same attitude towards the Holy Spirit. Obviously, the Holy Spirit speaks directly at any chosen time, that certainly is not at issue; and any differences that I see between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not true differences in any merely-human sense in a way that is an absolute and glorious &lt;em&gt;mystery&lt;/em&gt;, and all that I might confidently say now is that they are three distinct and divine persons. So I have the following question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not exactly looking for quotation marks like in the first two passages above, but where are the places in Scripture where the Holy Spirit is said to be speaking directly? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, when we say the Nicene Creed, we say: &quot;He has spoken through the Prophets&quot;. I confess this, but here I am looking for something different. What are the verses that mention the &quot;Holy Spirit&quot; and then mark a passage of text as His words? I expect that there are a number of such verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like a pretty dry answer that looks like the first half of this question. If something is unsure or controversial, saying &quot;might be&quot; is fine, but please nothing too contrived, and I would not like any commentary. I would just like to know where in Scripture I may look if I would like to reflect on the manner in which the Holy Spirit speaks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-02-06T07:09:11.477" LastActivityDate="2016-09-13T08:23:23.717" Title="Where in Scripture is the Holy Spirit said to be speaking directly?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-09-16T15:42:23.400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14429" CreationDate="2013-02-23T09:34:26.527" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=10&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 10:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greek text of Stephanus 1550:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;τοῦ δὲ Πέτρου ἐνθυμουμένου περὶ τοῦ ὁράματος εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ πνεῦμα Ἰδού, ἄνδρες τρεῖς ζητοῦσιν σε&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;English translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, &quot;Behold, three men seek you.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2016-05-24T17:32:25.693" LastActivityDate="2016-05-24T17:32:25.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14429" CreationDate="2013-02-23T10:01:56.057" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course there are many specific occurrences of the Spirit speaking in the Bible. All prophecy and scripture is the Spirit speaking. &lt;strong&gt;Thus says the Lord, is the same as thus says the Spirit.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, &lt;strong&gt;“Thus says the Holy Spirit,&lt;/strong&gt; ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ” (Acts 21:11, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He who has an ear, let him hear what the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit says&lt;/strong&gt; to the churches. (Rev 2:2, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, as the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit says&lt;/strong&gt;, “Today, if you hear his voice (Heb 3:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And many other similar references could be tallied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to the specific verse you mention, the Spirit is to ‘explicitly say’ this seems to imply more then the general inspiration of scripture but particular prophecies that speak directly to a specific situation, i.e. a horrible apostasy from the gospel in the ‘last times’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_timothy/4-1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary&lt;/a&gt;, conveniently identifies a few verses, the Spirit has spoken about on this particular subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Spirit-speaking by the prophets in the Church (whose prophecies rested on those of the Old Testament, Da 7:25; 8:23, &amp;amp;c.; 11:30, as also on those of Jesus in the New Testament, Mt 24:11-24), and also by Paul himself, 2Th 2:3 (with whom accord 2Pe 3:3; 1Jo 2:18; Jude 18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;expressly-&amp;quot;in plain words.&amp;quot; This shows that he refers to prophecies of the Spirit then lying before him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostles all seemed to have a clear vision of this ‘future event’ as it shows up in various locations in the Bible. ‘The Spirit speaking explicitly’ the apostle understands not a revelation made to him alone, but that the infallible Spirit of God and the Spirit of prophecy guided he and the rest of the apostles to instruct the church and prepare it for this specific future danger. &lt;strong&gt;This Spirit of prophecy is the Spirit speaking.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T10:01:56.057" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14420" CreationDate="2013-02-23T12:13:12.527" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no doubt: &lt;strong&gt;Yes, baptism by immersion is permissible.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html&quot;&gt;has stated&lt;/a&gt;, while considering the validity of Mormon baptism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&amp;amp;C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;The CDF actually rejected the validity of Mormon baptism, but using immersion was not one of the reasons for the rejection.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also features in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1239: Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T19:11:06.273" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T19:11:06.273" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14434" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14443" CreationDate="2013-02-23T15:06:00.403" Score="3" ViewCount="817" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's imagine an actor, a good Christian. As a part of his role of some pagan, he prays to Zeus or other ancient deity on stage. He just plays the role and there is no inclination to Zeus behind his words and gestures (he may even pray to the true God in heart while playing the scene), but the words and gestures are the same as used by real pagans many centuries ago.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;That's what I call &quot;actor's idolatry&quot; - the action as seen from outside and without knowledge of context seems to be idolatry, but there's no intention to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know some would say it is idolatry, some not, and it depends on circumstances too. Biblical reasons why this should be seen as a case of idolatry are quite frequent in Old Testament (for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2023:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ex 23:13&lt;/a&gt;). But what are reasons from Bible (or tradition) that &quot;actor's idolatry&quot; isn't real idolatry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-02-24T18:23:00.437" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T18:23:00.437" Title="&quot;Actor's idolatry&quot; problem - is it a sin?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-02-23T23:15:49.320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14435" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-23T15:34:10.647" Score="2" ViewCount="391" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have listened to Calvinists state that all that happens in time is a result of God's divine decree. Where in Scripture do we find evidence for the existence of such a decree, or where in Scripture can the existence of such a decree be inferred?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3954" LastEditorUserId="42818" LastEditDate="2018-11-30T13:43:30.107" LastActivityDate="2018-11-30T13:43:30.107" Title="What is the Biblical basis for God's divine decree in Scripture (Calvinism)?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;will-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14410" CreationDate="2013-02-23T15:36:24.857" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you love someone, you don't want to disappoint them, but to make them happy.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You also don't want to disappoint someone if you are afraid of their reaction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first is defined as &quot;fear of God&quot;, perhaps because of the similarity with the second motivation. In Old Testaments, the distinction between these two wasn't very strict, God was more tolerant to &quot;fear of Him&quot; in the latter sense - one of the reasons why &quot;proper reverence to God&quot; was associated with fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus has shown us (much better than anyone in the Old Testament) that God is Love, and that proper &quot;fear of God&quot; (the OT term was still used) must have its roots in love, not in fear. John emphasizes this a lot - 1John 4:18 is one of the cases of this commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T15:36:24.857" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2013-02-23T17:18:29.293" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please note that the following is an attempt to explain how some people believe that their opposition to same sex marriage is reasonable and not directed against the homosexual community.  It is not an argument for or against same sex marriage, it is merely an exploration of an attitude.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your question clarification you say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;=&gt; (1)  such as the right to have homosexual relationships, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;=&gt; (2)  public display of affection, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;=&gt; (3)  the right to constitute a family, adopt, etc, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;=&gt; (4)  and at the same time say their marriage should be banned &#xA;        because homosexuality is a sin/abomination. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an objective Catholic perspective, as mentioned in a previous answer, everyone is a sinner.  Also, from a Catholic perspective, everyone is due respect as a child of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a personal opinion then, I can see that (1) and (2) make sense:  respect for the person can be defended and can be advocated in law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However  (3) and (4) are not clearly related to (1) and (2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe point (4) points to an emotional reaction to the  issue of gay marriage, and it does so from both sides of the debate.  On the anti-gay marriage side this attitude certainly exists and, I beleive, is not particularly helpful in a democracy considering a change to laws. But, on the pro-gay side point (4) points to an equally emotional reaction in that it declares that this is &lt;strong&gt;the reason&lt;/strong&gt; anti-gay marriage advocates oppose gay marriage.  So let's be clear:  I can agree that many people oppose gay marriage for this reason, but not all opponents oppose gay-marriage for this reason.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A serious, democratically valid, and rational (both independent of religious teaching and within the context of religious teaching) basis exists for many people to oppose gay marriage and it affects point (3) the right to constitute a family, adopt, ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Catholic moral perspective it is legitimate to promote laws that are aimed at reducing discrimination against gays, because discrimination is a moral wrong.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these same people can resist gay marriage because the idea of &quot;gay marriage&quot; is &lt;strong&gt;incoherent&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To pick at only one thread in this complex, in the Catholic marriage ceremony the couple is required to answer Yes to this question (the wording varies somewhat, this is an approximate quote -- check the exact wording in your country):  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Will you accept children as a gift from God?&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This indicates the root of the more robust opposition to gay marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again from a Catholic perspective answering &quot;Yes&quot; to this question indicates the following (and this is a very abbriviated list!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The couple is able, at least in principle, of having children.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;People get tied up on this one because the church will marry&#xA;infertile couples -- but these marriages do not violate the&#xA;male/female fecundity in principle.  These marriages still conform to&#xA;the principle of male/female/fecundity in their character.  So, for&#xA;many people marriage and natural procreation through normal and&#xA;natural intercourse is a key element of what marriage is.  Homesexual&#xA;pairings cannot be a &quot;marriage&quot; because they miss this element.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Children are a gift.  Any particular couple may or may not receive &#xA;the gift, or may think they have received too many gifts, but the&#xA;concept &quot;gift&quot; is an essential component of the concept &quot;marriage&quot;.&#xA;This particular concept is can be almost incomprehensible in&#xA;societies like ours where the focus is on the idividual and&#xA;individual happiness and above all on control of your life, thus the&#xA;widespread use of contraceptives etc.  In any case, children are to&#xA;accepted and cherished and loved regardless of our own desires in&#xA;these affairs.  Again, children are essential to the Catholic concept&#xA;of marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;An essential component of marriage is that is an acceptance of &#xA;service to others, especially children.  From a Catholic point of&#xA;view people marry because each person in the couple wants to marry,&#xA;but the commitment extends far beyond the desires of each person in&#xA;the couple.  Catholic sacramental marriage commits the person to love&#xA;the other, for life, whether or not that love is reciprocated.  It&#xA;also commits the couple to love their children, whether they were&#xA;&quot;wanted&quot; or not. The general point here is that a Catholic&#xA;Sacramental marriage pretty much ignores the desires and emotional&#xA;state of the each member of the couple in the years following the&#xA;marriage, even into old age.  So, wanting children is not a sufficient&#xA;criteria for legitimizing marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other points that can be made along these lines.  Most are profoundly at odds with the moderen concept of the person as an independent, self actualized being.  Actually these concepts are not really &quot;at odds&quot;; the are radically opposed the many modern ideas of what a person is.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have presented here a Catholic point of view on some Catholic ideas about marriage.  However, similar arguments can be made starting from completely secular theses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, part of what worries many Catholics specifically and Christians generally in these debates is that the proposed laws allowing gay marriage actually exclude children as part of the new definition of marriage.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reference case on same sex marriage in the Supreme Court of Canada is typical of high court decisons all over the world on this issue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The natural limits argument can succeed only if its proponents can identify an objective core of meaning which defines what is “natural” in relation to marriage. Absent this, the argument is merely tautological.  &lt;strong&gt;The only objective core which the interveners before us agree is “natural” to marriage is that it is the voluntary union of two people to the exclusion of all others.&lt;/strong&gt;  Beyond this, views diverge.  We are faced with competing opinions on what the natural limits of marriage may be.&quot; (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2196/index.do&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2196/index.do&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar statements, some even more explicit in stating that children have no bearing on marriage, can be found in other decisions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, many Christians, non-Christians or even anti-Christians can oppose same sex marriage because they are proundly uncomfortable with the long term implications of a redefinition of  marriage that ignores children, nature and the service marriage provides to society. For them the fact that decisions long ago make no mention of children is frivolous: who, before birth control, would have thought it was necessary to mention children? The link was so obvious as to not require any statement at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, many worry that the redefinition will, in the long run, be bad for women, children, and for society as whole. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3997" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T17:18:29.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14435" CreationDate="2013-02-23T17:38:33.833" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not that I am a Calvinist, but perhaps these may be some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=14&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, [so] shall it stand: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=14&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul [it]? and his hand [is] stretched out, and who shall turn it back? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T17:38:33.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14439" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-23T17:50:23.250" Score="4" ViewCount="426" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was the &quot;spirit of Samuel&quot; that the witch of Endor summoned (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20samuel%2028:11-19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1st Samuel 28:11-19&lt;/a&gt;) from God or from Satan?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3921" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-09T23:12:06.263" LastActivityDate="2016-02-09T23:12:06.263" Title="Did the &quot;spirit of Samuel&quot; come from God?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;1-samuel&gt;&lt;witchcraft&gt;&lt;samuel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-02-09T23:11:24.747" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14440" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14469" CreationDate="2013-02-23T20:42:22.493" Score="0" ViewCount="266" Body="&lt;p&gt;(This question came up while I was speaking with someone, and I don't think that I was able to answer it very well. Note that I am &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; asking whether the Church is right or wrong, just for a clear explanation of why Catholics have chosen to present a particular document in a particular way.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In part 3, section 2, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; lists the Ten Commandments. It provides a table with three columns: &quot;Exodus&quot;, &quot;Deuteronomy&quot;, and &quot;A Traditional Catechetical Formula&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is the First Commandment abridged in the third column? Why aren't the commandments numbered in the first two columns? Is this meant to be a table of revisions, with the right side representing the &quot;revised&quot; commandments? What is the third column even supposed to be? Which of the columns is the &quot;official list&quot; of the 10 things Catholics are supposed to obey? Is the Catechism changing scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T04:11:41.680" Title="Why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church abridge the first commandment?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;catholic-catechism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14306" CreationDate="2013-02-23T21:24:51.283" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Turning water to blood and creating frogs and causing a staff(not a stiff snake)into a serpent is no illusion or trick.its power and all power had a source.ignoring it or calling it taboo makes Christians and Christianity seem very weak and unintelligent.God used this source to create the world Satan used the source to mimick God.Adam and Eve dabbled in the source and were thrown out of the garden.God has repeatedly prevented people from gaining knowledge of the source.more power to those who look passed the superstitions and ask the real questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.......don't get me wrong.I believe God is the soul Creator of this source.but I also believe its accessible to many.used for good or evil.this is not spoken from one who is young and ignorant.I am 40 yrs old and have spent most of my life working in the penticostal circles and churches.many of wich were more occultic and superstitious than that of pegans &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4013" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T10:53:37.153" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T10:53:37.153" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14434" CreationDate="2013-02-23T22:36:40.693" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are not describing something that is traditionally considered to be idolatry. However, you may be describing the sin of scandal (beliefs may vary on what constitutes &quot;leading others into sin&quot;, but I understand that you're not asking us to get into that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt; actually addresses this almost directly, in the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. &lt;strong&gt;Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God&lt;/strong&gt;, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, &quot;You cannot serve God and mammon.&quot; Many martyrs died for not adoring &quot;the Beast&quot; &lt;strong&gt;refusing even to simulate such worship&lt;/strong&gt;. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the &quot;simulation of idolatry&quot;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; mentions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even the simulation of idolatry, in order to escape death during persecution, is a mortal sin, because of the pernicious falsehood it involves and the scandal it causes. Of Seneca who, against his better knowledge, took part in idolatrous worship, St. Augustine says: &quot;He was the more to be condemned for doing mendaciously &lt;strong&gt;what people believed him to do sincerely&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point here is that the &quot;simulation of such worship&quot; is marked as distinct from the actual worship (idolatry), and then explained to be a matter of doing what others believe is done sincerely. So the traditional understanding of idolatry, re-iterated there by St Augustine, is that it requires sincerity. In the same way, our worship of God also requires sincerity, and not merely &quot;outward displays&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So acting out or demonstrating how pagans worshipped is not the sin of idolatry. (Except when it is: if you know you are particularly prone to falling into idolatry, or your acting style very much involves you &quot;getting into the role&quot; mentally, then this may not be the role for you).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is actually another part to your question. Most people don't really believe that what is done in the context of theatre or film is done sincerely, except perhaps children (...there was a time when I thought a certain actor really had a disability due to a convincing character portrayal). But what you go on to describe as &quot;actor's idolatry&quot; (action as seen from outside without knowledge of context) is traditionally considered not to be the sin of idolatry, but the sin of scandal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense &lt;strong&gt;if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There really won't be any basis for &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; not being a sin. Scripture is very clear, see for example Luke 17:1-2, Proverbs 28:10. The only thing in dispute is whether certain things count as leading others into sin - and that can be a pretty big dispute among people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-02-23T22:36:40.693" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2136" CreationDate="2013-02-24T00:27:17.467" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It apears logical that Job lived after the flood in the land of UZ. (Edom) southern Isreal and extending outward over its borders.I am disapointed that he did not live preflood with the huge dinasours.(i was sure).But however more interestingly the possibility that there were sizabley large post flood dinasours. Re: Behamoth, Laviathon.Lamentations 4:21 reads: “Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Wikipedia Page on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Uz&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Land of Uz&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Uz is sometimes identified with the kingdom of Edom, roughly in the area of modern-day southwestern Jordan and southern Israel.[3]Lamentations 4:21 reads: &quot;Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz&quot;.Other locations proposed for Uz include more southern Arabia, especially Dhofar, said to be the home of the original Arabs;[4]Bashan in modern-day southern Syria/western Jordan; Arabia east of Petra, Jordan;[5] and even modern-day Uzbekistan.[6]According to the Dead Sea document, The War Scroll, the land of Uz is mentioned as existing somewhere beyond the Euphrates possibly in relation to Aram. In Column 2 verse 11, it is noted, &quot;they shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4014" LastEditorUserId="11018" LastEditDate="2015-08-20T21:15:29.777" LastActivityDate="2015-08-20T21:15:29.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8828" CreationDate="2013-02-24T00:31:30.550" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;shouldn't one be proposing to make it unlawful just to &lt;strong&gt;be gay&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;act upon homosexuality&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an important difference between the two. From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on &lt;strong&gt;Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that &amp;quot;homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt; They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. &lt;strong&gt;They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.&lt;/strong&gt; These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These statements are not inconsistent. Being homosexual is perfectly consistent with refraining to act on lustful homosexual urges. Likewise, being heterosexual is perfectly consistent with refraining to act on lustful heterosexual urges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say &amp;quot;lustful&amp;quot; homosexual urges because if homosexuality involves feelings of love for those of the same sex, feelings of love that have nothing to do with the pursuit of sex or sexual pleasure, then there is nothing wrong with those. For example, if being a male and homosexual makes a person more prone to risking his own life to save the life of another &lt;em&gt;man&lt;/em&gt;, in a case where a heterosexual would have been tempted by the thought &amp;quot;I only rescue women and children&amp;quot;, then this sort of &amp;quot;urge&amp;quot; can only be described as good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that point aside:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While &amp;quot;pick your battles&amp;quot; certainly is one explanation, I think it gives too much credit. I can't imagine the vast majority of the people you mention having a careful political strategy in mind when they endorse or are indifferent towards some forms of sin, but adamantly oppose others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people, Catholics included, really are inconsistent in their beliefs. The Catholic Church has a very consistent and comprehensive account of sexual ethics, under which homosexuality and contraception are sinful for exactly the same reason. Yet some Catholics who are opposed to &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot; (pardon the scare quotes) would willingly endorse contraception. If they truly understood &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; they were so adamantly opposed to &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot;, they would be very remorseful for having used contraception and for many other sexual sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, we are inconsistent, we have no excuse, we are hypocrites, we are sinners yet we judge the sins of others, we rattle on in praise of our own humility without changing, we behave uncharitably towards those who most need compassion. My God, we are sorry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T00:31:30.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5032" CreationDate="2013-02-24T01:29:47.557" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I say yes to this question.  God gave his only begotten son and that is all that really needs to be said.  What other way can he show his love.  He shows me his love everyday he is a constant fountain of goodness.  We tend to let this material world stop us from seeing God's love.  When you start to think about all you have to be grateful for it isn't long before you see how much God loves you. God gives us free will and it is your choice whether you love God or not.  I choose to love my father and when I started doing that my life changed. Faith is what is not seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4015" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T01:29:47.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14439" CreationDate="2013-02-24T03:11:14.643" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Commentators do not all agree on what happened here, but from the context the most plausible is that &lt;strong&gt;God overtook the wicked witch with a vision of Samuel to rebuke Saul.&lt;/strong&gt; The rebuke is even in part for wickedly seeking a medium in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God on occasion put additional sting and irony into his rebukes by taking a strange person to act as his temporary messenger, which he would usually never do. For example, he rebuked Balaam with a Donkey in Numbers 22:28 and Balaam himself was used to temporarily transmit messages from God to King Balak, though neither were godly men. Balaam thought we was a sort of mediator between gods and Balak was trying to use him to manipulate the god of the Jews, so God made a mockery of them both by using Balaam as his temporary mouthpiece in some ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why this seems the most plausible is found within the text itself. Once the witch sees the vision, she is in ‘shocked’ and ‘cried out at the top of her voice’. This shock either meant that she had never before experienced a vision (which God was giving her to her amazement) or she usually had some kind of wicked deceiving vision from devils which was very different from this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That she is not just ‘faking things’ is proven by the fact that her shock immediately brings her to the realization that the ‘disguised person’ asking her to summon Samuel is Saul! She is afraid because Saul only drove out witches from the land and she knew they deserved to be put to death. (Lev 20:27) It might be asked how did seeing Samuel make her recognize Saul? It seem the vision gave her knowledge of the actors involved and it included recognizing who stood before her in disguise as Samuel had a word of rebuke to Samuel standing there. The vision thus encompasses Saul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is therefore implausible to either think the vision came from the Devil as it communicated God’s message, or that it was just a juggling magic act, as the witch herself is inexplicably shocked.&lt;/strong&gt; It must have been from God through a wicked vessel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All along I have been assuming it to be a vision and not really Samuel.&lt;/strong&gt; I do not think Samuel would literally ascend from Sheol, a place beneath the earth where it was thought the dead resided. Rather as parts of visions may be more like parables with certain elements not intended to be literal, this ascending from Sheol would simply indicate in imagery that the witch could understand that Samuel was coming back from the dead, as Saul had asked her to perform as a medium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T13:37:49.493" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T13:37:49.493" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14449" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14451" CreationDate="2013-02-24T05:28:16.037" Score="4" ViewCount="1694" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you were to Google &quot;simulated universe&quot; you'll find that major science institutions are starting to hypothesize that the universe is 'very possibly' a 'simulated environment' at the lowest level - where this simulated (&lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt;) environment supports all needed elements to facilitate true organic existence (they are not claiming that &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; are simulated). One article even went as far as referencing 'the being(s) behind the simulation'  (&lt;em&gt;Creators&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although these hypotheses vary, I've seen a few different schools that have studied the possibility (such as University of Washington) and are coming to the conclusion that it can even be simulated on a small scale within the near future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is whether the Scriptures support such an idea? I've never studied the Word from this angle so I can't say either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to be clear, I know that we and even the universe are not digital simulations - but is there any way that the universe could have not just  formed by God's will,  but also that the formation is bound &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; God's constant will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3990" LastEditorUserId="42818" LastEditDate="2018-11-30T13:43:13.077" LastActivityDate="2020-04-02T19:41:20.350" Title="Do the Scriptures support the 'Simulated Universe' idea?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14450" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-24T05:37:33.537" Score="3" ViewCount="1347" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever I try to determine what is a sin and what isn't I get very confused... I read things by Paul and sins seem to become very subjective... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;_____ is a sin if you make it a sin through belief that it isn't acceptable due to your obeying of the law (the old law, before Jesus came)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then I read the old testament which makes it much more objective...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;_____ is a sin because it is immoral (Referring to God's morals)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the first is true than couldn't anything be justified as not-sin simply by a choice in a state of mind and what you believe your morals are (if that's the case why would you need Jesus for salvation, you are already free of &quot;sin&quot;... so that &lt;em&gt;obviously&lt;/em&gt; isn't the case)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the second is true than how do we ever know what is sin and what isn't? (The spirit that is given to us.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay, but what about before the spirit came (personally and historically), how could anyone interpret wether or not they are sinning? I know the law was given but surely the law couldn't cover everything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it all just a matter of the heart? I read about &quot;sexual immorality&quot; but what is that even referring to, immoral things in your conscience and the culture you live in or immoral as a definition of a standard of God that was never given to man... I see people who look at everything sexual as a biological process so of course they never feel guilt or remorse and it would seem almost unjust to classify their actions as sin. I see others who see it as something where ____ is culturally acceptable but ____ is not and is therefor sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does one define sin? &lt;em&gt;I know it seems like a broad question but I can't simplify it any further than what I've typed above.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4018" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T04:39:46.570" Title="Is the definition of &quot;sin&quot; subjective? Of whom's morals is it based on?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;divine-law&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14449" CreationDate="2013-02-24T06:02:32.243" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible is rather emphatic on the point actually. The universe we live in was not only created at God's command but it is sustained constantly through his active will. This sustainer is Jesus Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%201:15-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:15-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has serious implications for our understanding of the world we live in, including science. The apostle Paul explained it to the people of his day this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17:28&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Acts 17:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;28&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; In him we live and move and have our being [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything we do, everything we touch, everything we measure is inside a construct both created and sustained by God. Science has often been played for the fool by presuming this is not the case. With the wrong presumptions about the origin and ongoing sustenance of the universe, it's possible to derive quite incorrect conclusions from otherwise meaningful data.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure &quot;simulated&quot; is the right word, since our existence as both physical and spiritual beings is quite real, but it is interesting to hear science consider the possibility that there is not just an original but an ongoing creative will behind the world as we know it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T06:02:32.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14450" CreationDate="2013-02-24T06:10:51.420" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin is not an idea or a component of a &quot;moral system&quot;. God's laws are not based on a notion of right or wrong, but are based on God's personal nature and therefore how He wants us to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean that it's not wrong to sin - you can say to a degree that  it invariably is wrong to sin  - but to stress that sin itself isn't &lt;em&gt;about&lt;/em&gt; good/bad, right/wrong, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is to deviate from this nature, but in the end God understands that we are not of His nature (which why we are said to be bound to sin, and that it is within our skin). This is why God is willing to show mercy on our sin and forgive us for not following the law. This is why He &lt;em&gt;wanted&lt;/em&gt; to send his Son to accomplish this - because he knew sin is an actual part of what we are,  making us dependent of a Savior. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I brought salvation into it I think I need to add that that a huge part of what God wants is for us to humble ourselves, specifically because of the ways we are not like Him and are dependent on his grace to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3990" LastEditorUserId="3990" LastEditDate="2013-02-24T06:43:32.773" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T06:43:32.773" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="50880" CreationDate="2013-02-24T10:39:55.057" Score="7" ViewCount="356" Body="&lt;p&gt;Justin narrates the manner of his conversion to Trypho the Jew. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chapter III of his &lt;em&gt;Dialogue with Trypho&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, he writes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And while I was thus disposed, when I wished at one period to be filled with great quietness, and to shun the path of men, I used to go into a certain field not far from the sea. And when I was near that spot one day, which having reached I purposed to be by myself, a certain old man, by no means contemptible in appearance, exhibiting meek and venerable manners, followed me at a little distance. And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather keenly on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And he said, 'Do you know me?' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I replied in the negative. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'Why, then,' said he to me, 'do you so look at me? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'I am astonished,' I said, 'because you have chanced to be in my company in the same place; for I had not expected to see any man here.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And he says to me, 'I am concerned about some of my household. These are gone away from me; and therefore have I come to make personal search for them, if, perhaps, they shall make their appearance somewhere. But why are you here?' said he to me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who was this man that Justin met? Something tells me he's trying to tell us that he met Jesus Christ, but maybe not. Is there any evidence that it was Jesus Christ, whether elsewhere from Justin, or from other patristic writings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-07-25T13:50:04.350" LastActivityDate="2016-07-25T13:50:14.927" Title="Did Justin Martyr have a personal interaction with Jesus Christ?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;christian-literature&gt;&lt;justin-martyr&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14450" CreationDate="2013-02-24T14:18:59.280" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is and is not a sin is not subjective.  Scripture gives a very clear definition of sin in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/1_john/3-4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 3:4&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sin is transgression of the Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; subjective is our &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;understanding&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of what sin is.  We're flawed finite creatures, with varying preconceptions, who are taught various different things (whether those things are right or wrong) and unfortunately we tend to filter everything we take in and understand it after it's been filtered by (or mixed with) our preconceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we disagree on certain points, That doesn't mean that Truth is subjective &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt;.  There is still one Truth.  Something is either a sin or it is not.  We tend to disagree on certain things but the fact remains that it is a perfect, just, and holy &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, not us, that determine what is a sin and what is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Old and New testaments were really giving differing definitions of sin, that would be a discrepancy.  Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we need to go to the tried-and-true &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12272/rules-behind-resolving-alleged-biblical-discrepancies&quot;&gt;rules for resolving apparent discrepancies&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, it seems that your understanding of the idea of the New Testament promoting a &quot;Subjective&quot; view on what sin is seems to be a simple (and common) &lt;em&gt;misunderstanding of historical context&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your &quot;Subjective&quot; example seems to be based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/romans/14-14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 14:14&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing&#xA;  unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean,&#xA;  to him it is unclean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Paul is referring to is a concept known as &quot;legalism&quot; in which people try to say that you must obey the letter of the law to retain your salvation.  This was a misuse of that Law.  In effect, these people were saying that you are saved by obedience to the Law, rather than by the forgiveness of God through the sacrificial work of Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In context, Paul is not saying that there is nothing that is inherently sinful.  He's talking about people trying to enforce their own perspective of what is sinful on others.  What he's saying is in perfect agreement with what Jesus said in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then&#xA;  shall you see clearly to cast out the speck out of your brother's eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Of course this doesn't mean that we should remain silent about sin.  There is a time and a place, and a purpose for which the law exists, and we are commanded to rebuke sin.  But only in the right time, for the right purpose, and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; with a self-righteous attitude.  More &lt;a href=&quot;http://paranoidrants.blogspot.com/2011/04/judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put simply, it is a misconception that the New Testament teaches that sin is subjective.  The New Testament as a whole agrees completely with the Old Testament.  Sin is sin.  But what the new Testament adds is that Christ offers freedom from sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a pretty good study on the issue at &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1335-a-study-of-romans-14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1335-a-study-of-romans-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T14:46:31.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14455" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14460" CreationDate="2013-02-24T17:40:09.070" Score="3" ViewCount="585" Body="&lt;p&gt;I ran across the phrase in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14440/why-does-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church-abridge-the-first-commandment&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, and a Google search just keeps bringing me to the Ten Commandments example found in the link on the question. I'm not finding a definition anywhere.  So what is a &quot;Catechetical Formula&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T21:33:51.837" Title="What does &quot;Catechetical Formula&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14453" CreationDate="2013-02-24T18:26:03.523" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that since Justin Martyr was born in AD 100, we shouldn't assume it was the risen Christ ... If this event had happened shortly after the resurrection, I could see how it would be easy to interpret it so ... However, the apostles (witnesses of Christ) were not hesitant to claim they'd seen the risen Christ, would also lead me to believe that Justin would not have been so cryptic about it, had he in fact believed that it was Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4019" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T18:26:03.523" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14455" CreationDate="2013-02-24T20:02:57.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;suspect&lt;/em&gt; the term does not have special meaning but is nearly a synonym for &quot;didactic formula&quot;, i.e., an established 'recipe' for expressing a teaching (for a catechism, in the form of an answer).  Just looking at the definitions of the separate words seems adequate to discern the meaning--from &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=catechism%20definition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;catechism: &quot;A summary of the principles of Christian religion in the form of questions and answers, used for the instruction of Christians.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/formula&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Free Dictionary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;formula: &quot;An established form of words or symbols for use in a ceremony or procedure.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A non-Ten Commandments use was found &lt;a href=&quot;http://ocarm.org/en/content/ocarm/what-resurrection-easter-reflection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But for the Christian the resurrection has a still richer meaning. St. Paul, clearly repeating a catechetical formula that he had learned, says to the Corinthians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(then quoting 1 Cor. 15:3-4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T20:02:57.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14455" CreationDate="2013-02-24T21:33:51.837" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Catechetical Formula is reliable or time-tested or traditional way of explaining some aspect of faith. For example, when you see someone quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this site, they are reciting what amounts to a catechetical formula.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doing this is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catechesis/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechesis&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catechesis is the act of handing on the Word of God intended to inform the faith community and candidates for initiation into the Church about the teachings of Christ, transmitted by the Apostles to the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catechesis also involves the lifelong effort of forming people into witnesses to Christ and opening their hearts to the spiritual transformation given by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A catechism is the name given to a written work that contains a summary of all the beliefs of the faith that is used as a teaching tool.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some catechesis is aimed at younger children, some is aimed at adults in RCIA. The entire &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Baltimore Catechism&lt;/a&gt; is a comprehensive listing of such formulas. It keeps the questions and answers simple, so that even young children can understand. Here is what one such &amp;quot;formula&amp;quot; looks like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q. 340. Was Jesus Christ always man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Jesus Christ was not always man, but became man at the time of His Incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the people visiting this site are looking for catechetical formulas: ways of explaining an aspect of their faith to someone else. For example, when Peter asked &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14286/why-is-good-friday-called-good/&quot;&gt;Why is Good Friday called Good?&lt;/a&gt; (&amp;quot;Is there a very obvious way to explain to someone...&amp;quot;), he was looking for a catechetical formula. In my answer, I recited one formula, and then tried to develop two more - the first was adjustable and aimed at a co-worker, the second one was simple, something a child might readily remember to say to a classmate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T21:33:51.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14461" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14463" CreationDate="2013-02-24T22:52:41.433" Score="4" ViewCount="1993" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard the ten commandments written in Exodus and Deuteronomy sometimes called the Decalogue. What does this word mean and why are they sometimes called that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T23:07:55.637" Title="Why is the ten commandments sometimes called the decalogue?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14461" CreationDate="2013-02-24T23:04:15.907" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Decalogue comes from 'dekalogos', where 'deka' means 'ten', and 'logos', which is 'word', or in this context, 'statements'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4019" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T23:04:15.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14461" CreationDate="2013-02-24T23:07:55.637" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The English phrase &quot;Ten Commandments&quot; is a bit of a misnomer. The Hebrew phrase עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים (&lt;em&gt;eseret ha-dvarim&lt;/em&gt;) literally translates into English as &quot;the ten words&quot; or &quot;the ten statements.&quot; The Hebrew phrase is translated into the LXX as δέκα λόγους (&lt;em&gt;deka logous&lt;/em&gt;). Of course, from thence is derived the English expression &quot;dekalogue&quot; --- which is nothing more than a loose transliteration of that Greek phrase. δέκα λόγους is actually in the accusative case. The nominative would be δέκα λόγοι (&lt;em&gt;deka logoi&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-24T23:07:55.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14464" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14466" CreationDate="2013-02-24T23:13:32.293" Score="3" ViewCount="561" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;exposition of faith&quot; (&lt;em&gt;expositio fidei&lt;/em&gt;) or &quot;statement of faith&quot; is quite common. The early Church fathers often summarized an exposition of faith, and today, many Christian websites, especially those of churches, summarize a statement of faith for all to see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do most statements of Christian faith include? I know this is relatively subjective, but there does tend to be some consensus among the many I have seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-29T16:16:35.267" LastActivityDate="2015-07-29T16:16:35.267" Title="What elements are most commonly included in an exposition of faith?" Tags="&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14450" CreationDate="2013-02-25T01:35:39.383" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sin is absolutely objective but in its application in our lives has a subjective element.&lt;/strong&gt;  The particular case that you mention is where Paul is saying if a person thinks something is a sin (even though it is not) then it is a sin to that person if they run about doing what their conscience condemns.  This is because anything done without faith is a sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words if you truly thought that wearing a purple shirt was a sin, you should not wear a purple shirt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the reverse is not true. Anything that is objectively a sin, like blasphemy, murder, sexual perversion, etc. even if you think it is not a sin, is still a sin. Sin is anything that is done not derived from pure love to God. This means we all sin daily as none perfectly loves God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To answer your question: sin is objective (it is not loving God perfectly) but one objective sin is doing things you incorrectly consider as sin due to want of knowledge or wisdom. This is a sin because it shows lack of respect to God when you ignore your own conscience, even when it is confused on neutral matters.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T04:39:46.570" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T04:39:46.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14464" CreationDate="2013-02-25T01:56:58.933" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any listing of specific doctrinal statements would be, as you noted, subjective, and therefore not constructive per site guidelines.  The best answer that I can think of that would fall within site guidelines would be to give a generic answer that's applicable to all.  The approach I'm going to take is the same approach that I'd take if someone were to ask me &quot;what should be on my resume?&quot; while looking for a job. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The things that should be included in a statement of faith should be those doctrines that the Church/denomination in question places importance on.  This helps people that are trying to choose a Church to know what the Church teaches, and helps them to avoid wasting their time on one that teaches false doctrine.  In general, that should include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on the nature of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on the nature of man&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on Scriptures (are they inerrant?  Which do we use?  Do we use the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, or do we include Apocrypha, or the Book of Mormon, or some other Scripture?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on the nature of sin, man's state, and how it affects the relationship with God?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on salvation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on who Christ is&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, it may also include any of the following if the Church/denomination in question deems them as central teachings&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on the Gifts of the Spirit (Tongues, healing, etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on modern/continuing revelation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on prophets in the modern day&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on which Bible is the best (Thinking of KJV-only Churches here)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church's teaching on a literal account of Creation/the fall of man, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the included elements are entirely dependent on the teachings of the Church.  The items in the top list are those that are likely going to be important for an outsider to do an &quot;at-a-glance&quot; evaluation on what the Church teaches.  They're the types of things you'd want to know if you're in a new city looking for a Church to attend, or if you're shopping for a new Church.  If those all fall in line with sound doctrine, then you can move on to the items on the second list.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These items are still important, but less agreed upon.  The first list are items that most Christians would agree on, and if something &quot;smells wrong&quot; in that list, it should be easy enough to write off that Church as being wrong.  The secondary items might help someone who is sure of their beliefs to find a Church that more closely aligns with his or her beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T01:56:58.933" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14467" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-25T03:24:48.883" Score="18" ViewCount="18186" Body="&lt;p&gt;Suppose for the following scenario that both the Christian Heaven and Hell exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My mother is a good Christian and loves me dearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am an atheist, and will therefore go to hell upon death. [If you don't agree that I will go to hell for being an atheist, simply consider me a sinner who will go to hell.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When my mother dies she will go to Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can my mother possibly experience eternal happiness with the knowledge that her beloved son is being tortured for eternity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I do not know the originator of this argument. I know that Matt Dilahunty has made it before, though do not know if he came up with it. I ask because I think it poses a valid inconsistency and I would to hear the Christian response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4023" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T10:47:56.107" LastActivityDate="2013-12-31T19:18:08.237" Title="How can Heaven exist if we know that people in Hell will suffer?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="6" ClosedDate="2014-08-12T15:43:14.550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14467" CreationDate="2013-02-25T03:52:34.903" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;I think this is one of those questions that is likely to be closed since it doesn't target a particular Christian tradition or whatever. But it's still a worthy question.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This line of reasoning instantly brings to mind the beautiful woman C.S. Lewis wrote about in &lt;i&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/i&gt; escorted through paradise by rabbits and other cute animals who is so blissfully happy, because she makes others blissfully happy that even something like her friend being unable to free himself from whatever bondage kept him in hell couldn't take away from her happiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The happiness of heaven is so unimaginable and complete that nothing can take away from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church 1024&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, read &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0060652950&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the great divorce&lt;/a&gt; (which you can reasonably do in an afternoon) and see if you can see yourself or your mother in it.  I had a hard time relating the part with that woman in it to my life.  But she is the archetype for most good women who are plagued by bad men. Jesus says His Father's house has lot's of rooms.  No one is checked in to any of those rooms kicking and screaming. Fortunately, there &lt;a href=&quot;http://thedivinemercy.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God's Mercy&lt;/a&gt; is His greatest attribute and many believe that Jesus comes to folks who are dying in their last moments and asks them personally to accept His love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God absolution of sins and remission of punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! But - horror! - There are also souls who voluntarily and consciously reject and scorn this grace! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that if the soul is willing, it has the possibility of returning to God. But sometimes, the obduracy in souls is so great that consciously they choose hell; they [thus] make useless all the prayers that other souls offer to God for them and even the efforts of God Himself...&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faustina-message.com/chaplet-divine-mercy-prayer.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Diary of St. Faustina, #1698&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that really keeps me going because my brother died unexpectedly, well outside of the Church, and I don't have any reason to believe that in a lucid moment before death he wouldn't choose eternal happiness over eternal damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T03:52:34.903" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14440" CreationDate="2013-02-25T04:11:41.680" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer, I think, is straight out of the &quot;training manual&quot; for filtering and interpreting the Catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Inculturation of the faith, under certain aspects, is a linguistic task. This implies that catechesis respect and value the language proper to the message, especially biblical language, as well as the historical-traditional language of the Church (creed, liturgy) and doctrinal language (dogmatic formulations). It is also necessary for catechesis to enter into dialogue with forms and terms proper to the culture of those to whom it is addressed. Finally, catechesis must stimulate new expressions of the Gospel in the culture in which it has been planted. In the process of eculturating the Gospel, catechesis should not be afraid to use traditional formulae and the technical language of the faith, but it must express its meaning and demonstrate its existential importance. Similarly, it is also the duty of catechesis &quot;to speak a language suited to today's children and young people in general and to other categories of people—the language of students, intellectuals and scientists; the language of the illiterate or of people of simple culture; the language of the handicapped, and so on&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_17041998_directory-for-catechesis_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;#208 - General Directory for Catechesis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is supposed to be a template for all particular Catechisms to follow. It's the official interpretation of scripture.  Not the only interpretation, but certainly the most broadly acceptable&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In virtue of being a catechism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church collects all that is fundamental and common to the Christian life without &quot;presenting as doctrines of the faith special interpretations which are only private opinions or the views of some theological school&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;#124 &lt;i&gt;ibid.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you're looking for the Catechism to pick a fight with the Bible, you've came to the wrong place.  In the instance of the Decalogue, the Catechism lists the broad statements that justify each of the commandments as subheads to subsequent sections. Which, from the standpoint of being good literature, makes perfect sense. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T04:11:41.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14467" CreationDate="2013-02-25T04:44:23.753" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: We don't know for sure.  The rest of this answer explores various &quot;Christian answers&quot;, but the conclusion is &quot;we don't know for sure&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a question that I struggled with when I was an atheist, and it's a question that Christians have grappled with and that has never been answered in a way that would have been intellectually satisfying to me as an atheist.  There are several attempts to give answers, some okay, some blatantly out of line with what we do know of Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some have theorized that we will not know of the suffering of the lost.  That God may remove that knowledge from us.  This would be inconsistent with the nature of God, and also 1 Corinthians 13:12, which teaches us that we will have &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;increased&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; knowledge, not decreased.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some have theorized that Heaven is so wonderful that the thought of our loved ones will seem insignificant.  That hardly fits with the Christian message of Agape (selfless) love being the ultimate expression and reflection of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/page.aspx?pid=5327&quot;&gt;Christianity.ca&lt;/a&gt; adds this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A second possibility boldly suggests that this awareness will be a&#xA;  cause for joy and praise rather than pain. Shocking though it may&#xA;  sound, this position has been defended by many theologians including&#xA;  Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and, more recently, J. I. Packer. As&#xA;  Edwards put it, the redeemed “will not be sorry for the damned; it&#xA;  will cause no uneasiness or dissatisfaction to them; but on the&#xA;  contrary, when they have this sight, it will excite them to joyful&#xA;  praises.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Grisly though this may sound, it has some impressive scriptural&#xA;  support. The imprecatory psalms (such as Psalm 139:21-22) seem to&#xA;  anticipate with great relish the demise of the wicked. And one might&#xA;  reasonably infer that the saints who plead for their blood to be&#xA;  avenged (see Revelation 6:10) will extract satisfaction once this&#xA;  judgment on “the inhabitants of the earth” is underway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't buy that interpretation, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;task=view&amp;amp;id=101&quot;&gt;Alwaysbeready.com says this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The thought of being apart from your friends and family who do not&#xA;  know the Lord is a heart wrenching thought. But God assures us in His&#xA;  Word that in Heaven our joy will be absolutely full.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 16:11 says, “In Thy presence is fullness of joy; in Thy right&#xA;  hand there are pleasures forevermore.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All who go to Heaven will experience “fullness of joy.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:4 tells us, &quot;He [God] shall wipe away every tear from&#xA;  their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no&#xA;  longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have&#xA;  passed away.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Quoting C. S. Lewis again, &quot;If you are concerned about your loved&#xA;  one's that won't be in Heaven, the most irrational thing you could do&#xA;  if you are truly concerned about those on the outside is to remain&#xA;  outside yourself.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The best thing you could ever do is to make sure you’re going to&#xA;  Heaven and then do all that you can to help wake up your loved ones!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fishthe.net/raycomfort/apologetic-Q&amp;amp;A.htm#13&quot;&gt;this nugget from Ray Comfort&lt;/a&gt; is, perhaps, both the least intellectual, but closest to my belief:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;How can people be happy in Heaven, knowing that their unsaved loved ones are suffering in Hell?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; Those who ask question such as these&#xA;  fall into the category of those who asked Jesus a similar question.&#xA;  They said that a certain woman had seven consecutive husbands, whose&#xA;  wife will she therefore be in Heaven (Mark 12:23)? Jesus answered them&#xA;  by saying that they neither knew the Scriptures nor the power of God.&#xA;  The unregenerate mind has no concept of God's mind or His infinite&#xA;  power. If God can speak the sun into existence; if He can see every&#xA;  thought of every human heart at the same time; if He can create the&#xA;  human eye with its 137,000,000 light-sensitive cells, then He can&#xA;  handle the minor details of our eternal salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for me, personally, my answer would be close to what Mr. Comfort stated.  Quite frankly, I don't know for sure.. And neither does anyone else.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what I &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; know is that for the longest time, I thought that God was a lie.  I thought that Jesus was an invisible friend for weak-minded fools that were too weak to face life without some invisible friend helping them along.  I thought that the Bible was a bunch of hooey, made up by a bunch of creeps that wanted to manipulate people for their own gain.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I was wrong.  God has proved Himself to me in ways that I would have never imagined.  He has earned my trust.  His word is trustworthy, and if His word says we'll be happy in Heaven, even with the knowledge of our loved ones suffering, I trust Him.  I trust His word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the above is not going to be satisfying on any level to an atheist.  I realize what it sounds like, but for some questions, there are no easy answers.  Sometimes the only correct answer is &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;we just don't know for sure&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.  But to make it a &quot;Christian answer&quot; we have to allow for that component of faith that says that even if we don't know, we trust in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T12:58:24.480" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T12:58:24.480" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14467" CreationDate="2013-02-25T04:54:59.593" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Assuming you think there is an immortal soul and you will spend eternity in either Heaven or Hell:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Can Heaven really exist?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There really is only one way to answer this: It's not going to bother you if you are in Heaven. In many places in the Bible, Heaven is described, and in most of them it paints a picture where there is no suffering, pain, tears, or other crappy feelings. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev 21:4&lt;/a&gt; stands out the most. After that it is a matter of faith that God is strong enough, good enough, and true enough that Heaven will really be like that despite anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Assuming you think there is &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt; immortal soul and you will not spend eternity in Hell but might in Heaven:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's say your question actually read &quot;Can Hell really exist?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are quite a few Christian sects that think no one is tortured forever. Jehovah's Witness's and 7th Day Adventist are the most well known, although after that they are quite dissimilar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those groups it is a lack of belief in the 'immortal soul' that leads them to interpret certain verses differently. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev 14:9-12&lt;/a&gt; most notable. Their biggest point on the idea that there is no such thing as an immortal soul is two fold: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1%3A17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Tim 1:17&lt;/a&gt; in the only place where the word immortal exists in the Bible and it is describing God (there are many other verses that imply it like 'I am Alpha and Omega' and 'I do not change'), and the other point is that the words immortal and soul are not even in the same sentence anywhere in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Groups like the ones above generally describe Hell like an event, rather than a place, where the wicked are destroyed and die. Because there is no immortal soul they are simply dead and think and feel nothing, much like when you are asleep, save dreaming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other, more liberal sects, simply do not want to reconcile with the conundrum you have laid out so simply do not talk about it or have theologies that allow everyone to go to heaven at some point; this is usually called universalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T05:32:02.393" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T05:32:02.393" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14472" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14473" CreationDate="2013-02-25T05:19:42.997" Score="7" ViewCount="14861" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know this question is within the scope or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its straightforward. How many of the Laws in OT can be transported to NT and usable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are some of the OT laws which are no longer useful in NT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Animal Sacrifice&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Circumcision&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unclean animals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But these are still valid in NT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not worship idol&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not Murder&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do not commit Adultery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of my confusion list:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sabbath&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tithe&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Passover&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to make a clear cut list? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this topic too vast to answer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T01:27:58.033" Title="How many laws from Old Testament are still valid in New Testament?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-02-26T23:16:36.577" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14472" CreationDate="2013-02-25T05:28:49.007" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most theologians agree that there are three kinds of Old Testament laws. Summed up well &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trusting-in-jesus.com/Old-Testament-Law.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Old Testament Law&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Ceremonial Law:&lt;/strong&gt; This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Civil Law:&lt;/strong&gt; This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Moral Law:&lt;/strong&gt; The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now these divisions in the laws are not actual, meaning scripture itself does not explicitly call a law one kind or another. The concept was derived from the teaching that the law was 'nailed to the cross' with Christ, and therefore, some of it no longer needs to be followed to the letter, simplistically speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, most Christian sects will say that the Christian must only follow the moral laws. What the actual moral laws are is hotly debated. One commonality, generally, is that many Christians consider most if not all of Leviticus as Civil and Ceremonial Law and most if not all of the Ten Commandments in either Exodus or Deuteronomy are Moral Laws. After that, they seem to be debated on a one-by-one basis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-03-01T01:27:58.033" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T01:27:58.033" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14467" CreationDate="2013-02-25T12:55:46.563" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Preface: I'm a Christian, so I'm going to try answer this question as a Christian.  You've asked an honest question, however, and so I want to try to give you as honest of an answer as I possibly can. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, you're assumption is that her pursuit and attainment of something wonderful and good is somehow limited by your failure to pursue the same thing.  In a nutshell, Jesus is more important to her than you.  I think that's the sense that you probably feel, and I think you're absolutely right.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an atheist, you may see that and think: that's ridiculous and calloused.  But you have to see it from her perspective in order to understand it properly.  She believes that being with God is a good thing, in fact, she would tell you, I'm sure, that it's the best thing that can possibly happen to her.  Her heaven is to be with Jesus, who rescued her from the penalty of her sins.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So who, in this situation is more important to her?  The person she spent tons of sleepless nights raising, whose diapers she changed and spit-up she cleaned up?  (Not trying to shed a guilt complex here at all... I just happen to have a 3.5 month old at the moment, so these things are on my mind), or the one who came, lived according to the law, then died to pay the penalty for those who didn't, whose death has saved her soul for heaven?  Which of these two has done more for her?  Just like a new lover makes the loss of an old lover more bearable, and eventually insignificant, the love of Christ, in perfect union in heaven, will eventually make the loss of her son more bearable, and even insignificant in comparison to what she gains in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not to say that she doesn't wish that you would be with her as well.  I'm sure she most certainly does.  Paul himself speaks of this way when he talks of his Jewish brothers in Romans 9:1-3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears&#xA;  me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing&#xA;  anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and&#xA;  cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according&#xA;  to the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has anguish for his brothers, but his anguish isn't going to cause him to abandon that which he knows is best for himself.  While he can encourage those he loves to follow him in the direction that he is going, he can't force their hand.  They're independent people.  That doesn't mean that while he is here on earth, and while he can have some impact, that he won't hope for it.  More than likely, your rejection of Christ is a very painful thing to her.  Don't convert just to make her happy.  It doesn't sound like you would do this, but if your only reason to convert is to make her happy, then you're not really a Christian.  It's not about appeasing someone you love.  Being a Christian is about valuing Christ, for his immense love on all of us who are fallen, messed up people, and for the sacrifice he made in our place.  It's in this kind of conversion, that her value of Christ outweighs her value for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One last thought:  Heaven is about Jesus.  It's about Him.  It's not about having a harp, sitting on a cloud, and partying all day.  It's about Jesus.  Put simply, God gives us what we want.  If we find value in Christ and what he's done, and we wish to be with him, than God grants us heaven to be with Jesus.  If we don't value him, then he'll also give us what we want: eternal separation from him.  I'm certain that she would believe that the sense of loss you will feel having had not grasped Christ is nothing compared to the sense of loss that she will feel having had lost you.  And again, this statement is not intended to belittle or minimize you, it's intended to magnify and glorify Christ.  And Christ has stated himself, that those who seek Him will find Him.  He will not turn away anybody who is looking to find him.  But if you have no interest in Christ, then don't seek him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For myself personally, I find His value immense, vast, and far above and beyond anything that I can find on earth.  This is why I'm a Christian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T12:55:46.563" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14477" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14479" CreationDate="2013-02-25T13:56:24.023" Score="18" ViewCount="42317" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of the laws I can directly see why they were given, however I do not understand the last part of the verse below regarding not boiling a kid in its mothers milk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 14:21 NIV Do not eat anything you find already dead. You&#xA;  may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat&#xA;  it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to&#xA;  the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this law mean really, is there some spiritual significance I am not getting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2017-11-19T11:18:15.380" LastActivityDate="2017-11-19T11:18:15.380" Title="Why does God command the Israelites not to boil a goat in its mother's milk?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;deuteronomy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-01-02T18:53:17.740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14477" CreationDate="2013-02-25T14:20:24.480" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Opinions abound.  One is that the practice was cruel and inhumane, but given the animal sacrifices for sin, that just doesn't make sense to me.  Another is that the Jews were lactose intolerant, but if that were true, only common sense would be required, not a law.  Perhaps the practice did not fully or properly cook the meat, so the prohibition was actually a health benefit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does make sense is that the practice was perhaps associated with idolatry.  One opinion I read suggested that this was a foreign religious ritual meant to obtain favor from pagan gods over the fertility of their herds.  As such, it would seem to violate the first and second commandments given to Moses, namely, to have no other gods before God and to not be involved with idolatrous practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3840" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T14:20:24.480" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14477" CreationDate="2013-02-25T14:23:39.807" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is much debate about this one but I think the Rabbis never understood it, which causes trouble to some Christian commentators as well.  It reminds me of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is written in the Law of Moses:“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? (1 Corinthians 9:9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle applies this to establishing an argument that ministers should be paid for their effort. A prohibition is there about an animal but for the purposes of how we treat each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case about a goat and its mother, the lesson is we ought to respect the tender relationship of an animal and her young. &lt;strong&gt;The law is established about less important things to make a stronger point. God honors the relationships of a goat and her child.  How much more than should we honor the relationship of parents and children? We should not despise relationships that God honors so strictly.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T14:57:07.687" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T14:57:07.687" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14480" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14509" CreationDate="2013-02-25T14:42:02.480" Score="14" ViewCount="6314" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to some Watchtower literature, it is taught that Michael the Archangel is Jesus and that Jesus, after He ascended into heaven, resumed the name of Michael.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;It proves Michael the archangel is no other than the only begotten&#xA;  son of God, now Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt; The very name Michael means who is like&#xA;  God and indicates Jehovah God is without like or equal.&quot; (New Heavens&#xA;  and New Earth pg.30-31). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus is actually the incarnation of Michael the Arch angel and&#xA;  resumed the name when he ascended into heaven (&lt;/strong&gt; ibid. pg.30 Your will&#xA;  be done on earth pg.316 )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do Jehovah's Witnesses still believe this, and, if so, what is the biblical basis from which these teachings are derived?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-12-11T22:11:47.080" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T18:35:56.850" Title="From where do Jehovah's Witnesses derive the doctrine that Jesus was and now is Michael the Archangel?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14477" CreationDate="2013-02-25T14:50:39.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Boiling a young goat in the very thing that is intended to bring life to the goat would be abhorrent.  A goat in the Old Testament was killed for one of two reasons, for food or for atonement for sins.  In both instances, the goat is giving up it's life for the good of the people.  Not only has the goat's life been taken, but now we're taking something that is intended to give life to the animal, and we're using it to add flavor to the young animal whose life has been taken.  This practice would be considered abhorrent mainly because of the blatant misuse of the milk.  It's main purpose is life intended for the young, not flavoring to please those who take the life of the young. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not unlike the respect that hunters have for the deer that they kill.  The hunters I know (and I know quite a few living in Texas), will tell you that one of the most disturbing things that can happen while hunting is that might fail to make a clean kill.  That is, they don't shoot the animal in a place where it's death is as quick and painless as possible.  Hunting isn't about animal cruelty.  It's about finding food for the hunter.  No hunter I know wishes to bring pain upon the animal.  They recognize that the life that the deer gives brings life to those who take it (via it's meat), and they seek to respect the animal by not bringing more unnecessary suffering upon it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a respect that comes in the exchange of one life for another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are many differing viewpoints.  But this is mine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-02-25T16:59:55.637" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T16:59:55.637" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14482" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14484" CreationDate="2013-02-25T16:47:58.177" Score="7" ViewCount="113441" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard &quot;Christ&quot; isn't the last name He got from His parents. Is that true? Does He have a last name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If He does not have a last name, then how does that work? If that wasn't His last name, and there were other people named Jesus, then how could people even know which Jesus people were talking about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Please explain this to me in an easy to understand way, like if I am young.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2015-10-23T05:43:40.393" Title="Does Jesus have a last name?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14483" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14486" CreationDate="2013-02-25T16:52:39.137" Score="5" ViewCount="807" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to know the meaning and the importance of the word 'ICTHUS' among Christians. I have learned that this is some sort of symbol. Can anyone help me on this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3921" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T02:30:40.883" Title="Relevance of the word 'ICTHUS'" Tags="&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14482" CreationDate="2013-02-25T16:55:57.137" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;Surnames didn't exist in Jesus' day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People typically referred to somebody by referring to their parentage.  So Jesus would have most likely been referred to as &quot;Jesus son of Joseph&quot; or &quot;Jesus son of Mary&quot;, much in the same way as Peter was referred to as &quot;Simon, son of Jonah&quot; in Matthew 16:17 and &quot;James son of Zebedee&quot; in Mark 3:17.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While nobody is entirely sure when the concept of the proper surname began, one guess, at least for English speakers, is around the 13th or 14th century. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name#Modern_era&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name#Modern_era&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T16:55:57.137" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14482" CreationDate="2013-02-25T17:00:53.217" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus had no last name.  Christ is a title that was given to Him.  As noted in other questions, &quot;Christ&quot; comes from the Greek word &quot;Christos&quot;, which is the translation of the Hebrew word &quot;Meshiach&quot;, from which we derive the word &quot;Messiah&quot;.  So, &quot;Messiah&quot; and &quot;Christ&quot; are transliterated words for the same thing.  These words mean &quot;anointed one&quot; in their original languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last names or family names likely had their origin England about 800 years ago, but this was not common in Jewish cultures in the days of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there were sometimes distinctions made for individuals based on their city of origin or residence.  Jesus was sometimes referred to as &quot;Jesus of Nazareth&quot;.  He was not born there, of course, but that is the place Mary and Joseph lived after their return from Egypt.  (Jesus was born in Bethlehem.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Incidentally, this was the cause of some confusion about whether or not Jesus could be the Messiah, since the people knew that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem and not Nazareth, although another prophecy indicated that He would be &lt;strong&gt;called&lt;/strong&gt; a Nazarene.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As David Morton noted, people were also distinguished by their parentage.  This is seen in Simon Peter, in particular, whom Jesus referred to as 'Simon, son of John&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are &lt;strong&gt;Simon the son of John&lt;/strong&gt;. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).  John 1:42 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 1:45, we find both of these distinctions in Philip's reference to Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, &lt;strong&gt;Jesus of Nazareth&lt;/strong&gt;, the &lt;strong&gt;son of Joseph&lt;/strong&gt;.”  John 1:45 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Jesus was also distinguished by his trade.  He was known as a rabbi or teacher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there was little need to distinguish between other people with similar names when referring to the &quot;rabbi named Jesus&quot;, to &quot;Jesus of Nazareth&quot;, or to &quot;Jesus, the son of Joseph&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T17:00:53.217" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14483" CreationDate="2013-02-25T17:02:58.957" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word means &quot;fish&quot; in Greek.  The symbol of the fish was often used in the early church to distinguish believers from unbelievers where persecution was an issue.  When meeting another person, one Christian would draw one arc, and if the other person completed the drawing of the fish by adding another arc, then the Christian would know that he or she was in the presence of another believer.  In other words, it was a low key way to identify each other, reducing the risk of being found out as a Christian where to be found out may have cost them their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read more about the term here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/BtG1P.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T17:02:58.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14483" CreationDate="2013-02-25T17:07:35.063" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;ΙΧΘΥΣ means fish in an old form of Greek. It now primarily refers to a particular Christian fish symbol. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ichthys (also Ichthus or Ikhthus /ˈɪkθəs/), from the Koine Greek word for fish: ἰχθύς, (capitalized ΙΧΘΥΣ or ΙΧΘΥϹ) is a symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish, used by early Christians as a secret Christian symbol and now known colloquially as the &quot;sign of the fish&quot; or the &quot;Jesus fish.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word itself has symbolic meaning, though. Saint Augustine gives the following symbolic explanation in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_City_of_God/Book_XVIII/Chapter_23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;City of God&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if you join the initial letters of these five Greek words, ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστος Θεοῦ υἰὸς σωτήρ, which mean, “Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Saviour,” they will make the word ἰχδὺς, that is, “fish,” in which word Christ is mystically understood, because He was able to live, that is, to exist, without sin in the abyss of this mortality as in the depth of waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the symbolic meaning of fishes and the &quot;fish symbol&quot;, you could ask:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why are fish in general a Christian symbol?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the historical significance/origin of the fish symbol called &quot;ΙΧΘΥΣ&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9724/why-is-the-fish-often-used-as-a-symbol-of-christ&quot;&gt;Why is the fish often used as a symbol of Christ?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T17:20:37.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14489" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-25T17:44:28.230" Score="3" ViewCount="1035" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Christians ever come up with &quot;secret&quot; ways of knowing who other Christians were? I don't mean exactly a handshake, because I get that sometimes people don't (or can't) shake hands. Seems like it might be a bit pointless, like a joke you have with friends or something. But did they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-04-04T13:12:09.497" LastActivityDate="2020-04-04T13:16:01.573" Title="Do Christians have &quot;secret&quot; (handshakes for example) ways of knowing who other Christians were?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14490" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11955" CreationDate="2013-02-25T17:46:33.747" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses &amp;amp; Incorrect End Dates&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that we have left December 21, 2012 behind us...the topic remains intriguing. Have Jehovah's Witnesses given incorrect dates for the end? The answer is given in the Watchtower issue of January 1, 2013.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;amp;v=hcUaHJGZJo0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;amp;v=hcUaHJGZJo0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;George D. Chryssides of Birmingham University, has written a helpful, scholarly journal arguing against the much of the rhetoric spewed by Ex-Witness and 'Christian' critics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I aim to show that, although there have been some unrealized expectations, changes in Watch Tower chronology are attributable more to changed chronological schemes, rather than to failed predictions. --- Contrary to popular belief, the Watch Tower Society has not repeatedly set dates for the world's end, found its expectations disappointed, rescheduled the eschatological timetable, and repeated this sequence each time expectations have been frustrated.&quot; (p. 29 of pdf) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3936" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T17:46:33.747" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14491" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14489" CreationDate="2013-02-25T17:56:36.027" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea of the ICTHUS (or Christian fish) symbol was an early example of this.  It wasn't pointless, as it was used to identify each other in a society where persecution of Christians was extremely common.   One person would draw one arc of the fish, probably in the dirt, and another would draw the other if they were a Christian as well.  This wasn't done just for fun, but for protection, in much the same way as how WWII Allied soldiers would whisper &quot;flash!&quot;, and another Allied soldier would respond with &quot;thunder!&quot; in order to identify themselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-25T17:56:36.027" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14492" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14673" CreationDate="2013-02-25T19:24:42.103" Score="6" ViewCount="6816" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lay Catholics are encouraged to bless their children [and homes?] using particular formulas or patterns. As I understand it, these ought to differ in &quot;manner&quot; and formula from blessings performed by a priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the differences in formula and manner? Is there a difference in effect or efficacy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T14:09:40.183" Title="In Catholicism, what distinguishes a priestly blessing from a lay blessing?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;blessings&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14494" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-26T00:24:16.333" Score="2" ViewCount="53" Body="&lt;p&gt;When answering this question: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14472/how-many-laws-from-old-testament-are-still-valid-in-new-testament&quot;&gt;How many laws from Old Testament are still valid in New Testament?&lt;/a&gt; I was reminded that my answer is not Biblically derived in making the trinary distinction of Old Testament Laws described below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ceremonial Law:&lt;/strong&gt; This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Civil Law:&lt;/strong&gt; This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Moral Law:&lt;/strong&gt; The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the ancient Jews they were all the same and the Bible makes no apparent distinctions among any of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, does this view have a name? That would make things easier. Now I wonder where did this distinction come from and when was it popularized (because I suspect it is a very old)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please do not provide biblical support for this view in your answers unless there is an actual distinction somewhere. I only want to know where it came from and when it was popularized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T00:24:16.333" Title="Where did the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of Old Testament laws come from and when was it popularized?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-02-26T01:03:47.277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14495" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-26T00:27:44.820" Score="10" ViewCount="18517" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just asked &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14494/where-did-the-moral-civil-ceremonial-distinction-of-old-testament-laws-come-from&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; looking for where this view point came from and when it was made popular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ceremonial Law:&lt;/strong&gt; This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Civil Law:&lt;/strong&gt; This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Moral Law:&lt;/strong&gt; The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I would like to get answers on the Biblical support for this viewpoint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2019-03-16T03:09:18.230" Title="What is the biblical support for the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of Old Testament laws?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;tripartite-law-division&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="724" CreationDate="2013-02-26T01:36:30.060" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is clear that Christians will go through persecution (from a spiritual origin)  due to Christ's name alone. However, we live in a time that all customs and beliefs are under attack from all angles. There's clear anti-Christian elements in the world today, but no more than the hate for Jews, Muslims, etc that is also very evident. I believe that all of the above answers/comments have a ring of truth to them - some illustrate the spiritual source, some illustrate the feelings caused by abuse &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; Christian hands, while others illustrate the true bigotry that Christians must live with as anybody else. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, I believe basic human nature is a major cause, though institutionalized elements are at work as well. Can we say this is all in Christ's name? No - it's effecting everybody in our age. Will it get worse for Christians because of Christ's name alone? Only time will tell, but I believe that the Scriptures are clear on it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While working in a penitentiary chapel I saw all levels of religious conflicts, some which lead to death of both inmates and guards. I have witnessed these events and have spoken with perpetrators of these acts after the fact. Its surprising how common the feeling of injustice was amongst these groups, yet each harbored the same basic prejudices. It was truly maddening, and very sad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3990" LastEditorUserId="3990" LastEditDate="2013-02-26T04:01:26.580" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T04:01:26.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14483" CreationDate="2013-02-26T01:37:50.033" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acronym:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;᾽Ιησοῦς &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Χριστος &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Θεοῦ &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Υἰὸς &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Σωτήρ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(of) God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Son&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Savior&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3797" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T01:37:50.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14483" CreationDate="2013-02-26T02:30:40.883" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Entry from &lt;em&gt;The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church&lt;/em&gt; (3rd ed.):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fish&lt;/strong&gt; (Gk. ἰχθύς).In Christian art and literature the fish is a symbol of Christ, also sometimes of the newly baptized and of the&#xA;  Eucharist. It came into use in the 2nd cent., but neither its origin&#xA;  nor its meaning have so far been completely elucidated. It occurs in&#xA;  *Tertullian’s ‘De Baptismo’, where the writer compares the neophytes to little fishes, following the Fish, in connection with the idea of&#xA;  the second birth in the waters of Baptism. This image is found also in&#xA;  the ‘Shepherd’ of *Hermas, in the Inscription of *Abercius, in&#xA;  *Clement of Alexandria, and in many other old Christian documents; but it is doubtful whether the symbol is exclusively Christian or&#xA;  influenced by Babylonian and Indian mythology. Opinions are also&#xA;  divided as to whether the symbol is derived from the acrostic ΙΧΘΥΣ =&#xA;  Ἰησοῦς Χριστός Θεοῦ Υἱὸς Σωτήρ (‘Jesus Christ, Son of God,&#xA;  Saviour’),or the acrostic from the symbol. The acrostic is frequently&#xA;  held to have originated in *Gnostic circles, since it is found in the&#xA;  ‘*Sibylline Oracles’. In the 4th and 5th cents. the fish became an&#xA;  emblem also of the Eucharist, and is frequently found in the paintings&#xA;  of the *catacombs in combination with bread and wine. In recent years,&#xA;  in some parishes of the Church of England certain associations willing&#xA;  to help those in need have adopted the symbolism of a fish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SOURCE:&lt;/strong&gt; F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 617.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Additional Resources:&lt;/strong&gt; J. B. *Pitra, OSB, Spicilegium Solesmense, 3 (Paris, 1855), pp. 499–543 (‘ΙΧΘΥΣ, sive de Pisce Allegorico et Symbolico’); G. B. *de Rossi, ibid., pp. 545–84 (‘De Christianis Monumentis ΙΧΘΥΝ exhibentibus’); H. Achelis, Das Symbol des Fisches and die Fischdenkmäler der römischen Katakomben (Marburg, 1888); R. Pischel, ‘Der Ursprung des christlichen Fischsymbol’, Sb. (Berl.), 1905 (1), pp. 506–32; C. R. Morey, ‘The Origin of the FishSymbol’, Princeton Theological Review, 8 (1910), pp. 93–106, 231–46, and 401–32; 9 (1911), pp. 268–89; 10 (1912), pp. 278–98. I. Scheftelowitz, ‘Das Fisch-Symbol im Judentum and Christentum’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, 14 (1911), pp. 1–53. F. J. Döger, ΙΧΘΥΣ (vol. 1, RQ, Suppl. 17; 1910; 2nd edn., Münster i.W., 1928; vols. 2–5, ibid., 1922–43). L. Werhahn Stauch, ‘Christliche Fischsymbolik von den Anfängen his zum thohen Mittelalter’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 35 (1972), pp. 1–68. R. St J. Tyrwhitt in DCA 1 (1880), pp. 673 f, s.v., and pp. 625–8, s.v. ‘Eucharist (in Christian Art)’; F. Cumont in PW 9 (pt. 1; 1914), cols. 844–50, s.v. ‘Ichthys’; H. *Leclercq, OSB, in DACL 7 (pt. 2; 1927), cols. 1990–2086, s.v. ΙΧΘΥΣ; J. Quasten in NCE 5 (1967), pp. 943–6, s.v. ‘Fish, Symbolism of’; J. Engemann in RAC 7 (1969), cols. 1021–97, s.v. ‘Fisch, B. Christlich’.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T02:30:40.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8504" CreationDate="2013-02-26T04:51:08.357" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually he did use it. in Luke 4:17-19 in the 19th verse the name Jehovah is used. Jesus most definitely used his fathers name while reading aloud the scroll, contrary from the scribes and pharisees who he called &quot;offspring of vipers&quot;. and in fact while there are countless titles for God. The bible teaches that he has a personal name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes a personal name. That name is Jehovah. If you look at Psalms 83:18 it says &quot;You whose NAME is Jehovah, you alone are the most high over all the earth.&quot; In fact the divine name actually appears upwards of 6,000 times in the hebrew scriptures alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No doubt you have noticed the word LORD capitalized as such. That capitalization indicates the word Lord or &quot;Adonai&quot; has been subsituted for the divine name. (In contrast to simply lord) I promise you this, check in the beginning of your bible in the letter from the translation committee. They might even use the Hebrew transliteration in their explanation &quot;YAWHH&quot; The translation committee did this in adherence to the Jewish religous leader's tradition not to say the name.The same ones known by Jesus as &quot;Hypocrites&quot; and &quot;offspring of Vipers.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However Jesus himself said he has made God's name known to them. (john 17:26) Moreover he also prayed for the sanctification of that name. At (Matthew 6:9) we read &quot;Our father in heaven let your name be sanctified&quot; or in some translations &quot;hallowed by thy name.&quot; Either way Jesus himself did pray for God's name Jehovah to be honoured and glorified. Whats more he gave it prime importance by stating it first. I myself have just happily carried on the work and the honour of making the greatest name ever known to all who read. Jehovah which litterally means: He causes to become. For more information about the name and who today is carrying on Jesus's work of sanctifying the name please see Jw.org&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4032" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T04:51:08.357" CommentCount="16" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14503" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19079" CreationDate="2013-02-26T05:19:20.957" Score="5" ViewCount="9396" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had two ladies come over yesterday from the local Jehovah's Witness place. They asked if we knew where the devil comes from but left when my wife said we're Catholic.  As a Catholic, I've got some ideas, but if I wanted to wow them if they ever come again, where do they believe the devil comes from?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9780/according-to-jehovah-witness-satan-was-cast-to-earth-1914&quot;&gt;Possibly related question&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T18:36:12.627" Title="According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, where does the Devil come from?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14504" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-26T05:23:17.290" Score="0" ViewCount="2252" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just curious why some religious people think that without god there is only evil. Why can't a person without a religion be a good person, sometimes even better than some religious people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2300" LastEditorUserId="2300" LastEditDate="2013-02-26T05:28:48.133" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T19:55:50.260" Title="Why do religious people find it hard to accept that you don't need religion to have a good moral code?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2013-02-26T23:10:08.133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14504" CreationDate="2013-02-26T06:14:43.403" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Its not necessary for a person to have a religion to have good moral codes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) was a Babylonian King who gave one of the First Law in the World. The law was very similar the Mosaic Law, &quot;Eye for eye, tooth for tooth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 21:24  Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for&#xA;  foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every human is given the ability to decide what is right and wrong. Even the murderers kill others knowing that it is bad, but they just don't care. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many religions give the idea that doing good deeds is the way to Heaven and doing bad things will lead you to Hell. Thus promoting the idea of &lt;code&gt;Salvation by Work&lt;/code&gt;. Some religions even lay down obligations to be fulfilled in order to enter Heaven/Paradise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity has a different concept. The Bible teaches us the idea of &lt;code&gt;Salvation by Grace&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV) For it is by grace you have been saved, through&#xA;  faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by&#xA;  works, so that no one can boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your good deeds will not open the gates of Heaven. Your bad deeds are also not the main  reason why you should go to Hell. But Christians should do good deeds because we are saved by grace. Christians are called to be Holy, because God is Holy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 12:1 (NIV) Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view&#xA;  of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and&#xA;  pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ died for our sins. He took all our punishment on the cross. When we remember how much God had done for us, we recieve the power to overcome sin and reflect Christ-like character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-02-26T09:43:34.597" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T09:43:34.597" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14503" CreationDate="2013-02-26T06:43:07.297" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quoting from their '&lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989267#h=14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reasoning From the Scriptures Book&lt;/a&gt;':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;All of Jehovah's works are perfect; he is not the author of unrighteousness; so he did not create anyone wicked.  (Deut. 32:4, Ps. 5:4)  The one who became Satan was originally a perfect spirit son of God.  When saying that the Devil &amp;quot;did not stand fast in the truth,&amp;quot; Jesus indicated that at one time that one was &amp;quot;in the truth.&amp;quot; (John 8:44) But, as is true of all of God's intelligent creatures, this spirit son was endowed with free will.  He abused his freedom of choice, allowed feelings of self-importance to develop in his heart, began to crave worship that belonged only to God, and so enticed Adam and Eve to listen to him rather than obey God.  Thus by his course of action he made himself Satan, which means &amp;quot;adversary.&amp;quot; -- Jas. 1:14, 15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4019" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-26T18:36:12.627" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T18:36:12.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14504" CreationDate="2013-02-26T07:05:46.920" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really actually know very few Christians who think like this. At most they would argue that any moral code without religious implications is ultimately &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;egoist&lt;/a&gt;. This would be to say that moral decisions that seem altruist or selfless are actually, even in a roundabout way, self-serving. This is more philosophical, though, and really any more discussion on egoism and the argument that all ethical code is egoist is beyond the scope of this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My selected answer on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14512/without-god-is-there-only-evil&quot;&gt;this related question&lt;/a&gt; sums up why one might argue that you cannot be good without God. Basically, to the Christian, God defines good, not you. If he is not there to define it then you would simply define it for yourself making it a code you approve of, likely because it is easy for you to follow. Now everyone else has their own code too, therefore, good and morality become completely subjective and have no bearing on the whole. Therefore, no one is absolutely good; they are only subjectively good, which may or may not overlap with others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you get a group of like minded persons together and they all agree 'this' is what is good you still have the same issue. That group has no more right then anyone else to make moral laws and decrees, therefore, to one who objects, it is not valid, whether the group can enforce it or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the Christian who argues this must argue that because God is the creator (owner) and has the power to enforce His decrees He is the only one just to make those decrees. This combined with the 'subjective good' issue laid out above makes the argument very convincing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say though that a Christian who thinks this thinks the world would fall into oblivion without God. That is really just opinion and conjecture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T19:55:50.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14480" CreationDate="2013-02-26T07:10:13.480" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) take Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1 to equate Michael to Christ.  They believe that since it refers to Michael as &amp;quot;one of the foremost princes&amp;quot;, and,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also interpret &amp;quot;stand up&amp;quot; to be mean &amp;quot;take control and reign as king.&amp;quot; From their book &lt;em&gt;Your Will Be Done On Earth&lt;/em&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;the Michael that stands up as the 'great prince' to fulfill Daniel 12:1 is the Lord Jesus Christ at God's right hand.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, they cite 1 Thessalonians 4:16,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They argue that it is the Lord Himself who issues forth the commanding call as the archangel, from &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200012966#h=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Aid to Bible Understanding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'.  The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular.  This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief or head of the angelic host.  At 1 Thessalonians 4:15 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this, they interpret Christ's identity, both pre-incarnation and post-incarnation, to be the archangel Michael.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their book &lt;em&gt;Reasoning From the Scriptures&lt;/em&gt;, under section 'Jesus Christ', and &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989240#h=57&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Is Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel?&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;, cite the above as well, and also add:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ.  Jesus is latter depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as &amp;quot;ruler of this world,&amp;quot; Satan the Devil? (John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 associates the 'standing up of Michael' to act with authority with &amp;quot;a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.&amp;quot;  That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them.  So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010250&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; from a Watchtower reader and the answer provides further explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4019" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-26T18:35:56.850" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T18:35:56.850" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14504" CreationDate="2013-02-26T08:15:48.950" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this is more of an argument than an answer, but the question that you asked is based more on stereotype than mainstream belief within the church. I don't blame you because it's actually very common, especially in an age like today where the one-in-a-million weirdo can actually be heard by millions online. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though you might not be interested in Scripture, the following is some of the most important verses concerning sin.  It was written by a man named Paul that is respected as one of the most important people in the new testament. Paul was noted in the bible to have been one of the biggest persecutors of Christians - it is said that he was likely involved in the killings of many Christians before his conversion.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Also note that this was written &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; he was saved. When he speaks of his personal sin and his lack of control, he's speaking as a true Christian who had already received far more blessing than I would ever hope for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 7:14 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a&#xA;  slave to sin.  I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I&#xA;  do not do, but what I hate I do.  And if I do what I do not want to&#xA;  do, I agree that the law is good.  As it is, it is no longer I myself&#xA;  who do it, but it is sin living in me.  For I know that good itself&#xA;  does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the&#xA;  desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.  For I do not do&#xA;  the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on&#xA;  doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do&#xA;  it, but it is sin living in me that does it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right&#xA;  there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see&#xA;  another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and&#xA;  making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a&#xA;  wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject&#xA;  to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our&#xA;  Lord!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is admitting that he is a sinner (not to be saved -he had already found salvation -but to hold himself accountable) and that he doesn't always do the right things that he knows is required of him, and that he often does that which is wrong even though he doesn't want to (presumably wants to at the time, but doesn't want to do such things in general). This is the testimony of a true Christian -an actual right hand man of Jesus, like few (if any) from his time on could ever claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3990" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-02-26T12:02:45.483" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T12:02:45.483" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14512" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14519" CreationDate="2013-02-26T10:50:40.543" Score="2" ViewCount="1150" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says in a few places that God does only good things and is full of only goodness: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 1:13&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 1:5&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:33&lt;/a&gt;. I think we can Biblically support very well that God is not the origin of any evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, what does the bible say about good and evil coming from mankind? Are people actually capable of good without God or would there be only evil in the world if God took a vacation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for answers that examine the various passages of the Bible and do not give too much 'this is my interpretation' talk.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have already considered &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen 6:5&lt;/a&gt;, but ultimately decided that the verse explicitly refers to those people at that time who all perished in the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am getting a lot of feed back that I need to define good and evil here so that it can be answered correctly. I disagree. Those are the Bible's words not mine. Even &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14512/without-god-is-there-only-evil/14519#14519&quot;&gt;in this answer&lt;/a&gt; David Morton says I need to define them but later says &quot;At that point [God leaving], 'good' simply disappears. It's not that we can or can't do good. It's that good ceases to be good, and begins being something else.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that not exactly the answer to this question? How &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; define good apparently does not matter to God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+55&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 55:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2016-09-20T22:16:39.723" Title="Without God is there only evil?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14513" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-26T11:20:08.220" Score="8" ViewCount="2426" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some sects including Jehovah's Witnesses &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14480/from-where-do-jehovahs-witnesses-derive-the-doctrine-that-jesus-was-and-now-is/14509#14509&quot;&gt;believe the archangel Michael to be one in the same with Christ&lt;/a&gt;. The basic premise of this claim seems to stem from the unique usage of the role archangel rather than just any-ol-angel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know what a mainline Protestant understanding about the role of &quot;archangel&quot; is. What makes them different from a mainline* angel? Do they bear any special relation to Christ? How many might there be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, are there any ways in which Protestants view the type &quot;archangel&quot; differently than other major traditions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* Sorry, couldn't resist.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-01-22T01:14:18.053" LastActivityDate="2020-01-22T01:14:18.053" Title="Who do mainline Protestants believe an &quot;archangel&quot; (such as Michael) to be?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;michael&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14513" CreationDate="2013-02-26T12:42:04.937" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;An archangel, in the Protestant definition, is simply an angel with a high rank, often referred to as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq500.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;chief&quot; angel&lt;/a&gt;.  It is believed that they have a higher &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/dictionary-archangel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rank, and power&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not much else is known for sure, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-is-difference-between-archangel-and-cherubim.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;precious little is found about them in the Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As was stated previously, the Bible gives us precious little&#xA;  information about angelic beings - especially the Archangels. We would&#xA;  all like to know more about these extraordinary creatures, yet God has&#xA;  chosen in this present age to disclose very limited knowledge about&#xA;  them. In the kingdom of God, however, all will be made clear to us,&#xA;  including the mystery of the angels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The understanding isn't significantly different than the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox understanding. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia article on angels&lt;/a&gt; does give a bit more information on what &quot;higher rank&quot; might mean by showing their understanding of the hierarchy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:108), following St. Denis (De Coelesti&#xA;  Hierarchia, vi, vii), divides the angels into three hierarchies each&#xA;  of which contains three orders. Their proximity to the Supreme Being&#xA;  serves as the basis of this division. In the first hierarchy he places&#xA;  the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; in the second, the Dominations,&#xA;  Virtues, and Powers; in the third, the Principalities, Archangels, and&#xA;  Angels. The only Scriptural names furnished of individual angels are&#xA;  Raphael, Michael, and Gabriel, names which signify their respective&#xA;  attributes. Apocryphal Jewish books, such as the Book of Enoch, supply&#xA;  those of Uriel and Jeremiel, while many are found in other apocryphal&#xA;  sources, like those Milton names in &quot;Paradise Lost&quot;. (On superstitious&#xA;  use of such names, see above).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Archangels, like all angels are created beings. Certain denominations claim that Jesus was an angel, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/jw22.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this is considered a heresy by most Christian denominations&lt;/a&gt;, as it denies the divinity of Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-02-26T23:49:36.757" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T23:49:36.757" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14504" CreationDate="2013-02-26T12:44:56.403" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not heard any Christian claim this in any academic setting. The most Christians usually say about morality in this context is that without a transcendent law giver no absolute morality can be derived and that without one we are left with either a regress into subjectivity or a complete denial of morality. Or in other words if God is dead than all questions of morality die with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of which has any bearing on whether any specific person is morally good or not. Their may have been some random Christian lay man who thinks this but I really doubt that any person who defends Biblical morality in the public square would ever claim such a thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T12:44:56.403" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14512" CreationDate="2013-02-26T12:59:55.710" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective, without God there is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  Scripture tells us that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14449/scriptures-and-the-simulated-universe/14451#14451&quot;&gt;God continually sustains everything&lt;/a&gt;. Without God's sustaining power, all creation would cease.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%201:15-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:15-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This tells us that without God, there is no evil, nor good. Without God, there is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;nothing at all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Addressing whether man can do good without God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man is capable of doing good things, but only because we were created by God with the capacity to do so. He has &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/romans/2-15.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;written the Law on our hearts&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, and given is a conscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on that, the answer to your question - can man do good without God - is &quot;no&quot;. Even if God took a vacation, our ability to do good is still a result of Him creating us with the capacity to do so. Even if He took a vacation, any goodness in us would still be due to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, people can be good without &lt;em&gt;religion&lt;/em&gt;, but not without God, as noted in a comment on my answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14179/why-do-christians-seek-to-convert-everyone/14181#14181&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T13:12:28.620" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14517" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-26T13:17:28.623" Score="2" ViewCount="50391" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seem to be a confusingly large number of Christian churches (Catholic, Lutheran, baptists, evangelicals, Presbyterians). Could someone point me to a good overview that lists the mainstream ones, shows the main doctrinal differences, and also how they map between different countries. For example the German &quot;Evangelische Kirche&quot; seems quite different from the what in the US is called &quot;evangelical&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4020" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-26T14:42:10.143" LastActivityDate="2016-02-02T21:05:38.373" Title="Is there a good overview of Christian denominations/churches and their mapping between countries" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-02-27T12:46:18.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14512" CreationDate="2013-02-26T13:18:58.463" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even with God their is evil. We are fallen the priest the lay man and the child. We never escape our fallen nature but with the Son of God we are saved from our sins. Jesus came to earth so that through him we could be saved from our fallen nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are people actually capable of good without God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes Romans 2 makes it pretty clear that the law alone does not make one holy. Those who do not have the law are a law unto themselves their conscience bearing witness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I think we can Biblically support very well that God is not the&#xA;  origin of any evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do we define what is evil? The definition you hold would make a big difference in the conclusion you make. Some have argued that the way God treated the Canaanites where unjust. It is hard to answer a question that hinges on such a ambiguous definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally do not agree with the non religious types who brand God as being evil. One of the most extraordinary passage for me in the Old Testament is where God commands Jonah to go to Nineveh and preach in that city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonah does not want to go. Maybe he realised how hard it would be to preach to a pagan nation. God tells Jonah But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And like a child that has just been scolded Jonah says OK I'll go. In the Jonah does well in that city and in the end the city repents. It is one of the greatest tales of mercy in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T13:18:58.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14512" CreationDate="2013-02-26T13:30:54.770" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it depends on your definition of good.  Different people define good in different ways.  Until good is defined clearly, it's impossible to answer this question with clarity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Christian perspective: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All good comes from God (James 1:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from&#xA;  the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to&#xA;  change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian also believes that it is chiefly our motivations that will be judged. Jesus was frustrated with the motives of the scribes and Pharisees, who did all the right things for all the wrong reasons (Matthew 23:27):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like&#xA;  whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are&#xA;  full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Paul reinforces this point regarding the importance of our motives (1 Corinthians 4:5):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord&#xA;  comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and&#xA;  will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive&#xA;  his commendation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is good according to the Bible?  Jesus says this: (Matthew 22:36-40):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to&#xA;  him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with&#xA;  all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first&#xA;  commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as&#xA;  yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the&#xA;  Prophets.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why do we love, ultimately? (1 John 4:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We love because he first loved us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible's definition of good thus consists of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What we do. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why we do it. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who defines it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in a nutshell, if God goes bye-bye, we lose not only the commandments of God, but we also lose the ability to have the proper motivation for it, and we also lose the Chief Determiner of Good Himself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that point, &quot;good&quot; simply disappears.  It's not that we can or can't do good.  It's that good ceases to be good, and begins being something else.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if you define good by what the general populus, or what certain individuals define as good, then of course, everybody could do good.  But more than likely, everyone's definition of good will differ, so one person's good will be another person's evil.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible talks about this as well (Judges 21:25):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right&#xA;  in his own eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without God, it's impossible to define good, at least in a Biblical sense.  So in order to answer the question, good would need to be redefined. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T13:30:54.770" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2837" CreationDate="2013-02-26T13:45:50.310" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus had just finished using sheep as an illustration when talking with his Jewish disciples - an illustration that they would understand. I doubt Jewish people of that day typically kept dogs as pets. Yet when talking with a woman whose culture evidently did keep dogs as pets, he uses it as an illustration, not to drive her away, but to communicate effectively with her. His comments leave her thinking of all the times she had told her young daughter, now suffering with no other remedy in sight but Christ's healing, not to sneak food off the table for her puppy. The woman seemed to understand that he, as the child of the Heavenly Father, was not to change his focus from accomplishing what he came to do, in order to dedicate his time to reach Gentile populations. Yet she reminded him that his work would inevitably have a spillover effect for good on all gentiles around (praise God for that!). She seemed in no wise belittled by his illustration using pets, nor am I.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4037" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T13:45:50.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14517" CreationDate="2013-02-26T14:30:47.480" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can find a fairly comprehensive history of Christian Denominations and their origins on the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article for &quot;Christian denomination.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This chart, written by Wendell Holmes Rone from a distinctly &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Landmarkist perspective&lt;/a&gt;, maps out some of the key denominational differences. (Click to enlarge images)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/PsXDz.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/PsXDz.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If don't mind excessive advertising, a more comprehensive chart can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Denominations Beliefs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as maps go, here's a fairly current source (2010) that maps distinct denominations within the US and broader categories of Christianity throughout the world based on internet presence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIkdA.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIkdA.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/cVETz.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/cVETz.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rWG7U.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rWG7U.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-155541/World-distribution-of-Protestant-denominations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Britanica (1995)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/9QJ2R.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/9QJ2R.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Find out more here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://cga-download.hmdc.harvard.edu/publish_web/Annual_Spring_Workshops/2010_Religion/1_Matthew_Zook.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mapping Religious Cyberscapes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://gis.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k235&amp;amp;pageid=icb.page358307&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Technologies and Interdisciplinary Research on Religion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.floatingsheep.org/2010/03/mapping-christianity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mapping Christianity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1627" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-02-02T21:05:38.373" LastActivityDate="2016-02-02T21:05:38.373" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14504" CreationDate="2013-02-26T15:44:36.293" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because &quot;good&quot; is either a transcendent qualifier or a personal one.   If it is a personal one, then it becomes meaningless, as everyone would be perfectly &quot;good&quot; by their own personal moral codes. If, on the other hand, it is a transcendent one, then that &quot;good&quot; is measured against a higher standard.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The contention is that without religion, people don't really have a true basis for identifying &quot;good&quot; in the first place.   This is often misunderstood as a contention that irreligious people can't be &quot;good,&quot; but that's a misunderstanding;  Most people would happily agree that irreligious people happen to be pretty &quot;good&quot; oftentimes, but it's almost in spite of themselves (and that's the point).   The give-away is that when trying to establish how &quot;good&quot; they are, irreligious people tend to appeal to arbitrary standard with a certain odd dogma that their views don't justify.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I might say I'm good because I'm faithful to my wife, or I haven't killed any one, or I give to charity, etc....but all these things are arbitrary, and none of them are inherently &quot;good&quot; if one rejects all manner of transcendent moral rule.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, different cultures and sub-cultures have held such traits (as the ones that make me &quot;good&quot;) with different levels of esteem and contempt, so even if someone appeals to something vague like &quot;society,&quot; we still run into a problem that all societies, then, are on equal footing in terms of morality: by definition, they'd all be perfectly moral.   Without a standard that's higher still then there's no way to judge one society (or, maybe, more specifically one of a particular society's tenets) as more moral than another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T15:44:36.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14532" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14533" CreationDate="2013-02-26T21:36:29.233" Score="7" ViewCount="813" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not remember exactly where but I think the OT says somewhere that doing things like tattoos to your body is not good and, to God, is morally objectionable. Is this true? I do know that some denominations strictly forbid it, however, I have never heard much reasoning other than tattoos are commonly associated with criminals and the like. I have often heard the old phrase 'The body is the temple of the Lord' but I am not sure if that is even in the Bible and do not know its context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this argument cannot be made Biblically then why the objection among some Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2018-04-07T06:20:13.513" Title="What is the biblical basis to either consider tattoos acceptable or not?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;human-body&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14532" CreationDate="2013-02-26T21:42:08.263" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The prohibition against tattoos comes from Leviticus 19:28 (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo&#xA;  yourselves: I am the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2013-02-26T21:42:08.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14532" CreationDate="2013-02-26T23:03:40.570" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Laws codified were to ensure that the Jews remained 'Holy', which means 'set apart' ...  Meaning the pagan influence wasn't considered to be something they were to give in to and still remain God's Holy People.  But obviously, they couldn't keep up with it, they lost their way over and over again, and every time they repented, they went right back to the ceremonial procedures and to reading the law out loud for all to hear it.  Books of Kings and Chronicles attest to this in the split of the Kingdom after Solomon's death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian who has tattoos, I'll 'justify' it like this: My body is a temple (1 Corinthians 6:19) because the Spirit of God Himself indwells me bodily -- Do I have a responsibility to maintain this temple ... Yes.  I'm a vegan, and aside from smoking (which I'm trying to quit this week ... again) I have a healthy lifestyle.  But this temple does not just exist as flesh, I have a spirit and a mind as well, and I must exercise those as well.  So I pray, I read, I seek the clearest perspective I can on reality.  But I'm not perfect, and have engaged in 'unhealthy' or risky behavior at times (smoking comes to mind ... and I was angry at God when I did get my tattoo). However, I also know that what Christ did was free me from the Law.  I am set apart, considered Holy in God's eyes, now and forevermore because I'm no longer judged according to my deeds, grace has taken over.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 state that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable.  All things are lawful, but not all things edify.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there are things I can do (and I do, I'm still being perfected, and will be until death) that all Christians would agree are not beneficial to me, but my salvation does not hang upon it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going back to tattoos (and piercings), Deuteronomy 15:17 talks about getting an aul through the ear as a mark that the person was a servant to his master for ever ...  Likewise, I would say that tattoos that are of scripture would be the same type of thing (tell me thats not a permanent cut in the body).  I'm planning on getting the mermaid tattoo I have covered up in the future with something that will remind me to be a humble servant to God.  But until then, I know my salvation is intact, and I try not to shove it (my tattoo, or my freedom) in anyone's face (both tattoos are covered by a short sleeve shirt) because of Paul's statement to the Christians in Corinth (1 Corinthians 8:4-13).  If other Christians don't understand that I'm not going to hell because I got a tattoo, then why stir them up?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4019" LastEditorUserId="4019" LastEditDate="2013-02-27T01:17:54.603" LastActivityDate="2013-02-27T01:17:54.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14513" CreationDate="2013-02-26T23:52:21.603" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is some debate over how many archangels there are.  Gabriel is referred to as an archangel by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel_Gabriel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic tradition&lt;/a&gt;, but there is no scripture supporting that.  The apocryphal 'Book of Enoch' as well as Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16 was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;used by Thomas Aquinas and others preceding him&lt;/a&gt;, to develop the 'Angelic Hierarchy', but scripture is very vague when it comes to this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;archangel&quot; comes from the Greek αρχάγγελος (archaggělǒs), meaning chief angel, a translation of the Hebrew רב־מלאך (rav-mal'ákh).  There are only 2 verses in the NT that say &quot;Archangel&quot;, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 1:9.  They both refer to Michael as the archangel (singular), though Michael is also referred to in the OT, Daniel 10:13-21, as &quot;one of the chief princes&quot; (vs 13) (also translated as chief angels in some translations).  So scripture isn't clear as to whether he is one of several/many archangels, or the only one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that Michael is AN angel, and therefore not accorded the same favors that are afforded to Christ (Hebrews 1:5, 2:5), as the author of Hebrews shows how unique the Son of God is, even above the angels, nor will the world be subject to them, unlike Christ, who will reign (Revelation 19:16; Matthew 2:1, 2; 9:35).  Also, Jude 1:9 presents Michael as not even have the power to rebuke Satan alone, as he stated &quot;the Lord rebuke you&quot;, whereas Christ had the power to rebuke Satan and demons on his own authority (Matthew 4:10, 16:23, 17:18; Mark 8:33; Luke 4:35).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4019" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2018-04-14T11:57:06.923" LastActivityDate="2018-04-14T11:57:06.923" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14489" CreationDate="2013-02-27T03:25:44.690" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sator square&lt;/a&gt; was likely used to secretly advertise a house as Christian to other Christians in the first century. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3942" LastActivityDate="2013-02-27T03:25:44.690" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14513" CreationDate="2013-02-27T06:49:32.753" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Mikha'el (&quot;Michael&quot;) is referred to as an ἀρχάγγελος (&quot;archangel&quot;) in the Greek New Testament (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jud&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jude 1:9&lt;/a&gt;), some assume that he is the only archangel in existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&amp;amp;c=10&amp;amp;t=KJV#13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dan. 10:13&lt;/a&gt; states that Mikh'ael is אחד השרים הראשנים, that is, &quot;one of the chief princes,&quot; not &lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; chief prince. If Mikh'ael is an &quot;archangel,&quot; and also &quot;one of the chief princes,&quot; then this equates &quot;archangel&quot; with &quot;chief prince&quot; and implies that there are other archangels. Scripture does not mention them because they're not relevant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-02-27T06:49:32.753" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14542" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14550" CreationDate="2013-02-27T07:59:27.067" Score="-1" ViewCount="489" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Based on] the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how old she actually was at the time of the Nativity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How may we reconcile the Blessed Virgin Mary's possibly young age with the evident maturity of her speech in scripture? For example, consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/lk/1:46&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Canticle of Mary, Luke 1:46&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Mary said:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      my spirit rejoices in God my savior.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      The Mighty One has done great things for me,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      and holy is his name.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      His mercy is from age to age&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      to those who fear him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      He has shown might with his arm,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      but lifted up the lowly.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      The hungry he has filled with good things;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      the rich he has sent away empty.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      He has helped Israel his servant,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      remembering his mercy,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      according to his promise to our fathers,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-02-27T11:47:50.053" LastActivityDate="2020-12-09T07:29:34.633" Title="How may we reconcile the Blessed Virgin Mary's maturity with her age?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14118" CreationDate="2013-02-27T11:25:44.030" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not Orthodox and I don't know much on Orthodox theology, but I'll try to answer from what I have found.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;AFAIK Orthodox Church shares the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/orthodox-eastern-church.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ex opere operato&lt;/a&gt; doctrine though the understanding is not the same (&lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxWest/message/15318&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; near the bottom). This means that the answer is &quot;God&quot;. The action of the priest is necessary, but not so much, it's less important than in Catholic understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The priest is necessary for Eucharist (like in Catholic Church). For baptism the priest is not necessary: under extraordinary conditions, &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism#Validity_of_a_baptism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;even a layman can baptise&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-02-27T11:25:44.030" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14544" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14546" CreationDate="2013-02-27T12:36:14.300" Score="5" ViewCount="4283" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some preachers teach that Tithing does not only mean material things, but it also means giving 10% of your time as well. Some even say 10% of your everything, like your thoughts, your desires, your food, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any ambiguous&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; reference from the Bible to support this? When did this teaching evolved? Is there any particular Christian sect who follow this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a good teaching anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1 &lt;sub&gt; &lt;em&gt;I can't find any direct reference&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-02-27T18:10:48.540" LastActivityDate="2015-12-21T01:52:08.537" Title="Do we have to tithe our time as well?" Tags="&lt;tithe&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-12-22T03:18:18.873" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14544" CreationDate="2013-02-27T13:40:18.620" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word tithe literally means &quot;tenth&quot;, so by definition, a tithe is a tenth. I believe that's why the teaching originated the way it did. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of the tithe comes originally from Genesis 14, when Abraham gave Melchizidek a tenth of everything he had:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was&#xA;  priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and said,    “Blessed be&#xA;  Abram by God Most High,       Possessor of heaven and earth;  and blessed&#xA;  be God Most High,         who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”&#xA;    And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, today, there are many people who would say that a Christian should give 10 percent of everything they have, thoughts, money, time, talent, etc to the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with this statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, nowhere in Scripture does God demand, and nowhere in Scripture is it demonstrated that one should give back 10% of anything other than money.  Even the 10% given by Abraham was a voluntary 10% he chose to give because of the blessing given to him by Melchizedek.  Thus, this viewpoint of things other than money is an extension of the law, and is not supported by Scripture.  Is it good to give of your time and other things?  Sure.  Is it required by the Law?  No. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, Paul, in the New Testament indicates that people ought to give as they see fit (2 Corinthians 9:7):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or&#xA;  under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here, Paul is saying that we ought to give as we have decided in our heart, not out of compulsion.  In my opinion, to require somebody to give 10% is really demanding money out of compulsion.  Most listener's response to hearing this would be something along the lines of, &quot;I need to give 10% because my pastor has asked me to do so.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, and I think this is the most important part, when we set these kinds of laws before us, the chief danger isn't that we'll break the law, but that we &lt;em&gt;won't&lt;/em&gt; break the law, and in not breaking the law, we begin to depend on our own goodness to earn God's favor.  Depending on our own goodness and our own works is antithetical to the Gospel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are in Christ, and if you believe that Christ's death pays the penalty for your sins, you're free, and not bound by any law any more.  That includes the law of tithing.  You're free.  Give as you see fit, and don't obsess over the numbers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be summed up with a couple of verses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 2:16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for&#xA;  evil, but living as servants of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 5:13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom&#xA;  as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we see we're free, we'll give out of our gratitude for Christ's sacrifice, and not out of conformity to the law.  And so, like the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 8, we may actually end up giving more than the 10%, but it will not be because of the requirement set forth in the law, but rather because we've been set free from it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 8:1-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been&#xA;  given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of&#xA;  affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have&#xA;  overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave&#xA;  according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of&#xA;  their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in&#xA;  the relief of the saints—and this, not as we expected, but they gave&#xA;  themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question: No, we do not have to tithe 10% of our time as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-02-27T13:48:12.073" LastActivityDate="2013-02-27T13:48:12.073" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14544" CreationDate="2013-02-27T16:26:36.813" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The tithe is seen by many to be an Old Testament law for people in the covenant and not binding on New Testament Christians.  That being said, the tithe is also seen as a good principle to start from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally try to give more than 10% and hope to increase the percentage over time.  &lt;em&gt;(However, the government keeps taking more of my money, which makes this more difficult.)&lt;/em&gt;   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/nsnews019.html&quot;&gt;R. G. Letourneau actually gave 90% of his income away&lt;/a&gt; to various Christian ministries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems a proper Christian attitude is not to give the bare minimal to the work of Christ and indulge the flesh with the rest of it, but to glorify God with 100% of our income, and to not store up for ourselves treasures on earth (Matthew 6:19-21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same principle should be applied to our time as well as our talents, opportunities, relationships, and everything else.  Paul gave us this instruction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; to the glory of God.  1 Corinthians 10:31 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &quot;all&quot; is not 10%, but 100%.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-02-27T16:26:36.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14542" CreationDate="2013-02-27T19:08:48.690" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Magnificat or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/lk/1:46&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canticle of Mary&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 1:46-56&lt;/a&gt;) mirrors Hannah's prayer found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1samuel/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 2:1-10&lt;/a&gt; so closely that one would have to think that Mary found her words in through reflecting on scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;div class=&quot;s-table-container&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;table class=&quot;s-table&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;thead&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;th&gt;And Hannah prayed:&lt;/th&gt;&#xA;&lt;th&gt;And Mary said:&lt;/th&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;/thead&gt;&#xA;&lt;tbody&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;My heart exults in the LORD, my horn is exalted by my God.&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior   For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him.&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;I have swallowed up my enemies; I rejoice in your victory. There is no Holy One like the LORD; there is no Rock like our God. Speak boastfully no longer, Do not let arrogance issue from your mouths. For an all-knowing God is the LORD, a God who weighs actions.&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;“The bows of the mighty are broken, while the tottering gird on strength&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;The well-fed hire themselves out for bread,&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;while the hungry no longer have to toil.&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;The barren wife bears seven sons, while the mother of many languishes. “The LORD puts to death and gives life, casts down to Sheol and brings up again. The LORD makes poor and makes rich, humbles, and also exalts. He raises the needy from the dust; from the ash heap lifts up the poor, To seat them with nobles and make a glorious throne their heritage. “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he has set the world upon them.&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;He guards the footsteps of his faithful ones,&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy,&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;but the wicked shall perish in the darkness; for not by strength does one prevail. The LORD’s foes shall be shattered; the Most High in heaven thunders; the LORD judges the ends of the earth. May he give strength to his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed!”&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;td&gt;according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”&lt;/td&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tr&gt;&#xA;&lt;/tbody&gt;&#xA;&lt;/table&gt;&#xA;&lt;/div&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That scripture, which would have been burned in to her &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Heart_of_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Immaculate Heart&lt;/a&gt;, by means of a singular grace would have certainly been with her at a young age when she would be betrothed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, one tradition (not &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_tradition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sacred Tradition&lt;/a&gt;), which is mostly forgotten by popular imagery but found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia article&lt;/a&gt; you linked to, says that Mary was a consecrated virgin raised in the temple. Her parents Anne and Joachim prayed for her and when they got her, gave her up to the temple where she would have been able to absorb scripture like Anna (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 2:36-38&lt;/a&gt;). There she would have certainly known all about Hannah and Samuel, certainly enough to put Hannah's prayer into her own words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2020-12-09T07:29:34.633" LastActivityDate="2020-12-09T07:29:34.633" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14542" CreationDate="2013-02-27T23:29:37.517" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1535/68&quot;&gt;Luke&lt;/a&gt;, the author of the gospel that bears his name and also of Acts, was an exceptional historian of the classical mold.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_historiography#Characteristics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Roman&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus#Reliability&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Greek&lt;/a&gt; history was a little different than what we expect from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;field&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_historiography#Characteristics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; suggests a typical approach:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Roman historiography &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;commentarii&lt;/a&gt; is simply a raw account of events often not intended for publication. It was not considered traditional “history” because it lacked the necessary speeches and literary flourishes. Commentarii was usually turned into “history” later on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Roman reader would expect the author of a history to present a polished account rather than a word-for-word &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorthand#Classical_antiquity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;stenography&lt;/a&gt;.  Given the expense of the two volumes &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/4059/68&quot;&gt;Theophilus&lt;/a&gt; commissioned, he would have demanded the high literary quality that Luke did, in fact, deliver.  Therefore, Peter's sermon in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2&lt;/a&gt; was likely &quot;punched up&quot; a bit.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that Luke used a &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1452/68&quot;&gt;number of sources&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1149/68&quot;&gt;Luke's version&lt;/a&gt; of Jesus' genealogy and the details of the Nativity which seem known only to Mary&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; suggest that Mary herself was one of Luke's sources.  If so, we may conclude that Mary relayed the Magnificat to Luke and he wrote it down.  In all likelihood, she would have recited it 30 or more years after the event &lt;em&gt;in &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/202/68&quot;&gt;Aramaic&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.  So we aren't reading a teenage girl's poem, but a Greek translation of psalm from the heart of a widow who has outlived her oldest son.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to say that Mary could not or did not compose the canticle that we read (modulo translation, of course) nor that it was remembered from her youth.  Rather, we ought not be surprised by the literary quality of soliloquies in the Bible and especially in Luke's works.  Ancient writers were far more concerned about the essence of history than its substance.  Without a doubt, Luke portrays the pregnant Mary as wise beyond her years.  The song he provided her with reflects that reality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnote:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or maybe not since he was inspired by the Holy Spirit at the time.  But the point is, Luke didn't have a tape recording to transcribe and he likely did not have the precise words of the sermon.  Rather he gathered one or more accounts of what was said, quoted some relevant Scripture, and &quot;reconstructed&quot; the speech.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Particularly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart.&amp;mdash;Luke 2:19 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Luke+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-02-27T23:29:37.517" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14560" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14561" CreationDate="2013-02-28T12:30:24.040" Score="0" ViewCount="2335" Body="&lt;p&gt;It appears that the people of Israel during the time of Exodus were so stubborn. They rebelled  many times, grumbled against Moses and God over and over again. In spite of seeing all the miracles that God performed right before their very eyes, they were always questioning God. But the next generation were obedient under the leadership of Joshua.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What could be the reason of their stubbornness? Was it because they were illiterate? Was it because they were raised as slaves which made them hard and obstinate? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2016-08-23T10:46:42.873" Title="Why were the people of Exodus so stubborn?" Tags="&lt;exodus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14560" CreationDate="2013-02-28T12:55:53.030" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, I believe scripture would say that they were stubborn because they were people.  Their education and position had nothing to do with their rebellion against God.  They were rebellious simply because it was in their character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This nature isn't limited to the Jews only, but also to everyone in the world.  As Paul says in Romans 3:9-18:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    “None is righteous, no, not one;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;        no one understands;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;        no one seeks for God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;        no one does good,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;        not even one.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    “Their throat is an open grave;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;        they use their tongues to deceive.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    “The venom of asps is under their lips.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;        “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    “Their feet are swift to shed blood;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;        in their paths are ruin and misery,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    and the way of peace they have not known.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;        “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This rebelliousness and stubbornness of people is the foundation for why Christ came to die.  We were rebellious and did not love Christ, but He loved us anyways, so he came to die to pay the penalty for our sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-28T12:55:53.030" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14563" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-02-28T16:15:02.300" Score="6" ViewCount="1817" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article on the &quot;Prayer to Saint Michael&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_to_Saint_Michael&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_to_Saint_Michael&lt;/a&gt;) says that Pope John-Paul II referred to &quot;the spirit of this world&quot; when recommending the prayer be used by Catholics.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the quote from the article: &quot;Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against the forces of darkness and against &lt;strong&gt;the spirit of this world&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did JP II mean when he used this expression &quot;spirit of this world&quot;?  The Saint Michael prayer mentions &quot;the devil&quot;, &quot;Satan&quot;, and &quot;evil spirits&quot;.  Are they all different?  Does &quot;spirit of this world&quot; mean &quot;the devil&quot;, &quot;Satan&quot;, or &quot;evil spirits&quot; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3997" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T19:03:27.327" LastActivityDate="2016-08-11T19:37:43.463" Title="What is &quot;the spirit of this world.&quot; referred to by John-Paul II" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;john-paul-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14560" CreationDate="2013-02-28T16:21:54.863" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;They refused the knowledge of God for the same reasons many do today. The life that the God of the Old Testament wants you to lead is hard. We cannot just do as we please. There are consequences to our actions. Though you may escape earthly punishment for your evil deeds you will not escape them in your afterlife. It is easy to see why such a message would be unpopular with people. Hedonism had just as much of a pulling power on people's lives then as what they do now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-02-28T16:23:33.210" LastActivityDate="2013-02-28T16:23:33.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14563" CreationDate="2013-02-28T16:59:23.350" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The spirit of the world is referred to in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who&#xA;  is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by&#xA;  God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught&#xA;  by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are&#xA;  spiritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I included 2 Corinthians 2:13 in the quote above for a specific reason.  These two verses run in parallel to each other.  Basically, more or less, it's man's wisdom, and a term to refer to the world's natural bent.   The context here isn't really referring to angels or demons at all, but rather the natural bent of the world to be separated from God, and understand things according to natural principles, rather than godly, spiritual principles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence why the prayer refers to the battle of the forces of darkness (Satan, demons, etc.) &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; the spirit of the world.  Prayer is needed to battle against both fronts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another word for the spirit of this world, from a secular perspective, may be &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zeitgeist&lt;/a&gt;.  Of course, from a secular perspective, the zeitgeist is typically seen as a good thing, but from a Christian perspective, it is typically viewed as contrary to Biblical thinking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-28T16:59:23.350" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14250" CreationDate="2013-02-28T17:27:55.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Seeing Miracles Does Not Result in Belief&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an invalid assumption in the question, specifically that the viewing of miracles makes it easier to believe in God.  If this were so, then all of the people who saw firsthand the miracles that Jesus performed would have believed in Him.  That, however, was not the case at all.  In reality, many of those who saw the miracles responded by hating Him, attributing His miracles to demonic powers, falsely accusing Him of blasphemy, and calling for His death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Thomas at first refused to believe in the resurrection of Jesus without seeing Him for himself.  However, he was not commended for that demand.  Rather, those who believe without seeing were commended.  So, indeed, believing without seeing is most certainly possible, and even the preferred method.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when Jesus told the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man asked that Lazarus be risen from the dead to go back to the rich man's family and warn them.  However, the rich man was informed that even if someone were to rise from the dead, people would still not believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Many Believed Without Seeing Miracles&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in the first century, immediately after the resurrection of Jesus, thousands upon thousands of people became believers without seeing any miracles.  It is true that there were still some miracles being performed, but not for every individual to see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, then, is what it was that caused so many people to believe if they saw no miracles.  The answer is that they saw the transformed lives of the apostles.  Even the religious leaders of the day took note when Peter and John, who were unschooled, ordinary men, stood before them with an astonishing courage and proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus and salvation in His name.  (Acts 4:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Foxe's Book of Martyrs records how many people believed when they saw the faith of others in the face of persecution and death for their belief in Jesus.  They faced death so peacefully and they so steadfastly refused to denounce their faith that others could only conclude that what these people believed had obviously had supernaturally transformed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others were persuaded based on the evidence of the fulfilled prophecies.  Stephen reasoned with people, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was, in fact, the Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Work of the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important thing to note is that belief does not come from merely physical evidence.  The Spirit of God testifies to the hearts of men of the truth of the Gospel.  Christians understand that mankind is not purely physical, but also spiritual--that is, we have a spirit as well as a body (and a soul as well).  God testifies to our spirits directly.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Complete Picture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, people believed in Jesus in the first century based on 1) the transformed lives of others who were Christians, 2) the evidence of the fulfilled prophecies, 3) the witness of God directly to their spirits.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some also saw miracles, of course, but that again did not automatically result in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, people believe in Jesus for the same reasons.  Some today do see miracles, but those are often seen by those who are already Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue really is not an issue of having enough evidence to believe.  I would contend that there is enough evidence to convince someone, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a God and that Jesus is the Son of God who became a man, died, and rose from the dead.  It is not an issue of evidence, then, but of choice.  As the saying goes, &quot;A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T12:23:36.723" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T12:23:36.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14563" CreationDate="2013-02-28T18:19:41.530" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;spirit of this world&quot; refers to the unrepentant sinfulness of people, especially those inclinations that lead people to rally against and undermine the Church. The &quot;acting body&quot; of the spirit of this world seems to be primarily human (human impiety, malice, and so on), though it is certainly stoked and sustained by the forces of darkness and the devil in particular. This &quot;spirit of the world&quot; does not specifically refer to the devil, who would be first among the forces of darkness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bit of history is now in order (at least for those interested in the details).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blessed John Paul II is speaking about the prayer to St Michael the Archangel. This prayer was composed by Pope Leo XIII, and it is fairly reasonable to assume that Bl John Paul understands the background well enough to know what his predecessor was getting at. The prayer is a plea for aid in defending the Catholic Church from her enemies (a prayer similar to, for example, Lamentations 3). It was added at the end of the Mass in 1886. Here is a relevant excerpt from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholocity.net/prayers/St._Michael_long.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;longer version&lt;/a&gt; of this prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...] That cruel, ancient serpent, &lt;strong&gt;who is called the devil or Satan&lt;/strong&gt; who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. &lt;strong&gt;This wicked dragon pours out&lt;/strong&gt;, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, &lt;strong&gt;the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy&lt;/strong&gt;, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Be favorable to &lt;strong&gt;Thy Church, the Bride of the Lamb without spot, whose enemies have filled to overflowing with gall&lt;/strong&gt; and inebriated with wormwood.  [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Leo XIII issued &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Encyclicals_of_Pope_Leo_XIII&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;85 Encyclicals&lt;/a&gt;. If you look at that list, you'll see that a fair number of them are vocal against various secular evils, which took root as Communism, Freemasonry, Nihilism, Socialism, and so on. The first of these encyclicals was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_21041878_inscrutabili-dei-consilio_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Inscrutabili Dei Consilio&lt;/a&gt;, On the Evils of Society, which closely mirrors the above prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...] &lt;sub&gt;For, from the very beginning of Our pontificate, the sad sight has presented itself to Us of the evils by which the human race is oppressed on every side: the widespread &lt;strong&gt;subversion of the primary truths&lt;/strong&gt; on which, as on its foundations, human society is based; the &lt;strong&gt;obstinacy&lt;/strong&gt; of mind that will not brook any authority however lawful; the endless &lt;strong&gt;sources of disagreement&lt;/strong&gt;, whence arrive civil strife, and ruthless war and bloodshed; the &lt;strong&gt;contempt of law&lt;/strong&gt; which molds characters and is the shield of righteousness; the &lt;strong&gt;insatiable craving&lt;/strong&gt; for things perishable, with &lt;strong&gt;complete forgetfulness of things eternal&lt;/strong&gt;, leading up to the desperate madness whereby so many wretched beings, in all directions, scruple not to lay violent hands upon themselves; the &lt;strong&gt;reckless mismanagement&lt;/strong&gt;, waste, and misappropriation of the public funds; the &lt;strong&gt;shamelessness&lt;/strong&gt; of those who, full of treachery, make semblance of being champions of country, of freedom, and every kind of right; in fine, &lt;strong&gt;the deadly kind of plague&lt;/strong&gt; which infects in its inmost recesses, allowing it no respite and foreboding ever fresh disturbances and final disaster. &lt;br&gt; 3. Now, the source of these evils lies chiefly, We are convinced, in this, that the holy and venerable authority of the Church, which in God's name rules mankind, upholding and defending all lawful authority, has been despised and set aside. The enemies of public order, being fully aware of this, have thought nothing better suited to destroy the foundations of society than to make an unflagging &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;strong&gt;attack upon the Church of God, to bring her into discredit and odium by spreading infamous calumnies and accusing her of being opposed to genuine progress.&lt;/strong&gt; [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sound familiar? Well, it does to Catholics, and of course to all who would rightly call themselves Christians, as we will soon see. Note that this was written in 1878. This was before the first World War, before anti-religious Communism as we tend to remember it. Now, later in this same encyclical, Pope Leo XIII directly references &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/colossians/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Col 2:8&lt;/a&gt;, and we find ourselves going further back in history, to Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the &lt;strong&gt;elemental powers of the world&lt;/strong&gt; and not according to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 2&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. [...] 12 We have not received &lt;strong&gt;the spirit of the world&lt;/strong&gt; but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, &quot;world&quot; has a number of meanings throughout the Bible (creation, fallen humanity as in John 3:17). Here, it refers to the ideas expressed vividly by Jesus in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 15:18--&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The World’s Hatred:&lt;/em&gt; “&lt;strong&gt;If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. &#xA;  Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.&#xA;  And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/15/21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;[...]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what the prayer by Pope Leo XIII refers to, and what Bl John Paul II is speaking of when he says &quot;the spirit of this world&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we say the Prayer to St Michael the Archangel (defend us in battle, be our protection against...), many of us may have in mind the more-personal evils that we are worried are arrayed against us (which is good and right, since it serves to keep us on the narrow way, as God intends). When the Pope says the prayer, he has evils more vast in mind; he says it as a plea to God for the protection of the entire Church and world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-02T05:55:08.380" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T05:55:08.380" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14568" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14575" CreationDate="2013-02-28T19:15:31.923" Score="3" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one, and God is three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit.) From what I understand the Eternal Son came in human flesh, and we know that resultant man as Jesus of Nazareth. So would it be accurate to say God the Son was operating in a human body as &quot;Jesus&quot;? Were the Father and/or Spirit also in Him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I am, of course, looking for answers from a Trinitarian perspective.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-05T18:12:46.533" LastActivityDate="2017-05-05T22:07:36.057" Title="Which Person(s) of the Trinity were in Jesus?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14569" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14570" CreationDate="2013-02-28T19:38:06.463" Score="2" ViewCount="1188" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A29%E2%80%9330&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 11:29–30&lt;/a&gt; (NIV), Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the yoke exactly? Is it the teaching? Why does Jesus say that it is easy? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1992" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-06-09T19:00:23.977" LastActivityDate="2017-06-10T02:06:53.647" Title="What is the yoke in Matthew 11?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-06-11T02:11:13.767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14569" CreationDate="2013-02-28T19:46:03.170" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The yoke that Christ is talking about is in direct contradiction to the yoke and burden of the Pharisees.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 23:4, Jesus speaks of the Pharisees like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's&#xA;  shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their&#xA;  finger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is to say, they ask so many things of the people, and they demand so much of the people who follow them, and yet they're not themselves willing to help those who try to follow their demands.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attempting to follow the demands is exactly what wears people out.  Any time we try to follow all the rules that are thrown at us, we begin to be weary of the rules that we're carrying.  We realize that the burden is more than we can bear, and we begin to resent those who give us the rules and the burdens.  Those who are weary in verse 28 are those who are drowning in the rules of the Pharisees.  They're those who are tired of trying so hard. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, Jesus yoke is easy because He Himself carried the yoke.  The demands that he places on us, he himself fulfills, and then goes on to pay the penalty for those of us who cannot fulfill the demands.  It's as if he's saying, &quot;I tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and I lay them on my own shoulder.&quot;  Thus, for us his yoke is easy and his burden is light, because he himself carries it, and in this we can find rest for our souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-02-28T19:46:03.170" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14568" CreationDate="2013-02-28T19:48:54.403" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is one Person of the Trinity.  He is never the Father or the Spirit.  That being said, Jesus did speak of the union He had with the others when He said &quot;the Father was in Him&quot; and such.  However, it was the Son who became a Man--not the Father or the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.  John 14:20 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father and the Spirit are spirit and do not have physical bodies, so neither of them could be physically in the body of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-02-28T20:07:21.237" LastActivityDate="2013-02-28T20:07:21.237" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14572" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14611" CreationDate="2013-02-28T19:55:39.620" Score="10" ViewCount="488" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some context: I am deaf, though I can hear because of cochlear implants. As I have been able to hear since I was about 6.5 years old, I have an internal voice like pretty much every single normally-hearing person. Hence, when I pray, I typically pray with words. However, recently, my former roommate came to Christ, and I found out that he communicates with God through &lt;em&gt;images&lt;/em&gt;, because he &lt;em&gt;doesn't&lt;/em&gt; have an internal voice. Rather, he thinks - and therefore prays - in a visual manner. Given that the books of the Bible were written entirely (presumably) by people who were hearing, I'm curious as to whether there is any record in the Bible of a person &lt;em&gt;praying&lt;/em&gt; in a &lt;em&gt;visual&lt;/em&gt; way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T13:49:09.317" Title="Is there any record of a visual method of prayer in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14573" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14574" CreationDate="2013-02-28T20:21:56.523" Score="8" ViewCount="1239" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend recently made the following statement regarding the heresy of Arianism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The conflict was about the nature of Christ before the Creation of the Universe. It was a Philosophical/Metaphysical cum Theological difference which really had no practical manifestation in terms of Saving Faith or practice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Arianism denies the divinity of Christ and the fullness of the Godhead, I am inclined to disagree. (The emphasis of my studies are mostly biblical theology with an Old Testament emphasis and this is a systematics issue.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What impact, if any, does an Arian view of Christ have on a person's salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I welcome answers from a purely biblical perspective, I also welcome historical arguments and answers quoting authors from the time of and close to the controversy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1597" LastEditorUserId="1597" LastEditDate="2013-02-28T22:09:10.767" LastActivityDate="2016-12-25T07:58:14.887" Title="What are the soteriological implications of Arianism?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;arianism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14573" CreationDate="2013-02-28T21:10:55.850" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see why this should be complicated. Soteriology is the study of salvation (Greek σωτηρία). Succinctly stated, Arianism posits that the Lord Jesus Christ is not &amp;quot;the only true god&amp;quot; (ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεός; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=17&amp;amp;v=3&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_1014003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 17:3&lt;/a&gt;), Yahveh (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=44&amp;amp;v=6&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_723006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa. 44:6&lt;/a&gt;), but rather, a creation of the one true god (i.e., a creature).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=43&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa. 43:11&lt;/a&gt; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=KJV#21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa. 45:21&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hsa&amp;amp;c=13&amp;amp;t=KJV#4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hos. 13:4&lt;/a&gt;), it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I, [even] I, am Yavheh, and there is no savior besides Me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי יַהְוֶה וְאֵין מִבַּלְעָדַי מוֹשִׁיעַ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Lord Jesus Christ is not Yavheh, then he cannot effect salvation for humanity, for Yavheh Himself states, &amp;quot;There is no savior besides Me.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some may suppose that salvation is ultimately effected by Yahveh via the proxy of the Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this is refuted by Psa. 49, in which it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=49&amp;amp;v=7&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_527007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;A man certainly shall not redeem&lt;/strong&gt; his brother, nor give his ransom to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=49&amp;amp;v=7&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_527007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; אָח לֹא־פָדֹה יִפְדֶּה אִישׁ לֹא־יִתֵּן לֵאלֹהִים כָּפְרוֹ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=49&amp;amp;v=15&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_527015&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; But &lt;strong&gt;God shall redeem&lt;/strong&gt; my soul from the power of the grave, for He shall receive me. Selah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=49&amp;amp;v=15&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=t_conc_527015&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; אַךְ־אֱלֹהִים יִפְדֶּה נַפְשִׁי מִיַּד־שְׁאֹול כִּי יִקָּחֵנִי סֶֽלָה&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to the redemption of a man's soul from the power of the grave, man cannot redeem his brother. Only God can. Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be just a man, otherwise he is wholly incapable of effecting the redemption of humanity. Consequently, if the Lord Jesus Christ is not God, then he cannot be the savior or redeemer of humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-02-08T00:17:02.140" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14568" CreationDate="2013-02-28T22:07:35.380" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;All three persons of the Trinity are in a perichoretic union.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Hence, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and the Spirit of the Son,&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; yet there still exist three persons of the Trinity.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son said, “I and my Father are one,”&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; to which the Jews picked up stones in order to stone him. He also told Phillip, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; By means of the Holy Spirit, the other Comforter,&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; the Father and the Son would dwell in individual Christians.&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father is essentially and spiritually (obviously, not physically, as in the sense of a corporality) in the Son, as the Son is spiritually in the Father, and both are spiritually in the Holy Spirit, as there is a unity of essence. In such a manner, the Father is indeed in the Son, not only by a unity of will, as some assert. Thus, the apostle Paul wrote that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.”&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; From the Greek word περιχώρησις&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Matt. 10:20 cp. Mark 13:11&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Gal. 4:6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Matt. 28:19&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; John 10:30&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; John 14:10–11&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; John 14:16&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; John 14:23&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; 2 Cor. 5:19&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-05-05T22:07:36.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14572" CreationDate="2013-02-28T22:13:20.427" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I doubt that. I remember from many sermons (on Gospel records of Jesus curing some mute/deaf person, such as Mark 7:32-37) that mute and deaf were considered unable to pray and even unable to believe by Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found two verses supporting this theory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 29:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll,&#xA;      and out of gloom and darkness&#xA;      the eyes of the blind will see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 10:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is&#xA;  heard through the word about Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both mean roughly the same: without hearing the Law or the Gospel, you can't believe. With ability to read, sign language and other ways to communicate this is not true, but these ways were hard to imagine for people of that times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-02-28T22:13:20.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14563" CreationDate="2013-02-28T22:31:54.707" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_reg_19940424_it.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Italian of the Regina Coeli&lt;/a&gt;, dated April 24, 1994.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aveva di sicuro ben presente questa scena il Papa Leone XIII, quando, alla fine del secolo scorso, introdusse in tutta la Chiesa una speciale preghiera a San Michele: &amp;quot;San Michele Arcangelo difendici nella battaglia contro i mali e le insidie del maligno; sii nostro riparo . . .&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anche se oggi questa preghiera non viene più recitata al termine della celebrazione eucaristica, invito tutti a non dimenticarla, ma a recitarla per ottenere di essere aiutati nella battaglia contro le forze delle tenebre e contro &lt;strong&gt;lo spirito di questo mondo&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I was in the process of translating the Italian, but apparently Wikipedia already did that, well enough. Considering that the text cites both Eph. 6:10 and Rev. 12:7, I can't help but believe that &amp;quot;the spirit of this world&amp;quot; refers to Satan, elsewhere referred to as &amp;quot;the prince of this world&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=%22prince%20of%20this%20world%22&amp;amp;t=KJV&amp;amp;sf=5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;see these scriptures&lt;/a&gt;), and in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eph. 2:2&lt;/a&gt; as, &amp;quot;...the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit who now works in the children of disobedience.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-02-28T23:42:44.130" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14579" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-01T01:10:14.487" Score="5" ViewCount="17258" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus write any of His own scripture or contribute to the Bible directly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, I do not understand why Jesus would not think to do that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a reason stated anywhere and what is the common Christian view of this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4058" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-03-01T01:24:26.570" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T07:46:12.713" Title="Why did Jesus not write any scripture himself?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-03-02T03:57:53.513" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14582" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14587" CreationDate="2013-03-01T01:56:35.443" Score="5" ViewCount="16207" Body="&lt;p&gt;The title of this question has an element of humor but is very real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On my way home, I was listening to a pastor's sermon on KWAVE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This pastor stated that God is like a Shepherd and that we are His sheep... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More specifically, that in the old days, if the Shepherd had a sheep that was prone to wandering off from the herd or out of the protection of the pen, the Shepherd would actually break the sheep's leg and reset it, so that it would not wander and be killed by a prowling predator. So, because the Shepherd so loved His sheep, He would break their legs to keep them alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, the pastor stated that this is what God does with us because He loves us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, he did not go into detail or give examples, so my question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does God inhibit us in ways that are to keep us from going to Hell?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, does He do this for some people or for everyone?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, what would be some examples of this? Would God try to keep someone humble and &lt;strong&gt;alive&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;for eternity&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; by giving them depression? Or if God knew someone could not control their lust make them unattractive, to preserve them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any info on how this works is greatly appreciated. In addition, if this pastor's message is wrong, please do explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank You.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-06-30T21:38:35.310" LastActivityDate="2019-06-24T00:21:35.480" Title="God | The Shepherd That &quot;Breaks Legs&quot;?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;divine-intervention&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-06-30T16:19:40.737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14579" CreationDate="2013-03-01T04:29:35.267" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Contrary to what we might think, Jesus did not put teaching at the center of his mission. In fact he spent a lot of effort concealing his message through the use of parables.&lt;/strong&gt; In fact it was not until close to the end of his days in the flesh on this earth, that he promised to speak clearly by sending the Holy Ghost:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. (John 16:25-26, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the reasons for concealing his message was to keep his enemies in the dark, while giving some explanations to his disciples who would recall them later, after they had received the Spirit to understand. (Mark 4:33-34, John 14:25-26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Jesus was more interested in dying and orchestrating the timing of his death than teaching.  His goal with regard to teaching was to be through the Spirit after his death and by the Apostles that he selected. Of couse this does not imply that his words recorded in the gospels are not filled with bottomless gold deposits of wisdom to mine from, but that his actions rather than parables are in the center.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Considering his mission was to die and resurrect and not primarily to teach, except through his Apostles by the Spirit, it seems suitable that he would not write anything.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-01T05:18:52.973" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T05:18:52.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14582" CreationDate="2013-03-01T05:12:21.507" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would be wary of a sermon which develops it's doctrines concerning God's occasionally harsh treatment of man from the interpretation of a supposed ancient practice. As well-meaning as it is, from a standpoint of pastoral guidance and discipleship, it's not very helpful for a disciple to look upon human suffering and remember the alleged practices of ancient near-east shepherds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Biblical theology standpoint, the most notable passage is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we know that for those who love God all things work together for&#xA;  good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28&#xA;  ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there is a promise, all things work together for good of the object of that promise. Who is the object of that promise? Those who love God AND are called according to His purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, being called according to the purposes of God is synonymous with being the elect of God. Various theological camps have different beliefs on what it means to be elect, but the reformed tradition of which I am a part believes that the Bible teaches that the elect are those whom God has predestined from before the foundation of the world by grace to be granted the gift of faith, unto salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, applying this idea to suffering is a good mindset but only in the most general sense that a Christian can know themselves to be loved and not abandoned in the midst of suffering, not that they can deduce the special reasons that make particular instances of suffering ultimately good for them. It is something to take God at his word for, even when it is not directly seen or experienced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-06-24T00:21:35.480" LastActivityDate="2019-06-24T00:21:35.480" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14579" CreationDate="2013-03-01T05:36:32.547" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's like asking &amp;quot;Why didn't God create&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; the Bible?&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God already created many things, the world, living things, human and the intelligence of man. God gave man the ability to think and He also gave freewill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What if God created&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; the Bible?&lt;/strong&gt; I do not see anything beneficial from it. Many will still doubt that it was forgery. There won't be any difference from the discovery of the Book of Mormon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God wants his message to be conveyed by real people, heart to heart. Thus, we have a unique book. People from different time (around 1500 BC - 100 AD), writing in isolation from each other, but the goal is same, the message is same, the idea is same and the Author is One. All these characteristics of the Bible make it unique and credible. It's not like Qur'an which was written by one man, conveying his ideas and his alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, of course, once gave a book to man&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, written with His own divine hands, which was the Two Tablets of The Ten Commandments. But God had hidden it so that no one may discover it. God did this because He wants his book to be written by real people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, there is no need for Jesus to write any Scripture. After all, all the Words of Scriptures are fulfilled in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My favorite words from this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14022/are-there-any-references-to-four-canonical-gospels-prior-to-100-ad&quot;&gt;post&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Natural Delivery&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The NT was NOT dropped from heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The NT was NOT delivered by an angel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The NT was NOT dug up in a farmer's field as golden plates like the Book of Mormon.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The NT was NOT suddenly &amp;quot;discovered&amp;quot; in a clay jar with 27 &amp;quot;books&amp;quot; intact like the Dead  - Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NT canon developed, or evolved, over the course of the first&#xA;250-300 years of Christian history. If the NT had been delivered by an&#xA;angel, or unearthed as a complete unit it would not be as believable.&#xA;Part of the historical validity of the NT comes from the fact that we&#xA;can trace its development, albeit not as precisely as we might like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1  to make something exist out of nothing&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2  Moses, the writer of Torah&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T07:46:12.713" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14591" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14592" CreationDate="2013-03-01T05:54:29.480" Score="5" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there anything amiss with the following argument?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is the Word of God (Jesus is the Logos)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus spoke words&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The words that Jesus spoke are the words of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The words of Jesus are the Logos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, if a person were to insist that &quot;Word&quot; is used in the same way that it is used in &quot;I will send word to you&quot;, is it possible to decisively correct this person using only scripture? If not, then does scripture suggest that the words of Jesus really are the Logos?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T06:24:18.640" Title="Are the words that Jesus spoke the Logos?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14591" CreationDate="2013-03-01T06:24:18.640" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there is something amiss. The Word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) is enhypostatic, that is, He possesses a &lt;em&gt;hypostasis&lt;/em&gt; and personality. However, the words of God which the Word of God spoke are anhypostatic, just like the words you and I speak. The apostles worshipped Jesus, the enhypostatic word of God, but they did not worship the anhypostatic words which he spoke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T06:24:18.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14579" CreationDate="2013-03-01T07:45:38.890" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus did numerous miracles when He walked on this earth. All these miracles are the manifestation of His ability to do “anything and everything”. He was able to do anything and everything” but thought it fit to do whatever He did and stop there and there,  not because He was not able to do, &lt;strong&gt;but in God’s Wisdom,  that was fit to be so and sufficient to strengthen the faith of those who were destined to be saved&lt;/strong&gt;. Miracles like multiplying of bread and fish, telling Peter to get the coin from the first fish that he gets to pay for their taxes, ensuring that a colt and an ass is present at a designated place for His journey to Jerusalem, ensuring that a large room is ready for His last Supper, are but few which showed that He was capable of doing everything and anything.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In similar manner He could have made the Bible to come into existence during His stay on earth with single word from His mouth without even writing it, but He had a different plan. Jesus says:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer the question: Did Jesus write any of His own scripture or contribute to the Bible directly? Yes. Very much so. Through Holy Spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we Christians have in the form of Bible is certainly the work of &quot;Holy Trinity one God&quot;. Since all writers of Bible Books were inspired by Holy Spirit, the third person of Holy Trinity, what else could we ask from God. Whether written by Jesus or inspired by Holy Spirit is one and the same, it is Word of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T07:45:38.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2109" CreationDate="2013-03-01T09:18:39.280" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are links to official material published by Jehovah's Witnesses which you can read online about this topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/why-true-christians-do-not-use-the-cross-in-worship/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989219&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reasoning from the Scriptures: Cross&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004456&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Insight on the Scriptures: Torture Stake&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recommend reading some of these for a more in depth, and rounded out answer with references to back up their claims. What follows is a summary of some of the important concepts from these sources. The Greek word stau·ros′ is usually translated &quot;cross&quot; in most English Bible translations. However this word originally meant an upright stake or pale. The word did not imply the idea of a second piece of timber. Some other parts of the Bible refer to the instrument of Jesus execution with the Greek word xy′lon. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/5/#v44005030&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 5:30&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/10/#v44010039&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;10:39&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/13/#v44013029&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;13:29&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/galatians/3/#v48003013&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:13&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-peter/2/#v60002024&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 2:24&lt;/a&gt;) This word can mean timber, a stick, club, tree, or stake. The Bible shows that Jesus died on a stake at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/galatians/3/#v48003013&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:13&lt;/a&gt; where the Apostle Paul quotes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/deuteronomy/21/#v5021022&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 21:22, 23&lt;/a&gt;. The cross as a religious symbol is pagan in origin. It was used extensively as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times. The Roman emperor Constantine promoted the cross as the symbol for Christianity. Apparently, this was done to make it easier for pagans to accept &quot;Christianity.&quot; God's word condemns the use of pagan idols and all forms of idolatry. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-corinthians/6/#v47006014&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14-18&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/20/#v2020004&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:4,5&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/10/#v46010014&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:14&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2014-04-17T19:36:17.647" LastActivityDate="2014-04-17T19:36:17.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14596" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-01T15:51:02.853" Score="18" ViewCount="13188" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New World Translation of the Bible was produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  I'm wondering what specific scholarship is behind the translation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who were the translators?  What Greek Manuscripts were used?  What were the credentials of the translators and their training in Biblical Languages?  Was the Latin Vulgate referenced?  Was it intended to be a word for word translation or thought for thought?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-03-01T17:46:24.767" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T18:35:31.210" Title="What specific scholarship is there behind the New World Translation?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;nwt&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14596" CreationDate="2013-03-01T16:20:21.063" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Watchtower Organization's own &lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989250#h=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Reasoning From the Scriptures&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel's 'Biblia Hebraica' editions of 1951-1955, was used.  The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the 'Biblia Stuttgartensia' of 1977.  Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted.  For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numberous early versions in other languages.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So they used multiple sources in order to refine their translation to where they wanted it.  Regarding the translators (also from &lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989250#h=6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Reasoning From the Scriptures&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous.  The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request.  The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the translators are anonymous, we cannot state whether it is a scholarly translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages.  It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful.&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989250#h=10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this is the quote from the same book that all Jehovah's Witnesses have when they go door to door.  I'd like to rebut the above quote -- The New Testament translation in the New World Translation has taken out the Greek words 'Theos' (God) and 'Kurios' (Lord) in over 60 places within the NT and replaced them with 'Jehovah'.  Jehovah occurs nowhere in the Greek, in fact the word was only popularized in the 18th-19th century.  It's extremely important to understand this point when considering if the NWT is 'true' to the original language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4019" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-26T18:34:52.207" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T18:34:52.207" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14598" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-01T17:49:31.087" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-01T17:49:31.087" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T17:49:31.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14599" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-01T17:49:31.087" Score="0" Body="The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT), is published and used by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is rarely used by others, and is a somewhat contentious translation." OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-03-01T18:25:08.573" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T18:25:08.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14600" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14602" CreationDate="2013-03-01T17:58:39.513" Score="2" ViewCount="748" Body="&lt;p&gt;In particular, is it sin when someone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;does something sinful, but he is not aware of the sinfulness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;does something sinful, someone told him it is sinful, but he still doesn't feel it as sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;does something not sinful, but he feels it as sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the relationship between sinful behavior and sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user508" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T20:29:05.757" Title="Is every sinful behavior a sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-06-12T08:10:50.767" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14600" CreationDate="2013-03-01T19:44:23.390" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in the Bible is something sinful &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; sinful because of how someone feels. There may be things that are not &lt;em&gt;innately&lt;/em&gt; sinful, that may be sinful in certain situations (Ecclesiastes 3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your questions, specifically when someone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;does something sinful, but he is not aware of the sinfulness&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the&#xA;truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, but a fearful&#xA;prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the&#xA;adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without&#xA;mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse&#xA;punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned&#xA;the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was&#xA;sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who has&#xA;said, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' And again, 'The Lord will&#xA;judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the&#xA;living God. (Hebrews 10:26-31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the verse that says &amp;quot;there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins&amp;quot;. This verse points out that those who sin when they &lt;em&gt;know they are sinning&lt;/em&gt;, will receive a &amp;quot;fearful prospect of judgement&amp;quot;. This implies that sinning when you are not aware of your sin carries a lesser penalty (although still, all sins are enough to send a man to hell). See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ldolphin.org/deliberate.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;does something sinful, someone told him it is sinful, but he still doesn't feel it as sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You seem to be presenting two different possibilities here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He does something sinful, but he doesn't feel it is sin - If he is doing &amp;quot;something sinful&amp;quot;, that is, something specifically called out in Scripture as sin, it doesn't matter how he feels on the issue. Indeed, the rejection of that action being sin is another sin, a rebellion against God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He does something that someone else has told him is sinful, but he doesn't feel it is sin - &amp;quot;Be a Berean&amp;quot; and search the Bible for backing to that action being sin. If none exists, or can be reasonably inferred, and you are not convicted that that action is sin, they you're probably fine. If there is backing in Scripture, then this falls back under (1) and is of itself sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;does something not sinful, but he feels it as sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/06/23/is-it-a-sin-to-act-against-your-conscience/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;, but it seems to be yes. If you truly believe something is sin, even if it is not specifically presented as such in Scripture, and you sot what &lt;em&gt;you believe is wrong&lt;/em&gt;, then you are sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overall, the relationship between sinful behavior and sin is this: sin is the doing of anything that God prohibits, the failing to do something he commands, or the disobeying of your own convictions about sin, while sinful behavior is the engaging of the act of sin, but may be the engaging in an act that is not inherently sinful, but is for that particular situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T20:29:05.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14603" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14604" CreationDate="2013-03-01T20:43:03.500" Score="4" ViewCount="1011" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was watching a video on youtube : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLh8xnf_Qx0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLh8xnf_Qx0&lt;/a&gt; That I didn't have an answer for. He gives the argument that Matthias became the 12th apostle by the casting of Lots. And then he says that Barnabas and Paul were referred to also by the words apostles. So he argues that apostleship continues on into the current age. What is the contest to this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4041" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T21:48:35.283" Title="Is apostleship continuing on into the current age?" Tags="&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14603" CreationDate="2013-03-01T21:08:30.633" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;All he seems to be doing is widening the traditional understanding of the word &quot;apostle&quot; to it's original Greek meaning, which is &quot;messenger&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see a problem with that on an academic level.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, I think his redefinition and reuse of the word in the modern world is unnecessary and argumentative.  Why use the word &quot;apostle&quot; when the word &quot;missionary&quot;, &quot;evangelist&quot; or &quot;church planter&quot; is far more widely understood, accepted, and has the same meaning in modern language?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think he would do well to let go of his insistence, and in humility, repeat with John the Baptist in John 3:30:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He must increase, but I must decrease&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because, to paraphrase Paul in Galatians 2:6:  &quot;What we are makes no difference.  God shows no partiality.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T21:08:30.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14603" CreationDate="2013-03-01T21:48:35.283" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;apostle&quot; has two meanings in a Protestant Christian context.  From &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Apostle.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Apostle.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An apostle was one of Jesus Christ's 12 closest disciples, chosen by&#xA;  him early in his ministry to spread the gospel after his death and&#xA;  resurrection. In the Bible, they are called Jesus' disciples until the&#xA;  Lord's ascension into heaven, then they are referred to as apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the second one was given:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The term apostle was used in a second way in Scripture, as one who was&#xA;  commissioned and sent by a community to preach the gospel. Saul of&#xA;  Tarsus, a persecutor of Christians who was converted when he had a&#xA;  vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, is also called an apostle. We&#xA;  know him as the Apostle Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this more &quot;ordinary&quot; sense of the term, the answer is an obvious &quot;yes&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I wanted to address the other meaning of the term:  An Apostle in the sense that the original twelve were Apostles.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christian denominations believe that Apostleship &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in this sense&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; ended with the original twelve.  However, certain denominations, such as the LDS Church believe that Apostleship in an authoritarian sense has been re-established and continues to this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/church/leaders/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/church/leaders/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is the second-highest governing&#xA;  body in the Church (the First Presidency being the highest). Apostles&#xA;  are special witnesses of Jesus Christ, called to teach and testify of&#xA;  Him throughout the world. They travel frequently, addressing and&#xA;  encouraging large congregations of members and interested nonmembers,&#xA;  as well as meeting with local leaders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When they are not traveling, members of the Quorum of the Twelve&#xA;  counsel together and with other general Church leaders on matters&#xA;  affecting the worldwide Church, such as missionary work, temple&#xA;  building, spiritual and temporal welfare, and much more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, the Catholic Church teaches Apostolic Succession, which indicates that an official line continued from the original twelve, more in the sense that you seem to be asking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the&#xA;  apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a&#xA;  lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is&#xA;  impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even&#xA;  claim to have bishops).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-01T21:48:35.283" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14606" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14607" CreationDate="2013-03-02T03:14:49.070" Score="4" ViewCount="4379" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 18, the Lord is mentioned several times. Along with 2 angels, he meets with Abraham. Is the Bible speaking of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1447" LastActivityDate="2017-02-11T19:13:23.997" Title="In Genesis 18, does Jesus meet with Abraham?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2017-02-13T15:50:09.517" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14606" CreationDate="2013-03-02T04:02:01.380" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It does not explicitly state such, but it is possible to logically deduce it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus himself said that no one had ever seen the Father (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=46&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/46&quot;&gt;John 6:46&lt;/a&gt;). In addition, Jesus said, &quot;Before Avraham was, I am&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;v=58&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/58&quot;&gt;John 8:58&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically, however, Avraham wouldn't have seen Yeshu'a of Nazareth, the incarnate Word of God. Rather, he would have seen the pre-incarnate Word. (Of course, I'd say most Christians don't find it necessary to make such a distinction.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many early Church fathers believed that Avraham and the other patriarchs saw God the Son when they are said to have seen God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. LVI §1, Justin Martyr wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, Moshe, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that &lt;strong&gt;he&lt;/strong&gt; who appeared to Avraham by the oak in Mamre simultaneously with the two angels in his company, &lt;strong&gt;is God&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;having been sent&lt;/strong&gt; for the judgment upon Sedom &lt;strong&gt;by Another&lt;/strong&gt; who eternally dwells in the supercelestial places, and never appears, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe is &lt;strong&gt;the Maker and Father of all things&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html&quot;&gt;Roberts-Donaldson English Translation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Μωυσῆς οὖν, ὁ μακάριος καὶ πιστὸς θεράπων θεοῦ, μηνύων ὅτι ὁ ὀφθεὶς τῷ Ἀβραὰμ πρὸς τῇ δρυῒ τῇ Μαμβρῆ θεὸς σὺν τοῖς ἅμα αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν Σοδόμων κρίσιν πεμφθεῖσι δύο ἀγγέλοις ὑπὸ ἄλλου, τοῦ ἐν τοῖς ὑπερουρανίοις ἀεὶ μένοντος καὶ οὐδενὶ ὀφθέντος ἢ ὁμιλήσαντος δι' ἑαυτοῦ ποτε, ὃν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων καὶ πατέρα νοοῦμεν.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ateret-tiferet.com/texts/Justin_Martyr_Dialogue_with_Trypho.pdf&quot;&gt;Greek Text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two persons, both God, one who is sent (the Son), and the other who sends (the Father). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T04:02:01.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14608" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-02T04:40:53.450" Score="4" ViewCount="2089" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some in the modern healing movements claim 'continued authority' for themselves and their ministry based upon the belief that God 'never' recalls a gift he has given to a person (such as wisdom, healing, etc.), or the office to which they were called (such as Apostle or Teacher, etc.).  From what I can tell the argument is produced to hold duty bound,  anyone who believes 'one' of their miracles to be true, to accept their office and all their miracles to be true 'always', because God never 'revokes' a particular individual gift or calling within the ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prooftext for this belief is often this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. (Romans 11:29, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems obvious that this proof text is a wresting of scripture rather than an exegesis.  My question is what is the biblical basis for concluding on an individual basis gifts and callings can most definitely be revoked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: This question is not related to eternal security.  There are those in the healing movements that support Calvinism and some support Arminianism. This subject is not within the scope of the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T23:31:16.090" Title="What is the Biblical basis that individual gifts can be revoked by God?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;healing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14608" CreationDate="2013-03-02T07:40:35.220" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, that is a wrestling of scripture. The gifts in question here have more to do with God's plan for Israel, and more generally irrevocable covenants and irrevocable gifts such as Marriage and Baptism. See also Numbers 23:19 (&quot;I was summoned to bless; I will bless; I cannot revoke it!&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is pretty clear, though: God will not revoke gifts and callings. You may have problems taking an approach that contradicts this... in addition to the problems you already face in explaining that passage to those who do not want to hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the following, though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam and Eve lost, among other things, the gift of eternal life&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Samson lost his gift of strength, granted due to having been &quot;a nazirite for God from my mother’s womb&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/judges/16/17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judges 16:17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even Judas seems to have been chosen by Jesus in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/6/13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 6:13&lt;/a&gt;, but should one follow Judas?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You might also mention figures like the Egyptian magicians and their staffs-turned-snakes, who could perform magic tricks, but who were not of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most appropriate way to address this might be to point out that, though God does not revoke His gifts, people may reject them through their own sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-02T23:31:16.090" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T23:31:16.090" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14572" CreationDate="2013-03-02T13:49:09.317" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very interesting question! One thing you might want to think about specifically with regard to finding examples in the Bible is visions -- those are usually God communicating to us, but it's a similar type of thing -- what is often done with words is instead done with images. Ezekiel's vision of the valley of the dry bones, for example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're comfortable going beyond &quot;just in the Bible&quot; I would suggest google searching &quot;visio divina&quot;. It is based on lectio divina which is a very old technique of meditating on scripture verses, but it also incorporates visual prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Praying-with-Art-Visio-Divina.html&quot;&gt;http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Praying-with-Art-Visio-Divina.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.seeingtheword.org&quot;&gt;http://www.seeingtheword.org&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4065" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T13:49:09.317" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="278" CreationDate="2013-03-02T15:36:09.703" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:9-13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:9-13&lt;/a&gt; seems to tell Christians not to use man-made laws to force non-believers to live or behave according to Christian beliefs.  Instead, it tells them to disassociate themselves with those WITHIN THE CHURCH who behave immorally, and to leave those outside the church to God's judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 5:9-13 King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the&#xA;  covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs&#xA;  go out of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man&#xA;  that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator,&#xA;  or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not&#xA;  to eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not&#xA;  ye judge them that are within?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from&#xA;  among yourselves that wicked person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is, to my knowledge, the Bible's strongest statement relevant to the idea of church and state separation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4066" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-03T01:14:51.007" LastActivityDate="2013-03-03T01:14:51.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14582" CreationDate="2013-03-02T17:23:51.520" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I think the anecdote used is severely flawed, I think the underlying point is valid.  It seems to me that the pastor was preaching on the discipline of God rather than general human suffering.  The Bible is abundantly clear that God does discipline those He loves both to bring them to repentance and to further their walk with Him and refine them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The working all things for good is a good passage on why general suffering occurs, however the  anecdote given was that the sheep does something bad (walks away) and therefore the shepard does something that hurts (discipline) in order to help the sheep's life be better in the long run.  This is also why discipline is called for throughout the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you'd like I can find some specific scriptures in support, but there are a lot of them to choose from if you simply look for what the Bible says about discipline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T17:23:51.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14614" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14616" CreationDate="2013-03-02T17:37:18.867" Score="0" ViewCount="7451" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read about a very &lt;a href=&quot;http://branemrys.blogspot.in/2006/03/newton-against-trinity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;famous Scientist  Newton, who had did not believe in the theory of trinity&lt;/a&gt; and i came across a banner in my country which called people to some &quot;Unitarianism church&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence out of curiosity wanted to know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some Christian sects (Modern as well as &lt;strong&gt;Extinct&lt;/strong&gt; or Old) which don't believe in the theory of Trinity nor the divinity of Christ ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="3812" LastEditDate="2013-03-03T03:28:31.330" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T12:00:57.823" Title="Which are some of the Non Trinitarian sects in Christianity" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-03-05T06:01:10.407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14615" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-02T17:42:33.817" Score="0" ViewCount="2519" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is very frequent to see idols of Jesus or any biblical entities in  a Church , So is such idolatry allowed by  the bible,considering the following verses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea&quot;.&#xA;  Exodus 20:4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_make_for_yourself_an_idol#.E2.80.9CImages.E2.80.9D_commanded_by_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;History tells us that&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;sometimes objects that God instructed to be made were turned into&#xA;  idols by the Israelites. The Book of Numbers contains a narrative in&#xA;  which God instructed Moses to make a bronze snake as part of&#xA;  addressing a plague of venomous snakes that had broken out among the&#xA;  Israelites as a punishment for sin. The bronze snake is mentioned&#xA;  again in 2 Kings 18; however, rather than remaining a memorial of&#xA;  God's providence, it became an idol that the people named and&#xA;  worshiped. Thus the bronze snake was destroyed in King Hezekiah's&#xA;  reforms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More specifically in India I see Christians carry idols of Jesus and other biblical  entities with them kiss them and revere them too. Infact they allow the Hindus in the Church and let them perform worship in their way(Like putting incense sticks, offering flowers , foodstuff to the Idol of Jesus etc) as shown below a very common view in India. I studied in a Christian school for 10 years and i am yet to see Christians not doing these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have seen the same on TV and in videos of people venerating the Idol of biblical entities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/t8mAq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;The above picture is an Indian lady worshiping (she touches the feet of the baby Jesus)a Statue/Idol&quot; title=&quot;The picture is an Indian lady worshiping (she touches the feet of the baby Jesus)a Statue/Idol&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T05:58:04.337" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T05:58:04.337" Title="Idolatry in churches allowed?" Tags="&lt;idolatry&gt;&lt;christianity-in-india&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-03-04T13:41:41.670" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14614" CreationDate="2013-03-02T17:56:44.410" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before answering, there are a few ways of defining &quot;divinity&quot;.  I am going to answer from the traditional, orthodox understanding of the term as defined at &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/dictionary-divinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/dictionary-divinity&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Divinity is the nature or quality of being God. Within Christianity it&#xA;  belongs to God alone. It is also important to note that orthodox&#xA;  Christianity believes that Jesus was divine in nature (Col. 2:9) as&#xA;  well as being a man. For more information see Jesus' Two Natures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a pretty comprehensive list of denominations that reject the Trinity &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/tp/denytrinity.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. Groups from that list that also deny the divinity of Christ include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Latter-day Saints&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christian Science&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unification Church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unity School of Christianity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While not necessarily sects, there are certain teachings that deny both the Trinity and Christ's divinity, which were adhered to by various sects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many are found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Arianism&lt;/strong&gt;-- Jesus less than God -- more than human-- The Arian controversy began in Alexandria, Egypt about 318 AD. Arius (c. 250-c.&#xA;  336) was a popular Alexandrian priest whose theology about who Jesus&#xA;  was was condemned as heretical by the First Council of Nicaea in 325&#xA;  and also at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ebionite&lt;/strong&gt;-- Jesus regarded as prophet rather than divine Word of God-- Ebionites originally were a first century Jewish-Christian sect.&#xA;  They emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul's teachings. Most&#xA;  considered him to be a man, not God. Later use of this term refers to&#xA;  anyone who minimizes the divinity of Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Nestorianism--    Refers to theology of Nestorius of Antioch, who became Bishop of Constantinople in 428 A.D.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nestorius believed that Mary was mother only of the human Jesus, not&#xA;  the divine Logos and in the Antiochine &quot;two-nature&quot; Christology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-03T05:07:07.957" LastActivityDate="2013-03-03T05:07:07.957" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14615" CreationDate="2013-03-02T18:12:40.627" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're operating under a misconception that these are idols. Most Christians don't worship these images, statues, etc. Instead, they are considered art, something that we  create because we love the subject, not the work of art.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Asking your question is like asking if looking at a painting of my wife means that I am allowed to cheat on her by devoting my affection to an image of her. I love her, not the painting of her. Christians love Jesus, not the statues of Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the answer id no, idolatry isn't allowed in Churches.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Addressing the updates to the question, the things that people are &quot;venerating&quot; are likely &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentals&quot;&gt;Sacrementals&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sacramentals&lt;/strong&gt; are material objects, things or actions (sacramentalia) set apart or blessed by the Roman and Eastern Catholic&#xA;  Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of&#xA;  the East, the Anglican Churches, the Independent and Old Catholic&#xA;  Churches, and the Lutheran Churches to manifest the respect due to the&#xA;  sacraments, and so to excite good thoughts and to increase devotion,&#xA;  and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin,&#xA;  according to the Council of Trent (Session XXII, 15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Roman Catholicism, sacramentals such as Holy water, the crucifix or&#xA;  the Saint Benedict Medal are recommended as a means of protection&#xA;  against evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, the devotion is not to these things, but to the God they represent. There are, those that do worship them like idols, and many view the idea that these could protect us from evil as superstitious, the point remains that officially, these aren't idols. They aren't to be worshiped. They are reminders of the one we should be worshiping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-02T18:42:08.763" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T18:42:08.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14618" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-02T19:02:32.497" Score="6" ViewCount="12805" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which biblical verse was used against Galileo by the Church to punish him for his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/desw/galileo/life/eands.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blasphemy&lt;/a&gt;. and which biblical doctrine was erroneously interpreted by Galileo for such a punitive action by the Church? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-09-01T04:37:03.950" LastActivityDate="2019-07-01T02:03:35.793" Title="Which biblical verse was used against Galileo" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;blasphemy&gt;&lt;galileo&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14619" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14623" CreationDate="2013-03-02T19:27:01.087" Score="7" ViewCount="4735" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the Pope, himself, ever referred to as the Holy See or is it simply the place where he lives?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia says, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See&quot;&gt;&quot;Often &lt;strong&gt;incorrectly referred to as 'the Vatican'&lt;/strong&gt;, the Holy See is not the same entity as the Vatican City State, which came into existence only in 1929; the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome, dates back to early Christian times.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is it, exactly, and when should this term be used? Please include examples of when you would use the following, so that I might see the difference in selecting the most appropriate term for the right usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Pope...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Vatican...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Holy See...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4067" LastActivityDate="2018-08-08T19:25:38.273" Title="What is the Holy See and when is it appropriate to use this term?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14618" CreationDate="2013-03-02T19:53:02.500" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume you're talking specifically about his conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy.  If that's the case, there were several verses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2016:30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Chronicles 16:30&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2093:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Psalm 93:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2096:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Psalm 96:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20104:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Psalm 104:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 1:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are all verses that, taken out of context, seem to indicate that the earth is stationary.  However, this isn't the view that is adhered to by anyone other than a fringe minority.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A typical clarification from an apologetic standpoint can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/06/1-chronicles-1630-does-bible-say-earth.html&quot;&gt;http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/06/1-chronicles-1630-does-bible-say-earth.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T19:53:02.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14622" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14656" CreationDate="2013-03-02T22:29:30.703" Score="7" ViewCount="9071" Body="&lt;p&gt;What were some reasons why Pope Clement V left Rome and relocated to Avignon, France?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2017-05-26T16:50:56.323" Title="Why did Pope Clement V leave Rome and relocate to Avignon, France?" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14619" CreationDate="2013-03-02T22:41:00.990" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The pope is generally not called the Holy See, he is the bishop of the Holy See. The pope lives in the Papal Apartments located in Vatican City, and has a summer residence in Castel Gandolfo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The pope&lt;/strong&gt; is what we call the successor of St Peter: he is the bishop of a very old diocese (or &quot;see&quot;, or &quot;seat&quot;) called the Holy See. As its bishop, he has jurisdiction over that diocese. But because the pope has &quot;primacy&quot;, he also has a certain kind of jurisdiction over the entire universal Church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vatican City&lt;/strong&gt; is a sovereign &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state&quot;&gt;city-state&lt;/a&gt;, established in 1929 and located inside the city of Rome. It is one of only three city-states today; Athens and Sparta are well-known ancient examples. Its ruler is the pope.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Holy See&lt;/strong&gt; is the diocese of the pope. It is also called the See of Saint Peter, the Apostolic See, and the Diocese of Rome. Its territory includes both Rome and Vatican City. This is an important diocese because it is the diocese of the pope, assisted by the Roman Curia (the Court of Rome), who together form the main governing body of the Church. The Holy See is a sovereign entity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy See is a sovereign entity, but is not a nation: it is a diocese that has universal jurisdiction. The territory of any diocese aligns with national/political borders only for practical reasons. If a church building were able to separate its church grounds from its country, it might become a sovereign state, but it would still be a part of its diocese, under the authority of its bishop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When someone says &quot;the Vatican&quot; they might be talking about either the Holy See or Vatican City. Note the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm&quot;&gt;Holy See&lt;/a&gt;, part of which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[...] We can thus readily understand how Holy See came be the technical term for the pope, the central ecclesiastical government, and the actual abode of the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is probably best not to copy this potentially confusing practice (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche&quot;&gt;synecdoche&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;For more information see the section on jurisdiction in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm&quot;&gt;Hierarchy&lt;/a&gt; article, and the article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm&quot;&gt;the Pope&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-02T22:41:00.990" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14625" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-03T01:41:31.403" Score="2" ViewCount="141" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does sanctification require effort on part of the believer, God, or both combined? If on part of the believer, then who provides motivation for sanctification, God or self?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4041" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T17:07:20.817" Title="Efforts and motivation on sanctification" Tags="&lt;sanctification&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-04-08T21:46:16.223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14625" CreationDate="2013-03-03T02:08:38.640" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sanctification is a word that has multiple meanings within Christianity.  To answer your question we need to examine the definitions, and the teachings of the various groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One definition (the more &quot;ordinary&quot; one) of Sanctify is &quot;to set apart&quot;.  A person or object can be sanctified (set apart) for a particular purpose.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Sanctification&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.theopedia.com/Sanctification&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sanctification, or in its verbal form, sanctify, literally means &quot;to&#xA;  set apart&quot; for special use or purpose, that is, to make holy or&#xA;  sacred. Therefore, sanctification refers to the state or process of&#xA;  being set apart, i.e. made holy. In systematic theology, the term&#xA;  often carries a technical meaning that differs from the biblical word&#xA;  group&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, a person is sanctified by God without effort on the part of the believer.  God chooses whom He sets apart.It is solely the work of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above definition often leads people to get confused, which leads them to mistake Justification to Sanctification.  Justification is, in Protestant denominations, the instant where we are saved by Grace, and are &quot;made right&quot; by God.  It is instant and also solely the work of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The next, commonly held Protestant definition of Sanctification makes the distinction more clear.  It's a more precise theological definition.  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;If I'm reading your question correctly, I believe that this is the sense of the word you are asking about, and the answer you're looking for is found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/justification-and-sanctification&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/justification-and-sanctification&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sanctification is the process of being set apart for God's work and&#xA;  being conformed to the image of Christ.  This conforming to Christ&#xA;  involves the work of the person.  But it is still God working in the&#xA;  believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person&#xA;  who has already been justified (Phil. 2:13).  Sanctification is not&#xA;  instantaneous because it is not the work of God alone. The justified&#xA;  person is actively involved in submitting to God's will, resisting&#xA;  sin, seeking holiness, and working to be more godly (Gal. 5:22-23).&#xA;  Significantly, sanctification has no bearing on justification.  That&#xA;  is, even if we don't live a perfect life, we are still justified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Finally, there is the Catholic teaching on Sanctification, which is a bit long to summarize in this answer, but you can review an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia article here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-03T03:14:30.543" LastActivityDate="2013-03-03T03:14:30.543" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14628" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14632" CreationDate="2013-03-03T02:16:57.583" Score="12" ViewCount="1451" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the case of 'real' Apostles and Prophets (who have passed the tests), what is the Biblical basis for continuing to test the truthfulness of every statement made by them as they continue in their office?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For background, I have encountered a famous individual who claimed to be a prophet and warned 'critics' who tested the validity of his healings and words as 'endangering themselves' as they were thereby 'resisting the Spirit' and would suffer the same diseases he was healing others of.  This attitude seems contrary to the scriptures. He basically implied that nobody should 'test' him as he was 'genuine' as proved by his many supposed miracles including raising the dead -- although he did seem to also suggest that one should test everybody else(?!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: There are a couple closely related questions that might be answered within the answer to this question. Did 'every word' of the Prophets and Apostles carry the same 'infallible authority' as scripture, or does scriptural infallibility rise higher than each word that left their mouth? By what method were their words to be tested and therefore accepted or rejected, as they continued in their Apostolic or Prophetic office? Also, how did people know which to follow when two or more prophets disagreed on a matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another interesting but not directly related question for good background reference: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8673/to-what-extent-should-the-apostles-speech-be-considered-infallible&quot;&gt;To what extent should the Apostles&amp;#39; speech be considered infallible?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2021-02-13T04:35:38.757" Title="What is the Biblical basis for testing the truthfulness of every statement made by Prophets or Apostles who have been confirmed as 'real'?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14630" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14642" CreationDate="2013-03-03T04:21:04.253" Score="9" ViewCount="9502" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is some speculation that Islam was originally considered to be a sect of Christianity by those who claimed to be Christians, rather than a separate religion (e.g., Hinduism, Jainism). Do any early sources during the formative years of Islam make such an assertion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Muslims certainly don't believe Islam to be a Christian sect, but the Christians can easily fit it into the &quot;Christian sect&quot; fold as they have done it with the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, since if Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons can be classified as Christians then Islam also qualifies better for the Christians to qualify it as a Christian sect. So why keep Islam out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-03-07T07:20:03.347" LastActivityDate="2014-08-04T13:50:40.057" Title="Was Islam originally considered to be a Christian sect?" Tags="&lt;islam&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;sect&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14631" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14633" CreationDate="2013-03-03T05:26:24.400" Score="5" ViewCount="1487" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prompted by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14614/which-are-some-of-the-non-trinitarian-sects-in-christianity/14616#comment35505_14616&quot;&gt;this comment&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answering a question on the divinity of Christ, I used the understanding (definition) of the term that is commonly understood in mainline protestant terms.  From &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/dictionary-divinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/dictionary-divinity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Divinity is the nature or quality of being God. Within Christianity it&#xA;  belongs to God alone. It is also important to note that orthodox&#xA;  Christianity believes that Jesus was divine in nature (Col. 2:9) as&#xA;  well as being a man. For more information see Jesus' Two Natures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mason commented &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One minor point: Latter-Day Saints have a slightly different&#xA;  understanding of Jesus and the nature of divinity in general than&#xA;  mainstream Christianity, but in no way do they deny the divinity of&#xA;  Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the LDS teaching is that Jesus is a created being, a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Brother_of_Satan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;son of God just like ordinary men and Satan&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus, Satan, and all humanity share God the Father as their spiritual&#xA;  sire. However, moral agency led Jesus to obey God the Father perfectly&#xA;  and share fully in the Father's divine nature and power. The same&#xA;  agency led Satan to renounce God, fight Jesus, and doom himself to&#xA;  eternal damnation. The remainder of God's children—all of us—have the&#xA;  choice to follow the route chosen by Satan, or the path to which&#xA;  Christ invites us and shows the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mainline definition of &quot;divinity&quot; includes &quot;Within Christianity it belongs to God alone&quot;.  Since the &quot;mainstream&quot; understanding of who Christ is is that Jesus &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God, not a physical/spiritual &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;son&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of God, this bears on the doctrine of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS position is that Jesus is a separate being from God, but is still divine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly this means that the LDS Church must have a different understanding of the term &quot;divinity&quot;.  Divinity must not be applicable to &quot;God alone&quot; if Jesus is not God, and Jesus is divine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, all of that said, all I'm trying to get to is what is the LDS definition of &quot;divinity&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to head off anticipated non-constructive debate/comments...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am absolutely &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; interested in determining if the LDS definition is &quot;right&quot;, or &quot;wrong&quot;. This site is not the place for that, and non-constructive arguments aren't welcome.  I am just asking what the definition/understanding &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if my logic is flawed, that can be incorporated into any answer.  It is entirely possible my question is simply based on a misunderstanding of LDS doctrine.  I'm here to learn, so correcting my misconceptions, if there are any, is a welcome response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-03-03T07:09:22.030" Title="What is the LDS definition of &quot;Divinity&quot;" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14628" CreationDate="2013-03-03T06:01:13.163" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says a great deal about testing prophets and spirits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A spirit will confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John+4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although this verse says 'spirit' I think it is just as easily applied to prophets. Both are charged with speaking God's words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse also not only says it is okay to test the spirits but implies that you should every time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A person speaking by the spirit will claim Jesus is Lord&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 12:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A prophet will not contradict God's word&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 8:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A prophet will not prove himself with wonders then ask you to worship other Gods&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deut 13:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The predictions of a prophet must come to pass&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”&#xA;  21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Deut 18:20-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses imply that an already proven prophet can later be unproven. This backs up 1 John's claim to test them every time and not just the first time. Apparently saying God said something that He did not is a capital offense, so you could argue that a prophet of ancient times was very slow to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A true prophet will live a righteous life&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%207&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt 7:15-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;False prophets will predict Jesus' Second Coming&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2024&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt 24:23-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose verse 25 makes Jesus a prophet &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants&quot;&gt;because it has come to pass&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the Bible does not only support the idea that prophets and the like should be tested but even tells you how. Furthermore, death was the common punishment for giving false prophecies. It was a very serious crime, therefore, we could argue the reverse that claiming prophecy was a very serious claim that required serious scrutiny. Logically, if a prophet were from God he would almost demand this testing because having God's word heard is his charge from God and the only reason he is speaking. So here I want to define a prophet, at least in the way I am using the word: A prophet does not necessarily predict the future. In fact, more generally, he has a message from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as following which prophet when two of them disagree, meaning their 'messages from God' are mutually exclusive, you first need to ask if they are speaking from the Lord. If they both say yes then at least one of them is wrong and the tests above should be applied and if either of them is wrong he should never be heard again. If one or both says no then it is clear that his words have only his own authority and you can ignore them if you choose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saying a prophet's words are infallible does not seem supported by these verses. However, once proven to be from God, it is logical to say that &lt;em&gt;those&lt;/em&gt; words are equal with scripture; the same God made both the scripture and the prophet's message. The distinction should be made that a prophet's words should only be tested as from God if the prophet claims that they are from God; it does not make sense to test as holy that which makes no such claim. This is supported well when Paul made the distinction of his advice and the Lord's commands in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%207&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 7&lt;/a&gt;. These verses demand that we consider Paul a prophet, by the definition I provided, because he claims to be speaking from God. He is not making a prophecy, per se, but he does claim that the following commands are God's words. Our recourse would be to compare these verses to what is already proven as scripture. Fortunately, for Paul they do match. On all his other writings, however, he rarely made such direct claims so we are left with a small discussion contained in the comments below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your questions under note 1 are easily addressed with the verses above, especially the methods for testing. In the Old Testament it is clear that a prophet did not always speak from the Lord; not only would that be a terrible burden for him, but the very idea seems somewhat unscriptural because the people would hang on every word of the prophet rather than worship God and pray for &lt;em&gt;His&lt;/em&gt; intersession. This is dangerously close to idolatry, in my opinion, which is strictly forbidden in numerous Old Testament texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, your anecdote illuminates an issue. Your story does not mention that this particular person claims to be speaking from God. Furthermore, there is a difference between healing and prophecy; they are not the same, but you are correct in assuming that they can both be from God or not, as supported in Deut. 13. I submit that a healing is always good even if the motives are wicked. Logically then, if a person only heals and never claims to speak from God then there is no worry that he might be followed as a false prophet. But your story does say that he claims that testing if his healings are real (which there is no biblical way to do so) would lead you to suffer the same illness that was healed. This is a spectacular claim and if he does say it is from God then someone brave or skeptical enough should test the validity of the healing (I suppose with medical tests or something). If that person does not soon suffer that very illness as the 'prophet' claims then he fails at least one of these tests: What he said did not come to pass. (In my opinion things already seem fishy so I would gladly volunteer to perform the medical tests). I cannot find a verse that demands we test validity of healings but we should consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Thes. 2:9&lt;/a&gt; which warns that there will be many false signs and wonders in the last days and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt. 12:22&lt;/a&gt; where Jesus does not curse the pharisees that say His healings are by Beelzebub instead He merely corrects them, therefore, showing that it is at least odd to say you will suffer the same illness if you test the healing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:37:54.850" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:37:54.850" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14631" CreationDate="2013-03-03T07:09:22.030" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the greatest difference between mainstream Christianity and LDS theology lies in this point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The mainline definition of &quot;divinity&quot; includes &quot;Within Christianity it&#xA;  belongs to God alone&quot;. Since the &quot;mainstream&quot; understanding of who&#xA;  Christ is is that Jesus is God, not a physical/spiritual son of God,&#xA;  this bears on the doctrine of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Latter-Day Saints do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity, of course this understanding of divinity is meaningless within LDS theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nicene Creed teaches that the Son is &quot;begotten, not made&quot; and is &quot;of one substance with the Father.&quot;  This is a somewhat odd choice of words if its intent is to convey an understanding of the nature of God, as something that is begotten--the word refers to the act of having a child--has its own physically separate &quot;substance&quot; (body) from that of its parent(s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, Mormonism strives for clarity in this area.  One revelation teaches that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son&#xA;  also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a&#xA;  personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in&#xA;  us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22#21&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 130: 22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the FAIR article linked to in the question notes, Jesus is held to be a spirit son of God, just as all mankind is.  And this is important to understanding the LDS concept of divine nature.  All living beings reproduce and multiply after their own kind.  A giraffe has little giraffes, a cat produces more cats, a tree's seeds grow into the same type of tree, and so on.  But the highest of living beings is mankind, who was explicitly made in God's image and likeness, and our spirits are directly his children.  By the same principle, we carry his divine nature in an immature state, like any child that has yet to grow up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The divine nature of Jesus is described in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.21#20&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants, section 93&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the&#xA;  Father, and am the Firstborn;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the&#xA;  glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is&#xA;  Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were,&#xA;  and as they are to come;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that&#xA;  wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John&#xA;  bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even&#xA;  of all truth;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until&#xA;  he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light&#xA;  of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We read here that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was with the Father in the beginning. Mankind was also, but the distinction is made that Christ was the Firstborn.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unlike the rest of mankind, Jesus &quot;received a fulness of truth,&quot; which can only be received by obedience to the commandments of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is only by being &quot;begotten through me&quot;--what Elder M. Russel Ballard, quoted in the FAIR article, calls being &quot;born again as His sons and daughters in the gospel covenant&quot;--that mankind can partake of his glory.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see the essential difference that makes Jesus more than simply &quot;a son of God,&quot; but rather &quot;&lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; Son of God.&quot;  He had received a fulness of truth from the beginning.  He is truly divine in every sense of the word, and has been from the beginning.  &quot;By him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.24#23&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 76:24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, the question asks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LDS position is that Jesus is a separate being from God, but is&#xA;  still divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Clearly this means that the LDS Church must have a different&#xA;  understanding of the term &quot;divinity&quot;. Divinity must not be applicable&#xA;  to &quot;God alone&quot; if Jesus is not God, and Jesus is divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To which the Latter-Day Saint would respond that Jesus is a separate being from &lt;em&gt;the Father&lt;/em&gt;, but this should not be understood to mean that &quot;Jesus is not God&quot; in any sense, but rather that the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost) are separate, distinct beings, who are one in purpose, in knowledge and understanding and will, but not in substance, and work in harmony as God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, having clarified that, divinity is still not seen as being applicable to God alone, because it also applies to his children (us), in an immature or embryonic form.  However, that is the subject for another question, as going into it in any depth could make this answer much longer than it already is and take it well off-topic.  It's important to note, though, that Latter-Day Saints hold this to be the very highest part of God's plan:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the&#xA;  immortality and eternal life of man.&#xA;  - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.39#38&quot;&gt;Moses 1:39&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eternal Life is spoken of as here something distinct from immortality (being resurrected to a deathless and physically perfect state); it is defined elsewhere as a quality of life that is like the life of God, who is Eternal, and helping us to achieve this is God's &quot;work and glory.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-03-03T07:09:22.030" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14615" CreationDate="2013-03-03T12:44:21.750" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The whole iconoclastic controversy has raged for thousands of years. In a nutshell, iconoclasts are taking your position, whereas iconodules maintain the position that what Christians do is venerate not worship these images. Muslims obviously are strict iconoclasts, and thus reject any depiction whatsoever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over the centuries, Christian thought has alternated on what artistic representations are. When Cromwell took Power in the 1650s, for example, they went all Iconoclast and started smashing all the icons they could find, not altogether unlike the rebels in Mali or the Taliban in Afghanistan who blew up the Bamuyan Buddhas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Seventh Ecumenical Council&lt;/a&gt; in particular weighed in on this, however, declaring that representations of Christ do not infringe on the person of Christ and are thus not idols. Unlike Hinduism where there is a spectrum  of attitude towards what one is doing with, say, a lingam,  there is official ruling, accepted by &amp;quot;all&amp;quot; of the  worlds  Christians (at least  by   Catholics, Protestants and orthodox ) that declares this is veneration and not Latreia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. John of Damascus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it. Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to material objects, but worship is due to God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross... When the two beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of Christ who was crucified on the Cross, but if the beams are separated, I throw them away and burn them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does actual practice sometimes get this wrong? Sure. The nature of syncretism is such that in some cultures, practices bleed across beliefs. Offering incense, devotion, and performing  rites that look like idol. Worship is not surprising in a culture where the majority pursues it. Doesn't mean it's orthodox in any event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could look at the perversion of Jihad and say, &amp;quot;Muslims are  all suicide bombers,  &amp;quot; too- but many don't because we can distinguish between orthodoxic pronouncement and individual  (mis)practice.  You would do well to consider the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T04:18:28.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14401" CreationDate="2013-03-03T15:06:01.760" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although we often find various covenants spoken of in scripture such as the covenant with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. there are really only two covenants between God and man.  The remaining covenants are merely modifications, progressions, or what might be called dispensations of the only two covenants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The first covenant is the covenant of works established in the creation of Adam and Eve.&lt;/strong&gt;  By virtue of being created mankind was under natural duty to love and be absolutely obedient to God. If Adam were to fully obey God, during some period of testing, he would have obtained eternal life for humanity from works.  That is to say that Adam was a federal head and representative of the covenant of works with respect to humanity. Upon Adam's sin or obedience, mankind would have been imputed with death and sin, or righteousness and life forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon the breaking of that first holy covenant, resulting in the death and moral fall of all mankind, a new covenant was required according to the love and mercy of God as well as his justice in being unable to forgive sin. &lt;strong&gt;The second and final covenant was the covenant of grace being promised through the seed of the woman, who was to crush the head of the serpent and restoring the creation to God.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two single covenants run parallel throughout the redemptive history of scripture and never absolutely join as they are opposed to one another, in that one is of works and one is of grace. From Adam to the end of the world, man has and always will have the choice of remaining condemned under the covenant of works, or through faith in the promised seed, obtain new birth and eternal life under the covenant of grace. Before Christ, men believed in the new covenant as a promise, after Christ men believed it as a historical proclamation n the gospel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That there was a long and steady degeneracy of the original knowledge of the covenant of works is evident in the progression of idolatry. At the same time that there was a slow developed progression of the knowledge of the covenant of grace until the climatic revelation of Jesus Christ and the full clarity of the gospel and law as proclaimed in the Epistles of the New Testament, is evident in the history of Israel and the gospel eventually extended to the gentile world. To properly understand these two covenants and to properly distinguish them from one another is the most significant work of theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under the Old Testament, the knowledge of the original law and the promise seems to have degenerated greatly in the world until the time of the flood.  In the calling of Abraham, God called a people to preserve the understanding of law as well as the future promise. This preservation by race preserved the knowledge and curse of the law by their commands, its severe punishments and their continuous national failure to obey it. This race also preserved the promise in its actual the lineage of the great Messiah to come, pointed to by their various ceremonial prefigurations of atonement. By re-starting humanity, in a sense,  under Noah, purging the filth of the world, God modified the covenant of works and re-established the covenant of grace. By &quot;killing the whole world' law and its curse on sinful man was revived.  By putting up the rainbow high up into view, the promise was then renewed. These are not new covenants strictly speaking just renewals of the same two covenants. Through Abraham, both covenants were again further strengthened in separating a people unto holiness, condemning the world through law, while also promising the seed more explicitly along specific descendants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In calling Moses to establish an outward form of religion, first this clearly re-enforced the covenant of works in its condemnation of sin and fearful capital punishments for the least offense.  Again also the ceremonies and theocracy figuratively further established both the law and the covenant of grace. The ceremonies established law in enforcing the need of forgiveness, while establishing grace in prefiguring Christ. The theocracy established law in the commands of the King and his support of the law with its civil rules direct under God, yet also again prefigured the grace in the resurrection of Christ. Both covenants were made stronger in men's understanding through Israel, while yet being of opposed means, one of works the other of faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having established both parallel covenants under one system of practice, the covenant of works under the Law and the covenant of grace to redeem from that Law, a greater light of these two covenants was provided for through the Mosaic arrangement.  Furthermore, the Law it its condemnation and death, was now through figures and ceremony directed and officially pointed to unto a new end and new covenant, for all pointed to the work of the High Priest and the atoning sacrifices which was not so wonderfully arranged into clear picture before this time. The new covenant was to be the end of the old covenant and so the theocracy, ceremony and outwardly written laws under them. The end of the old law by the new is not a destruction but a superseding and fulfilling end. However the old law and its claims upon the guilt of the sinner is absolutely destroyed in Christ's death otherwise there is no salvation for anyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the fullness of time, that is when the world and the Jewish church had both fully fallen into an absolute failure to find any means of saving themselves, Christ appeared.  In his death, he destroyed the demands of the first covenant, ended the temporary figurative and theocratic elements of the dispensation of a physical church, provided the full accomplishment of the priestly works to ratify the new covenant, and rose and entered into glory to act as the new federal head and representative of a new humanity. By raising up as a King, Priest and Prophet, sending his Spirit into the world to continue his work until the end of the age, the first covenant was officially superseded and its claims on the conscience destroyed. The new covenant was absolutely ratified before the court of the Father and to the delight of angels and men.  The Spirit now works upon the consciences of men, saving those that perish by proclaiming this gospel with certainty to the eternal salvation of any soul that will but believe apart from any work under the original covenant of works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; There are only two covenants from Adam to the end of the world, but they have undergone modifications and progressions.  The first covenant broken by Adam maintains an eternal curse on everyone who has not entered into the new covenant by faith. The new covenant in every way superseded the old covenant just as the Sun takes away the light of the Moon when it rises.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I should probably add scripture references to this post but I just typed it quickly as it came to mind. As each sentence can be referred to by numerous biblical references I am afraid I would have never attempted to answer as it would have taken me hours.  I would not usually do so but I am relying on the reader to have some knowledge of the bible to know that each step of my argument can refer to very numerous biblical references. I have done this as the question really requires a broad brush of scripture as it is a very difficult and broad question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T04:59:05.660" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T04:59:05.660" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14630" CreationDate="2013-03-03T16:50:07.437" Score="32" Body="&lt;p&gt;Islam isn't, nor has it been considered a Christian sect, either by Muslims, or by Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.realclearreligion.com/islam_a_christian_heresy.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; argues that Islam is a Christian Heresy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Belloc states &quot;It began as a heresy, not as a new religion....It was a&#xA;  perversion of the Christian religion...an adaptation and a misuse of&#xA;  the Christian thing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is a distinction to be made. Further reading:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unlike all the other heresiarchs &quot;[T]he chief heresiarch, Mohammed&#xA;  himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth, and&#xA;  doctrine to begin with.  He sprang from pagans.  But that which he&#xA;  taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified.  It was the&#xA;  great Catholic world - on the frontiers of which he lived, whose&#xA;  influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by&#xA;  travel-which&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian sect would be a sect that sprang out of Christianity at some point.  Islam does not meet this definition.  Instead, Mohammad borrowed some teachings from Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, if you want to phrase it differently, you could say that there is a commonality between Christianity and Islam, but that commonality is not based on Islam evolving from Christianity (as a sect would do) but rather that there is simply commonality due to similar beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the article saying that Islam is a Christian Heresy, it might be more accurate to state that Islam is partially based on Mohammad borrowing or agreeing with teachings that Christianity considers heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T08:07:02.080" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T08:07:02.080" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14638" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14640" CreationDate="2013-03-04T04:46:22.637" Score="4" ViewCount="3109" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any reason given in the Bible as to why God chose Abram to be the father of Israel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Noah seems to be chosen by God because he is Righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation.&quot; (Gen 6:9 ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is any reason given for God choosing Abram/Abraham to be the father of Israel?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="12563" LastEditDate="2017-06-06T15:52:00.430" LastActivityDate="2017-06-06T15:52:00.430" Title="Does the Bible give the reasons (if any) for God choosing Abraham?" Tags="&lt;abraham&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14615" CreationDate="2013-03-04T05:07:01.843" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Christians idolaters  because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what Bible says about the purpose and uses(both good and bad) of statues.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Idolatry is forbidden in Bible in verses Ex. 20:4-5 and Ex.32:3. God forbad the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The use of objects for religious purpose is commanded by God as in Ex. 25:18-19:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ex. 25:18 You are to make two cherubim of gold; you are to make them of hammered metal on the two ends of the atonement lid. 25:19 Make one cherub on one end and one cherub on the other end; from the atonement lid you are to make the cherubim on the two ends.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar commands are also at 1Chr.28:18-19 and Ezekiel 41:17-18. In Num.21:8-9 God told Moses to make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.  One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God does not forbid the ritual use of religious images. the statues, paintings and other relics are mediums to recall the person or thing depicted and it helps to recall the life and examples of saints by looking at their pictures.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the three Abrahamic religions one way or the other use these mediums to strengthen their faith in one almighty God without breaking any of the command given by Him. As a corollary in other major  Abrahamic  religion i.e. Islam where it is strongly opposed to use of statues and pictures of Mohammed, it is an accepted practice to pray at Tombs of the saints (Pirs). Other acts like the use of pictures of religious shrines like Mecca and Rock of Dome is not at all considered as idolatry. Use of Moon and Star as a symbol of Islam and as also no:786 is very common in Islam. Even the veneration of printed verses from Koran is a common feature in Islamic faith. Many would also categorise the black stone in kaaba as the idol worship very much akin to Shiv lingam of Hinduism but it not taken as idol at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is when people begin to adore a statue or any of these mediums as god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god(whom they named “Nehushtan”), the righteous King Hezekiah had it destroyed (2Kings 18:4)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-03-04T06:18:30.710" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T06:18:30.710" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14638" CreationDate="2013-03-04T05:49:14.260" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripture gives this answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 18:18-19 King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation,&#xA;  and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household&#xA;  after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and&#xA;  judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath&#xA;  spoken of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, in His perfect Omniscience chose Abraham because He knew Abraham would fulfill His purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.classicalliberalarts.com/page.cfm/page/279/Why-Abraham&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T05:49:14.260" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14618" CreationDate="2013-03-04T07:49:41.110" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Many people believe wrongly that Galileo proved the heliocentricity. Galileo could not answer the strongest argument against the heliocentric theory, which was made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: i.e. if heliocentricity were true then there would be observable parallax shifts in stars’ positions as the earth, moved in its orbit around the sun. In absence of a valid argument even Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues. However given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipments than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of shifts, given the stars’ great distance.  Until then the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space ---only the sun, moon and planets were.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as a truth. Even so Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes. The verses quoted by David in his answer were used against Galileo precisely because of his inability to answer the strongest argument against the heliocentricity and because he attempt to move the debate onto theological grounds.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately throughout the Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called “phenomenological” language---that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language. The phenomenological language concerning motions of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today but was less so in previous centuries when the scientific discoveries were primitive.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to general belief, Church has supported scientific endeavours for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientist in Rome. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding. Ten years prior to Galileo. Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scriptural scholar such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-03-04T07:56:30.900" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T07:56:30.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14630" CreationDate="2013-03-04T10:04:48.667" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there were some people who considered Islam as a christian sect. Most notably saint John of Damascus, who calls Islam '&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the heresy of Ishmaelites&lt;/a&gt;'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also this thesis: &lt;a href=&quot;http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&amp;amp;context=masters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Damascene in Context&lt;/a&gt; (pdf).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today however I haven't seen any scholar that would think that classifying Islam as a christian sect is good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T15:30:25.043" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T15:30:25.043" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14614" CreationDate="2013-03-04T12:00:57.823" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another minor list maybe &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Pentecostal_Church_International&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;United Pentecostal Church International&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;There are still more others but are some small local denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, anyone who is not able conceive and understand the concept of Trinity usually ignores it. They prefer to have a simpler theology and belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T12:00:57.823" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11702" CreationDate="2013-03-04T13:55:49.573" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer can be seen in YHWH's omnipresence. Understanding a being truly being in ALL places as once, as omnipresence demands, leads to a line of thought that is not at all intuitive. Omnipresence requires a being to be present in both a macrocosmic sense as well as a microcosmic sense. Or to put it another way, YHWH is simultaneously and equally present in a single carbon molecule, a rock, a person, a planet, and a galaxy. Omniscience explains how YHWH is capable of perceiving on so many levels at once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, omniscience treats that carbon molecule or person as a place, not an object or living being. That allows for a being to be present in a place that has its own distinct identity. Illustrating the point, if you have a flea on top of a dog, the flea is treating the dog as a place, despite the canine's nature as a distinct organism. (I am not attempting to compare YHWH to a flea here, except in an analogical sense.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's where it gets rather tricky and debatable. If YHWH is present in all places at once, he is both in Everything and Nothingness. (Debatable because of a popular theory that suggests Nothingness is merely the area He chooses not to dwell).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to include Satan in the mix. Yes, omnipresence demands that YHWH is present in Satan as well. The free will argument explains how a being of absolute goodness can be present in a being of absolute evil. Barring that, however, is the theory that stems from Satan seeking YHWH's permission to tempt Job; that even what Satan does is done through divine will. I won't attempt to argue one of those alternatives over the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4078" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T13:55:49.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14650" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14651" CreationDate="2013-03-04T15:25:23.753" Score="4" ViewCount="849" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard recently in a sermon that the LDS church views Jesus' death and resurrection as almost a &quot;blemish&quot; on Christianity - that it was an unfortunate event, and not at all the way God planned for things to go.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this statement, this is the reason there are no crosses in LDS churches, at the Temple in SLC, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This SLC Tribune &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12256269&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; seems to indicate the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question, therefore, has two parts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is the article / claim of the sermon correct, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the &quot;official&quot; doctrinal stance of the LDS church on the death and resurrection of Christ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-05T17:21:00.953" LastActivityDate="2015-10-05T17:21:00.953" Title="What is the LDS (Mormon) view of the necessity of Jesus death and resurrection?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;cross&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14650" CreationDate="2013-03-04T15:49:02.107" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;That it was &quot;an unfortunate event, and not at all the way God for planned to things to go&quot; is not the teaching of the Mormon Church, as Mormons believe the Atonement happened precisely the way God willed it to happen and that it was perfect beyond our comprehension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The official doctrinal stance of the LDS church on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the&#xA;  Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was&#xA;  buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and&#xA;  all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to&#xA;  it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/his-life-and-teachings/articles/we-believe&quot;&gt;http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/his-life-and-teachings/articles/we-believe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Mason Wheeler pointed out in the comment above, the symbolism of the cross and the doctrinal belief of the death and resurrection of Christ (the Atonement) are two separate things. While the Atonement is central to the LDS doctrine, the cross is generally avoided as it tends to remind us of the dead Christ rather than the living Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not because the death of Christ was disgraceful, per-se, that Mormons do not use the cross. It is just not a symbol of worship the LDS church has chosen to endorse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet I know many Mormons who have a cross in their home. Usually smallish, and only decorative. It has no religious significance and might have even simply been a gift from another Christian friend. I know of no occasion where there has been formal retribution for a Mormon having or wearing a cross, but it is true: you won't find them on or in LDS meetinghouses or temples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-03-04T15:57:47.687" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T15:57:47.687" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14652" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14654" CreationDate="2013-03-04T17:24:22.450" Score="1" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14646/770&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; answer to another question, the below was stated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mormons might believe that God had other children on other worlds, but I leave that to the Mormons to exactly clarify that doctrine. In any event, they still hold a high regard for the position of Jesus in this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I am curious. Do Mormons believe that there are other worlds with humans on them? If so, the more important part of this question, do they have their own Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="770" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T17:56:08.860" Title="LDS belief about salvation in other worlds" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14653" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14672" CreationDate="2013-03-04T17:33:34.840" Score="2" ViewCount="20930" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read that Jesus was charged with the allegation that he claimed to be the &quot;King of Jews&quot;. What is the evidence of this and other charges, if any, on Jesus?  I am only interested in the charges leveled against him in the (Roman) court, and if he pled guilty or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-11-11T20:59:55.040" LastActivityDate="2018-04-03T16:14:45.790" Title="What was the charge levied against Jesus in the courts?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14652" CreationDate="2013-03-04T17:40:48.333" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not taught often as it can lead to confusion and questions that do not concern us or our salvation. But a careful reading of the scriptures and some LDS church leaders would convey that Mormons do believe that God has made and populated other worlds and that Christ is the Savior to all of God's children and truly is The Only Begotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants section 76&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 For we saw him, even on the bright hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.33?lang=eng#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book of Moses, chapter 1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses&#xA;stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And&#xA;the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these&#xA;things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine&#xA;Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them&#xA;for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine&#xA;Only Begotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof,&#xA;give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed&#xA;away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and&#xA;innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me,&#xA;for they are mine and I know them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in harmony with the Biblical teachings in Hebrews, for instance:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past&#xA;unto the fathers by the prophets,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath&#xA;appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word&#xA;of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do&#xA;appear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T17:56:08.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14653" CreationDate="2013-03-04T18:11:14.783" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The charge against Jesus was that of blasphemy-  according to the Pharisees, Jesus himself was claiming to be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 26 records the &amp;quot;trial&amp;quot; in the &lt;em&gt;Jewish&lt;/em&gt; Court&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[e]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;65 &lt;strong&gt;Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“He is worthy of death,” they answered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not the charges are &amp;quot;true,&amp;quot; of course, hinges on whether or not Jesus was God.  His prophecy of destroying &amp;quot;this temple&amp;quot; (referring to his body, not necessarily the building) was destroyed, and resurrected after three days.  If, in fact, he was God, then it isn't technically blasphemy - but it still seems as though Jesus' trial was supposed to be a setup from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 27 picks up the Roman charge, but he is never convicted of that.  As Matthew records it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have Pilate giving into the mob - nothing legal about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T18:11:14.783" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14622" CreationDate="2013-03-04T18:46:11.457" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Wikipedia entry on the 'Avignon Papcy,' aka the Babylonian Captivity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Following the strife between Boniface VIII and Philip IV of France, and the death of his successor Benedict XI after only eight months in office, a deadlocked conclave finally elected Clement V, a Frenchman, as Pope in 1305. Clement declined to move to Rome, remaining in France, and in 1309 moved his court to the papal enclave at Avignon, where it remained for the next 67 years. This absence from Rome is sometimes referred to as the &quot;Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy&quot;.[2][3] A total of seven popes reigned at Avignon; all were French,[4][5] and they increasingly fell under the influence of the French Crown. Finally, on September 13, 1376, Gregory XI abandoned Avignon and moved his court to Rome (arriving on January 17, 1377), officially ending the Avignon Papacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Clement V stayed put - probably out of fear for his saftey&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;France saw fit to keep it that way&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T18:46:11.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14657" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14658" CreationDate="2013-03-04T18:55:37.113" Score="6" ViewCount="1354" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception. What is that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the same as the virginal conception of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2014-12-31T10:28:40.847" LastActivityDate="2014-12-31T17:57:42.487" Title="What is the Immaculate Conception?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;mariology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14657" CreationDate="2013-03-04T18:55:37.113" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Immaculate Conception is &lt;strong&gt;not the same&lt;/strong&gt; as the miraculous conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Immaculate Conception refers to the &lt;strong&gt;conception of Mary&lt;/strong&gt;: Mary was conceived (by her mother, Saint Anne) being &lt;strong&gt;full of sanctifying grace and free of any stain of original sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; refer to any of the following, which Catholics also uphold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mary's freedom from any personal sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mary's perpetual virginity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The virgin birth of Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The virginal conception of Jesus (mentioned above) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/balt/balt3.htm&quot;&gt;Baltimore Catechism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. 268. Was any one ever preserved from original sin?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  A. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her Divine Son, &lt;strong&gt;was preserved free from the guilt of original sin&lt;/strong&gt;, and this privilege &lt;strong&gt;is called her Immaculate Conception.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. 271. What does the &quot;Immaculate Conception&quot; mean?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  A. The Immaculate Conception means the Blessed Virgin's own exclusive privilege of coming into existence, through the merits of Jesus Christ, without the stain of original sin. &lt;strong&gt;It does not mean&lt;/strong&gt;, therefore, her sinless life, perpetual virginity or the miraculous conception of Our Divine Lord by the power of the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#490&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Immaculate Conception&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary &quot;&lt;strong&gt;was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as &quot;full of grace&quot;. In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, &quot;full of grace&quot; through God, &lt;strong&gt;was redeemed from the moment of her conception&lt;/strong&gt;. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, &lt;strong&gt;preserved immune from all stain of original sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;492 The &quot;splendor of an entirely unique holiness&quot; by which Mary is &quot;enriched from the first instant of her conception&quot; &lt;strong&gt;comes wholly from Christ: she is &quot;redeemed&lt;/strong&gt;, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son&quot;. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person &quot;in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places&quot; and chose her &quot;in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God &quot;the All-Holy&quot; (Panagia), and celebrate her as &quot;free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature&quot;. &lt;strong&gt;By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin&lt;/strong&gt; her whole life long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Immaculate Conception does not imply that Mary did not need redemption through her Most Holy Son, Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Immaculate Conception is an Article of Faith among Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T18:55:37.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14659" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14688" CreationDate="2013-03-04T19:13:16.913" Score="7" ViewCount="2709" Body="&lt;p&gt;As widely reported, Pope Benedict XVI will wear &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi=all&amp;amp;dl=9ea15348-ebb8-2d90-744b-5131bc95e780&amp;amp;dl_t=text/xml&amp;amp;dl_a=y&amp;amp;ul=1&amp;amp;ev=1&quot;&gt;a simple white cassock without the mozzetta&lt;/a&gt;&quot; during his retirement, and will no longer use the rest of the traditional pontifical regalia, such as the Ring of the Fisherman. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was curious about how this compares with the vestments that would typically be worn by a retired bishop - either during Mass, or in everyday life. The loss of the mozzetta apparently represents the fact that Benedict no longer has jurisdiction over the See of Rome (nor the accompanying universal jurisdiction) for example; do other bishops also cease to wear the mozzetta or pellegrina when they retire?&#xA; What about the crozier, as the former Pope will no longer be using his corresponding papal staff (ferula), or the mitre?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-12-23T19:24:22.643" Title="How do the vestments of the pontiff emeritus compare to those of a bishop emeritus?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;vestments&gt;&lt;bishops&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14660" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14678" CreationDate="2013-03-04T19:25:54.257" Score="1" ViewCount="552" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible describes some people as being created or formed, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/1/27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:27&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2&lt;/a&gt;:7,22:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1:27 God created mankind in his image;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  in the image of God he created them;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  male and female* he created them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2:7 then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2:22 The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But usually people are conceived through intercourse, as mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 4:1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have produced a male child with the help of the LORD.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were either of these the case with Jesus? In what way was Jesus conceived?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2014-08-04T09:19:34.480" Title="How was Jesus conceived?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14660" CreationDate="2013-03-04T19:47:12.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/1-18.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;conceived through the Holy Spirit&lt;/a&gt;, as is testified in the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It implies that a supernatural conception happened. Beyond this, we can't draw conclusions where the scriptures are silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1484" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-08-04T09:19:34.480" LastActivityDate="2014-08-04T09:19:34.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2013-03-04T20:08:37.227" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assume:  (1) God makes all things; (2) God's purpose in doing anything is for an ultimate good; (3) God wants Man to have free will; (4) God wants Man to be Holy and makes Man Holy; and (5) good and evil, as they exist are relative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first assumption is solidly in the Bible.  Isaiah 45:7 says that God makes good and he makes evil, &quot;I make all things.&quot;  Moreover, Deuteronomy 30:15-20 says that God sets before us both good and evil and tells us to choose good so that we may live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second assumption is found in the description of God in Exodus 34:5 (&quot;Compansionate and Gracious, Slow to Anger, and Abundant in Kindness and Truth, Preserver of Kindness for a thousand generations, Forgiver of iniquity, willful sin and error, and Who cleanses.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The third assumption, free will, is also established in Deut. 30:15-20.  Without free will, the ability to choose right from wrong, we would be hand-puppets and our existence would be pointless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God wants us to achieve holiness, as it says explicitly at Leviticus 19:2.  But, in addition, God makes us holy, as Leviticus 20:8 says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good and evil, from Man's perspective, is relative.  What is good for the butcher is bad for the cow (i.e. the meat the butcher sells came at the expense of the cow's life). The salvation of the Israelites at the Sea came at the expense of the Egyptians. The marriage of a beautiful couple sometimes comes at the expense of a spurned suitor.  And, sometimes, we only reach our loftiest levels of humanity when faced with the most difficult and evil of circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can't have free will to choose good without the option of evil.  So God's goal for us is that we might reach for holiness by making the right choices; by giving darkness an opening so that we might choose the light.  God created in all of us the unlimited capacity to achieve holiness, but also the unlimited capacity to achieve the darkest of evil.  Some in every generation have chosen one or the other, and most of us have fallen somewhere in between.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But God has made it so holiness is not out of our reach, despite the temptations He sent the Satan to provide.  Psalm 19:8-14 shows us the answer is simply in obeying God's laws, which are &quot;perfect, restoring the soul,&quot; something that make &quot;wise the simple,&quot; which &quot;rejoice the heart&quot; and &quot;enlighten the eyes.&quot;  Moreover, observance of the Law is &quot;not too difficult&quot; (see Deut. 30:11).  As King David said at Ps. 19:13-14, if God can overlook our unintentional sins, and help us keep away from intentional sins, helping us to not let them have dominion over us, &quot;then shall I be faultless, and I shall be clear from great transgressions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3926" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T20:08:37.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14663" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-04T20:13:47.477" Score="6" ViewCount="7410" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some places, the Bible uses wording like &amp;quot;children of God&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;sons of God&amp;quot;. One example of this use is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/6&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:2&lt;/a&gt;, and another is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/3/26&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 3:26&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, [&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/galatians/3-26.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;alternate translation&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that many of these uses might be symbolic. Does the Bible clarify?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible and Christian teaching, was Jesus the only Son of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T05:56:35.730" Title="Was Jesus God's only Son?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-03-06T03:01:31.380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14663" CreationDate="2013-03-04T20:27:17.253" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Greek word /monogenes/ is the key here.  I did a word study on this a number of years back.  The word actually appears in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrews Scriptures).  Here it is actually used in reference to Isaac as the /monogenes/ son of Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly enough, Isaac was not the only son of Abraham and not even the first.  Ishmael was born first and Abraham had six other children with Keturah after the death of Sarah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, /monogenes/ does not indicate that Isaac was the only son.  The word comes from the combination of two other words -- /mono/ and /genes/.  /mono/ is, of course, indicative of &quot;one&quot;.  /genes/ refers to kind.  In a sense, then, /monogenes/ refers to &quot;one of a kind&quot; or &quot;something wholly unlike any other&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Isaac was not the only son of Abraham, in what sense was he a one of a kind?  Specifically, he was unique in his miraculous birth and in his being the fulfillment of the promise of God.  No other son was born in fulfillment of a promise from God and no other son was born miraculously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is identified as the /monogenes/ Son of God. Typically, this is translated as &quot;Only Begotten&quot;.  It is true that Jesus is not the only son of God or only child of God, because, as you identified, all of those who have faith in Jesus are children of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Sonship of Jesus is unique.  Indeed, His Sonship is wholly unlike any other.  Its uniqueness is that it is eternal.  Jesus never became a son of God, but was always the Son of God and God the Son.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus is not the only son of God, but He is a Son unlike any other in His divinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T20:27:17.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2013-03-04T22:07:34.990" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the classic question of &quot;theodicy&quot; which is often viewed as a philosophical problem within the theology of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A reformed perspective on this question is that the highest good in the universe is that God is glorified, which means for God to be publicly portrayed as &quot;good,&quot; or more specifically for God to put his attributes on display via demonstration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if God is graceful, that means he has a &quot;gracefulness&quot; attribute. He would demonstrate this attribute by giving a gift to an undeserving party.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet possession of an attribute is basically meaningless if that attribute is never put into action. It's like claiming to be the fastest mile runner in the world, yet you have never run before. What does it mean to be the fastest miler if you've never run a mile at the fastest time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence by putting his attributes into action God glorifies himself and achieves the highest possible good in the universe by doing so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The controversy shows up once you realize that there are attributes of God which only make sense in response to evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How could God demonstrate himself to be just or forgiving if there is no sin to judge fairly or forgive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the next controversy is that we must believe that God has a will of decree, that is, the ordination of what actually ends up happening, without simultaneously being the author of evil. Typically, that seems to occur via moral agents who, while having a legitimate choice and being thus culpable for their immorality, also are evil by nature and thus always make decisions that are rooted in immorality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, since God never revoked his sovereignty he has the ability to suppress and steer the decisions of moral agents such that the course of history is always under his dominion. The prime example of this is in the life of Joseph in which the course of Joseph's entire life was set forward by people sinning against him, yet Joseph declares that what they meant for evil, God meant for good. Ultimately, their sins were instrumental in causing the family of Israel to find favor in Egypt during the global famine and have ample food, and root Israel in Egypt to set the stage for the Exodus where the Jews would be transformed from an emerging people group to a nation of God's people. All set forward by the sinful actions of Joseph's brothers, the sinful actions of Potiphar's wife, and the sinful actions of Joseph's fellow inmates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you'd like to explore other biblical case studies, I would recommend John Piper's book, &lt;em&gt;Spectacular Sins&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T22:07:34.990" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14492" CreationDate="2013-03-04T22:47:25.697" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The priest blessing is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentals&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sacramental&lt;/a&gt; (not a sacrament). So it can confer to the person who receive it a special grace. Also it can bring indulgences as in the Urbi et Orbi blessing or the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The paternal blessing is important and a very old tradition as stated in the Bible: &quot;Benedictio patris firmat domos filiorum&quot; (The father's blessing establisheth the houses of the children) - Ecclesiasticus 3:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="901" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T22:47:25.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14368" CreationDate="2013-03-04T22:54:17.567" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rite of the baptism in the Catholic Church used to be in three forms: immersion, affusion or aspersion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the rite of aspersion as well the rite of affusion have been set aside in the western Catholic church due to practical and liturgical reasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it still possible to baptize multiple people by aspersion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;Although, as we have said, immersion was the form of baptism that generally prevailed in the early ages, it must not thereby be inferred that the other forms of infusion and aspersion were not also employed and held to be valid. In the case of the sick or dying, immersion was impossible and the sacrament was then conferred by one of the other forms. This was so well recognized that infusion or aspersion received the name of the baptism of the sick (baptismus clinicorum). St. Cyprian (Epistle 75) declares this form to be valid. From the canons of various early councils we know that candidates for Holy orders who had been baptized by this method seem to have been regarded as irregular, but this was on account of the culpable negligence supposed to be manifested in delaying baptism until sick or dying. That such persons, however, were not to be rebaptized is an evidence that the Church held their baptism to be valid. It is also pointed out that the circumstances under which St. Paul (Acts 16) baptized his jailer and all his household seem to preclude the use of immersion. Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="901" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T22:54:17.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14663" CreationDate="2013-03-04T23:20:44.307" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is not God the Father's only son, but he is God the Father's only-begotten Son. And, μονογενής means &quot;only-born&quot; (or &quot;only-begotten&quot;) not &quot;one of a kind.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The the suffix —γενής is found in many Greek words, including εὐηγενής (&quot;well born&quot;), ἀγενής (&quot;low born&quot;), ἀλλογενής (&quot;other born&quot;), πατρογενής (&quot;father born&quot;), πυριγενής/ πυρογενής (&quot;fire born&quot;), γηγενής (&quot;earth born&quot;) and θεογενής (&quot;God born&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-03-04T23:20:44.307" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14653" CreationDate="2013-03-05T00:13:20.577" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the &lt;em&gt;civil&lt;/em&gt; trial, Luke's account gives the most detail about the charges, Luke 23:2 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they began to accuse him, saying &quot;We have found this man subverting our nation.  He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Luke 23:5 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But they insisted, &quot;He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching.  He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;subverting our nation&quot; charge may be a religious charge, in which Pilate is, of course, not concerned except with how it interferes with ruling the region.  The statement in Luke 23:5 seems to be the religious leaders pointing out that this &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; causing trouble about which the Romans &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; be concerned.  Anyone that could draw crowds of thousands of people in relatively remote places would naturally be a concern for established authorities, especially given the Jewish history of rebellion (e.g., see Esther 3:8--even after the Babylonian scattering, they were recognized as being non-conformists--and Ezra 4:12-16, speaking of Jerusalem as historically a rebellious city).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The payment of taxes charge is clearly a false charge.  Jesus' famous &quot;render unto Caesar&quot; statement (Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25) makes that clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the charge of being King of the Jews, Jesus states that this charge is effectively true (Matt. 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 18:37), but his statement recorded in John 18:36 points out that he is not a threat to Roman rule in the traditional political/military sense:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said, &quot;My kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.  But now my kingdom is from another place.&quot; (John 18:36, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14655/30&quot;&gt;Affable Geek points out&lt;/a&gt;, Pilate knew that Jesus was not guilty but chose political expediency over truth (after all, &quot;What is truth?&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T22:16:09.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8437" CreationDate="2013-03-05T00:51:37.343" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I first saw how Jesus referred to Himself as &quot;I AM&quot; in John 8:58, that really got me!  I remembered how, in the Old Testament, when Moses asked God for his name (Exodus 3:14), He replied, &quot;I AM THAT I AM&quot;.  WOW!!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So many people, both Christians and non-Christians alike, have said that Jesus never claimed to be God - oh, yes He did, and I think there may be no clearer proof of that than in John 8:58!  The Jews knew EXACTLY what He was claiming - hence their murderous outrage against Him!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also surprises me - after seeing and hearing all the things Jesus did while on the earth, did NONE of the Pharisees (besides Nicodemus) stop and consider, &quot;What if he really IS God?  We may be damned for all eternity!&quot;  I don't know if the Jews of the day thought that The Messiah would be God or just a mortal man; I plead some ignorance as I'm not Jewish, but still...!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4081" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T00:51:37.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14653" CreationDate="2013-03-05T01:54:41.290" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There wasn't &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; one, there were just a few supposed reasons. The certain Jews who wanted to see him executed claimed it was for blasphemy in making himself out to be God, or alternatively for supposing him to have violated the Sabbath. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet the rulers of the Jews only had derivative powers granted by the Romans and didn't have the authority to actually execute criminals, so they needed to pass this task along to the Romans, so they delivered him to Pilate under the accusation that as someone who has made himself out to be king, he is not loyal to Caesar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon actually trying the case, Pilate admits that he found no fault in him, however ultimately Jesus' conviction was a matter of political expediency. The Jews were pressuring him and he was more interested in keeping the peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's comparable to police shutting down a peaceful protest on the charge that they lack a noise permit but really because it upsets a favored politician.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastEditorUserId="3720" LastEditDate="2014-06-07T15:52:28.263" LastActivityDate="2014-06-07T15:52:28.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14492" CreationDate="2013-03-05T02:40:39.140" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;All baptized persons may bless, even non-Catholics. But not all blessings may be given by all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a &lt;em&gt;vague&lt;/em&gt; rule, blessings involve things and persons over which one has been granted spiritual authority by God. For this reason, parents can appropriately bless their children, persons their homes, and those with appropriate Holy Orders can bless water, which furthermore serves to &lt;em&gt;consecrate&lt;/em&gt; it: it becomes holy water. For a lay person to attempt to give certain blessings would not be in the proper order of things. People have different vocations: some acts are only appropriate to those who have been called by God into the priesthood, and very inappropriate to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specific blessings differ in form in much the same way that specific prayers differ in form. As the solemnity of the act increases, so too does its formality. Very important blessings will have certain strict forms. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So one difference is that priestly blessings tend to be more formalized. The other differences, already mentioned, are that particular priestly blessings are restricted to priests, and that some such blessings serve to consecrate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c4a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1668 Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to man. In accordance with bishops' pastoral decisions, they can also respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian people of a particular region or time. &lt;strong&gt;They always include a prayer, often accompanied by a specific sign&lt;/strong&gt;, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1669 Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: &lt;strong&gt;every baptized person&lt;/strong&gt; is called to be a &quot;blessing,&quot; and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; &lt;strong&gt;the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained&lt;/strong&gt; ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1670 Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. &quot;For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals &lt;strong&gt;sanctifies almost every event of their lives&lt;/strong&gt; with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is &lt;strong&gt;scarcely any proper use of material things&lt;/strong&gt; which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1672 Certain blessings have a lasting importance because they consecrate persons to God, or reserve objects and places for liturgical use. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(A blessing is a sacramental. A sacramental is not the same as a sacrament.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attempting to perform certain blessings as a lay person is a bad idea. For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/05/lay-ministers-of-holy-communion-should.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this canon lawyer's blog&lt;/a&gt; is emphatically opposed to lay ministers attempting to confer a blessing using the Holy Eucharist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessing the faithful with the Most August Sacrament is expressly reserved to the ordained. Lay persons may not confer &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; blessings with the Host (&lt;em&gt;Eucharistic worship outside of Mass&lt;/em&gt; nn. 91, 97-99, and 1983 CIC 1168). This practice should therefore be &lt;em&gt;immediately&lt;/em&gt; halted wherever it has cropped up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, things that you see only priests doing are things that only priests should do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And if you're unsure, it's best to find out - ask the priest.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple concrete examples of formulaic differences from &lt;a href=&quot;http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?t=14564&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?t=14564&lt;/a&gt; (all from the first post)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the blessing of a table or meal: when the blessing prayer is said,&#xA;  the classic prayer, &quot;Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts....&quot; the&#xA;  layman who does it makes the sign of the Cross on himself, as usual,&#xA;  while the deacon or priest makes the sign over the food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for the priestly version of blessings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Response: &lt;em&gt;Amen.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus&#xA;  Christ.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Response: &lt;em&gt;And with your spirit (Et cum spiritu tuo.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Versus the lay version:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Response: &lt;em&gt;Amen.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-03-21T14:09:40.183" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T14:09:40.183" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8177" CreationDate="2013-03-05T03:51:18.420" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Act 10, Peter's vision was about MEN, not food. The whole point of the vision was that gentiles were to be included in the covenant, not to change non-food to food. The bottom line is this: Christians are supposed to be Christlike. If Jesus did it, we do it. If He didn't we don't. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 10:28 says ‘’ And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean’’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you can all see that it was not referring actually to food but Men because it was a vision. And No records in the bible that the Jesus Christ or His Disciples ate Pork Meat. Some Christians just reading the bible half way, read full chapter before concluding on issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4085" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T03:51:18.420" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14657" CreationDate="2013-03-05T04:25:43.683" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Holiness and immaculate conception of Mother Mary is a default necessity which directly stems from the purpose of God to save mankind from eternal death.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God had a plan to save his prized creation from the time  of Adam’s disobedience in Garden of Eden. That’s the reason God became man in Jesus Christ. In order that we might not suffer the penalty of our evil choices (sin), He, like a loving father, paid the penalty for our sins. He allowed his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to be born as human being, live an earthly life propagating His message of salvation.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God allowed his Son to be murdered on a Roman cross.  But this act of great evil gave rise to an even better state of affairs, and the greatest act of love in the universe: paying the penalty for the wrong choices we make, which were the result of the way He created us in the first place! In the cross of Christ He has provided a full pardon from the consequences of the evil in our lives.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this purpose to fulfill, Jesus was to be brought in this world with a human nature and hence needed a human mother. But there was a problem. &lt;strong&gt;A Son who is Divine in nature cannot come in a womb of a women who is defiled by the very nature as human beings&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Precisely because of this reason, God at the instance of conception in St Anna’s womb, Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin. This was done by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits (Divinity) of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race “.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary, rather than being cleansed after sin, was completely prevented from contracting Original Sin in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This we say is the “Immaculate Conception” of Virgin Mary. That is she was sinless at the time of her birth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 1:47, Mary proclaims:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;My spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is referred to as Mary's pre-redemption by Christ.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T06:43:32.247" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T06:43:32.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14660" CreationDate="2013-03-05T04:36:59.377" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even Mary had the same question in her mind when Angel said to her:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke: 1:31 Listen: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And she immediately asked a similar question as yours:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke: 1:34 Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the answer is:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke:1:35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is sometime better to reconcile to the fact that,  we do not  have mind of God to understand His ways and so accept some things as Mary did. If we were to know everything God does and how God carry out His business then He would not be any different from us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T04:51:00.577" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T04:51:00.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14679" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-05T04:50:06.260" Score="8" ViewCount="23078" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any biblical evidence that suggests Jesus read or wrote anything, and was he literate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-29T09:33:03.087" LastActivityDate="2021-04-05T00:42:07.690" Title="Did Jesus know how to read and write?" Tags="&lt;historical-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14679" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:10:48.490" Score="32" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2061&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Isaiah 61&lt;/a&gt; in a synagogue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204:16-22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Luke 4:16-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,   ...&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. &lt;sup&gt;21&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph's son?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus wrote on the ground:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:6-8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 8:6-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to the direct implications of these, we have less direct but still strong evidence in events such as his delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205-7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matthew 5-7&lt;/a&gt;). Also, if you are a Christian, you believe he co-authored the entire Bible (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:1-2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Hebrews 1:1-2&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-06T14:53:47.233" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T14:53:47.233" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14663" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:27:27.853" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the only Son of God. However, Christians are the children of God via adoption. See Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:5. Note that Angels are also referred to as the sons of God (see Job 1:6; Gen 6:2 [there is some debate whether Gen 6:2 refers to angels or men]). However, the reference to angels is figurative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;μονογενής is the subject of some etymological debate. It comes from mono meaning &quot;one&quot; and either ginomai meaning become or geneo meaning beget. Current scholarly opinion vastly favors &quot;become.&quot; Thus μονογενής means &quot;special in kind.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We say Jesus is the only Son of God not because of μονογενής but because he is the Firstborn of the Father and there are no other member of the Trinity than Father, Son, and Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastEditorUserId="4087" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T05:56:35.730" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T05:56:35.730" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14582" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:35:34.487" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The shepherd breaking a sheep's leg has become such an oft used illustration that many preachers don't even stop to question its plausibility. I think the illustration might be drawn from a book about a shepherd writing on Psalm 23, but I'm not sure. I doubt many shepherds actually break the legs of their sheep to keep them from running away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we do know that God is providentially in control of all things. Nothing bad happens to anyone (believer or unbeliever) without the permission of God. I don't know how far we can delve into understanding the ways of God (Isaiah 55). However, God does allow inexplicable trials for our good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T05:35:34.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8002" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:39:41.843" Score="-5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bible mentions &quot;Son of God&quot; by the Tons. It can be taught of as &quot;Chosen person&quot; and should not be taken literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Psalms 2:7 we find &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here in this verse we see that God not only called David his &quot;Son&quot;, but also had made him his begotten Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;hence Clearly Jesus is not the only &quot;begotten&quot; son of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.&quot; (Luke3:23) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible goes on to mention the supposed genealogy of Jesus Christ. At the end of this genealogy the Bible comes to Adam, and it says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.&quot; (Luke 3:38). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Adam is also the son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="3812" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T10:51:36.043" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T10:51:36.043" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14684" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14686" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:54:15.850" Score="3" ViewCount="4155" Body="&lt;p&gt;They have always puzzled me and I fail to understand what is what.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 5:20-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jesus saw their faith he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” Then the experts in the law and the Pharisees began to think to themselves, “Who is this man who is uttering blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” When Jesus perceived their hostile thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you raising objections within yourselves? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knowing that Jesus is Son of God: what is the difference between these two sentences, which prompted Jesus to say them? Which statement is the easier to say?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is becomes more puzzling when Jesus says the second sentence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 5:24-25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he said to the paralyzed man – “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher and go home.” Immediately he stood up before them, picked up the stretcher he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not clear whether Jesus said the easier one or the tougher one. Why He did not say the first: that is, “your sins are forgiven?”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it that this sentence was easier to say? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T17:54:03.817" LastActivityDate="2019-01-08T09:49:12.407" Title="What do the verses in Luke 5:20-25 teach us?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14684" CreationDate="2013-03-05T06:19:26.743" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is here asking the Pharisees a rhetorical question, that is - what would be easier for him to say if he was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; God. The answer is simple - it is easier for a mere man to say &quot;Your sins are forgiven&quot;, because there is no &lt;em&gt;outward immediate manifestation&lt;/em&gt;. It is much more difficult to say &quot;Stand up and walk&quot;, because it would be readily apparent that Jesus was not able to back up his power, were he only a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As John Gill &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-5-23.html&quot;&gt;writes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Neither of them could be said by a mere man, with effect, so as that sins would be really remitted on so saying; or that a man sick of a palsy, by such a word speaking, would be able to stand upon his feet and walk; but both of them were equally easy to him, that is truly God; and he that could say the one effectually, could also say the other: or in other words, he that could cure a man of a palsy with a word speaking, ought not to be charged with blasphemy, for taking upon him to forgive sin: our Lord meant, by putting this question, and acting upon it, to prove himself to be God, and to remove the imputation of blasphemy from him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus says the second part, that is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he said to the paralyzed man – “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher and go home.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is demonstrating to the Pharisees that he is who he says he is, that he has the power to forgive and the power to heal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T06:19:26.743" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14687" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-05T06:54:43.980" Score="3" ViewCount="559" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking for an answer that I could link someone to, but it looks like this question has not been asked yet. I am looking for an answer that is as direct and conclusive as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does or does not the Bible say that Jesus is God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T12:12:56.433" Title="Is Jesus truly God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-03-06T00:15:03.200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14659" CreationDate="2013-03-05T07:46:02.620" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Previous popes who abdicated lived in seclusion (in fact Celestine V was imprisoned) so it's highly unlikely that there will be any useful or easily-available records of what they did. As Benedict XVI has said that he will do likewise, any answer must necessarily speculate. It is possible to draw on general rules, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pope's priestly ordination and episcopal consecration cannot be expunged, so he is entitled to wear clothes and vestments appropriate to clergy of those ranks. Thus he will continue to wear a clerical collar and cassock, and can continue to wear a greco (long coat), tabarro (long outdoor cape) and pellegrino (short shoulder-cape). Normally the greco is white for the pope; his tabarro and pellegrino are red; everything is black for all other clergy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's Bl John Paul II in a &lt;em&gt;greco&lt;/em&gt; (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dieter-philippi.de/en/ecclesiastical-fineries/greca&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dieter Philippi&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bg8fW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Greco&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a cardinal in a &lt;em&gt;tabarro&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;pellegrino&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dieter-philippi.de/images/dp/greca/tabarro%202%20jpsonnen.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ibid&lt;/a&gt;). He's also wearing a black &lt;em&gt;cassock&lt;/em&gt; with red buttons and a scarlet &lt;em&gt;cincture.&lt;/em&gt; The headgear is called a &lt;em&gt;zucchetto&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/CA2fZ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Tabarro and pellegrino&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the Pope Emeritus remains a bishop, he is entitled to the &quot;pontificals&quot; of a bishop in liturgical celebrations. However he does not have jurisdiction over a diocese, so will not use anything which would indicate that, such as the mozzetta (the short cape which is buttoned at the front); nor will there be a seventh candle on the altar if he is principal celebrant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a picture of a mozzetta (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dieter-philippi.de/en/ecclesiastical-fineries/the-mozzetta-of-the-pope&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dieter Philippi again&lt;/a&gt;). The pope's is fur-lined or fur-trimmed; other ranks are simply cloth of the colour of their rank. The difference between a mozzetta and a pellegrino is that a mozzetta is buttoned in front.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/xB7kh.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Pope in mozzetta&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus it may be expected that Benedict XVI will continue to wear an amethyst&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; ring, and in liturgical celebrations will wear a mitre, pectoral cross and carry a crozier. I would expect that the crozier will be used &quot;facing backwards&quot; &amp;mdash; that is, with the hook facing towards himself &amp;mdash; as that is the traditional indication that the bearer has no ordinary jurisdiction in the place. &lt;a href=&quot;http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.co.uk/2008_12_01_archive.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The picture reproduced below&lt;/a&gt; shows a bishop wearing a mitre (the hat) with a pectoral cross (on his chest) and carrying a crozier in the manner of a bishop without jurisdiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/jALxV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Bishop Barry Knestout, auxiliary bishop of Washington&quot;&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Bishops wear an amethyst ring, and purple cinctures, because &lt;em&gt;amethyst&lt;/em&gt; in Greek means &quot;I am not drunk&quot;. It's a reference to Acts 2:15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T09:40:11.103" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T09:40:11.103" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14690" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-05T08:40:40.400" Score="5" ViewCount="1426" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 8&lt;/a&gt; describes a woman caught in adultery and brought before Jesus by the scribes and the Pharisees. In those passages, Jesus writes on the ground twice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  5 Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  6 They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and &lt;strong&gt;began to write on the ground with his finger&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  7 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  8 &lt;strong&gt;Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  9 And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What purpose did this serve? Why did Jesus write on the ground?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(I've been unable to find a good answer elsewhere due to all the speculation and occasional jokes - please avoid these. An answer is &quot;speculative&quot; if it describes something that &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; have happened without giving a good reason for why that really &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; happen.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T18:26:35.087" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T18:26:35.087" Title="Why did Jesus write on the ground in John 8:6-11?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-03-05T16:27:02.527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14693" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18287" CreationDate="2013-03-05T09:10:58.937" Score="2" ViewCount="541" Body="&lt;p&gt;How many times was Jesus of Nazareth, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, begotten?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-10T02:04:48.080" LastActivityDate="2017-05-10T02:04:48.080" Title="According to Catholicism and/ or Protestantism, how many times was Jesus of Nazareth, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, begotten?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;&lt;nicene-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14693" CreationDate="2013-03-05T11:22:11.207" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Once - in two different ways depending on our definition of 'begotten'&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be some confusion on the subject because &quot;only begotten&quot; a theological term  does not mean &quot;begotten&quot; a biblical term. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to answer your question, if thinking 'begotten' as in 'only begotten' it gains prominence in &lt;strong&gt;Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325&lt;/strong&gt; representing Christ’s single eternal generation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The phrase “only-begotten” is not an accurate translation and should not be used in any of the nine passages. This phrase is derived from the Latin Vulgate (a translation of the Bible from about the 5th century which has been quite influential on other translations) and reflects certain theological debates about the person of Christ. While the language of the Word being born of God is present in the 2nd century, the most notable occurrence of this language is the creed from the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. This creed speaks of the Son of God as begotten of the Father, unique—that is, from the substance of the Father—God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. This creed was the result of the rejection of the heresy that the Son of God was the first created being. Ultimately the phrase “begotten not made” leads to what theologians call the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. (Elwell, W. A., &amp;amp; Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (1590). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not to say that the theological term is not very biblical. When the word begotten is used with “son” it does mean God’s only Son, indicating God’s absolute delight towards him and his absolute uniqueness (Jn 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9). The statement at the baptism and transfiguration of Jesus in the Synoptics 'This is my beloved son' also carries the same sense of God’s absolute delight towards him and his absolute uniqueness, but not principally a literal/spiritual 'birth'. Not 'principally' a 'birth' but by implication as Jesus is unique since he is also eternally begotten. If that does not make him unique I do not know what can. In fact the very notion of a son, and all its uses in scripture could be argued as having its ultimate meaning in dimly reflecting the glory of the Son. The concept of sonship finds its ultimate meaning in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To confuse matters more, in Hebrews Chapter 1:5 it reads ‘For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again,  “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? this seems to imply a 'birth' or sorts, but not really. From this type of reference we are naturally tempted to mix the theological term (i.e. eternal generation) with the biblical prophecy first fulfilled in David (as a type) and in Christ as Messiah. Therefore, although “only begotten” is a theological term referring to a single eternal event, ‘today I have begotten you’ means something totally different in terms of a true generation, or 'birth'. This really refers to his 'birth' from the dead, or the first born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Owen explains the different views about 'begotten' very well here, as well as the correct view to take:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luke 1:35; some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Matt. 3:17; some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom. 1:4, and Acts 13:33; some to the day of his ascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent, and reconcilable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving unto the same end, that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Acts 13:33.&#xA;  And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David, as a type of Christ, seeing he was said, as it were, to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his rule and kingdom. (Owen, J. (1854). Vol. 20: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume 3 (W. H. Goold, Ed.). Works of John Owen (136–137). Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: &lt;strong&gt;The biblical term “begotten”&lt;/strong&gt; refers to the resurrection of Christ, which happened once. &lt;strong&gt;The theological term “only begotten”&lt;/strong&gt; refers to the eternal generation of the Son, by an inconceivable communication of the essence and substance of the Godhead by the Father --- only happened in a continuous forever. God’s absolute delight towards Christ and his absolute uniqueness implied by the words 'only Son' brings the single eternal generation and the single generation from the dead together under the Sonship theme. Both his eternal generation and his resurrection make him absolutely unique and proven fully approved of by God. This is partly why Jesus always used the phrase 'the Son' as implying being one and only person generated from yet equal to his Father, for example, as in John 5:16-29.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T15:02:15.383" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T15:02:15.383" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14657" CreationDate="2013-03-05T13:10:02.927" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good answers all around, but let me add what the Blessed Virgin Mary herself said to St. Bernadette at Lourdes only a few years after the proclamation of the dogma:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Que soi era immaculada concepcion&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the Immaculate Conception&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, maybe the question shouldn't be what is the Immaculate Conception but who is the Immaculate Conception. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T13:10:02.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14425" CreationDate="2013-03-05T14:40:30.740" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The maps of the tribes of Israel contain a lot of guesswork. The tribe of Asher is one of them. No one is even sure whether Asher had a continuous territory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T14:40:30.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14700" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-05T14:42:41.153" Score="4" ViewCount="334" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently read the the LDS Church teaches that it was in Gethsemane while Jesus was praying where the atonement occurred rather than on the Cross of Calvary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for this doctrine, and when did this teaching originate in the LDS Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T15:50:47.640" Title="What is the basis for the LDS (Mormon) teaching regarding Atonement in Gethsemane rather than at Calvary?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="951" CreationDate="2013-03-05T14:57:23.303" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most popular Bible being used prior to the KJV was the Geneva Bible. Unfortunately for the crown, this Bible also contained footnotes of an opposing political nature. Thus the KJV was commissioned with the directive for minimal footnotes. The 1611 text is actually quite similar to the Geneva Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T14:57:23.303" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14700" CreationDate="2013-03-05T14:58:29.840" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's both, not one or the other. It started in Gethsemane and was completed on Golgotha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/the-purifying-power-of-gethsemane&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/the-purifying-power-of-gethsemane&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full&#xA;  import of what Christ did in Gethsemane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained&#xA;  the dregs of that bitter cup his Father had given him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We know he suffered, both body and spirit, more than it is possible&#xA;  for man to suffer, except it be unto death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering&#xA;  satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the&#xA;  pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who&#xA;  believe in his holy name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We know that he lay prostrate upon the ground as the pains and agonies&#xA;  of an infinite burden caused him to tremble and would that he might&#xA;  not drink the bitter cup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We know that an angel came from the courts of glory to strengthen him&#xA;  in his ordeal, and we suppose it was mighty Michael, who foremost fell&#xA;  that mortal man might be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As near as we can judge, these infinite agonies—this suffering beyond&#xA;  compare—continued for some three or four hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem’s&#xA;  walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near&#xA;  death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and&#xA;  hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and&#xA;  bruised for our iniquities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Alma 7:11-12 in the Book of Mormon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and&#xA;  temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled&#xA;  which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his&#xA;  people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of&#xA;  death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their&#xA;  infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to&#xA;  the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his&#xA;  people according to their infirmities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The suffering in Gethsemane was an important part of taking upon Him the pains and sicknesses of His people. Calvary was vital so He could take upon Him death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible refers to this suffering in Luke 22:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of&#xA;  Olives; and his disciples also followed him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye&#xA;  enter not into temptation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled&#xA;  down, and prayed,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;42 Saying, Father, &lt;strong&gt;if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 And &lt;strong&gt;there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening&#xA;  him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and &lt;strong&gt;his sweat was&#xA;  as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Emphasis added, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm still mobile but will get more Biblical references in a bit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your other question, this has been the teaching of the LDS Church since its organization in 1830.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-05T15:50:47.640" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T15:50:47.640" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14657" CreationDate="2013-03-05T15:00:35.187" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One important point of belief of nearly every Christian fellowship and denomination is that Jesus Christ is the &lt;em&gt;perfect&lt;/em&gt; sacrifice for our sins, and that this perfection is part of the reason His single sacrifice is able to cover the sins of so many. If Jesus were not perfect, his death would have been inadequate, and we are all lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This causes a small problem for those groups that believe in original sin: the idea that we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve when they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If Jesus also inherits this sin, he would no longer be the required perfect sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some such groups deal with this by concluding that this guilt is only passed down through the paternal line. Since Jesus had no biological father, he escapes original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics and some related groups believe that guilt is passed down both paternally and maternally. It's a side note, but this is probably a better interpretation, as Eve ate the fruit first... if you accept original sin at all (ie: Ezekiel 18:20). The Immaculate Conception refers to how Jesus escapes the guilt of his mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary received special grace from the moment of her conception, such that at the time of her birth (and even through her entire lifetime) she was free from the burden of sin. This does not have to specifically mean that she never herself sinned (though many do believe this); it can also mean that she was in a state of special grace granted by God, sufficient to free Jesus from the original sin that He would have inherited from Mary. The important point is that when someone talks about Immaculate Conception, they're actually talking about &lt;em&gt;Mary&lt;/em&gt;, and the reason why is the need for Jesus to not inherit original sin from his earthly mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also worth noting that there is no record, prophecy, or allusion to the Immaculate Conception anywhere in the Bible. The nearest is the &quot;full of grace&quot; expression in Luke ch. 1. However, the same phrase is used in a number of other places in scripture (Acts 6:8 and Colossians 4:6 for a start) for less-exalted purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2014-12-31T17:57:42.487" LastActivityDate="2014-12-31T17:57:42.487" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14704" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="39886" CreationDate="2013-03-05T15:08:14.673" Score="15" ViewCount="39805" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible frequently refers to the twelve tribes of Israel. Which tribes constitute this list? Jacob had twelve sons, but Joseph's two sons each got a land inheritance and Levi got none. So do the twelve tribes refer to those who had territories (thus excluding Levi) or to the sons of Jacob (combining Manasseh and Ephraim)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the names of the tribes were written, for example Exodus 28:21, how would the list appear? Would Joseph be written in place of Manasseh and Ephraim or would Levi be omitted?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-12-30T18:17:54.097" LastActivityDate="2018-12-28T02:18:24.687" Title="What are the Twelve Tribes of Israel?" Tags="&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14704" CreationDate="2013-03-05T17:05:54.217" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jacob had twelve sons by four women. They are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From Bilhah (Rachel's maid): Dan and Naphtali&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;From Zilpah (Leah's maid): Gad and Asher&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph, of course, had two sons - Manasseh and Ephraim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tribe of Levi was not given an inheritance, as we see in Joshua 13:14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But to the tribe of Levi he gave no inheritance, since the offerings made by fire to the LORD, the God of Israel, are their inheritance, as he promised them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see the separation of the 'House of Joseph' into the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in Joshua 14:4 (and a repetition of the Levite's inheritance)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for the sons of Joseph had become two tribes--Manasseh and Ephraim. The Levites received no share of the land but only towns to live in, with pasturelands for their flocks and herds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can read in the rest of Joshua 13 the particular land each tribe was given (note that Manasseh actually became &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; half-tribes. One half was beyond the Jordan, and eventually disappeared from Israel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basis for Ephraim and Manasseh being full tribes is given in Genesis 48:5-6, as Jacob adopts them as if they were his own sons (&lt;em&gt;as Reuben and Simeon&lt;/em&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine. Your offspring whom you beget after them shall be yours; they will be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the twelve tribes can be listed as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reuben&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simeon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Issachar&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zebulun&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ephraim&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manasseh&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Benjamin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dan&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Naphtali&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gad&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Asher&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see this listing clearly in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Numbers 1&lt;/a&gt;, and a final note on the separation of the Levites (v47-49):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ancestral tribe of the Levites, however, was not counted along with the others. The Lord had said to Moses: “You must not count the tribe of Levi or include them in the census of the other Israelites.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2014-04-14T11:04:55.160" LastActivityDate="2014-04-14T11:04:55.160" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14684" CreationDate="2013-03-05T17:44:42.793" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this story, it is important to note that people in that culture often associated illness with God's judgment.  In John 9, the disciples ask Jesus &quot;Who sinned?&quot; when they see a man who was blind from birth.  So, someone with an illness or handicap not only had to deal with the ailment, but also burden of wondering what sin caused them to be experiencing the judgment of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Illness and disability is the result of sin in general (original sin)--not necessarily a specific sin (although certain sins can expose an individual to risk).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus sees through the physical need to the spiritual need and addresses that first.  However, in forgiving a person's sins, there is no visible evidence that anyone else could observe to verify His authority to do so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus were, in fact, God, however, He could not only forgive the sin itself, but would also have the power over the effects of sin.  Jesus proves His authority over the effects of sin by physically healing the man, proving that He also has the authority to forgive the man of his sins as will, which is a spiritual issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T17:44:42.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4003" CreationDate="2013-03-05T18:06:06.637" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The NASB follows more of a formal equivalence model of translation. They try to translate every Greek/Hebrew word with the same English word in each occurrence. They also try to be consistent in how they express grammatical constructions. This is great if you are using the translation to talk about Greek words and grammar because you can pretty much guess what Greek/Hebrew words and constructions are being translated. However, this benefit comes at a cost. You will find the NASB to be a little less clear if you don't know Greek/Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ESV follows a little more of a functional equivalence model. They still try to remain consistent with how they translate words and grammatical constructions. However, the RSV translators (the ESV is an update of the RSV) are a little more willing to translate words differently based upon context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T18:06:06.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4719" CreationDate="2013-03-05T18:17:24.560" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no official SBC position on predestination, and the issue is up for debate. The two major camps within the SBC are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.founders.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Founders Ministries&lt;/a&gt; on the Calvinist side and a new group led by Dr. Eric Hankins that have put forward &lt;a href=&quot;http://sbctoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/A-Statement-of-Traditional-Southern-Baptist-Soteriology-SBC-Today.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this statement&lt;/a&gt; in May 2012 to get churches on board with an opposition movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T18:17:24.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6055" CreationDate="2013-03-05T18:44:26.370" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ananias and Sapphira were killed for telling a &quot;white lie.&quot; They sold a piece of land and told everyone that they were giving all the money to the church. However, they actually kept back some. Peter says they were punished not for keeping their money, but for for lying about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 5:1-11 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, &quot;Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.&quot; When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, &quot;Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.&quot; And she said, &quot;Yes, for so much.&quot; But Peter said to her, &quot;How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.&quot; Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T18:44:26.370" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14713" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-05T19:17:42.060" Score="10" ViewCount="25554" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was approached by two Jehovah's Witnesses who invited me to a memorial service for Jesus to be held on Tuesday, March 26th. The flier they gave me said that this is the anniversary of Jesus' death. Most Christians view Christ's death as taking place on Good Friday. Why are Jehovah's Witnesses saying it happened on a Tuesday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-03-13T20:59:07.373" LastActivityDate="2018-02-27T05:39:05.217" Title="Why were Jehovah's Witnesses holding a Memorial Service for Jesus on Tuesday, March 26 2013?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;easter&gt;&lt;calendar&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14713" CreationDate="2013-03-05T19:45:08.367" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently, per &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_practices#Memorial_of_Christ.27s_death&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, this date corresponds to Nisan 14, converting the date from the Hebrew Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe they're saying it happened on a Tuesday.  In 2012, it was a Thursday. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T19:45:08.367" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14715" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14717" CreationDate="2013-03-05T20:21:07.740" Score="8" ViewCount="1632" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just recently read that Joseph Smith taught that the Garden of Eden was actually in Jackson County Missouri and not in Mesopotamia.  You can read it on &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&quot;&gt;lds.org here.&lt;/a&gt;  (Search for &quot;Garden of Eden&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2 describes the geology of the Garden of Eden as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided&#xA;  and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is&#xA;  the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is&#xA;  gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone&#xA;  are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one&#xA;  that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the&#xA;  third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth&#xA;  river is the Euphrates.  Genesis 2:10-14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How, then, does this description fit with the location in Missouri?  Is there a specific location that is identified as being the exact location of the Garden of Eden.  Is there geological evidence of ancient rivers and such?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-03-06T12:50:05.503" LastActivityDate="2016-06-30T20:16:52.017" Title="What evidence does the LDS church forward for the claim that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14582" CreationDate="2013-03-05T21:33:14.840" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, having also grown up on a farm, I completely agree with Bruce's comment.  Secondly the Bible would actually contradict this statement.  This pastor's intentions may be good, but this is not rooted in biblical truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the answers to your questions are No, No, and No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does God inhibit us in ways that are to keep us from going to Hell?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;If you are saved you won't go to hell.  Period.  You are a permanent member of the flock.  So the answer is No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And since the answer to the first question is No, the others are No too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read more about this myth &lt;a href=&quot;http://thepaperthinhymn.com/2011/09/11/the-myth-of-breaking-the-sheep-legs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1869" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T21:33:14.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14715" CreationDate="2013-03-05T23:42:45.583" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to the various other roles that Missouri has in LDS history and teachings (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13944/what-is-the-lds-meaning-of-the-new-jerusalem&quot;&gt;What is the LDS meaning of the New Jerusalem?&lt;/a&gt;), it is believed by most to be the location of the Garden of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS basis for this belief is founded largely on the teachings of Joseph Smith in the context of Doctrine &amp;amp; Covenants section 57 which reads that Jackson County is to be the location of Zion and the New Jerusalem. The section does not explicitly state Jackson County is the location of the Garden of Eden, however statements by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others have led to this belief. Due to the unofficial nature of the teaching, not all who follow LDS teachings accept it as absolute truth, for it can be claimed that it was merely an opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To many, the idea that the Garden of Eden is located in Missouri is unbiblical as it does not seem to fit the geographical description of the locale as given in Genesis. John A Widtsoe, 20th Century LDS Apostle and scholar, addressed this issue in his book, &quot;Evidences and Reconciliations&quot; (&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/evidencesreconci03widt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://archive.org/details/evidencesreconci03widt&lt;/a&gt;&quot;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Despite the apparently specific descriptions given, this clue has not led to the location of the Garden of Eden. Careful scholars have not been able to identify any of the four rivers with certainty. None of the rivers mentioned fits into the lands now known. Since the historically well known names of Euphrates, Assyria, and Ethiopia do not fit into the use of them in the Garden of Eden story, it is more than probable that they are ancient names variously applied in later times. Clearly, these rivers and countries belong to early ages of the world's history, and do not apply to present-day terminology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although there is no perfect match for the geography of the Garden of Eden in Missouri, it is my personal opinion that of the geographical locations in the United States, Missouri perhaps is one which would best fit the discriptions. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mo_rivers2.png&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This Map&lt;/a&gt; from wikipedia demonstrates the large number of rivers in and around Missouri in general. As Widtsoe mentioned about the earth in as a whole, It is very probable that this area looked much different in the Antediluvian era; variations in river flows could easily account for the geographical descrepancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-03-05T23:52:45.040" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14495" CreationDate="2013-03-06T00:11:50.927" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because this idea is a &quot;Christian-ese&quot; concept that has traditionally been used to explain the heart of the Gospel with respect to the law, any answer here that Biblically explain this view will not necessarily &quot;support this viewpoint.&quot; Much like T.U.L.I.P and the seven dispensational epochs, concepts like this tend to oversimplify Biblical truths. This doesn't mean it is unbiblical, but that it should never replace the Biblical foundation it stands on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Moral Law&lt;/strong&gt;:&#xA;Jesus gave his own interpretation of the law in His Sermon on the Mount, but without the epistles, early Christians only had the Old Testament to deduce what part of God's commands were part of our training toward maturity (our tutor in Gal. 3:24), and what parts reflect the Law of Liberty in Christ (Rom 8:2). Jesus' revelationary [sic] contribution to our understanding of Moses' law tells us that we are not to disregard it completely, but we need to discern which parts of the law were established for our &quot;upbringing,&quot; and which they would have to preserve in their new life with Christ. When Jesus said &quot;You know the commandments&quot; to the rich young ruler in Mar 10:19, he was likely talking about the Ten commandments, or more broadly, the &quot;Moral Law&quot; of Moses. Even with our death to the law (see Rom. 7:4), our obligation to be like Christ does not change. &#xA;The Prophet David says in Psa 40:6 &quot;Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require,&quot; but this sounds contradictory since God &lt;em&gt;literally did&lt;/em&gt; require it in Moses' law. But not forever. This example is a good distinction between where Moses' law and the Law of Liberty separate. God calls David a man after His own heart probably in part because he saw the difference. Other verses like this exist. See Micah 6:8:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require&#xA;  of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your&#xA;  God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the &quot;Moral Law&quot; in our simplified tri-part system we're examining here are any of those commands about which David &lt;em&gt;could not&lt;/em&gt; have said &quot;you did not require.&quot; Most of these &quot;required&quot; laws, based on our David definition have a broader &quot;Law-of-Liberty&quot; version: Hate is murder (Matt. 5:22), idolatry is covetousness (Col. 3:5), but, as always, God's heart doesn't change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ceremonial Law&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;The letter to the Hebrews (especially chapter nine) reveals that much of Moses' law contained copies or patterns of heavenly truths. Just as there is an altar in Moses' law, there is a version of that in heaven, from the Priesthood, down to the altar and candles. These patterns given to us in Moses are &quot;Shadows of the good things to come&quot; (Heb 10:1), so they are similar to the Moral Laws in that they reveal a bigger truth. In this case however, the truths they reveal are not mandates of holiness. They are symbols of heavenly places. &#xA;So the &quot;Ceremonial Law&quot; in our simplified tri-part system, are any commands about which David could have said &quot;you did not require,&quot; &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; were shadows of things to come, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; were not primarily commands for civic functions. Not all these are in Hebrews, but it gives us a good starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Civil Law&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;By process of elimination, I would say that these commands are those which do not adequately fit in the categories above, but, like your question states, called the Hebrew people to form a working society. In my opinion, it's really hard to separate this category from the Ceremonial Law without adequately defining &quot;Civil&quot; and &quot;Ceremonial.&quot; Especially in a society where law and faith are never separated. Laws that talk about inheritance, land boundaries, and punishment for crime, might nicely fit here, but couldn't someone also say they point to shadows of things to come, i.e., the judgement and reward of God's people and enemies? Maybe, but again, this three-fold division is never explicitly made in the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T00:11:50.927" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14421" CreationDate="2013-03-06T00:37:39.310" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we could ignore Satan knowing he has nothing against us, we wouldn't need to pay any attention to the scriptures that say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about&#xA;  like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. 1Pe 5:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off&#xA;  the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Rom 13:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Jam 4:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to&#xA;  quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. Eph 6:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these verses suggest that Satan's threats are as real as his potential for harm. Our fight against the enemy does not end until he is cast into darkness with Death (Rev 20:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="66" LastEditDate="2013-03-06T01:54:49.883" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T01:54:49.883" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14721" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14726" CreationDate="2013-03-06T02:12:37.290" Score="8" ViewCount="2765" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was listening to a recorded sermon on my way to work today and the preacher mentioned the eschatological tension. Is there a good definition of what the eschatological tension is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it makes a difference to this question then answers should be from a protestant view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-03-06T02:21:22.693" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T06:05:04.027" Title="What is the &quot;eschatological tension&quot;" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6055" CreationDate="2013-03-06T03:32:58.213" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lying is characteristically condemned in general, but in a few rare specific cases it's actually the right thing to do. A notable example is when Rehab directly lied to her people for the protection of the Jewish spies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The morality of her lie was never even questioned. The Bible commends her as trusting God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This fits very well with Jesus' explanation that the law and the prophets are fulfilled in the command to love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is exceedingly rare that telling a lie is loving to your neighbor and proceeds from a heart that isn't being self-serving, but it can happen and at that point it is appropriate to lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a perfect example of the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Islam, for example, charging interest is completely prohibited. The spirit of that law is to prevent usury, which abuses the poor who might take a loan in desperation only to find themselves enslaved by it to a merciless lender. Yet because of the nature of law in Islam, regardless of the spirit of the law, there is no interest allowed, period. It neglects the fact that loans can be a mutually beneficial and necessary arrangement to fund business transactions or allow a person to buy a house with enough time to actually live in it. Muslims had to invent an entire banking system that relies on shareholding rather than interest in order to be compliant with the laws of Islam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is completely different. Jesus regularly violated the letter of the law regarding the Sabbath, but never once violated the spirit of it. Jesus regularly made himself unclean by kosher and temple standards through his interaction with people with skin diseases, adulterers, and so on, but never violated the spirit of cleanliness. His &quot;uncleanliness&quot; was to make many clean!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By extension, this means that there will be places where lying must or should occur, and even places where lying is simply inconsequential. For example, actors must &quot;lie&quot; by profession as a part of getting into character who will say things they don't mean or believe, yet acting is a morally neutral event. You can take pedantic views of lying out to the nth degree. What about getting an answer wrong on a test and incidentally saying something false? What about saying something that is true at one level of precision but false at another, like &quot;I live 5 miles away&quot; when you really live 4.9685744834 miles away? Let's get more ridiculous! That distance is constantly changing on a quantum level. It's actually a logical impossibility to create an air-tight falsehood-free statement in every scenario. By this point I hope I've reduced that idea to absurdity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to bring it all back together,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Never speaking falsehood will necessarily be impossible at some level&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible explicitly states that the spirit of the law trumps the letter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus himself, who is sinless, violated the letter of the law in some cases&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible affords specific examples of people who knew they were lying and in their case it was not sin, but actually righteous.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The laws of God must be interpreted in light Jesus' teaching that the law is summarized in loving God and neighbor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the conclusion is: Lying is permitted when it &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; serves to love God and neighbor, which is very rare. Additionally, if the falsehood was spoken in good faith without intention to deceive it's probably not sin either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, this is detailed for the sake of answering the question, but on a practical basis, the average believer probably would be best served by seeking the grace rid themselves of uncontroversially sinful dishonesty, and confessing and receiving forgiveness for those instances when they do sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3720" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T03:32:58.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14721" CreationDate="2013-03-06T04:18:12.643" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The pastor was most likely referring to the longing that we have for heaven. The term &quot;eschatological&quot; refers to the end times, including the millennial reign of Christ and eternity in heaven. The tension arises when we have been given new life in Christ and become like Abraham seeking a city whose builder and maker is the Lord. However, we won't find what we are looking for until God sets everything aright in the end times. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T04:18:12.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16165" CreationDate="2013-03-06T05:27:11.737" Score="13" ViewCount="11353" Body="&lt;p&gt;Concerning what the Bible says, and what might be said in commentary from prominent church leaders, is there a particular reason Jesus came 2000 years ago and not at some other time. One would think the earlier, the better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the question seems too broad, then just give me biblical support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-09T14:45:54.073" LastActivityDate="2015-09-21T20:51:28.543" Title="Was there a reason Jesus came at the time he did?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;&lt;timetable&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14725" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14736" CreationDate="2013-03-06T05:32:02.773" Score="8" ViewCount="117136" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is the list of 12 tribes of Israel from Genesis, Numbers and Revelation.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/kKgRy.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;12 Tribes of Israel&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I sorted them according to the list in  Genesis 29-30.&#xA;In Numbers, Levi is replaced by Ephraim and Manasseh who replaced Joseph also.&#xA;But in Revelation 7 Dan is removed and replaced by Manasseh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why are these list different? Why is Dan removed from the list?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T15:05:35.767" Title="Why was Dan removed from the list of 12 Israel tribes in Rev 7?" Tags="&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-03-07T00:46:56.013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14726" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14721" CreationDate="2013-03-06T05:36:46.380" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be no perfect definition: sources tend to give descriptions or examples. It does not depend on denomination, though different denominations might focus on different things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tension is, roughly, between the facts that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ came and redeemed us by His Sacrifice; now we are Christians, living in this present world, with duties to love God and others&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ has not yet come again, all has not yet come to pass; we are not yet at the end, though as Christians we strive towards it&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This tension is not necessarily a bad thing. If there is concern, it is perhaps with directing ourselves properly. For example, a person might focus too much on yearning for heaven, feeling too strongly its absence in this world, and fall into neglecting or even despising worldly Christian duties and life. Or an individual might commit too much to this world, perhaps trying to solve its problems, or feeling too crushed by its problems, and forget where we are all going. Or an individual might feel no tension at all, no pull towards either good thing -- or too much of a pull from both directions. These are just examples: they're a bit at the extreme ends of the spectrum, and might be off the mark in certain contexts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(end - the rest of this answer gives examples of usage in articles centered on various denominations)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1953-1_torrance.pdf&quot;&gt;The Modern Eschatological Debate&lt;/a&gt; (pdf), in the Evangelical Quarterly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That is just the way in which it is given in Calvin, for with him&#xA;  every doctrine entails what we now call the &lt;strong&gt;eschatological&#xA;  tension&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  [...] That means that the &lt;strong&gt;eschatological tension&lt;/strong&gt; that reached its acutest point in the person and work of the Mediator is enshrined in the tension between &lt;em&gt;justus et peccator&lt;/em&gt; and between real presence and bread and wine. To the word of justification the sacraments add the pressure of imminence so that the two together on their Christological basis contain the heart of eschatology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an article in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Journal-of-Lutheran-Ethics/Issues/August-2002/The-Twofold-Rule-of-God.aspx&quot;&gt;Journal of Lutheran Ethics&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Romans 5 Paul writes of the two aeons: the new era that Christ is bringing into the world and the old aeon that is under the rule of law and sin. The same &lt;strong&gt;eschatological tension&lt;/strong&gt; is present in other biblical sources. The new order of Christ is in tension with the old order, yet Christians must live in both. [...]&lt;br&gt; All major Christian religious traditions recognize in some fashion &lt;strong&gt;this tension&lt;/strong&gt; between Christ and the ongoing societal necessities of the world. They are aware that following Christ and living in the world is no easy task.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(The above article makes comments that some might find misrepresent other traditions, or are biased towards the Lutheran view.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope John Paul II discusses the interplay between this tension and the Eucharist. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html&quot;&gt;Ecclesia de Eucharistia&lt;/a&gt;, Church of the Eucharist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;eschatological tension&lt;/strong&gt; kindled by the Eucharist expresses and reinforces our communion with the Church in heaven. It is not by chance that the Eastern Anaphoras and the Latin Eucharistic Prayers honour Mary, the ever-Virgin Mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the angels, the holy apostles, the glorious martyrs and all the saints. This is an aspect of the Eucharist which merits greater attention: in celebrating the sacrifice of the Lamb, we are united to the heavenly “liturgy” and become part of that great multitude which cries out: “Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Rev 7:10). [...]&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;20.&lt;/em&gt; A significant consequence of the &lt;strong&gt;eschatological tension&lt;/strong&gt; inherent in the Eucharist is also the fact that it spurs us on our journey through history and plants a seed of living hope in our daily commitment to the work before us. Certainly the Christian vision leads to the expectation of “new heavens” and “a new earth” (Rev 21:1), but this increases, rather than lessens, our sense of responsibility for the world today.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  [...] Lastly, the Magnificat reflects the &lt;strong&gt;eschatological tension&lt;/strong&gt; of the Eucharist. Every time the Son of God comes again to us in the “poverty” of the sacramental signs of bread and wine, the seeds of that new history wherein the mighty are “put down from their thrones” and “those of low degree are exalted” (cf. Lk 1:52), take root in the world. Mary sings of the “new heavens” and the “new earth” which find in the Eucharist their anticipation and in some sense their programme and plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-06T06:05:04.027" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T06:05:04.027" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14727" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-06T05:55:34.470" Score="10" ViewCount="186" Body="&lt;p&gt;My own conversion experience agrees with William James' &quot;Will to Believe&quot; philosophy. To put it briefly, here's a snippet from Wikipedia: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&quot;The Will to Believe&quot; is a lecture by William James, first published&#xA;  in 1896,[1] which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief&#xA;  without prior evidence of its truth. In particular, James is concerned&#xA;  in this lecture about defending the rationality of religious faith&#xA;  even lacking sufficient evidence of religious truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James' central argument in &quot;The Will to Believe&quot; hinges on the idea&#xA;  that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are&#xA;  true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without&#xA;  evidence. As an example, James argues that it can be rational to have&#xA;  unsupported faith in one's own ability to accomplish tasks that&#xA;  require confidence. Importantly, James points out that this is the&#xA;  case even for pursuing scientific inquiry. James then argues that like&#xA;  belief in one's own ability to accomplish a difficult task, religious&#xA;  faith can also be rational even if one at the time lacks evidence for&#xA;  the truth of one's religious belief.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also seems to go hand-in-hand with Jesus' parable about the mustard seed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know if any contemporary Christian philosophers have expounded on this idea. Thank you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastEditorUserId="2164" LastEditDate="2013-03-06T06:18:32.660" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T04:16:00.530" Title="What is the status of &quot;The Will to Believe&quot; among contemporary philosophers?" Tags="&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7331" CreationDate="2013-03-06T07:13:46.887" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14236/does-a-christian-who-commits-sins-against-christian-doctrine-and-commandments-st&quot;&gt;I answered a question&lt;/a&gt; that was marked as a duplicate of this one so I thought I would offer this up here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Since you did not specify a denomination that you preferred an answer from I will simply point to a part in the Bible that I think is self explanatory. Whether a certain Christian group will follow it or not is a different story entirely.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is best answered by Matt. 18 starting vs. 15. Simply called the Matt. 18 principle. As a christian your desire should be to not sin, however, being in a sinful world, it is entirely possible to sin and not know it (which opens more questions, but never mind that for now). Therefore, the church (body of believers you worship with) may notice your sin an you not. Or because of pride refuse to admit it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 18 says to forgive, however, is quite clear that you give a christian 'sinner' a few chances to repent and if he does not then separate him from the body and call him a fellow believer no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the answer is this: A sinner who claims Christianity and repents is still a Christian. A sinner who claims Christianity and does not repent at the pleadings of the Church is not a christian in the eyes of the Church and according to the doctrine of Matt. 18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we must note that the parable of the unmerciful servant immediately follows the principle described above, therefore, I think we can assume that once repentant all are accepted into the fold of Christendom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether saying the unrepentant 'Christian' is no longer Christian or never was Christian is really semantic. We can agree that he is not Christian, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18&amp;amp;version=NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T07:13:46.887" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14724" CreationDate="2013-03-06T07:26:50.350" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We do not know. We only know that He came at the appropriate time. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/4/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 4:4-5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 But &lt;strong&gt;when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son&lt;/strong&gt;, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this we know the well-known facts that at the time of His coming:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His mother, Mary, born of Saint Anne, gave birth to Him,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;there was the law that He was born under, and also&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His coming should have been recognized, as perhaps due to signs, note &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/19/44&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 19:44&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;44 They will smash you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another within you because you &lt;strong&gt;did not recognize the time of your visitation&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of this &lt;em&gt;requires&lt;/em&gt; that He would come at that time. He could have chosen any other time for there to be the signs, and law, and Mary. But He did not, and the time He did choose was appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not useful to speculate further, especially on the &quot;strategic&quot; advantages of Christ coming when He did. God has in mind not only that time, but all the future consequences of coming at that time, and all things that came before that moment. He knows what roads the apostles would walk, and also that this question would be asked. He did not come then for the Roman roads: He came then for our salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that God would not need to &quot;look through history&quot; to choose a time that would be best. He may have made all of history to fit the moment of His Sacrifice, rather than His coming and Sacrifice to fit history. But even this way of thinking is too limited. We simply &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/11/32&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;do not know&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  or who has been his counselor?” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 11:33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-05-16T19:14:30.473" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T19:14:30.473" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14679" CreationDate="2013-03-06T07:58:42.170" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Times change, and the exact measure that defines &quot;literacy&quot; changes with them. The concept of an &quot;essay&quot; would have been unknown in Jesus' day, but it is quite clear from the record of we have of his interaction with other learned men that he was treated as if he was educated. As we learn from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14680/30&quot;&gt;the verses quoted in parap's answer&#xA;&lt;/a&gt; he was clearly able to read the Tanakh scrolls. These two factors are enough for us to label him as being literate. Living and ministering in a primarily oral culture, it is not surprising that Jesus chose not to sit and write books but rather preached with parables to the public and by reasoning from the Scriptures with those educated in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:54&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:54&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;54&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse here says that Jesus astonish them learned men of his day with his wisdom and he taught them. This is not the work of an unlearned man. Teaching from, reasoning from and accurately quoting the OT Scriptures (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/2008_09/05&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dozens of times&lt;/a&gt;) are clear signs of solid education and literacy skills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-04-13T12:17:03.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14724" CreationDate="2013-03-06T09:10:45.250" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Galatians 3 and 4 explains how God sought to lay a foundation for the coming of the Messiah, through the Jewish Law. The Law was to make people understand the depth of their sinfulness (in that they were incapable of keeping the Law) so that they might more readily accept the cure for that sin through Jesus the Messiah (Galatians 3:22-23; Romans 3:19-20).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God was making His chosen people ready for the arrival of Messiah and we read in &#xA;Galatians 4:4: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse declares that God the Father sent His Son when “the time had fully come.”    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Christ came in fulfillment of specific prophecy. Daniel 9:24-27 speaks:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Seventy weeks have been determined concerning your people and your holy city to put an end to rebellion,&#xA;  to bring sin to completion, to atone for iniquity, to bring in perpetual righteousness, to seal up the prophetic vision,&#xA;  and to anoint a most holy place. So know and understand: From the issuing of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince arrives, there will be a period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times. Now after the sixty-two weeks, &#xA;  an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing. As for the city and the sanctuary, the people of the coming prince will destroy them. But his end will come speedily like a flood. Until the end of the war that has been decreed there will be destruction. He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of that week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt. On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys, until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether anyone is able to decipher this timetable or not, but it is believed that this prophecy recorded by Daniel over five hundred years beforehand is for arrival of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking from men’s perspective, that particular point in history was a good time for Christ to come.  There were many things occurring at the time of the first century. At least by human reasoning, the time seem to be ideal for Christ to come then.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There was a great anticipation among the Jews of that time that the Messiah would come as the Roman rule over Israel had made the Jews hungry for the Messiah’s coming.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rome had unified much of the world under its government, giving a sense of unity to the various lands. The empire was relatively peaceful, travel was possible, allowing the early Christians to spread the gospel. Such freedom to travel would have been impossible in other eras.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While Rome had conquered militarily, Greece had conquered culturally. A “common” form of the Greek language was the trade language and was spoken throughout the empire, making it possible to communicate the gospel to many different people groups through one common language.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-03-06T14:55:27.230" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T14:55:27.230" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12336" CreationDate="2013-03-06T09:39:33.547" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Greek-speaking (or bilingual) monk Nilus of Calabria stated that &quot;the Christian monk is a Unicorn&quot; - he did NOT say &quot;like a U.&quot; -, an &quot;autonomous being, not dependent on Patriarchs or Emperors&quot;. This, in the 10th cent. AD (in Migne &quot;Patrologia Graeca&quot; 120; E. ANITCHKOF (Anitchkof's name has no standard spelling) &quot;Joachim de Flore et les milieux courtois&quot;, page 58-9. It should be noted that south Italian Christianity was by that time a syncretic religion with elements borrowed from tarantism, i.e. the &quot;spider cult and the therapeutic tarantella dance&quot; (see E. de Martino &quot;Terra del rimorso&quot;), which later came to influence even the baroque theory of music. Now, the south of France had its own share of tarantism and it seems that a version of this &quot;arachne&quot; complex was the monster &quot;Tarascurus of Tarasconus&quot;, the TARASQUE, which was tamed by saint Martha, according to legend. Only, the Tarasque monster was also described as a Unicorn.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4097" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T09:39:33.547" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14733" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14737" CreationDate="2013-03-06T09:44:32.527" Score="24" ViewCount="17667" Body="&lt;p&gt;The scenario is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Believer, average life, many mistakes/sins. Asks forgiveness and tries everyday to be better. &lt;strong&gt;Goes to heaven.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non-believer, better life than the believer, fewer mistakes than the believer, tries everyday to be better, succeds more than the believer, knows he has done some bad things in life, regrets them, but doesn't believe in anything because he never witnessed anything supernatural in life so he has no reasons to. &lt;strong&gt;Goes to hell.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This scenario was put to debate by a co-worker and I tried to explain how you cannot be saved by your own deeds, but didn't succed to actually give a good argument, so I'm asking for help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all the non-believers this scenario is &quot;not fair&quot; as why would a better person go to hell just for not believing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone give some biblical explanations / paragraphs to explain this. Or maybe the premises are wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T22:51:48.797" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T22:51:48.797" Title="What is the Biblical Basis for a Good person going to hell simply for not believing?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-03-06T10:36:12.993" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could give your coworker the following counterexample, which I sort-of got from listening to Tim Keller:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Person who grows up bouncing from one foster home to another, ends up&#xA;  being abused and takes to drugs/alcoholism and crime, but finally asks&#xA;  for forgiveness and comes to faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any other worldview where your good deeds are weighed against your bad deeds, this person would never have any hope.  Which is easier: to follow a straight and narrow path amidst life's storms (and rely on your deeds), or to simply bend the knee and invite God into your life? Seen from this perspective, Christianity is indeed more inclusive than other worldviews. Everyone, regardless of their state of sinfulness gets to go to heaven, simply by being humble. In a works-oriented worldview, only the &quot;morally privileged&quot; (i.e. those who grow up in good environments) can ever have that hope, and even then, when pressed, they will likely say &quot;it is contingent on God's grace&quot;. In Christianity, God's grace is already evident through the cross. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, I'd like to add that it is very hard for a non-Christian to come to faith through argument. I know this because I was once an atheist. Love and kindness is the best (and most Christian) answer to any objections. Ultimately, we have to let God be the judge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastEditorUserId="2164" LastEditDate="2013-03-07T04:11:09.030" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T04:11:09.030" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-03-06T12:34:03.707" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to give a slightly different understanding of this than you may have heard before, largely because I've faced up to the same thing and wondered the exact same thing.  The question comes down to this: &quot;Isn't believing in something simply the same as doing something? Isn't it a work in and of itself?&quot;  This question always bothered me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the viewpoint I tend to take: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not the fact that we believe or don't believe that saves us, it's the fact that we believe or don't believe that indicates that we are saved.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the difference?  In one, the belief causes salvation, and in the other, the salvation causes the belief.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of this is guided by Ephesians 2:8-9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your&#xA;  own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no&#xA;  one may boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the &quot;this&quot; that Paul is referring to?  I would argue that the &quot;this&quot; is referring to the faith more than it is referring to the &quot;saved&quot; or the &quot;grace&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our faith, in and of itself, is also a gift of God.  He's the one who enables us to hold the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are people who would say that this viewpoint is equally offensive, because it removes much of our personal autonomy in deciding our eternal fate.  When you take this viewpoint to it's ultimate end, it's offensive because it's GOD who decides who is and isn't his, not us, and this is a terrifying thing.  It puts us at the mercy of God, and not God at our mercy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is expected. Paul even addresses this in Romans 9:19-21:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can&#xA;  resist his will?”  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will&#xA;  what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” &#xA;  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump&#xA;  one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People will say this is offensive, and they'd have to reject the whole concept based on this.  Again, expected (1 Corinthians 1:18):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to&#xA;  us who are being saved it is the power of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Paul maintains that it is God who chooses, and not us: (Romans 9:15-16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I&#xA;  will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”  So then it depends&#xA;  not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus himself doesn't even pray for everyone in the world when he prays in the Garden of Gethsemene.  He prayed for those who are God's specifically, making a clear distinction between those who are, and those who are not, part of the Kingdom of God (John 17:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those&#xA;  whom you have given me, for they are yours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are just a few examples in scripture of where you can see this kind of thing.  Once you start seeing a few, however, it's hard to not find more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a personal note, I haven't always held to this viewpoint.  There was a time when I thought that if I believed, then God would save me.  I took the belief-first viewpoint, and ultimately, it began to frighten me.  I would question my salvation, and it would often come in the form of these questions:  &quot;Do I believe enough?&quot;, &quot;Is my faith strong enough?&quot;, &quot;Is my faith truly faith, or is it works?&quot;  I could never say that my faith was strong enough, because I found that faith wasn't simply something I could &quot;grow&quot;.  It was either there, or it wasn't there, and it seemed to grow on it's own regardless of my efforts to make it grow.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When somebody had shared the viewpoint that the faith comes from our salvation, and not the other way around.  It started to make sense, but ultimately it simply raised another question: &quot;Am I really chosen?&quot;  Doubts come in all flavors.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, I found that this question is different in that it puts the burden of assuring me of my salvation on God, and not on myself.  This makes sense, because I am not the agent of my salvation, God is.  So it would only make sense that he who saves is the same one who assures of the salvation.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically, this viewpoint is called Calvinism, but personally, I call it life-changing.  I did, however, have to come to the understanding that God is not a machinated, feelingless automaton, but rather a personal God who, out of his grace, has chosen to save me, and has given me assurance thereof.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully, this post will not only be good &quot;debate-fodder&quot;, but also be something to ponder personally.  I know many Christians that I love who would disagree with this viewpoint, and I believe that God still loves them, and I plan on seeing them in heaven with me, but I also see this viewpoint as being much, much easier to swallow, and much more consistent with the nature of salvation, than the &quot;faith causes salvation&quot; viewpoint.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Good Person&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, as an addendum:  I want to address the &quot;Good person&quot; fallacy.  According to Christianity, regardless of your viewpoint on Calvinism, the &quot;good person&quot; doesn't exist.  Paul himself says, in Romans 3:10: &quot;There is no one righteous, no not one.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, we're all on the same level before God: bankruptcy.  Therefore, we all need his salvation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we need to clarify.  In Luke 18:19 and Mark 10:18, Jesus says, &quot;Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except for one--God&quot;.  If we're talking about a good person, are we talking about God?  Because scripturally, that's the only one we could be talking about.  Our goodness is not the issue here, because &quot;all our righteous acts are like filthy (lit. menstrual) rags&quot;.  (Isaiah 64:6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To understand any of the Gospel at all, we have to start with the fact that we are primarily fallen and sinful, not primarily good.  For many people, this is ultimately what they find offensive, because we want so badly to be able to say that we're good people, but the Bible simply does not give us that luxury.  In fact, it does everything it can to remove that luxury as far away from us as possible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Steve Brown would say, the two points are this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cheer up...you're a lot worse than you think you are, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;cheer up...God's grace is a lot bigger than you think it is.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-03-06T12:41:28.657" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T12:41:28.657" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14725" CreationDate="2013-03-06T13:47:18.373" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dan fell into idolatry in Judges 17 and 18, and was thus removed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 18:30-31:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and&#xA;  Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests&#xA;  to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the&#xA;  land. So they set up Micah's carved image that he made, as long as the&#xA;  house of God was at Shiloh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Ephraim is missing as well.  Hosea 4:17 explains why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephraim is joined to idols; leave him alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.libertygospeltracts.com/question/prequest/danmiss.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; for more details. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T13:47:18.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-03-06T13:48:36.023" Score="17" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 3:23 (NIV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of&#xA;  God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one is righteous. &lt;strong&gt;Better is not enough&lt;/strong&gt;. God demands 100% holiness. No one can achieve that. Therefore, we need the Blood of Jesus Christ. Only in Jesus, can we have salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 5:12 (NIV) Therefore, just as sin&#xA;  entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this&#xA;  way death came to all people, because all sinned—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are all doomed to go to Hell whether we like it or not, whether we are better than others or not. Jesus died for us so that by believing in his death and resurrection, we may be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason Christians are given the command to preach the Gospel to the whole world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;19&lt;/em&gt; Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in&#xA;  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, &lt;em&gt;20&lt;/em&gt; and&#xA;  teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am&#xA;  with you always, to the very end of the age.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T13:48:36.023" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14725" CreationDate="2013-03-06T15:05:35.767" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jacob (Israel) had twelve sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin (Genesis 29:32 - 30:24 and Genesis 35:18).  However the twelves tribes turned into thirteen when Jacob gave Joseph a 'double portion'. This meant that each of his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, became a tribe, rather than just the one tribe of Joseph (Genesis 48:5).  However this thirteen became twelve again as the tribe of Levi received no land. The Levites were only given certain cities and was the tribe of the priesthood that received tithes of the other twelve tribes who tithed from their land. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Therefore the difference between the first and second column is that Joseph was split into Ephraim and Manasseh, while Levi was dedicated to the Lord. In Revelation Levi is very conspicuously brought back along side of the others. Obviously this is very symbolic, indicating the priesthood is over.&lt;/strong&gt; Now bringing Levi back is effectively going back to the time before Jacob gave Joseph the double portion, so technically Dan should still be on the list and  Ephraim and Manasseh should not, being that they are already represented in Joseph!  Truly this is odd and must have some symbolic meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we assume Dan is removed due to its idolatry, then Manasseh is added to fill Dan's place to keep the number twelve.  &lt;strong&gt;Possibly the return of Levi and exclusion of Dan and indicates that the Levitical priesthood was over and original election according to the flesh really did not matter anymore. These tribes are actually symbolic of the whole invisible church 'extended' through history. This means they are not a strict grouping at a given time in history, otherwise Joseph and one of his sons would not be on the same list.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T15:05:35.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14740" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14751" CreationDate="2013-03-06T16:04:40.363" Score="3" ViewCount="927" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am reading Leviticus these days, and I have a few questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To take one example, I don't understand 13:13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;then the priest shall look, and if the leprous disease has covered all his body, he shall pronounce him clean of the disease; it has all turned white, and he is clean. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isn't it possible that the disease is still there?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I know some people do eat a lot of bizarre foods and animals, but I still find its hard to think about people eating locusts, and God said it's clean.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, I want to know are these laws having good reasons and very sophisticated modern scientific explanations behind them? Or are there any other principles behind them that we would never fully know until we meet God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1960" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-03-07T10:32:15.723" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T23:45:54.940" Title="What's the principle in the eyes of God behind Leviticus leprosy and unclean law?" Tags="&lt;leviticus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14741" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14748" CreationDate="2013-03-06T17:35:11.083" Score="4" ViewCount="854" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a large number of places, the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy mention cleanliness, saying that certain persons or things are clean or unclean. I won't mention any particular passage because I would like a general explanation of the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to be clean or unclean in the context of the Old Law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(An answer might talk about modern practices similar to this &quot;clean/unclean&quot; distinction, or Christian tradition in general.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-18T21:25:36.553" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T21:25:36.553" Title="What does it mean to be clean in the context of the Old Law?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;leviticus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14740" CreationDate="2013-03-06T17:50:43.400" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The note on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/leviticus/13#03013012-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 13:13&lt;/a&gt; explains this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is not a paradox, namely where a limited lesion is impure but one that covers the whole body is pure. Rather, a white lesion that lacks ulcerated skin (“raw flesh”) is pure, even if it covers the whole body. This formulation reflects priestly interest in systematization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is from NABRE, which &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14271/in-what-way-does-the-author-of-hebrews-argue-that-every-transgression-or-disobed/14275#14275&quot;&gt;I've found&lt;/a&gt; explains many basic and common questions that might come up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for locusts, I don't see why they would be unclean in any sense of the word on account of some people feeling squeamish about eating them. There is no instruction to eat locusts. If you did not like them you did not have to eat them. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/3/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some people&lt;/a&gt; might have liked locusts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The laws were there for the Jews who lived at a certain period in history. If they seem strange or &quot;unscientific&quot; to you now, keep in mind that you are not a Jew living even before the time of Christ, before the medical science we have today. Still, the laws that seem at first strange or confusing will probably seem perfectly sensible for their time once you learn more about them. Feel free to ask more questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;See also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1065/wave-offering-what-exactly-was-the-point&quot;&gt;Wave offering; What exactly was the point?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5562/could-there-have-been-a-pragmatic-purpose-for-the-ot-legal-dietary-restrictions&quot;&gt;Could there have been a pragmatic purpose for the OT legal dietary restrictions?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6109/what-is-the-importance-of-leviticus-1919&quot;&gt;What is the importance of Leviticus 19:19?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T17:50:43.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4464" CreationDate="2013-03-06T20:10:53.733" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first gospel to be written was &lt;em&gt;Mark&lt;/em&gt;, which takes a cautious approach more applicable to an earlier period in Christianity. Jesus never refers to himself as the Son of God. Instead, he uses terms such as &quot;Son of man.&quot; Even the disciples never call Jesus the Son of God. However, outsiders such as demons, the high priest and the centurion do make this claim. On two occasions, God himself announces that Jesus is his beloved son, in whom he is well pleased. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Mark&amp;amp;chapter=10&amp;amp;verse=18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 10:18&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus clarifies his lack or divine status, saying (KJV): &quot;Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.&quot; In this gospel (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Mark&amp;amp;chapter=8&amp;amp;verse=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 8:29-30&lt;/a&gt;), Peter only says that Jesus is the Messiah, and Jesus warns the disciples to say nothing of even this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew's Gospel was written somewhat later than Mark and (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Matthew&amp;amp;chapter=16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:16-17&lt;/a&gt;) now Peter can say that Jesus is the Messiah, son of the living God, to which Jesus responds with &quot;...my Father which is in heaven.&quot; Here we are getting closer to a direct claim to divinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fourth gospel clearly teaches that Jesus is divine. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=John&amp;amp;chapter=18&amp;amp;verse=5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 18:5-6&lt;/a&gt; has Jesus state 'I am&quot;, and they fell back. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_eimi#Patristic_exegesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greek readers&lt;/a&gt; understood &quot;I am&quot; as a synonym for God (Some English Bibles translate this as &quot;I am he,&quot; but the word 'he' is not in the original Greek), which scholars say is why they fell back when Jesus said this.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4101" LastEditorUserId="4101" LastEditDate="2015-02-23T00:17:16.783" LastActivityDate="2015-02-23T00:17:16.783" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14744" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14747" CreationDate="2013-03-06T20:43:29.667" Score="24" ViewCount="9958" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verses read like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am familiar with how Catholics interpret this passage and often quote it as the reason the Papacy exists and is ordained by Jesus himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the verse is perplexing to me because it does seem to imply some sort or emphasis on Peter being special to the Church, but Protestants reject the Papal authority, so how would they interpret this passage? I am looking for the answer that speaks from most Protestants, since I think most Protestants agree that the Papacy does not have the authority it claims. Perhaps if Martin Luther or another famous reformer had anything to say on it would be good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-09T13:57:29.083" LastActivityDate="2016-10-17T11:46:20.083" Title="How do Protestants interpret Matthew 16:13–20?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;peter&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14744" CreationDate="2013-03-06T22:11:10.630" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One claim is that it's a translation issue. &quot;Peter&quot; means &quot;rock&quot;, so when Jesus says, &quot;you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church&quot; there's a bit of a play of words going on. Pretty much everyone agrees on at least that much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, depending on which manuscript set you trust and your interpretation, it's a different word for rock for Peter's name than it is for the later use, and the passage can read more, &quot;I tell you that you are Peter &amp;lt;small pebble&gt;, and on this rock &amp;lt;great boulder&gt; I will build my church.&quot; Those who take this interpretation will then go on to say that Jesus is referring to the confession of faith as the foundation of the Church, and the purpose of the passage is to intentionally minimize Peter's personal role. I can't find a reference, but if my recollection is correct, this was complicated further because the early Latin translation used by early Romans either supposedly used the same word in both places, or the difference was merely a gender distinction that would have been appropriate without the word play.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2013-03-12T15:18:49.683" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T15:18:49.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-03-06T23:44:03.883" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16) demonstrates that God is generous but not fair (by some definitions of fair).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to a better person being condemned simply for not believing, perhaps the following analogy might help:  Is it fair that a good swimmer drowns simply because he refuses to take hold of the offered lifesaver while a miserable swimmer does not drown simply because he takes hold of the lifesaver?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-03-06T23:44:03.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14744" CreationDate="2013-03-07T00:34:34.710" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is worth pointing out that even if you take the stance that the verse is saying that Peter had some kind of special status, there is nothing that indicates that that authority is continued in his line.  Every other place I can think of where a lineage related authority is granted, it is pretty clearly laid out by God in scripture.  (For example the establishment of the Levitical priests.)  In this passage, there is no such establishment of authority through lineage.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2016-09-23T20:50:06.367" LastActivityDate="2016-09-23T20:50:06.367" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14741" CreationDate="2013-03-07T00:38:00.120" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding of cleanliness vs uncleanliness had to do with ability to participate in Jewish religious ceremonies.  They were things which were not sinful, however when made unclean, would make one ineligible to participate in Holy ceremonies.  The level of purification needed also scaled with the closeness to God, with a very large amount of purification prior to a high priest entering the Holy of Hollies.  It is my understanding that this view does not differ greatly from traditional Jewish views of Levitical cleanliness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T00:38:00.120" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-03-07T00:57:14.410" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theologically, the reason is that both parties are equally deserving of the same penalty.  The repentance of the Christian does not make their sins less bad, but rather their acknowledgement of their fallen nature, need of a savior, and acceptance of that savior is the key to their salvation.  Their attempts to live better as a result of that belief have no baring on the base critical understanding of their fallen nature and need for a savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The situation you describe is a very common trap for both Christian's and particularly non-Christians to fall in to by comparing sins instead of realizing that personal effort is meaningless as it never measures up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, Romans 1:20 indicates that God is revealed to all through creation.  Some also argue that Acts 10:34 seems to indicate that those who have not heard specific revelation of Jesus, but realize the general revelation and follow it (and would have accepted Jesus by name if they were consciously aware of the specific name) would be saved.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet another school of thought is that death is not the end point, but rather judgement.  Generally the argument against this is that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, thus how would anyone not be saved, but since the Bible also declares that even the demon's believe such things, one theological argument is that after Jesus is specifically revealed, people will have a chance to accept Jesus as salvation or reject it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, it's a rather complicated topic which even Christian theology does not have a solid cohesive grasp on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T00:57:14.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-03-07T03:18:41.080" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know Christians find comfort  in believing they will go to heaven, and belief in hell may provide an incentive to follow their consciences. As an atheist and hopefully a good person, I have no expectation of going to hell. I can even cite a recent, non-biblical Christian source that claims that I could even go to heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cardinal Pell, one of the most senior figures in the Catholic Church, recently expressed the view that even atheists will go to heaven if they have led good lives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4101" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T03:18:41.080" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14740" CreationDate="2013-03-07T04:47:16.393" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To understand how to contextualize the meaning of various rules of eating food, or Priesthood medical inspections  under the Mosaic we need to understand the overall purpose.  In a nutshell the reason why these laws were added was to bring about an awareness of sin.&lt;/strong&gt; This was achieved partly through symbols (non sinful things represented symbolically as sin) and partly through listing actual sins directly in a codified legalistic compilation, i.e. the moral laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If there was actually any practical benefit of some obscure ritual or dietary restrictions is secondary to the principal purpose -- of making an awareness of sin.&lt;/strong&gt; In some cases there need not be any practical benefit at all. In the case of the seemingly medicinal inspections for mold in the camp and the quarantine of contagious diseases, there does seem to be a practical element wrapped within the symbolic purpose, but really it is the symbols of filth and disease of sin that counts.  Although a rule may have no practical meaning, Wthnrespect to the medicinal inspections a practical rule was surely warpped in the symbol.  In the case of leprosy where white formations covered the whole body but there were not any open sores it was a sign that it was not leprosy but another non contagious disease. Nobody declared clean was highly contagious that was part of the reason for the inspection. Also no symbolic rite was positively harmful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The third case is looked upon according to differing medical views, either as a different disease, the lepra vulgaris, which “scarcely affects the general health, and for the most part disappears of itself, though it often lasts for years” (Clark); or as a case of the true leprosy in which “the breaking out of the leprous matter in this complete and rapid way upon the surface of the whole body was the crisis of the disease; the diseased matter turned into a scurf, which died away and then fell off” (Keil). Patrick compares it to the eruptions in measles and small pox, when there is safety in their full development. The suspected person thus either had a harmless disease, or he had had the leprosy and was cured. In either case sentence of cleanness was to be pronounced. (Lange's Commentary on Leviticus)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main symbolism of arbitrary diet laws or obscure rites, whether having practical benefit or not, was in 'externally' symbolizing the need to 'separate oneself' from the world or separate the world from Israel.  As Abraham 'cut' himself off from the world, leaving his people by faith, so did his children cut away the flesh of their foreskin. In the same way many foods and practices among heathens, were cut away, like the foreskin, as a symbol. Also defiled things in the camp of Israel was to be cut away or quarantined from infecting the rest. This separation of things and restrictions even encompassed the removing of perfectly useful objects such as yeast during the passover feast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to this need to be 'separate', 'cut away from' and 'holy' in a somewhat 'figurative sense', a livid awareness of the external impurity of sin, ultimately the cause of all disease, mold, corruption and death was to be made.  The entire result was an &lt;strong&gt;increased awareness of sin&lt;/strong&gt;. Anyone burdened with constant rites of 'do not touch', 'do not eat' and of 'purifications' etc., often under the threat of capital punishment would become aware of sin for sure! In addition to the awareness of sin, the moral commands and their serious threatenings established a full sense of guilt, requiring atonement. This goes hand in hand with the levitical sacrificial rites.  &lt;strong&gt;All this sin, guilt, death and sacrifice was meant to increase awareness of sin and increase sin itself.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more (Romans 5:20, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By becoming more wicked and aware of it, an unbelieving Jew would find solace in the promise of a Messiah, become a believing Jew like Abraham, a born again Jew having faith in Messiah. In other words, the purpose of the law was to lead us to Christ as a harsh school master. This leading included every obscure rule that separated the Jew from the world and enabled their communal life under the theocracy in an awareness of sin, guilt and death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3:24-25, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Guardian in this verse is παιδαγωγοσ paidagogos; a servant whose office it was to take the children to school. In other words a tutor,  instructor, or schoolmaster. The idea is that while under the shadow of the mosaic law the people of God were not treated as real full sons with responsibility, knowledge and authority in the family, but as mere toddlers managed under a servant of the home. Schoolmasters are often considered harsh in that they do not have the natural affections of a parent and since their rod of disciple in this sense was to instill terror, guilt and the increase of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-07T23:45:54.940" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T23:45:54.940" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14752" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-07T05:11:25.980" Score="8" ViewCount="996" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen life at either extreme, first as a Hindu, with a sort of blind faith in general religiosity, and later as an atheist, with a blind faith in knowledge obtained through the senses alone. I have now been a Christian for 2 years, and I find that it resonates with my life experiences, and I am wiser and more balanced in living my life. Christianity seems to be the most rational of all worldviews I have experienced, if we define rationality not solely at an intellectual level, but at a level which takes into account the human experience. In fact, since we are embodied beings, and not merely thinking agents(or philosophers), I would suggest that the very definition of rationality of a worldview needs to take this &quot;experiential&quot; reality into account. To try and put things another way, Christianity seems rational at a holistic and integrative level -- one involving faith, reason, emotion, intellect and experience -- a level that transcends pure reason alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know if any Christian philosophers or apologists have made a case for Christianity from this sort of definition of what it means to be rational. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to add the excerpt below, taken from Wikipedia, as a guide to the notion of rationality that I refer to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In philosophy, rationality is the characteristic of any action,&#xA;  belief, or desire, that makes their choice optimal under a set of&#xA;  constraints.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastEditorUserId="2164" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T03:57:00.077" LastActivityDate="2017-03-16T15:01:10.120" Title="Any philosphers arguing that the Christian worldview is the most rational?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-03-07T05:52:11.070" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You need a way to show that &lt;strong&gt;things we do can have greater &quot;moral value&quot; by virtue of a belief&lt;/strong&gt; in God. The idea of &quot;by faith alone&quot; is probably not going to appeal to a non-believer, and it is very difficult to explain in even the best circumstances. I just don't think that that's the way to go in this scenario.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can say this, which even a non-believer should easily accept:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A believer has a conception of God&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/20/29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 20:29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;God is really, really Good. &lt;em&gt;Infinitely&lt;/em&gt; Good. Not good in a stuffy abstract way, but genuinely nice and caring. He's someone who would step in front of a bus for you. In fact, He  actually did something so good that we can never hope to repay Him. If you don't believe it, that's ok. Just understand that the believer believes this. By the way, not seeing any miracles is &lt;em&gt;not an excuse&lt;/em&gt; for atheism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So believers can do things &lt;em&gt;for God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/10/31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/14/12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:12-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;br&gt; By doing this they honor all that is good, and attempt to repay a debt that cannot be repaid. The believer is able to dedicate even tiny, insignificant actions to God. These actions really count, because of why they are done. It's like the difference between &quot;just visiting&quot; a sick relative, and visiting &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; that relative. The believer doesn't always do this, but sometimes. The non-believer doesn't have this option at all. You can't do something &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; someone you don't believe exists. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Our intentions matter&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/5/27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:27-28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;br&gt; Imagine you want to murder someone, so you shoot them. Doctors are amazed! The bullet cleanly blew out an inoperable brain tumor, and the victim recovers in three days. You get &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt; credit for doing something good. You did a terrible thing! You decided to kill a human being. Or imagine that you dive in front of a stranger who's about to be shot. Bang! But nothing happens. You've stumbled onto the set of a movie. But you did something &lt;em&gt;exceptional&lt;/em&gt;, even if you didn't actually die to save anyone.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you don't believe in God, it's much harder to do things for God, and God does seem to be interested not only in what we do, but in our reasons or intentions for doing what we do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's much harder for an atheist to sincerely proclaim &quot;I devote this action and myself to the source of all that is good, and I can't even take any credit for doing this because I'm in such insurmountable debt&quot; or &quot;by doing this I am attempting to help and obey an all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving being&quot; or &quot;I regret what I did because I have offended Justice and have contributed to the misery of the world&quot;. Intentions of this sort aren't impossible for an atheist, just a lot harder to come by. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the point here is that if God sees these secret intentions and chooses to reward the believer for having them, we shouldn't be very surprised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-10T06:09:59.577" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T06:09:59.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="596" CreationDate="2013-03-07T07:18:21.757" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer lies in the history of the gospels. All the New Testament gospels were originally anonymous until attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John later in the second century. The Church Fathers looked for clues that might help them decide who probably wrote each of the gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of the fourth gospel, the Church Fathers noticed that it never mentioned the apostle John, but that it did mention a 'disciple whom Jesus loved'. They decided that the beloved disciple must be John. They then decided that John must have been the author but that his modesty prevented him from using his own name in this account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament scholar, Elaine Pagels, was the first to realise why this disciple was described in this way. She noticed that the beloved disciple, in all but one case, was contrasted with the apostle Peter and always came out the more worthy apostle. Even the name 'disciple whom Jesus loved' suggests to us that Jesus saw him as more worthy than Peter (or any other disciple, but it is only Peter he is compared with). It seems that the author of John sought to tone down what he saw as excessive veneration of St Peter early in the second century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4101" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T07:18:21.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7472" CreationDate="2013-03-07T08:31:50.583" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best answer to your question can DIRECTLY be answered by Maximas the Confessor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;In short its who calls the council and who backs it up.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 1st Council you refered to was called by an Emperor and the decision only went the way the emperor wanted because he put a great deal of presure on the the Bishops (its been firmly established that when Bishops in a Council make a decision under direst the decision is not binding) of the East. Iconaclasm was always very unpopular among EVERYONE except the military and the Emperor. So yes the Council of Hieria was recognized as the 7th Ecumenical Council in the life of that Emperor due to his presure but as soon as the Bishops of the world could get away with it they revoked the Councils 7th Ecumenical statis, its not even recognized as a valid Council. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact the Bishop of Rome and the other Bishops of the west never recognized and refused to go along with the Council of Hieria.  And those ordinary folks you were talking about never recognized the Council of Hieria because frankly they recognized it to be heretical when they were told they would have to destroy Icons an already ancient Christian tradition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maximas says it best when he is being told to go along with a heretical document because its the will of the Emperor. He says to accept the Monophysite heresy because its the Emperors will is what counts you have to go back to to the false Councils called by the Emperors durring the Arian heresy and accept those councils accepting Arianism (at that point he was spit on, beat, had his hands cut off and tongue cut out so he could never speak against the Monophysites again).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as Councils go, yes Emperors have at times called councils but then (and this goes back to Constantine himself) the Bishops must endorse it and the Emperor may even attend but he stays out of it and abides by the decisions made not the other way around.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Regarding East and West&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not that the West decided their Canon of Scripture in the 16thc and the East never has, these things were established in the early Church. Its a matter of something being challenged that a Council then corrects.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: Martin Luther takes 5 books out of the Old Testiment so a Church Council in the West puts a restriction on not having these books in the Old Testement, &lt;em&gt;then it lists all the books of the old testament&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Analogy: imagine that murder is not written in the law as a crime but everyone knows its wrong and nobody challenges it.  Then in 1600 somebody starts killing people and says that murdering is ok. The lawmakers then get together and put it in law books.  It's not that murder was ok in 1599, everyone recognized it was wrong prior to 1600, but it wasn't challenged until then. A rather crude analogy but also a sort of good one. I mean maybe people hadn't really thought why murder was wrong so they come up with the language to explain why murder is wrong and this could be an analogy for the terms like consubstantial.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians before that word had an understanding of the Trinity -- God the Father;p God the Son; God the Holy Spirit -- three persons one God.  Then someone comes along and says something like &lt;em&gt;Christ is a God to us cause he created us but really he is the 1st created being by God the Father.&lt;/em&gt;  To explain the Orthodox position they come up with the word &lt;em&gt;consubstantial&lt;/em&gt; to explain the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. This is the two ways doctrines come out in Church Councils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4102" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-02-01T15:39:49.460" LastActivityDate="2017-02-01T15:39:49.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14752" CreationDate="2013-03-07T10:08:41.680" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are not the first person in history to make such observations. One person who articulated it well is the late Clive Staples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.&quot; -- C.S. Lewis&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another man, &lt;em&gt;circa&lt;/em&gt; the same erra and place, who argued emphatically that Christianity is the only view that makes sense of the world we live in is G.K. Chesterton. I emphatically disagree with the man on many points of theology, but he does hold an interesting place in literature -- commanding respect from people on both sides of theological divides for his articulation of ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While not his greatest treaties on philosophy, my favorite work of his is &lt;em&gt;The Ball and the Cross&lt;/em&gt;. Throughout the story, a wide variety of philosophical ideas are aired in the context of two men debating whether atheism or Christianity is a more rational position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is difficult to convey the context of the statements he makes without the whole story, but let me set the stage with this quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Well, we won't quarrel about a word,&quot; said the other, pleasantly. &quot;Why on earth not?&quot; said MacIan, with a sudden asperity. &quot;Why shouldn't we quarrel about a word? What is the good of words if they aren't important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn't any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn't there be a quarrel about a word? If you're not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only things worth fighting about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, these two parties agree to carry on an extended debate (played out dramatically with an ongoing duel) about the rationality of their respective views. In the dialogue that develops, Chesterton forwards many ideas about the nature of Christianity and it's relation to reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christianity is always out of fashion because it is always sane; and all fashions are mild insanities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This thought gets considerably more developement, although this quote will not do it justice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church always seems to be behind the times, when it is really beyond the times; it is waiting till the last fad shall have seen its last summer. It keeps the key of a permanent virtue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In parting, he poses many questions about sanity vs. madness in relation to Christianity vs. the humanism -- questions I think men would do well to continue wrestling with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the long run, which is most mad--the Church or the world? Which is madder, the Spanish priest who permitted tyranny, or the Prussian sophist who admired it? Which is madder, the Russian priest who discourages righteous rebellion, or the Russian novelist who forbids it? That is the final and blasting test. The world left to itself grows wilder than any creed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In another place:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That is the only real question-- whether the Church is really madder than the world. Let the rationalists run their own race, and let us see where they end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a round* about way, Chesterton argues that it is only rational to understand the world through the lens of the cross:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Turnbull, we cannot trust the ball to be always a ball; we cannot trust reason to be reasonable. In the end the great terrestrial globe will go quite lop-sided, and only the cross will stand upright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chesterton takes a much more conventional approach to reason in his book &lt;em&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here he also makes a few lucid observations about the nature of religious vs irreligious world views:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Neither modern science nor ancient religion believes in complete free thought. Theology rebukes certain thoughts by calling them blasphemous. Science rebukes certain thoughts by calling them morbid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chesterton highlights many of the ways in which reason runs aground when not grounded on Christian doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Only the Christian Church can offer any rational objection to a complete confidence in the rich. For she has maintained from the beginning that the danger was not in man's environment, but in man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I disagree with Chesterton's view of free will, still the call he places on us to not just see the world in light of the only thing that makes it all make sense but to &lt;em&gt;do something&lt;/em&gt; about that view is indeed part of orthodox Christian thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The vast and shallow philosophies, the huge syntheses of humbug, all talk about ages and evolution and ultimate developments. The true philosophy is concerned with the instant. Will a man take this road?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* Excuse the puns!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T10:08:41.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14759" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14767" CreationDate="2013-03-07T13:05:25.507" Score="12" ViewCount="9857" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:16 (NIV) 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and&#xA;  only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;eternal life&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament clearly tells us how one can attain salvation or eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about Old Testament? Was there any promise of eternal life associated with any of the Mosaic Law. For instance, was animal sacrifice promised with eternal life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we understand this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 19:16 (NIV)&#xA;  Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing&#xA;  must I do to get &lt;strong&gt;eternal life&lt;/strong&gt;?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the rich man was a Jew, he must have known how to attain eternal life from the Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2016-11-07T16:44:32.077" Title="Was eternal life promised by the Mosaic Law?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-11-10T15:10:16.690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14752" CreationDate="2013-03-07T14:26:37.220" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Caleb mentions some great names.   C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterston are good theologian philosophers who, I think, argue a strong rational support of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Van_Til&quot;&gt;Cornelius Van Til&lt;/a&gt; is another good one, who, I believe, argues that apart from God, there is no rational basis for rationality.    This kind of gets to Andrew Leach's comment;   I don't disagree with what he said --  that rationalists would probably reject any definition of rationality that allows for faith -- but I think that's a bit of an intellectually-lazy self-evaluation on their part, because in order for rationality to be worth-while, then the universe must behave in a manner that is observable in a rational manner, and we, the observers, must be capable of proper rational thought processes.   Accepting that these two components are in place, especially if one rejects that there's a transcendent authority overseeing such a design, requires a good bit of faith by its own right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frame_%28philosopher%29&quot;&gt;John Frame&lt;/a&gt; was a student of Van Til's and also offers some interesting philosophical analysis on Rationalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that it's quite what you're looking for, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias&quot;&gt;Ravi Zacharias&lt;/a&gt; is also an  interesting apologist, who argues that Chrisitanity uniquely offers a philosophically &lt;em&gt;coherent&lt;/em&gt; worldview.   Maybe it's a bit of a stretch to count coherency as the same as rationality, and I haven't read a whole lot of his work, but he might have some interesting insights on the nature of rationality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along the same lines as Zacharias, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_J._Keller&quot;&gt;Tim Keller&lt;/a&gt; is another modern pastor and apologist who is known for making a &lt;a href=&quot;http://timothykeller.com/books/the_reason_for_god/&quot;&gt;rational argument for Christianity&lt;/a&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T14:26:37.220" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14761" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-07T15:27:01.740" Score="9" ViewCount="8318" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/13.htm&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:55&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and&#xA;  aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his&#xA;  sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://niv.scripturetext.com/mark/6.htm&quot;&gt;Mark 6:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,a&#xA;  Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are at least two references to Jesus's sisters in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, and although his brothers are referenced by name, and we know quite a bit about James, his sisters are not named at all. Is there any surviving information about who they were? Is there any other texts or traditions about them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T13:42:38.823" LastActivityDate="2018-04-22T14:51:09.323" Title="Do we have any more information on Jesus's Sisters?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14762" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14779" CreationDate="2013-03-07T15:27:26.173" Score="14" ViewCount="54751" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are numerous instances in the gospels of Jesus healing someone, and then Jesus in some form or another instructing them to keep silent about it. One example, in Matthew 9:27-31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Yes, Lord,” they replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be done to you”; 30 and their sight was restored. Jesus warned them sternly, “&lt;strong&gt;See that no one knows about this.&lt;/strong&gt;” 31 But they went out and spread the news about him all over that region. (&lt;em&gt;emphasis mine&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus not want them to proclaim their healing? It doesn't make sense to me, as anyone who was healed of a lifelong malady would &lt;em&gt;naturally want to tell all their friends &amp;amp; family&lt;/em&gt;. Was this just him making a point about how silly it would be not to share what God has done for us (e.g. the gospel) with others? Or is it something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-08-19T14:27:41.603" Title="Why did Jesus not want people to talk about his healing?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;missions&gt;&lt;messianic-secret&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-08-22T10:11:25.643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14763" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-07T15:51:32.770" Score="8" ViewCount="18980" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always heard, over in over, in Church and elsewhere that Jesus's ministry on Earth was only three years. However, it doesn't seem that there is much supporting Biblical evidence for this, or at least direct evidence. Nowhere does it say an exact period of time the events in the gospel where taking place over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there evidence in the New Testament that we can reconstruct how long Jesus ministered for? If not then where does the three year figure come from? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-07-31T19:52:39.070" LastActivityDate="2021-01-29T16:03:57.003" Title="How long was Jesus's ministry?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14763" CreationDate="2013-03-07T16:27:08.850" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that there is some disagreement over how old Jesus was, and how long His earthly ministry lasted, but as your question states, most scholars believe He started at about 30 years old, and it lasted 3-3&lt;sup&gt;1/2&lt;/sup&gt; years based on tying events mentioned with other established historical dates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucg.org/jesus-christ/bible-and-archaeology-jesus-christs-early-ministry/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ucg.org/jesus-christ/bible-and-archaeology-jesus-christs-early-ministry/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Archaeologists generally date the start of Christ's ministry to the&#xA;  year A.D. 27. &quot;The beginning of Jesus' public ministry,&quot; writes&#xA;  archaeology professor John McRay, &quot;is dated by synchronisms&#xA;  [chronological arrangements of events and people] in the Gospel of&#xA;  Luke (3:1-2). A date of A.D. 27 seems likely . . . The dates mentioned&#xA;  by Luke are rather well established . . .&quot; ( Archaeology and the New&#xA;  Testament, 1997, p. 160).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I wouldn't be dogmatic on the age or number of years. Scripture isn't explicit, and there is room for error here, leading to several other interpretations, so it might be best to answer &quot;we don't know, but this is why we think...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T16:27:08.850" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14744" CreationDate="2013-03-07T18:43:45.077" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is debate on the actual meaning of verse 18, particularly what &quot;his rock&quot; is.  Is it Peter?  Or is it the Truth that Peter told in verse 16?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Protestants believe that it is referring to the thing Peter said - that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God.  Jesus will build His Church based on who He is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And upon this rock ... - This passage has given rise to many different&#xA;  interpretations. Some have supposed that the word &quot;rock&quot; refers to&#xA;  Peter's confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this&#xA;  truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon&#xA;  confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church.&#xA;  Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such&#xA;  confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the&#xA;  fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to&#xA;  himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it&#xA;  has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, &quot;Upon&#xA;  this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the&#xA;  Messiah, I will build my church.&quot; Both these interpretations, though&#xA;  plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty&#xA;  in it. Another interpretation is, that the word &quot;rock&quot; refers to Peter&#xA;  himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Upon this very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα - this true confession of&#xA;  thine - that I am The Messiah, that am come to reveal and communicate&#xA;  The Living God, that the dead, lost world may be saved - upon this&#xA;  very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Psalm 118:22,&#xA;  The Stone which the builders rejected is become the Head-Stone of the&#xA;  Corner: and to Isaiah 28:16, Behold I lay a Stone in Zion for a&#xA;  Foundation) - will I build my Church, μου την εκκλησιαν, my assembly,&#xA;  or congregation, i.e. of persons who are made partakers of this&#xA;  precious faith. That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words must be&#xA;  evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of&#xA;  the builders in this sacred edifice, Ephesians 2:20 who himself tells&#xA;  us, (with the rest of the believers), was built on this living&#xA;  foundation stone: 1 Peter 2:4, 1 Peter 2:5, therefore Jesus Christ did&#xA;  not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes&#xA;  immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, επι ταυτη&#xA;  τη πετρα, to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of&#xA;  the apostles. So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the&#xA;  Church of Rome, must be sought in some other scripture, for they&#xA;  certainly are not to be found in this. On the meaning of the word&#xA;  Church, see at the conclusion of this chapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Baptist, this view that the Church has been built upon Christ, not Peter, is the common teaching that I'm familiar with.  But that's not necessarily true in all Protestant denominations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the answer seems to be &quot;it depends on who you ask&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T18:43:45.077" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14759" CreationDate="2013-03-07T19:19:50.893" Score="11" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Was there any promise of eternal life associated with any of the&#xA;  Mosaic Law. For instance, was animal sacrifice promised with eternal&#xA;  life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt;  Eternal life is foretold in the Old Testament, but never as a promise associated to obedience to Mosaic Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following verses refer to life after death, hinting at the eternal nature of life.   &lt;em&gt;This explains the how the man in Matthew 19:16 knew about eternal life.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All are NIV. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 71:20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Though you have made me see troubles, many and bitter, you will&#xA;  restore my life again; from the depths of the earth you will again&#xA;  bring me up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 26:19&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the&#xA;  dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the&#xA;  morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 37:12-14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign&#xA;  Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up&#xA;  from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you,&#xA;  my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and&#xA;  bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will&#xA;  live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that&#xA;  I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And one that clearly teaches everlasting life as part and parcel with resurrection:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Daniel 12:2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to&#xA;  everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these are prophetic or poetic works, not books of the Law.  I'm not aware of any teachings on eternal life in the Pentateuch - this first five books, which are commonly referred to as the &quot;books of the Law&quot;.  Technically, those are &quot;The Law of Moses&quot; or &quot;Mosaic Law&quot;, so it would seem that the answer to your question is &quot;no&quot; if you wish to be that precise, but there are Old Testament teachings/revelations/writings on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From a traditional &lt;em&gt;Sola Fide&lt;/em&gt; perspective, you wouldn't expect it to, though.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the Mosaic laws talked about consequences or punishment for sin, along with a few promises of reward for obedience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Scripture clearly teaches that eternal life is not earned through obedience to the Law.   It is a gift from God, not of works.  (Ephesians 2:9.) We are not justified by works of the law (Galatians 2:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If the Mosaic Law promised eternal life based on obedience to the Law, the entire message of Christianity would be invalidated.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-07T19:53:01.343" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T19:53:01.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14744" CreationDate="2013-03-07T19:35:06.050" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestants typically interpret this verse to be referring to Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, when he speaks of the rock upon which the church will be built.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Greek Grammar&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;One reason for this is that Peter as a proper name for Simon is masculine in form -- petros (Strong's G4074).  When Jesus says &quot;on this rock&quot;, the word for &quot;rock&quot; is feminine -- petra (Strong's G4073).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distinction according to Strong's is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;G4073 — Strong&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;πέτρα&lt;/strong&gt; - petra - pet'-ra&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Feminine of the same as G4074; &lt;strong&gt;a (mass of) rock&lt;/strong&gt; (literally or&#xA;  figuratively): - rock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;G4074 — Strong&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Πέτρος&lt;/strong&gt; - Petros - pet'-ros&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apparently a primary word; &lt;strong&gt;a (piece of) rock&lt;/strong&gt; (larger than G3037); as a&#xA;  name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there does seem to be a difference used in the words for rock:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;You are **Peter**, **a piece of rock**, and upon this **mass of rock** I will build my church.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Peter's Own Reference to Christ as the Rock&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Peter 2, Peter himself refers to Christ as the Rock:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And coming to &lt;strong&gt;Him&lt;/strong&gt; as to a &lt;strong&gt;living stone&lt;/strong&gt; which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Behold, I lay in Zion &lt;strong&gt;a choice stone&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;a precious corner stone&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  And &lt;strong&gt;he who believes in Him will not be disappointed&lt;/strong&gt;.”  [Isaiah 28:16]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“&lt;strong&gt;The stone&lt;/strong&gt; which the builders rejected, This became the very &lt;strong&gt;corner stone&lt;/strong&gt;,” [Psalm 118:22]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 and,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“A &lt;strong&gt;stone of stumbling&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;a rock of offense&lt;/strong&gt;”; [Isaiah 8:14] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.  1 Peter 2:4-8 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, here Peter refers to Isaiah and the Psalms that point to a particular Rock or Stone, which is Jesus--not Peter.  It is Jesus who is the Chief Cornerstone for the foundation of the church.  It is Jesus on whom we must believe.  It was Jesus who was rejected.  And it was Jesus who was a stone of stumbling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Daniel's Rock&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in Nebuchadnezzar's dream recorded in Daniel chapter 2, there is a &quot;a stone was cut out without hands&quot; which struck the statue, which represented the four world empires and then itself became a kingdom that filled the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You continued looking until &lt;strong&gt;a stone was cut out without hands&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;it struck the statue&lt;/strong&gt; on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But &lt;strong&gt;the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth&lt;/strong&gt;...  Daniel 2:34-35 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up &lt;strong&gt;a kingdom which will never be destroyed&lt;/strong&gt;, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; &lt;strong&gt;it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever&lt;/strong&gt;. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that &lt;strong&gt;a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands&lt;/strong&gt; and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”  Daniel 2:44-45 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, Jesus is the Stone/Rock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Rock of Moses&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses also struck a rock on two different occasions to provide water for the people in the desert.  This rock is symbolic of Jesus as well.  Moses was commanded to strike the rock the first time, but to merely speak to it the second time.  This symbolized Christ being struck once for all, but never again.  (Exodus 17 and Numbers 20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Many other references&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament has quite a few other references to the Rock, which appears to be a title for the Messiah.  Here are just a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The God of Israel said, &lt;strong&gt;The Rock of Israel&lt;/strong&gt; spoke to me, ‘He who rules over men righteously, Who rules in the fear of God, 2 Samuel 23:3 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord is &lt;strong&gt;my rock&lt;/strong&gt; and my fortress and my deliverer, My God, &lt;strong&gt;my rock&lt;/strong&gt;, in whom I take refuge; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.  Psalm 18:2 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken.  Psalm 62:2 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peter is distinguished as a separate kind of rock than Christ in Matthew 16.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peter himself refers to Christ as the Rock/Chief Cornerstone in fulfillment of writing in Isaiah and the Psalms.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Daniel refers to a rock that is fulfilled by Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The rock that Moses struck symbolizes Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many other places in the Old Testament refer to God as the Rock.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all these reasons, the Matthew 16 passage is understood, to exalt Jesus, then, as the Rock/Chief Cornerstone, rather than Peter as the head of the church (pope).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T15:24:21.300" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T15:24:21.300" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14769" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14773" CreationDate="2013-03-07T19:57:51.390" Score="13" ViewCount="16531" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard it taught in several places that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and its intended audience was the Jews (which would help explain why it seems a bit more vague on key Christian concepts). But recently I have been told that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of this text. I assume at least that the person who told me this meant that there are no Hebrew manuscripts that outdate the Greek ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in what language was Matthew written?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2018-01-16T10:44:43.660" LastActivityDate="2018-01-16T10:44:43.660" Title="In what language was the Book of Matthew written?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;manuscript&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14770" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-07T20:15:16.610" Score="7" ViewCount="56134" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14769/in-what-language-was-the-book-of-matthew-written&quot;&gt;See my other question first&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard it taught in several places that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and its intended audience was the Jew (which does help explain why it seems a bit more vague on key Christian concepts). But recently I have been told that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of this text. I assume at least that he meant there are no Hebrew manuscripts that out date the Greek ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this makes me wonder that if there are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew why would one argue this point? Essentially the question is then, who is the intended audience?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately it's everybody, right, but I mean were a specific people in mind when it was written?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2018-04-03T01:56:11.423" Title="Who was the intended audience for the Book of Matthew?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;manuscript&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14763" CreationDate="2013-03-07T20:45:53.367" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scholars who have attempted a synchronized harmony of the Gospels seem to indicate the Jesus went up to Jerusalem on three different occasions. From this, the tradition has grown up that his ministry was three years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond this interpolation, however, there is nothing to suggest how long his earthly ministry actually lasted. As such, it is probably best to say his ministry lasted &lt;em&gt;at least&lt;/em&gt; three years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again, after reading Mark keep saying &quot;and he went immediately&quot;, you have gotten the impression it was just a few days :). But, overall, it does seem that the various times Jesus shows up in Jerusalem lend weight to at least 3 years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T20:45:53.367" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14769" CreationDate="2013-03-07T21:20:13.280" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;New Testament scholars have no doubt that &lt;em&gt;Matthew&lt;/em&gt; was written in Greek. Certainly, it was attributed to the apostle Matthew in the second century, but before this the book was anonymous. By laying the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in parallel and reading them synoptically ('with the same eye') in Greek, scholars have established that &lt;em&gt;Matthew&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Luke&lt;/em&gt; were substantially copied from &lt;em&gt;Mark&lt;/em&gt;, with &lt;em&gt;Matthew&lt;/em&gt; using some 90 per cent of the verses in &lt;em&gt;Mark&lt;/em&gt;. Much of the text even uses the same words in the Greek language, which would only be possible if the copying were done in the Greek language. Further sayings material not found in &lt;em&gt;Mark&lt;/em&gt; but common to &lt;em&gt;Matthew&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Luke&lt;/em&gt; is attributed to the hypothetical 'Q' document, and once again, this could only come from Q in the Greek language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4101" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T21:20:13.280" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14770" CreationDate="2013-03-07T21:42:05.003" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because Matthew's Gospel, more than any other, relies on quotations and apparent prophecies from the Old Testament, some believe that the author was a Jew who wrote his gospel for other Jews. However, the Gospel was written in Greek and the Old Testament references were clearly taken from the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. For this reason alone, he must have been writing for a Greek-speaking audience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the author of Matthew cited the Septuagint, he accepted it as an accurate translation of the Hebrew Bible and was unaware of a number of errors in the Septuagint. Any Jew familiar with the Bible in its original Hebrew, would have quickly realised that Matthew was very much in error regarding the Hebrew Bible and could not have taken this gospel seriously. If the author of Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience, it would have been a Greek-speaking Jewish community that relied on the Septuagint and had little or no knowledge of Hebrew.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could also be argued that it was written for illiterate Palestinian Jews who, following the destruction of the Temple, had no one they trusted to compare Matthew's Old Testament references with the Hebrew scriptures and would not listen to the teachings of the rabbis. A problem with this last argument is that the gospel was not written in Aramaic or Hebrew and would have been incomprehensible to most Palestinian Jews.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bishop Spong says that the author knew little about Jewish religious laws and customs. He points out that in Matthew's nativity account, the presentation and purification stories are hopelessly muddled. If the author was writing for Jews, they would have become quickly aware of these problems. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem more likely that &lt;em&gt;Matthew&lt;/em&gt; was written for gentiles, and very likely for those gentiles known as 'God-fearers'. God-fearers were pagans who also worshipped the Jewish God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4101" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T21:42:05.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14770" CreationDate="2013-03-07T22:54:54.393" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One option is that it was written for the Jews of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Diaspora&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Diaspora&lt;/a&gt;. These are still Jewish people, but few of them spoke or used Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2013-03-07T22:54:54.393" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14776" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14778" CreationDate="2013-03-08T03:52:25.090" Score="4" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most protestant churches (and possibly Roman Catholic churches?) have their main public meetings on Sundays. Why Sunday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I'm not asking why do Christians celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday, but why do they meet for their main church services on Sunday. Maybe it is the same reason, but I think it's a different question&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T17:52:07.930" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T17:52:07.930" Title="Why do most churches meet on Sunday?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-03-08T06:18:47.293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12100" CreationDate="2013-03-08T04:13:55.457" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The natural world is no more real than a dream, for it is not physical substance that makes reality, but your consciousness which turns it into experience.  And therefore to say evil is nothing (not a substance) is of no consequence at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue is &quot;why does God allow suffering to occur?&quot; That is the question we are really asking when we ask &quot;why did God create evil?&quot;, for what is evil if it never causes suffering?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to this question God only tells Job to &quot;trust Me&quot;, He gives no other answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T04:13:55.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14776" CreationDate="2013-03-08T04:37:08.403" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians meet on Sunday in remembrance of Jesus's resurrection, which was on the first day of the week.  Historical evidence shows that this has been Christian practice since early times, perhaps even since the very beginning of Christianity.  The 2nd century apologist Justin Martyr certainly believed so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But why is it, you ask, that we gather on the Lord's Day to celebrate&#xA;  our solemnities?  Because that was the way the Apostles also did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- &lt;em&gt;De Fuga in Persecutione&lt;/em&gt;, XIV: 11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T04:37:08.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14762" CreationDate="2013-03-08T06:42:33.557" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;When reading the gospels there seems to be two or three main problems Jesus always encountered in terms of ministry and politics. The most deadly was the jealousy and hatred of the religious leaders. Jesus often had to move away from any opportunity where they might be overly aroused and have easy access in apprehending him (Luke 20:20) Jesus seemed to manage the timing of his arrest. The second was crowd control (Matth 8:18).  As more and more flocked to Jesus the crowds became too large to effectively minister to them so he had to move away to less crowded areas and even leave to a new region to avoid crowds. The third problem is less obvious but quite clear in Jewish history, that of the zealots who wanted a Messiah to lead them in war against roman rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All three of these concerns might be involved in Jesus wanting to limit his fame depending on the situation , where the religious leaders and their 'spies' were, how big the crowd was and how the zealots might have used his fame for their own agenda. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there is no way of hiding a miraculous healing to those who knew the man. To those who would know he was healed he would have to explain what happened. He was not asked to 'hide' his healing, just refrain from telling people who would not already know. Jesus seems to simply want to avoid sensationalism and some political hazards. He did not want the man to broadcast his exciting experience, until perhaps much later on. Jesus managed the political landscape on which he was drawing more and more attention from crowds of people with differing motives of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T23:52:39.847" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T23:52:39.847" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14782" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T07:47:43.263" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T07:47:43.263" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T07:47:43.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14783" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-08T07:47:43.263" Score="0" Body="The descendants of Judah, the fourth son of Jacob(Israel)." OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T08:48:53.280" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T08:48:53.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14784" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14785" CreationDate="2013-03-08T08:43:34.083" Score="5" ViewCount="3717" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible tells us that there will be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2021:27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;no sin in Heaven&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;. Also, most christians agree that there will be &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1158/can-there-be-free-will-in-heaven&quot;&gt;free will in Heaven&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we will be in a sinless state with free will. However, Adam and Eve were both in this state but eventually sinned. Couldn't this happen again in Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My only idea is that since the Devil will be chained for eternity, there will be nothing to tempt us into sinning, like it happened in the garden of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to get some perspectives on the matter, the better if based on Biblical verses. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T15:21:15.187" Title="Will we theoretically be able to sin in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-04T11:38:59.740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14784" CreationDate="2013-03-08T09:14:28.630" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. Here's the dime tour version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't know exactly what it will be like, but we do know, as you pointed out, that there will be no sin in heaven but that we won't be robotic beings. The difference is that we will have a different nature. Something about having fallen and then being restored to glory is going to be different than the state Adam was in having never known evil and yet excersising his free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exactly what defenses will make this possible we know not, but we know that one way or another the work of Christ to sanctify his people will be brought to completion and that they will never more fall away from him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your speculation is based on an incorrect understanding of the nature of man and sin in the first place:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My only idea is that since the Devil will be chained for eternity, there will be nothing to tempt us [...].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity's understanding of sin is not based on outside forces tempting us, but on an imperfect nature that cannot help but sin. Adam could not have helped but eventually sinning, snake or no snake. Free will is not so free as many people believe: we are bound to act according to our nature. We are not &quot;free&quot; to act according to a nature that we don't have. We aren't &quot;free&quot; to teleport just because we would will it. We are not &quot;free&quot; to not sin because it is part of our nature to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference in heaven is that our natures will be regenerated into something completely different than they are now and we will be free -- but only to act according to our regenerated natures. Which won't be dragging sin into the presence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T09:14:28.630" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14788" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14789" CreationDate="2013-03-08T12:03:32.913" Score="8" ViewCount="57022" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 13:9 (NIV) Then Saul, who was also called Paul, .....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse does not explain much how Saul became Paul. Who changed his name? Why was it changed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2015-04-17T02:15:54.180" Title="How was Saul changed to Paul?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14788" CreationDate="2013-03-08T12:15:16.567" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, we don't know that his name was changed at all. He may have had both names to start with as per the custom of his day as both a Jew by blood and a Roman citizen. After his conversion and change of direction he seems to have decided his other name was a better moniker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many mistakenly assume the Lord changed Saul's name to Paul sometime after Saul converted from Judaism to Christianity, which happened during his encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19). Unlike the instance of Jesus changing Simon's name to Kepha (Gk. Petros) as a way of signifying the special role he would play in the Church (Mt 16:18, Jn 1:41-42), in Paul's case there was no name change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Saul of Tarsus was born a Jew, &quot;circumcised on the eight day, of the race of Israel, or the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee&quot; (Phil 3:5). The Hebrew name given him by his parents was Saul, but, because his father was a Roman citizen (and therefore Saul inherited Roman citizenship), Saul also had the Latin name Paul (Acts 16:37, 22:25-28), the custom of dual names being common in those days. Since he grew up in a strict Pharisee environment, the name Saul was by far the more appropriate name to go by. But after his conversion Saul determined to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, so he dusted off his Roman name and became known as Paul, a name Gentiles were accustomed to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul&quot;&gt;catholic.com&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The suggestion that the confusion is born out of having had multiple names from birth is born out by other sources such as Protestant writer F.F. Bruce, although his conclusion is that both names would have continued in use and it is only the preference of the NT writers in which we see a change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He was born into an orthodox Jewish family, and as his father was a Roman citizen, he inherited this distinction, a rare one among eastern Jews. In Jewish circles he bore the name of Saul, but in the Gentile world he was commonly known by his Roman cognomen Paullus, Anglicized as Paul [...]  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Saul’s father was a Roman citizen… [so] Saul was born a Roman citizen… As a Roman citizen, he had a Roman name, consisting of three parts: praenomen, nomen gentile and cognomen.2 What his praenomen (first or personal name) and nomen gentile (family name) were we can only guess; his cognomen, however, was Paullus, by which (in its English form Paul) we usually call him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In family circles, however, he was known by his Jewish name Saul.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2. The threefold Roman name may be illustrated from the full names of such famous Romans as Gaius Julius caesar, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Lucius Cornelius Scipio.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(source: F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, we do not have a Scriptural source for the why and how of the name change. The most direct hint we have is the one you mention in Acts that simply notes he was &quot;also known as&quot;. This is combined with the references to him by both names and and our own deductions from the correlation in how he was generally referred to before and after his life changing encounter with the Christ he had been persecuting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T12:22:35.667" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T12:22:35.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14784" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:31:24.067" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the Bible declares there will be no sin evermore but keeps the exact mechanism from our view. I wholly agree with Caleb, that the cause is not prevention of temptation but our new nature will be immune to temptation while still having free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the scripture does not explain the answer I think it does assume that this 'immunity to sin' is due to our life being derived from Christ.  &lt;strong&gt;The first Adam communed with God but God was not eternally united with him via the incarnation.  Therefore Adam's free will included the option of breaking the communion.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The second Adam has free will but not a freedom to sin because God was 'locked' as it were into his own person via the incarnation.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore those reborn have their life sprung from a human source that can't break communion with God. As our life is in Christ, we can't unlock our person from communion with God. In this world we have both natures as not our while life from Adam has died and resurrected yet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A tree can't 'will' to be a fish and someone in Christ can't will himself to be someone else. We are 'locked in' without loosing our free will. Free will is not an infinite power that can break the bonds of the incarnation, or the origin and container of our own person.  It is easier for a human to 'chose' to be a turtle than for a man or woman in heaven to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T17:23:10.790" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T17:23:10.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14791" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:37:53.687" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Polygamy&lt;/a&gt; is a marriage of more than two partners.  Polygamous marriages often describe one man married to multiple wives (polygyny); they can also describe one woman married to multiple men (polyandry). The tag also includes marriages among multiple men and multiple women (&quot;group marriages&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related tags: &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/marriage&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;marriage&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;marriage&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/sexuality&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged &amp;#39;sexuality&amp;#39;&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;sexuality&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21576" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-01T15:41:41.650" LastActivityDate="2015-09-01T15:41:41.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14792" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:37:53.687" Score="0" Body="Marriages of more than two partners: one man to multiple women (polygyny), one woman to multiple men (polyandry), as well as marriages of multiple men and women (group marriage)" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-01T15:41:51.633" LastActivityDate="2015-09-01T15:41:51.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14793" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:41:10.797" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T13:41:10.797" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T13:41:10.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14794" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:41:10.797" Score="0" Body="John the Baptist was a teacher and prophet considered to be a forerunner of Jesus Christ whom he later baptized." OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-07T11:38:02.057" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T11:38:02.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14795" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:46:29.820" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T13:46:29.820" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T13:46:29.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14796" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:46:29.820" Score="0" Body="The Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-05T13:31:27.537" LastActivityDate="2020-06-05T13:31:27.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14797" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:54:26.050" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T13:54:26.050" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T13:54:26.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14798" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:54:26.050" Score="0" Body="The language of the Israelites " OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T14:02:10.647" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T14:02:10.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14799" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:59:32.893" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T13:59:32.893" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T13:59:32.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14800" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-08T13:59:32.893" Score="0" Body="Offensive act or language directed towards God or the worshipers. Insulting God. " OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T14:02:24.940" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T14:02:24.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14801" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-08T14:04:08.520" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T14:04:08.520" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T14:04:08.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14802" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-08T14:04:08.520" Score="0" Body="A part of a deceased person's body or belongings who was regarded as holy(saint), kept as an object of reverence" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T15:03:23.553" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T15:03:23.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14784" CreationDate="2013-03-08T14:37:06.127" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Very simply, yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spirit creatures have free will just like humans and as such can and do sin. Like Adam and Eve, spirit creatures started out perfect, without sin, so when they use thier free will and deliberately give into their wrong desires and break the laws of the one who gave them life, they sin (James 1:15), and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). That is where Satan and his demons come from. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus could have sinned also, that is why is is the Bible says the Devil tested him (Luke 4:13), if he couldn't have sinned would it really have been a test? Regarding humans who receive the heavenly calling, they will be granted imortality, (1 Corinthians 15:54) in this way they will never die. That is why the gift of immortality is such a vote of confidence on God's part because he is saying that he trusts these ones, including Jesus, totally, and he is absolutely sure that they will never choose a life apart from him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4112" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T14:37:06.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14804" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14806" CreationDate="2013-03-08T14:43:40.553" Score="10" ViewCount="50256" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard that there are some early books which tell of Jesus performing some miracles when he was a child. What are those books? And what are the miracles described in those books? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are descriptions of Jesus performing miracles as a child, before he began His ministry, acceptable according to the canonical Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-16T07:33:11.913" LastActivityDate="2014-10-16T07:33:11.913" Title="Did Jesus perform miracles as a child?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14784" CreationDate="2013-03-08T15:37:07.440" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Romans 8:29-30 gives us a bit of a hint of the mechanism of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to&#xA;  the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among&#xA;  many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and&#xA;  those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he&#xA;  also glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is some theological disagreement on specifics of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ordo Solutis&lt;/a&gt;, but I think it is generally agreed that Christians who have been justified will be glorified as well -- and, thus fully conformed to the image of Jesus.   At the end of that process, our glorified selves will then be without sin.   In this sense, we will be unable to sin in the same way that Christ is unable to sin.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's some philosophical elements that add murkiness to definitions here:  there was no external constraint placed on Jesus that &lt;em&gt;prevented&lt;/em&gt; him from sinning (so, in that sense, he was theoretically &lt;em&gt;able&lt;/em&gt; to sin), but rather his perfect nature would not allow for it (so, in that sense, he was not functionally &lt;em&gt;able&lt;/em&gt; to sin).   Caleb's answer deals with this.   An analogy might be something like a lion eating a salad:   Sure he's &lt;em&gt;free&lt;/em&gt; to do so, but his nature would never entertain such a thought, so to do so would require a drastic change of his nature or a violation of his will.  With our glorified nature (conformed to that of Jesus), we will have no desire to sin, and so any sin that would be theoretically possible would be so only if our natures were changed or our wills violated.  In heaven, there's no reason to believe either of these things would occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastEditorUserId="701" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T17:20:42.447" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T17:20:42.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14804" CreationDate="2013-03-08T16:18:47.797" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was a manuscript that began circulating in the 2nd century written by someone who called himself &quot;Thomas the Israelite,&quot; claiming that Jesus was able to do miracles as a child. The manuscript was later given the title, &quot;Infancy Gospel of Thomas&quot;, and you can see a full English translation &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancythomas-a-roberts.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first story in this manuscript tells of Jesus' creation of sparrows from clay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This child Jesus, when five years old, was playing in the ford of a mountain stream; and He collected the flowing waters into pools, and made them clear immediately, and by a word alone He made them obey Him. And having made some soft clay, He fashioned out of it twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when He did these things. And there were also many other children playing with Him. And a certain Jew, seeing what Jesus was doing, playing on the Sabbath, went off immediately, and said to his father Joseph: Behold, thy son is at the stream, and has taken clay, and made of it twelve birds, and has profaned the Sabbath. And Joseph, coming to the place and seeing, cried out to Him, saying: Wherefore doest thou on the Sabbath what it is not lawful to do? And Jesus clapped His hands, and cried out to the sparrows, and said to them: Off you go! And the sparrows flew, and went off crying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quran would later make a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/005-qmt.php#005.110&quot;&gt;reference to this story&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then will Allah say: &quot;O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In another story in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a teacher named Zacchaeus attempts to teach Jesus the Greek alphabet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And a certain teacher, Zacchaeus by name, was standing in a certain place, and heard Jesus thus speaking to his father; and he wondered exceedingly, that, being a child, he should speak in such a way. And a few days thereafter he came to Joseph, and said to him: Thou hast a sensible child, and he has some mind. Give him to me, then, that he may learn letters; and I shall teach him along with the letters all knowledge, both how to address all the elders, and to honour them as forefathers and fathers, and how to love those of his own age. And He said to him all the letters from the Alpha even to the Omega, clearly and with great exactness. And He looked upon the teacher Zacchaeus, and said to him: Thou who art ignorant of the nature of the Alpha, how canst thou teach others the Beta? Thou hypocrite! first, if thou knowest. teach the A, and then we shall believe thee about the B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most early Christians denied the authenticity of this work. For example, second century apologist Irenaeus of Lyons referred to the story about the alphabet in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxi.html&quot;&gt;declaring the work spurious&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Besides the above [misrepresentations], they adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth. Among other things, they bring forward that false and wicked story which relates that our Lord, when He was a boy learning His letters, on the teacher saying to Him, as is usual, “Pronounce Alpha,” replied [as He was bid], “Alpha.” But when, again, the teacher bade Him say, “Beta,” the Lord replied, “Do thou first tell me what Alpha is, and then I will tell thee what Beta is.” This they expound as meaning that He alone knew the Unknown, which He revealed under its type Alpha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Infancy Gospel of Thomas concludes with the story of Jesus in the temple at age 12, taken from the Gospel of Luke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question, yes there was an early book claiming Jesus did miracles at a young age, but (A) it was written more than 100 years after he lived, and (B) it was not considered authentic even at the time. It is not likely that this book contains any authentic stories about Jesus that are not found in the canonical gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T16:18:47.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14804" CreationDate="2013-03-08T16:24:14.937" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible itself seems to indicate that Jesus performed no miracles until His ministry began.  Non-biblical sources may disagree, but they are non-biblical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 2 records to miracle at the wedding in Cana, where Jesus turns water into wine.  John completes the account with the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This, &lt;strong&gt;the first&lt;/strong&gt; of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.  John 2:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, John records this as the first miracle.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T16:24:14.937" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14759" CreationDate="2013-03-08T17:19:03.050" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is correct that the written Hebrew Scriptures, aka the &quot;Old Testament&quot;, says nothing specific about the afterlife.  For that reason, the Sadduccees held that there was no life after death and no punishment for sins after death. Mark 12:18. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees, in contrast, believed in an afterlife and believed that the concept had been retained in the &quot;Oral Law.&quot;  According to the rabbis, what we know of G-d's Law (i.e. the Torah) that was given at Mount Sinai is contained in the &quot;Written Torah&quot; (the Five Books of Moses -- Genesis through Deuteronomy) and in the &quot;Oral Torah&quot; which were detailed explanations about the commandments and theology sometimes alluded to in the Written Torah but not stated explicitly.  The Written Torah itself hints at this at several places, most obviously at Deut. 12:21, where G-d says &quot;Then you may slaughter of your herd and flock...as I have commanded you.&quot; Nowhere in the written Torah is there any commandment regarding how to slaughter. From this verse we know that the method was taught by G-d to Moses and he, in turn, orally taught those details to Joshua and the Elders, who in turn passed it on to their successors, and so on.  The Sadducces rejected the existence of the Oral Torah.  Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6.  Jesus, it would appear, accepted the Pharisee's understanding of the Oral Torah for he said that the Pharisees &quot;sit in the seat of Moses; therefore all they tell you, do and observe.&quot; Matt. 22:2-3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees wrote down the Oral Law in the years after the Second Temple was destroyed because the Romans had done much to try to murder the rabbis and thereby destroy knowledge of the Oral Law.  Iggeres of Rav Shireria Gaaon (ca 982 Babylon).  In their writings, they frequently make mention of the World to Come in terms of both life after death and in terms of the resurrection during the Messianic Era.  With reference to the former, the Mishna Avos 4:16-17 quotes Rabbi Yaakov saying: &quot;This world is comparable to the antechamber before the World to Come. Prepare yourself in the antechamber, so that you may enter the banquet hall,&quot; and&quot;A single moment of repentance and good deeds in this world is greater than all of the World to Come. And a single moment of bliss in the World to Come is greater than all of the present world.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees also compared the holiness and tranquility of Heaven with that of a properly-observed Sabbath:  &quot;Whoever toiled on the eve of the Sabbath (i.e. Friday) will eat on the Sabbath itself, but whoever did not toil on the eve of the Sabbath, from where will he eat on the Sabbath?&quot; Talmud Bavli, Avodah Zarah 3a (i.e. our efforts in this world are like the efforts we make to prepare each week for the Sabbath).  But, as this quotation suggests, the Rabbis would agree that observance of the Torah laws is a prerequisite for getting into Heaven and our efforts in this World is to increase and improve our observance of G-d's commandments so that we will be prepared for the world to come.  See, e.g. Luzatto, Moshe Chaim, The Complete Mesillat Yesharim (Ofeq Institute 2007) p. 305 (originally published in 1740). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3926" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T17:19:03.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14809" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-08T17:25:23.847" Score="1" ViewCount="302" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that some people believe that Jesus actually had the capacity to sin, that is, to give in to the temptations that He suffered.  This seems to suggest that God has the power to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a sense, then, the redemption of mankind hung in the balance, so to speak, during the temptations of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the theological arguments in support of this position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-24T14:57:33.323" LastActivityDate="2017-05-24T14:57:33.323" Title="What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID have the ability to give in to temptation?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14810" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-08T17:27:27.700" Score="0" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;While some people believe that Jesus could have given in to the temptations He suffered and sinned, others do not.  They believe that Jesus could suffer temptation, but did not have the capacity to give in to them and actually commit sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the redemption of mankind was never really in doubt, because Jesus was never going to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the theological arguments in support of this position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-24T14:58:47.077" LastActivityDate="2017-05-27T03:29:42.043" Title="What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID NOT have the ability to sin or give in to temptation?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14804" CreationDate="2013-03-08T18:20:55.357" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no record of Jesus performing miracles when he was a child that is accepted according to the Bible. There are also these biblical reasons to believe that he did not perform any such miracles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible records no such miracles, and the most remarkable event that the Bible &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; record is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_in_the_Temple&quot;&gt;Finding in the Temple&lt;/a&gt;. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/2/46&quot;&gt;Luke 2:46-47&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions,&#xA;  47 and all who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This story invites admiration by merely presenting Jesus &quot;in the role of the faithful Jewish boy, raised in the traditions of Israel, and fulfilling all that the law requires.&quot; It does not present him as a youthful miracle-worker.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is said to be the first of His signs. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/2/&quot;&gt;John 2:11&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to establish this sign as the first public sign.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The focus of the Bible seems to be on establishing Jesus as a normal person of good reputation in the time before his ministry. If any stories of Jesus as a youthful miracle-worker were known, surely they would have been known by those in his hometown of Nazareth. But instead, they react with surprise in &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/mark/6&quot;&gt;Mark 6:1-6&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the answer is, &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;, such childhood miracles do not seem to be in accord with the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The work that you are thinking of is the Gospel of St Thomas, a work that is rejected and typically seen as a primarily pagan/Gnostic composition. It presents the Child Jesus as a typical &quot;child-god&quot;, performing miracles such as bringing toy birds made of clay to life (as mentioned, this story seems to have made it into the Quran), being disobedient towards his teachers and parents, developing a bad reputation for both himself and his father, and generally behaving uncharitably towards others. Consider this story, in which the fig-tree of later years is replaced by a young child, who seemingly did a wrong on par with kicking over a sandcastle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, even now you shall be dried up like a tree, and you shall not bring forth either leaves, or root, or fruit. And straightway that boy was quite dried up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the boy died. Again, these stories are non-canonical and rejected as heretical. The surviving versions seem to have had the most offensive elements removed. The CE section on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm&quot;&gt;Gospel of St. Thomas&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it, differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155-235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen &lt;strong&gt;relegates it to the heretical writings&lt;/strong&gt;. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius &lt;strong&gt;rejects it as heretical and spurious&lt;/strong&gt;. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it &lt;strong&gt;was palpably Gnostic in tenor&lt;/strong&gt;. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. &lt;strong&gt;The prototype was evidently expurgated&lt;/strong&gt; by a Catholic hand, who, however, &lt;strong&gt;did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint&lt;/strong&gt;. The apocryphon in all its present forms &lt;strong&gt;extravagantly magnifies&lt;/strong&gt; the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, &lt;strong&gt;the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him&lt;/strong&gt;. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our Lord between the ages of five and twelve. But there is &lt;strong&gt;much that is fantastic and offensive&lt;/strong&gt; in the pictures of the exploits of the boy Jesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-08T18:25:56.830" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T18:25:56.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14809" CreationDate="2013-03-08T21:06:05.073" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The debate uses the terms peccable/impeccable. On the one side, people who argue for the peccability of Christ hold that Jesus wasn't really tempted or fully human unless he could have failed. On the other side, those who argue for the impeccability of Christ argue that Jesus being God could not sin. Then there are a few heretics (technical term) in between these positions and argue that Jesus could sin in his humanity but not in his divinity. The technical term for this heresy is Nestorianism (note that there is some debate whether the Nestorians actually taught the heresy named after them). By far, the majority position favors the impeccability of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4087" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-11T12:15:36.753" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T12:15:36.753" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="693" CreationDate="2013-03-08T23:39:12.770" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I originally used this answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9863/what-is-the-scriptural-basis-for-the-idea-that-salvation-can-still-be-obtained-a&quot;&gt;What is the scriptural basis for the idea that salvation can still be obtained after death?&lt;/a&gt; but I deleted it because it was answering a different question. This question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of scriptures that &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; reference purgatory, but nothing that outright says &quot;when you die, you will go to a sort of holding place where you have to wait until all your sins have been repaid&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was a large part of the Jewish tradition (and there may still be) that held with praying for people after they died. Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 all reference times when that happened. And this probably played into the later beliefs by Catholic and Orthodox Christians in purgatory. I would point out, however, that as Jesus died to pay for our sins, all our debts have been paid and we have been washed clean so that we don't have to pay for them anymore. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below you will find links to two different sites I looked at that had Biblical &quot;references&quot; and some of my own analysis based on the context of the verses and my own experience with the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prayforsouls.org/library/articles/article.php?NID=372&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Site 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest Biblical support the article quotes is from 2 Maccabees, a book that most Protestants would not be familiar with as it is part of the Biblical apocrypha (referenced since the 5th century, but first separated from the rest of the Bible by Martin Luther in 1534). Most of the books called Apocryphal are recognized as canonical by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Which is why those sects and not Protestant sects would hold to a doctrine supported by this verse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   - 2 Maccabees 12:46&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other verse referenced by the article is 1 Corinthians 15:29 which says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At best, this verse is a vague reference to baptizing dead people, where baptizing could be read as praying for the removal of sins. At worst, it's completely confusing and should not be used as the basis for a doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html#tradition-I&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Site 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Anything in bold is a paraphrased quote from the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 - Are all in different parables and reference being punished for sin and getting out when you have repaid your debt. This could be a reference to purgatory, where you must remain until the debts of your sins have been paid. However, since Jesus died to pay for our sins, this is a case where the more clearly defined and supported doctrine would supersede a possible interpretation of a parable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 12:32 - The argument here is that since it says they won't be forgiven in this world or the next, that means that it is possible to be forgiven &quot;in the next&quot;. Some interpretations of the Bible say &quot;this age or the next&quot;, &quot;in this world or that which is to come&quot;, or &quot;in this life or in the life to come&quot; which seem to indicate when Jesus returns again rather than a world after death that is separate from Heaven or Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 16:19-31 - The rich man, from Hell, begs Lazarus to warn his brothers so that they don't end up there too. The Greek word used is &lt;em&gt;hades&lt;/em&gt; which the Jewish people interpreted as a place of waiting for final judgement but is interpreted by Protestants to mean Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb. 12:23 - &lt;strong&gt;The spirits of just men are made perfect. And this happens after their death, so that must mean it happens somewhere other than Heaven or Hell.&lt;/strong&gt; OR it could happen before they get to Heaven so that when they are in Heaven they are perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev. 21:4 - &lt;strong&gt;God shall wipe away their tears and there will be no more suffering. There's no suffering in Heaven and no wiping away of tears in Hell, therefore purgatory.&lt;/strong&gt; OR for those who are still on Earth at the end times God will wipe away their tears.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phil. 2:10 - &lt;strong&gt;Under the Earth means purgatory&lt;/strong&gt; OR it could mean Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more, but those are the ones that stood out to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="38" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-03-08T23:39:12.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14816" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-08T23:47:40.663" Score="24" ViewCount="1963" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was told by my Russian Orthodox friends on several occasions that according to their beliefs only members of the Orthodox Church are Christians. (For example, they pointed out that my statement that most people in the United States were Christians was incorrect because most people in the United States were Protestants and not Christians.) They claimed that according to the Russian Orthodox Doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;A Christian is a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Nicene Creed).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consequently, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church cannot say that a&#xA;  Catholic or a Protestant is a Christian (it would be a sin to do so; as it would be a sin to say that a pagan deity is God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it true that members of non-Orthodox churches are not Christians according to the Russian Orthodox Doctrine? Is it a sin to call them Christians according to Russian Orthodox doctrine?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4113" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-04T19:46:51.413" LastActivityDate="2015-11-04T21:07:40.380" Title="Who is a Christian according to the Russian Orthodox Church" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14810" CreationDate="2013-03-09T00:43:38.607" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The argument is that Jesus was fully God, and thereby His nature not only was in line with God's it &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; God's.  Since &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/questions/about-god/can-god-do-everything-including-sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God cannot sin&lt;/a&gt; and Jesus is God, Jesus could not sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newlife3.org/sermons/godhuman.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;He is fully God and fully Human&lt;/a&gt; enabled Him to experience our human weaknesses, while His holy, perfect, sinless nature enabled Him to experience them without succumbing to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A complete theological statement would be &quot;because Jesus was fully Human, He had the capacity to sin, but because of His perfect nature, also being fully God and therefore perfectly good, He could not sin.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both are true, but people have a hard time wrapping their head around that, choose half the truth, and fall into error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T16:54:33.323" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T16:54:33.323" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14809" CreationDate="2013-03-09T00:47:21.177" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The argument comes both from the fact that Jesus was fully human, and from the &lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 4:15&lt;/strong&gt;, which says (in the King James)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the&#xA;  feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we&#xA;  are, yet without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This outlines the fact that even though &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newlife3.org/sermons/godhuman.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jesus is fully God, He was also fully human&lt;/a&gt;.  He felt all our infirmities and weaknesses, and yet, as God overcame them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A complete theological statement would be &quot;because Jesus was fully Human, He had the capacity to sin, but because of His perfect nature, also being fully God and therefore perfectly good, He could not sin.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both are true, but people have a hard time wrapping their head around that, choose half the truth, and fall into error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T16:54:54.570" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T16:54:54.570" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7493" CreationDate="2013-03-09T01:45:56.643" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't say anyone but God knows that , but we all shall. However, I'm inclined to say I suspect it is Dismas,the good thief.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostles represented every walk of Jewish life, and it was their complete  repentance, deserting all to follow Jesus, that makes their very existance a judgement on all who did not repent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, Dismas was a thief who repented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But maybe, then again, we're mistranslating &quot;judge&quot;. Weren't the judges of the Old Testament biblical heroes through whom God wrought great deliverance?  In that sense, the twelvth judge would have to be Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4115" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T01:45:56.643" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14809" CreationDate="2013-03-09T02:00:28.793" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We believe in One God, three persons. For God the son to be one, that is unified, He cannot sin. He has to be perfectly loving and perfectly just, both of which are inconsistant with sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I prove the opposite here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he did give in to sin and testing in the only way that was perfectly loving and just: in perfect obedience to God the Father, he allowed sin to work its destruction upon His own body, so as to have a righteousness (that of perfect obedience even unto an unjust death], that was not essential to his nature, one which He could and would share, one with which to clothe His children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4115" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T02:00:28.793" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14822" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-09T09:32:59.110" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T09:32:59.110" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T09:32:59.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14823" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-09T09:32:59.110" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T09:32:59.110" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T09:32:59.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14824" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-09T09:41:53.760" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T09:41:53.760" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T09:41:53.760" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14825" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-09T09:41:53.760" Score="0" Body="Pagan gods. Gods worshiped in polytheism." OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T09:54:34.073" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T09:54:34.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14826" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-09T11:01:38.107" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T11:01:38.107" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T11:01:38.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14827" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-09T11:01:38.107" Score="0" Body="Writings considered as sacred by a particular religion or group.  For questions on how an idea is supported from scripture use the &quot;biblical-basis&quot; tag." OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-11T01:54:46.013" LastActivityDate="2015-10-11T01:54:46.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14828" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-09T11:12:48.980" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T11:12:48.980" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T11:12:48.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14829" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-09T11:12:48.980" Score="0" Body="First Roman emperor to convert to Christianity." OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-09T12:39:08.163" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T12:39:08.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14831" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14835" CreationDate="2013-03-09T14:34:17.620" Score="4" ViewCount="334" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a short time a new conclave for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21717883&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the election of the new Catholic&lt;/a&gt; pope is taking place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if we will have a new pope in a short time. I don't konw much about the previous popes in history and I don't know if there have been some long long conclave (months? weeks?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is: is there a time limit for the conclave? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can we expect that before Easter we will have a new pope?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1257" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T07:09:04.703" Title="How long can a conclave last?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14833" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14834" CreationDate="2013-03-09T19:51:37.380" Score="6" ViewCount="2122" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't found it on the internet. Are there any symbols for purgatory, or related to purgatory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4118" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-06-06T12:12:07.360" LastActivityDate="2021-02-17T19:41:29.420" Title="According to the Catholic Church, does purgatory have a symbol?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14833" CreationDate="2013-03-09T21:31:59.470" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there is no definite symbol for purgatory. There is nothing that when you look at it, you will think &quot;that means purgatory&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;fish&quot; IXOYE is one of the many symbols of Jesus, as is the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Rho&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chi Rho&lt;/a&gt;&quot; symbol: ☧, ⳩&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cross is a symbol of Christianity: ✝&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is nothing of the sort for purgatory. But there is also no definite Christian symbol for hell, or for heaven. Sometimes, cleansing &quot;Holy Fire&quot; is used in art in conjunction with purgatory, but this is not exactly a symbol in the relevant sense. Keep in mind also that, to take one prominent example, it is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church that purgatory is a place: it might only be a process of cleansing. For that reason, a symbol might be even harder to come by.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T21:31:59.470" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14831" CreationDate="2013-03-09T21:56:22.357" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no time limit laid down. So far, every conclave in the last hundred years has lasted less than a week, but a pope can only be elected with a two-thirds majority of the College of Cardinals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The procedure for a conclave was set out in Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Constitution &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Universi Dominici Gregis,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; promulgated on 22 February 1996, amended by the Motu Proprio &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20130222_normas-nonnullas_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Normas nonnullas&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of Benedict XVI, issued 22 February 2013.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. 62 [amended by &lt;em&gt;Normas nonnullas&lt;/em&gt;]. &amp;quot;Since the forms of election known as &lt;em&gt;per acclamationem seu inspirationem&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;per compromissum&lt;/em&gt; are abolished, the form of electing the Roman Pontiff shall henceforth be &lt;em&gt;per scrutinium&lt;/em&gt; alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I therefore decree that for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff at least two thirds of the votes are required, calculated on the basis of the total number of electors present and voting.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are norms in &lt;em&gt;Universi Dominici Gregis&lt;/em&gt; to help with an impasse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. 74. In the event that the Cardinal electors find it difficult to agree on the person to be elected, after balloting has been carried out for three days in the form described above (in Nos. 62ff) without result, voting is to be suspended for a maximum of one day in order to allow a pause for prayer, informal discussion among the voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Deacons. Voting is then resumed in the usual manner, and after seven ballots, if the election has not taken place, there is another pause for prayer, discussion and an exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Priests. Another series of seven ballots is then held and, if there has still been no election, this is followed by a further pause for prayer, discussion and an exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Bishops. Voting is then resumed in the usual manner and, unless the election occurs, it is to continue for seven ballots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. 75 [as amended by &lt;em&gt;Normas nonnullas&lt;/em&gt;] If the balloting mentioned in Nos. 72, 73 and 74 ... does not result in an election, one day shall be dedicated to prayer, reflection and dialogue; in the successive balloting, observing the order established in No. 74, only the two names which received the greatest number of votes in the previous scrutiny, will have passive voice. There can be no waiving of the requirement that, in these ballots too, for a valid election to take place there must be a clear majority of at least two thirds of the votes of the Cardinals present and voting. In these ballots the two names having passive voice do not have active voice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two ballots per day, so the provisions of Norm 75 come into play after fifteen days. The cardinals are given the opportunity to bring deliberations to a swift conclusion by choosing between only the two highest-polling candidates in the last ballot, after which time the process starts again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T07:09:04.703" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14836" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-09T23:02:09.760" Score="4" ViewCount="13468" Body="&lt;p&gt;To clarify,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;this question is not asking for a &quot;justification&quot; of those times, described in the Bible, when God struck someone dead. Life is His to take. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the question is also not asking strictly whether Jesus had the capacity to sin. The answer should not hinge on whether Jesus was God (He was, assume this), or whether Jesus was one or two persons (He was one divine Person, assume this). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is asking if God can sin, with attention to, for example, how that might be reconciled with his omnipotence and benevolence. I expect that there are some theological constructs already in place to deal with this question or others like it. If there is some well-established theological difference between &quot;can sin&quot; and &quot;has the power to sin&quot; or &quot;has the capacity to sin&quot;, then this should be clarified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can God (three Persons, one Being) sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2014-10-31T21:03:35.350" Title="Does God have the capacity to sin? Can God sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-04-23T19:20:09.240" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14836" CreationDate="2013-03-09T23:26:19.147" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;God cannot sin, not because He lacks the free will to do so, but because it would be inconsistent with His character and His nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html&quot;&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word &quot;omnipotent&quot; is never used in the Bible, but has been&#xA;  inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, &quot;Shadday,&quot; which is&#xA;  most often translated &quot;almighty.&quot;1 However, the Bible never claims&#xA;  that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that&#xA;  there are things that God cannot do. The &lt;strong&gt;Bible says that God cannot&#xA;  commit sin&lt;/strong&gt;.2 God cannot lie.3 Therefore, biblical omnipotence does&#xA;  not mean that God can do all things. &lt;strong&gt;God cannot do anything that is&#xA;  contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He&#xA;  determines to do&lt;/strong&gt;. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the&#xA;  ability to do anything that one sets out to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Technically, God could sin if His nature were not perfect - if He chose to, but because His nature is Holy, Perfect, Flawless, to sin would be contrary to His nature.  He would never &quot;set out&quot; to do it,even if it is conceivably within HIs power to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A pastor (I can't remember which) once put it like this:  &quot;If I were to say I can't eat rotten garbage, that doesn't mean that it would be physically impossible for me to do so.  I have the physical capability to pick it up, put it in my mouth, chew, and swallow.  However, I say I cannot do it because it is so repulsive to me.  In this same way, it is possible for God to be omnipotent, yet be unable to sin.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-09T23:26:19.147" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14836" CreationDate="2013-03-10T00:59:41.340" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;God can't sin because he is immutable. Some questions do not need long answers.  It would be more debatable to ask 'Can men become muti-headed rabbits?' The simple answer is, 'Of course not.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one were to imagine a god that could sin in some sense, then it would not longer be the God recognized by the scriptures.  Therefore it would only be true when changing the meaning of the word God, to 'idol'.  There may be some unholy and unbelieving people willing to do this, but it would be an incorrect answer by the definition of the words being used in the question.  I am assuming by 'God', in the question it is meant 'God'. I am also assuming that by 'sin' in the question, it is meant something God hates and punishes, as it is against his holy nature and perfect will.  Unless either 'sin' or 'God' be corrupted into a new meaning, there can be only one obvious answer which all understand as self-evident. No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-10T14:19:40.780" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T14:19:40.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14839" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-10T01:25:16.523" Score="2" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not seem to have any method to prevent a false apostle to become an apostle, as Judas has shown. (Not to imply that he could not have used one if it was the Father's will). Also, in Christianity under any denomination, there are 'weeds' that grow up with the 'wheat.'  Leaders of all kinds of different groups have on occasion turned out to be wicked unbelievers. (Matth 13:24-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there some special test or method to try and filter out the candidates for the Pope to ensure he is not a Judas? Some secret means unknown to the human nature of Christ, or at least unused by Jesus in calling Judas? If he does turn out to be a wicked unbeliever, is their a way to fire him from the office and choose another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-10T06:08:06.937" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T10:21:13.243" Title="Is there any method to prevent an unbelieving pope from being elected?" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14840" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-10T02:48:24.720" Score="2" ViewCount="83" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was thinking about Christ's suffering for sinners and am wondering, 'Since everything he did as a man on earth was a form of suffering for the eternal son, did everything he do perfectly match what was required for salvation?' Did his grasp for food and his sleep as a child, required for our salvation? Was everything perfectly matched with what was required, or were some things neutral, or not required?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T03:56:38.240" Title="Did everything Christ did perfectly match what was required for salvation?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8765" CreationDate="2013-03-10T03:47:48.647" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find Jesus' parable on the mustard seed the most helpful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He told them another parable: &quot;The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard&#xA;  seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the&#xA;  smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of&#xA;  garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come&#xA;  and perch in its branches.&quot; (Matthew 13:31-32)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I get out of it is this: With one's faith, as with the mustard seed, it takes something from both sides (you and God) for it to grow. There is no clear line of demarcation between your effort and that of God's. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, I find this principle of &quot;no clear demarcation&quot; to be a useful one in understanding the Bible. For example, it also seems to resolve the contradiction between God's will and your own petitionary prayer. In reality, the two need not be mutually exclusive (just like the electron having properties of a particle and a wave, in physics). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T03:47:48.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14840" CreationDate="2013-03-10T03:51:25.397" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation required the sacrifice of a perfect and immaculate victim. This means that it was required of Christ to do everything in accordance with God's will. There is of course no question that He could and did carry out this obligation. He was perfectly obedient. If He was not, He could not serve as an appropriate sacrifice. But then, if He was not perfectly obedient, He wouldn't be Jesus, either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this include all of his intentional actions? Yes. This is because all actions can be done &lt;em&gt;for God&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14753/3941&quot;&gt;related&lt;/a&gt;). Here is one reference, dealing with the use of material things: &quot;There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God&quot; (from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c4a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt; section 1670). And here is another, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/10/31&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can be sure that Jesus did do everything, &lt;strong&gt;absolutely&lt;/strong&gt; everything, for the glory of God; and doing so &lt;strong&gt;was required&lt;/strong&gt; for salvation, because salvation required the sacrifice of a perfect and immaculate victim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T03:56:38.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14752" CreationDate="2013-03-10T09:04:21.457" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;William Lane Craig is one of the best known Apologetics heavyweights today.  He had a debate not long ago with a Duke University Professor of Philosophy, Alex Rosenburg.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/bhfkhq-CM84&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenburg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worth checking out but skip to 10:50 if you want to see the opening of the debate question posed to the two men, &quot;Is Faith in God reasonable?&quot;, or skip to 17:15 to hear William Lane Craig's opening statements ... Good stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4019" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T09:04:21.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14839" CreationDate="2013-03-10T10:12:17.727" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a bit like asking if the NFL has a procedure in place to prevent someone who secretly can't play football from playing as a quarterback. The answer is yes, but it's impossible to explain in full detail how this works. Here's a rough idea, though:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the very least, the would-be pope would undergo the scrutiny of: his fellow priests, his own bishop, various parishioners, various fellow scholars, various bishops, those in the Holy See who check up on candidate bishops, priests over which he would gain authority, fellow bishops including cardinals, and the present pope. He would also spend a fair bit of his life being busy in the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, at some unpredictable point in time, he would need to be considered not only &quot;good enough&quot;, but &lt;em&gt;the best&lt;/em&gt; candidate by 2/3 of the cardinals during a papal conclave. This is an event that, due to modern media coverage, can be followed by up to over a billion praying Catholics. And also non-Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit surely plays no small role in all aspects of this process, a process which has been developed over a period of about 2000 years. Many of the stages are specifically aimed at attempting to ensure that the devil does not succeed in having a non-believer elected as pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This process was, of course, not used by Christ when he intentionally chose Judas as one of the twelve, knowing that Judas would betray him. (Judas should not to be confused with St Peter, the first pope.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for &quot;firing&quot; the pope, this is a separate question, but the short answer is: no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T10:12:17.727" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14846" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14847" CreationDate="2013-03-10T10:13:46.683" Score="5" ViewCount="4245" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard that some things (like getting an abortion or attacking the pope) have the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication. What is that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2014-01-02T18:03:55.817" Title="What is latae sententiae?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;canon-law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14846" CreationDate="2013-03-10T10:13:46.683" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Latae sententiae excommunication means that the person becomes automatically excommunicated as soon as the offence is committed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Excommunication, especially &lt;em&gt;a jure&lt;/em&gt;, is either &lt;em&gt;latæ&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;ferendæ sententiæ&lt;/em&gt;. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (&lt;em&gt;eo ipso&lt;/em&gt;) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: &quot;the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [&lt;em&gt;statim, ipso facto&lt;/em&gt;]&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same immediacy applies to any other penalty marked latae sententiae; the term is not limited to excommunication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T10:13:46.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14839" CreationDate="2013-03-10T10:21:13.243" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Canon Law specifically forbids firing the pope, because to do so would first require an objection to be raised against an act he had committed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 1372: A person who appeals from an act of the Roman Pontiff to an Ecumenical Council or to the College of Bishops, is to be punished with a censure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 1373: A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 1375: Those who hinder the freedom of the ministry or of an election or of the exercise of ecclesiastical power ... may be punished with a just penalty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T10:21:13.243" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12467" CreationDate="2013-03-10T13:16:37.460" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.268 - 271)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Luther expected &quot;Hebrew people&quot; to work and sweat after they have been killed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore it is nonsense to think he called for their killing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4122" LastActivityDate="2013-03-10T13:16:37.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14836" CreationDate="2013-03-10T19:43:43.580" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;God cannot sin, because sin is defined in relation to who God is and what He does. Anything God does cannot be sin, simply because God did it. Sin is a failure to live up to God's standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-03-11T11:28:48.233" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T11:28:48.233" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14854" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14855" CreationDate="2013-03-11T01:42:43.690" Score="5" ViewCount="90" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not that I'm plotting anything heinous, but can one be excommunicated or have excommunication lifted during the interregnum?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think, but I'm not positive, that some offenses that carry excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope.  So, in the absence of a Holy Father, who can lift excommunication or does someone just have to wait for a new Pope, even on the verge of death? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the flip side, it would seem to be an offense against charity to deliver &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14846/what-is-latae-sententiae/14847#14847&quot;&gt;Latae Sententiae&lt;/a&gt; excommunication without a possibility of repentance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T10:26:53.210" Title="How is excommunication handled during the interregnum?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14854" CreationDate="2013-03-11T02:17:59.597" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In cases where excommunication is &amp;quot;reserved to the Apostolic See&amp;quot; (this includes most but not all cases of Latae Sententiae excommunication), a specific Cardinal, the Major Penitentiary, is able to lift excommunication even when there is no Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/holysee/interregnum/terms.asp&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;EWTN article&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What happens to those in Office in the Roman Curia when the Pope dies?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since supreme teaching, legislating and judicial authority rests with the Pope, all but the most ordinary business of the Holy See comes to a stop. The highest office holders, such as the Cardinals who are Prefects of Congregations and Presidents of Pontifical Councils and Commissions, all lose their offices with the death of the Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two exceptions 1) the Cardinal who is Camerlengo or Chamberlain of the Holy Roman Church, an office which deals primarily with the period of the Papal Interregnum or Vacancy, and 2) &lt;strong&gt;the Cardinal who is the Major Penitentiary&lt;/strong&gt;, and responsible for matters concerning the internal forum of conscience (e.g. &lt;strong&gt;absolution from excommunications reserved to the Holy See)&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T02:17:59.597" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14858" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14877" CreationDate="2013-03-11T08:13:22.237" Score="5" ViewCount="12551" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 4 Cain and Abel gave offerings (or sacrifice). Who instructed them to give this offering or sacrifice? Was it a burnt offering?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-11T22:36:03.820" LastActivityDate="2017-05-23T22:19:33.347" Title="Who told Cain and Abel of Sacrificial rituals or offerings?" Tags="&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-06-04T15:59:28.217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14859" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14861" CreationDate="2013-03-11T08:18:48.390" Score="5" ViewCount="11476" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 8:20 (NIV) Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking&#xA;  some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt&#xA;  offerings on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Noah sacrificed burnt offerings. What about Adam and Eve? Did they ever perform animal sacrifice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-21T21:03:17.417" LastActivityDate="2019-11-19T03:22:51.250" Title="Did Adam and Eve ever practice animal sacrifice?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14859" CreationDate="2013-03-11T09:19:56.633" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Premise&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve performed the any sacrifices, but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is definitely clear that sacrifice was instituted very early.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abel and Cain apparently performed sacrifices, Abel bringing animal material and Cain bringing plant material. The ensuing rivalry between the two led to the infamous 'first murder'. It has been argued that Cain knew animal material and animal life was the requirement and his obvious 'cannot be wrong' attitude and jealousy was what led him to murder his own brother. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But did Adam and Eve sacrifice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One should think that Cain and Abel were told by someone that it was necessary. It is possible that God Himself told them to do so, considering they were also on the same plain speaking terms, demonstrated when God questions and subsequently curses Cain. However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:21&lt;/a&gt; is curious stating just after God declared punishments for the fall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Himself made the garments for Adam and Eve. Depending on your views of whether there was death before the fall this may or may not be significant. Since you do not specify a tradition I will stick to literal Bible interpretation, in which this view, that there was no death mentioned until this verse, therefore, no death before the fall, is well supported.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So many have hypothesized that God Himself actually performed the very first sacrifice for Adam's and Eve's sins. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/4028/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;This site argues that for example&lt;/a&gt;. Always leading by example, Adam and Eve then mimicked God's righteous actions and began performing sacrifice. Whether you take this view or not it is indisputable that God approved of the animal's killing so that would leave only Adam or Eve to actually perform the sacrifice. It really does not matter, though, who did it first because just one generation later Cain and Able are sacrificing as if it is a regular thing, showing that it was already instituted and the most likely time was Genesis 3:21. Also, if God did this first sacrifice, He did not do any others, again leaving the task to Adam and Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now it is not until the reveling of the Law that frequency and reasons for sacrifice were known to us at least. This is more than 1000 years later. It is clear that there were thanksgiving reasons, as Noah did in your example, and it is implied that Cain and Able were performing a possibly annual or other time frame sacrifice as required by God. There are also a few examples of reasons for sacrifice in the story of Abraham. The most notable being told to do so by an angel of God when Abraham was told to sacrifice his own son Isaac. So there may have been very well understood reasons by the ancient persons for sacrifice that may have even been started with Adam and Eve shortly after the fall, but the only indication of those 'rules' becoming written is Leviticus with Moses. It is entirely possible that those sections in Leviticus were only parroting what had been done since the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve started the sacrifice rituals, but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-03-12T07:16:23.207" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T07:16:23.207" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14863" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14868" CreationDate="2013-03-11T11:36:43.637" Score="3" ViewCount="22252" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of&#xA;  heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be&#xA;  given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have,&#xA;  even what they have will be taken from them. (Matthew 13:11-12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean by that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4062" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-10T13:09:33.200" LastActivityDate="2015-09-19T09:39:42.880" Title="What does Matthew 13:11-12 mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-09-26T19:16:14.220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14863" CreationDate="2013-03-11T15:17:58.810" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic idea is that when Jesus spoke in parables, they were great in drawing people with open hearts to him while driving those with hard hearts into deep confusion.  Parables were a common mode of teaching among the Rabbis, but Christ used them in such a way that heaven shined down upon the most mundane every day practices of life. He also used them almost exclusively, which was not normal at all. Especially the more people began to reject him, the more he spoke strictly in parables and his parables took a greater tone of warning. They were deeply illuminating to the heart open to God. They were foolish nonsense, provoking mad frustration to those hard of heart. Therefore, they had a winnowing effect. They divided people. Some were left asking questions, seeking and knocking, others left stumbling and cursing questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, Christ's parables spoke about the nature of his kingdom.  How one was in it, or not, based on their nature, which would eventually show itself good or bad. Everything was about the nature of a person, not their works, but a good nature would grow up good, and a bad nature grow up bad. To enter into this kingdom of life, one had to believe in Christ, receive his seed, believe his word and be a new creature. In the end, the bad creatures, weeds, fish, would be tossed, burned, weep and gnash their teeth, etc. The good creatures by virtue of their being in the kingdom, would be congratulated, rewarded, etc. The language was vague enough to confuse anyone who was self righteous not knowing they needed faith and re-birth, but anyone who longed for forgiveness and felt the strings of their heart moved and warmed by Him whose words were eternal life, the same  were drawn in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see this play out as when Christ started to say things hard to understand and receive, such as the need 'to eat his flesh', it was too much for many and they left him. The disciples were also confused but their hearts were drawn in and they could not leave him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.&#xA;   “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.&#xA;   Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6:66-68, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same thing is at play when Jesus spoke to a religious leader who seems a bit on the fence between having what he had taken away, or entering into what he had being multiplied into new eternal rebirth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again. ’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”&#xA;   “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. (John 3:6-9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again Jesu spoke to a woman at a well who is on the fence and being drawn in.  Jesus implies that what she has will be multiplied into living waters of new eternal life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:13-14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words that which was a blessing to those open to God became judicial in judgment to those who were not open to God.  Like a magical filter his parables bought his sheep into the gate, and closed it in confusion to those who were not his sheep. His sheep were introduced into the gospel obtaining an eternal new birth. His enemies had no idea of anything he said and thought it was just meaningless babel. Even the form of knowledge they had of God was taken away when rejecting Christ, leaving them to cross their eyes is utter confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-11T15:54:39.983" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T15:54:39.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5407" CreationDate="2013-03-11T15:19:29.620" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The deepest part of the man's being is his spirit, and if you salvage that deep then you have saved a man, and that is the only place needs light and when that light comes in or a perception of it then such a man becomes saved, and this is only done through the acceptance of the death on the cross as well as the acceptance of the holy spirit and resurrection from the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its the only way, then works is the manifestation of the working power of the recreated spirit of man. be blessed all of you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4126" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-11T16:21:22.893" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T16:21:22.893" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14872" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-11T17:51:54.903" Score="4" ViewCount="2243" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good - Evil&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love - Hate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Virtue - Vice&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bless - Curse&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Righteous - Wicked&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Obedience - Disobedience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;_____?&lt;/code&gt; - Sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mean sin as a general disposition, or original sin. I mean a &lt;strong&gt;deed&lt;/strong&gt; contrary to God's eternal law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law&lt;sup&gt; (St. Augustine, Faust 22:PL 42, 418)&lt;/sup&gt;. It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ. Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man's nature and injures human solidarity. (The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; 1871,-1872)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sin is the breaking of God's law. (CARM, &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/what-is-sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;What is sin?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, &quot;De malo&quot;, 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sin&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are &lt;strong&gt;those things that are done&lt;/strong&gt; in accordance with God's will, reason, and eternal Law? Would we call these acts of obedience? sacrifice? praise? Are they discussed specifically? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Please note: I'm not asking for anyone to coin an &lt;a href=&quot;https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10991/whats-the-opposite-word-for-sin&quot;&gt;antonym for sin&lt;/a&gt;. I'm not asking for examples of &lt;em&gt;individual&lt;/em&gt; acts that count as &quot;not being sins&quot;. I'd like to know if the Bible or any well-established teaching deals with this sort of deed, and what such deeds might be called. I am &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; claiming that performing such deeds will grant anyone salvation, that discussion may be set aside. Also, please don't just say something like &quot;the opposite of sin is love&quot; unless there's a good explanation: I'm not asking for dynamic non-equivalence.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: The answer should make it obvious (somewhere) what is the &lt;em&gt;most appropriate&lt;/em&gt; way to fill in the following blanks using a single term or concept, and also why (theologically) that term is best:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What Cain did was a sin, but what Joseph did was a &lt;code&gt;_____&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Offering up a sacrifice, visiting someone in prison, and praying are all examples of &lt;code&gt;_____&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;_____&lt;/code&gt; is an utterance, a deed, or a desire in accord with the eternal law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;_____&lt;/code&gt; is the keeping of God's law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;code&gt;_____&lt;/code&gt; is nothing more than a morally good act, an act in accord with reason informed by the Divine law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the opposite of sin? When someone does something good, what do I call that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:38:10.840" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T19:41:57.543" Title="What is the opposite of sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14872" CreationDate="2013-03-11T17:51:54.903" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If certain deeds are sins because they are done in disobedience of God's law, then one plausible &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0017.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;suggestion&lt;/a&gt; is that &lt;strong&gt;Faith&lt;/strong&gt; is the opposite of Sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Faith is the root of obedience&lt;/strong&gt;; the lack of faith is the root of disobedience. If we totally believed that obedience always worked to our blessedness, we would not disobey. Only because we must pray “Lord, I believe, but help my unbelief” do we sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saint Paul contrasts faith with sin when he says, “&lt;strong&gt;Whatever is not of faith is sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&amp;quot; We usually think of sin as the opposite of virtue, and faith as the opposite of doubt. But virtue is a moral term, and doubt is an intellectual term. The opposite of moral virtue is moral vice, and the opposite of intellectual doubt is intellectual belief. Faith is deeper than either moral virtue or intellectual belief. Sin is deeper than either moral vice or intellectual doubt. Faith is a fundamental Yes to God with the center of our being, and sin — the state of sin as distinct from particular acts of sin — is the fundamental No to God with the center of our being. &lt;strong&gt;Faith is the opposite of sin.&lt;/strong&gt; Faith is to sin what light is to darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is talking about sin and faith as &amp;quot;states&amp;quot;, distinct from particular acts. By analogy with &amp;quot;acts of sin&amp;quot;, we have &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;acts of faith&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;. Particular sins &lt;em&gt;result from&lt;/em&gt; sin in general and original sin (the disobedience of Adam and Eve). Likewise, particular &amp;quot;acts of faith&amp;quot; &lt;em&gt;result from&lt;/em&gt; faith. One passage in the Bible that discusses these acts is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A14-26&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 2:14-26&lt;/a&gt;, and it refers to these as &amp;quot;works&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Life -&amp;gt; breath, pulse, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sin -&amp;gt; individual sins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faith -&amp;gt; acts of faith&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each sin comes from Original Sin, and each act of faith or good work comes from Faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T18:00:36.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14874" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15243" CreationDate="2013-03-11T18:15:17.133" Score="15" ViewCount="78307" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sainted apostle &quot;Doubting&quot; Thomas is called Didymus, the Twin. &lt;strong&gt;Indeed, Thomas also means Twin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thomas, called &lt;strong&gt;Didymus&lt;/strong&gt;  /  Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος &lt;strong&gt;Δίδυμος&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sub&gt;(John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no clear indication in the Bible of who his twin might have been, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;it seems that several extra-Biblical traditions exist&lt;/a&gt; that try to fill in the gap. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone run through the different possibilities, and their level of support and acceptance? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;It seems to me that since a lot of this comes from the NT Apocrypha, there's a greater than usual density of Internet rubbish around the topic. Thanks in advance to anyone who can wade through it, or find more reliable sources instead!&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2018-11-21T15:27:00.977" LastActivityDate="2018-11-21T15:27:00.977" Title="Who was Thomas's twin?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;thomas-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14872" CreationDate="2013-03-11T19:47:08.667" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to know what the opposite of sin is, we must first understand what sin itself is.  Sin is defined as a violation of God's law or rebellion against God or His moral purity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:4 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for &lt;strong&gt;sin is the&#xA;  transgression of the law.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The opposite of sin is, then, the state of &lt;strong&gt;obedience to God's law&lt;/strong&gt;, acknowledgement of His rule, and conformity to His moral purity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, basically, we choose either to sin or not to sin, to violate God's law or be obedient to God's law, to rebel against God or recognize Him as God, to act in impurity or in purity or in righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-12T01:25:07.173" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T01:25:07.173" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14876" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14889" CreationDate="2013-03-11T19:58:57.510" Score="10" ViewCount="2307" Body="&lt;p&gt;So there's a hymn called &lt;em&gt;A mighty fortress is our God&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott&lt;/em&gt;), written by Martin Luther; there's also a famous version by J. S. Bach. It is a call to arms against the devil, and is particularly associated with the Reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lyrics are full of references to Satan (&lt;em&gt;der alte böse Feind&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;der Fürst dieser Welt&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;der Teufel&lt;/em&gt;); the Bach cantata has a few more (&lt;em&gt;zum Kriege wider Satans Heer&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;treib Welt und Satan aus&lt;/em&gt;). That's all fine. What I was wondering about was the extent to which these should be read as references to the Catholic Church and the Papacy. After all, Luther wasn't shy about that in his prose works - calling the Pope an Antichrist, Devil, Satan, Satanissimus, etc., and speaking in martial terms about the conflict between them, where Rome is presented as being part of the devil's captured territory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were the devil-references in the hymn &lt;em&gt;originally intended&lt;/em&gt; to be about Luther's Catholic opponents?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does the hymn come across &lt;em&gt;today&lt;/em&gt; as anti-Catholic? (And therefore, to be avoided.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;For context, in my congregation we are perpetually anxious about martial metaphors and sectarian divisiveness. We did do &lt;em&gt;Onward Christian soldiers&lt;/em&gt; last year, but only after an explanation/rationale from the pulpit. We'd be happy to sing about the devil being our enemy, but not at all happy to sing against our brothers and sisters in Christ. &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2nd Verse&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;“And though this world, with devils filled,&#xA;Should threaten to undo us;&#xA;We will not fear, for God hath willed&#xA;His truth to triumph through us.”&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-11T20:03:34.320" LastActivityDate="2013-03-18T18:32:05.057" Title="Is &quot;A mighty fortress is our God&quot; anti-Catholic?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;&lt;ecumenism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14858" CreationDate="2013-03-11T21:35:16.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14859/did-adam-and-eve-ever-practice-animal-sacrifice&quot;&gt;my answer here&lt;/a&gt; is accepted then I think that would make this a duplicate, though, I would clarify further that we really cannot tell from the text. All we know for certain is that sacrifice is a very old institution and only second in age to marriage and possibly the Sabbath rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My original answer to the linked question below for your convenience&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is definitely clear that sacrifice was instituted very early.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abel and Cain apparently performed sacrifices, Abel bringing animal material and Cain bringing plant material. The ensuing rivalry between the two led to the infamous 'first murder'. It has been argued that Cain knew animal material and animal life was the requirement and his obvious 'cannot be wrong' attitude and jealousy was what led him to murder his own brother. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But did Adam and Eve sacrifice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One should think that Cain and Abel were told by someone that it was necessary. It is possible that God Himself told them to do so, considering they were also on the same plain speaking terms, demonstrated when God questions and subsequently curses Cain. However, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:21&lt;/a&gt; is curious stating just after God declared punishments for the fall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Himself made the garments for Adam and Eve. Depending on your views of whether there was death before the fall this may or may not be significant. Since you do not specify a tradition I will stick to literal Bible interpretation, in which this view, that there was no death mentioned until this verse, therefore, no death before the fall, is well supported.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So many have hypothesized that God Himself actually performed the very first sacrifice for Adam's and Eve's sins. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/4028/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This site argues that for example&lt;/a&gt;. Always leading by example, Adam and Eve then mimicked God's righteous actions and began performing sacrifice. Whether you take this view or not it is indisputable that God approved of the animal's killing so that would leave only Adam or Eve to actually perform the sacrifice. It really does not matter, though, who did it first because just one generation later Cain and Able are sacrificing as if it is a regular thing, showing that it was already instituted and the most likely time was Genesis 3:21. Also, if God did this first sacrifice, He did not do any others, again leaving the task to Adam and Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now it is not until the reveling of the Law that frequency and reasons for sacrifice were known to us at least. This is more than 1000 years later. It is clear that there were thanksgiving reasons, as Noah did in your example, and it is implied that Cain and Able were performing a possibly annual or other time frame sacrifice as required by God. There are also a few examples of reasons for sacrifice in the story of Abraham. The most notable being told to do so by an angel of God when Abraham was told to sacrifice his own son Isaac. So there may have been very well understood reasons by the ancient persons for sacrifice that may have even been started with Adam and Eve shortly after the fall, but the only indication of those 'rules' becoming written is Leviticus with Moses. It is entirely possible that those sections in Leviticus were only parroting what had been done since the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve started the sacrifice rituals, but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T22:19:24.897" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14872" CreationDate="2013-03-11T21:55:26.150" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Under the new covenant. I would think that &quot;Not accepting Jesus&quot; as sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is blasphemous to say that He cannot forgive me of such and such act.  Nothing is impossible for Him to forgive, except we accept Him and His sacrifice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or I think I understood your question wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="910" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T21:55:26.150" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14879" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-11T22:29:52.163" Score="0" ViewCount="14961" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sacrifice plays a very important role in the Bible.  One of the earliest stories, that of Cain and Abel, begins with two sacrifices.  The death of Jesus on the Cross was a sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how the first sacrifice is described, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 4:3-6&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the ground, while Abel, for his part, brought the fatty portion* of the firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry and dejected. Then the LORD said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why are you dejected?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible ever say who first instituted this practice, and when? The purpose animal sacrifice is discussed [here] &#xA; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/842/what-was-the-purpose-to-animal-sacrifices&quot;&gt;What was the purpose to animal sacrifices?&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Did it develop naturally?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Was it instituted directly by God, through a command?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Do we know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2018-10-30T03:02:48.913" LastActivityDate="2018-11-14T23:26:32.360" Title="Who instituted the practice of sacrifice?" Tags="&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14858" CreationDate="2013-03-11T23:00:22.563" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible states that the offerings were brought &amp;quot;in the course of time&amp;quot;. This suggests only that when the appropriate time for sacrifice had come, both brought offerings. It does not imply a specific command to sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have no idea who taught Cain and Abel how and when to bring offerings to God. They might simply have felt that they needed to give something to God, or maybe their parents told them. The Bible does not say, and anything more would be speculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither of these offerings are described as burnt. Cain brought fruit of the ground, while Abel brought a &amp;quot;fatty portion&amp;quot; of meat. God preferred Abel's offering, but this wasn't because God did not like fruit of the ground. God specifically told Cain that he (and his plant-based offering) would be accepted if he would only act rightly. (Cain did not listen, though. Not long after hearing this, Cain killed Abel.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 4&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[...] Abel became a herder of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the course of time&lt;/strong&gt; Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the ground, while Abel, for his part, brought the fatty portion of the firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry and dejected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the LORD said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why are you dejected? &lt;strong&gt;If you act rightly, you will be accepted&lt;/strong&gt;; but if not, sin lies in wait at the door: its urge is for you, yet you can rule over it. Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.” When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-11T23:00:22.563" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14879" CreationDate="2013-03-11T23:07:52.290" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Premise of the argument&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot conclusively say who made the first sacrifices and there is no direct evidence that God commanded it to Cain, Able, Adam or Eve, but the evidence is very heavy that Adam and Eve began the first sacrifices shortly after the fall and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is definitely clear that sacrifice was instituted very early.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abel and Cain apparently performed sacrifices, Abel bringing animal material and Cain bringing plant material. The ensuing rivalry between the two led to the infamous 'first murder'. It has been argued that Cain knew animal material and animal life was the requirement and his obvious 'cannot be wrong' attitude and jealousy was what led him to murder his own brother. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But were they the first to sacrifice? There are only a few people before them who might have been the first, assuming you take a literal view of Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One should think that Cain and Abel were told by someone that it was necessary, else why would they do it? In our modern times sacrifice has become synonymous with giving up something valued because it is a burden to actually kill and burn your own livestock when you could use it for food instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One interpretation says that it is possible that God Himself them to do so&lt;/strong&gt;, considering they were also on the same plain speaking terms, demonstrated when God questions and subsequently curses Cain. But how should we interpret the curious statements in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:21&lt;/a&gt;, which is just after God declared punishments for the fall?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Himself made the garments for Adam and Eve. Depending on your views of whether there was death before the fall this may or may not be significant, but I am arguing for the literal interpretation of Genesis. So there was no death mentioned until this verse and it is implied that there would be no death if it were not for the fall, therefore, there is something significant about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So many have hypothesized that God Himself actually performed the very first sacrifice for Adam's and Eve's sins.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/4028/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This site argues that for example&lt;/a&gt;. God always leads by example, so Adam and Eve then mimicked God's righteous actions and began performing sacrifice. Whether you take this view or not it is indisputable that God approved of the animal's killing so that would leave only Adam or Eve to actually perform the sacrifice. It really does not matter, though, who did it first because just one generation later Cain and Able are sacrificing as if it is a regular thing, showing that it was already instituted and the most likely time was Genesis 3:21. Also, if God did this first sacrifice, He did not do any others, according to the text of the Bible, again leaving the task to Adam and Eve. I should note that you use the word 'instituted' but that implies religious rites are started my men. That is not biblical, especially to a literalist. &lt;strong&gt;To a literalist, God instituted all rites and ceremonies, it is just a matter of when He told mankind to practice them.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Asking if sacrifice developed naturally begs a question of why? Why would it because it is a terrible burden? Humans might feel guilty for wrong doing but I doubt to that extent. Also the evidence that God performed the first sacrifice immediately after the Fall indicates that it very much has to do with sin. Romans states plainly that the wages of sin is death and John 3:16 states plainly that we all perish because we need a sacrifice (which happens to be Jesus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for the sake of the texts we do have we should note that it was not until the reveling of the Law that frequency and reasons for sacrifice were known to us at least. This is more than 1000 years later. It is clear that there were thanksgiving reasons, as Noah did in after surviving the Flood, and it is implied that Cain and Able were performing a possibly annual or other time frame sacrifice as required by God. There are also a few examples of reasons for sacrifice in the story of Abraham. The most notable being told to do so by an angel of God when Abraham was told to sacrifice his own son Isaac. So there may have been very well understood reasons by the ancient persons for sacrifice that may have even been started with Adam and Eve shortly after the fall, but the only indication of those 'rules' becoming written is Leviticus with Moses. It is entirely possible that those sections in Leviticus were only parroting what had been done since the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve were the first to make sacrifices and there is no direct evidence that God commanded it (except much later in the Law), but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-03-12T07:03:34.103" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T07:03:34.103" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14879" CreationDate="2013-03-12T01:51:54.740" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to several sermons I've heard, the first animal sacrifice was recorded in Genesis 3:21 (KJV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins,&#xA;  and clothed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He used the skin of some animal to cover their nakedness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One source for such a teaching is at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/the-first-sacrifice--ricky-burke-sermon-on-forgiveness-for-others-36530.asp&quot;&gt;Sermoncentral.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The First Sacrifice is recorded in Genesis 3:21.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Remember the setting? Adam and Eve sinned against God, their eyes were&#xA;  opened, they realized they were naked, and they were ashamed. So they&#xA;  tried to cover their nakedness with fig leaves. But fig leaves make&#xA;  lousy clothes. So God intervened, sacrificed an animal, and make&#xA;  garments of skin for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the first sacrifice mentioned in the Bible. An innocent&#xA;  animal, most likely lamb, lost it’s life so that Adam and Eve could be&#xA;  covered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, as with all of God's institutions, &lt;strong&gt;it was established by God Himself&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T01:51:54.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14178" CreationDate="2013-03-12T02:41:44.507" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There doesn't need to be a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Biblical&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; reason for this.  There are some terms that mean a certain thing because that is the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;definition of the term&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dictionary.com&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;gen·der 1 [jen-der] Show IPA noun&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grammar . a. (in many languages) a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the&#xA;  form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify,&#xA;  replace, or otherwise refer to the noun, as, in English, the choice of&#xA;  he  to replace the man,  of she  to replace the woman,  of it  to&#xA;  replace the table,  of it  or she  to replace the ship.  The number of&#xA;  genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20; often&#xA;  the classification correlates in part with sex or animateness. The&#xA;  most familiar sets of genders are of three classes (as masculine,&#xA;  feminine, and neuter in Latin and German) or of two (as common and&#xA;  neuter in Dutch, or masculine and feminine in French and Spanish). b.&#xA;  one class of such a set. c. such classes or sets collectively or in&#xA;  general. d. membership of a word or grammatical form, or an&#xA;  inflectional form showing membership, in such a class.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;sex: the feminine gender.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are certain terms that are simply what they are.  We don't ask for the Biblical basis that the word &quot;desert&quot; means a hot, arid place, nor do we ask for the Biblical basis for calling a certain tree a &quot;cedar&quot;, even though the Cedars of Lebanon are found in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It wasn't until certain groups came along and tried to redefine terms in nonsensical ways that this even became a matter for Christianity to speak out upon.  Until that time it was a simple understanding of the English language, combined with a lack of political correctness (aka, insanity; aka, calling black white, and white purple).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, we don't call oxen &quot;oxen&quot; because there is a Biblical basis for it.  The term &quot;oxen&quot; has a definition, which is why the translators chose to use the word.  If someone wants to call an ox a &quot;goat&quot; it's not a Biblical issue. It is one of correct usage of the English language, and not about redefining terms to suit a political agenda.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-02-04T23:12:41.497" LastActivityDate="2015-02-04T23:12:41.497" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14872" CreationDate="2013-03-12T03:26:12.720" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin comes from the Greek Hamartia, which carries with it the idea of an archer missing his mark. The opposite of that would be to hit the mark- to succeed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue thus that obedience would be the opposite of sin, as it &quot;hits the mark&quot; to which we aim. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, telos - the purpose or aim for which we are destined would be pretty good too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine in particular was well known for describing evil as not a thing in and of itself, but rather as a lack of good. It is the lack of substance to the thing that is its nature, not an essence of its own. The same could be said of sin - that it is a lack of the nature of God's desire for us that characterisizes Sin. As such, the opposite of Sin would be the nature of God evident in the life of the person in question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, btw, it totally is fair to say that the opposite of Sin is love- for as Jesus himself said, &quot;if you love me, keep my commandments.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-12T12:15:30.277" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T12:15:30.277" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14887" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-12T07:03:25.763" Score="5" ViewCount="847" Body="&lt;p&gt;Could you please give me any biblical supports as to when should water baptism be done to a candidate (assuming the candidate has already met the so called &quot;requirements&quot; before being baptized, such as repentance of all sins (past and present); acceptance of the Messiah as Personal Master and Savior; faith on the importance of our Savior's dying on the cross)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When should the water baptism be done? Should it be on or during a biblical feast, such as Pesach, Shavout or Sukkot? For example, in Acts 2, Peter and the disciples had baptized 3000 believers during the Pentecost. On the water baptism of our Messiah by John, the Scripture is silent on when it was done; it could not be during or before any feast because after His baptism the Ruach Ha Khadosh brought Him to wilderness to be tempted for 40 days. In Acts 10:47-48, concerning the conversion of the centurion, his family and friends, Peter baptized them but again the Scripture is silent on when was it held.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4130" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T14:15:56.850" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T14:15:56.850" Title="When should Water Baptism be done on a candidate?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14888" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14890" CreationDate="2013-03-12T07:18:00.533" Score="9" ViewCount="18054" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unlike Christianity, other Abrahamic religions say that Jesus was only a great Prophet. Christians belief, however, is deeply rooted in Bible, where there are many references supporting the Divinity of Jesus and there are already many answers on this site quoting these verses from Bible about Jesus’ Divinity.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not particularly interested in the verses concerning Jesus' Divinity. I am more interested in the verses where Jesus refutes the claim that He is just a prophet.  Where in the Bible does Jesus refute that He is just a prophet?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-17T03:27:06.050" LastActivityDate="2016-08-07T13:34:02.893" Title="Where in the Bible does Jesus refute that He is just a prophet?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14876" CreationDate="2013-03-12T07:18:26.633" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The estimated date of Luther composing this hymn is between 1527-1528.  In the summer of 1528 the city Luther lived in fell to the bubonic plague. Instead of evacuating Luther chose to risk disease and stay ministering.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some scholars have argued that during these weeks of the plague, in which also the tenth “anniversary” of the posting of The Ninety-five Theses fell, Luther composed his A Mighty Fortress is Our God (Luther's Works 49.175)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I searched Luther's works and their is no direct links of his identification of the Pope with the antichrist, or other anti-catholic implications to this hymn. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The copy I have is entitled 'Our God is a castle strong'. The only place where it is likely that Luther may have personally thought of the papacy was here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If they take our life,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Wealth, name, child and wife—. &#xA;  Let everything go:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  They have no profit so;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The kingdom ours remaineth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However even under fears that the Pope would have Luther murdered for his faith, the plague may have been more forefront in his mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T07:18:26.633" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14888" CreationDate="2013-03-12T07:40:33.090" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many places Bible tells us contrastingly that Jesus is not just a prophet.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matt. 11:9-11&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ “I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we find Jesus giving the highest honour to John the Baptist and that John is more than a prophet. This would mean that Jesus makes Himself smaller than John, which cannot be. Since John was someone who was more than a prophet, it only shows that Jesus was not just a prophet or someone more than that BUT someone much greater than that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then again in Matt. 13.17 Jesus says:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matt. 13:17&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Jesus shows that He is greater than all the prophets and righteous man, who longed to see His day.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another place Jesus seeks to know what His disciples' view of Himself and in the process acknowledges that  He is not just a prophet by giving His affirmation to what Peter says.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matt. 16:13-17&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per writings of all the previous prophets, no prophets was prophesised to come from Galilee  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John: 7:52&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They replied, “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In His conversation with Judeans, Jesus declares who He is:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 8:53-58&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You aren’t greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died too! Who do you claim to be?” Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless. The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, ‘He is our God.’ Yet you do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I obey his teaching. Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2014-01-18T04:45:32.357" LastActivityDate="2014-01-18T04:45:32.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14891" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14897" CreationDate="2013-03-12T08:07:31.307" Score="11" ViewCount="7936" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2026:4-5&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 26:4-5 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; or you will become as foolish as they are.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; or they will become wise in their own estimation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At first read, these seem to be contradicting one another. Verse 4 tells us &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; to answer fools' arguments and verse 5 tells us &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; answer fools' arguments. With such a seeming contradiction, there is certainly some sort of official material out there that resolves this issue. According to the Wesleyan denomination (or as close as possible), how is this apparent contradiction resolved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-22T12:10:10.850" LastActivityDate="2018-04-16T04:06:34.973" Title="Do we answer the arguments of fools or not? How are Proverbs 26:4-5 to be understood?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;&lt;wesleyanism&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14893" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14910" CreationDate="2013-03-12T10:21:45.697" Score="0" ViewCount="1098" Body="&lt;p&gt;These days we have very advanced technologies which our forefathers could not have think of. Are the discoveries and inventions part of the Divine Plan or Intention? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:28 (NIV) God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and&#xA;  increase in number; &lt;strong&gt;fill the earth and subdue it&lt;/strong&gt;. Rule over the fish&#xA;  in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature&#xA;  that moves on the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse tells us some of the Intentions of God. But, did God intend them to be intelligent, creative,innovative,exploring, discovering and inventive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did God give scientific knowledge to Adam and Eve? Did God intend to give them only spiritual wisdom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any denomination that believe that God did not intend it this way? And is there any that say the otherwise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22426" LastEditDate="2018-11-12T20:07:50.167" LastActivityDate="2018-11-12T20:07:50.167" Title="Is modern technology part of the Divine Intention?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-03-13T12:01:43.543" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14891" CreationDate="2013-03-12T12:21:16.373" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Keil's, Commentary on the Old Testament has it right. I summarize them as this: You should NOT recognize the foolish assumptions of a fool. You should NOT answer as though his questions or statements  were reasonable, that would be debasing your own self and your own mind. Rather you SHOULD answer a fool as is due to according to his folly. You should answer a fool with a full rejection of his foolish assumptions and assertions. If you do not rebuke him in this way he may think his foolish ideas are wise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T12:21:16.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14891" CreationDate="2013-03-12T13:32:42.430" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know Hebrew, so I can't offer a whole lot of guidance here, but it seems the apparent contradiction could be a result of different language paradigms.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting that the Hebrew texts for the verses seem to use the same word for &quot;fool&quot; and &quot;not a fool&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The grammatical structure and conjugation is baffling to me, but according to the Blue Letter Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Pro&amp;amp;c=26&amp;amp;v=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 26:4&lt;/a&gt; reads as follows:&#xA;אַל־תַּעַן כְּסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתֹּו פֶּֽן־תִּשְׁוֶה־לֹּו גַם־אָֽתָּה׃&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ענה - Answer &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;כסיל - not a fool&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;אולת - according to his folly&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;שוה - lest thou also be like unto him&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Pro&amp;amp;c=26&amp;amp;v=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 26:5&lt;/a&gt; reads as follows:&#xA;עֲנֵה כְסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתֹּו פֶּן־יִהְיֶה חָכָם בְּעֵינָֽיו׃&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ענה  - Answer &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;כסיל - a fool &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;אולת - according to his folly &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;חכם - lest he be wise&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;עין - to his own conceit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Mike's answer is a good one.   The Proverbs provide wise topical advice using a pithy and often symmetrical or somewhat poetic format.  The two verses together seem to be warning that it's not wise to stoop to a fool's level while answering his folly, but that it's also not wise to let a fool's folly go totally unchecked.   It seems to utilize a bit of equivocation in what it means to answer him &quot;according to his folly&quot; (i.e. identify his bad assumptions or conclusions and try to correct them, but don't be baited into arguing foolishly yourself)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T13:32:42.430" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14891" CreationDate="2013-03-12T13:36:32.477" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The common understanding of this apparent conflict is that the two verses describe two situations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One involves answering foolish questions...  The ones that are so foolish they don't deserve an answer.  The ones that people ask to get a rise out of you, or make a point, when there's no real possibility of an intelligent conversation.  The kind we quickly vote to close, downvote, and delete. Don't waste your time on them. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The other addresses rebuking foolishness where necessary. When someone is honestly confused, or their foolishness is causing another to stumble or fall into error.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a relevant article on it at &lt;a href=&quot;http://askthepastors.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/does-proverbs-264-and-5-contradict-itself/&quot;&gt;Ask the Pastors&lt;/a&gt; that spells this out better than I, with the following points.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wisdom is only acquired by those who want it bad enough to work for it &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Every issue has many sides to it &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are exceptions to some rules&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the conclusion of that article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the proverb you cite, there is a time to answer a fool according to&#xA;  his folly and a time not to. Jesus talked about not casting our pearls&#xA;  before swine (Matthew 7). This describes a situation where the&#xA;  receiver of truth despises truth and it is not worth telling it to him&#xA;  and may even be dangerous to. Paul is an example, however, of&#xA;  answering a fool according to his folly when in 2 Corinthians he brags&#xA;  and boasts of his “accomplishments” to the Corinthians because it was&#xA;  the only way they could receive him (11:16; 12:11). The wise person&#xA;  will learn when and how to respond to the fool in the best way&#xA;  possible, though even then he or she may not know which way was best&#xA;  until he or she got into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-12T13:36:32.477" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14872" CreationDate="2013-03-12T18:30:05.557" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;For the &lt;strong&gt;verb&lt;/strong&gt; which opposes &lt;em&gt;to sin&lt;/em&gt;, the Catholic answer is &lt;em&gt;to obey&lt;/em&gt;. More specifically, &lt;em&gt;to sin&lt;/em&gt; in the general religious sense opposes &lt;em&gt;to obey God the Father&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned,&#xA;  and done that which is evil in your sight.” Sin sets itself against&#xA;  God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first&#xA;  sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to&#xA;  become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus&#xA;  “love of oneself even to contempt of God.” In this proud&#xA;  self-exaltation, &lt;strong&gt;sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of&#xA;  Jesus, which achieves our salvation&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=32-chapter13.xhtml%23para1850&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic&#xA;  Church,&#xA;  1850&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This form of &lt;em&gt;to obey&lt;/em&gt; is equivalent to &lt;em&gt;to love&lt;/em&gt;, which in Catholicism is understood as &lt;em&gt;to seek the good of the other &lt;strong&gt;as other&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The corresponding &lt;strong&gt;noun&lt;/strong&gt; then is &lt;em&gt;obedience [to God]&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;agape/love&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For your second set of fill-in-the blanks ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To obey [God]&lt;/em&gt; is less ambiguous, but also less &quot;full&quot; I think:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What Cain did was a sin, but what Joseph did was obeying [God] / an act of obedient [to God].&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Offering up a sacrifice, visiting someone in prison, and praying are all examples of obeying [God].&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Obedience [to God] is an utterance, a deed, or a desire in accord with the eternal law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Obedience [to God] is the keeping of God's law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Obedience [to God] is nothing more than a morally good act, an act in accord with reason informed by the Divine law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To love&lt;/em&gt; is fuller in meaning when properly understood, I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What Cain did was a sin, but what Joseph did was to love / an act of love.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Offering up a sacrifice, visiting someone in prison, and praying are all examples of love.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love is an utterance, a deed, or a desire in accord with the eternal law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love is the keeping of God's law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love is nothing more than a morally good act, an act in accord with reason informed by the Divine law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-03-13T19:41:57.543" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T19:41:57.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14900" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14901" CreationDate="2013-03-12T18:47:53.903" Score="11" ViewCount="696" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can understand the political reasons behind His execution. What I can't really understand is why did the Romans go through such a lengthy and gruesome process. I know crucifixion used to be a somewhat common penalty at the time but every time I read the accounts of it I am overcome with a sense of exaggeration, of unbounded excess. Was it so important for the rulers to make an example?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4135" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-17T22:11:41.887" LastActivityDate="2014-07-17T22:11:41.887" Title="Was Christ's suffering unusually harsh for the standard of the Roman times?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14900" CreationDate="2013-03-12T20:28:07.213" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Crucifixion was somewhat common in that time, as your question points out. The issue I think you are hinting at is maybe Christ's beatings by the Sanhedrin and Romans before His crucifixion. The first is that the Sanhedrin heard Him blaspheme right in front of them and would have stoned him on the spot according to their laws, but it is apparent they were not allowed to execute. The other beatings occurred after he was handed over to the Romans. Pilate had Him beaten and lashed before handing Him over to the mob for execution. There is an old and common argument that Pilate did not want to execute Christ because he was under the impression that His followers may revolt, so instead he had Him beaten, hoping the punishment would be enough to appease the mob. Obviously it was not. So it might be possible that severe beating before being crucified was uncommon, so perhaps Christ did suffer more in this respect. However, according to Matthew, Jesus was flogged after Pilate agreed to hand Him over to the mob knowing full well what they were going to do to Him. Perhaps then a flogging before execution was common. Other beatings occurred when He was under the care of the cruel guards. They mocked him and put thorns on his head. I would think this kind of treatment was common, but I have no source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the mob took over Christ was apparently made to carry the very cross He was to be hung from all though the city. I have read in certain places that this may have been anywhere from one half to three miles. Considering if was under the jurisdiction of the Pharisees (mob) at this time I tend to think that this part of his suffering was uncommon. Even until recent times, typically the executed were disgraced after their execution by desecrating the body. Crucifixion in itself yields this result; the bodies were often left there long after death. What has also been common throughout the ages is dragging the body behind a horse or staking all or parts of it, like the head, in the middle of the town.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While on the cross it seems that Christ actually suffered less, relatively. The first point is that he died much more quickly than was typical. Crucifixion was designed to prolong suffering for days, and Christ passed within a half day. To hurry death they would break the legs so that asphyxiation would come quickly (there is kind of a long explanation here of the mechanics and the biology that is not in the scope of the question). But they did not break his legs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before sentenced to execution Christ suffered severe beatings, which is not really uncommon for the time, but he was beaten by several parties all wanting to exact their own justice on Him. One party wanted to stone Him but were not allowed, another was maybe hoping to save His life to appease the mob, and the other by cruel guards. He was sentenced to crucifixion anyway by the mob that also disgraced Him by making Him carry His own cross through the town. Considering He was already weak from the beatings this was probably a very difficult task. However, while on the cross it seems Christ's suffering was relatively less because he died in less than a day when it was typically days to die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that I would say He suffered more before the actual hanging because multiple parties 'wanted a piece of Him'. He suffered more still, being disgraced before He was even put on the cross. However, He suffered less on the cross because He lived less than a day and they did not break His legs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia on crucifixion&lt;/a&gt; covers much that supports what I have said above including prolonging death and desecration of the body after death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 26&lt;/a&gt; begins the story of Jesus' arrest (26:47), beatings (26:67), handing over to the mob and further beatings (27:26, 27:30) and crucifixion (27:35).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-02-26T19:42:08.493" LastActivityDate="2014-02-26T19:42:08.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9575" CreationDate="2013-03-12T21:48:12.083" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Mormon disdain for the symbol was more of a late development in Church history, emerging at the grassroots around the turn of the 20th century, and was institutionalized in the 1950s under the direction of President &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._McKay&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;David O. McKay&lt;/a&gt;, on grounds that it was a Catholic symbol.  Prior to this time, many Latter-day Saints (including Church authorities), embraced and promoted the symbol of the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1934901350&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (John Whitmer Books, 2012) traces the development of LDS attitudes toward the symbol, and shows that the aversion to the cross in Mormon culture actually began as a means to disassociate the Church from Catholicism.  The book includes many 19th-century photos of the cross being worn as jewelry, stitched it into quilts, framed and hung on walls, incorporated into funeral floral arrangements, etc.  Perhaps most interesting of all, I explore in detail the LDS Church's 1916 &lt;a href=&quot;https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/salt-lake-city/3-ensign-peak-historical-preview&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ensign Peak&lt;/a&gt; cross monument proposal—-a proposal to the Salt Lake City Council that stirred great controversy within and outside the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4137" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T15:59:49.070" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T15:59:49.070" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14903" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14909" CreationDate="2013-03-12T23:06:29.553" Score="5" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;With everybody waiting on a puff of white smoke to eminate from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, the engineer in me is curious about the mechanics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know in modern times that a special additive to the ballots is added to make the white smoke, but I wonder about the origin of this custom. Was there a time when the white smoke was not something that was manually introduced- akin to the Coptic Pope being chosen by a blindfolded boy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, if in fact this always had been an engineered thing, when and why did the custom begin? More importantly, has it always been the same thing added to make white smoke? Who figured out the mechanics of it all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-03-13T03:08:01.283" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T10:35:18.853" Title="Was the white smoke ever supposed to be miraculous?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14887" CreationDate="2013-03-13T06:05:39.893" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The scriptures never tell us on which occasion the baptism should be performed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing for sure is that Baptism was done immediately after the candidate accepted Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The first believers on the Pentecost day were Baptized that day itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:41 (NIV) Those who accepted his message were baptized, and&#xA;  about three thousand were added to their number that day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Ethiopian eunuch took baptism shortly after accepting Jesus Christ. (Acts 8:26-40)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the&#xA;  eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my&#xA;  being baptized?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Jailer and his household took Baptism immediately the same night he accepted Jesus. (Acts 16:16-40) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their&#xA;  wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cornelius the centurion and every one present in his house took baptism right after Peter preached to them. (Acts 10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on&#xA;  all who heard the message.47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of&#xA;  their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit&#xA;  just as we have.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more references but I believe this is sufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-13T06:41:37.773" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T06:41:37.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14906" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15730" CreationDate="2013-03-13T07:11:00.577" Score="10" ViewCount="26094" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, when it refers to “two becoming one flesh”, does it mean that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the physical act of sex creates a position where both bodies are connected?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the flesh (DNA) from the man and and the woman unite to form one flesh (a child derived from both father and mother)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;something else entirely?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4018" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-14T01:03:13.533" LastActivityDate="2016-01-14T01:03:13.533" Title="What does &quot;two becoming one flesh&quot; refer to?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-01-17T08:30:07.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14906" CreationDate="2013-03-13T08:25:42.330" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The saying the Bible &quot;The two become one flesh&quot; is almost always in reference to marriage and all that it means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The saying is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:24&lt;/a&gt;, when God instituted marriage, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 10:8&lt;/a&gt;, when Jesus was commenting on the permanent nature of marriage, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:31&lt;/a&gt;, when Paul uses marriage as a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The full extent of the verses in Genesis is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 The man said,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “This is now bone of my bones&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      and flesh of my flesh;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  she shall be called ‘woman,’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      for she was taken out of man.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Ephesians, when Paul quotes Genesis he says &quot;This mystery is profound,&quot; then moves back on topic about Christ and the church. This really only tells us that it is likely we cannot really understand the connection between a man and a woman in marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only truly reveling verse is Mark 10:8. Jesus is directly questioned if divorce is acceptable. He responds by quoting Genesis then says &quot;Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.&quot; This is simply that marriage is permanent. You cannot leave your marriage because God joined the two together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a similar question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2396/what-are-the-practical-applications-of-two-will-become-one-flesh&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that should shed more light on the topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary in short: &quot;Two become one flesh&quot; is about marriage and the mysteries within that institution.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T09:12:54.147" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14906" CreationDate="2013-03-13T09:50:37.110" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Paul assumes the quote to be talking about the intercourse in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Kor 6, 16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, &quot;The two will become one flesh&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1727" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T09:50:37.110" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14903" CreationDate="2013-03-13T10:35:18.853" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it's never been miraculous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paper burns with a light-coloured smoke, so to produce white smoke just the ballot papers are burned. To produce black smoke, it used to be the case that &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pope+black+smoke+straw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;damp straw was added&lt;/a&gt; but that was also capable of producing smoke which didn't look black.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j-upRhkSNtQ7CnLb6ZwuhIhwiHZw?docId=4e396c54dbb841f3ae516e172a56a88c&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;AP reports&lt;/a&gt; that for the 2005 conclave (which elected Benedict XVI) the Holy See introduced a second stove which produced coloured smoke. The ballot papers were burned, but the colour was chemically produced in order that it was unmistakeable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judging by the first emission of black smoke, which was clearly black even in the evening, it would appear that this chemical method is in use for the current conclave too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/8lXmq.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Black smoke&quot;&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Picture from AP reproduced on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/black-smoke-emerges-from-sistine-chapel-theres-no-new-pope-yet/#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Blaze&lt;/em&gt; blog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T10:35:18.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14893" CreationDate="2013-03-13T10:35:37.537" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this is closed without likelihood to reopen but I forgot out this most revealing verse on the topic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverbs 25:2 NIV&#xA;  It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;&#xA;  to search out a matter is the glory of kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot really answer this without it being mostly opinion, but here it goes anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that maybe the Amish think technology is not God's intention. I don't think we will get many Amish on this site, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see how anyone who takes the Bible can say anything is not God's intention. There are just too many verses indicating and even straight up saying that nothing happens without God knowing about it and either letting it happen or intervening. So I would say that if there is a Christian sect that actually preaches this, they are likely small and do not fully take the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have this picture of those old crotchety men complaining about those darn kids today and their fandanggeled e-lec-tronics. Then they go on to say that God never intended us to do this and that with such and such technology. I have to say that he just must be speaking out of ignorance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is clear that God very much intends for us to understand His creation and that is all supported in the Creation story in Genesis. The first is that man is made to be like God, who is a creator, and we are charged with ruling over (caring for) the earth and all that is in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So God created mankind in his own image,&#xA;      in the image of God he created them;&#xA;      male and female he created them.&#xA;  God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Gen 1:27 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here it says that man is made in God's image then immediately blesses man and charges him with the care of the entire Earth. Holy Cow! Do you see what just happened here? God gave man some of His own spectacular abilities then gave him all of creation. That sounds like a licence to do. A licence to do like God and create, and build and 'see that it is good'. This sounds to me that no only does the Bible want us to be 'scientists' (which comes from the Latin word for knowledge), and not only encouraged it, but He charged us with it. We are to rule over all of creation as He rules over us. That means we are to know His creation as he knows us, and also care for it and cherish it, and add to it when we can so that 'it is good'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later God brings every animal to Adam to name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. Gen 2:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has a lot going on when you include what is before and after, but what is often missed is that naming something has often been the symbol of your authority over it. This is saying that creation is the same a belonging to us as it does to God because He gave it to us. This also shows that God forced Adam to know His creation before it was even complete; before Eve was made. God very clearly wants us to explore and know His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as for knowledge that God meant for us to have, I think actually the knowledge is in question is wisdom, at least in full. It was the wisdom gained from eating of the Tree of Knowledge that brought about the fall. The fall did not come because Adam made a scientific discovery. The fall did not come because Adam learned something magnificent about Creation and then applied it in some way. No. The fall came because Adam and even gained spiritual knowledge, or wisdom; they gained knowing what was good and evil. Without this knowledge they could only do good. They were blameless. So if they could only do good then any scientific thing they might have done would also only be good. They would be doing their holy charge: Ruling over the Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now about technology today. All of that only exists because someone used their God given ability to create like He does. Someone learned something magnificent about Creation, applied it to something specific, then created something good. At least we hope it is good. I am not the type to condemn something simply because it exists, but I think it is clear that knowledge and scientific discovery can lead to nasty inventions. Nuclear weapons are the first that come to mind. The point is that we can create and are meant to do so, and we only have the ability to create evil because of the spiritual wisdom that the Tree of Knowledge gave us. So you see that this spiritual knowledge combined with our ability to create can make us pretty nasty, but if we can be true to God we can also create some awesome things that add to Creation's goodness instead of take away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So in summary&lt;/strong&gt;, we were made to be creative like God. For us to be creative like God we must first be intelligent, innovative, exploring, and inventive. Science is the Christian thing to do. Embracing discovery and inventions that glorify God and add to Creation's goodness is the Christian thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T10:55:05.460" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T10:55:05.460" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14630" CreationDate="2013-03-13T11:34:20.257" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Islam has never been known to have been considered as a sect of Christianity. St John of Damascus neither considers Islam to be a sect nor a separate religion; rather he plainly refers to Islam as a Christian heresy in his writing “the heresy of the Ishmaelites”.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His assessment would be most pertinent to consider, as St. John of Damascus is from   Islamic neighbourhood and possibly a witness as to how Islam was moulding and adapting itself from its nascent stage. This is evident from the fact that he even refers, most interestingly to one sura (called the ‘Camel of God’) which is no longer extant in present day Quran.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reference to Islam as a heresy of Christianity comes from Belloc's view, who identifies it as a heresy in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/heresy4.txt&quot;&gt;The Great Heresies&lt;/a&gt;. To quote from this briefly:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp&#xA;  before going any further.  It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It&#xA;  was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It&#xA;  was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon&#xA;  gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary&#xA;  with its rise saw it for what it was_not a denial, but an adaptation and a&#xA;  misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all)&#xA;  heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian&#xA;  Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most&#xA;  heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with.  He&#xA;  sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic&#xA;  doctrine, oversimplified.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from above historical citing, it is apparent that Christianity and Islam differ on every aspect, regardless of what Islam tries to portray. Contrary to the general impression that they are both Abrahamic religion, they have diametrically opposite perception on the whole lot, be it personalities OR events from the Bible. The commonality is only in the “names” of personalities from the Bible which are cited in Quran, with no sameness in the perception of who they were and what they did. It is literally on the semblance of only names that people are trying to label Islam as Abrahamic religion which is irrational and to term it as a sect of either Judaism or Christianity is at its nadir.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mohammad was from a clan that believed in one of the Christian-Jewish heretic sects.  All that Mohammed did was to adopt all the revered and common names from Judaeo-Christian scripture into his imitated teaching, with a hope to lure the Jews and Christians to follow him and the identicalness ended there and there. So also to lure Arabs, some substance was taken from Pre-Islamic Pagan peoples who were worshiping moon god.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On any major topic from Bible, Quran has a different story to tell. If one takes the event of sacrificing of Isaac by Abraham, Nature of God, accepting Gnostic literature discarded by Christians, Jesus’ death, resurrection and so on. The most contrasting view is found in what Jesus taught and teaching in Quran. They are not at all compatible with each other but at two divergent points. Most importantly, life of Jesus is full of grace and that of Mohammad is contrary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is unrealistic to even bring them on same platform or say Islam is a sect of Christianity.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-03-14T04:21:49.483" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T04:21:49.483" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14913" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15942" CreationDate="2013-03-13T13:26:41.593" Score="12" ViewCount="15880" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Kings 22 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found&#xA;  the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan,&#xA;  who read it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his&#xA;  robes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the reaction of King Josiah, it looked like he had never read the Book of the Law. Verse 8 also sounds like the book was lost for a long time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was the Book of the Law lost for a long time that King Josiah never saw it before? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does this discovery of the Book of the Law mean that the location of the book was not known before?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which copy of the Book of the Law was it? Was it the copy for the King or from the  Levitical priests? (Deuteronomy 17:18)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did their ignorance of the presence of Book of the Law mean that nobody at that time cared to go inside the Temple to read from the Book of the Law?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How may we refute people who say that someone forged the book and put it there?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-05-21T01:19:23.323" LastActivityDate="2020-01-23T02:31:31.423" Title="What happened to the Book of the Law in the time of Josiah?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;torah&gt;&lt;2-kings&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14914" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-13T14:22:03.007" Score="9" ViewCount="476" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6038/1283&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, Genesis is not to be taken literally by the Roman Catholic church due to the scientific evidence contradicting it. In this view, what is the basis of the original sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1283" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T14:10:15.010" Title="If Genesis is not to be taken literally by the Roman Catholics, what is the basis of the original sin?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14915" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-13T14:32:19.897" Score="1" ViewCount="150" Body="&lt;p&gt;After Jesus died, he went to the place of the Dead.&#xA;1 Peter 8:19-20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— &lt;strong&gt;20&lt;/strong&gt; to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If possible, I'd like an answer covering the following aspects:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is this place ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it Sheol/Hades?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does it still exist now?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-13T17:21:08.737" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T17:21:08.737" Title="What is the place where Jesus went after death?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-03-13T19:43:54.450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14916" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-13T14:51:19.327" Score="2" ViewCount="804" Body="&lt;p&gt;God gave Adam and Eve the following command, followed by a cause&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:17-  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou&#xA;  shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou&#xA;  shalt surely die.  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even so, they ate and still lived a long life, not dying in the same day&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 5:5-  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and&#xA;  thirty years: and he died.  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it as simple as &quot;day&quot; referring to a different period of time than it refers to today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-13T15:05:19.757" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T19:54:35.477" Title="Why didn't Adam and Eve die when they ate the fruit?" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;eden&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-03-13T20:07:24.020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14917" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14921" CreationDate="2013-03-13T14:54:48.780" Score="6" ViewCount="13059" Body="&lt;p&gt;In James 1:13 it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in Genesis 22:1 it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So did God actually tempt Abraham or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2013-03-15T17:47:03.643" LastActivityDate="2019-01-29T20:45:35.420" Title="Does God tempt Abraham in Genesis 22:1?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14918" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-13T15:26:19.140" Score="1" ViewCount="46" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the title sugests, besides the Bible, what sources are there about the existance of Jessus Christ. &#xA;I can imagine if someone did many miracles and would have thousands of people following him on different ocassions(like the preach on the mountain) or enter Jerusalem being cheered by the people in the city wouldn't go unnoticed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what historical records do we have about Jesus and/or his miracles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T15:26:19.140" Title="Historical evidence other than Bible about Jesus" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-03-13T15:35:30.523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14920" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14934" CreationDate="2013-03-13T17:41:21.947" Score="23" ViewCount="31534" Body="&lt;p&gt;When someone commits a wrong against another person, what is he supposed to do to make things right?  Is seeking forgiveness from God sufficient, or do you first need to set things right with the other person?  If the latter, what are you obligated to do -- apologize, make amends (what kinds), something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the answer depend on the type of damage done?  For example, is gossip different from property damage, or injury?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the answer depend on who was wronged?  Is the obligation to a fellow Christian different than one to a non-Christian? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for a general Christian teaching on this subject.  If there's a wide range of opinions on this, I'd like to know what the teachings are, and the Scriptural support for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not Christian and thus am not asking what I should do in this case.  I know what is expected of me as a Jew if I have wronged somebody else, and I am curious about how that compares to what your religion teaches about what is expected of a Christian who wrongs another.  I'm not asking about the other side of the case, the obligation to forgive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4145" LastEditorUserId="4145" LastEditDate="2013-09-17T13:10:43.593" LastActivityDate="2015-09-06T23:07:01.710" Title="How should one reconcile a wrong against another person?" Tags="&lt;reconciliation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-09-06T23:07:07.277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14917" CreationDate="2013-03-13T17:58:55.100" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, God does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In hebrew the word there is נָסָה the KJV translates it as &amp;quot;tempt&amp;quot;, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/5254.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;strong's translates&lt;/a&gt; it as &amp;quot;to test&amp;quot;. In fact if you check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/genesis/22-1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;other translations&lt;/a&gt; you'll find thats how they translate it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what was God doing in Genesis 22? Was he tempting Abraham or testing him? Reading on in the chapter God makes it clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; “Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and&#xA;go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on&#xA;one of the mountains, which I will show you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; “Don’t lay a hand on&#xA;the boy!” the angel said. “Do not hurt him in any way, &lt;strong&gt;for now I know&#xA;that you truly fear God&lt;/strong&gt;. You have not withheld from me even your son,&#xA;your only son.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God was testing Abraham to see if he feared Him. And because of Abraham's obedience and faith he was blessed and so were we.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T22:18:19.230" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14922" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14923" CreationDate="2013-03-13T18:14:25.963" Score="8" ViewCount="3867" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm seeing this phrase being displayed on all the news channels, in conjunction with a lot of cheering people under umbrellas who have been waiting for the new pope to be elected. Is there some sort of background and history that explains why this obscure latin phrase is being used?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the meaning of the phrase &quot;Habemus Papam&quot;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-12T02:35:19.920" LastActivityDate="2015-09-12T02:35:19.920" Title="What does &quot;Habemus Papam&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;latin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14922" CreationDate="2013-03-13T18:14:25.963" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;It means &quot;&lt;strong&gt;We Have a Pope!&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually the media declares this as soon as it sees white smoke, but the proper announcement is actually given by the Cardinal Protodeacon a short time later. Here is the English text of the full announcement, from the recent election of Pope Francis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I announce to you a great joy: We have a pope!&#xA;  The most eminent and most reverend lord, Lord &lt;em&gt;Jorge&lt;/em&gt;, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, &lt;em&gt;Bergoglio&lt;/em&gt;, who has taken for himself the name &lt;em&gt;Francis&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habemus_Papam&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Habemus Papam! (&quot;We Have a Pope!&quot;) is the announcement given in Latin by the Cardinal Protodeacon, the senior Cardinal Deacon, upon the election of a new pope. The announcement is given from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. After the announcement, the new pope is presented to the people and he gives his first Urbi et Orbi blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The practice of giving this announcement actually goes back to the election of Martin V in 1417. At that time, several people had claim to the papacy, so when this was resolved with the election of Martin V, there was great joy, since the people finally had a pope. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.ca/books?id=weP7d-zfNbcC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Short History of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;, quoted on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.news.va/en/news/origins-of-the-annuntio-vobis-gaudium-magnum-habem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;news.va&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Gregory XII, of the Roman line, was persuaded to resign in July. John XXIII also abdicated, under pressure. Benedict XIII, of the Avignon line, adamantly refused to resign and was eventually deposed by the council. Thereby the path was cleared for a fresh election and in November 1417 Oddo Colonna was duly elected by the council and took the name Martin V.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The announcement looked like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/1ShB4.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Habemus Papam&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-14T07:41:05.330" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T07:41:05.330" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14925" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14927" CreationDate="2013-03-13T19:37:33.767" Score="29" ViewCount="52419" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just started wondering after seeing the white smoke, did the cardinal just receive a raise when he became the pope? What's his salary if he is paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4147" LastActivityDate="2015-03-19T00:13:53.557" Title="Does the pope get paid for being the pope?" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14916" CreationDate="2013-03-13T19:48:25.187" Score="-2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NIV does not make this implication. Perhaps you would get better answers on &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;KJV was written in English for the common man ... in the 17th century! English and many of its words have changed much since. It is entirely possible that this has to do with the KJV practically being an ancient manuscript that should be read from the perspective of its intended audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Adam and Eve did not die on that exact day it is safe to say that the translators did not intend to give that impression in Genesis 2:17. So there must be another explanation of what they meant by it. The most likely, I would say is that the word day at the time or in this context does not necessarily mean between sun up and sun down. What it means exactly in this case I cannot say. That is why I suggest the Hermeneutics site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some might argue that die means something other than actual death, but I really don't buy that, but that is strictly my opinion and not really part of your question. If you take one of those perspectives it could easily answer this question for you, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T19:54:35.477" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14925" CreationDate="2013-03-13T20:02:58.110" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually the opposite: his pay went down to 0. The pope receives no salary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His modest daily needs (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) are provided for by the Vatican&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Popes do not accumulate wealth, and usually die in office. It's difficult to even imagine what he would use money for. He has all he needs. He is able to say the Mass, and he is able to serve God and people. He lives in the midst of a beautiful historic site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/obolo_spietro/documents/index_en.htm&quot;&gt;Catholics try to give him money&lt;/a&gt;, but he just gives it all away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1 - though perhaps not always to &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; standards: &quot;Reportedly, the Papal Apartments had been in disrepair, with 'outmoded furnishings and lack of lighting' and large drums placed in the false ceiling to catch water leaks.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Apartments&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T20:02:58.110" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14928" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14930" CreationDate="2013-03-13T20:03:41.057" Score="11" ViewCount="1577" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why can't cardinals over 80 vote in the conclave? Is there a reason given anywhere?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4147" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-13T20:08:52.587" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T20:23:56.080" Title="Why can't cardinals over 80 vote in the conclave?" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14928" CreationDate="2013-03-13T20:18:29.100" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church excuses them from voting out of concern for the Cardinals themselves. Selecting the Supreme Pontiff can be a great burden of responsibility, and especially so when one is advanced in age. These Cardinals instead take the role of supporting the electors by helping to lead the People of God in prayer during the election.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Pope John Paul II's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html&quot;&gt;Universi Dominici Gregis&lt;/a&gt;, on the subject of papal elections:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the present historical circumstances, the universality of the Church is sufficiently expressed by the College of one hundred and twenty electors, made up of Cardinals coming from all parts of the world and from very different cultures. I therefore confirm that this is to be the maximum number of Cardinal electors, while at the same time indicating that it is in no way meant as a sign of less respect that the provision laid down by my predecessor Pope Paul VI has been retained, namely, that those Cardinals who celebrate their eightieth birthday before the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant do not take part in the election.10 &lt;strong&gt;The reason for this provision is the desire not to add to the weight of such venerable age the further burden of responsibility for choosing the one who will have to lead Christ's flock&lt;/strong&gt; in ways adapted to the needs of the times. This does not however mean that the Cardinals over eighty years of age cannot take part in the preparatory meetings of the Conclave, in conformity with the norms set forth below. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, and especially during the election of the Supreme Pontiff, &lt;strong&gt;they in particular should lead the People of God assembled in the Patriarchal Basilicas of Rome and in other churches in the Dioceses throughout the world&lt;/strong&gt;, supporting the work of the electors with fervent prayers and supplications to the Holy Spirit and imploring for them the light needed to make their choice before God alone and with concern only for the &quot;salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-13T20:23:56.080" LastActivityDate="2013-03-13T20:23:56.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14932" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14936" CreationDate="2013-03-13T21:20:11.083" Score="6" ViewCount="486" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14925/does-the-pope-get-paid-for-being-the-pope&quot;&gt;Does the pope get paid for being the pope?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above question is answered very well and shows that the Pope genuinely has no personal assets. He is well cared for by the Vatican. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about the recently resigned Pope Benedict. He is no longer Pope and likely has very little or even no personal assets. What will happen to him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is interesting to know because I think only two or three Popes have actually ever resigned. Most die in office. So there is no Papal retirement fund and I would think not really any official or traditional way of handling this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T03:16:40.813" Title="What happens to retired Popes like Pope Benedict?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;benedict-xvi&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14920" CreationDate="2013-03-14T01:34:05.117" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of those questions that should have a clear, easy answer, but when you ask &quot;what do Christians believe about this&quot; you will likely get a lot of different answers.  I'm going to put a preface explaining why those answers vary, and then go into a purely Scriptural view, which is the view you will likely hear from the pulpit of any Church you visit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why the answers may vary.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity, there is a concept of being &quot;free from the Law of Moses&quot; through the perfect substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.  The central theme of Christianity is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/heaven-goodenough.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;we can never be &quot;good enough&quot; to get to Heaven on our own&lt;/a&gt;, and that Jesus is the promised Christ - His sacrifice is what gets us to Heaven, not our own good works.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the questions that varying groups differ (and they differ wildly) is what, exactly it means to be free from the Law of Moses.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply&quot;&gt;There are other questions already on this site that explore that topic&lt;/a&gt;, but in a nutshell, there is debate over whether we are obligated to tithe, to refrain from certain things, to perform certain ceremonies, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This applies to your question directly because some groups believe that we are under no obligation to obey the Old Testament commandments regarding this, and others will say we are.  Some will tell you that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.surfinthespirit.com/charity/law-of-love.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Law of Love&lt;/a&gt; dictates that we will meet or exceed the requirements of Mosaic Law, and some would accuse those people of &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/what-is-legalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Legalism.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One common teaching&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teaching with which I am the most familiar with comes from the mouth of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 5:20-24 (King James version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the&#xA;  righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter&#xA;  into the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not&#xA;  kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother&#xA;  without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever&#xA;  shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but&#xA;  whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.&#xA;  23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there&#xA;  rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be&#xA;  reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is commonly taught as doing whatever it takes to make it right.  If you have sinned against someone, or even if that person thinks you have sinned against them, and you hadn't intended to, the priority is to reconcile and heal the relationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per His words in verse 24. reconciliation with an offended person takes priority over worship.  (How can we come to God with a clean heart, if we are carrying the stain of sin?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt; expands on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leave there thy gift before the altar - This is as much as to say, &quot;Do&#xA;  not attempt to bring any offering to God while thou art in a spirit of&#xA;  enmity against any person; or hast any difference with thy neighbor,&#xA;  which thou hast not used thy diligence to get adjusted.&quot; It is our&#xA;  duty and interest, both to bring our gift, and offer it too; but God&#xA;  will not accept of any act of religious worship from us, while any&#xA;  enmity subsists in our hearts towards any soul of man; or while any&#xA;  subsists in our neighbor's heart towards us, which we have not used&#xA;  the proper means to remove. A religion, the very essence of which is&#xA;  love, cannot suffer at its altars a heart that is revengeful and&#xA;  uncharitable, or which does not use its utmost endeavors to revive&#xA;  love in the heart of another. The original word, δωρον, which we&#xA;  translate gift, is used by the rabbins in Hebrew letters דורון doron,&#xA;  which signifies not only a gift, but a sacrifice offered to God. See&#xA;  several proofs in Schoettgen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to most of your sub-questions are simple, if we take His words at face value:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is seeking forgiveness from God sufficient, or do you first need to&#xA;  set things right with the other person?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We need to first make it right with the other person.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the latter, what are you obligated to do -- apologize, make amends&#xA;  (what kinds), something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Whatever it takes to reconcile.&lt;/strong&gt;  This may be as simple as an honest confession of your sin to the other person, and a sincere apology, it may involve paying something back, it may mean doing something you really don't want to do (so long as that thing isn't sinful).  You may have to apologize before the Church, or admit to peers/friends/families that you've done wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be cases where the other offended party will not accept any offer of reconciliation, at which case, we can only do our best.  God knows our hearts and minds better than we can, and He knows both your mind and that of the person who holds something against you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does the answer depend on who was wronged? Is the obligation to a&#xA;  fellow Christian different than one to a non-Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No.  Absolutely not.&lt;/strong&gt;  The obligation to a fellow Christian is no more or less than to a non-Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've taken the liberty of finding a few teachings on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/2010/09/what-to-do-when-you-sin-against-someone.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/2010/09/what-to-do-when-you-sin-against-someone.html&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;discusses the importance of attempting to reconcile with the person you've wronged.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/christianity/devotions/confession&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/christianity/devotions/confession&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;echoes the fact that going to God alone isn't enough, you must go to the person you've sinned against.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.victorious.org/churchbook/chur29.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.victorious.org/churchbook/chur29.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Discusses practical, Scriptural guidance for resolving disputed between believers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://jpsmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/do-we-need-to-confess-our-sins-to-those-we-have-sinned-against/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://jpsmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/do-we-need-to-confess-our-sins-to-those-we-have-sinned-against/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Speaks to how our relationship with each other reflects our relationship with God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/restitution-Bible.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/restitution-Bible.html&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Compares Mosaic Law with the New Testament teaching on forgiveness and Repentance&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T02:25:55.060" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14920" CreationDate="2013-03-14T02:24:31.163" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;first principle&lt;/strong&gt; is that we should recognize the way we treat our neighbor is evidence of our feelings towards God. Therefore we should try and do what we can to obtain forgiveness from our neighbor before boasting about our religious virtues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;next principle&lt;/strong&gt; is to recognize that even when you try to seek peace with your neighbor, it will not always be granted. In deed, your neighbor who is offended might be the greater offender. He who is angry without proper cause stands on the same level with the murderer (1 John 3:15).   The main issue then is to remember sin is ultimately against God and his laws, not against man.  Therefore although we seek restitution with men, sometime obtaining it, afterwards our confession is only to God who does grant full pardon if confessed by faith. This principle is well displayed in David's confession of murder and adultery.  What did David finally say about his sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Against you, you only, have I sinned&#xA;  and done what is evil in your sight (Psalms 51:4, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to the messy matter of &lt;strong&gt;'restitution' to those truly offended&lt;/strong&gt; by a sin, the law prescribing restitution plus 5% ( Number Ch 5:5) is certainly a good principle arguably upheld the command to love our neighbor.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However in practice there are some &lt;strong&gt;variables to consider&lt;/strong&gt; that makes the application complex. If trying to set things straight with an offended person over a criminal offense and they do forgive and also agree their is no point in confessing to the police, should you still try and 'make it right' with the law? The answer is not necessarily clear. If you did the crime years ago and can't find the person offended, what can you do? If the attempt to seek amends further hurts the offended, what to do? For example should a husband come home every day and try to recall anyone he may have briefly lusted over and apologize? Would this help the marriage or hurt his wife?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The particular situation calls for wisdom. Confession in itself is not a virtue but the desire to restore a harm committed is. For serious matters we should be careful to seek restitution but also careful not to let an overly sensitive conscience ruin a life over something that can't be really amended for, no matter how hard one might try the outcome might only bring further harm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; Ensuring we daily forgive others as we confess our own sins (Luke 11:4) and letting love cover a multitude of daily sins between each other (1 Peter 4:8) is an even greater principle rising higher than the legal elements of the equation. However among a family when someone is harmed seeking restitution is an important part of continuing in family relations. This applies to the family in the church and the family of humanity in the site of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T02:24:31.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14932" CreationDate="2013-03-14T02:48:49.670" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;While it's not one of our usual sources for Christian views, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/26/world/europe/pope-tretirement&quot;&gt;CNN did an article discussing this&lt;/a&gt;, and given that this is the first retired Pope in 600 years, and the occurrence is extremely rare, their answer is actually pretty good...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His needs will still be seen to.  There is no dictate as to what he &lt;strong&gt;should&lt;/strong&gt; do, per Catholic doctrine, but he has indicated what he &lt;strong&gt;intends to&lt;/strong&gt; do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the statement that his needs will be seen to are addressed here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The 85-year-old will first leave Rome to go to the papal seaside&#xA;  retreat, Castle Gandolfo, until a successor is named. Then he will&#xA;  head to the Mater Ecclesiae (Mother of the Church) building, which&#xA;  formerly housed a cloistered convent in the Vatican gardens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later on, the article explores what he &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;intends to do&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; in this retreat - Devote his life to prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the chapel the pope might say Mass every day for his small&#xA;  household, said Monsignor Rick Hilgartner, executive director of the&#xA;  U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Divine Worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Benedict has said he will devote his life to prayer. There is no&#xA;  playbook for the life of prayer for a retired pope, Hilgartner said.&#xA;  &quot;Nothing beyond the normal routine&quot; for a monk or a priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He said that would include &quot;prayer throughout the day and the liturgy&#xA;  of the hours, morning prayer, evening prayer, Mass every day.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for his financial needs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There may be a stipend for the retired pope. Italian news outlets have&#xA;  reported retired clerics receive up to €2,500 a month. Hilgartner said&#xA;  Benedict won't need much money if any at all. The Vatican will take&#xA;  care of his lodging and his health care.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He didn't have a pension because the presumption was he would be in&#xA;  office until he died,&quot; Hilgartner said. &quot;His needs will be cared for.&#xA;  Because of the way he'll be living, those needs will be somewhat&#xA;  limited.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, however, for how the other Popes that have retired....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;St. Pontian was martyred in 236 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Benedict IX retired to the Abbey of Grottaferrata, where he repented of his sins, officially resigned as pope and spent the rest of his life doing penance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;St. Celestine V resigned on Dec. 13, 1294, and returned to his monastery. His successor, Pope Boniface VIII, had him imprisoned so that there would be no attempt to place him on the throne again.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-14T03:36:00.647" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T03:36:00.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14937" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14938" CreationDate="2013-03-14T03:02:17.147" Score="9" ViewCount="2198" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the most common responses that Christians make is to say the word &amp;quot;amen&amp;quot;. Here's an example from a Mass:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priest:  May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All: &lt;strong&gt;Amen&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this expression mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T23:43:47.767" Title="What does &quot;amen&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14937" CreationDate="2013-03-14T03:15:30.603" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Amen&quot; is a Hebrew word that stems from the word aman, which means &quot;to be faithful, support, or confirm.&quot; The word &quot;amen&quot; actually means, &quot;so be it,&quot; or &quot;truly.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-exactly-does-amen-mean&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic definition&lt;/a&gt; agrees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;’Amen itself is an interjection used to agree with, affirm, approve,&#xA;  or emphasize something else that has been said. Thus when Jesus begins&#xA;  certain sayings by declaring &quot;Amen, amen, I say to you . . . &quot; various&#xA;  Bible translations often render the &quot;amen, amen&quot; different ways.&#xA;  Because of the word’s association with the Hebrew terms for truth, the&#xA;  double amen is sometimes rendered &quot;truly, truly&quot; or &quot;verily, verily.&quot;&#xA;  Because of its association with the Hebrew terms for confirmation or&#xA;  dependability, one might also translate it &quot;certainly, certainly&quot; or&#xA;  &quot;most assuredly.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When one says &quot;amen&quot; in response to a prayer, it serves as an&#xA;  affirmation of agreement with the content of the prayer (cf. 1 Cor&#xA;  14:16)—in which case it is sometimes translated &quot;So be it&quot; (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2856.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  2856&lt;/a&gt;)—or as an expression of faith that God will hear and act on the&#xA;  prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Southern Baptist version:  &quot;You said it, Preacher!&quot; or &quot;Right on, Brother!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-14T23:43:47.767" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T23:43:47.767" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14939" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-14T03:55:29.127" Score="3" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not that a run of 2 means anything (or Rio is in Argentina like I mistakenly assumed &lt;a href=&quot;https://maps.google.com/maps?q=rio+de+janeiro+to+buenos+aires&amp;amp;oe=utf-8&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;ei=eUhBUZu9HqiiyAHoxoDoDQ&amp;amp;ved=0CAsQ_AUoAg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;It is just down the road&lt;/a&gt;) and given there were hundreds of years of Italian popes to skew this statistic, but it seems like Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI being elected months prior to World Youth Days nearby their countries of origin is not a complete coincidence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe it is, but just to dispel any possible conspiracies, has there ever been a precedent of electing a Pope to draw attention to an event upon the Pope's &quot;homecoming&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2020-11-07T16:50:00.893" Title="Is there any connection between the country of origin of Popes and nearby large gatherings of Catholics or Councils?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;world-youth-day&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14940" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14943" CreationDate="2013-03-14T04:37:51.577" Score="4" ViewCount="291" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14939/3941&quot;&gt;recent question&lt;/a&gt; mentions &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Youth_Day&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;World Youth Day&lt;/a&gt;. Wikipedia says that it's an event for young people organized by the Catholic Church. That isn't very helpful, since there are a lot of different types of Christian youth events. How is World Youth Day different from other events? Why do people go? What can people expect if they go? Who counts as a young person? What's the goal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2015-09-18T14:11:59.247" Title="What is World Youth Day?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;holidays&gt;&lt;youth&gt;&lt;world-youth-day&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14937" CreationDate="2013-03-14T04:43:28.070" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;it means &quot;‘I believe that it will be so&quot; . It is a declaration of affirmation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first occurrence of the word in scripture is in num 5:22, where a woman is made to undergo test for adultery,Where a husband accuses his wife of adultery, and she protested her innocence, and she was not been caught in the act, the matter was settled by God under the test of bitter water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the ceremony, when the priest pronounced the curse, the woman was required by God to say, &quot;Amen, so be it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Islam also, they always end their prayers with Amin, Amen and Amin universally means 'i support or i agree'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4142" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T04:43:28.070" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14940" CreationDate="2013-03-14T04:50:32.247" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a website dedicated to World Youth Day with an about page that explains it as thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;World Youth Day (WYD) is a worldwide encounter with the Pope which is&#xA;  typically celebrated every three years in a different country. The&#xA;  most recent WYD was celebrated in Madrid from August 16th to 21st,&#xA;  2011, and the next WYD will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from&#xA;  July 23rd to 28th, 2012.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;WYD is open to all young people who want to take part in a festive&#xA;  encounter with their contemporaries centered on Jesus Christ. This&#xA;  event is an opportunity to experience in first person the universality&#xA;  of the Church; to share with the whole world the hope of many young&#xA;  people who want to commit themselves to Christ and others. World Youth&#xA;  Day is a unique way to deepen your faith and grow closer to Christ, by&#xA;  means of prayer and the sacraments, together with thousands of other&#xA;  young people who share your interests and ambitions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that description, it doesn't sound much different in concept than similar Protestant &quot;revival&quot; events that are designed to educate, enlighten, encourage, and enlist youth to grow closer to God, to make commitments, and to encourage a lifetime of service to God and the Faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main difference (other than it being Catholic and not Protestant) is that most Protestant denominations don't have the resources, structure, and organization to make one mega-event. The scope of it is far beyond what most Protestant denominations could dream of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than those factors, it appears that the World Youth Day is remarkably similar to the smaller Protestant events.  There is teaching, readings from Scripture (and Catechism), etc. All intended to encourage a closer relationship with God and the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-14T04:58:09.157" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T04:58:09.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14940" CreationDate="2013-03-14T05:15:31.070" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I asked the same question to the Priest who lead our (it was my wife and my honeymoon) pilgrimage for the 2005 World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His answer was, It's like a renaissance festival for young(ish) Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, since I've never been to a renaissance festival, but I have been to a World Yotuth Day, I think I agree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the few that I've been keen on following up on, in Germany, Australia and Spain, it seems like a major world youth day event takes place every 3rd summer.  It's a two and a half week shindig with parishes from all over the host country taking in pilgrims.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first half is the Days in the Diocese where pilgrims stay with host families from all over the country and get to know what things are like on a parish level  (this was awesome in Germany, I love you Osnabrück and your life-sized foosball game and endless deserts)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second half is when everyone moves in closer to the epicenter and the major things start happening.  There is daily Catechesis (with Bishops and Cardinals), Holy Mass, Eucharistic Adoration, Confession as well as rock and folk Concerts, gymnastics and lots of juggling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mostly it's about the anticipation of the one big event where everyone comes together for vespers and mass with the Pope and that is awesome.  There's really nothing like camping out with a million other Catholics from all over the world.  Maybe it was just because it was my honeymoon, but it was the best experience of my life!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T05:15:31.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14947" CreationDate="2013-03-14T06:14:02.237" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although it is true that any Catholic can become Pope they are typically chosen from higher level clergy such as a cardinal. These men are very likely not married because the Canon prohibits it unless the Pope allows it for his particular case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The catechism says this concerning marriage for the clergy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate &amp;quot;for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.&amp;quot; Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to &amp;quot;the affairs of the Lord,&amp;quot; they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4X.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon Law, that Andrew Leach found first, says this concerning marriage and clergy receiving orders (becoming part of the clergy).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can 1042: The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate [this means he will be a deacon which is the lowest level of clergy]; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3R.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Canon Law also makes room to allow for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensation_(Catholic_Church)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dispensation&lt;/a&gt; of these laws in 1047 - 1049. It is, however, reserved to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apostolic See&lt;/a&gt; only (the Pope). This is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motu_proprio&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;motu proprio&lt;/a&gt;. This is basically the right of a monarch to change laws. The Pope has this right over Canon Law&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we might suppose that a married man might be selected as the next Pope, however, Can. 1042 would prohibit him from receiving orders, if he had not already as a deacon, but being a deacon would not allow him to take the seat of Rome because it is a bishop's seat, who are explicitly denied marriage. He would not be able to take the seat in Rome unless the previous Pope made dispensation for him. He could have already received dispensation and been serving as a bishop or priest for some time, although, I do not think there actually are any married bishops today. I am not sure but I would think that if a married priest, having received dispensation, were to be promoted I would think that he would need dispensation for his new post as well. The Canon Law on dispensation for marriage of the clergy is obviously for a case-by-case basis. A married priest's promotion would be a new case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of motu proprio the Pope could also change the Canon Law to allow marriage to just himself or all of clergy or anywhere in between. That is extremely unlikely to happen. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Clerical celibacy&lt;/a&gt; is a long standing tradition. It would be taboo to suddenly allow marriage to all or any clergy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sacrament of Marriage to the Catholic Church is sacred and will not and cannot be broken. If a man were elected Pope and was married as well they would surely accommodate both him and his wife, but there would still remain the problem with receiving orders unless dispensation was given previously. There are Canon lawyers who would surely have it well planned out if they ever did intend to elect a married man as the Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-17T15:50:57.157" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T15:50:57.157" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14947" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14948" CreationDate="2013-03-14T06:46:27.797" Score="6" ViewCount="5582" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is The Roman Catholic law for electing the Pope in regards to a married person? If a married person is elected, what will happen to his wife after becoming the Pope? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-14T15:05:59.117" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T21:19:27.533" Title="Can a married person be elected as the Pope?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;canon-law&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14947" CreationDate="2013-03-14T07:16:42.307" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;A married person cannot be elected, because the pope is Bishop of Rome and married people cannot be bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can 1042: The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon law does allow married men to become deacons (as stated there), and also priests with the individual approval of the Holy See, but it does not extend that relaxation of Canon 1042 to bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These restrictions and relaxations are the same as in the Eastern Churches, so as not to rule out eventual reunification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T07:16:42.307" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4250" CreationDate="2013-03-14T09:14:05.253" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was speaking about the spiritual world, not about the physical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When He spoke of Himself as the Bread of Life, He was not speaking of bread that we eat with our mouths, but rather spiritual food which sustains our souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when Jesus says &quot;you must eat my flesh&quot;, He means that our souls need Him if we are to continue living after our physical bodies no longer function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the food and drink of our Spirit, He is our only true sustenance. The flesh counts for nothing, for we are spirit, not flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T09:14:05.253" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14950" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14991" CreationDate="2013-03-14T10:18:48.690" Score="4" ViewCount="15972" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently read an argument which was basically 'Paul against Jesus' type and was something like this:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish the Jewish laws but to fulfill them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:17&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17&lt;/a&gt;, NET)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we have this verse in OT:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17:14&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 17:14&lt;/a&gt;, NET)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is argued that even though Jesus was circumcised, it is not a requirement now for Christians because Paul preached so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for not making circumcision a requirement for Christians?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-09-05T23:04:43.753" LastActivityDate="2016-09-05T23:04:43.753" Title="What is the Biblical basis for not making circumcision a requirement for Christians?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;circumcision&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14950" CreationDate="2013-03-14T10:58:47.407" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripture (and that I mean here the law) clearly tells us that the circumcision is not to be of only physical nature.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jeremiah  4:4 Just as ritual circumcision cuts away the foreskin as an external symbol of dedicated covenant commitment, you must genuinely dedicate yourselves to the LORD.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jeremiah 9:25, scripture says that if we are not circumcised in our hearts than it is of no use. Here the argument of Paul verses Jesus is clearly defeated since Paul is basing his teaching on what was said in the law which Jesus was saying in Matt. 5:17 that He came to fulfill the law. Paul being a learned Jewish scholar knew all these prophecies which were being fulfilled in Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 9:25 The LORD says, “Watch out! The time is soon coming when I will punish all those who are circumcised only in the flesh. 9:26 That is, I will punish the Egyptians, the Judeans, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and all the desert people who cut their hair short at the temples. I will do so because none of the people of those nations are really circumcised in the LORD’s sight. Moreover, none of the people of Israel are circumcised when it comes to their hearts.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So above verses and following verses from scripture (law) rather tells us that we need to be circumcised in heart also.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 44:7 When you bring foreigners, those uncircumcised in heart and in flesh, into my sanctuary, you desecrate it – even my house – when you offer my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant by all your abominable practices.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel  44:9 This is what the sovereign LORD says: No foreigner, who is uncircumcised in heart and flesh among all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, will enter into my sanctuary.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now coming to the New Testament, we see in verse of Act:10.45 that even uncircumcised believers were filled with Holy spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts: 10:45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in Verse Act. 11:5 Peter’s vision tells us about to accept uncircumcised believers:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came to me. 11:6 As I stared I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and wild birds. 11:7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!’ 11:8   But I said, ‘Certainly not, Lord, for nothing defiled or ritually unclean has ever entered my mouth!’ 11:9 But the voice replied a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!’  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elsewhere also we see that there is a strong Biblical basis for not following the practice of circumcision in the following verses:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 15:10 So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans: 2:25 For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcised man obeys the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 2:27 And will not the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law judge you who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgress the law? 2:28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, 2:29 but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person’s praise is not from people but from God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 4:12, “And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is not Paul who stopped the circumcision on his own but his preaching was firmly based on the various verses in the law which Jesus came to fulfill and those verses are to be fulfilled by not circumcising physically but spiritually.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:41:41.290" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:41:41.290" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14953" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-14T14:13:30.433" Score="15" ViewCount="131902" Body="&lt;p&gt;I mean, for example, could my dead grandmother see me from heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was bothering me as a Christian and I was frustrated not to find the answer, because this is important to me personally. For example, when I travel the first thing I ask is if the hotel where I'm staying has an internet connection so that I can communicate with my wife and daughter when I am away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4155" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-15T21:41:20.753" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T14:46:33.833" Title="What does Bible say about possibility of seeing/hearing people on Earth from heaven?" Tags="&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14954" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14959" CreationDate="2013-03-14T15:25:46.237" Score="1" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the catholic argument that justifies the usage of statues and pictures of Jesus Christ and saints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3762" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-03-14T17:56:13.503" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T18:43:06.743" Title="About statues and pictures" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-03-15T07:15:18.417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2013-03-14T15:46:16.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that God wanted us to have the knowledge of good and evil.  As others have said, God is good.  How would we know how good he is if we didn't know good and evil?  Those of us who love good will seek God - this is the whole reason for it all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is also a chess player, though. :)  He could not give us that knowledge from the get-go for a very important reason:  He knew that we, being free agents, would do evil if we knew about it.  So, he set up a scenario where we would be at fault if we did gain the knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is all beautifully simple but it takes a bit of an open mind to sort through it correctly.  The church has done a horrible job of answering the question so most people are brainwashed in to the cookie-cutter answers that are so prevalent nowadays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see a more careful treatise of my view (which I believe is THE correct view) here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://d2w24jbzquz3r5.cloudfront.net/ToKoGaE.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https://d2w24jbzquz3r5.cloudfront.net/ToKoGaE.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4157" LastEditorUserId="4157" LastEditDate="2017-05-30T17:41:52.810" LastActivityDate="2017-05-30T17:41:52.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2013-03-14T16:33:47.470" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A&#xA;  spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free&#xA;  submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the&#xA;  knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you&#xA;  eat of it, you shall die.” &lt;strong&gt;The “tree of the knowledge of good and&#xA;  evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a&#xA;  creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust&lt;/strong&gt;. Man is&#xA;  dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to&#xA;  the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=14-chapter4.xhtml%23para396&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  396&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By my understanding, the tree, be it an actual or figurative tree, is &quot;merely&quot; a representation or manifestation of the innate human capacity for freedom. The tree represents, at least to some extent, a dis-acknowledgement for the supremacy of God. God makes this forbidden not arbitrarily, but because God knows a proper relationship with Himself to be necessary for eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we accept the tree as a &quot;mere&quot; image of freedom, the underlying question is then &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5065/why-would-god-create-beings-with-the-capacity-to-sin&quot;&gt;Why would God create beings with the capacity to sin?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the question has already been answered in greater detail, a somewhat brief answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and&#xA;  particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the&#xA;  knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and&#xA;  are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a&#xA;  psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an&#xA;  inadequate social structure, etc. &lt;strong&gt;Only in the knowledge of God’s&#xA;  plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God&#xA;  gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and&#xA;  loving one another.&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=14-chapter4.xhtml%23para387&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  387&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To Love&lt;/em&gt; innately requires a freedom that enables us to &lt;em&gt;not love&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, if an act may be construed as loving, it is only loving if the act is chosen with the full freedom to have chosen otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The assumption (which could be addressed more fully in another question) is that it is profoundly good and ultimately enjoyable &lt;em&gt;to love&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T16:33:47.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14957" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15063" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:10:57.180" Score="19" ViewCount="14181" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of Protestants that say the use of the images and statues in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is idolatry. I know that these churches call certain images &quot;icons&quot;, but I don't really know what that means, and I personally have trouble seeing the difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14615/idolatry-in-churches-allowed/&quot;&gt;Some answers on this closed question&lt;/a&gt; are helpful but I think the poor delivery of the question is causing confusion. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12357/is-catholicism-heretical-due-to-perceived-idolatry&quot;&gt;Same here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic and Orthodox perspectives are welcome. What would be helpful is the definition of both terms and why the use of icons is not idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-12-12T17:57:05.197" LastActivityDate="2017-12-12T17:57:05.197" Title="What is the difference between icons and idols in churches that permit icons?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;&lt;iconography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14958" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:16:21.470" Score="-2" ViewCount="9485" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard Christopher Hitchens say this a few times now,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are the pure and chosen few&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      And all the rest are damned&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      There’s room enough in hell for you&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      We don’t want heaven crammed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've found it on cited on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/10/is_mormonism_a_cult_who_cares_it_s_their_weird_and_sinister_beli.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slate&lt;/a&gt;. What is the origin of this rhyme? Slate says it is southern Baptist but nothing more. It's not in the Bible itself (I searched).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="712" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-01-02T20:01:49.060" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T20:01:49.060" Title="Where did the &quot;We are the pure and chosen few / And all the rest are damned&quot; nursery rhyme originate?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;southern-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-03-20T13:33:26.730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14954" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:43:06.743" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Obviously this depends on the meaning of &quot;usage&quot;. If you're using a statue to clobber an innocent person to death, clearly there is no Catholic argument that justifies this. This is called &lt;strong&gt;murder&lt;/strong&gt;. Catholics think &lt;strong&gt;that's bad&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Treating a statue of Jesus as if the statue itself &lt;em&gt;was Jesus&lt;/em&gt; or as if it had some sort of &quot;divine element&quot; inside is also bad. This is called &lt;strong&gt;idolatry&lt;/strong&gt;, or the worship of something in place of God. There's no Catholic argument for this either, Catholics think &lt;strong&gt;that's bad&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now think of a mother who shows a friend a photo of her youngest child. Think of a soldier who cherishes a picture of his wife that his youngest child drew. These people aren't worshipping other humans. Think of a barber who talks to the image of his client in the mirror while cutting hair. The barber isn't talking to the mirror. There is no Catholic argument here, and no need for one. Using images and statues in &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; way is ok, according to both the Bible and common sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T18:43:06.743" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14958" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:45:40.380" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Doing a little bit of searching through &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=bOS9wTxSjsMC&amp;amp;pg=PT164&amp;amp;lpg=PT164&amp;amp;dq=We+are+the+pure+and+chosen+few+And+all+the+rest+are+damned+There%E2%80%99s+room+enough+in+hell+for+you+We+don%E2%80%99t+want+heaven+crammed.&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=UhacQJNB7j&amp;amp;sig=ddttcE71R9te-cK1HjPuUv_YXrc&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=mhhCUYHnAoTl4AOVi4GoAQ&amp;amp;ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christopher Hitchens’ own book &lt;em&gt;God Is Not Great&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, he seems to be attributing this ditty to an English satirist.  The reference is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin’s Geneva was a prototypical totalitarian state, and Clavin himself a sadist and torturer and killer, who burned Servetus (one of the great thinkers and questioners of the day) while the man was still alive. The lesser wretchedness induced in Calvin’s followers, compelled to waste their lives worrying if they had been “elected” or not, is well caught in George Eliot’s &lt;em&gt;Adam Bede&lt;/em&gt;, and in an old English plebian satire against the other sects ... who dare to claim that they are of the elect, and that they alone know the exact number of those who will be plucked from the burning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;We are the pure and chosen few, and all the rest are damned. There’s room enough in hell for you — we don't want heaven crammed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As can be deduced from the tone, Hitchens himself is no objective source here, and he does not claim to be picking from a Christian source.  Rather, he is quoting a satrical work, hyperbolically intended to ridicule the Pharisitical tendencies of their enemies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As cited in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish/item/hitchens_wolpe_harris_artsen_and_the_afterlife_excerpts_20110222&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;JewishJournal.com&lt;/a&gt;, Hitchens attributes this ditty to “English Calvinists,” suggesting that this would come from the English Civil War, in the early to mid 1600s.  During this period, Catholics and Calvinists were killing each other pretty fiercely, so the invective would not be out of place.  In the same way that “damn yankees” would characterize their southern slave holding brothers as stupid, so too the Catholics would easily, for propagandistic reasons, have the desire to mischaracterize the doctrine of election as an elitist thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In truth, most who believe in Election do not believe that they know if they are elect or not (hence Hitchens’ explanation), and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9866/do-calvinists-rejoice-in-the-destruction-of-sinners&quot;&gt;in no event do they believe that it is in any way a good thing that others go to hell&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://scripturetruths5.tripod.com/election-cole.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;They view it as a sad fact, not a source of glee&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Slate article perpetuates this stereotype, however, stating:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“As I pointed out a few weeks ago, Perry has not just accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior, but has expressed the view that those who do not join him are headed for eternal damnation.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article is clearly written by someone who doesn't understand what Christians believe, for the idea that one would rejoice in the degenerate’s fate would only be held by the unregenerate in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin could be a rather strict guy (I’m not sure I’d go so far as to characterize him as Hitchens did, but he could be rather stern), but these are not his own words.  Rather, it was invective from the beginning, and the fair-minded Hitchens is merely repeating the drivel from 500 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T17:51:53.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14961" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15525" CreationDate="2013-03-14T19:34:13.040" Score="13" ViewCount="1665" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Early_church_and_premillennialism_.28chiliasm.29&quot;&gt;repeatedly&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chiliasm&quot;&gt;seen&lt;/a&gt; it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/end/chiliasm.shtml&quot;&gt;asserted&lt;/a&gt; that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Early_church_and_premillennialism_.28chiliasm.29&quot;&gt;Chiliasm&lt;/a&gt; was condemned as a heresy in the fourth century by the Church when it included the phrase &quot;whose Kingdom shall have no end&quot; in the Nicene Creed. However, I have seen much more &lt;a href=&quot;http://francisgumerlock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Millennialism%20and%20the%20Early%20Church%20Councils.%20Gumerlock.pdf&quot;&gt;scholarly sources&lt;/a&gt; that &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0226653714&quot;&gt;assert&lt;/a&gt; it was never officially condemned as a heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than just restating &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/luke/1-33.htm&quot;&gt;Luke 1:33&lt;/a&gt;, what is the context and meaning of the phrase &quot;whose Kingdom shall have no end&quot; in the Nicene Creed? Does it condemn Chiliasm?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2015-06-25T20:37:58.950" LastActivityDate="2015-06-25T20:37:58.950" Title="Does the Nicene Creed condemn Chiliasm?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;nicene-creed&gt;&lt;premillennialism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14962" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-14T22:38:55.100" Score="5" ViewCount="1056" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Orthodox and the Catholic Church icons and statues are permitted, and members of those churches look at such in much the same way they look at photographs of loved ones. We also talk to people depicted in certain icons, who we believe are in heaven, and we ask them to pray to God for us. (We ask the &lt;em&gt;people&lt;/em&gt;, not the artistic renderings of those people.) Other churches that are opposed to icons and statues sometimes draw a comparison to idolatry. Usually this point makes reference to the commandment to not make idols: idols are a certain kind of image or likeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's an idol, according to these churches? Presumably idols must include things like the Golden Calf. But they must exclude things like the cherubim mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus25.htm&quot;&gt;Exodus 25:18-19&lt;/a&gt;, since God would not command the construction of idols:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory,&#xA;  fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question isn't &quot;what practices of the Catholic Church involving images are disapproved of&quot;. The question is, these other churches must have some sort of definition of what counts as an idol. Is an idol something made of gold? Stone? Wood? Is it anything that depicts an animal, a human, or Jesus? Under what conditions do these churches consider something an idol?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2014-12-29T00:02:34.203" Title="What do churches that prohibit the use of icons think an idol is?" Tags="&lt;idolatry&gt;&lt;iconoclasm&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14962" CreationDate="2013-03-14T23:09:34.250" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Protestant perspective, an idol is anything that is worshiped and served in place of (or in addition to) God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;potentially&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; include a statue of Buddha, an icon of a Saint, a girlfriend, a hobby, wealth, an iPhone, etc. None of these things are inherently sinful, but when worshiped and served they become an idol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the accusation from some Christians against the Catholic &amp;amp; Orthodox churches that the icons are idols comes partially from misunderstanding, and partially from a concern that the prayers and attention directed to Mary and others detracts from prayer and attention to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T23:09:34.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5903" CreationDate="2013-03-14T23:23:22.627" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;We do not know what Jesus wrote. There is no other part of the Bible that makes a reference back to this passage to tell us what He wrote, or why He wrote it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, at least &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8/#51008006-1&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; of the more-scholarly sources simply point to&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+17%3A13&amp;amp;version=RSV&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 17:13&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O Lord, the hope of Israel,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      &lt;strong&gt;all who forsake thee shall be put to shame;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to be the only other passage in the Bible that makes an allusion to writing in the earth. The scribes and the Pharisees would have been familiar with this passage, especially the elders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-14T23:23:22.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14966" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15033" CreationDate="2013-03-14T23:40:04.737" Score="5" ViewCount="1097" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14925/3941#14927&quot;&gt;The pope recieves no salary&lt;/a&gt;, but from what I understand, popes do have some personal possessions. A personal possesion is something that you own. For example, Pope Benedict XVI, I believe, had a substantial library of books that he brought with him into the Papal Apartments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, enumerating everything a certain pope has ever owned is impossible and not very useful. But presumably we can know what sort of personal possessions a typical pope has at a typical point in time. This would shed some light on the daily life of the pope, and might clear up some misconceptions regarding the personal wealth of popes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope John Paul II is the most recent deceased pope, and served as pope for a comparatively long time. The time of death is a unique and definite point, and there are probably objective records of these remaining possessions. Some of those personal possessions might eventually be &quot;relics&quot;, and these are important to Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What personal possessions did Pope John Paul II have at the time of death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T03:16:31.667" Title="What personal possessions did Pope John Paul II have at the time of death?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;john-paul-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14962" CreationDate="2013-03-15T00:28:01.987" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many reason why many protestants would look upon your question as 'Why is idolatry wrong?' Although to me your question sounds sincere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;first&lt;/strong&gt; thing to keep in mind is &lt;strong&gt;an idol is nothing in and of itself&lt;/strong&gt;. (1 Cor 8:4) Having even a golden calf in a church would not be wrong in and of itself. Though in the Old Testament certainly any object not originally designed by God to foreshadow the gospel was forbidden from the temple of worship. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Secondly&lt;/strong&gt; any image meant to personify the invisible God is degrading to his glory and forbidden in the ten commandments from being used to facilitate worship. (Ex 20:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Third&lt;/strong&gt;, the golden calf was invented just after receiving a covenant and was made not to replace true worship but to facilitate it. Exactly like the sudden exaltation of Mary and the Saints after the second covenant. It was not only in the time of Moses that the golden calf was mixed into true worship but Israel (as opposed to Judah) regularly restored that corrupt mixture as a hallmark of its apostasy. (1 Kings 12:28) Protestants generally view the Catholic and Eastern ancient churches just like Israel in this matter. This is part of why they repented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fourth&lt;/strong&gt; possibly the most disrespectful of the priesthood of Christ is that these 'cherished loved ones' are loved. They are presented as objects (with characteristics similar to pagan patron idols in the local region that they were first established) that have more empathy to particular difficulties than Jesus. The basic idea is that as carnal churches can't attract people with faith in Christ as the only one who can empathize with us as our priest. (Heb 3:15) The carnal attempt to appeal to pagan masses, is by replacing their idols with Christian versions, of the same thing. This mixes their paganism with the worship of God, i.e. more of the golden calf repeated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; Blocks of wood, and even really liking them as works of art, is not generally condemned by anyone. Using them to facilitate worship is considered idolatry by many. The example about the cherubim spreading out their wings is different as angels were not to be invokes to facilitate worship. In fact if angels were to facilitate worship their faces would be open to an assembly but actually they were in the most holy place (a place one could not enter) with 'their faces one to another'. 'Toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.' (Ex: 25:20) That is, they represented the heavenly view of angels 'upon the merciful atoning work of Christ', taking away the condemnation of the law, covering it up with his blood. The art implies a 'looking away' from angels to Christ, not the other way around.  Our attention to 'loved ones' in worship is the quintessential idolatry as understood by many Protestants. Worship is viewed as our attention to 'The Loved One', not loved ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-15T01:33:22.987" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T01:33:22.987" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14969" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-15T01:59:52.173" Score="2" ViewCount="101" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 16:25 But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received&#xA;  your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is&#xA;  comforted here and you are in agony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/luke/16-25.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Link to verse in BibleHub&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it allow us to understand that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Spiritism&lt;/a&gt; is correct? Your suffering in this life will define what will happen to your soul?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just curious to understand if there is a relation with your current wealth/poor life and the life after death. This text, in my opinion, is in accordance with the Spiritism, roughly speaking, the way you live your current life will dictate what happens in the next one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1161" LastEditorUserId="42818" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T07:11:06.970" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T07:11:06.970" Title="Does Luke 16:25 support Spiritism?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;souls&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="14970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14953" CreationDate="2013-03-15T02:07:37.080" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says nothing about this. The closest you can come in Scripture is Luke 16:19-31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and&#xA;  lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named&#xA;  Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the&#xA;  rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to&#xA;  Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades,&#xA;  where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with&#xA;  Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have&#xA;  pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and&#xA;  cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you&#xA;  received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now&#xA;  he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this,&#xA;  between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those&#xA;  who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from&#xA;  there to us.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,&#xA;  28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not&#xA;  also come to this place of torment.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them&#xA;  listen to them.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes&#xA;  to them, they will repent.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets,&#xA;  they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some claim that this man can see his family, but the text says nothing of the sort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other references are used to support the claim, but all are equally weak.  Nothing in Scripture indicates that we will be able to see our loved ones from Heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is, of course, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that they can. Scripture doesn't give every detail of every truth.  Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but such an idea doesn't originate from the Bible, or any Biblical teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More can be read about this in this article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA108&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Do those in heaven know what is happening on earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-08T14:46:33.833" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T14:46:33.833" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14957" CreationDate="2013-03-15T02:27:52.513" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can see the definition of both here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/idol?q=idol&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;idol&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/icon?q=icon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;icon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Icon&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a devotional painting of Christ or another holy figure, typically&#xA;  executed on wood and used ceremonially in the Byzantine and other&#xA;  Eastern Churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of&#xA;  veneration&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Idol&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered: a soccer idol&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess that in a Protestant point of view, anything or anyone that is taken as someone or something to be worshiped besides God is wrong, idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had a talk with a Catholic priest about it and he assured me that they do not worship the saints, they are mediators and I showed him this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:5-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the&#xA;  man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he changed his answer from mediators to examples, so they take the saints as examples to be remembered, respected and also an example of a good life with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't agree with the &quot;examples&quot; answer from that priest because you can see that the saints, according to the Catholics and Orthodox Church, they can do miracles and that, in my opinion is what makes them adore the Saint and have them as mediators. And also, because of that, you can see that there is a lot of saints and each one have one &quot;responsibility&quot;, one saint takes care of drivers, another of doctors and so on (at least here in Brazil I see a lot of that).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that's my opinion. Just to let you know, I'm not Catholic or Protestant so I'm not trying to take any sides here OK?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1161" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T02:27:52.513" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14953" CreationDate="2013-03-15T05:07:24.410" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will answer it vaguely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Hebrews 11&lt;/code&gt; has a list of many People of Faith from the Old Testament who already died and are in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 12 (NIV) &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, since we are&#xA;  surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off&#xA;  everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let&#xA;  us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; fixing our eyes&#xA;  on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before&#xA;  him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the&#xA;  right hand of the throne of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to some sermons I heard, &lt;code&gt;Hebrews 12&lt;/code&gt; give us the picture of a stadium where we, believers on earth are runners and the spectators are the Saints in Heaven. And, since we are being watched by all these witnesses, we should run with perseverance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may vaguely explain the possibility of seeing/hearing people from our Earth in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T05:07:24.410" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14969" CreationDate="2013-03-15T05:59:09.477" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The believe in the existence of Spirit is accepted by many, theist and atheist alike. The Bible also has many verses related to spirits. In spite of all kinds of theories, like the one you mentioned, I will stick to Biblical teaching only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to New Testament, the destination/fate of the soul lies solely on the &lt;strong&gt;Faith&lt;/strong&gt; of that person, not his deeds, of course, Faith should be incorporated with deeds. The rich or poor status of the person also does not define the progression of the Spirit as mentioned in the Fundamental Principles of Spiritism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:16 (NIV) For God so loved the &#xA;  world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever &lt;strong&gt;believes&lt;/strong&gt; in him&#xA;  shall not perish but have &lt;strong&gt;eternal life&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no concept of Progression or Rebirth of spirit in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 9:27 (NIV) Just as people are destined to die once, and after&#xA;  that to face judgment &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the parable&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt; of &lt;code&gt;The Rich Man and Lazarus&lt;/code&gt;, there are things we should know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Being rich does not make you a sinner. But worldly wealth will steal your heart away from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 4:19 (NIV) but the worries of this&#xA;  life, the &lt;strong&gt;deceitfulness of wealth&lt;/strong&gt; and the desires for other things&#xA;  come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Being poor does not make you a Saint either. Lazarus did not go to Heaven just because he was poor. The poor man Lazarus listened to the words of the prophets but the rich man did not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 16:29 (NIV) “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, your suffering in this life will not define what will happen to your soul, but, your faith in God will decide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; &lt;strong&gt;a&lt;/strong&gt; whether this is a parable or real incident is not the scope of this answer&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-15T08:33:03.403" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T08:33:03.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14976" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="14979" CreationDate="2013-03-15T06:19:08.247" Score="4" ViewCount="10039" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can they communicate with each other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in Islam they believe that people in Heaven cannot talk or communicate to each other, because they are in some kind of &quot;nirvana&quot; (this is the wrong word, but I am not native EN speaker) or a happy-hybernated-statis state, and they can talk to each other. Something like in the movie The Matrix where the bodies are connected to a computer and they cannot move, but feel happy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible say about people in Heaven communicating with each other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4155" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-23T15:29:34.137" LastActivityDate="2015-12-24T14:54:02.553" Title="Can people in Heaven communicate with each other?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;relationships&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-12-27T10:18:09.077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14976" CreationDate="2013-03-15T07:01:21.723" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sure they can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 17 (NIV) &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; After six days Jesus took with him&#xA;  Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high&#xA;  mountain by themselves. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; There he was transfigured before&#xA;  them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as&#xA;  the light. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Just then there appeared before them &lt;strong&gt;Moses and&#xA;  Elijah, talking with Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this story, the spirit of Moses was talking with Jesus who was in the flesh. Elijah was also in flesh because he was taken to heaven alive. Although the place was on Earth, if they can communicate on earth, I don't see any reason why they would not do the same in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T07:01:21.723" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14953" CreationDate="2013-03-15T07:18:28.777" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many passages from the Bible have been used as the basis for people seeing and hearing from heaven. I think that I have now rounded up all the major points. I could be wrong, perhaps there are even more. Below I give the 7 major biblical points that I have seen brought up as supporting this view. Some of these points are related, but they all approach the issue from a slightly different perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One important thing to remember is that the dead in heaven might not &quot;see and hear&quot; exactly like we do. This does not mean that they can't see and hear, but only that the faithful in heaven might see and hear things differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;1: Faith in Heaven&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/matthew/17/20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  20 He said to them, “Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. &lt;strong&gt;Nothing will be impossible for you&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many things are impossible for us of little faith, but I would guess that the dead in heaven have faith &lt;em&gt;at least&lt;/em&gt; the size of a mustard seed. If they do, then it is possible for them to hear us. (Of course, this passage does not say they must listen, but there is nothing in the Bible that suggests that they would not listen to people who cry out to them, or that God would command them not to listen when a loved one wants them to hear.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;2: The Psalms&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Psalms are prayers. In at least two Psalms, the person who is saying these prayers is asking or commanding all of creation (including those in heaven, angels, hosts, and so on) to praise God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/psalms/103/20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalms 103&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Bless the LORD, all you his angels,&#xA;  mighty in strength, acting at his behest,&#xA;  obedient to his command. &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; Bless the LORD, all you his hosts,&#xA;  his ministers who carry out his will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/psalms/148&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalms 148&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Hallelujah! Praise the LORD from the heavens; praise him in the heights.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Praise him, all you his angels; give praise, all you his hosts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/daniel/3/86&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 3:86&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(not available in some Bibles)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;86&lt;/sup&gt; Spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord;&#xA;  praise and exalt him above all forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some might say that these passages are just figurative expressions of the psalmist's own praise. However:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/5/13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, &lt;strong&gt;everything in the universe&lt;/strong&gt;, cry out:&#xA;  “To the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb&#xA;  be blessing and honor, glory and might,&#xA;  forever and ever.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/luke/19/39&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; He said in reply, “I tell you, if they keep silent, &lt;strong&gt;the stones&lt;/strong&gt; will cry out!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/numbers/20/8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Numbers 20:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Take the staff and assemble the community, you and Aaron your brother, and in their presence &lt;strong&gt;command the rock to yield its waters. Thereby you will bring forth water from the rock&lt;/strong&gt; for them, and supply the community and their livestock with water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So according to God (literally the words of God in this case), it is even appropriate to speak directly to &lt;em&gt;rocks&lt;/em&gt; and expect something to happen. Of course, rocks are inanimate, which means they have no soul. But people (even dead people, of course) have souls, so we should expect that they would hear us like people and not like rocks, even if they don't hear in exactly the same way that we do. (We know that beings with only a soul can hear, even though they have no body, because the Bible describes angels having conversations with people.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;3: Moses and Elijah&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the Transfiguration of Jesus, the Bible describes Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus as if they are aware of what is and will be happening in the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/9/29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt; And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah,&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some people might say that Moses and Elijah could hear Jesus because they &quot;came down to earth&quot;. But others say that Peter, James, and John saw a glimpse of people who &lt;em&gt;were &quot;in heaven&quot;&lt;/em&gt; talking to Jesus (when Peter suggested setting up tents, a cloud overshadowed them, a voice said “This is my beloved Son. Listen to him.”, and then they could no longer see Moses and Elijah). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;4: Revelation&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Revelation establishes that certain people in heaven &quot;interact&quot; with the prayers of other people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/5/8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 5:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; When he took it, the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14282/3941&quot;&gt;four living creatures and the twenty-four elders&lt;/a&gt; fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, &lt;strong&gt;which are the prayers of the holy ones&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This describes the prayers of holy people filling up golden bowls, in heaven. The bowls are held by the 24 elders (the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes). The elders offer up these prayers to God like incense (&quot;Let my prayer be incense before you...&quot;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/psalms/141&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 141:2&lt;/a&gt;). The point here is that, at the &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; least, these people are directly interacting with prayers. How do people &lt;em&gt;usually&lt;/em&gt; directly interact with prayers? By hearing them (or knowing them, or saying them).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;5: Raphael's Record&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tobit 12 describes Archangel Raphael doing the same, but with more clarity: the prayers of Tobit and Sarah are recorded, and this record is something that God wants kept and &quot;presented&quot; to Him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/tobit/12/12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tobit 12:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; Now when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who &lt;strong&gt;presented the record of your prayer&lt;/strong&gt; before the Glory of the Lord; and likewise whenever you used to bury the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, God can hear all prayers, but He still wants a record kept. How did Raphael know what the prayers were? My guess is that Raphael could hear them.  Of course, Raphael is an angel, not a heavenly human person, but this seems to show that this is an activity endorsed by God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;6: Abraham hearing the rich man&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The following parable implies that someone in heaven is capable of hearing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/16/22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 16:22-25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham&lt;/strong&gt;, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Abraham replied&lt;/strong&gt;, ‘My child, remember that [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rich man is in hell, suffering, and he cries out to Abraham. Abraham is dead and in a far-off and elevated place. Some people who argue against there being &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; biblical basis get this point entirely confused. It's not about the rich man seeing his family! It is about Abraham in that heavenly place hearing the rich man. Even this person &lt;em&gt;in hell&lt;/em&gt; is heard by Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some say that the only lesson of this parable is that people will not believe even if someone returns from the dead. Others say that the only lesson is that once you are in hell it is too late to pray, or that not all prayers will be answered, or that people who care more for riches than for the poor will go to hell. But others say that one important lesson is that faithful people like Abraham can hear prayers and are worth praying to.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The following is my own explanation of why this parable is important: There can't really be a sort of &quot;isolation bubble&quot; around a place like heaven, because then this parable would be describing something heretical. For example, no parable would &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt; describe someone being reincarnated as a cow while giving any kind of teaching, because reincarnation &lt;em&gt;in general&lt;/em&gt; is a heresy and incompatible with the order of things. So we must believe that this parable describes something that is in accordance with the way in which God has ordered His creation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;7: Cloud of Witnesses&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews is also often brought up as evidence that a &quot;cloud of witnesses&quot; can see us (this &quot;cloud&quot; refers to the dead that are in heaven, including: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Jacob, Moses, Rahab Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets, all mentioned in Hebrews 11):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us* and persevere in running the race that lies before us&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interpretation depends on what the word &quot;witnesses&quot; means. Some have interpreted it to mean that the people are witnessing us (seeing us, like spectators in a stadium) as we &quot;run the race&quot;. Others suggest that these people are witnesses to faith: good role models, a &quot;cloud&quot; of the faithful that we should hope surrounds us. I think the second view (that we should look up to saints) is more appropriate based on context, so this is the only point I don't entirely agree with. But I have included it because it is important.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there are many passages from the Bible that serve as the basis for people seeing and hearing from heaven. Points 1, 3, 5, 7, and possibly 6 relate to the possibility of seeing (and not just hearing prayers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most important thing is to have the faith of Abraham, and to give prayer worthy to be offered up to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T04:46:00.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14976" CreationDate="2013-03-15T07:36:38.577" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;They can, it seems. The clearest example is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/16&quot;&gt;Luke 16:22-25&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 When the poor man died, &lt;strong&gt;he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham&lt;/strong&gt;. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, &lt;strong&gt;he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off&lt;/strong&gt; and Lazarus at his side. &lt;br&gt;&#xA;  24 &lt;strong&gt;And he cried out&lt;/strong&gt;, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  25 &lt;strong&gt;Abraham replied&lt;/strong&gt;, ‘My child, remember that [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rich man is in hell, suffering, and he cries out to Abraham. Abraham is dead and in a far-off and elevated place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If even this person in hell can speak with Abraham, then surely Lazarus, who is right beside Abraham (and not secluded and separated from him like in the &quot;Matrix&quot; description you give), must be able to speak to Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T07:36:38.577" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14976" CreationDate="2013-03-15T07:57:44.827" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mawia and Alypius gave a good answer here for a mainstream follower. That would be that mainstream teaches the immortality of the soul. They would say that the person must go somewhere after death. The other side, which is sizable and includes 7th Day Adventists, teaches that the soul is not immortal and the dead are dead; it is like sleeping or being unconscious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible has several passages that are very interesting concerning this topic. The most notable is probable &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14976/can-people-in-heaven-communicate-with-each-other/14977#14977&quot;&gt;the one Mawia quoted&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt 17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians would agree that Elijah did not die (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 kings 2&lt;/a&gt;) so his presence is therefore not revealing for this topic. For the mainstream belief in the immortal soul it is obvious that Moses' soul was just as lucid and able as his body. For the lesser taken view of the mortal soul, there is an argument (although weak, in my opinion), that Moses was resurrected. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/media/e/1085/t/did-moses-and-elijah-go-directly-to-heaven-when-they-died.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This is one of the 7th Day Adventists sites&lt;/a&gt;. They are one of the larger groups that believe the soul is mortal and the video in the link covers their logic on Moses' resurrection very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next most notable passage is of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Saul and the medium of Endor&lt;/a&gt;. Saul was a good king who had turned wicked, and in desperation turned to a medium to consult his dead counselor Samuel. Something does actually appear and what it is I will not try to say but, again, both sides have a ready answer. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9053/who-is-samuel-in-the-story-of-saul-samuel-and-the-medium&quot;&gt;See this post on the topic&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the next one is probably more commonly quoted than the story of Saul and the medium and it is also &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14976/can-people-in-heaven-communicate-with-each-other/14979#14979&quot;&gt;the one Alypius chose to use on this post&lt;/a&gt;. It is actually a parable of Jesus where two men die and see each other and father Abraham in the after life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 16:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mainstream, immortal soul theology would say there really is no argument here. They are in an afterlife conversing and these are the very words of Jesus. The less taken, mortal soul theology would argue that this was a parable and it is not even about death and the after life. It is meant to show that the Prophets and the Law (the books of the Old Testament) should be enough for anyone to believe. If they do not believe those then even someone coming back from the dead would not convince them to believe. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5013/is-abraham-in-heaven&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/469/is-there-any-significance-to-naming-lazarus-in-this-parable&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; for further study on this particular passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both sides have good and bad points, but that is your decision. I have provided the groundwork for you to learn about both and make an informed decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for describing heaven as 'like Nirvana' I cannot find nor have I heard of any such passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T08:29:15.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14981" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-15T08:31:18.130" Score="1" ViewCount="127" Body="&lt;p&gt;When god created everything, the &lt;code&gt;light&lt;/code&gt; was shining on &lt;code&gt;darkness&lt;/code&gt; and the &quot;darkness&quot; never mastered it. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was also there when god created everything.  The serpent acted against the will of God and which is supposed to be a lesser creation than the humans as envisaged by God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How come God allowed a serpent cheat humans which God created in His own image and likeness?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could there be a force against the will of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4163" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-15T10:58:58.820" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T11:44:48.763" Title="Was there evil / darkness before god created everything?" Tags="&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-03-15T20:28:11.153" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14976" CreationDate="2013-03-15T14:10:30.290" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 21, the future new heavens and new earth, I would conclude there will be communication based on this description.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4165" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T14:10:30.290" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14920" CreationDate="2013-03-15T17:23:41.353" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The usual text for reconciliation is found in Matthew 18&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;If your brother sins against you, &#xA;   go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. &#xA;   If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. &#xA;   But if he does not listen, &#xA;       take one or two others along with you, &#xA;       that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.            &#xA;       If he refuses to listen to them, &#xA;          tell it to the church. &#xA;          And if he refuses to listen even to the church, &#xA;              let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;Matthew 18:15-17 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+18/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Initially, it might seem like this is addressing the &lt;em&gt;opposite&lt;/em&gt; question: &quot;What do Christians do when someone wrongs them?&quot;  But there's a little bit of psychology behind it: we hardly ever know we've wronged someone until we are confronted.  In addition, there's hardly &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt; an innocent party.  Usually, when one person wrongs another, both sides have made missteps along the way.  Before trying to make things right, you gotta know what has gone wrong.  The only way to do that is to start up the dialogue between the two parties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; problem, when it comes to your question, is that this passage seems to be in the context of &quot;church discipline&quot;.  In other words, it only applies to your &quot;brothers in Christ&quot;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.  It sure doesn't make sense to drag a non-Christian to you church in order to pull them through a process they have no reason to follow or care about.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;  None of the &quot;escalation&quot; steps make sense, unless both sides can agree on a set of authorities with which to submit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first step seems &lt;a href=&quot;https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/1720/138&quot;&gt;pretty&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/13819/971&quot;&gt;universal&lt;/a&gt;, however, so what does Jesus add to the conversation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;It's the principle of the thing&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally people think of the last line (&quot;let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector&quot;) to be equivalent to excommunication.  That may be, but Jesus' hearers might very well have linked it to one of Jesus' other sayings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, &lt;em&gt;Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.&lt;/em&gt; For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the &lt;strong&gt;tax collectors&lt;/strong&gt; do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the &lt;strong&gt;Gentiles&lt;/strong&gt; do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.&amp;mdash;Matthew 5:43-48 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the principle is to try to reconcile with a fellow Christian, but if you can't get through to them, love them anyway.  This isn't just thinking nice thoughts about a person.  Rather, there's lots of practical advice in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+5-7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5-7&lt;/a&gt; such as going the extra mile, being submissive to those who take advantage of you, and so on.  It seems like the Christian obligation to non-believers is &lt;em&gt;greater&lt;/em&gt; than to believers, if anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, Jesus taught that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/kingdom+heaven/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Kingdom of Heaven&lt;/a&gt; was coming.  Unlike any other kingdom, God's Kingdom belongs to those who bear &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/image+god/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;His image&lt;/a&gt;, not just people from one ethnic group or culture.  Jesus' reconciliation agenda is far more than bringing a temporary peace between nations and people.  It's a reconciliation of &lt;em&gt;shalom&lt;/em&gt; between God and His creation, which means there can be no limit to how far Christians must go to right a wrong.  So a personal apology might be enough.  Or it might mean going a lot further.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;We can't reconcile...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now you might be thinking, &quot;If Christianity is supposed to be about uniting people under the banner of God, why is the church so divided?&quot;  It's a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7280/914&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; I myself struggle with.  Further, why can't we resolve the tension in the Middle East?  Why have Christians been at the forefront of bigotry at times?  Why is there no statistical difference in divorce rate among Christians and non-Christians in the United States?  Well, there are many reasons, but ultimately we fail because we can't truly enact reconciliation.  Only God can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We put our hope in Jesus&amp;mdash;we have none other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In some Christian circles, the chapter has become a trope.  As in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joe: You'll never believe what Elizabeth said to me the other day!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mary: Is this a Matthew 18 thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joe: Nah.  It isn't anything sinful or whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'll leave it up to you to decide if Joe and Mary are guilty of gossip or not.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The indentation is my own invention.  It's essentially a scripted processes.  Amazingly, people still manage to screw it up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or sisters.  The Greek is masculine, but I can't think of anyone who claims that it applies to men only.  Perhaps a better translation (as suggested by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Mat&amp;amp;chapter=18&amp;amp;verse=15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NET Bible&lt;/a&gt;) is &quot;fellow believer&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From personal experience, it's also a waste of time to follow the process very far with someone from a different congregation.  Usually they won't be interested in your local church's discipline.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When researching the Christian view of reconciliation, I found this wonderful comic [&lt;a href=&quot;http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Comic%20Book%201957.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;PDF&lt;/a&gt;] about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_fellowship_of_reconciliation_for/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR)&lt;/a&gt;, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and the Montgomery bus boycott.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T17:23:41.353" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14976" CreationDate="2013-03-15T17:30:31.890" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the commenters have already pointed out in response to other answers, the various points in the Bible which might be seen as answering this question are ambiguous.  The only passage that I've seen that claims to answer it definitively comes from outside of mainstream Christianity.  In the book of Doctrine and Covenants--a collection of revelations and teachings accepted as canonical by the Latter-Day saints, and held to be authoritative along with the Bible and the Book of Mormon--we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us&#xA;  there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do&#xA;  not now enjoy.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.2?lang=eng#1&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 130: 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While these revelations are not accepted in mainstream Christianity, to the Latter-Day Saints this passage provides comfort and reassurance that those we count as friends and family and loved ones in this life will be able to maintain such interpersonal relationships with us throughout eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T17:30:31.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14950" CreationDate="2013-03-15T19:37:28.927" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming that by the word &quot;requirement&quot; you're speaking of the requirements for salvation specifically, and not for being a member of a church, or staying in good standing at work or with friends.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short version: Circumcision is no longer required because Christ has already fulfilled the requirement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Longer version: To be sure, the entirety of the law no longer applies to the Christian, on account of the fact that every requirement of the law has already been met within Christ.  That means that the penalty that a Christian might owe for failing to be circumcised has already been paid for by Christ, who I would have to insist, though it doesn't directly say in Scripture, was circumcised.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That also means that it's not a requirement for Christians to &quot;not murder&quot;, &quot;not steal&quot;, &quot;not lie&quot;, &quot;not commit adultery&quot;, etc. etc. etc.  While it's still a heinous thing to murder, steal, lie or commit adultery, it is no longer a requirement for a Christian's salvation to be free of these things.  The penalty for all of them is paid for by Christ.  Thus, for my salvation, I am no longer required to have avoided murder, adultery, stealing for my entire life in order for me to be righteous in God's eyes, because my righteousness no longer comes from myself, but from Christ's sacrifice instead.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in other words, while circumcision is still &quot;required&quot; so to speak, if you were to try to attain salvation by your works, since we no longer seek to be justified by works, circumcision is no longer required.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, through God's grace in giving us Christ, we are now freed from the requirements of the law.  All of them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also important to keep in mind what Paul says about living by circumcision in Galatians 5:1-6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will&#xA;  be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts&#xA;  circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are&#xA;  severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have&#xA;  fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves&#xA;  eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus&#xA;  neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only&#xA;  faith working through love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have been freed from the law by Christ.  If we accept circumcision as a requirement for salvation, then we are no longer living by the grace of Christ, but we are living by the law. And if we're living by the law, then we are required to live by the WHOLE weight of the law, not just circumcision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, since the penalty has been paid, and the judgement has been rendered, we are free, and no longer required to be circumcised. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T19:37:28.927" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14361" CreationDate="2013-03-15T19:47:51.723" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, these verses have &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; been applied to employer/employee relations, at least not in the sense that we understand employment today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In ancient times slavery was fairly common; employment, however, was not. Most free people lived and worked on the family farm. Employment contracts did exist, but only to protect the employer's interests. Contracts usually bound the employee to the employer for a set time; as such, employment was just a limited form of slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In medieval times slavery was gradually replaced by serfdom. Serfs had more rights than slaves but were bound to the land on which they worked. If the land was sold the serfs were required to work for the new landowner. Employment remained a subset of slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the rise of the merchant class and the beginning of the industrial revolution this began to change; however, as recently as the early 1900s the majority of the population even in industrialized nations lived on family farms. Instructions on employer/employee relations simply were not relevant to most people's lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With all that in mind, it should not be surprising that commentators historically have not applied these texts to contractual employment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a few examples of what they have said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 4th century, John Chrysostom wrote commentaries covering most of the New Testament. He did not comment on 1 Timothy 6:1-2, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.iv.x.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;he did say this about Colossians 3:22&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Servants,” he saith, “obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And see how always he sets down the names, “wives, children, servants,” being at once a just claim upon their obedience. But that none might be pained, he added, “to your masters according to the flesh.” Thy better part, the soul, is free, he saith; thy service is for a season. It therefore do thou subject, that thy service be no more of constraint. “Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers.” Make, he saith, thy service which is by the law, to be from the fear of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Commenting on 1 Corinthians 7:20-21, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xx.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Chrysostom said&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Hast thou been called, having an unbelieving wife?  Continue to have her. Cast not out thy wife for the faith’s sake. Hast thou been called, being a slave? Care not for it. Continue to be a slave. Hast thou been called, being in uncircumcision? Remain uncircumcised. Being circumcised, didst thou become a believer? Continue circumcised. For this is the meaning of, “As God hath distributed unto each man.” For these are no hindrances to piety. Thou art called, being a slave; another, with an unbelieving wife; another, being circumcised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Astonishing! where has he put slavery? As circumcision profits not: and uncircumcision does no harm; so neither doth slavery, nor yet liberty. And that he might point out this with surpassing clearness, he says, “But even (Αλλ' εὶ καὶ δυνάσαι) if thou canst become free, use it rather:” that is, rather continue a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave?  He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jerome, writing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.II.html?scrBook=Exod&amp;amp;scrCh=21&amp;amp;scrV=2#vi.vi.II-p267.1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Against Jovinianus&lt;/a&gt;, referenced Exodus 21. He said the laws about setting slaves free do have application outside the physical practice of slavery, but he was thinking in terms much larger than employment contracts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if we read that every Hebrew keeps the same Passover, and that in the seventh year every prisoner is set free, and that at Jubilee, that is the fiftieth year, every possession returns to its owner, all this refers not to the present, but to the future; for being in bondage during the six days of this world, on the seventh day, the true and eternal Sabbath, we shall be free, at any rate if we wish to be free while still in bondage in the world. If, however, we do not desire it, our ear will be bored in token of our disobedience, and together with our wives and children, whom we preferred to liberty, that is, with the flesh and its works, we shall be in perpetual slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In early modern times, Bible commentators focused on the plain meaning of the text or extrapolated to general moral principles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew Henry &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/exodus/exodus-21.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;comments on Exodus 21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Israelites had lately been servants themselves; and now that they had become, not only their own masters, but masters of servants too, lest they should abuse their servants, as they themselves had been abused and ruled with rigour by the Egyptian task-masters, provision was made by these laws for the mild and gentle usage of servants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He adds, a little later,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This law will be further useful to us, (1.) To illustrate the right God has to the children of believing parents, as such, and the place they have in his church. They are by baptism enrolled among his servants, because they are &lt;em&gt;born in his house&lt;/em&gt;, for they are therefore &lt;em&gt;born unto him&lt;/em&gt;, Eze. 16:20 . [Emphasis in original]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Henry extrapolates a further application not to employees but to children, because like servants they belong to the household.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-21-2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Gill says&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now as this servant, in the state of servitude, was an emblem of that state of bondage to sin, Satan, and the law, which man is brought into by his theft, his robbing God of his glory by the transgression of his precepts; so likewise, in his being made free, he was an emblem of that liberty wherewith Christ, the Son of God, makes his people free from the said bondage, and who are free indeed, and made so freely without money, and without price, of pure free grace, without any merit or desert of theirs; and which freedom is attended with many bountiful and liberal blessings of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding 1 Timothy 6, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-timothy/6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Henry says&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the duty of servants. The apostle had spoken before of church-relations, here of our family-relations. Servants are here said to be &lt;em&gt;under the yoke&lt;/em&gt;, which denotes both subjection and labour; they are yoked to work, not to be idle. If Christianity finds servants under the yoke, it continues them under it; for the gospel does not cancel the obligations any lie under either by the law of nature or by mutual consent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/1-timothy/1-timothy-6.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Wesley says&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6:1 Let servants under the yoke - Of heathen masters. Account them worthy of all honour - All the honour due from a servant to a master.Lest the name of God and his doctrine be blasphemed - As it surely will, if they do otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6:2 Let them not despise them - Pay them the less honour or obedience. Because they are brethren - And in that respect on a level with them. They that live in a religious community know the danger of this; and that greater grace is requisite to bear with the faults of a brother, than of an infidel, or man of the world. But rather do them service - Serve them so much the more diligently. Because they are joint partakers of the great benefit - Salvation. These things - Paul, the aged, gives young Timotheus a charge to dwell upon practical holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-timothy-6-1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gill says&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;these things teach and exhort;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Syriac and Arabic versions add them; the servants. The apostle was not above instructing and exhorting persons of such a capacity, and in so low a state of life; and it became Timothy to do so likewise; and every minister of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of these commentators gives the slightest hint that they thought this passage could apply to employer/employee relations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T20:12:38.770" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14950" CreationDate="2013-03-15T20:26:56.970" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 4:9-11a NIV&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the&#xA;  uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited&#xA;  to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited?&#xA;  Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but&#xA;  before! And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the&#xA;  righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul here is saying that salvation happens before being circumcised. Circumcision is a sign of salvation (v11). Paul finishes verse 11 with &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 4:11b&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;he [Abraham] is the father of all who believe but have not been&#xA;  circumcised in order that righteousness might be credited to them&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of this is that Paul is abolishing circumcision as a means of salvation. Paul talks about his own life in Philippians 3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 3:4-7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the&#xA;  flesh, I have more:  circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of&#xA;  Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to&#xA;  the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for&#xA;  righteousness based on the law, faultless.&#xA;  But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of&#xA;  Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul here mentions that he was circumcised as per the OT law, however he counts it as worthless to his salvation (he goes on to call it garbage in verse 8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul never says don't get circumcised, and you could argue that if it was causing someone to stumble or not hear the gospel then you should get circumcised (I think Timothy was circumcised as an adult (Acts 16:3)). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What he is quite clear on is that circumcision is not a requirement for salvation and that non-circumcised Christians are equal to circumcised Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-03-16T05:23:57.980" LastActivityDate="2013-03-16T05:23:57.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14995" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-15T21:53:43.730" Score="6" ViewCount="673" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Christ, one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is called the Hypostatic Union. The following quoted points explain the relevant details of what the Hypostatic Union is and what it entails. They have been obtained from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=hypostatic+union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google search&lt;/a&gt;, and from a major Church that accepts the Hypostatic Union.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are &lt;strong&gt;united in one subsistence and one person&lt;/strong&gt;. They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The union in Christ is &lt;strong&gt;not a union of two natures directly with one another&lt;/strong&gt;, but a union of the two in one hypostasis; thus they are distinct yet inseparable, and each acts in communion with the other. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&quot;there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity.&quot; Thus everything in Christ's human nature &lt;strong&gt;is to be attributed to his divine person&lt;/strong&gt; as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: &quot;He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm#468&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC468&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Obviously there can be &lt;strong&gt;only one infinite being&lt;/strong&gt;, only one God. [...] God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christ possesses two wills&lt;/strong&gt; and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ's human will &quot;&lt;strong&gt;does not resist&lt;/strong&gt; or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm#475&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC475&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9).  Jesus' divine nature was not altered.  Also, Jesus is not merely a man who &quot;had God within Him&quot; nor is he a man who &quot;manifested the God principle.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/jesus-two-natures&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;carm.org article&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the human nature is not absorbed or assumed &lt;em&gt;into&lt;/em&gt; the Divine nature. Instead, it is assumed by the Divine &lt;em&gt;Person&lt;/em&gt; of Christ. A human being is not assumed by a Divine being, a human &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; is assumed by a Divine &lt;em&gt;Person&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Above I am describing certain key features of the Hypostatic Union. There is no argument that the Hypostatic Union is the correct way to see Christ. I think it is, but that is not what this question is about.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My limited understanding of the Calvinist view of the two human natures is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists believe that if we are saved, we have &quot;two warring natures&quot;. One of these natures is the sanctified nature, and the other is the non-sanctified nature. I have heard these described as two separate wills. I have also heard of these described quite generally as two &quot;parts&quot;. (I do not understand what it means for a nature to be a &quot;part&quot; of a person, except in the partless sense of the Hypostatic Union, described above).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Calvinist view sounds familiar, because (according to the Hypostatic Union) in Christ there are two natures and two wills. But they are never &quot;at war&quot; in Christ: Christ's human nature always and entirely submits to His Divine nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the Calvinist use of &quot;nature&quot; the same as the use when talking about the human and Divine natures of Christ? If they are different, by virtue of what exactly are they different? Is what Calvinists describe some form of hypostasis, and if not, what is the relation, if any?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-24T02:55:11.720" LastActivityDate="2015-02-24T03:23:45.680" Title="What is the difference between Calvinist &quot;nature&quot; and &quot;nature&quot; in the sense of the Hypostatic union?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14999" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15022" CreationDate="2013-03-15T23:19:16.857" Score="7" ViewCount="1534" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have two questions related to the concept of dogma in the Catholic church. I appreciate any guidance. Also, references would be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there any point in the history of the Roman Catholic Church where the actions of the Pope and or the magisterium undermine the dogma of papal infallibility (i.e. instances which contradict the teaching of the papal infallibility)?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can a dogma develop? That is, can a certain dogma be established, and be modified afterwards? If so, has this happened before in the Roman Catholic Church?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4167" LastEditorUserId="4167" LastEditDate="2013-03-18T13:04:28.627" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T01:36:16.257" Title="Can dogma ever be modified, and how does this relate to papal infallibility?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papal-infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14999" CreationDate="2013-03-15T23:44:17.253" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the Pope speaks with infallibility on dogma, it is known as being in Ex Cathedra.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conclusion from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; is  that &amp;quot;The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia, linked above, has a very lengthy article about Papal Infallibility, including many claims of evidence countering the claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It must be noted that the Pope's opinions are not infallible, that his addresses to the public are not infallible, that his Homilies are not infallible, and that infallibility does not extend to the Pope's personal morals or actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further information from the Catholic Encyclopedia (sorry for the long Copy/Paste):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3593" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-15T23:49:36.263" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14995" CreationDate="2013-03-16T02:13:41.580" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regeneration, initiated by new birth, is the Evangelical belief that when a person believes in Christ they are mystically united into Christ.  Their old nature dies in him and a new nature is born.  Rebirth, or regeneration is when the image of God is restored within a sinner. Calvin thought of it more in the fullest sense of continuing into sanctification and resurrection of the body. Typically Protestants in terms of the doctrinal mechanics of regeneration identify is as the inward renewal beginning with justification by faith and continuing through the process of sanctification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The two natures we are talking about are simply 'ourselves' sanctified and those aspects of ourselves not sanctified.&lt;/strong&gt;  These two parts of ourselves war against each other.  That is why, for example, Paul say's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. (Galatians 5:16-17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a completely absolutely different sense, a human being was assumed into a divine being, so that two fully different natures subsist in the incarnation.  There is no parallel of the incarnation with sanctification, so the question seems to be an identification of a gross ignorance of regeneration. It is actually equivalent to a question someone asked Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again. ’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”&#xA;   “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.&#xA;   “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? (John 3:7-10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way I can explain it to a person that considers water baptism as the initiation into God's kingdom, rather then personal faith, is to say: 'Imagine everything you think that happens in water baptism happens when a person believes in Christ.' The resulting two natures, sanctified and not sanctified, is the Protestant understanding of the two natures after regeneration initiated by faith in Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-23T14:29:37.343" LastActivityDate="2013-03-23T14:29:37.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15003" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15004" CreationDate="2013-03-16T03:18:27.873" Score="6" ViewCount="3395" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Catholicism and Protestantism (I am not aware of any division over this) &lt;strong&gt;When did evil in the universe first appear and what was the originating cause of it?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I mean the immediate cause not the predetermined purpose that God had in allowing its appearance. Aside from any possible sense of a cause in God's sovereignty, when was the immediate and original appearance of evil in the universe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-17T02:14:55.963" LastActivityDate="2016-11-13T02:36:52.990" Title="When did sin and evil in the universe first appear?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15003" CreationDate="2013-03-16T04:34:52.970" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;When sin is defined as moving against God's will and evil is defined as the absence of God's presence it seems that sin and evil were first made when Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast from his position of glory and out of God's presence. The story is somewhat detailed in Isiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“How you are fallen from heaven,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  O Lucifer, son of the morning!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  How you are cut down to the ground,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  You who weakened the nations!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For you have said in your heart:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  ‘I will ascend into heaven,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I will also sit on the mount of the congregation&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  On the farthest sides of the north;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I will be like the Most High.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To the lowest depths of the Pit.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot;&gt;Isiah 14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the verses we see that Lucifer first sinned when he claimed that he would ascend to God's glory and usurp Him from His throne. He was removed from God's presence which then created evil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the oldest account of sin and evil. It must have preceded the fall of man because it was Lucifer who tempted them to take and eat the fruit. Before we know assuredly that mankind was not in sin nor removed from God's presence, therefore, sin and evil must have originated with Lucifer, or at least not with mankind. Such is Lucifer's infamy that he is called the father of lies and Satan which mean adversary, which implies that he moves against God's will always.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible that sin and evil originated elsewhere but they are not detailed in the 66 book version of the Protestant Bible. The other seven that Catholicism takes does not say anything on the topic either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses in Revelation may be relevant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelation 12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see that Satan is permanently cast from heaven. Most scholars would argue that this event has not happened yet, and will occur shortly before the Second Coming. What may also be relevant is the passages in Job where Satan is actually conversing with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Job 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conversation continues but what is noteworthy is in the first few verses. It is clear here that Satan can still enter God's presence, but he can also leave it. This supports the idea that he was 'cast' from heaven already, in some respects. How is a bit of a mystery. The issue with Job is that a good portion of scholars, but not near the majority, would say that it is poetry and cannot be taken as a literal event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-03-16T05:21:02.823" LastActivityDate="2013-03-16T05:21:02.823" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14816" CreationDate="2013-03-16T06:04:29.957" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;First things first, there are no 'denominations' within Orthodoxy. The Orthodox believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church (as professed by the Nicene Creed), and they believe that the Orthodox Church is it. Therefore it would be inappropriate to speak of a doctrinal position of the Russian Orthodox that is not also true of other Orthodox. While they are under different jurisdictions, they are the same Church and thus share the same beliefs. With that said, there are at times differences in emphasis between jurisdictions, and they don't always see eye to eye. The difference is that they generally do not split from one another and form separate 'denominations' as in Protestantism. They remain in the Orthodox Church and continue to seek reconciliation. Orthodox recognize that reconciliation may take years, perhaps centuries. So they don't rush these sorts of things. I should also mention that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.antiochian.org/content/what-about-non-orthodox-exclusive-claims-church&quot;&gt;it is very precarious to attempt to speak on behalf of all of Orthodoxy when it comes to this issue&lt;/a&gt;, but I will do my best to represent what is the most prevalent view within the Church, with the caveat that not all Orthodox may agree (and that is OK).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that being said, the answer to this question depends on whether you are talking about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.synod.com/&quot;&gt;Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR)&lt;/a&gt; or the Russian Orthodox Church itself. There shouldn't really be any distinction since as of 2007 the ROCOR is now in communion with all of mainstream Orthodoxy because of its incorporation into the Moscow Patriarchate. However, ROCOR is still self-governing, and its clergy and members are notoriously hyper-conservative and separatist. Regardless of this, they do not represent all of Orthodoxy if they claim that those who are not chrismated in the Orthodox Church are damned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://saintpaulemmaus.org/what-is-orthodoxy/the-church/&quot;&gt;Fr. Damick&lt;/a&gt; offers a short explanation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The final boundaries of the Church are known only to God himself, but&#xA;  outside the historical context of the Church—that is, the Orthodox&#xA;  Church—the nature of the connection of any human being to the Church&#xA;  (whether a believer in Christ or not) is unknown to us. Throughout&#xA;  Church history, various groups have broken from the Church, a tragic&#xA;  reality which does not divide the Church but rather divides believers&#xA;  from the Church. The final status of Christians in such communities is&#xA;  dependent on God’s mercy and grace, which is also true for those with&#xA;  membership in the Church in this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this life, however, to be an Orthodox Christian means belonging to&#xA;  the Orthodox Church. It is not something one can do alone or as part&#xA;  of a separate group. Orthodox Christians believe that other Christian&#xA;  or even non-Christian groups may manifest varying degrees of the truth&#xA;  of the Gospel but that the fullness of the Christian faith is found&#xA;  only in Orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in stark contrast to Protestantism which considers the Church to be spiritual (and thus no one group can claim to be the Church). Orthodoxy, on the other hand, insists that it is &quot;the fullness of The Church.&quot; According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=The%20Church-Does%20Orthodoxy%20Really%20Think%20It%20Is%20the%20True%20Church&quot;&gt;Timothy Copple&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the Orthodox Church says that it is &quot;The Church,&quot; they are making&#xA;  no pronouncement upon the salvation of anyone inside or outside&#xA;  membership in Orthodoxy. This may be hard for Protestants to grasp&#xA;  since being saved and being part of The Church is practically&#xA;  synonymous when linked to the spiritual Church. The knowledge that not&#xA;  everyone, let's say, in the Baptist Churches will be saved only serves&#xA;  to reinforce the fact that the Baptist Church cannot say it is &quot;The&#xA;  Church&quot;. Yet, they also firmly believe that there are many who will be&#xA;  saved, so neither can one say that any other group is &quot;The Church.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While Orthodoxy does believe that ultimately to be saved means being&#xA;  in the Church and those outside the Church will not be saved, that&#xA;  issue is not fully decided until judgment day. Because salvation is&#xA;  not looked at within Orthodoxy as either an in or out position but a&#xA;  journey into God. We readily recognize that anyone inside or outside&#xA;  the Church at any particular point in time can be in the currents of&#xA;  salvation or not participating in it. Thus, there is no ability to&#xA;  point to any one person either inside or outside the visible Church&#xA;  and say they are saved or not saved. Whether any one particular person&#xA;  is going to make it to heaven we leave in God's hands. We cannot know&#xA;  the heart of the person, much less the disposition of God towards a&#xA;  particular individual short of God revealing that to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Orthodoxy also does not say that the visible governing body of&#xA;  hierarchs and the organizations that are called the Orthodox Church&#xA;  are in and of themselves &quot;The Church&quot;. This is an understandable&#xA;  confusion because what is generally labeled as synonymous with the&#xA;  visible church in Protestant circles, if they have any concept of&#xA;  that, is the governing body, the denomination or local church. It is&#xA;  by becoming a member of such-and-such group that one attaches&#xA;  themselves with like-minded Christians and is called &quot;a church&quot; in a&#xA;  visible aspect. Therefore, when a group says it is &quot;The Church&quot;,&#xA;  Protestants will tend to think that the group is claiming that their&#xA;  fellowship, their organization, their denomination or local church&#xA;  body is a one-to-one equivalent to all those names written down in the&#xA;  Book of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Given what we just discussed above, it should be evident that this is&#xA;  not the case within Orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of underlying worldview issues in this question that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=The%20Church-Does%20Orthodoxy%20Really%20Think%20It%20Is%20the%20True%20Church&quot;&gt;Copple addresses if you'd like to learn more&lt;/a&gt; (especially the tendency to separate the spiritual from its physical manifestation, a common dualistic worldview inherent in Modernity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, the general attitude of all Orthodox can be summarized by saying, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;We know where the Orthodox Church is, but we do not know where it is not.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastActivityDate="2013-03-16T06:04:29.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8689" CreationDate="2013-03-16T06:05:03.957" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mormon Temple Garments can be of any material, including skins. Joseph Smith's were originally made of unbleached muslin.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; They should be made of wool:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some of you have got an idea that wool will not do will not do; but let me inform you that when Peter came and sat in the Temple in Kirtland, he had on a neat woolen garment, nicely adjusted round the neck. What do sheep wear next the skin? Wool, of course. What do goats wear? Hair, for that is their nature. These are facts that are apparent to all who will look. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sufis&lt;/a&gt; wear a special garment made of wool. Suf means wool, and is the garment worn by early Muslim ascetics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;James Allred as quoted in &quot;Mormon Fundamentalism&quot; by Max Anderson. Page 326; &quot;Early Pioneer History&quot; by Eliza M. A. Munson; &quot;The Book of Remembrance of Elna Garner McReavy&quot;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sub&gt;Original Mormon Apostle, Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 9:376&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4175" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-03-17T03:26:02.233" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T03:26:02.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15011" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-16T07:13:31.400" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-03-16T07:13:31.400" LastActivityDate="2013-03-16T07:13:31.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15012" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-16T07:13:31.400" Score="0" Body="Idolatory can mean literally, as in the worship of created physical objects, or metaphorically, meaning giving some other thing or concept priority over God." OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-14T20:02:05.563" LastActivityDate="2014-02-14T20:02:05.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15018" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15019" CreationDate="2013-03-16T16:19:28.167" Score="1" ViewCount="463" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 13:1-2&lt;/strong&gt; (RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose a government legally forbids their citizens to practise Christianity (i.e. Catholicism, Protestantism, etc.). According to the verses above, would someone who practises Christianity in this context be resisting God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4167" LastEditorUserId="4167" LastEditDate="2013-03-18T12:58:40.540" LastActivityDate="2013-03-18T13:01:44.450" Title="A question about practising Christianity against authority" Tags="&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;persecution&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-03-22T10:31:41.853" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15018" CreationDate="2013-03-16T17:13:44.687" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No&lt;/strong&gt;. Christians who live under the authority of a government that outlaws Christianity &lt;em&gt;would not&lt;/em&gt; be resisting God by refusing to abandon their faith. One might imagine that the right thing to do is to obey such laws, perhaps crossing the border to go to church. This is not the case. Authority exercised against the common good is authority that has &lt;em&gt;broken down completely&lt;/em&gt;. There is no authority, and Christians are in no way bound by the unjust laws of a government that has no authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; on this subject, part of which addresses governing authority that forbids freedom of religion. (Other major denominations have similar teachings, justified in effectively the same way). The particular sections:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1903 Authority is exercised legitimately &lt;strong&gt;only when it seeks the common good&lt;/strong&gt; of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. &lt;strong&gt;If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, &amp;quot;authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1906 By &lt;strong&gt;common good&lt;/strong&gt; is to be understood &amp;quot;the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.&amp;quot;26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It &lt;strong&gt;consists of three essential elements&lt;/strong&gt;: [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These elements are the respect for the person, the social well-being and development of the group itself, and peace. The first element, respect for the person:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. &lt;strong&gt;In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation&lt;/strong&gt;, such as &amp;quot;the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and &lt;strong&gt;rightful freedom also in matters of religion&lt;/strong&gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. During times of persecution, Masses were offered up to God in secret places while Christians were fed to lions and set on fire to provide lighting for festive events. Many refused even under torture and threat of death to renounce their beliefs, and were martyred for their faith in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-16T20:01:02.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14999" CreationDate="2013-03-16T18:18:42.937" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dogmas are definitions for the laity, not to be interpreted, and they are directly provided by the Holy Spirit.  Logically speaking, if you needed someone to interpret the Dogma for you, then the Pope would not have the final word, the final word would be left with whoever was appointed to interpret the Dogmas, and only the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, so that line of thinking makes no sense, and it has been condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3,&#xA;  1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not&#xA;  truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of&#xA;  religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared&#xA;  for itself.”‐ Condemned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3,&#xA;  1907, #54: “The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as&#xA;  pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but&#xA;  interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which&#xA;  have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the&#xA;  Gospel.”‐ Condemned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The actions of the post Vatican II papal claimants undermine this following Dogma:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,ex cathedra:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;     “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, alms giving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia&#xA;      productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Almost no one claiming to be Catholic currently believes this Dogma.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Antipope John XXIII (the second one) made peace with the so called Eastern Orthodox, John Paul II made peace with the Lutherans and the protestants signing &quot;Joint Declarations of the Faith&quot; he prayed with the Dalai Lama making peace with the Buddhists.  He didn't hold the Assisi Prayer meeting to tell them all to convert to Catholicism, he just prayed with them and said they were all great and every religion is great, and the Catholic laity got the memo.  They didn't even notice when Benedict XVI praised Martin Luther, and referred to Gaudium Et Spes as a &quot;Counter Syllabus&quot; to Pius IX's &quot;Syllabus of Errors&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: &quot;If it is&#xA;  desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II&#xA;  document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in&#xA;  conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions)&#xA;  it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter&#xA;  syllabus...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All attempts to convert the Jews to Catholicism have been completely abandoned stated openly by the USCCB, this decision is lauded by the Anti Defamation League, in fact, all attempts to convert anyone have been completely abandoned by the hierarchy, even though some of laity haven't figured that out yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vatican II is a new religion and a complete departure from Catholicism.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/13_JohnXXIII.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The scandals and heresies of John 23.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/6_noheretic_pope.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Teachings on Popes and Heresy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope &#xA;  himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope&#xA;  because he would cease to be a member of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano&#xA;  Pontifice, II, 30:  &quot;A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically&#xA;  (per se) ceases to be pope and  head, just as he ceases automatically&#xA;  to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be&#xA;  judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all  the&#xA;  ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all&#xA;  jurisdiction.&quot;  St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: &#xA;  &quot;This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way&#xA;  be Pope, as  Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this&#xA;  is that he cannot be head of  what he is not a member; now he who is&#xA;  not a Christian is not a member of the  Church, and a manifest heretic&#xA;  is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St.  Cyprian (lib. 4,&#xA;  epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib.&#xA;  De  great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others;&#xA;  therefore the  manifest heretic cannot be Pope.&quot; St. Francis De Sales&#xA;  (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. &#xA;  305-306: &quot;Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls&#xA;  ipso facto from  his dignity and out of the Church...&quot; St. Antoninus&#xA;  (1459): &quot;In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he &#xA;  would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence,&#xA;  separated  from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as&#xA;  long as it remains  separated, be head of the same body from which it&#xA;  was cut off. A pope who would be  separated from the Church by heresy,&#xA;  therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to  be head of the&#xA;  Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since  he&#xA;  is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.&quot;&#xA;  (Summa  Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: &#xA;“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man &#xA;from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T01:36:16.257" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T01:36:16.257" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15018" CreationDate="2013-03-16T18:51:33.957" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King (a &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; pastor) had to face just this sort of quandry - what do with an unjust law.  In the question posed above, the unjust law would be to &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; worship God.  In the case of the Civil Rights Era, it was to comply with laws that explicit deviated from what God told the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In what in this situation that he wrote the famous &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Letter From Birmingham Jail&lt;/a&gt;.&amp;quot;  While the entire thing is worth a read, this excerpt shows he harkens back to Augustine's distinction between just and unjust laws:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One may well ask: &amp;quot;How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?&amp;quot; The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that &amp;quot;an unjust law is no law at all.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an &amp;quot;I it&amp;quot; relationship for an &amp;quot;I thou&amp;quot; relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this - from Augustine to King really is just an extension of Acts 4:19.  When told to stop preaching, Peter simply said, &amp;quot;We must obey God rather than men.&amp;quot;  It really is that simple - God ordains government to keep justice, but when government no longer does justice, it is no longer of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the question becomes moot, because governments are ordained by God to uphold justice. When they abdicate that responsibility, there is no moral requirement to follow it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T01:43:08.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14999" CreationDate="2013-03-16T22:05:07.727" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, some much-needed background. The pope is infallible only &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2133/3941&quot;&gt;when he speaks ex cathedra&lt;/a&gt;. Ex cathedra is not a linguistic formula, it is simply a way to recognize those times when the pope gives a teaching that is correct and will remain correct forever. Ecumenical councils are another organ of infallibility, but we can talk about just the pope without missing anything important to this question. The pope does not always speak ex cathedra, so papal infallibility isn't called into question over every statement the pope makes. Only those statements about faith and morals would even qualify.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people think that when the pope speaks in this way, he is to be seen as creating something, like an artist adding paint to a canvas. That is not what the pope does. Imagine instead an unchanging mural set into a rock. Parts of it are obscured by debris, and other parts are splashed with paint. Some people are performing restoration. Others try to paint on top of paint. The pope, as pope, does not get involved with any of this. The pope does not paint. Instead, he sits down on a chair that's set apart, and, guided by the Holy Spirit, points to the exposed surface of this mural that is (and remains) immaculate, free of all human machination and accumulated grime. If his hand were covered in blood it would still, by the Holy Spirit, point up to truth. If millions of people surrounded him and raised their hands up in disarray, it would be his hand that Catholics would know to look for. His hand is guided by the Holy Spirit and directed at the Word. He sits upon the seat of Saint Peter. Catholics try to raise our hands to point to the same place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope the above is not too metaphorical, but it is difficult to convey what role the pope and magisterium play in Catholicism by just saying that the pope is never wrong and that doctrines never change.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In case things are still not clear, here are some short answers to your questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No pope has ever infallibly proclaimed that he is fallible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No pope has ever denounced an infallible teaching.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nor has one infallible statement ever been set against another one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nor has any pope ever made a doctrinal error when speaking in this way: &#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. (The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; on Infallibility)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dogma is not developed and adjusted and fitted over time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Infallible statements are made when confusion begins to arise on a certain clear matter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doctrines cannot be changed:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change. (From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change-its-doctrines&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;Catholic Answers&quot;&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, a person might disagree with the Pope, or with Ecumenical Councils, or with the Catholic Encyclopedia, or with the idea of papal infallibility, or even with the idea of there being anything to point to. That would be another hand being raised; we can only pray that all our hands will eventually point up to the same place. This site is not set up for argument, though: if you'd like to know if some particular ex cathedra declaration of the pope has been proven incorrect according to some standard, you would need to ask another question about the particular case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-03-16T22:43:16.057" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14995" CreationDate="2013-03-17T00:25:27.917" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most simply put, when the Calvinist uses the term &quot;nature&quot; in this context, they are not using it in the same way that they are using the word &quot;Nature&quot; in terms of the Hypostatic union. The Calvinist is really more using this as a way to say &quot;tendency&quot; or &quot;leaning&quot; or even &quot;will.&quot; Human beings will only ever have one Nature (in the Ousia sense of Chalcedonian Christology).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a good reminder that we should all be careful how we use terms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4179" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T00:25:27.917" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15026" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15029" CreationDate="2013-03-17T00:48:44.353" Score="5" ViewCount="2514" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8897/does-suffering-in-this-life-really-matter&quot;&gt;Does suffering in this life really matter?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1633/how-can-suffering-from-natural-causes-be-reconciled-with-an-omnimax-god&quot;&gt;How can suffering from natural causes be reconciled with an omnimax god?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both answers above contain the major theme of God refining us, making us more like Him, so that after the period of suffering, the person is better than before. Now, both assume there is a period after suffering, where the person can use the lessons learned (and for many that is true).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are many cases of people who suffer terribly in the world (for some, almost analogous as if they were in Hell on earth) and do not get a chance to use their &quot;refinement&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There suffering appears pointless, sad and for many people - goes on until there last day here on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the second question, @MasonWheeler answers that it is in &quot;preparation for the eternal world&quot; (assuming the person is a Christian, I guess....)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer makes it sounds almost as if this life here on earth is completely irrelevant. (To me that sounds very dangerous way to view life but would be for another question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, how does Christianity explain suffering that ends in death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2019-01-20T19:54:29.103" Title="How does Christianity explain suffering that ends in death?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;cross&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8551" CreationDate="2013-03-17T01:22:06.810" Score="-6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Journal of Discourses was considered &quot;good as scripture&quot; while they were published. See preface of vol. 3, &quot;WE are privileged to present to the Saints and the world, the Third Volume of the containing the principles of the Gospel of salvation delivered to this generation through the Apostles and Prophets of the Most High, by the power of the Holy Ghost.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider: D&amp;amp;C 68:4&#xA; 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any living prophet must find his words in harmony with prophets of God in times past. To suggest that living prophets trump dead ones, does not bode well with the whole idea of &quot;scripture&quot;. Is Isaiah to discounted because he is dead? Is Joseph Smith and Brigham Young less prophets now that they are dead? The problem is that these prophets said things under the spirit of prophecy that the modern Church finds uncomfortable. And, wants to distance its self from. These things include prophecy of coming apostacy amoung succeeding leaders of the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me suggest that you pray for attendance of the Holy Ghost as you ponder the things that you study, that He may testify of its truthfulness. The same test that you use on the Book of Mormon applies to any other teaching of any other &quot;Prophet&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there are other books deemed authoritative by the Church. These include: &quot;The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith&quot;; &quot;The Articles of Faith&quot;, by James Talmadge; his, &quot;Jesus the Christ&quot;; and &quot;Gospel Doctrine&quot; by Joseph F. Smith. On a lower tier of authority, accepted by many LDS, are &quot;Doctrines of Salvation&quot; by Joseph Fielding Smith; and &quot;Mormon Doctrine&quot; by Bruce R. McConkie. (Watch whether you read 1st or 2nd editions, depending on how conservative you are.) &quot;Mormon Doctrine&quot; has been denounced by the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4175" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:40:06.313" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:40:06.313" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15028" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15031" CreationDate="2013-03-17T01:49:03.113" Score="3" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Book of Job is taken by some Protestants to be an historical document, whereas others hold that its position in the Ketuvim (the Writings) never assumed that it was anything other than what we would call fiction today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the position of the Catholic Church in regards to the historicity of Job?  Is it a play or a recount of a real event?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T02:59:08.493" Title="Do Catholics consider Job to be historical?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;job&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15026" CreationDate="2013-03-17T02:12:41.597" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having buried my mother last week after seeing her go through progressively worse interventions due to complications from her pneumonia, I can only say that I wish more people would ask this question. Any Christianity that ignores the question of suffering neither addresses the reality of the Sin nor the biblical witness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question of suffering is central to Scripture. It is both a sign of God at work in us for our edification, and a result of the Fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But most importantly, and I say this with all sincerity, it is a light and transitory thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul says in Romans 8:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a substantial claim to @MasonWheeler's answer that death is preparation for the next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept that this world is bent and fallen is pretty standard in just about every form of Christianity.  That this world is not what God intended it to be is the starting port. But the hope of the Gospel is that this suffering is not the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That &amp;quot;death is swallowed up in victory&amp;quot; is central to our hope.  If, as Paul points out, there is no resurrection, then we above all men are most to be to be pitied.  Without the resurrection, then indeed, such suffering would be pointless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul continues, pointing out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, we see that all suffering produces:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hope (a theme picked up from Romans 5) and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A Dependence on the Spirit (and this is a good thing)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, Paul can with no guile say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[i] have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This suffering conforms and shapes us.  It justifies us, and it glorifies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, as Christians, we know that this life is simply preparation for God's glory. If it were not, Paul could not say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If death were the end, then death could separate us from the love of God.  But it doesn't.  It just brings us closer to Him in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T02:12:41.597" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15028" CreationDate="2013-03-17T02:59:08.493" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know if Chesterton speaks for the whole Church, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chesterton.org/2011/07/introduction-to-the-book-of-job/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;he says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The doctors disagree, as it is the business of doctors to do;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but more to the reality of Job's construction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Book of Job may have grown gradually just as Westminster Abbey grew gradually. But the people who made the old folk poetry, like the people who made Westminster Abbey, did not attach that importance to the actual date and the actual author, that importance which is entirely the creation of the almost insane individualism of modern times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, maybe the question, as pertinent as it is to hermenueiticians isn't so important to those who actually want to gain wisdom by reading Job.  Still, the New American Bible (aka the Book we use at Mass) is a little clearer. In the the &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Job&amp;amp;ch=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;introduction to Job&lt;/a&gt; it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is a literary composition, and not a transcript of historical events and conversations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which isn't to say it doesn't have any &quot;historicity&quot; because it tells us exactly what people thought about the reasons bad things happened to good people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in any event, the way the Bible is organized, Job is between Maccabees and Psalms.  It is the beginning of Wisdom. (or at least the end of it is) It's not even in the same category as say, Tobit, which I'm pretty sure lots of the doctors would contend is a folk tale as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T02:59:08.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15026" CreationDate="2013-03-17T03:08:39.800" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When considering a Christian who suffers terribly, I think &lt;strong&gt;the only real answer given in the Bible is the lesson learned by Job&lt;/strong&gt;. One can talk the tough talk about how our faith will grow from our suffering and it is true. For various minor difficulties this really helps and if our faith is great virtually every difficulty seems minor. However, for many people, at some point in their life &lt;strong&gt;a sudden much heavier suffering falls upon them&lt;/strong&gt; and their faith is tested in a very uncomfortable way. This does not happen to everyone and sometimes is brought about merely be the disproportionate size of our own faith compared to the intensity of the pain, but we all know and struggle with fears over falling ourselves into such a situation. In fact our daily prayer includes a desire that we would not be led into temptation, which a sudden introduction of suffering obviously is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In Job we see the basis for the answer ‘trust me’.&lt;/strong&gt; It means we can’t fully understand why and trying to figure it out will never work. So instead know that God loves us and trust him with our suffering, even if we know he could take it away in an instant: it is not easy at all, it takes great faith. We see this in Job. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically Job and his advisers have a problem in their logic. They think God is just and powerful, therefore suffering is a result of sin. However, Job has a lot of problems here as he knows he is more righteous than most?!  &lt;strong&gt;He therefore bitterly concludes that God has no rhyme or reason in the way he manages the universe:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21  I am blameless; I regard not myself; I loathe my life. &#xA;  22  It is all one; therefore I say, ‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’ &#xA;  23  When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent. &#xA;  24  The earth is given into the hand of the wicked; he covers the faces of its judges— if it is not he, who then is it? (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Job 9:21–24). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How does God respond to this claim (we all feel like making when we suffer)?&lt;/strong&gt; Well at the end of Job in Chapter 41 God basically compares himself to Job showing Job that Job can’t understand anything about what God does, even in much less complicated matters. Then in Chapter 42, Job repents and learns to accept his suffering without explanation and trusts God. He gets it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we consider that God is so caring that he even cares for the sparrow (Matthew 10:29) we add an extra dimension to trust.  God is our Father who is full of love and we can never understand how much it hurts him to see us suffer. He cares for us and makes our bed in our sickness and kisses us on the forehead as we fall asleep.  How can it be? How can God care and allows us to suffer at the same time? &lt;strong&gt;The answer is there is no answer. We are not God, we can’t understand his ways, and we can only trust him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not saying we should not allow many Bible verse that indicate the value of suffering and the fact that our sufferings are indeed light compared to the glory of heaven, which is our possession now, only saying that when faith is really tested our minds can't reach fully upon these comforts in a full understanding and acceptance of them.  We can only believe them by faith, transversing into a place of knolwedge that our minds can't really pierce.  &lt;strong&gt;Under great suffering, faith makes darkness in our minds, sorrow in our life, to be gladness to our hearts. In sorrow we can have comfrot and joy. We will never fully understand how God's grace does this. There are no 'pat answers'.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second case is where a sinner suffers a great deal as he enters into hell. God does not delight in this suffering in any sense as he is a loving God (Ezekiel 18:23) but by rejecting his love right to the end, suffering is only an introduction into everlasting suffering. This suffering is under the wrath of God’s holy law which can’t look upon sin but with wrath and which poured its wrath upon Christ when he died on the cross for our sin. If we would receive God’s love in Christ’s death for our sins; not suffering, not Devil, not our own doubts, not a religious supposed leader, not and angel, not a prophet, not an apostle or all combined, can prevent the eternal joys that await us after we suffer in this world. Let us declare that if any give us a different gospel than that, which alone saves sinners, let them be eternally condemned. (Galatians 1:8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-17T06:06:04.363" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T06:06:04.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14966" CreationDate="2013-03-17T03:48:52.263" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his last will and testament &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testament_of_Pope_John_Paul_II&quot;&gt;he wrote&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I leave no possessions of which it will be necessary to dispose&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, he seems to have an &quot;estate&quot; in poland, which has been given for use as low income housing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Osiedle administracyjne IV im. Jana Pawła II w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim – osiedle administracyjne położone we wschodniej części miasta. Liczy ok. 18 tys. mieszkańców. Obejmuje południową część Krępy oraz północne rubieże dawnego folwarku Stare Kamienice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;through which I roughly translated w/ Google&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The administrative settlement of Pope John Paul II in Ostrow Wielkopolski - Administrative estate located in the eastern part of the city. There are about 18,000 residents. It covers the southern part and the northern reaches of former old tenement farm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully, I'm not spreading misinformation with a hasty Google search/translation.  But it appears as if Pope John Paul II's estate was bequeathed to the needy prior to his passing into greater glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Feel free to go roll around in the mud on his farm and make of yourself a 3rd degree relic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T03:48:52.263" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9989" CreationDate="2013-03-17T04:03:42.347" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of Satan's biggest tricks is to try and confuse you about who you are, and whose you are.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan will wait until you are at your weakest point in life and then come to you with questions about your life... your calling... and your ability to do for God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You must know that you have been given the power to become a son of God... Just as Jesus was his son in whom God was WELL PLEASED.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4181" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-17T04:21:01.743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T04:21:01.743" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15035" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15036" CreationDate="2013-03-17T04:50:07.157" Score="14" ViewCount="275" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was checking out the list of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_name&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;pope names by frequency&lt;/a&gt; on Wikipedia in search of minutia to defend my assertion that Pope Francis was the &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.blogoverflow.com/2013/03/14/5678-pope-francis-starts-with-a-clean-slate/?cb=1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;first new Pope name a long time&lt;/a&gt; and noticed that there were two popes named Pelagius (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pelagius_I&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;I&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pelagius_II&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;II&lt;/a&gt;) but there's also a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagian_heresy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pelagian heresy&lt;/a&gt; that predates their pontificate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why Pelagius? Or didn't the Popes think that hard about their names back then?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-27T01:23:03.067" LastActivityDate="2016-01-27T01:23:03.067" Title="Why would popes choose the name Pelagius in light of the Pelagian heresy?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15035" CreationDate="2013-03-17T05:59:46.090" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's interesting! Catholics tend to avoid using heretical names. In fact, I believe that it's in canon law that baptismal names cannot be the names of heretics, and that it is the priest's duty to prevent such a name from being used. So it is &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; strange that &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; pope would the name of a known  heretic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why do we have two popes with the name of a heretic, and a very recent one, at that? Perhaps it is because Pelagius of the heresy himself might have denied important aspects of that heresy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This theological theory is named after Pelagius, although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagian_heresy&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still it is strange, because the name would still have been associated with the heresy. So let's look further. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_name&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Beginning in the sixth century, some popes adopted a new name upon their accession to the papacy; &lt;strong&gt;this became customary in the 10th century&lt;/strong&gt;, and every pope since the 16th century has done so. [...] During the first centuries of the church, the bishops of Rome continued to use their baptismal names after their elections. The custom of choosing a new name began in AD 533 with the election of Mercurius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is because &quot;Pelagius&quot; is the original name of both popes! &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mercurius becomes Pope John II in 533 (first change)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pelagius becomes Pope Pelagius I in 556&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pelagius becomes Pope Pelagius II in 579&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Practice becomes customary circa 1000&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's still a question exactly why neither chose to follow the example set by Mercurius (named after the Roman god Mercury), but I suppose the practice was only taking root around that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1: This is not certain, but seems very probable: the name-changes of other popes around that time are well-recorded but no change is recorded for either of these popes, and I can find no record of either Pelagius being called by a different name before becoming pope.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-03-17T06:05:08.127" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T06:05:08.127" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15037" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15038" CreationDate="2013-03-17T06:28:23.783" Score="17" ViewCount="60101" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard various persons refer to different 'kinds' of sins on this site and in other places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard of&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;mortal sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;grave sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;venial sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there others? What is a basic definition of each? If all sins are bad and have the potential to damn why are they classified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Let me know if this is too broad&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2018-04-22T04:23:26.420" Title="In Catholicism, what are the different kinds of sins?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15037" CreationDate="2013-03-17T07:17:51.657" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most authoritative answers can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Article 8: Sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is carefully worded and addresses the questions asked. The following is an attempt at a supplement. Other sources include the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-06.htm&quot;&gt;Baltimore Catechism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is about actual sin (as in &quot;&lt;em&gt;act&lt;/em&gt;-ual&quot;, from Latin &lt;em&gt;actus&lt;/em&gt;) having to do with acts, and not Original Sin. &lt;strong&gt;Acts&lt;/strong&gt; include willful deeds, failures to act (omissions), utterances (speech), desires, and thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Terminology&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major distinction is between venial and mortal sins: something &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; serious accompanies every mortal sin, so mortal sins are set apart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sin&lt;/strong&gt; is any act contrary to the eternal law. A sin is a willful act contrary to reason and the moral law inscribed into the conscience of every person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The object of a sin has to do with the objective (object-ive) elements of the sin, circumstances, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments. Grave sin is sin whose object is grave matter&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mortal sin&lt;/strong&gt; is sin whose object is grave matter (a grave sin), and which is committed with full knowledge (on the part of the intellect) and deliberate consent (on the part of the will).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Venial sin&lt;/strong&gt; is any sin that is not a mortal sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, &lt;strong&gt;or when&lt;/strong&gt; he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason we talk about grave sins is that we cannot know if another person truly committed a moral sin without knowing if they acted with knowledge and consent. But we &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; know on the basis of certain objective qualities that it was a grave sin, so we are able to call it that. There isn't always a clear distinction between grave and light matter. Objectively, some sins &quot;admit of no lightness of matter&quot;, such as blasphemy or hatred of God. Other sins admit lightness. For example, intentional theft is sometimes only venial, such as when one wilfully steals paperclips from the office. It is especially difficult for a person to self-evaluate the gravity of one's own sins, which is why the Church trains priests to recognize the gravity of sins during Confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Diagram&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;                         Grave&#xA;    SIN:                Matter &#xA;           ┌─ ─ ─ ─ ┴ ─ ─ ─ ─┐&#xA;           │          venial │ &#xA;           ┤        ╔ ═ ═ ═ ═╗&#xA; Knowledge │ venial ║ Mortal ║ ⬅&quot;deliberate&#xA; &amp; Consent └─ ─ ─ ──╚═ ═ ═ ═ ╝   sins&quot;&#xA;                        ⬆    &#xA;                   &quot;Grave sins&quot;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In other words&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;br&gt;knowledge &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; consent &lt;strong&gt;+&lt;/strong&gt; grave matter &lt;strong&gt;=&lt;/strong&gt; Mortal Sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Effects&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mortal sin destroys charity&lt;/strong&gt; in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; &lt;strong&gt;it turns man away from God&lt;/strong&gt;, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. [... Mortal sin] necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation. [...] &lt;strong&gt;Unrepented, it brings eternal death&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Venial sin&lt;/strong&gt; allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. [...] Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Baltimore Catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This sin is called &lt;strong&gt;mortal&lt;/strong&gt; because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The effects of &lt;strong&gt;venial&lt;/strong&gt; sin are the lessening of the love of God in our heart, the making us less worthy of His help, and the weakening of the power to resist mortal sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also capital sins (vices), material and formal sins, and internal sins. For example, mortal or venial sins might be internal. But all that's another question. The major distinction is between mortal and venial sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-18T22:16:46.127" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T22:16:46.127" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15039" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15041" CreationDate="2013-03-17T08:28:39.840" Score="6" ViewCount="13978" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course Christianity believes Jesus is God, but I am interested in this question for the argument that Jehovah (I AM), the name of God which later Jews were not allowed to speak, is a term not unique to the Father. In other words, is this special name 'I AM' just as valid for the Son, as it is the Father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Jesus = (Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH) in the flesh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Yahweh/YHWH are just more original Hebrew representations of the English word Jehovah or capital LORD in our Bibles. These are all the same meaning, i.e. the name 'I AM'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-10T02:16:17.480" LastActivityDate="2017-05-10T02:16:17.480" Title="What is the Biblical basis for concluding 'Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah or LORD)'?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15037" CreationDate="2013-03-17T13:27:36.463" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mortal Sin and Grave Sin are the same thing.  A mortal sin requires sufficient reflection, grave matter and consent of the will.  A mortal sin merits Eternal Damnation and must be absolved by a valid priest in the sacrament of confession or absolved by perfect contrition to restore Justification.  A venial sin offends God but does not merit Damnation just some time in Purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some mortal sins include: murder, fornication, lying, drunkenness, consenting to impure thoughts, masturbation, looking at pornography, adultery, cheating, taking God’s name in vain, birth control or artificial contraception, assisting the propagation of heresy, funding heretics, dishonoring the Sabbath, breaking the commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baltimore Catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a&#xA;  sin mortal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous&#xA;  matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. 283. What do we mean by &quot;grievous matter&quot; with regard to sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A. By &quot;grievous matter&quot; with regard to sin we mean that the thought,&#xA;  word or deed by which mortal sin is committed must be either very bad&#xA;  in itself or severely prohibited, and therefore sufficient to make a&#xA;  mortal sin if we deliberately yield to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. 284. What does &quot;sufficient reflection and full consent of the will&quot;&#xA;  mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A. &quot;Sufficient reflection&quot; means that we must know the thought, word&#xA;  or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and &quot;full&#xA;  consent of the will&quot; means that we must fully and willfully yield to&#xA;  it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-03-17T22:20:45.523" LastActivityDate="2013-03-17T22:20:45.523" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15039" CreationDate="2013-03-17T13:34:38.903" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Trinitarian orthodoxy, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;יַהְוֶה (&lt;em&gt;Yahveh&lt;/em&gt;), commonly referred to as &quot;the Tetragrammaton,&quot; is the name of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Father is God, and thus, the name of the Father is Yahveh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Son is God, and thus, the name of the Son is Yavheh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Holy Spirit is God, and thus, the name of the Holy Spirit is Yahveh.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As there is only one God, there is only one name, Yahveh (יהוה), shared by the three persons of the Holy Trinity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To note, יהיה - no matter what one assumes the &lt;em&gt;nekkudot&lt;/em&gt; to be - could not translate into English as &quot;I am.&quot; That would be אֶהְיֶה (&lt;em&gt;ehyeh&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/zec/2/11/t_conc_913011&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zech. 2:11&lt;/a&gt; proves that there is more than one person named Yahveh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And many nations shall be joined to &lt;strong&gt;Yahveh&lt;/strong&gt; in that day and shall be &lt;strong&gt;My&lt;/strong&gt; people, and &lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; will dwell in your midst (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/zec/2/11/t_conc_913010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zech. 2:10&lt;/a&gt;), and you shall know that &lt;strong&gt;Yahveh of hosts&lt;/strong&gt; sent &lt;strong&gt;Me&lt;/strong&gt; to you (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/zec/2/11/t_conc_913009&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zech. 2:9&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the two persons identified by the name Yahveh (יהוה). The one who sends is the Father, and the one who is sent to dwell among Israel is the Son. This theme is especially emphasized in the Gospel and Epistles of John (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/1/14/t_conc_998014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 1:14&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/8/42/t_conc_1005042&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 8:42&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1jo/4/14/t_conc_1163014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:14&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2016-03-15T01:11:08.420" LastActivityDate="2016-03-15T01:11:08.420" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15042" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15081" CreationDate="2013-03-17T16:27:26.890" Score="2" ViewCount="251" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the past and up till now, the majority of humans have believed in some form of deity. Now assume out of all those deities, only the The Holy Trinity is the only true God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. (&lt;strong&gt;John 17:3&lt;/strong&gt;, RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is faith in The Holy Trinity a choice or a gift? Or is it a combination of both?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4167" LastEditorUserId="4167" LastEditDate="2013-03-19T22:42:36.583" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T22:42:36.583" Title="Is faith in The Holy Trinity a choice or a gift?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;comparative-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15047" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-18T04:26:19.597" Score="3" ViewCount="108" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder sometimes where the role of Bible trivia and extensive historical research plays into the Bible.  For example, Melchisedec, is a type of Christ in a great part because the Bible does not provide any genealogical record of him, he just appears as though he never had a beginning. If somebody found some ancient monument that recorded an oral history of Melchisedec's parents, to best grasp the meaning in the Bible one would have to try and not think about that discovery.  It would be very curious and unnecessary information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not questioning if Q &amp;amp; A about various things does not have some theoretical value, as it eventually pertains to life and death.  However, as far as scriptures themselves are concerned, is the Bible ever interested in the curious for the sake of general interest, or the unnecessary to life and death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-18T12:02:49.737" LastActivityDate="2013-03-18T12:02:49.737" Title="According to the Holy Spirit's infallible inspiration of scripture, is anything ever recorded that is unnecessary or curious?" Tags="&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15047" CreationDate="2013-03-18T06:16:01.000" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nothing is unnecessary within scripture: everything mentioned in scripture is essential and not merely curious, because all scripture is useful for teaching, refutation, correction, and training in righteousness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2timothy/3/16http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:16-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding study, and we may presume especially study of the trivial, take care to not exhaust yourself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/ecclesiastes/12&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 12:9-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Epilogue.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Besides being wise, Qoheleth taught the people knowledge, and weighed, scrutinized and arranged many proverbs.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Qoheleth sought to find appropriate sayings, and to write down true sayings with precision.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  The sayings of the wise are like goads; like fixed spikes are the collected sayings given by one shepherd.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;&lt;code&gt;12&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  As to more than these, my son, beware. Of the making of many books there is no end, and in much study there is weariness for the flesh.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  The last word, when all is heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this concerns all humankind;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  because God will bring to judgment every work, with all its hidden qualities, whether good or bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(An aside: Christ does have a very important genealogical history through His Blessed Mother, Mary.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-18T06:16:01.000" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15050" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-18T12:08:33.643" Score="6" ViewCount="13719" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that Buddha preceded Christ by approximately 500 years and that it may have been possible for the teachings of Buddha to have reached the ears of the young Christ and inspired his revelation. The parallels in their lives, teachings, and even metaphors are uncanny.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further reading that supports the claim: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Living Buddha Living Christ&quot; - Thich Nat Han&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thezensite.com/non_Zen/Was_Jesus_Buddhist.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Was Jesus a Buddhist?&lt;/a&gt;&quot; - this document flows in a way to support the Idea of Jesus knowing about Buddhism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The movie &lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/6674005&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The man from Earth&lt;/a&gt;. Scene script: (&lt;a href=&quot;http://saynotoglobalgovernance.blogspot.in/2008/01/man-from-earth-jesus-is-cro-magnum-man.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;man-from-earth-jesus-is-cro-magnum-man&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I'm looking for definitive points of similarity or disagreement between the two.  If direct historical lineage can be proved, or fundamentally definitive points of departure could be pointed out to &lt;em&gt;disprove&lt;/em&gt; the link, that would help any answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4186" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-09-03T14:24:21.647" LastActivityDate="2020-09-03T15:07:24.793" Title="Did the teachings of Buddha influence Jesus?" Tags="&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;buddhism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15050" CreationDate="2013-03-18T12:18:46.810" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze, John the Baptist and other ancient teachers came before Him, Jesus was not a disciple of any of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus teaches in the Temple courts in John 7, the people are amazed at his teaching, because they realized Jesus had never been a disciple of anyone.  Jesus responds to their amazement by asserting that His teaching came from God the Father--the One who sent Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not until halfway through the festival did Jesus go up to the&#xA;  temple courts and begin to teach. The Jews there were amazed and&#xA;  asked, “How did this man get such learning without having been&#xA;  taught?”  Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one&#xA;  who sent me.  John 7:14-16 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus were, in fact, a disciple of Buddha, then His teachings would merely be an extension of Buddhism.  This is not the case at all, though, as the teachings of Jesus are completely original and quite distinct from all other teachings about God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus never studied as a disciple of anyone, so He could not have been a disciple of Buddha or anyone else.  In fact, he lived much of His life presumably as a carpenter without any religious teaching.  Also, the teachings of Jesus are completely original and distinct, which indicates that He was building on no other philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-03-18T13:13:54.150" LastActivityDate="2013-03-18T13:13:54.150" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15018" CreationDate="2013-03-18T13:01:44.450" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book Acts tells about the disciples spreading the Gospel often in the face of opposition from various groups including government bodies.   In chapter 4 of that book, Peter and John are brought before the Council and forbidden from spreading word of Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and&#xA;  perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished.&#xA;  And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. 14 But seeing the&#xA;  man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in&#xA;  opposition. 15 But when they had commanded them to leave the council,&#xA;  they conferred with one another, 16 saying, “What shall we do with&#xA;  these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is&#xA;  evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17&#xA;  But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us&#xA;  warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know that this &lt;em&gt;quite&lt;/em&gt; answers the question, because I'm not sure how official this prohibition was, but it seems to get to the heart of things.   I believe the response of Peter and John provides a good template for Christians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in&#xA;  the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge,&#xA;  20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also reminded of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who while in Babylon refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's statue (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%203&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 3&lt;/a&gt;), and similarly, Daniel, who defied Darius's decree and continued to pray to God daily (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%206&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 6&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the key to all these passages is that our allegiance is primarily to the authority of God, but that the governments is still authoritative secondarily next to that.   When the two seem to conflict with one another, the examples set seem to show that God's followers are not called to be revolutionaries, but rather to obey the laws of the land as much as their conscience will allow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2013-03-18T13:01:44.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15050" CreationDate="2013-03-18T14:14:48.020" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the Ba'hai might make such a claim, Nicene Christianity would not.  Most Christians have sufficiently fundamental differences with Buddhism over how to live that calling one a disciple of another would not capture the relationship well. Leaving aside radically different notions of the afterlife (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11722/isnt-reincarnation-affirmed-by-the-bible&quot;&gt;Jesus did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; believe in reincarnation&lt;/a&gt;!), there are fundamentally different perscriptions in how to handle life's vicissitudes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Buddha's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/bs-s03.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;first noble truth&lt;/a&gt;, for example teaches that joy should be avoided, in order to avoid the pain that comes with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, Hebrews 12 says of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;..looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not their understanding of how one should live a &quot;good&quot; life is similar, and whether or not they conveyed their messages using simiar metaphors would not be as great as such a fundamental difference of opinion on &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; to live a life.  Given this great dichotomy, even if one could plausibly make a case that a Jewish rabbi 500 years after Buddha in a country very, very far away, somehow was aware of him, it would be difficult to call him a major influencer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T13:59:45.957" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15050" CreationDate="2013-03-18T17:28:36.357" Score="9" Body="&lt;h2&gt;First&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't read 'Living Buddha, Living Christ' by Thich Nhat Hanh, so I can't comment on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Second&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I skimmed thorugh the article 'Was Jesus a Buddhist?'. I would like to propose a few counterexamples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The article claims that Jesus' time in Kashmir coincides exactly with his 'lost years' in the Gospels, and mentions a king:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the age of twenty-nine he left India and eventually reappeared in Judea to begin his ministry. His time in Kashmir coincides exactly with his &amp;quot;lost years&amp;quot; in the gospels. [...] The Kashmiri Hindu text &amp;quot;Bhavishya Maha Purana&amp;quot; speaks about king Shalivahana (circa AD 80) meeting a foreigner calling himself Ishvara Putaram (Son of God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now suppose that Jesus did go to Kashmir during his 'lost years'. Then Jesus would've gone to Kashmir before he &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;started his ministry&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scholars generally estimate that the ministry of Jesus began around &lt;strong&gt;27-29 AD&lt;/strong&gt; and lasted one to three years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautamiputra_Satakarni&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gautamiputra Satakarni (Telugu: గౌతమిపుత్ర శాతకర్ణి, Marathi: गौतमीपुत्र सातकर्णि; also known as &lt;strong&gt;Shalivahana&lt;/strong&gt;) (c. &lt;strong&gt;78–102 CE&lt;/strong&gt;) was the twenty-third ruler of the Satavahana Empire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you would know, CE is an alternative term for AD. Now, if we take it that Jesus was in Kashmir before 27 AD, and that Shalivahana was born in 78 AD, they could not have met during the 'lost years', since Shalivahana wasn't around before 27 AD. Therefore, this is a contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a side note, suppose we take it for a fact that Peter was the first one to call Jesus as the Son of God, as revelead by God The Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” &lt;strong&gt;15&lt;/strong&gt; He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 16:13-17, RSV&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then it does not make any sense for Shalivahana to be the first one to have called Jesus as the Son of God during the lost years. Then again, he couldn't, anyway, as he wasn't around at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Taking one example, the article claims a similarity between Jesus and the Buddha:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Born as an incarnate god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;not&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... the Buddha himself denied that he was either a man or a god...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also that the article is confusing. At some parts of the article the author tries to assert that Jesus was, to an extent, a Buddhist. Then the author seems to imply that the figure of Jesus was taken from the figure of Buddha by listing the similarities between them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a look at this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Kennedy_coincidences_urban_legend&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;urban legend&lt;/a&gt;, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for more. So much for the sake of making something 'similar'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Third&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't watched the whole movie 'The Man from Earth'. I did watch the excerpt you gave me, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looked on Google to see if I could find a source for the statements made about Moses that are said in the excerpt, but I did not find one. I found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.veryabc.cn/movie/uploads/script/TheManFromEarth.txt&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;transcript&lt;/a&gt; for the movie (I do not know if it is complete or not), to look up the spelling of 'Misis'. Googling for '&lt;a href=&quot;http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misis+syria&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;misis syria&lt;/a&gt;', I could not find anything that is specific to it. The articles that I did read, that contain the name 'Misis' does not have any citations either, they aren't credible. So for now, I can safely say that that is just an assertion without anything to back them up. Do tell me if you find some. I have not searched for evidence for the other statements. I don't think it is a good use of time anyway. Here is why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The plot summary from IMDB for '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Man from Earth&lt;/a&gt;' is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An impromptu goodbye party for Professor John Oldman becomes a mysterious interrogation after the retiring scholar reveals to his colleagues he never ages and has walked the earth for 14,000 years. &lt;em&gt;Written by Eric D. Wilkinson&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, if you look at the site, the genre of the movie is 'Drama' and 'Sci-Fi'. Obviously, this movie is fiction, so you probably shouldn't take it seriously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare with the movie '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.co.uk/title/tt1446714/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Prometheus&lt;/a&gt;', which are classified as 'Adventure', 'Mystery', and 'Sci-Fi'. The following is an extract of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;interview&lt;/a&gt; with the director Ridley Scott, where 'RS' stands for Ridley Scott.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Movies.com&lt;/strong&gt;: You throw religion and spirituality into the equation for Prometheus, though, and it almost acts as a hand grenade. We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;RS&lt;/strong&gt;: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, “Lets’ send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it. Guess what? They crucified him.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a fan of the 'Alien' franchise, and as someone who is interested in Christianity, I find the idea captivating. However, in the end, it's just fiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no matter how fascinating or thought-provoking an idea is, made up of cuts and pastes of fiction and non-fiction, don't take it in unless you can find evidence to back up the statements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One final note. Going back to basics, there are fundamental &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity#Differences&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;differences&lt;/a&gt; between Buddhism and Christianity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... one significant element being that while Christianity is at its core &lt;strong&gt;monotheistic&lt;/strong&gt; and relies on a God as a Creator, Buddhism is generally &lt;strong&gt;non-theistic&lt;/strong&gt; and rejects the notion of a Creator God which provides divine values for the world. [...] There are other fundamental incompatibilities, e.g. while &lt;strong&gt;Grace&lt;/strong&gt; in Christianity is part of the very fabric of theology, in Theravada Buddhism no deity can interfere with &lt;strong&gt;Karma&lt;/strong&gt; and hence the notion of any type of grace is inadmissible within these teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4167" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-14T14:48:18.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15056" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-18T17:32:58.667" Score="4" ViewCount="1536" Body="&lt;p&gt;From reading the Bible, I have always had questions about how God works slowly over many generations of people and more specifically about those who live in what I call &quot;God's Silent Periods&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example: The Bible contains many instances where it states to the effect; &quot;..and becuase of this, the Jew's were enslaved in Egypt for 500 years&quot; and then moves on to the next Bible worthy important event - as if 500 years is nothing! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps to God 500 years is a blink of an eye, as He is the same in the past, present and future - but to these generations who lived during the 500 years (just imagine if you and your generations lived during that period) that is  &lt;strong&gt;many life times of a specific experience of who God is&lt;/strong&gt;. It appears it is God's will that some will live and experience their lives in such periods (perhaps us), to forward his will - &lt;strong&gt;on His time line&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, during the slave generations, even if one individual had enormous faith in God, it could not change their life predestined in slavery. On the flip side, for the generation of Jews that lived when Moses came, &lt;strong&gt;their tested faith now had a new power&lt;/strong&gt; - the power to directly free them from slavery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Please note this is just one example of this what appears to be cyclic nature of God.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question is: How do Christians incorporate and harmonize their personal present moment everyday faith, in light of God's nature as explained above from the Bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-03-23T00:20:09.037" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T18:11:24.113" Title="How do Christians incorporate present moment everyday faith in light of God's multi-generational nature?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15058" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15060" CreationDate="2013-03-18T18:22:33.990" Score="10" ViewCount="246" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS church sponsors scouting programs for their boys, and I understand that many LDS young men attain the rank of Eagle, the highest rank in Boy Scouts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of the possible implications of the imminent decision of the BSA related to gays in scouts, what is the LDS Church's affiliation with scouting? What religious significance does the Boy Scouts have with Mormon young men?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt; The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/church/news/church-issues-statement-on-boy-scouts-of-america&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LDS Church recently issued this statement about their partnership with the Boy Scouts&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Another Update:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-boy-scouts-of-america-policy-vote&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;One more statement by the LDS Church regarding the Boy Scout membership policy decision&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-05-30T15:42:20.040" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T15:42:20.040" Title="What is the LDS Church's affiliation with the Boy Scouts?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;youth&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14876" CreationDate="2013-03-18T18:32:05.057" Score="4" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Luther was not intending the song to be about his Catholic opponents. As Mike pointed out, Luther did not have that sort of hostile view of the Church. The song makes reference to scripture throughout. It is based primarily on &lt;strong&gt;Psalm 46&lt;/strong&gt; (below), and the particularly &amp;quot;militant&amp;quot; parts (&amp;quot;the body they may kill&amp;quot;) are simply references to Job. I can't imagine that Luther would've even had enough thought to think of his opponents, with all the thinking he was doing about scripture while composing this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If it came across as anti-Catholic today, it wouldn't be in Catholic Hymnals. There is of course some association with Luther, but strong sentiments are generally not there today. If you search through Catholic forums, you'll see that the hymn is beloved by many Catholics, and though some do feel uneasy, the fact is that the hymn is sung with approval by Catholics during Mass. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mighty_Fortress_Is_Our_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;From Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The hymn is now a suggested hymn for Catholic Masses,[7] appearing in the second edition of the Catholic Book of Worship, published by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, though this is not without controversy. Its enduring popularity in Western Christendom has breached boundaries set in the Reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are concerned, perhaps precede the hymn with a reading or explanation of Psalm 46, or Job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/psalms/46/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 46&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1 For the leader. A song of the Korahites. According to alamoth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;God is our refuge and our strength,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;an ever-present help in distress.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3&#xA;Thus we do not fear, though earth be shaken&lt;br&gt;&#xA;and mountains quake to the depths of the sea,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;4&#xA;Though its waters rage and foam&lt;br&gt;&#xA;and mountains totter at its surging.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;II&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;5&#xA;Streams of the river gladden the city of God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;the holy dwelling of the Most High.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;6&#xA;God is in its midst; it shall not be shaken;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;God will help it at break of day.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;7&#xA;Though nations rage and kingdoms totter,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;he utters his voice and the earth melts.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;8&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;The LORD of hosts is with us;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;our stronghold is the God of Jacob.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;III&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;9&#xA;Come and see the works of the LORD,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;who has done fearsome deeds on earth;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;10&#xA;Who stops wars to the ends of the earth,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;breaks the bow, splinters the spear,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;and burns the shields with fire;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;11&#xA;“Be still and know that I am God!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I am exalted among the nations,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;exalted on the earth.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;12&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;The LORD of hosts is with us;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;our stronghold is the God of Jacob.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-18T18:32:05.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15058" CreationDate="2013-03-18T18:41:06.007" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Boy Scouts of America's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scouting.org/About.aspx&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Boy Scouts of America is one of the nation's largest and most prominent values-based youth development organizations. The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, the BSA requires all members to espouse a belief in some &quot;higher power&quot;, in other words, whoever you believe to be god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 13th &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/articles-of-faith&quot;&gt;Article of Faith&lt;/a&gt; of the LDS Church states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly both organizations are seeking after character-filled and moral members. Specifically, the BSA's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/scoutparents/scouting%20basics/what%20scouting%20is/scout%20oath%20and%20law.aspx&quot;&gt;Scout Law&lt;/a&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A Scout is:&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Trustworthy&lt;/strong&gt;, Loyal, &lt;strong&gt;Helpful&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  Friendly, Courteous, &lt;strong&gt;Kind&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,&#xA;  Brave, &lt;strong&gt;Clean&lt;/strong&gt;, Reverent&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(bolded entries emphasizing those that appear in the Article of Faith in some form)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an Eagle Scout myself, and having got to know many Mormon Boy Scouts, I can attest that many are there because they believe in the principles of both organizations. The strong overlap between the two sets of values is likely what makes Scouting so appealing to Mormon young men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church's &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.org/service/serving-in-the-church/aaronic-priesthood/leader-resources/scouting&quot;&gt;statement on Scouting&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Where Scouting is authorized by the Church, quorums may participate in Scouting activities during Mutual. Under priesthood leadership, Scouting can complement the efforts of Aaronic Priesthood quorums and Primary classes in building testimonies in young men and boys.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more resources, you could check out the LDS-BSA Relationships &lt;a href=&quot;http://ldsbsa.org/&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt;. As for the LDS Church's affiliation with scouting, it is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/operating_orgs.aspx&quot;&gt;largest&lt;/a&gt; chartering organization (sponsor for local troop), with 37,856 units containing 430,557 youth, almost 70,000 more than the next-largest organization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="671" LastEditDate="2013-03-19T14:12:11.710" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T14:12:11.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15061" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-18T18:45:15.290" Score="9" ViewCount="4349" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/03/18/news/30649.html&quot;&gt;The coat of arms of Pope Francis&lt;/a&gt; includes references to Jesus (the sun with cross, nails, and IHS), Mary (the star) and Joseph (the cluster of flowers).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.imgur.com/L9Zaorl.jpg?1&quot; alt=&quot;Coat of arms of Pope Francis&quot; title=&quot;Hosted by imgur.com&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The association of the flowers with St Joseph is described in the press release, linked above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nella tradizione iconografica ispanica, infatti, San Giuseppe è raffigurato con un ramo di nardo in mano.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In the Hispanic iconographic tradition, in fact, St Joseph is depicted with a branch of spikenard in his hand.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know about the use of (spike)nard in the anointing of Jesus in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:6-13&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot;&gt;Matthew 26&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:3-9&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot;&gt;Mark 14&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:1-8&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot;&gt;John 12&lt;/a&gt;, where it is done by Mary of Bethany, who might be the same as Mary Magdalane (and who is therefore usually depicted with an alabaster jar of nard). I was not aware that Joseph had anything to do with the plant. (At other times, he is shown with a flowering staff, which does not seem to be quite the same thing as just holding the flowers themselves. If the flowering staff story from the Golden Legend turns out to be relevant, that's fine, but I would like to hear about spikenard in particular, not just flowers in general.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did spikenard become linked with St Joseph?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-03-18T19:36:03.157" LastActivityDate="2014-09-27T08:19:36.507" Title="What does spikenard have to do with St Joseph?" Tags="&lt;saint&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;joseph-husband-of-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15050" CreationDate="2013-03-18T18:47:40.510" Score="5" Body="&lt;h3&gt;From a Christian perspective:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one fundamental difference between Christ and all other prominent religious gurus is that &lt;strong&gt;Jesus' primary teaching is that &lt;em&gt;He Himself is God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Whatever similarity Christ's teachings then have with any other guru's, far from being incidental, is that they both stem from the Christ Himself, God's Word. The Word of God, Jesus Christ, is the inspiration for all truth and beauty everywhere. His human relationship and &quot;learning&quot; is one of blessing or publicly acknowledging the truth which He had inspired from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if any &lt;em&gt;historical&lt;/em&gt; evidence could show that Jesus connected with Buddhists, the &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; interpretation is and must be that Christ blessed their truths &lt;em&gt;for their sake&lt;/em&gt;, rather than that He learned from them in the strict sense. So, rather than interpreting Buddhism as a source of truth and something on which Christ depended, the salvational value of Buddhism depends on Christ's presence in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWf-h2BLzOA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fr. Barron addresses this distinction&lt;/a&gt; in the Catholicism series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a theological perspective, if an encounter with Buddhism occurred, the encounter is of minimal &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; value. And it's more notable that important than we have no idea what He was doing in those year. It's more notable and important that during those years, as far as we &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt;, Jesus was an ordinary person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;From a more historical perspective:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similarity between two beliefs does not necessitate a common historical ancestry. People on opposite sides of the planet discovered numerical systems, for instance, and properly understood addition and subtraction without one having to learn it from the other. The only tangible and meaningful link between an innate truth understood across cultures is the &quot;style&quot; or &quot;manner&quot; in which the truth is understood. We can observe that numerical notation, for instance, can differ between unrelated cultures, even though the basic truths are the same. Related cultures, on the other hand, will show notational similarities or similarities in conceptual nuance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, whatever similarity there may between Christian and Buddhist teachings is not necessarily relevant without an explicit mention or &quot;unlikely&quot; &lt;em&gt;stylistic&lt;/em&gt; similarity. And Jesus &lt;em&gt;explicitly&lt;/em&gt; teaches Jewish scripture -- incredibly knowledgeably at that, seemingly demonstrating many years of study. He doesn't explicitly say anything about Buddha or any Buddhist teaching; He only speaks explicitly of &lt;em&gt;Jewish&lt;/em&gt; scripture and the proper understanding of &lt;em&gt;Jewish&lt;/em&gt; scripture. And He does so in a very Jewish fashion: quoting scripture, debating, and telling stories. He does not, in the style of Buddism for instance, offer &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Koan's&lt;/a&gt; to His disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is most reasonable, then, to explain the &quot;missing years&quot; with Jesus studying and practicing Judaism. It would be tough to imagine how a man could be so intimately more familiar with a religion than the contemporary experts if He &lt;em&gt;didn't&lt;/em&gt; spend the bulk of His life in the study and practice of that religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I'd maintain that accounting for the &quot;lost years&quot; of Christ with the study of Buddism is more an imaginative conjecture, at this point, than it is a serious conjecture. I'm not convinced we have the necessary, meaningful evidence. More importantly, I suppose, most credible experts don't make such a conjecture; just a small circle of eccentrics, it seems. In other words, the folks who push this theory (as far as I know) are the ones looking for History Channel specials and publicity for their own books. They aren't the ones trying to get their theories peer-reviewed and included in textbooks ... other than the &quot;textbooks&quot; they write themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-03-19T14:46:49.997" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T14:46:49.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14957" CreationDate="2013-03-18T20:10:23.443" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why do churches like the Catholic Church permit icons when idolatry is forbidden?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is that they do not consider all images to be idols (just think of photographs), and believe that members of the Church are able to distinguish between a work of art and God without the need for direct enforcement: after all, Catholics believe that the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us, and still dwells among us in the form of the Blessed Eucharist, literally God present before us, as He was present before Thomas, who doubted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some possible definitions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An &lt;strong&gt;idol&lt;/strong&gt; is something worshipped as divine under the mistaken belief that it contains something divine or is itself God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An &lt;strong&gt;icon&lt;/strong&gt; is an image that reminds us of good people and events, sometimes viewed during prayer. Some particular images have sentimental value within a culture, and a rich history.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Some people worship false gods using icons or images. This is idolatry not because they use icons or images, but because give worship to something in place of God.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Idolatry is an especially internal sin, so the words of &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/matthew/7:1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:1&lt;/a&gt; are especially pertinent. If someone starts yelling &amp;quot;this is our god&amp;quot;, then perhaps we &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; have good reason to believe that idolatry is being committed. Compared to the typical Catholic who merely looks at something religious to inspire prayer and worship &lt;em&gt;to God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The objections to using images&lt;/strong&gt; seem to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;that creating an image of God would be &lt;strong&gt;sacrilegious&lt;/strong&gt; or spiritually improper. There are stories of native tribes that thought photographs stole a person's soul. Tales about vampires present them as having no reflection in a mirror, and as being invisible in pictures. Such views are not of God. They suggest that Jesus was not fully human, and that physical objects can even in principle be used to &amp;quot;trap&amp;quot; the divine. It is sinful and idolatrous to believe that a physical object has this sort of spiritual effect &lt;em&gt;on God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;that it is &lt;strong&gt;confusing&lt;/strong&gt; to humans to imagine God so closely tied to the world around us. But Jesus became true man, and was described as being very human in almost everything He did. Furthermore, the Bible depicts God as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4082/3941&quot;&gt;wrestling with Jacob&lt;/a&gt; in Genesis 32.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;that images in particular are &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;disrespectful&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;. There is no biblical basis for &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; point. Humans tell stories and draw pictures. These activities can be directed towards the praise of God, and it seems incoherent to suggest that communicating something through writing featuring God is fine, while images featuring God have something wrong with them (the only basis I can see for such a view is what I describe very negatively in point #1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;that there is something wrong with giving any &lt;strong&gt;attention to the &amp;quot;physical&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt; world during worship. But this is absurd, because God made the world, and said that it was good. We believe in the resurrection of the body, and the body is &amp;quot;physical&amp;quot; in this way: it is a temple of God. We don't worship our own bodies because of that, but we do believe that physical things are in fact good and can be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;that if the images &lt;strong&gt;remind us too much of other people&lt;/strong&gt;, we will then turn attention away from God. But the whole of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/11/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11&lt;/a&gt; is a remembrance of good people. We must put God first, but we must also keep a second place open for people (both living and dead). The Bible on the subject of giving attention to other people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/22&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:37-40&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. &lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt; This is the greatest and the first commandment. &lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. &lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a Catholic perspective from a very devout Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-05T22:08:35.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15064" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-18T22:35:29.683" Score="7" ViewCount="3555" Body="&lt;p&gt;Take these two questions and their answers for consideration to this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12428/what-does-scripture-mean-in-nt-writing&quot;&gt;What does &amp;quot;scripture&amp;quot; mean in NT writing?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12090/what-does-it-mean-that-all-scripture-is-god-breathed&quot;&gt;What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am having a small discussion in the comments on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14628/what-was-the-biblical-basis-for-testing-the-truthfulness-of-every-statement-made/14632#14632&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; (I know I shouldn't but I think they add to the answer). I want to see if my current understanding of scripture and inspired works is Biblically supported and also come up with a useful, working definition for 'inspired works.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how I would summarize what I think they are: All scripture is God breathed; all scripture is inspired. Scripture comes as a direct result from writing the direct messages from God (prophecy, etc.). When Paul wrote that in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Tim 3:16&lt;/a&gt; he was referring exclusively to the Old Testament, in whole (never mind the Catholic/Protestant argument here). Paul did not consider his own writings to be scripture, however, he did consider them inspired by God because he saw the risen Christ and was commanded to build up His church. Writing the epistles was a direct effect of Paul obeying God's command. It is clear that the epistles add little to nothing of what can be found in the Old Testament. All that is in the epistles can be read in the Old Testament (read my comments on the third post).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is the question: Is my reasoning biblical and is there a difference between inspired writings and Scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T21:04:51.140" Title="Is there a difference between Scripture and inspired writings?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;&lt;special-revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15065" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15071" CreationDate="2013-03-18T22:46:54.387" Score="4" ViewCount="1493" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people might claim that a wife must do what her husband says in every situation and they will site the Bible as it being the Divine order of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does seem that the Bible gives authority to fathers over their wives and children but to what extent? What does the Bible say about the father's authority over the wife and the children?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4189" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-03-18T23:05:24.917" LastActivityDate="2015-10-08T15:48:52.033" Title="How much authority does a father have over his wife and children?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;authority&gt;&lt;parenting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-12T18:02:11.733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15068" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15077" CreationDate="2013-03-18T23:32:41.847" Score="7" ViewCount="326" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a question about papal infallibility. According to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it was first formulated in the Vatican Council, which is in 1869–70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pardon me for asking this question, but is it justified if I think that this is an attempt to define the papal infallibility in a way such that the past actions of the previous popes 'fit' the definition (considering it is defined about 1800 years after the Church's history)? Please explain. Thank you for your response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4167" LastEditorUserId="4167" LastEditDate="2013-03-19T02:43:05.553" LastActivityDate="2014-03-17T02:08:29.817" Title="Why did it take so long for papal infallibility to be defined?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;catholic-catechism&gt;&lt;papal-infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15069" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15074" CreationDate="2013-03-19T00:44:52.710" Score="7" ViewCount="1895" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our local Roman Catholic church has started advertising the &quot;Way of the Cross&quot; for Easter. I think I have seen this mentioned at other places I have visited and isn't a just a local event. Is the &quot;Way of the Cross&quot; a Catholic event, and if so what is it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T05:51:54.260" Title="What is the &quot;Way of the Cross&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15069" CreationDate="2013-03-19T01:20:03.367" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Via Dolorosa is the Way of the Cross or the Way of Grief.  Technically, it is the street which Christ walked down as he was led to his crucifixion, but it has come to be associated with a liturgical service that commemorates the event.  Like the Passion, it tends to be a solemn service of rememberance commemorated mostly by the more liturgical Christian denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Dolorosa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;several events&lt;/a&gt;, some of which are Scriptural, many of which are merely passed down tradition, that occurred along the way.  The celebration recounts each of these events, and as the story is told, the participants are called to reflect upon them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The progression of events begins at the Anatolian Fortress, where Jesus is sentenced to death, and ends at Golgotha, where Christ was crucified and buried. It includes such commenorations as Jesus dropping the cross and falling, having his brow wiped, and being led to the Hill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, as the original city of Jerusalem was destroyed, all recreations of the event are necessarily no longer at their spot - even the one in Jerusalem I did.  There are the 15 plaques to be sure, commemorating each stop - but the truth is they are all just reminders of Christ's suffering&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T01:20:03.367" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15065" CreationDate="2013-03-19T02:46:09.770" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Typically, the most prominent example of how &amp;quot;men should have authority over women&amp;quot; stems from Ephesians 5:22, in which Paul admonishes wives to submit to their husbands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, a contextual reading will bear much fruit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, a few facts are pretty plain:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Husbands are to love their wives&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Verse 21 &amp;amp; 22 can be read separately or independently&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If one is going to base a headship claim in 5:23, then one cannot ignore 5:24 - 25 without being seriously inconsistent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditionally, 5:22 is often read &amp;quot;Wives, submit to your husbands.&amp;quot;  Note, this is not a blanket invitation to tyranny, however, as there is clearly an equal and separate obligation to the husband to love and care for his wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has, especially as society at large has changed, led many theologians to read verse 21, not as a separate sentence, but as an introductory clause.  In the Greek, as there is no punctuation, it is this equally possible that the text reads as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This concept of mutual submission in love also squares well with the general concept of all being equal before a sovereign God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, however, that an understanding of &amp;quot;headship&amp;quot; is by no means universal across denominations.  Even within the Catholic Church, there is a wide spectrum of understanding what exactly the rights and responsibilities of authority entail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of the exact nature of authority, however, it is also important to understand that any right of authority is, by definition to be tempered with love.  While it would be easy to point out that Ephesians 6 picks up the theme saying, &amp;quot;Fathers, do not exasperate your children,&amp;quot;  I'd suggest rather that there is more fruit to be had in looking at what love means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love, in 1 Corinthians 13, is pretty straightforward:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if one chooses to equate headship with authority, the fact that it is to be exercised in love should naturally proscribed certain abuses inconsistent with love in any event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T02:46:09.770" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15069" CreationDate="2013-03-19T03:31:58.783" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Way of the Cross, also known as The Stations of the Cross, as advertised by a Church is a formal mini-pilgrimage or &quot;pilgrimage lite&quot; through the &quot;stations&quot; (important moments) of Jesus' passion and death. In modern Catholic Churches there are 14 stations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ condemned to death;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the cross is laid upon him;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His first fall;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He meets His Blessed Mother;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simon of Cyrene is made to bear the cross;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ's face is wiped by Veronica;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His second fall;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He meets the women of Jerusalem;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His third fall;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He is stripped of His garments;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His crucifixion;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His death on the cross;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His body is taken down from the cross; and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;laid in the tomb.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each station is generally represented in the Church by a metal or wooden engraving, a painting, or a stained glass image. The group moves from station to station in order and is lead in prayer and meditation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike some other Catholic &quot;events&quot;, this isn't a sacrament. So, for a mini-&lt;em&gt;mini&lt;/em&gt;-pilgrimage, this can be done privately as well, using your own words, reflections, and prayers if you like. Praying &quot;the stations&quot; is recommended by lots of holy folk in particular during lent, but also regularly throughout the year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/stations/menu.html&quot;&gt;http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/stations/menu.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T03:31:58.783" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15064" CreationDate="2013-03-19T05:32:44.240" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The New Testament is just as much 'scripture' as the Old Testament, and in some sense we believe the Old Testament is scripture because the New Testament records our Lord's full attestation of its authority as such. Inspired works are nothing in comparison. Even my post could be inspired by God as Christians often have inspired thoughts.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think when people try to trace the overall idea of how scripture came to be believed as 'scripture' we forget the basic idea. &lt;strong&gt;God sent Prophets and, later on, Apostles to be his messengers, to deliver his word. Apostles were even greater 'messengers' of the oracles of God than Prophets. A greater covenant was under their instruction as infallible guides to the church.&lt;/strong&gt; In the Old Testament, prophets, once established as credible, were not to be trusted blindly. Only but by testing the truthfulness of their words and prophecies as they continued to make them, would they be received.  If they declared something as 'the word of the Lord' which was not true, they were to be stoned. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2013:1-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 13:1-5&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was great seriousness in someone saying 'Thus saith the Lord' or speaking as though they were bringing the 'very words of God' (and rightly so). Any misrepresentation was deadly.  So we must start with this understanding that there was an idea of a Prophet, who was a messenger.  He would speak in an authoritative manner as though his words were God's (because they were) and God gave such a person unusual certainty and assurance with these words, removing all doubt. Not that every word they spoke (like 'pass the butter please') was God's word, but every word they delivered to the church as a guide and message was of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the highest level:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The scriptures alone have the authority to declare themselves to be so. No church council can determine what is scripture, they can only admit after careful investigation what is self evidently declared within the scriptures themselves. These are tested and confessed to having the authoritative and infallible revelation of God's mind with no contrary evidence to maintain reasonable dispute.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No matter what we canonize, the scripture will insert itself into our view and demand our obedience as it truly is the word of the Lord. God will not leave us without all that is necessary for life and salvation. I have read portions of letters claiming to own a right into the Protestant Bible, but have never sensed the pure authority of God in them.  In fact it really puzzles me how many people fail to see the poor attitudes and doctrinal imperfections in so many 'inspired' books that are proposed as additions to our canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now for those books that the church has received (I am speaking from a Protestant view and canon) a few things had to occur for the church to receive them as scripture. &lt;strong&gt;First&lt;/strong&gt;, somebody claimed to be a Prophet or an Apostle, and their words were recorded by themselves or by others. &lt;strong&gt;Second&lt;/strong&gt;, these words were sent out with an air of extreme importance and ultimate infallible authority. There are not many candidates meeting the first two criteria. &lt;strong&gt;Third&lt;/strong&gt;, fake ones were tossed.  They did not have the divine purity, power and truth in them as attested by the conscience of the church and which could be proven to others by contradicting something in scriptures already received.  The three progressions occurred for all books in our Bible, and no other writings, however 'inspired', are included due to their obvious imperfections or lack of claim to be prophetic or apostolic in origin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The notion that the Old Testament is the only scripture is absolutely inconsistent with the notion of an Apostle. It is like saying Prophets are great and God would have us collect their words and call them scripture, but those messengers even greater than Apostles, no, even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, they are just 'inspired'?&lt;/strong&gt; Nothing could be more ludicrous and in opposition to the concept of an Apostle.  All scripture is equally scripture but if we had to rank different books, the New Testament would be more so simply from the height of the authority of the messengers and the level of brilliance and progression of the revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On a more technical nature&lt;/strong&gt;, one can trace the assumption of the New Testament being 'obvious scripture' and expect a direct argument never to be made.  There was no direct argument in the Old Testament to receive the words of a prophet as scripture canonized in a little book called the Bible. It was common sense that the words of a prophet came from God and also common sense that the words of an Apostle was from God. This is spiritual common sense which requires no proof. It is like asking for proof that there is a God. He just is and his word says so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example in Acts we see the gospel is just assumed to be God's word, not just inspiration. The gospel as preached by the Apostles was always considered 'the word of the Lord', when written this became scripture by default. All one has to do is search the phrase and many passages in Acts appear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2013:42-45&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 13:44&lt;/a&gt;, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word of the Lord is scripture as provided by Prophets or Apostles, or the Lord himself.  Paul considered the message he delivered in his letters as 'the word of the Lord' also. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%204:13-18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:15&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201:11-12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 1:11&lt;/a&gt;). In fact everything he said was assumed to be the Lord's word so that if on a rare occasion he offered his own opinion, he clarified as much.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%207:10-12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:12&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some New Testament books were not yet written by the time 1 Timothy was written, so that they were not referred to as the 'scriptures' in a final sense, as the Old Testament version was. (The Old Testament canon was not collected and 'canonized' as such but these were known to be complete by the Apostles as the New Testament was being written and still incomplete. Therefore they were not referred to as a set). However, even already in Timothy the 'Spirit expressly saying' is agreed by most commentators to be referring not to just the Hebrew scriptures but prophecies made by Jesus and others more recently in New Testament letters. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20tim%204:1-5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 4:1&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A fairly standard verse that people use on the technical side is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20pe%203:15-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:15-16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother &lt;strong&gt;Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him&lt;/strong&gt;, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, &lt;strong&gt;as they do the other Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly Peter 'assumes the writings of Paul are scripture' otherwise he would be guilty of gross miscommunication on a very important matter. Some think Peter is arguing directly that Paul's writings are scripture. I am in the camp of thinking he just assumes it as obvious due to his Apostleship and assumes the reader to understand it obvious as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I take for granted that it is understood that an Apostle is greater than a Prophet.  If one needed support for this argument I would present &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2012:27-31&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 12:28&lt;/a&gt;, the fact that the Lord himself called the twelve Apostles, the fact that the writings of the Apostolic age contain greater revelations than those of the Prophets and that the gospel is &lt;em&gt;so much superior&lt;/em&gt; that every believer is considered greater than the greatest prophet, John the Baptist.  His greatness only occurs from his nearness in time to the Messiah. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2011:9-15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 11:11&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Inspired works are nothing in comparison to scripture as only scripture can test the truthfulness of their claimed inspiration. Scripture is the word of God the church has received from Prophets or Apostles. The 'greatest of these', if such a word can be used to compare scripture with scripture due to the weight of the revelation contained in them, is the New Testament.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-17T21:04:51.140" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T21:04:51.140" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="15074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15069" CreationDate="2013-03-19T05:41:46.977" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Way of the Cross is the path that Jesus took as He made His way to His crucifixion, which some people follow. This might involve an actual outdoor journey. Below is the particular form that is probably the most familiar among Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nearly all Catholic churches have &amp;quot;stations&amp;quot; along the walls of the church. There are 14 of these stations, and usually 7 are on each opposing wall. These stations might be paintings, plaques, insets, or in some cases statues. Here is one example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/f0Haf.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;View of left wall of a Catholic Church with 6 stations visible on the wall; right side of image shows a close-up view of one station.&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The stations are of course always available, but they are traditionally also done together on Fridays during Lent, especially Good Friday. This is almost certainly what the local church is advertising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of the 14 Stations of the Cross is visited in turn. At each station, an important event in Christ's sorrowful journey is described aloud, and prayers are said aloud, usually of a penitential nature. We usually sing as we move to the next station. There is usually an opening prayer before the Stations, and a closing prayer after. (When a single person or a small group is doing the Stations and others might be disturbed, all of this is done quietly.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics &amp;quot;do the Stations of the Cross&amp;quot; by gathering together, often after a Mass. Booklets are available in the back. They say an opening prayer, as well as the act of contrition (a prayer for forgiveness). Then, led by the priest, they move from one station to the next, until all 14 stations have been said. When the church has a fair number of people in it, proper movement might be impractical, and people remain at their pews. The priest, altar servers, and some others move from one station to the next. Everyone else 'moves' to the next station by turning to look towards it. At each station, the procession stops, and the station is declared. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Twelfth Station: Jesus Dies on the Cross&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the following is said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse: We adore you, O Christ, and we praise you &lt;sub&gt;(NOW GENUFLECT)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Response: &lt;strong&gt;because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world!&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;(STAND)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thee/Thy/Thou are sometimes used in place of You/Your. The verse is said by the priest, the response is said by everyone. As the response is said, everyone drops down to their right knee out of respect for God and what He has done for us. This is called genuflecting. After this, there is greater variation in the wording. The general form is another, but this time longer, verse-response prayer. It is usually appropriate to kneel during the longer response (if you are unsure or confused about when you should kneel, you simply follow the priest, because he knows). Here is one example of what would be said at the 12th Station, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/liguori.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Alphonsus Liguori's&lt;/a&gt; Stations of the Cross:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;V: Consider how Your Jesus, after three hours of agony on the cross, is finally overwhelmed with suffering and, abandoning Himself to the weight of His body, bows His head and dies. &lt;sub&gt;(KNEEL)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;R: My dying Jesus, / I devoutly kiss the cross on which You would die for love of me. / I deserve, because of my sins, to die a terrible death; / but Your death is my hope. / By the merits of Your death, / give me the grace to die embracing Your feet and burning with love of You. / I yield my soul into Your hands. / I love You with my whole heart. / I am sorry that I have offended You. / Never let me offend You again. / Grant that I may love You always; and then do with me as You will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this part, everyone says an &lt;code&gt;Our Father, a Hail Mary, and a Glory Be&lt;/code&gt;. Then everyone rises and sings three lines of song as the procession moves to the next station. Here is an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me mingle tears with thee &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Mourning Him who mourned for me, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;All the days that I may live. &lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These words vary, but the melody always seems to be the same, and it is very fitting, beautiful, and recognizable. Sometimes a choir sings this, and sometimes there is no chior, so there can be a bit of a pause until (at least in the first few stations) someone works up the courage to be the first one to sing, and by then everyone is already singing together anyway. It seems most appropriate to begin singing when the priest rises or moves, so that he is not moving to the next station in silence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do this 14 times, once for each station, and singing as the procession moves to the next. After the last station is said, the priest moves to the front of the church. (I have heard that a fifteenth station is sometimes said there, though I think this is a newer or uncommon practice; I am unsure.) The priest and everyone then say concluding prayers. A Plenary indulgence is granted to those who do this faithfully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be other variations on what is described above. The stations can also be said alone, or in a small group such as with one's family. Sometimes the scenes are reenacted, especially among young people, and these are called the &amp;quot;Living Stations of the Cross&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(One way to tell that it is Lent is to look at the liturgical books in the pews: if they have suddenly become dog-eared, it is Lent. This is due to people standing and kneeling while turned sideways, which causes clothing to catch on the pages of the books. The books can be turned on their sides to prevent damage. Usually it helps to keep the kneeler raised, since kneeling on the kneeler with only one knee while turned can be awkward. Some churches apparently try to get around this issue by exiting the pews, but this can be awkward if there are many people, since kneeling becomes impractical, and the priest must pass through a crowd.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The stations are:&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ condemned to death;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the cross is laid upon him;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His first fall;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He meets His Blessed Mother;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simon of Cyrene is made to bear the cross;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ's face is wiped by Veronica;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His second fall;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He meets the women of Jerusalem;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His third fall;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He is stripped of His garments;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His crucifixion;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His death on the cross;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His body is taken down from the cross; and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;laid in the tomb.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't find videos of particularly large churches saying the Stations, which I suppose makes sense. Here are the videos I could find:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzamIQKlQ5I&amp;amp;list=PL9CD1B2567E17B198&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;One Catholic clearly saying the first station&lt;/a&gt;, two minutes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPXJsVFsemQ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;A smaller parish saying the Stations together&lt;/a&gt;, nine minutes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIjBF06lC20&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Living Stations of the Cross&lt;/a&gt;, two minutes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T05:51:54.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15076" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15079" CreationDate="2013-03-19T06:52:43.070" Score="5" ViewCount="31144" Body="&lt;p&gt;When God told Abraham that he was to have a son the following year, bible recorded it that Sarah laughed in her heart&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 18:12-15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 &lt;strong&gt;Sarah laughed to herself&lt;/strong&gt;, saying, “After I have become old, shall I&#xA;  have pleasure, my lord being old also?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 &lt;strong&gt;And the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah&lt;/strong&gt; laugh, saying, ‘Shall I&#xA;  indeed bear a child, when I am so old?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 “Is anything too difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I&#xA;  will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a&#xA;  son.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Sarah denied it however, saying, &lt;strong&gt;“I did not laugh”&lt;/strong&gt;; for she was&#xA;  afraid. And He said, &lt;strong&gt;“No, but you did laugh.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can see here that Sarah committed two [great] sins. 1) She mocked God  2) She called God a liar by denying she laughed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is why God chose to overlook her sins and did not punish her for that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastActivityDate="2015-04-04T20:55:18.900" Title="Sarah laughed at God and He did not mind" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15068" CreationDate="2013-03-19T07:16:26.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it would not be justified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If papal infallibility was not true and well-established, then defining infallibility ad-hoc in 1870 would have been mortally dangerous for the Church. At that point, there had been 255 popes over the course of about 1800 years. Note that ex-cathedra is not a label; it is basically a clear statement on a particular topic, made by a particular person, and directed at a particular group of people. That's all. If it had turned out that any of these 255 popes had made conflicting ex-cathedra statements, then the doctrine of infallibility and seat of Saint Peter would have been undermined. It does not take much to speak ex-cathedra, and though it is not an everyday occurrence, &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; clear ex-cathedra statements have been made. Why would the Church bet the house on papal infallibility in the (rather plain and sensible) form of ex-cathedra? Why not rely on other organs such as Ecumenical Councils or some form of consensus among bishops in order to get infallibility? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the outcome was known in advance. The Church was certain that no two popes would be found to make conflicting ex-cathedra statements, because it was known all along and for a very long time that the pope was indeed to be considered infallible in this way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's actually too bad that it was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; defined &quot;ad-hoc&quot; in 1870. That would  constitute a clean scientific test of infallibility. The prediction would have been: no two papal statements of a particular form shall be found to contradict each other. Not a trivial prediction! Oh well. I think I prefer long-standing tradition to a confirmed scientific test.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The section &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proof of the Church's infallibility&lt;/a&gt; in the Catholic Encyclopedia, the source of the quote in your question, lists much evidence and many proofs for papal infallibility. I will not repeat them, since that would make the answer tedious. I think the above is a much cleaner argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T07:16:26.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15076" CreationDate="2013-03-19T08:32:02.460" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;God did not punish Sarah because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God promised to bless Sarah, not curse her.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sarah and Abraham seem to have laughed in a sort of prophesy, because the name of their son would sound the same as the Hebrew word for laughter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is merciful! Directly after this He allows Abraham to ask Him, repeatedly, not to destroy Sodom if there are any righteous people there (first 50 righteous people, then 45, 40, 30, 20, 10) and each time God agrees to have mercy, if that many righteous people should be found.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three instances of laughter. Here are the the relevant passages, and the notes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/17/16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17:16&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;I will bless her&lt;/strong&gt;, and I will give you a son by her. Her also will I bless; she will give rise to nations, and rulers of peoples will issue from her. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; Abraham fell face down and &lt;strong&gt;laughed*&lt;/strong&gt; as he said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah give birth at ninety?” &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; So Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael could live in your favor!” &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; God replied: Even so, your wife Sarah is to bear you a son, and you shall &lt;strong&gt;call him Isaac&lt;/strong&gt;. It is with him that I will maintain my covenant as an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;[17:17] &lt;strong&gt;Laughed: &lt;em&gt;yishaq&lt;/em&gt;, which is also the Hebrew form of the name “Isaac”&lt;/strong&gt;; similar explanations of the name are given in Gn 18:12 and 21:6.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/18/12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;18:12&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  So Sarah &lt;strong&gt;laughed*&lt;/strong&gt; to herself and said, “Now that I am worn out and my husband is old, am I still to have sexual pleasure?”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  But the LORD said to Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really bear a child, old as I am?’&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time, about this time next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son.”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Sarah lied, saying, “I did not laugh,” &lt;strong&gt;because she was afraid&lt;/strong&gt;. But he said, “Yes, you did.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;[18:12] Sarah laughed: a play on the verb “laugh,” which prefigures the name of Isaac; see note on 17:17.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/21/5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;21:5&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Sarah then said, “God has given me cause to &lt;strong&gt;laugh,*&lt;/strong&gt; and all who hear of it will laugh with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;[21:6] Laugh: for the third time (cf. 17:17 and 18:12) there is laughter, playing on the similarity in Hebrew between the pronunciation of the name Isaac and words associated with laughter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T08:32:02.460" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15042" CreationDate="2013-03-19T11:44:16.057" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I understand correctly, faith is a theological virtue that God gives to people, as opposed to human virtues that require some human effort to obtain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1813 ...They [theological virtues] are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This gift of faith is then possibly infused during baptism and sealed at confirmation. It may also be obtained by praying to God and asking him for the gift of faith for oneself or for someone else. God can surely also dispense the gift of faith as he pleases without any human intervention according to his will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, it is a combination of both. It starts as a gift, but our human choices determine whether we acknowledge, accept and retain this gift, or whether we sin against, reject and dispose of this gift. God created us to have a free-will, so he won't let us believe something if we don't want to believe it. So I guess the gift of God and our choice to believe will always operate together in some way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="502" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T11:59:13.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15082" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-19T12:46:26.713" Score="11" ViewCount="999" Body="&lt;p&gt;I noticed Hebrews is really the place where the Priesthood is discussed as how the priestly ceremonies are related to the Christian faith. It seem rather complete and in depth. Hebrews says a whole lot about the priesthood and even goes into ‘great depth’ explaining things ‘difficult to understand’. It covers many great mysteries fulfilled in Christ through the priesthood. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, Catholics view the mass as kind of mystical repetition of the sacrifice of Christ. Not that Christ is sacrificed again but that his one and only past sacrifice is somehow 'redone' by himself in an unexplainable way. Catholic priests officiate in the mass so that Christ, as the high priest ‘sacrifices himself’ in the present tense. This is done in order to further sanctify those who partake of the ceremony.  If this were true, I can’t fathom why the author of the Hebrews would not somewhere indicate recognition of the existence of this practice. Would he not link it into his teaching of the priesthood and the high priest? &lt;strong&gt;If believers were regularly partaking in a ‘mass’ with an understanding that Christ was sacrificed over and over, why does the Epistle to the Hebrews not seem to be aware of such an important aspect of the priesthood while it explains the meaning of the priesthood?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T05:30:57.677" LastActivityDate="2014-04-27T18:24:08.010" Title="How would a Catholic explain the absence of the mass in the Epistle to the Hebrews?" Tags="&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;mass&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15083" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15090" CreationDate="2013-03-19T17:05:57.147" Score="4" ViewCount="2420" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was being ordained in the Baptist Church, I was asked to write out a statement of faith.  The point was to outline one's theology, but many of you know me well enough to know by now that I can't take everything seriously.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when it came time to discuss &quot;sacrements&quot; in the Baptist church, I said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Baptists have three sacrements - communion, marriage, and potluck.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was only half joking.  Fairly central to the stereotype of the Baptist church is the potluck dinner.  Episcopalians have the sacred rite of Coffee Hour.  And, apparently Catholics have the Church Dinner thing going on too.  In short, it seems like food is a central part of many churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I seem to remember something about &quot;love feasts&quot; somewhere in Scripture - but how is it that the humble potluck has had such a wide influence on church life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2014-09-23T13:43:19.103" Title="What is the origin of the Church potluck?" Tags="&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15082" CreationDate="2013-03-19T19:56:35.280" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Epistle to the Hebrews is not aware of the Mass because it is not a person. It's a letter on a certain subject to certain people. It talks about the &lt;em&gt;High&lt;/em&gt; Priesthood; it isn't an instruction manual on what today has come to be called the Mass. Not all teachings will be in all books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews isn't an instruction manual for saying the Mass&lt;/strong&gt;. It's a letter directed to Jewish Christians in danger of apostasy (Hebrews 2:1), explaining the sacrifice of Christ with particular emphasis on themes in the Old Testament that would have been very familiar to the audience. It is by not intended to be comprehensive (&quot;I have written to you rather briefly&quot;, Hebrews 13:22), but it does mean to explore in-depth a particular theme. The author invokes Melchizedek and the &lt;em&gt;High&lt;/em&gt; Priesthood, and stresses the importance of Christ's precious blood, in comparison to the blood of animals. He calls the bloody sacrifices that came before, now abolished, mere shadows of Christ's perpetual sacrifice. The High Priesthood of Christ is the primary message, and it's directed to those who have lost clear sight of even basic teachings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/hebrews/5/8&quot;&gt;Hebrews 5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  [...] 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered;&#xA;  9 and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him,&#xA;  10 declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.&#xA;  11 &lt;strong&gt;About this we have much to say, and it is difficult to explain, for you have become sluggish in hearing&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  12 Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, [and] not solid food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he would &lt;em&gt;prefer&lt;/em&gt; to discuss the basics, but the problem, he judges, has now advanced far beyond the basics, and can only be remedied by detailed discussion of the High Priesthood of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Not all teachings will be repeated in all books&lt;/strong&gt;, and the books will have different themes and will emphasize different points. For example, the following teaching (on an &lt;em&gt;aspect&lt;/em&gt; of what today is called the Mass) is also not present in Hebrews:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you &lt;strong&gt;proclaim the death of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt; until he comes.&#xA;  27 Therefore &lt;strong&gt;whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily&lt;/strong&gt; will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.&#xA;  28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.&#xA;  29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, &lt;strong&gt;eats and drinks judgment on himself&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, there is something very important about not eating the bread, not drinking the cup. Does &quot;drinking&quot; mean that you should not try to have faith if you are unworthy? That you should not do good if you are unworthy? Or that you should starve until you are worthy? No, it means you must literally not drink and eat &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Someone&lt;/em&gt;, Catholics might say, but let's not get into that), because &quot;proclaiming the death of the Lord&quot; with His blood on your own hands is going to end badly for you. Where is &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; vital teaching in Hebrews? Nowhere, because in Hebrews something else was at issue: Jewish Christians focused on bloody sacrifices, and not the sacrifice of the High Priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the record, some Catholics &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; use Hebrews to talk extensively on the subject of the Eucharist. I found, for example, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc4.htm&quot;&gt;The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Two relevant paragraphs can be found in that document by searching for &quot;clean priesthood&quot; and &quot;brick in the face&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-19T19:56:35.280" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1148" CreationDate="2013-03-19T22:44:44.923" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read a lot about this whole movement and after doing many tours in in the Middle East serving in the Army.  It sounds so much like the Taliban religious laws that it's not funny. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't understand how no one that that is talking about this could not. I will say up front I am a Buddhist,  I will always be be one. And I should say I am white, so those who what to say that I might be Asain. To Mr Niemoeller, Yes some country its a bad thing to be Christian or any other religion in some countries. And just because they are feeling the a boot on their head, Does not mean you should feel to do the same.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under Theonomy in Chrisiantry grants the right to &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 17:2-5&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives&#xA;  you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation&#xA;  of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other&#xA;  gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in&#xA;  the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must&#xA;  investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that&#xA;  this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman&#xA;  who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to&#xA;  death.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can find many more like items in the bible and love by those who want Theonomy. As a soldier who has long retired I could not let that happen.  But my only question to you only requires a simple yes or no.  Can you, personally stone someone to death for being a non-christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4192" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T00:50:37.667" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T00:50:37.667" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15088" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15089" CreationDate="2013-03-19T23:18:03.560" Score="-4" ViewCount="548" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The concept that this world is bent and fallen is pretty standard in&#xA;  just about every form of Christianity. &lt;strong&gt;That this world is not what God&#xA;  intended it to be&lt;/strong&gt; is the starting port. But the hope of the Gospel is&#xA;  that this suffering is not the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From @AffableGeek in His answer to: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15026/how-does-christianity-explain-suffering-that-ends-in-death/15029#15029&quot;&gt;How does Christianity explain suffering that ends in death?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the world is no longer what God wanted it to be, only &lt;strong&gt;after the fall&lt;/strong&gt; I assume, does He delight in bringing new life to such a world in the first place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T00:03:19.073" Title="Is procreation a sin?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-03-20T01:38:21.310" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15088" CreationDate="2013-03-20T00:03:19.073" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seeing as the very first commandment God gave Adam and Eve was &quot;Be fruitful and multiply,&quot; that would be difficult to go with. Potentially, you might say, &quot;we'll, that was before the Fall!&quot;  But, then again, after the flood, God commands Noah to do the same thing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, you need to get beyond this idea that &lt;em&gt;suffering&lt;/em&gt; is evil. It's not what we like, and it may not even have been God's first plan- but in His sovereignty, he can use it for His glory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suffering is the means that God uses to put Hope within us. If that suits His purposes, then it's fine with me. (Just don't ask me to like it!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T00:03:19.073" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15083" CreationDate="2013-03-20T00:04:27.687" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &quot;potluck&quot;, in this context, is nothing more than a meal shared among members of a Church after a service.  There's no doctrinal or ritual significance to it, as you know, and it's not ordained.  it's simply sharing a meal amongst our Church family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus often ate with His disciples, so an argument could be made that Christians can trace it there.  You could use the miraculous feeding of the multitudes, I suppose.  However...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure the practice of eating after a service or worship, people bringing food, sharing time and a meal together far predates even New testament times.  You could probably, if you liked, trace it right back to Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the Garden (even if only allegorically, as many would interpret that book.)  You may as well ask &quot;When did the institution of greeting a brother in Christ&quot; or &quot;shaking hands after the second Hymn get it's start&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is, of course, back at the beginning.  It's just what families do.  Our Church family, our co-workers, our biological family, or in-laws.  We just enjoy spending time with those we care about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fbcbennington.org/sermonsjhh/2011/7/15/in-search-of-the-new-testament-potluck-acts-237-47.html&quot;&gt;http://www.fbcbennington.org/sermonsjhh/2011/7/15/in-search-of-the-new-testament-potluck-acts-237-47.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On this final day of VBS, the adults and the children are exploring&#xA;  Acts 2:37-47.  Right in the midst of these essentials of the Church’s&#xA;  identity, we learn that we are not the first believers to connect&#xA;  “food” to the Christian faith.  Indeed, the first churches learned&#xA;  that “breaking bread together” gave them as much a sense of identity&#xA;  as did the teaching, the praying, and the sharing with one another. &#xA;  Being together at table is essential to church as any prayer, hymn, or&#xA;  sermon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When you think back over your life, do you remember a good meal at&#xA;  church?  I think of the dinner rolls of Anna Brown, a dedicated lay&#xA;  woman who had a kind word literally for every person around the table&#xA;  (a feat among Kansas Baptists, who are better known for having&#xA;  opinions on just about everything and everybody).  I recall the&#xA;  skilled cooking of Orman Halderman, who learned to cook during his&#xA;  WWII service years, able to rally a fine meal every month out of a&#xA;  volunteer group of men trying to cook, without Orman’s leadership&#xA;  otherwise would have brought new meaning to the phrase “green eggs and&#xA;  ham”.  I recollect the kindness shown by the search committee when&#xA;  coming to visit First Baptist, Bennington, five years ago.  You heard&#xA;  that Kerry was a vegetarian and made especial effort to offer a meal&#xA;  sensitive to her dietary convictions.  That meant a lot.  And later&#xA;  this morning, we will make our way down the hall for the meal that&#xA;  will recall the words of an old hymn:  “feed me till I want no more.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you were to claim that “food” is somehow secondary to “church”, I&#xA;  would disagree gladly.  Without meals together, we forget skills and&#xA;  values that worship cannot impart to us.  In the pews, there’s a&#xA;  formalism that the supper bell sets aside.  At table, we get to know&#xA;  the person beside us in the pews.  (A good suggestion for potluck: &#xA;  Sit down by somebody later today that you have not connected with in a&#xA;  spell.  Breaking bread together is a great icebreaker for churches to&#xA;  get to know one another.  Better yet, find somebody you cannot recall&#xA;  getting to know yet.  It may be a little uneasy at first, but&#xA;  remember, the person across from you is a fellow congregant.  You have&#xA;  “First Baptist” in common!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T00:04:27.687" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15091" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15103" CreationDate="2013-03-20T00:18:40.850" Score="23" ViewCount="1024" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Disclaimer - Even though my personal views are well-established, I'd like to point out that I am &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; out to make a point with this question, and I am absolutely not out to establish whether any specific perspective is &lt;strong&gt;true&lt;/strong&gt;.  I am simply curious about this.  I know the atheistic views, I know the day-age theory, the gap theory, etc, but I've never heard an answer to this, good &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; bad.  I'd like to know what the answer is from those who genuinely hold this view.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Theistic Evolution defined from Wikipedia:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts&#xA;  that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the&#xA;  modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short,&#xA;  theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the&#xA;  creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within,&#xA;  and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that&#xA;  creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God&#xA;  employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific&#xA;  Affiliation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, most Christian teachings assert that the relationship between God and Man is unique, and different than the relationship between God and other animals.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that theistic evolution is a valid point of view (and I'm not arguing that it's not), are there any &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;established&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; teachings from any denomination or proponents that explain at what point we evolved enough to have a unique relationship with God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barring that, what characteristics had to be present in order to have said relationship?  The ability to speak?  Cognitive reasoning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Wikipeda article lists several denominations that hold a theistic evolutionary view.  I'd like answers/reasoning from any of those perspectives, or from any established organization that holds/defends this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-27T17:19:04.487" LastActivityDate="2017-12-14T14:35:34.530" Title="According to theistic evolutionists, at what point did humans evolve enough to be considered special to God?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;theistic-evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15092" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-03-20T00:22:48.777" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T00:22:48.777" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T00:22:48.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15093" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-03-20T00:22:48.777" Score="0" Body="Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution." OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T00:22:48.777" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T00:22:48.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15082" CreationDate="2013-03-20T03:55:16.653" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sacrifice of the Mass is not a repetition over and over of Christ's sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The proper understanding is that it is the one sacrifice of Christ made present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is exactly what we covered two weeks ago in my Religious Ed. class so bear with my short Catechism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Q: Why is Jesus a priest like Melchizedek?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: Because he offered bread and wine to God in (Jeru)salem&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Q: Are Catholic priests still in the order of Melchizedek?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: Yes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Q: Who offers the sacrifice in the Mass?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Q: What is the sacrifice being offered?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: Jesus' Sacrifice &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Q: Is this the same sacrifice as the Cross and the Last Supper?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: Yes (this is being &quot;offered&quot; each time we celebrate Mass)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Q: Does this mean we are re-sacrificing Jesus each time we celebrate Mass?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: No, it the One Sacrifice of Jesus is made present on the alter at Mass.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and, this is because, as Hebrews says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:1;%2011-14&amp;amp;version=DRA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:1;11-14 (DRA)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;1&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. &lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, &lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool. &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this, is the One Sacrifice that is offered by priests all over the world hundreds of thousands of times a day.  A good follow up question (and one that I don't quite understand) &quot;is what do Catholics mean when they say 'offered'&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T20:19:56.567" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T20:19:56.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14371" CreationDate="2013-03-20T04:42:22.467" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church professes one Baptism of water.  Many people today believe that there are two other types of Baptisms: a Baptism of Desire, and a Baptism of Blood.  Its proponents believe that BoD and BoB have the same effect as the normal Baptism, specifically removing original sin and mortal sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism of Desire is condemned here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of&#xA;  Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547,&#xA;       “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ:&#xA;  ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],&#xA;  are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism of Blood is condemned here: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,  “The&#xA;  Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all&#xA;  those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also&#xA;  Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will&#xA;  go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his&#xA;  angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end&#xA;  of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such&#xA;  importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s&#xA;  sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other&#xA;  works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal&#xA;  rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given&#xA;  away in alms and &lt;strong&gt;even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic&#xA;  Church.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditionally the Catholic Church taught that after the promulgation of the Gospel only Catholics could get into Heaven as Pope Eugene IV indicates above.  However these days, if you ask someone: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Did the Muslim/Jew/Pagan/Atheist get into Heaven?&quot;  They will say, &quot;I cannot judge, even though the person rejected the Gospel for their entire life, he could have received a Baptism of Desire.&quot;   Then if you want to really make them mad ask if the person needs to actually desire Baptism to get a &quot;Baptism of Desire&quot;, they will usually say &quot;No.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism of Desire was the key to the promotion of universal salvation: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 207: “The&#xA;  fact that in every age there have been, and still are, ‘pagan saints’&#xA;  is because everywhere and in every age – albeit often with difficulty&#xA;  and in fragmentary fashion – the speech of the ‘heart’ can be heard,&#xA;  because God’s Torah may be heard within ourselves&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I expect to get a bunch of comments that the Council of Florence isn't infallible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you would like more references please consult &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this document.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T14:59:44.853" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T14:59:44.853" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15098" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15479" CreationDate="2013-03-20T06:18:25.940" Score="7" ViewCount="1386" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Amen, amen, I say to you — if a man is not born of water and Spirit,&#xA;  he cannot enter the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some say that the phrase &quot;of water&quot; refers to physical birth. Thus, one must be born in order to be born again, a logical progression of sorts. But, who first proposed this interpretation of John 3:5?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: This is not my belief. I'm asking who first proposed it because I'm writing a paper on the topic. Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T06:25:00.877" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T16:14:02.130" Title="John 3:5: &quot;Of water&quot; refers to physical birth from amniotic sac --- who first proposed that theory?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15102" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15107" CreationDate="2013-03-20T13:13:34.870" Score="2" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Episcopalian Prayers of the People, Rite I, we pray as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the communion of [&lt;em&gt;_&lt;/em&gt;_ and of all the] saints, let &#xA;  us commend ourselves, and one another, and all our life, to &#xA;  Christ our God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, we have at least one Protestant (sort of) group that acknowledges the concept of the communion of the saints.  That said, there isn't a lot of understanding of that loaded term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This term, of course, harkens back to the Apostle's Creed which states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints: the forgiveness of sins, and the life everlasting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, however, is what is the nature of this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;communion&lt;/a&gt;?  Is it a fixed gathering of all believers at one time in one place, or is it like an earthly institution, like say, the Boy Scouts, where the membership changes over time, but there is always a membership.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T15:17:27.033" Title="What is the nature of the &quot;Communion of the Saints&quot;?" Tags="&lt;communion-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15091" CreationDate="2013-03-20T14:27:02.090" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;My lay, minimally-researched Catholic understanding may not necessarily qualify, since Catholicism doesn't &lt;em&gt;require&lt;/em&gt; a belief in evolution. But ... well, here I go:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my understanding, it would be the first creature capable of bearing God's image. That is, it would be the first creature capable of love, but with freedom of will, and capable of contemplating the divine mysteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The human person participates in the light and power of the divine&#xA;  Spirit. &lt;strong&gt;By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of&#xA;  things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of&#xA;  directing himself toward his true good.&lt;/strong&gt; He finds his perfection “in&#xA;  seeking and loving what is true and good.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=32-chapter13.xhtml%23para1704&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic&#xA;  Church&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole chapter on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=32-chapter13.xhtml%23para1700&quot;&gt;The Dignity of the Human Person&lt;/a&gt; explains in great detail the aspects of being human make us &quot;special&quot; or &quot;in his likeness.&quot; But, the summation, I think, is the capacity for Godly things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, perhaps more of a side note, another &quot;qualification&quot; for human &quot;God likeness&quot; would be a creature capable of dominating all other earthly creatures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our&#xA;  likeness. &lt;strong&gt;Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds&#xA;  of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the&#xA;  creatures that crawl on the earth.&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/1/26&quot;&gt;Genesis&#xA;  1:26&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, if you're after a particular point in time or creature to which we could say, &lt;em&gt;here's the baby that broke the barrier&lt;/em&gt;, I'm not sure that's a wholly religious discussion. If we did venture such a guess, it would be whenever the anthropologists told us it was! But, I think the general &lt;strong&gt;criteria&lt;/strong&gt; apply to both the creationist and evolutionist-leaning perspectives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T17:13:50.420" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T17:13:50.420" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15106" CreationDate="2013-03-20T14:51:17.413" Score="2" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;p&gt;Numbers 5:11-31 gives us an adultery test used by the Hebrew people in their early days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. 31 Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.'&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; the &amp;quot;man&amp;quot; in v.31 is referring to the adulterous woman's husband. If so, what guilt is the man 'free' from? If all he has is a righteous jealousy for his wife, then why is there any mention of his guilt? If it's not him, then the verse must be talking about the man who committed adultery with this woman. If so, why is he free from guilt?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T15:10:28.503" Title="Why is this man free from guilt?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;adultery&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15104" CreationDate="2013-03-20T15:06:08.430" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More recent translations&lt;/a&gt; use 'husband' instead of 'man' (though not all of them), indicating that it is almost certainly the husband. This is made more likely by the fact that by v31 the 'other party' to adultery hasn't been mentioned in a long while. You can probably ask at Biblical Hermeneutics site for more details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for why: he hasn't done anything wrong. His wife committed adultery. It may be that other cultures practices 'guilt by association' in which unwittingly allowing your wife to commit adultery was considered wrong&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T15:06:08.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15104" CreationDate="2013-03-20T15:10:28.503" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The part of the scripture you left out is pretty important to understanding this passage.  Basically, she has to drink some dusty water that will cause her to miscarry if she's guilty, but she'll be fine if she's not guilty. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it's simply making clear that the husband is not guilty for miscarriage and the harm that results from the actions of the priest applying the law to his wife.  That guilt lies with the woman, because it is her who slept around and lied about it.  According to scripture, she brought it on herself.  She can't come back and say, &quot;This child would have lived had you not taken me to the priest.&quot;  In that situation, he could simply respond, &quot;No, the child would have lived had you not had an affair and lied about it.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, he is not held responsible when her actions conflict with God's law, and bring pain and suffering onto her own head, even if he was the one who brought her to the priest for the application of the law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spiritual point is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The application of the law doesn't bring guilt.  The transgression of the law does. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T15:10:28.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15102" CreationDate="2013-03-20T15:12:13.950" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a reformed background the communion of the Saints is a mystical union every believer has with one another due to our common union in Christ.  This does not necessarily imply we are actually 'experiencing others' that we have never met.  It means we are all united in Christ as a new creation just as all humanity was once united in Adam.  By being members of the same mystical body, we share the same nature and life, which is communion with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  (1 John 1:3, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, the communion of the Saints is the church.  Not visible, but invisible.  The invisible church refers to those persons who are redeemed, regenerate and spiritually united with Christ by sincere faith.  It is not dependant upon a denomination, building or sacrament. Faith alone unites a person into Christ as members of his body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. (Ephesians 2:18-21, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the church, or Christ's body includes those in heaven and on earth. We are all mystically joined into one body with the same desire, love, hopes etc. by the same Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-20T15:17:27.033" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T15:17:27.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15056" CreationDate="2013-03-20T19:31:48.067" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer you get for this will depend on the Christian, but I'll give you my viewpoint. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the question that needs to be asked in order to answer this question is, &quot;what do you have faith in?&quot;  Even if somebody else had had faith that they would be able to escape from the Egyptian slavery, that doesn't necessarily mean that God would have allowed it.  In that instance, the person's faith is in something that God never told him/her to have faith in.  I don't believe that God would ever tell somebody to place their faith in something that he isn't going to ultimately allow to come to fruition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Moses' case, God told Moses specifically that he would be the instrument that God would use to free his people.  I don't think that it was the faith itself that had the power to free them from slavery, I believe it was God who had the power to free them from slavery, and Moses had just enough faith to simply be obedient to God and do what he asked.  I don't think things are too different today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, God promises those of us who live today a few things.  Among those things are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ's death pays the penalty for your sinfulness, and provides reconciliation between God and man. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ will be coming back someday. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do have faith in both of these things, and yet I might not live to see Christ's return.  Ultimately, I hold to my faith, and I'm thankful for the grace I've received through Christ, and I try to be humble enough to recognize that that may be simply enough for me.  God may not allow me to see his return, or he may.  He may also choose to use me in significant ways, or he may choose to use me for nothing more or less than simply loving my wife and children, and impact just a few people like that.  That's not for me to say.  My role is simply to be thankful for his gifts, and rejoice in the fact that this life is nothing more than a fleeting shadow, after which I can, on Christ's dime, spend eternity with God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;tl;dr: Humility is the link between everyday faith and God's nature.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-03-20T19:31:48.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15110" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15133" CreationDate="2013-03-21T00:11:54.203" Score="7" ViewCount="2613" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 21:4 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt; When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham&#xA;  circumcised him, as God commanded him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Starting with Abraham, the Israelite men were circumcised, and boys at the eighth day after birth. It was commanded again in the desert through Moses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 12:3 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt; On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the children born in the desert were not circumcised:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joshua 5:5 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt; All the people that came out had been circumcised,&#xA;  but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from&#xA;  Egypt had not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this possible? Did they disobey God and not circumcise their children in the desert?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-11-12T20:01:40.887" LastActivityDate="2018-02-18T13:51:46.337" Title="Why were the Israelites not circumcised in the desert?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;israel&gt;&lt;circumcision&gt;&lt;joshua&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15091" CreationDate="2013-03-21T03:36:03.460" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hold multiple views on creation.  My personal view under the assumption that human evolution occurred in a Darwinian manner descending from apes is that humanity existed in a non-image of God state (no spirit) prior to Adam and Eve.  There is some Biblical support for this.  Genesis 4:13 indicates that when Cain was sent away, he indicates that whoever finds him will kill him, but who else was there?  Further, it says in verse 26 that at that time people began to call on the Lord.  Then in chapter 6, verse 1 indicates that the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful and they married any of them they chose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible that there was a more animalistic version of humanity which the descendants of Adam and Eve interbred with and that Adam and Eve were the introduction of a human spirit in the image of God rather than the simple flesh and blood creature.  Then with the flood, only those who had bred into the descendants of Adam and Eve would have remained since Noah was part of that line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, since Genesis makes no attempt to be a history book, it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, so it's really all just theories based on fragments of information and particular phrasings that may or may not be valid interpretation.  Thus I give this theory with the caveat that it should be taken with a large grain of salt and regarded as just that.  A theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastEditorUserId="2090" LastEditDate="2015-11-05T14:44:25.037" LastActivityDate="2015-11-05T14:44:25.037" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15065" CreationDate="2013-03-21T03:50:37.417" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible indicates that a father has responsibility for his household (in the sense that he will be held responsible for the good or ill that comes from how the household is run.)  The Bible also contends that women should submit to their husbands, since the husband will be held responsible.  The thing is that it doesn't stop there and give husbands blanket access to do whatever they want.  It goes on to indicate that husbands should put themselves last and their wives and families first as their responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, in a healthy household, it should be the goal of the husband to do whatever is in the best interest of their wife and family, even if it is not in his best interest.  If they honestly feel that it is what is in the best interest of their family, then the Biblical expectation is that the wife will support her husband's choice since he will be held responsible for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It in no way indicates that a husband has free reign to lord over their spouse or that their spouse must serve their whims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the purpose is a mirror of our relationship with Christ.  We follow Christ because he leads us in love and seeks what is best for us.  We give up our authority not because it is demanded, but because we trust Him to do what is best for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastEditorUserId="2090" LastEditDate="2015-10-08T15:48:52.033" LastActivityDate="2015-10-08T15:48:52.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12428" CreationDate="2013-03-21T05:11:52.560" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Peter supports any letter submitted by Paul under his ministry, past or future, as scripture. The reason why there is no detailed argument for it in scripture is because it was obvious as his writings were the writings of an Apostle, which was greater than a Prophet.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some things in them that are hard to understand [i.e. Paul's writings], which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16, ESV, brackets mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious argument is not directly from the text, nor is there to be expected a direct argument, but from the omission on can see the underlying assumption. Nowhere in the OT do we see in any book an argument that it is ‘scripture’ -- the nature of the book assumes it.  In this instance we see the obvious assumption. In other words, Peter says that &lt;strong&gt;people twist Paul’s writings, in the same way that they twist scripture.&lt;/strong&gt; Peter does not logically equate the two because he has no need to do that. He is not talking about canonicity. He is talking about twisting spiritual truths. Therefore, as twisting Paul’s letter or scripture is &lt;em&gt;equivalent&lt;/em&gt;, Peter simply draws attention to it. It would be grossly irresponsible of Peter not to add a caution saying: 'I do not mean to say that Paul's writings are equal with scripture' -- if Peter actually did not assume the writings of an Apostle were less than that of a Prophet. Such an assumption would be bizarre and unexpected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The degree in which Peter is confident that an Apostle’s letter is equal to a Prophet’s is clearly vindicated by his almost cavalier avoidance of the whole topic of canonization. True canonization had not occurred to many years later, but the idea of scripture was already settled among those letters written by prophets in the past and which were now currently being written. Canonization is simply a later formalization of what was already known. It became more important to formally do it simply because it became so very clear that no new scripture was ever to be written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems then that to explore canonicity we must actually ‘look at the forest not the trees.’ We must sort out what it means to be one of the twelve Apostles or Old Testament Prophet and what that implies on their writings to the church as an infallible guide. &lt;strong&gt;It was obvious for early Christians that an Apostle was a messenger with the ‘word of the Lord’, even more so than a prophet.&lt;/strong&gt; To read into the New Testament our more recent views of canonicity and even question the designation of scripture upon the very scripture of scripture, is eisegesis. Canonicity was not of large concern at the time, rather identification of who was a real Apostle was. The reason why the Devil attacked Paul’s apostleship was in part because we would love to remove his letters. &lt;strong&gt;Good exegesis must assume an Apostle speaks scripture, when it is written to the church as guide, just as a Prophet did in the Old Testament. There is no difference except that the Apostle is in a higher authority as builders of a superior covenant.&lt;/strong&gt; If this assumption is not made we have the wisdom of a one eyed man among the blind, for we weaken the authority of half the Bible through our error. The New Testament endorsement of the prophets actually establishes the conclusion that the Old Testament as scripture for it records the very words of the Incarnate God in the flesh.   The warning in Revelation of ‘not to add to or remove from its content’ can be argued to be a warning symbolic of the whole Old and New completed canons. If one willingly and stubbornly tries to add to or take away from the canon of scripture, their desire and intention is good evidence that they do not know the Lord or his saving grace and can expect to suffer the ‘plagues’ described in Revelation so long as they continue upon that action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a technical note, looking at the tree, rather than the forest; &lt;strong&gt;the reason why Paul said 'all scriptures' is because 'the scriptures' would probably only refer to those already settled into the canon. ‘All scripture’ includes those not yet written.&lt;/strong&gt; The New Testament was not finished and there was no clear indication when it ever would be, therefore while ‘the scriptures’ technically refer only to those that were already settled and widely known among the entire church. There was not yet enough time to really include any New Testament letters, per se into the settled and accepted letters. On the other hand 'all scripture' implies an open-ended quantity, not just the closed and recently completed section of the Old Testament. Even the closure of the Old Testament was only realized upon the introduction of the Messiah and creation of the new office of Apostle. The Old Testament at the time of the New Testament would have been better described as 'the' scriptures, already complete and settled in the minds of men.  All scripture includes those not yet written, settled among a wide audience and identified under the New Testament church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, Paul always understood his message as being the &lt;strong&gt;world of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;, no less so than any other scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man 's gospel. (Galatians 1:11, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why the gospel as delivered by Apostles is commonly called 'the word of the Lord'. In fact this is its most common title within the book of Acts.  So it is quite obvious just as Prophets used to deliver (and record in as scripture) the word of God, so did the Apostles under the New Covenant.  &lt;strong&gt;It is not by some weird coincidence that we have our Bibles arranged the way we do; God has ensured we have his word. It is the scripture per the original Biblical meaning.&lt;/strong&gt;  The New Testament is even more useful for correcting etc., as it is a fuller revelation.  However this does not make the New Testament is more 'the scriptures' for it is all of them that are from God and therefore useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-17T15:51:45.000" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T15:51:45.000" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="15115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2170" CreationDate="2013-03-21T06:48:33.653" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to add to the answers so far. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my experience, it seems like &quot;fairness&quot; or &quot;unfairness&quot; of God is a concept that is a major preoccupation of the contemporary Western liberal mindset. It &lt;em&gt;may not&lt;/em&gt; have occupied the concerns of people who lived up to the Enlightenment. It certainly does not occupy the minds of the religious Indian, for example. However, show me an Indian with the secular, liberal Western mindset (they exist in urban India), and I'll show you someone who will put God to the &quot;fairness&quot; test. So it is clear to me that this disposition is a result of certain cultural baggage, &lt;em&gt;which includes a loss of reverence for God&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is best to say to the person raising the unfairness objection: We are in no position to judge God, and we certainly don't relate to Him right without a certain amount of reverence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastEditorUserId="2164" LastEditDate="2013-03-21T07:10:53.290" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T07:10:53.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15116" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15117" CreationDate="2013-03-21T10:52:11.740" Score="11" ViewCount="176965" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would briefly reconstruct from Genesis, the circumstances leading to this change in names.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the very beginning of His conversation with Abram, God says to Abram:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gen: 12:2&lt;/strong&gt;  (NET)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this time he was 75 years old and God tells him that his descendent would be numerous (Gen.13:16).  But because of his advancing age, Abram asks God that how this can be, when he continues to be childless and whether He means that Eliezer of Damascus would the heir for this to come true. (Gen.15:2-3).  In verse Gen. 15:4 God tells Abram that a son born from his own body would be the heir.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then possibly due to lack of faith in God’s promise, Sarai did not have patience to remain trusted in God and gave their salve girl Hagar to Abram(Gen. 16:2). We can figure out that Ishmael was born because Abraham and Sarah did not trust God to fulfil his promise that their descendants would be from both of them.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abram was 86 years of old when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael. (Gen.16.16). Thereafter there  is no record in the Bible concerning the 13 years of Abram’s life following the birth of Ishmael. After 13 years, when Abraham reaches 99 years of age God instructs Abraham to walk blameless before Him:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gen. 17:1-2&lt;/strong&gt;  (NET)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Abram was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am the sovereign God. Walk before me and be blameless.Then I will confirm my covenant between me and you, and I will give you a multitude of descendants.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here God’s rebuke appears to indicate that during these 13 years, Abram did not walk before God, and as a result, his life was full of blame. Also notice that God re-introduces himself as “God almighty.” God puts a condition to Abram, saying walk before me blameless and only then He will “confirm” His covenant between Him and Abram. Here we see that earlier covenant was not valid for those 13 years and God wants to reconfirm the same again. So God again renews His covenant with Abram:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gen. 17:4-6&lt;/strong&gt;  (NET)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer will your name be Abram. Instead, your name will be Abraham because I will make you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you extremely fruitful. I will make nations of you, and kings will descend from you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note here that in Gen. 12:2 it is only one great nation, whereas in Gen 17.4-5 God talks about multitude of nations. Here, God changes the name of Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah. So Abram (Noble Father) becomes Abraham (Father of many) and Sarai, (Princess) becomes Sarah(Mother of Nations).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the significance of changing their names? What does it symbolize? Is there any relation of this change to the future coming of messiah and consequently to Multitude of nations (Christianity)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-21T21:00:43.703" LastActivityDate="2015-08-17T21:52:17.273" Title="What is the significance of changing the names of Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-09-09T15:33:52.820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15117" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15116" CreationDate="2013-03-21T12:17:51.327" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abram to Abraham&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God had promised Abram that he would have a son and that it would be through his wife Sarai.  Abram's name means &amp;quot;Exalted Father&amp;quot;, which may have proven to be an embarrassment as he aged without children.  This fits with God's promise, &lt;em&gt;but he didn't receive that name from God but from his father.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gives him the name &amp;quot;Abraham&amp;quot;, which means &amp;quot;father of many&amp;quot;.  This reinforces God's promise to Abraham that he would not only have a son through Sarai, but also that he would be the father of many nations.  This is true through Ishmael, Isaac, and the sons of Keturah--the wife he took after Sarah died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sarai to Sarah&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Sarai changing to Sarah, the difference is more subtle, being from &amp;quot;princess&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;princess of many&amp;quot;.  This does not apparently refer to many nations per se, but to many people.  This is significant, because Sarah was the mother of one nation, while Abraham was the father of many nations.  Still, the name comes from God and is a sign of the promise God had made to her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abram's Call to Be Blameless&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is interesting that Abram receives a call to walk righteously.  Previously, Adam was created in the image of God and Noah was found to be a righteous man, blameless among the people of his day.  Abraham, however, did not initially measure up to that standard.  He lied about his wife on more than one occasion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, God had already blessed Abram in many ways by now, so he had the assurance that God was with him.  He had yet to perhaps surrender fully to God, though.  It was not that he was full of blame, but was not blameless either.  Thus, Abraham, whom God had chosen to be the recipient of a new covenant through which God would reveal Himself to the world, was called to holy living prior to God's fulfillment of the promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Name for Believers&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication is that we all receive &amp;quot;names&amp;quot; from the world--the rich kid, the smart kid, the fat kid, the slow kid, the jock.  However, God has a promise for our lives as well, and His name for us is different.  It expresses our personal relationship with God and the high value He places on us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.  Jeremiah 29:11 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.  Revelation 2:17 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T13:45:31.253" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12428" CreationDate="2013-03-21T12:51:13.477" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;An interesting line of thought on the assembly of the NT from a liberal scholar, David Trobisch. In short, his thesis is that Paul selected some of his own letters to be published to the churches (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://michaeljkruger.com/did-paul-himself-create-the-very-first-new-testament-canon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Did Paul Himself Create the First NT Canon&quot;&lt;/a&gt;). Some in the early church — notably Marcion — viewed Paul as in conflict with the apostles in Jerusalem (esp. Peter and James) on the matter of grace and works, and the NT itself was assembled and arranged as a collection (in a different order from what we’re used to, with the general epistles by Peter, James, Jude, and John intentionally before Paul’s) partly to refute this disagreement and show that the apostles ultimately represent a united front.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this regard, he suggests that several books of the NT exhibit a “canon consciousness.” In his article making the case that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trobisch.com/david/CV/Publications/20071226%20FreeInquiry%20Who%20Published%20Christian%20Bible%20BW.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of the apostle John, was the original compiler of the NT&lt;/a&gt; during the mid-100s, Trobisch says of Acts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Like no other book of the New Testament, the book of Acts offers a&#xA;  view into the whole collection. Being the second volume of Luke’s&#xA;  work, it provides a link to the Four-Gospel-Book. In its first half,&#xA;  Acts introduces the authors of the General Letters: Peter, John,&#xA;  James, and Jude; in the second half, it introduces Paul, the author of&#xA;  the other New Testament letter collection. In addition, Acts provides&#xA;  information that makes it possible to identify Luke, the author of the&#xA;  Gospel, as the doctor who travels with Paul and to identify Mark as&#xA;  someone close to Peter and Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in his book on &lt;em&gt;The First Edition of the NT&lt;/em&gt; (which has not one but &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0195112407&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two Amazon reviews&lt;/a&gt; apparently by &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; Anne Rice, and another nice review by someone else named Tom Dykstra that gives a fairly detailed summary of the argument of the book):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When 2 Peter is read as an integrated part of the Canonical Edition of&#xA;  the Christian Bible, the apparent cross-references to the collection&#xA;  [of] units are quite astonishing. The Old Testament is quoted&#xA;  abundantly. Biblical prophecy is explicitly addressed, its relevance&#xA;  for the present time of readers id demonstrated, and it is related to&#xA;  a theology of divine inspiration formulated in a manner applied to&#xA;  other New Testament writers as well. The letter clearly refers to the&#xA;  canonical Gospel collection by pointing to John (Jn 21), Mark, and the&#xA;  synoptic account of the Transfiguration. The references to 1 Peter and&#xA;  Jude serve as links to the Praxapostolos. It presupposes that the&#xA;  readers have access to a comprehensive collection of Paul’s letters.&#xA;  In addition to these literary links, the treatment of Peter and Paul&#xA;  as equals is another trait 2 Peter shares with the editorial interest&#xA;  of the Canonical Edition. (David Trobisch, &lt;em&gt;The First Edition of the&#xA;  New Testament&lt;/em&gt;, 95).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conservative NT scholar Michael Bird &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2011/11/2-peter-in-canonical-perspective&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comments on Trobisch’s argument&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I doubt Trobisch’s main contention that there was a single archtype&#xA;  “edition” of the NT that became exemplary for later compilations of&#xA;  the NT writings. Most of the inner-canonical unities that he finds&#xA;  look like incidental post-compilation observations, rather than&#xA;  deliberate editorial creations by the formulators of the first New&#xA;  Testament collection.  That said, I think that Trobisch does show how&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;2 Peter gives us a virtual precis of the NT itself with interwoven OT&#xA;  themes, references to synoptic material, veneration of Paul’s letter&#xA;  collection, and incorporation of Jude&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, one needn’t agree with all of Trobisch’s theories (including that Polycarp was the compiler or that the NT includes some forgeries) to find some value in what he says, and it’s nice to see a liberal giving an early date for the finished (or virtually finished) canon. An alternate theory to Trobisch's is, as mentioned above, that &lt;a href=&quot;http://michaeljkruger.com/did-paul-himself-create-the-very-first-new-testament-canon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paul himself was the compiler of the first NT canon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while it seems that Paul in 1 Timothy was primarily referring to the OT (and perhaps some subset of the gospels, maybe Luke-Acts) as &quot;the scriptures,&quot; it is apparent from his letters he also has a high (shall we say, binding) view of apostolic authority, including his own in whatever medium. As he says in 2 Thess. 2:15: &quot;So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, &lt;em&gt;whether by word of mouth or by letter&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; If in fact Paul assembled a collection of his own letters for the edification of the church, as suggested above, that would further solidify the collection of authoritative, apostolic documents that would become the NT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Add to that the &quot;virtual precis of the NT itself&quot; along with the OT citations in 2 Peter, and you have a biblical summary of what was canonical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2015-09-08T21:04:37.350" LastActivityDate="2015-09-08T21:04:37.350" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15119" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T13:32:42.897" Score="8" ViewCount="16438" Body="&lt;p&gt;How is it possible, that it is harder to follow Jesus, than to sin? I really want to follow Jesus, and I'm trying to. But every day again I fail again, because short term desires which withdraw me from God and Jesus. &#xA;How is it possible, that the devil can still catch my attention and make me sin? I pray each day again, and ask for Jesus to lead my way, the Holy Spirit to live in me, and the devil to leave my life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3355" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-21T14:04:36.640" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T00:45:32.917" Title="Why is it so much easier to sin than follow Jesus?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-12-30T16:16:41.940" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15120" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T14:35:56.377" Score="0" ViewCount="1728" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the need to use elaborate costumes at services and on other occasions? Costumes of some Christian confessions much outshine those of some other religions, including the pre-Christian ones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the elements can hardly be traced to pre-Christian times and seem to be Christian inventions, while others can be clearly traced to polytheistic religions of Romans and Greeks or even ancient Egypt, like the Crosier:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ApKWU.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet it seems that pre-Christian dress of the Roman and Greek priests were much simpler, functional and ascetic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Orthodox Christianity they use for service a headware called mitre &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/J5IeO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Mitre-benaki.jpg&quot;&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The corresponding prayer when putting it on mentions &quot;expensive jewels&quot; which is probably a requirement for this kind of vestment. If it is used to show respect to God as some answerers put it, my question is whether wearing expensive Rolex watches will also show one's respect to God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what the purpose of those elaborate costumes, especially in Catholic and Orthodox church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="3559" LastEditDate="2013-03-21T17:18:14.690" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T17:18:14.690" Title="Why Christians wear some elaborate costumes which sometimes outshine those of the pre-Christian epoch?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-03-22T00:38:37.523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15119" CreationDate="2013-03-21T14:57:39.920" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a universal problem among Christians.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul said, in Romans 7:15, &quot;For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.&quot;  In Jeremiah 17:9, the prophet states that, &quot;The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?&quot;  Truly, the Bible doesn't have good things to say about people, and anyone who says it does, is either lying or trying to sell you something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, it comes down to the human condition.  This is a universal, and necessary part of the Christian Gospel.  Christ came to die to pay the penalty owed by sinners, so that the God, who loves us, can have a relationship with us that he would not have been able to have otherwise.  Without the sin, and without the depravity, there is no need for Christ, and thus, there's no need for the Gospel.  This is why Paul starts out Romans with a vast exposition of the quandary we're in. Romans 3:10-18 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“None is righteous, no, not one;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      no one understands;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      no one seeks for God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      no one does good,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      not even one.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      “Their throat is an open grave;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      they use their tongues to deceive.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      “The venom of asps is under their lips.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      “Their feet are swift to shed blood;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      in their paths are ruin and misery,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      and the way of peace they have not known.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, there's a thought that gets passed around that says that once we become Christians, we have some new power to resist sin.  Almost like we've been endowed with special superpowers after we become believers.  Suddenly, since God has given us his Holy Spirit, we're supposed to more and more consistently prefer God to man.  In other words, we'll get better and better over our lifetime, until we get to the point that we're perfect.  I disagree, and I don't think there's much support for that in the Bible. We never outgrow the need for God's grace.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember, it was the older men who walked away from stoning the adulteress first.  It was they who, after years of living, recognized more clearly than the younger men the evil that lies within their hearts.  Would they have thus said that they are more perfect because they're older?  I don't think so.  I believe they would have said they were less perfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is Christian growth then?  Put simply, it's growing in your appreciation and thankfulness for all that Christ has done for you.  As you realize more and more the depth of your own depravity, you can, at the same time, recognize more and more the mercy in Christ's sacrifice.  We, who can be so utterly hateful towards God, he still chooses to save us and love us, not out of our goodness, but out of his grace.  You become less, and He becomes greater.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also want to point out one thing here that I think you've hit on in your question.  Never think that temptation is always from the devil.  The depravity lies within your own heart as well.  James puts it well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for&#xA;  God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.&lt;/strong&gt;  Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and&#xA;  when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're not innocent pawns caught between God and the devil.  We're depraved, guilty sinners in need of a Savior.  When we see our own depravity and realize that it's not simply that we &lt;em&gt;commit sins&lt;/em&gt;, but that we &lt;em&gt;are sinful&lt;/em&gt;, it helps us up to recognize the great value of the cross of Christ.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Steve Brown says, &quot;Cheer up; you’re a lot worse off than you think you are, but in Jesus you’re far more loved than you could have ever imagined.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what to do now?  Rejoice.  Be thankful.  Praise God for the gift of Christ's sacrifice, which pays for each and every one of those sins you're committing.  It's cleared out.  Over with.  As Jesus says, &quot;It is finished&quot;.  The verdict has been rendered, you are guilty, but your penalty has been paid already, and you are free to go.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are you still doing in the courtroom?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-03-21T18:52:48.973" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T18:52:48.973" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15119" CreationDate="2013-03-21T14:58:17.403" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two principles that must be joined to specifically answer your question about the 'easiness' of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The first principle&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;First, the notion of spiritual slavery. A sinner is a slave to sin and free from righteousness.  That is to say a sinner can only sin and has no real struggle with a desire to be righteous.  A sinner is quite free - to sin only. On the other hand a regenerate believer is actually no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to righteousness.  Their inner desire is not satisfied but by living righteousness.  All we desire is to be holy and we have no choice in the matter.  We are slaves to righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. (Romans 6:20-22, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your groaning over you sin is one of the trustworthy evidences that you are no longer a slave to sin.  If you were satisfied with you level of righteousness it would be good evidence that your were still enslaved to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The second principle&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Regeneration only makes your inner man alive but you outer man is still in Adam, causing a Christian to be very unique in this world.  A Christian is strange because he has two natures within himslef, warring against each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. (Galatians 5:16-17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This dual nature, not comprehended by sinners, means that even when we do good there is always some sin staining the good. We therefore never for a moment have a 100% pure heart, but sin like a shadow clothes all our goodness.  There is no such thing as a motive that is not mixed.  This horrible wrestling between  two natures causes us great grief and mourning. It is making us cry out to be rescued:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? (Romans 7:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now we can answer the question under these two principles.  What you seem to describe is an 'easiness' in sin, whereas walking according to the Spirit requires 'effort' and 'discipline' is a 'struggle' that never ceases. This is one of the hallmarks of the Christian experience.  Why is it easy to sin? I think part of the answer lies in the different roles that each side of the struggle plays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The struggle of sin is supported by the world under the power of the Devil and it invades our lives without any pause or relief.  Thankfully the struggle of righteousness is supported by a stronger principle, the Holy Spirit producing the effects of Christ's death in our lives to the glory of the Father.  The world is destined to loose and is loosing.  However, when we fall into sin, our experience of the Spirit weakens, but when we commit ourselves to God afresh, the flesh does not necessarily 'weaken'. It weakens in it's influence but does not weaken in the intensity of its resistance. It actually becomes even more lively in its lusts against God's will.  What I mean is; &lt;strong&gt;We actually loose consciousness of God, his will, his love, his enjoyable supreme goodness, when we given ourselves over to temptation. When we give ourselves over to God we do not looses our consciousness of our desire to fornicate, murder, steel, etc. On the contrary often our evil desires flares up more violently into our conscious when we become more aware of God. This makes sin easy but holiness something that requires discipline and effort.The result is that there is a 'lazy easiness' to sin dictated by a desire for pleasure and things visible to our senses.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to warp up.  This easiness for a real believer is even used by God to fashion our faith into greater faith and righteousness. Actually we are slaves to God and he is greater than our temptations. It sounds contradictory but actually it is easier for us to follow God, it just does not feel easier due to the struggle involved.  The reason is that since our inner man desires nothing but God and will not be satisfied until its weakens the influence of the flesh as much as possible, our struggle with sin is actually making us hate it more.  God may even hand us over to our sins, a bit, for a time, in order to expose them lurking within us, and to make us hate them so very much!  Over time we become more and more holy and more desirous to enter the comforting shadow that lays behind the physical grave - our eternal glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are actually like superman but are exhausted in killing sin. We are being propelled into ever increasing glory and victory yet we are weak and we mourn with an ever growing consciousness of sin. We are like aliens slowly ripping our flesh off from our person. It confuses us.  The enemies about us, especially the religious without faith, have no idea about who we are.  We are considered fools speaking meaningless things yet we have the words of eternal life and the wisdom of God deposited in weak earthen vessels. We are not from this earth and there is nothing here that really has a hold on us.  Its just not a clean picture. Its very messy. Its full of blood, snot and sweat. Its very deceptive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="701" LastEditDate="2013-03-21T20:59:21.953" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T20:59:21.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15123" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T15:10:25.357" Score="3" ViewCount="691" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know this is an old question, but does anyone have any new ideas on it? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One argument is that God has always existed, but why should anything exist at all? How could this happen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another approach is that God (and possibly God's creator(s)) came into being at some point, before He then created the universe. But how could there to be a point at which something began to exist, where before there was nothing? Scientists argue that something can come out of nothing, and that this happened at Big Bang. Some of them say 'Nothing is an unstable state - it is not surprising that something has emerged'. However their 'nothing' is a particular condition of space-time, under various science laws that already exist; why should there even be physics laws? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd be interested if anyone had any thoughts? Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4199" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T16:35:39.163" Title="How did God come to be?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-03-21T18:41:58.657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15124" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T15:43:15.533" Score="0" ViewCount="3125" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is perhaps slightly related to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3478/20&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, and specifically &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/3480/20&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; which points out that &quot;the worship of angels [is] false doctrine ... praying to angels arguably may not be worship, [but] in my mind the line is far too fine.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we have, perhaps, a caution to pray/speak to angels.  But can angels, under normal circumstances, speak to us?  I am excluding, for the sake of this question, situations in which angels are physically manifest, and speak to us verbally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What evidence exists in the Bible that angels either can or cannot speak to us this way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if the abilities/rules governing God-fearing angels is distinct from fallen angels/demons, what are the differences?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2016-06-03T06:03:42.720" Title="Can angels speak to us?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-06-04T04:52:33.340" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15120" CreationDate="2013-03-21T16:21:53.840" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dressing nicely in front of God is a good thing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Priests do not actually dress in an &quot;elaborate&quot; way, but they do dress in a &lt;em&gt;formal&lt;/em&gt; way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some people see pictures of the pope during very special ceremonies, and assume that all priests dress this way, which is simply not true. The pope is required to dress in a way that fits his status as pope. He is the Vicar of Christ, and Catholics expect him to dress like it. This does not mean that his garments must always be ornate, but that they should be &lt;em&gt;appropriate&lt;/em&gt;. But this question is about priests, not the pope.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why should priests wear &quot;special&quot; or &quot;nice looking&quot; clothing? Some of the basis for this is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/john/12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  3 Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.&#xA;  4 Then Judas the Iscariot, one [of] his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said,&#xA;  5 “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?”&#xA;  6 He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should not hesitate to make our priests match their position. They are serving God. We dress nicely when we go to meet someone important to us, and priests should do the same. Sometimes, the Catholic priest acts &lt;em&gt;in Persona Christi&lt;/em&gt;, which means &quot;in the person of Christ&quot;. The priest &lt;em&gt;does not&lt;/em&gt; become Christ, and he &lt;em&gt;does not&lt;/em&gt; become a high priest, but he exercises certain very sacred powers that have been granted to him by God. &lt;strong&gt;We should have respect for that, and we should think of the eternal heavenly service of the High Priest Jesus during Mass&lt;/strong&gt;, especially during the Eucharistic Prayer. From the Baltimore Catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/TghC0.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;&lt;strong&gt;365. Who said the First Mass?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Our Divine Saviour said the first Mass, at the Last Supper, the night before He died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vestments themselves are not actually &quot;ornate&quot;, even when the are on the more-elaborate side of the scale. They are simply formal. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/lunYJ.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dress goes a long way towards communicating the importance of religious life, and the commitment of the priest to living that life. Appropriate priestly vestments lend dignity to the office of the priest, and they lend dignity to the services themselves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ahsPa.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics generally like to see that sort of formality. &lt;strong&gt;It is beautiful, and beauty praises God.&lt;/strong&gt; Not your taste? That's fine, there are smaller Catholic parishes. But there is nothing wrong with giving praise to God in this way. Jesus might wear humble clothes, but that does not mean that &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; should wear our most &quot;humble&quot; clothes when going to see Him. He is the King of Kings, the Lord of all creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T16:21:53.840" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15123" CreationDate="2013-03-21T16:35:39.163" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Christian answer to this is simple and ancient. God is eternal and has always existed. He does not have a creator. He is the 'first cause', or 'uncaused cause'. Speculation about how that came to be (bearing in mind that 'came to be' is a phrase implying time and causation, which may not be appropriate) are just speculation on the part of individual Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be said that a small minority of sects, notabley the Latter-Day Saints, don't agree with the above statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T16:35:39.163" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15119" CreationDate="2013-03-21T16:53:45.253" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pious Christians tend to overlook a very simple truth about sin.   In the short term, it is fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And why is it fun?  Because as Jesus said (John 3:19):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/john/3-19.htm&quot;&gt;Men love darkness, rather than the light.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And why do men love darkness rather than light?  Solomon noted (Proverbs 14:12):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/proverbs/14-12.htm&quot;&gt;There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is fun to be the one in charge.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is fun to get your own way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is fun to experience sensations that are new - even if they are not what God intended.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in the end, it's not worth it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, all sin comes down to one question - Will you trust God or yourself?  And tell me - who wouldn't naturally - absent God's direct intervention - choose one's self?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very first temptation that the Serpent told Eve was that the apple was good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this, and this may be shocking - the Serpent did not lie.  He merely omitted the long term consequences.  In the short term, all sin seems to have a positive reinforcement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes 8 says it well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong. 12Although a wicked person who commits a hundred crimes may live a long time, I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him. 13Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them, and their days will not lengthen like a shadow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be understood that sin is not a defect of will - it is a defect of love.  John 14 15 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you love me, keep my comamndments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T16:53:45.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15124" CreationDate="2013-03-21T18:43:57.423" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically, &quot;angel&quot; (from the Greek &lt;em&gt;Angelos&lt;/em&gt;) is a job function, not genus and species.  &lt;em&gt;Angelos&lt;/em&gt; means messenger - they deliver messages.  If the messenger is unable to communicate, it doesn't really seem up to the job of delivering a message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angels recorded in Scripture all clearly had the ability to converse with the people to whom they were sent - whether to Abraham, Manoah (Samson's father), Mary, Joseph, Zechariah, etc...  In the cases where the angel's identity was hidden, there was nothing to suggest they appeared anything other than human, along with the concomitant powers of humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to whether or not Cherubim and Seraphim (the heavenly creatures typically given these jobs) have the ability to communicate when not in the presence of humans, most Protestants would say, there would be only speculation. Historically, the doctrine of God's omnipresence and omniscience is what gives us the ability to communicate with God in any place - there is nothing to suggest that heavenly creatures - angelic or demonic - possess this attribute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As svidgen points out, however, there are interpretations of Revelation 8 that Catholics would interpret as giving Angels the ability to hear prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T15:24:05.997" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T15:24:05.997" CommentCount="2" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-03-21T19:10:15.923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3304" CreationDate="2013-03-21T21:57:47.403" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best instances of Jesus having a sense of humor is found in Luke 13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 13:31-32&lt;/strong&gt;  The same day there came certain of the Pharisees,&#xA;  saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill&#xA;  thee.  And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast&#xA;  out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I&#xA;  shall be perfected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus called Herod a fox in jest, simultaneously communicating to the Pharisees that He was not afraid, for no harm could befall Him until His work was accomplished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="292" LastActivityDate="2013-03-21T21:57:47.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15110" CreationDate="2013-03-22T01:35:44.697" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Keil explains it well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The sentence upon the fathers, that their bodies should fall in the desert, was unquestionably a rejection of them on the part of God, an abrogation of the covenant with them. This punishment was also to be borne by their sons; and hence the reason why those who were born in the desert by the way were not circumcised. (Commentary on the Old Testament by C. F. Keil)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the covenant of the Lord with the fathers was broken, the sons of the rejected generation were not to receive the covenant sign of circumcision. This curse upon the fathers, casting some shame upon the children for a period seems more like probation.  As far as the nation as a whole was concerned the covenant was not fully collapsed. &#xA;Only until the generation of men that were capable of bearing arms when they came out of Egypt were all dead would the younger generation which had grown up in the desert be under the shame. When the  time of punishment was over and the temporary suspension of the covenant passed, it was a good time to renew the terms of the covenant with a new generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-22T01:35:44.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15134" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15135" CreationDate="2013-03-22T02:42:23.860" Score="1" ViewCount="231" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are creeds and how they came about. Is there a Biblical basis for them and how many creeds are there till date? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-03-22T02:53:58.960" LastActivityDate="2013-03-22T03:11:38.373" Title="What is the meaning of creeds?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-02-12T14:45:32.037" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15134" CreationDate="2013-03-22T03:11:38.373" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 3 major creeds that every good Catholic knows about are&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Apostles Creed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt; (aka the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Athanasian Creed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are definitely others, but if you want the 3 most oft repeated ones, you can see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_creeds&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;rest of them here&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sub&gt;seems to me that wiki article is lacking a few creeds&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, to find their meaning consider whether the following commandments are in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did Our Lord want His followers to keep the teaching that He entrusted to them?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you love me, you will keep my commandments&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/14:15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:15 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Did Our Lord want His followers to defend the faith he left with them?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1peter/3:15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:15 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Were we instructed to hand down the truths that we were given?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2timothy2:2&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 2:2 (NABRE)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that is why there are creeds.  So that we may keep the faith, so that we can defend the faith and so that we can pass it down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-22T03:11:38.373" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15139" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15191" CreationDate="2013-03-22T09:02:46.483" Score="5" ViewCount="413" Body="&lt;p&gt;Among the Protestant faith a believer is to submit to the government:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am unsure about medieval historical details but I had the impression that there were struggles between the Catholic church and  the state. I have the impression that the Pope tried to argue supremacy over the state in opposition to the words of Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My main question is not, 'Did the Pope really try to do this?' My question is does the modern day Pope teach his duty to submit to secular authority? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;According to catholic teaching is the Pope morally obliged to submit to every secular authority?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T15:35:35.393" Title="Is the Pope morally obliged to submit to every secular authority?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8610" CreationDate="2013-03-22T13:16:06.020" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found a great explanation by John Piper on why some people are &quot;predestined&quot; to hell:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://soundcloud.com/askpastorjohn/god-glorified-predestination-hell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://soundcloud.com/askpastorjohn/god-glorified-predestination-hell&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As preface to the question, he makes the following qualifying points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nobody is in hell that doesn't deserve to be there, and isn't in active rebellion to God. The idea that there could be someone who genuinely loves God and is still in hell is foreign to the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible portrays God as &lt;em&gt;saving sinners&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;making good people to be really bad&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then says, with those in mind, how is God glorified by creating a universe where, whether by his &lt;em&gt;design&lt;/em&gt; or by his &lt;em&gt;permission&lt;/em&gt;, people will end up in hell justly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's goal is that the full range of his perfections would be known, including his wrath and his power, as well as his love and his mercy. To do that, there is a dark backdrop of the fall of man, and grace shines more brightly because it's against the backdrop of sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As is common, the verse cited is Romans 9:22-23 (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4174" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-22T15:19:43.197" LastActivityDate="2013-03-22T15:19:43.197" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15139" CreationDate="2013-03-22T13:53:59.577" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a mistake to interpret the 1 Peter passage as meaning &quot;every conceivable human authority&quot;. It means only those that have legitimate authority over you. People in Roman Israel were not expected to obey the laws of Roman Britain, unless visiting there. Likewise a US citizen is not expected to obey the laws of France while in the US.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians have also recognized that there are situations which override this passage. If the state forbids you to worship or follow God, that is not something you should obey. If the state commands you to kill and persecute those of a particular race, that is not something you should obey. Jesus himself demonstrated this by refusing the commands of the religious authorities to stop teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the specific case you ask about, the Pope is head of state of the Vatican, and as such is his own 'human authority'. That doesn't mean he is immune to the rules of that state, as is the case with most heads of state. If he were to violate the rules of the Catholic Church he would, as I understand it, be subject to discipline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding other countries' authorities: countries rules mostly don't extend to those who who are not citizens and not present in the country. Visiting heads of state are usually subject to diplomatic immunity, and so other countries' rules again don't apply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the unlikely event that the Pope found time to study for a fine arts degree, and that he didn't do so at a Vatican institution, I don't see any reason to think he wouldn't abide by the rules of the institution. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally: the Pope has only been in his office a week. If you want to find out what his teaching is on this subject, I recommend waiting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-03-22T13:53:59.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15143" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-22T16:48:11.713" Score="4" ViewCount="464" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw a documentary with David Suchet about Paul the apostle. Suchet stated that Paul was convinced the world was about to end. Is this an accurate representation of the early church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4208" LastActivityDate="2017-01-23T17:32:31.743" Title="Were the early Christians an apocalyptic sect?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15143" CreationDate="2013-03-22T21:13:08.363" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of views. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Modernists&lt;/a&gt; (e.g., Albert Schweitzer) have tended to see Paul (and Jesus!) as benignly delusional when it comes to end times, whereas &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;conservatives&lt;/a&gt; have tended to see them as puzzles to figure out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was certainly a strain in Paul (and Jesus himself in the Olivet Discourse) of expecting an imminent consummation of all things. See for instance his letters to the Thessalonians, which are generally regarded as his earliest letters. But there is also a sense of preparing for the long-haul -- the appointing of elders and instructions for running the church, for instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some, called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Partial_preterism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;partial preterists&lt;/a&gt;, think that much of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, taking care of the imminentness of some of the eschaton (or end times).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of one's view of partial preterism, many Christians subscribe to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaugurated_eschatology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;innaugurated eschatology&lt;/a&gt;&quot; where the Kingdom transformation has begun but is not yet complete -- the &quot;now but not yet.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2014-05-22T13:06:04.873" LastActivityDate="2014-05-22T13:06:04.873" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15056" CreationDate="2013-03-23T06:53:09.223" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems you are asking: &lt;strong&gt;‘How do we adjust our view of the ‘unchanging God’, during the ups and downs of apostasy and faith in which each generation lives?’ Also, ‘How does this affect our view of our own self in the current state of affairs in which we live?’&lt;/strong&gt; If we are at a highpoint how does this reflect on us, what about a low-point or mid-point? This is a very good question.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more examples just like the one you mention: &lt;strong&gt;At the time of Samson&lt;/strong&gt; ‘the LORD gave them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years (Judges 13:1). Samson seems to have been a bit of an inconsistent believer. Sometimes Samson was fighting God’s war. Things were great as ‘the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon him’ and when he ‘found a fresh jawbone of a donkey’ and ‘struck 1,000 men’. (Judges 15:14–15). But as Samson represented the highest point of the ‘low period’ of the judges, he also represented it lowest point in parallel with Israel’s Apostasy. We even see that ‘Samson went to Gaza, and there he saw a prostitute, and he went in to her’ (Judges 16:1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is going on with this hero Samson? Why is he considered great by God (Hebrews 11:32) but not so great at all? I thin it is clear he is like a David but as he lived in a ‘low point’ of Biblical history his behavior does not fully vindicate his faith.  There are low points where a person seems to stand up well like Noah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lot on the other hand is another righteous man&lt;/strong&gt; but made a selfish and sinful choice in seeking out ‘the best portion of the land’ seeking a place in this world. Here he finds himself not only a fairly low point of history but in a ‘low locality’ in an utterly perverse city. How did this righteous man react to his low environment? His soul was ‘greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked’ (2 Peter 2:7). We not have the idea of location. A Christian living in one part of the world may be at a low-point of God’s kingdom and a person living somewhere else may not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Another kind of low point is an entire dispensation.&lt;/strong&gt; Christians often understand the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as ‘raising the bar’ as it were both for the level of glory in God’s manifestation on earth and correspondingly a higher expectation on the holiness of those in that era. We can see this even in the Apostles. Before Pentecost they were bungling around, making mistakes everywhere, always misunderstanding, almost pathetic. After Pentecost Peter (who before denied Christ) now ‘standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them’. The ending of his sermon indicates he lived in a ‘low point’ among a ‘crooked generation’ but was suddenly experiencing a step-change towards a ‘high point’ fulfilling a prophecy of Joel and resulting in immediate conversion of many souls:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:14, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the New Testament one could be considered a fairly good and wise believer even with many wives like Solomon. Under the New Testament this is really not the case. &lt;strong&gt;In summary, our perspective of God may change based on the overall progression of God’s kingdom, based on our own generation of faithfulness or based on our own locality in which we live.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what? This knowledge can be applied how? What is important is for us to at least obtain a clue as to where we personally fit into the scene. Some preachers use the story of Acts and create an expectation that only constant perfection is the norm and that the low days are over.  There is no longer such a situation where a modern version of Samson, or Lot is to be found. I find this rubbish. If Paul had to rebuke the Apostle Peter on a very serious matters after Pentecost (Galatians 2:11). Even the almost seemingly perfect Paul had a ‘sharp disagreement’ with is good friend Barnabas. The argument was so bad they parted ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Barnabas did not agree with Paul in judging the conduct of Mark with such severity; the latter was, besides, his nephew, Col. 4:10. [Ἀνεψιός, consobrinus, Vulg.; relative, de Wette; cousin, Robinson: Meyer.—TR.]. A discussion, conducted with great warmth,—a sharp contention (παροξυσμός)—ensued, and the result was that the two men parted, and took different roads. [“There is little doubt that severe words were spoken on the occasion. It is unwise to be over-anxious to dilute the words of Scripture, and to exempt even Apostles from blame.… We cannot, however, suppose that Paul and Barnabas parted, like enemies, in anger and hatred. (Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Gotthard, V. L., Gerok, C., &amp;amp; Schaeffer, C. F. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Acts (295). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clearly the idea that we now are among a constant high standard after Acts is implausible, when at the very high point perfection is not to be found.&lt;/strong&gt; As we progress after the first generation of Christianity we see many, many troubles. I will not even mention all the Apostasy and low times as Christians are so divided on how to interpret the chaos. Needless to say to large division occur among Protestants and Catholics on how to determine what the lows and highs are, and who were the Samsons and who were the Delilahs of church history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To your question: We must soberly try and evaluate our circumstances and discern where we stand among them. &lt;strong&gt;A good gauge on where we are in history is how do we respond to the basic bread-and-butter gospel. If you read history the up-times of the church occurs when people defend original sin, justification by faith and an assurance of salvation by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Love for our neighbor and our enemy, out of a love for God is the drumbeats of morality preached during those times. Does our locality or generation focus on the cross and grace of God?&lt;/strong&gt; Does our nation? Where do we fit into this? In my own private world I identify with Lot and Samson more than David. I groan inside at what I see. Maybe others are in better surrounding then me. I identify with Luther as a Samson at a low point in history. I think we are approaching a similar point but not that bad yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-23T06:53:09.223" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11594" CreationDate="2013-03-23T12:50:39.950" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Believers will join Moses and Elijah and the other saints in Heaven with our father when our bodies die.  Our soul and spirit fellowship with God in paradise.  However when the &quot;Day of the Lord&quot; comes  we will be clothed with our new immortal bodies to complete us, just as Jesus was clothed with his new body and was the first fruit of the new breed of immortals in Christ.  When he returns we will all be changed and clothed with these new bodies.  That is the first resurrection.  By the way, unbelievers will also be resurrected in the same manner and clothed with their determined immortal bodies but much later.  On the Day of the Lord the angels will gather the elect from the 4 winds those who are raptured for the coming Battle of Armageddon.  This will occur on Rosh Hashanah (Festival of Trumpets) and will take until Yom Kippur 10 days later when the day of Atonement happens and the Battle of Armageddon.  The marriage supper of the Lamb takes place immediately after.  Unlike what we westerners like to think about &quot;marriage suppers&quot; as a feast or celebration for us, the only ones who will be feasting will be the birds of the air on the flesh of those who are slain during this great battle.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4212" LastActivityDate="2013-03-23T12:50:39.950" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15056" CreationDate="2013-03-23T20:28:27.693" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is interesting to me because it seems to miss one obvious fact.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You refer to people who lived in between events that were noteworthy of being included in Scripture, and wonder, essentially, what their faith is like during those time periods.  But the fact is, &lt;strong&gt;you're surrounded by Christians who are, &lt;em&gt;right now&lt;/em&gt; in one of those time periods&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There hasn't been a noteworthy event in Scripture in close to 2,000 years, and we are patiently waiting for the next event - the return of the King of Kings.  (Exact details unclear.  Many different views exist on the order of events and the exact details, but we do know it's going to happen.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clearest answer is &quot;In many ways, all of which are going on all around you for you to observe.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-23T20:28:27.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15056" CreationDate="2013-03-23T21:15:02.097" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I understand your question correctly, the answer is &quot;&lt;strong&gt;watch and pray&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://niv.scripturetext.com/luke/21.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke chapter 21&lt;/a&gt; some of his disciples were remarking about how beautiful the temple was when Jesus told them that &quot;the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples then asked &quot;when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus then tells then what signs to look for and ends his instruction by saying &quot;Be always on the &lt;strong&gt;watch&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;pray&lt;/strong&gt; that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 13&lt;/a&gt; also gives an account of this interchange between Jesus and his disciples but concludes a bit differently with the parable about the man who went away, leaving his servants in charge...&quot;It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.   Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What were they watching for? The signs that Jesus is about to come again. What were they to pray for? To be awake, so as to escape from the coming judgement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is especially meaningful in light of your question of the &quot;inter-generational&quot; nature of God's timetable.  God knows it's going to be a while between courses but he's trying to get us to focus our attention, knowing we are very prone to wandering off the path if we see some shiny bauble. It's almost like he's saying &quot;pay attention!&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus asked his disciples to wait for him outside the garden where he went to pray just before he was arrested but rebuked them with &quot;couldn't you wait for &lt;strong&gt;one hour&lt;/strong&gt; with me?&quot; (He probably would have said &quot;Jeez&quot; if he wasn't Jesus). But I think the point is that in our everyday lives, we are waiting for someone, and the exhortation is don't get impatient as it may be a while. Just keep looking every day, and just keep waiting every day, and while you're waiting ask the Father for mercy. I think it keeps us focused in the right direction as it keeps our eyes on Jesus, rather then worrying about the timetable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4214" LastActivityDate="2013-03-23T21:15:02.097" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15056" CreationDate="2013-03-24T01:26:32.447" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. ~ 1 Thessalonians 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;..I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength. ~ Phillipians 4:11-13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4217" LastActivityDate="2013-03-24T01:26:32.447" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15160" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-24T03:11:37.807" Score="3" ViewCount="353" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed there are some that distinguish between the designation 'scripture' as only referring to the Old Testament and 'word of God' as some or all of the New Testament. This seems strange to me but in any case &lt;strong&gt;regardless of the possible distinctions between 'the word of God' and the designation 'scripture'&lt;/strong&gt; is there any &lt;strong&gt;difference in the authority&lt;/strong&gt; of each term?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume 'if they have equal authority' then any minor differences that may be implied in the 'terms' are inconsequential as they only denote aspects of the same thing. Here we find Paul taking about his message as 'the word of God':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is the 'word of God' in the New Testament equal in authority to the designation 'scripture'?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-07-13T04:19:46.690" LastActivityDate="2014-08-03T00:28:27.923" Title="Is the term 'word of God' in the New Testament equal in authority to the designation 'scripture'?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15160" CreationDate="2013-03-24T03:39:41.633" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Warning: Catholic Answer&lt;/b&gt; in which I reinterpret what you say about &amp;quot;Word of God&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;things asserted by the Holy Spirit&amp;quot;, I think these are equivalent but you may not. This disclaimer might actually be the whole answer to the question, but read on if you dare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of awesome and useful documents from 2nd Vatican Council stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, since everything &lt;b&gt;asserted&lt;/b&gt; by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be &lt;b&gt;asserted&lt;/b&gt; by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore &amp;quot;all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dei Verbum Ch 3. Paragraph 11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I bolded the word &lt;b&gt;asserted&lt;/b&gt; because that's a really, terribly important point.  It's not every participle that is the truth that men live on when bread is found to be insufficient.  It's the things that the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us through scripture that are the inspired parts.  Like, when people to Jesus or Job and told them that a man or his parents must have done something wrong to put him in the place he is.  That's not &amp;quot;asserted&amp;quot; by the Holy Spirit in any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the Holy Spirit also is the Interpreter of the Sacred Scripture&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read the Scripture within &amp;quot;the living Tradition of the whole Church&amp;quot;. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (&amp;quot;. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 113&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might be fair to call &amp;quot;the Word of God&amp;quot; as subset of Sacred Scripture because only the good stuff is what is &amp;quot;asserted&amp;quot;. But it also might be fair to call Sacred Scripture a subset of the Word of God.  Because the good stuff contained in scripture is infinitely deep;  It's like Chesterton's porch with an unbelievably gigantic living room or Lewis's tiny gate that keeps on taking you further up and further in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-24T03:39:41.633" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15056" CreationDate="2013-03-24T05:17:38.143" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think a Catholic, and most other Christians, would suggest that God works with our human nature and our personal choices. To some extent, we are where we are in our span of history because of who we are and the choices we'll make. God's plan is both predetermined and sensitive to our wills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. &lt;strong&gt;When&#xA;  therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination,” he&#xA;  includes in it each person’s free response to his grace&lt;/strong&gt;: “In this&#xA;  city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and&#xA;  the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant&#xA;  Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had&#xA;  predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of&#xA;  salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=15-chapter5.xhtml%23para600&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph&#xA;  600&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For that reason, it's partially our own fault that God's whole plan didn't fully unfold immediately after the fall. It's our fault, so to speak, when we go 500 years without a notable divine intervention. God works with our freedom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even with that in mind, God is never silent or inactive. At worst, He's speaking and we're simply ignoring Him. But often enough His activity is obvious to the persons involved; it just isn't always globally recognizable as a step in the spiritual story. All of us who pray, grow closer to God, have profound insights or experiences, offer help to someone at a critical time, etc. -- we're all experiencing and taking part in God's activity. He is not silent, He is simply not calling all of us to be Biblical archetypes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one's going to add my journal to the Bible -- however inspired it may be. No one's going to retell the story of a time when so-and-so actually had cash on him for the homeless folks on State Street. And that really great prayer you said last night is really great for you -- but it means little or nothing to the rest of us, let alone my childrens' children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All scripture is about Christ. And we should all be able to recognize Christ in the scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ,&#xA;  “because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine&#xA;  Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=11-chapter2.xhtml%23para134&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  134&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we include in scripture, therefore, are the events that The Church recognizes, worthy of reading in the liturgy, which glorify The Living Word of God, Jesus Christ. They're the archetypal milestones that most every saint can identify in their spiritual journey until they finally find themselves crucified and risen with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-03-24T05:17:38.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7436" CreationDate="2013-03-24T05:22:46.650" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference between Jesus'commandments and God's commandments is that Jesus' commandments are given under a new covenant, one between between the Father and the Son, that Jesus himself fulfilled.  The commandments from Sinai were given to only the Hebrews, and were conditional upon their obedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus end the law or not? Yes he did. Jesus said &quot;It is finished,&quot; that is, the old covenant was fulfilled by his perfect life and death. He is the Lamb of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:17 says &quot;Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. &lt;strong&gt;I did not come to destroy but to fulfill&lt;/strong&gt;. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law &lt;strong&gt;till all is fulfilled&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biggest difference between Jesus' commandment and God's commandment (I hate to even make the distinction since Jesus is God but for the sake of answering the question I do so) is that not only did Jesus fulfill the OT law and commandments, he also fulfills the NT commandment in us - to love God and our neighbor. The bible makes it very clear that we as fallen people cannot follow any commandment. As born again people, we have the Spirit of Christ.  Christ in us, Christ as us, can love God and love our neighbor. We bring no offering except ourselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4214" LastActivityDate="2013-03-24T05:22:46.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3733" CreationDate="2013-03-24T05:52:14.693" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The new covenant throws out the baby with the bathwater. That's why it's new. It throws out the ten commandments and it throws out the rest of the law also. There is no OT law that NT Christians are bound to obey. The new covenant completely overrides and does away with the old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The OT law was given to the Hebrews only, and was fulfilled by the Jewish Messiah. It was never given to the Gentiles. There is no passage in the OT or NT that ever says Gentile Christians need to follow the law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have all read your bibles. You know that not only is salvation by grace, but we live the Christian life by grace. We do not live it by works, or by any law. We are free from the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4214" LastActivityDate="2013-03-24T05:52:14.693" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1954" CreationDate="2013-03-24T11:54:15.297" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's address this question for the different views which are common about the Flood:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The description of the Flood is to be taken literally, word for word, as a depiction of real historical events about a global Flood.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;In this case, it's a miracle. A global Flood which covers all the mountains of the Earth can not happen naturally, there is not enough water for that on the planet, so it was a miracle. In case of a miracle, nothing is impossible, and the acquisition of penguins and polar bears is dwarfed by much stronger &quot;violations of the laws of nature how we unterstand them&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The description of the Flood is to be taken literally, word for word, as a depiction of real historical events about a local Flood.&lt;/strong&gt; In this view, the &quot;whole world&quot; actually means the whole world known to the people of that time. In this case, there is no need for penguins and polar bears, as they were outside of the areas affected by the Flood.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The description of the Flood is largely symbolic.&lt;/strong&gt; Just as in point 2., there is no need for penguins or polar bears here.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="1122" LastEditDate="2013-05-06T16:31:26.583" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T16:31:26.583" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15056" CreationDate="2013-03-24T13:04:37.460" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer may vary among the Christians. It depends on how much we understand and accept God's &lt;strong&gt;Divine Plan&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God has a plan for small events. For example, Jesus waited for his time for turning water to wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 2:4 (NIV) “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My&#xA;  hour has not yet come.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God also plans for a &quot;Big Time&quot;. For example, Jesus waited for his specific time to die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 7:30 (NIV) At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a&#xA;  hand on him, because his hour had not yet come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God has the Biggest plan for eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 1:4,5 (NIV) &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; For he chose us in him before the&#xA;  creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus&#xA;  Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has a plan for everything. We cannot say that even the movements of a tiny living creature is planned by God but, on a Bigger scale, God plans everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God also reveals His truth according to His timeline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Old Testament never reveals the Truth of Salvation for the soul in a crystal clear manner.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The New Testament reveals that the way to Salvation is through Jesus Christ. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The New Testament promised that Jesus Christ will come back again but never tells us when it will happen. Even though The Book of Revelation is about the end times, all are in symbolic form. We will understand them fully only when it actually happens.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's will also changes as time passes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sacrifice for forgiveness of sin was not commanded prior to the time of Moses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Animal sacrifice was commanded as a Sin Offering through Moses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While Jesus was on Earth, God's will was to listen and follow him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After Jesus died on the Cross, God's will was to believe in the Cross.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After Jesus ascended to heaven God's will was to establish the church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Now, God's will for us is to wait faithfully until Christ returns.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's divine plan is revealed one by one with the course of time. Therefore, Christians should always go in line with the &lt;strong&gt;Will of God&lt;/strong&gt; and the &lt;strong&gt;Divine Plan&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-03-24T13:13:55.590" LastActivityDate="2013-03-24T13:13:55.590" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7436" CreationDate="2013-03-24T19:49:09.650" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 &quot;I and the Father are one.” &lt;em&gt;John 10:30&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That means that Jesus has same goals, norms and moral values as His Father. &#xA;Jesus had never desire for independence from God.&#xA;Jesus is staggeringly connected with His Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me. John 10:25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how could be Jesus's and God's commands different if Jesus did in Father's name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3499" LastActivityDate="2013-03-24T19:49:09.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15172" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="48138" CreationDate="2013-03-24T22:51:25.310" Score="8" ViewCount="1338" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am reading &quot;Mere Christianity&quot; by C.S. Lewis and just finished Chapter 12 in the 3rd section. In this chapter he is discussing the idea that we need to realize we cannot fight sin ourselves, but we must &quot;leave it up to God&quot;. We need to trust in following the path of Christ rather than simply putting our own effort forth to stop sinning. That's all great, but I'm having a hard time with the last two paragraphs. I was hoping someone could clarify what he is trying to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all &#xA;  about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into &#xA;  something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of those things, except &#xA;  perhaps as a joke. Every one there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled &#xA;  with light But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes. But this is near the stage where the road &#xA;  passes over the rim of our world. No one's eyes can see very far beyond that: lots of people's eyes can &#xA;  see further than mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4220" LastEditorUserId="31170" LastEditDate="2017-12-18T14:56:35.627" LastActivityDate="2017-12-18T14:56:35.627" Title="Reading &quot;Mere Christianity&quot; and having a hard time with book III, chapter 12" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15119" CreationDate="2013-03-25T00:45:32.917" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is why is it so much easier to follow sin than to follow Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short answer is because your flesh is not redeemed and it wants to run amok. Romans 7:14-20 says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We know that the law is spiritual; &lt;strong&gt;but I am unspiritual&lt;/strong&gt;, sold as a&#xA;  slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I&#xA;  do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do,&#xA;  I agree that the law is good. As it is, &lt;strong&gt;it is no longer I myself who&#xA;  do it, but it is sin living in me&lt;/strong&gt;. For I know that good itself does&#xA;  not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. &lt;strong&gt;For I have the desire&#xA;  to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out&lt;/strong&gt;. For I do not do the&#xA;  good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on&#xA;  doing. &lt;strong&gt;Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who&#xA;  do it, but it is sin living in me that does it&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it may be a matter of faith as to whether a person can comprehend the message of Romans chapter 7. In this passage Paul shows us the distinction between our flesh and our spirit. Sin still lives in our flesh. Sin is at home in our flesh, very comfortable there. Sin has had this home for a shorter time for some and a longer time for others but no matter who you are or what your background, sin lives in your flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 7:21 says: So I find this &lt;strong&gt;law&lt;/strong&gt; at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to talk about NT laws, you can put the &lt;strong&gt;Law of Sin in the Flesh&lt;/strong&gt; at the top of the list. The LOSITF was not defeated or changed at the cross. That Law says &quot;Adam let me in, I have every right to be here until your body dies, and there is precious little you can do about it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that the wording in the section of scripture is very important. The LOSITF &lt;strong&gt;must&lt;/strong&gt; be obeyed. It's not a law like the Law of Moses, where the people said &quot;Every thing that the Lord has said, we will do&quot; and then they promptly failed to do it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LOSITF is more like the law of gravity. If you have enough power, you can defy the law of gravity...for a while. Eventually, the plane will run out of fuel and crash. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also defy LOSITF...for a while...if you're flying high on your own power with a bit of the Holy Spirit thrown in. This is where &quot;being a good Christian&quot; is worked out by the faithful every day as we try to defy the LOSITF out of our love for God. But eventually we're going to run out of gas, and we're going to fall back to earth again, and then we'll curse ourselves for being a weak Christian. And then we'll try again...and again...and, well, you get it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is&#xA;  subject to death?  Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus&#xA;  Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law,&#xA;  but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this mean? Does God mean to tell us that we'll always be a slave to the LOSITF? That we actually have two masters both Sin and God? Yes, I think that is exactly what God is telling us. I think that is exactly the conclusion that Paul comes to. I...am...wretched...but only in the flesh, not in the spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is why Paul went to great lengths to confirm to us previously in Romans 6 what the solution was to this dilemma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are&#xA;  those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t&#xA;  you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were&#xA;  baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through&#xA;  baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the&#xA;  dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The solution to the dilemma of having two natures in one body is to reckon yourself dead, and resurrected. First the dead part...stop beating a dead horse about sin. Many of us flog ourselves daily because this dead body won't do what we want it to do. Stop it! Your body is dead. Stop looking at the putrefaction. Stop trying to make deals with it. Stop trying to make it look like a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, look at your resurrected self. This is what Paul means by &quot;We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have already been raised from the dead. Turn your back on the dead body and turn your face toward the resurrected self. That self is sinless, holy, spotless, unable to be tempted. Sin itself loves this dead body. It is its natural habitat, so that  &quot;if I do what I do not want to do, &lt;strong&gt;it is no longer I who do it&lt;/strong&gt;, but it is sin living in me that does it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again in verse 25 &quot;...So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, you really need to read Romans 8. I will not quote the whole chapter, but suffice it to say that God knows what we are and doesn't condemn us for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ&#xA;  Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives&#xA;  life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the&#xA;  law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did&#xA;  by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin&#xA;  offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,  in order that &lt;strong&gt;the&#xA;  righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us&lt;/strong&gt;, who do&#xA;  not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are in Christ Jesus. Stop looking at the dead body you left behind. Look only to Jesus. Look only to His Spirit. Don't fight the flesh because all that does is give it power. Don't even look at it. Instead of fighting the flesh and losing, allow your resurrected self to be yoked with Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a leap of faith to believe that you can stop thinking about sin, and not only that, but be comfortable with &lt;strong&gt;who you are&lt;/strong&gt;. To confess who you are, as Paul does. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when I pray, I don't ask God to take my sin away. I just confess that I am a sinner. Then I do the important thing...I offer myself. If you take the approach to Christian growth that you must stop sinning, you're going to remain a baby in Christ forever. You're forever going to be living in the flesh instead of the Spirit.  Christians think that living in the flesh is what the unbeliever does, but I say it's what Christians who fight their flesh are doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the&#xA;  flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have&#xA;  their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the&#xA;  flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.&#xA;  The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit&#xA;  to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the&#xA;  flesh cannot please God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is talking to Christians here, not to unbelievers. He says Christians can have their minds so set on what the flesh is doing that they become hostile to God and they do not please God. They are always &quot;struggling&quot; with some sin or other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You've heard it over and over...walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Put another way, keep your eyes focused on the Spirit and sin will fall away. You don't have to &quot;struggle&quot; with sin, you have to acknowledge it, confess it, then ignore it, keeping your attention on the Spirit within you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, I believe, is walking in the Spirit. I know this is rather long, but it's an important concept and hard to understand. Sin, my friend, is no longer an issue. Sin was dealt with on the cross. You are dead. You are alive again, but as a different sort of creature, a sinful shell and a holy interior. Pay much more attention the the holy interior than you do to the sinful shell and you will not have questions like this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4214" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T00:45:32.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15174" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-25T01:14:19.777" Score="5" ViewCount="1326" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know beatification requires a miracle. And, I keep reading statements like this,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;On 19 December 2009, John Paul II was proclaimed venerable by his successor Pope Benedict XVI and was beatified on 1 May 2011 after the Congregation for the Causes of Saints attributed one miracle to him, the &lt;strong&gt;healing of a French nun from Parkinson's disease&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't mean to be denigrating to the adherents, but is there any research on what percentage of Catholics believe the pope actually healed a French nun from Parkinson's disease?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, on Mother Theresa,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;In 2002, the Vatican recognised as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, after the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Besra said that a &lt;strong&gt;beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose I can understand praying to a Saint, and even believing in miracles -- but, what percentage of Catholics believe in these very contemporary ones?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;all quotes from Wikipedia articles&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="712" LastActivityDate="2014-10-25T17:52:29.120" Title="Do Catholics really believe in contemporary miracles?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15175" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-25T01:30:48.847" Score="1" ViewCount="880" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've had as hard a time with the concept of &lt;strong&gt;the heart&lt;/strong&gt; as I've had with the concept of the soul.  Currently I am thinking &lt;strong&gt;the heart&lt;/strong&gt; is a reference to what your goals are and what you direct your attention to. However, I am not sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible mean when it refers to the word &quot;heart&quot;? Did they only use it in the sense of a four-chambered organ that circulates blood throughout the body, or did they use it in other ways? How do emotions relate to it? How do thoughts relate to it? What other insight does the scripture provide with respect to the heart?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="241" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-03-25T05:58:19.970" LastActivityDate="2015-10-21T13:40:16.777" Title="What significance did the &quot;heart&quot; possess in the ancient cultures contemporary with the biblical era?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-10-25T00:54:28.577" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15175" CreationDate="2013-03-25T01:44:09.673" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In ancient thought, at least with respect to the Hebrews, the &quot;heart&quot; (לב) was considered to be the locus of one's thoughts. Today, most might say that thoughts originate from the brain and/ or mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, the idea of &quot;to think to one's self&quot; is expressed by the phrase לאמור בלב, which means, &quot;to say in the heart&quot; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=17&amp;amp;v=17&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 17:17&lt;/a&gt;). This proves the connection they gave between &quot;thought&quot; and &quot;heart.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To circumcise the foreskin of one's heart is to remove all the excess and unnecessary thoughts from one's thoughts and life and to devote one's entire attention and self to serving God. The foreskin signified pleasure and excess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were there any specific verses you had in mind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wilhelm Gesenius covered the topic well in his entry on the word לב in his lexicon, &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/cu31924014451953&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pp. 507-508&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-03-25T06:38:58.127" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T06:38:58.127" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15172" CreationDate="2013-03-25T01:50:53.837" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lewis' point is that while many Christians are focussed largely on the question of how they might avoid sin, and how they might be more moral, those who are more advanced in the faith are not thinking about those things at all. As they come to realize more completely that Jesus has paid the price of forgiveness for them, they stop thinking about those things. Instead they focus on Jesus, &quot;the source from which it comes&quot;. They think about him, and about their relationship with him, and what he has done, and his love for them, and their love for him. In doing so they unconsciously still do the things that Jesus wants them to (what we call 'goodness'). In the very last line he opines that at this stage the Christian is usually close to passing on to be with Jesus and no longer in this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T01:50:53.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15172" CreationDate="2013-03-25T01:54:12.053" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a fairly straightforward reference to the teaching that once saved, God works on us to make us more Christ-like. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/becoming_more_like_christ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;More here&lt;/a&gt;)  This is a very common belief, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.turnbacktogod.com/being-more-christ-like/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;mainstream Christianity&lt;/a&gt;, and in not-so-mainstream denominations, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/ap/becoming-more-christlike?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;LDS Church&lt;/a&gt;.  It is also known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Sanctification&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sanctification&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Progressive sanctification&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Indeed, the more sanctified the person is, the more conformed he is&#xA;  to the image of his Savior, the more he must recoil against every lack&#xA;  of conformity to the holiness of God. The deeper his apprehension of&#xA;  the majesty of God, the greater the intensity of his love to God, the&#xA;  more persistent his yearning for the attainment of the prize of the&#xA;  high calling of God in Christ Jesus, the more conscious will he be of&#xA;  the gravity of the sin that remains and the more poignant will be his&#xA;  detestation of it....Was this not the effect in all the people of God&#xA;  as they came into closer proximity to the revelation of God’s&#xA;  holiness.&quot; -John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first paragraph you quoted alludes to the experience that in the beginning of our Christian walk, we all think about the rules a lot.  We think about avoiding this sin, trying to increase this positive trait.  As we become more conformed to the image of Christ, these things become more natural.  Our minds become more confirmed to the image of Christ through God's continuous work on us, and our own submission to His will that we no longer think about nit-picky rules, but instead, simply live in a way that is more Christ-like.  We don't think about it, we don't verbalize it, it becomes who we are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, we're not thinking about being good, we're too busy focusing on Christ Himself, the source of all goodness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last few sentences are indicating that Lewis didn't think he'd reached the same point in his walk as other, who were more closely confirmed to God's image than he was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking this a step further, it is a quite lovely way of saying that Christianity isn't about rules, regulations, or morality, it's about Christ, and our relationship to and with Him.  We are &quot;good&quot; (or at least as good as we can be) because of the work He does in us, not because of our obedience to rules, but because of who we are &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; Him.  Our morality is based on our love for Him.  This is discussed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotmor.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-25T02:04:17.187" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T02:04:17.187" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14272" CreationDate="2013-03-25T02:03:55.830" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;United Pentecostals do not deny that there is a Father and there is a Son.  They believe the Father and Son are one Spirit.  They believe that there is a distinction between Father and Son.  The Son is God in the Flesh.  The Father is God not in the flesh.  The United Pentecostals point out that in Scripture, the term &quot;Son&quot; is always used in reference to God in the flesh. If you would like to read more of what the UPC doctrine is, I suggest &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newlifeupc.org/wp-content/uploads/online-books/oneness/One-Top.html&quot;&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;The Oneness of God,&lt;/em&gt;&quot; by David Bernard&lt;/a&gt;. (I am not UPC, thus, I hesitate to go any further specifically regarding their doctrine, lest I misrepresent them).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Oneness adherent, I would continue thus in regard to this verse and your question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flesh is mortal, spirit is not. Flesh can suffer, flesh can die, the spirit experiences the suffering of the body, but the spirit does not die; Thus, When Christ died on the cross, God did not die.    Note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 23&#xA;  46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, &quot;Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!&quot; And having said this he breathed his last (NKJV).  /&quot;gave up the ghost&quot; (KJV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God did come in the flesh, and did experienced death in the Body he took on; He suffered, and in the sense that any man dies, he died.  But God (Spirit) did not die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4109" LastEditorDisplayName="user4109" LastEditDate="2013-03-25T02:09:36.717" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T02:09:36.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14950" CreationDate="2013-03-25T03:25:00.863" Score="2" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians generally believe that Jesus &lt;em&gt;fulfilled&lt;/em&gt; the Old Covenant (as quoted from Matthew 5), and established a New Covenant as foretold in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2031&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 31&lt;/a&gt;, confirmed by Jesus in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22&lt;/a&gt;, and referred to elsewhere in the New Testament (especially &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%208&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 8&lt;/a&gt; - 12). The issue is specifically addressed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 15&lt;/a&gt; that physical circumcision need not be a condition of the New Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As members of the New Covenant, we are instead &amp;quot;circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith.&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians%202:11-12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Colossians 2:11-12&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Baptism is the sign of the New  Covenant.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this view is not universal, many Christians interpret the passage quoted from Colossions (in conjunction with other New Testament references to circumcision and baptism) to mean that just like circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. Depending on which group this could be infant baptism, adult immersion, or even simply baptism of the Holy Spirit. Most Christians will fall into one of these camps.&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if you don't subscribe to baptism at all (or do believe in baptism but not as a covenant sign) it's still clear from the quoted text that circumcision happens in a different way under the New Covenant than under the Old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* For disclosure, my personal belief is in adult immersion for the forgiveness of sins.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-05-26T21:46:09.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15172" CreationDate="2013-03-25T04:00:10.943" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;He seems to be describing the bliss of faith where the knowledge of good and evil does not dominate our awareness. He does it kind of poetically. As we are sinful and not absolutely sure of our forgiveness, due to want of faith, the glory of Christ is hard to look at directly. We do not have such strong faith on this side of heaven not to be frequently taking our spiritual temperature. We are not so confident in the power of Christ's atonement as we aught to be.  Therefore we still walk about thinking our sins are carried by ourselves and this makes us feel guilty and uneasy. The kingdom of heaven takes us to another world where sin and its horrors are no longer on our mind. Unfortunately we experience this grace imperfectly in this world. This does not mean that we can't peer into the land of grace by faith. Lewis just admits its heavenly and that others can see it better than he can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T04:00:10.943" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15182" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:13:34.727" Score="7" ViewCount="3127" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am currently reading Erwin Lutzer's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0802441920&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Your Eternal Reward&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. I also watched MacArthus's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPSNf0-LsPw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eternal Rewards and Motivation&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Now, I know that Reformed theologians believe:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;salvation by grace, not works&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;salvation by predestination&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is NOT about salvation. My question is about heavenly rewards. How did  Reformed theologians view heavenly rewards?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4221" LastEditorUserId="26900" LastEditDate="2019-11-03T14:50:25.143" LastActivityDate="2019-11-03T14:50:25.143" Title="How did Reformed Theologians view works-based &quot;Heavenly Rewards&quot;?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15184" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15195" CreationDate="2013-03-25T08:43:27.373" Score="3" ViewCount="402" Body="&lt;p&gt;People come with the impression that everybody has a choice to do something or not (choices all around everybody), but where in the bible do we as people get the right of choices? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible I can give a list of commandments and what is expected/what we should do, and if it is done any different it is seen as sin. So where does society come of that we have free of will to make our own decisions as we already were given commandments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Legally, as God's creation, it could be expected that His created creatures are required to follow His laws.  Yet, in Scripture, there are many cases in which the wicked seem to prosper, and people in foreign lands are allowed to worship their own gods without retribution.  Why is this the case?  What is it in God's nature that affords a tolerance for those who do not keep God's commandments? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4110" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-25T17:54:58.627" LastActivityDate="2015-04-22T02:07:50.597" Title="What is the basis for understanding commandments to be anything other than compulsory?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15182" CreationDate="2013-03-25T10:28:03.067" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From reading many reformed theological works I think that the first thing to notice is that the subject of the differing degrees of rewards is rarely focused on. This stems from the fact that the Bible verses that indicate differing rewards in heaven and differing degrees of punishments are few.&lt;/strong&gt; Most of the bible versus making this indications are these: Mathew 16:27,25:20-23, Luke 19:15-19; 1Cor 3:8; 2Cor 9:6; Rev 22:12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually the scripture presents the idea of the great common reward of salvation for all found in Christ. It also reminds us usually of the great common punishment of hell for all outside of him.  This is the reformed focus as a reformed view tries to maintain the same focus that scripture has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to explaining the different degrees of punishments or rewards, for the faithful and faithless I have not found much speculation. From what I have encountered (and the only place I can really remember it being talked about in any depth was in some old sermons I heard by Dr. Martin-Lloyd Jones on Revelation) the idea is more of a mystery.  &lt;strong&gt;We can’t comprehend how a joy can be added to an eternal joy, but it can. The idea is usually presented as our communion with God can be 'deeper' in this life through obedience and that same nearness to God can continue into eternity.&lt;/strong&gt; That is, rewards are an extra nearness to God that we can have on top of our eternal nearness to him by the grace of God. It is like putting some grace in the bank to collect interest for more grace.  This nearness is also from grace, but it involves our own daily labor and accompanying reward by that same grace kindly recognizing our own effort, when such recognition is not deserved to begin with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is not selfish or greedy to work for these extra rewards, for true holy emotion is emotion that rises up to God’s revealed glory -- in love of it and desire for more of it.&lt;/strong&gt; True holy emotion and desire is a love of God and an enjoyment of his excellency. To desire to work to obtain more of it for personal gain is not selfishness but is simply allowing our mind to guide us to what is good. This seeking out good is our natural duty. It is the duty of our mind to identify what is best and our heart is to seek it. God has made us to live this way. By faith it is God that is understood to be our highest good and pleasure, so we are holy with a natural goodness when we seek his rewards according to his glorious grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It’s is also not foolish for a sinner to avoid sinning in greater measure, even though he feels the sentence of death in his soul.&lt;/strong&gt; It might seem that there is no purpose in restraining a wicked desire if one already thinks they are going to hell, but God is wise and powerful enough to ensure every soul regrets every sin. Where unforgiven sin is carried by unbelievers into hell, without any restraint and fear of God, such sinners will then understand that they should have at least sinned less. Pound for pound, deed for deed, the wicked will be judged. Pound for pound, righteousness for righteousness, those in Christ will be rewarded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However back to the central theme of scripture; we can’t allow these 'degrees', which are not a central theme in the Bible, to obscure the 'general reward' of the faithful and 'general punishment' of the wicked. &lt;strong&gt;May it never be doubted that when a Christian dies he will enter glory. There is no way a person having been forever freed from sin, will not stand in utter joy and eternal rejoicing having obtained the goal of his salvation.  Yes some may be nearer to God, and this will also be great. The fact is, eternal joys in heaven are what we are looking for and all believers will obtain it.  The extra rewards are more like sprinkles on top of a sundae.&lt;/strong&gt; They are there to motivate our holy desires but not to compare with the joys that we will all share even if it is that we are like a man escaping from a house on fire with nothing to bring into heaven but our own soul. Even such a man as this will be rejoicing forever more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-25T10:38:09.907" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T10:38:09.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14713" CreationDate="2013-03-25T10:56:27.207" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;“&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012169&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How Should We Remember Jesus’ Death?&lt;/a&gt;”, &lt;em&gt;The Watchtower&lt;/em&gt;, March 1, 2012, his this to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When should we commemorate Jesus’ death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus’ death occurred on Passover, Nisan 14. A Jewish day begins at&#xA;  sundown. The evening before he died, Jesus ate the Passover meal with&#xA;  his apostles and then instituted a new memorial meal to commemorate&#xA;  his death.—Read Luke 22:14,15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Today, God’s people commemorate what God provided through Jesus to set&#xA;  the whole world free from sin and death. (Exodus 12:5-7, 13, 17) Just&#xA;  as the Passover was observed once a year, so the Memorial of Jesus’&#xA;  death is held once a year after sundown on Nisan 14 according to the&#xA;  Bible’s lunar calendar.—Read John 1:29.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are &lt;a href=&quot;http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.se/2013/03/jehovahs-witnesses-memorial-invitation_1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;invited to attend the Memorial&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please view &lt;a href=&quot;http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.se/2010/09/lords-evening-meal.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;further information and collection of Witness publications on the Lord’s Evening Meal&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3936" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-06-28T13:11:18.063" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T13:11:18.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15139" CreationDate="2013-03-25T15:35:35.393" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholicism, civil/social authority is a distinctly good thing, patterned after and ordained by God's own authority. The Catholic Catechism has a whole article (and several reiterations of these themes) on social structures and authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ARTICLE 2&lt;br /&gt; PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;...&lt;br /&gt; &lt;b&gt;1898&lt;/b&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Every human community needs an authority to govern it.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary&#xA;  for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible&#xA;  the common good of the society. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;b&gt;1899&lt;/b&gt; &lt;strong&gt;The authority&#xA;  required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be&#xA;  subject to the governing authorities.&lt;/strong&gt; For there is no authority except&#xA;  from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore&#xA;  he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and&#xA;  those who resist will incur judgment.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=33-chapter14.xhtml%23para1897&quot;&gt;CCC, Participation in Social Life&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it is my understanding that the Pope is morally obligated to submit all authorities &lt;strong&gt;in the communities to which he belongs&lt;/strong&gt;, and presumably to a some extent in those communities he &lt;em&gt;visits&lt;/em&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is, as Alypius noted, an explicit exception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good&#xA;  of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain&#xA;  it. &lt;strong&gt;If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to&#xA;  the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in&#xA;  shameful abuse.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=33-chapter14.xhtml%23para1903&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  1903&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, all Catholics, including the Pope, are required to submit to all rightful authorities &lt;em&gt;in our communities&lt;/em&gt; and their laws, except those that are unjust or contrary to natural law or God's Law. And, we are &lt;em&gt;morally obligated&lt;/em&gt; to disobey unjust or immoral laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus, disobedience in some settings can be a virtue and desirable&#xA;  moral response, and civil disobedience is an option in some instances.&#xA;  Blind obedience is not a value. Catholics must be alert not only to&#xA;  the ways in which they might be tempted to participate in evil&#xA;  intentionally and personally, but also the ways in which they might&#xA;  participate in evil socially and structurally by observing,&#xA;  tolerating, or ignoring systemic social and economic oppression. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/friends-and-not-adversaries-a-catholic-muslim-spiritual-journey.cfm&quot;&gt;Friends And Not Adversaries: A Catholic-Muslim Spiritual Journey&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Sorry, I couldn't quickly find a better, more focused resource for this.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reiterating, the Pope, like every Catholic, is required to submit to the authorities in all communities in which he holds membership to the extent that the authority is rightful and just. In my understanding, this includes any law or dictate that is not distinctly opposed to justice and charity, enacted by a legitimate authority, wherein immunity has not been granted explicitly or implicitly. Bear in mind, since the Pope is sovereign of his own state, he is &lt;em&gt;almost always&lt;/em&gt; granted &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity&quot;&gt;diplomatic immunity&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Gelasius I was the first pope recorded as enjoying diplomatic&#xA;  immunity, as it is noted in his letter Duo sunt to emperor Anastasius.&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity&quot;&gt;Wikpedia, Diplomatic&#xA;  Immunity&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T15:35:35.393" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15184" CreationDate="2013-03-25T16:51:55.813" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God frequently offers people choices. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the things you should remember is that the Israelites actually all got the choice of whether they wanted to follow God or not. It occurs on several occasions, but you can read about it in most detail at the renewal of the covenant in Joshua Chapter 24. Deuteronomy Chapter 30 and 2 Kings 18 a choice is also offered. John 7 is a New Testament example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also all have a choice as to whether we follow the commands of God or not. Simple observation will tell you that some people do not choose to do so. The world would be very different if it were not so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T16:51:55.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15184" CreationDate="2013-03-25T17:40:26.220" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Bilateral Covenants afford rights&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the conquest of Canaan, Joshua has an interesting proposition for the Children of Israel.  Reflecting on their tendencies to fall into idolatry and syncretism, he says in Joshua 24:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Non-unilateral Covenants - and this was a reiteration of the Covenant - are legal agreements in which each party surrenders certain things to the other in exchange for certain privileges.  The 10 Commandments with which you are familiar is such a covenant - often formulated as &quot;You shall be my people, and I shall be your God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether or not as the Creator God already has a legal right over his people, God chooses to enter into a covenant with His people, thus affording them simple privileges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Love is the desired thing - not obedience&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, theologians have attributed this to a problem of power disparity.  As God, God has ultimate power to demand reverence and devotion, but in practice, this tends to overwhelm the less powerful party. Instead, God chooses to woo those whom he would have &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt; Him - and requisite to taht would be both free choice and the ability to reject the suitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus makes this explict in John 14:15 where he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If you love me, keep my commandments.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, God phrases these as choices, in order to get what he wants - which is that sincere faithfulness which only comes from a free exchange.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, Jesus is often quoted against the Pharisses, but in one of his most damning indictments of disobedience, he tells them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Go and learn this saying - I desire mercy and not sacrifice.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is pointing them back to Hosea, wherein God reveals that his character is to love and to woo, not to overwhelm.  In making such a god of the law, the Pharisees have perverted its purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3.  Judgement is coming, but love delays it&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parable of the Wheat and the Tares&lt;/a&gt; in Matthew 13 is probably the best biblical support for tolerance.  In the story, the enemy comes and sows weeds amongst good grain.  When the farmhands discover this, they ask the master if they should tear up the weeds.  The Master declines, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that judgement will come to those who are not following the commandments - but the love that the Master has for his chosen compels him to afford all the opportunity to grow in love.  Waiting until their fruits are fully known affords a time for everyone to come to love of the One who came &quot;too seek and save the lost.&quot;  Affording a chance to repent necessarily means affording a chance not to - thus allowing for some to reject God, but having the choice to do so in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-25T17:49:42.727" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T17:49:42.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3382" CreationDate="2013-03-25T18:16:53.713" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on which definition of &quot;omnipresent&quot; you are using!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective (or at least, a &lt;em&gt;Biblical&lt;/em&gt; perspective) the answer is &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. God is not present in Hell; that is what makes it Hell!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the &lt;strong&gt;presence&lt;/strong&gt; of the Lord and from the glory of His power &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%201:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-2 Thessalonians 1:9&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that the term &quot;omnipresent&quot; is not a Biblical term; it is a term used by numerous religions to describe their Supreme Being in a philosophically acceptable way. It has almost come to be accepted as a philosophical given (in modern times) that if there is a God, He must be omnipresent in the absolute sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Christians do not build their beliefs on the philosophical conclusions of non-Christians; we build our beliefs on Scripture. Therefore, if a Christian uses the term &quot;omnipresent&quot; to describe God, it is a given that it should be defined according to Scripture. So how would God's &quot;omnipresence&quot; be defined according to Scripture? Basically, God is omnipresent in the sense that He is present everywhere in heaven and in the physical universe, but &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; in Hell. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate He is present in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Responses&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone might argue that Hell is a spiritual &quot;separation&quot; from God in which God is still present, but the damned don't receive His love (or something along those lines.) This is a clever solution, but it is not consistent with Scripture. The verse cited above indicates God is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; present in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone might cite &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:7%E2%80%9310&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 139:7–10&lt;/a&gt; as proof that God actually is present everywhere -- even in Hell. However, this verse uses the Old Testament term, &lt;em&gt;Sheol&lt;/em&gt;, which is more accurately translated as something like &quot;grave&quot; or &quot;death&quot;; even the righteous were said to go there when they die. David's emotive song simply indicates that even if he (a righteous man in God's sight) were to die, God would be with him. Sheol is not the same as &quot;Hell&quot; (in the modern meaning of the term.) Hell is primarily used today to refer to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:11-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lake of fire&lt;/a&gt;; the place of final, eternal destruction and judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T18:16:53.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15198" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15200" CreationDate="2013-03-25T18:28:10.140" Score="5" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;p&gt;Multiple times in the four Gospels, the Apostles seem to act foolishly. They are around Jesus for a long time, witness miracles, and still lose faith pretty easily. Another example: Jesus says a parable, they don't understand the meaning behind it, so Jesus needs to explain as if they were children. Or they try to heal the sick or perform exorcism, and fail miserably. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering what significance has this depiction of the Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; If they only cared to look better and show later Christians that &quot;the group you are joining is the best&quot;, they wouldn't have included these unflattering descriptions about themselves. &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please include either the view of a notable Christian denomination, or at least a citation from a notable theologian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-25T21:05:49.313" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T21:05:49.313" Title="What is the significance of presenting the Apostles as acting foolishly many times in the Gospels?" Tags="&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15199" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15201" CreationDate="2013-03-25T18:32:16.643" Score="14" ViewCount="14804" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew, Mark and Luke all record the story of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.  Matthew's version is provided below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that each writer simply records that the event occurred, but none of them seem to indicate why it was important.  Did it fulfill prophecy?  Was it just another authentication of Jesus' divinity?  Are Moses and Elijah somehow significant to be the ones speaking with Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Protestant understanding (and Catholic if it carries over), what is the significance or importance of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his&#xA;  brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; And he was&#xA;  transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his&#xA;  clothes became white as light. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; And behold, there appeared to them&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Moses and Elijah&lt;/strong&gt;, talking with him. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord,&#xA;  it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents&#xA;  here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; He was&#xA;  still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a&#xA;  voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am&#xA;  well pleased; listen to him.” &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; When the disciples heard this, they&#xA;  fell on their faces and were terrified. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; But Jesus came and touched&#xA;  them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.” &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; And when they lifted up&#xA;  their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them,&#xA;  “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the&#xA;  dead.” &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say&#xA;  that first Elijah must come?” &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; He answered, “Elijah does come, and&#xA;  he will restore all things. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; But I tell you that Elijah has already&#xA;  come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they&#xA;  pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John&#xA;  the Baptist.  [&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+17%3A1%E2%80%9313&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 17:1–13&lt;/a&gt; (ESV)]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-06-01T21:40:45.987" LastActivityDate="2017-06-01T21:40:45.987" Title="According to Protestantism, what is the significance of Jesus and the Mount of Transfiguration?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;transfiguration&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15198" CreationDate="2013-03-25T19:08:33.740" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer can be summed up in what John the Baptist says regarding Jesus in John 3:30:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He must increase, but I must decrease.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is to say, the Gospels were not primarily about bolstering confidence in the disciples, but rather about telling the truth about and bolstering confidence in Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, I think you partially answered your own question, when you said, &quot;If they only cared to look better and show later Christians that &quot;the group you are joining is the best&quot;, they wouldn't have included these unflattering descriptions about themselves.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's just the point, they weren't only trying to show later Christians that they group they are joining is the best.  They were telling the truth, and leaving it to the reader to decide whether to accept the truth or not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have&#xA;  seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our&#xA;  hands, concerning the word of life—  the life was made manifest, and&#xA;  we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal&#xA;  life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that&#xA;  which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too&#xA;  may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the&#xA;  Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entirety of the Gospels is written to depict the interaction of God with the interaction of fallen, feeble, and confused human beings, so let me answer the question with a question:  How could the authors have demonstrated Jesus's patience and love for immature and confused people without showing their sinfulness, immaturity, weakness, and confusion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is, they can't.  The greatness and wisdom of Christ can only be seen clearly against the backdrop of the sinfulness and short-sighted nature of people.  Take away the immature sinful behavior of the disciples, and all you have is a set of smart, perfectly kind, loving people talking about smart, perfectly kind, loving things in complete agreement with one another.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without conflict, there's no story. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T19:08:33.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15199" CreationDate="2013-03-25T19:13:56.590" Score="13" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 5:39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common refrain in sermons (and I've used this myself!) on the Transfiguration is that Jesus is being shown to be &quot;the Word.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically, Jesus referred to the Scripture as &quot;the Law and the Prophets,&quot; referencing a common idiom of the time.  Of these, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moses is clearly the &quot;Lawgiver,&quot; in that he is identified with the Covenant most closely.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elijah is the &quot;Prophet,&quot; the first in a line and the prototype of many.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By appearing with &quot;the Law&quot; (Moses) and &quot;the Prophets&quot; (Elijah), Jesus is shown to be fufilling all of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-25T19:21:53.687" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T19:21:53.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15198" CreationDate="2013-03-25T19:17:37.913" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The unflattering details included in the writings of the Gospels attest both to their accuracy  and to apostolic authorship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Christians of later centuries who venerated the apostles had been the actual authors, it is highly improbable that such unflattering details would have been included.  Those we venerate we do not shame.  Yet, time and time again, the Gospels describe the slowness of the apostles to believe, their prejudice, their difficulty to understand, their self-serving deeds, etc.  Thus, it seems more likely that the apostles themselves were the ones to write the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the unflattering details give very weighty evidence to the accuracy of the accounts.  The apostles proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus Christ and suffered greatly for it.  If the story had been made up, then to what purpose was it?  If they had truly loved the man Jesus and just wanted to make history remember him, then no doubt their created stories would have described themselves as never-doubting, always convinced, ad always faithful to Jesus Himself and to His teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As someone once suggested... What kind of story would they have told if they wanted the whole world to believe something they themselves knew to be false?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would they have sought to convince the world by proclaiming their own doubts? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would they have endeavored to inspire faithfulness by revealing their own unfaithfulness?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would they have hoped to draw many to follow their teaching by admitting their many faults and unworthiness to be considered leaders?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would they have sought to make many believe in Jesus by recalling how so many learned men rejected Jesus and only the simple received Him?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would they have endeavored to appeal to men of wealth and power by recording the harsh way in which Jesus often dealt with such men?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is &quot;No!&quot;  The disciples would have told none of this if it were not actually true?  In fact, if the Gospels were made up stories, then they would be drastically different.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the fact that there are so many unflattering details points to both apostolic authorship and historical accuracy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T19:17:37.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15198" CreationDate="2013-03-25T19:26:05.843" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic response you'll often hear: &lt;strong&gt;To show that they're weak, stupid, feeble humans.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the economy of salvation, God is the only &quot;thing&quot; that needs to be perfect. All else can be weak and broken -- you, your neighbor, your church leaders, and so on. And the inclusion of the weaknesses and imperfections of the 12 in the Gospel properly aligns this expectation. It attempts to prevent the Gospel readers from putting their faith in a perfection that doesn't exist. It was like telling the communities they wrote to, &quot;Hey. Don't look at us as prime examples of anything. We're just telling you what we saw and offering the sacraments that Christ, who &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; perfect, gave us.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-03-25T19:26:05.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15204" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-26T01:16:28.230" Score="8" ViewCount="1267" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, the Sanhedrin condemned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;James the Just&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stephen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The death penalty was supposed to be rare, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_03929.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mishnah Makkot 1:10 states&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet they killed at least 3 in about a 40 year period, and those are only the prominent ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How many people total did they kill, and why did they deviate from the accepted wisdom about capital punishment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to promote antisemitism. I'm simply interested in the historical facts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-01-21T15:17:07.240" LastActivityDate="2016-01-21T15:17:07.240" Title="How many people were killed by the Sanhedrin around the time of Paul?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;capital-punishment&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5197" CreationDate="2013-03-26T01:23:09.200" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a &lt;em&gt;Biblical&lt;/em&gt; perspective the answer is &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;. God is not present in Hell; that is what makes it Hell!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These will pay the penalty of &lt;strong&gt;eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt; and from the glory of His power &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%201:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-2 Thessalonians 1:9&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that the term &quot;omnipresent&quot; is not a Biblical term; it is a term used by numerous religions to describe their Supreme Being in a philosophically acceptable way. It has almost come to be accepted as a philosophical given (in modern times) that if there is a God, He must be omnipresent -- even &quot;in Hell.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Christians do not build their beliefs on the philosophical conclusions of non-Christians; we build our beliefs on Scripture. Therefore, if a Christian uses the term &quot;omnipresent&quot; to describe God, it is a given that it should be defined according to Scripture: God is &lt;em&gt;omnipresent&lt;/em&gt; in the sense that He is present everywhere in heaven and in the physical universe, but &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Responses&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Someone might argue that Hell is a spiritual &quot;separation&quot; from God in which God is still present, but the damned don't receive His love (or something along those lines.) This is a clever solution, but it is not consistent with Scripture. The verse cited above indicates God is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; present in Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Someone might cite &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:7%E2%80%9310&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 139:7–10&lt;/a&gt; as proof that God actually is present everywhere -- even in Hell. However, this verse uses the Old Testament term, &lt;em&gt;Sheol&lt;/em&gt;, which is more accurately translated as something like &quot;grave&quot; or &quot;death&quot;; even the righteous were said to go there when they die. David's emotive song simply indicates that even if he (a righteous man in God's sight) were to die, God would be with him. Sheol is not the same as &quot;Hell&quot; (in the modern meaning of the term.) Hell is primarily used today to refer to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:11-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lake of fire&lt;/a&gt;; the place of final, eternal destruction and judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Caleb used an interesting verse (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.%2014:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 14:10&lt;/a&gt;) to support his view that those who are in Hell (i.e. the lake of fire) will actually be in the presence of the Lamb for eternity. However, the verse in question does not seem to be referring to Hell (i.e. the final place of eternal torment.) For instance, Dr. Constable, renowned commentator from Dallas Theological Seminary, has this to say:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Their torment will be excruciating (cf. Gen. 19:24; Isa. 34:8-10), but &lt;strong&gt;this is not a reference to their eternal torment&lt;/strong&gt;. Their final torment will be in the lake of fire removed from the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb (19:20; 20:10; 21:8, 27; 22:14-15; cf. Matt. 25:41; Mark 9:43; 2 Thess. 1:8-9). &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/revelation.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;-Dr. Constable's Expository Notes on Revelation 14:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day, any Systematic Theology (whether it be of Hell or of omnipresence) should be based on the complete counsel of Scripture, and not prior commitments (i.e. agendas) and proof-texts. The view that God &quot;must&quot; be present in Hell seems to be based more on prior philosophical commitments than sound exegesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-03-27T22:44:21.490" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T22:44:21.490" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15182" CreationDate="2013-03-26T02:10:03.627" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Calvin&lt;/a&gt;, the ur-Reformed theologian and prolific commentator, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.liii.html#ii.liii-p50.1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;says of Matthew 16:27&lt;/a&gt; (&quot;For the Son of man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every one according to his actions&quot;): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When a reward is promised to good works, their merit is not contrasted&#xA;  with the justification which is freely bestowed on us through faith;&#xA;  nor is it pointed out as the cause of our salvation, but is only held&#xA;  out to excite believers to aim at doing what is right, by assuring&#xA;  them that their labor will not be lost. There is a perfect agreement,&#xA;  therefore, between these two statements, that we are justified freely,&#xA;  (Romans 3:24,) because we are received into God’s favor without any&#xA;  merit; and yet that God, of his own good pleasure, bestows on our&#xA;  works a reward which we did not deserve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And on John 4:36 (&quot;And he who reapeth receiveth reward, and gathereth fruit into life eternal&quot;) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.x.vi.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;he says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he who reapeth receiveth reward. How diligently we ought to devote&#xA;  ourselves to the work of God, he proves by another argument; namely,&#xA;  because a large and most excellent reward is reserved for our labor;&#xA;  for he promises that there will be fruit, and fruit not corruptible or&#xA;  fading. What he adds about fruit may be explained in two ways; either&#xA;  it is an announcement of the reward, and on that supposition he would&#xA;  say the same thing twice in different words; or, he applauds the&#xA;  labors of those who enrich the kingdom of God, as we shall afterwards&#xA;  find him repeating,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have chosen you, that you may go and bear fruit, and that your fruit&#xA;  may remain, (John 15:16.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And certainly both considerations ought greatly to encourage the&#xA;  ministers of the word, that they may never sink under the toil, when&#xA;  they hear that a crown of glory is prepared for them in heaven, and&#xA;  know that the fruit of their harvest will not only be precious in the&#xA;  sight of God, but will also be eternal. It is for this purpose that&#xA;  Scripture everywhere mentions reward, and not for the purpose of&#xA;  leading us to judge from it as to the merits of works; for which of&#xA;  us, if we come to a reckoning, will not be found more worthy of being&#xA;  punished for slothfulness than of being rewarded for diligence? To the&#xA;  best laborers nothing else will be left than to approach to God in all&#xA;  humility to implore forgiveness. But the Lord, who acts towards us&#xA;  with the kindness of a father, in order to correct our sloth, and to&#xA;  encourage us who would otherwise be dismayed, deigns to bestow upon us&#xA;  an undeserved reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is so far from overturning justification by faith that it rather&#xA;  confirms it. For, in the first place, how comes it that God finds in&#xA;  us any thing to reward, but because He has bestowed it upon us by his&#xA;  Spirit? Now we know that the Spirit is the earnest and pledge of&#xA;  adoption, (Ephesians 1:14.) Secondly, how comes it that God confers so&#xA;  great honor on imperfect and sinful works but because, after having by&#xA;  free grace reconciled us to himself, He accepts our works without any&#xA;  regard to merit, by not imputing the sins which cleave to them? The&#xA;  amount of this passage is, that the labor which the Apostles bestow on&#xA;  teaching ought not to be reckoned by them hard and unpleasant, since&#xA;  they know that it is so useful and so advantageous to Christ and to&#xA;  the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Puritan commentator &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc5.Matt.xvii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew Henry says&lt;/a&gt; of Matthew 16:27:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Men will then be rewarded, not according to their gains in this world,&#xA;  but according to their works, according to what they were and did. In&#xA;  that day, the treachery of backsliders will be punished with eternal&#xA;  destruction, and the constancy of faithful souls recompensed with a&#xA;  crown of life.... The rewarding of men according to their works is&#xA;  deferred till that day. Here good and evil seem to be dispensed&#xA;  promiscuously; we see not apostasy punished with immediate strokes,&#xA;  nor fidelity encouraged with immediate smiles, from heaven; but in&#xA;  that day all will be set to rights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard it said by Reformed theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gerstner&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Gerstner&lt;/a&gt; that the matter waited for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_%28theologian%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards&lt;/a&gt;, broadly considered the greatest theologian America has ever produced by liberals and conservatives alike, to sort it out. In short, Edwards says that there will be degrees of reward and happiness in heaven on the basis of works. In his sermon &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/portion2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Portion of the Righteous&lt;/a&gt;&quot; Edwards says (paragraphs added to ease reading):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are different degrees of happiness and glory in heaven. As there&#xA;  are degrees among the angels, viz. thrones, dominions, principalities,&#xA;  and powers; so there are degrees among the saints. In heaven are many&#xA;  mansions, and of different degrees of dignity. The glory of the saints&#xA;  above will be in some proportion to their eminency in holiness and&#xA;  good works here. Christ will reward all according to their works. He&#xA;  that gained ten pounds was made ruler over ten cities, and he that&#xA;  gained five pounds over five cities. Luke 19:17; 2 Cor. 9:6, “He that&#xA;  soweth sparingly, shall reap sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully&#xA;  shall reap also bountifully.” And the apostle Paul tells us that, as&#xA;  one star differs from another star in glory, so also it shall be in&#xA;  the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. 15:41. Christ tells us that he&#xA;  who gives a cup of cold water unto a disciple in the name of a&#xA;  disciple, shall in no wise lose his reward. But this could not be&#xA;  true, if a person should have no greater reward for doing many good&#xA;  works than if he did but few. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It will be no damp to the happiness of those who have lower degrees of&#xA;  happiness and glory, that there are others advanced in glory above&#xA;  them. For all shall be perfectly happy, every one shall be perfectly&#xA;  satisfied. Every vessel that is cast into this ocean of happiness is&#xA;  full, though there are some vessels far larger than others. And there&#xA;  shall be no such thing as envy in heaven, but perfect love shall reign&#xA;  through the whole society. Those who are not so high in glory as&#xA;  other, will not envy those that are higher, but they will have so&#xA;  great, and strong, and pure love to them, that they will rejoice in&#xA;  their superior happiness. Their love to them will be such that they&#xA;  will rejoice that they are happier than themselves; so that instead of&#xA;  having a damp to their own happiness, it will add to it. They will see&#xA;  it to be fit that they that have been most eminent in works of&#xA;  righteousness should be most highly exalted in glory. And they will&#xA;  rejoice in having that done, that is fittest to be done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There will be a perfect harmony in that society; those that are most&#xA;  happy will also be most holy, and all will be both perfectly holy and&#xA;  perfectly happy. But yet there will be different degrees of both&#xA;  holiness and happiness according to the measure of each one’s&#xA;  capacity, and therefore those that are lowest in glory will have the&#xA;  greatest love to those that are highest in happiness, because they&#xA;  will see most of the image of God in them. And having the greatest&#xA;  love to them, they will rejoice to see them the most happy and the&#xA;  highest in glory. And so, on the other hand, those that are highest in&#xA;  glory, as they will be the most lovely, so they will be fullest of&#xA;  love. As they will excel in happiness, they will proportionally excel&#xA;  in divine benevolence and love to others, and will have more love to&#xA;  God and to the saints than those that are lower in holiness and&#xA;  happiness. And besides, those that will excel in glory will also excel&#xA;  in humility. Here in this world, those that are above others are the&#xA;  objects of envy, because that others conceive of them as being lifted&#xA;  up with it. But in heaven it will not be so, but those saints in&#xA;  heaven who excel in happiness will also in holiness, and consequently&#xA;  in humility. The saints in heaven are more humble than the saints on&#xA;  earth, and still the higher we go among them the greater humility&#xA;  there is. The highest orders of saints, who know most of God, see most&#xA;  of the distinction between God and them, and consequently are&#xA;  comparatively least in their own eyes, and so are more humble. The&#xA;  exaltation of some in heaven above the rest will be so far from&#xA;  diminishing the perfect happiness and joy of the rest who are&#xA;  inferior, that they will be the happier for it. Such will be the union&#xA;  in their society that they will be partakers of each other’s&#xA;  happiness. Then will be fulfilled in its perfection that which is&#xA;  declared in 1 Cor. 12:26, “If one of the members be honoured all the&#xA;  members rejoice with it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In more recent days, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;N. T. Wright&lt;/a&gt;, who is in the Reformed branch of the Anglican church, has made a bit of a stir with his take on the role of works at the final judgment. He says that our final justification at the last judgment will be “in accordance with” works, but not “on the basis of” works. &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/11/26/what-n-t-wright-really-said/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;One writer summarizes Wright like this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[F]aith is the first evidence that one has become a member of God’s&#xA;  covenant people.  Present justification follows immediately.  Present&#xA;  justification is “by faith” because faith in Christ is irrefutable&#xA;  evidence that God has indeed made one a member of his covenant people&#xA;  through the work of his Spirit.  Thus, in Wright’s view, when Paul&#xA;  speaks of present justification by faith, he means God’s declaration&#xA;  that one has been brought into the family of his covenant people.  The&#xA;  evidence that God cites to demonstrate that one has already been&#xA;  brought into covenant membership is the presence of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wright’s understanding of the function of Spirit-inspired works in&#xA;  final justification is identical to his understanding of the function&#xA;  of faith in present justification.  Just as Spirit-produced faith is&#xA;  the initial sign that God has made one a member of his covenant&#xA;  people, so in final justification, Spirit-produced good works serve as&#xA;  the sign that one was truly a member of God’s covenant people from the&#xA;  point of one’s conversion on.  When Wright has said that good works&#xA;  are the “basis” of the believer’s final justification, he has meant&#xA;  that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one truly is a&#xA;  covenant member.  They are the “basis” for final justification the&#xA;  same way that a paternity test may serve as the “basis” for the&#xA;  verdict in a paternity lawsuit.  A paternity test does not make one a&#xA;  father; it demonstrates that one was a child’s father all along.  So&#xA;  also, Spirit-inspired works do not make one a covenant member in&#xA;  Wright’s view; they demonstrate that one has been a covenant member&#xA;  all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Reformed Theological Seminary professor &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rts.edu/seminary/faculty/bio.aspx?id=430&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Kruger&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://michaeljkruger.com/why-do-modern-christians-rarely-talk-about-rewards-in-heaven/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recently wrote on this topic&lt;/a&gt;, quoting Reformed Baptist &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Piper_%28theologian%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Piper&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God can still be pleased with it, even though it is imperfect. &#xA;  Consider John Piper’s comments on this point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;It is terribly confusing when people say that the only righteousness&#xA;    that has any value is the imputed righteousness of Christ.  I agree&#xA;    that justification is not grounded on any of our righteousness, but&#xA;    only the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.  But sometimes people&#xA;    are careless and speak disparagingly of all human righteousness, as if&#xA;    there were no such thing that pleased God. They often cite Isaiah 64:6&#xA;    which says our righteousness is as filthy rags…[But] when my sons do&#xA;    what I tell them to do—I do not call their obedience “filthy rags”&#xA;    even if it is not perfect.  Neither does God. All the more because he&#xA;    himself is “working in us that which is pleasing in his sight”&#xA;    (Hebrews 13:21).  He does not call his own, Spirit-wrought fruit,&#xA;    “rags.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is only when we recognize that the obedience of the believer really&#xA;  does matter, and that we really can please our Father, that the&#xA;  rewards passages in the Bible will make any sense. And that can be a&#xA;  tremendous encouragement to those of us who labor heavily in ministry.&#xA;  When we toil for the cause of Christ, we want to hear, and are&#xA;  bolstered by hearing, the encouraging words of Paul: “Your labor is&#xA;  not in vain” (1 Cor 15:58).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2013-03-28T13:58:12.247" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T13:58:12.247" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15208" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-26T04:06:38.943" Score="8" ViewCount="1124" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the bible/ Christians / the church (any church) say anything about pre-humans, not just neanderthals, but all the other kinds of pre-humans? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Points to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I read in a National Geographic magazine that Neanderthals actually buried their dead ceremoniously, possibly hinting that they had a religion/after-life belief.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These other people existed, there have been bones found that prove that, so any answers saying that they didn't exist are not valid.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These pre-humans were people. They had cultures (however primitive) and possibly,&#xA;very likely, language.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is this- &lt;strong&gt;Is there anything at all that tries to explain these &quot;other&quot; people in biblical terms?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am very interested in finding an answer to this question. If there are any problems with it please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4229" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T13:43:38.730" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T17:01:23.183" Title="Is there an explanation for pre-humans from a biblical point of view?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-08-22T10:11:53.663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1860" CreationDate="2013-03-26T04:56:48.400" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bible tells us that God is eternal and good numbers of verses are in answer posted by “Software Monkey”. Another imposing verse in Bible is from Isaiah 41:4 which says “.... I, the LORD, am present at the very beginning, and at the very end – I am the one.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although scientists now believe the universe had a beginning from nothing, they can’t tell us who was there to start it all. John reveals that before creation, “the Word already existed” and was “with God.”:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:1:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leaving aside these assertions from Bible that God being eternal, for a moment let us assume that God did not exist at the beginning. Imagine a time when there was nothing in existence neither God existed nor the universe or even the voids (empty space). Not even energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts or any physical laws. There was absolute nothing or absolute non existence. In this state of nothingness, the question that arises: how something had its origin from this state of “absolute nothing”?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Absolute nothing”, is complete “non-existence”. No energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc., and no minds to consider this complete &quot;lack-of-all&quot;. The mind of the reader trying to visualize this would be gone as well. But, in this &quot;absolute nothing”, there would be also no mechanism present, to change this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. Nonetheless, because we can see and perceive that “something” is here now, the only possibility then is that “absolute nothing” was somehow instrumental in creating this “something”.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is: This “absolute non existence” is not same as our mind’s conception of non-existence. In this absolute non existence neither the mind nor anything else is present. Because our minds exist, our mind's conception of non-existence is dependent on existence; that is, we must define non-existence as the lack of existence. But, non-existence itself, and not our mind's conception of non-existence, does not have this requirement; it is independent of our mind, and of existence, and of being defined as the lack of existence. &lt;strong&gt;Non-existence itself is on its own, and on its own, completely describes the ENTIRETY of what is there and is thus an “existent state”&lt;/strong&gt; (which is inconceivable with our existent mind). Thus this “existent state” was instrumental in creating this “something” from itself. To our finite mind it is “absolute nothing” but that “State” is God eternal.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore God is beyond our comprehension and He has no creator. He is a unique Force, capable of producing something from what we define as “absolute nothing”.  It is an Eternal Entity that has been the initial cause of everything that we perceive-universe and everything that universe comprises of. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-05-16T16:26:50.457" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T16:26:50.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="722" CreationDate="2013-03-26T05:10:14.330" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was not raised Catholic, even though my father was raised Roman Catholic, since my home town is prominently a Roman Catholic town. He decided to let us decide for our own what faith or path to follow, most likely because of the abuse he and his class mates got from their priest, and before you stop reading, no it wasn't sexual abuse--it was violent, violent altercations between the Father and his students.  Any way, I thought that would be relevant to know... I've traveled a good deal and met some great people, especially from Ireland, and they helped me in a way I can't express enough.  See, I was without faith for a long time and the Roman Catholic way just didn't make sense to me--it's ok to do whatever you will and as long as you confess you're forgiven?!? That didn't work for me, so I searched and searched.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a huge difference between Roman and Irish Catholicism. A true Irish Catholic must not just confess, but earn his way back into God's graces, not by prayer or fasting, but through his actions.  That is how a real Irish Catholic repents.  But first and foremost, don't commit the sin to begin with, and I know that's not how things are in an imperfect world, but I've witnessed Roman Catholics actually state &quot;It's ok if we do this--as long as we ask for forgiveness we will be forgiven&quot;!! The Irish Men I know would be appalled at that statement as am I. Karma is for real, and the Lord pays attention!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4230" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T14:43:58.997" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T14:43:58.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15211" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15213" CreationDate="2013-03-26T07:41:34.803" Score="6" ViewCount="888" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians go to great lengths to get the government to outlaw abortion--something that I personally would support. Though I see support from Christianity against abortion almost as unwavering, the support of death row inmates right to live seems to be a more contentious issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is if Christianity holds human life to have intrinsic human value should this not apply to the death row inmate as well as the unborn baby?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T16:05:53.940" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T16:05:53.940" Title="Should Christians be against the death penalty?" Tags="&lt;justice&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-06-26T16:30:26.843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15211" CreationDate="2013-03-26T10:13:43.240" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;While many Christians are against the death penalty, there is also biblical sanction for it. Genesis 9:6 commands the killing of those who commit murder-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He who sheds a man's blood, by man shall shall his blood be shed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For many fundamentalists, such a clear case for the death penalty means that the death penalty should thus be supported. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key question, however, is whether this is to Noah or for all time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church in particular has done a great job of cultivating a &quot;culture of life&quot; within the church, and has thus found this scripture to be primarily about the sanctity of the life taken. Stances against abortion and euthanasia are harmonized with the death penalty, reflecting what Catholics declare us the nature of God- the creator and sustainer of life.  Governments are thus authorized, but not compelled to take action. (And, in any case, the death penalty is usually restricted to certain kinds if murder now)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T10:20:58.433" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T10:20:58.433" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15211" CreationDate="2013-03-26T10:21:17.320" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose it is emphatic “no”. This is because we cannot bring moral equivalency between abortion and the death penalty. Both these issues are circumstantially different to each other. One is about an innocent baby’s life being taken in the womb and other a convicted murderer being executed. A baby in the womb has committed no crime. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is inhuman not to protect the life of an innocent baby in the womb, and also it is necessary that the perpetrators of the most heinous of crimes should be executed. Being pro-life does not necessitate being anti-death in all circumstances. If one person murders another person, the just penalty is to end the life of the murderer. This actually upholds the value of life. Anyone who violates life in premeditated murder should be put to death – proclaiming clear support for the value of life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is entirely consistent to believe that the life of an innocent baby in the womb should be protected while believing that the perpetrators of the most heinous of crimes should be executed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the death penalty should be, and in most cases is, employed only with the most evil of crimes. Some courts of law award this penalty in cases which are categorised as rarest of the rare.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T10:50:59.063" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T10:50:59.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15215" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15216" CreationDate="2013-03-26T11:24:21.013" Score="-2" ViewCount="328" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rules/laws of a nation is always controlled by the Religion of the Majority. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the time of the Old Testament, The Mosaic Law was the Government Law. The New Testament is different. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Peter 2:13-17 (NIV) &lt;em&gt;13&lt;/em&gt; Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to&#xA;  every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme&#xA;  authority, &lt;em&gt;14&lt;/em&gt; or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who&#xA;  do wrong and to commend those who do right. &lt;em&gt;15&lt;/em&gt; For it is God’s will&#xA;  that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish&#xA;  people. &lt;em&gt;16&lt;/em&gt; Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a&#xA;  cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. &lt;em&gt;17&lt;/em&gt; Show proper respect to&#xA;  everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the New Testament has anything to say about the authority of the Church to question and change the government rules? Some examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abortion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gay marriage&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Birth Control&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Capital punishment&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Women in military&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T11:48:01.187" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T15:30:19.473" Title="Does the New Testament allow Christians to interfere in policy making processes of the nation?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-03-26T20:07:27.520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15215" CreationDate="2013-03-26T11:47:03.743" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Evangelicals*, the seminal work on this very question is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms_in_Conflict&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kingdoms In Conflict&lt;/a&gt; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Colson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chuck Colson&lt;/a&gt;.  (Note, the book has been since released for those unable to handle anything less than a summary in its title, as &lt;em&gt;God and Government: An Insider's View on the Boundaries between Faith and Politics&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chuck Colson - special assistant to President Nixon during the Watergate coverup turned Christian after his involvement became public - had a unique perspective, in that he was a high ranking government official who became a committed Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, the thesis of his book is that Government was ordained by God for one thing - namely to keep order, and the Church for another - to point souls to God.  The conflict between these two stems from those times that the two purport to invade the other's sphere of responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That citizens are afforded the right to vote, however, informs Colson that individuals are vested in each sphere too.  Although we are &quot;aliens and strangers&quot; (Hebrews 11) in this world, we are also called to &quot;pitch our tent here&quot; and be the incarnation.  We show &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.colsoncenter.org/twominutewarning/entry/33/20299&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;love to our neighbors by participating in the process&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ulitmately, where each individual draws that line - between being &quot;in the world&quot; but not &quot;of it&quot; - is one that is not clear in Scripture.  David was wholly political, but also a man after God's own heart.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Wilberforce&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Martin Luther King, Jr.&lt;/a&gt; were political precisely because they were Christian. Conversely, Baptists would also lift up &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Roger Williams&lt;/a&gt;, the founder of Rhode Island, who started his own colony precisely because he felt the Puritan Reformers of Massachusetts had so thoroughly negated this line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That we have been afforded the right, as citizens, to influence government in this time and place is a privilege that many would see as a gift of God. To spurn that offer seems rather ungrateful to many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: What separates Evangelicals from Fundamentalists is precisely this point.  After the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, most Fundamentalists retreated from the culture as a whole, eschew political involvement.  Evangelicals like Billy Graham and Carl Henry were muchly responsible for pulling a segment of that tradition back into the place where they would engage the culture, forming the basis of the modern evangelical movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T15:30:19.473" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T15:30:19.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15211" CreationDate="2013-03-26T12:16:06.203" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;God not only allows for the death penalty, but specifically prescribes it--and it is not because life is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; sacred, but because it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Whoever sheds the blood of man,&#xA;      by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.  Genesis 9:6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, if someone murders another, his crime is so heinous that God declares he has forfeited his own life.  The emphasis is on the sanctity of the life he took--not on the life of the taker.  He has sinned against God in doing so, and it is God who requires the penalty be paid.  It is important to note that this law precedes the Law of Moses and is thus not part of that covenant.  It is, therefore, fully applicable today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, in the law of Moses, God also prescribes the death penalty for rape.  Again, it is such a heinous, horrible, despicable offense against the sanctity of the life of the woman, that God punishes the crime severely.  It is, again, that God holds the life of the victim as sacred that He requires the forfeiture of the life of the perpetrator.  This law is within the Law of Moses which was part of God's covenant with the Jews, so this could be seen as a pattern to follow rather than a prescription to institute in any nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, there is no contradiction in supporting capital punishment while being against abortion.  Both positions recognize the sanctity of life.  The Pro-Life position recognizes that the life of the innocent child begins at conception and deems that no one has the right to end this life.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Capital Punishment recognizes the sanctity of the life of the victim and sees that taking the life of an innocent person is such a grave offense, that the highest of penalties is required.  From a biblical perspective, rape could legitimately be seen as rising to the same level of gravity and requiring the same penalty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a note, the American justice system is set up on the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  A minor offense is punished by a restriction of one's pursuit of happiness--some of their money is forfeited.  A graver offense is punished by a restriction of one's liberty--they spend time behind bars, lose their driver's license, or something like that.  The gravest offenses may be punished with the taking of the criminal's life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there are inalienable rights with which each individual is endowed by God.  However, a person may forfeit those rights to varying degrees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, a Christian can justifiably be in favor of the death penalty &lt;em&gt;because&lt;/em&gt; life is sacred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T13:34:06.967" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T13:34:06.967" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15208" CreationDate="2013-03-26T12:37:39.917" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is the classic question of where Cain's wife came from and who the people he feared would kill him were. One answer to that question is that they were other hominids alive at the time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some, like Hugh Ross and his ministry Reasons to Believe (RTB), suggest that God used hominids to prepare the way and help other species adapt and that if he had not done so, homo sapiens would have burst on the scene and wreaked havoc with the ecosystem balance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/from-whence-do-we-come-part-2-of-2&quot;&gt;a blurb from RTB&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;RTB’s biblical creation model views the hominids found in the fossil&#xA;  record as animals created by God’s direct intervention. These&#xA;  creatures existed for a time and then went extinct. RTB’s model&#xA;  considers the hominids to be remarkable creatures that walked erect&#xA;  and possessed some level of limited intelligence and emotional&#xA;  capacity. This ability allowed these animals to employ crude tools and&#xA;  even adopt some level of “culture” much like baboons, gorillas, and&#xA;  chimpanzees. While the RTB creation model posits that the hominids&#xA;  were created by God’s divine fiat, they were not spiritual beings made&#xA;  in His image. The RTB model reserves this status exclusively for&#xA;  modern humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The model treats the hominids as analogous to, but distinct from, the&#xA;  great apes. Because of this, the RTB model predicts that anatomical,&#xA;  physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities will exist among&#xA;  the hominids and modern humans to varying degrees. But since the&#xA;  hominids were not made in God’s image, they are expected to be clearly&#xA;  distinct from modern humans, particularly in their cognitive capacity,&#xA;  behavior, “technology,” and “culture.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their more detailed speculations are in the book &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/catalog/who-was-adam&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Who Was Adam?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (I should note I don't buy all of RTB's views about creation, but I'm just reporting what they say.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theistic evolutionists typically see God as working in and through the natural world to bring about his desired end, viz. humans who are in his image. Some think God did something new and special with Adam or that Adam crossed some evolutionary threshold that distinguished him from his predecessors, while others think there was no historical Adam at all, often identifying the first eleven chapters of Genesis as mytho-poetic rather than strictly historical. (Biologos.org has readings on both of these views.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Young Earth Creationists typically see the hominids as not so different from us, or no more different than, say, an Aborigine from New Guinea is from Shaquille O'Neal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T17:01:23.183" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T17:01:23.183" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15215" CreationDate="2013-03-26T15:02:30.073" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Submit&quot; in this passage doesn't mean &quot;behave as a doormat&quot; or &quot;never speak critically of&quot;. It means don't rebel. If your &quot;human authority&quot; allows you to take an active part in public discourse, to campaign, to try to influence your fellow voters (which democracies of course do, for people of all faiths or none) this passage doesn't prevent people doing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of this include Jesus not obeying the priestly authorities to stop teaching, and similarly the Apostles. Paul argued his case with Felix, and Festus and Agrippa, and then appealed his case to Caesar, making use of his right to do so, instead of meekly submitting to the whim of the local leader. (Acts 25 and 26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A church that never spoke up for the poor or oppressed would be pretty ineffective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of differing Christian views on the subject, at one Extreme you have some branches of Mennonites that believe Christians should not play any part in politics at all - they don't run for office or even vote. At the other extreme you have &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dominion Theology&lt;/a&gt; which holds that all governments should be run according to Christian principles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-03-26T15:09:09.570" LastActivityDate="2013-03-26T15:09:09.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15221" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-26T15:39:01.717" Score="7" ViewCount="240" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recall hearing an old religious sister talking on Relevant Radio a few years ago about her experience in Mexican prison ministry.  She said that life imprisonment is just as bad as the death penalty and that's why they don't have it in Mexico*.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Catholic Church document, application to the natural law or other teaching regarding a just length of sentencing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*I have no knowledge of Mexican law, so I don't know if this is true or not today&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T20:13:56.803" Title="Is life imprisonment in accord with Catholic social doctrine?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15222" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15223" CreationDate="2013-03-26T18:58:02.773" Score="12" ViewCount="15981" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Book of Matthew begins by identifying Jesus with the title of &quot;Son of David&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the &lt;strong&gt;son of David&lt;/strong&gt;, the son of Abraham.  Matthew 1:1 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At one time, two blind men call Jesus by the same title:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”  Matthew 9:27 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, Jesus' identity as the Son of David becomes a point of contention:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant.  Matthew 21:15 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the significance of the title &quot;Son of David&quot; being attributed to Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-26T09:30:19.987" LastActivityDate="2017-09-20T03:38:40.933" Title="What is significant about the title of &quot;Son of David&quot; that was attributed to Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;&lt;david&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15222" CreationDate="2013-03-26T19:36:18.007" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;David, of course, was the second King of Israel (later just Judah) who had descendants also upon the throne. We see that Jesus was indeed descended in direct lineage from David through many generations. In some cases in the Bible, &quot;son of&quot; is used to refer to descendants rather than literal sons. Thus, Jesus could be called a &quot;son of David&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But because of the prophecy to David in 2 Samuel 7:16,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Jewish people were looking for a King that would rule without end, many of course thinking that he would set up an &lt;em&gt;earthly kingdom&lt;/em&gt;. Clearly this refers to David's descendants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 7:42 says that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Referring to 2 Samuel 7 (the line from which he will come) and Micah 5:2 (specifically naming Bethlehem as his birthplace).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, of course was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 110:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Psalm of David&lt;/strong&gt; 1 The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” &lt;em&gt;(emphasis mine)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we see in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus clearly states that this refers to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But perhaps most significantly and clearly is the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is little doubt that the Jewish authorities of the day missed this prophecy, clearly stating that a &lt;em&gt;son is given&lt;/em&gt;...&lt;em&gt;name is mighty God&lt;/em&gt;...&lt;em&gt;upon the throne of David&lt;/em&gt;. In short, his title of &quot;son of David&quot; was the declaration that he was the promised Messiah, and &lt;em&gt;God himself&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-son-of-David.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source 1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://jesus.christ.org/1218/what-does-it-mean-that-jesus-is-the-son-of-david&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source 2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-gospel-truth.info/bible-teachings/the-promise-to-david/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-09-13T19:28:17.863" LastActivityDate="2013-09-13T19:28:17.863" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14762" CreationDate="2013-03-27T00:52:38.953" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I always thought that this was attributable to His approach to Kings in general. Earthly kings want credit for the work that they do; it's how they maintain power. Jesus' kingdom is heaven, therefore the standard rules of earth-bound kings do not apply. Approaching the question from a faith-perspective, it really makes sense to me that Jesus wouldn't go around granting favors to and then asking them to remember who it was that did &quot;x&quot; for you when the Pharisees came around. Earth-bound kingdoms are by definition transitory; taking credit for His good works would have put him in the same class as the Caesars of Rome. Instead, Christ opts for a revolution from below approach. I think that had Christ performed miracles then went around bragging about it, the faith would have died shortly after The ascension. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it's entirely consistent with what he preached. How would it have been if he said &quot;stay humble, the last will be first&quot; and then go out and make a spectacle of himself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3999" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T00:52:38.953" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2837" CreationDate="2013-03-27T03:00:54.000" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I disagree with all above interpretations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was very wise and obviously familiar with the Greek culture which still extended into his territory of Nazareth and environs.  In Greek culture, being a dog wasn't an insult, but rather what we label today as a skeptic.  As such, Jesus is simply making the distinction in this passage between the Children of Israel and the Gentiles in the sense that the Children of Israel are chosen and their religion expects them to believe in the Jewish God; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the gentiles of which this woman was, are assumed not to believe in the Jewish God, as after all they were not Jewish.  It is this reasoning Jesus follows, and the word dog might make more sense if you yused the modern synonym to the Greek Gospel for &quot;Dog&quot; and contemplated it as &quot;skeptics&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jesus' wisdom he was impressed by the humility and thoughtfulness of this woman, who rather than affirm she was a skeptic, was very clever in flipping it right back to Jesus by herself making use of the double meaning and basically demonstrating her faith in him as Master by her tenacity and subsequent witty reply.  She affirms she is a believer, and even if he wishes to call her a skeptic, her words say otherwise as she puts her faith in Him and lets Him call her however he wishes without complaint.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is typical of Jesus' own path and those who follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4234" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-03-27T03:10:58.283" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T03:10:58.283" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3871" CreationDate="2013-03-27T03:42:58.040" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God can dwell in a sinner, provided that they have accepted Christ as their personal savior, for he removes us from our sin &quot;As far as the east is from the west, so far He removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm 103:12)&#xA;&quot;He covers our sins, blots them out as a thick cloud&quot; (Rom. 4:7; Isa. 43:25; 44:22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4235" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T03:42:58.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15232" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15233" CreationDate="2013-03-27T12:40:58.280" Score="1" ViewCount="4763" Body="&lt;p&gt;In theology, there are many things identified in the Old Testament as foreshadowing things in the New.  The life of Joseph, the son of Jacob, is one of these that is identified as such the life of Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the identification based on and how exactly does the life of Joseph foreshadow the life of Jesus the Messiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2019-05-13T18:03:46.823" Title="How does the life of Joseph (son of Jacob) foreshadow the life of Jesus the Messiah?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;foreshadowing&gt;&lt;joseph&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15232" CreationDate="2013-03-27T13:33:58.173" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Joseph foreshadows the life of Jesus a few ways, and I'm sure that the list I'm about to give you isn't exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll try to give a brief parallel summaries of both stories, which may help to highlight the similarities between both situations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joseph&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joseph says things that seem to claim he has a certain elevated position above his brothers. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because of these things, his brothers attempt to be rid of him, via selling him into slavery.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joseph is then gone for a time in Egypt.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He then returns to their lives providing a way to escape the coming famine. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He repays evil with good. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God uses the evil that his brothers intended to do to not only validate Joseph's claims, but also provide good for Joseph's brothers. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus says things that seem to claim he has a certain elevated position above others. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because of these things, people attempt to be rid of him, via crucifixion. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is then gone for a time in the grave. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He then returns to their lives providing a way to escape the consequences of their sin. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;He repays evil with good. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God uses the evil that his brothers intended to do to not only validate Christ's claims, but also provide good for all. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Joseph was a type of Christ in that he saved those who desired to do him harm from themselves being harmed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-03-27T14:40:11.947" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T14:40:11.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15326" CreationDate="2013-03-27T15:12:53.757" Score="7" ViewCount="4155" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;The Screwtape Letters&lt;/em&gt; (1942), C. S. Lewis records the words of the devil Screwtape on church shopping and factionalism (letter 16):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The real fun is working up hatred between those who &lt;em&gt;say&lt;/em&gt; &quot;mass&quot; and those who &lt;em&gt;say&lt;/em&gt; &quot;holy communion&quot; when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker's doctrine and Thomas Aquinas', in any form which would hold water for five minutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the difference in doctrine on mass / communion, between &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas&quot;&gt;Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hooker&quot;&gt;Richard Hooker&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Please ensure answers will hold water for five minutes.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T20:33:39.843" Title="How do Aquinas and Hooker differ in their doctrine on communion?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;anglicanism&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7598" CreationDate="2013-03-27T15:44:22.867" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are books upon books of theology that explore the topic of homosexuality. But, I think the Catholic response, as to why marriage and marriage-like statuses matter in secular institutions, is fairly well-summarized here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Calling marriage between a man and a woman a fundamental part of human&#xA;  reality and the basic unit of society, the pope said, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;No other form&#xA;  of relationship between persons can be considered as an equivalent to&#xA;  this natural relationship between a man and a woman out of whose love&#xA;  children are born&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;americancatholic.com&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe this is in agreement, to a great extent, with the intended meaning behind claims along the lines of &lt;em&gt;the bible defines marriage as X&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main point is simply that &lt;strong&gt;loosening the criteria for marriage equates in the mind of the people things which are not equivalent.&lt;/strong&gt; And one of those things, the religious understanding of marriage, has a deep and profound significance that is &quot;injured.&quot; That is, religious marriage loses its ability to shed light on the intended spiritual reality when grouped, in terminology, concept, and treatment, with things that &lt;em&gt;do not&lt;/em&gt; shed light on the same spiritual reality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in Christian belief, &lt;strong&gt;the spiritual reality that Christian marriage reflects is that from which physical marriage's success, personal benefits, and societal benefits flow&lt;/strong&gt;. As such, the nature of the legal/secular recognition of marriage and marriage-like relationships is vital to the spiritual well-being of the society, as well as in protecting the notion of marriage to its believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A common objection is that religion needs to keep its nose out of governmental dealings.&lt;/strong&gt; But, this objection is fundamentally irrational, and in many cases, nothing more than a flagrant channel for hate. For in all other dealings, the origin of a belief is not considered and is not perceived to affect its truthiness, and &lt;strong&gt;its value to society is judged for the belief's inherent credibility and value&lt;/strong&gt;. Either the belief reflects an applicable truth or it doesn't. &lt;strong&gt;Only when beliefs which are &lt;em&gt;clearly and obviously&lt;/em&gt; offered from a religious setting is the source of truth perceived as problematic.&lt;/strong&gt; And in fact, the bulk of most bodies of legislation reflect values held by the areas' predominating religions. But, they receive little to no criticism merely because the link to religion is ancient enough that we can pretend it doesn't exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religion, to the extent it reveals and communicates truths, is and ought to be a source of influence in society on every level to the extent of its relevance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give a non-religious parallel ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my first years of college, I had several professors in my introductory sciences (psychology, chemistry, etc.) give, within the first few classes, a &quot;sermon&quot; against the pseudo-sciences, which often insist on calling or equating themselves and their findings with &lt;em&gt;proper science&lt;/em&gt;. The terminology, the professors would accurately predict, as well as the loose equation drawn between a science and some non-science X, damages the ability of one to be properly receptive to the legitimate fruits of &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; science. It prevents the fruits of real science from being properly consumed, if you will. And it trends the society towards bad &quot;scholarly&quot; practices, scientific ineptitude, and false beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite this warning, the professors would then be forced, as the course progressed, to do battle with students, non-traditionals in particular, who were effectively &lt;em&gt;un&lt;/em&gt;-doctrinated by pseudoscientific counterparts and who often had no idea how tainted their perception had become. They did battle, so to speak, with folks who no longer properly understood what science is, why the scientific method and good scholarly rules revealed truisms, were often unable to work within the scientific framework, and therefore struggled and often &lt;em&gt;lashed out&lt;/em&gt; at the professors for being &quot;closed-minded.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(And while it's not beyond a professor to be closed-minded, it's not a valid accusation against someone trying to communicate the reason for and importance of adhering to good scholarly practices.)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd be willing to bet, if those professors could make the pseudosciences illegal, they would. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-03-28T17:07:43.930" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T17:07:43.930" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15236" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-27T15:55:52.213" Score="27" ViewCount="991" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hooker&quot;&gt;Richard Hooker&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;em&gt;Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity&lt;/em&gt; (1593) is a foundational document for the theology and ecclesiology of the Church of England. In it, he defends (among other things) the Anglican understanding of the episcopacy, and the power of the church to set its own form of government, within certain doctrinal limits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Hooker, the polity of the Church of England has changed in some important ways. Following the motto of &quot;episcopally led, synodically governed&quot;, there are more synods than there used to be, and they include lay people as well as clergy. For example, the General Synod (since 1969; the Church Assembly from 1919 until then) is a legislative body including  separate houses of bishops, clergy and laity. There is a national executive body called the  Archbishops' Council (since 1999). Comparable structures exist at the diocesan level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does the current model of Church of England polity compare with the understanding of Hooker? In particular, what would he think about governance by regular synods with lay participation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-13T01:11:46.947" LastActivityDate="2019-05-08T09:18:43.220" Title="How does current Church of England polity compare with Richard Hooker's teaching?" Tags="&lt;anglicanism&gt;&lt;church-polity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15237" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-27T17:40:45.553" Score="15" ViewCount="332" Body="&lt;p&gt;How far back does the idea of consummating a marriage go? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it tied to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony?  Is it like going to confession, but not fully receiving the sacrament of reconciliation because you obstinately refuse to perform your penance? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T18:53:33.013" Title="Is the marital act of consumating marriage part of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15061" CreationDate="2013-03-27T23:35:03.067" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spikenard has nothing in particular to do with Joseph. What is going on, is the following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an apocryphal tradition to do with how Joseph and Mary were married. Variants of the story can be found in the Protoevangelium of James, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Armenian Infancy Gospel, Book of the Nativity of Mary, and History of Joseph the Carpenter; and were repeated in later tradition, most notably the &lt;em&gt;Legenda Aurea&lt;/em&gt; of Jacobus de Voragine. Basically, Joseph was chosen out of several candidates by a miraculous sign - a dove flew out of his staff, or possibly landed on his staff, or possibly there was no dove and the staff blossomed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lanzi and Lanzi claim a further tradition, where at the beginning of Mary's pregnancy, the devil mocked Joseph, saying that her virginal conception was no more likely than his staff blooming - which it then miraculously did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story is very like that of Aaron in Numbers 17, whose rod blossomed with almond flowers as a sign of the divine favour resting upon him. Indeed, some say that Joseph's rod was the very same one. Moreover, because of Aaron, the almond flower (Hebrew &lt;em&gt;shakad&lt;/em&gt;) is associated with being a watchful guardian (Hebrew &lt;em&gt;sheked&lt;/em&gt;, to be wakeful), which is also reasonable for Joseph. And so he is sometimes shown with almond flowers, specifically. The staff, of course, is a sign of power or authority, in both cases: it is also connected to the royal Davidic lineage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, and perhaps more commonly, the flowers are lilies. These are more naturally Mary's flowers, but it is fine to give them to Joseph as well: they represent purity, virginity, matrimony. Recall that Joseph did not consummate his marriage, nor is he believed to have committed adultery (see Molanus for the belief that Joseph's flowers can be said to signify his continence).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, in the cited Hispanic tradition, the flowers have become spikenard and the staff has vanished. If we look at a painting like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/bartolome-esteban-murillo-the-heavenly-and-earthly-trinities&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Heavenly and Earthly Trinities&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (c.1675-82, Bartolomé Esteban Murillo) we can appreciate why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As to the &lt;em&gt;flower&lt;/em&gt;, painters will tend to paint the flowers they know. A flower commonly called nard in Spain might not be the same nard as in Italy, or Israel. The general idea of something vaguely lily-ish or almond-like persists, but the &quot;model&quot; may end up being something botanically different. That said, the associations of spikenard - self-sacrifice, humility, faith - are also reasonable to attribute to Joseph, so the link can be justified, leading to its persistence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For the &lt;em&gt;staff&lt;/em&gt;, there has been a concern for a very long time about denial of the virginal conception of Christ. For example, the fourth-century &lt;em&gt;Panarion&lt;/em&gt; of Epiphanius includes a lengthy defense of why Joseph had nothing at all to contribute in this regard (see Heresy 78). The artistic problem is that Joseph's staff - already suggesting a certain virility - with a spray of white flowers at one end, might bring to mind improper and heretical thoughts. In art, then, the size of the staff may be reduced, perhaps even to a simple frond or bough, as in the Murillo painting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Saints and their symbols&lt;/em&gt;. Fernando and Gioia Lanzi. Liturgical Press, 2004. (Trans. Matthew O'Connell from &lt;em&gt;Come riconoscere i santi e i patroni nell'arte e nelle immagini popolari&lt;/em&gt;, Editoriale Jaca Book SpA, 2003).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Bibliotheca Sanctorum&lt;/em&gt;. Pontifical Lateran University, 1965. Volume 6, pages 1251-1291, &quot;Joseph&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;De picturis et imaginibus sacris&lt;/em&gt;. Jan Vermeulen (&quot;Molanus&quot;). 1570. Book 3, chapter 12, &lt;em&gt;De picturis Ioseph&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-03-27T23:35:03.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15204" CreationDate="2013-03-28T01:17:35.087" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;How many they killed is not easy to know in absence of any historical records. They must have killed many and they did conspire to kill these three prominent ones and few more.The Sanhedrin did not have the power under Roman authority to put someone to death (Jn 18:31). This power was supposedly revoked in 30 A.D. But that did not keep them from hatching conspiracies in these meetings to get their opponets killed and they were only short of passing a formal death sentence.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Plotted to kill Jesus through Romans:&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In absence of this power, Sanhedrin plotted to have Him murdered (Jn 11:47-53), paid Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus (Mt 26:14-16)(Mk 14:10-11)(Lk 22:1-6), had Him arrested and tried Him using false witnesses to accuse Him (Mt 26:47-66)(Mk 14:43-65)(Lk 22:47-53)(Jn 18:1-27), then pressured Pontus Pilate into having Him crucified (Mt 27:1-26)(Mk 15:1-15)(Lk 23:1-25)(Jn 18:28-19:16).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also  this court was to meet every day during daytime hours and was not to meet on the Sabbath or holy days,but broke this rule to condemn Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;They plotted to kill James the just and Stephan:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Jewish historian Josephus, in 62 A.D. the High Priest named Ananus assembled a Sanhedrin who condemned James, the Lord's brother, &quot;on the charge of breaking the law&quot; and had him stoned to death.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also got Stephan killed by infuriating a mob:The Sanhedrin listened to the charges brought against Stephen (Acts 6:8-7:1) and then allowed the murder of Stephen by stoning (Acts 7:54-60).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Also in addition to these three:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sanhedrin also ordered Peter and John not to proclaim the name of Jesus (Acts 4:1-22), and when they would not stop, they had them beaten (Acts 5:17-42).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin and spoke to them (Acts 22:30-23:6), and afterwards they conspired to murder him (Acts 23:12-22).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why this historical nuance?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Truly the Stakes were  very high and if we agree with your view that &quot;Sanhedrin that condemn one man to death in 75 years is bloody&quot; then killing of these prominent three, can be only described as a knee jerk action in a do or die situation to arrest a budding movement that was to change the face of this world. Jewish authorities had rightly judged this movement as not any ordinary one.  Jews had already lost their political clout and now they were in the process of  losing their religious hold on general Jewish public. This echoed in Bible:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 11:47–48&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-03-28T03:56:34.013" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T03:56:34.013" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15242" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-28T04:44:52.920" Score="20" ViewCount="34692" Body="&lt;p&gt;This quote has been attributed to St. Augustine, referring to what he said in a sermon on &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204%3A4-12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:4-12&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;See what we are insisting upon; that the deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. For many things may be done that have a good appearance, and yet proceed not from the root of charity. For thorns also have flowers: some actions truly seem rough, seem savage; howbeit they are done for discipline at the bidding of charity. Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Love, and do what you will&lt;/em&gt;: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's been &lt;a href=&quot;http://anthonyingram.com/love-god-and-do-as-you-please/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;paraphrased&lt;/a&gt; as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard people just use the first half without the full expression, usually in a flippant way, but I think Augustine may be onto something here.   We certainly get enough discussion about what God wants us to do or things along that line. Augustine seems to think that if we love God we aren't going to offend him and so don't need any &quot;rules&quot;. Jesus seems to me to agree with him when he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the  second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd like to hear the scripture that is used to support this quote of Augustine's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4214" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-06-02T00:41:15.977" LastActivityDate="2017-12-18T05:40:43.057" Title="What is the scriptural basis for &quot;Love God and do whatever you please&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14874" CreationDate="2013-03-28T06:24:33.487" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's likely that Thomas was a nickname rather than his given name. Parents of twins would not name one of them &quot;Twin&quot;. Yet by translating &quot;Thomas&quot; to &quot;Didymus&quot; three times, the Gospel of John makes it clear that as an adult Thomas was known&amp;mdash;even among Greek speakers&amp;mdash;as &quot;the twin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't know exactly where or why he got this nickname, or what his given name was. The apocryphal &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsthomas.html&quot;&gt;Acts of Thomas&lt;/a&gt;, written in the early third century, identifies him as &quot;Judas Thomas&quot;, and fourth century historian Eusebius &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.xiii.html&quot;&gt;refers to him once&lt;/a&gt; as &quot;Judas, who was also called Thomas&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library&quot;&gt;gnostic scolls found at Nag Hammadi&lt;/a&gt; include a text called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/bookt.html&quot;&gt;The Book of Thomas the Contender&lt;/a&gt;, (most likely dating to the late second or early third century) which claims to record &quot;the secret words that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas,&quot; and includes this statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself, and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. Since you will be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few scholars have understood this to mean that Thomas and Jesus were very similar in appearance. Some have gone so far as to suggest that Thomas is the brother of Jesus and the author of the book of Jude. The majority, however, believe this text is using &quot;brother&quot; and &quot;twin&quot; metaphorically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate, all of these texts are too late to be considered primary sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the early Christians offered no suggestions or speculations about who Thomas' twin might have been. When they mentioned Thomas at all, it was only in passing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second century apologist Justin Martyr gives the earliest extra-biblical mention of Thomas that I have been able to find. While &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xix.html&quot;&gt;discussing the numerological system of a gnostic sect known as the Marcosians&lt;/a&gt;, Justin says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and the ten apostles to whom the Lord appeared after His resurrection,—Thomas being absent,—represented, according to them, the invisible Decad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third century apologist Tertullian, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.xi.xvii.html&quot;&gt;arguing against the docetic teachings of Marcion&lt;/a&gt;, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now, not even to His apostles was His nature ever a matter of deception. He was truly both seen and heard upon the mount; true and real was the draught of that wine at the marriage of (Cana in) Galilee; true and real also was the touch of the then believing Thomas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that Thomas was called the twin seems not to have been important to the early Christians. John Chrysostom, for example, composed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.toc.html&quot;&gt;nearly 90 homilies on the Gospel of John&lt;/a&gt;, but never mentioned Thomas being called the twin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We simply do not have enough information to answer this question. Pope Benedict, in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16ChrstChrch19.htm&quot;&gt;reflection on Thomas&lt;/a&gt; in 2006, mentioned the etymology of the name but added, &quot;The reason for this nickname is unclear.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.olinrevelation.org/NewWebsite/TheApostleThomas.htm&quot;&gt;One recent speculation&lt;/a&gt; is that Thomas' name was not actually derived from the Aramaic word for twin, but sounded enough like it that it became a nickname.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Judea had long been part of the Seleucid Empire, and a very common Macedonian name was Ptolemy, which, in Aramaic, was rendered as Talmai or Talmais. That might explain why he was also known as Judas , which basically identified him as Judean; because there was a desire to make it clear that he was of Judaic rather than Greek descent. Note that Bartholomew, the name of the Apostle who may have traveled to India with Thomas after Jesus' crucifixion, is believed to derive from bar Talmai, meaning &quot;son of Ptolemy&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This explanation depends on the later texts that identify him as Judas Thomas, so it has not won much support.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.edgewoodpc.org/sermons/sermon042306.html&quot;&gt;At least one minister has suggested&lt;/a&gt; that in his doubts, Thomas is the twin of all of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, back to the question, who is Thomas’ twin? Could be me, could be you. Could be each of us and all of us together, as we summon the courage to doubt our doubts, as we read and study the gospel seeking answers to questions. Could be each of us and all of us together when we join the confession of faith: “My Lord and my God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T06:24:33.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15242" CreationDate="2013-03-28T07:10:29.563" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, what is &quot;to love God&quot;?&#xA;When you love God, probably you won't do things, which can harm him.&#xA;To love God really is so big love, that maybe is better to give you another example also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you love your kids, you'll try to please them, help them, protect them and so on. Some laws to protect children in your country are totally unnecessary. You need no laws. Because you're trying best as you can. You won't cause bodily injury, you won't let them without food. On the contrary, when your kids are for you just molecules stack, no laws in your country help. You will harm them and they will go to the foster family very soon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example, when you love you wife (or husband if you're woman), you won't rob her, maltreat her, abase her and so on. You'll give her everything you have, without some knowledge about quote: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love your neighbor as yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These laws become natural for you, without some knowledge about them. Because you can't know everything what Jesus and all the saints said, probably is better just love your God and love your neighbor best as you can, and each law will become natural for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3499" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T07:10:29.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15242" CreationDate="2013-03-28T12:01:24.173" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine was referring to the mind that has been &quot;conformed to God&quot; as described in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15172/reading-mere-christianity-and-having-a-hard-time-with-book-iii-chapter-12/15178#15178&quot;&gt;Reading &amp;quot;Mere Christianity&amp;quot; and having a hard time with book III, chapter 12&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is based on established doctrine, common to most denominational views, of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Sanctification&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sanctification&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Progressive sanctification&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Indeed, the more sanctified the person is, the more conformed he is&#xA;  to the image of his Savior, the more he must recoil against every lack&#xA;  of conformity to the holiness of God. The deeper his apprehension of&#xA;  the majesty of God, the greater the intensity of his love to God, the&#xA;  more persistent his yearning for the attainment of the prize of the&#xA;  high calling of God in Christ Jesus, the more conscious will he be of&#xA;  the gravity of the sin that remains and the more poignant will be his&#xA;  detestation of it....Was this not the effect in all the people of God&#xA;  as they came into closer proximity to the revelation of God’s&#xA;  holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of Sanctification has Scriptural support in Romans 6:22, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Corinthians 7:1, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 6:1, Hebrews 12:14, James 1:4, and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Th most clear Biblical passage, however, which directly answers your question is &lt;strong&gt;Romans 12&lt;/strong&gt;  (the following from the NASV) It starts by telling us to be conformed to God, and then expands on what a conformed mind produces for fruit, showing that a conformed mind does good, naturally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present&#xA;  your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is&#xA;  your spiritual service of worship.2And do not be conformed to this&#xA;  world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you&#xA;  may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable&#xA;  and perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think&#xA;  so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of&#xA;  faith.4For just as we have many members in one body and all the&#xA;  members do not have the same function,5so we, who are many, are one&#xA;  body in Christ, and individually members one of another.6Since we have&#xA;  gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to&#xA;  exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of&#xA;  his faith;7if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his&#xA;  teaching;8or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with&#xA;  liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with&#xA;  cheerfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference&#xA;  to one another in honor;11not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in&#xA;  spirit, serving the Lord;12rejoicing in hope, persevering in&#xA;  tribulation, devoted to prayer,13contributing to the needs of the&#xA;  saints, practicing hospitality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.15Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.16Be of the same&#xA;  mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with&#xA;  the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.17Never pay back evil&#xA;  for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.18If&#xA;  possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all&#xA;  men.19Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the&#xA;  wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,”&#xA;  says the Lord.20“BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS&#xA;  THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS&#xA;  ON HIS HEAD.”21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with&#xA;  good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It cannot be applied to the natural, sinful mind; only to the mind that has been conformed and the Christian that is in agreement with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:7-11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does&#xA;  not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do&#xA;  so,8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the&#xA;  Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of&#xA;  Christ, he does not belong to Him.10If Christ is in you, though the&#xA;  body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of&#xA;  righteousness.11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the&#xA;  dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also&#xA;  give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T12:17:47.520" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15246" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15247" CreationDate="2013-03-28T12:18:45.953" Score="4" ViewCount="261" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:21 reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put all things to the test: keep what is good [&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+5%3A21&amp;amp;version=GNT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;GNT&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prove all things; hold fast that which is good [&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+5%3A21&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;KJV&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is &amp;quot;all things&amp;quot; here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1992" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-12-16T03:21:46.803" Title="What are &quot;all things&quot; in &quot;Let all things be tested, keep to what is good&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;1-thessalonians&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15246" CreationDate="2013-03-28T13:08:25.083" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It continues verse 20; the entire statement is: &quot;Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would interpret this to mean that we are specifically dealing with prophets and prophecy here. When someone prophesies, we are not to outright reject them but to test the prophecy. If is is from God we should never let it go. If it is merely the words of a person speaking in place of God, we must ignore them entirely (Jeremiah 23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also see 1 John 4:1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 14:22:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T13:08:25.083" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15249" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15250" CreationDate="2013-03-28T16:14:09.357" Score="10" ViewCount="14136" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw a post recently asserting that LDS missionaries are specifically instructed to stay away from bodies of water and are discouraged from swimming at all.  I had never heard anything like this before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this true?  If it is, is it just applicable while a person is serving as a missionary?  What is the basis for this instruction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-03-28T16:19:22.990" LastActivityDate="2018-06-08T18:13:19.363" Title="Why are LDS missionaries instructed to stay away from bodies of water?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15249" CreationDate="2013-03-28T17:03:25.290" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;LDS missionaries are instructed to not go swimming. Commonly, this idea is misunderstood to be for the entire Mormon population, which is untrue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That interpretation is &quot;Mormonlore&quot; which, I believe, spawns from a careless reading of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/61.3-6#2&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 61&lt;/a&gt; (also see the section heading):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 But verily I say unto you, that it is not needful for this whole&#xA;  company of mine elders to be moving swiftly upon the waters, whilst&#xA;  the inhabitants on either side are perishing in unbelief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Nevertheless, I suffered it that ye might bear record; behold,&#xA;  there are many dangers upon the waters, and more especially hereafter;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 For I, the Lord, have decreed in mine anger many destructions upon&#xA;  the waters; yea, and especially upon these waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Nevertheless, all flesh is in mine hand, and he that is faithful&#xA;  among you shall not perish by the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context is that of early missionaries traveling by boat to their assigned areas of labor. Here the Lord is reminding them that they ought not pass by all the people along the river on their way up, and that instead they should go preach to them on the way. This is not unlike missionaries today who drive from appointment to appointment... most are encouraged to stop and talk to people along the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later in the section:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Behold, I, the Lord, in the beginning blessed the waters; but in&#xA;  the last days, by the mouth of my servant John, I cursed the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Wherefore, the days will come that no flesh shall be safe upon the&#xA;  waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 And it shall be said in days to come that none is able to go up to&#xA;  the land of Zion upon the waters, but he that is upright in heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Doctrine and Covenents has a footnote in these verses to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/8.10.8-11?lang=eng#9&quot;&gt;Rev. 8:10 (8–11)&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So really, this is only repeating what is already in the Bible, that the waters will be a means of scourge before the Jesus' second coming, except to those people who are righteous which will be spared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no teaching in the LDS church that says, &quot;You shouldn't go swimming.&quot; Yes, they preach modesty even in swimming suits as much as possible and practical, but this isn't to say that swimming is evil or anything of the sort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Missionaries are given particular instruction to not swim as it isn't consistent with the nature of their call, and there have been accidents -- and the Church doesn't want to have to deal with those issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside, and perhaps an interesting corollary, there is the incident with Zion's Camp which happened a couple years after this revelation was received, which typifies the power of God, especially related to these promises given here about destruction with the waters, and protecting His servants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ChrchHstryInst32502000/Chapters/ChrchHstryInst32502000_15.pdf&quot;&gt;Church History Institute Manual, Chapter 12, &quot;Zion's Camp&quot;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Instead of reaching their intended destination of Liberty, they camped&#xA;  just inside Clay County on a hill between two branches of the Fishing&#xA;  River. When Joseph learned that mobs were preparing to attack, he&#xA;  knelt and prayed again for divine protection. Joseph’s fears were&#xA;  confirmed when five armed Missourians rode into camp, cursing, and&#xA;  swore that the Mormons would “see hell before morning.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They boasted&#xA;  that nearly four hundred men had joined forces from Ray, Lafayette,&#xA;  Clay, and Jackson counties and were then preparing to cross the&#xA;  Missouri River at Williams Ferry and “utterly destroy the Mormons.”&#xA;  Sounds of gunfire were heard, and some of the men wanted to fight, but&#xA;  the Prophet promised that the Lord would protect them. He declared,&#xA;  “Stand still and see the salvation of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A few minutes after the&#xA;  Missourians left, a small black cloud appeared in the clear western&#xA;  sky. It moved eastward, unrolling like a scroll, filling the heavens&#xA;  with darkness. As the first ferry load of mobbers crossed the Missouri&#xA;  River to the south, a sudden squall made it nearly impossible for the&#xA;  boat to return to pick up another load. The storm was so intense that&#xA;  Zion’s Camp abandoned their tents and found shelter in an old Baptist&#xA;  meetinghouse nearby. When Joseph Smith came in, he exclaimed, “Boys,&#xA;  there is some meaning to this. God is in this storm.” It was&#xA;  impossible for anyone to sleep, so the group sang hymns and rested on&#xA;  the rough benches. One camp member recorded that “during this time the&#xA;  whole canopy of the wide horizen was in one complete blaze with&#xA;  terrifying claps of thunder.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Elsewhere the beleaguered mobbers&#xA;  sought any refuge they could. The furious storm broke branches from&#xA;  trees and destroyed crops. It soaked and made the mobbers’ ammunition&#xA;  useless, frightened and scattered their horses, and raised the level&#xA;  of the Fishing River [30 feet], preventing them from attacking Zion’s Camp. The&#xA;  Prophet recalled, “It seemed as if the mandate of vengeance had gone&#xA;  forth from the God of battles, to protect His servants from the&#xA;  destruction of their enemies.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole chapter is interesting history. &lt;a href=&quot;http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=9b93da73c0b52010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&quot;&gt;See this for more information.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-03-28T17:15:21.013" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T17:15:21.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15237" CreationDate="2013-03-28T18:53:33.013" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is tied to the Sacrament, if you take a look at the rules for obtaining an annulment (which declares that a sacramental union does not exist).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the acceptable cases to have an annulment granted is if consummation never took place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4225" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T18:53:33.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14914" CreationDate="2013-03-28T18:57:28.997" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholicism teaches that we were in a perpetual state of grace and &quot;did something&quot; that opposed God's commands, which took us out of that state of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest is just footnotes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Catholics, we subscribe to the notion that much of the early Old Testament is not a literal &quot;this happened, then that happened&quot; scenario. Genesis is a prime example of where we believe the specifics of the creation stories and the &quot;Fall&quot; are irrelevant to the Theology that is being expressed within.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that being said, we really don't concern ourselves with the specifics, other than to say we strongly doubt there was a literal tree, a literal apple, etc. The Theology being expressed within, however, is a different matter. That Theology suggests that there was a time immediately following our creation when Humanity lived in an idyllic state and were close to God (in the &quot;I can see God face-to-face&quot; kind of close). Faith was not a requirement, because we could see and interact with God. In other words, belief was not in question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Flash forward to some point after creation. We voluntarily chose evil over good. The specifics of what we chose and how we chose it don't really matter (to Catholics). The &quot;take away&quot; is that we did something that God asked us not to do. This &quot;something&quot; was so fundamental and so &quot;essence-changing&quot; that it was simply impossible for us to live in that idyllic state of being any longer. We suddenly found ourselves in a less-than-idyllic state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Catholics, that is the essence of Original Sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;References&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia - &lt;em&gt;Original sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;; specifically read the section &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#VI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Nature of Original Sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#390&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Official Catechism of Catholic Church - &lt;em&gt;How to Read the Account of the Fall&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4225" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-07-17T14:10:15.010" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T14:10:15.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15221" CreationDate="2013-03-28T20:09:14.290" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church has always upheld the State's right to protect its citizens, so my take on it is yes, life sentences are in accord as long as that is truly what is required to protect the people. Each specific case has to be considered individually, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Edit]&#xA;I've done some research in an attempt to find sources. Here is an interesting one:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://socialjusticereview.org/articles/capital-punishment-and-the-constancy-of-catholic-social-teaching&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Social Teaching and Capital Punishment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;True, this is Capital Punishment centric, but some of the themes expressed hold, I believe. For example, you'll find expression that the state has not only the right, but the &lt;em&gt;duty&lt;/em&gt; to protect its citizens. It goes on to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means. . . &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since a life sentence in prison is a &quot;non-lethal&quot; mean by which to protect the citizenry, then it follows it is not only acceptable, but preferable to Capital Punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I doubt you'll find a document that says &quot;Life sentences are OK&quot; or &quot;Life sentences are not OK&quot;. It's more an inductive approach to deciphering the social teachings, as many of the social teachings are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4225" LastEditorUserId="4225" LastEditDate="2013-03-29T20:13:56.803" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T20:13:56.803" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15174" CreationDate="2013-03-28T20:11:52.427" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This will sound flippant, but it isn't meant to be, so please forgive me. Any Catholic who attends mass believes in modern miracles, because that Catholic would believe, by definition, in the miracle of Transubstantiation, through which the bread and wine become the &lt;em&gt;literal&lt;/em&gt; body and blood of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4225" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T20:11:52.427" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15174" CreationDate="2013-03-28T20:44:23.810" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Based on ... err ... &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15174/do-catholics-really-believe-in-contemporary-miracles/15255?noredirect=1#comment37061_15174&quot;&gt;recent research&lt;/a&gt; ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;At least 3 of them.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T20:56:26.147" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15174" CreationDate="2013-03-28T21:09:12.160" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the wikipedia on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Religion in the United States&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A late 2009 online Harris poll of 2,303 U.S. adults (18 and older)[59]&#xA;  found that &quot;82% of adult Americans believe in God&quot;, the same number as&#xA;  in two earlier polls in 2005 and 2007. Another 9% said they did not&#xA;  believe in God, and 9% said that they were not sure. It further&#xA;  concluded, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Large majorities also believe in miracles (76%)&lt;/strong&gt;, heaven&#xA;  (75%), &lt;strong&gt;that Jesus is God or the Son of God (73%)&lt;/strong&gt;, in angels (72%), the&#xA;  survival of the soul after death (71%), and in the resurrection of&#xA;  Jesus (70%). Less than half (45%) of adults believe in Darwin's theory&#xA;  of evolution but this is more than the 40% who believe in&#xA;  creationism..... Many people consider themselves Christians without&#xA;  necessarily believing in some of the key beliefs of Christianity.&#xA;  However, this is not true of born-again Christians. In addition to&#xA;  their religious beliefs, large minorities of adults, including many&#xA;  Christians, have &quot;pagan&quot; or pre-Christian beliefs such as a belief in&#xA;  ghosts, astrology, witches and reincarnation.... Because the sample is&#xA;  based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive&#xA;  panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris_Poll_2009_12_15.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the actual poll&lt;/a&gt;, which was conducted at the end of 2009.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;To = Total&#xA;Ca = Catholic&#xA;Pr = Protestant&#xA;Jw = Jewish&#xA;BA = Born-AgainChristian&#xA;                                                    To Ca Pr Jw BA&#xA;                                                    %  %  %  %  %&#xA;God                                                 82 94 92 79 97&#xA;=&amp;gt; Miracles &amp;lt;=                                   =&amp;gt; 76 81 87 63 95 &amp;lt;=&#xA;Heaven                                              75 86 90 48 97&#xA;Jesus is God or the Son of God                      73 90 91  6 97&#xA;Angels                                              72 83 88 36 95&#xA;Survival of the soul after death                    71 82 85 37 91&#xA;The resurrection of Jesus Christ                    70 87 88  5 97&#xA;Hell                                                61 70 73 21 89&#xA;The Virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary)               61 74 79  5 92&#xA;The Devil                                           60 69 77  7 89&#xA;Darwin’s theory of evolution                        45 51 32 80 16&#xA;Ghosts                                              42 44 33 10 37&#xA;Creationism                                         40 37 56 20 68&#xA;UFOs                                                32 32 26 20 25&#xA;Astrology                                           26 26 20 19 21&#xA;Witches                                             23 22 23  8 27&#xA;Reincarnation – that you were once another person   20 19 13 18 14&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the answer, if America is any representation of the whole, is &lt;strong&gt;81%&lt;/strong&gt; of Catholic [in America] believe in miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Having not investigated the polling methods, I can't speak with any authority as to whether the numbers are accurate. Now can I say by what criteria the pollsters categorized people as &lt;em&gt;Catholic&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;believing in miracles&lt;/em&gt;. My suspicion is that they were direct questions. And for what it's worth, most folks who I would say &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;used&lt;/strong&gt; to be Catholic&lt;/em&gt; would probably self-identify as Catholic.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-03-28T21:16:12.067" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T21:16:12.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14752" CreationDate="2013-03-28T22:14:35.557" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;We need to remember that our human reasoning is flawed.  This is because we are fallen beings--not only is our mind much less than perfect due to God's curse on creation in Genesis 3, but we are also sinful, which often corrupts our thinking patterns.  Paul warned in Colossians 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when Peter declared that Jesus was &quot;the Christ, the Son of the living God&quot;, Jesus answered,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so we need to be careful not to get overly wrapped up in human logic, philosophy, and reasoning.  Rather, for those who are saved, God has revealed the truth of His gospel through Christ, as He did to Peter in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4240" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T22:14:35.557" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14467" CreationDate="2013-03-28T22:27:39.270" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's what the end of Isaiah says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation says that God will wipe all tears from our eyes.  Perhaps we as Christians will weep greatly after seeing the terrible punishment for our lost loved ones.  However, God will wipe away our tears, and cause us to forget our sorrow.  Here's a verse in Psalm 126:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the LORD turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream. &#xA;  Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing: then said they among the heathen, The LORD hath done great things for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope you will repent and turn to Christ before it is too late.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4240" LastActivityDate="2013-03-28T22:27:39.270" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15211" CreationDate="2013-03-28T22:34:04.617" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 13:4&lt;/a&gt;, Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he [government] beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The government is thinking of the good of its population when executing capital punishment.  This is supported with statistics as well:  &lt;strong&gt;About 71 lives are saved&lt;/strong&gt; for the execution of every murderer during the year (I read this in a paper--the source was &lt;a href=&quot;http://ideas.repec.org/p/usg/econwp/201115.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kirchgässner, Gebhard. &lt;em&gt;Econometric Estimates of Deterrence of the Death Penalty: Facts or Ideology?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, p. 448).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Capital punishment actually saves lives--the way God intended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4240" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-29T02:11:44.670" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T02:11:44.670" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15263" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15282" CreationDate="2013-03-29T00:43:32.900" Score="6" ViewCount="3546" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm aware that there are credible historical texts that reference Jesus and His general path, independent of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I'm curious to know, do any of those specifically describe the miracles performed by Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any independent established sources that mention the miracles performed and the people He performed them on?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T07:00:35.050" Title="Do any independent sources exist mentioning Jesus' miracles performed and the people He performed them on?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15265" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15283" CreationDate="2013-03-29T02:51:14.600" Score="7" ViewCount="1619" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to apologize ahead if my questions sound disrespectful to anybody. This isn't my intent. I grew up in East Asia which has very few Christians, but I have been very interested in the history of Christianity and the content of Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have trouble understanding the persecution of Jews by Christians in Middle Ages. According to the Old Testament, Hebrews/Israelites are the &quot;Chosen People&quot; of God. The whole Old Testament is about how Jews struggled to find their land of promised. Isn't it against God's will, to persecute Jews? How did Middle Age Christians manage to explain these from theological point of view?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another related question is, Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It didn't make a lot of sense to me, that Middle Age Christians would treat texts written in the language used by people they didn't like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not trying to offend anybody. I have no doubt that modern Christians don't hate Jews. I just have trouble understanding how Middle Age Christians explained what they did in theological point of view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;English is not my native language, and I have been self-studying Bible. My knowledge could have serious defects and my terminologies could be way off. I would appreciate if you guys can bear with me, and help me understand the history and the Bible better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4242" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-08-04T21:40:30.613" LastActivityDate="2017-08-04T21:40:30.613" Title="Persecution of Jewish people by Christians in Middle Ages?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;persecution&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15266" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15274" CreationDate="2013-03-29T02:57:32.433" Score="2" ViewCount="841" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have trouble understanding how the Romans converted to Christianity. In the Bible, the Romans weren't portrayed very nicely. For example, Herod the Great did quite a lot of awful things. Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers. The Bible obviously seems to portray the Romans as the enemy of the Chosen People of God. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the Romans could still become Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[I want to apologize ahead if my questions sound disrespectful to anybody. This isn't my intent. I grew up in East Asia which has very few Christians. I have been studying the Bible on my own. My knowledge could have serious defects and my terminologies could be way off. I would appreciate if you guys can bear with me, and help me understand the history and the Bible better.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4242" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-05-14T13:06:02.443" LastActivityDate="2016-05-14T13:06:02.443" Title="Conversion of the Romans and the Bible's Portrayal of the Romans" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;rome&gt;&lt;herod&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-04-11T21:22:13.617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15267" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15296" CreationDate="2013-03-29T03:02:38.217" Score="18" ViewCount="8732" Body="&lt;p&gt;At what point did Judaism and Christianity diverge? Christianity and Judaism share the Old Testament (The Hebrew Bible), so it should be safe to assume they are the same people at least during the Old Testament period. Since when did they disagree?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4242" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T18:50:20.320" LastActivityDate="2017-08-19T11:07:44.640" Title="At what point did Judaism and Christianity diverge?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15268" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15272" CreationDate="2013-03-29T03:08:22.253" Score="15" ViewCount="32478" Body="&lt;p&gt;New Testament was written in Greek. But Jesus lived in Israel and was supposed to be the next King of Israel. I think it is probably fair to assume that he and his twelve apostles spoke Hebrew. Then why would the New Testament be written in Greek? I would think at least the Gospels part would be written in Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4242" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-28T22:48:03.830" LastActivityDate="2015-09-28T22:48:03.830" Title="Why was the New Testament Written in Greek?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;greek&gt;&lt;biblical-languages&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15267" CreationDate="2013-03-29T03:54:35.637" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's fairly straightforward.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Himself was Jewish.  The divergence came from Him.  Whether it was at His death, burial, and resurrection, immediately afterward, or when He began His ministry is up to interpretation and debate, but it was Jesus, and the New testament (New Covenant) established by Him that marked the split.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who recognized Jesus as the promised Messiah were the first Christians.  Perhaps they could have been considered Messianic Jews, but since Christianity is defined as following Christ, following Him is the logical determining factor as to whether or not one is a Christian.  Jews who followed him were, for all intents and purposes, the first Christians, and that's where the divergence lies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T03:54:35.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15267" CreationDate="2013-03-29T04:53:59.823" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As David has pointed out, but without detail, the division was with Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. There was nothing that could be called Christianity before Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the last three years of His life Jesus gained many followers, however, he never made any deliberate attempt to divide the Jewish faith, nor change it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt 5:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are Jesus' own words. He was claiming that the Law (the ancient Hebrew texts) was not to be removed by his coming, but to be uplifted and proven and fulfilled. Jesus was claiming to be a fulfillment of prophecy. The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) detail Jesus' ministry during the last three years of his life, where he attempted to fulfill Jewish prophecy as the Messiah or the Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Jews of the time rejected Jesus and had Him executed, but that was part of the prophecies. He was disgraced and his followers dispersed. This is also detailed in the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, however, Jesus' disciples and a few other persons began claiming to have seen Jesus alive. Not alive in that He actually survived execution, but alive in that God had raised Him from the dead and glorified Him. Over the course of a short time many more claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus until He ascended into heaven 40 days (I think) after His resurrection. This too is detailed in the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most theologians would say that it is was this point that Christianity split from Judaism. There were still many Jews who would not believe the resurrection, therefore, there was nothing miraculous about Jesus, but many others did believe, therefore, He became known as the Messiah and the Christ, the One who fulfilled prophecy. Secular historians must neglect the resurrection as fact, however, they do not neglect that Christianity was recognized as from Judaism but different and distinct from Judaism quite early; most estimate that Christianity was well established as a separate religion before AD 200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible the word Christian, which means literally 'small Christ' and means figuratively 'strives to be like Christ', was used very soon after the Resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Acts 11:26&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Acts was written to cover the events immediately after the Resurrection to show how Christianity came to be such a large movement then, which continues today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Originally, Christianity, as taught by Christ (Jesus), was meant to support and augment Judaism. The Christ came to fulfill the Law. Christianity became something separate from Judaism very shortly after Jesus' Resurrection. The disagreement was whether He was the Christ or not. Christians believe He is and the Jews believe He was not. Because there were many on both sides the two factions were made. The factions persist today for the same reasons, generally speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-03-29T05:15:13.217" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T05:15:13.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15268" CreationDate="2013-03-29T05:10:46.150" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, actually, it was very likely that Jesus and His followers spoke no fewer than these three languages: Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8456/what-language-did-jesus-speak?rq=1&quot;&gt;What language did Jesus speak?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic was the primary language of the land, Greek was the language of business, education, and for communication with foreigners (because it was a wide-spread language), and Hebrew was the religious language of the Jews and was primarily reserved for prayers, religious teaching, and communication with other Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But why did they choose Greek? Well, first, we don't have the originals of any of the texts, but it is likely that most were written in Greek, however, there is some debate over a few of the books, just for your information. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary reason would be portability. Greek was a very wide-spread language. Hebrew and Aramaic were not. Further, after Peter had an encounter with Gentiles that had him declare that the message of Christ's resurrection was for the Gentile too, it became an international matter that all hear the Good News.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;48 So he ordered that they [Gentiles] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 10:48&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greek was the language that made sense. It was wide-spread, it was for the foreigner, and the Jew knew it as well. Greek was the language that would affect the most people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T05:10:46.150" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15273" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15276" CreationDate="2013-03-29T06:03:00.360" Score="5" ViewCount="599" Body="&lt;p&gt;Word &amp;quot;god&amp;quot;  in Bible is not always interpreted as idols but sometimes they are depicted as humans like in these following verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ex. 12:12 I will pass through the land of Egypt in the same night, and I will attack all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of humans and of animals, and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. I am the LORD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Num. 33:4 Now the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had killed among them; the LORD also executed judgments on their gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who are these humans gods that people were worshipping. Anywhere any names of these gods  are mentioned in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T23:50:42.643" Title="Were humans worshipped as gods in Biblical times?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15266" CreationDate="2013-03-29T06:27:35.530" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;You seem to have a basic confusion over who are the ‘good people’ in the Bible. &lt;strong&gt;The Bible declares all are equally bound up under sin and are equally guilty before God.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, all require salvation by Christ who personally died for the penalty of their sin.  In this sense the more wicked you are, the greater candidate you are for Christianity. The blood of Christ brings peace between sinners and God by his free loving kindness not by collecting the good people together, but by forgiving and collecting the bad people together by salvation. Salvation is not at all dependent upon any good behavior or lack of animosity on the part of those who are converted to Christ by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 3:10–12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also seem to think the Bible had a long-term view of treating the Jews as ‘God’s people’ as though he was not always planning to include the entire world into his salvation. &lt;strong&gt;God is not a racist. God planned to save the world by calling one physical race, from which a Messiah would be born, in order that the whole world might be offered salvation.&lt;/strong&gt; Right from the beginning God called Abraham in order that through his seed, (i.e. the Christ) Abraham would be the genealogical source of a ‘blessing to many nations’. The fact that the non Jewish world has accepted the Jewish Messiah, vindicates that Jesus is how Abraham became a source of blessing to the world. There has been no other 'Jewish religion' received by the world. Only this one by faith in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ. This is miraculous that what happened was predicted to occur so long ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ge 26:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The basic idea to Christianity is that Jesus was the long awaited ‘Jewish Messiah’ to extend the Jewish religion to the entire world.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore the good people are the sinners who have taken hold of this Savior, who forgives and frees them from their sins, through his dying love. This includes Jews, Romans, Chinese, etc. In this sense a Jew (a person separated to God) is not a Jew according to race but is a Jew inwardly, according to faith in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.  But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ro 2:28–29))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Basically race and moral dispositions have no relevance to our candidacy for Christianity. The only qualification is that we recognize we are all sinners and have faith that Christ died for our sins.  The Romans were ideal candidates as they were clearly a wicked and violent part of human history. They were just the type of people God has great joy in forgiving, saving and making holy. We are also just that type.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-29T06:32:47.883" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T06:32:47.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15268" CreationDate="2013-03-29T07:12:03.223" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But Jesus lived in Israel and was supposed to be the next King of Israel. ... Then why would the new testament be written in Greek?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There would be no special spiritual connection with Hebrew in particular; Christ did not come to reign over Israel. Christ is the King of Kings, and He rules over all the earth and heaven. He came for our salvation, to die a horrible death on the cross. His status as King of Israel was only &quot;formally&quot; recognized by Pilate, who had these words attached to the cross above Christ's head, in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;INRI&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/19/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 19:19-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The authors of the New Testament were not really trying to write scripture. St Paul's letters were exactly that: letters that he sent to other diocese. For the most part, the various authors were simply telling what they had heard, or what had been passed down to them. Later, these works came to be recognized as scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greek was the language everyone spoke at the time. Even the Jews spoke Greek, and most Jews could not actually read Hebrew. The Letter to the Hebrews, directed to Jewish Christians, has Greek that &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;is in many ways the best in the New Testament&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Matthew might have originally been written in Aramaic. Muslims might have a problem with something like the Koran not being written in Arabic (it is supposed to be the &lt;em&gt;literal&lt;/em&gt; word of God). But Christians do not see a problem with the New Testament not having been written in Hebrew. It is the Gospel, not the language, that matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So major parts of the New Testament were written in Greek and not Hebrew because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrew was not considered a &quot;Sacred Language&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The authors were not trying to write scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Greek was (only incidentally) the most popular language of the time, so it turned out to be the primary language the authors used&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-09-10T23:37:25.613" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T23:37:25.613" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15273" CreationDate="2013-03-29T07:41:55.603" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the word 'gods' here can also mean the kings and lords. That would be a question for &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is widely believed among Egyptologists that the Pharaoh was considered a god-king of sorts and a descendant of Ra, an Egyptian deity. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra#Worship&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source 1&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/ra.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source 2&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not know of any other place where &lt;em&gt;these&lt;/em&gt; gods are mentioned again in the Bible. The closest, similar event I can think of is Nebuchadnezzar in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 3&lt;/a&gt; creating an image of gold and decreeing that all worship it. Some have argued that it was a statue in Nebuchadnezzar's likeness, although, the Bible says no such thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, after reading a few books on the topic of &lt;em&gt;pagan&lt;/em&gt; worship at the time of Christ, emperor worship was somewhat common. Everything from Augustus building up the Imperial Cult, where he was prayed to and &quot;worshiped&quot;, however casually, to the Candace of Kush (modern Ethopia) ruling by divine right as the incarnate god. This timeline, though, is about 1500 years after Ramases. Still, the Egyptians had many gods they worshiped, including the Pharaoh, and these verses likely are referring to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T23:50:42.643" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15267" CreationDate="2013-03-29T07:49:56.417" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the view of those who follow Christ, Christianity is a continuation and fulfillment of the Judaism of the Old Testament. A certain part of Judaism diverged from that lineage most prominently at about noon on the day Jesus was crucified:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/john/19/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 19:14-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; It was preparation day for Passover, and it was about noon. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your king!”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; They cried out, “Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your king?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.”&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many other Jews, however, did recognize and follow the awaited Messiah. For example, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Letter to the Hebrews&lt;/a&gt; was directed to Jewish Christians. This is what the word &quot;Christ&quot; means: Messiah. So &quot;Messianic Judaism&quot; is effectively just &quot;Christianity&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, the point at which this divergence occurred was the moment when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, or when the first or last of the various Messianic Prophecies was fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:32:57.063" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:32:57.063" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15273" CreationDate="2013-03-29T10:52:30.237" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the Egyptians did treat pharaoh as a living human god and his first born their next god. The verses as best I see primarily refers to the false gods &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_deities&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ra and the like&lt;/a&gt;. Each of the plagues were executed against a particular Egyptian deity. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;. Especially the turning of the Nile into blood because many of their gods were connected to the Nile. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_deities&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exo 7:17  Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exo 7:18  And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T10:52:30.237" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15263" CreationDate="2013-03-29T11:39:28.223" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Quran mentions miracles they believe he performed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“When the disciples said: O Jesus, son of Mary!  Is your Lord able to&#xA;  send down for us a table spread with food from heaven?  He said:&#xA;  Observe your duty to God, if ye are true believers.  They said: We&#xA;  desire to eat of it and our hearts be at rest, and that We may know&#xA;  that you have spoken truth to us, and that We may be witnesses&#xA;  thereof.  Jesus, son of Mary, said: 'O God, our Lord, send down for us&#xA;  a Table laden with food out of heaven, that shall be for us a&#xA;  recurring festival, the first and last of us, and a miracle from You. &#xA;  And provide us our sustenance, for You are the best of providers!”&#xA;  (Quran 5:112-114)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also Josephus, a very early Jewish historian, mentions his miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;'s translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to&#xA;  call Him man; &lt;strong&gt;for He was a worker of astonishing deeds&lt;/strong&gt;, a teacher of&#xA;  such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many&#xA;  Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at&#xA;  the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned&#xA;  Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him&#xA;  (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy&#xA;  prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.)&#xA;  The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; gives the following translation of that passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to&#xA;  call him a man; &lt;strong&gt;for he was a doer of wonderful works&lt;/strong&gt;, a teacher of&#xA;  such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both&#xA;  many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And&#xA;  when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had&#xA;  condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not&#xA;  forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the&#xA;  divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful&#xA;  things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him,&#xA;  are not extinct at this day.[50]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the only non canonical accounts of his miracles that I'm aware of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-03-29T19:26:49.130" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T19:26:49.130" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15263" CreationDate="2013-03-29T13:11:09.063" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius&quot;&gt;Eusebius&lt;/a&gt; in the third century wrote against &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus&quot;&gt;Celsus&lt;/a&gt;'s second century attack on Christianity (which only survives today in quotations from Eusebius). Celsus claims Jesus performed miracles by sorcery. He seems to accept that Jesus did perform miracles, he just disputes the source of Jesus' power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Talmud also calls Him a sorcerer: &quot;The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Sanhedrin 107b&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know how early (or late) the dates are on the Talmudic references, so I don't know if they're affirming that He did perform miracles based on reliable testimony (that they actually know He did) or if it's just a reaction to the Christians' claim, in which case they chose to accept the testimony of the Christians concerning His acts but they deny that He is divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we accept Jesus' resurrection as one of His miracles, there is a bit more. The Gospel of the Hebrews mentions it (second century work, I believe; not certain we can claim it's an independent source) and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr&quot;&gt;Justin Martyr&lt;/a&gt; (second century) in his &lt;em&gt;Dialogue with Trypho&lt;/em&gt; wrote that the Jewish leaders were still claiming the disciples stole the body in his day (which means they affirmed the tomb was empty).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T13:11:09.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15265" CreationDate="2013-03-29T13:47:43.513" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an important question. While we today &lt;em&gt;decisively reject&lt;/em&gt; the terrible things that people in the past thought and did, we should not shy away from recognizing what they did and why. And as Christians we must be honest about the role of religion and the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Middle Ages&quot; covers a thousand years and the whole of Europe - and Jewish life varied considerably in different times and places - so this is going to be a bit general. If there are specific things you'd like to know more about, please do ask more questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the arguments used to justify antisemitism at the time are the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Supersession&lt;/em&gt;. The mantle of 'the chosen people' passed to Christians, and the old covenant has been superseded by the new. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christ-killing&lt;/em&gt;. The Jews were held collectively responsible for the death of Jesus: his blood was on their heads. This is related to supersession, because it shows the covenant being broken.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;General heresy&lt;/em&gt;. Anyone who did not share the Christian faith was not truly part of the community. This was used to justify various restrictions on holding public office, receiving university education, entering into mixed marriage, owning property, testifying in court, entering into contracts, etc. In addition it was common to think that Jewish people were particularly devious and untrustworthy, more so than regular Christian heretics.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Usury&lt;/em&gt;. New Testament prohibitions on usury were invoked as a sign of Jews being evil (exploitative of &quot;honest Christian folk&quot;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Evil magic&lt;/em&gt;. Again related to Christ-killing and general mistrust, some thought that Jewish people were in league with the devil, who granted them magical powers which they used to the ruin of the local community - especially by spreading disease. The infamous blood libel (that they murdered and ate Christian babies) was seen as a Satanic parody of the Eucharist. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, the basic theological root is the idea that by rejecting Jesus, the old covenant was abrogated and the Jews were no longer the chosen people. However, medieval antisemitism is not just about theology: it also has a lot to do with not liking people who are different. There is also a tremendously important political and economic angle. It would be too simplistic to say that the religious or political establishment was solely responsible, or that it was all about popular prejudice. These aspects all strengthened and supported each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, you also wanted to know about the Old Testament being written in Hebrew. This is true. But there was a long period when knowledge of the language was pretty scanty - certainly among everyday clergy. The standard circulating text was in Latin, which was also the language of liturgy, scholarship, law, and public administration. The Greek &quot;Septuagint&quot; was also important - again, though, a bit more specialised. Most people would not have encountered any Hebrew text. But even for those who did, the idea of succession of covenants allowed them to receive the Old Testament scripture as part of &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; patrimony. They could praise the great virtue of Abraham, Moses, or David, even speaking in glowing terms of the magnificence of the Temple and the detail of Jewish religious life, while still rejecting Jewish people who were born in years AD instead of BC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2014-09-22T14:42:38.067" LastActivityDate="2014-09-22T14:42:38.067" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15285" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15288" CreationDate="2013-03-29T15:51:26.453" Score="10" ViewCount="6352" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 10, Jesus is instructing his disciples, whom he is sending out to preach to the children of Israel as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to &quot;let your peace rest on it&quot;, and even more curiously, how would one let his peace return to him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-13T01:48:43.973" LastActivityDate="2017-01-12T06:25:23.283" Title="What is &quot;your peace&quot; in Matthew 10?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-12T21:06:22.080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12268" CreationDate="2013-03-29T16:29:52.613" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In most ancient cultures, the letters of the alphabet doubled as numbers. The best known example today is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Roman numerals&lt;/a&gt;. The Hebrew alphabet had &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vic.australis.com.au/hazz/HebrewIntroduction.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;its own numeric encoding&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason Matthew chose 14 is simple: &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_the_word_DVD_David_in_Hebrew_makes_the_number_14.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;14 is the sum of the letters of David's name&lt;/a&gt;. Matthew is tracing Jesus' genealogy to show he is the heir of David; by dividing the genealogy into groups of 14, Matthew is simply reinforcing this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T16:29:52.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15285" CreationDate="2013-03-29T16:31:37.623" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is referring to the common salutation among Jews, שלום עליך (&lt;em&gt;shalom aleikha&lt;/em&gt;) if greeting a singular male, or שלום עליכם (&lt;em&gt;shalom aleikhem&lt;/em&gt;) if greeting a group of people (with at least one male). It means, &quot;Peace be upon you&quot; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=3Jo&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=14&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3 John 1:14&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, we find the Greek verb ἀσπάζομαι (&lt;em&gt;aspazomai&lt;/em&gt;), meaning &quot;to greet someone.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, he is simply saying that the peace (שלום) will indeed come to that person/ home if they are deserving of it (in their treatment of the apostles), or it will not (it will return to the apostles whom spoke it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-11-12T22:44:35.960" LastActivityDate="2015-11-12T22:44:35.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15285" CreationDate="2013-03-29T17:06:22.530" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;A similar passage in Luke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/10/5&quot;&gt;Luke 10:5-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  5 Into whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this household.’&#xA;  6 If a peaceful person lives there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mk/6:8&quot;&gt;Mark 6:8&lt;/a&gt; . Here is the whole passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/10/12&quot;&gt;Matthew 10:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  12 As you enter a house, wish it peace.&#xA;  13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you.*&#xA;  14 Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The note says: &quot;The greeting of peace is conceived of not merely as a salutation but as an effective word. If it finds no worthy recipient, it will return to the speaker.&quot; Consider what happened after St Paul and St Barnabas were driven out of a city, and shook the dusk from their feet:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/13:51&quot;&gt;Acts 13:51&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  51 So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.&#xA;  52 The disciples were filled with joy and the holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/lk/2:14&quot;&gt;Luke 2:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  14 “Glory to God in the highest&#xA;  and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peace is effectively a blessing, the favor of the Lord. If the blessing finds no worthy recipient, it will fall back on those who gave it. Those who St Paul and St Barnabas gave peace to would not have that peace, so the peace of the Lord fell back on the two men, and they were &quot;filled with joy and the holy Spirit&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T17:06:22.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15289" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15056" CreationDate="2013-03-29T18:11:24.113" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is timeless. He is not constrained or bound by time, so to him the future and the past are &quot;happening&quot; with the present. His purpose and plan are also incomprehensible to fallible man. Each Christian has his duty to spread the Gospel, regardless of whether or not they're living in a time of great supernatural action or not. God is always acting in the world, but most of it goes unnoticed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T18:11:24.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14769" CreationDate="2013-03-29T18:56:14.063" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard to know for certain, but there are very good reasons to believe all four gospels were written in Greek. However, according to the earliest Christian tradition, Matthew was written in Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Papias, an early second century bishop and a disciple of the Apostle John, is our earliest witness to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the tradition that Matthew was the author of this gospel&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;elaborated on this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All four gospels were originally published anonymously, and it is only through the testimony of these two second century bishops that we attribute this gospel to Matthew. If we take their testimony at face value, then we might say the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Parallels between Matthew and Mark&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Gospel of Matthew in its current form—that is, the one that appears in every copy of the New Testament going back to the oldest surviving copies—was almost certainly written in Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Dick Harfield mentions in his answer, we find close parallels between Matthew and Mark in several places. In this example from the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8 || Mark 9:2-8) I have &lt;strong&gt;bolded&lt;/strong&gt; exact parallels and &lt;em&gt;italicized&lt;/em&gt; words and expressions that the later writer has modified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+17:1-8&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 17:1-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and&lt;/strong&gt; his brother &lt;strong&gt;John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them&lt;/strong&gt;, and his face shone like the sun, &lt;strong&gt;and his clothes became dazzling white&lt;/strong&gt;. Suddenly &lt;strong&gt;there appeared to them&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Moses and Elijah, talking with him&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;Then Peter said to Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;, &amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;Lord&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;it is good for us to be here&lt;/strong&gt;; if you wish, &lt;em&gt;I will&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah&lt;/strong&gt;.&amp;quot; While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright &lt;strong&gt;cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;a voice said&lt;/em&gt;, &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;This is my Son, the Beloved&lt;/strong&gt;; with him I am well pleased; &lt;strong&gt;listen to him&lt;/strong&gt;!&amp;quot; When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, &amp;quot;Get up and do not be afraid.&amp;quot; And &lt;strong&gt;when they looked&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;up&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;they saw no one&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;except Jesus himself alone&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/passage.aspx?q=mark+9:2-8&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 9:2-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain&lt;/strong&gt; apart, &lt;strong&gt;by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white&lt;/strong&gt;, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And &lt;strong&gt;there appeared to them&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;Then Peter said to Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;, &amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;Rabbi&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;it is good for us to be here&lt;/strong&gt;; &lt;em&gt;let us&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah&lt;/strong&gt;.&amp;quot; He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a &lt;strong&gt;cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;there came a voice&lt;/em&gt;, &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him&lt;/strong&gt;!&amp;quot; Suddenly &lt;strong&gt;when they looked&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;around&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;they saw no one&lt;/strong&gt; with them any more, &lt;em&gt;but only Jesus&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although these are not exact copies of each other, the presence of so many exact phrases is a strong indication that one author used the other as a source. There are good reasons to believe that Matthew used Mark as a source, and not the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Differences between Matthew and Mark&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there are a number of passages where Matthew elaborates on what is written in Mark. For example, compare their accounts of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Again, I have &lt;strong&gt;bolded&lt;/strong&gt; exact parallels and &lt;em&gt;italicized&lt;/em&gt; words and expressions that the later writer has modified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/passage.aspx?q=mark+1:12-13&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 1:-12-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;And the Spirit immediately drove him out&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;into the wilderness&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;He was in the wilderness&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;forty days&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;tempted by Satan&lt;/em&gt;; and he was with the wild beasts; &lt;em&gt;and the angels&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;waited on him&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+4:1-11&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:1-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;into the wilderness&lt;/strong&gt; to be tempted by the devil. &lt;em&gt;He fasted&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;forty days&lt;/strong&gt; and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. &lt;em&gt;The tempter came&lt;/em&gt; and said to him, &amp;quot;If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.&amp;quot; But he answered, &amp;quot;It is written, &amp;quot;One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' &amp;quot; Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, &amp;quot;If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, &amp;quot;He will command his angels concerning you,' and &amp;quot;On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.' &amp;quot; Jesus said to him, &amp;quot;Again it is written, &amp;quot;Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' &amp;quot; Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, &amp;quot;All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.&amp;quot; Jesus said to him, &amp;quot;Away with you, Satan! for it is written, &amp;quot;Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.' &amp;quot; Then the devil left him, &lt;em&gt;and suddenly angels came and&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;waited on him&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is hard to see why Mark might have left out these details if he had them available. The more likely explanation is that Matthew added them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some places, Mark displays an apparent lack of geographical knowledge. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/passage.aspx?q=mark+5:1-17&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 5:1&lt;/a&gt; Jesus is said to have crossed the sea of Galilee to &amp;quot;the country of the Gerasenes&amp;quot;. The parallel in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+8:28-34&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 8:28&lt;/a&gt; says &amp;quot;the country of the Gadarenes&amp;quot;. Gadara (modern Umm Qais) is located by the sea of Galilee, while Gerasa (modern Jerash) is more than 30 miles away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following the feeding of the four thousand, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/passage.aspx?q=mark+8:1-10&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 8:10&lt;/a&gt; states that Jesus got in his boat and went to a place called Dalmanutha. This name is not mentioned anywhere else in ancient writings, and no town by that name has ever been uncovered. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+15:32-39&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 15:39&lt;/a&gt; says Jesus went to Magadan (or Magdala in some manuscripts).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's hard to imagine why Mark would choose the words &amp;quot;Gerasenes&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Dalmanutha&amp;quot; if he had a copy of Matthew's gospel in front of him. The more likely explanation is that Matthew corrected what he recognized as errors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how do we reconcile the evidence that Matthew used the Greek Gospel of Mark as a source with the tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One possible explanation is that Papias and Irenaeus are referring to an early gospel written by Mathew in Hebrew, and that the book we know as the Gospel of Matthew drew upon this (or a translation of it) to supplement the information he got from Mark. Since we have no surviving Hebrew manuscript, it's hard to say how likely this is. But in either case, the gospel that made it into the Bible with Matthew's name was composed in Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-06-16T16:37:47.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15291" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15294" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:01:21.713" Score="4" ViewCount="278" Body="&lt;p&gt;The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; God, however, they are also mysteriously separate beings, yet the same as well (the Trinity). It is acceptable to those same Christians to pray to Jesus, praising Him as God and also asking Him to fulfill their needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a designated time when prayers should be said to Jesus and other prayers should be said to God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems obvious that the Lord's Prayer (Our Father who is in heaven ...) is meant to be said to God. He is the Father. Are there prayers specifically for Jesus in the Bible? I am even willing to see a Tradition citing this practice. Are there any theological arguments that say when it is appropriate to pray to Jesus and when it is appropriate to pray to God? Perhaps this is another question, but why is the Holy Spirit left out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some personal back story:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I fully believe Jesus is God and I fully believe in the Trinity. I fully believe the Jesus is worthy of all our praise and worship. However, I always feel awkward praying to Jesus. Worshiping with song I am usually fine with, but it is prayer that I reserve for God the Father. There is a duality within me saying that prayer is for God, but Jesus is worthy, too. Therefore, you are missing something in your spiritual life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-03-30T22:06:55.857" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T22:06:55.857" Title="Are there designated circumstances for making prayer to Jesus and making prayer to God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;lords-prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15291" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:24:53.623" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, when it comes to prayer, two members of the Trinity have specific roles that are pointed out in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 John 2, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus is our advocate in regards to sin, it is thus to Jesus (and not the Father) that some suggest we should confess our sins to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unrelated to the question, the Spirit also has a role in regards to prayer.  Romans 8 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the Spirit prays for us when we don't know how to.  Presumably, then he would know to whom direct a prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T19:24:53.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15291" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:25:53.380" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We pray to our heavenly Father, in Jesus' name, for several reasons (most reasoning sourced &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblefood.com/prayer.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are told to address all prayer to God the Father. (see also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Pet%201:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 1:17&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%203:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 3:14&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,' (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:9&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We can only approach the Father in the name of Jesus, the Son&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:13-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:13-14&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A follow-up question might be: Does God get mad if you pray to Jesus? I can't imagine God getting mad with one of His children trying to communicate with Him, no matter how we did it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%208:26-27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:26-27&lt;/a&gt; says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we pray, we don't always know how to pray, or what to pray for, but this says that the Holy Spirit takes our prayers and makes them presentable to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T19:25:53.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15295" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15300" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:29:59.370" Score="8" ViewCount="26955" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does death separate us from the people we love forever? Do we keep our human relations or do we start over?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for any scripture passages that backup this claim or the contrary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3777" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-17T13:03:50.080" LastActivityDate="2014-11-17T13:03:50.080" Title="Does the Bible say anything about our human relations being kept after death?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;relationships&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15267" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:41:03.187" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;tl;dr&amp;gt; It began in the Council of Jersualem (55 AD), but was cemented by the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Gentiles were released from Jewish custom&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The divergence is clearly articulated in Acts 15 - at the &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Council of Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt;,&amp;quot; often pegged at 50 AD - roughly 20 years after the Crucifixion.  Acts 15 sets up the situation as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ... Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell - it's the old circumcision debate: Do converts need to go under the knife?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to this disagreement, Christians were simply Jews that believed Jesus was the promised Messiah.  When the Messiah came, however, he expanded His mission in such a way as to afford salvation to the Gentiles.  (See Matthew 28:19-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter speaks to this issue, recalling the fact that the Gentiles were being added to the mission - first in Acts 10, and now again in Acts 15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That they were included, however, necessarily raised the question of whether or not converts needed to follow all the practices of the Jews.  Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the other apostles were clear that the grace of God implied that Gentiles need &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; do Jewish custom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was even suggested that a letter should be written, in which they said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us &lt;strong&gt;not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:&lt;/strong&gt; 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By exempting the Gentiles from the rest of Jewish practice, a separate identity began to form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. The Persecution of the Jews diminished their importance in the Church, and vice versa&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the destruction of the Temple 15 years later, it simply became much harder to become a Jew.  As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oztorah.com/2008/07/jewish-attitudes-to-gentiles-in-the-first-century/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;OzTorah&lt;/a&gt; writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the post-destruction Jewish community, re-grouping and greater solidarity moved the Judeo-Christian group to the fringes. The earlier latitude towards separatist and fringe groups had become a luxury, especially when the Jesus party increasingly distanced themselves from their fellow Jews. The Judeo-Christians suffered a diminution in numbers and now, though not without an internal struggle, rebuilt and repositioned themselves as an increasingly gentile group, with new adherents directly coming to the new group without having to go through the old one first. They were not a monolithic community; they included at least four sub-groups (Ebionites A, Ebionites B, Nazarenes, Gnostic Sycretists and Elkesaites) – but they, like the Jews, needed to find sufficient unity to plan a secure future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After much internal debate it became possible for an outsider to become a Christian without ever being part of Judaism, either through genealogy or choice. Could you be a Jew without the Sabbath, festivals, circumcision (Jews were not the only ancient people to view uncircumcision as shameful) and dietary laws? The answer was no – but you could become a Christian. Could you be a Jew without saying Sh’ma Yisra’el – “Hear, O Israel” and proclaiming the absolute invisibility and indivisibility of God? – again no: but you could become a Christian if you accepted the re-worked status of Jesus (developed and taught by Paul and his supporters though not necessarily required by a reading of Jesus’ own words) as messianic and part of divinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sharper language than ever before began to be used in Judaism – it was a time of crisis when it was necessary to know where people stood – and heretics could no longer be treated with kid gloves. About the end of the century the Synagogue liturgy introduced a prayer which came to be known as Birkat HaMinim, the Blessing (Against) the Sectarians. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was no authoritative decision to expel the Christians from Judaism but their exclusion came about gradually. The gentile Christians never were part of Judaism. The Jewish Christians still met halachic (Jewish legal) identity criteria but were excluded from officiating at Jewish worship because they regarded Birkat HaMinim as directed against them – whatever its motives at the time of its formulation – and their books were deemed to lack sanctity. In consequence they felt increasingly unwelcome. Christians were still found in the synagogues at least until the time of Jerome in the fifth century CE. In the second century CE Justin Martyr agreed that Jewish Christians who continued to follow Jewish usages were still to be considered “brethren” but as time went on, pressure was exerted to discourage the practice of Judaism by Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final break was due to the Romans when Jews (including Jewish Christians) were prohibited from entering Jerusalem; the re-established Jerusalem Church was thus an essentially gentile one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this polarization, rapid growth outside of Israel (Paul's ministry, in particular, was centered in Turkey and Greece, as evidenced by the fact that Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillippi, Colossae, and Thessaly all got their own books of the Bible!), and the persecution of the Jews inside of Israel, led to an imbalance of population.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the &amp;quot;Jews&amp;quot; dwindled and the &amp;quot;Gentiles&amp;quot; grew.  That, coupled with the freedom from the practices of the Jews eventually led to a situation where the church's early identity divested itself of its Jewishness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. By the second century, there was hostility&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the firm acceptance of Paul's letters by the end of the first, the anti-Judaizer faction became well entrenched.  By the middle of the second Century, some heretics like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Marcion&lt;/a&gt; were already trying to remove any vestigial Jewish influence. When Marcion produced his first canonical list, for example, the entire Old Testament was relegated to non-canonical status. (Note - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Marcionism&lt;/a&gt; is considered heretical nowadays, and rejecting the Old Testament &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; considered heretical, but I point it as way of evidence that the split had already occurred.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this time, &amp;quot;Christ-killer&amp;quot; rhetoric and the like, along with regional chauvinism prevailed, and enmity between the Jews and the Christians was mainstream. Modern Judaism took root in the Pharisitcal and Essene movements and followed its own course thereafter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T12:34:39.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15295" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:48:47.570" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't quite say about relations, but I do know that there is no marriage in Heaven (Mark 12:18-27). As for &quot;keeping relations&quot; or &quot;starting over&quot;, I'm not sure what you mean. I believe that we will know our saved relatives though, but I can't back it up with scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4246" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T19:48:47.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15295" CreationDate="2013-03-29T19:51:38.053" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul makes a cryptic reference in 1 Corinthians 13 to what heaven will be like.  He writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, he says that the relationships we will have in heaven will be far deeper than what we have now.  As such, assuming that our relatives are in heaven with us, we will be able to know them better than we ever did in life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T19:51:38.053" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14770" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:22:07.067" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew was likely written for Greek-speaking Christians of Jewish descent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my answer to your first question, I discussed &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15290/126&quot;&gt;reasons for believing Matthew was written in Greek rather than Hebrew&lt;/a&gt;. And it should be self-evident that the gospels were written to Christians. So here I'm going to list the reasons for believing the intended audience was specifically Christians of Jewish descent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Scriptural fulfillment&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Matthew, more than the other gospels, often concludes a passage by introducing a Jewish Scripture and claiming Jesus has now fulfilled it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many cases, Matthew is simply drawing a parallel between events from the life of Jesus and events from Israel's history. Examples are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+1:22-23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 1:22-23&lt;/a&gt; quoting a passage about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/isaiah/passage.aspx?q=isaiah+7:10-17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a sign given to King Ahaz&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/2-15.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 2:15&lt;/a&gt; quoting a passage about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/hosea/passage.aspx?q=hosea+11:1-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;exodus from Egypt&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+12:17-21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 12:17-21&lt;/a&gt; quoting a passage about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/isaiah/passage.aspx?q=isaiah+42:1-4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God's servant Israel&lt;/a&gt; (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/isaiah/passage.aspx?q=isaiah+41:8-9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 41:8-9&lt;/a&gt; for identification of the servant with Israel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Structure of the Gospel&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as Matthew draws parallels between Jesus' experiences and those of Israel, the gospel itself parallels the Torah, the five books of Moses. In Matthew, Jesus' teachings are combined into &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Discourses_of_Matthew&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;five long discourses&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5-7&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Missionary Discourse - Matthew 10&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Parabolic Discourse - Matthew 13&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Discourse on the Church - Matthew 18&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Olivet Discourse - Matthew 24&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of these discourses contains more uninterrupted teaching than the parallel sections of Mark or Luke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Respect for Jewish law and customs&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase &amp;quot;kingdom of God&amp;quot; appears 62 times in the New Testament, but &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4251/what-is-the-difference-in-the-kingdom-of-heaven-and-the-kingdom-of-god&quot;&gt;Matthew uses the substitute phrase &amp;quot;kingdom of heaven&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; 31 times, even where the parallel accounts in other gospels say &amp;quot;kingdom of God&amp;quot;. This is likely due to a Jewish custom of never writing the word &amp;quot;God&amp;quot; as a precaution against using God's name in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jesus' teaching about handwashing, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/passage.aspx?q=mark+7:1-23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 7:19&lt;/a&gt; indicates that Jesus thereby &amp;quot;declared all foods clean&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said to them, &amp;quot;Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?&amp;quot; (Thus he declared all foods clean.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in the parallel in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+15:1-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 15&lt;/a&gt;, this parenthetical comment is omitted. We know from Paul's letters that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/romans/passage.aspx?q=romans+14:1-3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;some Jewish Christians kept part of their unique dietary restrictions as a matter of conscience&lt;/a&gt;. Matthew perhaps did not want to offend their sensibilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/passage.aspx?q=mark+10:1-12&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 10&lt;/a&gt; Jesus prohibits all divorce. However, in the parallel in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+19:1-9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 19&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus makes an exception for marital unfaithfulness. The version found in Matthew acknowledges that divorce is allowed in Deuteronomy under certain circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Jesus says in Matthew &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+5:17-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;5:17&lt;/a&gt;, in a statement not found in the other gospels, that he has come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. (Fulfill is probably used here in the same sense as above.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew's attention to the Jewish scriptures and respect for Jewish customs, as well as the structure of this gospel, indicate that it was written primarily for Jewish Christians rather than pagan converts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T20:22:07.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15295" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:25:18.230" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;TL;DR The answer seems to be a clear &amp;quot;Yes&amp;quot; on this matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David Legg has an excellent sermon on the subject &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.preachtheword.com/sermon/heaven05.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, from which I obtained much of this research.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people have heard the passage about there being no marriage in Heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:29-30&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:29-30&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is some evidence that persons will be recognizable even after they are in heaven. At the Mount of Transfiguration, the disciples with Jesus were able to recognize Moses and Elijah. Legg treats with the question of &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; the disciples were able to recognize figures who died hundreds of years before their time, but it appears that there is at least the &lt;em&gt;ability&lt;/em&gt; to recognize others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about interpersonal relationships? Will we be able to spend time with those we knew on Earth, all while worshiping God forever? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%202:19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 2:19&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Legg also goes into a deep analysis of the consistent use of the phrase &amp;quot;gathered together&amp;quot;, which we see in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%204:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Thess 4:17&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Thess 2:1&lt;/a&gt;. The point he makes is that in saying &amp;quot;gathered together&amp;quot;, the Bible says that we will be participating with our friends and family in worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the question becomes on what level will our relationships be? We already know from above that we will &lt;code&gt;neither marry nor be given in marriage&lt;/code&gt;, but how will relate with those we recognize?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%208:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 8:5&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the earth is but a shadow of heaven, that is the reason people are not given in marriage in heaven. Legg says explicitly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...marriage was a shadow, or if you like a signpost, relating to a greater relationship which is the relationship of the Christian, the church, with their Bridegroom, Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now a signpost becomes unnecessary when we reach our destination. You see, marriage, as we have known it down here on earth is a copy, it is an echo of the true, ultimate marriage that will take place at the marriage supper of the Lamb when Christ, the Bridegroom, is wed to His bride, the church. The purpose of earthly human marriage for us down here is in order to point us to that day, and even prepare us for that day in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relationships we develop on this earth will not go away when we get to heaven, but they will be deepened with each other, and new friendships can be formed with those that died hundreds or thousands of years before us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further evidence is given in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA100/will-we-recognize-and-be-reunited-with-our-loved-ones-in-heaven&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wording used&lt;/a&gt; when the patriarchs of ancient Israel died:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025:8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 25:8&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Isaac breathed his last, and he died and was gathered to his people, old and full of days. And his sons Esau and Jacob buried him. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2035:%2029&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 35:29&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That article closes with an excellent point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We will be reunited not only with our own families and loved ones, but also with the people of God from all ages. In heaven we will all be one loving family. The immense size of the family will not matter in the infinite perfection of heaven. There will be ample opportunity for close relationships with everyone, and our eternity will be spent in just that kind of rich, unending fellowship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-29T21:10:24.220" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1982" CreationDate="2013-03-30T03:03:52.163" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tyndale has seventy times seven, and this is, I believe, inspired by God.  The reason that both scriptures mention seventy times seven is that both are referring to the same event typologically.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cain represents Israel, who killed his brother Abel (Jesus the Messiah) and was then cast out to wander the earth.  Yet God puts His seal of protection on both Cain and Israel; anyone who harms them will be avenged seven-fold by God, see also Ps 79.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lamech, the sixth from Cain, also represents Israel; but this is the present humanistic, boastful, arrogant Israel who works out his own vengeance and thinks himself therefore greater than God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This represents the present State which exists by its own might and is preparing a vengeance on the world for the events of the last two thousand years. The 490 is a prophetic period of time representing the period of God's grace and forgiveness available to both Jew and Gentile...this period will run out soon, around the year 2030.  It is derived from a 'generation' of 'jubilees' i.e. 40 x 49 = 1960 years from when 'Cain' and Israel were exiled to wander.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply factor 1960 differently and you will find 4 x 7 x 70 = 4 x 490 (see Leviticus 26 and Judah's first exile of 70 years).  He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4251" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-03-30T14:05:43.253" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T14:05:43.253" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2013-03-30T03:16:12.583" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to show you the wisdom of seeking God: look at all the parallel references (such as Matthew 18) in the NT to what the body is, what the body parts are.  The 'eye' is just one kind of person in the Body of Christ; the 'hand' is just another kind of person in the Bodgy of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:21). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should conclude that Jesus is (Gasp!) telling His followers to carefully check the fruit of those who claim to be His, and to cut off those members who are causing the young and innocent to fall into sin, because it is better to protect and save the innocent than lose them due to the activities of the guilty.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, it is far better to protect the whole body of Christ by cutting off the people who are dragging it into defilement, than that the whole body of Christ become defiled and thrown into hell.  Or, see it in a local context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course in these days when 'churches' are just man-made institutions instead of living, loving, daily relationships of intimate fellowship...and in these days of cheap grace and pop christianity when we think we are move 'loving' and 'forgiving' than God Himself, few find it worthwhile to cut anyone off.  That just isnt 'christian' you know?  Someone might think you are judgmental!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4251" LastEditorUserId="671" LastEditDate="2013-03-30T14:16:22.067" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T14:16:22.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15304" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15306" CreationDate="2013-03-30T05:56:55.663" Score="5" ViewCount="2516" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is what sometime I hear some preacher mentioning.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heaven is a place where there is no suffering but all happiness and that is what we are aiming for, by trying to live a good life on earth. Jesus came to this world to save sinners. He suffered for our sins and was crucified to save all those who believe in Him. He was raised from the death so that we all can have an everlasting life in heaven with Him.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is sometime preached that for all the sins that are being committed by us and for all the sins that are being committed in this world, Jesus continues to suffer. Is Jesus still suffering for sins that are being committed everyday in this world? I find it a bit difficult to believe this because Jesus after His glorification, His suffering came to an end and there is no need for Him to again suffer and die for us again.  Is it not that God has to be happy in heaven and not grieve for His creation because heaven is a place where there is no pain and hurt but only happiness?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this teaching correct or is it that we are being just reminded to live a good life by recalling that, because of our sins, Jesus has already suffered and died a miserable death not commensurate with His stature as God?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2016-06-16T02:16:20.547" Title="Is Jesus still suffering in heaven for our sins?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-06-16T03:13:39.797" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15304" CreationDate="2013-03-30T06:54:03.950" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;No Jesus suffered once in the flesh then he said it is finished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 19:30  When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the once:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Pe 3:17  For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Pe 3:18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice this once as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 9:28  So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally this once:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also notice the tense here is past:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Pe 4:1  Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Pe 4:2  That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However there does remain suffering left to be done for the work of Christ just not by Christ Himself and not as a sin offering for the World. As we correctly suffer for Christ persecution, affliction and resisting temptation we fill up what remains of the afflictions of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Col 1:24  Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T06:54:03.950" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15310" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-30T08:27:42.103" Score="0" ViewCount="18740" Body="&lt;p&gt;All says that Jesus has a blonde hair and blue eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/evidence.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/evidence.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Various sites report that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How credible it is?&#xA;Sample:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius&#xA;  Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the&#xA;  Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;To Tiberius Caesar:&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was&#xA;  apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the&#xA;  Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke&#xA;  rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed&#xA;  in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against&#xA;  a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This&#xA;  I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him&#xA;  and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard&#xA;  gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30&#xA;  years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance.&#xA;  What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards&#xA;  and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I&#xA;  continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and&#xA;  listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the&#xA;  works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings&#xA;  of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious,&#xA;  so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to&#xA;  speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom&#xA;  provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with&#xA;  an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a&#xA;  guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring&#xA;  this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling,&#xA;  nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that&#xA;  there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that&#xA;  elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into&#xA;  wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy&#xA;  seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said,&#xA;  we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Your most obedient servant,&#xA;Pontius Pilate&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I am looking for answers along, how credible gospel of Pilate is, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="933" LastEditDate="2013-03-31T02:11:14.217" LastActivityDate="2013-03-31T02:11:14.217" Title="Are these historical records about Jesus' appearance accurate?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-03-31T12:48:45.570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15310" CreationDate="2013-03-30T11:54:41.650" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;These sorts of records are dubious to say the least.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the first case &lt;strong&gt;Josephus would never have claimed Jesus to be the Messiah, as he seems to have here&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.( Josephus, F., &amp;amp; Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: Complete and unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact Josephus seems to deliberately not refer to Jesus at all accept in a very minimalistic way. I can’t remember but I think only 2-3 times does Josephus refer at all to Jesus or events at that time. This would be more believable and understandable as Josephus was a historian that was opposed to Christianity. Jesus would have been a black eye to his valued history and pride of his treasured nation, which he himself fought as a soldier to defend. &lt;strong&gt;It is therefore nearly unanimously understood by Christians that Josephus’s text was exaggerated or otherwise corrupted by a monk/scribe or who have you.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many think there was an original smaller reference by Josephus, but trying to decipher what it may have been is impossible. One good theory is found in a tenth-century Arabic copy but even this seems (to me) to have words that are too kind for what Josephus would have thought about Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.( Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (254). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.&#xA;  )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The other quotes that make Jesus seem like a European with ‘blue eyes’ and ‘blonde hair’ is clearly corruptions and falsifications of historical documents.&lt;/strong&gt; Whether they are entire fabrications or just corruptions of earlier records are somewhat beside the point. It is simple outrageous nonsense. The Bible says that there was nothing about Jesus that attracted men to him. If he was walking around like a European runway model it would fly right against the few biblical descriptions of his appearance. Not only so but it would have attracted so many comments about such strange look for a Jew. Our only expectation of his physical appearance is that he looked like an ordinary Jew. That means he would have most likely had olive skin and dark hair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Is 53:2–3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are a few Jews that have blonde hair and blue eyes then I suppose it is a possibility but very doubtful. Also his hair was probably short. He was not a hippie like many movies make him out to be. It was considered shameful for men to have long hair by Jews in biblical times unless under a Nazarene vow like Samson, which Jesus was not under.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T11:54:41.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14399" CreationDate="2013-03-30T17:16:08.613" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you'll find the section on Baptism in the Code of Canon Law helpful in answering your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2U.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Code of Canon Law: Title 1 - Baptism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize a bit (please check out the link for the lion's share of details):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is more than one way to be baptized, not all of which require a minister or other baptized person to be present. (e.g. the Baptism by Desire referenced by @Alypius above.) One form doesn't even require the recipient to be aware, but it's a special case (infants) that assumes the guardians have the infant's best interests at heart.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consent is mandatory, and the person must be alive. This is where Catholic baptism parts ways from Mormon baptism. In the latter, it is acceptable to baptize the dead.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if the people on the plane expressed a desire to be baptized, and gave their consent, it matters little that they're conscious or not when the sacrament is conferred. An infant isn't cognizant of the act, yet it is acceptable to baptize the infant (for many reasons that you'll find in &quot;illuminated&quot; versions of the Code of Canon Law.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's another pretty decent source of info (goes into much greater detail than the Code of Canon Law): &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4225" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T17:16:08.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1570" CreationDate="2013-03-30T19:09:19.380" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anyone who assumes we will not still be with our spouse after death, Doesn't understand. When God intended a perfect world, He made a Man, and His woman in Paradise with perfect commumion with him...The World was good there. God, Man , and Woman. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the verse that explains not marrying during the resurrection, I am sure He meant the title and reproduction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4257" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T19:09:19.380" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15310" CreationDate="2013-03-30T19:43:53.127" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Various cultures throughout the world tend to depict Jesus and looking like people in their culture.  This is seen in art from Africa and South America with Jesus seen looking like the people native to those regions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible and other historical records hold Jesus to be Jewish, so it is likely that he looked similar to other Jews if his day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4258" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T19:43:53.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15234" CreationDate="2013-03-30T20:33:39.843" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Aquinas taught transubstantiation -- the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ's words...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He is invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in this [the Eucharist]; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other sacraments, but not in this...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But here the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theworkofgod.org/devotns/Euchrist/Topics/summa_eucharist.htm#OF%20THE%20CHANGE%20OF%20BREAD%20AND%20WINE%20INTO%20THE%20BODY%20AND&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Richard Hooker taught more along the lines of a pneumatic presence of Christ -- the elements are more than mere symbols, but the change takes place not in the elements, but is rather an act of God in the life of the believer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Eucharist is the sacrament of continued growth in Christ.  The Eucharistic elements are the bread and wine while the words are &quot;this is my body,&quot; &quot;this is my blood.&quot;  These words signify that the life of the body of Christ, the human nature, is present and active as grace in the Eucharist.  This grace flows from the Deity of Christ into his human nature, and from there, by the presence of the person of the risen Christ in his human and divine natures, the one fully present, the other present &quot;after a sort.&quot;  This grace is then conveyed, as effects, to the bodies and souls of those who receive the bread and wine in faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth.  For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth.  Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it.  Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, his body and blood are the true wellspring out of which this life floweth (V.lxvii.5). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From this it follows that the change that takes place in Eucharist is not in the elements themselves, but rather, in the believer that receives the elements.  &quot;The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament&quot; (V.lxvii.6)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hooker cannot believe that the sacraments are bare memorials, or merely remembrances of Christ.  Hooker believed the sacraments actually conveyed effects whose cause was the risen Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;For we take not baptism nor the eucharist for bare  resemblances or memorials of things absent, neither for naked signs and testimonies assuring us of grace received before, but (as they are indeed and in verity) for means effectual whereby God when we take the sacraments delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacraments represent or signify (V.lvii.5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Having rejected aspects of the Roman, Reformed, and Lutheran views, Hooker then observes that all parties agree on certain fundamental realities.  They agree on what God does in the Eucharist, though they disagree on how God does it.  The critical point, for Hooker, is what God does and not so much the how of God's action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Robert Sanders, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rsanders.org/richard-hooker-on-the-holy-eucharist.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Richard Hooker on The Holy Eucharist&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T20:33:39.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15328" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15364" CreationDate="2013-03-30T22:03:51.357" Score="9" ViewCount="770" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of claims that famous figures in history were gay. Peter Tatchell &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;speculates that Jesus could have been&lt;/a&gt;. His claim, however, is based on a dubious manuscript.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have any well-established, credible scholars (historians, psychologists, etc.) claimed in a scholarly setting that, based on the contents of widely accepted historical documents, there is some indication, beyond that of mere speculation, that Jesus engaged in homosexual behavior?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, please explain why similar claims are not generally accepted in scholarly settings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-04-01T20:06:15.523" LastActivityDate="2016-12-31T04:47:06.673" Title="Are there any credible arguments that Jesus may have been gay or tending homosexual?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15329" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15331" CreationDate="2013-03-30T22:22:43.520" Score="8" ViewCount="3775" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always called it Sad Saturday in an effort to highlight the despair the disciples must have felt after seeing their Lord killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6184/what-is-the-connection-between-mardi-gras-fat-tuesday-ash-wednesday-lent-etc/6187#6187&quot;&gt;This answer&lt;/a&gt; covers a lot of those days in there (most clearly come from Catholic tradition), but only refers to the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter as the last day of the Holy Triduum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a special name, from any tradition, for the day between Easter and Good Friday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2018-03-28T04:51:37.780" Title="Is there a special name for the day between Easter and Good Friday?" Tags="&lt;easter&gt;&lt;holidays&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15328" CreationDate="2013-03-30T22:27:51.123" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;From canonical Scripture alone, I don't think that argument could be made.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mosaic law clearly forbids homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22, making it a sin in God's eyes.  If Jeus came, and fulfilled the law, which he said he did, in Matthew 5:17-18, then that would have to mean that he followed the entirety of the law to the letter, including the commandments forbidding homosexuality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If New Testament writings are to be taken as truth then, for Jesus to have been perfect (Hebrews 4:15) and thus the only acceptable sacrifice for sin (1 Peter 1:19), he could not have been gay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus was gay, then according to Scripture, the entirety of the Gospel would cave in on itself.  Jesus would have been guilty of transgressing the mosaic law, and therefore, owing death as the penalty for &lt;em&gt;his own&lt;/em&gt; sin. (Romans 6:23). If he was gay, then, the death he died would have been bearing the weight of &lt;em&gt;his own&lt;/em&gt; sin, and the entirety of the Christian worldview would come crashing to the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Christianity depends on Jesus not being gay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there's nothing that would have prevented the &lt;em&gt;temptation&lt;/em&gt; to sin, indeed, Scripture says he was tempted, but he could not have followed through with it and simultaneously maintain the innocence he would have needed to endure the cross, carrying the sins of the world on his back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gay Jesus, then, by definition, cannot coexist with Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-03-30T22:27:51.123" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15329" CreationDate="2013-03-30T23:45:31.300" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://liturgybrisbane.net.au/liturgylines/easter-days-and-dates/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Liturgy Brisbane&lt;/a&gt; calls it &amp;quot;Holy Saturday.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a day of both joy and sadness&lt;/a&gt;, and &amp;quot;in the early Church this was the only Saturday on which fasting was permitted, and the fast was one of special severity. Dating from the time of St. Irenaeus, an absolute fast from every kind of food was observed for the forty hours preceding the feast of Easter.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The names for the full week:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Passion Sunday (Palm Sunday)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Monday of Holy Week&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tuesday of Holy Week&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wednesday of Holy Week&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Thursday of Holy Week (also called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maundy_Thursday&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Maundy Thursday&lt;/a&gt; in reference to Jesus' command to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2013:1%E2%80%9317&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;wash each other's feet&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Good Friday&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Saturday&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The days following Easter Sunday are called Easter Monday, Easter Tuesday and so on through to Easter Saturday, which is 6 days after Easter Sunday&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sundays of the Easter Season are named the Second Sunday of Easter, etc, not after Easter as in the past, because they fall with in the 50-day Season of Easter.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://liturgybrisbane.net.au/liturgylines/easter-days-and-dates/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Liturgy Brisbane&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T23:54:13.383" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15328" CreationDate="2013-03-31T05:52:54.227" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You could make a Biblical argument for Jesus being asexual and showing affection (but not sexual desire) to both genders. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 13:25&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 7:44&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not possible to make a Biblical argument for him expressing either heterosexuality or homosexuality. It would have been perfectly acceptable for Jesus to be married and have children under Jewish and Christian doctrine but it is not recorded that He did. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1Ti 3:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some groups believe that Jesus was born a eunuch, as he mentions two categories of eunuchs in the word. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 19:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do know that he was tempted in every way which must have included sexually, but the Bible is very clear He did not give in and sin. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 5:28&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 4:15&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 2:18&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-04-01T03:43:58.847" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T03:43:58.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15342" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-31T07:56:33.890" Score="2" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any websites that have a digitized version of William Tyndale's Bible online?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2019-10-30T00:54:21.550" LastActivityDate="2019-10-30T00:54:21.550" Title="Is there a digitized version of the Tyndale Bible available?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15343" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-03-31T09:50:45.217" Score="3" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found a very good description of what the human conscience is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Conscience is nothing but that judgment which men do make, and which they cannot but make, of their moral actions with reference unto the supreme future judgment of God. (Owen, J. (1855). Vol. 22: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume 5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following human conscience to the judgment brings a question about our common sense of justice. One question I have is, ‘Does a resurrection from the dead to the judgment instinctively necessitate the appearance of the body?’ In addition to the ‘appearance of the soul’, does justice necessitate that ‘our body’ appears before God’s tribunal to receive the penalty, or reward, which it deserves for the sins we have ‘done in the body’?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know the Bible declares the necessity of the resurrection upon the grounds that Christ is resurrected, but what is the Biblical basis to say justice also makes it a necessity for the resurrection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T05:31:36.640" LastActivityDate="2015-08-02T05:31:36.640" Title="What is the Biblical basis to declare that 'justice necessitates the resurrection of the body'?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;justice&gt;&lt;conscience&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14328" CreationDate="2013-03-31T13:06:52.483" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we say God is one essence with three persons, the Greeks would say that God is one essence with three substances (hypostasis). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Latin church, substantia was employed to translate hypostasis and together with essentia to translate ousia: “That which must be understood of persons, according to our usage, is to be understood of substances, according to the Greek usage: for they say three substances (hypostaseis), one essence, in the same way as we say three persons, one essence or substance (essentiam vel substantiam)” (Augustine, On the Trinity 7.4) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;‘Substance’ means ‘that which stands under’ that is, in the sense of an underlying substratum. The idea is that God is one in the essential divine attributes but the three persons are spiritually 'differing personalities' of which their persons, or hypostatic character, is incommunicable to each other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;hypostasis&lt;/strong&gt; - term employed in trinitarian and christological discussions. The Greek hypostasis can have a range of meaning. In keeping with its etymological signification, it means “to stand under,” hence its usage as equivalent to the Latin substantia (substance) and essentia (essence), or to the Greek ousia. It appears to mean “substance” or “essence” in its use in Heb. 1:3 (though not all translators agree). Likewise, the Nicene Creed of 325 uses it as synonymous with ousia when it condemns those who say that the Son is a different hypostasis or ousia from the Father. On the other hand, the word can also be used to designate an individual instance of an essence, that is, a person in a trinitarian or christological context. &lt;strong&gt;This range of meaning occasioned confusion in the earlier trinitarian debates, exacerbated when translating between Greek and Latin. Thanks in part to the work of the Cappadocian fathers in the fourth century, the term came to be restricted to the personal distinctions in the Godhead, rather than being used to designate the essence itself.&lt;/strong&gt; Hence, the final Greek form of the trinitarian formula became “one ousia, three hypostases,” equivalent to the Latin-based formula “one substance/essence, three persons.” The expression hypostatic union is used in christological discussions. See also essentia and hypostatic union and monophysitism and subsistantia. (Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). Dogmatic theology (A. W. Gomes, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (956). Phillipsburg, NJ: P &amp;amp; R Pub.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When applying the concept of essence and substance to the Incarnation, Christ’s person is the Unity or Essence and his two natures (divine and human) are substances of his person.&lt;/strong&gt; Just as we could say ‘the nature of essence of God subsists in three persons’, so we could say:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;’The humanity subsists in the Divine Person of the Son’, or ‘Christ subsists in both a human and divine nature’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, ‘The divine person of the Son subsists in the humanity’ can’t be true at all. This statement would make the humanity of Christ analogous to the essence of the Trinity and making the divine nature a distinct expression of humanity! This therefore has no theological meaning that makes sense. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something to be careful about is that these terms are just used to express different distinctions of one person. In the Trinity it refers to the distinction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in One person. In the Incarnation the Divine and Human nature are distinguished in the Christ after the incarnation. However, we must remember that although the Divine nature is a sense a hypostasis of Christ, it is not in anyway really ‘standing under’ anything. It is only used in this way to say these natures stand under the Christ as a person logically. However, clearly it is the divine nature and not the human that is the root of Christ’s person, or ‘standing over’ it as it were before the incarnation. The second person of the Trinity is the root into which the human nature was grafted, not the other way around. Therefore the person of Christ is in itself kind of a hypostasis of God for he is still the Eternal Son, even though his divinity could be said to be a ‘hypostasis’ on account of his person taking upon humanity through the Incarnation. In this way both the Trinity and the Incantation use hypostasis or subsistence in a non-contradictory way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-03-31T14:01:48.053" LastActivityDate="2013-03-31T14:01:48.053" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15346" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15359" CreationDate="2013-03-31T13:56:17.737" Score="7" ViewCount="29101" Body="&lt;p&gt;What message did Jesus Christ tried to give by comparing the Kingdom Of God(Isn't that Heaven?) with the mustard seed and yeast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3762" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2013-04-04T14:31:01.530" LastActivityDate="2016-02-20T19:40:30.777" Title="What was Jesus trying to convey in the parables of the mustard seed and yeast?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-02-24T15:22:38.607" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15346" CreationDate="2013-03-31T16:17:39.963" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was saying that the Kingdom of God has a huge effect on whatever it interacts with.  That is, the effect is disproportionately large in comparison to what we mortals perceive the Kingdom of God to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Kingdom of God refers to more than just Heaven.  The Kingdom of God also includes his people, many of whom are still here on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4258" LastActivityDate="2013-03-31T16:17:39.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15350" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15388" CreationDate="2013-03-31T23:58:34.103" Score="6" ViewCount="177" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is Saint Adalbert of Prague venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy? He's listed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Calendar/St.%20Hilarion%20Calendar%202004.pdf&quot;&gt;this calendar&lt;/a&gt; so I understand he's considered an Orthodox saint, but is there a veneration in the Eastern rite? Is there a non-negligible private veneration? Have there been any public acts of veneration by Orthodox bishops?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm asking this out of curiosity -- he's one of the patron saints of my country, with a huge veneration in the local Roman Catholic church. I just started wondering if there was any in Eastern Orthodoxy, since his martyrdom took place shortly before the schism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3801" LastEditorUserId="3801" LastEditDate="2013-04-01T00:23:24.857" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T13:20:18.120" Title="Is St. Adalbert venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15351" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15363" CreationDate="2013-04-01T02:21:40.210" Score="4" ViewCount="187" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pure curiosity, I see that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adherents.com/people/pg/Mel_Gibson.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mel Gibson is an adherent of Traditionalist Catholicism&lt;/a&gt;. Is this a part of &quot;normal&quot; Roman Catholicism, or some distinct branch? What are the differentiators here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2016-09-16T11:07:37.480" Title="What is &quot;Traditionalist Catholicism&quot;" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15352" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15354" CreationDate="2013-04-01T05:45:45.807" Score="9" ViewCount="5104" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did the Jewish high priests deny Jesus if He was fulfilling their scriptures? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems as if they viewed Him as nothing to do with their God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are some reasons from the perspective of the high priests that they refused to accept Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T18:34:58.873" LastActivityDate="2018-03-26T22:28:44.023" Title="Why did the high priests try Jesus on charges of Blasphemy if He fulfilled their prophecy?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15353" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19055" CreationDate="2013-04-01T06:14:02.683" Score="17" ViewCount="141029" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just finished a five-part series on the History Channel: &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_(miniseries)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Bible&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. They did a fantastic job with it. However,  I noticed that Jesus did not appear to condemn those who did not believe in Him, and I had never really thought about that before. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus ever actually say, &quot;If you don't believe in me you will go to hell&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that when His disciples asked, &quot;What is the way?&quot; He said, &quot;No one comes to the Father but through Me&quot; (John 14:6). However, there is context here. It does not appear to be a blanket statement. For example, He obviously didn't mean it for some kid living in Ireland at that same exact night of the Last Supper. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did say, &quot;Blessed are those who believe in me&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020%3A29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 20:29&lt;/a&gt;), but He did not say there that you are damned to hell if you don't. So did the TV series leave something out? Or where did fallen man come up with this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-09-07T14:18:15.257" LastActivityDate="2017-08-15T17:02:19.693" Title="Did Jesus actually ever say &quot;if you don't believe in me you will go to hell&quot;?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;&lt;belief&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-02-02T13:18:36.837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15352" CreationDate="2013-04-01T06:26:20.563" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Jewish priests expected the Messiah to come in like a Lion with great fanfare and overwhelming military might for subduing the enemies of Israel.  They did not expect the Messiah to be born in humble circumstances or to grow up as a common craftsman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus threatened the authority and the lifestyle that the priests had grown accustomed to, as they grew very rich while helping the Roman authorities to maintain control over Israelite-controlles towns.  Several times in the Gospels (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 23:1-4&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2011&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 11:37-44&lt;/a&gt;), Jesus directly rebukes the priests on multiple issues. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:28-29&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people were putting their trust in the teachings of Jesus instead of the priests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It must have been difficult for the Jewish Priests to consider that the promised Messiah would come as a threat to themselves, God's representatives to His own people. They viewed him as being opposed to the established authority that controlled the Temple and the People, which would likely seem contrary to what they might expect from the long-awaited Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4258" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-04-03T06:48:22.957" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T06:48:22.957" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15352" CreationDate="2013-04-01T06:32:34.410" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The account is detailed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 26&lt;/a&gt; starting verse 57.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the Sanhedrin attempted to convict Jesus on false pretenses, but that failed. Then this was said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[e]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“He is worthy of death,” they answered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verse 64, Jesus basically calls himself God. That is blasphemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any prophecies that Jesus might have fulfilled was apparently irrelevant to the Sanhedrin. Continuously in the Gospels, they attempt to trap Jesus, trick Him into sin that warranted arrest, and they even went to stone Him for blasphemy earlier (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 10:22&lt;/a&gt;). They just plain didn't like Him, mostly because He did not fit in the box they wanted the Messiah to fit in, which was more of a conqueror that would bring Israel back to its glory days of King Solomon. They also did not expect the Messiah to claim to be God. Further, Jesus continuously aggravated the Sanhedrin by making them look like fools and hypocrites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T06:32:34.410" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15353" CreationDate="2013-04-01T06:36:38.100" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I cannot comment on that particular series, but I can assuredly say the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems quite clear to me that you need to intimately know Jesus to be accepted by Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt. 7:21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are left with this picture: The last day is upon us, and some are allowed into the Kingdom and some are not. You must know Jesus to be allowed into the Kingdom. Not being in the Kingdom &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; hell (whatever that may be) to the very large majority of Christian denominations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning your context for the heathen who never had the chance to hear the Good News, well, that is a very big and different topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-04-01T06:42:21.860" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T06:42:21.860" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15343" CreationDate="2013-04-01T08:07:36.513" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Final Judgement that determines that the wicked are to be cast into the Lake of Fire is detailed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rev. 20&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. &lt;strong&gt;[If there is a 1st resurrection there must be at least a second]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will be 1000 years after the resurrection of the righteous that the wicked will be resurrected for Judgement before being cast into the Lake of Fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God &lt;strong&gt;[This is the only place that makes sense for the second resurrection]&lt;/strong&gt;; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. &lt;strong&gt;[After being raised the dead are judged]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. &lt;strong&gt;[Every dead person will be raised at some point]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. &lt;strong&gt;[The punishment is then executed]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is very poetical in nature, but these verses together show that the dead are indeed resurrected, just as the righteous, shortly before being judged then cast into the Lake of Fire, the second death. Some do argue that the resurrection is not bodily, however, they are a small minority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think justice &lt;em&gt;necessitates&lt;/em&gt; the resurrection, unless you adhere to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Annihilationism&lt;/a&gt;. It just happens to be the order that it will be done according to the Bible. I currently have a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15358/why-are-the-wicked-resurrected-only-to-be-destroyed-and-sent-to-the-lake-of-fire&quot;&gt;related question&lt;/a&gt; about why the wicked are raised only to suffer eternal hell because it seems unnecessary to me to give the wicked a body unless punishment has something to do with the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T23:09:17.417" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15358" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15361" CreationDate="2013-04-01T08:19:26.333" Score="8" ViewCount="4578" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 20&lt;/a&gt; the resurrection of the wicked is detailed. They are then judged and thrown in the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. &lt;strong&gt;[The righteous only were raised to life first]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God &lt;strong&gt;[the wicked are then raised for judgement]&lt;/strong&gt;; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. &lt;strong&gt;[all the dead wicked are found and raised for judgement]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. &lt;strong&gt;[then they die]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally take the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Annihilationism&lt;/a&gt; perspective, where the wicked are completely annihilated after being judged; they will exist no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from the other perspective, the traditional doctrine of Hell, how does it make sense that the wicked will be resurrected, only to be killed, then suffer eternal torment in Hell (Lake of Fire)? Less challengingly said, why are the wicked resurrected when it seems unnecessary?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-04-22T16:51:54.237" Title="Why are the wicked resurrected only to be destroyed and sent to the Lake of Fire?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;annihilationism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15346" CreationDate="2013-04-01T10:28:01.560" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here Jesus teaches that He has come to prepare us for the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13.31) and this kingdom of heaven has to be first created within us if we have to be partners of that kingdom. This kingdom is created within us by His message of Gospel which is simplest of all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 17:21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel message has immense potential to change the medium where it is taught: be it a person, or region or the world. That is what it has done to the world in spite of people severely prosecuting at the onset, the simpleton disciples of Jesus.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quantity of yeast is minuscule compared to the whole dough, yet it makes full dough to rise with its unique effect. The size of a mustard seed is negligible compared to all other seeds yet it grows into a large plant.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is the message of Gospel compared to works of other great thinkers and philosophers. It is in simple words and parables yet it is a goldmine full of wisdom and is understandable even to unlearned and lowly. It has the  power to change the face of the world and it did. It has the power to win the wisest and make their wisdom appear to be foolish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-04-04T04:02:00.150" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T04:02:00.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15353" CreationDate="2013-04-01T12:26:31.573" Score="18" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Did Jesus actually ever say if you don't believe in me you go to Hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, He did say this directly, without mincing words.  Bolded in the passage below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John, Chapter 3 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,&#xA;  that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have&#xA;  everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but&#xA;  that the world through him might be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: &lt;strong&gt;but he that believeth&#xA;  not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of&#xA;  the only begotten Son of God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world,&#xA;  and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were&#xA;  evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to&#xA;  the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that it doesn't say &quot;the punishment for not believing in me is an eternity in Hell.&quot;.  It says that everyone is condemned already, and that only through faith in Him can we escape. It's a subtle, but doctrinally important difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T12:26:31.573" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15361" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15358" CreationDate="2013-04-01T14:33:25.307" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the misunderstanding here is that the wicked are resurrected and then killed.  I'm not sure there's a Biblical backing for the idea that those who rejected Christ will again be separated from their bodies.  Their souls will be in bodies when they are cast into the lake of fire.  Therefore, the punishment is eternal, physical, punishment in the presence of God and the angels (Revelation 14:10). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The underlying belief here is that the soul was never meant to live without a body, and so it will not, for all eternity, but the question is, will the body be glorified, or will it not be?  From Romans 8:30, we see that the foreknown Christian is predestined, justified, sanctified, and glorified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called&#xA;  he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a Christian is glorified, but a non-believer will not be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 15:12-14, Paul specifically states that the dead are raised.  He doesn't say that only Christians are raised, but all are raised:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of&#xA;  you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no&#xA;  resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if&#xA;  Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your&#xA;  faith is in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only this, but Christ himself states that all people will be raised, in John 5:28-29:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the&#xA;  tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to&#xA;  the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the&#xA;  resurrection of judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's not only Christians who are resurrected, but ALL people, though their resurrection may be followed immediately by very different experiences.  All will worship, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be justified in the eyes of God.  All others will bear their own sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the underlying idea that annihilation might be preferable to eternal suffering, and eternal torment, I can only conjecture that the reason why eternal torment is taught instead of annihilation, is because annihilation is simply &quot;not complete enough&quot; of a penalty to pay for the sins that have been committed against an all-holy, perfect, just, and loving God.  The object of the transgression must be taken into consideration as well.  Whereas death may be a sufficient penalty here on earth when sins are committed against humans, it is not sufficient in eternity, when committed against an infinitely good God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(As a side note, some of our discomfort with eternal torment in western culture comes from the western culture's over-emphasis on love and forgiveness at the expense of justice.  In Islamic cultures, they may find our emphasis on love and forgiveness somewhat offensive, preferring to value justice more highly.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2014-07-21T10:33:01.047" LastActivityDate="2014-07-21T10:33:01.047" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4159" CreationDate="2013-04-01T15:26:50.973" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have a high enough rep to comment, but I'd like to back up @Heath Hunnicutt's answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some cultures it was common to not differentiate between messengers and those they spoke for, especially in retrospect, as they were considered &amp;quot;the voice of&amp;quot; their masters. As most western cultures don't take this initiative, it can be confusing. A clear example of this happening elsewhere in scripture is in the story of Jesus interacting with the centurion in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 8:5&lt;/strong&gt; When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 7:2&lt;/strong&gt; There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These descriptions of the same event have been widely used as an argument for the bible being self-contradictory, but the truth was that the person who physically spoke the words didn't matter as much to the writer as with whom the words originated. It would be like us saying someone said something based on a book we read that they authored. Did they speak the words to us directly? No, but we still say that the book contains, or &amp;quot;is a messenger for&amp;quot; their words, and we can safely attribute those words to the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, this explains why Jacob could have referred to the entity which he was wrestling with as &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt; while in fact it was an &lt;em&gt;angel&lt;/em&gt; or something of that sort. I'm not entirely sure either way, just thought I'd support that possibility a bit more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4236" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T15:26:50.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15351" CreationDate="2013-04-01T15:52:48.490" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found this information hidden at the bottom of your link:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mel Gibson belongs to a Catholic sect that does not accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. - Time, January 27, 2003&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After some more digging, I found that the main differences are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They still practice &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tridentine Mass&lt;/a&gt;. This mass has a set liturgy which you can look at more closely in the above link. The most immediately distinguishable feature of tridentine mass is that it is performed almost exclusively in latin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They hold onto some of the of the personal customs that were largely depreciated after the Second Vatican Counsel. The ones that struck me the most were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abstaining from meat on Fridays,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fasting from midnight before receiving Holy Communion, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Women wearing a headcovering in church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is worthy to note that the Vatican usually supports traditionalists, unless of course those traditionalists condemn modern day leadership or practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of this information was found on Wikipedia, I just tried to summarize it. There's plenty more information if you want to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;take a look&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT (In response to a good comment by @Alypius): Here's a description of the different types of traditionalists, as described by an actual traditionalist. Religious preferences aside (I don't agree with the main gist of the article), the category description quoted below seems to be pretty succinct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The first and by far the largest group consists of those Catholics who accept the acclaimed Pope and his recent predecessors as true Popes and who believe that the Second Vatican Council was a valid, albeit problematic, Council.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second group consists of those who are unsure about the status of the acclaimed Pope. Many such Catholics worship at Masses offered by the Society of Saint Pius V (S.S.P.V.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The third group consists of &quot;sedevacantist&quot; Catholics, that is Catholics who believe that the Catholic Church has not had a true Pope for some time (most consider Pope Pius XII as the last true Pope) and who, depending on the time they see as the moment the &quot;Chair of Peter&quot; (sede) became empty (vacante), may or may not see Vatican II as a valid Council. Many sedevacantists attend Masses offered by the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.). 5&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Traditional Catholicism 101: A Brief Primer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4236" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-09-16T11:07:37.480" LastActivityDate="2016-09-16T11:07:37.480" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15328" CreationDate="2013-04-01T17:10:15.400" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main argument is based not just on a dubious manuscript, but on a dubious interpretation of that manuscript.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Mar Saba Letter&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1958, Morton Smith—a history professor at Columbia University—was looking through documents in the monastery of Mar Saba when he found (he claims) a letter written by second century theologian Clement of Alexandria to someone named Theodore. (Smith's translation of this letter can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://web.archive.org/web/20120421231610/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/%7Ewie/Secret/letter-engl.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. The original document has since been lost, although photographs survive.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Secret Mark&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Mar Saba letter, Clement claims that after the death of Peter in Rome, Mark traveled to Alexandria where he composed a secret, &amp;quot;more spiritual&amp;quot; version of his gospel, with additional teaching &amp;quot;for the use of those who were being perfected.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clement quotes two passages from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Secret Mark&lt;/a&gt;, both of which he claims were added to what is now the 10th chapter of Mark. The first is a rather lengthy passage that resembles the resurrection of Lazarus in the Gospel of John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second passage is short, and contrasts Jesus' teaching of this man with Jesus' actions toward the man's sister and other women who were present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Carpocratians&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theodore had written to Clement, concerned about a gnostic sect known as the Carpocratians, who had obtained a copy of the secret gospel and were claiming that it promoted their libertine view of sexuality. Clement assures Theodore that nowhere does the secret gospel contain the phrase &amp;quot;naked man with naked man&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Analysis&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The discovery of the Mar Saba letter has raised a number of questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this an authentic letter from Clement of Alexandria, a forgery, or a hoax?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it is authentic, is &amp;quot;Secret Mark&amp;quot; an authentic expansion of Mark's gospel, or a forgery?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If Secret Mark is authentic, does it promote sexual libertinism?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the first question, scholars are divided &lt;a href=&quot;http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/12/sbl-24-97-secret-mark-after-fifty-years.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;even after more than 50 years of study&lt;/a&gt;. Handwriting analysis has led different scholars to opposite conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many who consider it a modern fake have noted that the phrasing seems to have been deliberately chosen to sound ambiguous to the modern layperson.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of those who believe the letter is authentic, most doubt the authenticity of Secret Mark, primarily because secrecy was a hallmark of gnostics and therefore was shunned by mainstream Christianity. A few scholars, however, believe the additions Clement quotes may have been authentic and possibly were based on an oral tradition of the Lazarus story. A small minority have suggested that Secret Mark was actually an earlier version of the gospel than the one which appears in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the scholars who accept the authenticity of both the Mar Saba letter and Secret Mark, most agree that the phrase &amp;quot;taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God&amp;quot; refers to the rite of baptism, based on the use of that phrase in other ancient Christian writings. However, one scholar, Scott Brown of the University of Toronto—the first person to do his PhD dissertation on Secret Mark—claims this refers literally to teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Mar Saba letter says nothing about Jesus' sexuality, and no scholar who has looked at it thinks it even implies that Jesus might have been gay. Some modern laypeople, however, have picked up on the unique phrasing of the letter to advance the idea that Jesus might have been gay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-12-31T04:47:06.673" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15365" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15369" CreationDate="2013-04-01T17:12:23.413" Score="9" ViewCount="58609" Body="&lt;p&gt;If a house or town does not receive the Gospel, you are to shake dust off of your feet:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/10/12&quot;&gt;Matthew 10:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  12 As you enter a house, wish it peace.&#xA;  13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you.&#xA;  14 Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and &lt;strong&gt;shake the dust from your feet&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/10/5&quot;&gt;Luke 10:10-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  10 Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say,&#xA;  11 ‘&lt;strong&gt;The dust&lt;/strong&gt; of your town that clings to our feet, &lt;strong&gt;even that we shake off against you&lt;/strong&gt;.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that the roads were not paved, and that people would travel by walking, so their feet would become dirty and dusty. I also understand that this is no longer a practice in some churches, but is in others, and that this was a practice among the Jews before Christ came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But why? And why dust in particular? Does it have to be dust from that town? Is this act symbolic, or does the dust itself have some sort of effect if not shaken off? If it is symbolic, is it supposed to communicate something to the townspeople (so you would have to do it in front of them), or should it be done in the view of God only, or both?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is significant about shaking dust from your feet?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2014-03-11T12:07:00.673" Title="What is significant about shaking dust from your feet?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;ritual&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15353" CreationDate="2013-04-01T17:19:11.197" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are obviously more ways to salvation than through specifically knowing the person of Jesus Christ through His 1st century incarnation, and the books written about His incarnation.  There are many people in the Old Testament that the bible indicates were considered righteous - Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchizidech, Abraham, and so on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Genesis 15:5-6 talks about Abraham's faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And He took him outside and said, &quot;Now look toward the heavens, and&#xA;  count the stars, if you are able to count them.&quot; And He said to him,&#xA;  &quot;So shall your descendants be.&quot; Then he believed in the LORD; and He&#xA;  reckoned it to him as righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These people had faith in God, without the benefit of the incarnate Jesus as an intermediary, and the bible suggests that was sufficient.  Whether this route became closed to all after Christ, or whether it becomes closed to someone after they have the chance to hear the Gospel, or whether it always remains open, it's clear that at the very least it was once possible to have your faith reckoned as righteousness without knowing the name of &quot;Jesus&quot;.  I personally would hold that your Irish child would have a chance at salvation, but that's never really covered in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not at all trying to say that they weren't saved through Christ's later atonement, but rather that they were covered by Christ's atonement without believing in His human incarnation, and without access to the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are also right in that Jesus doesn't ever mention hell as a punishment for not believing. Condemnation is always mentioned as a punishment for being wicked, or for doing evil.  Salvation is based on belief, but condemnation is based on deed.  But the Bible also asserts that everyone is guilty enough for condemnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3942" LastEditorUserId="6413" LastEditDate="2013-11-04T20:05:30.983" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T20:05:30.983" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15365" CreationDate="2013-04-01T17:23:21.450" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, shaking the dust of your feet is way of indicating uncleanliness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Believers Bible Commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;R. Guelich suggests that shaking off dust from the feet, the symbolic act that Jesus’ disciples were to carry out when leaving a rejecting village (6:11), has a threefold meaning (322–3):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;•  It announces the inevitability of judgment (since further contact and opportunity for repentance is symbolically cut off).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;•  It declares that the missionaries have done their job and are washing their hands of further responsibility (Ezek. 3:21; 33:1–9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;•  It labels that village as pagan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of these three, the third is the most provocative. Jews would shake off “pagan” dust before entering the “holy land” (Str.-B, 1:115). Likewise, Jesus’ emissaries demonstrate that villages rejecting them and the one who sent them have lost their inheritance in the people of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar message is conveyed via John’s symbolic act of baptizing Jews (1:5), an act normally reserved for converts to Judaism. John is thereby symbolically reinstating Jews into the people of God, implying that without his baptism, they are outsiders to Israel. The present text about shaking off “pagan dust,” however, takes this a step further. People are invited to reinstate their membership in the people of God; those who reject God’s messengers are symbolically excluded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other NT references to shaking off dust include all three of the meanings suggested above, though sometimes one of them is more prominent than the others (Matt. 10:14; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51; 18:6). Acts 18:6 in particular seems to highlight all three aspects. As he leaves the Corinthian synagogue, Paul shakes the dust off his clothing and says, “Your blood be on your own heads [meaning 1]. I am clear of my responsibility [meaning 2]. From now on I will go to the Gentiles [meaning 3]” (NIV). With his final line, Paul reverses the usual Jewish practice of cleansing their feet before moving from Gentile to Jewish territory. Paul is moving from Jewish territory (the synagogue) to Gentile territory (the house of Titius Justus) and shaking off the dust before doing so. Believing Jews join him as he moves toward a more fruitful mission field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from &amp;quot;The New Manners and Customs of the Bible:&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Jews to shake dust off their feet was a sign that Gentile territory was unclean. In the New Testament this action indicates that those who have rejected the gospel have made themselves as Gentiles and must face the judgment of God. (See also Acts 13:51) To sprinkle dust on the head was a sign of mourning (Joshua 7:6), and to sit in dust denotes extreme affliction (Isaiah 47:1). “Dust” is used to denote the grave (Job 7:21). To lick the dust is a sign of abject submission (Psalms 72:9); and to throw dust at someone is a sign of abhorrence (2 Samuel 16:13; Acts 22:23). To bite the dust is to suffer a defeat. It became a common expression through its use in American movies about the early west.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, I find the linkage between &amp;quot;shaking the dust off your feet&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;biting the dust&amp;quot; to be interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T17:23:21.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1600" CreationDate="2013-04-01T17:54:27.947" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We do not inherit sin&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 18:20 &amp;quot;The soul that sinneth, it shall die. &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The son shall not bear the        iniquity of the father&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not inherit sin, as you can see from the verse above.&#xA;Animals die but this does not make them SINNERS. They only get the effects like the mother who has the sin of smoking. The baby will suffer the consequences but the sin of smoking is not transferred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:12-13,18 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and&#xA;death through sin, and so death spread to all men &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;because all&#xA;sinned&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was&#xA;given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one&#xA;act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thoughts on verse 12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that the death being talked about here is eternal death--not temporal. Verse 12 says just as sin came into the world through one man... before Adam sinned there was no sin. So sin came into the world through Adam. Note that verse 12 says nothing about that sin (of eating the fruit) being inherited. Verse 12 goes on to say 'and death by sin; that is, death (eternal) has entered into the world of men by sin. the last part of verse 12 says, and so death spread to all men &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;because all sinned&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, that is Eternal death has spread to all men because they have chosen to transgress the law of God contrary to the usual thinking that death spread unto all men because Adam sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thoughts on Verse 18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;verse 18 includes choice. I am sure no serious Christian holds to the doctrine that all people whether they like it or not are justified at birth because Jesus died for them. So why do people hold on to the doctrine that all people whether they like it or not are born sinners and condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Adam's sin does not separate us from God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 59:2  But your iniquities have separated between you and your&#xA;God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not born separated from God at birth because of Adam's sin. God separates Himself from us because of our own sin (DON'T BLAME ADAM). If Adam's sin separates from God then David was lying when he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 22:9-10  But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst&#xA;make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. 10  I was&#xA;cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 71:5-6  For thou art my hope, O Lord GOD: thou art my trust&#xA;from my youth.  6 By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou&#xA;art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise shall be&#xA;continually of thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The issue about Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another argument concerns Jesus. Most people want to ignore it but they mustn't. This is salvation we are about here. If Jesus was born of a woman then surely He was born a sinner.&#xA;I remain convinced He was born in sin but was not a sinner just as He was born into this sinful world but committed no sin. For He was in the flesh but did not yield to the flesh having condemned it, Romans 8:3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T19:15:51.513" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15365" CreationDate="2013-04-01T19:28:35.443" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Mark explains the dust-shaking a &lt;em&gt;tiny&lt;/em&gt; but further.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; He summoned the Twelve and began to send them out two by&#xA;  two and gave them authority over unclean spirits. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; He&#xA;  instructed them to take nothing for the journey but a walking stick—no&#xA;  food, no sack, no money in their belts. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; They were,&#xA;  however, to wear sandals but not a second tunic. &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; He said&#xA;  to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave from&#xA;  there. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Whatever place does not welcome you or listen&#xA;  to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet &lt;em&gt;in testimony&#xA;  against them&lt;/em&gt;.”&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; So they went off and preached&#xA;  repentance. &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; They drove out many demons, and they&#xA;  anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/Mark/6/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark&#xA;  6:7-13&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fr. Robert Barron speaks about this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/Sermon-Archive-for-2012/Sermon-601-The-Twelve-and-the-New-Israel-15th.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;his sermon from 7/15/12&lt;/a&gt;. His explanation, roughly 11 minutes in, is that the disciples are not to linger on or argue with folks who refuse the message. Don't spend time shouting at deaf ears. If they are not received, they shouldn't bother with them -- &lt;em&gt;not even with their dust!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dust-shaking, if it was at all a &lt;em&gt;literal&lt;/em&gt; command, is then the solidification and externalization of the reality that the town had not welcomed them and that the disciples would have nothing to do with them. It's an assignment of a physical action to represent the nature of the departure. In some sense, Jesus made the nature of such departures &lt;em&gt;sacramental&lt;/em&gt;, revealing or manifesting a spiritual reality -- and undoubtedly clearing the disciples heads and consciences in the process, freeing them from guilt as they progressed to the next town.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T02:22:02.477" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T02:22:02.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15370" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15373" CreationDate="2013-04-01T19:40:49.920" Score="6" ViewCount="6949" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the summary of Noah on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/noah-bible-patriarch?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=n&quot;&gt;lds.org&lt;/a&gt; site, it states that Joseph Smith taught that Noah is, in fact, the angel Gabriel.  How exactly is this believed to have progressed?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Noah exist as an angel first and then become a man?  Or did Noah eventually become an angel?  If he became an angel, does that mean he did not attain godhood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it a common believe that men become angels or angels become men?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-05-24T00:58:53.517" LastActivityDate="2017-04-27T15:02:37.493" Title="What is the relationship between Gabriel and Noah in LDS/Mormon teaching?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;noah&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15371" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15374" CreationDate="2013-04-01T19:53:41.450" Score="7" ViewCount="1163" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the summary of Noah on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/noah-bible-patriarch?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=n&quot;&gt;lds.org&lt;/a&gt; site, it states that Noah was ordained to the priesthood at the age of 10 by Methuselah, his grandfather.  Furthermore, in D &amp;amp; C 107:53, it indicates that the entire line of Adam from Seth to Methuselah were all high priests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that there are two priesthoods acknowledged by the LDS Church--the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Aaronic Priesthood originated with Aaron during the Exodus.  Melchizedek was a contemporary of Abraham, who lived a few hundred years after the flood.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Methuselah lived before the flood and apparently died the year of the flood, while Noah lived on both sides of the flood, of course, as did 7 other members of his family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what specific priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Noah hold that would have to predate the other two priesthoods by at least four centuries?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-01T20:01:52.440" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T20:28:57.137" Title="What priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Melchizedek and Noah hold in LDS/Mormon teaching?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15372" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15381" CreationDate="2013-04-01T20:19:14.153" Score="17" ViewCount="60816" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Exodus, Moses leaves Egypt and lives with the people in Midian for a few years (Exodus 2:15). I'm wondering what Moses' religious environment was like while he was living there. I know his father-in-law Jethro was a priest of Midian, but what does that mean? Was this some Godly priesthood? I don't seem to remember pre-Aaronic references to a priesthood in the Bible... was he priest of some pagan religion then? Some Islamic people believe he was a prophet, is this so? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither Moses nor God seemed to regard him as a member of the nation of Israel, as the Hebrew people were all enslaved in Egypt at the time. Also, the people of Midian didn't join in the exodus, and I'm assuming this means they were definitely separate from Israel, and not lead to the &quot;promise land.&quot; Jethro, however, did come to visit and give practical leadership advice, so obviously Moses held him in high esteem...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any thoughts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4236" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-01T20:45:23.063" LastActivityDate="2015-04-05T22:54:06.827" Title="What is the religion of the Midian people?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;moses&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15370" CreationDate="2013-04-01T20:22:34.030" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to LDS doctrine, it's not so much that men or angels &quot;become&quot; one another, as that they are the same order of creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the same reference, under &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/angels?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=a&quot;&gt;Angels&lt;/a&gt;, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those&#xA;  who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels&#xA;  who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or&#xA;  they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting&#xA;  resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either&#xA;  been resurrected from the dead or translated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are many references in scripture to the work of angels.&#xA;  Sometimes angels speak with a voice of thunder as they deliver God’s&#xA;  messages (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/27.11-16?lang=eng#10&quot;&gt;Mosiah 27:11–16&lt;/a&gt;). Righteous mortal men may also be called&#xA;  angels (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/19.15?lang=eng#14&quot;&gt;JST, Gen. 19:15&lt;/a&gt;). Some angels serve around the throne of God&#xA;  in heaven (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/36.22?lang=eng#21&quot;&gt;Alma 36:22&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angel Gabriel is primarily known to Christians through his role in informing Mary and Zacharias about the important roles that their unborn children would play.  Genesis 9:29 informs us that Noah died, and as these events (as well as certain events in the book of Daniel that mention Gabriel) took place before the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, it's safe to say that he was, at this point, one of the spirits who &quot;once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distinguishing characteristic seems to be not so much one of &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; as of &lt;em&gt;vocation&lt;/em&gt;; an angel is a servant of God--generally a non-mortal one (the one exception mentioned in the reference article refers to the messengers sent to Lot in Sodom, which is a somewhat ambiguous case)--with some special mission or duty to perform.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-01T20:25:33.533" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T20:25:33.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15371" CreationDate="2013-04-01T20:28:57.137" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The crux of this question seems to lie in the final paragraph:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, what specific priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Noah&#xA;  hold that would have to predate the other two priesthoods by at least&#xA;  four centuries?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The confusion leading to this question is cleared up in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107.2-4?lang=eng#1&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants, section 107&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Why the first [order of Priesthood] is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because&#xA;  Melchizedek was such a great high priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Before his day it was called &lt;em&gt;the Holy Priesthood, after the Order&#xA;  of the Son of God.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being,&#xA;  to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in&#xA;  ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the&#xA;  Melchizedek Priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the Priesthood from the time of Adam to Noah was the Melchizedek Priesthood; it just wasn't called that yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-04-01T20:28:57.137" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15375" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-01T21:01:45.090" Score="3" ViewCount="1203" Body="&lt;p&gt;On Earth, the Catholic Church teaches that humans are co-creators with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his&#xA;  providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing”&#xA;  the earth and having dominion over it. &lt;strong&gt;God thus enables men to be&#xA;  intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors.&#xA;  Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also&#xA;  enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their&#xA;  prayers, and their sufferings. &lt;strong&gt;They then fully become “God’s fellow&#xA;  workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=14-chapter4.xhtml%23para307&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic&#xA;  Church, paragraph 307&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does any tradition see this concept of humans being co-creative/co-worker extending into heaven? If so, does this mean that we will continue to push technology forward?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-05-13T18:32:10.293" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T18:32:10.293" Title="Will there be ongoing co-creation (aka technological development) in heaven?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;humanity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2183" CreationDate="2013-04-01T21:33:49.683" Score="13" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Irenaeus&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can thank &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Irenaeus&lt;/a&gt;, not only for identifying the tetramorph gospel, but also for providing the names of the authors who are traditionally assigned to them.  He summarized the tradition he received:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew&lt;/strong&gt; also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, &lt;strong&gt;Mark&lt;/strong&gt;, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. &lt;strong&gt;Luke&lt;/strong&gt; also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, &lt;strong&gt;John&lt;/strong&gt;, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.&amp;mdash;&lt;em&gt;Against Heresies&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book 3, Chapter 1&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Matthew&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irenaeus was likely dependant on Papias (who Eusebius quotes):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But concerning Matthew [Papias] writes as follows: &quot;So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.&quot;&amp;mdash;&lt;em&gt;The Church History of Eusebius&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxix.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book 3, Chapter 39&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a historical perspective, this is a bit awkward as the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/4146/68&quot;&gt;evidence&lt;/a&gt; is that Matthew was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.  But for the purposes of this question, that's the answer. (See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Matthew&lt;/a&gt; on the Early Christian Writings site.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Mark&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eusebius writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.&amp;mdash;&lt;em&gt;The Church History of Eusebius&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxix.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book 3, Chapter 39&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eusebius&lt;/a&gt; quotes &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Papias&lt;/a&gt; (of whose works we only have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;fragments&lt;/a&gt; quoted in other works) quoting&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Presbyter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John the Presbyter&lt;/a&gt; who identifies Mark as recording Peter's gospel message.  Although Irenaeus also identifies Mark as the author, it's likely he got his information from Papias.  Justin Martyr &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cvi.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;seems to&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; also link the Markian text with Peter, which is an independent confirmation.  Usually this Mark is identified with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mark&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Mark&lt;/a&gt; mentioned a few times in Acts and one of Paul's letters.  There really aren't any other candidates if you credit Papias' account.  (See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Mark&lt;/a&gt; on the Early Christian Writings site.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Luke&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Appropriately, the author of the earliest church history (Acts) and the most careful study of Jesus' life among the Gospels (Luke) is fairly conclusively identified with &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/1535/68&quot;&gt;Luke the physician&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Clement of Alexandria&lt;/a&gt; positively identifies Luke as the author of Acts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It remains that we understand, then, the Unknown, by divine grace, and by the word alone that proceeds from Him; as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For in walking about, and beholding the objects of your worship, I found an altar on which was inscribed, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.”&amp;mdash;&lt;em&gt;The Stromata&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.v.xii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book 5, Chapter 12&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clement also quotes a bit of Luke's gospel and names him as the author in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.ii.i.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;another book&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_10book4_eng.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tertullian&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap75.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the earliest manuscript&lt;/a&gt; bear witness to Luke's authorship.  Since the recipient of the work is included in the preface, it's even possible the author signed the copy he originally submitted, though we don't actually have that copy to know for sure.  (See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Luke&lt;/a&gt; on the Early Christian Writings site.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;John&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Internal evidence suggests that author of John was the &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1041/68&quot;&gt;Beloved Disciple&lt;/a&gt;.  Traditionally, that figure has been associated with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Evangelist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John&lt;/a&gt;, one of Jesus' inner circle.  Again, Irenaeus likely received his information from Papias.  Eusebius jumps quickly over the question of who wrote the Gospel of John (probably because the identification was common knowledge by the 3rd-century) in order to address the authorship of Revelation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.&amp;mdash;&lt;em&gt;The Church History of Eusebius&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxix.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book 3, Chapter 39&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By calling John the apostle, &quot;the evangelist&quot;, Eusebius identifies him as the author of the gospel (&lt;em&gt;euangelion&lt;/em&gt; in Greek).  He proposes another John as the author of Revelation.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;  There are a number of &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1039/68&quot;&gt;other candidates&lt;/a&gt;, but this is how John got associated with the gospel that bears his name.  (See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of John&lt;/a&gt; on the Early Christian Writings site.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or perhaps paraphrasing.  Ancient texts didn't use much in the way of punctuation, so it's hard to delineate quotations in the best of circumstances.  With this many layers of quotation, it's especially rough. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The key is to see that Justin Martyr mentions &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/search/?q=Boanerges&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Boanerges&lt;/a&gt;, which indicates the Gospel of Mark. He calls the gospels the &quot;memoirs of the apostles&quot; and Mark seems to be Peter's memoir:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of [him] that this so happened...&quot;&amp;mdash;&lt;em&gt;Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cvi.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Chapter 106&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the memoir could be of Jesus (&quot;Him&quot;), so this is only supplementary evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's possible that this is a misreading of Papias by Eusebius.  Irenaeus seems to think there was just one John in the Asian church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him.&amp;mdash;&lt;em&gt;Against Heresies&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxiv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book 5, Chapter 33&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps at issue is the authorship of Revelation, which was the source of the early &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiliasm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chiliasm&lt;/a&gt; controversy.  If there are two authors named John (one for the Gospel and one for the Apocalypse), than one may be taken as historical and the other as fanciful.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T20:09:12.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15377" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-01T21:46:30.967" Score="11" ViewCount="3910" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church says that human are co-creators with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his&#xA;  providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing”&#xA;  the earth and having dominion over it. &lt;strong&gt;God thus enables men to be&#xA;  intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors.&#xA;  Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also&#xA;  enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their&#xA;  prayers, and their sufferings. &lt;strong&gt;They then fully become “God’s fellow&#xA;  workers” and co-workers for his kingdom&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=14-chapter4.xhtml%23para307&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic&#xA;  Church, paragraph&#xA;  307&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In what manner, capacity, and extent are we co-creators with God, according to the Catholic Church?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T08:27:36.350" Title="What does the Catholic Church mean when it calls humans co-creators with God?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;humanity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15378" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15393" CreationDate="2013-04-01T22:37:29.390" Score="4" ViewCount="1645" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the old testament, there are three (maybe more?) references to a priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 14:18&lt;/strong&gt; Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (Now he was the priest of the Most High God.) &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; He blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by the Most High God, Creator of heaven and earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was also referenced in reference to Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 7:17&lt;/strong&gt; For it is declared: You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is of Jethro, Moses' father-in-law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 2:16&lt;/strong&gt; Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came to draw water and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally the priesthood of Aaron ordained by God through Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are these all referring to the same priesthood? If they're different, what sets them apart from each other? Are they all priests in some fashion for God? The first two intrigue me the most as I know next to nothing about them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4236" LastActivityDate="2016-02-01T01:53:54.060" Title="What are the natures of the different &quot;priesthoods&quot; mentioned in the old testament" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-02-01T21:39:31.047" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15379" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15420" CreationDate="2013-04-01T23:11:27.347" Score="8" ViewCount="2742" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation 20:14 is what I'm talking about. It is only confusing because nearly every translation says something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  15 And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, 'death and hell' are cast in, then the wicked not found in the Book of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some translations say 'death and Hades'. The NASB says 'death and the grave'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of place consumes death, hell, the grave, and the wicked, then calls that event the second death? What is the Lake of Fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/508/heaven-paradise-sheol-hell-hades-the-lake-of-fire&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; exists but it does not have a helpful answer.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2017-06-07T03:52:22.160" Title="What is the Lake of Fire?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-06-07T17:02:17.010" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15379" CreationDate="2013-04-02T00:16:47.897" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This place that Jesus, while he was dead, went to preach to the spirits in prison, may be Hades or Paradise.  It seems that Paradise and Hades may be separated by a some sort of chasm but near enough for communication between the two places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 16: 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hades is a place of torment before the Great White Throne Judgement.  It seems to be a temporary place since is will eventually be thrown into The Lake of Fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev. 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev. 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lake of Fire is a place of eternal torture.  It's the place where God permanently throws everything he detests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4258" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T00:34:05.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15372" CreationDate="2013-04-02T01:48:27.757" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is only partially answered Scripturally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 25:1-2 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and &lt;strong&gt;Midian&lt;/strong&gt;, and&#xA;  Ishbak, and Shuah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The significance of this passage is that the Midianites were descendants of Abraham, and as such would have shared the knowledge of the God of Abraham.  They aren't in the line of Isaac and Jacob, and clearly not in the chosen line, but they would at least have knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not overly fond of Wikipedia as a source, but from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midian&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midian&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Religion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Midianites were the descendants of Midian, who was a son of&#xA;  Abraham through his wife Keturah. This can be seen in the following&#xA;  Biblical passages. Genesis 25:1-2 1Then again Abraham took a wife, and&#xA;  her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan,&#xA;  and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. (King James Version)[7]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Midianites through their apparent religio-political connection&#xA;  with the Moabites[8] are thought to have worshipped a multitude of&#xA;  gods,[9] including Baal-peor and the Queen of Heaven, Ashteroth. An&#xA;  Egyptian temple of Hathor at Timna continued to be used during the&#xA;  Midianite occupation of the site. However, whether Hathor or some&#xA;  other deity was the object of devotion during this period is&#xA;  impossible to ascertain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, even though the Midianites didn't worship the God of Israel, enough knowledge of Him must have existed among them for Jethro, Moses' Father-In-Law, to make the following statement after hearing about the Exodus, and God's miraculous freeing of the Jewish People from their Egyptian bondage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 18:9-11 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the Lord had done to&#xA;  Israel, whom he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of&#xA;  the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath&#xA;  delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing&#xA;  wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on the combination of these facts, it would appear that the Midianites, like all other cultures, turned away from the God of Abraham, unto false gods.  Jethro, however, appears to have been made a believer in the God of Abraham after hearing of His miraculous works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T01:55:16.493" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T01:55:16.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15375" CreationDate="2013-04-02T02:37:41.753" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not specifically refer to co-creation, but then neither does any other scripture in the Bible.  So, if we are co-creators here on Earth, as taught in the Catechism of the Catholic church, then Matthew 18:18 may lend some support that this might carry over to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One might also ask &quot;Why would poets in a glorified state (fully freed from themselves and truly free to fully be themselves) not write poetry and gadget makers make gadgets--as a form of worship integrated with their personalities?&quot; Exposure to the presence of God (and the perfected images, as well as the rest of creation, reflecting that glory) would certainly generate the need for an outlet of worship and being all the creature one is created to be would be a good way to declare &quot;Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts. The whole earth is full of his glory.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4258" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-05-12T23:45:22.623" LastActivityDate="2013-05-12T23:45:22.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15384" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15387" CreationDate="2013-04-02T04:55:48.963" Score="9" ViewCount="2564" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that at the time that 1 Timothy was written, &quot;certain people&quot; had become much too interested in genealogies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/1timothy/1/3&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 1:3-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; I repeat the request I made of you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; or to concern themselves with myths and &lt;strong&gt;endless genealogies&lt;/strong&gt;, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk,&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other passages in the Bible, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/10&quot;&gt;Genesis 10&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/5&quot;&gt;Genesis 5&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1/&quot;&gt;Matthew 1&lt;/a&gt;, list various geneologies. These hardly seem to qualify as &quot;endless&quot;, unless one has a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; short attention span. So what exactly is 1 Timothy talking about? I would guess, especially based on the context, that &quot;certain people&quot; were more or less fabricating geneologies about biblical figures, but on what basis? And is this a prohibition against being interested in any genealogies, or is it referring to a specific sort of interest? Most importantly, is it a prohibition against reading and being interested in the geneological parts of the Bible itself, provided that one remains interested in only what is said therin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2017-05-28T18:35:55.497" Title="When 1 Timothy cautions against &quot;endless geneologies&quot;, is it talking about the Bible?" Tags="&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15377" CreationDate="2013-04-02T08:27:36.350" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God created the nature and men, either directly or through evolution (that's a different question). But men created lots of other things: fire, flint tools, wheel, civilisation... This is one aspect: in some sense God created even technology, but we, men, are its direct creators.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other aspects. If you testify about Jesus or just live with God and bear fruits of Holy Spirit and your testimony (by words and/or life) becomes the impulse for someone to convert and believe in Christ, this is mainly work of God's grace and Holy Spirit, but you acted as God's fellow worker in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, not everything we do is a participation on God's work on his kingdom. God gave us free will and responsibility to either gather with him or scatter without him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T08:27:36.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15384" CreationDate="2013-04-02T11:12:42.770" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The focus of this invective isn't so much on the genealogies themselves as it is the way in which people use them to puff them themselves up.  Even barring earthly lineages, the poor of the church of Corinth managed to put themselves into faction. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.  3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice Paul's focus here - he is concerned that his church isn't &amp;quot;growing up.&amp;quot; When the focus is on where &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4881/1039&quot;&gt;one comes &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, the focus necessarily is moved off of what one has become.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note also in the text you quote, that the problem with 'myths and genealogies' is that they lead simply to 'endless speculation.' Put another way, Paul is admonishing believers to stick to the actual teaching, rather than &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/obama-easter-pastor-luis-leon_n_2994627.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;indulging in the desire to read as much into a text as is desired&lt;/a&gt;.  The &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6330/what-is-the-purpose-of-describing-who-is-son-of-who/6446#6446&quot;&gt;genealogies in Scripture are there for a reason&lt;/a&gt; - they place Scripture in a particular time and place, and show that God is no respecter of persons. (Abraham, in Genesis 11, is just another guy in another line).  When people dwell on these things, however, they are looking for themselves - puffing themselves up - and that is not the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T13:56:13.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15350" CreationDate="2013-04-02T13:20:18.120" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least in Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church saint Adalbert is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; venerated. I had a friend that was a member of PAKP from a mixed (catholic-orthodox) family. His mother wanted to name him &amp;quot;Wojciech&amp;quot;, but the parish priest disagreed. So he had the name &amp;quot;Wojciech&amp;quot; written in secular documents but was baptised with name &amp;quot;George&amp;quot; and thus he was known for people from orthodox parish in Poznań.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The possible reason why he is not venerated byt PAKP was his negative attitude towards cirylo-methodian tradition. There is an ancient chronicle which states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;zniszczył wiarę prawdziwą i słowiańskie pismo odrzucił i zaprowadził pismo łacińskie i obrządek łaciński; obrazy wiary prawdziwej popalił, biskupów i księży jednychpozabijał, drugich rozegnał&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;destroyed the true faith and rejected the slavonic script introducing the latin script and latin rite; the icons of true faith he burned, from the bishops and priests, he killed some and banished the others&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if there are any other reasons that Saint Adalbert is not accepted by PAKP. I never read any official declaration of the Holy Council of PAKP about Saint Adalbert.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T13:20:18.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15389" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15391" CreationDate="2013-04-02T13:30:52.477" Score="10" ViewCount="171" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic doctrine teaches that Peter was the first Pope and that Popes may speak &quot;ex cathedra&quot;.  When they do, that is considered infallible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, while Peter was alive and presumably serving as the first Pope, Paul, John, and James all wrote books that are considered to be Scripture.  In fact, Peter himself refers to Paul's letters as Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our&#xA;  beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,&#xA;  16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in&#xA;  which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and&#xA;  unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their&#xA;  own destruction.  2 Peter 3:15-16 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were other people besides the Pope, then, able to speak/write ex cathedra while not serving as Pope?  If so, can others besides the Pope speak/write ex cathedra today?  What is the Catholic understanding of this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T14:12:37.200" Title="In Catholic understanding, did Paul speak/write ex cathedra while Peter was serving as Pope?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;&lt;papal-infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15351" CreationDate="2013-04-02T13:52:27.007" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One must note that there is no single &quot;Traditionalist Sect/Branch&quot;. The word &quot;traditionalist catholic&quot; may refer to anyone from someone who prefers Tridentine Mass over NOM to sedevacantists and followers of antipopes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some traditional catholics live in full communion with catholic church. They might be sceptical about SV II. They might disagree with some modernist tendencies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The brotherhood of Saint Pius X is one of the biggest organisation of traditional catholics. It never rejected the pope, although during the pontificate of JP II it was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without pope's order. The unity was brought back by Pope Benedict XVI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Sedevacantist&quot; is a term that generally describes someone that believes there is no pope. There is no single sedevacantist group and sedevacantists differ in the opinion which was the first unlawful pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the current antipopes there are also some that could be labeled as &quot;traditionalists&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastEditorUserId="29867" LastEditDate="2016-09-16T10:49:43.460" LastActivityDate="2016-09-16T10:49:43.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15389" CreationDate="2013-04-02T14:12:37.200" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm&quot;&gt;Ex cathedra&lt;/a&gt; means &lt;em&gt;from the chair&lt;/em&gt; literally. It refers to the power of the reigning Pope to speak infallibly on doctrinal or moral issues. And although, in my understanding, the power of speaking &quot;from the chair&quot; &lt;em&gt;in general&lt;/em&gt; is not a concept necessarily new to Catholicism (think of any leader speaking officially from their official seat), in Catholicism it refers specifically to the Pope's authority to make infallible proclamations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the letters of Paul, John, and James, we believe that they're inspired writings. But, they're authoritative, per se -- at least not in the same manner of the authority granted by speaking &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;. They're authoritative, if at all, in an &lt;em&gt;unordinary&lt;/em&gt; manner. That is, their authority doesn't flow from a natural &lt;strong&gt;seat&lt;/strong&gt; of authority, but from a supernatural infusion of God's grace. I think it's also accurate to say that their authority &lt;em&gt;within the Church&lt;/em&gt; flowed from Peter. Their words were binding on Christians only to the extent than Peter bound them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The authority of speaking &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;, though infused with grace, is an &lt;em&gt;ordinary&lt;/em&gt; authority. That is, it is in the nature of the office of Pope to be able to speak &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;. The ability isn't absent until God inspires the Pope to speak &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;; it's always there, regardless of whether the Pope actually &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; speaking &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; (which is almost never).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T14:12:37.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15375" CreationDate="2013-04-02T14:19:03.500" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Check out N. T. Wright's views on the after-life in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0061551821&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Surprised by Hope&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. The short, short version is that no one really knows what it will be like for sure, but we'll not be playing harps all day. It's a new heavens and a new earth, our glorified bodies will be (at least) physical, and I expect there will be work to do. And it will be done joyfully!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jonathan Edwards says in his sermon &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/portion2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Portion of the Righteous&lt;/a&gt;&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are different degrees of happiness and glory in heaven. As there&#xA;  are degrees among the angels, viz. thrones, dominions, principalities,&#xA;  and powers; so there are degrees among the saints. In heaven are many&#xA;  mansions, and of different degrees of dignity. The glory of the saints&#xA;  above will be in some proportion to their eminency in holiness and&#xA;  good works here. Christ will reward all according to their works. He&#xA;  that gained ten pounds was made ruler over ten cities, and he that&#xA;  gained five pounds over five cities. Luke 19:17; 2 Cor. 9:6, “He that&#xA;  soweth sparingly, shall reap sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully&#xA;  shall reap also bountifully.” And the apostle Paul tells us that, as&#xA;  one star differs from another star in glory, so also it shall be in&#xA;  the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. 15:41. Christ tells us that he&#xA;  who gives a cup of cold water unto a disciple in the name of a&#xA;  disciple, shall in no wise lose his reward. But this could not be&#xA;  true, if a person should have no greater reward for doing many good&#xA;  works than if he did but few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It will be no damp to the happiness of those who have lower degrees of&#xA;  happiness and glory, that there are others advanced in glory above&#xA;  them. For all shall be perfectly happy, every one shall be perfectly&#xA;  satisfied. Every vessel that is cast into this ocean of happiness is&#xA;  full, though there are some vessels far larger than others. And there&#xA;  shall be no such thing as envy in heaven, but perfect love shall reign&#xA;  through the whole society. Those who are not so high in glory as&#xA;  other, will not envy those that are higher, but they will have so&#xA;  great, and strong, and pure love to them, that they will rejoice in&#xA;  their superior happiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One might extend this to include differences in roles -- some will farm and make goods or art, while others will rule. None will despise or envy those over them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to get really far out, we might speculate that the work of the new heavens and new earth could involve colonizing other planets, bringing his image and dominion to all the created universe. The work we may do could require us having new senses and experience new facets or dimensions of reality (what we currently think of as spiritual) in a more direct way. The world itself may be drastically changed -- John Polkinghorne suggests there may be new laws of physics, e.g., no second law of thermodynamics which says all tends toward entropy and chaos. In short, speculations can abound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T14:19:03.500" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15378" CreationDate="2013-04-02T15:08:39.467" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first order, the order of Melchizedek, is controversial. You can &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/search?q=melchizedek&quot;&gt;search this site&lt;/a&gt;, and especially see this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/404/who-was-melchizedek&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%207:17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7:17&lt;/a&gt; reference is actually quoting from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20110:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 110:4&lt;/a&gt;, which is a prophecy about Jesus, that he would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I liked &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/404/who-was-melchizedek/442#442&quot;&gt;Mason Wheeler's answer&lt;/a&gt; on that question, which in part stated (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[T]he Order of Melchizedek is a higher order of priesthood than the order of Aaron, which the Levites operated under. It had the power of administering the &quot;schoolmaster law,&quot; but not the full power and authority of the higher ordinances of the Gospel, and so by the Aaronic order alone, nothing could be made perfect. But the order of Melchezidek, which predates the Aaronic order, is the &lt;em&gt;priesthood order of Christ himself&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Abraham's transfer of goods to Melchizedek is seen to imply that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, in that Abraham is tithing to him. Thus, Melchizedek's (Jesus') priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood (who are descended from Abraham), and the Temple in Jerusalem is now unnecessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether you believe that Melchizedek &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; Jesus, or merely a &quot;picture of&quot; or a foreshadowing of Jesus, he is named as a priest, and clearly a highly ordered priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the priesthood of Jethro, the picture is not as clear. &lt;a href=&quot;http://family.wikinut.com/Who-Is-the-God-that-Jethro-the-Priest-of-Midian-Priest-of/10430s9w/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; makes the argument that he was indeed a follower of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. After providing the background, it states that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jethro was the priest of deity El, whose name was isolated and new name, taken up as Yahweh by Moses. Jethro is not a pagan priest, but the priest of the deity whose ancestors of Moses worshipped. This patron deity is now revealed to Moses as Yahweh, He is who He is, He was who he was and He is who He is to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, two Jewish sources (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/6962/jewish/Jethro.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oztorah.com/2008/01/jethro-the-priest-of-midian-yitro/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) state that he was a Pagan priest, who later renounced his Pagan gods. Evidence of this is given in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2018:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 18:11&lt;/a&gt;, when Jethro says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second article addresses this by explaining the situations surrounding Moses' meeting his future wife:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who are certain that he really was a priest say that having realised that idol-worship was foolish, he resolved to abandon it. He was punished for this heresy; no-one would now keep his flocks, and this is why his daughters were tending the sheep and why the shepherds tried to drive them away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe the reason you know next to nothing on these two priesthoods is that there are two different views for both of them, and neither can be decisevely stated from scripture which view is correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the priesthood of Aaron, called the Aaronic priesthood by the LDS Church, and the Levitical priesthood by most others, this is the priest most people think about when they hear the word &quot;priest&quot; in a Bible context. Descendents of Levi, these priests were responsible for sacrifices, teaching, liturgical duties, everything pertaining to the tabernacle and later, the temple, and various other duties within the Israelite/Hebrew people. These two sources (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible.ca/archeology/archeology-exodus-route-sinai-levitical-priesthood-levi-gershomites-kohathites-merarites-aaronic-zadok-asaph-heman-ethan-abiathar-eli-sadducees-annas-caiaphas-ananias.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;src1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/levpriest.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;src2&lt;/a&gt;) provide an excellent history and summary of the Levitical priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to a discussion from an LDS point of view on the differences of the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Aaron, see this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4945/in-lds-mormon-theology-what-is-the-aaronic-priesthood-and-to-whom-is-it-confe/4947#4947&quot;&gt;question &amp;amp; answer&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T15:08:39.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15394" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15398" CreationDate="2013-04-02T15:51:29.860" Score="15" ViewCount="4059" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/09/feedback-timeline-for-the-flood&quot;&gt;Answers in Genesis&lt;/a&gt;, the flood happened in approximately 2348 BC, which means it would've happened about 4360 years ago. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees#Individual_trees_with_verified_ages&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; has a list of the oldest individual trees known, of which three are older than 4360 years (one that was cut down was [at least] 4,844 years old).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Flood clearly should've killed all of the trees that were around at the time. Yet, these trees were definitely around before the Flood happened. So, how do Bible Literalists deal with this issue? How do they explain the fact that we have trees older than the Flood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note: this is indirectly related to Young Earth Creationism as the calculated age of the Earth (about 6,016 years) depends on the date of creation.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T16:15:37.297" LastActivityDate="2018-09-14T04:57:47.143" Title="How do Bible Literalists deal with trees older than the flood?" Tags="&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15394" CreationDate="2013-04-02T17:06:23.763" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming your date for creation and delta to the flood are correct, one way is to say the tree was not uprooted or killed by the flood. Perhaps it went dormant, as in winter. (If that fails, there's always supernatural preservation.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all, the dove brought back the olive branch as the sign that things were growing again shortly after the flood. So there is at least one tree that was not destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T17:06:23.763" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15396" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15397" CreationDate="2013-04-02T17:10:05.273" Score="1" ViewCount="196" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This question also relates to it:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Growing up I've been led to believe that God is God, and Jesus is God's son. But others have also preached that Jesus was God, in a human's body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And nearly everywhere I go online these days, I end up seeing some website that claims that Jesus &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So which is it? Are God and Jesus the same being? Is Jesus God's son? There are some Christian websites that claim different things, so I am confused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do the majority of Christians say about this topic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4268" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T22:13:41.587" Title="According to mainstream Christianity, who is God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-04-02T18:11:22.237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15396" CreationDate="2013-04-02T17:15:39.430" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you are having difficulty grokking is a concept known as the &quot;Trinity.&quot;  The historically correct definition of the Trinity is that God is &quot;three persons in one.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus says, &quot;I and the Father are One&quot; (in John), he is claiming that he is God.  Historically, God the Father, Jesus (God the Son), and the Holy Spirit are all considered the three persons of the Trinity.  They are all equal, they are distinct, and yet they are all the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/13655/1039&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; explains the relationship as well as any :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't worry, its a difficult concept, but it is the basis of Nicene Christianity's understanding of how God exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T17:15:39.430" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15394" CreationDate="2013-04-02T17:24:52.020" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;If it is a scientific certainty that a tree create one and only one ring per year, then this would be problematic.  However, as you can read on Wikipedia, this is not always the case:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid summer&#xA;  droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology#Growth_rings&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it would only take conditions to produce two rings in less than 1 out of 9 years to make up for the &quot;missing&quot; 500 years.  So, the 4,844 rings (not years) appears to be within a reasonable variation to place the actual germination of the tree to be just after the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T17:24:52.020" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15352" CreationDate="2013-04-02T18:44:03.657" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be sure, the Jewish leaders should have accepted Jesus.  The miraculous signs He performed was irrefutable evidence that He had come from God, as Nicodemus, himself a Pharisee, noted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the&#xA;  Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we&#xA;  know that You have come from God as a teacher; &lt;strong&gt;for no one can do these&#xA;  signs that You do unless God is with him&lt;/strong&gt;.”  John 3:1-2 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, God has prophesied this through Isaiah the prophet, as John notes later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were&#xA;  not believing in Him. 38 &lt;strong&gt;This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the&#xA;  prophet&lt;/strong&gt; which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to&#xA;  whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 For this reason they&#xA;  could not believe, &lt;strong&gt;for Isaiah said again&lt;/strong&gt;, 40 “He has blinded their&#xA;  eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with&#xA;  their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I&#xA;  heal them.” 41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and&#xA;  he spoke of Him. John 12:37-41 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, many of the rulers, including Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, did, in fact, believe in Jesus and accept Him as their Messiah.  Yet, the Pharisees as a group were imposing significant consequences on anyone who followed Jesus, so there was a lot of fear that led to many believing in secret.  Sadly, it seems, at least prior to Jesus' death and resurrection, that they loved the approval of men more than the approval of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nevertheless &lt;strong&gt;many even of the rulers believed in Him&lt;/strong&gt;, but because&#xA;  of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, &lt;strong&gt;for fear&lt;/strong&gt; that they&#xA;  would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the&#xA;  approval of men rather than the approval of God.  John 12:42 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T18:44:03.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15402" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15404" CreationDate="2013-04-02T19:02:16.137" Score="10" ViewCount="145079" Body="&lt;p&gt;When someone passes away, at their funeral the priest will usually say something that gives the idea that the deceased is in heaven. And a lot of people also like to give the idea that people who die are with Jesus Christ. For instance, say someone close to you passed away, chances are you've said something that gives the idea that the person is in heaven, such as, &quot;I know you are in a better place, near Jesus Christ.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I ask this question is that the when people die, I know that they go to the world of the dead till the day that Jesus Christ will return. But if people are already in heaven this means that there really isn't much reason for Jesus Christ to return, because all those that believe in Him are already in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus Christ will return and all those that have faith in Him will be raised and be priests with Him for a thousand years, why make it seem as if the deceased are already in heaven? If someone dies and goes to heaven before the Last Judgement, what need is there for him to be judged at the final judgement? Hasn't he already been judged righteous if he is in heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4269" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-09-30T16:39:07.617" LastActivityDate="2015-09-30T20:37:33.683" Title="Do people go to heaven immediately when they die?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;second-coming&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-10-01T08:18:37.907" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15402" CreationDate="2013-04-02T19:21:13.553" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;That death and &quot;sleeping,&quot; are often conflated in Scripture is perhaps a useful metaphor here. Notice how, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul likens those who have died to those who have &quot;fallen asleep in Christ.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a useful metaphor, for when a normal person falls asleep, they are unaware of the passage of time.  Whether or not there is a time lag between dying and being raised back up is, in fact, irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The person who has died is unaware of the passage of time.  For that person, whether Christ tarries a thousand years or only minutes, is, to the dead, indistinguishable.  There is no sensation between now and then, so it doesn't really matter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To the person who is still alive, there is no communication in any event, so that the precise location of the soul is not important.  We thus do not &quot;mourn as the Gentiles do,&quot; but rather we have a hope and a peace that passes understanding - because we know that at the end of our temporal existence, we will be reunited with our loved ones.  Once we die, sensation ceases for us as well - and at that point, eternity begins. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To God, who is outside of time, time and space are irrelevant.  All things occur at once.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next communication we have with our loved ones will, in fact, be in heaven - so in a sense to say they &quot;are in heaven&quot; - which may or may not, at that exact moment, be temporally accurate or not - is not really the question being addressed.  That our next moment of contact will be in heaven is the point, and on that point, if it is not true, then everything else is vain any way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, the focus is that at some point, the promise of the Christian life is the hope that we will be resurrected - that we will be &quot;awoken&quot; is beyond doubt - and when we are, oh what a day of rejoicing that will be!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another, the current chronology is irrelevant.  The end state is the same - we will all, at some point, in an instant, be together in heaven with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-02T19:27:33.573" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T19:27:33.573" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="78" CreationDate="2013-04-02T20:22:54.630" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Philippians 2:5-7&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Who, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;being in very nature God,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;      did not consider &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;equality with God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; something to be used to his own advantage;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 rather, he made himself nothing&#xA;      by taking the very nature of a servant,&#xA;      &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;being made in human likeness&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse clearly shows that Jesus God was manifest in the flesh. Now let us deal with John 17:3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 17:3  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the only true God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the parallel to this verse 1 John 5:20-21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Jn 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the true God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and eternal life. &#xA;1Jn 5:21  Little children, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;keep yourselves from idols&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Amen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:1 is commonly used to prove Jesus is God but then if Jesus is God then according to John 17:3 He is a false God. There is no escaping this fact. A true scholar would then try to reconcile the two apparent contradictions. Therefore we conclude for Christ's sake and the the sake of the Gospel that true God being talked about here is the triune God. Jesus is not excluded here for He is part of the Triune Godhead. if the true God is the Father only the we have a problem. You are to share your opinion as always.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets also deal with Mat 14:10 which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’`&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again as a scholar you have to compare other scripture with other scriptures spiritual against spiritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom_1:1  Paul, a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;servant of Jesus Christ&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jud_1:1  Jude, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the servant of Jesus Christ&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now where the apostles wrong in their serving of Jesus Christ who is God (John 1:1)? of course not. Once the triune Godhead is established many contradictions can be solved. Just think of a world without this solution...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T20:22:54.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15402" CreationDate="2013-04-02T20:46:54.707" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you note, the Bible supports the idea that the spirits of the righteous dead rest in their own place, called &quot;Paradise,&quot; which is distinct from &quot;Heaven,&quot; (the home of God,) until the resurrection and the final judgment.  (Compare &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:39-42&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 23:39-42&lt;/a&gt; with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:15-17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 20:15-17&lt;/a&gt; or see my answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8588/68&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for further detail on the subject.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for why that idea doesn't get talked about accurately, most likely because it's more complicated than simply saying &quot;he died and went to heaven,&quot; and people have a well-known tendency to oversimplify complex subjects when discussing them.  You probably do that yourself all the time, in many different contexts.  I know I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, circumstances are important.  When someone is mourning a recent loss, family and close friends might well think that now is not the best time to get into a long, detailed discussion of Gospel principles.  So instead, they give them &lt;a href=&quot;http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheThemeParkVersion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Theme Park Version.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T20:46:54.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15407" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15409" CreationDate="2013-04-02T20:52:53.977" Score="9" ViewCount="1531" Body="&lt;p&gt;I saw on an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.askgramps.org/4120/in-the-pre-mortal-spirit-world-do-we-select-who-our-parents&quot;&gt;LDS-releated site&lt;/a&gt; recently where an LDS member indicated the belief that children in their pre-mortal existence choose who their parents will be.  After seeing this, I recalled hearing the same thing many years ago as well.  It seems, then, that this belief is present among at least some LDS members, even if it is not official teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the basis of this belief?  Is it official doctrine?  Are there references to this teaching in the D&amp;amp;C or any other Mormon Scripture or reference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T03:56:13.037" Title="What is the basis for the belief among some LDS/Mormons that children in their pre-mortal existence choose who their parents will be?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14568" CreationDate="2013-04-02T21:27:47.260" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will answer your second Question only because the first seems very complicated and technical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Were the Father and/or Spirit also in Him?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer&lt;/strong&gt;: yes the Holy Spirit was in Him, no the Father was not in him (he was in Him in a metaphorical sense though) He was in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scriptural Support&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk_3:22  And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God the Father (voice from heaven) is in heaven and The Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus. Simple and straight forward. all other arguments are just metaphors for example&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:30&#xA;I and my Father are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While reading the Bible go to the clearest passages before going to the metaphoric ones. For example when studying the state of the dead do not start with the parable of Lazarus and the richman (please don't that's a parable you can find clearer statements which talk on that issue)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you anyone does not agree here is a passage for you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:23  Jesus replied: If anyone loves me, they will obey me. Then my Father will love them, and we will come to them and live in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously this is metaphoric because Jesus is in the Heavenly sanctuary now:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 4:14  Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 8:1  Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 8:2  A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the Lord pitched, and not man.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When He finishes this ministry He will surely come again...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 22:12  And, behold, &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I come quickly&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;; and &lt;em&gt;my reward is with me&lt;/em&gt;, to give every man according as his work shall be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T21:27:47.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15407" CreationDate="2013-04-02T22:13:54.483" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no official LDS doctrine on the subject, and the idea that everyone gets to choose where they want to end up makes no sense anyway.  Obviously, some people get born into better circumstances than others, and with people being more likely to want to choose better circumstances than worse ones, clearly there are not enough &quot;good births&quot; to go around, to give everyone what they would ask for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea, insofar as it exists in LDS culture, can probably be traced back to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday%27s_Warrior&quot;&gt;Saturday's Warrior,&lt;/a&gt; a musical from the 1970s that became very well-known and popular among Mormons due to its positive message and extremely catchy soundtrack.  Unfortunately, the story told in the show depicts several points related to LDS doctrine--in particular, regarding the pre-existence--that could most charitably be described as &quot;questionable,&quot; including showing a family together in the pre-existence as the same family they would be on earth, and showing two other characters together as each other's &quot;one and only&quot; who were destined to be married to each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These ideas have no solid foundation in LDS theology, and at least once I've heard a General Authority in General Conference specifically deny the idea of a predestined &quot;one and only&quot; which, in his words, had unfortunately found its way into LDS culture through the influence of &quot;a well-intentioned stage play.&quot;  As the answer to the linked question points out, there are some cases in which certain significant people were foreordained to be born to a certain lineage, but there is no doctrine declaring that such is the case for everyone, or even for a significant fraction of everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-04-03T03:01:00.190" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T03:01:00.190" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3733" CreationDate="2013-04-02T23:33:13.450" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Peace to all; Just to point out 3 problems in the conclusion that the Law is done away with. First only 1 part of the OT (The decalog) = 10 commandments constitute the LAW. 2nd The word Law was mistranslated from the word TORAH which means Teachings, or Instructions. 3rd If you believe any of G-d's WORD is done away with then the one we believe is the WORD made flesh divided His Kingdom. If HE was the WORD before He came down then He had to be that same WORD when He arrived, which He refers to when He said &quot;Untill Heaven and earth disappear Not a jot or line will disappear from the Torah&quot; Which at the time was the only written word of God which would naturally have JOTs and LINEs in it. Keep in mind whenever the Christian Bible mentions LAW it should say Torah unless it is speaking about a certian commandment. Also something that may help your perspective is as followes when He said &quot;In the last days men will be (Lawless&quot;) substitute the word (TORAHLESS) which is the actual word used by Messiah Yeshua! You would have to know the original Aramaic/Hebrew to have known that. Hope I blessed you! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LOVE PAUL&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4270" LastActivityDate="2013-04-02T23:33:13.450" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15402" CreationDate="2013-04-03T03:03:33.187" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's kind of a touchy subject either way and doesn't really make much of a difference. However on the cross Jesus told the thief &quot;Tonight you will be with me in paradise&quot; which if taken literally then it should be clear that they went to 'paradise'. However this paradise is not directly portrayed as heaven. The implication is that as the riteous we should go to paradise directly after death and that when a new heaven and a new earth are created then we will be in the new and perfected earth with God. I'm not sure if that makes much sense or if it's correct but that's what I personally get from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only problem with this paradise vs. heaven theory is that in the apostles creed we state that &quot;Jesus now sits at the right hand of God the father&quot; and therefore how can they be separate and Jesus be both in paradise with us and in heaven with god the father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4271" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2013-04-03T03:26:57.087" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T03:26:57.087" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2013-04-03T03:45:05.350" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul laid it out clearly the moral sins that lead to death. They are based on old testament commands. They are our fence lines on the road to life eternal.&#xA;Love is in the center of the road.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Riding the ditch is bumpy and dangerous. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also added, Romans 7, You know by the law....a  woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives , but, then says, In Romans 7:4, the wife (figuratively) dies. &quot;Ye are become dead to the law that ye should be married to another.&quot;       Christ died to free us from ..... Laws which are not sins unto death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4272" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-04-03T09:36:39.730" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T09:36:39.730" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3733" CreationDate="2013-04-03T04:00:22.997" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prior to this &quot;setting aside&quot; of the law, Jesus says that &quot;whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%205:19&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 5:19, 20&lt;/a&gt;). If He did in fact dismiss the Law, it seems He would have been condemning Himself. He then says that you have to be more righteous than the Pharisees, who spent their lives following the law, to ever enter Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%207:8-13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 7:8-13&lt;/a&gt; we see Jesus accusing the Pharisees of dismissing the law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.&quot; And he said to them, &quot;You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, &quot;Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban&quot;' (that is, given to God)-- then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rabbis would always build their teachings upon the teachings of those who came before them; theoretically at least, all their teachings came ultimately from Moses. Jesus did things differently: &quot;You have heard... but I say to you...&quot; (note that in doing so He claims to be God, as only God could correct the law)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not abolish the Law of Moses (He even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2023:2-3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;commanded obedience&lt;/a&gt; to the Pharisees): He claimed that it did not fully represent the righteous requirements of God, but sets a minimum standard; even a person who kept every single command is not necessarily in right standing with God. For example, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2010:2-12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 10&lt;/a&gt; we find:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, &quot;Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?&quot; He answered them, &quot;What did Moses command you?&quot; They said, &quot;Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.&quot; And Jesus said to them, &quot;Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.&quot; And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, &quot;Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deu%2024:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;allowed for divorce&lt;/a&gt; &quot;if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her...&quot; but that doesn't mean God is OK with divorce: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mal%202:15-16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;He hates it&lt;/a&gt;. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%205:32&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:32&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2019:9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;19:9&lt;/a&gt; we see that divorce is allowed for sexual immorality, and in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezra%2010&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezra 10&lt;/a&gt; He commanded it as part of a cleansing of Israel, but Jesus says here that God intends marriage, but divorce is a result of our sin. Even though God allows it doesn't mean He likes it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is not saying that we no longer need the law; He says that we need something &lt;em&gt;more than the law&lt;/em&gt;, concluding this sermon with &quot;you must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%205:48&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 5:48&lt;/a&gt;). According to Christianity, Jesus is that something more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T04:00:22.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15418" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15402" CreationDate="2013-04-03T06:53:27.897" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The emphasis of scripture when describing exactly what happens to us when we die is placed on an instant transportation into our eternal destination. Yes there are scriptures which discuss the return of the Lord and the sleeping of our bodies in death (similar to that of Lazarus in the grave) but no that doesn't stall or prevent us from going to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 16:22  And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 16:23  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the old covenant there were two designations for people to select from based on their actions in the body. Here two people die and immediately go to Abraham's boussum or hell. Jesus tells us of no time delay between the moment of death and the entry into eternal destination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 23:43  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again Jesus dying on the cross declares that he was going with in the same day to paradise and that the thief who declared him righteous would be guaranteed to join Him with no delay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Co 5:8  We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally for believers we are promised that when we die and leave our bodies we will be in heaven with the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Php 3:20  For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Php 3:21  Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 15:52  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 15:53  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason Jesus will return and the reason the saints will come up from the grave and we will be transfigured is because while they are in heaven they do not have glorified bodies yet. They still lack in this one essential way which Christ does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T07:20:27.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2635" CreationDate="2013-04-03T07:03:45.450" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;References to Michael&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dan_10:13  But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: the word one is a gross misinterpretation of the word echad in this situation which means first using Strong's Dictionary. One of the chief princes actually translated correctly means the First of the chief princes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dan_10:21  But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dan_12:1  And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Th_4:16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jud_1:9  Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev_12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The roles of Michael of the Archangel&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;#1 He stands for the people of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dan 12:1  And at that time shall Michael stand up, &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;thy people shall be delivered&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, every one that shall be found written in the book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He stands for the people of God (an advocate) and an example of him standing for them is in Jude 1:9 below&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a &lt;em&gt;railing accusation&lt;/em&gt;, but said, &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Lord rebuke thee.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The words translated railing is blasphēmia which Strong's Dictionary says mean blaspheme or evil speaking. Michael did not bring a blasphemous accusation but said the Lord rebuke thee. He was not afraid of satan as some would try to make us think but dared not to bring a blaphemous accusation which is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus the Lord is our advocate&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zechariah 3:1,2 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;resist him&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. And the &lt;strong&gt;LORD&lt;/strong&gt; said unto Satan,&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The LORD rebuke thee&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this scenario we have the Lord being the advocate of Joshua and saying the same thing Michael said to satan. It seems as though Jesus has the same office with Michael or maybe they are the same person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;#2 He is the captain of the Lord's Host&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: &lt;strong&gt;Michael and his angels&lt;/strong&gt; fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He leads the angels in the battle with satan thus he is the captain. His position as archangel means chief of the angels (check your Strong's dictionary)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joshua 5:13-15 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as &lt;strong&gt;captain of the host of the LORD&lt;/strong&gt; am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;and did worship&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, and said unto him, What saith &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;my lord&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; unto his servant? And the &lt;strong&gt;captain of the LORD'S host&lt;/strong&gt; said unto Joshua, &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. And Joshua did so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see that Michael cannot be a literal angel since he accepts worship as God. No angel coming from God accepts worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 19:10  And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;#3 He is the Chief Messenger&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word angel means messenger so therefore he must be the Arch Messenger. Michael is not an a literal angel but a messenger. the word messenger and the word angel are the same in both greek and hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strong's Hebrew dictionary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;messenger = malak&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;angel     = malak&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strong's Greek Dictionary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;messenger = aggellō&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;angel     = aggellō&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What about 1thess 4:16?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Th_4:16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, &lt;strong&gt;with the voice of the archangel&lt;/strong&gt;, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 5:25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the &lt;strong&gt;voice of the Son of God:&lt;/strong&gt; and they that hear shall live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The event described here is the Second coming. With the parallel produced by John 5:25 and 1 thess 4:16 it is hard to think Jesus the Son of God is not Michael the Archangel shouting with the trump of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ALWAYS REMEMBER MICHAEL IS NOT A LITERAL ANGEL HE IS A CHIEF MESSENGER.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T19:22:12.647" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15379" CreationDate="2013-04-03T10:56:28.557" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The ‘lake of fire’ is a final progression of the theological development of God’s judgment.&lt;/strong&gt; The ‘lake of fire’ is a final ‘hell’ which is a New Testament description of the more generic realm of the dead previously called ‘Hades or Sheol’, in the Old Testament. The Greek Old Testament uses Hades ( ᾅδης ) for the Hebrew name Sheol ( שְׁאוֹל). To fully understand the ‘lake of fire’ we need to trace the meaning of God’s judgment as ‘fire’ in the Old Testament and relate how it pertains to Sheol/Hades and Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sheol/Hades&lt;/em&gt; in the Bible is similar but not exactly the same as that found in ancient pagan philosophy.  Sheol is basically the grave with its unknown disembodied life beyond it. Originally, the idea from the lack of any further clarity is without any revelatory definition in the Bible. Like many biblical doctrines the subject is progressively revealed. In this original undefined idea, both the good and the evil went to that ‘unknown/unrevealed world’:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;before I go—and I shall not return— to the land of darkness and deep shadow, the land of gloom like thick darkness, like deep shadow without any order, where light is as thick darkness. (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Job 10:21–22).)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sheol was perceived as a place beneath the Ocean where ‘the dead tremble under the waters’ Job 26:5. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is tempting to resist and admission to the ancient understanding of what we now call hell, because it assigned both the good and the evil to it as well as imagined silly geographical elements, which may have even been related to the view of the earth ad the center of the universe. For these and many more reasons it seems contrary to the New Testament teaching. In the New Testament the division between paradise and hell is spelled out more clearly. This was not a result of progression in human thought but as result of further revelation from God himself. On one hand Death was basically an obscure unknown in the Old Testament, therefore speculation of unrevealed details would naturally be only a little better than current Greek pagan philosophy. On the other hand the trajectory of revelation progression from God, and not from human development, included solid hints at the resurrection, such as the disappearance of Enoch, or the necessary implications of the hope of salvation whereby a return to paradise in Eden was anticipated. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that God as he unfolds heavenly matters to humans, who in turn conjecture and imagine things along the way, to at time allude to those same half-baked speculations in further extruding his doctrines to us in clarities never imagined by the human heart.  This is essentially what happens at the time of Christ, for in between the last book of the Old Testament and the Gospels; popular rabbinical writings had already speculated a great del about paradise and the idea of Sheol was becoming more and more a concept that included only the wicked. Somehow speculation about the unknown was to a certain degree scripturally inspired and sanctified and extended by Jesus himself into a modern New Testament higher definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;At the time of Christ&lt;/strong&gt; Hades was still referred to, for example in Luke 16:23, where the rich man is there in Hades, while Lazarus is like a child in the lap of Abraham. Also, when Peter made his confession the ‘gates of Hades’ could not stand against the church. Clearly Hades has become another name for hell where only the disembodied wicked live. While paradise is the place for the disembodied righteous, such as the place where the thief next to Jesus on the cross was to go that ‘very same day.’ However, Jesus often referred to hell under different imagery that moves beyond the general abstract notion of Hades. Jesus often referred to hell as a fiery place called “Gehenna”. Hades was also considered to be a place of ‘fire’ but Gehenna amplifies the fiery aspect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Gehenna” (Hebrew “Hinnom”), the name of a valley south of Jerusalem. The valley was noted in the OT period for the abomination of child sacrifices (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 23:10) and in the NT period for its smoldering garbage. (Elwell, W. A., &amp;amp; Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (592).)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lake of fire is essentially the final development of the concept of the judgment of Gehenna. We can imagine hell as temporary steam of fiery judgments, which will flow into the final basin.  It is a full lake of hell, meaning there is no further judgment to occur, as it is complete and endless without any adjustments. It is ‘forever and ever’ that the wicked will be burdened under a full awareness of their just desert and where the ‘weeping and gnashing’ of their ‘teeth’ (a cliché for sorrow and angry frustration) due to being eternally separated from the creator is forever felt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If we trace the imagery of fire using Sodom and Gomorrah as well as the altar of the temple court we find that it represents God’s eternal judgment on sin.&lt;/strong&gt; The lake of fire includes ‘brimstone’ and so we find one of the very first lively ideas of the lake of fire in his destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, for we see ‘the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens’ (Gen 19:24). In addition according to Jude, Sodom is to be understood as ‘eternal’, for hose that died under that fire ‘serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of &lt;em&gt;eternal fire&lt;/em&gt;’ (Jude 7). Then again, God is in himself and his own just nature the ‘consuming fire’. (Heb 12:29).  We see it everywhere in the Old Testament for in the daily practice of the altar ceremonies, justice punishes sin in the ‘fire’ upon the sacrifices.  ‘Fire’ was God’s anger inflicting judicial punishment upon the sinner, or more correctly, the animal in the sinners place. This occurred every day in the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the prophetic books we find further supporting evidence of the New Testament high definition view of the lake of fire. In Isaiah we see the phrase that Jesus commonly referred to in his parables:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For &lt;em&gt;their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched&lt;/em&gt;, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 ,Is 66:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Daniel 7:10 ‘A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him’. That is Christ is seated on a throne and the lake of fire is that body of fire flowing out from his throne to judge his enemies. (As an aside, to maintain information of pagan thoughts that scripture is still free to borrow when beneficial in extruding it doctrine out from the elements of knowledge within men’s understanding, this imagery has a specific parallel to another Greek idea of a ‘river of fire’ beneath the earth that emptied out into a lake called Tartarus, which is also referred to by ‘hell’ in 2 Peter 2:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In summary, the ‘lake of fire’ is that final development of the concept of eternal death under the punishment of God. Sin, death, hell, devils, sinners and all the garbage that Jews used to throw into Gehenna ‘for burning’ will forever rest in a broad final ‘lake’ flowing out of God’s eternal throne of judgment.&lt;/strong&gt; The fact that is also has brimstone in it, indicates the original horror and ‘stench to the senses’ of that molten fire that rained down on Sodom. ‘Brimstone’ or ‘sulfur’ is that rock that slowly burns and melts making a rotten egg like smell. It does not sound good.  What this fire is, in terms of literal location, experience and suffering is not even slightly indicated in the Bible. We are to read between the lines of the images and humbly accept that we can only vainly imagine. However, as the wicked are resurrected with ‘spiritual bodies’, analogous to the ones we have on earth, it seems that the wicked will at a minimum have bodies that can endure this punishment whatever it is. The wicked are raised to pay for their sin and they must have bodies capable for the task. A human body would probably collapse just at the thought of approaching God’s throne let alone understanding, accepting and paying with full regret for a wasted life. This is truly a prophecy of warning concerning the end of the world for those outside of Christ. At the same time is a great comfort to those who are in Christ, for whose name they suffer the hatred of the world. He who has an ear to hear…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-05-26T03:45:33.463" LastActivityDate="2013-05-26T03:45:33.463" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15394" CreationDate="2013-04-03T11:24:29.543" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are alternative Bible theories which answer the question of the age of trees and other seemingly disagreeable facts without discounting the fact itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 7:19  And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the &lt;strong&gt;earth&lt;/strong&gt;; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 13:9  Is not the whole &lt;strong&gt;land&lt;/strong&gt; before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 13:17  Arise, walk through the &lt;strong&gt;land&lt;/strong&gt; in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These scriptures all use the same Hebrew word for land and earth to describe the events during the lives of Noah first then Abraham. Its obvious by the text that while Abraham did walk the entire earth according to the text he did not cover the entire planet. Likewise while the flood did cover the entire earth it may not have covered the entire planet and at least one literal theory says it didn't. There are many other instances of the phrase &amp;quot;whole earth&amp;quot; predominantly being used in reference to the known earth rather than the entire planet in both Old Testament and New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short while the word literally says &amp;quot;whole earth&amp;quot; concerning Noah and that must be true from the literal perspective. However we are allowed to question which &amp;quot;whole earth&amp;quot; is being referred to in order to have an understanding of what is literally written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T11:24:29.543" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15422" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15426" CreationDate="2013-04-03T13:51:46.693" Score="3" ViewCount="4447" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hosanna&lt;/a&gt; has many meanings: &quot;help&quot;, &quot;save, I pray&quot;, &quot;Save, now!&quot; or Praising etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the people shouted &quot;Hosanna&quot; in order to &lt;strong&gt;praise Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; merely as a great Prophet, it would be easier to shout &quot;Crucify him!&quot; later when they were disappointed by his acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the intention of the people of Jerusalem was to say &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Save us from the hands of Rome&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;, it means they accepted Jesus as the Messiah after seeing all the miracles he performed. But in less than a week they became impatient and shouted &quot;Crucify him!&quot;, thereby rushing to a conclusion that Jesus was actually not the Messiah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was the intention of the people of Jerusalem when they shouted Hosanna? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-04-03T16:03:26.613" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T16:11:57.810" Title="What is the significance of shouting &quot;Hosanna&quot; by the people of Jerusalem?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;jews&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2933" CreationDate="2013-04-03T14:24:51.103" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems to be a universal principle that a creation bears the image of its creator.  A work of art reflects the thoughts, ideas and imagination of the artist.  A symphony represents the expression of the composer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's very essence is that of a Trinity or Tri-Unity.  He is Three in One: Father, Son, and Spirit.  Thus, His creation reflects this in quite a few ways.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Physical Universe consists of three things: 1) Time, 2) Space, and 3) Matter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Time is divided in three different parts: 1) Past, 2) Present, and 3) Future&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Space is three dimensional: 1) Length, 2) Width, and 3) Height&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matter coexists in three states: 1) Solid, 2) Liquid, and 3) Gas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People consists of three distinct parts: 1) Body, 2) Soul, and 3) Spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Creation was initially unformed and unfilled.  God takes three days to form and three days to fill.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Water consists of three elements: 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul was caught up to the third heaven, which are divided into the sky, space, and the dwelling place of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A cord of three strands is not easily broken (Ecclesiastes)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's will is 1) good, 2) pleasing, and 3) perfect.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Old Testament consists of 1) the Law, 2) the Prophets, and 3) the Writings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is 1) Prophet, 2) Priest, and 3) King.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Patriarchs are 1) Abraham, 2) Isaac, and 3) Jacob&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus' ministry on earth was probably 3 years.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peter denied Jesus three times and then was reinstated by professing love for Him three times (as you noted).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that the number three pervades many other things as well.  When writing, describing something with three adjectives always seems to be good, appropriate, and right.  There are many other things as well, too numerous to mention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T14:24:51.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15402" CreationDate="2013-04-03T14:32:03.820" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes, of course we (believers) do.&lt;/strong&gt; Paradise was understood by the Jews as a place where the disembodied souls of the righteous go and Jesus using that notion promised it instantly upon death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paradise was understood at the time of Christ as place where the saints would go after dying in a disembodied state. In other words the soul would go to paradise, if you were good.  The soul of the wicked would go to hell in Hades.  In old Greek paradise originally referred just to a royal park. The Jews borrowed the word giving it a spiritual meaning as the 'garden of God' and then used it to refer to a restored 'garden of Eden' which was a place where righteous disembodies souls went.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example in the &lt;strong&gt;Jewish writings just before Christ&lt;/strong&gt; concerning the Messiah we find:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he shall open the gates of &lt;strong&gt;paradise&lt;/strong&gt;, And shall remove the threatening sword against Adam. And he shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life (Testimony of Levi 18:10-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Eden God put a sword to keep Adam away from the tree of life after he sinned, but in paradise man would be restored to Eden again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus would have been guilty of greatly confusing the poor thief dying on the cross of a 'promised paradise' (as the man understood it) if there was actually no actual wonderful place for disembodies souls to go until the time of the resurrection!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”&#xA;   Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:42-43, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly Jesus is telling the man that &lt;strong&gt;today (with reference to literal time&lt;/strong&gt; he will enter the restored garden of Eden. There is no real logical interpretation but that paradise was where Jesus would be and that the man would go their without his body to be with him. The man would not be unconscious until the resurrection but have full clarity of mind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same assumption of immediacy is asserted everywhere the idea is approached.  When Stephen was being stoned to death in Acts, he had a vision of heaven and called out, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' insinuating an immediate sense.  In Philippians 1:23 Paul compares what is better to be in the body, or be with the Lord without the body.  Similarly in 2 Corinthians 5:8, Paul says to be away from the body is to be with the Lord. The idea is immediate and the idea is that in heaven we are without the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Both paradise and hell are considered the intermediate state where disembodied souls are waiting for the resurrection of the body.&lt;/strong&gt; Then after the resurrection of the body the dead and the living will be judged.  In Revelation Ch 20 and 21 we see these temporary places are renovated for final residence. Hell is thrown into the 'lake of fire' as the final judgement of the wicked and a new heaven and a new earth are created for the children of God. So Christ's return is not about bringing souls into heaven but raising their bodied to be united back to their souls that they might live on a new earth filled with a perfect endless heaven.  They were never meant to be disembodied forever, even in the bliss of paradise. We are meant to have an eternal soul and body, bit just a soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to the body in the grave, which will be resurrected when Christ appears means the body is only taking a nap. The idea is that when Christ returns, first those who are in heaven [those whose bodies are napping] will assume a new body and will meet him in the air.  Then all the those still in the body on earth, will also have a resurrected body. Then the final judgment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-04-04T01:37:37.727" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T01:37:37.727" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15422" CreationDate="2013-04-03T16:11:57.810" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the people of Jerusalem indeed thought that Jesus was the Messiah. There were so many prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus, and the common person at least had knowledge of some of these prophecies, as they were what many of them had to look forward to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Palm Sunday, Jesus fulfilled one more prophecy (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%209:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zechariah 9:9&lt;/a&gt;) that many would not have missed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Behold, your king is coming to you;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is just and endowed with salvation,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Humble, and mounted on a donkey,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Jewish people shouted &amp;quot;Hosanna&amp;quot;, regardless of which specific meaning the word had, the intent of the people was clear. They wanted a political or military Messiah, not a religious one. They wanted &lt;em&gt;an earthly King&lt;/em&gt;.The article &lt;a href=&quot;http://sbcvoices.com/did-the-crowds-really-turn-on-jesus/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; goes into this in a little more detail, but in summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[There was a] switch in public opinion. At the Triumphal Entry, Jerusalem rejoiced. But then Jesus failed their expectations. He had come to defeat sin and death, not Rome. His kingdom was in hearts, not on a throne (at least not yet). They began to reject Jesus as the campaign of lies by the religious leaders had its effect. Finally, by the time Jesus stood before Pilate, there had been a dramatic shift in public opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T16:11:57.810" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15427" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15430" CreationDate="2013-04-03T16:13:45.157" Score="9" ViewCount="36377" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen Noah's Ark listed one of the &quot;types&quot; in Scripture -- something that occurred, but that also foreshadowed something else that would come later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly, then, does the story of Noah's Ark foreshadow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-10-14T12:29:03.443" LastActivityDate="2019-01-04T21:12:09.700" Title="What does the story of Noah's Ark foreshadow in the New Testament?" Tags="&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;ark-of-noah&gt;&lt;typology&gt;&lt;foreshadowing&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15427" CreationDate="2013-04-03T17:10:21.693" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Traditionally, many Christian theologians have likened the flood story to that of Christ's coming and sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, all of Mankind was doomed by the flood, but God, the Redeemer, found a way to save. One was found righteous, Noah, so God commanded him to build the ark to save mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are doomed to die because of sin. That is the flood. God, sent Jesus to redeem us; to save us from calamity. God's judgement came down on Christ just as it came down on the wicked of Noah's time. Just as there was only one Ark there is only one Jesus by which we can be saved. Noah and his family were spared by the Ark just as the church is spared by Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 'types' you are referring to is the theology that the Old Testament is filled with stories that show a 'type' of Christ that gives a kind of Gospel story in a sort of allegory. It is sometimes called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_%28theology%29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;typology&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I coincidentally read this summary from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.growingchristians.org/dfgc/illustra.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; on an unrelated subject yesterday. I like the wording.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ark which saved Noah and his family from the Flood is a beautiful type of Christ as the only way of salvation. As the Flood of God's judgment on sin came upon the earth in Noah's day, so the flood of God's judgment against sin came upon Christ at the cross. As the ark was battered by the awesome storms of the Flood, and then rested on Mount Ararat, so the Lord Jesus bore the terrible penalty for our sins and now rests from His finished work. As Noah and his family believed God and were saved from physical death solely through the ark, so we who trust in Christ are saved from sin's penalty of spiritual death through Christ alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T17:10:21.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15427" CreationDate="2013-04-03T17:29:20.427" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;The flood is explicitly used typologically twice in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, speaking of the final judgment (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+24:37-41&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:37-41&lt;/a&gt;), says it will be like &quot;the days of Noah&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/1-peter/passage.aspx?q=1-peter+3:20-22&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:20b-22&lt;/a&gt; says that the flood prefigured the sacrament of baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over the centuries Christians have found additional typology in this story:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ark has &quot;rooms&quot; for the animals (Genesis 6:14); Jesus says that his father's house has &quot;many rooms&quot; (John 14:2).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ark had one door (Genesis 6:16); Jesus claimed to be &quot;the door&quot; to salvation (John 10:9).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God invited Noah to come into the ark (Genesis 7:1); Jesus said, &quot;Come to me, all you that  are weary&quot; (Matthew 11:28).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ark was made of wood (Genesis 6:14) just as the cross was.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because God saved him, Noah &quot;remained alive&quot; (Genesis 7:23); Jesus gives us eternal life (John 10:28).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is only a sample; you can find longer lists &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/2008/042708AM_TypologyOfArk.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis_13.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. Some of the connections are more explicit in the King James Bible; newer translations use different phrases that don't always match up, but the similarity should still be apparent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T17:29:20.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2007" CreationDate="2013-04-03T23:56:32.820" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It originated around the 11th or 12th century, when peasants would beg for work from the feudal lord. This was a gesture of utmost humility &amp;amp; pleading. You can read about it Edward Schillebeeckx's book &quot;The Church with a Human Face.&quot; It is very briefly mentioned, but it's in there. (also, i'm sure it helps kids to not get distracted so easily) :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4281" LastActivityDate="2013-04-03T23:56:32.820" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15441" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15384" CreationDate="2013-04-04T02:37:43.000" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possibly a reference to the gnostic emanations (genealogies of angels) but in this case it seems to do more with Jewish folklore. Timothy does not really seem to attack gnosticism as is done in an Epistle like Colossians.  It certainly has nothing to do with he genealogical records of Christ, which were so very important and which were clear enough that no record of disputes is recorded.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Most likely These arguments were not about Christ, or angels, but about the law:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. (Titus 3:9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The arguments about genealogies seem to be about the law and  mixed up with myths, so that &lt;strong&gt;the genealogical records were part of the myth and endless stories that had nothing to do with Christ or the gospel:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The expression “myths and genealogies” is one. It must not be divided, as if Paul were thinking, on the one hand, of myths, and on the other, of genealogies. The apostle refers undoubtedly to man-made supplements to the law of God (see verse 7), mere myths or fables (2 Tim. 4:4), old wives’ tales (1 Tim. 4:7) that were definitely Jewish in character (Titus 1:14). Measured by the standard of truth, what these errorists taught deserved the name myths. As to material contents these myths concern genealogical narratives that were largely fictitious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have ever read Jewish Haggadah, it is the most creative kind of biblical exegesis that makes even the weirdest modern day false teachings seem quite tame. From the smallest little idea found somewhere in the Bible they could erect long descriptive claims that had nothing to do with the text or even the Bible.  It is fascinating if it were not actually destructive:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We feel at once that here we have been introduced into the realm of typically Jewish lore. It is a known fact that from early times the rabbis would “spin their yarns”—and endless yarns they were!—on the basis of what they considered some “hint” supplied by the Old Testament. They would take a name from a list of pedigrees (for example, From Genesis, I Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah), and expand it into a nice story. Such interminable embroideries on the inspired record were part of the regular bill of fare in the synagogue, and were subsequently deposited in written form in that portion of The Talmud which is known as Haggadah. (NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY&#xA;  Exposition of The Pastoral Epistles, William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-04-04T03:44:57.907" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T03:44:57.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15442" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15447" CreationDate="2013-04-04T04:28:59.083" Score="10" ViewCount="2654" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I'm wondering is whether the actual authors of the book of John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark are who we believe them to be. I go to a Catholic high school, and in our version of the Bible it says, in the author section for each gospel, something like &quot;traditionally the apostle John&quot;, so does that mean it could have been someone else, and we just say that the author was John the Apostle when it wasn't?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4282" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2013-04-04T14:28:46.867" LastActivityDate="2021-05-25T21:59:36.310" Title="Are the gospel authors who we believe them to be?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15443" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15449" CreationDate="2013-04-04T05:25:40.070" Score="0" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;In St.Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, it said&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But to know distinctly what is contained in the universal&#xA;  whole is to know the less common, as to &quot;animal&quot; indistinctly is to know it as &quot;animal&quot;; whereas &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;to know &quot;animal&quot; distinctly is know it as &quot;rational&quot; or &quot;irrational animal,&quot; that is, to know a man&#xA;  or a lion&lt;/strong&gt;: therefore our intellect knows &quot;animal&quot; before it knows man; and the same reason holds&#xA;  in comparing any more universal idea with the less universal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Answer of Question 85(3))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its&#xA;  property, it ought not to be named from what it participates imperfectly, nor from that which it&#xA;  possesses in excess, but from that which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;to name a man, we should call him a &quot;rational substance,&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; but not an &quot;intellectual substance,&quot; which&#xA;  latter is the proper name of an angel; because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property,&#xA;  and to man by participation; nor do we call him a &quot;sensible substance,&quot; which is the proper name&#xA;  of a brute; because sense is less than the property of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent&#xA;  way than to other animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Answer of Question 108(5))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So human being is defined as rational animal(or rational substance), and animal is sensible substance. However, androids with AI have complete rationality too, and they can be sensible with sensors. So is android a kind of mankind? &#xA;Androids seems also rational substances, thus they are men by the definition. However in common sense they don't have souls, hence mustn't be mankind. That seems a paradox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &lt;strong&gt;my question&lt;/strong&gt;: Are androids have souls? Are androids rational substances? If they are rational substances but don't have souls, are they mankind? Why? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: '&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28robot%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Android&lt;/a&gt;' in here means a kind of intelligent robot which is similar to ours, not a kind of Google's OS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1775" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-04-05T07:49:24.237" LastActivityDate="2013-04-05T07:49:24.237" Title="Is android a kind of mankind?" Tags="&lt;summa-theologica&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-04-04T13:49:32.013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15442" CreationDate="2013-04-04T07:41:43.277" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is much debate about the authorship of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as well as whether they copied portions of each other’s works to form their own. Some think some or all had other common sources, etc.  The reason why there is so much recent debate is unclear. For whatever reason the ‘similarities and differences’ between the gospels seem to appeal to the curiosity of men. People trying to publish a book or for whatever reason ‘invent puzzles’ on pure speculation that do not actually have any practical outcome beyond their own career and academia interest.  By building ‘supposition upon supposition’ and with ‘reference upon reference’ one can build an impressive superstructure of study and scholarship. However, these massive works and complex mazes can’t create anything above conjecture and for practical purposes are simply a tiring of the mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The simple fact of history is that we obtain less and less ability to determine what has happened in the past, the farther we move away from the event.&lt;/strong&gt; In other words, those who first identified authors of the Bible are almost always in a better position to actually determine it. In some ways the whole subject does not matter, as it was the Holy Spirit who used men, inspired their thoughts to be infallible, had them write it down, and then move the church to accept them into a canon of God’s word. Who were exactly involved, if they were directly written by Apostles, or only accepted by them? These and many other questions have no consequence. It is inconsequential if authors used oral traditions, or miscellaneous histories that the Holy Spirit used and extracted portions of to fill out a divine and perfect guidance of the events. God is the author. The human author does not need to be known from the biblical standpoint, nor does any possible sources that they used have any measurable value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From a historical perspective many Bible scholars simply believe the most reliable account of the human authors are simply the traditional view upon which they were accepted into the canon by those most familiar with the subject:&lt;/strong&gt; The Apostle Matthew wrote ‘Matthew’ while the interpreter of the Apostle Peter, whose name was Mark, wrote Mark. The historian and companion of the Apostle Paul whose name was Luke, wrote Luke, while John was written by John the Apostle. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them, as their titles bear in our Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-17T21:05:19.987" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T21:05:19.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="15446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15443" CreationDate="2013-04-04T09:21:07.630" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is similar to &amp;quot;Can aliens be saved?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Could naftali be saved?&amp;quot;. In that artificial life is aliens by our own creation. (However we are hundreds if not thousands of years away from a &amp;quot;living&amp;quot; AI).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many times in the Bible salvation is made available to whoever will believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Co 5:17  Therefore if any &lt;em&gt;man&lt;/em&gt; be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 10:12  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.&#xA;Rom 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However other scriptures are specific using Strong Greek word G444 which refers to humans or mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then becomes what makes men men and according to the Bible that's our soul and spirit (the spirit in this case is not the soul).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where do spirit and soul come from is the next question and the answer surely is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecc 12:7  Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However we as humans spiritually dead until we are born again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 7:9  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 7:25  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 3:7  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God who through Christ Jesus saves from sins the spiritual dead humans (creating a new spirit and renewing the soul) may indeed save those beings which are not humans and never were spiritually alive if they call on His Name in Faith making Jesus their King and Friend. For Christ died not only for the sins of man but for the sins of the world. Whether that being be the work of our hands like a sentient AI or a clone or another work of His Hand like an alien or naftali or other hybrid. Being born again will make them just as much saved as any human which is saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 1:29  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T09:32:11.170" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15442" CreationDate="2013-04-04T09:21:58.110" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will start a little off-topic as it is relevant to do so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An answer to this question would not have been easy if there was no early persecution of Christianity. It would have been a lot easier for detractors of Christianity to make a point that all the writings that we have today on which the foundation of Christianity is based upon, were in fact all cooked up and doctored with the help of the political and reigning powers at that time. But the fact is, all the worldly forces were trying to wipe out nascent Christianity by persecution and destroying all their literature. All that we have today has passed through a most turbulent period and has survived under most cruel persecution.  By the time Christians could live a serene living under a favourable reigning emperor, all present day Gospels were already in use , as independent books before they were canonised in this favourable time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question:  We don’t have the original documents in our possession of any of the Gospels, thanks to this persecution.  Agnostics raise this point in casting doubt on the authorship of Bible books. But seen from the table below it can be said of any other ancient literature on the surface of this earth  and that too with no attempts of supression. That is the case with every historical writings and we find that evidence for authenticity of Gospel writers is much stronger than any of the other historical books.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/UJNDk.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from this shortest timeline for the earliest copy, there are other numerous external written sources, which are but only positive indicators (and absolutely nothing negative) in early history, that the gospels were written by the persons to whom they were attributed by the early church (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A point to note: The two of the gospels are ascribed to such minor characters as Mark and Luke -- neither of whom, by any accounts, were themselves neither disciples nor the eyewitnesses is solid indirect clue they were who they were. If early Christian evangelist wanted to acquire credibility for what they were writing (or forging as some claim) and preaching they would undoubtedly have attributed it to someone like Peter, Thomas or James. And precisely this was what the later second and third century Gnostic gospels did. At least Christians are saying that all the Gospels were written under the guidance of Holy Spirit and not claiming that they were handed down by God Himself or were found buried somewhere in the ground.  Or to think extremely they did not concise all the four gospels in to one book and say that it was written or dictated by Jesus himself.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blogos.org/christianlifeandgrowth/who-wrote-the-gospels.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This link cites the compelling evidence&lt;/a&gt;  where it is explained in detail.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally further information for Gospel of Mark is found &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/introduction-gospel-mark&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;in this link&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/introduction-gospel-luke&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Similar readings can be found here for Gospel of Luke&lt;/a&gt; and another &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;link for Gospel of Mathew &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-04-04T14:22:41.793" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T14:22:41.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2933" CreationDate="2013-04-04T11:19:50.453" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The number 3 pervades Christianity. 3 kings, 3 shepherds, 3 in the holy family at Bethlehem, there were 3 temptations, he raised 3 people from the dead, he had 3 friends (Mary, Martha and Lazarus), his ministry was 3 years, he was betrayed by Judas for 30 pieces of silver, and betrayed by Peter when the cock had crowed 3 times, he was on the cross for 3 hours, there were 3 crosses, he rose on the 3rd day, his age at crucifixion was 33, his ministry was 3 years.  This cannot be coincidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4284" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-04T12:17:39.157" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T12:17:39.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15443" CreationDate="2013-04-04T12:18:41.600" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your assumption, that Thomas Aquinas has the final say on what is to be considered &lt;em&gt;man,&lt;/em&gt; determines a lot about what my answer to you might be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, for example, you instead phrased the question &quot;Assuming Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica to be inerrant: Is android a kind of mankind?&quot; I would say the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;AI are indeed sensible, as you say.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The definition of rational is vague when it comes to matters like this, and the definition used will determine whether AI can truly fit the category.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you assumed rationality required an advanced ability to make informed decisions or comprehend relations, then AI can certainly achieve that so yes they would be &lt;em&gt;man.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, many believe AI will never truly have a true sense of intelligence, understanding or rationality, based on the belief that no matter how &quot;smart&quot; they get, their reasoning will only ever be the result of the observed environment (Of course, many believe that humans are purely reactionary creatures as well, most notably those who believe there is no reality outside of nature, so no supreme being(s). Check out the first few chapters of CS Lewis' &lt;em&gt;Miracles&lt;/em&gt; for a better explanation of this than I could provide). This definition assumes rationality requires a sense of understanding or creativity above and beyond natural cause and effect, or divinely provided rationality. It sounds odd, but if you were to think about it, most (if not all) religious people believe this without ever really thinking about it. As a side note, this rationality would also account for the difference seen between man and animal. In this case, I would absolutely say no, they cannot be &lt;em&gt;man&lt;/em&gt; as they don't fit this definition of rational.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, however, you phrased the question as &quot;Assuming the Bible to be inerrant: Is android a kind of mankind?&quot; which is the answer I suspect you're looking for as you are on this site, than I would simply refer you to the following passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, are androids made in the image of God? Certainly not. Of course, as it is in His power to do anything, He could theoretically breath his spirit into an Android (thus giving it a soul), but whether that fits his plan of creation is pure speculation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4236" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T12:18:41.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15450" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15454" CreationDate="2013-04-04T13:07:19.677" Score="6" ViewCount="716" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Summa Theologica, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1108.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Question 108(5)&lt;/a&gt;, St Thomas Aquinas writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its&#xA;  property, it ought not to be named from what it participates imperfectly, nor from that which it&#xA;  possesses in excess, but from that which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly&#xA;  to name a man, we should call him a &quot;rational substance,&quot; but not an &quot;intellectual substance,&quot; which&#xA;  latter is the proper name of an angel; &lt;strong&gt;because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property,&#xA;  and to man by participation&lt;/strong&gt;; nor do we call him a &quot;sensible substance,&quot; which is the proper name&#xA;  of a brute; because sense is less than the property of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent&#xA;  way than to other animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So intelligence belongs to man by participation. But does intelligence or rationality belong to other animals by participation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read &lt;a href=&quot;http://myscienceacademy.org/2012/08/29/genius-female-chimpanzee-found-to-be-smarter-than-u-s-high-school-students/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this report&lt;/a&gt;, which suggested that apes also have a certain degree of intelligence and rationality:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to scientists, “ape intelligence might be a bundling of skills related to learning, tool usage, understanding of quantities, and an ability to reach conclusions based on evidence and reasoning.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Catholic theology in the tradition of St Aquinas, does intelligence or rationality also belong, in complete or partial form, to animals like apes? Or would they not have any &quot;genuine&quot; intelligence and rationality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1775" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-06-06T23:34:54.703" LastActivityDate="2015-06-06T23:34:54.703" Title="According to Catholicism, does intelligence or rationality belong to other animals by participation?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;&lt;summa-theologica&gt;&lt;animals&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15451" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-04T13:19:31.833" Score="9" ViewCount="3286" Body="&lt;p&gt;I did a search and saw that the phrase &quot;Kingdom of Heaven&quot; appears exclusively in the Gospel according to Matthew.  However, the phrase &quot;Kingdom of God&quot; appears a few times in Matthew, but is also quite prevalent in Mark and Luke.  It also appears twice in John 3, several times in Acts and Paul's letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clarence Larkin has a diagram that seems to distinguish between the two kingdoms somehow as well:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/LmYvD.gif&quot; alt=&quot;The Kingdom of God vs. The Kingdom of Heaven&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the difference or distinction between these two kingdoms?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2020-12-11T22:09:22.570" Title="What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;kingdom-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2020-12-11T06:45:32.773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15451" CreationDate="2013-04-04T14:38:27.573" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The idea of a kingdom in the biblical sense is not just a sphere under the royal power of a monarch, but a living supra terrestrial life of which God sits on a throne as a redeemer, priest, prophet, judge and king&lt;/strong&gt;. All in this sphere are redeemed by his blood and born into this invisible realm by faith.  Jehovah in Christ is their God, master and royal Lord.  Christ is that single person who possesses everything under his rule and so he is filled with royal glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of God's kingdom is related to those images found in David and promised in Messiah, but it is God himself in his divinity that is the root of the definition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.  “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and &lt;strong&gt;my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”&lt;/strong&gt; (Isaiah 6:3-5, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As far as the term 'kingdom of God' verses 'kingdom of heaven' there is no difference. Mathew wrote primarily to a Jewish audience that preferred to avoid the term God, as it was taboo to speak his holy name.&lt;/strong&gt; However, the other evangelists seem to prefer 'kingdom of God' as Gentiles would more easily understand the Messianic aspect from that term, rather then revert to their own philosophical notions of 'heaven'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T14:38:27.573" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15450" CreationDate="2013-04-04T15:02:25.507" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now we define &quot;intelligence&quot; and &quot;rationality&quot; otherwise than Aquinas and other scholastic philosophers did. In Aquinas' teaching, reason or rationality is what we usually mean by intelligence - it's the ability to induce new knowledge by reasoning based on experience we get through senses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Intelligence&quot; was slightly trickier. According to Aquinas and his contemporaries, angels don't need reasoning, they just &quot;look and see&quot; (this is metaphorical - they are immaterial, they have no eyes to see), they simply get the knowledge. Angels have some kind of telepathy - they give or get thoughts directly, they don't need to translate it to words, images or other symbols, share the symbols, and than translate them back to thoughts. We are material and our mind is restricted by lack of telepathy and the necessity to induce our knowledge from such symbols, from communication receivable by our senses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, we participate on the simple intelligence of angels somehow. We can simply know something without any previous experience, or at least it was believed in Aquinas' times we can. Examples of this kind of knowledge mostly fail to the spiritual, to God's revelation and to mysticism. Anyway, it's distinct from either normal reasoning, or from instinctive &quot;knowledge&quot; which is animals' ordinary way of thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another aspect of the participation on the angelic intelligence is our ability to reason knowledge which cannot be derived from material world. Aquinas says that we can derive knowledge of God's existence from our experience with material world, but our knowledge of God's triunity and other fundamental theological aspects can be derived only from God's revelation, so this knowledge is proper to intelligence even though we learned it through reasoning. We can't learn this way anything angels can know, just some basic, easy-to-learn concepts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Animals normally know things from their senses and instinct, they have no proper reasoning. But similarly as we can participate on angels' intelligence, they can participate on our reason somehow (not on angelic intelligence - it's too abstract for them). Thus they can be &quot;intelligent&quot; in the modern, broad meaning of this word, not in its medieval meaning. Using tools and reaching easy conclusions based on evidence learned through senses is an example of this participation on reason; still, apes can't really understand higher mathematics (AFAIK), so they don't possess our reason fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tell me if you want more evidence; I derived this post mostly from &lt;a href=&quot;http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer.htm&quot;&gt;Questiones disputatae 15&lt;/a&gt; and from prologue and comments to its Czech edition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T15:02:25.507" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15442" CreationDate="2013-04-04T17:21:52.650" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of theories about who wrote the gospels. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2183/when-and-how-did-the-names-matthew-mark-luke-and-john-get-attached-to-the-gos&quot;&gt;Tradition ascribes them&lt;/a&gt; respectively to Matthew, one of the 12 Apostles; Mark, the interpreter for Peter in Rome; Luke, a disciple of Paul; and John, one of the 12 Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many modern scholars have doubted these attributions, primarily because the names were not attached to the gospels until many decades after they were written, but also because the descriptions the early Christians gave of the gospels do not always match the gospels we have in the New Testament. Some scholars have gone so far as to say that we can never know who wrote the gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is a middle ground between blindly accepting tradition and blindly rejecting tradition. First, we need to understand the changing definition of &amp;quot;authorship&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Ancient notions of authorship&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scholars have identified &lt;a href=&quot;http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2003/11/varieties-of-ancient-authorship.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;five distinct types of authorship in the ancient world&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Physical inscription of words on a page&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dictation to an scribe or secretary&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Supplying of ideas to an scribe, who composes the final work&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Composition by a disciple in the spirit of his master's ideas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Writing in the tradition of a famous person of the past&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the five types of authorship recognized by the ancients, only #1 and #2 would be considered authorship today (and possibly #3 if the scribe is a ghostwriter). But in ancient times most people could not write, so #1 was the least common form of authorship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Paul's letter to the Colossians begins with the heading, &amp;quot;Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae.&amp;quot; It's possible that Paul dictated the letter to Timothy, but given the stylistic differences between this and other Pauline letters, it's equally possible that Timothy composed Colossians himself after consulting with Paul. In this case Paul would still be considered an author according to the customs of the time, but would not be considered the author by today's standards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Non-canonical gospels&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of our four gospels contain their authors' names in the text; however, in the second century a number of other gospels began to appear, claiming to have been written by Apostles (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Thomas&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Peter&lt;/a&gt; or a brother of Jesus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Infancy Gospel of James&lt;/a&gt;). The way to gain authority for a forgery is to attribute it to a famous person and hope no one sees through the ruse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It therefore became important for church leaders to determine which gospels were truly written by Jesus' followers and which were forgeries. It was in this context that Bishop Irenaeus gave us the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But how can we know if he was right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Mark and Luke&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark and Luke are relatively unknown people. Mark is mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13, and Luke in Colossians 4:14, but we have very little information about them. A later tradition claims this Mark is the same person as John Mark mentioned in Acts, but we can't know for certain. It would therefore be hard to explain how these gospels got these names if Mark and Luke were not in fact the authors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, Mark is said to have composed his gospel based on the preaching of Peter, Luke on the preaching of Paul; and those are the two biggest names of early Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern scholars have therefore questioned this attribution. As evidence against the traditional authorship, scholars have noted that Mark appears to have drawn from a number of different oral traditions rather than from a coherent collection of sermons, and that Luke disagrees with Paul concerning events of Paul's life (e.g. Paul's trip to Jerusalem, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/15.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 15&lt;/a&gt; vs &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/galatians/2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 2&lt;/a&gt;). But defenders of the traditional view don't see these as major problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evidence against Matthew and John as authors (in the #1 sense above) is stronger, but there is still reason to believe that these men had a hand in the books that bear their names.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Matthew&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tradition tells us &amp;quot;Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could,&amp;quot; but the Gospel of Matthew that appears in the New Testament was &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14769/in-what-language-was-the-book-of-matthew-written&quot;&gt;almost certainly written in Greek&lt;/a&gt;. It's possible that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was a blend of Mark's gospel and a translation of the oracles put together by Matthew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would fit authorship type #4 above, and explain the discrepancies we see between the existing gospel and tradition. But we can't know for certain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;John&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fourth gospel comes the closest to naming an author, &amp;quot;the disciple who Jesus loved.&amp;quot; However, the book &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1041/was-the-beloved-disciple-the-author-of-the-fourth-gospel&quot;&gt;shows signs of having been edited&lt;/a&gt;. Chapters 5 and 6, for example, appear to have been swapped from the original chronology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the end of chapter 20 appears to be a conclusion to the book, with Thomas' dramatic confession, &amp;quot;My lord and my God!&amp;quot; followed by the summary, &amp;quot;Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 21 was thus likely added by a later writer. Verse 24 draws an explicit distinction between the author of the original book and the writer(s) of this epilogue. &amp;quot;This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and &lt;strong&gt;we know&lt;/strong&gt; that &lt;strong&gt;his testimony&lt;/strong&gt; is true.&amp;quot; [emphasis mine]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while John the Apostle may have been the original author of this gospel, the final published work was likely a group effort by him and one or more of his disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would fit authorship type #3 above, and explain some of the quirks of this gospel. But again, we can't know for certain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strike&gt;tl;dr&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1625/tldr-omg-thats-just-lazy-and-not-expert&quot;&gt;Conclusion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern scholarship has raised doubts about the traditional attributions of authorship of the gospels. This is due in part to the fact that all four gospels were originally published anonymously, and in part to changes in the concept of authorship. In the end, we can only make a reasonable guess based on the information available to us, just as the early Christians did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-04T17:21:52.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15456" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15462" CreationDate="2013-04-04T22:33:31.583" Score="20" ViewCount="1624" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis there is the genealogy of Adam to Noah, then the account of the flood. After that is the genealogy of Noah to Abraham. The accounts of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's sons then follow. After that is an unspecific number of persons to Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theistic Evolution, I would think, must reject the creation account as literal, therefore, the created Adam was not a real person. I would also think that Theistic Evolutionists reject the Flood as factual, at least in its scope being global, but the point is that I would bet there are many who say that Noah was not a real person, either. After that I have not heard much discussion from Theistic Evolutionists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, moving down the genealogy in Genesis, when is there majority consensus among Theistic Evolutionists that the persons become real and are no longer figurative? Seeing as how the Theistic Evolution movement is not really unified perhaps this question is too broad, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution&quot;&gt;Catholicism&lt;/a&gt; has a stance that is very close to it so I would accept answers from that perspective, if there are any.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T18:50:08.257" LastActivityDate="2015-12-26T21:56:22.217" Title="In Theistic Evolution when do the genealogies in Genesis become real?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;&lt;theistic-evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3996" CreationDate="2013-04-05T02:14:07.643" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Satan did not understand what he was doing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:&#xA;  8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 2:7-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is amazing it was still a mystery considering it speaks about the redemptive plan in Gensis. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4289" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-04-05T06:19:22.880" LastActivityDate="2013-04-05T06:19:22.880" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15456" CreationDate="2013-04-05T04:03:23.170" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even if Theistic Evolution does require rejection of the creation account as literal, this does not require either that the Flood be fictional (many ancient civilizations record a great flood event), nor that Adam be fictitious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether one is a literal-creationist or a Theistic Evolutionist, there must be a legitimate First Man in the genealogy.  If legitimate does not mean &quot;literally the first human ever&quot;, then it can certainly mean &quot;the first ancestor of record&quot; or perhaps even &quot;God's first person of interest&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Semantics aside, neither geological nor other scientific or historical evidence are sufficient to discredit Adam's status as a literal Ancestor in the Genesis genealogy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4258" LastEditorUserId="4258" LastEditDate="2013-04-05T04:22:09.390" LastActivityDate="2013-04-05T04:22:09.390" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15460" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15466" CreationDate="2013-04-05T12:49:33.733" Score="11" ViewCount="433" Body="&lt;p&gt;NPR ran an interesting piece about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/27/175058833/forget-fish-fridays-in-louisiana-gator-is-on-the-lenten-menu&quot;&gt;the saga of whether or not Catholics could eat alligator on Fridays during Lent&lt;/a&gt;.  According to the story, an alligator merchant by the name of Jim Piculas advocated in a letter to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arch-no.org/aymond&quot;&gt;Archibishop Gregory Aymond&lt;/a&gt; for permission to consider alligator as seafood, and thus exempt from the prohibition on Friday meat consumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, aside from the giggles on the matter, what authority does the Archbishop of New Orleans have to set out the orthopractic model of Catholic belief in New Orleans?  I understand that the Bishop of Rome has the authority, when speaking ex cathedra, to promulugate doctrine - but I've never heard that other Bishops have this right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In declaring a reptile equivalent to a fish, the Archbishop seems to have made a fairly significant theological interpretation.  What gives him the authority to do so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-10-19T01:55:11.707" LastActivityDate="2019-10-19T19:28:34.763" Title="Why does any Archbishop get to decide if alligator is okay for Lent?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;fasting&gt;&lt;lent&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15456" CreationDate="2013-04-05T12:59:06.253" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;Traditionally, many liberal theologians (e.g. Walter Bruggeman) have separated Genesis into two parts - Genesis 1 - 11 and Genesis 12 - 50.  The dividing point begins with Abraham, and the tone of Genesis does change significantly at that point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first 11 chapters, Adam through Noah and Babel represent nearly 2000 years of human history.  A broad sweep of characters, tied by chronology of &quot;kings&quot; that closely corresponds with Sumerian and Babylonian myth, places Genesis in a worldwide perspective. Beginning with Abraham, however, the narrative slows down dramatically and focuses on just one guy - Abraham, and three generations of his descendants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is thus, for this reason that liberal scholars, having divided the book in two, tend to mythologize the first - the table of nations included - but lend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&amp;amp;article=1220&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;more credence to the geneologies beginning with Abraham&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;sup&gt;The link summarizes Unger's conclusion that Abraham fits well with what we &quot;know&quot; of the Middle Bronze Age&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, Matthew's genealogy of Jesus also begins not with Adam, but with Abraham. While Matthew may have simply been trying to show Jesus' Jewish identity, it is also possible that he believed Abraham was simply far enough. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Due to the widespread popularity of Abraham (Muslims, Christians, and Jews all claim lineage), most scholars do not doubt that there was &quot;an Abraham,&quot; although there is nothing extra-biblical to pinpoint him to a specific date.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses, likewise, is such a revered figure that very few scholars doubt there was &quot;a Moses&quot; but again, pinning him down to an exact date is still an inexact science.  Primarily &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5061/what-are-the-arguments-for-the-exodus-occuring-in-1440bc-or-1290bc/11279#11279&quot;&gt;scholars tend to settle on one of two dates&lt;/a&gt; - either 1440BC (more closely matching the traditional genealogy) or 1290BC, which tends to be preferred by secular historians. Between Moses and the Kingdom of Israel, however, genealogies would still be expected to be more problematic, as there was no one 'leading authority' at the time.  (In any event, neither Aaron nor Moses was in Jesus' line, so for Christians, the point would be a little bit moot.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest recorded person attested to by name in extra-bibilical authority, however, is David - roughly 1000BC.  Beginning with the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tel Dan Stele&lt;/a&gt;, mentioning his name, theistic evolutionists become sufficiently convinced to pronounce dates with something approaching &quot;certainty&quot; - although even David's historicity was questioned until the end of the 20th Century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2015-12-26T21:56:22.217" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1119" CreationDate="2013-04-05T13:36:38.390" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;A brief look at any &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/harmony/&quot;&gt;harmony of the Gospels&lt;/a&gt; will immediately point out an obvious fact - namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke go over a lot of the same ground, but John is very different.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;For the uninitiated, a harmony of the Gospels is a work that attempts to show the life of Christ in chronological order, pointing of the reference texts.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The number of parables and stories that occur in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which do not occur in John, is just too great. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, for example, just the miracles of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Miracle                        Matthew     Mark        Luke        John&#xA;&#xA;The nobleman's son at Capernaum healed                             4:46-54&#xA;The demoniac in the synagogue healed       1:21-28     4:31-37   &#xA;Simon's wife's mother healed    8:14-17    1:29-34     4:38-41   &#xA;Circuit round Galilee           4:23-25    1:35-39     4:42-44   &#xA;Healing a leper                 8:1-4      1:40-45     5:12-16   &#xA;Christ stills the storm         8:18-27    4:35-41     8:22-25   &#xA;Demoniacs in Gadarenes          8:28-34    5:1-20      8:26-39   &#xA;Jairus' daughter. Woman healed  9:18-26    5:21-43     8:40-56   &#xA;Blind men and demoniac          9:27-34           &#xA;Healing the paralytic           9:1-8      2:1-12      5:17-26   &#xA;Matthew the publican            9:9-13     2:13-17     5:27-32   &#xA;&quot;Thy disciples fast not&quot;        9:14-17    2:18-22     5:33-39   &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because these three seem to have the 'same view' on a lot of matters, they have been called the &quot;synoptic&quot; Gospels, from the Greek syn (same) and optic (relating to sight or view).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Famed exegete Daniel Wallace goes into detail on the so-called &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem&quot;&gt;Synoptic Problem&lt;/a&gt;, asking how it is that three Gospel writers could include so much that is so similar, in even the same order.  While he does not deny inspiration by the Holy Spirit, he shows how the complete agreement would not really fit with three men independently relating the same facts, without some form of collaboration or borrowing.  A close reading of parenthetical remarks or the details which are included in some accounts but not others would seem to indicate that the authors were aware of the other works, and expected their audience to do the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this similarity, the fun question then becomes, who borrowed from whom?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditionally, Matthew was viewed as the first Gospel, hence its location first in the New Testament canon.  That said, beginning with Schleiermacher in the early 1800s, the idea that Mark was actually the first began to take hold.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rules of hermeneutics that are used to reconstruct &quot;the original wording&quot; (remember these were hand-copied manuscripts and minor variations happened) usually suggest that when two possible variations are presented, &quot;the harder meaning is to be preferred.&quot;  In other words, if a copyist is reading sourcing material and either re-copying it or re-using it, it is far more likely that a copyist would harmonize what is said with an overall theology, rather than introduce something that makes the existing theology less pure and pristine.  Since Mark's Gospel typically includes some of the most human aspects of Jesus (the Messianic secret, the abrupt ending, etc...), the principle is taken to a macro level, thus giving Mark &quot;temporal first place.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The synoptic &quot;problem&quot; does not seek to deny &quot;Inspiration,&quot; but does seek to create an historical chain of events that tells us how our Gospels came to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-04-05T17:33:42.250" LastActivityDate="2013-04-05T17:33:42.250" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15460" CreationDate="2013-04-05T17:24:35.157" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/f/Fasting_Rules.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;appropriate Canon law says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Abstinence from meat, &lt;strong&gt;or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays&lt;/strong&gt; [...] (emphasis mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the rules say that the Archbishop has the authority to decide what can be eaten on Fridays in his diocese (he doesn't have to declare alligator to be 'seafood' - that's just a media invention). That doesn't of course mean his decisions apply to all of Catholicism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11315/eating-of-which-non-fish-animals-does-not-go-against-the-dietery-law-of-the-roma&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-04-05T17:30:07.633" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15346" CreationDate="2013-04-05T18:14:42.893" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are already two good answers here representing the typical interpretation of these parables, that the rapid growth of the mustard plant and yeast are pictures of the rapid growth of Christianity, so I'd like to offer a contrasting view: &lt;strong&gt;these parables are actually a warning about corruption within the Church&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a minority view (see sources below), and I realize that people much more gifted than I am have drawn out some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/2110.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;wonderful lessons based on the standard interpretation&lt;/a&gt;, but I think the context and language of that passage of scripture actually point in another direction, while still being consistent with Jesus' other teachings about the Kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Context&lt;/strong&gt;: these parables occur together in both Matthew 13 and Luke 13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Matthew, these parables follow the parable of the Weeds (&quot;tares&quot;), which is a picture of false religion intermingled with true members of the kingdom (i.e. the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/did-the-church-fathers-or-ot-talk-about-the-visible-and-invisible-church&quot;&gt;&quot;Invisible Church&quot;&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Luke, Jesus speaks these parables immediately after confronting religious authorities who are &quot;indignant&quot; that he has healed a woman on the Sabbath. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Language&lt;/strong&gt;: if we assume that certain symbols are used consistently throughout the Bible, a different picture starts to emerge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_nigra&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mustard seed plants&lt;/a&gt; don't grow into large, tall trees. One large enough for birds to nest in would be a monster.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Trees&lt;/em&gt; in the Bible can be a symbol of (evil) human governments. The tree Nebuchadnezzar saw in his vision (Daniel 4:10-16) is described similarly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Birds of the air&lt;/em&gt; represented influence of &quot;the evil one&quot; in the parable of the Sower earlier in the same chapter (Matthew 13). &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Taken together, the picture is of a church that has become so large and established that it is a roosting place for evil.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yeast&lt;/em&gt; (or leaven) represents sin throughout the Bible (in the Law, Jesus' parables, Paul's letters) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Three measures of flour&lt;/em&gt; was the standard grain offering to God (Leviticus 14:10).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then the full picture becomes one &quot;mixing in even a small amount of sin corrupts an offering to God&quot;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(Some commentaries go further, putting a lot of weight into the fact that it the yeast was &quot;hidden&quot; and that it was a woman who did it (!), but I don't find these convincing. There is such a thing as looking too closely at scripture.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As other answers have already said Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God / Kingdom of Heaven (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15451/what-is-the-difference-between-the-kingdom-of-god-and-the-kingdom-of-heaven&quot;&gt;basically synonyms&lt;/a&gt;) is more than just Heaven (in the sense of an afterlife); it is a kingdom composed of everyone who submits to God's rule in their hearts -- in a word, the Church. However, when we look at Christ's followers across history (from a human perspective) we don't see a single unified kingdom -- we see a mess: &quot;political intrigue, lust for power, intolerance, vain superstition, immorality, and greed&quot; -- in other words, false religion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should take comfort therefore, that Jesus warned us from the beginning that His Kingdom would be intermingled with the influence of its enemies. And (if you will forgive a little preaching in this Q&amp;amp;A format), we should also put this into perspective by remembering that each of us is susceptible to hypocrisy, sin, and holding false ideas about God. &lt;strong&gt;If I want His Kingdom to spread on earth, I need to start by examining how fully that Kingdom really rules in my own life.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/david_guzik/sg/Mat_13.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/david_guzik/sg/Mat_13.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/david_guzik/sg/Luk_13.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/david_guzik/sg/Luk_13.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Herbert Lockyer, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=4ncUVL4h2LsC&amp;amp;pg=PA185&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;All the Parables of the Bible&lt;/a&gt;, Zondervan, 1988, ISBN 0-310-28111-3, p. 185-196.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Full disclosure&lt;/em&gt;: while researching this answer, I've found that this interpretation seems to be typical only among (Dispensational?) Premilennialist teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4294" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-04-12T23:00:30.733" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15407" CreationDate="2013-04-05T21:27:20.613" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no official doctrine backing up this claim. In many religions at times ideas and concepts are introduced that are not necessarily true. In the LDS religion unless one of the Twelve, or First Presidency discusses a doctrine or a general authority during general conference, or it is part of the other accepted LDS scripture, then that concept is likely NOT doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4297" LastActivityDate="2013-04-05T21:27:20.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15472" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-05T23:24:03.407" Score="7" ViewCount="4102" Body="&lt;p&gt;I talked to a teacher at a theological seminary here in Sweden today, and we discussed the nature of grace: Fulfillment of natural potential or completely otherworldly? His idea was that with Thomas Aquinas (and probably &quot;et al&quot; in his era) there was a change in how grace is viewed: It became detached from our natural potential and God's work in creation. can anyone weigh in on this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2013-08-24T23:47:04.713" Title="How did Thomas Aquinas view grace as opposed to the church fathers?" Tags="&lt;grace&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1119" CreationDate="2013-04-06T05:59:26.737" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the first three gospels are compared—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—it is obvious that the accounts are very similar to one another in content and expression. As a result, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the “synoptic gospels.” The word “synoptic” basically means “to see together with a common view.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not that they should contradict each other but the striking similarities, not only of wording, as for example in the Healing of the Paralytic (Mk.2.1 12; Mt.9.1 8; Lk.5.17 26.), but also of the order of incidents, as for example the series of episodes recorded in Mark 10.13 34, and appearing in Matthew 19.13 xx.19 and Luke 18.15 34 presented a literary puzzle of sort. The question that arise is why these similarities?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plausible explanation for similarities in order of events could be that writers presented them in the order of their occurrences. However for similarities of wording most of the literary studies only discuss this issue without taking into consideration the influence of Holy Spirit and point out to the literary dependence of these gospels on each other, which definitely the most logical conclusion one can expect with a sceptic  mind.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.textexcavation.com/oralliterary.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;One such research however bases this on oral traditions&lt;/a&gt; and concludes that the synoptic gospels are probably related to one another in a mostly literary, partly oral, fashion. It further goes on to say that it is highly likely that they were written from mostly oral traditions. However if the gospel authors had composed entirely from oral materials, each successive writer still depended on the groundwork of his predecessor(s).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj15a.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Another study which is staunchly advocating the inspirational base for these similarities&lt;/a&gt;  has found that only sixteen percent of the words in those sections are identical in all three Gospels. The study then focused on the agreements of two Gospels against a third Gospel in all combinations: Matthew-Luke against Mark, Matthew-Mark against Luke, and Mark-Luke against Matthew. It showed from several perspectives the impossibility of any theory of literary interdependence created by these combinations of agreements and disagreements. From the standpoint of observational facts, it pointed to randomness as the only possible explanation for the phenomena of the Gospels. Yet randomness is not an accurate term to apply.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As already said, the discussions of the origins of the Synoptic Gospels say far too little about the role of the Holy Spirit in the composing of those Gospels. He was the major author in the divine-human process of producing the Synoptic Gospels. Some of Jesus’ last words to the Eleven were:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“When the  Holy Spirit comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, that one will testify concerning Me; and you also will testify, because from the beginning you have been with Me” (John 15:26-27).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The study further says:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those words specify the twofold nature of the inspiration that produced the accounts of Jesus’ life. “Randomness” is not a fit description of the combination of coincidences and disagreements in the Synoptics. The Holy Spirit had a controlling role in what the human authors wrote. He had reasons for the occasions when they agree and for the occasions when they disagree. In that sense, the combination of agreements and disagreements is not random, but God-ordained. In this life, we as humans will never comprehend the mind of God (cf. Isa 40:13; 1 Cor 2:16) and be able to detect His reasons for this mixture of agreements and differences in wording. To think that we can do so by treating Scripture as just another human production smacks of egotism on our parts. Readers must content themselves with simply accepting what He used the writers to compose while they worked without consulting the written works of each other.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-04-06T09:36:08.613" LastActivityDate="2013-04-06T09:36:08.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15477" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-06T09:33:28.973" Score="14" ViewCount="756" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was recently doing some research on Bible publishing and distribution in order to compose &lt;a href=&quot;https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/15652/933&quot;&gt;this answer over on the Skeptics Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. In spite of the result being well received, I have a nagging doubt that I might have missed something. The one I'm wondering if I under-estimated is related to the Catholic church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;United Bible Societies&lt;/a&gt; specifically prints Bibles in many languages that include the Deuterocanon and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/sample-page/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;works with both Catholic and Orthodox&lt;/a&gt; groups for distribution. What I was unable to determine is if this was the primary source for Bibles in Catholic circles around the world. If not, the sheer size of the Catholic church must place a pretty high demand on some other publisher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found some references to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.c-b-f.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Biblical Federation&lt;/a&gt; but didn't find any evidence that they were a major player in print or distribution of Bibles. A related &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02544a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;article in Newadvent&lt;/a&gt; talks a lot about Protestant Bible societies and historical movements but doesn't specifically mention the role Catholic church. Are primarily Protestant societies listed because that was the point of the article or because that's primary what is out there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Catholic church have any in house publishing operations or an independent publishing/distribution source that handles high volume in any worldwide region or do they typically piggy back on the regional Bible societies that are summed up under the UBS umbrella?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:46:42.840" LastActivityDate="2018-02-01T12:27:45.387" Title="Where does the Catholic church procure most of its Bibles?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15098" CreationDate="2013-04-06T17:47:56.987" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; I was unable to find anything in support of this view prior to 1989.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;D. A. Carson's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0802836836&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;commentary on John&lt;/a&gt; (generally considered to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bestcommentaries.com/topcommentaries/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the best available commentary&lt;/a&gt; on this book of the Bible) explains the following: (See p. 191)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Noting that v. 6 describes &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; births, one from flesh to flesh and the other from Spirit to Spirit, some interpreters propose that 'born of water and the Spirit' similarly refers to two births, one natural and the other supernatural. . . . To support this view, 'water' has been understood to refer to the amniotic fluid that breaks from the womb shortly before childbirth, or to stand metaphorically for semen. &lt;strong&gt;But there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as 'from water'&lt;/strong&gt;, and the few that use 'drops' to stand for semen are rare and late.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, it would seem that there are no ancient sources to cite for this view. This is confirmed by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bestcommentaries.com/book/3734/0310497507-john-gary-m-burge&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The NIV Application Commentary&lt;/a&gt;: (see p. 115)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The chief problem here is that &lt;strong&gt;this culture did not refer to natural birth as birth &quot;by water&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (although we may do so today, thinking of water as either amniotic fluid or semen.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a defense of the natural birth view, Carson points us to two sources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ben Witherington III, &lt;em&gt;New Testament Studies&lt;/em&gt; 35, (&lt;strong&gt;1989&lt;/strong&gt;), 155-160&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;L. Morris, &lt;em&gt;Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John&lt;/em&gt;, (IVP, &lt;strong&gt;1989&lt;/strong&gt;), 150-151&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Andreas Kostenberger's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bestcommentaries.com/book/3171/080102644X-john-andreas-j-k%C3%B6stenberger&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;commentary on John&lt;/a&gt; (which is ranked #2 on the aforementioned site) suggests two additional sources for a defense of the physical birth view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;B. Witherington, &lt;em&gt;John's Wisdom&lt;/em&gt;, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox., &lt;strong&gt;1995&lt;/strong&gt;), 97&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;J. C. Laney, &lt;em&gt;Moody Gospel Commentary: John&lt;/em&gt;, (Chicago: Moody, &lt;strong&gt;1992&lt;/strong&gt;), 78&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is some additional information that I came across which may be helpful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bestcommentaries.com/book/3609/john-gerald-borchert&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The New American Commentary&lt;/a&gt; also supports Carson's claim: (see p. 173-174)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These two words also should not be bifurcated as in &lt;strong&gt;some inadequate folk interpretations of the text where water is equated with the water of natural birth&lt;/strong&gt; (either that of the sack in which the baby floats or the male fluid of the sex act).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two sources are suggested for further research (although I am not sure if they are defenses or refutations):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beasley-Murray, &lt;em&gt;John&lt;/em&gt;, 48&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;H. Odeberg, &lt;em&gt;The Forth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relations to Contemporaneous Religious Currents&lt;/em&gt; (1929; reprint, Amsterdam: B. RR. Gruner, 1986), 63&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bestcommentaries.com/book/3659/0802825044-the-gospel-according-to-john-leon-morris&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The New International Commentary on the New Testament&lt;/a&gt; identifies Odeberg as a proponent of the &quot;water = semen&quot; view, which suggests that the latter citation may not be relevant to the amniotic fluid view. (see p. 191-192) The citation given appears to be the same source:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hugo Odeberg, &lt;em&gt;The Fourth Gospel&lt;/em&gt;, (Uppsala, 1929), 48-71&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also learned from this commentary that Calvin viewed &quot;water and Spirit&quot; as synonymous, and that Luther said that &quot;water&quot; refers to water baptism, which I thought was interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I hope that helps point you in the right direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-04-06T17:54:35.787" LastActivityDate="2013-04-06T17:54:35.787" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15484" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="42540" CreationDate="2013-04-07T04:43:23.573" Score="7" ViewCount="1482" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard somewhere (can't remember where) that Satan is more of a term than a person. In other words, Satan is not so much a fallen angel, person, or being, but rather a designation for evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a standard position of any churches or denominations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, please clarify where this idea comes from and what backing (if any) it has from Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-07T17:12:49.867" LastActivityDate="2016-07-09T20:55:03.980" Title="What traditions hold that Satan is not actually a person?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15491" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-07T09:56:40.440" Score="3" ViewCount="506" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 19:30  When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus said it is finished did he mean that the atonement for sin had ended? if so what about His ministry as a High Priest what happens to it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-04-07T12:02:48.087" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T08:55:46.687" Title="Did the atonement end on the Cross?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-04-11T02:33:29.270" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15491" CreationDate="2013-04-07T12:26:58.083" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is certainly how that is interpreted by a large percentage of Christian groups, and it's how the author of Hebrews interpreted it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:10 KJV&lt;/strong&gt; By the which will we are sanctified through the&#xA;  offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume the second part of the question deals with the fact the high priest offers sacrifices for sins. In Hebrews 5:1-3 we read...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 5:1-3 New International Version (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed&#xA;  to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and&#xA;  sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are&#xA;  ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to&#xA;  weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins,&#xA;  as well as for the sins of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10 1-18 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 The law is only a shadow of the&#xA;  good things that are coming—not the realities&#xA;  themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices&#xA;  repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near&#xA;  to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered?&#xA;  For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no&#xA;  longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an&#xA;  annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and&#xA;  goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world,&#xA;  he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,&#xA;      but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings&#xA;      you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—&#xA;      I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a] 8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did&#xA;  not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered&#xA;  in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to&#xA;  do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And&#xA;  by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body&#xA;  of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Day after day every priest stands and&#xA;  performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same&#xA;  sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest&#xA;  had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the&#xA;  right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to&#xA;  be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect&#xA;  forever those who are being made holy. 15 The Holy Spirit also&#xA;  testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 “This is the covenant I&#xA;  will make with them&#xA;      after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts,&#xA;      and I will write them on their minds.”[b] 17 Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts&#xA;      I will remember no more.”[c] 18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is referring to a human priest, who must sacrifice &quot;for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people&quot;. Jesus, as the sinless Son of God, was sinless, so He would not have to sacrifice for His own sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that these sacrifices are ordinary sacrifices offered by sinful humans. Offering animals - the best animals, spotless, presumably, if they were following the Law, but animals nonetheless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' sacrifice was unique.  It was offered by a preist who was sinless (Christ) and the offering was perfect - something unlike any other offering that ever had, or could, be offered (The sinless Son of God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So His sacrifice only needed to be a one-time sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the Priestly title?  His work as Priest, at least as far as sacrifice is concerned, is finished, but He still retains the title, because it describes an aspect of who He is. The author of the passage above was showing that Jesus was &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;greater&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; than any other High Priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much more can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/Melch8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/Melch8.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Finally, in Heb 7:18, the author argues that, if there is a new High&#xA;  Priest, there must be a setting aside (athetêtis) of the (old)&#xA;  commandment (regarding priesthood) because it was weak and useless&#xA;  (asthenês kai anôpheles) (see &quot;fleshly commandment&quot; in Heb 7:16). As&#xA;  he already indicated, a new priesthood would not have neen necessary&#xA;  if the old priesthood was effective. So, according to the author, the&#xA;  promise of a perpetual Levitical priesthood in Exod 29:9 (&quot;And they&#xA;  shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute&quot;) and 40:14 (&quot;Their&#xA;  anointing will qualify them for a perpetual priesthood throughout&#xA;  their generations&quot;) should be interpreted to mean until the time of&#xA;  the eschaton, when the greater High Priest appears. The author&#xA;  denigrates the Law further by saying that it made nothing “perfect”&#xA;  (eteleiosen) (Heb 7:19a). Actually, according to the author, the Law&#xA;  was not intended to be eternal but only preparatory for something&#xA;  better and perfect. When he says that the Law did not make perfect, he&#xA;  means that the Law as pertaining to the priesthood and the Temple cult&#xA;  did not serve to make anyone acceptable to God. As a result a better&#xA;  hope is introduced (through a better High Priest), which allows for a&#xA;  new approach to God (7:19b).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-04-07T17:24:04.667" LastActivityDate="2013-04-07T17:24:04.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15494" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17816" CreationDate="2013-04-07T19:34:22.353" Score="9" ViewCount="1379" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to premillenial eschatology, there will be a special period after Christ comes again in which He will reign on earth with His saints for a 1000 years. Their view is typically based on a specific interpretation of this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2020:6%20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who do premillenialsts identify as reigning after this period? What happens after the 1000 years?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2015-06-25T20:37:39.247" LastActivityDate="2015-06-25T20:37:39.247" Title="Who rules this Earth after the millenium?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;premillennialism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15497" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15508" CreationDate="2013-04-08T02:55:43.877" Score="9" ViewCount="1919" Body="&lt;p&gt;After Joseph and his brothers were reunited, Joseph presents only five of his brothers to Pharaoh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 47:1-2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;47:1: Joseph went and told Pharaoh, “My father and brothers, with their flocks and herds and everything they own, have come from the land of Canaan and are now in Goshen.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2: He chose five of his brothers and presented them before Pharaoh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why only five? Why not all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-03-17T14:24:11.480" Title="Why did Joseph only present five brothers?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;joseph&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15498" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15499" CreationDate="2013-04-08T03:48:28.523" Score="5" ViewCount="3401" Body="&lt;p&gt;Or, the better question is: did the earth really stop rotating?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joshua 10:12-14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12: On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,&#xA;      and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13: So the sun stood still,&#xA;      and the moon stopped,&#xA;      till the nation avenged itself on[a] its enemies,&#xA;  as it is written in the Book of Jashar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14: There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, if the earth really did stop spinning for extended period of time, it would have severe implications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For one, rotation velocity is 1,674.4 km/h at the equator. This means that if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning everything would be launched in a ballistic trajectory sideways. All of the masses would be scoured clean of anything. This means rocks, trees, buildings, warriors fighting right then and there, and etc, would be swept away into the atmosphere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And/or, Earth would be torn apart by the gigantic deceleration forces. Seismic waves will flow through the earth causing massive earthquakes. The atmosphere would possibly boil over. Also lets not forget the 2.58x10^29 Joules of rotational energy. all that energy has to go somewhere. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do I feel like I am writing xkcd what-if article? Anyway...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless by some miracle God was able to stop the Earth from spinning without the consequences, this act would be impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So did he really stop the Earth from spinning? Or was it only an illusion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="154" LastEditDate="2013-04-08T05:43:56.027" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T17:47:57.530" Title="Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;earth&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-06-16T05:37:45.470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15498" CreationDate="2013-04-08T06:48:24.503" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes it was a miracle. It is clearly stated that God did this for Israel. There is no need to fall back on &quot;illusion&quot; if this is marked as a miracle. When a miracle happens, &quot;natural laws&quot; might as well no longer apply, because God applies. That is part of what &quot;miracle&quot; means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You've made a number of assumptions that I think are unwarranted. The passage states that both the sun and the moon stopped moving. Their orbits around the earth are not synchronized, so we can rule out the possibility that God only stopped the rotation of the earth. Though even if He did stop its rotation, why would there be a problem? Imagine the even application of a force to every single particle on the entire planet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He might have stopped the rotation of the earth and then moved the moon as well. Or He might have turned space around the earth to counteract its rotation, and then turned space again at some point past the moon, to counteract &lt;em&gt;its&lt;/em&gt; rotation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, God may have swung the sun and moon and stars around the earth. This would have caused the distant galaxies to move at far, far, far beyond the speed of light. Again, no acceleration forces if God were &quot;putting His hand on&quot; every particle. This would have been trivial for God, who &lt;em&gt;created everything&lt;/em&gt; and is &lt;em&gt;infinitely powerful&lt;/em&gt;. That's not mathematical infinity. It's &lt;em&gt;Divine infinity&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or He might have done it in some way far, far, far beyond our comprehension. It is a miracle, and marked as such. What's the problem, again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T06:48:24.503" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15500" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15491" CreationDate="2013-04-08T08:49:31.410" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As per Roman Catholics, Ministry of &lt;strong&gt;High Priest&lt;/strong&gt; of Jesus is still continuing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CCC 1410: It is Christ himself, the eternal &lt;strong&gt;high priest&lt;/strong&gt; of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ’s Sacrifice is once for all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:10&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catechism of Catholic Church teaches that this is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: Every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them. This memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: &quot;This is my body which is given for you&quot; and &quot;This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.&quot; In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he &quot;poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because &lt;strong&gt;his priesthood&lt;/strong&gt; was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper &quot;on the night when he was betrayed,&quot; [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine admirably summed up this doctrine that moves us to an ever more complete participation in our Redeemer's sacrifice which we celebrate in the Eucharist:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the &lt;strong&gt;high priest&lt;/strong&gt; who in the form of a slave went so far as to offer himself for us in his Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head. . . . Such is the sacrifice of Christians: &quot;we who are many are one Body in Christ&quot; The Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The &lt;strong&gt;priest&lt;/strong&gt;, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;CCC 1348 All gather together. Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly. At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is &lt;strong&gt;high priest&lt;/strong&gt; of the New Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in representing him that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer. All have their own active parts to play in the celebration, each in his own way: readers, those who bring up the offerings, those who give communion and the whole people whose &quot;Amen&quot; manifests their participation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-04-08T08:55:46.687" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T08:55:46.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15501" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-08T08:49:35.003" Score="4" ViewCount="1248" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before Christ, there would be two tabernacles in the temple: an outer and an inner tabernacle. Priests would minister at the outer tabernacle by caring for the lamps, by burning incense to God twice daily, and by giving weekly offerings of bread. Once a year, the high priest of those priests would sacrifice an animal, and then he would dare to enter through the second veil into the inner tabernacle. There, he would sprinkle the mercy seat, the place of God's presence, with the sacrificial blood, and would then invoke the name of the Saviour God in atonement for the sins of Israel. Then he would leave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ offered up His sacrifice, He did not go to the man-made outer or  inner tabernacle. He passed through into heaven itself to the seat of God the Father. There at the throne of God He sat down at the right hand of the Father as our most perfect intercessor. Our High Priest went up to that most sacred place to ask God to forgive us, and He remained there. That is how Jesus is even now serving as High Priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since we no longer need high priests to intercede for us by way of repeated bloody sacrifice, why do Catholics have priests? They are obviously not re-sacrificing Christ when they say the Mass, so what do they do as priests, and why are they called priests if they are not (to put it bluntly) killing something?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(Answers from other denominations (Orthodox?) that have compatible reasons for having priests are welcome.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2017-02-08T07:06:40.753" Title="If the old priesthood is abolished, what is the point of having Catholic priests?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15498" CreationDate="2013-04-08T11:31:19.817" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Similar to this question (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1954/where-did-noah-find-polar-bears-and-penguins-in-palestine&quot;&gt;Where did Noah find polar bears and penguins in Palestine?&lt;/a&gt;), there are two distinctly different answers, depending on your underlying assumptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everything in the bible is literally true as written. In this case&#xA;the answer is simple: God made it so because God made it so. Reason,&#xA;causality, laws of physics, and logic can be disbanded at will. If&#xA;God can stop the earth (or moon, or sun) he can surely deal with&#xA;physical side effects of this as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The bible was written (and edited and translated) by humans that&#xA;were trying to make a point to the best of their abilities and&#xA;within their frame of reference given by their times, society, and&#xA;environment.  In this case the answer is equally simple: neither&#xA;sun, moon, nor earth did actually stop and it’s just a metaphor,&#xA;allegory, or symbolism used by the author to convey his/her message.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't think there are a lot of view points in between that hold together without internal contradictions, so you probably just have to have pick one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4020" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T11:31:19.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14464" CreationDate="2013-04-08T12:03:38.217" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As stated in the question, this is a subjective topic, but I think a few things can be said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of statements of faith (SOF) are usually two-fold. Very often they are an attempt to simultaneously explain the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That the church or ministry is operating within orthodoxy, that it shares all the basic tenets of faith with all true believers. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That the church/ministry operates out of some specific teaching about scripture/the gifts of the Spirit/offices in the Church/etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus a SOF for an individual, ministry or church usually is not intended to &lt;em&gt;define&lt;/em&gt; what is orthodox and what is heresy, unlike the creeds that were put down in e.g. Niceae, Constantinople or Chalcedon, but to affirm that one considers oneself as aligned to orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A SOF may be used to answer critics, clarify teaching and be a general guide of what to expect, sort of like content declarations for food. Thus, when a list of beliefs are being presented it is often hard to tell exactly what &lt;em&gt;weight&lt;/em&gt; is being put on each item. There is usually no difference being made between:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is being presented as necessary for individual salvation?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is being presented as foundational truths, but not necessary for salvation?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is required to believe for membership?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is required to believe for having a leadership or teaching position?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the guiding doctrines for the church/ministry operations as a whole, but individuals within the leadership team may still disagree upon?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps one should not differentiate between every item on that list, very much depending on what type of organization it is, but I still think reasoning along such lines would clarify a lot. Or to put it differently, what is being thought of as necessary and what is being thought of as beneficial?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the question about &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; one reads a SOF. Is it intended to be understood as propositional truths or as general alignment with a tradition? E.g. when stating that one follows the Nicene creed, does that mean a general affirmation of its main thrust, or that one has accepted the neo-platonic metaphysics that guided how the church fathers wrote its details?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, providing to much detail may attract pointless criticism and heresy hunters and would make the SOF harder to maintain, since it would need constant upgrades as new knowledge is gained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T12:03:38.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15506" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15511" CreationDate="2013-04-08T12:15:21.907" Score="10" ViewCount="26369" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always assumed that the Holy Spirit did not make his presence known amongst men until Pentecost.  Famously, in Acts 2, the Spirit descends upon the first believers, gives them power of speech, and adds tremendously to their power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus clearly foretells the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1 - just before he ascends into heaven - saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That Jesus &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; go away before the Holy Spirit comes is attested to in John 16:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this fit my narrative neatly, thinking, okay - Jesus takes center stage until He returns to the Father, at which point the Holy Spirit comes onto the scene with tongues of fire and such.  Sure, he may have &quot;descended on Jesus like a dove&quot; at Jesus' baptism, but he was pretty much quiet in the affairs of men. And indeed, as an eternal pre-existent being much like Jesus, I assume he was around, just not so much involved in the day to day affairs of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then, I listened closely to the lectionary this week. I heard something in John 20:22 that I was not expecting.  After Jesus appeared to his disciples, after the resurrection, he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seemingly contrasts with a non-involved Holy Spirit.  I thought that Pentecost was the &quot;firstfruits of the spirit,&quot; the first time the Holy Spirit deigned to dwell amongst men.  Am I off my rocker, or am I missing something?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In others - was &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a. Pentecost supposed to be the first appearance of the Holy Spirit, or &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;b. am I just making up the idea that Pentecost was supposed to be the &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; outpouring of the Spirit?  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If (a), how is John 20:22 reconciled?  If (b) how could the Holy Spirit come in light of John 16:7?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, when did Jesus send the Spirit, and how does it fit with the external witness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-22T19:34:19.470" LastActivityDate="2015-09-23T16:26:44.223" Title="When did Jesus send the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;pentecost&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-26T23:39:08.983" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15501" CreationDate="2013-04-08T13:02:45.090" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament priesthood is a foreshadow of the New Testament priesthood, but many features are different; the word for OT/pagan priest and for NT priest is also different in some languages including Greek and Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The OT Levite priesthood was tied to bloodline of Aron and their role was to sacrifice animals and other offerings in the Temple. These features of priesthood were abandoned with the sacrifice of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ministerial priesthood (and common priesthood shared by all baptised too) is derived from the priesthood of Christ. Similarly to several levels of discipleship of Jesus' followers in the Gospels (Twelve/ Seventy/ the crowds), there are different levels of participation of Christ's priestly authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ministerial priests' role is to serve people in the place of Christ, especially while performing the sacraments. &lt;strong&gt;As a sacrifice was a definition feature of Levite priesthood, sacrament is a crucial point of Catholic ministerial priesthood.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;As there were only the Twelve in the Upper Room while Jesus said about the Eucharist: &quot;Do it in the remembrance of me!&quot;, we believe that the Twelve and their successors (the bishops and priests) have the power to perform the visible part of the miracle of transsubstantiation (about the other Christians and this priestly power, there's nothing in the Bible, but tradition said &quot;no&quot;).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The same is true about the confession and most other sacraments - they were given to the twelve, so only those ordained to do so have the power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an article on this topic&lt;/a&gt;; I used it as my primary source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T13:02:45.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15497" CreationDate="2013-04-08T16:05:24.820" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Biblical Commentary by Clarke gives us some reasons of why Joseph might have chosen only 5. Two of them are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joseph took five of the meanest-looking of his brothers fearing that Pharaoh would detain them for his service, whereby their religion and morals might be corrupted.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joseph took five of the best made and finest-looking of his brethren and presented them before Pharaoh, wishing to impress his mind with a favorable opinion of the family which he had just now brought into Egypt, and to do himself honor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal opinion is that as Joseph he wanted his brothers to stay in a fertile land in Egypt. He asked them to state to the Pharaoh that their job is to tend livestock. Livestocks are naturally kept in a fertile land during a famine. But the problem is as Joseph himself states, in Gen 46:34, that shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians. So he took only half of his fathers sons so that not to make the Pharaoh detest them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or Joseph might have been afraid that if he brought forth all of his 11 brothers at once, the Pharaoh might find them intimidating and Joseph might lose his favor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the next verses we also see that Jacob visits him separately. Probably that could be a royal custom to meet a Pharaoh in small groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his commentary Clarke  also continues to say that in Judges 18:2, the word extremity (מקצה miktseh - the word which also appears in Joseph's selection of his brothers) may be understood as implying dignity, valor, excellence, and per-eminence. It is probable they might have followed what Joseph did here because the mission was important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the full text of &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibleapps.com/commentaries/genesis/47-3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/a&gt; for Genesis 47:3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T08:00:53.817" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14625" CreationDate="2013-04-08T17:07:20.817" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sanctification is an on-going process in the believer's life. From the perspective of God, it has already happened - it is so certain, there can be no doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From our perspective, it is ongoing: we are to continue to &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:12-13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phil 2&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T17:07:20.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15506" CreationDate="2013-04-08T17:37:33.493" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;How a Christian chooses to reconcile these passages depends a lot on your view of the Holy Spirit and His role in our lives. With the reservation that different groups and denominations interpret this differently, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegracetabernacle.org/studies/gtsn_john20.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;these study notes&lt;/a&gt; make a good case for John 20:22 being symbolic - an &quot;acted parable&quot; that was fulfilled at Pentecost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also add that the Spirit was very much active and involved in the world before Pentecost. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/putting-pentecost-perspective-part-1-holy-spirit-old-testament-acts-21-13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; is a lengthy study of the Spirit's work before Christ's coming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4294" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T17:37:33.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15506" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:31:50.243" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The meaning of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 20:22&lt;/a&gt; is clear in its context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”&lt;/strong&gt; 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 20:19-23&lt;/a&gt; (Bold added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples were alone with each other. Not only that they were hiding from the public and those that would kill them. &lt;strong&gt;Jesus appears before them then address them, &lt;em&gt;specifically&lt;/em&gt;. Jesus sent the holy spirit on them only.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Again in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 16:7&lt;/a&gt; Jesus is addressing the disciples only.&lt;/strong&gt; He goes on further to say that the disciples will not be able to be effective without the Spirit because the disciples alone do not know the Truth of which Jesus was speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 16:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The disciples were incapable of building up the church without the Holy Spirit. Peter was incapable of delivering likely the most convincing testimony ever in Acts two without the Holy Spirit.&lt;/strong&gt; They were &amp;quot;pierced to the heart.&amp;quot; The exact dwelling of the Holy Spirit. It was at that moment that the Holy Spirit was &amp;quot;outpoured&amp;quot; on the people. It was freely given from that moment forward. The times before this moment it was necessary to be given to some so that hearts may be pierced and the whole world might believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in specific answer to your questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A: No, Pentecost was not the first &amp;quot;appearance&amp;quot; of the Holy Spirit. That is clearly shown in the Scripture. It was, however, the first outpouring. Pentecost marks the day that the Holy Spirit was freely given to any who might believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B: It seems so. There is much evidence that the Holy Spirit was quite active and always has been, but only for certain persons. As Luke Ritchie has already said, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/putting-pentecost-perspective-part-1-holy-spirit-old-testament-acts-21-13&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this study&lt;/a&gt; shows that well, from the Spirit giving life in Genesis to It guiding the prophets. One thing to note is that The Spirit only does what is commanded by the Father and subsequently Jesus, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 [The Holy Spirit] will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 16:14-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this, one might interpret that God and Jesus almost always act through the Holy Spirit. A notable exception would be Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T18:44:51.253" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15512" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15519" CreationDate="2013-04-08T19:12:18.233" Score="4" ViewCount="1802" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the 1 Kings, We have man of God from Judah, who came to Bethel to warn Jeroboam and ends up getting killed on his way out by an Old Prophet who lied to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Kings 13:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18: The old prophet answered, “I too am a prophet, as you are. And an angel said to me by the word of the Lord: ‘Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat bread and drink water.’” (But he was lying to him.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23: When the man of God had finished eating and drinking, the prophet who had brought him back saddled his donkey for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24: As he went on his way, a lion met him on the road and killed him, and his body was left lying on the road, with both the donkey and the lion standing beside it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously this is a jerk move on the Prophet's part. Lying to the man of God and getting him killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What justifies this man's actions? I have not read anything that points to his punishment for lying. What was the reason for the Prophet's actions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-05-21T20:48:38.053" Title="The lie of the Old Prophet" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;1-kings&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-05-22T11:40:45.097" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15513" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15515" CreationDate="2013-04-08T19:27:02.437" Score="7" ViewCount="1393" Body="&lt;p&gt;John the Baptist was someone whose job was to prepare the way from Christ. When Jesus makes his appearance, John introduces him to the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:29-34, New Living Translation (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, the Lamb of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! &#xA;  He is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘A man is coming after me who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.’ &#xA;  I did not recognize him as the Messiah, but I have been baptizing with water so that he might be revealed to Israel.”&#xA;  Then John testified, “I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him. &#xA;  I didn't know he was the one, but when God sent me to baptize with water, he told me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ &#xA;  I saw this happen to Jesus, so I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:31-36, New Living Translation (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“He has come from above and is greater than anyone else. We are of the earth, and we speak of earthly things, but he has come from heaven and is greater than anyone else. &#xA;  He testifies about what he has seen and heard, but how few believe what he tells them! &#xA;  Anyone who accepts his testimony can affirm that God is true. &#xA;  For he is sent by God. He speaks God’s words, for God gives him the Spirit without limit. &#xA;  The Father loves his Son and has put everything into his hands. &#xA;  And anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn't obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God’s angry judgment.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 1:9-14, New Living Translation (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One day Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and John baptized him in the Jordan River. &#xA;  As Jesus came up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart and the Holy Spirit descending on him like a dove. &#xA;  And a voice from heaven said, “You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy.”&#xA;  The Spirit then compelled Jesus to go into the wilderness, &#xA;  where he was tempted by Satan for forty days. He was out among the wild animals, and angels took care of him.&#xA;  Later on, after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, where he preached God’s Good News.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the basic timeline is: Jesus enters the scene. --&gt; John proclaims that he is the Messiah. --&gt; John Baptizes. --&gt; John is put in prison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how should I understand this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 11:2-3, New Living Translation (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John the Baptist, who was in prison, heard about all the things the Messiah was doing. So he sent his disciples to ask Jesus, &#xA;  “Are you the Messiah we've been expecting,[a] or should we keep looking for someone else?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, this is confusing, since that way John has been talking it is implying that he knew who was Messiah or not. As far as I know he was executed in prison, so the timeline cannot be backwards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-04-08T21:03:51.470" LastActivityDate="2016-10-11T17:15:01.450" Title="John's question in prison" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15514" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15521" CreationDate="2013-04-08T19:48:14.917" Score="2" ViewCount="7084" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:28  And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although by position apostleship is first, does this mean it is also the most important of the gifts...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-08T20:38:58.913" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T23:42:23.940" Title="Are some spiritual gifts more important than others?" Tags="&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-04-11T02:33:15.927" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15513" CreationDate="2013-04-08T19:54:17.473" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The notes in my Bible say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[11:3] The question probably expresses a doubt of the Baptist that Jesus is the one who is to come (cf. Mal 3:1) because his mission has not been one of fiery judgment as John had expected (Mt 3:2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the timeline becomes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus enters the scene. --&gt; John proclaims that he is the Messiah. --&gt; John Baptizes. --&gt; John is put in prison. --&gt; John expresses doubt because he hears things are not going as he expected them to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might have been because John was in some way ill-informed of exactly what was happening, because Jesus sends the following reply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mt/11/4&quot;&gt;Matthew 11:4-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus said to them in reply, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the people closest to Jesus express serious doubts at one point or another -- Thomas in particular comes to mind. (It should be noted, though, that many others, like His Blessed Mother, Mary, never doubt.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-08T21:08:28.833" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T21:08:28.833" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15516" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15520" CreationDate="2013-04-08T19:54:27.927" Score="3" ViewCount="2307" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Wesley was a supporter of free will and in opposition to Calvinism which taught predestination... What was his view on Original sin since by logic the baby is predestined to sin by just being born, no free will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T21:21:17.593" Title="What was John Wesley's view on Original Sin?" Tags="&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;methodist&gt;&lt;wesley&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15512" CreationDate="2013-04-08T20:48:10.107" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as we can tell, the old prophet wanted some company for a meal. When he hears the man of God reply that the Lord had told him not to have such a meal, he does not believe and is dismissive, as if saying &quot;sure, sure, I'm a prophet too, and &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; was told to ask you just now&quot;. This was a lie: God did not cause the old prophet to choose to lie in this way, God did not tell him to test the man of God by lying, but surely God knew that this old prophet would lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The man of God agrees to go with the old prophet, in direct disobedience to what God had told him. He is then killed by a danger that God had warned him against. He chose to disobey God, which is the very definition of sin. We should mourn him, but remember that he is the one most responsible for his own death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the old prophet, he seems to avoid taking responsibility for the grave scandal he caused (scandal being the bringing of another person into sin). When he hears that the man of God was mauled and killed by the lion, he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“It is the man of God who rebelled against the charge of the LORD. The LORD has delivered him to a lion, which mangled and killed him, according to the word which the LORD had spoken to him.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;(1 Kings 13:26)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, being a prophet does not mean that one is without sin. Still, while the old prophet seems to publicly declare his own non-involvement, his actions suggest that he feels very serious remorse over what has happened, for he goes to get and then bury the body, and mourns saying &quot;Alas, my brother!&quot;, and then instructs his sons that his own body should be placed in the very same grave as the man of God, who he recognizes as a prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T20:48:10.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15516" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:21:17.593" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Wesley and other Arminians, original sin is not a matter of predestination but of human nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his sermon &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-44-Original-Sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Original Sin&lt;/a&gt;, Wesley states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Scripture avers, that &quot;by one man's disobedience all men were constituted sinners;&quot; that &quot;in Adam all died,&quot; spiritually died, lost the life and the image of God; that fallen, sinful Adam then &quot;begat a son in his own likeness;&quot; -- nor was it possible he should beget him in any other; for &quot;who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?&quot; -- that consequently we, as well as other men, were by nature &quot;dead in trespasses and sins,&quot; &quot;without hope, without God in the world,&quot; and therefore &quot;children of wrath;&quot; that every man may say, &quot;I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me;&quot; that &quot;there is no difference,&quot; in that &quot;all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,&quot; of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Wesley, our free will (which he calls &quot;self-will&quot;) is inherently sinful. We have a choice of following God's will or our own. When we choose to exercise our own will, we turn our back on the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Satan has stamped his own image on our heart in self-will also. &quot;I will,&quot; said he, before he was cast out of heaven, &quot;I will sit upon the sides of the north;&quot; I will do my own will and pleasure, independently on that of my Creator. The same does every man born into the world say, and that in a thousand instances; nay, and avow it too, without ever blushing upon the account, without either fear or shame. Ask the man, &quot;Why did you do this?&quot; He answers, &quot;Because I had a mind to it.&quot; What is this but, &quot;Because it was my will;&quot; that is, in effect, because the devil and I agreed; because Satan and I govern our actions by one and the same principle. The will of God, mean time, is not in his thoughts, is not considered in the least degree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T21:21:17.593" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15514" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:27:54.343" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer: No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole point of 1 Corinthians 12 is very simple and very straight forward - you should not boast about your Spiritual gift, because gifts don't make anyone special.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, if one is arguing about which gifts are &quot;better&quot;, then you are missing the point of - get this - the gift. A gift is not dependent on the work of the recipient, but rather of the giver. Theologians have long held that the Corinthian church - oft beset by division and discord - were arguing precisely over such silly questions as &quot;which is the most important gift,&quot; using their gift as evidence of &quot;their&quot; importance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 11:17-19 lays the problem out plainly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this situation, Paul unequivocally says - &quot;KNOCK IT OFF! Your gifts are all equally important in God's sight!&quot; And how do we know that this is the case?  Just about every word in chapter 12 is an admonition or an explanation that says - Your gifts don't make you any better than anybody else!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All gifts are from the same source&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All gifts are gifts to be used to the same end &lt;em&gt;in love for others&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All gifts are to be used together in concert - like as in the body&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized byc one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, and most importantly, If you have to pick a &quot;greatest gift&quot; - it's love&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tonguesd ? Do all interpret? 31Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. And yet I will show you the most excellent way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereupon we get the famous 1 Corinthians 13 - the hymn to love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. ... And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the context in which Paul lays out these gifts, he goes to extarordinary lengths to make it clear - the gifts are not what is special, but rather the giver. As Christians, the gift is just that - a gift which is supposed to be used for building up the body. The moment it becomes a point of pride - an idol - it ceases to be that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-08T23:42:23.940" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T23:42:23.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15522" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:52:53.880" Score="8" ViewCount="8987" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures describe Judas Iscariot in terms that certainly indicate that he was never a true follower of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but &lt;strong&gt;woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed&lt;/strong&gt;! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.  Matthew 26:24 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;there are some of you who do not believe&lt;/strong&gt;.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.  John 6:64 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet &lt;strong&gt;one of you is a devil?&lt;/strong&gt;” 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.  John 6:70-71 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but &lt;strong&gt;the son of perdition&lt;/strong&gt;, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.  John 17:12 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, however, Judas was sent out by Jesus with the others to proclaim the good news, work miracles and cast out demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;These twelve&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 &lt;strong&gt;Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons.&lt;/strong&gt; Freely you received, freely give.   Matthew 10:5-8 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if Judas really was the son of perdition, a devil, and one who did not believe, how was it possible for him to work miracles?  How could the Holy Spirit work through him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-06-22T01:14:52.993" Title="How was Judas Iscariot, as the son of perdition, able to work miracles and cast out demons?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;&lt;exorcism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-06-22T07:13:01.633" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15523" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6539" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:53:19.387" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus definlty knew the Gentiles would be reached. His parables in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2021:33-46&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 21:33-46&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%208:10-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 8:10-13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022:1-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:1-13&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2013:22-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 13:22-30&lt;/a&gt; are pretty clear that the majority of Jews will reject Him and that Gentiles will accept Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4306" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2013-04-09T01:16:45.143" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T01:16:45.143" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15514" CreationDate="2013-04-08T22:00:26.773" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there does appear to be &amp;quot;greater gifts&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;earnestly desire the greater gifts&lt;/strong&gt;.  And I show you a still more excellent way.  1 Corinthians 12:31 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but &lt;strong&gt;especially that you may prophesy&lt;/strong&gt;.  For &lt;strong&gt;one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God&lt;/strong&gt;; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 &lt;strong&gt;But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation&lt;/strong&gt;. 4 &lt;strong&gt;One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.&lt;/strong&gt; 5 &lt;strong&gt;Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues,&lt;/strong&gt; unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.  1 Corinthians 14:1 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul here emphasizes that prophecy edifies the church and places it as a superior gift than tongues--at least when tongues are not interpreted.  Paul expounds on this throughout chapter 14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? 7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? 8 For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9 So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. 11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. 12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.  1 Corinthians 14:6-19 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-08T22:00:26.773" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14961" CreationDate="2013-04-09T00:06:53.740" Score="9" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Origin of the phrase&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are actually &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.iii.html&quot;&gt;a number of texts&lt;/a&gt; that are labeled the &quot;Nicene Creed&quot;.  The text produced by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-24&quot;&gt;325 council&lt;/a&gt; does not include information about the kingdom at all.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius&quot;&gt;Eusebius of Caesarea&lt;/a&gt;, who attended the council, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-22&quot;&gt;wrote back to his congregation&lt;/a&gt; about the deliberations.  He reports an initial version of the creed that was used as a part of the baptism ceremony and the final version as issued by the council.  None of these versions include the phrase &quot;whose Kingdom shall have no end&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nicene Creed received by the Eastern Orthodox Church has traditionally been associated with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/constantinople-381-creed-english&quot;&gt;Council of Constantinople in 381&lt;/a&gt;.  36 representatives of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatomachi&quot;&gt;Macedonianism&lt;/a&gt; were turned away from the second ecumenical council because they would not affirm the Nicene Creed (presumably the 325 version).  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/council-of-ephesus-iii-ad-431/&quot;&gt;Council of Ephesus in 431&lt;/a&gt; reaffirmed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html&quot;&gt;the faith established in Nicea&lt;/a&gt;, but seems to have had the 325 text in mind.  Further, it seems to have put an end to the writing of new creeds.  According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_Niceno.E2.80.93Constantinopolitan_Creed_of_381&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, the creed that included the phrase was not quoted until the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon in 451.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philip Schaff commented on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.iii.html?highlight=marcellus#highlight&quot;&gt;origin of the phrase&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This clause had already, so far as the meaning is concerned, been added to the Nicene Creed, years before, in correction of the heresy of Marcellus of Ancyra, of whose heresy a statement will be found in the notes on Canon I. of this Council.  One of the creeds of the Council of Antioch in Encæniis (a.d. 341) reads:  “and he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead, and he remaineth God and King to all eternity.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may be confirmed by Athanasius (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxii.ii.ii.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, II, 22) and Socrates Scholasticus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.v.x.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Historia Ecclesiastica&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, II, 10).  For the purposes of this answer, I will assume the phrase dates back to at least the 341 Synod of Antioch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Does the phrase reject Chiliasm?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nature of the Second Person of the Trinity was the primary focus of these councils since heresies in question (those of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius&quot;&gt;Arius&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorius&quot;&gt;Nestorius&lt;/a&gt;) were related to the meaning of the titles &quot;Son of God&quot; and &quot;Son of Man&quot;.  As far as I can tell, these heresies do not require a commitment to a particular eschatological theory.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the phrase were added in response to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_of_Ancyra&quot;&gt;Marcellus of Ancyra&lt;/a&gt;, who was accused of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism&quot;&gt;Sabellianism&lt;/a&gt;, the purpose would be to emphasize that Jesus would not return the Kingdom to the Father.  In particular, &quot;[Jesus] remains God and King to all eternity&quot; would contradict &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_monarchianism&quot;&gt;dynamic monarchianism&lt;/a&gt;, which holds that God transferred his kingly authority to Jesus only for a time.  Again, this view does not by necessity hold to a 1000-year reign; rather, it holds that God temporarily took on the &lt;em&gt;persona&lt;/em&gt; of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the heresies the creeds were designed to contradict were not particularly millenarian.  In addition, the phrase ought not particularly bother the believer in chiliasm.  That's because unending Kingdom of Christ is said to come &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the final judgement, which is not controversial.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/Revelation+20-22/&quot;&gt;Revelation 20-22&lt;/a&gt; describes a millenium in which the martyrs of the Church reign with Christ followed by the final judgment followed by the new Jerusalem where the servants of the Lamb with reign with Him forever.  So the literal reading of Revelation meshes well with the phrase in the creed; the creed just leaves out some of the detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Did the fourth century church condemn Chiliasm?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early church fathers are fairly well &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lessonsonline.info/MillennialismEarly.htm&quot;&gt;split on the issue&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian held views similar to the Jewish messianism of 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras, and 2 Baruch.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerome and Augustine preferred allegorical interpretations of apocalyptic literature.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the trend was from a more literal reading of the 1,000 years to a metaphorical reading.  Perhaps there was no need to condemn chiliasm as a heresy since there were few proponents of the idea by the time the councils had solidified the Trinitarian position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did find an odd text while researching the question.  During the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xiv.html?highlight=kingdom#highlight&quot;&gt;6&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; session&lt;/a&gt;, the Council of Chalcedon addressed the Emperor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;May God save your kingdom.  [You] have put down the heretics, [you] have kept the faith.  May hatred be far removed from your empire, and &lt;em&gt;may your kingdom endure for ever!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems likely that the phrase &quot;whose Kingdom shall have no end&quot; addresses concerns over the nature of Christ and the incarnation, just as most of the other phrases that accumulated in the creeds.  Chiliasm was losing favour by the 4&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; century, so it seems unlikely to have been targeted specifically by the creeds or councils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T00:06:53.740" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15526" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15527" CreationDate="2013-04-09T05:39:15.543" Score="12" ViewCount="3953" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that Roman Catholics do not think that everything the Pope says or does is infallible. However, has a sitting Pope ever revoked or contradicted an infallible statement made by a previous Pope?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="1090" LastEditDate="2013-04-09T05:48:41.987" LastActivityDate="2018-01-18T21:40:48.667" Title="Have different Popes ever contradicted each other?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15526" CreationDate="2013-04-09T05:53:28.003" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have asked specifically on an &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;infallible statement&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, so the answer is NO. That is in the matters of Faith and morals which applies to the universal church, they have not contradicted each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But on other issues like when they make disciplinary and administrative decisions they have. For example, Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuits in 1773, but Pope Pius VII favored them again in 1814.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to make it clear, it is important to keep in mind what Catholics mean by papal infallibility. It is a protection of the Holy Spirit which will not allow the pope to teach (as defined dogma) error in matters of faith and morals. Infallibility does not mean the pope receives private revelations. Nor does it include the private opinions of the pope, nor his teachings before he became pope--it is not retroactive. It does not mean he will say the right things at the right times, or lead a holy life. Papal infallibility does not extend to physics, algebra, or the outcome of sporting events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also it is to be noted that in the Catholic Church Church doctrines, disciplines, customs, and devotions each have different parts to play. In these Doctrines do not have to be formally defined by Church councils or popes to be part of the dogmatic teaching of the Church. But only when doctrines of the Church are challenged they are formally defined as dogmas by Popes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-09T13:41:50.003" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T13:41:50.003" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15528" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15537" CreationDate="2013-04-09T10:33:58.777" Score="-2" ViewCount="1698" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation and Daniel talk about beasts. These, of course, can not be taken literal since they are symbolic. My question is what does a beast represent in prophecy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-09T13:37:02.230" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T18:33:14.860" Title="In Prophecy what does a beast represent?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-04-10T18:16:26.777" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15531" CreationDate="2013-04-09T14:05:14.543" Score="8" ViewCount="8003" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6038/58&quot;&gt;Elsewhere on this site&lt;/a&gt;, the question of whether the Roman Catholic church supported evolution was answered with evidence that the Catholic position is that evolution could be true. That is, because they believe that &quot;truth cannot contradict truth&quot;, if scientific truth contradicts literally-read Biblical truth, then a literal reading is likely not the best way to read the passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of this, what is the Roman Catholic church's position on the Flood? Do they believe that the Flood literally happened, or do they similarly believe that the Flood was not necessarily a literal event?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2019-09-17T20:26:01.070" Title="What is the Roman Catholic position on literally reading the Flood account in Genesis?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15530" CreationDate="2013-04-09T14:10:26.840" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church does not have an &quot;official&quot; position on the literal interpretation of the Old Testament (including the &lt;em&gt;great flood&lt;/em&gt; narration). Whether they are literal or not has no bearing on whether the lesson they impart is true. Catholics are free to understand them as literal or not. The Church only insists that the Bible is inspired and inerrant and that what it teaches is the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just because there is no official position on the literal interpretation doesn't mean that Catholics can interpret scriptures to mean anything they want. Catholic interpretation should always be within the boundaries laid down by the church. These boundaries are most importantly guided by &lt;em&gt;church tradition&lt;/em&gt;. Careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. &lt;strong&gt;The Roman Catholic Church holds that the authority to declare correct interpretation rests ultimately with the church through its magisterium.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Catholics believe that the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope) has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a footnote about the question you referred to: that is about Card. Joseph Ratzinger's position on evolution and is not an official dogmatic teaching of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-04-11T15:19:01.660" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T15:19:01.660" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15526" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:15:54.630" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To add a supplemental answer to Jayarathina's excellent answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a pope speaks in an infallible way, this is called speaking &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;. This is not a ritualistic linguistic formula or a &amp;quot;label&amp;quot; like &lt;em&gt;nihil obstat&lt;/em&gt;, it is simply a way to recognize those times when the pope gives a teaching that has been correct, is correct, and will remain correct forever. The key point is that the teaching is not &amp;quot;new&amp;quot;, but expresses a known and unchanging truth on a matter of faith (what should be believed) and morals (what should and should not be done). Ecumenical councils are another organ of infallibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, to be clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;No pope has ever denounced an infallible teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nor has one infallible statement ever been set against another one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nor has any pope ever made a doctrinal error when speaking in this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. (The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; on Infallibility)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia link above discusses this further, for those interested in the details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that ex cathedra is basically a clear statement on a particular topic, made by a particular person, and directed at a particular group of people. That's all. There have now been 266 popes over the course of 1981 years (32-2013). It does not take much to speak ex cathedra, and though it is not an everyday occurrence, many clear ex cathedra statements have been made. Given the enormous range of years, of different social attitudes, and of popes with different personalities and views, I personally think it is &lt;em&gt;remarkable&lt;/em&gt; that Catholics do not have a huge pile of contradictory statements of this form. We should be very thankful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Related:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;• &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14999/3941&quot;&gt;Can dogma ever be modified, and how does this relate to papal infallibility?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;• &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15068/3941&quot;&gt;Why did it take so long for papal infallibility to be defined?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;• &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2133/3941&quot;&gt;When does the Pope speak ex cathedra?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T16:15:54.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15533" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15535" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:40:47.217" Score="5" ViewCount="20759" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard it stated that the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as, specifically, the King of the Jews, rather than the Messiah, the Incarnate Word, or anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the basis for this assertion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2018-05-29T13:24:02.877" Title="Why is it said that the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as the King of the Jews?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15533" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:52:44.043" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Matthew is written for a Jewish audience, especially Palestinian Jews who were at the time oppressed by the Romans. One of Matthew's main goals in his gospel was to prove that Jesus was the true Davidic Messiah--the king the Jews were expecting, who will deliver them from oppression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish scripture foretold that the Messiah will be like a Star out of Jacob and &lt;strong&gt;the Scepter that rises&lt;/strong&gt; out of Israel in Numbers 24:17. He is the One who &lt;strong&gt;sits on David’s throne&lt;/strong&gt; in Isaiah 9:7. He comes with the clouds of heaven to reign over a &lt;strong&gt;kingdom&lt;/strong&gt; where all people, nations, and languages, will serve Him in Daniel 7:13-14. In His &lt;strong&gt;kingdom&lt;/strong&gt; the nations will no longer lift up the sword against one another in Isaiah 2:4, and His reign, we’re promised, will have no end in Isaiah 9:6-7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And hence Jesus Christ is presented as the “Son of David, the Son of Abraham” in Matthew 1:1 and the “King of the Jews” who wise men seek to worship in Matthew 2:2. Forty times He speaks of the kingdom of heaven and says that the day would come when He would return in the clouds to establish His kingdom on earth in Matthew 26:64.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even Jesus is presented being asked directly, “Are you the King of the Jews?” to which He replies, “I am” in Matthew 27:11. This infuriated the religious leaders who demanded He be crucified. As He hung on the cross a sign was put over His head that read, “This Is Jesus, The King Of The Jews.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-09T17:01:28.500" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T17:01:28.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15528" CreationDate="2013-04-09T17:16:50.703" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SHORT ANSWER&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The beasts in prophecy represent kingdoms and empires as interpreted by Scripture itself in Daniel 7.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophecies concerning the beasts in Daniel are interpreted for us in the Scripture; even in the same chapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 &lt;strong&gt;‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. 18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19 “Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23 “He gave me this explanation: &lt;strong&gt;‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. &lt;strong&gt;27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.&lt;/strong&gt;’&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are the great empires that have ruled over the world. They are traditionally said to be Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, respectively. There are a number of things that support these designations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Lion is Babylonia&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In scripture the lion is often the symbol of great power and authority. Babylonia is said to have been the greatest Kingdom, even in Scripture (Daniel's dream involving the statue made of different metals is about the same thing). The Lion had wings, which was a symbol of Babylonia, which Daniel living in so he likely understood this well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bear is Medo-Persia&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing to notice is that the Bear is raised up on one side. The Medes and the Persians made an alliance to defeat and overthrow Babylonia. The Persians were the stronger of the two by a great measure. It has also been said that the ribs in the Bear's mouth are the three major campaigns that took the Babylonian Empire. The Bear being told to take its fill of flesh is permission from God to loot and plunder the riches of the previous kingdom, Babylonia. The destruction of Babylonia is close to the sole reason the Medo-Persian Empire became as great as it did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Leopard is Greece&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under Alexander the Great, the taking of the known world by the Greeks was less than a ten year campaign. That is what the wings symbolize and also a leopard itself is considered a swift and cunning animal. It was a very quick take over. There are four heads and four wings because after Alexander's death the kingdom was divided into four sub-kingdoms, headed by Alexander's generals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The fourth, terrifying beast is The Roman Empire&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without question, the Roman Empire was the most cruel, powerful, and warmongering than any other in history. It's power was rivaled by none, and it was only civil war that brought it to its knees. This beast had ten horn which represent kings or sub-kingdoms just as heads do. Rome was eventually divided into ten kingdoms which became much of Europe and Asia Minor. These ten kingdoms still ruled with the same authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Warning:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Here's where it might get offensive to a few denominations and it is hotly debated. No offense is intended.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The little horn that pushes out three others is the papacy. The Pope is like a king but different. He is head of a state that really has no army, but is and was the most influential, and therefore the most powerful. The Pope need not rule with an iron fist as Rome, but his words alone have started and ended wars throughout history. This concept is better supported with the dream about the statue, which you remember is about the same things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the opposite spectrum is that the fourth beast represents two kingdoms, but they are closely related. The first is the Roman Empire that we know from history and the second is usually simply called the Second Roman Empire. This Second Roman Empire is still non-existent, and it will appear within close time frame to the second coming of Christ. It will be headed by a world leader who is also the anti-Christ. This empire will rule until it is destroyed by Christ Himself at the second coming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Various view are everywhere in between the two views above, with one even stating that it is Rome and Rome only; there is no second empire coming from it. &lt;strong&gt;Perspectives on the fourth beast almost always agree on the following points.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It does represent Rome at least in part.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The little horn is the anti-christ, or a least a world leader with religious power too.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The empire and the little horn were or will be destroyed by the providence of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is very little argument that the beasts in Daniel, especially the fourth beast, are related to the beasts in Revelation. To discuss that would be off topic for the site because that is the &lt;em&gt;hotly&lt;/em&gt; debated parts. You would need to ask in a very specific way. Again, the views vary wildly from &amp;quot;it has almost all already happened&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;nearly none of it has happened.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SUMMARY&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The beasts in prophecy represent kingdoms and empires as interpreted by Scripture itself in Daniel 7.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T18:33:14.860" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15498" CreationDate="2013-04-09T17:47:57.530" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that in the minds of the Hebrews (and pretty much all of humanity for most of our existence), the Earth has always been stationary and the various lights in the sky moved around us on some variation of a crystal sphere or firmament&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/tlE3P.png&quot; alt=&quot;http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/11/Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-04-09T17:47:57.530" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15539" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15548" CreationDate="2013-04-09T18:06:55.170" Score="5" ViewCount="8944" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, Matthew to Abraham, and Luke to Adam.  However, neither Mark nor John contain genealogies.  What is the reason for this--both for why Matthew and Luke do contain genealogies, and for why Mark and John do not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2016-09-26T13:16:13.123" Title="Why do Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, while Mark and John do not?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;genealogy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15541" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-09T20:12:16.840" Score="3" ViewCount="10446" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is said that the Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as &quot;the Son of Man&quot;--not the Christ or King or God Incarnate, but distinctively the Son of Man.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is it in the Gospel of Luke that gives rise to this particular distinction.  Why is this assertion made and what is the basis of that statement?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2017-01-26T05:27:09.030" Title="Why is it said that the Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as &quot;the Son of Man&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15542" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15650" CreationDate="2013-04-09T20:14:28.053" Score="4" ViewCount="30727" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is often asserted that the Gospel of Mark distinctively presents Jesus as the Servant, even the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is it about the particular content of the gospel of Mark that gives rise to this assertion?  What is the basis for this distinction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T23:02:13.473" LastActivityDate="2015-10-19T02:18:01.347" Title="Why is the Gospel of Mark said to present Jesus as &quot;the Servant&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;suffering-servant&gt;&lt;literary-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15543" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15546" CreationDate="2013-04-09T20:16:21.187" Score="2" ViewCount="8417" Body="&lt;p&gt;A common assertion is that the Gospel of John uniquely presents Jesus as &quot;the Son of God&quot;, while Matthew presents Him as &quot;the King of the Jews&quot;, Mark as the &quot;Servant&quot;, and Luke as &quot;the Son of Man&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is peculiar in the Gospel of John that gives rise to this particular distinction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2019-11-01T18:19:16.153" Title="Why is the Gospel of John said to present Jesus distinctively as &quot;the Son of God&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15544" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15552" CreationDate="2013-04-09T20:50:22.583" Score="14" ViewCount="1478" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am quite familiar with the Reformers' opposition to the Papacy, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist#Protestant_reformers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;many said the Pope is the Antichrist&lt;/a&gt;. What confuses me is this quote from that same page:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In calling the pope the &amp;quot;antichrist,&amp;quot; the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the &amp;quot;antichrist&amp;quot; when they wished to castigate his abuse of power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was under the impression that the idea originated with the Reformers; however, it clearly did not. I would like a brief history of this idea up until the Reformers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="1787" LastEditDate="2020-09-07T20:28:55.163" LastActivityDate="2020-09-07T20:28:55.163" Title="What is a brief history on the idea that the Pope is the Antichrist?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;antichrist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="15546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15543" CreationDate="2013-04-10T00:37:49.653" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This idea comes primarily from the presentation of Jesus throughout the Gospel, which is summarized nicely by the Biblical author himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but &lt;strong&gt;these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;; and that believing you may have life in His name. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:30-31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John 20:30-31&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, consider the closing statement in the first section (1:1-18):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one has seen God at any time; &lt;strong&gt;the only begotten God&lt;/strong&gt; who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John 1:18&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...or the climactic statement of John the Baptist at the end of the second section (1:19-34):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I myself have seen, and have testified that &lt;strong&gt;this is the Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:34&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John 1:34&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...or the climactic testimony of Nathanael at the end of the third section (1:35-51):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, &lt;strong&gt;You are the Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;; You are the King of Israel.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:49&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John 1:49&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trend continues throughout the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T00:53:07.823" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T00:53:07.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15547" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15555" CreationDate="2013-04-10T01:01:30.840" Score="4" ViewCount="1523" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that the Pope can speak infallibly (&lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;), and that this has officially been done once, as well as three times before Papal infallibility was formally declared. I would assume that any doctrine he talks about or mentions would be infallible, at least with regards to the bits spoken while in &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; mode. Additionally, however, I can't immediately think of a reason why &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; statements would be the only ones to result in infallible doctrines. Thus, my question is: which doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are infallible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;If none, many, or all of Roman Catholic Church doctrines are infallible, then say so. In the case of &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt;, a broad classification would be appreciated. If there is a small number of them, then a list would be greatly appreciated.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2015-03-15T03:37:14.663" Title="Which Roman Catholic doctrines are infallible?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15539" CreationDate="2013-04-10T01:47:11.247" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think we can ever know for sure as we can't ask them. However I think the answer is probably to do with who they are writing to and what is the purpose of their writing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew is probably writing to a Jewish audience. For them the Christ has to have come from Abraham &amp;amp; David and so Matthew spends the time to show that Jesus has the credentials to be the Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke has probably been employed to write the book by Theophilus (debated if that is the persons name or title). He has been tasked to report on what has happened and what it means - thus it goes into a lot of detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark seems to be focused on just reporting the facts as they happened. He doesn't need to present the background information on what it means, just runs through the events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John is in a completely different format than the other gospels. In terms of who Jesus is he is very much focused on Jesus' divinity - not his human family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T12:05:32.607" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T12:05:32.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15544" CreationDate="2013-04-10T03:54:07.843" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer draws extensively from &lt;em&gt;Angel Pope and Papal Antichrist&lt;/em&gt;, Bernard McGinn, &lt;em&gt;Church History&lt;/em&gt; 47(2):155-173, 1978. McGinn is a Catholic and an expert on medieval mysticism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The identification of the Pope with the Antichrist of Revelation comes essentially from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_of_Fiore&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Joachim of Fiore&lt;/a&gt;, a twelfth-century mystic who was particularly interested in the pattern of history. His theology was condemned in a synod of 1260, though it was very influential - firstly, among groups in the Church who were devoted to lives of poverty, especially the Franciscans, and secondly among various schismatic the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh sects. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Joachim and followers, contemporary power struggles over the nature of the papacy, and questions over legitimacy during periods where there were antipopes, foreshadowed a future apocalyptic showdown between a &lt;em&gt;pastor angelicus&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;novus dux&lt;/em&gt;, or &lt;em&gt;orthopontifex&lt;/em&gt; (the good guy) and an Antichrist or &lt;em&gt;pseudopontifex&lt;/em&gt; (the bad guy).  This was a divergence from previous Antichrist theories, which tended to think he would be a (Holy) Roman Emperor.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Joachim himself &lt;em&gt;may or may not&lt;/em&gt; have thought that the Antichrist would be a &quot;proper&quot; elected pope, as opposed to someone setting himself up in mockery of the true church. He &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; think that the result of the conflict would be the beginning of a new era, where all people would live a simple, monastic, contemplative life, and where there would no longer be a church or pope. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next generation of Joachimites certainly did believe in the &lt;em&gt;pseudopontifex&lt;/em&gt;. From them come the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_of_Fiore&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dulcinians&lt;/a&gt; and other millenarian sects. By the way, if you've read Umberto Eco's &lt;em&gt;The Name of the Rose&lt;/em&gt;, then you've met some of these people! Part of the problem for the Franciscans in that book is that everyone assumes they're Dulcinian. Both groups were influenced by Joachim, but people like William of Ockham stayed within the Church, while trying to promote poverty and simplicity in life, and did not want to get rid of the papacy. Even Ubertino of Casale, who called Boniface VIII and Benedict XI a pair of antichrists, didn't want anything more than to have a better pope take over.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an influence on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lollards&lt;/a&gt;, whose founder John Wycliffe (1330-1384) had similar views of the papacy. And from these &quot;proto-Reformers&quot; it is a hop, skip and jump to the actual Reformation, similarly animated by concern about the church being wealthy and corrupt. The big difference, roughly from Wycliffe onwards, was that now the &lt;em&gt;institution of the papacy itself&lt;/em&gt; was seen as Antichrist - unlike the classical Joachimite view of a good and a bad pope fighting it out. For the Protestants there could not be a good pope! All popes, for them, were like mini-antichrists preparing the way for the final Antichrist of Revelation (the &lt;em&gt;antichristus magnus&lt;/em&gt;). In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9631/545&quot;&gt;a previous answer of mine&lt;/a&gt; you can find some references to Luther, Calvin, etc., discussing this idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, there have been other people, even before Joachim of Fiore, who used the word &quot;antichrist&quot; in relation to some pope. But these occurences are fairly sporadic and not influential. McGinn cites Arnulf (an archbishop of Reims), speaking at the synod where he was deposed in 991, calling John XV &quot;Antichrist seated in the temple of God and showing himself as if he were God&quot;.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Any stuff like this is just name-calling, and in any case is invariably about some specific individual pope, not the institution of the papacy or the hypothesized &lt;em&gt;pseudopontifex&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, the Pope-Antichrist link is in its purest form a creature of the Reformation, where the very institution of the papacy was held to be intrinsically evil. This built upon an earlier trend of criticizing the church for some combination of wealth, lack of zeal, or political disagreement: and where people looked forward to either a &lt;em&gt;better&lt;/em&gt; pope, or the coming of a messianic golden age where the whole question was moot. The people associated with this view were necessarily &quot;dissidents&quot;, and sometimes &quot;heretics&quot;. I have not found any of them who are accounted &quot;saints&quot;, and frankly I think it rather unlikely (unless we mean &quot;saints&quot; in a much more general sense). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. See eg Hugh of Newcastle, &lt;em&gt;De victoria Christi contra Antichristi&lt;/em&gt; (1319), or the &lt;em&gt;Ludus de Antichristo&lt;/em&gt;, a mid-12th century play about an imperial Antichrist.&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore&lt;/em&gt;, Robert E. Lerner, &lt;em&gt;Speculum&lt;/em&gt; 60:3, 1985.&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;Arbor vitae crucifixae Jesu&lt;/em&gt;, Ubertino of Casale (1305) at 5.8 and 5.11 (f. 230rb-233ra, 237vb in the Venice 1485 printing).&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;4. &lt;em&gt;Acta concilii Remensis ad Sanctum Basolum&lt;/em&gt;, Gerbert of Aurillac (aka, later, Pope Sylvester II), in &lt;em&gt;Monumenta Germaniae Historica&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Scriptores&lt;/em&gt; 3, 672.&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T03:54:07.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="447" CreationDate="2013-04-10T04:19:28.397" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We currently use Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament Text which dates to around 9th/10th century AD. This Hebrew in Hebrew Masoretic Text is very different from the Hebrew used by Moses in Old Testament Period. Also, Hebrew Masoretic Text contain vowel markings. There were no vowel markings in Old Testament Period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It must be noted that Aramaic became the language of Jews after Babylonian captivity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are scholars who admit that Aramaic was the language of Jews during Maccabean period. Here is an example from Book of Maccabees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Maccabees 12:36-37 (Septuagint) - &quot;And making the walls of Jerusalem higher, and raising a great mount between the tower and the city, for to separate it from the city, that so it might be alone, that men might neither sell nor buy in it. Upon this they came together to build up the city, forasmuch as part of the wall toward the brook on the east side was fallen down, and they repaired that which was called Caphenatha.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Book &quot;City of Jerusalem&quot; by Colonel C. R Conder (Pg. 100), Caphenatha is Aramaic word for a &quot;heap.&quot; Notice &quot;tha&quot; in Caphenatha. &quot;tha&quot; in Caphenatha is Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun in an emphatic state (Introduction to Syriac by Wheeler Thackston, Page 44).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh is Old Testament written in Aramaic used in first century Israel. This was the Old Testament used in First Century Israel due to the fact that Aramaic was the spoken language of first century Israel (Acts 1:19, Antiquities XX XI).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me point out the confusions and errors in Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament Text solved by Peshitta Tanakh. This will also give a visual idea of how many variations and errors are there in Hebrew Masoretic Text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some of the errors and contradictions in Hebrew Masoretic Text cleared by Peshitta Tanakh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:20 (KJV) - And Amram took him Jochebed &lt;strong&gt;his father's sister to wife&lt;/strong&gt;; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:20 (NIV) - Amram married &lt;strong&gt;his father’s sister Jochebed&lt;/strong&gt;, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:20 (1917 JPS Tanakh English translation of Hebrew Masoretic Text) - &quot;And Amram took him Jochebed &lt;strong&gt;his father’s sister to wife&lt;/strong&gt;; and she bore him Aaron and Moses. And the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty and seven years.“&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this true? Well, Let’s look at Peshitta Tanakh (Aramaic Old Testament) and also Septuagint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:20 (Samuel Bagster &amp;amp; Sons' Translation from Septuagint) - &quot;And Ambram took to wife Jochabed &lt;strong&gt;the daughter of his father's brother&lt;/strong&gt;, and she bore to him both Aaron and Moses, and Mariam their sister; and the years of the life of Ambram were a hundred and thirty-two years.“&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:20 (George Lamsa’s translation of Peshitta Tanakh)- &quot;And Amram took &lt;strong&gt;his uncle’s daughter&lt;/strong&gt; Jokhaber, and she bore him Aaron, Moses, and Miriam; and the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty-seven years.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lamsa wrote &quot;uncle’s daughter“ instead of writing the daughter of his father's brother. Aramaic word &quot;Doda&quot; that refers to an uncle on father's side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let’s also look at John Wycliffe’s translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:20 (John Wycliffe’s translation) – “Forsothe Amram took a wijf, Jocabed, &lt;strong&gt;douytir of his fadris brother&lt;/strong&gt;, and sche childide to hym Aaron, and Moises, and Marie; and the yeeris of lijf of Amram weren an hundred and seuene and thretti.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a site for &lt;a href=&quot;http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/biblical_studies/wycliffe/Exo.txt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wycliffe's translation of Exodus&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compared to Peshitta Tanakh and Wycliffe’s translation, the difference with Septuagint is that it says the years of the life of Ambram were a hundred and thirty-two years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peshitta Tanakh and Wycliffe’s translation agree with Hebrew Masoretic Text about Ambram’s age.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:2 (1917 JPS Tanakh English translation of Hebrew Masoretic Text) -  “And on &lt;strong&gt;the seventh day&lt;/strong&gt; God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let’s look at Septuagint. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:2 (Translation from Septuagint) – “And God finished &lt;strong&gt;on the sixth day&lt;/strong&gt; his works which he made, and he ceased on the seventh day from all his works which he made.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:2 (George Lamsa’s translation of Peshitta Tanakh) – “And on the &lt;strong&gt;sixth day&lt;/strong&gt; God, finished his works which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrew Masoretic Text, it says &quot;seventh day&quot; (in Genesis 2:2), is in contradiction to Exodus 20:11 (in Hebrew Masoretic Text) where it says &quot;six days.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Peshitta Tanakh has no such contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 20:7 (look at the differences below)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peshitta Tanakh - &quot;You shall not swear falsely in the name of MarYA your Alaha, for MarYA will not consider him innocent who swears falsely in his Name... for MarYA made the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that is with them in six days, and rested on the seventh day; for that reason, Alaha blessed the seventh day and made it holy {or, sanctified it}.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LXX - (Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord thy God will not acquit him that takes his name in vain... For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and the sea and all things in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it. - Brenton)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrew Masoretic - You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain; for Yahweh will not allow to go unpunished he who takes his name in vain... For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all which is in them. And he rested on the seventh day; thus, Yahweh blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;KJV (King James Version) - Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain... For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 8:26 &amp;amp; 2 Chronicles 22:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 8:26 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Two and twenty years old&lt;/strong&gt; was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Chronicles 22:2 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Forty and two years old&lt;/strong&gt; was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 King 8:26 of Hebrew Masoretic Text, it says Ahaziah was &lt;strong&gt;22&lt;/strong&gt; years old. But in 2 Chronicles 22:2, it says Ahaziah was &lt;strong&gt;42&lt;/strong&gt; years old. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does Peshitta Tanakh has this contradiction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 8:26 - Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ahaziah was &lt;strong&gt;twenty-two years old&lt;/strong&gt; when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Chronicles 22:2 - Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Twenty-two years old&lt;/strong&gt; was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peshitta Tanakh clears the contradiction found in Hebrew Masoretic Text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Joram marry the daughter of Ahab or the sister of Ahab?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 8:16-18 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - &quot;And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being the king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 8:24 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) -  &quot;And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through this, we know that Athaliah was the wife of Joram and their son was Ahaziah. But in 2 Kings 8:26 &amp;amp; 2 Chronicles 22:2, it says Athaliah was the daughter of Omri and Athaliah was the mother of Ahaziah. But in 2 Kings 8:16-18, we read Athaliah was the daughter of Ahab. In 1 Kings 16:29-30, we know that Ahab was the son of Omri.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does Peshitta Tanakh say about this contradiction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 8:16-18 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) - &quot;And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel. Joram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, began to reign. He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for the sister of Ahab was his wife; and he did evil in the sight of the LORD.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike 2 Kings 8:16-18 of Hebrew Masoretic Text, Peshitta Tanakh points out that Joram married a sister of Ahab. Through this, the contradictions in Hebrew Masoretic Text are cleared by Peshitta Tanakh. Ahab was the son of Omri and Athaliah was the daughter of Omri.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was Jehoiachin  8 years old (2Chronicles 36:9) or 18 years old (2Kings 24:8) when he began to reign?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 24:8 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - &quot;Jehoiachin was &lt;strong&gt;eighteen years old&lt;/strong&gt; when he began to reign; and he reigned in Jerusalem three months; and his mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Chronicles 36:9 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - &quot;Jehoiachin was &lt;strong&gt;eight years old&lt;/strong&gt; when he began to reign; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old in 2 Kings 24:8 and Jehoiachin was eight years old in 2 Chronicles 36:9. What does Peshitta Tanakh say about this contradiction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Chronicles 36:9 (Lamsa translation of Peshitta Tanakh) - &quot;Jehoiachin was &lt;strong&gt;eighteen years old&lt;/strong&gt; when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Kings 24:8 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) - &quot;Jehoiachin was &lt;strong&gt;eighteen years old&lt;/strong&gt; when he began to reign, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Eliathan of Jerusalem.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old. This contradiction in Hebrew Masoretic Text is cleared by Peshitta Tanakh. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 Samuel 13:5 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Samuel 13:5 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - &quot;And the Philistines assembled themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the sea-shore in multitude; and they came up, and pitched in Michmas, eastward of Beth-aven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 30,000 chariots. But there are only 6000 horsemen? There is something strange here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's look at Peshitta Tanakh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Samuel 13:5 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) - &quot;And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, three thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the seashore in multitude; and they came up and encamped in Michmash, east of Beth-el.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Peshitta Tanakh, it says there were &lt;strong&gt;3000&lt;/strong&gt; chariots instead of 30,000 chariots in Hebrew Masoretic Text. This makes much more sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Peshitta Tanakh, it says Beth-el. But Hebrew Masoretic Text has Beth-aven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lamsa translation of Peshitta Tanakh is the only current available English Translation of Peshitta Tanakh. His translation is alright. It’s not great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some People may ask - Wasn't Greek the language of first century Israel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, let's look at what Jewish Historian Josephus says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods&lt;/strong&gt;; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; &lt;strong&gt;on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; - Antiquities of Jews XX, XI &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1) - &quot;&lt;strong&gt;I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians&lt;/strong&gt;. Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note the names of our New Testament English Bible - &quot;Bar&quot;tholomew, &quot;Bar&quot;abbas, &quot;Bar&quot;nabbas, &quot;Bar&quot;sabbas, &quot;Bar&quot; Jesus, Simon &quot;Bar&quot; Jonah, &quot;Bar&quot; Timaeus, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic word Bar means Son. In Hebrew, Ben means Son. Even Rabbis point out that &quot;Bar&quot; in Bar Mitzvah comes from Aramaic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist, Yigael Yadin, Aramaic was the language of Jews until &lt;strong&gt;Simon Bar Kokhba tried to revive Hebrew&lt;/strong&gt; and make it as the official language of Jews during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD). &lt;strong&gt;Yigael Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew during the time of Bar Kokhba revolt&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Book &quot;Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome&quot; Yigael Yadin notes, &quot;It is interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew. Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar-Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state&quot;(page 181). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Book &quot;A Roadmap to the Heavens: An Anthropological Study of Hegemony among Priests, Sages, and Laymen (Judaism and Jewish Life)&quot; by Sigalit Ben-Zion (Page 155), Yadin remarked: &quot;&lt;strong&gt;it seems that this change came as a result of the order that was given by Bar Kokhba, who wanted to revive the Hebrew language and make it the official language of the state&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Book &quot;Naming the Witch: Magic, Ideology, and Stereotype in the Ancient World&quot; written by Kimberly B. Stratton (p. 232), Yigael Yadin suggests that Bar Kokhba was trying to revive Hebrew by decree as part of his messianic ideology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more infos on the differences, check this link - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Peshitta_Tanakh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Peshitta_Tanakh&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2014-06-08T16:04:25.833" LastActivityDate="2014-06-08T16:04:25.833" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6870" CreationDate="2013-04-10T05:15:56.273" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Other places Pink mentions his tripartite view of man are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gleanings in Genesis, p. 107&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Is it not clear then that the ark divided into three stories more than hints at our threefold salvation in Christ? The salvation which we have in Christ is a threefold one, and that in a double sense. It is a salvation which embraces each part of our threefold constitution, making provision for the redemption of our spirit, and soul, and body (1 Thes. 5:23); and further, our salvation is a three tense salvation—we have been saved from the penalty of sin, are being saved from the power of sin, we shall yet be saved from the presence of sin.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Great Change&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Man was created a tripartite being, composed of “spirit and soul and body” (I Thess. v, 23). That is unmistakably implied in the Divine account of his creation: “God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness” (Gen. i, 26); the Triune God made man a trinity in unity! And when man fell, he continued to be a tripartite being: no part of his being was extinguished, no faculty was lost when he apostatized from God. It cannot be insisted upon too strongly that no essential element of man’s original constitution was forfeited, no component part of his complex makeup was annihilated at the Fall, for multitudes are seeking to hide behind a misconception at this very point. They would fain believe that man lost some vital part of his nature when Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, and that it is the absence of this part in his descendants which explains (and excuses!) all their failures.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4312" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T08:30:22.970" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15547" CreationDate="2013-04-10T06:57:05.637" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; According to the catholic church, &lt;em&gt;ALL of its doctrines are infallible&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Long answer:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;The problem arises when someone questions whether a particular subject (matter of grave importance) is a Catholic doctrine or not. When that occurs, and there is an eminent danger of those people (who may or may not hold an ecclesiastical post) present a false doctrine as official church teaching, then pope has to step in and clear the matter by pronouncing a doctrine as a dogma. Now, there are some doctrines which will never be formally defined as dogmas, probably because no one will question them. (for example, virgin birth of Christ)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I understand that there is a room to wiggle around with respect to a doctrine. But as with a dogma, it is, with no second thought, infallible from a Catholic POV&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_infallible_declarations&quot;&gt;Papal infallibility&lt;/a&gt; lists out seven instances of a pope speaking ex cathedra:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&quot;Tome to Flavian&quot;, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above article also states that there is no complete list of doctrines or dogmas ever prepared by the Holy See. Which understandably is an impossible task.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My personal opinion&lt;/strong&gt;: When ever a canonization occurs, it is infallible too, because it satisfies all of the criteria of an infallible statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Just a footnote:&lt;/strong&gt; A dogma is a doctrine to be believed by Catholics that has been proposed by the Church to be divinely and formally revealed. A dogma can be defined by a &lt;em&gt;valid&lt;/em&gt; ecumenical council, approved by the pope. Or by the pope himself alone. Doctrine just means teaching which are assumed to be accepted by the universal church. There is no formal declaration is needed for a doctrine. Always a dogma and a doctrine will not contradict the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T07:13:00.040" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T07:13:00.040" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15558" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-10T08:51:00.297" Score="12" ViewCount="8110" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a variety of terms used in the Catholic Church to refer to particular statements or beliefs. Here are a number of some such terms:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dogma&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doctrine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Infallible statement&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Infallible papal teaching&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Statement made &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Definitively proposed doctrine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Authoritative statement&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are any of these the same? Are all infallible statements papal teachings? Are all doctrines dogmas? What exactly are the differences between these?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-12T01:38:42.530" LastActivityDate="2017-01-29T18:18:24.087" Title="What is the difference between a dogma, a doctrine, an infallible statement, an ex cathedra statement, etc.?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15522" CreationDate="2013-04-10T09:28:06.113" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Only the Holy Spirit anoints offices in the church with miraculous gifts. It is best to think of 'gifts' as &lt;em&gt;temporary&lt;/em&gt; and associated with a calling to an &lt;em&gt;office&lt;/em&gt; and sanctification as &lt;em&gt;permanent&lt;/em&gt; calling to &lt;em&gt;salvation&lt;/em&gt;'.&lt;/strong&gt; Even those sanctified by faith may not be given unusual gifts unless called to an external office requiring those externally anointed abilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with Judas is that he temporarily was assigned the former but did not partake in the latter. Judas was not 'saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.' (2 Thess 2:13)Jesus seems to clearly mark him out of sanctification while including him in a temporary called office here:Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (John 6:70, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does by no means indicate that God often calls people without sanctification to an office in the church with gifts. Rather it is the rare exception where he &lt;em&gt;infrequently&lt;/em&gt; calls sinners to an office and gives them gifts, &lt;em&gt;temporarily&lt;/em&gt; using them in order to declare his message according to his sovereign pleasure. He does not call and use them while saying a different message, for he will not manifest miraculous support of those who declare the opposite of his purpose and will in choosing them. He used Saul, Balaam and Judas in this way. He is not the author of confusion. That is why while in the office and anointed with special gifts to perform it, Judas could say on behalf of Christ, 'If you do not believe Jesus by my words about him believe the works he is doing through me under his office'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:38, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Owen makes this distinction between sanctification of the Holy Spirit and an office anointed by the same Holy Spirit clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The end of God in election is the sonship and salvation of the elect, “to the praise of the glory of his grace,” Eph. 1:5, 6; and this cannot be unless his image be renewed in them in holiness or saving graces. These, therefore, he works in them, in pursuit of his eternal purpose therein. But gifts, on the other hand, which are no more but so, and where they are solitary or alone, are only the effects of a temporary election. Thus God chooseth some men unto some office in the church, or unto some work in the world. As this includeth a preferring them before or above others, or the using them when others are not used, we call it election; and in itself it is their fitting for and separation unto their office or work. And this temporary election is the cause and rule of the dispensation of gifts. So he chose Saul to be king over his people, and gave him thereon “another heart,” or gifts fitting him for rule and government. So our Lord Jesus Christ chose and called at the first twelve to be his apostles, and gave unto them all alike miraculous gifts. His temporary choice of them was the ground of his communication of gifts unto them. By virtue hereof no saving graces were communicated unto them, for one of them never arrived unto a participation of them. (The Works of John Owen, Vol 4, P430)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judas could only work miracles and cast out demons by being directly chosen by Christ to an office that the Holy Spirit anointed with gifts to do so. God in scripture rarely does this strange thing (using his enemies to represent him) but only in an orderly way according to his divine purpose.&lt;/strong&gt; God is not an author of confusion. Miraculous gifts are proof that God has sent and approved the message of his messengers even when temporarily are rarely overwhelming his enemies to be his mouthpieces.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T09:28:06.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15564" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15565" CreationDate="2013-04-10T12:53:28.963" Score="9" ViewCount="10020" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Genesis account, the sun and stars are created on the fourth day:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:14  And God said, &amp;quot;Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:15  and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.&amp;quot; And it was so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:16  And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:17  And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:18  to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, light is created on the first day:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:3  And God said, &amp;quot;Let there be light,&amp;quot; and there was light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:4  And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from the perspective of a literal reading of this account, how is this reconciled?  Is light created twice?  How could there be light without the sun and stars?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-12-14T09:30:44.430" Title="What was the light of the first day of creation?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2014-12-15T02:09:59.487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15564" CreationDate="2013-04-10T13:03:24.267" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:23 answers this rather directly.  In imagining the new heaven and the new earth, it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:5 concurs, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus being capable of its own luminesence, there is thus nothing to contradict the possibility that God himself was the source of the light.  There is also no need to take such an idea - that God is the light, and God speaking the Light into existence is creating himself, and contradict the notion that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7797/1039&quot;&gt;Jesus himself was not created&lt;/a&gt;.  Indeed, since Jesus was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; created, he was eternal.  As John 1:1 indicates, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  Being thus present, God's glory would have been assumed to be there.  And, just like a lit candle, if its there, there will be light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, prior to his speaking, there is nothing to suggest that there was even a space into which his Light could shine.  As such, in &quot;creating the light,&quot; he simply created the space in which his own light - the emanation of His glory - could be beheld. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Shekinah Glory&lt;/a&gt;&quot; of the Lord is often compared to a bright light, so this is not altogether an unreasonable assumption.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Isaiah 6:2 speaks of the seraphim as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they are covering their faces, it would also be consistent with a brightness emanating from the Glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, finally, as we are reminded every Christmas that when the angels appeared to the shepherds,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and &lt;strong&gt;the glory of the Lord shone round about them&lt;/strong&gt;, and they were terrified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In seemingly every instance, the glory of the Lord shines, thus producing its own light.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T13:16:46.330" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15564" CreationDate="2013-04-10T13:11:44.193" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sun and stars are sources of light, indeed.  That does not mean, however, that they are the only sources of light.  Indeed, candles, fireflies and flashlights are all sources that produce light.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in Genesis 1:3-4, it seems that God may have produced light as a physical reality and perhaps he created another source of light of which we are not aware.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 1:14-18, He creates particular objects that produce light in various regions of the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Affable Geek noted in his answer, light comes from other sources, as when the shepherds saw the glory of God when the birth of Jesus was announced and when the New Jerusalem does not need light because the glory of God is its light.  Additionally, God appeared as a pillar of fire at night for the Israelites to follow during the Exodus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the sun and stars are not the only sources of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T13:20:01.013" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T13:20:01.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9078" CreationDate="2013-04-10T13:21:01.347" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd say...no. Although some might want you to think that :-) Firstly, to clarify, I'm talking here about &lt;em&gt;supernatural&lt;/em&gt; gifts rather than spiritual gifts. I don't know any Christian that wouldn't recognize more 'natural' gifts like having a gift in teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reformed Christians don't necessarily believe in the cessation of supernatural gifts, although they might (e.g. R.C. Sproul Jr, John Piper and Mark Driscoll are all very much reformed although only R.C. Sproul Jr doesn't believe in the continuation of supernatural gifts such as prophecy). Some reformed believers will put this belief in the ceasing of gifts down to 'their reformed theology', but that's simply not the case. Reformed theology doesn't have any bearing on whether or not you believe in the continuation of the supernatural gifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Charismatic Christians believe in the continuation of supernatural gifts, and as a general rule will actively pursue these, most probably within a church setting (speaking in other languages with interpretation, prophesying, praying for miraculous healing etc). Most charismatic Christians I know attend a church with charismatic theology, but not all. Christians who hold charismatic theology can hold reformed theology (e.g. Terry Virgo), but some don't (e.g. T.D. Jakes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentecostal Christians are members of a particular denomination of charismatic believers, who are characterized by holding tarrying meetings in which they expect the Holy Spirit to fall in power (as the early believers 'tarried' for the Spirit in Acts 1-2), and hold that everyone baptized in the Holy Spirit must speak in tongues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To further clarify: all Pentecostals are charismatic, but may or may not be reformed. Charismatics may or may not be Pentecostal or reformed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4315" LastEditorUserId="770" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T14:35:42.313" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T14:35:42.313" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15569" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-10T13:54:41.530" Score="0" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know about the 7th day Sabbath and I know about SUNday but I cant quite understand lunar Sabbaths. What are these and who observes them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T14:06:41.477" LastActivityDate="2013-05-11T23:39:32.810" Title="What are lunar sabbaths?" Tags="&lt;sabbath&gt;&lt;sunday&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15564" CreationDate="2013-04-10T14:04:40.360" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is being overthought, personally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He created LIGHT.  The concept, the physics, the science... he created actual Light.  He may not have bothered with fusion reactors in the heavens to propel light all around the universe yet, but Light itself had been created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isn't it that simple?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4247" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T14:04:40.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15571" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-10T14:09:10.187" Score="3" ViewCount="7940" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him. (Hebrews 11:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 Kings 2:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Elijah and Enoch (funny they all start with the letter E) where translated what does John 3:13 mean, NO MAN has ASCENDED to heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4263" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T23:00:37.153" Title="What does John 3:13 mean, NO MAN has ASCENDED to heaven?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;ascension&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-04-10T18:15:50.820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15571" CreationDate="2013-04-10T14:26:16.077" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;In the risk of sounding way too much catholic :p here is my answer:&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ascension and Assumption are two different things. Catholics believe that only Jesus came down from heaven and went up to heaven on his own power. This is called Ascension. Others like Enoch, Elijah and of course Bl. Virgin Mary were taken up by God. (i.e., not by their own power) This is called Assumption. Catholics and Orthodox have always explicitly differentiated Ascension and Assumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also it is interesting to note that in 2 Corinthians 12:2, Paul speaks of a man who was &lt;em&gt;caught up to the third heaven&lt;/em&gt; (presumably by God) and came back alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T14:34:11.743" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T14:34:11.743" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15571" CreationDate="2013-04-10T14:48:30.090" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the Scriptures do not record the specific place to which Enoch was taken--only that he was taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Elijah, he was taken up to heaven.  However, the word heaven is used to refer to different things, namely the sky, the domain of the stars, and the dwelling place of God.  It seems that Elijah arose into the sky, specifically.  Wherever else he may have gone, we cannot be sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, when Jesus says that no man has ascended into heaven, it seems that He is referring to heaven as the dwelling place of God and that Elijah must now, then, have gone there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of the rich man and Lazarus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 16&lt;/a&gt;) identifies a place of the dead referred to as &quot;Abraham's Bosom&quot;.  In this place, the rich man, who was in a place of torment, could see Lazarus and Abraham.  This does not appear to be the dwelling place of God.  On the Cross, Jesus referred to a place called Paradise, where the penitent thief would soon be with Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common understanding, then, is that there was a place of paradise for the Old Testament saints, distinct from the dwelling place of God which we call heaven.  This appears to be a place of waiting until the penalty for sins was paid, as it says in the last part of Romans 3:25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.  Romans 3:25b NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Jesus died, it is understood that Paradise was taken into Heaven, the dwelling place of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, Jesus was correct in asserting at that time that no man had ever gone into heaven except for He Himself who came from heaven.  Old Testament saints had gone to Paradise, but not Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T14:48:30.090" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15575" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15583" CreationDate="2013-04-10T16:39:05.517" Score="8" ViewCount="669" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Mormon doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2885/what-is-the-mormon-doctrine-regarding-becoming-a-god&quot;&gt;exaltation&lt;/a&gt; is that we can become like God is, and in essence, attain &lt;em&gt;godhood&lt;/em&gt;. This has sometimes been summarized, &quot;As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.&quot; I understand that this means, in part, that a believer can become his own &quot;God&quot; and ruler of his own world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Under what circumstances does a believer become his own &quot;God&quot; and ruler of his own world? Is that world their own planet?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is the &lt;em&gt;LDS&lt;/em&gt; scriptural backing for this doctrine? (I'm pretty sure it is not in the Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox canon, but I do suspect it is somewhere in the Book of Mormon or D&amp;amp;C. If I wanted to read the primary source of the doctrine, where would I go?)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there an &quot;alternate universe&quot; with other gods and sentient beings? What is the nature of this &quot;alternate universe&quot; or world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is such a world a physical planet, an alternate universe, or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is this promotion to divinity concurrent with our timeline? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is this world or universe something that interacts with our own? In other words, could we communicate a denizen of such a place using purely natural or physical means (rather than &quot;divine&quot; or &quot;spiritual&quot; means)? (For example, assuming we somehow had the technology to transcend light-years of distance with instantaneous communication, would we be able to speak with them?) Would a denizen of one of these &quot;other universes&quot; be able to interact with ours?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there already other such universes in existence, or is our God the first?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T03:12:50.643" Title="Does the Mormon doctrine of exaltation implicitly require acknowledging the existence of sentient extra-terrestrial life?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15571" CreationDate="2013-04-10T16:51:38.987" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to answer your question we need to look at the definition of &quot;heaven&quot;. Heaven could mean different things in different contexts. In some cases the &quot;paradise&quot; that @Narnian referred to could be considered heaven. However, returning to the presence of God the Father is considered to be the ultimate &quot;heaven&quot;. Since returning to the presence of God the Father requires a soul to be perfectly clean, it would stand to reason that Jesus is the only person who qualifies. Thus, in this instance no man has ascended to that ultimate heaven to which Jesus alone was qualified to enter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4278" LastEditorUserId="4278" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T23:00:37.153" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T23:00:37.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15564" CreationDate="2013-04-10T16:54:50.380" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: The light from nuclear fusion, just as it is today. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer is based on the Old Earth Creationist views of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/word-studies-in-genesis-one&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugh Ross&lt;/a&gt;, which is an exegesis that views itself as taking a literal, if alternative view of the Genesis account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Gen 1:1, the cosmos was created (BARA), meaning galaxies, stars, planets, our sun. Our sun is part of cosmos and therefore there on Day 1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the earth was shapeless-- indeed it was a coalescing ball of dust.  During this timeframe, it was very difficult to see the sun.  First it was only possible to see light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Gen 1:17, the sun was placed (NATHAN) or made to appear in the sky, as the dust had settled after a while. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T16:54:50.380" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15547" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:01:30.563" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jayarathina Madharasan has already answered the question asked. But I noticed there is another sub question to this which is: &lt;em&gt;&quot;I can't immediately think of a reason why ex cathedra statements would be the only ones to result in infallible doctrines&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would try to put some light on this valid point.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ex-cathedra means &quot;solemn papal definitions&quot;. It is the Charism the Pope &quot;enjoys in virtue of his office&quot; or literally it means &quot;from the chair&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many confuse charism of Infallibility as impeccability. Some imagine that Pope cannot sin. Infallibility is not the absence of sin nor is it a  charism that belongs only to Pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with Pope, they solemnly teach the doctrine as true.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On infallibility, Vatican II explains that   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while &lt;strong&gt;maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor&lt;/strong&gt; and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, &lt;strong&gt;they concur in a single viewpoint as the one that must be held conclusively&lt;/strong&gt;. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal church. Their definition must then be adhered to with submission of faith (Lumen Gentium 35).&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some argue that how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. That is why it is infallibility not impeccability. The doctrine don’t say that Pope wont’ sin or give bad example. Some wonder hoe infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. In fact the accurate understanding of infallibility is that which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not on disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comment on faith and morals. &lt;strong&gt;A Popes private  theological opinion are not infallible but only that which is solemnly defined is considered infallible teaching.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some think that infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truth needs to be known. That is not correct either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What infallibility does do is to prevent Pope from solemnly and formally teaching as truth something that is in fact  an error.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T17:01:30.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15501" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:21:00.997" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They are obviously not re-sacrificing Christ when they say the Mass&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's true enough that they are not &lt;strong&gt;re&lt;/strong&gt;-sacrificing Christ. But in a mystical way the Catholic priest acts &lt;em&gt;in persona Christi&lt;/em&gt; to offer, in an unbloody way, the very same sacrifice that was offered in a bloody way on Calvary. Here is the modern Catholic Catechism (paragraph 1367), quoting the 16th-century Council of Trent (my emphases):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice&lt;/strong&gt;: &quot;The victim is one and the same: the same [Christ] now offers &lt;strong&gt;through the ministry of priests&lt;/strong&gt;, Who then offered Himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus a principal point of having priests, in the Catholic Church, is to continually make the unique, unrepeatable sacrifice of Calvary mystically present to us here and now. Our priests, like Christ himself, are of the order of Melchizedek, not the order of Aaron. Indeed there is in a sense only the priesthood of Christ -- as St. Thomas Aquinas says (and the modern Catechism quotes, paragraph 1545):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T20:54:26.197" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T20:54:26.197" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15564" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:42:12.643" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, this is explained in amazing detail by science:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;After the Big Bang, the universe was a hot, dense plasma of photons,&#xA;  electrons, and protons. This plasma was effectively opaque to&#xA;  electromagnetic radiation&lt;/strong&gt;, as the distance each photon could travel&#xA;  before encountering a charged particle was very short. As the universe&#xA;  expanded, it also cooled. Eventually, the universe cooled to the point&#xA;  that the formation of neutral hydrogen was energetically favored, and&#xA;  the fraction of free electrons and protons as compared to neutral&#xA;  hydrogen decreased to about 1 part in 10,000. Shortly after, photons&#xA;  decoupled from matter in the universe, which leads to recombination&#xA;  sometimes being called photon decoupling, although recombination and&#xA;  photon decoupling are distinct events. &lt;strong&gt;Once photons decoupled from&#xA;  matter, they traveled freely through the universe without interacting&#xA;  with matter, and constitute what we observe today as cosmic microwave&#xA;  background radiation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, first there was no light, then there was light.  And we can still detect that first light of creation!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1729" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T17:42:12.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15575" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:45:17.613" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before we dive into the answers, we need to understand the Mormon perspective on the doctrine of exaltation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The focus of all LDS teaching is on salvation through Christ and His Atonement. Exaltation is all about bringing us back to Christ and to know Him by becoming like Him. Exaltation is not &quot;getting your own planet.&quot; That phrase is foreign to Mormons. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Gospel Principles manual says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in&#xA;  great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom.&#xA;  He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become&#xA;  like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And with exaltation come these things as some blessings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is&#xA;  possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is&#xA;  “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses&#xA;  1:39).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in&#xA;  Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised,&#xA;  “All things are theirs” (D&amp;amp;C 76:59). These are some of the blessings&#xA;  given to exalted people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&amp;amp;C 76:62).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;They will become gods (see D&amp;amp;C 132:20–23).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;They will receive a fulness of joy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&amp;amp;C 132:19–20).&#xA;  President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised&#xA;  through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are&#xA;  obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge,&#xA;  wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the&#xA;  perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp.&#xA;  Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exaltation is a broad and deep topic of LDS doctrine, much of which can only be learned, as the LDS believe, by revelation and attending the temple and receiving those ordinances. It is sacred to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, remember that the teaching of any speculation or topic not directly relevant to our salvation is discouraged in the LDS church. You know how it can be: opinions or ideas get taught in class or over the pulpit, and maybe get misconstrued as truth, then all of a sudden you have congregations teaching and absorbing false doctrine, and their focus is removed from the Atonement of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as far as I know, there is no official doctrine in the LDS church at this time which directly answers your third question. The LDS would probably say, &quot;We don't know. It hasn't been revealed.&quot; Any other attempted answer would merely be speculation based on reasoning and maybe science, but not on the revelations from God which the LDS would require in order to account it as doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But your first two questions have more secure answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1.&lt;/strong&gt; In the same chapter in that manual referenced above, it says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then&#xA;  endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in Him must be&#xA;  such that we repent of our sins and obey His commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;We must be baptized.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;We must receive the laying on of hands to be confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Brethren must receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and magnify their callings in the priesthood.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;We must receive the temple endowment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In addition to receiving the required ordinances, the Lord&#xA;  commands all of us to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Love God and our neighbors.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Keep the commandments.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Repent of our wrongdoings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Search out our kindred dead and receive the saving ordinances of the gospel for them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Attend our Church meetings as regularly as possible so we can renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Love our family members and strengthen them in the ways of the Lord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Have family and individual prayers every day.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Teach the gospel to others by word and example.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Study the scriptures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Finally, each of us needs to receive the Holy Ghost and learn to&#xA;  follow His direction in our individual lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2.&lt;/strong&gt;  From the same source as above, there are some scriptures referenced:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D&amp;amp;C 132:3–4, 16–26, 37 (pertaining to exaltation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D&amp;amp;C 131:1–4 (eternal marriage is key to exaltation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D&amp;amp;C 76:59–70 (blessings of celestial glory explained)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;D&amp;amp;C 84:20–21 (the power of godliness is manifest through priesthood ordinances)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was going to quote them, but it got kind of long. You can read them &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also more scriptures to be found in the Bible and other books. A satisfying, but perhaps not comprehensive list, can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/exaltation?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=e&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;in the Topical Guide under &quot;Exaltation.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would not expect this answer to satisfy some of the readers. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15575/does-the-mormon-doctrine-of-exaltation-implicitly-require-acknowledging-the-exis#comment37913_15575&quot;&gt;Mason Wheeler has already explained, in the comments, the reason for this&lt;/a&gt;, and I will quote it here for emphasis, because I would suggest the same in this case:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It's worth noting that a good, concise explanation of Exaltation is very difficult to give, as it's basically the highest point of LDS doctrine, and to understand it well--beyond a brief overview that's more of a caricature than anything actually useful--requires an understanding of a lot of other doctrine first. You would get a better explanation by speaking with LDS missionaries, (who do explain Exaltation, after building up to it in a well-structured manner,) than by looking for specific answers here without laying the groundwork. &quot;Line upon line, precept upon precept.&quot; (Isaiah 28:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(On a personal note, I often do this type of thing in my studies. For example, if I wanted to learn calculus but only knew arithmetic, I wouldn't go check out a calculus book and expect to understand it. I visit with professors and practice the problems on my own until I can grasp the more advanced concepts.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T18:55:29.817" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15575" CreationDate="2013-04-10T19:12:58.287" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matt already addressed the aspect of exaltation and its meaning. I will add a little to answer the third question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Pearl of Great Price, A compilation of ancient revelations restored through Joseph Smith and currently considered canon, we read in the Book of Moses Chapter 1:29-30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he [Moses] beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further in Verses 33-35 we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses form a canonical basis for belief in extraterrestrial intelligence in Mormonism. The doctrine of exaltation is indepedent from this belief, it is more explicit than implicit in this case. However, all of this is reference to God's creations and God's heavens, His greatness and glory, not those of some other theoretical being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The existence of other inhabited worlds that are not created by God are implied by the doctrine of exaltation, but are never explicitly stated. As to the nature of these other implied realms, we don't have any idea and to speculate is not appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear, however, that according to Mormon doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are other inhabited worlds (presumably in our own universe) created by God. Not some implied other god, but our God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our God, according to revelation in Mormon theology, has created everything in the observable universe. This is supported by the Book of Abraham, certain passages in the Book of Mormon, as well as statements by Modern Prophets.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The nature or explicit existence of other universes or &quot;worlds&quot; not created by God is not revealed to us in Mormon Theology, as it detracts from the focus on God, Christ and his Atonement, His goodness and mercy in creating the Plan of Salvation for us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastEditorUserId="1863" LastEditDate="2013-04-11T05:34:40.910" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T05:34:40.910" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1823" CreationDate="2013-04-10T19:23:06.337" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, everything occured by 70 AD. It must be noted that Jesus Christ said Kingdom of God will not come with observables (Luke 17). Kingdom of God is spiritual. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in terms of Second Coming, Jesus said that the sign of Son of Man will appear in the sky (Matthew 24). It must be noted that everything must be fulfilled within the generation of Jesus' disciples - &quot;&quot;This generation shall not pass until all these things happened.&quot; (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Generation is 40 years in Bible. Here are some examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers 32:13 (ESV) - And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 1:34-36 (ESV) - And the Lord heard your words and was angered, and he swore, ‘Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land that I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh. He shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land on which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the Lord!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 95:10 (ESV) - For forty years I loathed that generation and said, “They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 3:9-10 (ESV) - Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Israelites wandered 40 years in the wilderness (Ex. 16:35; Deut. 2:7), in which time an entire generation died out (Num. 14:33; 32:13). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 13:36 (ESV) - For David, after he had served the purpose of God in &lt;strong&gt;his own generation&lt;/strong&gt;, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Samuel 5:4 (ESV)- &quot;David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned &lt;strong&gt;forty years&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that Jerusalem was destroyed within the generation Jesus taught (AD 30-70). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So all of the prophecies were fulfilled in that generation. Although this may look like a little off topic, still it is related to the fulfillment of all prophecies mentioned by Jesus which also answers the above question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that the sign of Son of Man will appear in the sky (Matthew 24). This was supposed to happen in the generation of his disciples (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. This extraordinary incident was recorded by Josephus and Tacitus who lived during that period. This is also recorded in Jewish History Document &quot;Sepher Yosippon&quot;, Fourth century Latin Document &quot;Pseudo Hegesippus&quot;, and Historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus (Jewish Wars)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:289 (6.5.3.289) Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:290 (6.5.3.290) Thus also, before the Jews’ rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan], and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which light lasted for half an hour. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:291 (6.5.3.291) This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:296 (6.5.3.296) So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar], &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:297 (6.5.3.297) a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:298 (6.5.3.298) and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; &lt;strong&gt;for, before sunsetting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:299 (6.5.3.299) &lt;strong&gt;running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities&lt;/strong&gt;. Moreover at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:300 (6.5.3.300) and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tacitus, Histories, Book 5 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Prodigies had occurred, which this nation, prone to superstition, but hating all religious rites, did not deem it lawful to expiate by offering and sacrifice. &lt;strong&gt;There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies&lt;/strong&gt;, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing. At the same instant there was a mighty stir as of departure. Some few put a fearful meaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 8, Section 4-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And not many days after the feast, on the twenty-first of the month Artemisium, (97) a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of such signs. &lt;strong&gt;For before the setting of the sun, chariots and armed troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And at the feast which is called Pentecost, when the priests entered the temple at night, as was their custom, to perform the services, they said that at first they perceived a movement and a noise, and afterward a voice as of a great multitude, saying, ‘Let us go hence.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sepher Yosippon&quot; is a 10th century historical Jewish document written in Hebrew that mentions about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Sefer Josippon also mentions about the vision of soldiers and chariots in the sky which we read in Josephus' Jewish Wars, Tacitus's Histories, and Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sepher Yosippon (A Medieval History of Ancient Israel) translated from the Hebrew by Steven B. Bowman. Excerpts from Chapter 87 &quot;Burning of the Temple&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Moreover, in those days were seen chariots of fire and horsemen, a great force flying across the sky near to the ground coming against Jerusalem and all the land of Judah, all of them horses of fire and riders of fire&lt;/strong&gt;. When the holiday of Shavu'oth came in those days, during the night the priests heard within the Temple something like the sound of men going and the sound of men marching in a multitude going into the Temple, and a terrible and mighty voice was heard speaking: &quot;Let's go and leave this House.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This vision of the chariots and soldiers in the sky happened during fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may ask what does chariots and the soldiers in the sky have to do with the sign of Son of Man and Bible. Here are some examples. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 4:13 (KJV) – &quot;Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 66:15 (KJV) – &quot;For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 2:11 (KJV) - And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 6:17 (KJV) - And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zachariah 6:1-6 (KJV) - &quot;And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass. In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses; And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grisled and bay horses. Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth. The black horses which are therein go forth into the north country; and the white go forth after them; and the grisled go forth toward the south country.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other verses in the Bible that involve God and his chariots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This vision in the sky and the fall of Jerusalem (which includes the destruction of temple) happened between 30 AD - 70 AD (40 years) period. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's also take a look at Latin Document &quot;Pseudo Hegesippus&quot; about Chariots and Soldiers in the sky which happened right before Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pseudo-Hegesippus, Chapter 44. (Translated from the Latin by Wade Blocker. This excerpt taken from the Latin edited by Vincente Ussani):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Also after many days a certain figure appeared of tremendous size, which many saw, just as the books of the Jews have disclosed, and before the setting of the sun there were suddenly seen in the clouds chariots and armed battle arrays, by which cities of all Judaea and its territories were invaded&lt;/strong&gt;. Moreover in the celebration itself of the&#xA;Pentecost the priests entering the interior of the temple at night time, that they might celebrate the usual sacrifices, assered themselves at first to have a felt a certain movement and a sound given forth, afterwards even to have heard shouted in a sudden voice &quot;we cross over from here.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More informations are available here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://secondcomingofjesuschrist70ad.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://secondcomingofjesuschrist70ad.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2013-04-11T00:03:29.140" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T00:03:29.140" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1820" CreationDate="2013-04-10T20:44:24.897" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First let's take in the whole chapter. In chapter 20 God is speaking to Ezekiel of the story of how he chose Israel. &#xA;God tells how gave them good rules, to take away the idols of the other nations from their midst and they would continually disobey. Read Exodus and see how many times they fudge up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;*We should notice this, again, about the whole sacrificial system. &lt;strong&gt;Originally, God did not demand animal sacrifice&lt;/strong&gt; (see Jeremiah 7:22). The point behind the sacrificial system was, at least in large part, connected with the false worship of the people groups around them. The animals that were to be sacrificed were those animals most used in pagan worship as depictions of gods. The bull god, Apus, is a very popular one in many parts of the ancient Middle East. Since the people insisted on offering animal sacrifices, God commands that they slay the very animals which are worshiped as gods by their neighbors. &lt;strong&gt;Every sacrifice&lt;/strong&gt; is not only a costly act of real dedication to God (since land, children, and animals are the three primary forms of wealth in antiquity), but &lt;strong&gt;it is also a rejection of idolatry/false worship&lt;/strong&gt;. Because of the golden calf incident, the High Priest in particular will have to sacrifice the same animal every time he comes into the Most Holy Place (or Holy of Hollies) in the tabernacle (and later Temple). &#xA;Later on, especially through prophets like Ezekiel and Isaiah, God will repeatedly tell the people that the point of the sacrifices and the bloodshed involved, is NOT because He needs it (as if He is &quot;hungry&quot; like the other pagan gods), but because they do.  They need to reject false worship. When they simply go through the motions, then go off to worship other gods, too, &lt;strong&gt;God tells them that He &lt;em&gt;hates&lt;/em&gt; their sacrifices&lt;/strong&gt;. See &lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 1:11ff&lt;/strong&gt;. for example.* &quot; - Dr. Fodor of JWCC&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's covenant- His kinship with Israel as His firstborn son (His priestly people) among the nations is one important theme throughout the Scripture which is connected, however, with the change in God's directions to Israel, especially in how they were to interact with the various people groups in the Land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The pagan occupants of the Land were originally to be converted. When it became clear that Israel was too weak to do this without being converted to the religions of the pagan peoples rather than visa versa), the command was changed. God's original command to convert these peoples, but not to intermarry with them (since such intermarriage had corrupted God's people before (beginning in Genesis (Plan A, is found in Exodus 19, with their call to be a priestly people to the rest of the nations, and, in fact, they had already come up out of Egypt a &quot;mixed multitude,&quot; that is with some of the Egyptians joining them in following Yahweh, Ex. 12:38). Plan B was for them to drive these people out. See Numbers 33:50-56. They were to drive out all the pagan inhabitants of the land, and they were to keep none of the defeated peoples' property or animals for themselves, lest they fall into the idolatry endemic in these pagan cities (Numbers 33:51-53). When the absolute failure of Israel to pass any of the tests of trust and obedience toward God made it clear that even this would not work, a final plan- Plan C, if you will, was given: for these peoples to be essentially destroyed. This was a final concession, just before Moses' death, to the utter weakness and faithlessness of the Israelites. They were to follow what was known as &quot;cherem&quot; (or &quot;herem&quot; ) warfare. The approach of herem was thoroughly concessionary- a result of Israel's great spiritual and moral weakness. Note the contrast between the original legislation of Exodus 23:23-32 (forbidding marriage or other covenants with Canaanites) and the Deuteronomic commands (Deut. 20:16-17) calling for the complete destruction of all peoples who do not flee before Israel. The concessionary character is picked up by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:43-44). See verses 5:17-48 playing out this theme in detail. The whole Deuteronomic code has the character of a concessionary law. This is what &quot;Deuteronomy&quot; means, as we have seen. Not all people groups were listed as being under the ban, and even some of those who were included were spared when they showed evidence of wanting to follow Yahweh, including some famous foreign women like Rahab and Ruth. The Gibeonites became kin, and accepted Yahweh as part of this. Though this involved deception, it does give hints at what should have happened to all the groups originally: that they should have voluntarily joined Israel. Later, God even says this about this concessionary code: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live&quot; (Ezekiel 20:25). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this was a specific tragic necessity directly allowed by God.&quot; - Dr. Fodor's notes on the covenant law (he is a teacher at John Wood Community College)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in Amos 5:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I hate, I despise your feasts,&#xA;  and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.&#xA;  22 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,&#xA;  I will not accept them;&#xA;  and the peace offerings of your fattened animals,&#xA;  I will not look upon them.&#xA;  23 Take away from me the noise of your songs;&#xA;  to the melody of your harps I will not listen.&#xA;  24 But let justice roll down like waters,&#xA;  and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God cares more about the heart that craves justice and righteousness than traditions and rites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4319" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T21:29:19.483" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T21:29:19.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15586" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15587" CreationDate="2013-04-10T20:56:00.663" Score="14" ViewCount="7272" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 4:5-8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New Living Translation (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5: Eventually he came to the Samaritan village of Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6: Jacob’s well was there; and Jesus, tired from the long walk, sat wearily beside the well about noontime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7: Soon a Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Please give me a drink.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8: He was alone at the time because his disciples had gone into the village to buy some food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So according to my water drawing knowledge, people used to draw water once in the day and once in the night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 24:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New Living Translation (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11: He made the camels kneel beside a well just outside the town. It was evening, and the women were coming out to draw water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My knowledge is further reinforced by that fact that no one else in the village was with the Samaritan woman to draw water. It seems a bit too convenient for Jesus. Why was the woman drawing water at the middle of the day?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2020-12-10T02:09:25.383" Title="Reason for drawing water at unusual time" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;time&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15586" CreationDate="2013-04-10T22:12:48.887" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;It wasn't just convenient: according to John (verse 4) Jesus &quot;had to&quot; (&lt;em&gt;dei'&lt;/em&gt;) pass through Samaria. It was not geographically necessary, as He could have (like most Jews did unless they were in a hurry) gone around Samaria. When John uses &lt;em&gt;dei'&lt;/em&gt; he is &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-commentary-john-4&quot;&gt;referring to God's will&lt;/a&gt;. Jesus passed through Samaria with the intention of speaking with this woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to her, &quot;Go, call your husband, and come here.&quot; The woman answered him, &quot;I have no husband.&quot; Jesus said to her, &quot;You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.&quot; &#xA;  (John 4:16-18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She lived in a culture that followed strict laws concerning sexual purity, so it seems she would have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/Glory-Is-Revealed-Among-Despised&quot;&gt;an outcast&lt;/a&gt;. Considering the Samaritans were rejected by Jews (John 4:9), she is an outcast among outcasts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-04-10T23:58:37.783" LastActivityDate="2013-04-10T23:58:37.783" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15588" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15593" CreationDate="2013-04-10T22:28:38.110" Score="4" ViewCount="679" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just reading in John 5:1-17 about Jesus healing the man at the pool in Jerusalem, and noticed that this happened on the Sabbath. That reminded me of Him healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath. So now I am wondering: were all of Jesus' healings performed on the Sabbath?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer is no, please provide proof. I am especially interested in evidence from Scripture that marks a healing miracle as being performed by Jesus on a day other than the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some instances where Jesus healed on the Sabbath: Matt. 12:9-14 // Mark 3:1-6 // Luke 6:6-11; Luke 13:10-17, 14:1-6; John 5:1-18, 9:1-34&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T19:32:15.737" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T23:32:48.700" Title="Were all of Jesus' healings performed on the Sabbath?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;&lt;healing&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15589" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15592" CreationDate="2013-04-10T22:55:39.873" Score="9" ViewCount="298" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pardon my ignorance here, but I am just wondering if the Apocrypha is labeled as such by Catholics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, a Protestant would refer to the 66 books of Protestant Scripture as &quot;the Bible&quot;, and to the &quot;extra&quot; books in the Catholic Bible as &quot;the Apocrypha&quot;. What I am wondering is whether:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A)&lt;/strong&gt; Catholics have a &quot;Bible&quot; which includes &quot;the Apocrypha&quot; as well as 66 other books, or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;B)&lt;/strong&gt; Catholics just have a &quot;Bible&quot; and reject the label &quot;Apocrypha&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the answer is &lt;strong&gt;A&lt;/strong&gt;, do the &quot;66 other books&quot; have a label as well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T03:07:36.730" Title="Do Catholics have an &quot;Apocrypha&quot; or just a &quot;Bible&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;apocrypha&gt;&lt;catholic-bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15590" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15594" CreationDate="2013-04-11T00:22:01.783" Score="12" ViewCount="2382" Body="&lt;p&gt;My background is mostly in Evangelicalism and premillenialism. I am aware of other &quot;Churches&quot; (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, cults, etc.) and other eschatological frameworks (amillenial, postmillenial, etc.), but I don't know much about them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I am just wondering if a second coming of Christ is one of the points that is agreed upon by all of the major Christian traditions, or if there are specific traditions which do not anticipate His return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am only looking for a &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; with some evidence from the major relevant traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2021-01-02T22:18:12.850" LastActivityDate="2021-01-03T02:40:23.523" Title="Do all Christian traditions expect a second coming of Christ?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;second-coming&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15590" CreationDate="2013-04-11T02:16:52.087" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the whole, yes, virtually all traditions expect his return. The only exceptions I know of are theological liberals, who don't regard the Bible or its foretellings (even on the lips of Jesus) to be reliable, and some few &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;preterists&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;viz&lt;/em&gt;., sometimes called full preterists or hyper-preterists, in distinction from partial preterists, who do expect a final return). Full preterists claim that even the resurrection of the dead (spiritualized) has already happened. This seems an odd view, but Paul met it and condemned it in his day too (2 Tim 2:16-18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2013-04-11T13:41:36.803" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T13:41:36.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15589" CreationDate="2013-04-11T02:22:22.863" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Neither of your options is correct. Catholics typically refer to what Protestants call the Apocrypha (1-2 Macabees, Sirach, etc.) as &lt;em&gt;deuterocanonical&lt;/em&gt; books, and they do include them in the Bible as inspired, God-given writings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were in use in the church from before the NT times, and IIRC, it was Jerome that gave them the name &quot;apocrypha&quot; and the Council of Trent that established them as deuterocanonical. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon&quot;&gt;Development of the Old Testament Canon&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha&quot;&gt;Apocrypha&lt;/a&gt; in the Wikipedia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2013-04-11T03:07:36.730" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T03:07:36.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15593" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15588" CreationDate="2013-04-11T02:42:16.987" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think there's any reason to suppose he restricted healings or other miracles to the sabbath. It seems he was much more free with his healings (cf. Mat. 9:35ff) and with his commands about healing (cf. Mat. 10:7f).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But one instance is enough to disprove the hypothesis: Jesus healed the ear of the servant in Luke 22:49f. Then according to 22:66, he was tried the next day (or later that day, depending on how days are reckoned) and then executed, and Luke identifies the following day after that as the Sabbath (23:54). Hence he healed on a day other than the Sabbath. QED&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T20:01:25.910" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T20:01:25.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15590" CreationDate="2013-04-11T06:12:21.820" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes.  Every significant Christian tradition affirms the return of Jesus.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nicene Creed, adopted by the Universal manifestation of the assembled church in 325AD and accepted by just about every mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox church with which the average Westerner will most readily identify affirms:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is about as direct a reference as one can get- and it is pretty explicit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the non-Nicene denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphians, etc...) all of the major ones also see Jesus' return as a given. It is clear in Scripture, and thus the only denominations that are even on the fence about it are those which do not believe the Bible to be a relevant source of theology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would include Unitarians and that bugaboo of this site, Christian Atheists. (If you haven't heard of the latter, don't worry, Id never heard of them either)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, some liberal theologians, like John Dominac Crossan and Bishop John Shelby Spong do not believe in a literal return of Christ (they are 100% amilennial), but then again, they don't believe in a literal resurrection either. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be noted that without an actual return of Jesus, salvation itself becomes a past tense thing- and could (should?) be viewed as reneging on a promise. When Jesus says he goes to prepare a place for us, then if he doesn't ever come back for us, it's a rather hollow promise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-05-29T15:49:09.593" LastActivityDate="2018-05-29T15:49:09.593" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="15595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15558" CreationDate="2013-04-11T07:19:57.533" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of these terms are used interchangeably. So a clear cut definition may not be possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Doctrine&lt;/strong&gt;: The official teachings of the Catholic church contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment of the Church as divinely revealed truths. This may or may not be a dogma. Example, &lt;em&gt;Mary, Co-Redemptrix&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dogma&lt;/strong&gt;: Doctrines that are proclaimed formally by the Church as revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person). Those who do not believe in a Dogma, is considered to have left the church, on their own accord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Statement made ex cathedra&lt;/strong&gt;: This Literally means &quot;Statement made from the chair&quot;. It is a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Pope. I Vatican Council says that when Pope makes a statement ex cathedra, he does so in his office of pastor and doctor of all Christians. (Session IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv). Example: when declaring and defining a dogma, Pope makes that statement ex cathedra.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Infallible statement&lt;/strong&gt;: Statements that are considered to be exempt or immune to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, by a special Divine assistance, church/pope is preserved from making an error when defining a dogma in the matters of faith and morals. All statements (with usual conditions) made by the Pope ex-cathedra are Infallible. But this is not necessarily reserved only to the pope. The teaching of the Magisterium of the Church are also considered infallible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definitively proposed doctrine&lt;/strong&gt;: In simpler terms, this is implicitly accepted doctrines which are derived from previously revealed doctrines/dogmas. These are not articles of faith by themselves, but are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith. That is, if you do not believe them, then there might arise doctrinal inconsistency in faith. These doctrines may not have been officially proposed by the Church as &lt;code&gt;formally revealed&lt;/code&gt;. And as it is usually the case, if some one inside the Church opposes its validity, these doctrines could, by dogmatic development, one day be declared to be revealed.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For example: The declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations. You don't have to believe that Anglican ordinations are invalid to be a catholic, but If you believe Anglican ordinations are valid ordinations, then there will be a problem with what you believe constitutes a valid ordination. As a valid ordination requires to be performed by a person with valid apostolic succession.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other examples include doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men, the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution, fornication and euthanasia.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Infallible papal teaching and Authoritative statement, I don't have idea I am sorry. May be someone else can help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/summary.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio fidei&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dogma (Catholic Encyclopedia)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2016-11-13T07:51:50.403" LastActivityDate="2016-11-13T07:51:50.403" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8562" CreationDate="2013-04-11T08:33:50.853" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Marrying a person who does not believe in God is not against the sculpture. The good answer can be found in second commandment (see Matthew 22:37-40): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with&#xA;  all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest&#xA;  commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as&#xA;  yourself'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this the man/hunsband is 'the neighbor'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4314" LastEditorUserId="4314" LastEditDate="2013-04-11T13:42:42.560" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T13:42:42.560" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14761" CreationDate="2013-04-11T08:48:56.450" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to know a bit of the Jews history and Hebrew language in order to interpretate these sentences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word 'brother' in Hebrew does not mean 'the brother' in common understanding. It could also refer to cousins and other relatives. The similar understanding of &quot;brother&quot;  and &quot;sister&quot; is in antient Greek and Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus was not the only child the whole Bible must be questioned. There are a lot of statements that the Mary was a virgin (see Luke 1,26-38).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if Jesus had brothers and sisters would he ask John before his death on the cross to take care of his mother and would He ask his mother to take care of John?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4314" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T08:48:56.450" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15598" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15600" CreationDate="2013-04-11T10:36:43.130" Score="7" ViewCount="5363" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the 40 days after the Resurrection and before his Ascension, Jesus appears and disappears to people, including his disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also is not recognizable by some of his followers including Mary Magdalene at certain occasions until he identifies himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any evidence or reason given on how Jesus' human form has now been enhanced with spirit-like powers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also - is there any information on whether Jesus stayed with his disciples or his mother during these 40 days, I saw &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6585/999&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, but I think there isn't any such information?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2021-05-01T15:33:05.833" Title="Did Jesus transform into spirit form after Resurrection" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14761" CreationDate="2013-04-11T11:08:13.370" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you rightly say, the sisters are not named in the Bible which means we have to look to other sources for this information. I think it's fair to say that overall we don't know for certain, but different churches have developed different teachings and traditions on this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church teach that the word &quot;sisters&quot; is used purely figuratively. They believe that Mary remained a virgin until her death, so Jesus had no &lt;em&gt;full&lt;/em&gt; brothers or sisters (but possibly some half-siblings - children of Joseph with another partner).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onearthasinheaven.com/sisters.html&quot;&gt;Eastern Orthodox Apostolic Tradition teaches&lt;/a&gt; that Jesus had a single (half-) sister called Salome and that it was she, not Mary, that was the mother of James and John. They also teach that Joseph had two sons, Jude and another James. They believe that Joseph's first wife died and he was 60-80 years old when he married Mary, having had these three children with his first wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other denominations tend to take the usage of &quot;sisters&quot; at face value and believe that Jesus had more than one sister. The Bible refers to &quot;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; his sisters&quot;; in English that would imply at least three (otherwise it would say &quot;both his sisters&quot; or &quot;his sister&quot;) but the Greek word that's translated to &quot;all&quot; can mean two or more. Richard Bauckham, a Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_relatives_bauckham.html&quot;&gt;tells us&lt;/a&gt; that...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Later Christian literature gives the names Mary and Salome to sisters&#xA;  of Jesus. These names were extremely common Jewish women's names within&#xA;  Palestine, but Salome seems not to have been used in the Jewish&#xA;  diaspora. There is therefore some probability that the tradition of&#xA;  these two names goes back to Palestinian Jewish Christian tradition,&#xA;  and so it may be a reliable tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However that &quot;may be&quot; is about as reliable as we can get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bauckham's essay &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_relatives_bauckham.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Relatives of Jesus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; makes for good further reading on this subject; it is well referenced and covers a wide range of viewpoints, including the Catholic and Orthodox ones I've mentioned above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="61" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-04-11T11:27:31.720" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T11:27:31.720" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15598" CreationDate="2013-04-11T12:35:39.507" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably the most definitive verse on this is in Luke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; &lt;strong&gt;touch Me&lt;/strong&gt; and see, for &lt;strong&gt;a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.&lt;/strong&gt;” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43 and &lt;strong&gt;He took it and ate it&lt;/strong&gt; before them. Luke 24:36-42 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Jesus affirms that a spirit does not have flesh and blood, but He Himself does.  To prove it, He tells His disciples to touch Him.  Then He provides another proof by taking a piece of broiled fish and eating it.  This is further proof because spirits do not and cannot eat physical food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These appear to be just two of the many convincing proofs Luke mentions in the first chapter of Acts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.  Acts 1:3 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no, Jesus was not merely a spirit.  His resurrection was a bodily resurrection.  However, just as before the resurrection, He was Lord of Creation and could do miraculous things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T14:09:47.377" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15601" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15613" CreationDate="2013-04-11T13:44:36.713" Score="13" ViewCount="5392" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, the three persons of the Trinity each seem to have their own role in creating the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Father is &quot;maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For the Son, we have &quot;by whom all things were made&quot;, a clear lifting from John 1:3.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Holy Spirit is &quot;the giver of life&quot; (Greek &lt;em&gt;ζῳοποιόν&lt;/em&gt;, Latin &lt;em&gt;vivificantem&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this text intend to suggest a strict division of responsibilities (eg, the Father does not give life, the Spirit did not make heaven and earth), or is it more like giving emphasis to the ways in which each person contributes to a single creative will? In particular, what distinction is envisaged between the Father, who makes all things, and the Son, by whom all things are made? My sense is that the authors wanted to make some sort of distinction, but not to the extent of dividing God; I'd like to know how they thought about the ways that the three persons of the one God are responsible for creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-10-04T22:26:36.790" LastActivityDate="2015-10-04T22:37:06.067" Title="Does the Nicene Creed suggest a strict division of responsibilities within the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;nicene-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:35:49.800" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15539" CreationDate="2013-04-11T14:38:35.557" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Matthew appears to be written to Jews in order to present Jesus to them as the King of the Jews.  As such, it was necessary to trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph, His adopted father, through the lineage of the kings back to David, whom God promised would have an heir who would reign forever.  It was also important to trace His lineage back to Abraham, the Patriarch.  As the son of Joseph, Jesus had legal right to the throne.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Mark presents Jesus as the Servant who fulfills the Suffering Servant prophecy in Isaiah 52-53.  For a servant, a genealogy is unnecessary and even irrelevant.  Thus, Mark does not include one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as the Son of Man.  As such, it is thought that he actually traces Jesus' biological lineage through Mary.  Her lineage leads to David as well.  However, Luke's emphasis is not the Jewishness of Jesus, but His human nature.  As such, he traces the lineage all the way back to the first Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of John is said to present Jesus as the Son of God.  As such, God has no genealogy.  His authority does not come from the legal line of David or in His Jewishness, but in His divinity.  Jesus' Divine nature has no genealogy.  He is, forever has been, and forever will be the Son of God and God the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-11T14:38:35.557" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15604" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-11T23:24:26.583" Score="2" ViewCount="6868" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a hypothetical example of what may be a very common situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bill and Martha have been seeing each other for four years. Both were raised in Catholic families, but were not baptized. They are not married, but instead, they had been living together for a while now. Now Bill sees that both want to continue in their relationship, and because of their upbringing, they would like to get married under the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would it make any difference if Bill and Martha got married before they were both baptised, or after?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-04-12T14:38:48.303" Title="What difference does baptism make when it comes to marriage?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15604" CreationDate="2013-04-12T00:44:23.920" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sacrament of Baptism is often called &quot;The door of the Church&quot; because it is considered the first of the seven sacraments. According to Catholic Catechism (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1.htm#1212&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1212&lt;/a&gt;), the Catholic Church sees baptism as the first and basic sacrament of Christian initiation. For most Christians and especially Catholics, baptism is the first sacrament received (often as an infant) after which one becomes a member of the church. Baptism is also required by the Catholic church in order to receive the other sacraments. For example, the Sacrament of Confirmation and the Sacrament of Holy Communion depend on first being baptised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For such a couple, it would be &lt;strong&gt;required&lt;/strong&gt; by the Catholic Church for baptism to take place &lt;strong&gt;before&lt;/strong&gt; being married otherwise the marriage would not be considered a sacramental marriage, and the church would not be allowed to perform such a marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Sacrament of Marriage is built on a firm foundation of Baptism&lt;/strong&gt;. Clearly from the Catholic point of view, marriage cannot take place before both man and woman are baptised. The Catechism (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#1633&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1633&lt;/a&gt;) describes a mixed marriage as between Catholic and a baptised non-Catholic that requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors.&#xA;It further states &quot;marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person requires even greater circumspection&quot; meaning a marriage to a non-baptized person would create complications and at least raise some tough questions about one's faith. There is a passage in the Bible in 1 Cor 7:14 about being married to an unbelieving spouse and the believing spouse a blessing to the other so there are some allowances for &quot;mixed&quot; marriages, but that is the exception not the rule. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without a baptism, the commitment of the couple to the faith and church would be in question. When children come into the picture then it becomes even more important to decide whether one is a Christian or not and whether children should be raised as Catholics or not. The Bible clearly talks about &quot;luke warm&quot; Christians (Rev 3:16) and rebukes such attitudes. From the church's perspective, this is very relevant since you next have to ask about the commitment the couple will have to one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, a secular stand point would have an entirely different point of view on this topic, but the context here is between two &quot;nominal&quot; Catholics who would like to get married in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4324" LastEditorUserId="4324" LastEditDate="2013-04-12T14:38:48.303" LastActivityDate="2013-04-12T14:38:48.303" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15608" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15604" CreationDate="2013-04-12T02:54:37.150" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would make a huge difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, neither Bill nor Martha is Catholic or ever has been, so they are not subject to canon law in either the negative or the positive sense. Neither of them is a valid minister of the sacrament of matrimony -- that is to say, &lt;strong&gt;it is not possible for them to contract a sacramental marriage&lt;/strong&gt;. Objectively speaking, an attempt by them to conduct the sacramental rite of matrimony would be a sacrilege.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A priest or deacon who knowingly assisted at such an event would be subject to canonical penalties, and no cleric could reasonably claim ignorance unless he were elaborately deceived by the spouses (e.g., with faked baptismal certificates, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, &lt;strong&gt;two unbaptized persons can, in the eyes of the Church, contract a &quot;natural&quot; marriage&lt;/strong&gt;. This would not normally take place in a Catholic church and could be dissolved under certain conditions (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P44.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canons 1142ff&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2013-04-12T02:54:37.150" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15609" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-12T03:16:11.737" Score="6" ViewCount="1156" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often see people standing on the sides of the road holding signs that say things like &quot;Trust Jesus&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this something that Christian groups do regularly? Is it specific to a particular denomination? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the intent of doing that? What is the motivation that these people have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4325" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-06-13T21:14:33.457" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T21:14:33.457" Title="Which groups of Christians hold signs about Jesus or Christianity in public, and why?" Tags="&lt;evangelism&gt;&lt;missions&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-04-15T04:36:07.677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4390" CreationDate="2013-04-12T06:58:48.467" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition, to all the answers: it was God's plan to make all the creatures that have a mind, e.g. human beings, angels and devils, free and give them a free will. Othwerise, there would be no sinners and no devils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stopping the angel from becoming a devil would contradict this plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4314" LastActivityDate="2013-04-12T06:58:48.467" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15601" CreationDate="2013-04-12T14:46:06.237" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think the intention of the council fathers was to divide the job/responsibility of Creation between the three persons. Saying the Father does not give life or the Spirit did not make heaven and earth would probably be considered heresy in the early Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox Church in America &lt;a href=&quot;http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/one-god-one-divine-action-and-will&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;states&lt;/a&gt; that, &quot;There is no will and no &lt;strong&gt;action&lt;/strong&gt; of God the Father which is not at the same time the will and &lt;strong&gt;action&lt;/strong&gt; of the Son and the Holy Spirit.&quot; ... The action of each is the action of all; the action of all is the action of each. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;And the divine action is essentially one.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also saying that a person contributes to a single creative will could be understood as saying that the will is not in full control of the person, and that therefore the person executes the will like a robot. Which is also not correct. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 258&lt;/a&gt; sheds more light on this issue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does &lt;strong&gt;it have only one and the same operation&lt;/strong&gt;: &quot;The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are &lt;em&gt;not three principles of creation but one principle&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;However, each divine person performs &lt;em&gt;the common work&lt;/em&gt; according to his unique personal property&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I understand these are not the references from the actual the authors of the creed, but rather current interpretations of their words. But I think they are in union with that of the council fathers. For example the quote within CCC 258 is directly taken from the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Second Council of Constantinople&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then one might ask why the council fathers used this distinction. I assume that they had a very hard time (as we still do) explaining the trinity and that its three persons are distinct persons while having the same will, power, action without &lt;em&gt;sharing&lt;/em&gt; these attributes, rather being in &lt;em&gt;full possession&lt;/em&gt; of them with harmony at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, all things that are done by God, are done by the Father, through the son, in the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-10-04T22:37:06.067" LastActivityDate="2015-10-04T22:37:06.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12410" CreationDate="2013-04-12T15:41:44.393" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God's grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature that original sin brings. Mary therefore says:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:47 and my spirit has begun to rejoice in God my Savior,   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some argue that this indicates that Mary was sinner, since only sinners needs a saviour. But it is not so. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way ---by anticipation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote an &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;analogy&lt;/a&gt; that I read: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been saved from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along and she is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit; she was spared from getting strained by the mud in the first place. In this way God became her saviour in a special way and hence her exclaim. She has more reason to call God her saviour than we do, because He saved her in an even more glorious manner. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Advent&lt;/a&gt;, the formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="4586" LastEditDate="2017-06-05T03:37:47.877" LastActivityDate="2017-06-05T03:37:47.877" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8504" CreationDate="2013-04-12T18:57:20.227" Score="2" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus was the Father's Son, it's not likely he would refer to Him by the Tetragrammaton יהוה. I don't call my father by his first name, because it's considered disrespectful. Even then, children would call their father and mother as אבא and אמא, respectfully. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since the NT comes to us in Greek, we can't really say for sure that Jesus did not sometimes use the Tetragrammaton (when referring to the Father in an impersonal way to others). The Tetragrammaton יהוה is a Hebrew word, so why should one expect to find it in Greek scriptures? Do we find it in the LXX? No. We find κυριος instead.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-04-12T20:32:30.143" LastActivityDate="2013-04-12T20:32:30.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15621" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-12T21:02:29.733" Score="17" ViewCount="23267" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, was conceived full of sanctifying grace and free of any stain of original sin. In Catholicism, this is called the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14657/3941&quot;&gt;Immaculate Conception&lt;/a&gt;. She was conceived in this way through the merits of Jesus Christ: by His sacrifice, she was preserved from original sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, and strictly owing to a special privilege from God, she lived a life entirely free from sin, and it seems that she could not have done so otherwise:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, a minor clarification. By &quot;special privilege&quot;, does that quotation mean the very fact that Mary was born without original sin, or is it a separate gift?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard of (or can imagine) some explanations for why Mary merited the reception of her graces, such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;because of her perfect devotion to the Lord, or because of a natural disposition to be perfectly devoted to the Lord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;because she was chosen by God, and that is merit enough.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;because she was Mother of God, and no other woman could have been chosen in her place, since no other woman was Mary.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;we do not know, because this was never revealed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But without the backing of what may be a fair bit of research, all of these options are idle speculation. According to the Catholic Church, why did God choose Mary, from all eternity, to be the Blessed Mother of His Son?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-12-16T13:56:20.217" Title="Why did God choose Mary?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15621" CreationDate="2013-04-12T21:09:42.993" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply put, because she found favor with God -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what did she do? We don't know if God chose her &lt;em&gt;ante previsa merita&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;post previsa merita&lt;/em&gt;, but we also know that God is no respecter of persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did he choose Abraham?  Because he wanted to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did he choose Moses?  Because he wanted to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did he choose David?  Because he wanted to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We simply know that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6818/1039&quot;&gt;at the right time&lt;/a&gt; God wanted to choose Mary. And why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, God knows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,&#xA;      neither are your ways my ways,”&#xA;  declares the Lord.&#xA;  9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,&#xA;      so are my ways higher than your ways&#xA;      and my thoughts than your thoughts.&#xA;  10 As the rain and the snow&#xA;      come down from heaven,&#xA;  and do not return to it&#xA;      without watering the earth&#xA;  and making it bud and flourish,&#xA;      so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,&#xA;  11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:&#xA;      It will not return to me empty,&#xA;  but will accomplish what I desire&#xA;      and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, logically, in order for the Christ to have been born of a woman, God would have needed to choose &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; woman. We know from other Scripture that ... &quot;the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7).  Additionally, we are told in Chronicles that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. (2 Chron 16:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this we can deduce:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mary was not great in and of herself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Her heart was perfect towards God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much in the same way that David - though he was a murderer and adulterer was as 1 Kings 11:4 says &quot;perfect towards him.&quot;  Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception, meaning that Mary was selected &quot;before the world began&quot; to be this vessel.  Because this happened &quot;before&quot; Mary was, the logical position is that Mary was chose &lt;em&gt;ante previsa merita&lt;/em&gt; meaning before God &quot;knew&quot; what Mary was. (Note: This cannot necessarily exclude God's 'foreknowledge of what Mary would have been, and thus cannot exlcude a post previsa merita selection, but the traditional understanding would be implied.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Pius echoes this in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ineffablis Deus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (God Inexpressable)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so lover her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, God chose Mary, and by removing her sin, made her able to &quot;walk worthy of the calling to which [she] was called&quot; (Eph. 4:1.) That this was truly a &quot;gift&quot; is the point of the document above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-12-10T15:07:01.210" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15623" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-12T22:18:39.453" Score="14" ViewCount="175" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do any existing pastoral counseling programs take into effect how the theological framework concerning the doctrine of free will affects the counselor's therapeutic approach? For instance, an institution that gravitates towards theological determinism (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism&quot;&gt;Calvinism&lt;/a&gt;) might be more likely to adopt an approach based on radical behaviorism such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_behavior_analysis&quot;&gt;CBA&lt;/a&gt; (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_and_commitment_therapy&quot;&gt;ACT&lt;/a&gt;, which has an underlying worldview of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_contextualism&quot;&gt;functional contextualism&lt;/a&gt;; or functional analytic psychotherapy), while an institution that leans towards theological indeterminism/libertarianism (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism&quot;&gt;Pelagianism&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism&quot;&gt;Arminianism&lt;/a&gt;) might feel more comfortable with standard &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy&quot;&gt;CBT&lt;/a&gt; approaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my experience, most pastoral counseling programs seem to teach some form of CBT without considering how the underlying worldview of the therapeutic approach conflicts (or agrees) with the theological ideologies of the institution and thus might create unintended &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countertransference&quot;&gt;countertransference&lt;/a&gt;. Has anyone dealt with this in scholarly publications or studies? Do any institutions who teach pastoral counseling directly address this issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2014-06-24T19:46:12.493" LastActivityDate="2014-06-24T19:46:12.493" Title="Has the impact of a practitioner's theological framework on pastoral counseling methodology been studied?" Tags="&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;christian-psychology&gt;&lt;determinism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15624" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-12T22:25:52.037" Score="11" ViewCount="4427" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my limited understanding of this matter, some people believe that Jesus was in some sense separated from the Father. This has come up in the context of discussions of the indivisibility of the Trinity, so this seems to me like a very unorthodox view at best, perhaps even a heresy at worst, since it seems to contradict &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm&quot;&gt;the Athanasian Creed&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the writings of Lactantius (Divine Institutes, 4:28–29):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;when we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps there is no contradiction. For example, I understand the &lt;em&gt;first two&lt;/em&gt; of the following senses of &quot;separation&quot; to be perfectly orthodox:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Persons are distinct, in that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. So in that sense, the Son and Father are &quot;separate&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Father was not conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. The Father did not die on the cross, but the Son died on the cross. So in that sense, the Father and Son are &quot;separate&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The persons were separated: not &quot;in a sense&quot;, but actually separated in such a way that the indivisible Trinity was, without qualification, separated.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Trinity is not indivisible, but is instead divisible, and was separated.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The substance was divided.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Father was God, and Jesus was God, but they were, without qualification, separated.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Son and Father were divided in Spirit: the Spirit of the Son was separated from the Spirit of the Father.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think that these first two senses of separation are what is meant, though I could be wrong. However, I suspect that the last five senses (3-7) are also not meant. Though again, I could be wrong. I do not actually know, and I don't see where to place this view among the views that I am familiar with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What exactly is this view? Have I listed it above, in one of the numbered lines? What is meant by &quot;separated&quot;? Would those who profess this view deny the Athanasian Creed and the Divine Institutes, and certain other works?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the origin and basis of this view among those who hold it? If the source of this view is the fact that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 when he died, how did this interpretation arise? Do those who hold this view claim that Jesus was professing separation, and reject the idea that Jesus was confirming the fulfillment of prophesy? If possible, which denominations actually hold this view? And why and how did the word &quot;separation&quot; end up being used for this?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, I am in this case looking for an answer that is well-sourced: not an explanation of personal views, nor a personal interpretation of scripture, but something &quot;relatively well established&quot;, according to our best standards of &quot;relatively well established&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-15T20:59:24.090" LastActivityDate="2018-03-30T00:58:37.540" Title="What is the basis of the view that Jesus was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit upon death?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="20" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15609" CreationDate="2013-04-13T03:28:43.387" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I do not think we can determine anyone’s motivation for advertising anything.&lt;/strong&gt; It does seem strange to many to see Jesus advertised on a billboard. Even in Hong Kong where I live, it seems out of place but there are a couple skyscrapers that have a big sign saying ‘Jesus is Lord!’ At many sporting events I have seen people have signs that read ‘John 3:16.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Advertising Jesus in a way that might seem abrupt and not called for is common for people who have an enthusiasm about sharing their view of the gospel. For example, in conversations I have noticed people who are enthusiastic about the gospel bring it up in the conversation when it does not really seem to fit. Nothing before or after in the conversation directly led up to the subject of religion, but pounce all of a sudden there it is and now the person has forced your to discuss it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you are basically getting at is unrequested information being sent to you through advertising. Many are offended by any religion that uses this approach. &lt;strong&gt;This is not my personal style (and assume we are the same that way) as it could be considered rude, I think if it is done gently and with kindness it is not.&lt;/strong&gt; For example, if a Buddhists smiled at me in Hong Kong and held out a pamphlet for me to read, I would not be offended I just would not grab one. Or if someone selling a Hong Kong flat handed me a leaflet, I would not be offended. It happens every day and I am offended when they start to walk beside me and say something else when I have already declined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good question to ask ourselves is, ‘Why does our society take more offence at the gospel being offered than at a sale or discount of a commercial product being advertised?’ I think the poorer attitude is not in the person holding up a sign to remind others of the love of God but the great offence that people have in it. The extreme disgust that many have over some simple enthused believer just advertising what matters to them on their own free time indicates are much poorer attitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as a particular denominations in mainstream Christianity that supports this type of seemingly more aggressive form of advertising, I do not think there is one. (Of course if including less mainstream sections of Christianity, Jehovah Witnesses purposefully adopt an aggressive form of evangelism but I doubt these are the signh-olders your are thinking of). I do think it is more common among charismatic evangelicals than more historically conservative groups. This makes sense because &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;enthusiasm&lt;/em&gt; and expression of &lt;em&gt;feelings&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; are more encouraged in a charismatic setting. As far as your comment that a person would not usually come to faith this way, &lt;strong&gt;I have never heard of anyone saying I saw a sign that said 'Jesus is Lord' and then I became a Christian. However it was a simple sign on my grandmas’ door to her kitchen with the verses of John 3:16 on it that landed into my head when I cried out to God and was saved.&lt;/strong&gt; I knew little else about God at this time other then what I gleaned from television shows. Even the smallest advertising can carry influence in some cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-04-13T03:34:56.210" LastActivityDate="2013-04-13T03:34:56.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15609" CreationDate="2013-04-13T05:27:37.367" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any denominations that display such signs as an official part of their teaching or practices, so the only way of knowing why someone displays such a sign is to ask them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, we can only speculate...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two &lt;em&gt;legitimate&lt;/em&gt; reasons I can think of to possibly do this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The most obvious would be simple &lt;strong&gt;evangelism&lt;/strong&gt;.  That is, fullfilment of the great commission, to make disciples.  Many people, I suspect, see such signs and advertisements as a way to spread the good news of Christ's salvation to the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether such methods are effective evangelism tools is not really on-topic for this question. (And I suspect their effectiveness is very cultural-dependent).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The other legitimate reason I can imagine is &lt;strong&gt;praise and worship&lt;/strong&gt;.  Billboards that read &quot;Jesus is Lord&quot; might be there for the purpose of evangelizing to non-believers, or they might be there simply as a public expression of praise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And one other possibly legitimate, or possibly illegitimate reason I can imagine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To earn favor with God&lt;/strong&gt;. Some Christians might feel it is their duty to do such a thing.  Whether this is legitimate or not may depend on which denomination you ask, as well as specific motives, and is beyond the scope of this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Christians feel it is a duty to &quot;stand boldly for Christ&quot; in the &quot;culture wars,&quot; and might feel this is one way to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there are many illegitimate reasons I can imagine one might do this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To look cool&lt;/strong&gt;. Someone might think waving such a sign makes them look cool.  If not to the general public, perhaps to other members of their church, a love interest, or to themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To look lame&lt;/strong&gt;. Someone might intentionally put themselves in a situation where they might be ridiculed, so as to be a victim of &quot;religious persecution&quot;... sort of a &quot;martyr mentality.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2013-04-13T05:27:37.367" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15627" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15633" CreationDate="2013-04-13T07:12:45.157" Score="4" ViewCount="374" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jonathan Edwards, a renowned Christian thinker and past president of Princeton University said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have, or do any good thing. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yOjU6MzowLndqZW8=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards [1758], Original Sin (Vol. 3), Ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, P280&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may seem that saying 'a man can't do good' means a man could do neutral things, but further reading of Edwards makes it clear he does not think so. By 'no good' he actually means sin, or actions springing from a sinful nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther says even works from grace (let alone apart from grace) has not just 'human weakness' and 'defect' in them but 'sin in them'. Therefore, according to Luther even all the saints' works are sins in the sense that there is some evil deserving of eternal wrath in them (brackets mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now, if there is such a thing as a good work without sin... God forbid! ... Why then do they [papists] condemn my article...But if they [papists] say here, as they always do, “Yes, but this impurity is not sin but rather an imperfection, or weakness, or defect,” my reply is that it is indeed a defect and a weakness, but if that is not sin I am prepared to say that murder and adultery are not sins either but only defects and weaknesses. (Works of Martin Luther, Vol 32.83)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cofec.org/39Articles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;'Thirty Nine Articles of Religion'&lt;/a&gt; of the Church of England is more explicit. This article is rejected by the Roman Catholic church as heresy. More simply put I am looking for the &lt;strong&gt;biblical justification of this article&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;XIII. Of Works before Justification. WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As opposed to a Catholic view of grace, &lt;strong&gt;what is the Protestant biblical basis for those concluding that 'all works' without grace have no real good in them? In other words, all works by unbelievers are more or less sinful, according to many in the Protestant Reformation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;See also &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15628/what-is-the-catholic-biblical-or-canon-basis-saying-some-moral-works-without-gra&quot;&gt;the reverse question, here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-08-02T04:35:32.543" Title="What is the biblical basis for concluding that 'all moral works' done without grace are sinful?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;works&gt;&lt;total-depravity&gt;&lt;jonathan-edwards&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15628" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-13T07:16:00.440" Score="5" ViewCount="537" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am trying to clarify the &lt;em&gt;difference&lt;/em&gt; in my own mind between a traditional Catholic and traditional Protestant view of grace, specifically in terms of the 'works of unbelievers'. It seems hard to accurately do because many similar terms overlap, making the difference difficult to put into words. (See reverse question here &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15627/what-is-the-protestant-biblical-basis-for-those-concluding-that-all-works-with&quot;&gt;Protestant view&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example,  in Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, a book written to train Catholic Priests we find [brackets mine]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;we now proceed to consider what there is to which his [a human unaided by actual grace] unaided power is adequate, and we assert that &lt;strong&gt;he is capable of resisting the less urgent temptations that assail him and of doing acts which have natural goodness.&lt;/strong&gt; Without grace he can do nothing that draws him nearer to the supernatural possession of God (nn. 592, 593), nor can he resist all temptations to grievous sin (n. 598); but it is false to say that he necessarily yields to every temptation, or that all his works, whatever he does, are sin, removing him away from God. It might be thought that when we insist on these points we are fighting a shadow; but unfortunately, the shadow is deemed to have substance by too many among the sects which have arisen during the last three centuries, following the teaching of Luther, with more or less variety. (Sylvester Joseph Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology,  n600, 3.51)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This author is firm about Catholic condemnation of the original sin of Protestants that fully condemned all the work of an unbeliever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Leo X. condemned the doctrine taught by Luther, that the just man sins in every good work. (Art. 31; Denz. 655.) The Council of Trent (Sess. 6, can. 7; Denz. 699) pronounces an anathema against those who say that works done before justification, whatever be their character, are truly sins or deserve the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one prepare himself for grace, the more grievously does he sin. St. Pius V. and other Popes condemned the teaching of Baius (n. 390, vi.) that all the works of those who have not faith are sins, and the virtues of the philosophers are vices (Prop. 25; Denz. 905) (Sylvester Joseph Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology,  n600, 3.52)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He clearly thinks Protestants have a tradition of being to harsh (or something) on the depraved state of those without grace, so this difference in the view of 'good works' must be real between Catholic and Protestant traditions or he would not draw attention to the danger of Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note 1: I put the statement in bold that I am referring to which I am having trouble understanding. The Catholic teacher I am quoting first explains all different kinds of graces: natural, created, actual, effectual, etc. and at several points he argues that men have some goodness without 'actual' grace. This is why he clarifies that although without any actual grace he can do good but it is not a saving good, or a good that 'draws him nearer to the supernatural'. In other words an unbeliever, or someone who has committed a mortal sin, may have no actual grace, yet still do some good under one of the other kinds of graces I assume.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note 2: I realize this view might not be unanimous for all Catholics. I am only asking for a Biblical basis from those Catholics that make the aforementioned conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As opposed to the early Protestant reformers, &lt;strong&gt;What is the Catholic biblical or canon basis for concluding that some works without grace are good. (In other words that they do not more or less spring from a sinful nature as understood in the Protestant tradition).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon further study I can phrase the question possibly more clearly this way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found another statement which is from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cofec.org/39Articles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;'Thirty Nine Articles of Religion'&lt;/a&gt; by the Church of England which actually more explicitly indicates the doctrine that Catholics reject. More simply put I am looking for the biblical justification of rejecting the sentiments in this article. (I tried to avoid asking a negative question but it is because I do not understand the alternate positive doctrine by the Catholic Church which is making me ask the question) Maybe the choice of words about 'doing acts which have natural goodness' by the Catholic reference I quoted would better be stated as 'doing acts that DO NOT 'have the nature of sin' in them, as declared below by the Church of England in a more polite manner than Luther or Calvin would have worded:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;XIII. Of Works before Justification.&#xA;  WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2016-10-28T18:57:33.407" Title="What is the Catholic biblical or canon basis saying some moral works without grace (transient or permanent) are good (or not have the nature of sin)?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15630" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15640" CreationDate="2013-04-13T10:25:12.157" Score="5" ViewCount="1083" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the book of Joshua, just before attack on Jericho, Joshua told his men not to take any riches for themselves which was meant for God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%206:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Joshua 6:18&lt;/a&gt; . In spite of this Achan hides some of the riches for himself. On God’s directive Joshua orders his punishment by stoning him and all of his household to death &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%207:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Joshua 7:25&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In similar manner in Old Testament we come across much harsher punishment for wrong doing than what it is now. We find that OT commanded death penalty for many acts: Murder (Ex, 21.12), kidnapping (Ex. 21.16), bestiality (Ex. 22.19), Adultery (Lev. 20.10), homosexuality (Lev. 20.13), Being false prophet (Deu. 13.5) Prostitution and rape (Deu. 22.24) etc.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast to this, Jesus showed much greater mercy for breaking such commandments. On one hand we find that compared to Old law, Jesus fine tunes the interpretation of sin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew%205:21-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt. 5:21-22&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew%205:27-28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matt. 5:27-28&lt;/a&gt; etc) and yet when it comes to application of justice shows more mercy and love (Matt. 5:38-39, 5:43-44 so on).    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one takes an overview on “sin and treating sinners” in New Testament, we find that Jesus increases the measuring scale by which a person is judged guilty and yet by doing so, advocated more lenient justice system.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why Jesus advocated this change from Old Testament? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2019-11-07T19:07:50.070" Title="Why Jesus taught differently on “sin and treating sinners” as compared to Old Testament?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;justice&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15631" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15655" CreationDate="2013-04-13T11:13:24.457" Score="8" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_Confession&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;history&lt;/a&gt; of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Scots_Confession&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scots Confession&lt;/a&gt; seems to have some amusing interludes. Having been drafted in just 4 days by 5 guys all named John, it went on to serve as the primary confession of the Church of Scotland for almost a century. The only snag it seems to have hit was when Mary, Queen of Scots, refused to ratify it even after Parliament signed off on its representation of the desired reforms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was it about the confession that didn't suit Mary*? What was her justification for rejecting it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* It's possible that this is a historical question more than it is doctrinal. I think it is on topic here because I want to know specifically if there were any doctrinal points in the Confession that proved to be a hindrance to its ratification by the state at the time. At the same time, the primary reason might turn out to be a variant of &quot;Mary, Mary, quite contrary&quot;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T01:08:05.530" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T02:16:54.467" Title="On what basis did Mary Queen of Scots first reject the Scots Confession?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;&lt;scots-confession&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15632" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16529" CreationDate="2013-04-13T11:25:51.827" Score="15" ViewCount="809" Body="&lt;p&gt;After the reforms of the 16th century, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Scots_Confession&quot;&gt;Scots Confession&lt;/a&gt; served as the primary confession for the Church of Scotland for just over 80 years. In 1648 it was replaced by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Humble_Advice_of_the_Assembly_of_Divines&quot;&gt;The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines&lt;/a&gt;, a later revision of which is widely known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith&quot;&gt;Westminster Confession of Faith&lt;/a&gt; and is still used today in many Protestant denominations. Meanwhile I don't hear much about the Scots Confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm curious what changes switching to the Westminster Confession brought over the Scots Confession of the previous century. According to what the Westminster divines set out in the WCF, on what points would the Scots confession have been considered either incomplete, not clear, or outright wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-04-13T11:53:08.407" LastActivityDate="2018-05-04T05:09:00.153" Title="What doctrinal changes did the Westminster Confession bring to the Church of Scotland?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;&lt;scots-confession&gt;&lt;westminster-confession&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15627" CreationDate="2013-04-13T15:45:48.933" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Note that in the Edwards quote you gave:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have, or do any good thing. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yOjU6MzowLndqZW8=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards [1758], Original Sin ( Vol. 3) , Ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, P280&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You left off the end of the sentence: &lt;code&gt;as appears by Romans 8:8&lt;/code&gt;, which says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look &lt;a href=&quot;http://preceptaustin.org/romans_86-8.htm#8:8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, you see that a number of commentators agree that this verse is saying that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unregenerate man cannot please God because they lack faith and they don't have the inherent ability to please Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in this instance, Edwards is clearly saying that men &lt;em&gt;in their natural state&lt;/em&gt; have no innate ability to do any good thing (i.e. &lt;em&gt;pleasing God&lt;/em&gt;). Note that Edwards does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; say that men in sin have no ability to appear outwardly to be good, indeed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/affections.iii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;in another work&lt;/a&gt;, he says the opposite (commentary sourced &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.founders.org/journal/fj85/article2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By true religion consisting in great part in the affections, Edwards means that though religion must have good deeds attending the affections, &amp;quot;there can be no true religion without the affections&amp;quot;. Therefore, if a person has an unaffected will, he can do all the external showings of religion while remaining dead in his sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, your question was asking the Biblical basis behind the idea that works without grace are not good, not what Edwards was saying in that passage. Essentially, this question is about the concept of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Total_depravity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Total Depravity&lt;/a&gt;. John Piper, I think, summarized this best in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; on Total Depravity. Piper writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his &amp;quot;virtue&amp;quot; is evil in the sight of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Piper gives four ways man's depravity is total:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our rebellion against God is total.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are interested in point #2, and here is what he says on that point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 14:23&lt;/a&gt; Paul says, &amp;quot;Whatever is not from faith is sin.&amp;quot; Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 7:18&lt;/a&gt; Paul says, &amp;quot;I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.&amp;quot; This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. The fact that Paul qualifies his depravity with the words, &amp;quot;that is, in my flesh,&amp;quot; shows that he is willing to affirm the good of anything that the Spirit of God produces in him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2015:18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 15:18&lt;/a&gt;). &amp;quot;Flesh&amp;quot; refers to man in his natural state apart from the work of God's Spirit. So what Paul is saying in Romans 7:18 is that apart from the work of God's Spirit all we think and feel and do is not good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: We recognize that the word &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; has a broad range of meanings. We will have to use it in a restricted sense to refer to many actions of fallen people which in relation are in fact not good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example we will have to say that it is good that most unbelievers do not kill and that some unbelievers perform acts of benevolence. What we mean when we call such actions good is that they more or less conform to the external pattern of life that God has commanded in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, such outward conformity to the revealed will of God is not righteousness in relation to God. It is not done out of reliance on him or for his glory. He is not trusted for the resources, though he gives them all. Nor is his honor exalted, even though that's his will in all things (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:31&lt;/a&gt;). Therefore even these &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; acts are part of our rebellion and are not &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; in the sense that really counts in the end -- in relation to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, everything the unregenerate do apart from God &lt;em&gt;is not good&lt;/em&gt; because the indwelling desires of the heart are against God, and are done still in rebellion to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-14T15:18:24.357" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1824" CreationDate="2013-04-13T17:30:34.073" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the fall of man, not that God revised and re-revised His plan of salvation over the ages for the fallen mankind. No. Salvation has always been the same—it is by God’s grace through faith which He planned right from the beginning to be achieved through the death of Christ. No one, either prior to the cross or since the cross, would ever be saved without that one pivotal event in the history of the world. Christ's death paid the penalty for past sins of Old Testament saints and future sins of New Testament saints.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major difference is that before Christ’s earthly life, salvation was found in faith in the Lord. Adam and Eve, for example, had faith in God and fellowship with Him. Abraham trusted the Lord by faith. Genesis 15:6 tells us that Abraham believed God and that was enough for God to credit it to him for righteousness.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 11 provides an entire chapter of people who followed the Lord by faith, not knowing the details of the Christ who would come.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament sacrificial system did not take away sin, as Hebrews 10:1-10 clearly teaches. It did, however, point to the day when the Son of God would shed His blood for the sinful human race.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:1(ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Testament sacrificial system, the one Savior who permanently restores relationship with God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God's plan of salvation&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's requirement of what must be believed is based on the amount of revelation He has given mankind up to that time. &lt;strong&gt;Adam believed&lt;/strong&gt; the promise God gave in Genesis 3:15 that the Seed of the woman would conquer Satan. &lt;strong&gt;Adam believed&lt;/strong&gt; Him, and demonstrated it by the name he gave Eve Genesis 3:20 and the Lord indicated His acceptance immediately by covering them with coats of skin Genesis 3:21. At that point that is all Adam knew, but he believed it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abraham believed&lt;/strong&gt; God according to the promises and new revelation God gave him in Genesis 12 and 15. Prior to Moses, no Scripture was written, but mankind was responsible for what God had revealed. &lt;strong&gt;Throughout the Old Testament, believers came to salvation because they believed&lt;/strong&gt; that God would someday take care of their sin problem.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Late in His ministry, “Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life” (Matthew 16:21-22). At this Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ‘Never, Lord!’ he said. ‘This shall never happen to you!’” Peter and the other disciples did not know the full truth, yet they were saved because &lt;strong&gt;they believed&lt;/strong&gt; that God would take care of their sin problem. They didn't exactly know how He would accomplish that, any more than Adam, Abraham, Moses, or David knew how, but &lt;strong&gt;they believed&lt;/strong&gt; God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Today, we look back, believing&lt;/strong&gt; that He has already taken care of our sins on the cross (John 3:16; Hebrews 9:28).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to Jesus, salvation was based on faith in God and trust in His plan. Ultimately, it was still based on the death and resurrection of Christ, though God’s followers did not know exactly how that would look. Today, knowing that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), the content of our faith is a bit more specific. However, &lt;strong&gt;faith is still the requirement for salvation, the object of our faith is still God, and the completer of our salvation is still Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-04-14T06:53:03.793" LastActivityDate="2013-04-14T06:53:03.793" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14925" CreationDate="2013-04-13T19:03:04.897" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually it might be little known fact, but &lt;strong&gt;yes, they do get paid&lt;/strong&gt;, but not when they are alive though. Three bags containing gold, silver, and copper coins are placed in the coffin beside the body of a dead pope. Each bag contains one coin for each year in his reign. This is the only monetary compensation a pope receives for his service as pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last pope to get paid like this was, as you guessed, Bl. Pope John Paul II, the Great. The total worth of the coins was €100.26. Here is an actual Image of him &lt;em&gt;getting paid&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/W0jlg.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-04-13T19:15:38.877" LastActivityDate="2013-04-13T19:15:38.877" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15630" CreationDate="2013-04-14T01:35:59.177" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jesus had not died for the sacrifice of our sins there would be no chance for grace. This was the purpose because man sinned continually. We are a rebellious creation from the very beginning when Adam and Eve first rebelled against God's commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus said in John 8:7 &quot;he that is without sin cast the first stone&quot; He said this because &#xA;by those same standards everyone would be faced with the death penalty. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus not only replaced animal sacrifices by becoming the sacrificial lamb but he also die in our place for the penalty of sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this is not to say that there is no penalty for sins. That penalty is the lake of fire. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:26 says that if we sin willfully then Jesus's sacrifice for our sins are no longer valid. Thus we are faced with a penalty much worse than the physical death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4337" LastActivityDate="2013-04-14T01:35:59.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15638" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-14T02:56:02.253" Score="14" ViewCount="1716" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally*, an inerrant Bible is one without errors and an infallible Bible is one that cannot have errors, as David Stratton pointed out in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;his answer&lt;/a&gt;. As for the Roman Catholic Church, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15547/which-roman-catholic-doctrines-are-infallible/15555#15555&quot;&gt;all of its doctrines are infallible&lt;/a&gt;, so presumably, they believe the Bible is infallible as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; was inerrancy/infallibility formally declared?&lt;/strong&gt; I'm looking for any combination of these four sources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;an Old Testament text declares itself or another OT text to be inerrant/infallible,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a New Testament text declares itself or another NT text to be inerrant/infallible,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;one or more early church authors declare some OT/NT text to be inerrant/infallible, or&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the closed canon (with or without the Deuterocanon) is declared inerrant/infallible by the Church, before or after the Great Schism.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm most interested in writings from the early church fathers, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/a&gt; is allowed in the answer only if the link between &quot;God-breathed&quot; and &quot;infallible&quot;/&quot;inerrant&quot; is shown in a clear and direct way. Also, declarations of inerrancy/infallibility should apply to the whole text, not just God's directly-spoken words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;a href=&quot;http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StealthPun&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Stealthy&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LamePunReaction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;lame&lt;/a&gt;, take your pick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2017-08-07T10:24:40.490" Title="When was the Bible formally declared to be inerrant and/or infallible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15639" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15673" CreationDate="2013-04-14T06:40:14.777" Score="13" ViewCount="4540" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed this word ‘concupiscence’ a lot while studying Catholic Theology. It seems to significantly change what ‘Original Sin’ means, making a Catholic meaning of ‘Original Sin’ very different from the Protestant meaning. It appears to be a key word because the Catholic Church actually condemned the Protestant view during the reformation as being heretical. A lot of it seems to boil down to the word ‘concupiscence’. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not encountered the word a lot in Protestant theology but it is coming up left, right and center, as I study Catholic Theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why is the word ‘concupiscence’ so important in understanding the difference between a Catholic view and a Protestant view of ‘Original Sin’?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2021-03-31T15:08:42.870" Title="Why is the word ‘concupiscence’ so important in understanding the difference between a Catholic view and a Protestant view of ‘Original Sin’?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15630" CreationDate="2013-04-14T07:25:02.523" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/tozer/5f00.0888/5f00.0888.10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;10th chapter&lt;/a&gt; of The Pursuit of God, A. W. Tozer says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here are the facts as I see them. For four hundred years Israel had dwelt in Egypt, surrounded by the crassest idolatry. By the hand of Moses they were brought out at last and started toward the land of promise. The very idea of holiness had been lost to them. To correct this, God began at the bottom. He localized Himself in the cloud and fire and later when the tabernacle had been built He dwelt in fiery manifestation in the Holy of Holies. &lt;strong&gt;By innumerable distinctions God taught Israel the difference between holy and unholy.&lt;/strong&gt; There were holy days, holy vessels, holy garments. There were washings, sacrifices, offerings of many kinds. By these means Israel learned that God is holy. It was this that He was teaching them. Not the holiness of things or places, but the holiness of Jehovah was the lesson they must learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the Law was partly intended to teach the Israelites - who followed the Most Holy God - what was holy and what was not. Like you mention, Jesus took this one step further and made clear that sin included not just one's external &lt;em&gt;actions&lt;/em&gt; but also one's own inner, private &lt;em&gt;thoughts&lt;/em&gt;. Basically, He took the Law that was extremely hard to keep (being a full-time job) and made it effectively impossible to keep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law that God gave Moses was also part of the covenant between God and Israel. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-lesson/bible-study-course-lesson-7-calling-god/gods-covenant-ancient-israel/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;This site&lt;/a&gt; covers the topic nicely and succinctly, but to summarize: 1) the Israelites' end of the agreement was to follow the Law completely, 2) God described in great detail how He would punish the nation if they failed to keep the Law, and 3) God promised to establish a new covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As shown in Judges, Israel got themselves into a cycle of falling into idolatry, getting punished, crying out to God for help and repenting, being rescued, having a good time and worshiping God, and then falling back into idolatry a generation or two later. Every time the Israelites disregarded the Law and God's commands, people died. Every time a person was caught willfully breaking the Law, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10:28&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;they died&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law brings death, not life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians+3:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Corinthians 3:6 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for &lt;strong&gt;the letter kills&lt;/strong&gt;, but the Spirit gives life.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, being who He is, couldn't very well let this go on forever. And so, He sent His Son Jesus, who is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:48&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;life&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:10&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;life&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14:6&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;life&lt;/a&gt;! Jesus came so the Father could show mercy, which is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=God+mercy&amp;amp;searchtype=all&amp;amp;version1=31&amp;amp;language1=en&amp;amp;spanbegin=47&amp;amp;spanend=73&amp;amp;resultspp=100&amp;amp;displayas=long&amp;amp;sort=bookorder&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;repeatedly mentioned throughout the New Testament&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On one hand, Jesus made the Law even harder to follow, effectively impossible to keep perfectly. That was to show that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;no one&lt;/em&gt; can satisfy God and His commands completely&lt;/a&gt;. On the other hand, Jesus also came to establish a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+11:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;new covenant&lt;/a&gt;, and it is one we keep &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;not by good works, but by faith&lt;/a&gt;. Thus, peoples' actions mattered less than their hearts for Him. That was why He advocated a more-lenient justice system, one that included forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31:31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;God promised to the Israelites a new covenant&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus came to establish it, and in the process, made the old one, the Law, obsolete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%208:13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 8:13 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, the reasons Jesus advocated these changes from the Old Testament that you mentioned are: 1) to make the Law effectively impossible to keep and 2) to show mercy and give life, and in the process of doing so, He made obsolete the Law based on works and instituted a new one based on faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2013-04-14T07:25:02.523" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15643" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15651" CreationDate="2013-04-14T13:08:36.890" Score="16" ViewCount="8146" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the Psalms feature the word &quot;selah&quot; which as I understand is a musical or liturgical term.  When the Psalms are read aloud, how should selah be uttered?  I've heard it both said aloud, or left as a pause for empahsis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="80" LastActivityDate="2016-01-24T22:36:52.867" Title="How should Selah be read?" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-01-25T17:12:14.163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15643" CreationDate="2013-04-14T16:50:51.413" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Hebrew, the word Selah (סלה) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yourdictionary.com/selah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;means&lt;/a&gt; &quot;forever&quot;.  For example, the end of Psalms 3 reads in Hebrew:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;לַיהֹוָה הַיְשׁוּעָה עַל עַמְּךָ בִרְכָתֶךָ סֶּלָה:&amp;rlm;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which can be translated as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is incumbent on God to save, and it is incumbent on your nation to bless you forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since, as you mentioned, it could also have some kind of musical/rhythmic meaning, I would assume that the best way to recite it would be untranslated in order to capture all of the different meanings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4325" LastEditorUserId="4325" LastEditDate="2013-04-14T20:20:52.800" LastActivityDate="2013-04-14T20:20:52.800" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15638" CreationDate="2013-04-14T20:28:28.607" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's some verses on infallibility:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isaiah 55:10-11&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Peter 1:19-21&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latter is worth citing here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will&#xA;  do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until&#xA;  the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing&#xA;  this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s&#xA;  own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of&#xA;  man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy&#xA;  Spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lest the reader shout circularity, the train of thought here is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Let us assume/trust the general historicity of Scripture (all we need to assume is also corroborated by seconday/tertiary accounts)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then we know Peter is an apostle of Jesus, invested with great authority from him (able to call Paul's writings Scripture, 2 Peter 3:16)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So when Peter declares the infallibility of Scripture, which his readers would have understood to be all of the OT as well as Paul's writings, he is, right then and there, formally declaring that the Word of God through these writings is infallible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To get back to your question, I can't recall a specific OT passage declaring its own infallibility, but there are plenty of passages that emphasize that God spoke directly to the writers of these books (Prophets basically just transcribed his words, for example) and I think that speaks for itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got to run but I'll examine more closely 2 Tim. 3:16 when I return and I'll also dig into my church history books. I know I've failed to meet some of your more strict answer requirements so I'll try to clean that up as well. In the meantime, feel free to edit this, folks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2013-04-14T20:28:28.607" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15649" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-15T09:11:18.953" Score="6" ViewCount="3008" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 9:31 (NLT 1996)&lt;/strong&gt; [Moses and Elijah] were glorious to see. And they were speaking of how [Jesus] was about to fulfill God's plan by dying in Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shortly before, Jesus had told his apostles about his impending death, and prophecies of it were scattered throughout the Scriptures. Plus, Moses and Elijah were both men that talked with God personally, so He may have told them details about Jesus' death before they joined Him in Heaven. Yet, the tone of the passage makes it seem as if Moses and Elijah knew a good deal about what was to happen and for a reason distinct from the ones I just listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did Moses and Elijah know about Jesus' death and fulfillment of God's plan, and how did they know it? What do the writings of the great Protestant theologians (particularly John Wesley) have to say about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2016-09-29T18:25:54.753" Title="How much did Moses and Elijah know about Jesus' Imminent Death?" Tags="&lt;moses&gt;&lt;elijah&gt;&lt;transfiguration&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-09-30T19:42:12.273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15542" CreationDate="2013-04-15T10:25:41.747" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since Mark presents the Savior as a Slave, he does not tell His genealogy and status, as the ancestry of a slave is not worthy of note. Mark also does not intend to impress us with the Slave’s wonderful words (as Matthew does with His marvelous teachings and parables concerning the heavenly kingdom, and John with His profound revelations of divine truths), but he impresses us with His excellent deeds in His gospel service, providing more detail than the other Gospels, in order to portray the Slave-Savior’s diligence, faithfulness, and other virtues in the saving service He rendered to sinners for God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Mark’s Gospel is the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Christ as the Slave of Jehovah in Isaiah 42:1-4, 6-7; 49:5-7; 50:4-7; 52:13—53:12, and the details of the teaching regarding Christ as the Slave of God in Philippians 2:5-11. His diligence in labor, His need of food and rest (Mark 3:20-21; 6:31), His anger (3:5), His groaning (7:34), and His affection (10:21) display beautifully His humanity in its virtue and perfection. His lordship (2:28), His omniscience (2:8), His miraculous power, and His authority to cast out demons (1:27; 3:15), to forgive sins (2:7, 10), and to silence the wind and the sea (4:39) manifest in full His deity in its glory and honor. Such a Slave served sinners as their Slave-Savior, with His life as their ransom (10:45), for the fulfillment of the eternal purpose of God, whose Slave He was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4343" LastActivityDate="2013-04-15T10:25:41.747" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15643" CreationDate="2013-04-15T12:43:53.167" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Roger Ellsworth in &amp;quot;Opening Up the Psalms&amp;quot; says not to pronounce the word:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word ‘Selah’ appears seventy-four times in forty psalms. This word signifies a pause or interlude. It may have been used to inform musicians to change instruments or to call for both musicians and listeners to ponder the truth that had been sung. In the public reading of the psalms, we honour each ‘Selah’, not by actually saying the word, but rather by pausing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Believers Church Bible Commentary has a really good summary.  Key points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The original meaning has been lost&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It has been translated as &amp;quot;Interlude&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Pause and Reflect&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It could be a voice signal for louder or raised - in any event, it would be like 'crescendo' or 'rotando' - some form of musical notation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Martin Luther, in particular, thought this a signal for deeper meditation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SELAH Selah (selâ), appearing 71 times in 39 psalms and three times in Habakkuk 3 as a marginal note, is likely a musical instruction. With few exceptions, the term is used in psalms that have titles. The majority of the titles identify the psalms containing Selah with David or the Levitical singers, and about 75 percent of the titles also make reference to the “musical director” or “choirmaster” [Superscriptions].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Translated “interlude” in the LXX, the original meaning is unclear. The three basic interpretations focus on the root sll “lift up”; slh “repetition”; and the Aramaic root ṣl’, “to bow” or “to pray.” Thus, interpreters have suggested that Selah might call for the instruments to enter, raise the pitch or volume, affirm what has been said, or serve as a breath marker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to suggestions that Selah might signal raising the voice, changing the voices, or increasing the volume, scholars have offered other possibilities. It could be a unit marker in some contexts, as in the paired Psalms 9 and 10. Selah appears at the ends of Psalm 9:16 and 20, marking off verses 17–20 as a unit, almost exactly in the center of the two psalms when they are read as one (Tate, 2004:410–11). Michael Goulder (103–5) has offered the suggestion that it means “recitative,” marking a pause at which there should be the recitation of a prayer or story from Israelite tradition (68:7, 19, 32). Martin Luther referred to Selah as a sign that we are to think more deeply and at greater length what the words to which it is attached mean to say. He called Selah “a punctuation mark of the Holy Spirit. Whenever we find it in the Psalter, the Holy Spirit wants us to pause and ponder; there he wants to touch and enkindle our heart for particularly deep meditation” (Luther, 1956:37).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References: Craigie, 2004:76–77; Goulder: 103–5; Luther, 1956:37; Tate, 2004:410–11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, The Eerdmann's Dictionary of the Bible points out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The 'pause' translation came from the LXX.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some scholars via Jerome have suggested it derives from &amp;quot;forever&amp;quot;:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Selah (Heb. selâ)&#xA;Likely a musical or liturgical notation, occurring 71 times in 39 Psalms and 3 times in the psalm of Hab. 3. In the LXX Selah is rendered as Greek diápsalma (“pause in singing”), suggesting some type of caesura. According to the Targ., followed by Jerome, the term means “forever” or “everlasting.” Perhaps this was a directive to insert a benediction, refrain, or prayer collect at that point. Proposals based on etymology include “voice modulation,” “increase in volume,” “prostration,” and “prayer ritual.” Others have suggested that the consonants of Selah form an acronym for “voice modulation” or “repetition.”&#xA;Gerald M. Bilkes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-15T12:43:53.167" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6901" CreationDate="2013-04-15T16:31:44.220" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 2nd commandment is referring to the making of idols of God's creation, not making idols of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;... any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the&#xA;  earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth... &quot; &#xA;  - part of the second commandment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is clearly referring to created objects.  It appears that the this commandment, unlike the 1st, is needed as a added deterrent in order to prevent people from worshiping other than God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also see proof of this in Jewish texts. &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/avodazara3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is a section of the Talmud discussing images&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4046" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2013-04-15T17:37:04.343" LastActivityDate="2013-04-15T17:37:04.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15653" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15654" CreationDate="2013-04-15T16:43:11.347" Score="13" ViewCount="24518" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 11:1 (NIV) One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he&#xA;  finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;just as John taught his disciples&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since John the Baptist was the forerunner of Jesus who prepares the way for Jesus, there are many similarities between their ministries. John taught his disciples how to pray. Jesus also taught his disciples how to pray. But there is less information on the pattern of the prayer taught by John. If  Jesus taught &quot;May your kingdom come&quot;, then John might have taught &quot;Prepare us for your coming kingdom&quot; or something like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any source outside the Bible or some traditions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2017-01-22T19:47:26.007" Title="How did the disciples of John the Baptist pray?" Tags="&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15653" CreationDate="2013-04-15T19:21:56.043" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an excellent question.  However, we are given nothing in the Bible that gives us any information about how John taught his disciples to pray, only that he did teach them to pray.  As far as I am aware, there are no surviving documents that give any information either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-15T19:21:56.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15631" CreationDate="2013-04-15T20:51:36.277" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not clear that Mary made the decision entirely by herself; at the time, she was in France with her husband King Francis II, and they were both young (in August of 1560, she was 17 and he was 16). Mary's regent, her mother Mary of Guise, had only just died, and their court was dominated by the &quot;Guise faction&quot;. The official reply to Parliament was in the name of Francis II, who wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mais nous trouvons ... que votredite r&amp;eacute;solution est fort eslongn&amp;eacute;e de ce que vous devez faire en nostre endroict : ce qui ne nous a pas grandement pleu.&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;    &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(My translation:) But we find that your said resolution is much removed from what you ought to do in our place, and this has not greatly pleased us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The records of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cecil,_1st_Baron_Burghley&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Cecil&lt;/a&gt; contain a summary of this letter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;FRANCIS II to the ESTATES OF SCOTLAND.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Has heard the message of the Chevalier of St John&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Is very much displeased with their proceedings, and hopes to see them return to the good path which they have left. Will send two noble persons as deputies to assemble the Parliament legitimately. He, for his part, is willing to forget past offences, as he has declared to the Chevalier of St John. - Orleans, 16 Nov. 1560. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, the legal issue was the legitimacy of Parliament to pass laws on religion. According to the agreement of 8 July which led to its meeting, any religious matters were to be deferred to a later meeting between Mary and a parliamentary delegation. They were also not meant to take any action against Church estates for the time being - but instead, they did start the process of breaking up large property holdings, regulating tithes, and denying the authority of the Pope or the Crown to make appointments to ecclesiastical office. All of this was part of the package of legislation that Mary and Francis were asked to ratify. It was a huge step for a Parliament that historically had left religious affairs to other authorities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other legitimacy concerns related to the procedure and membership of this parliament, as the Protestant faction was able to arrange a particularly strong representation for themselves. This group was strongly in favour of alliance with England instead of France, and was trying to marry the Earl of Arran - Mary's heir - to Elizabeth I, as part of a plan to unite the two crowns under a Protestant. Clearly, this was unacceptable to France and to Mary (it eventually happened with her son James VI). The Archbishop of St Andrews, who was also the Earl of Arran's uncle, requested Francis and Mary to withhold ratification, in the hopes that more moderate Protestants than Knox would then be willing to seek a compromise - some sort of religious tolerance, as opposed to the Protestant absolutism of the &lt;em&gt;Confession&lt;/em&gt;. We also know that they were lobbied by Pope Pius IV to stand firmly on the Catholic side, and make no concessions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doctrinally, the action of Parliament was held (by Knox) to be founded not on royal authority, but on divine law, making any procedural problems irrelevant. In the same way, the Confession and the First Book of Discipline (also 1560) envisage that the state has no role of governance over the church. The rejection of the 1560 Parliament's acts, founded on legitimacy concerns, is not only a political statement but has a doctrinal dimension, regarding what the relationship between church and state ought to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, the monarch is expected to be faithful to Christian doctrine in the form expounded by Knox, meaning that Mary, for example, could not attend Mass even in private. So it's not a question of whether she would agree that her Protestant subjects could follow the &lt;em&gt;Confession&lt;/em&gt;, but more of her denying that everyone in Scotland, including her when she returned, had to abide by it. As a matter of conscience, she was unwilling to resolve the sectarian crisis in the way Knox preferred (everybody becomes Protestant, problem solved), preferring a model where she and others could remain Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Further reference:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;History of the Scottish Parliament&lt;/em&gt; (3 vols). Edinburgh University Press (2004-2010). See especially the chapter by Keith Brown on the Reformation Parliament, at the end of volume 1. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For more on politics and legitimacy: &lt;em&gt;Le cr&amp;eacute;puscule de l'Auld Alliance : la l&amp;eacute;gitimit&amp;eacute; du pouvoir en question entre &amp;Eacute;cosse, France et Angleterre (1558-1561)&lt;/em&gt;. Eric Durot. *Histoire, &amp;eacute;conomie et soci&amp;eacute;t&amp;eacute; 27(1):3-46. 2009. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;William Robertson's &lt;em&gt;History of Scotland&lt;/em&gt; (1759) contains a brief account of Sandilands getting a frosty reception from the royal couple.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&#xA;1. &lt;em&gt;Négociations, lettres et pièces diverses relatives au règne de François II&lt;/em&gt;, Louis Paris, Paris: Imprimerie Royal, 1841, &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/ngociationslet00pari#page/692/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at p692&lt;/a&gt;. Found thanks to the article of Durot (his note 229, on p39) &lt;br/&gt;&#xA;2. James Sandilands, Lord of Calder, head of the Order of St John of Jerusalem in Scotland, was the official messenger sent by Parliament to Mary and Francis.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;3. No. 712 in &lt;em&gt;Calendar of State Papers&lt;/em&gt;, Foreign series, Elizabeth vol. 2 (1560-1561). ed. Joseph Stevenson. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer (1865).&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T02:16:54.467" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T02:16:54.467" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15624" CreationDate="2013-04-15T21:21:50.030" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; If Jesus isn't separated from the Father on the Cross, then the heresy of patripassianism is true, and more importantly, the notion that God does not change is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Scripture sets up cases that separate the Father from the Son&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripturally the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father is typically supported from when Jesus cries out in Matthew 27:46&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Father, Why have you forsaken me?&quot; (a reference to Psalm 22). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be forsaken implies that indeed, the Father is absent from Jesus in a very real way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, 2 Corinthians 5:21 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that sin cannot abide in the presence of God ([Jude](For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.)), and therefore there must have been a separation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of this forsaking, the church fathers wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ORIGEN. But it must be asked, What means this, that Christ is forsaken of God? Some, unable to explain how Christ could be forsaken of God, say that this was spoken out of humility. But you will be able clearly to comprehend His meaning if you make a comparison of the glory which He had with the Father with the shame which He despised when He endured the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;HILARY. (de Trin. x. 50 &amp;amp;c.) From these words heretical spirits contend either that God the Word was entirely absorbed into the soul at the time it discharged the function of a soul in quickening the body; or that Christ could not have been born man, because the Divine Word dwelt in Him after the manner of a prophetical spirit. As though Jesus Christ was a man of ordinary soul and body, having His beginning then when He began to be man, and thus now deserted upon the withdrawal of the protection of God’s word cries out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Or at least that the nature of the Word being transmuted into soul, Christ, who had depended in all things upon His Father’s support, now deserted and left to death, mourns over this desertion, and pleads with Him departing. But amidst these impious and feeble opinions, the faith of the Church imbued with Apostolic teaching does not sever Christ that He should be considered as Son of God and not as Son of Man.&lt;/strong&gt; The complaint of His being deserted is the weakness of the dying man; the promise of Paradise is the kingdom of the living God. You have Him complaining that He is left to death, and thus He is Man; you have Him as He is dying declaring that He reigns in Paradise; and thus He is God. Wonder not then at the humility of these words, when you know the form of a servant, and see the offence of the cross&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;DAMASCENE. (de Fid. Orth. iii. 27.) Although He died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His unstained body, yet His Godhead remained inseparate from either body or soul. Yet was not the one Person divided into two; for as both body and soul had from the beginning an existence in the Person of the Word, so also had they in death. For neither soul nor body had ever a Person of their own, besides the Person of the Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thomas Aquinas, S., &amp;amp; Newman, J. H. (1841). Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 1: St. Matthew (958–959). Oxford: John Henry Parker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. If Jesus did not separate from the Father, then you are stuck with Modalism or Nestoriansism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2a. Modalism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically, the idea that Jesus was separated from the Father whilst dying on the cross is necessary if one is to avoid the heresy of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patripassianism&lt;/a&gt;. Patripassianism states that the Son literally was the Father, so whatever the Son suffered, the Father suffered also. However, the problem with this is that when Jesus dies, it is important that God the Father does not die with Him.  If he does, then God has changed state - from live to dead - and is therefore &quot;passable&quot; meaning that he can change. If he can change, the thinking goes, then he cannot be fully 'perfect' because change implies going from a less perfect to more perfect state.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most directly, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hippolytus wrote against Noetus&lt;/a&gt; who held this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Patripassianism is sometimes called &quot;Monarchical Modalism,&quot; because it is inherently modal in its underpinning. If as Sabelius believed, God is modal, then patripassianism is tautological. If Jesus is God the Father incarnate, then the death of Jesus = the death of the Father.  As it is essential that Jesus actually died (and did not just appear to die as the Muslims believe) and if it is equally essential that God the Father &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; die, since he is perfect, then by definition, Jesus and the Father must have been separated at this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5804/what-are-the-biblical-arguments-against-modalism&quot;&gt;modalism was rejected as heresy&lt;/a&gt;, it was natural to make heretical the idea of patripassiansm.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book &quot;No one Like Him&quot; explains it well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Modalism, if adopted, has the further consequence that the Father literally suffered on the cross with Christ. This notion is called “patripassianism,” and initially it may seem innocuous, for all Christians would say that the Father’s heart broke and he empathized and sympathized with Jesus while he was on the cross. But that is not what patripassianism means. It means that the Father, in playing the “Son role” while Christ was on earth, actually suffered and died on the cross. This conclusion seemed inescapably to follow from belief in only one divine nature and in the three “persons” as nothing more than different names that designate different roles or activities played at one time and another. But patripassianism met with strong resistance for a very simple reason. Typically, early Christians believed that God is atemporally eternal. As such, he is absolutely immutable, for change comes with time but is absent from an atemporal being. Moreover, if God is absolutely immutable, he cannot experience changes of any sort, including changes in his emotional and physical state (if he is at all physical). Therefore, patripassianism was clearly objectionable. It destroyed atemporal eternity and divine immutability and impassibility. God could suffer, he could undergo change; and if the divine nature was thoroughly resident in Jesus, then God was subject to time, or so it seemed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Leo the Great, in the Post-Nicene Fathers, directly connects this patripassianism to the essence of the Trinity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This species of blasphemy they borrowed from Sabellius, whose followers were rightly called Patripassians also: because if the Son is identical with the Father, the Son’s cross is the Father’s passion (patris-passio): and the Father took on Himself all that the Son took in the form of a slave, and in obedience to the Father. Which without doubt is contrary to the catholic faith, which acknowledges the Trinity of the Godhead to be of one essence (ὁμοούσιον) in such a way that it believes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost indivisible without confusion, eternal without time, equal without difference: because it is not the same person but the same essence which fills the Unity in Trinity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2b. Nestorianism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible to make an argument that says only the human nature of Jesus died on the cross - the nature of God did not. This maintains passability, but it presents, in my mind, an even worse problem.  It turns God into a monster and doesn't actually involve sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine, for a moment that this was &quot;God's plan.&quot;  First and foremost, it inherently presumes a Nestorian understanding of the hypostatic union - also condemned as heresy. In over-emphasizing Jesus' humanity, it turns him into a dual-natured person. It exalts the created human (who was not, as it says in John 1, with God in the beginning, for it was created)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leaving that aside, for a moment though, if the Divine nature of God the Son were to have left his human side, we have two unfortunate outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God himself never actually sacrifices himself in this scenario.  He sacrifices a created thing - it's like he tore off a soiled suit, rather than actually descending into Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this scenario, God creates a human being for the sole purpose of being tortured and abandoned. At the moment of greatest pain and suffering, God abandons him.  If only the human is crying out, &quot;Father, why hast thou forsaken me!&quot; then God has turned his back on the best human ever made.  Talk about sadistic!  Would you follow that vengeful, cruel, and hateful God? I certainly wouldn't!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T04:14:32.247" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15657" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-15T21:41:15.577" Score="12" ViewCount="1641" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception that asserts Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless for her entire life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming this to be true, did Mary know that she was, in fact, sinless, while everyone else was not?  It seems that this would have been obvious.  If so, it seems should would probably have expected that God had already selected her for a special purpose.  However, she sounds surprised at the angel greets her as a &quot;favored one&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, &lt;strong&gt;favored one&lt;/strong&gt;! The Lord is with you.” 29 But &lt;strong&gt;she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.&lt;/strong&gt;  Luke 1:26-29 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, my question is, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, &lt;strong&gt;did Mary always know that she was sinless&lt;/strong&gt;?  Or did she come to know that later at some point?  If she knew she was sinless, did she realize earlier that she had been set aside for a special purpose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2021-02-15T03:18:35.177" Title="Did Mary know she was sinless, according to Roman Catholic teaching?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;immaculate-conception&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15657" CreationDate="2013-04-15T23:56:01.260" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did Mary realize that she was sinless before the Annunciation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. If I cannot remember my sins, the only reasonable conclusion is that I forgot my sins, or that I was ignorant of having sinned, not that I was without sin. The same is true of Mary. She could not have known that her life so far had been free of sin, even if she could not remember any sins. (Furthermore, the doctrine that Mary was without sin applies to Mary's entire life, including the unknown future.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it would certainly &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have been obvious that she was free of sin, and she would not have expected that God had selected her for the purpose in question. That was the very point of the greeting and the Annunciation: to inform Mary of something that she could not have known without revelation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did others realize that Mary was sinless?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is impossible for others to realize this based on a person's actions. To have never sinned is something far beyond having lived a righteous life. Many sins are internal and therefore hidden, and many actions that seem sinful might be good. Those who knew Mary would have thought very well of her, but without divine revelation they could not have considered her to be without sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why did Mary react as she did to the greeting?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The greeting was spoken by Gabriel, an angel. Clearly, it was very serious.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gabriel calls her by the name &quot;kecharitoméne&quot;, which means &quot;full of grace&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Redemptoris Mater&lt;/a&gt; 8), and not by her proper earthly name, &quot;Mary&quot;. Naming a person in this way is common even today (Smith, Baker, Sawyer...), and it was certainly common in the Bible (Abram, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob...). However, Mary is troubled by this particular name. She understands the language, so she knows what was meant. She did not ask for clarification of why she was being called by this name (as she did when the Angel revealed that she would conceive, though she was and planned to remain a virgin). Still, the name did weigh very heavily upon her.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mary had great humility. When Catholics say the Rosary with the Joyful Mysteries in mind, when the Annunciation is remembered, the prayer is &quot;for the love of humility&quot;). When a humble person is told that she is favored, she typically reacts with genuine surprise and perhaps confusion, because she has not until that point been imagining herself as favored. Most people might be very happy to be told that they are favored by &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt;, but Mary just begins to think deeply about what God's message means.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did it never occur to Mary, at any point in her life, that she was free of sin?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She could only come to have such a belief as a direct result of divinely-revealed knowledge, which may have included the revelation that she was the Mother of God (she was very much &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=t_JtmrGDLB4C&amp;amp;pg=PA129&amp;amp;dq=%22gives+meaning+to+her+actions%22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;aware of this&lt;/a&gt;). Even then, she would have been aware of such knowledge only after the Annunciation (see the first question). Furthermore, there is no Church teaching (that I have been able to find) that suggests that the thought &quot;I am sinless&quot; had occurred to Mary. She does not dwell on attempting to recall past sins, and instead seems to spend much of her time contemplating what God is telling her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-18T08:39:21.450" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T08:39:21.450" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15659" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-16T02:31:44.360" Score="4" ViewCount="456" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; as it applies to The Trinity, what do we mean by &lt;strong&gt;person&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that we say a person is &quot;a rational being&quot; or &quot;an individual substance&quot; of some sort, what attributes or qualities must the substance or being possess? Will? Intellect? Consciousness? Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when applied to the three persons of God, how do we reconcile the complexities of personhood with divine simplicity? Do we even mean the same &quot;thing&quot; in both the intra- and extra- God and contexts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T03:53:56.203" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T17:00:46.653" Title="What do we mean by person?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15659" CreationDate="2013-04-16T03:18:03.237" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In love and responsibility,Pope John Paul II wrote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A person us a good toward which through only proper and acceptable attitude is love  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and it might be blasphemy to use the same definition to describe the Trinity as a bunch of Goods.  We can describe about the Trinity is that God is a communion of Love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer the question, the Persons of the Trinity would seem possess all the perfect means of loving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T15:11:25.977" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T15:11:25.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2013-04-16T03:32:07.313" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;These parables were not meant to be simple or one dimensional. Not simple because concepts that require little effort to fathom are often undervalued and are also perhaps forgotten too easily. Not one dimensional - because Jesus had a relatively short ministry and needed to ensure his teaching covered a lot of ground. &#xA;The earlier posting (-2) provides the best insight for me, I think that there is also a sub-text in the parable  (also generally watered down in mainstream Church teaching) and that is that the 'Masters' business activities were almost certainly 'dishonest' either conceptually or practically and therefore the Manager was already culpable by simply being employed by him..... In a fallen world we frequently find ourselves working for corporate interests that are philosophically counter-intuitive to the message of Christ;for many of us, the best we can do is to ensure we steward our assets well and use our wealth to the ultimate good of the Kingdom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4344" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T03:32:07.313" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15662" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-16T05:16:25.397" Score="3" ViewCount="660" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:43-45&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 9:43b-45 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus Again Predicts His Death&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While everyone was marveling at everything he was doing, Jesus said to his disciples, &lt;sup&gt;44&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;“Listen to me and remember what I say. The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies.” &lt;sup&gt;45&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But they didn’t know what he meant. &lt;strong&gt;Its significance was hidden from them, so they couldn’t understand it&lt;/strong&gt;, and they were afraid to ask him about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was the significance &quot;actively&quot; hidden from the disciples in the sense that they were prevented from understanding, or is this a more &quot;passive&quot; sort, as in the disciples just didn't get what Jesus was saying? If the former, why was the significance of Jesus' statement obscured, and if the latter, why didn't Jesus clarify the matter? Either way, &lt;em&gt;what was the point of keeping the disciples from understanding the significance of Jesus' soon-to-be betrayal?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd most appreciate writings from the early church fathers, but exegesis is also welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2019-04-18T12:36:31.737" Title="Why was the significance of Jesus' upcoming betrayal hidden from His disciples?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15662" CreationDate="2013-04-16T13:37:13.717" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew Henry &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=42&amp;amp;c=9&amp;amp;com=mhc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;writes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This prediction of Christ's sufferings was plain enough, but the disciples would not understand it, because it agreed not with their notions. A little child is the emblem by which Christ teaches us simplicity and humility. What greater honour can any man attain to in this world, than to be received by men as a messenger of God and Christ; and to have God and Christ own themselves received and welcomed in him! If ever any society of Christians in this world, had reason to silence those not of their own communion, the twelve disciples at this time had; yet Christ warned them not to do the like again. Those may be found faithful followers of Christ, and may be accepted of him, who do not follow with us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Henry says they did not understand because &lt;em&gt;it was not what they wanted to understand&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cyril of Alexandria &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_05_sermons_47_56.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;writes&lt;/a&gt; (SERMON LIII):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In order, therefore, that they might know what certainly would happen, He bade them, so to speak, store up the mystery in their mind. &quot;For lay ye it,&quot; He says, &quot;to your hearts.&quot; In which words, the &quot;ye&quot; distinguishes them from all others. For He wished indeed that they should themselves know what would happen, but not that they should communicate it to others. For it was not right for the unlearned to be taught simply His future passion, but far better, to convince them at the same time of His having risen divinely from the grave, and abolished death, and so avoid the danger of their being offended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He says that Jesus knew that the disciples would worry and question their faith when Jesus was crucified, but so that they would not fall away, he told them exactly what would happen, that they might &lt;em&gt;store it in their minds&lt;/em&gt; until the day when they needed to understand it, and it would be revealed to them at that point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the answer is a combination of these two - that the disciples did not want to try to understand the evil that was ahead, but also that Jesus cared for them and showed it so they might not fear, but continue to trust in him while he was in the grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/03-24-02AM_WhyTheGospelWasHidden.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this sermon&lt;/a&gt; that makes an interesting argument that the disciples were not yet saved. It makes some  interesting points, but I am not sure I agree with the conclusions there, especially with some of the declarations the disciples made before this point and the faith they did have, as evidenced by the works they performed. The main points were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They did not understand the gospel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They did not understand the gospel even though they heard it preached many times. (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:30-32&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 9:30-32&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017:22-23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 17:22-23&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:21-22&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:21-22&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They did not understand the gospel because their eyes had not been opened - they had not yet received the converting work of the Holy Spirit of God. (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:24-29&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 20:24-29&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 24:31&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, there is some useful commentary there, but I would be careful because some claims are made that do not seem to be supported by Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T13:37:13.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15664" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15666" CreationDate="2013-04-16T13:46:29.710" Score="4" ViewCount="212" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2015&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 15&lt;/a&gt; is giving laws and rules relating to the treatment of the poor in communities. Verse 4 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, there will be no poor among you, since the Lord will surely bless you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But verse 11 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the solution to the apparent contradiction here? Obviously we have poor with us today, so is verse 4 based upon a condition of obedience? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T15:17:59.813" Title="What is Deuteronomy 15 saying about the poor?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15659" CreationDate="2013-04-16T14:37:39.503" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had already written an answer to the question &quot;What is a person?&quot; on my Trinity group on another Christian forum. I'm copying-and-pasting my answer there with some additions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English word &quot;person&quot; is the equivalent of the Greek word πρόσωπον (&lt;em&gt;prosōpon&lt;/em&gt;) and the Latin word &lt;em&gt;persona&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Boethius defines the Greek word πρόσωπον and its Latin equivalent &lt;em&gt;persona&lt;/em&gt; as &quot;&lt;em&gt;rationabile individuum&lt;/em&gt;,&quot; or &quot;a rational individual.&quot;[1]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the doctrine of the Trinity, we are accustomed to seeing the Greek word ὑπόστασις (&lt;em&gt;hypostasis&lt;/em&gt;) rather than πρόσωπον.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these two words are synonyms and may be used interchangeably. Boethius writes,[2]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, the Greeks called individual substances (&lt;em&gt;substantias&lt;/em&gt;) «ὑπόστασις» since they substand (&lt;em&gt;subsunt&lt;/em&gt;) the rest, and they are as if suppositums (&lt;em&gt;suppositæ&lt;/em&gt;) and subjects (&lt;em&gt;subjectæ&lt;/em&gt;) to certain accidents. Αnd for that reason we also call those substances (&lt;em&gt;substantias&lt;/em&gt;), which they [call] «ὑποστάσεις», as if [they are] suppositums (&lt;em&gt;suppositæ&lt;/em&gt;). Since they may also call those same substances (&lt;em&gt;substantias&lt;/em&gt;), «πρόσωπα», we can likewise call them &quot;persons&quot; (&lt;em&gt;personas&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;person&quot; is a rational individual. The English word &quot;rational&quot; means &quot;having or exercising reason.&quot;[3] Therefore, a &quot;person&quot; is an individual who has or exercises reason. In Greek, the English word &quot;reason&quot; would be translated as λόγος (&lt;em&gt;logos&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Boethius further defines what may be referred to as a &quot;person.&quot; He writes,[4]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now from all the definitions we have given it is clear that &quot;person&quot;  (&lt;em&gt;personam&lt;/em&gt;) cannot be affirmed of bodies which have no life (for no one ever said that a stone had a person), nor yet of living things which lack sense (for neither is there any person of a tree), nor finally of that which is bereft of mind and reason (&lt;em&gt;ratione&lt;/em&gt;) (for there is no&#xA;  person of a horse or ox or any other of the animals which dumb and unreasoning live a life of sense alone), but we say there is a person of a man, of God, of an angel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, Boethius states that only a man, an angel, or God can be referred to as a &quot;person&quot; because only these possess &quot;reason.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of &quot;divine simplicity&quot; says that God is without parts. The doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict the doctrine of divine simplicity. Consider fire. &quot;Fire&quot; is what one would consider an ousia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aristotle wrote,[5]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;οὐσία λέγεται τά τε ἁπλᾶ σώματα, οἷον γῆ καὶ πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, καὶ ὅλως&#xA;  σώματα καὶ τὰ ἐκ τούτων συνεστῶτα ζῷά τε καὶ δαιμόνια καὶ τὰ μόρια τούτων: ἅπαντα δὲ&#xA;  ταῦτα λέγεται οὐσία ὅτι οὐ καθ᾽ ὑποκειμένου λέγεται ἀλλὰ κατὰ τούτων τὰ ἄλλα.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is translated by W. D. Ross as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We call 'substance' the simple bodies, i.e. earth and fire and water and everything of the sort, and in general bodies and the things composed of them, both animals and divine beings, and the parts of these. All these are called substance because they are not predicated of a subject but everything else is predicated of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, imagine a fire burning in a particular spot. Imagine now, that a man takes a stick and places it above the fire in order to spread the fire. So, holding it above the fire, the stick now catches on fire. The original fire did not diminish in intensity. It simply spread to another source. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Justin Martyr wrote,[6]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...since he was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening &lt;strong&gt;in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;θεός, what we translate as &quot;God,&quot; is, like the word &quot;man,&quot; both a reference to &quot;substance&quot; and &quot;person.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aristotle wrote,[7]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Οὐσία δέ ἐστιν ἡ κυριώτατά τε καὶ πρώτως καὶ μάλιστα λεγομένη, ἣ μήτε καθ' ὑποκειμένου&#xA;τινὸς λέγεται μήτε ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ τινί ἐστιν, οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος ἢ ὁ τὶς ἵππος. δεύτεραι δὲ οὐσίαι λέγονται, ἐν οἷς εἴδεσιν αἱ πρώτως οὐσίαι λεγόμεναι ὑπάρχουσιν, ταῦτά τε καὶ τὰ τῶν εἰδῶν τούτων γένη οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος ἐν εἴδει μὲν ὑπάρχει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, γένος δὲ τοῦ&#xA;εἴδους ἐστὶ τὸ ζῷον δεύτεραι οὖν αὗται λέγονται οὐσίαι, οἷον ὅ τε ἄνθρωπος καὶ τὸ&#xA;ζῷον.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which W. D. Ross translates as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Substance (οὐσία), in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance, the individual man or horse. But in a secondary sense those things are called substances&#xA;  within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is included in the species 'man', and the genus to which the species belongs is 'animal'; these, therefore that is to say, the species 'man' (ἀνθρώπῳ) and the genus 'animal' (ζῷον), are termed secondary substances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John of Damascus wrote,[8]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we have often said already that essence is one thing and subsistence another, and that essence signifies the common and general form of subsistences of the same kind, such as &quot;God,&quot; &quot;man,&quot; while subsistence marks the individual, that is to say, &quot;Father,&quot; &quot;Son,&quot; &quot;Holy Spirit,&quot; or &quot;Peter,&quot; &quot;Paul.&quot; Observe, then, that the names, divinity and humanity, denote essences or natures: while the names, &quot;God&quot; and &quot;man,&quot; are applied &lt;strong&gt;both&lt;/strong&gt; in connection &lt;strong&gt;with natures&lt;/strong&gt;, as when we say that God is incomprehensible essence, and that God is one, and with reference to subsistences, that which is more specific having the name of the more general applied to it, as when the Scripture says, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee, or again, There was a certain man in the land of Uz, for it was only to Job that reference was made. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Son shares the same essence &quot;God&quot; that the Father has. There is no dimunition of nature when the Father begat His only-begotten Son, just as the strength and quality of the fire is not diminished when another object is kindled. The essence of God remains simple and undivided. The Son does not possess 1/3 of the essence, and the Father another 1/3, but each shares the full and perfect essence of God, undiminished and uncompound.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1] Boethius. &lt;em&gt;Liber De Persona Et Duabus Naturis Contra Eutychen Et Nestorium&lt;/em&gt;, Ch. III.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;em&gt;Ibid&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[3] &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational?s=t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[4] Boethius. &lt;em&gt;Liber De Persona Et Duabus Naturis Contra Eutychen Et Nestorium&lt;/em&gt;, Ch. II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[5] Aristotle. Metaphysics, 1080β.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[6] Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. LXI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[7] Aristotle. Categories, §5, 2a.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[8] John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Ch. IV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T17:00:46.653" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T17:00:46.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15664" CreationDate="2013-04-16T15:17:59.813" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Verse 5 is a continuation of 4 which ends with a comma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;, 5 if only you listen obediently to the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all this commandment which I am commanding you today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is saying if you were to do these things then you will have no poor. Verse 11 is pretty much saying that we either cannot or are will not do these things so we will always have the poor with us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4346" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T15:17:59.813" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15667" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-04-16T15:50:18.670" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T15:50:18.670" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T15:50:18.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15668" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-04-16T15:50:18.670" Score="0" Body="Used for beginner level questions that have answers which provide a good entry into a particular subject." OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-16T15:50:18.670" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T15:50:18.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15669" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15670" CreationDate="2013-04-16T17:36:41.607" Score="10" ViewCount="3164" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XIII.1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;City of God&lt;/a&gt;, Book XIII, Ch. 1, Augustine wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death.  For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die.  He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence—which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is my belief that only God is inherently immortal (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ti&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=16&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Tim. 6:16&lt;/a&gt;), being the Creator, and all else, being created, and existing by Him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&amp;amp;c=17&amp;amp;t=KJV#28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 17:28&lt;/a&gt;), is granted immortality according to His grace. Thus, angels do not die like men, for they are granted immortality. Furthermore, man's soul/ spirit, is also granted immortality according to God's grace. Hence, upon death, while man's body perishes and endures corruption, his soul/ spirit continues existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I wonder, how is it that angels who have sinned (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Pe&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Pet. 2:4&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;t=KJV#9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 12:9&lt;/a&gt;) continue to exist in an immortal state (for it is certain that Satan sinned, yet he still exists, as the biblical authors attest), yet man dies as a result of Adam's sin? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the explanation of this phenomenon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-03-03T02:22:12.303" LastActivityDate="2021-04-29T08:05:56.367" Title="Why do people die but angels do not, but both have sinned?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;&lt;immortality&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15669" CreationDate="2013-04-16T21:02:48.030" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure we can assuredly answer this without turning to non-Scripture. This is an attempt through Scripture and reason only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There certainly is reason to think that Angels enjoy immortality of some kind&lt;/strong&gt;. Throughout the thousands of years recorded in the Scriptures, prophecy included, we continuously see the same Angels doing God's work, and those also working against God. Satan is in Genesis, whom we know is Lucifer, and he is also in Revelation at the end of days when he is finally cast into the Lake of Fire. Gabriel gave God's message to Daniel and later to Mary also over 700 years later. Michael was also there doing many things. &lt;strong&gt;It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that Angels enjoy immortality, but is it of the same sense that we first think, meaning is it inherent to their character, as given by God?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although you clearly state to not hold this view, &lt;strong&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Annihilationist&lt;/a&gt; perspective&lt;/strong&gt;, in addition to claiming that there is no immortal soul, &lt;strong&gt;generally holds that immortal life for mankind is not inherent to his character, as given by God. It was actually the Tree of Life that sustained the human body through the ages (or was supposed to do so)&lt;/strong&gt;. By sustained I mean that the fruit from the Tree of Life was eaten regularly. This is supported by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 22:1-3&lt;/a&gt; where the leaves of the Tree of Life will be the healing of the nations and in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:24&lt;/a&gt; when it is clear that one of the main reasons to keep man out of the Garden was to keep him from eating of the Tree of Life. &lt;strong&gt;This alone does not necessarily contrast the view you request&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from this reasoning we might say that the angels, evil and righteous, have access to a Tree of Life of some kind. An issue, however, is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:10&lt;/a&gt; states clearly that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented forever. If torment were easily relieved by death and angels' immortality was sustained by a tree of some kind then they would merely no longer eat it and escape the torment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But for the perspective that you ask we may not be able to reason in the same way&lt;/strong&gt;. In fact, what is common among mainstream Christianity is a redefining of the word death (in Genesis) to mean separation from God, rather than bodily death. So the question then becomes why does bodily death occur for mankind and seemingly not for the Angels, despite both having sinned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The answer must be in God's redemptive plan for mankind. There appears to be no redemptive plan for the fallen angels &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; it seems that they still enjoy immortality. This is not a coincidence.&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is a God of great glory. All that he does is to His magnificent glory&lt;/strong&gt;. From our limited vantage God granting immortality to the character of part of His creation glorifies Him greatly, and He is equally glorified that He overcomes death and resurrects all the dead to Glory with Him or damnation in the Lake of Fire. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 9&lt;/a&gt; is very clear that God does all things for His glory, &quot;that [His] name might be proclaimed in all the earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is to God's glory that mankind perishes and his body withers to dust. It is to God's glory that angels, wicked and righteous, are immortal by His graciousness. It is to God's glory that the wicked angels will suffer lasting torment. And, finally, it is to God's glory that all mankind is restored to his body and given new life, new life for glory with Him or new life for destruction in the Lake of Fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are above the angels, and even all of Creation. Mankind is the pinnacle of all Creation, meant to rule over it with only God above us. God, therefore, required more from us. For our failure to obey him we received death (bodily). More than that, God required continued bodily death for our continued sins in the sacrifice. Then finally, God receives the most glory in the sacrifice and resurrection of His only begotten son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Without bodily death God could not receive the fullest glory due to Him that came from Christ's sacrifice and resurrection. Conversely, if angels also had a redemptive plan it would show that the angels and mankind are equals because Christ would not need to die twice, once for angels and once for mankind, for His sacrifice is eternally sufficient.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T14:23:52.890" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T14:23:52.890" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8943" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:27:58.213" Score="9" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Jonathan Edwards' Ontological Argument&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/files/trinity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Essay on the Trinity&quot;&lt;/a&gt; (and private notebooks and public sermons), Jonathan Edwards suggested a form of ontological argument for each of the three persons of the Trinity.  Anselm's argument starts from a definition of a hypothetical God who perfects all excellences and proceeds to show God must actually exist since existence is an excellence that God must have perfected.  Edwards argues along the same lines for each Person of the Trinity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this I suppose to be that blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures. &lt;strong&gt;The Father&lt;/strong&gt; is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. &lt;strong&gt;The Son&lt;/strong&gt; is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. &lt;strong&gt;The Holy Ghost&lt;/strong&gt; is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Father perfects existence&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edwards did not seem to make the ontological argument with respect to the Father (though it is that Person normally called simply &quot;God&quot;).  Instead, he follows Aristotle in considering the Father to be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prime mover&lt;/a&gt; or cause (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in all senses&lt;/a&gt;) of all that exists.  If you've ever played the &quot;why&quot; game with a toddler (Q: &quot;Why does the sun shine in the morning?&quot; A: &quot;Because the Earth rotates.&quot; Q: &quot;Why does the Earth rotate?&quot;, etc.), you know that the ultimate answer is always God.  (If you don't happen to believe in some prime being such as God, the ultimate answer must be &quot;Because that's the way things are.&quot;)  Even the Son, who is conceived by the Father, and the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, depend on the Father for existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Son perfects understanding&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edwards &lt;a href=&quot;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/edwards/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;assumes&lt;/a&gt; that the Father's end is to enjoy Himself and that in order to accomplish that, He must have an &quot;image&quot; or idea of Himself.  The image must be distinct from the Father; it must be the object of God's affection.  If the image is worthy of God's infinite enjoyment, it must also be perfect in representing God.  Fundamentally, the Father's imagination is so powerful that He creates the Son.  In fact, &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Proverbs+8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 8&lt;/a&gt; describes how God fathered Wisdom, which is just another way to represent the understanding of God, before the Creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is not that different from what we mean by &lt;a href=&quot;http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2137203&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;a gleam in your father's eye&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  God contemplates Himself and the Son is that image.  Unlike our imaginations, which remain safely in our minds without some sort of effort, God's understanding of Himself is made manifest.  The Son existed before He was incarnated as Jesus because God has always been delighting in Himself.  Edwards argues that a duplicity is necessary for God to be the object of His own delight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Spirit perfects action&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the Spirit is the manifestation of God's own affection for Himself. Now it must be admitted that this is certainly a strange Person.  But Edwards argues that this is &lt;em&gt;exactly&lt;/em&gt; the sort of Person we see in the Bible.  He concludes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/1+John+4/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/a&gt;, which states that God is love, that the embodiment of the love between the Father and the Son is the Spirit.  We note, in passing, that Edwards affirms the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque#Protestantism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;filioque&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; because the love, delight, honor, glory, and so on between the First and Second Persons is mutual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Edwards, these are not feelings, but actions.  The interaction between Father and Son is &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; perfect, so like God's understanding of Himself, it too is manifest as the Third Person.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/files/trinity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;essay&lt;/a&gt; notes that Paul passes on &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/%22Grace+to+you%22/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;grace, peace&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/%22Grace,+mercy%22/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mercy&lt;/a&gt; from the Father and Son, but never the Spirit.  In addition, the Father and Son express their affection for each other, but never for the Spirit.  One solution to these puzzles is to conclude that the Spirit &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; God's love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Perichoresis&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to explain why at least two Persons must exist, Edwards notes the (then) common notion that &quot;God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of Himself&quot;.  From that idea, he &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/files/trinity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;deduces&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, if God beholds Himself so as thence to have delight and joy in Himself He must become his own object. There must be a duplicity. There is God and the idea of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument is philosophical, by the way, not grammatical, as it marries the ontological argument with the conception of God's self-enjoyment.  Edwards was not the first to extrapolate that the Spirit is the action of love between the Father and the Son:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If, as is properly understood, the Father is he who kisses, the Son he who is kissed, then it cannot be wrong to see in the kiss the Holy Spirit, for he is the imperturbable peace of the Father and the Son, their unshakable bond, their undivided love, their indivisible unity.&amp;mdash;St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pathsoflove.com/bernard/songofsongs/sermon08.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sermon 8, Sermons on the Song of Songs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, these are mere illustrations of the intimacy (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis#Etymology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;perichoresis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;) that the members of the Trinity enjoy.  Going back to Paul himself, Christians have wrestled with this great mystery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonathan Edwards was the first to point out that he did not propose to make the mystery of the Trinity unmysterious.  The degree you accept that ideas perfected become &quot;real&quot; is the degree you are likely to accept this formulation.  However, it &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; insist on exactly three Persons since it requires God to be object, subject, and verb of the sentence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God delights in Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2013-10-24T21:38:56.963" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T21:38:56.963" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11356" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:37:43.427" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically, in some traditions there is a doctrine known as Lucan Inclusivism, which stems from a passage in Luke in which a parable by Jesus includes a beggar, never seen to enter the temple. For those interested, the passage is Luke 16, 19-31. The beggar would not, according to contemporary scholarship, have been allowed to enter the temple; ergo never following the traditions of Judaism for worship, but he is still &quot;carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This argument is occasionally used in some soteriological thought to claim that salvation can come without faith even to those who are not Christian, but only if the chance to accept it was never given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally don't find the evidence (in the passage it never explicitly states that the beggar failed in his faith-indeed, the practice of making assumptions on Christian soteriology off of that of Judaism is somewhat questionable) to support the claim, but I had several long discussions with my brother about it; according to him it's accepted by the Nazarenes (he's a theology student at a Nazarene school, but it is occasionally known for drifting from doctrinal imperatives in its teaching).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1406" LastActivityDate="2013-04-16T23:37:43.427" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15639" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:49:23.207" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Concupiscence differs between Catholics and Protestants primarily in the terminology and interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, to remember it, you have to know Latin. Think of &quot;con&quot; as with, cupire (or cupiere, my spelling may be bad) is the meaning of want, just think of Cupid and you'll have no problem with this, and scence is the state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So basically Concupiscence is &quot;the state of wanting sin&quot; (I've never seen the cup- verb used without some negative implications, though Cicrero's rants about Catiline probably don't do any favors to his opponent anyway), and the core difference in the theology of concupiscence revolves around original sin in most cases (or so it seems, again, Protestants vary widely, so I speak from a specific background rather than categorically for the whole). Wikipedia is really a great source of information on this debate, but to sum it up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholicism (at least at the time) teaches that the original nature of man is good.&#xA;Protestantism teaches that the original nature of man is evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Catholicism, because human nature is good, even though humans are not corrupted by sin they only fall into sin when they commit an action, rather than thinking selfishly. For Protestantism, the focus on the inherent evil in mankind means that even contemplation of actions that are selfish and self-serving, rather than Christ-centered and selfless (to a reasonable extent), is in and of itself wrong, even if the act is not committed. because it is a manifestation of the evil within the nature of a person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants believe that concupiscence can never truly be eliminated, but sanctifying grace can play a role in turning it around. Catholicism does not consider selfishness in and of itself wrong, it is the action that makes up the sin, not the thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of the reason you don't see much on concupiscence in Protestant traditions is that many Protestants consider it itself to be a sin; from my enrollment in the Nazarene church and a nondenominational Protestant church, I can tell you that at least in the more &quot;conservative&quot; groups it is definitely considered a sin, and even in some of the more mainstream ones as well (for instance, a passage is often cited where Jesus compares looking after a woman and lusting in one's heart to adultery, which is the background for the Protestant theology on the matter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1406" LastEditorUserId="1406" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T15:34:03.640" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T15:34:03.640" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15674" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15675" CreationDate="2013-04-17T01:40:17.113" Score="5" ViewCount="1100" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hear &quot;God Bless America&quot; often.  It has puzzled me for many years because it doesn't makes sense to me that God cares about man-made borders or political systems.  The only land I've heard referred to that God prefers is Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any scripture where it shows that God would care about one country more than another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, is there any scripture that indicates that God prefers one political system over another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3705" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T02:08:07.210" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T23:30:54.977" Title="Does God care about countries?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15674" CreationDate="2013-04-17T02:10:02.987" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament you will find special blessings for Israel; but even then, God did not bless only Israel. He promised Abraham that &amp;quot;in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2022:18&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 22:18&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once we look to the New Testament, we have Jesus commanding His disciples to preach His gospel throughout the world (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:18-20&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:18-20&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:15&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 16:15&lt;/a&gt;*, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:46-49&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 24:46-49&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 1:8&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul said that in Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised [the Jews] by faith and the uncircumcised [the Gentiles] through faith. (Romans 3:29-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:28-29)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not the God of America only, or the God of Israel only -- He is the God over all the world and wishes to draw every person from every nation to Himself (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16-17&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:16-17&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:32&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;12:32&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And they sang a new song, saying, &amp;quot;Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God &lt;strong&gt;from every tribe and language and people and nation&lt;/strong&gt;, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%205:9-10&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 5:9-10&lt;/a&gt;, emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* Early manuscripts do not include verses past 16:8&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T02:10:02.987" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15657" CreationDate="2013-04-17T03:06:18.573" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no specific doctrine for this, but I think it can be answered logically with the help of scripture verses and with the doctrine of Immaculate Conception which teaches that Mary was sinless and remained so always.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question whether Mary knew that she was sinless is hard to know because the question seeks the answer from the perception of person who is defined as sinless. Nevertheless it is possible to infer that &lt;strong&gt;she knew about it but possibly didn't know the specific purpose for which it was meant other than just obeying God's command to be so.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary was conceived immaculately which meant that at the time of conception she was preserved from the stains of Original Sin. As a consequence of this, the state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this gift Mary would have no inclination to sin. Being unstained with the original sin of man means that she can also perfectly choose not to sin. She had a perfect will to not sin.  A person selected by God would not choose to sin as that doesn't make sense.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Whether she knew that she was sinless:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can all look back on our own lives and think of at least one sin we committed. In view of her immaculate conception as stated above, Mary couldn't have. Therefore she must have known she was sinless. But assuming our self to be sinless as compared to others and declaring oneself as saint is in itself a sin. &lt;strong&gt;So Mary possibly was aware that she was sinless but was humble enough before the Lord and other people in not thinking herself sinless because that was for God to judge.&lt;/strong&gt; As Jesus said about two Pharisee in Luke 18:14, praying in two different way: one boasting about his righteousness and other accepting that he is a sinner.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Possibly she was not aware of the purpose of her holiness&lt;/strong&gt; and just thought it to be an obedience to God. She must have been perplexed thinking, why specially angel Gabriel has to come visiting her and declare:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 1:29 But she was greatly troubled by his words and began to wonder about the meaning of this greeting.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lord can remain only with sinless beings. She knew that she was sinless but she was thinking why God has to send His special angel to her. As she was not knowing the purpose of her sinlessness, she was surprised with this special appearance of angel Gabriel. Gabriel understood her confusion in mind and declares:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:30 So the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God! 1:31 Listen: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Mary's response was that of blind obedience:another sign of her sinlessness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T17:06:34.037" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T17:06:34.037" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8943" CreationDate="2013-04-17T03:29:14.457" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We do not know. Without Divine revelation, we &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; know. We may never understand exactly &quot;why&quot; God is a Trinity of Persons, and the question might not make sense with respect to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very fact that God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a Trinity is divinely revealed knowledge. In Catholicism (and I would guess many other denominations), it is confessed that this fact can never be known unless it is revealed. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm#237&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;From the Catechism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the &quot;mysteries that are hidden in God, which &lt;strong&gt;can never be known unless they are revealed by God&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the fact that God is a Trinity is &quot;strictly&quot; a mystery, the reason why God is a Trinity (if there is any reason) would also be a mystery that can never be known unless it is revealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question might not even be valid with respect to God. When we ask &quot;why is it like that?&quot; or &quot;why did you do that?&quot;, we are typically (in the theological context) looking for something that might make reference to the purpose of a created thing, or the purpose behind doing something or choosing to be a certain way. But God is not created (and He had no &quot;inner need&quot; to create anything). God did not at some point, for some reason, choose to become a Trinity. He is, was, and always will be a Trinity. Furthermore, He was in no way forced to be a Trinity. A reason (or the idea of being forced, or a choice, etc.) in the relevant sense implies something that preceded God, and there is, of course, nothing that preceded God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T03:29:14.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15679" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15681" CreationDate="2013-04-17T03:47:29.387" Score="4" ViewCount="16459" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does one know the difference between Lust and Love?&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For example (Hypothetically speaking, of course):&lt;br&gt;•if someone has sex &lt;strong&gt;before&lt;/strong&gt; marriage but they have true love only God knows if it's sin or not. &lt;br&gt;•if someone has sex &lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; marriage but they never loved the person just lusted the person it &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; a sin, because LUST is a sin.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;•if someone has sex &lt;strong&gt;after&lt;/strong&gt; marriage and they loved the person it is &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; a sin, because, even if there was minor lust (which of course, with hormones there always will be), Love covers a multitude of wrongs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does that &quot;someone&quot; know whether they have love or lust (in their heart)?&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;*Side-note: My main focus with this question is about the differences between lust and love, not the topic of premarital sex— that was just an example I used to help further get my point across! Thankyou!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4018" LastEditorUserId="4018" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T21:13:46.800" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T21:13:46.800" Title="What is the difference between Lust and Love in the heart?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15680" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-17T04:10:28.817" Score="14" ViewCount="1551" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm&quot;&gt;hypostatic union&lt;/a&gt; is a concise way to say that Jesus was fully God and fully Man at the same time (glossing over the details). There are a number of opinions on the precise details of this union, but I think that by and large, most would agree that the hypostatic union did not exist before Jesus was born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This raises an interesting question. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2013:8&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.&lt;/a&gt; Yet, He changed upon being born. And given that after the Resurrection, His body still had the flesh wounds, He Ascended to Heaven in that body, and is described with a body in Revelation, a reasonable assumption would be that Christ still exists in the hypostatic union and will do so for eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At first glance, it seems that an atemporal God (the Son) is joined together with a temporal body (Jesus). If this is correct, then how does the Hypostatic Union affect the temporal/atemporal nature of the Trinity? If this is incorrect, then where is my error in thinking?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources deriving from the writings of great theologians (especially in the first few centuries) would be most appreciated, but well-supported exegesis would be fine as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-21T01:21:42.273" LastActivityDate="2017-07-21T01:21:42.273" Title="How does Christ's hypostatic union affect the temporal nature of the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;&lt;time&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15679" CreationDate="2013-04-17T04:19:32.347" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer this from a doctrinal perspective requires a doctrinal perspective on love.  So we ought to turn to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians, chapter 13&lt;/a&gt;, Paul's famous homily on Charity (Christian love):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity&#xA;  vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily&#xA;  provoked, thinketh no evil;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things,&#xA;  endureth all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, the word &lt;em&gt;lust&lt;/em&gt; has a wider meaning than simply &quot;unwholesome sexual desire.&quot;  For example, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2019&quot;&gt;Mark 19&lt;/a&gt;, where Jesus explains the Parable of the Sower:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the&#xA;  word,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 &lt;strong&gt;And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and&#xA;  the lusts of other things entering in,&lt;/strong&gt; choke the word, and it becometh&#xA;  unfruitful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see &quot;lusts&quot; (plural) used here in the company of &quot;the cares of this world&quot; and being deceived (led astray) by seeking after riches.  It speaks not of unwholesome sexual desire, but of unwholesome desires in general, not too different from gluttony or covetousness.  The essence of lust is greed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast this greed with the attributes of Charity as described by Paul.  Longsuffering, kindness, an absence of envy, ostentation and flashiness.  &quot;Not easily provoked,&quot; bearing and enduring all things with faith and hope.  Distill all of these virtues down to their essence, and you get &lt;em&gt;selflessness,&lt;/em&gt; the very antithesis of greed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greed is a hunger. It consumes in order to enlarge itself.  But charity, pure Christian love, is selfless.  It builds up those around it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how can this be applied to matters of the heart?  What is the difference between real love, and lust?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lust is greed.  Lust says &quot;this person is desirable, and I desire to have them, to further my own interests through interaction with them.  I want to take pleasure from them, because it will make me feel good.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love, on the other hand, is constructive.  It says, &quot;there is good in this person, and I want to work with them, to build something together with them that is greater and more beautiful than what either of us could accomplish alone, and I would wish to put forth the effort required to see it through, even if it requires some personal sacrifice on my part.&quot;  Lust would never dream of that last bit!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T04:31:54.027" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T04:31:54.027" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15679" CreationDate="2013-04-17T04:33:20.083" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer this, we need to answer the questions of &quot;What is Love?&quot; and &quot;What is Lust?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is Love&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are given the clearest description of what love is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:4-8a&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are also given some clear pictures of love in how God loved us. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 4:19&lt;/a&gt;, it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We love, because He first loved us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 5:8&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does it mean for a man to love a woman? Well, apart from the rightful sexual intimacy that takes place between a husband and life, the love of a man and a woman is like that between any two people. Love is a continuous sacrifice, a daily &quot;laying down your life&quot; for the other person, of being not selfish, but selfless, seeking the interests of the other. Love is not predicated on the other's actions or feelings toward us, but rather, following the example of Christ, we are to love even in those times we find someone &quot;unlovable&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is Lust&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking the &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lust&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dictionary definition&lt;/a&gt;, lust is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;intense sexual desire or appetite.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a passionate or overmastering desire or craving&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:28&lt;/a&gt;, we see that lust is spoken directly to by Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And adultery is, of course, one of the things forbidden in the ten commandments. But what about the case where someone marries not for love? They are only in it because of lust? Then it becomes clear that there are other problems here. They may be idolizing sexual gratification, or they may be putting their sexual desires before the good of the other person. Is the act of having sex with your wife wrong &lt;em&gt;if you do not love her&lt;/em&gt;?  I would contend that yes, it is. The chief purpose of sex is not personal gratification. The chief purpose is to bring glory to God. John Piper in his book Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, co-authored with Justin Taylor (and available for free &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/sex-and-the-supremacy-of-christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God created human beings in his image—“male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27)—with capacities for intense sexual pleasure and with a calling to commitment in marriage and continence in singleness. And his goal in creating human beings with personhood and passion was to make sure that there would be sexual language and sexual images that would point to the promises and the pleasures of God’s relationship to his people and our relationship to him. In other words, the ultimate reason (not the only one) why we are sexual is to make God more deeply knowable. The language and imagery of sexuality are the most graphic and most powerful that the Bible uses to describe the relationship between God and his people—both positively (when we are faithful) and negatively (when we are not).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if a husband and wife's sexual relationship is not pointed them towards God, then there is a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is pretty clear in the Bible that premarital sex is fornication (a sin). Doesn't matter whether you actually &quot;love&quot; that person or not, whether you get married later, no qualifiers are given. See these questions for more on that subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/778/is-premarital-sex-porneia&quot;&gt;Is premarital sex πορνεία (porneia)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/694/what-does-the-bible-say-about-sex-before-marriage-premarital-sex&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, sex is a gift that God has given us. But it has &lt;em&gt;its proper uses&lt;/em&gt;, and anything outside those proper uses is indeed sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T04:33:20.083" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15674" CreationDate="2013-04-17T05:38:52.130" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an excellent question! There are many interesting responses. Of course, I am biased in my perception that the answer is (mostly) no. The one exception is the covenant with Israel, though there is some questioning about whether Israel and the Jewish people are still heirs to the covenant. My personal answer is yes, but not simply yes- the covenant has not ended, but Israel has, through rejecting Christ, fallen, but can be (and hopefully will be) restored to the Father. (See Romans 11, though any translation that states that the Jews are the enemy of God in verse 28 needs to re-read the original Greek) The failure to fulfill the covenant, which God cannot abandon, has caused God to redeem the Gentiles first, in order that the Jews may become jealous and return to salvation through Christ, according to Paul (Romans 11:11-12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stanley Hauerwas's &lt;em&gt;Unleashing the Scripture&lt;/em&gt; is useful in examining the cultural interpretation of the Bible to support American ideals. A link to the Amazon page can be found below. It's a bit difficult, and draws upon and references a lot of modern theology, so it may be a bit inaccessible, but if you're willing to take some time to read and research, it can be quite helpful, and you can snag it pretty cheap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0687316782&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Unleashing-Scripture-Freeing-Captivity-America/dp/0687316782/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4351" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T05:38:52.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1119" CreationDate="2013-04-17T05:51:10.493" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;To contribute to the exceptional answers already here with a bit of additional information, the source material referred to as Q (or Q source, or Q Gospel, name from the German Quelle) is held in common between both Matthew and Luke, in addition to the common material from Mark, which is presumed to be written first. That said, there is debate on the nature and even the existence of the Q source, being theology. A good article about Q source can be found in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, though this may be difficult to access for those without academic theological libraries nearby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for the term synoptics is that they can be viewed together to gain parallel understanding of the three Gospels. John, however, is not considered synoptic because it has many different events (whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke have the same basic events with some additional or missing events based upon source materials) and different structure and order. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important caution in regards to the synoptics is not to proof text synoptic parallels. It is common for passages to be matched up in synoptic parallels based upon similar general meanings when translated, which may be accurate, or may not be, based upon the original context of the passage. The heretical Gospel of Thomas (deemed as a Gnostic text that promoted a secret knowledge of Christ) is found at many points to have parallels with the synoptics also, though itself nothing like the other Gospels in structure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4351" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T05:51:10.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15685" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-17T06:12:38.240" Score="8" ViewCount="225" Body="&lt;p&gt;Coming from a Nazarene tradition, influenced by Wesley and the Holiness Movement, my reflections upon sin are based upon the Nazarene manual's definitions (See 5.1,5.3) summarized as &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5.1. Original sin, a hereditary sin descended from Adam&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5.3. Actual (personal) sin, committed knowingly by a responsible individual. Exclusions are made for involuntary failings, excepting when contradicting the spirit of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would be interested in knowing how this relates to other traditions, especially the Calvinist tradition. Does election in the Calvinist tradition have impacts upon the doctrine of sin? Are these concepts of sin standard (that is, agreed upon by most denominations?) within the Christian community at large? Perhaps this is a matter where both traditions agree, but I'm afraid I don't have many Calvinist sounding boards in my immediate vicinity, so I've had a hard time figuring out the distinctions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4351" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T10:35:30.153" Title="What are the differences between hamartiology from a Nazarene to a Calvinist perspective?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2013-04-17T06:43:08.700" Score="0" Body="&lt;h2&gt;What about Quantum Mechanics?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quantum Mechanics opens the door for miracles. There is a concept of &lt;strong&gt;quantum fluctuations&lt;/strong&gt; where particles can appear out of nowhere temporarily or the amount of energy can change in a point in space. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Quantum fluctuation (Wikipedia).&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not understand this process but indeed on the quantum level the particles can appear and disappear with given probability. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like @Daniel's answer that Jesus follows the rules of physical world and acts on the mattern according to Quantum Mechanics. In the physical sense it means he is able to manipulate the energy which in turn is possible only for the Creator of the matter and energy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4314" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-09-24T13:32:23.470" LastActivityDate="2016-09-24T13:32:23.470" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15687" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-17T07:26:23.187" Score="7" ViewCount="625" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:49-50&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 9:49-50 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;49&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;John said to Jesus, “Master, we saw &lt;strong&gt;someone&lt;/strong&gt; using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because &lt;strong&gt;he isn’t in our group&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;50&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;But Jesus said, “Don’t stop him! Anyone who is not against you is for you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm seeking traditions (early church/Roman Catholic/Orthodox) that answer questions such as (but not necessarily including):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is this guy's name?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who is he in general?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How and why did he start using Jesus' name to drive out demons?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why isn't he one of Jesus' disciples?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I know that some of these questions may not be answered in any ancient tradition, but I mainly just want to know: &lt;strong&gt;what are the traditions related to this non-disciple who casts out demons in Jesus' name?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2014-01-01T18:22:29.100" Title="Are there any traditions regarding the non-disciple casting out demons in Jesus' name?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15685" CreationDate="2013-04-17T10:35:30.153" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the doctrines or original sin and justification by faith Wesleyan and Calvinism seem to run a course along the same stream. Wesley's view of original sin is made clear with few words in a sermon entitled '&lt;a href=&quot;http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-44-original-sin/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SERMON 44﻿ ORIGINAL SIN&lt;/a&gt;'.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This sermon on its own clearly shows that Wesley taught the same doctrine as the Protestant reformers, including Luther and Calvin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wesley uses the time of the flood as a way to trace 'the nature of man' and then concludes this is a description of humanity at all times, not just then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fixing on the phrase '﻿God saw all the of the thoughts of his heart', Wesley explains that this means &lt;em&gt;total depravity&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He “﻿saw all the imaginations:﻿” It is not possible to find a word of a more extensive signification. It includes whatever is formed, made, fabricated within; all that is or passes in the soul; every inclination,affection, passion, appetite; every temper, design, thought....Now God saw that all this, the whole thereof, was evil; — contrary to moral rectitude;contrary to the nature of God, which necessarily includes all good&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he asked a question many using their own instincts might ask. 'But was there not good mingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with the darkness?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He answers plainly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No; none at all: “﻿God saw that the whole imagination of the heart of man was only evil.﻿”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then using a similar reasonable protest he asks, “﻿Was there no intermission of this evil? Were there no lucid intervals, wherein something good might be found in the heart of man?﻿'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wesley again says no, insisting human nature is totally depraved &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God, who “﻿saw the whole imagination of the thoughts of his heart to be only evil,﻿” saw likewise, that it was always the same, that it “﻿was only evil continually;﻿” every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally he goes on to show that this is the description of man in every generation.  &lt;strong&gt;Wesley followed the early Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin in asserting human nature in all generations is only fully evil continually, i.,e 'the total depravity of man.'&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T10:35:30.153" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15689" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15701" CreationDate="2013-04-17T13:15:50.390" Score="18" ViewCount="5374" Body="&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, even after marrying Joseph.  It would seem that Joseph and Mary, at their betrothal, had likely expected to have, and anticipated having marital relations with each other in marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, according to Roman Catholic teaching, when and how did Mary and Joseph learn that marital relations would be denied them?  Did they just never desire that, or did they specifically have to battle the temptation?  It admittedly seems strange to me that this would be withheld from them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it even right to say they were not supposed to have marital relations?  Or should it be said that they never even desired that?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2019-12-07T05:14:09.027" Title="When did Mary and Joseph learn that they were never supposed to have marital relations, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14256" CreationDate="2013-04-17T14:00:16.340" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jumping off a bit from fredsbend's answer ... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1377&lt;/sup&gt; The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the&#xA;  consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consecration, in general, is a sort of declaration of an objects use for a purpose. In this case, it's the super-significant declaration of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. This declaration, as confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia, occurs when the priest says &lt;em&gt;This is my body&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;This is my blood&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When we speak of consecration without any special qualification&lt;/strong&gt;, we&#xA;  ordinarily understand it as the act by which, in the celebration of&#xA;  Holy Mass, &lt;strong&gt;the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of&#xA;  Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the&#xA;  Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the&#xA;  entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the&#xA;  entire substance of wine is changed into His blood, the species or&#xA;  outward semblance of bread and wine alone remaining. &lt;strong&gt;This change is&#xA;  produced in virtue of the words: &lt;em&gt;This is my body and This is my blood&lt;/em&gt;,&#xA;  or &lt;em&gt;This is the chalice of my blood&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, pronounced by the priest assuming&#xA;  the person of Christ and using the same ceremonies that Christ used at&#xA;  the Last Supper. That this is the essential form has been the constant&#xA;  belief and teaching of both the Eastern and Western Churches&#xA;  (Renaudot, &quot;Liturgiarum Orientalium Collection&quot;, I, i). (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia - Consecration&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any resources that pinpoint an exact moment at which transubstantiation occurs. But, given the nature of consecration in general, it's logical to assume that &lt;em&gt;the moment of change&lt;/em&gt; occurs at the end of each meaningful declaration. Portions of the sentence (&lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;this is&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;this is my&lt;/em&gt;) aren't complete declarations. Only, &lt;em&gt;This is my body&lt;/em&gt; is a complete declaration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, taking the longer form for the blood, I would posit that the &lt;em&gt;reality&lt;/em&gt; (not the &lt;em&gt;substance&lt;/em&gt;) of the liquid inside changes slightly with each successive declaration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take this, all of you, and drink from it;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, even before any change, &quot;all&quot; are commanded to drink from the cup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;this is the cup of my blood,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The liquid inside the cup is now and instantaneously Jesus Christ's real blood, fully and wholly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The significance the blood in cup is now that of the Eucharistic covenant. Before, it was &quot;just&quot; Jesus' blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not 100% sure of a reality change here, other than in the mind. But, perhaps the blood in the cup is now transcendently linked to every other Eucharistic celebration and consumed &lt;em&gt;for the forgiveness of sins&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take this with a grain of salt though. I'm not a canon lawyer. But, I think this interpretation is consistent with the Church's teaching that the change is produced by the virtue of the priest's words acting &lt;em&gt;en persona Christi&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-04-18T15:39:38.577" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T15:39:38.577" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15674" CreationDate="2013-04-17T15:04:39.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it is believed that God's mother patronizes Russia (the blue color of Russian flag is due to this fact). St. George patronizes Moscow (that's why he is on the Moscow's flag). He also patronized country of Georgia (they believe). St. Andrew patronizes Russian fleet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T15:04:39.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1378" CreationDate="2013-04-17T16:10:34.577" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe Adam and a woman were created innocent, but not perfect in the sense in which the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect! The Bible says that &quot;first man became a living being&quot; but Christ is the &quot;life-giving&quot; spirit. Christ is the source of life,  the creator. They were created beings and as such not equal to God, they were not the exact reflection of God as Jesus was, they were not born of God. Jesus was the only begotten son of God! and only that which is born from above is able to stay away from sinning! They were not capable of staying innocent because it was God's plan for the perfection to be achieved only in Christ! It was God's plan for everything earthly to die as a seed and after that to come a heavenly one (&quot;first man is earthly, second is from above&quot;). I don't know exactly why God determined such a plan and process, but it has to do with His ways and character.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Also, James says that &quot;lust produces sin&quot; and Paul says that &quot;we become slaves to the one we listen to&quot;. What did Eve have if not LUST when she first desired a fruit from the forbidden tree? And why did she listen and believe the serpent if not because of something imperfect, incomplete about her ? It is plane to me that there was a natural weakness, or natural inclination to sin in them already.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;She and Adam were not born from above, so they were not able to fulfill God's commands! They simply had to slip soon or later, as we all do in our natural, earthly beings. This is not to say that God had some mean motives and that I blame Him, no,no,no but His plan, like it or not, includes the fall. But thanks be to God who provided a remedy from the beginning!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4352" LastEditorUserId="3913" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T19:43:01.147" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T19:43:01.147" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15628" CreationDate="2013-04-17T18:37:19.987" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biblical basis is repeated like a refrain throughout the first chapter of Genesis (Douay-Rheims translation, my emphases):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[10] And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. &lt;strong&gt;And God saw that it was good.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  ...&#xA;  [12] And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. &lt;strong&gt;And God saw that it was good.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  ...&#xA;  [17] And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. [18] And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. &lt;strong&gt;And God saw that it was good.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  ...&#xA;  [21] And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. &lt;strong&gt;And God saw that it was good.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  ...&#xA;  [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.&#xA;  ...&#xA;  [31] &lt;strong&gt;And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bear with me here as I attempt to elucidate the Catholic understanding of the significance of this refrain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Some preliminaries from St. Thomas Aquinas&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to notice that Genesis does not say &quot;God &lt;em&gt;said&lt;/em&gt; it was good&quot;, but that he &lt;em&gt;saw&lt;/em&gt; this: Of course all goodness ultimately derives from God but the goodness in things is nonetheless &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;intrinsic&lt;/em&gt; to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact St. Thomas Aquinas argues at the outset of the Summa, following St. Augustine, that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm#article1&quot;&gt;goodness and being are convertible&lt;/a&gt; -- insofar as a thing &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;, it is good&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, the being and goodness of everything derives from God -- indeed God continues at all times and in all places to be the fundamental, active cause of the existence, and therefore also the goodness, of all that is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We will return to this momentarily. First, though, we should also recall that according to St. Thomas, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2018.htm#article9&quot;&gt;all deliberate acts are &quot;moral&quot; acts&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How Aquinas deals with the question directly&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With these preliminaries on the table, we can look at St. Thomas's direct answer to the question: Summa Theologiae I-II question 109 article 2 is entitled &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2109.htm#article2&quot;&gt;Whether man can wish or do any good without grace?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;His answer is a heavily qualified &lt;em&gt;yes&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; Man &lt;i&gt;always&lt;/i&gt; needs God's help to do &lt;i&gt;anything&lt;/i&gt; good (see above), but the divine help that is needed for a created thing to reach its natural end is not properly called &lt;em&gt;grace&lt;/em&gt;, it's simply God's action as the First Mover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in his fallen state man retains some natural powers&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; and can, at least to some extent, deliberately employ those powers toward natural ends (i.e., &quot;goods&quot;) without the help of grace. Therefore, given what we said above about all deliberate actions being moral actions, it does seem possible for even a fallen man to do something that is truly morally good without the help of grace, properly so-called.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless there is still a kind of divine help at work in these actions. All other natural operations (the motion of the earth, the action of gravity, etc. etc.) also require this divine help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again this divine help that is at work in all natural operations is not properly called &quot;grace&quot; in the system of Aquinas -- grace, rather, is the help that God provides in order to move man to wish and do &quot;supernatural good.&quot; Grace is always necessary in order for man to achieve supernatural goods&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;, even in the pre-fallen state. And in the fallen state grace is also &lt;em&gt;to some extent&lt;/em&gt; necessary for man to wish and do even what is natural&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize the Thomistic understanding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; When is GRACE, properly speaking, needed?&#xA;&#xA;                 to do natural good | to do supernatural good&#xA;                ---------------------------------------------&#xA; pre-fallen man |  never            |    always&#xA;                ---------------------------------------------&#xA; fallen man     |  sometimes        |    always&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA; When is DIVINE HELP needed?&#xA;&#xA;                 to do natural good | to do supernatural good&#xA;                ---------------------------------------------&#xA; pre-fallen man |  always           |    always&#xA;                ---------------------------------------------&#xA; fallen man     |  always           |    always&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to say that man, even in his fallen state, requires grace to do &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; good would be, for Aquinas, simply to confuse the meaning of the term &quot;grace&quot;. It would follow from such a proposition that the earth revolves around the sun &quot;by the grace of God&quot;, which has a poetic resonance to it, and is certainly true given a sufficiently broad definition of &quot;grace&quot;. But that would be much broader than Aquinas's definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why I quoted Genesis at the beginning, and why any of this matters (a speculative beginning)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might be tempting to write a lot of this off as semantics -- to say that Aquinas simply has an idiosyncratically narrow definition of grace, and move on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet the Council of Trent addressed a similar question in a dogmatic definition -- Session 6 &lt;em&gt;On Justification&lt;/em&gt;, Canon 7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the Catholic bishops assembled in Council in the late 16th century obviously thought the question was pretty significant. I should note that the canon above could be read as addressing a slightly and subtly different question than that of the OP, but I think the same basic principles are in play.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case I suspect the key to understanding the significance of this all is &lt;em&gt;nominalism&lt;/em&gt;, an idea pioneered by William of Ockham and others at roughly the same time that St. Thomas Aquinas was doing quite different work. I know only a little about nominalism but according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6802&quot;&gt;this essay by an orthodox Catholic apologist&lt;/a&gt;, it is fundamental to early Reformed thinking, in particular the concept of Total Depravity, and is probably very much at odds with some of the key principles outlined above. Unfortunately the connections are more stated than argued in that essay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do have the sense, though, that the philosophical nominalist will not be comfortable reading Genesis chapter 1 in the way that Aquinas would have read it -- i.e., that the goodness of created things is &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;intrinsic&lt;/em&gt;, and in reality no different from their very existence. And thus while there may be other ways to reach the proposition above that was condemned by the Council of Trent, nominalism is almost certainly one of the surest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;ST&lt;/em&gt; I Q. 5 Art. 2: &lt;em&gt;manifestum est quod intantum est aliquid bonum, inquantum est ens&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;ST&lt;/em&gt; I-II Q. 18 Art. 9: &lt;em&gt;necesse est omnem actum hominis a deliberativa ratione procedentem, in individuo consideratum, bonum esse vel malum.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;natura humana per peccatum non est totaliter corrupta&lt;/em&gt;. For the argument see &lt;em&gt;ST&lt;/em&gt; I-II Q. 85 Art. 2, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2085.htm#article2&quot;&gt;Whether the entire good of human nature can be destroyed by sin?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Man needs faith, hope, and charity, which are not among his natural powers, in order to desire and achieve the supernatural happiness described in 2 Peter 1:4. See &lt;em&gt;ST&lt;/em&gt; I-II Question 62, in particular article 1, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2062.htm#article1&quot;&gt;Whether there are any theological virtues?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; This suggests a separate question to me, along the lines of &quot;When is grace necessary, and when is it not, for fallen man to wish and do natural good?&quot;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-04-17T20:39:52.170" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T20:39:52.170" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15696" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2013-04-17T20:24:25.797" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, note that the &quot;laws of nature&quot; are not actually laws; they do not cause anything and they are not binding on anything. They are descriptions of the normal order. The &quot;Law of Gravity&quot; has never caused anything to happen -- it merely describes what we observe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We always describe laws in terms of a closed system. If you add a new input, our expected results change. To use C.S. Lewis's argument, let's say I put $10 in a drawer this morning and another $10 in tonight. Tomorrow, if I open the drawer and find $5 I don't claim the laws of arithmetic have been broken; I say somebody has stuck his hand in the drawer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, if God chooses to add a new input into our physical universe (sticks His hand into the drawer), the observed events will differ from our expectations (provided we do not know of this input). The virgin birth is not the miracle; the miracle is in the conception, then the normal order takes over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T20:24:25.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2013-04-17T21:41:10.500" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mosses was not punished for striking the rock instead of speaking to it. His sin is much larger than that.. His sin is that of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Numbers 20:10 Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together&#xA;  before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels: &lt;strong&gt;shall&#xA;  we&lt;/strong&gt; bring water for you out of this rock?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses is acting as if He and Aron are the responsible party for the miracles rather than acknowledging God as the cause. They are taking the credit when the credit belongs to God. Shall we bring you water from this rock yet again????  Rather than shall we bother God for water yet again? This is blasphemy. Now blasphemy is not forgiven so this sin of Moses may hold him out of the kingdom of God. Yet perhaps Moses pays for this sin by not being allowed into the promised land. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also why Jesus never claims that anything he does to be of himself. He acknowledges that nothing he does is of himself. He says the power is not his. Instead Jesus points to the Holy Spirit as the Active reason for all that he says and all that he had done. He claims that the Spirit is within him. He says the Father, as we know that to be the Holy Spirit, is with him and had not left him. He does what the Father shows him and says as the Father directs. It is establishing that He unlike Moses does things exactly as God instructs him to do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4354" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T21:41:10.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15698" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15706" CreationDate="2013-04-17T21:48:17.327" Score="3" ViewCount="3655" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does it mean when Christians say that God is a person? (Representative example &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6702/do-miracles-violate-the-laws-of-physics#comment17892_6702&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.) Does this mean that Christians believe that God is human?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experience is with Judaism (in Judaism, God is not referred to as a person).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4325" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T19:16:13.323" Title="What does it mean for God to be a person?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15698" CreationDate="2013-04-17T22:08:40.017" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;That God is referred to as a Person is, first, in contrast to the idea of some that the universe was created by some impersonal force--a force that has no personal being, but just some kind of cosmic energy.  Such a creative force would have created something greater than itself--beings with Personhood--so this is not reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that God is a Person refers to the how He Himself describes Himself in His Word as well.  God feels, loves, and relates to His creation.  As A.W. Tozer wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is a Person, and in the deep of His mighty nature He thinks, wills, enjoys, feels, loves, desires and suffers as any other person may.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God were not a Person, He could not love, as that is something only a Person can do.  The doctrine of the Trinity is interesting in this aspect, because God reveals one of His attributes is love.  However, if it is an attribute (and not a behavior) of God, it has to exist apart from anything else.  As the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father; the Father loves the Spirit, etc.  Thus, only as a Trinity can God be love from all eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is meant is that God is the source for the personal attributes that we as His creatures share in--that of loving, feeling, knowing, etc.  In this we bear the image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-17T22:08:40.017" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15700" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15703" CreationDate="2013-04-17T23:24:38.373" Score="6" ViewCount="306" Body="&lt;p&gt;Suppose a person is learning about the teachings of the Catholicism, and dies before that person has reached a conclusion whether he or she would like to join the Church. According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, what would happen to this person in terms of salvation? Now suppose that person leans toward accepting Catholicism, what would happen instead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4167" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T03:11:20.143" Title="According to the Catholic Church, what happens to a person who is in the process of learning about Catholicism, if that person dies?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15689" CreationDate="2013-04-18T03:00:43.087" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;For many the miracle of the Virgin Birth is one thing, but lifelong abstinence from sexuality is impossible to accept. The lives of monastics and ascetics around the world and throughout history attest to the fact that it is possible. Sexual purity is only one of many challenges set for these spiritual warriors, and for many, perhaps most of them, it is not the greatest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mary’s Vow of virginity was before the Annunciation:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two important facts are depicted in this verse. First, already at this moment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mary is a virgin &lt;em&gt;betrothed&lt;/em&gt; to Joseph, meaning that she is at the first stage of Jewish marriage. She is truly married to Joseph but not yet living with him, for she has not arrived at the second stage of marriage known as the &quot;coming together,&quot; when husband and wife typically would begin to live in the same house and consummate the marriage.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second, Mary has been told by Gabriel that at some time in the future she will bear a son who will be the royal Son of David, the Messiah-King. Notice the future tense: &quot;You &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; conceive in your womb and bear a son&quot; (Lk. 1:31, emphasis added). So far, Gabriel gives no indication that the conception will take place right now or in the immediate future. In fact, the timetable is quite open-ended. Without giving any time specification, the angel simply informs Mary that she will conceive this child at some time in the future. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this light, Mary’s question seems rather peculiar: ... If Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph in the near future, the answer to her question should be obvious. While she does not right now have the power to conceive a child (since she doesn’t yet &quot;know&quot; man sexually), if Mary intends to know Joseph after the coming together, then she evidently will be able to have a child at that point. Therefore, if Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph, her question ... simply does not make sense. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cuf.org/2007/05/knowing-mary-through-the-bible-marys-question-a-vow/&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view has been held by theologians such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure and even Martin Luther.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther also wrote on February 2, 1546 that Mary was &quot;a virgin before the conception and birth, she remained a virgin also at the birth and after it.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Calvin also upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who wrote:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zwingly wrote in January of 1528: &quot;I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize Mary as ever virgin and holy.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason for the belief that Mary was virgin after the birth of Jesus:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope St. Siricius said that God the Father reserved the womb of the Blessed Mother solely for his only-begotten Son. St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas assigned a spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 44:2:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.&quot; (Ezekiel 44:2).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is the gate, and Jesus was the only one to enter it. This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin. The place where the saviour of this world was nourished was not to be used by any one else.:-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.in/2011/12/biblical-proof-that-mary-and-joseph.html&quot;&gt;Base source&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx&quot;&gt;Further reading here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9174&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To say that they had sexual relation after birth of Jesus, Son of God, is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible...: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. ... Mary became the vessel for the Lord of Glory Himself, and bore in the flesh Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Then Why Would Mary Marry?:&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A variety of accounts have been offered:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Perhaps since remaining a single woman was not as socially feasible in the ancient world of Judaism as it is today, marriage would have provided economic stability and social protection for Mary. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&#xA;  Perhaps the marriage was arranged.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&#xA;  Perhaps marriage would free Mary from other men seeking her hand in marriage and thus protect her vow.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&#xA;  Perhaps God led Mary to marriage because in His providence, He wanted to protect her reputation for the future when she would conceive by the Holy Spirit. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cuf.org/2007/05/knowing-mary-through-the-bible-marys-question-a-vow/&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Paul II wrote the following in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2BVM30.HTM&quot;&gt;1996 papal document&lt;/a&gt;:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We can wonder why she would accept betrothal, since she had the intention of remaining a virgin forever . . . It may be presumed that at the time of their betrothal there was an understanding between Joseph and Mary about the plan to live as a virgin. Moreover, the Holy Spirit, who had inspired Mary to choose virginity in view of the mystery of the Incarnation and who wanted the latter to come about in a family setting suited to the child’s growth, was quite able to instill in Joseph the ideal of virginity as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Mary had told Joseph of her vow of virginity (as surely she must have), then we are led to conclude that, since Joseph agreed to marry her, he too must have made a vow of perpetual continence (i.e. to refrain from all sexual relations even within marriage).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Surely his wife's miraculous conception and birthgiving (confirmed by the angel in dream-visions) and the sight of God incarnate in the face of the child Christ would have been enough to convince him that his marriage was set apart from the norm. Within Mary's very body had dwelt the second Person of the Trinity. If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life, and if even the scrolls containing the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were venerated, certainly Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his &quot;conjugal rights&quot;!  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9174&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-18T17:26:10.787" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T17:26:10.787" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15702" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-18T03:01:53.697" Score="1" ViewCount="936" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do we know that the book of Enoch was translated correctly, are any of the original writings still intact? Or were the supposed &quot;originals&quot; found already translated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask this because some valuable words can be &quot;lost in translation&quot; such as the commandment &quot;Thou shall not kill&quot; or &quot;Thou shall not murder&quot;, which can and has been interpreted differently throughout history. Another example would be some Christians believing in &quot;Hell&quot;, and others believing in the &quot;abyss&quot;, and again others believing that the two are separate, one being a place of holding and the other following eternal damnation by god's judgement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4355" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-15T05:23:26.377" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T05:23:26.377" Title="What evidence do we have that the book of Enoch was translated correctly?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;book-of-enoch&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15700" CreationDate="2013-04-18T03:11:20.143" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catechism of The Catholic Church has direct Answer for your question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament (CCC 1259).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such a baptism is called &lt;strong&gt;Baptism of desire&lt;/strong&gt;. But for this to be valid, their conversion should be accompanied by &lt;em&gt;internal act of perfect love and contrition&lt;/em&gt; by which their soul is cleansed of all sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also to be noted that the ordinary magisterium of the Church has openly taught the three-fold Baptism (water, desire and blood) since the earliest days of the Church, and never has this teaching ever been condemned by the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T03:11:20.143" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14256" CreationDate="2013-04-18T03:54:51.497" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Exactly when during the Mass does transubstantiation occur?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It occurs when a priest, &lt;em&gt;in persona Christi&lt;/em&gt; (in the person of Christ), says the Words of Institution.&lt;/strong&gt; Even though the complete words of institution are necessary, the common view of theologians is that the eight words, &quot;this is my body&quot; and &quot;this is my blood&quot;, are on their own the &lt;em&gt;necessary and sufficient&lt;/em&gt; &quot;sacramental form&quot; of the Eucharist. Saint John Chrysostom (D.O.C.) says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Saying, 'This is my body', once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ's coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Catholic Church believes that transubstantiation occurs by the Words of Institution, exactly when the priest, in the person of Christ, utters the words &quot;this is my body/blood&quot;. (It is also to be noted that the Catholic Church has explicitly recognized the validity of the &lt;em&gt;Mass Liturgy of Addai and Mari&lt;/em&gt; in its original form, &lt;em&gt;without explicit mention of the Words of Institution&lt;/em&gt;, saying that the words of Eucharistic Institution are implicitly present.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Would this change if a priest were to consecrate outside of the Eucharistic Prayer?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/__P39.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canon Law 927&lt;/a&gt;, it is &lt;strong&gt;explicitly forbidden for a priest to consecrate outside of the Eucharistic celebration&lt;/strong&gt;. This means that it is possible that transubstantiation would occur, but it would be a grave sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Why does the Church teach that it occurs at that moment?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply because it is known through tradition. That's what the apostles taught and that's what the Catholic Church believes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Points to note:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The change of transubstantiation is instantaneous.&lt;/strong&gt; It is not gradual. That is, the presence of Christ do not come to being from 0% and slowly through 100% during the words of institution. more on this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; in The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In transubstantiation, each alone is changed into body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. That is, &lt;strong&gt;the bread alone is changed fully into both body and blood. Similarly the wine alone is changed into the body and blood of Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. The bread is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; changed into body alone and wine into blood alone. (See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch13.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trent, Sess. 13 c. 3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica Q76.2&lt;/a&gt;, and the articles &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Real Presence&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Communion under Both Kinds&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;What happens if the priest faints after consecration of bread?&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm#article6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica Q.78.6&lt;/a&gt; answers the question saying, at that point the species of bread alone is Christ and wine remains wine. Moreover, this opinion is assured in the rite of the Church, which adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered and before the wine is consecrated.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-18T19:39:14.990" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T19:39:14.990" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15689" CreationDate="2013-04-18T06:44:02.713" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mary, by her own free will, took a vow of virginity, and she understood that this meant that she was never supposed to have marital relations. Joseph knew when he was informed of Mary's vow. Both came to understand that marriage was their vocation, and became betrothed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This knowledge has come down through tradition and Scripture. The following point is worth making:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As to Mary, St. Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the birth of Jesus Christ: &quot;how shall this be done, because I know not man&quot;. These words can hardly be understood, unless we assume that Mary had made a &lt;strong&gt;vow of virginity&lt;/strong&gt;; for, when she spoke them, she was betrothed to St. Joseph.&#xA;  &lt;sub&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such a vow would have served the religious purpose of bringing the one making it closer to God. Indeed, of all people, Mary was and is closest to Jesus. She was first to know of His Incarnation, He was born of her, raised by her; her soul was pierced (Luke 2:34-35) with grief at His passion and death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One might ask &lt;strong&gt;why Mary consented to her betrothal&lt;/strong&gt;, though she was bound by her vow of virginity. As she had obeyed God's inspiration in making her vow, so she obeyed God's inspiration in becoming the affianced bride of Joseph. Besides, it would have been singular among the Jews to refuse betrothal or marriage; for all the Jewish maidens aspired after marriage as the accomplishment of a natural duty. &lt;strong&gt;Mary trusted the Divine guidance&lt;/strong&gt; implicitly, and thus was certain that her vow would be kept even in her married state. &lt;sub&gt;(ibid)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope John Paul II writes that Mary and Joseph would have understood Mary's intention at the time they were betrothed. On the difficulty of understanding Mary's inner motivations for accepting, he writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We can wonder why she would accept betrothal, since she had the intention of remaining a virgin forever. Luke is aware of this difficulty, but merely notes the situation without offering any explanation. The fact that the Evangelist, while stressing Mary's intention of virginity, also presents her as Joseph's spouse, is a sign of the &lt;strong&gt;historical reliability&lt;/strong&gt; of the two pieces of information. &lt;sub&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2BVM30.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some seem to object to the idea that two persons could be married if marital relations were, by the consent and duty of both persons, out of the question. I have been unable to find any basis in tradition or Scripture for this view that such a marriage would be forbidden or even undesirable. God chose a couple in a certain especially pious and provably obedient state of marriage. This makes perfect sense to me and to Catholics in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the other part of the question, it invites those answering to speculate on temptations and desires, which by their very nature are private. Their marriage was pure, Mary was without sin, and Joseph was her most chaste spouse. What more can be said, and what more needs to be said?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary and Joseph were brought together by God's will, and became the mother and the foster-father of Jesus Christ. Both were aware of Mary's vow of virginity, and of what that vow meant for their marriage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="3941" LastEditDate="2013-04-18T18:41:03.903" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T18:41:03.903" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15698" CreationDate="2013-04-18T07:09:17.317" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we are strict with our terminology, God is not a person. God is an infinitely-perfect &lt;strong&gt;being&lt;/strong&gt;. But God is a &lt;strong&gt;personal&lt;/strong&gt; being:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When we say that God is a personal being we mean that &lt;strong&gt;He is intelligent and free and distinct from the created universe&lt;/strong&gt;. Personality as such expresses perfection, and if human personality as such connotes imperfection, it must be remembered that, as in the case of similar predicates, this connotation is excluded when we attribute personality to God. It is principally by way of opposition to Pantheism that Divine personality is emphasized by the Theistic philosopher. &lt;sub&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#ID&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your concern, however, is valid:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature — more especially a magnified man — and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we refer to God as a person, we mean that He is personal, not that He is a magnified human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When speaking of God, we usually try to reserve the term &quot;Person&quot; to one of the three Divine Persons of the Trinity. There is one God, who is a Trinity of three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son is Jesus Christ, who is true God and true man. When speaking of Jesus being a person, we say that He is a Divine Person, not a human Person, and we say that He is God, in perfect unity with the Father and the Holy Sprit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-04-18T07:09:17.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15707" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15720" CreationDate="2013-04-18T12:13:08.017" Score="5" ViewCount="185" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the answers to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15689/when-did-mary-and-joseph-learn-that-they-were-never-supposed-to-have-marital-rel&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; it is asserted that Mary had taken a vow of celibacy prior to her betrothal to Joseph.  Thus, Joseph already knew that he and Mary would never have marital relations prior to the Annunciation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have never heard this before, so I am wondering when this teaching originated and how close that was to the birth of Christ.  Also, were vows of celibacy inside marriage recorded as being practiced at any time in Jewish history?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T05:09:45.063" Title="What is the origin and basis for the Catholic teaching regarding Mary's vow of celibacy prior to her betrothal?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;celibacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15709" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15711" CreationDate="2013-04-18T20:02:52.183" Score="6" ViewCount="1585" Body="&lt;p&gt;Flimzy, in his answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2906/58&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; points out that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Historically, Jewish and Christian scholars have not considered the creation account to mean a 6 literal day creation.&lt;/strong&gt; The earliest scholars to even address the issue (around 13 B.C) believed that God instantaneously created everything, and that the 6 days were purely figurative of order and completeness.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and gives the source for this information. Yet, today, the view that the Genesis account is literal (Young Earth Creationism) is widespread. Given that the early church seems not to have taken the Genesis account literally, when and why did the modern YEC movement gain such a following among Christians, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;especially in America&lt;/a&gt;? Is there a specific event or set of events that prompted this shift, or was it a gradual process over time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T05:06:51.637" Title="When and why did the modern Young Earth Creationism movement gain such a large following?" Tags="&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15710" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15721" CreationDate="2013-04-18T20:47:12.697" Score="11" ViewCount="14480" Body="&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that the apostle Peter was the first Pope.  Exactly when did this occur?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can imagine a few different options&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus addressed Peter in Matthew:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the death of Christ&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At the resurrection of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At the reinstatement of Peter (John 21:15-17)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At the Ascension of Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At Pentecost&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that is the question.  At what specific time did Peter become the first Pope?  (I assume that this coincides with the point at which Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven as well.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-04-19T05:12:00.887" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T15:20:33.233" Title="When did Peter become the first Pope, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15709" CreationDate="2013-04-18T21:54:04.540" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Young earth creationism (YEC) holds that the creation of the universe took place (a) approximately 6000 years ago, and (b) lasted exactly six days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Pre-Scientific Views&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first part, a 6000-year-old universe, was a common belief among Christians and Jews until the advent of modern geology in the 18th century. Many Christians over the centuries have attempted to use the Bible's chronologies to calculate the age of the universe. The best known of these was Bishop James Ussher, who published a chronology in 1650 stating that the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second part, a literal six days, is of more recent origin. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5598/how-old-is-old-earth-creationism/5600#5600&quot;&gt;Ancient Christians generally held that creation happened instantaneously or that the days were either unspecified periods or represented 1000 years each&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to discern the plain meaning of the text, and promoted belief in a 6000-year-old earth and a six-day creation. When Copernicus' &lt;em&gt;De revolutionibus orbium coelestium&lt;/em&gt; was published, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.csharp.com/luther.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luther and Calvin argued that a geocentric universe was the Biblical view&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within about two generations Copernicus' views won the day, and the Bible's references to a geocentric earth were ignored. The 6000-year-old earth remained a popular belief until the 18th century, when Scottish scientist James Hutton published &lt;em&gt;Theory of the Earth; or an Investigation of the Laws observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land upon the Globe&lt;/em&gt;, laying the groundwork for modern geology, including the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;geologic time scale&lt;/a&gt;. Studies of rock strata convinced most scientists that &lt;a href=&quot;http://abyss.uoregon.edu/%7Ejs/lectures/age_of_the_earth/age_of_the_earth.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the earth was much older than had been previously thought&lt;/a&gt;. By the 19th century, estimates of the age of the earth were in the millions of years. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Read_Chapter_6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Most Christians at the time&lt;/a&gt; were prepared to accept the conclusions of geologists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then Ellen G White, founder of the Seventh Day Adventist movement, claimed that God had showed her visions of the creation of the universe and that it had literally happened in six days. (sources: &lt;a href=&quot;http://biologos.org/questions/christian-response-to-darwin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://unsettledchristianity.com/2011/11/is-ken-ham-a-seventh-day-adventist/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Modern Young-Earth Creationism&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first attempt to give YEC a scientific footing was in 1906 when Adventist George McCready Price published a book titled &lt;em&gt;Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory&lt;/em&gt; in which he advanced the idea that geological strata were produced by Noah's flood. Though he had no formal training in geology, Price claimed to have &amp;quot;firsthand knowledge of field geology&amp;quot; due to having traveled extensively. Price's views were not taken seriously among geologists, and was not influential even among evangelical Christians for half a century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1950s, the seeds of the modern YEC movement were planted in reaction to two events. In 1954 evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm published &lt;em&gt;The Christian View of Science and Scripture&lt;/em&gt;, which sought to reconcile scripture and modern science. Five years later, 1959 saw worldwide recognition of the centennial anniversary of Darwin's &lt;em&gt;On the Origin of Species&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response, hydraulic engineer Henry Morris (who acknowledge Price's influence) teamed with John Whitcomb, a Bible teacher who had studied some geology in college, to write &lt;em&gt;The Genesis Flood&lt;/em&gt; which was published in 1961. &lt;em&gt;The Genesis Flood&lt;/em&gt; brought Price's flood geology to mainstream evangelicals and kickstarted the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;creation science&lt;/a&gt; movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So YEC in its modern form—as an alternative to mainstream science—started to become popular in the 1960s, although its roots stretch back a little more than a century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T05:06:51.637" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15713" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15715" CreationDate="2013-04-19T03:03:03.223" Score="14" ViewCount="6864" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard that many Roman Catholic Churches still hold Mass services and particularly ceremonies (e.g. weddings) in Latin. Is this true, and if so why is Latin considered to be a better language than the native language(s) of the region in which the church is in?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2018-01-19T23:08:56.060" LastActivityDate="2018-01-19T23:08:56.060" Title="Is Latin considered a holy language in the Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;latin&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15713" CreationDate="2013-04-19T04:18:38.257" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, prior to the promulgation of the &lt;i&gt;Novus Ordo&lt;/i&gt; Mass finished by 1970, Latin was the language used at Mass throughout the world.  The change to the vernacular didn't change the official language of the Catholic Church which is Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many parts of the Mass are still (or can be) proclaimed in Latin.  If you've got some time, watch or listen to the Mass on EWTN.  I think there's a lot more Latin in that Mass than there is in the average town's parish.  I think there are at least two reasons for that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is beautiful&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They've got a handful of priests who are familiar with the language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, it was obviously the desire of Mother Angelica to have a more traditional (and therefore holy, beautiful and sacred) liturgy.  But it doesn't make it more &amp;quot;meaningful&amp;quot;; Christ isn't less present at Masses proclaimed in the vernacular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued a Motu Proprio &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16summorumpontificum.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Summorum Pontificum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt; (only in Latin) in which he said that it was OK by him if people used the old Roman Missal (only in Latin), which incidentally is less than 10 years older than the new one, for their Mass.   This lifted the responsibility from the Bishops to say yes or no and made a few Traditional Catholic groups happy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he made it clear that this is the &amp;quot;Extraordinary Form&amp;quot; of the Mass, not the Ordinary one.  And, every time you hear the word &amp;quot;Extraordinary&amp;quot; in the Catholic Church, it indicates something that is not really necessary for salvation in general, but good for some circumstances.  (Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, Extraordinary means of Baptism, etc...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not more holy, in the sense that it is &amp;quot;special in God's eyes&amp;quot;. But it certainly is more holy in the traditional sense of the word &amp;quot;set apart&amp;quot;, more so today than in the hey day of the Holy Roman Empire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, it is the official language of the Church and as long as the Pope is in Rome, it always will be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Latin language has always been held in very high esteem by the Catholic Church and by the Roman Pontiffs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20121110_latina-lingua_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Benedict XVI - Latina Lingua&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T04:18:38.257" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15657" CreationDate="2013-04-19T04:30:14.473" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a &amp;quot;Short Catechism on Mary&amp;quot; French Cardinal Charles Journet wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q. How do we know the Virgin Mary never committed any sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. If the had committed even the slightest sin, she could not truly be called full of grace, neither would she have been the Worthy Mother of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in one sense, if she pondered what the Angel called her, &amp;quot;full of grace&amp;quot; (in Latin at least), which she did.  Then she would have known then and in reflecting on that she could truly say that &amp;quot;All generations will call me blessed&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as to her Immaculate Conception.  She, being in time, would have had a hard time grasping her redemption which, although it had already occurred in eternity, still required a sacrifice on the Cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q. Did the Blessed Virgin herself achieve redemption through the prayer of Jesus on the Cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Yes. It is because of the prayer that Jesus would later make on the Cross that God in advance preserved the Blessed Virgin from the original stain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I'm sure that blows your mind.  I certainly wish the good cardinal would have given a bit more context to that, but you wanted something official from the Church and I'll leave it there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T04:30:14.473" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8943" CreationDate="2013-04-19T04:51:17.970" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Besides these three persons, no fourth in the divine nature can be asserted &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Says St. Thomas Aquinas.  And why?  Because of the &quot;proceeds&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are alike, except in their relation to one another &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These relations of origin one must understand not as a procession which inclines to what is without - for what proceeds thus is not co-essential with its principle - one must understand them as proceeding within.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relations are completed internally and nobody is going to add to them.  Our existence, contrary to scientific opinion, is clearly just an accident (in the philosophical sense) of their love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the most compelling argument (I think) that St. Thomas makes is that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... in God it is not possible that there be more than two Persons proceeding&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;he says that if one person proceeds by way of the Intellect (the Word, i.e. the Son) or Love (the Holy Spirit) then they're cut off from the other two.  And the only relationship that makes complete sense is to have one who does not proceed (God the Father), one who proceeds and is proceeded (God the Son) and one who proceeds from them both and is not proceeded (God the Holy Spirit)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0671739913&quot;&gt;The Pocket Aquinas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19851120en.html&quot;&gt;The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T04:51:17.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15718" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15724" CreationDate="2013-04-19T05:01:18.997" Score="8" ViewCount="340" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15709/58&quot;&gt;my previous question&lt;/a&gt;, I asked about the origins of the modern Young Earth Creationism movement, especially in America. Originally, the question asked when the YEC belief (mainly with regards to a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation) became widespread, and was subsequently informed that the account of creation in Genesis had been read literally by Christians ever since ancient times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the evidence for this claim? I'm specifically looking for &lt;strong&gt;evidence that the early church interpreted Genesis 1 literally in a manner consistent with modern Young Earth Creationism beliefs&lt;/strong&gt;. The six-day creation and 6000-year-old age aspects may be treated separately, if and when appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T13:35:52.740" Title="What is the evidence for the claim that Young Earth Creationism was the mainstream viewpoint in ancient times?" Tags="&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15707" CreationDate="2013-04-19T05:09:45.063" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nobody will mind if I quote a 1850 year old document at length here right? If you don't read it with any context it might seem kind of strange.  The Protoevangelium of St. James is definitely apocryphal, but that doesn't make it bad and it certainly shows evidence of an age old tradition (and a good one).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;And her months were added to the child. And the child was two years old, and Joachim said: Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, that we may pay the vow that we have vowed, lest perchance the Lord send to us, and our offering be not received. And Anna said: Let us wait for the third year, in order that the child may not seek for father or mother. And Joachim said: So let us wait. And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. And they did so until they went up into the temple of the Lord. And the priest received her, and kissed her, and blessed her, saying: The Lord has magnified your name in all generations. In you, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel. And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far it's Our Lady just being a cute little kid and it's her parent who vow to give her to the temple (ala Hannah who she herself definitely prefigures).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and here it's the priests who don't want Mary to be defiled, so they try to marry her off to an old guy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judæa, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in the end, all the pieces fit snugly with unchanging Sacred Tradition concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.  Even if the Holy Spirit didn't choose to assert Himself through the truths contained in this ancient text.  The evidence of a tradition is certainly evidence of a tradition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That she, of her own accord, decided to be a temple virgin or not isn't particularly important.  Whatever God did for her, He preserved her from following her passions and going off and doing something sinful so he could use her, whom he most loved of all His creatures, for something amazing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T05:09:45.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15710" CreationDate="2013-04-19T05:28:36.720" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The birth of the Church was at Pentecost and Peter was definitely present and immediately made his presence felt as the vicar of Christ on Earth subsequent to the descent of the Holy Spirit on him and the other apostles and Our Lady in the upper room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/2:14&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:14 NABRE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the Pope, is the Bishop of Rome and after Peter's marvelous martyrdom, St. Linus was chosen as the next leader.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies 3.1.3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and after him came Cletus and Clement etc... until Francis and the collapse of humanity as we know it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, but I'm getting ahead of myself and so are you in this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the best sense to read some of what Jesus says to Peter is in the anagogical (eternal) sense.  Jesus even talks about Peter's death before it happens. There's no reason to think He's not also going to talk about his ministry before it happens. And after Peter's death, a lot of sacred scripture would have very little meaning if it didn't also apply in a very real sense to today and until the (imminent) end of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I think you're right on all the points you make about when Peter's ministry begins.  When you want to call him Pope is up to you.  If you're talking about when he was able to proclaim Ex Cathedra, keep in mind he didn't have a chair to proclaim from.  And beyond that, even today, it's the Pope or the Pope in Communion with the Bishops, who make infallible magisterial teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, back then, Peter, Clement, John and James the less (as well as any other Apostles and Bishops in town) could have gotten together to figure out what to do with all the power they'd been given by Christ and all the trouble they were given by the emperors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-25T19:27:03.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15680" CreationDate="2013-04-19T05:38:35.957" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Opposites cannot be said truly of the same thing in the same way: the divine and human things said of Christ are, of course, in opposition, &lt;i&gt;suffering&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;incapable of suffering&lt;/i&gt;, for example, or &lt;i&gt;dead&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;immortal&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas - On the Trinity and the Incarnation Chapter 39&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas holds that Christs two natures are neither confused nor mixed. And Jesus' body, which has natural properties is subject to them.  Christ's divine nature is not subject to the things that His human nature is subject to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you're thinking that they're mixed somehow and Christ's human nature (and subsequent death) brings down the Trinity or splits it up for a bit.  But that's just not contingent on the Incarnation.    If so, the Trinity would have been affected by the Incarnation as well as by the Crucifixion and It would have been made more glorious by the Transfiguration and even more glorious by the Resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear also from this that, although the Son is incarnate, neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, for all that, need be incarnate, since the Incarnation did not take place by a union in the nature in which the three divine Persons are together, but in hypostasis...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Trinity is a plurality of Persons subsisting in one nature and the Incarnation is one Person subsisting in a plurality of natures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Trinity and the Incarnations require more than complicated Venn Diagrams to explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;  +-----------------+   (Incarnation)&#xA; +                   +       | &#xA; +      Father    +--+-------|---+&#xA; +        +------+DN +--+    |    +&#xA;  +------+-------+--+    + Son HN +&#xA;         + Spirit+       +   |    +&#xA;         +               +---|---+&#xA;          +-------------+    |&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;DN = divine Nature&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HN = Human Nature&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but an even better than a crummy ASCII venn diagram is every piece of religious art depicting Jesus ever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/R4U3Jm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where you see Jesus' hand with two fingers and a thumb up representing the Blessed Trinity and two fingers down representing His two natures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T05:59:41.360" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13788" CreationDate="2013-04-19T05:43:25.047" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation 17:9 (KJV) - &quot;And here [is] the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Rome has seven mountains, people &quot;mistakenly&quot; thinks that it is Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it must be noted that Jerusalem also has seven mountains. Mt. Goath, Mt. Gareb, Mt. Acra, Mt. Bezetha, Mt. Zion, Mt. Ophel, and Mt. Moriah are seven mountains of Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Revelation contains prophecies about Jerusalem and it's destruction in 70 AD. Not Rome. Let me give you examples from the bible itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 17:5-6 (KJV) - &quot;And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God commanded that the priests' vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Exodus 28:4-8, 15, 33, 39:1-8, 24, 29). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that the woman is drunken with the blood of saints and with blood of martyrs. This can refer to only one city - Jerusalem. Here are the verses said by Jesus Christ in Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 13:33-35 (NIV) - &quot;In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day--&lt;strong&gt;for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate&lt;/strong&gt;. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We read that Jerusalem is the city that killed the prophets and stone those that sent you. We also read that &quot;for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem.&quot; This means that it can only be Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's look at Gospel of Matthew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 23:29-39 (NIV) - &quot;Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. &lt;strong&gt;And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth&lt;/strong&gt;, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation. &lt;strong&gt;Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing&lt;/strong&gt;. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that Jerusalem is the city that killed the prophets and the stone those sent to Jerusalem. So Revelation can refer to only one city - Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see Jesus Christ prophesizing the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. In Luke 19, we also see Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (NIV) - &quot;For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 16:5-6 (NIV) - &quot;Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: “You are just in these judgments, O Holy One, you who are and who were; &lt;strong&gt;for they have shed the blood of your holy people and your prophets&lt;/strong&gt;, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 16:19 (KJV) - &quot;And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During Jewish Wars, it must be noted that Jerusalem was divided into 3 parts by 3 corrupt leaders - One part was under Eleazar, the son of Simon, Second part was under John of Gischala, and the third part was under Simon, the son of Giora.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 16:21 tells how huge hailstones fell from heaven weighing a talent which is about 100 pounds. Josephus describes 100 lb. white stones coming from Roman catapults down on the Jews in Jerusalem (Jewish Wars, Book 5.6.3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2013-04-19T06:08:48.443" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T06:08:48.443" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15718" CreationDate="2013-04-19T11:46:09.170" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note that none of this is to say that there weren't also evolutionary views in ancient times.  There were.  And that this isn't about whether the YEC view is &lt;strong&gt;true&lt;/strong&gt;, it's about whether it was a belief that existed, as the primary belief &lt;strong&gt;among Christians (and in Judaism)&lt;/strong&gt;, long before the modern scientific views of origins.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I'd also like to point out that my comment on the other answer didn't say it was the primary view held by &lt;strong&gt;everyone&lt;/strong&gt;.  Just that the view pre-dated modern scientific views.  It would be foolish to argue that a Biblical YEC view, based on the Genesis account was widely held by anyone outside Judaism or Christianity&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The modern YEC view has several variants, but there are two main points on which YEC'ers agree, which can easily be shown to have been a common belief:  A young earth, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#History_of_flood_geology&quot;&gt;flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the people that held this view didn't call it &quot;young earth creationism&quot;.  They simply called it history.  People simply believed the Bible, and it wasn't until people came along to introduce modern ideas like uniformitarianism and an old earth, that the idea that the Bible might be wrong even occurred to Christians.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Case in point:  Charles Lyell's book &quot;Principles of Geology&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esp.org/books/lyell/principles/facsimile/&quot;&gt;available for online reading here in pdf form&lt;/a&gt;) is the book that introduced the idea of Uniformitariansim, and was one of the first scholarly book addressing geology from a &quot;scientific&quot; view.  In chapter three, he states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It had been the consistent belief of the Christian world, down to the&#xA;  period now under consideration, that the origin of the planet was not&#xA;  more than a few thousand years; and that since the creation deluge was&#xA;  the only great catastrophe by which considerable change had been&#xA;  wrought on the earth's surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was simply common knowledge at the time that Christians believed in a young earth, and flood geology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the Biblical creation account wasn't the only creation theory held in ancient days.  Many other cultures had their own creation stories.  While it's not my avorite source, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Creationism&quot;&gt;Wikipeda has a fine article tracing the history of creationism as far back as the 5th century BC.&lt;/a&gt;  Some excerpts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Early history&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;David Sedley, in his book Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity,&#xA;  traces creationist thought to the presocratic thinkers Anaxagoras and&#xA;  Empedocles, in the 5th century BC.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esp.org/books/lyell/principles/facsimile/&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; Sedley states that Anaxagoras&#xA;  was recognized by Plato as &quot;the first overt champion of a creative&#xA;  cosmic intelligence. Anaxagoras theory was that the original state of&#xA;  the world was a roughly even mixture of all opposites, and that it was&#xA;  the effect of the action of nous (intelligence or mind) that led to&#xA;  the partial separation of such opposites, hot from cold, land from&#xA;  water, rarefied from dense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and later...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;170 – Theophilus of Antioch wrote in defense of creation beliefs and a&#xA;  relatively young Earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;There are not myriads of myriads of years, even though Plato said&#xA;  such a period had elapsed between the deluge and his own time, . . .&#xA;  The world is not uncreated nor is there spontaneous production of&#xA;  everything, as Pythagoras and the others have babbled; instead the&#xA;  world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made&#xA;  everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be&#xA;  demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth. . . . The total&#xA;  number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.29 ... If some&#xA;  period has escaped our notice, says 50 or 100 or even 200 years, at&#xA;  any rate it is not myriads, or thousands of years as it was for Plato&#xA;  . . . and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do&#xA;  not know the exact total of all the years simply because the&#xA;  additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books.&quot;[this&#xA;  quote needs a citation]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as long as I've sunk to using Wikipeda, I may as well include &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#History_of_flood_geology&quot;&gt;their article to show the history of flood geology&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The great flood in the history of geology&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many early Christians, including Tertullian, Chrysostom and Augustine,&#xA;  believed that fossils were the remains of animals that were killed and&#xA;  buried during the brief duration of the Flood.[13] The geological&#xA;  peculiarity in northern Europe where much is covered by layers of loam&#xA;  and gravel as well as erratic boulders deposited hundreds of miles&#xA;  from their original sources furthered acceptance of the idea. Early&#xA;  geologists interpreted these features as the result of massive&#xA;  flooding (in the mid 19th century geologists accepted that they had&#xA;  been formed by ice age glaciations).[14] The global flood was&#xA;  associated with massive geographical upheavals, with old continents&#xA;  sinking and new ones rising, thus transforming ancient seabeds into&#xA;  mountain tops.[15][16]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During the Age of Enlightenment, naturalists began proposing natural&#xA;  causes for the miracles recounted in the Bible. Naturalistic&#xA;  explanations for a global flood were posed by John Woodward, (1695),&#xA;  and Woodward’s student William Whiston, (1696).[17]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, since Christianity sprang from Judaism, it seems appropriate to address &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Classical_rabbinic_teachings&quot;&gt;what &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;early&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Jewish belief was&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Classical rabbinic teachings&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The vast majority of classical Rabbis believed that God created the&#xA;  world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay.&#xA;  This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder&#xA;  Olam[disambiguation needed], which was based on a literal reading of&#xA;  the Book of Genesis. It is attributed to the Tanna Yose ben Halafta,&#xA;  and covers history from the creation of the universe to the&#xA;  construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Although a literal&#xA;  approach is not always used when interpreting the Torah, there is a&#xA;  split over which parts are literal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-04-19T12:13:17.260" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T12:13:17.260" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15718" CreationDate="2013-04-19T14:10:48.383" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most convincing evidence for what the ancient Jews believed is straight from the Ten Commandments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;8&lt;/strong&gt; “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. &lt;strong&gt;9&lt;/strong&gt; Six days you shall labor and do all your work, &lt;strong&gt;10&lt;/strong&gt; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. &lt;strong&gt;11&lt;/strong&gt; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:8-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sabbath is to be honored because God created the Earth and everything in them. God worked for six days then rested, so man will work six days then rest. Since the Jews worked six literal days then rested one literal day it makes sense that they considered the creation to be 6 literal days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrasing &quot;For in six days ...&quot; is common elsewhere in the Bible, especially when the point was that God is the creator of all that is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is the issue over when that creation occurred. The genealogies are the primary source for calculating when the creation started, and the Ancient Jews were known to skip generations when documenting genealogies, preferring to highlight important persons rather than equally mention all of them. However, as a matter of mathematics and practicality, the date of the creation would likely not be argued for much earlier than 15K or 20K BC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having been critiqued that I did not actually address the early church this is what Justin Martyr says on the same topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chapter 67&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Justin Martyr seems to have thought that the world was made in a day; the first day of the creation story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-04-20T13:35:52.740" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T13:35:52.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15710" CreationDate="2013-04-19T17:19:12.593" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming you meant when St.Peter received his &lt;code&gt;supremacy&lt;/code&gt; and not just becoming the bishop of Rome, I believe it is to be at the reinstatement of Peter (John 21:15-17). For this reason, this is also the gospel reading in an installation Mass of a new Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus addressed Peter in Matthew 16:18-19, he was foretelling the Peter's supremacy. Moreover at that time Jesus was with them, so there was no need for a pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T17:19:12.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14906" CreationDate="2013-04-19T20:01:50.410" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I can see a certain level of applicability to the first two points you mention, I think the most meaningful and relevant answer is something else entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the at-one-ment of Jesus Christ, in terms of what Jesus taught in the intercessory prayer (John 17:20-23), you can see that he is calling for union to take place between those who are believers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you look at the structure of what Jesus Christ organized, you can see a system of ordinances that have covenants coupled with them. Just as a man and a woman enter into a marriage covenant and become &quot;one flesh&quot; so too do believers who join together in a body form a body of one flesh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as I see it, the concept of &quot;one flesh&quot; means that multiple individuals join together in covenant and are organized into some kind of a greater collective identity that can be looked at as its own distinct individual entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The marriage between a man and a woman is simply one example of it on one level, but the underlying concept is applicable on a more universal scope at varying levels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul teaches another example of this where in Ephesians 5:30 he says that everyone who joined the Church of Christ is a member of the body of Christ, of His flesh and of His bones. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, in actuality, as members of the church they are members of the body of the Bride of Christ. But, since Christ and His Bride are married and &quot;one flesh&quot; then Christ can say of the church members that they are &quot;bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh&quot; just as Adam said to Eve. (Genesis 2:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2013-04-19T20:01:50.410" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15731" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-19T22:13:06.780" Score="6" ViewCount="433" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to an answer to this question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15710/when-did-peter-become-the-first-pope-according-to-roman-catholic-doctrine&quot;&gt;When did Peter become the first Pope, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?&lt;/a&gt;, the Pope is the bishop of Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this made me wonder - since Peter was ordained an Apostle (not bishop of Rome) and he is considered the first Pope - are bishops equal in authority with apostles according to Roman Catholic tradition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand what &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;apostolic succession&lt;/a&gt; is, but it doesn't seem clear from this that it's the &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; apostolic authority or just a part of it handed down to the bishops from the original apostles.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T14:16:56.320" Title="Is a bishop in Roman Catholic tradition equal in authority with the apostles?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;authority&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15731" CreationDate="2013-04-20T00:30:12.860" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bishops (from the Greek, epi-scopus = overseers) are the successors of the Apostles. Their primary responsibility is shepherding the faith of the people in their diocese. They ordain priests, perform the sacrament of confirmation on the faithful, and serve to teach, provide guidance and support for the faithful. So in that sense, they indeed have the authority of the Apostles. However, a tenet of the Catholic Church is that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only apostles had firsthand knowledge of the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, no Bishop can add to public revelation. They may explain or further develop the implications of sacred revelation, whether by Scripture or the sacred Tradition of the Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T14:16:56.320" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15737" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-20T06:39:43.663" Score="6" ViewCount="15195" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Council of Laodicea states in canon 29:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anathema, being basically excommunication, is a serious thing. Why did the members of this council consider Saturday worship a sin and even worthy of such punishment? Why were Saturday worshipers on the same level as heretics and enemies of the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, why would the church state something that is in direct contrast with the ten commandments? Calling the Sabbath rest Judaizing is one thing, but then it says to do it on Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:8-11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would prefer answers from theologians and church leaders of this time. What did &lt;em&gt;they&lt;/em&gt; say about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The complete canons can be read here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-11-14T11:48:18.773" LastActivityDate="2021-03-20T22:53:36.040" Title="Why did the Council of Laodicea condemn &quot;Judaizing&quot; Sabbath rest?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;&lt;church-council&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="15738" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-20T07:38:57.327" Score="3" ViewCount="226" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found an article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Regeneration precedes faith&lt;/a&gt; by R.C. Sproul that could imply there is no synergism at all in justification. In other words no part of the human will involved in believing? It is potentially confusing in that it puts regeneration before faith. (I can only only assume he actually believes regenerations as: calling, faith, justification and new birth so that he is actually only referring the the effectual call as preceding faith which no Calvinist would find confusing. But he seems to confuse the issue by arguing against 'faith, rebirth, justification' which as far as I know nobody has ever presented in that order from a Calvinist position.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, as opposed to potential confusion of Sproul's statement (which might actually intend the same as this more traditional classical Calvinist) John Owen could imply that justification is synergistic. (Actually, I know Owen puts the 'initial' work of regeneration before faith, justification and sanctification, but by identifying the human 'will' as a 'cause' of salvation according to all 'Protestant divines' he seems to be sending a message with a slightly different spin from the Sproul's terminology.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Protestant divines, until of late, have unanimously affirmed faith to be the instrumental cause of our justification.  (John Owen's Works Vol 5, &lt;a href=&quot;http://gbfc-tx.org/Books/Public%20Domain/JUSTIFICATION%20BY%20FAITH%20-%20JOHN%20OWEN.PDF&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Justification by Faith&lt;/a&gt;, Chapter three – “The use of faith in Justification”. p108)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what's going on here? &lt;strong&gt;How much synergism (cooperation between God and man) is involved in the 'monergism' (the work of God without human cooperation) of classical Calvinists' in the doctrine of justification?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-06-01T16:06:24.667" Title="Does traditional Calvinistic monergism include limited synergism in the doctrine of justification?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;justification&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15739" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-20T08:37:15.827" Score="2" ViewCount="171" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15700/3447&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; and its answer reminded me a question I wondered about a long time ago: the ritual of entering catechumenate usually takes place some time during the process of pre-baptismal catecheses (i.e. learning the basics before someone is prepared for baptism), so there is some time (often quite a long time) when the person is being instructed but didn't enter catechumenate yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is whether the person is considered a catechumen by canon law since the moment the process of pre-baptismal catecheses begin (may be hard to find out when did it begin!), or since the ceremony of entering the catechumenate? If the latter is the case, have those learning so that they could be baptized any special status?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T11:40:49.443" Title="Are those instructed before baptism considered catechumens before entering the catechumenate formally?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;canon-law&gt;&lt;catechumenate&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15740" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15739" CreationDate="2013-04-20T11:40:49.443" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One who is exploring whether to become Catholic is known as an &lt;em&gt;Inquirer&lt;/em&gt; and is in the stage known as &lt;em&gt;Period of Evangelization and Precatechumenate&lt;/em&gt;, as explained by the USCCB's webpage devoted to explaining the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/who-we-teach/rite-of-christian-initiation-of-adults/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults&lt;/a&gt;. It goes on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After a conversation with a priest, or RCIA director, the person, known as an &quot;inquirer,&quot; may seek acceptance into the Order of Catechumens, through the Rite of Acceptance. During this Rite, the inquirer stands amidst the parish community and states that he or she wants to become a baptized member of the Catholic Church. The parish assembly affirms this desire and the inquirer becomes a &quot;catechumen.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who are already baptized Christians desiring full communion with the Catholic Church, known as &lt;em&gt;Candidates&lt;/em&gt;, go through a process known as &lt;em&gt;formation&lt;/em&gt;. As practical matter at many parishes, both candidates and catechumens attend many (if not most) of the same instructional classes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T11:40:49.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15741" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-20T12:01:06.233" Score="2" ViewCount="99" Body="&lt;p&gt;In studying Roman Catholic theology it took me so so long before it dawned on me that justification is not viewed as an event as it is in Protestant theology. Why is this single concept so critical in dividing Catholic from Protestant theology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T18:15:41.200" Title="Why is dividing 'event' versus 'process' driven views of justification important to separate Catholic and Protestant theology?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;justification&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15737" CreationDate="2013-04-20T12:53:26.003" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Judaizer&lt;/a&gt; is a term for those early Christians who held that adherence to Mosaic law  was necessary for salvation. Observance of these laws (such as circumcision and the distinction of clean and unclean foods) was proscribed in Acts 15 and 11, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament distinguishes the Lord's Day from the Sabbath, and it commemorates the day of the Resurrection. While the topic has only a few scriptural references (e.g., Acts 20:7, Rev 1:10), the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.catholic.com/tract/sabbath-or-sunday&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;testimony of the early Church Fathers&lt;/a&gt; is consistent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The intent by the Council in using the term Judaizer seems clear: Christianity is not just another sect of Judaism. Jews worship on the seventh day, the Sabbath. Christians worship on the eighth day of Creation, the Lord's Day, to commemorate the day of the Resurrection. Those who teach otherwise must be called out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can find the complete canons of the Synod of Laodicea &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastEditorUserId="10672" LastEditDate="2021-03-20T22:53:36.040" LastActivityDate="2021-03-20T22:53:36.040" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="15743" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-20T13:39:12.703" Score="8" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a follow-up question for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15739/3447&quot;&gt;Are those instructed before baptism considered catechumens before entering the catechumenate formally?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Czech Republic the pre-baptismal formation is often called &quot;preparation for baptism&quot; or something like this, but not &quot;catechumenate&quot; - the Rite of Acceptance or the start of catechumenate start near the end of this period, even as late as the first sunday of Lent, when the Rite of Election should take place. In the light of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/who-we-teach/rite-of-christian-initiation-of-adults/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults&lt;/a&gt;, this practice seems to be a misunderstanding of how the Christian initiation should be performed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this practice may be fine for those hesitating, why should those desiring to be baptised wait months or even years until they will be allowed to express this desire publicly? Why do they have to be called &quot;inquirers&quot; and denied of catechumens' rights, while they are effectively catechumens except for that they are not recognized as such? I understand there are some practical reasons for this, but I feel some important aspect of Christian intiation is missing in those &quot;preparation for baptism&quot; groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: is there any canon law/ liturgical rule saying that postponing the Rite of Acceptance when the inquirer is determined they want to be baptised is OK/ forbidded/ tolerated, but discouraged? And why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2014-05-23T13:16:45.957" Title="According to Catholic law and rules, is postponing of the Rite of Acceptance OK?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;catechumenate&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15558" CreationDate="2013-04-20T13:59:01.870" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking for this answer a while in my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.madisondiocese.org/Ministry/EvangelizationandCatechesis/SeatofWisdomDiocesanInstitute.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Seat of Wisdom Diocesan Institute&lt;/a&gt; notes, hopefully this answers your question. I think Jayarathina (can I call you Jay?) has a pretty good answer. I'm not going to try to define terms, just make up some new ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if someone could please fix the latin words I'm trying to use, I can't find them in the dictionary and I didn't write them very well in my notebook!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few levels of Magisterial Teaching. Some people say there are 3 some people 4 and Wikipedia says there's 7, but I'll go with 5, the first two are infallible the last 3 aren't so much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Creanene..&lt;/i&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dogma, this is teaching on revealed truth.  Things the Catholic Church says she knows about God. This includes old pronouncements on the Trinity and newer pronouncements on the Immaculate Conception of Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The penalty for going against dogma is heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Tenende&lt;/i&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doctrine, this is a truth that is &lt;b&gt;proposed definitively&lt;/b&gt;.  These concern matters that the Church has to deal with.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Defining a prohibition on the ordination of women&lt;/a&gt; might be an example of this, although &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pope Benedict XVI didn't seem to think it was&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The penalty for breaking doctrine isn't usually death.  But it is a &quot;just penalty&quot;, whatever that is.  I think the worst would be excommunication. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Obsequium&lt;/i&gt; (Following Canon 752) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are doctrines of the Pope or Bishops.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;752&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of this might be the Dormition of Mary.  Whether or not Our Lady truly died or just fell asleep before her assumption (which is Dogma).  The important distinction here is the submission of intellect.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Obsequium&lt;/i&gt; (Following canon 753)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are more like the orders given by Bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;753&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://old.usccb.org/movies/movieall.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;old USCCB Movie rating&lt;/a&gt; is an example of this.  I don't know if it is any more, now that it's part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicnews.com/movies.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic News Service&lt;/a&gt;.  I think I might want to ask that question here.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Sevandi&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Decree of a Pope or a Bishop.  This is something that we are all called to observe, but it might not necessarily be incumbent upon us to act upon.  For instance, if someone is decreed a heretic.  That's a bummer for them, but we don't have to do anything (except maybe stop going to their yoga classes).  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I first saw this chart, I thought it was very awesome and helpful.  If only I'd transcribed the Latin words a little better I might have had a better answer here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing about infallible statements is that they are not open for discussion.  I think that's what &quot;Definitively Proposed&quot; alludes to.  Anything else &quot;Authoritative statement&quot; etc.. would be up for review.  Offenses against the moral law, like Abortion, are not up for discussion and they cut across dogma and doctrine.  The Church has a duty to uphold both sides of the natural law; That is both the side that God proclaimed in the 10 commandments and the side that He wrote in our hearts when he formed us out of the vast nothingness of nothing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-01-30T19:13:33.120" LastActivityDate="2014-01-30T19:13:33.120" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15745" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-20T14:11:24.717" Score="9" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may seem like a dumb question, but I think it could be useful to people who look at links on the internet to the old Catholic Encyclopedia (which is heavily referenced on wikipedia for Christianity related entries) and I don't know the answer to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last year, Pope Benedict promulgated a letter requiring institutions that call themselves Catholic to adhere to certain standards.  Certain Internet television networks critical of Bishops have been warned not to call themselves &quot;Catholic&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did anyone care 100 years ago whether some work, produced without direct involvement of the Catholic Bishops, would have called itself Catholic?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-04-22T14:29:32.020" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T14:55:17.880" Title="By what authority does the old Catholic Encyclopedia call itself Catholic?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;bishops&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15741" CreationDate="2013-04-20T14:30:42.420" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why Protestants see themselves as being able to break out of the cycle of sin through their personal affirmation that Jesus is their Personal Savior is more or less a mystery to Catholics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why Catholics think the mere act of eating what appears to be a piece of Bread can renew their life within them and give them a share in Sanctifying Grace is a more or less a mystery to Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's probably decisive because Catholics are pretty convinced they're right and here's why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As God's chosen people we (All Christians) are not a whole heck of a lot different today than they (The tribes of Israel) were 3000 years ago.  King David for instance, went through all the trouble of being a very good, wise and courageous youth, only to give in to temptation and then repent of it and die a good and saintly man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cycle is too alliterative to be of God, but this is what it looks like&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The act that draws you away from God&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Servitude to sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The time you spend getting further and further away from God&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Supplication&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cry for help that brings you back to God&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Salvation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's response to your cry&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Silence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The period of time in which you get to decide whether or not to sin again.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chances are pretty good you're going to go back up to step 1.  But there's no going from Step 5 to Step 4 (because those who are not sick don't need a physician) and there's no point going from Step 5 to Step 3.  God's grace will keep you from going from Step 5 to Step 2.  But your free will and passions may move you from step 5 to step 1. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we grow in holiness we can extend our time inside of Step 5 land.  Mother Theresa spent most of her life there!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a process, because our earthly lives are finite, but it's more like a big ball of yarn all rolled up.  We're not Buddhists; our spiritual development isn't circular, because it isn't infinite.  But it is more or less round and messy and it's not instantaneous. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants seem to on the other hand, cling to a translation of John 3:7 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’ &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which says &quot;again&quot; instead of &quot;from above&quot;.  And regardless of the translation, this signifies some sort of a birth event that takes place after which you're saved once and for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last week I heard of Go Ask Your Father.  The good Reverend Know-It-All expound on this.  He Pentecostal cited a friend of his who said neither Catholics nor Protestants understand what it means to be &quot;born&quot; in this context.  That what we talk about as &quot;born&quot; is really &quot;conceived&quot;.  Because being born is a painful excruciating event (I've never done it myself, but I've been rather intimately involved in each of my children's births and he's right.  It's tiring, it happens unexpectedly, it is an event, but it's not a life changing event because the life has been in existence, hidden for 9 months already.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, maybe what Jesus was saying was that you're going to have to go through life and have struggles and problems and carry your cross to unite your birth (through baptism) to his death.  Which, incidentally, is exactly what St. Paul says happens when we're baptized, regardless of if we're baptized as adults or wee infants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-04-20T18:15:41.200" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T18:15:41.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15747" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15762" CreationDate="2013-04-20T14:31:55.390" Score="4" ViewCount="465" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament has a question hanging over it: &quot;Who will inherit the promises to Abraham?&quot;. Isaac is chosen over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau and (though in one sense all the sons of Jacob inherit) Judah is chosen over his brothers. Likewise Perez over Zerah and so on through the line of David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a parallel theme of a 'remnant' surviving God's judgement on disobedient Israel, and the survival of Judah when Ephraim is destroyed is part of that theme. Though Judah is eventually sent into exile, it is the remnant of Judah that returns and Judah's line that ultimately leads to Jesus (though not through a human father).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that light, what is the significance that the one disciple who betrays Jesus is named Judas (the Greek for Judah)? Is the intention to highlight that the old cycle of rebellion, judgement, 'repentance' and relenting has finally come to an end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1619" LastEditorUserId="1619" LastEditDate="2013-04-20T14:42:02.993" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T16:02:41.553" Title="What is the significance of Judas's name?" Tags="&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14256" CreationDate="2013-04-20T15:19:07.637" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although I am not a Catholic I believe I can answer your question more determinately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only place where the exact instant seems to have been conjectured within Roman Catholic tradition is by St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 75, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;‘Article 7. Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And therefore it must be said that this change, as stated above, is wrought by Christ's words which are spoken by the priest, so that &lt;strong&gt;the last instant of pronouncing the words is the first instant in which Christ's body is in the sacrament&lt;/strong&gt;; and that the substance of the bread is there during the whole preceding time. (St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 75, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;‘Article 7. Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am assuming that when he says ‘the last instant of pronouncing the words’ he means two instantaneous events.&lt;/strong&gt; The bread turns into his body after saying ‘this is my Body’ and another event when the wine turns into his blood, after saying ‘this is the chalice of my Blood’.  Reading the official documents are somewhat complicated because Greek philosophical terms about substances, their relative quantities and the accidents or things we experience from our sense when observing those substances are couched in the terms used to explain the intended doctrine. Basically in laymen terms, our senses perceive ‘accidents’ but only the mind knows the ‘substance’.  What this essentially implies is that Catholics while still seeing the accidents of regular bread and wine that the substance of Christ is miraculously maintaining, this transformed substance. For example the transformed material is to literally understood as the physical body of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Council of Trent&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, since the notion of the Presence in the Mass is somewhat higher than each element it implies not just the body and blood but the soul and divinity of Christ is present, i.e. a complete Christ in both events. In other words, this higher presence of soul and divinity occurs when becoming the bread and then is some sense becomes more completed when the wine is transformed. The notion of a complete unified Presence can be seen from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-latinmass.com/id108.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creed of Pope Pius IV&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-latinmass.com/id108.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creed of Pope Pius IV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now the question occurs, if the bread and wine is only the physical literal body of Christ, hidden behind accidents and quantities that present to our eyes a mere substance of bread and wine, how then is the Presence of Christ actually also sitting behind the veil of what our senses see? This answer is tied up in the term ‘&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32692&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;concomitance&lt;/a&gt;’. The soul and divinity of Christ is understood as being present through another term called ‘concomitance’.  This in effect means the bread is all of Christ including his divine presence and so it the blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The full development of all these ideas can now be understood by the more difficult terms used by Sty. Thomas where ‘accidents’, ‘quantities’ and ‘concomitance’ bind the whole doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 76. The way in which Christ is in this sacrament ,Article 4. Whether the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason St. Thomas seems to have desired to determine a precise moment is in handling objections that might indicate truth to the doctrine of consubstantiation, where according to a Lutheran view the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine. To refute the idea of consubstantiation, transubstantiation must occur instantaneously, otherwise even for 1/1000 of a second part of the bread must still be bread. Therefore, the change must occur so quickly in time that there is no measureable instant of a gradual change. This change must be therefore, according to St. Thomas at the moment the last words of the consecration are spoken by the priest. Whether this moment is at the time the last syllable is uttered or the time that the last syllable is heard among those present would probably be exact for the purposes of St. Thomas. If I had to guess he means when the last syllable is leaving the vocal cords through the mouth of the priest because depending upon the distance of those present each might hear the final sound at slightly different times, voiding the completely instantaneous concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Although St. Thomas is quite exact in his identification of when the bread and wine become the blood and body of Christ, he leaves the precise moment of when they return to just bread and wine uncertain.&lt;/strong&gt; He seems to indicate the whole transformation is outside of normal physics causing regular moments of succession to cease in the transformation. This makes the time where the presence is no longer there not a proper ‘moment’ following another ‘moment’ along the science of time. In other words, the starting moment is identified as it is preceded by another moment, but the end, not being preceded by a proper moment is not exactly determinate. Or in his words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Of this time no instant is to be taken as proximately preceding the last one, because time is not made up of successive instants, as is proved in Phys. vi. And therefore a first instant can be assigned in which Christ's body is present; but a last instant cannot be assigned in which the substance of bread is there, but a last time can be assigned.  (St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 75, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm#article7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;‘Article 7. Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-04-21T04:43:28.580" LastActivityDate="2013-04-21T04:43:28.580" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15745" CreationDate="2013-04-20T16:09:26.273" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally, the Bishops are not in the business of writing and publishing scholarly works. What happens is that Catholic authors write a work, then seek official permission to publish (imprimatur), and an endorsement that the contents are not contrary to the faith (nihil obstat). The original Catholic Encyclopedia obtained both (which are visible at the bottom of every article at the New Advent website, such as the one on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01001a.htm&quot;&gt;Aachen&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="443" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T16:09:26.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2548" CreationDate="2013-04-20T19:32:18.400" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Persons of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;Trinity&lt;/a&gt; are not three &lt;strong&gt;individuals&lt;/strong&gt; but three &lt;strong&gt;persons&lt;/strong&gt;; we, because of our personal experiences (every person I've met today is also an individual), tend to consider them synonymous, and may think of there being three separate minds and wills in the Trinity. But the differences between the Persons of the Trinity are only in their relation toward one another; They share one mind and will, yet each Person is self-aware (the Father knows He is the Father, He knows the other two Persons, and He knows of the other two Persons as distinct yet one with Him; and so on).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Godhead has one rational nature; each Person of the Trinity shares that rational nature in a distinct way.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following quotations come from Karl Rahner's &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=HjXG4FEr_J0C&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=rahner%20The%20Trinity&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=-NhyUdLnHdPaqQHfwYCQAg&amp;amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Trinity&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, and anything in bold is my emphasis; italics are present in the original. &lt;sub&gt;Note that he ultimately teaches a heretical view of the Trinity due to his claim that creation was a necessary action on God's part and the generation of His Son was in preparation for creation. I'm not using any of that here.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rahner agrees with Aquinas's definition of person: &lt;em&gt;That which subsists as distinct in a rational nature&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#article4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica, Q 30, A 4&lt;/a&gt;). Whereas we normally think that a person &lt;em&gt;has a&lt;/em&gt; mind, by this definition it's the opposite: minds contain persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He begins with a high-level discussion of the relation between each Person of the Trinity, summarized here (also see this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/72/biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It follows that we must say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical with the one godhead and are &quot;relatively&quot; distinct from one another. These three as distinct are constituted only by there relatedness to one another, so that the axiom which asserts the identity of the essence &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the distinction of the three may also be formulated (as Anselm was the first to do and as done by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Council of Florence&lt;/a&gt;) as follows: &lt;strong&gt;in God everything is one except where there is relative opposition&lt;/strong&gt; (DS 1330).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Spirit is fully God; we do not have an additive relationship, where Father + Son + Spirit = God; neither do we have a single Person revealing Himself in three different forms, but we have three Persons &quot;relatively&quot; distinct. Each Person sort of comprises the &quot;God essence&quot; in a distinct way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rahner then begins to discuss the relations in more detail, preparing to take a closer look at each Person within the Trinity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us first make it clear that in the official doctrine of the [Catholic] Church &lt;strong&gt;this term [person] says nothing which has not yet been said with the word &quot;hypostasis.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; This is already evident from the fact that both words are used as synonyms. Furthermore, it is evident that the element of consciousness, which nowadays and from long ago almost spontaneously connected with the concept,&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; does not belong to it in our context, insofar as it expresses the formal moment of this concept as distinguished from the &lt;em&gt;essence&lt;/em&gt; of God. Otherwise the &quot;three&quot; would also have to be said of this &quot;element of consciousness.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;But there exists in God only &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; power, &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; will, only one self-presence, a unique activity, a unique beatitude, and so forth.&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; Hence self-awareness is not a moment which distinguishes the divine &quot;persons&quot; one from the other, even though each divine &quot;person,&quot; as concrete, possesses a self-consciousness.&lt;/strong&gt; Whatever would mean three &quot;subjectivities&quot; must be carefully kept away from the concept of person in the present context.&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  &lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;: This is also often tacitly, but wrongly, presupposed in some &quot;demonstrations&quot; by which biblical theology tries to establish the &quot;personality&quot; of the (immanent) Son and Spirit, when they wish to demonstrate a &quot;personality&quot; of the Son and Spirit which is distinct from that of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;: Cp. DS 3, 71, 73, 144f, 172, 177, 415, 421, 441, 451, 490, 501, 542, 545f, 572f, 680, 851, 3350.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;We must, of course, say that Father, Son, and Spirit possess self-consciousness and that each one is aware of the other two &quot;persons.&quot; But precisely this self-consciousness (as subjective, not as understood in its objectivity) comes from the divine essence, is common &lt;em&gt;as one&lt;/em&gt; to the divine persons, is therefore a &lt;em&gt;moment&lt;/em&gt; of the concrete person, so that he may be defined as &quot;a distinct subject in a rational nature.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; But it is not a &lt;em&gt;constitutive&lt;/em&gt; moment of the &quot;person&quot; as such, as distinct from the &quot;essence&quot; (nature), although it must be mentioned if we wish to explain the difference between a &quot;hypostatis&quot; with self-awareness and a subhuman thing-like &quot;hypostatis.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;: &lt;strong&gt;Hence within the Trinity there is no reciprocal &quot;Thou.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; The Son is the Father's self-utterance which should not in its turn be conceived as &quot;uttering,&quot; and the Spirit is the &quot;gift&quot; which does not give in its turn. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2017:21&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jn. 17, 21&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal%204:6&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gal. 4, 6&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%208:15&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rom. 8, 15&lt;/a&gt; presuppose a &lt;em&gt;creaturely&lt;/em&gt; starting point for the &quot;Thou&quot; addressed to the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So each Person shares the Divine will, power, activity, and self-presence, all things that come from a mind. Yet each Person recognizes Himself as distinct from each other Person within the Trinity. Each Person's self-awareness and consciousness is not inherent to that Person (by nature of that Person being that Person) but comes from the shared essence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this is not &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; true; though this does explain the one-and-threeness without danger of imagining God as three Gods. We can only know of God what He chooses to reveal to us, and He didn't seem to think it necessary for us to fit Him into our little heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, the main difficulty regarding the concept of person in the doctrine of the Trinity is rather different, and we have already mentioned it several times before now: &lt;strong&gt;when &lt;em&gt;today we&lt;/em&gt; speak of person in the plural, we think almost necessarily, because of the modern meaning of the word, of several spiritual centers of activity, of several subjectivities and liberties.&lt;/strong&gt; But &lt;strong&gt;there are not three of these in God -- not only because in God there is only &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; essence, hence &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; absolute self-presence, but also because there is only &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; self-utterance of the Father, the Logos&lt;/strong&gt;... There is in God a knowledge of these three persons.. a knowledge about the Trinity both &lt;em&gt;as consciousness&lt;/em&gt; and as &quot;&lt;em&gt;object&lt;/em&gt;&quot; of knowledge (as known). &lt;strong&gt;But there are not three consciousnesses; rather the one consciousness subsists in a threefold way.&lt;/strong&gt; There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit, by each in his own proper way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T23:16:18.210" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4479" CreationDate="2013-04-20T23:17:52.000" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lutherans who hold to their confessions [ &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bookofconcord.org/&lt;/a&gt; ] believe that justification, faith, and baptism go together.  A baptized infant believes the Gospel at its baptism.  An adult who falls away from faith in Christ which has been given in Baptism and is converted is returning to the promise of the Gospel which has been applied to him in Baptism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lutherans believe that faith in Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.  Human will is bound and unable to assist with conversion.  The Holy Spirit works faith through the external Word--that is, the preached Gospel, the written or read Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, faith worked in Christ by the preached Word leads to Baptism, which is &quot;the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit&quot; (Titus 3).  Rather than looking for or to an experience of conversion, Lutherans look to God's works and promises.  Rather than looking to his feeling of faith, or his conversion experience, decision, or sanctified life, a Lutheran will look to the forgiveness of sins promised in the Gospel to all sinners on account of Christ's propitiatory death, and he will look to the promise of God in Baptism (as well as absolution, and the sacrament of Christ's body and blood) that Christ's merits have been given to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luther's sermon on Matthew 8:1-13 in his 1525 &quot;Church Postil&quot; [ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Web-Fastepostillen%20AM/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Web-Fastepostillen%20AM/index.htm&lt;/a&gt; ] he talks about the faith of infants in Baptism.  Another key writing is the Large Catechism's section on Baptism, where Luther has a section dealing specifically with Anabaptist arguments against infant baptism and infant faith.  The Large Catechism can be found at the Book of Concord website linked above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some excerpts from the sermon on Matthew I've found helpful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First we must let the foundation stand firm and sure, that nobody will be saved by the faith or righteousness of another, but only by his own; and on the other hand nobody will be condemned for the unbelief or sins of another, but for his own unbelief; as the Gospel says clearly and distinctly in Mk 16,16: ”He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” And Rom 1, 17: ”The righteous shall live by faith.” And Jn 3, 16-18: ”Whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already.” These are clear, public words, that every one must believe for himself, and nobody can help himself by the faith of others, without his own faith. From these passages we dare not depart and we must not deny them, let them strike where they may, and we ought rather let the world perish than change this divine truth. And if any plausible argument is made against it, that you are not able to refute, you must confess that you do not understand the matter and commit it to God, rather than admit anything contrary to these clear statements. Whatever may become of the heathen, Jews, Turks, little children and everything that exists, these words must be right and true.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now the question is, what becomes of the young children, seeing that they have not yet reason and are not able to believe for themselves, because it is written in Rom 10, 17: ”Belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” Little children neither hear nor understand the Word of God, and therefore they can have no faith of their own.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If now we cannot give a better answer to this question and prove that the little children themselves believe and have their own faith, my sincere counsel and judgment is, that we abstain altogether and the sooner the better, and never baptize a child, so that we may not mock and blaspheme the adorable majesty of God by such trifling and juggling with nothing in it. Therefore we here conclude and declare that in baptism the children themselves believe and have their own faith, which God effects in them through the sponsors, when in the faith of the Christian church they intercede for them and bring them to baptism....&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So here we also say, that children are not baptized in the faith of the sponsors or of the church; but the faith of sponsors and of the church prays and gains faith for them, in which they are baptized and believe for themselves. For this we have strong and firm Scripture proof, Mt 19,13-15; Mk 10, 13-16; Lk 18, 15-16. When some brought little children to the Lord Jesus that he should touch them, and the disciples forbade them, he rebuked the disciples, and embraced the children, and laid his hands upon them and blessed them, and said: ”To such belongeth the kingdom of God” etc. These passages nobody will take from us, nor refute with good proof. For here is written: Christ will permit no one to forbid that little children should be brought to him; nay, be bids them to be brought to him, and blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven. Let us give due heed to this Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is undoubtedly written of natural children. The interpretation of Christ's words, as if he had meant only spiritual children, who are small in humility, will not stand. For they were small children as to their bodies, which Luke calls infants. His blessing is placed upon these, and of these he says that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Will we say they were without faith of their own? Then the passages quoted above are untrue: ”He that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” Then Christ also speaks falsely or feigns, when he says the kingdom of heaven is theirs, and is not really speaking of the true kingdom of heaven. Interpret these words of Christ as you please, we have it that children are to be brought to Christ and not to be forbidden to be brought: and when they are brought to Christ, he here compels us to believe that he blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven, as he does with these children. And it is in no way proper for us to act and believe otherwise as long as the words stand: ”Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” Not less is it proper for us to believe that when they are brought to him he embraces them, blesses them, and bestows upon them heaven, as long as the text stands that he blessed the children which were brought to him and gave heaven to them. Who can ignore this text? Who will be so bold as not to suffer little children to come to baptism, or not to believe that Christ blesses them when they come?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4371" LastActivityDate="2013-04-20T23:17:52.000" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15752" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-20T23:35:12.077" Score="4" ViewCount="109" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a fan of and work in the popular Christian music scene. Not being religious, I still do appreciate the goodness, comfort and encouragement of the faith based music.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question that arises is, does Christianity support the idea that a true strong faith can only come from brokenness and struggles in life? Many people are drawn into the faith via this avenue but can faith just as strong grow out of those with relatively less struggle and problems?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, here is a typical story of from an artist in the pop Christian music scene:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.klove.com/music/artists/shawn-mcdonald/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.klove.com/music/artists/shawn-mcdonald/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and this pastors story&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.harvest.org/crusades/testimonies/a-road-less-traveled.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.harvest.org/crusades/testimonies/a-road-less-traveled.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any ideas in what Christianity doctrine says abut this is much appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you for any help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4372" LastEditorUserId="4372" LastEditDate="2013-04-21T03:55:37.927" LastActivityDate="2013-04-21T09:59:40.377" Title="What are the avenues to developing a true strong faith and relationship with God?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-05-24T12:58:29.657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15752" CreationDate="2013-04-21T09:59:40.377" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the important elements of conversion is to admit my insuffieciency, to admit that I'm a poor sinner and I can't change it without God's grace. This is much easier to figure out if I'm a big sinner, if I'm broken and if I lose my struggles. There's a correlation between the conscience that I have been forgiven and love for God. In the story of Jesus and a sinful woman in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:36-50&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 7:36-50&lt;/a&gt; there is an important remark:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there are people who love a lot even though there are no clearly visible struggles they have been  saved from or sins they have been forgiven. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_of_Lisieux&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Thérèse of Lisieux&lt;/a&gt; wondered a lot about the contrast between the Biblic passage linked/ cited above and her love for Christ with no previous time of struggles or sinfulness. After some time of meditations on this problem she got an answer: she have been forgiven &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; she could sin, God's grace saved her from any temptation she wouldn't resist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thérèse of Lisieux is an extreme, but there are people following this pattern. I know at least one guy who figured out he is Christian with no struggles, and he seems to love God a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-04-21T09:59:40.377" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15756" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15759" CreationDate="2013-04-22T05:52:44.800" Score="7" ViewCount="1565" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament references &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudy.org/prophecy/old-testament-prophecies-jesus-fulfilled.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus death and resurrection&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always wondered why did Jesus have only &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14763/999&quot;&gt;3 years of time (or 3 1/2 )&lt;/a&gt; as a preacher and teacher. I suppose you could say the time was enough to spread God's message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this duration predicted in the OT ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2016-03-19T05:52:15.463" Title="Are there Old Testament references to the length of Jesus earthly ministry?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;timetable&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2548" CreationDate="2013-04-22T07:21:10.740" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I can't find any source that would say about &quot;mind&quot; of God (I'm not even sure if Church Fathers ever used the word &quot;nous&quot; as something that God possesess), the notion of &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt; of God is resolved by the theology of the First Ecumenical Councils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially the 6th Ecumenical Council (3rd Constantinople) which was opposing the heresy of monotheletism explained that if there is a difference between Christ's will and Father's will, it is the &lt;strong&gt;human&lt;/strong&gt; will of Christ. The &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt; will of the Trinity is &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt;. But the Word Incarnate having two full natures of God and of man has also two wills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1586" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T07:21:10.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15756" CreationDate="2013-04-22T12:08:59.033" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes the duration of Christ’s ministry was prophesied under the Old Testament to be 3.5 years&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, g the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”  (Daniel 9:25–27, NIV). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is related to this post: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12119/does-the-old-testament-foretell-the-time-in-history-in-which-the-messiah-would-c/12144#12144&quot;&gt;Does the Old Testament foretell the time in history in which the Messiah would come (the first time)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many possible interpretations according to the seventy weeks of Daniel followed by one half of a week where Messiah would be ‘cut off. I prefer the view that each day of the weeks are 1 year and the basic idea is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The period is 490 years ending 3½ years after Christ’s death. The 490 years begin with the decree by Artaxerxes I. (Ezra 7) The appearance of Messiah at the end of the 483 years is when Christ is baptized. This is where his ministry begins at which point ½ a week later (3.5 years) he is ‘cut off’ through his crucifixion. Therefore Christ put an end to sacrifice and offering as the inner curtain of the temple as torn top-to-bottom.  Through the Holy Spirit for another 3½ years after His crucifixion Christ offers salvation principally to the Jews but having generally rejected him thereby sealing the cause of the future destruction of Jerusalem&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7266/what-is-the-abomination-of-desolation/8169#8169&quot;&gt; [abomination of desolation]&lt;/a&gt;, which occurred several years later. This final destruction of Jerusalem as a result is also a final ending of the sacrifices and offering but the true end was in Christ's death, the second part of it is more penal and judiciary against those who rejected him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many variants and debates about the exact years, some even think the 3.5 years is the last of the ½ week. However in either case it does seem that Jesus came around the time he should have and his ministry lasted for around the 3.5 years that it should have. Regardless of the view you take it is compelling and believable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T12:08:59.033" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15747" CreationDate="2013-04-22T14:08:04.663" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you already stated, Judas (Strong's g2455) is simply a variation of the name Judah. Iscariot (Strong's g2469) translates to &quot;man of Kerioth.&quot; Kerioth is one of the cities listed in Joshua chapter 15 as the allotment of the Promised Land for the tribe of Judah. So there doesn't seem to be a literal meaning behind the name, other than likely belonging to the tribe of Judah. &lt;br /&gt;&#xA;As for a non-literal significance, there is certainly a parallelism between Israel (and the kings of Judah in particular) rebelling and Judas-Iscariot betraying Jesus. Whether or not this parallelism has a further significance, I can't say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4376" LastEditorUserId="4376" LastEditDate="2013-04-22T16:02:41.553" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T16:02:41.553" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15745" CreationDate="2013-04-22T14:55:17.880" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/00001a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prefatory material&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop [of New York, John Cardinal Farley,] under whose jurisdiction it is published. &lt;strong&gt;In constituting the editors the ecclesiastical censors,&lt;/strong&gt; he has given them a singular proof of his confidence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I take this to mean that the five members of the Editorial Board were themselves the guarantee of the work's orthodoxy. I'm not sure how this harmonizes with the Nihil Obstat mentioned at the bottom of each of the articles. &lt;em&gt;Perhaps&lt;/em&gt; the official diocesan censor's Nihil Obstat was a rubber stamp in this case?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two of the five editors were laymen, two were secular clerics, and one was a Jesuit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_George_Herbermann&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Charles G. Herbermann&lt;/a&gt;, professor and librarian at the College of the City of New York&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_A._Pace&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. Edward A. Pace&lt;/a&gt;, professor at Catholic University of America&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cond%C3%A9_Benoist_Pallen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Condé B. Pallen&lt;/a&gt;, editor of various periodicals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Joseph_Shahan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. Thomas J. Shahan&lt;/a&gt;, professor at CUA, later rector of the University, finally auxiliary bishop of Baltimore&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mcnamarasblog/2009/11/john-j-wynne-s-j-1859-1948.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. John J. Wynne, S.J.&lt;/a&gt;, editor of &lt;em&gt;The Messenger&lt;/em&gt; and founding editor of &lt;em&gt;America&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These men certainly intended the encyclopedia to be accurate, orthodox, comprehensive, and up-to-date (the &quot;date&quot; being roughly 1912):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia ... proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine ... The editors have insisted that the articles should contain the latest and most accurate information to be obtained from the standard works on each subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T14:55:17.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15713" CreationDate="2013-04-22T16:30:30.237" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;As a very preliminary point, there are several &quot;Rites&quot; within the Roman Catholic Church&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and some of them have never had, and never will have, Latin liturgical services. So all of the below applies specifically to the Roman Rite (which is the most widespread by far).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To lay the basic groundwork: Latin is still the official liturgical language of the Roman Rite. The Scripture readings in the liturgy are translated from various sources, but apart from those, any non-Latin text of any liturgical service has been translated from the official Latin, and the translation itself has been approved by the Vatican.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the everyday liturgical use of Latin is rare and typically confined to monastic or academic settings, and only to a few such settings. In normal parish life you will generally encounter Latin in one of three ways (ordered from most common to least common):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Occasionally, in the &lt;em&gt;Ordinary  Form&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; This is the form of mass used by almost all Roman Rite Catholics since 1970. No part of it is required to be in Latin but many communities will still use a bit of Latin here and there, sometimes for musical reasons (perhaps a visiting choir singing a mass setting by Palestrina or Mozart), and sometimes as an intentional way of connecting with tradition: My own parish, for example, sings a few brief, simple parts of the mass in Latin during Advent and Lent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exclusively, by requirement of the law, in the &lt;em&gt;Extraordinary Form&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; Colloquially known as the &quot;Tridentine&quot; or &quot;Traditional Latin&quot; mass, this is the form of mass used by Roman Rite Catholics almost everywhere up until about 1964. Some communities still use it regularly or even exclusively. By law this form of the mass has to be celebrated entirely in Latin, with limited, recently-granted (2007), and rarely-used exceptions for the Scripture readings. The law in force here is ordered mainly toward preserving an ancient treasure of the Church during a time of liturgical confusion and rapid change (i.e., the last 40-50 years). Those who prefer this form of mass may or may not personally prefer Latin -- I know people who would love to have the older form of mass in the vernacular and sometimes I lean that way myself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Liberally, by free choice, in the &lt;em&gt;Ordinary Form&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; There is a tiny number of parishes where at least some of the masses are celebrated in the post-1970 form but entirely or mainly in Latin. This is very uncommon and there is usually some unique reason for it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why Latin is considered a &quot;better language&quot; there are many answers. Popes Pius XI and John XXIII both solemnly affirmed the general importance of Latin in the life of the Catholic Church, in letters published respectively in 1922 and 1962. They identified, among other things, its &lt;em&gt;universality&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;immutability&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;nobility&lt;/em&gt; -- not to mention that knowing Latin unlocks a huge treasury of Patristic and ancient literature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also many reasons why an everyday Joe who can barely manage his own native tongue might prefer to worship at a service conducted in Latin. Peter mentions &lt;em&gt;beauty&lt;/em&gt; and that's an excellent one. Some of the Latin prayers of the mass have been with us for a thousand or more years precisely because they are exceedingly well-crafted poetic gems. Likewise many long-lived and beautiful sacred-music settings were written for, and best fit, Latin texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would guess that an Orthodox Christian could speak at length on the question of liturgical beauty -- there is a strain of thinking that is muted in current Catholic discourse but I think very strong with the Orthodox, wherein one considers the beauty of a liturgical service objectively or theologically, rather than subjectively or pastorally. From this perspective, the question is less &quot;what is accessible to the people present?&quot; and more &quot;what is most fitting for the Eucharistic worship of almighty God?&quot; This gets complicated, of course, because vernacular liturgy is fairly well-established in the Orthodox Churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mentioned &lt;em&gt;tradition&lt;/em&gt; above -- the Catholic Church is big on that, and worshipping in Latin, using the same words that our fellow Catholics have used for a thousand or more years, connects us with our tradition very concretely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if I might speculate a bit: Another reason for some people may be that a &lt;em&gt;veil&lt;/em&gt; between the worshiper and the act of worship (in this case an intellectual veil) may actually facilitate one's interior participation in that worship. The parish priest who wrote &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0898707013&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this little book&lt;/a&gt;, for example suspects that a surprisingly large number of people actually find themselves in a state of continual distraction when attempting to worship God at a liturgy that is entirely spoken aloud in their own language. Of course this gets into contentious questions about the theology of worship, what it means to &quot;participate&quot;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt; A &quot;Rite&quot; is a coherent liturgical and theological tradition that is usually connected with some particular culture -- non-Latin examples include the Maronite and Byzantine Rites. There are even a few non-Roman &lt;em&gt;Latin&lt;/em&gt; Rites&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-04-22T16:59:32.863" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T16:59:32.863" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15765" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15773" CreationDate="2013-04-22T17:33:54.077" Score="3" ViewCount="561" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the phrase &quot;Mother of God&quot; appears in the prayer commonly referred to as the &quot;Hail Mary&quot; prayer.  I'm wondering, though, what the origin is of the phrase &quot;Mother of God&quot;.  Did it first appear in the Hail Mary prayer or does it predate that?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-04-23T20:40:00.457" LastActivityDate="2014-01-01T11:40:11.870" Title="When was the title of &quot;Mother of God&quot; first ascribed to Mary?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15765" CreationDate="2013-04-22T18:01:05.663" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia's entry on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;theotokos&lt;/a&gt; (&amp;quot;mother of God&amp;quot;) already answers this pretty well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Use in the early Christian Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origen (d. 254) is often cited as the earliest author to use theotokos for Mary (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 7.32 citing Origen's Commentary on Romans) but the text upon which this assertion is based may not be genuine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Athanasius of Alexandria in 330, Gregory the Theologian in 370, John Chrysostom in 400, and Augustine all used theotokos.[11]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sub tuum praesidium, a Coptic Orthodox hymn dating approximately to the year 250, refers to Mary as the theotokos.[12]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hail Mary Prayer&lt;/a&gt;, though based in Luke, by contrast, dates to the 1050s:-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After considering the use of similar words in Syriac, Greek and Latin in the 6th century, the article on the Hail Mary[8] in the Catholic Encyclopedia concludes that &amp;quot;there is little or no trace of the Hail Mary as an accepted devotional formula before about 1050,&amp;quot; though a later pious tale attributed to Ildephonsus of Toledo (fl. 7th century) the use of the first part, namely the angel's greeting Mary, without that of Elizabeth, as a prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.egolpion.com/term_theotokos_.en.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.egolpion.com/term_theotokos_.en.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/02/sub-tuum-praesidium.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/02/sub-tuum-praesidium.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T09:58:21.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14859" CreationDate="2013-04-22T19:39:33.493" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have questioned this for a while. Many believe that the coats of skin represent a sacrifice done by God for Adam and Eve's sin. Nelson's New Illustrated bible Dictionary makes a statement concerning this that has brought a question up to me about it. I shall type the quote and give reference to the page now: This is located on page 1109 under the topic of Sacrifice,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;It is a serious mistake to affirm that Abel's sacrifice was&#xA;  acceptable to God because it was an animal sacrifice and that Cain's&#xA;  sacrifice was unacceptable because he did not bring an animal. Genesis&#xA;  4 makes no mention of offerings for the atonement of sin, and&#xA;  therefore to insist that the blood of an animal is mandated here is to&#xA;  read more into the account than is warranted. Attitude on the part of&#xA;  the offerer, not the nature of the offering, is in the forefront of&#xA;  the author's concern in Genesis 4.  Nor is it helpful to claim that&#xA;  God's provision of animal skins in Genesis 3, in contrast to the fig&#xA;  leaves used by Adam and Eve, presupposes the slaughter of a&#xA;  sacrificial animal. Warmth and comfort are in view, not attonement.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is because of the facts that sacrifice is not mentioned at the time of the coats of skin and that there is no mention of God teaching Adam about sacrifice, that I doubt it to have been a sin offering at all. It may have been, but, God mentions sacrifice in His word when it was offered at times in the beginning of creation with Abel and Cain, no record of Adam sacrificing at all and no record of Adam even talking with God anymore after being put out of the garden.  Just thoughts that God is working on me with.                                                                    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4377" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-22T20:19:59.917" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T20:19:59.917" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12267" CreationDate="2013-04-22T21:16:51.033" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&quot;Mass in Latin&quot; vs. &quot;Latin Mass&quot;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to understand that &lt;strong&gt;the term &lt;em&gt;Latin Mass&lt;/em&gt; is almost always a colloquial and somewhat imprecise reference to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the form of the liturgy that, in its essentials, was used by almost all Western Christians from at least the early Middle Ages until the Reformation, was codified for the great majority of Roman-Rite Catholics in 1570, and has remained fairly fixed up to and including the latest edition, which was published in 1962.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The older form of the mass is relatively rare and hard to find these days (though it is enjoying a gradual resurgence) -- most Catholics instead use the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which was first published in 1970 as the initial answer to the Second Vatican Council's call for a reform and revision of the Church's worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The official texts of &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; forms are promulgated in Latin by the Vatican, but the older form &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt;, by law, be celebrated in Latin (with a tiny bit of Greek), whereas the newer form &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be celebrated in Latin, but rarely is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence the informal term &quot;&lt;em&gt;Latin&lt;/em&gt; Mass&quot;, &lt;strong&gt;which really signifies the ritual more than the language&lt;/strong&gt;, but does so by way of the most immediately-obvious distinguishing feature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Why anyone cares&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two forms are strikingly different. They share the same overall structure and have many elements in common, but also many significant areas of divergence in structural detail, ceremonial rules, vesture, and the particular texts and music prescribed for various parts of the mass and various days of the year. Typically, though not in every single case, these divergences culminate in a strikingly different atmosphere of worship at church on Sunday morning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not perhaps the place to discuss whether one form is better than the other, but it's plain that some people energetically prefer one form to the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T21:16:51.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13857" CreationDate="2013-04-22T21:44:20.233" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To supplement the other two fine responses, I'd like to point out another general distinction. The texts prayed at every Catholic mass fall into one of two categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mass Ordinary:&lt;/strong&gt; This set of texts remains more or less fixed from day to day, with some variation based on the season or the day's liturgical rank&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; -- for example the Gloria is omitted in Lent and Advent, the second reading and Creed are generally omitted on weekdays, etc. Peter's answer outlines its structure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mass Propers:&lt;/strong&gt; These texts vary from day to day. and can themselves be divided into three categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Two or three Scripture readings or &lt;em&gt;lessons&lt;/em&gt;: always one from the New Testament, sometimes one from the Old Testament, and always one from the Gospel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Five or more &lt;em&gt;processional chants&lt;/em&gt;: usually small excerpts from the Psalms, traditionally sung by the choir at various points in the mass where there could be a procession. In the newer form of the Roman Rite several of these chants are often replaced by congregational hymns, which the music staff choose ad libitum:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Introit (entrance procession)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gradual (between lessons)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Alleluia or Tract (before the Gospel)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sequence (a long non-Scriptural hymn added before the Gospel on major feasts)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Offertory (during the preparation of the bread and wine for consecration)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Communion (during the distribution of Holy Communion)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;presidential prayers&lt;/em&gt;, prayed by the priest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Collect: concludes the opening rites and immediately precedes the Scripture readings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prayer over the Offerings: concludes the Offertory and immediately precedes the Anaphora (i.e, Eucharistic Prayer)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Postcommunion: concludes the Communion rite and precedes the dismissal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Every day of the year has a liturgical rank, which ranges from Easter at the top to an ordinary summer weekday at the bottom, with saints' feast days somewhere in between depending on a number of factors.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2013-04-22T21:44:20.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15770" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17197" CreationDate="2013-04-23T00:57:13.897" Score="5" ViewCount="317" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today there is a plethora of books using questionnaires or similar tools in order to identify what spiritual gifts a person might have. I am wondering who was the first using this methodology and/or what book was the first to be published using this approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I am looking for the first book, not the &quot;best&quot; book or the &quot;first good&quot; book, nor am I currently wishing for answers about the benefits or drawbacks of the approach.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-03T16:41:51.697" LastActivityDate="2015-09-03T16:41:51.697" Title="What was the first Spiritual Gifts Inventory book published or who was the first to use the method?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;resource-request&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2399" CreationDate="2013-04-23T02:24:43.987" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The manifesto was only implemented initially to a limited extent. It was a statement by the church that the church would no longer practice plural marriage. However, plural marriages actually weren't under the jurisdiction of the church to start with. It wasn't until 1852 that this practice became general knowledge to the members of the church when Brigham Young and Orson Pratt introduced it at a special general conference. This was because all things in the church are to be performed by common consent. (D&amp;amp;C 26:2) It was unanimously accepted as a valid principle at that conference. So, just as the early priesthood leaders didn't need this to be something accepted by the church before 1852, they didn't have any need for it to continue in the church after 1890 either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could say it was a bit of a ruse to try and appease the government without actually being fully divested of it. Many priesthood leaders continued to utilize the priesthood organization and power to continue living according to the fullness of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, which of necessity includes the plurality of wives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This needed to be preserved because the priesthood's ability to continue to qualify to receive the higher level of ministration of &quot;thus saith the Lord&quot; oracles from the Father and the Son was at stake. The level of ministration a priesthood or church body qualifies to receive depends upon what set of laws they are living in accordance to. (D&amp;amp;C 88:21-22; 76:77,86-88) If you do not keep the fullness of the Father's Celestial Law then you are unworthy of His presence and shall not receive of His ministration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why prior to the Manifesto there was a separate priesthood body established ahead of time with a president and 6 councilors. This is based upon the organization called the School of the Prophets that was called to order as such in D&amp;amp;C 88:127-141 and D&amp;amp;C 90:7-15. This priesthood body was presided over by the person who was the Lord's Anointed who received the oracles, which are the &quot;thus saith the Lord&quot; level of revelations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is this organization of priesthood that is separate from the church that is at the root of the claims of Mormon Fundamentalists to have the authority to continue to perform plural marriages, among other things. Some called this organization the Council of Friends because those who enter into the School do so by the covenant of friendship and brotherhood as fellow &quot;Sons of God&quot;. (D&amp;amp;C 88:133)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This organization created by John Taylor had a president and 6 councilors just as the earlier School of the Prophets did. It appears likely that this same organization was also called the Church of the Firstborn, but that needs further proof that I am not currently prepared to present. The important thing is to understand that there were bodies of authority separate from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that were not subject to the church's authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the foremost factors that led to the Manifesto was the evidence that the vast majority of Mormons were personally opposed to plural marriage. This became clear when various versions of proposals for a state constitution for Utah were being drafted and voted upon. It was noted that plural marriage was a significantly negative feature to an approximate ratio of 13,000 opposed to 500 in favor. I'll dig out the cite for this later. I think it was mentioned in one of Lynn Bishop's books or Allred's book called &quot;A Leaf in Review&quot;. It's been many years since I read those so my memory is a bit fuzzy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, to address your question in relation to the warning given that those who do not abide the Covenant cannot enter into the Father's Glory: &#xA;The evidence for this being the case is clear. Even when plural marriage was still being practiced during the mid 1800's there were other laws of the Father that were not being fully implemented either. The Saints struggled and tried to practice the Celestial economic laws but failed over and over. It was recognized that the Saints would have to be patient and wait for the due time of the Lord to bring about what scripture calls the redemption of Zion. (D&amp;amp;C 105:9-13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the unfortunate reality is that we as a church are still under a level of condemnation. (D&amp;amp;C 85:54-58) This was affirmed as recent as 1986/1988 by Ezra Taft Benson who was the President of the Church at the time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Benson, Ezra T Oct Conf. 1988, Nov ENSIGN, p. 6 par. 10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moses never entered the promised land. Joseph Smith never saw Zion&#xA;  redeemed. Some of us may not live long enough to see the day when the&#xA;  Book of Mormon floods the earth and &lt;strong&gt;when the Lord lifts His condemnation&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  (See D&amp;amp;C 84:54--58.) But, God willing, I intend to spend&#xA;  all my remaining days in that glorious effort. In the name of Jesus&#xA;  Christ, amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the truth is, we are yet awaiting the time that Zion shall be redeemed. We are in a state of damnation just as that passage warns. Celestial &quot;thus saith the Lord&quot; ministration has ceased and there won't be anymore received until the Saints finally come around to realizing the Father meant every single word He said. We are under condemnation because we have taken lightly that which we have been given. (D&amp;amp;C 90:3-5) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must come to a point where we implement the full economic, social and educational systems that the Father instructed us to do per the &quot;former commandments&quot;. If the Lord reveals light and truth and a people reject and turn away from it and take it lightly, then they are indeed under condemnation and shall eventually have taken from them all light and truth. (D&amp;amp;C 93:39; 60:2-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is because they have one of two choices. They can hold and maintain integrity to what was given and press for repentance to that standard or they can turn to their pride and self-righteousness and twist everything into a mess trying to rationalize the avoidance of it. For example, they believe that breaking off a piece of the New and Everlasting Covenant is not actually breaking the New and Everlasting Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this means that instead of looking forward to a period of great salvation and triumph when the calamities come, the Saints shall actually be unprepared and fully subject to the scourge and judgment that is coming if they do not repent in time. And, if we are slow to hearken to the words of the Father to heed this and other warnings, He shall be slow to hearken to our cries when we are driven into circumstances to humble us of our pride and self-righteous drunkenness so that at least some few of us can participate in Zion's redemption. (D&amp;amp;C 133:63-70)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastEditorUserId="4363" LastEditDate="2013-04-24T08:12:45.660" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T08:12:45.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15772" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-23T05:21:34.427" Score="4" ViewCount="507" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just half an hour ago, I watched &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ted.com/talks/alexander_tsiaras_conception_to_birth_visualized.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;an amazing video&lt;/a&gt; that had a visualization of a baby's development from conception to birth. Afterwards, as I went about satisfying bodily needs (like food), I had one line from Silent Night running through my head: &quot;Jesus, Lord at thy birth.&quot; Then I suddenly had the realization that if the Son was in that fetus as it developed, He may not have been conscious for nine months.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was surprised to find out that &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; was the one who previously asked &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/195/58&quot;&gt;when a person's soul/spirit unites with the body&lt;/a&gt;. Apparently, the official position is that it happens at conception. If this is true, then the Son united with His zygotic body at conception, which I assume could correctly be referred to as the Hypostatic Union. Thus, my question is: was the Son &quot;conscious&quot; while He was developing in Mary's womb?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A non-birth example would be when Jesus and his disciples went across the lake after feeding 5,000 men:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8:24&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 8:24 (NLT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;Suddenly, a fierce storm struck the lake, with waves breaking into the boat. But Jesus was sleeping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was sleeping, so his physical brain certainly would've been unconscious. Multiple times, Jesus made it clear that he didn't use his own divine power (having &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:6-7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;emptied himself&lt;/a&gt;, as Paul explains), depending instead on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+4:14&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Spirit's power&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+12:49-50&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;his Father's commands&lt;/a&gt;. Did this also apply while he was asleep? Was the Son &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; &quot;asleep&quot; while Jesus slept?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, what I'm trying to ask here is: &lt;strong&gt;did the Hypostatic Union limit the consciousness of the Son?&lt;/strong&gt; Of course, even trying to apply the term &quot;conscious&quot; to God is a bit wibbly-wobbly, but I think the gist is clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would most appreciate writings from the great theologians of the church up to the Great Schism, but if an answer would be better by referencing a later great theologian, then the closer to Wesleyan, the better. Regardless, Roman Catholic and/or Orthodox writings are fine as sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T22:01:14.117" Title="Did Jesus' hypostatic union limit Christ's consciousness?" Tags="&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15765" CreationDate="2013-04-23T09:19:00.670" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God &quot;in the flesh&quot;.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is not so then it is like saying that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion will be same as heresy of Nestorianism. On the contrary Mary carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Precisely for this reason, both &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/mary.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Martin Luther and John Calvin&lt;/a&gt;  insisted on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/03/evangelicals-and-the-mother-of-god-40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mary’s divine maternity&lt;/a&gt;.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some of the summarized forms of Mother of God references from very early age of Christianity:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Irenaeus: [A.D. 189]&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that &lt;strong&gt;she would bear God&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (Against Heresies, 5:19:1).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hippolytus [A.D. 217]&lt;/strong&gt; ….Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the &lt;strong&gt;spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary&lt;/strong&gt; in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]&quot; (Discourse on the End of the World 1).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gregory the Wonderworker [A.D. 262]&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the &lt;strong&gt;Mother of God&lt;/strong&gt;, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David&quot; (Four Homilies 1).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the &lt;strong&gt;holy Mother of God&lt;/strong&gt;, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’&quot; (ibid., 2).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Peter of Alexandria: [A.D. 305]&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;They came to the church of the most &lt;strong&gt;blessed Mother of God&lt;/strong&gt;, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs&quot; (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the &lt;strong&gt;Mother of God&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the length of this answer is increasing, I will restrict here in mentioning only the names and dates when these references were made:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Methodius&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;em&gt;(Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305])&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;Cyril of Jerusalem&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;em&gt;(Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350])&lt;/em&gt;;&lt;strong&gt;Ephraim the Syrian&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;em&gt;(Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351])&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;Athanasius&lt;/strong&gt;:  &lt;em&gt;(The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365])&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;Epiphanius of Salamis&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;em&gt;(The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374])&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;Ambrose&lt;/strong&gt; of Milan:&lt;em&gt;(The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377])&lt;/em&gt; and many more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2014-01-01T07:09:58.553" LastActivityDate="2014-01-01T07:09:58.553" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15494" CreationDate="2013-04-23T10:51:37.220" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had this discussion not long ago (I was hosting a weekly theological discussion night) with several colleagues who ascribe to premillenial views. They nearly all came to the same conclusion, that the rulers of the earth both during and after the 1,000 years will be chosen from the among the body of believers. The two passages they used to support their argument were: &lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke 19:11-25&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;2 Timothy 2:11-12 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is however the extent of their agreement on the matter, they could not agree on what happens at the end of or after the 1,000 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not this answer is in line with the official view on the topic (assuming there is one) I don't know, but hopefully it helps you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4376" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T10:51:37.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15775" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-23T11:27:37.463" Score="5" ViewCount="1176" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always been a lover of all things &quot;Science&quot;, space, other life forms, etc. I excelled in Science in School but a few years ago I started questioning things and now believe that &quot;Science&quot; and God &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; coexist - something that most people I've spoken to disagree with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway. There are other planets out there, we all know that. But does Life exist on any of those planets? Does God ever mention anything about his &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; creations (outside of Earth)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look at Earth from outside of it (correct me if I'm wrong), we can see the lights all across the world. But when we look at other planets, there are no lights. This alone leads me to believe that there are no other forms of life on planets that we can see - unless they are completely different from us and are of colors that our eyes cannot see, or is it that God made it so that forms of life on one planet cannot communicate with or see forms of life on another planet?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would very much like this to be a discussion but since that's not appropriate for this website I would like to know if there is anything in the scriptures about any of this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4268" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-01-18T21:05:01.017" LastActivityDate="2015-01-18T21:05:01.017" Title="Did God ever talk about his other creations?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;extra-terrestrial-life&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-20T21:56:06.860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15541" CreationDate="2013-04-23T11:31:37.907" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus referred to himself as &quot;Son of man&quot; in three contexts, each with its own circle of fairly distinct meanings. He used this self-designation of &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) his earthly work and its (frequently) humble condition (e.g., Mark 2:10, 28 parr.; Matt 11:19=Luke 7:34; Matt 8:20=Luke 9:58); &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) his coming suffering, death, and resurrection (Mark 9:9,12; Mark 14:21 and, above all, Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34 parr.); &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(3) his future coming in heavenly glory to act with sovereign power at a final judgement (e.g., Mark 8:38; 13:26-27 parr.; Matt 24:27=Luke 17:24; Matt 25:31-32; see John 5:27). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These classifications show how the &quot;Son of man&quot; served as a way of indicating Jesus' importance and even universal relevance. This was especially true of the class (3) sayings. In other words, &quot;Son of man&quot; was used to say what Jesus did rather than what he was. It was not and did not become a title in the normal sense — at least not on the lips of Jesus himself&quot;. (taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Christianity)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Christianity)&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also remember that this term appears 107 times in the Hebrew Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4314" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T11:31:37.907" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15775" CreationDate="2013-04-23T12:02:22.750" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not an answer but a scientific clarification, please delete if inappropriate. But since the OP asked  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(correct me if I'm wrong)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lights on earth are only visible from space if you are very close.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The only planets we can actually &quot;see&quot; are the ones in our solar system. As far as we know these don't carry any life at all &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With the aid of Kepler telescope, NASA has recently discovered three &quot;earth like&quot; planets that are not too far away &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.npr.org/2013/04/18/177774505/kepler-telescope-spots-three-new-planets-in-the-goldilocks-zone&quot;&gt;http://www.npr.org/2013/04/18/177774505/kepler-telescope-spots-three-new-planets-in-the-goldilocks-zone&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If these planets had lights we would not be able to see them from that distance. It's just too far away.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Visible light for humans only covers a small part of the&#xA;electromagnetic spectrum. Even on earth there are animals that use&#xA;different frequencies for vision. We have no reason to believe that&#xA;life on other planets would &quot;see&quot; the same way&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;However, we would expect some sort of electromagnetic radiation from a technological advanced civilization. We sure produce a heck of it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then again, the planets that Kepler has found (and there are most likely lots more out there) are about 1000 light years or so away. That means it takes about 1000 years for any type of radiation to get here and we'd only hear/see/detect what happened there 1000 years ago. So far we've come up empty. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If today there would be an alien at a Kepler planet pointing their radio-telescope at earth they would detect absolutely nothing. 1000 years ago, earth didn't radiate any electromagnetic waves.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The whole definition of &quot;Life&quot; is a tricky problem in itself. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions&lt;/a&gt;. For example it's not entirely clear whether a virus is a living thing or not (according to most, but not all, definitions it's not)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We don't have very credible idea of how life on other planets may look like or express itself and how we would recognize it as such if we came across it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4020" LastEditorUserId="4020" LastEditDate="2013-04-23T13:49:26.587" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T13:49:26.587" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15772" CreationDate="2013-04-23T12:02:48.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is an interesting Bible verse that shows that Jesus was omnipresent while on earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. -- (John 3:13, KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we learn that Jesus was &lt;em&gt;in heaven&lt;/em&gt; while talking to Nicodemus!  We also learn in John 1 that Jesus saw Philip under the fig tree when this was physically impossible.  This shows that Jesus was omnipresent and omniscient while on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not &quot;empty Himself&quot; of His divine power.  Rather, the KJV states that He &quot;made himself of no reputation&quot; (Philippians 2:7).  He concealed much of His power and glory while on earth, but that doesn't mean He didn't have it.  While on earth, He said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No man taketh it [Jesus' life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. -- (John 10:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Paul wrote in Colossians 2:9: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Christ never gave up His power--just His reputation.  He was 100% God and 100% man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so to directly answer your question--Jesus was conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, while in the womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4240" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-05T22:01:14.117" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T22:01:14.117" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15779" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15780" CreationDate="2013-04-23T12:16:01.847" Score="12" ViewCount="8314" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard the title &quot;Mother of God&quot; in connection with the &quot;Hail Mary&quot; prayer that(Ave Maria) is recited by Catholics.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I have never heard this term used in any Protestant setting.  (From the comment by Bobo, we find that the Orthodox also refer to Mary in this way; &lt;em&gt;Theotokos&lt;/em&gt; in Greek literally means &quot;Birth-giver of God&quot;, as well as &lt;em&gt;Bohoroditza&lt;/em&gt; in Russian. Both of these terms are widely used in their respective Orthodox groups). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why, then, do Protestants not use this title that appears to be so common in Catholicism?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2019-03-05T20:16:22.183" LastActivityDate="2019-09-16T17:24:38.753" Title="Why do Protestants not refer to Mary by the title &quot;Mother of God&quot;?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="15780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15779" CreationDate="2013-04-23T12:35:03.240" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;At its most basic level, Protestants believe Mary merely to be the earthly mother of Jesus - not the eternal mother of &quot;God.&quot;  To imply that she had a role in creating that which is divine with Him seems an overreach. This is not to say that Jesus is not God, but Mary's role is as a vehicle for the incarnation, not the means by which the Godhood was made.  To believe otherwise would unnecessarily elevate her above mere mortals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not imply she is not &quot;blessed among women,&quot; nor that she was not the vessel through which God incarnated and dwelt among us. But to stress the &lt;em&gt;motherhood&lt;/em&gt; of that which is God within Jesus (and no, I do not mean to imply a Nestorian, no-hypostatic union Jesus - he is fully God and fully Man) - that motherhood denotes a role in creation, and that is not possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That &quot;Creation&quot; would fly in the face of John 1:2, of course - for Jesus was not created.  Jesus was incarnated, meaning that his existence and personhood indwelt man, but was not created &quot;by the will of man or by the flesh.&quot;  Motherhood denotes a much greater role in the creation of the child[1] than incarnation would suggest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Calvin suggests that Mary's role as mother was only earthly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Opponents of the aforementioned view of Calvin's mariology point out that, in his writings, Calvin never explicitly refers to Mary as the 'Mother of God'. Moreover, Calvin's comments on Mary as the mother of Elizabeth's Lord, may be understood to mean that, in Calvin's view, Mary was mother of the Lord only while he was on earth. Proponents of this view have cited Calvin's commentary on John 19:26, from which it has been argued that Calvin considered the mother-son relationship between Mary and Jesus to have ceased at Jesus’ death. In this scheme, Christ, as he was dying on the cross, appointed his disciple John to take his place as Mary's son, so that he himself might henceforth take his rightful place at the Father's right hand in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once John was beheld as &quot;your son,&quot; Mary was now the mother of John, not Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I was about to say &quot;she does contribute genetic material for example,&quot; when I realized that there is nothing to suggest she didn't.  That said, genetics were an unknown science at the time of the incarnation, and as such it is anachronistic to require a knowledge thereof when these titles were being decided.  The point is that Mary did not make God in the same way a mother &quot;makes&quot; her baby.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To be fair, Luther &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; call her &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Marian_theology&quot;&gt;mother of God&lt;/a&gt;, but the formulation seems much Roman Catholic as anything.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-23T12:48:27.453" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T12:48:27.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15781" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15798" CreationDate="2013-04-23T13:01:21.477" Score="4" ViewCount="221" Body="&lt;p&gt;In both the Anglican and Catholic Mass, the Liturgy of the Word (aka reading the lessons), begins with Scripture, includes a Homily, and then concludes with the recitation of one of the Creeds.  Following the Liturgy of the Word, the Prayers of the People begin. This seems fairly consistent across many of the liturgical traditions.  This order also helps to de-emphasize the sermon, emphasizing instead the Eucharist as the highlight of the service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as a old-Baptist, I have to admit, this kind of annoys me. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5690/is-it-fair-to-say-that-baptists-have-a-liturgy&quot;&gt;Baptist liturgy&lt;/a&gt;, the sermon does take a more central place.  Furthermore, the crux of the service - the emphasized highlight so to speak - is typically that sequence in which the sermon concludes forcefully, the preacher gives an altar call, and then everybody sings a song while someone &quot;comes forward&quot; after having made &quot;a decision.&quot;  (Okay, number of times someone has &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; come down the aisle after making a spontaneous decision - Negilible - but that's the theory at least.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, what I've always liked about the Baptist model is that the &quot;altar call &amp;amp; song&quot; provides a space in which the congregation can meditate on the message, internalizing and applying what was said.  Something about singing an old hymn that you know by heart (you don't introduce a new song in that slot!) somehow seems to provide more of a space for reflection to me than saying a creed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the prayers of the people can also also afford that space (since the LEM is reading) - but there's still that Creed that sticks out like a sore thumb to me.  So naturally, I wonder, why not say the Creed &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; we read the Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem to me that saying the Creed before the Lessons and the Homily would signal an agreement of some kind - that we believe this Truth, and are therefore ready to be instructed in the Word of the Lord.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, am I opening up a theological can of worms in altering the order of the mass?  Is there an unintentional theological statement that would be made in changing this?  Would such a thing be allowed in a Catholic service? (Episcopalians wouldn't care, so I ask about the Catholics).  In short - what effect would altering this order have on the theological construct of the order of worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T12:46:35.183" Title="What theological statement would be made if the Creeds preceded the homily?" Tags="&lt;mass&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15782" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-23T13:12:42.963" Score="9" ViewCount="2601" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church teaches, as I understand it, that a person may pray to a Saint, and this Saint will then intercede along with that person to God concerning the request (or something like that).  It appears that Mary may be the saint to whom people pray the most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question concerns which saints are qualified to receive prayers.  Is it restricted to only those who are designated as Saints by the Catholic Church?  Does that start only after the Saint is designated as such?  What is people prayed to John Paul II or Mother Theresa today, but they receive the designation of Saints at a later time?  Is it the designation of sainthood by the current Pope on earth that allows someone in heaven to begin hearing prayers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What prevents any Christian from hearing the prayers of people on earth?  Would it have something to do with the time when they get out of Purgatory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand there are several questions there, but they all surround the issue of praying to the Saints.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-23T13:23:53.900" LastActivityDate="2015-07-28T20:06:54.007" Title="To which Saints may a Catholic pray, and when can this begin?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15783" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15806" CreationDate="2013-04-23T14:08:56.230" Score="6" ViewCount="63762" Body="&lt;p&gt;After Cain killed Abel, he was cast away and said &quot;whoever finds me will kill me&quot;, there he took a wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this indicates there were other people on the face of the earth created by God, but are there any other explanations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I ask this is that Adam and Eve are supposedly the couple that gave birth to all humanity, which I think is genetically impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-10T07:32:51.387" LastActivityDate="2014-11-10T07:32:51.387" Title="Did God create other people besides Adam and Eve?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;cain&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-04-25T16:59:17.637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15783" CreationDate="2013-04-23T14:27:08.553" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible, God created no other people besides Adam and Eve.  Adam was created from the dust of the earth, while Eve was created from Adam (perhaps his rib).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 5 indicates that Adam and Eve had quite a few children.  We have names for Cain, Abel, Seth, other sons (plural) and daughters (plural).  So, at a minimum, they had seven children.  If we assume that the birthrate for women is just equal to that of men, then Eve may well have had five daughters, pushing the total to ten.  The earth at that time was very fruitful, and people lived a very long time, so she may well have had more than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genetically speaking, it is not impossible at all that one couple could give birth to all humanity.  Just because one scientist asserts something to be true does not make it so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/adam-eve-skin-tones-one-race&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; regarding skin tones and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/6314/&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; regarding a challenge to that claim altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T14:27:08.553" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15785" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-23T14:43:21.280" Score="3" ViewCount="2395" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the disciple John falls down on his knees to worship an angel, the angel immediately urges him to stop because he is just like John, a servant of God, who worships God alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/22/8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Rev. 22:8&quot;&gt;8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; It is I, John, who heard and saw these things, and when I heard and saw them I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/22/9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Rev. 22:9&quot;&gt;9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; But he said to me, “Don’t! I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the message of this book. Worship God.” &lt;sub&gt;(NABRE)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/22/9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Rev. 22:9&quot;&gt;8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; καὶ ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης ὁ βλέπων ταῦτα καὶ ἀκούων καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσα καὶ ἔβλεψα ἔπεσα προσκυνῆσαι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ δεικνύοντός μοι ταῦτα &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/22/1/t_conc_1189008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; title=&quot;Rev. 22:8&quot;&gt;9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; καὶ λέγει μοι, Ὅρα μή σύνδουλός σου γάρ εἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον &lt;sub&gt;(TR, 1550)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like the doctrines of many Christian churches (Orthodox, Catholic, etc.) are replete with saint/angel worship.  Is that accurate? Do some Christians worship angels and/or saints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-06-09T06:40:07.413" Title="Do some Christian churches worship the saints and/or angels?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;communion-of-saints&gt;&lt;veneration&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15786" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15775" CreationDate="2013-04-23T15:04:40.743" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had this question myself a few years back, and spent quite a while reading through the Bible to get an answer. What I found was that there is no explicit mention of other life in the universe apart from what is on earth and the spiritual/heavenly realm.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And by spiritual realm I mean a wide category of creation mentioned in the Bible, from angels to demons to the horsemen in the book of Revelation and everything in between.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible also tells us that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and by that we are a unique part of creation, so that even the angels are envious of us. So even if there is other life in the universe, we shouldn't expect it to be like us.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for finding other life, as Hilmar pointed out our current detection methods are restricted mainly to visible light and radio-wave telescopes, which both have the same fundamental limitation: the speed of light vs distance ratio. Because of the immense distances, we are very unlikely to find anything of interest even if it is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4376" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T15:04:40.743" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15785" CreationDate="2013-04-23T15:08:14.713" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Key to answering this question is that no mainstream Christian denomination &lt;em&gt;thinks&lt;/em&gt; they are actually worshipping any person other than the Triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the outside, however, accusations are often made in this regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the uninitiated, veneration of the Saints can look like worship.&#xA;To the uninitiated, the use of icons can look like idolatry.&#xA;To the uninitiated, requesting the assistance of angels, Mary, or whatever blessed Saint can look like praying to someone other than God.&#xA;To the uninitiated, repeating the Lord's Prayer or the 23rd Psalm can look like the invocation of a talisman against evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, in practice, the distinction may not actually be there for the person doing it. Some Catholics actually believe they are praying to Mary. Some Orthodox think they are worshipping their icons. And some evangelicals may believe that the Lord's Prayer is somehow &quot;holier&quot; than every other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point, however, is not to judge a theology by its worst adherents, but by its best.  Any doctrine can be perverted, any good thing used for evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Kings 18:4, we read of what happened to the bronze serpent that God had instructed Moses to build after God had sent a plague of vipers to attack the Children of Israel in the desert.  Speaking hundreds of years after the fact, the Bible records that Hezekiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;.. removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That people had turned an artifact of God into a device of worship does not speak to the evil of a thing - only to the evil of those who practice idolatry at all.  Idolatry - the worship of something or someone other than the true God - is a sin.  And when &quot;veneration&quot; slips into worship, it is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But simple respect is not always worship.  The question is, at their best, what are these things supposed to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all cases, these objects, people, or beings are supposed to be intermediators to point the worshipper to Christ - a laudable goal.  People need concrete things.  But people are also prone, as Romans 1 says to worship the creation rather than the creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. ... 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, in short, the ultimate answer to &quot;Why do people worship these things&quot; is because man is evil. Man twists and perverts. He loves darkness rather than light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sure is a good thing we know a God who can fix that, if we're willing to learn differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T15:08:14.713" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15789" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15792" CreationDate="2013-04-23T15:41:22.530" Score="9" ViewCount="2348" Body="&lt;p&gt;During the Easter sermon our priest told a small story. It goes somewhat like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'When Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus fled to Egypt, on the way there was a little boy who was given the task of searching (by Herod) the women for a small child(baby Jesus). And when he did see Him the boy smiled at Jesus and said &quot;Remember me&quot; and let them go. And years later when Christ was being crucified it was the same boy who was crucified on the right side of Christ. The little boy was the penitent thief who repented on the cross.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now after this I came home and did a lot of searching on the net but nowhere did I come across such a story. My question is simple: Did these events actually happen or was this meant only as an inspiration for the gathering?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4379" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-31T12:14:02.743" LastActivityDate="2014-07-31T12:14:02.743" Title="What is the origin of the story of the penitent thief as a young boy?" Tags="&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;thief-on-the-cross&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15789" CreationDate="2013-04-23T16:12:56.557" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story has two major points--the boy who performed the search, and the revelation much later of the boy's identity as the penitent thief.  Considering that the Bible says nothing about such a boy even existing, and that it does not give the penitent thief any identity beyond &quot;some criminal who happened to be getting crucified at the same time as Jesus,&quot; it's safe to say that this is just an inspirational story someone made up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T16:12:56.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15782" CreationDate="2013-04-23T16:35:21.160" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basic question here is about Catholic “praying” to saints. It is not exactly a prayer, but it is like asking saints or even Mary to pray to God on our behalf. Catholic only ask for their “intercession” not pray to them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding sub-questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Which saints are qualified to receive prayers?:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Only those are venerated as saints, who are designated as Saints by the Catholic Church, intercessory request are made to them.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is people prayed to John Paul II or Mother Theresa today, but they receive the designation of Saints at a later time?&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;People pray to God that through the intercession of these “would be saint” some miracles may be performed.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some instances in Bible verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rev 5:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders threw themselves to the ground before the Lamb. Each of them had a harp and golden bowls full of incense (which are the prayers of the saints).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These saints in heaven are offering prayers to God under the form of golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of saints. Meaning that saints offer our prayers to God, and they hear our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The intercessory requests to Virgin Mary and Saints are akin to everyday life instances. When I am in dire need of prayers for any of my intention,  I would ask my friends and well wishers also to pray for me. So those in heaven have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth. Also God hear the prayers of righteous. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Asking people to pray for you no way violates the mediator ship of Christ. Christ is unique mediator incomparable with human mediator ship as He is both God and Man and is the only bridge between us and God.  This is also supported by Paul in four verses immediately preceding 1Timothy 2:5.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1Timothy 2:1-5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   First of all, then, I urge that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people, even for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. Such prayer for all is good and welcomed before God our Savior, since he wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is similar to saying of a son humbly at his mother’s grave, “Mom, please pray to Jesus for me. I am having a real problem right now.” We in our daily prayers, pray for our children as they being young, would not exactly know how to pray and does not mean we are taking Christ place for our children while directing our prayers to God for them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul directly asks others to pray for him:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rom. 15:30-32-32&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit, to join fervently with me in prayer to God on my behalf. Pray that I may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea and that my ministry in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints, so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Math. 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-04-24T10:06:50.300" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T10:06:50.300" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15789" CreationDate="2013-04-23T17:24:10.737" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story is found in the Apocryphal &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0806.htm&quot;&gt;Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(23) And turning away from this place, they came to a desert; and hearing that it was infested by robbers, Joseph and the Lady Mary resolved to cross this region by night. But as they go along, behold, they see two robbers lying in the way, and along with them a great number of robbers, who were their associates, sleeping. Now those two robbers, into whose hands they had fallen, were Titus and Dumachus. Titus therefore said to Dumachus: I beseech you to let these persons go freely, and so that our comrades may not see them. And as Dumachus refused, Titus said to him again: Take to yourself forty drachmas from me, and hold this as a pledge. At the same time he held out to him the belt which he had about his waist, to keep him from opening his mouth or speaking. And the Lady Mary, seeing that the robber had done them a kindness, said to him: The Lord God will sustain you by His right hand, and will grant you remission of your sins. And the Lord Jesus answered, and said to His mother: Thirty years hence, O my mother, the Jews will crucify me at Jerusalem, and these two robbers will be raised upon the cross along with me, Titus on my right hand and Dumachus on my left; and after that day Titus shall go before me into Paradise. And she said: God keep this from you, my son. And they went thence towards a city of idols, which, as they came near it, was changed into sand-hills.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also variations that make the Penitent Thief the young son of the leader of a band of thieves. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theleaven.com/oldleavenwebsite/columnmark3.htm&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is one other variation on the tale, which makes him a little spider. Here's a quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, the soldiers passed on and left the Holy Family in peace — all because a little spider had spun its web across the entrance to the cave.&#xA;  Barclay then writes: “And that, so they say, is why to this day we put tinsel on our Christmas trees, for the glittering tinsel streamers stand for the spider’s web, white with hoarfrost stretched across the entrance of the cave in which the Holy Family stopped and found shelter on the way to Egypt.&#xA;  “It is a lovely story, and this much, at least, is true: No gift that Jesus receives is ever forgotten.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this is considered apocrypha, so we do not need to believe that it actually happened and some of these stories can have theological problems, so it's best to be cautious, but the core of the story was not made up by the priest, if that is what you are asking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T17:24:10.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15793" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15800" CreationDate="2013-04-23T17:50:21.527" Score="6" ViewCount="1173" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that most places in the bible where serpents are referred to they are a reference to Satan/the devil. Yet in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A16&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 10:16&lt;/a&gt; Christ says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.&quot; (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does Christ ask us to derive inspiration of wisdom from something that typically represents the devil? I am confused and find this to be a bit contradictory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4379" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-12-04T12:19:10.403" LastActivityDate="2015-12-04T12:19:10.403" Title="Why does Jesus refer to serpents positively in Matthew 10:16?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;typology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15796" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15915" CreationDate="2013-04-23T19:33:35.107" Score="3" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;What arguments and writings have been used to defend the Genesis account of the fall as a historical event? Is there evidence apart from the writings in Genesis that man was at one time &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; fallen?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastEditorUserId="1484" LastEditDate="2013-04-26T11:40:57.053" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T18:53:14.210" Title="What arguments do scholars present for historicity of the fall?" Tags="&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15781" CreationDate="2013-04-23T20:24:02.290" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;am I opening up a theological can of worms in altering the order of the mass?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. It's not just the change you're talking about, but any change at all. The Mass is the way it is for a reason (tradition). Here's a part of tradition that makes the teaching of Scripture the foundation for the central Eucharistic Celebration. Jesus meets two disciples on the Road to Emmaus. He interprets &lt;em&gt;all the prophets&lt;/em&gt;, and they invite Him to stay with them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/luke/24/13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 24:29-31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  29 But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.&#xA;  30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.&#xA;  31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their eyes are not opened during the teaching, but as soon as Jesus says &quot;the blessing&quot; and they take the Eucharist, they recognize Him. The recognition of Jesus is central, not the teaching. If it helps, as a Catholic, it kind of annoys me that a sermon would ever be emphasized more than the Eucharist. Annoyance aside, the Mass for Catholics goes back a long way, so changes are pretty serious. Priests have to follow the rubrics, so no, they wouldn't be allowed to change it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;why not say the Creed before we read the Word ... what effect would altering this order have on the theological construct of the order of worship?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Creed is a profession of Faith and a rejection of heresy. It was put in order after the Gospel because the Faith is based on the Gospel. The Creed is a response to what has been said, like a very detailed &quot;Amen&quot;. Agreement isn't what you need before you hear something, it comes after. We are made &quot;ready to be instructed&quot; in part by the other Bible readings, because the words of the prophets make us ready for the words of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic liturgy, there's already a moment to meditate and internalize. After saying the Homily, the priest &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-T_sFgt5-s&amp;amp;t=34m30s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pauses and sits in silence&lt;/a&gt; (video). There is no singing of an old hymn (do you mean a psalm, or a contemporary song based on a psalm?). After this, Catholics, who would know these by heart, say the 1,632 year old Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-04-23T20:24:02.290" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15781" CreationDate="2013-04-24T00:49:17.207" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be frank, I think this has far more to do with the role of the congregation vs. the role of the ministers. Much like the liturgy of the Eucharist, the Liturgy of the Word is a sacrifice, presented by the ministers on behalf of the people to which the people respond. Moving the creed to the center basically reverses this theological role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only is placing intercession and creed together at the end a fulfillment of this theological act, but it is also more pragmatic: making people wait for two minutes after hearing the Gospel before they have a meditation or explanation is bad presentational flow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and there is no reason that a priest could not decide to forgo the homily and say something during the bringing up of the gifts&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, but in addition to the above, the rubrics suggest that he should do otherwise. But, if a priest really wanted to, he has that authority as celebrant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;I say this based on 1. the homily is something which is optional, even on Sundays, though it is highly suggested, 2. the song after the intercessions (during the presentation of the gifts) is vaguely defined so that a priest could reinterpret it to be &quot;give speech on what was just read&quot;, 3. a priest has the authority to make changes to the liturgy if he feels that they are pastorally appropriate. That said, placing the homily after intercessions would decidedly be &quot;action which can fit within the letter but actively rebels against the spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-04-24T12:46:35.183" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T12:46:35.183" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15785" CreationDate="2013-04-24T01:09:57.403" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are presenting a false dichotomy. &quot;Prays to&quot; does not mean &quot;worships&quot;, and, along those lines, &quot;worship&quot; does not always mean what we think of when we think of &quot;worship.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If by &quot;worship&quot; you mean &quot;provides honor due to God&quot; then I will say that it is sinful to place a Saint at so high a level. Perhaps this is what happened when John saw the Angel. If by &quot;prayer&quot; you mean the same character of conversing one has with the almighty, I would repeat my sentiments above. Communion with the Saints is something of a very different sort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that is where the rub lies. The relationship a Catholic has with the Saints, even Mary, is something fundamentally different from the relationship with the Godhead. Saints are our betters, but they are redeemed sinners, fellow created creatures. God is the great I AM, without beginning or end, perfect in every way. Anyone who would honor the former with the honor due the latter is frankly insane.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T01:09:57.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15793" CreationDate="2013-04-24T01:14:13.840" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has many metaphors for many things. Some of them use the same item in two different contexts in two different ways. Immediately, I can think of Christ's use of the word &quot;sign&quot; and how he would and would not provide one (John has seven signs which demonstrate Christ as Lord, but the Synoptics say that signs will not be given). The asp was something deadly and was a sign of wickedness, but when it was raised on a staff, it became a instrument of healing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that &quot;serpent&quot; here is probably just a snake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T01:14:13.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5833" CreationDate="2013-04-24T01:21:06.893" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will try to combine a biblical, charismatic and scientific perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First of all spiritual gifts are to be eagerly desired. This is a repeated command even to the Church of Corinth, in spite of the abuse of the gifts they had. Moreover, the pentecostal-charismatic /P/C) movements bear witness to the value of the gifts. The phenomenal growth of P/C Christianity is the most successful grassroots movement since the start of Christianity. &lt;a href=&quot;http://ncd-international.org/public/SampleNCD.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The most comprehensive study made on growing churches(NCD)&lt;/a&gt;, worldwide, confirm that lay people serving using their spiritual gifts is one of 8 universal key characteristics for quality of Church life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The gifts in 1 Cor 12:1-11 are &quot;manifestations&quot; of the Spirit (verse 7) and since the whole passage is written in the present tense, the essence of these gifts is not on &quot;having&quot; the gifts permanently, but that every time the believers gather for worship, they are to seek and expect various manifestations of the Spirit. See exegesis by James Dunn and more recently by &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0801046211&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gordon Fee&lt;/a&gt; about this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thinking that only a few select ministers can function in the gifts, including the gifts of healings and the workings of miracles, is making a travesty of 1 Cor 12-14 and is a recipe for disaster. First of all, studies indicate that very few actually receive healing in these settings, but studies done in settings that emphasize that &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0981770576&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;everyone gets to play&lt;/a&gt;&quot; indicate far greater, even spectacular success. See studies by &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0340503440&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David Lewis&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0674064674&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Candy Gunther Brown&lt;/a&gt;. OTOH, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0253202213&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the healing evangelist model&lt;/a&gt; is filled with &lt;em&gt;temptations&lt;/em&gt; to exaggerate, blame the sick person for lacking faith, produce hype, etc. Pure charlatans, like Marjoe and Popoff, can also operate in this model.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The gifts of Eph 4:11 are not &lt;em&gt;charisma&lt;/em&gt;, but people, whose job it is to &lt;em&gt;equip&lt;/em&gt; everyone else to serve (verse 12), in order that everyone may contribute (verse 16). The above mentioned NCD studies also identifies equipping leadership as a key characteristic for healthy churches.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the gifts is edification of the believers and evangelism (e.g. 1 Cor 14:24-25). Thus gifts should not be used to exalt the gifted person, nor should we be in awe about such persons, since gifts are concrete manifestations of grace. Being used by God in the gifts is not a sign of spiritual maturity or sound doctrine. They are &quot;gracelets&quot;, not merit badges. Using the gifts are to be expressions of love.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When gifts are being used, they must also be tested. While this is clearly applicable to prophecy, the principle apply to all gifts. This requires that the use of spiritual gifts take place in a fashion where such testing is possible and encouraged. Love both means trying to help and cleaning up any messes when mistakes are made.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While people who encounter the love and power of God understandably often will get excited or may manifest reactions to the touch of God, drumming up emotions is unnecessary and in fact counter productive. Discerning God's guidance is best done in peaceful settings. Dynamic order is commanded in 1 Cor 14, however we must also realize that &quot;order&quot; is not necessarily things being tidy and predictable. Modernity has taught western people to equate &quot;order&quot; with control and a sequential order of events. In the mind of Paul or the Corinthians, or in other cultures than our western ones, this was/is not the case.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T01:21:06.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4507" CreationDate="2013-04-24T02:25:59.640" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bulk of the teaching on tongues in the Bible is not in Acts, but in 1 Corinthians. While there are a couple of instances in Acts that do mention people speaking in tongues, only Acts 2 mention that the words are understood by the bystanders. In 1 Cor 12-14, it is clearly understood that tongues require interpretation in order to be understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Researchers generally differentiate between&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;glossolalia, speaking in unknown tongues&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;xenoloalia, speaking in a know tongue, but in words not understood or learned by the speaker&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of speaking in tongues is edification. Tongues + interpretation in public edifies the church and is comparable to prophecy in its effect. Tongues in private edifies the speaker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tongues are prayer and as such can be praise, thanksgiving and intercession. Being prayer of course also means that speaking in tongues is communion with God, practicing being in His presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above can be understood from scripture. If we also listen to researchers the following can be said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While glossolalia exist in some non-christian settings, there is (AFAIK) no evidence of non ecstatic glossolalia in such settings. Older research (and Bible commentaries) tended to equate Christian glossolalia with ecstasy, trances, etc. (1 Cor 12-14 clearly indicates that speaking in tongues is a non ecstatic endeavor, but that does not mean that emotions may not run high, occasionally.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People who speak in tongues are not mentally unstable. In fact, having cross-referenced away other factors, research indicate that tongue-speaking people on average are &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; emotionally balanced and socially well adjusted than non tongue-speakers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we add testimonies from tongue-speakers about how they benefit from the practice, at least the following are common themes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Praying in tongues is a help when one does not know &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; to pray. Tongues means letting the Spirit produce the prayer that is optimal for the situation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Praying in tongues is associated with a release of the power of the Spirit to empower, heal or in any other way help. Quietly praying in tongues while laying hands on someone is a common practice, that combines these two points.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Praying in tongues is a help in situations when ordinary words don't do justice to ones inner feelings of exuberance or grief.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Praying in tongues is a help when one does not have the energy or concentration to pray ordinary prayers. When the activity of formulating words to pray are too strenuous, praying in tongues is usually effortless.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tongues function as a &quot;gateway&quot; gift, i.e. having been released to pray in tongues often is followed by other gifts, such as prophecy, gifts of healings, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saving the most controversial point for last: Some Pentecostals and charismatics see tongues as the &lt;strong&gt;initial evidence&lt;/strong&gt; of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which in turn is understood as a separate and non-repeatable experience from conversion. According to this view there is one Spirit-baptism, but possibly many &quot;fillings&quot;. I personally do not share this view, since I think it makes a distinction between words like the Spirit &quot;came upon&quot;, &quot;fell upon&quot;, &quot;filled&quot; and &quot;baptized&quot; where the Bible does not make any distinction in, but rather uses them interchangeably for the same experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additional sorce:&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rodmanwilliams.com/A_Theological_Pilgrimmage/tp09.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The question answered by J. Rodman Williams&lt;/a&gt;, the first scholar to write a systematic theology from a renewal perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastEditorUserId="1407" LastEditDate="2015-09-22T21:14:04.707" LastActivityDate="2015-09-22T21:14:04.707" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15765" CreationDate="2013-04-24T04:41:08.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The other fellas addressed this pretty well, but I figured, what the heck, might as well muddy the waters with some extra stuff from the &quot;Short Catechism of Mary&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;70) When was the &quot;Hail Mary&quot; introduced into the Liturgy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first part, which is in the Gospel, appeared in an Entrance Antiphon of the Mass around the 6th century. It began to spread among the faithful beginning with the 13th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second part (&quot;Holy Mary...&quot;), whose elements preexisted in a separated state, was put together beginning with 1400 and became current among the faithful a little after 1500.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in &quot;The Secret of the Rosary&quot; St. Louis De Montfort says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;it was in the year 1214, however, that Holy Mother Church received the Rosary in its present form and according to the method we use today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there seems to be some confusion as to the dates. But no confusion as to the meaning of Mother of God in the context of the Rosary. And whatever words St. Dominic uttered, I highly doubt they failed to contain a plea to the Holy Mother of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Louis continues in his explanation of the Hail Mary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Holy Mary&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Holy in body and soul&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Holy because of thy incomparable&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      And eternal devotion&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      To the service of God—&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Holy in thy great rank&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Of Mother of God&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Who has endowed thee&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      With eminent holiness&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      A worthy attribute&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Of this great dignity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mother of God&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      And our Mother—&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Our Advocate and Mediatrix&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Thou art the Treasurer of God's graces&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      And who dost dispense them&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      As thou seest fit—  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And those are all the things that the title Mother of God entails.  All of which had been gleaned through Tradition and Scripture since the beginning of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She's the channel of graces (Mediatrix), because it is through her the Christ comes into the world, all the Gospels attest to this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John, who was intimately acquainted with her story, knows that Jesus gave her to us all from the cross &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. (John 19:27 NABRE)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also recounts a story of Mary's intercession &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” (John 2:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which makes her the advocate that St. Louis talks about. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you might think, &quot;I know this guy, he's just a crazy Catholic Mariolotrist who would say anything to arrive at the point that any thing good you can say about Mary makes her Divine Son happy.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the point is, you're asking for a precise date when a particular dogma was infallibly proclaimed and I'd say it was 451 in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Council of Chalcedon&lt;/a&gt; which produced the following creed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but it's really, the unchanging Tradition of the Catholic Church that Mary is the Mother of God and it was known by her little people long before it was written in stone by her big people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2014-01-01T11:40:11.870" LastActivityDate="2014-01-01T11:40:11.870" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15783" CreationDate="2013-04-24T05:40:20.437" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me bring up some unauthentic book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Adam_and_Eve&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book of Adam and Eve&lt;/a&gt; gives a good explanation to this confusion. The first son, Cain was born along with his twin sister Luluwa. The second son, Abel also had a twin sister Aklia. After Cain murdered Abel, &lt;strong&gt;Cain married his twin sister Luluwa&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we know, the Bible rarely mentions the name of women, their is no doubt that those first daughters of Adam and Eve were also not mentioned in the Bible. The writer, probably Moses might have assume that there was no strong reason to mention the names of the first daughters and might even did not think that the readers like us will later come up with this kind of questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Cain said &lt;code&gt;&quot;whoever finds me will kill me&quot;&lt;/code&gt;, it does not necessarily mean that there were already other people on earth. Remember that those days the lifespan of human was above 900 years and less than 1000 years. Cain simply meant that the people who will born later will want to kill him because he is a murderer. And we know very well that &lt;strong&gt;900 years is enough for a civilization to rise&lt;/strong&gt;. Although Cain did not know how long he will live, he also did not know when he will die. There was no one yet who saw how a man will die of old age. Cain would surely think that he will at least live for a long time because death by old age was not yet known to them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-04-24T06:56:19.193" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T06:56:19.193" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15783" CreationDate="2013-04-24T07:03:33.603" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.&quot; Genesis 3:20 (NIV). &#xA;So according to Genesis Eve was the mother of all living, so that means there were no other directly created people. Also Romans 5:12 &quot;Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.&quot; &#xA;If there were more directly created people, original sin would mean nothing because it would not have been passed on, there would have been lines where Adams sin would not have &quot;infected&quot; his none-offspring. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The assertion that this is genetically impossible is certainly not a scientific one for whatever passes for &quot;science&quot; in your mind, the consensus even among evolutionist atheists has been for quite some time that modern humans had a single matriarchal ancestor.&#xA;Anyone who claims it's science to say two people with the proper genetic code can't create the diversity we have today doesn't understand basic genetics. (And neither did Darwin, he was a botanist NOT an educated biologist). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T07:03:33.603" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15807" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15809" CreationDate="2013-04-24T07:03:36.297" Score="7" ViewCount="6998" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did God create the great flood to wipe the entire human race including unborn children and babies that are probably innocent, and also other species that are innocent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He can re-create the whole universe and fix his errors of the first creation in just 6 days instead of drowning all creations in 40 days of rain. Why not just make a fresh start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-05T01:09:54.583" LastActivityDate="2014-11-05T01:09:54.583" Title="Why did God create the great flood?" Tags="&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-05-01T16:36:52.050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15808" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15812" CreationDate="2013-04-24T08:06:19.010" Score="2" ViewCount="2298" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Assumption of Mary&lt;/a&gt; states that after she died on Earth she went to Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the idea that she, or any other person who died after Jesus' resurrection, is already in Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-22T04:14:48.853" LastActivityDate="2015-12-22T04:14:48.853" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Mary and/or other saints are in heaven?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;assumption-of-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-12-22T18:15:21.240" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15807" CreationDate="2013-04-24T08:39:21.343" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;The flood happened precisely on account of the issues you raise. More specifically, it debunks the premises on which those issues are founded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians living thousands of years later with only a short Scriptural account to go on, we can really only speculate about how the people of Noah's day must have reasoned with themselves. However it seems likely based on their recorded reactions and God's action that their presuppositions were similar to the ones you have made. They were wrong and the flood was God's way of setting the record straight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no such thing as &quot;probably innocent&quot;. The fallen nature of all humans since Adam means that we are guilty and deserving of condemnation from the womb on. That God could wipe out all humanity in the way he did helps us understands God's disposition towards sin and gives us a reference point for man's sinful nature. The NT echoes this as it affirms that there are NONE righteous on their own apart from God's intervention. The pre-flood people of earth are used as a reminder of this and the flood stands of a warning of the future judgement we will all face.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It wasn't God's mistake in the first place that he would need to &quot;fix his error&quot;. The error lies with man - who chose to rebel rather than obey - but the solution cannot come from man, it must be directed by God. It was God that preserved Noah. It is God that will preserve some men (those who by faith in Him come under his saving grace).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God didn't mess up that would need to start over, it was always his plan to redeem creation. He knew what would happen to it, but entered into a covenant with himself - God the Son agreeing to be the ransom, the redeemer to purchase a people out from God the Father's righteously judgement. The concept of redemption was always part of the plan. Likewise we look forward to a new heavens and a new earth -- not a different creation entirely but a re-creation -- a redemption of creation itself on the day where he will make all things new (after he finally judges those who do not have faith in him).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Other species are not innocent. All of creation was subjected to the fall. The caretaker of creation - the priest who's job it was to mediate between God and creation - the one who was charged with naming and caring for all the species - fell down on the job. He left his job unfinished. As a result of his failure, not only was he himself cursed but everything in his domain was cursed as well. The ground brought forth weeds and thorns. The animal kingdom was subjected to the same futility that mankind was now under.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact &quot;why&quot; if many of God's choices is not fully revealed to us, but Christians use God's actions in the past to help shape their understanding of the present. The flood helps reset our understanding of what guilt and innocence mean in relation to a holy God. It teaches us significant lessons about the nature of man, creation and God himself. It warns us against evil and points us toward salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-04-25T09:25:57.537" LastActivityDate="2013-04-25T09:25:57.537" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15808" CreationDate="2013-04-24T09:45:03.017" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The main verse that people quote with regards to being in heaven immediately is the words of Jesus on the cross to the thief:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I assure you: Today you will be with Me in paradise&quot; Luke 23:43&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indicating that rather than just waiting until the 2nd coming, there is a paradise which people inhabit immediately upon death, similar to that spoken of in John 14:2, where the phrase indicates more of a temporary dwelling than a permanent one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this would also seem to be separate from the Heaven described elsewhere in places like Revelation, as the descriptions involving God's people inhabiting Heaven all come &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the 2nd coming&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4111" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T09:45:03.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15808" CreationDate="2013-04-24T09:52:29.380" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a difference between being in heaven completely (with body) and with soul only. We have biblical evidence for the first in case of Enoch (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%205:24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 5:24&lt;/a&gt;) and Elijah (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202:1-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2Kings 2:1-18&lt;/a&gt;), there is an apocryphal account of this happening to Moses (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Moses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Assumption of Moses&lt;/a&gt;) and the tradition dogmatized in Catholic Church and believed by many in Orthodox Churches claims that something similar happened to Mary. It happened sometime near the end of the Acts of Apostles plotline, and since Acts doesn't tell us even about acts of most apostles (but mostly about Peter and Paul), it's no wonder that Mary's assumption wasn't recorded in books of canonic Bible, but only in an oral tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About being in Heaven by soul only, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15810/3447&quot;&gt;Matt Taylor&lt;/a&gt; already addressed it qite well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T09:52:29.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15808" CreationDate="2013-04-24T09:58:12.343" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some confusion among Christians regarding Paradise, Heaven, Hell, lake of fire and Sheol. Already many questions are asked on these topics like; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13993/harrowing-of-hell&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/508/heaven-paradise-sheol-hell-hades-the-lake-of-fire&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1235/is-there-biblical-support-for-hell&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14976/can-people-in-heaven-communicate-with-each-other&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to explain what I understand about Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that Paradise was a place where the Old Testament saints were waiting for Jesus to defeat Satan and bring them to Heaven. The first person to enter Paradise would be Abel and the last would possibly be the thief crucified at the right hand side of Jesus on the cross. Abraham was a notable figure there in paradise as we see in &lt;code&gt;Luke 16:19-31&lt;/code&gt;. Now, all OT saints and anyone who believes in Jesus are now in Heaven with Jesus Christ as we can see in &lt;code&gt;Rev 6:9-11&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;Rev 7:9-17&lt;/code&gt; and more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heaven is not the permanent place where the believers will stay. God has a greater plan for all believers. God will create a New Earth for his holy people. Apostle John saw this future planet Earth in his vision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 21:1-4&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a &lt;strong&gt;new earth&lt;/strong&gt;,” for the first heaven&#xA;  and the first earth had passed away, and there was &lt;strong&gt;no longer any sea&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven&#xA;  from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3&#xA;  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling&#xA;  place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will&#xA;  be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4&#xA;  ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more&#xA;  death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things&#xA;  has passed away.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, there are 3 places appointed for the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paradise (past)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heaven (present)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;New Earth (future)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's talk about Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paradise and Hell (Sheol) were very close to each other as we see in Luke 16:19-31. Any one who disobeys God in the OT times were in Hell. Now everyone who rejects Jesus Christ as their savior are in Hell. We don't know the first one to enter Hell but one of the first would be Cain. After the judgment day, all the people in Hell will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20:11-15 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The&#xA;  earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place&#xA;  for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the&#xA;  throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the&#xA;  book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as&#xA;  recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it,&#xA;  and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each&#xA;  person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and&#xA;  Hades were &lt;strong&gt;thrown into the lake of fire&lt;/strong&gt;. The lake of fire is the&#xA;  second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book&#xA;  of life was thrown into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T10:45:45.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15782" CreationDate="2013-04-24T10:41:13.173" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To which Saints may a Catholic pray, and when can this begin?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually a catholic can &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;privately&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; pray to anyone whom he/she thinks can intercede on their behalf. In fact Catholics do not see any difference in asking you to pray for me and asking my dead grandma (if I believe she is in heaven or purgatory) to pray for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is it restricted to only those who are designated as Saints by the Catholic Church?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Public prayers are restricted only to canonized persons&lt;sup&gt;see note 1&lt;/sup&gt;. But private prayers/veneration is not. In-fact the actual canonization procedure can start if and only if for 5 years after the death of a person, the lay faithful have prayed to them &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;privately and continuously&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. But such prayers can not be done publicly in a Church or Chapel. More specifically their statues and pictures cannot be placed in an alter of a church/chapel. They cannot be represented with halo around their head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Is it the designation of sainthood by the current Pope on earth that allows someone in heaven to begin hearing prayers?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No it does not. The designation of sainthood or canonization only attests that the universal church can pray to them because this person is in heaven and has the power to intercede before God for us. The main purpose of Canonization is to show people Good example. This is revealed by infallible papal proclamation. Canonization is helpful only for people on this earth to recognize a saint, it does not give special powers to people in heaven. Private devotions are not restricted by this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What prevents any Christian from hearing the prayers of people on earth? Would it have something to do with the time when they get out of Purgatory?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the contrary, a catholic can even ask for the holy souls in the purgatory to intercede. Only thing is that souls in the purgatory cannot pray for themselves, but they can very well pray for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Points to note&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Persons who are beatified can be publicly venerated only in the concerned persons diocese. For public veneration outside of his own diocese the permission of the Bishop or the Bishop council of the country is required. Such restrictions do not apply for one who is canonized. For example Bl. Mother Theresa is permitted to be venerated all thru India by the Catholic Bishops council of India, even though she belongs to the Archdiocese of Calcutta.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are some saints whose devotion is explicitly suppressed because faithful have been having devotion to them, but their life is not a good example or there is little to no proof for their existence. For example as late as 1173 Pope Alexander III, reprimanded certain bishops for having permitted veneration of a man who was far from being a saint. Also the names of St. Valentine and St. Philomina are removed from universal church canon, because of lack of evidence for them to have existed. But their veneration is permitted in local churches where it is traditionally held.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="14590" LastEditDate="2015-07-28T20:06:54.007" LastActivityDate="2015-07-28T20:06:54.007" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15815" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15816" CreationDate="2013-04-24T13:54:23.127" Score="6" ViewCount="545" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mexico, the mix of native and Catholic religions has produced an interesting figure called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Santa Muerte&lt;/a&gt; or literally, &quot;Saint Death.&quot;  In many ways, the icons, statues, and venerations ascribed to her fit what many non-Catholics naively assume about veneration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, traditions like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Our Lady of Lourdes&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Lady of Guadalupe&lt;/a&gt; suggest that new shrines and/or places of veneration can be incorporated into the church, and eventually become, if not canonical, at least typical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To date, the Catholic church has taken no position on Santa Muerte.  The question is - what would it take for them to do so?  If a priest were to acknowledge her, would that be sufficient?  And how would the church change as a result?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-23T19:25:42.590" LastActivityDate="2015-08-23T19:41:10.007" Title="What would happen if a priest venerated Santa Muerte in an RCC church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;veneration&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15815" CreationDate="2013-04-24T14:14:55.990" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know where you got the idea that the Catholic church has taken no position on Santa Muerte. The current official position of the Catholic Church is that &lt;strong&gt;honoring Saint Death is heresy&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strangefathers.com/2010/08/st-death.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ref&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;  Mexico's Catholic Bishop Conference has accused Santa Muerte devotees of mixing Christianity with devil-worship.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte#Santa_Muerte_and_the_Catholic_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ref&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; According to a statement by Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico City on November 3, 2008, popular devotion to the so-called &quot;Saint Death&quot; is not compatible with the Catholic faith.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pvscene.com/1633/santa-muerte-is-no-saint-say-mexican-bishops/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ref&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not issued an official position on this because this is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What would it take for them to do so? If a priest were to acknowledge her, would that be sufficient?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A single priest's action would not force the universal Catholic church to take a stand. If a priest, who holds a position which is responsible for souls, acknowledges her as a saint, then the local bishop will have the duty to correct him. If the local bishop fails to do so, then the pope with the Roman Curia will interfere and instruct the bishop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;How would the church change as a result?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to dogma, faith, and related matters, just as for the past 2000 years, the Catholic Church is not going to change. Not for Santa Muerte, or anything else for that matter. But I have no idea about the cultural consequences. The Church might be persecuted, but it is not going to change its teaching: &lt;em&gt;honoring Saint Death is heresy.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; Traditions like Our Lady of Lourdes and The Lady of Guadalupe are about a real person, Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of God. But Santa Muerte is not a real person, nor do her followers claim as such. So your comparison is not correct. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-08-23T19:41:10.007" LastActivityDate="2015-08-23T19:41:10.007" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15817" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15818" CreationDate="2013-04-24T15:36:41.107" Score="6" ViewCount="2544" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am regularly cataloguing publications written by (or about) sisters and priests. I am unfamiliar with all of the different Catholic orders. Is there an online list or reference that identifies what the initials after their names stand for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;S.J. = Society of Jesus&lt;br&gt;&#xA;O.S.U = Ursuline Sisters of the Roman Union&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4067" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T16:21:33.947" Title="How to identify a Catholic 'order' from initials that follow a nun or priest's name?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15817" CreationDate="2013-04-24T16:09:27.333" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/xrel.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a partial list of orders with members who are/were bishops. That is this list contains only males religious societies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/abbrev.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is another 800 abbreviations including women religious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Annuario Pontificio lists all the existing approved and recognized Catholic religious orders. You can see the 2011 list &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article2296.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That should help you to some extent. But please note that it is nearly impossible to list all religious organizations that exists now and has existed before. Religious organizations in their early stages can be limited to only certain diocese to function under the jurisdiction of a diocesan bishop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-04-24T16:21:33.947" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T16:21:33.947" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15819" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15821" CreationDate="2013-04-24T16:39:09.973" Score="1" ViewCount="1135" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to me Protestants are the one who doesn't pray to Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also came across the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Protestantism&lt;/a&gt; which speaks about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;95 Theses&lt;/a&gt; which Martin Luther started against &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;indulgence&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see any relationship with Protestants and Protestantism. Are they same? Or Protestants came from Protestantism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rectify me if Iam wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1516" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T20:09:21.640" Title="What is the difference between Protestantism vs Protestants?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15819" CreationDate="2013-04-24T16:55:35.897" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The difference between Protestants and Protestantism isn't the same as the difference between an optician and an optometrist or the difference between a Pontiac and a Buick.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not a level of the same sort of thing with different priorities or anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the difference between Catholics and Catholicism or Communists and Communism or sadists and sadism or hedonists and hedonism or stuff like that. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;-ism part of the word&lt;/a&gt; is the suffix that means &quot;it's got that same condition&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, protestants have protestantism. (no one would say this, but it's true)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T16:55:35.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15821" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15819" CreationDate="2013-04-24T16:59:57.197" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Protestantism&quot; is the name of a movement. &quot;Protestants&quot; are people who are part of that movement. It's the same relationship as between the words &quot;Catholicism&quot; and &quot;Catholics&quot;. Catholics are the people who are part of Catholicism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that your definition of Protestants is far too narrow. Protestants don't pray to Mary (mostly - there are a few exceptions) but it's not the most important thing about them - there are many other differences between them and Catholics too - their beliefs about the authority of the church, the place of the sacraments, the theology of the priesthood are just a few of many examples. It should also be pointed out the Protestantism is incredibly diverse and there is almost nothing that is unquestionably true of all Protestants except that they are not Catholic (or Orthodox, whose followers are also considered not Protestant).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-04-24T16:59:57.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15833" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15834" CreationDate="2013-04-25T07:28:08.560" Score="12" ViewCount="1897" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angeltherapy.com/about_at.php&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;AngelTherapy.com&lt;/a&gt;, I found this short description:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angel Therapy is a non-denominational spiritual healing method that involves working with a person's guardian angels and archangels, to heal and harmonize every aspect of life. Angel Therapy also helps you to more clearly receive Divine Guidance from the Creator and angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone has guardian angels, and these angels perform God's will of peace for us all. When we open ourselves to hear our angels' messages, every aspect of our lives become more peaceful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a (non-Christian) friend who is an &amp;quot;Angel Therapist,&amp;quot; and after talking to her, it sounds like she's acting simply as a medium/fortune teller, and using Christian-sounding terms to white-wash it.  Have any Christian groups officially condemned &amp;quot;Angel Therapy&amp;quot; and if so what are their arguments against it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-12-23T18:35:12.487" Title="What arguments have been advanced against &quot;Angel Therapy&quot;?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;&lt;guardian-angels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15833" CreationDate="2013-04-25T08:15:22.520" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are right to be very skeptical:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This section contains a list of Certified Mediums who have completed the Mediumship Mentorship Program facilitated by Doreen Virtue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See what Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says about mediums. The Catholic Church has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;document on &amp;quot;New Age&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; that talks about exactly this phenomenon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2.2. What does the New Age claim to offer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2.2.1. Enchantment: There Must be an Angel&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most common elements in New Age “spirituality” is a fascination with extraordinary manifestations, and in particular with paranormal entities. &lt;strong&gt;People recognised as “mediums”&lt;/strong&gt; claim that their personality is taken over by another entity during trances in a New Age phenomenon known as “channeling”, during which the medium may lose control over his or her body and faculties. Some people who have witnessed these events would willingly acknowledge that the manifestations are indeed spiritual, but are not from God, despite the language of love and light which is almost always used.... It is probably more correct to refer to this as a contemporary form of spiritualism, rather than spirituality in a strict sense. Other friends and counsellors from the spirit world are angels (which have become the centre of a new industry of books and paintings). &lt;strong&gt;Those who refer to angels in the New Age do so in an unsystematic way&lt;/strong&gt;; in fact, distinctions in this area are sometimes described as unhelpful if they are too precise, since “there are many levels of guides, entities, energies, and beings in every octave of the universe... They are all there to pick and choose from in relation to your own attraction/repulsion mechanisms”.(22) &lt;strong&gt;These spiritual entities are often invoked 'non-religiously' to help in relaxation aimed at better decision-making and control of one's life and career&lt;/strong&gt;. Fusion with some spirits who teach through particular people is another New Age experience claimed by people who refer to themselves as 'mystics'. Some nature spirits are described as powerful energies existing in the natural world and also on the “inner planes”: i.e. those which are accessible by the use of rituals, drugs and other techniques for reaching altered states of consciousness. It is clear that, in theory at least, the New Age often recognizes no spiritual authority higher than personal inner experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd guess that other churches would have a similar view. If you're interested, you can read through more of the document or have a look at the table of contents (see the list of Resources and the General bibliography).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, Doreen gives all credit to God and the angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Of course&amp;quot;. I wonder where all the money goes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-25T08:15:22.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15837" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15841" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:19:02.330" Score="11" ViewCount="333" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope-elect_Stephen&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, Pope Stephen I was elected to the papacy in March of 752 A.D., but died a few days later, prior to being installed.  As I understand it, Catholic teaching indicates that God's will is accomplished through the voting of the papal conclave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This, however, brings up a question with regard to Pope Stephen I.  Why was he elected as pope if was going to die prior to taking office?  What purpose did God have in working through the conclave to elect him?  What is the Catholic understanding of this?  Did he, after being elected, somehow become unworthy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T08:37:41.293" Title="Why did the conclave elect Pope Stephen I, when he died prior to taking office?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15837" CreationDate="2013-04-25T17:43:37.327" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see the problem, and the Church sees no problem worth explaining, because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unlike some groups, Catholics don't think that death is a sign from God that a person is unworthy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being elected pope makes a man infallible under certain conditions. It doesn't make him sinless or immortal.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It was God's plan to have a man unanimously elected, and then to have him die of a stroke. I don't understand what the problem could be. For all I know of God's plan, which is &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt;, Stephen died so that you could ask and learn the answer to this question. We try not to speculate on God's will, because we can't, and we don't need to. We just trust God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man elected unanimously, dies like everyone else. What's the problem? The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord! There is no problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="1632" LastEditDate="2013-07-25T08:37:41.293" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T08:37:41.293" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15842" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15845" CreationDate="2013-04-25T19:48:49.090" Score="15" ViewCount="1977" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bit of a mouthy title, but I remember reading a few years ago that the entire New Testament (perhaps with the exception of very few verses) and most of the Old Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers just because they had written so much about the Bible and referenced so many verses. To put it another way, if you took all of the writings of the early church fathers, pulled out every verse and reference, then put them together, you would have almost 100% of the New Testament and most of the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a new claim, or does it have its origins in a more distant past (say, older than a century)? Is the claim accurate? &lt;strong&gt;What is the evidence for this claim?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(If the claim is technically false because the early church fathers didn't quote all that much, but technically true if a significantly longer time span is taken into account, then please say so.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastActivityDate="2018-12-15T19:50:17.470" Title="What is the basis for the claim that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed apart from original and copied manuscripts?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15843" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15856" CreationDate="2013-04-25T19:51:32.587" Score="22" ViewCount="10645" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did Rome become the seat of the Pope and the central location for the Church? I would think that Jerusalem would be the first choice. There are also a number of other cities that I would personally pick over Rome because of location and centrality to the early Church. Maybe the issue is that Rome was more central to the early church than I think it was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for an answer that discusses the history mostly and the RCC opinion on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2015-06-18T06:32:48.837" Title="Why is Rome the holy city?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;rome&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15842" CreationDate="2013-04-25T22:08:41.057" Score="13" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The claim is false...&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strictly speaking, the claim is easily proven false by searching a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;scripture index&lt;/a&gt; of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  While this particular index seems imperfect, it does show that many verses (particularly from the shorter letters) are not quoted or even referenced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also take advantage of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Philip Schaff&lt;/a&gt; translations of the Fathers, which are available online and use the KJV for scripture quotations.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/%22For%20God%20so%20loved%20the%20world%22%20AND%20authorID:schaff?&amp;amp;order=score&amp;amp;advanced&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt; turns up in a full-text search as does &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/%22lay%20down%20our%20lives%22%20AND%20authorID:schaff?&amp;amp;order=score&amp;amp;advanced&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;.  However, we wouldn't have any record of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/%22For%20I%20rejoiced%20greatly%22%20AND%20authorID:schaff?&amp;amp;order=score&amp;amp;advanced&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3 John 3&lt;/a&gt;.  (Sadly the letter ends at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/%22But%20I%20trust%20I%20shall%20shortly%20see%20thee%22%20AND%20authorID:schaff?&amp;amp;order=score&amp;amp;advanced&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;verse 14&lt;/a&gt; so I can't be consistent in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7699/914&quot;&gt;my survey&lt;/a&gt;.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf10.ix.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;complete index of Biblical texts&lt;/a&gt; of the 10-volume &lt;em&gt;Ante-Nicene Fathers&lt;/em&gt;, which shows a single verse from John's third epistle (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=3%20John%2011&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3 John 11&lt;/a&gt;), which is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;volume IV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_63.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;page 63&lt;/a&gt;.  Here, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.vii.vi.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tertullian writes&lt;/a&gt; that when it comes to marriage, we should not follow the examples of David and Solomon (who married many women), but to &quot;follow the better things&quot; (Joseph,  Moses, and Aaron who married just once).   But the quote fits just as well with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20peter%203:11&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Peter 3:11&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2037:27&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 37:27&lt;/a&gt; as it does with 3 John 11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;... but much of the Bible was quoted.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, we find the early church &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; quote the New Testament extensively.  Augustine, for instance, gave extensive lectures on the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John, which were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.toc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;written down&lt;/a&gt;.  They serve as a very comprehensive commentary on the two books from which we can extract nearly the entire text (in Latin).  Even better, he preached the text in order, so we can follow along.  His other &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.toc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;expository sermons on the gospels&lt;/a&gt; probably cover most of the text of those books.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, allusions to the New Testament permeates the earliest Christian writing (both Orthodox and Gnostic).  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01/Page_585.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;index&lt;/a&gt; of New Testament references in  Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus shows they (as a group) were familiar with nearly every canonical work.  Not all of these are direct quotes, but demonstrate close familiarity with the texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the central principles of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Historical Method&lt;/a&gt; is the more independent sources that are available, the more confidence we have in the truth of a historical claim.  When it comes to the text of the New Testament, there is already a remarkable number of manuscript copies.  With the exception of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;variations&lt;/a&gt;, we know what the text said.  While we have no need of the early fathers to be confident in the &lt;em&gt;content&lt;/em&gt; of the New Testament, their quotations of it give us information about its &lt;em&gt;canonicity&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2017-07-29T21:11:28.817" LastActivityDate="2017-07-29T21:11:28.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15843" CreationDate="2013-04-26T02:37:34.850" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Peter was crucified in Rome; he was the first Pope. The Basilica was built on top of his grave, hence it became the center of the Church. It has nothing to do with scripture, but instead is based on tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4393" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-04-26T11:56:04.343" LastActivityDate="2013-04-26T11:56:04.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15843" CreationDate="2013-04-26T03:16:54.123" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a large number of historical reasons. Part of it has to do with the fact that Peter finished his ministry and died there and so the papacy was centered on Rome from very early on. Part of it has to do with the fact that it was a fairly significant city even apart from religion. But the main reason, I think, has to do with how Islam took control of the East during the Middle Ages. With Jerusalem closed, people started going to Rome because it was the next logical alternative (for the reasons enumerated above). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of that being said, most people will still think Jerusalem when you say, &quot;The Holy City.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-04-26T03:16:54.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15837" CreationDate="2013-04-26T05:30:50.050" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is very similar to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14341/is-the-choice-of-a-new-pope-inspired-by-the-holy-spirit&quot;&gt;another question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to Alypius' answer here, what I wrote in that other question is also valid:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There remains the possibility that the cardinals will fail to discern the will of the Spirit. However, that can no more be determined by the faithful than it can be by the cardinals themselves. So yes, we must believe that the right person has been chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if the wrong person is elected, his ministry is not invalidated. God will find a way of making everything good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps that conclave was mistaken in its discernment and God found a method of putting things right. Much the same thing has been said of the election of Pope John Paul I. However, as Alypius has said, &amp;quot;there is no point in speculating on God's will, because we can't.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-26T05:30:50.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15837" CreationDate="2013-04-26T07:09:48.323" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I shall pose a counter-question. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do good things happen to bad people? I see no issue with the death of Stephen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to &quot;God's will is worked through the conclave&quot;, well, I will agree but only to a point. God's will is also worked through the US general election. The fact that God's will is worked through a process is neither informative, nor useful, not particularly significant and I see little ability to draw conclusions based on such a premise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conclave is &lt;em&gt;supposed&lt;/em&gt; to elect the man best suited for the job, and it is &lt;em&gt;supposed&lt;/em&gt; to be something done with much prayer and discernment. But anyone who has an even cursory understanding of how conclaves have worked in the past will know that often this is not the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as the saying goes &quot;God does not call the qualified, but he qualifies the chosen.&quot; Even though the outcome of a conclave &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be very human (though often it is far greater than human), the papacy remains protected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to Stephen's qualities, well, by an accident of history we simply are not privy to that information. Perhaps his election was something which was not prayerfully done. Perhaps he was intending on driving the Church of Rome into heresy and God felt the best way to stop that was killing Stephen off. Perhaps God thought it better if he served as an active intercessor in heaven. We don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-04-26T07:09:48.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15843" CreationDate="2013-04-26T14:04:48.837" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;During the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870%29&quot;&gt;Siege of Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt; in 70 AD the city was destroyed almost down to the bedrock with not a stone left atop another, just as Jesus had predicted. Jews were forbidden to enter the city for a long time afterward. This also applied to a small Jewish dissent group called &quot;Christians&quot;. This forced everybody (who were alive) to leave Jerusalem and move to the next possible alternative, wherever that was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason 1: St. Peter was in Rome&lt;/strong&gt;. St. Peter and St. Mark went to Rome to help Christians there. The Catholic Church has always held that &lt;em&gt;Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna&lt;/em&gt;, that is &lt;em&gt;Where there is Peter there is the Church, where there is the Church there is life eternal!&lt;/em&gt;. [St Ambrose (d. 397 A.D.), Commentary on the Psalms 40, 30]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So where else can Christians go when they have nowhere else to go? There are plenty of Church Fathers like St. Jerome  (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]) and St. Irenaeus who give this as the reason. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason 2: Rome was the largest and most powerful City on Earth&lt;/strong&gt;. Hence, it was the best possible place to spread the Gospel quickly, as it was the most connected city. Remember &quot;All road leads to Rome&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason 3: Pre-existing infrastructure&lt;/strong&gt;. When the emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the official state religion, all pagan temples in Rome were converted into christian churches which made Rome amicable to the Christian population.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason 4: Necessary to full-fill prophecy of Daniel&lt;/strong&gt;. Some scholars like Dr. Scott Hahn interpret the prophecy in Daniel 7 as Rome to be the fourth kingdom and that Christ was to come, overthrow this kingdom, and establish an everlasting kingdom in its place. This is why the first thirty or so Popes kept coming back to Rome despite being martyred there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason 5: Divine providence&lt;/strong&gt;. As a Catholic, I personally believe the reason to be divine providence. If the Catholic Church is based in Jerusalem, then there would be unnecessary problems with other faiths which existed then and have come into existence since.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-11-29T07:03:13.240" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T07:03:13.240" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15857" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15858" CreationDate="2013-04-26T14:19:44.117" Score="7" ViewCount="6431" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestantism typically recognizes offices that include pastors, elders, and deacons.  Another common belief is the priesthood of all believers, and thus there is no such designation for a particular office. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholicism, by contrast, has priests, cardinals, bishops, and popes.  Where did these designations come from and when did each of them arise?  I know that the word &quot;priest&quot; does appear in the New Testament, but I am unaware of any words from which cardinal, bishop, or pope would be derived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I wonder if for the first few centuries, there were only priests and a pope and then over time other offices could have been added.  This is just speculation, though, as I am not too familiar with Catholic history.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-12-29T23:43:16.600" Title="Where did the hierarchical designations of priest, cardinal, bishop, and pope come from in the Catholic church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15858" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15857" CreationDate="2013-04-26T14:37:44.677" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually cardinals, bishops and pope, all hold one and the same degree of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. All of them are bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pope&lt;/strong&gt;: Bishop of Rome is called Pope. As the bishop of Rome he is considered to be &lt;em&gt;first amongst &lt;strong&gt;equals&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6002/biblical-basis-for-peter-being-the-leader-of-the-apostles&quot;&gt;Supremacy of Popes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Pope just means Father/Papa&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cardinals&lt;/strong&gt;: They are special bishops&lt;sup&gt;see note 1&lt;/sup&gt; chosen by the Pope to help him in his work. Most important work of a cardinal is to chose the next pope. Contrary to popular belief, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Cardinals are not the bosses of other bishops, as the Pope is not the boss of all Catholics&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Catholics believe that a Bishop receives his authority from God not from pope. To be more specific Cardinal is NOT ecclesiastical posts. That is, Unlike a bishop when elevated as a Cardinal one does not gain any special spiritual privileges. The word &lt;em&gt;Cardinal&lt;/em&gt; is based on the Latin cardo (hinge), meaning &quot;principal&quot; or &quot;chief&quot;. The term was applied in this sense as early as the ninth century to the important priests of the diocese of Rome. Still today all cardinals are given charge of a Church in Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the difference between a bishop and a priest, can be understood in terms of Jewish Priesthood. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Bishops are a special type of priests called High Priests&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, just like in a Jewish tradition. Catholics do believe in the priesthood of all believers. The Catholic Church believes in three different types of priests&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5283/4303&quot;&gt;ref&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5–9);&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The ordained priesthood (Acts 14:23, Romans 15:16, Titus 1:5); and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The high priesthood of Jesus (Hebrews 3:1).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia explains the hierarchical position of the presbyterate as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The relation of the priest to the bishop and deacon may be briefly explained by stating that he is, as it were, the middle term between the two, being hierarchically the subordinate of the bishop and the superior of the deacon (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXVI, can. vi). While the pre-eminence of the bishop over the priest consists mainly in his power of ordination, that of the priest over the deacon is based on his power of consecrating and absolving (cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit., cap. iv; can. i and vii).&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ref&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Notes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_cardinal&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;lay cardinals&lt;/a&gt; in the past, and some cardinals have chose not to get consecrated as bishop due to their old age.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The point I want to make clear is that the difference is only in the name for cardinals, bishops and popes. Of-course they have different temporal powers suitable to their rank, but nothing spiritual.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-04-26T19:15:59.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15860" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-26T16:32:48.497" Score="-1" ViewCount="327" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biblical passages mentioning that mary was a virgin seem to be add after the fact, and possibly based off a mistranslation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What evidence is there that Mary, the alleged mother of Jesus, was a virgin?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4395" LastActivityDate="2013-04-26T17:05:40.340" Title="Was Mary a Virgin?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-04-26T17:08:15.180" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15860" CreationDate="2013-04-26T17:05:40.340" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Gospel of Matthew, this account is given to us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, &lt;strong&gt;before they came together&lt;/strong&gt; she was found &lt;strong&gt;to be with child by the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for &lt;strong&gt;the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “Behold, &lt;strong&gt;the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son&lt;/strong&gt;, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but &lt;strong&gt;kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son&lt;/strong&gt;; and he called His name Jesus.  Matthew 1:18-25 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to note here that Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth.  Thus, it was not merely that Mary conceived when she was a virgin, nor did she conceive at the time that she lost her virginity, but that Jesus was a &lt;strong&gt;born of a virgin&lt;/strong&gt;--that is, that Mary was a virgin up to the time she gave birth go Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, this was what was prophesied in Isaiah 7:14--700 years prior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke gives us a bit more information as well when recording the angel's conversation with Mary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, &lt;strong&gt;you will conceive in your womb and bear a son&lt;/strong&gt;, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called &lt;strong&gt;the Son of the Most High&lt;/strong&gt;; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “&lt;strong&gt;How can this be, since I am a virgin?&lt;/strong&gt;” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “&lt;strong&gt;The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.&lt;/strong&gt;  Luke 1:30-35 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Mary asks how it can happen, since she is a virgin.  The angel's response is that it will occur by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that for this reason, Jesus would not be the son of Joseph, but would be called the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically speaking, this was necessary for a number of different reasons.  Jesus was a descendant of David through Mary biologically, but received the right to the throne through His adopted father Joseph.  Again, there are more reasons for this necessity as well, but to go into them all would be quite lengthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-26T17:05:40.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15864" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-26T21:17:58.833" Score="4" ViewCount="341" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since God is omniscient not only does he know all of our hardships but he also knows that we want him to help us through said hardships. Why do we explicitly ask for help through prayer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3684" LastActivityDate="2013-04-27T05:50:03.747" Title="Why do we explicitly need to ask for help through prayer?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-04-27T20:25:04.113" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15864" CreationDate="2013-04-26T22:11:51.607" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We ask for help and for what we need in prayer because God delights in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 &lt;strong&gt;This is good, and pleases God our Savior&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Tim 2:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also pray so that our thoughts become aligned with God's. The Lord's prayer makes it a point to specifically say that God's will be done on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, &lt;strong&gt;for your Father knows what you need before you ask him&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 “This, then, is how you should pray:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“‘Our Father in heaven,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;hallowed be your name,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;10 your kingdom come,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;your will be done,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;on earth as it is in heaven.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;11 Give us today our daily bread.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;12 And forgive us our debts,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;as we also have forgiven our debtors.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;13 And lead us not into temptation,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;but deliver us from the evil one.’ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt 6:7-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, to fully align His thoughts with the Father's, prayed the night He was betrayed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. &lt;strong&gt;Yet not as I will, but as you will&lt;/strong&gt;.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt 26:39&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John lays it out more plainly for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 5:14-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When our thoughts are aligned with God's we will ask for what He is to do, anyway. And since our thoughts are aligned with God's we will delight and rejoice in His righteous ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when we are suffering, we pray to the Omniscient God because he likes to hear from us, and He wants us to think like Him, which is always holy and righteous. Then from that perspective, our suffering will seem different than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-26T22:17:29.847" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15857" CreationDate="2013-04-26T22:50:06.820" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to distinguish between two kinds of clerical titles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those that derive from the reception of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm&quot;&gt;sacrament of Order&lt;/a&gt; and indicate a permanent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03586a.htm&quot;&gt;character&lt;/a&gt; in the recipient's soul, which can never be taken away and persists even beyond death&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Those that indicate an ecclesiastical office that is held by appointment or election for a determinate period of time and can be resigned or taken away&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Titles deriving from the sacrament of Order: bishop, priest, and deacon&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First a note on &lt;em&gt;priesthood&lt;/em&gt;: Catholics affirm the common priesthood of the baptized, but distinguish it from the ministerial priesthood. The latter is conferred by the sacrament of Order for the purpose of offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, administering the other sacraments, and governing the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;bishop&lt;/strong&gt; has the fullness of the ministerial priesthood and is himself a minister of the sacrament of Order, and is thus able to perpetuate the ministerial priesthood. The apostles ordained the first bishops (e.g., Timothy and Titus) and charged them with the governance of particular territories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;priest&lt;/strong&gt; has the ministerial priesthood somewhat less fully than a bishop, who delegates some aspects of his ministry to his priests. A priest can offer the Eucharistic sacrifice and administer most of the other sacraments, but not the sacrament of Order. Priests serve in a sense to extend the local bishop's powers beyond what a single man could accomplish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;deacon&lt;/strong&gt; is a privileged assistant in the liturgy and in the temporal care of the Church. Catholics understand Acts 6:1-6 as documenting the institution of the diaconate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia entry for &lt;em&gt;bishop&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; has an overview of various theories about the historical development of the distinction between &lt;em&gt;priest&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;bishop&lt;/em&gt;. It sums up as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During the first three centuries, the entire religious life of the diocese centered around the person of the bishop. The priests and deacons were his auxiliaries but they worked under the immediate direction of the bishop. In large cities, however, like Rome, it was soon found necessary to hand over permanently to the priests and deacons certain definite functions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't sound too much different from the idea you proposed in your question. It seems to be in that &quot;handing over of definite functions&quot;, which in some sense continues even today, that most of the various offices in the Church have arisen. And as new offices arise, so do new titles for the holders of those offices, as discussed below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Titles deriving from temporarily-held offices: pope, cardinal, etc.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the office of &lt;strong&gt;Pope&lt;/strong&gt; is unique. Formally, the Pope is the bishop who holds the see of Peter -- he is thereby the supreme pastor of the universal Church. &lt;strong&gt;Catholics believe that this office was instituted by the Lord&lt;/strong&gt; (Matthew 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17) and is a constitutive element of the Church; nonetheless it remains an &lt;em&gt;office&lt;/em&gt;: temporarily held, able to be resigned, and in no way bound up with the reception of a sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;cardinals&lt;/strong&gt; are the Pope's hand-picked collaborators in the governance of the Church; usually he picks bishops but there are occasional exceptions. The cardinals have unequaled privileges and responsibilities in the Church but their office derives in no way from a sacrament -- it is simply at the decision and announcement of the Pope that a man becomes a cardinal. Originally the term &quot;cardinal&quot; referred to the chief clergy of any prominent diocese, but eventually became reserved to the cardinals of Rome; the old Catholic Encyclopedia gives a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm&quot;&gt;lengthy historical overview&lt;/a&gt;. I've seen a couple of references recently to the possibility of the Pope removing a man from the cardinalate, but I don't know if this has ever actually happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there is a plethora of lesser Church offices which have particular canonical privileges and responsibilities, but again are held temporarily and by appointment. These include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pastor of a parish&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abbot of a monastery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Superior of a religious order&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For most Church offices other than the papacy it is perfectly clear that the office is of human and somewhat contingent origin, and simply developed historically as the need for it arose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-04-27T03:53:11.227" LastActivityDate="2013-04-27T03:53:11.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15871" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-27T15:01:33.093" Score="4" ViewCount="2566" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church requires its priests to practice celibacy.  This has not always been the case, though.  In fact, it was not instituted until the 11th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestant churches have no requirement of celibacy.  So, what is the reason for this? Specifically why do Protestant churches, which began well after the practice had been instituted in the Catholic Church, do not require this of their pastors?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-27T16:59:40.733" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T00:39:32.137" Title="What is the argument against the imposition of clerical celibacy as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;clergy&gt;&lt;celibacy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15871" CreationDate="2013-04-27T21:17:41.103" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Institution and codification are not the same thing. Surviving documents dating back to the 5th century &quot;consider the practice to be an ancient and timeless tradition&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;, see footnotes). Wikipedia talks about the codification in the 11th century, but even the early 4th century Council of Elvira passed a law against conjugal relations, with the penalty of being removed from the priesthood. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestant churches don't require celibacy because they don't follow Canon Law, and many don't have anything remotely like Canon Law. Some are not large enough to need it, and some are opposed to any sort of &quot;earthly&quot; authority or regulation whatsoever. There's no direct prohibition in Scripture, and for them there's no ecclesiastical prohibition, so they don't uphold the practice. It's really that simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want the details, here are the practical and theological Protestant points against the Catholic view and practice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Catholic view of sex is that it is not a &quot;bodily need&quot; that needs to be satisfied, but something that can be entirely avoided by some people, and that celibacy (like fasting) strengthens the will and character. The opposing idea is that nobody should be deprived of something they &quot;need&quot;. Some go as far as to say that being deprived of this &quot;need&quot; might even lead to serious psychological disorders (scientifically this is nonsense, but that's the intuition).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Catholicism, the job of a priest is to say the Mass and to administer the Sacraments, and there are a huge number of support groups for personal or family issues. In some other denominations, a pastor must fill the role of a spiritual counsellor, and some believe that if a priest/pastor is married, he'll be able to do an even better job of relating to the problems of his community.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some communities simply wouldn't be able to find someone who is committed to being celibate just to be a pastor. People willing to give up the possibility of marriage are pretty rare.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luther, who had made a vow of celibacy as a priest, abandoned that vow and marred a former nun. Zwingli, also a priest, secretly married shortly before petitioning his bishop to abolish the requirement of celibacy. Calvin was also married, and argued in the Institutes (4.13.20) that vows made concerning things that &quot;God does not at all require of us&quot; are invalid. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic idea in that last point is that if I make a vow to smack you over the head, and you don't want me to do that, then I'm &quot;loosed&quot; from my vow. Obviously, whether a priest (like Luther, or Zwingli) were &quot;loosed&quot; totally depends on whether God would say it was a vow worth making and keeping. Catholics think that St Peter and his successors have the ability to &quot;bind&quot; and &quot;loose&quot; people according to tradition, and Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Protestants in general don't think anyone has that ability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-04-27T21:17:41.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15402" CreationDate="2013-04-27T23:34:06.713" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, &lt;strong&gt;I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;John was in Heaven and he saw the souls of people who had died for preaching the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not &lt;strong&gt;perish&lt;/strong&gt;, but have &lt;strong&gt;everlasting&lt;/strong&gt; life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;perish*&lt;em&gt;Suffer death or suffer complete ruin or destruction.&#xA;Synonyms-&lt;/em&gt;*die&lt;/strong&gt; - pass away&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;everlasting&lt;/strong&gt; Lasting forever or for a very long time.&#xA;Synonyms eternal - &lt;strong&gt;perpetual&lt;/strong&gt; - perennial - &lt;strong&gt;undying&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you believe in Jesus your soul never dies your flesh body is resurrected when Jesus returns.&#xA;Believe what the Word of God says not what tradition says!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4404" LastActivityDate="2013-04-27T23:34:06.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15876" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-28T04:27:46.000" Score="9" ViewCount="292" Body="&lt;p&gt;I came across an interesting quote in Lutzer, Erwin W. (2003-02-01). Cries From The Cross: A Journey into the Heart of Jesus (p. 20). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus’ suffering was terrible for the simple reason that our sin is terrible. And we must ever keep in mind that the suffering of Jesus was not primarily physical—it was not the lacerations, the crown of thorns, and the nails. The spiritual suffering He endured when His fellowship with the Father was broken for three hours on the cross was the ultimate suffering, the kind of agony you and I have never experienced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is my question: suppose we were to sort &quot;Fellowship with the Father&quot; in increasing order, would we get:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[1] (Sinner, God) &amp;lt; (Christ on the Cross, God) &amp;lt; (Christ, God)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[2] (Christ on the Cross, God) &amp;lt; (Sinner, God) &amp;lt; (Christ, God)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lutzer seems to imply [2]. I suspect the logic goes something like the following (but am not certain) and would appreciate answers claiming either [1] is correct or [2] is correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that we're sinners, it's clear that our fellowship with God is less than Christ's fellowship with God. However, given that we're not thrown in hell, it seems that we have &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; fellowship with God (even as sinners).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if we assume that Christ, while on the cross, bore and suffered for our sins, does that imply that Christ, while on the cross, suffered the wrath of Hell in our place -- and if so, does that imply that fellowship(Christ on the Cross, God) &amp;lt; fellowship(Sinner, God) ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4406" LastActivityDate="2015-06-08T21:46:36.090" Title="Fellowship with God" Tags="&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15877" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-28T06:00:25.363" Score="5" ViewCount="581" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wesleyan perfectionism is often compared to a Calvinist view of sanctification but this question is different. It is designed for someone familiar with Wesleyan theology to provide an explanation that differentiates it from a Catholic view. I am trying to see in what sense is Wesley’s view similar to or different from a Catholic view in terms of sanctification and potential loss of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here is what I understand (or think I do):&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe that when a person is baptized original sin is removed, the soul is renewed, adoption into the family of God has occurred and so long as one does not commit mortal sin, they remain justified - or inwardly just - by the infused good works within them by the grace of God. Wesleyan’s on the other hand hold a protestant justification view, so that sinners are made righteous before any sanctification has occurred, and that justification is an event introducing sanctification. However sanctification once introduced after justification implies a kind of elite level of true holiness that can be habitually attained that should surpass the experience of Prophets and saints prior to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is the gift to the church and author of this very remarkable holiness so that a person can be in a sinless state even for longer than a whole day. The new heightened holiness or perfection after Pentecost enables Christians in some sense to be perfect (not just mature).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here is what I do not understand:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do Wesleyans consider certain sins committed by those who were truly justified as loosing that justified status, such as Catholics do under the concept of mortal sin? For example, if a Wesleyan commits adultery and dies in that unrepentant sin, does this mean he/she is damned?  If not, if there is no 'mortal' and 'venial' distinction what is the trigger that makes a Wesleyan in a state of being ‘out of grace’ such as a Catholic is with un-repented mortal sin? Is the only mortal sin just no longer having faith in Christ at all, or some other more complicated criteria?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why I am asking this question is that in terms of Justification it is clear to me Wesleyans and Catholic are at opposite poles of thought. However, when it comes to sanctification and potential loss of salvation, I do not know how they are differentiated from one another. I suspect there are quite different, I just would like to know more from someone who understands Wesleyan theology. I would like this explained in contrast to the basic idea of Catholicism, which is that you are 'just or perfect' so long as you do not commit a mortal sin, upon which time you loose that perfection, justification or grace of God. Of course the methods of restoration to grace from that 'condemned state' would be different, but that is not my immediate question. The question has to do with the criteria for 'falling from grace' not the restoration back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How does the loss of Wesleyan perfectionism (which might eventually lead to a total loss of salvation) differ from Catholic distinctions between mortal and venial sins?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-04-28T20:57:02.550" LastActivityDate="2013-08-16T16:40:13.790" Title="How does the loss of Wesleyan perfectionism differ from Catholic distinctions between mortal and venial sins?" Tags="&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;sanctification&gt;&lt;wesley&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15402" CreationDate="2013-04-28T06:26:31.243" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Your Life Is Worth Living&lt;/em&gt; Fulton Sheen expands this idea better, but the long and the short is that the Catholic understanding is that there is a double judgement. The first is the private judgement, from there you go to heaven, hell, or purgatory where you await the final judgement. It is at the final, public judgement that we will see the old order finally pass away and only after that will we truly enter eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, we'll die, if we're worthy we will find ourselves in paradise, but it is only a temporal one and there is a better one down the line.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-04-28T06:26:31.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15871" CreationDate="2013-04-28T08:49:51.227" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Protestants take the priestly celibacy as unbiblical or unnatural.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;They claim that every man must obey the biblical injunction to &quot;be fruitful and multiply&quot;(Gen. 1:28) and Paul command that &quot;each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband&quot;(1Cor. 7:2). They also argue that celibacy somehow causes illicit sexual behaviour or perversion or at least correlates with higher incidence of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although most people are at some point of their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated as well as practiced by both Jesus and Paul. Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it. (1Cor. 7:8-9).He specifically clarifies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor. 7:6-7 I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that everyone was as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul prefers celibacy in 1 Cor.7:27-34) and   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor. 7:38 So then, the one who marries his own virgin does well, but the one who does not, does better.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Jesus teaching in Mat. 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, &quot;If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry (Matt. 19:10). This remarks prompted Jesus' teaching on the values of celibacy &quot;for the sake of the kingdom&quot;(Matt. 19:11-12).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Protestant reject celibacy considering it as a dogma or a doctrine of Catholic Church and maintain that priestly celibacy was made mandatory much later in the Church history:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is taken by protestant as a central and irreformable part of Catholic faith, believed by Catholic to be coming from Jesus and the apostles and their objection is that, &lt;strong&gt;since Peter was married (Mark 1:30) there cannot be basis for this in Bible&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality the celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priest even today. In Eastern rite Catholics, married priest are the norm, just as  they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.  In Eastern churches married men may become priests, unmarried priest may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. In western or Latin-rite Church the tradition has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages, with exception to those who are married priests in Latin-rite, who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalians. So all these variation in Catholic church indicates that priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. &lt;strong&gt;Just as the Peter was married so also any of the nearest pastor of Maronite Catholic Church and both are not contrary to what Catholic faith teaches.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Protestants argue that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God's Church and an unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven. This is what Paul taught in 1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a literal interpretation of the scripture which leads to further absurdities. With the next verse it implies that only those who have children can become bishops. Further to this it implies that only those who can keep their children submissive and respectful in every way can become bishops and so on.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This literal interpretation creates another  contradiction. Paul himself was eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was hypocrite he could have hardly imposed a requirement on bishops that he did not himself meet.  The point of Paul's requirement that a bishop be &quot;the husband of one wife&quot; is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have ONLY one wife. Conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children(not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once(not that he must be married).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lastly Protestants argue that by requiring at least some of its clerics not to marry, the Catholic Church falls under Pauls condemnation in 1 Tim.4:3 against apostate who &quot;forbid marriage&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Tim.4:3 They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact Catholic church forbids no one to marry. No one requires to take a vow of celibacy and those who do so take it voluntarily. They renounce marriage (Matt.19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn't wish to take such a vow doesn't have to, and he is always free to marry with Church's blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priest hood from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul was actually referring to Gnostic sects through the ages that denounced marriage, sex and body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: &quot;For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angles in heaven&quot;(Matt. 22:30)&lt;/em&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-04-29T11:31:26.400" LastActivityDate="2013-04-29T11:31:26.400" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15928" CreationDate="2013-04-28T10:40:51.753" Score="2" ViewCount="483" Body="&lt;p&gt;What verses from the Bible claim that Jesus has justified and redeemed man by his sacrifice on a cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-05-01T20:11:49.180" LastActivityDate="2013-05-01T20:37:39.677" Title="What verses from the Bible claim that Jesus has justified and redeemed man by his sacrifice on a cross?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15881" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17221" CreationDate="2013-04-28T16:07:23.587" Score="5" ViewCount="4995" Body="&lt;p&gt;A will or testament is a legal declaration by which a person, the testator, names one or more persons to manage his estate and provides for the transfer of his property at death. This property an inheritance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I am wondering is the origin of the word Old Testament, or New Testament.  Does 'testament' imply the death of Life in order that we receive an inheritance?  Is the Old Testament, a 'Testament' or just a Covenant?  Was the Old Covenant truly a Testament, or is only the New Covenant a Testament?  If the Old Covenant was also a Testament which would not be ratified until the testator died, in what sense is the Old Covenant a testament before the actual death of Christ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does the word testament in the titles 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' imply the death of the testator in both covenants and thus provide a biblical basis for calling the two divisions of the Bible testaments, rather then just covenants?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-24T14:41:54.460" LastActivityDate="2019-07-31T11:37:10.307" Title="Does the word 'testament' in the titles OT and NT imply the death of the testator in both covenants?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;covenants&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15880" CreationDate="2013-04-28T16:45:15.763" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is John 3:16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there was Jesus praying the day before the crucifixion that if there was another way that God would do that instead of the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LUKE 22:41-44&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus knew quite well what was coming and that it was necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul says in Romans 5 that Christ's &quot;righteous act&quot; will save many. That act is the crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-04-28T16:45:15.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15881" CreationDate="2013-04-28T20:13:24.557" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has more to do with the translators and languages than the bible itself. The word Testament is derived from Latin &lt;em&gt;testamentum&lt;/em&gt;-a will. I understand you confuse it with the modern meaning of the word, but Blue Letter Bible tries to explain it as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word &quot;testament&quot; is an old English word that means, &quot;covenant.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;The Latin term testamentum was used to translate the Greek and Hebrews words for covenant.&lt;/strong&gt; The English word was derived from the Latin. Hence the Old and New Covenants became the Old and New Testaments.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=271&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Old and New Testaments just means old and new covenant. That is the covenants before and after Jesus Christ. That is here both Testament and covenant have the same meaning. The sourced cited above goes on to even say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;It is unfortunate that the English word &quot;testament&quot; is used to describe the Old and New Covenants that God has made with His people&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also don't understand how the 'Old Testament' implies the death of testator? God did not die in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; The word &lt;em&gt;covenant&lt;/em&gt; came into usage only in Middle English (12th - 15th century) borrowed from Old French, from present participle of convenir, meaning to agree; &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/covenant&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; So, we can't blame the translators for not using the proper word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-04-28T20:22:03.850" LastActivityDate="2013-04-28T20:22:03.850" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15871" CreationDate="2013-04-28T20:29:50.367" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to add a few other Biblical reasons Protestants in general will allow for married Pastors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her. -Mark 1:30.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simon Peter having a mother-in-law necessarily meant that he had a wife. If one of Jesus's own apostles had a wife, then right there is pretty good evidence that pastors today can likewise have wives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an argument Paul makes about the matter in 1 Corinthians 9,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we already know that one of the other apostles had a wife, we can safely say that Paul isn't being sarcastic here, but rather stating a very straightforward argument. The apostles were allowed, among other things, money and the right to marry; however, the apostles would at times choose to give up their rights for various reasons, as Paul and Barnabas did with wives, and others did at various points with money among other things (see 1 Cor. 9:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just because some honorably chose to give up those rights, doesn't in any way mean they didn't have those rights in the first place, as Paul states here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Protestants don't follow the headship of the Catholic church, they likewise don't observe the things that the Catholic church claims to have &quot;loosed&quot; or &quot;bound,&quot; and the scriptural evidence taken without that external input supports a pastor who has the full right to marry if he so chooses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4236" LastActivityDate="2013-04-28T20:29:50.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15886" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15887" CreationDate="2013-04-29T03:31:34.377" Score="4" ViewCount="714" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &quot;An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith&quot; (ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως) John of Damascus wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Χρὴ γινώσκειν, ὡς πάντα μὲν προγινώσκει ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντα δὲ προορίζει· προγινώσκει γὰρ καὶ τὰ ἐφ' ἡμῖν, οὐ προορίζει δὲ αὐτά· οὐ γὰρ θέλει τὴν κακίαν γενέσθαι οὐδὲ βιάζεται τὴν ἀρετήν. Ὥστε τῆς θείας προγνωστικῆς&#xA;  κελεύσεως ἔργον ἐστὶν ὁ προορισμός. Προορίζει δὲ τὰ οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ· ἤδη γὰρ κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ προέκρινε πάντα ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὴν ἀγαθότητα καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which I translate as, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is necessary to understand, while God foreknows everything, yet He does not predetermine everything. For He even foreknows those things that are dependent on us, but He does not predetermine them. For He neither wills evil to occur nor forces virtue, so that predetermination is the work of the divine command of foreknowledge. On the other hand, God predetermines those things which are not dependent on us, according to His foreknowledge. For according to His foreknowledge, God has already forejudged all things according to His goodness and righteousness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is John's remark that God does not predetermine all things, only things not within our own power and ability, considered an accepted, orthodox belief by Roman Catholicism? Are there any scriptures that contradict his assertion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-07-24T12:17:12.693" LastActivityDate="2020-07-24T12:17:12.693" Title="Does God predetermine all things according to His prescience?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;foreknowledge&gt;&lt;john-of-damascus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15886" CreationDate="2013-04-29T06:28:59.870" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. John of Damascus is in some ways just repeating St. Augustine’s reflection made a couple hundred years before. If your interested in the subject from ancient Father’s this is really the place to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chapter 47.— Predestination is Sometimes Signified Under the Name of Foreknowledge.&lt;/strong&gt; Consequently sometimes the same predestination is signified also under the name of foreknowledge; as says the apostle, “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” Romans 11:2 Here, when he says, “He foreknew,” the sense is not rightly understood except as “He predestinated,” as is shown by the context of the passage itself. For he was speaking of the remnant of the Jews which were saved, while the rest perished. For above he had said that the prophet had declared to Israel, “All day long I have stretched forth my hands to an unbelieving and a gainsaying people.” And as if it were answered, What, then, has become of the promises of God to Israel? He added in continuation, “I say, then, has God cast away His people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” Then he added the words which I am now treating: “God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.” And in order to show that the remnant had been left by God's grace, not by any merits of their works, he went on to add, “Do you not know what the Scripture says in Elias, in what way he makes intercession with God against Israel?” and the rest. “But what,” says he, “says the answer of God unto him? 'I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee before Baal.'” Romans 11:5 For He says not, “There are left to me,” or “They have reserved themselves to me,” but, “I have reserved to myself.” “Even so, then, at this present time also there is made a remnant by the election of grace. And if of grace, then it is no more by works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” And connecting this with what I have above quoted, “What then?” Romans 11:7 and in answer to this inquiry, he says, “Israel has not obtained that which he was seeking for, but the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Therefore, in the election, and in this remnant which were made so by the election of grace, he wished to be understood the people which God did not reject, because He foreknew them. This is that election by which He elected those, whom He willed, in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without spot in His sight, in love, predestinating them unto the adoption of sons. No one, therefore, who understands these things is permitted to doubt that, when the apostle says, “God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew,” He intended to signify predestination. For He foreknew the remnant which He should make so according to the election of grace. That is, therefore, He predestinated them; for without doubt He foreknew if He predestinated; but to have predestinated is to have foreknown that which He should do (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15122.htm%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On the Predestination of the Saints (Book II)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key point of St. Augustine’s view (later picked up by Luther and Calvin) is that &lt;strong&gt;but to have predestinated is to have foreknown that which &lt;em&gt;'He should do'&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt; In other words it includes 'what we will do', but principally includes what &lt;em&gt;'God would do'&lt;/em&gt;. Foreknowledge can’t exclude man’s choices or God's purposes, or anything else in time! However, as everything is done 'according to God’s purposes' (at least is defining un-moveable boundaries) God's choice is the overall guide and determination governing the whole, otherwise he is no God at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of God’s relation to time is what forms the basis of St. Augustine’s views of predestination:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chapter 21.— Of God's Eternal and Unchangeable Knowledge and Will, Whereby All He Has Made Pleased Him in the Eternal Design as Well as in the Actual Result.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced. For as without any movement that time can measure, He Himself moves all temporal things, so He knows all times with a knowledge that time cannot measure. And therefore He saw that what He had made was good, when He saw that it was good to make it. And when He saw it made, He had not on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge of it; as if He had less knowledge before He made what He saw. For certainly He would not be the perfect worker He is, unless His knowledge were so perfect as to receive no addition from His finished works. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;City of God, Chapter 21.— Of God's Eternal and Unchangeable Knowledge and Will, Whereby All He Has Made Pleased Him in the Eternal Design as Well as in the Actual Result.&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having this principle view of a God outside time, God can’t learn or change in any way. It means he decided everything before time was created. This includes the idea of creating time itself based on the fact that the creature is 'subject to change'. Time is just a duration of one thing to the next which has no meaning if everything was unchangeable like God.  God alone is outside of time being unchangeable. Now the obvious tension this produces is how predestination of those ‘elect’ to damnation and those ‘elect’ to salvation is to be understood in terms of God’s love and justice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine himself struggled with this and after modifying his ideas later in life eventually concluded the same ideas as Calvin. However, this is only possible by simply saying it can’t be understood in its real analysis but is hidden in God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That owing to one man all pass into condemnation who are born of Adam unless they are born again in Christ, even as He has appointed them to be regenerated, before they die in the body, whom He predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace; while to those whom He has predestinated to eternal death, He is also the most righteous awarder of punishment not only on account of the sins which they add in the indulgence of their own will, but also because of their original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they add nothing thereto. Now this is my definite view on that question, so that the hidden things of God may keep their secret, without impairing my own faith. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15084.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(On the Soul and its Origin (Book IV)&lt;/a&gt; )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note the phrase &lt;strong&gt;the hidden things of God&lt;/strong&gt;. The idea here is that to try to understand God foreknowing and electing 'some to grace' and 'some to damnation' is not to be understood by man. If we try it will seem that God is mean and not just at all. No, those who ponder the subject for a great length of time commonly give up and just have faith knowing he is love and just. The eternity of God and his foreknowledge as well as his determination of what happens in time under the boundaries of providence are believed as a hidden mystery, without &lt;strong&gt;impairing my own faith&lt;/strong&gt;. This subject has always caused perplexity for the church from its earliest days and the positions that one takes of the subject (in agreement with St. Augustine or not) was already defined by the time of Augustine. Naturally, not everybody views this mystery the same way, otherwise it would not be hidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-04-29T06:47:26.947" LastActivityDate="2013-04-29T06:47:26.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15889" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-29T07:52:31.827" Score="4" ViewCount="1759" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do Bible translator translate rhea into neighbor in &quot;Love thy neighbor&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews told me that rhea really means comrades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why is it translated as neighbor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Indonesia, it's translated as &quot;fellow humans&quot;, which is also not neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why are there so many different translation for one so called most important commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-04-29T12:53:45.947" LastActivityDate="2013-04-29T12:58:58.357" Title="Why Christian Translator Translate Rhea as Neighbor?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15889" CreationDate="2013-04-29T08:16:37.707" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Same reason Jewish translators do. Because it likely captures the best sense of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9920&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judaica Press Tanakh&lt;/a&gt; uses &quot;neighbor&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-04-29T08:16:37.707" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15891" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15894" CreationDate="2013-04-29T09:41:13.877" Score="11" ViewCount="6146" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was surprised to find out ‘Luther’ is not Martin Luther’s original surname but ‘Luder’ is. The Greek word έλεύθερος that was the origin of his Latin name was Eleutherius. You can see ‘uder’ does not quite sound as good as ‘uther’. You can hear the sound of the Greek word here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://translate.google.com/#auto/el/%CE%AD%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%8D%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82&quot;&gt;click on the speaker sign to listen&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read that in the fall of 1517 he changed his name. So what would make Luther get so fussy about his name so that he wanted it to match the original Greek more audibly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2018-11-27T11:54:43.570" Title="Why did Martin Luther change his surname from ‘Luder’ to ‘Luther' very early in his career?" Tags="&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15891" CreationDate="2013-04-29T11:28:01.390" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps because the German word &quot;Luder&quot; is really not a nice word. It refers to a female that is very obstinate at best and is frequently associated with very questionable morals and behaviors.&#xA;You can try google translate but the result are probably not suitable for repeating on this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4020" LastActivityDate="2013-04-29T11:28:01.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15889" CreationDate="2013-04-29T12:58:58.357" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As is often the case, the Bible interprets itself.  In the parable of the Good Samaritan, someone asks Jesus who exactly his neighbor is?  Jesus replies by telling the story of a Samaritan caring for a complete stranger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,&#xA;  “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him,&#xA;  “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered,&#xA;  “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all&#xA;  your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your&#xA;  neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered&#xA;  correctly; do this, and you will live.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my&#xA;  neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to&#xA;  Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and&#xA;  departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going&#xA;  down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32&#xA;  So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by&#xA;  on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where&#xA;  he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and&#xA;  bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his&#xA;  own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the&#xA;  next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper,&#xA;  saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay&#xA;  you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved&#xA;  to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said,&#xA;  “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do&#xA;  likewise.”  Luke 10:25-37 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word neighbor is probably used by convention.  Oftentimes, new Bible translations follow conventions from older translations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I know of no one who would say, &quot;this person does not live next to me, so I don't have to love them.&quot;  Obviously, in the light of the Luke passage, that is absurd.  The passage is clearly indicating that we should love our fellow man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-29T12:58:58.357" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15891" CreationDate="2013-04-29T17:31:39.633" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to a book by James Nestingen,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On Luther's &quot;Gospel discovery,&quot; his &quot;tower experience,&quot; I agree with Nestingen (and Lohse) that it probably coincided with his name change from Luder the Luther, &quot;a small change based on the Greek word for freedom, elutherius. I see the similarity as too exceptional simply to explain Luther's name change as merely a respelling from Low/Middle German to High German.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0800697146&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Martin-Luther-James-A-Nestingen/dp/0800697146&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for choosing a word related to &quot;freedom&quot; has to do with the freedom offered by the Gospel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-04-29T17:31:39.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15895" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15899" CreationDate="2013-04-29T20:46:00.000" Score="8" ViewCount="240" Body="&lt;p&gt;If indeed transubstantiation occurs, and the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, why does John of Damascus&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; (as an example) refer to the Eucharist as «ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν», &amp;quot;a bloodless sacrifice&amp;quot; (or &amp;quot;unbloody sacrifice&amp;quot;)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; John of Damascus: &lt;em&gt;On the Immaculate Body which We Partake Of&lt;/em&gt; (Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν), Sec. I.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare the footnote on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.xi.ii.xx.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1988    unbloody Priesthood, ἀναίμακτον ἱερωσύνην, i.e. “sacerdotium,” not“sacrificium.” This, not θυσίαν, is supported by the Codd. The Eucharist is often called by the Fathers “the unbloody sacrifice” (e.g. Chrysost. in Ps. xcv., citing Malachi), and the Priesthood which offers it can be called “unbloody” too. Cf. Greg. Naz. in Poem. xi. 1—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;῏Ω θυσίας πέμποντες ἀναιμάκτους ἱερῆες.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While these terms assert the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, might they not at the same time supply an argument against the Roman view of Transubstantiation, which teaches that the actual blood of Christ is received, and makes it still a bloody sacrifice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-12-25T15:24:47.893" Title="Why is the Eucharist referred to as «ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν» in consideration of &quot;transubstantiation&quot;?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;translation&gt;&lt;transubstantiation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15897" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15902" CreationDate="2013-04-30T01:51:36.173" Score="12" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm still in the process of translating a work of John of Damascus concerning the Eucharist and the body of Christ, entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In section 4, he writes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ἐκεῖ ἦν ἡ ἁγία Παρθένος ἡ τράπεζα, ἔχουσα τὴν ὕλην τοῦ σώματος.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My tendency is to translate this as, &quot;There was the holy table, the Virgin, bearing the matter of the body.&quot; It's talking about the virgin Mary bearing Christ in her womb, and that Christ assumed flesh from her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the phrase ἡ ἁγία Παρθένος ἡ τράπεζα puzzled me. Is Mary ever referred to as &quot;the holy table&quot; (ἡ ἁγία ἡ τράπεζα) in Catholic doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-05-14T21:12:39.990" LastActivityDate="2013-05-14T21:12:39.990" Title="Is the Virgin Mary ever referred to as &quot;the Holy Table&quot; (ἡ ἁγία ἡ τράπεζα)?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15898" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-30T02:12:25.567" Score="6" ViewCount="289" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think all Christian denominations will agree as fundamental doctrine that the Holy Spirit was sent to us (the invisible church) after Christ's death on the cross (John 14:16). However, it seems like there might be a difference in the way the Holy Spirit was meant to work in the apostles' lives as opposed to ours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example: The gospel of John says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. -John 14:26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can the Holy Spirit remind us of things we've never heard before? It seems that this statement in particular was specifically addressing the disciples who were there in the room with Jesus at the time. This &quot;reminder&quot; then helped the disciples write the New Testament. We, on the other hand, aren't blessed with this specific gift, as we aren't called to write the Bible. Instead it seems the job of the Holy Spirit in our lives is to help us bear good spiritual fruit (Galatians 5:22-23). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a correct conclusion? What do you all think? Are there any other differences you can think of or do you think the giving of the Holy Spirit was functionally the same in both cases?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Bless!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4236" LastEditorUserId="4236" LastEditDate="2013-04-30T02:35:36.600" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T03:25:26.523" Title="What is the difference, if any, between the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives vs. the apostles lives?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15895" CreationDate="2013-04-30T02:15:42.860" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the contrary, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St John of Damascus&lt;/a&gt; himself says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;since it is man's custom to eat and to drink water and wine, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural. The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine &lt;em&gt;are changed into God's body and blood&lt;/em&gt;. [...] This surely is that pure and bloodless sacrifice which the Lord through the prophet said is offered to Him from the rising to the setting of the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So his words can't be used to &quot;supply an argument&quot; against Transubstantiation. John couldn't be more clear in his confession that the wine becomes blood. We should guess that he means something else. And he does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus said the Last Supper He wasn't &quot;bloody&quot;, even though He had blood inside of Him. But on the Cross, He was bloody. Because we all bloodied Him. The chalice contains His Blood, but Catholics don't call it bloody. The chalice contains Jesus: His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. And Jesus is not bloody in the chalice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic priest, &lt;em&gt;in persona Christi&lt;/em&gt;, isn't offering up the sacrifice in that way. We stopped offering sacrifices in that way a long time ago, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15082/3941#15084&quot;&gt;Hebrews explains why&lt;/a&gt;. If a person wanted to make a bloody sacrifice, he would kill an animal, let the blood pour out, and then sprinkle the blood on the Mercy Seat while asking God for forgiveness. We confess that we don't do that anymore by calling the Eucharist an unbloody sacrifice. Because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus, the Blessed Eucharist, the Bread of Life, isn't bleeding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The people doing the offering aren't spilling blood in atonement&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exactly the same sacrifice, exactly the same Jesus, but the offering of that same eternal sacrifice doesn't involve the spilling of blood and death. &quot;Unbloody&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T02:15:42.860" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15900" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-30T02:30:07.533" Score="6" ViewCount="472" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before I go on, I do realize that biblical claims for the inerrancy of the Bible is in fact self-satisfying and therefore questionable (at least in a court room), but bear with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old testament scripture is verified by Jesus's obvious regard for it as He quotes it all the time (See Matt. 19:4, Mark 10:6, Heb 4:4, Acts 7:3, the list goes on...). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could see the words of Jesus while he was on earth (mainly the gospels) verified as Jesus allowed the Holy Spirit to help the apostles remember what they had heard (John 14:26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about the epistles and apocalyptic books? We can obviously assume that the apostles writing the books knew mostly what they were talking about as they spent so much time with Jesus, but there's a pretty big leap from that to infallible. We also don't know who wrote some books (Hebrews for example), how do we know these are the words of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worth mentioning is 2 Timothy 3:16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how do we know what &quot;Scripture&quot; Timothy is referring to here? And as for the &quot;canonization&quot; of the books, are we just trusting that God safeguarded the accuracy of the Bible by guiding the decisions of those involved in the Council of Trent and Synod of Hippo, for example?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is no such claim, why did some Christian denominations start believing it was inerrant?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks and God Bless!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CLARIFICATION: I know any answer supporting the inerrancy of the Bible can't, by nature, be a perfect proof because of the recursiveness, but I think it worthwhile to find out if the Bible claims itself to be inerrant or if people just assumed it was later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4236" LastEditorUserId="4236" LastEditDate="2013-04-30T17:13:29.530" LastActivityDate="2013-05-01T03:37:56.297" Title="Rephrase: Does the Bible claim itself to be inerrant?" Tags="&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-05-01T14:44:19.477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15897" CreationDate="2013-04-30T04:17:51.143" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One point I always like to stress to my Catechism class because I think it really shows a lot about who Jesus and Mary are is that she is, as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryd6f.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Litany of Loreto&lt;/a&gt; says, the&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ark of the Covenant&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ark held God within it and physically held a few mementos of desert wanderings (According to the tradition the Book of Hebrews uses in &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/hebrews/9-4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;9:4&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a material way, the ark, contained the three items that represent Christ's three-fold office of Priest, Prophet and King.  And Mary is called the Ark of the New Covenant because she held Christ within her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I don't know much about Greek, but is τράπεζα used in any other context to mean table?  Is it a Latin cognate or something?  If I put the word into Google, I just get a bunch of Greek banks (which isn't &lt;a href=&quot;http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot&amp;amp;play=true&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;worth much&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you go with the bank translation you've got&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spiritual vessel,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vessel of honor,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Singular vessel of devotion,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;House of gold,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and that might be a more likely starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T04:17:51.143" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15897" CreationDate="2013-04-30T04:18:23.083" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/prayers/view.cfm?id=1272&quot;&gt;Litany of the Holy Name of Mary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mary, house of God, pray for us&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Mary, sanctuary of the Lord, pray for us&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Mary, &lt;strong&gt;altar of the Divinity&lt;/strong&gt;, pray for us&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Mary, Virgin Mother, pray for us&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Mary, embracing your Infant God, pray for us &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Table would be the altar. Calling &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altar#Eastern_Orthodox_and_Eastern_Catholic_.28Byzantine.29&quot;&gt;the altar&lt;/a&gt; the Holy Table is mostly an Eastern Catholic and Orthodox thing. You might look up something like the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01362a.htm&quot;&gt;History of the Christian Altar&lt;/a&gt; to help decide which translation is best, or see if he uses a different word for altar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T04:18:23.083" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15904" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-04-30T05:49:35.953" Score="3" ViewCount="247" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently, one of my christian friends died of cancer. My Christian friends told me that Yahweh is very merciful. But if he got well, Yahweh would be merciful, too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, HYPOTHETICALLY (see the note): could there be any possible &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; action proving Yahweh to be cruel? By &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; I mean not requiring faith in soul, heaven, sin and other christian stuff, clear to non-Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words: &lt;em&gt;If Yahweh did X, he would be cruel.&lt;/em&gt; - Is there any X from christian perspective (any doctrine)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: I expect many downvotes here, but please help me improve it instead of closing votes: I don't mean this as holy war against Christians, I just want to know any reference to this question. Thank you.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user508" LastEditorDisplayName="user508" LastEditDate="2013-05-02T06:32:52.303" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T06:32:52.303" Title="Could there be any possible action proving Yahweh to be cruel?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2013-04-30T14:04:31.313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15904" CreationDate="2013-04-30T12:54:31.580" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Google gave the following definition for mercy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excluding the concept of sin excludes the concept of mercy with respect to compassion or forgiveness and punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one assumes that God is the most powerful being, the fact that the world does not seem to be as bad as it could be would seem to imply some degree of either compassion or apathy (i.e., the power to harm would have presented opportunities which do not seem to have been taken).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excluding eternal aspects, particularly &quot;the chief end of man . . . is to glorify God and enjoy him forever&quot;, and expecting to perceive God as merciful would be like excluding concepts of vitamins, fiber, etc. (or even agreeing on what good health is) and expecting to perceive a nutritionist's advice as being in one's best interest--good tasting is more &quot;real&quot; than nutritionally good.  (Christians would claim good effects from God, much as one who follows a nutritionist's advice would claim good effects; but unlike the nutritionist example one cannot have a &quot;there is no God&quot; control group for scientific testing of God's general mercy.  Also, as the Apostle Paul states [1 Corinthians 15:19]: &quot;If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.&quot;[NIV])&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T12:54:31.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15904" CreationDate="2013-04-30T13:03:56.947" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another way to look at this, and I think the one that makes the most sense, is that God is in His very nature who He is, and we get our definition of &quot;good&quot; from this. I think the difference between this derived definition of good based on God's nature, and God just possessing the quality of &quot;goodness&quot; (and like qualities, mercy, holiness, etc), is best shown through a good ol' fashioned proof by contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proof:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Assume God possesses the characteristic of &quot;goodness.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This means that God is conforming to some higher law of what is right and wrong.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore God is not the highest authority, for even He must conform to something higher.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, God must be &quot;goodness&quot; itself. His very nature must define what the word means. He certainly has shown that he has the authority to say what is good and what is not (Genesis 1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this definition in mind, we can see that God indeed can do whatever He wants because His will is not bound by anyone or anything else as we see in Daniel 4:35:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, ‘What hast Thou done?’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can further see that while God can do whatever He wants, He is still completely good, because what He wants becomes what goodness is. The good news for us is that God loves us and does not change (The definition of goodness and the fact that He loves us never changes):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. -John 3:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. -Hebrews 13:8 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Running with this idea, if He were to commit an act that was not merciful (and thus not good if for no other reason than He lied about His mercifulness) then He would not be merely breaking some higher &quot;rule,&quot; but in essence He would have denied His very nature. This, according to common sense and (above all) scripture, is impossible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself. -2 Timothy 2:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4236" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T13:03:56.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15904" CreationDate="2013-04-30T13:11:30.157" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mercy is when judgment is withheld from those who deserve it.  God is merciful in that He oftentimes does withhold judgment and punishment from those who deserve it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, God is not merciful in every situation.  If that were the case, He no one would ever suffer any penalty for anything they ever did.  Hitler and Stalin would be completely without judgment.  This is not the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a distinction between God being Love and God being loving.  God is love in that love is an attribute of God.  Loving describes His actions.  God is merciful (adjective), but God is not mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the death of Christians, history is full of Christians who have died young and who have been killed for their faith.  Yet, in the truest sense, God was merciful to them--not in preventing all harm and death from them, but in forgiving them for their sins against God.  Death is the fate of all men, but death is not the end.  Mercy has to do with our sins being forgiven--not in us being freed from all suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T13:11:30.157" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15912" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15913" CreationDate="2013-04-30T17:18:08.830" Score="7" ViewCount="348" Body="&lt;p&gt;What role does the British monarch play as leader of the Church of England? Furthermore, how has this role changed over time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4325" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T22:05:54.883" Title="What is the role of the British monarch?" Tags="&lt;leadership&gt;&lt;united-kingdom&gt;&lt;church-of-england&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15912" CreationDate="2013-04-30T17:40:22.330" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The role of the monarch in the Church of England, while technically its head, is limited strictly to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_of_Church_of_England_bishops&quot;&gt;selection of bishops&lt;/a&gt;.  Even here, involvement is limited, as the Monarch chooses from one of three candidates sent by the Prime Minister, from a list that was created by a synod of bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Article 37 (of the 39 Articles) explicitly defines the role as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The King's majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other of his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction ... We give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments ... but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoer ... The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes him specifically not a priest, but as a sovereign with the prerogative of establishing ecclesiastical order, it does give him the power to appoint bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the titles of the Queen or King of England is &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidei_defensor&quot;&gt;Defender of the Faith&lt;/a&gt;,&quot; but Charles has &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/5718748/Prince_Charless_plan_to_become_Defender_of_Faith_will_help_destroy_our_Christian_identity/&quot;&gt;publicly lobbied&lt;/a&gt; to change that to &quot;Defender of Faith,&quot; so as to remove the last vestigial tie to Christianity. Initially, Henry VIII won this title for his apologetics.  The Pope revoked that Title in the 1530s, but Parliament conferred it on him via its authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-04-30T22:05:54.883" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T22:05:54.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15796" CreationDate="2013-04-30T18:53:14.210" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm assuming, you're looking for evidence of a transition from unfallen-ness to fallen-ness, not merely evidence of fallen-ness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a satisfactory answer to your question requires, in a Young Earth view, something like an archeological artifact (say, a book  that Adam wrote in the few hours/days before he Fell), I think you'll be lacking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a philosophical sense, C.S. Lewis in &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; tried to make a &quot;logical&quot; case for the necessity of evil being a corrupted good, rather than an eternally evil bad. But again, this may be more of a view of the &quot;fall&quot; of the devil moreso than mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one holds to a literalist-old-earth Creation view, there could be some evidence in extinction rates. Reasons to Believe, an old-earth think tank, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Roughly half the bird species alive on Earth when humans appeared no longer exist, and more than a tenth of those that remain face imminent extinction. While evolutionary theory offers no explanation for this change from proliferation of bird species to diminution, the Bible does ....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/extinction-risks-for-birds&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.reasons.org/articles/extinction-risks-for-birds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T18:53:14.210" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="374" CreationDate="2013-04-30T21:43:45.410" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that God listens to and answers our prayers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 7:7: &quot;Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the&#xA;door will be opened to you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John 14:13: &quot;And whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, so that the Father may&#xA;be glorified in the Son.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 116:1: &quot;I love the LORD because he hears and answers my prayers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 6:8: &quot;Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Those are just a few verses that come up when searching Google for &quot;god listens to our prayers bible verses&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We rationalize praying when the outcome is set because praying is not just about outcomes.  Prayer brings us closer to God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, we can pray for understanding and mercy.  God's answer to that prayer could be gaining a better understanding of God's will in the situation and granting us peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4416" LastActivityDate="2013-04-30T21:43:45.410" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15921" CreationDate="2013-05-01T03:29:23.893" Score="17" ViewCount="1182" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Christian, but this question has been troubling me for a long time. If all the world's animals dispersed from Mt. Ararat, it would stand to reason that there should be no animals in the Americas today. This cannot be explained by plate tectonics, a process far too slow to be of any aid. Or perhaps the flood did not affect the Americas? Or could they have crossed over the Aleutian islands, on the land bridge across the Bering Strait through which humans first arrived in the Americas? If so, when did that bridge disappear and how did it disappear so quickly?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4418" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T01:35:30.350" Title="How could animals have gotten all around the world after the flood?" Tags="&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15900" CreationDate="2013-05-01T03:37:56.297" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &quot;The Case for Christ&quot; by Lee Stroebel, chapter 3, section &quot;A High Degree of Unanimity&quot; (I can't post it here, because &quot;No part of this publication may be reproduced&quot; etc.) It talks about the rigorous process used to select books as part of the canon. They had to be written by apostles or eyewitnesses to them, they had to conform to existing Christian doctrine, and they had to be accepted by the community at large. Even today there are some eastern churches that don't accept the book of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4418" LastActivityDate="2013-05-01T03:37:56.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15919" CreationDate="2013-05-01T03:57:38.957" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Usual preface that seems necessary to head off debate on such questions and answers - this isn't endorsing or denying the YEC view, just answering how various YEC groups would answer the question.  Whether the YEC'ers are right or wrong is completely off-topic, as has the long-standing policy been.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we can't answer this definitively, several possibilities have been proposed by those that hold the literal Young Earth Creationist view, which includes a literal global flood,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html&quot;&gt;ChristianAnswers.Net&lt;/a&gt;, for example, while firmly stating that we don't know for sure, offers the possibility that &lt;strong&gt;land bridges&lt;/strong&gt; once joined the various continents.  This isn't too far off from the old-earth view that people crossed to the Americas from Asia via a land bridge that formed during the ice ages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread&quot;&gt;Answers in Genesis&lt;/a&gt;, also prefacing their article with a &quot;this is what we think, but we don't know for sure&quot; disclaimer, discusses the fact that we know very little of what the earth was like immediately following the flood.  Continents may still have been shifting, there may have still been major upheavals and changes not recorded, and the re-colonization of the world may have been possible because &lt;strong&gt;things were still connected&lt;/strong&gt; - again, land bridges.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some others, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://saysthelord.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/pangea-how-god-split-the-continents/&quot;&gt;this blogger&lt;/a&gt; think that &lt;strong&gt;Pangaea was real, and was broken up in the days of Peleg&lt;/strong&gt;.  It's not a widely accepted interpretation of the text, but this blogger isn't the first that I've seen use it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is an obscure passage in Genesis that is generally overlooked,&#xA;  but holds what I believe to be great insight into our early world&#xA;  after the flood.  Genesis 10:25 states “Two sons were born to Eber:&#xA;  One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided”.   I&#xA;  believe this passage describes a time when God supernaturally&#xA;  separated the continents one from another. The Bible says that Peleg&#xA;  (which means divide) was born 100 years after the flood and lived for&#xA;  239 years.  The time frame for the continental split would therefore&#xA;  have been 100 years after the flood until 339 years after the flood. &#xA;  The division is said to have taken place during his lifetime, but&#xA;  doesn’t say how long it took.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/plants-animals-biogeography&quot;&gt;Cretation.com&lt;/a&gt; goes as far as to say that the bigger problem is for the evolutionist, citing the fact that so many similar species exist on each continent.  They argue that if the evolution theory were true, you'd expect far greater differences between life on different continents.  They argue that the fact that so many similar and even same species exist on the various continents is evidence that they did not evolve in isolation, but sprang from the same Biblical kinds in recent history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/natural-rafts-carried-animals-around-the-globe&quot;&gt;Another creation.com article&lt;/a&gt; offers an alternative suggestion, or perhaps supplemental explanation to land bridges:  &lt;strong&gt;Natural rafts&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another explanation which is gaining increasing support is the rafting&#xA;  hypothesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the potential for dispersal of plants and animals&#xA;  across large stretches of water by natural rafts has been accepted by&#xA;  evolutionists for many years. Professor Paul Moody of the University&#xA;  of Vermont argued, “In times of flood, large masses of earth and&#xA;  entwining vegetation, including trees, may be torn loose from the&#xA;  banks of rivers and swept out to sea. Sometimes such masses are&#xA;  encountered floating in the ocean out of sight of land, still lush&#xA;  and green, with palms, twenty to thirty feet [7 to 10 m] tall. It is&#xA;  entirely probable that land animals may be transported long distances&#xA;  in this manner. Mayr records that many tropical ocean currents have a&#xA;  speed of at least two knots; this would amount to fifty miles [80 km]&#xA;  a day, 1000 miles [1600 km] in three weeks.”1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-05-01T12:36:34.843" LastActivityDate="2013-05-01T12:36:34.843" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15919" CreationDate="2013-05-01T11:07:10.400" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Earth Creationist view of Hugh Ross believes the flood was limited to the whole ERETS (country) and limited to animals who were NEPHESH (emotional).  The NEPHESH means that those animals with emotions could be corrupted by hanging around with evil men.  Think about it, a bad guy can make a pit bull evil, but he probably cannot corrupt a pet fish or lizard very much-- thus, in the OEC view, only the NEPHESH creatures needed to be destroyed, and only those who'd associated with man.  Thus, the million or so beetle  species in South America (or areas not yet populated by modern humans) didn't need to be destroyed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-waters-of-the-flood&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-waters-of-the-flood&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-01T11:07:10.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15925" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-01T18:05:51.817" Score="9" ViewCount="756" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Creationists have asserted that in the pre-flood world that there may have been some sort of water vapor canopy that perhaps doubled the air pressure and caused things to be much healthier than they are today (post-flood).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for this and what is the scientific evidence the proponents use to support this theory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T05:07:57.307" LastActivityDate="2016-01-10T18:46:51.397" Title="What is the Biblical Basis of a &quot;water canopy&quot;, and is there scientific evidence to support it?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15925" CreationDate="2013-05-01T18:25:23.247" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 7:11, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication here is that water came from two directions - springs from the deep (i.e. underground water) and from above (the floodgates of heaven).  Extending the metaphor ever so slightly, a floodgate is holding something back - according to the Institute for Creation Research, that is the canopy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Institute for Creation Research has published &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r05/&quot;&gt;this paper to explain the physics behind it&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ33.html&quot;&gt;This study, however&lt;/a&gt; explains some of the problems. Amongst these problems:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A water canopy of more than about 40 feet would, by the pressure, boil itself away&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A water canopy of more than a few inches would also block all the sunlight.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the link, however, the paper argues that these problems are not insurmountable depending on the assumptions made about the canopy, but I'll admit, it gets a little stretched for my tastes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-05-01T18:33:13.093" LastActivityDate="2013-05-01T18:33:13.093" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11734" CreationDate="2013-05-01T20:25:57.363" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK I'm &lt;em&gt;finally&lt;/em&gt; getting around to answering this question. Unfortunately I'm limited on time so this is a summary of the Orthodox position. First of all, Orthodoxy's entire anthropology differs from Western Christianity (no original guilt/concupiscence). As such, their soteriology doesn't begin in the same place as Western Christianity and thus concludes differently. Many Western Protestants emphasize &quot;getting saved&quot; so that you don't go to hell when you die. The emphasis often has more to do with avoiding hell than going to heaven. But even heaven is not the goal nor focal point of Orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is to become &quot;partakers of the divine nature&quot; (2 Peter 1:4), being united with Christ and thus escaping corruption and death. As 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.&#xA;  But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; then when Christ&#xA;  comes, those who belong to him. Then comes the end, when he hands over&#xA;  the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule&#xA;  and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all&#xA;  his enemies under his feet. &lt;strong&gt;The last enemy to be eliminated is&#xA;  death.&lt;/strong&gt; For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But&#xA;  when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that&#xA;  this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him.&#xA;  And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be&#xA;  subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, &lt;strong&gt;so that God&#xA;  may be all in all&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so our emphasis is on Christ's defeat of sin, death, and Satan - and that this victory means that one day &quot;God will be all in all.&quot; In other words, there will be no way to escape from God's presence. &quot;Heaven&quot; is not some place up in the sky that hides us from the underworld. &quot;Hell&quot; is not a place and it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the absence of God. This also means that dying and going to heaven isn't the end of the story nor is it the focus. Eastern Orthodox Christianity is about &lt;strong&gt;&quot;life after life after death&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (to borrow a phrase coined by N.T. Wright), i.e. life after the final judgment, after the bodily resurrection (the notion of a disembodied eternal existence in a purely spiritual heaven or becoming angels are Gnostic concepts). This is important because Orthodox do not think of hell as a &quot;place,&quot; it's more of a metaphor or concept. Everyone will be in God's loving presence when they die, but for some that will be paradise and for others it will be torment. Much of the Western concepts of heaven and hell are derived more from pagan cultures than from the scriptures, which only used these existing cultural terms to hint at transcendent mysteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to what happens after physical death (other than being in God's presence), no one really knows (this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/what-is-orthodox-hell/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;freely admitted by most Orthodox scholars&lt;/a&gt;). The best we have is speculation and the &quot;hints&quot; we get in the Bible. As such, there are a variety of &quot;theories&quot; in Orthodoxy (but this speculation is often not helpful). But where everyone agrees is that we go to be in God's unfiltered presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A note about praying for the dead. Presently, when we die, we all go to be in God's presence until we await the final judgment and bodily resurrection. We believe that it &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be possible for individuals to change their disposition towards God's love after death. This is not dogma, but we hold out hope for this. Since death is a defeated foe (it's just not annihilated yet), we also ask deceased saints to pray for us since they are now in God's presence and also mystically present with us in worship. After the final judgment, it will likely be too late to change one's disposition, but we hold out hope that all might come to know God's love as a wonderful thing for all eternity (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/12287/1304&quot;&gt;see more on this here&lt;/a&gt;). I don't have time to elaborate on this much more here, and it wouldn't be entirely on topic anyways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you'd like to read more in depth about this, check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T18:46:46.337" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15880" CreationDate="2013-05-01T20:37:39.677" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;What you're talking about is called &quot;substitutionary atonement&quot;  There are several references that support this viewpoint. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 53:4-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Surely he has borne our griefs&#xA;      and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken,&#xA;      smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions;&#xA;      he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,&#xA;      and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray;&#xA;      we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him&#xA;      the iniquity of us all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 5:21 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we&#xA;  might become the righteousness of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 2:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to&#xA;  sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15:3 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:&#xA;  that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 4:23-25 (Jesus was delivered up for our sins, and raised for our justification)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake&#xA;  alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him&#xA;  who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our&#xA;  trespasses and raised for our justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 4:10 (Propitiation: sufficient substitution for our sins)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and&#xA;  sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 3:18 (Christ suffered for sins, though he was righteous, so that we may be considered righteous)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the&#xA;  unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the&#xA;  flesh but made alive in the spirit,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 3:13 (Christ became the curse for us, taking our penalty)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for&#xA;  us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 2:20-21 (If salvation is by works, then Christ's death was for nothing)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but&#xA;  Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by&#xA;  faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.  I do&#xA;  not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the&#xA;  law, then Christ died for no purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 3:21-26 (The righteousness is apart from the law, and given based on Christ's blood)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the&#xA;  law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the&#xA;  righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who&#xA;  believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall&#xA;  short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift,&#xA;  through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward&#xA;  as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to&#xA;  show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had&#xA;  passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the&#xA;  present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one&#xA;  who has faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-05-01T20:37:39.677" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15930" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15938" CreationDate="2013-05-01T20:58:26.980" Score="10" ViewCount="2786" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/litanies/joseph.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;litany for Joseph&lt;/a&gt;, the husband of Mary, was approved by Pope St Pius X in 1909 (*). Most of the invocations are straightforward to understand, referring to his life (eg. &amp;quot;husband of the Mother of God&amp;quot;, &lt;em&gt;Dei Genetrice sponse&lt;/em&gt;), virtues (&amp;quot;most faithful&amp;quot;, &lt;em&gt;fidelissime&lt;/em&gt;), and traditional associations/patronage (&amp;quot;model of artisans&amp;quot;, &lt;em&gt;exemplar opificium&lt;/em&gt;). There is one bit which is surprising to me -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope of the sick, pray for us. Patron of the dying, pray for us. &lt;strong&gt;Terror of demons&lt;/strong&gt;, pray for us. Protector of the Holy Church, pray for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Spes aegrotantium, ora pro nobis. Patrone morientium, ora pro nobis. &lt;strong&gt;Terror daemonum&lt;/strong&gt;, ora pro nobis. Protector sanctae Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was not aware that St Joseph had anything in particular to do with demons. I can see the part about the sick and dying as an extension of his general image as a protector, especially in relation to the family. Is the demon reference the same sort of thing? Or is there a specific reason - perhaps a traditional story of some kind - why Joseph is called the terror of demons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* &lt;em&gt;Urbis et orbis: adprobantur litaniae in honorem S. Joseph sponsi B. Mariae V., eisque adnectitur indulgentia&lt;/em&gt;. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 March 1909. In &lt;em&gt;Acta Apostolicae Sedis&lt;/em&gt; 1(6):290-292, 1909. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2001%20%5B1909%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;OCR'd version with some errors&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T08:05:10.267" Title="Why does the Litany of Saint Joseph call him &quot;terror of demons&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;joseph-husband-of-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15931" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16004" CreationDate="2013-05-01T21:48:23.777" Score="7" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my understanding, the unity of spirit, soul, and body is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, or “person.” But, what argument is there against the soul itself (apart from the body) being a ὑπόστασις? It seems the soul possesses reason. It exists by itself. So, why is it not considered to be a ὑπόστασις? Or, if it is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, where and by whom is such an argument affirmed? I am particularly interested in an answer in accordance with Catholic beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE&lt;/strong&gt;: To clarify, I am using «ὑπόστασις» as an equivalent to the Greek πρόσωπον and Latin &lt;em&gt;persona&lt;/em&gt; as understood in Trinitarian creeds and theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2016-12-23T05:15:14.657" LastActivityDate="2017-02-08T02:27:21.513" Title="Why isn’t the soul (ψυχή) considered to be a “person” (ὑπόστασις)?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;metaphysics&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15934" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-02T04:27:39.340" Score="5" ViewCount="1611" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the title asks, which mainstream denominations hold a YEC View?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2015-07-10T18:16:07.437" Title="What mainstream denominations (if any) hold a Young Earth Creationist view?" Tags="&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-05-05T17:54:05.163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15935" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19388" CreationDate="2013-05-02T06:58:31.937" Score="0" ViewCount="18020" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is an offshoot from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15116/what-is-the-significance-of-changing-the-names-of-abram-to-abraham-and-sarai-to&quot;&gt;this question and it’s comments&lt;/a&gt;.  The question is:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does God remains silent for 13 long years after Hagar gives birth to Ishmael and then suddenly commands Abraham to walk blamelessly before Him. Was God annoyed with Abraham for some reasons? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2016-10-28T12:21:32.530" Title="Why does God ask Abraham to walk blameless?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15935" CreationDate="2013-05-02T07:01:21.777" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God makes His first announcement of Promise to Abraham in the following verse.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen: 12:2 Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing. 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During intervening period, Abraham doubts about this promise several times, as seen in these verses (Gen. 15:2,15:4-5, 15:8) and every time God reassures him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham believed God but his trust wavers every time when he ponders about his age. As God was continuously promising them (Abraham and Sarah) and with no off-springs of their own, they thought of taking things into their own hands instead of depending on God. Sarah did a foolish thing something which was against God’s wish.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen. 16:2 So Sarai said to Abram, “Since the Lord has prevented me from having children, have sexual relations with my servant. Perhaps I can have a family by her.” Abram did what Sarai told him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sarah tempted her men to try something against God’s wish. Similar instance we see with Eve. Sarah did not have patience to remain trusted in God and did something which she thought  fit but it went against the wish of God. Ishmael was born because Abraham and Sarah did not trust God to fulfill His promise.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen. 16:16 Now Abram was 86 years old when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then the Sign of the Covenant.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen. 17:1 When Abram was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am the sovereign God. &lt;strong&gt;Walk before me and be blameless&lt;/strong&gt;. 17:2 &lt;strong&gt;Then&lt;/strong&gt; I will &lt;strong&gt;confirm&lt;/strong&gt; my covenant between me and you, and I will give you a multitude of descendants.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no record in the Bible concerning the 13 years of Abraham’s life following the birth of Ishmael. But God’s rebuke shows that Abraham did not walk before God, and as a result, his life was full of blame. Also notice that God re-introduces himself as “God  almighty.” God puts a condition to Abraham, saying walk before me blameless and only then He will confirm His covenant between Him and Abraham. Here God wants to reconfirm the same again with condition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Change of names for a new begining:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of a lack of faith and doubt, Ishmael was born. This was not God’s plan for Abraham. God appeared and rebuked Abraham for not living before God and God’s promise. For 13 years there is no sign from God nor Abraham interacting with God. And that is reason for change of name of Abraham and Sarah:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Name-change signifies beginning of a new era and is all about redefining a person from what he was to what he would be. It is a reflection of a renewal that was to come in Abraham and emphasize his transition to be blameless. God wanted to rewrite a clean slate for Abraham from this point on and forget his past. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-05-02T07:11:02.777" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T07:11:02.777" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15930" CreationDate="2013-05-02T08:05:10.267" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Joseph is the terror of Demons because all of demons effort is nullified if one seeks refuge to St. Joseph  and also because he is pure, and demons cannot stand against his purity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though there is no official dogmatic pronunciation in this regard by the Catholic church, numerous private revelations&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicplanet.com/RCC/joseph-never-sinned.htm&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; and traditions have held that St. Joseph, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; his conception, was, through the future merits of Jesus cleansed from the stain of original sin. And also Catholic tradition holds that St. Joseph did not sin all thru his life.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicity.com/message/2003-08-21.html&quot;&gt;ref&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; Satan and his cohort of fallen angels had no success in seducing Joseph. These are not dogmas however and Catholics are not obliged to believe these traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic Online says about why St.Joseph is the Terror of demons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who turn to Saint Joseph for his powerful intercession and good example do much to keep Satan and the other wholly corrupt devils at bay. In this sense, Joseph is the Terror of Demons because when the friends of Jesus avail themselves of his salutary influence, Saint Joseph is for them a sure protection against the oppressive wiles of the Prince of Darkness. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=793&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more POV in this regard:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But evil shrinks from Joseph for He is pure. ... The demons can't &quot;see&quot; Joseph because he is pure. Purity makes him invisible, just as pure water is perfectly clear. Evil spirits don't know when, how, or from which direction Joseph is going to hammer them. Joseph's job, when Christ was a child and up to this very day, is to protect the Holy Family, and through our baptisms, we are part of his family. &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicity.com/message/2003-08-21.html&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T08:05:10.267" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15935" CreationDate="2013-05-02T11:12:41.487" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's another possible interpretation. It is impossible for a man to be literally blameless-- I know I myself cannot go a few hours (milliseconds) without sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the setup goes like this, taking into consideration what we know about humans after the Fall:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;walk with me&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; -- Hang out with God, be one of God's buddies, have faith&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;and be blameless&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; -- your faith grants you imputed righteousness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Then I will confirm&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; -- God's work of imputed righteousness is the condition Abraham passively meets in order to earn a covenant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T11:12:41.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15934" CreationDate="2013-05-02T15:16:09.440" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Typically, any congregation professing the YEC viewpoint are going to be non denominational. Though the name implies there is an unspecified disagreement among non denominational churches, the vast majority are biblical litetalists. This means they will naturally take the YEC view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Mawia pointed out in a comment, the date of the creation, and even the very process, is considered a matter of opinion in most denominations and not a doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16239/what-are-the-main-differences-between-7th-day-adventists-and-catholic-protestant/16250#16250&quot;&gt;7th Day Adventists are biblical literalists and therefore young earth creationists&lt;/a&gt;. They are the only denomination that I know of that explicitly holds that view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering their shared roots with 7th Day Adventism, some think that Jehovah's Witnesses are Young Earth Creationists. Instead, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31320/what-do-jehovahs-witnesses-believe-about-evolution&quot;&gt;it seems they are not&lt;/a&gt;. They are Progressive Creationists, which is a variety of Old Earth Creationism that excludes Evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2015-07-10T18:16:07.437" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15941" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15945" CreationDate="2013-05-02T16:30:05.527" Score="3" ViewCount="1944" Body="&lt;p&gt;From sometime after 4 BC and up to and sometime between the destruction of the Second Temple (C. 70) and Council of Nicaea (AD 325), Christians were considered Jewish with Jesus as their leader.  When in this time was the Christian religion created? At some point they obviously were no longer Jews, or we wouldn't have the Judaic religion we have today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, would Jews that were followers of Jesus be considered Christians today?  Given that the divinity of Jesus wasn't &quot;agreed&quot; upon until Synods of Antioch (264 and 269) - arguably it is not universally &quot;agreed&quot; upon today. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If my dates are wrong, please feel free to correct me&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2013-05-02T20:15:42.523" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T20:15:42.523" Title="Are the early followers of Christ considered Christians or Jews in today's context? If not, when was the religion created?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;christian-identity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-05-03T16:22:33.283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14913" CreationDate="2013-05-02T16:53:11.817" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&amp;gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6-rQ6Jay6w&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;This clip from the end Raiders of the Lost Ark&lt;/a&gt; probably captures the essence of what happened rather well - it's not that it was &amp;quot;lost&amp;quot; so much as ignored and forgotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;King Josiah ruled Judah over a period in which the re-discovery of YHWH overall was in vogue.  For the past 57 years, two very wicked kings had ruled - Manesseh and his son Amon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of Mannesseh, it is said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, yaccording to the despicable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. For he rebuilt the high places zthat Hezekiah his father had destroyed, and he erected altars for Baal and made aan Asherah, bas Ahab king of Israel had done, cand worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. And he built altars in the house of the Lord,  ... And he burned his son as an offering* and used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wickedest king of Israel presided over a huge decline in the worship of God.  In such a regime, especially if new altars were being built in the Temple, it would not at all be surprising if the Book of the Law was &amp;quot;filed away&amp;quot; and forgotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, unlike today, when book ownership is prevelant, mis-filing one copy really could prevent anyone from knowing about it.  Books and Scrolls were, in antiquity, extremely expensive things.  Even for an epistle as short as Romans, Raymond Brown has estimate that the parchment and ink alone would have cost $3000 - a fortune in those times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even today, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/9082352/Lost-Edward-Elgar-manuscript-found-in-council-building.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;discoveries&amp;quot; are being made, not out in the field, but in museum vaults!&lt;/a&gt; Mere possession of an object, and knowledge that one has it, are two completely different things.  Just look inside the drawers of your bathroom sink (if you live in the West) if you don't believe me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer your questions directly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was the Book of the Law lost for a long time that King Josiah never saw it before?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It had been ignored for up to 57 years - after the days of Hezekiah, but during the 55 year reign of Manessah, 2 years of Amon's reign and 18 years of Josiah's reign up to this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does this discovery of the Book of the Law mean that the location of the book was not known before?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not it was &amp;quot;known&amp;quot; is debatable.  It was in the Temple and always had been.  But imagine trying to find a single artifact in a large building that served as a storehouse.  (Remember, people didn't enter the Temple on a regular basis - only the priests did.  It wasn't a church!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Which copy of the Book of the Law was it? Was it the copy for the King or from the Levitical priests? (Deuteronomy 17:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is nothing to suggest that it was anything other than the copy in the Temple.  The copy for the King would definitely not have been kept, as Josiah's two predecessors did not belong to the cult of YHWH.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Did their ignorance of the presence of Book of the Law mean that nobody at that time cared to go inside the Temple to read from the Book of the Law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yup.  (At least from the priest's point of view.) Remember, ordinary people were not allowed inside the Temple. Indeed, women weren't even allowed in the inner courts. Only the Priests had access to the interior storehouses, and only the Chief Preist had access to the Holy of Holies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How may we refute people who say that someone forged the book and put it there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scholars can't and don't even try. Indeed, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/JEDP_theory&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;JEDP&amp;quot; hypothesis&lt;/a&gt; suggests that while the text itself formed orally over a period of 400 years (from roughly 1000 BC until 600BC), claims such as &amp;quot;Josiah being the greatest king that ever ruled Israel&amp;quot; suggest that the form we have today was last edited during his reign.  That said, ultimately, even a biblical perfectionist such as myself understands that the Bible we have today is the one that God intended for us to have. This is the doctrine known as 'preservation.' Whether or not it has been edited is of little consequence - the church has done quite well with the Bible it has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-05-28T11:10:32.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15941" CreationDate="2013-05-02T17:09:19.247" Score="4" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Was Christianity &quot;created&quot; with Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the time of Christ, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/judaism.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;there were several sects / parties / schools of Judaism&lt;/a&gt; - the Essenes, the Zealots, the Saducees, the Pharisees, and other splinter groups.  These groups were as highly divided as say, Catholics and Baptists are today.  With the destruction of the Temple, only the Pharisee Movement survived, and went on to form the modern Judaic religion we know today, some time around 200 AD. Jesus, if you ignore his divinity, was just the leader of another group of Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, despite the fact that Jesus' invective is usually most pointedly directed at the Pharisees, he actually shared a veneration of the law with them.  &quot;Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees ...&quot; he would say, and &quot;Think not that I have come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 10 &amp;amp; 15 document the beginnings of the separation of Jew and Gentile, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15296/1039&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; describes the process further. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would the Jews that were followers of Jesus be considered Christians today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Messianic Jews of today would certainly like to think so!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key belief amongst those of &quot;The Way&quot; was that Jesus was the Messiah - the Son of God.  That he was divine - God made man, was well formalized well before the Synod of Antioch - &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4467/1039&quot;&gt;the writer of the Gospel of John was unambiguous in his belief that Jesus was God&lt;/a&gt;.  Even if one believes the latest possible date for that Gospel - 95 AD - that is clear evidence that those of the Way were already convinced that the Messiah (the Christ) was God. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T17:21:13.997" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15941" CreationDate="2013-05-02T17:10:14.943" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word Christian implies a follower of Christ.  In fact:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'&quot;Christian&quot; derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.'&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt; and 'The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos)—meaning &quot;follower of Christ&quot;—comes from Χριστός (Christos)—meaning &quot;anointed one&quot;' &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian&quot;&gt;(from the same source)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the time of Christ all of His followers were Jews, Christ himself was born of Jews and a decedent of David an ancient king of the Jews. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Christ was a Jew born of Jew's but not received as a Jew. Which leaves His followers, also all Jews at this time, with a dilemma when Christ is crucified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are &lt;em&gt;His&lt;/em&gt; disciples (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;see John 17:9&lt;/a&gt;) but &lt;em&gt;He&lt;/em&gt; was rejected as a leader of Jews. The whole situation changed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2010&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;with this chapter in Acts&lt;/a&gt; when Peter was told to take the gospel to the gentiles (non-Jews). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that point forward they needed a new way of being identified since they were no longer just * Jewish followers of Christ.* But Jew &lt;em&gt;&amp;amp;&lt;/em&gt; Gentile followers of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in fact in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2011&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;very next chapter of Acts&lt;/a&gt; in v. 26 we get this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to&#xA;  pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and&#xA;  taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in&#xA;  Antioch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we can see that they already referred to themselves as Christians long before the Council of Nicaea. And in fact referred to themselves as such before the Apostles even died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T17:10:14.943" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15941" CreationDate="2013-05-02T18:31:15.757" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;For starters, nobody was really a follower of Christ, as such, until he was about 30 years old (sometime from 27 to 30 AD or so).  At that point, Jesus began teaching in the synagogues and healing in public places.  We read about his first followers in several places, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. &lt;em&gt;[Miracle elided for space.]&lt;/em&gt; For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” &lt;strong&gt;And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;mdash;Luke 5:1-11 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Luke+5/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Initially Jesus was considered just another rabbi and miracle worker in the mold of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_ha-M%27agel&quot;&gt;Honi the Circle-Drawer&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanina_ben_Dosa&quot;&gt;Hanina ben Dosa&lt;/a&gt; and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the end of his ministry, Jesus had been recast by his Jewish accusers of being a rebel against Rome along the lines of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt&quot;&gt;Maccabees&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_of_Galilee&quot;&gt;Judas of Galilee&lt;/a&gt; and Zadok the Pharisee:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.” But they were urgent, saying, &lt;strong&gt;“He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place.”&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;mdash;Luke 23:1-5 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Luke+23/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, after his death, Jesus' followers remained undeterred and continued teaching and performing miracles in his name.  But they did not seem interested in starting a rebellion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. &lt;em&gt;[Details elided for space.]&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;mdash;Acts 11:19-26 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Acts+11/&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's safe to say that by this time, the followers of Jesus had been rejected by the Jewish authorities and there was considerable confusion about their status among the Roman authorities.  The issue is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire#Government.27s_motivation_for_persecution&quot;&gt;Rome tolerated Judaism&lt;/a&gt; as a traditional religion.  As a sect of Judaism, Christianity was protected from official persecution.  After the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War&quot;&gt;Great Revolt&lt;/a&gt;, Jews were generally despised by Romans and it's likely that Christians were implicated by association. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscus_Judaicus#Schism_between_Judaism_and_Christianity&quot;&gt;In 96 AD&lt;/a&gt;, Christians were exempted from the &quot;Jewish Tax&quot;, so the split was official at that point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The various councils (after the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem&quot;&gt;Jerusalem Council&lt;/a&gt; of course) had nothing to do with the split, which had &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_in_early_Christianity#Timeline_of_events&quot;&gt;clearly already occurred&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T18:31:15.757" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15946" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15947" CreationDate="2013-05-02T19:57:17.327" Score="0" ViewCount="1090" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all know that lying is a sin in the Catholic's perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But sometimes we lie to protect someone.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;For example, a mother lies about sex to protect their children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is every lie sinful in Gods eyes?&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;What does the Bible say about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4136" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T20:07:06.447" Title="Is every lie a sin?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-05-03T00:10:57.327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15946" CreationDate="2013-05-02T20:07:06.447" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible provides no exemption for lying.  It is always wrong to lie.  However, one option is to not give any reply at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Corrie Ten Boom writes about this in perhaps &lt;em&gt;The Hiding Place&lt;/em&gt;.  She herself, I believe, had decided to not disclose the whereabouts of her brothers when the Nazi's were coming to draft them into the war.  However, Corrie's sister, I believe, had the conviction to tell the truth.  There was actually a hiding place under the table beneath the floor.  The officers asked where their brothers were at one point.  Corrie and others, I think, said nothing, but Corrie's sister did reply and say, &quot;They're under the table&quot;.  When the officers looked, someone started to laugh.  The officers thought they were being made fun of, got mad, and left--without the brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is lying wrong?  Yes.  Do you have to answer?  No. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-05-02T20:07:06.447" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15948" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15955" CreationDate="2013-05-02T20:58:24.197" Score="5" ViewCount="209" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus need to die on a cross or were there alternative endings?  Would being stabbed with a sword or if he died during the beatings have been good enough?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, are there prophecies held by various denominations that require the Jesus' method of execution specifically to be crucifixion, or was it simply enough that Jesus die in some fashion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-03T13:00:48.590" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T13:00:48.590" Title="Was the mode of execution for Jesus required to be crucifixion?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15949" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15951" CreationDate="2013-05-02T20:59:02.333" Score="10" ViewCount="584" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there an active sect by this name? Are there any particular Christian denominations which might be described as 'Arian'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4420" LastEditorUserId="4420" LastEditDate="2013-05-02T21:52:07.497" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T05:23:19.557" Title="What is the current relevance of Arianism?" Tags="&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;arianism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15949" CreationDate="2013-05-03T05:23:19.557" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer this, one must first define what Arianism is. Any denomination which holds that &lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ is a subordinate entity to God&lt;/strong&gt;. He is not one with the Father. Christ is not truly divine but a created being can be considered as 'Arian'. In Arius's words, &lt;code&gt;&quot;there was [a time] when he (the Son) was not.&quot;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://arian-catholic.org/&quot;&gt;Holy Arian Catholic and Apostolic Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; in claims to proclaim Arius's teachings, even &quot;canonizing&quot; him in 2006. However, they differ with several major points. &lt;em&gt;AFAIK this is the only known church to explicitly call themselves as Arian.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jehovah's Witnesses is often accused of being Arian. JWs even regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement. But they do not call themselves Arian.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://pastorrussell.blogspot.in/2009/09/jehovahs-witnesses-not-form-of-arianism.html&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; The main difference is that they claim that the &quot;Archangel Michael transformed into human Jesus, then after dying transformed back to Archangel Michael again&quot; teaching. That is not in with the historic Arian doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some sects like Unitarianism, Mormonism (Latter Day Saint movement), Iglesia ni Cristo etc., hold a form of Arianism, but they all differ with each other and with traditional Arianism in many doctrinal issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No remnant of any of the Arian sects established in early days is known to exist today.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T05:23:19.557" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15952" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15954" CreationDate="2013-05-03T08:12:52.563" Score="0" ViewCount="75" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I 'guess' that there is a God and live accordingly, could I be considered a true believer? Can faith only be revealed? Is believing not a form of guessing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4420" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T11:05:47.343" Title="Is guessing a way to God?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-05-03T14:04:46.543" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15953" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-03T09:25:49.770" Score="14" ViewCount="2399" Body="&lt;p&gt;Syriac Christianity (as well as with other oriental orthodoxy denominations) today use Arabic as their liturgical language. It is known that they have been using Arabic since the times of Muslim invasions, as early as second half of 8th Century (as suggested here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7304/when-did-arabic-enter-into-usage-as-a-liturgical-language-among-orthodox-christi&quot;&gt;When did Arabic enter into usage as a liturgical language among Orthodox Christians?&lt;/a&gt; , &lt;em&gt;The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque&lt;/em&gt; by Sidney Griffith also mentioned the same).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But why did they turn into Arabic instead of keeping Aramaic as their liturgical language?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic became the &lt;em&gt;lingua franca&lt;/em&gt; and it is easier to reach common people (non-priest) if they use Arabic instead of Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it is so, I wonder why? Was the influence of Arabs so strong that they have to use Arabic? Or was the use of Aramaic banned during the Muslims rule? Why can't they maintain the usage of Aramaic, as the Muslims do (until now) with Arabic as their liturgical language?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Also, if this was the case, doesn't this mean Syriac Christianity was the first Christianity to &quot;localized&quot; their language to every day man, not Protestant Christianity?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Syriac Christian priests were involved in intense theological debates and discussions with the dominationg Muslim theologians. So they use Arabic to make it easier for their Muslim friends to understand their points.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or maybe both? Or are there any other reasons?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope I lay out my question/explanation clear, since English is not my mother tounge. Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3485" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2018-05-08T21:59:25.927" Title="Why didn't Syriac Christianity keep Aramaic as their liturgical language?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;oriental-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15952" CreationDate="2013-05-03T10:42:35.690" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, you are not a true believer.&lt;/strong&gt;  If you are saying that &quot;living accordingly&quot;, as in mouthing prayers, attending church services, and living a basically decent life, while not actually believing that Jesus died for your sins, then no, you are not saved. &#xA;Evidence: John 3:16 and Rom 10:9. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes, it is a way to God.&lt;/strong&gt; If you are saying that going through the motions is a way to God, then yes.  Evidence: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) &quot;Faith comes by hearing&quot; Rom 10:17. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Dietrich Bonhoeffer in&#xA;    &lt;em&gt;Cost of Discipleship&lt;/em&gt; offers the advice of &quot;He who obeys believes,&#xA;    and he who believes obeys.&quot; He then goes on to advise &quot;obedience&quot; as&#xA;    a remedy to weak faith &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) There's a folk tale of a Scottish pastor&#xA;    who started out as a charlatan. A nonbeliever, he wandered into a&#xA;    town and applied for a job as pastor.  The story goes that one day&#xA;    he broke down in tears while preaching, because he had converted&#xA;    himself.  One version of a similar story is here:&#xA;    &lt;a href=&quot;http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2007/07/george-whitefield-portrait-of-revival.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2007/07/george-whitefield-portrait-of-revival.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-05-03T11:05:47.343" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T11:05:47.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15948" CreationDate="2013-05-03T12:34:21.620" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No Direct Theological Significance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically speaking, crucifixion had no theological significance in itself.  Jesus had to die for sins, and God, in His omniscience, foresaw the manner in which this would happen.  Then He inspired prophets to predict that kind of death centuries before it happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it did, perhaps, have some symbolism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Tree of Life&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Garden of Eden, there were two trees--the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.  Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and sin entered into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't know what happened to the tree of life, though.  Presumably, if they had eaten of it, they would have lived forever in their separation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Four thousand years later, though, another tree is introduced--the Cross of Christ.  Jesus takes our curse by being &quot;hung on a tree&quot;.  &lt;strong&gt;In essence, then, the Cross is the new Tree of Life.&lt;/strong&gt;  Anyone who receives what hung on that tree receives life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly enough, if you take fruit from a tree and remove the seeds, then you bury the seeds, then new life comes.  Jesus was taken down from Calvary's tree, buried, and then came forth with new life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, crucifixion was not theologically necessary per se.  However, it does fulfill prophecies that God gave us, knowing how Jesus would die.  It also seems to be symbolic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T12:34:21.620" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15956" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16063" CreationDate="2013-05-03T14:43:57.210" Score="11" ViewCount="77515" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 2, we are told that there were two named trees in the Garden of Eden--the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Adam and Eve ate fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, this was a sin against God, since He had commanded them not to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this, God indicates that they should not be allowed to eat again from the Tree of Life, since doing so would allow them to live forever, presumably in a state of separation from God.  Consequently, God placed an angel to guard the way to the Tree of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what happened to these two trees--and the Garden itself for that matter?  Did these trees eventually die as well, perhaps at the time of the flood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; &lt;strong&gt;the tree of life&lt;/strong&gt; also in the midst of the garden, and &lt;strong&gt;the tree of the knowledge of good and evil&lt;/strong&gt;.  Genesis 2:9 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but &lt;strong&gt;from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat&lt;/strong&gt;, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”  Genesis 2:15-17 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and &lt;strong&gt;take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”&lt;/strong&gt;— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden &lt;strong&gt;He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life&lt;/strong&gt;.  Genesis 3:22-24 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2019-10-01T19:35:26.190" Title="What happened to the two trees in the Garden of Eden?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10076" CreationDate="2013-05-03T14:50:54.333" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am six months late answering this, but this same question, particularly, the &quot;elaborate ruse&quot;, have been nagging me a long time; and this was the reason for me googling the topic, again, and this time stumbling to this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For if I imagined myself in Joseph's shoes, it seems only natural and human to declare who you are to your brothers the moment you realise who they are; but this was precisely not what Joseph did, and thus the BIG question, WHY? And then did Joseph schemed the entire elaborate ruse from the onset or was he led by the Spirit to do what he did?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My view at this moment is that Joseph did not scheme the ruse, in that he did not plan nor forsee every action and their chain of consequences to eventually lead to his brothers' repentance and his father coming to Egypt, but rather each step he was led by the Spirit, not entirely sure what the outcome would be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words the ruse was designed by God for a purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And there are implications here for what it means to be led by the Spirit.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this purpose seems to be to demonstrate to the brothers the meaning of power, absolute power. For Joseph has the power to do anything he wants to his brothers, even to falsely accuse them and to concoct false evidence to prove such accusations. Joseph is literally life or death for his father and brothers: he can give them grain, or not, or put them to death on any whim or fancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For absolute power is completely arbitrary, and God wants the brothers, and Jacob too, to understand that. And such absolute and arbitrary power, that Joseph is, is but a mere reflection of the authority of God, and who God is. And in bowing to Joseph, Jacob and his brothers are, truly, worshiping God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it is this very same power that is for, and not against, the people of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this same lesson, to know God, was played out again when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4424" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T14:50:54.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15958" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-03T16:32:34.750" Score="2" ViewCount="1306" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:36&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus will return &lt;em&gt;someday&lt;/em&gt;. All Christians yearn for his return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But why is Jesus scheduled to return &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; once at some indefinite time in the future?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why can't He periodically visit Earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is he &quot;busy&quot; visiting other planets? Does he need to do &quot;chores&quot; in Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2013-05-05T14:17:31.953" Title="Why can't Jesus periodically visit Earth?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-05-05T17:56:11.720" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15960" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-03T16:40:09.237" Score="-3" ViewCount="1092" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians accept four legitimate Gospels from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Question: Did the Catholic Church have evidence to discredit the Gospel of Judas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastActivityDate="2017-12-02T02:57:21.950" Title="Did the Catholic Church have evidence to discredit the Gospel of Judas?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15963" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15965" CreationDate="2013-05-03T17:01:09.233" Score="0" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 9:7 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth&#xA;  and increase upon it&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today we struggle with food shortages, problems with clean water, and climate concerns.  Is there a Christian denomination who suggests that we should NOT be as fruitful as we can be?  If so, does that contradict the Bible and is it acceptable for orthodox Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastActivityDate="2013-05-04T02:34:37.953" Title="Genesis 9:7 fruitful and increase in number" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;global-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-05-07T21:02:34.703" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15919" CreationDate="2013-05-03T17:10:14.197" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;David did an excellent job explaining the &quot;how&quot; as viewed by major biblical literalists. I also being a biblical literalist would like to point out that in Genesis 2:19 God brought animals before Adam, and in Genesis 7:9 we see that the animals came to Noah. Obviously it was something God did, so it was a miracle. I'm not aware of any denomination that claims God stopped working miracles at the flood, so I think it's a reasonable assumption that since the flood and all the events leading up to it were a miracle, how the animals disbursed across the globe was one as well. That is after all what he commanded men to do(and when we didn't He stepped in and confused the languages).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also see in the New Testament where men were &quot;translated&quot; from one location to another. &#xA;So bottom line is, could there be a natural means by which every animal got where it was supposed to be? Sure, but it doesn't say. God intervened to get them where He wanted them to be, it was a miracle, the only question is to what extent and how much of natural means did He use. The scriptures are silent on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2013-05-03T19:23:22.307" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T19:23:22.307" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15965" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15963" CreationDate="2013-05-03T17:20:30.987" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, there &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shakers&lt;/a&gt;, who didn't believe in procreation, but they've pretty much all dwindled out by now.  Not much of a surprise there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not it contradicts the Bible or not to restrict procreation is a matter of interpretation for that particular denomination.  The Shakers didn't seem to think it did, but the Catholics would disagree.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, I'd probably argue that the majority of Christendom lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.  I go to a Southern Baptist church, and there doesn't seem to be any stigma related to basic birth control methods, vasectomies, hysterectomies, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of those groups would probably consider themselves more or less orthodox (with a lowercase o).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T17:20:30.987" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15967" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15969" CreationDate="2013-05-03T17:31:14.223" Score="3" ViewCount="215" Body="&lt;p&gt;How is the contradiction explained between 2 Chronicles 28:3 and Genesis 22:2 in the protestant tradition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 22:2 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you&#xA;  love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a&#xA;  burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Chronicles 28:3 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his&#xA;  children in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the&#xA;  nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T18:13:11.300" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T18:13:11.300" Title="2 Chronicles 28:3 vs Genesis 22:2" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;&lt;2-chronicles&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15967" CreationDate="2013-05-03T17:42:26.140" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no contradiction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that, while God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he had absolutely no intention of letting him go through with it.  He did it in order to show that he would provide a (quite literal) scapegoat.  He would provide a replacement for Isaac on the altar.  This was meant as something to predict what Christ would do on the cross for us.  And, he did it in a world that existed before the Mosaic law.  Again, he gave Abraham a command that didn't contradict any of his previous commands, and expected him to follow through with it, though God had other plans. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Chronicles 28:3, the practices were detestable, because by that time, God had given the Israelites the Mosaic law, and his prescription regarding how they were to worship Him.  By sacrificing children, they were going outside the Mosaic law, which was given after Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's pretty much the same answer as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15959/praise-people-who-kill&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T17:42:26.140" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15967" CreationDate="2013-05-03T18:11:38.460" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem here is that chronology matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Abraham's time, child sacrifice was common. Reprehensible, but common.  As God had never delivered the terms of the covenant to Abraham, he would not have been bound by them. For lack of a better way of explaining it, Abraham shouldn't have known any better - why wouldn't sacrificing your child be okay? Abraham knew one thing, and one thing only - God was in charge.  Whatever God said, you do.  As such, it would have been, in Abraham's mind, completely legitimate for God to ask Abraham to do this.  (And, obviously, God &lt;em&gt;made&lt;/em&gt; his intention and position known to Abraham through this incident, but I understand your desire to keep to the facts before this happened.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the time of Chronicles, however, the covenant had been given, and God's position on Molech (the local rival god who demanded such sacrifices) was well known.  For Abraham, just getting to know this Yahweh God, it is understandable that he would have been unaware.  For, say, Manesseh to &quot;burn his son in the fire&quot; was an overt, intentional act favoring Molech over Yahweh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Intentions - especially those guided by chronology - matter here.  Abraham was being obedient, Manesseh was being defiant.  There was a world of difference to the practicers that exactly explains the &quot;contradiction.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-05-03T18:35:02.137" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T18:35:02.137" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15960" CreationDate="2013-05-03T18:26:38.373" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is based on a faulty premise - namely that any individual &quot;suppressed&quot; any book in the canonization process.  To say that a book was &quot;discredited&quot; or &quot;suppressed&quot; from the canon is akin to saying that &quot;Fifty Shades of Grey&quot; was &quot;discredited&quot; from the NY Times Best Seller List, or that the kid with an SAT in the 80th percentile was 'suppressed' from attending Harvard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canonization was a selective process in which the most widely circulated books and most widely quoted books were endorsed by Christian scholars.  Anything less wasn't &quot;evil&quot; - it just wasn't as good. There were literally hundreds of books authored in the first four centuries that called themselves &quot;Gospels.&quot;  From the Gospel of Thomas to the Gospel of Peter to the Gospel of the Hebrews to Marcion's Gospel, there were all sorts of &quot;Gospels&quot; to choose from.  Only those that were &quot;most profitable&quot; gained the widest circulation, eventually, over many centuries (Athanasius' Festal Letter in 357 is the earliest complete list!) were viewed as authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of the Gospel of Judas, its just not very good.  It's a Gnostic Gospel which concentrates on proving the evilness of matter and thus claiming that Jesus himself was a docetic God - he only appeared to be a man.  Contemporary &quot;Mainstream&quot; Christianity from Paul's time onwards rejected that notion, and therefore didn't follow it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THe Gnostics went their way and the Christians went theirs.  The Gnostics lost and the &quot;Catholics&quot; (i.e. the rest of the &quot;Universal&quot; church) felt no need to preserve something they didn't find useful. End of Story. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T18:26:38.373" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15971" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15972" CreationDate="2013-05-03T18:28:01.460" Score="1" ViewCount="350" Body="&lt;p&gt;If there is a contradiction in the bible, you should listen to the newest rule (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15967/2-chronicles-283-vs-genesis-222&quot;&gt;where I'm coming from is here&lt;/a&gt;).  Wouldn't it make more sense for orthodox Christianity that the books of the bible be put in chronological order?  Would the order be as they were written or when the events take place?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Is there a version of the bible which is in chronological order - if so, which chronological order?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T19:15:25.033" Title="If rules in the Bible can change, shouldn't Bibles be arranged chronologically so we know which one is right?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15971" CreationDate="2013-05-03T18:59:39.153" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the question directly, yes, there are Bibles arranged in &quot;chronological order.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/084235090X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This book&lt;/a&gt; for example, seeks to arrange every passage of the Bible chronologically.  That said, I'm not sure that's really the best approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, by cutting and pasting passages from multiple books by multiple authors, one destroys the uniqueness of each book.  Imagine, for example, if someone were to arrange Wagner's Ring Cycle, the movie 'Europa, Europa', the Diary of Anne Frank, and random information from 'The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich' &quot;chronologically.  The mish-mash would do justice to none of it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it is, the Bible is arranged roughly right:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;historical&quot; books of Genesis through 2 Chronicles + Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther is basically in order, with the caveat that 1 &amp;amp; 2 Chronicles are basically repeats 1 &amp;amp; 2 Kings.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;writings&quot; aka &quot;Wisdom literature&quot; of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccelesiates are not chronological at all, and thus ordering would not make sense.  Futhermore, the only &quot;rules&quot; in this category would be Proverbs - and even here, you'll find that wisdom != rules.  (Proverbs, for example, admits that bribes work!  It doesn't say that they are right, only that they are effective.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;prophets&quot; from Isaiah to Malachi are the most troublesome ordering, for the traditional ordering is not chronological, but rather based on length, importance, and keywords.  Still the &quot;rules&quot; again, really aren't the issue.  If you want a &quot;rule&quot; it is simply &quot;Be just, not corrupt!&quot;  Historically it would be more interesting, I'll admit, but not vital to the message.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Gospels historically represent a shift from Jewish to Christian thought.  Jesus does alter the terms of the covenant to be sure, leading many (not me, but many) to say &quot;NT supercedes OT.&quot;  That division is useful for those who see a dichotomy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acts is historical, and is placed correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Epistles of Paul, Peter, and the others are arranged by length, not order, but they all fall within a period of 40 years at most - nothing like the 4000 years of the OT.  As such, again, there is no particular &quot;order&quot; nor contradiction.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Revelation is apocalyptic, not &quot;rule&quot; based.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, I disagree that a reordering of books is necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_(Christianity)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;progressive revelation&lt;/a&gt; doesn't actually say that God &quot;changes&quot; so much as we more fully understand what God wants.  In the OT, the afterlife is  only a vague reference at best - but it is clear in the NT.  Is this a &quot;contradiction&quot;? Well, I suppose you could turn it into one.  Likewise, the issue of child sacrifice - from norm to being abhorrent - was that really God or Man?  Indeed, one could even make a case that the bible condones slavery, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6129/does-the-bible-support-slavery-and-white-superiority&quot;&gt;I don't believe it&lt;/a&gt;, but the case is made.  Still, Christians eventually realized it contradicted God's deeper law.  People change!  The &quot;rules&quot; sometimes even reflect that.  But that is not exactly what the progressiveness of revelation is really about. It's about us understanding God better - not Him giving better rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T18:59:39.153" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15974" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15975" CreationDate="2013-05-03T19:44:16.613" Score="2" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many different cases where biblical Christianity and the institutions of Christendom are not the same.  More than I'd like to be forced to spell out here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way, why should a Christian go to a church?  Wouldn't reading the bible, praying, and an occasional conversation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/matthew/18-20.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:20&lt;/a&gt;) be good enough?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible appears to be saying, don't worry about going to church here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:5 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love&#xA;  (A)to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that&#xA;  they may be seen by others. (B)Truly, I say to you, they have received&#xA;  their reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-13T14:43:47.750" LastActivityDate="2014-02-13T14:43:47.750" Title="Why go to Church?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-05-04T13:30:30.593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15974" CreationDate="2013-05-03T20:14:09.490" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are tons of ways to answer this question.  Here are a few reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we're told we should:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:23-25:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he&#xA;  who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one&#xA;  another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is&#xA;  the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as&#xA;  you see the Day drawing near.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, I think within the church we learn how to love one another.  People in the church are... well... people, so they're by definition going to be just as flawed and screwed up as anybody else.  This is going to cause friction, and is going to force us to decide if we want to give people grace, or if we want to judge them for the areas they fall short.  In the church we can learn patience in an environment that offers grace.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thirdly, it's a way we can encourage other believers as well.  You can't encourage another believer if you never spend any time with them.  Also, the church gives us confidence in our walk with God.  People outside the church may not understand why we do the things we do or don't do the things we don't do.  People inside the church do.  As an example, if my boss asks me to do something unethical, he may not understand why I choose not to do something like that.  If, as a result, I lose my job, then the church is there to support and encourage me during those times.  I'm not just &quot;out on my own&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm certain there are tons more reasons, but those are a few. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the verse you quoted, from Matthew 6:5, this is referring to specifically &lt;em&gt;showy&lt;/em&gt; displays of piety, not honest, heartfelt displays of affection towards God from a soul that has been completely and totally crushed by the law and is crying out for God to have mercy.  In other words, it's about self-righteousness, not approaching God as a beggar asking for the righteousness that only He can give through Christ.  The church should be a gathering of those beggars looking for a handout from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-05-03T20:14:09.490" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15976" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-03T20:37:32.007" Score="8" ViewCount="1240" Body="&lt;p&gt;My choir is singing a spiritual called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.negrospirituals.com/news-song/witness_for_my_lord.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Witness for my Lord&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; which tells several stories of men who proclaimed God in some manner or other:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Methuselah who lived a long life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Daniel who survived the lion's den in defiance of the king.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nicodemus who visited Jesus in the dead of night and learned that he needed to be born again through public baptism. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But one of the verses stands out to me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You read in the Bible and you understand&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Samson was the strongest man.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Samson went out at-a one time&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And he killed about a thousand of the Philistine. &#xA;  Delilah fooled Samson, this-a we know&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For the Holy Bible tells us so.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  She shaved off his head just as clean as your hand&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And his strength became the same as any natural man.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(There are other variations of this verse, but all assert that Samson was a witness on the basis of Delilah defeating his strength through trickery.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does the Samson story fit with the other examples and in what way is Samson a witness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-03-09T17:16:37.940" LastActivityDate="2015-03-09T17:16:37.940" Title="How is Samson a witness for the Lord?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;&lt;book-of-judges&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15958" CreationDate="2013-05-04T02:30:15.733" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 16: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard it said that Jesus going away physically allows for God to be spiritually with everyone.  One can imagine the &quot;scandal&quot; if Jesus were only to visit a few people in bodily form, once in a while. Wouldn't it be a bummer if your spouse said, &quot;Jesus stopped by before you got home from work and gave me a big hug: I really needed it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-04T02:30:15.733" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15963" CreationDate="2013-05-04T02:34:37.953" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 9:1 (ASV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several translations put this other &quot;fruitful&quot; command translate the other verb as &quot;replenish&quot; or &quot;fill&quot;.  I'd take this as &quot;be fruitful so that you can replenish and fill the earth.&quot;    I do not think it is saying, &quot;always have tons of kids no matter what.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-04T02:34:37.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15976" CreationDate="2013-05-04T02:55:58.983" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would tell you, but I have not the time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:32-38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  What more shall I say? I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, &lt;strong&gt;Samson&lt;/strong&gt;, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,&#xA;  who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions,&#xA;  put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; &lt;strong&gt;out of weakness they were made powerful&lt;/strong&gt;, became strong in battle, and turned back foreign invaders.&#xA;  Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.&#xA;  Others &lt;strong&gt;endured mockery&lt;/strong&gt;, scourging, even &lt;strong&gt;chains and imprisonment&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at sword’s point; they went about in skins of sheep or goats, needy, afflicted, tormented.&#xA;  The world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and in crevices in the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The song isn't saying that Samson was a witness because he was fooled. It's just a very short story of Samson, followed by a chorus. The biblical reasoning would be more clear if the last line told of how he cried out to God and was made powerful again so that he could avenge himself by bringing down a temple, but the song already told of how he killed many enemies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's telling a story and saying that Samson was a witness of some form. It's not being very specific, but then again it's supposed to be more lyrical than theological. It's praising God through the recollection and praise of certain good people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3941" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-05-06T15:59:47.260" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T15:59:47.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15976" CreationDate="2013-05-04T06:59:06.010" Score="2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Folk songs are about the context as much as the text.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bruce Jackson writes in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=2dmclpLO18UC&amp;amp;pg=PR21&amp;amp;lpg=PR3&amp;amp;ots=FRrBfhIsBy&amp;amp;q=contextual&amp;amp;f=false#v=snippet&amp;amp;q=contextual&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;introduction&lt;/a&gt; to his book &lt;em&gt;Wake Up Dead Man: Hard Labor and Southern Blues&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is an important difference in our approach to art song and folk song.  Art song requires that we perceive the nature of the art involved; folk song requires not only perception of the art but also the generating or supporting musical social, and historical contexts.  Folk song is not simply textual, but &lt;em&gt;con&lt;/em&gt;-textual: it does not exist&amp;mdash;save for historians and scholars&amp;mdash;on pages in books, or even on shiny black discs. It exists in a specific place at a specific time, it is sung by specific people for whom it has specific meanings and functions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can't now determine what the original context of the song was nor who wrote the Samson verse.  But we do know that it existed in one or more of the places that African music thrived in America: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_song&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;work songs&lt;/a&gt;, church worship, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;minstrel shows&lt;/a&gt;.  The most obvious context is Christian and we know the &lt;a href=&quot;http://m.npr.org/story/134028602&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fisk Jubilee Singers&lt;/a&gt; (who avoided vaudeville music) used the song on tour and &lt;a href=&quot;http://victor.library.ucsb.edu/index.php/talent/detail/7005/Fisk_University_Jubilee_Singers_Vocal_group&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recorded&lt;/a&gt; it in 1911.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, Bruce Jackson also noted that &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; versions of the song were used by convicts in the Texas prison system.  One version &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcTu0njFdfc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;repeats the basic refrain&lt;/a&gt; and inserts various &lt;em&gt;non-Biblical&lt;/em&gt; people into the role of witness: family, fellow-prisoners, guards, even visitors.  In this context, the message is clear from a single line:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Anybody can be a witness ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other version is an adaptation of the spiritual.  Jackson, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=2dmclpLO18UC&amp;amp;pg=PA181&amp;amp;lpg=PA180&amp;amp;dq=witness%20for%20my%20lord&amp;amp;output=html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;analyzing&lt;/a&gt; the final stanza about a man who caused a stir at church (perhaps a one-man &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_shout&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ring shout&lt;/a&gt;?):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All the previous stanzas are about situations in which God was involved in people's activities; this stanza suggests that the use of messengers and agents might continue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The purpose of the song in worship.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a work song, the purpose is to get by: make a hard day's work go a little lighter and a little more pleasant.  But in the context of the church, it must have been something different.  Part of the purpose might have been entertainment: the Samson verse fits the bill perfectly.  But the other purpose, judging from the other stanza, must have been to remind the congregation of the Biblical stories.  Since I wrote the question, I've seen verses about Moses, Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jonah which pick significant moments in their lives to put in verse.  One can imagine these verses being passed from one congregation to another (and even back and forth from church to work) and thriving or dying depending on how well they were remembered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the verses show men sustained by God in hard times.  Power to overcome human authority seems to comes from God Himself.  Remember that the church was one of the few places a slave could be free to express himself without fear of reprisal&amp;mdash;as long as he didn't speak rebellion against his master.  So the songs seem to be coded to communicate that God can (and might very well) free people from bondage without saying it outright.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Samson empowered by God; Samson defeated by trickery.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the one hand, God's hand was clearly on Samson during his time as judge since he was able to easily defeat the Philistines with his strength.  But he also used trickery, which was his downfall in the end.  When Delilah removed his hair and he became a normal man, it was as much a witness to what God had done as Methuselah living a long life.  The song calls it's hearers to be witnesses to the Lord, but it assumes the audience is as powerless as Samson shorn.  By implication, God might very well empower someone to become a witness by becoming strong enough to shake off the bonds of slavery and oppression.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2013-05-06T21:24:33.643" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T21:24:33.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2013-05-04T08:56:00.320" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why it is not found elsewhere in New Testament and why only one-line mention for this event?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can only speculate.  Nevertheless we can certainly deduce following conclusions by having a closer look at these passages:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one visualizes this event happening then it is likely that the same was possibly not a public fanfare as it is made out in this question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;“The graves opened”.&lt;/em&gt; It would be not right to take these words literally because when someone is raised from the death, this is likely to be an expression in describing that event.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Many of God’s people who had died were raised from the death”.&lt;/em&gt; Note that not all the dead people came out of graves but only God’s people (Holy people) came back to life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Also note that the next passage is very specifically saying that they went to holy city- meaning Jerusalem. It is not that these dead people came out of the grave and strolled the streets of their respective localities where they lived. We can safely conclude here that they were seen by a very few people, that too by those who were in the know of recognising them. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This event would be a personal experience for each one of these people who saw the risen people and would not be a public phenomenon or an exhibition, where all the dead people would be parading through the holy city with a tag on them so that all people will see.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;These “God’s people” could also be from all over the world. So it is unlikely that all the people who saw them in (holy city) Jerusalem would recognise them.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is another possibility: These few chosen people witnessing the event, could be also holy people who were witnessing their presence in holy city something similar to encounter of Jesus with a few chosen, for we find something like this here:  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts. 10:40 but God raised him up on the third day and caused him to be seen, 10:41 not by all the people, but by us, the witnesses God had already chosen, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Mathew is recording was possibly his own testimony of this unique event or of those pious witnesses who confided in him during his ministry in the holy city.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence it is likely that this event was occurring in isolation with the knowledge of few and failed to rattle everyone in the holy city to become it known to everyone at that time. We would never know God’s mind but one possible reason for restricting the knowledge of this event to few chosen could be that Jesus was not yet resurrected and for that reason the Jews were not be alerted about it till it happened. This event in Mathew could be one of such kind, which was known only to a very few and somehow Mathew was one of the few who knew it.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding second sub-question: The context where this event is narrated is in the midst of narration of yet another great event that was occurring: Dying of Son of God on cross for the humanity. Deviating from the narration of this and detailing on an event of people rising from the dead (when there are already other detailed narrations running into several verses on such similar events elsewhere in Gospels) would have diluted the importance of this main event of dying on the cross. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In general:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each and every miracle that Jesus performed, including numerous other phenomenons that surrounded Him (His birth, transfiguration etc.) were not ordinary but were all greatest supernatural events. Regardless of this, we find that some of these events are not mentioned in all the Gospels.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is common to see that some people attack the Bible for having four versions of the same story in the Gospels and other people attack the Bible for not having four exact copies of the same stories in the Gospels. Birth of Jesus is mentioned only in Matthew and Luke. Since it is not mentioned in Mark and John does it means that we should discard the fact that he was ever born?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the event of Lazarus rising from the dead is recorded only in John’s Gospel and in no other gospel. This event in Mathew in similar manner is recorded only in Mathew.  Both are not ordinary events yet they are not appearing in all the Gospels.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T04:18:01.393" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T04:18:01.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15986" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15988" CreationDate="2013-05-04T18:25:52.113" Score="0" ViewCount="292" Body="&lt;p&gt;King David (probably) went to heaven. That was in spite of the fact the he committed a number of sins, the most egregious of which was stealing Bathesheba from Uriah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The some is probably true of his son King Solomon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David wrote the book of Psalms, and Solomon the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. That shows that they thought a lot about God, Jesus, and right and wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there was the story of the prophet (I believe it was Daniel) who &quot;mediated on the law day and night.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All other things being equal, are people that &quot;think a lot about&quot; God more likely to go to heaven than people who don't? Put another way, would another king who committed &quot;Bathesheba&quot; and other similar sins but don't &quot;think a lot about&quot; God be more likely to go to Hell than King David?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastActivityDate="2013-05-04T18:49:18.047" Title="Are people who &quot;think a lot about&quot; God, Jesus, right and wrong more likely to go to heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-05-05T17:54:52.947" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9692" CreationDate="2013-05-04T18:40:10.057" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are case examples of churches giving to the poor, which may prove a useful reassurance to your question of &lt;strong&gt;&quot;why does this not happen nowadays?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was a member of a Lutheran congregation that had a budget commitment for &quot;Benevolence&quot; (which was everything from running the national denomination's HQ to missionaries to Lutheran Social Services).  The congregation also gave another 10% of its budget to &quot;Social Ministry&quot;, which was distributed to a number of local and national direct-relief charities for the poor.  That congregation also had budgeted a few hundred a year for a pastor's discretionary fund, mostly people for people in trouble who'd stop by the office (&quot;I ran out of gas&quot;, etc.).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;At the same time, both that Lutheran congregation and my current one (a non-denominational evangelical one) have regularly held special offerings for a member of the congregation in trouble. Usually a medical emergency that devastated the family's finances. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as whether Christians should &lt;strong&gt;&quot;give up all they have&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;, that passage is about challenging one's faith: is it in your own works?  There are two passages that should be thought about in relation to each other.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 19:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, &quot;Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 19:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first case, Zaccheus tells Jesus that as an act of contrition, he's voluntarily giving &lt;strong&gt;half&lt;/strong&gt; to the poor, and is commended by Jesus. In the second, the rich young ruler first lies to Jesus by claiming he has kept God's law since his youth.  Confident that his level of obedience has justified himself (has earned salvation), is told that the requirement is to give &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; to the poor. Jesus forces the ruler into a situation where he has to either go away or seek out some other source of righteousness (&lt;em&gt;i.e.&lt;/em&gt;, a source which comes from faith in Christ).  Other passages tell us to give to the poor (Deut 15:10-11) and to him that asks of you (Matt 5:42).  These are literal commands of Jesus: obey them, whether the person has short term need or is destitute.  Today, we would remind anyone confident that their level of economic fairness or social justice has earned favor with God that the requirement is to give all (Matt 5:42).  To the one in despair over their sins, they are reminded of God's free, unearned grace to those who believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-04T18:40:10.057" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15986" CreationDate="2013-05-04T18:49:18.047" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Thinking a lot about God&quot; does not get one into heaven.  Evidence:  John 3:16 says to believe in God's son is the condition for eternal life. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that faith, not works (which would include &quot;thinking&quot;), is the means through which one is saved.  Heaven: no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two bible passages can answer the question of whether &quot;a lot&quot; of devotion to the Lord earns one a special place, any merits with God. In  Matthew 20:1-16, the vineyard workers who showed up at the last hour get same wages as those who worked all day.  In Luke 15:11-32, the older son (who was a good boy all his life) is rebuked for his anger at the Father's love for the prodigal son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-04T18:49:18.047" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15967" CreationDate="2013-05-04T19:04:22.963" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The incident with Abraham and Isaac is often misunderstood.  It needs to be pointed out that this was a specific incident for which God had a specific purpose and not a general precedent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As well as testing (proving) Abraham's faith (to Abraham, not to God), at least a part of that purpose was to present the nation of Israel a picture of the Messiah, Jesus, the one who would be sacrificed by his father.  And the picture extends further with God himself providing the sacrificial lamb in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham was able to go commit to the act &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; because in his great faith he recognized that Isaac was the promised seed of a great nation and that God would raise him from the dead to keep his word.  So in Abraham's mind by sacrificing Isaac to God, God would supernaturally return Isaac to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;17&lt;/strong&gt; By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, &lt;strong&gt;18&lt;/strong&gt; of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” &lt;strong&gt;19&lt;/strong&gt; He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&amp;amp;version=ESV;NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb 11:17-19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus there is no contradiction; the time, purpose and circumstances were completely different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user32" LastActivityDate="2013-05-04T19:04:22.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15994" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="15995" CreationDate="2013-05-05T00:33:20.557" Score="10" ViewCount="3546" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all know the universe is enormous, and this isn't the place to debate that. But why does it &lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt; to be so enormous? The only celestial bodies that could be counted as truly necessary are the sun, moon, and Jupiter (which blocks Earth from many meteor hits). Why create something 29 gigaparsecs wide when only a tiny corner of it is populated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible address this question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4418" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-05-05T01:27:48.300" LastActivityDate="2016-07-21T02:41:20.500" Title="Does the Bible give us any indication of why God created such a vast universe with so much stuff in it?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2016-07-21T06:30:10.893" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15994" CreationDate="2013-05-05T00:50:13.103" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think any question that contains &quot;why does this need to be so&quot; is fundamentally flawed. The truth is nothing needs to be how it is. God could choose do it anyway He wanted to, and He choose to do it this way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, We can speculate as to why He wants it that way, but short of scriptural support it's just speculation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, Yes i think the Bible does give us some hints and here is some scripture as to the reasons the heavens are so big:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 19 1-4 &quot;The heavens declare the glory of God;&#xA;      the skies proclaim the work of his hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Day after day they pour forth speech;&#xA;      night after night they reveal knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 They have no speech, they use no words;&#xA;      no sound is heard from them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,&#xA;      their words to the ends of the world.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 1:20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we can infer from these passages that tell us the universe is there to teach us about the nature of our Creator, that it's vastness is most likely to demonstrate the vastness of God Himself, Who is infinite and above, and beyond that which He created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2013-05-07T05:03:24.663" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T05:03:24.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="248" CreationDate="2013-05-05T01:45:07.810" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jesus had meant that he was going to be in the earth for anything less than &quot;three days and three nights&quot; He would have not used such specific vernacular.  In Genesis 1:5 NLT God explains &quot;God called the light &quot;day&quot; and the darkness &quot;night&quot;. Together these made up one 24-hour day.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In as much as Jesus rose on the 'third day' while it was still dark, one would be contradicting Jesus' own words to count the daylight half of the third day, as one of the three days he was to be buried.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also overlooked is the principle of the 'special Sabbath' which was being celebrated.  Therefore it is possible to have two Sabbaths back-to-back, and to have two days of preparation.  If this were the case, to which Scripture points, Jesus would have been crucified on the Thursday, the day before the special Sabbath which would have also been the day of preparation for the regular Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wednesday afternoon, Jesus is buried, DAY 1 - Day of crucifixion and day or preparation for the Special Sabbath.&#xA;Wednesday sundown to Thursday sunrise, NIGHT 1 - Special Sabbath starts&#xA;Thursday sunrise to Friday sundown, DAY 2 - Special Sabbath.&#xA;Friday sundown to Saturday sunrise, NIGHT 2 - Day of preparation - Sabbath starts&#xA;Saturday Sunrise to Saturday sundown, DAY 3 - Regular Sabbath&#xA;Saturday sundown to Sunday sunrise, NIGHT 3 - Christ rises from the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4434" LastActivityDate="2013-05-05T01:45:07.810" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15994" CreationDate="2013-05-05T11:02:18.120" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The popular view of Mormonism is that when you die, you get your own planet. Here is a more precise statement of the view from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Mormon Cosmology&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mormon cosmology teaches that the Earth is not unique, but just one of many inhabited planets,[25] each planet created for the purpose of bringing about the immortality and &quot;eternal life&quot; (i.e., the highest degree of salvation) of humanity.[26] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.about.com/od/mormons/a/church_membership.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;millions of Mormons&lt;/a&gt; and billions of Christians. At the time Mormonism was founded, it was not clear how many planets there were outside the solar system-- many &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;planets were undiscovered&lt;/a&gt;.   It might have been a stretch in the early years of Mormonism to claim there were enough planets for every possible believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if we limit our view to Nicene Christianity, it is clear that there was a command to multiply:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God blessed them and said to them, &quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&quot; Gen 1:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many have held that physical death (i.e., a limited lifetime) was not in the original plan for God's creation.  A command to multiply and no death logically leads to geometric progression of population.  If there's only one planet, it probably would fill up soon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the universe is immense.  My favorite measure of the immenseness of the universe is that one previously-thought dark region of sky, when examined by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Hubble Telescope&lt;/a&gt;, was shown to contain 10,000 galaxies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thus, a plausible reason for the immense universe is to provide homes for an unfallen, geometrically increasing population of humans.&lt;/strong&gt;  It provides an apologetic argument for God's providence that would not be there if say, the observable universe had consisted of merely the island of Bermuda. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it's clearly implausible for humans, in their current fallen state, to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_travel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;travel to far galaxies&lt;/a&gt; without any Divine intervention, &quot;all things are possible with God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-06-02T12:56:18.173" LastActivityDate="2013-06-02T12:56:18.173" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15999" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16013" CreationDate="2013-05-05T11:51:56.957" Score="8" ViewCount="1236" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is what I think I understand:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Catholic believes in something called &lt;strong&gt;penance&lt;/strong&gt; that is understood as a sacrament by which forgiveness of sins (committed after baptism) is granted through the priest's ‘absolution’ to those with: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) ‘true sorrow&lt;br&gt;&#xA;b) confess their sins and&lt;br&gt;&#xA;c) promise to &lt;strong&gt;satisfy&lt;/strong&gt; for the confessed sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The satisfactions are basically works necessary to ensure the temporal punishments due to sin are ‘satisfied’.&lt;/strong&gt; The idea is that although the ‘absolution’ remits both the guilt and the eternal punishment of mortal sins, some indebtedness to justice that demands temporal punishment can be cancelled through the ‘satisfaction’ (or later on in purgatory).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On the subject of purgatory one mans work with intrinsic satisfactory qualities may actually be transferred to another in order to remove some (or all?) of the punishments of those believers in purgatory.&lt;/strong&gt; Those in purgatory are those who did not make satisfaction for their own menial sins before dying – thus having to be in purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Owing to the peculiar relation between and material identity of merit and satisfaction in the present economy of salvation, a twofold value must in general be distinguished in every good work: the meritorious and the satisfactory value. But each preserves its distinctive character, theoretically by the difference in concepts, and practically in this, that the value of merit as such, consisting in the increase of grace and of heavenly glory, is purely personal and is not applicable to others, &lt;strong&gt;while the satisfactory value may be detached from the meriting agent and applied to others. The possibility of this transfer rests on the fact that the residual punishments for sin are in the nature of a debt, which may be legitimately paid to the creditor and thereby cancelled not only by the debtor himself but also by a friend of the debtor. This consideration is important for the proper understanding of the usefulness of suffrages for the souls in purgatory&lt;/strong&gt; (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, Decret. de purgat., in Denzinger, n. 983). (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia – Merit&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is my question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'I understand that a Catholic through meritorious works that have satisfactory power in them, can transfer those satisfactions as a kind of spiritual wealth to those in purgatory. However, can these ‘credits’ if I may use the word, be sent to others who are still alive as well?' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More specifically: &lt;strong&gt;'If I was Catholic and a dear relative I know commits venial sins and needs to do some satisfaction to avoid temporal punishment, can I do good meritorious/satisfactory works for them and thereby remove their temporal punishments for them? Or is the transfer of satisfaction only for those believers who are suffering temporal punishments in purgatory?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T18:34:32.480" Title="Can Catholic works of ‘satisfaction’ (prayer, fasting, etc.) for the removal of temporal punishments of venial sin be credited to others still alive?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16000" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-05T13:21:31.587" Score="4" ViewCount="82" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings&quot; - Ezekiel 28:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse can be considered as a quote about the first 'sin' in the entire biblical timeline. After the occurrence of which, Satan was formed. I would like to know more details about the evil 'pride' indicated in this verse, which existed even before Satan. Does this 'evil' have a personality? How it was capable of running its root into a splendorous and powerful creation of God - Lucifer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3921" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-06T12:03:32.283" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T12:03:32.283" Title="Did 'evil' exist even before Satan?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-05-06T18:59:49.793" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16002" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15958" CreationDate="2013-05-05T14:17:31.953" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;He surely could if He wanted to. Yet God in His omniscience has ordained it to be this way for our benefit. &lt;code&gt;John 16:7&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, faith wouldn't be required if Jesus appeared in bodily form frequently. Yet it is impossible to please God without faith. &lt;code&gt;Hebrews 11:6&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1460" LastActivityDate="2013-05-05T14:17:31.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16003" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-05T14:36:38.247" Score="5" ViewCount="11125" Body="&lt;p&gt;When God cursed the Earth He also cursed the serpent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 3:14 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord God said to the serpent, &quot;Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the serpent specifically Satan? If not, is there a practical outworking of this curse seen in serpents today? We surely see the other curses of labor pains in childbirth and toilsome labor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1460" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-26T17:28:50.770" LastActivityDate="2018-05-28T06:52:41.527" Title="What does the curse on the serpent mean?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;curses&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-06-05T14:44:43.507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15931" CreationDate="2013-05-05T14:42:25.780" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Humans are living souls. Soul (psyche) means the breathing existence. The body (soma) is the outward appearance and the physique of the human. &#xA;It all means the same human being. Soul more in the sense of living and ability to feel. Body more in the sense of physical existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spirit, pneuma, is what moves the person, what his thoughts are and his emotions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It all is the human as one whole living being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference is regarding what of a person one is looking at. It is about aspects to the human, not about entities or compound parts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In certain instances the soul is considered the person, but in a more impersonal way to say. (Name, onoma, would be the more personal expression.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Person (prosopon) is used for the human encounter, the facial and bodily appearance towards one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4437" LastEditorUserId="4437" LastEditDate="2013-07-09T08:01:26.197" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T08:01:26.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16003" CreationDate="2013-05-05T14:51:42.733" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Poetically, the serpent has always been seen as mystical, crafty, and deceptive. Genesis used the symbolism of the serpent to personify evil generally and satan, the devil, or lucifer, specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that a serpent is now on it's belly instead of legs was a new symbol that the serpent is now weak, though still deceptive. He was further cursed that the son of man would crush his head incapacitating him fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point: very very few christians would say that the serpent, a beautiful creation of God, is inherently evil or deceptive, nor would they say that the serpent as a species was punished in any way. It was satan and his minions that were punished and have had their heads crushed when Christ was hung on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-05-05T14:51:42.733" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16003" CreationDate="2013-05-05T15:21:47.587" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The curse continues with its most important point&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will put enmity   between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush[b] your head,   and you will strike his heel.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is thought to mean Jesus (enmity) will crush serpent's head (defeat death), after Jesus suffers (heel struck).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-05T15:21:47.587" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7156" CreationDate="2013-05-05T18:41:04.820" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a few verses to add to what has been said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Omnipresence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; &quot;He is before all things, and in him all things hold together&quot;&#xA; Colossians 1:17&#xA; &quot;For in him we live and move and have our being.&quot; &#xA; Acts 17:28&#xA; &quot;Very truly I tell you,&quot; Jesus answered, &quot;before Abraham was born, I am!&quot;&#xA; John 8:58&#xA; &quot;But who is able to build a temple for him,&#xA; since the heavens, even the highest heavens,&#xA; cannot contain him? ...&#xA;2 Chronicles 2:6&#xA;&quot;I am the Alpha and the Omega,&#xA; the first and the last,&#xA; the beginning and the end.&quot; &#xA; Revelation 21:13&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses show among other things God is not just everywhere(he has to be everywere if the Heavens of Heaven cannot contain Him, also elsewere The whole earth is filled with His glory). It shows He is everytime as well &quot;Before Abraham was I AM&quot; in the context was demonstrating that Jesus is God, but also denoting that He is in a state of presently exsisting (I am) in the past (before Abraham was). And also I AM the Alpha and the Omega, not I Was the alpha and will be the Omega. Not I was the first and will be the last. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Omnipotence:&#xA;    “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” &#xA;    Mathew 19:26&#xA;    &quot;I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.&quot;&#xA;    Philippians 4:13&#xA;It's pretty clear, is anything left out when He said All things? No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Omniscence:&#xA;&quot;Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom&quot; (Isaiah 40:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.&quot;&#xA;Hebrews 4:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from the other scriptures that talk about His knowledge and Wisdom, if we had none of them we could infer from his attributes of being everywhere at every time and being all powerful that He would have to know everything since He created all things and all things are in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Omnibenovolence: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  &quot;Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.&quot;&#xA;John 15:13&#xA;&quot;For God so Loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not parish but have everlasting life.&quot;&#xA;John 3:16&#xA;&quot;He that loves not knows not God; for God is love.&quot;&#xA;1 John 4:8&#xA;&quot;Neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though he needed anything,&#xA; seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things;&quot;&#xA; Acts 17:25&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not just all loving He is Love itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastActivityDate="2013-05-05T18:41:04.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5831" CreationDate="2013-05-05T18:44:54.233" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe we have to take a look at this verse from a deeper perspective. Lets take a deeper look at what a child is really like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A child is always in a state of awe and rests within an unknown paradigm. Call it innocence if you will. Untouched by worldly belief constructs. Their heart is pure and they are completely free of mental slavery. They have have no understanding of heaven and hell. They only know the world through direct experience renewing itself with every moment. They don't see other people as separate from themselves but as one giant family...compassion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So really if one wants to enter the Kingdom, I feel that we have to cleanse our mind of all fixed belief constructs. And allow our heart to be our primary thinking agent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4441" LastActivityDate="2013-05-05T18:44:54.233" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16012" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16003" CreationDate="2013-05-06T03:14:07.940" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Warning: Catholic answer to not specifically Catholic question ahead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage in Genesis is known as the protoevangelion. The Gospel before the Gospel before the Gospel.  There is a lot packed into those two sentences and its often a let down when I read this to my Catechism kids because its so short and so vague.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to read it literaly, go ahead no one is stopping you from believing that in their original conception snakes had arms and legs.  A lot of saints and artists didn't see the serpent as a little grass snake, but as a giant Basalisk sort of creature. Something so fearsome that it would shake someone from a state of grace. In any event there's a lot of good and useful ways to read this literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allegorical, the serpent is Satan, the only important distinction to make is that Satan is not literary the Serpent so you ought to keep the literal inferences to.the literal sense and the allegorical inferences to the allegorical sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the moral sense, this might be the curse that all those who lead others out of a state of grace inflict upon themselves.  It is a just punishment for being a deceiver.  When you lay object your belly you cannot see the heavens and loosing the beatific vision is precisely what Lucifer earned for himself through his pride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The anagogical sense is probably the most important sense In which to read this scripture because it carries within it God's promise of a redeemer. But since you didn't ask about that line, the next line, there is no sense rehashing it. But what this might mean for eternity is that Satan will be cursed and derided by creation forever, even though some created beings may find him more attractive than the God Himself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T03:14:07.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15999" CreationDate="2013-05-06T03:36:56.380" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catechism says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.&amp;quot; The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CCC 1471&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and I think that answers it.  Every time you bless yourself with holy water, you have a partial indulgence.  A plenary indulgence also requires complete detachment from sin, which in my opinion seems very difficult. Those indulgences can go towards your own sorry life or someone else who is dead, even if they're in Heaven those prayers won't be wasted as prayers are never wasted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless of course you're praying that your delinquent nephew won't be given a just punishment for skinning cats.  In this case you'd want to pray that God gives your nephew the actual grace that you would be given for a meritorious act.  This is what your Catholic mother calls &amp;quot;offering it up&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I'd slightly modify the first sentence if it wouldn't subvert the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Catholics believe in something called &lt;b&gt;Reconciliation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;c) promise to do &lt;b&gt;penance&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was surprised about the use of the term &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;satisfaction&lt;/a&gt; here in the Catholic encyclopedia.  It's in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1/4N.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism quite a bit too&lt;/a&gt; but I've never seen it defined in my Catechetical instructional materials when covering the Sacrament of Reconciliation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T18:34:32.480" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16018" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-06T06:10:52.693" Score="3" ViewCount="829" Body="&lt;p&gt;Imagine one day a person hears voices like God speaking to him (or as how he would describe as God), with bright lights, angels, burning bushes, and all. It would seem so real for him but only he alone heard or experienced it. And the voice would tell him to sacrifice his son/daughter to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it moral for him sacrifice his child because of this experience? it might be a test and if he didn't then he would have failed for doubting God. What would a Christian do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorDisplayName="user4984" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T17:16:27.020" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T21:08:43.030" Title="How to determine a genuine call from God?" Tags="&lt;sacrifice&gt;&lt;calling&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16019" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16024" CreationDate="2013-05-06T07:04:45.043" Score="3" ViewCount="27461" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just want to confirm based on scripture if God made Adam and Eve with both free will and knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong) or if one came after the other when they ate the forbidden fruit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-13T04:46:32.813" LastActivityDate="2015-01-13T04:46:32.813" Title="Did God create Adam and Eve with free will and knowledge of right and wrong (good and evil)?" Tags="&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-01-13T04:57:18.973" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16020" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16027" CreationDate="2013-05-06T08:07:14.910" Score="-3" ViewCount="506" Body="&lt;p&gt;Last month, I went to a convention where a popular preacher narrated a story(real incident). According to the incident, a muslim youth had a vision in which God Jesus himself revealed to her with the name 'Isa' and asked her to study the pages of Quran.&lt;br&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How could Jesus reveal to anyone by a book which denies Jesus is the God, which also denies that God has died for our sin and many such...?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1124" LastEditorUserId="1124" LastEditDate="2013-05-06T08:16:46.113" LastActivityDate="2015-03-30T21:53:35.653" Title="Will Jesus reveal himeself to anyone with the name &quot;Isa&quot;" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-04-03T14:25:22.007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16020" CreationDate="2013-05-06T11:04:26.177" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible gives an instance of Jesus revealing himself to a nonbeliever: Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:4). So it is not outside Jesus's nature to appear to nonbelievers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be literal about the word &lt;em&gt;reveal&lt;/em&gt;, there are many ways that Jesus is revealed besides special apparitions. He reveals himself by the Word (John 1:1). He reveals himself, he appears, through the sacrament of communion (Luke 22:19). He reveals himself through the poor around us who have physical needs (Matt 25:31ff).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you are correct to doubt that a vision/ apparition would encourage one to believe that Jesus was mere prophet.  1 John 4 (NIV) says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-05-06T16:04:06.340" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T16:04:06.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15976" CreationDate="2013-05-06T11:19:13.873" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Samson could be seen as a witness for the Lord, or a precursor for Christ, in one sense. He gave his life to defeat the enemies of God's people in Judges 16:30.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, several commentators have pointed out that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Samson, David, and many other excellent men, fell into grievous sins. [Luther's Commentary on Galatians]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the sins weren't merely the sexual liaisons. It has to do with a spirit of revenge. This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermonnotebook.org/judges/Judges%2018%20-%20Judges%2015_1-8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Sermon Notebook&quot;&lt;/a&gt; states that Samson's acts of revenge are not to be copied.  I would assert that his destroying the Philistine's wheat fields is wrong for various reasons, including Deuteronomy 20:19's prohibition of destroying farmland. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in another sense, Samson is not a witness to the Lord, except as a negative example. The hymn writer is as likely to be celebrating &quot;self-sacrificial death for one's people (Judges 16:30)&quot; as &quot;doing a lot of bad things to  bad people.&quot;  If the latter were the case, it demonstrates that many hymns may inspire but have to be understood they're not of a &quot;revelation&quot; equivalent to scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T11:19:13.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15994" CreationDate="2013-05-06T11:55:07.400" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does the Bible give us any indication of why God created such a vast universe with so much stuff in it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scripture primarily focuses on three things: The nature of God, God's actions on Earth, and how humans should act on Earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible was written during a time when most humans (lower than kings) were just struggling to live day-to-day. They needed hope and a reason to live. Relative to other generations, a much larger percentage of the human populace was trying to satisfy lower levels of &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=lower+needs+maslow+hierarchy&amp;amp;aq=0&amp;amp;oq=low+on+Maslow%27s+hier&amp;amp;aqs=chrome.1.57j0&amp;amp;sourceid=chrome-mobile&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;hl=en-US&amp;amp;espv=1#itp=open0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Maslow's Hierachy of Needs&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible was written before the printing press, before mass literacy, and before the Enlightenment. Emphasis: Books weren't plentiful, most people couldn't read, and even if they could - Astronomy wasn't sufficiently advanced to facilitate a widespread appreciation for the vastness of the universe.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="1100" LastEditDate="2013-05-06T12:29:03.027" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T12:29:03.027" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16019" CreationDate="2013-05-06T11:57:23.210" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 3 answers this question pretty definitively:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord God said, “Behold, &lt;strong&gt;the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;&lt;/strong&gt; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”  Genesis 3:22 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve were not created with the knowledge of good and evil.  They were innocent--not righteous, but innocent.  After they sinned, they knew both good and evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knows good and evil, but not from the same perspective, as He has never committed any sin or done anything unholy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T11:57:23.210" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16020" CreationDate="2013-05-06T15:24:03.673" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;While it is true that Acts 4:12 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it is not true that the syllables must be uttered in a particular language.  Unlike, say, the Qu'ran, no mainstream Christian denomination posits the necessity of a particularly holy language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Isa&quot; is clearly the identification of the same individual that Christians call Jesus of Nazareth.  It is a peculiarly Islamic name, and the Islamic understanding of who Jesus is differs, but it is the same individual.  To the extent that one believes Isa died on a cross (something that a Qu'ranic interpretation would deny) and that Isa rose again (again, Qu'ranically contradindicated), then Salvation would come through Isa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that Muslims believe that Isa was a man, but they deny he actually died on the cross. They also deny he was God.  But they do recognize him as a great prophet, teacher, and worker of miracles.  As such, there is a basis on which to build.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, in the Muslim world. I have heard many reports of Central Asian missionaries retelling the stories of Muslims who have had dreams in which Isa has revealed himself to Muslims.  Key to these dreams, however, is that he is who the Christians say he is - the Son of God who died on the cross and rose again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, thus, is not, what will Jesus' name be in whatever target language, but rather, what attributes does he reveal of himself.  Anecdotally, it is occurring (I wish I could find the movie I saw about this!).  By leveraging what a person knows of Jesus, but correcting the errors, Isa makes the bridge to understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T15:24:03.673" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2547" CreationDate="2013-05-06T20:47:47.643" Score="2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Covenant Theology&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Redemption, as seen through the framework of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology#Theological_covenants&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Covenant Theology&lt;/a&gt;, requires at least two Persons.  As Paul puts it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy 2:5-6 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/1+Timothy+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Third Person is necessary to transmit the benefit of Christ's ransom to the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;He was manifested in the flesh,&#xA;    vindicated by the Spirit,&#xA;seen by angels,&#xA;proclaimed among the nations,&#xA;    believed on in the world,&#xA;taken up in glory.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy 3:16 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/1+Timothy+3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jonathan Edwards' Economic Trinity&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonathan Edwards &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15671/914&quot;&gt;theory&lt;/a&gt; of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Immanent Trinity&lt;/a&gt; characterizes the Spirit as the very love between the Father and the Son.  He transferred this idea to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#Theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Economic Trinity&lt;/a&gt;.  He &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.dependence.2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;writes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So that in this verse [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.esvbible.org/1+Corinthians+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Corinthians 1: 30&lt;/a&gt;] is shown our dependence on each person in the Trinity for all our good. We are dependent on &lt;strong&gt;Christ the Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;, as he is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. We are dependent on the &lt;strong&gt;Father&lt;/strong&gt;, who has given us Christ, and made him to be these things to us. We are dependent on the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Ghost&lt;/strong&gt;, for it is &lt;em&gt;of him that we are in Christ Jesus&lt;/em&gt;; it is the Spirit of God that gives faith in him, whereby we receive him, and close with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And later:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The saints have both their spiritual excellency and blessedness by the gift of the Holy Ghost, and his dwelling in them. They are not only caused by the Holy Ghost, but are in him as their principle. The Holy Spirit becoming an inhabitant, is a vital principle in the soul. He, acting in, upon, and with the soul, becomes a fountain of true holiness and joy, as a spring is of water, by the exertion and diffusion of itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three roles&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; in the act of redemption that the Trinity fills:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Father: The giver of beneﬁt.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Son: The purchaser of beneﬁt.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Spirit: The beneﬁt purchased.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edwards finds support for this construction (among other places) in Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;“For who has known the mind of the Lord,&#xA;    or who has been his counselor?”&#xA;“Or who has given a gift to him&#xA;    that he might be repaid?”&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;from him&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;through him&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;to him&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.&#xA;  &amp;mdash;Romans 11:33-36 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Romans+11/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We depend on there being three persons in the Trinity to have equal honor in the task of redemption:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And each person of the Trinity is equally glorified in this work: there is an absolute dependence of the creature on every one for all: all is of the Father, all through the Son, and all in the Holy Ghost. Thus God appears in the work of redemption as all in all. It is fit that he who is, and there is none else, should be the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the all and the only, in this work.&amp;mdash;Jonathan Edwards, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.dependence.2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;God Glorified in Man's Dependence&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm grateful to Richard M. Weber's paper &quot;The Trinitarian Theology Of Jonathan Edwards: An Investigation Of Charges Against Its Orthodoxy&quot; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/44/44-2/44-2-PP297-318_JETS.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;PDF&lt;/a&gt;] for this way of expressing the roles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Edwards translated the preposition &lt;em&gt;in him&lt;/em&gt;.  I've &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4796/how-should-the-prepositions-in-romans-1136-be-translated&quot;&gt;asked a question&lt;/a&gt; on whether Edwards' translation is supportable here.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T20:47:47.643" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16019" CreationDate="2013-05-06T21:58:03.070" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Adam and Eve were not created with the knowledge of good and evil. They were innocent--not righteous, but innocent.&quot; Agreed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Adam and Eve, a &quot;knowledge&quot; of Good and Evil was not imparted to them, but was their own creation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BEFORE Eve touched the fruit, it is said, Gen.3:6 &quot;And when the woman saw that the tree was GOOD for food, and that it was PLEASANT to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one WISE...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as Eve declared 3 things to be good, namely that something could look good, feel good and be good, after the &quot;TREE&quot; experience they declared that some things were bad, wrong or evil. Included in list new list was being NAKED, being AFRAID, being BLAMED.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BEFORE Eve was created, God brought the animals to Adam to name. (Gen. 2:19b) This was an act of naming things that exist in physical form. The &quot;TREE&quot; experience was the first time that the humans started declaring or giving names to things that exist only by interpretation or as an explanation of an experience or feeling. The experience of SHAME, FEAR and FEELING BADLY were created by Adam and Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The TRUTH is that the &quot;TREE&quot; was NOT good for food, NOT pleasant to the EYES, and was NOT to be DESIRED. Eve invented that. Made it up. On the spot. She, herself, made the tree more than it was. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The TRUTH is that after the &quot;TREE&quot; experience, nakedness didn't CAUSE shame, Adam didn't NEED to fear God's presence, and blame couldn't MAKE Adam feel bad. Adam invented those. Made it up. On the spot. He, himself, made the event bad and wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    God is a creative being who creates with His words, who created &#xA;             creative being who create with their words.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the tree experience we describe the life of Adam and Eve as living in paradise. After the &quot;tree&quot; we describe their fallen state. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happened at the tree changed everything. What happened at the tree, was that for the first time, mankind created good and evil, right and wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4455" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T21:58:03.070" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16018" CreationDate="2013-05-06T22:07:21.560" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have Scripture by which we can test these revelations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  What is the chaff to the wheat?” says the Lord.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “Is not My word like a fire?” says the Lord,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Jeremiah 23:28-29)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God calls people within the context of His revelation. If a person tells me out of the blue that God told him this and that, I have no reason to believe him; but if this call came from a context of God showing His presence and power, I need to look more closely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the question refers to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, lets look at the context of that command:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God guided him from his homeland to the place promised to his descendants (Genesis 12)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God promised him a son, though Abraham and Sarah were too old (Genesis 17)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Lord appeared to Abraham, and Sarah also saw and heard Him (Genesis 18)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The destruction of Sodom and preservation of Abraham's nephew Lot (Genesis 19)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God preserves Sarah from being violated as a result of Abraham's lie (Genesis 20)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A nonbeliever converses with God in a dream concerning Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 20)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sarah has a son! (Genesis 21)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this comes &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; God tells him to sacrifice his son. God has proven himself to Abraham; Abraham obeyed because he trusted God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's much the same way with Jesus -- if you walk up to me and tell me that you are the son of God, I'm not going to believe you -- without anything in your life to support the claim, how can I believe it? But the context of Jesus' life makes it possible (even probable). God reveals Himself, &lt;strong&gt;then&lt;/strong&gt; wants us to trust Him. He doesn't normally demand obedience without showing Himself to be trustworthy (though He does have every right to do so).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-05-06T22:07:21.560" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16036" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-07T02:03:56.543" Score="11" ViewCount="397" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;debate&lt;/a&gt; between Hugh Ross of &quot;Reasons to Believe&quot; and Ken Ham.  These men are popular spokesmen for each of Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, respectively. In the hour-long discussion, Ken repeatedly shuts down any use of passages other than Genesis to get information about the details of creation. For example, he didn't want to talk about how Job (9:8) or Psalms (104:2) speak of God &quot;stretching the heavens&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Setting aside the whole YEC/OEC debate for the moment, is there a biblical reason to limit creation-detail information to the book of Genesis? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T21:16:00.977" LastActivityDate="2021-01-17T01:55:02.760" Title="Is there a biblical reason to limit information about creation to Genesis?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;&lt;ken-ham&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15994" CreationDate="2013-05-07T02:09:48.913" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer: Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, the Bible does give us some indication as to why He created the rest of the heavenly bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1)&lt;/strong&gt; Scripture describes Day 4 of the Creation week as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be &lt;strong&gt;for signs&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;for seasons&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;for days and years&lt;/strong&gt;; and let them be &lt;strong&gt;for lights&lt;/strong&gt; in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens &lt;strong&gt;to give light on the earth&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;to govern the day and the night&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;to separate the light from the darkness&lt;/strong&gt;; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:14-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Genesis 1:14-19&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see God's purposes behind the creation of the &quot;lights&quot; in the heavens (the Sun, Moon, and stars.) Collectively they serve the following functions according to Genesis 1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They are useful to God for giving signs to mankind&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They are useful for marking (and causing) seasons&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They are useful for marking (and causing) days and years&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They provide light to the earth&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They &quot;govern&quot; the day and the night&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They are useful for separating (or distinguishing) light from darkness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2)&lt;/strong&gt; In the book of Psalms we have a couple psalms of David which give us some additional insight:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens are &lt;strong&gt;telling of the glory of God&lt;/strong&gt;;&#xA;  And their expanse is &lt;strong&gt;declaring the work of His hands&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019:1-2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Psalm 19:1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O Lord, our Lord,&#xA;  How &lt;strong&gt;majestic&lt;/strong&gt; is Your name in all the earth,&#xA;  Who have displayed Your &lt;strong&gt;splendor&lt;/strong&gt; above the heavens! . . .&#xA;  When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,&#xA;  The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;What is man&lt;/strong&gt; that You take thought of him,&#xA;  And the son of man that You care for him? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%208:1-4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Psalm 8:1-4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see that God's works in the heavens (the stars, etc.) serve the following functions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They proclaim God's glory&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They inspire awe in men about the greatness of God&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They serve to humble man before God&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3)&lt;/strong&gt; The vastness of God's creation in the cosmos served at numerous points in Scripture as a reference for man to understand something innumerable. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And [God] took [Abraham] outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and &lt;strong&gt;count the stars, if you are able&lt;/strong&gt; to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2015:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Genesis 15:5&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list goes on, but these are probably the clearest passages in Scripture on the topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T04:58:12.453" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T04:58:12.453" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16036" CreationDate="2013-05-07T02:47:39.367" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no reason to &lt;strong&gt;limit&lt;/strong&gt; information about the creation week to Genesis, &lt;strong&gt;but...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1)&lt;/strong&gt; There are a number of good reasons to limit information about the creation week to Scripture. For instance, philosophically, the word of God is truth, and all men are corrupt and limited, which makes the revealed word of God the only reliable source for truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2)&lt;/strong&gt; There is good reason to give preference to historical narrative over image-rich, emotional songs, etc. If it is a psalm, its purpose may be to praise God, but may not be to relay historical information about the creation week in a straightforward and sequential manner. (See, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%206:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Psalm 6:6&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3)&lt;/strong&gt; Whenever you interpret Scripture, it is always wise to consider the purpose of the passage in question. Genesis 1 is the only passage in Scripture whose primary purpose is clearly to provide information about the creation week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4)&lt;/strong&gt; There is good reason to believe that most (if not all) of the information about the creation week that appears subsequent to the first two chapters of Genesis is based on the first two chapters of Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For these reasons, Genesis can easily be regarded as the &lt;strong&gt;best&lt;/strong&gt; source of information about the creation week, and is certainly the &lt;strong&gt;first&lt;/strong&gt; place I would go in studying the topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T04:55:01.970" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T04:55:01.970" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16036" CreationDate="2013-05-07T04:53:35.483" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: We do need to look at all verses describing creation. But we need to know when creation 'the process' is being talked about and when creation as in 'the physical universe' is being talked about.  I encourage you to search the scripture for the phrase &quot;since the beginning of creation&quot; and you will always find human observers being talked about.&#xA;Besides the clear progression of Genesis ... we know that it is meant to be the historical account by the verse Genesis 2:4 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were&#xA;  created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So at the very least, we know with certainty that the purpose of the verses in Genesis was to give the account of creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long Answer:&#xA;I've seen several debates between Ham and Ross, Hovind and Ross, and Several Others with Ross. If you're referring to the recent TBN debate I could see how you get that idea, they have already debated thoroughly before that though so they were each familiar with the others reasons. But just to clarify the problem is not using other passages, Ham and us all would encourage reading all passages related to creation. The problem is using other passages to try to contradict what Genesis said about creation week. The Bible is full of verses that support a young earth view. And Ken Ham would never suggest otherwise . But the point is that for the most part Ross tries to create a moving target nit picking verses that were not talking about creation week, and proving his(and yes other respected christian leaders) position that we can agree with secular 'science' about the age of the earth. As R.C. Sproul put's it, it's &quot;Hermeneutic Gymnastics&quot;. And I would say it's an example of what Jesus said &quot;You strain at a gnat but swallow a camel&quot; , Or Peter &quot;Twisting the scriptures&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis is clearly written in the language of Historical account, Psalms are contemplation and praises to God, not written in a way that says &quot;a happened, then b , then C&quot;. So to get historical information out of them is reading something into the text that it does not claim. Job has a written record of conversations that happened, but the content of those conversations where not meant to contradict what Genesis already said. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the point is we do take the whole Bible to look at creation, but when you find something that seems to contradict and warrant a re-interpretation of what was already plainly spelled out, you need to see what the context is. Is it poetic, is it prophetic, is it just recording what men said, How much do you really have to read into the text to make it say something other than what we already know?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ross says one thing that is a kind of psychological convincer to make it seem like he's telling the truth, but I encourage you to take it to heart anyway. &quot;It's not enough to take the scriptures literally, we must take them consistently.&quot; Which for him includes his interpretation of the &quot;book of nature&quot;. I encourage you don't let Ross lead you into what that means, but let the Holy Spirit guide you into understanding what is consistent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also there is no YEC speaker that I am aware of that denies the expanding universe. The problem is trying to cram the big bang theory into the verses speaking about God stretching out the heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="155" LastEditDate="2013-06-04T18:30:54.287" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T18:30:54.287" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16042" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16046" CreationDate="2013-05-07T05:52:24.380" Score="1" ViewCount="2659" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have several questions regarding the main questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I'd like to know what the heaven is like, is because I'm wondering why would people rebel against God? I mean I'm thinking heaven as a perfect place.. Including the one who rules it (GOD). Why would anyone rebel against God? How bad can it be? Why would anyone choose any less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course to be able to know if we want to go to heaven or not, we must first know whats in there for us. Like what are the conditions in heaven? What if a person was born with no limbs... and die, will he spend eternity like that? How about what if a person had a face surgery because he was born physically mutilated will the surgery be canceled and spend his life as is? Do we actually have physical images? do we have personalities? do we have like houses or we just stand all together? what are things we do in heaven? besides praise and worship? if we do stop praise and worship does that mean we have a schedule on doing praise and worship? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="4384" LastEditDate="2013-05-07T09:20:38.360" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T09:42:58.653" Title="How does the bible describe heaven" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-05-07T17:25:11.823" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16044" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="39931" CreationDate="2013-05-07T06:19:34.100" Score="6" ViewCount="4931" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A45-48&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 12:45-48&lt;/a&gt; uses the word &quot;servants&quot;. What kind of servants get beaten up by their master?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That looks a lot like slaves to me. We have an English word for that thing. It's called slaves. So why use servants? Servants are employees that got paid. Slaves are properties that got beaten up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible translator bowdlerize the Bible to keep it politically correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-11T09:56:20.147" LastActivityDate="2015-07-28T23:55:03.590" Title="Why do translations use words like &quot;servants&quot; to mean &quot;slaves&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;slavery&gt;&lt;servants&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16044" CreationDate="2013-05-07T06:56:46.860" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word servant used here is the Greek word &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doulos&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;doulos&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1401&amp;amp;t=NIV&quot;&gt;δοῦλος&lt;/a&gt;, Strong's G1401). It can mean either a slave, servant, or bond-servant (similar to indentured servant). But in the Roman society of the time there was very little difference between them, since what we now think of as civil rights only applied to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship&quot;&gt;Roman citizens&lt;/a&gt;. Slave or not, a Roman master had every right to beat their servants simply because the servants were not Roman citizens. So I would argue that:&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The words &lt;em&gt;slave&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;servant&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;bond-servant&lt;/em&gt; are (nearly) interchangeable here, since each would be historically accurate, the only things that change are the modern implications each word carries.&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The meaning of the verse holds regardless of the English word which the translators chose to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4376" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T06:56:46.860" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16042" CreationDate="2013-05-07T09:42:58.653" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;How does the bible describe heaven?&lt;/em&gt;&quot; The fullest description found in the Bible is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&amp;amp;c=21&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=ESV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 21&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your first question presupposes belief in God, those who don't have faith by definition won't follow God. And of the people that do believe, not all put that belief into practice (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jam&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;t=ESV#19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 2&lt;/a&gt;, in particular look at verse 19). People do not and cannot choose to go to heaven, it is a blessing given to those who truly believe and follow after God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I mean is, if someone was to become a &quot;christian&quot; purely motivated by wanting to go to heaven and not hell, then heaven is nothing more to that person than a carrot-on-a-stick. Being a christian requires far more than simply wishing to go to heaven, it requires belief (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=16&amp;amp;t=ESV#16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:16-18&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=10&amp;amp;v=9&amp;amp;t=ESV#8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 10:8-10&lt;/a&gt;), repentance (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=3&amp;amp;t=ESV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 2:3-4&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=6&amp;amp;t=ESV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 1:6-10&lt;/a&gt;), transformation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=ESV#top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 12:1-2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=20&amp;amp;t=ESV#16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galations 2:16-21&lt;/a&gt;), and faith-produced action (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jam&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=14&amp;amp;t=ESV#14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 2:14-26&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answer to the first portion of your second paragraph, I direct you to&#xA;1st Corinthians 15:35-44 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35) But someone will ask, &quot;How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?&quot; 36) You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37) And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38) But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39) For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40) There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42) So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43) It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to summarize, our physical bodies on earth are entirely different from our spiritual bodies in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;do we have like houses or we just stand all together?&lt;/em&gt;&quot; Look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=14&amp;amp;t=ESV#1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;what are things we do in heaven? besides praise and worship? if we do stop praise and worship does that mean we have a schedule on doing praise and worship?&lt;/em&gt;&quot; The short answer is we don't know what we will do in heaven (besides praise and worship and not sinning). You may be interested in the articles &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/02/questions-i-hope-no-one-will-ask-what-will-we-be-doing-in-heaven/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/doing-in-Heaven.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; which both discuss the possibilities (with biblical support of course).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4376" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T09:42:58.653" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16047" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16051" CreationDate="2013-05-07T14:15:16.537" Score="15" ViewCount="91832" Body="&lt;p&gt;Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, we are told that they made clothing for themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And &lt;strong&gt;they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths&lt;/strong&gt;.  Genesis 3:7 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, after God comes into the garden, He also makes clothing for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.  Genesis 3:21 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does God do this when Adam and Eve were already clothed?  What was wrong with the clothing they already had, and what was right about the clothing that God made for them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-01-01T16:03:39.390" Title="Why did God make garments of skin for Adam and Eve when they had already made clothing for themselves?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-06T15:26:01.630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16047" CreationDate="2013-05-07T15:41:35.033" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Pastor spoke about this recently in a sermon on Genesis 3 and 4.&#xA;It is part of a series on the what Genesis says about the human condition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He describes it as an act of gracious love in the midst of / despite disappointment. He's not happy that Adam and Eve have decided to turn from him, but he wants them to be properly protected if they are to head out into the world outside the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole sermon, '&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.themeetinghouse.com/teaching/archives/2013/who-am-i/part-3-the-evolution-of-religion-5444&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The evolution of religion&lt;/a&gt;' is available online, if that sounds interesting to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4459" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T15:41:35.033" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15379" CreationDate="2013-05-07T15:48:17.047" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I watched &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a compelling lecture by Edward Fudge&lt;/a&gt;, a Lawyer (of course he's interested in hell), and sometimes Minister, looking at the biblical and historical influences of popular theories of the &quot;end of the wicked&quot; (hell).&#xA;(It's one hour in length!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He makes a very strong argument that the 'end of the wicked' is not an eternal and everlasting torment, and may simply be an &lt;em&gt;eternal end&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Around the world today, evangelical Bible scholars are giving hell a&#xA;  serious second look. Would the God who gave his Son to die for sinners&#xA;  finally keep billions of them alive forever to torment them without&#xA;  end? Does Holy Scripture require such a conclusion—or offer a&#xA;  different vision? The story of how the great majority of Christians&#xA;  came to teach unending conscious torment is as fascinating as any&#xA;  mystery or &quot;Who-done-it.&quot; In this lecture, Edward Fudge will identify&#xA;  scores of generally-overlooked Scriptures, then lead a tour through&#xA;  some paths of church history that are less well traveled, and which&#xA;  are haunted by pagan philosophy, medieval law and Reformation&#xA;  politics.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4459" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T15:48:17.047" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16047" CreationDate="2013-05-07T16:48:58.470" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best answer I've seen is that it is an animal sacrifice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb. 9:22:  Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's because it is necessary to kill animals to get their skins.  The reader would be expected to make the connection with the sin offerings required by the Law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also shows that this sacrifice, and all of the animal sacrifices, were not enough to restore us to paradise.  That would have to wait for a greater sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1433" LastEditorUserId="1433" LastEditDate="2013-05-07T21:19:09.793" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T21:19:09.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16047" CreationDate="2013-05-07T17:22:43.783" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God gave them skins to cover up with (Genesis 3:21). To get those skins, some animal had to die. In other words, God sacrificed an animal to cover their sin&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. From the beginning, God has declared the payment for sin is death, and so blood must be shed to cover sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 9:22: “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early in the Old Testament God introduced this idea of one innocent being shedding its blood in place of the sinner’s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the solution of sacrificing bulls and goats and lambs for the sins of each person’s sin was a temporary fix. The next year, another animal would have to be sacrificed for the same person. A more permanent solution was needed, as noted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That meant a human was needed to die for humans’ sin. But all humans are sinful, so another sin-filled person dying for us just wouldn’t work. A human without sin was needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But ever since Adam, every human born is sin-filled, so how could a sinless man happen? The only way was if God did it Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Himself became a man: Jesus means “the LORD saves” and died for us in our place. Therefore, anyone who accepts the sacrifice of Jesus on his or her behalf is covered by his blood and is saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;An explanation of the idea that God provided the skins by killing the first animals to powerfully show Adam and Eve the result of their sin, and the idea that this typified the death of Christ can be found in Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Holy Bible.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-01-01T16:03:39.390" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16052" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-07T17:26:39.070" Score="6" ViewCount="1442" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does Christianity define idolatry which is prohibited in the 2nd of the ten commandments? Is there any general consensus among the different branches or are there different opinions? What are the earliest positions/opinions of Christianity on this subject?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3607" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-07T17:46:21.140" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T23:22:37.017" Title="How does Christianity define idolatry?" Tags="&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16053" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:11:44.077" Score="7" ViewCount="31087" Body="&lt;p&gt;All major Christian denominations await the &quot;Second Coming&quot; or the &quot;Return&quot; of Jesus the Christ. How will he be recognized by Christians at that time? What are the criteria to be fulfilled? Surely, not just any claimant can be believed to be Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3607" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2016-08-25T06:16:49.787" LastActivityDate="2016-08-25T12:38:01.240" Title="How will Jesus be recognized at the time of &quot;Second Coming&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;second-coming&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16054" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16072" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:27:17.530" Score="5" ViewCount="7893" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed a very subtle distinction in the way Protestants and LDS refer to God.  When  Protestants pray &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God, he may address Him as &quot;Heavenly Father&quot;, but when they speak &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;about&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God, they seem to refer to Him as &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Our&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Heavenly Father&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the LDS people that I have known and met seem to refer to God as &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Heavenly Father&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (without the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Our&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;) in both situations--as a direct address and as an indirect address.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really don't know if there is any reason for this.  Perhaps it is just cultural to each group, but I thought I would ask anyway as it does make me curious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2018-10-23T15:05:00.277" Title="Why do Mormons/LDS refer to God as &quot;Heavenly Father&quot; rather than &quot;Our Heavenly Father&quot;?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16052" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:29:16.083" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think all denominations would generally agree that worshiping any type of idol as being idolatry. Which is the obvious, statues and objects which people bow before. However many denominations also consider certain material items and actions as a form of idolatry. Things that fuel self-centeredness, greed, gluttony, a love for possessions and ultimately rebellion against God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/idolatry-definition.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/idolatry-definition.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the bible says about idolatry: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/idol_worship&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;more here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 20:3&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      You shall have no other gods before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 5:7&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      You shall have no other gods before me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 23:13&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 16:13&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 19:4&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord your God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Colossians 3:5&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3985" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-05-09T21:02:29.493" LastActivityDate="2013-05-09T21:02:29.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15775" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:49:31.763" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible never explicitly refers to anything other than the angels and life on earth.  This does not necessarily demand that there is no life elsewhere.  It does suggest, however, that it was not important for us to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one passage which some have referenced as perhaps suggesting that there is life on another planet.  That is in John 10:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.  John 10:16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Jesus was talking to Jewish people at this time, and the other sheep seems to be pretty obviously referring to Gentiles.  In other places, it is explicitly identified that God has, indeed, brought both Jews and Gentiles together in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T18:49:31.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16054" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:55:48.200" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not significant. It could have to do with anything from how they're raised, to how they prefer to speak, to language and dialect, to setting, or to anything else. Mormons will say both &quot;Our Heavenly Father&quot; and &quot;Heavenly Father&quot; interchangeably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2013-05-07T18:55:48.200" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16053" CreationDate="2013-05-07T19:54:19.540" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripturally speaking, Jesus isn't going to return quietly.  Several passages refer to what is going to happen when he returns. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:15-17:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are&#xA;  alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede&#xA;  those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from&#xA;  heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with&#xA;  the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise&#xA;  first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together&#xA;  with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will&#xA;  always be with the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:17 echoes this (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels &lt;strong&gt;in the glory of&#xA;  his Father&lt;/strong&gt;, and then he will repay each person according to what he&#xA;  has done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 1:7-8 also speaks of what will happen when Christ returns:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in&#xA;  flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on&#xA;  those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Matthew 24:31:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they&#xA;  will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to&#xA;  the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 15:52, when Christ returns, the dead will be raised:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the&#xA;  trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we&#xA;  shall be changed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe it'll be a matter of us believing it's him or not.  In other words, when Christ returns, I think it'll be one of those things where, for the lack of a better phrase, &quot;you'll just know.&quot;  His return will be accompanied by angels, dead people coming to life, the sound of a loud trumpet, and he will be coming in on the clouds in glorified form. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, Christ's return will be a &lt;em&gt;big deal&lt;/em&gt;.  You won't have to wonder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Addendum&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had a couple of questions in the comments.  The first one was concerning whether Christ's second return was going to be a secret event as it is portrayed in the movies.  I'm assuming this is referring to, mainly, the popular &lt;em&gt;Left Behind&lt;/em&gt; series.  The &lt;em&gt;Left Behind&lt;/em&gt; series portrays the end times from a dispensationalist, pre-trib rapture, millennial perspective.  My understanding of the end times is amillennial.  Therefore, I do not believe in a &quot;rapture&quot; that will take the Christians off of the earth, leaving the non-Christians on the earth for seven years to sort it all out.  Though I was raised in that tradition, I found it to be overly complicated, and too recent of a development (John Darby, 1800s) for comfort.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The amillennialist viewpoint would make for a terrible movie.  In a nutshell, it can be summed up by the following: One day, Jesus is going to come back, punish those who rejected him, reward those who are his, and establish his kingdom.  The viewpoint also approaches revelation from a completely different perspective, which, unfortunately, typically requires a significant amount of deprogramming from the dispensational millennial viewpoint, if the student is coming from that perspective, and that level of detail would be outside the scope of this answer.  I'd recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0801057922&quot;&gt;More Than Conquerors by William Hendrickson&lt;/a&gt;.  For an excellent audio resource, I'd recommend &lt;a href=&quot;https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-rest-of-the-story/id436332748&quot;&gt;Randy Pope's &quot;The Rest of the Story&quot; series&lt;/a&gt;, available on podcast. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for why we should look for the man with the sword, Revelation 19:11-16 details a glorified view of Jesus with a sword coming out of his mouth.  Whether that is literal or not, we can't be sure, but what we can be sure of, is that when Christ comes, he will look like no man we've ever seen, and it will drive everyone to their knees, some in terror because they've rejected Christ, and some in joy because they know they are his. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting&#xA;  on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and&#xA;  makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many&#xA;  diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He&#xA;  is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is&#xA;  called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine&#xA;  linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his&#xA;  mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and&#xA;  he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of&#xA;  the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his&#xA;  thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastEditorUserId="1294" LastEditDate="2013-05-08T12:14:20.507" LastActivityDate="2013-05-08T12:14:20.507" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16060" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-07T21:31:20.017" Score="10" ViewCount="8442" Body="&lt;p&gt;When someone is deposed in court, they are asked to swear on a Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My premise is that the use of a printed Bible in this instance is derived from a pagan ritual or rituals, rather than a practice that the holy Scriptures themselves would encourage. What is am overview of Christian beliefs about the spiritual significance of the practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am in no way dismissing the seriousness (legal, personal, or spiritual) of the sin of lying; I am talking about the specific act involving putting one's hand on the Bible itself, particularly in official or legal situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest question on this topic doesn't get into the significance of the printed Bible itself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3730/swear-to-tell-the-truth-so-help-me-god&quot;&gt;Swear to tell the truth 'so help me God'?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-09-24T21:41:10.940" Title="What is the spiritual significance of swearing on a Bible among the various churches and denominations?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;oaths&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-07-31T06:07:59.693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16062" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16099" CreationDate="2013-05-07T23:47:49.033" Score="4" ViewCount="1389" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the 39 articles of faith, article 35 says the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;XXXV. Of the Homilies.  The Second Book of Homilies, the several&#xA;  titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly&#xA;  and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the&#xA;  former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward&#xA;  the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the&#xA;  Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of&#xA;  the people. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Articles of Religion&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It then goes on to list the name of the homilies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is &quot;The Second Book of Homilies&quot; that it is referring to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-03-01T13:04:51.130" LastActivityDate="2017-03-01T13:04:51.130" Title="What is The Second book of Homilies mentioned in the Anglican 39 articles of faith?" Tags="&lt;anglicanism&gt;&lt;articles-of-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15956" CreationDate="2013-05-08T03:05:28.430" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas makes the only rational point that can answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the tree of life was corruptible, otherwise it could not be taken as food; since food is changed into the substance of the thing nourished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if the tree (either of them) were meant to fix its consumers bodies and give them natural immortality it has to drop its fruit and if it can drop its fruit, then it can drop its limbs and if it can.drop its limbs, it can drop its trunk and if it can drop its trunk, it can wither up and die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there was only one of each tree Adam and Eve seriously had very little hope of getting the same fruit out of its descendants. But, on a happier note there's really no reason to surmise that a portion of either trees' genetics hasn't been passed down through the centuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-05-09T14:29:01.453" LastActivityDate="2013-05-09T14:29:01.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16064" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18426" CreationDate="2013-05-08T04:43:25.313" Score="11" ViewCount="8312" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine says somewhere (quoted in the old Catholic Encyclopedia):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Predestination - Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... is this just a tautology?  The fact that those who are saved will have salvation doesn't seem terribly deep, is this all the farther a Catholic can go with the concept of predestination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T21:41:09.600" Title="What does St. Augustine mean by predestination?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1855" CreationDate="2013-05-08T09:15:05.057" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Questioning the significane of externals is a rather new phenomenon. Those familiar with Christian art and history know, that for literally thousands of years the Saints of God &lt;strong&gt;naturally&lt;/strong&gt; tried to &lt;strong&gt;match their outward position with their inward disposition.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;A lot gets lost today: Men pray with baseball caps on their heads, wearing T-shirts with inappropriate printing on them, hands in their pockets. Women come to church likewise, uncovered with questionable attire (1Co 11 turned upside down, right?) &lt;em&gt;Of course&lt;/em&gt; no one kneels anymore; - but where is awe, reverence, the sense of God's majesty? There are unseen, spirtual and divine realities that are to be made visible by our behavior.&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Since God's word is quite specific&lt;/strong&gt; on these issues we don't have to guess about it, nor &quot;invent&quot; any new practice. What's been in use for thousands of years in the whole church cannot be classified as a matter of &quot;ancient custom&quot;, but - indeed - as Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4464" LastActivityDate="2013-05-08T09:15:05.057" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16060" CreationDate="2013-05-08T14:26:51.653" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:33-37&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:33-37&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%205:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 5:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible is clear that swearing on anything and taking oaths is sinful. The premise is that you should always be trustworthy. If you are known to always tell the truth, then you would not need additional corroboration or incentive that you are telling the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it swearing an oath on the bible have any additional significance beyond swearing on oath on nothing? I am not aware of any bible passages that directly deal with the question. One could argue that to knowingly lie while invoking God would be to treating Him with contempt. There is much the bible says on that topic but that is another question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="145" LastEditDate="2013-05-08T16:50:54.903" LastActivityDate="2013-05-08T16:50:54.903" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16047" CreationDate="2013-05-08T16:12:04.953" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You asked,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;What was wrong with the clothing they already had, and what was right about the clothing that God made for them?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My short answer is &quot;nothing&quot; and &quot;nothing&quot;. In fact, the question itself illustrates how differently mankind looks at life and how God looks at life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say that God wants to be with us. Genesis 3:8-9 talks about God seeking out Adam in the garden.  Exodus 25:8 talks about God wanting to dwell with His people. John 3:16 talks about God's love for us. 1 Corinthians 1:9 talks about God calling us into fellowship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God was walking in the garden, Adam and Eve had already had their &quot;tree&quot; experience. God knew this. God still sought them out. God was not horrified by what they did. God did not turn His back on them. In fact, it was they that hid from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When asked by God, &quot;where are you?&quot;, Adams reply was that he was naked and so he hid. For the first time shame was present. So was fear. Adam had declared that being naked was bad and wrong. Fear and shame followed this declaration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we declare something to be wrong, we want to separate ourselves from it. Adam did his best to separate himself from his nakedness by creating clothes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, God had no issue with their nakedness. Adam, even though he had already made a covering, still wanted to hide from God. God, wanting to be with Adam, made a more durable type of clothes for them so that their nakedness would not be an issue that would keep them apart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 3:21 is where God makes clothes from animal skins. I say that neither Adam nor Eve would have thought to make clothes from the skin of an animal. Up to this point there was no talk of animals dying. Eating animals doesn't start until after the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we know is that after Adam, Eve and God talk, there is a dead animal and clothing. When Cain and Able have a fight about what sacrifice is acceptable to God, it is a dead animal and not the fruit of the ground that God accepts. This is because it was Adam and Eve who set up the agreement with God. God was sticking to this agreement, as God always does, when Cain offered part of his crop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In keeping with how Adam and Eve kept shifting the blame in Gen. 3:12-13, they also blamed an animal. It was Adam and Eve who came up with the idea to sacrifice an animal to atone for their actions. God saw that they were keeping themselves from Him because of what they had done. God agreed to let Adam and Eve declare that an animal could atone for their actions and then God took that animal and made clothes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God agreed to this so that He could be with them. Without it, they would continue to hide in fear. Doing something bad and wrong has always been an issue for mankind, not for God. God has always done His best to remove sin as a reason to keep away from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God made clothes so that Adam and Eve wouldn't be present to shame and fear. God made clothes so that Adam and Eve could fellowship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4455" LastActivityDate="2013-05-08T16:12:04.953" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16054" CreationDate="2013-05-08T17:06:39.177" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As @Matt said it's not that significant because they can be used interchangeably (and are both used, I use &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; in prayer all the time when with other people).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to address your comment to Matt's answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heavenly Father is used so often in a indirect manner because of the personal relationship LDS feel they have with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I was talking to my sister about my earthly father, I wouldn't say &quot;Our father, said foo and bar&quot;, I would however, say, &quot;Father said foo and bar&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; father, we know that already so there is no need to refer to him as such again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is much the same with our Heavenly Father. We know He is our Heavenly Father, &lt;em&gt;there is no other&lt;/em&gt; Heavenly Father, and He is the Heavenly Father of &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; people on earth, so it's felt that there isn't a need to refer to Him as 'our' Heavenly Father again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's interesting to note that &lt;strong&gt;Our&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;My&lt;/strong&gt; are probably used more by the LDS in prayer then in indirect speech. So if what you say is true about protestant prayer the usage of these possessive words is reversed between the two groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would conjecture that it's more common in prayer in the LDS culture because of how formal and reverent the LDS are towards prayer. The LDS believe that prayer is a dialog between them and God, but the word choice is more akin to a dialog though mail (instant mail but still mail). Where the use of salutations like &quot;Our&quot; or &quot;My&quot; would be more appropriate then normal speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2013-05-08T17:06:39.177" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16060" CreationDate="2013-05-08T17:23:20.527" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;A very straight reading of Matthew and James would lead you to believe what &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16070/4&quot;&gt;Jeff wrote&lt;/a&gt;.  But that may not be the end of it, or have anything to do at all with judicial oaths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ meant, as the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers explain, to be so truthful that men could believe them without need of oath to confirm what they say. He did not forbid the use of oaths under proper conditions, when necessary to satisfy others of our truthfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11176a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Oaths - Catholic Encylopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the sacraments are oaths. Saying Amen is an oath. Every covenant God made is an oath.  There's no reason you shouldn't &amp;quot;swear to God&amp;quot; when you're seriously &amp;quot;swearing to God&amp;quot;.  Just like you can say &amp;quot;God help us&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Mother of the Saints!&amp;quot; without using God's name or other holy names in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You shouldn't go down a path that is going to lead to perjury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, swearing on a Bible, or swearing on &amp;quot;The Precious&amp;quot; or your mother's ashes, etc doesn't seem necessary does it?  Almost seems idolatrous.  But, then again, you're not swearing on a Bible, you're just touching a Bible and swearing on the Holy Word of God and as long as you're not perjuring yourself and you're fulfilling your obligations, you're doing the right thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-08T17:23:20.527" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16060" CreationDate="2013-05-08T23:29:40.743" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Gospel Truth&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The practice of swearing an oath on the Bible sits in the uncomfortable median between secular and religious practice.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouvier%27s_Law_Dictionary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Bouvier&lt;/a&gt; explains the motivation behind the practice in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_o.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Law Dictionary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;OATH&lt;/strong&gt;. A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He cites &lt;a href=&quot;http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nov%C3%ADsima_recopilaci%C3%B3n&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Novisimi Recopilacion de las Leyes de Espaﬁa&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; as tracing the practice of holding a book back to Roman law.  What book would have been used, I don't know.  Bouvier notes that the &quot;Gospel&quot; is the usual book taken in hand.  This seems appropriate since the words gospel and truth have had a strong association going as far back as Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation...&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;mdash;Ephesians 1:13a (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Ephesians+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/04/where_did_we_get_our_oath.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;These days&lt;/a&gt;, a Bible is not required by most courts nor do they require true oaths, but allow simple affirmations.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath#Christian_tradition_first_century_A.D.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;One reason&lt;/a&gt; is that the Bible itself &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/Matthew+5:34-37+Matthew+23:16-22+James%205:12/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;warns against taking oaths&lt;/a&gt;.  Notice that the reason is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; because oaths on the Bible are powerless superstition, but because &lt;strong&gt;oaths are supremely significant&lt;/strong&gt;.  Even God swears oaths:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Therefore he raised his hand and swore to them&#xA;    that he would make them fall in the wilderness,&#xA;and would make their offspring fall among the nations,&#xA;    scattering them among the lands.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;Psalm 106:26-27 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Psalm+106/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2013-05-08T23:29:40.743" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16076" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16077" CreationDate="2013-05-09T00:22:41.720" Score="11" ViewCount="2017" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was recently thinking about the passage in exodus that talks about how the Israelites fell into sin while Moses was up on the mountain. God said that he would destroy all the Israelites but Moses interceded for them and asked that God spare them and he did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can God change his mind about these things, especially when it comes to decisions of mercy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4468" LastActivityDate="2015-11-27T16:49:35.370" Title="Can God Change his mind?" Tags="&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;will-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-11-27T22:16:16.320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16076" CreationDate="2013-05-09T00:48:39.273" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to most Christian traditions, God cannot change His mind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are those that teach that He can change His mind, a position inherent in Open Theism.  However, this is seen as a heresy by most orthodox Christian traditions.  It denies the omniscience of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformationtheology.com/2011/07/does_god_ever_change_his_mind.php&quot;&gt;http://www.reformationtheology.com/2011/07/does_god_ever_change_his_mind.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In recent years though a new movement has emerged called Open Theism.&#xA;  This movement has taken Arminianism to its logical intellectual&#xA;  conclusion. Knowing the &quot;problem&quot; that complete knowledge of the&#xA;  future means that the future is fixed, they have consciously taken the&#xA;  position that God does NOT know the future at all. They argue that&#xA;  because the future does not yet exist, even God does not know of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In layman's terms, if He were to change His mind, it would mean that He was mistaken in the first place.  This flies in the face of the doctrines of Omniscience and infallibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several passages in Scripture where God &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;appears&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to change His mind, for example, in cases where He has promised judgment and then &quot;repents&quot;.  In those cases, the people repent and turn toward God, and God spares them the judgment He had promised.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I these cases, He is not changing his mind.  had they continued in their sins he would have carried out the promised judgment.  However, since the people repented, He was able to show his mercy.  Further, since God knows the beginning from the end, &lt;em&gt;He knew in advance&lt;/em&gt; that they would repent.  He knew that his judgment would not be necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a fine article explaining this in further depth at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/doctrine-theology/doctrine-of-god/does-god-change-his-mind-divine-repentance-by-r-c-sproul/&quot;&gt;Grace Online Library&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The biblical narratives in which God appears to repent, or change His&#xA;  mind, are almost always narratives that deal with His threats of&#xA;  judgment and punishment. These threats are then followed by the&#xA;  repentance of the people or by the intercessory petitions of their&#xA;  leaders. God is not talked into “changing His mind.” Out of His&#xA;  gracious heart He only does what He has promised to do all along – not&#xA;  punish sinners who repent and turn from their evil ways. He chooses&#xA;  not to do what He has every right to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is consistent with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic teaching&lt;/a&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In hearing our prayer God does not change His will or action in our&#xA;  regard, but simply puts into effect what He had eternally decreed in&#xA;  view of our prayer. This He may do directly without the intervention&#xA;  of any secondary cause as when He imparts to us some supernatural&#xA;  gift, such as actual grace, or indirectly, when He bestows some&#xA;  natural gift. In this latter case He directs by His Providence the&#xA;  natural causes which contribute to the effect desired, whether they be&#xA;  moral or free agents, such as men; or some moral and others not, but&#xA;  physical and not free; or, again, when none of them is free. Finally,&#xA;  by miraculous intervention, and without employing any of these causes,&#xA;  He can produce the effect prayed for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformationtheology.com/2011/07/does_god_ever_change_his_mind.php&quot;&gt;Reformed Theology&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In reading certain narrative portions of Scripture, some have&#xA;  incorrectly concluded that God changes His mind. Yet the Bible is&#xA;  clear that not only does God not change in His essential nature (Mal.&#xA;  3:6) but that He does not repent or change His mind. The Bible&#xA;  actually teaches this in a didactic portion. &quot;God is not man, that he&#xA;  should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he&#xA;  said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill&#xA;  it?&quot; Numbers 23:19.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the sake of argument though, lets try to imagine God literally&#xA;  changing His mind. I want to explain how this concept is inseparably&#xA;  linked with God's omniscience because for God to change His mind, He&#xA;  would need to make a decision and then be given new information He did&#xA;  not have before, so that He could either see the error of His ways, or&#xA;  choose a better course of action. It is important we see this.For God&#xA;  to change His mind, it would mean that God is learning new material as&#xA;  each day unfolds, and because you and I make that information known to&#xA;  God, or He sees that plan A is not working too well, because He is now&#xA;  armed with new information, He can make a better decision than the one&#xA;  He did previously. However, this idea would totally undermine God's&#xA;  exhaustive knowledge of future events (His omniscience) one of the&#xA;  very attributes of God. Such a thought is unthinkable. He would not be&#xA;  the all knowing God Scripture declares Him to be if indeed He ever&#xA;  learnt something. No, He has always had total, complete and infinite&#xA;  knowledge of all things from all eternity past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the answer would appear to be &quot;no&quot; from the perspective of the major branches of Christianity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-05-09T12:31:34.457" LastActivityDate="2013-05-09T12:31:34.457" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16076" CreationDate="2013-05-09T04:50:45.323" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When something is perfect, there is no need to change it. God is perfect. Therefore, He does not need to change His mind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Malachi 3:6 (ESV) “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are occasions in the Bible when God seems to change His mind. God, we find changes His mind in some instances like when He accomplishes His stated objective or when He accepts the necessary change/renewal (conversion of heart) from those who have gone astray from His commands or when He has some plan for His people but they  refuse to trust Him and so on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 6, God says He is “grieved” that He had made humans and chooses to destroy all of them except Noah and his family. When Jonah preached to the people of Nineveh, God “repented” of what He was going to do, and the city was spared (Jonah 3:10).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Bible mentions God’s “sorrow” or the “changing of His mind,” it expresses in human terms the fact that sin bothers God. Because of sin, people deserve judgment, and sometimes judgment takes place (like with the Flood during Noah’s time). At other times, the sinners repent, and God responds with mercy instead of wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has many times changed His mind when it is necessary for Him to show mercy. This nature of God is revealed to us by Jesus through His teaching in the Parable of the Compassionate Father(Luke 15:11-32).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also find that the punishment for wrong doing in Old Testament is different and much harsher than in New Testament. God gave perceptibly different kinds of laws in OT as compared to NT. In OT, God was sustaining and refining His chosen people like silver refined through fire, as they were living in a primitive age as a tribe, in a wild environment surrounded by ferocious people. Over the years, they were being changed into a more civilised society.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In OT we find that God commanded death penalty for many acts: Murder (Ex, 21.12), kidnapping (Ex. 21.16), bestiality (Ex. 22.19), Adultery (Lev. 20.10), homosexuality (Lev. 20.13), Being false prophet (Deu. 13.5) Prostitution and rape (Deu. 22.24) etc. These laws were commanded by God and were perfectly compatible only with that time. Same God later on keeping with time, taught non-violence, mercy, love and compassion through His Son Jesus (Matt. 5:38-39, 5:43-44 so on).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So all those instances where we find God change His mind is not because He is not Omniscience or infallible but because of the necessity of the time and conduct of His people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-05-09T10:58:08.660" LastActivityDate="2013-05-09T10:58:08.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16076" CreationDate="2013-05-09T11:17:44.973" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exodus 32:11-14 (NASB):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Then Moses entreated the Lord his God, and said, “O Lord, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, ‘With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your [a]descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your [b]descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses appeals to God not to destroy the Israelites, and without any sign of the Israelites's actual repentance,  God relents.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.cc/exodus/32-14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Most translations&lt;/a&gt; actually use the word &quot;repent&quot;, some say &quot;changed His mind.&quot;  Those are the facts of the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage shows the power of prayers for mercy in causing a loving God to &quot;repent&quot; or &quot;change His mind&quot; about the punishment of people who have not yet been successful in getting their act together, in choosing righteous behaviors.   The passage does not say He is fickle, indecisive, of poor resolve, or capricious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-09T11:17:44.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16081" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16090" CreationDate="2013-05-09T19:53:27.570" Score="9" ViewCount="76266" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that most every movie or depiction of Mary and Joseph on the way to Bethlehem depicts &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=mary+riding+on+a+donkey&amp;amp;tbm=isch&amp;amp;tbo=u&amp;amp;source=univ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=LAmMUYS6AtOr4AOa5oCYAg&amp;amp;ved=0CFkQsAQ&amp;amp;biw=1102&amp;amp;bih=574&quot;&gt;Mary as riding on a donkey&lt;/a&gt;.  However, I don't recall any place in Scripture from which this idea could be founded.  The only place where the trip is mentioned in in Luke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.  Luke 2:4-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is there any source for why this is assumed almost universally or any particular reason?  It seems that she could have just as well walked or ridden a camel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-05-09T20:38:37.800" LastActivityDate="2018-12-01T08:44:42.470" Title="From where does the tradition come that Mary rode on a donkey to Bethlehem prior to the birth of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16082" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16098" CreationDate="2013-05-09T22:19:26.867" Score="4" ViewCount="436" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the 39 articles of faith, article 35 says the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;XXXV. Of the Homilies. The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles&#xA;  whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and&#xA;  wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former&#xA;  Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the&#xA;  Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be &lt;strong&gt;read in Churches by the&#xA;  Ministers&lt;/strong&gt;, diligently and distinctly, that they may he understanded of&#xA;  the people.&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do Anglican churches still read the Homilies aloud as per the 39 articles? If not, how do they justify not following the 39 articles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16062/what-is-the-second-book-of-homilies-mentioned-in-the-anglican-39-articles-of-fai&quot;&gt;What is The Second book of Homilies mentioned in the Anglican 39 articles of faith?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T02:22:52.493" Title="Are sermons from The Second Book of Homilies still read in Anglican Churches?" Tags="&lt;anglicanism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16085" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-10T03:58:19.827" Score="3" ViewCount="1328" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why don't we pray for something that is impossible for natural phenomenon to happen. Like for example when a guy has a POLIO and his feet got amputated why don't we pray that his feet grows again instead we just pray the he survive? Why don't we pray that our love ones come back from the dead? Why we only pray about things that we know that would happen naturally or at least things that we know that are possible. If a person got shot in the head for example, why don't we pray to God that the bullet will just come out instantly and heal his head and be ok right that instant, instead we pray that he gets well soon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are praying to a great God. He makes impossible possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it because we know things that are not natural will not happen even if we pray? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastActivityDate="2013-05-10T10:17:19.930" Title="Why do we only pray for things that are possible to happen?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-05-11T03:16:03.053" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16085" CreationDate="2013-05-10T04:50:28.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is nothing wrong with this question at all.  It simply illustrates that God has established certain rules of normalcy of which he rarely violtates.  When he does violate the paths of which he usually ordains the boundaries of life, it is an extraordinary miracle.  Miracles like Moses parting the Red Sea, or Jesus raising the dead are not normal possabilities otherwise they would no longer be 'miraculous'.  The reason why 'most' Christians do not pray for these things (some do and even convince themselves they are regularily answered although not provable to others) is that we innately know it is not God's will.  God does not promise to answer any prayer that is not his will, so why waste the time praying for what we know he will not answer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. (NIV, 1 John 5:14–15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as genuine miracles go, it is understood in the Bible that an unusual divine knoweldge that it is his will through revelation and faith can make someone ask for what seems impossible and know with full assurance that it will be done. For example, David when he attacked Golliath knew it was God's will to cut the head off of that boaster. God gave David special knowledge and faith to do this. Such things are called 'gifts' as not everyone recieves them like everyday common graces to the faithful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledgel by means of the same Spirit, to another faithm by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healingn by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,a r and to still another the interpretation of tongues. (1 Cor 12:8-11, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now clearly these gifts, especially the extraordinary miraculous ones have not always been given by God. He decides when and to who they are given. They are gifts not rewards for good deeds.  There are times in the Bible where they seem wholy absent and other times when they are very much in operation.  In our days they do not seem that active, otherwise more people would be praying in the way you suggest and the media would be all over it having no means of explanation through scientific analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words the question is not 'why do we not pray such and such' but 'why is it not God's will for such things to occur as frequently as it has in the past' or for those more charismatic folks, 'why do we not believe as much as those in the past'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-05-10T10:17:19.930" LastActivityDate="2013-05-10T10:17:19.930" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16087" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-10T07:15:49.433" Score="2" ViewCount="4710" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus said, &quot;No man goeth into Heaven, but He who hath come from Heaven,&quot; John 3:13. Where then is the place that Jesus will prepare for us...that we will be with for eternity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4473" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T16:05:00.347" Title="Where will believers spend eternity?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-07-17T04:43:07.770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16085" CreationDate="2013-05-10T08:30:34.273" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;People of faith do go to God with all such requests,&lt;/strong&gt; when they find themselves in those circumstances, yet their faith and trust in their God almighty do not waver, when at times these requests of healing of physical deformities are not answered. In spite of this they understand their God and know that He does exist. He is not supposed to be available for us like a Superman at our every request. He has His own plan for us and is uncomprehending to our finite mind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faithful understand that if God was to agree to our every request than each one of us would ask and pray that we may never die but continue to live for eternity. We can also ask Him to heal every disease and infirmity of all people in this world. &lt;strong&gt;But His plans are not our plans.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 55:8 “Indeed, my plans are not like your plans, and my deeds are not like your deeds, 55:9 for just as the sky is higher than the earth, so my deeds are superior to your deeds and my plans superior to your plans.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is best for us is not always physical wholeness. Paul the apostle prayed to have his &quot;thorn in the flesh&quot; removed, but God said, &quot;No,&quot; because He wanted Paul to understand &lt;strong&gt;he didn’t need to be physically whole to experience the sustaining grace of God.&lt;/strong&gt; (2 Corinthians 12:7-10).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From testimony of Joni Eareckson Tada on  modern-day miracles, she says, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Man’s dealing with God in our day and culture is based on His Word rather than ‘signs and wonders’&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That answer, in short, would be something like this: &quot;God can heal amputees/ physical deformities and will heal every one of them who trusts Christ as Savior. The healing will come, not as the result of our demanding it now, but in God’s own time, possibly in this life, but definitely in heaven. Until that time, we walk by faith, trusting the God who redeems us in Christ and promises the resurrection of the body.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why such miracles were common earlier.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the thousands of years of history covered by the Bible, we find just four short periods in which miracles were widely performed-the period of the Exodus, the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, the ministry of Jesus, and the time of the apostles. &lt;strong&gt;All the type of miracles that are mentioned in the question were performed during these periods.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While miracles occurred throughout the Bible (and they still happen), it was only during these four periods that miracles were &quot;common.&quot; During these periods, God used miracles and direct communication with people in order to reveal to them His character and nature, as well as His plans and commands.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus came to earth, He also performed miracles to prove that He was indeed the Son of God and to foster belief in Him (Matthew 9:6;John 10:38). After His miraculous resurrection, He enabled His disciples to continue performing miracles in order to prove that they were truly His, so that people would believe on Him who sent them.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore we can say that God has already spoken, and His words have been miraculously kept for us down through the ages. Now we need no further miracles to “validate” the Bible. In His perfect &quot;Word&quot; is everything we need “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is complete and is perfectly able to make us “wise to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). We need nothing more, and we are not to seek extra-biblical revelations. To do so calls into question the efficacy of Scripture which God has declared to be sufficient.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prophet Habakkuk said: “The just shall live by his faith” (Habakkuk 2:4). God does not give His people a continual chain of miraculous signs; He expects them to trust what He has already done, search the Scriptures daily, respond to the Holy Spirit within, and live by faith, not by sight (Matthew 16:4;John 20:29).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-05-10T10:12:37.623" LastActivityDate="2013-05-10T10:12:37.623" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16089" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-10T08:57:10.683" Score="2" ViewCount="1674" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historicism is a method of interpretation in Christian eschatology that associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events (which may also be symbolic of repeated occurrences). This means that many things in Revelation have occurred while other things have not. Also that the symbols in the visions match major historical events in remarkable ways and in a chronology that actually occurs in the annals of history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historical interpretation naturally takes much more work than pure symbolic or mere speculative interpretation because one actually has to be familiar with the history of the world as it pertains to the Christian church. To be expected, the outcome of such hard work also leads to large amounts of information to provide as there is so much evidence to weigh. For example, this old classic on Revelation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/horaeapocalypt01elli&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Horae Apocalypticae; or, A commentary on the Apocalypse, critical and historical; including also an examination of the chief prophecies of Daniel 1862&lt;/a&gt;) is around 3000 pages of detailed arguments wrapping history around Revelation in chronological order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;My question:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Under a Protestant historicist view what are typically the seven seals in Revelation referring to?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2020-01-29T22:16:02.963" Title="What is a historicist’s view of the seven seals in Revelation?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;rome&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16081" CreationDate="2013-05-10T10:22:56.187" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 145, Says that Joseph used a donkey to bring Mary to Bethlehem&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The day of the Lord shall &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;itself&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; bring it to pass as the Lord will. And he saddled the ass, and set her upon it; and his son led it, and Joseph followed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Protoevangelium of James&lt;/a&gt;:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we know, that from very early times, Christians had the image of Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem before Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why not walking?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is 70-80 miles. A fit man can travel perhaps 20 miles a day. Normally it would take about 4 days to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem (assuming travel only during day time). Some Christians say that Joseph was a older man, and also as per tradition Mary was heavily pregnant and so she could not walk this long distance. There is fear of miscarriage too. This makes the journey longer than normal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/RIn5j.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Map of Holy Land&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Samaria lay between Galilee and Judea which had Bethlehem in it.&lt;sup&gt;See map&lt;/sup&gt; There was much ill feeling between the Samaritans and the Jews.&lt;sup&gt;John 4:9&lt;/sup&gt; Any lone traveler crossing from Galilee into Samaria would be at risk of not receiving any lodgings or any other type of assistance on the journey. The family would have had to travel east, cross over into modern-day Jordan and then travel south on the eastern side of the Jordan River, before crossing back into Judea. This makes the journey much longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Could she have used a different ways of transportation like a camel?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Common means of transportation in those times other than walking were donkey (ass), camel, horse, cart drawn by horse or donkey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally don't see a women in her late stages of pregnancy, riding a camel. That would be too difficult. I am not a doctor, but I don't think it would be good for that child too. We also see that people using donkey when they are not in a position to walk like in the parable of the good Samaritan&lt;sup&gt;Luke 10:34&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people say St. Joseph was very poor and could not have afforded a donkey. I personally disagree. St. Joseph was not rich, but he was also not so poor that he could not have afforded to borrow a donkey for his pregnant wife. He was a carpenter, he had a job.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer your question why it is assumed almost universally, I think it is common sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-12-01T08:44:42.470" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16091" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16118" CreationDate="2013-05-10T12:53:30.790" Score="3" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Psalm 51 imply that an unborn child will have no sin?  Assuming that is true, are there any denominations that support that all unborn children have salvation?  Is there newer scripture (in the NT) that reverses this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 51:3-5 ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, (K)I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 51:3-5 CEV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You are really the one I have sinned against; I have disobeyed you and have done wrong. So it is right and fair for you to correct and punish me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2013-05-10T14:46:51.497" LastActivityDate="2015-02-17T20:45:47.980" Title="Innocent until conception or birth?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16092" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16100" CreationDate="2013-05-10T12:57:46.503" Score="2" ViewCount="554" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 3:27 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the king of Moab took his oldest son, who would have been the next king, and sacrificed him as a burnt offering on the wall. So there was great anger against Israel, and the Israelites withdrew and returned to their own land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is did God honour this sacrifice or there is another principle at work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="35304" LastEditDate="2017-09-18T21:04:35.090" LastActivityDate="2017-09-18T21:04:35.090" Title="How does Sacrifice work" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;&lt;2-kings&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-09-19T12:30:12.157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="278" CreationDate="2013-05-10T13:11:17.720" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 6:24 says that no man shall serve two masters for he will hate one and love the other or hold to one and despise the other.   For me this is what it means to separate church and state: we cannot be Christians and politicians at the same time unless we are truly moved in Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are too many Christians who say it is our &quot;duty&quot; to vote or else we have nothing to say about how our government functions.  I disagree. I do not vote because it would consume me. I would get swallowed up by the world. I would begin to serve government instead of my heavenly Father and would love one and hate the other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, I pray that all the matters of state be in the hands of my heavenly Father and his will be done. I prayed this last election for God to put it in my heart to vote if that was what he wanted of me. I did not vote and I have heard the Lord my God speak many things to me. I think if an individual is &lt;strong&gt;moved in the spirit&lt;/strong&gt; to vote, then it is God's will for them to do so. However, if you vote out of duty, you do a disservice to God by serving two masters and not Him alone. If you are caught up in who this man is and what he said, and this is how you vote, then how do you serve God? There has to be a separation unless your involvement is the movement of Holy Spirit. It is only in this way that you serve God and God alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4475" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T17:31:16.817" LastActivityDate="2015-08-30T17:31:16.817" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16094" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16116" CreationDate="2013-05-10T13:19:43.667" Score="2" ViewCount="131" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Cor 6:18-20 (NEB) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Shun fornication. Every other sin that a man can commit is outside the body, but the fornicator sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a shrine of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is God's gift to you? You do not belong to yourselves; &lt;strong&gt;you were bought at a price&lt;/strong&gt;. Then honor God in your body&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard many time that we were bought at a price. Who did Jesus buy us from, I don't want to believe its satan?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-05-13T18:35:59.733" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T18:35:59.733" Title="The concept of being bought at a price" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-05-10T02:13:58.777" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16062" CreationDate="2013-05-10T13:32:57.670" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As per &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Books_of_Homilies&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wkipedia&lt;/a&gt;, the Second Book of Homilies is a book of twenty-one sermons written mainly by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jewel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bishop John Jewel&lt;/a&gt; and published in 1571. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thomas Cranmer and other English reformers saw the need for local congregations to be taught Christian theology and practice. Before the English Reformation, the liturgy was conducted entirely in Latin, to which the common people listened passively [...]. Since parsons, vicars and curates often lacked the education and experience needed to write sermons and were often unfamiliar with Reformed doctrine, scholars and bishops wrote out a collection of sermons for them, which were appointed to be read each Sunday and holy day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short they were an exposition of Anglican doctrine intended for the general congregation. They are no longer read out, largely because Anglican clergy no longer &quot;lack the education and experience needed to write sermons&quot; and are not &quot;often unfamiliar with [Anglican] doctrine&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-05-10T13:32:57.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9077" CreationDate="2013-05-10T14:10:29.910" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;im proud as a being that you have asked such an obvious yet considered complicated question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and heres my influence (power), good and evil or the moral perspective, is a human perspective. and not a gods perspective. which humans just tell each other that this is so when there only seeing it from one side of the coin if you like, infact for a god to say otherwise would merely be looking at it from the otherside, but god doesnt say this.. we do. we interpret thus from the live (spelling of evil backwards hmmmm?). god is neither heads nor tails to me.. he is heads, tails, and the coin itself which is both physical and non phsyical which is considered to be singular but when you put it under a microscope has many different parts to it, the alpha and omega, the unmoving, mover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;therefore god is neither good nor evil because hes neither physical or meta physical he is both. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;good and evil is just a human perspective on concepts like up and down, left and right, small and big. in order to understand small there must be a big and one must have experienced what big is first before using the reference small.&#xA;im not calling your answer or even question right, because right gives the prospect that what others are saying is wrong?? it just a case of what you believe serves you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for me it doesnt work to say that the 'supreme/all' being is a vengeful and jealous being, if our aim through religion is to understand our connection to one another and bring divine joy. its not a case of what we think or believe god to be, its more a case of what we think and believe ourselves to be. &#xA;thanks for your time :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4476" LastActivityDate="2013-05-10T14:10:29.910" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16082" CreationDate="2013-05-10T14:13:40.990" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&gt; No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quick insight to the lack of use of the Book of Homilies can be seen in the fact that the book itself has technically been out of print in England since 2003.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Books_of_Homilies&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book of Homilies&lt;/a&gt; is primarily an artifact from a condition that is not nearly as prevalent today. At the time of the 39 articles (in the mid 1500s), two conditions conspired to make preachers scarce:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In order to preach in &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; church, you needed to be licensed. (Baptists, in particular, hated this!).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In order to be licensed, you needed an education.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While in modern America, neither of these is a requirement, in the England of the time of the 39 articles, these were rather significant hurdles.  Imagine not only the paucity of students devoting themselves to an education, but also the massive number of churches required when you couldn't just drive to the local megachurch, and one can quickly see why a lack of professional preachers was a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To address this problem, the Anglican church printed books of homilies - pre-approved, biblical, sermon-like speeches that could be delivered by laymen acting in a priests' stead.  Much like how blessed elements could be distributed by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_Minister&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lay Eucharistic Ministers&lt;/a&gt; - a position that still exists today in many Episcopal churches, the Book of Homilies enabled instruction to be conveyed by those with less training.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowadays, with the Episcopal Church in decline in much of North America, the situation is exactly the opposite - there are too many qualified ministers.  As such, there is almost no need for these.  In my more than 5 years as a lay preacher in the Episcopal Church, I have never run across a church that still used them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T02:22:52.493" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T02:22:52.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16062" CreationDate="2013-05-10T14:19:14.507" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the actual Book of Homilies itself went out of print in 2003, copies of the Books of Homilies can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.footstoolpublications.com/Homilies/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic idea of a Book of homilies was simple.  You needed qualified ministers to preach, but often a lack of training conspired to restrict the number of qualified applicants to a supply less than the demand warranted. &lt;a href=&quot;http://pbs1928.blogspot.com/2002/12/whatever-are-anglican-books-of.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This link&lt;/a&gt; in particular has an excellent summary, both of the history and the character of the books.  From that source, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Church of England in the sixteenth century sermons could not be preached by every incumbent (rector/vicar of a parish). A licence was needed, for which an M.A. degree (usually from Oxford or Cambridge) was a usual qualification. In The Book of Common Prayer no sermon is scheduled or required in the rubrics at either Morning or Evening Prayer, or with the Litany, but one is required in the Order for the Holy Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When a sermon was not to be preached at Holy Communion, according to the Book of Common Prayer of 1552, &amp;quot;After the Crede, if there be no sermon, shal follow one of the homelies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth by commune auchthoritie.&amp;quot; The rubric remains substantially unchanged to the present day in the BCP of the Church of England. It was widely obeyed during the reigns of King Edward VI &amp;amp; Queen Elizabeth I (1559-1604). In fact in the parish churches of Shakespeare's England sermons were heard less frequently than the homilies. They were strongly defended against Puritan attacks in Elizabeth's reign. (The Puritans objected to a minister reading a sermon written by another person.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author goes on to characterize the nature of these books, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The topics of the first book of homilies are: sin, salvation, justification, faith, good works and the Christian life of faithfulness and obedience. The topics of the second book of homilies include: Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, Rogationtide, Marriage, Common Prayer, the Sacraments, Idolatry and godly living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often a homily was divided into two or three parts and read on consecutive Sundays.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is surprising that the Homilies have not enriched the language with proverbial phrases as have the Bible and the Prayer Book. This may be partly because most of the homilies are in any case solidly biblical, and secondly perhaps because now that they are so little known we do not recognize every phrase they put into circulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, the following topics are addressed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Faithful exhortation to the reading of Holy Scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the misery of all mankind&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of salvation by only Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the true and lively faith&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of good works&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of Christian love and charity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against swearing and perjury&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the declining from God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exhortation against the fear of death&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Exhortation to obedience&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against whoredome and adultery&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against strife and contention&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Book 2 addresses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the right use of the Church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against the peril of idolatry:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Repairing and keeping clean the church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of good works. And first of fasting&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against gluttony and drunkeness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against excess of apparel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Homily of prayer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the place and time of prayer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of common prayer and sacraments in common tongue&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An information of them which take offense at certain places of Holy Scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of alms&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the nativity (i.e. Christmas)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the passion for Good Friday&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the resurrection for Easter Day&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An homily concerning the coming down of the Holy Ghost for Whitsunday&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An homily for Rogation week&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of the state of matrimony&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against idleness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Of repentance and true reconciliation to God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An homily against disobedience and willful rebellion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-10T15:14:41.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16092" CreationDate="2013-05-10T18:08:57.413" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;1st: God and Sacrifice&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's opinion about human sacrifice. &#xA;A quick google search for references about Human sacrifice show this. &#xA;Deuteronomy 18:10, 2 Kings 21:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also sacrifice in general is 2nd to the heart condition to the sacrificer.  (Hosea 6:6, 1 Samuel 15:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2nd: Sovereign &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a calvinist.  Since that is the case i believe in God's sovereign power over all principalities and powers.  So the reason for Israel's defeat was in His providence.  He also only gave the Moabites into the hands of the kings during the battle, i do not believe it specified city destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3rd:  The Ark&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In I Samuel it describes a story where the Ark of the LORD is brought into the camp of Israel.  The Israelites shout with confidence!  But the Philistines hear this and it actually encourages them to such a degree that they go and conquer Israel.  But the reasoning for the defeat was the 'Lucky rabbit's foot' instead of holy fear and honor of God, His law, and His Ark. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--- The reasoning ---&#xA;God did not honor the kings (read a few verses before) and they went to battle further than God's hand of providence allowed.  I believe He, God, used the sacrifice to encourage the enemy troops to drive Israel from the city they were attempting to capture.  I believe God just used it as a turning point (its an emotional experience.  Try to imagine seeing your king sacrifice his son, the one to take the place of him.  This would be fuel for the fire.  Even if it was demonic powered, it is still within God's providence).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously i am just a laymen, so my answer is to evidently needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  Please feel free to critique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry if this was a runon.  I did this in a work meeting :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1453" LastActivityDate="2013-05-10T18:08:57.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16102" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-10T23:09:36.183" Score="3" ViewCount="1864" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any continuity between both stages of existence? Or does resurrection mean a complete new begin on a completely different level?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4420" LastActivityDate="2015-06-23T20:38:22.653" Title="Are the souls in heaven conscious of their previous earthly existence?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;souls&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-06-24T13:29:25.460" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14467" CreationDate="2013-05-11T01:52:34.817" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simply put, at that point she would not be sad at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The exercise of justice is &lt;strong&gt;joy&lt;/strong&gt; for the righteous, But is terror to the workers of iniquity. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2021:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Proverbs 21:15&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: In the Book of Revelation we see God's judgment poured out upon Babylon. Here is the angel's instructions to the saints concerning this matter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rejoice&lt;/strong&gt; over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced judgment &lt;strong&gt;for you&lt;/strong&gt; against her.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2018:20&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Revelation 18:20&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This final judgment will be a final justice... a final settling of accounts... a final granting of eternal separation for those who ultimately were unwilling to be reunited to their God. Those who embraced God will be granted ultimate embrace by God. Those who refused Him will be granted ultimate separation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture does not present the coming judgment of God as an embarrassment, or as something the saints should be sad about, or reluctant about proclaiming to the world. It is coming. Saints: Praise the Lord. Sinners: Repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-05-11T01:52:34.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16106" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16127" CreationDate="2013-05-11T12:47:03.057" Score="5" ViewCount="1174" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Bell&quot;&gt;Rob Bell&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullian_Tchividjian&quot;&gt;Tullian Tchividjian&lt;/a&gt;  have each taken heat for talking too much about grace.[*]  Here is, for example, an interview on &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/03/30/farewell-rob-bell/&quot;&gt;John Piper's objections to Rob Bell&lt;/a&gt;, and here is David Murray's &lt;a href=&quot;http://headhearthand.org/blog/2012/12/11/tullian-keeps-digging/&quot;&gt;objection to Tullian's talk on works&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My premise is that they are fundamentally different. While both extend grace to an uncomfortable degree, Tullian also extends the literal demands of the law to an uncomfortable degree. In Tullian's view, you are in fact &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2012/01/09/where-can-i-find-assurance/&quot;&gt;expected to &quot;Be perfect&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, and when you realize you're not you seek out Jesus' righteousness.  Bell on the other hand seems to say that grace is so great it erases hell for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are Bell and Tullian fundamentallly different, or fundamentally the&#xA;same? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Based on the conviction that all arguments have already been had before, do they essentially represent different sides of some famous split in church&#xA;history-- say during the Nicene or Reformation periods?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers from those with different perspectives (agreeing with one or neither) are especially appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[*] If you are able articulate a better description of their common feature or problem than &quot;talk too much about grace&quot;, that is part of my question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-05-11T12:52:27.703" LastActivityDate="2014-02-14T00:20:18.127" Title="Do Rob Bell and Tullian Tchividjian represent sides of any prior Christian controversy?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;grace&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15569" CreationDate="2013-05-11T23:39:32.810" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lunar Sabbaths are an idea some groups - mostly Messianic Jewish branches - hold to that claim the Sabbath does not happen every 7 days, but on a cycle based upon the New Moon. There is an article that deals with them at &lt;a href=&quot;http://csda-adventistchurch.to/lunar.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://csda-adventistchurch.to/lunar.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4486" LastActivityDate="2013-05-11T23:39:32.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16110" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6811" CreationDate="2013-05-12T00:39:31.897" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Because God's activities in Genesis 1-9 teach mankind about the coming of Jesus. It was not only important for Jesus to come, but also for mankind to understand Him when He came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is a bit like asking why God didn't just send Jesus in Moses' day instead of the &amp;quot;Passover lamb.&amp;quot; Jesus actually &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the true Passover Lamb. But we only understand that because God first gave us a natural illustration to help us understand it when it happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of what we have in the Old Testament is God teaching His people spiritual / eschatological truths by illustration through the natural events of Old Testament history. The story of Genesis 1-9 is a picture of human history from the time following the flood to the end times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate this, I will now summarize both stories simultaneously, using the same words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The waters collect and dry land appears&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Animals are introduced according to their kinds&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;One man and his family are introduced&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God commands them to &amp;quot;be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God gives them dominion over the animals&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God gives them instructions about what to eat&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The man and his family quickly fall into sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wickedness increases on the earth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God decides His Spirit will not strive with man forever, and numbers man's days; judgment is coming upon the whole earth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A safe-haven is provided by which one man and his family will be preserved from the coming destruction; those who are &amp;quot;in&amp;quot; this &amp;quot;safe-haven&amp;quot; will be raised up from the surface of the earth while everyone left on earth is destroyed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The wicked are oblivious until it is too late&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God exercises judgment on the wicked earth, destroying every last person on earth. Only the one man and his family are spared, since they are no longer on the earth during this judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The man and his family are safely introduced to a whole new world and given a fresh start&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it isn't obvious by now, Jesus is the true Noah. As further support, we see this comparison made a number of times in the New Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:37&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Matthew 24:37&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Luke 17:26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is only Christ and His family -- those who are &amp;quot;in Christ&amp;quot; -- that will be raised up on the last day and spared from the judgment that is coming upon the whole world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Pet.%203:5-7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-2 Pet. 3:5-7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus is the Savior of His family, and all those who are not in Christ will be wiped off the face of the earth in a fiery judgment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gave us an illustration ahead of time to help us understand it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noah is the savior of his family, and all those who are not in his ark were wiped off the face of the earth in a watery judgment.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to answer your question, God gave us the events (and Biblical record) of Genesis 1-9 to help us understand Jesus and the coming judgment. That is why we have Noah and the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, to clarify, it is &lt;strong&gt;Noah&lt;/strong&gt; that corresponds to Jesus, and the flood corresponds to the coming judgment... it is not the flood that corresponds to Jesus as your question suggests. So if God had sent Jesus, that would not have negated the judgment. If God had skipped the illustrations and jumped straight to eschatological fulfillment, Jesus would have come and then the world would have been destroyed by fire (instead of water.) It is not as if the destruction would have been averted by His coming, as your question suggests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-29T01:28:32.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16111" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-12T00:58:57.667" Score="9" ViewCount="2120" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Protestants believe that in the &quot;resurrection&quot; we will receive new bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other&lt;/strong&gt; Protestants believe that in the resurrection, our &lt;strong&gt;old&lt;/strong&gt; bodies will literally rise up out of the ground for us to live in once more. The basis seems to be that Jesus rose from the dead and retained His crucifixion wounds, and then ate fish, as He normally would have before His death. Also, I am told that the word &quot;resurrection&quot; in Greek literally means &quot;to rise up out of the grave.&quot; Then there are those who came out of the tombs immediately following the crucifixion. &lt;strong&gt;My question is for those Protestants that hold this view.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, what I'm wondering is, what exactly do you believe is being &quot;raised up,&quot; and in what condition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do 3-year-olds still appear to be 3 years old and 115-year-olds 115 years old?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do we also retain our wounds? What about an amputee, or a toothless bald person?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What would happen to someone who was blown up in a bomb explosion, or cremated?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify, I am not looking for answers that discredit this view. I am looking for an explanation from the perspective that rather than receiving &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; bodies, our &lt;em&gt;old&lt;/em&gt; bodies are literally raised from the grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-21T01:25:48.727" LastActivityDate="2017-07-21T01:25:48.727" Title="What do protestants who believe our old bodies will be resurrected think that will look like?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;resurrection-body&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16087" CreationDate="2013-05-12T05:22:52.230" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disembodied souls now live in heaven or hell.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”&#xA;Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:42-43, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the final judgment their will be a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8094/where-in-the-bible-does-it-say-that-god-is-creating-a-new-earth/8096#8096&quot;&gt;new heaven and earth&lt;/a&gt; and the disembodied souls in heaven and hell will also receive new bodies. (Rev ch 19 &amp;amp; 20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. (Acts 24:14-15, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse you mention is a different subject all together. Jesus was trying to explain spiritual things that could partly be comprehended by similar earthly things. However the deep things Jesus had to say about his being sent from heaven to the world to die and resurrect for the salvation of all men who believe does not have earthly references to refer to. &lt;strong&gt;In fact this deep knowledge of salvation can never be arrived at by a human ascending into heaven, into  the region of absolute and eternal truth, so as to look upon it face to face. No man has ever done so.  The only way this knowledge can be attainted is by the One who came from heaven. He alone through the incarnation is the one that descends and rises back into that eternal place who alone  possesses that knowledge and declare it to men. By faith in Him and his death, we also rise to live with him, first the soul and then the body.&lt;/strong&gt; Upon faith in this eternal son the descended and ascended back into heaven does one obtain life and knowledge.  This was too much for Nicodemus to understand at the time as we was stumbling over smaller things such as the new birth which have its fruits seen here on earth and referenced to earthly things to help us understand it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven —the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up. (John 3:10-14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-12T05:22:52.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16094" CreationDate="2013-05-12T08:09:37.290" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A ransom or price is not a payment to the Devil to redeem his slaves but a payment to God’s justice to redeem us from sin, world, law, Devil and death. This payment is owed to Gods law due to the sin of man. This debt needs to be paid.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (The New International Version. 2011, Mt 20:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The price of redemption is the blood of Christ, which atones for sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word ransom (λυτρον) is derived from the Hebrew verb כִּפֶּר “to atone”…The idea is not that of simple freeing from a fault, but of its recognition and expiation in the substitutionary offering. Thus when λύτρον (-α) is used for כֹּפֶר, it always denotes a vicarious gift whose value covers a fault, so that the debt is not just cancelled. Indeed, in the equation כֹּפֶר == λύτρον the offering is always for a human life (ψυχή). (Vol. 4: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley &amp;amp; G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (329). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This ‘payment’ is therefore substitutionary ‘life for life’. Christ died to pay the penalty of our sins, and as the law also demands positive and perfect obedience, his perfect righteousness is also included in the payment. His perfect obedience is counted as ours. His obedience is charged as an alien gift to the sinners account so that they are ‘declared righteous and obedient’, even while still sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! (The New International Version. 2011 ,Ro 5:8–10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-05-12T08:09:37.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16117" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16119" CreationDate="2013-05-12T14:35:06.970" Score="5" ViewCount="1256" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can a Christian fall from grace? Please refer to the verse below and shed some light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 5:4 “You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1798" LastActivityDate="2014-02-26T01:36:03.657" Title="Can the grace of God depart from a Christian?" Tags="&lt;grace&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-02-26T13:35:59.360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16091" CreationDate="2013-05-12T14:41:37.640" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, Psalm 51:5 does not claim that an unborn child is sinless, quite the opposite, it says (in every translation I checked except the CEV) that they were either &quot;conceived in sin&quot; or &quot;sinful since conception&quot; which I would take to be equivalent in any case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are tainted by Adam's curse at conception; at no point are we without sin until we are washed of it by the blood of Christ. Therefore unborn children are as much destined to hell as any unrepentant sinner outside of the womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there is the doctrine of the &quot;age of accountability&quot; that many Christians hold to, which while not strictly part of this question may be relevant to the overall answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastActivityDate="2013-05-12T14:41:37.640" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16117" CreationDate="2013-05-12T15:10:44.627" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with many things in scripture, the first thing to do is zoom out and grab some context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. &lt;strong&gt;You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.&lt;/strong&gt; For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://olivetree.com/b/Gal.5.1-6&quot;&gt;Galatians 5:1-6&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, Paul is talking about the circumcision party of the Jews and how they are making the grace of God meaningless by their adherence to the old law. You can see that in the previous sentence he is using hyperbole to make a point, so it makes sense to take this phrase as well in that tone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the greek word εκπιπτω (&lt;em&gt;ekpipto&lt;/em&gt;) which here is translated as &quot;to fall away&quot; is also used in the phrase &quot;to run aground&quot; (as in a ship at sea) (&lt;a href=&quot;http://olivetree.com/b/Acts.27.26&quot;&gt;Acts 27:26&lt;/a&gt;) or &quot;lose your balance&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://olivetree.com/b/2Peter.3.17&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:17&lt;/a&gt;). The idea is that you are falling away from the vertical line you once held, not that you are being severed from something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is just a cursory examination of this particular verse and it's context. The arguments for and against the preservation of salvation are many and varied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more in depth answer, I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints&quot;&gt;wikipedia: Perseverance of the Saints&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1980" LastActivityDate="2013-05-12T15:10:44.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16111" CreationDate="2013-05-13T10:32:42.907" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This long passage may be sufficient to answer the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 15:35-54 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But someone will ask, &lt;strong&gt;“How are the dead raised? With what kind of&#xA;  body will they come?”&lt;/strong&gt; How foolish! What you sow does not come to&#xA;  life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that&#xA;  will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.&#xA;  But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed&#xA;  he gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one&#xA;  kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies&lt;/strong&gt;; but&#xA;  the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of&#xA;  the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor,&#xA;  the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in&#xA;  splendor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. &lt;strong&gt;The body that is&#xA;  sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in&#xA;  dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised&#xA;  in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it&#xA;  is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last&#xA;  Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but&#xA;  the natural, and after that the spiritual. &lt;strong&gt;The first man was of the&#xA;  dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.&lt;/strong&gt; As was the earthly&#xA;  man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so&#xA;  also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the&#xA;  image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the&#xA;  heavenly man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that &lt;strong&gt;flesh and blood cannot&#xA;  inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the&#xA;  imperishable.&lt;/strong&gt; Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,&#xA;  but &lt;strong&gt;we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye,&#xA;  at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be&#xA;  raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable&#xA;  must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with&#xA;  immortality.&lt;/strong&gt; When the perishable has been clothed with the&#xA;  imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is&#xA;  written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many protestant preachers say that our body will be reconstructed from the remains of our body from the grave or where ever it is. The one that was blown up in a bomb explosion will also be recollected and rebuild from ashes. But it will be &lt;code&gt;transformed to a heavenly body&lt;/code&gt;. That is what exactly this passage is talking about. The heavenly body will not look the same like the old one. A person who was born without legs will have two perfect legs. A blind person will no longer be blind and the deaf person will hear too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard from many protestant preachers that the reason why Jesus still has the scars on his body is to keep it as a remembrance that Jesus suffered and died for us. The scars were left there intentionally on purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-05-14T05:31:32.527" LastActivityDate="2013-05-14T05:31:32.527" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16121" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-13T10:49:12.550" Score="4" ViewCount="5572" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.coyhwh.com/en/bible.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebraic Roots Bible&lt;/a&gt; makes the claim,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The original New Testament was not written in Greek, but Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thought that only the Gospel of Matthew might have been written in Aramaic, and that the rest of the NT was originally written in Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the strange claim that the name Yahshua (Jesus) appears in the Old Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are also almost 100 scriptures in the Tanach (Old Testament) that personify our Savior’s name. Due to the fact that most translations do not use our Savior’s original Hebrew name they totally miss this fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is impossible because the Old Testament was written before Jesus was famous. Perhaps the word in these passages that the Hebraic Roots Bible translates as Yahshua should be translated as a simple word, not a name, as it is in other translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-07-25T23:58:09.783" LastActivityDate="2020-07-25T23:58:09.783" Title="What evidence is there that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;&lt;aramaic&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16117" CreationDate="2013-05-13T11:17:14.940" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is what does &quot;keep the Law&quot; mean.  Luther says, in his &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Commentary on Galatians&lt;/a&gt; :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who seek to be justified by the Law are fallen from grace and are in grave danger of eternal death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul in this verse discloses that he is not speaking so much of circumcision as the trust which men repose in the outward act. We can hear him say: “I do not condemn the Law in itself; what I condemn is that men seek to be justified by the Law, as if Christ were still to come, or as if He alone were unable to justify sinners. It is this that I condemn, because it makes Christ of no effect. ... For if Christ is in your heart He neither condemns you, nor does He ever bid you to trust in your own good works. If you know Christ at all, you know that good works do not serve unto righteousness, nor evil works unto condemnation. I do not want to withhold from good works their due praise, nor do I wish to encourage evil works. But when it comes to justification, I say, we must concentrate upon Christ alone, or else we make Him non-effective. You must choose between Christ and the righteousness of the Law. If you choose Christ you are righteous before God. If you stick to the Law, Christ is of no use to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage says those who fall from grace have put faith in their own goodness or works either to be saved, or to stay saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T11:17:14.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16089" CreationDate="2013-05-13T11:17:53.193" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The details argued by E. B. ELLIOTT are a good example of historic interpretations. He places the seven seals during the period of John’s writing of the Apocalypse until the time of the barbarian invasions of Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interpretation can be summarized as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First Seal – While Horse with bow and crown conquering – &lt;strong&gt;Continued expansion of Rome&lt;/strong&gt; (~ A.D. 96-184). All the symbols match the period as white, the crown and even the bow representative of the line of Emperor’s association with Crete, which was famous for the bow suit to this period of continued Roman conquest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Second Seal - fiery red and taking peace and killing each other with a large sword – The &lt;strong&gt;civil wars&lt;/strong&gt; that followed the expansion during approximately (~A.D 185 – 248) All the symbols match this period as the large sword indicates too much power given to the military leaders that suppressed the peace of the senate and resulted in killing each other through bloody civil war.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Third Seal - black horse, rider holding a pair of scales in his hand with voice mentioning the official cost of wheat, barley and a desire to protect oil and the wine – this indicates the injustice of the following period where &lt;strong&gt;the rich war machine overtaxed the masses resulting in greater inequality between the rich and poor&lt;/strong&gt; (~A.D 248 - 268) All the symbols match as the scales represented justice and the backwards measuring represents injustice. Scales were also used to extract taxes and even oil and wine were part of the tax revenue.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fourth Seal - pale horse, which was Death, and Hades killing by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts – A period of &lt;strong&gt;initial barbarian invasions, poverty, plagues, natural disasters&lt;/strong&gt; that made the period a low point (~A.D 268-292). All the symbols naturally match for it was more or less like the Black Death in the middle ages and during such times even wild animals begin to encroach upon the people in their weakness and death.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fifth Seal - the souls of those who had been slain – &lt;strong&gt;the era of the Martyrs&lt;/strong&gt; centered on the Diocletian persecutions (~A.D. 303). Naturally the symbols match as the fifth seal is about the martyrs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sixth Seal – an earthquake, sun turning black, moon turned blood red and stars fell etc.–This is the sudden change in the ‘heavenly powers’ of Rome, when the persecuted now became the powerful and &lt;strong&gt;Constantine declared Rome Christian&lt;/strong&gt; (~A.D. 313). This is immediately followed by the &lt;strong&gt;144,000 sealed, representing God’s election of his true church out from the initial beginnings of the anti-Christian church just established by Constantine through civil power of sword.&lt;/strong&gt; Doctrinally this same truth was soon developed in revelation to St. Augustine establishing the tradition of the true church within the  anti-Christian power eventually leading to the future reformation along Augustinian lines. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Seventh Seal - silence in heaven for about half an hour – indicates the brief &lt;strong&gt;silent prayers of the elect before the first trumpet is to sound triggering the judgment of severe barbaric invasions on Rome&lt;/strong&gt;, the beginning of judgment for its sins against the previous persecutions of the elect.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course not all historicists hold the same timelines but this gives a good example of how closely and logically revelation can be made to record a chronology of history before the events actually occurred. The strength of this method is that this is how most Old Testament prophecies regarding the coming Messiah are understood today. This means 'all biblical prophecy' can use the same uniform exegetical methods and that prophecies already fulfilled become potentially faith building (depending on one's confidence level) rather than just confusing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-05-13T12:21:34.257" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T12:21:34.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9973" CreationDate="2013-05-13T14:07:15.537" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can also see in John 13:4 that He removed His garments before washing the disciples feet. The ESV states that these were His &quot;outer&quot; garments. Many theories could be developed here from cleanliness to humility. Mine borders in the middle of the two. We know that this would have been a filthy task from the conditions of which the disciples had walked, however the &quot;rolling up of the sleeves&quot; idealism here seems to apply as well. Sort of like the &quot;business man&quot; stopping on the side of the road in order to help out with a flat tire. He could have easily &quot;supervised&quot; the event, but thought enough to do the task out of compassion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4494" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T14:07:15.537" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16106" CreationDate="2013-05-13T18:02:02.423" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having read both of these authors, I can confidently say that Bell and Tullian are significantly different in their approaches to scripture, and in their interpretations thereof.  I align myself strongly with Tullian's approach, but disagree strongly with Bell's belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically speaking, Bell's theology aligns well with historical Universalism, or Universal Reconciliation.  He would state that all people, regardless of belief, will ultimately be going to heaven.  To accomplish this, he redefines sin's effects as being bad not because it is an offense against an infinitely good God, but because of what it does to us.  Sin damages us, but does not condemn us.  And since it does not condemn us, the cross of Christ cannot solve a condemnation problem, but instead becomes a good example by which we live our lives.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tullian's position falls pretty clearly along the lines of Calvinist Protestant Theology.  He believes that the law of God is clear and extensive, and that the consequence of disobeying the law of God is eternal condemnation.  Likewise, he believes that Christ's death on the cross fully paid the penalty that we owed for our sin, so that, through Christ, we might be able to experience fellowship with God.  He believes that Jesus death on the cross grants positional righteousness to all who believe, thus justifying them in the eyes of God, and removing from them all condemnation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bell focuses on grace in the absence of the law, and in the absence of prior condemnation, but Tullian focuses on grace in the presence of the law, and in the presence of prior condemnation.  The problem with Bell's theology is that grace cannot truly be real if the problem of condemnation doesn't exist.  It would be as though you threw a life preserver to someone walking down the street in order to save them from drowning.  Being on the street, they were never in any real danger of drowning, so they have no need for a life preserver.  Tullian's theology, in contrast, offers a &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; problem, and then offers a &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; solution to the problem.  We &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; condemned to hell, but Christ came and paid the penalty of condemnation, so that we might be free from that penalty.  It's like throwing a life preserver to someone who is drowning.  It makes Christianity needed and useful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Bell takes a real, deadly problem, denies it exists, and thus makes Christ nothing more than a symbolic, but unnecessary, solution.  Tullian does not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a side note, it's important to that Tullian is mainly concerned with justification's effect on sanctification, while Bell is mainly concerned with defining justification, so objections to each of them are pointed at these two approaches.  Piper's objection to Bell is objecting to Bell's view of justification, while Murray's objection to Tullian is objecting to his view of sanctification in light of justification.  So in this sense, Piper objects to Bell saying that Bell is not defining Christianity right, while Murray objects to Tullian saying that Tullian doesn't define how we are to live out the Christian life right, yet he would agree with Tullian on his view of justification, and even says so in his objection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T18:02:02.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16129" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-13T19:02:33.817" Score="18" ViewCount="1329" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/denying-foreknowledge-of-human-choices-and-undermining-the-new-covenant?lang=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Piper has said&lt;/a&gt; that &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;open theism&lt;/a&gt; (i.e. the notion that God himself changes over time and can choose to be ignorant of His own future if He so chooses) &quot;is an attack, however unwittingly, on the cross and on the work of the Spirit as our only hope of persevering faith and salvation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the basis for this assertion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4496" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-02-13T12:48:19.357" LastActivityDate="2017-02-13T12:48:19.357" Title="What is the basis of the argument that Open Theism is heretical?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;open-theism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7383" CreationDate="2013-05-13T19:58:22.603" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No angels do not still intervene in the world today. If every Christian in the world had a Guardian Angel, bad things would not happen to any Christian because they would be protected. The Bible also says that the sole purpose of the creation of angels was for them to worship God, not protect his people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the &quot;stories&quot; of angels that help you in the form of a human, what's to say that isn't a person full of the Holy Spirit? What happens when the person is then suddenly gone? In Acts, the spirit teleported Philip to speak to the Ethiopian Eunuch, then he teleported him back to his home immediately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4497" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T19:58:22.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16129" CreationDate="2013-05-13T20:33:17.190" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fundamental assertion of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism&quot;&gt;Open Theism&lt;/a&gt; is a fairly simple proposition - it posits that God experiences time in a fashion not unlike that of mere mortals. Unlike the more mainstream understanding of God's relationship to time - namely that God does not exist in time, nor is He constrained by it, in Open Theism, God, like man, is unaware of what the future actually is. In and of itself, that is not particularly radical or heretical - but the implications of that statement twist theologians into a lot of knots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prior to Creation, for example, it would have asserted that God did not &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; what His world would look like.  It is not that he was unable to create any possibility (and that term is important for Open Theists), but rather that until he implemented any given possibility, it was not known.  Asserting such a framework opens God up to the ability to form relationships, to learn, to love, and to grow as it were, precisely because he is not omnipotent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And therein lies the crux of Piper's issue with Open Theism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In asserting that God can grow, change, and be open to relationship, it also has the effect of making him less than omnipotent.  Omnipotence itself is not a central theological point, but it is widely held, especially in evangelical circles. If God either cannot or will not be aware of his own future, then he has cut himself off from a form of power and knowledge.  He must then, thus, by choice or by nature, be less than all-powerful.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Open Theism, in opening God up to change, fundamentally must also deny the doctrine of immutability - sometimes called impassibility - or the doctrine that says, God does not change.  If God &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; change, immutabilitists contend, then God cannot be perfect - for things that are perfect are not capable of becoming &quot;more perfect&quot; or &quot;less perfect.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, if God is constrained by time in the same way we are, his eternality is also called into question.  If God can change, then there can be a time in which God is different.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists, of course, would also say that predestination becomes impossible under such a framework. While Calvinism is by no means universal, it is significant (especially amongst Evangelicals), and is a doctrine to which John Piper personally subscribes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Open Theism calls into question the Unity of the Trinity, for if God can change over time, then he could, in theory, have different &quot;parts&quot; at different points in time - the heresy of partialism.  If God can change, then the Members of the Trinity could, for example, disagree - a logical conundrum that would have most Trinitarians scratching their heads.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short - it's not that Open Theism is, in and of itself, heretical - but its natural consequences lead to the overturning of many established doctrines that, if overturned, would be heretical.  It's a huge leap that changes a lot of what we &quot;know&quot; about God, and is therefore viewed with suspicion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T18:42:18.193" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T18:42:18.193" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9746" CreationDate="2013-05-13T22:46:15.610" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any student of the Bible should undertake very seriously to understand the passages in Jas' answer.  Do those passages represent the truth? &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yes.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  Is passing a test on those passages a condition of salvation? &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;No.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a big difference between what is the necessary condition for salvation, and the body of doctrine a teacher should teach. There are several places in the Bible which offer very simplistic formulas for salvation. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 10:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we take this passage to be literally true, it is hope to the person who just grasped some doctrine, but probably cannot recite and defend doctrine at the level of, say, the Athanasian Creed.  This passage also does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; say, &quot;Teachers, be satisfied that you're done when these two conditions are met.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I said above, there is a big difference between teaching something false and not understanding all of doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) Biblical evidence:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 3:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Church history evidence:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Martin Luther's 95 Theses&lt;/a&gt; expresses all kinds of anathemas to the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church at the time. But very few make any negative reference to the rank-and-file Catholic pew sitters at the time. The worst accusation is that they might trust in the Pope's prescribed works and &quot;lose the fear of God through them.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-13T22:46:15.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2926" CreationDate="2013-05-14T00:35:59.563" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;not meaning to burst your bubble, but I don't think we're ever going to find out how old the earth is. Yes, there may be disputes about the age of the earth, but they're far from fruitful as no evidence will satisfy the evidence we need.  Even IF carbon dating was accurate, we must look at the creation of the earth itself.  When God created the earth, He created it to be in a state of full habitability; with a fully grown garden for man.  It is proposed that planets similar to earth are made through an evolutionary process (I'm using this term in it's purest sense, not in reference to the actual theory of evolution) using starts over millions of years, and if God made even trees at a greater maturity, say around 2 years old so they could instantly bear fruit, doesn't it make sense that he would create the Earth at an age in which the ground would bear minerals, the soil bear fruit, etc?  Even Adam was made in the physical build-up of a man; I speculate if you aged him, you would estimate his age to be 20-30 years old (even though he was a few seconds old).  So it's plain to see that evidence may very accurately tell us that the earth is billions of years old, but in reality we have to choose faith over everything as Christians; lay it down because it's honestly not worth worrying about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4499" LastActivityDate="2013-05-14T00:35:59.563" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16137" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16142" CreationDate="2013-05-14T04:46:57.807" Score="5" ViewCount="97" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed that even among theologians that postulated full separation of church and state, like Luther, they did not force the subject so fully as our modern world understands.  In fact there was a lot of religious intolerance among great denominational leaders up until recent times.  I was watching a television show the other day that implied actual separation of church and state was a result of multi-denominational settlers (mostly Calvinists) that obtained independence from England in America and needing to get along. This resulted in the American Constitution where the religious infighting of Europe became partially detached in the result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the American Constitution and independence from England usher in the first full separation of Church and state?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-05-14T20:26:38.950" Title="Did the American Constitution and independence from England usher in the first full separation of Church and state?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16138" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-14T09:40:00.863" Score="11" ViewCount="1028" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming that prior to the Reformation, Jesuit priests did not bring missionary wives or families along, as they were not married, when did women become a &lt;strong&gt;normal&lt;/strong&gt; sighting among missionary work around the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I am principally thinking in terms of husband and wife teams leaving their home country to teach the bible abroad. The wife often doing sunday school or women bible studies or just sharing faith with work colleagues. The husband doing much the same as a missionary supported by the local church, possibly also acting as pastor of a newly built church. When was this a normal sighting around the globe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-09-13T13:10:27.287" LastActivityDate="2016-04-05T15:54:43.183" Title="When did female missionaries appear after the Reformation?" Tags="&lt;women&gt;&lt;missions&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7671" CreationDate="2013-05-14T11:34:51.130" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the key to finding the true doctrine exists in scripture in Isaias 22:22 which then interprets Christ's own key in Matt 16:19 which leads to the church authority Christ advocated in Matt 18:17. Another way to determine correct Bible interpretation is to read first hand (to avoid the cherry pickers) the instructions and letters early church leaders wrote BEFORE the books of the Bible were finally selected in around 397AD. Surely such leaders who actually lived so close to the apostles time would best know what the apostles taught!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4501" LastActivityDate="2013-05-14T11:34:51.130" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16137" CreationDate="2013-05-14T17:37:19.833" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a matter of chronology, yes, the United States was the first major Christian country (and it was fairly substantial, even at the time of the Revolution) to not require the establishment of a particular state church.  Not all colonies had established churches (Rhode Island, since 1636!, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, etc...) but most colonies disestablished in the 1780s.  Virginia, for example, disestablished her Anglican church in 1786.  Congress was prohibited from establishing a federal church in 1791 -the same year that France disestablished hers in the midst of the French Revolution.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Different from establishment, however, is the notion of separation of church and state.  The Constitution of the United States bars the U.S. Congress from establishing a state church (Amendment I), but the &quot;wall of separation&quot; developed slowly over the next few centuries, and was not formalized until &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lemon v. Kurtz&lt;/a&gt; in 1968.  Whether and how this &quot;wall&quot; is supposed to work is an ongoing discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Netherlands (1795) and Switzerland (1798) disestablished their churches about the same times, but by a strict chronology, the United States was absolutely first. Germany (or more properly the Holy Roman Empire), left it to each prince to decide the status of their particular states prior to all of these, but the establishment of a church was considered important. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This chart&lt;/a&gt; on Wikipedia gives many more dates.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with disestablishing a church is not as straight-forward as it might seem, however.  In Virginia, for example, the Anglican church was the governmental authority charged with looking after the citizenry. If a person was unable to afford food, for example, it was the established church that cared for that person, using taxes levied and collected by the church.  Until a parallel, secular authority could be instituted to serve the same role, disestablishment would have hit the &quot;least of these my brethren&quot; extremely hard.  Indeed, even the Baptists who hated the established church so much were required to show that they could care for their members before the Act of Toleration in 1786.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: Per &lt;a href=&quot;http://candst.tripod.com/cnstntro.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article (link)&lt;/a&gt; Massachusetts did not disestablish her church until 1833, but as a Virginian, it is very hard to consider Massachusetts a major state (joke).  In all seriousness, that article shows how long and hard the process of disestablishment was - but at the federal level, it was much easier, because technically, it never could begin!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-05-14T20:26:38.950" LastActivityDate="2013-05-14T20:26:38.950" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15598" CreationDate="2013-05-14T20:56:43.667" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul describes what a body of flesh and bone is in Ephesians 5:30. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the kind of body that Jesus resurrected into. This isn't just a spiritual body only, but it also has flesh. The flesh component is from the members of the body that the spirit of Jesus dwells in. The conclusion you reach by taking Paul at his word is the disciples themselves were members of the resurrected body of flesh and bone that the spirit of Jesus dwelt in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason it says He ate &quot;cooked fish&quot; was because the disciples he chose and sent out were to become &quot;fishers of men&quot;. This was a symbolic way of saying that Jesus wanted His body of flesh and bone to grow and expand. His resurrection was the assembling of a body of flesh and bone to function as a tabernacle for the spirit of Jesus to live and act through. And, in the process, the members of this body also obtained spiritual life by way of the indwelling of the spirit of Jesus. It is a mutually beneficial symbiosis. They yielded their flesh to the spirit and will of Jesus and Jesus gave His spirit and eternal life to those still in the flesh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2013-05-14T20:56:43.667" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16147" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16152" CreationDate="2013-05-15T12:24:36.913" Score="11" ViewCount="8316" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the books of 1 and 2 Kings, there are quite a few places where the author refers to &amp;quot;the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he made war and how he reigned, behold, they are written in &lt;strong&gt;the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel&lt;/strong&gt;.  1 Kings 14:19 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not written in &lt;strong&gt;the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah&lt;/strong&gt;? 1 Kings 14:29 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Immediately following the books of 1 and 2 Kings are two books referred to as 1 and 2 Chronicles.  Are these the books to which 1 and 2 Kings refer or are they referring to other books that are not in the Bible and/or maybe lost to us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-09-02T12:09:58.783" Title="To what are the scriptures referring when they speak of the books of the &quot;chronicles of the kings&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;1-kings&gt;&lt;2-chronicles&gt;&lt;1-chronicles&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16150" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16151" CreationDate="2013-05-15T15:44:48.110" Score="6" ViewCount="2944" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book by far.  Wycliffe Bible Translators and others continue to do this in more and more languages.  This is seen by many to be part of the fulfillment of the Great Commission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is there any specific projection of when Bible translation into all the languages of the world (~6,000) will be complete?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-15T17:41:52.977" LastActivityDate="2015-08-17T10:54:10.493" Title="Is there a projection of when Bible translation into all the languages of the world will be complete?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;great-commission&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16150" CreationDate="2013-05-15T16:07:51.863" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Wycliffe, this is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wycliffe.org/about/statistics.aspx&quot;&gt;state of Bible Translation today&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The worldwide status of Bible translation (2012):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6,800+ ...the number of languages spoken in the world today&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Under 2,000...the number of languages without any of the Bible, but with a possible need of a Bible translation to begin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;about 209 million...the number of people who speak the less than 2,000 languages where translation projects have not yet begun&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Over 1,500...the number of translation programs where Wycliffe and its partners are currently at work&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1,275 ...the number of language groups that have access to the New Testament in their heart language&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;518...the number of language groups that have access to the entire Bible in the language they understand best&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;over 7 billion...the population of the world&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although Bible translation is progressing at a more rapid rate today than ever before, an overwhelming amount of work has yet to be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Wycliffe's own &quot;2000 languages without a Bible&quot; statistic, one can derive the fact that there is a finite number of languages into which the Bible could be translated.  Between SIL and Wycliffe, the support infrastructure needed to learn, translate, and produce Bibles in every language exists, assuming the necessary resources were available.  Given sufficient resources, there is no particular reason to see these as anything other than an exercise in parallelization, meaning 2000 dedicated individuals, willing to learn a language then translate the Bible into it, and then distribute it.  This could, in theory, be done in a generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To this, I also add information from New Tribes Mission - a missionary organization that works primarily amongst indigenous tribes in New Guinea, a place where lots and lots of tribal languages exist. I know, in speaking with missionaries who deal with Wycliffe and SIL, that the typical progression of a mission is as follows.  Note, much of this is shown in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxcyiXFc5mc&quot;&gt;video 'EE-TAOW'&lt;/a&gt; which describes the process:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1 - 3 years assimilating into a tribe, in order to understand the language, mores, and stories important to the tribe.  Little evangelization is done at this point&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;3 - 5 years in, initial converts are made, as the Bible is presented orally - presenting the narrative of Scripture from end to end, culminating in the wonderful news of the Gospel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;5 - 20 years, grooming leaders within the group who can further continue the work of the Gospel, as well as work with the missionary in providing a good, written translation of Scripture, assuming that literacy within the target groups warrants one.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem, of course, is that just having &lt;em&gt;a bible&lt;/em&gt; in your language does not always mean you have a good Bible in your language - words change, concepts don't always match, etc...  And, it doesn't always mean you can read it.  There are all sorts of reasons why the answer of &quot;20 years and 2000 missionaries&quot; isn't really accurate, but hopefully, this at least brings an order of magnitude to the task.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-05-15T16:07:51.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16147" CreationDate="2013-05-15T17:05:32.290" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following books are referenced in the King James Version of the bible but are not found in that text.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-books?lang=eng&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;book of the Wars of the Lord (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/num/21.14?lang=eng#13&quot;&gt;Num. 21:14&lt;/a&gt;);    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;book of Jasher (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/josh/10.13?lang=eng#12&quot;&gt;Josh. 10:13&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-sam/1.18?lang=eng#17&quot;&gt;2 Sam. 1:18&lt;/a&gt;);    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;book of the acts of Solomon (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-kgs/11.41?lang=eng#40&quot;&gt;1 Kgs. 11:41&lt;/a&gt;);        &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;book of Samuel the seer (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-chr/29.29?lang=eng#28&quot;&gt;1 Chr. 29:29&lt;/a&gt;);    &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;book of Gad the seer (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-chr/29.29?lang=eng#28&quot;&gt;1 Chr. 29:29&lt;/a&gt;);  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;book of Nathan the prophet (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-chr/29.29?lang=eng#28&quot;&gt;1 Chr. 29:29&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-chr/9.29?lang=eng#28&quot;&gt;2 Chr. 9:29&lt;/a&gt;); &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;prophecy of Ahijah (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-chr/9.29?lang=eng#28&quot;&gt;2 Chr. 9:29&lt;/a&gt;);  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;visions of Iddo the seer (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-chr/9.29?lang=eng#28&quot;&gt;2 Chr. 9:29&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-chr/12.15?lang=eng#14&quot;&gt;12:15&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-chr/13.22?lang=eng#21&quot;&gt;13:22&lt;/a&gt;);  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;book of Shemaiah (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-chr/12.15?lang=eng#14&quot;&gt;2 Chr. 12:15&lt;/a&gt;);  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;book of Jehu (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-chr/20.34?lang=eng#33&quot;&gt;2 Chr. 20:34&lt;/a&gt;);  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;sayings of the seers (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-chr/33.19?lang=eng#18&quot;&gt;2 Chr. 33:19&lt;/a&gt;);  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1&#xA;Corinthians (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/5.9?lang=eng#8&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 5:9&lt;/a&gt;);  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/3.3?lang=eng#2&quot;&gt;Eph. 3:3&lt;/a&gt;);     &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/col/4.16?lang=eng#15&quot;&gt;Col. 4:16&lt;/a&gt;);  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/jude/1.14?lang=eng#13&quot;&gt;Jude 1:14&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(Though you can of course look up each scripture to verify for yourself as a link has been provided for each.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah&lt;/code&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_03323.html&quot;&gt;is believed to be a record kept by the kings of Israel&lt;/a&gt; but it is not considered to be the books we know as 1 and 2 Chronicles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Interestingly enough, this is pretty conclusive that our bible today isn't quite what it used to be, and that there are prophets (like Nathan and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-kgs/12.22?lang=eng#21&quot;&gt;Shemaiah&lt;/a&gt;) that recorded the word of God, but that word has since been lost to us. &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2013-05-15T17:43:15.637" LastActivityDate="2013-05-15T17:43:15.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16153" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16154" CreationDate="2013-05-16T00:25:21.263" Score="7" ViewCount="1704" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question stems from this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU&quot;&gt;video&lt;/a&gt;. Additionally, I would like to know any books, articles and other credible sources that deals with this question for further reading&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. Thank you for your time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;i&gt;* History is not my field. I am not experienced in discerning whether a source is credible or not.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4167" LastActivityDate="2019-10-22T02:08:22.443" Title="Did the city of Nazareth exist in the time of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;archaeology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16153" CreationDate="2013-05-16T01:08:24.853" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's very easy to look back thousands of years, once time has had plenty of time to change things, and say that there's no evidence for something and so it must be false.  But it's a very different matter when there aren't thousands of years in the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospels were written in the first century AD, by people who experienced it personally, to their contemporaries, and they were believed.  Now, miracles are one thing--believing in them takes faith, of course.  But miracles aren't the only things in the Gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I wrote a supposedly non-fiction account about my own experiences living in the city of Blargsenberg, New Jersey, it wouldn't take long before someone looked at it and said &quot;hey, there's no such city! This is a made-up story!&quot;  But the interesting thing is, there's no evidence of &lt;em&gt;contemporaries&lt;/em&gt; rejecting the Gospels on the basis of them contradicting easily verifiable facts on non-miraculous claims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the video, the speaker suggests that if there was no such city as Nazareth, the entire Gospel narrative falls apart.  But he does not seem to understand that &lt;strong&gt;if there was no such city as Nazareth, it would not have taken people 2000 years to realize that!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Occam's Razor cuts his argument to ribbons.  Now, if no evidence for an ancient town matching the Biblical narrative exists on the present-day site known as Nazareth, a much more plausible explanation is that the present-day site is located in the wrong place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-05-16T19:32:32.767" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T19:32:32.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16155" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-05-16T02:16:27.060" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-05-16T02:16:27.060" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T02:16:27.060" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16156" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-05-16T02:16:27.060" Score="0" Body="A Gentile-oriented &quot;orderly account&quot; of the ministry of Jesus attributed to Luke the physician as the &quot;former book&quot; mentioned in Acts of the Apostles." OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-05-16T02:25:39.133" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T02:25:39.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16157" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-16T03:41:55.810" Score="-1" ViewCount="13571" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did God kill jobs family? What did they ever done wrong? What happened to them after God made a bet with the devil?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="4384" LastEditDate="2013-05-16T03:49:31.107" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T05:40:16.150" Title="What happened to Job's family?" Tags="&lt;job&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-05-16T13:51:29.070" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16158" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16157" CreationDate="2013-05-16T05:40:16.150" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Job was a man who loved God. Satan told God that he only reason Job loved Him was because He allowed him to be wealthy. So to prove him wrong, God allowed Satan to take all of Job's possessions. Job's oldest son's home was destroyed by a violent wind. All of Job's children were partying there and were killed. In his sadness, Job tore his robe. Despite all his loses he still loved God!  Since Satan's 'theory' didn't turn out well, he proposed that Job would turn away from God if He made him very ill. Again, God allowed Job to become sick but he still did not turn away from God! Even his own wife told Job to curse The Lord, but he still remained faithful. Soon, Job had 10 more children and had twice as much riches as he had before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4510" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T05:40:16.150" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15679" CreationDate="2013-05-16T07:14:29.373" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quick and short Lust vs Love&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lust is LOVE for myself(through sex, food, other pleasures).&#xA;Love is not &quot;LUSTING&quot;, but desiring God more than anything and finding PLEASURE in each of His commands&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4511" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T07:14:29.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9412" CreationDate="2013-05-16T11:39:37.917" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two main purposes to the millenial reign:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, to show the world that the true problem isn't the devil (since he will locked away for 1000 years) but rather, the real problem is our evil hearts. Under the perfect and utopian rulership of Jesus, people will still choose to rebel and hate Him and wage war against Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, to prepare the earth for the coming of the Father. The Father doesn't come to earth until the end of the 1,000 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4512" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T11:39:37.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9067" CreationDate="2013-05-16T15:38:05.227" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everyone has a  point, and makes a great argument. However to me La'mechs explanation is of two people. 1) A Man who he killed for wounding him. 2) A young who he killed men for injuring him. Both action seams to me to be self defense. He also had some remorse, for if he didn't he wouldn't have spoken about his actions. He wouldn't have care of the consequences that his action was bringing him. Also to me, God must have seen it as a self-defense, for he chose La'mech son Noah. Why restart humanity all over with the descendants of murderers. Unless La'mech didn't killed Cain, and didn't murder an innocent person. This is one of my reasons in naming my son Elijah La'mech Reyes &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4514" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T15:38:05.227" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2238" CreationDate="2013-05-16T16:58:17.017" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;What if Jesus Christ did baptize any one?  How would this act  contradict the scripture?  This is what we have to analyze. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question of Jesus baptizing people with water does not arise. &#xA;Who baptized the disciples of Jesus Christ?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his&#xA;  disciples;  John 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith,&#xA;  Behold the Lamb of God!  John 1:37 And the two disciples heard him&#xA;  speak, and they followed Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples of john who are baptized by John, not by Jesus Christ. The true baptism of the disciples occurred on Pentecost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. &#xA;  Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. &#xA;  Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conclusion is True baptism actually is accepting Christ as Saviour and receiving the Holy Ghost to live a spiritual Life.  Dipping in water or stop committing sin, or doing good is not baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4516" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-17T12:21:50.973" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T12:21:50.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16164" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16166" CreationDate="2013-05-16T18:30:37.027" Score="2" ViewCount="342" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Roman Catholic doctrine teach that Christ's incorruptible body no longer has flesh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was translating a work of John of Damascus entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν. In this work, John is quoting (actually, he seems to be paraphrasing) a statement made by Gregory Nazianzen in his work entitled in English, &quot;The Oration on Holy Baptism.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is John's quotation in Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Πίστευε Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥξειν πάλιν μετὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου αὐτοῦ παρουσίας κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· &lt;strong&gt;οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα&lt;/strong&gt;, οὐκ ἀσώματον δὲ, οἷς οἶδεν αὐτὸς λόγους, θεοειδεστέρου σώματος, ἵνα καὶ ὀφθῇ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκεντησάντων, καὶ μείνῃ Θεὸς ἔξω παχύτητος.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Gregory Nazianzen writes is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxiii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;translated in English&lt;/a&gt; as (sec. 45), &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Believe [that for us sinners He was led to death; was crucified and buried, so far as to taste of death; and that He rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, that He might take you with Him who were lying low; and that] He will come again with His glorious Presence to judge the quick and the dead; &lt;strong&gt;no longer flesh&lt;/strong&gt;, nor yet without a body, according to the laws which He alone knows of a more godlike body, that He may be seen by those who pierced Him, and on the other hand may remain as God without carnality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gregory clearly states that Christ does not possess flesh. The Greek is οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα, &quot;no longer flesh.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the basis for my question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-15T15:31:24.490" LastActivityDate="2015-10-15T15:31:24.490" Title="Does Roman Catholic doctrine teach that Christ no longer has a body that possesses flesh?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;resurrection-body&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14724" CreationDate="2013-05-16T18:51:09.993" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6818/1039&quot;&gt;My answer on a related question&lt;/a&gt; covers much the same ground.  I like this question better, because it is more generic, but the specifics of that answer still hold true here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Key points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God desires 1 sacrifice, and 1 sacrifice only, for all time (Heb 10)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God chose to come &quot;at the right time to die for the ungodly&quot;  (Gal 4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too early, and people wouldn't have believed it - hopelessly mythological.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Too late, and faith would have to be, as Heb 11 puts it, looking forward to a city, rather than living in it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVr2uks0C8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Andrew Lloyd Webber is cool&lt;/a&gt; :)  N.B.  Key words around 0:58&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-05-16T19:27:20.790" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16164" CreationDate="2013-05-16T18:57:06.360" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't understand how a body can exist without flesh, But a simple answer to your question is NO, It does not. It is actually the opposite. It is condemned as a heresy in the Catholic Church if one claims that Jesus is in heaven without his body/flesh. This concept falls into variation of different heresies Docetism, Apollinarism, Manichaeism etc.,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe that Jesus is present with his flesh in Eucharist. And he is present in the Eucharist as he is present in the Trinity, i.e, with his flesh but his glory hidden to naked eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 24:39, Jesus himself says that he has &lt;strong&gt;σάρκα&lt;/strong&gt; That should end the discussion whether Jesus has σάρκα or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regards to what the Catholic Church teaches, I think what St. Gregory Nazianzen was saying here with respect to &quot;Flesh&quot; is not to be taken as the nature of flesh but fallen state of flesh. In Jesus's second coming, he is going to come with a body that is not bound by natural laws. That is he is not going to fall to earth because of gravity. Christ's body after Resurrection is &quot;of the same nature, but differed in glory.&quot; St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica answers the question of Whether Christ's body rose again entire(with flesh and bones)?:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the nature of flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and blood, as Gregory says [Pope St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56, or else for the corruption of flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resur. Carn.), &quot;there will be neither corruption there, nor mortality of flesh and blood.&quot; Therefore flesh according to its substance possesses the kingdom of God, according to Luke 24:39: &quot;A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have.&quot; But flesh, if understood as to its corruption, will not possess it; hence it is straightway added in the words of the Apostle: &quot;Neither shall corruption possess incorruption.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-05-17T05:44:25.380" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T05:44:25.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16167" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16173" CreationDate="2013-05-16T19:44:25.573" Score="10" ViewCount="1924" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was watching a video* that was about the &quot;heresy&quot; of Protestantism. It briefly discussed Martin Luther and his exceptions with certain books. He removed the so called &quot;apocrypha&quot; and also took exception with Esther, James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4474/why-was-martin-luther-attempting-to-change-the-canon&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This video, however, claimed that Martin Luther &quot;had his eyes&quot; on the gospels before his peers told him to stop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is there evidence that Martin Luther took exception to any of the gospels, in whole or in part?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* I would rather not link to it because its overall tone was hateful and they do not deserve the views&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-11-16T23:29:34.653" LastActivityDate="2020-11-16T23:29:34.653" Title="Did Martin Luther take exception to the gospels in any way?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8177" CreationDate="2013-05-16T21:52:08.043" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acts 10 is about men--not food.  Even Peter declares he has never eaten unclean food.  This is obviously after everything Jesus accomplished on Earth during his first coming.  This should be an obvious clue that Jew and Gentile alike are still under Mosaic Law.  As to how the Law pertains to sacrifices, it specifically states who is to perform the sacrifices and where (God's Temple).  He allowed his temple to be destroyed after Jesus returned to heaven which means we cannot perform those sacrifices. That is why Jesus came, to be the ultimate sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4519" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-24T18:18:12.000" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T18:18:12.000" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16167" CreationDate="2013-05-17T04:57:33.043" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes and no. He preferred the gospel of John over the synoptic gospels, under his somewhat unusual view of revelational clarity within the canonical books. i.e. some books are more clear and powerful then others. For example, many would agree that Romans is more useful than proverbs in terms of communicating the message of salvation, but Luther was much more adamant about this kind of idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luther was somewhat critical of the canon (in the modern biblical sense) partly because he distrusted the apocryphal additions made by the Catholic church and partly because of his suspicion of any book in the Bible that seemed in any sense to support what he understood as the Catholic teaching of works based righteousness.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore although Luther included James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation in his Bible (he even included the non canonical apocryphal books) he placed his own views of them in his ‘introductions’. In his introductions we find most of his canonical views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther did not seem to have any objections to Esther, only to some portions not found in the original:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Six additions to the book of Esther, comprising 107 verses not in the Hebrew text, were inserted into the text in the Greek Version, added on at the end in the Vulgate. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha, p. 183. The ancient Greek and Latin versions of the book of Daniel contain three principal additions not found in the original Hebrew and Aramaic text; these are included among the Apocrypha as separate “books”: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 99 (uther, M. (1999). Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald &amp;amp; H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding Luther’s preference of books that clearly outlined the gospel over and above those that were less clear in terms of justification, Luther thought of the clearer ones as ‘noblest books’. He did not imply that the other writings were not canonical juts that they were less massive in their depth of revelation into what was ‘core’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Which are the true and noblest books of the New Testament]&#xA;[From all this you can now judge all the books and decide among them which are the best. John’s Gospel and St. Paul’s epistles, especially that to the Romans, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the true kernel and marrow of all the books. They ought properly to be the foremost books, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them first and most, and by daily reading to make them as much his own as his daily bread. For in them you do not find many works and miracles of Christ described, but you do find depicted in masterly fashion how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell, and gives life, righteousness, and salvation. This is the real nature of the gospel, as you have heard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I had to do without one or the other—either the works or the preaching of Christ—I would rather do without the works than without his preaching. For the works do not help me, but his words give life, as he himself says [John 6:63]. Now John writes very little about the works of Christ, but very much about his preaching, while the other evangelists write much about his works and little about his preaching. &lt;strong&gt;Therefore John’s Gospel is the one, fine, true, and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them.&lt;/strong&gt; So, too, the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.]( Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald &amp;amp; H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (361–362). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thus we see that although the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were scripture to Luther, they were not as clear as some other books, like the Gospel of John.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding a book like Revelation, Luther has an odd freedom (and should I add confusion). One on hand he seems so unrestrained to be so bold as to deny its canonicity, partly because he was critical of anything not clear to his own understanding amidst the corruptions at the church at the time and partly due to its slow recognition into the canon within church history. On the other hand, one has to wonder why was he confused about its clarity of the gospel?  To confuse the issue more he later changed his view and accepted it as canonical! (For the preface of 1522 his opinion was it was not canonical, volume 35 pp. 398–399 then from the preface from 1530 p. 411 he accepted that it was).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also Luther was not so dogmatic about ‘his opinion’ as it was changing amidst the dramatic theological revolutions in which he seems to be at a center place. He was very ‘free’ in having a non-dogmatic opinion and willingness to express it without fear of being put to death. In his earlier introduction of Revelation he shows his 'opinion' approach while granting others free opinion as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel.( Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald &amp;amp; H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (398). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.&#xA;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This example really shows what Luther was all about. He was a leader whose vision was changing and adapting as he went along transforming Christianity into a more Christ centered establishment that answers the question 'What about me?'&lt;/strong&gt; He was not the type of theologian that writes a few things, never changing his mind like Calvin's institutes built upon the groundwork of Luther. Rather as a true pioneer and leader of a populace he, recognizing many errors at the time and while leading a new understanding of what the Bible was really saying, steered away from anything that would get in the way of that vision, even distrusting (temporarily) a few Epistles he did not have a confident understanding about. Most likely the final protestant canon that is used today would have been Luther’s view if he lived a bit longer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2020-11-16T22:40:19.680" LastActivityDate="2020-11-16T22:40:19.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16174" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16181" CreationDate="2013-05-17T05:23:02.850" Score="2" ViewCount="1981" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to be clear, I'm not asking what parts of the Bible &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; literal and what parts aren't. I just want to know who decides which view verses are supposed to be followed and which ones are like obsolete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, verses like these are not followed anymore. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 19:27:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 38:9-10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 19:28: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 19:19:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.&#xA;  Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I'm wondering how can people choose to disregard these verses anymore and still be a Christian... if so, then why is it still in the Bible? Who decides if something from the Bible is obsolete? Because as what I have observed, people tend to disregard parts of the Bible if it doesn't fit the current trend anymore like the haircut thing and the fabric matching... So is it people who decides that these verses are &quot;OK&quot; not to follow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-21T16:47:49.707" LastActivityDate="2015-08-21T16:47:49.707" Title="Who decides if a verse is literal and what parts of the Bible metaphorical?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-05-17T15:58:06.500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16175" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16235" CreationDate="2013-05-17T06:16:47.277" Score="20" ViewCount="33579" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 103:1-2  (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Bless the Lord, O my soul:&#xA;  and all that is within me, bless his holy name.&#xA;   Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to say &quot;Bless the Lord&quot;?. It is more logical that the superior one should bless the inferior one. We are sinners and the LORD is far more superior than us. We should be asking blessings from Him. But what does it mean when we bless the Lord? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many songs using this phrase like  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtwIT8JjddM&quot;&gt;this beautiful song.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are sinners and how can we bless the Lord? What is the exact use of this sentence? If I am simply telling my soul to bless the Lord then I think it's reasonable. But can it be used while praying and say &lt;code&gt;&quot;Lord, I bless you&quot;?&lt;/code&gt; I feel uncomfortable at this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a translation issue?  What is the meaning of this phrase and what is its usage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-21T04:02:09.477" LastActivityDate="2020-01-10T03:02:08.340" Title="What does it mean to &quot;Bless the LORD&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;blessings&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16177" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-17T10:52:20.887" Score="-1" ViewCount="205" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my Bible it says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if the serpent is more subtle (sic) than any beast the Lord God made, that implies that God did not make the serpent. So who made the serpent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4523" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-17T11:49:50.450" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T18:51:26.123" Title="Who Made the Serpent?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16177" CreationDate="2013-05-17T11:58:51.503" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the Lord God created everything, as is well attested to by the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All things came into being through Him&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;apart from Him nothing came into being&lt;/strong&gt; that has come into being.  John 1:3 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For by Him &lt;strong&gt;all things were created&lt;/strong&gt;, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—&lt;strong&gt;all things have been created through Him&lt;/strong&gt; and for Him. Colossians 1:16 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the meaning of Genesis 3:1 cannot be that the Lord God did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; make the serpent.  What is likely meant is that the serpent was more subtle than any &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; beast of the field the Lord God had made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T11:58:51.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16175" CreationDate="2013-05-17T13:06:17.953" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;TL; DR - essentially, it is a method of &lt;em&gt;praising God&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;bringing him glory&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wordincarnate.blogspot.com/2006/07/bless-lord.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; addresses the very issue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two main things that we do when we bless the Lord. The first is synonymous with giving thanks and praise. Some translations actually say, “Give thanks to the Lord,” where others say, “Bless the Lord.” So, blessing the Lord is praising Him and giving thanks to Him—for blessing us! The other thing we do when we bless the Lord is to proclaim Him blessed. Here I think I’ll have to make a distinction between “blessed” and “blessed.” For clarity’s sake, this distinction is between “blessed” and “blest”—though I don’t really like that newfangled form of the word—the former in two syllables and the latter in one. The former is a state of being, the latter a consequence of something have been done or given to someone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/bless-God.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; also speaks about it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, to bless the Lord means to praise Him, exalt Him and worship Him. The Psalms are filled with blessings upon God for His counsel (Psalm 16:7), His holiness (Psalm 103:1), His dominion over all things (Psalm 103:22), His honor and majesty (Psalm 104:1). We offer Him our praise and blessings because He deserves them. Unlike God’s blessings upon us, which are wholly undeserved and by His mercy and grace, our blessing God is done out of an understanding that He is the true praiseworthy Creator and our heavenly Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is glorified when we bless and praise and acknowledge Him. That acknowledgement comes in the form of praise, adoration, thanksgiving and love. That is what we were originally created for. However, no man can bless God in this way unless He is right with God for we read in Proverbs 28:9: 'If anyone turns a deaf ear to the Law, even his prayers are detestable.' It is only once we have been truly blessed by God in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 1:3) that we can bless God in return, in a manner that pleases Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T13:06:17.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16174" CreationDate="2013-05-17T13:24:29.663" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to answer your stated question: &amp;quot;Who decides wat is literal and what is metaphorical?&amp;quot;  That's a legitimate question.  The old &amp;quot;what laws are still in effect&amp;quot; has been &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14472/how-many-laws-from-old-testament-are-still-valid-in-new-testament&quot;&gt;answered&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15/do-we-have-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-bible-if-so-what-laws&quot;&gt;many&lt;/a&gt; times.  Hence my VTC.  What is metaphor and what is literal, however, is a good question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, who &amp;quot;decides&amp;quot; is a verse is literal or metaphorical is the person reading for himself.  Any given text can be interpreted figuratively or literally - indeed Gregory of Nyssa (Life of Moses) could pull allegorical meaning out of the feathers on the quail that piled up in front of the children of Israel, and John Dominic Crossan can dismiss the Resurrection itself as mere metaphor.  Indeed, even the existence of David, the King of Israel, was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;long considered only myth, until archeological evidence proved otherwise.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is true in any reading endeavour - when reading a news story, for example, most people assuming that news stories represent a literal meaning, except when you are a {liberal | conservative} talking about {Fox News | MSNBC}.  And then, of course, there is The Onion :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Searle's work on &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;speech-act theory&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; is often considered in the midst of apprehending meaning from a text, and is one of many starting places in hermeneutics. In basically suggests that every apprehension of meaning is ultimately an act of the mind to ascertain the genre.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Denominationally, two primary approaches to reading Scripture prevail:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dogmatic Interpretation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church in particular stresses the dogmatic concept of Scripture. As the institution charged with guarding Scripture, they have developed traditions about what is literal and what is metaphorical. As the repository of the keys of heaven, the church is particularly suited to settling matters of interpretation, ensuring a regula fide that does not change over time. It understands that there is a multitude of meaning in Scripture (see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/117.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catchechism&lt;/a&gt; ), and stresses the importance of reading Scripture in the traditional context to avoid &amp;quot;novelty&amp;quot;. It does not necessarily see this as an either/or question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Priesthood of All Believers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants tend to favor provate interpretation (&amp;quot;What does this mean to you?&amp;quot;), although especially amongst the earliest reformers, the tendency was to require that &amp;quot;private interpertation&amp;quot; be run through your fellow believers so as to avoid twisting Scripture into meaning things it didn't. To avoid mis-reading, one should submit one's own interpretation to the whole body of believers, so as not to distort the meaning of the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the primary approaches - but ultimately, even the camp you decide to fall into, is a matter of personal choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, however, &amp;quot;editing&amp;quot; the Bible just isn't a possibility.  While there are differing positions on the &amp;quot;inerrancy&amp;quot; of Scripture, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;preservation of Scripture&lt;/a&gt; (the idea that God has given us the Scripture we need) is not nearly as controversial.  What has been handed down is that the 'canon' of Scripture is merely a list of those books which Christians over the centuries have found most profitable.  It is nothing more than the NY Times Best-Seller List. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9488/1039&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; for more). There is no process for changing that list, because it is simply so set in stone.  Over time, certain emphases are more important to different generations, but as a matter of doctrine, the idea of preservation says that we have all of what we need - even if some of it is more fashionable than others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T13:51:24.083" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="763" CreationDate="2013-05-17T13:58:40.057" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;YES YES &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John wrote in Revelation 21:1 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.  NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4524" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-17T14:32:37.037" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T14:32:37.037" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16184" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-17T16:11:00.937" Score="4" ViewCount="229" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was in discussion with some friends about sin.  I believe that passages like &quot;Be Perfect (Mt 5:48)&quot;, as well as many of the other tough sayings from Jesus, inform us that the continuing standard is absolute perfection.  When you realize you are incapable of obedience, then and only then do you seek Christ with your whole heart.  Part of my basis for this belief is from Luther's &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heidelberg Disputation&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty.  Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.   It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also influenced by Tullian Tchividjian's &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2012/07/01/the-sermon-on-the-mount-for-those-who-have-crashed-and-burned/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sermon&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus wants to set us free by showing us our need for a rightness we can never attain on our own–an impossible righteousness that’s always out of our reach. The purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is to demolish all notions that we can reach the righteousness required by God–it’s about exterminating all attempts at self-sufficient moral endeavor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of my friends, on the other hand, said if you had any sins, you can pray and God would not only help you overcome them (perhaps in a spiritual sense) but will allow you to become free of your participation in them. If you doubted you could pray your way out of sin, you were doubting the power of prayer. If you said that all Christians were ultimately immersed in some inescapable sins, then you were saying sin, disobedience, and fake contrition were okay. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Q: Is the view I'm describing here, in essence, &quot;Wesleyan perfectionism&quot; (WP)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Q: Was the &quot;power of prayer&quot; ever invoked in defense of WP?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Q: Do the Bible or church fathers offer any critique of &quot;pray to moral behavior&quot;?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2014-11-25T10:11:11.363" Title="How have Christians dealt with &quot;I prayed my way to moral behavior&quot;?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3108" CreationDate="2013-05-17T16:38:19.633" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's an excellent question. I myself have wondered how the two are reconciled. The Catholic Church has no opposition to evolution, only what's called evolutionism. Evolutionism is a metaphysical position about reality which is really what's at issue in the so-called &quot;evolution debate&quot;. The Church is, of course, a religious institution and doesn't concern itself directly with scientific questions (unless we mean Church-run universities and institutions which do science, but we're focusing on the theological and religious dimension at this point). Michal Heller argues, for example, that the dichotomy we see today between science and religion, at least in the popular mind, is a result of the close integration between medieval science and religion. That is, as science changed and developed, people made the mistake of assuming that this integral science-religion whole was wrong because some of the theology used the science of the period in argumentation. Of course, that's a mistake because the proper theology remains the same, it was only the speculation surrounding it that was erroneous. Thus, Heller cautions, one must resist leaning too hard on theological speculation that makes use of scientific results because science is comparatively volatile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is legitimate to ask how evolution can be reconciled with the Fall of Man. The explanation given above (re: Arminianism) is a quite common one, but ultimately it undermines the purpose of Christ, at least as it is understood in the RCC. First, the RCC does not understand Genesis in literal terms. The primary reason is that there are two accounts of creation which contradict one another. Second, the Fall is not an allegory or a parable because that would undermine the notion of original sin for which Christ is the remedy. While we may turn away from God through our free choices, the RCC clearly states that the Fall did occur that that original sin is hereditary. It is not repeated each time we turn away from God for that would no longer be original sin. Original sin, once removed through baptism, does not undo the disorder brought into human nature through it. This explains why our desires can be out of place, why our lower appetites can get the best of us and why reason isn't always exercising its dominion over the whole of our beings. This points to a fragmentation of the soul and the body and this fragmentation is the result of the Fall. The seven deadly sins are rather descriptive about the kinds of irrational actions and states we assume because of this fragmentation. Grace is, ideally, something which moves a man into greater integration through an act of God, or, through the acceptance of the act of grace (of God). Because we are free, God cannot force grace onto us and thus only openness to and acceptance of God's grace will result in its effect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if that's the case, how does evolution fit in? The best answer I've heard is that the Fall did indeed happen after human beings arose. It did not occur in the poetic way Genesis gives us, but rather through a turning away from God in some rather profound way. However, I don't understand why it is hereditary or how it is hereditary. It's hard for me to say what the nature of original sin is if it is hereditary and how it is transmitted exactly. However, it's clear that theologically, it cannot be the just turning away from God we all go through. The religious account points to a singular event that goes beyond the effects we experience following that event. The Arminian view is too naive and simplistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3489" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T16:38:19.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16177" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:40:04.160" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short form:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The error being made in using Genesis 3:1 to say God did not make the serpent is one of incorrectly parsing the genitive phrase. In order to make the case (and thereby introduce inconsistency with other scripture, you would need to prove that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;of the field&quot; is less important than &quot;which the Lord God had made&quot; and only random in order &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that &quot;which the Lord God had made&quot; modifies beasts but &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; Serpent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Absent these proofs, the claim implicit in the question (that the Serpent is not a beast which God made) is simply not supportable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Longer form:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse, of course, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Case 1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make your case, you need to emphasize the &lt;em&gt;which the Lord God had made&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;Now the serpent was more subtle than any &lt;strong&gt;beast&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;strike&gt;of the field&lt;/strike&gt;(thing) &lt;strong&gt;which the Lord God had made&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, put another way&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Serpent &gt; Any (thing) God made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be a valid interpretation if this were to be treated as a singular genitive phrase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Case 2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, the more mainstream reading would be&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;Now the serpent was more subtle than &lt;strong&gt;any beast of the field&lt;/strong&gt; which the Lord God had made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this reading, the emphasis is on the phrase 'any beast of the field'.  The idiomatic expression 'which the Lord God had made' is a subordinate detail to beast of the field - it is simply a modifier.  Put another way, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Serpent &gt; Any beast of the field.  Incidentally, God made the beasts, and we are scoping this as all beasts that God made, which is all of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Analysis&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order for Case 1 to be valid, other references (especially John 1:3 - All things were made by Him, without Him was nothing made that was made) would be in conflict.  This alone would be enough for a coherent reading of all Scripture to make the point - but, I can, for sake of argument, not take this tack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, one would need to look at emphasis and word order, which in Hebrew and English is significant.  The mere fact that beasts is modified by two prepositional phrases should already hint at where the emphasis would lie.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, it is equally valid, that as a genitive phrase, &lt;strong&gt;which the Lord God made&lt;/strong&gt; could be modifying &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; serpent and beast.  It would be syntactically ridiculous to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the serpent which the Lord God has made was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but it would be expressing the equally logical thought.  In order to prove Case 1, you would need a compelling reason to discount this reading, which of our course cannot really made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-05-17T18:51:26.123" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T18:51:26.123" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16187" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16188" CreationDate="2013-05-17T20:51:17.193" Score="4" ViewCount="288" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prior to this new-fangled electronic thing called the internet, people who were looking to find a particular verse in the Bible resorted to a manual index called a concordance.  In such a book, keywords would be listed alphabetically, and every verse using that keyword would then be listed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most famous example is Strong's Concordance of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, who was the first person to come up with the idea of making such a valuable tool in the first place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T22:02:52.683" Title="Who produced the first Concordance?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16187" CreationDate="2013-05-17T21:51:40.187" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first concordance was undertaken under the direction of Hugh of Saint-Cher and completed in the early 13th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hugh was a member of the catholic Dominican Order, whose founding goals were to preach the gospel and fight heresy. This order was known for its intellectualism; the influential St. Thomas Aquinas was a member of it. While prior to the Dominicans heresy was fought and the gospel was preached in Catholicism, friars were generally expected to stay home. The Dominicans, however, took a more open and intellectual approach to fighting heresy by traveling and establishing missions, and  by preaching the gospel through appealing to the Bible. This clearly gave rise to a need for better tools to study and understand the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is for this reason that the order, and Hugh in particular, is credited not only for creating the first concordance of the Bible, but also for creating the first &quot;correctorium&quot;, or a collection of various readings and commentary of the Bible. As a result of carelessness or mistakes on the part of scholars who would insert, change, or omit passages of the Bible when transcribing, including adding commentary, there was a great need for a comprehensive work to understand the original meaning of the Biblical text. Thus, the correctorium was created. It even included excerpts of the original Greek. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hugh is often miscredited for producing the modern division of chapters and verses in the Bible. Chapters had already been established at the time. Verses had not, however Hugh in his concordance used a system in which the chapters were divided into roughly 7 equal parts and the part of the chapter was indicated in the concordance. The basis of the concordance was the Latin Vulgate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information on all of these topics (Mostly from the Catholic Encyclopedia), see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04195a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04195a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_concordance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_concordance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07521b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07521b.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12354c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12354c.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastEditorUserId="1863" LastEditDate="2013-05-17T22:02:52.683" LastActivityDate="2013-05-17T22:02:52.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7118" CreationDate="2013-05-17T22:10:05.277" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus a perfect sacrifice (a fulfillment of the law of Moses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the Lamb in the first passover of Exodus 12 had to be kept for four days before the passover for inspection.  Jesus fulfulled the law in that way because in the few days leading up to his death, on the passover, he was questioned the most severely by the Jews.(Luke 20:40 - And after that they dared not ask him any question at all) &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The High Priest and the Jewish leaders went out to seek people who would bring false accusations against Jesus, but they could not find any two people who could agree:--by the testimony off two or more witnesses, a word will be established. (Matthew 26:59-61The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pilate could not find any fault in Jesus and washed his hands so that his blood would not be on him. (Luke 23:22 And he said to them the third time, &quot;Why, what evil has this man done? ... I have not found any fault in him that deserves death).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4525" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-05-18T06:06:04.267" LastActivityDate="2013-05-18T06:06:04.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16190" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-18T06:52:51.430" Score="24" ViewCount="19901" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did the Nephilim that are mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:4&lt;/a&gt; do anything beyond just existing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4527" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-02-16T06:20:34.457" LastActivityDate="2016-07-10T05:36:12.160" Title="What were the Nephilim, and what role did they play in the Bible beyond just being mentioned?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;nephilim&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16191" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-18T07:06:13.173" Score="3" ViewCount="57" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many versions of the Bible I have read, in footnotes/endnotes they say the Hebrew term for &quot;day&quot; could also mean &quot;period of time.&quot;  So if you took &quot;period of time&quot; to mean oh say, a billion years, pow, the Earth could be seen as 5 to 7 billion years old, which agrees roughly with the scientific community's view.  Then that leaves room for things like evolution, fossil and fossil fuel formation, etc.  Is this something anyone sees as plausible? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4527" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-07T04:00:55.973" LastActivityDate="2015-08-07T04:00:55.973" Title="Is it possible the Biblical and scientific timelines for the age of the earth could link up?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-05-18T16:03:17.753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16190" CreationDate="2013-05-18T10:02:39.000" Score="31" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nephilim are a subject of much debate. There are a number of views on what they were, the two prominent views being the Sethite view and the Angelic view. Both are an opinion on who or what the &quot;sons of God&quot; are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nephelim are most notably mentioned in Genesis and seem to be a driving decision to send the Flood of Noah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Genesis 6:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few things stand out in this one verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;sons of God&quot; procreated with &quot;daughters of humans&quot; which created the Nephilim.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are &quot;heroes of old, men of renown.&quot; They did fantastic things.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were on the Earth &quot;afterward&quot; presumably the Flood.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This short narrative on them is right in the midst of the introduction to Noah and the Flood, hinting that they may have been a reason God brought on the Flood.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, the Sethite view holds that the Sons of God were the righteous men descended from Seth; they praised and worshiped God. The daughters of men are women descended from Cain, who came from wickedness. This view contends that there is nothing particularly special about these persons and it is meant to highlight that the mixing of the righteous people of Seth with the wicked people of Cain led to further wickedness and their subsequent total destruction by the Flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally, the Angelic view holds that the Sons of God were angels or some other spiritual creatures that procreated with human women. This view contends that this act alone was wicked and an indication that these angelic beings were fallen from God's grace, therefore the offspring were inherently wicked. This view also contends that the offspring were giants and beyond human capabilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With both of these views, there is very little Biblical support. However, I find the suppositions and theories very interesting and even fun to research in a science fiction kind of way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The extent to which your exact question is answered depends on which view you want to hear. From the Sethite view it pretty much stops at Goliath, if you call him a Nephilim because he was a giant. From the Angelic view, we can go all the way through Revelation.&lt;/strong&gt; Outside of the Bible we can make many suppositions and links to mythology, but that is a bit outside of the scope of this site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Here are some of the major points concerning the Nephilim:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Points from the scripture&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A people in Canaan are later called Nephilim and giants in Numbers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A man named Anak is listed as a forefather of them. His father is listed as Arba.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It seems that in ancient times, they also went by Anakin, Anakim, or Anakites, all clearly derivatives of the name Anak. They also went by Rephaites; that name's origin is a little less clear.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Three sons of Anak are mentioned by name as if they are still living.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Goliath was a giant; so were his four brothers. This implies that they may have been part of a nearly extinct family of giants, possibly Nephilim descendants.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some of the Apocrypha go into detail about the Nephilim, the Book of Enoch is most notable.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Points from the Sethite View&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Typically, those holding the Sethite view &lt;em&gt;are not&lt;/em&gt; biblical literalists and do not believe in the infallibility of the Scripture. Therefore, their explanations are quite naturalist.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heroes of old is difficult to explain, but it is usually thus: being persons from both lines, the Nephilim united the two lines, setting themselves up as kings and such, and led Earth into prosperity, although at the cost of righteousness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were 'on the Earth afterward' is a scribal insert from the original text. The few times they are mentioned in Numbers is by exaggerating scouts; they even went so far as to call them giants. Though they may have been, the source is shaky.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Points from the Angelic View&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Typically, those holding the Angelic view &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; biblical literalists and believe in the infallibility of the Scripture. Therefore, their explanations do not hesitate anything so long as the text of the Scripture mentions it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They were heroes because they &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; giants. That much we can know for sure. There are obvious advantages to being larger than everyone else. Goliath is often pointed to as evidence that the Nephilim must have been giants, too. Being half angel or something else non-human they might have had impressive abilities. They may have been able to do things that we cannot even comprehend. I have heard everything from the ability to levitate to supernatural strength to unsurpassed cunning. This easily puts them in line to seize and rule the entire Earth and become &quot;heroes&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There have been many draws from mythology and pagan gods to the Nephilim, with some even arguing that characters like Hercules and Ra were real at least in part and were Nephilim.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A reason the Flood was decided was to wipe out the Nephilim, which were an abomination to God. The fact that some survived was reason for the flat out genocide of some of the peoples of Canaan; the Nephilim needed to be destroyed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some have purported that demons are the disembodied Nephilim that have perished. Demons seem obsessed with possessing persons because they are disembodied. Their soul is not like a human soul. They would surely not be allowed in heaven and perhaps there angelic abilities keep them from spiritual imprisonment elsewhere. The story of the group of demons called &quot;Legion&quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 5&lt;/a&gt; illustrate this.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I read a fascinating, and frankly creepy, book that connected the Nephilim with alien abductions and went on further to name them as the 2nd beast of Revelation that makes the world bow down and worship the image of the 1st beast. It is completely outlandish, but water tight once a few assumptions are taken.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has a fantastic &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim&quot;&gt;article on the Nephilim&lt;/a&gt;, however, it seems very disorganized to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I wrote an essay on the topic, but I could not find it. I did find my preliminary notes. Here they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The following are all the verses that are or might be related to the Nephilim.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Gen. 6:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—The &lt;em&gt;Nephilim&lt;/em&gt; were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2014:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Gen. 14:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—[They] went out and defeated…the &lt;em&gt;Emites&lt;/em&gt;[see Dt. 2:10].&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2023:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Gen. 23:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—&lt;em&gt;Kiriath Arba&lt;/em&gt; is a name for &lt;em&gt;Hebron&lt;/em&gt; which is in Canaan.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2035:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Gen. 35:27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—&lt;em&gt;Kiriath Arba is Hebron&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2013:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Nu. 13:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—They went up through the Negev and came to &lt;em&gt;Hebron&lt;/em&gt;, where &lt;em&gt;Ahiman, Sheshai&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Talmai&lt;/em&gt;, the descendents of &lt;em&gt;Anak&lt;/em&gt;, lived.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2013:33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Nu. 13:33&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—We saw the &lt;em&gt;Nephilim&lt;/em&gt; there (&lt;em&gt;the descendents of Anak come from the Nephilim&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%201:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Dt. 1:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—We even saw the &lt;em&gt;Anakites&lt;/em&gt; there.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%202:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Dt. 2:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—(about the land of Ar) the &lt;em&gt;Emites&lt;/em&gt; used to live there—a people strong            and numerous, and as tall as the &lt;em&gt;Anakites&lt;/em&gt;. Like the &lt;em&gt;Anakites&lt;/em&gt;, they too were considered &lt;em&gt;Rephaites&lt;/em&gt;, but the Moabites called them &lt;em&gt;Emites&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%209:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Dt. 9:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—(on lands across the Jordan) The people are strong and tall—&lt;em&gt;Anakites&lt;/em&gt;!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2011:21-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jos. 11:21,22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—Joshua destroyed the &lt;em&gt;Anakites&lt;/em&gt;. No &lt;em&gt;Anakites&lt;/em&gt; were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, did any survive.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2014:12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jos. 14:12&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—(Caleb talking) You yourself heard then that the &lt;em&gt;Anakites&lt;/em&gt; were there and            that their cities were large and fortified.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2014:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jos. 14:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—&lt;em&gt;Hebron&lt;/em&gt; used to be called &lt;em&gt;Kiriath Arba&lt;/em&gt; after &lt;em&gt;Arba&lt;/em&gt; who was the                  greatest man among the &lt;em&gt;Anakites&lt;/em&gt; (Hebron is also mentioned other times in the Bible, but long after the Anakites were all ran out).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2015:13-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jos. 15:13,14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—&lt;em&gt;Arba&lt;/em&gt; was the forefather of &lt;em&gt;Anak&lt;/em&gt;. Caleb drove out &lt;em&gt;the 3 Anakites&lt;/em&gt;: &lt;em&gt;Ahiman, Sheshai&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Talmai&lt;/em&gt; from &lt;em&gt;Hebron&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2021:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jos. 21:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—&lt;em&gt;Kiriath Arba is Hebron&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Arba&lt;/em&gt; was the forefather of &lt;em&gt;Anak&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=judges%201:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jdg. 1:10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—They advanced against the Canaanites living in &lt;em&gt;Hebron&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;formerly            called Kiriath Arba&lt;/em&gt;) and defeated &lt;em&gt;Ahiman, Sheshai&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Talmai&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%2011:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Ne. 11:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—People of Judah lived in &lt;em&gt;Kiriath Arba&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2017&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Sam. 17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—The story of &lt;em&gt;Goliath&lt;/em&gt; begins here. &lt;em&gt;Goliath&lt;/em&gt; is clearly described as a &lt;em&gt;giant&lt;/em&gt;. He is from Gath. This was during war with the &lt;em&gt;Philistines&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2020:4-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Chr. 20:4-8&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021:15-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;2 Sam. 21:15-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—In these verses we learn &lt;em&gt;Goliath had a giant brother named Lahmi&lt;/em&gt; and was descended from &lt;em&gt;Repha&lt;/em&gt;, though he was called a &lt;em&gt;Gittite&lt;/em&gt;. There is also a short description of a 6-fingered, 6-toed &lt;em&gt;giant Rephaite named Sippai or Saph&lt;/em&gt;. David is almost slain by a &lt;em&gt;Rephaite named Ishbi-Benob&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2020:8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Chr. 20:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—Seems to be the nail in the coffin for the &lt;em&gt;Rephaites at Gath&lt;/em&gt;. Says they fell at David's hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The following were preliminary conclusions. They are from a biblical literalist view.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nephilim were a real people who lived before and after the flood. That is very clear in the Scripture. They received the name Anakites from Anak who was a descendant to Arba&#xA;who was &quot;the greatest man among them.&quot; The land they lived in was called Kiriath&#xA;Arba, but it was later called Hebron. The mention of the Emites leads me to conclude that these people were also from the Nephilim, but perhaps their lineage was lost or unknown. Dt. 2:10 shows the confusion of who they were, but it strongly asserts that they were also large and strong people. &quot;Rephaites&quot; is only mentioned in passing in a few areas. It is possible, that because of confusion and different people using different names, that Anakites, Emites, and Rephaites were all the same people; it is also possible that Gittites were the same people as well. Dt. 9:2 hints that there were other tribes of people who may have been related to the Nephilim through the Anakites, or they may be directly related to the Nephilim. Perhaps like Israel, they were divided into tribes, maybe from the sons of Arba or Anak. The mention of Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai in Nu. 13:28 and Jos. 15:13,14 hints at this possibility; it is not a stretch to assume that these three persons were chiefs, kings, or some other kind of leaders fr their people. When we look at Goliath the scriptures clearly call him and his family Rephaites, who are descendants of Anakites. There are quite a few details about them, and they are all surrounded by stories of war with the Philistines. The Philistines clearly were allied with them or perhaps the Rephaites were Philistines. Considering the Philistines were eventually completely destroyed, the last of the descendants of the Nephilim were either killed or integrated into other, normal races. If there were (or are) surviving Nephilim the Bible does not explicitly record it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-09-11T19:47:03.827" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T19:47:03.827" CommentCount="28" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16184" CreationDate="2013-05-18T18:35:50.520" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Q1: I understand Wesleyan perfectionism to be rather more amiable than often assumed. The theory is not that a Christian &lt;em&gt;shall&lt;/em&gt; attain to an utter and persistent inerrancy. It is that a moment of pure faith in God is possible and in that moment, for as long as it lasts, there is nothing in which that Christian is morally at fault: past sins are forgiven or otherwise remitted (e.g. resolved in themselves by that pure faith) and momentarily the faith precludes sin, since &quot;whatsoever is not of faith is sin&quot; and thus sin could only proceed from a faithlessness of which the Christian in that moment is not guilty. There are forms of perfectionism which hold a view closer to the one I think you are viewing, but I don't take Wesleyan perfectionism to be one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q2: This question is partially nullified by my answer above. Nonetheless, I question the aim and motive of such an attempt at attaining, you might say, &quot;perfection by prayer&quot;. That we might excuse ourselves of our sins by the consolation that we can merely pray ourselves into a moral perfection and thus not really need to develop the character to will with God against those sins? I imagine the Jesus we see in the Gospels would take issue with that! Why would God give us a will, and then go to lengths to ensure that we exercise that will and grow into alignment in that will with his own will, if in the end the solution is a momentary disavowal of that will, after which we never have to make any conscious effort to continue willing God's will? It seems like the daydream of one who desires to abdicate the moral responsibility God explicitly created him to have (God is the one who created our wills -- and called them good). So, so far as I believe I have understood God in my life, his project in me is to get me to continue to grow in trust of him (to have utter faith in him), that I might be freed to will according to his will, instead of being &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/hebrews/2-15.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;'[H]e too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might... free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.' (Hebrews 2:14-15)&quot;&gt;constrained by my fears&lt;/a&gt; to oppose his will and affect my own salvation or immortality (whether literally or symbolically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q3: If I understand the concept of &quot;pray to moral behavior&quot; as you mean it, it seems so foreign to the view of moral development in the Jewish mind and the emphasis on obedience in the words of Jesus in the Gospels that I question whether the theory could even be taken seriously enough by the Biblical authors to be addressed directly. What I would expect to find in Scripture, then, would be an assumed understanding that such a method of moral development (if it could be called that) could not possibly fit the nature of God, nor the evident nature of humanity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, I would make clear that I hold prayer to be one of the fundamentals of Christian life and moral development, for several reasons, not the least of which being that it is an &lt;em&gt;exercise&lt;/em&gt; in several essential things: 1) thinking of God personally; 2) trusting God personally; 3) prioritizing one's thinking in light of matters of eternal significance; 4) thinking of and empathizing with other people than ourselves (even if only God); 5) seeing ourselves with a measure of objectivity (that is, from God's perspective); 6) seeking security and truth outside ourselves; 7) admitting we don't have all the answers and are not sufficient for ourselves (that is, humility); 8) patience; 9) reflection and self-assessment; 10) listening (depending on the case) to the Spirit, to reason, and/or to the consciences God gave us and which may be trying to win our attention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, I believe prayer affects God in some way. &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/john/14-14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;'You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.' (John 14:14)&quot;&gt;Jesus&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+11%3A5-13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;I tell you, even though the man inside will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of the first man’s sheer persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs.... If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!' (Luke 11:5-13)&quot;&gt;certainly seemed&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A1-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;The Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-8)&quot;&gt;to believe so,&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5%3A15-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;'The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.' (James 5:15-16)&quot;&gt;as did his brother.&lt;/a&gt; Now, I think the common apprehension here is due to our limitation: we think of God so one-dimensionally, as if God existed according to the precise same relation to time that we do. It is not clear that our past is the same, conceptually, as God's past. It may indeed be a category error to even posit such a thing as 'God's past' or 'God's future'. Herein lies the possibility for God both to be responsive to our prayers and to be 'the same yesterday, today, and forever': God exists, as nearly as we can express in human language, ever-presently. Our past, our present, and our future are all concurrent to God. It may be that God heard your prayer in your 2004 when he was forming the foundations of the world and simultaneously was speaking as the Lamb before John and passing before Moses and watching a sunrise in the autumn in Maine in days before European settlers reached the Americas. So God's actions, taken as a whole, are responsive to his own creation, from his perspective, but from our perspective it is equally true to say that he always intended, say, to ensure that a certain person didn't die in a certain storm in 1997. So it must be said that God always intended it, but it must also be said that he always intended it because he heard our prayers from before the foundation of the world. Thus God is both changeless (he would never have done otherwise than he has done) and open (God may respond especially, to any -- or, as it may be, every -- choice of humanity, and no doubt every honest prayer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And lest someone claim that this seems to threaten his sovereignty, I would call to their attention that if indeed God chose sovereignly to give the power of volition to his creatures, then it follows as a matter of course that he sovereignly wills that they will (else why conceive of giving us wills?). Thus the idea that we have wills, and that he may honor those wills to any extent of his pleasing (even fully), does not in itself threaten God's sovereignty. He can, if he wants, give us wills, and give our wills space to will, to some extent, and himself respond to those wills actively.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4521" LastEditorUserId="4521" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T17:57:44.247" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T17:57:44.247" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16150" CreationDate="2013-05-18T18:47:39.607" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of people in the know are saying that the last language without the Bible will have a translation started (perhaps not finished) during the lifetime of many (most?) people alive today. I have seen the date of 2038, for example. Of course, that assumes that God's people continue to support Bible translation with prayers, giving and getting involved. Linear projections are tricky.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4528" LastActivityDate="2013-05-18T18:47:39.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15976" CreationDate="2013-05-18T22:48:07.900" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always thought of Samson as a figure for brokenness and healing.  The whole book of Judges goes to show that God can use anyone at all as a witness for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4530" LastActivityDate="2013-05-18T22:48:07.900" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7880" CreationDate="2013-05-19T04:00:57.273" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This topic has already been very thoroughly answered, but I just found this in the LDS Church Handbook which seems instructive, so I thought I'd quote it here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Section 21.1.34   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Referring to the Church and Its Members&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As the Church grows across boundaries, cultures, and languages, the&#xA;  use of its revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day&#xA;  Saints (see D&amp;amp;C 115:4), is increasingly important in the&#xA;  responsibility of the Church and its members to proclaim the name of&#xA;  the Savior throughout all the world. Accordingly, references to the&#xA;  Church should include its full name whenever possible. Following an&#xA;  initial reference to the full name of the Church, the contractions&#xA;  “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Referring to the Church as “the Mormon Church,” “the Latter-day Saints&#xA;  Church,” or “the LDS Church” is discouraged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When referring to Church members, it is preferable to use the phrase&#xA;  “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” As a&#xA;  shortened reference, “Latter-day Saints” is preferred and “Mormons” is&#xA;  acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word Mormon will continue to be used in proper names like the Book&#xA;  of Mormon and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It will also continue to be&#xA;  used as an adjective in phrases such as “Mormon pioneers.” In&#xA;  addition, it may be necessary to use the word Mormon to identify the&#xA;  Church as it is commonly known in some countries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the use of the term &quot;LDS Church&quot; is discouraged, and on some occasions, the term &quot;Mormon ...&quot; is quite acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2013-05-19T04:00:57.273" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16200" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-19T16:50:46.060" Score="15" ViewCount="194877" Body="&lt;p&gt;We often see ancient sums of money approximately described in terms of some modern currency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How much were the 30 pieces of silver that Judas received as payment for his betrayal worth, expressed in today's currency? (USD or Euro, around 2010-2013)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_pieces_of_silver#Identity_of_the_coins&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; lists it in terms of days of wages for a skilled laborer—wages for 120 days, assuming the coins were tetradrachms—but how does that translate into modern currency? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-03-19T06:44:18.277" LastActivityDate="2019-04-23T00:14:40.817" Title="How much were the 30 pieces of silver (Judas's payment) worth?" Tags="&lt;money&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16203" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16204" CreationDate="2013-05-20T04:50:57.253" Score="7" ViewCount="1790" Body="&lt;p&gt;To my understanding, the bible is divinely inspired by God? However is this the only book that has been inspired or developed through this method? Are there other books equivalent or near equal to the bible in regards to Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T12:06:41.883" Title="Are there any other books, divined by God, regarding Christianity?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-05-20T22:40:04.137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16203" CreationDate="2013-05-20T05:14:40.877" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's just a matter of what you believe or what you don't believe... The Koran was inspired by God (according to Islam) and it also mentions Christ in there. There also might be other books/literature about any specific topic. But categorizing it as &quot;divinely inspired&quot; will just be based on your belief and trust on people who claims that it is &quot;divinely inspired&quot;. I mean how can you tell if a book is really divinely inspired? Is it because the book itself say's it is? Or is it because some people say it is? How do we determine if a book is genuinely divinely inspired? We must first establish a set of rules on how to determine something before we can say it is part of that category.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="4384" LastEditDate="2013-05-20T08:06:24.223" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T08:06:24.223" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16203" CreationDate="2013-05-20T07:39:01.033" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;To keep it short and sweet: &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt; by definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To elaborate a little bit, the Bible is itself a compilation of individual books written at various points in history at -- according to Christianity -- the direction of the spirit of God (i.e. not just written, but inspired). The compilation of books that are judged to be inspired is known as the Canon. There are a lot of steps and factors that went into deciding what was Canonical and or not (and even a couple differences in Canons used by major divisions within Christianity) but in broad strokes it is pretty well settled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simple answer is &quot;no&quot; because if according to Christianity there were any other inspired works that carried the authority of divine inspiration, they would have been part of the Canon. You are asking if Christianity considers anything else to be inspired: the Canon is the set of things we believe to be inspired works on the same level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T07:39:01.033" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16203" CreationDate="2013-05-20T08:14:14.230" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prerequisite:&lt;/strong&gt; Before giving a straight answer, we need to deal with the canonization of the Bible which is a subject of endless debate. Therefore, let us assume that the Bible in this context means the complete Bible including the Apocryphal Books as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Are there other books equivalent or nearly equal to the bible in regards to Christianity?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Yes!. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some books nearly equivalent to the books in New Testament Canon but &lt;strong&gt;not equal.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistles_of_Clement&quot;&gt;Epistles of Clement:&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;This epistle was included in many of the oldest surviving copies of NT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas&quot;&gt;Epistle of Barnabas:&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Very important epistle written by Barnabas who was a companion of Saint Paul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd_of_Hermas&quot;&gt;The Shepherd of Hermas:&lt;/a&gt; Less important but found in many old codices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_with_Trypho&quot;&gt;Dialogue with Trypho:&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;A good book which defends the early Christian Faith and theology. Trinity concept is well explained here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache&quot;&gt;Didache:&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;A book which explains the ordinances of the early Christian church. Method of Baptism is well described.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still there are some authentic books which are of far less importance, written by the Church Fathers, but I don't think they are worth mentioning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; As mentioned, these books are &lt;strong&gt;not equivalent to the NT Canons&lt;/strong&gt; but are very close. There is no need of reading them because they speak the same thing what the Canons are saying. They are useful only to defend the authenticity of the NT Canons and to know the early Christian Faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; Only the NT Canons are regarded as Divinely Inspired by God. Other books like the ones mentioned here may or may not be inspired by God. Even, how the Book of Revelation was selected instead of The Apocalypse of Peter in the NT Canon is also something which we don't really understand.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-05-20T12:06:41.883" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T12:06:41.883" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16207" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16217" CreationDate="2013-05-20T08:51:03.093" Score="5" ViewCount="921" Body="&lt;p&gt;In many churches nowadays, there are a lot of people claiming to have the gifts of the holy spirit(prophets, speaking in tongues etc). In my experience, most of them are just looking for personal gain that's why I started thinking they are all false prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, recently I had an experience which I believe truly is a message from God through a prophet(see first edit for more details).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why I am asking what are some biblical ways to test whether someone is speaking from God(guided by the Holy spirit) or by themselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="952" LastEditDate="2013-05-21T08:17:12.163" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T08:17:12.163" Title="How to know whether God truly spoke to you?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-05-21T08:48:25.383" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16203" CreationDate="2013-05-20T09:06:40.693" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The canon has included only those books which are inspired and there are no other books equivalent or near equal.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why only these are considered inspired?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God were to authenticate any of the books as His communication and therefore as inspired teachings, He would have to verify it in a manner that could not be duplicated by mere humans. Otherwise people could make up their own messages and simply claim that they came from God. &lt;strong&gt;God achieved this by fulfilling of many prophesies recorded in these books over the ages.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real determination of any books claim for its inspired truth is in its supernatural evidence, including prophecy. God used prophets to speak and write down His Word and God used miracles like fulfilled prophecy to authenticate His messengers. For example, in Genesis 12:7, God promises the land of Israel for Abraham and his descendants. In 1948 Israel was returned back to the Jewish people for the second time in history. This may not seem so astonishing until you realize that no nation in the history of the world has been scattered from its homeland and returned! Israel has done it twice. The book of Daniel predicts with accuracy the coming of the four great kingdoms from Babylon, to Medo-Persia, to Greece, to Rome centuries before some of those kingdoms came on the scene (a time span of over 1,000 years!) with details concerning how they would rule and be broken. This includes the reigns of Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Ezekiel 26 we can see in astonishing detail how the city of Tyre was to be destroyed, how it would be torn down, and how its debris would be thrown into the sea. When Alexander the Great marched on that area, he used these rocks, the leftover rubble from the city of Tyre for the land bridge.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several prophecies concerning Christ in the books of Old Testament and it would take more than a few screens worth of space to list them all. Further, Jesus would have had no control over many of them such as His birthplace or time and type of birth. Second, the odds of one man accidentally fulfilling even a very few of these is miniscule.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other books (after canonization of Bible) claiming to be inspired but they make clear historical and judgemental errors. Others have no fulfilled prophesies to claim that they are inspired. There are these other books which makes judgments against Christians for believing things that they do not (nor have they ever) believed. For example, there claims that Christians believe the Trinity is the Father, the Mother (Mary). Divinely inspired books need at least be able to accurately report what is being believed by others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-05-20T11:02:00.763" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T11:02:00.763" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16200" CreationDate="2013-05-20T13:55:37.457" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming that the 30 pieces of silver are the tetradachmas that Thayer suggests, the total weight of the 30 pieces of silver would be 15 troy ounces, or something not too far from 1 pound of english measure.  (Not that most Europeans would need the equivalent, but its roughly 466 grams). Per &lt;a href=&quot;http://cointrackers.com/silver-prices/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt;, 1 troy ounce of silver, trading on May 20, 2013, is $21.64.  The total dollar value of 15 such ounces would thus be $324.60.  Phrased exactly according to the terms of your question (What would the value of the metal be), that is exactly your answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, it's also a completely bogus number. You really are much better off thinking of it as half a year's wages.  Here's why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;$324.60 would have an impact far in excess of the current value nearly 2000 years ago.  The things that one could do with $324.60 in today's terms is completely incomparable to what could be done back then.  To say you could maybe a small computer with that, for example, is completely irrelavant.  Even to compare that &quot;two weeks worth of groceries for my family&quot; is bogus, because $324.60 would fed a family for a heck of a lot longer than that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The price of the metal discounts all sorts of other economic factors.  Today, silver is a rather nontraditional investment.  Back then, it was money.  We no longer peg the dollar to precious metal.  They did.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pieces of silver were regularly adulterated - once monarchs learned they could shave the value of the metal in a coin, inflation became commonplace.  Even if we knew what type of coin, we don't have data as to the purity of the coin in question.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The concept of a middle class was much more of a rarity.  30 pieces of silver to the very rich was very little.  To the very poor, it was a lot.  Most moderns in the West are neither, and as such the emotional reaction to the money (which after all, really was the point for Judas) would be very different from the actual value.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Should you be able to unearth these coins, their historical value would well outstrip the actual value of the bullion.  I know where I could put my hands on a parchment that was signed in 1776.  I guarantee you that its best sale price would not be fetched by carefully removing the ink where a bunch of American white guys put their 'John Hancock''s on it and reuse it as a sheet of paper. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The time element really is significant.  The minimum wage in the United States is approximately $7.25/hr.  That means, in the United States, it would take a maximum of 45 hours to earn that much money.  As a country, the United States is sufficient rich in labor saving devices and capital to make that a reality.  In Bangladesh, the minimum wage is $0.11/hr, meaning that it is not unreasonable to assume it would take an individual 3000 hours (or nearly one and a half years working 40 hour weeks) to collect the same.  The difference between 1 standard week and more than 17 months is due to a difference in living conditions between two countries &lt;em&gt;at the same time in history&lt;/em&gt;.  When you start doing temporal calculations, the math gets way worse. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result of each of these concerns, plus others not listed, Wikipedia is right to list in terms of days' wages.  Imagine, for example, what half a year's wages would mean to you (regardless of &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; socioeconomic status).  That struggle - choosing between money and God - was what was going on in Judas' heart.  (Well, amongst other things, at least).  To compare apples to apples, you really should be comparing your situation to his.  The best proxy I can think up is a percentage of your regular income.  Half a year's worth of my salary would certainly be tempting indeed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: More on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;drachma can be had at this link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2019-04-23T00:14:40.817" LastActivityDate="2019-04-23T00:14:40.817" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1718" CreationDate="2013-05-20T16:15:35.077" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Tree of Life - Christ - Grace was always available but Saten knowing this, deceived man to seek ' Knowledge'...to be ' as God'.  Jesus through His death brought again by His grace 'eternal life'.&#xA;At His Crucifiction ' religion' cried for the release of Barabbas who was guilty of SEDITION and MURDER and this is what 'religion' got, the Spirit of.&#xA;Religion (sedition) keeps trying to take and direct the believer to ' the knowledge of good and Evil', always  back to that Tree, back to the fruit of Death. though they deny this, Whereas Jesus by His Death is saying ' eat of me the Tree of Eternal Life'. The Revelation of Ezekial 36 and the New Covenent is that this fruit of Christ, eternal life with God, is Gods work  for it is Gods life through the Holy Spirit indwelling in the believer. Hence the whole Law of the Prophets can be summed up in Love God, Love neighbour and Love each other.&#xA;The teaching of 'good and evil' evey Sunday takes the focus away from HIM and HINM Crucified, it is sedition and comes from the murder..this is the false spirit of religion that Kills the Christ.&#xA;This is MY Body, this is MY blood, EAT &amp;amp; DRINK, He fed 600, 0000 in the( Church of )  Desert for 40 years, the Disciples could not discern this re feeding of the thousands.&#xA;Come to Me ( Tree of Life ) all those that are weary and I will give you rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4536" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T16:15:35.077" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16211" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6938" CreationDate="2013-05-20T16:29:51.737" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to remember that the Old Testament canon was not set by Christians. but Jews. The RCC Old Testament canon is that of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish Holy Scriptures done by Jews in the third century &lt;em&gt;before Christ&lt;/em&gt;, and by extension, before the church was even thought of. Back then, the Jewish canon obviously included these extra books we today call the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. The Protestant canon follows the modern Jewish canon (the one that was established at the caouncil of Yavneh by the rabbis around the end of the first century after Christ). They dropped the deuterocanon, but kept the books that make up the protestant Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, Esther is in the Christian Bible because it is in the Jewish Bible. Why would the Jews include it in their Bible? Chiefly because it tells the story for one of their feasts, that of Purim. Purim is a joyous festival in which they act out the story of Esther by reading through the book of Esther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T16:29:51.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8321" CreationDate="2013-05-20T17:13:07.427" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) We understand the bible better&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take the Reformation. It's easy to believe that the average Christian had a better understanding of the Bible, on the biblical record on grace, 100 years after the Reformation than 100 years before.  Few would argue that the bible changed or that the breakthrough came when we decided to throw out outdated passages. The one thing that really changed was our understanding of how it all fits together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Look more closely at human nature described in scripture.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Romans 3, Paul decribes human nature.  It applies to everyone, heathen or saved, 40 A.D., 1400 A.D., or today. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“There is no one righteous, not even one;&#xA;   there is no one who understands;&#xA;      there is no one who seeks God.&#xA;  All have turned away,&#xA;      they have together become worthless;&#xA;  there is no one who does good,&#xA;      not even one. Their throats are open graves;&#xA;      their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood;&#xA;      ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3) Look more closely at current events.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on &quot;contemporary slavery&quot;&lt;/a&gt; says &quot;[S]lavery is prevalent in many forms today, all over the world.&quot;  It's been said there are more slaves in the US now than in the 1860's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4) Look more closely at which verses demand primacy over others.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are events in the Old Testament that are kind of hard to explain in today's mores (Joshua 6:41).  But is there any command in Scripture that DEMANDS we take Joshua 6:41 as the PRIMARY passage we turn to in forming our ethics?  No.  I have collected these verses which themselves claim to have priority. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2nd Greatest Commandment&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Golden Rule&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;Do to others as you would have them do to yourself” Luke 6:31&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Weightier Matters of Law.&lt;/strong&gt; “But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.”  Matthew 23:23&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to drive the point home, with a hypothetical example.  Suppose a slavemaster opens up his bible and reads both Joshua 6:41 and Matthew 23:23.  Can he by any stretch of the imagination say that the biblical record on treatment of his neighbor is unclear?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's another example.  Suppose a driver sees on one hand some statutes on the law books saying he &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;must not engage&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; in vehicular homicide, and on the other hand a sign telling him he &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; drive as fast as 40 MPH.  He then sees a bunch of children in the street. It would be absurd to claim the law is unclear. Or if the driver eventually decided to stop running over children, the problem was ultimately with the lawbooks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T17:13:07.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15898" CreationDate="2013-05-20T17:59:27.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit can still remind us of what Christ has said to his apostles in the Gospels, as well as what through the epistles and in Revelation. You may wonder what good that may be, but the answer is: Plenty! When you are talking to people, you don't always have time to scour your Bible for answers. If you are well read in the Bible, the Holy Spirit could bring to mind verses that you have read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the Holy Spirit does the same kind of works today as he did back then, to those who are open to allow Him to work in their lives with free reign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T17:59:27.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16215" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16233" CreationDate="2013-05-20T18:24:21.827" Score="10" ViewCount="4857" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question has been nagging at me for a while, how can one tell the difference between honest-to-God inspiration from the Holy Spirit and thoughts that are induced by themselves out of the needs or fears of the person.  The Spirit is described as a 'still small voice' which can be strikingly similar to the things you tell yourself if you want to convince yourself of something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: I have this friend who went on about three dates with a guy before he proposed to her claiming he had prayed to God and received revelation from the Spirit that they were meant to be together. She of course didn't buy into it and rejected him flat out, because he had convinced himself of revelation that was simply untrue, no matter much he wanted it to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we prevent ourselves from making similar mistakes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4539" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-10T19:01:17.173" LastActivityDate="2015-11-10T19:01:17.173" Title="How does one discern between thoughts inspired by the Holy Spirit and those produced from themselves" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;providence&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-06-29T09:23:18.160" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16216" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-20T18:48:29.913" Score="14" ViewCount="1888" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_of_Cusa&quot;&gt;Nicholas of Cusa&lt;/a&gt; (1401-1464), wrote in part 1, chapter 12 of his &lt;em&gt;De docta ignorantia&lt;/em&gt; (1440):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Others who are very talented compared, to the Super-blessed Trinity, a triangle consisting&#xA;  of three equal right angles. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Alii peritissimi Trinitati superbenedictae triangulum trium aequalium et rectorum angulorum compararunt&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we are all aware of representations of the Trinity using an equilateral plane triangle. The triangle described by Nicholas is not possible in the plane, though it makes sense on the surface of a sphere, for example. He seems to imagine it (see ch. 19) as a planar figure having three infinite sides, and argues that the angles must necessarily be equal and as large as possible. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Setting aside any mathematical problems with his geometry, I'm curious about the origin of this image. It would seem to be related to other geometric metaphors for God, such as &quot;an infinite line&quot; or &quot;a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere&quot;. But I have not heard this one before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who came up with this idea and what did they mean by it?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(By the way, the &quot;others&quot; in the quotation above means &quot;some people who are not &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury&quot;&gt;Anselm&lt;/a&gt;&quot; in context. I thought he might be talking about himself, but I don't know if there is another, earlier work of his which contains this triangle image. It seems to crop up in &lt;em&gt;De venatione sapientiae&lt;/em&gt; chapter 26, but he says in its preface that he is 61 years old, which would make it later than &lt;em&gt;De docta ignorantia&lt;/em&gt;. It's still possible that he's attributing his own belief to some deliberately-unnamed expert, but if so then I'd still like to find a definitive argument to that effect.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1. Translation by Jasper Hopkins (1985) and appearing in his &lt;em&gt;Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa&lt;/em&gt;, Arthur J. Banning Press, 2001. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cusanus-portal.de/content/fw.php?werk=13&amp;amp;fw=34&amp;amp;ln=hopkins&quot;&gt;Parallel texts from Cusanus-Portal&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;2. It's not clear why he thinks they must be right angles. In some sense it would be more consistent with his reasoning for them all to be 180 degrees, which is one reason to believe that in this case, he's talking about someone else's idea.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2016-12-31T11:39:46.630" Title="Who compared the Trinity to a triangle with three right angles?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16207" CreationDate="2013-05-20T18:51:37.753" Score="6" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Summary&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The verses below tell you clearly what to do. Use logic and reason, consult with Christians wiser than you, and test this man's words. Praise God if he passes. Rebuke the man if he does not.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Modified from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14628/what-was-the-biblical-basis-for-testing-the-truthfulness-of-every-statement-made/14632#14632&quot;&gt;a previous answer of mine&lt;/a&gt; on testing prophets&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first thing I want to say is that if your wife is a Christian with a moderately strong faith you should tell her immediately. She should be your guide through this. That will be the extent of the personal advice I will give.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible says a great deal about testing prophets and spirits. From your story, the man, whom you did not know, came up to you uninvited and told you information about yourself that he could not have known. I assume he also had a message for you of some sort, else what would be the point. He has performed an act of prophesy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar situation from the Bible is when Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman at the well in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 4&lt;/a&gt;. Jesus, using the give of prophecy, was able to know things about the woman and give her a message that she then likely told to the whole town (that message was that the messiah was here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the following is from the Bible on how to test spirits and prophets. Much of this can be applied to your situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A spirit will confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John+4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 John 4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although this verse says 'spirit' I think it is just as easily applied to prophets. Both are charged with speaking God's words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse also not only says it is okay to test the spirits but implies that you should every time. You should be comfortable with the fact that this event has happened and even more comfortable that you are approaching it with a healthy amount of skepticism. Assuming you are a Christian, you are equipped to discern the divinity of this event, however, part of that equipping is consulting other Christians that you know. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+27%3A17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 27:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A person speaking by the spirit will claim Jesus is Lord&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 12:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is pretty straight forward. Did this person use any language that implies this? In the best case scenario you can question this person directly: &quot;Is Jesus Christ the Lord of all?&quot; He should be able to easily confess Christ is Lord and praise and worship Him with you. Since you were at a church that is a good sign, however, it would be best if you saw him worshiping or otherwise confessing the sovereignty of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A prophet will not contradict God's word&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 8:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Praise God for giving us His word! Full of His wisdom! You have the Bible and can easily consult it concerning what this person told you. From your story, it seems like you are struggling with something, such as a difficult decision or perhaps how to reconcile a sin. The Bible has much to say on many topics. If there is anything that this person said that contradicts His Word, than I am afraid he was not speaking from the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A prophet will not prove himself with wonders then ask you to worship other Gods&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut 13:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I very much doubt that occurred in your story, but just in case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The predictions of a prophet must come to pass&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”&#xA;  21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut 18:20-22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses imply that an already proven prophet can later be unproven. This backs up 1 John's claim to test them every time and not just the first time. Apparently saying God said something that He did not is a capital offense, so you could argue that a prophet of ancient times was very slow to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if this person said anything about what will be, that &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; come true. There is no exception. If his would be predictions do not come true he was not speaking from the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A true prophet will live a righteous life&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%207&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt 7:15-20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will likely not help you much, but it is still worth noting. If you can learn something about his life and lifestyle then you can make a determination whether he was doing his best to live a Christian life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verses tell you clearly what to do. Use logic and reason, consult with Christians wiser than you, and test this man. Praise God if he passes. Rebuke the man if he does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T18:51:37.753" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1793" CreationDate="2013-05-20T19:07:22.377" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only group I am aware of who see speaking in tongues as necessary to salvation are the United Pentecostal Churches, which teach some other doctrines most Christians would disagree with. For example, they are deny the Trinity and teach that there is only one person in the Godhead who appears in different forms at different times, whereas the Trinity teaches there are three persons in one being known as God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All other Pentecostals and Charismatics, to my knowledge, teach that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. The baptism of the Holy Spirit (in which one receives the speaking in tongues for the first time) is seen as a second event, unnecessary to salvation but important for Christian maturity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be seen in the New Testament. The disciples received the Holy Spirit in the book of John after the Resurrection. They were not baptized with and filled with the Holy Spirit until Pentecost several weeks later in Acts 2. Its the same today. Every Christian receives the Holy Spirit at salvation (when the accept Christ's death and resurrection as atoning for their sins and adopting us as children of God), but are not filled with the Holy Spirit until the baptism of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether one has been baptized with the Holy Spirit or not, though, does not determine if they are saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T19:07:22.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2248" CreationDate="2013-05-20T19:25:15.807" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to some of the church fathers, some of the rabbis changed some readings in their Hebrew Bible to make it less Messianic. If you read the Septuagint (or an English translation of it), you will notice the Septuagint (which was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures done by Jews a few hundred years before Christ was ever born) seems to be more messianic than the Masoretic text (the standard Hebrew text of the Hebrew Scriptures). Whether the original text of the old testament was closer to the Septuagint and the rabbis changed it to be less messianic (as some of the early church fathers claim), or whether the Masoretic text is faithful to the original and the Jews who translated the Septuagint just did a bad job, I don't know. What I do know is that when the apostles quoted the Old Testament in the New Testament Greek, they usually quoted the Septuagint. So I am willing to give the Septuagint a fair look when comparing translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My suspicion is that the original was somewhere between the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea scroll, and the Samaritan Torah. I think all these are derivatives of the original, and the original could probably be reconstructed applying textual criticism to these like we have done with the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastEditorUserId="4537" LastEditDate="2013-05-20T19:34:42.233" LastActivityDate="2013-05-20T19:34:42.233" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16220" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16227" CreationDate="2013-05-20T20:56:20.660" Score="10" ViewCount="17967" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48 NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God expects us to be perfect. What is meant by &quot;perfect&quot;? How can any human be without error, this side of heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastActivityDate="2015-02-23T18:19:14.093" Title="What does it mean to be perfect?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-02-27T02:55:16.533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16215" CreationDate="2013-05-21T02:59:00.487" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is actually no way you can do it by yourself. Because you would be bias towards any information. We can always pick any experience or dream and tell ourselves its a message from God or it wasn't if we didn't like the message(even if it really was from the holy spirit). fredsbend had answered this type of questions &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16207/how-to-know-whether-god-truly-spoke-to-you&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. But even with those rules, you would still be biased. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example.. a person had an experience and God says to him that he should sacrifice his daughter. The holy spirit had passed all the test... Like when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son.. If you had this experience.. lets say it passed all the test.. Would you even try to attempt to sacrifice your own daughter? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T02:59:00.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16215" CreationDate="2013-05-21T07:31:44.407" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer will assume that you think God has all authority in Heaven and Earth. He is capable, by His almighty omnipotent power, to do all that He pleases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When concerned whether you should or should not perform an act that is allowed by Scripture because you think God might have told you to do it you always have this recourse: &lt;strong&gt;God the is sovereign of all that is. There is nothing that happens without God ordaining it.&lt;/strong&gt; God does one of three things for everything that happens: He makes it happen, He stops it from happening, or He lets it happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind there are a few things to consider. First, do you earnestly wish for God's will to be done or your own? The Lord's prayer is clear; we are to pray for His will to &quot;be done on Earth as it is in Heaven&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:9-13&lt;/a&gt;). The Psalms are filled with songs of conforming your thoughts to God's. If you are doing your best to be Christian, like Christ, I think it is safe to assume that your action and thought will be Christ driven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next thing you should consider is how righteous men in Scripture have determined the will of God when they had a thought to do something. The most notable is Gideon with the fleece (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+6-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judges 6:36-40&lt;/a&gt;). There is also the remaining eleven disciples deciding who to elect as a twelfth by casting lots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that they started with &quot;Lord, you know everyone's heart.&quot; They earnestly only wanted to please God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, no matter what your thoughts are concerning actions you should take, whether they are from God or not, this is the thrust of the Bible and our relationship with God: &lt;strong&gt;Trust in God. Do your best to be righteous in His eyes and believe, have faith, that He is good and Righteous in all His ways.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Trust in the Lord with all your heart&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      and lean not on your own understanding;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   in all your ways submit to him,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      and he will make your paths straight. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 3:5-6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T07:31:44.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16223" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16226" CreationDate="2013-05-21T11:58:47.040" Score="22" ViewCount="89929" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 4, we read the following account of Cain and Abel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And &lt;strong&gt;the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.&lt;/strong&gt; So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.  Genesis 4:3-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story continues that Cain continued in anger and ended up murdering Abel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Cain's offering was not accepted by God, while Abel's offering was.  Why was this so?  What was it about Cain's offering that made it unacceptable, what was it about Abel's offering that made it acceptable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2015-04-10T01:23:06.123" Title="Why did God accept Abel's offering and not Cain's?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16224" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16245" CreationDate="2013-05-21T12:03:03.423" Score="6" ViewCount="3131" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10:25&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would be the reasons to give up meeting? And a sub question, How can we motivate others for Sunday worship for denominations which have Sunday worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="1755" LastEditDate="2013-05-22T07:10:20.220" LastActivityDate="2018-06-22T12:53:24.933" Title="What is the background of the verse Heb 10:25" Tags="&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16220" CreationDate="2013-05-21T12:28:35.660" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question might be more suitable for Hermeneutics. But, at the same time it has some important theological value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:48&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wiki page for this verse alone&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not expert in hermeneutics but I believe that this verse is equivalent to this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Peter 1:16 (NIV) for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most important mission of Jesus while He was on earth was to make us realize that we cannot meet the standard of God in our pursuit of holiness and perfection. Jesus pointed out that violating even one law means to violate the whole commandments. Even the sinful things we contemplate in our hearts without actually doing it is equivalent to committing it in real. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus wanted to make us understand that we cannot meet the standard of God and that we need Jesus himself to set things right by pouring out His blood as a perpetual sacrifice to God. We do not need to achieve perfection but we need forgiveness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we need Jesus Christ in order to be counted as perfect in the eyes of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 5:8-9&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV) Son though he was, he learned obedience from what&#xA;  he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal&#xA;  salvation for all who obey him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:10&lt;/strong&gt;  (NIV) And by that will, we&#xA;  have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ&#xA;  once for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T12:28:35.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16223" CreationDate="2013-05-21T12:58:52.320" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;One interpretation is that Cain's offering was not selective but Abel's offering was of the best (&quot;fat portions&quot;) of the special (&quot;firstlings&quot;).  Under this interpretation, Abel considered God well worthy of special honor (which tends to be associated with love), while Cain may have viewed the sacrifice more as something to be done, an expected action that was satisfied (perhaps indicating a legalistic inclination, perhaps something like the older brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son).  Abel's offering of &quot;firstlings&quot; may also have indicated his understanding that the produce of his flock was a gift from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another interpretation--which I do not believe to be accurate--is that Abel's offering involved blood, indicating a recognition of his need for atonement.  This interpretation seems not to account for the special aspects of Abel's sacrifice (and the context gives no indication that the &quot;offering&quot; was one for sins, though likewise it does not specifically indicate thanksgiving).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if one views the passage as not clearly giving the reason for God's favor to Abel, the general message of Scripture is that God &quot;looks at the heart&quot; (1 Sam. 16:7) and so one can assume that God's favor coincided with Abel's loving and faithful heart.  In fact, assuming that the type of sacrifice itself is what wins God's favor would be wrong-thinking because he does not benefit from such sacrifices (e.g., Psalm 50:9 [NIV]: &quot;I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens,&quot;) but seeks a heart-sacrifice (e.g., Psalm 51:17 [NIV]: &quot;The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.&quot;) of which outward sacrifice is to be a fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, Hebrews 11:4 indicates that the offering came from faith, a trait of the heart without which &quot;it is impossible to please God&quot; (11:6) [NIV]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did.  By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-05-21T13:24:42.720" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T13:24:42.720" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16227" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16220" CreationDate="2013-05-21T13:07:54.453" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Koine Greek, Matthew 5:48 reads as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς &lt;strong&gt;τέλειοι&lt;/strong&gt; ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key word here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos_%28philosophy%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;telos&lt;/a&gt;, which is often translated as 'perfect' but can equally well be translated &quot;goal, end, or purpose.&quot;  The telos of a thing is that point to which a thing yearns to be, the purpose for which a thing was built.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not imply that perfection has been attained, but it is the trajectory towards which the essence of a thing strives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of &quot;Be ye perfect,&quot; it is completely legitimate to translate telos in the sense &#xA;of &quot;Be that which God has designed you to be.&quot;  As Jude 24 implies, we are being made fit to stand in the presence of God - it is the end for which we are made.  Jesus is exhorting us here to be that which God would have eventually be, but he is not necessarily demanding we are already there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the places in which telos is used.  The ESV likes to use the word 'mature' to capture this sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor 14:20 NA27 w/GRAMCORD&#xA;  μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσὶν ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ νηπιάζετε, ταῖς δὲ φρεσὶν τέλειοι γίνεσθε.&#xA;  20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be &lt;strong&gt;mature&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the tie with our behavior is explicit, contrasting the maturity of our walk with the innocence of our understanding in regards to evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Phil 3:15 NA27 w/GRAMCORD&#xA;  Ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν· καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε, καὶ τοῦτο ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν ἀποκαλύψει·&#xA;  Let those of us who are &lt;strong&gt;mature&lt;/strong&gt; think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, sGod will reveal that also to you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, maturity conveys the sense of growth - the way in which we will grow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Col 4:12 NA27 w/GRAMCORD&#xA;  Ἰησοῦ], πάντοτε ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, ἵνα σταθῆτε τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφορημένοι ἐν παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ. ...that you may stand &lt;strong&gt;mature&lt;/strong&gt; and fully assured in all the will of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, like Jude, the sense of maturity, steadfastness, and being what God designed you to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 1:4 NA27 w/GRAMCORD&#xA;  ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι.&#xA;  Count it all joy, my brothers,  when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be &lt;strong&gt;perfect&lt;/strong&gt; and complete, lacking in nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the fullness of the text probably does the best job of conveying that perfection is a process, begun by suffering, strengthened into steadfastness, and made complete in the perfection - the end state towards which all of this is pointing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-05-21T13:15:13.167" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T13:15:13.167" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2643" CreationDate="2013-05-21T14:39:48.530" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus proclaims to John in the book of Revelation His own might and glory. Also, 2 Timothy 3:16, &quot;All scripture is inspired by God (literally &quot;God Breathed&quot;)...&quot; That is why they quote other scripture because it is God using the words He gave to those who wrote the books to declare who He is to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11“Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;13“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Ingo &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jeremiah 17:10 He also claims to have the power to know every mind and heart, and not only that but to have the power and authority to judge the ways and deeds of that man.&#xA;“I, the LORD, search the heart,&#xA;            I test the mind,&#xA;            Even to give to each man according to his ways,&#xA;            According to the results of his deeds.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, 2 Timothy 3:16, &quot;All scripture is inspired by God (literally &quot;God Breathed&quot;)...&quot; That is why they quote other scripture because it is God using the words He gave to those who wrote the books to declare who He is to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4542" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2013-05-21T16:47:50.157" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T16:47:50.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="203" CreationDate="2013-05-21T17:10:11.607" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of different cases with regard to accepting baptisms carried out in other denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Catholics&lt;/strong&gt; Contrary to some perceptions, Catholics actually accept most baptisms carried out by other denominations. &quot;if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really &quot;intends to perform what the Church performs&quot; the baptism is undoubtedly valid.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VIII&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;) The &lt;em&gt;matter and form&lt;/em&gt; require that the person be baptized using water, and that the words &quot;I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost&quot; (or equivalent) be used. This actually includes almost all Protestant sects. The major exclusions would be sects that do not believe in the Trinity, and those that explicitly baptize in &quot;Jesus name only&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Major mainstream Protestant&lt;/strong&gt; denominations follow similar rules to Catholics, and thus accept both Catholic and most other Protestant baptisms.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Protestant denominations that &lt;strong&gt;exclusively practice adult baptism&lt;/strong&gt; almost always consider infant baptisms to be invalid, and require rebaptism of people baptized as infants. This isn't technically a rejection of the baptisms of other denominations (adult baptism of any denomination is usually accepted) but for practical purposes most baptisms by an paedobaptist denomination would be rejected.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Certain denominations have tight restrictions on method of baptism, for example &lt;strong&gt;insisting on immersion&lt;/strong&gt;. A subset of those denominations will consider invalid any baptism carried out by another method, even if done as an adult. The Fellowship Baptists are an example.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Restorationist churches, such as Latter-Day Saints or Jehovah's Witnesses, consider all other baptisms to be invalid and will baptize any new convert regardless of previous baptism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2020-01-11T18:26:31.627" LastActivityDate="2020-01-11T18:26:31.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16215" CreationDate="2013-05-21T18:52:15.683" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church has a fairly well-established attitude (and rules) towards private revelation. They're summarized in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04324b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Contemplation - Revelations and visions&lt;/a&gt;. The first two, most important, &quot;rules&quot; regarding private revelation are explicitly mentioned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Firstly&lt;/strong&gt;, the spiritual director must judge whether the revelation directs the person to deeper love of God or the saints. If so, the revelation is at least &quot;provisionally&quot; inspired. If not, and especially if a call to some [costly] endeavor is present, the director must demand signs from God. (&lt;strong&gt;Note&lt;/strong&gt;: The first rule implies that the person has a spiritual director, and that the spiritual director knows their prayer life!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Secondly&lt;/strong&gt;, the receiver of a revelation should &lt;em&gt;resist&lt;/em&gt; the revelation, accepting it only after a spiritual director decides that the &quot;seer&quot; should place some confidence in them. (Again, an experienced spiritual director is implied!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These particular rules seem pretty strict, intended to safeguard the &quot;seer&quot; and The Church against &quot;big&quot;, public deceptions. But, &lt;em&gt;slightly&lt;/em&gt; less stringent rules along a similar vein apply to revelations of a seemingly limited, personal matter. In particular, I'd suggest looking into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/making-good-decisions/discernment-of-spirits/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Ignatius's Discernment of the Spirits&lt;/a&gt;. On the more strict end, there are 22 rules. But, the gist of it is knowing and loving God, first and foremost, and then recognizing spiritual &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/making-good-decisions/discernment-of-spirits/introduction-to-discernment-of-spirits/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;consolation&quot; and &quot;desolation.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In very rough terms, consolation is a feeling of &quot;being set on fire with love for God.&quot; Desolation is a feeling of uncertainty, turmoil, or confusion. The basics of discernment involve, usually under the guidance of a spiritual director, imagining a decision and feeling whether it gives you consolation -- whether it sets you on fire with love for God. If not -- and especially if desolating -- it's probably not God's call.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might be worth picking up a copy of Ignatius's spiritual exercises.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you'll find that the rules for discernment also call for a spiritual director. And that they also call for some reluctance in leaping to assume you've heard God's voice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember: If God wants you to know something, He's not going stop bugging you after the first call. The prophets had a tendency to ignore their visions at first. Be a good prophet and do the same!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-05-21T19:17:14.460" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T19:17:14.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8785" CreationDate="2013-05-21T21:40:37.480" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason is very simple, actually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah and Israel were in a marriage covenant known as the Law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel committed adultery in this relationship and was &quot;stoned to death&quot;. (See Ezekiel 30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marriage law forbids a man from receiving a wife who has been &quot;put away&quot;. She may not marry another man until her husband dies, which death releases her from the &quot;law of her husband&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, unless and until Jehovah actually dies, Israel is not eligible to be received into a new covenant with God. Therefore, Jesus fulfilled the role of taking upon himself the Spirit of Jehovah and being put to death in order that all Israel can be released from the law of her husband, which makes her eligible to enter into a new covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what shall be fulfilled in due time when the Father comes as the bridegroom and those who are prepared and ready shall become the new bride when the Father's Kingdom is established as Jesus foretold it would be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T21:40:37.480" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16175" CreationDate="2013-05-21T22:20:14.817" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bless&quot;&gt;To bless&lt;/a&gt; is related to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consecrate&quot;&gt;to consecrate&lt;/a&gt;. Both imply an act of recognizing and/or declaring and devoting something to have a particular purpose or holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a father &lt;strong&gt;blesses&lt;/strong&gt; his son's decision in a matter, we mean that the father supports and acknowledges the decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a priest &lt;strong&gt;blesses&lt;/strong&gt; a marriage, he declares, with the approval of the whole Church in the case of Catholic + Orthodox priests, the marriage to be a approved, valid, and holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, when a person or group blesses God, they declare their approval and recognition of God's value, holiness, and &quot;worshippableness&quot; in their own &quot;private&quot; world. It is similar to, but distinct from, praise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And a blessing always demands a particular type of treatment of the blessed object or person. In the case of God, it demands &lt;strong&gt;worship&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-05-21T22:20:14.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8228" CreationDate="2013-05-22T03:15:33.693" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with Jas with the exception that I want to point out that Proverbs 14:4 applies not only to ministers but all those who labor. People make mistakes and cause problems but its through people that work is accomplished. Every employee requires the labor of an employer. The &quot;perfect&quot; employee will never work for you because you are not the &quot;perfect&quot; employer and vice versa. God doesn't disregard people because they make messes, mistakes or sin. He does &quot;fire&quot; people but it is a severe punishment for pride and rejecting correction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jas 5:4  Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pro 29:1  He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-05-22T03:15:33.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16111" CreationDate="2013-05-22T05:48:12.027" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jas 3.1 I think your question has no definite answer as the Bible does not say. I agree with what Mawia essentially said but I'd like to point out that in the extra scriptural accounts of heaven by &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0892749431&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jessie Duplantis&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.revealingheaven.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kat Kerr&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0883681250&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rebecca Springer&lt;/a&gt;. They, to the best of my knowledge, believed the old bodies would be reassembled fixed and come out of the ground. They describe a &quot;perfect&quot; age height weight ect which people are in heaven. Children are said to age in heaven at a decelerated rate (sometimes to match the arrival of their parents in Heaven) till they reach the &quot;perfect&quot; age. In some accounts your appearance reflects the service and wisdom you held for the Master. Wiser wouldn't mean older exactly just more respect. But Rebecca Springer thought that ones experience of heaven while shared with others is largely personal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I do not believe our bodies will be impeded or broken there is nothing which specifically states that we will not be able to carry battle scars from our service on the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 6:17  From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul bore in his body the marks of Christ I don't think he would want to loose them but I'm sure he wouldn't mind if that was the way it had to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;esv Col 1:24  Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we suffer persecution and afflictions not because of our self but for Christ we are participating in His sufferings. We may very well keep those scars which we receive because of His Name for the Church. Having the underlying condition which cause the scar removed. Eternal honor badges. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But like I said the scripture does not say its just a guess. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-05-22T05:48:12.027" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15876" CreationDate="2013-05-22T06:37:05.977" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm Charismatic and we explain it in this fashion. This is not the only explanation. I'm focusing mainly on the attributes of sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Jesus was God forsaken on the cross (Mat 27:46) and numbered with the transgressors (Luk 22:37):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fellowship(Christ on the Cross,And(God,Holy Spirit)) == Fellowship(Sinner,Trinity) &amp;lt; Unity(Repentant Saint,Christ) &amp;lt; Being/Unity(Trinity)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Pe 4:1  Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 5:19  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, &#xA;  Gal 5:20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, &#xA;  Gal 5:21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Co 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Co 5:21  For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 1:30  But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;niv Heb 10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are a sinner you are not saved and you are going to hell. 1Pe 4:1 is clear that those who have experienced the new birth cease from sin. Gal 5 goes into the details of all the things which believers must not practice listing works of the flesh. 2Co 5:17 and 1Co 1:30 detail our newness in Christ and how we have become in Christ and therefore made the righteousness of God. Heb 10:10 details how we have been made holy by the Blood of Jesus. That said take heart your probably not really a sinner because if you are joined to the Lord if you have become in Christ you are a new creation. The old man of sin has passed away and in its place a new man of God in Christ has been formed. The new man has been made the righteousness of God and because of that righteousness and holiness you can enter His presence unabated. God in his justice couldn't reject the presence of His own righteousness or those who have been made perfectly holy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Ti 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. &#xA;  1Jn 1:10  If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; &#xA;  Rom 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: &#xA;  Rom 3:25  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. &#xA;  Rom 5:9  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there is a difference between what we have been made and how we walk. Even thought we have been made perfectly free from sin we might sin again though we must not. Such sin is referred to in the past tense rather than the future tense. In 1Jn 1:10, Rom 3:23 all have sinned all are not sinners. Again were sinners now justified. Rom 5:8 points out that Christ died for us while we were (notice the past referal) sinners and describes us as now justified and saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Col 1:10  That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Eph 4:1  I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Th 2:12  That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said some believers walk just flat out unworthy of Christ though they would not properly be called sinners they walk unbecoming according to Col 1:10, Eph 4:1 and 1Th 2:12. Though I'm sure at times in the past we have all walked unworthy of Christ. We can however choose not to sin contently and constantly doing righteousness and be both now and eternally rewarded with more of God's presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deu 25:16  For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pro 6:16  These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: &#xA;  Pro 6:17  ... hands that shed innocent blood, &#xA;  Pro 6:18  An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, &#xA;  Pro 6:19  A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luk 2:14  Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. &#xA;  Joh 3:17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 9:31  Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who are not saved however are sinners but Christ's birth death and resurrection changed God's relationship to the world and all the sinners in it. Christ birth brought peace where there was war.(Luk 2:14) Before Christ's birth God was at war with not only sin but man kind. (Deu 25:16,Pro 6) The things and people which were abominable to God had to die in the old covenant but in the new covenant we are to call men to repentance. These sinners are still separated from God but they are able to come into fellowship with God through the Blood of Jesus and true turning from sin unto salvation. (Joh 3:16,Joh 9:31,Rom 10:13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an aside Catholics believe in Christs suffering not only on the cross but that He suffered in death &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;harrowing hell&lt;/a&gt; till the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-07-11T20:29:22.687" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T20:29:22.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16239" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16250" CreationDate="2013-05-22T07:26:07.610" Score="22" ViewCount="240397" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1755" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-08-21T12:55:57.583" LastActivityDate="2017-02-27T02:15:48.067" Title="What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches?" Tags="&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;seventh-day-adventists&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15702" CreationDate="2013-05-22T09:41:32.597" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;To directly answer your question &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_enoch&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; dates the oldest copy of the book of Enoch as being from 300BC. Parts of it like the section called the Book of Parables were not found in the Qumran. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with AffableGeek. If we were to go back in time and mystically derive from Plato a perfect translation of the Republic it would not be canonical. If we were to modify it and cross reference it with Bible verses and give it the name of a supposed Saint it still would be Platonism. If the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book of Enoch&lt;/a&gt; was predestined to be used by God as canon it would have been re-written by Moses or one of the other ancient inspired writers very similar to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book of Job&lt;/a&gt; and and we would have it available just as if we had traveled back in time and heard the heart of God concerning the topics contained therein. However the Book of Enoch was not deemed fit enough to be rewritten and preserved by God through Moses (or other inspired writers) so we know that it failed in some (if not all) crucial areas. As per the supposed two sentences referencing it in the New Testament, like Plato, having some similarity or parallel to a Bible truth expressed in inspired writings doesn't validate the whole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-05-22T14:49:37.623" LastActivityDate="2013-05-22T14:49:37.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16242" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-22T12:00:23.560" Score="8" ViewCount="16863" Body="&lt;p&gt;We believe that Jesus died for all our sins, past and future, so why do we need to keep asking to be forgiven if Jesus already died to forgive that sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4524" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2018-02-24T23:50:05.470" LastActivityDate="2018-02-24T23:50:05.470" Title="As Christians we are already saved, so why must we keep repenting of sin?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;repentance&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-11-08T03:30:44.450" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16224" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:13:27.393" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:24-25 (NIV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And let us consider how we may &lt;strong&gt;spur one another&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  on toward love and good deeds, &lt;strong&gt;not giving up meeting together&lt;/strong&gt;, as some&#xA;  are in the habit of doing, but &lt;strong&gt;encouraging one another&lt;/strong&gt;—and all the&#xA;  more as you see &lt;strong&gt;the Day approaching&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; The author of this book is unknown. Some proposed authors are Apostle Paul, Clement of Rome, Barnabas etc. Since the book focuses more on the tabernacle, it might have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The intended audience is possibly the Jewish Christians because gentile audience may not understand the tabernacle system. It was the time when Christianity was spreading like fire. The Jewish Christians were still finding difficulty to adjust themselves with the new faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Explanation:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;This verse contains many important elements. Let's dissect them and see what they mean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spurring one another:&lt;/strong&gt; The writer wants to encourage the new believers in Christ to maintain the love relationship among themselves and to keep on doing good works, helping others in need. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Not giving up meeting together:&lt;/strong&gt; This does not explicitly mean the Sunday worship. Sunday, of course was the day when they used to meet each other, not on Sabbath (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see Acts 20:7&lt;/a&gt; ). &#xA;This simply means to meet each other whenever possible in order to increase the love relationship and helping each other. Without meeting together, how could they know the needs of their fellow Christians? The writer also pointed out that some of the brethren were getting lazy to meet the other Christians. It was the concern of the writer to encourage them again in this matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Encouraging one another:&lt;/strong&gt; Christians need to encourage each other always through spiritual guidance and prayers. Without encouragements, it is difficult to grow in Christ individually. The writer was really concerned about this, it seems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Day approaching:&lt;/strong&gt; We don't know what this Day meant. There are two possibilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The destruction of Jerusalem: Jesus predicted that the Temple in Jerusalem will be completely destroyed. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:1-2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See Matt 24:1-2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The second coming of Jesus: The end of the world, the time of the Anti-Christ, the glorious return of Jesus Christ. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:30-31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see Matt 24:30-31&lt;/a&gt;)  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-05-22T13:13:27.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16239" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:34:40.377" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very vast topic.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/comparison_charts.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This link&lt;/a&gt;  has all the details of the comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, it differs on how we understand and interpret the Bible. We all have the same Bible, albeit with differences in Canons. Some major points are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Observing Old Testament Laws&lt;/strong&gt;.  Many laws like Sabbath, unclean animals, tithe are a major subject of debate. Some say we need to observe and others say we don't.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Baptism:&lt;/strong&gt; Our Baptismal rites are all unique. Some believe in immersion, some sprinkle it, some believe in infant baptism and so on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trinity:&lt;/strong&gt; Some discredit the concept of Trinity and some strongly embrace it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Son of God:&lt;/strong&gt; Some explicitly proclaim that Jesus is God and suppress the idea of &quot;The Son of God&quot;. These people usually rejects Trinity as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Worship style:&lt;/strong&gt; Some like to have good modern music systems, some prefer old  tradition, some like to clap hands and some doesn't like noisy things in the church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite all our differences, I believe that, if we share one common faith, which is &quot;Salvation only through Jesus Christ&quot;, we are all the same. After all, we all use the same Scripture. Only our perspectives differ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-05-23T07:18:31.880" LastActivityDate="2013-05-23T07:18:31.880" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16224" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:50:58.127" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did the author make this statement? By reading before and after this verse, we can get an idea of his mindset when he wrote it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The beginning of the chapter tells us that the worshipers in the OT had to keep sacrificing animals every year, having no consciousness that their sins were forgiven. But we may come to church with the sense that the blood cleanses us from all sins. Perhaps some were staying away because they felt too sinful to come. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;v14 tells us that we have been perfected forever, especially those who are being sanctified, who have set themselves apart for Christ's purposes. Perhaps some are staying away from church because they are filled with their own purposes. By participating in church activities, we'll find Christ's church-building purposes fulfilled through us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in v26-ff, we find that we can be deceived by sin and stay away from church, and forget that we were cleansed from sin, and therefore set ourselves up for an awful judgment. The church is a place to hear the preaching of the Word, which can point out our sins and keep us repenting of sins. Perhaps some Hebrews could have been recovered from their sin if they had continued. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are several situations the author may have had in mind when he wrote the passage; he encouraged the Hebrews to continue attending and strengthening other believers while there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-05-24T04:26:07.820" LastActivityDate="2013-05-24T04:26:07.820" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16242" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:52:28.630" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The general belief, that I think applies to most Christians, is that Jesus' death and resurrection opens the gates of heaven, saving us from sin in general, but that we must still choose to actually &lt;em&gt;enter&lt;/em&gt; through the gate -- to repent of our individual sins and desire to sin no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it another way, Jesus' death makes repentance and forgiveness effective. Without His death and resurrection, repentance and forgiveness accomplish nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though each major tradition may have a slightly different &lt;em&gt;basis&lt;/em&gt; for coming to this conclusion, it's easily validated by the oft-quoted John 3:16, particularly if taken with a little more of its context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, &lt;em&gt;so&#xA;  that &lt;strong&gt;everyone who believes in him&lt;/strong&gt; might not perish but might have&#xA;  eternal life&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; For God did not send his Son into the&#xA;  world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through&#xA;  him. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Whoever believes in him&lt;/strong&gt; will not be condemned&lt;/em&gt;, but&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;whoever does not believe&lt;/strong&gt; has already been condemned&lt;/em&gt;, because he has&#xA;  not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/john/3:16&quot;&gt;John 3:16-18&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Emphasis is mine. And really, the whole thing could be emphasized, because the general point is that Christ's salvation, though universal, is only &lt;em&gt;effective&lt;/em&gt; for those seeking and trusting in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-05-23T22:14:04.680" LastActivityDate="2013-05-23T22:14:04.680" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16242" CreationDate="2013-05-22T13:53:48.607" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to understand the difference between sin and sins.  We &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; sin, and we &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; sinful.  We also commit sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our state of being sinful results in us being under a just condemnation in the sight of God.  God, however, removes this condemnation and the penalty of our sign through our faith in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.  John 3:18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”. Galatians 3:13 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Christ's work on the cross and our faith in His finished work takes care of the penalty of sin.  However, we still commit sins.  This does not impact our destiny, but it does impact the intimacy of our relationship with God.  Through faith, we are born into the family of God, and we will forever be sons and daughters of God.  The relationship remains, but the intimacy suffers when we sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is true in our relationships with each other as well.  I will always be my father's son, but sometimes we have to ask forgiveness from each other to restore intimacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-22T13:53:48.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16239" CreationDate="2013-05-22T16:38:58.337" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seventh-day Adventist traces its roots to American preacher William Miller, a Baptist who predicted that Second coming would occur between March 21 1843 to March 21 1844 to cleans &quot;the sanctuary&quot; (as referred in Dan. 8:11-14; 9:26) which he interpreted as earth. When Christ failed to appear it was claimed that  it was not the earth that Christ will come but in Holy of Holies in God's heavenly temple. Instead of coming out of the heavenly temple to cleanse the sanctuary of the earth, in 1844 Christ, for the first time, went into the heavenly Holy of Holies to cleanse it instead.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to this, they also hold many false(from Catholic and Protestant view) and strange doctrines. Among these are the following:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They accuse Catholic Church of changing the day of worship from Saturday and to Sunday and also hold Protestant in the same weigh scale for adopting this practice. They insist that Christians observe the Jewish Sabbath. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are intensely anti Catholic Church and anti Pope&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They believe that in the last days, Sunday worship will be &quot;the mark of the beast&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They believe that there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They also believe that the soul sleeps between death and resurrection and &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On the last day, after a limited period of punishment in hell, the wicked will be annihilated and cease to exist rather than be eternally damned.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, Seventh-day Adventist agree with many Catholic and Protestant doctrines, including the Trinity, Christ's divinity, the Virgin birth, the atonement, a physical resurrection of the dead and Christ's  Second Coming. They use a valid form of baptism. They believe in original sin and reject the Evangelical teaching that one can never lose one's salvation no matter what one does i.e. they reject &quot;once saved, always saved. Adventists also subscribe to the two Protestants views, sola scriptura and sola fide. However Evangelists often attack Adventist on these two points claiming they do not really hold  them and labelling them as cult.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike JW and Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists by virtue of their valid baptism and their belief in Christ's divinity and the doctrine of Trinity, are considered ontologically and theologically closer to mainstream Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-05-22T16:38:58.337" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16239" CreationDate="2013-05-22T17:17:01.047" Score="33" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most notable position of the Adventist is the degree of Biblical Literalism. Generally, if the verses can have a literal meaning then that is the belief that they take.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The outsider will notice some or all of these if they spend a short time with an Adventist:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Worship on Saturday (after all, it is in their name. I will expand on this later).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Not eating unclean animals, per the OT Law distinction. That means no pork, like many Jews. The animal must have a cloven hoof and chew the cud, or be a fish with scales, or a non-predatory bird of the air.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No Alcohol or any other recreational drugs including caffeine. Medication is fine when necessary. I suspect they are hesitant of consuming opiates and other pain medications.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;General emphasis on health and what you eat, although not doctrine, many are vegetarians.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No jewelry, save a simple wedding band, or excessively fancy clothes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of the above have Biblical justification, although those same verses are either ignored or interpreted differently in other denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The outsider will likely not notice these unless they sit in on Adventist worship services and sermons or read Adventist literature.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Intense disdain for Sunday Worship. According to theology it is the mark of the beast (I will explain this later).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Intense disdain for the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). That is the Harlot Church of Revelation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Intense disdain for the Papacy, not the Pope specifically. The office of the Papacy is the Antichrist.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;High focus on eschatology and the second coming of Christ. &quot;Keeping the eye on the prize&quot; or &quot;Finishing the race strong.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Intense guarding of the Young Earth Creationist view (YEC). They will argue this until they are blue in the face.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No special interest in a person &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White&quot;&gt;Ellen G. White&lt;/a&gt;, but rather in her many writings and visions, most of which are regarded as prophetic or otherwise inspired.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no eternal quality of any kind to humanity. There is no such thing as the eternal soul. They are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism&quot;&gt;Annihilationists&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The archangel called Michael is another name for Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will address each one of these, now, referring to their number when necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The first four are all highly related&lt;/strong&gt;. That theology is also not new with the Adventists. The idea that the RCC is the harlot church (2) and its leader, the Pope, is the Antichrist  has its roots all the way back to the Reformation. The primary distinction concerning the Pope and the RCC between Reformation theology and Adventists is that Adventists call the Papacy, not the Pope (3), the AntiChrist (apparently, calling the Pope the Antichrist was a bit of a name calling thing half the time during the Reformation). What I believe is unique to them is that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast (the Antichrist). I first heard of it when studying Adventistism and have never heard it anywhere else. There is much theology around this, and really could be no fewer than three questions to cover it fully but here is the basics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Pope is called the &quot;vicar of Christ, His voice on Earth.&quot; Antichrist is actually better translated as Psuedochrist. The Papacy is a fake Christ; he is not Christ's voice on Earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Naming the RCC as the Harlot Church is the same as naming it as the terrible beast from Daniel 7. To them, the RCC is the only &quot;nation&quot; that fits the description. The little horn that supplants three bigger horns is the Papacy. They match all this up very well with history and make a very sound argument.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The RCC changed Sabbath to Sunday. There is a lot of History to support that the RCC throughout history encouraged and even forced Sunday rest, instead of Sabbath rest. There is &lt;a href=&quot;http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-Sabbath_Sunday_Catholic_Church&quot;&gt;Catholic documents&lt;/a&gt; verifying this. With all of this in mind, plus a revelation by E. G. White which I will discuss later, leads them to conclude that calling and observing Sunday as the Sabbath is the mark of the beast, the RCC.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now to YEC proponents and E. G. White&lt;/strong&gt; (5 and 6). Ellen White is considered a prophet by Adventists. She wrote thousands of pages and is purported to have had many visions. Wikipedia article on her is extensive. One particular vision she had took her through the entire Creation. She witnessed it happen in 6 literal days and the climax was the Sabbath. Because God created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the seventh He sanctified the seventh day. Therefore, Adventists take the Sabbath very literally. After all, it is one of the commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For point 7, &lt;strong&gt;the lack of an eternal soul&lt;/strong&gt;, there is much to say and this could also be a separate question. They are not the only group to say this nor are they the only group to profess it today. The primary points that they use to support this are that in Genesis the word translated soul can also be translated as living creature or just plainly creature. It is the same word used for the animals that were created earlier. Also, no where in the Bible do the words &quot;immortal soul&quot; appear together. If that weren't enough the Bible says in more than one place that only God is immortal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;New section:&lt;/sup&gt; I am always learning, it seems and I only recently learned that a large chunk of &lt;strong&gt;Adventists believe that the Archangel called Michael is Jesus (Point 8)&lt;/strong&gt;. Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, in the Adventist's mind this does not reduce the character of Jesus to a mere angel. It increases the character of Michael to the divine and holy Christ (&lt;a href=&quot;http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-is-michael-archangel-there-has-been.html&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;). So when reading passages that mention Michael, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q08.htm&quot;&gt;Adventist's read Jesus, the begotten Son of God&lt;/a&gt;. To them, it is a lesser issue not worth &quot;dwell[ing] upon at length.&quot; This is mostly because they way they interpret the scriptures redefines Michael, not Jesus; Jesus is still God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For other Christian beliefs, they generally agree with the mainstream. The Trinity, Christ's divinity, holiness and infallibility of Scripture, etc.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only group that is similar to Adventists is Jehovah's Witnesses, but only on the smaller issues like jewelry, save Annihilationism, which both groups hold. The Witnesses do also believe that Michael is Jesus, but in the opposite direction of Adventists; they believe that Jesus is lesser than God and they use the Michael is Jesus arguments to support that. Both &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell&quot;&gt;Charles Taz Russell&lt;/a&gt; and E. G. White were influenced by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism&quot;&gt;Millerite Christians&lt;/a&gt;. After that, I would call them, and their theology quite unique.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There might be the inclination for outsiders to call them cultic or just plainly a cult, however, having studies with them (though I am not one), that is far from the truth. They are kind and understanding people, never resorting to trickery typical of a cult, very willing to help fellow Christians, whether Adventists or not, and even non-Christians, have a heart for mission work and to bring the gospel to all who will hear it, and are passionate about God, the Bible, Christ, and finally meeting Him at the end. They are a great bunch of people (the ones I have met anyway) and are worth knowing even if you do not buy the theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-08-23T23:23:54.497" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T23:23:54.497" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16223" CreationDate="2013-05-22T20:52:42.550" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find that with blood all things are made clean. In the temple everything including the people were sprinkled with blood. In Egypt, blood was placed upon the door posts to divert the death angel. The clothing of Adam and Eve supplied by God were skins and the offering of Abel was the fat thereof which came form his lambs. It is without a doubt that the most prominent feature of worship is blood. It is the atonement for sin. As far back as the first men who lived on the face of the earth the requirement was blood. To this very day it is blood that cleanses man. The blood of Jesus ie.. the blood of the Lamb. This is the very thing Abel dealt with when bringing a 'gift' to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas with Cain there was the gift of works. To build, plant, or produce in any way builds our needs and desires but they do not answer the relationship issue with God. The fact that God did not accept Cain's 'gift' explains the most important part of our relationship with God. IF you are unable to recognize that we are filthy and unable to have the clean relationship we had before the fall then all that you bring is as a filthy rag. You can not come into the presence of God without the sacrifice for sin. Without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin. Every time the high priest came into the presence of God it was with a sacrifice. Even now you can not enter into His rest without the sacrifice of the Son of God. Cain did not acknowledge this. Even today when men reject acknowledgement of the sacrifice of Christ and believe that if they are &quot;good enough&quot; they will be let into Heaven. Thus the rejection and the sending to hell. You must acknowledge your state and present Jesus as your sacrifice in order to enter into His rest. Thus Cain hated and killed his brother than to acknowledge his state. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4548" LastEditorUserId="4548" LastEditDate="2013-05-23T03:47:47.057" LastActivityDate="2013-05-23T03:47:47.057" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4464" CreationDate="2013-05-23T09:13:42.290" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the onset, I guess it is essential to state that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17357/what-exactly-does-it-mean-that-jesus-christ-is-the-son-of-god/23947#23947&quot;&gt;Son of God is same as God&lt;/a&gt; nothing more or less.  Son of God is “of God.” The claim to be of the same nature as God—to in fact be God. God took a human birth and that’s how the title “Son” came to him though He was Himself is God. God though divine is revealed in human nature to man. Jesus Christ is the image of God to mankind. God - omnipotent, revealed Himself to mankind, in Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is what Bible says on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus gets an answer from His disciples that He is Son of God and acknowledges it affirmatively.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel!” 1:50 Jesus said to him, “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus is worshiped by people in His lifetime&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation, an angel instructed the apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus were not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In these verses Jesus Himself declares it:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), 10:36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming—deity. When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here Jesus accept this salutation from Thomas for otherwise He would have rebuked Thomas.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:28 Thomas replied to him, “My Lord and my God!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus affirm that He is Son of God:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 8:29 They cried out, “Son of God, leave us alone! Have you come here to torment us before the time?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 3:11 And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” 3:12 But he sternly ordered them not to make him known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And in this verse, John clearly states that Jesus is true God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-28T11:19:16.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16255" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-23T11:23:08.330" Score="3" ViewCount="279" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to assume some points before asking the main questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not have a beginning.&#xA;God created everything. Not just tangible things but even dreams and imaginations.&#xA;There is evil and there is good.&#xA;Evil is not a neutral/default state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is. Did God create evil?&#xA;There are some who say that evil is the absence of good.&#xA;Then it will mean that evil=neutral. Which means if you are doing nothing(absence of good) therefore you are doing evil things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that evil still exist comes down to couple possible conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God created evil.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is unable to remove evil from the universe(which is unlikely because he can do anything he wants).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how do the scriptures explain these? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastActivityDate="2013-05-24T11:42:44.250" Title="Did God create evil?" Tags="&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-05-23T15:23:07.033" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16256" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-23T11:34:51.227" Score="2" ViewCount="477" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itar-tass.com/c1/746506.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; about visit of Jerusalem's Orthodox Patriarch to Moscow, it is said (in Russian) &quot;Первым епископом стал брат Господень по плоти Иаков&quot; &quot;The first bishop [of the Jerusalem Church] became the Lord's brother by blood, Jacob&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looked &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;in the Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; and it says that Christian churches do not recognize that Jesus had biological brothers: Mary remained virgin throughout her life, and Joseph was not a biological father of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this difference in opinion indicate that there is a significant point of view in the clergy that in fact Josephus was the real biological father of Jesus or that Mary had sexual relations with Josephus after the birth of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3559" LastEditorUserId="3559" LastEditDate="2013-05-23T11:50:27.157" LastActivityDate="2013-05-23T12:43:13.523" Title="What's the position of main Christian churches about brothers of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-05-23T15:25:54.970" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16256" CreationDate="2013-05-23T12:36:12.123" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most non-Catholic denominations do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and fully accept the idea of Jesus having biological half-brothers.  (Only He has God for a Father.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a perspective of Sola Scriptura, there's no support for the idea that Mary remained a virgin through life, and there is Biblical evidence that Jesus had brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Please do not take the following quote as me endorsing a view that rejects or accepts the perpetual virginity of Mary.  I'm including it to support the paragraph above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/perpetual-virginity-Mary.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/perpetual-virginity-Mary.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary?&#xA;  Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can&#xA;  see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible.&#xA;  Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, &quot;He had no relations with her until she&#xA;  bore a son, and he named him Jesus.&quot; He, Joseph, did not have sexual&#xA;  relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus.&quot; The&#xA;  meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not&#xA;  have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB&#xA;  declares, &quot;Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary&#xA;  and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters&#xA;  all with us?&quot; Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms for&#xA;  &quot;brothers&quot; and &quot;sisters&quot; in these verses could also refer to male and&#xA;  female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters.&#xA;  However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be&#xA;  Joseph's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph,&#xA;  Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered&#xA;  sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning&#xA;  of the text to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as &quot;cousins&quot; or&#xA;  &quot;relatives&quot; with the mentioning of Jesus' mother and father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are Protestant denominations that still accept the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The view on whether Jesus had biological brothers is, therefore, varied, and the view hinges on whether or not you accept that doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more on Protestant views on the doctrine of perpetual virginity, see &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6145/what-do-protestants-say-was-the-source-for-the-doctrine-of-the-perpetual-virgini&quot;&gt;What do Protestants say was the source for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-05-23T12:43:13.523" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16260" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16576" CreationDate="2013-05-23T17:19:29.157" Score="11" ViewCount="375" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sarah Ruden (via John Stonestreet) makes an interesting claim about the Roman Empire in the time of Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Dreher cites classics scholar Sarah Ruden, whose book “Paul Among the Gentiles” was the subject of a BreakPoint three years ago. According to Ruden, “it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.”  On the contrary, “Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time . . .”  Christianity “worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.”  (from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/22318&quot;&gt;BreakPoint Commentary 5/23/2013&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it is common to think of Classical Rome and Greece as morally decadent societies, I do find it surprising that sexual restraint was positively received as Christendom advanced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of Ruden's claim, are there are patristic sources that suggest the introduction of sexual restraint was positively received by Rome?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1618" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T14:37:07.037" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T21:28:12.913" Title="Is there any evidence that Romans viewed Christian teachings on sexual restraint as a liberating influence?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7953" CreationDate="2013-05-23T18:25:47.513" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer to this would be yes.  In a Southern Baptist Church (considers themselves to be very evangelical) in Watkinsville, GA several months ago, a visiting “evangelist” trying to form another Southern Baptist Church in the NE made a statement that only about 3% of the people of the NE and particularly in NY were Evangelicals.  After a few minutes the pastor began, and as close as I can recall, his opening line was;  “Can you believe that only 3% of the citizens of NY are Evangelicals?  This means that 97% of the people of NY are going to Hell.”  Immediately I thought “wow, I am out of here.”  And I believe this is a fairly common belief among Evangelicals.  Certainly they would make a bold claim that all Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and main-line Protestant’s are going to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4555" LastActivityDate="2013-05-23T18:25:47.513" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16263" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-23T18:33:53.933" Score="12" ViewCount="1114" Body="&lt;p&gt;If a married couple is physically able to have children (at least potentially) can they honor God without having children?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholics, for example, say that sex has at least two purposes according to God: uniting a couple and producing offspring. Therefore if a couple is able to have kids &lt;strong&gt;they should at least try to at some point in time&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under what circumstances would other church doctrines weigh in on whether or not a couple, otherwise able to have children, might choose to adopt rather than procreate in the natural fashion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4556" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-05-24T16:08:02.640" LastActivityDate="2013-05-24T16:08:02.640" Title="Can a physically healthy, married couple honor God without having children?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16263" CreationDate="2013-05-23T22:13:04.163" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Yes. Just as a person can honor God without getting married, a couple can honor God without having children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Biblical perspective, Paul's advice in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%207:17-35&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:17-35&lt;/a&gt; is highly relevant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. . . . Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. . . . Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. . . . Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. . . . &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned . . . . Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. But this I say, brethren, &lt;strong&gt;the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none&lt;/strong&gt; . . . and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. . . . This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see Paul encouraging the saints in Corinth to stop worrying about trying to fit some external form and just serve the Lord. He lists off a whole series of questions where a person might be inclined to think that they need to &quot;do&quot; something different in order to please the Lord, and Paul's response is two-fold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I want you to be free from concern.&quot; The form of this world is passing away, so don't worry about it -- just remain as you are and serve the Lord&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We are not talking about matters of &quot;sin&quot; here, so if you choose not to &quot;remain as you are&quot; (or, of course, if God leads you in another direction) that's OK too.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason this is a great passage to use in addressing your question is that God also created marriage for a specific purpose, which the Catholic teachings would also affirm. However, God created this &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; man fell into sin, and in the fallen world we live in, Paul suggests that his readers remember that this world is passing away, and so at the end of the day all that matters is devotion to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-05-23T22:20:24.467" LastActivityDate="2013-05-23T22:20:24.467" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4464" CreationDate="2013-05-24T03:46:42.740" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;John chapter 5 has some of the strongest statements of Jesus' deity recorded in the Gospels. It's a very good chapter to open to when talking with cultists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5:22 - &quot;For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son&quot; Jesus is saying that He will be our judge in God's place. 5:27 repeats this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5:23 - &quot;that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.&quot; If we make Jesus less than God, then we dishonor God the Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5:25 - Those who hear the voice of the Son will rise again from the dead. If He is not calling Himself God, He is certainly attributing the traits of God to Himself. 5:28 repeats this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5:28-30 At Jesus' voice people will be raised from the dead, some to life, others to condemnation. So our eternal fates are in the hands of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-05-24T03:46:42.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7069" CreationDate="2013-05-24T04:07:07.773" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.&quot; (Matthew 24:32-34, NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read the passages immediately prior to this, you'll find a listing of events that take shape:&#xA;The abomination of desolation, v15&#xA;Great tribulation, v21&#xA;So-called sightings of Christ, v23-26&#xA;The sun will be darkened, v29&#xA;The moon will not give its light, v29&#xA;Stars will fall from heaven, v29&#xA;The sign of the Son of Man in heaven (the Son IS the sign!), v30&#xA;The gathering by the angels, v31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... then we hear of the fig tree and the generation. Therefore, the generation is the group of people who witness the above events. The events will happen over a short span of time so that whoever is alive for the first sign will likely be around for the last sign. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-05-24T04:07:07.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15494" CreationDate="2013-05-24T04:18:48.593" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Cor. 15:24-28 tells us that when all things have been put under Christ's feet, then He will offer it all up to the Father, and all will then be in subjection to Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems to me that the saints will continue to reign until Christ is satisfied that this objective has been reached. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 1000-year period does not necessarily mean the total span of the saint's reign, but is simply the length of time between the establishment of the thrones until the loosing of Satan and the judgment of the dead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-05-24T04:18:48.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16270" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16276" CreationDate="2013-05-24T05:26:38.370" Score="15" ViewCount="6082" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is taken from the following article: &lt;a href=&quot;http://gawker.com/pope-says-atheists-can-be-as-good-as-catholics-509487907&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Says Atheists Are A-OK By God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Referencing a passage from the Gospel of Mark in his homily, the Pope&#xA;  recounted the story of a priest who told an inquiring Catholic that&#xA;  Jesus redeemed everyone, even atheists, and all he asks in return is&#xA;  that people &quot;do good and do not do evil.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ:&#xA;  all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!&quot; the Pope quoted the priest&#xA;  as saying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Father, the atheists?,&quot; the skeptical Catholic responded. &quot;Even the&#xA;  atheists. Everyone!&quot; the priest replied, and added: &quot;We must meet one&#xA;  another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’&#xA;  But do good: we will meet one another there.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Guardian notes that Pope Francis's ongoing efforts to unite all&#xA;  people, both believers and nonbelievers, stands in stark contrast to&#xA;  approach of his predecessors — particularly Benedict, &quot;who sometimes&#xA;  prompted complaints from non-Catholics that he seemed to see them as&#xA;  second-class believers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Catholic Online has already embraced the newly christened Pope's&#xA;  message, taking it a step further by declaring that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;atheists can &quot;go&#xA;  to heaven too.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;universal reconciliation&lt;/a&gt; now the official belief in Catholicism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-05-25T10:45:30.087" LastActivityDate="2020-05-25T10:45:30.087" Title="Does Catholic doctrine teach that atheists go to heaven, too?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2013-05-24T07:30:45.877" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The argument usually made is something like this:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God created everything&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evil exists&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So God created evil  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with this argument is its second premise that evil is something. The fact is evil is not a thing it is a lack or privation of good thing that God made.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian Philosopher J. P. Moreland notes:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Evil is a lack of goodness. It is goodness spoiled. You can have good without evil, but you cannot have evil without good.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Goodness has existed as an attribute of God from all eternity. While God is perfectly holy and just, he is also perfectly good. Just as God has always existed, so too has goodness as it is a facet of God's holy character. The same cannot be said for evil. Evil came into being with the rebellion of Satan and subsequently entered the physical universe with the fall of Adam.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian apologist Greg Koukl has said:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Human freedom was used in such a way as to diminish goodness in the world and that diminution, that lack of goodness, that is what we call evil.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God created Adam, He created him good and He also created him free. However in creating Adam free, God indirectly created the possibility of evil, while not creating evil itself. When Adam chose to disobey God, he made this possibility a reality. The same scenario had played out when Satan fell by failing to serve and obey God. So it turns out that evil is not a direct creation of God; rather evil is the result of a persons (both angelic and human) exercising their freedom wrongly. While evil is certainly real, it is important to recognise that evil does not have existence in and of itself. Rather it only exists as a privation( or a parasite) on the good. It exists in the same way that a wound exists on an arm or as rust exists on a car. The rust cannot exist on its own any more than cold can exist without the existence of heat or darkness can exits without the existence of light.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently in one of the debate that I came across William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California argued that:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God cannot force people to freely do anything – freedom is not compatible with determinism. Freedom is a good, but freedom opens up the possibility of moral evil. You cannot have the good of free will without allowing people to choose to do morally evil things.&#xA;  God can permit evil and suffering in order to bring more people into a relationship with him. The atheist has to show that God could allow less evil and achieve more knowledge of God in order to say there is too much evil. The purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on-evil#.UZ8OROS3Tcc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This is also a good read&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-05-24T07:30:45.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16270" CreationDate="2013-05-24T08:48:58.163" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. &lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;: Cf Rom 1:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin can be expiated, of course, so those who are currently atheists may reach heaven. But heaven will [does] contain no atheists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In saying “But do good: we will meet one another there,” the Pope means that people will meet each other &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;in doing good&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, not necessarily in heaven. That is, there is common ground in altruism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In saying “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!” the Pope is stating a truth, expressed also in the Catechism (my emphasis):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;851 Missionary motivation. It is from God's love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, &amp;quot;for the love of Christ urges us on.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;343&lt;/sup&gt; Indeed, &lt;strong&gt;God &amp;quot;desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth&amp;quot;;&lt;sup&gt;344&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;343&lt;/sup&gt;: 2 Cor 5:14; cf. AA 6; RMiss 11.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;344&lt;/sup&gt;: 1 Tim 2:4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in order for atheists to be saved, they need to come to the knowledge of the truth. The Church needs to impart that knowledge (because it is the Church to whom the truth has been entrusted). Once they have knowledge of the truth, they will no longer be atheists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The starting-point is the common ground of doing good together, and the Church may say that the innate knowledge that doing good &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; good is God-given; and that good acts are prompted by the Spirit. “Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 1:18  — “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.”&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;2 Cor 5:14 — “For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.”&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;1 Tim 2:4 — “[God our Savior,] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-24T08:48:58.163" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16270" CreationDate="2013-05-24T14:55:28.693" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is &lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The misconception that Pope Francis has in any way changed Church teaching or turned us into universalists was explicitly addressed by quite a few Catholic bloggers recently. In particular, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/05/did-pope-francis-preach-salvation-by-works.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Fr. Dwight Longenecker states&lt;/a&gt; states it like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unfortunately for those who wish to paint Pope Francis as a lovable&#xA;  liberal, in fact, the Pope is simply affirming certain truths that any&#xA;  somewhat knowledgable Catholic will uphold. First, that Christ died to&#xA;  redeem the whole world. We can distinguish his redemptive work from&#xA;  the acceptance of salvation. He redeemed the whole world. However,&#xA;  many will reject that saving work. In affirming the universality of&#xA;  Christ’s redemptive work we are not universalists. &lt;strong&gt;To say that he&#xA;  redeemed the whole world is not to conclude that all will be saved.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church, not unlike other Christian groups, has &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; taught that Christ's redemption is for all. It's &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; taught that the &quot;Mystical Church&quot; extends beyond the &lt;em&gt;visible&lt;/em&gt; Church. And while the &lt;em&gt;visible Church&lt;/em&gt; is the &quot;normal means&quot; for salvation, God is not limited by those means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, &lt;strong&gt;atheism is still a sin&lt;/strong&gt; according to the Catholic Church — and always will be. But, all of us are sinners. And the best &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; of us can do is continually re-submit ourselves to God. The &quot;gotcha&quot; that the Pope may have intended to highlight is simply that God is big, transcendent, and mysterious: He doesn't operate exclusively under the name of &quot;God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even within the scope of scripture and Catholic literature, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/695/what-are-the-different-names-of-god-in-the-bible-and-what-do-they-mean&quot;&gt;God is known by a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of names&lt;/a&gt;, each of which tends to arise for the purpose of meeting sinners &quot;where they are.&quot; An atheist may be averse to &quot;God&quot; so-called by Christians because of our hypocrisies, not realizing that our God (Christ) and their Truth, Source, Life, or Love are alluding to the same &lt;strong&gt;being&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The role of the Church is not to condemn. It's to continually recognize the truthiness and goodness &lt;em&gt;already in&lt;/em&gt; people and draw them deeper into truth. This is exemplified by Paul in &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/Acts/17:22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 17:22-34&lt;/a&gt;, wherein he recognizes and elaborates on a single shred of truth the Athenians confess, the idol to &quot;an unknown god.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it's important to remember, we're all on a truth spectrum. &lt;em&gt;None&lt;/em&gt; of us, presumably, are living in a state of complete knowledge or complete ignorance. According to Catholic theology, it's less important where we are on the spectrum than it is in which direction we're actively trending.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-12-27T16:21:00.033" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16279" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16286" CreationDate="2013-05-25T09:31:35.383" Score="3" ViewCount="4276" Body="&lt;p&gt;My question stemmed from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary#Views_and_marches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this wiki article under the heading &quot;Views and Marches&quot;&lt;/a&gt; where I was bit puzzled on the definition of innocent people as given by this personality in UK.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does Christianity define the innocence of people? Or who according to Bible can be termed as innocent people on this earth? Is there any broad measure by which we can say that so and so people are innocent?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-05-26T04:38:53.573" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T05:49:10.937" Title="Who are innocent people according to Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16280" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-25T10:09:38.857" Score="3" ViewCount="427" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently started doing bible study with a good friend (a devoted Christian). I started at first out of curiosity about what Christianity really is about. However, as the study went on (half way through Luke, beginning of Romans, and bits and pits elsewhere), I started having more and more questions despite some of my initial questions being answered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bit of background about myself: I grew up learning &lt;em&gt;religion is often not a good thing&lt;/em&gt;. All my close family members are atheists or just in general don't care much about religion. I would consider myself an atheist, but my friend said I'm agnostic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I knew very little about Christianity (Jesus and Heaven that's all...) before I started bible study. Now I know a little bit more but of course still very far away from the full picture. However, I'm already filled with so many questions that it's almost painful to go about with my daily life without having them answered. (My friend has done a great job in answering a lot of my questions such as what is trinity, what is heaven, how Jesus has paid for our sins, difference between faith and religion, etc. But even he doesn't have the answers to all my questions...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, I've so far come to really enjoy reading the bible. I've come to really like Jesus as a person (living a life like Jesus's is very admirable in any era). Emotionally, I agree with a lot of what Jesus said. But I can't bring myself to really follow his teaching. There is a part of me that really wants to become a Christian, but I feel like I have no right to be one if I can't (not willing to) even follow what Jesus commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus has said to love my enemies and give them all I have. I agree with this, emotionally. Vengeance will only lead to more harm. However, if you really follow this and do not stand up to the evil people who harm you, won't that just give them even more chance to take advantage of you? It's indeed noble that you will do what the evil people won't do (love the enemies). And I really wish I had the courage, determination, and faith to follow it. But as of now, I really cannot bring myself to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always been taught that one should never do another harm, but in the case of being harmed by another, one should strike back as hard as possible. While I've never really fully agreed with this view, I do take a similar stance: never harm, but if harmed, always seek for justice. Not that I believe this is &lt;em&gt;the right thing&lt;/em&gt; to do, but simply &lt;em&gt;the most practical thing&lt;/em&gt; to do. I'm really afraid to put myself fully in God and follow Jesus's teaching. I'm afraid others will take advantage of me. Perhaps, I'm just selfish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also said not to judge others for only the God can judge us at the end of the time. How should I approach this saying? I agree that none of us is perfect, and very often we accuse others of faults without knowing the full picture. However, does that mean we should never judge others? What if a person commits crimes? Do we condemn him or do we withhold our judgment? What if this person had down great injustice to my family or myself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I admire the way Jesus lived and wish I had the courage, determination, and faith to follow his teaching. I want to believe in God and I want to believe in Jesus. But as of now, I can't bring myself to. I wonder if my atheist view is simply too deeply rooted in me. Is Christianity really for me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any help/guidance is appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks in advance,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4563" LastEditorUserId="4563" LastEditDate="2013-05-25T10:17:57.027" LastActivityDate="2013-05-26T04:37:34.413" Title="Do I Belong to Christianity?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-05-26T12:07:53.043" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16280" CreationDate="2013-05-25T11:49:20.070" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is for everyone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question is more like a &quot;Pastoral Advice&quot; which is less welcomed here. However, let me try to &lt;code&gt;sum up about Christianity&lt;/code&gt;, which I think, is what you need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God's perfect creation:&lt;/strong&gt; God created man perfectly along with woman (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see Genesis 1:27&lt;/a&gt;). Everything was fine. No death&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, no suffering and &lt;code&gt;no sin&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The fall of man:&lt;/strong&gt; Satan the deceiver came to the woman and deceived her to disobey God, the man also followed (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see Genesis 3&lt;/a&gt;). This results in separation of God and man. Man belongs to Satan now. Man is now a sinner by nature and cannot change by himself. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The redemption plan:&lt;/strong&gt; Then God made a plan to redeem man and his inheritance from the slavery of Satan and sin. God selected a people called Israel and instituted them of the Laws of God and the requirements to purge sins from man. Animal blood was required to receive forgiveness of sins from God. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see Leviticus 4&lt;/a&gt;)  Old Testament sacrificial laws are the shadows of the things to come, which is the New Testament. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ paid the penalty:&lt;/strong&gt; The redemption plan was completed successfully by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He paid the price for our sins by pouring out His own blood as a sacrifice to God for the forgiveness of sins. He died on the cross but was resurrected on the third day.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Salvation through Jesus Christ:&lt;/strong&gt; Now, by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and by following his commands, God forgives our sins and we become the children of God. We no longer need to try to achieve holiness and perfection. We simply rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us. God no longer demands your perfection but your faith alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:16 (NIV) For God so loved the&#xA;  world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him&#xA;  shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  If you are ready to believe this and receive Jesus Christ in your heart by prayer, &lt;strong&gt;you become a Christian!&lt;/strong&gt; It's simpler than you think but it takes time, of course. It is also important to join any Christian congregation which will help you to grow in your faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May God bless you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;Different Christian groups interpret this differently, some believing literally that nothing (including animals) died prior to the fall of mankind. Other groups say the death mentioned in Genesis was strictly a spritual death (separation of man from God). And there are a number of interpretations that fall somewhere between.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-05-26T04:37:34.413" LastActivityDate="2013-05-26T04:37:34.413" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16283" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-25T12:39:00.633" Score="2" ViewCount="164" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of the least useful discussions I've seen in Christianity revolve around the absolute, superlative properties of God.  &quot;God is infinitely good, therefore, He ...&quot;; &quot;God is infinitely just, therefore He ...&quot;.   For example, I've seen friends posit conclusions based on God's all-knowing, all-foreseeing with absolute confidence in ways that make Him seem less good or just.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q:  Do either the bible or church fathers offer any caveats on us (we limited beings) making logical inferences from statements on God's infinite character?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-05-25T16:20:35.607" Title="Can non-inifinite beings make logical deductions about infinite properties of God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;infinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16283" CreationDate="2013-05-25T14:01:18.993" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest the answer God gave to Job in chapters 38-41 that humbled Job in 40:3-5. There, God reveals mysteries that man could not grasp and powers that are incomprehensible, like creating the world and its inhabitants (38:4-30) and guiding the stars (38:31-33). All throughout the book we find Job and his three companions making logical deductions about God and His ways, only to be blown out of the water with these chapters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To an argument people may raise against what God has ordained, Paul wrote, &quot;But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'why have you made me like this?'&quot; inferring that we cannot grasp the magnitude of God's wisdom and planning through logic alone. God is above all and does what He pleases and will not always reveal His ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-05-25T14:01:18.993" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16280" CreationDate="2013-05-25T14:16:03.807" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Others have already mentioned that this question requires a pastoral approach. But let me address questions. They all have answers, but only the mature in faith and love will understand the nuances of choices offered him or her in Christ in these situations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;However, if you really follow this and do not stand up to the evil people who harm you, won't that just give them even more chance to take advantage of you.&quot; Unfortunately, the statement, 'the evil people who harm you' is vague, since evil comes in many forms and severity. However, this will be acted upon by different Christians in different circumstances. In some cases, the Christian will meet the evil head on with tough love, without doing evil themselves; it will be loving TO OTHERS to stop them from harming anyone else. In other cases, they will show love to the evil in order to show them the richness of the love of God, with tenderness and compassion for the evil person they have become; the Christian may make it a point of laborious prayer to save this evil person. Of course, my response to evil changed over time as I matured and trust the Lord more to take on the load Himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your questions are good, but they lie in a gray area. As a Christian, we would act in faith in each circumstance as we believe the Spirit directs. You possibly had more knowledge about God than I did before I became a Christian; I simply believed Billy Graham's message that I was a sinner and God is willing to forgive. So don't hesitate to accept Christ because of unanswered questions, but accept Him because of Who He is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-05-25T21:59:42.763" LastActivityDate="2013-05-25T21:59:42.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16279" CreationDate="2013-05-25T14:35:27.500" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A word search for Innocent reveals many examples to help us with a definition. The Bible clearly tells us that we are sinners worthy of condemnation (Romans 3:19-23), so innocence as used in the Bible is relative to one's actions in the society, just as it is in normal usage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The innocent obey the laws and are fair to their neighbors, so when they are preyed upon by the unscrupulous, they are identified as &quot;innocent&quot; because they themselves did not initiate the evil brought upon them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 27:25 - Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an&#xA;  innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it seems that they are innocent because the evil done against them violated the Lord's will, and the violence upon them was unjustified by the perpetrators:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Kings 21:16 -  Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till&#xA;  he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin&#xA;  wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the&#xA;  sight of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 23:7 - Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and&#xA;  righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The innocent also have a strong moral sense, and take action against the wrong, as we see in this parallelism with &quot;upright&quot; and &quot;innocent&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Job 17:8 - Upright men shall be astonied at this, and the innocent&#xA;  shall stir up himself against the hypocrite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-05-25T14:35:27.500" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16283" CreationDate="2013-05-25T16:20:35.607" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Steve gives a good answer, but in regards to those things Christians do profess, such as God's infinite goodness.  That question is not answered by science but through simple philosophy.  One may ask for instance, &quot;is it possible for God to be both good and bad?&quot;.  CS Lewis covers this in depth in Mere Christianity in the opening chapters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the ying yang view of the world does not work, good and bad are not opposites like black and white, that is a misrepresentation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is more accurate to say there is good (or holiness, or love, or whatever you want to call pure goodness)and then there is the curruption of good.  In other words evil does not exist alone, it can not exist alone, for it is nothing except the absence of love or goodness, not something alone by itself.  Read Lewis for an in depth answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These things could be debated one by one, but as Steve mentions in his answer, the way God is portrayed in the Bible is as the &quot;hidden God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clues we have about His nature are almost all related to how He loves us.  You will find over and over again God defined as perfect Holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end Christians see God as a being (horrible word) who is fully and completely aware of our sufferings.  God cares, it He takes sides, He is Love.  The metaphor Jesus uses is &quot;father&quot;.  He loves us like a perfect father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1404" LastActivityDate="2013-05-25T16:20:35.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16280" CreationDate="2013-05-25T19:04:55.017" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romains 10:9 states it plainly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you declare with your mouth, &quot;Jesus is Lord,&quot; and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following all of God's commandments is an important part of being a Christian. But the most important part is declaring Jesus is Lord in your life, and believing He was raised from the dead. Everything else is friut of the relationship with Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 11:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith obivouly involves believing in God, but more than that it's required that you believe He will reward you for seeking Him. If you seek Him you will find Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus and the Old Testiment spoke about requirments for behaviour He did so knowing that following everything was impossible without Him. The whole point is that you cannot be good enough on your own. Jesus is the way, The Truth, and the Life. Everything you think is difficult to follow is actually impossible to follow on your own power. But when you come to Christ and make Him Lord of your life, He says. &quot;My yolk is easy and my burden is light.&quot; It's stops being about what you can do in your own power and starts being all about Him and what you will let Him do in your own life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 5:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it's not obeying Christs commands that makes you a christian, or gives you salvation. It's Proclaiming Jesus as Lord, Believing in the resurrection, and trusting in God to reward you for seeking Him. It's this that empowers you to follow Jesus commands.  Everything else is a testament to what level you have surrendered to Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastActivityDate="2013-05-25T19:04:55.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16289" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16290" CreationDate="2013-05-25T19:48:56.007" Score="3" ViewCount="11750" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard many times that once you go to heaven, you'll no longer remember your past life, or those that never made it to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the same apply in hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3469" LastActivityDate="2017-02-13T19:38:41.803" Title="Will people in hell be able to remember people in heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-02-14T15:26:13.463" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16289" CreationDate="2013-05-25T22:00:27.137" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, those in hell can remember their past life; no, I know for a fact (according to the Bible; if you don't consider the Bible a valid source, then I got nothin :) ) that it doesn't apply in either. (Didn't want to just say &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; because that would have been ambiguous.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;Luke 16:19-31&lt;/a&gt;, the rich man in hell pleads for Abraham to allow Lazarus, a man he knew during his time on earth (&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the Lazarus in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011%20&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot;&gt;John 11&lt;/a&gt;), to bring him even a drop of water from heaven. Clearly, the rich man remembers Lazarus, even though he is in hell (and Lazarus is in heaven). Also, Abraham remembers not only the rich man's identity, but also the things he did. Also, since Abraham had likely never met the rich man or Lazarus during their earthly lives, we can assume that those in heaven also know/remember the people they &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; know on earth, regardless of the final destination (heaven or hell) of either. The rich man also remembers the people he left behind and begs Abraham to send someone to warn them about hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the Bible says we will be rewarded in heaven for the things we do for Christ. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if nobody remembered anything:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God:&lt;/strong&gt; Hey, great job. Here is your crown; it's got orange on it 'cause you really like orange. I really loved your dedication to Me in your workplace, even when it meant not getting that promotion.&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Person:&lt;/strong&gt; ...Thank you? I don't know what any of this is for? (Neat. I guess I like orange.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel like the passage about wiping tears away means that the things that pain and upset us now won't matter anymore in heaven, and not necessarily that we won't &lt;em&gt;remember&lt;/em&gt; that they ever happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No matter what heaven's like, though, I'm sure God will get it just right :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4566" LastActivityDate="2013-05-25T22:00:27.137" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16291" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16292" CreationDate="2013-05-25T22:12:39.570" Score="10" ViewCount="29702" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming that God cast Satan out of heaven because of his sinful pride and attempt to dethrone God, then doesn't that mean that there was, at that point in time, some sin in heaven? This seems like it would disprove the statement that there can't be any sin in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there can, then, then why can't those dwelling in heaven think sinful things, too? It's said in the Bible that you can't be &quot;unsaved&quot;, so then I'm guessing that means that He won't throw anyone out of heaven once they're in. What would he do in the event that someone sinned in heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I asked my pastor this once, and he directed me to a passage in Ezra, I think; unfortunately, I don't remember exactly where...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4566" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-27T16:17:24.487" LastActivityDate="2015-10-27T16:17:24.487" Title="If Satan fell because of sin, then was there sin in heaven at that point?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-28T00:03:17.280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16291" CreationDate="2013-05-25T23:12:50.653" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin is not in the atmosphere of a place, but in the person who disobeys God. Places don't disobey God, do they, so heaven itself does not have sin. It appears that you are thinking that sin is spread into the atmosphere like germs, and cause people to start thinking sinful things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sinners can entice others to sin by their actions and words. In Revelation 12, Satan is thrown out of heaven &quot;and his angels,&quot; which implies that other angels have either fallen on their own, or were influenced by Satan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Satan is still under the rule of God and is called back to heaven now and then, as we see in Job 1 and 2. So heaven at times is inhabited by sinning creatures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-05-25T23:12:50.653" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15621" CreationDate="2013-05-26T02:30:48.820" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the Savior had to fulfill prophecy, which included being a descendant of the lineage of David, and Mary was in the line (Luke 3:32-33, compare with Jeremiah 23:5-6). So she and Joseph both had to be Jews, so that narrowed her ethnicity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, He had to be on earth during the foretold year, so she had to be alive during that year [Prophecy: Daniel 9:24-26 (49 + 434 years), Nehemiah 2:1-8 (445 B.C.) Fulfillment: Jesus alive in 30 A.D.)]. That again narrowed down the possibilities of who could carry the Christ Child. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She had to be from Bethlehem, so that when the taxation time came, she would go back and have the child there, again, fulfilling prophecy (Matthew 1:6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bethlehem itself was a very small town, so that significantly narrowed the pool of available young women whom God could choose. Read the Magnificat in Luke 1:46-55 and you'll see a woman who was well versed in the scriptures (and who was humhly obedient to the Lord's plan), so she would be a wonderful person with whom to entrust a Child this precious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-05-26T23:29:34.410" LastActivityDate="2013-05-26T23:29:34.410" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16294" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-26T04:00:55.080" Score="13" ViewCount="28244" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand from OT kings of Judea, there was always a biological paternal line between the kingship and David. However if Jesus was the son of God and not of Joseph, how was he descended from David? Furthermore why are there two different accounts of who Joseph's father was?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4567" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-02-10T22:50:49.993" LastActivityDate="2017-10-06T21:46:51.773" Title="How is Jesus descended from David?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;david&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16294" CreationDate="2013-05-26T11:51:06.420" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of Luke makes the connection-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph. (Luke 3:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actual biology is, when it comes to sonship, irrelevant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, when it came to inheritance and descendance, any named successor could be counted as a child. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham, for example, knew that he would have many descendants, because God had told Him, but did not necessarily believe they would physically descend from his and Sarah's own body, hence Ishmael. (Yes, Christians have different beliefs around that story.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In effect, Joseph adopted Jesus the way that God adopts us as his sons. For all practical purposes &quot;we are adopted as sons, and if sons then joint heirs with Christ&quot;. Indeed to the outside world, Mary looked like an unwed mother, and Joseph like a dad who started having relations too early. On the census that was taken, there is no doubt that Jesus was reckoned as Joseph's son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual genetic heritage is not the important thing. If you are adopted, you are the descendant. Jesus may have been adopted first, but as Christians we are counted as adopted into God's family most. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-05-27T23:36:17.027" LastActivityDate="2013-05-27T23:36:17.027" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1813" CreationDate="2013-05-26T13:37:49.440" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to a book on this topic I have recently read, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.cz/books/about/The_Case_for_Clerical_Celibacy_Its_Histo.html?id=sHt_e38FVroC&amp;amp;redir_esc=y&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations&lt;/a&gt; by Alphonso Maria Stickler, there were two forms of celibacy up to 16th century and the Tridentine council: one is the &quot;modern&quot; as we know it now - priest can't be married. The second, older form was for married men who became priests: they were not allowed to have sex with their wife any more (with her agreement, off course). Some church fathers wrote that the wife became a &quot;sister&quot; of her husband. This older form of celibacy is recorded from several sources from fourth century on, mostly in &quot;it was like this always since the apostles&quot; manner. Such a rule have been explicitly written in fourth century AD, but wide agreement between bishops throughout the world (as was known then) shows it wasn't something new, just a reminder of sanctions emphasizing a part of spoken tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least since the fourth century, there were always some criticisms of this practice, often based on Bible. Some of the responses should be clear from my first paragraph: Peter had a wife, but he abandoned everything and she was no exception. Later, Paul in 1Corinthians 9:5 references Peter's wife, but Stickler says that the original Greek word there means &quot;sister&quot; rather than &quot;wife&quot; (I didn't check it, but I asked the more competent to approve or disapprove this claim on &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/4935/873&quot;&gt;Bible hermeneutics&lt;/a&gt;) - this would fit that &quot;no sex after ordination&quot; model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;husband of one wife&quot; part was interpreted in following way: if a man have remarried after death of his first wife, he proved he wouldn't be able to live in celibacy, so he's not a good candidate for priestly ordination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ability to raise children is essential, but in a way completely different from how we usually understand it. The meaning of celibacy has more layers, but &lt;em&gt;spritual fatherhood&lt;/em&gt; is one of the most important. It's the priest's job to &quot;bear&quot; new Christians through preaching gospel (both to Christians and to others, who may convert through it), baptism and guiding others so that they became &quot;spiritually adult&quot;. Like Paul sometimes addressed some of those who converted after his preaching &quot;my son&quot; (e.g. 1Timothy 1:2) and John called them &quot;my dear children&quot; (e.g. 1 John 2:1), every priest should guide others as a father guides his children (title &quot;father&quot; for addressing priests doesn't aim to decrease the importance of our heavenly Father, but should remind the priest his responsibility).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having some children before ordination might help in this role (though it's not necessary - apostle Paul wasn't a father in worldly sense of this word, but he had more spiritual children than anyone except for Jesus), but knowing that I won't have any more children except for the spiritual ones is a strong motivation to try hard to do my evangelisation and pastoration well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, having few tens or even hundreds of potential spiritual children, it's hard to take care of the biological children well too. Or, better: raising biological children takes significant amount of time, and the spiritual familly (usually a parish) needs another lots of time, which might take more than 24 hours a day together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imitating Christ, who didn't have a wife, at least according to mainstream Christianity beliefs, is another important aspect. The service of the priest is derived of the Last Supper - the priest have the power to act on Christ sake (&quot;in persona Christi&quot; - literally &quot;in Christ's person&quot;), especially during Eucharistic celebration. No man can merit such a grace, but the priest should try to be as close to the ideal of &quot;a second Christ&quot; (&quot;alter Christus&quot;). Priestly orders by itself won't change anyone from a weak sinner to a saint, and even though God's grace can make it, human collaboration is needed too.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul wrote in 1Corinthians 7:32-34, having no wife can save a lot of time and energy for prayer and service. It also means a great motivation: I can either come to Jesus and find source of love in Him, or suffer and eventually burn out; I can't rely on my wife. Having no one except of Jesus helps to rely on Him a lot, and this is something a good priest needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A married man is a sign of Christ loving His Church (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:21-33&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:21-33&lt;/a&gt;), but a priest living in celibacy can make this even clearer: a priest should imitate Christ especially in his love for Church, in His love that gives oneself, in His love of a good shepherd ready to lay down His life for His sheep. A married man should love God above all, but his wife is number two. For a priest, number two should be the Church - not through just one woman, but through every sheep of Lord's flock.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Antiquity, the main argument against celibacy of priests was that Old Testament Levite priests had to be married, and they abstained from sex only for the days they actually served in the Temple. But a priest of the New Covenant serves eight pardon seven days a week, 24 hours a day (by prayer, mostly, though Eucharist is his primary duty) - so the priestly celibacy has no breaks allowing sexual life. The Eastern Christians (the Orthodox) first returned to the Old Testament style and stated that the priest should abstain from sex only on Sunday, but then they started celebrating Holy Liturgy on other days without requiring sexual abstination on these days.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholic Church tolerates this practice for priests of Eastern rite, both Catholic and Orthodox, and this precedent is applied to other preachers who enter Catholic Church from traditions that abandoned celibacy (though bishops must live in celibacy, with no exceptions AFAIK).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a note in the end, celibacy of priests was never pronounced a dogma, but the reason is mostly that it belongs more to &lt;em&gt;discipline&lt;/em&gt; than to &lt;em&gt;doctrine&lt;/em&gt;, not that celibacy is not important.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In general, most strict and &quot;harsh&quot; practices of Catholic discipline are based on assumption that if we do what God ordered us to do (and we believe celibacy of priests is a part of this), Holy Spirit will help us to make what might be impossible without His help. There always are those who can't obey the rules, but the right solution is not to loose the rules but to pray harder to empower our faith in God's help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-10-16T11:05:27.673" LastActivityDate="2019-10-16T11:05:27.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16294" CreationDate="2013-05-26T14:24:58.800" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luk 3:31  Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actual Biology is important. Jesus physically was the son of David through his mother Mary. Most bible scholars agree Luke 3 is a relation of Jesus's genealogy through Mary by David's son Nathan as it traces the linage of Jesus different than Matthew 1 (Joesph's genealogy through Solomon). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-07-11T20:06:23.360" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T20:06:23.360" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16298" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16299" CreationDate="2013-05-26T20:44:10.367" Score="8" ViewCount="666" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah was persecuted, and all but killed by his countrymen, the Israelites. But when they were conquered by the Babylonians, he was rescued and treated well by the conquerors.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is that? Was it because he predicted a Babylonian victory, so the Israelites saw him as a traitor and the Babylonians saw him as a &quot;fellow traveler&quot;? Or was it because the Babylonians saw &quot;eye-to-eye&quot; with him on matters of &quot;righteousness,&quot; while the Israelites did not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;See the Wikipedia article on Jeremiah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-12-24T21:30:25.093" LastActivityDate="2015-03-18T05:10:53.620" Title="Why was Jeremiah treated well by the Babylonians?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;jeremiah&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16298" CreationDate="2013-05-26T23:34:30.117" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest Jeremiah 1:7-8 and 1:18-19 as an answer. There we find that it is God who protects him wherever he goes. It wasn't the Babylonians' pity that stayed their hands; God Himself protected Jeremiah from them and the Israelites. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jer 1:7&lt;/strong&gt;  But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou&#xA;  shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee&#xA;  thou shalt speak.  &lt;strong&gt;Jer 1:8&lt;/strong&gt;  Be not afraid of their faces: for I am&#xA;  with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jer 1:18&lt;/strong&gt;  For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and&#xA;  an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the&#xA;  kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests&#xA;  thereof, and against the people of the land.  &lt;strong&gt;Jer 1:19&lt;/strong&gt;  And they shall&#xA;  fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am&#xA;  with thee, saith the LORD, to deliver thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-05-26T23:34:30.117" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16294" CreationDate="2013-05-27T01:30:28.213" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no discrepancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Greek syntax&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel of Luke,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the notion that Joseph is the son of Heli.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gilʿad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as «Γαλααδ &lt;strong&gt;υἱοῦ&lt;/strong&gt; Μαχιρ &lt;strong&gt;υἱοῦ&lt;/strong&gt; Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ (“son of”) precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gilʿad the son of Makhir, and Makhir the son of Menashe, i.e., A son of B, B son of C.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kehat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as «Κορε &lt;strong&gt;υἱὸς&lt;/strong&gt; Ισσααρ &lt;strong&gt;υἱοῦ&lt;/strong&gt; Κααθ &lt;strong&gt;υἱοῦ&lt;/strong&gt; Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father in the genealogical series by a declension of the Greek word υἱός.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that a declension of υἱός does not precede the name of each father in Luke’s genealogy. In a genealogy, where there’s a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it’s not unusual to see υἱός absent before, say, a single father in a narrative.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A Rule, You Say?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/daughter of the following name. Hence, when people read the following in Luke 3:24,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt; Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, &lt;sup&gt;KJV, 1769&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38, which states,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt; Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. &lt;sup&gt;KJV, 1769&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and thus, it is believed that Adam is the son of God, since Adam precedes God in the genealogy. However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; &lt;sup&gt;KJV, 1769&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must ask, “Who is the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite?” Based on the aforementioned rule, you might say, “It is Anah, since Anah precedes Zibeon in the genealogy. Therefore, Anah must be Zibeon’s daughter.” Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a &lt;strong&gt;male&lt;/strong&gt;, not a female, and thus &lt;strong&gt;he&lt;/strong&gt; could not be anyone’s &lt;strong&gt;daughter&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and the same Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah’s father&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; and thus, Aholibamah’s grandfather).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, there is no reason to assume, especially in light of the absence of υἱοῦ before each father, that Luke is saying A is the son of B, B is the son of C, C is the son of D, and so forth. In other words, what reason is there for assuming that Luke is saying that Joseph is the son of Heli, or that Adam is the son of God? I have shown you using the example of Aholibamah that a name simply preceding another name in a genealogy is not evidence of such a rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;If Joseph is not Heli’s son, Then Who Is?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man’s father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man’s son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David,&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; but also the son of Abraham,&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; even though neither were Jesus’ direct, biological father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 3:23, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; And Jesus himself was being about thirty years [old], being [the] son (as was supposed) of Yosef, of Eli,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΚΓʹ&lt;/sup&gt; καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ &lt;sup&gt;NA28&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us consider the notion that Luke intentionally omitted υἱός from each father and only included it after Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) and before Joseph (Ἰωσὴφ). Again, it wasn’t normal for it to be omitted before each father in a genealogy. Either it is an anomaly, or Luke intended to do so. My belief is that Luke does not want us to understand Joseph as being the son of Heli, but Jesus as being the son of Heli, and Jesus being the son of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthat&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Levi&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Melchi&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Janna&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;all the way to...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enos&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and likewise, Jesus is the son of Adam, and Jesus (not Adam) is the son of God.&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Nativity&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Jesus the son of God? The books of the Bible unanimously declare him to be so. In fact, if we actually take a step back and read the narrative, one will see that it was Luke’s very intent to declare Jesus as the son of God, rather than Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, Luke begins his gospel describing the very nativity of our Lord Jesus. And, what does Luke tell us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 1, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. &lt;sup&gt;KJV, 1769&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt; And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt; He shall be great, and shall be called the &lt;strong&gt;Son of the Highest&lt;/strong&gt;: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: &lt;sup&gt;KJV, 1769&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt; And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called &lt;strong&gt;the Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;KJV, 1769&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angel says that Jesus will be “the Son of the Most High” (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and “the Son of God” (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because &lt;strong&gt;⇨&lt;/strong&gt; God the Father is Jesus’ &lt;strong&gt;actual&lt;/strong&gt; father. To reiterate, Luke commences his gospel by demonstrating that Jesus is truly and literally the Son of God. But, he does not stop there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus.&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; He writes that “Joseph and his mother marvelled...” (rather than “his father and mother”),&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, “...I must be about my Father’s business...”&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Baptism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke also emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the son of God during the baptism narrative in Luke 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, &lt;strong&gt;Thou art my beloved Son&lt;/strong&gt;; in thee I am well pleased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, it was God the Father who declared to Jesus, “You are My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Then, just one verse later, Luke begins the genealogy. Again, looking at the big picture, one can see that Luke’s very intent was to describe Jesus as being God’s son. This is accomplished in the narratives of the nativity, baptism, and finally, the genealogy (Luke 1–3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only does Luke focus on Jesus being God’s son, but he also focuses especially on Mary. On the other hand, if you read Matthew’s narrative, he focuses especially on Joseph. Hence, we need to understand that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, and that Jesus is the son of God (not Adam). Accordingly, Jesus is Heli’s son, because Heli is his grandfather (Mary’s father).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may be corroborated by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי (“Miryam, daughter of Eli”).&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his commentary on Luke 3:23, John Lightfoot wrote,&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader’s mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: “Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God.” For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph’s pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam ‘the son of God’ too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, “This is my Son,” was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother’s side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. &lt;strong&gt;Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, “Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi”; and so of the rest...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is descended from David via his mother Mary, who was of the tribe of Judah and thus physically descended from David. This fulfills God’s promise to David that the fruit of his loins would reign on his throne forever. Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status, and thus the right to the Davidic throne, is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus.&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;References&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lightfoot, John. &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=hS1VAAAAMAAJ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Trans. Gandell, Robert. Vol. 3. Oxford: UP of Oxford, 1859.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Luke 3:23–38&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; cp. Luke 6:15. However, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; cp. Gen. 36:24&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;ibid.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; cp. Matt. 1:1&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;ibid.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Luke 3:38&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Luke 2:7&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; Luke 2:33&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; Luke 2:49&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; Tractate Chaggiga, Chapter 2, Folio 11a, Halakha 2, Gemara; cp. Lightfoot, p. &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=hS1VAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA55#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=true&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;55&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; p. &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=hS1VAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA54#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=true&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;54&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Rom. 8:15–17&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-02-11T05:24:04.250" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16301" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-27T04:41:05.993" Score="14" ViewCount="13181" Body="&lt;p&gt;The temple was destroyed sometime around AD 70.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which New Testament books were written after that catastrophe?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do these books comment at all on the destruction of the temple?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-03-28T08:10:06.647" LastActivityDate="2018-09-16T17:47:19.233" Title="Which NT books were written after the destruction of the temple?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;temple&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5122" CreationDate="2013-05-27T13:18:49.160" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder if they were Malformed Christians. Remember this is the time of evangelistic explosion upon the Earth when all souls were of salvation interest. I do not believe God would have instantly condemned struggling weak or nonbelievers wanting to join the church but afraid to give their all..., if that was the case with them. it is more consistent that the apostles would have sought to straighten them out for the sake of their redemption. However, if they were compromised believers, and the ultimate recognition of their sin in the manifest presence of God struck their conscience and killed them, likely that was the penalty paid: death! To go to hell also would have been a double penalty. This could have happened with them, but somehow i think their death was the payment required at that moment. Lying to the Holy Spirit is not the same as blasphemy which is to attribute evil to the Spirit, saying bad things ABOUT Him rather than lying TO Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4571" LastActivityDate="2013-05-27T13:18:49.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16301" CreationDate="2013-05-27T15:14:00.903" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The dating of the New Testament is a matter of some controversy, so there is no consensus answer to the question of which ones were written after the destruction of the temple. (The Old Testament books were of course written well before).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No New testament documents make clear reference to the destruction of the temple. Some appear to prophecy the destruction, but it is clearly written as prophecy and not fulfilment, and even then it is not an absolute certainty. Many scholars use this information to date the NT canon as fixed before the destruction of the temple, on the reasonable grounds that had it been known about some NT writers would certainly have mentioned it as evidence of the correctness of prophecy. Bishop John A Robinson makes a well-argued case for this in his book &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.ca/books/dp/1579105270&quot;&gt;Redating the New Testament&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, or its popular version &quot;Can we Trust the New Testament?&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extensive quotes of the New Testament in letters known to be written at the end of the 1st century AD show that the NT documents were well known and accepted by that time, although it is technically possible that they may have undergone further editing between then and the dates of the first positively dated manuscripts from a hundred years later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Dates_of_composition&quot;&gt;the excellent summary on Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer the questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Probably none of them&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No, they don't.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-05-27T16:17:06.710" LastActivityDate="2013-05-27T16:17:06.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3239" CreationDate="2013-05-27T15:44:05.053" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and&#xA;  Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, 'Where have you&#xA;  come from?' Satan answered the Lord, 'From roaming through the earth&#xA;  and going back and forth in it.' Then the Lord said to Satan, 'Have&#xA;  you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he&#xA;  is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. &quot;'Does&#xA;  Job fear God for nothing?' Satan replied. 'Have you not put a hedge&#xA;  around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed&#xA;  the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread&#xA;  throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything&#xA;  he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.' The Lord said to&#xA;  Satan, 'Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on&#xA;  the man himself do not lay a finger'&quot; (Job 1:6-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God tests the character of every human being, and that is a major aspect of what happened with Job. Paul wrote, &quot;We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts&quot; (1 Thessalonians 2:4, NIV). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses explained to the ancient Israelites, &quot;Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to  test you in order  to know what was in your heart,  whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger [a form of suffering] and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known,  to teach you  that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord&quot; (Deuteronomy 8:2-3, NIV, New International Version).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord said to Satan, 'Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger'&quot; (Job 1:6-12, New International Version).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4572" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-28T12:01:51.893" LastActivityDate="2013-05-28T12:01:51.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15623" CreationDate="2013-05-27T16:45:45.997" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure I would agree that Calvinism is deterministic. Calvinists believe that God is sovereign &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; man is responsible. Calvinists also believe that the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice. As a result, some Calvinists would tend towards a nouthetic approach, such as Jay Adams and the Tripp brothers advocate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, I would definitely say that Jay Adams and the Tripp brothers have thought deeply about how their theological framework and worldview affect counseling. Read Jay Adams's book &lt;em&gt;Competent to Counsel&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands&lt;/em&gt;, by Paul Tripp. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for institutions, you could look at Adams's group, the Institute for Nouthetic Studies at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nouthetic.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nouthetic.org/&lt;/a&gt;, or the Christian Counseling &amp;amp; Educational Foundation at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccef.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ccef.org/&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-05-27T16:45:45.997" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16309" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16312" CreationDate="2013-05-27T16:50:36.610" Score="2" ViewCount="93" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Jonah tells the story of Jonah, God's most reluctant prophet. Commanded to preach to the Babylonians of Nineveh, he headed in the opposite direction, south, took a ship, which encountered the storm, was thrown off the ship to save it, and was &quot;rescued&quot; (swallowed) by a whale, and later regurgitated. It took this much to make him go to NIneveh and preach to its &quot;Babylonians.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once he was there, it was arguably the &quot;easiest&quot; conversion in the Bible, at least of a whole city. Nineveh repented &lt;em&gt;en masse,&lt;/em&gt; and was spared destruction by God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jonah%203&amp;amp;version=KJ21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jonah%203&amp;amp;version=KJ21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that the Babylonians were at least somewhat righteous? It seems that while they sinned a lot, quite a few of their leaders and people, including Nebuchadnezzar had concepts of right and wrong. Could the Israelis have fallen so far that when God delivered them into captivity of the Babylonians that it actually represented an &quot;upgrade?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastActivityDate="2013-05-27T21:56:11.870" Title="Were (at least some) Babylonians (at least somewhat) righteous?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16310" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="26478" CreationDate="2013-05-27T19:41:48.180" Score="10" ViewCount="787" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my translation of a work by John of Damascus entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν, it is my understanding that John wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even as his body prior to the resurrection of the dead was corruptible, broken, eaten, and drunk, nevertheless, [it was] not corrupted. Then why has he not done this after the resurrection, but before the resurrection? Because the body that is incorruptible by the resurrection is neither broken, nor eaten, nor drunk. &lt;strong&gt;Neither does the incorruptible body possess blood&lt;/strong&gt;, nor would it be rightly called &quot;flesh&quot; (σὰρξ), just as Gregory the Theologian stated in the Oration for Baptism: &quot;Believe Christ, the Son of God, shall come again with his glorious presence to judge the living and the death. No longer flesh, yet not bodiless, of a more God-like body (for which things [God] Himself knows the reasons), so that he may also be seen by those who pierced him and remain God without passibility.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greek text:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ὥσπερ ἦν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ πρὸ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως φθαρτὸν, κλώμενον, ἐσθιόμενον καὶ πινόμενον, ἀδιάφθορον μέντοι· ἐπεὶ τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦτο πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως; Ὅτι τὸ διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἄφθαρτον σῶμα οὐ κλᾶται, οὔτε ἐσθίεται, οὔτε πίνεται· &lt;strong&gt;οὔτε αἷμα τὸ ἄφθαρτον κέκτηται σῶμα&lt;/strong&gt;, ἀλλ' οὔτε σὰρξ ἂν δικαίως ὀνομάζοιτο, καθώς φησιν ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ εἰς βάπτισμα λόγῳ· «Πίστευε Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥξειν πάλιν μετὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου αὐτοῦ παρουσίας κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα, οὐκ ἀσώματον δὲ, οἷς οἶδεν αὐτὸς λόγους, θεοειδεστέρου σώματος, ἵνα καὶ ὀφθῇ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκεντησάντων, καὶ μείνῃ Θεὸς ἔξω παχύτητος.»&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John explicitly states that the incorruptible body does not possess blood (οὔτε αἷμα τὸ ἄφθαρτον κέκτηται σῶμα). If this is true, how can Roman Catholics drink Jesus' blood during the Eucharist if indeed Jesus, presently with an incorruptible body, does not possess blood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-03-07T20:14:07.110" LastActivityDate="2020-01-07T18:21:11.250" Title="According to Roman Catholic doctrine, does the incorruptible body possess blood?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;greek&gt;&lt;resurrection-body&gt;&lt;john-of-damascus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16311" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16316" CreationDate="2013-05-27T20:42:44.727" Score="3" ViewCount="1684" Body="&lt;p&gt;Known:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The seraphim, possibly among the most powerful of created beings, cover their face in the presence of God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Christians, one of the highest (if not the highest) privilege of heaven is seeing the glory of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/god-is-the-gospel--2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/god-is-the-gospel--2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan -- before his fall -- did he observe the glory of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4406" LastEditorDisplayName="user4406" LastEditDate="2013-05-29T07:25:04.347" LastActivityDate="2015-06-02T12:49:43.537" Title="Did Satan ever see the glory of God?" Tags="&lt;glory&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-07-08T17:53:07.400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16309" CreationDate="2013-05-27T21:56:11.870" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Habakkuk 1:12b-13, at least the prophet is claiming that even fallen Israel is more righteous than Babylon (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.  Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.  Why then are you silent while the wicked swallow  up &lt;strong&gt;those more righteous than themselves&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one looks at the book of Daniel, one gets an impression of how righteous Nebuchadnezzar was not that long after the conquest of Judah.  He is easily angered and prideful.  When told by the astrologers that &quot;No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer.&quot; (2:10b [NIV]), he was outraged to the point that he planned to execute all the wise men of Babylon.  While one cannot judge an entire people by their leader, moral character tends to leak both ways (from the culture to the leaders and from the leaders to the culture).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one looks at the book of Judges, one sees that God repeatedly hands over his chosen people to those who appear to be less righteous (and certainly less favored).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 78:34-38 seems noteworthy in this context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whenever God slew them, they would seek him; they eagerly turned to him again.  They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.  But then they would flatter him with their mouths, lying to him with their tongues; their hearts were not loyal to him, they were not faithful to his covenant.  Yet he was merciful; he atoned for their iniquities and did not destroy them.  Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While a passage like Jeremiah 2:11 (where Israel is not even as good at &lt;em&gt;henetheism&lt;/em&gt; as other nations) may indicate that Israel was even more wicked than Babylon--and a strong case can be made that given the greater favor and greater revelation their unfaithfulness was more wicked (e.g.,  Hebrews 2:1-4--the dreadfulness of neglecting such salvation--or Isaiah 5:4--where God's special favor produced wild grapes and justice would be harsh--or even Matthew 23:33-39--where treatment of the prophets accumulates guilt)--, it seems that it is the Righteous One &lt;em&gt;striking his people&lt;/em&gt; that is the kindness (cf. Psalm 141:5) and not that he is leading them into greener pastures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one again looks at the book of Daniel, one might see another reason for the exile: to reveal the truth to &quot;that ruthless and impetuous people&quot; (Habakkuk 1:6 [NIV]).  As with Joseph in Egypt, the Babylonians were exposed to people of extraordinary integrity and to supernatural signs of favor because of the exile.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with Jonah--and even at the time of Jesus with the money changers and animal sellers in the &lt;strong&gt;court of the Gentiles&lt;/strong&gt; (rf. Matthew 21:12-13 where the most &lt;em&gt;stinging&lt;/em&gt; portion of the quote from Isaiah 56:7 is left out, &quot;house of prayer &lt;strong&gt;for all nations&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;)--the people of God had forgotten that they were to be a light to the Gentiles, blessed to be a blessing to all peoples (Genesis 12:3).  (E.g., the queen of Sheba was not meant to be drawn simply to praise the greatness Solomon but to see behind this the greatness and love of God [rf. 1 Kings 10:1, 9].)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-05-27T21:56:11.870" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16314" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-28T05:56:45.630" Score="3" ViewCount="4675" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I form the light, and create darkness; &lt;strong&gt;I make peace, and&#xA;  create evil&lt;/strong&gt;; I, the Lord, do all these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 45:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did god create evil and then punish people for doing evil when he made all this things possible (such as creating evil in the first place, and making humans able to do evil things)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone clear this up?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question was not answered yet. I'm clearly asking here WHY did God create evil, and I'm not asking if he created evil.. because the verse I sighted already is claiming that God Created Evil.. I'm just asking for any biblical sources of reason why would he create evil?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2014-11-04T17:25:52.753" LastActivityDate="2014-11-04T17:25:52.753" Title="Why did God create evil?" Tags="&lt;good-and-evil&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2013-05-28T08:10:27.773" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16314" CreationDate="2013-05-28T07:31:23.393" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does The Bible Say God Created Evil (Sin)?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This generates some confusion, because the &quot;evil&quot; God creates does not necessarily match our definition of &quot;evil&quot; (more on this in the next section). We can try reading other translations and commentaries on the verse to gain some insight. A good source for comparison and commentary of individual verses is &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;biblehub.com&lt;/a&gt;. The Hebrew word &lt;em&gt;ra`&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7451&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strong's H7451&lt;/a&gt;), there translated as &quot;evil&quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KJV&lt;/a&gt;  is translated as &quot;calamity&quot; (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NKJV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/kj2000/isaiah/45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KJV 2000&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=ESV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=NASB#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NASB&lt;/a&gt;), &quot;disaster&quot; (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=NIV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/hcsb/isaiah/45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HCSB&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/isv/isaiah/45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ISV&lt;/a&gt;), &quot;woe&quot; (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=RSV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RSV&lt;/a&gt;)  and &quot;bad-times&quot; (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=NLT#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NLT&lt;/a&gt;). It is commonly believed to be referring to punishment, and not unrighteousness (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mhc.biblecommenter.com/isaiah/45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew Henry Commentary for Isaiah 45:5-10&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;An example of a similar usage can be found in Genesis 19:19, where &lt;em&gt;ra&lt;/em&gt; is again translated as &quot;evil&quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;v=19&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KJV&lt;/a&gt; but in more modern translations (including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;t=ESV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;t=NASB#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NASB&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;t=NIV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;, and others) the word is often translated as &quot;disaster&quot; (the context being Lot fleeing the impending judgement and destruction of Sodom &amp;amp; Gomorrah).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;KJV: Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some &lt;strong&gt;evil&lt;/strong&gt;[H7451] take me, and I die:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  NIV: Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this &lt;strong&gt;disaster&lt;/strong&gt;[H7451] will overtake me, and I'll die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this points out that &quot;evil&quot; does not equal sin in all cases, especially in older translations/versions of the Bible. And in particular, &quot;evil&quot; does not equal sin in Isaiah 45:7, and &lt;strong&gt;the Bible does not say that God created sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But If God Created All Things Doesn't That Include Evil?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For a non-doctrinal answer (at least as far as possible), first consider the definition of evil. What is evil? If we are talking about evil as sin, then we can define evil to be unrighteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evil (by Biblical definition of sin) is unrighteousness, the absence of righteousness, just as darkness is the absence of light. Darkness and evil are not anything, and cannot be created, they are by definition the absence of their &quot;opposites&quot;. Therefore, &lt;strong&gt;God did not create evil&lt;/strong&gt; (sin and unrighteousness), evil simply exists wherever God is absent (not followed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further reading check:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-evil.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What is the definition of evil?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why Does God Allow Evil?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The answers to this differ fundamentally based on doctrinal beliefs, mainly dependent on the view of free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that we have free will, evil (unrighteousness) is a byproduct of our free will whenever we choose to do something contrary to the nature of God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;So the question then becomes &quot;why do we have free will?&quot; This is yet another source of doctrinal differences, but one common reason is because when we choose to do God's will, we give honor and glory to God. This honor is all the more meaningful because it was our choice, we were not compelled like a marionette puppet to do it. Furthermore, without the option of unrighteousness and sin, there would be no point to Christ's sacrifice, and no need for forgiveness and redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4376" LastEditorUserId="4376" LastEditDate="2013-05-29T09:03:57.227" LastActivityDate="2013-05-29T09:03:57.227" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16311" CreationDate="2013-05-28T09:11:57.287" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; We don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Speculation:&lt;/strong&gt; Yes, Satan saw the Glory of God but not necessarily the face of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two famous verses believed to describe the history of Satan; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014:12-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:12-15&lt;/a&gt;  and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:12-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 28:12-18&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel described him as a Cherub. Isaiah called him &quot;Morning Star&quot;. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; Seraphim are the closest to God and of the highest class, Cherubs are the next. According to Ezekiel, the wicked Cherub (Satan) possessed wisdom, beauty and perfection. The mighty Cherub became proud of his beauty which led to his downfall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Isaiah the mighty angel was cast out of Heaven due to his wicked intention to become like God. He said &quot;&lt;em&gt;I will make myself like the Most High&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. This could mean that Satan, before his fall, &lt;code&gt;saw the glory of God&lt;/code&gt;, His power, His dominion, and Satan wanted all of that for himself. Then, the rebellious angel was cast out of Heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Seraphs are found only in Isaiah 6:2. They are always praising God and are the nearest to God but they never looked at God face to face, they always cover their faces. Though they are highest class of angels, they dare not look at God. Therefore, we may conclude that even the mighty Cherub (Satan) &lt;code&gt;might never have seen the face of God&lt;/code&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-05-28T12:30:09.407" LastActivityDate="2013-05-28T12:30:09.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16318" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16320" CreationDate="2013-05-28T14:02:03.033" Score="8" ViewCount="59869" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there is a list of which translations of the Bible are accepted by the Southern Baptist Convention?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4227" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-12-24T21:25:01.757" LastActivityDate="2017-07-11T16:39:44.397" Title="What Bible translations are accepted by the Southern Baptist Convention?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;southern-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16319" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16599" CreationDate="2013-05-28T14:09:28.450" Score="11" ViewCount="1255" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the church was emerging from its persecutions under Diocletian and into legitimacy under Constantine, there arose a schismatic church named the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Donatists&lt;/a&gt;.  Now, as one might imagine in a time of persecution, there were priests who, when given a choice between denying Jesus and being thrown to the lions, did in fact, deny their Lord.  A question then arose as to whether or not the Eucharist that these priests celebrated was legitimate - the Donatists said 'No,' but the official orthodox position of the church (especially as articulated by Augustine), was that 'Yes,' in fact the Eucharist was valid because, &amp;quot;the efficacy of sacrements is not affected by the worthiness of celebrant.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That idea - that the Eucharist is not affected by the worthiness of the celebrant - seems to be quite a firecracker if taken to a seemingly natural conclusion.  Namely, if the efficacy of the sacrement is strictly &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;ex opere operato&lt;/a&gt; (meaning from the work performed) and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; &lt;em&gt;ex opere operantis&lt;/em&gt; (from the worker who performs it), why then is a priest required to bless the elements, in most traditions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, some disclaimers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer #1:  Yes, some Radical Anabaptists like John Smythe had no problem celebrating the Eucharist even without ordination, but it is a fairly fringe case.  Even many traditional mainline Baptist churches require that the elements be blessed by the minister, and without that, it is not considered communion. Certainly within the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and even I suspect the Methodist churches, if the Youth Minister decided to bless the elements, he'd get a minor toungue-lashing for the offence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer #2: Yes, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8307/are-there-any-modern-churches-that-subscribe-to-the-donatist-heresy&quot;&gt;there are some churches that don't believe Donatism is a heresy&lt;/a&gt;.  They are fringe cases - the vast majority of the church holding that Donatism is, in fact, heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer #3: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14068/why-do-catholics-believe-that-it-is-a-priests-blessing-that-transforms-the-elem&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; touches on why Catholics believe a priest is required.  In an otherwise excellent answer, the key part of the question that I am interested in (Why can't laity bless the elements), I read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In terms of why the laity cannot yield the effect of transubstantiation, I don't have an extensive enough knowledge to pin that question down precisely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer #4: I am fully aware of the emergency situation where any priest - defrocked, heretic, or otherwise, is obliged to administer the sacrement of absolution.  A good answer may extend this case, but should reference appropriate sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, with all that said, Why can't the laity bless the elements in most churches?  Is there a biblical case to be made, or is it just tradition.  If the answer is 'tradition,' is it canon law? (Cites would be fabulous, and various denominational rules are acceptable!) Contratriwise, are there denominations (other than LDS - who I do believe would allow this!) that would say, for example, &amp;quot;Sure, the father can serve communion to his wife and children&amp;quot; ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, why do we need priests (Catholic or Protestant!) to bless the Eucharist, if in fact, Christ is the one who is present in the elements to begin with?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T03:47:32.123" Title="In light of the fact that Donatism is heresy, why do most churches require a priest to bless the elements?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16318" CreationDate="2013-05-28T14:15:15.673" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Southern Baptist Convention, while the highest authority within the Southern Baptist church, is not technically an authority amongst Baptists.  It functions as a voluntary association with which member churches may choose to associate, but cannot dictate terms to anyone.  While it does approve changes to the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Baptist Faith and Message&lt;/a&gt;,&quot; these are to be taken as guidelines not at odds with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://baptistdistinctives.org/articles/baptist-autonomy-difficulties-and-benefits/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;local autonomy of the church&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within the Baptist Faith and Message (the closest thing Baptists have to a creed), it simply says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The BFM itself is silent on which versions are &quot;approved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I suspect the question wants to know what translations are preferred.  Here, any major translation would suffice,  I propose the following list to help you figure out which ones are most likely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conservative to Evangelical:  English Standard Version (ESV), NIV, HCSB (if you went to Dallas Theological Seminary)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Moderate to Scholarly: NRSV, RSV &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Moderate to Gender-inclusively liberal: TNIV&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Super-traditional: King James Version.  Maybe New King James, if they're feeling special.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conservative but Scholarly: The Amplified Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When the Preacher wants to make a point: NLT, &quot;The Message&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps more useful would be the ones Baptists would be very unlikely to use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;New Jerusalem Bible, Duoay-Rheims:  perceived as too Catholic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;New World Translation: restricted to the Jehovah's Witness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Makes most conservatives barf:  The Living Bible, Readers Digest Condensed, Good News Translation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2015-02-13T15:58:55.510" LastActivityDate="2015-02-13T15:58:55.510" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16319" CreationDate="2013-05-28T15:21:11.153" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England are concerned, it certainly is Canon Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P38.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;[CLC]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B 12 Of the ministry of the Holy Communion&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No person shall consecrate and administer the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper unless he shall have been ordained priest by episcopal ordination in accordance with the provisions of Canon C 1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/canons/section-b.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;[Canons of the Church of England]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That the Eucharist is not affected by the worthiness of the minister is also enshrined in a number of church documents (&lt;a href=&quot;http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Article 26&lt;/a&gt; in the Church of England, for example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, an unworthy minister is still a minister. The ontological change wrought by the Spirit at ordination is what makes a man &lt;em&gt;able&lt;/em&gt; to effect the sacrament. Whether he is worthy or not is of no consequence. A layman has not undergone that ontological change, and so is unable to celebrate the Eucharist. He can say the words and do all the right actions, but it is simply not effective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P37.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; addresses this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, &amp;quot;by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that . . . they may offer spiritual sacrifices.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; This &amp;quot;common priesthood&amp;quot; is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, &amp;quot;a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people,&amp;quot; have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism.&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1142 But &amp;quot;the members do not all have the same function.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church.&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; The ordained minister is, as it were, an &amp;quot;icon&amp;quot; of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop's ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lumen Gentium&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 10; cf. ⇒ 1 Pet 2:4-5.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;10 Cf. &lt;em&gt;LG&lt;/em&gt; 10; 34; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_presbyterorum-ordinis_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Presbyteriorum ordinis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 2.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;11 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sacrosanctum Consilium&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 14; Cf. ⇒ 1 Pet 2:9; ⇒ 2:4-5.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;12 ⇒ Rom 12:4.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;13 Cf. &lt;em&gt;PO&lt;/em&gt; 2; 15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T21:11:39.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16323" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-28T15:26:45.593" Score="9" ViewCount="328" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, in my seminary pastoral care class, I remember being taken to a funeral home, and walked through the mechanics of a funeral. During that visit, I was told that &quot;everyone's grief process is different,&quot; and I have seen wide variation in this.  I have seen people who have lost sisters and mothers grieve for several weeks and be fine.  I have seen at the upper end four to six months of being seemingly stuck on the loss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later (in the same class I should add!), I was admonished that as a pastor, I should be on the lookout for those who are &quot;stuck in grief.&quot;  When I pressed on this – namely 'what are the signs that someone is stuck in grief,' I was never given a satisfactory answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the Psalms describe the emotions that many feel when grieving (as well as comfort), are there any lists by classic pastoral care givers (e.g. Thomas Owens, patristic sources, the Reformers, etc... – &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; just Ms. Kubler-Ross please) of the signs that a pastor should be on the lookout that someone really is &quot;stuck in grief?&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-11-13T15:00:41.427" LastActivityDate="2017-01-19T17:58:36.530" Title="What are the &quot;signs of grief&quot; for which a pastor should be on the look out?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;pastoral-care&gt;&lt;emotions&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16323" CreationDate="2013-05-28T15:32:44.213" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While not strictly taken from the Bible, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://proactivechange.com/therapy/grief-stages.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;7 Stages of Grief&lt;/a&gt; is a very well-known, concise description of what everyone goes through when dealing with grief (some combine 1&amp;amp;2 and 4&amp;amp;5 to get 5 stages instead):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shock or Disbelief&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Denial&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Anger&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bargaining&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Guilt&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Depression&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acceptance and Hope&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In various forms, these can be found throughout the Bible when the writer / writee is undergoing trauma, grief, etc. Jesus went through most of these on / before the cross (except 3 &amp;amp; 5 (&lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt; - He &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; &quot;made sin for us&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/5-21.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Cor 5:21&lt;/a&gt;), but that's not 'recorded' directly):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;1/2/6 &quot;My God, my God, why have Your forsaken Me?&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/mark/15-34.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 15:34&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;4 &quot;If it be possible, let this cup pass from me&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/matthew/26-39.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 26:39&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;7 &quot;Nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/matthew/26-39.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 26:39&lt;/a&gt;); &quot;Father, forgive them for they know not what they do&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/luke/23-34.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 23:34&lt;/a&gt;); &quot;today you will be with Me in Paradise&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/luke/23-43.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 23:43&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-05-28T15:41:52.383" LastActivityDate="2013-05-28T15:41:52.383" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16328" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-28T21:04:14.053" Score="6" ViewCount="620" Body="&lt;p&gt;In conversation with a fellow Christian the other day, she used the phrase, &quot;God has blessed her with very attractive looks&quot; describing a mutual friend of ours (about whom I agree on the attractive aspect).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone is considered very attractive (to narrow that word down - opinion held by the majority, subjectively within a culture, that the person is good looking) is it correct to automatically classify this as a blessing from God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few reasons this question comes up is because what does that mean for another female who is at the lower end of that spectrum, where it causes her much pain in her life - from finding a mate to how self-esteem carves her reality? Would that be considered a lack of blessing, of the enemy, or simply chance of the physical world? Or, does it have nothing to do with blessings and is more like a slang Christian phrase?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-05-31T09:56:42.457" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T05:16:36.073" Title="Is it a valid Christian concept to attribute subjectively attactive physical characteristics, as blessings from God?" Tags="&lt;blessings&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-07-17T04:44:31.627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16328" CreationDate="2013-05-28T22:37:38.293" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it is completely valid to attribute any blessing to God from a variety of Christian perspectives. In short, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/all-things-are-from-god-through-god-and-to-god-the-glory-is-all-his&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; things are ordained by God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the &quot;less attractive&quot; person, God has most likely blessed her with other attributes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if not, a perfectly Christian answer to why some are blessed with certain things and other are not is the one God gave to Job... &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/job/38-4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. In other words, who are we to question God?  Rather, according to most Christian teachings, we should thank God for what we have, realize that &lt;a href=&quot;http://glennleatherman.blogspot.com/2005/10/all-good-things-come-from-god-john-91.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;all blessings come from Him&lt;/a&gt;,  and not complain about what we didn't get.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-05-29T00:19:03.803" LastActivityDate="2013-05-29T00:19:03.803" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16328" CreationDate="2013-05-29T00:20:01.703" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some circumstances in every culture it may be a curse. It can of course be a blessing too. I would say that most of the time it is neither, being a benign state of being, like being male or female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This we know for sure:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 For you created my inmost being;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;you knit me together in my mother’s womb.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;your works are wonderful,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;I know that full well. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+139&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 139&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all &quot;are fearfully and wonderfully made&quot; and God himself &quot;knit [us all] in [our mothers'] womb.&quot; The look and state of our bodies is clearly God's desire for His purposes. It is, therefore, good, making it neither blessing nor curse unless within specific context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose this leaves the question for deformities open. I don't really know how to answer that except with more of them same (God's purposes) and that sin has corrupted our bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-05-29T03:40:23.593" LastActivityDate="2013-05-29T03:40:23.593" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16328" CreationDate="2013-05-29T02:51:24.430" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Biblically speaking, absolutely not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, let me clarify that I do think a case could be made that disfigurement is the result of sin. For example, if a person were covered in warts, or scars, or had a cleft lip, or was missing an eye, or was obese, or malnourished, I think it would be safe to say that person had experienced the effects of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, beyond this, ranking people's relative &quot;attractiveness&quot; tends to be a practice characteristic of the &quot;world&quot; -- not God or His people. There are zero examples in Scripture of God &quot;blessing&quot; someone with &quot;greater attractiveness&quot; than another person. (Except, of course, in the eye of their spouse.) Remember:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2016:7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 Samuel 16:7&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sheesh, even Jesus, the Perfect Man, is described as... well... &quot;nothing special to the eyes&quot; so to speak:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Isaiah 53:2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The blessings from God upon His people are not fleshly &quot;attractiveness&quot; relative to others... God's blessings are life, peace, joy... abundance in the Spirit. Do a quick search on &quot;blessings&quot; in the New Testament and this will be clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's instructions to His people throughout Scripture run in the opposite direction to the world's fascination with ranking people's &quot;attractiveness&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John 7:24&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:15-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-1 John 2:15-17&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And remember the words of the wise man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2031:30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Proverbs 31:30&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not called in Scripture to rate people by the appearance of their flesh. We are called to place value on devotion to the Lord, cherish our spouses, and pursue things that matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-05-31T05:10:59.853" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T05:10:59.853" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16336" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-29T06:41:35.810" Score="15" ViewCount="3015" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that officially speaking when Catholics pray to saints, they are not supposed to really pray TO that saint, but rather are asking that saint to pray for them as you would ask any living friend to pray for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does indeed say we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, but How is a particular saint supposed to hear me asking them to pray for me while John in England is asking the same thing. Are saints supposed to be omnipresent, or are you just rolling the dice that they are paying attention to you at that moment? Is there any official doctrine explaining this? Are all the saints watching all the believers all the time, or what? Are they in many but not all places?&#xA;Bonus question, if a none-catholic christian asks them to pray for them do they hear that? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2020-06-18T16:52:12.103" LastActivityDate="2020-06-18T16:52:12.103" Title="Do Roman Catholics believe Saints are omnipresent?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;intercession-of-saints&gt;&lt;communion-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16338" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16339" CreationDate="2013-05-29T12:58:11.657" Score="3" ViewCount="18824" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who created the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit exist from the beginning or was it God who created the Holy Spirit? If it was God, then why is it said that the members of the Holy Trinity is independent of each other but form an eternal  Triune God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4379" LastActivityDate="2016-04-26T22:30:22.227" Title="How did the Holy Spirit come into existence?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-04-27T16:52:25.843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16338" CreationDate="2013-05-29T13:59:09.807" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to mainstream Christianity, the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity - loosely speaking a part of God. Therefore he was not created. He is eternal, without beginning and without end. This is best (though not necessarily most understandably) summed up in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed&quot;&gt;Athenasian Creed&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something around 98% of Christians adhere to this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that do not believe in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is usually considered to be an 'impersonal force', or the action of God, or simply another way of referring to God (as opposed to a separate person). In these cases there is also no question of &quot;who created the Holy Spirit&quot;. He has always existed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-05-29T13:59:09.807" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16338" CreationDate="2013-05-29T14:51:53.267" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the theory of the trinity, the holy spirit was never created as the theory holds that the holy spirit is god just as the father is god and the son is god. Since the trinity theory promotes that the father and the son are from eternity, so then is the holy spirit also uncreated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to scripture, the Holy Spirit is uncreated as the Holy Spirit is the operational presence and power of Yahuweh (God), but is not a seperate person from Yahuweh (God) Himself. Though not being a seperate person, the Holy Spirit is still &quot;personal&quot; just not a &quot;person&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 3:17 The Scriptures 1998+  (17)  Now יהוה is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of יהוה is, there is freedom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4551" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-05-30T00:22:30.917" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T00:22:30.917" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16328" CreationDate="2013-05-29T18:06:03.163" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;My Dad used to have some words hung on the wall in his office that said, &quot;I'm me, I'm wonderful, 'cause God don't make junk.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say that because I think this is what it's all about.  Neither my Dad (nor I for that matter) are particularly attractive men.  We're both stocky and somewhat short.  That being said, I could consider my build to be a curse, or I could consider it to be a blessing no more or less than your friend's beauty, because it's the way that God made me, and he had a very specific reason he made me like that.  We are to use our strengths and weaknesses for the purposes of doing the good God lays out for us to do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of Esther is a great example.  In it, Esther uses her beauty as a tool to preserve the entire nation of Israel. The focus of the story isn't the fact that she had beauty, it was how she used it for the good of Israel, by using her position, gained by her beauty, to stop a plot that would have wiped out the nation.  Her beauty saved lives.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moral of the story is this: while your friend may be blessed with beauty, it's not about having the blessing as much as it is about &lt;em&gt;using&lt;/em&gt; the blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every person is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), and if they are a Christian, then they are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God has laid out beforehand  (Ephesians 2:10).  Nobody else is as qualified to do the good works God lays out, as much as the person for whom they're laid out.  This means we're all custom built, and there are no mistakes in the way that God makes us regardless of whether we have beauty or not.  Our very being is a blessing, and being beautiful is no more or less a blessing than not being beautiful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd encourage your friend to look for ways she can use her beauty for God's greater purpose, and to not focus on it as a good in and of itself.  Beauty, just like any culturally attribute, is a tool, and, depending on how it is used, can be either a blessing or a curse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1294" LastActivityDate="2013-05-29T18:06:03.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16215" CreationDate="2013-05-29T19:12:26.133" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have this friend who went on about three dates with a guy before he&#xA;  proposed to her claiming he had prayed to God and received revelation&#xA;  from the Spirit that they were meant to be together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if we turned this around? How can he be sure it is not the great deceiver, trying to tempt your friend, via his lust, desire or any other sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, the physical (which means carnal, not always from the spirit) brain can produce all sorts of false thoughts, messages, visions...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can also probably twist Bible passages to support either argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In cases like this, stick with what is clear to you, the guessing and uncertainty is not of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer there is that there is no answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 11:14 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2013-05-29T19:12:26.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16343" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-30T00:39:44.083" Score="6" ViewCount="304" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was to have said in Matthew 5:20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, by this, he is saying that people less righteous than the &quot;scribes and Pharisees&quot; will not  go to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, then, I read elsewhere that by simply accepting Jesus as your Lord and savior, you will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone shed some light on these seemingly opposing concepts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, who were the &quot;scribes and Pharisees&quot; and how can one be &quot;more&quot; righteous than they?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4576" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-05-30T01:02:57.017" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T13:08:02.790" Title="Who goes to heaven?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;righteousness&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16343" CreationDate="2013-05-30T01:02:41.327" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK, you need some context here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scribes and Pharasees were the Jews that took the most pride in following the law. These were the folks that did &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; that the Old Testament told the people of Israel to do. All the prayers, all the ceremonies, all the feasts, all the sacrifices. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These guys kept fully kept the letter of the law, and when they broke it they made the necessary sacrifices. From the outside, they looked like they were doing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Jesus is saying is that unless you are perfect. Even more perfect than the folks who kept the entire law, you weren't going to heaven. What he told the Pharisees is that they while they kept the letter of the law, they missed the spirit. In Matt 23:24 Jesus references this lack of understanding of the spirit of the law when he suggests that they are &quot;blind guides! [who] strain out the gnat but swallow the camel.&quot; In this statement he references two animals that are not Kosher. The message is that they are nit picking on the small things so they outwardly appear to keep the law (straining the gnat), but they do not understand the heart of the law. He particularly criticizes their care of the poor. (swallowing the camel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His point here is that man &lt;em&gt;can't do it&lt;/em&gt;. There is absolutely no way that a person can fully keep God's law. This is the first half of the message of the gospel. You are a sinful creature and cannot keep God's law. So yes. Jesus is saying that on their own power, no one is going to heaven. The only person who did it was Jesus, he was born sinless and did no sin his entire life. And the only reason he was able to do that was because he was God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Jesus took it a step farther. Instead of leaving you there, he went and died as a perfect sacrifice for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By believing in Jesus we are given his perfect life (this is called the imputation of Christ's righteousness). Thus God no longer looks at our sins, but instead looks at Jesus' perfection when he judges us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because we receive Jesus' righteousness when he becomes our Lord and Savior we are able to be &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; righteous than the scribes and Pharisees of old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-05-30T13:08:02.790" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T13:08:02.790" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16345" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-30T01:18:20.203" Score="23" ViewCount="5857" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm quite familiar with the fact that God himself is outside of time, this is very easy to  show through scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it seems to be an increasingly popular conception that there is no time in heaven as well. For example, in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5926/155&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; about saints.  (Probably not the best example, but readily available.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm quite certain that time works differently there as we have many examples from scripture where future and past events in heaven are participated in. But a lot of people are explaining it in a way that makes man eternal (not just living forever but, existing eternally as God does in every time frame). I have also heard some Mormons say they were always taught man will become eternal too (don't know if this is official, just what I have heard some say).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to me to create a problem with the fact that Satan was supposed to have been cast out of heaven, but by necessity is still in heaven if there is, in fact, no time. Even if we dismiss the depictions in scripture of time passing in heaven as metaphorical, in order to help us understand certain things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How widespread is this doctrine and where did it originate? Does any whole tradition hold this view, or is it simply a failure of individuals to communicate their meaning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-14T03:15:22.500" LastActivityDate="2020-03-14T03:15:22.500" Title="From where does the doctrine that there is no time in heaven originate?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;time&gt;&lt;eternity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1364" CreationDate="2013-05-30T03:24:30.917" Score="-6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that the gene of the giants were passed down after the flood through Ham, to his son Mizraim,which are the Philistine peoples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4585" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T03:24:30.917" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16343" CreationDate="2013-05-30T04:53:15.480" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wax Eagle does a good job answering the last part, but I think I do better answering the first part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees did not accept Jesus. It seems the connection here is that accepting Jesus is an act of righteousness. When you accept Jesus you will be credited righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see the &quot;seeming opposition&quot;. Righteousness is accepting Jesus. The Pharisees did not do that. To accept Jesus is to be more righteous than them. Playing a little off of Wax's answer, that one act makes you more righteous then them despite all Laws that they followed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 4&lt;/a&gt; gives us the answer that accepting Jesus is the only necessary act of righteousness to go to heaven (bold added for emphasis). Verses 23 and 24 say it very plainly. It also gives us insight into the Law and what it is for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “&lt;strong&gt;Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 &lt;strong&gt;However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. &lt;strong&gt;10 Under what circumstances was [righteousness] credited [to Abraham]? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.&lt;/strong&gt; So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[on the Law]&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.&lt;/strong&gt; 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.&lt;/strong&gt; 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.&lt;/strong&gt; 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-05-30T05:05:58.763" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T05:05:58.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16336" CreationDate="2013-05-30T05:13:10.640" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long answer:&#xA;Those who are beatified and those who have been canonized have physical bodies which are (mostly) on earth (Mary, Enoch, Elijah, and Moses being exceptions). They are also in heaven &lt;em&gt;in spirit&lt;/em&gt;. This means that they are in a very specific spot (even though heaven is quite large). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, on the other hand, is literally &lt;em&gt;everywhere&lt;/em&gt; (cf. Psalm 139).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it might be a good idea to point out that the question seems to be conflating omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Addressing omniscience and omnipresence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Omniscience&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Saints are not all-knowing. While the Spirit perfects the communion of the Saints, it does not make it equal to God himself. A podcast I once listened to (featuring Fr. Euteneuer) suggested that a Saint's knowledge more-or-less ends at a person's private thoughts (which are reserved to God alone). They also do not know the full mind of God (to count his thoughts we must be eternal (also Psalm 139)). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Omnipotents&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;They are not omnipotent. All power which they have are received from God. I would even wager that God denies some of their requests, but I don't have any source for that. I will say that at best Saints hold similar stature as Angels. I also seem to recall that Angels are far from omnipotent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bonus question (if a none-catholic christian asks them to pray for them do they hear that?):&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Asking for the intercession of a Saint is not limited to any group of people or restricted from any group of people. Even if someone is not baptized, a Saint may still intercede on their behalf (or perhaps especially if they are unbaptized). All persons may pray to Saints, and it is possible that any person may be answered. Of course, there is the faith element. If someone does not have faith, then it is doubtful that they will ask for intercession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T21:16:33.967" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T21:16:33.967" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2013-05-30T06:56:31.700" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does The Bible Say God Created Evil (Sin)?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This generates some confusion, because the &quot;evil&quot; God creates does not necessarily match our definition of &quot;evil&quot; (more on this in the next section). We can try reading other translations and commentaries on the verse to gain some insight. A good source for comparison and commentary of individual verses is &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;biblehub.com&lt;/a&gt;. The Hebrew word &lt;em&gt;ra`&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7451&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strong's H7451&lt;/a&gt;), there translated as &quot;evil&quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KJV&lt;/a&gt;  is translated as &quot;calamity&quot; (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NKJV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/kj2000/isaiah/45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KJV 2000&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=ESV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=NASB#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NASB&lt;/a&gt;), &quot;disaster&quot; (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=NIV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/hcsb/isaiah/45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HCSB&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/isv/isaiah/45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ISV&lt;/a&gt;), &quot;woe&quot; (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=RSV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RSV&lt;/a&gt;)  and &quot;bad-times&quot; (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=45&amp;amp;t=NLT#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NLT&lt;/a&gt;). It is commonly believed to be referring to punishment, and not unrighteousness (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://mhc.biblecommenter.com/isaiah/45.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew Henry Commentary for Isaiah 45:5-10&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;An example of a similar usage can be found in Genesis 19:19, where &lt;em&gt;ra&lt;/em&gt; is again translated as &quot;evil&quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;v=19&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KJV&lt;/a&gt; but in more modern translations (including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;t=ESV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;t=NASB#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NASB&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;t=NIV#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt;, and others) the word is often translated as &quot;disaster&quot; (the context being Lot fleeing the impending judgement and destruction of Sodom &amp;amp; Gomorrah).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;KJV: Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some &lt;strong&gt;evil&lt;/strong&gt;[H7451] take me, and I die:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  NIV: Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this &lt;strong&gt;disaster&lt;/strong&gt;[H7451] will overtake me, and I'll die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this points out that &quot;evil&quot; does not equal sin in all cases, especially in older translations/versions of the Bible. And in particular, &quot;evil&quot; does not equal sin in Isaiah 45:7, and &lt;strong&gt;the Bible does not say that God created sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But If God Created All Things Doesn't That Include Evil?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;For a non-doctrinal answer (at least as far as possible), first consider the definition of evil. What is evil? If we are talking about evil as sin, then we can define evil to be unrighteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evil (by Biblical definition of sin) is unrighteousness, the absence of righteousness, just as darkness is the absence of light. Darkness and evil are not anything, and cannot be created, they are by definition the absence of their &quot;opposites&quot;. Therefore, &lt;strong&gt;God did not create evil&lt;/strong&gt; (sin and unrighteousness), evil simply exists wherever God is absent (not followed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further reading check:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-evil.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What is the definition of evil?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why Does God Allow Evil?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The answers to this differ fundamentally based on doctrinal beliefs, mainly dependent on the view of free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that we have free will, evil (unrighteousness) is a byproduct of our free will whenever we choose to do something contrary to the nature of God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;So the question then becomes &quot;why do we have free will?&quot; This is yet another source of doctrinal differences, but one common reason is because when we choose to do God's will, we give honor and glory to God. This honor is all the more meaningful because it was our choice, we were not compelled like a marionette puppet to do it. Furthermore, without the option of unrighteousness and sin, there would be no point to Christ's sacrifice, and no need for forgiveness and redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4376" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T06:56:31.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16336" CreationDate="2013-05-30T08:01:44.697" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are saints supposed to be omnipresent, or are you just rolling the dice that they are paying attention to you at that moment?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No they are not omnipresent (or omniscient for that matter), only God is. But they can hear our prayers by the power of God. Since we believe they are in heaven where they dwell &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; God, it is not strange that they can hear multiple 'messages' at the same time. Heaven is not present in &quot;earth time.&quot; Heaven is outside of earth time, in-fact there is no time in heaven. Eternal now is that all is there. The saints live in the power and energy of the Divinity; So, They hear us through God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The saints are aware of our prayers is that, because they have the beatific vision of God, they see in God all of the knowledge they need, all of the knowledge that is relevant to them, and so they see our prayers to them. On the standard account is thus by the omniscience of God that they become aware of our prayers, though they themselves are never omniscient and never take in the full scope of God’s knowledge, only those parts that are relevant to them.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://jimmyakin.com/praying-to-the-saints&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James Akin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not expect them to be listening to us at &quot;that moment&quot;, because they are not &quot;in that moment&quot;, but they are out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They hear us through God, more specifically Holy Spirit. In the Holy Spirit, we have &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;communication with all the Saints&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, because of this, it is the Holy Spirit that unites us, spiritually. Bible says that it is the Holy Spirit who prays on our behalf.&lt;sup&gt;Romans 8:26&lt;/sup&gt; So it not not a big deal for God to make this happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bonus question, if a non-catholic Christian asks them to pray for them do they hear that?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes they do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-07-19T11:12:50.837" LastActivityDate="2019-07-19T11:12:50.837" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16353" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-30T12:30:23.017" Score="20" ViewCount="71198" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of you have probably seen the Christian flag: a white flag with a red cross on a blue corner. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a staple of some churches and many Christian schools.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do the colors have specific significance? How to the flag come to be and what purpose does it serve to the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/PtfK2.png&quot; alt=&quot;The Christian flag&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-09-19T06:14:23.573" LastActivityDate="2020-09-19T06:14:23.573" Title="What is the purpose and meaning of the Christian Flag?" Tags="&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5935" CreationDate="2013-05-30T13:05:33.863" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It doesn't make sense that there is no time in heaven. After all, just talking takes time to occur, and plenty of talking gets done in heaven throughout the book of Revelation. There are passages like Rev. 8:1 (silence in heaven for about half an hour) and Rev. 6:10-11, in which the martyrs are told to wait a little longer. It takes time for the trumpets to blow and bowls of wrath to be poured; they are not all poured out at once. We are told in Eph. 2:7 of the ages to come ahead of us. Every event takes place over a span of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that a &quot;time&quot; will come when there will be a new heavens and new earth, and we'll be on earth. We have no reason to doubt that time will continue as we know it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T13:05:33.863" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16356" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19470" CreationDate="2013-05-30T14:25:23.273" Score="13" ViewCount="69035" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (to the  United States flag) or even to salute it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the basis for this prohibition?  I'm wondering what is so wrong to have a secondary allegiance to one's country, after one's allegiance to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T12:37:14.253" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T22:53:24.767" Title="Why do Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance or salute the flag?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16328" CreationDate="2013-05-30T15:11:09.080" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Physical beauty is not ultimately subjective. Our notions of physical beauty are often tainted and perverted by sin, but they're ultimately and objectively &lt;em&gt;based&lt;/em&gt; on health and procreative power. Numerous studies confirm this: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, particularly in Catholicism, procreative power and &lt;em&gt;the act of procreation&lt;/em&gt; is both &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; and integral to marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“&lt;strong&gt;The matrimonial covenant&lt;/strong&gt;, by which a man and a woman establish&#xA;  between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, &lt;strong&gt;is by its&#xA;  nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and&#xA;  education of offspring&lt;/strong&gt;; this covenant between baptized persons has&#xA;  been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=28-chapter11.xhtml%23para1601&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1601&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, among copious other affirmations that marriage and procreation are highly good,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and&#xA;  fatherhood of God. “&lt;strong&gt;Married couples should regard it as their proper&#xA;  mission to transmit human life&lt;/strong&gt; and to educate their children; they&#xA;  should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God&#xA;  the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will&#xA;  fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=37-chapter17.xhtml%23para2367&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 2367&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is supported numerous places in the Bible as well, but most obviously &lt;em&gt;in the beginning&lt;/em&gt;. It's the very first command &lt;em&gt;and blessing&lt;/em&gt; given to humans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he&#xA;  created them; male and female he created them. &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;God&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;blessed&lt;/strong&gt; them and God said to them: &lt;strong&gt;Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Have dominion over the fish of the sea,&#xA;  the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the&#xA;  earth (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/1:27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:27-28&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, God's &lt;em&gt;first command&lt;/em&gt;, to be fertile and multiply, is given in the context of a blessing. And we know that beauty, however tainted our perception and treatment of it may be, is ultimately a sign of procreative power. So, right off the bat, beauty is &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; and arguably a &lt;em&gt;blessing&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, a &lt;em&gt;blessing&lt;/em&gt; is something which affirms or assists us in a holy or divine purpose (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16175/what-does-it-mean-to-bless-the-lord/16235#16235&quot;&gt;What does it mean to &quot;Bless the Lord&quot;&lt;/a&gt;). Beauty is an &lt;em&gt;assistive&lt;/em&gt; recognition of our divine purpose, our first-received command, to procreate. And it is, in that respect [among others], a blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted though, our perceptions and values are tainted by sin. We tend to hyperfocus on it, sifting it out as its own thing, rather than a single component of the mystery of creation, making an idol of it, and holding tainted, pleasure-serving perceptions of it. And for that reason, we must be careful not to hastily attribute all &quot;beauty&quot; to God's blessing, nor to be envious of &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All things are given by God. God gives to whom He desires. And Christ blatantly suggests at numerous times, often through parables, that our blessings are unequally distributed. &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/matthew/25:14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The parable of the talents&lt;/a&gt; is a good example of this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the Angels, we do well to recognize and co-bless, but not covet, those who have been blessed by God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God&#xA;  to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; to a virgin&#xA;  betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the&#xA;  virgin’s name was Mary. &lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; And coming to her, he said,&#xA;  “&lt;strong&gt;Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.&lt;/strong&gt;” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1:26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 1:26-27&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T15:11:09.080" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16358" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-30T16:10:08.603" Score="3" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16326/is-it-a-sin-to-desecrate-materials-belonging-to-other-religions&quot;&gt;a case&lt;/a&gt; of a Christian tearing up a prayer booklet of another religion in a somewhat violent manner.  Is this action in tune with Christian tradition or conflict with any biblical edicts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T11:09:35.680" Title="What guidance has Scripture or church fathers offered on how to deal with sacred objects of other religions?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;&lt;comparative-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16358" CreationDate="2013-05-30T16:10:08.603" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer has to do with an assumption that the prayer book of another religion can essentially be viewed as an idol, given that some may attempt to get something &quot;spiritual&quot; from an object constructed by humans.  And here are some verses that apply to answer your excellent question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) Don't bow to the idol.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;There are degrees of reverence to the object  that those in other religions may deem necessary (one can imagine other religions bowing to it-- for example, I've seen a Catholic priest bow to the Bible during a worship service). Biblical principle: don't participate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.&quot; 1 Kings 19:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Tactful destruction of a tract may be biblically warranted.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;There are biblical cases where idols of other religions were destroyed (2 Kings 19:18).  For example, I have picked up a free music CD from a store, played it at home, found it to contain violent sexual lyrics, and then quietly broke CD in half and thrown in garbage.  I have also quietly pocketed and trashed a tract left out in public for something I found spiritually harmful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3) The idol is mere wood.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Treating a book as a mere book might be a better witness than an elaborate display of going after it like you need to stop its spiritual power from infecting everyone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed. 2 Kings 19:18 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4) Physically attacking symbols of religion may be less effective than witnessing to the foolishness of the religion.&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;Paul waded into the midst of idols an gave sermons where he told those in false religions about the true religion.  The text does not record him knocking down the idols.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Similarly, I cannot count the number of times my pastor(s) have given detailed instruction on other religions. To be clear, kids who didn't know about other religions, knew &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; about these religions after the class.  So information about other religions isn't necessarily harmful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. Acts 17:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;5) Mockery, incisive Socratic questions are okay.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Jesus mocks the Pharisees' religion with several unflattering analogies in Matthew 23. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-06-04T11:09:35.680" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T11:09:35.680" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16328" CreationDate="2013-05-30T17:34:18.070" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what someone finds beautiful, another finds ugly. If they can use their beauty to help others it could even be a gift. I think of Queen Esther in these regards, she was blessed with beauty and that gave her the opportunity to become a queen. She used what she had (beauty) to become a queen. And she had courage enough to stand up for her people so she even had inner strength. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But of course, disfigurement can also be a gift as well, it can be very inspiring to see how determined some people are to do what they love. While they may not go out and talk about God, just by doing what they are doing it show God to others. And like I said before, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this guy with no arms or legs is so adorable! Check out the second link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://academictips.org/blogs/true-story-real-winners-dont-give-up/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;True Story of Not Giving Up&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/Lcf29tDTTg0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;No Arms, No Legs, No Worries!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4591" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T17:34:18.070" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16361" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-30T17:55:36.117" Score="3" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God is omnipotent, and a God of love, why does God not make all souls in hell cease to exist, and did it ever happen? Also, wouldn't a loving God end their suffering? Thank you for your answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4167" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-05-30T18:12:14.413" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T18:12:14.413" Title="If God is a God of love, why does God not make all souls in hell cease to exist?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;annihilationism&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-05-30T18:13:10.710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16019" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:22:27.040" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In fact, the passage quoted is too short to derive an answer. In my opinion, you have to read Genesis from the beginning up to chapter 3:19 in order to answer the question. Here is my interpretation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;everything God created was good, so there was no way to know evil before the fall.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;modern readers, and probably even Eve, expect that by eating the fruit, man's mind was somehow magically enlarged and changed, so that they could know evil. However, there is no reason to assume that.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;rather, by eating the fruit, Adam and Eve signify that they would like to know evil, and would like to have the power to judge things as evil.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;when they assume this power, the first thing they judge as evil are themselves. It is them hiding from God, not God driving them away. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;with the curse, God grants their request and creates evil, so they can know evil as they wished to. He mixes work with sorrow, child bearing and the marriage relationship with pain and jealousy, i.e. he adds negative feelings and judgements to things which in themselves are good and fulfilling.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in the end, Adam and Eve learn to know evil by experience, not by enlightenment, and in a practical, not an abstract sense. All that is the result of their asking, out of their free will, and God's granting their request and honoring their decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4592" LastEditorUserId="914" LastEditDate="2013-05-30T23:44:08.980" LastActivityDate="2013-05-30T23:44:08.980" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16367" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16373" CreationDate="2013-05-30T21:50:42.720" Score="8" ViewCount="306" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at the calendar today, I noticed that it's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi_%28feast%29&quot;&gt;Corpus Christi&lt;/a&gt;, which celebrates the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Thursday&quot;&gt;Maundy Thursday&lt;/a&gt; recalls the day the rite was first observed and seems the natural day for such a commemoration.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04390b.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; indicates the reason a separate feast was established:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Maundy Thursday], however, was in Holy Week, a season of sadness, during which the minds of the faithful are expected to be occupied with thoughts of the Lord's Passion. Moreover, so many other functions took place on this day that the principal event was almost lost sight of. This is mentioned as the chief reason for the introduction of the new feast, in the Bull &quot;Transiturus.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveable_feast&quot;&gt;movable feast&lt;/a&gt;, Corpus Christi has some connection to Easter in the church calendar.  But what is the connection?  It makes sense to celebrate on a Thursday, the traditional day of the week of the Last Supper.  But why celebrate the Thursday after &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Sunday&quot;&gt;Trinity&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2013-06-01T12:58:52.660" Title="How does the feast of Corpus Christi fit into the church calendar?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;holidays&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16345" CreationDate="2013-05-31T00:04:40.413" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends what you mean by time. From our faith, as revealed in Scripture, we know that our experience of the heavenly state is to be without end, and without decay or corruption. However, it does not necessarily follow that there will be no perceptible succession of events. In general, orthodox theology has assumed that we will &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; assume God's own unique attributes - we will not become omnipotent, for example - and so we will not end up  &amp;quot;outside time&amp;quot; in the fullest sense, as this is directly and innately part of the God-nature. (I suspect that some of this insistence is in opposition to gnostic/Neoplatonist ideas.) I'm not aware of any sect that holds &lt;em&gt;dogmatically&lt;/em&gt; that we will become atemporal, though perhaps some people believe it, or leave it open as an option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theology, much of the speculation has historically been guided by the philosophy of Aristotle. In &lt;em&gt;On the heavens&lt;/em&gt; 1.9 he writes (my annotations in square brackets):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is therefore evident that there is also no place or void or time outside the heaven [&lt;em&gt;= beyond the boundary of the universe&lt;/em&gt;]. For in every place body can be present; and void is said to be that in which the presence of body, though not actual, is possible; and time is the number of movement. But in the absence of natural body there is no movement, and outside the heaven, as we have shown, body neither exists nor can come to exist. It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there [= &lt;em&gt;the Prime Mover&lt;/em&gt;], is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self-sufficient of lives. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage indicates that &lt;em&gt;time&lt;/em&gt; as such is particular to our world; whatever is outside the world is beyond time. Similarly, &lt;em&gt;Physics&lt;/em&gt; 4.12 speaks of a category of eternal things which are not contained in time, measurable by time, or affected by the passage of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Christian perspective, it is natural to say that God himself ought to be covered by this concept (and while this articulation of the idea is from Greek philosophy, it's not totally un-Biblical). Can &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; things - heaven, angels, human souls - be considered atemporal as well? If we try to jam Aristotle and the Bible together, we might well think that souls in heaven are outside of time, because they're no longer in the world.&#xA;But in general, theologians have been reluctant to say this. &lt;em&gt;Truly&lt;/em&gt; being outside of time is reserved for God alone, as an essential part of his nature. Other things may, through the grace of God, be made &lt;em&gt;perpetual&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;incorruptible&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;immutable&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scholastics, who were the first to tackle the topic systematically, came up with various elaborate categories; the most important here is the &lt;em&gt;aevum&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;aeviternal&lt;/em&gt;, which is the kind of relationship to time that the angels have. They are creatures of time insofar as they experience a succession of events, but they do not decay, or age, or change in any essential way. Moreover, God's knowledge of the future was held to be direct, because in a sense he's already there, whereas angels may only make inferences about the future (see Aquinas, &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 1.57.3). They are everlasting but not atemporal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some writers, the &lt;em&gt;aevum&lt;/em&gt; is distinguished from the true eternal in that aeviternal things could be destroyed by God, whereas he himself is immutably immutable. Some sources also note that when the heavens and earth have passed away, there would no longer be an objective way of measuring time, and so the duration of events would be up to our perception alone. This points to a certain &amp;quot;timelessness&amp;quot; of experience, even though there is still a succession of cause and effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An influential patristic text is in Augustine's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110112.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Confessions&lt;/em&gt; 11.9&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For, doubtless, that heaven of heavens, which Thou in the Beginning created, is some intellectual creature, which, although in no wise co-eternal unto You, the Trinity, is yet &lt;strong&gt;a partaker of Your eternity&lt;/strong&gt;, and by reason of the sweetness of that most happy contemplation of Yourself, does greatly restrain its own mutability, and without any failure, from the time in which it was created, in clinging unto You, surpasses all the rolling change of times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;nimirum enim caelum caeli, quod in principio fecisti, creatura est aliqua intellectualis, quamquam nequaquam tibi, trinitati, coaeterna, &lt;strong&gt;particeps&lt;/strong&gt; tamen &lt;strong&gt;aeternitatis tuae&lt;/strong&gt;, valde mutabilitatem suam prae dulcedine felicissimae contemplationis tuae cohibet, et sine ullo lapsu, ex quo facta est, inhaerendo tibi, excedit omnem volubilem vicissitudinem temporum.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and another is Boethius, &lt;em&gt;Consolation of Philosophy&lt;/em&gt; 5 Pr. 6,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may say that God indeed is eternal, but the world truly is perpetual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;deum quidem aeternum, mundum vero dicamus esse perpetuum&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact definition and nature of the &lt;em&gt;aevum&lt;/em&gt; was disputed, but the standard account is that of Albertus Magnus in his &lt;em&gt;Summa de Creaturis&lt;/em&gt;; the first part, &lt;em&gt;De quattuor coaequaevis&lt;/em&gt;, covers the different sorts of time, but the whole text is really one piece. His pupil Thomas Aquinas also mentions the &lt;em&gt;aevum&lt;/em&gt; in &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 1.10.5-6. For more than you ever wanted to know: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brill.com/medieval-concept-time&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The medieval concept of time&lt;/em&gt;, ed. Pasquale Porro, BRILL 2001&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. Translation by  J. L. Stocks, 1922.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T00:04:40.413" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8287" CreationDate="2013-05-31T04:00:10.013" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is all about learning from the heart and not the mind. The heart is like a brain. It memorizes. It holds onto the rythms of emotions that become cycles of pain (or at least the defence against pain). Since it is difficult for us to face the initial pain again our defence begins to guard us against everything. By doing so the cycles become like a whole new person. A callous person that no longer see's or hears love as they once did. To become born again is to understand the root of pain and forgive yourself for holding it and forgive those that caused it. Truly fully forgive. When that is done your heart ceases to beat in defence and love enters. The old rythm is the death and the rythm of love (that was always there since birth) re-enters and you are flooded with spiritual wisdom and understanding and feel like you have (for real) died and been reborn. Then new understandings are seen in everything. The blind see and the def hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4596" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T04:00:10.013" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16367" CreationDate="2013-05-31T10:17:32.013" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the feast was established in 1264, the feast of Pentecost had an octave&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and effectively lasted a week, up to Trinity Sunday. This meant that the first &amp;quot;unimpeded&amp;quot; Thursday following Maundy Thursday was the Thursday after Trinity — the season of Easter impeded&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; all the Thursdays up to Pentecost, which had its own octave covering the Thursday after that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The text of the Bull &lt;em&gt;Transiturus&lt;/em&gt; which established the celebration is published &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=62hZAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA414&amp;amp;lpg=PA414&amp;amp;dq=%22transiturus+de+hoc+mundo+ad+patrem+salvator+noster+dominus%22&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=xSpo5lfUFP&amp;amp;sig=a5wymAD-t9MZoB2WcSNego5XbJc&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=wVyoUaahO8e70QX704CQCg&amp;amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%22transiturus%20de%20hoc%20mundo%20ad%20patrem%20salvator%20noster%20dominus%22&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;in a Google Book&lt;/a&gt;, and it does set the day:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/UYBy1.png&quot; alt=&quot;Extract from Bull Transiturus&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§2 Nos itaque ad corroborationem &amp;amp; exaltationem Catliolicæ fidei, digne, ac rationabiliter duximus statuendum ut de tanto Sacramento præter quotidianam memoriam, quam de ipso facit Ecclesia, solemnior &amp;amp; specialior annuatim memoria celebretur, certum ad hoc designantes, &amp;amp; describentes diem, videlicet feriam quintam proximam post Octavam Pentecostes, ut in ipsa quinta feria devotæ turbæ fidelium propter hoc ad Ecclesias affectuosæ concurrant &amp;amp; tam Clerici, quam Populi gaudentes, in cantica laudum surgant. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Latin isn't really up to it, but I can see that he specifies &amp;quot;the fifth day next after the octave of Pentecost, that is the fifth day of the week&amp;quot; which is the Thursday after Trinity (Sunday is the first day of the week).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is my attempt at a translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so, we,  for the affirmation and exaltation of the Catholic faith, have properly and reasonably determined that besides the daily memorial of so great a sacrament, such as the Church does, a solemn and special memorial is to be celebrated annually, specifically designated for this, and describe the day, namely the Thursday next after the octave of Pentecost, that in this the fifth day of the week, for the sake of the happiness of the devout multitudes of the faithful, clergy with the rejoicing people come together in the churches and arise in a song of praise. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A better translation would be greatly appreciated. The last clause at least is a bit iffy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Octave: A period of extending a feast-day over the following week, making eight days in total. See the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_%28liturgical%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;. Pentecost is slightly unusual as its Octave does not include the following Sunday. That Sunday is a feast of its own, Trinity Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Impede: A celebration of lower rank is impeded (or suppressed) by a celebration of higher rank. Although Corpus Christi was intended to be &amp;quot;solemn and special&amp;quot;, nothing outranks the days of the season of Easter. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5932#Easter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;General Norms for the Liturgical Year and Calendar&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; say &amp;quot;The fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost are celebrated in joyful exultation as one feast day, or better as one 'great Sunday'&amp;quot;, so it would be improper to introduce another element into that celebration. [The ranks of various feasts and seasons during the 13th century are now rather obscure, but Easter has always ranked above everything else.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-01T12:58:52.660" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16374" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16375" CreationDate="2013-05-31T10:29:56.160" Score="10" ViewCount="5476" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be more clear, how can the person be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ by delivering such person (sexual immoral) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NKJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4597" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-02-19T01:28:20.397" LastActivityDate="2019-02-19T01:28:20.397" Title="What does Paul intend to say in 1 Corinthians 5:5?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;church-discipline&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16374" CreationDate="2013-05-31T11:08:49.033" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you read the general context of this passage in Corinthians you will find that there is a lot of stuff about church order, roles in the church, how to deal with problems inside and outside the body of believers, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse you quote in particular starts to make sense when you see it as a reference to church discipline and understand the purpose of discipline. In this case we're specifically talking about the last possible stage of  disipline: excommunication. This is the final step a church will take in trying to bring somebody who claims to be a believer into alignment with their confession. Although the step is a drastic one, the purpose is no different than the earlier steps: Christ receiving glory as people are saved and brought from darkness to light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excommunication (or total removal of a person from the church) serves two purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It protects the church. The church is supposed to be holy: the bride of Christ spotless and reserved for Him. Of course the church is also comprised of sinners, but we are in the process of being made holy. Step by step we are supposed to be conforming to his standards and looking more like him. If somebody is moving the oposite direction — deliberately and intentionally sinning and justifying their sin, then removing them from the body prevents the corruption from spreading.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It stands as a severe warning. The hope is that by being rejected by the church they will be made aware of the seriousness of their sin before God and realize that they need to repent. Removal from the church only happens after teaching, warning, and internal discipline measures have failed — in other words the person is not listening to lighter warnings. They still insist they are Christian but also insist on living in a manner inconsistent with Christianity. By rejecting their claim to &quot;be Christian&quot; and not allowing them to participate in church functions, they are forced to consider whether they really are Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to your verse in particular: &quot;Deliver this man to Satan&quot; is a reference to excommunication -- where the church rejects a person's claim to be Christian and forces them to live outside the community of the church. If the person truly has been chosen and is being saved by the Lord, finding themselves outside the blessing of the church gives them an opportunity to discover 1) how they are living &quot;according to the flesh&quot;; 2) how they need to repent; and 3) how they need to rededicate themselves to the Christian values they once espoused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they do these things, the church must then welcome them back into the fellowship of the local assembly, and the whole process will have benefited them and will have brought them one step closer to their complete salvation. If they do not do these thing, the process will prove they never did belong to Christ and may in fact serve another master!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A church &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; turn a blind eye to serious sin, allowing people who profess to be followers of Christ to live like followers of the devil with complete impunity, but that is not what Jesus had in mind for his true followers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excommunication, on the other hand, is a means by which a local church upholds biblical and righteous standards, punishes those who persist in unbiblical and unrighteous living, and moves one step closer to fulfilling Christ's purpose for his bride the church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:27 KJV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2017-07-01T04:46:15.293" LastActivityDate="2017-07-01T04:46:15.293" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16377" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16386" CreationDate="2013-05-31T13:11:22.297" Score="79" ViewCount="101153" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quoting Biblical text is technically a dicey proposition.  While the original manuscripts are obviously public domain, not every translation is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the NIV even posts the following &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;copyright notice&lt;/a&gt; on BibleGateway:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Copyright Information&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These Scriptures are copyrighted by the Biblica, Inc.™ and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or reposting on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form and must remain in their original context. These Scriptures may not be sold or otherwise offered for sale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this, what significant translations of the Bible can I actually quote at length?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2020-09-17T12:13:39.213" Title="What major translations of the Bible are in the Public Domain?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;copyright&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16378" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16377" CreationDate="2013-05-31T13:15:14.183" Score="36" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the United States, Copyright law has two basic categories - protected works and public domain.  When a work has been around long enough (currently 95 years after the first publication or 70 years after the author's death) it enters the public domain, and is therefore allowed to be reproduced at will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the &quot;Copyright Act&quot;, any work published prior to 1923 is in the public domain.  This means many older translations are fair use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;King James Version&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Duoay-Rheims&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Young's Literal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Darby&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;JPS Bible (but &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the New JPS nor the Jerusalem Bible)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, some translations were specifically geared to avoid this issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The World English Bible (WEB)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/net-bible-copyright&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New English Translation&lt;/a&gt; - i.e the &lt;a href=&quot;http://net.bible.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;Net&quot; Bible&lt;/a&gt; Note: Does not apply if you charge for it, though...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The WikiSource Translation :)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://lexhamenglishbible.com/license/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lexham translation&lt;/a&gt; - Requires attribution and can only be sold if it is less than 25% of a work (or 50% for non-profits)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The English Standard Version ESV &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; copyrighted, but the terms are intentionally loose:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When quotations from the ESV text are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials (ESV) must appear at the end of the quotation. Publication of any commentary or other Bible reference work produced for commercial sale that uses the English Standard Version must include written permission for use of the ESV text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, many translations follow the standard of 500 verses, not to exceed 20% of the printed work. This list includes the following translations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrsv.net/contact/licensing-permissions/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NRSV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Holman-Christian-Standard-Bible-HCSB/#copy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;HCSB&lt;/a&gt; (250 verses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/#copy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NIV&lt;/a&gt; (as shown above)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Living-Translation-NLT-Bible/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Living Translation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-King-James-Version-NKJV-Bible/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NKJV&lt;/a&gt; (Also 250 verses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="39002" LastEditDate="2019-01-01T00:25:58.780" LastActivityDate="2019-01-01T00:25:58.780" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16379" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16381" CreationDate="2013-05-31T14:49:34.553" Score="5" ViewCount="30438" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament there is a scripture about an eye for an eye law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Exodus 21:23~25] And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, things changed in the New Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Mat 5:38~42]Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:&#xA;But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems the 'an eye for an eye' law was agreed in the Old Testament, but disagreed in the New Testament, a contradiction! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It confused me. What was the genuine opinion of the Lord God in the end? Or did his mind get changed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1775" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T15:47:55.543" Title="Did the Lord God agree with &quot;an eye for an eye&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-05-31T15:32:46.633" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16379" CreationDate="2013-05-31T15:47:55.543" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The distinction between the Old Testament and New is that the Old Testament laws were given to the nation of Israel as part of the covenant between God and the people of Israel.  The &quot;eye for an eye&quot; seems harsh to many people, but it was actually a law of restraint.  One eye for one eye--NOT two eyes, one arm and a foot for one eye.  &quot;Burn for burn&quot;--not &quot;whole villages aflame&quot;.  The idea was to put the punishment into congruence with the actual offense.  Vengeance would most often greatly exceed this standard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, Jesus is speaking not to the nation of Israel with regard to the covenant, but to individuals.  He was also speaking while the entire world was on the brink of the inception of the new covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Old Testament Covenant applies to the nation of Israel as long as that covenant is in effect.  That means between God and the nation of Israel between the time of Moses and the inception of the new and better covenant--roughly 1600 B.C. to 33 A.D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions like this come up fairly often on this site.  People ask, &quot;Should I sacrifice a lamb or not eat pork or not wear clothing with mixed fabrics?&quot;  The answer is, &quot;Yes, if you are Jewish and are living between 1600 B.C. and 33 A.D.&quot;  However, if you are non-Jewish or are alive today, the Old Testament Convent Laws are not binding on you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T15:47:55.543" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16382" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16384" CreationDate="2013-05-31T16:06:27.077" Score="14" ViewCount="975" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know there are a TON of translations out there and that some people prefer things like King James Only. But I was wondering: What are some good criteria for choosing a translation and why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4602" LastActivityDate="2013-09-07T04:23:29.923" Title="Criteria for translation" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2018-11-09T17:28:35.673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16382" CreationDate="2013-05-31T16:42:02.323" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are numerous things that go into finding a translation that works for you. Let's start with the different translation styles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Literal word for word translations. These translations go back to the original translations and try to capture the exact words of the original language in the translation language (in this case, typically English). These tend to be fairly accurate but are often unreadable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thought for thought translations. These translations, rather than try to determine the exact words of the original translation in the new language, try to capture the meaning in a readable and interpretable way. These tend to be slightly less accurate and more open to the interpretation of the translator, but are often very readable. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Paraphrase. Taking a step farther from thought for thought you get paraphrase, which turns the original language texts into a very readable, almost story-like version. You lose a significant amount of connection to the original language text here, but you trade it for a far more accessible text.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other things to consider are the scholarly rigor that goes into the translation (the NIV famously had a huge number of scholars and translators that worked on it). The number and quality of source texts used and the group of people doing the translating (did they all of one denominational or doctrinal bent?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, each kind of translation is good for specific things. If you don't read the original languages of scripture (Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic) then your best option is to read several different translations when you are interpreting a passage. If the translations agree you have a good idea of the meaning, if they disagree than you can often get a sense of the lingual nuance of the original language by reading several different scholar's translations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one translation or type of translation is superior to others, although several are very common for usage. The main ones I see used are the KJV, NIV and ESV, though there are several other translations that are commonly used for answers on this site. Most translations have strengths and weaknesses and I would not recommend relying on a single translation for your interpretation of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as choosing a translation for your daily reading (or a specific purpose), evaluate your needs. Do you need readability? Do you need a solid understanding of what the scripture is trying to communicate? Do you want to know exactly what was said as close to word for word as possible? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Developing your requirements for a translation will inform which translation you use. Everyone has different needs and thus there are dozens of different translations into English. This is a supreme luxury (many langauges, even common ones like Spanish, only have a few translations) and one that allows a great deal of options. Choose a reputable translation that suits your requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="4412" LastEditDate="2013-05-31T17:21:18.337" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T17:21:18.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16382" CreationDate="2013-05-31T16:43:44.000" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you accept what the Bible says about itself, specifically that it is &quot;God-breathed&quot; (2 Timothy 3:16) and that its authors were &quot;carried along by the Holy Spirit&quot; (2 Peter 1:21) as they wrote, then it follows that we would want as accurate a translation as possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it is true that there are minor copyist errors in the original manuscripts from which translations are made.  However, I have personally cataloged every variant in the first eight chapters of John and looked into this issue a fair amount, and I can confidently assert that the variances do not have any significant impact on the meaning of the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, we want to have an accurate translation.  The Greek language of the New Testament is a very precise language--well-suited, coincidentally, for recording doctrinal issues.  Hebrew, I am told, is great for storytelling, which is almost quite coincidental.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good translation will attempt to capture the meaning put forth in the original language and represent that as closely as possible in the other language.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Manuscript Variances&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many in the KJV-Only movement have made much of the differences between the Greek manuscript families of the Textus Receptus (TR) and the critical text.  Most modern translations are based on the critical texts while the KJV and a few others are based on the Textus Receptus.  I have personally investigated the variances between these two manuscript families quite a bit.  Some claim that the the critical text is based on corrupted manuscripts.  My personal conclusion is that the critical text is, indeed, older.  What is &quot;missing&quot; from them that appears in the TR is essentially explanatory notes that were likely included in margins of manuscripts originally and over time found their way into the manuscripts themselves.  Other variants seemed to arise from the inclusion of wording from one gospel into the account of the same event in another gospel.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament&quot;&gt;List of major textual variants in the New Testament&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Translation Approaches&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are basically two approaches to translation--1) word for word, and 2) thought for thought.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, though, an exact word for word translation does not really work.  Oftentimes, a Greek proper name will have the definite article preceding it, and we don't typically do that in English.  For instance, Greek has, literally, &quot;the God&quot;.  In English, however, this is just not the way we speak.  So, even the most literal word-for-word translation will not say &quot;the God&quot; or &quot;the Jesus&quot; or &quot;the Capernaum&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of particular importance in translation is the faithfulness to render verbs in the correct tenses.  An old adage for New Testament Greek is, &quot;the theology is in the verbs&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caution should be taken regarding translation that attempt to bend the Scriptures to modern philosophies.  For instance, it would be inappropriate to render pronouns referring to God or Jesus as gender-neutral, because they are not so in the original language.  It is not ours to redefine what the Holy Spirit intended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Recommendations&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, those are some general principles.  I would personally recommend the following translations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; LITV  word-for-word, very precise, but difficult to read, more for study.&#xA;&#xA; KJV   word-for-word, but with verb tenses and pronouns that have fallen out of use.&#xA;&#xA; NASB  Word-for-word, but a little verbose at times.&#xA;&#xA; ESV   Word-for-word, and perhaps a little smoother than the NASB&#xA;&#xA; NIV   Thought-for-thought, but pretty faithful to the original text.&#xA;       One thing it does is replace pronouns with their antecedents in many places.&#xA;       This is most common with pronouns for Jesus.  This does help with readability&#xA;       at times, especially in a world where individual verses are quoted out of &#xA;       context.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other good translations, of course, but these are pretty reputable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-05-31T16:51:43.893" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T16:51:43.893" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16377" CreationDate="2013-05-31T17:08:10.173" Score="49" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The issue with copyright translations.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One translation that was produced with the specific intention of avoiding copyright entanglements is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://ebible.org/web/FRT01.htm#V3&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;World English Bible&lt;/a&gt;.  It is modernization of the American Standard Version (ASV) placed into the public domain.  A paragraph from the site's &lt;a href=&quot;http://ebible.org/web/webfaq.htm#WhyNoCopyright&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt; is worth quoting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The copyright laws of most nations and the international treaties that support them are a mixed blessing. By granting authors and translators a legal monopoly (for a limited, but very long, time) on the right of copying and “first sale” of their works, the law makers have made writing and translating very profitable for some people whose works are in great demand. This has, no doubt, been a factor in the creation of many of the good Modern English translations of the Holy Bible that we now enjoy. The problem with this system, with respect to the Holy Bible, is that it has had the effect of limiting distribution of God’s Word in modern languages. For example, I cannot legally post copies of the entire New International Version of the Holy Bible on my web site in a downloadable, searchable, and readily copyable format without the permission of the International Bible Society and Zondervan (copyright owner and publisher). Zondervan won’t grant such permission unless they get a significant royalty (they quoted me $10,000 + $10/copy distributed) and unless I convince them that my Bible search software is “good enough” for them. Needless to say, the Bible search software that I am writing with the intention of distributing as donorware will not come with the NIV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, organizations such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gideons.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Gideons International&lt;/a&gt; that distribute Bibles must pay copyright holders a fee if they wish to give away a modern translation (such as the New King James Version) rather than the King James with all of it's Elizabethanisms.  The restrictions can also have an impact on smaller scales.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lockman.org/tlf/copyright.php#nasb&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NASB licence&lt;/a&gt; reads (emphasis in the original):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The text of the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;New American Standard Bible®&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of &lt;strong&gt;one thousand (1,000) verses&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;without express written permission of The Lockman Foundation,&lt;/em&gt; providing the verses do not amount to &lt;strong&gt;a complete book of the Bible&lt;/strong&gt; nor do the verses quoted account for &lt;strong&gt;more than 50%&lt;/strong&gt; of the total work in which they are quoted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These restrictions mean it's (&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/35/68&quot;&gt;probably&lt;/a&gt;) fine to quote a passage or two in an answer on Stack Exchange or in an article or book.  But it's not possible to reprint an entire book of the Bible for the purposes of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intervarsity.org/bible-studies&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;Manuscript Study&quot;&lt;/a&gt; (AKA, &quot;Communal Discovery Bible Study Method&quot;).  While I doubt the Lockman Foundation will have agents tracking down people who print out Mark for their devotional group to mark up, such a practice violates the intentions of the publisher who fronted the money and commissioned the translation.  As Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”&amp;mdash;1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Timothy 5:17-18 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/nasb/1_timothy/5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;NASB&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, many translations restrict derivative works (such as the WEB effort and my idea of making a &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/1097/68&quot;&gt;Southern American Version™&lt;/a&gt;).  The US laws concerning &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;derivative works&lt;/a&gt; is complicated, but creators who don't want to deal with lawyers would be advised to base their work on translations free of copyright restrictions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;But God's Word should be free, man!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; public domain (and a cornerstone of our cultural heritage).  But it turns out that even the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;critical text&lt;/a&gt; is &lt;a href=&quot;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/openscriptures/9XcB_4Ua6QU/yMgWi6tx43AJ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;protected&lt;/a&gt; by copyright laws.  For the general public, this is no great loss as there are plenty of unrestricted options and the licences for most translations allow for the most common uses of the texts.  But all of this has serious implications for scholars who honor the wishes of the Bible publishers.  It's tempting to get angry with the publishers or to ignore the restrictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we have a duty to comply with the licences of our translations so that the hard-working folks who produce them can afford to keep laboring.  Most of them are reasonable people who are as interested in seeing God's Word preached as you are.  In fact I'll let the Crossway (publishers of the ESV) blog have the &lt;a href=&quot;https://web.archive.org/web/20110706132925/http://www.crossway.org/blog/2005/11/how-to-cite-esv/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;final word&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We're not going to come after you if you don't cite quotes from the ESV according to these guidelines. But we'd appreciate it if you did. Using the letters “ESV” also helps us track the popularity of the ESV in the blogosphere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="9110" LastEditDate="2020-03-24T22:49:13.353" LastActivityDate="2020-03-24T22:49:13.353" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16387" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-31T18:21:57.073" Score="9" ViewCount="12115" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been told that it's rare to find someone who combines Dispensationalism and Reformed/Calvinistic doctrine (such as John MacArthur).  Why is this?  What ideas don't mesh well?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4607" LastActivityDate="2020-01-02T07:46:46.127" Title="Why is it rare to combine Reformed/Calvinist doctrine and Dispensationalism?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;dispensationalism&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16388" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-31T18:54:46.377" Score="4" ViewCount="203" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen a couple of answers in this site which explained the meaning of &quot;Jesus died for our sins&quot;. In these answers I gathered that Jesus (a representation of God himself) died so we could be without sin. Specifically this bit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus died for our sins in that He paid the penalty for our sins. As you point out, this does not mean we stop sinning. What it does mean is that the penalty incurred by our sins is satisfied by the payment made by Jesus Himself.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like the sacrifice of Jesus unlocked eternal life (=heaven) for us all, and that now we can actively seek to deserve it. What happened to everyone that lived before this sacrifice? It seems like they couldn't have been saved before this event. Assuming there were people who lead a good life in this lot, were they transferred somehow?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mentioned questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8794&quot;&gt;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8794&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16246&quot;&gt;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16246&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4614" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T18:54:46.377" Title="Did everyone go to hell before Jesus died for our sins?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-05-31T18:58:23.727" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16356" CreationDate="2013-05-31T19:56:28.603" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses believe that bowing down to a flag, saluting it or pledging allegiance to it, is equivalent to worshiping the flag, the nation it represents, or even the nation's leaders.  Our sole devotion and allegiance should be to God.  A scriptural account that provides a principle to follow is found in Daniel chapter 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the scriptures show that God no longer favors one nation over another. Acts 10:34: &quot;God is not partial.&quot; So his servants should share that view, rather than the commonly held views of nationalism and patriotism that imply that one's nation is superior to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4616" LastActivityDate="2013-05-31T19:56:28.603" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16390" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-05-31T20:35:48.917" Score="12" ViewCount="18045" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you may know there are many books where people have said they had been in hell and in heaven, and that even Jesus guided them. And that sounds a lot like &lt;em&gt;Divine Comedy&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure that's not true, because there are several parts of the Bible that do not fit with their stories, and also I don't believe that God would like to make us experience Hell:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved  the world,    that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not  perish but have eternal life.    For  God did not send his Son into the world  to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.    Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not  believed in the name of the only Son of God. — [John 3:16-18 ESV]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, the only one who had been in hell and heaven was Jesus; this is what he said to Nicodemus in all the gospels. Also in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham told to the rich man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He said to him, &quot;If they do not hear  Moses and the Prophets,  neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.&quot; — [Luke 16:25 ESV] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what biblical passages are used to support the idea that living people can experience hell and heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would really be helpful if you can give some Bible verses that talk more about the subject. I have been using the Nelson's Bible dictionary to understand more about it, which I recommend because it gives a list of related verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1970" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T02:09:34.820" LastActivityDate="2015-11-13T04:29:50.123" Title="What is the Biblical basis for the belief that a living person may visit heaven or hell?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16392" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16382" CreationDate="2013-05-31T21:36:24.303" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would propose the following criteria for selecting an English Bible translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;faithfulness to the original languages&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;translation philosophy (thought-for-thought, word-for-word, or paraphrase)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;usage of the best texts/manuscripts available&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;readability&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These criteria are purely subjective, therefore some theological traditions will prefer various manuscripts or translation philosophies over others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Faithfulness to the original languages&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the translation based on the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts? Or is it based on an existing translation? Is the translation consistent? Does it take recent scholarly linguistic and philological data into account? Does it allow the New Testament to inform how the Old Testament is translated? Are masculine pronouns translated as gender-neutral where grammar allows? Is there a clear theological bias (translations produced by sectarian groups or individuals often have a determined bias).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Translation philosophy&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A thought-for-thought translation is known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dynamic equivalent&lt;/a&gt;, while a word-for-word translation is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;formal equivalent&lt;/a&gt;. A &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;paraphrase&lt;/a&gt; involves restating the meaning of a given passage in other words. Essentially this is a metric of how &lt;em&gt;literal&lt;/em&gt; a translation is (does it follow form or meaning?). Remember that both form and meaning can be important; this is a subjective decision (just like all of the other criteria).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Usage of the best texts/manuscripts available&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some theological traditions have defined manuscripts/texts that are to be considered authoritative. Others tend to trust certain &quot;families&quot; of manuscripts more than others (Byzantine/Majority vs. Alexandrian, etc.). Others would prefer critical texts produced with the best quality scholarship that take early translations and manuscript variants into account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Readability&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This criteria is often overlooked. There is some truth to the old saying that &quot;the best Bible translation is the one you read.&quot; Who cares how well it meets the other criteria if you can't comprehend what you're reading? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mardel.com/UserFiles/File/Bible%20Translation%20Chart.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Some translations are harder to read than others.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best translation is a &lt;strong&gt;purely subjective choice&lt;/strong&gt; that factors in these criteria. Some may consider certain criteria to be more important than others, while others may wish to balance all of them equally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-09-07T04:23:29.923" LastActivityDate="2013-09-07T04:23:29.923" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8287" CreationDate="2013-06-01T04:11:41.363" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just thought I'd muddy the waters by bringing to light something referencing being born again that is at least as old as the reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grant, we beseech Thee, O almighty God, that the splendor of Thy brightness may shine forth upon us, and the light of Thy light may, by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, confirm the hearts of those who have been &lt;b&gt;born again&lt;/b&gt; by Thy grace. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the same Holy Ghost, God, world without end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://missale.heliohost.org/vigpent.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Collect from the Vigil of Pentecost&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being born again is certainly receiving the Sanctifying Grace of Jesus.  Some Evangelical Protestant Christians consider this to be some sort of spiritual awakening.  I don't pretend do understand what they're talking about.   But being born again is definitely a good thing, but it can only be understood in the light of what the Holy Spirit moves in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I'd like to add is a tidbit I heard on Relevant Radio a few weeks ago, about a Pentecostal minister who said that everyone's got what &amp;quot;born again&amp;quot; means wrong.  Because if you think about it, you've got new life at the moment of your conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has it occurred to you that you were alive for nine months before you were born  and that those were some of the most important months of your life?   Still, the time came when you had to leave your mother’s womb and be born and enter the fulness of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is with our soul.  When we come to know the Lord, in whatever way we come to know Him, we are alive spiritually, but if we don’t continue to the point of birth and growth, we die and are stillborn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, you must be born again.  You must allow God to take you out of your religious “comfort zone” and conform you to His own divine image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rev-know-it-all.com/2007/2007---01-28.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rev. Know it All &amp;quot;must I be born again&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But being born is a violent scary thing (seeing to three live births and eagerly anticipating a fourth, I can readily attest to this)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-01T04:11:41.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16396" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16390" CreationDate="2013-06-01T14:09:26.267" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;It happened before in the Bible, so I don't see why it cannot happen again. In 2 Corinthians 12:1-10, Paul the Apostle tells about a time when he is taken up to Paradise &quot;and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter&quot; (v4). He could not tell whether he was in a body or not (v3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most famous occasion of a man going to heaven and coming back to earth to record the experience would be John, who wrote the book of Revelation. He saw much in heaven. It appears that he actually took notes while he was in heaven; at one point he was admonished not to write about the 7 thunders (Rev. 10:4). He was told to write what he saw and deliver it to the angels of the 7 churches (Rev 1:10-11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2015-11-13T04:29:50.123" LastActivityDate="2015-11-13T04:29:50.123" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16356" CreationDate="2013-06-01T15:35:12.740" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I learned this from Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They believe that Satan is the ruler of this world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 12:31 (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 14:30 (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They also believe that each and every kingdom here on Earth is ruled and controlled by Satan:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Daniel 2:44 (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for them, if you are saluting the flag they feel that you are saluting what Satan has made:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 John 5:19 (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4524" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T07:50:52.037" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T07:50:52.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16387" CreationDate="2013-06-01T15:58:29.113" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One reason could be that Reformed doctrine takes covenantal thinking into account; this allows for quite a bit of continuity between the two Testaments, with also some very distinct discontinuities. Reformed doctrine, for example, would see the covenants in the OT as building, one upon the other, in scope, until you have the New Covenant with Jesus Christ, which is so powerful it's retroactive in including the OT saints. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, allows for very few continuities between the testaments, if any. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-01T15:58:29.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15738" CreationDate="2013-06-01T16:06:24.667" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would argue there is no synergism whatsoever in justification. The natural man, the Bible points out, is not sick and needing a doctor. He is dead and needs resurrection. Dead people don't raise themselves. They need to be raised (passive voice very intentional here). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must raise people from the dead and give them a new heart. Otherwise, they will not desire God. God the Holy Spirit, that is, changes peoples' wills so that they want God. Before that, people hate God and do not want Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The traditional Reformed &lt;em&gt;ordo salutis&lt;/em&gt; is, IIRC, the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Predestination, Effectual Calling, Regeneration, Conversion, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Glorification. Now the steps of Effectual Calling through Adoption happen nearly instantaneously, so I'm merely writing them out in this way as a logical progression more than as a time progression. Also, all steps up through and including Adoption are completely monergistic. Sanctification is synergistic: 100% God, and 100% man, although even the part that we do is utterly dependent on God's strength. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-01T16:06:24.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16291" CreationDate="2013-06-01T16:47:34.450" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it's also important to think about the way things are now, and the way they will be in eternity. In the new heavens and the new earth, there will be no more sin; and Satan, the fallen angels, and the unbelievers will be in hell with no possibility of reaching the new heavens and the new earth. They will be separated from God forever (the second death). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-01T16:47:34.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16403" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-01T22:46:13.597" Score="12" ViewCount="299" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&amp;amp;id=1671&amp;amp;tla=en&quot;&gt;recent encyclical&lt;/a&gt; marking the 1700th anniversary of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan&quot;&gt;Edict of Milan&lt;/a&gt;,  the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ec-patr.org/athp/index.php?lang=en&quot;&gt;Bartholomew I&lt;/a&gt;, wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Wisdom of God, the Lady Theotokos our Pammakaristos and Conciliation, St. Demetrios Kanavis, St. George the Trophy-bearer of the Phanar, and all the saints of our Church are not keepers of the law but legislators according to St. Symeon the New Theologian. The institution of the Church is charismatic, and the charismata of the saints function as institutional signposts for the faithful of the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&amp;amp;id=1671&amp;amp;tla=gr&quot;&gt;Greek text&lt;/a&gt; seems to be basically word-for-word the same, except that &quot;charismatic&quot; is emphasised:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ Σοφία, ἡ Κυρία Θεοτόκος ἡ Παμμακάριστος καί ἡ Παραμυθία, ὁ Ἅγιος Δημήτριος ὁ Κανάβης, ὁ Ἅγιος Γεώργιος ὁ Τροπαιοφόρος τοῦ Διπλοφαναρίου, οἱ Ἅγιοι συνολικῶς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἡμῶν δέν εἶναι φύλακες τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλά νομοθέται, κατά τό Ἅγιον Συμεών τόν Νέον Θεολόγον. Ὁ Θεσμός τῆς Ἐκκλησίας εἶναι  χ α ρ ι σ μ α τ ι κ ό ς καί τά χαρίσματα τῶν Ἁγίων λειτουργοῦν ὡς θεσμοί καθοδηγητικοί διά τό ἐκκλησιαστικόν πλήρωμα.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does he mean by the statement that the saints are &quot;not keepers of the law, but legislators&quot;, with reference to the Orthodox perspective on the nature of the Church? What significance is there to the particular saints (plus Wisdom) listed? What teaching of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symeon_the_New_Theologian&quot;&gt;St Symeon&lt;/a&gt; is being referenced?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T16:52:32.273" Title="What does &quot;the saints are not keepers of the law, but legislators&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;law&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16390" CreationDate="2013-06-02T05:38:20.350" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From an Orthodox perspective, this really depends on how you define heaven and hell. Are you referring to the intermediate state prior to the final judgment, or to our final place of blessedness or damnation? As our tradition (along with the scriptures) differentiates between Sheol/Hades (where everyone goes after death) and the final state after the last judgment, we would say that one may experience the intermediate state - but only those who have been bodily resurrected (second resurrection) have yet experienced the final state (i.e. Christ Himself, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormition_of_the_Theotokos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;many Orthodox&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;all Catholics&lt;/a&gt; would also include the Virgin Mary).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man&quot; (John 3:13).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;But, as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him'&quot; (1 Corinthians 2:9).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells&quot; (2 Peter 3:13).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T02:34:23.143" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T02:34:23.143" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4199" CreationDate="2013-06-02T05:50:01.130" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my lengthy experience, the BUGB is not liberal, although it is not prescriptive on certain matters and certainly not judgmental over issues that seem to overoccupy the public outbursts of certain preachers in the US.  Every church in the BUGB with which I have been involved - and there have been many - has been evangelical, highly committed to missionary support and not independent.  However, the Union is a 'broad church' including churches which clearly believe in a separate Baptism by the Holy Spirit and those who believe in water baptism resulting from conviction through baptism by the Holy Spirit, churches which are charismatic and those which are more conservative.  Check out their website for info on their principles - principles which every aspiring minister/pastor is asked about before being confirmed as eligible to lead a church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4628" LastActivityDate="2013-06-02T05:50:01.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16408" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-02T07:35:08.267" Score="8" ViewCount="8845" Body="&lt;p&gt;In all Christian Bibles the translators wrote this verse in the same language and translated it, (maybe it's Hebrew which I don't know) but why only Mark 15:34 in the whole, is it because when Jesus was crying He cried in another language?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4524" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-18T08:25:14.503" LastActivityDate="2019-12-19T10:38:19.223" Title="Why does Mark 15:34 say &quot;Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani&quot;?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;aramaic&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16408" CreationDate="2013-06-02T08:13:11.213" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's Syriac. Matthew Henry's commentary &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+15:34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;in the sidebar at this link&lt;/a&gt; says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ’s prayer was bantered by them that stood by (Mark 15:35, 36); because he cried, &lt;em&gt;Eli, Eli,&lt;/em&gt; or (as Mark has it, according to the Syriac dialect) &lt;em&gt;Eloi, Eloi,&lt;/em&gt; they said, &lt;em&gt;He calls for Elias,&lt;/em&gt; though they knew very well what he said, and what it signified, &lt;em&gt;My God, My God.&lt;/em&gt; Thus did they represent him as &lt;em&gt;praying to saints,&lt;/em&gt; either because he had abandoned God, or God had abandoned him; and hereby they would make him more and more odious to the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sentence is a direct quotation of Psalm 22:1, and as well as Mark 15:34 it does appear in the same form at Matt 27:46. Matthew Henry's commentary on the Matthew verse &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:46&amp;amp;version=NKJV#&quot;&gt;in the sidebar at this link&lt;/a&gt; says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The words are related in the Syriac tongue, in which they were spoken, because worthy of double remark, and for the sake of the perverse construction which his enemies put upon them, in putting &lt;em&gt;Elias&lt;/em&gt; for &lt;em&gt;Eli.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-06-02T08:13:11.213" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16411" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16414" CreationDate="2013-06-02T09:28:21.517" Score="-1" ViewCount="159" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scientists say that humans are from apes. But the Bible says that God created adam and eve &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can somebody explain this controversy ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4624" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T02:39:49.913" Title="Controversy regarding the birth of man" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;adam&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-06-02T18:04:22.443" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16412" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16415" CreationDate="2013-06-02T10:46:45.820" Score="9" ViewCount="14208" Body="&lt;p&gt;I stumbled on this verse again and would like some clarification:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2:20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 2:20 (KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was the temple 46 years old at that time?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was the temple built in 46 years?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's the second option, how could it be true that the temple took so long to build? Were they short of labour, money, etc.?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-01-06T22:33:58.387" LastActivityDate="2019-07-31T15:51:26.037" Title="Was the temple built in 46 years or was it 46 years old during Jesus' time?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;temple&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16411" CreationDate="2013-06-02T11:41:15.883" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The controversy can be better understood by exploring the different views that Christians have held regarding how biblical revelation and science fit together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Theistic Evolution&lt;/a&gt; holds that God is the creator, but set up a universe in which humans would evolve.  Genesis therefore contains allegorical truths about the spiritual relation between God and man.  Man evolved from apes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Old Earth Creationism&lt;/a&gt; holds that the Genesis literally describes the fiat creation by God of increasingly complex life forms over several ages. God created apes, then God created man a few million years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.conservapedia.com/Young_Earth_Creationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Young Earth Creationism&lt;/a&gt; holds that the plain and simple meaning of the English translation is literal history, that God created over six 24 hour periods a few thousand years ago.  Man and apes were created only a few 24-hour periods apart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-06-02T11:41:15.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16411" CreationDate="2013-06-02T14:38:27.017" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disclaimer: # 1&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is a bit broad, and difficult to answer fully in this format. One of the reasons to close a question as &quot;not a real question&quot; is &quot;Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Volumes of books have been written on this subject, and this site has many, many questions exploring it.  However, I'm choosing not to vote to close the question because we don't have any &quot;beginner level&quot; creation/evolution questions that haven't been closed, and I think it would be good to have one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Disclaimer #2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm also going to try not to take sides here, but to present the views of each side.  I am not going to claim that one is true or the other is not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which view is true is not within scope of the site or of this question.  Pointless debates of which view is true are discouraged.  I am only going to try to, as accurately as possible, lay out the various views and arguments on each side at a beginner level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The controversy isn't quite as cut-and-dried as you present it in your question.  In truth, there are many &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/creation-scientists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;scientists that reject the idea of evolution&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scientists_alive_today_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;more here&lt;/a&gt;) in the sense that is generally meant.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, not all  Christians reject the theory of evolution.  (As a matter of fact, the question &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/130/can-i-believe-in-evolution-and-still-be-a-christian&quot;&gt;Can I believe in evolution and still be a Christian&lt;/a&gt;&quot; has already been addressed here.  Many denominations and Christians simply don't see a conflict.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Christians that do believe in Creationism, @pterandon has already provided a good list of the various views.  Your question seems to be addressing only the Young Earth Creationism views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, there are also many that believe that the Genesis creation account is allegorical, and not a historical account.  Many believe the same about the flood of Noah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the evolution side, there are also several different views that can be wrapped into the evolutionary view.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By far the most commonly understood is the idea that mutation provides the changes to DNA necessary to introduce variations, and that natural selection weeds out the weaker and favors the strong.  This provides a plausible explanation of how life evolves over time, but doesn't explain how life &lt;em&gt;originated&lt;/em&gt; (abiogenesis). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;There are a wide range of theories about how life originated&lt;/a&gt;, but we know nothing conclusive.  The assumption is that abiogenesis must be factual because, well, there's life here on earth.  For the pure naturalist - someone who rejects the possibility of the supernatural - aboigenesis has to be fact, because the only alternative to life originating &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;naturally&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is that it originated &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;supernaturally&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;And that is the key to the idea that evolution is scientific, and creationism is not.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who make this claim believe that &quot;scientific&quot; is synonymous with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;naturalism&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Wikipedea:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Naturalism refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to&#xA;  supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists&#xA;  beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the&#xA;  natural universe.&lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/creation-scientists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert&#xA;  that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior&#xA;  of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these&#xA;  laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Naturalists reject anything that does not fall within the &quot;naturalism&quot; paradigm as &quot;not scientific&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can see why they do, too.  Science is supposed to be about knowledge that is discovered and verified in a rigorous method.  It involves hypothesis that can be testable, experimentation, and results that are repeatable.  We can't create a supernatural God in a laboratory.  Even if the Genesis creation account is true word-for-word, as written, we can't perform experiments to prove or disprove it.  It is very logical to say that creationism doesn't fall within the realm of science, because we can't apply the scientific method to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the fact that it doesn't fall within the realm of science doesn't mean it isn't true...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Christianity accepts a Supernatural Supreme Being (God).  The idea of a supernatural creation of the universe, and of man is part and parcel of a belief that the supernatural is possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Creation Scientists&quot; such as Ken Ham, the guys over at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ICR&lt;/a&gt;, etc. would be quick to agree that Creationism doesn't fall within the realm of science - just as the Naturalist would. &quot;Creation Science&quot; is a bit of a misnomer.  If you dig int the literature, you find very quickly that they do not claim that the creation account is &quot;scientific&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, they claim that the Naturalistic explanation isn't scientific, either.  We can't repeat the big bang.  We have no real answers to the problem of abiogenesis - answering how life originated in the first place.  We can't apply the scientific method to any of these. Even if we were to re-create life from organic chemicals in a test tube, that still doesn't tell us that life actually arose that way.  (By definition, such an experiment would involve intelligent beings intentionally putting the right chemicals together.  The best that could do is provide evidence for Intelligent Design)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you realize that neither the Naturalists approach nor the Creationist approach is repeatable, testable, demonstrable, and therefore not scientific, you realize that the key question - the one on which your entire worldview as far as the creation/evolution split does is &quot;Do you accept the possibility of a Supernatural Creator?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire creation/evolution debate hinges on that one question.  Your answer to that is your root assumption.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you accept the possibility, then either position is possible.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you reject the possibility, then only the Naturalistic evolutionary view is possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fromm that point, you can begin to truly understand and explore the differences between the views.  From there, you can find many references on both sides of the debate, and all of the flavors in between the two extreme ends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond this, there are literally hundreds of books written on each side, and various websites dedicated to one view or the other.  This site alone has a fairly large amount of material summarizing various different views or answering various questions that come up within the debate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T02:39:49.913" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16412" CreationDate="2013-06-02T15:13:38.870" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;It means it took that long to build. This is apparent from the fact that they were challenging Christ's claim that He would build it in three days, when it's taken 46 years of work thus far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblecommenter.com/john/2-20.htm&quot;&gt;Barnes' Notes on the Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Forty and six years ... - The temple in which they then were was that&#xA;  which was commonly called &quot;the second temple,&quot; built after the return&#xA;  of the Jews from Babylon. See the notes at Matthew 21:12. This temple&#xA;  Herod the Great commenced repairing, or began to rebuild, in the&#xA;  eighteenth year of his reign - that is, sixteen years before the birth&#xA;  of Christ (Jos. 'Ant.,' b. xv. Section 1). The main body of the temple&#xA;  he completed in &quot;nine years and a half&quot; (Jos. 'Ant.,' xv. 5, 6), yet&#xA;  the temple, with its outbuildings, was not entirely complete in the&#xA;  time of our Saviour. Herod continued to ornament it and to perfect it&#xA;  even until the time of Agrippa (Jos. 'Ant.,' b. xx. chapter viii.&#xA;  Section 11). As Herod began to rebuild the temple sixteen years before&#xA;  the birth of Jesus, and as what is here mentioned happened in the&#xA;  thirtieth year of the age of Jesus, so the time which had been&#xA;  occupied in it was &quot;forty-six years.&quot; This circumstance is one of the&#xA;  many in the New Testament which show the accuracy of the evangelists,&#xA;  and which prove that they were well acquainted with what they&#xA;  recorded. It demonstrates that their narration is true. Impostors do&#xA;  not trouble themselves to be very accurate about names and dates, and&#xA;  there is nothing in which they are more liable to make mistakes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-06-02T15:13:38.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15953" CreationDate="2013-06-02T17:37:19.517" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Oriental Orthodox churches are somewhat divided on this, many still celebrate the Divine Liturgy in Syriac (which is a later dialect of Middle Aramaic). One of the biggest reasons is that many Oriental Orthodox consider the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta&quot;&gt;Syriac Peshitta&lt;/a&gt; to be the authoritative scriptures, some even insisting on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament&quot;&gt;New Testament Aramaic primacy&lt;/a&gt; (such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism&quot;&gt;Nestorians/Assyrian Orthodox&lt;/a&gt;, although many would not consider them to be Oriental Orthodox). Many Orthodox traditions still observe the Divine Liturgy in older languages, even when those languages are no longer spoken (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language&quot;&gt;Church Slavonic&lt;/a&gt;). This is especially true of the Syriac Orthodox who can rightly claim that theirs is the oldest Divine Liturgy text and is therefore closest linguistically to the language spoken by Jesus and the apostles. It is generally accepted that they are the oldest Christian church in existence, which is another motivation for not changing the language and tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, many Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox churches have switched to using Arabic in services (such as the Coptic Orthodox). The reality is that most people no longer speak Syriac (just as hardly anyone still speaks Church Slavonic - possibly no one). Services have begun to be in Arabic in the Middle East for the same reasons services have begun to be in English in North America - people understand it. Add to this the fact that most Syriac Christians experience intense persecution and it is no wonder they have begun using the common spoken language in order to preserve the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to the first tradition to localize the language to the people, &lt;strong&gt;many&lt;/strong&gt; Orthodox traditions did this prior to the Protestant Reformation. Study the history of the Eastern church and you will see that it often used the language of the people. Oddly enough, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cyril_the_Philosopher&quot;&gt;Church Slavonic itself was originally designed to be in the language of the people&lt;/a&gt;, which is why it is so ironic that churches are hesitant to change it to use the spoken language of people today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-06-02T22:03:44.150" LastActivityDate="2013-06-02T22:03:44.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16421" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16424" CreationDate="2013-06-02T19:34:08.123" Score="-1" ViewCount="204" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 18:10 Peter demonstrates courage during Jesus's arrest when Peter uses his sword to defend Jesus. A few verses later during Jesus's trial Peter denies Jesus. It seems that Peter would risk everything to defend Jesus against a detachment of soldiers yet Peter wouldn't risk his reputation with women and strangers. I can certainly understand the change of heart after Jesus's resurrection but why the change of heart during Jesus's arrest and trial?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could argue that Peter was in close proximity to Jesus during His arrest but Luke 22:61 says &quot;the Lord turned and looked at Peter&quot; which implies that Peter was close to Jesus when Peter denied Jesus. Maybe Peter became discouraged when he saw that Jesus seemed to surrender.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="854" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-02T03:46:49.003" LastActivityDate="2015-11-02T03:46:49.003" Title="Why the change of heart for Peter in John 18?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;peter&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-06-03T09:52:54.983" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16423" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16425" CreationDate="2013-06-02T22:55:33.670" Score="1" ViewCount="431" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Christian perspective: Does God allow the process of recessive genes being over-powered by dominant genes to create who you are - personality traits, interests etc. - and then see how a person with your qualities would fit best in this world. . . thus, molding your destiny?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4575" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T07:51:06.443" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T07:51:06.443" Title="Does God shape your destiny by the genes you inherit?" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-06-03T07:53:17.813" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16421" CreationDate="2013-06-03T00:10:59.970" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It wasn't so much a change in heart as it was the natural and common progression of disappointment which prideful people display. After a prideful person sees that the object of their pride doesn't meet their standard they may disavow that object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While John loved Jesus unconditionally Peter showed pride in aspects of Jesus' life and ministry as well as loving Him. That pride interfered with his love. Peter was proud of the Teaching, Preaching, Healing and Delivering Messiah as well as even the Dying Messiah but he was not proud of the Humiliated and Suffering Messiah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter was willing to die immediately for Jesus in his own way with a sword in his hand rather than God's way for him to die years later on a cross of his own (as far as we know). His actions against the representatives of the evil rulers of the people of Israel are not venerable. Its a kind of false fleshy courage based in pride. Can you hear the pride in this statement: &quot;If God wants me to do it I'm doing it my way when I want.&quot; It's seen in the contemporary world when people may say things like this: &quot;You're not going to talk bad about or hurt my wife/child/husband/friend.&quot; This defensiveness is sometimes healthy but can become unhealthy because punishment is sometimes necessary. The punishment of Christ for us was necessary. Jesus did instruct the disciples to carry a sword but He never authorized them to use it in His defense. His Kingdom isn't of this world and if Peter had been listening he would have known that. Besides Jesus didn't need Peter to attack them. All He had to say was I AM and they would have kept falling over. Peter's pride is also shown in how he rebuked the Lord and he didn't ask questions concerning the Lord's death which Jesus had already announced as unavoidable. Satan desired to sift Peter like wheat and nearly was able to because Peter wasn't willing to suffer in the form of humiliation and abasement rather than death with Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T00:24:55.190" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T00:24:55.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16423" CreationDate="2013-06-03T04:03:39.590" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Calvinists&lt;/a&gt; are famous for their belief in double predestination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_%28Calvinism%29#Double_predestination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Double predestination&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Calvinistic predestination is sometimes referred to as &quot;double predestination.&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_%28Calvinism%29#Double_predestination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; This is the view that God has determined the eternal destiny of every human being. He has chosen some to eternal life to be saved through the finished work of Christ, and foreordained others to everlasting punishment for their sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hyper-Calvinists believe in &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=rAhbAI-SoV0C&amp;amp;pg=PT122&amp;amp;lpg=PT122&amp;amp;dq=equal%20ultimacy&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=wTGngPz8-O&amp;amp;sig=O2nVCFk5oaTg_Lte3Glcn_M3mEw&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=xhGsUdymF4PY8gThw4HYDA&amp;amp;sqi=2&amp;amp;ved=0CHIQ6AEwBg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Equal Ultimacy&lt;/a&gt;, which states that God actively forces everything to happen. I think this is what your question is asking about. In Equal Ultimacy, God would be forcing your genes into certain conformations and making you exactly what you are. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The opposite view of Calvinism is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Arminianism&lt;/a&gt;. No version of Arminianism has God directly forcing people to do anything. It leaves the responsibility of the most weighty thing - salvation - on the individual; likewise with the less weighty things. Your genetics would be said to come from your parents through a system which God started and continues by His power which is resisted by the devil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 139:13&#xA;  For you created my inmost being;&#xA;     you knit me together in my mother’s womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an Arminian perspective God's work in the earth and his ability to answer prayer also has something to do with your genetics.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm Arminian so I blame my negative genetic traits on my parents and occasionally &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_in_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the devil&lt;/a&gt;, and I attribute my positive genetic traits to God as answered prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T05:56:01.610" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T05:56:01.610" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16426" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-03T04:40:55.210" Score="3" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the expression &quot;Sexual Immorality&quot; appears in bible translations (Namely, when Paul uses that word/phrase 1 Corinthians) — to whose morals is it referring?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The morals of the body of the church (or community)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The morals of the society (Your nations/generation's beliefs)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your own personal morals?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the actual word in Greek that is being translated? What is an in depth definition of that word?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4018" LastEditorUserId="4018" LastEditDate="2013-06-04T05:13:32.670" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T05:13:32.670" Title="Whose morals are being referenced by NT authors in the expression &quot;sexual immorality&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;ethics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-07-29T22:05:40.907" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16426" CreationDate="2013-06-03T05:41:53.890" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most word used is &quot;porneia&quot; (πορνεία), and according to Strong's means &quot;illicit sexual intercourse&quot; - particularly &lt;em&gt;fornication&lt;/em&gt;, or sexual intercourse outside marriage. This of course is the real point here - Paul isn't slamming sexual desire and intercourse as a bad thing - look at Song of Solomon. What he &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; warning against is sex in the absence of the covenant and institution God anointed to accompany it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads into the more general entry in Strong's - &quot;idolatry&quot; - because that's what it is - it's taking something without taking it how God intended it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to the question of &quot;whose&quot; morals - it's quite clearly God's morality - the only morality that matters. Hopefully, that lines up with the body of the church - but it needn't and often doesn't align with the morals of society. Romans 1 clearly condemns homosexuality despite the fact that it was rampant and accepted in the culture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is, &quot;sexual immorality&quot; is not a relative term. A lust-ridden man can't justify his pornographic addiction because according to his terms, &quot;sexual immorality&quot; is &quot;actual&quot; sex. It's on God's terms. Always. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T05:41:53.890" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16428" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-03T07:49:00.503" Score="11" ViewCount="444" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that interference from Moscow has been the cause of some dissent and even a schism within the Russian Orthodox Church in America. I think the very existence of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.roacusa.org/aboutus.php&quot;&gt;Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church of America&lt;/a&gt; is proof positive that at the least there was once an issue with control from the state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are the various branches of Eastern Orthodoxy (e.g. Greek, Russian, etc) independent today or are there are still ties to the respective states?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4636" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T09:16:11.917" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T21:51:01.357" Title="Is the Eastern Orthodox Church independent from regional governments?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16431" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16432" CreationDate="2013-06-03T13:00:53.733" Score="3" ViewCount="131" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Watch therefore, for you know neither &lt;strong&gt;the day nor the hour&lt;/strong&gt; in which the Son of Man is coming.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NKJV&amp;amp;search=Matthew%2025&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:13 (NKJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Christian sect which literally interprets this verse and says that even if there is no way of knowing the exact day or hour, there are some clues available from the scripture to calculate or know the &lt;strong&gt;season, year or century&lt;/strong&gt; when Jesus will come again? If so, what is the basis of their calculations or arguments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-12-24T21:17:46.820" LastActivityDate="2014-12-24T21:17:46.820" Title="Which sects interpret &quot;Day and Hour unknown&quot; literally?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;second-coming&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16431" CreationDate="2013-06-03T13:33:00.357" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would argue that &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; churches accept this quite literally, and that the exceptions prove the rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three great examples in the last 150 years of trying to pick a date are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Millerites who, in following Miller, were convinced Jesus was coming back in 1844.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ed Whiseant's &quot;88 Reasons the Lord is Coming Back in 1988&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Harold Camping's date of May 21, 2011&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all cases, these predictions did not come to pass. (I realize that since all three dates have come to pass, this may come as a shock to some people - but so far the record is zero :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In at least the later two cases, most Protestants dismissed the prophecies as heresy, using precisely the justification you state.  Here, for example is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.refutecamping.com/topics/matthew_24&quot;&gt;a post from March 2011&lt;/a&gt;, using precisely the same justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most interesting of the three, however, is clearly that of the Millerites. Like Camping, William Miller stuck his neck out and said the Lord was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism&quot;&gt;coming back in 1843&lt;/a&gt;.  When that didn't happen, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment&quot;&gt;he recalculated and figured out it was 1844&lt;/a&gt;.  When that discredited him, he slipped off the stage - but not before providing the essential ingredients to help launch the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, these are hardly indicative of the mainstream.  Most of us just say, &quot;Really?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-03T13:42:46.030" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T13:42:46.030" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16428" CreationDate="2013-06-03T15:20:20.850" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The commingling of states with Orthodoxy is a recent (19th century) historical phenomenon known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;phyletism&lt;/a&gt;, and has to do with the rise of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;nationalism&lt;/a&gt;. This is why you see Macedonian, Greek, Russian, etc. Orthodox churches. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/10/president-obamarsquos-campaign-for-leviathan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patrick J. Deneen&lt;/a&gt; explains how nationalism became a prominent ideology in western culture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“[There is] an impulse that can be dated back to the beginnings of the&#xA;  modern era and the rise of the state. Before the latter’s ascent,&#xA;  memberships in various social settings were overlapping and varied,&#xA;  ranging from families, neighborhoods, townships, boroughs, regions,&#xA;  guilds, Church (parish and Catholic), nation, even empire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The state undermined competing allegiances by demanding primary&#xA;  allegiance to itself alone, and only secondarily and ‘voluntarily’ to&#xA;  these preexisting institutions. Such memberships became less and less&#xA;  ‘constitutive.’ Rather, such associations and memberships came to be&#xA;  viewed as secondary to our primary allegiance to a State that reserves&#xA;  the right to control, oversee, and define any other institution….&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The only liberty that could be recognized was the liberty of&#xA;  individuals to ‘pursue his or her own ends.’ The ancient rights,&#xA;  privileges, immunities and liberties of institutions—the Church,&#xA;  universities, guilds, localities—were redescribed as forms of&#xA;  oppression. The increased power, even intrusiveness, of the state, was&#xA;  justified not as a form of oppression, but rather in the name of&#xA;  liberation of the individual….&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During the bloody twentieth century, the Church stood against the&#xA;  totalitarian ambitions of Fascism and Communism. A third ideology is&#xA;  clearly flexing its muscles today—threatening to make those victories&#xA;  of the last century merely Pyrrhic. The totalitarian impulse today is&#xA;  embedded in the very logic of liberalism, which seeks to expand its&#xA;  dominion into every aspect of life and against every competitor to its&#xA;  demand for the exclusive allegiance of individuals. We need to keep&#xA;  firmly in mind the picture that adorns the Leviathan, and resist our&#xA;  absorption as individuals into the body of the state by retaining&#xA;  deep, abiding, and even primary allegiance to family, locality, and&#xA;  Church.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phyletism is a confusion between church and nation, and was &lt;a href=&quot;http://ocl.org/the-1872-council-of-constantinople-and-phyletism/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;officially condemned by the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1872&lt;/a&gt; (yet the practice still remains and is one of Orthodoxy's main problems). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite differing national affiliations, Eastern Orthodox Christians are members of one Church and share the Orthodox faith. These affiliations indicate what language and ecclesiastic jurisdiction the church falls under, but they are still considered to be members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The respective governments of these nations are not necessarily in charge of these churches, rather they fall under a bishop in that country. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1271/are-orthodox-christians-all-the-same-faith&quot;&gt;Another question on C.SE&lt;/a&gt; explains further that Orthodox Christians of different ethnic affiliations share the same faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T15:20:20.850" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16387" CreationDate="2013-06-03T15:22:48.450" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason these two are seldom found together seems to be primarily because of the difference of the view of the church between covenant theology and dispensationalism. Although some (like MacArthur) continue to maintain the distinction between the church and Israel (as in dispensationalism), most 5 point Calvinists follow covenant theology which denies this distinction - placing the beginning of the church at least back to Abraham, and logically back to Adam. Therefore, although dispensationalism maintains that everyone has always been saved by grace through faith, the specific object of that faith in Reformed theology is understood to be Christ - while dispensationalism would recognize the role of the progress of revelation such that the basis for salvation was the Cross, the object was not as clearly seen as the incarnate Son of God. Actually, it is even more complex than this, but this gets you going in the right direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4638" LastEditorUserId="17529" LastEditDate="2018-07-27T13:40:23.677" LastActivityDate="2018-07-27T13:40:23.677" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16435" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16439" CreationDate="2013-06-03T16:12:03.467" Score="21" ViewCount="25863" Body="&lt;p&gt;My impression is that, among many Christians, people around a table saying a prayer thanking Jesus for a meal hold hands with one another. What is the origin of this practice, and are there any reasons for it given in reliable sources?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1090" LastEditorUserId="1090" LastEditDate="2014-12-04T06:05:03.627" LastActivityDate="2019-12-24T22:44:13.933" Title="What is the origin of holding hands when praying around a circle before a meal?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15772" CreationDate="2013-06-03T16:31:54.040" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you're asking questions about &quot;the Son&quot; that can't be answered without &quot;dividing the question&quot;, as they say in parliamentary procedure. That is, you simply have to ask the question about Jesus' divine nature and His human nature separately. I'm not saying that we need to separate the two natures of Jesus - that's heretical. I'm saying that they are distinct but not separate, without mixture or confusion, as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/chalcedonian_definition.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Definition of Chalcedon&lt;/a&gt; teaches us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God]&#xA;  must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably,&#xA;  indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of&#xA;  natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar&#xA;  property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person&#xA;  and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one&#xA;  and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus&#xA;  Christ,...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The divine nature of Jesus is omniscient, and the hypostatic union surely does not change the fact that the divine nature still knows everything. The human nature of Jesus, while on earth, slept at times, and that sleep was normal human sleep. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T16:31:54.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16439" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16435" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:06:06.600" Score="15" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Protestantism and Tradition&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm coming at this answer from a Protestant perspective.  Since I've seen a variety of folk in my branch of Christianity hold hands during prayer, I'll assume you've been observing my people.  We've inherited from Paul a &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/653/68&quot;&gt;suspicion&lt;/a&gt; of traditional rites and practices.  When we &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; observe some custom, we are very likely to either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;create a &lt;em&gt;post hoc&lt;/em&gt; justification, or&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;protest that the custom is not binding (and we can stop at any time).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I doubt either of these will be satisfactory to you, but maybe the sociological aspects will be of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;No Biblical justification&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Laying hands on a person (especially when they are sent off to perform some ministry) has &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/1Tm4.14;1Tm5.22;2Tm1.6;Ac8.17;Ac9.17;AC13.3Ac19.6;Hb6.2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;strong support&lt;/a&gt; in the practice of the early church.  Probably the earliest example is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.&amp;mdash;Acts 6:6 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Acts+6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That practice has &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/lay+hands/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;roots&lt;/a&gt; in the life of Jesus and in Hebrew culture.  Of course, praying while putting one's hands on another isn't the same thing as joining hands.  We get a hint of the idea of holding hands from this mention in one of Paul's letters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, &lt;strong&gt;they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me&lt;/strong&gt;, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.&amp;mdash;Galatians 2:9 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Galatians+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, this sounds more like a handshake than a prayer circle.  So the goto source for Protestants seems to be silent on this issue except that the posture of the hands can be important somehow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Practicalities&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a lot of stuff that Christians (and Protestants in particular) do for strictly practical reasons.  For instance, as far as I know the only reason we have lots of guitar in our worship services is that it's an easy instrument to learn well enough to make some semblance of music to accompany singing.  Churches are removing organs (the musical instrument, I mean) because it's getting harder to find decent organists.  So while you will still find Christians who think God only hears music accompanied by some sort of keyboard and that guitars are from the devil, most of us are more relaxed about the whole thing.  (Culture and the rejection thereof have a lot more to do with these attitudes than any sort of solid theology.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to holding hands in prayer, I think there are several practical purposes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It symbolizes that we are all equal before God and creates a sense of unity.  (See the Galatians passage above.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It shows who is participating in the prayer.  (This can be helpful when praying at a restaurant to avoid the awkward situation of a server interrupting a prayer.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When praying with small children, it ensures small hands are not making mischief while eyes are (theoretically) closed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It allows for silent communication (a squeeze of the hand) during the prayer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No doubt there are other considerations.  There's no hard and fast rules about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1855/914&quot;&gt;posture in prayer&lt;/a&gt;, so it's not uncommon to have some participants holding hands while others place their arms over their neighbor's shoulders.  (I'm often the link between the two for some reason.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The mind-body problem&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I must find a way to quote C. S. Lewis' &lt;em&gt;The Screwtape Letters&lt;/em&gt;.  It's a work of fiction from the point of view of a demon writing to an underling about how to divert a man (&quot;the patient&quot;) from God (&quot;the Enemy&quot;).  This is Screwtape's advice about prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The best thing, where it is possible, is to keep the patient from the serious intention of praying altogether. When the patient is an adult recently re-converted to the Enemy's party, like your man, this is best done by encouraging him to remember, or to think he remembers, the parrot-like nature of his prayers in childhood. In reaction against that, he may be persuaded to aim at something entirely spontaneous, inward, informal, and unregularised; and what this will actually mean to a beginner will be an effort to produce in himself a vaguely devotional mood in which real concentration of will and intelligence have no part. One of their poets, Coleridge, has recorded that he did not pray &quot;with moving lips and bended knees&quot; but merely &quot;composed his spirit to love&quot; and indulged &quot;a sense of supplication&quot;. That is exactly the sort of prayer we want; and since it bears a superficial resemblance to the prayer of silence as practised by those who are very far advanced in the Enemy's service, clever and lazy patients can be taken in by it for quite a long time. At the very least, they can be persuaded that the bodily position makes no difference to their prayers; for they constantly forget, what you must always remember, that they are animals and that whatever their bodies do affects their souls. It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.&amp;mdash;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=ZPkgnm9KfgEC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Screwtape Letters&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, Chapter 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, we must orient our bodies toward God if we are to orient our minds and souls toward Him.  Christians don't have a precise requirement for how to do this, but we have traditions that we follow because they have that practical effect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-06-03T19:14:48.397" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16440" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16442" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:21:32.457" Score="10" ViewCount="11338" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does the Bible size up with other books from the ancient world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it really true that the New and Old Testament is the book from the ancient world that has the largest amounmt of extant manuscripts?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Into how many ancient languages has the Bible been translated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, if we did not have all the manuscript evidence some believe we could still get the gist of the New Testament from early church correspondence. If this is true how does this improve or maintain the general case for an historically accurate New Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-12-24T21:14:17.633" LastActivityDate="2018-01-29T03:57:05.743" Title="How many New Testament manuscripts do we really have?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;manuscript&gt;&lt;historical-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16441" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16446" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:18:33.877" Score="2" ViewCount="344" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a related question but they are not the same&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6702/do-miracles-violate-the-laws-of-physics&quot;&gt;Do miracles violate the laws of physics?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at most miracles in the bible, they can be explained based on what we already understand (physics, chemistry, etc) and sometimes they were even explained in the bible. Like in the case of God parting the red sea, the east/west wind had to be strong to drive the water apart and made the children of God passed. There are others like that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there are 2 miracles that are difficult for me to explain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Shunamite widow pouring out oil from nowhere (2 Kings 4) - Here is an analyses have read but not satisfied: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbajuly97.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbajuly97.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus feeding 4000/5000 from food that did not exist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know God is omnipotent and can do all things, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;but in the case of the Red Sea, we learned how He did it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, when Jesus had 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, how does breaking them increase them till they could feed 5000 people (I know it's a miracle)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am even more concerned about the Shunamite woman. Having a jar of oil, and pouring into several jars and could have continue if there were more to fill. How did the oil keep pouring when there was a finite amount inside (diluted with water - I don't think so)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2019-04-13T12:32:05.547" Title="Why are some miracles hard to explain and some are not?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;omnipotence&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16440" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:29:12.173" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Old Testament&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dead Sea Scrolls&lt;/a&gt; currently housed in the Israeli Dead Sea Scroll museum and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;available online&lt;/a&gt;, is a collection of 972 manuscripts from the period 408 - 308 BC.  Seeing as the Old Testament itself consists of books written between 1000 - 600 BC and the late 450s, this is a pretty good collection. There are others, but this is the most well-known and complete collection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Testament&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the site &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian Apologetics Research Ministry&lt;/a&gt;, there are currently 5,686 known fragments of New Testament manuscripts.  That site also shows how much closer to the date of composition these manuscripts are than many other contemporary texts. The earliest of these (p52) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dates to sometime between 96 and 125 AD&lt;/a&gt;.  Seeing that some people date John to the 90s (others to the 60s), the gap is extremely small indeed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More interestingly, a good apparatus (like &lt;a href=&quot;http://greeknewtestament.net/mt1-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;) can actually show you every variation on the texts, and you will see they are few and far in between. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8466/how-do-i-track-the-history-of-changes-to-a-given-verses-actual-text-how-do-i-d&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; shows how an apparatus works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other Questions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you said that we could probably piece together the gist of the bible from early church correspondance.  This is completely accurate - as many of the early church fathers were already quoting New Testament Scripture by 100 AD  (Martyrdom of Polycarp? 1 Clement? the Didache!)  Indeed, Contra Celsius, in 150 is sometimes used to verify reconstructions.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Even the existence of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9484/how-many-books-never-made-it-to-the-bible-old-and-new-testament&quot;&gt;extra-biblical works, both pro and con&lt;/a&gt; lend credence to the theory that at least &quot;something&quot; was already going on about Jesus pretty shortly after the events of the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More importantly, however, is the fact that much of the New Testament actually &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; correspondance between churches.  Epistles are just that - letters (often from Paul) to churches &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11436/were-the-gospels-considered-scripture-when-the-rest-of-the-new-testament-was-wri&quot;&gt;that predate the Gospels&lt;/a&gt; and give a &quot;second witness&quot; to the Good News. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T20:44:07.310" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16441" CreationDate="2013-06-04T02:46:06.827" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any answer to this question will be pure speculation - the Bible doesn't say why there are these two &quot;classes&quot; (the question of the existence of said classes I'll leave alone for now), so we don't know. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that said, here are two potential reasons that are Scripturally based:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God is sovereign over &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt;, and is pleased to work out his will through his Creation, often utilizing secondary and tertiary causes. The Parting of the Red Sea shows this , and it is no less a miracle because God used one part of his creation to affect another - after all, God created it all in the first place! &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God hides things from us. There are things we cannot yet know. While God's power is manifest in the Red Sea, marveling us, his mystery and wisdom are manifest in the feeding of the 5000, keeping us grounded in our own frailty. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, God demonstrates different attributes through different miracles that serve different purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T02:46:06.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16353" CreationDate="2013-06-04T03:38:38.333" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Flag&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian Flag&lt;/a&gt;&quot; was conceived by Charles Overton, who in 1897 was superintendent of the Congregational Sunday School at Brighton Chapel, Coney Island, New York, USA.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; (That community was incorporated as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stpaulsconeyisland.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church of Coney Island&lt;/a&gt; in 1907, and it still exists today). On 26 September of that year, he gave a sermon musing about what kind of flag might represent the Christian faith, in the same way as the American flag represents the United States. Following on from that, he designed the emblem and formed a group (the Christian Flag Extension Society) to promote it. This included efforts to have the flag officially recognized by the US government, and adopted in its military chaplaincies. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The first flags made to his design were manufactured by the Annin company, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.annin.com/products/cat_religious_flags.asp&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;which still makes them today&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/myB0F.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Christian Flag from flagman.com&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Overton:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is truly symbolic. The ground, which is five-sixths of the whole, is white, the universal peace color, representing peace, purity, and innocence. In the upper corner is a blue square, the color of the unclouded sky, emblematic of heaven, the home of the Christian, also a symbol of faith and truth. In the center of the blue is the cross, the ensign and chosen symbol of Christianity. The cross is red, typical of Christ's blood. Every sect of Christ's followers can indorse the flag, and it is equally acceptable to all nations. It stands for no creed or denomination, but for Christianity.&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, &quot;white is recognized as the flag of truce on every battlefield, and as soon as a flag of this color is seen the cannon's roar is silenced.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; It may be that the red-white-blue combination of the Overton flag was chosen to echo the colors of the American flag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Overton design violates the heraldic rule of tincture by placing the red cross on the blue canton. This seems to be unintentional, though the arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem deliberately did the same (gold on white) as a mark of honor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some alternative flag designs were proposed in the same era, including the so-called &quot;Crusader Flag&quot;, a red cross on a white field bearing the motto &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;In this sign conquer&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Several individual churches or denominations have their own unique flags as well. Perhaps the flag of the Vatican is the only one of these that qualifies as intended to be &lt;em&gt;universal&lt;/em&gt;, though of course non-Catholics are liable to disagree with the claim. Conversely, the &quot;Christian Flag&quot; is Protestant in origin and remains most popular among American Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;Deruyter Gleaner&lt;/em&gt;, 18 August 1898, p8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;American Sentinel&lt;/em&gt;, vol 14, no 17 of 27 April 1899, p262&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;Missionary Education in Home and School&lt;/em&gt;, R. E. Diffendorfer, NY: Abingdon Press, 1917, p183ff &lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. &lt;em&gt;The Epworth Era&lt;/em&gt;, 12 January 1919, p150&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T03:38:38.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16450" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T07:29:51.913" Score="3" ViewCount="2864" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. &lt;em&gt;(John 5:28-29, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. &lt;em&gt;(Revelation 20:13 NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4524" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T10:19:00.363" Title="What is the difference between the grave and Hades?" Tags="&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:13:51.287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16452" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16454" CreationDate="2013-06-04T11:19:24.160" Score="7" ViewCount="4855" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are numerous instances in the Bible where Jesus drives out demons from people who were possessed by them. If we take a general view of these events during the ministry of Jesus, we find that there were a number of such miracles performed by Jesus apart from other miracles. Sometimes these demons were themselves testifying about who Jesus was.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently we saw even Pope Francis performing what was called as exorcism on one of the visitors to him. So we can say that it is something similar to what Jesus was doing during His ministry.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is why this practice of driving out of demon is not very common nowadays in Christianity? And Is there any methodology according to Bible to drive out demons from possessed people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="4517" LastEditDate="2013-06-07T21:09:30.363" LastActivityDate="2021-04-07T13:14:46.037" Title="Is there any methodology according to Bible to drive out demons from possessed people?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2021-04-07T13:45:50.543" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16242" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:17:18.900" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another explanation, coming from the Reformed tradition, is this: Christ died only for &lt;em&gt;His people&lt;/em&gt;, not for all people. Various passages that support this are Matthew 1:21, John 10:7-18, John 17, and Romans 8:30. The idea here is that Christ's death does not make justification &lt;em&gt;possible&lt;/em&gt; for His people - it actually &lt;em&gt;effects&lt;/em&gt; justification for His people. And, since Christ did not die for everyone, those for whom Christ did not die must pay their own penalty. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this view, Christ's death, all by itself, pays the penalty for the sins of His people. There's nothing added to it, not even our faith. This accomplishes the work of justification. Now, the Reformed position would also add that justification will always result in sanctification (faith without works is dead). However, the Reformed position is always very careful to add precisely nothing to Jesus' work in our justification. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must still ask for forgiveness of our sins, because that is one vehicle through which God has ordained that our sanctification should take place. God is not just interested in delivering us from the guilt of our sin (done by Jesus' death on the cross), He also wants to deliver us from the power of sin. That's sanctification. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T13:17:18.900" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16452" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:28:30.110" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 16:18 (NIV)  She kept this up for&#xA;  many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and&#xA;  said to the spirit, “&lt;strong&gt;In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come&#xA;  out&lt;/strong&gt; of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apostle Paul cast out the evil spirit by using the name of Jesus Christ. Anyone who believes Jesus Christ is given the power to drive out demons by faith and prayer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 16:16-18 (NIV) Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,&#xA;  but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will&#xA;  accompany those who believe: &lt;strong&gt;In my name they will drive out&#xA;  demons&lt;/strong&gt;; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes&#xA;  with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt&#xA;  them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will&#xA;  get well.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some evil spirits are so powerful that it require more prayer and faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 9:29 (NIV) He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we can see in these verses, it's quite simple. It only require faith and prayer followed by pronouncing the name of Jesus Christ. But the most problematic here is having faith, which can be achieved through prayer and experience only. I myself once participated in an exorcism performed by our pastor. All we did was pray, sing songs and command the evil spirit to come out in the name of Jesus Christ, and it worked :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The methodology is simple. Prayer, Fasting and Commanding in the name of Jesus Christ. But it is not easy. Method is simple, but not easy to carry it out. It needs a lot of faith, personal relationship with God and patience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-05T06:39:33.370" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T06:39:33.370" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16242" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:39:26.770" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although Jesus died for the sins of &quot;the whole world&quot; (1 John 2:2), the whole world does not get the benefits of His death unless it follows the condition, specifically, acknowledging their need of forgiveness of sins from God. With this statement of faith, that I have sinned against God and I need forgiveness from God through Jesus Christ, I am saved from my sins. Without that step of faith, the Lake of Fire awaits. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why must I still ask for forgiveness when I sin again? It is the natural thing in normal life to say, &quot;Oops, sorry about that,&quot; when we bump into someone, or to say something more substantial when we've hurt another. Confessing your wrong to God and others is your way of saying that you want to put it right, and you are accepting responsibility for your actions. There is nothing &quot;mystical&quot; about it; couples make up when one admits fault and sincerely makes it right, and it works in the spiritual sphere as well, though we call it confession and repentance. It's expected with our confession that we'll also take steps to make it right, as we see in 2 Cor. 7:9-12, in which Paul approves of the steps of repentance that were made. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus saves us from our sins, but we prefer to sin, what are we saying about our salvation? What are we saying about the gospel of our Savior? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Confession is so important because we need to call our sin what it really is or we will not deal with it on Christ's terms. If we call sin a &quot;mistake,&quot; then we may not take hold of the benefits of our salvation, which is the blood washing away our sin, and seeking the power of the Holy Spirit to enable us to change the habits of sinful ways. See Psalm 15, which paints a portrait of one who is able to approach a holy God, and you'll find one trait is &quot;speaking the truth in his heart&quot; (rather than using euphemisms to lighten the severity of the problem within). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 51 is a terrific example of a prayer of confession, where David not only sees that he is wrong, but needs restoration from God for what sin did in him, and seeks to do better as a result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T13:39:26.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16452" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:56:29.273" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think one possible reason is that demon possession, while it's certainly still possible, I think is much rarer than it was during the days of Jesus. From a redemptive historical perspective, the fact that there seemed to be a lot more demonic activity during the days of Christ should not surprise us; surely demons would be working hard at the pivotal moment of all of history!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T13:56:29.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16184" CreationDate="2013-06-04T15:04:05.443" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Friend, it seems you are making the same mistake most religionist (legalists) make. You may be confusing the SIN NATURE of man with the ACT of sinning. SIN NATURE is the problem Adam got humanity saddeled with when he gave in to the devil. The act of SINNING is the problem we all experience with our flesh daily. The good news is that both of these problems were totally delt with by Jesus at the cross. Since the sacrifice of Jesus nobody alive has been born with sin nature (many religions still teach we are born in sin but that is a lie Rom. 5:18-19) Christ died for all sin past, present, future.  Since the sin nature and the acts of sin have been delt with for ALL people (I mean murderers, rapists, homosexuals, liars, thieves, child molesters ect.) then in Gods view we are all in Jesus and, therefore, justified (while on earth) and cannot commit sin against God. We must, however, before we die accept God's free gift of salvation to escape final judgement. This is part of the Gospel of Grace and is not preached from many pulpits. We can now only sin against each other and ourselves and Jesus instructs us to forgive others their trespasses against us and ourselves for our sins against others. This is what is beinging said in 1John 1:8-10.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4647" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T15:04:05.443" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16460" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16461" CreationDate="2013-06-04T16:46:26.143" Score="8" ViewCount="968" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible, did Mary die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a comment on another &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16336/do-roman-catholics-believe-saints-are-omnipresent/16348?noredirect=1#comment40150_16348&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;, it seems that at least some denominations (including the Roman Catholic Church) teach that, like Elijah and Enoch, Mary did not see death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From where does this teaching arise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2018-03-09T03:40:10.213" Title="Did Mary die, or was she translated like Enoch and Elijah?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16460" CreationDate="2013-06-04T17:11:48.907" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Bible, Mary is not explicitly mentioned after Acts. There is no record of her death or non-death. Further, since she was very young when she gave birth, it is conceivable that she would have outlived many of the original authors. Either way, any information about Mary after about 40 AD cannot rest on Biblical justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I think that an important point to emphasize: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;There is no outright biblical justification that Mary did *anything* after Acts&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Anyone who claims otherwise is presenting not scripture, but an interpretation of scripture.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strictly speaking the Church's teaching is ambiguous as to whether Mary was assumed into heaven in the manner of Elijah, or if her body was taken to heaven afterwards (as was the case with Moses). Neither opinion is excluded specifically, but the general thought in the West was that Mary was assumed just before she would have died normally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This thought is based on several facts. One is the authority of the Church &amp;mdash; while this is not something that was held to be official dogma until relatively recently, the consistent and near unanimous opinion of the church Fathers was that Mary's body is currently in heaven. This is no doubt supported by the fact that there is no tomb and no shrine which claims to hold the bone of Mary (this is conspicuous because all of the Apostles had such sepulchers). Further, it was promulgated as doctrine by the Pope resting on Papal authority. In addition, there is an ancient document which actually relates the death of Mary and the assumption of her body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you have several sources who agree:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ancient legends &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Theological consensus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No physical tomb&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Papal authority&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, while it is possible to disagree with one or more of these, it is beyond the scope of this question to address such issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* While it may be reasonable to believe that Mary breathed, ate, drank, and eventually died, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;there is no commentary on these in the Bible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. If we exclude all evidences outside of the Bible, there is no way to say that she did not join the Judaizers or that she performed miracles as great as the signs in the Gospels.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-06-05T04:00:54.940" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T04:00:54.940" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16377" CreationDate="2013-06-04T21:57:15.017" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of the non-public domain translations, the NET Bible has the most liberal licence for copying passages - you can read its &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/article/net-bible-copyright&quot;&gt;licence&lt;/a&gt;. You can copy, but not alter or distribute commercially.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you wish to have complete freedom to act without legal restriction then you need a public domain translation. There are a number of translations which are out of copyright due to age. These are in the public domain, but their language tends to be archaic and their scholarship dates from before our modern knowledge of manuscripts etc. Other people have mentioned the World English Bible, which is a revision of the old ASV and has been released into the public domain. Think of it as similar to the ESV in style though based on the majority Byzantine texts in the NT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another option, though it only covers the NT and part of the OT at this time, is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://openenglishbible.org&quot;&gt;Open English Bible&lt;/a&gt; (which as a disclaimer I'm involved in). This is attempting to create a modern English translation which is completely free of copyright restriction, so that you can use it however you feel appropriate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4651" LastActivityDate="2013-06-04T21:57:15.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16465" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16475" CreationDate="2013-06-04T22:57:56.213" Score="16" ViewCount="1907" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ignatius Theophorus's answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16460/did-mary-die-or-was-she-translated-like-enoch-and-elijah&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; about the assumption of Mary states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In addition, there is an ancient document which actually relates the death of Mary and the assumption of her body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I heard about the Catholic belief that Mary was sinless and was assumed into heaven, I thought the two beliefs fit together well since death is a consequence of sin.  However, if it is taught she &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; die (or even would have died), how is this reconciled with &quot;the wages of sin is death&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2016-07-03T22:00:11.810" Title="How could a sinless Mary die?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16466" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16468" CreationDate="2013-06-05T00:53:55.947" Score="10" ViewCount="1840" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have many times witnessed christians trying to convince or convert atheists or people of other religions to christianity as well as all sorts of arguments and quarrels regarding christianity. I'm sure you've witnessed some too...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among other things, I've noticed christians persistently using two arguments that I find hard to reconcile with the rest of Christianity / Jesus' teachings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Appeal to personal Gain&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure you've heard someone say &quot;&lt;em&gt;Start believing in God and Jesus Christ, that way you will be saved and after death you'll go to heaven and be happy for eternity&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sounds great, the trouble is, if this becomes the sole or main reason for faith, is that faith really worthwile? It seems to me that this argument reduces christianity to a simple trade: Do something that is asked of you and in reward you will be happy forever. I'd think that a real faith would be based on something more... sincere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't understand how can someone venerate Jesus for his act of ultimate selflessnes and love (the crucifixion) but at the same time try to lead people to Jesus by appealing to their desire for personal gain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Inducing fear&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A.k.a. the age-old &quot;&lt;em&gt;If you don't listen, you will go to hell&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. This is similar, usually used along with the former argument, but it's a bit more drastic. My concern about this argument is essentially the same: If someone believes simply because they want to avoid hell, is that a sincere faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It troubles me even more considering that Jesus himself used this argument, although perhaps in somewhat less threatning way (The weeping and gnashing of teeth, &quot;&lt;em&gt;Fear that who kills the soul in hell&lt;/em&gt;&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard people say that fear of God is a &quot;good kind of fear&quot;, referring to a couple of verses in the Old Testament, but that doesn't really help since fear of God isn't necessarily the same as fear of hell (or is it?) and also (in my experience, anyway) fear is an obstacle to faith or love, that works against them. How could I possibly truly love God while having fear he might as well let me burn in hell? I don't think I could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why are these arguments used? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are they valid or do people use them just to draw attention to themselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4653" LastEditorUserId="4517" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T18:43:06.677" LastActivityDate="2016-11-29T20:21:56.680" Title="Why do Christians appeal to personal gain and inducing fear when attempting to &quot;convert&quot; people?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-06-09T16:38:50.697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16036" CreationDate="2013-06-05T02:05:10.747" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is kind of a pet topic of mine, and one thing I've learned is that what you accept as worth looking at for insight will be almost wholly dependent on what you already think. For example, I grew up realizing the importance of trusting God, and trusting that He will tell the truth is an important part of that. Because of this, I immediately allied myself with young-earth creationism when I encountered it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, Genesis is really the only book that can be relied on to give any sort of accurate timeline, considering it was written &lt;em&gt;as&lt;/em&gt; history. On the other hand, I also recognize a lot of support for young-earth creationism outside of Genesis. One prime example is in Exodus, where a 7-day creation is re-affirmed as the example the Israelits should follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some big reasons why it can be important to stick to Genesis in debates is that arguments based on other books are often taken out of context, can be explained very simply, and inherently reject ideas that YEC's consider unarguable. I'll give an example of the latter: YEC's (especially Ken Ham) argue that it is impossible to argue against an atheist evolutionist because the YEC's entire point is based on the Bible, which he considers indisposable, but the atheist will reject all arguments from Scripture. In the same way, verses from non-Genesis books often have the appearance of dodging the issue or ignoring things that should be taken as granted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4655" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T02:05:10.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16466" CreationDate="2013-06-05T02:09:10.183" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;These two lines of reasoning are, as you've presented them, problematic as you suggest. Ideally, they'd be used together and be founded in the true message of the gospel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the few details to be cleared up: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I don't understand how can someone venerate Jesus for his act of ultimate selflessnes and love (the crucifixion) but at the same time try to lead people to Jesus by appealling to their desire for personal gain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good point. Firstly, though, personal gain isn't bad. It's great. We're wired to want the best for ourselves - and God's given us plenty of things to enjoy. Personal gain and selflessness are not necessarily mutually exclusive - however, in this fallen world, we often must sacrifice personal gain in order to show selflessness. Secondly, there is no comparison between the earthly gain we sacrifice and the heavenly joy we inherit. The latter is so great, so wonderful, that we should want to do anything to attain it. Additionally, keep in mind that the default state of mankind before sin was to be in the presence of God. Made in the image of God, we want to get back to that state, but we can't. Faith in Christ offers us a chance to do that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, you're right - both of these reasons are alone insufficient, and lack the true message. That message is this: that despite our sinful state before God that should place us in hell according to his justice (appeal to fear), God has sent his Son to &lt;em&gt;die&lt;/em&gt; for us and give us the inheritance of Christ and eternity with him. (appeal to joy)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the real reason anyone should want this faith is out of gratitude - sheer gratitude. Even if God had simply saved us from Hell, but not given us anything else, we'd be so eternally grateful because Hell is so eternally terrible that we'd want to give him everything. But he's not only given us mercy, but grace, so our gratitude abounds, and our faith is sincere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T02:09:10.183" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16450" CreationDate="2013-06-05T02:30:17.617" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way I've learned to read it that I think makes the most sense is that everyone who dies goes to the same place when seen from the perspective of the living, and it is called the Abyss/Sheol in the Old Testament. In the OT, the ideas of death, heaven/hell, eternity, etc. did not seem to cross very often.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament (specifically in Jesus' preaching), Hades is named as the place where the godless go when they die. Sometimes it also seems to refer to the place where even believers go when they die, but again, I would expect this to be a matter of speaking from the perspective of the living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another place for the dead seems to be heaven/paradise (note: not the New Creation), which is named as the place where believers go when they die. Some examples of this are &quot;Jesus answered him, 'Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise' (Luke 23:43), and the place in Revelation where the martyrs are (Rev. 6:10). This seems to be the perspective of the dead. A great example of Hades being the place for the godless and heven being the place for the godly is the parable of the rich man and lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that covers the spiritual resting place for the dead. The physical place for the dead is, as you saw, named a variety of ways (the grave, Hades, the sea), but they are all resurrected, so in the end, wherever each person is resting physically, they are brought back to life for judgement. At that point, those whose names are in the Book of Life become residents of the New Creation and all others will go to the lake of fire (today often called Hell). These are the &lt;em&gt;eternal&lt;/em&gt; destinations of every man, compared to the temporary places (heaven, hades, the abyss, the grave, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure that's badly organized, but I hope it helps you clarify the distinctions between the many words that refer to the home of the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4655" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T02:30:17.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16466" CreationDate="2013-06-05T02:47:11.097" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't do any better than C. S. Lewis's sermon &lt;em&gt;The Weight of Glory&lt;/em&gt; (my apologies for basically simply quoting this and moving on, but this is at the crux of the matter). This is expounding on what Thomas Shields has already said, but I do love the way Lewis says it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you asked twenty good men to-day what they thought the highest of&#xA;  the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you&#xA;  asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied,&#xA;  Love. You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted&#xA;  for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance. The&#xA;  negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not&#xA;  primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without&#xA;  them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the&#xA;  important point. I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love.&#xA;  The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about&#xA;  self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to&#xA;  take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly&#xA;  every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so &#xA;  contains an appeal to desire. If there lurks in most modern minds the&#xA;  notion that to  desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the&#xA;  enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I  submit that this notion has crept&#xA;  in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the  Christian faith.&#xA;  Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the &#xA;  staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would&#xA;  seem that Our  Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak.&#xA;  We are half-hearted creatures,  fooling about with drink and sex and&#xA;  ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who&#xA;  wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine&#xA;  what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too&#xA;  easily pleased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T02:47:11.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16387" CreationDate="2013-06-05T02:51:34.830" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of sharp distinctions, but they are definitely not impossible to put together. The most important criteria in being able to mix belief systems is how much we are willing to stretch (as is not stick loyally to) the potentially less truthful parts of one belief system so that they may be covered by the more truthful parts of another belief system. At the very least, we need to be able to see the truthful parts in any belief system we encounter and be willing to adapt our own beliefs to conform to new-found truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Calvinism and Dispensationalism, Calvinists focus on the Covenant, which has continued from Abraham into today, only through different forms. Dispensationalists stress the divisions between time periods and the different ways God deals with his people throughout time. The also strongly disagree on the idea of &quot;God's people&quot;; Calvinists tend to put the Israelites and Christians together as part of the same promise, while dispensationalists will see the two as completely different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone on either sides refuses to see the truth in the other perspective, they can't mesh. One way in which they could work together is to see that God has indeed been using covenants in different forms throughout time, as the Calvinists believe. Then add onto that the realization that the primary interaction between God and humanity has varied through history (there was indeed a time when people primarily relied on their conscience for morality, a time when the patriarchs lived by faith in God's promise, a time when the Israelites obeyed God by following His written law, and now we are in a time where we see that God saves His people through grace).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in order for this mixing to even start working, a dispensationalist would need to be able to suspend his belief that those dispensations were the method of salvation for God's people in favor of the idea that all of God's people are saved through faith. In turn, a Calvinist would need to be willing to divide history into stages in the first place. From my experience, people are often unwilling to drop the beliefs they grew up with (or beliefs they came upon during their own research), which is why it's so hard for Calvinists and dispensationalists (which come from very different perspectives) to compromise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4655" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T02:51:34.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15925" CreationDate="2013-06-05T03:22:34.097" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea of a canopy of water comes from Genesis 1:6-7 (KJV), which says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,&#xA;  and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the&#xA;  firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from&#xA;  the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read literally, it means that there is liquid water on the other side of the firmament (solid surface of some sort), which would--according to models that incorporate this theory--be emptied back onto the earth in the flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As mentioned, there are pretty significant scientific problems with this model, and I think most modern creationist models would tend to favor a &quot;soft&quot; firmament, which would mean that they consider the &quot;firmament,&quot; which God calls heaven, the entire sky and outer space beyond. In this model, water and the celestial bodies aren't placed on a surface of the firmament, but are spread &lt;em&gt;throughout&lt;/em&gt; the firmament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4655" LastEditorUserId="4655" LastEditDate="2015-08-12T03:46:12.437" LastActivityDate="2015-08-12T03:46:12.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16465" CreationDate="2013-06-05T03:36:43.507" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Orthodoxy has a Tradition of the Dormition of Mary wherein it is belived that she didn't die but merely fell asleep and was assumed into Heaven. Catholic teaching neither affirms nor contradicts the Dormition but we have another tradition which is written in one of the apocryphal gospels ascribed to St. Thomas but written hundreds of years a after his death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is the ancient document alluded to. And the very ancient and venerable and understandable tradition it is in keeping with is that The Blessed Virgin herself didn't wish to in any way not be a perfect disciple and imitator of her Son. So if he chooses to die, she would choose to die as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've got the same questions as to what it exactly means for Mary to have died, but it is a mystery of the Church and one you can contemplate here and ask about in christianity.stackexchange.hvn in the life of the world to come to get a better answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Full of grace, preserved from original sin, Mary never experienced its consequences, and at the end of her earthly life she was taken up body and soul into heaven, where we contemplate her as Our Lady of the Angels and Queen of the Universe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope John Paul II - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_15081998_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Angelus address on Solemnity of the Assumption (August 15 1998)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the fullness of time, at the end of her earthly life, he would call her to follow him&#xA;  completely into the reality of resurrection. That is what the Assumption is all about. In Mary assumed into heavenly glory, the little one of Nazareth is now resplendent in the divine light. In her we see our eternal destiny, the destiny of the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most Rev. Peter J. Elliott, KC*HSJ - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/oessh/newsletter/news-letter14_en.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Retreat Homily - 2009&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In some of the writings of the Church Fathers we find Jesus himself described as coming to take his Mother at the time of her death to bring her into heavenly glory. In this way they present the death of Mary as an event of love which conducted her to her divine Son to share his immortal life. At the end of her earthly life, she must have experienced, like Paul and more strongly, the desire to be freed from her body in order to be with Christ for ever (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/philippians/1:23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phil 1:23&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The experience of death personally enriched the Blessed Virgin: by undergoing mankind’s common destiny, she can more effectively exercise her spiritual motherhood towards those approaching the last moment of their life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope John Paul II - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;General Audience - June 25 1997&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last link addresses very straightforward Our Lady in connection with earthly death and probably succinctly answers the question.  Catholic doctrine merely says &quot;At the end of her earthly life&quot;  it doesn't say, &quot;shortly after her soul left her body&quot; or &quot;when rigor mortis set in&quot;.  We wholeheartedly believe that she suffered no decay due to the wages of sin nor would she had she remained on earth after death for 1000 years before being brought into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T13:08:41.790" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T13:08:41.790" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4803" CreationDate="2013-06-05T03:51:25.727" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pacifism was huge in traditional Quakerism, to the point that their home countries (particularly England, where they started) would often get a bit angry with the Quakers for failing to participate in their wars. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, over time, Quakerism as a whole has gotten much more liberal (relative to their starting-point, mind you), and it has become increasingly common for Quakers to join the military. Initially, their involvement was medical, but later expanded into combat. In doctrine, I think most Quaker churches still prefer pacifism, but it is not stressed nearly as much as it used to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical basis for their belief is a mixture of Matthew 5:9 (&quot;Blessed are the peace-makers&quot;), Matt 5:38-39 (&quot;Turn the other cheek&quot;, although this is less military-related), and perhaps Matt 24:6-8 (&quot;Wars and rumours of wars&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But their support comes mostly from the broad and very common theme throughout Scripture that all life is valuable, and we should love our neighbors and enemies. With these principles in mind, and a few steps of logic, they also have support from a few more ideas: that to take someone's life is to take away their chance to turn to God, that humans bear the image of God, that we should be more concerned with evangelizing and doing good works than the petty conflicts our governments get into, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4655" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T03:51:25.727" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16466" CreationDate="2013-06-05T03:58:18.630" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  Whenever one goes to confession they're asked to recite the act of contrition a normal form of which includes something along the lines of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;because I dread thy just punishements. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But ends with saying I'm sorry because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but most of all because I have offended you who are All Good and deserving o all my love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that's the end of wisdom or at least the better part of wisdom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it's not a 'good kind of fear' the word my fairly liberal minded, but probably correct pastor uses is revere.  It's giving God the respect He deserves.  Not being overly familiar with Him to the point you feel as though you can box Him in. And accepting that God alone has the ability to judge us justly at the end of our earthly life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people don't want to give this ability to God because they dogmatically cling to an argument that a loving God would abandon justice for mercy. And, whereas it was revealed (privately) to St.  Faustina  that Mercy is God's greatest attribute it would not be a loving act (and therefore not an act of God) to take away our free will which gives us the ability not to choose to seek Him and not to desire to live with Him forever. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T03:58:18.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6055" CreationDate="2013-06-05T06:25:14.910" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, there is nothing like white lies. 'lie' is 'lie'. Or do you want to say that white lies are small lies. The bible says ' do not lie'; it didn't say 'do not lie big lies/small lies'. No matter how big or small it is, it is still a lie. The hell those who lie a big lie will go that is the same hell those who lie a small lie will go. If you want to say about actors who lie in a movie, watch out, they do not end well in the movie and their secrets exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4656" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T06:25:14.910" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16491" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-05T20:52:53.887" Score="14" ViewCount="15758" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2016&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 16:1-3 (NASB)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer could be right here 'because of the Jews who were in the those parts', however, it seems hypocritical especially given other texts like Galatians 5, where he is harshly admonishing the Galatians who were even thinking about getting circumcised, presumably (and similarly) because of the Jews as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/niv/galatians/5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 5:2 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be&#xA;  circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T07:09:29.967" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T17:30:23.650" Title="Is it hypocritical for Paul to circumcise Timothy in Act 16:3?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;circumcision&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-01-06T14:44:26.567" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16491" CreationDate="2013-06-05T21:14:16.013" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is perhaps best given in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.&lt;/strong&gt; To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul understood, as did Peter (See Acts 10 and Cornelius), that they were no longer bound by the Jewish law. Peter saw that he should no longer call unclean what God considered clean. This specifically included pork and unclean animals.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, before God, Timothy did not need to be circumcised. However, if your target audience involves Jews, to whom the &quot;uncircumcised&quot; were deplorable, then it is appropriate to be circumcised for the sake of the hearers. Paul said that he became as Jew to win the Jews.  He became weak to win the weak, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hudson Taylor followed this example as a missionary in China as he donned the clothing and hair style of the Chinese, thereby identifying with them culturally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, it is appropriate to not offend those with whom you wish to share the gospel, so that what is unimportant does not become an unnecessary stumbling block to your hearers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T17:58:45.087" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T17:58:45.087" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2957" CreationDate="2013-06-05T21:21:54.157" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to other scholars the &quot;and&quot; can be translated &quot;or&quot; as well. So he promised to dedicate &quot;whstever&quot; came out the door OR if it wasnt a person the make burnt offering... which is also a dedication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4663" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T21:21:54.157" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16491" CreationDate="2013-06-05T21:23:21.053" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The letter to the Galatians is written to Gentiles; as a Jew (half-Jewish by birth, and presumably taught Judaic--and later Christian--beliefs by his mother) he would have been expected by his fellow Jews to have been circumcised (&quot;for they all knew that his father was a Greek&quot;). The Jews would never have listened to him if he was in disobedience to the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Matthew Henry's Commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This was strange. Had not Paul opposed those with all his might that were for imposing circumcision upon the Gentile converts? Had he not at this time the decrees of the council at Jerusalem with him, which witnessed against it? He had, and yet circumcised Timothy, not, as those teachers designed in imposing circumcision, to oblige him to keep the ceremonial law, but only to render his conversation and ministry passable, and, if it might be, acceptable among the Jews that abounded in those quarters. He knew Timothy was a man likely to do a great deal of good among them, being admirably qualified for the ministry, if they were not invincibly prejudiced against him; and therefore, that they might not shun him as one unclean, because uncircumcised, he took him and circumcised him. Thus to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and all things to all men, that he might gain some. He was against those who made circumcision necessary to salvation, but used it himself when it was conducive to edification; nor was he rigid in opposing it, as they were in imposing it... Paul made no difficulty of taking Timothy to be his companion, though he was uncircumcised; but the Jews would not hear him if he were, and therefore Paul will humour them herein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-06-05T21:23:21.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16466" CreationDate="2013-06-06T01:24:47.313" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Promises of wealth and threats of hell are not only ineffective means of evangelism, they don't even address what is at stake in conversion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allow me to quote from two Christian sources before making my case.  First, the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is relevant here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:  “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”  (Luke 18:9-14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, here is a quote from &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Defense of the Augsburg Confession&lt;/a&gt;, one of the early documents of Lutheranism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Likewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance, i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God against our sins, and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow and be strengthened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you try to evangelize someone who &quot;feels the wrath of God against their sins,&quot; someone who understands their need for mercy of their sins, the work is very easy. Those other promises, especially wealth, aren't even a motivator. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you try to evangelize someone like the Pharisee, who has no conviction of sin, can only see the greater sins of others, then you have a bigger problem. If you get them to make some kind of spiritual gesture because of the promise of wealth, or because of the promise of avoiding an arbitrary and undeserved hell, it is fair to ask whether there were a true conversion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T01:24:47.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16465" CreationDate="2013-06-06T04:54:00.583" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;OK. Couple of things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First, the death spoken of in Romans 6 is not death of the body, but the death of the soul:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly &quot;life&quot; and &quot;death&quot; in that verse do not refer to this mortal coil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second, I think it important to note that Christ died a physical death. If Jesus can do it so can Mary. (And to those who object &quot;But Jesus died for our sins,&quot; without getting into &lt;em&gt;too much&lt;/em&gt; Mariology, I will note that Mary's sufferings are an important part of our salvation too)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I don't remember the source (so this could be completely made up), but I seem to recall hearing some source of at least some reliability (a saint's vision or an ancient legend) which claimed that Mary was given the choice whether to die or not. It then continued to state that Mary chose to die because that would more unite her with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T04:54:00.583" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16498" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-06T07:10:59.093" Score="12" ViewCount="24689" Body="&lt;p&gt;From different discussions (including some on this site) it seems that Paul's teachings were different from the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles in some aspects. In light of this are there any churches that do not accept the teachings of Paul? If there are no such churches today, were there any in the past?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am asking regarding the teachings of Paul. This has nothing to do about the person Paul. And again, I am just asking for information, not any type of argument for/against Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3607" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-12-20T14:48:18.833" LastActivityDate="2020-12-20T14:48:18.833" Title="Are there any churches that do not accept the teachings of Paul?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16499" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-06T09:02:04.583" Score="5" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a scenario to explain my question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God planned to give you a car on your 30th birthday but you did not pray for it, will he not give it to you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or what if its not in his plan to give you a car on your 30th birthday and you prayed for it will he give it to you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: The above example is just to illustrate. Don't use the above&#xA;example to answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm confused on how this thing work. Which is prioritized? The plan or prayer or the action?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or maybe something like this could explain my question better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which of these could actually yield results based on what the bible say about prayer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;GODS PLAN + PRAYER + ACTION =  ?&#xA;&#xA;GODS PLAN + NOT PRAYED FOR + ACTION = ?&#xA;&#xA;NOT GODS PLAN + PRAYED FOR + ACTION = ?&#xA;&#xA;NOT GODS PLAN + NOT PRAYED FOR + ACTION = ?&#xA;&#xA;GODS PLAN + PRAYER + NO ACTION =  ?&#xA;&#xA;GODS PLAN + NOT PRAYED FOR + NO ACTION = ?&#xA;&#xA;NOT GODS PLAN + PRAYED FOR + NO ACTION = ?&#xA;&#xA;NOT GODS PLAN + NOT PRAYED FOR + NO ACTION = ?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I'm quite confused on the prayer and action thing. I'm not sure that God's plan depends on our prayer or action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does really make things happen for us? Any sources from scripture that can explain this?&#xA;Some term definition for this specific question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Action - actual related physical work/labor&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gods Plan - God's divine plan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prayer - asking things to happen through prayer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is I've seen people that do not pray to the Christian God especially non-believers or believer of other faith, but still things happen for them. They become successful and able to have what they work for. It might be in sports, in studies and in life overall. Does this mean prayer is not necessary for things to happen for them? That hard work is enough? How does God's plan come into picture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T12:44:39.830" Title="How does prayer and action affect God's plan?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-06-06T13:30:27.987" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16503" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T13:58:13.173" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T13:58:13.173" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T13:58:13.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16504" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T13:58:13.173" Score="0" Body="Questions pertaining to the beliefs and teachings of the British authour G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T14:04:33.323" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T14:04:33.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16465" CreationDate="2013-06-06T13:59:45.670" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; the official catholic teaching that Mary died. When Pope Pius XII in 1870 defined the Assumption of the Virgin Mary as dogma, he deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died before her Assumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, &lt;strong&gt;having completed the course of her earthly life&lt;/strong&gt;, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a Catholic can either hold that Mary died, Chose to die or went into a deep sleep. None of these will contradict any of the Catholic teaching or Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, Scripture too. Justification for this can be found in Ignatius Theophorus's answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T13:59:45.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16506" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:17:34.137" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T14:17:34.137" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T14:17:34.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16507" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:17:34.137" Score="0" Body="Questions pertaining to the nature of Jesus' humanity and divinity." OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T15:07:18.647" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T15:07:18.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16508" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:28:09.053" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T14:28:09.053" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T14:28:09.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16509" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:28:09.053" Score="0" Body="Questions about the applicability of circumcision to Christianity." OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T15:07:14.207" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T15:07:14.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16510" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:33:49.720" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T14:33:49.720" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T14:33:49.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16511" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:33:49.720" Score="0" Body="Questions pertaining to the teachings contained within St. Thomas Aquinas' work &quot;Summa Theologica&quot;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T14:58:00.093" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T14:58:00.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16512" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:37:45.377" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T14:37:45.377" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T14:37:45.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16513" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:37:45.377" Score="0" Body="Annihilationism is the belief that the final judgement will result in unsaved souls being completely destroyed rather than being subjected to eternal punishment." OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T08:42:26.103" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T08:42:26.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16514" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:45:25.033" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T14:45:25.033" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T14:45:25.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16515" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:45:25.033" Score="0" Body="Questions asking for the refutation of an argument made against a doctrine of Christianity." OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T15:07:04.817" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T15:07:04.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16517" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:58:28.440" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T14:58:28.440" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T14:58:28.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16518" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T14:58:28.440" Score="0" Body="Questions concerning the teachings and beliefs of St. Augustine." OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T15:07:25.207" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T15:07:25.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16519" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:01:09.750" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Perspective on Paul&lt;/a&gt; is a shift, primarily among Protestant scholars, in how the writings of Paul are interpreted.  Instead of taking his teachings regarding &quot;good works&quot; to indicate justification by faith alone, as taught in traditional reformed theology, they are interpreted as referring narrowly to observances like circumcision and dietary laws, not good works in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21576" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T22:45:20.650" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T22:45:20.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16520" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:01:09.750" Score="0" Body="The New Perspective on Paul, a shift in the way some scholars interpret the writings of Paul" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T22:45:30.263" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T22:45:30.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16521" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:02:10.240" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Celibacy&lt;/a&gt;, narrowly defined, is being unmarried out of religious conviction or to fulfill a vow.  More broadly defined, it refers to abstinence from sexual activity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21576" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-17T20:06:00.250" LastActivityDate="2015-08-17T20:06:00.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16522" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:02:10.240" Score="0" Body="The state of being unmarried and/or sexually abstinent, for religious reasons" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-17T20:05:53.830" LastActivityDate="2015-08-17T20:05:53.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16523" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:02:57.867" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T15:02:57.867" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T15:02:57.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16524" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:02:57.867" Score="0" Body="Questions pertaining to Lot, the nephew of Abraham" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T15:07:22.193" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T15:07:22.193" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16525" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:11:17.050" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T15:11:17.050" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T15:11:17.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16526" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-06T15:11:17.050" Score="0" Body="A. W. Tozer was an American Christian pastor, preacher, author in the early 20th century." OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-06T15:15:05.133" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T15:15:05.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16528" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16554" CreationDate="2013-06-06T17:28:35.677" Score="13" ViewCount="6933" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dante's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.divinecomedy.org/divine_comedy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Divine Comedy&lt;/a&gt;, the 14th century epic poem describing a journey through the various levels of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven and the persons or types of persons who inhabit each level (including some of Dante's living contemporaries).  How much of Dante's description describes explicit Church doctrine as of his era, and to what extent, if any, did Dante influence Christian theology going forward?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3926" LastEditorUserId="3926" LastEditDate="2015-01-13T20:40:18.297" LastActivityDate="2018-12-28T02:14:58.113" Title="Did Dante's Divine Comedy describe or define Christian views on the afterlife?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15632" CreationDate="2013-06-06T17:57:31.460" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like this question because it forces us to read the Westminster Confession in its context, and not just as a settled statement of belief. In summary, the two confessions are in continuity, &lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt; the earlier Scots Confession was more permissive. Especially, it did not exclude the option of episcopal polity, or of royal power over the Church. The Westminster Confession includes more ramified theological content, and is more strongly Calvinist. This is partly the result of its having been written by theological experts, and vetted by others in the Scottish universities before its adoption, and partly because the writers were commissioned to make sure there would be an official &quot;weapon&quot; to use against Arminians and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The project of the assembly at Westminster was to create a unified religious settlement for the three kingdoms (England, Scotland, Ireland), incorporating reformed doctrine, polity, procedure for worship, psalm and prayer texts, and relationship with the civil order. It was the product of a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemn_League_and_Covenant&quot;&gt;covenant&lt;/a&gt;&quot; between presbyterians in the different nations, seeking to establish their ideas over Catholicism on the one hand, and more radical Protestant factions on the other. In the period, the kingdoms were engaged in civil war, and this project was a claim for how it should be resolved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From official correspondence from the Scottish side, the main doctrinal points they thought should be included in the settlement were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Conformity in the three kingdoms.&lt;/em&gt; Everyone would have to follow the new Confession and related documents. They also envisaged that this would be an example for the world, both morally (look how holy we are) and practically (we've written this stuff for you already, just sign up).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Presbyterian polity.&lt;/em&gt; This was opposed to royalist counterproposals for retaining bishops in some capacity or in some areas, and to more radical congregational views that would have eliminated any church structure beyond the parish.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Excommunication.&lt;/em&gt; Ministers - and nobody else - were to have authority to exclude someone from the sacraments. In particular, they could rebuke even the King, and on the other hand the King would not have any authority over the administration of the sacraments. They were also keen on a general suppression of vice and immorality (drunkenness, non-observance of the Sabbath, etc.).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Elimination of heresy.&lt;/em&gt; &quot;Socinianisme, Arminianisme, Anabaptisme, Antinomianisme, Brownisme, Erastianisme, Independency, and that which is called (by abuse of the word) Liberty of Conscience, being indeed liberty of errour, scandall, schisme, heresie, dishonouring God, opposing the truth, hindering reformation, and seducing others; whereunto we adde those Nullifidians, or men of no religion, commonly called Seekers&quot; were to be suppressed, by power of the civil magistrate and with the authority of doctrinal statements against them. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparison with the Scots Confession shows that the Westminster document is more explicit about doctrine, including Calvinist theories of soteriology rather than more general statements that might cover Arminian views as well. It also declares a stricter separation between the roles of Crown and Kirk. Under Westminster, regulation of the ministry of word and sacrament is excluded from the responsibility of the civil magistrate: he must suppress heresy and keep order, but it's for the Kirk to decide what heresy is. The Scots Confession leaves it open that the King's role for &quot;maintenance of the true religion&quot; could be more expansive, perhaps including the power to excommunicate or readmit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The practical difference between the confessions was shown in the Restoration. On 28 March 1661, Charles II revoked the Westminster Confession via his &quot;Act Rescissory&quot;, which repealed all legislation from 1633 onwards. He declared that the Protestant religion would be observed as it had been under James VI and Charles I; and while he said Presbyterian polity would be maintained &quot;in the mean Time&quot; if presbyteries were &quot;keeping within Bounds and behaving themselves&quot;, it was only a few months before episcopacy was brought back.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; In effect, the Scots Confession had been restored as the standard of faith, and read in a way that allowed considerable royal latitude, as well as the presence of bishops. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1681, the Test Act&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; formalized this, at the suggestion of James Dalrymple: its loyalty oath invoked the Confession &quot;recorded in the first Parliament of king James VI&quot;, and required the belief in royal supremacy in all matters, &quot;as well ecclesiastical as civil&quot;. Religious assemblies were only allowed if the king approved them, and they certainly could not &quot;endeavour any change or alteration in the government, either in church or state&quot;. While this was sold as an anti-Catholic measure, it was really an attempt to wrest Protestants back to a more moderate course. (And James VII exempted Catholic officers from having to follow it anyway!) Accordingly, the re-ratification of Westminster in 1690 made it absolutely clear that the presbyterian system would be restored, &lt;em&gt;including&lt;/em&gt; that it would be &quot;the only government of Christs Church within this Kingdome&quot;. The royal power was taken away, and this settlement was preserved in subsequent legislation, including the Act of Union with England. To this day, doctrine and governance of the Church of Scotland is for the Church itself, and not for the Queen or Parliament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their Brethren of England&lt;/em&gt;, 20 August 1647.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;The King's Majesty's Proclamation concerning Church-affairs&lt;/em&gt;, 10 June 1661.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;An Act anent Religion and the Test&lt;/em&gt;, 31 August 1681&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T17:57:31.460" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16530" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16532" CreationDate="2013-06-06T18:13:34.130" Score="5" ViewCount="293" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church venerates Mary as not only having been blessed to be the mother of Christ, but also as having been born without sin (Immaculate Conception), and to have been a perpetual virgin. Protestants do not believe the former, and most do not believe the latter either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for presuming that Mary was one of Jesus' disciples, i.e. a Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Note - this is not meant to cast aspersions on any particular belief, and only looks for evidence of her conversion and belief in her son's work on the cross, not whether she was born without sin, or was a virgin after Jesus' birth.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-30T23:13:13.513" LastActivityDate="2020-12-28T05:01:29.670" Title="What is the Biblical evidence that Jesus' mother was one of His disciples?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16530" CreationDate="2013-06-06T18:35:43.083" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Acts 1:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary's closeness to Jesus' disciples in the scripture gives evidence that she was one of Jesus' followers - especially this verse in Acts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4637" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T18:35:43.083" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16530" CreationDate="2013-06-06T18:38:28.557" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luke records Mary's faith on the occasion of the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-56). Gabriel informs her (v35) that &quot;the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God&quot;, and she replies (v38) &quot;let it be done to me according to your word&quot;. When Elizabeth addresses her as &quot;the mother of my Lord&quot; (v43), Mary proclaims with the &lt;em&gt;Magnificat&lt;/em&gt; (vv46-55), invoking her faith in &quot;God my saviour&quot;, and her expectation of the fulfilment of God's promise. This would seem to demonstrate both knowledge and trust in the Messiah-hood of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the ascension of Jesus, Mary is recorded as praying together with the remaining apostles, in the upper room:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.  All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including &lt;strong&gt;Mary the mother of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;, as well as his brothers. &lt;sup&gt;Acts 1:12-14&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this continuation of Luke's account, it is clear that Mary retained faith in Jesus following his resurrection. At this point, he's spent several weeks instructing the disciples, so she is participating in prayer with people who have seen and spoken with the risen Lord. She could not have been praying together with them, in this way, if she did not share in the same faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(All Biblical quotations are from the NRSV.)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-06-06T18:38:28.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="989" CreationDate="2013-06-06T21:18:19.273" Score="24" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The correct answer to this question is clearly … &lt;em&gt;&amp;lt;err, not so fast&amp;gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see that's just the problem. Christianity doesn't have a clear unequivocal answer to this question that is broadly agreed on across traditions. Islam has now been around for about 1400 years promoting its ideas about the nature of God—who &lt;em&gt;they usually claim&lt;/em&gt; is the same God as worshiped by Jews and Christians in times past now rightly understood with his proper name Allah. In all those 1400 years Christianity has not posited a definitive answer to &lt;em&gt;this&lt;/em&gt; question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are no shortages of &lt;em&gt;answers&lt;/em&gt; given. Some say &quot;yes&quot;. Others chant &quot;no&quot;. You'll see various groups take a stand on an answer—even rant and rave about it. Mind you all these groups profess to be Christian but end up arguing both sides.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The argument for &quot;yes&quot; generally boils down to some variant of &quot;if there really is only one God as monotheistic religions claim, whether known by a wrong name or through corrupted scriptures it must be the same being&quot;. This position and its many variations is generally held by more liberal traditions, the far extreme end of which would be something like, &quot;Muslims are our brothers in faith, call God whatever you like as long as you profess there is only one&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The argument for &quot;no&quot; generally boils down to some variant of &quot;given a contradictory set of attributes ascribed to God, they must logically be describing different beings&quot;. This position and its many variations is historically more mainstream and is generally held by more conservative traditions, the far extreme of which would be very fundamentalist groups that would go so far as to say things like, &quot;Muslims are the enemy, the god they worship is actually the devil in disguise&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Does this mean there is not &lt;em&gt;a definitive answer&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, actually it doesn't. There is a definitive answer but you have to ask the right question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, most major Christian traditions do not try to pronounce certain judgment on this issue. The notable exception are Catholics, who &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;issued a statement in 1965&lt;/a&gt; in the affirmative&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. While identifying Islam as a non-Christian religion they go out of their way with wording to claim common ground in the person of God. Meanwhile most Protestant traditions and even many major Christian &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11533/30&quot;&gt;cults&lt;/a&gt; steer away from any official doctrine stating &quot;The being worshiped by Muslims is/isn't the same being we worship.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the history of cross-tradition disagreement here is not to say that their position on the real issue isn't quite clear. The reason there isn't unanimity on whether to answer this question with &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; is that it's the wrong question to be asking. Frankly the answer isn't meaningful. What all major Christian traditions &lt;em&gt;do give us in spades&lt;/em&gt; are descriptions of who the true God is and how he is to be worshiped.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The core theological problem lurking here is not whether the beliefs and practices of the God of the Muslims is a different being altogether or just a bunch of misunderstandings about the same being. The question that matters to Christianity is: &lt;em&gt;How has the true God made himself known and how is he to be worshiped?&lt;/em&gt; To this question, Christianity has definitive answers. This question, if asked and answered early, provides solid ground for not even needing to ask—much less answer—the question posited above. With the answers to the right question in hand, we can, in fact, outright condemn all other beliefs and systems of worship without even resolving the origins or natures of those other systems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Now for a clear answer to the right question.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of the nature of any &quot;other&quot; religion—whether they have the wrong God or whether they have the right God but worship him wrongly—the end result is the same. Blasphemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further study I highly recommend carefully reading a blog post from my friend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kevinbywater.com/?page_id=277&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Kevin Bywater&lt;/a&gt; entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kevinbywater.com/?p=561&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Do Muslims, Mormons, and Christians Worship the Same God?&lt;/a&gt; In it he makes the observation that &quot;&lt;em&gt;Worshiping God wrongly is tantamount to worshiping the wrong god(s).&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Christianity doesn't concern itself so much with what beings other religions do or don't worship, but it does concern itself with correctly identifying the true God's character and with following his commands. Even inside of Christianity, presumably with the true God in mind, one can be guilty of blasphemy by misidentifying his character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most salient point to make in reference to any other religion is, I think, well summarized by this quote from the same article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blasphemy is found in ascribing to the true God what is false and in falsely denying of God what is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1. Thanks to Peter Turner for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/994/30&quot;&gt;pointing this out&lt;/a&gt;. I was previously unaware of this statement. (And am personally outraged by it as it is not an accurate representation of either Islam or historic Christianity, but my personal view isn't what this question is about.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2. Ironically this is a concept that my Muslim friends usually don't usually have a problem accepting.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2015-03-16T15:52:02.243" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16535" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16564" CreationDate="2013-06-07T02:27:23.333" Score="10" ViewCount="522" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just wondering when in history the official papal death sentences really ended. I  am not interested in any killing that was not officially authorized by a pope (or his authorized representatives) as that would seem more like an potential unsanctioned action (even if done in the name of Catholic faith).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-06-07T07:21:58.400" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T10:37:31.860" Title="At what date in history was the last papal anathema officially applied through the death penalty in a papal court against a heretic or protestant?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16536" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16491" CreationDate="2013-06-07T03:09:03.037" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it interesting to point out that Paul specifically had Titus remain uncircumcised,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. - Gal. 2:5b&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the beginning of Gal. 2 for the background to that. If the gospel had been at stake with Timothy, I highly doubt that Paul would have circumcised him. But, since it apparently was not, this made the spread of the gospel easier. However, with Titus, it was essential that Paul &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; circumcise him, so that all would know it was not necessary for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T03:09:03.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15793" CreationDate="2013-06-07T03:27:11.497" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think its a great metaphor.. we should be as wise as the enemy because if you are not as wise as he is then how can you protect yourself from his attacks? Not being conniving like him but wise as him.. Just because we are to be as wise as he is does not mean we do as he does. That's where the harmless part comes in. Example, if you have a group of people you hang with.. Your discernment will show you the ones who mean you no good and even though you are wise enough to recognize their evil intentions for you, doesn't mean you react negatively to them. Wise as them but humble! Hope that makes any sense!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4672" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T03:27:11.497" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16538" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-07T04:39:03.317" Score="5" ViewCount="73" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on the specs, Noah's ark is around 2/3 of the size of  Titanic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can he possibly fit all the animals (assuming land and air) including all their sub species in that ark? Assuming around 2 Million different species exist (This is supposedly the lowest estimate). Considering also their food supply and water supply for almost a month. How is this possible? Is there any divine intervention(God's magic) on how all of these become plausible? And if there is, then why bother making a boat with a specification and go all the trouble doing all of the gathering and food allocation if God could had simply snap his fingers and all is in order again, is it because of God's limited powers that he needs Noah's help? But hes was able to build everything in the universe from scratch in 7 days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any references that explains if he did intervene or like shrink the animals inside the ark? Or was the ark like a trick boat which has almost unlimited space inside? Please provide biblical reference to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-05T01:09:21.097" LastActivityDate="2014-11-05T01:09:21.097" Title="How can all animals fit in Noah's ark" Tags="&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;ark-of-noah&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-06-07T06:34:13.587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1344" CreationDate="2013-06-07T06:21:59.080" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few points that can help this issue make a little more sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Scripture says that Noah was to gather animals &quot;after their kind&quot;. This implies that the animals brought may have been in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;scientific classification&lt;/a&gt; of the family or even the order, rather than to the specific species or even sub-species. Take dogs for example. There are many kinds. It is entirely possible that one &lt;em&gt;kind&lt;/em&gt; of dog was enough to save dogs from the flood. Also, the ancient peoples likely had a far less specific definition of species. In my opinion, this logic can be taken a step further to say that the evolution and differentiations of all the species out there is a Biblically sound concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The maturity of the animals taken was not specified. Noah could have taken babies, eggs, or the otherwise smaller, infant versions. The benefits are obvious. Noah would certainly prefer the baby 200 pound elephants over the mature 7 ton adults.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The quality of the food brought was not specified, nor was the amount (ration) eaten each day. Most animals can eat sparingly for a few months and still survive. Considering the animals would be stuck on the ark and unable to exercise they would likely use less calories, therefore require less food to survive. The point is that the ark was for survival. It was not a luxury cruise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Water was certainly not an issue. It was a flood; there was plenty to go around.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your other questions: Yes, God intervenes and did then too. The flood came because God made it so. The Ark survived because God made it so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T06:21:59.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16542" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16528" CreationDate="2013-06-07T07:39:18.567" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe there are many points on which Dante had disagreed with the Church teachings of his times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example Divine Comedy was written around &lt;strong&gt;1308 A.D.&lt;/strong&gt; to &lt;strong&gt;1321 A.D,&lt;/strong&gt; in which he has depicted many Popes as suffering eternal damnation in hell namely Pope Anastasius II and Pope Nicholas III. Even though The doctrine of Papal infallibility was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of &lt;strong&gt;1869–1870&lt;/strong&gt;, it had been believed before that, appearing in medieval traditions. So the Pope was supposed to be infallible regarding his decisions about Catholic faith and such a person being in hell was definitely against the dogmatic beliefs of the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly &lt;code&gt;Limbo&lt;/code&gt; is not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, but Dante's version of hell has one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He has condemned Pope Nicholas III for &lt;code&gt;Simony&lt;/code&gt;. But Simony was dogmatically believed by the Church of Dante's times.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4673" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T07:39:18.567" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16498" CreationDate="2013-06-07T09:02:40.253" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before answering your question, Let me ask you one question. &lt;strong&gt;How do you define a Church?&lt;/strong&gt;. In your question you have asked &quot;&lt;em&gt;Is there any church that does not accept teachings of Paul?&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. The answer is &quot;no&quot; if you are considering only the mainstream churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following main stream churches accept the Pauline epistles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Roman Catholic Church and the 22 Sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Oriental Orthodox Churches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eastern Orthodox Churches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Protestant Churches and the Church of England.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentecostal churches.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Witnesses of JEHOVAH&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And those pretty much cover 99.9% of the population in the world who call themselves Christians. But in a world with people believing in Flying Spaghetti Monsters and a flat Earth you will be able to find any number of fringe groups who calls themselves Christians and doesn't accept the Pauline epistles or the gospels itself for that matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However almost every established Church does accept the Pauline epistles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4673" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-07T09:51:36.280" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T09:51:36.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16545" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16568" CreationDate="2013-06-07T11:44:23.543" Score="4" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible.ca/cath-why-I-left.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reading this article on an authoritative bible site&lt;/a&gt; . I was wondering what is the doctrinal bases to hold Catholics as Idolaters &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Life Magazine, reporting the ceremonies in Ottawa, Canada, in June,&#xA;  1947, at the Marian Congress, pointed out that a great procession of&#xA;  devout people knelt and kissed the foot of the giant statue of Mary&#xA;  &quot;Until the paint wore off its toes.&quot; Pictures in L'Europeo, an Italian&#xA;  newspaper, of April 5, 1947, shows that devout Catholics in Naples&#xA;  continue to crawl at full length on their stomachs before the images&#xA;  of their Madonnas and lick the ground with their tongues on their way&#xA;  to the statues. Some years ago, the New York Department of Health was&#xA;  compelled to put a stop to this practice among the Italian people in&#xA;  the Bronx, because it resulted in so many cases of tetanus. Such&#xA;  idolatry!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="4517" LastEditDate="2013-06-07T21:09:42.677" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T12:48:10.877" Title="What is the basis of the non catholic denominations to hold catholics as Idolaters" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16545" CreationDate="2013-06-07T12:19:39.573" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The basis for claiming that Catholicism is idolatry, whether valid or not, is that various Catholic beliefs conflict with Protestant beliefs and doctrines. The list includes the following (and includes a Catholic answer to each claim in the interest of being fair and balanced, and not turning this into a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1696/69&quot;&gt;Truth&lt;/a&gt; answer):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc5-saints.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholics pray to saints, and to Mary. Many Protestants equate this to worshiping them.&lt;/a&gt;  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Catholic view is that they are asking these saints and Mary to intercede with God for them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.justforcatholics.org/a23.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholics practice confession to a man (A Priest, etc.) when Scripture tells us we should confess our sins directly to God&lt;/a&gt;. They believe that the priest has the power, through the authority of the Church, to absolve sins. Non-Catholics believe this is attributing powers that only God has to the Church, or to a man.  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Catholic position is that this is a delegated authority - delegated to the Church by Christ, and to the Priest by the Church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/idolatryofeucharist.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some non-Catholics equate the Eucharist with idolatry&lt;/a&gt;, claiming that Catholics worship the transmutated wafer and wine as idols.  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is clearly not how Catholics view the Eucharist. Catholics hold to a very literal interpretation of &quot;Take, eat, this is my body&quot; and &quot;take, drink, this is my blood&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some Protestants claim that the God worshiped by Catholics is nothing like the God of the Bible. They go so far as to say that all of the additional sacraments, ritual, and mysticism in &lt;a href=&quot;http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_end-time_paganism_Catholic_Mithraism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Catholic Church borrow from Pagan religions, and that the Church has become polluted, and no longer worships the true God&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Of course, Catholics don't see it this way.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* &lt;sub&gt;Note that in the above, it's not only Catholics that practice these things or hold these views. It's phrased that way because the question &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;asks&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; about Catholics only.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T14:34:03.860" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16498" CreationDate="2013-06-07T12:19:47.513" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several levels of &quot;rejection&quot; here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, if you mean outright removal from the canon, as in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Jefferson Bible&lt;/a&gt;, no large denominational body has done so that I am aware of. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, since Paul wrote half the New Testament, he is the source of many of our doctrinal writings about items from the nature of salvation to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sexual ethics&lt;/a&gt;. On matters of salvation, for example, there are those who argue for a distinction between the &quot;original&quot; religion of Christianity and that which came about after Paul ruined it. The former being a nice religion about peace &amp;amp; justice, the latter being an exclusivist religion about avoiding hell in the afterlife.  An example is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.realclearreligion.org/2012/11/30/imagine_a_christianity_before_paul_251283.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Christianity Before Paul&quot; &lt;/a&gt; views of &lt;a href=&quot;http://jamestabor.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James Tabor&lt;/a&gt;.  I don't know of any denomination who has fully embraced this view, although there surely are large numbers of pastors who would do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as sexual ethics go, Paul's writing in Romans 1 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=4438&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;has been cited&lt;/a&gt; as the most authoritative biblical passage condemning (modern) homosexual practice.  Thus, much of the discussion in modern denominations has revolved around the applicability, authority, or even sinfulness of Paul's writings on the topic. One such place such debate over Paul's writings could be seen was in the debates that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America had over allowing non-celibate homosexual persons to serve as pastors leading up to a 2009 vote at its churchwide assembly.  Neverthelss, I have seen that even among those who explicitly reject Paul's view on sexuality, nearly all still find his writings on other topics, such as communion, to be authoritative.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of rejecting Paul's writings in the ELCA's sexuality debate:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) Presiding Bishop Hanson was quoted as saying that &quot;we won't let six verses&quot; determine our policy on anything.&#xA;2) One of the policy documents from the ELCA charged that &quot;Paul's pre-suppositions are irrelevant.&quot;&#xA;3) At the plenary debate during the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, one speaker got up and told a story of one of his professors in seminary.  It went like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The professor took a large bible and threw it as hard as he could against the wall. Its bindings broke and pages went everywhere.  The professor said, 'This is how I feel about the bible.&quot;  Then the professor lovingly picked up the pieces, cradled them in his arms like a baby, and said, 'This is how I feel about the Word of God.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Making a big deal about the distinction between &quot;the Word of God&quot; and bible passages you want to throw against the wall is one way of downplaying the writings of Paul (Romans 1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T12:35:20.680" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T12:35:20.680" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4338" CreationDate="2013-06-07T14:23:49.317" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mal 3:8-10 is not reechoed in the NT like Is 61:1-2 in Lk 4:18-19 etc but the argument that it is an OT law  should not be interpreted as not applicable in NT requirement&#xA;Jesus confirmed in Mt 5:17 that He did not come to abolish the OT law but to fulfil it. Paul stressed it in Rom 3:31&#xA;The different interpretations given to tithing is complicating a simple matter&#xA;In my opinion these complicated interpretations which may even make sense are excuses to find a way out&#xA;The best advise is to simply obey. It is so specific that inputing logic and arguments may lead to false teaching&#xA;May the Holy Spirit lead us to genuine submission to the will of God who is God of the Old and New Testaments&#xA;God bless you&#xA;Moses Wey&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4677" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T14:23:49.317" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16553" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-07T18:23:18.597" Score="9" ViewCount="349" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, the Catholic Church considers God's revealed truth in Sacred Scripture to be part of, but by no means the sum total of Divine Revelation.  Sacred Scripture is the written part of our Traditions, but it is entirely possible to have a Catholic Church without Biblical literacy (or literacy at all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why did the Church decide on having a canon of scripture in the first place?  Did the Church Fathers (Augustine and prior) consider that having a set of writings that resides somehow outside the authority of the Church would eventually cause fractures due to private interpretation?  Or was it necessary to prevent further errors owing confusion coming from  the existence of the many gnostic and apocryphal later writings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-06-07T18:29:17.570" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T23:46:05.103" Title="Why did the Catholic Church decide to have a Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16528" CreationDate="2013-06-07T19:34:46.700" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;geography&lt;/em&gt; of the afterlife is not a topic where the church had &quot;doctrine&quot; as such, though there have always been a variety of traditions and stories about this sort of thing. Dante's scheme does reflect an underlying theology, so I'll tackle this from a theological perspective. The layouts of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven are all in some sense &quot;orthodox&quot; in that they are drawn from recognized classifications of sin and virtue. Dante does not claim that this is how things literally are in those realms - especially when we get to Heaven, and the entire scheme is reinterpreted several times, as he grows in understanding. The moral truth is what counts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some specific areas where Dante does things which are novel, and sometimes opposed to actual doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The vestibule of Hell,&lt;/em&gt; an antechamber where the lukewarm, who were neither good nor bad, are stuck forever - this is new. If this area counts as &quot;basically Hell anyway&quot; then it's fine, since all souls are meant to be destined one way or the other. I think the &lt;em&gt;lower levels of ante-Purgatory&lt;/em&gt; are also original to Dante, though I'm not sure about that. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Saladin&lt;/em&gt; is placed among the righteous pagans, whereas as a Muslim he &quot;ought&quot; to be classed as at least a heretic or schismatic. Mohammed, for example, is placed in the eighth circle of Hell. This indicates some leniency from Dante about whether someone  who is aware of Christianity, but does not convert, attracts the maximum penalty.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Really bad people&lt;/em&gt; in the ninth circle (Inferno 33) are said to have descended to Hell while still alive, and their bodies are now possessed by demons. This is completely unorthodox, since standard Catholicism/Christianity holds that one can repent even in the moment of death.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;garden of Eden&lt;/em&gt;, or &lt;em&gt;Earthly Paradise&lt;/em&gt;, is situated at the summit of Purgatory, which itself is a huge mountain directly on the other side of the world from Jerusalem. This is not completely new - Bede thought Purgatory might be a mountain, and the Eden-Purgatory association was also previously suggested, due to the common image of fire (the flaming sword of Genesis 3:24) and the restoration to primal innocence. The combination of this ideas is new, and Dante gave them a higher profile.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contemporary doctrinal criticism of Dante was more about his politics, which were perceived as anti-Papal and anti-clerical. His idea of the division of responsibility between Pope and Emperor - a prototype for modern separation of church and state - was arguably heretical, even as late as 1864 and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors&quot;&gt;Syllabus of Errors&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T19:34:46.700" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16491" CreationDate="2013-06-07T19:55:43.090" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possible that the circumcising of Timothy influenced Paul's subsequent stance on the subject. It is not agreed upon about when Paul wrote wrote Galatians. It is believed that Corinthians, Romans (and possibly Galatians) were written after this event (in Acts 16). In that case it would not seem hypocritical at all. In fact it makes more sense (to me) if these writings happened after the Timothy circumcising. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a side note, I think it is also important to remember that Paul (from Saul) was a man committed to growth and recognizing we are broken (in the flesh). Paul certainly confesses his struggle with trying to get it right. (Romans 7:15-24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4681" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T19:55:43.090" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16498" CreationDate="2013-06-07T20:23:27.517" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that depends on what you mean by &quot;church&quot;. If you're talking about a building, buildings don't really reject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard, and continue to see rumors that support, the idea that some people purporting to be Christian have rejected Paul completely. These groups are generally laden with people speaking of bizarre conspiracy theories and even worse theology. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=protorahantipaul;id=4;url=http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here is one such example&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once these are put aside we are left with the question &quot;what does it mean to cease to follow Paul?&quot; I know few who would trust a little bit of red wine over alkaseltzer, so that advice is out. All advice about slavery is outmoded in the US. Most of his rules about ecclesiastical organization have been done away with in some form or another by most Protestant denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are those who claim to follow Paul, but they then turn around and say that Paul only was a minor contributor to the New Testament and his works have been edited and revised by uncertain sources. Do these reject Paul when they claim his moral teachings are additions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, of course, there are none of us who has not sinned and rejected Paul for that reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was a time when Christianity was less certain of itself. Before the church came out of hiding, it was common to find people picking and choosing among the different texts of the day. Chief among these offenders were the Gnostics. If ever there were a group that rejected Pauline thought outright it was these. Eventually, these died out by lack of followers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T20:23:27.517" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16553" CreationDate="2013-06-07T21:13:59.180" Score="6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Why a canon?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Why not a potato gun?&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Even before John died in Patmos there started to be other books which claimed to come from the Apostles or otherwise claimed to have been inspired by God. While in some cases this was not a terrible thing (some of them are quite dull, actually) others of these were wild departures from the teachings of Christ and were arguably destructive to the soul. As a response the Church started to gather together lists of what documents were known to have been of Apostolic origin. I believe the first such (or the first that we know about) list dates back to the end of the second century. It actually took the better part of three centuries for a genuine consensus to exist and when it was finally agreed upon that was more-or-less a gentleman's agreement: no ecumenical council decided the fact, everyone simply agreed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was over a millennium later that someone presented a serious challenge to the canon. One of the less talked about points which was a bi-product of the reformation was the fact that people started to call into question which books actually belonged in the Bible and which did not. In a response to this, the Council of Trent officially (and bindingly) defined the canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What benefit is there to a canon?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What benefit is there to have a creed? What benefit is there in having a Catechism? One of the chief benefits of a canon is that it functions as a point of reference. You can deny Augustine, but you can't deny Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It also served liturgical purposes. Even from the road to Emmaus, the Church has associated the breaking of the bread with the reading of scripture. Setting a defined list of scripture guarantees that what is read is something worth reading.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may want to &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon&quot;&gt;check out this article on the process&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-06-07T21:13:59.180" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16558" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16562" CreationDate="2013-06-08T04:15:55.957" Score="21" ViewCount="39546" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was studying the Puritans recently, and discovered something interesting about William Bradford. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bradford_%28Plymouth_Colony_governor%29#In_the_Dutch_Republic&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, he married his wife in a civil ceremony, because &quot;the Separatists could find no example of a religious service in the Scriptures&quot;, which I immediately found interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is this: Is there any account of a &lt;em&gt;religious&lt;/em&gt; marriage ceremony in scriptures? Did the Separatists miss something/exclude a book that is typically considered canonical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1406" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T09:03:34.680" LastActivityDate="2015-06-20T17:06:10.933" Title="Is there any account of a religious marriage ceremony in the scripture?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;puritanism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16560" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16577" CreationDate="2013-06-08T06:21:12.763" Score="2" ViewCount="1207" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I learned in church the whole world &quot;fell&quot; after Adam sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the typical question is why should everyone have to pay the price and is usually answered by we would have done the same if in Adams shoes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However,  I have a hard time applying that logic to the rest of the entire world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why should everything else in the world have to pay the consequences of humans?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example why should our pets have to experience sickness and death and suffering? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or sea creatures or even plants etc.? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this fair and just?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T23:29:06.900" Title="Why is the curse of original sin not specific to humans?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;adam&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16491" CreationDate="2013-06-08T06:22:11.170" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 1:6  I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: &#xA;  Gal 1:7  Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. &#xA;  Gal 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 3:1  O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 5:2  Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. &#xA;  Gal 5:3  For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. &#xA;  Gal 5:4  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're taking one verse completely out of context to arrive at the thought that Paul was hypocritical. The Galatians had a specific problem they were leaving Christ and going to Moses. When Paul tells them if you be circumcised Christ profit you nothing. He was telling them that if they left Christ returning to the law they would be what we call abrogating or committing the unforgivable sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 6:4  For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, &#xA;  Heb 6:5  And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, &#xA;  Heb 6:6  If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 10:38  Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. &#xA;  Heb 10:39  But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leaving Jesus failing to repent is a terrible thing and its possible for us to give up our salvation to follow another and false system. The warning about circumcision is to tell them if they go through with this &lt;strong&gt;in their case&lt;/strong&gt; demonic ceremony they would be losing all the work of Christ in their life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 7:18  Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. &#xA;  1Co 7:19  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. &#xA;  1Co 7:20  Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. &#xA;  1Co 7:21  Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 5:6  For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luk 2:21  And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you look rationally at Galatians and the other surrounding books you'll see that circumcision or uncircumcision matters not. Its just something tied to who you started out being when you met Jesus. If you have a good reason to need circumcision or uncircumcision then you should do either just like if you were a slave and you found a way to seek freedom you could. Our genitals mean very little to Christ and Christ wants our focus not to be on the our natural bodies but on the work of His Kingdom in the Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T06:22:11.170" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16558" CreationDate="2013-06-08T07:19:09.623" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some time back I dug into this subject of weddings in olden Biblical days, just out of curiosity . This is summary of sort of what I found.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible speaks of three &quot;C&quot; of weddings: Contract, Consummation, Celebration. These same things exist today in modern marriages but the order and timing of each stage is different. Ancient Jewish weddings never involved a wedding ceremony like we see today with the bride walking down the aisle to be married in the synagogue.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact the present day &quot;wedding ceremony&quot; is something that did not develop for hundreds of years after Jesus rose from the dead. Modern Jewish weddings are as removed and different from the ancient Jewish marriage culture of the first century as Christian weddings are.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were three states of a marriage in the Bible:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stage 1: Signing the &quot;ketubbah&quot; contract (Creating the marriage bond)&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The bride would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a &quot;ketubbah&quot;.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Young children were often married, (arranged marriage) but did not consummate until of age.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stage 2: The &quot;chuppah&quot;: sexual consummation.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the money as set out in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride's home.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and his companions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or in the next room.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The groom hands the bloodied &quot;proof of virginity cloth&quot; to the witnesses chosen by the bride's parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stage 3: The wedding feast&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a procession for a wedding feast.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the ancient ritual of marriage.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was no &quot;wedding ceremony&quot; in the synagogue in  the first century, performed under a canopy where the bride and groom would hold hands and say, &quot;I do&quot; before an audience of friends and family. This didn’t develop for hundreds of years after Jesus died on the cross as the Passover lamb for the sins of mankind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A few examples from OT:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The three stages of Isaac's marriage to Rebekah: Gen 24.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contract (stage 1): Gen 24:33, Gen 24:51-53, Gen 24:57-58. An offer of marriage is proposed. The offer is accepted and Rebekah is married by contract. Gifts and money are given both to the bride and the parents of the bride. Notice that Rebekah was asked if she consented to the marriage.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consummation (stage 2): Gen 24:64-67. Rebekah and Isaac go to the tent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Celebration (stage 3): No mention of wedding feast, but one likely happened.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The three stages of Jacob's marriage to Leah: Gen 29.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contract (stage 1): Gen 29:15-20. Jacob contracts to work for 7 in advance before he gets the girl.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consummation (stage 2): Gen 29:21-26. Jacob pays the dowry price of 7 years and takes Leah into the tent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Celebration (stage 3): Gen 29:27-28. He completed the 7 day wedding feast with Leah.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The three stages of Jacob's marriage to Rachel: Gen 29.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contract (stage 1): Gen 29:27. Jacob contracts to work for 7 MORE years but gets to consummate the wedding at the before he pays the full dowry.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consummation (stage 2): Gen 29:30. He took Leah into the tent at the beginning of the 7 day feast, then at the end of the 7 day feast he took Rachel into the tent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Celebration (stage 3): Gen 29:27-28. The 7 day wedding feast was for both girls.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Ten Commandment, God makes us aware that the adultery and fortification are something against God. This is the testimony by itself that all these three stages of wedding culminating into a marriage was according to God’s requirement. Otherwise there could be no meaning attached to the words adultery and fornication in the Law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2015-01-13T17:15:03.327" LastActivityDate="2015-01-13T17:15:03.327" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15793" CreationDate="2013-06-08T07:20:43.797" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Devil-serpent-satan.&#xA;Bible refers  to satan as serpent not serpents&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 20 vrs 2 (NIV).&#xA;He se seized the dragon that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Snake-snakes- serpents.&#xA;Mat 10 vrs 16 (NIV).&#xA;I am sending you out like sheep among wolvesn. Therefore be shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 10 vrs 16 (KJV).&#xA;Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves, be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even whithout reference, how can a single Satan be serpents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4524" LastEditorUserId="4524" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T07:25:56.847" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T07:25:56.847" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16535" CreationDate="2013-06-08T10:37:31.860" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;When official papal death sentence end? Never. Because it never started in the first place. Technically such a thing did not exist. Anathema was never officially meant death penalty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But from your example of Jan Hus, I am assuming your question to be of the executions for holding heretical beliefs. Then the last person to be burned alive at the stake for that was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno&quot;&gt;Giordano Bruno&lt;/a&gt;, executed February 17, 1600. The last person to die (hanged to death) was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayetano_Ripoll&quot;&gt;Cayetano Ripoll&lt;/a&gt;, July 26, 1826.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/805877-196/daily-twip---the-spanish-inquisition-executes.html&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW the first one was &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscillian&quot;&gt;Priscillian&lt;/a&gt; (d.385).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I would like to make two points,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Technically Church itself did not kill anyone, they just handed down heretics to secular authorities. (The link about Jan Hus that you mentioned in the comment explicitly mentions that too) The secular authorities wanted to kill heretics to maintain law and order in a city, which in turn will help them to keep up their power. The main aim of those inquisition is to protect the heretics from them and give them a last chance.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its not just the Catholics, protestants too did the same thing when they came to power. Thirty Years' War, Irish Martyrs, the English Martyrs, Boston martyrs, Salem Witch Hunt etc., are just examples. It is not to justify or defend any side's action, but just to say that the politics and culture is way too much different from ours today. And we cannot comprehend fully of what happened and why it happened to the fullest extend.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T10:37:31.860" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16565" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-08T10:48:37.483" Score="3" ViewCount="14111" Body="&lt;p&gt;God gives us free-will. But why does God punish us for exercising our free-will in certain ways (disobeying Him, sinning)? Why even both to give us free will, if we are to be punished for exercising our free will in a certain way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say that is not really free will. If I give you a glass of water on the table, and say you are free to drink the glass of water, but if you drink it, I will kill you --- Why even bother to give that person the option of drinking the water, when you are essentially hindering his free-will and stopping him from drinking the glass of water?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I want to carry out an action but in the back of my mind I know it is a sin, I might hesitate to carry out that action if I know God will punish me. Isn't that not obstructing my free-will? Why give me free will, if you punish me for making certain choices I want to make?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4683" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T01:19:30.733" Title="Why does God punish us when He gives us free-will?" Tags="&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-08-28T21:54:04.613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16565" CreationDate="2013-06-08T12:11:39.050" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would not call it &lt;strong&gt;punishment&lt;/strong&gt; but rather, the &lt;strong&gt;RESULT&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;OUTCOME&lt;/strong&gt; of freewill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's give an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You tell your little son not to touch the hot iron on the&#xA;  table. But, out of curiosity, the boy touched it anyway and the little&#xA;  hands burned. The child exercised his own freewill even if a strict&#xA;  warning was given by you. This is a result of freewill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same thing apply to Adam and Eve. They were strictly warned not to eat the fruit from the tree at middle of the garden. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 2:17 (NIV) &quot;but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it &lt;strong&gt;you will certainly die&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; say &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;I will punish you&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; but rather, the tragic result of it was given as a warning, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Death&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. Death is the result by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve knew very well what she was doing. Instead of listening to God, she listened to that serpent who was inferior to her. Adam also followed his wife and they both transgressed. The effect of the fruit immediately fell on them. All was cursed, the ground was cursed, man was cursed, sin and death entered the world!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 5:12 (NIV) Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one&#xA;  man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people,&#xA;  because all sinned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But God in His mercy prepared a way out, the one and only way out, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the death penalty of sins, offered his blood for atonement of sins and became the one and only way to God. He is now the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;remedy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; from death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 14:6 (NIV) Jesus answered, &lt;em&gt;“I am the &lt;strong&gt;way&lt;/strong&gt; and the &lt;strong&gt;truth&lt;/strong&gt; and the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;life&lt;/strong&gt;. No one comes to the Father except through me&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this is again another &lt;em&gt;freewill&lt;/em&gt; exercise. &lt;em&gt;IF&lt;/em&gt; you chose to receive Jesus Christ, you will get eternal life, &lt;em&gt;ELSE&lt;/em&gt;, you prefer to reject Him, you remain in your sins and never receive the remedy from death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-10T04:46:23.030" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T04:46:23.030" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16545" CreationDate="2013-06-08T12:48:10.877" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all the story described above is pure idolatry. It involves constructing a graven image and then bowing down before it. This is precisely what is condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.&amp;quot; Leviticus 26:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the Protestant &amp;quot;protest&amp;quot; against the unbiblical authority attributed to the pope invoked problems of idolatry. Consider these paragraphs from this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bartleby.com/36/6/1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo X&lt;/a&gt;. Emphases added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Leo, my Father, beware of listening to those sirens who make you out to be not simply a man, &lt;strong&gt;but partly a god&lt;/strong&gt;, so that you can command and require whatever you will. It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You are the servant of servants, and more than any other man, in a most pitiable and perilous position. Let not those men deceive you who pretend that you are lord of the world; who will not allow any one to be a Christian without your authority; who babble of your having power over heaven, hell, and purgatory. These men are your enemies and are seeking your soul to destroy it, as Isaiah says, “My people, they that call thee blessed are themselves deceiving thee.” They are in error who raise you above councils and the universal Church; they are in error who attribute to you alone the right of interpreting Scripture. All these men are seeking to set up their own impieties in the Church under your name, and alas! Satan has gained much through them in the time of your predecessors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In brief, trust not in any who exalt you, but in those who humiliate you. For this is the judgment of God: “He hath cast down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.” See how unlike Christ was to His successors, though all will have it that they are His vicars. I fear that in truth very many of them have been in too serious a sense His vicars, for a vicar represents a prince who is absent. Now if a pontiff rules while Christ is absent and does not dwell in his heart, what else is he but a vicar of Christ? And then what is that Church but a multitude without Christ? What indeed is such a vicar but antichrist and &lt;strong&gt;an idol&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T12:48:10.877" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2118" CreationDate="2013-06-08T13:13:58.053" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many scriptures were quoted, but the levels of sin has not been explained. I will not add scriptures, just name the levels. As you go up in levels it gets more difficult to break with it and the small ones lead you into the trap of the bigger ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will start at small&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sin- Missing the mark, whether it is not doing what God wanted you to do or will full sinning, you missed what was God's plan for you. Sin as missing the mark is the foundation of all sin and present in all sin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trespassing. Being where we are not supposed to be. Whether we do something wrong or not, when we are where we are not supposed to be we expose our self to temptation, we witness wrong stuff and we still sin because we are where God doesn't want us to be. When we sin we are not always trespassing, but when we trespass we always sin. To do any of the higher levels of sin, we have to trespass because we have to be where we can do these sins.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Transgression. Whenever we do what is clearly wrong, against the Word of God. Transgression shows our rebellion against God, what we do is clearly against His will but we do it anyway&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Iniquity. Worshiping an idol. Be it sexual sin, lying, stealing, love of money/power, drug /alcohol abuse, any sin that traps me so that i cant escape. I have seen numerous times how people seek God until you tell them their idol is sin, leave that behind too. That is when people gets rude and upset. Rather lead them to find it themselves and decide for themselves to break with it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Sorry, you are lost, no help.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4685" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T13:28:01.263" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T13:28:01.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16570" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16579" CreationDate="2013-06-08T13:17:35.133" Score="2" ViewCount="29000" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the dogmatic differences between Jehovah's Witness Churches and Pentecostal Churches? Until recently I thought both churches were one and the same in beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4673" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-04T23:12:56.920" LastActivityDate="2015-11-11T11:00:26.543" Title="What is the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Pentecostals?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;pentecostalism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16571" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16572" CreationDate="2013-06-08T13:22:49.017" Score="6" ViewCount="3973" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's been a tradition of my family and friends to anoint a home with oil when a family moves in.  I understand the significance of praying and dedicating the space as God's, used for His purposes and will - and my interpretation of anointing has mostly been along the lines of prayer in this manor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However is there a biblical reason or basis for the practice of anointing a physical object? Were does this originate and what Christian traditions practice it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4637" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T13:34:09.893" LastActivityDate="2016-11-01T00:33:48.087" Title="What is the basis for anointing of physical objects and who practices this?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16571" CreationDate="2013-06-08T13:40:05.023" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anointing an object certainly appears in the Bible, and is part of ancient Jewish practice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much (that is, 250 shekels) of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant calamus, 500 shekels of cassia – all according to the sanctuary shekel – and a hin of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil. Then use it to anoint the tent of meeting, the ark of the covenant law, the table and all its articles, the lampstand and its accessories, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin with its stand. You shall consecrate them so they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2030:22-29&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 30:22–29 [NIV]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also part of the Catholic liturgy for consecrating an altar &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicphotographer.com/p816419941/h41AC8BE0#h41ac8be0&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reference&lt;/a&gt;. The oil of chrism which is used is a fragrant oil rather like that described in Exodus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However this use of oil is part of the consecration, the setting-apart, of the object to God's use. The objects would not be put to any other use whatsoever. Whether a house is set apart in quite the same way may be open to question, and most house-blessings (such as the one I was involved with recently) would involve sprinkling&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; holy water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;Sprinkling&lt;/em&gt; is a technical term, which refers to splashing water around with a brush or some sort of shaker. It's not usually a delicate operation!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T13:40:05.023" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16528" CreationDate="2013-06-08T13:48:08.393" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Dante &quot;defined&quot; the afterlife for many. I have read that the masterpiece was NOT the Inferno but rather the Purgatorio. Having read the entire Commedia many times, I tend to agree with that assessment. The mountain structure of the Purgatorio and the ending, where Dante parts company with Virgil and has his encounter with Beatrice, is profound and beautiful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is useful to contrast the early church and its optimism with the Medieval and modern church, so imbued with Augustine. Dante seems to have fallen on the side of Augustine,  IMHO, but you still see signs of the hope that the earlier Patristic fathers embraced, among them Clement and John Cassian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4686" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T13:48:08.393" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16565" CreationDate="2013-06-08T14:13:34.510" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God gave us free will with the intention that we would use our free will to glorify Him in a variety of ways. What are we to do with it? Follow the greatest commandment: we are to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. There are an unlimited amount of ways mankind can choose to do this because of the multiplicity of gifts and abilities and personalities involved. When you know what God's will is and do it, you have free will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if we choose to act against God and His established moral boundaries, then we are not acting with free will. We are, rather, in bondage to sin, and acting from the impulses of sin. Sin leads to negative consequences for the individual who sins and the person who experiences the brunt of the sin. On the human plane, we justly exact punishments upon the perpetrator who breaks society's laws, and hope the laws are a sufficient restraint upon society otherwise. When we are set free from the bondage in that area of sin, then we may exercise our free will to glorify God instead of the flesh, the world, or the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T14:13:34.510" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16260" CreationDate="2013-06-08T18:10:37.337" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Are there patristic sources that suggest the introduction of sexual restraint was positively received by Rome?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is a little too broad I think - what do you mean by received &quot;by Rome&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly it WAS well received by many; since there were lots of converts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly it WAS NOT well received by many others, even to the days of Charlemagne who had multiple wives and concubines, and teaching it was ridiculed by pagan contemporaries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few things are clear - the teaching was revolutionary. Concubinage was well accepted as a perfectly good alternative to marriage when marriage was not possible (perhaps due to class). Sexual rights to one's slave was considered natural. The man of the house had life and death over the entire household. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly the teaching was more appealing to women, than to powerful men. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is hard to know how a &quot;common man&quot; reacted, but again, there were many converts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So although I am not at the moment recalling any specific sources commenting on the issue, I am sure that the claim is historically defensible even without direct commentary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE - Rome was not a &quot;morally decadent society&quot; to the extent as described by some. We have lots of evidence of pagan &quot;moral philosophers&quot; that taught many &quot;Christian&quot; values. To claim otherwise would be to claim that God completely abandoned pagans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-08T21:28:12.913" LastActivityDate="2013-06-08T21:28:12.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16560" CreationDate="2013-06-08T19:16:03.177" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a loaded question... it is basically &quot;the problem of evil&quot;... let me give you my understanding: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of Adam and Eve is meant to be an illustration of a mystery we cannot comprehend - so the description that &quot;due to their (our) sin, the world was created this way&quot;, is an approximation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From theological (not philosophical) perspective - The world is a GIFT to man. How can such a terrible world be a gift? We trust and are told that it is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;[3:22] Then the LORD God said, &quot;See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, &lt;strong&gt;he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&#xA;[3:23] &lt;strong&gt;therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden&lt;/strong&gt;, to till the ground from which he was taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sounds pretty cruel does it not? :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God casts us down so that we cannot be &quot;like-Him&quot;, presumably &quot;eternally happy&quot; and live forever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So either God is bad, or, if not, then this was a good thing for us. How could we understand this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One possibility: We were given THIS world as a gift because only this world can help us reach salvation; unlike satan who lives forever with full knowledge - ie, does not grow, does not learn, cannot be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do learn / grow; this world is exactly the world needed to direct our learning to salvation. Perfect world for this goal. In other words, if we did have full knowledge, we would ask for this world, exactly as is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &quot;Is &lt;strong&gt;this&lt;/strong&gt; fair and just?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is MORE then just fair and just, it is an unbelievable gift. &#xA;It is beyond justice, it is mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not a very &quot;satisfying&quot; answer I am sure, nor a philosophically defensible one, but I think consistent with Catholic theology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if we agree that the world is exactly as it is needed for our salvation, and a gift, how can we justify animal pain, for example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have never seen a truly satisfying answer to this. Most explanations go something like this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do know, that the world was created for us. &#xA;Everything in it, is meant for us. The suffering of the world, is needed for our salvation. So in a terribly politically incorrect way, the world without man, is meaningless; so the suffering of the world, is inconsequential without man(1). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire universe was created just to teach man a lesson, so to speak...everything in it, is for this purpose. That is a mystery, it cannot be explained logically or philosophically. All we got, is the above logical explanation that falls short of total explanation, and we are left with &quot;trust&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also seen a number of theologians try to explain it, by belittling animal pain (and there is some truth to this, see below (2)) but it is not a completely satisfying explanation and it is usually ended with &quot;we must trust its good and just&quot;. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU7sqi8iBBI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU7sqi8iBBI&lt;/a&gt; for John Hare's view on this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it therefore illogical, or contradictory as atheists often claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. contradiction would require full knowledge and we recognize that we do not have it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend JPII's look at this question in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.ca/Man-Woman-Created-Them-ebook/dp/B005F1Q7EW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1370717893&amp;amp;sr=8-1&amp;amp;keywords=theology+of+the+body&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.ca/Man-Woman-Created-Them-ebook/dp/B005F1Q7EW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1370717893&amp;amp;sr=8-1&amp;amp;keywords=theology+of+the+body&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also lots of good (long) videos on Theology of the Body, for example, I recommend Fr. Thomas Loya, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkYXLV_8aJ4&amp;amp;list=WLF4AEF5D2356584FB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkYXLV_8aJ4&amp;amp;list=WLF4AEF5D2356584FB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JPII's focus on the body and what is means to theology, is exactly the answer to your question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1)Note that the atheists claim the EXACT opposite - that the MAN is inconsequential to the world. That the world exists for its own sake, that we are just an accidental development. That the world was first, man a second thought at best. It is this flip that makes it impossible to reconcile the world with theology. It is a trick, designed to give us false information, so that our rational side, that is designed to recognize God, is confused. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2)consider,  what is true suffering?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being in pain now? Or being aware of the long duration, or unending of the state of pain?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know fairly well, even scientifically, that immediate pain, is bearable if we know it will end (consider laboring woman who is told its almost over, or root-canal work when the dentist tells you 2 more minutes and it's done).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since animals and plants do not have such cognition, it is very hard to determine how much they are &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; suffering. I am not condoning animal cruelty! but its easy to anthropomorphize animal suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also consider the importance of &quot;remembering&quot;, in a self reflective way. As anyone who had a little-too-much-to-drink can tell you, hearing that you had fun, or were in pain last night, is really meaningless, experientially. It is also hard to determine what and how the animals remember.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastEditorUserId="4689" LastEditDate="2013-06-09T15:38:45.387" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T15:38:45.387" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16570" CreationDate="2013-06-08T19:38:14.107" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically, a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses are not really related to Pentecostalism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For one thing, Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Watchtower literature is the most accurate interpretation of scripture, while Pentecostals believe in scripture being relevant to modern life without having to rely on the leadership of a church to lead them; the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in &quot;divine guidance&quot; that allows them to claim that certain parts of scripture are poorly translated or inaccurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are major soteriological differences: Pentecostals basically believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, often but not always including baptism in the Holy Spirit, while Jehovah's Witnesses have a doctrine that requires works for salvation (to prove that their faith is genuine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that we are in the end times (making various apocalyptic predictions that haven't seemed to come true), while Pentecostals don't really have a defined statement on that as a larger movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The two groups are, to a certain degree, apples and oranges.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses are a sect, and Pentecostalism is a movement. I attended a Pentecostal church, and they were relatively midline for Pentecostals, but there was no real organization that they were a part of; meanwhile, the Jehovah's Witnesses have a hierarchy and direct leadership. You may find individual Pentecostal movements that have different beliefs, or incorporated beliefs of other sects, but as a general rule they are not related to the Jehovah's Witnesses, who predate them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1406" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-10-02T23:13:28.880" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T23:13:28.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16570" CreationDate="2013-06-08T21:06:29.947" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short version is that they are not related at all. In fact, in many major ways they are quite opposite to each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Jehovah Witnesses are a &quot;reconstructionist&quot; sect that began in the late 1800's. They do claim to be Christian, but the reason I use the label reconstructionist sect is that they believe they are the only true Christian church, and that the rest of Christianity has become corrupt. Their organization is not based on historical Christianity but on new revelation through their prophetic publications, which have in turn guided them in the creation of a special translation of Scripture fixing what they claim to be the issues with other translations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pentecostalism, on the other hand, is known as a &quot;renewal&quot; movement. Although they have many doctrines that are distinct from the rest of Christianity, they don't claim that the rest of Christianity is totally devoid of truth. Rather than starting from scratch, they only seek to revise things a bit. Although it is a fairly new movement, dating from just the early 1900's, it has grown and taken many different shapes. Not being centrally organized, it's harder to pin any specific doctrines to Pentecostalism (as it is easy to do with the JWs because their beliefs are so precise and centrally dictated). They use the same Bible translations as other Protestants but certainly have a unique spin on some aspects of it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some similarities in the early roots of Pentecostalism. One of several main roots of the movement can be traced through the Foursquare Church. Although that particular church has since taken a bit more moderate approach, its beginnings are tied up in the affairs of one &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Semple_McPherson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aimee Semple McPherson&lt;/a&gt; and her teachings, &quot;healing ministry,&quot; and other extensive influence. Because it has many roots, and later many branches, the Pentecostal movement is not as organized or definable as a sect, but it does have some characteristic teachings such as an emphasis on continued revelation, spiritual gifts, miraculous healings, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the JW doctrine tends to be much more concrete. They believe in various specific end times predictions (some of which have morphed as dates come and go), and are very precise about things like terms of service to the church, doing good deeds, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, while they both began at roughly the same time and some parallels could be drawn in the way they first started, they are completely different entities. Early on they were driven by very different influences, and they have become very different beasts. Their teachings bear little resemblance to each other, and many of their teachings are mutually exclusive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-10-02T23:19:27.800" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T23:19:27.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16580" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-08T21:24:32.130" Score="6" ViewCount="19958" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverbs 25:2&#xA;  King James Version (KJV)&#xA;  2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I came across this today on this site when I found the question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/360/what-does-the-bible-say-about-science&quot;&gt;&quot;What does the Bible say about science?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is being said in this verse in context to the surrounding verses? Does it mean we are not supposed to learn new things or want to learn?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4346" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2018-05-17T00:55:09.397" Title="What is being said in Proverbs 25:2" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;&lt;knowledge&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6524" CreationDate="2013-06-08T21:40:53.190" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being born of water is accepting the word of God into your heart and totally depending on God's word daily for constant cleansing until you become spiritually matured, conforming to the image of Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you&quot;&#xA;  - John 15:3. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also Ephesians 5:26. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the word of God (John 1:1, 14) and Hebrews 4:12 says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For the word of God is living and powerful...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eternal life is in the word of God and the life of the word (Jesus) is in the blood (John 6:47-58). The word (Jesus) is described as the bread of life, and to eat the bread of life means &quot;to receive Him into your heart and continue in fellowship with Him daily through the help of the Holy Spirit&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what it means to be born of &quot;water and Spirit&quot;. If you are not washed with the water of the word you are still in your sin and dead, totally separated from God eternally. Titus 3:5 says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of&#xA;  regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see? The Holy Spirit uses the word of God (Jesus) to wash you constantly until you are regenerated and conform to the image of Christ (Ephesians 4:13) see also John 14:26,16:13-15, this is the actual meaning of salvation - to accept the word of God (Jesus Christ) into your heart and continue in fellowship with Him in the word through the help of the Holy Spirit on daily basis. In this manner you can be sure that you are born of water and the Spirit, thereby saved and able to see and enter the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4690" LastEditorUserId="194" LastEditDate="2013-06-09T05:41:50.753" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T05:41:50.753" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16582" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16580" CreationDate="2013-06-08T22:47:35.573" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see how the surrounding verses lead one to think about science; that sounds like eisegesis to me (reading a matter into the text). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps God conceals a matter to get kings exercised in searching for it. Biblical truths, for example, are scattered far and wide in the scriptures and we must do much hunting to pull the pieces together. In support of this idea, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20ki%2022&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Kings 22&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; to indicate that God expected kings to be familiar with the word of God. See also &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20ki%2023:25&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Kings 23:25&lt;/a&gt;, in which king Josiah followed the Law of Moses with all his heart:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was to be read every seven years to all the people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deu%2031:9-13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deut. 31:9-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, “At the end of every seven years, at the set time in the year of release, at the Feast of Booths, when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law, and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as you live in the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, it's possible the Lord has hidden gems in His Word and rewards those who search diligently. Many pastors are aware of this fact; why not kings? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-09T01:17:38.210" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T01:17:38.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16583" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16580" CreationDate="2013-06-09T01:07:33.800" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev 5:10  And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christ we are Kings and Priest unto our God. So yes as Steve explains you can spiritualize this verse however there is the natural view as well. There is nothing wrong with the king being the supreme investigator of a land constantly discovering the truths behind situations the nation may face. Take solomon for example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Ki 3:25  And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He had to search out the truth of who the baby belonged to which is in and of itself a science. He had a hypothesis, he tested his hypothesis and he reported and recorded his results. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes Kings and believers are supposed to practice the art of investigation through empirical as well as spiritual ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T01:07:33.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16558" CreationDate="2013-06-09T02:01:21.787" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Co 11:2  For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find it quite funny that someone would deny that there is a marriage ceremony in the New Testament because the New Birth and our becoming disciples of Christ is a type of a wedding itself. Did Christ go to a justice of the peace when he married the Church :) No it was a man of God who espoused us to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 19:7  Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 19:8  And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 19:9  And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are already wed to Christ by way of having faith in the Gospel as delivered through the disciples especially Pauls version of the Gospel however we have not had our marriage supper yet. That is something which remains till heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 1:17  That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 4:1  And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Co 5:16  Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We already intimate with Christ sharing full knowledge of each other. epignōsis&#xA;Strong's Greek G1922 is often translated intimately know like Adam knew Eve in Genesis 4:1. Our knowledge of Christ isn't about his physical attributes and our intimacy with him has absolutely nothing to do with our flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 5:26  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 5:27  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 5:28  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again Christ is the example of how a husband treats His wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T02:01:21.787" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2010" CreationDate="2013-06-09T06:07:02.727" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The argument for dressing up&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that God demands His people to honor Him in the act of worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’&amp;mdash;Malachi 1:6 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Malachi+1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God goes on to explain that the people dishonor God by bringing inferior offerings to the altar.  He asks if they would dare to bring such animals to their &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachi#Period&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Persian&lt;/a&gt; governor.  Further, it wasn't because they lacked acceptable sacrifices.  Therefore, they showed themselves to fear earthly authority, but not God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, we should consider honoring our Father in heaven by wearing clothing we would not be ashamed to be wearing if we were to have an interview with our national leader.  This is also the implication of the detailed instructions on how the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Priest_%28Judaism%29#His_vestments&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;high priests were to dress&lt;/a&gt; in the Torah; God demands to be approached in reverence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Show no partiality!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the trouble is that we confuse reverence for God, keeping the right rituals, and observing long-held customs as what God desires most from us.  James warns:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.  My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. &lt;em&gt;For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?&lt;/em&gt; Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?&amp;mdash;James 1:27-2:7 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/James+1-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply speaking, we should be very careful about judging others by the clothes they wear.  Paul speaks of the church as a body in that if one member suffers, all suffer.  Rather than make divisions in a church based on wealth, many congregations dress down to avoid having less-well-off members (and visitors) stand out.  My pastor tells how he was lead to Christ by a preacher of a church that met on a Southern California beach in surfing attire.  Who can argue with such fruit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Common sense&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In truth clothing choice is primarily culturally significant.  As my college cultural anthropology professor explained, his students don't come to class wearing T-shirts and jeans for any reason other than to fit in with their fellows.  I've made the best argument I know for a spiritual significance, but it does not withstand the grace of the gospel of Christ.  In the end, dress as you feel led in order to honor God and don't discriminate based on the clothing others wear.  Live together as one body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T06:07:02.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16588" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16610" CreationDate="2013-06-09T06:16:06.797" Score="9" ViewCount="364" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just wondering how did the papacy respond to democracy when it first arose in Europe?  On one hand, in a country that was, according to its sovereign, a Catholic country, democracy would be very dangerous as it might replace the sovereign due to the popular religion recently affected by the reformation. However, another country that had a populace largely Catholic  but it's sovereign recently aligned  as Protestant, democracy would be a great way to maintain papal control. Then again democracy was related to real separation of church and state, at least as established in the American Constitution, so this makes a papal response to democracy even more unpredictable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how did the papacy respond to the emergence of democracy? Was it in favor, opposition or some mixture of both? Did a succession of popes have the same response or was their a lot of flip-flops among succeeding popes over the subject of democracy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-06-11T04:43:24.087" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T16:01:23.480" Title="At the greater emergence of democracy in Europe during the 'Enlightenment' did the papacy support democracy?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16588" CreationDate="2013-06-09T07:09:44.553" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though I am a devout Catholic myself, I have to say that the Church didn't support democracy in general. The Church has always fought against communist dictatorship, but when it comes to right wing dictators the Church was not very particular about fighting them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church under late Pope Bl. John Paul II, has opposed many of the communist dictatorships in eastern Europe and South America. Poland can be considered as an excellent example where the Church's influence has helped strengthen democracy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But sadly when it comes to Pro-Church right wing dictators like Francisco Franco or António de Oliveira Salazar, the Church took a soft stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in general we can conclude that the Church do stand with the poor and oppressed, but does not involve in an open fight for democracy.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4673" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T07:09:44.553" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2118" CreationDate="2013-06-09T07:40:46.620" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see positions supporting both yes and no but there is a third option to all situations: it doesn't matter. The Bible does not specifically say sin is by degrees nor does it say sin is not by degrees. You cannot build a doctrine on what may be isolated texts taken out of context in either direction. I do see in the scripture where there is an unforgivable sin but that is not all that important to this discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 1:29  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vast majority of sin has the same outcome for the believer death. It doesn't really matter if certain sins cause you to die faster because regardless of how little or how much it still displeases God. Even the smallest sin would have sent Christ to the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Co 5:10  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christ all sins are forgiven and to maximize, minimize or equalize sin is to distract from the Saviour of sin who washes us clean by his precious Blood when we accept the salvation He offers in faith. To give into any sin regardless of whether you think it is equal or not is treason and will result in your eventual death when you will promptly go to heaven and be rewarded and corrected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T07:40:46.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16591" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-09T07:43:43.540" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-09T07:43:43.540" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T07:43:43.540" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16592" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-09T07:43:43.540" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-09T07:43:43.540" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T07:43:43.540" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16595" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6149" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:18:56.360" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mathew 16:18  Jesus tells Peter (Greek--Petros--rock) that he's the &quot;rock&quot; (Gr: Petra---pebble) upon which he will build his church....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4702" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T22:18:56.360" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6149" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:39:30.980" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gen 4:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?&quot; And he said, &quot;I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The comedian David Steinberg pointed this out once on a TV show about Jewish comedy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In modern vernacular it might sound more like &quot;What am I, his keeper?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4703" LastActivityDate="2013-06-09T22:39:30.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16319" CreationDate="2013-06-09T22:49:54.167" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a youth leader I celebrated the Lords Supper with my students with no ordained minister present&amp;mdash;and all the ministers of my church knew. Baptists &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; celebrate communion at home with the family. The early church did the same: after the meal, the bread was taken and broken remembering Jesus' sacrifice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If&lt;/em&gt; a pastor is present, we do respect his position and allow him to preside, much like in the Anglican church where a priest defers to a bishop if one is present. I have never heard of a Baptist church which teaches that communion is invalid if a pastor is not present. My church even allowed me to baptize my son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptists believe strongly in the &quot;priesthood of all believers&quot;. The temple worship is done away with; our High Priest is Jesus Christ, and all believers are are priests on earth (according to Baptist belief). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would also point out, that even under the old covenant, no priest was required in order to celebrate the Passover in the home. The High Priest &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; offer the paschal lamb in the temple; but since Christ, our High Priest &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; our paschal lamb, has already been sacrificed, no further sacrifice is needed. So Baptists believe the Lords Supper is a memorial meal, not a sacrifice&amp;mdash;it is Holy and real, connecting us to Christ and to each other through the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1345" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-06-10T19:54:13.283" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T19:54:13.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3624" CreationDate="2013-06-10T00:04:36.920" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;the census is an attack on the promise to Abraham to multiply his seed as the sand of the seashore and stars of heaven. It is a violation of the promise of God and a demonic counteraction to the blessings promised. I have seen that whenever this is done there is a migration of people out of the place that it is conducted or serious deaths that take place. Census is demonic and is not a kingdom thing. No where in the bible is there ever an accurate number concerning people it is always given as approximates like 5000 men besides women and children or in the case of angels one third of the stars of heaven or in the case of those saved a number that no man can number. census is simply wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4705" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T00:04:36.920" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16319" CreationDate="2013-06-10T00:11:36.167" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Once Apostolic succession is rejected, it seems difficult to justify setting requirements for administration. The Protestant view seems to vary from &quot;it doesn't matter who is doing it&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; to &quot;you must have a Master's of Divinity and be ordained&quot;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; to present communion. Ordination is commonly required, or at least recommended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can tell, this idea comes from the idea that the &quot;minister&quot; has been chosen by God to edify the church, and the people are to go outside the gathering for their ministries. The ordained minister is set apart by/for God to minister to His people so that they can go out into their communities; serving communion is not the responsibility of laypeople.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 4:11-13 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And he [God] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds&#xA;  and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for&#xA;  building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of&#xA;  the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,&#xA;  to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the United States, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&amp;amp;-Self-Employed/Minister-Audit-Technique-Guide&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the IRS&lt;/a&gt; may have something to do with it as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Treas. Reg. § 1.107-1(a) also provides examples of specific services considered duties of a minister, including:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  1. Performance of sacerdotal functions;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2. Conduct of religious worship;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  3. Administration and maintenance of religious organizations and their integral agencies;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4. Performance of teaching and administrative duties at theological seminaries.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note 1:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The teaching of some Baptists (though &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/what-we-believe/lords-table-gfbc/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;not all agree&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because the Bible indicates that all believers in Christ are priests (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20pe%202:5&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Peter 2:5&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%205:10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 5:10&lt;/a&gt;), there is no need for a priestly class to administer either baptism or the Lord’s Supper. Although normally the pastor of a church baptizes and presides at the Lord’s Supper, any member designated by the church could do so. In the Lord’s Supper, each believer priest, and not just the one presiding is, to partake of the bread and the cup. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://baptistdistinctives.org/articles/two-ordinances-baptism-and-the-lords-supper/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BaptistDistinctives.org&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note 2:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Article IV, paragraphs 22, 23 of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucc.org/about-us/constitution-of-the-ucc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Constitution of the United Church of Christ&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; Ordination is the rite whereby the United Church of Christ through an Association, in cooperation with the person and a Local Church of the United Church of Christ, recognizes and authorizes that member whom God has called to ordained ministry, and sets that person apart by prayer and the laying on of hands. By this rite ordained ministerial standing and status as an Ordained Ministerial Partner is conferred and authorization given to perform the duties and exercise the prerogatives of ordained ministry in the United Church of Christ.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; An Ordained Minister of the United Church of Christ is one of its members who has been called by God and ordained to preach and teach the gospel, to administer the sacraments and rites of the Church, and to exercise pastoral care and leadership.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UCC requirements for ordination as minister:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All ordained ministers must hold bachelor's and Master of Divinity degrees and must meet other professional and religious standards. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wheatridgeucc.org/pastor.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wheat Ridge Congregational Church&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-10T13:00:44.723" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T13:00:44.723" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16560" CreationDate="2013-06-10T05:07:58.987" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;curse&lt;/em&gt; of Original Sin was on the serpent, Eve, Adam, and the ground that Adam was to farm. There is no indication I recall in the Scripture that the animals or plants prior to the Fall were immortal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, Adam and Eve were commanded to eat fruit, and God also designed both plants and animals for reproduction. Eating a fruit certainly kills it, the animals presumably had to eat too, and there's no need for animals to reproduce unless some of them are also dying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, then, the curse on humanity was in a sense to be &lt;em&gt;like&lt;/em&gt; the animals -- painful childbirth, painful work, and mortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4704" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T05:07:58.987" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16560" CreationDate="2013-06-10T05:19:18.573" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not a complete answer, but thought it would be good to point out nonetheless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God had given Adam and Eve the dominion over the earth, the fish, birds...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'&quot; Gen 1:28 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of the results of the fall are that man's actions caused a ripple effect down the hierarchy of the earth. God entrusted the earth to Adam &amp;amp; Eve, and when they fell, much was affected.  This would include those things that they have dominion over, from my perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4637" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T05:19:18.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15624" CreationDate="2013-06-10T06:11:08.993" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;A warning&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must be very careful when defending the honor of Jesus that we do not contradict the sort of glory that He claimed for Himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, &lt;em&gt;“Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”&lt;/em&gt;&amp;mdash;Mark 8:31-33 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Mark+8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The cross&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the cross, Jesus certainly seems to be separated from the other two Persons of the the Trinity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, &lt;em&gt;“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”&lt;/em&gt; And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” &lt;em&gt;And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.&lt;/em&gt;&amp;mdash;Matthew 27:45-50 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, Jesus quotes Psalm 22, which was David's cry of distress at the hands of some enemy (which, &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/105/pre-christian-jewish-interpretation-of-psalm-22&quot;&gt;we don't know&lt;/a&gt;).  It shows his utter despair nearly to the point of death.  The psalm was later interpreted as a word of judgment and redemption of sinful people.  Just as God allowed David to be overwhelmed by his enemies, He also allowed the people of Israel to be separated from Him at the hands of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon.  In Jesus' day, the Romans occupied the land of Judaea, thereby preventing full worship of their God.  THose same Romans divided the Father from the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also read that he &quot;yielded up his spirit&quot;.  On the one hand, this seems to be an expression meaning that he died.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Mark+15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Luke+23/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke&lt;/a&gt; instead report that Jesus &quot;breathed his last&quot;.  But Luke, &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/John+10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John&lt;/a&gt;, and Matthew emphasise that Jesus' spirit left him.  A reasonable interpretation is that Jesus was, at that moment, separated from both the Father and the Holy Spirit.  Jesus alone died that dreadful, wonderful, momentous day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Purpose of a temporary separation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author of Hebrews comments on the cross:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.  For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, &lt;em&gt;should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering&lt;/em&gt;.&amp;mdash;Hebrews 2:9-10 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Hebrews+2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We find ourselves in deep waters, but it seems that Jesus (&quot;the founder of their salvation&quot;) was made &quot;perfect through suffering&quot; by the Father (&quot;for whom and by whom all things exist&quot;).  Over and over Hebrews tells us that Jesus can rescue his people because he went first.  Here's how Paul puts it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? &lt;em&gt;He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?&lt;/em&gt; Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died&amp;mdash;more than that, who was raised&amp;mdash;who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?&amp;mdash;Romans 8:31-35 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The paradox at the center of the cross is that by descending as low as any man can go (and David calls himself &lt;a href=&quot;http://legacy.esvbible.org/Psalm+22:6/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;a worm and not a man&quot;&lt;/a&gt;), Jesus was able to rise to a height of glory that no other can hope to obtain without His leading.  And then He pulls us (undeserved) up with Him.  We dare not &lt;em&gt;limit&lt;/em&gt; the cost that Jesus paid for us lest we limit the depth of God's love for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the extent that any man can be separated from God, we know that Jesus went before us.  However abandoned David felt, Jesus lost more.  We do not fear temptation if we put our trust in Jesus who was tempted beyond what we could bear and did not curse his Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T06:11:08.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16604" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16617" CreationDate="2013-06-10T06:22:31.460" Score="14" ViewCount="94795" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Kings 8:9 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; There was &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; in the ark &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;except&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;two stone tablets&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of&#xA;  Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Hebrews 9:3-4 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Behind the second curtain was a room called the&#xA;  Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the&#xA;  gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;contained&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the gold&#xA;  jar of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;manna&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, Aaron’s &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;staff&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that had budded, and the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;stone tablets&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of the covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Kings 8:9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant there was only the two stone tablets of Moses. But Hebrews 9:3-4 mentions three things, the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keeping in mind that the Ark of the Covenant was no more during the time of Jesus, the writer of Hebrews simply recalled from the Torah or from tradition about the contents of the Ark. In fact, even the writer never saw the Ark with his own eyes, let alone what was inside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the pot of manna,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Exodus 16:33-34 (KJV)&lt;/em&gt; And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put&#xA;  an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;before the Lord&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, to&#xA;  be kept for your generations. As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron&#xA;  laid it up &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;before the Testimony&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, to be kept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse only says &quot;before the Lord/Testimony&quot; and not &lt;em&gt;inside&lt;/em&gt; the Ark. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the staff of Aaron,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Numbers 17:10 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; The Lord said to Moses, “Put back Aaron’s staff&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in front of the ark of the covenant&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; law, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious. This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so&#xA;  that they will not die.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse also says that the staff of Aaron was placed in front of the Ark. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Questions:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do these verses from the Old Testament contradict the Epistle to the Hebrews? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What exactly was kept inside the Ark of the Covenant? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-23T02:32:35.687" LastActivityDate="2014-12-06T16:24:43.070" Title="What was inside the Ark of the Covenant?" Tags="&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;ark-of-the-covenant&gt;&lt;1-kings&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16605" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16612" CreationDate="2013-06-10T06:42:45.450" Score="10" ViewCount="6521" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 31:24-26 (NIV) After Moses finished writing in a book the&#xA;  words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the&#xA;  Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: “&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Take this&#xA;  Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of the&#xA;  Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse indicates that the Torah was placed &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;beside&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the Ark of the Covenant and stood there as a  witness.  But this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; mentions the Torah as once kept inside the Ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was there any chance ever that the Torah was kept inside the Ark? Is there any verse supporting it? &lt;em&gt;(If the information in Wikipedia is not credible, someone must update it)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt; Readers should not be confused between Torah (book) and the stone tablets (10 Commandments). The question here is about the Book, not the tablets.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-04-08T01:56:07.553" LastActivityDate="2017-01-13T15:48:31.230" Title="Was the Book of the Law (Torah) ever kept inside the Ark of the Covenant?" Tags="&lt;torah&gt;&lt;deuteronomy&gt;&lt;ark-of-the-covenant&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2118" CreationDate="2013-06-10T08:26:36.877" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it a  misconception and misunderstanding that&#xA;&quot;all sins are equal&quot;. Of course there are different levels of sin!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death&quot;   1 John 5:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all sin leads to death. Not all sins are forgivable either (see the unforgivable sin)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some sin is sin of Omission (as opposed to commission)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them.&quot; James 4:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--&#xA;Sin is deviating from what God would do.  It is not just violating a law or a rule. It is the state of not being one with the spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4708" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T08:26:36.877" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16605" CreationDate="2013-06-10T12:57:27.300" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depending on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/31-26.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;translation&lt;/a&gt;, it could be rendered &quot;in the side&quot; or &quot;by the side&quot; or &quot;beside&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tablets given to Moses were kept inside the Ark, as was the rod that budded, and manna (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb 9:4&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-06-10T14:24:45.607" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T14:24:45.607" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16588" CreationDate="2013-06-10T15:18:29.480" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; 1892 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &quot;Ralliement&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; of the Catholic Church to democracy is often related to the Encyclical &quot;Inter innumeras sollicitudines&quot; (20 Feb 1892) inciting French Catholics to stop trying to restore a King ruling by divine right. France as the biggest Catholic Nation played a great role. However, during the Enlightenment, since the ideas of universal democracy were mainly carried by Libertines, their scriptures were often forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two explanations:&lt;/strong&gt;  The meaning of democracy has evolved, and it is only a political system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Democracy&quot; was seen (until the eve of the 20th century) as what we call nowadays &lt;strong&gt;direct democracy&lt;/strong&gt;, i.e. the Greek model, with a direct imperative mandate. While considered a very nice model by all (including the church), it was seen as inapplicable to modern nations. How would you gather each week several millions of citizens to make public decisions?  How would you use illiterate men elected by their fellow peasants to make a wartime decision?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Monarchy-ruled France the ultimate national consultative assembly (which also had some power over the Parliaments), the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etats_Generaux&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Etats Generaux&lt;/a&gt; had not been summoned since 1684 and it took more than a year to gather them in 1788 (the members were elected with an imperative mandate through the &quot;cahiers de doléances&quot; (lists of grievances). A democracy as we know it today seemed very unrealistic, even if it seemed a very good form of government for free cities like the Italian cities).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The famous and very influential Savoyard writer Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) had previously opposed the stammering democracy of France and the United States as a treacherous form of oligarchy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The expression of a &quot;General Will&quot; could not be made through votes according to him. Maistre thus attacked the base of the Republic; the French theory of &quot;Représentation Nationale&quot; (no need to translate) which forbid every form of Imperative mandate (the origin of the French rejection of lobbyism). He took the example of the French &quot;Terror&quot; (1793-1795) during which the young Republic obviously failed. He hailed instead the Papal electoral system as the best form of &quot;democracy&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So there was no consensus on &quot;democracy&quot; in Europe until the 20th century&lt;/strong&gt; (if you consider England a monarchy at that time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it together it is a &lt;strong&gt;political question&lt;/strong&gt; which the church did not really debate (which system is the better? Personally I see no reason to be a fan of democracy -specially if you separate it from the state of law- since it favours corruption and short term politics, but it buys social peace and it enables people to fully enjoy their dignity). But the Church always stressed the &lt;strong&gt;equal human dignity&lt;/strong&gt; at least since the medieval time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would separate this from the question of papal control, since the popes had been struggling since ever to maintain control &lt;em&gt;over the Catholic Churchs themselves&lt;/em&gt; in Europe (most notably England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example in France a lot of clergymen rallied the Revolution for their own purposes in this struggle, on all sides (the struggle for the control of the church in France since the 17th century opposed mainly the King backed by some French noble bishops, the Pope and his jesuit supporters as well as noblemen opposed to the King, and the Jansenists reformators backed by some noblemen and bourgeois). Catholics seen as overly favouring the Pope over the French Bishops were called &lt;em&gt;ultramontains&lt;/em&gt; (looking over the mountains i.e. over the Alps to Rome) and the ones on the other sides were called &lt;em&gt;gallicans&lt;/em&gt; (as in Anglican, Gallica beeing the Latin geographical name for France).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2161" LastEditorUserId="2161" LastEditDate="2013-06-11T16:01:23.480" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T16:01:23.480" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16611" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16640" CreationDate="2013-06-10T16:06:38.543" Score="4" ViewCount="343" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 11:28 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,&#xA;  and I will give you rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:8 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these verses, some preachers say that Jesus Christ is now our Sabbath spiritually and we no longer have to observe the Sabbath Day, the day is no longer important. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How exactly is this explained? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-10T16:12:45.883" LastActivityDate="2016-06-18T16:33:36.403" Title="How is Sabbath a metaphor of Jesus Christ?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;sabbath&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-06-22T14:09:13.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16605" CreationDate="2013-06-10T16:43:26.880" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rabbis debate the meaning of the verse in &lt;a href=&quot;http://halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Baba_Bathra.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bava Batra 14b&lt;/a&gt;. מִצַּד is a rare combination, but it certainly means &quot;beside&quot; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=16&amp;amp;t=KJV#16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jos. 3:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;v=9&amp;amp;t=KJV#9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jos. 12:9&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rth&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=14&amp;amp;t=KJV#14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ruth 2:14&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&amp;amp;c=20&amp;amp;v=25&amp;amp;t=KJV#25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Sam. 20:25&lt;/a&gt;. I see no instances where it can unequivocally be asserted to mean &quot;in,&quot; &quot;inside,&quot; or &quot;within.&quot; Had Moshe intended to say that it was placed &quot;inside&quot; the Ark, why wouldn't he have written ב or בקרב instead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, using the same verb that is found in Deut. 31:26 (a conjugation of the verb &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7760&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;שׂוּם&lt;/a&gt;, meaning &quot;to put&quot; or &quot;to place&quot;), Isaiah writes (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&amp;amp;c=63&amp;amp;v=11&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isa. 63:11&lt;/a&gt;),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophet uses the prepositional phrase בְּקִרְבּוֹ (&lt;em&gt;bekirbo&lt;/em&gt;). The context makes it clear that God puts or places His Holy Spirit inside an individual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=10&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deut. 10:2&lt;/a&gt; where we find, again, the same verb, but this time, Moshe uses the prepositional prefix ב. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will write on the tables the words that were on the first tables which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, God commands Moshe to put the tables (which have the Ten Commandments written upon them) &lt;strong&gt;in the Ark&lt;/strong&gt;, which is translated from the Hebrew phrase בָּאָרוֹן (&lt;em&gt;ba'aron&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the tablets are placed בָּאָרוֹן, &quot;in the Ark.&quot; Why not write the same for the Torah scroll if indeed it was located &quot;in the Ark&quot;? There's simply nothing which explicitly confirms that it was indeed located in the Ark. Again, the prepositional phrase מִצַּד is never used in a context meaning &quot;inside&quot; or &quot;in.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-06-10T19:00:15.577" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T19:00:15.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16613" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17612" CreationDate="2013-06-10T18:51:22.973" Score="7" ViewCount="754" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Kings 4:29-34 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of&#xA;  understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon’s&#xA;  wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the people of the East, and&#xA;  greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than anyone else,&#xA;  including Ethan the Ezrahite—wiser than Heman, Kalkol and Darda, the&#xA;  sons of Mahol. And his fame spread to all the surrounding nations. He&#xA;  spoke three thousand &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;proverbs&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and his &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;songs&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; numbered a thousand and&#xA;  five. He spoke about &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;plant life&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, from the cedar of Lebanon to the&#xA;  hyssop that grows out of walls. He also spoke about &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;animals and birds,&#xA;  reptiles and fish&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. From all nations people came to listen to Solomon’s&#xA;  wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his&#xA;  wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Solomon was great indeed. Here I can at least see 4 different subjects where he is interested in; &lt;strong&gt;Literature, Poetry, Botany, Zoology&lt;/strong&gt; . Great. But what about &lt;strong&gt;Theology&lt;/strong&gt;! This makes me wonder, was Solomon interested in reading the Torah? The five books of Moses were already there and there are many interesting things in there. It might be possible that he revered the Torah so much that he never thought of studying it? There were also other books like Samuel, Judges, Ruth and others. He met with the God of Israel at least two times and God gave him wisdom and wealth, but still his wives could turn his heart after other gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was Solomon interested in knowing God? Was he interested in studying the scriptures at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-11T04:35:48.477" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T08:33:10.320" Title="Was Solomon interested in studying the Scriptures?" Tags="&lt;torah&gt;&lt;solomon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16614" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16615" CreationDate="2013-06-10T19:06:50.997" Score="12" ViewCount="10912" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the account of creation in Genesis 1, it seems that God describes many of the things He creates as being &amp;quot;good&amp;quot;.  Verse 2 indicates that prior to there being light, there was &amp;quot;darkness over the face of the deep&amp;quot;.  God's first created act, aside perhaps from the heavens and the earth themselves, is light.  He specifically calls the light &amp;quot;good&amp;quot;, but not the darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, was the darkness &amp;quot;not good&amp;quot;, or did God simply not explicitly declare it as such?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; And God saw that &lt;em&gt;the light&lt;/em&gt; was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. &lt;em&gt;(Genesis 1:1-5, ESV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-01-12T08:00:07.787" Title="Why did God describe the light as being good, but not the darkness?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16614" CreationDate="2013-06-10T19:39:04.717" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look over the account, God pronounced all of the things that he created &quot;good,&quot; after he was finished creating them.  But look at what it says about the darkness: the earth was without form and void, and darkness covered everything... and then God said &quot;Let there be light&quot; and Creation began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This implies that darkness wasn't something that God created, but rather the default state, the absence of the light that God created.  (Which is in line with modern scientific knowledge about the nature of light and optics.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T19:39:04.717" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16604" CreationDate="2013-06-10T22:05:47.383" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/hebrews-9-4.html&quot;&gt;commentary on Hebrews 9:4&lt;/a&gt;, John Gill notes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;but how this pot, as well as Aaron's rod, can be said to be in the ark, when it is asserted, at the bringing of the ark into the temple, at the dedication of it by Solomon, that there was nothing in it but two tables of stone, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ki&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;v=9&amp;amp;t=KJV#9&quot;&gt;1 Kings 8:9&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Ch&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;v=10&amp;amp;t=KJV#10&quot;&gt;2 Chr. 5:10&lt;/a&gt;) and both the pot of &quot;manna,&quot; and Aaron's rod, are said to be before the testimony, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=16&amp;amp;v=34&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/34&quot;&gt;Exo. 16:34&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&amp;amp;c=17&amp;amp;v=10&amp;amp;t=KJV#10&quot;&gt;Num. 17:10&lt;/a&gt;) and not in it, &lt;strong&gt;is a difficulty&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Gill supposes that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the preposition &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1722&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot;&gt;ἐν&lt;/a&gt; sometimes signifies &quot;at,&quot; or &quot;with,&quot; as in (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Col&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/1&quot;&gt;Col. 3:1&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=28&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/28&quot;&gt;John 1:28&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/2&quot;&gt;Eph. 6:2&lt;/a&gt;) and so the sense is, that these were near unto it in the most holy place, and might be in the sides of it, though not within it; for there were places in the sides of the ark to put things into (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=31&amp;amp;v=26&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/26&quot;&gt;Deut. 31:26&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/8&quot;&gt;1 Sam. 6:8&lt;/a&gt;) .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Sam. 6:8, the author writes that &quot;vessels of gold&quot; (כְּלֵי הַזָּהָב) were placed beside it (the Ark) (מִצִּדּוֹ). These vessels of God were &quot;five golden hemorrhoids and five golden mice&quot; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/4&quot;&gt;1 Sam. 6:4&lt;/a&gt;). We know without a doubt that the scriptures never mention any of these being present in the Ark itself. So, we may assume that there was some sort of storage space beside the Ark, yet the exact nature of this storage is unknown. Another possibility is that makeshift platforms were placed beside the Ark at various times to hold such things. Again, scripture is not clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet, one thing seems to be clear, and that is that there was nothing in the Ark except the two tables upon which were written the Ten Commandments (cp. 1 Kings 8:9). I would tend to agree with Gill's assertion that the Greek preposition ἐν can mean &quot;with&quot; (it is so translated in the A.V. 140 times). There are many examples of ἐν followed by a relative pronoun being translated as &quot;with&quot; (e.g., &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=7&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/2&quot;&gt;Matt. 7:2&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/4&quot;&gt;Rev. 19:20&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if the pot of manna and Aharon's bud were located by the side of the Ark, they would still be considered &quot;in the presence of YHVH&quot; (לִפְנֵי יְהוָה; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=16&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/33&quot;&gt;Exo. 16:33&lt;/a&gt;) because YHVH dwelt between the &lt;em&gt;kruvim&lt;/em&gt; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#4&quot;&gt;1 Sam. 4:4&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One more point to note. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Num&amp;amp;c=17&amp;amp;v=7&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot;&gt;Num. 17:7&lt;/a&gt;, it is written that Aharon's rod was to be brought &quot;before the testimony&quot;  or &quot;in the presence of the testimony&quot; (לִפְנֵי הָעֵדוּת). Some might assume that the &quot;testimony&quot; (or &quot;witness) referred to here is the two tablets of the Ten Commandments (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=25&amp;amp;t=KJV#16&quot;&gt;Exo. 25:16&lt;/a&gt;). Thus, they may conclude that the rod and the pot of manna had to be in the immediate presence of the tablets contained inside the Ark itself. However, in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=2&amp;amp;perek=16&amp;amp;mefaresh=ezra&quot;&gt;commentary&lt;/a&gt; on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=16&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/34&quot;&gt;Exo. 16:34&lt;/a&gt;, Avraham ibn Ezra writes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;לפני העדות שהוא הארון. ונקרא ארון העדות בעבור לוחות הברית שהיו שם&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is translated as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Before the testimony,&quot; which is the Ark. And it was called &quot;the Ark of the testimony&quot; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=25&amp;amp;t=KJV#22&quot;&gt;Exo. 25:22&lt;/a&gt;) on account of the tablets of the covenant that were there.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;summary&lt;/strong&gt;, it's possible that there is no contradiction and that instead of being &quot;in the Ark,&quot; the pot of manna and Aharon's rod were &quot;with the Ark&quot; inside the Temple and/ or Tabernacle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-06-10T22:05:47.383" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16570" CreationDate="2013-06-10T23:51:06.320" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Massive differences. On the outside, the Jehovah's Witness organization appears to be a regular Christian church. But JWs hold to a very different set of beliefs. Dig deeper and you'll find that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;deny that Jesus &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;don't believe in a literal hell&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;believe that Jesus makes up for your lack, i.e., you do your best and Jesus makes up the difference&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;believe that a limited number of special people go to heaven (144,000 only)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pentecostals&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;believe that Jesus &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;believe that hell is a very real place&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;believe that all those that believe will be saved and will go to heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;believe in baptism of the Holy Spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit such as healing, speaking in tongues, and prophecy are for today, and did not pass away with the original church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-10-02T23:31:38.517" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T23:31:38.517" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16223" CreationDate="2013-06-11T00:43:03.017" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple, there was no blood.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You see, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. (Heb 9:21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you know what the first sacrifice was?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was actually an animal.  It was performed by God himself who clothed (covered) Adam and Eve with its skin/fur after they sinned.  God showed and taught Adam and Eve about the sacrifice.  I have no doubt Adam and Eve also taught their sons this too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the old testament sacrifices are a shadow of what Jesus would do on the cross. The death of the animal and the shedding of a clean and spotless animal is a shadow of Jesus' death.  Later it was made part of the law but it's always been there and it provided a temporary covering for the sins of the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 11:4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Cain brought his sacrifice where was the blood?  he thought he could come to God in his own way.  But God showed Adam and Eve how he was to come.  God then gave Cain a chance to &quot;do right&quot; and bring the right offering in faith, but he did not.  That is why his offering was not accepted.  It's simply because it wasn't an animal sacrifice.  Cain could have asked his brother for a calf but he didn't.  Instead he brought produce from the cursed ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have a read of Hebrews 9 as well, it's also very interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastEditorUserId="4711" LastEditDate="2015-04-10T01:23:06.123" LastActivityDate="2015-04-10T01:23:06.123" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11478" CreationDate="2013-06-11T00:49:44.837" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well the answer is found in Hebrews 11:3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of&#xA;  God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do&#xA;  appear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note: It does not say the worlds were made out of nothing.  It says that it was made out of things which do not appear. And we know it was spoken into being.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So putting Genesis 1 together with this we know that the universe was made by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit out of things which do not appear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastEditorUserId="4711" LastEditDate="2013-06-11T01:11:00.407" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T01:11:00.407" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16621" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16624" CreationDate="2013-06-11T01:26:26.477" Score="11" ViewCount="977" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the historic and current views of the Catholic Church concerning Masons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3926" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-11T12:33:13.957" LastActivityDate="2014-07-24T16:18:33.047" Title="How does the Catholic church view Freemasons?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;freemasonry&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2118" CreationDate="2013-06-11T01:36:00.563" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, from a human perspective yes.  Because the consequences of some sin actions affect more than the one person.  And it's quite easy to make a judgement on which sin is worse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But from an eternal perspective it doesn't actually matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.&amp;quot; Rom 3:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The wages of sin is death ...&amp;quot; Rom 6:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, it doesn't really matter which sin is worse than another.  What matters more is &amp;quot;what are you doing about Jesus?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &amp;quot;I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes&#xA;to the Father except through me. John 14:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you haven't believed in his salvation then you won't care if you were a good person when you were alive on the earth 1000 years from now, not with God in heaven but burning in hell.   It's true, but it's not good news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of&#xA;yourselves, it is the gift of God Eph 2:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The good news is that we are saved by grace through faith.  In other words, believe on Jesus and confess it.  It's available to all who would do just that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T01:36:00.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16621" CreationDate="2013-06-11T02:42:00.023" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church has offered the most persistent opposition to Freemasonry. The Church has prohibited its members from being Freemasons since 1738. Since then the Church made it clear that membership in Masonic associations will lead to excommunication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church accuses that the Free Masons incorporate Deism and Naturalism as part of their masonic beliefs. Both of these philosophies have been condemned by the Church as atheistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the Second Vatican Council many thought that the Church was going soft on Free Masonry. Questions arose in particular because the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law removed specific mention of Freemasonry from Canon 1374, which penalized &amp;quot;person[s] who join an association which plots against the Church&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to these questions, the Church position was reiterated by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1983. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger being the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the apostolic approval of Pope John Paul II, issued a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Declaration on Masonic Associations&lt;/a&gt;, which reiterated the Church's objections to Freemasonry. The Declaration states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association(s) remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Responding specifically to the question of why mention of Freemasonry had been removed from the Code of Canon Law, Cardinal Ratzinger stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...  this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, the editors chose not to list specific organizations by name, but rather to prohibit the entire category regardless of the names of individual organizations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Catholics believe that the prophecy in revelation about the second beast (Revelation 13:11) is made about the Free Masons. But the Church has never openly made any such claims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4673" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-07-24T16:18:33.047" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16625" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16628" CreationDate="2013-06-11T02:42:01.563" Score="14" ViewCount="8326" Body="&lt;p&gt;For instance, it is clear that God wanted the Sabbath laws to continue forever, based on these passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe&#xA;  the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant&#xA;  (Exodus 31:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually,&#xA;  being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant&#xA;  (Leviticus 24:8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your&#xA;  souls, by a statute for ever (Leviticus 16:31).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from&#xA;  one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me,&#xA;  saith the LORD (Isaiah 66:23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet systems in the OT do come to an end. Look at these two passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the&#xA;  bonnets on them: and the priest’s office shall be theirs for a&#xA;  perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons&#xA;  (Exodus 29:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know from Hebrews 7:11-12 that Aaron’s office has been shut down:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under&#xA;  it the people received the law,) what further need was there that&#xA;  another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be&#xA;  called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed,&#xA;  there is made of necessity a change also of the law (Hebrews 7:11-12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the words for perpetual and related words actually mean &quot;a very long time,&quot; and not forever. Perhaps they are to be understood in a colloquial sense like when we say, &quot;It took forever for the bus to get here,&quot; and they are not to be taken literally. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are people in Christianity who believe that we should follow the Law because it continues forever, even though it has been fulfilled in Christ and put aside, according to the book of Hebrews and other books. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under which conditions, or on what basis, are we to understand when the Bible really means forever when it uses such words? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-26T15:54:01.513" LastActivityDate="2016-08-02T19:32:45.627" Title="When the Bible says &quot;forever,&quot; how can we tell it really means forever?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;&lt;word-study&gt;&lt;eternity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-08-04T09:02:28.347" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16625" CreationDate="2013-06-11T03:03:56.953" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps this isn't the answer you're looking for - but how about until God says otherwise? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you point out, most of these occurrences seem to literally mean &quot;forever&quot; - and we should probably understand them as such. However, if we hold to the rule that &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/79/what-does-it-mean-that-scripture-interprets-scripture&quot;&gt;Scripture interprets Scripture&lt;/a&gt;, we know that passages (particularly in the NT) sometimes provide additional explanation that shows otherwise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus if later in the Bible we are told some practice has become obsolete (such as the ceremonial law), we know that the &quot;forever&quot; was not literal. But for the other &quot;forevers&quot; - like the Lord's Day - we have nothing that says to stop, so we continue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind, too, that many of our still-active &quot;forevers&quot; will come to an end someday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, maybe not the answer you wanted, but I think this the right way to approach it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="194" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T03:03:56.953" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16621" CreationDate="2013-06-11T03:13:14.440" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics (and all Christians and people of goodwill) are called to do what is right in all circumstances and follow the dictates of a well formed conscience so there are a few serious problems with Free Masonry, most of which can be said of any secret society. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A group that promises a deeper unfolding of a mystery as you progress through the ranks means they believe there is something to know further beyond what God has taught in His Revelation.  That's a violation of the first commandment; it is believing there is spiritual truth outside of what God has revealed. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Masons say they believe in a higher power, a great architect, and this wouldn't be any worse than the 12 step process for Addicts, except that it doesn't imply that the higher power is good or loving. Catholicism and most Christians teach that God is good all the time. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are Catholic fraternal orders and non-Masonic fraternal orders that are licit and laudable for one to be a member of.  But, being a member of secret society with bylaws that if followed take its members outside the social compact.  Between Masons, to protect one another from the law, it is probable that ones yes may not mean yes and ones no may not mean no&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T03:13:14.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16625" CreationDate="2013-06-11T03:42:53.833" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;While both עולם (&lt;em&gt;olam&lt;/em&gt;) and Greek αἰών (&lt;em&gt;aiōn&lt;/em&gt;) can mean &amp;quot;eternity,&amp;quot; they can also be limited to a particular duration of time or &amp;quot;an age.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Olam Ha-Zeh and Olam Ha-Ba&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews typically divided time into two ages or worlds (עולמים): &amp;quot;this age/ world&amp;quot; or עולם הזה (&lt;em&gt;olam ha-zeh&lt;/em&gt;), and &amp;quot;the age/ world to come,&amp;quot; or עולם הבא (&lt;em&gt;olam ha-ba&lt;/em&gt;). In this particular context, we know that עולם couldn't possibly be understood as &amp;quot;eternity,&amp;quot; since there would not be a &amp;quot;this eternity&amp;quot; and an &amp;quot;eternity to come.&amp;quot; For more information, see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_15058.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jewish Virtual Library&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Contexts Denoting Finite Duration&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are certainly contexts in scripture wherein עולם simply cannot refer to &amp;quot;eternity.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=21&amp;amp;v=6&amp;amp;t=KJV#6&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exo. 21:6&lt;/a&gt; (KJV), it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;וְהִגִּישֹׁו אֲדֹנָיו אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּישֹׁו אֶל־הַדֶּלֶת אֹו אֶל־הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת־אָזְנֹו בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדֹו לְעֹלָם&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the English phrase &amp;quot;for ever&amp;quot; is translated from the Hebrew word לְעֹלָם (&lt;em&gt;le'olam&lt;/em&gt;). But, could a slave really serve a master for eternity? Such is not possible, since every slave was mortal and would eventually die. In fact, what this tells us is that death frees man from the commandments (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=7&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#top&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rom. 7:1-4&lt;/a&gt;). This is why a Jew who is born again is no longer under any obligation to keep the commandments of the Old Covenant (i.e., the Torah), including the Sabbath. Now, if by chance particular commandments were ratified under a New Covenant, then an individual would keep those, for it's an entirely different covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, Rashi says that the phrase לְעֹלָם in Exo. 21:6 does not mean eternity, but rather, עד היובל (&lt;em&gt;ad ha-yovel&lt;/em&gt;, i.e. until the &amp;quot;Jubilee,&amp;quot; which occurs every 50th year; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&amp;amp;c=25&amp;amp;v=11&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/54&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lev. 25:54&lt;/a&gt;). So, in theory, if a master had taken a slave on the 49th year and 360ish day of the year, and the 50-year Jubilee occurred a few days later, the slave was able to go free. Ergo, לְעֹלָם may only refer to a few days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many learned Jewish scholars have contended that the Torah of Moshe is eternal because various words used in reference to commandments seem to imply eternality. On the other hand, other learned Jewish scholars have contended that these words do not imply the eternality of the Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his treatise ספר העיקרים (&lt;em&gt;Sefer ha-Ikkarim&lt;/em&gt;), Rabbi Yosef Albo (1380–1444) of Spain wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;יש מי שחשב להביא ראיה לנצחיות תורת משה ממה שנמצא בכתוב בקצת מצוות יזכיר לשון חוקת עולם ובקצתם לדורותיכם ובקצתם אות היא לעולם...אבל לא באו אלו הלשונות להורות על נצחיות התורה כלל, כי אפשר לומר שבהבטל שאר המצוות יבטלו אלו גם כן.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is translated as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are those who have thought to introduce proof of the eternality of the Torah of Moshe from that which is found in scripture with a few of the commandments. They mention the expression &amp;quot;חוקת עולם&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;a statute of an עולם&amp;quot;), and לדורותיכם (&amp;quot;in your generations&amp;quot;), and אות היא לעולם (&amp;quot;it is a sign לעולם&amp;quot;)...But these expressions are not introduced to indicate the eternality of the entire Torah, for it is possible to assert that when the rest of the commandments are abolished, these will likewise [be abolished].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sefer ha-Ikkarim, Book III, Ch. XVIII&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, he wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;מלשון עולם או עד עולם או חוקת עולם או לעולם אין ראיה, כי כבר ימצאו אלו הלשונות ודומיהן על זמן מוגבל, לא על זמן בלתי בעל תכלית.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is translated as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither is there any proof from the expression עולם (&lt;em&gt;olam&lt;/em&gt;) nor עד עולם (&lt;em&gt;ad olam&lt;/em&gt;) nor חוקת עולם (&lt;em&gt;chukkat olam&lt;/em&gt;) nor לעולם (&lt;em&gt;le'olam&lt;/em&gt;), for these expressions and their like are already found [to be] until a limited time, not an infinite time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;ibid&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example Albo gives is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Pro&amp;amp;c=22&amp;amp;v=28&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/28&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pro. 22:28&lt;/a&gt;, in which it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not remove the landmark of [עֹולָם] which your fathers made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;אַל־תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עֹולָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֲבֹותֶיךָ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, this landmark could not have been made by their fathers in eternity. Rather, the גְּבוּל was a boundary made for a plot of land made by one's ancestors. When a father died, this land was inherited by a child. Hence, the commandments instructs one not to re-define the boundary, as it would infringe on another person's land (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=19&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/14&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut. 19:14&lt;/a&gt;). Thus, we see that עֹולָם in this particular context does not refer to eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T22:16:11.607" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16630" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16634" CreationDate="2013-06-11T05:09:30.053" Score="4" ViewCount="1552" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically, which churches practice child-baptism but not confirmation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Brazilian friend recently shocked me by saying that her church does not practice confirmations. The wiki page for Baptism has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;extensive comparison of baptism rites&lt;/a&gt;, however it does not go into detail about confirmation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand it the following is standard in the major denominations. Perhaps it would be useful to explain the differences relative to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Baptism is an induction into the Christian faith which necessarily&#xA;  involves a public declaration of faith and&#xA;  wetting/immersion/submersion with water. If the baptism is performed&#xA;  before the person has 'come of age' (usually coincides with puberty&#xA;  and reaching the age of 13 years), then the parents and godparents&#xA;  make the declaration on behalf of the child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Once a baptised child has 'come of age' (as described earlier) they&#xA;  may choose to undergo confirmation, which is a public declaration of&#xA;  faith and does not necessarily involve water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A person can only take part in communion if they have undergone an&#xA;  adult baptism or confirmation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4713" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T19:20:09.093" Title="What are the differences between demoninations regarding baptism/confirmation?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16632" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16633" CreationDate="2013-06-11T08:15:16.323" Score="4" ViewCount="21094" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 139:16 (KJV) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being&#xA;  unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in&#xA;  continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My understanding of this verse:&lt;/em&gt; God has written down the process of how our bodies will be formed. Thus, referring to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;embryology&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 139:16 (NIV) Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days&#xA;  ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to&#xA;  be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My understanding of this verse:&lt;/em&gt; God has written down how many days I should live on this earth. Thus referring to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;predestination&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. This translation is very hard to digest for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should we interpret this verse?  I myself cannot accept the NIV way of translation because that would put God responsible for everything in my life, whether good or bad, and that even my destiny of going to Hell or Heaven is predestined. Some writers like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Warren&quot;&gt;Rick Warren&lt;/a&gt;  prefer this NIV way of translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the view of Mainstream Christian Denominations on this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-12T02:34:26.103" LastActivityDate="2020-03-16T02:34:16.243" Title="All my days are ordained before I was born?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;&lt;niv&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16632" CreationDate="2013-06-11T08:55:26.137" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Pulpit Commentary&lt;/em&gt; given at &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/psalms/139-16.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one reference&lt;/a&gt; says (my emphasis):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Verse 16. &amp;mdash; &lt;em&gt;Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;&lt;/em&gt; or, &quot;my embryo.&quot; The Hebrew text has but the single word גלמי, which probably means, &quot;the still unformed embryonic mass&quot; (Hengstenberg). &lt;em&gt;And in thy book all my members were written;&lt;/em&gt; literally, &lt;strong&gt;all of them; but the pronoun has no antecedent.&lt;/strong&gt; Professor Cheyne and others suspect the passage to have suffered corruption. But the general meaning can scarcely have been very different from that assigned to the passage in the Authorized Version. &lt;em&gt;Which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.&lt;/em&gt; Modern critics mostly translate &quot;the days,&quot; or &quot;my days,&quot; &quot;were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them;&quot; i.e. &quot;my life was planned out by God, and settled, before I began to be.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/psalms/139-16.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Young's Literal Translation&lt;/a&gt; gives&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mine unformed substance Thine eyes saw, And on Thy book all of them are written, The days they were formed &amp;mdash; And not one among them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;they&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; have nothing to refer back to, it's a matter of conjecture/scholarship what that pronoun should be replaced with. Some translations go for the embryology approach; others [arguably more] go for predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T08:55:26.137" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16630" CreationDate="2013-06-11T10:20:43.553" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think your question is probably about infant baptism, not child baptism. The latter isn't really a term used by churches. Those that would baptism young children but not infants would generally call this &quot;believers baptism&quot;. If the child is too young to make even a simplistic declaration of faith then they probably fall under the umbrella of &quot;infant&quot; baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of those churches that practice infant baptism some major ones (including Catholics) usually implement some form of confirmation before offering communion and full membership in the visible church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other side, there are many traditions (some Presbyterians and other Reformed traditions for example) that understand children of believers to be full participants in the visible church—recipients of God's grace and promises and as such responsible for keeping his commandments. In addition to infant baptism, these churches will usually offer communion to children of believing members. Children are both under the instruction and discipline of their family and, like their family heads, also under the instruction and discipline of the church. They may, of course, choose as they grow up to reject what they have been taught and believe or practice something contrary to the teachings entrusted to them. In this case they are automatically considered responsible based on what they have been given and like any other member of the church, disciplined up to an including excommunication which is simply a declaration that their life is in some way unrepentant and therefore not to be included in the visible church. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16375/30&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; for further explanation of what that is about.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T19:20:09.093" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16614" CreationDate="2013-06-11T10:27:16.480" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the idea of darkness being the default state is simple it is not biblically correct nor is it what science believes. What exactly the universe looked like before it was standardized by the big bang is a question for astrophysicist. All we know is it was tiny and hyper-dense. So like a rock and its insides are not dark the pre-universe also wasn't dark. As best we know there was nothing physical outside of the pre universe you couldn't build a machine to take you outside of it just like you cannot build a machine to take you outside the current universe. There was no where physically else to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isa 45:7  I form the light, and create darkness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.&#xA;Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.&#xA;Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.&#xA;Gen 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isa 45:18  For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending exactly on where you put your big bang in Gen 1 the result is the same creation of light and calling it good. Looking at Isa 45:7 we see that God did not actively create darkness but allowed it to be created. (As the verb create is in what is called the Hebrew Qal type. Similar to our tenses Hebrew has causative and permissive or little association verbs.) Again the same Hebrew word is used for &amp;quot;vain&amp;quot; in Isa 45:18 and &amp;quot;without form&amp;quot; in Gen 1:2. Our God doesn't actively create situations which are without form and void and dark. Since it was not created by God it is not good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T10:27:16.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16613" CreationDate="2013-06-11T10:51:21.193" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Proverbs 1:1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Proverbs 4:20-23&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;My son, attend to my words;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;incline thine ear unto my sayings.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Let them not depart from thine eyes;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;keep them in the midst of thine heart.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;For they are life unto those that find them,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and health to all their flesh.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Keep thy heart with all diligence;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;for out of it are the issues of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Proverbs 21:2-4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Every way of a man is right in his own eyes:&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;but the LORD pondereth the hearts.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;To do justice and judgment&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;An high look, and a proud heart,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes Solomon wrote the book a Proverbs which magnifies God's wisdom in the seemingly small and yet altogether important things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T19:31:53.427" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16632" CreationDate="2013-06-11T14:32:34.657" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) denominations such as my denomination (Presbyterian Church in America) indeed use this verse as support for predestination, especially as it pertains to God's eternal plan (referenced &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/the-reformed-doctrine-of-predestination-by-loraine-boettner/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Few Arminians use this verse as a proof text &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; predestination, although I did find one &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Theological/freewill_predestination.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the bible it says (Psalm 139:16) that God knows all our days in advance, yet we live one at a time. God has a foreknowledge of the future and knows it to the detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ask yourself. If [predestination is true], why would we need to live one day at a time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, this is a popular verse for opponents of Abortion (as a whole from verses &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:13-16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;13-16&lt;/a&gt;). Here is an excerpt from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/abortion-tony-grant-sermon-on-abortion-85035.asp?Page=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sermon&lt;/a&gt; on this subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But probably the best known passage of Scripture on this subject is Psalm 139:13-16. A couple of Sabbaths ago I preached on God’s omnipresence, the doctrine that God is always present in every event and God always is with us in every place and circumstance. For that earlier sermon, I took as my text Psalm 139:7-12. In the verses before us today, in verses 13-16 of that same Psalm, the Psalmist continues to describe God’s presence with us, even in the womb. In v13, speaking of God, the Psalmist says, “It was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” In verses 15 and 16 the Psalmist praises God saying, “My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.”&#xA;The Psalmist says that when I was conceived, that was the first day of my life God was there with me. When my heart began to beat, God was there with me. When my fingers and toes and muscle and brain formed, God was there with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T14:32:34.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16611" CreationDate="2013-06-11T14:57:55.580" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil(Matt 5:17, KJV).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fulfillment Jesus talks about is His perfection in lieu of our sin. We cannot live by the Law to the letter because we are sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;(Romans 3:23, KJV).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ died on the cross, he offered His perfect life as a substitution for ours. When we die, we are seen as if we are Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So do we need to honor the Sabbath? Yes! We honor the Sabbath not because we must in order to achieve salvation, but because we want to live by the example Christ set for us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4718" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T14:57:55.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16611" CreationDate="2013-06-11T15:40:09.203" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never heard it explicitly preached that &quot;Jesus is our Sabbath&quot;. However there is certainly Christian teaching that God promises a Sabbath rest for his people, apart from the Seventh Day sabbath (sabbaths by the way referred to all kinds of rest and special periods, not just the seventh day). An important passage in this teaching is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%204&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 4:1-13&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That passage doesn't directly address the question of sabbath-keeping on Earth. However other Bible passages do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians%202&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Colossian 2:16-17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 14:1-14&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There isn't universal agreement that these passages mean we do not need to keep the Sabbath, but they are widely cited verses. The Matthew 12 passage is also often combined with the nearby passage &quot;The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath&quot; to indicate that the Sabbath is not of ultimate importance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-06-12T14:11:46.180" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T14:11:46.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7121" CreationDate="2013-06-11T15:50:12.450" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think the two acts are related I read it just as it is. Jesus showed them the importance of a sword to defend themselves and others but when Jesus was arrested he told peter not to fight for this is my fathers cup and it must be fulfilled. If Jesus had a army of 1000000 that undoubtly could defeat Rome would he to not call them off because it was him going about his fathers will? To say that he uses swords for one event only and the cutting of the ear to rebuke violence is adding context that is not there to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4721" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T15:50:12.450" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16642" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-11T16:00:32.207" Score="3" ViewCount="917" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read here that most of the modern Christians believe in a Triune God and Consider Jesus to be  the God in trinity.  I was wondering What Christianity thinks about the God of present day Judaism , as they believe in a strictly monotheistic non trinitarian version of God as believed by the people at the time of Jesus and people before Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a scope for accommodating the  monotheistic belief of Jews in God along with the trinitarian belief of Christians? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="3812" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T16:50:57.673" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T16:50:57.673" Title="What Christianity thinks about the God of present day Judaism?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;israel&gt;&lt;jews&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="18" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-06-17T09:21:24.717" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16642" CreationDate="2013-06-11T16:18:48.770" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally, Christians and Jews worship God the Father in similar fashion, but Christians (meaning &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/888/1039&quot;&gt;Mainstream or Nicene aka Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant&lt;/a&gt; Christianity) believe God to be larger than just that.  Nicene Christianity confesses that God the Father is &quot;just&quot; one person amongst three within the Godhead.  Muslims and Jews reject this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the Trinity is an offense to Muslims and Jews alike, it is nonetheless fundamental to the &lt;em&gt;full&lt;/em&gt; understanding of the Godhead.  Christians believe that God is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/13655/1039&quot;&gt;three distinct persons who are one&lt;/a&gt;.  This &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/13655/1039&quot;&gt;is a paradox. This is nonetheless true&lt;/a&gt;, for our limited understanding really precludes an obvious metaphor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we would focus on the distinct personalities of God as three individuals (which while technically &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8883/1039&quot;&gt;the heresy of 'Tritheism' is nonetheless useful&lt;/a&gt; ) for the discussion here), then we could say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Christian understanding of God the Father is primarily (if not entirely) based on the same Scriptures as that of the Jews.  As such, when a Christian prays to God the Father, he could name him &quot;Yahweh&quot; and be perfectly consistent with the Jewish understanding.  (Indeed, it would also be very similiar to that of a Muslim).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christians pray to God in the name of Jesus, the Son.  Christians fundamentally believe that the Son is God but that he is also Man.  He is not a separate God, but rather we perceive him in different ways.  When Jesus was incarnated, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15624/what-is-the-basis-of-the-view-that-jesus-was-separated-from-the-father-and-holy/15656#15656&quot;&gt;he showed a certain distinction from God the Father (cf. Patripassianism)&lt;/a&gt;, and yet &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4464/does-jesus-ever-claim-to-be-god-or-the-son-of-god&quot;&gt;there is no error in his saying, &quot;I and the Father are one.&quot;&lt;/a&gt; He &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7448/1039&quot;&gt;taught nothing that was not of accord with his Father&lt;/a&gt;.  Ironically, given your current name, He said &quot;Nevertheless, Not my Will but Yours Be Done.&quot; In contrast, Jews reject any notion of the divinity of the Son, ergo, they do not agree with Christians in this aspect of God's true nature.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christians believe that Holy Spirit &quot;proceeds from the Father through the Son, and with the Son, He is worshipped and glorified.&quot;  I'd argue that in practice, most Christians really don't know what to do with the Holy Spirit - but they acknowledge that like the Son, he is God - though again, Jews (and Muslims) would disagree.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, the best answer is to say that Jews and Christians do worship the same God (specifically God the Father), but that Christians have a &quot;fuller&quot; (or &quot;more complex&quot; take your pick) understanding of his nature and how He relates to himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T18:20:20.810" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16642" CreationDate="2013-06-11T17:12:26.780" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) I would say that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God, but that they have different views on the nature of prophets, the identity of the Son, and the identity of the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is Elohim from the Old Testament&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus Christ is a separate being from the Father and is his Son. He is also known as Jehova in the Old Testament.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Holy Ghost is a separate being from the Father and Son and is a spirit without a body.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophets are Mortal men who are called by the Father to be his spokespersons. They are still called today and continue to write scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be continued as I have time at work....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4725" LastEditorUserId="4725" LastEditDate="2013-06-12T17:50:21.610" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T17:50:21.610" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16632" CreationDate="2013-06-11T17:19:53.367" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Foreordination is not the same as predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ordination in the Bible typically refers to being set apart to the office in the Priesthood, for example, the members of the house of Aaron were ordained to take care of the tabernacle during the exodus and later the temple. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great example of someone who did not follow through with his ordination is Kind David. Even though he was ordained to great things he committed great sin and lost his opportunity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the bible refers to foreordination it means that God has identified the potential of certain individuals and ordained them to do great things before they were born. That said, someone does not have to follow through with their potential because we were each given what's probably the most difficult gift for any father to give: the freedom to choose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4725" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-06-11T19:55:27.303" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T19:55:27.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12257" CreationDate="2013-06-11T17:39:25.367" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there's a much simpler answer. If you read the old or new testament and read about the temple you will find that only certain individuals were allowed in those buildings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just think of how secret the items in the Ark of the Covenant were, The stuff inside of it was so secret the penalty for even touching the box that held the items was instant death!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4725" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T17:39:25.367" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6039" CreationDate="2013-06-11T17:48:19.430" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A little different Mormon angle is what you would read in Amos 3:7. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to that verse the Lord doesn't do anything without consulting his prophets. This makes perfect sense because that's exactly what the bible is, the Lord gave his prophets direction in how to lead his people and the prophets wrote down it down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following this logic, it makes sense that wherever God has had people who followed him he would give them leadership through prophets, and those prophets would write down the direction they were given in the form of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4725" LastActivityDate="2013-06-11T17:48:19.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16642" CreationDate="2013-06-11T18:40:08.523" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Possibly, but it's complicated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My view:&lt;/strong&gt;  It's hard to answer that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God or not because everyone claim that they have the Truth. Even I myself will firmly say that what I believe is the Truth(Christianity). The deeper we go inside any of these religion, the bigger  their differences are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Our source is the same:&lt;/strong&gt; We all sprang from one root and there are many branches, more will come as time passes. First, there was only the Jewish religion. Secondly, Christianity sprang up from Judaism and the Third is Islam. Now, Mormons, Bahai and so on....&#xA;More branches will keep on coming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is up to the individuals to decide what is the true religion. As for myself, after studying all major religions, I found satisfaction in Christianity with strong believe in the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My personal belief:&lt;/strong&gt; Judaism is the parent religion for any Abrahamic religions and it deserves respect from all. Where would we all be if Judaism was not there? I do not like it when the Qura'n makes insults about Judaism. Christianity is the completion or final stage of Abrahamic religion. Islam is a heresy created by borrowing the concepts from Judaism and Christianity. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;(This is only my personal belief and please don't take it seriously or personally. Thanks)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Christian God is exactly the same as the Jewish God. Christians simply see Him as a God with three personalities and that He sent His Son as the Messiah to die for our sins. What ever the Jews believed before the birth of Jesus Christ is also the same belief for the Christians. The Scripture of the Jews contains prophecies about the Messiah to come. The New Testament confirms with many evidence that Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised by the Jewish Scripture. The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah to come. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament gives a more detail picture of who the Messiah is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 22:41-46 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;  While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”&#xA;  “The son of David,” they replied. &#xA;  He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the&#xA;  Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’   (Psalm 110)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the Word of God, the promised Messiah who was with God from the beginning and born as man without sin to die for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:14 (NIV) The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.&#xA;  We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came&#xA;  from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-12T05:16:17.157" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T05:16:17.157" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16651" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-11T20:44:01.603" Score="7" ViewCount="961" Body="&lt;p&gt;A simple google earth search turns up hundreds of &quot;First Congregational Churches&quot; all over the U.S. What is the significance of this name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2305" LastEditorUserId="2305" LastEditDate="2013-06-12T15:52:30.453" LastActivityDate="2015-11-14T05:45:43.690" Title="Why are there so many First Congregational Churches in the US?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16653" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16655" CreationDate="2013-06-11T23:18:01.283" Score="5" ViewCount="4027" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my research I have concluded that infant-baptisms and confirmations are practiced in the PCA, however it's not clear whether the latter is a necessary part of PCA doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clarify, I regard confirmation as the one-off reaffirmation of the public profession that was made on behalf of the individual's parents and godparents during infant-baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the comments of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16634/4713&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; there is a dispute over confirmation versus a &quot;public profession of faith&quot;. If this distinction does exist, what is the difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If confirmation or a similar practice is consistent throughout the PCA, what are the characteristics of it? What sets it apart from other denominations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4713" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T11:18:53.077" Title="Is confirmation part of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) doctrine?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16654" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16658" CreationDate="2013-06-12T01:05:19.500" Score="14" ViewCount="33649" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%203:14-23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Rev. 3:14-22&lt;/a&gt;(ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of&#xA;  the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's&#xA;  creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you&#xA;  were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither&#xA;  hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, I am&#xA;  rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are&#xA;  wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy&#xA;  from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white&#xA;  garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your&#xA;  nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you&#xA;  may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous&#xA;  and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears&#xA;  my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him,&#xA;  and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with&#xA;  me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on&#xA;  his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to&#xA;  the churches.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, Jesus Christ wanted the church to be either hot or cold, but never lukewarm. So my question is what does hot, cold, and lukewarm represent for this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-16T23:08:43.717" LastActivityDate="2018-10-14T04:11:20.793" Title="What does being lukewarm mean in contrast with being hot or cold for the church of Laodicea?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16653" CreationDate="2013-06-12T02:31:49.503" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chapter 57 from The Book of Church Order--part of the PCA's doctrinal standards, along with the Westminster Confession of Faith--(a link to such in pdf format can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcaac.org/resources/bco/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) is titled &quot;The Admission of Persons to Sealing Ordinances&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Children who have been infant-baptised are not to take part in communion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;57-1.  &lt;strong&gt;Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially&#xA;  those  dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under&#xA;  the care of  the Church.&lt;/strong&gt; They are to be taught to love God, and to&#xA;  obey and serve the  Lord Jesus Christ. When they are able to understand&#xA;  the Gospel, they should  be earnestly reminded that they are members&#xA;  of the Church by birthright, and  that it is their duty and privilege&#xA;  personally to accept Christ, to confess Him  before men, and to seek&#xA;  admission to the Lord’s Supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each congregation (represented by a council of elected elders) decides when such a person is ready to received communion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;57-2.  &lt;strong&gt;The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel&#xA;  cannot  be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the&#xA;  Session, whose  office it is to judge, after careful examination, the&#xA;  qualifications of those who  apply for admission to sealing&#xA;  ordinances.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this time a public profession is recommended but not necessary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;57-4.  &lt;strong&gt;It is recommended, as edifying and proper, that baptized&#xA;  persons,  when admitted by the Session to the Lord’s Supper, make a&#xA;  public profession  of their faith in the presence of the&#xA;  congregation.&lt;/strong&gt; But in all cases, there should be a clear recognition&#xA;  of their previous relation to the church as  baptized members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the PCA does have a process of confirmation however it is not necessary public and it is at the discretion of the congregation (via the elders) as to the nature of confirmation - whether classes are required, who will be admitted, whether there will be a ceremony. In practice many churches do require and offer classes for confirmees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="4713" LastEditDate="2013-06-12T11:18:53.077" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T11:18:53.077" CommentCount="0" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-06-12T02:31:49.503" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16651" CreationDate="2013-06-12T02:37:03.190" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Assuming you don't know about Congregationalism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Congregationalism is a system of governance where the local church independently and autonomously runs its own affairs. It does not specify any doctrine or hierarchy, which allows for the existence of &lt;em&gt;'Methodist Congregational'&lt;/em&gt; churches and &lt;em&gt;'Uniting Congregational'&lt;/em&gt; churches. There are two major denominations in the US which are Congregational throughout their structure - the &lt;em&gt;'National Association of Congregational Christian Churches'&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;'Conservative Congregational Christian Conference'&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Congregational churches are usually Protestant although there are also Congregationalist variants of other religious institutions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;As for the &quot;first&quot; bit&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't been able to track down any conclusive evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipaedia lists approximately 100 churches called &quot;First Congregational Church&quot; and only 2 called &quot;Second Congregational Church&quot;. They are all in the US.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4713" LastEditorUserId="4713" LastEditDate="2013-06-12T22:37:00.740" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T22:37:00.740" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16654" CreationDate="2013-06-12T03:23:25.227" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general, hot and cold are understood as being either strongly for God (on fire, passionate), strongly against God (cold to the things of God) and lukewarm as apathetic ( listless, having passion for neither side).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarke's Commentary on the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou art neither cold nor hot - Ye are neither heathens nor Christians&#xA;  - neither good nor evil - neither led away by false doctrine, nor thoroughly addicted to that which is true. In a word, they were&#xA;  listless and indifferent, and seemed to care little whether heathenism&#xA;  or Christianity prevailed. Though they felt little zeal either for the&#xA;  salvation of their own souls or that of others, yet they had such a&#xA;  general conviction of the truth and importance of Christianity, that&#xA;  they could not readily give it up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know thy works,.... Which were far from being perfect, and not so&#xA;  good as those of the former church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;that thou art neither cold nor hot; she was not &quot;cold&quot;, or without&#xA;  spiritual life, at least in many of her members, as all men by nature&#xA;  are, and carnal professors be; she was alive, but not lively: nor was&#xA;  she wholly without spiritual affections and love; to God, and Christ,&#xA;  to his people, ways, truths, and ordinances; she had love, but the&#xA;  fervency of it was abated: nor was she without spiritual breathings&#xA;  and desires altogether, as dead men are; or without the light and&#xA;  knowledge of the Gospel, and a profession of it, and yet she was not&#xA;  &quot;hot&quot;; her love to God and Christ, and the saints, was not ardent and&#xA;  flaming; it was not like coals of fire, that give most vehement flame,&#xA;  which many waters cannot quench the had not fervency of spirit in the&#xA;  service of the Lord; nor was she zealous for the truths of the Gospel,&#xA;  and for the ordinances of it, and for the house of God and its&#xA;  discipline; nor did she warmly oppose all sin, and every error and&#xA;  false way,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T03:23:25.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16654" CreationDate="2013-06-12T07:39:19.380" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to what was said before hot and cold being opposites one a passionate for God and another being cool. Both hot and warm water were considered luxuries during the days in which the epistles were written and both had positive qualities. Stagnant lukewarm water however had a special meaning to the Laodicean's as is related in the following explanation from March 5 2013 &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0972545425&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sparking Gem From the Greek by Rick Renner&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The city of Laodicea was built in a region that was full of seismic activity and had experienced many earthquakes. As often happens in a seismic area, vents came up from the depths of the earth, allowing boiling hot water to reach the surface. In the nearby city of Hierapolis, these hot springs were famous. People came from great distances to bathe in those waters, believing they had medicinal powers. An experience in those waters was viewed to be therapeutic and effective in improving one's health.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another city named Colosse was not too far away. As Hierapolis was known for its hot springs, Colosse was known for its cold waters. Just as people journeyed to Hierapolis to bathe in the hot springs for health purposes, people would travel great distances to vacation in Colosse, where they could invigorate themselves by taking frequent dips into the famous, refreshing, cool-to-freezing waters of that city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Laodicea may have been the biggest and richest city in the area, but it had neither hot nor cold water. Therefore, the people of Laodicea had to leave their luxurious homes and travel to Colosse if they wanted to enjoy fresh, cool water. On the other hand, those who desired to soak in the hot springs had to travel six miles to Hierapolis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once in an attempt to bring the hot water from Hierapolis to Laodicea, a huge construction project was commenced. The goal of those who initiated the project was to build pipes that would channel the hot water six miles from Hierapolis to the city of Laodicea. The pipes effectively delivered the water - a real feat of construction at that time. Sadly, however, the water lost its heat along the way. By the time the water reached Laodicea, it was not only lukewarm, but it had developed a sickening, nauseating taste. The taste was so revolting that no one wanted to drink it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T15:58:10.940" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16654" CreationDate="2013-06-12T08:44:56.293" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laodicean&quot;&gt;Laodicean meaning:&lt;/a&gt; lukewarm or indifferent in religion or politics&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laodicea_ad_Lycum&quot;&gt;Laodicea&lt;/a&gt; was a wealthy city having a lukewarm water supply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There can two possible meanings for the word &quot;Lukewarm&quot; in this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Apathetic:&lt;/strong&gt;  The people in the Church of Laodicea were losing their enthusiasm for Jesus Christ and his ministries. They were satisfied with the spiritual blessings given to them when they received Jesus Christ. They simply enjoyed their salvation and had no zeal to preach the Gospel to the lost around them. They became stagnant and not giving out anything. Cold water is good for drinking, hot water is good for luxurious drinks, but lukewarm water is tasteless and better to spit it out. Jesus warned them that he will spit them out if they do not repent or change their attitudes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Impure Faith:&lt;/strong&gt; The church might have tolerated heathenism among the members and were serving both Jesus and other pagan gods, mixing their previous pagan beliefs with the new Christian beliefs. It could also mean they were serving both God and money. They were neither completely loyal to Jesus nor to their pagan gods or worldly things. Jesus was not happy with their services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 6:24 (NIV) &quot;No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate&#xA;  the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and&#xA;  despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T08:44:56.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16661" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-12T10:31:05.527" Score="6" ViewCount="373" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;The Weight of Glory&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Surprised By Joy&lt;/em&gt;, C. S. Lewis explained the concept sehnsucht, this mysterious desire for something we-know-not-what, something beyond this world. As it pointed us towards heaven, he reasoned, it must be of God. He felt it rarely but sometimes before a great landscape or reading a book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we work out what enjoyable pleasures might either be remade in Heaven or have an even more pleasurable version there(To follow Plato's idea of the Forms)? I adore the cybermen in Doctor Who: can they be considered a foretaste if we experience a feeling of sehnsucht via them? Do we ever know for sure what echoes eternity and what doesn't? Certainly it's hard to imagine the fulfilment of desires for fictional villains (though I would love this) alongside cherubs and angels! But what a shame if the only people who's loves are completed are the ones who enjoyed scenic walks, flowers etc. I would really like strong evidence or reason to back up what I believe to be true, here. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="4737" LastEditDate="2014-01-15T13:09:39.060" LastActivityDate="2014-01-15T13:09:39.060" Title="If loves/desires 'point' to something beyond our imagination...what of enjoyment for fictional villians?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16661" CreationDate="2013-06-12T11:46:18.657" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll take your question as, &quot;Are there any Christian doctrines reinforced by the typical use of villains in literature and film?&quot;.  Here are a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) Demonstration of natural law that people who do bad things can end up with bad consequences.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Demonstration that &quot;bad guys&quot; can undergo repentance.&lt;/strong&gt; Examples: Darth Vader, Gru from &lt;em&gt;Despicable Me&lt;/em&gt;, Megamind, Sharon from &lt;em&gt;Battlestar Galactica&lt;/em&gt;, Edmund in &lt;em&gt;The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe&lt;/em&gt;, Eustace in &lt;em&gt;The Voyage of the Dawn Treader&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3) A demonstration that getting what we want, in terms of earthly goods, may have horrible consequences and leave us spiritually unfulfilled.&lt;/strong&gt;  Consider the victory song Dr. Horrible sings, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://drhorrible.wikia.com/wiki/Everything_You_Ever&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Everything you Ever&lt;/a&gt;&quot; in &lt;em&gt;Dr. Horrble's Sing-A-Long Blog&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4) A demonstration that our heroes too can be fallen.&lt;/strong&gt; In many examples in literature, there are cases where the bad guy has more of a moral conscience than the good guys, or where a good guy who uses &quot;bad guy&quot; tactics hurts everyone.  Examples: Admiral Cain from &lt;em&gt;Battlestar Galactica&lt;/em&gt;, Johnny Snow wanting to fight Dr. Horrible in park where kids play in &lt;em&gt;Dr. Horrble's Sing-A-Long Blog&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-06-12T11:51:38.787" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T11:51:38.787" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6946" CreationDate="2013-06-12T12:51:27.723" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;From studying, I found that Ebenezer means &quot;Stone of help&quot;; I've discovered many verses that remind us that God is our help and strength (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2046&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Psalm 46&lt;/a&gt;) and we can be channels of his help to others--from Eve, the helpmeet for Adam, to Dorcas, helping the poor (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%209:36&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Acts:9.36&lt;/a&gt;)--and all of us can have the gift of &quot;helping others&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2012:28&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Cor:12.28&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The writer of the hymn was Robert Robinson, who was a leader of a notorious gang in his youth but was wonderfully converted after hearing George Whitfield preach. He later became a pastor of a church in Norfolk. He was 23 when he wrote the hymn &quot;Come thou fount of every blessing.&quot; Sadly, he later drifted from the faith. He was once traveling on a stagecoach when a lady sitting next to him was reading a hymn book and read out this hymn and said how wonderful it was. He replied &quot;Madam, I'm the poor man who wrote that hymn many years ago. I would give a thousand worlds to enjoy the feelings I had then.&quot; It was indeed true- he even says in the next verse &quot;Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Complete_Book_of_Hymns.html?id=Q88dAzv3xDQC&quot;&gt;The Complete Book of Hymns- Inspiring stories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; by William J. Peterson and Ardythe Peterson&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4738" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-12T15:11:21.163" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T15:11:21.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9010" CreationDate="2013-06-12T12:59:07.800" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sorry, but I do not think you will be eating chill dogs, as the Bible says there will be no more death (Rev.21:4).  It says the lion will lay down with the lamb (Isa.11:6). Further, since there will be no sin, it is unlikely that we would be prone to gluttony (eating too much meat). More likely in the New Earth will be the picture of the Garden of Eden where fruits, seeds, and nuts were the chosen food before the fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4739" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T12:59:07.800" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16666" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16669" CreationDate="2013-06-12T19:06:01.983" Score="7" ViewCount="398" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am familiar with the doctrine of the sealing power, which &quot;refers to the marriage of a husband and wife and to the joining together of children and parents in relationships that are to endure forever.&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Sealing&quot;&gt; (Encyclopedia of Mormonism)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's obvious that family relationships will endure beyond the grave, however what about deep friendships? There are those who might even consider certain friendships to be as strong as family ties. What is the official position of the Church regarding whether these also &quot;are to endure forever&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The larger meta-question is &quot;what is the nature of the celestial society?&quot; What kind of associations will there be among those who aren't sealed to each other as opposed to those who are? If there isn't a statement addressing this directly, what can be reasonably inferred from existing statements and doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1863" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T19:47:53.593" Title="According to LDS (Mormon) theology, is friendship eternal?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16667" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16671" CreationDate="2013-06-12T19:09:49.163" Score="5" ViewCount="5304" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are thousands of Christian denominations. How did these groups form? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the typical process for organizing a denomination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-06-12T20:11:24.107" LastActivityDate="2014-07-17T11:42:28.410" Title="What is the process for starting a new Christian denomination?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16666" CreationDate="2013-06-12T19:47:53.593" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no official doctrinal statement on eternal friendship that I'm aware of.  However, there is something that can be reasonably inferred from doctrine.  In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng#1&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants, section 130,&lt;/a&gt; we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This tells us that the Afterlife is not intended to be some alien experience that would render the concept of &quot;mortal life as a preparatory state&quot; meaningless, but that it will be a truly familiar thing, organized around the same social structures that we know in this life.  For that concept to be valid, it is reasonable to infer that it would have to include friends as well as family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People are sealed to their families because family bonds are formal and eternal, but friendships are a much more informal and loosely-defined thing.  (You can probably name two people, both of whom you would call &quot;a friend,&quot; but with whom you have two very different types of relationship.  And likewise, you have people who became your friend long after you first met them, or who stopped being your friend.  But a brother or a sister is always your brother or your sister.)  So it's reasonable to assume that, within celestial society, we will have the same inherent freedom of association with people that we have no formal relationship with as we do in mortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T19:47:53.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16670" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16667" CreationDate="2013-06-12T20:07:53.593" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally denominations form over church splits or mergers, rather than just appearing from scratch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The denomination I am a part of the PCA formed in the 70s after the mainline Presbyterian church (PCUSA) took a more liberal leaning than many of the southern Presbyterian churches were willing to go along with. They left and formed their own denomination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally you need two things for a denomination, although neither are required. You need a group of churches and you need a central authority. For the PCA, they had a group of churches ready and willing to leave their denomination a form a new body. They had a convention in Birmingham and organized a General Assembly that meets every year to determine doctrine, policy and mission going forward. The Presbyterian model is a representative form of government with individual churches reporting to regional councils which then report to national governing bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Groups of unaffiliated (non-denominational) churches who think alike might also want to form denominations in order to have associations with a larger national organizations. These churches might choose to organize in a congregational manner, giving their congregations a significant amount of autonomy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2013-06-12T20:07:53.593" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16667" CreationDate="2013-06-12T20:08:04.833" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not to be flip, but it sort of goes like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Find some theological point on which you find your existing denomination to be so heretical as to be in grave danger of going to hell.  Assume this point is not &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiaphora&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;aidaphora&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Find a bunch of other people who agree, and start meeting together.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Possibly, ordain yourself (as in the case of Joseph Smith - the founder of the LDS denomination, or Joseph Smythe - traditionally considered the founder of the Baptists) or if you already have been ordained (e.g. Richard Allen, founder of the AME Church after being nearly beaten senseless in his home church or the Episcopalian Church in general after the American Revolution) convince a court that you are not, in fact part of your former denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Start forming more than one church, so that you actually are a &lt;em&gt;group&lt;/em&gt; of churches, rather than just a splinter one.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the only two entities that you will probably care about are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Your home denomination - you don't want them claiming you, right?  Just send them a letter saying you are no longer part of them.  If you publicly repudiate them, so much the better!  The point is simple enough - your adherence to a given church is completely voluntary.  Any way in which you no longer volunteer will suffice.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The IRS.  Here's what most groups in the US care about - the tax exemption.  Truth is, it doesn't actually matter to the IRS either. If you want to call yourself &quot;The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,&quot; you just need to convince the IRS you are church.  If you affiliate with anyone else, it helps, but ultimately, they don't really decide.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like nations, each denomination is simply a sovereign entity unto itself.  If you try to call yourself &quot;the Roman Catholic Church,&quot; there is an entity and an institution that will say, &quot;No you are not.&quot;  But if you want to start your own, there is no one to stop you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, denominations - even highly organized ones - are voluntary associations of like-minded individuals.  There is no authority - in fact, there isn't even an agreed on definition of denominations.  Scholars simply use the label to distinguish like-minded groups from one another.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-07-17T11:42:28.410" LastActivityDate="2014-07-17T11:42:28.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16674" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16675" CreationDate="2013-06-12T23:33:04.777" Score="15" ViewCount="8038" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently had a debate with one of my friends in which he asked &quot;Why would a good and just God not make salvation dependent on ethics, but rather on gullibility, as the Christian God has?&quot; and I couldn't provide him with an honestly good answer, and in fact it's a question that I need an answer to as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christian teaching we are taught that 'man is saved through faith and grace' and while there are scriptures that put emphasis on morality and service, that aspect seems to downplayed, and in fact there are some denominations in which you can be saved wholly by faith. What I'm getting at is that Morality seems to play a Robin to Faiths Batman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is morality really important in Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4539" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-06-13T00:24:26.517" LastActivityDate="2014-08-18T06:50:40.273" Title="Why is faith so much more important than being a good person?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="16" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-07-24T17:25:16.357" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-13T00:54:33.883" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who says that faith plays a more important role? As James 2:26 reminds us, &quot;faith without works is dead.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith plays a greater role than works in salvation (at the point of &quot;getting saved&quot;) simply because none of our works were good enough before God to earn us righteousness. So by faith alone we are saved when we trust Jesus for righteousness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then works start to play a significant role as they line up with one's profession of faith. Without works, our faith will be a mere intellectual practice; but God is a God of love and wants to express Himself through those who profess faith in Him, &quot;Beloved, let us love one another, for love is on God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God&quot; (1 John 4:7). And so the epistles (and Jesus) encourage good works. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, at the judgment seat, we will be rewarded according to our works (Matthew 25:14-30, the Parable of the Talents). Those works will be an expression of our heart and faith life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T00:54:33.883" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-13T00:54:45.710" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faith without Good Deeds Is Dead (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%202:14-26&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 2:14-26 NLT&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First, What is salvation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many times, people tend to misunderstand the meaning of the salvation that Christ brings. One of the primary purposes of the salvation of Christ is the forgiveness of sins - the ultimate sacrifice in which you need to believe in order to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that faith is more important than morality in any way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When asked, Christ said the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbors as yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What does Christ say about the Judgment?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared&#xA;  for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you&#xA;  gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger&#xA;  and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and&#xA;  you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:34-36&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:31-46 ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we find Christ placing emphasis on charity (good deeds) and not faith. Faith is important to be saved, but not more important than being good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; - I found this read which supports that &lt;strong&gt;salvation is not by faith alone&lt;/strong&gt; interesting. It clearly shows the Bible passages that claim one or the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4751" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T15:23:09.180" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T15:23:09.180" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-13T01:31:31.297" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It can be hard for good people look at their lives and ask why there could be any kind of punishment.  The problem is in a misunderstanding of sin.  It's important to look at the propensities of all people, as shown in Romans 3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.  As it is written: &#xA;  “There is no one righteous, not even one;&#xA;       there is no one who understands;&#xA;      there is no one who seeks God.&#xA;   All have turned away,&#xA;      they have together become worthless;&#xA;  there is no one who does good,&#xA;      not even one. Their throats are open graves;&#xA;      their tongues practice deceit.&#xA;  The poison of vipers is on their lips.&#xA;       Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.&#xA;   Their feet are swift to shed blood;&#xA;       ruin and misery mark their ways,&#xA;   and the way of peace they do not know.&#xA;       There is no fear of God before their eyes.”&#xA;   Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.  Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.  &lt;strong&gt;Romans 3:9-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One who understands that they themselves are swift to shed blood and their very own tongues practice deceit won't have too much of a problem of understanding why their own righteousness won't get themselves into heaven. One needs an imputed righteousness from a Savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T01:31:31.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-13T01:53:05.893" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why? Because faith is the better option.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; want to be judged on your merits? Really? Where all of your worst deeds are dragged forward, and any one of the least of your mistakes utterly disqualifies you from salvation, and condemns you to eternal torment? Good deeds cannot make up for bad deeds, because good deeds are what you are expected to do anyway (see James 4:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could say that we are already saved by works... in a way. In practice, none of us meets that standard, and so we need something else. You could say that we are already saved by works... not our own works, but the works of another. What an amazing God we have, that there is any hope at all for salvation, considering the standard set for us. How great a savior we have, that He was willing and able to give His own life to redeem our weakness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2013-06-14T13:23:25.983" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T13:23:25.983" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-13T03:22:21.607" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps in your wanderings you've never come across the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spiritual Works of Mercy&lt;/a&gt; they are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;To instruct the ignorant (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2timothy/2:1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Tim 1-2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;To counsel the doubtful (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/24:38&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 24:38&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;To admonish sinners (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 8:7&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;To bear wrongs patiently (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/job/1:21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 1:21&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;To forgive offenses willingly (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2timothy/2:3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Tim 3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;To comfort the afflicted (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/40:1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 40:1&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;To pray for the living and the dead (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2maccabees/12:42&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Mac 12:42&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not at all confident this will resonate with you, but I tried to make this argument with my wife's grandfather a few weeks ago (who raised the same question) and didn't have any resources to back it up.  I've got a feeling that for the most part, Protestants don't consider the above list to be &quot;works&quot;.  But our language doesn't have a word that means &quot;acts of faith&quot; to correspond to the word &quot;works&quot;.   So we've got &quot;acts of faith&quot; or &quot;spiritual works&quot; but what are you really doing unless you're acting.  I brought it up because of something I heard a priest say on the radio to a wheelchair bound man who was distressed that he couldn't do much in the service of his fellow man.  The priest advised him that the spiritual works were what he might be called to perform instead. But to Protestants these spiritual works all seem to be what they describe as &quot;faith&quot; so maybe that can bridge our traditions? (well that argument fell flat there, I'd like to know what you make of it here)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What else is there to say?  It's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sanctifying grace&lt;/a&gt; (the Life of Christ within us) that saves us.  It's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;actual grace&lt;/a&gt; that works through us (which is what we get through prayer, fasting and good works [which build on each other {like a recursive loop}]).  It's our little sins and faults which make it easier to sin and it's our big sins that take us out of a state of grace altogether. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you've ever been to a wedding you know that in the final analysis you've got faith hope and love, but the greatest of these is love.  And whether or not greater things are more important things or if first things are more important things isn't that important to know.  What you do need to know is that once you've got faith, don't lose it and once you start doing acts of love that emanate from that faith, you'd better not stop doing those either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T03:22:21.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16681" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16319" CreationDate="2013-06-13T03:47:32.123" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read this question a while ago and even though it has a satisfactory answer, I thought that there would be something more accessible in &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0385496591&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Lamb's Supper&lt;/a&gt; by Dr. Scott Hahn. And I think these tidbits will help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He says that thoughout the Church (and throughout the ages) there many Eucharistic prays but they all contain the same parts.  &lt;i&gt;The Epiclesis&lt;/i&gt; (when the priest places his hands over the bread and wine calls down the Holy Spirit) and the &lt;i&gt;The Narrative of Institution&lt;/i&gt; (when the bread and wine is transformed into Christ's Body and Blood) are the foremost of these parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The priest relates the drama of the Last Supper, when Jesus made provision for the renewal of His covenant sacrifice through all time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the priest speaks the words of institution-&amp;quot;This is My body ... This is the cup of My blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant'-he is not merely narrating, he is speaking &lt;i&gt;in the person of Christ&lt;/i&gt;, Who is the principal celebrant of the Mass.  By the sacrament of Holy Orders, a man is changed in his very being; as priest, he becomes &amp;quot;another Christ.&amp;quot;  Jesus ordained the Apostles and their successors to celebrate the Mass when He said: &amp;quot;Do this ... in remembrance of Me&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11:25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 11:25&lt;/a&gt;).  Note that Jesus commanded them to &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; this&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;write this&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;read this&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That last sentence summarizes why regular folks can't &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; it because we'd just be reading the words and they'd have no effect.  The understanding of scripture as handed down by the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church in the Sacrament of Holy Orders have apparently chosen to interpret the person Jesus is commanding to &amp;quot;Do this&amp;quot; as not me and my wife at dinner, but the people He was actually talking to and those who were appointed by the people He was talking to take their place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T03:47:32.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16683" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16684" CreationDate="2013-06-13T04:15:13.047" Score="4" ViewCount="324" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it necessary to have a Christian faith to be saved and not go to hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible for a Muslim to go to heaven? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or do the bible specifically say that they are all going to hell (Muslims, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Non-Believers)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is based on our current teachings (after Christ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T12:24:18.320" Title="Is it necessary to be a Christian to be saved?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-06-13T07:18:45.440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16683" CreationDate="2013-06-13T04:32:45.840" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acts 4:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise:&#xA;John 14:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, &quot;I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblically speaking there is no other way for salvation to occur. Even Jesus asked the Father in Mark 14:36 , if there was any way that he would not have to suffer, to please take that path. There was no other way, and so &quot;For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not parish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world. But that the World may be saved through Him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="155" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T04:32:45.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16683" CreationDate="2013-06-13T04:36:06.133" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.&#xA;Joh 3:6  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.&#xA;Joh 3:7  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes to go to heaven people must be saved. Jesus is very clear the new birth and believing the Gospel isn't optional. Those who reject the Gospel from any group are damned. It is possible for any person from any group to convert and accept Christ but apart from Christ there is no salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T04:36:06.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-13T05:39:30.283" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faith is more prominent within Christianity than good works, though it does not mean that being good and faith are different, rather they relate to each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps, we can start with good works&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:36-40&lt;/a&gt; (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he&#xA;  said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and&#xA;  with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and&#xA;  first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your&#xA;  neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law&#xA;  and the Prophets.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, all good works are manifestation of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, how does love relate to faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 5:6&lt;/a&gt; (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts&#xA;  for anything, but only faith working through love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see here that faith isn't something hidden, but it manifest through love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a common misconception (1) in Book of James that faith and works are separate, actually James sees works as manifestation of faith, an active faith, &lt;em&gt;the real thing&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20James%202:14-26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 2:14-26&lt;/a&gt; (ESV, emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does&#xA;  not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is&#xA;  poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to&#xA;  them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the&#xA;  things needed for the body, what good[b] is that? 17 So also faith by&#xA;  itself, if it does not have works, is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” &lt;strong&gt;Show me&#xA;  your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my&#xA;  works&lt;/strong&gt;. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons&#xA;  believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person,&#xA;  that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father&#xA;  justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was&#xA;  completed by his works&lt;/strong&gt;; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says,&#xA;  “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and&#xA;  he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified&#xA;  by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also&#xA;  Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the&#xA;  messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart&#xA;  from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, a professing Christian will manifest good works because of his faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using analogy, how would you know that some one is a good programmer? you don't just accept what he says, you check the code he produces, the past projects he has created, etc. His output will prove what's inside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Well, base on my personal experience and on reading other resource &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="1156" LastEditDate="2013-06-13T08:30:27.253" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T08:30:27.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16683" CreationDate="2013-06-13T06:19:20.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is much debate on this topic. The following questions are hard to answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What about those who never heard the Gospel?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What about a good man who refused to believe in Christ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What about a pious man from other religion who refuse to accept Christ?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we hold on to the Biblical truth that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, then there is no other choice but to say &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ whether they heard it or not will go to Hell!&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now how can we reconcile with the fact that God is just? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 3:23 (NIV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of&#xA;  God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are born with sins. We are all sinners. No one is exempted from sinning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Judgement on those who rely on the Law of Moses&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who put their faith on the Law of Moses will be judged by the same Law. It's impossible for man to follow all the commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 5:45 (NIV) “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father.&#xA;  Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Judgement on those who heard the gospel&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who heard the gospel but refused to believe have no excuse but to stay in remorse forever. But who ever believed the Gospel will rejoice in the presence of Jesus because their sins are washed clean by the Blood of Jesus Christ. Not because of their good deeds or piety but because of their faith in His Death and Resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Judgement on those who do not have the Law of Moses nor ever heard the Gospel&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the Day of Judgement someone may ask &lt;em&gt;&quot;God, I was never told about Jesus but I was a good person. I helped many people, I never steal or murder!&quot;&lt;/em&gt; But God will point out all their secret sins and that no one meets the standard of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 2:14-15 (NIV) Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,&#xA;  do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for&#xA;  themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the&#xA;  requirements of &lt;strong&gt;the law are written on their hearts, their consciences&#xA;  also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them&lt;/strong&gt; and&#xA;  at other times even defending them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel to the whole world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,&#xA;  baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the&#xA;  Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded&#xA;  you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-13T12:24:18.320" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T12:24:18.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16689" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-13T12:43:43.297" Score="11" ViewCount="25823" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Acts talks about people &quot;being filled&quot; with the Holy Spirit at various times.  There is also the concept of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  From the perspective that asserts these are, in fact, two different things, what specifically is the biblical distinction (from a biblical literalist perspective)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone be indwelt by the Holy Spirit but not filled with the Holy Spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-30T01:06:58.967" LastActivityDate="2016-03-03T13:12:38.400" Title="What is the difference between being filled by the Holy Spirit and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-05-10T23:50:04.860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16690" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16692" CreationDate="2013-06-13T12:56:57.993" Score="2" ViewCount="7152" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew [paraphrasing] &quot;if you look at a woman and lust for her, you have already sinned in your heart.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In proverbs, they say, [again, paraphrasing] &quot;let her [the companion of your youth] breasts satisfy you.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that not lust?  Aren't these two messages contradicting each other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4576" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-19T01:32:10.993" LastActivityDate="2018-01-10T16:52:26.260" Title="Why is Lust a sin in Matthew, but praised in Proverbs?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2020-06-17T02:15:33.257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-13T13:05:14.697" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say that, ultimately, the reason God set up salvation the way He did is for Himself to get greater glory. The prophet Jonah writes that &quot;Salvation is of the Lord.&quot; So God gets the glory for saving sinners, not the sinners themselves. Now, God doesn't just want to save us from the &lt;em&gt;guilt&lt;/em&gt; of sin (justification), but also the &lt;em&gt;power&lt;/em&gt; of sin (sanctification). The former is what Paul is talking about when he says justification is by grace through faith, and not by works. That is, justification &lt;em&gt;in God's eyes&lt;/em&gt; is by grace through faith. The latter is what James is talking about when he says that you are justified by your works. That is, justification &lt;em&gt;in men's eyes&lt;/em&gt; is by works. You &lt;em&gt;show&lt;/em&gt; your faith to other people by what you do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the catechism question puts it, &quot;Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.&quot; That is, the greatest good in the universe is for God to get glory. And God gets great glory by saving sinners, because so many of His attributes are shown in greater relief this way: justice and law, wrath, mercy, grace, and love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T13:05:14.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16690" CreationDate="2013-06-13T13:06:24.403" Score="52" Body="&lt;p&gt;The context of Matthew is adultery--relations with a woman who is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; your wife.  The context of Proverbs is marriage--relations with the woman who &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; your wife.  The difference is quite substantial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit &lt;strong&gt;adultery&lt;/strong&gt;.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  Matthew 5:27-28 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let your fountain be blessed,&#xA;And rejoice in the &lt;strong&gt;wife&lt;/strong&gt; of your youth.&#xA;19 As a loving hind and a graceful doe,&#xA;Let &lt;strong&gt;her&lt;/strong&gt; breasts satisfy you at all times;&#xA;Be exhilarated always with &lt;strong&gt;her&lt;/strong&gt; love.  Proverbs 5:18-19 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God actually created sexual intimacy to be fully enjoyed within the marriage relationship.  Adultery, however, is a corruption of that holiest of relationships which destroys intimacy.  Thus, it is strictly forbidden in both thought and deed, for our own good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is no contradiction at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T19:18:12.150" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16661" CreationDate="2013-06-13T15:45:07.907" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me try to address your points specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;there are no evil things to desire, only evil desires&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. I don't believe that view is compatible with most of Christianity. If you desire to kill a hundred million people for no reason, that is of itself an evil desire. Even if you were desiring it because some other person wants to see it happen (i.e. it's not a 'selfish' desire) it would still be evil. Not even a 'lesser good'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;I love the Cybermen in 'Dr Who'&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. Do you really, or do you love watching stories about Cybermen? When you watch them do you want the Cybermen to win (and destroy all life in the universe)? If they really existed, would you consider helping them to achieve universal domination? If not, then I think all you are doing is enjoying the stories. That's not the same thing at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now there are certainly people who really do enjoy and support evil (fictional) characters, and think it would be cool to actually do some evil things. This can happen with more nuanced 'bad guys' than the Cybermen (Dexter springs to mind). You also need to be careful with fictional supposed 'good guys' who have more moral ambiguity - James Bond might be an example. I'm sure you can come up with more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T15:45:07.907" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16696" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16697" CreationDate="2013-06-13T16:40:21.273" Score="1" ViewCount="548" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it really true that no matter what you do, you can still be saved, go to heaven, if you confess and repent? And, what if, due to crappy circumstances, you've become detached, and lost the ability (or maybe forgotten how) to believe/hope/have faith in things? Will He be understanding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4758" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T06:17:32.373" Title="To what extent can you be forgiven?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-06-14T13:27:46.237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16696" CreationDate="2013-06-13T18:21:50.973" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 18:21  Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?&#xA;Mat 18:22  Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jer 3:12  Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Php 2:13  For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a purely Biblical perspective, based on the Scripture quoted above and the teachings of a Word of Faith church.&#xA;Yes the Lord will forgive and take anyone back as long as they repent. 70x7 was the equivalent of infinity during days of Jesus on the earth. When God required an infinite amount of daily forgiveness from His people He naturally requires such of Himself also. Any normal sin or mistake can be corrected with repentance. The Lord is understanding and merciful to faults and backslides and will help anyone do and want to do the things which please Him. All one must do is start with repentance make Jesus the personal King and Friend of their life, then read the Bible and go to church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T06:17:32.373" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16689" CreationDate="2013-06-13T18:46:40.960" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 20:22  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 3:11  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 5:18  And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;&#xA;Eph 5:19  Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;&#xA;Eph 5:20  Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes a person may be indwelled by the Holy Spirit John 20:22 but not filled like Acts 2:4. The only explicit Bible evidence given for being filled with the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. In every instance of someone being filled with the Holy Spirit some additional action was required on the part of the receiver. Though the church at Ephesus was indeed indwelt by the Holy Spirit they were not always full of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 5:18 could read be you being filled translated using a gerund to move the phrase into the present. The theory being that we leak through life and must constantly be filled with the Holy Spirit. Being filled is said to happen through the action of speaking in various forms. Exuberance has been place at an emphasis in being filled with the Holy Spirit and thats fine but how you speak to be filled is not qualified by most verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T18:46:40.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16696" CreationDate="2013-06-13T18:51:57.953" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm answering from a Catholic perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it really true that no matter what you do, you can still be saved,&#xA;  go to heaven, if you confess and repent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And, what if, due to crappy circumstances, you've become detached, and&#xA;  lost the ability (or maybe forgotten how) to believe/hope/have faith&#xA;  in things? Will He be understanding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church will not tell you what God will and will not do, except in cases where this has been revealed to the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the church will say, because it was revealed to Her, that it has the power to forgive sins, and that God will honor the request of the priest who does so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the church cannot say what will happen to someone who does not confess through his own fault or through no fault of his own. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why the Church has &lt;strong&gt;never&lt;/strong&gt; said that this or that person is in hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, anyone can be saved; it is up to God. It is a sin however, to knowingly abstain from seeking grace through the Church because you believe that God will forgive you anyway, ie, wanting to be saved &quot;on your own terms.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-13T19:44:43.983" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T19:44:43.983" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16689" CreationDate="2013-06-13T18:59:29.780" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;We find in Acts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:2-4 (ESV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind,&#xA;  and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided&#xA;  tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And&#xA;  they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other&#xA;  tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these verses the Holy Spirit (strategically) empowered each of his apostles to speak in other tongues. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this static experience, we can see 'filling' as a potentially recurring event in a believer's life.  Praying for God to 'fill us with Your Holy Spirit,' can be an everyday prayer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The indwelling, seems to me, appears later in this same chapter as Peter speaks about the 'gift of the Spirit':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 2:38&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;And Peter said to them, &quot;Repent and be baptized every one of you&#xA;  in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,&#xA;  and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though the word 'indwelling' is not in this passage, the word 'gift' implies that each person will be receiving the Spirit for the first time - the indwelling of Him.  Indwelling and the opinion of when it occurs varies from denomination to denomination. According to this passage, when a person repents in faith, they are given the Holy Spirit as a gift, the indwelling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a launching webpage for some differing doctrines and beliefs on Holy Spirit filling and 'baptism': &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/baptismholyspir.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/baptismholyspir.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4637" LastEditorUserId="4637" LastEditDate="2013-06-13T21:36:11.790" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T21:36:11.790" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16701" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-13T19:10:31.257" Score="7" ViewCount="4998" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16689/what-is-the-difference-between-being-filled-by-the-holy-spirit-and-being-indwelt&quot;&gt;distinction&lt;/a&gt; between being filled with the Holy Spirit and being indwelt with the Holy Spirit.  The book of Acts mentions the filling of the Holy Spirit several times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What specifically is the evidence that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit?  Is there always evidence that can be observed by others or can the filling be indistinguishable sometimes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T05:01:05.763" Title="What is the evidence that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;acts&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16701" CreationDate="2013-06-13T19:47:19.193" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a catholic tradition perspective, there is no immediate or one criteria. &quot;Know them by their fruits&quot;, as far as I know, is the only criteria. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this depends on what you consider good fruit :)&#xA;So while I will tell you, that a person calling for you to separate from the catholic church is clearly a negative sign, to someone else, may be a good sign :)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T19:47:19.193" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-13T20:16:10.233" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fall of mankind was as a result of faith transgressed, not disobedience, as many believe.  Faith was placed in the words of the serpent, rather than the Word of God.  So it is reasonable that mankind would have to regain access to God through the same portal of faith that he fell out of a relationship with God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T20:16:10.233" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-13T21:34:37.357" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament Law sets up a &amp;quot;works based&amp;quot; way to salvation. If you keep all of the laws, you would be right with God. The problem is that we can't keep the law. It's not good enough to be &amp;quot;more ethical&amp;quot; than someone else. God's standard is perfection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible is quite clear on our sinfulness. Just to take a quick sample: (All passages from NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 14:1 &amp;quot;there is no one who does good&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 143:2 &amp;quot;Do not bring your servant into judgment, for &lt;strong&gt;no one living&lt;/strong&gt; is righteous before you.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 3:10-11 &amp;quot;There is no one righteous, not even one; There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 1:8 &amp;quot;If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot make ourselves right with God simply by being good people. No matter how good you are, you aren't good enough. Christianity doesn't teach some sort of Karma, where your &amp;quot;good deeds&amp;quot; need to outweigh your &amp;quot;bad deeds&amp;quot;. Christianity teaches that what you think is good, is still sinful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The great news of Christianity is the certainty that it provides. We do not need to do anything for our salvation. God is a loving God because he knows we cannot justify ourselves so he does it for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. Romans 3:21-22 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is Just, therefore we deserve to die because of our sin. But God is Good, therefore he provides us a way to salvation that we can achieve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-13T21:34:37.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16706" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16722" CreationDate="2013-06-13T22:48:04.773" Score="9" ViewCount="1381" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I was listening to the local Christian radio station on the way home, &lt;a href=&quot;http://joncourson.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jon Courson&lt;/a&gt; touched on Hebrews 8:12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no&#xA;  more. &lt;strong&gt;(NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Courson said, &quot;Man cannot do this. We have the capacity to forgive, but not to forget.  &lt;em&gt;Only God can actually erase His own memory, and truly not remember your sins.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I'm a Biblical literalist, but this makes no sense to me. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9961/from-a-fundamentalist-viewpoint-what-does-it-mean-to-take-the-bible-literally&quot;&gt;Even Biblical literalists believe that the authors of Scripture used figures of speech, such as hyperbole&lt;/a&gt;, and I'd always assumed that this was one such example.  To take this literally makes no sense to me alongside the doctrine of God's omniscience.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/questions/about-god/if-god-knows-all-things-how-can-he-not-remember-our-sins&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CARM agrees with my view, too&lt;/a&gt;.  So does every preacher I've heard up until today. They all teach that it means He will not hold our forgiven sins against us. His judgement will be as if He doesn't remember them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if a nationally syndicated preacher can make this claim, it leaves me to wonder if his take on this is common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;My question isn't whether or not this is hyperbole or if God can really wipe His own memories.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm interested in knowing is whether or not this is a common view/teaching, or supported by established traditions or denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2015-07-30T22:52:12.557" Title="Is the idea that God can erase His memory a common understanding?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16707" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16701" CreationDate="2013-06-13T23:34:29.733" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Various traditions have different answers on this.  There's no consensus. (That may be your answer.  The rest may be irrelevant.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greg Bala has already addressed the Catholic view.  Here are some Protestant ones, ranging from extreme Pentecostal to conservative Christian.  None of these are universal.  Some groups believe some of them, others think that some of the beliefs are insane, pure guff, or just wrong.  I'm not saying which is which, just listing them out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://global.christianpost.com/news/snake-handling-christians-faith-prophecy-and-obedience-75985/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ability to pick up deadly serpents, not get bitten, and be immune to their poison if they do bit you&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Being overtaken with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bing.com/search?q=holy%20laughter&amp;amp;pc=MOZI&amp;amp;form=MOZSBR&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Holy Laughter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophecy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/Toronto-blessing.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Growling, dancing, shaking, barking like dogs, and even some even being stuck in positions of paralysis.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Speaking in tongues&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the less Charismatic end of the spectrum...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Possessing the fruits of the Spirit - a combination of Matthew 7:16 and Galatians 5:16-25.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/be-filled-with-the-spirit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Many non-Charismatic protestants see these fruits as evidences that we are filled with the Spirit.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:16 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 5:16-25 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt; 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth&#xA;  against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are&#xA;  contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye&#xA;  would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.&#xA;  19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,&#xA;  fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft,&#xA;  hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,&#xA;  21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the&#xA;  which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that&#xA;  they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But&#xA;  the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,&#xA;  gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such&#xA;  there is no law. 24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh&#xA;  with the affections and lusts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26Let us&#xA;  not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one&#xA;  another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-14T05:01:05.763" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T05:01:05.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16710" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16706" CreationDate="2013-06-14T03:19:26.400" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best explanation of this I have ever heard is by Jay Adams in his book on forgiveness. God does not change, and His memory does not change. Instead, Adams argues that God is not-remembering, instead of forgetting. That is, God is promising not to bring these sins against you ever again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adams goes on to say that forgiveness in general is a three-fold promise. When you forgive someone, you are making three promises:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You will not bring the offence up again to the person who offended you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You will not bring the offence up again to anyone else.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You will not bring the offence up again to yourself. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found this definition of forgiveness to be extremely helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think the majority of Bible-believing, gospel-preaching denominations believe that God forgets anything. God is omniscient, and will always be omniscient. Now your Open Theists might believe that God can forget things, or that He doesn't know everything; and some of your mainline denominations that have departed from Scriptural teaching might also believe this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastEditorUserId="1618" LastEditDate="2013-06-14T13:16:53.870" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T13:16:53.870" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9580" CreationDate="2013-06-14T06:22:52.873" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word describing the garment Peter put on is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1903&amp;amp;t=NASB&quot;&gt;ἐπενδύτης&lt;/a&gt;, which is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapax_legomenon&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;hapax legomenon&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; in the New Testament and rarely used in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext:1999.04.0057%3aentry=e%29pendu/ths&quot;&gt;ancient Greek literature&lt;/a&gt;.  Etymologically the word derives from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1902&amp;amp;t=NASB&quot;&gt;a verb&lt;/a&gt; that means &quot;to put on over&quot;.  It is a garment (perhaps specific to the profession of fishing) worn over something else.  So it might be better to think of Peter fishing in his underwear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is odd, however that Peter would &lt;em&gt;add&lt;/em&gt; clothing before jumping into the water to swim 100 yards or so.  (Peter's personality was such that it does not seem odd that he was so eager to get to Jesus that he wouldn't wait for the boat to get there.)  W. Hall Harris III &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-commentary-john-21&quot;&gt;writes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Brown’s suggestion seems much more probable here: the verb used, διαζώννυμι, does not necessarily mean putting clothing on, but rather tying the clothing around oneself (the same verb is used in 13:4-5 of Jesus tying the towel around himself).  The statement that Peter was naked (ἦν γὰρ γυμνός) could just as well mean that he was naked underneath the outer garment (τὸν ἐπενδύτην), and thus could not take it off before jumping into the water. But he did pause to tuck it up and tie it with the girdle before jumping in, to allow himself more freedom of movement. Thus the clause that states Peter was naked is explanatory (note the use of γάρ), explaining why Peter girded up his outer garment (τὸν ἐπενδύτην) rather than taking it off: he had nothing on underneath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any case, it seems Peter was properly attired for his labor, but needed to prepare himself before jumping into the water.  Either he needed to secure his ἐπενδύτην so that he could swim or he felt he needed to put on the garment in order to meet his Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T06:22:52.873" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16713" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16714" CreationDate="2013-06-14T10:46:41.597" Score="0" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 8:5-19 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah there&lt;/strong&gt;. When the crowds heard Philip and saw the &lt;strong&gt;signs he performed&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;they all paid close attention to what he said. For with shrieks,&#xA;impure spirits came out of many, and many who were paralyzed or lame&#xA;were healed. So there was great joy in that city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now for some time a man named &lt;strong&gt;Simon had practiced sorcery in the&#xA;city and amazed all the people of Samaria&lt;/strong&gt;. He boasted that he was&#xA;someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their&#xA;attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power&#xA;of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time&#xA;with his sorcery. But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the&#xA;good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they&#xA;were baptized, both men and women. &lt;strong&gt;Simon himself believed and was&#xA;baptized&lt;/strong&gt;. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great&#xA;signs and miracles he saw.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the&#xA;word of God, &lt;strong&gt;they sent Peter and John to Samaria&lt;/strong&gt;. When they&#xA;arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might&#xA;receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on&#xA;any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord&#xA;Jesus. &lt;strong&gt;Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they&#xA;received the Holy Spirit.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this&#xA;ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy&#xA;Spirit.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(I had to post the whole passage to make it easier to understand)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Questions:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If Phillip was able to perform miracles and baptize people, then what was the need for Peter and John to go to Samaria?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why was the Holy Spirit not given when Phillip baptized the people?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What actually happened when Peter and John placed their hands on the people that even Simon the sorcerer was amazed at it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What kind of manifestation of the Spirit was it? Clearly it was visible and powerful.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is this incidence known as &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Confirmation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(Answers are expected on the perspectives of major denominations only)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T20:09:50.860" Title="What is meant by the 'Confirmation' concerning the receiving of Holy Spirit in Acts 8:5-19?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;acts&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2014-07-17T05:41:28.440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16713" CreationDate="2013-06-14T11:23:05.197" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The is from the perspective which is taught by a Word of Faith church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One.&lt;/strong&gt; If Phillip was able to perform miracles and baptize people, then what was the need for Peter and John to go to Samaria?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Cor 12:11:&lt;/strong&gt; But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For whatever reason Phillip knew the Holy Spirit did not will for Him to lay hands on people and them have the miracle of the Holy Spirit fill them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Two.&lt;/strong&gt; Why was the Holy Spirit not given when Phillip baptized the people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being filled with the Holy Spirit &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16689/what-is-the-difference-between-being-filled-by-the-holy-spirit-and-being-indwelt/16698&quot;&gt;is not the same&lt;/a&gt; as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues is a different kind of miracle than the New Birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Three.&lt;/strong&gt; What actually happened when Peter and John placed their hands on the people that even Simon the sorcerer was amazed at it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Four.&lt;/strong&gt; What kind of manifestation of the Spirit was it? Clearly it was visible and powerful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were filled with the Holy Spirit and they probably spoke in tongues but there may have also been:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophecy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Laughter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Falling, shouting, dancing, shaking, paralysis.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Five.&lt;/strong&gt; Why is this incidence known as Confirmation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not known as confirmation in all Christian denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T20:09:50.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7839" CreationDate="2013-06-14T12:41:45.617" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Restitution  is Jesus Christ puchasing back to us all that the devil has stolen from us . I used the word purchase because he paid a huge price to achieve this; his blood. There are alot of sins that man commits against God and man which he can not restitute for.ex:A young girl  aborted a 5month old pregnancy, a man that murder an only child of a widow, a tanant tha carelessly burnt down a building of a landlord etc.&#xA;Come on lets face it! No man can restitute fully for his sinful actions. Be it taken life , possesions or taken someones self estime. All these are why Jesus came to do the full pay back time.&#xA;But most importantly the law has been fullfilled and done away with.(Rom.3:19&amp;amp;20); (Rom.7:6) ( Gal.2:21) We live in and  by trusting Jesus to make us what he talks about .He is the one that  took all that had been stolen from us back from the devil. Not you nor me . We will live in Peace with our fellow brothers and God by the gift of rightouseness which was given to us freely by Jesus. This spirit of rightousness super naturally causes us to live right.(Rom.2:4),(Rom.5:1,7-21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4766" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T12:41:45.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2013-06-14T13:28:29.097" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors&quot;. We forgive debts hoping that we'll also be forgiven. The shrewd manager forgives debtors their debts, in hope that he will have a reward with them. &quot;When I was hungry you fed me... for whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, you have done unto me&quot;. The reward in this parable is being welcomed into those forgiven's homes. The reward Yeshua (Jesus) speaks of is in the Kingdom. The aim of the shrewd manager is not to be commended by the master, or to keep his job, but to ensure his place somewhere after its over. 'For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than the people of the light'... the sinners are smarter than the pharisees realizing the situation they are in. They will forgive quicker those who've sinned against them, knowing the reward is greater, than the pharisees will. Also reminds me of 50cent 'get rich or die trying', can we 'get the Kingdom or die trying'? &quot;Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy&quot;. The manager had been serving money and greed, realizing his time was up he sought out gaining favor with people. So he practiced forgiveness of debts, towards a reward of being welcomed. So shall we be welcomed in the kingdom if we practice forgiveness. 'Use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves...', who is that friend? Christ himself, dwelling within those who suffer or are indebted. The point is money can be used for God, but not served as a God. Like the previous parables, the shrewd manager was lost in serving money, but found when helping others with a smaller lump sum payment to settle debts. He turned away after being so lost, and helped those in debt. He gave up the old master for a new one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4767" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T13:28:29.097" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16466" CreationDate="2013-06-14T13:37:17.877" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I liked the last answer offered by Pterandon, but I'd like to expand on it if I might. Ultimately, the questions seems to be what's the most effective way to appeal to the lost. In this age of moral relativism, bringing up sin or hell as a &quot;stick&quot; has little impact since most people (adults, at least) are more likely to believe in space aliens than the truth of the bible - the authority underpinning &quot;sin&quot; and &quot;hell&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what are we left with as a carrot?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prosperity might be an effective pursuader, but it's entirely unbiblical (IMO) and ultimately will only produce poor-quality believers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm trying is the idea of completeness. It's the idea that we're going to remain lonely, empty and ultimately unfulfilled without God in our lives; that even if we have everything we could ever dream of, the weight of our incompleteness without God will continue to bear down on us. Thus you see beautiful, young, rich people like Angelina Jolie desperately trying to redeem their souls and find completeness in doing good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So while the bible may have lost credibility as the source of TRUTH, when I stand there in front of someone who's seeking answers, I can tell them honestly that I've found fulfillment in the life I get from my relationship with God. The bible they can dismiss, but when I look them in the eye and tell them what I've seen, felt and heard, they can't dismiss that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religion is the construct people make up to feel closer to God, but Jesus' offer is always the same: &quot;Follow Me&quot; or &quot;Come unto Me&quot;. And in doing that, not just once but every day, I find fulfillment, joy and peace that's not contingent on the circumstances of my life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4768" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T13:37:17.877" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16718" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-14T15:46:29.410" Score="5" ViewCount="1585" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes I've played the lottery when it gets over $100 million, thinking I could retire on a small fortune and then give tens of millions away to charity, including of course, Christian ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has anyone ever seen a congregation or parachurch organization (pick the Billy Graham Evangelical Association for example) flatly refuse a donation because it came from lottery winnings? I'm actually wondering about the &lt;strong&gt;prevalence of such refusals&lt;/strong&gt;, or denominational / &lt;strong&gt;charity by-laws&lt;/strong&gt; that state up front they would not accept such funds.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not immediately interested in debating the sinfulness of playing the lottery. Although citations of its sinfulness in refusing donations is of course of interest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-06-14T17:33:54.263" LastActivityDate="2018-10-15T03:47:24.980" Title="Has any church organization refused lottery winnings as donation?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;money&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2017-11-25T04:22:27.697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2013-06-14T16:01:29.140" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is being &lt;strong&gt;sarcastic&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read this way, it is consistent with his other preachings.  Notice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that&#xA;  when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read that sarcastically.  In our current way of speaking, it might be something like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Go ahead, make friends with rich people with the money and clever&#xA;  dealings.  Sure, go right ahead.  Because when it is all gone, when&#xA;  you are dead, I'm sure they are going to let you stay in their big&#xA;  mansion in heaven.  Yeah, that will work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sarcasm is actually a little clearer perhaps in the King James translation of the above, and put me on the scent of the sarcasm:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of&#xA;  unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into&#xA;  everlasting habitations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the rich man praising the shrewd manager, Jesus' point is that all fellow money-hungry types will praise you for your cleverness in cheating and conniving--it's &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; intended to mean that Jesus thought the manager was morally good to do this.  It's more that the rich man was telling the manager, &quot;Ahh, well played.  That was a good hustle.&quot;  And that this is the level of &lt;em&gt;human&lt;/em&gt; interaction, as opposed to the higher level of moral righteousness that Jesus is trying to highlight &lt;em&gt;by contrast&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T16:01:29.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16718" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:01:06.047" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The First Baptist Church of Orange Park in Orange Park, FL &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wltx.com/news/article/65197/35/Church-Rejects-600000-Donation-from-Lottery-Winner&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;refused a $600,000 donation&lt;/a&gt; of lottery winnings from one of it's members back in 2008.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 October, 2018 edit: If the above citation is invalid, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lotterypost.com/news/179824&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here is another report&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4227" LastEditorUserId="39699" LastEditDate="2018-10-15T03:47:24.980" LastActivityDate="2018-10-15T03:47:24.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16722" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16706" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:55:56.067" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 8:12  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mic 7:19  He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 10:17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 12:10  And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While many denominations have ideals like omniscience we preclude the ability of God to forget something not all do. In Word of Faith circles and many other evangelical denominations we call God forgetting things the sea of forgetfulness and many of us literally believe that God cannot remember and has forgotten. Remembering bad things and making accusations based on those negative things is a work of the devil and not something which God takes part in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T17:55:56.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16718" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:56:24.463" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has an official policy of not accepting any tithing from winnings having to do with gambling, this includes the lottery. Their position on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/gambling?lang=eng&quot;&gt;gambling can be found here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that don't want additional information/links the position is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gambling, including lotteries sponsored by governments. Church leaders have encouraged Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T17:56:24.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16724" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13760" CreationDate="2013-06-14T17:58:34.477" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have referenced one of the most mis-understood verses of the Gospel (1John:1:9). The religonists (a.k.a. legalist) of yesterday and today love to trot this verse, and others, out to keep their ignorant flocks in ignorance and on their knees wasting their time while asking Father God for forgivness. When Jesus died he died for ALL sins for ALL time and for ALL mankind. All sin was taken by Him of his free accord and the Father pronounced ALL judgement upon Jesus. Read Romans and this is exactly what it says. When Jesus died ALL humans died with Him, when he rose ALL humans rose with him. Read it in Romans. As a result of Jesus's sacrifice the issue of Adam's sin (sin consciousness) was distroyed and is not an issue in any person born after the cross because we are ALL now in Christ (even the murderer, thief, pedophile, homosexual, prostitute ect, but only those who accept Jesus as their personal saviour has Jesus and Father in them). Therefore nobody born after the cross has been born in sin. This is part of the &quot;Almost too good to be true News&quot; a.k.a. the Gospel. Because all sin was paid for by Jesus' sacrifice nobody can committ sin against the Father ever again. (Read Isa:ch.54, Father swears He will never be angry with the Church age people again even till the end of Revelation). So the sin refered to in 1John is sin comitted against each other. Remember the Lords' Prayer &quot;and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us&quot; When we sin against each other and don't forgive ourselves or the other guy then it hinders Father from pouring the benifits of the Kingdom onto us. This is why we must forgive sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4647" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T17:58:34.477" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8344" CreationDate="2013-06-14T21:10:24.697" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Ti 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Literal interpretations tend to mean &amp;quot;exactly what is said nothing more nothing less&amp;quot; from which one builds an idea of the meaning based on their understanding of the definition of the words and grammatical structure as well as context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the Bible literally. However, I do not literally believe the Bible in English as it was not written in English nor was it designed specifically for English. As both of the above 2nd Timothy references show the God's word is designed to be profitable to be used for doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Building doctrines based on single words like day in Genesis 1 or another verse from Genesis is not good exegesis as the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew and some if not all of the oldest copies we have were written in ancient Greek. Our understanding of how and what the words in the Bible are and mean has changed over thousands of years. What God originally said to and through Moses as Moses's understood to the best of his ability and recorded perfectly with God's help may be vastly different than the way we understand Genesis. The word itself hasn't change but we have changed. It makes interpreting the word soundly and rightly dividing it more difficult as time passes. I do believe the Bible has no errors or flaws factual or historical but it does have limitations. The Bible cannot and does not explain itself most of the time. There is great freedom even in literal interpretations of the word as supplied by the language and usage of the original words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance the word world was in many cases taken to mean the immediate surrounding region of a nation. Cesar taxed the whole world when Christ was born. The Bible literally means the world was taxed but its idea of the world and our idea of the globe/world are two separate things. It is possible that in Genesis 6-9 account of Noah's flood also was literally the whole world but the Bible means a local region flooded rather than what we perceive as the whole globe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is how I interpenetrating the God's word literally and somewhat how my group (Word of Faith) views the issue of a literal interpretation of the scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T16:21:20.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9242" CreationDate="2013-06-14T21:57:44.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There was a time when the disciples followed the Lord Jesus without the benefit of the Holy Spirit.  They followed out of faith alone believing in His promises.  It is the most basic form of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 7:37-39  Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, &amp;quot;If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.  (38)  &amp;quot;He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'&amp;quot;  (39)  But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet all that changed one day.  When Jesus was resurrected and glorified their relationship changed.  As He appeared to them breathed (just as His father had done to Adam) the breath of life, that is the abundant life, the eternal life, that is in the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:22-23  And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, &amp;quot;Receive the Holy Spirit.  (23)  &amp;quot;If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were granted His great authority because now they were united with Him in the Holy Spirit.  Conversion had occurred as they were united with Him.  But there was more to come.  Before His ascension he told them that there was a power to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 24:48-49  &amp;quot;You are witnesses of these things.  (49)  &amp;quot;And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 1:4-5  Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, &amp;quot;Which,&amp;quot; He said, &amp;quot;you heard of from Me;  (5)  for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They followed in obedience His instructions until the day of Pentecost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2:1-4  When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.  (2)  And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.  (3)  And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.  (4)  And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who had already received the Holy Spirit were now baptized in the Holy Spirit that brought about a unique spiritual power.  The followers now with great boldness and a distinctive power began to prophesy to those in Jerusalem.  Each person hearing it in their own language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The explanation was supplied by Spirit filled Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2:14-18  But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: &amp;quot;Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words.  (15)  &amp;quot;For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day;  (16)  but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:  (17)  &lt;strong&gt;'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;  (18)  EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT&lt;/strong&gt; And they shall prophesy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The receiving and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are therefore two different yet very related events.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The receiving of the Holy Spirit by a believer unites them with Christ in a supernatural way.  That relationship never to be broken because it was created by the Lord. It places in the believer's life everything that is necessary for them to serve the Lord such as faith, spiritual gifts, communication through prayer, understanding of God's Word, etc.  But it does not unleash the spiritual power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spiritual power comes with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/strong&gt;  It is the spark that ignites the fire of ministry to the world.  An example would be the car that you drive.  As it sits in your driveway ready to do everything that is necessary for it to operate with power is present.  Fuel, electricity, oil, engine, everything that is necessary for it run as it should.  But until the key is placed in the ignition and turned on, is that power unleashed. Turning the switch allows the potential that is already there to come to life.  It is like the tongues of fire at Pentecost to a car that is already to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4772" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-14T23:00:27.290" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16729" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-15T01:05:35.203" Score="4" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are Wednesday church services scriptural? I believe I have seen scriptures that relate to Wednesday services, but I can not remember where.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4408" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-04-03T23:18:05.197" LastActivityDate="2017-04-03T23:18:05.197" Title="Are Wednesday church services scriptural?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2017-04-05T20:23:57.190" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16729" CreationDate="2013-06-15T01:16:04.137" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;A church service is a gathering of believers who have an intent of glorifying God with the Word, prayer, worship, and breaking of bread, or a smaller version with just one or two of these aspects. That is allowable any day of the week. For the believer, every day is an opportunity to glorify God, with the gathering of the saints and without. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it scriptural? Romans 14:5 tells us, &quot;One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thank God that our church here in Costa Mesa has Bible studies every day of the week, so we may go as often as we need the refreshing breezes from off His holy hill. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T01:16:04.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16731" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16729" CreationDate="2013-06-15T01:29:16.617" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The specific day of the week isn't mentioned in Scripture, but you can imply from Scripture that we should assemble regularly, so they're not &lt;em&gt;un-Scriptural&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.learnthebible.org/the-origin-of-sunday-and-wednesday-evening-services.html&quot;&gt;The Origin of Sunday and Wednesday Evening Services&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The mid-week meeting had its beginnings in prayer meetings that were&#xA;  occasionally mentioned before 1800 but became popular through the&#xA;  efforts of Charles Finney and D. L. Moody in the 1800's. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The apostolic church often met on a daily basis: &quot;And daily in the&#xA;  temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus&#xA;  Christ&quot; (Acts 5:42 ). Hebrews 10:25 tells us, &quot;Not forsaking the&#xA;  assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but&#xA;  exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day&#xA;  approaching.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T02:35:57.853" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T02:35:57.853" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16732" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-15T02:09:26.353" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Animals were created in the beginning and humans have a relationship with animals as described in the Bible. Treatment of animals both domesticated and wild has an important role for Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4324" LastEditorUserId="4324" LastEditDate="2013-06-16T16:46:56.227" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T16:46:56.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16733" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-15T02:09:26.353" Score="0" Body="Questions related to animals in a Biblical and Christian context." OwnerUserId="4324" LastEditorUserId="4324" LastEditDate="2013-06-16T16:47:03.180" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T16:47:03.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16735" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16739" CreationDate="2013-06-15T06:02:57.963" Score="5" ViewCount="548" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is God. He thus is entitled to be described by the various attributes of God, such as omniscience.  However, the following passage  raises a tough question regarding this, because Jesus plainly refers to knowledge that he does not have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2024:36&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:36 (NASB)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;36&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “But  of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another issue is raised by the following passage, where we are told that Jesus &lt;em&gt;gained wisdom&lt;/em&gt; as a child, which indicates that he was not omniscient, at least in his childhood incarnation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%202:52&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 2:52 (NASB)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;52&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in  favor with God and men.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can Jesus's God nature, and specifically his omniscience be understood in light of these passages?  My initial inclination is that in becoming human, he temporarily emptied himself of the independent use of his power (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians%202:6-7&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Philippians 2:6-7&lt;/a&gt;), but I wonder if there is more to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers should assume that Jesus is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T11:56:57.557" Title="How can we understand Jesus's omniscience?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-06-17T18:38:09.623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16736" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-15T06:25:39.873" Score="5" ViewCount="2849" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hope this question is unique here, but I assure you I have searched and have not yet seen it. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5156/was-the-fall-of-man-inevitable&quot;&gt;This question&lt;/a&gt; is close, but not quite the same.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam and Eve were given two commandments: 1) Multiply and replenish the earth, and 2) not eat of the forbidden fruit. From what I understand, some Christian denominations believe the commandments to be paradoxical; one cannot be kept without breaking the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within the scope of those Christian denominations which view the two commandments as both impossible to keep while in the Garden of Eden: Why couldn't they keep both of these commandments, for surely they would have if they could?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2015-08-07T12:00:47.263" Title="Why couldn't Adam and Eve keep both commandments?" Tags="&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;obedience&gt;&lt;commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2015-08-12T00:18:09.170" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16737" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16738" CreationDate="2013-06-15T08:04:16.273" Score="6" ViewCount="3127" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the relationships between the terms 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Greek Bible', 'King's Bible', 'Torah', 'Tanakh', 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia seem to have separate articles for each of them and the discussion is pretty convoluted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which of these are parts of other ones?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term 'Bible' seems to mean different things to different people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the Bible a Christian or Jewish scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would appreciate an overview of how these terms are related.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user1612" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-07T03:38:23.267" LastActivityDate="2014-11-07T03:38:23.267" Title="What are the relationships between 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Tanakh' etc?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16737" CreationDate="2013-06-15T09:11:00.827" Score="8" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Bible&lt;/h3&gt; &#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English word &amp;quot;bible&amp;quot; is a transliteration of the Greek word &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G976&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;βίβλος&lt;/a&gt; (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;biblos&lt;/em&gt;). This Greek word is typically translated into English as &amp;quot;book&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;scroll&amp;quot; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. 1:1&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Papyrus used to be exported to the Aegean through the Phonecian city of Geval, which was known as Βύβλος (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Byblos&lt;/em&gt;) by the Greeks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The philosopher Theophrastus wrote concerning papyrus (πάπυρος) in his Περί Φυτών Ιστορίας (&amp;quot;On the History of Plants&amp;quot;), Book 4.8.3,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The papyrus itself is useful for many purposes; for they make boats from it, and from the rind (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B2%CE%AF%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85&amp;amp;la=greek#lexicon&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;τῆς βίβλου&lt;/a&gt;) they weave sails, mats, a kind of rainment, coverlets, ropes, and many other things. Most familiar to foreigners are the papyrus-rolls (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B2%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B1&amp;amp;la=greek#lexicon&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;τὰ βιβλία&lt;/a&gt;) made of it; but above all the plant also is of very great use in the way of food. For all the natives chew the papyrus both raw, boiled, and roasted; they swallow the juice and spit out the quid. Such is the papyrus and its uses. It grows also in Syria about the lake in which grows also sweet-flag; and Antigonus made of it the cables for his ships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ πάπυρος πρὸς πλεῖστα χρήσιμος. καὶ γὰρ πλοῖα ποιοῦσιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς βίβλου ἱστία τε πλέκουσι καὶ ψιάθους καὶ ἐσθῆτά τινα καὶ στρωμνὰς καὶ σχοινία τε καὶ ἕτερα πλείω. καὶ ἐμφανέστατα δὴ τοῖς ἔξω τὰ βιβλία. μάλιστα δὲ καὶ πλείστη βοήθεια πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ γίνεται. μασῶνται γὰρ ἅπαντες οἱ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τὸν πάπυρον καὶ ὠμὸν καὶ ἑφθὸν καὶ ὀπτόν. καὶ τὸν μὲν χυλὸν καταπίνουσι, τὸ δὲ μάσημα ἐκβάλλουσιν. ὁ μὲν οὖν πάπυρος τοιοῦτός τε καὶ ταύτας παρέχεται τὰς χρείας. γίνεται δὲ καὶ ἐν Συρίᾳ περὶ τὴν λίμνην ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ κάλαμος ὁ εὐώδης. ὅθεν καὶ Ἀντίγονος εἰς τὰς ναῦς ἐποιεῖτο τὰ σχοινία.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;| &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/enquiryintoplan01theo#page/348/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English &amp;amp; Greek&lt;/a&gt; |&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information, see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pliny, &lt;em&gt;Historia Naturalis&lt;/em&gt; (&amp;quot;Natural History&amp;quot;), Book XIII, Ch. XXI-XXVI | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=13:chapter=21&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/13*.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Latin&lt;/a&gt; |&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Hebrew Bible / Tanakh&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew scriptures maintained by the Jewish people are commonly referred to in Hebrew by the acronym תַּנַ&amp;quot;ךְ (English transliteration: Tanakh). This acronym stands for תּוֹרָה, נְבִיאִים, כְּתוּבִים (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Torah&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Nevi'im&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Ktuvim&lt;/em&gt;), or in English, &amp;quot;Law, Prophets, Writings.&amp;quot; Another Hebrew word used in reference to the Hebrew scriptures is מִקְרָא (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;mikra&lt;/em&gt;). The Tanakh consists of twenty-four books. It could be referred to as &amp;quot;the Hebrew Bible,&amp;quot; but this phrase isn't commonly expressed in English by the Jewish people to refer to the Tanakh. Most Jews simply say &lt;em&gt;mikra&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Tanakh&lt;/em&gt; to refer to the collection of the twenty-four books of the Hebrew scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While the Christian Bible separates I and II Samuel into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (שְׁמוּאֵל; &lt;em&gt;Shmu'el&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While the Christian Bible separates I and II Kings into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (מְלָכִים; &lt;em&gt;Melakhim&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While the Christian Bible separates I and II Chronnicles into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים; &lt;em&gt;Divrei ha-Yamim&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;While the Christian Bible separates Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (עֶזְרָא/ נְחֶמְיָה; &lt;em&gt;Ezra/ Nechemyah&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In addition, the Christian Bible separates the twelve minor prophets into twelve individual books, but Jewish Bible consolidates the twelve minor prophets into one book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recommended websites:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Torah&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Torah (תּוֹרָה) is simply the first five books of the Jewish Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;בְּרֵאשִׁית (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Bereshit&lt;/em&gt;; lit. &amp;quot;In the beginning,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Genesis&amp;quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;שְׁמוֹת (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Shmot&lt;/em&gt;; lit. &amp;quot;Names of,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Exodus&amp;quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;וַיִּקְרָא (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Vayikra&lt;/em&gt;; lit. &amp;quot;And he called,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Leviticus&amp;quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;בְּמִדְבַּר (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Bemidbar&lt;/em&gt;; lit. &amp;quot;In the wilderness,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Numbers&amp;quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;דְּבָרִים (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;Dvarim&lt;/em&gt;; lit. &amp;quot;Words,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Deuteronomy&amp;quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also known as חֻמָּשׁ (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;chumash&lt;/em&gt;), related to the word חָמֵשׁ (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;chamesh&lt;/em&gt;), meaning &amp;quot;five.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Aramaic Bible&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is commonly known as a תַּרְגּוּם (English transliteration: &lt;em&gt;targum&lt;/em&gt;). There are actually multiple targums, or &lt;em&gt;targumim&lt;/em&gt;. During a particular era of Jewish history, Aramaic was the predominate language of the Jewish people. Since their scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, yet the Jewish people were more literate in the Aramaic language, a few individuals took the initiative to produce Aramaic translations (and thus, interpretations) of the Hebrew scriptures in order to facilitate the understanding of the Hebrew scriptures. One such individual was Yonatan ben Uzzi'el (יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל), and another, Unkelos or &amp;quot;Onkelos&amp;quot; (אוּנְקְלוֹס), who was a convert to Judaism. There are a few other targumim beside these, including the Targum Neofiti. Onkelos supposedly made a targum of the Torah alone, while Yonatan ben Uzzi'el supposedly made a targum of the Nevi'im and Ktuvim. However, there's a bit of confusion on this matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recommended websites:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/u/u0.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/u/u0.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://targum.nl/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English Translation of Targum of 1 Samuel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://targum.info/meg/ruth.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English Translation of Targum of Ruth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ejtreat/song/targum/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English Translation of Targum of Song of Songs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://targum.info/meg/tglam.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English Translation of Targum of Lamentations&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=_boCAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;rdid=book-_boCAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;rdot=1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English Translation of Targum of Isaiah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Greek Bible&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek Bible, or rather, the Greek Septuagint (also known as &amp;quot;LXX&amp;quot;), but in Greek, ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, is the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh produced by approximately 70-72 Jewish scholars in approximately 250 B.C. at the behest of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The account of this translation is testified by the Jewish historian Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, the Epistle of Aristeas, as well as the Babylonian Talmud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information, see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Josephus, &amp;quot;Antiquities of the Jews,&amp;quot; Book XII, Ch. II, §1-2  | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0145:book=12:whiston%20chapter=2:whiston%20section=1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English &amp;amp; Greek&lt;/a&gt; |&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Philo, &amp;quot;On the Life of Moses,&amp;quot; Book II, Ch. V-VII, §31-38 | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book25.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.logos.com/product/7865/the-works-of-philo-greek-text-with-morphology&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Greek&lt;/a&gt; |&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo'ed, Tractate Megilla, Chapter 1, Folio 9a-9b | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Megilah.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l2901.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrew&lt;/a&gt; |&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle of Aristeas, §35-50 | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://ocp.tyndale.ca/letter-of-aristeas&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Greek&lt;/a&gt; |&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the original Septuagint is no longer extant (just like the original manuscripts of the Bible are no longer extant). What exists today is essentially a compilation of all the Greek manuscripts of the Hebrew Tanakh that were produced during that era; this is what we call the &amp;quot;Septuagint.&amp;quot; One individual responsible for this compilation was Origen who produced the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapla&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hexapla&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recommded websites:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.blueletterbible.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sir Lancelot Brenton produced an English translation of the Greek Septuagint in 1851, available &lt;a href=&quot;http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(ongoing edit in progress)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T21:18:36.563" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16735" CreationDate="2013-06-15T09:55:50.977" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The theological term for what you are describing is called Kenosis- from &quot;an emptying.&quot; As you suggest, Philippians 2, in which the Scripture says that &quot;though He was God, he thought equality with God was not something to be grasped,&quot; so he emptied himself and became obedient unto death, even the death on a Cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That God himself would choose to empty himself of the privileges of divinity is both a mystery (in that the mechanics and even motivation could be some what obscured) and a reminder of how much God loved us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1 says that he chose to dwell among us - Exodus 33 says that man cannot see God and live. In order to reconcile these two facts, some accommodation necessarily had to be made. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the true fullness of the glory of God is something that is simply so awesome, that had he not emptied himself, we would have necessarily been overhwhelmed. Like Henry IV who famously dressed up us a commoner so that he could go out and speak with his men as one of his men, so too did God necessarily become like men in order to be with men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, Jesus' human nature was thus the dress in which his fully Divine nature was &quot;pleased to dwell.&quot; He gave up the powers of God in order to be with us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T09:55:50.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16736" CreationDate="2013-06-15T14:08:29.907" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;That is a good question :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My understanding of what you are asking:&lt;/strong&gt;  How come, Adam and Eve, did not &quot;have it in them&quot;, to choose correctly, to choose to obey the commandment.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In short:&lt;/strong&gt;  there is no, purely logical answer to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Some observations:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;This question basically boils down to these types of questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;why did (how could) God create a creature that could choose poorly?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;did God know what we will fail?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;why didn't God create us without what is necessary to choose well?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;etc&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These questions have preoccupied many theologians and I hate to disappoint you, but I have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can, logically &amp;amp; philosophically understand a LOT around those questions. We can understand that free-will necessarily must allow us to choose badly, that God cannot create contradictions (therefore cannot create a creature with free-will without the capacity to choose badly) etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we cannot, in purely rational &amp;amp; logical way, understand the full mystery. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big question remains:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;why is existence with free-will more valuable then non-existence&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Existence &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; free-will is not difficult to dispute as inferior, but the superior value of &quot;existence with free-will&quot;, and therefore, a chance of eternal hell, IS A MYSTERY. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;resources on this topic&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;there is a ton of literature on this, but also some good video resources in form of debates for example. search &quot;problem of evil&quot; or other variations on your tube, and you will find a summary of views of many theologians on the topic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My personal, alternative understanding of the story of the fall&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;This is not an orthodox understanding of it, this is a different look at this story that helps me understand some of the mystery:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe, God's commandment to not eat from the tree of knowledge is NOT a commandment, in the sense of &quot;do not do this, or I will punish you&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, the commandment is a warning of a natural consequence - IF you do eat from this tree, THEN you will die - ie, something pretty bad will happen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe, &quot;knowing good and evil&quot;, necessarily results in a perpetual struggle to choose good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we could understand this as, not that Adam and Eve did not obey, per sa, but that they choose to struggle, they choose to know good and evil. Like a child that wants to find out for it self what fire feels like. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this understanding, God fully knew that we will have to know, but offered as an easy way out if we trusted Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;anyway, just some personal thoughts :) Not sure if they help you understand this mystery in some way or not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastEditorUserId="4689" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T16:44:46.213" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T16:44:46.213" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16310" CreationDate="2013-06-15T17:37:51.473" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eucharistic wine is true blood of Christ, in a mystical sense. It is not actual, physical blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is actual blood in &lt;em&gt;essence&lt;/em&gt;, ie, in what it means - life, total self giving.&#xA;Eucharist is a memory of the actual historical sacrifice, and a continuing, complete self giving of Jesus to us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A sign is something that is not what it is showing/pointing to. A sign is worthless in it self. In this meaning, Eucharist is not a sign. In contrast to this meaning, Eucharist IS blood and body of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this mystical meaning, your question does not apply. Ie, Catholics do not believe that Christ is continually cutting Himself daily to give us a little of his blood, so the question of weather His current body has or has no blood, in relation to Eucharist  is meaningless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ie, the belief that Eucharist is both blood and body of Christ and bread and wine, is a mystery similar to the Trinity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this makes a bit of sense :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastEditorUserId="4689" LastEditDate="2013-06-15T19:46:52.207" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T19:46:52.207" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2311" CreationDate="2013-06-15T21:16:32.190" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The anglo saxon word for Tree is &quot;Treo&quot; which is also the root for the word Truth. A great picture of that which is imovable and beautifly strong. Jesus is all that embodied &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4778" LastActivityDate="2013-06-15T21:16:32.190" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16747" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16797" CreationDate="2013-06-15T21:51:03.170" Score="5" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the major doctrinal differences between the &lt;a href=&quot;http://accus.us/index.htm&quot;&gt;American Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; and the Roman Catholic church? Why did they split?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-19T08:18:25.763" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T08:18:25.763" Title="Who is the American Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16748" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16791" CreationDate="2013-06-16T01:21:14.427" Score="2" ViewCount="6276" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been researching about the apostles and found historical documents that show there were more than 12 but 12 + 7, including women. This information was included in non biblical historical documents. In reading the bible, the number twelve is highly important to jewish readers as it represents the twelve tribes of Israel. My question is have the gospel writers focused on the number twelve to keep in line with the hebrew books? Or could there have been more than twelve? It seems logical to not limit his number to twelve, in order to spread the word as far as possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4779" LastActivityDate="2015-05-25T18:42:14.523" Title="Were there really only twelve apostles?" Tags="&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-05-29T06:55:07.973" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16750" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-16T06:40:32.517" Score="14" ViewCount="1285" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Christians worship or pray to God, generally what is in their mind? Do they pray to God who is one person among Trinity or do they pray to all three of them as one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am asking about what is in their mind in general, not what &lt;em&gt;should be&lt;/em&gt; in their mind theoretically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3607" LastEditorUserId="3607" LastEditDate="2013-06-16T11:52:45.490" LastActivityDate="2013-12-02T02:06:02.167" Title="What does it mean to &quot;worship God&quot; to Christians in general?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16753" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16763" CreationDate="2013-06-16T08:10:34.153" Score="4" ViewCount="1815" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both Torah and the Old Testament relate to Jews. How different or similar is Torah and the Old Testament of Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3762" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-06-16T19:19:43.310" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T22:01:29.253" Title="Torah and the Old Testament" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;torah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-06-18T15:50:16.050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16755" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16750" CreationDate="2013-06-16T11:04:01.563" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are groups within Christianity which focus on praying to the Trinity itself, then there are groups which pray to individual members of the Trinity and some groups which pray to only the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 16:23  And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.&#xA;Joh 16:24  Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 7:59  And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 3:14  For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I might speak to Jesus or the Holy Spirit but I only pray to the Father in Jesus name. I don't condone those who pray to either Jesus or the Holy Spirit or the trinity as a whole I just see no outline in scripture for such prayers. When I pray to the Father I just talk making requests and worshiping. In my mind I'm trying to think of things which would make my prayer acceptable and faith filled like a scripture or a positive confession. The theme of most of my private and public prayers are I love you and Lord help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T11:04:01.563" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16756" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-16T12:35:49.390" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Food and its place in worship have been described throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. Topics include food for eating/drinking, food for worship, fasting, unclean food, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4324" LastEditorUserId="4324" LastEditDate="2013-06-16T16:46:48.693" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T16:46:48.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16757" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-16T12:35:49.390" Score="0" Body="Questions related to food and dietary restrictions in the Bible and Christian context" OwnerUserId="4324" LastEditorUserId="4324" LastEditDate="2013-06-16T16:46:59.320" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T16:46:59.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16759" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16780" CreationDate="2013-06-16T13:26:04.373" Score="-1" ViewCount="4605" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most of the world ratified the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;United Nations Convention against Torture&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Can the belief in hell be justified against the Convention in those countries?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The punishment is to encourage and enforce proper behavior (not eternal) or to protect potential victims (no torture, see the Convention). So for better explanation of the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is the meaning of eternal torture?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The satisfying answer should justify general christian insight without counterquestions, without metaphores, without implicit assumptions, without solipsism and without twisting of meanings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4782" LastActivityDate="2014-01-12T04:27:15.020" Title="What's the justification of eternal torture in hell?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="15" ClosedDate="2014-12-13T15:40:31.283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16661" CreationDate="2013-06-16T13:29:52.173" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No one knows but it will be interesting to find out when we die. Sadly there is zilch evidence to suggest any direct answer and, despite trying a few different sources (man is it hard to find Christians to ask questions too!) No one seems to know for sure. Ah well, thanks all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T13:29:52.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16761" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4082" CreationDate="2013-06-16T14:08:48.610" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From looking at the situation that Jacob was currently in gives me a better understanding of it. Jacob had an issue with running away from his mistakes instead of confronting them head on, his mom taught him that by the way. This ultimately took a toll on Jacob's life. God decided it was time for Jacob to become a man. He actually starts forcing Jacob to confront his fears head on. His uncle Laban actually runs Jacob down and captures him after Jacob just ran off without talking with him first,(he was afraid). He left because God told him to go back to where he had deceived his brother and ran away. This is where Jacob's fear overcomes him and he actually comes to grips with himself and admits to God how unworthy he was to be blessed by the Lord. I believe that Jacob still let his fear overtake him again and was attempting to flee again before meeting his brother face to face. I believe this is where God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, comes down and wrestles with Jacob and dislocates his hip. He is to far in the game to flee with a dislocated hip now. He has no choice to see his brother face to face now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4784" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T14:08:48.610" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16753" CreationDate="2013-06-16T19:10:07.463" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've found &quot;Judaism 101&quot; at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewfaq.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jewfaq.org&lt;/a&gt; to be a reasonably sound site when looking for answers to questions about Judaism. Here's their basic definition of Torah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Torah&quot; is a tricky one, because it can mean different things in different &#xA;      contexts. In its most limited sense, &quot;Torah&quot; refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, &#xA;      Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word &quot;torah&quot; can also be used to &#xA;      refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old &#xA;      Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the &#xA;      whole body of Jewish law and teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In everyday usage, speakers commonly use the word &quot;Torah&quot; as a synonym for what Christians sometimes call the Book of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worth noting is the fact that the Torah is one of many central texts used in Judaism -- the Talmud, Mishnah, and other texts are also significantly important. Book one of Edersheim's &lt;em&gt;The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah&lt;/em&gt; explores the topic in significant depth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-06-17T02:27:40.323" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T02:27:40.323" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16753" CreationDate="2013-06-16T19:11:51.043" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Torah&lt;/a&gt; in it's simplest definition is the first five books of Hebrew Bible (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tanakh&lt;/a&gt;). In its broader sense, it could also mean the whole Jewish teachings and practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;List of books&lt;/a&gt; accepted by Jews and Christians are almost similar with some little differences. Canonization may be different but the individual books are same, only the list is different. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Torah and Old Testament is relatively the same. It's all about the Jews and their history. For the &lt;em&gt;Jews&lt;/em&gt;, it is their history and the Laws given to them by God. For the &lt;em&gt;Christians&lt;/em&gt;, it is a shadow of the New Testament which fulfills its prophecies regarding the Messiah and many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T19:11:51.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16750" CreationDate="2013-06-16T19:33:21.290" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the denomination and their doctrines. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some pray to the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Father&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, sometimes calling him &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01006d.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Abba&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some who are not able to believe in the Trinity usually pray to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; alone. Even some who accept Trinity also pray to Jesus alone because Jesus is the center of Christian faith.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sometimes a specific prayer is directed to the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to invite Him to come and fill us so that we may experience the power of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Case 1 and 2 is the most common. Case 3 is very specific and practiced only by those who believe in the power of Holy Spirit. To a Christian who believe in the Trinity, it's all the same whether you pray to the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit because they are &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;ONE&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T19:33:21.290" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16766" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16767" CreationDate="2013-06-16T20:07:15.563" Score="4" ViewCount="497" Body="&lt;p&gt;This morning in church the service was about Elijah with the Baal's prophets. I read this verse and some questions arose which I could not find an answer on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Kings 18:22&#xA;  Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following questions arose: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was the Bible already written in the time of Elijah?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If Elijah was the only prophet left, how can we make sure that the Baal's prophets did not corrupt the scriptures? And more in general, how can we make sure that none of the bad kings back in this time did not corrupt the scriptures?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3355" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-06-17T01:53:04.667" LastActivityDate="2018-03-30T01:48:05.530" Title="How can we be sure the Old Testament is accurate if Elijah was the only prophet left?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;elijah&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16766" CreationDate="2013-06-16T20:37:37.700" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just because there was only one prophet does not mean there were no priests or followers - prophets were messengers from God, priests actually served in the Temple, and adherents, well, they adhered.  In Isaiah, the notion of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remnant_(Bible)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Remnant&lt;/a&gt; God's select people who remain true even when most fall away is well understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, it does not diminish the text for Elijah to have engaged in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;hyperbole&lt;/a&gt;.  Even &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8345/1039&quot;&gt;most inerrantists can accept&lt;/a&gt; that a human feeling all alone might exclaim, &quot;I'm the only one left!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you read the context of 1 Kings 18 - you find just a few verses up (1 Kings 18:1 - 15) an encounter in which Elijah speaks with a fellow servant of the Lord - Obadiah - who would qualify as part of the remnant. And, as @RyanFrame points out, in 1 Kings 19:18, God reminds Elijah that he has &quot;7000 who have not bended the knee&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the related questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most scholars assume the books of the Torah to have been pretty well settled no later than 600 BC - and these events are less than 200 years away from that.  Beyond that, the JEPD theory would argue that an iteration of the text was done as early as 1000BC - and depending on how liberal or conservative one is, there were no changes to some oral retelling changes in that time.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some historians like to state that Ba'al and El Shaddai / Yahweh were originally in one narrative together.  The preserved Old Testament doesn't seem to reference this in any way, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.academia.edu/2254380/The_Splintered_Divine_A_Study_of_Istar_Baal_and_Yahweh_Divine_Names_and_Divine_Multiplicity_in_the_Ancient_Near_East&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;other local myths&lt;/a&gt; do.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6172/who-is-baal-from-the-old-testament?rq=1&quot;&gt;This answer, in particular&lt;/a&gt; speaks to the Ugaritic and Cananite understandings of Ba'al, and his consort-like status to Yahweh. Theoretically, if the prophets of Ba'al had corrupted the Scriptures, they would have preserved the role of Ba'al. As it is, the only mentions of Ba'al are negative (disputing her actual existence) and as a misguided belief only.  That they did not would seem to suggest that the preserved text was not influenced by the surrounding nations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T20:46:43.387" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16768" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16770" CreationDate="2013-06-16T20:42:06.737" Score="5" ViewCount="8627" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pretty straightforward question - In 1 Kings 18, Elijah speaks with a servant of the Lord named Obadiah.  Is that the same guy wrote the book of the same name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-14T13:08:30.837" LastActivityDate="2017-06-29T18:22:24.763" Title="Was the Obadiah in 1 Kings 18 the same Obadiah who wrote the Book of Obadiah?" Tags="&lt;authorship&gt;&lt;1-kings&gt;&lt;obadiah&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16750" CreationDate="2013-06-16T21:05:19.667" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Nicene Creed, one of the oldest formulations of the Faith, and one which is repeated every Sunday by a large portion of Christianity, it says of the Holy Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe in the Holy Spirit, ... who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In theory then, all three members of the Trinity are worshipped and glorified equally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, your question specifically asks for practice, not theological formulation.  And, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/13655/1039&quot;&gt;since the Trinity is a hard concept to grok&lt;/a&gt;, one &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; expect significant deviation in practice.  That being said, both in my Baptistic and Episcopalian circles, it is not all uncommon to begin a prayer with &quot;Father God Almighty&quot; (I do) and to end with &quot;All these things we pray in Jesus' name.&quot;  That one should so easily morph from one to the other speaks to the fuzziness of the distinction in our minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When discussing the role/s of the Godhead, study leads us to separate the individual persons of the godhead.  Reduction is a useful thing in study - that's why we dissect things.  That said, when you cut something up, sometimes you kill it :)  I say that to say that my formulation of prayer (again, not uncommon) shows how we can dissect the roles, but still see the sum &quot;Three-In-One&quot; as one being.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons and other non-Trinitarians (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/888/1039&quot;&gt;a very small percentage of Christians&lt;/a&gt;) very clearly believe God the Father and God the Son to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;two separate people&lt;/a&gt; - but those of us who are Trinitarian tend to be a little wibbly-wobbly on the whole thing.  In practice, we have a lot of bi-natarian theology (God the Father zaps you, and Jesus' blood saves you. That Holy Spirit Guy? Only Pentecostals and charismatics even know who he is!) - but even there, most Christians realize that Jesus is correct when he says &quot;I and the Father are One.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can only speak for me when I pray - I see the two fuzzily morphing in and out of oneness together - but I suspect that fuzziness is pretty common.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T02:05:12.900" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16768" CreationDate="2013-06-16T22:33:00.640" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;For what it's worth, I once heard a sermon in which the preacher said it was not the same fellow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My bible has the following intro to Obadiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Obadiah wrote this shortest book of the Old Testament probably soon&#xA;  after 586 B.C. when the armies of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. During&#xA;  this conquest, the people of Edom helped capture fleeing Israelites&#xA;  and turn them over to the Babylonians. They even took up residence in&#xA;  some Judean villages. This angered the Lord, for the Edomites, as&#xA;  descendants of Esau, were related to the Israelites (Gen. 25:21-26,&#xA;  30) and therefore should have helped them. Obadiah prophesied that&#xA;  Edom would be repaid for mitreating God's people. Within a hundred&#xA;  years, Edom was in ruins. Obadiah also asserted that God is sovereign&#xA;  over the nations and that the house of Jacob would be restored because&#xA;  of God's covenant love for his people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would seem to preclude the Obadiahs being the same, as Elijah was well before the Judean exile (he was even before the northern kingdom was overrun).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-16T22:33:00.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16759" CreationDate="2013-06-17T00:38:33.497" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even though I believe this has been answered elsewhere, I'll go ahead and answer this based on the comments to the original question.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disclaimer:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before I do, I need to remind everyone of the narrow scope of this site:  We are not focused on proving any particular thing to be true.  We focus solely on what the teachings are.  As such it would be against site guidelines to answer whether the eternal punishment in Hell is true, or if God was justified to create an eternal place of torment.  We can only answer what is taught within Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to answer this from the standard protestant &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/dictionary-apologetics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apologetics&lt;/a&gt; answer, which shares common themes across denominational boundaries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question here, as focused by the comments is &quot;can the belief in hell be justified against the U.N. convention of disallowing torture&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious answer here is the one that God gave to Job when Job questioned him about his misery.  &quot;Who are we to question God?&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 38:4  (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if&#xA;  you have understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As explained by Matthew &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/job/38-4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Henry's Concise Commentary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the humbling of Job, God here shows him his ignorance, even&#xA;  concerning the earth and the sea. As we cannot find fault with God's&#xA;  work, so we need not fear concerning it. The works of his providence,&#xA;  as well as the work of creation, never can be broken; and the work of&#xA;  redemption is no less firm, of which Christ himself is both the&#xA;  Foundation and the Corner-stone. The church stands as firm as the&#xA;  earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, God does not have to justify torture.  (More on this later in the answer)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;But that's not what you asked&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  What you specifically is &lt;em&gt;how we humans can justify the belief in Hell&lt;/em&gt; when the U.N. has condemned it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again - short answer.  We believe it because God said it's true.  As pointed out by God in his discussion with Job (And by DJClayworth's comment), God is sovereign.  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;God doesn't answer to us, we answer to Him&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We believe (at least most Christians do) that the Bible is God's &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;inspired, inerrant Word&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Side note: Why we believe that would be the basis of a hundred other questions already answered on this site.  And to make a distinction, that we accept this is not an implicit assumption, it is an established doctrine.  Remember, we are not here to teach what is True, just what Christianity teaches, and it is undeniable that Christianity teaches that the Bible is God's word.  Any attempt to steer this into a direction of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1808/what-should-we-tell-people-on-our-about-page-that-says-how-we-are-different/1809#1809&quot;&gt;whether it really is God's word is strictly not allowed in the site guidelines&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Main answer:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that's it in a nutshell.  We justify our belief because we trust God's word, and His word says it is so. We do not believe that God is accountable to the U.N. or any other organization/being, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Extra credit&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Addressing your qualifiers:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The satisfying answer should justify general christian insight without&#xA;  counterquestions, without metaphores, without implicit assumptions,&#xA;  without solipsism and without twisting of meanings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I'm at it, however, I'll point out that the underlying assumptions in the question are that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God isn't real &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The existence of Hell is immoral&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the belief that we need to justify this is based on the assumption that God is a man-made construct.  That we, as the group who believes in this made-up being, are responsible for introducing the idea of eternal torture.   And that we must somehow answer for it or justify it.  That is, in itself an &quot;implicit assumption&quot;.  It is quite impossible to have an opinion on anything without implicit assumptions.  We all have them.  We all have a set of glasses through which we see the world, and a base set of implicit assumptions that color our perceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very idea that &quot;God is not real&quot; generally springs  the idea that &quot;I won't believe it if it's not proven to me&quot;.  In other words, if you can't prove that god exists, to my own satisfaction, then I don't believe He does.  Tracing this back further, the root assumption that leads to this is that you are trusting only in your own intellect, mind, and reasoning process.  This is the very &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;solipsism&lt;/a&gt; you sought to ban in any &quot;satisfying answer&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To bar implicit assumptions and solipsism in an answer to a question that is dripping with them shows a bit of a double standard.&lt;/em&gt;  But at least I think I avoided the metaphor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likely, however, this won't be a &quot;satisfying answer&quot;.  If you were hoping for someone to come with proof that Hell is justified, I'm sorry, this is the wrong site.  We don't focus on what's true, but rather what's taught.  You may wish to go to a site dedicated to such things, but this isn't it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T01:15:30.090" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16750" CreationDate="2013-06-17T01:03:05.387" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Trinity seems pretty simple to me. It is all God, just in three different forms. Father, God in His ultimate form. Spirit, God in the spirit form (can be in multiple places at once). Son, God in human form (Jesus Christ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4784" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T01:03:05.387" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16773" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-17T03:35:16.293" Score="10" ViewCount="335" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ok.org/kosherspirit/fall-2009/kosher-music/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;, in the section entitled &lt;em&gt;The “Great” Aleinu History&lt;/em&gt;, the author writes that a particular melody used in Jewish High Holiday prayers was added to the French Church Mass in the late 12th century by French crusaders, and can be heard to this very day. You can &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kosherspirit.com/audio/CSG04.mp3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;directly play the mp3 here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, is it true that this melody can still be heard in the mass to this very day? What part of the mass is it used for? Are there any audio recordings of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://jewishmag.com/135mag/aleinu/aleinu.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; linked in caseyr547's answer below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Another report adds that the Gentiles 'henceforth used the chant in their church,' and musicologist Eric Werner did in fact locate the melody in the Sanctus of the Ninth Mass of the Virgin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4325" LastEditorUserId="4325" LastEditDate="2017-01-24T21:07:59.147" LastActivityDate="2017-01-24T21:07:59.147" Title="Is this melody part of the French church mass?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;music&gt;&lt;crusades&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16774" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16788" CreationDate="2013-06-17T04:53:48.403" Score="11" ViewCount="809" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;everlasting blissful happiness and peace on earth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;heaven after death / afterlife&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a metaphorical way to describe that righteousness would be made on earth by the power of the holy spirit, and that Jesus' parables give a sample and foreshadow of what the real Kingdom of God on earth will be like; in order to achieve the Kingdom of God, one must obey his commandments as well as continue the covenants given to Israel before Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-17T05:45:21.620" LastActivityDate="2014-07-25T11:17:17.587" Title="What is the &quot;Kingdom of God&quot; supposed to be?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;kingdom-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-08-09T18:57:36.580" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2311" CreationDate="2013-06-17T05:14:44.297" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also, to extend Wikis answer, one definition of true nowadays is &quot;equal to the original&quot;. According to this definition I think Jesus was saying that he was equal to the original, meaning, equal to God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not saying that Jesus was created from the original here, if He is equal to the Father, then He is not created and He is eternal... ;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4771" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T05:14:44.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16777" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16781" CreationDate="2013-06-17T06:44:29.273" Score="-2" ViewCount="22822" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is assumed that Jesus was a Jew. I am not asking whether Jesus &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; a Jew or not (as we all know that Jesus was born in a &quot;Jewish&quot; household), but does Jesus explicitly call himself a Jew? Rather than his audience &lt;em&gt;thinking&lt;/em&gt; he is a Jew, what exact word(s) did he use to describe the religion he followed? Moreover, as there were many Jewish sects at that time did he show affinity to some Jewish sects over the others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorDisplayName="user4984" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T17:16:33.570" LastActivityDate="2015-02-13T15:51:38.437" Title="Did Jesus himself assert the fact that he belonged to some religion like Judaism?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;israel&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;sect&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="78" CreationDate="2013-06-17T06:52:22.120" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the strongest case for the deity of Messiah is from the gospels, John 20, where Thomas sees the risen Messiah, touches the nail prints in his hands, and finally believes, exclaiming to Messiah,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My Lord, and my God! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Messiah's response to Thomas is telling; he affirms by saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You believe only because you've seen. Blessed are those that believe without seeing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="201" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T06:52:22.120" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16777" CreationDate="2013-06-17T07:06:36.150" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes, Jesus was a Jew who practiced Judaism&lt;/strong&gt;, the religion of the Bible in the 1st century. The gospels record Jesus teaching the Torah (Law) and prophets at synagogues on shabbat (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%204%3A16-17&amp;amp;version=CJB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 4:16&lt;/a&gt;) and at the Temple complex in Jerusalem. He was called 'rabbi', kept disciples (common in 1st-century Judaism), discussed matters of the Torah  and made halachic rulings on it (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-30&amp;amp;version=CJB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:17-30&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did Jesus follow a particular sect of Judaism?&lt;/strong&gt; Yes and no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did have differences with the 1st-century religious leaders, of course. Of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple_Judaism#Jewish_sects&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;major sects of 1st-century Judaism&lt;/a&gt; -- Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots -- Jesus' teachings most closely resemble the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hillel submovement of Pharisees&lt;/a&gt;, who believed in the resurrection, a more accessible approach to Torah, and a philosophy from its founder that closely aligns with what Messiah said were the 2 greatest commandments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole&#xA;  Torah. The rest is commentary — [and now] go study.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-&lt;a href=&quot;http://judaism.about.com/library/2_history/leaders/bldef-p_hillel.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hillel the Elder&lt;/a&gt;, founder of the Hillel Pharisees&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This very much aligns with Jesus' statement about the greatest commandments in the Torah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You are to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your&#xA;  soul and with all your strength.’ [Deut 6:5] This is the greatest and&#xA;  most important commandment. &lt;strong&gt;And a second is similar to it, ‘You are to&#xA;  love your neighbor as yourself.’ [Lev 19:18] All of the Torah and the&#xA;  Prophets are dependent on these two commandments.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40&amp;amp;version=CJB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jesus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hillel Pharisees took an approach to Law-keeping that favored pragmatism over religious stringencies, and this group was generally popular with the common people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast this with the harshness of the Shammai Pharisees, who suggested zero commerce and communication with gentiles. Or Sadducees, an elite scribal sect who rejected an afterlife, resurrection, and rewards and penalties after death. Or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15185-zealots&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;violence of the Zealots&lt;/a&gt; whose &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/11225/477&quot;&gt;murderous acts in the Temple courtyards&lt;/a&gt; are thought to be a reason for the Temple's destruction in 70CE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus didn't align with Hillel Pharisees in all matters. For example, Jesus' judgment on the divorce -- that it should only be allowed in extreme cases -- was the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;position of the Shammai Pharisees&lt;/a&gt;, whereas Hillel Pharisees thought a man could divorce for a variety of reasons. And Jesus' teachings on abstinence from worldly pleasures, voluntary poverty (e.g. &quot;sell all you have and follow me&quot;), and ethical uprightness more closely resembles the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Essene sect&lt;/a&gt; than Pharisee groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: it would not be proper to say that Jesus belonged to a particular sect of Judaism. While he most closely aligned with Hillel Pharisees, we believe he's the Messiah; if he happened to align with one sect of Judaism more than another, that says something about the righteousness of that sect more than Messiah's perceived religious alliances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="201" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:05.287" LastActivityDate="2015-02-13T15:51:38.437" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16780" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16759" CreationDate="2013-06-17T07:18:19.973" Score="-3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Hell was originally created for Satan and his fallen angels&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 25:41 (NIV) “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart&#xA;  from me, you who are cursed, into the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;eternal fire prepared for the&#xA;  devil and his angels&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We always have this misconception that God created hell to torture who do not believe Him or follow His commandments. I would argue that this is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;wrong&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;! When God created Adam and Eve, His intention was to have a good fellowship and love relationship with them. We know that Satan fell before the creation of Adam. Hell was prepared for Satan and his fellow fallen angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 8:31 (NIV) And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to&#xA;  go into the Abyss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Devil and his angels are allowed to dominate and work on earth until their appointed time has arrived. The Devil is also called the prince of this world which indicates that he is the ruler of this world (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/john/14-30.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see John 14:30&lt;/a&gt;). When Jesus was on earth, whenever the demons saw Him, they were terrified, thinking that their time is up!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 8:29 (NIV) “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they&#xA;  shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God has no responsibility for the lost souls&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever does not believe in Jesus Christ is not allowed to enter Heaven where God dwells. They will be thrown out of the Kingdom of God to where Satan lives, which is hell. Satan is not merciful like God, there is no love in him, he is rebellious, he loves to torture people, he loves destruction. God has no responsibility for anything that happen to those who are in hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Satan and his angles are the one who torture the souls&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no direct scripture support for this but the scripture never say that God is responsible for the torture. You may go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com&lt;/a&gt; and search for the testimonies of those who visited Hell. You will usually find that there is no God in Hell nor his holy angles. The angels of Satan are the one who are torturing the souls in Hell. This is not scriptural but I'm just giving a real life example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-05T08:26:52.960" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T08:26:52.960" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16777" CreationDate="2013-06-17T08:01:04.980" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In response to the part of your question about what word Jesus used to describe the religion he followed, I would have to say that it cannot be described in a single word what religion Jesus was aligned to, although, for the sake of compartmentalising Jesus as part of one sect or another, I think @JudahHimango does label Him sufficiently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question about what religion Jesus associated himself with; According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 5:19&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus was following what He saw the Father do;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I&#xA;  say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something&#xA;  He sees the Father doing; for whatever [a]the Father does, these&#xA;  things the Son also does in like manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus's religion was therefore not one of the established theologies of the time, but rather a lifestyle of submitting to the will of the Father. Jesus had such a close and intimate relationship with the Father that Jesus understood the character of the Father well enough that He could operate as the Father would do in the same situations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 4:21-26 Jesus identifies himself as a Jew:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will&#xA;  worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You&#xA;  Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know,&#xA;  for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now&#xA;  come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit&#xA;  and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24&#xA;  God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in&#xA;  truth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming.&#xA;  When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus states, that salvation comes from the Jews, the Samaritan woman correctly responds and explains that she knows the Messiah is the cause of that salvation and Jesus goes on to claim to her that He is in fact the Messiah and is therefore claiming to be a Jew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sorry, but I cannot clarify an affinity toward a specific sect, because, maybe my opinion is clouded too much by my own views that Jesus's mission was to show the way not follow a specific way. Jesus had expressed many views which contradicted the main sects such as the time when He set the Sadducees against the Pharisees at the mere mentioning of resurrection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot find evidence to support my belief, but I am of the opinion that when Jesus talks of salvation coming from the Jews, He is referring to one of the following two descriptions of a Jew, of which I lean toward the latter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) A cultural Jew, someone who is of Abrahamic descent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) A Jew in the sense of someone who lived according to the will of God, as in the expression that Abraham demonstrated, who had a relationship and trust in God (just like Jesus in my first paragraph), to the extent he was willing to obey God even to sacrifice his own son Isaac. This kind of living is what I would consider the form of 'Jewishness' Jesus understood himself to follow (I know 'Jew' to be a term coined well after Abraham, with a completely different meaning).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not think Jesus was referring to a specific sect of Jew in terms of which theology they followed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastEditorUserId="3322" LastEditDate="2013-06-17T11:09:41.303" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T11:09:41.303" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16777" CreationDate="2013-06-17T08:21:21.477" Score="12" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Was Jesus a Jew?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yes&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. He was born and raised up in a Jewish family and that was also from the descendant of King David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Did Jesus follow Judaism?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; He was circumcised. He followed the Torah perfectly. In fact, He knew the Torah better than anyone else. He was called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi&quot;&gt;Rabbi&lt;/a&gt;, a title given to those who teach from the Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:1-2 (NIV) Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a&#xA;  member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and&#xA;  said, “&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Rabbi&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God.&#xA;  For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with&#xA;  him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus was more than a Rabbi&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus came to this world to fulfill the prophesies of the Torah that the Messiah would come. Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised by the Torah and He came to complete the Tabernacle System demanded by the Torah by making himself a sacrificial lamb for the sins of mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 22:41-46 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;  While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”&#xA;  “The son of David,” they replied. &#xA;  He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the&#xA;  Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’   (Psalm 110)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the Word of God, the promised Messiah who was with God from the beginning even before the creation of the world, and was born as a man without sin to die for our sins, in order to become the perfect Lamb for the sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:14 (NIV) The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.&#xA;  We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came&#xA;  from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What is the exact word he used to describe the religion he followed?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not come to follow any religion but to make a new covenant between man and God, thereby giving a whole new meaning to the true religion or true worship. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus came to make a completion to the Law of Moses, which was in fact given by Himself. God set a standard that man should follow. Since man cannot complete the Law, God himself came as Jesus Christ to complete the Law He himself had made. The Law of Moses demands the Blood of an innocent lamb for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus became the innocent Lamb and sacrificed himself to God in fulfillment of the Law. &lt;strong&gt;Since Jesus had to complete the Law, he had to follow the Law, which in turn made him appears to follow Judaism religion.&lt;/strong&gt; In contrast, He is the author of Judaism religion and the creator of the new covenant, Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 12:2 (NIV) Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter&#xA;  of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning&#xA;  its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-17T11:24:43.577" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T11:24:43.577" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16777" CreationDate="2013-06-17T09:04:05.000" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me append to what Mawia said.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus clearly identified with the Jews of His day, although correcting its errors in the process. God purposely sent Him to Judah:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:11-12 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And He clearly said:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 4:22: You people worship what you do not know. We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was an observant of Judaism. Both of Jesus' parents had “done everything required by the Law of the Lord” (Luke 2:39). His aunt and uncle, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were also Torah-observant Jews (Luke 1:6), so we can see that probably the whole family took their Jewish faith very seriously.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), Jesus continually affirmed the authority of the Torah and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17) even in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19-20). He regularly attended synagogue (Luke 4:16), and His teaching was respected by the other Jews of His day (Luke 4:15).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though Jesus was a Jew, Christians are not required to follow Judaism. The Laws of Judaism were given to Moses for the children of Israel in a very sacred and special covenant at Mount Sinai. But this wonderful covenant was only a picture of a New and better covenant that God would one day give to His people, both Jew and Gentile.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This new covenant is recorded for us in Jeremiah 31:31-34:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘The time is coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,’ declares the LORD. ‘This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,’ declares the LORD. ‘For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and that old covenant has been replaced. Jesus Himself said:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt. 5:17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T09:04:05.000" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16784" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16793" CreationDate="2013-06-17T11:16:47.317" Score="11" ViewCount="15432" Body="&lt;p&gt;For this question, I would like to first define that someone is a Jew if they meet the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F#Halakhic_perspective&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;halakhic definition&lt;/a&gt;. This definition is just for the sake of moving the discussion toward an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible for a non-Jew to join &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Messianic Judaism&lt;/a&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-07T04:01:14.387" LastActivityDate="2021-02-13T01:33:55.237" Title="Is it possible for a non-Jew to join Messianic Judaism?" Tags="&lt;jews&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;&lt;messianic-judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16735" CreationDate="2013-06-17T11:56:57.557" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure why we insist that each of the persons of the trinity must incorporate the three omni (omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence).  Jesus is the eternal Son.  Further Jesus claimed His work was dependent upon the omniscient will of God the Father (John 5:19, 5:30).  Jesus however is credited with Creation (Colossians 1:16) thus He is omnipotent.  The Holy Spirit is omnipresent.  Clearly because they are a Tri-unity attributes are shared.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T11:56:57.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16786" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-17T13:18:29.257" Score="-2" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is one thing I probably will never understand about God. There are various passages in the bible where God is said to be almighty. If he really is almighty why did he create us to be that weak? It had to be clear for God while creating us that we will turn against him and eat the apple (just an example). It should be clear to him that we will do things that are considered crime against him. Why didn't he just create us stronger in order to make it easy for us to be without sin? And isn't it cruel to create mankind just to please yourself (like 'just for fun') and allow it destroy itself (see wars)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just found the perfect image for this question so please allow me to attach it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/gt8KO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Sin Creation&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4791" LastEditorUserId="4791" LastEditDate="2014-09-08T07:35:59.370" LastActivityDate="2014-09-08T07:35:59.370" Title="How do you explain our existence when you say that God is almighty?" Tags="&lt;logic&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-06-17T15:36:09.980" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16736" CreationDate="2013-06-17T13:22:39.403" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We receive God's grace (His unmerited love) by faith.  Faith in love was what was transgressed in the Garden.  Eve was deceived, Adam's loyalty was misguided, but in both cases it was not primarily a question of obedience, but of misplaced faith.  Eve trusted the words of the serpent rather than the Word of God.  Adam trusted in the words of Eve rather than trusting in the Word of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast Jesus always places His faith in the will of the Father: John 5:19 &lt;em&gt;The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise&lt;/em&gt;.  Jesus does not personally discern between good and evil, but rather does only what He sees His Father do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Independence from God (death) is man discerning between (good and evil), as apposed to man faithfully trusting in the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man gains access to God by placing faith in God's loving grace.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T13:22:39.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16774" CreationDate="2013-06-17T13:49:58.397" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Kingdom of God or Heaven literally means the Realm where God dwells.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Kingdom of God may be divided into two types based on it's establishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt; 1. At the First coming of Jesus Christ&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus came to earth as a humble man to suffer and die for us, He's goal was to bring down the Kingdom of God, which was also His role as the promised Messiah. But at His first coming, the Kingdom of God was not to be established physically on earth, which was the expectation of the Jews. Jesus came to establish the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Kingdom of God in the hearts of men&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Jesus was preparing the people for the coming kingdom, which was to be established soon after He finished His work on the cross. John the Baptist was proclaiming that the Kingdom of God was near.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 3:1-2 (NIV) In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in&#xA;  the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of&#xA;  heaven has come near.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus started explaining to the people what the Kingdom of God is. He used metaphors like  the sower, mustard seed, hidden treasure, weeds, yeast and fishing net (see Matthew 13). But until it was established from the day of Pentecost, which was the beginning of the Church era, it was not fully understood. Therefore, this Church era is the first establishment of Kingdom of God and it's dominion is in the hearts of mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 13:23 (NIV) But the seed falling on good soil refers to&#xA;  someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who&#xA;  produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was&#xA;  sown.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Jesus said that the Kingdom of God can start from a single person, which can yield many other believers. Peter was the first man to preach the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost and 3000 people were baptized that day. And the apostles went on to preach everywhere and the number of Christians kept on growing and growing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. At the Second coming of Jesus Christ&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus will come again with all His glory and power to establish His kingdom physically on earth forever. This present world is in the hands of Satan but when Jesus comes, Satan will be defeated and the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;eternal physical Kingdom of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; will be established on earth forever and ever. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 19:11-20 (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;- excerpt&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse,&#xA;  whose rider is called &lt;em&gt;Faithful and True&lt;/em&gt;. With justice he judges and&#xA;  wages war. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the &lt;em&gt;Word of&#xA;  God&lt;/em&gt;. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses&#xA;  and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is&#xA;  a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “&lt;em&gt;He will rule&#xA;  them with an iron scepter&lt;/em&gt;.” On his robe and on his thigh he has this&#xA;  name written: &lt;em&gt;king of kings and lord of lords.&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies&#xA;  gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his&#xA;  army. But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who&#xA;  had performed the signs on its behalf. &#xA;  The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning&#xA;  sulfur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-18T05:44:55.097" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T05:44:55.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16786" CreationDate="2013-06-17T13:59:35.333" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer here is to be found in the glory of God. The catechism says that &quot;Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.&quot; That would sound silly if God were a mere man, or even someone as petty as the Greek or Norse gods. But if you take the God of the Bible, Who knows everything, is all-powerful, is all-good, and all-wise, then it seems quite fitting that He should get glory. Indeed, the glory of God is the greatest good possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God created man able to change, and fallible, in order for Himself to get more glory. How does that happen? Through various attributes of God that show up in greater relief through His plan of redemption. Think about these attributes of God, and how redemption highlights them: holiness, wrath, justice, mercy, love, and grace. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're quite correct that it &quot;had to be clear for God while creating us that we will turn against him and eat the apple.&quot; Creation, Fall, and Redemption was not Plan B, but Plan A. God created a world where he knew man would turn against Him; but He also had mind a world where there could be only one way of salvation - a way that would bring God immense glory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;cruel&quot; cannot be applied to God. The fact is, we were the ones who messed up, not God. God gave Adam as good a shot at paradise as anyone could want, but he sinned; and because we were covenantally represented in him, we all sinned with him. The Bible clearly teaches that we are responsible for our own sins. Therefore, a sinner going to hell is uninteresting. That's what we should expect, just as uniform straight-line motion tends to stay in uniform straight-line motion. What's incredibly wonderful, and astounding, is that God saves anyone, rather like the outside force acting on that uniform straight-line motion. Why should He do that? He could let us all go to hell, and it would be what we deserve. Instead, He saves some purely out of His own goodness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T13:59:35.333" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16748" CreationDate="2013-06-17T14:31:05.377" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different books of the Bible use the terms &lt;em&gt;apostle&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;disciple&lt;/em&gt; in differing ways. The word disciple means a &lt;em&gt;follower&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;student&lt;/em&gt; of a teacher, while the word apostle means a &lt;em&gt;messenger&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;ambassador&lt;/em&gt; who champions a particular cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Initially, the term &quot;apostle&quot; was used to describe the early followers of Jesus. There were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scionofzion.com/apostles.htm&quot;&gt;specific requirements&lt;/a&gt; to be called an apostle, some of which were, the chief of which was that they had to have seen him after his Resurrection. Additionally, the apostles were the foundation of the early church, after Jesus, the chief cornerstone. So the &quot;apostles&quot; were limited in number, but not to only 12 (a disciple, however is a much broader term. A disciple is any follower of Christ, and as such there are millions of disciples today).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is a common convention of a difference between &quot;apostle&quot; and &quot;Apostle&quot;, with &quot;Apostle&quot; denoting the those specifically appointed by Jesus as apostles (the twelve, along with Paul). So there were the Twelve, but these were set apart by Jesus as his closest companions during his earthly ministry, and not an artificial distinction posed by the writers of the gospels. So depending on your definition, there might be 12 apostles or several hundred (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15&lt;/a&gt;:6) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T14:31:05.377" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16748" CreationDate="2013-06-17T14:42:59.567" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Recursive Great Commission&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word from which apostle is derived literally means &quot;one who is sent out&quot;.  To be sure, every believer is in effect an apostle who is sent out to proclaim Christ to the world.  The Great Commission is, in a sense, recursive.  Those that received that command were to make disciples and them those disciples everything Jesus had commanded them, which included the Great Commission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations&lt;/strong&gt;, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 &lt;strong&gt;teaching them to observe all that I commanded you&lt;/strong&gt;; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”  Matthew 28:19-20 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Special Designation of the Twelve&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there was a specific designation of apostleship that was reserved for twelve specific men whose names are identified for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus summoned His &lt;strong&gt;twelve disciples&lt;/strong&gt; and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. 2 Now the names of the &lt;strong&gt;twelve apostles&lt;/strong&gt; are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him. &#xA;  5 These &lt;strong&gt;twelve&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus sent out...  Matthew 10:1-5a ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a very real sense, the disciples/learners/students became apostles (ones sent out) at this moment in time when Jesus specifically sent them out with a purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T14:42:59.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16784" CreationDate="2013-06-17T14:47:52.557" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the same wiki to which you linked, there is a section on Converts to Judaism, which states that all &quot;mainstream forms of Judaism today are open to sincere converts...&quot; Even in the halakhic perspective, there are ways to become a full Jew. I would add that there has always been a path to becoming a Jew (think about Rahab and Ruth). And, since there are no ethnic barriers to Christianity (see the book of Acts), it would seem to me that there are no ethnic barriers for anyone to become a Messianic Jew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T14:47:52.557" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16747" CreationDate="2013-06-17T16:32:04.253" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Wikipedia article on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;American Catholic Church of the United States (ACCUS)&lt;/a&gt;, if that is what you mean, it notes that there are quite a few differences between the ACCUS and the Roman Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ACCUS is post-Vatican II&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ACCUS does not require clerical celibacy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ACCUS clergy members may be married, be in a domestic partnership, divorced, or widowed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ACCUS clergy members have ordained women among their ranks.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ACCUS does not bar people based on gender, sexual orientation, race, age, marital status, or previous religious affiliations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ACCUS clergy members are required to support themselves through outside employment; clergy members are prohibited from receiving money for the sacramental services they perform. They are allowed to receive gifts and monetary donations, as long as they are not the ones soliciting them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;ACCUS disagrees with papal infallibility, which was the main reason why they split.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a feeling that ACCUS is Catholic in a sense that it observes the seven sacraments, but it disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church on certain sexual-related issues, or at least the article appears to be focused that way. Call it a &quot;liberal&quot; version of the Roman Catholic Church, though any split-off group of the Roman Catholic Church would probably be recognized as Protestant despite the similarity of the theological traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-06-19T03:45:34.833" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T03:45:34.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15541" CreationDate="2013-06-17T16:34:22.683" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says that Jesus became man, and that He remained being God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;John 1:14 &quot;And the Word became flesh&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Colossians 2:9 &quot;For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So He is 100% human and 100% God. &lt;strong&gt;One person with two natures, and one of them, Son of Man&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that he has a sinful human nature. Because His father is God and not man after all.&#xA;John 8:42 &quot;Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.' &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4771" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T16:34:22.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16774" CreationDate="2013-06-17T16:42:18.113" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 17:21  Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar 9:1  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 10:7  And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below are listed some of the parables about the Kingdom of God and Heaven. It is clear in all of these that the Master was referring to the work of the Church on the earth bringing people into relationships with God through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is especially clear in Luke 17 and Mark 9. When teaching on the Kingdom of Heaven Jesus always preached it as something which would happen later rather than during his ministry on the earth. The Lord will return one day and physically establish the Kingdom of Heaven on the earth until then the Kingdom of Heaven exists in our hearts and is expressed through our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 13:44  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.&#xA;Mat 13:45  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:&#xA;Mat 13:46  Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.&#xA;Mat 13:47  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:&#xA;Mat 13:48  Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 22:2  The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,&#xA;Mat 22:3  And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.&#xA;Mat 22:4  Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.&#xA;Mat 22:5  But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:&#xA;Mat 22:6  And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.&#xA;Mat 22:7  But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.&#xA;Mat 22:8  Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.&#xA;Mat 22:9  Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.&#xA;Mat 22:10  So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.&#xA;Mat 22:11  And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:&#xA;Mat 22:12  And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.&#xA;Mat 22:13  Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.&#xA;Mat 22:14  For many are called, but few are chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-07-25T11:17:17.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16800" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16843" CreationDate="2013-06-17T16:44:12.933" Score="5" ViewCount="700" Body="&lt;p&gt;What determines entry into Christendom - baptism or belief? Say a vaguely spiritual person joins a congregation affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Sometimes, the congregation may pull readings from the Hebrew scriptures or the Christian scriptures, and over time, the vaguely spiritual person decides to identify himself/herself as Christian by belief, and therefore repents and does other Christian things. Now, the UUA does not normally perform baptisms as a ritual. Would such a person be considered a legitimate Christian? Would the UUA be willing to perform a baptism for the Christian convert before the congregation, since baptisms are very significant in Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-27T18:00:54.683" LastActivityDate="2015-08-27T19:37:04.783" Title="Would Nicene Christians consider a Unitarian Baptism sufficient for entry into the Church?" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;unitarianism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16801" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16800" CreationDate="2013-06-17T17:00:01.563" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Repent and believe in the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/15&quot;&gt;Mark 1:15&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this cannot be accomplished unless the Father draws a man to His Son, as it is written (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;t=KJV#44&quot;&gt;John 6:44&lt;/a&gt;),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him on the last day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T17:00:01.563" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16803" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16808" CreationDate="2013-06-17T17:07:57.280" Score="8" ViewCount="1417" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember something about the ancient Jewish Wedding Ceremony being a foreshadowing of Christ and the Church.  Kay Arthur authored a novel that illustrates this idea, entitled &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com.au/books/about/With_an_Everlasting_Love.html?id=2A8fFSfhdSEC&amp;amp;redir_esc=y&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;With an Everlasting Love&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what are the specifics of the ancient Jewish Wedding ceremony and how do they foreshadow Christ and the Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-22T02:55:07.277" LastActivityDate="2018-12-22T02:55:07.277" Title="How does the ancient Jewish Wedding tradition foreshadow Christ and the church?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;jewish-culture&gt;&lt;typology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16806" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16809" CreationDate="2013-06-17T18:57:21.743" Score="18" ViewCount="15693" Body="&lt;p&gt;A funeral notice announces a &quot;mass of Christian burial&quot; (at a Roman Catholic church in the US) followed by a burial followed by a luncheon.  As an outsider I have a few questions about what to expect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is the mass the same as a Sunday mass with extra stuff added, or is it different?  What content is unique to a funeral mass?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What happens at the burial beyond putting the casket in the ground?  (In movies you always see what looks like another religious service there, but I don't know if that's accurate.)  If there is a service of some sort, how does it differ from the mass?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Where is the eulogy given (or does that vary)?  Will visitors be asked to say something about the deceased at one of these services?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it practical to skip the mass&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and go to the rest, or would that be &quot;weird&quot;?  If it's practical, approximately how long after the announced start time for the mass should one show up to proceed to the cemetery?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What are the cultural/social norms around interacting with the mourners?  Are there specific things you should (or shouldn't) say or do, beyond what common sense suggests?  For example, in Judaism we have a specific phrase of comfort that we say; is there anything like that?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are you supposed to bring a dish to the luncheon?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Because participating in, or appearing to participate in, another religion's service can be problematic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4145" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T12:44:11.523" Title="What should I expect at a Roman Catholic funeral?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;burial&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-17T18:57:29.843" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be very concise: Because you have to be perfect to go to heaven. it is impossible for a human being to be &quot;good&quot; enough to satisfy God because we are never perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ, however, promised to cleanse us from all our sins if we would have faith in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4792" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T18:57:29.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16803" CreationDate="2013-06-17T19:01:30.407" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.khouse.org/articles/2011/987&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;all Jewish brides are stolen&lt;/a&gt;, they are snatched away.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Jewish brides were said to be “stolen, caught up, or snatched up&#xA;  by surprise.” The bride was then led to the groom’s house by a wedding&#xA;  procession of women carrying lighted lamps, similar to the Parable of&#xA;  the Ten Virgins that we will explore in next month’s Personal Update.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditionally the Father of the Bride and the Father of the groom along with the groom negotiate terms for the brides hand and the covenant is sealed with wine. The groom then goes off to prepare a place in his father's house for his bride.  The groom then comes in an evening unannounced and snatches his bride away.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bride and groom retreat to the bridal chamber prepared by the groom and the couple consummate the marriage and share their bridal week together. They then come out of the bridal chamber to celebrate the marriage feast with friends and family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Parallels: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christ sealed His covenant for His bride with His own blood depicted by wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe Christ will steal His bride at the rapture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe that Christ like the groom is preparing a place for us as promised in John 14:2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe the bridal week is likened to the seven year tribulation where the bride will be with the groom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some believe the marriage feast will be like the millennial reign of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2016-10-10T13:05:19.543" LastActivityDate="2016-10-10T13:05:19.543" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16806" CreationDate="2013-06-17T19:10:09.533" Score="15" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is the mass the same as a Sunday mass..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Same basic format as Sunday mass, but read from a different part of the book.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What happens at the burial...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not part of the Mass and doesn't even necessarily need to coincide with the Mass for the Dead.  It's pretty much the same as at any other secular(ish) event. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Where is the eulogy given...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A eulogy is not part of the Mass, the Mass is for the repose of the soul of the deceased, not to honor his or her life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, eulogies are often given, after the priest has spoken his homily (about halfway through mass)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it practical to skip the mass...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's entirely cultural and subjective.  The only thing a non-catholic shouldn't do at Mass is receive the Eucharist.  Beyond that, do what is comfortable.  Chances are very good that over half of the people with you are cultural Catholics and wouldn't give a hoot if you sat through the whole Mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing than is probably acceptable (at least in a traditional sense for those who are not fully accepted into the Catholic Church) would be to leave after the homily (or the eulogy).  That way all you're hearing is the stuff you've probably heard before and all the stuff you're missing is the stuff you might feel uncomfortable either in participating in or visibly avoiding.  So then you can mill around for half an hour or so and join the entourage to the cemetery when you see the casket being carried out of the church. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What are the cultural/social norms around interacting with the mourners? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's always dependent on the circumstances, but generally Catholic funerals are pretty happy events, even if the death was fairly tragic.  My brother, who died at 29, was an awful experience, but I got hugs from nearly everyone in the entire town and felt good to have the support of everyone who knew him &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are you supposed to bring a dish to the luncheon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably not (unless it's a funeral of epic proportions) this is usually handled by the ladies of the Parish who seem to have the uncanny ability to materialize tons and tons of food out of nowhere.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/cremation/index.cfm&quot;&gt;more info on Funerals&lt;/a&gt; from the US Council of Catholic Bishops. Apparently, in extraordinary circumstances, non Catholic's can read at the Mass. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-06-18T12:44:11.523" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T12:44:11.523" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16810" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16898" CreationDate="2013-06-17T19:37:19.207" Score="14" ViewCount="1609" Body="&lt;p&gt;It has been asserted that the author of the Chinese alphabet could very well been knowledgeable of the accounts in Genesis 1-11--those that occurred prior to the division of peoples and languages at Babel.  It is stated that many Chinese characters intrinsically reflect the peculiarities of the Genesis account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the nature of these characters?  What is the evidence that would suggest that the author of the Chinese script was, in fact, familiar with the Genesis account?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/03/06/chinese-characters-and-genesis&quot;&gt;See this as an example&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-06-17T21:26:17.160" LastActivityDate="2015-12-21T01:34:55.587" Title="What evidence is there that the Chinese script reflects a knowledge of Genesis 1-11?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-17T20:14:06.653" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Only one is good,&quot; Jesus said, when the disciple called Him &quot;good Master.&quot; If Jesus would not call Himself good, then how can anyone say they are doing &quot;good?&quot;&#xA;In the middle ages the word &quot;good&quot; referred to &quot;God&quot;. That is: &quot;good works = Godly works.&quot;&#xA;So, if we are to do good works we must be doing Godly works, that is work that God has asked us to do through his prophets. Not because it is beneficial in any way to God, but that it contributes to good living for everyone. We do the works from the heart, purely because of love for one another, not out of duty. And this love comes from God - we only pass it on to others. Love spurs us on to do good for the world, starting with our &quot;brethren&quot; and extending to all who cross our path. Of course to have love this powerful, requires a close relationship with God, which means first that we must trust God in everything. The Faith we have, was given by God - and we absorb this faith through the training by Jesus (and his disciples.) It is a temporary help until we understand Jesus, and can behave like Jesus, and feel the love of God like Him, and love God like Him. Or as Paul said until we &quot;have The Christ within us.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is then, not more important than good works, but faith is how Christians learn to do good works - Faith is a synonym for &quot;life of Christ.&quot; That is everything that Jesus taught the disciples to &quot;observe,&quot; is &quot;Faith&quot; - in the sense that Paul used the word, and the way the 4th century Church understood it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T20:14:06.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16800" CreationDate="2013-06-17T20:40:16.200" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church provides a clear answer: those who are baptized are members of the Church, period. There are those who die outside the Church who we believe are still redeemed, but it is only in that redemption that they enter into the Church. Yet even these are still said to have a sort of baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this answer has gotten a few down votes, I'll add some clarity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism makes us members of the church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: &quot;Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.&quot; (CCC 1213)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone can baptize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59 (CCC 1256)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't found anywhere in the CCC which is quite as succinct in describing the actual rite requirements, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt;'s description is accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the essentials of that rite are two: the pouring of water over the head of the person to be baptized (or the immersion of the person in water); and the words &quot;I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, missing from that paragraph is the fact that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq13.txt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;intent of the person baptizing is required&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The internal intention (intentio interna) of the minister of the &#xA;  Sacrament must be, as defined by the dogmatic Council of Trent &quot;doing what the &#xA;  Church does.&quot;  The minister of a Sacrament may be a schismatic or an &#xA;  excommunicate, and the Sacrament is still valid, as long as this intention is &#xA;  present.  An example would be the case of an atheist in an emergency baptizing &#xA;  a newborn infant.  Even though the atheist personally does not believe in the &#xA;  Sacrament, as long as he intends to do what the Church does in this instance, &#xA;  perhaps out of his concern for the infant, the Sacrament is valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so we arrive at the original point. So long as you baptize with water and intend to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, you are committing a valid baptism. And the person baptized will be a member of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T05:57:35.067" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T05:57:35.067" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16777" CreationDate="2013-06-17T20:43:48.623" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was born in Judah, to parents who lived the religious life of those who followed the teaching of Torah, which was explained to all and sundry through the teaching of some 20,000 translators who were scribes and/or Pharisees.&#xA;We know he was circumcised on the 8th day. We know Jesus supported the teachings of the Pharisees, and told his disciples to do whatever they taught from &amp;quot;Moses seat&amp;quot; in the synagogue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do ...”&lt;/em&gt; Matthew 23:1-3a, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He attended a synagogue daily, attended all religious festivals and observed Shabbat. Nothing He said ever contradicted the teachings given to Moses on Sinai for &amp;quot;Israel.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. &lt;strong&gt;For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/em&gt; Matthew 5:18-20, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from his behavior, we know He was an observer of Torah - not withstanding the attempt by the Greek writers of the NT to show Him breaking &amp;quot;the Law.&amp;quot;&#xA;He was not a &amp;quot;jew,&amp;quot; - this word did not enter the lexicon until the middle ages and was a pejorative (swear word.)&#xA;Did He prefer one sect over another? He told his disciples to keep out of Samaria, and to not &amp;quot;go in the way of the gentiles,&amp;quot; (which had the meaning then of any nation that was not descended from Abraham.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”&lt;/em&gt; Matthew 10:5, 6, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His primary dealings were with the followers of Torah - &amp;quot;Israel.&amp;quot; He came for the &amp;quot;lost sheep'&amp;quot; who were those Torah followers who had lost their trust in God. The Samaritans and the other sects were not Torah followers, though they also believed in Jahweh. But as Luke said &amp;quot;He died for the sins of the whole World.&amp;quot; All benefit from this event, and He did not withhold his love from anyone - Christian or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T03:14:46.037" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16774" CreationDate="2013-06-17T21:00:43.547" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One is in the Kingdom of God when, as Jesus said, &quot;I and the Father will make our abode[tabernacle] within you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said &quot;keep my words.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which I understand to mean &quot; don't change from what I have taught you to do, and don't mislead people about what I have taught.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difficulty for people who try to understand Jesus's training by the reading of the the NT, is that so little of what he taught was released to the public. Of the 2,000 + hours of training He gave to the disciples, we got less than 2 hours of His words in the NT. In the Gospel of Mark who, it was said by the Church historians, recorded everything that Peter told him about Jesus &quot;leaving nothing out and adding nothing,&quot;  we find only 18 minutes of Jesus's sayings were released to the public by the Church in the NT writings. Obviously Mark knew a lot more than that. John said that there weren't enough books in the world to contain what Jesus showed them. So you are at a severe disadvantage if all you know about His training is taken from the English NT. There are some 27 miles of shelving in the Vatican Library about what Jesus taught. There are enough books in English now, for anyone to delve deeper. I have dozens of books from the 2nd through 5th. cents. written by His disciples who explain what He taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T21:00:43.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16766" CreationDate="2013-06-17T21:41:09.230" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all: what is in Torah are the teachings of God to Israel. Torah today contains these teachings. There are no Torah (Torah is the five books of Moses only)scrolls older than the 10th. cent.&#xA;Most of Torah is oral teaching, which was passed down orally until the 3rd. cent A.D. when the oral Torah was finally written down. It is tradition that confirms that Torah today represents what God gave to Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church in the 3rd. century had no access to the Hebrew &quot;bible&quot; because there were no gentile Hebrew scholars in the Church - they had all been kicked out of the Church by then, and they wrote the &quot;Old Testament&quot;  - the version that is in most English Bibles - from a Greek document called the Septuagint, which was a translation of Jewish documents with a few Greek additional books thrown in. It was condemned by the Judean authorities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Elijah did was teach the people by speaking to them, and most of what he said was not written down until the 5th cent. A.D. when the Babylonian Mishnah was written by the rabbis. Followed by the Jerusalem Mishnah. To see what Elijah taught (that is the Oral teachings,) you have to read a Jewish Bible - The Chumash, Stone edition, or the Etz Hayim, for example, which are five times thicker than the Pentateuch in the English Bible, and contain both Written and Oral Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-07-29T20:46:49.883" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T20:46:49.883" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16753" CreationDate="2013-06-17T22:01:29.253" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all: what is in Torah are the teachings of God to Israel. Torah today contains these teachings. There are no Torah scrolls older than the 10th. cent.&#xA;Most of Torah is oral teaching, which was passed down orally until the 3rd. cent A.D. when the oral Torah was finally written down. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church in the 3rd. century were pressured to include the OT as part of the Bible, in order to counter the arguments of Gnostic religions. The Church scholars, who were Greek at that time, could not refer to the Hebrew writings because Hebrew scholars in the Church had left the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church wrote the &quot;Old Testament&quot;  - the version that is in most English Bibles - from a 3rd. cent. B.C. Greek document called the Septuagint, which was a translation of Jewish documents with a few Greek additional books thrown in (actually they used Origen's Greek version in his Hexapla which included three Greek versions including Septuagint.) Septuagint was universally condemned by the Judean authorities, and it was forbidden to even study Greek in Jerusalem.&#xA;Later in the 5th. cent, the Church revised the Old Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint using Hebrew writings translated into classical Latin by Jerome. This version of the OT is currently part of the Latin Vulgate Bible which was translated by Cambridge scholars into English in the 16th. cent. (the Duoay-Rheims Bible.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To see the differences between a Christian OT and Torah, you must read a Jewish &quot;bible&quot; - The Chumash Stone Edition, or the Etz Hayim, for examples. These are five times thicker than the Pentateuch in the English Bible, as they contain both Written and Oral Torah, which are equally sacred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T22:01:29.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16750" CreationDate="2013-06-17T22:24:12.640" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prayer to me is what I do for love of God. I think about God's teaching, and I talk about it sometimes to God, sometimes to brethren. Prayer is to make God the focus and center of your own life. &#xA;Jesus taught his disciples to avoid public displays and to go within themselves to communicate what they needed from God. He also taught that anyone must ask God for whatever they want, and to do it in earnest, nothing wavering and to demand from God what God has promised to his children. There are many parables about this behavior.&#xA;Communication with God is non-verbal. It must come from your spirit to the Spirit of God, which as Jesus said &quot;is within you.&quot;&#xA;My experience is that God can read my mind. God is always present with me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trinity is a Catholic concept of God, which was dreamt up in AD 325 by a committee which included some 300 Bishops of Constantine's Greek Empire. It was a formula to squelch the teachings of errant Bishops and especially Gnostic Bishops. All Bishops had to sign a document we call the Nicene Creed, or lose their Bishopric, their property and pensions. Only six refused to sign. The Creed was full of loopholes and Bishops went their merry way and interpreted it as they saw fit. The Creed was revised twice more to fill in the loopholes. It was never considered to be the truth about God, but was the best the Bishops could come up with. The Church made it a requirement to accept this Creed before anyone could join the Church. So it is essentially a membership rule to be sworn to in order to be a Roman Catholic - the Greek Orthodox use a different Creed.&#xA;It does not describe the truth about God which can never be understood by mortal man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T22:24:12.640" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16560" CreationDate="2013-06-17T23:29:06.900" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Original Sin has nothing to do directly with Eve eating the fruit. Original Sin is an idea of a Catholic Bishop in the middle ages which he used to explain the source of evil behavior. It is a condition that Adam's descendants suffered from, that Adam and Eve did not. The idea is that the children were born without two of the virtues that God gave to Adam, and as a result they were unable to be &quot;good.&quot;&#xA;This is an RC idea and was adopted into the Church dogma. Only humans were born with &quot;original sin.&quot; The loss of these virtues prevented humans from returning to Paradise to be with God. Christ has redeemed all mankind and created a path for man to re-enter Paradise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eating of the fruit was not considered to be a sin then, nor now, neither by catholics nor Torah followers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T23:29:06.900" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16553" CreationDate="2013-06-17T23:46:05.103" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was written by the Church for the Church, to remind the Bishops what they should teach about Jesus to their new clergy. The New Testament is a sort of &quot;Cliff notes,&quot; to the training program by Jesus. It was used to remind the Bishops what they had learned in &quot;seminary.&quot; The teaching of Priests was through an apprenticeship program. The Bible was not used except to remind the Bishops what to do. It was written in obscure terms so that Gnostic churches could not understand the text and train their own priests in the methods of the Apostles. Jesus instructions on what to do to heal lepers, cure blindness, raise the dead, cast out demons etc. was not described. His mystical instructions were disguised in parables, that only the Church understood, and these understandings were only given to ordained clergy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament was included in the Bible to put down Gnostic teachings that God the Father was above Yahweh and Torah only applicable to Yahweh followers. Gnostic churches could not claim Apostolic connections and adopted Paul as their spiritual head.  The OT gave the Church the tradition they needed to justify their position as the only true Church of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-17T23:46:05.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16440" CreationDate="2013-06-18T00:11:36.037" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have some 10,000 manuscripts of the Gospels alone. There are four major NT families, each stemming from a center of Christianity, that were separated by hundreds of miles. Each center had its own gospel, and traditions. All the manuscripts discovered can be traced back to one of these centers. There are thousands of variations between these manuscripts - some small punctuation differences, but many have different passages. Some manuscripts were included in the oldest bibles but not in our present bibles. The oldest Bible is from the 4th. cent but it is undated. The oldest OT that is dated is from the 5th. cent. (Syrian Aramaic.) &#xA;Everything that is in the NT can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers between the 2nd and 5th cents. Before the 2nd cent. there are no quotations from the NT as we have it presently. &#xA;Presently we have hundreds of NT versions many of which are in strong disagreement as to theology.&#xA;Each church sponsors a translation which supports its particular doctrine. And in fact that was the purpose of the first NT - to support the doctrine of the Church.&#xA;If you are RC you wouldn't read a Protestant Bible, nor a Protestant read a Mormon Bible. Anglicans read the King James with all 80 books. Evangelicals read the NIV with 67 books. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no &quot;original&quot; bible in Christianity. The most ancient Bibles are in Aramaic, and Greek. Followed by Old Latin (3rd cent.,) Classical Latin (5th. cent.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bibles have been copyright since the KJV 1611. All churches and their publishers have to circumvent the copyright restrictions by re-translations of non-copyright material. Committees of scholars are paid to come up with variations on the text, so that publication can occur without being stopped by copyright holders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why there has been only one King James text since 1796. The copyright is held by the Crown of England. No variation can be made without an act of Parliament, the agreement of the Queen, and her Bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T00:11:36.037" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16822" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16823" CreationDate="2013-06-18T02:18:12.343" Score="3" ViewCount="390" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does the biblical Jesus (as opposed to the historical Jesus) think he is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a rabbi&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the son of a carpenter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the child born in the house of David&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the king of the Jews, about to be anointed with oil, to save Jerusalem from all oppression and be the light of the world&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a pious Jewish man well-versed in the Hebrew scriptures at the time and carefully cites some sources from the Hebrew scriptures in order to serve his purpose and make himself seem credible, genuine, and sincere to his community&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a traveler who wants anybody who has ears to hear to listen to him&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a man holding a grudge against the Pharisees, even though one of the Pharisees shows hospitality by inviting him to his house&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a prophet that foretells what shall happen to the Son of Man, which turns out to be &lt;em&gt;him&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;his disciples seem to treat him like a teacher, a rabbi, and sometimes refer to him as &quot;lord&quot; (whether or not &quot;Lord&quot; is the correct translated term is another story)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;complex relationship with his &quot;Father&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compared to modern Rabbinical Jewish mashiach, it is implied that Jesus presumably thought that he was the Jewish messiah, the King of the Jews. Wearing a crown of thorns and being labelled &quot;King of the Jews&quot; at his crucifixion and resurrection. Plus, some say that his resurrection really did happen in history. His resurrection seems to be most significant, because without it, he would be a dead messiah, and that means he would be no messiah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T13:02:30.720" Title="What did Jesus think he was?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2017-03-26T00:43:55.343" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16823" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16822" CreationDate="2013-06-18T02:27:59.993" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The common Christian answer goes straight to the words Jesus spoke in John 8:58 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to them, &quot;Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was,&#xA;  I AM.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is understood now, and was understood at the time, as Jesus claiming to be God, referring to the the words God spoke to Moses from the burning bush.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is covered in much greater detail at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/Trin16.htm&quot;&gt;Let Us Reason Ministries&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who do you say Jesus is? Jesus asked this same question to his&#xA;  disciples about what others thought of him and then asked what they&#xA;  thought of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jn.5:37: &quot;And the Father himself, who sent me, has borne witness of&#xA;  me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.&#xA;  ‘Jesus gives the source of his commission, which is from the Father&#xA;  personally. It is the Fathers voice and form they have not seen, yet&#xA;  Christ has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ who is called the exact image of the invisible Father is the&#xA;  voice that the people heard. He then says that they search the&#xA;  Scriptures in them you think you have eternal life but they testify of&#xA;  me.&quot;(v.39) The Son is said to be the eternal life with the Father. Are&#xA;  we to believe the Scriptures testify of only a human being and not God&#xA;  himself? In the end of the discourse Jesus says in vs.46-47 &quot;If you&#xA;  believed Moses you would believe Me; for he wrote about me. But if you&#xA;  don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When did Moses write of him? Deut.18:15-19: &quot;The LORD your God will&#xA;  raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your&#xA;  brethren. Him you shall hear, &quot;according to all you desired of the&#xA;  LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not&#xA;  hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great&#xA;  fire anymore, lest I die.' &quot;And the LORD said to me: 'What they have&#xA;  spoken is good. 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from&#xA;  among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall&#xA;  speak to them all that I command Him. 'And it shall be that whoever&#xA;  will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it&#xA;  of him.&quot; Jesus claims to be the prophet Moses spoke of that should&#xA;  listen to. Notice that it says they did not want to hear the voice of&#xA;  the Lord anymore or see his glory in Horeb. Then God says he will put&#xA;  his words in a future prophets mouth if they do not listen to his&#xA;  words, God will require it of him.&quot; This very thing Jesus said of&#xA;  himself in Jn.8:24 &quot;Therefore I said to you that you will die in your&#xA;  sins; for if you do not believe that I am (He), you will die in your&#xA;  sins.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also famously covered in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma&quot;&gt;C.S. Lewis's Trilemma&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing&#xA;  that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great&#xA;  moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one&#xA;  thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of&#xA;  things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either&#xA;  be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg&#xA;  — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.&#xA;  Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or&#xA;  something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him&#xA;  and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord&#xA;  and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his&#xA;  being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did&#xA;  not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a&#xA;  lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying&#xA;  or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is&#xA;  God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-06-18T03:24:18.033" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T03:24:18.033" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16822" CreationDate="2013-06-18T05:13:48.420" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said of Himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That God was His Father, John 8:16 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That He should receive the same honor God does, John 8:23 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That He will speak and raise the dead, John 8:25&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That He has authority to execute judgment, John 8:27 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That He will determine the fate of the dead, to eternal life or damnation, John&#xA;8:28-29 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That He is the only way to the Father, John 14:6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list goes on and on. Just read the red-letter text in the gospels for more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T05:13:48.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16822" CreationDate="2013-06-18T06:16:53.177" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to expand the short hint given by David Stratton on John 8:58&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law of Moses(Torah) commands to stone to death anyone who misuse or blaspheme the Name of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 24:13-16 (NIV) Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the&#xA;  blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their&#xA;  hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the&#xA;  Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Whether foreigner or&#xA;  native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus explained Himself to the Jews, He equated himself with God, which incited the Jews to stone him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 8:56-59 (NIV) Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of&#xA;  seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” “You are not yet fifty years&#xA;  old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “Very truly I&#xA;  tell you,” Jesus answered, “&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;before Abraham was born, I AM!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;” At this,&#xA;  they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping&#xA;  away from the temple grounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews tried to stone Jesus because He was using the Name of God  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Seven_names_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;I AM&quot;&lt;/a&gt; while referring to himself. The Jews exactly understood what Jesus was saying. That is why they wanted to stone him to death for claiming himself as God or for blaspheming the Name of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 10:33 (NIV)  “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they&#xA;  replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be&#xA;  God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What does the biblical Jesus (as opposed to the historical Jesus) think he is?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He did not think or try to know who He was, but He knows who He is. He spoke the Truth about himself that He is: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Son of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Messiah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;King of the Jews&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The God of Abraham&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Lord of David&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Word of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Way, the Truth and the Life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The only Way to Heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Lamb of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The creator of all things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the list goes on....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-18T07:34:33.200" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T07:34:33.200" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16440" CreationDate="2013-06-18T06:39:56.967" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No ancient literature has survived in its original form and all are derived from copies of the originals. The NT is no exception. However, in comparison with any other ancient literature, the NT is without a peer—both in terms of the chronological proximity and the surviving number. For clarity here is table &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;from an answer from David Startton here&lt;/a&gt;:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/MJnTS.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest copies of Quran are dating back to 688 A.D., a time span of 56 years after the death of Mohammad or a time span of more than 56 years after it was written on fragmented parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As can be seen from above table all the ancient authorities are preserved in only a handful of manuscripts whereas for NT there are approximately 24,000. About 5,500 Greek manuscripts, ranging in date from the second century AD into the middle ages. Besides the Greek manuscripts, there are nearly 30,000 versional copies (e.g., Latin, Coptic, and Syriac), and over 1,000,000 quotations from the NT in the church Fathers.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek manuscripts are by far the most important as they are earliest manuscripts and since they involve direct reproduction from Greek to Greek. There are four kinds of Greek manuscripts: papyri, uncials (or majuscules), minuscules (or cursives), and lectionaries.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Papyri:&lt;/strong&gt; Literally thousands of papyrus fragments have been found of which approximately 100 contain portions of the New Testament. Actually, taken together, these 100 fragments constitute over half of the New Testament and all but four are in the form of codices. Though many of them are somewhat fragmentary, and at times the copying was looser than one would like (i.e., they were done before the canon was officially recognized), they are nevertheless extremely important for establishing the text of the New Testament—if for no other reason than the fact that they represent some of the most ancient manuscripts we possess. Five important papyri are illustrated in the chart below.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/l96rz.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Uncials:&lt;/strong&gt; Here are approximately 300 uncials known to exist today that contain portions of the New Testament and one uncial that contains the entire NT. Unlike the papyri they were written on animal skins or vellum. The most important uncials are Aleph or Sinaiticus and Vaticanus of 4 th century.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Minuscule:&lt;/strong&gt; There are approximately 2,813 NT Greek minuscule manuscripts known to us today. These copies range in date from the ninth to sixteenth centuries, were produced on vellum or paper, and were written in cursive or a lower-case, flowing hand. Among the more important manuscripts cited are Minuscule no: 33 of 9 th century. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Versional Evidence:&lt;/strong&gt; Versions were initially prepared for missionary purposes. The history and transmission of versions are often quite complex, and scholars often do not agree on or do not know the particular dates or characteristics of the version. There are nearly 30,000 versional copies (e.g., Latin, Coptic, and Syriac), &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: Net Bible &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T08:43:52.317" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16822" CreationDate="2013-06-18T06:55:28.480" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus believed knew was God incarnate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to them, &quot;Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4801" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T06:55:28.480" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16830" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-18T08:37:23.900" Score="5" ViewCount="941" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the parable of the dishonest manager, about to sacked for squandering his master's property.  (We don't know if used the property for personal gain, or made bad investments, or what have you.)  The manager secures his future by slashing the bills of his master's debtors.  As the old joke goes, he made friends in low places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says: &quot;Make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth [mammon] so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story is clearly rich in irony: the bad manager saves himself by becoming an even worse manager.  But does Jesus's conclusion rise (or perhaps sink) to the level of sarcasm?  In other words, how am I to understand what Jesus is saying specifically about mammon?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update (previously posted outside the question as fodder):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In long form, here are some of the readings and questions that it would be helpful to have clarified by an interpretation aligned with doctrine: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken as straight sarcasm (an oxymoron): &quot;Go ahead, use money to make friends, and when it's gone and you're gone, then you'll know who your friends are. No doubt they too have a mansion of many rooms, and you can take the guest house by the pool.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken straight (albeit also with irony): There is a use even for money, and how you use it can, guess what, buy your way into heaven.  (Obviously there is no quid pro quo, so it's not as crude as that.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a different policy from &quot;render unto Caesar,&quot; and is closer to the rich man who followed all the commandments but could not give away his wealth (any more than the camel could squeeze through the needle's eye). That is, there is a direct call to dispose of wealth, but how does making friends enter into it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The policy position is laid out in the rest of the passage: you can't serve God and mammon, you must love one and despise the other. But you must be &quot;faithful&quot; with mammon, that is, trustworthy with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean in this context to be faithful with mammon, a very little thing? Jesus doesn't seem to be talking about tithes or donations to good causes or avoidance of greed (cf Luke 12). Nor is he talking about money management per se, putting coins in a bank to learn deferred gratification. In particular, the dishonest manager was praised for acting shrewdly, &quot;for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this shrewdness is just a kind of carnal wisdom, a sophia of mammon, can we take this praise at face value? If the master who praises the manager is the Lord, as usual in these parables, then perhaps it just means that you have to cut the children of darkness some slack. But it's a backhanded sort of praise at best; Jesus is telling his disciples, But don't you children of light go acting that way. What is this shrewdness? Knowing whom to buy off? How big a discount to give? Maybe that's why the children of light must go whole-hog and give it all away. Otherwise, they'd just get taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in this view, I'm not sure which of the first two conjectures is more stable: that his crack about the proper use of mammon to buy friends and influence or at least grease the pearly gates is sarcasm of a high sort, or that his crack about the proper use of mammon reveals the deep irony in pursuing Christian ideals when dealing with our own generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: @AffableGeek's link to a broader bounty question is fruitful. A recent comment suggests plainly that Jesus is being sarcastic; there are interesting suggestions that the discounts dispensed by the manager represent his own cut, i.e., what he was skimming from the accounts, so that maybe he had learned to sacrifice money for more enduring relationships; there are suggestions that Jesus does mean for the children of light to learn from the worldly; and also a suggestion that the text is corrupt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4798" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-16T22:57:37.417" LastActivityDate="2014-10-18T09:20:55.397" Title="What is the proper use of money in Luke 16:1-13?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;parables&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-02-01T13:36:48.757" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16833" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16834" CreationDate="2013-06-18T10:04:21.593" Score="4" ViewCount="2298" Body="&lt;p&gt;Peter went to a camp fire when Jesus was being crucified, but we celebrate Good Friday in the spring/early summer. That Peter required a camp fire makes me doubt that the events happened at the time of year we celebrate them. Did they take place during winter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-26T00:56:36.577" LastActivityDate="2016-06-07T23:24:54.067" Title="Did the events of Good Friday take place during winter?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;good-friday&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16833" CreationDate="2013-06-18T10:32:32.947" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ died during Passover, which is around Spring in Israel, which is in the Northern Hemisphere. I think it's still cold early in the morning during that time, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover#Date_and_duration&quot;&gt;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover#Date_and_duration&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="61" LastEditDate="2013-06-18T11:50:12.933" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T11:50:12.933" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16830" CreationDate="2013-06-18T12:45:54.043" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is based on a misunderstanding.  Rather than addressing the base question, I'm going to address the misunderstanding on which the question is based.  Once the misunderstanding is cleared up, the question itself becomes moot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before doing so, I'd like to remind you that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1808/what-should-we-tell-people-on-our-about-page-that-says-how-we-are-different&quot;&gt;this site isn't about what we believe, but rather what Christianity teaches&lt;/a&gt;.  We're not here to convince you that any particular part of Christianity, or Christianity as a whole is true, we're here to ask about and teach what Christianity teaches, separate from personal opinions on Truthfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Parable of talents is not generally understood to be about money.  Parables are not meant to be literal.  They are stories that teach a lesson, and they are often figurative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; (Not my favorite source, but it'll do here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus' parables are seemingly simple and memorable stories, often with&#xA;  imagery, and all convey messages. Scholars have commented that&#xA;  although these parables seem simple, the messages they convey are&#xA;  deep, and central to the teachings of Jesus. Christian authors view&#xA;  them not as mere similitudes which serve the purpose of illustration,&#xA;  but as internal analogies where nature becomes a witness for the&#xA;  spiritual world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question becomes, what is the analogy being taught here. Most Christian teachings agree that the message is simple:  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Those who show that they are responsible are trusted with more responsibility.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example from &lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/seriespage/parable-talents-matthew-2514-30-luke-1912-28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https://bible.org/seriespage/parable-talents-matthew-2514-30-luke-1912-28&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We should carefully note the outcome of faithful service, and of&#xA;  unfaithful service, in this parable. Faithful service led to increased&#xA;  responsibilities in the kingdom of heaven, and eternal joy in the&#xA;  presence of the Master, Jesus Christ. Unfaithful service led to&#xA;  condemnation, the removal of one’s stewardship, and an eternity of&#xA;  weeping and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness, away from the&#xA;  presence of our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One must surely conclude that this parable is not just an interesting&#xA;  story, but a message of eternal significance. Let us listen carefully&#xA;  then, looking to God’s Spirit to enlighten our hearts and minds, and&#xA;  to empower our service, to the glory of God and our eternal good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This parable isn't about materialism.  It's not about money.  It's about that one undeniably true lesson - that responsibility is something that is given to those who can handle it.  This is true in real life, on the job, in public service, in volunteer work, and in life in general. People in charge give responsibility to those who show that they can handle it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the idea that this teaches materialism is inaccurate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T15:49:03.177" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T00:09:10.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16841" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11436" CreationDate="2013-06-18T13:28:34.380" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the 2nd. cent. the Gospels were not classified as scripture. &quot;Scripture&quot; when mentioned in the NT, meant the Hebrew Torah and prophets. &#xA;The phrase New Testament comes from the Gnostic Church(s.) Until that time the Church called the writings &quot;the memoires of the Apostles.&quot; &#xA;The earliest reference to the Pauline corpus is from Bishops of the 2nd. cent. Before that time the Church did not refer to any Pauline theology, and none of the Church Fathers commentaries mentions Paul, except in a derogatory way, because Pauline ideas had been adopted by Gnostic churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning there was no central authority and each center of Christian religion had their own Gospel. There were some 20+ Gospels in use during the 2nd. cent. &#xA;In order to discredit the teachings of some Bishops and to prevent the spread of misinformation (non-orthodox teaching) one of the Bishops argued successfully for only four Gospels to be included in the catholic NT. These were considered to support the Church Doctrine and were attributed to the apostles and called &quot;scripture.&quot; The other Gospels were destroyed by the Church, but some copies were preserved in the desert by religious, only to be discovered in 1948, and now translated into English. They have been compiled into the &quot;Ante-Nicene New Testament.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other books followed and were considered to be also divinely inspired but not yet scripture. The Book of Revelation did not appear in any Bible before the 6th. cent. though it is thought to have been written very early on. &#xA;In the earliest Bibles there are books that are excluded from our current Bible such as &quot;The Shepherd, of Hermas,&quot; and the &quot;Gospel of Thomas.&quot; This last contains many hundreds of the sayings of Jesus, and may have been one of the earliest Gospels - unfortunately it contains gnostic ideas and was dropped from the Bible.&#xA;Though some scholars piously believe that the Gospels were written in the 1st. cent. There have been no NT manuscripts discovered from this period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The educated opinion of Orthodox scholars is that the Gospels were begun in the last part of the 1st. cent. (but have never been found,) or in the first half of the 2nd. cent. as we have discovered manuscripts with familiar phrases from the Bishops of the 2nd. cent., in their own commentaries. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T13:28:34.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16800" CreationDate="2013-06-18T13:49:31.837" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;For many Baptists, the answer is fairly simple and is well conveyed by the saying &quot;Baptism is merely an outward manifestation of an inward decision.&quot; For those on that end of the baptismal spectrum (where it is a sign rather than a sacrament), the question is thus fairly moot. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difficulty in assessing the &quot;validity&quot; of a baptism comes from those who view baptism more as a sacrament - an act effacious in and of itself.  For such a situation, the nature of the Baptism coming from such a far out denomination as the Unitarians would probably lead to some consternation.  Unitarians differ widely from mainstream, Nicene Christianity, in their rejection of the Trinity and the exclusivity of Jesus as &quot;the Way, the Truth, and the Life.&quot;  What was conveyed in a UUA baptism would doubtless be of concern to any priest considering the validity of that baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to whether or not baptism is required for entry into heaven, however, even the most sacramental - the Roman Catholic church, explicitly recognizes the &quot;Baptism of Desire,&quot; meaning that if a person truly intended to be baptised but died before the actual dipping occurred, they are still &quot;baptised&quot; enough for entry into the Kingdom.  Thus, the answer for most Nicene Christians would be &quot;Belief is enough, but you still should get baptised if you can.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, most churches are happy to baptise anyone who has made a decision for Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="11159" LastEditDate="2015-08-27T19:37:04.783" LastActivityDate="2015-08-27T19:37:04.783" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6403" CreationDate="2013-06-18T14:16:38.650" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said something like : Don't go looking for the Kingdom of Heaven some place else. The Kingdom of Heaven is within/among you (and outside you - according to Thomas.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The KOH is where you are while you are getting to know God. When a person centers his life on God he/she is in the KOH. Any believer in God can do this. Since the idea of Heaven is monotheistic, a non-believer will not be able to enter it. This is not the same as a life after death, which is a belief of many religions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Christians you can think of Jesus's life, or even Jesus himself, as the KOH into which we enter and as Paul said &quot;have Christ within us, &quot; and &quot;to be in Christ.&quot; It is a teaching of all Christian Churches that Christ is the life that sustains humans, and so as long as we are alive, we cannot be separated from Christ (as Paul said,) only we may not know of Christ if we are ignorant of the Biblical teaching. The gradual awakening of this knowledge of Christ within us is the result of stepping into the KOH. Any person can take this step, whether an isolated native in the wilderness, or not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are wondering what will happen after death, I have no idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T14:16:38.650" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16845" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16851" CreationDate="2013-06-18T14:38:38.740" Score="9" ViewCount="1376" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the comments of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16839/4188&quot;&gt;an answer&lt;/a&gt; to another &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/16830/4188&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;, the topic of prosperity theology was raised, and someone stated that a large portion of Christianity is in some way supportive of prosperity theology. I am defining prosperity theology as the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that earthly prosperity is a reward for those who follow God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally don't know of any mainstream denominations that espouse prosperity theology (most that I've heard of are non-denominational or independent churches - e.g. Joel Osteen's congregation). I'm not asking if prosperity theology is Biblical or not, I'm asking &lt;strong&gt;are there any mainstream denominations that espouse prosperity theology?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2014-11-17T03:18:32.950" Title="Which denominations follow prosperity theology?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;word-of-faith&gt;&lt;prosperity-gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16822" CreationDate="2013-06-18T14:39:03.580" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus called himself &quot;son of man&quot;&#xA;He also said: &quot;I can do nothing by myself - I see the Father and I do the same.&quot;&#xA;He said He was the son of &quot;The Father,&quot; and of Mary his Mother.&#xA;He said He should not be called &quot;good Master,&quot; for only God is good.&#xA;He said he was a prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-06-19T01:05:56.070" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T01:05:56.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16847" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-18T15:26:15.467" Score="10" ViewCount="1813" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exsultet&lt;/a&gt; or Exultet is a beautiful Latin hymn for the Easter vigil. There are a few different versions. Part of the ceremony involves lighting the Paschal candle, and the text thanks the bees who produced the wax:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Alitur enim liquantibus ceris, quas in substantiam pretiosiae huius lampadis apis mater eduxit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For [the candle] is fed by melting wax, drawn out by mother bees to build a torch so precious.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The candle is also called &amp;quot;the work of bees and of your servants' hands&amp;quot; in another part of the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course it is nice to recognize the contribution of the bees. But this feels like a bit of a digression in a hymn which is otherwise all about God. Is there some reason why bees are specifically mentioned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. English rendering from the International Commission for English in the Liturgy, 2010.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T15:26:15.467" Title="Why is the Exsultet so keen on bees?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;easter&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16847" CreationDate="2013-06-18T15:26:15.467" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bee represents Mary, the mother of Jesus. (In fact, it's a fairly safe bet that just about anything represents Jesus or Mary or both.) Other versions of the Exultet text make this explicit; the &amp;quot;Franco-Roman version&amp;quot; has a &lt;em&gt;long&lt;/em&gt; we-love-bees section, as recorded by Thomas Forrest Kelley in his &lt;em&gt;The Exultet in Southern Italy&lt;/em&gt; (OUP, 1996), p38, concluding with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;O vere mirabilis apis cuius nec sexum masculi violant, fetus non quassat nec filii destruunt castitatem. Sicut sancta concepit virgo Maria, virgo peperit et virgo permansit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;O truly marvelous bee, whose sex is not violated by the male, nor shattered by childbearing, neither do children destroy her chastity. Just as holy Mary conceived as a virgin, gave birth as a virgin, and remained a virgin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This alludes to the old belief that bees reproduced asexually. Isidore reports in &lt;em&gt;Etymologiae&lt;/em&gt; 12.8 that bees, like other small flying animals, are spontaneously generated from the carcasses of animals. So also, Augustine says in &lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt; 15.27 that bees have no distinction of male and female (&lt;em&gt;alia vero in quibus nihil sit maris et feminae, sicut apes&lt;/em&gt;). This comes from ancient sources: Pliny in &lt;em&gt;Natural History&lt;/em&gt; 11.16 suggests that they might weave their young out of parts of flowers; and Aristotle (&lt;em&gt;On the generation of animals&lt;/em&gt; 2.10) says they are hermaphrodites, and do not copulate with one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We now know that they really couldn't have been more wrong, but the sentiment is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have several copies of &amp;quot;Exultet rolls&amp;quot; which have bee illustrations to accompany the vigil text, indicating the great interest and respect that people had for them. Here is an eleventh century one, from Bari (Archivio del Capitolo Metropolitano, Exultet 1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/17Efe.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Bari Exultet roll, 11th C.&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bees were an example of industry, and esteemed because they provided so many useful things - in particular, honey and light (via the candle). Both honey and light have obvious Biblical resonances. Additionally, gifted orators and writers were said to have a &amp;quot;honeyed tongue&amp;quot;, and so some saints may be depicted with accompanying bees (e.g. Ambrose, Anthony of Padua, Bernard of Clairvaux, Isidore of Seville).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T15:26:15.467" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16784" CreationDate="2013-06-18T16:05:07.567" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Messianic Judaism&amp;quot; is not a single denomination or sect; the term covers a broad range of beliefs and practices. Various groups exist; often the disagreements concern the extent toward which the Mosaic law must be followed today. I'm going to answer based on the views of two groups: the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mjaa.org/site/PageServer&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Messianic Jewish Alliance of America&lt;/a&gt; (MJAA), and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umjc.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations&lt;/a&gt; (UMJC). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kesherjournal.com/Issue-18/Competing-Trends-In-Messianic-Judaism-The-Debate-Over-Evangelicalism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;40-60% of Messianic Judaism's congregations are Gentiles&lt;/a&gt;, so this is an important question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Messianic Jewish Alliance of America&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to sacrifice accuracy a bit to be concise: The MJAA tries to balance between Christianity and Judaism; if forced to distance themselves from one they tend to align themselves with evangelical Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mjaa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=n_about_us_statement_of_faith&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;MJAA Statement of Faith&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We recognize that Jewish people (physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, whether through the mother's or the father's blood-line) who place their faith in Israel's Messiah, Yeshua, continue to be Jewish according to the Scriptures (Romans 2:28-29). Gentiles who place their faith in Yeshua, are &amp;quot;grafted into&amp;quot; the Jewish olive tree of faith (Romans 11:17-25) becoming spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham (Galatians 3:28-29).&#xA;...&#xA;We acknowledge that the New Covenant body of believers is composed of both Jews and Gentiles who have received Yeshua the Messiah as the Promised Redeemer. The &amp;quot;middle wall of partition&amp;quot; has been broken down and now we worship the God of Israel together (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 2:13-14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the acceptance of non-Jews into their congregations (&amp;quot;Messianic Gentiles&amp;quot;), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kesherjournal.com/Issue-18/Competing-Trends-In-Messianic-Judaism-The-Debate-Over-Evangelicalism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Kesher Journal reports&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Congregations are faced with internal division from having a membership that includes Jews, who take part in the destiny and specific promises to the Jewish people, and Gentiles, who do not. &lt;em&gt;The official stance is that Gentiles and Jews are spiritually equal but distinct, and that Jews should be proud of being Jews, and Gentiles proud of being Gentiles.&lt;/em&gt; Nevertheless, the Jewish identity is clearly valorized, causing many Gentiles to strive for greater Jewishness through Jewish observance and search for Jewish roots. Since &lt;em&gt;conversion for Gentiles is deemed unbiblical within the MJAA&lt;/em&gt;, these are the main options for Gentiles seeking a more Jewish identity. What helps increase a sense of unity between Jews and Gentiles within these rituals is the stress on the importance of being a &amp;quot;spiritual&amp;quot; Jew more than a &amp;quot;physical&amp;quot; Jew...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Messianic Jews within the MJAA will accept a Gentile into their congregations, but not allow conversion to Judaism; you will be a &amp;quot;Messianic Gentile.&amp;quot; As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightofmashiach.org/smicha.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ellen Kavanaugh puts it&lt;/a&gt; concerning Christians who consider converting to Messianic Judaism,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conversion implies a change in belief -- from one belief system to a different belief system. And therein lies the problem: To convert to Messianic Judaism would be to 'convert' to a community in which one was already [a] member; to convert to traditional Judaism would be to deny one's faith in Yeshua (or at least, deny the sufficiency of Yeshua alone).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The UMJC strives to be an authentic Jewish group, and be recognized as such by non-Messianic Judaism. They strive for &amp;quot;authentic Judaism.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umjc.org/faith-and-values/defining-messianic-judaism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;define Messianic Judaism&lt;/a&gt; as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish life is life in a concrete, historical community. Thus, Messianic Jewish groups must be fully part of the Jewish people, sharing its history and its covenantal responsibility as a people chosen by God. At the same time, faith in Yeshua also has a crucial communal dimension. This faith unites the Messianic Jewish community and the Christian Church, which is the assembly of the faithful from the nations who are joined to Israel through the Messiah.  Together the Messianic Jewish community and the Christian Church constitute the ekklesia, the one Body of Messiah, a community of Jews and Gentiles who in their ongoing distinction and mutual blessing anticipate the shalom of the world to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a Messianic Jewish group 1) to fulfill the covenantal responsibility incumbent upon all Jews, 2) to bear witness to Yeshua within the people of Israel, and 3) to serve as an authentic and effective representative of the Jewish people within the body of Messiah, it must place a priority on integration with  the wider Jewish world, while sustaining a vital corporate relationship with the Christian Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Messianic Jewish way of life, we seek to fulfill Israel's covenantal responsibility embodied in the Torah within a New Covenant context. Messianic Jewish halakhah is rooted in Scripture (Tanakh and the New Covenant writings), which is of unique sanctity and authority. It also draws upon Jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by devout Jews through the centuries. Furthermore, as is common within Judaism, Messianic Judaism recognizes that halakhah is and must be dynamic, involving the application of the Torah to a wide variety of changing situations and circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Messianic Judaism embraces the fullness of New Covenant realities available through Yeshua, and seeks to express them in forms drawn from Jewish experience and accessible to Jewish people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To again quote Kesher Journal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a recent discussion at the 2002 Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism (LCJE) Conference on Messianic Jewish Identity, a UMJC affiliated rabbi argued that Messianic Jews who do not keep kosher are in sin against God, denying their calling and identity... One of the implications of this stance is that observance of the traditions becomes a measure of spirituality and closeness with God, creating a spiritual hierarchy between those who are most observant relative to those who are less so. By keeping the law, Union congregations also hope to build bridges with observant parts of the Jewish community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The UMJC, in contrast to the MJAA, requires &amp;quot;Messianic Gentiles&amp;quot; to observe the Jewish laws, and generally to convert fully -- becoming Messianic Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Kesher Journal article once more:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past, Messianic congregations have generally defined themselves as a place where Jews and Gentiles worship together, witnessing to the unity of Jews and Gentiles. Many in the UMJC are seeing this as a defective definition. Congregations may have Gentiles, but they are not part of the definition of the congregation, which is to be a Jewish space. The congregation is not an adequate witness to the unity of Jews and Gentiles because the Gentiles there are called to live as Jews- the unity would only be demonstrated if Gentiles were to live as Gentiles.... The simple reality is that many Messianic Jewish leaders realize the kinds of congregations being built are unable to adequately express the Jewish life. They are not seen as authentically Jewish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with other issues, the UMJC's distinguishing mark is its concern for Jewish authenticity. One way to be more authentically Jewish is by adopting a conversion process, similar to other forms of Judaism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, whether a Gentile can convert to Messianic Judaism depends in large part on the beliefs of the specific congregation to which he or she would like to join. In some congregations, you may be able to convert and become a Messianic Jew, while in others you will be accepted to the community, but as a &amp;quot;Messianic Gentile.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T19:29:26.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16845" CreationDate="2013-06-18T16:25:05.693" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This a good question but at the same time it is difficult to make a list of all the denominations. Many Christians and Denominations believe in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prosperity theology&lt;/a&gt; but not necessarily included in their core doctrines.&#xA;Some notable ones being &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Word of Faith&lt;/a&gt; and other Pentecostal Denominations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's give one example. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Yonggi_Cho&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David Yonggi Cho&lt;/a&gt;, a Korean pastor of the world's largest congregation church, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoido_Full_Gospel_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Yoido Full Gospel Church&lt;/a&gt; affiliated with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblies_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Assemblies of God&lt;/a&gt; , is known for his teachings about prosperity.  He emphasizes giving Tithe, Offerings and Seed Faith. &quot;&lt;em&gt;The more you give to God, the more you get&lt;/em&gt;&quot; is one of his teachings. His words as mentioned in Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;We must rethink our misguided thoughts considering material wealth as&#xA;  being equated with sin. We must drive out our subconsciously rooted&#xA;  thoughts of poverty, condemnation and despair. God acts in concordance&#xA;  with our conscience; If our thoughts are filled with poverty and&#xA;  despair, God bless us with material blessing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is famous for his strange teaching about the &quot;Fourth Dimension&quot;. He teaches that we need to learn how turn On our spiritual tap of blessings which is from the fourth dimension and that we need to practice how to exercise our faith in this matter in order to get spiritual and material blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-06-19T04:43:34.257" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T04:43:34.257" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16852" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-18T17:22:45.073" Score="10" ViewCount="564" Body="&lt;p&gt;To the untrained ear, the labels used in Christian circles for some groups of churches as either &quot;reformational&quot; or &quot;restorationist&quot; don't seem that different. If the label &quot;reformed&quot; is a direct connection to the Protestant Reformation of 16th century, what exactly makes something &quot;restorationist&quot;? Does this refer to one specific historical movement (e.g. 'Protestantism') or more generally to a genre of religious movements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-18T18:17:44.517" LastActivityDate="2014-11-28T18:42:10.683" Title="What's the basic premise behind &quot;restorationist&quot; movements?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16852" CreationDate="2013-06-18T19:18:55.587" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;To reform is to change what already is there, and to restore is to return to its original state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It probably depends which congregation within Christianity you're asking. Some protestants may consider themselves &lt;em&gt;restorationists&lt;/em&gt;, and others &lt;em&gt;reformational&lt;/em&gt;. Other Christians use the term and eschew the &quot;Protestant&quot; label.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Latter-day Saints wouldn't consider themselves Protestant since the LDS Church is considered a &lt;em&gt;restoration&lt;/em&gt; of what already was on Earth anciently... regardless of religious protests and breakages through time. This group is particularly interested in differentiating &lt;em&gt;reformation&lt;/em&gt; from &lt;em&gt;restoration&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But generally, I do understand most uses of the word &quot;reform&quot; to refer to the 16th century movements -- and other uses of the word &quot;restore&quot; I'm not familiar with than what I've mentioned. I've also seen local congregations use the word &quot;Reformed &lt;em&gt;such-and-such&lt;/em&gt; Church&quot; in direct reference to another local congregation from which they are a derivative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess it depends who you ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2013-06-18T19:18:55.587" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16852" CreationDate="2013-06-18T20:22:43.127" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Restorationist movements imagine themselves to be &quot;restoring&quot; a more pristine form of Christianity, while &lt;em&gt;reformed&lt;/em&gt; movements have their roots in the &lt;em&gt;Protestant Reformation&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A  good example of a &lt;em&gt;restorationist&lt;/em&gt; church are the so-called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Stone-Campbell&lt;/a&gt; churches that had their beginnings on the American frontier and now refer to themselves as the &quot;Restoration Movement.&quot; The more fundamentalist churches among them would say that they are trying to &quot;Restore&quot; 1st Century Christianity, using the New Testament as their blueprint. Often this results in a sort of theological minimalism. For example, they are famous for such tropes as &quot;No Creed but Christ&quot; (They have historically eschewed all but the Apostle's Creed) and &quot;We're not the only Christians, but we are &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; Christians&quot; (i.e. not Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) and &quot;Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.&quot; Some congregations go as far as eschewing the use of musical instruments in worship (the so-called acappella Churches of Christ), since nowhere does the NT permit them to do use them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, within the Stone-Campbell churches sometimes refer to their own movement as the &quot;Reformation of the 19th Century.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2014-11-28T18:42:10.683" LastActivityDate="2014-11-28T18:42:10.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16856" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16954" CreationDate="2013-06-18T22:06:47.847" Score="9" ViewCount="567" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Ludwig_Zinzendorf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Count Zinzendorf&lt;/a&gt; came to the aid of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moravian Brethren&lt;/a&gt;.  He held that the Holy Spirit was matriarchal. Are there any teachings of this perspective in early church history?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2017-01-24T19:55:30.567" LastActivityDate="2017-01-25T21:20:16.343" Title="Did any groups or noted theologians in early Christian history teach that the Holy Spirit is matriarchal?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16810" CreationDate="2013-06-19T02:02:35.887" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am far from an expert on this topic, and this is anything but a complete answer. In fact, your question got me interested in reading the book &lt;em&gt;Genesis and the Mystery Confucius Couldn’t Solve&lt;/em&gt;, referenced by your link.  So I pulled it up on Amazon, and some of the reviews address the credibility of the author:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ethel Nelson's previous book on this subject, &amp;quot;The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Languages&amp;quot; was based on modern Kaishu forms, which are often totally different from the original forms, so that the elements into which the characters were analyzed did not even exist in the original forms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When this was pointed out to Nelson after the publication of that book, she then came out with this one, scrapping most of her previous contentions and producing new ones, using older character forms as a basis. However, the authors are careful to pick and choose forms that support their analysis, even if other forms are far more common. You can find lots of samples of oracle bone characters on the Web. See for yourself. In fact, it appears that some may be made up on the basis of related forms, as I can't find any examples of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, this book and the previous one share another set of problems. Nelson and her co-authors seem to have no idea that the origins of specific Chinese characters have been well understood for quite some time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/review/R3961MCBBI7NGJ/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;ASIN=0570046351&amp;amp;linkCode=&amp;amp;nodeID=&amp;amp;tag=&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T02:02:35.887" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16860" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16830" CreationDate="2013-06-19T02:04:06.660" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the proper use of money in this passage? In v8, we are told that the non-Christians are often more shrewd in using their goods to further their interests, while Christians are less so. So how can Christians use their money and goods to gain the best results for themselves? If we believe that God gave us our money, what's the best way to further God's ends? How can we spend our goods and money for the growth of God's kingdom? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, the man mismanaged the funds for the original master, but that just introduces the &lt;strong&gt;setup&lt;/strong&gt; for what follows -- he is shown to be shrewd in using his position and goods for his best advantage. In v8, the master commended his steward for his smarts. Jesus applies this story to His hearers by telling them to use their goods to gain the best ends, and that means being faithful with what has been entrusted to them, vv10-12. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is addressing the Pharisees in Luke 15:1-2, who murmured that He &quot;receives sinners and eats with them.&quot; Jesus uses that opening to share several truths that they had completely missed. These Pharisees were not going out to the sinners in love; they were wasting their opportunities. This passage is not for or against prosperity, but it's about not taking advantage of the opportunities to be of service and gain great rewards in the coming kingdom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-06-19T03:40:21.113" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T03:40:21.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16408" CreationDate="2013-06-19T03:35:13.273" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The expression is Aramaic - a Syrian dialect. The Greek author did not understand the expression. Luckily the English translation retained the underlying Aramaic sentence structure. Sometime during the war with the Turks in the first world war, some isolated villages were discovered where the locals spoke Aramaic, and used an Aramaic bible. Scholars from Oxbridge were sent to teach the English language, and so the first Aramaic/English lexicon was born. By 1938 it was published, and for the first time we were able to understand, not only the meaning of the words but also the meaning of the many colloquialisms. &#xA;In the Aramaic bible of the East, in the introductory notes by the translator, who was an Aramaic speaker (Lamsa) he explains how easy it was for the Greeks to misread the small inflections of the Aramaic symbols, and so mistranslate the words. &#xA;The phrase mentioned, would be better translated as &quot;My God, My God, for this was I born.&quot; It seems that the Greek translator selected from the OT a phrase appropriate to the situation. In those days there was no agreement as to whether or not God was on the cross, influential Bishops thought not, so the expression was translated to confirm the humanity of Jesus over the gnostic teaching of some Bishops that Jesus was divine himself and therefore could not have suffered. This was a heated argument for a century or so, and was not fully decided until the first ecumenical council in the 4th. Cent. The translation of this phrase in our bible is western catholic tradition. So much commentary has been published on this phrase that it seems a bit unkind to make any change to text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T03:35:13.273" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16382" CreationDate="2013-06-19T03:55:54.783" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have 28 bible translations in my bible study program. When I teach I use the Bible that is authorized by the Church I am in. You should use the Bible that your Pastor or Priest uses, otherwise you will be in conflict with the doctrine of your Church.&#xA;Each Bible translation has been commissioned by a particular religious entity in such a way as to support the doctrine of that entity. No two Bible translations use exactly the same words. Some Bibles disagree on sentences and even entire verses are missing in some Bibles. There are 80 books in the Anglican Bible but only 67 in Protestant Bibles. It would be confusing to use a catholic bible for protestant study. If you are Anglican you would read the English King James version and not the Baptist version of the KJV, which excludes 13 books of the OT.&#xA;Greek Orthodox use a different OT to Roman Catholics. And  so on.&#xA;So, stick with the Bible your Pastor or priest uses. If you want to branch out and find out what the Catholics or Anglicans teach, then select their Bibles - be warned, the theology is quite different, and their Bibles support their theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T03:55:54.783" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16856" CreationDate="2013-06-19T04:03:51.800" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The theory of Matriarchal Holy Spirit is a &lt;em&gt;Gnostic Heresy&lt;/em&gt;. It doesn't have anything to do with the scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus addresses the Holy Spirit by the masculine gender in the following verses of John 14:26 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my&#xA;  name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I&#xA;  have said to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also in John 15  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you&#xA;  from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the&#xA;  Father, he shall testify of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who believe in a Matriarchal Holy Spirit are simply alluding to the fact that many in this world tends to understand God by things of the world that are&#xA;clearly visible.  They believe that since the human family on earth comprises&#xA;of a husband, wife, and son, the family in heaven too should comprise of God the&#xA;Father, the Holy Spirit as Mother, and Jesus as the Son.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also remember the present day proponents of the idea of a Matriarchal Holy Spirit are some of the feminist groups and not any seriously religious groups. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4673" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-01-24T14:42:28.513" LastActivityDate="2017-01-24T14:42:28.513" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16270" CreationDate="2013-06-19T04:41:48.717" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A theist is someone who looks to an external God. Atheists are sometimes described as people who have no belief in a God somewhere out there in the Universe. But this also describes the teaching of many Christians. If an Atheist believes in God within them, which is the way I read the Pope's comment, and if they follow their conscience, they could be saved. A friend who was a Sister superior at the time explained that a native who knew nothing about Jesus, but who followed his conscience and lived a Godly life, could find salvation. This has been a teaching of the Church fathers of the 3rd. Cent. Today, the Church is a way for men and women to learn to follow their conscience (to trust God) and to lead a Christ-like life. It is possible to learn to trust God without going to church, but most people need the Church to support them on their journey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T04:41:48.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16867" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16888" CreationDate="2013-06-19T12:44:54.107" Score="0" ViewCount="311" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many religions claim to be the only true religion, including most branches of Christianity. Among the major Christian traditions, are there any documented statements of faith that include the possibility that their own beliefs might not be the &quot;one true religion&quot;?  In other words, is there &lt;strong&gt;any literature treating religious doubt&lt;/strong&gt; accepted in the tradition as &lt;em&gt;part of&lt;/em&gt; the tradition, and not examples of individual cases of religious doubt?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is such literature, and if this point is covered within it, how do these major traditions view themselves in light of the &quot;risk&quot; involved if they were wrong in the claim to exclusive truth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4813" LastEditorUserId="361" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T06:05:30.040" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T05:15:13.617" Title="Do any major Christian traditions have documented ways of dealing with religious doubt?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16408" CreationDate="2013-06-19T14:24:47.927" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Testament was written in Greek, but the Greek text records Jesus' words in &lt;em&gt;Aramaic&lt;/em&gt; (in Mark, &lt;em&gt;Hebrew&lt;/em&gt; in Matthew). The Gospel writers &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;transliterated&lt;/a&gt; the Aramaic (Mk 15) and Hebrew (Mt 27) into the Greek script.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important here to distinguish between &lt;em&gt;script&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;language&lt;/em&gt;. For instance, I can write in Spanish, Latin, German, English, etc. all with (basically) the same &lt;em&gt;Latin&lt;/em&gt; script, even though the &lt;em&gt;languages&lt;/em&gt; are all different. And likewise, I can take the Hebrew word אֶל and transliterate it into Latin characters, &lt;em&gt;ʾel&lt;/em&gt;. The language is still Hebrew, but the script is Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; It's Aramaic (or Hebrew in Matthew) transliterated into the Greek script. Since the text provides a Greek translation immediately thereafter, it makes sense that the translators would retain it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2016-03-29T16:09:11.057" LastActivityDate="2016-03-29T16:09:11.057" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16873" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16874" CreationDate="2013-06-19T17:13:52.067" Score="6" ViewCount="15357" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the gospel supposed to mean? In what ways can it be used? What do Christians generally mean when they use the term &quot;gospel&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-10T13:10:39.067" LastActivityDate="2014-10-13T22:00:51.907" Title="What is the &quot;gospel&quot; supposed to mean?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;gospel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16873" CreationDate="2013-06-19T17:13:52.067" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;gospel&quot; is the Old English word for &quot;good news&quot; or &quot;glad tidings&quot; and has several different uses. It comes from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion (eu- &quot;good&quot;, -angelion &quot;message&quot;). As an adjective, it is used in &lt;em&gt;gospel choir&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;gospel music&lt;/em&gt;, perhaps to refer to the African American spiritual Christian hymn. As a noun, it is used in the phrase &quot;to preach the gospel&quot; or &quot;to share the gospel&quot;, which means to &lt;em&gt;evangelise&lt;/em&gt;. Evangelism is interpreted by many Christians to be a good thing, because they may say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The purpose of the gospel is to win souls to Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The purpose of the gospel is to enter the kingdom of God in God's plan or make life on earth as if it were the kingdom of God when it would be fully realized.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The gospel is to help human beings become the most fully alive that they can be.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The gospel books is to describe what Jesus has done on earth and how his works are significant to Christians, giving Christians a new identity apart from Judaism, and emphasizing especially on the significance of the resurrection. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To outsiders of the faith, it just means to convert to Christianity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon conversion to Christianity, it is expected that the person would be baptized. The means of baptism, however, varies from denomination to denomination. Refer to the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus about baptism in John 3:1-10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, there are two ways that gospel may refer to: (1) the act of converting to Christianity or (2) the life of the ideal Christian. Plus, the life of the ideal Christian may be a method to evangelism, an attempt to convert non-Christians into the Christian faith by making the Christian faith sound very attractive. Refer to &quot;lifestyle evangelism&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-06-19T20:09:27.820" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T20:09:27.820" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16875" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="48212" CreationDate="2013-06-19T20:50:47.540" Score="11" ViewCount="12226" Body="&lt;p&gt;Samson is an Old Testament character that is often depicted from the pulpit as a womanizer of marginal character.  However, there seems to be a growing perspective that Samson foreshadows first advent Christ.  Is there any record in Church history that would support this growing perspective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-06-13T03:06:43.867" LastActivityDate="2017-06-13T03:06:43.867" Title="How does Samson foreshadow Christ?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;typology&gt;&lt;samson&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16873" CreationDate="2013-06-19T20:53:43.257" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word gospel was actually in use prior to the birth of Jesus, and that context is crucial to understanding its meaning.  The word gospel /euaggelion/ does literally mean &quot;good news&quot;.  It was employed by the Romans in the proclamation that Caesar was Lord.  The fact that Caesar was &quot;Lord&quot; or emperor was asserted to be good news in that there would be no wars inside of the empire.  However, those who were conquered by Caesar probably did not see such news as &quot;good&quot;, but those in Rome likely did as they saw the expansion of their own influence.  Indeed, to be a Roman citizen had significant privileges that went with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The assertion of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then, is that Jesus is Lord, not of a physical kingdom but of a spiritual kingdom.  He is Lord of this Kingdom because of what He accomplished through His death and resurrection.  Jesus has, indeed, conquered, but He didn't conquer mankind.  He conquered mankind's greatest enemies--sin and death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news that Jesus has conquered our greatest enemies--sin and death--and that we can be freed from slavery in the kingdom of darkness and enter into the Kingdom of God as sons and daughters of the King Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T20:53:43.257" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16875" CreationDate="2013-06-19T21:18:27.647" Score="-1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 11:32  And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:&#xA;Heb 11:33  Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,&#xA;Heb 11:34  Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.&#xA;Heb 11:35  Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:&#xA;Heb 11:36  And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:&#xA;Heb 11:37  They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;&#xA;Heb 11:38  (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.&#xA;Heb 11:39  And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:&#xA;Heb 11:40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Samson was a womanizer and adulterer but he did have faith and faith pleases God. He is marginally mentioned in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11. Samuel and David have many more word hits in the New Testament. Gedeon, Barak and Jephthae are also only mentioned in this one passage in the New Testament. That does not mean there are not lessons to be learned as verse 34 of Hebrews 11 is dedicated to warriors of the faith but the emphasis is placed on what they did through faith rather than their character. Samson's birth was foretold by an angel, he did some things correct by faith, he was an imperfect deliverer and he died of his own fault serving God. Christ's birth was foretold by an angle, he did every perfectly and in faith and he died not of his own faults but for the sins of others delivering them perfectly serving God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T11:41:25.267" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16138" CreationDate="2013-06-19T22:00:17.767" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 16:1  I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:&#xA;Rom 16:2  That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 16:7  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 16:12  Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.&#xA;Rom 16:13  Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.&#xA;Rom 16:14  Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.&#xA;Rom 16:15  Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gal 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Gentile Church was formed the prohibition between the sexes was removed. Most gentiles were and are not as {whatever the correct word is which describes Jewish culture  gender relations}. If a prohibition for women to minister was created by what became the catholic or orthodox church I don't know but it certainly was artificial. Phebe was recorded as teaching Paul and also taught the church at Rome. She would we one of the first missionaries. Others are listed later in Romans 16 Junia is specifically called an apostles which is basically what we think of as missionaries. Tryphena and Tryphosa probably sister traveling ministers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T22:27:24.213" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16879" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16881" CreationDate="2013-06-19T23:13:42.827" Score="4" ViewCount="462" Body="&lt;p&gt;In America, there is a large group of people where being a Christian, active in the gun culture and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/imgres?client=firefox-a&amp;amp;hs=hRZ&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3aen-US%3aofficial&amp;amp;biw=1118&amp;amp;bih=599&amp;amp;tbm=isch&amp;amp;tbnid=rNUIrPaFn6bMWM%3a&amp;amp;imgrefurl=http://www.history.com/shows/god-guns-and-automobiles&amp;amp;docid=5IUtCUGG219SVM&amp;amp;imgurl=http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/07/god-guns-and-automobiles-show-featured-image-FIX-AB.jpeg&amp;amp;w=334&amp;amp;h=250&amp;amp;ei=ERF8UpmZFqGwygGonID4DQ&amp;amp;zoom=1&amp;amp;ved=1t:3588,r:2,s:0,i:96&amp;amp;iact=rc&amp;amp;page=1&amp;amp;tbnh=191&amp;amp;tbnw=260&amp;amp;start=0&amp;amp;ndsp=8&amp;amp;tx=142&amp;amp;ty=122&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;protecting their right to fire arms is proudly the basis of their identity.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, at the shooting range you may see a bumper sticker on a car stating &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;All I need is my Bible and a gun&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. (The movies also eat this one up romanticizing, glorify and macho-fy this phenomenon.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What denomination or general belief is the root of this phenomenon and is it like that in other countries?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-11-07T22:19:42.497" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T22:19:42.497" Title="What Doctrine Supports The Christian Gun Culture?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;weapons&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-06-20T07:28:03.687" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16880" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16879" CreationDate="2013-06-19T23:47:35.837" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luk 22:36  Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told the disciples to carry a weapon. The sword in particular the short sword was the most deadly weapon available during the times of Jesus. Many quote this verse in connection with guns because both a weapons which can &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_cloak_and_buy_a_sword&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;def&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;end&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T00:29:55.307" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T00:29:55.307" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16879" CreationDate="2013-06-19T23:47:43.140" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a preface, I think the question might benefit from some further clarification. Aside from considering the matter in the light of Scripture, it seems many would likely agree that there is a significant difference between what might be called &quot;responsible gun ownership&quot; and the subculture often highlighted by the media that defiantly and aggressively glorifies gun ownership.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm aware of no Scriptural basis on which gun ownership can be advocated. In fact, the first verse that comes to mind is Mt 26:52:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus said to him, &quot;Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No historical doctrines come to mind, either. Roman Catholic &quot;Just War&quot; doctrine doesn't seem related to the issue, though someone with better knowledge of the Church of Rome may know otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The strongest potential connection I can see between the church and the &quot;gun culture&quot; would stem from the independent, uncompromising, perhaps &quot;defiant&quot; character of the Protestant Reformation in relation to the Church of Rome in the 16th century. (Some of Luther's &quot;antics&quot; come to mind). Elements of the same uncompromising approach can be seen in the choice of the Puritans to separate from the Church of England.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, while I'm not a pacifist, I don't mean to suggest that the Bible encourages gun ownership. As far as I'm aware, it does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-07-06T01:49:02.823" LastActivityDate="2013-07-06T01:49:02.823" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16879" CreationDate="2013-06-19T23:48:52.867" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am unaware of any doctrine that explicitly states such a thing. However, it might be linked to the fact that there is a scriptural basis for defending yourself and your family, although it is a matter of opinion that a gun is the best tool for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I would say is more likely is as Ryan Frame said it in a comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[I]t's cultural rather than denominational.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the USA, where the gun culture you are referring to is most prevalent, patriotism is arguably it's strongest. Often, you will find casual Christians who are ultra-patriotic. These people are generally &quot;red&quot; voters because the &quot;blue&quot; candidates typically support such things as abortion and gay marriage. By default, they become gun supporters because &quot;red&quot; candidates usually are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you live in a country where it is not uncommon to display the American flag on the same alter as the Cross of Christ what do you expect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-06-19T23:48:52.867" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16884" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-20T01:03:50.110" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T01:03:50.110" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T01:03:50.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16885" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-20T01:03:50.110" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T01:03:50.110" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T01:03:50.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16867" CreationDate="2013-06-20T02:35:22.800" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know much about Unitarian Universalism, but here are a few facts and references relevant to your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It looks like contemporary Unitarian Universalists do not identify themselves with Christianity any more than with any other religion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Few, if any, Christian groups would consider individuals who hold the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uua.org/beliefs/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;beliefs&lt;/a&gt; espoused by the UUA to be Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Originally, both Unitarians and Universalists -- separate groups until 1961 -- identified themselves as Christians (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uua.org/beliefs/history/index.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UUA.org History page&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Quotes from Unitarian Universalists&quot; page from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uuvisalia.org/spirit/quotes.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; UU congregation's site offers the following:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth. Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery. A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief. Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false. Let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is the testing of belief. The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing.&quot; - Robert T. Weston&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A number of individual UU church sites describe doubt as a &quot;virtue&quot; (Examples &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sheridanuu.org/Presentations%20Folder/2010/Doubt-the%20essance%20of%20UU.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://uufsm.org/d7/content/doubt-uu-virtue&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I would also suggest -- though I'm not sure what authorities to cite -- that a significant proportion of the subset of Christians who might generally be described as &quot;well educated&quot; in matters of the faith would consent that, implicit in the concept of &quot;faith,&quot; there is some acknowledgement of the concept of doubt. Does that make sense? That is, the very statement, &quot;I &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt; that x is true,&quot; can, to some hearers, demonstrate that the speaker admits of the possibility of error -- especially when contrasted with the similar, though not equivalent assertion, &quot;x is true.&quot; The former is a statement about one's personal beliefs, qualified by the inclusion of a first person pronoun; the latter is formulated as a objective statement of fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we all, at some point in our respective lives, have &quot;believed&quot; statements which we later learned were untrue -- importantly, however, we have also &quot;believed&quot; in things that we later found to be factually accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That may contribute something to explain the essential absence of formal references to doubt in historic Christian literature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's difficult to explain. I'm probably making it more complicated than necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T05:15:13.617" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T05:15:13.617" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16889" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16891" CreationDate="2013-06-20T04:14:16.890" Score="7" ViewCount="499" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 3:6, Paul wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Paul specifically mention Apollos as that is the name of a god in Greek mythology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T07:31:58.283" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T02:13:16.257" Title="What was the role of Apollos in the early church?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16889" CreationDate="2013-06-20T04:35:54.747" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apollos&lt;/a&gt; was an Alexandrian Jew, as stated in Acts 18:24 (with following verses indicating that he knew the [Jewish] Scriptures and preached the gospel--&quot;the way of the Lord&quot;--but only knew &quot;the baptism of John&quot; before being further instructed by Priscilla and Aquila). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible that, like Timothy, he had a Jewish mother but a Gentile father; this might explain his being named Apollos. Since Alexandria was a center for both Greek and Jewish cultures, mixed parentage seems plausible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T11:41:39.470" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T11:41:39.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16894" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16895" CreationDate="2013-06-20T10:51:58.913" Score="1" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all know the biblical passages praising faith, and we have also seen many cases where faith was abused by conmen (or went wrong on its own). What differentiates Christian faith (which seems to imply a belief in things not seen and with no direct witnesses) from the faith of various cults, or of suicidal / murderous individuals who were genuinely persuaded that by killing others they are doing (the same as ours) God's work(think suicide bombers, but also Charles Manson's followers)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's all in the gift that God lovingly gives Christians and withdraws from other groups, then why should society hold suicide bombers accountable for not being the recipients of that gift (and separately why should they not receive the same ticket to heaven as &quot;our&quot; faithful)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's about &quot;crossing the line&quot; and harming others, remember that Abraham fully intended to murder his son, and Moses actually ordered the Levites to murder 3000 israelites for the furtherance of his political power (well, God's power as it is claimed). Who is to say that people who kill abortion doctors haven't received personal instruction from God, or that a mass murdering dictator isn't doing God's work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a very well reasoned, but unfortunately too many-headed question about the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7246/christian-position-on-the-meaning-of-faith&quot;&gt;meaning of faith&lt;/a&gt; which of course received answers that didn't address the full range of topics raised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4813" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T11:23:01.600" Title="what differentiates virtuous faith from the faith of extremists" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16894" CreationDate="2013-06-20T11:36:06.880" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Taking an action based on your belief is not the same as acting in faith, if the thing you are placing your faith into has criteria which do specify the requirements for being a true member of that faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian faith sets out the criteria which will indicate if the follower is truly faithful. These criteria are set out in the words and example of Jesus and the nature of God as set out in the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The words and actions of Jesus are easier to recognise because they are obvious and require far less understanding that does the nature of God. For example when Jesus says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'Love your enemies'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is hard for me or for any person to interpret that as, 'go and blow up that woman and her child over there'. That is obvious. There are many examples where Jesus demonstrates how we should be operating as followers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The nature of God explanation is very difficult to explain, but there is a kind of 'knowledge' which can be used to attain the criteria, but as I said it is difficult and I am not sure I can explain very well here but I will try.....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a while my wife and I had been contemplating how Judas, one of Jesus's original disciples, could spend 3 years in the very presence of God being taught by the greatest person that ever lived in every respect and yet still betray Him and all that had been taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can that happen, to someone in the privileged situation that Judas had found himself in, could I end up the same? These were the questions we posed to ourselves and our pastor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I have read about God and His nature, I have learnt that God is gracious, loving; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ex 34:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord,&#xA;  the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding&#xA;  in lovingkindness and [a]truth;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can God be compassionate, slow to anger and gracious yet still in the Bible we see many examples where whole cities are wiped out, Jericho, Gomorrah etc?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, the fact is God does satisfy all those attributes, but the Bible says He is slow to anger, not without anger. God does give opportunity to individuals and cultures alike, which is why Judas had the greatest opportunity, but Judas also demonstrates human weakness at its very lowest. Judas had the opportunity but he refused it (there are a multitude of theologies about this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a cultural level there are examples of God giving opportunity, take Jonah for example, God actually had Jonah swallowed by a sea creature, all because Jonah refused to obey God when he was commanded to preach to the Ninevites, because Jonah knew if he did so the Ninevites would repent. God went to great lengths to provide opportunity for people to turn their hearts back to Him. This message and similar messages serve to point us, mere men, to also afford people the same kindness to give an opportunity to change their heart attitude both in how they treat us and how they treat God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My point is, when man or entire cultures/nations are confused and have their backs to God, He does not seek to wipe them out, He gives every opportunity, going to the nth degree to give them chance after chance to see the error of their ways. He does not conscript men to kill in His name and even when people knowingly turn their backs on Him, God is still patient until it is their time to answer for their attitude toward Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take this example with the example of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gal 5:22&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality,&#xA;  impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife,&#xA;  jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [j]factions, 21&#xA;  envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I&#xA;  forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice&#xA;  such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.22 But the fruit of&#xA;  the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,&#xA;  faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there&#xA;  is no law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verse 21, the ones that choose not to accept these opportunities will have their punishment in that they will by no means inherit the kingdom of God. It does not instruct anyone to seek vengeance on God's behalf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On another note, why would we &lt;strong&gt;need&lt;/strong&gt; to defend God; He is omnipotent enough to do that Himself, but He exercises great patience before doing so, as He did when He gave Noah time to try and persuade people to join Him on the ark, or when Moses persuaded God not to wipe out the Israelites after they escaped from Egypt. God went to massive lengths to give opportunity to people and ultimately gave His own Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, there are specific commands:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:31&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 6:31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 [a]Treat others the same way you want [b]them to treat you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What right do we have in passing judgement by our actions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 for all [a]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but&#xA;  that the world might be saved through Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%205:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 5:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 ‘You shall not murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:14-21&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 12:14-21&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Bless those who persecute [m]you; bless and do not curse. 15&#xA;  Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of&#xA;  the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but&#xA;  [n]associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. 17&#xA;  Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. [o]Respect what is right in&#xA;  the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be&#xA;  at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but&#xA;  [p]leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is&#xA;  Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry,&#xA;  feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you&#xA;  will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil,&#xA;  but overcome evil with good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Respect what is right in the sight of ALL men&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Overcome evil with good is the last line I quoted, God gives opportunity, but in the end it is not for us to seek vengeance, for vengeance belongs to God, not man. God promises to repay those who wrong Him, He never asks us to do it for Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What makes the difference? One acts purely from their convictions without actually knowing the will of the Father, the other has an understanding of how Jesus would operate in the same situation and chooses to follow the example of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastEditorUserId="3322" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T22:36:24.623" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T22:36:24.623" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16894" CreationDate="2013-06-20T12:51:46.057" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; means trust -- some have watered the definition down to nothing more than &amp;quot;belief without proof&amp;quot; but we can still see the original meaning in words such as &amp;quot;faithful&amp;quot; -- we recognize that a person who is faithful (&amp;quot;full of faith&amp;quot;) is trustworthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between the faith of a Christian and the faith of another is the &lt;em&gt;object of that faith&lt;/em&gt; -- &lt;em&gt;not the person holding the belief&lt;/em&gt; (except as that belief changes that person). Christianity places its trust (faith) in God as revealed by the entirety of what we call the Bible. Christianity tells us that God is faithful -- we can trust Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20timothy%202&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 2:11-13&lt;/a&gt; ESV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The saying is trustworthy, for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we have died with him, we will also live with him;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;if we endure, we will also reign with him;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;if we deny him, he also will deny us;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;if we are faithless, he remains faithful—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for he cannot deny himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will not speak for other religions and worldviews, but Christianity does not ask for belief without evidence -- the evidence has been provided. There &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; direct witnesses to Jesus' life -- the Christian New Testament was written by them, and we have evidence that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16858/4188&quot;&gt;they have been adequately preserved&lt;/a&gt; throughout the centuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T20:47:08.907" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16810" CreationDate="2013-06-20T13:26:42.453" Score="5" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Background&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As missionaries have gone to China over the centuries to proclaim the gospel.  Learning the script as an adult can sometimes involve breaking the symbols down into their components to remember them more easily.  In doing so, some missionaries have found some curiosities in the characters that seemed to point to things found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, if the Bible is true, the creation of languages and the spreading of mankind over the face of the earth began at the Tower of Babel.  All of those people at that time would have had a common history that included the accounts found in Genesis 1-11.  (The account of the Tower of Babel occurs in Genesis 11.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ethel Nelson has written a few books on this, the last and best of which is entitled &lt;em&gt;God's Promise to the Chinese&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Characters&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Create&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word for create is interesting, combining the characters for speak, dust, life, and walk.  Genesis records that God &quot;spoke&quot; things into existence and specifically formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord God formed man of &lt;strong&gt;dust&lt;/strong&gt; from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of &lt;strong&gt;life&lt;/strong&gt;; and man became a &lt;strong&gt;living&lt;/strong&gt; being.  Genesis 2:7 NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/x4VVk.gif&quot; alt=&quot;To Create&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Covet&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word for covet or desire is the combination of two symbols (or three):  two trees and a woman.  This references the account in Genesis 3.  There were two trees, one of which was forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband.  Genesis 3:6 NIV  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xv9wj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Covet, Desire&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Forbidden&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;forbidden&quot; is also interesting, being the combination the characters for two trees adn God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/v6bLF.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Forbidden&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Boat&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word boat is the combination of three other characters:  the number eight, person, and vessel.  So, the boat character is &quot;an eight person vessel&quot;.  Of course, Noah's ark was populated by him and his wife, his three sons and their three wives.  Thus, the first and only boat recorded in Genesis 1-11 was &quot;an eight person vessel&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://considerthegospel.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Chinese-bigBoat8+people+vessel-300x87.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Boat&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Many others&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;God's Promise to the Chinese&lt;/em&gt; many more characters are examined.  A few characters can be explained away, but after seeing dozens of characters that so closely reflect the Genesis account, it is much more plausible to conclude that the author of the Chinese script was likely quite familiar with the Genesis account.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a note, Nelson's latest work analyzes the oldest known script.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-10T09:42:47.943" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T13:26:42.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16899" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-20T13:36:11.723" Score="3" ViewCount="7935" Body="&lt;p&gt;How did Jesus explain the nature of God in the NT narratives ? Please cite only the relevant verses where Jesus himself describes the nature of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to again clarify , that I am interested in Jesus's sayings  firsthand and not someone else interpreting it what he said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="3812" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T16:04:17.143" LastActivityDate="2015-03-28T00:07:28.257" Title="How does Jesus describe God in the Gospels" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16867" CreationDate="2013-06-20T13:44:51.913" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Is there any literature treating religious doubt accepted in the tradition as part of the tradition?&quot; That's an oxymoron, isn't it? &quot;We believe Jesus is God, unless, of course, He isn't.&quot; That wouldn't be a statement of faith. Statements of faith are the rock-steady parts of the faith that they cling to as part of their identity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T13:44:51.913" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16899" CreationDate="2013-06-20T13:47:07.270" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I attempted to list a few verses below where the Father character is described in detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 10:29  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greater than all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 3:35  The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.&#xA;Joh 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Loving, Saving and Wrathful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 11:9  And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.&#xA;Luk 11:10  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.&#xA;Luk 11:11  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?&#xA;Luk 11:12  Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?&#xA;Luk 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good and Generous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 14:7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.&#xA;Joh 14:8  Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.&#xA;Joh 14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?&#xA;Joh 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 5:19  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.&#xA;Joh 5:20  For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.&#xA;Joh 5:21  For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.&#xA;Joh 5:22  For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:&#xA;Joh 5:23  That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every act of kindness, compassion, healing and deliverance which is attributed to Jesus can also be attributed to the Father. Every sermon and judgment made by Christ can likewise be attributed to the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T13:47:07.270" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16899" CreationDate="2013-06-20T13:50:33.390" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have one thing that comes to mind.  Before we begin you must remember the side story David and Bathsheba.  They had a son together and God said the child will not live for it would give occasion for the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme (paraphrase)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment.  If i did not know anything out of the Hebrew bible, what would i NEED to know.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He gave them 2 commands and i believe they accurately reflect Jesus describing the nature of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Love the LORD your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul, and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself.&quot; - (Paraphrase)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus said this He made 2 things very clear:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;First we do not understand how important it is to love our neighbors.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Second God's glory is His first concern.  Love the LORD your God with all your heart, but His concern for humanity is a runner up, Love your neighbor as yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might be considered a stretch and if it is :)  Sorry!  If there is typos sorry, i have not proof read my works&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1453" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T13:50:33.390" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16904" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16906" CreationDate="2013-06-20T15:24:51.497" Score="3" ViewCount="1533" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible that after reaching heaven, you find yourself discontented? Like what if the things that make you happy are not there? Like your family, your wife and children. What if the people you love are in hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to go to hell after deciding you don't like heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is it that when we get to heaven we lose our own sense of happiness and become like robots that don't have a choice but to be happy with whatever is happening in there? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we still have free will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What else would we do there if heaven is already perfect then there is nothing to improve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T03:20:28.330" Title="Is it possible not to be contented in heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-06-20T18:14:54.560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16904" CreationDate="2013-06-20T16:01:26.613" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;No, it is not possible to be unhappy in heaven&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Felicity (Augustine's word for &quot;joy of a Christian&quot;) is something which is non-circumstantial and flowers from within. This is opposed to happiness (a word related to happenstance), which is dependent on external circumstances. (This idea comes directly from Augustine's &lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt;. I do not recall the chapter)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The people in hell are the people who would not have liked heaven to begin with&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a relatively common saying, &quot;the gates of hell are locked from the inside&quot;. If someone has made his life even partially about anything but the love of God, he will suffer temporary sadness at the loss but heaven is so much greater (cf. 1 Cor. 3:15). If he has made his life completely about something other than God, then spending time with God would be a punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;We do not act like robots in heaven.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather, the choices we make (if you can call them that? Theology becomes a bit ambiguous at this point) will be freely chosen (the best source I have for &lt;em&gt;how will we act in Heaven&lt;/em&gt; is how mystics have reacted to heaven. I use &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0898702631&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Fire Within&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; as my primary source for this). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A favorite analogy of mine is that I will always choose to eat apple pie instead of dirt: this isn't because I'm not free to eat dirt, but because I realize that apple pie is so much better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T03:20:28.330" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T03:20:28.330" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16906" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16904" CreationDate="2013-06-20T16:10:32.700" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of different questions here, and though they are all related, they could probably make multiple good questions. That being said, I'll try to answer them. One thing to note is that we know very little concrete facts about heaven, so most of this is simply inferred from Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it possible that after reaching heaven, you find yourself discontented? Like what if the things that make you happy are not there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very popular question (just look at the number of &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=how%20can%20we%20be%20happy%20in%20heaven%20if%20our%20loved%20ones%20are%20not%20there&amp;amp;oq=how%20will%20we%20be%20happy%20in%20heaven%20if%20our&amp;amp;aqs=chrome.1.57j0.9409j0&amp;amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;google results&lt;/a&gt;), but I would say that the answer is bound up in the answer to the first question of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC_frames.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westminister Shorter Catechism&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;code&gt;What is the chief end of man?&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer, &lt;code&gt;Man's Chief End is to glorify God and enjoy him forever&lt;/code&gt; sums up the answer to your question nicely. If the purpose of our existence is to glorify God and Enjoy him forever (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:31&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 10:31&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2073:24-26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 73:24-26&lt;/a&gt;), then we need nothing else in Heaven. Indeed, in heaven we will worship God, and as such our chief purpose will be fulfilled, therefore, we will be satisfied. Additionally, you could look at it from the perspective that since discontentment is sin (basis found in the Tenth commandment), and there is no sin in heaven, then there will be no discontentment in heaven. (for the broad answer of &quot;What will we do in heaven&quot;, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/doing-in-Heaven.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it possible to go to hell after deciding you don't like heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westminster Larger Catechism&lt;/a&gt;, question 86 - &lt;code&gt;What is the communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?&lt;/code&gt;, states: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death, is, in that their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which even in death continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their souls. Whereas the souls of the wicked are at their death cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, and their bodies kept in their graves, as in their prisons, till the resurrection and judgment of the great day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key thing to note here is that &lt;code&gt;their souls are then made perfect in holiness&lt;/code&gt;. As I note later, if their souls are holy, why would they want to leave the presence of the supremely holy God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only people I think that &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; argue this would be those who argue you can lose your salvation, and I think even most of them would say that once you are in heaven, you are there to stay. But your question was not if you could get &lt;em&gt;kicked out&lt;/em&gt; of heaven, rather if you could &lt;em&gt;voluntarily leave&lt;/em&gt;. This is tied into your third question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do we still have free will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That depends on how you define free will. I am from a Calvinist theological background, and so I would say a resounding yes. Here's why, and I'll give an example to explain it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many find the concept of free will impossible to reconcile with the concept of predestination. But tied into this is the concept of Irresistible Grace. That is, when God calls you, it is so good you cannot resist the pull. Think of a wonderful chocolate cake (or some other delicious food). When you smell it, when it is sitting right in front of you, in a sense it is &lt;em&gt;irresistible&lt;/em&gt; to you in that you will eat it because it is &lt;em&gt;so good&lt;/em&gt;. God is so much better, so that when he offers himself to us, we are irresistibly drawn to him because of his infinite goodness. The same applies in heaven. We will have free will, but our eyes are opened to God's goodness, and as such we freely make the choice to worship him. As such, we would not &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; to leave heaven, and we would be completely content. &lt;em&gt;(if you reject the Calvinistic argument I make, the rest of the argument I believe still holds)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="671" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T18:40:11.690" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T18:40:11.690" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16907" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-20T17:03:43.903" Score="-3" ViewCount="612" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is believed by many Jews that the Messiah will redeem them, unite them, and establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. Some Christians believe that this prophecy will be fulfilled in the second coming of Christ. How is that possible, when the Jews already rejected Christ as Messiah in the first coming? What is the Biblical basis of the belief that there is still a chance of Jesus fulfilling this Messianic prophecy in the second coming?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T04:17:08.350" LastActivityDate="2015-08-02T04:17:08.350" Title="What is the biblical basis for Jesus being able to redeem the Jewish people in his second coming?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;second-coming&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2306" CreationDate="2013-06-20T17:22:43.303" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, everyone and everything that was created, was created in the first 6 days of creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of &lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;all the host of the heavens (angels)&#xA;all the host of the earth (man's)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thats right we were created outside of time and placed in time at our proper time.&#xA;we were created and forknew by God and we are eternal -- thats why death never ends for the lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  Ephesians 1:4 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4835" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T18:18:15.680" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T18:18:15.680" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16909" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16916" CreationDate="2013-06-20T17:53:21.550" Score="12" ViewCount="789" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;Shema&amp;quot; (שְׁמַע), found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/4&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 6:4&lt;/a&gt;, states that &amp;quot;YHVH (יהוה) is one.&amp;quot;  This verse can be interpreted to contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, yet this doctrine is quite prominent in Christendom.  How, then, is the doctrine of the Trinity reconciled with this verse?  How can this verse be understood to be in harmony with the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hear, O' Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH is one!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T15:59:22.953" Title="How is the Shema of Deuteronomy reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16910" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-20T18:24:09.097" Score="3" ViewCount="422" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 16:18,19: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic believes the &quot;keys to the Kingdom of Heaven&quot; were first held by Peter and then every Pope thereafter through Apostolic Succession. It seems Protestants picked their own personal set of keys up and assumed personal responsibility for their administration when they departed the doors of the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does a Protestant Church justify the &lt;strong&gt;corporate&lt;/strong&gt; administration that the keys afford without supplanting the Church &quot;that the gates of Hell will not prevail against&quot;?    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T14:16:08.210" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T14:16:08.210" Title="Who holds the keys to the Kindgom of Heaven?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="15" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-06-20T21:04:48.967" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16909" CreationDate="2013-06-20T18:29:16.560" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Insofar as the doctrine of the Trinity (paradoxically) affirms that God is both one &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt; and three &lt;em&gt;persons&lt;/em&gt;, there is no conflict. In other words, the Trinity affirms this tautologically---a &quot;trinity&quot; affirms one-ness and three-ness by definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-06-20T18:36:32.283" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T18:36:32.283" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16867" CreationDate="2013-06-20T19:36:10.993" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many religions claim to be the only true religion, including most&#xA;  branches of Christianity. Among the major Christian traditions, are&#xA;  there any documented statements of faith that include the possibility&#xA;  that their own beliefs might not be the &quot;one true religion&quot;? In other&#xA;  words, is there any literature treating religious doubt accepted in&#xA;  the tradition as part of the tradition, and not examples of individual&#xA;  cases of religious doubt?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think what is important to clarify is the difference between these two sentences above, which I will highlight by proposing two statements below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;We, as a faith community, include doubting we are correct in our belief as an official part of our belief, and so we announce these doubts in [doubt literature x].&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;We, as a faith community, understand that doubt is a normal human experience and that our adherents will likely, on occasion, doubt some or all of the tenets of our faith, and so we address this experience in [doubt literature x].&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any &quot;major Christian tradition&quot; that has an accepted literature of the first type; that kind of institutionalized doubt is really not the purview of any religion, but is perhaps more the territory of scientists and skeptics.  It is unlikely religions would succeed as social phenomena if they made it clear in their official PR that &quot;hey, we could be wrong on all this.&quot;* And in this I agree with Steve's answer below.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(*Though, humans being as strange as they are, it would be fascinating to be shown that I am wrong and that there &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; such traditions and statements.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At best, some Christians may acknowledge that, while they are not &lt;em&gt;wrong&lt;/em&gt;, other religions are &quot;as correct as they are&quot; in that they are all paths to the same union with the divine. I think Fr. Thomas Keating, for one, may be amenable to this, though he is not representative of the entirety of Catholicism by any means. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As regards statement (2), though:  In the Catholic tradition, there is something of a literature in this regards, yes.  The &lt;em&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/em&gt;, for example, allows some leeway for a distinction they make between &lt;em&gt;voluntary doubt&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;involuntary doubt&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true&#xA;  what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary&#xA;  doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming&#xA;  objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its&#xA;  obscurity. If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual&#xA;  blindness. (CCC 2088)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, within the Catholic tradition there is also treatment of periods of spiritual torpor or feeling a lack of God's presence--sometimes referred to as &quot;spiritual dryness&quot; or also &quot;acedia&quot;, and that may include doubts.  One often refers to St. John of the Cross's poem, &lt;em&gt;The Dark Night of the Soul&lt;/em&gt; as a Catholic touchstone on this issue and that title has come to refer to the phenomenon itself.  In addition to St. John of the Cross, notable Catholic figures like Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, and Mother Theresa of Calcutta, who, it was found, claimed to have suffered from it for just over 50 years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If there is such literature, and if this point is covered within it,&#xA;  how do these major traditions view themselves in light of the &quot;risk&quot;&#xA;  involved if they were wrong in the claim to exclusive truth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of much in this regard, other than perhaps Pascal's Wager, which has been incorporated into the literature of various Christian apologists, in which he argues that the &quot;risk&quot; is something like finite inconvenience (as compared to the risk of infinite suffering).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, as Steve essentially pointed out, trying to promote religion by calling attention to the &quot;what if we're wrong?&quot; issue is sort of like trying to sell used cars by pointing out the puddles of transmission fluid all over the lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T19:36:10.993" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-20T20:56:14.753" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Why would a good and just God not make salvation dependent on ethics, but rather on gullibility, as the Christian God has?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your friend's question is completely reasonable from man's point of view and is how men would set the criteria for salvation.   That line of thinking leads to religion where rules/following the rules are worshiped since they are the way to salvation.&#xA;In contrast, the word &quot;Jesus&quot; actually means &quot;God is Salvation&quot;  and many of the prophets' names are derivatives of same meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think of faith and works as two sides of a coin required for salvation.&#xA;Faith in God and His works are primary because one can't receive salvation from a God one believes doesn't exist.    And since salvation was 'achieved' or secured by God's works, it makes sense to me that acknowledging His work would be critical to receiving salvation and starting a loving relationship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jhn 3:16  &quot;For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.&#xA;  Jhn 3:17  &quot;For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.&#xA;  Jhn 3:18  &quot;He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.&#xA;  Jhn 3:19  &quot;And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Works or behaviors are slightly secondary because they are result of one's belief system or faith.   If the belief system changes, the behaviors can/will change and scripture urges us to align our behavior/works to a faith based on truth and love one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Jo 4:16  And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.&quot;  Jhn 13:35   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4836" LastActivityDate="2013-06-20T20:56:14.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16915" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-20T21:01:41.887" Score="20" ViewCount="770" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are there any historic Christian documents that provide a comprehensive categorization of the commands of the OT Law / mitzvot using the three categories from the WCF?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, if so, then as a secondary question: Why is it such a list so difficult to find??&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;threefold division of the law&quot; into the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial, was standardized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter nineteen, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/the-threefold-division-of-the-law.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;according to some scholars&lt;/a&gt; can be traced, in various forms, as far back as the writings of Barnabas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This page&lt;/a&gt; at GotQuestions.org links the &quot;moral&quot; category with a &quot;mishpatim,&quot; and the &quot;ceremonial&quot; category with a &quot;hukkim or chuqqah,&quot; apparent references to Judaic teachings. The &quot;civil / judicial&quot; category is said to be a creation of the Westminster Divines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Efforts to research the words &quot;mishpatim,&quot; and &quot;hukkim,&quot; &quot;chuqqah,&quot; online have quickly led to lots of Hebrew text that I don't understand on Jewish sites, and I'm not sure if the GotQuestions page is correct in connecting the Christian and Jewish categories in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have found the C.SE questions &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/154/4786&quot;&gt;(1)&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14495/4786&quot;&gt;(2)&lt;/a&gt; to be helpful, but this question doesn't seem to have been directly addressed here (or elsewhere, for all I can tell) in the past. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2016-06-07T17:42:47.127" Title="Have the individual commands of the OT Law ever been categorized as &quot;Moral,&quot; &quot;Ceremonial,&quot; and &quot;Civil?&quot;" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;westminster-confession&gt;&lt;tripartite-law-division&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16909" CreationDate="2013-06-20T21:18:25.343" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;YHVH is not one person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;An Examination of Zechariah 2:8-11&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Zec&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=10&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zech. 2:8&lt;/a&gt;, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For thus said YHVH of hosts, &amp;quot;After glory &lt;strong&gt;He sent me&lt;/strong&gt; to the nations who spoiled you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אַחַר כָּבֹוד שְׁלָחַנִי אֶל־הַגּוֹיִם הַשֹּׁלְלִים אֶתְכֶם כִּי הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּכֶם נֹגֵעַ בְּבָבַת עֵינוֹ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that YHVH of hosts is speaking, and YHVH of hosts states that &amp;quot;He sent me&amp;quot; (שְׁלָחַנִי). Who can send YHVH of hosts, the Almighty God? Surely no creature has the authority to send YHVH of hosts!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Zec&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zech. 2:9&lt;/a&gt;, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For, behold, I shall shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants, and you shall know that &lt;strong&gt;YHVH of hosts sent me&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;כִּי הִנְנִי מֵנִיף אֶת־יָדִי עֲלֵיהֶם וְהָיוּ שָׁלָל לְעַבְדֵיהֶם וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחָנִי&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YHVH of hosts is still speaking in Zech. 2:9. He states that &amp;quot;YHVH of hosts sent me.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reiterate, YHVH of hosts is speaking in Zech. 2:8. He states, &amp;quot;He sent me.&amp;quot; We ask, &amp;quot;Who sends YHVH of hosts?&amp;quot; In Zech. 2:9, this is answered when YHVH of hosts, who is still speaking, states, &amp;quot;YHVH of hosts sent me.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is further confirmed in the following verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Zec&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zech. 2:11&lt;/a&gt;, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that &lt;strong&gt;YHVH of hosts sent me&lt;/strong&gt; to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;וְנִלְווּ גֹויִם רַבִּים אֶל־יְהוָה בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ וְיָדַעַתְּ כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחַנִי אֵלָיִךְ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, YHVH is speaking. He states that &amp;quot;many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day,&amp;quot; instead of saying that &amp;quot;many nations shall be joined to me in that day.&amp;quot; By the speaker, who is YHVH, referring to YHVH in the third person, there appears to be a distinction between YHVH who is speaking and another YHVH to whom the nations shall be joined in that day. Now, it's not unheard of for YHVH to speak about Himself in the third person. However, the last clause confirms that there is more than one YHVH being mentioned in this verse. YHVH, who is speaking, states, &amp;quot;...and you shall know that &lt;strong&gt;YHVH of hosts sent me&lt;/strong&gt; to you.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew verb שְׁלָחַנִי (&amp;quot;he sent me&amp;quot;) is reiterated in three verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zechariah 2:8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For thus said YHVH of hosts&lt;/strong&gt;, &amp;quot;After glory &lt;strong&gt;He sent me&lt;/strong&gt; (שְׁלָחַנִי) to the nations who spoiled you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zechariah 2:9&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For, behold, I shall shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants, and you shall know that &lt;strong&gt;YHVH of hosts sent me&lt;/strong&gt; (שְׁלָחַנִי).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zechariah 2:11&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that &lt;strong&gt;YHVH of hosts sent me&lt;/strong&gt; (שְׁלָחַנִי) to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Zec&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zech. 2:10&lt;/a&gt;, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sing and rejoice, O' daughter of Tzion, for, lo, I come, and I shall dwell in your midst,&amp;quot; said YHVH.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;רָנִּי וְשִׂמְחִי בַּת־צִיֹּון כִּי הִנְנִי־בָא וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ נְאֻם־יְהוָה&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YHVH states that He will come and dwell in the midst of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Zec&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=11&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Zech. 2:11&lt;/a&gt;, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And many nations shall be joined to YHVH in that day, and they shall be my people, and I shall dwell in your midst, and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;וְנִלְווּ גֹויִם רַבִּים אֶל־יְהוָה בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וְהָיוּ לִי לְעָם וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְתֹוכֵךְ וְיָדַעַתְּ כִּי־יְהוָה צְבָאֹות שְׁלָחַנִי אֵלָיִךְ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And I shall dwell&amp;quot; (וְשָׁכַנְתִּי) is repeated in both verses. YHVH is the subject of the verb in both verses. Notice v. 11. YHVH states, &amp;quot;...and I shall dwell in your midst,&amp;quot; and then the same YHVH states, &amp;quot;...and you shall know that YHVH of hosts sent me to you.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, we have explicit confirmation in the Tanakh that Israel believed there was more than one person named &amp;quot;YHVH&amp;quot; (יהוה). This is later confirmed in the New Testament when the Son is revealed to Israel and dwells in their midst.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:4 in Consideration of Zechariah 2:8-11&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there exist more than one person named YHVH, i.e. the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit), what does it mean when Deut. 6:4 states that &amp;quot;YHVH is one&amp;quot; (יְהוָה אֶחָד)? It is not enough to say &amp;quot;YHVH is one,&amp;quot; but we must know, YHVH is one &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt;? Certainly YHVH is not one &amp;quot;person,&amp;quot; for that would contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, and of course, Zech. 2:8-11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon much consideration of the Shema in its immediate context, I believe it should be translated as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Hear O' Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH is the only one!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moshe is exhorting Israel to understand that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHVH is their God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHVH is the only one (i.e., the only true God, and Israel's only God)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Shema is thus an affirmation of the monotheistic faith of Israel. This is in contradistinction to the polytheism that Israel witnessed in Egypt by the Egyptians, as well as the nations surrounding Israel (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut. 6:14&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can the Hebrew word אֶחָד (&lt;em&gt;echad&lt;/em&gt;), which literally means the numeral one, be understood in this sense? I believe there is a basis for it. Wilhelm Gesenius indeed states that אֶחָד can mean &amp;quot;one only of its kind&amp;quot; (&lt;em&gt;A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament&lt;/em&gt;, p. &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/hebrewenglishlex00geseuoft&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;32&lt;/a&gt;). Gesenius cites a few examples, such as Job 23:13, Eze. 7:5, and Song of Songs 6:8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Song of Songs 6:8, in which it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;אַחַת הִיא, יוֹנָתִי תַמָּתִי--אַחַת הִיא לְאִמָּהּ, בָּרָה הִיא לְיוֹלַדְתָּהּ; רָאוּהָ בָנוֹת וַיְאַשְּׁרוּהָ, מְלָכוֹת וּפִילַגְשִׁים וַיְהַלְלוּהָ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3006.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jewish Publication Society&lt;/a&gt; (JPS, 1917) translates this as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she is &lt;strong&gt;the only one&lt;/strong&gt; of her mother; she is the choice one of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and called her happy; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;אַחַת is the simply the feminine declension of אֶחָד. Obviously, the dove is not &amp;quot;the one of her mother,&amp;quot; but rather, &amp;quot;the only one of her mother.&amp;quot; Here we see that אֶחָד can be translated as &amp;quot;only one&amp;quot; with the actual noun being implied from the preceding context. In Song of Songs 6:8, it is the mother's only &lt;strong&gt;dove&lt;/strong&gt;. In Deuteronomy 6:4, YHVH is Israel's only &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, since the Father and the Son are one in essence, and both the Father and the Son are God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 1:1&lt;/a&gt;), then the Shema is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there are three persons who are essentially God. Since the name of God is YHVH, then the name of each person of the Trinity is YHVH. The Son, YHVH, is Israel's God, just as the Father, YHVH, is Israel's God, and the Holy Spirit, YHVH, is Israel's God. Each person of the Trinity is co-equal and co-eternal in nature, so there is no distinction of essence, but rather, only of persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T02:30:56.487" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16917" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16923" CreationDate="2013-06-20T22:01:54.930" Score="7" ViewCount="6454" Body="&lt;p&gt;This could be seen as a follow-up question for &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12165/3447&quot;&gt;Is there any Christian group that takes Matthew 23:8-10 literally?&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some groups (usually evangelical) who emphasize Matthew 23:9, especially as an attack against the Roman Catholic church and other churches where clergy is sometimes called &amp;quot;father&amp;quot;, but I have never seen anyone forbid calling anyone &amp;quot;master&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;mister&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;teacher&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;doctor&amp;quot; (which originally meant &amp;quot;teacher&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this inconsistency explained by those who take this position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 23:8-10 (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(8) But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(9)  And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(10)  Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-07-26T21:59:48.683" Title="Why do those who take Matthew 23:9 literally not emphasize 23:8 and 23:10 similarly?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16918" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-20T22:30:39.167" Score="9" ViewCount="539" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholic tradition, there are books on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_dryness&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;spiritual dryness&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dark Night of the Soul&lt;/a&gt; by st. John of the Cross is the most famous) and it is mentioned in Catechism of Catholic Church too. Eastern tradition has other books on this topic. But I wonder whether Protestants have anything more sophisticated than &quot;Just hold on!&quot; or &quot;Read the book of Job, it's written for someone like you!&quot; (or, in a worse case: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Speeches_of_Eliphaz.2C_Bildad.2C_and_Zophar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;If you don't feel God, you must have sinned!&quot;&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Protestant doctrine on this topic? Is it accepted by most denomination, or only by a fraction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT to clarify what I mean with &quot;spiritual dryness&quot;: I understand it as usually long-term (lasting for months, years or even decades) spiritual crisis, when a person doesn't feel &quot;presence of God&quot; or &quot;God's grace&quot; and it is hard to sustain faith. On the other hand, people experiencing this might be very good Christians bearing lots of fruits of Holy spirit. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Spiritual_life&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mother Teresa's case&lt;/a&gt; is an extreme example, but many Christians experience some milder form of it and this experience often can't be attributed to a sin or a mental illness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I never experienced real spiritual dryness (I'm too young in Christ for this, people rarely experience dryness just three years after conversion), but knowing people who experience it, reading books on it and being advised to prepare that it will probably come some day helps me a lot in my spiritual life - to realize that God's grace might become invisible one day is a good reason not to be proud of all that religious enthusiasm and nice feelings and to carefully try to build my faith on more solid ground than this enthusiasm is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My protestant friends don't understand this; that's why I wonder whether concept of &quot;dark night of soul&quot; is unreflected and more or less unknown in whole or most of Protestantism, or just in some part of its Pentecostal branch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-06-24T11:36:18.650" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T17:32:35.487" Title="Is there any protestant method how to deal spiritual dryness?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;spirituality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="498" CreationDate="2013-06-21T01:00:06.077" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;They were originally refered to ad Ana-Baptist.  Which meant for Baptism.  Depending on which Baptist you ask and from what view they hold on church history some claim to be protestant and sone do not. Along with rejecting infant and non-submersion baptism. Baptist have no controlling hi-archy. County, state and national Baptist groups exist for the joint effort of funding evangelism and bible schools. Every Baptist church is independent and self governing with the exception of churches started with Baptist money are required to keep a statement of faith in line with the funding group as long as funding is supplied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4839" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T01:00:06.077" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16899" CreationDate="2013-06-21T01:43:17.120" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If by the word &quot;God,&quot; you mean The Father of Jesus. Then: to see Jesus &quot;describing&quot; The Father you must observe Jesus working in the Gospels. In the stories and parables you can see The Father &quot;interfering&quot; in the lives of His children. To Philip, He said He was just like The Father. (Jo 14:9.) And also The Father is perfect (Mt 5:48) And He judges no man (Jo 5:22.)&#xA;He said no man knows The Father, except those He reveals Him to (Mt 11:27.)&#xA;The Father will give, to anyone who asks, whatsoever he wants (Lu 11:11.)&#xA;There is much more to say, but not now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T01:43:17.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16917" CreationDate="2013-06-21T01:54:30.863" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 23:8  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;G4461&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    ῥαββί&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    rhabbi&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    hrab-bee'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;    &#xA;    &lt;p&gt;Of Hebrew origin [H7227] with pronominal suffix; my master, that is, Rabbi, as an official title of honor: - Master, Rabbi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 23:10  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;G2519&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    καθηγητής&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    kathēgētēs&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    kath-ayg-ay-tace'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;    &#xA;    &lt;p&gt;From a compound of G2596 and G2233; a guide, that is, (figuratively) a teacher: - master.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 4:15  For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;  Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Eph 4:11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;G1320&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    διδάσκαλος&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    didaskalos&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    did-as'-kal-os  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;    &#xA;    &lt;p&gt;From G1321; an instructor (generally or specifically): - doctor, master, teacher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 1:1  Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 23:5  But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;  And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, &#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;  And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Th 5:12  And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you requested this is from an evangelical perspective. Though my specific group of Word of Faith is split on this issue I will explain it from the side which I take. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity we have spiritual fathers in Christ. People who taught us the gospel. We can acknowledge their contribution to our spiritual development but we should not refer to them as &quot;father&quot; because Jesus said not to. It's apparently ok to say &lt;em&gt;I birth you in Christ&lt;/em&gt; but it is not ok to say &lt;em&gt;You are my spiritual father&lt;/em&gt; (this would be ignoring the work of Father through Christ). In Christianity we likewise do not have rabbis, spiritual guides or masters. We have the Holy Spirit instead. We do have a different set of gifts given by Christ Himself to help us work in the ministry: apostles; prophets; and evangelists; and pastors and teachers. These gifts are expressions of the Holy Spirit in our lives. It's ok to say I'm called to be an apostle or any other ministry gift. It's also ok to use that as a title however it's not ok to use that title to gain reverence or some special honor. Ministry gifts should be honored but they should not be revered. If you become annoyed when someone does not acknowledge you as a ministry gift it's a good time to stop using the title.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T06:09:57.677" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T06:09:57.677" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16909" CreationDate="2013-06-21T02:32:45.367" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word translated &quot;one&quot; in Deut. 6:4 is the same Hebrew word for &quot;one&quot; as in Genesis 2:24, in which the two shall become &quot;one&quot; flesh. So we have the idea that one can be made up of several, in this case, two. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in Numbers 13:23, it speaks of &quot;one&quot; cluster of grapes which the spies brought out of Canaan, again, with the idea of one composed of several. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the One in Deuteronomy 6:4 allows the idea of God being made up of several persons in the godhead. From much research, we have seen that the number of persons in the godhead is three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the word, 'echâd:  אחד&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T04:32:11.853" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T04:32:11.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16894" CreationDate="2013-06-21T02:34:50.670" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God the Father gives to those who ask (demand,) the Faith of Jesus by which one becomes like Jesus, through the reception of the gift of the virtues of Jesus, and as Origen explained, the seven virtues (Sermon on the Mount commentary by St. Augustine,) are synonymous with Jesus. And as Paul explained, The Christ is within us when we have the seven virtues of Jesus. These virtues then prevent us from acting in any manner to the detriment of any man, or to ourselves - we are declared righteous by God, and are holy men and women.&#xA;Unless we demand these virtues deeply and sincerely, and believe they have been received, they will not be realized, and we will not have The Christ within us. Bad things arise when someone is missing any of the seven virtues. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, God has promised to give to anyone who believes in God, whatever they ask for - even if the gift will cause the recipient to do bad things (the parable of the Prodigal Son.) God does not judge motive, but must respond to a demand (the importunate widow, and the man who asked bread of his friend.) As Jesus said &quot;the Kingdom of Heaven is taken by storm.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pilate's power was given him by The Father, according to Jesus's testimony at the trial. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, a sincere man who importunes God for power will be given it. If the power leads to corruption and evil, that is the choice of the man. God has given the gift of choice to man who if he exercises free will and does evil, will not be punished by God &quot;who is merciful and just to forgive us our sins.&quot; Evil lives unpunished in this world because of God's infinite mercy towards His children. &quot;for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust&quot; (Mt 5:45) and loves all people equally.  Judgement is in the hands of the Son at the final assizes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the job of the church and all men to train people to ask God for the virtues that are Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T02:40:06.583" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T02:40:06.583" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16918" CreationDate="2013-06-21T02:41:27.190" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 10:10  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes Kenneth E. Hagin who started Rhema and was a major contributor to the beginning of the Word of Faith movement has a series called &quot;What to do when faith seems weak and victory lost&quot;. A portion of the doctrine is blame the devil, what does the word say, agree with the word, say the word and you're not supposed to feel anything. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T02:41:27.190" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16927" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16929" CreationDate="2013-06-21T02:47:02.900" Score="18" ViewCount="2153" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rather than assuming Wikipedia is accurate, I thought I'd as for a better sourced answer to the question.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia's article on the Word of Faith movement&lt;/a&gt; lists various controversies regarding Word of Faith teachings.  Among them is the &quot;Little gods controversy&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many Word of Faith teachers have sought to emphasize the full meaning&#xA;  of the believer's status as a child of God (through Christ) by using&#xA;  phrases such as &quot;little gods&quot; to describe them, a practice that has&#xA;  garnered some criticism from some other segments of the Christian&#xA;  community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And later on...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Suffer the Children, a documentary highlighting some of the teachings&#xA;  of the Word of Faith movement, has a video clip of Creflo Dollar&#xA;  teaching the &quot;little gods&quot; doctrine to his congregation based on the&#xA;  notion that &quot;everything reproduces after its own kind&quot;:[34]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Dollar: &quot;If horses get together, they produce what?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Congregation: &quot;Horses!&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Dollar: &quot;If dogs get together, they produce what?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Congregation: &quot;Dogs!&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Dollar: &quot;If cats get together, they produce what?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Congregation: &quot;Cats!&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Dollar: &quot;So if the Godhead says 'Let us make man in our image', and everything produces after its own kind, then they produce what?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Congregation: &quot;gods!&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Dollar: &quot;gods. Little &quot;g&quot; gods. You're not human. Only human part of you is this flesh you're wearing.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is the teaching? Do they teach that people are truly divine?  (Compared to, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14631/what-is-the-lds-definition-of-divinity&quot;&gt;the mainstream or the LDS definition of divinity&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to be very clear that I'm not interested in hearing criticisms and comparisons from the other segments of the Christian community.  I'm not interested in whether the &quot;little gods&quot; teaching is true.  I'm operating under the assumption that what the Word of faith movement teaching is simply misunderstood by the other segments of Christianity.  I'm just wondering what the actual teaching &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, not whether it's true or heretical.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to explain why the Word of Faith adherents believe this to be true.  (In other words, inclusion of apologetic reasoning explaining the merit behind the teaching is allowed.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2021-01-31T02:30:37.667" Title="What is the Word of Faith teaching on &quot;little gods&quot;" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;word-of-faith&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16929" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16927" CreationDate="2013-06-21T03:55:12.950" Score="14" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psa 8:5  For thou hast made him a little lower than the [H430], and hast crowned him with glory and honour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;H430&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;אלהים&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'ĕlôhı̂ym&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;el-o-heem'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 2:7  Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Co 4:3  But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:&#xA;2Co 4:4  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three main points to the little g gods idea. Adam's original place, the fallen man's place and our place in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam was created the first son of God made in the image of God not diety but he was the little g god of this world because God created a being in his same class as his children. This is somewhat confirmed by scripture Psa 8:5 as the word translated angels is actually the word for God himself. You can however agree with the New Testament version which in the greek does have the word angels. However that said satan did become the god little g of this world and as best we know that power was given to him through Adam's transgression. Such power is assumed to remain his until he is put underfoot when his supposed lease runs out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psa 82:6  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 10:30  I and my Father are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 10:33  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.&#xA;Joh 10:34  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now apart from those verses there are two witnesses Christ and David which call some gods lowercase g and children of the most High lowercase c. Its difficult to deny that Christ called even the children of the devil gods with a little g. Jesus used this scripture as a defense of his claim on being God in a its no big deal manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hos 1:10  Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Co 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 6:17  But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally being in Christ (while not being the head of the body of Christ but being in Christ) makes you a part of Christ. Christ's spirit lives in us and is joined to our spirit. We are new creations new spirits fully compatible with God's Spirit. While Christ is capable of severing us from Himself he chooses not to. This does not make us part of the divine Godhead but Christ body is of type god. In like similar manner like your hand is of type human but you could live without your hand Christ's hand is of type god but Christ could live without that part. We could not live without Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 5:17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar 11:22  And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.&#xA;Mar 11:23  For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.&#xA;Mar 11:24  Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.&#xA;Mar 11:25  And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.&#xA;Mar 11:26  But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In connection with being part of Christ we are taught to have the faith of God or to have faith in God and to speak believing that God will back the authority (which he has delegated to the Church on the Earth) with His power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in connection with being a little g god for all men is the gift of speech and things like the random power of positive thinking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a better introduction to this topic you can see &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1000002497&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Kenneth E. Hagin's Reining in Life as Kings&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1600660835&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Authority of the Believer by John A. MacMillan&lt;/a&gt; and the primarily cited by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.markhankins.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark Hankins&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/8122204120&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Discovering the Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's important to note that while the Blood of Jesus, the word of God as interpreted by the word of God, Faith ie &amp;quot;confession and possession&amp;quot;/&amp;quot;believing and receiving&amp;quot;, the moving of the Holy Spirit are all fundamental parts of the Word of Faith movement the little g gods is definitely tertiary at best not something important to scripture and not frequently taught. We have a corresponding doctrine for nearly every scripture sometimes multiple doctrines per verse as we go to church frequently. If you disagreed with this you would still be comfortable at a Word of Faith church as few actively teach it. It is something which people commonly use to poke fun at us hence its inclusion on wikipedia. It also predates Creflo Dollar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T04:27:27.417" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16930" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16932" CreationDate="2013-06-21T04:03:13.257" Score="23" ViewCount="2816" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 14:16 and 14:26, which refer to a Paraclete (&quot;comforter&quot;), have been read by Muslims as a prediction that Muhammad will succeed Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.&quot; (John 14:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But the Comforter (Paraclete) whom the Father will send in my name, he shall speak to you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.&quot; (John 14:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does Christianity say about the role of Mohammed in the Bible?  What is relationship between Christianity and Islam?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-12-25T01:44:55.727" LastActivityDate="2017-03-21T19:37:01.833" Title="What is the role of Mohammed in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;islam&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16930" CreationDate="2013-06-21T04:17:56.207" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; perspective, there is no role for Mohammed in the Bible.  &quot;The comforter&quot; is believed to be the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;strong&gt;Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and he shall give you another Comforter. This is no inconsiderable&#xA;  proof of a trinity of persons in the Godhead; here is the Father&#xA;  prayed unto, the Son in human nature praying, and the Holy Ghost the&#xA;  Comforter prayed for; who is the gift of the Father, through the&#xA;  prevalent mediation of the Son, and is another &quot;Comforter&quot;; distinct&#xA;  from the Messiah, to whom reference is here had! One of the names of&#xA;  the Messiah, with the Jews, is (u), &quot;a Comforter&quot;; such an one Jesus&#xA;  had been to his disciples; and now he was about to leave them, and for&#xA;  their support under their sorrows, he promises to use his interest&#xA;  with his Father, that he would give them another Comforter, meaning&#xA;  the Spirit, who performs this his work and office, by taking of the&#xA;  things of Christ, and showing them to his people; by shedding abroad&#xA;  the love of the Father, and of the Son, into their hearts; by opening&#xA;  and applying the precious promises of the Gospel to them; by being a&#xA;  spirit of adoption in them; and by abiding with them as the seal,&#xA;  earnest, and pledge of their future glory; and with this view Christ&#xA;  promises to pray for him,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that Islam has other perspectives, but of course, on this site &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1808/how-we-are-different-than-other-sites&quot;&gt;we're not here to answer what is true, just what Christianity (or segments of Christianity) teaches&lt;/a&gt;.  From a Christian perspective, Mohammed is not even a factor, Biblically speaking.  He came along after the last book of the Bible was written, and from a Christian perspective, he's not who was being predicted in these verses. From a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; perspective, these verses speak of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T15:49:03.177" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T04:17:56.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16930" CreationDate="2013-06-21T04:31:07.120" Score="54" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Introduction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Muḥammad has absolutely no role in Christianity, and there is no explicit mention of him in the Christian Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Comforters&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first «παράκλητος» (“Comforter”) was the Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 John 2:1, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; My little children, I write these things to you so that you do not sin. And if anyone sins, we have a &lt;strong&gt;comforter&lt;/strong&gt; with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Αʹ&lt;/sup&gt; Τεκνία μου ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ &lt;strong&gt;παράκλητον&lt;/strong&gt; ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ mentions «ἄλλον παράκλητον» (“another Comforter”).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 14:16-17, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; And I shall ask the Father, and He shall give you &lt;strong&gt;another Comforter&lt;/strong&gt;, so that he may dwell with you forever, &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him, neither does it know him, but you know him, for he dwells with you, and he shall be in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΙϚʹ&lt;/sup&gt; καὶ ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ &lt;strong&gt;ἄλλον παράκλητον&lt;/strong&gt; δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα μένῃ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα &lt;sup&gt;ΙΖʹ&lt;/sup&gt; τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει αὐτό ὑμεῖς δὲ γινώσκετε αὐτὸ ὅτι παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word ἄλλον (“another”) implies that there is an original Comforter. As mentioned, the original Comforter is the Lord Jesus Christ. The one who is “another Comforter” is the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his commentary on 1 John 2:1, Henry Alford wrote,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/CesoV.png&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/CesoV.png&quot; alt=&quot;Alford, p. 432, 1 John 2:1&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, regarding the Spirit of truth, the Lord Jesus Christ told the apostles that “he dwells with you, and he shall be in you.”&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The Greek verb «μένει», translated as “dwells,” is conjugated in the present tense, meaning that the Spirit of truth was dwelling with the apostles, right then, and right there, in the present. Muḥammad was not born for another 500-600 years. Therefore, Muḥammad could not be the other Comforter, the Spirit of truth. In addition, even Muslims would never admit that Muḥammad is actually in them. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason that the Spirit of truth was dwelling with the apostles in the present, although the Holy Spirit would not be given until Pentecost,&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; is because the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son, Jesus Christ.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; The Lord Jesus Christ was dwelling with the apostles, and there exists a divine community between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – the Holy Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Prophecy of Joel&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Muslims assert that the Holy Spirit cannot be the “Spirit of truth” or the “Comforter” because the Holy Spirit had always been with the faithful. However, there is no evidence that &lt;strong&gt;everyone&lt;/strong&gt; who had faith in God prior to Pentecost possessed the Holy Spirit. Rather, God gave the Holy Spirit to whom He willed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophet Joel prophesied of a time when God would pour out His Spirit (i.e., the Holy Spirit) upon &lt;em&gt;all flesh&lt;/em&gt;, meaning both Jews &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; Gentiles, bondmen &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; freemen, men &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; women, children &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; adults, rather than upon select individuals. Logically, if God would &lt;em&gt;in the future&lt;/em&gt; pour out His Spirit upon &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; flesh, then it had not been done so prior to that time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Joel 2:28-29, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt; And it shall come to pass afterwards, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. &lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt; And in those days, I shall also pour out My Spirit upon the servants and upon the handmaids.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;כח&lt;/sup&gt; וְהָיָ֣ה אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֶשְׁפֹּ֤וךְ אֶת־רוּחִי֙ עַל־כָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר וְנִבְּא֖וּ בְּנֵיכֶ֣ם וּבְנֹֽותֵיכֶ֑ם זִקְנֵיכֶם֙ חֲלֹמֹ֣ות יַחֲלֹמ֔וּן בַּח֣וּרֵיכֶ֔ם חֶזְיֹנֹ֖ות יִרְאֽוּ׃ &lt;sup&gt;כט&lt;/sup&gt; וְגַ֥ם עַל־הָֽעֲבָדִ֖ים וְעַל־הַשְּׁפָחֹ֑ות בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֶשְׁפֹּ֖וךְ אֶת־רוּחִֽי׃ &lt;sup&gt;WLC&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, the apostle Peter confirms that this event occurred at Pentecost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts 2:1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all of one accord in one place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts 2:4&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Acts 2:16-18&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; “And it shall come to pass in the last days,” said God, “I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; And in those days, I shall pour out My Spirit upon My servants and upon My handmaidens, and they shall prophesy.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Inadequacy of any Future Revelation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If indeed the Lord Jesus Christ is God as the majority of Christianity confesses, then any future revelation is inadequate compared to the revelation which came from the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason is simple. A messenger is sent by, and delivers a message or revelation on behalf of, someone greater in authority. In the case of Moses, a man, he was sent by Yahveh, God, to deliver Yahveh’s message and revelation to the people of Israel.&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; However, because Moses was a man, this left open the possibility that someone “greater than Moses” (i.e., a greater man) could come thereafter to deliver another message or revelation on behalf of Yahveh to the people of Israel. Of course, the one “greater than Moses” was the Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Had the Lord Jesus Christ been &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; a man, the possibility would then exist that someone “greater than Jesus” could come after him with another message or revelation on behalf of Yahveh to the people of Israel. But, because the Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, “the same yesterday, today, and forever,”&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; no later message or revelation from someone who is &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; a man can supercede the message and revelation given by the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, on behalf of God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Muḥammad is just a man, and in addition, he claimed to have received the Qurʿān, not directly from God, but from the angel Gabriel, his message and revelation can in no way supersede that of the Gospel delivered by the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, who spoke only what God the Father gave him to speak.&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;A Contrary Gospel&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one more thought that I feel is necessary to include. In Gal. 1:8-9, the apostle Paul wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; But if we, or an angel from heaven, preach [a gospel] to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be anathema! &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; As we said before, so now I say again — if anyone preaches [a gospel] other than what you have received, let him be anathema!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Ηʹ&lt;/sup&gt; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται ὑμῖν παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν ἀνάθεμα ἔστω &lt;sup&gt;Θʹ&lt;/sup&gt; ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾽ ὃ παρελάβετε ἀνάθεμα ἔστω &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the revelation of Muḥammad which he claimed to have received from an angel contradicts the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ that was later preached by the apostle Paul and the other apostles, Muḥammad is considered anathema, or “accursed.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;References&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alford, Henry. &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=AQ49AAAAIAAJ&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Greek Testament&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Vol 4. Boston: Lee, 1878.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; p. 432&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; John 14:17: «παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται»&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; 2 Tim. 1:14&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Acts 2:4&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Rom. 8:9&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; Exo. 3:15&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; Heb. 3:3&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Heb. 13:8&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; John 12:50&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-03-21T19:37:01.833" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16934" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-21T06:42:18.997" Score="9" ViewCount="1017" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians claim that &quot;they are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus.&quot; But there are also members of many other faiths who claim that they are saved. For example, apart from affirming Jesus to be the Messiah, the Qurʾān explicitly claims by name that those who believe Jesus as God are disbelievers. In addition, Judaism generally considers Christianity to be idolatry or &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/11350&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;avodah zarah&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, since Christianity generally affirms Jesus to be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the concrete, Biblical basis that assures that it is this specific group of &lt;em&gt;Christians&lt;/em&gt; like the modern claimants of Christianity that they are indeed saved, compared to other faiths who also have their own scriptural basis for believing they are saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:05.287" LastActivityDate="2019-11-19T21:42:26.210" Title="What assures Christians that they alone are saved?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;comparative-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24" CreationDate="2013-06-21T07:40:51.427" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard this debated for many years. Has no one here ever made wine? There is no such thing as unfermented wine, 'new' wine refers to wine that has only been fermented for a short period (about 6 weeks). Being grape growers and vinedressers for centuries, I'm pretty certain the people of Jesus' day were pretty expert winemakers. There are ways to make wine with lower alcohol content (witness todays white zinfandel) but natural fermentation peaks at about 14%, although it can be raised higher by fortifying with sugar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do love the Lord Jesus and worship Him forever as God and king. I am a dedicated Bible scholar and believe in the literal interpretation of the bible as the infallible word of God, however I believe this one counts as another one of those 'Christian Fables' that usually start with &quot;well back in those days (fill in the blank). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4841" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T07:40:51.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16934" CreationDate="2013-06-21T08:31:21.633" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;First question to ask is what are Christians being saved from or for? Thankfully someone has saved me time &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/588/what-does-it-mean-to-be-saved&quot;&gt;from having to write that answer up&lt;/a&gt; (Thanks @Caleb):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/588/what-does-it-mean-to-be-saved&quot;&gt;What does it mean to &amp;quot;be saved&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I would promote the necessity of relationship with God so that a follower knows the nature of God well enough to know what His desire for us. This is summed up in the famous and oft quoted verse &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son,&#xA;  that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caleb answered what we are saved from, my last quote tells us that God does not want to lose any of us, my next part will explain the part that causes us to be in the firing line of Gods wrath.....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rom 3:23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 for all [a]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means we have missed the mark, we have FAILED the test, the Law we have broken. When the Law is broken justice is required. God is a just God so cannot simply ignore that we have sinned and grant mercy, otherwise He is not just. We, as humans cannot remove the need for justice, just as we cannot remove the stain of sin, any attempt to do so is futile:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2064:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 64:6&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our&#xA;  righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a&#xA;  leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot base our idea of righteousness as the grading system that God will use, for His standards are far higher than ours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do you ascertain the standard of God? Would Mother Teresa make it based purely upon the standard she demonstrated? Would Hitler based upon his actions meet the requirements of Gods standards? No, surely not in the case of Hitler, but also Mother Teresa, as amazing as she was, also fell short of the requirements that would make her salvation possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long story short, man cannot do anything in his own works to gain salvation. Justice &lt;strong&gt;IS&lt;/strong&gt; required by and sought by God: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2094&amp;amp;version=HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 94&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, hopefully I have established from a Christian perspective why we are in the firing line of Gods wrath. Now to be sure of salvation in Christ as a Christian:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as Christians believe that it is through Christ that salvation is made possible, because our sinful ways and the requirement for justice made outside intervention a necessity, because mere man was unable to undertake this correction for themselves. Jesus was able to satisfy the demand for justice so that all that was required was for the mercy and grace of God to have a chance to win back from Satan the hearts of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be sure of their salvation a Christian needs to have a relationship with God because then you are learning of His nature such as God cannot lie:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Titus 1:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, &lt;strong&gt;who cannot lie&lt;/strong&gt;, promised&#xA;  [b]long ages ago,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He loves us: John 3:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If then, Christians agree that Paul's words are divinely inspired scripture (and remember God cannot lie) then it is plain and simple for Christians to be certain of their salvation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:9-10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 10:9-10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 [a]that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in&#xA;  your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10&#xA;  for with the heart a person believes, [b]resulting in righteousness,&#xA;  and with the mouth he confesses, [c]resulting in salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, a Christian believes they are being saved so they can live, but they can only live if they do not lead their live according to the flesh, but by the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:13&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 8:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you [a]must die; but&#xA;  if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you&#xA;  will live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian knows if they are living by the flesh because they act according to their own desire, pursuing their own agenda, but ultimately not seeking to know God more and more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, as a Christian, to be sure of your salvation; do not simply live to an acceptable level (i.e., the Law or to mans standards), but rather live by the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T11:03:45.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16934" CreationDate="2013-06-21T08:32:43.017" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;You're obviously familiar with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_messianic_prophecy&quot;&gt;Messianic prophecies&lt;/a&gt; which are well expounded in Wikipedia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The classic proof text for Christians' being saved is John 14:6 (and 10:27 below) &amp;mdash;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for Jesus-as-God, there's John 10:27&amp;ndash;30 (particularly v30) &amp;mdash;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“I and the Father are one.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash; and Matthew 1:23,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of the Trinity [which puts Christ as God], although rooted in biblical times and supportable with quotes such as these, was only formally stated by the Early Church. But it is foreshadowed by Christ himself in John 15:26 &amp;mdash;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and at the end of Matthew's gospel, Mt 28:18&amp;mdash;19,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ...”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T08:32:43.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16934" CreationDate="2013-06-21T08:45:19.170" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The study of religious doctrines of salvation is called &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;soteriology&lt;/a&gt; (the Wikipedia article is a good start). The most important part of soteriology is the theologic concept of &lt;strong&gt;justification&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Justification is God's cleansing of our sins and declaring us righteous. Catholics and Orthodoxs believe in justification by&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;baptism (&lt;strong&gt;initial justification&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;avoiding sins&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the sacrament of penance if serious sin occurs (the last two form &lt;strong&gt;permanent justification&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants believe in justification by &lt;strong&gt;faith alone&lt;/strong&gt;. You can find some &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29#Biblical_references&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;relevant bible quotes&lt;/a&gt; that can point either way on Wikipedia (after all, the reformation wars didn't come about because the bible is a clear-cut, easy to understand document).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding &lt;strong&gt;baptism&lt;/strong&gt;, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that&#xA;  is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us &quot;the&#xA;  righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ&quot; and through&#xA;  Baptism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 6:8-11 But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall&#xA;  also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead&#xA;  will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. the death&#xA;  he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives&#xA;  to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive&#xA;  to God in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding penance (&lt;strong&gt;reconciliation&lt;/strong&gt;), again from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;II. Why a Sacrament of Reconciliation after Baptism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1425 &quot;YOU were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the&#xA;  name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.&quot; One must&#xA;  appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the&#xA;  sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to&#xA;  which sin is excluded for him who has &quot;put on Christ.&quot; But the apostle&#xA;  John also says: &quot;If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and&#xA;  the truth is not in us.&quot; and the Lord himself taught us to pray:&#xA;  &quot;Forgive us our trespasses,&quot; linking our forgiveness of one another's&#xA;  offenses to the forgiveness of our sins that God will grant us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the&#xA;  Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have&#xA;  made us &quot;holy and without blemish,&quot; just as the Church herself, the&#xA;  Bride of Christ, is &quot;holy and without blemish.&quot; Nevertheless the new&#xA;  life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty&#xA;  and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that&#xA;  tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that&#xA;  with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the&#xA;  struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion&#xA;  directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never&#xA;  ceases to call us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4813" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T12:44:32.650" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T12:44:32.650" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16894" CreationDate="2013-06-21T11:16:59.497" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm answering your question along the lines of &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Does the bible or logic offer any guidance as to refute 'murderous individuals' who claim to be following the bible?&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SOME VERSES CLAIM PRIMACY&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are verses that say, seemingly in opposition, &amp;quot;love your enemies&amp;quot; (Sermon on the Mount), and call for the wholesale slaughter of God's enemies (Josh 6:41). There are Christians who have used one verse or another as a guiding principle in foreign policy, for example. (The &amp;quot;slaughter God's enemies&amp;quot; being a member of one of my congregations about 10 years ago.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is it-- love enemies or kill their families? Each side could claim to be acting on the Word of God.   Is it the case that the only thing you get out of scripture is affirmation of your pre-existing agendas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fortunately, the bible tells us which rules are tantamount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SECOND GREATEST COMMANDMENT&lt;/strong&gt; “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”&#xA;Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”  Matthew 22-36-40&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;WEIGHTIER PARTS OF LAW&lt;/strong&gt; “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. Matthew 23:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GOLDEN RULE&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;Do unto others as you would have them do to yourself&amp;quot; Luke 6:31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible itself claims primacy of the two passages (&amp;quot;second greatest&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;weightier&amp;quot;); the third label of &amp;quot;Golden Rule&amp;quot; was added by men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to our friends above debating foreign policy.  If one picks a verse about loving enemies and the other about killing them, one reasonable approach is to check the interpretation against these &amp;quot;weightier&amp;quot; passages.  Is killing your enemies, holding slaves as another example, a direct literal obedience to a command to practice mercy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IF LAWS CONFLICT, DON'T DO EITHER&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's an allegory I've used to illustrate the &amp;quot;difficulty&amp;quot; in obeying &amp;quot;conflicting&amp;quot; passages.  Suppose there's a man who sees a &amp;quot;SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH&amp;quot; sign in front of his street.  Suppose he takes that law as the literal decree of the mayor that he may drive 40 MPH on the road-- regardless of whether there were ducks or schoolchildren crossing the road.  He is going 40 MPH.  Now if someone points out that there is also a law on the books about not killing children, can the man throw up his hands and credulously say he's part of a sect that loves the mayor more than him and so is following the higher law that men should be allowed to drive 40 MPH?  No.  Likewise, in Christian circles-- take our Josh 6:41 foreign policy analyst-- even if there were a law with a mandate to go and do something, there are many laws to do it with mercy and justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T11:23:01.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16934" CreationDate="2013-06-21T11:26:22.230" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;To quote from Bible itself, Jesus mentioned about the salvation of mankind through Him, in following verses in Bible. All these words spoken by Jesus Himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:14-18 Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will come in and go out, and find pasture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live even if he dies,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:6 Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus talks about his death as necessary fro saving the humanity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke: 24:46-47 and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. – 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark: 14:24 He said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-22T08:52:58.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16822" CreationDate="2013-06-21T13:02:30.720" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very interesting question, because as we know, in Jesus was two natures: nature of God and nature of human. If we consider &lt;strong&gt;mind&lt;/strong&gt; as a part of human nature, then, of course, this question has sense. But indeed nobody really knows, how mind of human and God being &quot;mind&quot; was joined in Him. And my personal θεολογούμενα about this question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we remember, Jesus was praying to Father just like a man, being alone, using His human speech. This fact could us suggest an idea, that thinking about Him self was a part of human being, so He knew &lt;strong&gt;everything&lt;/strong&gt; about Him self (that He is The Son of God, and, of course, He self &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; God, and The Messiah and so on), but in prism of human mind: the &quot;instrument&quot; of thinking was His human brain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, we must accentuate on that fact, that &quot;thinking&quot; is only our anthropic action, which is not applicable to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T13:02:30.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16750" CreationDate="2013-06-21T13:16:37.447" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I think, that in general Christians pray to Jesus Christ, to ὁ λόγος, because actually He is the only One Whom we (I mean humanity in general) saw when we are talking about the God. As I understand, the humanity have an ability of the communion with God only&lt;br&gt;&#xA;owing to Jesus Christ, the Word:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made&#xA;  that was made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, when Christians paint the icon of God, they picture human look of Man Jesus Christ, as it was remembered by his disciples. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, when Christians are thinking about Jesus Christ and praying to Him, they think about Him, that He &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; God, not &quot;some of the several gods&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T13:16:37.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16934" CreationDate="2013-06-21T13:28:04.957" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is salvation? What are Christians being saved from? The Apostle taught that Christians will be saved because God has promised to save all the Jews through a one sided covenant, and that, since the Greeks are to be grafted onto the vine that is Israel, Greeks will share in that covenental promise [I refrain from using the word &quot;gentile&quot; rather than Greek, as that an entirely different meaning then.&#xA;If you are unfamiliar with this passage from Paul's writings, do a computer search in your bible software.]&#xA;In other words, salvation of Christians is dependent on the fulfillment of the promise God made to Israel. If Israel is not saved neither are Christians - this is Paul speaking, of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Redemption of mankind through the death and resurrection of The Lord, is not the same as salvation. Redemption affects every man woman and child in the world. This idea was recently made very public by The Pope in which he said that even Atheists have been redeemed by the blood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither does salvation mean going to Heaven after one dies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, according to Paul, it was possible to lose salvation, if Israel doesn't receive the promise God made to it. If God were to reneg on His promise to Israel, salvation would not &quot;stick,&quot; All would be cut off from the vine, together with its root Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Paul taught was that we are adopted into the covenant, and are therefore considered to be included in &quot;Israel.&quot; Now, this is Paul's &quot;gospel,&quot; as he called it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the Church cast out all the Hebrews in the 4th. cent. (these were the children/disciples of the apostles) the Church focused on the idea that Jesus himself was the vine (Jo 15:1.) Salvation was as Jesus described in Matthew 5 in which those saved have received blessings from God - though they might not have recognized them as blessings - and the reception of all these &quot;gifts&quot;  was the indicator that the disciple had been declared righteous by God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old covenant with Israel was considered by the Church to apply only to the Hebrews. And so developed the dual covenant idea [no longer a doctrine of the Church.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, for Christians, the reception of the virtues which are the corollary to the beatitudes, demonstrates salvation [read St. Augustines's commentary on the Beatitudes to understand this idea.]  A famous Bishop has said &quot;I was saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in the &quot;catholic&quot; churches (Anglican, Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Episcopal, Anglican Catholic, Anglo catholic, Church of England, and all the other branches of the catholic Church) salvation is not a certainty. We hope and we pray for the virtues of Christ, and that God will declare us righteous now, or soon, and that He sees us a being righteous at the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The attraction to people of  modern theology is that they get salvation by accepting Jesus as their Lord. And they can't lose it - though a Baptist pastor  assured me that someone who is saved cannot lose salvation, he also told me that not all his congregation was going to heaven, because not everyone was saved in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What &quot;catholics&quot; [see def. above.] understand is that  &quot;Christian life&quot;, as God has shown us through The Lord's demonstrations, IS salvation. And as long as we continue to live God's way, and &quot;persevere to the end,&quot; we will keep our salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T13:28:04.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2306" CreationDate="2013-06-21T13:28:10.333" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is the theological opinion, that human soul is created by God from nothing every time when new man appears. The first time this view was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy&quot;&gt;expressed by Saint Irenaeus&lt;/a&gt;. So, the answer to your question might be yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T22:55:24.143" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T22:55:24.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16930" CreationDate="2013-06-21T13:37:59.430" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would not be so sure to exclude any reference to Muhammad from the Bible. In fact there is a fairly mainstream historical view of Revelation that directly includes him as the leader of a Saracen invasion that invaded Christianity like a 'locust plague' in the seventh century. A review of the symbol and the history arguably describes the prophecy in an uncanny manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The location of the Saracen invasion is arguably tied into these verses as well as a few verses before:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer). (Revelation 9:7-11, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this view it is argued that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the hieroglyphic itself as by the words of explanation accompanying, that to the Arab cavalry hordes, emerging from the smoke of the hellish exhalation, there would be opened a fearful career of conquest over Roman Christendom: one in which, as just hinted before, they would fly, as it were, with locust-wings, destroy what opposed them with the strength of lions’ teeth, and torment the subjugated Christian inhabitants as with the poison of a scorpion-sting.—And was there then a correspondence with this in the facts of the subsequent Saracenic history?—It was in the year 629 that the Saracens under Mahomet himself first issued from the desert into Syria, with proclamation of war against Christendom. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/horaeapocalypt01elli&quot;&gt;Horae Apocalypticae; or, A commentary on the Apocalypse, critical and historical; including also an examination of the chief prophecies of Daniel 1862, Vol 1, P449&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for matching the symbol to this period is not only because it historically follows in order after the opening of the previous seals, but it seems alone answers the peculiarities of the symbol in an exacting manner. The image matches the 'swarming numbers' of the Muslim invaders. Their historical progress of attacking Christianity almost immedietly after the birth of their religion was noted for &quot;progress rapid, far-ranging, and irresistible&quot;. Furthermore, historically they were known to be &quot;wide wasters of the herbage and vegetation.&quot;  &quot;The horse-like appearance seemed to imply that they would be hordes of cavalry; the likeness to the lion, that they would be savage destroyers of life; and the scorpion-likeness, that of the men in Roman Christendom, whose lives they spared, they would be the tormentors, even as with a scorpion’s poison-sting.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore the locust is peculiarly Arabic, even biblically, as in the plague under Moses the locusts came from an 'east wind.' Arabia being east of Egypt. The scorpion is also native to the  Arabian desert.  Arabia is also regarded by as the &quot;original country of the horse&quot; and that in it's wild wildernesses are the &quot;haunts also of the lion.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even more striking the locust was human in the appearance with male faces but &quot;hair as the hair (the long hair) of women, with crowns as of gold on their heads, (or, it might be, gold-adorned turbans) and breast-plates like iron.&quot;  The history of Muhammad and the early Muslim Saracens also war iron breast plates. Clearly the symbol can be seen like a hand to a glove, a mixture of meaningful symbolism pinned to literal realities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it is further said that the locusts issued out of the smoke of the bottomless pit. The historical argument also finds meaning here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who knows not of the sudden rise of Mahommedism in Arabia, just at the very time we speak of:—that most extraordinary invention of fanaticism and fraud; which being, as it was, from beginning to end a lie, in its pretensions superseding the Gospel of the Lord Jesus, in its doctrines inculcating views of the blessed God dark, cruel, and unholy, and in its morals a system of pride, ferocity, superstition, sensualism,—indicated too well, to any one who had eyes to see, that it had indeed its origin from hell, and was an emanation, like the pestilential smoke in the vision, from the pit of the abyss? (&lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/horaeapocalypt01elli&quot;&gt;Horae Apocalypticae; or, A commentary on the Apocalypse, critical and historical; including also an examination of the chief prophecies of Daniel 1862, Vol 1, P442&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So maybe after all, Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, just not in the way that Muslims might approve of? As a Christian this view is not very persuasive unless a historical view of Revelation is adopted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T15:36:12.793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T15:36:12.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16947" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-21T13:49:11.930" Score="6" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the difference of icon veneration between various Christian confessions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It will be interesting to hear view of point from representative of each confession, and finally create comparative table of this act.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems, that most interesting and fuzzy difference is between east orthodox and catholic Christians. Furthermore, it seems that official doctrines of each confession can differ from how Christians of that confession really do veneration of the icons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastEditorUserId="4842" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T14:29:45.760" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T13:49:39.343" Title="What is the difference of icon veneration between various Christian confessions?" Tags="&lt;iconography&gt;&lt;veneration&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16948" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16949" CreationDate="2013-06-21T14:19:50.093" Score="17" ViewCount="7763" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do Protestants who deny transubstantiation do with the remainders of wine and bread after the Eucharist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in Eastern Orthodox Church, after the liturgy the priest must consume (I mean eat) all remainders of the Body and the Blood of Christ. And is not permitted to leave even some the smallest parts of consecrated bread and wine, or lose some of them or to let fall on the floor some of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I understand, many Protestants do not believe that the wine is real blood and the bread is the real Body of Christ. So, how do Protestant pastors treat such remainders?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-20T22:07:30.373" LastActivityDate="2016-06-07T16:10:53.623" Title="What do Protestants who deny transubstantiation do with the remainders of wine and bread after the Eucharist?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;transubstantiation&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16949" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16948" CreationDate="2013-06-21T14:30:09.443" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are correct that most Protestants do not see the bread and wine as anything more than symbols.  There is no blessing that is ever attempted to transform the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ.  Consequently, the bread and wine (or juice) that could be stored for long periods of time prior to the observance of the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) can be stored for long periods of time afterwards.  Additionally, if the bread or wine goes bad or if there is anything left over after an observance, they can be just thrown away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, some would ask if the disposing of these elements is irreverent.  To answer that, it should be understood that the elements only serve as symbols during the observance of the Eucharist/Last Supper.  Before and after, they are just regular, ordinary, &quot;garden variety&quot; bread and wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted, though, that there are some Protestant denominations that do hold the bread and wine in high regard.  Some may even subscribe to transubstantiation.  For those denominations, the practice would likely be similar to that of Catholics and Orthodox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2016-06-07T16:10:53.623" LastActivityDate="2016-06-07T16:10:53.623" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16948" CreationDate="2013-06-21T14:34:42.943" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Episcopalians: The ushers count the congregation and count the wafers to match. If they miscounted the Priest in charge reserves the wafers in a &quot;tabernacle&quot; on the altar. They drink all of the wine/water. If a wafer is dropped it is retrieved quickly and consumed by the Priest. Whether or not individuals believe the wafer is the actual body of Christ is between him and God. Episcopalians are not required to believe in the transubstantiation as are Roman Catholics, though many do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T14:34:42.943" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16948" CreationDate="2013-06-21T14:51:24.103" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Protestantism&quot; is extremely diverse, and there is pretty much no single way that Protestants do anything. This is especially true of the Eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Protestants do believe that the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus is real. Others believe in treating the communion elements with special reverence even if the transformation is symbolic or spiritual. The Anglican church, for example, also expects that leftover elements are consumed after the service - usually by the Priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that don't follow this practice, the elements can be disposed of in any way that is convenient. They can be eaten, thrown out, or kept for next week. Many Protestants also don't use actual wine for the communion, but grape juice instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-22T01:38:10.867" LastActivityDate="2013-06-22T01:38:10.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16918" CreationDate="2013-06-21T15:21:09.807" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA has exercises for its members to create environments in which the Spirit can flow. For instance &quot;men's groups&quot; which meet weekly usually for breakfast and to listen to a speaker - there is a Q&amp;amp;A. Many members are stimulated to give more attention to God, by meditation on the Word of God, and by mulling over things they are bothered about wrt God. There are retreats which consist of a week away from work, to think about God. We read books from those who have experienced God, and talk to those who have experienced God, in order to get encouragement. Of course, there is adult education on Sunday, which usually stimulates questions that need to be researched at home, and this often leads to a spiritual awakening. Giving time to nothing but thoughts about God always encourages the Spirit to bubble up with new revelations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was once stimulated by a religious teacher to explain Galatians. Knowing very little (I was a new convert of two years) I read it through three times and fell asleep reading. When I awoke I was inspired by the Spirit to begin writing. I sat at the computer for 18 hours non-stop and completed a commentary on Galatians. (It is on my web site under &quot;Paul&quot; if you are interested.) &#xA;So, this has become a method for overcoming &quot;dryness of Spirit&quot; - to read and to sleep on it (usually in the chair) - and is what I taught in Episcopal Sunday school.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T15:21:09.807" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16856" CreationDate="2013-06-21T15:45:40.867" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to look at my article from several years ago &lt;a href=&quot;http://zinzendorf.com/pages/index.php?id=holy-spirit-as-mother&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Motherhood of the Holy Spirit in the 18th century Brudergemeine in Church History&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zinzendorf claimed that there was precedent for this in early Christian theology, especially Ephraim. Trudy Beyark just published a book on the feminine side of God which looks at feminine language in many Christian traditions, including Catholicism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4844" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-29T15:11:53.170" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T15:11:53.170" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16909" CreationDate="2013-06-21T15:59:22.953" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you have to differentiate a statement from God (which is necessarily the truth,) from   Catholic Dogma determined by  Bishops of the Empire at Nicea in 325. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Trinity in Unity is an idea of some of the Bishops in the Empire and was voted upon by 300 Bishops in 325 at Nicea (near Constantinople and the Emperor.) It was not accepted by all Bishops, six rejected it. Some 500 other Bishops did not even attend. The statement of Trinity was not regarded as the truth about God. It was &quot;the best they could come up with,&quot; at that time to hold the various factions of the Church together. Bishops had to agree to it or lose their Diocese and pension. The Trinitarian statement  was revised several times to correct ambiguities, and the changes caused a split in the catholic church, which is only now being healed (partially.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Trinitarian understanding is different between various Trinitarian churches, (the wording is also different - but that's not a major problem.) It is not possible to determine the truth from these statements, as God is truth alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you must accept what God has stated in His own words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be a Roman Catholic you must agree to accept the Trinity in Unity statement.&#xA;To be an Anglican Catholic you must agree to the Apostle's creed which is slightly different.&#xA;To be an Episcopalian you must agree to the Nicene-Constantinople creed, which is a variation of the Nicene Creed.&#xA;The Orthodox Greek have a slightly different understanding (&quot;and the son&quot; is missing.)&#xA;The Latter Day Saints use the Trinitarian phrase: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but rather than consider them to be personalities (or personages) as do the catholics, they consider them to be persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would not use these differences in understanding between the various religious groups to suggest that one is the truth and the other wrong. Their understandings is particular to their rite of admission to the Church. It was never meant as a description of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Go by what God has said of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T15:59:22.953" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12564" CreationDate="2013-06-21T16:22:11.660" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Anglican Communion the most common idea is that what one personality knows the other knows (you should rather use personality than the word person when talking of the Trinity in Unity.) If you pray to The Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit hear you also. We address our prayer to The Father because Jesus taught His disciples to pray to The Father. We open with &quot;Our Father,&quot; rather than just &quot;Father.&quot; LDS Priests usually address the prayer to &quot;Heavenly Father.&quot; Anglican Priests often address their prayer to &quot;Father Almighty,&quot; and often to &quot;Almighty Father.&quot; which is a different way of thinking of God.&#xA;In RC doctrine, prayers are often addressed to Mary (theotokos) asking her to intervene with the Son, on a persons behalf (this was recognized from the experience at the Wedding in Cana.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are so many millions of people who have been helped by prayers to Jesus, to Saints, to Mary, to Joseph, to Yahweh, to Mohammet, that it is evident God hears every prayer that the Spirit recognizes has God as its ultimate destination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T16:22:11.660" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16907" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:55:38.513" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea is not that all Jews will be reconciled to God, but that a remnant will repent and return to the Lord in the last days. Paul explains it this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(speaking of Israel:) I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people &lt;strong&gt;whom He foreknew&lt;/strong&gt;. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? . . . But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men . . . .” In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time &lt;strong&gt;a remnant&lt;/strong&gt; according to God’s gracious choice. . . . &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (speaking of Israel:) I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, &lt;strong&gt;to make them jealous&lt;/strong&gt;. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! . . . For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, &lt;strong&gt;what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?&lt;/strong&gt; . . .&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (speaking of Israel as an olive tree, and the people as its branches:) But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them . . . do not be arrogant toward the branches . . . . &lt;strong&gt;they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted [back] in&lt;/strong&gt;, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, &lt;strong&gt;how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a &lt;strong&gt;partial hardening&lt;/strong&gt; has happened to Israel &lt;strong&gt;until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in&lt;/strong&gt;; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  “The Deliverer will come from Zion,&#xA;  He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”&#xA;  “This is My covenant with them,&#xA;  When I take away their sins.”&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In summary:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God has not rejected those Israelites whom He foreknew, but has kept a remnant for Himself&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mercy came to the Gentiles in order to make the Israelites jealous&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Just as Israel's transgression resulted in mercy for the Gentiles, their reconciliation to God will result in life from the dead&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If Israel does not continue in their unbelief, God will welcome them back&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Age of the Gentiles is temporary, and once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, the partial hardening of Israel will be over&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God will do all of this out of His faithfulness to the promises He made to the fathers&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T17:55:38.513" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-21T21:26:45.483" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find one of the cleverest things ( arguably :) ) God ever did was to save people sole-ly by faith and belief in Jesus. Its not degrading morality, but by believing we are changed to become more moral. Its a gradual process you can see it happen in people who believe and read the Bible, they are affected by it. It warms you to other people and helps you connect with and help people maybe you never would have done otherwise. Belief in God and in Jesus is only so powerful because by believing it gives the Bible its power so when you read it, it actually effects you and changes you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I would say morals are just as important as belief, but we're saved by belief because, through the process God's set up (ie. reading the masterwork of God in the Bible), believing makes you better. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4846" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T21:26:45.483" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16960" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16948" CreationDate="2013-06-21T23:17:04.310" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Lutheran churches have an extra drain in the kitchen (sacristy) sink for disposal of extra, unused communion wine. This extra drain dumps directly to the soil underneath. The idea is that it is more respectful to dump on soil than to mix with sewage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Page 13 of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&amp;amp;id=559&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this FAQ&lt;/a&gt; from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lcms.org/aboutus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LC-MS Lutherans&lt;/a&gt; explains their policy on disposal of the communion elements, including &quot;returning to earth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-06-21T23:49:22.880" LastActivityDate="2013-06-21T23:49:22.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15" CreationDate="2013-06-22T00:34:00.680" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Q: Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Religious groups require obedience to some biblical laws if you want to continue as a member of that Church. These vary from Religion to religion. In order to join the early church a new &quot;gentile&quot; convert had to agree to abide by the Seven laws of Noah, even if he could not accept Judaism's &quot;laws.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Seven Laws of Noah were recognized by the United States Congress in the preamble to the 1991 bill that established Education Day in honor of the birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad movement:&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.&lt;/em&gt; [from wikipedia.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any &quot;gentile&quot; who lived these laws of Noah, was considered by the Hebrews to be equal to a High Priest in righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not demand that we obey any &quot;laws,&quot; we are asked to love God above all else. The laws are rules given to &quot;children&quot; who do not yet have &quot;the laws written on their hearts;&quot; do not yet recognize &quot;The Christ within them.&quot; &#xA;Until that time they need a teacher who will explain what it means to love God. When you become mature in the Faith, and love God with all your heart, body, mind and soul, and have become &quot;perfect&quot; as Paul has said, you no longer need the teacher, as Paul has said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You always have a choice whether to follow the rules or not. The rules are &quot;natural laws,&quot; which if you try to break them have a consequence of their own. As Steven R. Covey said ( I have met him) in &quot;The seven habits of highly effective people,&quot; &lt;em&gt;&quot;When you pick up one end ot the stick, the other comes with it.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The greatest gift that God gave to Adam was that of choice.  Whether you are willing to follow natural laws is your choice. A happy life ensues if you follow those that pertain to your life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the final judgement, Christ is going to ask you whether you have given water, food and clothes to His brethren. And whether you visited His Brethren when they were sick, or in prison (spiritual.) He is not going to ask you what Religion you follow or which laws you broke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An Anglican scholar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-06-23T14:05:00.010" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T14:05:00.010" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16907" CreationDate="2013-06-22T01:11:17.873" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the NT writings the whole World has been redeemed by the death of Jesus, including Israel. The act is finished. &#xA;This understanding about the redemption of all was explained by Origen c. 250.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Huffington Post May 23, 2013&#xA;&quot;Pope Francis rocked some religious and atheist minds today (May 23, 2013) when he declared that everyone was redeemed through Jesus, including atheists.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Redemption is, of course, not the same as salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay here is some additional explanation - it is only a quick answer. I ought to spend a week thinking it out properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the NT, the Greek word for redemption means a releasing effected by payment of ransom&#xA;   1a) redemption, deliverance&#xA;   1b) liberation procured by the payment of a ransom&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the price that the Redeemer paid for our release from the bondage of sin. With this payment the virtues that God withheld from the children of Adam, are now offered to all mankind. We have but to ask sincerely and deeply to receive these virtues. The two virtues are summarized as &quot;holiness and justice.&quot; As Origen has explained, the absence of these virtues in the children of Adam, and his descendants, was like a stain on mankind. &#xA;This stain is washed away by the incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus - we are &quot;washed clean&quot; by His blood. Redemption for us then, is a washing away of the stains that were &quot;original sin&quot; - a term used by the Church Fathers - St. Augustine and St. Thomas. Origen before them, and others Fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is my understanding, I am sure that a Priest or theologian could explain it better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation, on the other hand begins with a life centered on God, trusting in God, and loving God. &#xA;Someone must show us how to repent, for this is to love God with all our heart mind body and soul. The Hebrew practice is Teshuva, a lifetime of improving our aim so we get closer to the mark - as Paul taught. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said: &quot;be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul showed his followers how to realize The Christ within them. &#xA;Jesus said to the twelve &quot;the kingdom of God is within you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put: redemption is the price paid for the removal of the stains on us that had, until the crucifixion, prevented us from re-entering Paradise.&#xA;Salvation is the process by which God makes us worthy to enter Paradise. (As the NT puts it: We must have on our wedding garments provided by God to enter the bridal chamber.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a simple explanation of very complex theology, and you should do the research yourselves. My explanation is taken from Anglican Doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-06-23T01:13:58.433" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T01:13:58.433" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16963" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16972" CreationDate="2013-06-22T01:24:22.710" Score="10" ViewCount="1941" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm told that according to Mormon doctrine, a Mormon woman has to be granted entry into heaven by her Mormon husband. Assuming my impression is correct, what would happen if the husband turned from Mormonism and then died? Would the wife need to quickly remarry a Mormon before she died in order to get to heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2020-12-09T22:36:22.027" Title="If a Mormon man turns from Mormonism, what happens to his Mormon wife when she dies?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2306" CreationDate="2013-06-22T01:31:46.100" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Talmud teaches that the act of creation is ongoing and is continued through the actions of God's creatures. Unlike the Christian OT, Talmud reads &quot;When God began the creation ... &quot; When God rested, man took over the management of God's world. God inspires individuals to create things, processes, art, and to create a better World, according to God's plan. Human beings are the hands and eyes of God, doing things that God dreams of. He is the architect, and we are the builders. In Talmud, Torah is the blueprint for the creation (the tree of life, in gan eden), and Torah is the blueprint that is re-examined anew with every generation to create things necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[An Anglican]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-22T01:31:46.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16966" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11299" CreationDate="2013-06-22T02:23:01.413" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I tried to read the other answers but they did not seem to be specific to oral sex they just spoke generally about sex. Wax eagle in passing mentioned oral sex in a positive light but I thought it was odd no one used the s word. I should say before I go further I'm not married I'd like to be married I've never had sex might never have sex I do everything within my power to be asexual that may disqualify my answer in some people perception and thats fine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 6:9  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind[G733],&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Ti 1:9  Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,&#xA;1Ti 1:10  For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [G733], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;G733&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἀρσενοκοίτης&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;arsenokoitēs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Google dictionary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;sod·om·y&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;/ˈsädəmē/&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Noun&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The error of Sodom and Gomorah focused on sexual sins grouped into the words unclean, sodomy, fornication and adultery. Sodomy includes oral stimulation. Sodomy is a Bible word in 1Co 6:9 but is not translated as such in the King James Version. The root words him selves mean men in bed so its possible you could say this only applies to homosexuality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jud 1:7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.&#xA;Jud 1:8  Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 1:29  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication[G4202], wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;G4202&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πορνεία&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;porneia&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;por-ni'-ah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 10:8  Neither let us commit fornication[G4203], as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;G4203&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πορνεύω&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;porneuō&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;porn-yoo'-o&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From G4204; to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry: - commit (fornication).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However you still have the problem of the word Sodom being sodom from Jude 1:7. It is said that they defiled themselves with strange flesh or you could say different and improper affinity. That suggests to me many different combinations of sex not including marital combination of sexual organs. Besides strange affinity you also have the the broad word fornication from which we derive the word porn. Anything not marital relations is fornication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 7:4  The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.&#xA;1Co 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jas 4:17  Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 14:23  And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite all the evidences you could say the Bible does not definitely speak of oral sex however your heart might. If you have doubt in your mind that such actions are sinful and you do it anyways you have sinned and must not do it while your heart doubts. The opposite also being true. Because someone says it is right does not override the conviction of your heart because the word does not expressly call it right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-03T23:24:01.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6055" CreationDate="2013-06-22T04:08:44.537" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a person working in a social services field I must say that most people lie to themselves. They live in denial or a false perception of themselves or others. So what is a lie? I think we need to be real careful. It is often said lying to protect Jews from Nazi's was acceptable yet we frown upon a parent lying on a resume to keep her kids fed and the rent paid. We all know good lies from bad lies. Bad lies are a betrayal they are personal. Good lies protect others. I believe the Hebrew meaning of lie is betrayal, to fail, to deceive. Our hearts will tell us if we are doing right or wrong. God's love for us is bigger than any lie you could ever tell,even the lies you tell yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4849" LastActivityDate="2013-06-22T04:08:44.537" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16968" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="16969" CreationDate="2013-06-22T04:23:41.357" Score="3" ViewCount="345" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been reading &lt;em&gt;about&lt;/em&gt; the Bible and saw this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the&#xA;  night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the&#xA;  elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works&#xA;  that are in it will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I cannot find &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; this is supposed to happen. I am assuming that this is referring to some kind of a war. Does the Bible say when this event will occur, or even hint at a period of time when it may occur?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But something tells me that this may not be about war, or at least not about any of our own wars. &lt;em&gt;&quot;But the day &lt;strong&gt;of&lt;/strong&gt; the Lord...&quot;&lt;/em&gt; - that makes me think that this is referring to something like Judgement day?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4850" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T20:46:58.353" LastActivityDate="2015-08-03T20:46:58.353" Title="Does the Bible say when the day of the Lord (as described in 2 Peter 3:10) will occur, and does it go into more detail about this particular event?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;2-peter&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16968" CreationDate="2013-06-22T04:53:41.323" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't say exactly when this Day will occur. Furthermore, Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 13:32 says, &quot;But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Updated Information&lt;/strong&gt;: The &quot;Day of the Lord&quot; is not about some kind of &lt;em&gt;war&lt;/em&gt;; rather, is is about the Second Advent of Jesus Christ. I suggest you first read Mark's Gospel (or any of the other three Gospels) to aid you in your interpretation of what is written in the Epistles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T15:32:59.557" LastActivityDate="2015-08-03T15:32:59.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16971" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17053" CreationDate="2013-06-22T05:11:44.927" Score="2" ViewCount="1893" Body="&lt;p&gt;Orthopraxy is the application of orthodox beliefs in the form of rituals and customs. Approved practices are all orthopraxic. I’ve been told (and I can’t unsee it now) that most Protestant groups focus on orthodox requirements often at the expense of orthopraxic requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Examples of Mandated Practises commonly ignored&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Head covering&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:5, 6&lt;/strong&gt;: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2011:5-6&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;King James Version&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:6&lt;/strong&gt;: For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2011:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;English Standard Version&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 11:10&lt;/strong&gt;  For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2011:10&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;King James Version&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two commonly ignored orthopraxic commands of the Bible involve wives. These are not followed by most evangelical denominations. In our Word of Faith denomination, as best I can remember, it is said that the text in 1 Corinthians is in reference to harlots. This is given as the reason why wives do not need to cover their head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Rules on clothing and adornment&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 3:1-3&lt;/strong&gt;:  Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Pe%203:1-3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;King James Version&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 15:24&lt;/strong&gt;: And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mar%2015:24&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;King James Version&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Word of Faith denomination, many members believe in prosperity. Yet our denomination does not actually have a problem with wearing much gold (as one from the outside might imagine). A watch and a ring are common on the most wealthy. In certain groups, there is a very common tradition of what I characterize as over- or under-dressing not just for church but in all things. I’m not necessarily referring to expensive clothes either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Why do so many Biblicaly literalist Protestants disregard this verse?&lt;/em&gt; I’m aware of Pentecostal Holiness groups who do not do even wear makeup because of this verse and I’m equally aware that Jesus wore a very nice set of seemingly ordinary clothes and that he now wears a large gold band.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Changing practises over time&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 12:2&lt;/strong&gt;:  And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2012:2&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;King James Version&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:4&lt;/strong&gt;: Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2013:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;King James Version&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In general, why do Protestant evangelical Bible literalist Christians allow things like venue and peer pressure to override orthopraxic practices as described by the Bible?&lt;/em&gt; In this case I’m referring to the command on love from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2013:4-7&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:4-7&lt;/a&gt; which is the orthodox passage that describes orthopraxic commands.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There’s an idea, it seems to me, that when I start being paid I should stop making an effort to always follow my beliefs. I do understand that certain actions, such as witnessing, might be deemed to be stealing from your employer’s time, but I see no real reason to explain a lack of compassion. (And even for witnessing, breaks are common.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Summary&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why do so many literalist Protestants disregard the rulings on clothing and adornment in 1 Peter?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is the command to be loving not followed in business contexts? How can venue, circumstance, and peer pressure override a Biblical commandment?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am well aware of the explanation that the Bible is out of date or out of touch and written for another culture. However, I’m looking for an answer from a literalist perspective which accepts that the Bible is accurate for today as well as yesterday. I’m also already aware of the idea that Christians don’t have to do anything as they’re already going to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-16T23:03:14.790" LastActivityDate="2014-07-16T23:03:14.790" Title="Is Orthodoxy more important than Orthopraxy?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;word-of-faith&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-22T14:13:03.537" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16963" CreationDate="2013-06-22T05:54:54.077" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps some things should be clarified a bit here first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First part of your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm told that according to Mormon doctrine, a Mormon woman has to be granted entry into heaven by her Mormon husband. Assuming my impression is correct, ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not really.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unmarried women can certainly get to &lt;em&gt;heaven&lt;/em&gt; -- and depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;heaven,&amp;quot; they don't even have to be Mormon. Remember, Mormons believe what Paul teaches about the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/466/1003&quot;&gt;three degrees of glory in 1 Corinthians&lt;/a&gt; more literally than most Christians, in that there are three main kingdoms, all of which are called &amp;quot;heaven.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unmarried men and women can even obtain the highest kingdom. However, in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131?lang=eng#&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants, section 131&lt;/a&gt;, more is revealed about this state (the celestial glory):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To obtain this highest glory is called &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15581/1003&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;exaltation&lt;/em&gt;. It is living like God does, being as He is.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eternal marriage (also called a &lt;em&gt;sealing&lt;/em&gt;), faithfully kept by both individuals, happens to be that final requirement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose then, that what you mean by &amp;quot;going to heaven&amp;quot; is actually exaltation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, on to the next part of your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... what would happen if the husband turned from Mormonism and then died?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He would face the consequences in the hereafter on his own. It's not even so much about turning from &amp;quot;Mormonism&amp;quot; at that point, but rather about breaking your covenants made in the temple, to God and to your wife, for which he would need to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would the wife need to quickly remarry a Mormon before she died in order to get to heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. Again, assuming you mean, &amp;quot;in order to obtain exaltation&amp;quot;: LDS members are taught and reminded (a few sources below) that all who are faithful here will have everything and more made up after this life, and all who do not have the opportunity to be eternally married here will be able to be sealed to a faithful husband there, if that be their desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eternal nature of covenants performed in the LDS temples means that whether they are made in this life or the next, they are in effect for eternity (cf. parable of the laborers in the vineyard).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources and further reading:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-38-eternal-marriage?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel Principles, Chapter 38: Eternal Marriage&lt;/a&gt; &amp;quot;all Heavenly Father’s children who are faithful to their covenants in this life will have the opportunity to receive all the blessings of the gospel in the eternities, including the opportunity to have an eternal family.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/the-eternal-blessings-of-marriage?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Eternal Blessings of Marriage&lt;/a&gt; (a recent General Conference address) &amp;quot;All things are possible to the Lord, and He keeps the promises He inspires His prophets to declare. Eternity is a long time. Have faith in those promises and live to be worthy of them so that in His time the Lord can make them come true in your life. With certainty, you will receive every promised blessing for which you are worthy.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1988/10/to-the-single-adult-sisters-of-the-church?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;To the Single Adult Sisters of the Church&lt;/a&gt; &amp;quot;I also recognize that not all women in the Church will have an opportunity for marriage and motherhood in mortality. But if those of you in this situation are worthy and endure faithfully, you can be assured of all blessings from a kind and loving Heavenly Father—and I emphasize all blessings. I assure you that if you have to wait even until the next life to be blessed with a choice companion, God will surely compensate you. Time is numbered only to man. God has your eternal perspective in mind.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-22T06:00:58.757" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7369" CreationDate="2013-06-22T06:35:15.530" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Episcopal Church in the USA, excerpts from the Apocrypha are read in services. But the Apocrypha is not a source for doctrine. We pray for the dead, as do Catholics around the World. This idea is confirmed in Macabees, and it has always been part of the Church Liturgy since the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the examination for Holy Orders in the ACC it is required: §11.9.01 Holy Scripture: The Old and New Testaments with the Apocrypha in English, their contents, teachings, theology, and historical background;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Apocrypha&quot; originally meant &quot;sacred books that were reserved for the wise.&quot; The Greek word has the meaning hidden i.e hidden from those who were not yet wise.  The explanation is in 4 Esdras which, of course, you may not have seen if you follow Protestant doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The original and proper sense of the term apocryphal as applied to the pretended sacred books was early obscured. But a clue to it may be recognized in the so-called Fourth Book of Esdras, which relates that Estrus (Era) by divine inspiration composed ninety-four books. Of these, &lt;strong&gt;twenty-four were restorations of the sacred literature of the Israelites&lt;/strong&gt; which had perished in the Captivity; they were to be published openly, but the remaining were to be guarded in secret for the exclusive use of the wise (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/dan012.htm#vrs4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 12:4, 9&lt;/a&gt;, where the prophet is bidden to shut up and seal an inspired book until an appointed time). Accordingly it may be accepted as highly probable that in its original meaning an apocryphal writing had no unfavorable import, but &lt;strong&gt;simply denoted a composition which claimed a sacred origin&lt;/strong&gt;, and was supposed to have been hidden for generations, either absolutely, awaiting the due time of its revelation, or relatively, inasmuch as knowledge of it was confined to a limited esoteric circle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since all these books are in the Anglican, Orthodox, and Catholic Bibles (with some variation) they are indeed scripture, and all scripture is sacred. So it is proper in the &quot;catholic&quot; Church to refer to the books as &quot;sacred.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-23T21:24:25.337" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T21:24:25.337" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1066" CreationDate="2013-06-22T06:46:18.817" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Anglican Catholic Church, the change to the elements of the wafer and wine is mysterious, and no-one tries to explain what has happened. But there is no doubt that the wafer and wine in some way become the body and blood of Christ, and that Christ is indeed present during the Eucharist. Christ is also present if any surplus wafers are reserved on the altar - a light is suspended to the left of the altar to signify the presence of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an addendum:&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Anglican Catholic doctrine is also Orthodox doctrine.&lt;/strong&gt; Our Bibles contain the same books (80). The Greek Church Fathers are accepted as authorities in the Anglican Catholic Church. The Church Fathers include: St. Clement, Origen, St. Iranaeus, St Augustine, St. Athenasius, St. Gregory, St. Cyril, Tertullian, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, Theodoret.&#xA;We call ourselves Catholic and &lt;strong&gt;Orthodox&lt;/strong&gt; Anglicans. Our Metropolitan has said &quot;Our doctrine is both Catholic and Orthodox.&quot; Our doctrine is so much that of the Greek Orthodox Church that I was asked to teach there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even earlier the Bishops of the C of E made a statement about doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;II. From the books entitled &quot;The Institution,&quot; and &quot;A Necessary Doctrine, &amp;amp;c.,&quot; agreed on by the Bishops in England, A.D. 1537 and 1643:&#xA;&quot;All those things which were taught by the Apostles, and have been by a whole universal consent of the Church of Christ ever since that time taught continually, and taken always for true, ought to be received, accepted, and kept as a perfect doctrine Apostolic.&quot; &#xA;III. From a Canon made by a Synod in England, A.D. 1571 Let Preachers above all things be careful that they never teach aught in a sermon to be religiously held and believed by the people, except that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, &lt;strong&gt;and which has been collected from the same doctrine by the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops. [ed: which includes the Greek Fathers]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And here you see that the Anglican Church accepts the oral traditions of the Church as do the Orthodox.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;IV. From a work of Archbishop Bramhall, entitled Schism Guarded: “We do not only admit oral traditions in general, as an excellent introduction to the doctrine of saving truth, and a singular help to expound the holy Scriptures, but also particular unwritten traditions, derived from the Apostles, and delivered unto us by the manifest testimony of the primitive Church, being agreeable to the holy Scriptures. The Apostles did speak by inspiration, as well as write; and their tradition, whether by word or writing, indifferently, was the Word of God, into which Faith was resolved. .... St. Augustine setteth us down a certain rule, how to know a true genuine Apostolical tradition: 'Whatsoever,' saith he, 'the universal Church doth hold, which has not been instituted by Councils, but always received, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by Apostolical&#xA;authority.” Oxford ed. p. 382.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from our Church web site: &lt;em&gt;The word &quot;Catholic&quot; is often understood in opposition to the word &quot;Protestant.&quot; However, this is both a recent and uniquely western perspective. In the ancient church, catholicism was understood to be the opposite of heresy, or false belief, and even today there are millions of Christians in Greece, Russia, and other parts of the world who consider themselves neither &quot;Catholic&quot; nor &quot;Protestant,&quot; but &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Orthodox&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Constitution of the ACC &lt;em&gt;&quot;The received Tradition of the Church and its teaching as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors”, and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided &#xA;Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-06-23T13:22:04.483" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T13:22:04.483" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16968" CreationDate="2013-06-22T08:41:11.700" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Andremonity has made the correct answer that every person with knowledge of the Bible would have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is very clear that no one knows, or even can know, when this event is going to happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, here is where I think Andremonity has made things a little too simplified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very large majority of Christians believe that this event is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, which will be when all are judged by God and found worthy or not worthy to enter His Kingdom. The verse you quote is clear that it is going to be one heck of an event. Although I know of no Christian denomination that says it is a war, a good majority say that it ends a war (the battle of Armageddon).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It so happens that there are quite a few details about this exact event. There are details about what happens before and after it, too. They are all detailed in the New Testament's only prophetic book Revelation. The Second Coming of Christ starts at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 19:11&lt;/a&gt;. Now, I should warn you that Revelation is the most argued about and most difficult to understand book in the entire Bible. I do encourage you to read through that little section and maybe chapter 20 too, but before you try to understand it, it would benefit you many times over to read and understand the rest of the New Testament first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-06-22T08:41:11.700" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16979" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-22T12:52:18.687" Score="6" ViewCount="772" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard the claim many times that &quot;Paul never met Jesus.&quot; A simple Google search turns up scores of examples. It is usually in the context of those who are, how to say, &quot;outside orthodoxy&quot; and want to advocate giving less weight to the doctrinal content of Paul's epistles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At face value, it seems a most fatuous claim, in that it would seem hard to assert a historical Paul without referring to the Book that gives us this encounter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, &quot;Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?&quot; Acts 9:4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is whether any church leader &quot;within orthodoxy&quot; has asserted such a claim.   By &quot;within orthodoxy&quot;, I am looking for papal statements, denominational founders (Wesley, Luther, Calvin, etc.), church fathers (those at ccel.org), or noted figures in evangelicalism.   (I'd even accept the Mormon prophet for purposes of this question.). Contemporary figures within &quot;theologically liberal Christianity&quot; not of interest here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-06-22T22:08:53.817" LastActivityDate="2015-04-16T06:25:38.773" Title="Are there any major / orthodox Christian leaders that taught that Paul didn't meet Jesus?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16980" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-22T12:54:54.007" Score="14" ViewCount="694" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since priests were not originally expected to be celibate, many must have been married when celibacy was first introduced. So what happened to the wives during this time when the institution started? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-17T21:56:41.930" LastActivityDate="2019-03-12T11:02:40.873" Title="What happened to the wives of priests when celibacy was first instituted in the Catholic church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;priests&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16981" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-22T13:12:27.553" Score="4" ViewCount="237" Body="&lt;p&gt;Contemporary &quot;theological liberals&quot; have often argued that traditional doctrines about guilt and sin and repentance lead to feelings of guilt that can become pathology. This claim shouldn't be too hard to believe, because I believe it's the intended question behind a user's provocative question asked here not too long ago. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;insistence on holding people to an impossible standard and then instilling guilt in their minds (sin / confess / repeat) causes psychological distress and prevents some people from reaching their potential in life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of them have advocated this as a reason to jettison these doctrines outright. I have a strong memory of a seminary professor in ELCA Lutheranism explicitly making such a claim but couldn't find his web page, as perhaps he's now retired. I have often wondered to what extent when &quot;extreme&quot; guilt has happened, it can be said to be &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The result of really bad (unorthodox, if &quot;conservative&quot;) preaching?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The result of unrepentant hearts who insist on continuing the sin?, or&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The neglect of great theological traditions in Christian theology?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am of the conviction that this question can be answered straightforwardly in terms of a non-Truth question, if it is &lt;strong&gt;&quot;How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching or theological writings?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'm not looking for medical diagnoses or answers of what is BEST. I am searching for what HAS BEEN SAID.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2016-10-23T02:54:22.220" LastActivityDate="2016-10-23T02:54:22.220" Title="How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;preaching&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16979" CreationDate="2013-06-22T21:22:08.980" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, from my readings of Church Fathers, Saul's encounter were&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First: seeing The Christ on the road to Damascus in a vision &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.”&lt;/em&gt; Acts 22:8, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second: a vision in Jerusalem where he was given his marching orders, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“And he (The Lord) said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.”&lt;/em&gt; Acts 22:21, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third: during his visit to the third heaven that same year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”&lt;/em&gt; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, KJV.&#xA;And here it is agreed by many Church Fathers that Paul is talking about himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of the Fathers is quoted as saying that Saul/Paul met with Jesus in the flesh. In the NT, Paul only quotes Jesus once, in reference to the Eucharist. So this shows his ignorance of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether Paul met Jesus or not is a moot point. Christianity went ahead without reference to Judaism - only they borrowed the Prophets, and the Psalms, from the Septuagint, needed to give scriptural support to the New Testament theology. A sort of re-reading of the Hebrew scripture that fit the New ideas. This Old Testament, which the Hebrews considered to be heresy,  was incorporated into the Christian Bible during the 4th. cent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul called his theology &quot;my Gospel.&quot; Ro 2:16; 16:25; 2Ti 2:8. And we know if was different from the Gospel of the Apostles because the Pauline writings talk of the clashes with those from Jerusalem &quot;who teach another Gospel.&quot; What the Church in Jerusalem taught (under James the Just, the brother of Jesus,) has been swept under the carpet, so to speak. What The Church is founded upon are teachings from the Pauline community. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the nascent Christian/Pauline Church to prosper outside the Holy Land, it was important to turn over control of the Church to the Greeks, who had developed a theology which had The Risen Christ at its center, not Jesus the Messiah, who was a descendant of David, and not divine, but anointed to be King of Judea - hence &quot;Jesus annointed.&quot; In Hebrew it was &quot; Yeshuah Messiach,&quot; in Greek &quot;Ihsous Christos&quot;,  all meaning anointed one (this was the theology of the Jerusalem Church and later the Ebionites.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek (later Roman) Church's revolutionary idea was called &quot;The New Testament,&quot; - it came from the teaching of the Pauline Community, whose writings reached the Church in Rome in 140. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without Paul, there would have been a Hebrew-Christian Church probably similar to those who vowed poverty, later called the Ebionites by their detractors, which religion died out by the 4th. cent. (but some scholars say later than this.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually the Hebrew disciples were driven from the Church by legalisms, and Judaism with them, including their God Yahweh (this is a simplification of what happened.) Without a God to call their own, Jesus was declared to be God - a declaration that didn't suit all the Bishops. And for another two hundred years, the various Christian churches ( there were some fifty denominations) fought over whether Jesus was human or divine, a man or God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 4th. cent. Bishop Eusebius was empowered by the Pagan Emperor Constantine to bring all the Bishops of the Empire together to settle on one understanding of God. About 300 attended. All Bishops were required to declare that Jesus was God incarnate, or suffer excommunication. Only six objected, and were excommunicated (later re-instated as power was handed over to a new Bishop.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By very skilful argument at this council of Nicea (as it became known,) almost all the Bishops were convinced that: Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Ghost were consubstatial - of the same essence but different personas. The Trinity in Unity was born in AD 325. It was tacitly understood that the Hebrew understanding of God had been incomplete. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even today in my classes, some people say that the Hebrew God of wrath and justice, is not the same as the loving and merciful God of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost everyone in Protestant America thinks that Paul had the correct understanding of what Christianity should be - despite the fact that, unlike the twelve, he never met Jesus, and never studied under him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I expect a lot of flack with this posting. But: &quot;Blessed are the peacemakers,&quot; Jesus said, so be patient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-06-22T21:32:14.740" LastActivityDate="2013-06-22T21:32:14.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16990" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16980" CreationDate="2013-06-22T22:17:01.193" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The women all died. That was about a thousand years ago, after all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the edict went out, the ruling was that married men would no longer be ordained, not that the priests who were married would get rid of their wives. Eventually, this meant that all of the women married to priests would either become widows or the priests would become widowers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below I was asked for a citation, so I'll go ahead and add this as an amendment. It was apparent that celibacy was highly preferred in the West by the time of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Quinisext Council&lt;/a&gt;, which mentions that the East does not have such a preference (a case of an exception proving that the rule exists). During the 11th century, Gregory VIII took &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_Reform#Clerical_celibacy_policy_confirmed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dramatic and active&lt;/a&gt; efforts to eliminate all future married clergymen, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Second Lateran Council&lt;/a&gt; forbid married clergymen completely. But by that time it had already been two generations since bishops were forbidden from ordaining married men anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-07-04T04:22:31.673" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T04:22:31.673" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15710" CreationDate="2013-06-22T23:24:00.680" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In appendix 2 of Eusebius The Church History, the date for Peter as Bishop of Rome is c.60.&#xA; The first reference to Peter being the first Bishop of Rome comes from a 3rd. cent. writing of St. Cyrian in Epistle 51:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;... when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be no writing from the 2nd. cent. explicitly saying that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. When reading about Peter from later writers, it seems to be universally believed that He was the first Bishop of Rome, though no documents to prove it have survived. Later Bishops had central authority of the Church, and as they claim to be successor to Peter, it is inferred that Peter also had some central authority - the newer Bishops were just carrying on his tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-06-23T17:25:36.390" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T17:25:36.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14223" CreationDate="2013-06-23T02:29:08.320" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is that no religious, nor theologian today accuses the Hebrews of the death of Jesus. Many years ago the Roman Catholic Church apologized for its part in spreading this idea. The Pope has said that all humans must share the blame. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as suffering more than others - I would consider the Russians to have suffered as much in the War - millions were killed. And In the first WW, millions of English were killed. This is not to minimize what happened to the followers of Judaism, and to deplore the way the world has treated them.&#xA;Since the beginning, God has blessed them as a race. From among them have come the most gifted scientists, musicians, doctors, and artists.   Thank God they are with us. We would be a poor lot without them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An Anglican.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T02:29:08.320" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14653" CreationDate="2013-06-23T02:47:15.953" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;He was charged with treason and confessed to it. &#xA;Read the book &quot;The death and trial of Jesus.&quot; by&#xA;Haim Cohn: Attorney General for Israel, appointed to the Supreme Court of Israel and a member of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. He was very familiar with law in Jerusalem in the 1st. cent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, in case you didn't know: the character Barabbas was named &quot;Jesus Bar Abbas&quot; in the NT of the 3rd cent. which means &quot;Jesus, son of the Father.&quot; Origen the Church theologian in AD 250 in Alexandria, recommended that the NT be edited to remove the name Jesus, as he felt it was sacrilegious to have two people with the name and title Jesus Son of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what do you think now, about the crowd calling for the release of &quot;jesus, son of the Father?&quot; The writer was trying to tell us something wasn't he?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T02:47:15.953" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="843" CreationDate="2013-06-23T03:18:09.287" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;ANF01 - Clement 1st. ltr. to Corinth) &lt;em&gt;Though your sins&#xA;reach from earth to heaven, I and though they be redder than scarlet, and blacker than sackcloth, yet if ye turn to Me with your whole heart, and say, Father! I will listen to you, as to a holy people.&lt;/em&gt;” 40 Comp. Isa. i. 18.&#xA;BLXX Isaiah 1:18 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;come, let us reason together, saith the Lord: and though your sins be as purple, I will make them white as snow; and though they be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before God was manifested on Earth through Jesus, the Hebrews received forgiveness of sin from God. After the crucifixion people still receive forgiveness of sin from God. The Redemption paid by Jesus through the incarnation, the passion, and the crucifixion, washed all mankind of original sin, which had stained man since Cain and Able were born. We are all now washed in the blood of Christ. But when we sin, we must still ask God for forgiveness, and must believe we have received it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus had His own explanation of the consequences of keeping the laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said:Mt. 5: 17* ¶ &lt;em&gt;Think not that I am come to destroy the law (Torah), or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, &lt;strong&gt;Till heaven and earth pass&lt;/strong&gt;, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And: &lt;em&gt;He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some 70 commandments given by Jesus in the NT. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations&#xA;(Matthew 22:37-38 KJV)      Thou shalt love the Lord thy God &#xA;(Matthew 22:39-40 KJV)  Thou shalt love thy neighbour &#xA;EXODUS 20:1-17 (KJV)    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS&#xA;(Matthew 7:12 KJV)      whatsoever ye would that men should do to               you&#xA;(Matthew 6:12 KJV)      we forgive our debtors.&#xA;(Mark 11:25-26 KJV)     forgive, if ye have ought against any&#xA;(John 3:7 KJV)      Ye must be born again.&#xA;(John 15:4 KJV)     Abide in me,&#xA;(Matthew 5:16 KJV; see  Let your light so shine before men&#xA;also Matthew 5:15)&#xA;(Matthew 5:23-25 KJV)   first be reconciled to thy brother,&#xA;(Matthew 5:29-30 KJV)   cut it off, and cast it from thee&#xA;(Matthew 5:34-37 KJV)   Swear not at all;  let your communication be,Yea; Nay,&#xA;(Matthew 5:38-39 KJV)   resist not evil:&#xA;(Matthew 5:40-42 KJV)   Give to him that asketh thee&#xA;(Matthew 5:43-45 KJV)   Love your enemies, ... be the children of your Father &#xA;(Matthew 6:1 KJV)       do not your alms before men&#xA; (Matthew 6:5-7 KJV)     pray to thy Father which is in secret; use                     not vain repetitions&#xA;(Matthew 6:9-15 KJV)    After this manner therefore pray ye:&#xA;(Matthew 6:16)      when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a               sad countenance:&#xA;(Matthew 6:19-21)   Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven&#xA;(Matthew 6:25-26 KJV)   Behold the fowls of the air ... reap not,                   gather not&#xA;(Matthew 6:34 KJV)      Take therefore no thought for the morrow&#xA;(Matthew 6:33 KJV)      seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his                   righteousness&#xA;(Matthew 7:1-2 KJV)     For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall                   be judged&#xA;(Matthew 7:6 KJV)       Give not that which is holy unto the dogs&#xA;(Matthew 7:7 KJV)       Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye                shall find&#xA;(Matthew 25:34-36 KJV) -2   ye gave me meat; ye took me in: ye clothed              me: ye visited me:  ye came unto me.&#xA;(Matthew 7:13-14 KJV)   Enter ye in at the strait gate&#xA;                and few there be that find it&#xA;(Matthew 7:15 KJV)      Beware of false prophets&#xA;(Matthew 10:1 KJV)      to heal all manner of sickness and all                  manner of disease.&#xA;Matthew 10:8 KJV)       Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the                dead, cast out devils:&#xA;(Matthew 18:10 KJV) despise not one of these little ones&#xA;(Matthew 23:8-12 KJV) - 5   be not ye called Rabbi:&#xA;                call no man your father upon the earth&#xA;                Neither be ye called masters:&#xA;                But he that is greatest among you shall be                  your servant. whosoever shall exalt himself shall be                    abased;&#xA;                he that shall humble himself shall be                   exalted&#xA;(Matthew 18:15-17 KJV) - 3  go and tell him his fault between thee and              him alone:&#xA;                take with thee one or two more, &#xA;                tell it unto the church: &#xA;(Mark 11:22-24 KJV) - 2 Have faith in God.&#xA;                shall not doubt in his heart, but shall                     believe &#xA;                when ye pray, believe that ye receive them&#xA;(John 15:12 KJV)        love one another, as I have loved you.&#xA;(Luke 22:19-20 KJV)         do this in remembrance of me. &#xA;(John 13:14 KJV)        ye also ought to wash one another's feet.&#xA;(Luke 6:35b KJV)        Be ye therefore merciful&#xA;(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,                     baptizing them&#xA;(John 14:15 KJV)        keep my commandments.&#xA;(Luke 12:40 KJV)        Be ye therefore ready also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-06-23T14:35:58.833" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T14:35:58.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16999" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17013" CreationDate="2013-06-23T18:12:11.260" Score="5" ViewCount="1855" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm really interested about Matthew 26:24 in which Jesus said that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this verse is talking about the betrayal of Judas, it seems that Jesus is affirming the eternal fate that awaits Judas by saying that it is better if Judas is had not been born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is God who is Omnibenevolent knows that Judas will be better of if he had not been born &lt;strong&gt;let&lt;/strong&gt; Judas to be born?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we say that God is Omnibenevolent if He made a decision (creating Judas) in which He fully knows that His decision will made one of His creation fate much-much worse in the end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: This question is for all of you although I have special interest for answer from &lt;strong&gt;christian universalism&lt;/strong&gt; point of view, hope u guys can chip in :) Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4863" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-16T07:41:33.567" LastActivityDate="2015-02-02T18:14:16.140" Title="Matthew 26:24, is God Omnibenevolent?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;omnibenevolence&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-02-05T20:10:32.333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8058" CreationDate="2013-06-23T18:29:05.817" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hope that this is the beginning of a vigorous discussion from all Faiths. There can't be any more pressing question for us to seek to answer. Jesus spent his life on earth trying to get the &quot;lost sheep&quot; to understand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, God is to be experienced, God cannot be understood apart from personal experience. In this sense God is a &quot;personal&quot; God. You and I will experience God differently. My knowledge of God comes from my direct experience of God's intervention in my life. I know what God is only from what God has done for me. No one can argue against what I have experienced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said &quot;the kingdom of God is within you&quot; and &quot;if you keep my words, I and the Father will make our abode in you. &quot;&#xA;Abode has the Hebrew meaning of &quot;tabernacle&quot; the place where God resided when &quot;on earth&quot; in Hebrew theology. So your pastors statement agrees with Jesus's teaching.&#xA;To &quot;keep His words.&quot; means to remember them and not teach others something different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will start to recognize God in your own life as you begin to attribute unexpected events to God's intervention in your life. The more that you give &quot;credit&quot; to God for the good things in your life, the more receptive to God you will become. A Sister superior from a convent in town, taught me that &lt;strong&gt;God is in the ordinary&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In teaching the Anglican and Episcopal brethren (Priests, Deacons, and Acolytes) about God, I had to explain to them some of the obscure things that Jesus teaches us about God from the Bible, and I used the Church Fathers understanding. I especially used the parables of Jesus to explain how others experienced God. The writings of a few of the Fathers have survived since the 2nd. cent. I have spent some 10,000 hours studying about 100 books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I will say about God is from the orthodox viewpoint - Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox. If this is okay with you, I will post some of my lessons here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-06-23T18:37:26.823" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T18:37:26.823" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16999" CreationDate="2013-06-23T18:37:03.617" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 6:18  That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Ti 2:13  If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tit 1:2  In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 5:4 Holman For You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil cannot dwell with You.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not a universalist. I'm Word of Faith and this is our position I understand it. God is Omnibenevolent but he is not Omnipotent by the common definition of Omnipotent. There are a set of thing categorized as evil which he cannot do. God allows many things but He does not cause everything. God did not force Judas to be born. His parents caused Judas' birth. God gave Judas' body form and a human spirit but he gives everybody form and spirit. It would be evil for whatever reason for God to deny this basic equal treatment to all those created from Adam. (It is possible for the devil to interfere with the work of God and a body to be born defected or otherwise afflicted. The devil truly is evil.) Judas was born tabula rasa he had the ability to make a good life to be a normal member of the 12 but he was corrupted by his own covetousness and the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T18:37:03.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17002" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17005" CreationDate="2013-06-23T20:27:48.990" Score="5" ViewCount="1365" Body="&lt;p&gt;In our (Presbyterian) church, we have a stone baptismal font in which we fill with water whenever we need to baptize somebody. At other times, it's empty, more for reasons of plumbing than doctrine - apparently there's some chance it could be damaged if kept full, due to its age and design. Our minister mentioned that in the Catholic Church, this would be considered wrong, as the font is meant to be kept full at all times, with the water traditionally being replaced each year at Easter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reason for this custom of keeping the baptismal fonts full? Is it a strict requirement or just a common practice? And as a practical matter, how is the water kept clean if it has to last all year?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-06-23T21:24:07.883" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T21:24:07.883" Title="Why keep baptismal fonts full in the Roman Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;easter&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17003" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-23T20:40:55.090" Score="0" ViewCount="78" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was anyone able to get to heaven before Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Logically you'd have to say no, because no human being is perfect, except for Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What passages might suggest the opposite?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4136" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T20:48:52.263" Title="So before Christ" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;cross&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-06-23T21:38:56.723" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17003" CreationDate="2013-06-23T20:48:52.263" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 3:13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 16:19  There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:&#xA;Luk 16:20  And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,&#xA;Luk 16:21  And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.&#xA;Luk 16:22  And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;&#xA;Luk 16:23  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.&#xA;Luk 16:24  And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.&#xA;Luk 16:25  But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.&#xA;Luk 16:26  And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.&#xA;Luk 16:27  Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:&#xA;Luk 16:28  For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.&#xA;Luk 16:29  Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.&#xA;Luk 16:30  And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.&#xA;Luk 16:31  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, before Christ no one had ascended to heaven, many have after Christ. However there was a place for the Jew Abrahams bosom. We know very little about it there is lots of supposition but the word does not say. We do know not all jews went there some went to hell. It seems that Abraham's bosom was an act of kindness more than an act of salvation. We know very precious little about it contained only in Luke 16 and the like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T20:48:52.263" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17002" CreationDate="2013-06-23T21:15:56.483" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;They're not kept full all year long,  there is a  blessing concerning Holy Water that takes place solely during the Triduum. But that is not the water kept in the font.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a fairly erroneous Catholic tradition that some priests take part in where they dump all the Holy Water before Lent starts then fill them back up when Easter comes around. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we do get fresh before Easter are the three Holy Oils and the Easter candle for the year. But a priest could bless water, salt or whatever whenever he wants to.  It could be said that Easter Blessed water is better, but it's probably just as good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fisheaters.com/water.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.fisheaters.com/water.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T21:15:56.483" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="980" CreationDate="2013-06-23T21:49:33.787" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here I focus on the motivation for different Bibles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The discussion on literal, word-for-word, figurative, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, paraphrase, simplified, bibles obscures the fact that the theology can be quite different between bibles. And the theological differences are much more a problem than the language itself.  The schism in the Episcopal Church in 1970, which caused many Bishops and congregations to leave the ECUSA was due primarily to the change in Bible and Prayer book use, because the newer books had changed the theology in a way totally unacceptable to many of the Priest and Laity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar thing is happening today with the Episcopal Church ( I am sure something similar is happening in other religious groups ) where traditional liturgy is being changed without the approval of the laity. In recent years the Bible has been changed, and the prayer book revised. People are hanging onto their traditional texts, and prayer books, and whole communities are moving to new locations so they can keep using their traditional books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Anglican Communion worldwide is very troubled by what is happening to the Episcopal Church in America. And they blame it on the changes made to the doctrine in America. ECUSA has written new bibles and new prayer books to suit the new doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Church ACC, which is independent of the Anglican Communion, nevertheless agrees with the 70 million Anglican Communion worldwide and uses the 1769 King James Version (AV) in most of the liturgy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All modern bibles come from one of four ancient bibles. There were four religious regions, and each region was its own biblical authority. The regions were: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Syria.&#xA;The Church of England has chosen to base their modern KJV bible on the Greek gospels from the Church of Antioch.&#xA;The RC Church has chosen to base their modern bible on the Greek gospels from the Church in Rome.&#xA;The Protestant Mainstream churches have chosen to base their modern bibles on the Greek gospels from the Church of Alexandria.&#xA;The Syrian Catholic Church have chosen to base their modern bible on on the Syrian gospels from the Church of Syria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each biblical tradition has passages and books that don’t appear in the others.&#xA;Every group of translators has a specific agenda, given by their Church, to slant the translation towards a doctrine taught by that Church. That’s why the Protestant Bibles are different from the catholic bibles, the Anglican Bibles, and the Orthodox Bibles. There are even bible versions aimed at specific religious groups. In fact, these days, people can find a Bible for their specific Church ideology - the Pastor will recommend it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason publishers offer literal, word-for-word, figurative, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, paraphrase, and simplified, bibles is not to make it easier to understand - some in fact really muddy up the theology, but to obscure the fact that the theology has been altered from the tradition in order to suit the aims of the church. [Prosperity theology cannot be supported from the KJV or the DRV.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My preliminary advice is to use the Bible your Pastor recommends - at least you will be hearing the same theology and can discuss it. In the discussion you will be inspired - as we always are when hearing the word of God - and you will experience God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are a scholar, and want to understand Jesus, then find the traditional bibles that have stood the test of time. If the language seems hard, the meaning, when you get it, will be as close as you can get to what Jesus taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some very poor translations, done by people who had no classical Greek learning - only NT Greek. You need to look for translators who are experts on ancient Greek and Hebrew. If the frontispiece doesn't list the translators, and the book doesn't have a pedigree, then go look for something that does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An Anglican&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T21:49:33.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7624" CreationDate="2013-06-23T22:40:03.950" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know of any Protestants that practice &quot;Catholic confession,&quot; but you may or may not be implying &quot;private confession.&quot;  Dr. James Nestingen, a Lutheran seminary professor, is part of a North Dakota congregation that still practices private confession and absolution.  Here is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newreformationpress.com/blog/tag/absolution/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link to talk by him&lt;/a&gt; on the topic, with some articles by other Lutherans. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-06-23T22:40:03.950" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17009" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-24T01:16:12.850" Score="18" ViewCount="85983" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Numbers 5:11-22 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to&#xA;  them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that&#xA;  another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her&#xA;  husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness&#xA;  against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if&#xA;  feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife&#xA;  and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she&#xA;  is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must&#xA;  also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her&#xA;  behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because&#xA;  it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw&#xA;  attention to wrongdoing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17&#xA;  Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust&#xA;  from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had&#xA;  the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in&#xA;  her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy,&#xA;  while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then&#xA;  the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other&#xA;  man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and&#xA;  become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water&#xA;  that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while&#xA;  married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having&#xA;  sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the&#xA;  priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to&#xA;  become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry&#xA;  and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter&#xA;  your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently saw this post by an atheist claiming this passage describes bible-sanctioned abortion in the case of a cheating wife. I had read this passage previously, but it never screamed out abortion to me; however, on a second reading it's not so clear. Is he correct in that this is abortion? If not, then what is this passage talking about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-11-08T05:48:55.947" LastActivityDate="2016-10-23T16:09:47.767" Title="Does Numbers 5:11-22 describe sanctioned abortion?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;leviticus&gt;&lt;abortion&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-10-24T18:16:51.990" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17009" CreationDate="2013-06-24T01:58:54.480" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I don't think this &quot;sanctions&quot; &lt;em&gt;abortions per se&lt;/em&gt;, I think it is good to draw attention to this passage (and others like Exod 21:22-25) insofar as they show that all the &quot;life begins at conception&quot; etc. rhetoric of the religious right is not as clean-cut as they would have us believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the context is that of divination---it is the deity, YHWH, who judges and makes the elixir effectual, not the elixir itself. In other words, this isn't about voluntary (or even forced) abortion, but ritual divination. It's more akin to tossing a woman into a pond to see if she's a witch, or casting lots to determine who is telling a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T01:58:54.480" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16999" CreationDate="2013-06-24T03:52:36.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are basically asking why God allows people to sin, without taking their lives beforehand, or even allowing them to live at all. Or how about &quot;Why does God create people that will end up in hell?&quot;, because it would be better for anyone to not be born than to turn from their creator.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created us and gave us free will, knowing we would turn to our own ways. He perfectly chose Adam and Eve to represent you and I. He also knew that some would repent and yearn for Him. Now I do not recall if it's mentioned that Adam (or Eve) find redemption, but if not and God had not allowed them to live long enough to sin, then mankind would not exist. It would be wrong for God to take every man's life that would not be saved through faith and repentance before they had sinned. God offers salvation to every sinful man (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%207:7-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&amp;amp;utm_expid=13466113-5&amp;amp;utm_referrer=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%252026:20-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 7:7-8)&lt;/a&gt;. If all of these people had died so soon, or before they were even born, then how many souls would not even come to be? How many would not even be offered life and salvation?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously if Judas ends up in hell, then it would be better if he had died before he sinned. I think Jesus is giving us a metaphor or simile in plain terms of the pain and suffering he would endure from his conviction for betrayal to his suicide, or perhaps in hell, or both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2013-06-24T15:53:32.483" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T15:53:32.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17014" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17017" CreationDate="2013-06-24T03:56:19.220" Score="1" ViewCount="2349" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many references in Bible points out that Man must leave his parents after marriage. Does it really mean that the parents and wife cannot live together in a common house ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4755" LastActivityDate="2018-12-08T00:42:36.830" Title="What does it really mean to leave parents after the marriage?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;parents&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-11-15T15:20:59.563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="783" CreationDate="2013-06-24T03:59:34.603" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems to be the choice of the publisher of your particular translation of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original 1611 edition of the King James Version/ Authorized Version had the word &quot;Jesus&quot; with a majuscular &quot;J&quot; followed by miniscular &quot;esus.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See this link:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-1_Original-1611-KJV/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-1_Original-1611-KJV/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T03:59:34.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="783" CreationDate="2013-06-24T04:30:53.820" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure this is just a typesetting decision---more akin to using quotation marks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, when the Gospels say what was written on the sign above Jesus' cross, they tend to typeset the message in all caps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the superscription of His accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mk 15:26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. - Lk 23:38&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And set up over His head His accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS - Mt 27:37&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. -Jn 19:19-20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, an identical construction occurs only a few verses before the Lk passage for John:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. - Lk 1:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other thing to consider, since Jesus' name is Semitic---and in Mark's case its meaning has bearing on the story (&amp;quot;for he will save his people from their sins&amp;quot;)---it may be because it was in a different language (though of course, still written in the Greek script). The difficulty here is that the KJV doesn't capitalize transliteration elsewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T04:30:53.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17014" CreationDate="2013-06-24T04:52:46.010" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 19:5  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?&#xA;Mat 19:6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 5:31  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 2:24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 24:67  And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.&#xA;...&#xA;Gen 25:5  And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No its specifically referring to sex but some including my maternal grandparents would disagree. Before the advent of modern technology many people did not move far from their place of birth in their lifetime. For instance Isaac did not leave &amp;quot;home&amp;quot; when he married Rebekah. I'm certain there are other examples but caring for relatives especially widows is something which is required of believers. Communal dwellings are common for the very poor and very rich.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T04:59:43.317" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17021" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17044" CreationDate="2013-06-24T09:38:08.320" Score="9" ViewCount="3743" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard that in some of Catholic churches (I mean parishes) in Europe there are icons of Russian Saints, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_of_Sarov&quot;&gt;Seraphim of Sarov&lt;/a&gt;, for example (may be I'm wrong, I personally haven't seen this).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I wonder, does Roman Catholic Church recognize (&lt;strong&gt;officially&lt;/strong&gt;) some Eastern Orthodox Saints?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastActivityDate="2015-08-30T07:09:52.983" Title="Does Roman Catholic Church recognize some Eastern Orthodox Saints?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17025" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17146" CreationDate="2013-06-24T13:09:03.370" Score="12" ViewCount="3026" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm reading what is perhaps the funnest and most authentic Christian memoir ever: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B001UFP4X2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Angry Conversations with God: A Snarky but Authentic Spiritual Memoir&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She writes about sex, saying at one point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But according to American evangelical churchianity, I’d committed a sin worse than murder or genocide or trying to set myself up as a deity. I’d had sex!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She learned this in her church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Instead he produced two large pieces of cardboard that had been glued together. “Sexual intercourse is made for the covenant of marriage. It is a binding act that unites two into one flesh. But if you engage in sexual intercourse outside of marriage—” Pastor Norman yanked the two pieces apart. They shredded into chunks, one side clinging to the other, destroying the cardboard completely. “This is what happens if you have sex outside of marriage.” Well, okay then. Not doing that. He began reciting from his notes. “Sexual intercourse…” His Fargo accent turned the words into a sourball: “SECK-shull INN-turr-course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is, did her pastor get it right?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is related to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/694/what-does-the-bible-say-about-sex-before-marriage-premarital-sex&quot;&gt;What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/778/is-premarital-sex-porneia&quot;&gt;What&amp;#39;s is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I have a more focused question.  Biblically, is there an example of a person or a clear doctrine wherein what most Americans / people in the West would consider premarital sex is specifically condemned?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically excluded for this question are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;adultery between two people where at least one is married (that seems to be the property crime in Exodus) and &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;prostitution (which seems to be the focus of 1 Corinthians 6).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sexual worship, wherein the sex in question is less about &quot;casual intercourse&quot; than in performing some sort of ritual worship&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Casual Sex, I would argue, for most modern Westerners is usually a physical act of lust that may occur between unmarried people.  I'm just trying to get a handle on that, separated from the case that Bibilically prohibited sex is a contractual and fealty-based matter rather than just  two horny teenagers indulging their fleshy desires. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I am open to an exegesis that would contradict these assumptions, I am looking for a biblical mandate against what I would call &quot;casual sex,&quot; meaning an instance where sex occurs without exchange of money or breaking an existing marital contract.  In leiu of a strict biblical injunction, what is the earliest condemnation of such a sexual relationship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-19T02:49:04.353" LastActivityDate="2020-06-19T02:49:04.353" Title="Are there any biblical incidents of people condemned for consensual premarital sex?" Tags="&lt;premarital-sex&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="4" ClosedDate="2020-06-19T02:49:12.473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17026" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-24T13:32:38.640" Score="2" ViewCount="438" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15%3A28-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:28–29&lt;/a&gt; (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with&#xA;  anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from&#xA;  food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled&#xA;  animals and from sexual immorality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 11:28&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you&#xA;  rest&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word 'burden' in Acts witnessed by Holy Spirit and used by Jesus in Matthew seems to mean the same thing, though I haven't done a Greek word study yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wouldn't the combination of these scriptures give license to sin (in human meaning) if it is not violating human rights and legal demands?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4869" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-09-23T18:07:04.967" LastActivityDate="2016-09-23T18:07:04.967" Title="How can &quot;burden&quot; in Acts 15:28–29 and Matthew 11:28 be reconciled?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;acts&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17027" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-24T13:41:05.630" Score="14" ViewCount="14377" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which earliest sources does Christianity posses that claim that apostle John spent the last years of his life in Ephesus?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="4842" LastEditDate="2013-06-24T14:59:49.697" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T22:00:08.360" Title="Apostle John lived in Ephesus - what sources claim that?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;john-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17028" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-24T13:50:35.717" Score="6" ViewCount="345" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible (primarily the New Testament), we see numerous people who were raised from the dead. Drawing from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pathlightspress.com/resurrection.html&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt;, we see the following were raised from death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Widow of Zarephath's son (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2017:17-24&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Kings 17:17-24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shunamite's son (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%204:20-37&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;2 Kings 4:20-37&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Man tossed into Elisha's tomb (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2013:21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;2 Kings 13:21&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Widow of Nain's son (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:11-16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Luke 7:11-16&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%205:35-43&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Mark 5:35-43&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lazarus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011:1-44&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 11:1-44&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tabitha, also known as Dorcas (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209:36-41&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Acts 9:36-41&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eutychus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:7-12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Acts 20:7-12&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Men raised upon Jesus' death (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2027:51-53&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matt 27:51-53&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these were most likely saved already (e.g. Lazarus, Tabitha). Others we simply hardly know anything about. Is there any evidence or any significant commentary on what happened between their first death and resurrection? If they went to heaven/hell after that first death, what was it like coming back from that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: I am not Catholic, so I am not interested in an explanation that claims they went to Purgatory&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-16T09:19:56.390" LastActivityDate="2015-01-16T09:19:56.390" Title="What happened to the resurrected after death?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T19:22:53.653" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17026" CreationDate="2013-06-24T13:55:53.213" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, actually in Greek Bible these words are different. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 15:28-29:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ἔδοξεν γὰρ τω̨̃ πνεύματι τω̨̃ ἁγίω̨ καὶ ἡμι̃ν μηδὲν πλέον&#xA;  ἐπιτίθεσθαι ὑμι̃ν &lt;strong&gt;βάρος&lt;/strong&gt; πλὴν τούτων τω̃ν ἐπάναγκες&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i.e. word &lt;strong&gt;βάρος&lt;/strong&gt;, that could mean also &quot;&lt;em&gt;weight&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and in Matthew 11:28:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;δευ̃τε πρός με πάντες οἱ κοπιω̃ντες καὶ &lt;strong&gt;πεφορτισμένοι&lt;/strong&gt; κἀγὼ&#xA;  ἀναπαύσω ὑμα̃ς&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where word &lt;strong&gt;πεφορτισμένοι&lt;/strong&gt; could be translated as to be &quot;&lt;em&gt;overburden&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the meaning of word &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;burdened&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; in your variant of translation is actually different.&#xA;If In &lt;em&gt;Acts 15:28&lt;/em&gt; it means some kind of obedience, while in &lt;em&gt;Matthew 11:28&lt;/em&gt; it means a state of man, when he is overburden, too loaded, when he is in troubles, sins and sorrow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T13:55:53.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17028" CreationDate="2013-06-24T14:13:13.360" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;About this question there is such point of view (close to the Eastern Orthodox tradition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems, that all people, described in your question, were neither in Heaven, neither in Purgatory. They were in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sheol&lt;/a&gt;. This is because before Christ's Resurrection, The Heaven was closed, and the hell, as place for unrepentant sinners wasn't. All people who died were placed into Sheol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This point of view could be confirmed by the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31):&#xA;both of them are in the same place, because they can communicate with each other, but there is a great gulf between them (Luke 16:26):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:&#xA;  so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can&#xA;  they pass to us, that would come from thence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this Parable isn't talked about The Heaven, but about &lt;em&gt;Abraham's bosom&lt;/em&gt;, i.e. some place somewhere in Sheol (which is synonymic called &quot;Hell&quot; in all Bible texts), where all righteous men are rested. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastEditorUserId="4842" LastEditDate="2013-06-24T20:37:13.260" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T20:37:13.260" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17027" CreationDate="2013-06-24T15:30:35.360" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation 1:9 explicitly states that John was on the island of Patmos when he wrote revelation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That he would have been exiled there is common:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished.&quot; (Pliny Natural History 4.69-70; Tacitus Annals 4.30)[9]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patmos&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patmos&lt;/a&gt; is an island very close to the city of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesus&lt;/a&gt;, the major port city of the day.  Indeed, Revelation 2 - 3 is a series of letters to the 7 cities in Western Turkey, and Ephesus is by far the largest of them.  This is not surprising, since Rome pretty much cleared Jerusalem of Jews in 70AD (actually completely destroyed Jerusalem in 125AD!) thus resulting in a diaspora that moved many of the writers to Western Turkey and Galatia.  Indeed - every one of the Epistles written to a city or region in Turkey or Greece.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were we to receive word that a certain person was familiar with the Bronx, Manhattan, Newark, Hoboken, and we have written correspondance to them where he claims to be at Hsing Hsing prison - especially absent any transportation - it would not at all be unreasonable to assume he is from New York.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When tradition thus states that John was living in the biggest city of the area, and we have written correspndance that shows how close he was, it's a really safe bet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-29T11:09:25.407" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T11:09:25.407" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17034" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-06-24T15:43:17.897" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-06-24T15:43:17.897" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T15:43:17.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17035" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-06-24T15:43:17.897" Score="0" Body="For questions about the character in Genesis (the favored son of Jacob and Jacob's favored wife Rachel, sold into slavery by his brothers (Gen. 37), displayed integrity and insight in Egypt (Gen. 39-41), believed in God's saving providence (Gen. 45:5,7; 50:20)).  Not to be used for the husband of Mary, mother of Jesus." OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-06-24T16:19:40.233" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T16:19:40.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16981" CreationDate="2013-06-24T16:43:31.867" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer is option 3, that pathological guilt can stem from a preaching that neglects a &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Cross&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Theology of the Cross&lt;/a&gt;. Here is an example of Martin Luther, writing to his friend &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Spalatin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;George Spalatin&lt;/a&gt;, who had become distraught over the sin of giving really bad moral advice. The conversation is best recorded in Chapter 12 of Walther's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/lecture-12.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Law and Gospel&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. The following text contains commentary from &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._F._W._Walther&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Walther&lt;/a&gt; himself, interspersed with a letter by Luther. It is the context of Luther's &quot;sin boldly&quot; quote, which you may be familiar with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Summary&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Had you fully realized the awful corruption of your heart in its relation to God, you would not be so inconsolable; for you would say to yourself: Alas! the fountain is so polluted; that is why such filth has to flow from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Full quote&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let me now cite you from Luther's writings, not so much passages in which he insists that the Gospel, pure and unalloyed, must be proclaimed to poor sinners, but rather a particular incident which illustrates how Luther brought consolation to a person who had fallen into a great and grievous sin. The party in question was that splendid man Spalatin (born 1482), who had a great share in the work of the Reformation. He became Ecclesiastical Counselor to the Elector of Saxony and lived at Altenburg. He was Luther's intimate friend. He had been party to an advice given to a certain pastor to marry the stepmother of his deceased wife. The marriage was absolutely contrary to God's Word, and the advice was the more appalling since the Apostle Paul, in dealing with a similar offense in 1 Cor. 5, had declared that it involved fornication such as is not so much as named among the Gentiles. When the truth dawned on good Spalatin, he refused to be comforted. Luther learned that he had fallen into melancholy. No comfort offered him would take effect. He imagined that no consolation of Scripture could apply to a man like him who had known the Word of God so well and had derived so much consolation from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How did Luther proceed to comfort this man? He wrote him a letter, which began as follows: (St. L. Ed. X, 1729 ff.):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;Grace and peace from God in Christ and the consolations of the Holy Spirit to my worthy master in Christ, George Spalatin, superintendent of the churches in Misnia, most faithful pastor of Altenburg, my beloved in the Lord. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;    &#xA;    &lt;p&gt;My dearest Spalatin, I heartily sympathize with you and earnestly pray our Lord Jesus Christ to strengthen you and give you a cheerful heart. I should like to know, and am making diligent inquiries to find out, what your trouble may be or what has caused your breakdown. I am told by some that it is nothing else than depression and heaviness of heart, caused by the matrimonial affair of a parson who was publicly united in marriage to the stepmother of his deceased wife. If this is true, I beseech you most urgently not to become self-centered and heed the thoughts and sensations of your own heart, but to listen to me, your brother, who is speaking to you in the name of Christ. Otherwise your despondency will grow beyond endurance and kill you; for St. Paul says, 2 Cor. 7, 10: 'The sorrow of the world worketh death.' I have often passed through the same experience and witnessed the same in 1540, in the case of Magister Philip, who was nearly consumed by heaviness of heart and despondency on account of the landgrave's affair. However, Christ used my tongue to raise him up again. I say this on the supposition that you have sinned and are partly to blame for the aforementioned marriage, because you approved it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Observe that Luther grants that Spalatin had committed a grievous wrong by approving the marriage, by advising in favor of it before it was contracted. Luther proceeds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;Yea, I shall go further and say: Even if you had committed more numerous and grievous sins in this present and other instances than Manasseh, the king of Judah, whose offenses and crimes could not be eradicated throughout his posterity down to the time when Jerusalem was destroyed, while your offense is very light, because it concerns a temporal interest and can be easily remedied; nevertheless, I repeat it, granted you are to blame, are you going to worry yourself to death over it and by thus killing yourself commit a still more horrible sin against God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luther means to say: This marriage can be dissolved, for it is not legitimate. It would be a greater sin now to despair of the mercy of God than it was to advise this marriage. For despairing of God's mercy is always the most horrible sin, because it means that we declare God to be a liar. Luther goes on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;It is bad enough to know that you made a mistake in this matter. Now do not let your sin stick in your mind, but get rid of it. Quit your despondency, which is a far greater sin. Listen to the blessed consolation which the Lord offers you by the prophet Ezekiel, who says, chap. 33, 11: 'As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.' Do you imagine that only in your case the Lord's hand is shortened? Isa. 59, 1. Or has He in your case alone forgotten to be gracious and shut up His tender mercies? Ps. 77, 10. Or are you the first man to aggravate his sin so awfully that henceforth there is no longer a High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities? Heb. 4, 15. Do you consider it a new marvel when a person living this life in the flesh, with innumerable arrows of so many devils flying about him, is occasionally wounded and laid prostrate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luther means to say: Why are you surprised at your grievous fall? That is a common occurrence. The terrible part is only that we refuse to rise again and, like miserable reprobates, crawl back to the throne of grace. Luther continues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;It seems to me, my dear Spalatin, that you have still but a limited experience in battling against sin, an evil conscience, the Law, and the terrors of death. Or Satan has removed from your vision and memory every consolation which you have read in the Scriptures. In days when you were not afflicted, you were well fortified and knew very well what the office and benefits of Christ are. To be sure, the devil has now plucked from your heart all the beautiful Christian sermons concerning the grace and mercy of God in Christ by which you used to teach, admonish, and comfort others with a cheerful spirit and a great, buoyant courage. Or it must surely be that heretofore you have been only a trifling sinner, conscious only of paltry and insignificant faults and frailties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are only two ways in which Luther can explain to himself why Spalatin refuses to be comforted. Either he has hitherto failed to perceive his misery and wretchedness unders sin; he has not been aware of the fact that he is a great sinner by nature; his grievous fall had to occur in order that his eyes might be opened to these facts. Or Satan must have hidden every consolation out of Spalatin's sight. Practically Luther says to Spalatin: Had you fully realized the awful corruption of your heart in its relation to God, you would not be so inconsolable; for you would say to yourself: Alas! the fountain is so polluted; that is why such filth has to flow from it. To return to Luther:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;Therefore my faithful request and admonition is that you join our company and associate with us, who are real, great, and hard-boiled sinners. You must by no means make Christ to seem paltry and trifling to us, as though He could be our Helper only when we want to be rid from imaginary, nominal, and childish sins. No, no! That would not be good for us. He must rather be a Savior and Redeemer from real, great, grievous, and damnable transgressions and iniquities, yea, from the very greatest and most shocking sins; to be brief, from all sins added together in a grand total.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To the company of real, great, abominable sinners to which Spalatin is invited Luther feels that he belongs himself. He argues that by making our sins small, we make Christ small. That would practically amount to saying: Christ can forgive small, but not great sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2016-10-23T01:36:15.043" LastActivityDate="2016-10-23T01:36:15.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17025" CreationDate="2013-06-24T16:56:43.457" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 7:2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 5:19  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, &#xA;  Gal 5:20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, &#xA;  Gal 5:21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Strong's G4202&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;πορνεία&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;porneia&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;por-ni'-ah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Outline of Biblical Usage from Blue Letter Bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1) illicit sexual intercourse&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2) metaph. the worship of idols&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fornication is the word you are looking for, sex outside of marriage between two unmarried couples is fornication the greek word is porneia. Yes fornication will keep you from inheriting the kingdom of God according to Gal 5:19 and 21. It is very serious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-06-24T17:07:48.750" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T17:07:48.750" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17038" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17062" CreationDate="2013-06-24T17:26:59.573" Score="5" ViewCount="842" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical basis for systematic Antinomianism, or, if you prefer, extreme Grace? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am looking for someone with first hand knowledge of its teachings who can justify this view. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism#Opposing_Pauline_passages&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; lists verses of the Bible which seem to counter it. A good answer will  rebut those verses from an Antinomianist's perspective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-04T15:51:25.640" LastActivityDate="2016-08-23T18:59:45.167" Title="What is the biblical basis for Antinomianism or extreme Grace?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;antinomianism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17039" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-24T17:34:36.237" Score="4" ViewCount="3183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently came across this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Gal 5:20 Idolatry, &lt;strong&gt;witchcraft&lt;/strong&gt;, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would Christianity have me believe in [the existence of] witchcraft, too!?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4576" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T02:44:39.253" LastActivityDate="2018-05-11T12:24:02.527" Title="What does Paul mean by &quot;witchcraft&quot; in Galatians 5:20?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;&lt;witchcraft&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17039" CreationDate="2013-06-24T17:51:32.933" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;It wouldn't have you believe in witchcraft it would just have you avoid it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether you believe in it or not is entirely separate from it existing, see this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouija&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;wiki about Ouija boards&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you don't have to believe that Ouija boards work, I personally don't. However, even though I don't believe they work, I still don't associate with those types of things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally this is related to  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9815/how-to-test-the-spirits-and-identify-false-preachers&quot;&gt;How does one test the spirits and identify false preachers?&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The power of satan is real, just see the story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/exodus/7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moses in Exodus&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7:22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is why we have tests to know the power of the Lord from the power of the devil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T14:17:11.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17039" CreationDate="2013-06-24T17:51:46.963" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gal 5:20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Strong's G5331&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;φαρμακεία&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;pharmakeia&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;far-mak-i'-ah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From G5332; medication (“pharmacy”), that is, (by extension) magic (literal or figurative): - sorcery, witchcraft.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exo 22:18  Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deu 18:10  There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Sa 28:7  Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 16:16  And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes the Bible would have you believe that there are people assocated with wicked spirits who might be classified as witches or warlocks. Its very rare. There are those who are commonly called witches in First Samuel and Acts. I did leave off Balem and Simon both warlocks. No witchcraft in Gal 5:20 refers mostly to drug abuse as it is the word from which we get pharmacy its secondary meaning is magical witchcraft.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T18:04:44.123" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17021" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:14:42.003" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One such appears to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15497a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;St Vladimir the Great&lt;/a&gt;, who is revered as a saint by Churches in communion with both Constantinople and Rome. That said, it's not clear when he was canonised &amp;mdash; that might have occurred before the Great Schism; and nor is it clear whether this is a local celebration or one recognised by Rome for the whole Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_of_sarov#cite_note-2&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, St Seraphim of Sarov was called &lt;em&gt;Saint&lt;/em&gt; by Pope Bl John Paul II in his book &lt;em&gt;Crossing the Threshold of Hope&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia also claims that St Sergei of Radonezh is recognised in the Roman Canon, but there appears to be little or no corroboration for this. In fact, the list of saints is so long that there exists no complete version, so it's probably not easy to confirm or deny it categorically, particularly in view of what is taught about saints...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church, at para 945&amp;ndash;962, explains the communion of the saints, and there appears to be no reason why Christians of Churches temporarily in imperfect communion with Rome could not be held as saints. The Catechism quotes &lt;em&gt;Lumen Gentium&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We worship Christ as God's Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord's disciples and imitators, and rightly so because of their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T20:14:42.003" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17039" CreationDate="2013-06-24T20:21:35.117" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have to remember that the worldview of the NT and HB are very different than our own. The use of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_in_the_Greco-Roman_world#Magic_in_the_Hellenistic_period&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;magic in the Greco-Roman&lt;/a&gt; world was more akin to a &quot;Science&quot; than religion. It was a very technical trade that required precision and attention to detail. I'll let you decide whether or not it was actually effectual, I generally don't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_magical_papyri&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gobs of magical texts from all over the Greco-Roman world&lt;/a&gt;. The basic purpose of magic was to forceably manipulate the cosmic order by way of incantations or ritual. Magic was a way for people without &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; power influence their daily lives and combat the powers (whether real or only perceived) which oppressed them. As such, public officials often were the &quot;victims&quot; of magical spells and frequently felt the need to practice &lt;em&gt;counter&lt;/em&gt;-magic to remain safe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Ass&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;It also makes for a fun story.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, you have to think about &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; is being forbidden; the passage doesn't make any claims about whether magic is effectual (though I suspect many people assumed it was), rather it is about Christians trying to manipulate cosmic forces for their benefit---a job that should be only God's. The so-called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_of_Endor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Witch of En Dor&lt;/a&gt; text actually provides a rather nice negative example in the person of Saul. Because Yahweh stopped speaking to Saul in dreams, he sought a way to circumvent God's silence, by trying to contact Samuel through a medium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T20:21:35.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17048" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-24T23:10:15.220" Score="2" ViewCount="145" Body="&lt;p&gt;My list of papyri discoveries is a little dated. Has any new papyrus been found from the 1st. cent. that one of the immediate disciples of Jesus wrote? It would be in Aramaic, I expect. There was a mention of a Gospel by Matthew, made by one of the Church Fathers that was in Aramaic. but it has not been found.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T04:55:53.143" Title="Has a papyrus been found that was written by a disciple of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17049" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-24T23:16:13.510" Score="4" ViewCount="1413" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always been told that Peter was the head of the entire Church at the time of Christ.  However, James was apparently leader of the Church in Jerusalem, and Paul started a number of churches outside the Holy Land. Who is considered to be the first leader of the Church established by Jesus according to the various Protestant denominations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-09T01:05:08.980" LastActivityDate="2018-05-18T18:14:53.653" Title="Do any Protestant groups teach that Paul founded the Church and not Peter?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;peter&gt;&lt;james-brother-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17048" CreationDate="2013-06-24T23:18:21.480" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nope. The earliest manuscript fragment we have is p52. It dates to about 20 years after John wrote it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, while it is likely that the apostles spoke Aramaic, there is nothing to conclusively prove they wrote in it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In any event, the apostles wouldn't have written it in their own hands. Most writing was done by an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanuensis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;amanuensis&lt;/a&gt; - a guy who made the paper and ink, and wrote down what he said. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one exception to the amanuensis is most likely when Paul writes &quot;See what large letters I write in my own hand&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T04:55:53.143" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T04:55:53.143" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17049" CreationDate="2013-06-24T23:33:22.773" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Πέτρος, Petrus -- the Greek name of Peter -- means little pebble.  But Jesus says that he will build his church on this rock (πέτρα, petra), so clearly this is not referencing Peter.  Protestants have always considered the first (and only true) leader of the Church to be Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for the late response.  Your question, &quot;Who is considered to be the first leader of the Church established by Jesus, according to the various Protestant religions?&quot; I felt was more about finding secondary sources (non-scriptural) because you want to know how various Protestant denominations view scripture, rather than asking &quot;Who does the scripture appoint as the leader?&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I have found a few answers to your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to Presbyterians (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcanet.org/beliefs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pcanet.org/beliefs/&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;I. THE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH&#xA;    Jesus Christ, upon whose shoulders the government rests, whose name is called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace; of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end; who sits upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth, even forever (Isaiah 9:6-7); having all power given unto Him in heaven and in earth by the Father, who raised Him from the dead and set Him at His own right hand, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and has put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all (Ephesians 1:20-23); He, being ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things, received gifts for His Church, and gave all offices necessary for the edification of His Church and the perfecting of His saints (Ephesians 4:10-13).&#xA;    Jesus, the Mediator, the sole Priest, Prophet, King, Saviour, and Head of the Church, contains in Himself, by way of eminency, all the offices in His Church, and has many of their names attributed to Him in the Scriptures. He is Apostle, Teacher, Pastor, Minister, Bishop and the only Lawgiver in Zion.&#xA;    It belongs to His Majesty from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church through His Word and Spirit by the ministry of men; thus mediately exercising His own authority and enforcing His own laws, unto the edification and establishment of His Kingdom.&#xA;    Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.&#xA;    Since the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven, He is present with the Church by His Word and Spirit, and the benefits of all His offices are effectually applied by the Holy Ghost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried to find more sources that were as clear and this, but I was not successful.  This is to say, while I know from experience that this is the opinion of all(most) Protestants, I could not find the wording as illuminating as it is in the excerpt from PCA's website.... Wow! Look the title of the section says everything!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although, I'm tempted to believe that you are looking for some other type of answer; because you acknowledge that &quot;the Church [was] established by Jesus&quot;, so you perhaps mean &quot;were there any leaders of the various churches (not Churches)?&quot;  I make the distinction between &quot;Church&quot; and &quot;church&quot; because for Protestants the leader of the Church is Christ (as I said above), whereas the leader of &quot;a church&quot; we might say is an ordinary man.  In the sense that, such a &quot;leader&quot; may have preached publicly and traveled, challenged the established norms of tradition and ultimately establish a new earthly church/denomination. For example, on the one hand many Lutherans may identify Martin Luther as the &quot;earthly&quot; leader/founder of the Lutheran church... on the other hand, these same Lutherans (and Luther himself) would say that Christ is the leader, of not only the Lutheran church but also the &quot;Church&quot; (that is all denominations).  The same could be said about Presbyterians and John Calvin, they would look at him historically as the &quot;leader&quot; but only in so far as an earthy leader orders below Christ himself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I hope this answers your question, and that it is evident that the term &quot;leader&quot; perhaps takes on many interpretations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4877" LastEditorUserId="4877" LastEditDate="2013-07-05T23:00:50.340" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T23:00:50.340" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6504" CreationDate="2013-06-24T23:57:39.657" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder if the &quot;deceiving spirit&quot; of 1 Kings 22:22 would count? There's also an &quot;evil spirit&quot; in Judges 9:23, and then there's Saul's &quot;evil spirit&quot;, as David Morton mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is mentioned in a number of places (such as 1 Chronicles 21:1) and some attribute his name to his minions as well, so such references could be to demons as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-06-24T23:57:39.657" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17053" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16971" CreationDate="2013-06-25T00:42:10.587" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biblical phenomenon which you are referring to is Pharisaicalism. If you are asking for example why someone could be a stickler against someone else's sexual vice, but be ruthless in business, Jesus addressed this in Matthew 23:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is condemned. It has been condemned in a lot of historical Christian writings, (Luther's Explanation to 7th Commandment in Large Catechism, Bunyan's &amp;quot;Mr. Badman&amp;quot;), although it has become more controversial recently with prosperity gospels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of your difficulty may be in confusing actual &amp;quot;Protestant biblical literalism,&amp;quot; undeniably a good thing, with the actions of people who claim that label.  In all seriousness, when someone sees a bunch of biblical hypocrisy, that person may be right to start another reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T00:42:10.587" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17054" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-25T01:49:06.457" Score="1" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;Has the Catholic Church, or any large Christian churches or denominations, ever had a policy of paying money to people to not have abortions?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, paying $10,000-$40,000 for a mother to complete her pregnancy without alcohol, drugs or smoking and give the child up for adoption?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-23T09:36:37.883" LastActivityDate="2015-09-10T14:59:17.297" Title="Has the Catholic Church or any large Christian organization ever had a policy of paying people to not have abortions?" Tags="&lt;abortion&gt;&lt;religion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13837" CreationDate="2013-06-25T03:33:24.700" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read and studied Origen's writings for many years. He was the leader of the &quot;seminary&quot; in Alexandria. A lay person who taught Priests, and later Bishops - though he was chastised for this. He moved to Caesarea to start a &quot;seminary&quot; there. And he taught and influenced some of the great Church Fathers, and  he is quoted by Pope Benedict in his own work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was the first systematic theologian and taught in the mid 3rd. cent. He wrote many commentaries which are wonderful understandings of God's intervention in the lives of believers. He explained justification.&#xA;He had many fans, including St. Augustine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also wrote several books that speculated on the origin of man, and the purpose of man, and where spirits came from and went to - but these were just ideas for others to ponder - he didn't say they were the truth.&#xA;Some of his followers took his speculative ideas and ran with them and taught things that he would never have approved. What they taught was termed Origenism by the catholic Bishops, and their ideas - especially about the pre-existence of souls (LDS are you hearing this) which Origen had speculated on, were anathema. His suggestion that everyone was going to be redeemed, was an idea of his own. Strangely on May 22 this year Pope Francis suggested essentially the same thing  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!&quot;..&lt;/em&gt; Pope Francis 5/22/2013 Huffington Post report.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But remember that in AD 250 when he taught, there was no systematic theology before him. His book De Pricipia was the source of these speculations.&#xA;But this was just one book out of the hundreds he wrote. His commentaries are wonderful to read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Iranaeus of AD 150 was the only other person to define what was Christianity. He wrote his six volume treatise on the various misconception of Jesus being taught by many Bishops. Early theologians (he was also a Bishop,) had a different opinion of the Gospel message than we have today. Though he was the first church historian, he was not familiar with the details of the death of Jesus, and thought he was 48 years old when he died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origen focussed only on unbuttoning the secrets of the gospels, and not church politics.  His biographers estimate he had written more than 6000 manuscripts about Jesus's teaching. Most are lost. A few of the original Greek mss. exist, and there are many Latin translation by Rufinus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is absolutely no point in reading summaries in the encyclopedia about him. Most people haven't spent enough time to even begin to understood his work. He was a mystic who taught the three different ways of understanding scripture.  if you want to understand Jesus's parables, this is the man to consult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't believe what is said about him, by people who have never read him (which is where your original comment came from - someone who did not know his work.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fathers from the 3rd. cent. considered Origen to be a genius, and he is revered by some Catholic and Greek leaders today. One of the most beloved books used in the Orthodox church today is the Philokalia, and Origen made a major contribution to the books. I own Vol 1, and IV. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you like John Le Carre's writing with its mysteries and convoluted plots, you should enjoy Origen - they are just about the same reading level.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T03:33:24.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17058" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17054" CreationDate="2013-06-25T05:11:40.450" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This takes the long route to coming to the actual answer. Unfortunately, the ultimate answer is purely speculative.  Whether any given entity &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; do something is all speculative compared to asking whether a given entity &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; done that thing.  The best we can do is look at what has been done, what has been said, and use logic applied to the complexity and uncertainty of human behavior, and say, &quot;based on the evidence this is the most likely answer.&quot;  That's not an approach that will give us &quot;the correct&quot; answer, which is the typical StackExchange requirement, but I'll give it a go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My approach will be to document what &lt;em&gt;has been&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;is being&lt;/em&gt; done and draw the most likely conclusion based on that evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Establishing an answer to whether the desire exists.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidence 1: Many Churches do pay for programs that help women in this situation. My own Church, with less than fifty adults old enough to work and earn money to give, partners with other area Churches to support a local organization called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lacrossepregnancy.com/about.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Agape Center&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Agape Center is founded, staffed, and financed by other like-minded Churches with no aid from anyone other than the members of these Churches.  In essence, it is an extension of the Church for the Churches that have banded together to create this center.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The center offers information, counseling, support, and care for women with &quot;crisis&quot; pregnancies. We wish we could provide the type of financial aid you reference. We simply don't have the financial resources to do so, but we would if we could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And we are not alone. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.covenantnews.com/pregnant/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Many Churches have similar outreaches&lt;/a&gt;. Some are better funded and are able to do more.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I honestly don't know of any Church or Church organization that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;wouldn't&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; foot the bill to save lives, if it had the resources.  I can't imagine a Church that would be so cold to those in need. It goes against basic, near-universal Christian principles of love and recognizing the value of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.adoption.com/mormon-faith/lds-unplanned-pregnancy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LDS&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccwinona.org/programs/pregnancy-parenting-adoption/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lacrossepregnancy.com/about.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Baptist&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iowahealth.org/iowa-lutheran-maternity-center.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lutheran&lt;/a&gt;, and many other Churches I've been involved with, attended, or otherwise dealt with have all had programs to help unfortunate women in this situation, and every single one would love to be able to do more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summing up the above, most Churches have a strong desire to do what they can to prevent and end abortions, and are willing to contribute financially.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logical conclusion is, if they thought it were feasible I'm sure plenty of Churches would do it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But that's pure speculation. So I'm marking this as a community wiki, expecting it to be deleted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-12-18T12:50:37.190" LastActivityDate="2013-12-18T12:50:37.190" CommentCount="3" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-06-25T11:49:54.437" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17060" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-25T08:38:49.523" Score="1" ViewCount="133" Body="&lt;p&gt;What passages do premilleialists, that is, those who believe the &quot;1000 year reign of Christ to be a literal event to occur only after the second coming of Christ, find in the Old testament that they believe to be prophesying about the Millennial Kingdom? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2015-06-25T20:37:21.553" LastActivityDate="2015-06-25T20:37:21.553" Title="What O.T passages do premillenialists believe to be about the Millennial Kingdom?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;word-of-faith&gt;&lt;premillennialism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17054" CreationDate="2013-06-25T10:23:35.690" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Cardinal O'Connor, archbishop of New York of 10-20 years ago, once declared that if any woman were having an abortion because of the financial difficulties, to come see him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And as far as &quot;paying the mother to carry child to term&quot;, this is essentially the terms of some adoptions. I know of a case where this happened, where an adoption was arranged specifically in response to a concern about risk of abortion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-06-25T10:46:55.133" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T10:46:55.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17038" CreationDate="2013-06-25T11:02:19.450" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another term is &amp;quot;Gospel Reductionism&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Cor 2:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are very few people who openly claim the name Antinomian. But I've met many who were effectively Antinomian in their faith walk.  In different cases, I've seen discussions of sin, social responsibility, and even good works &amp;quot;shut down&amp;quot; by repeating one of the three verses above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, &amp;quot;there is no condemnation&amp;quot; is read as &amp;quot;no need to examine my conscience.&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;Knowing nothing but Christ&amp;quot; is read as &amp;quot;stop talking about knowing the needs of others.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Whoever is baptized&amp;quot; is read as &amp;quot;I'm baptized, stop talking about morality.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T11:02:19.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17063" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-25T11:28:19.640" Score="9" ViewCount="8052" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that Paul was held under some brutal conditions—his feet in stocks in one case. Yet he was still able to write many letters from prison. Was this during some of his &quot;nicer accommodations&quot;, or did the ethos of the time allow visitors and outside contact (even as they tortured prisoners)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, in the US, when someone has done something pretty offensive (murderers to terrorists), there are controversies about and often restrictions placed on their writings (esp. the ability to publish books, but sometimes more general limitations on outside contact, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T11:10:23.823" LastActivityDate="2018-08-26T13:09:14.893" Title="Why was Paul allowed to write in jail?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;culture&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17064" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17099" CreationDate="2013-06-25T15:03:03.323" Score="8" ViewCount="260" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which sects of Christianity are support the idea of &quot;Just War&quot;? What are the arguments that they give that support this view? How do they see their views on this issue being related to the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-09-12T15:21:24.333" LastActivityDate="2014-09-12T17:55:34.790" Title="What sort of Christians are proponents of just war?" Tags="&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;just-war-theory&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17065" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17073" CreationDate="2013-06-25T15:18:25.020" Score="8" ViewCount="696" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Leo Tolstoy's novel &lt;em&gt;Anna Karenina&lt;/em&gt; (1873-1877), there's a point where the author refers to a &amp;quot;new doctrine&amp;quot; that was fashionable among the Russian upper classes. The following extract is from Part 5, Chapter 22 (translated by Nathan Haskell Dole, 1899), in which Anna's husband Alexei is comforted by Lidia Ivanovna.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;How can you be ashamed of what is the highest degree of Christian perfection? &lt;em&gt;He who humbles himself shall be exalted.&lt;/em&gt; And you cannot thank me. Thank Him, pray to Him for help. In Him alone we can find peace, consolation, salvation, and love&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She raised her eyes to heaven, and began to pray, as Alexei Aleksandrovitch could see by her silence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alexei Aleksandrovitch listened to her, and this phraseology, which before seemed, not unpleasant to him, but extravagant, now seemed natural and soothing. He did not approve of this new ecstatic mysticism. He was a sincere believer, and religion interested him principally in its relation to politics; and the new doctrine which arrogated to itself certain terms, for the very reason that it opened the door to controversy and analysis, had aroused his antipathy from principle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But nevertheless, the countess's help was to the highest degree useful to him. Her affection and esteem were a moral support to him, and, as it gave her great consolation to think, she almost succeeded in converting him to &amp;quot;Christianity&amp;quot;; in other words, she changed him from an indifferent and lukewarm believer into a fervent and genuine partizan of that new method of explaining the Christian doctrine which shortly after came into vogue in Petersburg. It was easy for Alexei Aleksandrovitch to put his faith in this exegesis. [...] Thus he saw no impossibility or unlikelihood in death existing for unbelievers and not for him, that because he held a complete and unquestioning faith, judged in his own way, his soul was already free from sin, and that even in this world he might look upon his safety as assured.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true, Alexei Aleksandrovitch dimly felt the frivolity, the fallacy, of this presentation of the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which particular &amp;quot;new doctrine&amp;quot; and movement is Tolstoy referring to? It is described as having a mystic element, evidently with some connection to humility and prayer, and also, for believers alone, the assurance of salvation, with a form of perfectibility or sinlessness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tolstoy himself refers to it as frivolous and fallacious, so presumably it diverges from his own religious views; it's also evidently not the mainstream position of the Russian Orthodox Church. Historically speaking, we are in late nineteenth-century Russia, among the upper crust of society, and perhaps in St Petersburg specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T14:01:35.607" Title="What is the &quot;new doctrine&quot; that Leo Tolstoy mentions in *Anna Karenina*?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;&lt;mysticism&gt;&lt;tolstoy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17066" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-25T15:30:29.157" Score="2" ViewCount="47" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am somewhat confused. We are born sinners already?&#xA;We didn't do anything bad or harmed anyone and are just born, and right away we are sinners?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not trying to sound stupid or anything, and am myself a believer, but this just makes very little sense to me, and seems to be quite unfair. Yes it says that we are conceived through sin and yada yada yada, but how is that our fault? Why even be born or come to earth if we are sinners? Logically makes very little sense that God would put us on earth and make us sinners right away. What if I never wanted to be one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4885" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T15:30:29.157" Title="Sinned when born?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2013-06-25T15:42:21.353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17070" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="633" CreationDate="2013-06-25T16:57:20.997" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is delightfully free of all this amazing exercise in word-games! Luke and Matthew tell us meticulously when and how the Son of God was begotten=procreated=brought into existence (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Ps. 2:7 had spoken of the begetting of the Son &quot;today&quot; not in eternity.The so-called church fathers had to dissolve the meaning of these easy words and wound up with a non-biblical &quot;church speak&quot; which contradicted Scripture. An example, the Nicean creed forces on the public the contradictory idea &quot;begotten not made&quot;!&#xA; But begetting is always a form of making and producing and in Isa. 45: 11, 12 making and begetting and creating are all synonymous activities of God, and they happen in time. &quot;Eternal begetting&quot; has no sense, if language is allowed to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4934" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T16:57:20.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16971" CreationDate="2013-06-25T17:48:54.560" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 11:6 says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not say this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;..must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who do the right things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, John 14: 15 says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 “If you love me, keep my commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;not&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you keep my commands, I will love you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Orthodoxy over Orthopraxy is distinctively Christian&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue the primary distinctive (beyond the obvious claims that Jesus &lt;em&gt;rose from the dead&lt;/em&gt;) of Christianity above and beyond just about every other religion is that Christians are more concerned about Orthodoxy (right belief) than Orthopraxy (right action).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a simple exercise, go look at Islam.SE and Judaism.SE.  There, most of the questions are about &quot;How do I correctly do X?&quot;  Is it halal? Is it haram?  These are the common fodder.  And, in a works-based religion, this would be the focus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Grace is central to what we believe&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, Christianity has been typified by its concern for Orthodoxy from the beginning.  Having realized that even &quot;our righteousness is as filthy rags&quot; (Isa 64) in the sight of a God whose righteousness is not even comprehendible by man (Isa 55), Christians understood early on that it was only God who could &quot;make us stand in His presence, blameless with great joy&quot; (Jude 24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Paul makes grace &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; central focus of the Gospel (Eph 2:8-9), when Jesus says &quot;apart from me you can do nothing&quot; (John 15:5), and when he says that you cannot enter into the Kingdom &quot;unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees&quot; (Matt 5:20), it leads many to suspect that God ultimately desires &quot;mercy and not sacrifice&quot;.  That &quot;sacrifice of obedience&quot; is a free will act of violition - not action.  As such, grace truly is, as the song says, &quot;greater than all our sins&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Jesus hated Pharisees&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The opposite of this tack truly is, as others have said, the central issue that Jesus had with the Pharisees.  They would &quot;tithe mint and cumin&quot; (Mat 23:23) and neglect what Jesus himself declares &quot;the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.&quot;  Jesus &lt;em&gt;hated&lt;/em&gt; these people. He called them hypocrites and vipers, and said of them &quot;You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this is fine Sunday School fodder, but what most people forget is this - &lt;strong&gt;Pharisees were good people&lt;/strong&gt;.  They really did observe the law. They really did help the widow and the orphan. They really tried to be good.  But they couldn't.  They were fallen human creatures in need of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4. Conclusion: If you want Orthopraxy, Go be a Pharisee, or a Muslim. But if you want the Good News, Be a Christian&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll say it plain - If you care more about what a person does than what a person believes, then you should be a Muslim.  They are far more observant than most Christians.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we have a Savior who declares us good.  We are not only not good at doing good, we are &lt;em&gt;dead&lt;/em&gt; in our ability to do good.  As Paul wrote in Romans 7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very Good News of Scripture is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;While we were yet sinners&lt;/em&gt;, God died for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That I (and all Christians who believe in Grace) believe is the central tenant of the Bible. God who is all powerful saves.  I, as his fallen Creature cannot.  If I believe this, then what can I do to make God love me more? What can I do to make him love me less?  Nothing.  As such, what I do is irrelevant. What He does is everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T17:48:54.560" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17065" CreationDate="2013-06-25T19:26:49.930" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;He most likely was referring to the movement of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavophilia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Slavophilism&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Orthodox church because of his rejection of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hegelian&lt;/a&gt; and Slavophilia influences that were prevalent&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=ognCKztR8a4C&amp;amp;pg=PA632&amp;amp;lpg=PA632&amp;amp;dq=mid%20to%20late%2019th%20century%20russian%20christianity&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=WZCkE4C3mO&amp;amp;sig=U-K9rX631I1nDsbhcBIzEqS_ttg&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=COTJUYbqNuqRyAHE-4AI&amp;amp;ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=mid%20to%20late%2019th%20century%20russian%20christianity&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; throughout the 19th century. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would explain why he saw this as a &quot;frivolous and fallacious&quot; view on faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic premise behind this view is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of the corruption of the Catholic church though pagan traditions and their desire for unity at the expense of the individual Christians freedom. And equally because of the protestant rejection of all church unity in favor of the individuals freedom; the Russian Orthodox Church was the holder of true and unpolluted Christianity.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.upbeatlearning.com/essays/according-zenkovskii-slavophiles-need-evaluate-west-critically-stems-need-understand-russia-w&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hegel, is responsible for the view that mind and spirit can co-exist and unite despite the 'inherent' conditions between the two (which goes beyond the duality  of persons as espoused by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kant&lt;/a&gt;). Its of significant historical importance that his view developed in Germany and would contribute to the rise of the Marxist movement in Russia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When applied to religion the above mixing resulted in a frame of thought that idealized the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune#Russia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;traditions and customs of Russia&lt;/a&gt; as an 'inner-truth' while the west and its constitutions and democracies were an 'external-truth'. Meaning the one was developed from within and represented all that was good, while the other (often associated with politics -yet another nod towards Marxism) was enforced by external rules and laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; I wanted to make special attribution to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&amp;amp;linkCode=qs&amp;amp;keywords=0198600240&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.upbeatlearning.com/essays/according-zenkovskii-slavophiles-need-evaluate-west-critically-stems-need-understand-russia-w&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This essay on upbeatlearning.com&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="432" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T14:01:35.607" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T14:01:35.607" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17074" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-25T19:47:53.933" Score="0" ViewCount="374" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any Christian teaching that address What will happen to the Trinity when the “Bride of Christ” is established, will it then be a Quadrinity? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee &lt;strong&gt;the bride, the Lamb's wife&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 22:17 And the &lt;strong&gt;Spirit and the bride&lt;/strong&gt; say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T00:11:31.493" LastActivityDate="2020-05-14T20:44:26.173" Title="What will happen to the Trinity when the Bride of Christ is revealed?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17076" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:12:13.030" Score="12" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few years ago, a concern was raised by a member of a local Mennonite congregation about the use of citations from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shepherd of Hermas&lt;/a&gt;. At the time, the concern was alleviated when it was mentioned that the Mennonite council endorsed its use as a secondary text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, the concern was raised again. This time the member would like a citation or reference in order to substantiate either the endorsement, repudiation, or neutrality toward this text by Mennonite Bretheren.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone have a cite or reference that discusses whether and to what extent the following extra-biblical sources are considered appropriate for teaching and instruction for Mennonite congregations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle of Barnabas, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Shepherd of Hermas&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any citation or reference either supporting or repudiating these texts from a Mennonite denomination or organization is requested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3358" LastEditorUserId="3358" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T19:24:44.677" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T03:30:51.100" Title="Is there any reference regarding the use of these extra-biblical sources in Mennonite congregations?" Tags="&lt;apocrypha&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;mennonite&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17074" CreationDate="2013-06-25T23:57:48.927" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, at least in the context of mainstream Nicene (including Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) I don't think there is any teaching about this. The reason being simple: it is a non issue. The very idea of this is not based on a classic understanding of the Trinity at all and therefore is not a problem for normal Trinatarian theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic idea here is that God is ONE being. Never mind the person aspect of his nature for the moment, that is irrelevant to the difficulty you are posing. You have one being, then a separate entity and a &lt;em&gt;relation&lt;/em&gt; between them. The one being (esp when that being is God!) doesn't fundamentally change in nature based on the state of relationships with other beings. It is what it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now you can throw the three persons of the Trinity back in the equation, but nothing changes. They are still God and God still has a relationship with his chosen people, his bride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-06-25T23:57:48.927" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17060" CreationDate="2013-06-26T00:20:28.667" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am Word of Faith we are pretribulational dispensational premillennialism. We believe Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 43-48 are all used to describe the millennium kingdom of Christ on the earth. Zechariah 14 describes the return of Christ with His saints from a governmental standpoint. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Zechariah 14:5 holds the idea the millennial reign is being discussed throughout this chapter. Ezekiel 43-48 largely focuses on the Glory of God returning to Israel and the return of their priesthood during the millennial reign. Its difficult to point to one reliable source which states this but many independent sources say as much on google and I know it is what is taught by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.billyebrim.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Billye Brim&lt;/a&gt; in her School of Eschatology on Ezekiel which is no longer available for purchase. While Rev 20 is on the same topic since it is describing a different aspect of the return of Christ it doesn't directly correlate to either chapters from the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zec 14:5  And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/zechariah/14-5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Zechariah 14:5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the Lord my God shall come; the Lord Jesus Christ, who is truly God, and the God of his people; and who will appear to be so at his second coming, which is here meant, by raising the dead, gathering all nations before him, and separating them; by bringing to light all secret and hidden things; judging the whole world, and executing the sentence on them; and particularly by taking his own people to himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and all the saints with thee: the Targum, and the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, read, &amp;quot;with him&amp;quot;; meaning either the holy angels; so Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and Ben Melech; who will attend him partly for the glory of his majesty, and partly for terror to the wicked, and also for service; or rather glorified saints, the spirits of just men made perfect, whom Christ will bring with him to be united to their bodies, which will now be raised, and to be with him in the new heavens and new earth, which will now be formed, and to be presented to him, and dwell with him, during the thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eze 44:3  It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T16:27:50.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17063" CreationDate="2013-06-26T03:04:46.440" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 16:22  I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phm 1:23  There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus;&#xA;Phm 1:24  Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most scholars believe He didn't actually write many of the epistles. It is believed he dictated most of his letters to his helpers and visitors even when not in jail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T03:04:46.440" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14345" CreationDate="2013-06-26T03:50:50.913" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the Judas role is much more enigmatic than we think. I don't know whether he will be saved or not, God knows. But why there was need for betrayal? Crucifing could be possibly be done by demand of Jewish authorities who would recognize Him with his disciples. But they wanted to catch Him via somebody who would betray Him. It is a very, very strange part of the event. And secondly, He did not preach to Judas or anybody because He was dead for 3 days until He was resurected by Father. Judas was and is still dead. And dead means dead, unconscious. I agree that &quot;spirits in prison&quot; are probably &quot;fallen angels&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4938" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T03:50:50.913" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17063" CreationDate="2013-06-26T08:41:16.330" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, Paul was the Roman citizen, and during his imprisonment he was been waiting for Caesar's judgment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Acts 25:10-12) Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged (...) I appeal unto Caesar. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His crime was imputed to him not by Roman citizens, but by persons of occupied nation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this wasn't just imprisonment as for ordinal criminal, but it was something like house arrest before sitting of the court. It was quite comfortable restraint of liberty, so Paul could even preach:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Acts 28:16, 30-31) And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the&#xA;  prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered &lt;strong&gt;to dwell by himself&lt;/strong&gt; with a soldier that kept him. (...) And Paul dwelt two whole years &lt;strong&gt;in his own hired house&lt;/strong&gt;, and received&#xA;  all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching&#xA;  those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence,&#xA;  no man forbidding him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T08:41:16.330" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2069" CreationDate="2013-06-26T11:13:49.717" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The beauty of this is that relationship with Christ isn't based on our trustworthiness, devotion nor on our good intentions but completely in Christ's granting it to us by grace. It's not about me having to earn his trust. I could never be good enough for that. Nor was the apostle Paul (Romans 7:14-25, 1 Cor 4:4). It's all about Him granting me access to the Father's heart through what He did for me (2 Cor 5:19). That's what takes my breath away and ushers me into His embrace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4941" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T11:13:49.717" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17085" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-26T11:18:00.603" Score="4" ViewCount="518" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Lutheranism, there's the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Small_Catechism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Small Catechism&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Large_Catechism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Large Catechism&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Concord&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Book of Concord&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, with each book in series getting much larger and having more specific doctrinal material.  Even though the practicing theology of Lutherans spans crazy extremes, even the pastor who may be pushing the envelope against traditional doctrines is nonetheless apt to teach the &lt;em&gt;Small Catechism&lt;/em&gt; to his or her students with pride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does every major faith tradition in Christianity ultimately have a catechism? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-16T18:44:46.170" LastActivityDate="2015-09-16T18:44:46.170" Title="Does every denomination / sect have a catechism?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;&lt;catechism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17087" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-26T13:38:48.507" Score="8" ViewCount="441" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently listened to a discussion between a couple of LDS leaders in which there was a clear distinction drawn between &quot;priesthood ordinances&quot; and &quot;temple ordinances&quot;. Baptism, at least, seemed to be of the former sort, but it wasn't clear what the other ordinances were or why there were two types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between these two types of ordinances and where did the distinction originate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T15:11:59.783" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T15:11:59.783" Title="What is the distinction between ordinance types in the LDS church?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17087" CreationDate="2013-06-26T14:46:30.117" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Priesthood ordinances are any ordinances performed by the Priesthood authority. Temple ordinances are only those ordinances performed in the temples. All ordinances are performed by the authority of the Priesthood, though, so I think the phrase &quot;priesthood ordinances&quot; is just used for emphasis or clarity. Either that, or &quot;priesthood ordinances&quot; might also refer to those ordinances directly involving the priesthood, such as conferring it to another man or ordaining to a particular office. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the general sense, temple ordinances are a subset of priesthood ordinances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many ordinances in the LDS Church performed by this authority, here are a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Laying on of hands to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost (known as &quot;confirmation&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Laying on of hands to confer the priesthood&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Temple ordinances, which includes, among several, endowments and sealings (eternal marriages)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Sacrament (administered every Sunday in church)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consecrating oil used for...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;...laying on of hands to bless the sick and afflicted&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Giving blessings of comfort/counsel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Setting apart church members for their respective callings in the Church, including missionaries&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dedicating/consecrating buildings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dedicating graves&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Giving new babies in the church a name and a blessing (like a typical Christening in other churches)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Patriarchal blessings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may naturally lead to the question, are there any ordinances performed not by the priesthood? No, not in the LDS Church. Maybe the word has different meanings elsewhere, but most commonly among the Latter-day Saints, it is a term referring directly to exercising the priesthood authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/callings/melchizedek-priesthood?lang=eng&quot;&gt;lds.org&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Priesthood is the authority and the power which God has granted to men on earth to act for Him. When priesthood authority is exercised properly, priesthood bearers do what He would do if He were present.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;—President Boyd K. Packer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/manual/family-guidebook/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng&quot;&gt;Here is a more comprehensive summary&lt;/a&gt; of the most common ordinances in the LDS church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T14:46:30.117" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17085" CreationDate="2013-06-26T15:13:40.807" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No most pentecostals do not have a catechism. Some churches do have introduction to the faith classes but there are no predefined standards. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T15:13:40.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17091" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-26T17:41:17.747" Score="-6" ViewCount="991" Body="&lt;p&gt;If &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; is of sin, and if only God can forgive sin -- why call out each sin individuality? This is not a Christian doctrine I ascribe to, but I'm asking because a lot of other Christians do ascribe to it,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I read a passage like this,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV) 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't interpret it as anything but the literal truth -- any one who has cheated, or been a homosexual can not go to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Christians reason that everything in the Bible pertaining to specific sins isn't pertinent because they're all merely &lt;em&gt;sins&lt;/em&gt;. People of this persuasion  believe that if you put your faith in Jesus, than regardless of what the Bible says to the contrary, they'll enjoy eternal salvation with the good and reverent folks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do I make of this school of Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="712" LastActivityDate="2014-06-03T04:41:06.037" Title="What is the purpose of calling out individual sins if God's mercy nullifies them?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-06-03T06:12:03.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17092" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17123" CreationDate="2013-06-26T18:04:28.213" Score="13" ViewCount="4486" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was struck by reading this verse in John the other night:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard the term 'predestination', however it is unclear to me how free will is reconciled with it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the instance of free will, one has the choice to either listen or to ignore God's tap on the shoulder. This also leads to the question regarding predestination in general where religious doctrine is concerned.  What exactly is predestination?  Does it necessarily preclude the ability to choose as one wills?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4517" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-01T16:54:24.550" LastActivityDate="2015-12-01T16:54:24.550" Title="Does John 6:44 imply that there is no free will when it comes to salvation?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-12-01T16:48:27.413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17092" CreationDate="2013-06-26T18:34:59.203" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; No, John 6:44 does not imply that there is no free will when it comes to salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the text itself implies (theology aside) is that a person can only come to Jesus if the Father draws him. It says nothing about whether free will plays a part in salvation, or (if so) how it does. (In fact, it doesn't even really say &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; about predestination.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate, here are three possibilities for how free will might be understood with respect to this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A)&lt;/strong&gt; A person must, out of their own free will, desire to be reconciled to God, and then God must subsequently draw them to Jesus to get saved.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;B)&lt;/strong&gt; God must draw a person, and as He does so, the person must concurrently allow themselves to &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; drawn out of their own free will.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;C)&lt;/strong&gt; God must draw a person by convicting them of their sin and presenting them with the Gospel, and then the person, out of their own free will, must respond appropriately to the Gospel and be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are only a few possibilities, chosen to show that the answer is, in fact &quot;no.&quot; (Each of these explanations are popular Christian positions.) There are other perspectives on free will and predestination as well, which yield different explanations of this verse. For example, some would say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;D)&lt;/strong&gt; God must draw a person -- and must cause that person to be saved -- before they can have (or exercise) &quot;free will.&quot; Note, however, that this perspective uses a different definition of &quot;free will&quot; than the colloquial meaning.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, all that this verse implies about &quot;free will&quot; is that our free will cannot be understood as the end of the story regarding salvation. It doesn't really imply anything about free will beyond that, and it can easily be reconciled with any major theology on free will, as shown above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T20:21:54.987" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T20:21:54.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17091" CreationDate="2013-06-26T19:16:42.423" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you are forgetting the next line (1 Corinthians 6:11): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were&#xA;  sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ&#xA;  and in the Spirit of our God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that Paul is listing those sins as examples of evils that one may do to another; however, the emphasis does not seem to be the sins specifically; rather, Paul shifts his attention toward his conclusion: being sanctified by having faith in Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T19:18:32.487" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T19:18:32.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17097" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17109" CreationDate="2013-06-26T19:36:47.543" Score="4" ViewCount="1079" Body="&lt;p&gt;In my Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NSRV), a prologue states the Pastoral Epistles are psuedoepigraphical, not written by Paul. When comparing &quot;The Letter of Romans or other letters attributed to Paul (according to scholars), 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy have a different voice and style than Romans or Philippians.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My questions are;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does anyone have evidence for who might have written these epistles?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How should modern readers weigh Biblical texts that are in question?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess I'm saying Romans holds more weight for me than Timothy. Especially when some concepts seem inconsistent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4779" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-15T08:00:19.180" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T08:00:19.180" Title="Who could have written the Pastoral Epistles?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17064" CreationDate="2013-06-26T20:10:30.720" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Just War&quot; is a concept very widely accepted by Christians - at least in the sense of acknowledging that there are conditions when Christians are called to fight. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholics accept it&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://carsontclark.com/uncategorized/7852/justwarcapitalpunishment39articles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Anglicans do in principle&lt;/a&gt; (though some disagree), so do &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Journal-of-Lutheran-Ethics/Issues/March-2012/A-New-Language-for-Just-War.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lutherans&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://homepage.ntlworld.com/otchereh/justwar.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;many Baptists&lt;/a&gt;. They may not all agree on the conditions for fighting a 'just war', but they do generally agree that there are conditions when war might be legitimately fought. In fact it is much easier to list those churches that do not accept it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Churches that believe it is wrong for a Christian to fight under any circumstances are mainly the historic &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_churches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Peace Churches&lt;/a&gt;. These are the Friends (Quakers), Brethren, and Anabaptists (which are comprised of Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites). There are other specifically pacifist groups also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="9269" LastEditDate="2014-09-12T17:55:34.790" LastActivityDate="2014-09-12T17:55:34.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16674" CreationDate="2013-06-26T20:40:02.103" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are actually verses in the Bible that suggest that faith is much more important than works:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2%3A16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 2:16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by&#xA;  faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus&#xA;  that we may be justified by faith in[a] Christ and not by the works of&#xA;  the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not&#xA;  from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one&#xA;  can boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 4:4-5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an&#xA;  obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who&#xA;  justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10%3A9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 10:9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your&#xA;  heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="664" LastEditorUserId="664" LastEditDate="2013-06-26T20:55:35.987" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T20:55:35.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17085" CreationDate="2013-06-26T20:58:14.660" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not a complete answer to your question, but it can be argued that each denomination has a doctrinal belief.  Though there may be smaller denominations that have not officially organized nor written a catechism/doctrinal belief system, it makes sense that the beliefs in common of people taking part of the community actually do subscribe to a &quot;doctrine.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia's definition of doctrine offers a hint to this thinking:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine. In some organizations, doctrine is simply defined as &quot;that which is taught&quot;, in other words the basis for institutional teaching of its personnel internal ways of doing business. - Wikipedia, &quot;Doctrine&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catechism points to belief, explaining what is believed. Peter writes that it's important that we have a reason for what we believe:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;... in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect&quot; 1 Peter 3:15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this is helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4637" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T20:58:14.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="64" CreationDate="2013-06-26T21:14:08.003" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Vegetarian diet is highly promoted in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 1:8-16&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed&#xA;  over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, 12 “Please test your&#xA;  servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water&#xA;  to drink. 13 Then compare our appearance with that of the young men&#xA;  who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with&#xA;  what you see.” 14 So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better&#xA;  nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16 So the&#xA;  guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and&#xA;  gave them vegetables instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And notice, that not only it implies that the vegetarian food is more healthy; it is also mentioned that more of spiritual world has opened to them as a result - see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 1:16-17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to&#xA;  drink and gave them vegetables instead. 17 To these four young men God&#xA;  gave knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and&#xA;  learning. And Daniel could understand visions and dreams of all kinds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I agree to Paul's comment that the causality is not explicitly stated, it is not denied and we might suppose so. It is consistent with fasting before important events like Easter, which was also probably meant to open yourself more to the spiritual world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="664" LastEditorUserId="664" LastEditDate="2013-06-27T09:10:46.840" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T09:10:46.840" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17105" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-26T22:10:56.927" Score="6" ViewCount="5672" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:27 reads: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word for &quot;man&quot; here is אָדָם &lt;em&gt;(adam).&lt;/em&gt; This seems to imply that Adam was created with both genders. Some Jewish traditions propose this interpretation. Are there any Christian traditions that hold the belief that Adam was created with both genders?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4947" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-09-14T17:23:54.990" LastActivityDate="2015-09-15T17:54:00.363" Title="Do any Christian traditions hold the belief that Adam was androgynous?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;adam&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17097" CreationDate="2013-06-26T23:02:04.120" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sadly, we just don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I generally affirm the broad consensus that the pastorals are pseudonymous (I usually add the caveat that I think 2 Tim could be Pauline), it is worth noting that several good (but, generally more conservative) scholars such as Luke Timothy Johnson &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; actually affirm Pauline authorship of the pastorals. And I suppose that's worth something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it's important to remember that around the time that the canon was forming, there were &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; Christian texts floating about—many of them pseudonymous—which were read by Christians as scripture up to the 4th Century CE. Many scholars affirm that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html&quot;&gt;Muratorian Fragment&lt;/a&gt; represents one of the earliest (if not &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; earliest) &quot;canons&quot; (though nowhere does it claim to be such) of the New Testament—perhaps from as early as the end of the 2nd century CE (though this is disputed). Notably, the list affirms the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, but observes that there were other writings 'forged' in Paul's name. If nothing else, this tells us that pseudonymous letters 'by Paul' were circulating among Christian communities during these early centuries. Whether the Pastorals were among them, only God knows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastActivityDate="2013-06-26T23:02:04.120" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17111" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17114" CreationDate="2013-06-27T02:15:21.547" Score="5" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen some treatments of communion that encourage one to celebrate that their dearly departed relatives are coming up to an invisible railing behind the wall. This seemed to be a great sentiment but I was unclear on what Biblical or catechismal support they were using for this practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Christian traditions specifically teach this sort of including the departed in communion? Is this practice something common to all Christian sects that profess a &quot;real presence&quot; of Christ in communion (i.e. does it have a place in the Catholic catechism, Presbyterian &lt;em&gt;Common Book of Prayer&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Book of Concord&lt;/em&gt;, etc.?) or is it isolated to a more specific doctrinal tradition? Can anyone trace the origin of this tradition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-27T08:25:35.727" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T10:12:40.963" Title="What traditions include &quot;dearly departed&quot; Christians as participants in communion?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17076" CreationDate="2013-06-27T03:30:51.100" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having been a Mennonite for all my adult life, and attending a Mennonite Brethren church for the last 8 years or so, I have never heard of &lt;em&gt;The Shepherd of Hermas&lt;/em&gt;, or any of the other books you mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Mennonites, and many other denominations, often use written resources in sermons, corporate worship (recitations, hymns, songs), etc, that are extra-Biblical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The official stand of the U.S. Mennonite Brethren Church on the use of such teachings is summed up in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usmb.org/confession-of-faith---detailed-version#Article%202&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Article 2&lt;/a&gt; of the Confession of Faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit continues to make God known to individuals and the church; this revelation is always consistent with the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this, any extra-Biblical teaching which claims to be revelation of God ought to be permitted, so long as it is consistent with the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T03:30:51.100" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17111" CreationDate="2013-06-27T03:53:59.413" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic's believe that each time Mass is celebrated it is done with the entire Communion of Saints. it would just be ones imagination at work seeing dead relatives at Communion, but in effect I think that is what Catholics believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 1370&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and one of the names for the Eucharist (Communion) comes from the &amp;quot;Communion of Saints&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta) - the first meaning of the phrase &amp;quot;communion of saints&amp;quot; in the Apostles' Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 1331&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that takes care of the Church Triumphant, but the Church Suffering (the Holy Souls in Purgatory) can also be remembered and had the Sacrifice of Mass offered for their salvation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who &amp;quot;have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified,&amp;quot; so that they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 1371&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe Orthodox Christians believe the same thing since this is not a point of contention between the churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T10:12:40.963" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17097" CreationDate="2013-06-27T04:54:03.340" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10Y.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reading from a preface&lt;/a&gt; with a decidedly less orthodox viewpoint on the matter. (i.e. the New American Bible created by those eminent scholars widely considered to be the successors of the Apostles themselves)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the late second century to the nineteenth, Pauline authorship of the three Pastoral Epistles went unchallenged. Since then, the attribution of these letters to Paul has been questioned. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So tradition goes to Paul, and the age that invented questioning every obvious thing was the first to question their authenticity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And whoops, they decided they weren't authentic because they were different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A second group believes, on the basis of statistical evidence, that the vocabulary and style are Pauline, even if at first sight the contrary seems to be the case. They state that the concept of church organization in the letters is not as advanced as the questioners of Pauline authorship hold since the notion of hierarchical order in a religious community existed in Israel before the time of Christ, as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, this group sees affinities between the theological thought of the Pastorals and that of the unquestionably genuine letters of Paul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But on second thought, they don't seem to be contradicting each other, so maybe someone can write differently when they're writing to different people over the course of ones lifetime?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can that introduction yourself, but it goes on to suggest two other ideas about the authenticity of the letters, whether the were written by a secretary, which isn't particularly novel considering Jeremiah and Peter. Or that they were compiled from fragments of Paul's writing and added to and redacted over time, which isn't novel either considering Job, Esther and Daniel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, 3 out of 4 groups of scholars say Paul and the majority of salvation history is with Paul writing the letters and regardless, most Christians believe it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit permeating the entire Bible regardless whose hand marked the papyri.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T04:54:03.340" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17092" CreationDate="2013-06-27T11:16:40.213" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this question can be answered without becoming lost in all the differing views of what is ‘exactly’ free will and what is ‘exactly’ predestination. &lt;strong&gt;From a high level the church is basically divided on this subject between the thinking of St Augustine (or what protestants think he believed) versus Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Assyrian church views.&lt;/strong&gt; I am not including modern day Christian sects like LDS because, first, I know nothing about them and second this is a much more modern phenomenon that has occurred in recent history. By modern phenomenon I mean all those various groups that have splintered off from the protestant movement of which all traditional groups consider as cults. Also Arminian protestant views can be treated as a separate subject as they have there own collection of peculiar ideas that simply mean they fall over to the Calvinist side in terms of essential requirements for salvation but retain a mixture of Catholic and Protestant ideas about how we are to live a holy life (which I consider outside the scope of this question).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make matters more controversial and confusing Protestants sincerely believe they are basically filling out St. Augustine’s views which date back to the ‘true’ traditions of the Apostles, however --- Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Assyrian churches will deny this claim by protestants and will naturally interpret St. Augustine as not contradicting which ever great saints they adhere to in their own history. Basically somebody is terribly wrong here about what St. Augustine really believed and taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a protestant I am answering from a protestant perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So the real question (to me) is what is the very basics about St. Augustine that has created a ‘predestination culture' primarily upheld by reformed Protestants and how does it relate to your question?&lt;/strong&gt;  I think it is this.  Basic Catholic faith and even high Anglicans and possibly some other very traditional protestants, along with Orthodox and Assyrian churches -- all believe that a person can be saved through some external ritual like water baptism, celebrating a Eucharist of some sort, etc. They (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) also believe that all people have some kind of &lt;em&gt;freedom of will under a universal cooperation with grace&lt;/em&gt;, offered to all to take this salvation freely. They all generally also believe by being a true member of ‘their’ church, they are more or less saved and those not in 'their' church are at best on shaky ground.  &lt;em&gt;St. Augustine did not believe this at (all as proposed by Protestant historical view.)&lt;/em&gt;  St. Augustine reconciled the wickedness and unbelief of many Catholic peers (who externally may have done everything they are supposed to) and the necessity of conscience that they must really go to hell (for being so evil and unbelieving) --- all resolved under the idea that ‘not all that are called are chosen’. In other words, only the elect will be finally saved whom God foreknew and that before creation. This solves the problem about all the fake Christians who are nevertheless members of 'our church'. The many Judas among us if you will. Not only so, but those that are elect can actually never perish but all persevere and those that are not elect can never be saved no  matter what. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here are some examples that illustrate this view according to St. Augustine:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xx.xvii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;None of the Elect and Predestinated Can Perish (St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xx.xxvi.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Those Who are Called According to the Purpose Alone are Predestinated (St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xx.xlii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Number of the Predestinated is Certain and Defined (St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now to answer the specific question how this fits into “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”.&lt;/strong&gt;  It has to do with the assumed inability to do good as a result of original sin and God needs to provide an ability (free the will / free-will) in order for a man to come to him and this according to ‘God’s choice’ of drawing ‘only’ the elect.  Now this is the subtle part, all who call themselves Christians (that I know of) actually will agree that ‘without God’s grace a man can’t come to him, but Christians during the reformation (argued with St. Augustine’s support) that this wide supposed confession of Roman Catholics, Orthodox, etc. is just empty lip service because what they really mean is that ‘as God provides a gracious provision to all men’ all men effectively do all have free will to draw near to God --- by grace. The grace is sprinkled on top of pelagic self righteousness to magically make it seem true (according to a reformed perspective).  With a slight change of words, 'God’s election' is now really nothing. Catholics will say 'not at all, you speak not truly', and Protestants will say, 'yes, yes, yes' – and so the two that have parted will never join again. The difference is just that fundamental.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In a nutshell, Luther and Calvin would take it that ‘of course’ we do not have a will that can come to God and ‘in addition’ it does not happen without his ‘special’ calling since God does ‘not’ draw everyone, only his elect.&lt;/strong&gt;  This view, according to Luther and Calvin and all those reformed Christians until today was also St. Augustine’s view, which was the Apostle’s view. Of course no need to mention it was therefore the prophets view and even Adam’s view and simply put, God’s view. Just one little verse shows such great divisions within Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-06-27T12:09:50.720" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T12:09:50.720" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17125" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17126" CreationDate="2013-06-27T12:23:09.653" Score="26" ViewCount="8017" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Amish seem to believe that it is somehow wrong to utilize technological advances, such as the automobile, electricity, etc.  What is the basis for this belief (among those that do this for spiritual reasons)?  Put another way, what is the problem or danger with technological advances?  How does avoiding them make someone more spiritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I guess I should not expect an answer from a member of the Amish, but perhaps someone who is familiar with that teaching can answer.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-06-27T13:12:55.860" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T01:12:10.197" Title="What is the reasoning behind the Amish practice of avoiding technological advances?" Tags="&lt;culture&gt;&lt;amish&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17125" CreationDate="2013-06-27T13:32:07.410" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer will focus on the &lt;em&gt;religious&lt;/em&gt; aspects of the Amish rather than the &lt;em&gt;cultural&lt;/em&gt; aspects, as far as differentiation is possible. Even then, there are four major orders and each community is self-governing; therefore, all statements made will be generalizations, and will naturally have exceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Amish find their roots in the Swiss Anabaptists (most still consider themselves to be Anabaptists), and their culture and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/religioustraditions.htm&quot;&gt;traditions&lt;/a&gt; have been shaped by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/contents.htm&quot;&gt;persecutions suffered by the Anabaptists&lt;/a&gt; in the 1600s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania does an excellent job of summing up the Amish way of life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The persecution reinforced the biblical teaching of a cleavage between the church and the larger society. In Amish eyes, the kingdoms of this world, which use coercion, differ from the peaceable kingdom of God. Many Amish practices are based on the religious principle of separation from the world--that the practices of the church should be separate from the larger society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Romans 12:1-2&lt;/a&gt; are sometimes used to affirm their decision to step back from the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matthew 13:22&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:26&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 15:18&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Amish seek to follow Scripture in all they do, even &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/religioustraditions.htm#Part%20Five%3a%20The%20Selection%20of%20Ministers&quot;&gt;casting lots to select their ministers&lt;/a&gt;; and they tend to emphasize practicing their faith more than determining and teaching specific doctrines. They often emphasize the teachings given in the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%205-7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Sermon on the Mount&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and believe the community as a whole is responsible for taking care of each member, to the point where they consider insurance systems to be wrong -- it shows a lack of faith in God and subverts their responsibilities toward each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to popular &quot;knowledge,&quot; the Amish do not try to completely ignore the modern world; they only wish to preserve their community-oriented way of life against the highly individualistic cultures around them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Peter Seibert, president of the Heritage Centre of Lancaster County &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imt.ie/lifestyle/culture-and-society/2007/08/a-culture-vastly-different-from-the-rest-of-america.html&quot;&gt;puts it&lt;/a&gt;*:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is easy to get it wrong about the Amish. They are not about putting up walls to block out the modern world. What they are about is adapting their community to modernity in order to preserve its essential being as a simple agrarian society.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  They will pick and choose what they want from our world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-27T14:11:59.313" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T14:11:59.313" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17125" CreationDate="2013-06-27T13:46:24.010" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Mennonites and Amish, the issue is not about the technology itself, but about community. Community is of paramount importance, and a technology is accepted or not depending on its effect on the community. So, for example, cars are bad because they permit people to travel long distances on a regular basis, reducing the connection to the local community. Similarly for telephones and the internet. This also means that Amish will use technology when it is necessary and not disruptive to the community. Most  Mennonites will have no problem with using a bus or plane, or even renting a car (if that is possible) if they absolutely need to travel somewhere, say to visit a sick relative. Many allow the use of the internet for business purposes, but not for personal purposes. Bicycles, which they frequently own, can be modern design and use the latest materials and technologies, since a better bike doesn't disrupt the community. I know a Mennonite family that owns a highly complex welding robot for their business but doesn't allow personal computer use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other main consideration is the concept of being &quot;plain&quot;, which means not ostentatious and is a virtue. That is the explanation for the distinctive dress, and the reason behind the absence of modern fabrics, zippers and such like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As has been mentioned, Amish and Mennonites vary widely in what technology is permitted. Some permit the use of cars; some permit only black cars with no chrome ('plain'); some permit internal combustion on the farm or business; some forbid rubber tyres on their horse buggies. A lot of Mennonites (myself included) fully embrace technology. But for those that don't, in the end, community is the driving force.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-06-27T23:20:00.217" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T23:20:00.217" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16947" CreationDate="2013-06-27T13:49:39.343" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From catholic perspective, an icon is a symbol, nothing more. you do not pray to it, but ask for the intersession (of the depicted individual perhaps) for you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Andremoniy, I think there is already a lot of good summaries of this on the web, you can probably compile a smaller summary, and ask people to verify if it seems accurate to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T13:49:39.343" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8956" CreationDate="2013-06-27T16:34:34.363" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, this is the teaching of the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper &amp;quot;on the night when he was betrayed,&amp;quot; [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Eucharist according to Catholicism is not &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; a memorial or symbol, as many Protestants believe, but that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is truly and actually made present; it is not merely in the past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, the doctrines concerning the Eucharist seem to be known &lt;em&gt;because of&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the offering at the Last Supper&lt;/a&gt;; if it had not been a real sacrifice, the teachings concerning transubstantiation would likely never have existed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On that occasion He likewise made an unbloody food-offering, only that, as Antitype, He accomplished something more than a mere oblation of bread and wine, namely the sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the mere forms of bread and wine. Otherwise, the shadows cast before by the &amp;quot;good things to come&amp;quot; would have been more perfect than the things themselves, and the antitype at any rate no richer in reality than the type. Since the Mass is nothing else than a continual repetition, commanded by Christ Himself, of the Sacrifice accomplished at the Last Supper...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2026:28&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 26:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;(also see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2014:24&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 14:24&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luk%2022:20&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 22:20&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; says concerning the Real Presence of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church's Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, &amp;quot;This is my body — this is my blood&amp;quot;, whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times. The Real Presence is evinced, positively, by showing the necessity of the literal sense of these words, and negatively, by refuting the figurative interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;... [they did not claim the bread and blood to be signs of Christ's body, but] in the original text &lt;em&gt;corpus&lt;/em&gt; (body) and &lt;em&gt;sanguis&lt;/em&gt; (blood) are followed by significant appositional additions, the Body being designated as &amp;quot;given for you&amp;quot; and the Blood as &amp;quot;shed for you [many]&amp;quot;; hence the Body given to the Apostles was the self same Body that was crucified on Good Friday, and the Chalice drunk by them, the self same Blood that was shed on the Cross for our sins, Therefore the above-mentioned appositional phrases directly exclude every possibility of a figurative interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic teaching is that Christ did not claim the body and bread to be a metaphor for His body and blood; He did not say, &amp;quot;this bread is my body,&amp;quot; but said &amp;quot;this is my body.&amp;quot; He was crucified once for all time -- past, present, and future. Just as He provides salvation to people who lived prior to His sacrifice, so He can be present in the institution of the Eucharist prior to His crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... so, when He said: &amp;quot;Take ye, and eat. This is my body&amp;quot;, the Apostles received from the hand of the Lord His Sacred Body, which was already objectively present and did not first become so in the act of partaking. This non-dependence of the Real Presence upon the actual reception is manifested very clearly in the case of the Chalice, when Christ said: &amp;quot;Drink ye all of this. For [&lt;em&gt;enim&lt;/em&gt;] this is my Blood.&amp;quot; Here the act of drinking is evidently neither the cause nor the &lt;em&gt;conditio sine qua non&lt;/em&gt; [necessary precondition] for the presence of Christ's Blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T14:50:08.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2013-06-27T19:32:50.947" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people believe the &quot;fruit&quot; is metaphor.  The most common explanation for the metaphorical meaning of the fruit in genesis, is that the fruit was sex.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_fruit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; makes mention of this particular interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although this interpretation is not widely held among most Christian groups, because most Christian groups view sex as a gift from God, not a sin that should be avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the more (in my opinion) believable metaphorical interpretation would come from a belief that much of the Genesis account is metaphor in the same sense that many creation myths are metaphor.  That is, it's simply a &quot;made up story&quot; that is intended to explain a spiritual truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1529/20&quot;&gt;Old-Earth creationists&lt;/a&gt;, and to my knowledge, all &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1533/20&quot;&gt;Theistic Evolutionists&lt;/a&gt; would hold this view, that the events in the early parts of Genesis never really happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this view, the story of the fruit simply represents the choice of humanity to rebel against God, and seek selfish fulfillment, rather than obedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-06-27T19:32:50.947" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17133" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-28T03:32:22.103" Score="4" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that &lt;strong&gt;contemplating encountering God (as understood by most Christians), and one's life in Heaven, in the afterlife, could, in some cases, give rise to significant fear.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One might be, after all, in the direct presence of the creator of the universe, the sole almighty being, and one who knows every single thing about you; there is no apt analogue like that in earthly experience and just the unfathomable &lt;em&gt;magnitude&lt;/em&gt; of that might be terrifying to consider.  (And yes, even given the explicit belief that God is good).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the thought of oneself in Heaven (leaving aside considerations of a New Earth), could be, if not exactly fearful, at very least &lt;em&gt;difficult&lt;/em&gt; to consider given the, again, boundless degree of difference from our mortal life. The thought that our mortal life and all that went with it is &lt;em&gt;irretrievably over&lt;/em&gt; might trouble us.  Concerns about how human relationships (arguably the central aspect of human life), such as marriages and camaraderie, would work in Heaven might give us at least concerns--and in some cases deep sadness.  There is the notion of identity, which in life is an amalgam of profession, family, interests, values, character, foibles, quirks, history, age, health, traumas, and other factors, and which, in Heaven, might be significantly altered, since many of the important factors will be obviated.  And, of course, all physical considerations may be massively altered in a spiritual realm. Taken as a whole, and given that the saved are inevitably headed for just this place, these considerations might generate trepidation in addition to the &quot;meeting God&quot; fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it shortly:  it's a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; different being in a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; different place--and that might be scary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, how, if at all, has Christianity, through authors, notable church leaders, or other key figures, addressed these types of concerns in the primary traditions, such as Catholicism or mainline Protestantism?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Terminology associated with this gist, if it exists, would also be helpful.  And note:  I am &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; at all looking for SE user reassurance or Bible guarantees that the afterlife will not be frightful; I am looking for whether this theme has been addressed in the main traditions or not, and, if so, where and how.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="361" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T22:00:15.740" Title="Are there Christian traditions/literatures regarding fear of God and Heaven in the afterlife?" Tags="&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;christian-psychology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17135" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2013-06-28T08:17:55.853" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is related to the most important issue that is part of the theme of the entire Bible. That issue is the sanctification of God's universal sovereignty. Since God created Adam and Eve to have free will, they could think, reason, and make decisions on their own. When you create someone with these abilities, you need to address the issue of how they can and should use them. This is because free will can clearly be used in a negative way that has negative consequences for themselves and everyone else. The forbidden fruit was a test. God had given Adam and Eve everything that was good in their lives. He even gave them many trees with plenty of good fruit that they could eat from. He wanted to test if they would show appreciation, respect, and love toward him as their creator. They should have been able to do this. By disobeying such a simple, clear, and easy to obey command, they showed a complete lack of appreciation and respect for their creator. He was not asking anything difficult or unreasonable from them such as only eating food once a week or refraining from sexual intercourse without exception. That is why it was called the tree of knowledge of good and bad. It represented God's right and ability to decide what was best for mankind. This makes sense because who would know what is better for someone than the one who made them. By choosing to eat from that fruit and disobey God, Adam and Eve were in effect participating in a rebellion and rejection of God's sovereignty. Now that God's sovereignty has been challenged, this issue needs to be addressed. Only when everyone alive fully accepts God's sovereignty can we have complete peace and prosperity in the universe. This is an issue that God knows how to address and is the process of doing so. This is something that requires time, and cannot be rushed, but we will get there soon enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did God know that Adam would disobey him? No, because after God created Adam, he was &quot;very good&quot;. This shows that he was without built in defects or wickedness.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/#v1001031&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:31&lt;/a&gt;) He was designed to have many of the same qualities as God including love and free will. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/#v1001026&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26&lt;/a&gt;) God does not want to us to be forced to serve him, he wants us to choose this.(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-corinthians/9/#v47009007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 9:7&lt;/a&gt;) Adam had free will and chose to rebel against God. God does have the ability to predict the future, but just because he has this ability does not mean that he always uses it. To illustrate: If you had a great singing voice, does that mean you would go around singing all the time? Of course not! Hopefully you would only do so at appropriate times. God will not use his ability to see the future in a way that infringes on the gift of free will that he gave us. I realize that these answers also bring up more questions, but such is the nature of all answers and of us having limited knowledge. The gaining and understanding of accurate knowledge has always been a progressive thing, so maybe in the future God will help us to understand these things even more fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further research I recommend reading in &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989229?q=did%20god%20know%20adam%20would%20sin&amp;amp;p=par&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this section on Fate in the book Reasoning from the Scriptures (published by Jehovah's Witnesses) the subtopic: When God created Adam, did he know that Adam would sin?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2014-05-01T06:18:58.470" LastActivityDate="2014-05-01T06:18:58.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17133" CreationDate="2013-06-28T09:18:58.250" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church addresses this is in its &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2M.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt;, which I quote at some length below. Paragraph 1026 appears to answer the nub of your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no room for doubt or regret.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paragraph 1025 says that rather than giving up our name and identity, and worrying about that, we find our &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;true&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; identity in which we rejoice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the heavenly vision in Revelation, where the inhabitants of heaven spend eternity praising God. There is no greater pastime, and nothing more worthwhile — and surely we can do nothing else in his presence (see 1024 below).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1023 Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they &amp;quot;see him as he is,&amp;quot; face to face:&lt;sup&gt;596&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment — and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven — have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.&lt;sup&gt;597&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity — this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed — is called &amp;quot;heaven.&amp;quot; Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1025 To live in heaven is &amp;quot;to be with Christ.&amp;quot; the elect live &amp;quot;in Christ,&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;598&lt;/sup&gt; but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.&lt;sup&gt;599&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.&lt;sup&gt;600&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has &amp;quot;opened&amp;quot; heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father's house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: &amp;quot;no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;601&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man's immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. the Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory &amp;quot;the beatific vision&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God's friends.&lt;sup&gt;602&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God's will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him &amp;quot;they shall reign for ever and ever.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;603&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;596 ⇒ 1 Jn 3:2; cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 13:12; ⇒ Rev 22:4.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;597 Benedict XII, &lt;em&gt;Benedictus Deus&lt;/em&gt; (1336): DS [&lt;em&gt;Enchiridion Symbolorum&lt;/em&gt;] 1000; cf. &lt;em&gt;Lumen Gentium&lt;/em&gt; 49.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;598 ⇒ Phil 1:23; cf. ⇒ Jn 14:3; ⇒ 1 Thess 4:17.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;599 Cf. ⇒ Rev 2:17.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;600 St. Ambrose, &lt;em&gt;In Luc.&lt;/em&gt;, 10, 121: &lt;em&gt;Patroligia Latina&lt;/em&gt; 15, 1834A.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;601 ⇒ 1 Cor 2:9.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;602 St. Cyprian, &lt;em&gt;Ep.&lt;/em&gt; 58, 10, 1: &lt;em&gt;Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum&lt;/em&gt; 3/2, 665.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;603 ⇒ Rev 22:5; cf. ⇒ Mt 25:21, ⇒ 23.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T09:18:58.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17133" CreationDate="2013-06-28T09:25:04.940" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible itself is replete with commands that we are to have a reverent fear of God that is to coexist with our love of God. The fear of God is a recurrent theme in Scripture, and it is commended and linked directly with holiness. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/con/ntb/view.cgi?n=1809&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nave's Topical Bible&lt;/a&gt;, for example, shows several subtopics and a multitude of individual references for the topic &quot;Fear of God.&quot; See also the prophet's experience in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%206&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah, chapter six&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the short answer to your question is: yes, the fears that you list, and many others, seem plainly reasonable for sinful human beings -- that is to say, &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; human beings. Prior to entering heaven, however, the believer is changed so that those fears cease to be relevant. Here's why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Ordo-Salutis/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;ordo salutis,&quot;&lt;/a&gt; or &quot;order of salvation,&quot; has been developed from a close study of the Scriptures. While different traditions have slightly different teachings about the number and order of the steps, a frequently offered summary includes the steps of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Justification&lt;/strong&gt;, which occurs when one receives faith in Christ and forgiveness of sins;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sanctification&lt;/strong&gt;, the ongoing process by which a Christian is brought into greater conformity with Christ over time; and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Glorification&lt;/strong&gt;, the final perfecting of a believer which takes place after death and prior to entrance into heaven. The particular timing will vary according to one's eschatological views.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At glorification, the Christian is entirely cleansed of his &quot;sin nature,&quot; and he no longer has any inclination towards sin whatsoever. Being perfectly free of sin enables him to delight wholly in God, and all other things become secondary and unimportant in the immediate presence of God's glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's why nothing else matters in heaven. Man was originally designed to find satisfaction in God alone. When sin entered the picture, we became distracted and focused on the creation, instead of the Creator -- that is, we all became idolaters, to greater and lesser degrees. Glorification remedies that problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a bit of further reading on glorification in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/glorification.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology&lt;/a&gt;, with several references to Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a link to the &quot;Order of Salvation&quot; entry in volume three of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08/Page_252.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge&lt;/a&gt; at CCEL.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some links to related discussion from John Piper. Each video is about three minutes in duration, and he directly explains why Christians have no need to fear heaven. As always, he explains things much more clearly and simply than I ever could, and I recommend his teachings wholeheartedly: &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/C4kiExwVA9g&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Video 1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/Spy75eG5nrE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Video 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And for more on the idea of finding satisfaction in God alone, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Desiring God&lt;/a&gt;, the ministry of John Piper. He teaches about something called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/about/our-distinctives/our-beliefs/what-is-christian-hedonism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Christian Hedonism.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-06-28T12:24:30.583" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T12:24:30.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14713" CreationDate="2013-06-28T10:03:16.087" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In harmony with Jesus command to &quot;Keep doing this in remembrance of me&quot;, we observe the memorial of Jesus death every year on Nisan 14 after sundown. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/22/#v42022019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:19&lt;/a&gt;) This does not always fall on the same day of the week for us. Jesus death occurred on Nisan 14 of the Jewish calendar that was common during the first century. Since the Jewish day begins and ends at sundown, he died on the same day that he instituted the Lord's evening meal, which corresponded with the date of the Jewish Passover. Accurately calculating Nisan 14 the same way the Jews used to do it is fairly in depth. &quot;The &lt;em&gt;beginning&lt;/em&gt; of the month of Nisan was the sunset after the new moon nearest the spring equinox became &lt;em&gt;visible in Jerusalem&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; Nisan 14 would be 14 days later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may notice this does not always coincide with the date that modern Jews observe the Passover. This is because they use the astronomical new moon to determine the start of their months instead of the visible new moon over Jerusalem which may come 18 to 30 hours later. In addition, most Jews today observe the Passover on Nisan 15, not the 14th as Jesus did in harmony with the Mosaic Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The information and quote here are taken from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989248&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Memorial section in the book Reasoning From the Scriptures (Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)&lt;/a&gt;. Additional information can also be found there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2014-05-01T06:58:46.113" LastActivityDate="2014-05-01T06:58:46.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17139" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-28T11:21:14.657" Score="10" ViewCount="723" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is interest in the question of what happens to someone who continues to indulge in a specific sinful habit while (apparently, originally) saved. What happens to this person?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far, I've asked a Truth Question, and to make matters worse,  there's probably stridently different schools of thought on this not only between denominations but within congregations, if you worship in a real one.  Nonetheless,  can anyone provide an overview of the major theological schools of thought on this topic?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good answer might be along the lines of &lt;strong&gt;Puritans&lt;/strong&gt; saying, &quot;No sinner remains in fellowship&quot;; &lt;strong&gt;Luther's Theology of the Cross&lt;/strong&gt; saying, &quot;Only those who realize they are a slave to sin cling to Jesus like the truly saved&quot;; and &lt;strong&gt;Total Depravity&lt;/strong&gt; saying, &quot;You're hell-bound: go make trouble.&quot;   I'm hoping that someone qualified to answer this would be familiar with at least this variety of opinion and succinctly pick out three to six major schools and explain them briefly. A poor answer would be your denomination vs. the devil. The identifiable schools of thought could all be popes or all Tent Revivalists—it doesn't matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-06-09T22:50:36.647" LastActivityDate="2016-06-09T22:50:36.647" Title="How have major theological traditions handled &quot;continuing to indulge in sin when saved?&quot;" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17139" CreationDate="2013-06-28T13:25:34.427" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic Perspective: There is no such idea, as &quot;a state of being saved&quot;, while here on earth. This is a journey, you are saved once it is over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If by &quot;saved&quot;, you mean simply something like baptized, or in full communion with the church or something like this, then please clarify&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T13:25:34.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17025" CreationDate="2013-06-28T14:26:12.190" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7 (ASV) says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding to what @caseyr547 answered, I understand that in verses 7 and 8 the apostle Paul clearly states that any sexual contact between two unmarried couple should be avoided. If continence is not possible, marriage is the only choice besides the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the context of this chapter includes pre and posmarital sex in the concept of fornication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4953" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T14:26:12.190" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7118" CreationDate="2013-06-28T14:39:13.577" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16 According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4954" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T14:39:13.577" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17144" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4082" CreationDate="2013-06-28T16:28:06.203" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even though a good answer was given by David, I would like to make some points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As have been said, Jacob was not good at all, but he believed in God.&#xA;We can take that as a allegory in many levels:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A sinner who recognizes his miserable situation and begs for God to change his or her life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A believer that fights in prayer and not quit until get an answer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Israel as a nation, who always did bad things, but when in danger asks help from God and was both helped and disciplined by Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sum up, when you believe in God and know He is the only one who can give what you need, then you also know your only choice is ask him no matter the consequences. The boldness of the request is proportional to your need and despair. The response sometimes is hard, because we sometimes need to lose something to gain the real blessing.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;God knows our needs, but Jesus taught a lot about prayer, so you can understand that he wants us to be active in our relationship with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4953" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T16:28:06.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17025" CreationDate="2013-06-28T17:45:16.530" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's the story in Numbers where Zimri ben Salu who was killed by Pinchas, the grandson of the high priest Aaron, for having relations with Kazbi bas Tzur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4325" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T17:45:16.530" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17147" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17165" CreationDate="2013-06-28T18:17:51.313" Score="7" ViewCount="16419" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that divorce is frowned upon by God. There are exceptions to this, abuse being one of them, along with adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when one reads through the Bible, &quot;marital unfaithfulness&quot; gets thrown into the mix. I have run across items referring to this aspect from Matthew here: &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/exception-clause.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What is the exception clause?&lt;/a&gt;&quot; Another with several translations is on &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-9.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;biblehub.com&lt;/a&gt;. So it looks like there are two separate entries: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%205:32&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:32&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2019:9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:9&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would &quot;marital unfaithfulness&quot; encompass emotional abandonment? I do not refer to one of the partners having an emotional affair, but more along the lines of just not being there for their spouse emotionally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or does this fall more along the lines of abuse, and does God see emotional abuse as he does physical abuse, as wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4517" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-10-10T19:48:30.423" LastActivityDate="2015-10-10T19:48:30.423" Title="What might the Bible mean by &quot;marital unfaithfulness,&quot; other than adultery?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;&lt;abusive-relationships&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17149" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17957" CreationDate="2013-06-28T19:52:43.840" Score="3" ViewCount="1219" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many symbols in Christianity that were, well, borrowed from paganism. Over the last 200 years the history is rich with the reappropriation of pagan symbols to have Christian meanings and purposes. The most obvious are the various Saints of the Catholic church. Whether intentional or not it is clear that quite a few saints have gained the duties of and fully replaced the pagan counterparts. Mary, for example, being a virgin in Christian theology, easily inherited the symbolism that was once Aphrodite's, Isis's and quite a few others. Consequently, she readily acquired then pagan followers too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also the issue of more relevant symbolism, like the cross. Whether Jesus hung on a cross or something else, it is no secret that the cross becoming the symbol of Christianity helped poach many pagan followers from their pagan gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these symbols being reappropriated has led to many (probably millions) turning to Christianity. And now, more than ever, these symbols are Christian/Catholic through and through. Their pagan counterparts have been all but blotted from the history books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in light of the good that it has done, and also in light of the fact that these symbols are a far cry from paganism today, why are so many protestants hesitant of just accepting the now complete reappropriation of these symbols? Is there a somewhat universal Protestant doctrine that sheds light on this? Are there verses that are commonly quoted concerning this issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question was inspired by the attitude that JW's have concerning the symbol of the Cross that is illustrated well &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2109/crucifixion-torture-stake-or-cross/14594#14594&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T17:55:51.330" Title="Why are many protestants hesitant of the reappropriation of symbols?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17149" CreationDate="2013-06-28T20:22:50.163" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We call most of the things which you refer to in your question graven images and we as Bible Literal Protestants refuse to partake in anything including or centered around them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T20:22:50.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12256" CreationDate="2013-06-28T21:50:36.703" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Q: practices on where they differ?&#xA;These practices are different to Evangelical groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All LDS adults are also Priests, and the responsibility for their neighbors is a covenantal promise. Everyone in the local Church has a Priest assigned to them and he visits the home every month to see if anything is needed, and reports back to the Bishop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS live a life of Christ, as far as it is possible in this day and age. They are monitored by the brethren and warned if they stray from God's Will as it is defined by Scripture and by revelations of the Prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of the clergy is paid. As in the early Church, each person must support themselves with a job outside the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church has a central authority. Everyone believes the same theology. There is no disagreement in the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T21:50:36.703" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16773" CreationDate="2013-06-28T22:44:57.510" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The author does not provide a source for his citation of French Churches which sing this particular melody at mass. It is a singleton statement with no way to verify besides reading the authors notes or visiting every French church which holds mass. You would have to find the specific community which the author cites. A primarily french webpage would be a better place to ask this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can however say many churches are moving their masses to modern music so it is not included in every mass service in France. At some point in the future this tune will not be incorporated into any French liturgy if the Church continues to modernize. Though the words might survive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://jewishmag.com/135mag/aleinu/aleinu.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Aleinu History&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prayer became the subject of controversy during the Middle Ages. In 1400 a baptized Jew spread a rumor that the passage &amp;quot;for they bow down to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who does not save&amp;quot; was an attack on Christianity. In support of this view, he noted that the numerical equivalent of the word &amp;quot;emptiness&amp;quot; (varik) is the same as &amp;quot;Yeshua,&amp;quot; the Hebrew name for Jesus. And because varik is also related to the word rok, meaning &amp;quot;spittle,&amp;quot; it was customary for Jews to spit during this phrase—a practice anti-Jewish author Johann Andreas Eisenmenger (1655-1704) interpreted as a further insult to Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In France and Germany, censors insisted that this passage be deleted. In 1703 the Prussian government in Berlin even appointed special commissioners to make sure that the Hazzan did not sing these words. Many rabbis tried to prove these accusations wrong, arguing that the passage is based on a pre-Christian text, Isaiah 45:20, and that if Rav was the author, it was scribed in a non-Christian land. But the censors renewed their attacks in 1716 and 1750, and the passage was eventually expunged from most Ashkenazi prayer books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further dissent comes from Jewish history of the Aleinu. As the French and the Germans specifically tried to wipe it from Jewish practices they would more than likely also have removed it from Christian practices as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-28T22:53:36.337" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17092" CreationDate="2013-06-28T22:47:54.417" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am glad to see St. Augustine being pulled into the discussion. It is important to understand what he thought in his heart.&#xA;If we look at ST. Augustine's theology on salvation we find this: Wace and Piercy &amp;quot;A dictionary of Christian Biography&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In St. Augustine's letter to Deogratius (Ep. 102):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At all times, he writes, since the world began, the same faith has been revealed to men, at one time more obscurely, at another more plainly, as the circumstances altered; but what we now call the Christian religion is but the clearest revelation of a religion as old as the world. Never has its offer of salvation been withheld from those who were worthy of it even though they might not be mentioned in the sacred record. Such men who followed His commands (however unconsciously), were implicit believers in Christ. The changing (and therefore semi-real) form represents the one constant reality, the saving grace of God, revealed through the passion and resurrection of Christ (Ep 189 )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, here is the passage and below that an example of being drawn taken from the New Testament, and following that is St. Augustine's heartfelt understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joh%206:44-45&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6:44&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;45&lt;/strong&gt; It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;People are drawn to God through revelation. Here's an example:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016:13-18&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:13-18 KJV&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/strong&gt; “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, &lt;strong&gt;Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.&lt;/strong&gt; And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to St. Augustine (source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Tractates on the Gospel of John&lt;/em&gt; Tractate 26&lt;/a&gt;), emphasis mine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4: Thence also He says here, if thou turn thy attention to it, “No man cometh to me except he whom the Father shall draw.” Do not think that thou art drawn against thy will. &lt;strong&gt;The mind is drawn also by love.&lt;/strong&gt; Nor ought we to be afraid, lest perchance we be censured in regard to this evangelic word of the Holy Scriptures &lt;strong&gt;by men who weigh words, but are far removed from things, most of all from divine things;&lt;/strong&gt; and lest it be said to us, “How can I believe with the will if I am drawn?” I say it is not enough to be drawn by the will; &lt;strong&gt;thou art drawn even by delight.&lt;/strong&gt; What is it to be drawn by delight? “Delight thyself in the Lord, and He shall give thee the desires of thy heart.” &lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psa%2037:4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ps. xxxvii. 4.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; There is a pleasure of the heart to which that bread of heaven is sweet. Moreover, if it was right in the poet to say, &lt;strong&gt;“Every man is drawn by his own pleasure,&lt;/strong&gt;”—&lt;strong&gt;not necessity, but pleasure; not obligation, but delight,—how much more boldly ought we to say that a man is drawn to Christ when he delights in the truth, when he delights in blessedness, delights in righteousness, delights in everlasting life, all which Christ is?&lt;/strong&gt; Or is it the case that, while the senses of the body have their pleasures, the mind is left without pleasures of its own? If the mind has no pleasures of its own, how is it said, “The sons of men shall trust under the cover of Thy wings: they shall be well satisfied with the fullness of Thy house; and Thou shalt give them drink from the river of Thy pleasure. For with Thee is the fountain of life; and in Thy light shall we see light”? &lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psa%2036:8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ps. xxxvi. 8.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Give me a man that loves, and he feels what I say. Give me one that longs, one that hungers, one that is traveling in this wilderness, and thirsting and panting after the fountain of his eternal home; give such, and he knows what I say&lt;/strong&gt;. But if I speak to the cold and indifferent, he knows not what I say. Such were those who murmured among themselves. “He whom the Father shall draw,” saith He, “cometh unto me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5: But what is this, “Whom the Father shall draw,” when Christ Himself draws? Why did He say, “Whom the Father shall draw”? If we must be drawn, let us be drawn by Him to whom one who loves says, “We will run after the odor of Thine ointment.” &lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=song%20of%20songs%201:3&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Cant. (Song of Songs) i. 3.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; But let us, brethren, turn our minds to, and, as far as we can, apprehend how He would have us understand it. &lt;strong&gt;The Father draws to the Son those who believe on the Son, because they consider that God is His Father.&lt;/strong&gt; For God begat the Son equal to Himself, so that he who ponders, and in his faith feels and muses that He on whom he has believed is equal to the Father, this same is drawn of the Father to the Son. . . .  One whom the Father has drawn says: “Thou art Christ, Son of the living God.” Not as a prophet, not as John, not as some great and just man, but as the only, the equal, “Thou art Christ, Son of the living God.” See that he was drawn, and drawn by the Father. “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” &lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016:16-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matt. xvi. 16, 17.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;This revealing is itself the drawing.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T13:42:42.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17156" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17195" CreationDate="2013-06-29T00:00:09.077" Score="11" ViewCount="937" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarum_Rite&quot;&gt;Sarum rite&lt;/a&gt; was the traditional rule of liturgical worship for Catholics in England, and to some extent in the rest of the British Isles, for many years. It is related to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rite&quot;&gt;Roman rite&lt;/a&gt;, and to various other historical regional or diocesan versions. It is not used today, though I gather there are still Catholics and Anglo-Catholics who are interested in it (and even some Orthodox churches).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard two stories about why it's defunct. Both relate to the restoration of the hierarchy in England, and of normal church order, in the nineteenth century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;English Catholics were asked whether they wanted to retain Sarum or adopt the Roman rite, and they chose the latter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Despite the wishes of the local populace, Rome imposed its own rite in a quest for global liturgical conformity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which of these, if either, is true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2019-03-03T23:14:35.747" Title="What happened to the Sarum rite?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17157" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17125" CreationDate="2013-06-29T00:37:25.043" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;My stepfather's parents are Amish. I grew up being babysat some by my stepfathers mother who was a member of an Amish community in Arthur, Illinois and some by a friends family who happened to be Amish and went to school with me. As Flimzy points out in one of his comments Amish communities are more restricted than Mennonites. Amish people are not introverts they just want more than anything to be unlike what someone outside their group represents. My grandmother's house and farm did have running water in the kitchen but as far as I remember not in the bathrooms. She had a refrigerator and for a while a television but however in her community the television was considered a sin and later it was removed because of social pressures. If I remember correctly a minister drove by at night and happened to see the artificial light of the television changing color in the window. The reasons they are like they are are not just cultural but also because they choose to interpret the Bibles orthopraxic commands to the best of their ability. The head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:6), the plainness of everything about them and their things (1 Peter 3:3,1 Timothy 2:9), their interest in agriculture (Mark 4:14), thier love of people (Mark 12:30), their practice of shunning unrepentant saints who sin (1 Corinthians 5:11). I agree in principle with what Ryan said but I think these verses needs to be added as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Pe 1:17  And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Ti 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Th 2:15  Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the reasons why Amish people do not do things involving some technologies is that they are just passing time till heaven as the scriptures require us to do. In this manner they justify their lack of certain things as unnecessary to life on the earth, materialistic and something which might cause them to become entangled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in a way similar to the way in which Catholics defend their traditions an Amish person would defend theirs as well. If the common tradition held by a group is not against the word or sinful it is continued.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T01:12:10.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17160" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17049" CreationDate="2013-06-29T04:00:11.183" Score="-1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 16:16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 16:17  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 20:29  For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.&#xA;Act 20:30  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 3:6  I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I Protestant I can safely say yes some groups of Protestants reject the whole notation that Peter was the basis of the church. Instead they say that the revelation of Christ as the Son of the living God is the revelation for which the Church is founded upon. Making Christ Himself the basis and founder of Church not a man. Random pastors whose names we do not know did the primary amount of &amp;quot;leading&amp;quot; in the church. They were very troubled many died martyrs death and many were sadly drawn into error. (My group called Word of Faith and many other protestants say some of those in error wrote their errors down and it is still practiced today.) Paul provided most of the foundational doctrine along with the other apostles and special helpers. The person in the highest office leading the body of Christ is always the person who was the greatest servant so that will not be known until heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T04:00:11.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17027" CreationDate="2013-06-29T04:09:02.247" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is just a tradition that John the Revelator is also John the Apostle whom Jesus loved. Nothing inside the word specifically says who is John the Revelator. In a similar fashion, the epistle titled James is not thought to be written by either James the Apostle of the Lamb. It is also tradition that John lived at Ephesus. So Revelation itself is not a good choice for this tradition. The oldest tradition I could find but that was not qualified for the word of God and also is not used as canon (and probably is just made up and is definitely gnostic) is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_John&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;acts of John&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-11-17T22:00:08.360" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T22:00:08.360" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17092" CreationDate="2013-06-29T05:02:37.527" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the risk of oversimplifying the debate of free will and etc., why not just consider how the Father &quot;draws&quot; the person? He does so through the preaching of the Gospel, as it states in Romans 10:14-17:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rom 10:14  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rom 10:15  And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rom 10:16  But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rom 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one is going to come to Christ on his or her own. The invitation must be given and believed. This is not predestination. We may believe or not believe, but through the preaching the Father draws people to the Son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, people are not drawn to Him, but to the food He gave (John 6:26); they were drawn to Him by their bellies, so they only saw Him as the source for more food of bread and fish. Only the Father can draw them to the Son into a relationship with Him, and that requires the preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the heart through faith and repentance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's not complicate this issue with free will and predestination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T05:02:37.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17147" CreationDate="2013-06-29T05:29:02.883" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Marriage unfaithfulness&quot; is not a term used in the Bible, so one would have to define it in order to determine a biblical answer. Where did you get the words from, and how were they used? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since you ask &quot;What MIGHT the Bible refer to as marital unfaithfulness,&quot; then I would consider what the husband is supposed to do for the wife and fails to do it as unfaithfulness. Eph. 5:25 tells the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church. No one can do that perfectly, but at least we can aim our (husbands') love in that direction. To point his love away from his wife would be &quot;unfaithfulness&quot; to God's command here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 3:7 tells the husband to dwell with the wife, giving her honor. He should make an effort to understand who she is and deal with her in her weaknesses (the &quot;weaker vessel&quot;). Is it honorable treatment to treat her as a slave, to place greater burdens on her than she should bear, to demean her with controlling commands that turn her into a slave instead of a person made in the image of God? To deliberately treat the wife with dishonor or with less than chivalrous motives is to act in &quot;unfaithfulness&quot; to commands in the scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are areas the Bible might consider actions as marital unfaithfulness &lt;strong&gt;to the scriptural role&lt;/strong&gt; the husband is called to uphold. I do not mean to imply that these are the same as sexual sins and worthy of divorce. I do mean to state that these are potential areas of abuse (emotional or physical) that would be considered wrong if they are practiced against the wife with evil intent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-06-29T06:07:00.250" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T06:07:00.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16279" CreationDate="2013-06-29T05:49:10.937" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jas 1:27  Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Ti 5:5  Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gal 2:10  Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 6:2  Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to those who are not pronounced as having criminal guilt by the Bible there are a group of people who are socially innocent as well. The widow, orphan and poor, in Bible days as well as today the disabled are by default poor more so then than now, are all a special class of persons innocent from their ability to contribute in normal ways from society. In addition to preaching the gospel the church is supposed to support widows who are widows indeed the poor which cannot work or work without much gain and the orphans are socially innocent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T05:49:10.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16215" CreationDate="2013-06-29T07:09:51.747" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 16:6  Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,&#xA;Act 16:7  After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B003S9VNOM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;How to be led by the Spirit of God by Kenneth E. Hagin&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flcbranson.org/listseries.php?xml=rss/SpiritLedLife.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Keith Moore's Spirit Led Life v1&lt;/a&gt; and the second set &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flcbranson.org/listseries.php?xml=rss/SpiritLedLife2.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;v2&lt;/a&gt; are in detail teaching on how to revere, recognize and respond to the Holy Spirit. Brother Keith and Brother Hagin teach that its possible to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit or our own Spirit as influenced by the Holy Spirit something I disagree with as God is a Spirit not a mind and desiring to hear a voice of any form or having thoughts in your mind which do not originate from yourself can literally make you mentally ill. It is inviting problems. Kenneth Hagin talks a little bit about this in the book I recommend. However there is nothing unscriptural about knowing what is right and wrong to do based on reasons which you cannot explain. That is how I interpret Rom 8:14, Act 16:7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 12:12  For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There also is nothing unscriptural about speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit concerning things of the word like is said in Luke 12. We believe in speaking in tongues so naturally it need not always make sense to your mind. However randomly doing things because you &amp;quot;feel&amp;quot; like it is you not God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 8:29  Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 10:15  Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Ti 4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 5:19  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God literally speaking audibly or inaudibly to a person (rather than through a person) is rare even in the Bible. It happened in Act 8:29, Heb 10:15 and 1 Timothy 4:1. (Jesus constantly was in communication with the Father but He had the Holy Spirit without measure: John 3:34) Except when we are absolutely certain we should take credit for what we say or think rather than attributing the words we speak or thoughts we have to God. If you want to hear God's voice read the Bible and think those precisely recorded thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T19:53:49.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17168" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17196" CreationDate="2013-06-29T08:32:03.400" Score="9" ViewCount="2550" Body="&lt;p&gt;We find that in the New Testament, teachings of Jesus Christ are recorded in four Gospels by four different apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did God give us four Gospels instead of just one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorDisplayName="user4984" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T14:11:41.173" LastActivityDate="2014-02-27T04:01:25.420" Title="Why four Gospels?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17168" CreationDate="2013-06-29T08:39:35.947" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bible is the revealed truth from God.  New Testament is a record of teachings of Jesus Christ during His ministry which later on, inspired by Holy Spirit, were written down in four Gospels, acts and epistles by His followers.  As such it is tantamount to the Word of God.  Bible through the inspiration of Holy Spirit was reveal by God Himself and it include the teachings of Jesus who Himself is God. This was clearly told by Jesus:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 16:12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come. 16:14 He will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God used human authors with different backgrounds and personalities to accomplish His purposes through their writing. Each of the gospel authors had a distinct purpose behind his gospel and in carrying out those purposes, each emphasized different aspects of the person and ministry of Jesus Christ. Yet all the four Gospels are perfectly harmonious.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The four New Testament Gospels are like the singers in a four-part choir. They each have their distinct parts to sing, yet the parts combine to make a beautiful composition. Each of the four Gospels gives testimony of Jesus from a slightly different perspective, but they all tell the same story. Thus, they are all in harmony with one another.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gospel of Matthew&lt;/strong&gt; was writing to a Hebrew audience, and one of his purposes was to show from Jesus' genealogy and fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies that He was the long-expected Messiah, and thus should be believed in. Matthew's emphasis is that Jesus is the promised King, the “Son of David,” who would forever sit upon the throne of Israel (Matthew 9:27;21:9).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gospel of Mark&lt;/strong&gt; was written by Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), was an eyewitness to the events in the life of Christ as well as being a friend of the apostle Peter. Mark wrote for a Gentile audience, as is brought out by his not including things important to Jewish readers (genealogies, Christ's controversies with Jewish leaders of His day, frequent references to the Old Testament, etc.). Mark emphasizes Christ as the suffering Servant, the One who came not to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gospel of Luke&lt;/strong&gt;,was written by Luke, the “beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14 KJV), evangelist, and companion of the apostle Paul, wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles. Luke is the only Gentile author of the New Testament.  Because he specifically wrote for the benefit of Theophilus, apparently a Gentile of some stature, his gospel was composed with a Gentile audience in mind, and his intent is to show that a Christian's faith is based upon historically reliable and verifiable events. Luke often refers to Christ as the “Son of Man,” emphasizing His humanity, and he shares many details that are not found in the other gospel accounts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gospel of John&lt;/strong&gt;, written by John the apostle, is distinct from the other three Gospels and contains much theological content in regard to the person of Christ and the meaning of faith. The gospel of John begins not with Jesus' birth or earthly ministry but with the activity and characteristics of the Son of God before He became man (John 1:14). The gospel of John emphasizes the deity of Christ, as is seen in his use of such phrases as “the Word was God” (John 1:1), “the Savior of the World” (John 4:42), the “Son of God” (used repeatedly), and “Lord and...God” (John 20:28). In John's gospel, Jesus also affirms His deity with several “I Am” statements; most notable among them is John 8:58, in which He states that “...before Abraham was, I Am” (compare to Exodus 3:13-14). But John also emphasizes the fact of Jesus' humanity, desiring to show the error of a religious sect of his day, the Gnostics, who did not believe in Christ’s humanity.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, in having four distinct and yet equally accurate accounts of Christ, different aspects of His person and ministry are revealed. Each account becomes like a different-colored thread in a tapestry woven together to form a more complete picture of this One who is beyond description. And while we will never fully understand everything about Jesus Christ (John 20:30), through the four Gospels we can know enough of Him to appreciate who He is and what He has done for us so that we may have life through faith in Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the rest of Scripture, the four Gospels are a beautiful testimony of God’s revelation to man. Imagine a tax collector (Matthew), an untrained Jewish lad with a history as a quitter (Mark), a Roman doctor (Luke), and a Jewish fisherman (John) all writing harmonious testimony about the events in the life of Jesus. There is no way, without the intervention of God, that they could have written these amazingly accurate accounts (2 Timothy 3:16). The historical references, the prophetic references, and the personal details all work together to compose one very detailed, very accurate picture of Jesus—the Messiah, the King, the Servant and the Son of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-06-29T09:13:04.867" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T09:13:04.867" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17171" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17173" CreationDate="2013-06-29T11:16:37.500" Score="4" ViewCount="20123" Body="&lt;p&gt;Judas died and was replaced by Matthias. There were at least &lt;strong&gt;eleven&lt;/strong&gt; intimate disciples of Jesus Christ who could write the genuine life of Christ. But we have only 4 books which record the life of Christ. Moreover, only Matthew and John are of the 12 disciples of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any &lt;strong&gt;historical reason&lt;/strong&gt; why the other disciples did not write the Life of Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other less authentic books which record the Life of Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="4637" LastEditDate="2013-06-29T11:35:41.487" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T16:12:26.423" Title="Why did only 4 people write about the Life of Jesus Christ?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-12-11T21:16:13.087" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17171" CreationDate="2013-06-29T14:06:02.937" Score="6" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Could they write?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first, and perhaps most obvious answer may very well be that &lt;em&gt;they didn't know how to write&lt;/em&gt;. Recall that most of the disciples were—by and large—peasants. Even the tradition that Peter was the source behind Mark doesn't affirm that &lt;em&gt;Peter&lt;/em&gt; wrote the gospel, only that someone else (named Mark) wrote it down according to Peter's &amp;quot;memoirs&amp;quot; (or whatever; I don't really buy this theory, personally)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Did they need to?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A second reason is linked to early Christian eschatology(-ies). It seems to have been commonly believed (perhaps because Jesus said it: Mk 13:30, Mt 24:34, Lk 21:32) that Jesus would be returning within the lifetime of his earliest followers. It is supposed that this concern is what is at the root of 1 Thess 4:13-17:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died.* For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People were dying and Jesus had yet to come back. So the question is, &lt;em&gt;if these early Christians believed in the &lt;strong&gt;immediate&lt;/strong&gt; return of Jesus, why would they write a book about him?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the Gospels generally hail from the end of the 1st century CE (though Mark, perhaps 67 CE and John perhaps as late as the 2nd century CE). In other words, when these Christian communities were coming to realize that it would be important for them to record and pass down their faith tradition to the next generation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Other Gospels&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes there are many other &amp;quot;gospels&amp;quot; that were written about Jesus. Sometime if you really want an eye-opener you should find a copy of &lt;em&gt;The New Testament Apocrypha&lt;/em&gt;. It's a two-volume set edited by Hennecke and Schneemelcher. Lots of good stuff in there, but most all of it is pretty late.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only &amp;quot;controversial&amp;quot; non-canonical &amp;quot;gospels&amp;quot; are &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Q&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (the putative source behind the material common to Matthew and Luke not found in Mark) and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Thomas&lt;/a&gt;. However, neither of these are &amp;quot;gospels&amp;quot; in any meaningful sense, since they are both just collections of sayings. Q is only controversial in the sense that a growing number of scholars have become suspicious of its existence, and Thomas, because some scholars want to claim that it's just as early as the canonical gospels. I'm not convinced, but I'll let you decide for yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1606" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T18:40:43.353" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17171" CreationDate="2013-06-29T14:33:56.410" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Way more than four people wrote about the life of Christ.  Literally hundreds of 'gospels' included stories about Jesus of Nazareth—from the Gospel of Thomas to the Epistle of Barnabas to Gospel of Judas to Marcion in his own Gospel.  The only difference is that the early church either didn't trust the veracity of those 'gospels' or else they found them to be not as good as these four.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, we have external sources such as Flavius Josephus and Tacitus who record stuff about Jesus. But those are strictly 'historical' not even religious in nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, the early church said that the four Gospels we have are the best ones, not the only ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1606" LastEditDate="2013-06-29T17:20:30.613" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T17:20:30.613" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6023" CreationDate="2013-06-29T15:42:53.247" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The entire Bible is inspired by God:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was very fluent in reading/writing scripture, yet, He in His own wisdom, thought it fit that his followers write these Gospels after his death. As such Bible through the inspiration of Holy Spirit is the revealed truth from God Himself and it includes the teachings of Jesus(who Himself is God) during His ministry which later on, inspired by Holy Spirit, were written down in four Gospels, acts and epistles by His followers. As such it is tantamount to the Word of God.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was clearly told by Jesus:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 16:12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come. 16:14 He will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was no need for God to reveal the Bible content to Jesus, as Jesus Himself was God Incarnate and as such the source of everything  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the next question definitely comes to mind is why four Gospels? As it would be a long answer &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17168/why-four-gospels/17169#17169&quot;&gt;I have answered it separately here&lt;/a&gt;. But briefly:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God used human authors with different backgrounds and personalities to accomplish His purposes through their writing. Each of the gospel authors had a distinct purpose behind his gospel and in carrying out those purposes, each emphasized different aspects of the person and ministry of Jesus Christ. Yet all the four Gospels are perfectly harmonious.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Historical authenticity:&lt;/strong&gt; About historicity of Bible a lot of matter is available on this site already and I would append it with this.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like any other historical writings there are no original documents of Bible in our possession. During its nascent years, Christianity was subjected to intense persecution. All the worldly forces were trying to wipe out Christianity by persecution and destroying all their literature. All that we have today has passed through a most turbulent period and has survived under most cruel persecution. In spite of this, we find that there are various shreds of manuscripts of NT as far as from 65AD, which is the earliest. Some  information is posted &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14022/are-there-any-references-to-four-canonical-gospels-prior-to-100-ad&quot;&gt;here on this site&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the time Christians could live a serene living under a favourable reigning emperor, all present day Gospels were already in use, as independent books long before they were canonised in a favourable time under a favourable reigning emperor. As seen from the table below we find that evidence for historical authenticity of New Testament is much stronger than any of the other historical books with no attempts of suppression.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/IssiA.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apart from this shortest timeline for the earliest copy, there are other numerous external written sources to collaborate the historical authenticity of New Testament.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there are some who are casting doubt on the authorship of Bible books. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15442/are-the-gospel-authors-who-we-believe-them-to-be/15447#15447&quot;&gt;To summarise from this answer&lt;/a&gt;, the two of the gospels are ascribed to such minor characters as Mark and Luke -- neither of whom, by any accounts, were themselves neither disciples nor the eyewitnesses is solid indirect clue they were who they were. If early Christian evangelist wanted to acquire credibility for what they were writing (or forging as some claim) and preaching they would undoubtedly have attributed it to someone like Peter, Thomas or James. And precisely this was what the later second and third century Gnostic gospels did.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further there has never been an attempt to edit or revise any of the Gospel accounts over the years nor is there any historical evidence of any attempt to concise these four gospels in to one book and say that it was written or dictated by Jesus himself. Contrary to this, there are some who claim that their scripture is directly handed down by God in physical form from heaven. However when we dig out the history,  it reveals that there were authorised exercise undertaken  spanning over many years, to standardise its content under different authorities, when finally the present day standardised version were accepted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T15:42:53.247" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17177" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-29T17:42:30.157" Score="-7" ViewCount="3105" Body="&lt;p&gt;We're assuming God created everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who created God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can any doctrine answer this question? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4962" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-06-29T20:59:33.403" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T20:59:33.403" Title="How was God created?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-06-29T21:16:53.187" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17177" CreationDate="2013-06-29T18:00:43.470" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to almost all branches of Christianty&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, God was never created, he has always existed. And always will exist. He is eternal. Deuteronomy 33:27 specifically identifies God as eternal, but there are numerous passages that point out this aspect of his nature. In fact the very way in which he introduces himself gives us a clue about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3:14&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Exodus 3:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost every major Creed in Christian history has some statement about this aspect of God. For example the Athanasian Creede, a very old and widely used one identifies Christian believe about God in this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty &lt;strong&gt;coeternal.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more modern day statement of faith, the Westminster Confession of Faith states it this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Father is of none, neither &lt;strong&gt;begotten nor proceeding&lt;/strong&gt; […]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The person of God is the only truely eternal thing, existing from eternity past. While the souls of people will go on existing for eterinty, they were created. In fact ALL other things outside of the being of God were created and are being held together by God himself (though the person of Christ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%201:16-17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:16-17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For &lt;strong&gt;by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1. The minior exception are a couple sects such as Mormonism that have beliefs about him existing in some other prior form before he became god.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-06-29T18:46:24.160" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T18:46:24.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17177" CreationDate="2013-06-29T18:04:35.323" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Ti 1:17  Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Jn 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is eternal which means he exists before the creation of time and will exist after time ends. He offers us eternal life in Christ Jesus the ability to transcend our mortal lives and not experience eternal death and torture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T20:42:33.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17181" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-29T20:15:29.813" Score="5" ViewCount="3759" Body="&lt;p&gt;I grew up in a non-denominational church and was heavily involved until a few years ago.  Some of my personal beliefs don't agree with the commonly accepted &quot;core doctrines&quot; of Christianity (which is a separate issue here), and I've found it hard to feel accepted in a church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference, here are some of the doctrines that I don't accept as infallible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doctrine of the Trinity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deity of Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Millenialism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Predestination&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dispensationalism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see that any of these are core to Jesus' teachings. Accordingly, I don't know whether I would even ascribe myself as a Christian, though I believe in God and very much believe in the lifestyle that Jesus portrayed.  I'm almost certain that most Christians would not consider me part of the &quot;in-group.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I miss the sense of community that I once had, which leads to the question: Do you have any suggestions for how to find a community in which to belong, one that centers around Jesus's teachings and a love for God, yet doesn't require you to proclaim belief in the core doctrines of Christianity to gain acceptance? Are there a denominations / communities that hold these as core doctrines, but don't require you to subscribe to them to be considered 'Christian'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4963" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T10:14:49.893" LastActivityDate="2016-06-11T02:29:32.783" Title="What Christian denominations do not require belief in mainstream Christian core doctrines?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16087" CreationDate="2013-06-29T21:28:42.060" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Bible Literalist perspective there are two places where a person might go when they die: to heaven or to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 10:9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.&#xA;Rom 10:10  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.&#xA;Rom 10:11  For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.&#xA;Rom 10:12  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.&#xA;Rom 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 14:2  In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.&#xA;Joh 14:3  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heb 10:34  For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.&#xA;Heb 10:35  Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heaven is open to all those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord. When you accept Jesus as your King and Friend you become saved and can reap the promise of going to Jesus's Father's House Heaven when you die. This is salvation which mark 16 Romans 10 refer to and the recompense of reward which Hebrews 10 refers to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 16:22b the rich man also died, and was buried;&#xA;Luk 16:23  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who fail to accept the Lord after hearing the gospel certainly go to the default location of all humanity hell. Even those who are &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; and who go to church many times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who never hear the gospel and die &amp;quot;unreached&amp;quot; are an unknown the word does not say if by some supernatural way they hear the gospel upon death and are given the option to follow Jesus though many believe as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible never speaks ill of heaven (or God). Many books have been written describing heaven by personal experiences or visions. From my group called Word of Faith a few are &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B004A90BXS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Heaven is for Real&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0892749431&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Heaven: Close Encounters of the God Kind&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1602665168&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revealing Heaven&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B009W9CZOO&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Within Heaven's Gates&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does describe people as being in hell and being tortured. Nothing positive is ever said about hell in the word. Select people have also visited hell. &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B00101OJHI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;23 Minutes in Hell is one example&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B006IYMZ8W&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;I went to Hell&lt;/a&gt; are two examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T16:05:00.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16053" CreationDate="2013-06-29T22:37:29.813" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Bible Literalist who believes in a pretribulational rapture and is a dispensational millialist. The rapture is when the Lord will descend from heaven and the dead will be raised and then all believers, living and revived, will go up into heaven alive then a 7 year tribulation period will begin followed by the millennial reign of Christ. Those who remain will have the option to meet Jesus and be born again. However as the other answer points out not everyone believes Jesus return for the saints will be in such form. That's fine; it isn't essential for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the individual verse and how we interpret them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 15:51  Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,&#xA;1Co 15:52  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.&#xA;1Co 15:53  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.&#xA;1Co 15:54  So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.&#xA;1Co 15:55  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?&#xA;1Co 15:56  The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.&#xA;1Co 15:57  But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 15 the word says that we will not all die but we will be changed and become immortal. This transfiguration processes is similar to what Jesus experienced before his passion and glorification and ascension. This pattern is repeated several places in the Old Testament Elijah, Enoch and Moses all had similar experiences. It also says that those which are dead will be raised the implication is and also ascended as Christ and the dead who were raised at His death. It is unknown if those saints ascended with the Lord after the 40 days of Christ before Pentecost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Th 4:16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:&#xA;1Th 4:17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.&#xA;1Th 4:18  Wherefore comfort one another with these words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1st Thessalonians 4 continues the explanation of the occurrence of the rapture stating that that after the resurrection and changing of the saints the heavenly family will move to the air and forever be with the Lord in Heaven or as a part of his millennial kingdom on the earth which follows the tribulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 3:10  Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 3 is used to show a pre-tribulation rapture. The hour of temptation which comes upon the world is considered to be the 3.5 years of tribulation and 3.5 years of great tribulation. Its important to not that some people interpret the word world and earth here to refer to the region of the middle east and Europe inhabited by ancient Rome and not the entire planet by some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 24:42  Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar 13:32  But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.&#xA;Mar 13:33  Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.&#xA;Mar 13:34  For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.&#xA;Mar 13:35  Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:&#xA;Mar 13:36  Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.&#xA;Mar 13:37  And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 18:8b  Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 18 are conflicted. Some believe this refers to the the second advent rather than the second coming of the Lord. The second advent is the post tribulation return of the Lord when he begins the millennial reign. Some teacher like Gloria Copeland believe that they will be altered to the return of the Lord and the rapture in advance. Others believe that the ascension of the Church will be very similar to the 40 days of Christ on the Earth. The church will operate in the full gifts of the Holy Spirit then ascend. That said most believe that the rapture will come quickly and secretively and they point to Mathew 24, Luke 18 and Mark 13 which both say watch you do not know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A version of the rapture and tribulation period has been dramatised in the book/movie series Left Behind. While it is two men's interpretation it does somewhat accurately describe the happenings of revelation from views like mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in summary to answer your question if ever a massive amount of Christian suddenly go missing you did not believe or do it right or you would have gone with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T16:50:58.940" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16052" CreationDate="2013-06-29T23:22:37.017" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Sa 15:23  For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Strong's Hebrew word translated Idolatry&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;H8655&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;תּרפים&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;terâphı̂ym&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ter-aw-feme'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Plural perhaps from H7495; a healer; Teraphim (singular or plural) a family idol: - idols (-atry), images, teraphim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Strong's Hebrew word translated iniquity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;H205&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;און&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'âven&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;aw'-ven&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From an unused root perhaps meaning properly to pant (hence to exert oneself, usually in vain; to come to naught); strictly nothingness; also trouble, vanity, wickedness; specifically an idol: - affliction, evil, false, idol, iniquity, mischief, mourners (-ing), naught, sorrow, unjust, unrighteous, vain, vanity, wicked (-ness.) Compare H369.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen 31:34  Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel's furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Ki 23:24  Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. &#xA;  2Ki 23:25  And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament the Hebrew word for idolatry is translated often as image. The images are of false gods, busts, images of ancestors or sometimes of things shown to Moses from Heaven.  It is important to remember the lesson from 1 Samuel 15:23 that stubbornness, idolatry and iniquity are all related. Stubbornness is universally understood but iniquity might cause some hindrance so I included its Strong's definition as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest instance of idolatry in Christianity is the time Rebecka stole the idols of her father Laban. Various scholars disagree on why she stole them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/genesis/31-19.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pulpit Commentary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Virg., 'AEn.,' 3. 148-150). Rachel's motive for abstracting her father's teraphim has been variously ascribed to a desire to prevent her father from discovering, by inquiring at his gods, the direction of their flight (Aben Ezra, Rosenmüller), to protect herself, in case, of being overtaken, by an appeal to her father s gods (Josephus), to draw her father from the practice of idolatry (Bazil, Gregory, Nazisnzen, Theodoret), to obtain children for herself through their assistance (Lengerke, Gerlach), to preserve a memorial of her ancestors, whose pictures these teraphim were (Lightfoot); but was probably due to avarice, if the images were made of precious metals (Pererius), or to a taint of superstition which still adhered to her otherwise religious nature (Chrysostom, Calvin, 'Speaker's Commentary ), causing her to look to these idols for protection (Kalisch, Murphy) or consultation (Wordsworth) on her journey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;New Testament View&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Act 17:16  Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm#strongs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strong's&lt;/a&gt; Greek Word for Idolatry from Acts 17:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G2712&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;κατείδωλος&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;kateidōlos&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;kat-i'-do-los&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G2596 (intensive) and G1497; utterly idolatrous: - wholly given to idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G1497&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;εἴδωλον&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;eidōlon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;i'-do-lon&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G1491; an image (that is, for worship); by implication a heathen god, or (plural) the worship of such: - idol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 10:14  Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Strong's Greek Word for Idolatry from 1Co 10:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G1495&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;εἰδωλολατρεία&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;eidōlolatreia&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;i-do-lol-at-ri'-ah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G1497 and G2999; image worship (literally or figuratively): - idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament also takes a similar approach defining idolatry as image/statue/anything physical worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most modern Christians myself included believe you can make an idol out of anything which you prize more than God. Including a house, a dog, a car, a person, a grown up toy and etc anything which attempts to take your worship which should be directed at God can be an idol.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-06-29T23:22:37.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17156" CreationDate="2013-06-30T01:39:26.297" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I cannot answer your question concerning exactly how the English moved away from this Rite. As I understand it this Rite was never officially suppressed by Rome. The Rite however is not completely defunct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21pnAoiGnjs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sarum Rite (Use of Salisbury) High Mass (YouTube)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic church recently authorized an Anglican Use Rite. Pope Benedict promulgated this in 2009 with the document Anglicanorum coetibus. (We are blessed at my parish to have a priest with 5 children and a wife!) Parts of the Sarum Rite are used in this and there is discussion of reviving the entire Rite for Catholic Anglican Use parishes. The text of the document would allow this. The difficulty as I understand it is that this Rite would be unfamiliar to most Anglicans coming into communion with Rome. I hear that there are some Western Orthodox who use this rite as well as some high Anglicans who preserve it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4967" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-02-25T13:15:13.847" LastActivityDate="2019-02-25T13:15:13.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11" CreationDate="2013-06-30T02:30:21.243" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As stated above by others no Catholic or Orthodox prays to a saint in the same way that he or she prays to the Blessed Trinity. In Latin for instance two entirely different words are used for the two actions. On Earth I would ask my brothers and sisters to pray for me in my hour of need. We simply believe that those in Heaven can still pray for us so we ask for their prayers. We understand that they have no power, they are just fellow Christian who have entered into glory. If we did pray to saints as we pray to God then we would not be Christians but polytheists. It is Christ and Christ alone in whom we place our trust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4967" LastActivityDate="2013-06-30T02:30:21.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17190" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-06-30T03:16:37.697" Score="9" ViewCount="411" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like an orthodox Catholic answer to this question, but any thoughtful well referenced one will suffice. (I know C.S. Lewis wrote on the subject). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My kids are asking me to see The Rise of the Guardians because their Cheerios were advertising it with free books. I read one of the books, about the Tooth Fairy, but it had Siberian Santa and the Macho Easter Bunny in it.  And I love these guys, as saints and symbols that clearly point to Christ. But does the Catholic Church hold repurposing Christian symbols as secular heroes and guardians part of the heresy of Secularism or just a reversion to the paganism that secular historians hold were their source in the first place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, if it is part of a heresy, and the heresy is defined somewhere (like Belloc's the Great Heresies or a papal encyclical) with all if its ramifications, where can I read more about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-07-01T16:10:23.437" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T16:10:23.437" Title="Is secularizing Christian symbols blasphemy?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16053" CreationDate="2013-06-30T04:07:57.443" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus clearly distinguishes Himself from all the false christs in Matthew 24:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mat 24:23  Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or&#xA;there; believe it not.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mat 24:24  For there shall arise false&#xA;Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders;&#xA;insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus tells us not to believe people who say they are the Christ, for His coming will be so dramatically jaw-dropping that there has been no such grand entrance ever recorded in history, and cannot be mistaken for any other event:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mat 24:29  Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mat 24:30  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mat 24:31  And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the sun and moon will go dark, leaving only one light left, and it will be as noticeable as lightning striking across the sky: that will be the Lord Jesus Himself coming in the clouds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where will He come, exactly? Acts 1:11 tells us of (presumably) angels telling the disciples, while they watched the ascension of Jesus into heaven, &quot;Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.&quot; Where and how He arose is where and how He'll return:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zec 14:3  Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zec 14:4  And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord arose from the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:12) and will descend upon it again in His return, as it clearly says in Zechariah 14 above. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any other christ is a false christ. There will be no mistaking His return as men did the first time around. There will be no pretending and posturing as in the first time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-06-30T14:06:17.940" LastActivityDate="2013-06-30T14:06:17.940" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2217" CreationDate="2013-06-30T04:13:43.747" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew words אחרית (&lt;em&gt;acharit&lt;/em&gt;) and תקוה (&lt;em&gt;tikvah&lt;/em&gt;) occur in the same phrase separated by the conjunction ו in three phrases: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Pro&amp;amp;c=23&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro. 23:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;כִּי אִם־יֵשׁ &lt;strong&gt;אַחֲרִית וְתִקְוָתְךָ&lt;/strong&gt; לֹא תִכָּרֵת&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Pro&amp;amp;c=24&amp;amp;t=KJV#14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pro. 24:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;כֵּן דְּעֶה חָכְמָה לְנַפְשֶׁךָ אִם־מָצָאתָ וְיֵשׁ &lt;strong&gt;אַחֲרִית וְתִקְוָתְךָ&lt;/strong&gt; לֹא תִכָּרֵת&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&amp;amp;c=29&amp;amp;t=KJV#11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jer. 29:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;כִּי אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי אֶת־הַמַּחֲשָׁבֹת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי חֹשֵׁב עֲלֵיכֶם נְאֻם־יְהוָה מַחְשְׁבֹות שָׁלֹום וְלֹא לְרָעָה לָתֵת לָכֶם &lt;strong&gt;אַחֲרִית וְתִקְוָה&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gesenius (p. &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/cu31924014451953#page/n57/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;37-38&lt;/a&gt;) states that the Hebrew word אחרית may also mean &quot;posterity,&quot; citing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&amp;amp;c=109&amp;amp;v=13&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psa. 109:13&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Amo&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;v=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amos 4:2&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&amp;amp;c=11&amp;amp;v=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dan. 11:4&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the solution occurs in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&amp;amp;c=31&amp;amp;v=17&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jer. 31:17&lt;/a&gt; wherein we find the phrase וְיֵשׁ־תִּקְוָה לְאַחֲרִיתֵךְ, which could be translated as &quot;and there is hope for your posterity.&quot; In other words, although the Israelites were in captivity, &quot;they shall return from the land of the enemy&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&amp;amp;c=31&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jer. 31:16&lt;/a&gt;) and &quot;return to their border&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&amp;amp;c=31&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jer. 31:17&lt;/a&gt;). God would punish them by captivity, but they would be liberated and return to the promised land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, I believe Jer. 29:11 should be translated as &quot;a posterity and a hope.&quot; The hope of a captive Israel remained in the fact that as long as children existed, a future was certain for the people of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-06-30T04:13:43.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17190" CreationDate="2013-06-30T05:11:30.397" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Pe 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Strong's Greek heresies&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G139&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;αἵρεσις&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;hairesis&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;hah'ee-res-is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G138; properly a choice, that is, (specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion. (“heresy” is the Greek word itself.): - heresy [which is the Greekord itself], sect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Tit 3:10  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; &#xA;  Tit 3:11  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Strong's Greek heretic&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G139&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;αἵρεσις&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;hairesis&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;hah'ee-res-is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G138; properly a choice, that is, (specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion. &#xA;  (“heresy” is the Greek word itself.): - heresy [which is the Greekord itself], sect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Magical creatures would not be a heresy with any relation to the Christian faith as described in the Bible by a Bible Literalist. The creatures and beings never held any union with Christianity to disunion. A heretic according to the greek and bible context is someone who split off into a separate group and refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of other groups or receive correction by people they should be associated with. Heresy eventually leads to denying the Lord Jesus Christ Himself but not all things which deny Christ are heresy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 13:44  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Co 6:15  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? &#xA;  2Co 6:16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. &#xA;  2Co 6:17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luk 11:20  But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus very frequently used parables to tell stories however you notice that in every parable the power of God is absent. He does not make stories up about God using his power in any other way than through His ministry and the ministry of the prophets. Always his stories are relating some common principle and doctrine of the word. Jesus never describes God's power as a magic trick nor does he relate the majesty of His excellency in any other way than reverence. He never compares the devil and the Father in some kind of tug of war. He describes the power from God which is used to cast out devils as finger power, not hand and definitely not arm as if God is barely do anything. All other stories pale in comparison to those thought of by the Master however we can judge them by some of the characteristics which the master left for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Ti 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Ti 4:4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Ti 4:7  But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Tit 1:14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Pe 1:16  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G3454&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;μῦθος&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;muthos&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;moo'-thos&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Perhaps from the same as G3453 (through the idea of tuition); a tale, that is, fiction (“myth”): - fable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fable is a bad Bible word but despite the fact that the word fable can cover all fiction doesn't mean that it's Bible usage includes every possible work of fiction because as I just pointed out much of Jesus's ministry was fictions which told moral stories. 1Ti 1:4 the word heed could also be translated pay attention to or be cautious about with the central idea of regard and respect. Again 4:4 of the same book shows that people have gone further into idolatry and have stopped respecting the truth in favor of their work of fiction. Verse 7 points out the error of receiving heathenish or wicked old wives tales. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deu 12:2  Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: &#xA;  Deu 12:3  And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Children need to be taught to respect the word and to disrespect all other things which are not the word. The primary way you do this is by spending time with them in the word and prayer. Taking them to church where they have a fun time while learning God's word. Children have difficulty telling the difference between reality and fantasy and they need to be taught that certain commonly believed things are in fact imaginary. The Bible might call this destroying the altar or hewing down the graven image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 13:11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jas 4:17  Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you taught your children: This is just imaginary there is real supernatural power but it is not anything like this. There is no santa claus ect ect. We devote our life to believing in Jesus but Jesus does not need us to believe in Him. Abraham probably worshiped the moon before he met God like Abraham we don't worship the moon. Its just a rock. God does not tug of war with the devil its easy for Him. I'm certain you can show your children the movie and it would not be blaspheme. However if you have a doubt &quot;this might be sin&quot;, &quot;they might turn from Christ as a result of seeing it&quot; or the like you should refrain. You can find an in detail synopsis of the movie at the movie spoiler &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/riseguardians.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-06-30T05:34:25.900" LastActivityDate="2013-06-30T05:34:25.900" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17156" CreationDate="2013-06-30T10:10:57.173" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarum_Rite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, I find the Catholic Encyclopedia useful for historical queries. It has an article on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13479a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sarum Use&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Use of Sarum was initiated there (Salisbury) in the eleventh century and spread throughout southern England. It was suppressed by the English Reformation and especially during the reign of Elizabeth I.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/strong&gt; notes: During the few years of the reign of Mary Tudor an attempt was made in England to resuscitate the Sarum Use, which lingered on for sometime afterwards among the Seminary priests of persecution times; but it is now wholly obsolete, except, as the reader will have remarked, in so far as the Dominican, Carmelite and kindred Uses, cling, like that of Sarum, to certain liturgical practices derived from early Roman discipline, but which the Church has allowed to fall into desuetude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, once Catholicism was outlawed, the Use of Sarum with its associated ceremonial became all but impossible to celebrate outside seminaries, and even they were suppressed. When catholics became tolerated again (with the Catholic Relief Act of 1778), and restored in 1829, it was the Tridentine Rite to which English Catholics turned as that was most readily accessed from the continent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither of your options is really true: it was never suppressed by Rome, but it wasn't really a realistic option to recover.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Matthew has noted in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17187/1377&quot;&gt;his answer&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Anglicanorum coetibus&lt;/em&gt; has allowed Anglicans to join the Church [Yours Truly included], bringing their patrimony with them. It is a little ironic that elements of the Sarum Use are being re-introduced to the English Church with Anglicans influenced by the Oxford Movement, which made a conscious effort to draw on &quot;English&quot; pre-Reformation practices within the context allowed by law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-03-03T23:14:35.747" LastActivityDate="2019-03-03T23:14:35.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17168" CreationDate="2013-06-30T16:10:34.133" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The preliminary suggestion to make the four gospels part of the canon, came from a catholic Bishop Iranaeus of Lyons (France today) in c. 180.&#xA;He said there should be four because there are four beasts in the Apocalypse and because there are four corners of the earth. &#xA;The Church agreed and over the course of many years destroyed the competing Gospels. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Iranaeus' &lt;em&gt;Against Heresies&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, &quot;O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself.&quot; For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luckily the religious at that time buried many other Gospels (listed below) in the desert to be stored until they were discovered in the 20th. cent. During the 2nd. cent. there were some 40 - 50 Christian books, many attributed to the disciples of Jesus, including: The Book of Thomas the Contender; The Apocryphon of James; The Gospel of Philip; The Gospel of Thomas,  The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of Judas, The Secret Book of John, The Secret Book of James, The Gospel of Mary, and 40 others found recently at Nag Hammadi, and now in English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By AD 140, The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were in use for teaching of clergy. To these four were added the Shepherd of Hermas, The Gospel of Thomas, and the letters from Bishop Clement. And final decision on the canon was not made until AD 397, by the Catholic Bishops. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bibles into the 5th. cent. included The Shepherd, and letters from Clement, Bp of Rome. The final canon of the NT was not defined until the 16th. cent at the Council of Trent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All Protestant churches have followed the decision of the Roman Catholic Church on the books to be included in the NT - though not the actual wording approved by the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-06-30T18:59:12.357" LastActivityDate="2013-06-30T18:59:12.357" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15770" CreationDate="2013-06-30T18:39:07.467" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spiritual Gifts Inventory (SGI) is a type of material that is associated with the Church Growth Movement (CGM). It combines theology with sociological methodologies, including questionnaires, in this case for identifying Spiritual Gifts. All SGI materials are based on the assumption that gifts are given once and then remain with the bearer for life, a thought championed by Peter Wagner in his books about spiritual gifts. (A contrasting view can be found in the exegesis of James Dunn and Gordon Fee. Both interpret 1 Cor 12:7-11 as manifestations of the Spirit in the moment, based on many details in the text, including the fact that it is using the present tense for all verbs.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The first SGI material that was published was SGI-McMinn in 1972&lt;/strong&gt;. In order to avoid controversies it excluded gifts like tongues miracles and healing. Other popular tests that followed were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SGI-WMHQ (1979).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SGI-L (1984), a modification of SGI-McMinn.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;SGI-Gilbert (1986), the material presently being recommended by Church Growth Inc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: Pochek, Robert (2011) &lt;em&gt;Toward An Ecclesiocentric Model of Spiritual Gift Identification&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/3738&quot;&gt;http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/3738&lt;/a&gt; (+ &lt;em&gt;Jesus and the Spirit&lt;/em&gt;, by James Dunn and &lt;em&gt;God's Empowering Presence&lt;/em&gt; by Gordon Fee.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pochek has written a critical evaluation of the various SGI materials, and bases many of his arguments on the exegesis of Kenneth Berding. (See Berding, K. (2006). &lt;em&gt;What are spiritual gifts? : rethinking the conventional view&lt;/em&gt;. Grand&#xA;Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.) But regardless of ones view on the gifts as such, Pochek seem to be a credible source to provide an authoritative answer to my specific question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1407" LastActivityDate="2013-06-30T18:39:07.467" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17198" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16047" CreationDate="2013-06-30T20:59:21.320" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 3:20  And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.&#xA;Gen 3:21  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jas 5:11c that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 7:11  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jas 1:17  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gave gifts unto men. The Bible doesn't specifically say it had anything to do with blood sacrifices. It was a gift from the ultimate giver. James 1, Mathew 11, James 5 all show the Lord as giving for the sake of giving. That his gifts are good because He is good. Even if Adam and Eve had great clothes made from plants God still would have wanted to bless them with something better (especially if they had asked) as there is always something better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T19:35:45.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16020" CreationDate="2013-06-30T21:31:48.607" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Ti 4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;&#xA;1Ti 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Co 11:14  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jas 5:14  Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Bible literalist perspective having a vision of Jesus and the being in the vision telling you to follow anything other than the word of God would be a doctrine of a devil and a candidate for a work of the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Christian Psychologist perspective lots of people who are mentally sick have hallucinations involving religious figures and beings which tell them things from their own mind. This does not mean that all visions or religious experiences are false but it does mean that sometimes highly functional mentally ill people do have religious experiences not supported by the word of God (and sometimes even seemingly supported by the word of God). Its possible to induce a hallucination in an otherwise normal person through certain actions involving drugs and sometimes not involving drugs. Having psychotic episodes in such fashion is very dangerous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-06-30T21:31:48.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15935" CreationDate="2013-07-01T00:45:51.923" Score="-1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes being without faith, doubting and acting on that doubt by having Ishmael did not please God as Hebrews 11 tell us. We do not know if the displeasure of the Lord is why it took so long. I'm sure there were other reasons why the Lord was not pleased with Abraham during the time he was silent. It could be that even if Abraham had not had Ishmael and had walking in faith the whole 13 years it would have still taken 13 years for some other equally unknown reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-07-10T19:33:55.537" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T19:33:55.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15898" CreationDate="2013-07-01T03:25:26.523" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 14:12  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. &#xA;  Joh 14:13  And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. &#xA;  Joh 14:14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. &#xA;  Joh 14:15  If ye love me, keep my commandments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:1  Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:7  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. &#xA;  1Co 12:8  For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; &#xA;  1Co 12:9  To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; &#xA;  1Co 12:10  To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: &#xA;  1Co 12:11  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. &#xA;  1Co 12:29  Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? &#xA;  1Co 12:30  Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 13:13  And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is from a Word of Faith Bible literalist perspective. We will not write a new Bible but besides that everything recorded in the word of God done by ministers and lay people is equally available for ministers and lay people today. Every spiritual gift which is wrought by the Holy Spirit in the apostles of the first church is still in operation for the apostles of the current generations church who have faith. The word of God never declares an end to the gifts till knowledge itself passes away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T03:25:26.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16777" CreationDate="2013-07-01T04:05:47.630" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes Jesus was a Jew.  Not only was he born into a Jewish family and Jewish by birth right, we see that he is not what you might now call a &quot;secular jew&quot; in the modern day sense.  No, he respected the law and it's purpose as we see here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am&#xA;  not come to destroy, but to fulfil&quot; - Matt 5:17.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which means he placed himself under the law and so obeyed it's demands (note: not necessarily Jewish traditions).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there might have been &quot;Jewish religions&quot; or secs back then. Jesus followed only the one true religion which was what God told him to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment&#xA;  is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father&#xA;  who has sent me.&quot; - John 5:30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave&#xA;  me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.&quot; John&#xA;  12:49&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with this we see that he was called a Rabbi and had followers and taught in the synagogues.  Absolutely - He was a Jew!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that makes it clear to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T04:05:47.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16018" CreationDate="2013-07-01T04:31:17.657" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, you need to understand that the way God dealt with people under the old testament (or old covenant) is very different to the new. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many things that happened back then could not happen now.  For example, judgement. God is not going to strike people dead under the new covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?  because ALL judgement has been given to the son &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the&#xA;  Son&quot; - John 5:22.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus will one day return and Judge as is revealed in the book of Revelation.  But, he hasn't come back yet.  So until that time, you're not going to be struck down for making a mistake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So looking at the character of Jesus (who represents the Father), how does he deal with people?  He loves them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of the sort of thing that happened in the old testament, but with a very different outcome in the new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord,&#xA;  will you that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume&#xA;  them, even as Elijah did? 55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, You know not what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. - Luke 9:54 - 56&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know some people will look at what happened in Acts 5:9 and say God judged Ananias and Sapphira and try to rebut what I'm saying here.  But if you read acts 5 more carefully no where does it say that God struck them dead. And if what happened to them was God then you must ask yourself why God isn't killing Christians for lying.  I would say it's because it wasn't God who killed them.  If he was that harsh there wouldn't be any Christians to preach the Gospel and bring the good news!  Neither would he say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not.&#xA;  And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ&#xA;  the righteous:&quot; 1 John 1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not dealing with people like his was in the old testament.  And the reason is because of Jesus.  Jesus bore ALL of our sin at the cross. Now, people can be born again and made spiritually alive.  They can be set free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if some guy in 2013 claims that God told him to kill his son, you know for sure that wasn't an instruction from God.  God has not come to destroy men's lives but to save them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should further add that many of the events that occurred in the old testament were shadows (or images) of the Death/Burial and Resurrection of Jesus including Abraham being put to the test.  Can you see it?  It'll never happen again, we don't need another shadow when we have the reality in Jesus.  :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastEditorUserId="4711" LastEditDate="2013-07-01T04:43:33.803" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T04:43:33.803" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17212" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-01T08:57:59.520" Score="23" ViewCount="84556" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the practice of brides wearing veils have its origin in either the Bible or Christian tradition? If so, where exactly did it originate and what is it supposed to symbolize?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-31T12:07:49.250" LastActivityDate="2016-10-12T13:09:59.187" Title="What is the meaning and origin of bridal veils in Christian weddings?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;origin&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17214" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17219" CreationDate="2013-07-01T11:35:21.573" Score="14" ViewCount="2256" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have four books which describe the life of Jesus Christ from His birth to His death and resurrection. All the four Gospels are silent about the physical appearance of Jesus. It won't take much words to describe the appearance of Jesus. At least some few words for His height, complexion, hair color, hair length, hair style, ugly or handsome, voice and body size will suffice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any explicit/implicit reason why the Gospels are silent on the physical appearance of Jesus Christ?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2017-02-07T19:30:23.230" Title="Why are the Gospels silent on the physical appearance of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2017-02-08T00:09:44.263" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17214" CreationDate="2013-07-01T12:02:45.007" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;Eastern Orthodox Christians&lt;/strong&gt; (and, it seems to me, that for &lt;strong&gt;Catholics&lt;/strong&gt; also) this question is not an issue: we consider Gospels equally with &quot;Sacred Tradition&quot;. That means for us, that not everything what is known about Jesus Christ was written in Gospels, but was also represented in oral and iconographic tradition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 21:25 (KJV) And there are also many other things which Jesus did,&#xA;  the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even&#xA;  the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.&#xA;  Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Sacred Tradition includes iconographic description of Jesus appearance, given by&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa&quot;&gt;Image of Edessa (Mandylion)&lt;/a&gt;, which gives us the presentation of Jesus face&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin&quot;&gt;Shroud of Turin&lt;/a&gt;, which gives us the photographic presentation of Jesus body and face&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4842" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T12:02:45.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15956" CreationDate="2013-07-01T12:58:02.557" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assumed that everyone knows what happened to Torah, so here is the answer more simply put. This is the teaching of Judaism, but surely is important to Christianity. The Christian OT is taken from Judaism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, is a metaphor for the Torah in Judaism - which after all is where the Tree of Life comes from. In Torah, the Tree of Life is God's blueprint for his creation, and in Orthodox Judaism it existed prior to the creation. God is seen as the Architect working from His blueprint, Torah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.&lt;/em&gt;” Genesis 3:22, 23, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gave Torah to Moses at Sinai. Torah has been handed down to the present day, and is in every synagogue (that can afford it.) And it is in the Christian OT (the Hebrew version, not the Greek, of course, since the Hebrews consider that to be in error.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the tree of life is alive and well. I have a Jewish Book containing the five books of Moses (plus) and  whose cover title is &lt;em&gt;ETZ HAYIM&lt;/em&gt; which means Tree of Life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T12:58:02.557" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17214" CreationDate="2013-07-01T13:38:51.137" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The prophecy of Isaiah 53 asserts that Jesus would not have any extraordinary physical attributes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,&#xA;  And like a root out of parched ground;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;He has no stately form or majesty&#xA;  That we should look upon Him,&#xA;  Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;em&gt;Isaiah 53:2 NAS&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, this affirms that there was nothing extraordinary in His physical appearance, so He was not likely seven feet tall nor did He likely have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why this was the case, the second of the Ten Commandments asserts that we are not to even make any images that could be used in worship.  The lack of description of Jesus' appearance seems to have a preventative effect to this end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them... &lt;em&gt;Exodus 20:4-5a NAS&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T04:20:17.067" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T04:20:17.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15649" CreationDate="2013-07-01T18:28:02.430" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the answer to this question must lie with the reason that Moses and Elijah, specifically, are here. From the earliest times, it has been recognized that their role is to point to Jesus as the culmination of Law and Prophecy, since Moses is the pre-eminent figure with respect to the Law, as Elijah is the archetypal prophet. Moreover, there are specific parallels in the lives of all three - John Wesley specifically mentions &lt;em&gt;fasting&lt;/em&gt; (his Sermon 27, on Mt 6:16-18), and some others are discussed in Aquinas' &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 3.45.3 ad 3. So Augustine writes (Sermon 78, a.k.a. 28, on the Old Testament):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here is the Lord, here the Law and the Prophets, but the Lord as the Lord: the Law is in Moses, Prophecy in Elijah, but they are only as servants, as ministers. They are as vessels; he as the fountain. Moses and the Prophets spoke, and wrote: but when they poured out, they were filled from him.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and likewise Wesley (&lt;em&gt;Explanatory Notes&lt;/em&gt; on Matthew 17:3):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moses, the giver of the law, Elijah, the most zealous of all the prophets, and God speaking from heaven, all bore witness to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Methodist theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Wainwright&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Geoffrey Wainwright&lt;/a&gt; says that in Wesleyan thought, the Transfiguration is an &quot;extraordinary manifestation of the identity of the Son of God incarnate [...] a testimony to his divine and cosmic status and an exemplary promise of their glorious destiny to those who find their life in him.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Along this line of interpretation, the critical idea is &lt;em&gt;witness&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;testimony&lt;/em&gt;, whereby Moses and Elijah assist in making the nature of Jesus known to the disciples, and they in turn share it with the world. That meshes with the experience-based mode of conversion promoted by Wesley, who encouraged &quot;experience meetings&quot; wherein people would share their testimonies and manifest acts of prayer and devotion.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this connection, it's hard not to draw a parallel with a well-known section in Wesley's journal, from the end of April 1738:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I was much confirmed in the &quot;truth that is after godliness&quot; by hearing the experiences of Mr. Hutchins, of Pembroke College, and Mrs. Fox: two living witnesses that God can (at least, if He does not always) give that faith whereof cometh salvation in a moment, as lightning falling from heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hutchins and Fox, Moses and Elijah - acting as prophetic witnesses, sharing their own experience of God, and thereby provoking such experiences in others. Wainwright points to some hymns of Charles Wesley for the specific prefiguring role of Moses and Elijah, such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moses and the prophets speak&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  And witness to our Lord,&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Him and only Him we seek&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Throughout the sacred Word:&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  When we find the Saviour there,&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The figures and predictions shine,&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  Seen with Christ, they all declare&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;  The majesty Divine. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their knowledge, then, must be prophetic in nature, of the same kind now as it was in their earthly lives. It is not a mere repeating of facts they had been told, but a sharing of &quot;religious experience&quot; in the fullest sense - for Wesley, prophets are by nature miraculous, characterized as people &quot;on whom the Holy Ghost came in an extraordinary manner&quot; (his Sermon 115, on Hebrews 5:4). Both the Law and the Prophets point to Christ, and so both Moses and Elijah are here to continue their witness - presenting a testimony derived from the direct presence of the Holy Spirit. While we do not know exactly what they said, and in how much detail they described the events to come, the point is that they faithfully communicated the transcendence of Christ to the disciples. This is reflected in further Wesleyan hymns on the Luke passage, where the Transfiguration is presented as a model of communion with the divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &quot;&lt;em&gt;Hic Dominus, hic Lex et Prophetae : sed Dominus tanquam Dominus : Lex in Moyse, Prophetia in Elia; sed ipsi tanquam servi, tanquam ministri. Ipsi tanquam vasa : ipse tanquam fons. Moyses et Prophetae dicebant et scribebant: sed de illo implebantur quando fundebant.&lt;/em&gt;&quot; In Migne, &lt;em&gt;Patrologia Latina&lt;/em&gt; 38.490.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. &quot;The transfiguration of Jesus in Wesleyan exegesis and application&quot;, Geoffrey Wainwright. Ch. 20 in &lt;em&gt;Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice&lt;/em&gt;,&#xA;ed. S. T. Kimbrough, Jr. (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2005).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;Fits, trances and visions: Experiencing religion and explaining experience from Wesley to James&lt;/em&gt;, Ann Taves (Princeton University Press, 1999).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. &lt;em&gt;Hymns on the Four Gospels&lt;/em&gt;, no. 431 on Mt 17:3, in &lt;em&gt;The poetical works of John and Charles Wesley&lt;/em&gt;, vol. 10.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T18:28:02.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15881" CreationDate="2013-07-01T20:55:15.870" Score="-2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 26:28  For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Strong's Greek Word Testament&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G1242&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;διαθήκη&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;diathēkē&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;dee-ath-ay'-kay&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G1303; properly a disposition, that is, (specifically) a contract (especially a devisory will): - covenant, testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thesaurus Devisor &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Noun   1.  devisor - someone who devises real property in a will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;testate, testator - a person who makes a will&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 9:15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. &#xA;  Heb 9:16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. &#xA;  Heb 9:17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 5:6  For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. &#xA;  Rom 5:7  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. &#xA;  Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. &#xA;  Rom 5:9  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. &#xA;  Rom 5:10  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 10:19  Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, &#xA;  Heb 10:20  By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen 15:17  And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. &#xA;  Gen 15:18  In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 11:17  By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, &#xA;  Heb 11:18  Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: &#xA;  Heb 11:19  Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes Christ the testator did die to enact the New Will and Testament which brought us into the Kingdom of God. The word testament was used by Christ to describe his act of sacrifice for our sins. Strongs greek word for testament it specifically says the original word was a devisory will. I included the definition for devisory incase that word is unfamiliar. The Old covenant was a covenant established through the death of animals because of the willingness of Abraham to offer Isaac. There are no testators of the old covenant only partners. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I disagree with the other answer posted because it disagrees with Jesus and the writers of Hebrews 9 and offers a theological answer which does not properly reflect the words of Jesus nor the tone of the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-07-01T20:55:15.870" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14040" CreationDate="2013-07-01T21:11:51.380" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only recorded connection between original sin and baptism appears to be in the Catechism of the Catholic Church &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness...&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1250.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 1250&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I can find no connection in scripture between the two, not during the time of Christ nor later. Saint Paul is the very first to make a connection between Original Sin and Adam in his Roman Epistle (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5%3A12-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12-21&lt;/a&gt;), but neither he, Christ nor the original apostles draw any connection between baptism and original sin within canonical gospel. Moreover, Saint Augustine muddies the water further by stating that those born of baptized parents have no need to be baptized:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, &quot;Our Father,&quot; who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1307.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, Paragraph 16&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clear that the above Catechism reference was certainly required as clarification. However, it remains that there is no scriptural source for any direct association between original sin and a subsequent requirement for baptism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the use of David's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+51%3A5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 51:5&lt;/a&gt; in this argument is unjustified. The Psalms were composed by David while he was a wanted fugitive running from King Saul. It was common practice in ancient times (to some extent today) to blame all misfortune on sin or wickedness. Therefore, no further expansion was made of this within Jewish worship. Subsequently, Original Sin is not contained within the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jewish Talmud&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4975" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T04:15:11.863" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T04:15:11.863" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7069" CreationDate="2013-07-01T21:30:41.013" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to offer a few small thoughts on the highly complex area of end-times, especially in relation to Douglas Hamp's article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.douglashamp.com/the-fig-tree-has-budded/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'The Fig Tree has Budded'&lt;/a&gt; which seems to offer confirmatory evidence of a theory previously held, rather than explanatory the events recorded by Bible writers in the first century. My own personal approach begins from the formal principles of proposing explanations such as those found, for example, in Copernican astronomy. A small introduction may be useful to identify a formal principle; a state of affairs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Problem of self-as center.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To earthlings, the earth's centrality seemed intuitive and one-hundred percent certain, simply confirmed by a single observation (the sun moves) and a conclusion (therefore we are stationary and central). This simplistic intuitive start-finish second century theory placed humanity in the Dark Ages until 1543, when the confusion of Geo-centrism was refuted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;The principle:&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Assuming Self as Center ignores observable facts. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ignoring observable facts leads to distorted theories.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore false assumptions lead to distorted theory.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Self not Center - the Fact Approach; A State of Affairs. &lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Copernicus's '&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1543droc.book/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;De Revolutionibus&lt;/a&gt;' put earth in its proper State of Affairs - or context. The wise astronomer gathered all of the facts first, and then found the proper combination of all of the facts that corresponded to observation. A State of Affairs results when all facts are placed in their proper observable relation. Copernicus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;recorded the orbital 'year' of planets - &lt;em&gt;chronological relation&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;determined their position from their orbital 'year' - &lt;em&gt;ordinal relation&lt;/em&gt; and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;moved the earth from the center- &lt;em&gt;relation to motion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this came under observation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seemed crazy at the time because it ran counter to me-as-center model. However an observation based model was the base for the entire scientific age from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kepler's Ellipses&lt;/a&gt;, to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galileo's laws of motion&lt;/a&gt;, to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Newton's gravity&lt;/a&gt;, and later to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Einstein's Relativity&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Principle; &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All true theory is an acquaintance with observable facts. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Observable facts lead to predict more observable facts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore all true theories predict more observable facts and ignoring observation leads to false theories. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Applied to Douglas Hamp - Self as Center Assumption.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two set of facts to be explained in end-times: First century &lt;em&gt;Time Facts&lt;/em&gt; and First century &lt;em&gt;Descriptive Facts&lt;/em&gt;. The problem I see is that Doug's view takes Descriptive Facts and; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;intuitively assumes they are literal, and &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;proves our generation&quot; is the end-time. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is reading the Bible in the same intuitive way as reading the sun moves, it makes the first century Bible facts central to us. This creates two problems (21st Century problems as well as a First Century problems) instead of solving the First Century problem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One one hand we observe:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First Century &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;time theory&lt;/a&gt; of Jesus that has no First Century descriptive meaning&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;21st Century &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory#Normative_and_descriptive_decision_theory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;descriptive theory&lt;/a&gt; created out of modern signs, has no 21st century time facts: no 2000 years; no gap; no comings; and no delay. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in just a little while, the Coming One will come and not delay.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/hebrews/10-37.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb 11:37 NLT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have a First Century promises in that generation empty of events, and a &quot;future to me&quot; 21st Century descriptive theory missing 2000 year time facts, and has failed in every generation since the First Century, disregarding Jesus' very words; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass from the scene before all these things take place&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/mark/13-30.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mk 13:30 NLT&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus went on to say, &quot;I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Kingdom of God arrive in great power!&quot;&#xA;  [Mk 9:1 NLT[(&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/mark/9-1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://biblehub.com/mark/9-1.htm&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/nlt/matthew/23.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mt 23:35-36 NLT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/nlt/matthew/26.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mt 26:64 NLT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both cannot be correct, as no two truths contradict. If Doug is right, Jesus was wrong. If Jesus was right, then Doug is wrong. Doug takes self as center in the 21st Century and reasons forward. But to understand Jesus we must look backward to the First Century state of affairs that existed in Jesus' own generation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Principle&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Assuming Self as Center ignores observable facts. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ignoring observable facts leads to distorted theories, therefore false assumptions lead to distorted theory.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt; A State of Affairs.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 21st Century model starts with me-as-center, but cannot explain First Century time facts; assumes Bible terms are only literal; deduces a future-to-me literal coming that has no time fact; cannot be proven, demonstrated, falsified or observed; and is based on the circular argument, 'We know He will return because He hasn't returned yet.' This creates two puzzles! However Jesus said he would &lt;code&gt;return in clouds with power&lt;/code&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/mark/13-26.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mk 13:26&lt;/a&gt;) in the First Century generation and they would see Him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/revelation/1-7.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev 1:7&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Principle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;*All true End-time theory is an acquaintance with observable time facts. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Observable time facts lead to explain more observable time facts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore all true theories predict more observable facts. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ignoring observation leads to false theories.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doug Camp ignores Jesus' own time facts.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion - looking back to Jesus' First Century time facts.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Douglas Hamp's view seems to ignore the plain time facts spoken by Jesus and recorded by the apostles to satisfy a self-as-center application. A more objective approach would be to look back to the First Century context to find the biblical meanings of biblical terms, understand the Jewish context in which it was written as well as well as the causes of events, and only then try to explain descriptive facts in the state of affairs that existed in the First Century. This is the standard method of inquiry used by work-a-day historians of note. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;The simple principle &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophesies and signs promised in speech and written to the First Century people applied to them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4976" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T04:04:12.623" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T04:04:12.623" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17212" CreationDate="2013-07-01T21:47:01.383" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would seem the veiled bride (Temple) is from the Word itself!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 3:28,29 John the Baptist says: “Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. &lt;strong&gt;He that hath the bride is the bridegroom”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ’s work on the cross was “finished” the “temple veil was rent” (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45) and the “Holy of Holies” in the Temple was unveiled.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Ephesians 5:25 “for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.  Husbands, &lt;strong&gt;love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;and gave himself for it&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could and if qualified one should study the nuances between “veil” and “vail”.  However, in my brief non-credentialed study “vail” is an archaic rendering of “veil”.  In both cases a veil/vail is a covering.  The vail between the Holy place and the Holy of Holies was also used as a covering over the arc of the covenant when in transit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Veiling and unveiling are significant considerations as in 2 Corinthians 3:13-18: “And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law veiled the heart but Christ unveiled believers (the Church) so “with open face we can behold the glory of the Lord”.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to John the Baptist Jesus is the Bridegroom&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Gospels when Christ “gave up the ghost” the temple (Church) veil was torn in half.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Paul there is a real parallel between Christ and the Church and husbands and wives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to John in Revelation the Bride is the lambs (Christ’s) wife (Ephesians 5:27) “That he (Christ) might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have nothing outside of Scripture to make the claims that I have made, so I do not know if and when the Church adopted bridal veiling but I believe I can speak with confidence that the above verses would be the best reason for it to do so!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-07-03T18:00:09.073" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T18:00:09.073" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17227" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-02T02:20:50.880" Score="-2" ViewCount="11746" Body="&lt;p&gt;Proponent of King James bible themselves points the differences between King James and modern standard. If we assume the modern translation is accurate, that means KJV must be quite wrong then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrines that they complain about are significant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let the heathen rage, God is still on His throne!  To those who love&#xA;the Lord Jesus Christ enough to protect the Doctrine of Christ (2nd&#xA;John 1:9), the King James Bible is unquestionably the ONLY Bible&#xA;standing true to that purpose.  ALL modern versions attack the deity&#xA;of Christ, His virgin birth, the blood of Jesus, the Godhead, the&#xA;reality of Hellfire, and the sinlessness of Christ.  Don't believe it?&#xA;Hundreds of words, phrases, and even entire Bible verses were removed&#xA;from the Word of God by the NIV butchers.  Take a look at all the&#xA;words REMOVED just from the New International version alone...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas the King James Bible mentions the &amp;quot;Godhead&amp;quot; three times, the&#xA;NIV has completely removed the word.  You won't find the word&#xA;&amp;quot;propitiation&amp;quot; in the NIV either.  In fact, all of the following words&#xA;have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration,&#xA;mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent,&#xA;Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, et cetera.  One&#xA;of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where&#xA;Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the &amp;quot;only BEGOTTEN Son of God.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, that's right, the NIV butchers removed the word &amp;quot;begotten&amp;quot; from&#xA;John 3:16.  How in the name of truth and justice could any professed&#xA;Christian use the New International Version?  Yet, it's the most&#xA;popular bible version sold on the market today.  If I had a billion&#xA;dollars, I'd make an offer to churches all across America.  I'd&#xA;exchange brand new King James Bibles for their perverted NIVs.  I'd&#xA;give them new Bibles for their old corrupt bibles.  They would first&#xA;have to give me their NIVs so I could BURN THEM!  I'd burn every NIV I&#xA;could find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's not all that the wicked NIV deceivers took out of the Bible.&#xA;The word &amp;quot;sodomite&amp;quot; is completely gone, as is the words: fornication,&#xA;trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate,&#xA;backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer,&#xA;damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit.  I'm not kidding, go&#xA;check for yourself!  All these words in the King James Bible have been&#xA;stricken from the New International Version.  We ought to call it the&#xA;H.I.V., because it's more deadly than the AIDS virus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Atheists have their own complain about KJV bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The King James Version of the New Testament&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were (and still are) no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, 21st Century Christians believe the “Word of God” is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8000 contradictory copies of 4th Century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That’s not faith. That’s insanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References: &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/MbXj7Z&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://bit.ly/MbXj7Z&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/Mymb9J&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://bit.ly/Mymb9J&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what atheists claim. If the most popular version of the bible in history is so messed up, can we believe that God take care of gospels?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also heard that King James are actually homosexuals and many verses are heavily influenced by political interests at that time. Also many important christian doctrines, like shedding of blood is necessary for forgiveness of sin (which is nowhere mentioned in the bible explicitly) is added. In fact, that's why we have King James only movement. Namely that they defend doctrines only relevant if your bible is king james.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sample claims: &lt;a href=&quot;http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/king-james-was-gay.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/king-james-was-gay.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-11-04T05:24:18.183" Title="How accurate is King James' Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="18" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-07-02T12:33:23.227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17229" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17232" CreationDate="2013-07-02T04:33:18.797" Score="6" ViewCount="4765" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14976/can-people-in-heaven-communicate-with-each-other/14979#14979&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; question, under Mawia's answer, Narnian made the comment:      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This uses an example taken from before payment for sins were made. Thus, it does not refer to heaven, but to Paradise&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between &quot;heaven&quot; and &quot;paradise&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T14:46:48.190" Title="What is the difference between Heaven and Paradise?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-04T11:37:35.617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17229" CreationDate="2013-07-02T06:23:41.767" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the LXX, the Greek word παράδεισος (&lt;em&gt;paradeisos&lt;/em&gt;) was used to translate the Hebrew phrase גַּן עֵדֶן (&lt;em&gt;gan eden&lt;/em&gt;), otherwise known in English as &quot;the Garden of Eden&quot; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LXX Gen. 3:24&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Παράδεισος occurs in the LXX in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen. 2:8-10, 2:15-16, 3:1-3, 3:8, 3:10, 3:23-24, 13:10; Num. 24:6; 2 Chr. 33:20; Eccl. 2:5; Song 4:13; Sir. 24:30, 40:17, 40:27; Psa. Sol. 14:3; Joel 2:3; Isa. 1:30, 51:3; Jer. 36:5; Eze. 28:13, 31:8-9; Sus. 1:4, 1:7, 1:15, 1:17-18; 1:20, 1:25-26; 1:36, 1:38, 1:54&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Παράδεισος occurs in the ΝΤ in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&amp;amp;c=23&amp;amp;v=43&amp;amp;t=KJV#43&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 23:43&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;v=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Cor. 12:4&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=7&amp;amp;t=KJV#7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rev. 2:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yeshu'a told the thief on the cross, «σήμερον μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ», that is, &quot;Today you shall be with me in the Paradise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his second epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paulos wrote how &quot;a man in Christ...was caught up unto the third heaven.&quot; He then elaborates that this man was likewise &quot;caught up into the Paradise&quot; (ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.v.xii.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Some&lt;/a&gt; interpret this as meaning that this man was caught up unto the third heaven and then into Paradise. If this is so, should we understand it that the Paradise is even higher and loftier than the third heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T06:23:41.767" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13851" CreationDate="2013-07-02T06:55:14.210" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, as per Wikipedia (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&lt;/a&gt;), both parents, Monica and Patricius, were North African Berbers, the former being a Berber Christian, the latter being a citizen of Rome and whose family was classed as belonging to the plebeian clan (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelia_%28gens%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelia_%28gens%29&lt;/a&gt;). According to this Patricius was a Roman in the sense that he was a citizen of Rome, though ethnically speaking he was a Berber.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4982" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T06:55:14.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17243" CreationDate="2013-07-02T08:47:07.770" Score="5" ViewCount="563" Body="&lt;p&gt;The necessity of &lt;strong&gt;salvation&lt;/strong&gt; in Christian doctrine seems to be inextricably linked to the view that the entirety of human nature somehow springs from the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gametes&lt;/a&gt; (and perhaps education) of a single original breeding pair (&lt;strong&gt;Adam and Eve&lt;/strong&gt;'s nature &amp;amp; nurture). From the &lt;strong&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and&#xA;  justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all&#xA;  human beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded&#xA;  by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and&#xA;  justice; this deprivation is called &quot;original sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its&#xA;  powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death,&#xA;  and inclined to sin (this inclination is called &quot;concupiscence&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paul&lt;/strong&gt;'s writings had a large role in the development of this theology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and&#xA;  through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned&#xA;  (Romans 5.12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern &lt;strong&gt;biology&lt;/strong&gt; doesn't allow the possibility that there ever was a &lt;strong&gt;bottleneck of two&lt;/strong&gt; (or perhaps even one, given that Eve was cloned from the ribs of Adam) in Homo Sapiens history:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/nature10231.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Humans&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Population bottleneck&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-standoff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So can the ancestral sin theology and the foundational Pauline writings stand in the absence of an original breeding pair, or do they become meaningless?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Since this is &lt;strong&gt;not a truth question, but a theological inference&lt;/strong&gt; question please see the comment to avoid arguing uselessly outside the question)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4813" LastEditorUserId="4813" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T12:38:20.613" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T16:46:52.887" Title="Can the ancestral sin doctrine (and Paul's epistles) survive without a single breeding pair?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;evolution&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17234" CreationDate="2013-07-02T12:15:15.890" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Preface that this isn't a site for debating what is true, it's merely for learning what s taught/believed within Christianity.  See  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1808/how-we-are-different-than-other-sites&quot;&gt;How we are different than other sites?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, most of your question is off-topic, but I believe that the core concept from your question can be addressed if we phrase it as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any Christian groups believe that without a literal Adam, the concept of original sin has no meaning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to answer that portion, in the interest of answering the heart of the question, filtering out the portions that are off-topic and/or controversial/disputed within Christian circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The short answer is tat yes, some Christians, namely Young-Earth Creationists teach and believe exactly that.  Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and other well-known YEC proponents teach exactly that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One such example from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/node/4065/9615&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCEL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is it important:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Well, if there was no first Adam, could there also not be a second&#xA;  Adam, our LORD Jesus Christ? For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ&#xA;  shall all be made alive...it is written, The first man Adam was made a&#xA;  living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.&quot; 1&#xA;  Corinthians 15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If death did not come as result of Adam's sin, then why did we need a&#xA;  savior to deliver us from death unto life? &quot;Just as sin entered the&#xA;  world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way&#xA;  death came to all men, because all sinned&quot;- Romans 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Was Jesus' real if his geneaology account is not trustworthy? Jesus&#xA;  was the son of Joseph, who was the son of ..., the son of Seth, the&#xA;  son of Adam (Luke 3) - Can the Word of God be trusted for its specific&#xA;  geneaology or is it mythology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also posted on the subject at &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10051/why-do-young-earth-creationists-make-such-a-big-deal-about-the-yec-view&quot;&gt;Why do Young-Earth Creationists make such a big deal about the YEC view&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all Christians see it thus way, of course.  This represents only one view within Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T12:15:15.890" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17234" CreationDate="2013-07-02T12:17:37.210" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Firstly, this site is NOT a place for searching the TRUTH)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can the ancestral sin doctrine (and Paul's epistles) survive without a single breeding pair?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; NO&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we reject the Biblical story that humanity started from a single pair, the whole christian concept of Sin and Salvation is meaningless. If evolution is true and that humanity started from multiple couples, then the &amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;original sin&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot; concept may not apply to all mankind. Some will born with sin and some without, which infers that Jesus did not have to die for all of mankind but only for those who are born from sinful parents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Can we find anyone without sin?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer&lt;/strong&gt;: I don't think so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It won't be an easy thing to find a person who can boastfully say that he/she is without sin. Many times we fool ourselves into thinking that we are good enough but I say it is only due to our self righteousness nature. We never see other's fault but when we erred, we make excuses. Believe it when the Bible says &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;No one is perfect&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;. Jesus even once proved this to the Jewish religious leaders that no one is  righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 8:1-11 (NKJV) -Excerpt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the scribes&#xA;and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they&#xA;had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was&#xA;caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded&#xA;us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”  So when they&#xA;continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;He&#xA;who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.”&#xA;Then those who heard it, &lt;strong&gt;being convicted by their conscience, went&#xA;out one by one&lt;/strong&gt;, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And&#xA;Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus&#xA;had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,&#xA;“Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”&#xA;She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn&#xA;you; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;go and sin no more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we agree to the fact that no one is exempted from sinning, then we can make a clear deduction that Bible is true and that Adam and Eve were the first couple by which, through their disobedience the whole humanity is under the power of SIN.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T12:29:04.897" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17227" CreationDate="2013-07-02T12:30:43.123" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is much misinformation in the article you cite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The King James Version&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, there were not merely eight people who translated the KJV, but 47, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia attests&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Manuscript Variance&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true, too, that no two original language manuscripts are identical.  However, the differences are, in the vast number of cases, meaningless or minute.  In only a few cases is there really any question of meaning, but none of these brings into questions any doctrine of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The differences largely consist of spelling variances, oftentimes in proper names like Moses or Capernaum.  This is akin to the variant spelling of color and colour.  Another major difference is word order, but in Greek this has not impact on meaning or translation.  This is akin to saying either &amp;quot;I am going to the store&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;To the store I am going&amp;quot;.  So, again, are there differences?  Yes.  But is the meaning changed at all?  No. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6097/what-major-discrepancies-exist-between-versions-of-the-bible&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; for more examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the fact that scholarship continued to unearth new manuscripts shows the seriousness with which translation is done.  There are codexes &lt;a href=&quot;http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;that date back to the 400s&lt;/a&gt; not discovered until the 1800s, and of course, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dead Sea Scrolls&lt;/a&gt; unearthed in 1957 that weren't available to the translators of the KJV - and they prove how good that translation is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Invention&lt;/em&gt; of the KJV&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The King James Version is, indeed, the most used translation of all time.  However, the assertion that this is some invention of 16th Century religious fanatics with a message of their own to propagate is absolutely absurd.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The KJV is not the first translation of the Bible at all.  It isn't even the first translation into English.  Prior to that was the Wycliffe translation, Bishop's Bible, the Matthew's Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and others.  All of these versions are extremely similar, and the differences have to do with either difficulties in translating a particular word or phrase or in the selection of close synonyms in English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These also conform to the previous Latin translations, so the KJV is an accurate translation of a preponderance of evidence that supports the original readings. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Textus Recptus&lt;/a&gt; on which it was based literally means &amp;quot;the received text&amp;quot; because it was so widely used &lt;em&gt;and translated&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, even if the King James Version &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11904/what-version-of-the-bible-is-closest-to-the-hebrew-aramaic-and-greek-manuscript&quot;&gt;isn't the best available today&lt;/a&gt;, there are &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11904/what-version-of-the-bible-is-closest-to-the-hebrew-aramaic-and-greek-manuscript&quot;&gt;lots of other translations available.&lt;/a&gt; That they differ so little is testament to how ridiculous it is to assert that there was any form of collusion.  Indeed, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1143/how-can-one-judge-how-accurate-a-given-bible-translation-is/1190#1190&quot;&gt;there are even questions on this site about how to judge the accuracy of the text yourself&lt;/a&gt; and published tools &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8466/how-do-i-track-the-history-of-changes-to-a-given-verses-actual-text-how-do-i-d&quot;&gt;you can consult see how the various manuscripts came together&lt;/a&gt; to give us what we have today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the article you cite might be amusing to the unlearned who are hostile to Christianity, but it is factually wrong on many points and dishonest about historical realities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if all that were true, it would be pretty amazing that such a book would be banned by so many countries, attacked by so many secular philosophers, and hated by so many atheists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some have predicted the death of both God and His Word, yet its pulse today is stronger than ever, and its message continues to reach into the most remote and most hostile places of the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many who have tried to disprove its message have convinced themselves, against their own will, of its truthfulness, and have come to faith in Christ (Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Simon Greenleaf and others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many others who have been prisoners of depravity, in the depths of corruption, or on the brink of suicide, have found hope and peace and fulfillment in its pages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is not a bad record for a book that is supposedly a man-made invention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-01-24T09:59:15.447" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17181" CreationDate="2013-07-02T12:31:30.340" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;coreness&amp;quot; of your stated doctrines should really be divided into two groups:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Group 1 (Requires Explanation - See Below)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doctrine of the Trinity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deity of Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Group 2 (A Lot! see Methodists in particular)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Predestination&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Millenialism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dispensationalism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrines in Group 2 are actually rather narrow in scope and are rarely considered requirements outside of certain Bible Church cultures. Indeed, finding all three together would be difficult in many places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dispensationalism&lt;/a&gt;, for example, pretty much didn't exist until Darby Ryrie in the 1800s. Outside of hardcore fundamentalist Baptist or evangelical Bible churches, the actual scheme of different salvations for different time periods is fairly rare.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Millenialism&lt;/a&gt;, popularized by the &lt;em&gt;Left Behind&lt;/em&gt; books and Hal Lindsay is a 20th Century thing. (Ok, we can see its roots in the 1800s with Millerism, etc... too.  But the point is, it doesn't have the same tenure as say Trinitarianism.) The Roman Catholic Church explicitly rejects Millennialism, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Predestination&lt;/a&gt; typically is reserved for Calvinistic movements. Methodists, for example, completely reject the notion.  Even &amp;quot;Free Will Baptists&amp;quot; reject Calvinistic notions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, to find a church that doesn't consider anything in Group 2 to be &amp;quot;core&amp;quot; you have a whole lot of latitude - Everything from Orthodox to Roman Catholic to Methodist to Episcopalian to even liberal Baptist. These are issues that are more likely to be selectors &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; a church rather than against.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Group 1 Options&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Group 1 is harder because the formulations are much, much more ancient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Doctrine of the Trinity was most famously formulated in the Nicene Creed of 325 AD - one of the most fundamental tenant of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/what-is-mainstream-christianity&quot;&gt;what most of the world assumes you are talking about when you say &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;  Likewise, Jesus' Deity is something that I, as an Evangelical, would say is fundamental to Scripture, but objectively can be seen to permeate the writings of Paul, John, and other 1st Century Christians. In rejecting those, I suspect one would naturally hold a much &amp;quot;looser&amp;quot; understanding of Scripture than again what most would consider &amp;quot;Mainstream.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, those are the core doctrines that would make you uncomfortable in a Roman Catholic Church, for example.  (Some more liberal churches like certain Methodist or Episcopalian ones might let you pass, but that's at the congregational level, not the denomination.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mormons (LDS)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For rejection of the Trinity and the creeds, the LDS (Mormon) Church is in agreement with you. Likewise, Jesus' divinity is more nuanced. Additionally, their emphasis on feeling doctrine would make you feel at home - but make no mistake, there is a very definite Mormon Orthodoxy that might rear its head on other issues you haven't listed.  Subjectively, I consider them to be highly orthopractic, meaning they are highly concerned with &amp;quot;right action,&amp;quot; although not to the level of a Holiness movement church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a movement, however, Mormons are quite large and growing rapidly - and thus easy to find.  It would be a church that would make your consideration list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jehovah's Witness&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Jehovah's Witness reject the Trinity and the notion that Jesus is God.  Famously their &amp;quot;New World Translation&amp;quot; says that Jesus is &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; God, not &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; God. Again there, however, the rejection of these doctrines does not mean that they do not hold very rigidly to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, JW's are characterized by a radical rejection of racism, and are one of the most integrated 'churches' out there. This leads many to understand JW's as very 'tolerant,' but again, fidelity to core doctrines is rigid, and excommunication happens with some regularity if there is a perceived lack of fidelity to core teachings. Being thrown out of the very tight-knit community is a highly charged thing for JWs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, speaking as one who grew up in a Bible Church, I suspect you would find JW's treatment of Scripture to be downright maddening.  While they do not have their own Scriptures that add to the Bible (like, say, the Mormons, and bearing in mind that the WatchTower comes closes), their translation of the Bible &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; considered authoritative, and certain peculiar translations that are authoritative may drive you nuts.  (&amp;quot;I and the Father are One &lt;em&gt;in Unity&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot; I'm looking at you!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unitarian Universalists&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are looking for a denomination that is most at home holding doctrines in general loosely, your &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; bet would probably be Unitarianism.  Tom Lehrer famously joked in the 60s, &amp;quot;How do you get a Unitarian out of your neighborhood? Burn a Question Mark on his lawn.&amp;quot;  Unitarians explicitly reject the Trinity (hence their name) and like the Ba'hai understand all religions to have Divine Truth.  Most famously Ralph Waldo Emerson was a Unitarian - and since he grew up &amp;quot;Christian,&amp;quot; Unitarians are often lumped together with Christians by scholars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, most Nicene Christians would reject the idea that Unitarians are Christian at all.  Their rejection of such fundamental doctrines and what they would view as out and out syncretism makes them suspect to the eye of one grounded in the Scriptures. I say this not as condemnation but again, to place them in a mental model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The 'Emerging Church' ala Brian McLaren&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, you might also find some traction, as these seeker-friendly churches seek, in almost Agile-like Manifesto.  From Brian McLaren:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An awareness of and attempt to reach those in the changing postmodern culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An attempt to use technology, i.e., video, slide shows, internet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A broader approach to worship using candles, icons, images, sounds, smells, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An inclusive approach to various, sometimes contradictory belief systems.1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An emphasis on experience and feelings over absolutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concentration on relationship-building over proclamation of the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shunning stale traditionalism in worship, church seating, music, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A de-emphasis on absolutes and doctrinal creeds&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A re-evaluation of the place of the Christian church in society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A re-examination of the Bible and its teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A re-evaluation of traditionally-held doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A re-evaluation of the place of Christianity in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like Unitarians (only with a more modern bent), the rap is the same - they stand for so much change, so much 'people over process' that it is tempting for some Christians to ask if they stand for anything at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-09-16T21:15:04.577" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17181" CreationDate="2013-07-02T13:20:14.947" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seem to be two tacks to take here. You could be looking for…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a church that specifically &lt;em&gt;does not&lt;/em&gt; believe in these doctrines at all, or…&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a church that is welcoming enough to include you in their community without prerequisite of doctrinal unity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Let's take the easy one first.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the doctrinal points you list as believing they are flawed, several  items are already nearly mutually exclusive. For example, it would be hard to find a church that held fast to both predestination &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; dispensationalism. While a few individuals may profess some such jumbled creed, in broader strokes they just don't go together. However, these points are usually considered to be &quot;non essential&quot; doctrines and don't &lt;em&gt;in themselves&lt;/em&gt; define Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still this will be a short list because, if you allow me to be blunt, you've pretty much ruled out two of the very most foundation beliefs of Christianity. Christianity without the Trinity and without the Deity of Christ is, according to a vast majority (probably most easily labeled at the broadest level as &quot;Nicene Christianity&quot;) not Christianity at all. I would group the short list of exceptions into two categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sects with specific but non-Nicene beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few sects that don't hold to the usual formulations of these doctrines. For example Mormonism comes to mind. They don't believe in the Trinity the way Nicene Christians do and their version of divinity is also quite different. However for the purpose of your question, it is also worth noting that they require a high degree of conformity to their beliefs in order to &quot;belong&quot; so that is probably not what you're looking for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sects without specific beliefs of any sort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few denominations that still call themselves Christian even after having thrown all its teachings to the wind. The list of doctrines these groups consider &quot;essential&quot; is a short list indeed. On it you will not find the Trinity, Jesus' Divinity, the authority of Scripture, or other notable doctrines from the rest of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unitarianism is probably the biggest name in this group. These guys pretty much don't care what you believe as long as you believe something. Doesn't matter why. Their version of community is basically secular humanism plus a few moral values or spiritual ideas vaguely defined as being related to God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;While not denominations, there are quite a few individual churches, often centered around some charismatic leader, that have gone this way. Examples might be Rob Bell or Joel Osteen. These 'churches' have abandoned the idea of creedal belief statements being what unites a church and put people and culture first, leaving the details of theology in their communities to play out however they will.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Tracking down folks in the second group will be much harder...&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... but in the end the result might be much better for you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what this boils down to. There is a huge spectrum inside Christianity as far as how &quot;outsiders&quot; are treated. Some churches won't give you time time of day if you don't show up in your choir robe with your signed confession in perfect conformity. Others will take a trippin' hippie that wandered in off the street thinking it was an ice cream shop and make them feel awkward with a giant hug and smothering attention just for existing no matter what they believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what makes the difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference, I propose, is in how intentional the church is in living out what it believes. Now please don't get me wrong: I'd be equally uncomfortable in either of the two extreme caricatures I painted just now. In fact I would go so far as to say both are, in their own ways, wrong. Wrong because each extreme tends to be very weak on the other side of the spectrum.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So where is right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians throughout the ages (Old Testament, see: Ten Commandments. New Testament, see: Jesus two point summary of the law) have been called to two things: loving God and loving our neighbor. On the one hand we must know and worship God as he deserves. On the other hand we must seek to show the kind of love he showed us to those around us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me take the second point first. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who is our neighbor? I think I still speak for a significant majority across many major denominational lines when I identify the neighbor we are supposed to love as you. You plural. In fact all the yous. This goes for our fellow man, whether God fearing believes-just-like-us or the total pagan stranger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it weren't for the fact that we're all miserable sinners, you should be able to meet and hang out with any Christian at all and be welcomed, loved and cared for no matter where your beliefs are at. That doesn't mean they will accept your beliefs, but theirs is a kind of community (extending in all directions by default) that you should be able to fall right into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now for the first point. And this is going to be troublesome. Why? Because…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;… you don't love God.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes I know how harsh that sounds. Half the people who read the first half of this post nodding away and probably voted it up after just the first paragraph probably reached to undo their vote before the 5 minute timeout when they saw this heading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allow me to explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, my definitions are going to get less ecumenical. At least until the next header, what I saying will be a general reflection of Reformed theology at the exclusion of Catholic and several other traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't love God because you don't know God. You don't know who is is or what he is like. Because you don't know God, the thing you think you love is not even God at all, but some figment of your imagination and you might as well be worshiping a different god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Worshiping God wrongly is tantamount to worshiping the wrong god(s). — &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kevinbywater.com/?p=561&quot;&gt;Kevin ByWater&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps an illustration will help. Perhaps you read the Chronicles of Narnia as a kid and were mesmerized by the description of Turkish Delight. You'd never had any but you knew it was your new favorite dessert. Your mouth watered. In your childhood dream world it was served after every meal. Then one day you were grown up and actually ran across the stuff in an import shop or you traveled to Turkey. The stuff you just ate was entirely different from Lewis's famous description and quite different from your childhood imaginations. Maybe you liked it, maybe you didn't. The point was, before you had an encounter with it and *&lt;em&gt;knew&lt;/em&gt;*what it really was, it could not be properly be said that you &quot;loved&quot; it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a trite example but loving God is not so different. If we completely mis-identify who he is and love a God that is our version of what God should be rather than what he is, we cannot really be said to love him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any church that takes the business of loving God seriously will also concern itself with knowing who He is and what He is like. It will matter to them that He might have specific preferences, things that please Him and others that displease Him. They will not accept your make-believe God as an accurate reflection of the real thing without first examining the evidence. They will not try to soft-pedal the idea of absolute truth. But they will also realize that they cannot cram it down anybody's throat. In fact they will believe that short of a miraculous work of God you &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; believe like they do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this in mind they will welcome you into their hearts and homes and show you real grace as part of a community knowing full well that you are not (yet) on the same doctrinal page. There will be lines: you will be only able to observe but not participate in a few sacramental actions such as the Lord's Supper, but they will not exclude you as an outsider from their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two things are not, by definition, in opposition but they are hard to find in the same package.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;There are in fact churches that fit the bill.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you will have to accept some rough edges too. There are none that have yet actually hit the mark. However they are going to get a lot closer to the mark if they are aiming at it. &lt;strong&gt;With that in mind you need to find a church that aims to hit both of these marks: Loving God rightly and loving people fully.&lt;/strong&gt; What you need is a church that will accept and love you as their neighbor knowing full well that you don't yet love God. You need a church that will embrace you in community while not trying to pretend beliefs don't matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find such churches across a range of denominations. If I make specific recommendations at this point I think I would be crossing a line. But there are churches that hold very firmly to their creeds but keep their hearts wide open. Look for people like that and figure out where they go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-07-03T06:28:52.807" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T06:28:52.807" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17242" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-02T13:38:55.223" Score="11" ViewCount="1298" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS/Mormon Church, as I understand it, believes that Joseph Smith, Jr. is a prophet of God who restored the true gospel, which had been lost over the centuries.  This, if true, would have been an extremely monumental event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any biblical prophecies (in the Old or New Testaments) that the LDS church points to as predictions of the coming of Joseph Smith and his work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-17T05:51:00.890" LastActivityDate="2015-01-17T05:51:00.890" Title="Do Mormons/LDS believe that the Bible in any way predicts the coming of Joseph Smith?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;joseph-smith&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17234" CreationDate="2013-07-02T14:22:24.293" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, provided we are don't interpret ancestral sin as something that's physically transmitted from parent to child. Instead, it can be viewed as sin due to human nature. It is true that if we don't believe in a single historical Adam, then we have departed from the &quot;literalist&quot; Bible reading. This answer describes a theological viewpoint where that departure doesn't inevitably lead to the rejection of Christ, while still being rooted in scripture (albeit read more critically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note first that there are many different notions of &quot;original sin&quot; or &quot;ancestral sin&quot;. The naive view that there is some (physically or genetically manifested) hereditary taint that is responsible for our sinfulness or guilt is completely untenable. Rather, we should recognize that ancient writers used the language of descent to speak about human nature in general; for example, &quot;son of X&quot; is often a way of saying that someone or something takes after the nature of X. In the same way, nobody imagines that our &lt;em&gt;salvation&lt;/em&gt; from sin comes about by descent from Christ. Being sons and daughters of Adam means that we are human, with a rich complex of meaning surrounding that concept: including the ideas that we are made in God's image, but we are not actually God, God loves all of us, we all have moral worth, we have a tendency to &lt;em&gt;sin&lt;/em&gt; against God and one another, we are held morally accountable, and so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the point about Paul is that he doesn't start with Adam, but with Jesus. He talks about Adam in order to explain Jesus - he is drawing on a well-known story about certain universals of human nature, and stretching it in a midrashic manner, ultimately to focus attention on who Jesus was and what he did. Even if the Adam analogy were completely invalidated, this does not do anything to the account of Jesus. (And in fact the Christ-Adam relation is not invalidated - it's just a bit different from the materialist reading, where it's all about &lt;em&gt;literal descent&lt;/em&gt;.)  This is a plausible way to read the rabbinically-trained Paul in his cultural context, just as the accompanying reading of Genesis draws on the cultural assumptions of the Ancient Near East. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this reading, the spiritual meaning of Genesis 3 is preserved. What we lose is the literal or material reading (there was a man called Adam who lived in a garden, etc.); for some people, that is unacceptable on its face. Nevertheless, it shows that it is theologically possible to believe in human sin and redemption, even in the absence of a single breeding pair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[This answer draws from my reading of &lt;em&gt;The Evolution of Adam&lt;/em&gt; by Peter Enns (Brazos, 2012) and &lt;em&gt;I love Jesus and I accept evolution&lt;/em&gt; by Denis Lamoureux (Wipf and Stock, 2009),&#xA;which give a far more thorough treatment of the scripture and theology.]&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-07-03T14:53:56.463" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T14:53:56.463" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17234" CreationDate="2013-07-02T14:24:22.247" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can the ancestral sin doctrine (and Paul's epistles) survive without a single breeding pair?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer: YES&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Adam fell and sin was ushered in&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21thath the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.&amp;quot; (Romans 8:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, God put &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of Creation under the curse, not just Adam.  One need only remember that the ground was cursed because of Adam, and the animals were cursed because of Adam - even though only Adam sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Animals share no DNA*, no gametes, nothing that could have been inherited from man.  And yet, they were subject to futility.  As such, this discredits the idea that sin is a disease or a genetic mutation passed from one generation to the next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*I understand that animals and humans do actually share a common codebase of DNA, and that chimpanzees use 99% of the same genetic code.  I am using this is the common parlance idea of 'passing down DNA from one creature to the next,' not in the biological common code sense.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, one can still assert fully as Paul does in Romans 5 that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, it is not that &lt;em&gt;sin&lt;/em&gt; entered with the Fall, but rather the Law.  All of Creation became subject to the law of futility and death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it seem unfair? That is outside of the scope of the question.  Rather, it should be understood that even if there was a &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lillith&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot; who wasn't part of the apple incident (and yes, I know the Bible doesn't say apple!), it would be irrelevant.  It is irrelevant because it isn't &lt;em&gt;sin&lt;/em&gt; that entered, but the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And everybody was subject to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T14:39:05.767" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17242" CreationDate="2013-07-02T15:59:20.447" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much of my answer is similar to the answer to the question, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6043/1003&quot;&gt;Is there any Biblical basis for believing in the Book of Mormon?&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and many of the passages will overlap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Joseph Smith Translation&lt;/a&gt;, a revision of the KJV, contains a clear prophecy about Joseph Smith, and even refers to him by name. This prophecy is found however in an addition to Genesis 50, for which there is no textual support in either the Hebrew text or the Septuagint (nor is it found in any other English translation of Genesis.) While Mormon believers may use these verses, non-LDS Christians will deny their authenticity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/50.33?lang=eng#32&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 50:33&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's also significant detail in Isaiah which the LDS believe were fulfilled in the events related to Joseph Smith. It begins about the Great Apostasy, which is the long period of time between Christ and the Restoration during which the fulness of the gospel was not on the earth. The rest of the passage's fulfillment is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.11-26,63-65?lang=eng#10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;JS-H 1:11-26,63-65&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/29.10-18?lang=eng#9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 29:10-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book&#xA;  that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read&#xA;  this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read&#xA;  this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 ¶Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me&#xA;  with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed&#xA;  their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the&#xA;  precept of men:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among&#xA;  this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of&#xA;  their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent&#xA;  men shall be hid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord,&#xA;  and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who&#xA;  knoweth us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the&#xA;  potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me&#xA;  not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no&#xA;  understanding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned&#xA;  into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a&#xA;  forest?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 ¶And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and&#xA;  the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there's Ephesians, which mentions this period of time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 1:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather&#xA;  together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and&#xA;  which are on earth; even in him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS believe this is the dispensation of the fulness of times, or the time when the gospel is &quot;dispensed&quot; in its fulness, in that all things are restored to the Earth in preparation for the second coming of the Messiah. This verse also references the gathering of the house of Israel, which in our day, is more plainly called &lt;em&gt;missionary work&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 3:21&lt;/strong&gt; also mentions the &quot;restitution&quot; or &lt;em&gt;restoration&lt;/em&gt; of all things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidently, &quot;&lt;em&gt;all His holy prophets&lt;/em&gt;&quot; taught about the restitution of all things. And apparently, we have lost some of their writings, since in the Bible we have today, not all the prophets specifically mention this thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2014-05-26T04:15:46.230" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17248" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-02T16:32:41.410" Score="12" ViewCount="571" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is unique in its listing of 13 verses at the end of the last chapter of Genesis--chapter 50.  These verses specifically name Moses, who would be born 400 years later.  They also contain a prophecy of a man named Joseph, which is believed by the LDS to be a reference to Joseph Smith, Jr, since his name, &quot;Joseph&quot;, is &quot;after the name of his father&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called &lt;strong&gt;Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father&lt;/strong&gt;; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.  Genesis 50:33 Joseph Smith Translation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the manuscript evidence--that is, the evidence of ancient manuscripts in ancient languages (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.)-- to support the existence of these verses in the original copies?  Is there any idea how they could have been lost?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T18:03:49.573" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T12:20:02.257" Title="Is there any manuscript or historical evidence to support the final 13 verses of Genesis 50 that appear in the Joseph Smith Translation?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;joseph-smith&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17248" CreationDate="2013-07-02T16:57:17.273" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you intend to exclude LDS specific sources, I await a more informed answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Book of Mormon a portion of those last verses are quoted directly. Here are links for comparison &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/50?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 50 JST&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/3.4-22?lang=eng#3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Nephi 3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From that it should be reasonably assumed that those writings were contained in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/explanation?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Plates of Brass (described here)&lt;/a&gt; as they contained &quot;&lt;em&gt;the five books of Moses&lt;/em&gt;,&quot; which would include Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the loss of the words, we have the following references as possible explanation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou&#xA;  hast seen among the Gentiles,  shall establish the truth of the first,&#xA;  which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall  make known&#xA;  the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them;&#xA;  and shall make  known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the&#xA;  Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father,  and the Savior of the&#xA;  world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.40?lang=eng#39&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Nephi 13:40&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also the word of God unto Moses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught&#xA;  and take many of them from  the book which thou shalt write, behold, I&#xA;  will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be  had again&#xA;  among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.41?lang=eng#41&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moses 1:41&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1853" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-07-02T17:12:10.823" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T17:12:10.823" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16018" CreationDate="2013-07-02T20:17:15.563" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is really the same as for &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16215/how-does-one-discern-between-thoughts-inspired-by-the-holy-spirit-and-those-prod/16233&quot;&gt;How does one discern between thoughts inspired by the Holy Spirit and those produced from themselves&lt;/a&gt;. Refer to that question for the full answer. In brief:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Consult an experienced spiritual, see him/her regularly. He/She will attempt to discern with you whether following the alleged call would bring you into a deeper love for God [or the saints]. If so, the call is &quot;provisionally accepted.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Resist the call until your &lt;strong&gt;experienced&lt;/strong&gt; spiritual advisor permits you to indulge. If it's a genuine call, not only will God leave a convincing message (with signs and everything), but He'll spam your number until you pick up.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, I'm &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; suggesting resistance to God. Always be eager to act on God's command. But, human fallibility requires a great deal of resistance to &lt;em&gt;alleged&lt;/em&gt; calls to permit God's persistence and providence to outshine the trickery of our imagination -- not to mention that of the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Refer to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04324b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Contemplation - Revelations and visions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/making-good-decisions/discernment-of-spirits/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Ignatius's Discernment of the Spirits&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/making-good-decisions/discernment-of-spirits/introduction-to-discernment-of-spirits/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;consolation&quot; and &quot;desolation&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T20:17:15.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16018" CreationDate="2013-07-02T21:08:43.030" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ryan has a good answer.  But I want to expound on it a bit further.  In Genesis 12:7 we see God promise the land to Abrahams offspring:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 12:7 The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring[c] I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the Lord, who had appeared to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here we have a promise of God that the land will belong to Abrams offspring.  But Abram questions this in Genesis 15:2-4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit[c] my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring[d] be.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here God reaffirms the covenant with Abram.  Now after he is name Abraham he again questions the covenant, because he still has no son from Sarah.  Again in Genesis 17:17 Abraham questions it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God again assures him of the covenant and that Sarah will bear a child for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Soon after Abraham begins to see that all that God has said would happen has happened.  He starts to trust in God because God does what he says he is going to do.  The test comes when God tells Abraham to go and sacrifice his son.  If God allows this to occur then the promise of God will be nullified.  If you have read the Bible it is clear that God &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;always&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; keeps his promises.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham complies, because he knows that God will not allow the sacrifice to be completed.  This is evident when he tells his son that “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering”.  Most people I have talked to about this seem to believe he is speaking of Isaac, but he is not.  Abraham has gone from a man that was unsure of Gods promises to a man that now boldly believes in what God has promised him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So much so that he is willing to raise the knife, knowing that God will stop him and provide for the sacrifice, and God does just that.  Isaac also was very confident in God's promise as there is no evidence that he struggled with his father and allowed himself to be bound on the altar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it moral for him sacrifice his child because of this experience?  Isaac was never in danger of being sacrificed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1869" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-02T21:08:43.030" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17252" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17262" CreationDate="2013-07-03T03:16:07.243" Score="6" ViewCount="6702" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1793/do-christians-regard-speaking-in-tongues-as-necessary&quot;&gt;previous question&lt;/a&gt; was answered listing perhaps only one denomination, and it wasn't AOG, that held speaking in tongues as sign of spiritual maturity. Does the Assemblies of God group speak in tongues?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="16688" LastEditDate="2018-06-25T19:22:20.003" LastActivityDate="2019-12-01T18:14:15.733" Title="What is role of speaking in tongues in Assemblies of God denomination?" Tags="&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;&lt;assemblies-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17253" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-03T03:23:05.320" Score="13" ViewCount="1018" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?—1st Corinthians 14:23 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are passages in Scripture that caution those who speak in tongues to refrain if there is no one to translate. In my very limited exposure to the practice, I don't believe I've observed such a discipline. Are there specific cases of congregations / denominations with such rules?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-07-03T10:56:24.973" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T19:36:06.440" Title="Are there Christian groups that speak in tongues but as a policy require translation of the God-given language?" Tags="&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17234" CreationDate="2013-07-03T03:34:41.557" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll answer a tangential, but implied question: &lt;strong&gt;Can Pauline doctrine survive &quot;physical death before Adam?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer: yes, from an Old Earth Creationist perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible states that the doctrine of sin rests on that story of one man, as you observed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The literal historical figure of Adam literally died in the day he ate the fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take a Young Earth Creationist view, his body's cells started to decay. If you take an Old Earth Creationist viewpoint, he spiritually died and became in need of a Saviour at that instant. In this latter view, there is no conflict with animals eating each other (Triceratops with T-Rex-tooth holes in their frill predating man, for example) and our need for salvation from our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T03:34:41.557" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17252" CreationDate="2013-07-03T03:40:34.130" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/gendoct_02_baptismhs.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this website&lt;/a&gt;, the Assemblies of God denomination really does speak in tongues as an important part of the faith. They believe that believers are baptized by the work of the Holy Spirit, and thus the Holy Spirit allows them to speak in tongues, as what happens in the biblical narrative in the book of &lt;em&gt;Acts of the Apostles&lt;/em&gt;. It is a religious experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T03:40:34.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17256" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-03T03:45:38.957" Score="8" ViewCount="1935" Body="&lt;p&gt;A commonly held belief is that people need to accept Jesus as Lord &lt;em&gt;during their lifetime on Earth&lt;/em&gt; and failing to do so will result in the individual's damnation. Is there any support for this &quot;last call&quot; doctrine? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17256/judgement-upon-death#comment49358_17256&quot;&gt;Since there is life after death&lt;/a&gt;, I have wondered if people will have an opportunity to make a decision for Jesus after their death. Is there any support for this &quot;second chance&quot; idea? I have tried to study it and have not able to find anything in the bible that would contradict this idea that we can still make a decision for Christ after this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2021-05-20T03:54:31.020" Title="What is the Biblical basis for saying that we won't have a second chance to be saved after we die?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17256" CreationDate="2013-07-03T04:33:05.183" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The mainstream Christian answer is that there is no chance for repentance after death.  The Scripture used to support this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Hebrews%209.27&quot;&gt;Hebrews 9:27&lt;/a&gt; which says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that&#xA;  comes judgment&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The protestant answer goes further saying this:&#xA;(From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/second-chance-salvation.html&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/second-chance-salvation.html&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While the idea of a second chance for salvation is appealing, the&#xA;  Bible is clear that death is the end of all chances. Hebrews 9:27&#xA;  tells us that we die, and then face judgment. So, as long as a person&#xA;  is alive, he has a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. chance to accept&#xA;  Christ and be saved (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31). Once a&#xA;  person dies, there are no more chances. The idea of purgatory, a place&#xA;  where people go after death to pay for their sins, has no biblical&#xA;  basis, but is rather a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now in all fairness, the Cathollic Church doesn't teach that there is a chance for repentance after death.  This is a misrepresentation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.catholic.com/printthread.php?t=689104&quot;&gt;Catholic Answers forum&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The teaching of the Church is very clear on this point: if we die in a&#xA;  State of Grace, we will attain salvation. Otherwise, we (probably) go&#xA;  to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are placed in a State of Grace through Christian Baptism. We remove&#xA;  ourselves through mortal sin. We are restored to a State of Grace by&#xA;  Sacramental Confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church recognizes the possibility that salvation might be attained&#xA;  by other means (which have not been revealed). Thus, we have hope for&#xA;  salvation for unbaptized infants (but nobody knows for sure what&#xA;  happens to them)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There's no telling what we can make of near-death experiences. If we&#xA;  accept them at face value, they could be interpreted as an experience&#xA;  of purgatory (not hell). Or they might represent some &quot;other means&quot; of&#xA;  salvation that has not been revealed to the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS teaching is a bit more... Complex.  Some LDS Scriptures seem to say Yes and some say no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS Scripture teaching no repentance after death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mosiah 2:36-39&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go&#xA;  contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves&#xA;  from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide&#xA;  you in wisdom's paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and&#xA;  preserved—I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same&#xA;  cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey&#xA;  the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness;&#xA;  therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy&#xA;  temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth&#xA;  an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal&#xA;  soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to&#xA;  shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with&#xA;  guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire,&#xA;  whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Alma 34:32-35&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform&#xA;  their labors. 33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so&#xA;  many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not&#xA;  procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this&#xA;  day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we&#xA;  do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of&#xA;  darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. 34 Ye cannot say,&#xA;  when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I&#xA;  will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit&#xA;  which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this&#xA;  life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that&#xA;  eternal world. 35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of&#xA;  your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to&#xA;  the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the&#xA;  Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you,&#xA;  and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of&#xA;  the wicked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LDS teaching stating there &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; be repentance after death...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 128:5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 You may think this order of things to be very particular; but let me&#xA;  tell you that it is only to answer the will of God, by conforming to&#xA;  the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared&#xA;  before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who&#xA;  should die without a knowledge of the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that aside, getting back to a purely Biblical answer, we fall back to the standard Protestant &quot;No. Once you die there is no further chance for repentance, according tothe teachings of Jesus&quot;.  For this, we need look no further than Luke 16:19-31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and&#xA;  lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named&#xA;  Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the&#xA;  rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to&#xA;  Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades,&#xA;  where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with&#xA;  Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have&#xA;  pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and&#xA;  cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you&#xA;  received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now&#xA;  he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this,&#xA;  between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those&#xA;  who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from&#xA;  there to us.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,&#xA;  28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not&#xA;  also come to this place of torment.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them&#xA;  listen to them.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes&#xA;  to them, they will repent.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets,&#xA;  they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This horrifying account tells of someone who has died in his sin, and has no way out.  Verse 25 makes it pretty clear that there is no way across that chasm from Hell to Heaven after death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T04:33:05.183" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17259" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17261" CreationDate="2013-07-03T04:36:26.773" Score="7" ViewCount="17035" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard &quot;non-denominational&quot; Protestant churches identify themselves as such because they believe they are above the squabbling and blindness that characterizes denominational Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard Christians identify themselves as &quot;non-denominational&quot; because they aren't really loyal to any particular denomination at the moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; heard from &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;non-&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; non-denominationals that &quot;non-denominational&quot; is in essence a denomination of itself, because churches of this identification are actually related in their origin, theology, etc. &lt;strong&gt;Is that true?&lt;/strong&gt; Are there any distinct characteristics of non-denominational Protestant churches besides the name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2015-10-19T21:26:04.507" Title="What does a &quot;non-denominational&quot; Protestant believe?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;non-denominational&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17256" CreationDate="2013-07-03T04:39:22.120" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics don't believe in a second chance doctrine, as you phrased it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But some do believe that Jesus can come to you at the very last second of your life.  St. Faustina continually was visited by Jesus in dreams wherein she came to learn that God's greatest attribute it His Divine Mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing alone is necessary: that the sinner set ajar the door of his heart, be it ever so little, to let in a ray of God's merciful grace, and then God will do the rest. But poor is the soul who has shut the door on God's mercy, even at the last hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=2565&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Faustina's Diary 1507&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, Catholics don't believe in a first chance doctrine either.  We leave nothing up to chance, you have the Life of Christ within you, and die, are judged and go to heaven. Or you go to hell or to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1031.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;purgatory&lt;/a&gt;.*  If you make it to purgatory, you'll get to heaven eventually!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Interesting &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/heaven-hell-and-purgatory-8222&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;synopsis of the Last Things&lt;/a&gt; by Bl. John Paul II&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="10672" LastEditDate="2021-05-19T13:47:55.280" LastActivityDate="2021-05-19T13:47:55.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17259" CreationDate="2013-07-03T05:40:05.877" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination&quot;&gt;Christian denomination&lt;/a&gt; is simply a group of churches which have agreed to work together (in over-simplified terms).  Some denominations have very rigid structures, others not so much.  They tend to share some degree of theological beliefs, but even within a denomination there may be a wide variance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A non-denominational church, by contrast, simply does not belong to such a group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's quite analogous to retail chains.  Some retail chains maintain very strict control over their various retail outlets, ensuring that branding is the same everywhere, that customer service is the same everywhere, etc. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crackerbarrel.com/&quot;&gt;Cracker Barrel&lt;/a&gt; comes to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some chains maintain a very loose control, allowing franchisees to set cleanliness standards, customer service standards, etc. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.phillips66.com/EN/Pages/index.aspx&quot;&gt;Phillips 66&lt;/a&gt; comes to mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then you have one-off, mom-and-pop stores, which have no corporate or franchise oversight at all, and they do whatever they wish.  They may have the same standards of service and products as some chain stores, but not by mandate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So asking what a non-denominational protestant believes, is a lot like asking what a non-chain store is like:  It's all over the map.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pretty much the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; thing that non-denominational protestants all believe, is that they are not Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T05:40:05.877" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17252" CreationDate="2013-07-03T05:40:16.477" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Assemblies of God&lt;/em&gt; strongly believe and encourage speaking in tongues. It is considered as  the physical evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_fundamental_truths/sft_full.cfm#8&quot;&gt;This site&lt;/a&gt;   mentions about this matter. It says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the&#xA;  initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of&#xA;  God gives them utterance. (Acts 2:4) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The speaking in tongues in this instance is the&#xA;  same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose&#xA;  and use.&#xA;  ( 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 , 1 Corinthians 12:28 )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The preachers in AG churches many times encourage their members to speak in tongues and sometimes it became a burden to some of the members who are not speaking in tongues, but this is some exceptional case. Some preachers take less importance to tongues but not diminish it. The worship in AG churches are all centered around inviting the Holy Spirit, singing, praying and speaking in tongues. Worship services are mostly lively and sometimes  noisy because many people speak in tongues loudly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T05:40:16.477" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17234" CreationDate="2013-07-03T05:56:40.197" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Allow me to rephrase the question in terms more suitable to the internet...&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Whether God requires His creatures to have sex in order to condemn themselves?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 1.&lt;/b&gt; It would seem that God does not desire His creatures to continually create themselves bearing the fruits of original sin, but is in fact happier with those whom he deigned to create or beget without sin.  When God created Adam and Eve, sinless originally, He said that they were good (Gn 1:31).  When God sent His messenger to Mary, sinless as she was, he said she had found favor with God (Lk 1:30). When God the Father spoke to His Beloved Son (also sinless) He said that in Him He was pleased (Mt 3:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 2.&lt;/b&gt; Furthermore, God must need our participation to perpetuate Original Sin.  Because without His creatures copulation, there would be no more Original Sin for Baptism to wipe away the effects of, thereby negating a vital sacrament of initiation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 3. &lt;/b&gt; It would seem that our nature inherits Original Sin because our nature comes from our parents.  Since science might (today at least) have us believe that we had no tangible first human parents as evinced in the Bible by the persons of Adam and Eve, there could not have been two such parents to fall for us to inherit Original Sin from.  Therefore cloned human beings would not be subject to the effects of Original Sin, nor would those who were not of the branch of Adam and Eve (let alone Noah).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;On the contrary,&lt;/b&gt; Original Sin is a mark on the immortal Human Soul, created by God, for God and only from the Love of God. It is not sex that imposes concupiscence. So, &lt;b&gt;No&lt;/b&gt; God does not require humanity's participation (though carnal unions or sterile cloning) to impose Original Sin on it. &lt;i&gt;And yes, Original Sin will survive (thrive even) in a Brave New World&lt;/i&gt;.  As Uncle Chestnut says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;GCK - Orthodoxy&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His proof for Original Sin, although tongue-in-cheek, will exist where ever humanity exists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;I answer that, &lt;/b&gt; this entire question could be swept away by the common Catholic teaching that the first 11 or so books of Genesis &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6493/4&quot;&gt;may be primarily useful in senses other than the literal&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the same chapters, in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the &lt;b&gt;principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation&lt;/b&gt;, and also give a &lt;b&gt;popular description of the origin of the human race&lt;/b&gt; and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Pius XII Humani Generis - 38&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Pius XII can concede nothing on the Spiritual and Everlasting Truths found in the first chapters of Genesis. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 1&lt;/b&gt; Although it can add nothing to His greatness, God is pleased by every one of our selfless acts of love and kindness.  Otherwise He would not have said Blessed are they who... (Mt 5:1-12) Even though we suffer the residual effect of Original Sin (i.e. we have an inclination to sin) it can be overcame with the Divine Help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 2&lt;/b&gt; Although St. Paul says that where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. and during the Exsultet on Easter Vigil it is proclaimed &quot;O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer&quot;.  It is clearly not good that we are borne into concupiscence and that is why Jesus is coming again one day.  When we're borne into eternal life, we will be freed from that sinful inclination even though our souls were created and imbued with it. The Ox says: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2083.htm#article1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica Q.83 A.1 Reply to Objection 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Adam had original sin, but it wasn't passed to him through his parent's sexual intercourse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 3&lt;/b&gt; Although it is not clear whether anything besides children of Adam have human souls. Science has not the competence to trounce theology on the topic of human evolution (Youcat 42) Nor should theology inform scientific theory.  The key point is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Souls are not inherited&lt;/b&gt; Each is a distinct creation of God and is united with the body at the time of conception.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  This is the faith - Canon Francis Ripley&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is nothing in science that can contradict this supernatural truth for this and many other reasons Pope Pius XII says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Humani Generis 37&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human nature is not strictly speaking a property of the human soul, the Rational Immortal Soul is God's gift to human nature. Aquinas and Aristotle teach that everything has a nature and a soul. But the powers of the human soul vary considerably with those of the rocks and fishes but the danger is that they can suffer the effects of Original Sin and even if there were no women left on earth, each cloned man would still be limited by whatever God determined the powers of his soul would be imbued with.  In this case one needs to interpret literal inheritance or can posit a sideways inheritance in Paul's writings.  But in the absence of a test for a soul in those who we hope would be naturally having one, it is impossible for science to know whether cloned individuals would likewise have or not have a soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T16:46:52.887" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3116" CreationDate="2013-07-03T10:08:38.423" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can confidently know the nature of God only through Bible. Without the authority of the Bible, any attempt to explain God’s attributes would be just an opinion. One of God's attributes or qualities is “light,” meaning that He is self-revealing in information of Himself (Isaiah 60:19; James 1:17). &lt;strong&gt;Creation, the Bible, and the Word made flesh-Jesus Christ  help us to know what God is like.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God can  be understood through His creations. By considering creation's vastness, complexity, beauty, and order, we can have a sense of the awesomeness of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Names of God from Bible can be helpful in search of what God is like:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Elohim - strong One, divine (Genesis 1:1)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Adonai - Lord, indicating a Master-to-servant relationship (Exodus 4:10, 13)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;El Elyon - Most High, the strongest One (Genesis 14:20)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;El Roi - the strong One who sees (Genesis 16:13)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;El Shaddai - Almighty God (Genesis 17:1)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;El Olam - Everlasting God (Isaiah 40:28)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Yahweh - LORD “I Am,” meaning the eternal self-existent God (Exodus 3:13, 14, John 8:58).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1860/who-created-god/15209#15209&quot;&gt;God is eternal&lt;/a&gt;  and His existence will never end. He is immortal and infinite (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17). God is immutable, meaning He is unchanging; this in turn means that God is absolutely reliable and trustworthy (Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19; Psalm 102:26, 27). God is incomparable; there is no one like Him in works or being. He is unequaled and perfect (2 Samuel 7:22; Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25; Matthew 5:48). God is inscrutable, unfathomable, unsearchable, and past finding out as far as understanding Him completely (Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 145:3; Romans 11:33, 34).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is just; He is no respecter of persons in the sense of showing favoritism (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 18:30). God is omnipotent; He is all-powerful and can do anything that pleases Him, but His actions will always be in accord with the rest of His character (Revelation 19:6; Jeremiah 32:17, 27). God is omnipresent, meaning He is present everywhere, but this does not mean that God is everything (Psalm 139:7-13; Jeremiah 23:23). God is omniscient, meaning He knows the past, present, and future, including what we are thinking at any given moment. Since He knows everything, His justice will always be administered fairly (Psalm 139:1-5; Proverbs 5:21).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is one and  alone is worthy of our worship and devotion (Deuteronomy 6:4). God is righteous, meaning that God cannot and will not pass over wrongdoing. It is because of God’s righteousness and justice that, in order for our sins to be forgiven, Jesus had to experience God's wrath when our sins were placed upon Him (Exodus 9:27; Matthew 27:45-46; Romans 3:21-26).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is sovereign, meaning He is supreme. All of His creation put together cannot thwart His purposes (Psalm 93:1; 95:3; Jeremiah 23:20). God is spirit, meaning He is invisible (John 1:18; 4:24). God is a Trinity. He is three in one, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. God is truth, He will remain incorruptible and cannot lie (Psalm 117:2; 1 Samuel 15:29).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is holy, separated from all moral defilement and hostile toward it. God sees all evil and it angers Him. God is referred to as a consuming fire (Isaiah 6:3; Habakkuk 1:13; Exodus 3:2, 4-5; Hebrews 12:29). God is gracious, and His grace includes His goodness, kindness, mercy, and love. If it were not for God's grace, His holiness would exclude us from His presence.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God is an infinite Being, no human can fully answer this God-sized question, but through God’s Word, we can understand much about who God is and what He is like. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T05:44:52.187" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17266" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17214" CreationDate="2013-07-03T11:16:44.503" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Appearance is hardly ever mentioned in the Bible, unless the person's appearance is unique, e.g. Goliath, King Saul, King Og, Samson, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe it's just not that important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4990" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T11:16:44.503" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17248" CreationDate="2013-07-03T12:20:02.257" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;To start with, it might be helpful to clarify the terms used here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Manuscript Evidence&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manuscript Evidence is a term that is well defined outside of Christianity, in the field of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Textual Criticism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary&#xA;  criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of&#xA;  transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made&#xA;  errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand. Given a&#xA;  manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original&#xA;  document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text&#xA;  (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same&#xA;  processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions,&#xA;  or recensions, of a document's transcription history. The ultimate&#xA;  objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a&#xA;  &quot;critical edition&quot; containing a text most closely approximating the&#xA;  original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basics are covered in another post on this site: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/what-is-manuscript-evidence-and-how-is-it-useful&quot;&gt;What is “Manuscript Evidence” and how is it useful?&lt;/a&gt;, and it would be redundant cover the same ground here.  The short version is this:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The more copies we have of a text the more confident we can be that our current translations are true to the original text.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Older copies are less likely to contain unintentional/copyist errors than newer ones, so the more old manuscripts we have, the better. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Historical Evidence&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be external evidence such as works written by historians of the time, or close to the time, corroborated by accepted historical evidence - documents recording the events at the time, archaeology, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer, now that the terms have been clarified:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to the final verses of genesis, we have &lt;strong&gt;*no &lt;em&gt;strong&lt;/em&gt; manuscript evidence*&lt;/strong&gt;.  The evidence we do have is very weak, using the accepted forms of textual criticism.  It is all recent, and all stems from the translation of one author, and a translation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/brass-plates?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;original brass plates&lt;/a&gt; that are not available to study.  We can only believe, with no external evidence, that they ever existed at all.  All that we have at this time is the translated verses.  We have no ancient copies of any texts that corroborate these verses.  All we really have is the word of the founder, and other believers within.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;historical&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; evidence, we also have very little.  Before Joseph Smith, we have no historians referring to these verses, no Church sermons referring to them, nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, to the believer, lack of proof is not proof of lack.  It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something.  The answer to this question could, conceivably, be rendered null and void by the discovery of such manuscript or historical evidence.  The lack of external evidence doesn't constitute &lt;em&gt;proof&lt;/em&gt; that the verses are invalid.  it just means that we have no corroborating evidence.  All we have is the word of Joseph Smith and a handful of witnesses, whose trustworthiness is affirmed in the LDS Church, but questioned outside it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T12:20:02.257" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17253" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:10:31.573" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are denominations who emphasize the use of tongues, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblies_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Assemblies of God&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;In such kind of Churches, there are occasions where someone would prophesy while speaking in tongues and the same person or sometimes others will interpret it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many prophets who always start their prophetic words with tongues first and then interpret it again. I don't know why they always utter those tongues first and then interpret it instead of directly speaking out the words in their own language. I can only guess that they receive the message first in heavenly language, which we call it tongues, and at the same time God gives them the meaning also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if there are any denomination which has a strict policy that tongues should have interpretations. What I know is that it is interpreted whenever there is a need. What I observed is that &lt;strong&gt;many times, those who speak in tongues also don't know what they are uttering but when it is required, God gives them the meaning&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T13:10:31.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16403" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:26:39.590" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Coming from a purely language-based perspective, I should say the difference between a Keeper and a Legislator is that a Keeper merely enforces or protects the law, whereas a Legislator has the authority to enact rules based on the Law. Like how the police can keep the law of a country, and the government can enact new legislation (as long as it does not violate the constitution).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4990" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T13:26:39.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17271" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:33:44.903" Score="7" ViewCount="593" Body="&lt;p&gt;Simple question. I was just wondering how the Catholic church positioned itself politically at the time of world war 2. Did it align with the Allies, Axis, or neither? Did the pope choose sides between the Allies and the Axis, if so which side?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T15:23:15.447" Title="Did the pope choose sides between the Allies and the Axis in World War 2?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17272" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17282" CreationDate="2013-07-03T16:07:15.687" Score="6" ViewCount="257" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theology&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt;, it briefly describes this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Queer theology begins with an assumption that gender non-conformity and homosexual desire have always been present in human history, and are present in the Bible. It is a way of unraveling structures and stories that have been oppressive. It is also a way of understanding the Bible as a source of stories about radical love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that this type of theology is strictly limited to academia; however, I may be wrong. Are there any denominations that follow &quot;queer theology&quot;, and who are they? I know denominations that are open to LGBT Christians, but they do not seem to be focused on this style of interpretation of the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T04:38:02.610" Title="Which denominations follow &quot;queer theology&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17253" CreationDate="2013-07-03T16:15:26.427" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I attended a small baptist church where tongues was rarely used for its actual purpose (delivering prophecy or undeniable message from God). However, it was somewhat common that when group prayer got very intense someone would utter a sentence or two in what sounded like a different language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pastor told me that they were prayer languages (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=25765&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see this study&lt;/a&gt;). They do not serve a purpose for anyone except the one praying; no translation is required. They are the most intimate prayers that can be given while on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He gave me a few verses that support the idea:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues,[c] unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The chapter goes on to say that tongues are acceptable (verse 18), however, many times less important than prophecy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, of course, there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:26&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logic is pretty easy to infer here. A prayer language is spoken when your own words cannot suffice. When you cannot express truly the &quot;groanings&quot; of your heart the Spirit may intercede and &quot;groan&quot; on your behalf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pastor and the congregation were passive about them and never really discussed them or boasted about them occurring to them or another. If it happened, that was fine; if it didn't, that was fine too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-07-03T19:36:06.440" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T19:36:06.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="774" CreationDate="2013-07-03T16:52:32.677" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus says in the book of Matthew:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:21, 22 - Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,&#xA;  Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of&#xA;  the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his&#xA;  brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: &lt;strong&gt;and&#xA;  whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the&#xA;  council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of&#xA;  hell fire.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Racca&lt;/code&gt; is a term of contempt.  Ref. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/raca/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/raca/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, consider this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:18 - But the things that come out of a person's mouth come&#xA;  from the heart, and these defile them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, lastly, please consider this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 6:45 - A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in&#xA;  his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored&#xA;  up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are the things which the bible says about cursing; that it is &quot;defiling.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4576" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T16:52:32.677" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17275" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19074" CreationDate="2013-07-03T17:10:14.630" Score="5" ViewCount="754" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any current Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher, rather than as the supernatural Son of God?  I am looking for specific examples of denominations that state this viewpoint (or some variation) as part of their creed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4227" LastEditorUserId="4227" LastEditDate="2013-07-03T17:29:20.633" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T14:31:24.523" Title="Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17271" CreationDate="2013-07-03T17:31:16.893" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, he did not, and it has cost him and the Catholic church a lot of moral leadership and capital since then. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII_and_the_Holocaust&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust&lt;/a&gt; is very thorough on this topic actually. However, I want to explore two issues that it only briefly touched on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One is the protestation of the Pope that any condemnation he could have made against the treatment of the Jews would have only made their plight worse. &#xA;However:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/36qs.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;6 million&lt;/a&gt; Jews were killed during the holocaust.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Besides the death camps which most people are familiar with, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebensee_concentration_camp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;there were slave labor camps&lt;/a&gt; which had even worse conditions and fatality rates—in the hundreds per day.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There were &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005144&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;more than 15,000&lt;/a&gt; (some think as high as 20,000; we may never know the exact number) death/slave/prisoner camps during the war. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Beyond the 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust, 5 million more people died, including 1 million Catholics from Poland.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these facts its very hard to see how the condition or plight of the Jews, or any prisoner of the Nazis', could have gotten any worse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also important to note that WWII brought about a significant change it the way that Jews were regarded throughout the world, particularly in Europe. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Antisemitism isn't a new thing&lt;/a&gt;, and it wasn't a new thing during WWII. At various times the Catholic church even endorsed it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm in no way saying that the Catholic church, or Pope Pius XII, endorsed what Hitler did, but it needs to be pointed out that the world view of Judaism was very different before and after WWII. This difference indeed contributed to the silence and timidity of the Vatican on denouncing the actions of the Nazis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also important to note that the Pope, while timid, was a Jewish sympathizer and was afraid that the actions he took would engender a German retaliation. Because of this he made plans for his own de facto resignation should he be taken prisoner and for the movement of the Holy See to Portugal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally the Vatican has throughout the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City_in_World_War_II&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;19th&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/04/opinion/how-can-the-vatican-stay-neutral.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;20th&lt;/a&gt; centuries tried to maintain a stance of neutrality on international conflicts. Ultimately whether you agree with this or not (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-remains-neutral-on-palestinian-un-membership-bid/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it's criticized even today&lt;/a&gt;), the actions of Pope Pius XII can be seen as a continuation of this policy and a strong mental fortitude to do what he perceived to be the right course of action.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2013-09-23T15:23:15.447" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T15:23:15.447" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17277" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17279" CreationDate="2013-07-03T19:40:41.863" Score="4" ViewCount="287" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of &quot;male headship&quot; is prevalent in various Christian traditions.  What is the essence of and the biblical basis for this concept?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I understand that this is a controversial subject, but this question is seeking a rational answer from the position of those who subscribe to it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2017-01-17T21:40:48.713" LastActivityDate="2017-01-18T09:16:07.013" Title="What is the biblical basis for the concept of male headship?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;gender&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17256" CreationDate="2013-07-03T19:47:20.487" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally, Bible literalists might believe in a second chance. It is just that none given the second chance will take it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 20 we are given a particular sequence of events &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the glorious second coming of Christ. In the presence of everyone living, the dead in Christ are raised, then Christ returns in glorious fire. All the wicked perish in it. 1000 years later, all the wicked are resurrected too. However, it is a resurrection unto destruction; they are quickly destroyed again in the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is their second chance. They have witnessed the great power of God, however, refuse to worship His majesty. They are truly wicked in their hearts and perish a second time because of it. They were not raised in the first resurrection because they were wicked in their hearts; they would not have chosen Christ ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as a matter of semantics, you may say there is this second chance, but for all practical purposes, because none given this 2nd chance will take it, there might as well not be one at all. Which leads to the purpose of the 2nd resurrection, but that would be another question, which &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15358/why-are-the-wicked-resurrected-only-to-be-destroyed-and-sent-to-the-lake-of-fire&quot;&gt;has been asked from the traditional perspective&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a literalist interpretation of Revelation 20 which is mostly taken by the 7th Day Adventists and other &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Annihilationist&lt;/a&gt; groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T19:22:19.113" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17277" CreationDate="2013-07-03T20:00:26.743" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The number one most quoted verse concerning this is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly this means is &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; debated among the many Christian groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these verses are surrounded by others about the hierarchical order of the family and the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 &lt;strong&gt;However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures are not particularly clear about what submission is, but it is clear about love in 1 Corinthians 13. &lt;strong&gt;What is almost universally agreed is that the husband is &amp;quot;the spiritual head of the household&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. He is responsible for the spiritual well being of his entire family. Because of that responsibility he is held to a higher standard: to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and readily gave himself up for her. The wife, then, is to respect and trust her husband's decisions, and support him in the very difficult task of being to her like Christ is to the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapter 6 carries on with the same principles concerning children and parents, especially fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, the Father (husband) is given more responsibility and the more difficult task. He is to instruct the children in the ways of the Lord without making them feel demeaned or infuriating them. Anyone who has children knows this is very difficult. Like the wife, children should respect and trust their Fathers' decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2 is sometimes quotes as well. After Adam was created, God determined that it was not good for man to be alone so he made Adam a helper: Eve, the woman. The term itself do not necessarily imply a lesser standing, however, it does imply the purpose: the woman is to help the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard this said before and I think is sums up the above quite well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The glory of every husband is that the woman was made for him, but his humility is that he needs her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The glory of every wife is that the man needs her, but her humility is that she was made for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-03T20:16:37.903" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17259" CreationDate="2013-07-03T23:06:53.243" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a non-denominational Protestant myself, I will admit that our independent-mindedness makes it more or less impossible to predict what a particular individual will believe. However, if you would like to know what the hypothetical &quot;average&quot; non-denominational Protestant believes, then that is totally possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://hirr.hartsem.edu/cong/nondenom.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hartford Institute for Religion Research&lt;/a&gt; has done some research, but mostly concerning the demographics and practice of non-denominational congregations, and not as much about beliefs per se. From their 2010 survey of 437 congregations across the country:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Which label comes closest to describing the theological outlook of the majority of your regularly participating adults?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;45% Evangelical&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;20% Fundamentalist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;14% Pentacostal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;11% Charismatic&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;3% Missional&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;2% Moderate&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;0.7% Seeker&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;0.3% Liberal&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;0.3% New Age&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;3% Other&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Barna&lt;/a&gt; is of course a great resource for these types of statistics. Among non-denominational Protestants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;75% self-identify as &quot;Born Again&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53-religious-beliefs-vary-widely-by-denomination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;60% believe &quot;good works cannot earn a person salvation, but that salvation is a gift of God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53-religious-beliefs-vary-widely-by-denomination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;67% are &quot;absolutely committed&quot; to Christianity &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53-religious-beliefs-vary-widely-by-denomination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;70% believe &quot;The Bible is totally accurate&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53-religious-beliefs-vary-widely-by-denomination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;59% believe Christians &quot;must tell faith to others&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53-religious-beliefs-vary-widely-by-denomination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;48% believe &quot;Satan is real&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53-religious-beliefs-vary-widely-by-denomination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;79% say faith has transformed their lives &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org/barna-update/21-transformation/152-half-of-americans-say-faith-has-qgreatly-transformedq-their-life&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;60% of pastors do not hold a seminary degree &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org/barna-update/5-barna-update/59-a-profile-of-protestant-pastors-in-anticipation-of-qpastor-appreciation-monthq&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;30% of pastors endorse Calvinism &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.barna.org/barna-update/5-barna-update/59-a-profile-of-protestant-pastors-in-anticipation-of-qpastor-appreciation-monthq&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR - A non-denominational Protestant is probably an Evangelical Protestant, and is somewhat more likely (compared to the average American Christian) to hold &quot;traditional&quot; Protestant beliefs about the Bible and Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possibly related:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7958/what-is-the-difference-between-evangelical-and-protestant&quot;&gt;What is the difference between Evangelical and Protestant?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4726/what-is-the-difference-between-protestantism-and-evangelicalism&quot;&gt;What is the difference between Protestantism and Evangelicalism?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4294" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T00:10:47.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17272" CreationDate="2013-07-04T00:57:49.137" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America went through a deliberation process on whether to change its restrictions against non-celibate homosexual pastors, culminating in a vote in 2009.  Some of the documents prepared by the ELCA to argue for this change sound very similar to what you have typed.  Here is one such document, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elca.org/~/media/Files/What%20We%20Believe/Social%20Issues/In%20Process/Human%20Sexuality/Studies/study02.ashx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Journeying Faithfully Together&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. Here is their summary page on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF-Human-Sexuality/Resources.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Historical Resources&quot;&lt;/a&gt; on the topic.  Individual congregations went further, some signing on to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reconcilingworks.org/ric/about-reconciling-in-christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reconciled in Christ&lt;/a&gt; program, which raises similar themes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reference is the book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books/about/Sexual_Fulfillment.html?id=quduxRpN4KwC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sexual Fulfillment: For Single and Married, Straight and Gay, Young and Old&lt;/a&gt;, written by a former bishop, Herbert Chilstrom.  The Amazon.com &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B002SG71OW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;summary&lt;/a&gt; includes Chilstrom's comment that for people of all orientations,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... sex is a gift from God, intended, in spite of our broken world, for our enjoyment and fulfillment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T00:57:49.137" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17284" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-04T04:30:32.303" Score="16" ViewCount="10914" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Apostle's creed it states that &quot;I believe in Jesus Christ God's only son our Lord&quot; (ELCA). But many Christians say that we're all God's children, which is contradictory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Bible have to say about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or are we God's grandchildren and Jesus' children?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4997" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-13T04:33:07.807" LastActivityDate="2021-01-29T02:53:00.457" Title="If Jesus is &quot;God's Only Son&quot; then how can we all be God's children?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;apostles-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17272" CreationDate="2013-07-04T04:38:02.610" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've not seen any major denomination which has not had at least one substantial block that believed in something along the lines of what you call &quot;queer theology.&quot; That said, that is most publicly accepted by the Episcopals, who have openly homosexual bishops. It is also a very common opinion among Congregationalists, but that is not surprising as much of their doctrine is dictated on a congregation-by-congregation level. (If you believe Quakers to be Christian, then they too should be considered to accept it on a meeting house-by-meeting house level)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major divisions of Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Lutherans take stances opposed to homosexuality in the clergy. This means that while individual congregations can vary, the general rule is that &quot;queer theology&quot; has no official place in those churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholicism and the various forms of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox groups are decidedly opposed to that view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T04:38:02.610" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17284" CreationDate="2013-07-04T04:49:31.493" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two are not contradictory at all.  The common understanding is that Jesus is unique and the only &lt;strong&gt;begotten&lt;/strong&gt; son of God. The rest of us are heirs to God - children of God via adoption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abideinchrist.com/selah/apr5.html&quot;&gt;Adopted Children of God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The term “Son of God” refers preeminently to Jesus Christ’s deity&#xA;  (Matt. 11:25-27; 16:16-17). He alone is one in substance and glory&#xA;  with God the Father. Believers in Christ, although “adopted” are never&#xA;  on a par with the uncreated, divine Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supporting Scripture for each of these points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;That Jesus is the only begotten Son.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 4:9 King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God&#xA;  sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through&#xA;  him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:16 King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,&#xA;  that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have&#xA;  everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;That we are adopted heirs:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 8:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but&#xA;  ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 1:4-6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the&#xA;  world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus&#xA;  Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us&#xA;  accepted in the beloved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;These passages cover both statements in one clear statement&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1:11-13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the&#xA;  sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of&#xA;  the will of man, but of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 4:4-7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,&#xA;  made of a woman, made under the law,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the&#xA;  adoption of sons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son&#xA;  into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then&#xA;  an heir of God through Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Some clarification on the distinction - what makes &quot;only begotten&quot; special:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_godsonlybegottenson/&quot;&gt;ICR&lt;/a&gt;, in an article that directly addresses your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But why was it important for the Holy Spirit who inspired these five&#xA;  great verses to stress that the Lord Jesus was the incarnate only&#xA;  begotten Son of God? Many modern English translations of the New&#xA;  Testament apparently do not consider it important, for they render the&#xA;  phrase merely as &quot;only son.&quot; It is so rendered in the Living Bible,&#xA;  the Revised Standard Version, the God's Word translation, the&#xA;  Twentieth Century New Testament, the New Living Translation, the&#xA;  Moffatt, Goodspeed, and Williams translations, and many others. The&#xA;  New International Version renders it &quot;one and only son.&quot; There are&#xA;  still a few, however--the best-known being the New American Standard&#xA;  and the New King James--that render it correctly (as in the King James&#xA;  Version) as &quot;only begotten Son.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Greek word for &quot;only begotten&quot; is monogenes, the very form of&#xA;  which clearly denotes &quot;only generated.&quot; As monotheism connotes only&#xA;  one God and monosyllable means a word of only one syllable, so&#xA;  monogenes means only one genesis or only one generated--or, more&#xA;  simply, only begotten. It does not mean &quot;one,&quot; or even &quot;one and only.&quot;&#xA;  It is worth noting that, although Christ is called the Son, or Son of&#xA;  God, frequently in the New Testament, He is never (in the Greek&#xA;  original) called the &quot;only&quot; son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fact is, that to call Him the only Son of God would make the Bible&#xA;  contradict itself, for He is not the only Son of God, and certainly&#xA;  not the &quot;one and only&quot; Son of God. Angels are several times called the&#xA;  sons of God (e.g., Job 38:7) since they had no fathers, being directly&#xA;  created by God. Likewise, Adam was called the son of God (Luke 3:38),&#xA;  because he was directly created. The same applies even to fallen&#xA;  angels (Genesis 6:2), and even to Satan (Job 1:6), because they also&#xA;  were created beings. The term is also used in a spiritual sense, of&#xA;  course, for those who have become &quot;new creations&quot; in Christ Jesus by&#xA;  faith (II Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:10; etc.). In this sense, we&#xA;  also are &quot;sons of God&quot; (e.g., I John 3:2) by special creation?not&#xA;  physically but spiritually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But it is never applied in this sense to Christ, for He is not a&#xA;  created son of God (as the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultists&#xA;  teach), but a begotten Son of God--in fact, the only begotten Son of&#xA;  God. He never had a beginning, for He was there in the beginning (John&#xA;  1:1). In His prayer to the Father in the upper room, He spoke of &quot;the&#xA;  glory which I had with thee before the world was&quot; (John 17:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-07-04T14:00:29.403" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T14:00:29.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17284" CreationDate="2013-07-04T04:52:46.970" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Latin text of the Apostle’s Creed (&lt;a href=&quot;http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Symbolum_Apostolorum&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Symbolum Apostolicum&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;) states,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Credo in Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem cæli et terræ, et in Iesum Christum, Fílium Eius &lt;strong&gt;unicum&lt;/strong&gt;, Dóminum nostrum, qui concéptus est de Spíritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifixus, mórtuus, et sepúltus, descéndit ad ínferos, tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis, ascéndit ad cælos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis, inde ventúrus est iudicáre vivos et mórtuos.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the Latin word &lt;em&gt;unicum&lt;/em&gt; (lemma &lt;em&gt;unicus&lt;/em&gt;) can certainly be translated into English by the word “only,”&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; St. Jerome also used it in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Greek word μονογενὴς,&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; meaning “only-begotten.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in Luke 7:12, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ΙΒʹ&lt;/sup&gt; ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἰδού, ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς υἱὸς &lt;strong&gt;μονογενὴς&lt;/strong&gt; τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὴ ἦν χήρα καὶ ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανὸς σὺν αὐτῇ &lt;sup&gt;TR, 1550&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;XII&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;cum autem adpropinquaret portae civitatis et ecce defunctus efferebatur filius &lt;strong&gt;unicus&lt;/strong&gt; matri suae et haec vidua erat et turba civitatis multa cum illa&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sup&gt;Vul&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other times, he translated μονογενὴς by the Latin word &lt;em&gt;unigenitus&lt;/em&gt;,&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; which is the Latin equivalent of “only-begotten.”&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we could properly translate the Latin word &lt;em&gt;unicum&lt;/em&gt; in the Apostles’ Creed as “only-begotten” (rather than “only”) without causing a contradiction, since Christians are also children (sons and daughters) of God,&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; just as angels are sons of God.&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The important point to emphasize is the Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten (or, only-born) son of God the Father, by an eternal generation. The Lord Jesus Christ said, “I came out of God and have arrived.”&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; This is the only instance where the Lord Jesus Christ says ἐξῆλθον &lt;strong&gt;ἐκ&lt;/strong&gt; τοῦ θεοῦ. In the LXX, this phrase, the lemma ἐξέρχομαι + the preposition ἐκ, is used in reference to the generation of offspring.&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, Christians are sons of God by regeneration, i.e. being born again.&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;References&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. &lt;a href=&quot;https://archive.org/details/LewisAndShortANewLatinDictionary&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A New Latin Dictionary&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. New York: Harper, 1891.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Lewis &amp;amp; Short, &lt;em&gt;unicus&lt;/em&gt;, p. 1932&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Luke 7:12: &lt;em&gt;unicus&lt;/em&gt;; Luke 8:42: &lt;em&gt;unica&lt;/em&gt;; Luke 9:38: &lt;em&gt;unicus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Jdg. 11:34: &lt;em&gt;unigenita&lt;/em&gt;; John 1:14: &lt;em&gt;unigeniti&lt;/em&gt;; John 1:18: &lt;em&gt;unigenitus&lt;/em&gt;; John 3:16: &lt;em&gt;unigenitum&lt;/em&gt;; John 3:18: &lt;em&gt;unigeniti&lt;/em&gt;; Heb. 11:17: &lt;em&gt;unigenitum&lt;/em&gt;; 1 John 4:9: &lt;em&gt;unigenitum&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Lewis &amp;amp; Short, &lt;em&gt;unigenitus&lt;/em&gt;, p. 1932&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; cp. John 1:12: τέκνα θεοῦ&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; cp. Job 1:6. The LXX translates the Hebrew בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים into Greek as οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; John 8:42&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; cp. Gen. 15:4, 35:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-12-20T02:47:36.710" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17271" CreationDate="2013-07-04T05:08:58.163" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When asked this question, I do like to point to one little-examined incident in 1942. In July of 1942 the Dutch bishops &lt;em&gt;actually did&lt;/em&gt; send a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/the_bishops_who_defied_the_nazis/#ixzz2Y36Lhtxv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;letter to the Nazi government&lt;/a&gt; protesting, specifically, the Nazi treatment of the Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ours is a time of great tribulations of which two are foremost: the sad destiny of the Jews and the plight of those deported for forced labor. … All of us must be aware of the terrible sufferings which both of them have to undergo, due to no guilt of their own. We have learned with deep pain of the new dispositions which impose upon innocent Jewish men, women and children the deportation into foreign lands. … The incredible suffering which these measures cause to more than 10,000 people is in absolute opposition to the divine precepts of justice and charity. … Let us pray to God and for the intercession of Mary … that he may lend his strength to the people of Israel, so severely tried in anguish and persecution&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as a respectful, thoughtful group of individuals, what do you think the Nazis did? Did they stop sending Jews to the gas chamber? ... I don't think so. In fact, this letter corresponds to a dramatic increase in the rate of detainment and deportation of Dutch Jews including one, now canonized, Edith Stein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, admittedly, this was in 1942, so it clearly does not excuse silence from before that time, right? I'll agree wholeheartedly, except that I'll point out that Pius XII wasn't silent. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/documents/how-pius-xii-protected-jews#F6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Quoth the Third Reich's Chief Security Service&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State, a fact which earned him the hearty approval of the Democratic States during the papal elections. . . . How much Pacelli is celebrated as an ally of the Democracies is especially emphasized in the French Press.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And I think it also worth noting that Pacelli was consecrated Pius XII in March of 1939, ten years after the Vatican was subjected to Mussolini's government, and five months before Hitler invaded Poland.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But let us look to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII_and_the_Holocaust#Praise_from_Jewish_leaders&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;those who have been persecuted&lt;/a&gt;, and see whether they felt that Pius XII supported Hitler. Quoth the chief rabbi of Jerusalem:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then there are the numbers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;instrumental in saving at least 700,000 but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Just in case anyone is counting, Schindler is at &lt;code&gt;~1,200&lt;/code&gt;. Pius at &lt;code&gt;&amp;gt; 700,000&lt;/code&gt;. Pius &gt; Schindler)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what do I see? Pius XII preached against Hitler, but he realizes that his flock will be put to the wolves if he preaches too readily. So, instead, he works behind the scenes to keep safe as many as he can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T05:08:58.163" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17289" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-04T05:53:51.333" Score="13" ViewCount="10376" Body="&lt;p&gt;I need a better understanding of Protestant teaching on who has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4998" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-13T02:06:59.437" LastActivityDate="2020-03-16T09:31:21.237" Title="In Protestant churches, who is the authority in interpreting the Bible?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;authority&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17289" CreationDate="2013-07-04T06:46:39.177" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestants believe in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_(doctrine)&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Priesthood of all Believers&lt;/a&gt;, which is to say that protestants believe that all Christians have a direct connection with God--there is no need to go through a Priest.  That's not to say that they don't have Priests or Pastors or other figures of leadership, but they don't fulfill the role of mediator between man and God, that they do in the Catholic tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, every protestant believer is essentially expected to read scripture directly--not simply listen to teachings from scripture, presented by priests (as I know many Catholics choose to do).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This leads to two distinct phenomenon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some protestants try for a sort of &amp;quot;Lone Ranger Christian&amp;quot; approach, interpreting scripture on their own, sometimes cherry-picking the interpretations they like, discarding others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This phenomenon is a point of great criticism from Catholics, but I believe is much more spoken about than actually experienced in practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The more common and practical experience is that by encouraging all protestants to do their own Bible study and interpretation, the end result is that &lt;em&gt;all protestants interpret scripture&lt;/em&gt;.  As the as Proverbs says, iron sharpen iron.  When protestants examine scripture individually, and in groups, and discuss their views and opinions, it allows the group as a whole ownership over the interpretation, which can be a big benefit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, there can be drawbacks, and all methods of scriptural interpretation can be abused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T07:03:48.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17289" CreationDate="2013-07-04T07:20:26.663" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, in Protestant Churches there is no central single authority for interpreting scriptures and to layout fixed doctrines to follow. This is why there are many denominations among the Protestants. Denominations within themselves have their own doctrines to follow but it's always slightly different from other Protestant denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Examples:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Seventh Day Adventist Church&lt;/a&gt; has a strong doctrine on observing the Sabbath and against consuming unclean animals while other Protestant churches consider these laws as obsolete. Some churches like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Pentecostal_Church_International&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;United Pentecostal Church&lt;/a&gt;  does not adhere to the Trinity doctrine while most of the other Protestant churches adhere to it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone with influential personalities can start a new church or denomination. See  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16667/what-is-the-process-for-starting-a-new-christian-denomination&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;. This has a positive side and negative side. Without a mature knowledge about the scripture it is very easy to become a heretic knowingly and unknowingly. But even the Roman Catholic way of single authority for interpreting scripture also has a positive side and negative side. The positive side is that there is less confusion regarding doctrines for the members and the negative side is that the Church can exercise it's authorities for it's own benefits and no one can question it. This was the reason why &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt; Martin Luther&lt;/a&gt; stood against the Catholic Church for the wrong doctrines prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church and his actions sparked the beginning of Protestant Churches.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T07:54:40.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17289" CreationDate="2013-07-04T08:30:46.303" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As others have remarked, Protestantism doesn't recognize a &lt;strong&gt;central authority&lt;/strong&gt;, or any &lt;strong&gt;intermediary&lt;/strong&gt; but Christ between the faithful and God. This (like other Protestant teachings) is a reaction to the perceived abuses of the Catholic Church of the time (the mere naming of the faith is a witness to its &lt;strong&gt;reactive&lt;/strong&gt; origins).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others have expounded the doctrine of &lt;strong&gt;Universal Priesthood&lt;/strong&gt;. I am going to focus more upon the consequences of Sola Scriptura, another tenet of Protestantism. Martin Luther asserted, &quot;a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it&quot;. The formal version that emerged during Reformation is &lt;strong&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/strong&gt;, which states that the Bible has all the information required for salvation. This is demonstrated by its&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;inspiration&lt;/strong&gt; (the Word of God)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;clarity&lt;/strong&gt; (the doctrine is clear and accessible to an ordinary man of average IQ),&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;efficacy&lt;/strong&gt; (the Scripture produces immediate submission in readers),&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;authority&lt;/strong&gt; (the Scripture is the will of God and must be obeyed without exception) and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;sufficiency&lt;/strong&gt; (there are no holes in the Scripture that need to be filled by science, tradition or later clarification of doctrine).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In particular, &lt;strong&gt;clarity&lt;/strong&gt; means that any man can interpret Scripture in good faith (though he must take into account history and tradition, a requirement which is perhaps ignored by those who start a new faith or write a new book for selfish goals, or through ignorance and lack of humility).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A visible, though probably unintended consequence of the removal of central authority / censorship (initially meant as a reaction against the Catholic Church) was the unprecedented explosion in the &lt;strong&gt;number of denominations&lt;/strong&gt; after Reformation. While a community might come to an agreement by doctrinal discussions among members and the innate human desire to conform (groupthink), distinct communities (especially widely separated ones, such as New World vs. Old World) will not have an opportunity to reconcile their beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One common objection to Sola Scriptura is that both the New Testament and the Old Testament books included in the Bible were selected by the church itself, therefore leading to a circular argument. Many &lt;strong&gt;non-canonical books&lt;/strong&gt;, (i.e. books not included in the Bible -- some of which are nevertheless &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;referenced in the &quot;Bible&quot;&lt;/a&gt;) contain information distinct or apparently contradictory to the canonical books. Protestants answer that the canonical books were widely accepted since the early church, and perhaps selected by Peter, Paul and John. There are other objections to Sola Scriptura (see e.g. the Catholic-inspired article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura&lt;/a&gt;). From a human psychology POV, I suppose it is understandable that in correcting past abuses, reformers might err in the opposite direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4813" LastEditorUserId="4813" LastEditDate="2013-07-04T10:57:40.530" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T10:57:40.530" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2013-07-04T15:41:58.777" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a physicist with a faculty position as well as being a Christian.  From a physical point of view I would say option 1 is definitely a possibility - atomic nuclei do indeed combine (fusion) and split (fission) to form new elements, as in stars, nuclear reactors and bombs.  Quantum mechanics gives us ways of calculating the probability of this happening.  Under extreme conditions this can be quite probable, but under normal conditions, the probability of hydrogen and oxygen combining to form carbon etc is smaller than 10^(-10^23) [Ask on SE.Physics if you want a more precise estimate], ie similar to rolling a fair die for each atom in the water and getting a 6 each time.  The resulting energy could be released in the form of undetectable particles (neutrinos, gravitons, something we don't know about yet because it's undetectable...).  God (or you or I) are quite capable of rolling a die in such a way as making sure it comes up a 6, so it is quite possible for Him to do this miracle without breaking any known laws of physics.  Whether most Christians agree (or have thought about this enough to form an opinion) I don't know.  Of course this, and the other miracles in the Bible, are there for theological reasons - here the text is clear it is as a sign of who Jesus is.  This adds to, not contradicts, our attempts to understand the physics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5001" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T15:41:58.777" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17289" CreationDate="2013-07-04T16:08:44.747" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of the other answers have highlighted the Evangelical and Mainstream Protestant positions on the interpretation of scripture. I wanted to draw attention to a different position adopted by Anabaptist churches, specifically Mennonite, Amish, Brethren and some related churches. In those churches &lt;strong&gt;interpretation of the scriptures is done by the community&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Priesthood of all believers is upheld by everyone in the community having the right and ability to contribute to the interpretation.  The community can (and should) give special weight to those with the skills, knowledge and training in biblical interpretation: however there is no hierarchical 'priest' who can dictate to the rest of the community what the interpretation is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This 'community interpretation' happens at multiple levels. A small group may work on interpreting some piece of scripture within itself. That interpretation might be communicated to the church as a whole, which takes account of it, making its own interpretation by which it guides its own life. The church might contribute its understanding to a denominational group, and might take account of denominational understandings in its own interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This approach also upholds the role and status that Christ gives to the Church as more than simply individual believers who happen to meet together. It is also related to the Orthodox approach, which reserves to the church the role of interpreting scriptures, but does not do it through the church hierarchy in the same way the Catholic church does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-07-08T14:22:27.297" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T14:22:27.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9394" CreationDate="2013-07-04T16:32:25.983" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The scriptures state plainly that the devil was defeated by Christ at the cross. Satan no longer has any weapons of offense at his disposal. He has been completely disarmed by the love of my Father (Matt. 12:29) ...how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Jesus entered the devil's (strong man) house (planet earth) and took back all that the devil owned. (The devil owned the title right to planet Earth which he took from Adam. Jesus took it back, bound satan and enabled all on earth to be free from satan's power if they choose. Jesus then gave dominion on earth back to all people, however, only those in the kingdom of heven on earth (belivers) who understand this revelation of Grace can actually exercise the benifits of their dominion).  The other responses to this queation seem to indicate a beliefe that the devil is to be feared like the Boogy Man. The opposite is true. In fact the devil is now weaker in spiritual power and majesty than any believer in Christ simply because my Father and Christ dwells in the believer. So what was Peter talking about? The devil still has influence over people when they are ignorant of understanding the word of are not taught the true meaning of the word. This is what is called &quot;Walking in the Flesh&quot;. When a person is in this situation then he begins to ignore or not believ the fact Jesus has accomplished and provided everything for us and attempts to consentrate on his own works. This is when the devil sees opportunity and uses his only weapon: influence. Through his influence the devil can convince a person to &quot;help&quot; Jesus out with their own efforts and move out of &quot;Walking in the Spirit&quot;. When this happens then, by your own choice, you cut off the flow of Grace from my Father and, eventually, you will believe the devil is the Boogy Man. (Col.2:15) and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of these openly, triumphing over them in it. Thes principalities and powers were ownwd by the devil, Jesus spoiled them and was completely victorious over them.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4647" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T16:32:25.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17301" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-04T18:52:29.967" Score="3" ViewCount="551" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ontological argument&lt;/a&gt; that is sometimes applied to the existence of God goes something like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God by definition is perfect. Non-existence would be an imperfection, therefore God exists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it seems to me there is something a bit off with the argument. For example, one could say,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I define a monster to be the scariest possible being. A monster would be scarier if it exists and is about to attack me. Therefore, I am about to be attacked by a terrifying monster.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet this version seems clearly false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;First of all, are these arguments actually equivalent or is there something fundamentally different between them that I missed?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, is this the same argument used by Christians or is there another variant? If it is/was used, who was it used by and how widely accepted is it? Do any major theological traditions raise any significant objections to this argument?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5002" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-26T18:25:57.113" LastActivityDate="2015-10-26T18:25:57.113" Title="What place do ontological arguments for God have in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;existence-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17301" CreationDate="2013-07-04T19:26:13.383" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The greatest thinkers of the time (including the great theologian &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, the &lt;em&gt;Doctor Universalis&lt;/em&gt; of the Catholic church) rejected it. To quote from Wikipedia,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first critic of the ontological argument was Anselm's&#xA;  contemporary, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He used the analogy of a perfect&#xA;  island, suggesting that the ontological could be used to prove the&#xA;  existence of anything... Thomas Aquinas later rejected the argument on&#xA;  the basis that humans cannot know God's nature. David Hume offered an&#xA;  empirical objection, criticising its lack of evidential reasoning and&#xA;  rejecting the idea that anything can exist necessarily. Immanuel&#xA;  Kant's critique was based on what he saw as the false premise that&#xA;  existence is a predicate. He argued that &quot;existing&quot; adds nothing&#xA;  (including perfection) to the essence of a being, and thus a&#xA;  &quot;supremely perfect&quot; being can be conceived not to exist. Finally,&#xA;  philosophers including C. D. Broad dismissed the coherence of a&#xA;  maximally great being, proposing that some attributes of greatness are&#xA;  incompatible with others, rendering &quot;maximally great being&quot;&#xA;  incoherent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another point is that proving the existence of a deity would still not show that deity to be the Abrahamic God. Most of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God necessarily suffer from this shortcoming (from the Christian POV that is)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4813" LastActivityDate="2013-07-04T19:26:13.383" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17301" CreationDate="2013-07-04T20:23:00.020" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding your first question, there is a key difference between your two examples. They would be more parallel if you framed the first one like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is the most perfect possible being that can be thought of. Non-existence or a lack of regular competition in barbecuing championships would be an imperfection. Therefore, God exists and regularly competes in barbecuing championships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither competing in barbecuing championships nor attacks on you are essential to being a perfect being or the most scary being, respectively. However, the most scary being could be argued to be one that exists, rather than one that doesn't, so:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A monster is the most scary possible being. A being that exists is scarier than one that doesn't exist. Therefore monsters exist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we hold existing as absolutely essential to monsterhood over other possibly scary attributes, then this holds true. But, we may be able to think of things that seem scarier that don't exist (say a plague of Tribbles on Kronos) than those that do exist, so one might argue that existence isn't essential to monsterhood. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Anselm makes a stronger argument towards God, however. In his rejection of Gaunilo's critique, he notes that talking about God is different than talking about the most perfect island. At the very least, we know that the definition of perfection is tied intricately to God in the Christian understanding of God, so whatever God is &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be more perfect than what God isn't. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As @justbelieve notes the real rub with the argument is that it cannot prove a particular deity, even if the argument works. We might find that the most perfect possible being -- with existence being the key attribute to that being's essence -- might be very much unlike what we want to label God in a hypothetical reality where God didn't exist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking of hypothetical realities, Alvin Plantinga has a revised Ontological Argument utilizing modal logic that deals with the idea of multiple realities. Perhaps someone who is a braver soul than I would like to explain it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your second question, the Ontological Argument's major proponents have included St. Anselm, René Descartes, Karl Barth and Alvin Platinga, just to name a few. Contra the argument within Christian tradition would be a great many others, including St. Thomas Aquinas (cf. &lt;em&gt;Summa Theological&lt;/em&gt; 1.2, especially questions 1 for the rebuttal and 3 for his alternative).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5003" LastEditorUserId="5003" LastEditDate="2013-07-05T18:12:14.823" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T18:12:14.823" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17306" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17309" CreationDate="2013-07-05T07:17:42.683" Score="3" ViewCount="3029" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm wondering if heaven and hell was created or it always existed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it was created obviously God created it right? Because He is the only one capable of creating something like that. If so why make a torture chamber for you &quot;children&quot; if they disobey you. Even most human parents won't do something like that to their children no matter how bad they become. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if it always existed along with God, then he did not create everything. Maybe there more things that have always existed that we don't know yet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the truth according to the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T15:47:57.353" Title="Who created heaven and hell?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17306" CreationDate="2013-07-05T09:37:20.697" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think almost all branches of Christianity* agree that both heaven and hell are places specifically created by God. The justification for this is pretty simple: all things outside the being of God himself were created by God. There are no other eternally existing beings, things or places, and all the extant beings, things and places are explicitly identified as having been created by God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%201:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Colossians 1:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact meaning and scope of each of these items is sometimes debated, but it's generally agreed that this covers everything. Including heaven and hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of heaven in particular we have another indication that it is a place created by God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14:3&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 14:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;3&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise for hell we have an indication that it is a place prepared for a purpose:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:41&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matthew 25:41&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;41&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR: God created heaven and hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;* The exceptions are of course a couple sects that don't believe hell even exists and a couple that postulate about it being a sort of less-than-fully-real place not created as hell per-se but that becomes that through acts of either man or the devil.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-05T09:44:29.240" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T09:44:29.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17310" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17311" CreationDate="2013-07-05T10:32:48.413" Score="6" ViewCount="10886" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with reference to the verse Matthew 5:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how  can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus refer to people as salt?  Why it is so important as many more valuables are available in this world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-01T00:43:34.890" LastActivityDate="2021-05-29T23:49:27.473" Title="Why did Jesus refer to humans as salt?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;sermon-on-the-mount&gt;&lt;metaphor&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17310" CreationDate="2013-07-05T12:04:05.367" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In early times, salt was substantially more significant than it is today. (E.g., see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary#Salarium&quot;&gt;etymology for salarium at Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salt has some association with holiness; it was part of the grain offerings (Leviticus 2:13 [NIV]):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings, add salt to all your offerings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This contrasts with verse 11 (NIV) prohibiting the inclusion of yeast:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'Every grain offering you bring to the LORD must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 5:8, Paul associates yeast with &quot;malice and wickedness&quot; (NIV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salt is also important as a preservative and a seasoning. This points to the fact that Christians are supposed to be positively effective in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps most significantly salt is similar to light (another image Jesus used) in being beneficial, distinctive (salty is a major aspect of the sense of taste, light defines the sense of sight), powerful (a little salt or light goes a long way), present in the world (salt was part of everyday life, a light is not hidden under a basket), and even a bit disruptive or annoying (e.g., early morning light can be annoying when one is tired, salt can be similarly unpleasant) while also being attractive (one tends to be drawn to eating salty foods not unlike how one tends to be drawn to a lighted area).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T12:04:05.367" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17310" CreationDate="2013-07-05T12:04:39.260" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Salt fulfills a very specific purpose which other more valuable things do not.  One significant thing salt is used for is as a preservative.  In the age before refrigeration, this was very important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To apply this symbolically to followers of Christ, it would seem that they serve to preserve the purity of the world.  As it was in the days of Noah, there is a bent in mankind toward impurity.  True followers of Christ, the Bible teaches, are called to be pure.  Thus, the impact of Christians in the world is to hold the line, so to speak--to bring a standard of righteousness and purity into the world that is supposed to bring restraint to the progress of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, salt was used metaphorically in rabbinic literature of the day to refer to wisdom.  this would actually fit quite well with the Old Testament where it says &quot;the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.&quot;  (Proverbs 8:13)  So, calling followers of Jesus or fearers of God &quot;the salt of the earth&quot; is quite appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T12:04:39.260" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17313" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-05T12:15:16.577" Score="8" ViewCount="1556" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is one of the reasons the we can call Mary the Mother of God.  But I'm confused about the exact meaning of Human Nature and Human Soul.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is mainly this. What was created at the Incarnation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-15T05:11:37.740" LastActivityDate="2020-03-15T05:11:37.740" Title="Does the Catholic Church teach that Jesus' Human Nature was created?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17315" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-05T12:53:26.920" Score="3" ViewCount="439" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seems every man and his dog is qualifying for sainthood these days. Pope John Paul II canonised 483 saints, more saints than in the last 500 years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this because&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;modern science has advanced to the point it is easier to prove miracles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Catholic Church has lowered the burden of proof required to class an event as a miracle&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;more people are performing miracles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5011" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-02-01T02:38:22.740" LastActivityDate="2016-02-01T02:38:22.740" Title="Why are there so many modern saints?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;canonization&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17316" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17310" CreationDate="2013-07-05T12:56:30.900" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;He did not refer to &quot;people&quot; as in &quot;all humans&quot;, but to those who do his will, ie, &quot;good Christians&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And like other answers suggest, salt has a numbers of great properties:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;preservative [something we could not live without pretty much]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;taste enhancer [something that brings out the taste already in the food]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ie, so people of God are (or supposed to be :) those who preserve the good of this world, and give it its intended &quot;taste&quot; / happiness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T12:56:30.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17317" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-05T12:57:02.213" Score="-4" ViewCount="4069" Body="&lt;p&gt;I went past a church earlier this week and noticed a sign that said &quot;Christ is lord&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I then remembered about someone blabbering on about the trinity at university.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but then again I've always known Christianity, Judaism and Islam as monotheistic religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I've been told: Trinity = Father (God), Son (Christ), Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does 3 = 1? or vice versa&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do some Christians say Christ is &quot;Lord&quot;, this doesn't make any sense. Is he the son or the father? surely you can't be both. If Christians believe that Adam was born without a father or mother, why must Jesus have to have a father? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't look through the Bible because there's so many versions and naturally they'll contradict each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for my ignorance but ultimately I don't see how Christianity can be considered as a monotheistic religion if the trinity is to believed, so why is Christianity considered monotheistic if there's a trinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[edit]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not a duplicate of that question &quot;What is the Doctrine of the Trinity?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly one asks for the doctrine of the trinity while my one questions how can Christianity be monotheistic if it involves a trinity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5010" LastEditorUserId="5010" LastEditDate="2013-07-05T15:33:44.320" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T15:33:44.320" Title="Does beleiving in the trinity renounce the idea of Christianity being monotheistic?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;monotheism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="18" ClosedDate="2013-07-05T15:19:01.453" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17313" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:00:21.063" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thanks to Andrew Leach and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;his link to Catechism&lt;/a&gt;. I'll try to build upon it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been &lt;strong&gt;made&lt;/strong&gt; one of us, like to us&#xA;  in all things except sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was (and still is) similar to us in everything except for sin. We humans are God's creation, and we have always been God's creation. Our reason, our feelings, everything that is good about us is created by God (what is bad might be a consequence of the first sin). Jesus took human mind, human heart, human everything (especially what we call &quot;human soul&quot;) - everything that is created regarding to us, and so it is likely created regarding to Him too. The Catechism doesn't seem to counteract this view - the &quot;made&quot; (bolded by me) seems to clearly say that human nature (everything that is &quot;like to us&quot;) of the Word was created at the moment of His incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2016-11-07T13:59:38.073" LastActivityDate="2016-11-07T13:59:38.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17315" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:01:43.013" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The catholic church, especially through JPII and Pope Francis, stress that there are many saints, even the &quot;regular&quot; saints. Catholic church recognizes, in this way, only a tiny fraction of the saints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saints are witnesses to the faith, to the truth. This world badly needs it, so the answer to this, is to &quot;expose&quot; more of those witnesses of faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not adding saints to get a higher saint-score, it is recognizing what already is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is likely that the better communication and documentation of the modern times, helps identify candidates for sainthood. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T13:01:43.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17313" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:12:17.817" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my understanding, &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt; was &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; at the Incarnation. Jesus always existed, body was created long ago. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a thorough Catholic answer on the nature of body, soul and incarnation on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lrZCL4mF1Q&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;YouTube&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize the video, there is no separate body and soul in a Cartesian sense. This is a fabrication of the modern world that causes a lot of confusion. The human person is a perfect integration of body and soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The body is a perfectly good creation; the soul does not live without a body, or at least not &quot;fully&quot;. This is why Catholics believe in the resurrection of the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-07-05T19:41:58.657" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T19:41:58.657" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17317" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:26:52.273" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a ton of material on this on the web. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The crux of your confusion, is your belief that you know everything - I mean this in philosophical sense, not trying to attack you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is - no it does not, because we do not believe we have a full understanding of what is means to be one entity. Jesus claimed he was one with God, he proved his divinity (as Christians believe) so his words must be true. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the concept of trinity, is our limited understanding of the nature of ONE GOD. Same as when genesis says that husband and wife will become one-flesh. ONE-ness in this sense is more then just out concept of number one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me give you an example - when light was studied, it was found to be a wave and a particle. A contradiction many thought. Others, rightly assumed it was only an apparent contradiction because they recognized that they did not know everything. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You wrongly extrapolate your understanding of the physical world, and apply it to all of reality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T13:26:52.273" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17306" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:34:56.377" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there is also a mystical understanding of haven and hell as a &quot;union in love with God&quot; (heaven), and a &quot;perpetual rejection of that love&quot; (hell) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this understanding, they are not &lt;em&gt;places&lt;/em&gt; in any material understanding of them. They are states of being&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this understanding, they were never created, in the sense that sin or evil or free-will was not created. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not the same as denying that hell exists, as @celeb pointed out in his answer. In this understanding both &quot;places&quot; are very real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is a consistent reading of the bible in light of the mystery of free-will and god's omnipotence and goodness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T13:34:56.377" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17306" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:49:17.920" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the fact i got it through internet please verify below, think it answers your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the Bible Says About Hell&#xA;Related Media&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Key Facts About Eternity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;     (1) Everyone will exist eternally either in heaven or hell (Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; John 5:28; Revelation 20:14,15).&#xA;&#xA;     (2) Everyone has only one life in which to determine their destiny (Hebrews 9:27).&#xA;&#xA;     (3) Heaven or hell is determined by whether a person believes (puts their trust) in Christ alone to save them (John 3:16, 36, etc.).&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Key Passages About Hell&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    (1) Hell was designed originally for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).&#xA;&#xA;    (2) Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).&#xA;&#xA;    (3) Hell is conscious torment.&#xA;&#xA;Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”&#xA;Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”&#xA;Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone” &#xA;&#xA;    (4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.&#xA;&#xA;      Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”&#xA;      Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”&#xA;      Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Erroneous Views of Hell&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;     (1) The second chance view – After death there is still a way to escape hell.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer: “It is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;     (2) Universalism – All are eternally saved.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer: It denies the truth of salvation through Christ which means that a person decides to either trust in Christ or else he/she rejects Christ and goes to hell (John 3:16;3:36).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;     (3) Annihilationism – Hell means a person dies like an animal – ceases to exist.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer: It denies the resurrection of the unsaved (John 5:28, etc. – see above). It denies conscious torment (see above).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Objections to the Biblical View of Hell&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;     (1) A loving God would not send people to a horrible hell.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Response: God is just (Romans 2:11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;God has provided the way of salvation to all (John 3:16,17; 2 Corinthians 5:14,15; 1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; 2 Peter 3:9).&#xA;Even those who haven’t heard of Christ are accountable for God’s revelation in nature (Romans 1:20). God will seek those who seek Him (Matthew 7:7; Luke 19:10).&#xA;Therefore God doesn’t send people to hell, they choose it (Romans 1:18,21,25). &#xA;&#xA;      (2) Hell is too severe a punishment for man’s sin.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Response: God is holy-perfect (1 Peter 1:14,15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Sin is willful opposition to God our creator (Romans 1:18-32).&#xA;Our sin does merit hell (Romans 1:32; 2:2,5,6).&#xA;What is unfair and amazing is that Christ died for our sin and freely offers salvation to all (Romans 2:4; 3:22-24; 4:7,8; 5:8,9). &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical Terms Describing Where the Dead Are&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Sheol - a Hebrew term simply describing “the grave” or “death” – Does not refer to “hell” specifically&#xA;Hades - A Greek term that usually refers to hell – a place of torment (Luke 10:15; 16:23, etc.)&#xA;Gehenna - A Greek term (borrowed from a literal burning dump near Jerusalem) that always refers to hell – a place of torment (Matthew 5:30; 23:33)&#xA;“Lake of fire”- the final abode of unbelievers after they are resurrected (Revelation 20:14,15)&#xA;“Abraham’s bosom” - (Luke 16:22) a place of eternal comfort&#xA;“Paradise” - (Luke 23:43) a place of eternal comfort&#xA;“With the Lord” - a key phrase describes where church age believers are after death (Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 5:8)&#xA;“New heavens and earth” – where believers will be after they are resurrected (Revelation 20:4-6; 21:1-4) &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; Our curiosity about the abode of the dead is not completely satisfied by biblical terms or verses. What we do know is that either eternal torment in hell or eternal joy in heaven awaits all people after death, based on whether they trust in Christ’s payment for sin or reject Christ.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T13:49:17.920" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17324" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:41:24.843" Score="8" ViewCount="1989" Body="&lt;p&gt;Or more specifically, what verses have been used to build a case that its primary purpose is for children/procreation, and how have these treatments dealt with 1 Corinthians 7:1-9? As I read this passage, especially verses 8&amp;amp;9, the biblical &lt;strong&gt;purposeS&lt;/strong&gt; of marriage would include responsible release of sexual tension:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not seeking to debate the state handing out gay marriage licenses, but my hypothesis is that the &quot;for children&quot; argument neglects this purpose. I've seen treatments of &quot;procreation&quot; arguments that explicitly condemn the sterile from marrying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-07-05T15:36:43.603" LastActivityDate="2015-02-13T14:51:06.487" Title="What is the purpose of marriage in light of 1 Cor 7?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-02-16T01:46:41.687" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17324" CreationDate="2013-07-05T14:59:37.913" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt; has&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.&lt;sup&gt;90&lt;/sup&gt; Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes, and this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: &amp;quot;and God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;91&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;90 Cf. ⇒ Gen 1:27; ⇒ 1 Jn 4:8, ⇒ 16.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;91 ⇒ Gen 1:28; cf. ⇒ 1:31.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary reference for this question is &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 1:28&lt;/strong&gt; with other references, enumerated below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism further extols the virtue of marriage with&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1613 On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign — at his mother's request — during a wedding feast.&lt;sup&gt;105&lt;/sup&gt; The Church attaches great importance to Jesus' presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ's presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: &amp;quot;Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,&amp;quot; adding at once: &amp;quot;'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;110&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;105 Cf. ⇒ Jn 2:1-11.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;110 ⇒ Eph 5:25-26, ⇒ 31-32; Cf. ⇒ Gen 2:24.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus marriage is seen as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is God's purpose that, as husband and wife give themselves to each other in love throughout their lives, they shall be united in that love as Christ is united with his Church. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/pastoral/marriage/alternativetexts.aspx#preface&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Church of England&lt;/a&gt;, also CCC1617]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus there are two purposes to marriage: to procreate, and to model the relationship between Christ and the Church. Paul's reference to &lt;em&gt;burning with passion&lt;/em&gt; might be seen as a desire to become one flesh: to make present that relationship (even if that second purpose might not be exactly uppermost in their mind!) In that case, marry, and demonstrate it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:27 — So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:28 — And God blessed them, and God said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it ...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:31 — And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 2:24 — Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jn 2:1–11 — &lt;a href=&quot;http://jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/104john.html#2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wedding at Cana in Galilee&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 5:25–26 — Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 5:31–32 — &amp;quot;For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.&amp;quot; This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Jn 4:8 — He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Jn 4:16 — ...God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T15:45:19.367" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17326" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17330" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:03:08.133" Score="4" ViewCount="227" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any births foretold in the book of Isaiah which scholars have held NOT to be about Jesus, the Messiah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What textual clues have been used to distinguish between passages that predict some other prophet versus Jesus himself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T17:37:26.267" Title="Does Isaiah foretell any births that are not about Jesus?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16047" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:39:24.967" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I. Think God wanted them to know that even in that situation and after every thing they have done he still loves and cares for them and that is the most important thing he wants them to bear in mind before chasing them out of the Garden &#xA;God understood that the most important thing they needed was cloth,and they produced it without Gods help but God does not want them to think that they can help them selves,He also wanted them to understand that they can always Get better things from him,He had to proof to them that he is still a loving father and they will be needing his help out there&#xA;That was one of the reasons he gave them a better offer by making a better clothing for them &#xA;God wanted to take back his place in their life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5015" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T15:39:24.967" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17324" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:42:27.857" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will add a bit to @Andrew Leach answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is based on JPII's Theology of The Body (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lrZCL4mF1Q&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lrZCL4mF1Q&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The role of marriage, is to foreshadow/teach us what the love of the trinity is like and how we are called to participate in it. Love that is fruitful,  that created all creation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marriage is where man and woman unite in love (total self giving, like that between persons of the trinity) and that love, like the love of the trinity is fruitful. All this, is supposed to show us what is God - fruitful love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of marriage is primarily, to help both partners achieve salvation. Procreation, is one of the signs of the love of God. Marriage, cannot be separated from the possibility of procreation, as it would not be a true picture of God and God's love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as to the passage you quoted, it should be understood in totality of the revelation. It can be understood in many ways, one being that - different people are called to different vocations. In totality of the revelation, I don't think it should be read as condoning release of sexual tension in marriage, or that being the purpose of marriage&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marriage is not, in catholic understanding, a release of passion, or lust. JPII made headlines when he said that EVEN IN MARRAIGE, a man can commit adultery with his wife if his motives are that of lust. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T15:42:27.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17324" CreationDate="2013-07-05T15:59:45.433" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lay Catholic interpretation of the Biblical foundation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The command to procreate is the very &lt;strong&gt;first command&lt;/strong&gt; God gives to mankind that scripture informs us of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God blessed them and God said to them: &lt;strong&gt;Be fertile and multiply&lt;/strong&gt;; fill&#xA;  the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the&#xA;  birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/1:28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:28&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's reasonable to conclude from a purely Biblical standpoint that, since this command is the &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; command, it is the &lt;em&gt;most holy&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;most important&lt;/em&gt; command God gives to &lt;em&gt;pre-fallen&lt;/em&gt; people. Made in God's image, &lt;strong&gt;we are created to create&lt;/strong&gt; people to share in God's divinity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, it's important not to forget that this command was issued to &lt;em&gt;pre-fallen people&lt;/em&gt;. Such people would interpret it &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; as a call to release sexual tension, but as a call to &lt;em&gt;create people &lt;strong&gt;in God's example&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Paul, on the other hand, is necessarily speaking to &lt;em&gt;fallen&lt;/em&gt; people with a fallen, sinful, tainted understanding of sex, wherein -- as the question illustrates -- they (we) tend to approach intercourse as the mere release of sexual tension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is therefore (re)declaring sex in quite the opposite manner the question assumes he is. Recognizing sex as the means by which we fulfill God's primal, holy command given to pre-falling people, Paul is attempting to protect its holiness by preventing people from engaging in it flippantly or without the proper recognition of its holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T15:59:45.433" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17326" CreationDate="2013-07-05T16:14:32.777" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%207&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 7&lt;/a&gt; ESV (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1-4&lt;/sup&gt; In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not yet mount an attack against it. When the house of David was told, &quot;Syria is in league with Ephraim,&quot; the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. And the LORD said to Isaiah, &quot;Go out to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-jashub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Washer's Field. And say to him, 'Be careful, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah...&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;10-16&lt;/sup&gt; Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, &quot;Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.&quot; But Ahaz said, &quot;I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.&quot; And he said, &quot;Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. &lt;em&gt;Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote &lt;em&gt;Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Its general original meaning is not difficult. It is, that in a short time - within the time when a young woman, then a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should grow old enough to distinguish between good and evils - the calamity which Ahaz feared would be entirely removed. The confederacy would be broken up, and the land forsaken by both those kings. The conception and birth of a child - which could be known only by him who knows “all” future events - would be the evidence of such a result. His appropriate “name” would be such as would be a “sign,” or an indication that God was the protector of the nation, or was still with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 7:14 is well-known as a prophecy of Jesus Christ's birth; within context, we see that it is also prophesying the birth of another. Isaiah tells Ahab that a son will be born of a young woman, and that while this child is still young, these two kings he worries about will no longer be a threat to him. In fact, Assyria defeated both these nations (Syria and Israel), then turned to subjugate Judah (prophesied in verse 17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Keil &amp;amp;&amp;amp; Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament&lt;/em&gt; says this of Immanuel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;His eating only thickened milk and honey, at a time when he knew very well what was good and what was not, would arise from the desolation of the whole of the ancient territory of the Davidic kingdom that had preceded the riper years of his youth, when he would certainly have chosen other kinds of food, if they could possibly have been found. Consequently the birth of Immanuel apparently falls between the time then present and the Assyrian calamities, and his earliest childhood appears to run parallel to the Assyrian oppression. In any case, their consequences would be still felt at the time of his riper youth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T16:14:32.777" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17313" CreationDate="2013-07-05T16:36:01.143" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't imagine you'll find a fulfilling &lt;em&gt;philosophical&lt;/em&gt; answer to this, since that would entail explaining Christianity's fundamental mystery. Namely, Jesus Christ is both fully divine and &lt;strong&gt;fully human&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX7q3yDoFD0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX7q3yDoFD0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Humans are &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt;. Jesus is &lt;strong&gt;fully human&lt;/strong&gt;. Therefore, Jesus is, in the manner relevant to humans, &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt;. If this weren't true, I don't suspect we would say He's &lt;strong&gt;fully&lt;/strong&gt; human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I couldn't tell you &lt;em&gt;precisely&lt;/em&gt; what this means. But, I'd suggest that it hinges on our temporal understanding of creation -- Jesus' human nature is temporal, and therefore created &lt;em&gt;in time&lt;/em&gt; as an event in a series of causal events. But, even as sensible as that sounds, I'd be wary of clinging to it as a precise explanation, and I'd be highly wary and skeptical if &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; claimed they could explain this with any precision or certainty. The only folks of which I'm even vaguely aware who have approached a precise understanding of The Incarnation were heretics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the best Catholic answer, I think, to a question about the precise nature of it's fundamental mystery is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ is fully human and fully divine. He's fully relatable, fully like yourself (or rather, you're fully like Him); but He's also fully foreign (divine). It's a mystery and worth contemplating and praising. But, don't hope for a full understanding or cling to any [likely-false] precise explanation unless you're looking for heresy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T16:36:01.143" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17313" CreationDate="2013-07-05T16:57:17.347" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Human nature entails a human soul. When Christ became man, every aspect of His human nature was created:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no&#xA;  change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of&#xA;  conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the&#xA;  forcefulness of God's activity, &lt;strong&gt;not only was the human soul of Christ&#xA;  created&lt;/strong&gt; but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm#II4&quot;&gt;The Incarnation, The Catholic Faith&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The soul, as I understand it, is &lt;em&gt;the rational substance that moves the body&lt;/em&gt;. See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T16:57:17.347" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17301" CreationDate="2013-07-05T18:53:02.037" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;At present, not much of one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ontological argument along its traditional lines, wherein God is allegedly proven to exist because &lt;em&gt;the greatest being is an existent being&lt;/em&gt;, has been criticized by numerous Christian theologians. Most notably, I think, is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Thomas_Aquinas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt; rejected it on the grounds that only God could know God's nature; hence, any ontological argument humans could create or understand is moot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Modern public debates between reputable Christians and atheists generally consist of restatements and clarifications of St. Thomas's proofs. Take &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGap7J7yvM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prof. Peter Kreeft's debate with Prof. Michael Tooley&lt;/a&gt; as an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T18:53:02.037" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17336" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17362" CreationDate="2013-07-05T20:01:43.713" Score="-1" ViewCount="2857" Body="&lt;p&gt;Science dates the earth at 4.54 billion years old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the modern human species at around 200,000 years old with a split at that time from neanderthals - considered very different than modern humans. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be over a 4 billion year gap before humans and the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Christan's resolve this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day, are they around 4 billion years old and of a different species?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank You.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-07-05T22:09:30.360" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T04:56:18.447" Title="Were Adam and Eve of the same species as the modern human?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;adam&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-07-16T15:13:19.220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="264" CreationDate="2013-07-05T20:10:41.897" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The One Main advantage of praying is that you get to connect to the supernatural GOD.We don't need to take any appointment to reach the almighty.He is just a prayer away.We need to think how privileged we are to be born as Christians as we get the chance to closely intimate with GOD and move closer to him and also know what his will is for us in this Life.&#xA;Once we get this straight in our minds we see the things changing outside.We happen to see a sudden change in ourselves facing every problem with boldness and resolving every difficult situation.We gather the strength and the courage to come out victoriously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make Jesus your close friend today and see his mighty hand moving in your lives and making a big difference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5019" LastActivityDate="2013-07-05T20:10:41.897" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17339" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17348" CreationDate="2013-07-06T04:02:33.553" Score="-1" ViewCount="234" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with reference to the Genesis when did the God create man? And also the difference between two verses below&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image,&#xA;         in the image of God he created them;&#xA;         male and female &lt;strong&gt;he created them&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God &lt;strong&gt;formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground&lt;/strong&gt; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man&#xA;  became a  living being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also wanted to know why specifically two times it has been mentioned two times that god created male female in his image and then formed man from the dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-06T19:59:02.777" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T04:22:21.773" Title="When was the first man created?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-07-16T15:13:10.530" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17340" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-06T04:05:04.957" Score="1" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible that other historical figures like Buddha and Krishna could be prior incarnations of Jesus? Note I'm specifically asking if Christ said it was exclusive, not other Biblical texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5020" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-07-06T08:13:39.793" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T01:57:33.897" Title="Does Christ explicitly say that this was his first time on Earth?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17342" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17340" CreationDate="2013-07-06T05:10:39.333" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, Christ never said it was His first time on earth.  As a matter of fact, many denominations believe that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/angel-of-the-Lord.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;he appeared several times in Old Testament Scripture, often referred to as the Angel of the Lord&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as whether Buddha or Krishna could be prior incarnations, it would go against everything Jesus taught. The teachings of these other religions are very different from Christianity.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/what-is-unique-about-christianity/3983#3983&quot;&gt;Christianity is quite unique in several ways&lt;/a&gt;, and certainly isn't compatible with Buddhism (which emphasizes man's journey to enlightenment) or Hinduism (a pantheistic religion).  The idea that these figures could be &quot;other appearances of Christ&quot; would need to completely ignore huge differences in philosophy, and teachings on the nature of man, and man's relationship to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (a completely different God than the gods of non &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Abrahamic religions&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-07-06T19:59:21.873" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17343" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-06T11:50:53.353" Score="4" ViewCount="19662" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am looking for Biblical evidence that homosexuality is a greater sin than adultery or divorce (for any reason other than adultery).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prohibitions of &quot;sexual immorality&quot; could cover homosexuality, and I understand that Christian marriage is to be the joining of a man and woman as long as they live. I have also read Paul's warnings about men acting/dressing like women and vice versa, but these still don't seem to be outweighed by the passages relating to adultery. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christians are opposed secular gay marriage but do not seem to oppose secular divorce that can set aside a Christian marriage for &quot;no fault&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5023" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-07-06T18:05:12.453" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T07:56:30.153" Title="Why is being gay considered more sinful than being divorced or commiting adultery?" Tags="&lt;homosexuality&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-07-16T15:12:32.293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17343" CreationDate="2013-07-06T12:21:45.440" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, if you are going to accept an answer from conservative biblical scholarship, you have to set aside the claim that Paul merely condemned &quot;men acting/dressing like women.&quot;  Romans 1:26-27 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&amp;amp;id=319&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;has been claimed&lt;/a&gt; to be addressing certain forms of sexual intercourse, not just dressing or acting like women. An additional point on this distinction is that homosexual orientation, per se, is not condemned in many theologically conservative treatments of the issue, as opposed to homosexual practice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one example of a theologically conservative group making a distinction between orientation and practice.  The American Lutheran Church's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/History/ELCA-Archives/Archival-Documents/Predecessor-Body-Statements/American-Lutheran-Church/Sexuality.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1980 Statement on Human Sexuality says&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe it appropriate to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. Persons who do not practice their homosexual erotic preference do not violate our understanding of Christian sexual behavior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, you are precisely correct that scripture holds divorce in higher disregard than homosexual practice.  Those who hold it homosexual practice to be a greater outrage are relying on extrabiblical, perhaps cultural or personal, motivations.  Jesus himself has great outrage at divorce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 19:&lt;/strong&gt;  Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”&#xA;   “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”&#xA;   “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”&#xA;  Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.  I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-06T12:21:45.440" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17345" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-06T12:38:07.010" Score="8" ViewCount="380" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many of the recent denominational statements on the topic of human sexuality make a clear distinction between being aware of having same-sex attractions, and engaging in same-sex erotic activity.  Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/History/ELCA-Archives/Archival-Documents/Predecessor-Body-Statements/American-Lutheran-Church/Sexuality.aspx&quot;&gt;1980 statement&lt;/a&gt; of the American Lutheran Church said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe it appropriate to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. Persons who do not practice&#xA;  their homosexual erotic preference do not violate our understanding&#xA;  of Christian sexual behavior.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The early draft of the 1993 version of the Catechism of the Catholic&#xA;  Church said,&#xA;  &quot;Homosexuals do not choose their condition. For most&#xA;  of them it is an ordeal.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  In contrast, it is not too hard to find on the web condemnations of &quot;homosexuality&quot;. As in condemnations of having the orientation.  The point of contention between the two camps is what is to be said of the celibate homosexual: do they exist? do they need to achieve &quot;orientational conversion&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question, for those who agree that there is a distinction, is how and when did such a distinction come about? Can it be found in treatments of the church fathers?  Or is it a relatively modern distinction, coming about after seeing homosexuals in the community?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T00:58:46.593" Title="How and when was homosexual practice separated from &quot;homosexuality&quot;?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17336" CreationDate="2013-07-06T12:41:06.417" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer - YES! Long answer - read below :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find many science based articles that answer this question at creation.com . I am a recently converted atheist who was unable to reconcile evolution with the bible as a literal account. I believed the evolution account for 40 years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I no longer believe it is because I had an experience that moved me to believe in Jesus Christ as my Saviour (no it was not through near death or an evangelist experience, it was far more mundane, but that is another story). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I studied the bible and examined arguments for and against the Genesis account of Creation. I came to the conclusion that if I believe one part of the Bible as literal truth then I must also believe the whole thing. For a while I tried to wiggle out of the literal 6 days of creation, Adam and Eve and Noah's flood. I &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; wanted to believe the old earth or intelligent design argument but in the end science just does not support evolution. Evolution may in fact be the greatest hoax on earth but I invite you to read the various arguments for yourself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Returning to your question. The Bible traces the ancestry of Jesus back to Adam, first in Genesis then in Matthew. Unless you think maybe Jesus was not a &quot;modern human&quot; (as opposed to his divine nature) nor any of the figures in his ancestry then sure you can imagine Adam and Eve were not &quot;modern humans&quot; but were some species of hominid along the &quot;evolutionary chain&quot;. However, look at what the Bible tells us about Adam and Eve and their offspring, they sound exactly like you and I and they farmed the land. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My personal interpretation of the Bible is centered on one fact: I absolutely believe that a man named Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead about 2000 years ago. Believing that to be true I can then believe all the rest to be true because of the prophesies embedded in the texts and historical concurrences with many of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With love and faith&#xA;Caz&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5023" LastActivityDate="2013-07-06T12:41:06.417" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17345" CreationDate="2013-07-06T13:58:57.850" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholic teaching, I believe the distinction was always there, although I am sure the idea of what sexual orientation actually &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; has developed along with our understanding of the subject in general&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the distinction between instinctive lust/desire and indulging in it mentally or physically, so the distinction with homosexual attraction and indulging in it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The catechism draft you quote (I have no idea how authentic it is, but that's not important) does not really shed any light on this question - A person may not &lt;em&gt;choose&lt;/em&gt; to have homosexual attractions, anymore than a person chooses lustful attractions. This does not mean that the sexual orientation is born-in. In fact, from my lay-person-intensive analysis of the literature of the subject, we are pretty certain that sexual orientation, although biology plays a part, is not fully (max 50%) determined by biology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SIDE NOTE pornography shows us &quot;nicely&quot; how malleable our sexual orientation is. the kind of things that a person can be conditioned to get turned on by, would scare the crap out of them before they get into it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-07-06T13:58:57.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17339" CreationDate="2013-07-06T14:06:42.883" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In attempting to bring clarity, let's look at these scriptures as complimentary.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Created,&quot; as stated in 1:27 is the overarching term stating that God did make man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:27 So God &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;formed&quot; in 2:7 is a statement if how God created man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God &lt;em&gt;formed&lt;/em&gt; a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4637" LastActivityDate="2013-07-06T14:06:42.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17349" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-06T14:13:08.617" Score="3" ViewCount="86" Body="&lt;p&gt;With a couple extreme examples highlighted by the media in recent years, I'm curious if there are doctrinal statements that have been made citing that Christ will return on a particular date?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4637" LastActivityDate="2013-07-06T15:36:18.743" Title="Are there current denominations that have doctrines stating that The Lord will return at a particular date?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17349" CreationDate="2013-07-06T15:31:06.050" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are almost always such groups. And since the term denomination is so ill-defined, and so broad that any group of united believers qualifies, the answer is most certainly, &quot;yes, at any given time, there are several groups that could be called 'denominations' that have a predicted date for Christ's return&quot;.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4255/what-doctrine-does-family-radio-have-of-the-end-of-the-world?rq=1&quot;&gt;Invariably, they backpedal when that date passes without said event&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your specific question...  Currently, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lasttrumpet.org/seven_proofs.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this group&lt;/a&gt;, for example, predicts  Yom Kippur 2017 (September 30th 2017) as the date.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4718/what-is-the-biblical-basis-against-being-able-to-predict-the-date-of-the-end-of?rq=1&quot;&gt;most Christians believe what Jesus actually said, and reject the idea that the date can be predicted&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-07-06T15:36:18.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17343" CreationDate="2013-07-06T18:36:55.623" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is worth noting that while divorce was not part of God's original intent / design, for those who were determined to divorce, God made a provision (through Moses) for them to do that in a respectful way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in stark contrast with homosexuality, which, throughout the entire Christian canon is characteristic of deep depravity (cf. Sodom, Rom. 1), and leads to the severest condemnation and judgment from God -- &lt;em&gt;every time it is mentioned&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is sin, but one is tolerated (cf. polygamy), and one is severely, consistently condemned (cf. idolatry.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the alleged distinction between orientation and practice, we should probably consider Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where He explicitly refutes such thinking and defines even perverse thoughts as sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is a &amp;quot;homosexually-oriented&amp;quot; person to do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Galatians 5:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2010:5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-2 Corinthians 10:5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203:2&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Colossians 3:2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%204:8&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Philippians 4:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...which, incidentally, is good advice in general for any such struggle with the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-06T18:36:55.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17354" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17577" CreationDate="2013-07-06T23:27:54.667" Score="6" ViewCount="686" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Second Vatican Council wrote in &lt;em&gt;Lumen gentium&lt;/em&gt; 11 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_lt.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Latin&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The family is, so to speak, the domestic church. In it parents should, by their word and example, be the first preachers of the faith to their children; they should encourage them in the vocation which is proper to each of them, fostering with special care vocation to a sacred state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In hac velut Ecclesia domestica parentes verbo et exemplo sint pro filiis suis primi fidei praecones, et vocationem unicuique propriam, sacram vero peculiari cura, foveant oportet.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;The Splendor of Faith: The Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II&lt;/em&gt; (Crossroad, 1999; 2nd ed. 2003), Cardinal Avery Dulles writes (p146 of the 2003 edition, which I have read only on Google snippet view):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Paul II has frequently repeated the term &lt;em&gt;ecclesia domestica&lt;/em&gt; without adding the qualifier &lt;em&gt;veluti&lt;/em&gt; (&amp;quot;as it were&amp;quot;) used by the council.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dulles' cited examples are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_16101979_catechesi-tradendae_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Catechesi tradendae&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 68 (1979), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Familiaris consortio&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 49-52 (1981), and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Evangelium vitae&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 92 (1995). John Paul II's homily &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19800926_sinodo_lt.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Expedit ut laborem&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (26 Sept 1980) also speaks of the family's place as &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;ecclesiola&amp;quot; seu ecclesia domestica&lt;/em&gt;; and his statement in &lt;em&gt;Familiaris consortio&lt;/em&gt; 21 that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason too it can and should be called &amp;quot;the domestic Church.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;can now be found in the Catechism (s. 2204). A footnote in &lt;em&gt;FC&lt;/em&gt; refers to &lt;em&gt;Lumen gentium&lt;/em&gt; and to Paul VI's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Apostolicam actuositatem&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 11 (1965) - which says that the family fulfils its mission &amp;quot;if it &lt;em&gt;appears as&lt;/em&gt; the domestic sanctuary of the Church&amp;quot; (my emphasis; the Latin is &lt;em&gt;tamquam domesticum sanctuarium Ecclesiae se exhibeat&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not hard to find bundles of sources for the family being a good thing, and support for its special role in education. But it seems, especially in &lt;em&gt;FC&lt;/em&gt;, that John Paul II gives the family a &lt;em&gt;theologically&lt;/em&gt; elevated position, as an explicit Church-in-miniature, and that this is a novel development - whereas previous authorities used the phrase more cautiously. &lt;strong&gt;Is this actually novel?&lt;/strong&gt; I would be interested in finding earlier (pre-Council) sources for this theology, or alternatively an explanation of how it differs from prior explanations of the ecclesial role of the family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(I should say that I don't have a problem with novelty, so this isn't intended to be a criticism! I'm just interested in the history of the idea.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T19:00:54.273" Title="How novel is John Paul II's theology of the family as &quot;ecclesia domestica&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;religious-education&gt;&lt;family&gt;&lt;john-paul-ii&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17356" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-06T23:36:03.400" Score="4" ViewCount="1655" Body="&lt;p&gt;Under &quot;Christian eschatology,&quot; Wikipedia lists four contrasting beliefs pertaining to apocalyptic literature (and prophecy?) in the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Preterism&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Idealism&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Historicism&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Futurism&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would each of these camps interpret the following prediction, which comes on the heels of the &quot;new heaven and new earth,&quot; the &quot;new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,&quot; and a promise that God &quot;will dwell among them&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and &lt;strong&gt;there will no longer be any death&lt;/strong&gt;; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Revelation 21:4&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does this mean, and when did/will it happen? Please include a source to a teaching from each perspective on this verse if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-07-07T06:05:03.723" Title="How would the four major eschatological views differ in their interpretation of Revelation 21:4?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17357" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17364" CreationDate="2013-07-07T00:15:21.503" Score="23" ViewCount="22540" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? On the one hand, obviously, the normal biological meaning of &lt;em&gt;son&lt;/em&gt; does not apply. On the other hand, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/17284/5026&quot;&gt;&quot;we are all children of God&quot;, but Jesus seems to be more so&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That God offered up His only son as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is often used as an argument to demonstrate God's love for humanity. This would imply that God loves Jesus more than His other children, that this sacrifice was particularly hard, indicating that Jesus has a filial relationship with God in a sense that we would understand. It implies that sending His son to his death was extremely painful to Him, more so than the deaths of His other children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, these arguments seem to me to be a clear anthropomorphisation of God, Christians seem to be attributing human characteristics such as the love of a father --not metaphorically as when referring to humanity as God's children, but in a very literal way-- to God. This seems to clash with another central tenet of Christianity which states that God is beyond our understanding, that we cannot fathom His plan. If so, then any attribution of human emotion to Him would be wrong.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question is how do Christians interpret Christ being the &quot;Son of God&quot;? What exactly does that mean? I realize the answer will depend on the particular denomination of Christianity whose views are being expressed. I am particularly interested in &lt;em&gt;an overview&lt;/em&gt; of the more popular churches such as the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox but welcome answers explaining the views of any group as long as the group in question is clearly stated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTES&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read the posts below, but though related, none of them addresses the same question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1991/5026&quot;&gt;If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8002/5026&quot;&gt;Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one was quite interesting, and the accepted answer states that &lt;code&gt;His &quot;sonship&quot; is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others&lt;/code&gt;, which brings us straight back to my question, how is it distinct?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/17284/5026&quot;&gt;&quot;Jesus Christ God's Only Son Our Lord&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, very interesting, but it while it explains the contradiction inherent in Christ being the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; Son of God while we are all His children, it does not explain in what sense Christ is a son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-10-19T13:18:24.423" LastActivityDate="2018-10-19T13:18:24.423" Title="What exactly does it mean that Jesus Christ is the son of God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="14" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15627" CreationDate="2013-07-07T02:46:15.980" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am unable to get any meaning out of your Luther quote. Not enough context is given.  But you mentioned how Luther said the good works of the saved can be sins. In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heidelberg Disputation&lt;/a&gt;, Luther says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although the works of man always seem attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.&#xA;  The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.&#xA;  Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin.&#xA;  Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther's theology of the sinfulness of good works can be understood from two viewpoints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One, our doing of good works is seldom done out of purely good motives and can have negative, evil consequences. For example, I can bring a burned ham casserole to the homeless shelter on the night there are Muslim guests, and curse drivers who get in my way there. Sin creeps into everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two, it is a grave sin--Luther starts messing with mortal and venial here-- to put an ounce of faith in your own works to add to, to ensure, to complete your salvation. Among the places we find justification for this theology are not only Peter's mess-ups but also Galatians 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, we learn that to do works of law in order to be justified by them will cut you off from grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-07T02:46:15.980" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17356" CreationDate="2013-07-07T04:53:53.763" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like this question because it is reasonable to ask and it phrased in a way that indicates it is a real question. &lt;strong&gt;First of all, the categories you listed are not applicable for Rev Chapters 1-3 and Rev 20-22. They are the categories that apply to Rev 4-20.&lt;/strong&gt;  Secondly, Chapter 20 is split along these categories, which also do not really apply but may create a directional tendency just as the previous categories do: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;•   Premillennial (a literal 1000 year binding of Satan after Christ returns before the new heaven and earth of Chapter 21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;•   Postmillennial Approach (a literal or symbolic period of greatness in the church expected just prior to the Lord's return)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;•   Amillennial (basically the 1000 years is from the first coming to the second coming of Christ)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore as we approach Chapter 21 we basically face it with these possible 10 positions in very simplified form:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preterism/Postmillennial &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preterism/Amillennial &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Idealism/Postmillennial &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Idealism/Amillennial &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historicism/Premillennial &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historicism/Postmillennial&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historicism/Amillennial&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Futurism/Premillenial/Pre-tribulation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Futurism/Premillenial/Post-tribulation &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Futurism/Premillenial/(no rapture)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now what are we to think as we come to Chapter 21? Well, all these ten views must be multiplied into new variants as the new heavens and the new earth can be taken literally, or symbolically or combination therefore along any possible view before mentioned.  &lt;strong&gt;In virtually all (if not literally all) views this represents heaven after the final judgment where we live forever with Christ, but a more literal view will make that incomprehensible heavenly state a ‘heaven on a renewed physical earth’ and a more literal view might even literally say there is no ocean etc. as literally described. This means we now have these choices:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Preterism/Postmillennial/Literal Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However a great final revival (see note) in the world will occur before the final judgment. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Preterism/Amillennial/Literal Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However Revelation speaks loudly to us now and at 'all times'. After the end of the world we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Preterism/Postmillennial/Symbolic Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However a great final revival in world will occur before the final judgment. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preterism/Amillennial/Symbolic Earth – Everything in Revelation happened around the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However Revelation speaks loudly to us now and at all times. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Idealism/Postmillennial/Literal Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and some indicate a great future revival. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Idealism/Amillennial/Literal Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and this is during the 1000 years in which we live. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Idealism/Postmillennial/Symbolic Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and some indicate a great future revival. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Idealism/Amillennial/Symbolic Earth – All the symbolic scenes speak to us at all times and this is during the 1000 years in which we live. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historicism/Premillennial/Literal Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and we will literally reign with him 1000 years before the new heaven and the new earth. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historicism/Postmillennial/Literal Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and before that there will be a great revival. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historicism/Amillennial/Literal Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come but there is no need to expect a great revival before then. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historicism/Premillennial/Symbolic Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and we will literally reign with him 1000 years before the new heaven and the new earth. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historicism/Postmillennial/Symbolic Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come and before that there will be a great revival. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Historicism/Amillennial/Symbolic Earth – Revelations outlines the grand history of the church with some things still left to come (basically we are in the sixth bowl of wrath right now). Soon Christ will come but there is no need to expect a great revival before then. After which we will literally live with Christ in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Futurism/Premillenial/Pre-tribulation/Literal Earth – Chapter 4 onwards represents things that have not happened yet. The church will be literally raptured before all these literal horrors will take place. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Futurism/Premillenial/Post-tribulation/Literal Earth – Chapter 4 onwards represents things that have not happened yet. The church will be literally raptured after some of these literal horrors will take place but before the worst parts. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Futurism/Premillenial/(no rapture)/Literal Earth – Chapter 4 onwards represents things that have not happened yet. However the church will not be literally raptured before all these literal horrors will take place. They must suffer with the world until the second coming. After which we will literally live with Christ on a new planet earth.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note 1: Mention of a great revival (above) in the future is usually thought of in connection with a conversion of many Jews and a subsequent falling away of many in the church just prior to the final judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note 2: Often these above positions can be blended a bit between them creating new variants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could spend months retrieving and cataloguing authors who have these views (some way more popular today than others) but this is not really practical simply from the fact that I have a day time job. Naturally I have over simplified each view due to the space I have allotted for the explanation and I have not complicated some of the futurist twists further buy the various roles that some feel Israel plays into the equation. Then again I am not even familiar with those details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-07-07T06:05:03.723" LastActivityDate="2013-07-07T06:05:03.723" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17336" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:05:07.960" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Different groups of Christians resolve this in different ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;young-earth creationist&lt;/strong&gt; would say the earth isn't really 4.5 billion years old. Adam and Eve were created along with everything else around 6,000 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An &lt;strong&gt;old-earth creationist&lt;/strong&gt; would accept the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, but would deny that humans are descended from another species. God created Adam and Eve several hundreds of thousands of years ago as a separate and unique species.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;theistic evolutionist&lt;/strong&gt; would read the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory or a myth. Several hundreds of thousands of years ago, God imbued humans with a soul and gave us moral accountability. Adam and Eve represent God's relationship with each of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-07-07T06:05:07.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17357" CreationDate="2013-07-07T13:46:30.753" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll try to answer this from several different views - the main three (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) and also the LDS view, since the LDS view is significantly different from the other three, and deserves a distinct treatment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The mainstream Christian view&lt;/strong&gt; (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic) is covered by Apologetics Press in this article:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&amp;amp;article=272&quot;&gt;What Does it Mean to Say Jesus is the &quot;Son of God&quot;?&lt;/a&gt;.  The answer, for most Christians, has its roots in the Jewish understanding of the terms.  Bear in mind that this refers to the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;title&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;Son of God&quot;, and doesn't negate the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibleprobe.com/jesus-is-God.htm&quot;&gt;teaching that Jesus &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An excerpt from the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The earliest Christians were Jews who were familiar with at least two&#xA;  distinct applications of the term “son of God.” In the first place,&#xA;  the term had a general application to all Israelites. When their&#xA;  ancestors were held in Egyptian bondage, Moses was sent to Pharaoh&#xA;  with these words: “Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn.&#xA;  So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me” (Exodus 4:22-23;&#xA;  see also Hosea 11:1). Through the years, Yahweh loved, protected,&#xA;  comforted, and chastened Israel, just as a loving parent would nurture&#xA;  and discipline children (Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 66:13; et al.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second usage was more specific. Historically, the term had a royal&#xA;  connotation for many nations of the Ancient Near East. It was&#xA;  commonplace for Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Roman rulers to&#xA;  be called “son of God” (Fossum, 1992, pp. 128-137). These kings even&#xA;  were deified and surrounded by legends about their miraculous&#xA;  births—often including stories of gods copulating with humans&#xA;  (Sanders, 1993, pp. 243-245). This royal connotation also was known in&#xA;  Israel, although they did not deify their kings (O’Collins, 1995, p.&#xA;  117).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the New Testament writers referred to Jesus as “Son of God,” they&#xA;  sometimes employed the term in ways that echoed these two common uses.&#xA;  After those who threatened the life of the child Jesus died, Joseph&#xA;  was given instructions in a dream to return from Egypt to his&#xA;  homeland. When Matthew reported this event, he said it fulfilled Hosea&#xA;  11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called&#xA;  my son” (see Matthew 2:15). In other words, Jesus was God’s Son as an&#xA;  Israelite, and in a real sense, the True Israelite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The link above is a fair Protestant understanding.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm&quot;&gt;The Catholic teaching is the same&lt;/a&gt;, and though I can't currently find a reference, i believe it is the same in Eastern Orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in the mainstream Christian view, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gospeloutreach.net/virginbirth.html&quot;&gt;Jesus, in His human incarnation, was conceived supernaturally (without sex) in the womb of Mary, enabling her virgin birth&lt;/a&gt;.  This would certainly set Him apart as different from the rest of us.  In a sense, he is the Son of God because God was the one who caused Mary to conceive.  (I'm probably saying that badly).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for God having a unique love toward Jesus, in Gill's commentary on &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/matthew/3-17.htm&quot;&gt;Matthew 3:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in whom I am well pleased. Jehovah the Father took infinite delight&#xA;  and pleasure in him as his own Son, who lay in his bosom before all&#xA;  worlds; and was well pleased with him in his office relation, and&#xA;  capacity: he was both well pleased in him as his Son, and delighted in&#xA;  him as his servant, Isaiah 42:1 he was pleased with his assumption of&#xA;  human nature; with his whole obedience to the law; and with his&#xA;  bearing the penalty and curse of it, in the room and stead of his&#xA;  people: he was well pleased with and for his righteousness, sacrifice&#xA;  and atonement; whereby his law was fulfilled, and his justice&#xA;  satisfied. God is not only well pleased in, and with his Son, but with&#xA;  all his people, as considered in him; in him he loves them, takes&#xA;  delight in them, is pacified towards them, and graciously accepts of&#xA;  them. It would be almost unpardonable, not to take notice of the&#xA;  testimony here given to the doctrine of the Trinity; since a voice was&#xA;  heard from the &quot;father&quot; in heaven, bearing witness to &quot;the Son&quot; in&#xA;  human nature on earth, on whom &quot;the Spirit&quot; had descended and now&#xA;  abode. The ancients looked upon this as so clear and full a proof of&#xA;  this truth, that they were wont to say; Go to Jordan, and there learn&#xA;  the doctrine of the Trinity. Add to all this, that since this&#xA;  declaration was immediately upon the baptism of Christ, it shows that&#xA;  his Father highly approved of, and was well pleased with his&#xA;  submission to that ordinance; and which should be an encouraging&#xA;  motive to all believers to follow him in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Also from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is—Mark and Luke give it in the direct form, &quot;Thou art.&quot; (Mr 1:11; Lu 3:22).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased—The verb is put in the&#xA;  aorist to express absolute complacency, once and for ever felt towards&#xA;  Him. The English here, at least to modern ears, is scarcely strong&#xA;  enough. &quot;I delight&quot; comes the nearest, perhaps, to that ineffable&#xA;  complacency which is manifestly intended; and this is the rather to be&#xA;  preferred, as it would immediately carry the thoughts back to that&#xA;  august Messianic prophecy to which the voice from heaven plainly&#xA;  alluded (Isa 42:1),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The LDS view is a bit different&lt;/strong&gt; - LDS doctrine includes the idea that God is actively procreating in Heaven, and produces &quot;spirit children&quot;.  These spirit children choose the human lives they will lead, so all of us pre-existed in Heaven with our actual spiritual father.  In LDS theology, Jesus was the first, and chose to be perfect and to suffer as he did to redeem man, as was God's plan.  Lucifer was another child of God, who wanted to offer salvation by removing the penalties of the law, thus destroying our free agency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mormonwiki.com/Pre-Mortal_Life&quot;&gt;Pre-Mortal Life - Mormon Wiki&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-07-07T15:14:38.793" LastActivityDate="2013-07-07T15:14:38.793" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7917" CreationDate="2013-07-07T18:07:43.617" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was raised Methodist and we went to the altar and kneeled.  I've been Presbyterian for 40 years and we are seated.  My husband was raised Syrian Orthodox and they went to the altar too but stood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5031" LastActivityDate="2013-07-07T18:07:43.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4801" CreationDate="2013-07-08T00:35:09.227" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Blessed= God's force of grace applied to your life/ individual circumstances. Generally speaking, this manifests as The Lord providing a place of comfort and/or shelter, knowledge, etc., IN SPITE of the circumstances. (Psalm 23, for ex.) In the case of Peter- &quot;blessed are you Simon, son of John, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven. (Matt. 16:17)  We see Jesus commenting on the energy of the force of grace that enlightened Peter.&#xA;Depending on what reality you'd like to focus on, we can define &quot;Happy&quot; in two different phases. 1) &quot;O happy is the man&quot;, will be realized by an individual who finds himself under the force of God's grace. 2) &quot;happiness&quot; can mean anything, from psychological appeal to physical stimuli- outside of God's force of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:3-11, commonly referred to as &quot;The Beatitudes&quot;, lists several specifics where Jesus directly pronounces/promises grace to be applied to those believers who find themselves in the middle of these circumstances, conditions, or states-of-being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, &quot;blessing&quot; has absolutely nothing to do with financial prospering. It is mutually exclusive to the concept.  Blessing can sometimes include that state of being, but to be &quot;blessed&quot; means &lt;strong&gt;to be placed under God's force of grace&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5032" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-07-08T04:47:58.410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T04:47:58.410" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17370" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17381" CreationDate="2013-07-08T04:04:35.550" Score="11" ViewCount="2008" Body="&lt;p&gt;I admired George Muller's works in caring for orphans and his faith in God to provide for his need. However, I find it troubling that he didn't accept illegitimate orphans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;George Muller was a Prussian who came to Britain in 1829 in order to&#xA;  train for Christian missionary service. Some years later, inspired by&#xA;  the example of August Francke's orphanage in Halle (founded in 1696),&#xA;  George Muller began a similar work in Bristol. Muller's Homes - a&#xA;  complex of five gigantic barracks at Ashley Down, Bristol - provided&#xA;  accommodation for over sixteen hundred orphans mainly aged from seven&#xA;  to twelve years, who received an elementary education and were trained&#xA;  for trade or domestic service. The outstanding characteristic of&#xA;  Muller's work was that it depended entirely on faith in God: George&#xA;  Muller had no personal resources, yet he never asked for money; his&#xA;  Institution never went into debt; all his assistants were committed&#xA;  Christian believers and, on leaving, children were apprenticed to&#xA;  Christian employers or placed in service in Christian homes. His&#xA;  orphanages never attempted to be children's hospitals or&#xA;  reformatories; incorrigible delinquents were reluctantly expelled,&#xA;  and, curiously enough, &lt;strong&gt;George Muller did not accept illegitimate&#xA;  children&lt;/strong&gt;. But the scale of Muller's work created a public awareness of&#xA;  the problem of orphan children, and aroused Christians to their&#xA;  responsibilities. George Muller was one of the early founders of the&#xA;  (open) Christian Brethren.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kinghamhillschooldays.co.uk/site/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=115%3Achapter-1-children-in-need&amp;amp;catid=44&amp;amp;Itemid=67&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Emphasis mine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is his Biblical reason for not accepting illegitimate children? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While searching, I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.follow-the-light.org/2010/05/orphan-foundling-or-runaway.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; and learned that it was not easy to adopt illegitimate child during their times:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know it’s hard to believe, but foundlings [illegitimate children]&#xA;  generally died in the streets because there was no home for them, and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;adoption, as it is known today in the western world, has generally been illegal throughout most of history&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;British almshouses (poorhouses) were more difficult to get into than&#xA;  either of the other institutions [Charles Spurgeon's and Muller's orphanages] &#xA;  mentioned in the first paragraph.&#xA;  Spurgeon and Muller both lamented the cruel system of gathering&#xA;  signatures, securing votes, and the complex paper work necessary to&#xA;  place a child into an almshouse. Most almshouses were notoriously&#xA;  horrible places. 90% of the foundlings who went into almshouses died&#xA;  before reaching 10 years old. It took Thomas Coram, a wealthy retired&#xA;  shipbuilder who was shocked to see dead babies in the streets of&#xA;  London, years to get legal permission to open the first home for&#xA;  foundlings. Afterwords his legal charter was repeatedly debated, and&#xA;  at one point rescinded, because &lt;strong&gt;saving foundlings was considered a&#xA;  corrupting influence on society&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could it be that George Muller tried to avoid running afoul with the law or is it that, sadly, he shared with the his society the social stigma on illegitimate children? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-06T21:55:58.197" LastActivityDate="2015-09-07T14:34:16.580" Title="Did George Muller have a Biblical basis for not accepting illegitimate orphans?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;adoption&gt;&lt;george-muller&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17373" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-08T11:54:29.590" Score="1" ViewCount="2309" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to a well-known biblical tale from Genesis told to me when I was a child, God created the world in six days, then took a rest on the seventh day. Now that I am an adult, I can't help wondering what this six days even means. What does 'time' mean to someone like God? How long were those six days if there is no way for anyone to measure it? Also, time is defined in terms of physical processes which are regular, e.g. the current definition physicists use is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that time not only can't be measured, but has no meaning before the universe was created. How should we interpret this tale of creation? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5041" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T13:14:54.800" Title="Did God really create the world in six days?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2013-07-08T17:22:27.327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17374" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17380" CreationDate="2013-07-08T12:07:32.633" Score="5" ViewCount="1385" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prior to Scientific findings of an expanding Universe a survey showed that most Scientist believed the Universe was eternal (without beginning).  Now Scientists understand that the Universe had a beginning commonly identified as the “Big Bang”.  This perspective is in keeping with Genesis 1 “in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before this discovery did the Church believe Heaven was somewhere in the distant outreaches of the Universe and has this new understanding caused the Church’s view to shift Heavens placement to other-dimensional? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-07-28T12:25:36.413" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T13:17:21.963" Title="Where is Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17373" CreationDate="2013-07-08T12:27:12.097" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;How should we interpret this tale of creation?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THIS WAY (Catholic perspective) : God created the world. It was a purposeful creation, both the world and Man. Not an accident. The world and man has a purpose in the eyes of god.  That is the essential message. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not look to the Genesis for historical events. These are myths of profound truth. They are meant to tell us essential information about US, about man. It is inconsequential what the &quot;day&quot; actually means. On the other hand, it is important that world was created in logical manner and genesis could very well be a figurative description of the actual development of the cosmos. Still, was day = 1 day, a millennia or a fraction of a second, not really what Genesis's account of creation is concerned with&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastEditorUserId="4689" LastEditDate="2013-07-08T18:12:18.560" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T18:12:18.560" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17373" CreationDate="2013-07-08T13:08:08.890" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Accepting the creation tale as literal 6 days, here are some facts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew calendar is a  &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunisolar_calendar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lunisolar calendar&lt;/a&gt;, meaning that months are based on lunar months, but years are based on solar years. A day in &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar#Day&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrew calendar&lt;/a&gt; is counted from sunset to the next sunset. Sunset is the starting point for a new day but night time is considered as the transition period between the two days , therefore, morning (sunrise) is mostly called as the start of a day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:1-5 (NIV)  In the beginning God created the heavens and the&#xA;  earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the&#xA;  surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the&#xA;  waters. And God said, “&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Let there be light&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;,” and there was light.&#xA;  God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the&#xA;  darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness he called&#xA;  “night.” And &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;there was evening, and there was morning&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;—the first&#xA;  day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we see in Genesis 1:3-5, &lt;strong&gt;light was the first thing that God created&lt;/strong&gt;, which means that the sun was the first creation. &lt;strong&gt;This made it possible to start counting the time based on the sun.&lt;/strong&gt; That is why the creation of the sun (light) was marked as the first day, and literally, &lt;strong&gt;the first day on this earth&lt;/strong&gt;. Here we have to remember that the earth itself was already there but it was without light. The creation of light could also mean that the sun was already there but was not visible from earth. Therefore, the moment there was light on the surface of the earth, the counting of time based on the sun was also started. &lt;strong&gt;On the first day, the sun might not be clearly visible yet from the earth but the sunlight could penetrate the atmosphere and it was possible to start counting the days based on evening and morning.&lt;/strong&gt; God is not controlled by any time measurement but since the book of Genesis was written for human and since it is about the creation of this world, it is more likely that human time measurement was used for narrating the creation story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:31 (NIV) God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.&#xA;  And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After creating the sun, God continued to create land, animals and lastly, human. God finished his work on the sixth day, which is here again counted based on evening and morning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we take the scripture literally as it is, then we can say that God created the world in six days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-09T04:25:03.633" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T04:25:03.633" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17357" CreationDate="2013-07-08T14:13:14.510" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Basically the answer to your question is the Nicene Creed, but you have a collection of assumptions that are directly opposed to the reasoning of scripture.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First the Sonship of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, &#xA;  the only Son of God, &#xA;  eternally begotten of the Father, &#xA;  God from God, light from light, &#xA;  true God from true God, &#xA;  begotten, not made, &#xA;  of one Being with the Father; &#xA;  through him all things were made. &#xA;  For us and for our salvation &#xA;  he came down from heaven, &#xA;  was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary &#xA;  and became truly human. &#xA;  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; &#xA;  he suffered death and was buried. &#xA;  On the third day he rose again &#xA;  in accordance with the Scriptures; &#xA;  he ascended into heaven &#xA;  and is seated at the right hand of the Father. &#xA;  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, &#xA;  and his kingdom will have no end. (Nicene Creed)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This means that the Son of God is an eternal being who was loved by the Father before the creation, everything that happened in time is secondary to his role of Son.&lt;/strong&gt; Therefore, to compare him to anyone else is like comparing infinite to finite, i.e. everything else is nothing to God comparatively.  He can't love them in any way like he loves his only Son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Love of God is spiritual and not like you imagine.&lt;/strong&gt; The essential 'nature of God' is goodness and love, which means a love of that which is most excellent, i.e. himself.  Everything God ultimately loves is within himself, for he alone is excellent beyond all measure.  This is also why the only command is to love Him, which will manifest itself in love of our neighbor for his sake. His love for us is just an outworking of his higher love of Himself, being the only object deserving of devotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question smacks into the face of these primary building blocks of God's revelation of himself. First you very incorrectly assume 'we are all God's children'. The bible say's that nowhere, rather, as a good example taylor made for this question, Christ said in response to some Jews that said they were 'God's children':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:42-44, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse really ties both subjects you have so aptly confused together in your question. For first, Jesus shows how he is the 'only Son', for he came from before time began, from the Father in heaven, humbling himself into a human nature, but they were unable to comprehend him. They just knew how to babble about their own view of themselves as being God's children.  They were not aware that not everyone is God's child, only those adopted as a children through the death and merits of Christ's death and resserected life - are sons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So now about his love. While you and I stood blaspheming God, boasting of our selves, yet fully deserving of his eternal anger, while fools, while wicked, while stubborn, while unteachable, while full of jealousy, anger, lust and every other filth, -- while we were in this state, and this alone, did God sent his only Son to die for us.&lt;/strong&gt; One really must use the word 'I' to understand it.  God sent his holy eternal Son to leave the glory of heaven, to suffer into the inexpressibly lower life of a human, let alone an infant in swaddling clothes, to live among sinners, all in order to save 'me' or in this case, 'you'.  He took 'your' endless perverse and foolish thoughts, your monstrous evil deeds, and all things from your life unworthy of the eternal being and smashed his own eternally beloved Son into death for your immeasurable wretchedness.  Then he counted up all the righteousness that Christ lived in the flesh under all his holy Laws for man, and collected them all into a 'perfect righteousness' and hammered that absolute perfection onto 'you' (I am using a future sense on your behalf) - making you perfect under his holy eyes, while yet never yet ever doing anything good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, how is it that God loves sinners? He suffered to watch his dear beloved eternal Son, who he has infinite filial and Fatherly emotions towards (which is neither comprehensible nor explained by scripture yet declared to be true and accepted by all Christians)- he suffered that 'one and only' to pay for your eternal offense to all that is good and praiseworthy.&lt;/strong&gt; Not only so but to declare you righteous as a gift, with nothing required of you accept receiving that love by faith, you are granted tamper-proof eternally  life, which no man, devil, or sin can steel away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously the assumptions of scripture, what is declares to be obvious and what it declares to be nonsense is basically an inversion your question. In other words the scripture forcefully opposes you and it also opposes me in equal manner whenever I ponder my own foolish thoughts that are not worthy of his majesty and care.  This is really a matter of life, wisdom, knowledge, and glory, verses death, folly, ignorance and sin. It really about choosing faith in God, or following the Devil, at least from the view ported to us in the Bible. It always calls for a decided response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-07-08T16:25:07.910" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T16:25:07.910" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17374" CreationDate="2013-07-08T16:32:40.683" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Probably various people have held every possible shade of opinion on this issue. The idea that heaven is not a true &quot;place&quot; in the material world (in the sense that Earth is a place) is much, much older than the Big Bang theory. Remember that Christians have had the book of Genesis - which asserts that God created everything at some definite time in the past - for much longer than they've known about the Big Bang. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A common line of interpretation sees Genesis 1:1 as describing how God is the author all things visible and invisible. In this view, the heaven of verse 1 is not a place in the universe, but stands for spiritual things in contrast to material things. Augustine (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt; 11.33-34&lt;/a&gt;) thinks this the most probable reading, though he stresses that we shouldn't think that there's anything inherently &quot;wrong&quot; with matter - this is in opposition to the Manichean idea that the world is a kind of prison for souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One problem with this reading is that the rest of Genesis 1 seems to say that the same &quot;heaven&quot; is where birds fly (v20 uses the same Hebrew word). But as Thomas Aquinas observes (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 1.68.4&lt;/a&gt;), the word &quot;heaven&quot; is used in many senses elsewhere in Scripture. This is a common linguistic phenomenon even today, as for example &lt;em&gt;le ciel&lt;/em&gt; in French may mean &quot;heaven&quot; or &quot;sky&quot;, or even &quot;space&quot;. So we find that &quot;heaven&quot; may mean the airy place where you find birds and clouds, or the place where stars and planets are (further subdivided by planetary orbits, etc.), or the state of being united with God. Notice that this last one is not described as a &lt;em&gt;place&lt;/em&gt;, though by analogy we may think and speak of it as being a place. We speak of it as being &quot;above&quot; us, and associate it with the celestial bodies: which give light, are made by God, and are beyond our everyday commonplace experience. Sometimes this is done deliberately, for poetic effect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare Basil the Great in &lt;em&gt;Homilies on the Hexaemeron&lt;/em&gt;, who distinguishes between heaven (Genesis 1:1), the firmament (the starry vault, v6) and the atmosphere (v20), saying that the firmament and atmosphere are called &quot;heaven&quot; only by analogy with the true heaven. He dismisses all attempts at discovering what substances heaven might be made from - which was a common philosophical question. In the same way, John of Damascus (&lt;em&gt;Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith&lt;/em&gt; 2.6) declares that the essence of heaven is beyond our knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These and other authorities did try to &quot;locate&quot; heaven with respect to the Earth, using the best astronomy of the day. They believed that beyond the &quot;sphere of the fixed stars&quot;, there was a final boundary sphere, the firmament, beyond which was the endless expanse of the &quot;empyrean heaven&quot;. (And again, any part of this, from the atmosphere upwards, could commonly be called &quot;heaven&quot;, as John of Damascus admits.) Once in the empyrean, however, there's no longer any notion of time or space. This comports with Aristotelian philosophy, which was tremendously influential. Boethius (in &lt;em&gt;Quomodo substantiae&lt;/em&gt;) observes that the proposition &quot;Incorporeal things are not in any place&quot; is one which may make sense only to the educated - the full-blown concept of the timeless, spaceless, incomprehensible empyrean is a tricky one, and so it's easy to fall into a more naive conception of heaven as simply a faraway place. The point of the empyrean is not that it's &quot;a place&quot; beyond the stars, but that it's outside the ordinary material universe, of which the firmament was thought to be the boundary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T16:32:40.683" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17370" CreationDate="2013-07-08T17:24:32.010" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27288&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Life of Trust: Being a Narrative of the Lord's Dealings With George Müller&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, his autobiography:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I began the service of caring for children who are bereaved of &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; parents, by death, born in wedlock, and are in destitute circumstances, on Dec. 9, 1835. &amp;mdash;Chapter XVII, &quot;Reaping Bountifully&quot;, p. 294.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That, it seems, confirms the criteria he used.  Later he explains his primary purpose in establishing a house for orphans:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This, then, was the primary reason for establishing the orphan house. I certainly did from my heart desire to be used by God to benefit the bodies of poor children, bereaved of both parents, and seek in other respects, with the help of God, to do them good for this life. I also particularly longed to be used by God in getting the dear orphans trained up in the fear of God; but still, the first and primary object of the work was, and still is, that God might be magnified by the fact that the orphans under my care are provided with all they need, only &lt;em&gt;by prayer and faith&lt;/em&gt;, without any one being asked by me or my fellow-laborers, whereby it may be seen that God is &lt;strong&gt;faithful still&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;hears prayer still&lt;/strong&gt;. That I was not mistaken, has been abundantly proved since November, 1835, both by the conversion of many sinners who have read the accounts which have been published in connection with this work, and also by the abundance of fruit that has followed in the hearts of the saints, for which, from my inmost soul, I desire to be grateful to God, and the honor and glory of which not only is due to him alone, but which I, by his help, am enabled to ascribe to him.&amp;mdash;Chapter VII. &quot;Home for Destitute Orphans&quot;, p. 115.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, his goals were in order:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Show that God answers prayers,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do good for orphans in this life, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bring orphans to faith.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He further explains when considering the possibility of opening another house:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The many distressing cases of children, bereaved of &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; parents, who have no helper. I have received two hundred and seven orphans within the last sixteen months, and have now seventy-eight waiting for admission, without having vacancies for any. I had about sixty children waiting for admission about sixteen months since, so about two hundred and thirty children have been applied for within these sixteen months. But, humanly speaking, for the next sixteen months the number of applications will be far greater, as the work is now so much more widely known; except it be that persons may hear that the new Orphan House is quite full, and on that account may consider it useless to apply.&amp;mdash;Chapter XX, &quot;A New Victory of Faith&quot;, p. 366.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes further to explain the difficulty orphans who don't have influential sponsors have getting help from other charitable institutions for orphans. Because of this, Müller seems to have been willing to make certain exceptions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I feel myself particularly called upon to be the friend of the orphan, by making an easy way for admission, &lt;em&gt;provided it is really a destitute case&lt;/em&gt;.&amp;mdash;Chapter XX, &quot;A New Victory of Faith&quot;, p. 365.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether admitting a child born out of wedlock was one possible exception, I don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without further information, we can only speculate what his reasons were.  Certainly the general attitude toward marriage and legitimacy played a part.  But limited space and an abundance of applicants likely had a role as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T17:24:32.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17382" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17383" CreationDate="2013-07-08T17:59:23.310" Score="-1" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;p&gt;In light of the 4th of July in America, the founding fathers created new and brilliant ideas and concepts by which the &quot;new world&quot; would and still live by. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is almost as if they created a new Bible by which man (in America) will live by.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why wasn't the Bible enough to live by and how does the Bible support the American constitution and ideas on our way of life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank You.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2015-04-03T22:08:29.897" Title="Why wasn't the Bible enough for the founding fathers of America?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T20:04:23.857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17382" CreationDate="2013-07-08T18:22:18.023" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why wasn't the Bible enough to live by? The answer should be obvious if you consider how most of the colonists (or their ancestors) got to America in the first place: a significant percentage of the original colonists were religious refugees, fleeing persecution from people who believed that the Bible was enough to live by, but &lt;em&gt;had their own opinions of what the rules the Bible gave meant.&lt;/em&gt;  And when you're trying to build a stable society composed of multiple distinct sub-groups with backgrounds like that, each of whom still have their own distinct ideas about what the Bible means, saying &quot;just look at the Bible&quot; just isn't going to cut it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it's not like things got any better in that regard after the establishment of the USA.  If we look forward another 40-50 years, we have a record of more of the same, even to the point of direct competition and bitterness between Christians who were nominally brothers in the faith.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng&quot;&gt;From the account of Joseph Smith&lt;/a&gt;, regarding the time before the experiences that shaped him into a religious leader:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, [&lt;em&gt;ie.&#xA;  the late 1810s&lt;/em&gt;] there was in the place where we lived an unusual&#xA;  excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the&#xA;  Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region&#xA;  of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by&#xA;  it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious&#xA;  parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people,&#xA;  some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending&#xA;  for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the&#xA;  Baptist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these&#xA;  different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the&#xA;  great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in&#xA;  getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious&#xA;  feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to&#xA;  call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts&#xA;  began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen&#xA;  that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts&#xA;  were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad&#xA;  feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against&#xA;  convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever&#xA;  had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about&#xA;  opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great&#xA;  and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the&#xA;  Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and&#xA;  sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people&#xA;  think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and&#xA;  Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to&#xA;  establish their own tenets and disprove all others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[I knew] that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to&#xA;  act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then&#xA;  had, I would never know; for &lt;strong&gt;the teachers of religion of the&#xA;  different sects understood the same passages of scripture so&#xA;  differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by&#xA;  an appeal to the Bible.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is just talking about a bunch of Protestants. Imagine the confusion if Catholics were thrown into the mix! (And there were and still are plenty of them in America.)  Then add in people of non-Christian faiths, and even atheists, and things just get messier...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having pointed that out, it's still very interesting to look at the Constitution and at early American laws and legal concepts, and see how much of them were drawn from Biblical precepts.  A surprising percentage of them have clear roots in Old Testament civil law.  But in order to build a strong civilization around them, they still needed to be formally codified as law, originally drafted in the modern, common language, with a clear interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T18:22:18.023" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17384" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-08T18:52:11.357" Score="11" ViewCount="2329" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is my first question here! I'm Christian and I've read the Bible for a while, but I haven't seen anything related to birth control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that Paul says that husband and wife can agree to refrain from sexual intercourse for a while, whenever it is for dedicating more time to pray. But I don't know something more specific. On the other hand, God calls us to sexual purity, so I'm a bit confused about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5037" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-07-09T02:44:20.730" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T02:44:20.730" Title="What does the Bible say about birth control?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;contraception&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-10T02:42:29.430" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14467" CreationDate="2013-07-08T20:14:48.577" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is very simple: despite dying as an atheist, if you wind up in hell, it will not be due to your being an atheist, but due to your being a totally evil, obnoxious, arrogant, life hating, love hating person.  If that is not your character, then presumably, when you come face to face with the reality of the love of God, you will willingly and happily embrace it. Otherwise that same love will torment you.  If the reality of God becomes 'hell' for you, then your mother, I am sure, will be glad to see the back of you, because there will be nothing left of you but evil and arrogance.  Certainly no mother in her right mind would want to have anything to do with a son like that, especially considering that you would hate your mother anyway, due to your rejection of the source of all true love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing is, in my view, certain. You will not go to hell through having failed to &quot;tick the right religious boxes&quot; before you die.  I know that this is what so many evangelical Christians believe, but it is an insult to God to assume that he deals with people in this manner.  When Jesus spoke about the &quot;sheep and the goats&quot;, He was referring to two sets of people with completely different natures, as if they were, in fact, two different species.  The sheep embrace the reality of the love of God, but the goats reject it.  It is therefore wrong to assume that there will be essentially 'nice' people in hell, who are only there, because they failed to become Christians.  Eternal reality is rather more profound than that!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5042" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T20:14:48.577" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17384" CreationDate="2013-07-08T20:41:42.500" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biblical text contains no explicit references to birth control, either for or against. Since you did not reference a particular tradition, this is the simplest answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, some groups, through the lens of particular traditions, attempt to &lt;em&gt;infer&lt;/em&gt; God's plan about such issues based on various texts. Baptist Fundamentalist and other anti-birth-control traditions use at least two lines of reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding pre-conception birth control, an oft-used passage is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Children are a heritage from the Lord...Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them (parts of Psalm 127:3-5, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This line of reasoning is: if children are a reward of God, who are mere mortals to refuse the gift? Since the reward is given by God, the decision to bestow the &quot;blessing&quot; is his and his alone. Those who  practice birth control are &quot;standing in the stead of God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding post-conception birth control, a passage in Jeremiah is oft used. In 1:5, God is quoted as saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage is seen by some as having general applicability to the human condition, and implies the existence of a soul before the existence of the body. Some Christians take this to mean that the soul is present in the body at the moment of conception, so any action that destroys body at any stage (morning-after pills, abortion, etc) is necessarily murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a former Christian, it is my opinion that the above passages are overly stretched to cover the topic and that you should choose the way that works best for you. For a many years of my life I subscribed to the ideas above; as the father of six children, I strongly urge you to consider that the consequences of such an approach will have an impact on your life that is impossible to measure in advance. Birth control properly used can help you to form a happier, more productive life for all the members of your family, however many you choose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="407" LastEditorUserId="407" LastEditDate="2013-07-08T22:53:19.697" LastActivityDate="2013-07-08T22:53:19.697" CommentCount="27" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13892" CreationDate="2013-07-08T21:55:54.757" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anti in Greek can be found in Strong's Concordance as G473.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;anti&#xA;an-tee'&#xA;a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):--for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So antipope can mean someone opposite the real pope, someone instead of the real pope, someone in the room of (in the place of) the real pope, or someone in substitution of the real pope, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In saying real pope meaning the bishop of Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5043" LastEditorUserId="5043" LastEditDate="2013-07-10T03:17:15.923" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T03:17:15.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17384" CreationDate="2013-07-08T23:57:48.000" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 38:9 - New International Version (©2011)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the scripture I think of when birth control is brought up. Onan's brother had died so his brother's wife came to belong to him (as was the custom then). He wasted his sperm though and God killed him for what he had done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Children are a gift from God and were particularly seen as such in the Bible times (for instance barren women would be miserable and pray for offspring). Purposefully remaining childless while in a married relationship is something apparently common today, but not exactly natural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 21:22,23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The unborn are alive and seen by God as individuals - here causing the death of one carried the death penalty as for murder. They carry the potential to grow, as does every human, and have that potential right from the moment they were conceived (even before, as sperm).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore the only form of &amp;quot;birth control&amp;quot; that I would see as Biblically OK is abstinence. If you really do not want children then it is best to stay single, as Paul advised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5265" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T01:54:17.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17389" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-09T02:34:19.710" Score="17" ViewCount="8074" Body="&lt;h2&gt;&quot;Faith Alone&quot;?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have heard the term &quot;Protestant&quot; before, chances are you have also heard the saying &quot;faith alone.&quot; The way Protestants speak of &quot;faith alone&quot; might almost give one the impression that Luther and his band of rebels chanted this mantra all the way out of the Catholic cathedral as they defected from the Mother Church and set off to seek a better way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is the story on this &quot;faith alone&quot; concept? As a Protestant, the first place I go when I have questions is Scripture. (&quot;Sola Scriptura,&quot; right?) When I do a query in the NASB Bible on &quot;faith alone&quot; this is the only entry that comes up:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You see that a man is justified by works and &lt;strong&gt;not by faith alone&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:24&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-James 2:24&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is humorous. &lt;em&gt;(Of course, from what I am told, Luther did not believe that the book of James belonged in the canon of Scripture anyway... but I digress.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So where did the idea of &quot;faith alone&quot; come from? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;From what I understand&lt;/a&gt;, Luther had translated the following verse into Latin, at which point the Catholic church back-translated it into German, incorrectly rendering the bolded term as &quot;faith alone&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we maintain that a man is justified by &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; apart from works of the Law. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Romans 3:28&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the Catholics rendered the Latin as &quot;&lt;strong&gt;faith alone&lt;/strong&gt; apart from works of the Law,&quot; and were outraged. However, Luther maintained that the Catholics had mistranslated his Latin, and that the Latin &lt;em&gt;solum&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;alone&quot;) was necessary &lt;strong&gt;in Latin&lt;/strong&gt; to convey the meaning of the sentence, though they were correct that the extra term was unnecessary in German. So in Luther's mind, the Latin was accurate &lt;strong&gt;with&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;solum&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;alone&quot;), and the German was accurate &lt;strong&gt;without&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;allein&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;alone&quot;). &lt;strong&gt;All that to say it seems that in Luther's mind &quot;faith alone&quot; was nothing more than a Catholic mistranslation! &lt;em&gt;So how did it become a Protestant mantra?!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To further complicate matters, Romans 3:28 does not contrast faith with &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;works&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, but with &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;works of the Law&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;; i.e. the Mosaic Law. Yet the modern Protestant mantra seems to contrast faith with &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;any sort of action.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;My Question&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, can someone explain the Protestant doctrine of &quot;faith alone&quot; to me? Do I have my facts straight about its origin (a Catholic mistranslation from Latin to German)? If so, how in the world did a Catholic mistranslation (that Luther rejected) become a Protestant mantra?!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, is this doctrine really as foundational to Protestantism as people think it is? And what does this doctrine even &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;mean&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;? Is it &quot;faith apart from any action&quot;? Is it &quot;faith apart from the Mosaic Law&quot;? Something else? Would Luther even affirm the Protestant doctrine of &quot;faith alone&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5410/1548&quot;&gt;What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)?&lt;/a&gt; This question asks how a person would justify this doctrine from Scripture. It's not the same as what I'm asking here, but it is relevant none the less.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Also related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/8239/1548&quot;&gt;Can someone help me cite Luther's explanation of faith alone to Catholics&lt;/a&gt;? This question asks for a particular source to use in an upcoming blog post. Not at all what I'm asking, but related none the less.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2019-10-14T01:56:41.093" Title="What is the Protestant belief known as &quot;faith alone&quot;?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;romans&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17384" CreationDate="2013-07-09T02:42:22.160" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Jon commented, we covered the topic in the Christianity.StackExchange Blog last year.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.blogoverflow.com/2012/03/12/responsible-parenthood-the-catholic-take-on-contraception/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;I took the Catholic position on the subject&lt;/a&gt; but will now attempt to conjure up anti-birth control hermeneutic that even folks who consider Catholicism to be yet another brand of Christianity might consider plausible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the non-existence of explicit references to the regulation of birth as something universally condemned along with the other 613 commandments using the most complicated algorithms to search the text of the Bible, the Deuterocanonicals and the Apocrypha might lead you to think that Birth Control is amoral.  But, what it should really do is make you question it's existence.  Birth Control is a clearly a euphemism, and an evil one at that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name of Birth-Control, for instance, is sheer nonsense. Everybody has always exercised birth-control; even when they were so paradoxical as to permit the process to end in a birth. Everybody has always known about birth-control, even if it took the wild and unthinkable form of self-control. The question at issue concerns different forms of birth-prevention;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;G.K. Chesterton – On Evil Euphemisms&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a euphemism, it's not something that actually exists.  What does exist are its antithets&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Birth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Self-control&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Birth is in the Bible, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/L5.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;hundreds of people&lt;/a&gt; including [Jesus] were born in the Bible. Cursing ones birth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep your father and mother in mind when you sit among the mighty, Lest in their presence you commit a blunder and disgrace your upbringing, By wishing you had never been born or cursing the day of your birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/sirach/23:14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sirach 23:14 NABRE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is not a good thing.  Jeremiah and Job, started out lamenting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;because he did not kill me in the womb! Then my mother would have been my grave, her womb confining me forever. Why did I come forth from the womb, to see sorrow and pain, to end my days in shame?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/jer/20:17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 20:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did I not die at birth, come forth from the womb and expire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/jb/3:11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 3:11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Job and Jeremiah found out that it's better to be born because life, including suffering, is a great mystery and it connects us to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/16:24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 16:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The self denial which makes us followers of Christ leads to Chesterton's second point about self-control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion, devotion with mutual affection, mutual affection with love. If these are yours and increase in abundance, they will keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2peter/1:6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 1:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and all these virtues, borne of faith in Christ, blossom in their fullness in the context of a marriage that always is open to God's creative power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above mentioned verse is a veritable blueprint for &lt;a href=&quot;http://onemoresoul.com/category/marriage-children/natural-family-planning&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Natural Family Planning&lt;/a&gt;.  It starts with Faith in God's providence, it goes on to knowledge about the natural systems that regulate ovulation then requires self-control during fertile periods and the endurance to be continent month after month followed by a devotion to one another and to Christ and a deepening love between all members of the family!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T02:42:22.160" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2161" CreationDate="2013-07-09T03:05:06.673" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are all over-complicating things. Here's how it happened:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created Adam, and then Eve. (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God then told them to be fruitful and multiply (make love and have children) (Genesis 1:28) [Note that Genesis tends to jump around a little chronologically]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the gene pool then was so pure (sin isn't here yet) that Adams offspring were able to interbreed and not have any defects at all. Presumably to the point up until God outlawed it in Deuteronomy 27:22-23 and other passages. Obviously the gene pool started to grow causing more and more defects with each inbred child. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's clearly a sin because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God outlawed it in the OT&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And it is apparently appalling to Paul when he learns of a man sleeping with his mom in 1 Corinthians 5:1, thus implying that the act is still outlawed and not acceptable in Gods eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5045" LastEditorUserId="407" LastEditDate="2013-07-09T04:12:37.093" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T04:12:37.093" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17389" CreationDate="2013-07-09T03:37:16.750" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The correct understanding of this term is so fundamental in understanding the reformation. &lt;strong&gt;It certainly has nothing to do with linguistics or translations. It has everything to do with the doctrine of justification.&lt;/strong&gt; There are only two sides to the issue. Catholics (and I believe Eastern Orthodox and the Syrian Churches) do not believe in a momentary or instantaneous justification occurring when we are still God's enemies. They believe in justification as something requiring ‘our cooperation’ with grace (code word for works from a Protestant view) until we are finally justified in the final judgment...based on our ‘cooperation’ with grace. Luther and the reformers thought this was all pure and wicked nonsense. They believed in justification that occurs in a moment, while we have no works but only sin. In other words, while a sinner has no merits, no works (&lt;em&gt;all moral goodness are considered the works of the Law as it is the law that requires them&lt;/em&gt;) he is justified forever. No merits whatsoever of any kind only a sinful heart forgiven when a person is made justified in an instant. The only condition is faith but not the active kind, rather the passive reception of a gift, excluding justifying faith as a work also. This has often been called 'an alien righteousness' because it is Christ's righteousness imputed to sinners apart from any of their own internal holiness. It is alien to our inner experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In simple terms ‘faith apart from works’ means we are justified in 'a moment' while we have no works to consider at all, i.e. justified apart from anything of the sort. Either we are justified over a period of time, where our obedience and personal holiness and sins are taken into the equation, i.e. ‘justified with works in the equation’, or not.&lt;/strong&gt; Either it is justified by faith only (apart from any works) or justified with works in the mental equation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this has caused confusion because although in terms of protestant justification our works are not a microscopic part of the equation; yet &lt;strong&gt;all who are justified of necessity produce good works as a fruit of the 'alien justification' (i.e. external righteousness of Christ imputed to them). Although 'sanctification' includes the discussion of works and 'cooperation with grace', justification excludes them.&lt;/strong&gt; Our works having nothing to do with justification at all, but they play a big role in our sanctification.  However under the Catholic scheme works are an 'important' part in justification. Actually justification and sanctification are really not much different under the Catholic scheme (i.e. we need continued cooperation with grace in order to be finally justified). Thus Protestants view the Catholic doctrine as works based righteousness hypocritically sprinkled with grace. These two sides should really be clear and do not need any evaluation of Latin or Greek, or German or the invention of different kinds of grace, different kinds of law, etc. Such philosophies only cloud the light of day upon which the Protestant religion was produced. We can’t have it both ways, either our works are considered in 'some sense' in our justification before God, or they are 'not'. One is a classical Protestant view and the other is a Catholic (or Orthodox or Syrian view).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As regards to 'if this is really foundational to Protestantism' the answer is more than anyone probably realizes today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to make it clear that I am accurately representing the reformers on this point I leave a quote from Luther that spells out clearly the difference between those who mix sanctification (i.e. holy love, or works of love) with justification, and those who do not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth of the Gospel is this, that our righteousness comes by &lt;strong&gt;faith alone, without the works of the Law. The falsification or corruption of the Gospel is this, that we are justified by faith but not without the works of the Law.&lt;/strong&gt; The false apostles preached the Gospel, but they did so with this condition attached to it. The scholastics do the same thing in our day. They say that we must believe in Christ and that faith is the foundation of salvation, but they say that this faith does not justify unless it is “formed by love.” This is not the truth of the Gospel; it is falsehood and pretense. The true Gospel, however, is this: Works or love are not the ornament or perfection of faith; but faith itself is a gift of God, a work of God in our hearts, which justifies us because it takes hold of Christ as the Savior. Human reason has the Law as its object. It says to itself: “This I have done; this I have not done.” But faith in its proper function has no other object than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was put to death for the sins of the world. It does not look at its love and say: “What have I done? Where have I sinned? What have I deserved?” But it says: “What has Christ done? What has He deserved?” And here the truth of the Gospel gives you the answer: “He has redeemed you from sin, from the devil, and from eternal death.” Therefore faith acknowledges that in this one Person, Jesus Christ, it has the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Whoever diverts his gaze from this object does not have true faith; he has a phantasy and a vain opinion. He looks away from the promise and at the Law, which terrifies him and drives him to despair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore what the scholastics have taught about justifying faith “formed by love” is an empty dream. For the faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by Him is the faith that justifies, not a faith that includes love. For if faith is to be sure and firm, it must take hold of nothing but Christ alone; and in the agony and terror of conscience it has nothing else to lean on than this pearl of great value (Matt. 13:45–46). Therefore whoever takes hold of Christ by faith, no matter how terrified by the Law and oppressed by the burden of his sins he may be, has the right to boast that he is righteous (Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4.(Vol. 26, pp. 88–89).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore it should be clear that the reformers, when speaking about 'works of the law' meant &lt;em&gt;moral goodness primarily&lt;/em&gt; and not the so called Mosaic legislation (i.e. ceremonies and civil laws). For example, speaking against Thomas who is arguable the emblem of modern Catholic dogma on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Thomas and other scholastics speak about the abrogation of the Law, they say that after Christ the civil and ceremonial laws are fatal, and that therefore they have now been abrogated, but not the moral laws. These men do not know what they are saying. When you want to speak about the abrogation of the Law, discuss chiefly the Law in the proper sense of the word—the Law in the spiritual sense. Include the entire Law, without distinguishing between the civil, the ceremonial, and the moral. For when Paul says that through Christ we have been set free from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13), he is certainly speaking about the entire Law, and &lt;strong&gt;especially about the Moral Law&lt;/strong&gt;. (Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (Vol. 26, pp. 446–447)).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T13:51:49.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17394" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-09T04:49:22.960" Score="2" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Mormon Church teach that Jesus is God?  Hopefully this isn't too simple of a question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4998" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T19:28:52.997" Title="Mormon belief in Jesus Christ" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-07-09T19:59:33.867" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17396" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17410" CreationDate="2013-07-09T05:03:45.630" Score="21" ViewCount="37640" Body="&lt;p&gt;I came across these two instances in the New Testament when Jesus told someone to &quot;sin no more.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 13:15 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well!  Sin no more,  that nothing worse may happen to you.” The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second instance is in the account of the woman taken in the act of adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 10:11 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the standpoint of sinlessness being impossible, what exactly did Jesus mean by saying this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-21T20:20:47.750" LastActivityDate="2020-02-15T06:34:47.823" Title="What did Jesus mean when he said ‘Go and sin no more’ if sinlessness is impossible?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="13" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17394" CreationDate="2013-07-09T05:17:48.960" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/faq/belief-in-jesus-christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://mormon.org/faq/belief-in-jesus-christ&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. His birth, life, death, and&#xA;  resurrection fulfilled the many prophecies contained in the scriptures&#xA;  concerning the coming of a Savior. He was the Creator, He is our&#xA;  Savior, and He will be our Judge (see Isaiah 9:6, 53:3-7; Psalms&#xA;  22:16-18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this clarifies your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5037" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T05:17:48.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17354" CreationDate="2013-07-09T06:24:33.030" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Velut ecclesia domestica&quot;. The responsible is the bishop of Prato (Italy) Pietro Fiordelli (+ dic. 12 2004). About him spoke Enzo Bianchi prior of Bose Monanstery (Italy): &quot;Giovanni Crisostomo diceva ai cristiani: “Fate della vostra casa una chiesa”, e&#xA;Agostino parlava di “chiesa domestica”, perché c’è analogia tra chiesa e&#xA;famiglia». Ed ha aggiunto: «È stato un mio grande amico, il vescovo di Prato&#xA;mons. Pietro Fiordelli, che ha fatto introdurre nella Lumen Gentium&#xA;queste parole: “In questa che si potrebbe chiamare chiesa domestica (In&#xA;hac velut ecclesia domestica), i genitori devono essere per i loro figli i primi&#xA;maestri della fede e assecondare la vocazione propria di ognuno”.&quot;&#xA;About Pietro Fiordelli see also this link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ilregno.it/ew/ew_page/news/Sessione%20II%20-%20Servizio%20speciale%208.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ilregno.it/ew/ew_page/news/Sessione%20II%20-%20Servizio%20speciale%208.pdf&lt;/a&gt;     at page 87&#xA;About &quot;velut chiesa domestica&quot; se the book&#xA;Titolo del Libro: Familia christiana velut Ecclesia domestica secondo l'insegnamento del Concilio Vaticano II. Analisi teologica del dato conciliare&#xA;Autore :  Colombo Ferdinando A. &#xA;Editore: Urbaniana University Press&#xA;Collana: Dissertationes urbanianae &#xA;Data di Pubblicazione: 1996&#xA;Genere: Religione&#xA;Pagine: 254&#xA;ISBN-10: 8840136096&#xA;ISBN-13: 9788840136097&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5047" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T06:24:33.030" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17354" CreationDate="2013-07-09T07:23:59.360" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;the position expressed in the book of the link is uncorrect:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.it/books?id=DlIZAISeBVgC&amp;amp;pg=PA91&amp;amp;lpg=PA91&amp;amp;dq=velut+ecclesia+domestica&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=7QRYyNhomc&amp;amp;sig=vsY70vgRRyNUx_tUrhdNWnimlXY&amp;amp;hl=it&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=pKLbUc2XH8XmOpjIgKgH&amp;amp;ved=0CGEQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=velut%20ecclesia%20domestica&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://books.google.it/books?id=DlIZAISeBVgC&amp;amp;pg=PA91&amp;amp;lpg=PA91&amp;amp;dq=velut+ecclesia+domestica&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=7QRYyNhomc&amp;amp;sig=vsY70vgRRyNUx_tUrhdNWnimlXY&amp;amp;hl=it&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=pKLbUc2XH8XmOpjIgKgH&amp;amp;ved=0CGEQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=velut%20ecclesia%20domestica&amp;amp;f=false&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;page 91&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;see the position of bishop Fiordelli in the book &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.it/books?id=yexrUpSIv9sC&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;hl=it#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://books.google.it/books?id=yexrUpSIv9sC&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;hl=it#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;page 37&#xA;God bless&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5048" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T07:23:59.360" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-07-09T07:58:03.183" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;To say that all have failed is not yet the same as saying that all will ever remain failing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attaining a state of integrity where no more doing evil or injustice to anyone is in one's way, this is what we humans are called for. Our former transgressions and wrongdoings we can not reverse or blot out. God can and he will and he does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lutheran/Calvinist reading of Paul is misleading as they themselves were certainly mistaken in their understanding of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4437" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T07:58:03.183" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-07-09T10:16:02.853" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Sin no more&lt;/em&gt;&quot; is a request or will of Jesus Christ that we should repent from our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 4:17 (NIV) From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent,&#xA;  for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To follow Jesus Christ, we need to first repent from our sinful acts. Jesus requested the adulterous woman in John 10-11 to stop her adulterous acts. By saying &quot;sin no more&quot;, Jesus wanted her to repent and start a new life. She was about to be stoned to death but Jesus rescued her with his divine wisdom. In return to this, Jesus requested her not to do the same sinful act again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are grievous sins from which we need to repent after receiving forgiveness from Jesus Christ. We must not do the same sinful things again and grieves Jesus. Going back to sinful life is the same as crucifying Jesus all over again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 6:4-6 (NIV) It is impossible for those who have once been&#xA;  enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the&#xA;  Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the&#xA;  powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought&#xA;  back to repentance. To their loss &lt;strong&gt;they are crucifying the Son of God&#xA;  all over again&lt;/strong&gt; and subjecting him to public disgrace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not perfect. We may make mistakes and sin again, thereby grieving Jesus again. But our God is the God of Love, who is ever ready do forgive our sins if we ask for forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 136:1 (NIV) Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;His love&#xA;  endures forever&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T10:16:02.853" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-07-09T10:52:54.273" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;At a very simple level, even asking this question is presuming that everything Jesus said must be taken to its logical extreme. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine, your doctor says, &quot;Cut the beef out of your diet!&quot; What he is saying is both clear (eat less red meat) and fully &quot;doable.&quot; And yet, if you're at a wedding where the only entree is steak, do you think the doctor would never see you again if you partook?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, what the doctor is saying is what Jesus is saying: This is hurting you. It is not good for you. Endeavor to reduce it!  If you fall off the wagon, even the attempt to reduce the behavior in question will benefit you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The notion of perfection- telos-(as in Matt 5 when Jesus says &quot;Be ye perfect even as I am perfect&quot;)  does not demand a state but rather a direction. It is pointed to an end- in this case being like Christ- but it does not demand that all fullness be achieved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After all, if the sick were no longer sick, they would have no need of the Physician. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T10:52:54.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-07-09T11:08:30.837" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a literalist view of the bible, &quot;Stop sinning or something worse will happen to you,&quot; is true on every level.  Jesus commands him to stop sinning.  If he doesn't, something worse (hell is on the list) will happen to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This puts a tension into the man's choices. He cannot find his own righteousness. He must seek righteousness outside himself. This is merely the call to conversion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T11:08:30.837" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17405" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-09T11:34:16.887" Score="5" ViewCount="343" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not too long ago we had a question here that raised the issues of bribery, cultural &quot;destruction,&quot; and use of harsh language against nonbelievers during evangelization efforts in developing countries.   There is actually a Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_Christian&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rice Christians&lt;/a&gt;.  It offers a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography, &lt;em&gt;The Story of My Experiments with Truth&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Only Christianity was at that time an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it. And for a reason. In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one's own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this quote, we see that issues of cultural extinction, harsh language, and use of bribery in evangelization is an ongoing problem, from Gandhi's 100 year old testimony to the prior question of last week. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is to what extent have evangelism-training leaders (or great evangelists) already noted these problems, and what words or scriptural references (or church-fathers-quotes) have they given as caution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-07-09T11:50:27.207" LastActivityDate="2014-04-13T16:21:30.863" Title="What cautionary advice have evangelists given that address Gandhi's concern about &quot;Rice Christians&quot;?" Tags="&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-07-09T11:39:35.743" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In simple terms he means &quot;try&quot; ... he knows we cannot be perfect, but we can &lt;em&gt;try&lt;/em&gt; to be perfect. We always have room for improvement. He paid the ultimate price (the atonement) so that through repentance we can be with him again. If we never &lt;em&gt;try&lt;/em&gt; to be perfect, we'll never even come close to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5049" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T11:39:35.743" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-07-09T15:03:37.567" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, remember that this is the same Christ who commanded radical, never-ending forgiveness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; Then Peter approaching asked him, “Lord, if my brother&#xA;  sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven&#xA;  times?” &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times&#xA;  but seventy-seven times. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/matthew/18:21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:21&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can't strip out any one line of scripture and interpret it in isolation. God demands two seemingly opposing extremes. Perfect Sinlessness and Perfect Mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I defer to the Catholic priests [and prominent Catholic speakers] who provide a relevant answer to a similar question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is my confession really valid if I know I'll just sin again?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer, in brief, is that a healthy relationship with God &lt;em&gt;ultimately&lt;/em&gt; requires sinlessness. And &lt;strong&gt;Christ commands absolute sinlessness&lt;/strong&gt;, but He does not &lt;em&gt;forcaste&lt;/em&gt; it! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the realistic human response is to &lt;strong&gt;sincerely strive&lt;/strong&gt; for perfection with the &lt;em&gt;hope&lt;/em&gt; of success, but never to despair in falling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMLnHaKk1k8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMLnHaKk1k8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AA8m1TDwCM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AA8m1TDwCM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T15:03:37.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-07-09T15:06:54.157" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you look at Jesus' command in light of the whole law, and other instances where He said similar things (such as &quot;be ye as perfect as your father in heaven&quot;), you realize that while this is a command, it's really just a repetition of all the previous commands given by God over thousands of years.  Jesus' command is just a reaffirmation of what God has been commanding us since the beginning of time - or at least of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a sense, it appears that God is commanding the impossible.  And one wonders why he would do that.  What does he expect to get from all this commanding.  Well, the truth is that the Law, while good, was never intended to be a guide for how to live one's life.  It's purpose is to convict of sin, &quot;&lt;em&gt;that the whole world might become guilty before him&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.  Why would he do this?  Because the Law of God is not a guide for living life.  it is not a list of things that you MUST do, it is a list of things that you do NOT do, and in not doing them you have become guilty before God.  The purpose of the Law, again, is not lifestyle guide, but schoolmaster - leading man to the cross of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the plan of salvation depends on the works of Jesus Christ, not man.  Man cannot even contribute to this work, for, &quot;&lt;em&gt;if you will build me an alter, you shall do it with uncarved stone (untouched by man), for in the moment that you lift up your tool upon my altar, you have polluted it.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This plan of salvation makes it possible for men to come to God through Christ, but the condition is that you must first be found guilty, in order to take advantage of the court's mercy (Christ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' command to &quot;go and sin no more&quot; is simply a reaffirmation that &quot;God is Holy, and Man is Sinful,... flee the wrath to come&quot;.  That once you trust Him for salvation, you will always, and must always continue to trust Him and His work done on your behalf, not in your own works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5053" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T15:06:54.157" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17413" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-09T17:26:32.267" Score="1" ViewCount="704" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God is All-Knowing (as I've heard) and unable to change, then why did he change his mind after the Flood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the &lt;b&gt;L&lt;/b&gt;ORD smelled a sweet savour; and the &lt;b&gt;L&lt;/b&gt;ORD said&#xA;  in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's&#xA;  sake; for the imagination of man's heart &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; evil from his youth;&#xA;  neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have&#xA;  done. (&lt;code&gt;KJV, Genesis 8.21&lt;/code&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4268" LastEditorUserId="4268" LastEditDate="2013-07-09T17:56:01.967" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T07:53:16.877" Title="If God is unable to change, why did he (after the Flood)?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2013-07-10T09:21:02.583" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17413" CreationDate="2013-07-09T18:04:58.310" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we talk about God's attributes we can't assume He has the same characteristics as the human beings, because we have mortal bodies, limited languages and understanding and a sinful nature, while God is infinite, has a 100% sinless nature, infinite understanding, etc. So, when the bible talks about God's changes of mind, is probably because the author (Moses, for instance) couldn't express in a better way what he was receiving from God, using a limited language as the Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is an interesting question anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5037" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T18:04:58.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17416" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17417" CreationDate="2013-07-09T18:22:16.800" Score="6" ViewCount="7131" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 7, God tells Noah to take with him 7 pairs of clean animals in contrast to only one pair of all other animals.  Additionally, 7 pairs of birds were to be taken as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.  Genesis 7:2-3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, prior to the flood, it seems that mankind was not allowed to eat meat, as God specifically allows for it after the flood.  Furthermore, the distinction between clean animals and unclean animals for consumption was not revealed until the time of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.  Genesis 9:3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess it is possible that people did, in fact, eat meat prior to the flood, but did so against God's decree.  However, not many of them were following God's decrees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is there any indication of what a clean animal would have been right before the flood that distinguished them from other animals?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-02T21:42:34.323" LastActivityDate="2016-08-06T20:24:29.857" Title="What defined a &quot;clean&quot; animal prior to the flood when mankind did not eat meat?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17416" CreationDate="2013-07-09T18:42:01.513" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's no literal indication. Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong on this), the humans knew which animals were pure and which weren't even before of the flood. You can observe this when God tells Noah to take the animals into the ark:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and&#xA;  his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his&#xA;  female. Gen 7:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the following verses Noah doesn't question this order, neither asks God for which animals were pure or not. So, this is an indicator that humans knew some of Moses' Laws (probably all). About this, some people believe that God engraved the Moses' Laws onto the hearts of the humans, but this is just a theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About the meat: The biblical text doesn't say God forbid to eat meat before the flood explicitly, according to Gen 1:29-30 (KJV) he gave like herbs and seeds for the human to eat:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,&#xA;  which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which&#xA;  is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and&#xA;  to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I&#xA;  have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He didn't forbid it, neither allowed it. But later, after the flood, He gave the humans authority to eat animals' meat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cheers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5037" LastEditorUserId="5037" LastEditDate="2013-07-09T21:49:47.740" LastActivityDate="2013-07-09T21:49:47.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17421" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-10T00:50:08.450" Score="8" ViewCount="760" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many historians agree that the philosophical systems of Platonism and Stoicism had an important role in the efforts of the early Church to communicate the message of the Gospel to unbelievers, and even in informing some early Christians' interpretations of the writings of Paul and others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to historians, &lt;strong&gt;did any other philosophical systems have a similar level of influence early in the life of the Church?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-02T11:30:33.397" LastActivityDate="2015-10-02T14:42:43.923" Title="Did any other philosophical systems have as much influence on the early Church as Platonism and Stoicism?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;plato&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17422" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17460" CreationDate="2013-07-10T00:52:37.327" Score="7" ViewCount="238" Body="&lt;p&gt;The current Archbishop of Sydney is retiering this week. What is the process involved in appointing the new Archbishop in the Anglican Church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;i.e. who can nominate them, who can vote for them, what voting system is used, does anyone have to approve the decision, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you feel this question is too broad, please let me know and I'll split it up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the process is different around the world, then please specify how it works for Sydney.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T01:00:08.987" Title="In the Anglican Church, how is the Archbishop appointed?" Tags="&lt;anglicanism&gt;&lt;bishops&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17422" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:39:01.480" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just in case you were wondering, the Archbishop of Sydney is not the chief clergyman of the Anglican Church of Australia. That is Dr Phillip Aspinall, Archbishop of Brisbane. Also, methods of appointing bishops differ very much within the Anglican church. Typically they are elected by a synod. In the Church of England they are nominally appointed by the monarch, although the monarch acts only on the advice of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new Archbishop of Sydney &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.abc.net.au/localradio/2013/05/election-synod-for-12th-anglican-archbishop-of-sydney-set-for-august-5th-9th-2013.html&quot;&gt;will be elected by a special &quot;election synod&quot;&lt;/a&gt; (a parliament of representitives of the church, generally both clergy and laity) over the 5th-9th August.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The election of the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney is a robust, competitive and energetic internal church process, where candidates' personal lives, doctrinal views and pastoral actions are scrutinised closely, openly assessed and lobbied over. The election synod can be both unsettling and tense for Sydney Anglicans as they seek to identify the successful candidate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know what the minimum qualifications are, although I assume you would have to be a member of the Church of Australia. You do not have to already be a bishop, and there have been recent appointments of non-bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T01:39:01.480" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17424" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17426" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:45:02.723" Score="5" ViewCount="8004" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm 18 years old, and I was born in a Christian family (Evangelical), so I've been going to church and believed in Jesus my whole life. However, I am concerned about salvation. According to what I know, to get saved you have to repent, believe in Jesus, and try to sin as little as possible afterwards. However, I think there are more requirements because I do all of those things but I'm not really sure if I'm saved. Whenever I do sin I repent again (I pray for forgiveness) I know that many people would even consider me unsaved since I asked this question, because supposedly when you are saved you know it for sure and are confident. But the reason that I included my background in the question is because I am already saved, but I just don't see a difference because I don't have the luxury that a non-believer-turned-Christian would have. That is, I can't compare my current situation with my very sinful past and see a distinction, because I've always believed in God. What do you think? I think that even if I am saved, my lack of confidence shows that I am very weak. (By the way please be as direct as you need, and do not worry about offending me at all; this is a very serious topic and I need to know the answer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. Please include any relevant passages for me if you have any in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T15:56:14.893" Title="How do you know when you are truly saved, and how do you live as a Christian afterwards?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-07-11T10:00:05.993" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17425" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18326" CreationDate="2013-07-10T03:07:04.510" Score="11" ViewCount="2868" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;The Story of Christianity,&lt;/em&gt;* author Justo Gonzalez offers the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There were indeed times set aside for sorrow for one's sins, in particular during the two weekly days of fasting, which the church adopted from Jewish practice. At an early date, however, at least some Christians began fasting, not on Mondays and Thursday, like the Jews, but rather on Wednesdays and Fridays. It may be that this shift took place in commemoration of the betrayal and the crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was this fasting practiced in a majority of early churches? If so, at what point in history did the tradition cease? Is there more information as to why the days of Wednesday and Friday were chosen over Monday and Thursday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* Revised edition, Volume 1, Chapter 3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-07-10T23:42:16.700" LastActivityDate="2015-08-29T20:36:14.700" Title="Was regular weekly fasting a widespread, formal tradition in the early Church?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;fasting&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17424" CreationDate="2013-07-10T03:08:44.407" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course the answer will depend on which Christian tradition the answerer comes from, but since you requested passages from Scripture on the matter, here are a few to consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is Jesus your Lord?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:9&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Romans 10:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do you live for Jesus?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-2 Corinthians 5:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do you lay down your own will to follow Jesus?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%209:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Luke 9:23&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are you led by His Spirit?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Romans 8:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:13-14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Ephesians 1:13-14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T03:15:32.063" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17428" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17539" CreationDate="2013-07-10T05:43:07.047" Score="30" ViewCount="38497" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;More specifically: What authorities claim that the Book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John? What authorities claim otherwise?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17033/4786&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; C.SE answer apparently references Pliny and Tacitus in favor of a single author, and a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17161/4786&quot;&gt;comment to this answer&lt;/a&gt; calls on &amp;quot;Justin Martyr confirmed by Melito of Sardis and Irenaeus of Lyons&amp;quot; in support of the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/3907/4786&quot;&gt;This answer&lt;/a&gt; quotes a passage from Eusebius that seems to call the Book of Revelation's authorship into question. And church historian Justo Gonzalez, in his widely regarded work &lt;em&gt;The Story of Christianity,&lt;/em&gt;* offers the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The task of reconstructing John's later career is complicated by the frequency with which the name of John appears in early records. There is an ancient tradition that claims that John was killed in a pot of boiling oil. But the book of Revelation places John, at about the same time, in exile on the island of Patmos. Another very trustworthy tradition speaks of John as a teacher at Ephesus, where he died around the year 100. All this indicates that there were at least two people with the same name, and that later tradition confused them. A second-century Christian writer -- Papias of Hierapolis -- affirms that there were indeed two persons by the name of John in the early church: one the apostle, and another an elder at Ephesus, who received the visions on Patmos. It is clear, from the enormous difference in their use of the Greek language, that the John of Revelation did not write the Fourth Gospel -- commonly known as the Gospel of John. In any case, there was indeed toward the end of the first century, in the city of Ephesus, a Christian teacher named John, whose authority was great in all of the churches of Asia Minor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So, were the Gospel According to John and the Book of Revelation written by the same author, or not? And the all-important follow-up question: &amp;quot;Says who??&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;A note on scoping:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept of &amp;quot;authorities&amp;quot; as used in this question is, of course, open to interpretation. I'm primarily interested in what has been said by the Church Fathers and the principle figures of the Reformation. If the theory of multiple authors is more modern, then what modern writers have advocated the idea?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://michaeljkruger.com/the-book-of-revelation-how-difficult-was-its-journey-into-the-canon/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;blog entry at Canon Fodder&lt;/a&gt; from RTS President and Professor of NT Michael J. Kruger that is quite germane to this question. An excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lately, I have been doing a good bit of research on Revelation’s canonical history in preparation for writing an academic piece on the subject.  Here are a few highlights about Revelation’s journey:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation’s early reception was Outstanding: Perhaps as much as any other NT book, we have evidence for an early, widespread, and consistent reception of Revelation.  Our evidence goes back as early as Papias (c.125) and also includes Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.  That is an impressive list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, it is worth noting that almost every one of these church fathers accepted the book of revelation on the same grounds, namely the belief that the apostle John, the son of Zebedee was the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;em&gt;The Story of Christianity,&lt;/em&gt; Justo Gonzalez. Revised edition, Volume I, Chapter 4, p. 36.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2021-04-08T16:17:30.217" Title="Who wrote the Book of Revelation?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;&lt;john-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17424" CreationDate="2013-07-10T07:44:30.063" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In I Corinthians 15:1 - 2 it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto&#xA;  you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye&#xA;  are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except&#xA;  ye believed in vain. - &lt;strong&gt;I Corinthians 15:1 - 2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It says that there is a gospel that was preached on to the early Christians which they &lt;strong&gt;received&lt;/strong&gt; and where they &lt;strong&gt;stand&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;held fast&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You should look for that gospel, not those that are preached by other pastors for monetary gains. As you will not gain anything good with that,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of&#xA;  sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in&#xA;  Christ - &lt;strong&gt;II Corinthians 2:17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and once you hear that gospel be sure to walk on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope you find what you are looking for soon. It's really nice to hear that you are concerned on your salvation at your age. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Remember also thy Creator in the days of thy youth, before the evil&#xA;  days come, and the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no&#xA;  pleasure in them - &lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 12:1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please be careful to follow God's words and not just commandments of blind men,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let them alone:they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the&#xA;  blind, both shall fall into a pit &lt;strong&gt;- Matthew 15:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look for God's words, and keep it to your heart dearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;- Psalms 119:11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please try to visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://esoriano.wordpress.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;our preacher's blog&lt;/a&gt;. You can also ask him your questions on &lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/broelisoriano&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;his twitter account&lt;/a&gt; at  he can answer your questions much better than me. And he really answers questions sensibly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5059" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-10T13:06:58.273" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T13:06:58.273" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17413" CreationDate="2013-07-10T07:53:16.877" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thomas Aquinas thoughts about God's nature, which was then adopted by Catholic Church, is that there exists a God's plan, which however is very general. A man can change his life, can do good or evil things, however he can't stop general God's plan. This is how free will is explained -- why would we need a free will if it is already determined what we will do? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that it is the same with the Flood. As Noah and his family had shown that they are able to follow God's plan, He &quot;changed&quot; His mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An interesting interview you can find &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicvu.com/newpage15.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. One of the most important (for me) sayings is that we can't think about God and time together. So He can't change mind. Maybe, as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17415/5007&quot;&gt;Charlie said&lt;/a&gt;, it is just a word that the author put as it was the best in his culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5007" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T07:53:16.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17424" CreationDate="2013-07-10T10:42:40.437" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;[I]f you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved&quot; &lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, first of all, you must give up the idea that this sentence above is &lt;strong&gt;false&lt;/strong&gt;.  That is the biggest problem you have here.  All your questions revolve around the idea that now there is something you have to do to earn / keep / deserve / improve / finish Christ's work on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your questions are about how you can deserve to stay saved, go back to Square One.  Galatians has a warning for such people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.  &lt;strong&gt;Gal 5:4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you on the other hand your motivation is that you are bursting with joy and want to serve God, there are some guidelines in the bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Believe in Him who was sent&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Have a broken and contrite spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Knock&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pursue righteousness faith love and peace&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seek&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Struggle against the flesh&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Turn away from wickedness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it matters, my theological thinking on the topic of justification is influenced by the theological writings of &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tullian Tchividjian&lt;/a&gt;, who often quotes &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Forde&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gerhard Forde&lt;/a&gt; and Martin Luther. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-07-10T11:46:39.480" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T11:46:39.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15242" CreationDate="2013-07-10T11:41:50.007" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as biblical answers about keeping the law, consider how Jesus responded to the rich young ruler:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. &lt;strong&gt;Luke 10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When someone comes to Jesus thinking their behavior meets the law, Jesus points out their complete rebellion. Same thing happened with the story of the Good Samaritan &lt;strong&gt;(Luke 10:25-37)&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus furthermore states that the standard is to &quot;be perfect&quot;. Not &quot;get yourself on an asymptote that eventually (and had better be continually) approaches perfection, but to &quot;be perfect.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What I am saying is that you must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.  &lt;strong&gt;(Matthew 5:48)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our hearts are &quot;saddened&quot; at this news: &quot;I cannot love my neighbor that way! I cannot give that much away! I am so far from perfect, that sounds like I deserve hell!&quot; It is a call to conversion, to seek the imputed righteousness of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now consider Augustine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one who has imputed righteousness cannot please or offend God any more than Christ's perfect works and righteousness have pleased God. God looks at your sins and sees Christ's perfect works.  Theologically, I have shown this to be true.  Psychologically, there is a worry expressed in the question that telling people the truth will make them bad.  This kind of worry over whether the doctrine of free grace is what Luther rebelled against in the Reformation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T11:41:50.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17434" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17435" CreationDate="2013-07-10T11:50:16.577" Score="11" ViewCount="7348" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read in a few places the LDS Church has at least a general practice, if not an official teaching, that prohibits men from growing facial hair--at least for men in any position of leadership.  Apparently, Joseph Smith was &quot;clean shaving&quot;, but many of the other prophets and leaders in times past did have significant beards and moustaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question concerns what the basis is for this teaching and when that basis came about.  Is it an official church teaching or an unwritten policy, and is there any reason given for why facial hair, which God seems to have intended for men in some way, is inappropriate or wrong?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-01T14:46:37.577" LastActivityDate="2016-06-28T21:46:20.313" Title="What is the basis of the LDS/Mormon prohibition of facial hair for men?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;culture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17434" CreationDate="2013-07-10T12:08:33.823" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short version: The rule is about appearing nice, clean-cut, and respectable in line with current cultural norms.  It's a matter of practicality - just look nice, in order to better represent the Church and therefore, God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/12/standards-of-dress-and-grooming?lang=eng&quot;&gt;an address President Dallin H. Oaks gave to the 25,000 students of Brigham Young University&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or&#xA;  wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair&#xA;  are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and&#xA;  attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time.&#xA;  Historical precedents are worthless in this area. The rules are&#xA;  subject to change, and I would be surprised if they were not changed&#xA;  at some time in the future. But the rules are with us now, and it is&#xA;  therefore important to understand the reasoning behind them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are&#xA;  associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority.&#xA;  They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear&#xA;  beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify&#xA;  themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme&#xA;  practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of&#xA;  protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness—which is often (though&#xA;  not always) associated with beards and long hair—is a mark of&#xA;  indifference toward the best in life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-07-10T12:20:28.913" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T12:20:28.913" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17437" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17463" CreationDate="2013-07-10T12:14:24.707" Score="4" ViewCount="1256" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the following quote how is &quot;serve&quot; understood by various Christian traditions? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of &#xA;  God's varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever&#xA;  serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies - in order that in &#xA;  everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.&quot; 1 Peter 4:10-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is service thought of as limited to the usage of spiritual gifts; or does gift in this context rightly refer to any of the varied blessings that we receive from God that can be used to help others, such as professional and personal skills?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5060" LastEditorDisplayName="user5060" LastEditDate="2013-07-10T13:54:21.223" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T04:06:38.657" Title="How broad and inclusive is the definition of service in exhortations to serve one another?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-07-10T12:58:43.447" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suggest that, when reading Jesus' words, we must consider how the people to whom they were actually addressed would have understood them. In the case of the woman who had been caught in adultery, would she have been expected to understand His admonition in terms of a complex theology?&#xA;&quot;Go and sin no more&quot; taken with wooden-headed literalness, implies &quot;Never do another sinful thing in your life&quot;.&#xA;But the saner meaning, in that context? Jesus had just prevented a crowd of people from killing her for something. And He's advising her not to do it again.&#xA;&quot;Go&quot; (ie depart freely, having not been stoned) &quot;and sin no more&quot; (do not continue the adulterous relationship).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On another level it can be taken as an allegory of the Christian life in general - we are all deserving of death for sin, but Jesus intervenes to prevent that happening, not so we can continue to sin, but so we can change for the better. Just like He healed sick people, rather than simply killing them.&#xA;But we mustn't let the &quot;spiritual&quot; meaning over-ride the literal one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5062" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T12:58:43.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2112" CreationDate="2013-07-10T14:33:19.613" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to post of October 2012 referencing Daniel 2:44, you wanted further scriptural proof to the question, &quot;should Christians be involved in politics&quot;.  The Bible clearly states that the god of this system of things is Satan the Devil and he has blinded minds so the truth about God and His Christ cannot shine through (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Cor. 10:20, Eph. 2:2). Jesus Christ referred to Satan as being &quot;the ruler of the world&quot; (John 14:30). 1 John 5:19 says:  The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.  Satan tempted Jesus by offering him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth if he would just do an act of worship to him.  (Luke 4:5-7).  Revelation 13:1,2 reveals that Satan gives &quot;Power, throne and great authority&quot; to the global political system of rulership.  Christians do not have a duty to build up the Kingdom of God on earth by using Satan's political systems.  They have a duty to support the laws of God's Kingdom.  They must obey God as ruler rather than men. (Acts 5:20).&#xA;Of course, that puts true Christians in the position of being hated and persecuted just like Jesus when he was on earth, because &quot;they are no part of the world.&quot;  John 15:17-21.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5064" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T14:33:19.613" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17424" CreationDate="2013-07-10T15:46:21.643" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 3:5-8 describes being born of the spirit. Yet it also simply boils down to the simple &#xA;point of believing that Jesus died, rose again, is the Son of the living God, and you asking the forgiveness of your sins from Him.&#xA;The best part about it, is that it is not complex, and is not meant to be complex. Your not required to jump through hoops or read between the lines to understand. It is an observation of mine that people can make things complex, but the word of God is simply the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the               &#xA;Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh;&#xA;and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must &#xA;be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but &#xA;canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:so is every one that is born of the &#xA;Spirit&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5065" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T15:46:21.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17424" CreationDate="2013-07-10T15:56:14.893" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In advance: I'll be answering from the Reformed perspective. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You're asking about assurance of salvation. It is quite possible to be saved, but not have assurance of your salvation. That is because justification is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). That is, we believe we are justified by grace alone through faith alone, but we are not justified on the basis of how well we understand the doctrine of justification by grace through faith! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also possible not to be saved, but to be mistaken in thinking you are (Ma. 7:21-23). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how to tell the difference? How can you know you are saved?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it looks different for different people. I have assurance because the Holy Spirit convicts me of sin and drives me back to the cross. This is distinguished from the Devil's accusations, which would attempt to drive me to despair. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it is possible to lose assurance, but it is never possible to lose salvation. That is, if you truly believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord, then you will be saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, you're saved &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; something &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; something. What are those things? You are saved &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; hell and &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; heaven, ultimately. But you are not only delivered fron the &lt;em&gt;guilt&lt;/em&gt; of sin (through justification), but the &lt;em&gt;power&lt;/em&gt; of sin (through sanctification). Faith is not without works. But our good works (defined as obedience to the law) have nothing whatsoever to do with our justification. Our good works have everything to do with our sanctification. Justification is 100% God, period. Sanctification is 100% God and 100% man. If your faith is genuine, then it &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; work itself out in fear and trembling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assurance can come from the works God is working in you, from the precious promises in the Bible, and from the working of the Holy Spirit in you, among (probably) many other things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophet Jonah says that &quot;Salvation is of the Lord.&quot; And it's precisely because it is of God, and not of me, that I can have assurance of salvation. Can I lose my salvation? Wrong question! The better question is, &quot;Can God lose my salvation?&quot; And to ask that question is to answer it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T15:56:14.893" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-07-10T17:36:45.653" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I generally agree with the other answers, but I'd wish to add one more thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said &quot;don't sin&quot;, as it should also be referred to (all citations KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5, 37)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Rev. 3, 15-16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He couldn't say &quot;please try avoid any sinning, if possible, of course, that would be very kind, if you'd manage, will you?&quot;. He says: &quot;don't do it&quot;. There is no other alternative, you do sin or you do not. Of course, from later teachings we know, that everybody does and everybody fails. But if you fail, it is not the end. If you are sorry, you will hear &quot;sin no more again&quot;. If He'd said &quot;try not to sin&quot; that anybody could say &quot;oh, I tried, but I failed trying&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you should not fail trying, you should fail not to sinning. Trying is easy. Sinning is the problem, not trying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5007" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T17:36:45.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17027" CreationDate="2013-07-10T17:41:13.950" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The earliest written tradition placing John in Ephesus comes from Irenaeus, &lt;em&gt;Against Heresies&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;book 3, chapter 3, section 4&lt;/a&gt;. During an explanation of how the apostles passed on teachings to their chosen successors, Irenaeus says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are also those who heard from him [Polycarp] that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irenaeus lived and wrote in the late 2nd century, but as a young man he had met Polycarp and been taught by him. Polycarp, in turn, is said by Tertullian (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian11.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Prescription against Heretics&lt;/a&gt;, chapter 32) to have been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T17:41:13.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17451" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-07-10T18:09:45.043" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Murder&lt;/a&gt; is defined as the killing of another person without justification or a valid excuse, particularly killing with malice aforethought.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Exodus%2020:13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:13&lt;/a&gt; is rendered &quot;Thou shalt not kill&quot; in the older King James version of the Bible.  Modern translations, such as the ESV, read &quot;You shall not murder.&quot; The &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+20%3A13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESV footnote&lt;/a&gt; on the verse says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="21576" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-24T21:59:19.090" LastActivityDate="2015-08-24T21:59:19.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17452" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-07-10T18:09:45.043" Score="0" Body="The killing of another person without justification" OwnerUserId="21576" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-24T21:59:40.230" LastActivityDate="2015-08-24T21:59:40.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17453" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17471" CreationDate="2013-07-10T20:39:28.787" Score="8" ViewCount="296" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/TAhBmvsmPWQ?t=45m49s&quot;&gt;heard Professor Stephen Nichols&lt;/a&gt; of Reformed Theological Seminary state that following Martin Luther's death, his wife, Katie, and his children struggled financially for some time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Luther simply neglect to provide for the care of his family? Did he make some provision which was later misappropriated? Was there no church to care for his survivors?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-07-10T22:40:56.010" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T13:57:32.070" Title="Why didn't Martin Luther provide for his family to be taken care of after his death?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17454" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-10T20:55:01.563" Score="-2" ViewCount="594" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that often we find answers to &amp;quot;What must I do to be saved?&amp;quot; that haul out a long laundry list of things to be done that could take hours-- weeks if the word &amp;quot;daily&amp;quot; is part of your answer. Yet there is little controversy when one talks about a&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/death-bed-conversion.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt; &amp;quot;deathbed conversion&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;  or other cases (such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/march5/31.94.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;mental retardation&lt;/a&gt;) where someone could be saved without knowing, for example, the full doctrine of the Trinity or creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the good thief on the cross in Luke 23:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, &amp;quot;Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 &amp;quot;And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.&amp;quot; 42 And he was saying, &amp;quot;Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!&amp;quot; 43 And He said to him, &amp;quot;Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He repents of his deeds and expresses hope in Jesus as being able to provide some kind of salvation.  He gets one of the nicest confirmations of salvation in the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other bible passages that lay out other criteria for salvation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 3:16&lt;/strong&gt; For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 10:9&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;[I]f you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 16:16a&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;quot;Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 8:12&lt;/strong&gt; When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now it's easily the case that the Thief wasn't baptized, he didn't confess Jesus as Lord. Now all of the above bible passages could be authoritative and literally true if they were to be taken as having an &amp;quot;OR&amp;quot; between them.  That there is one condition with several ways of getting there, or several ways of outwardly demonstrating the internal condition to be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: What have Christians said about the complexity of criteria for salvation?  Are the ones with the long list confusing &amp;quot;criteria for salvation&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;syllabulus for teaching a new convert&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-12-08T10:50:14.803" Title="Is the Thief on the Cross the exception or the norm for quick salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-12-09T04:27:34.807" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17454" CreationDate="2013-07-10T21:20:42.970" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes many groups believe that the initial salvation experience is easy. Others make it more difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Evangelical Christians teach salvation through a 1 minute or less prayer based on Romans 10:9, 10:13 as well as Acts 2 and a general mesh of the other verses you mention. After the salvation experience a person may be baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Act 2:38  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Non-evangelical groups tend to place special emphasis on baptism and family (Acts 16:31) or church membership (1Ti 3:15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ#Baptism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Church of Christ&lt;/a&gt; in particular believes that you cannot go to heaven unless you are baptized and take communion every Sunday till death. People with chronic conditions have risked their lives to be baptized as a result of this kind of teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://site.adw.org/becoming-catholic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholics&lt;/a&gt; also have a strong emphasis on education and baptism rather than an instant experience. In some cases it takes over a year to join Catholicism.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mormons have handshakes and other secret things which must be learned before they consider that you will be able to enter heaven. &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4717/according-to-the-lds-church-mormons-what-role-do-secret-handshakes-and-passwo&quot;&gt;According to the LDS Church (Mormons), what role do secret handshakes and passwords play into a person&amp;#39;s entrance into heaven?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T16:12:16.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6779" CreationDate="2013-07-10T21:46:42.590" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is doubtful that, considering the pressures every hour placed on Martin Luther at the time, he gave a great deal of thought to the Eastern Orthodox.  If so, it surely would have been left in his abundant writings, of which we have volumes.&#xA;Communication between Orthodox and the Roman Catholic West, were limited at best.&#xA;this was about the same era as the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks, so I doubt greatly that the Orthodox Divines were much concerned about the stir of a lone Augustinian Monk in Germany.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5067" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T21:46:42.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17457" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16428" CreationDate="2013-07-10T21:51:01.357" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least in Russia, the Czars had pretty well taken over control of the Church by the time of Ivan the Terrible, replacing their Patriarch with an Oberprocurater, or attache of the Czar to rule over the government of the Church.&#xA;It would seem that the Current Russian Government seeks a return of this form of Church nationalism.&#xA;As to whether this is a good or bad development, I am not sure.&#xA;The notion of separate independent churches doing their own thing under the shadow of the Secular arm does not seem to last for long as an alternative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5067" LastActivityDate="2013-07-10T21:51:01.357" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17422" CreationDate="2013-07-11T01:00:08.987" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are up to 5 steps to Appointing the Archbishop in the Sydney diocess:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stage 1 - Nominations &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stage 2 - Select List &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stage 3 - Final List&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stage 4 - Final Choice of a Nominee &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Stage 5 - Offer, Acceptance, Declaration of Election etc&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be nominated (stage 1) 2 people from Synod must nominate a &lt;code&gt;duly qualified person&lt;/code&gt; via a nomination form before synod sits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stage 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the name of a nominee to be placed on the Select List, a majority&#xA;  of either order (lay or clergy) then present and voting must vote in&#xA;  favour of the motion in respect of the nominee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stage 3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For a name to be placed on the Final List...,a majority of each order of the members of Synod ... must vote in favour of the motion in respect of that name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stage 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If only 1 person is on the final list then a majority of both orders will confirm their appointment. If more than 1 person is on the final list then synod will adjorn for another day and hold a preferential vote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If at any point there are no nomonies left on the list, then the process will start again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All references and information taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sds.asn.au/assets/Documents/synod/Synod.2013.ArchElection/ElectionSynod.1stCircular.11Mar2013.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.sds.asn.au/assets/Documents/synod/Synod.2013.ArchElection/ElectionSynod.1stCircular.11Mar2013.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T01:00:08.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15242" CreationDate="2013-07-11T01:19:09.470" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said, &quot;Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and strength. Also love your neighbors, love your enemies&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind and your strength, you will do nothing that offends God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, you need to Love God above all and everything else to walk in His commandments that are not burdensome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ask God to help you love others just like He has loved you and forgiven you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone falls, but God picks us up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Glory to God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5070" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T01:19:09.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17462" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17600" CreationDate="2013-07-11T02:15:25.540" Score="4" ViewCount="398" Body="&lt;p&gt;One major theme of the Bible is the number of covenants between God and humanity. How do Christians manage to work them out? Are the covenants prioritized from highest priority to lowest priority, or are they all of equal weight or importance? For Christians who may hold a dual-covenant theology, how does that work out? Do they really submit themselves to the Torah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T01:40:06.543" Title="How does Christianity work with all the biblical covenants?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;covenants&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17437" CreationDate="2013-07-11T04:06:38.657" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the interpretations I'm most familiar with (mainly fundamentalist/Evangelical Churches, such as Baptist and non-denominational &quot;Bible churches&quot;) the answer is &quot;It's all-inclusive&quot;.  it includes anything and everything we can do to help others, demonstrate love, and see to their needs.  Financially, spiritually, emotionally, every possible way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This stems from basic Biblical principles and application of passages such as the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Colossians 3:22-24 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh;&#xA;  not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart,&#xA;  fearing God: 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord,&#xA;  and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the&#xA;  reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The interpretation being that we are to serve others at all times because doing so is also service to the Lord.  We honor God in all acts of service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also taking in mind that service is an expression of love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 12:30-31 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with&#xA;  all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this&#xA;  is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou&#xA;  shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment&#xA;  greater than these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:46-48 (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,&#xA;  and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless&#xA;  them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them&#xA;  which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the&#xA;  children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to&#xA;  rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on&#xA;  the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?&#xA;  do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren&#xA;  only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be&#xA;  ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is&#xA;  perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If service is an expression of love, and we are to love our enemies as much as our neighbors, it follows that we are to serve without reservation, even those that we find despicable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long story short, there is no Biblical reason to expect that there is a limit to how we are to serve.  We should follow Christ's example, and put others before ourselves, as the ultimate expression of &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Agape.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Agape love&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More on the subject from the same perspective can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianet.com/bibleverses/servanthood.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christia.Net&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ is the best example of demonstrating Christian servanthood the&#xA;  way it is meant to be in God's eyes. Being a true servant is seeing&#xA;  people as opportunity for a relationship rather than just as needy&#xA;  people we walk by every day. Being able to see them with Christ's eyes&#xA;  will show them His presence within the depths of our hearts. Serving&#xA;  others is one of the most effective ways to lead them to the Lord.&#xA;  Many forget or ignore this command of the Christian life, but it is&#xA;  best to show others Christ through actions rather than words. &quot;Let&#xA;  nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind&#xA;  let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on&#xA;  his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this&#xA;  mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who...made himself of&#xA;  no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant&quot; (Philippians&#xA;  2:3-5,7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T04:06:38.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15242" CreationDate="2013-07-11T04:47:46.710" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are exceptions. King David was a man who loved God, and when he had it in his heart to build God a house, he told Nathan the prophet (2 Samuel 7). Nathan told David, &quot;Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you&quot; (7:3). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, although David loved the Lord supremely, the Lord forbid David to do this thing (1 Chronicles 28:3). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there are exceptions to this idea; one still needs to ascertain God's will about the matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T04:47:46.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2979" CreationDate="2013-07-11T06:59:22.607" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the disciples spent the previous 3 1/2 years living together they were often gathered on a daily basis.  It is not unusual or special that they were together on the 1st day of the week or any other. Saying the Sabbath (which means seven) has now switched to sunday (which is the first day) because they were together is quite a stretch.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many verses that specify the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week and others that show examples of what is right and wrong, (work six days rest on the seventh, etc.).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question can the 7th day be any day of the week, well...The Hebrews counted their days, they didn't name them.  So when it says to honor the Sabbath on the seventh day that is the name of the day.  The Messiah also honored the Sabbath and taught how to observe it, and he too observed the Sabbath on the 7th day.  It is pretty important too since it is the only sign between Our Father in Heaven and His children throughout our generations, see Exodus 31.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Communion it originated from the instructions the Messiah gave concerning the Passover meal.  It does not relate to any of the Biblical instructions given on how to observe the weekly Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5073" LastEditorUserId="5073" LastEditDate="2013-07-11T21:48:03.467" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T21:48:03.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17454" CreationDate="2013-07-11T08:17:54.447" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is an interesting verse about Salvation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psa 119:155  Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we have to love Him more than anything or anyone and in loving Him learn to live the way He instructs us to...setting ourselves apart from worldliness.  Sometimes I think we have taken a casual stance to our own destruction...even Moses didn't make it to the promise land.  Yes we are forgiven for our sins...but it also says go and sin no more.  And He will return with fire to destroy those who live in iniquity saving only a few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also since we are not the judge, we don't know who will and will not make it until He has judged, including ourselves.  But we do know that workers of iniquity, (lawlessness) will not make it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5073" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T08:17:54.447" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17453" CreationDate="2013-07-11T10:51:27.360" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I always find these questions about Luther interesting because the more I follow a questions about Luther, which are often curiously raised, the more impressed I am in his admirable character.&lt;/strong&gt; Basically there is no story here, other than that Luther was a humble and responsible person who left all he had faithfully to his wife. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luther’s income was very small, even for the standard of his times, and presents a striking contrast to the royal splendor and luxury of bishops and cardinals. (Schaff, P., &amp;amp; Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church (Vol. 7, p. 470). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although a humble minister who had few sources of income, he was diligent with what little he had and managed to earn and seems to have invested it all into his family:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He bought in 1540 from his brother-in-law a little farm, Zulsdorf, between Leipzig and Borna, for six hundred and ten guilders, as a home for his family. His wife cultivated a little garden with fruit-trees, even mulberry and fig trees, raised hops and brewed beer for domestic use, as was then the custom. She also had a small fish-pond. She enjoyed hard work. Luther assisted her in gardening and fishing. In 1541 he purchased a small house near the convent, for his wife. He willed all his property, which amounted to about nine thousand guilders, to his wife during her lifetime, wishing that “she should not receive from her children, but the children from her; that they must honor and obey her, as God has commanded.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  His widow survived him seven years, and suffered from poverty and affliction. The Elector, the Counts of Mansfeld, and the King of Denmark added small sums to her income; but the unfortunate issue of the Smalkaldian war (1547) disturbed her peace, and drove her from Wittenberg. She returned after the war. Melanchthon and Bugenhagen did for her what they could. When the pestilence broke out at Wittenberg in 1552, and the university was moved to Torgau, she followed with her children; but on the journey she was thrown from the wagon into a ditch, and contracted a cold which soon passed into consumption. She died Dec. 20, 1552, at Torgau; her last prayer was for her children and the Lutheran Church.( Schaff, P., &amp;amp; Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church (Vol. 7, pp. 471–472). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compared to the poverty of some who survive their husbands (we must remember that the husband's salary was the source of income) it does not actually sound that bad. Aside from a local war between Catholics and Protestant powers that seems to have aggravated otherwise fairly manageable conditions, his wife did OK and did not seem to need the support of her children. &lt;strong&gt;Simply speaking, Luther left what he had to his loved one, but was not a rich man. I suppose many prophets and Apostles left less for their wives than Luther but judging a man for his wealth seems inadvisable, as their whole ambition was concerning the world hereafter and so did not accumulate much in this life.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-07-11T13:57:32.070" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T13:57:32.070" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2974" CreationDate="2013-07-11T11:36:13.037" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer is additional information to help you with determining conviction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our bible study is walking through the Torah at this time, and a helpful portion in determining the heart behind Sabbath for us were these verses in Numbers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 And on the seventh day you shall have a holy convocation. You shall not do any &lt;em&gt;ordinary&lt;/em&gt; work.&#xA;  26 &quot;On the day of the firstfruits, when you offer a grain offering of new grain to the LORD at your Feast of Weeks, you shall have a holy convocation. You shall not do any &lt;em&gt;ordinary&lt;/em&gt; work... Numbers 28   ESV (italics mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The AMP uses the word &quot;servile&quot; instead, which points more to physical labor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4637" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T11:36:13.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17473" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2974" CreationDate="2013-07-11T12:20:21.350" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think what's important for us to understand is that God meant that rest is mandatory. To be honest which day is the Sabbath? That itself is confusing. In some countries the week begins on a Monday and some on a Sunday. I think that God is trying to say that rest is something he invented so that we don't get burned out. I don't think the day and whether we work on that particular day matters. I believe that the point is that rest is necessary and its always good to set apart a day for the lord. We get so caught up in our work, we should set apart one day and focus on him and that's what he meant by keep it holy I guess. I could be wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5075" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T12:20:21.350" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17454" CreationDate="2013-07-11T19:10:11.593" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic Perspective, as I understand it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NECCESSARY BACKGROUND BEFORE THE ANSWER&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why the selective reading of the bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Why did you only select these four? &#xA;What about the last judgment story that favors DEEDS?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Salvation is a profound mystery.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can you possibly explain how a Good, All-powerful God could possibly create a creature that he may have to condemn to hell? Clearly for this person it would have been better to not exist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God does not condemn, and it is we who &lt;em&gt;choose&lt;/em&gt; heaven or earth (an understanding advanced by many mystics), can you possibly explain how can someone choose eternal suffering?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ANSWER&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, since salvation is a mystery, Jesus gives us a &lt;em&gt;glimpse&lt;/em&gt; of its nature in each passage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ALL passages are a &quot;formula&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is not ANY of them [verses as formula for salvation], but ALL of them, are a formula for salvation. All passages give you a glimpse of what is necessary for salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, as expected, all of these are related. And Jesus speaks to that. If you truly &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt;, you will &lt;em&gt;follow&lt;/em&gt;, you will &lt;em&gt;act&lt;/em&gt; correctly, you will &lt;em&gt;confess&lt;/em&gt; with your mouth and life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is no &quot;Formula&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will go further and claim that there is &lt;em&gt;no formula&lt;/em&gt;, as a formula presupposes or implies that it is something we understand, know how to execute, etc. We clearly do not. Hence no formula.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;not convinced? Can anyone of us truly say they know what it means to &quot;believe&quot; in Christ? No; hence no formula. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does a person need to &lt;em&gt;show&lt;/em&gt; all of these to achieve salvation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NO. (this may seem contradictory to what I said above, but please read below for explanation) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You say that it may be impossible to show all evidence of salvation if all are needed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you are making a critical error here - Jesus describes A SAINT. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IF you are a saint, all of the above will be visible. Ie, a saint is one that is ready to enter heaven. It does not mean he WILL enter heaven since the journey is not yet over. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a person may exhibit all signs of achieving salvation, and maybe not. Probably not all, which is a good sign that we should struggle more to be better :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So all are necessary. The reason Jesus list so many, is to help us discern how far from Sainthood we really are. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you do not need to exhibit all to &quot;achieve&quot; salvation, because that occurs at the moment of your death, a time where you may be asked if you truly believe, and if you answer correctly, all of the other signs of sainthood would be visible (if your journey here was not over)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you are mixing the terms &quot;getting saved&quot; and &quot;salvation&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;We also see people (Matthew, in Matthew 9:9 just up and follow&#xA;  Jesus), seemingly getting saved on the spot, without showing any&#xA;  immediate evidence of being able to explain all of these doctrines.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus &quot;saves&quot; many - by forgiving their sins. Ie, they RETURN, again, to a point of crossroads. they can again CHOOSE the right path. They are not saved in terms of eternal salvation which is only determined after the journey is over.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastEditorUserId="4689" LastEditDate="2013-07-11T19:15:49.733" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T19:15:49.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2974" CreationDate="2013-07-11T19:26:28.117" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was a member of conservative Baptist churches, the emphasis was on what &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; allowed, rather than on what wasn't. The mindset was that the Sabbath was obsolete, Sunday was the Lord's Day, and everything done in it should primarily focus on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attending church was okay, including all the work involved in that activity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bathing, dressing, and transporting yourself&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bathing, dressing, and transporting dependent children&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preparing lessons (for teachers/preachers)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teaching and preaching&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Church related work by staff and volunteers was okay, including (but not limited to):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Opening the building&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Driving a bus/van&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Policing the parking lots&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Greeting regulars and visitors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cleaning the building between services&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Running the sound system&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Providing child care/nursery services &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basic activities such as eating were okay, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preparing your own food&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Preparing food for others&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Eating out&quot; or visiting a restaurant, which necessarily requires someone else to work&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Attending church-related functions was okay, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Social events&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seminars&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Choir practice&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prayer meetings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Bible studies&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, a &lt;em&gt;lot&lt;/em&gt; of work could be performed. The only things that were really frowned upon were secular jobs, and even those were often considered okay as long as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The worker had a family to feed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The preacher was in a good mood, or hadn't prepared a message specifically about that person.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The one thing that did not happen (at least among committed church members) was &lt;em&gt;rest&lt;/em&gt;. Physical rest apparently became obsolete with the Sabbath, and was replaced with concepts such as &quot;rest in the Lord&quot; or &quot;rest from the world.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="407" LastEditorUserId="407" LastEditDate="2013-07-11T19:37:33.833" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T19:37:33.833" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17476" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-11T20:53:55.633" Score="-2" ViewCount="1096" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several instances in the Bible where miracles performed by Jesus have been mentioned. I was wondering what are the arguments for and against these accounts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus actually perform miracles or are the events mentioned just exaggerated stories?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5077" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-07-11T21:07:03.797" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T04:24:01.827" Title="What are the arguments for and against miracles performed by Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-07-12T07:46:42.627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5532" CreationDate="2013-07-11T20:55:15.637" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you read French, the secular translation by André Chouraqui is very interesting.  One nice part is that he often translates figures of speech literally, so some of the verses sound very foreign but more poetic.  He also translates the names of the books and the people when possible.  Also, he uses a single French word in literal translation for each use of a particular word in the original; so for the Hebrew &quot;ruah&quot; or Greek &quot;pneuma&quot; he uses &quot;souffle&quot; (breath), instead of something more modern like &quot;spirit&quot; (esprit in French).  This captures the original idiom rather well, but it does make it harder for us modern folk to read it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the first part of Genesis, re-translated by me from his French into English:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Book 1: Heading.&lt;/b&gt;  &lt;br&gt;&#xA;1: Elohims (the s to underline that Hebrew &quot;Elohim&quot; is plural, literally &quot;gods&quot;, even if it's the name of a single god) was creating the heavens and the earth&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2: the earth was tohu-and-bohu (tohu is Hebrew for &quot;waste&quot;), a darkness on the faces of the abyss, but the breath of Elohims blew across the faces of the waters.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3: Elohims says: &quot;A light will be.&quot; And it's a light.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;4: Elohims sees the light: what good!  Elohims separates the light from the darkness.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;5: Elohims cries out to the light: &quot;Day&quot;. To the darkness he had cried out: &quot;Night&quot;.  And it's an evening and it's a morning: Day one.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like I said, it's kind of a foreign read.  But then again, the Bible is a foreign anthology, isn't it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chouraqui also made a translation of the Qur'an; both are available online  &lt;a href=&quot;http://nachouraqui.tripod.com/id88.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://nachouraqui.tripod.com/id88.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5078" LastEditorUserId="5078" LastEditDate="2013-07-11T21:00:30.597" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T21:00:30.597" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17476" CreationDate="2013-07-11T23:15:17.997" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If they were exaggerated stories, the Gospels should describe them wildly different. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you see the gospels as testimonies, then the fact that there is a harmony between them, especially considering the time difference between when they were written and the backgrounds of the people writing them, is a strong indicator that they were describing something as real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4994" LastActivityDate="2013-07-11T23:15:17.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5572" CreationDate="2013-07-11T23:54:40.487" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. Act 3:7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Word of Faith perspective: Christ performed no miracles as God. He worked on the earth as a man anointed by the Holy Spirit without measure during His ministry (John 3:34, Acts 10:38). It was all the Father working through Him according to John 5:30. For certain theologies to hold true Christ had to do things of His own accord but the Bible never says that He did. It commonly is said how can God stop being God? People have trouble with the idea of God being God in character, substance, living and being human flesh but without being God in power. Jesus asked questions and was informed of events (Mark 5:30,Mat 14:13). Jesus existed in a single place during His time on the earth.(Matthew 8:7) Jesus could not do things sometimes. (Mark 6:5) What makes Christ special isn't the miracles, supernatural knowledge or other gifts of the Spirit. After His ascension the disciples performed greater works in His Name like the conversions of Jews and Gentiles in Acts. (Act 2:38) His deity is an abstract and would be true even had the Father not willed Him to work miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Th 2:9  Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There will at some point in the future be those who work false signs and wonders. These will not be good and will lead to  &lt;em&gt;unrighteousness&lt;/em&gt;. Many will follow those &amp;quot;signs&amp;quot; to their destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T00:07:47.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17485" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17454" CreationDate="2013-07-12T05:59:15.040" Score="4" Body="&lt;h2&gt;What is &amp;quot;belief&amp;quot;?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we need to clear up the common misconception about what it means to &amp;quot;believe.&amp;quot; Biblically speaking, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7256/1548&quot;&gt;faith&lt;/a&gt; (believing) is the proper response of man to God's revealed word. You hear, you recognize, you acknowledge, you embrace, you respond (i.e. act on it.) So it is quite a bit different than our typical modern English usage of the word &amp;quot;believe,&amp;quot; which essentially just means &amp;quot;to consider correct&amp;quot;;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Biblical faith &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;starts by hearing an actual word from God&lt;/a&gt;; modern &amp;quot;belief&amp;quot; can be about anything you want it to be about&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Biblical faith &lt;strong&gt;includes&lt;/strong&gt; action (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Heb. 11&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jas. 2&lt;/a&gt;); modern &amp;quot;belief&amp;quot; is distinct from action&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if we're going to consider passages from Scripture about how to get right with God, we need to understand what the Biblical authors meant by the words they used. And the Biblical authors did &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; mean that you simply have to acknowledge that Jesus died 2,000 years ago, and you suddenly receive an irrevocable ticket into Heaven!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What is the invitation?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, we need to clear up the common misconception about what the Gospel &amp;quot;offer&amp;quot; actually &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. The invitation is &lt;em&gt;back into relationship with Him&lt;/em&gt;. The Good News is that we can be reconciled &lt;em&gt;back to God&lt;/em&gt;. Not just in terms of your eternal destination, but &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;now!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; You can be reunited to God &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;today!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; You can &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;know Him!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; That is why we have verses like the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and &lt;strong&gt;indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-1 John 1:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘&lt;strong&gt;I never knew you&lt;/strong&gt;; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:22-23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Matthew 7:22-23&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Good News... the Gospel invitation... is to be reunited with your God. Mankind can know God once more. That is what was lost with the Fall of Genesis 3. That is what Christ purchased for us. That is why He sent the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What is the cost?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, we need to clear up the common misconception about what it costs to follow Christ. There is a really dangerous theology going around these days that teaches that God just wants you to make some silly one-time decision to think a certain thought and then suddenly your eternal destination will be changed from Hell to Heaven, and you're good to go. The truth of the matter is: &lt;strong&gt;It costs you everything! So &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014:25-33&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;count the costs&lt;/a&gt; carefully!&lt;/strong&gt; The Gospel message is that the course of your life can be reversed (hence &amp;quot;repent&amp;quot;) and you can live a life led by God rather than your old life apart from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all who are &lt;strong&gt;being led&lt;/strong&gt; by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:14&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Romans 8:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross &lt;strong&gt;daily&lt;/strong&gt; and follow Me. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%209:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-Luke 9:23&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:15&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;-2 Corinthians 5:15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these verses, along with those you referenced, are all referring to the same thing. But you can't explain this in a single sentence, because any word (like &amp;quot;believe&amp;quot;) can be misunderstood. (That's why the Bible is so long!) But here's the simplest I can explain it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mankind was created for relationship with God. When man sinned, mankind became separated from God in relationship. Christ came to make a way for us to be reunited with God. Being reunited with God means Him being God / Lord / King / Leader / Etc. in your life once more. &lt;em&gt;(Do you really want that?!)&lt;/em&gt; When we turn from our lives of independence to follow Him, that is called &amp;quot;repentance.&amp;quot; That is an outworking of &amp;quot;faith.&amp;quot; We are then reunited to God in relationship, by the Spirit, and are able to follow Him again. (Which, incidentally, is called &amp;quot;baptism.&amp;quot;) So:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do you have to repent? &lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are we saved through faith? &lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do you have to be baptized? &lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/strong&gt; (At least, in the Spirit.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do you have to follow Him? &lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Do you have to view / confess Him as your Lord? &lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Am I saying the same thing over and over here? &lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt; But each of these things describes a different part of the same process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's probably impossible to capture the entire doctrine of soteriology in a single, unambiguous sentence, because it is not simple. But it is coherent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T05:59:15.040" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17486" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17493" CreationDate="2013-07-12T06:30:07.303" Score="4" ViewCount="354" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen the uncreated God contrasted many times to the created angels, Satan, and humans, and etc. Being created is counted against the latter category as a mark of imperfection which God does not bear. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I don't really see why being created is an imperfection.  Surely something can be created and be created perfectly, right?  To become perfect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to understand this through the bigger picture of what perfection is?  Or is this something that must be understood on its own?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5068" LastEditorUserId="5068" LastEditDate="2013-07-12T06:38:26.830" LastActivityDate="2013-07-14T05:24:22.887" Title="Why is &quot;being created&quot; considered an imperfection?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;&lt;divinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17486" CreationDate="2013-07-12T06:39:10.977" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being created is not what makes something imperfect. Creation was created perfect by a perfect God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good (suitable, pleasant) and &lt;strong&gt;He approved it completely&lt;/strong&gt;. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:31&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God approves it &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt;, it must be perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then Adam and Eve &lt;em&gt;choose&lt;/em&gt; a path which made them imperfect. God warned them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:17&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but they went ahead anyway:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when the woman saw that the tree was good (suitable, pleasant) for food and that it was delightful to look at, and a tree to be desired in order to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she gave some also to her husband, and he ate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:6&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: their &lt;em&gt;choice&lt;/em&gt; made them imperfect, &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; they were created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T06:39:10.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17489" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17492" CreationDate="2013-07-12T10:00:42.237" Score="10" ViewCount="1306" Body="&lt;p&gt;Islam has a concept that Muhammad is the last prophet of God(Allah). The last message from God was revealed to Muhammad, as they claim. Joseph Smith also received a unique and new revelation from God. And may be the last revelation, that I don't know. I don't mean to relate them but that's how it appears to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Latter Day Saints, is Joseph Smith the last prophet of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-12T14:59:46.960" LastActivityDate="2014-12-03T13:32:27.847" Title="Is Joseph Smith the last prophet?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;joseph-smith&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17490" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-07-12T10:06:52.387" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-07-12T10:06:52.387" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T10:06:52.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17491" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-07-12T10:06:52.387" Score="0" Body="Joseph Smith (1805 - 1844), the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-12T14:46:05.413" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T14:46:05.413" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17489" CreationDate="2013-07-12T10:48:42.373" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;lds.org&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that, instead of being the last, Joseph Smith is considered to be the first in a long line of modern-day prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="407" LastEditorUserId="407" LastEditDate="2014-12-03T13:32:27.847" LastActivityDate="2014-12-03T13:32:27.847" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17486" CreationDate="2013-07-12T11:05:06.603" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being created doesn't affect perfection as much as impassability. The doctrine of impassability states that God cannot change- that he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If God (or Jesus) were created then he has changed - he went from not existing to existing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The tie in between perfection and impassability is this: if God changes, then it sets up a situation where God is not perfect. If he changed, he would, it is assumed, move to being 'perfect' from a state that was necessarily 'less than perfect.' That previous state, adherents of impassability maintain, is inconsistent with the nature of God's perfection, hence it cannot be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T11:05:06.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17494" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-12T14:37:53.913" Score="7" ViewCount="482" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the NASB, Romans 4:25 (emphasis mine) reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was&#xA;  raised &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;because of&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; our justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in the ESV (emphasis mine) it reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; our&#xA;  justification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/5377/423&quot;&gt;The literal sense of the preposition διὰ in the Greek agrees with the NASB, but there are some alternate explanations that may favor the ESV reading.&lt;/a&gt; Textual and translation issues aside (those can be addressed over at BH.SE on &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5376/was-jesus-raised-for-our-justification-or-because-of-it&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;), does the literal reading presented in the NASB present any theological difficulties in the Reformed tradition? I'm trying to determine why many Reformed-influenced translations wish to avoid this causal sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-07-13T04:32:06.240" LastActivityDate="2017-07-13T07:08:22.083" Title="Does a literal reading of Romans 4:25 conflict with Reformed theology?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;romans&gt;&lt;greek&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16294" CreationDate="2013-07-12T15:00:26.697" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romans 15:12 A descendant of Jesse will appear;he will come to rule the Gentiles and they will put their hope in him. &#xA;I see nothing about gender here, so any progeny from the genetic material of David or his siblings should be suitable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My general knowledge is that lineage of Jewish persons is through the mother. The mother is undisputed the father could be, eg from a raiding nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In tribal cultures of the region the men often died in battles or raids before their offspring reached adult hood, necessarily the adult uncles that were alive and fit became the providers for any dependants. eg: Mohammed(P) the prophet was raised from 8 years old by his Uncle Abu Tahlib. Mohammed Ali Baquir is the son of Uncle Abu Tahlib and was raised from 8 years old by Mohammed the prophet. The two were first cousins. Mohammed(P)'s wife converted to  Islam and they  raised four daughters, one named Fatima and all four daughters married Caliph. Mohammed Ali was raised as a sibling of Fatima his second cousin. While Mohammed(P) was alive Mohammed Ali married Fatima and they had two sons.  You can find this by looking and linking through the Wikipedia,creating your own geneology, subject to verification of what is posted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5061" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T15:00:26.697" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17489" CreationDate="2013-07-12T16:41:19.437" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Latter-Day Saints believe that contemporary revelation from God is always important, and a necessary part of God's plan, and that any group or time that lacks such guidance is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Apostasy&quot;&gt;apostasy&lt;/a&gt;.  Joseph Smith is known among Latter-Day Saints as &quot;the prophet of the Restoration,&quot; the prophet through whom God restored the fulness of his gospel in modern times.  But he was the first modern prophet, not the last.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The highest leaders in the church--the President of the Church and his two councilors, and the Quorum of the Twelve apostles--each carry the designation of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_seer_and_revelator&quot;&gt;Prophet, Seer and Revelator&lt;/a&gt;,&quot; but when Mormons talk about &quot;the&quot; Prophet, they mean the President of the Church, current or former.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The current prophet is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Monson&quot;&gt;Thomas S. Monson&lt;/a&gt;, the sixteenth President of the Church.  He's served in that capacity since early 2008, soon after President &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_B._Hinckley&quot;&gt;Gordon B. Hinckley&lt;/a&gt; died of old age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T16:41:19.437" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17498" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17504" CreationDate="2013-07-12T18:11:54.387" Score="3" ViewCount="863" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Pe 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. &#xA;  2Pe 2:2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Peter 2:1 there are a group of people called false prophets who engaged in damnable heresies and deny the Lord but are also bought by the Lord. Most Arminians use this verse as an example of unsaved people who were purchased by the Lord. How does the Calvinist respond to that interpretation of this verse? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-02-04T15:26:42.880" LastActivityDate="2017-04-25T05:37:32.273" Title="How do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 2:1?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;perseverance-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3874" CreationDate="2013-07-12T18:39:02.823" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The definition of &quot;disciple&quot; is one that is taught by God and it is the holy spirit that will teach you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The definition of a &quot;Christian&quot; is to be &lt;em&gt;like Christ&lt;/em&gt; When they saw the apostles doing miracles like Christ they call them &quot;Christ like&quot; which became Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5085" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-07-12T22:47:44.677" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T22:47:44.677" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17494" CreationDate="2013-07-12T19:17:07.603" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;, if you read &quot;because&quot; as indicating a causal relationship, &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt; if it's just giving the reason or purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Because of our justification&quot; might suggest that some action done by us is the cause of the resurrection. That's a problem for Reformed theology, and probably not just for us either, as it's a bit logically and temporally difficult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we read &quot;our justification&quot; more like &quot;the justification that relates to us&quot; or &quot;is done to us&quot; then there is no problem with the responsibility. Something like &quot;for the sake of&quot; instead of &quot;because of&quot; carries the same sort of meaning - indicating purpose rather than causality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My knowledge of Greek isn't good enough to be sure about this, but from a cursory glance into Liddell-Scott-Jones it looks like &lt;em&gt;dia&lt;/em&gt; can carry this meaning (sense B.III.3). Latin &lt;em&gt;propter&lt;/em&gt;, as in the Vulgate for Romans 4:25, certainly can have a sense of &quot;this was the reason&quot; without necessarily also indicating logical cause. Compare the Nicene Creed's &lt;em&gt;propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem&lt;/em&gt;.  (But prepositions are always difficult to translate.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Martin Luther's commentary (1515-1516, trans. J. Theodore Mueller 1954) on Romans 4:25, he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ's death is the death of sin, and His resurrection is the raising up of righteousness. For by His death Christ has atoned for our sins, and through His resurrection He has procured for us righteousness. Christ's death does not merely signify, but has effected the remission of our sins. Christ's resurrection is not merely the pledge of our righteousness, but its cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The direction of the causal relationship he sees is obvious. &#xA;Likewise, in John Calvin's commentary (1540, trans. John Owen 1849), we find:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Expiation depended on the eternal goodwill of God, who purposed to be in this way pacified. [...] The efficacy of justification is ascribed to his resurrection, by which death was overcome; not that the sacrifice of the cross, by which we are reconciled to God, contributes nothing towards our justification, but that the completeness of his favor appears more clear by his coming to life again.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin here adds the additional nuance of God's sovereign will. Like Luther, he sees the resurrection as both a sign and a cause, but in addition he emphasises that God is the ultimate cause. This helps the reading of &quot;because of our transgressions&quot; as well: God's grace is freely given, not procured as a necessary result of our sin. In both cases, our transgression and justification supply the &lt;em&gt;reasons why&lt;/em&gt; God did what he did, without &lt;em&gt;causing&lt;/em&gt; God's action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;expiato ab aeterno Dei beneplacito pendet, qui hoc modo placere voluit&lt;/em&gt; [...] &lt;em&gt;resurrectioni, per quam mors absorpta est, vis iustificandi adscribitur: non quod sacrificium crucis, quo reconciliati sumus Deo, nihil ad iustitiam contulerit: sed quia in nova vita huius gratiae perfectio clarius apparet.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-07-12T19:53:09.990" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T19:53:09.990" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15160" CreationDate="2013-07-12T20:35:29.757" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Word of Faith perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:&#xA;2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All scripture is Holy and God has something for us to learn from every single verse however not all scripture is God directly speaking to us. It's all profitable as 2nd Timothy says but how it is profitable depends largely on the user and interpreter. God and those used by God are not the only people who speak in the scripture. The devil, wicked and confused people also speak quite frequently. This is one of the reason why you can not build sound New Testament doctrines on single scriptures from the Old Testament. The Old Testament is very context specific most of the New Testament is less so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Num 31:17  Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance Numbers 31:17 is a scripture and it is profitable but by itself it is not God's word for any situation. There are other verses which can stand alone. These verses convey exact thoughts from God which by them-self have the power to change our life like John 3:16 which convey's a central part of the gospel enough to get any man woman or child into the Kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's word is any scripture where God is (rightly divided) speaking to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-12T20:35:29.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17498" CreationDate="2013-07-13T00:30:39.053" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calvinism relies heavily on the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Grace (specifically the grace provided via Christ's death) is &lt;em&gt;sufficient&lt;/em&gt; for the salvation of all, but it is &lt;em&gt;efficient&lt;/em&gt; for the salvation of some.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is essentially all that stands between Calvinism and Universalism. The idea behind Calvinism is that Christ's grace is so powerful that if one is elected the pull of this grace cannot be ignored. And once applied this grace is too powerful to be removed. That's Calvinism in a nutshell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question ultimately comes down to: if we believe that Grace is more powerful than sin than what do we do with people who are &quot;Bought&quot; but don't stay. There are two conclusions that a Calvinist may come to &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These folks were not among the elect and were instead people attracted to the church for some other reason. Their conversion was not true.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;These folks are among the elect but have strayed from the path for a time, but will in fact return in full grace.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doing a bit of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/exegesis-of-2-peter-21-dr-matthew-mcmahon/&quot;&gt;research&lt;/a&gt; the Calvinist consensus here is that the subject of this passage is the first. These folks &lt;em&gt;claim&lt;/em&gt; to be be bought by Christ but are in fact lying, and prove it by their false teachings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So to summarize the point here: false teachers are “saying” they are Christians, and “saying” they have been bought, but in fact are not bought at all. “Denying the sovereign Lord who bought them” is what they are saying about their lifestyle, though it is not true from the rest of the immediate context of the passage. The word “bought” means they are either saved (which we know false teachers are not saved so that cannot be the meaning of the passage) or they are “saying” they “they believe themselves to be saved” and ultimately are self-deceived. But it cannot mean that Christ bought them with His blood, and they reject that “offer” to eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is far more consistent with the power, sufficiency and efficiency of grace than any other argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T00:30:39.053" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7553" CreationDate="2013-07-13T03:12:15.637" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;lets see.  they had water, they had grapes, oops they could have made grape juice. nothing in the bible was done by accident. Jesus chose wine for a reason. we may not understand what that reason was but we should defend and honor his choice....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5090" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T03:12:15.637" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17507" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17533" CreationDate="2013-07-13T04:13:43.730" Score="3" ViewCount="893" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity seems to be one big category with a &lt;em&gt;long&lt;/em&gt; list of denominations. To my knowledge, there is no &quot;Christian language&quot; in the same way as in Islam (Arabic) or Judaism (Hebrew) or Hinduism (Sanskrit). I have noticed that some Christians do recite verses from the Bible, but they do so in the &lt;em&gt;vernacular&lt;/em&gt; language rather than some obscure or archaic liturgical language that is typically the language of the scriptures. For Christianity, I would probably expect that Christians would recite the verses in koine Greek and biblical Aramaic. Nope, more often than not, they recite in the vernacular. Are there any specific rules at all in &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; denomination of Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rules about prayer, meditation, and devotion (when to pray, how to pray, how many times to pray per day, where to pray, in which direction to pray)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rules about diet and fasting (when to eat, how to eat, how many times to eat, where to eat, what to eat and what not to eat)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rules about pilgrimages (which sites are holy, how to behave on the holy site, whom to meet on the holy site, what to expect on the holy site, how to pay respects on the holy site)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-07-14T02:50:50.380" Title="Are there any specific rules on everyday life at all in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;diet&gt;&lt;meditation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17507" CreationDate="2013-07-13T06:02:54.593" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;As broad as it may appear, here is how we can summarize it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 22:35-40 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of them, an expert in the law, tested him&#xA;  with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the&#xA;  Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and&#xA;  with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and&#xA;  greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your&#xA;  neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two&#xA;  commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians should live their every day life by following two simple commandments,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love your God with all your soul and with all your mind&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love others as yourself&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our customs/rituals on how we show our love to God may vary but they all fall under the same command. Christians should practically demonstrate God's love to others.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-13T12:37:22.560" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T12:37:22.560" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17510" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17514" CreationDate="2013-07-13T12:44:44.893" Score="3" ViewCount="1212" Body="&lt;p&gt;This verse has been used to say that women should not hold the office of pastor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.  1 Tim 2:12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet at least among LC-MS Lutheran congregations, I have observed female &quot;worship leaders&quot;, choir directors, lectors, communion distributors, congregation presidents, and more notably,  Sunday School teachers.  Clearly speaking, every one of these offices has &quot;authority&quot; or &quot;teaches&quot; males. These would include in some cases indirectly whole congregation (worship leader) or direct authority and &quot;teaching&quot; for Sunday school students who are men by US standards (18) or ancient standards (late teens, perhaps).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: How have denominations (or other church movements) &lt;strong&gt;that have held scripture forbids female pastors&lt;/strong&gt; responded to the general blanket proscription which seems to be found in this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-07-13T17:25:07.293" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T17:25:07.293" Title="Female Sunday School teachers for 17, 18 year old male students?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;women&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-10-24T18:14:31.847" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="114" CreationDate="2013-07-13T12:59:34.440" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some verses that were often referred to in discussions of ordination of women among ELCA Lutherans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) Women first at tomb&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know a female ELCA Lutheran pastor who said she felt her call to be pastor solidify after reading the Gospels and seeing that women who came to the tomb were the first evangelists of a resurrected Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) No male/female in Christ Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.  (Gal 3:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3) a Prophetess&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel,..  (Luke 2:36)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4) Lydia led a house church&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed. (Acts 16:40)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T12:59:34.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3971" CreationDate="2013-07-13T13:14:07.207" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good, constructive question.  Two verses here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He replied, &amp;quot;Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.&amp;quot; (Matthew 17:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is a gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have the tiniest faith, you can literally make a mountain jump into the sea, survive scorpion bites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The controversy comes when we assume that our efforts of prayer, study, clean living, and &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;willing&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; God into our lives gives us a heroic share of faith not seen before. We ignore the literal truth that faith is a gift (&lt;em&gt;we will take an extra helping through our efforts, thank you&lt;/em&gt;) and then we ignore the literal truth that snakes will not harm those with faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer is influenced by reading Luther's Theology of the Cross and Tullian Tchividjian's sermons, but I don't have any quotes from either on the topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T13:14:07.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17510" CreationDate="2013-07-13T14:52:06.990" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you asked &quot;How have nominations (or other church movements) that have held scripture forbids female pastors responded to the general blanket proscription which seems to be found in this verse?&quot; I'll answer that only, with the disclaimer that I'm neither saying that women should or should not preach.  I have my belief on the subject, but my belief is irrelevant to the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptists are one example of a denomination that has historically held that women should not be preachers.  These days, there's division on that, but historically, this is a good group to use as an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A short version of how it's handled in the Baptist Churches I've dealt with, women are allowed to teach Sunday School classes to children and to other women.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Children are generally divided by age group, with either male of female teachers.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teens are generally taught by a (male) Youth Pastor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adult Sunday school is either led by the (male) Pastor for all 18 year-olds.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;On some subjects, adult men and women are split up into two groups.  For example, every so often, Sunday School focuses on &quot;how to be a Godly husband/wife&quot;.  During this type of session, men are taught by a man, women are taught by a woman.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, my experience in Baptist Churches is very limited.  I've attended probably less than 10 baptist Churches in my life, and have only been a regular member at two of those.  However, having friends in Baptists Churches all over the place, this is pretty typical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's an article at Baptisthistory.org  that covers the view that see/hear in baptist circles:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baptisthistory.org/womeninbaptistlife.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perspectives on Women in Baptist Life&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Excerpts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perspectives on Women in Baptist Life by Leon McBeth&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I would like to make three disclaimers at the beginning of this&#xA;  article. First, my perspective obviously is that of a man. I feel&#xA;  totally inadequate to write on the roles of women. When I say &quot;we&quot; in&#xA;  this paper, I mean generally men. When I say &quot;you,&quot; I mean women. If&#xA;  any readers detect areas of ignorance, prejudice, misunderstanding,&#xA;  and lingering chauvinism, I can only ask that you bear with me with&#xA;  whatever degree of patience the Lord will give you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second, my perspective is that of a historian. My academic preparation&#xA;  has been in history, and most of my waking hours are devoted to a&#xA;  study of our Baptist heritage. If I draw my insights and examples&#xA;  primarily from Baptist history, you will not be unduly surprised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Third, my perspective is that of a participant. I cannot discuss the&#xA;  role of women in Baptist life in the same way that I can, say, the&#xA;  formation of the Southern Baptist Convention or the rise of the&#xA;  Separate Baptists in the eighteenth century. The changing roles of&#xA;  Baptist women, while a question with deep historical roots, is going&#xA;  on today. It affects my church today; it affects my students; it&#xA;  affects my denomination here and now; and it affects me. Almost daily&#xA;  I counsel with seminary students who feel called to ministry, many of&#xA;  whom are women. In my church I receive the Lord’s Supper from the&#xA;  hands of a woman deacon. Sometimes when our pastor is absent, we hear&#xA;  a sermon from our associate pastor, a capable, well-prepared, and&#xA;  articulate ordained minister who wears a dress. This is no theoretical&#xA;  ivory tower topic, but one in which all of us are daily involved. Yet,&#xA;  one who writes as a participant must guard against loss of&#xA;  objectivity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With that introduction, let us examine some perspectives on women in&#xA;  Baptist life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From the Angle of Service, We Depend on You&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I tell you nothing new in saying that from day one in Baptist history,&#xA;  women have served faithfully in Baptist life. You have nurtured,&#xA;  sustained, encouraged, and preserved our churches. Without your loyal&#xA;  and effective service through the generations, our churches and our&#xA;  denomination would be far different, if they would be at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From the Angle of Missions, We Follow You&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No fact of Baptist history is clearer than the fact that women have&#xA;  set the pace for Baptist involvement in missions. While it is true&#xA;  that William Carey had little support from his wife Dorothy, on this&#xA;  side of the water two women helped set the stage for our present&#xA;  Baptist work among the nations. They were Ann Judson in the North and&#xA;  Lottie Moon in the South.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From the Angle of Scripture, We Puzzle Over You&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;What does the Bible say?&quot; That question is and has always been&#xA;  vitally important for Southern Baptists. For us the teachings of the&#xA;  Bible have been determinative, and still are. For the overwhelming&#xA;  majority of Southern Baptists, a clear word of Scripture settles any&#xA;  question of faith or practice among us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, not all words from the Bible are equally clear. We read that&#xA;  women are to keep silent in the church, but we are not sure whether it&#xA;  means in that social setting or for all time to come. We have&#xA;  competent and dedicated Southern Baptist Bible scholars who genuinely&#xA;  believe that the New Testament forbids women to exercise a teaching or&#xA;  ministerial role in the church. We have other equally competent and&#xA;  dedicated Bible scholars who believe that the New Testament, properly&#xA;  interpreted, does not disqualify women from being called of God and of &#xA;  fulfilling that call in positions of ministry in the church. So it is &#xA;  not a question of whether one believes the Bible, but of how we &#xA;  understand the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-13T15:53:27.323" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T15:53:27.323" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17507" CreationDate="2013-07-13T16:52:28.170" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps it is because of this confusion that you describe that your title and body do not really seem to match. I will try to clear up this confusion and answer your underlying question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question seems to be: &amp;quot;Why are Christians not more concerned with ritual and seem so divided on what they should do as Christians? Why are they so different from the Jews and Muslims?&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the reason there are so many denominations is because of the vast differences in opinions on what those rules are. Why there are so many opinions in Christianity is more of a History/Sociology question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Reformation, which brought around the pull from Catholicism and the advent of Protestantism, was also somewhat accompanied by the advent of modern democracy. The first was a pull from the &amp;quot;king&amp;quot; of religion and the second was a pull from the king of the nation. Both occurred in Christian dominated countries. Both are largely responsible for forging the concept that personal opinion is just as valuable as the sovereign's. The effect in Christianity is similar to the effect in politics: numerous opinions and little to no unity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The question of Christianity having a &amp;quot;sacred&amp;quot; language is that it does. It is Latin.&lt;/strong&gt; It wasn't until John Wycliffe (1500's) that the Bible was made publicly available in other languages (most notably was English). Before then, Latin was the official language of Christendom, which was widely ruled by Catholicism and the Pope. Why Latin was used so heavily by the Catholic Church is really another question. Also, why Greek or Aramaic is not used today a a bit of another question, however, today, because of the vast number of manuscripts found to date, many scholars actually do turn to the Greek regularly for answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then, why would the average &amp;quot;John Christian&amp;quot; not learn Greek so he could readily turn to it? That is because Christianity is the religion for all. The general message is that all may come as they are and be saved. Many argue that all the Scripture teaches is that you are completely willing to follow God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First comes faith; then comes practice.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17 ... faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 2 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse in James, whose meaning is much argued, describes a clear sequence: Faith brings deeds which brings righteousness. The message is that when you fully submit your life to God and &amp;quot;believe&amp;quot; Him your actions will then follow and be righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But why then does everyone not &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; the same righteous things&lt;/strong&gt;, like pray the same way, eat the same foods, and make the same pilgrimages? Well, there are a few reasons I could give but they are all speculation on certain Christian's faith or the nature of God. That would be more of a philosophical discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Everything that a Christian should do is summed up in a single verse.&lt;/strong&gt; No Christian can neglect this verse, and, likewise, I have never heard of a denomination that would not agree with its first sentence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 &lt;strong&gt;So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.&lt;/strong&gt; 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 10 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This should, and usually is, the prime thought of every Christian when they do something. They ask &amp;quot;Am I glorifying God right now?&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christianity is about &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; coming to God as you are; after that, God, when you are willing, transforms your person into one capable of righteousness.&lt;/strong&gt; It is not about &lt;em&gt;your people&lt;/em&gt; coming to God, as in Judaism, and it is not about &lt;em&gt;the world&lt;/em&gt; submitting to God, as in Islam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T19:23:56.773" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17516" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17559" CreationDate="2013-07-13T17:03:24.207" Score="5" ViewCount="2011" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't had much experience interacting with Catholics, but I have had a lot of interactions with the Orthodox and have been exposed to many of their writings and teachings. Whenever I would talk to them about what they think about the Protestants, these three main points would always stand out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Protestants are not on the line of Apostolic succession;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Protestants don't recognize the sacraments as the ways specially ordained by God for conveying the Holy Spirit;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;(A kind of summary to the first two points) although only God knows whether or not the Protestants are saved or have the Holy Spirit, it must be considered as the fact that the Protestants are spiritually in the way more disadvantageous position than the Orthodox Church.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sure Protestants are familiar with this kind of thinking of the Orthodox Christians regarding Protestantism. Is it possible to describe in general what Protestants usually say in response to that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By &quot;Protestants&quot; I mean here those Christians who don't belong to the Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, yet still pray to Jesus in their prayers (that is, they address Jesus by His name – not just say &quot;I am praying in the name of Jesus&quot; in the end of the prayer), or at least don't consider this practice to be wrong. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2013-07-13T19:43:08.907" LastActivityDate="2016-07-06T00:30:49.747" Title="How do Protestants in general respond to these points concerning them?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;apostolic-succession&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="23" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17516" CreationDate="2013-07-13T17:53:09.727" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Preface, this is a Protestant response. I'm not arguing the validity of it, or any claims here, just answering the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the short Protestant response would be &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh&quot;&gt;Meh&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A general Protestant response to &lt;em&gt;each point&lt;/em&gt; would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Where in Scripture does it say there would be any such thing as  Apostolic succession? The New Testament speaks of several Churches, planted by various Apostles. Not one central Church descended from Peter.  The idea of Apostolic succession is an invention of Churches added on after-the-fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) That's right, too. Show me in  Scripture, not in some Church's teaching where these man-made ordinances are meant for that purpose? I seem to remember the indwelling if the Holy Spirit in Acts as being in response to faith and repentance, not to a ritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Since the first two questions are based on arguably false assumptions, the conclusion in the third is equally questionable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you expand this to include the LDS the answer is very different.  They believe the Apostolic line was broken, and was restored with Joseph Smith, so the Catholics and Orthodox recognize an invalid Apostolic line. And they'd say the Catholics and Orthodox hve the ordinances wrong, and are missing the critical Temple Ordinances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-07-13T17:59:11.347" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T17:59:11.347" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17518" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17519" CreationDate="2013-07-13T18:39:41.143" Score="13" ViewCount="2724" Body="&lt;p&gt;To my understanding, Mormons are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. I believe that they are Christians, but I'm not sure if they are Protestant or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are Mormons Protestants, or are they just &quot;&lt;em&gt;Latter Day Saints&lt;/em&gt;&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-03-14T03:32:13.453" LastActivityDate="2020-03-14T03:32:13.453" Title="Are Mormons Protestants?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17518" CreationDate="2013-07-13T18:55:32.210" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, not really. While you sometimes find them lumped together they are not a subset of the class.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In popular usage such as among modern secular journalism, the term &quot;Protestant&quot; has come to mean anything that doesn't properly fall under the umbrella of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. In this sense where there is no &quot;Option D, none of the above&quot;, it sort of makes sense to lump in divergent sects with the rest of Protestantism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is, however, a fundamental difference: their theological roots are not the same. The LDS church is what is sometimes referred to as a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/16852/30&quot;&gt;restorationist movement&lt;/a&gt;&quot; — a reference to their theology's claim to be restoring something that was lost. While they agree with Protestants that the Catholic church lost its way, their proposed solution varies radically from that of Protestantism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The basic tenets of Protestantism as a movement include rejection of a few Catholic doctrines and ultimately the Catholic church's claim to apostolic authority. In rejecting some of the core tenets of Catholicism, it based itself instead on a core set of doctrines (often loosely summarized in the &quot;5 solas&quot;) that all require a certain reliance on the Scriptures as authoritative and uncorrupted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS church on the other hand is fundamentally based on the premise that Apostolic authority was lost (much earlier than even the rise of the Catholic church) and needed to be miraculously restored. This and other revelations are believed to have been given independently (and in opposition to) the existing claims of the Bible and historical Christian churches (whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, while they would also protest against Rome, their basis for doing so is entirely independent of the Protestant reformation and theologically they should be considered a sect (or cult depending on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/11532/30&quot;&gt;whose definitions you're using&lt;/a&gt;) outside of the theological umbrellas of Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2017-10-08T07:46:53.013" LastActivityDate="2017-10-08T07:46:53.013" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17518" CreationDate="2013-07-13T18:56:51.667" Score="22" Body="&lt;p&gt;Latter-Day Saints do not consider themselves to be Protestants. The most fundamental concept of the Protestant tradition is an attempt to replace Catholic traditions and Catholic theology with a reformed theology derived from reading the Bible and attempting to interpret it properly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Latter-Day Saints believe that this is impossible to do successfully; that the Scriptures were given by revelation, and can't be understood in their fullness by the wisdom of men alone, but require the same spirit of revelation and prophecy by which they were given in the first place (2 Pet 1:20,21).  Therefore, because the original Church had become corrupt and apostate, (Mormons agree with Protestants on this point,) what was necessary was not to &lt;em&gt;reform&lt;/em&gt; the church and its doctrines, but to &lt;em&gt;restore&lt;/em&gt; them in their purity, through revelation and direct divine intervention.  The official LDS doctrine of the Restoration is &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/beliefs/restoration&quot;&gt;explained on Mormon.org.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons and (most) Protestants agree that this puts Latter-Day Saints outside the Protestant tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="5336" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T19:57:04.030" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T19:57:04.030" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17523" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17554" CreationDate="2013-07-13T20:26:47.560" Score="2" ViewCount="140" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before he was crucified, Jesus was mocked by the soldiers and by members of the Sanhedrin.   Where did this mockery take place?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5092" LastActivityDate="2014-01-09T17:43:10.657" Title="Where did the mockery of Jesus take place?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15544" CreationDate="2013-07-13T20:40:19.470" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The roots of the doctrine in its primative form actually reaches back to the views of very early church fathers.&lt;/strong&gt; I add this history to show the period prior to people like Joachim described in the other post. The idea stems from a very early belief by church fathers that the antichrist would be a new form of government in the Roman Empire. A powerful papacy was not existent at the time so the connection was impossible to foresee but all the seeds of the belief were sewn by them, later appropriated by those witnessing papal abuses that fit the church father expectation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The principal idea of the church fathers is rooted in the connection of the anti-Christ with the little horn that ‘has eyes’ and ‘speaks blasphemous things’ in Daniel Chapter 7. This expected soon-to-come antichrist from some sort of mysterious sinister change within the Roman Empire (this evil horn) was considered by the Fathers to include a dreadful 'apostasy of believers' which would start a terrible history of persecution against true believers who opposed the risen new Roman power. Therefore, the prayers of the fathers was that Rome would be kept safe from any such political changes. The hope was that the dreaded horn of antichrist and massive church apostasy would be kept at bay as long as possible as it was greatly feared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One author has already collected this history of the church fathers on this subject providing to us a convenient collection of these origins to the view adopted by nearly all early protestant reformers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All quotes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=wTYGAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA364&amp;amp;lpg=PA364&amp;amp;dq=horae%20%22that%20convulsions%20and%20calamities%20threatening%20the%20whole%20world%22&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=_X349Zq-Xc&amp;amp;sig=E-0hiEDxS7fkHRWCl24ZfLWWd5I&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=HcfhUbfGB8WziwK39oDADA&amp;amp;ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=horae%20%22that%20convulsions%20and%20calamities%20threatening%20the%20whole%20world%22&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Horae Apocalypticae; or, A commentary on the Apocalypse, critical and historical; including also an examination of the chief prophecies of Daniel (1846). page 365&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cyril, ordained Bishop of Jerusalem A.D. 350 had this view.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He, like the fathers before him, explained the four wild Beasts of Dan. 7. to be the Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires, and identified the fourth Beast’s little horn with St. Paul’s Man of Sin and St. John’s Antichrist. Further he judged that the time of his coming was to be when the times of the then Roman empire were fulfilled, (ὁταν πληρωθωσιν οἱ καιροι της των Ῥωμαιων βασιλειας,) and it was dissolved into ten kingdoms, kingdoms rising up contemporaneously, but in different places:—that then Antichrist, (“some great man raised up by the devil,”) falsely calling himself the Christ, and so seducing the Jews, would by magical arts and false miracles seize on, and usurp, the power of the Roman empire, eradicate three of the ten kings, and subjugate the other seven:—that at first mild in semblance, and prudent, and the abolisher of idols, (all with a view to self-exaltation,) he would afterwards show himself as God, sitting in the Jewish temple; (“for God forbid it should be that in which we are;”) and for three years and a half persecute the Church:—finally that the apostasy, of which St. Paul spoke as Antichrist’s precursor, meant a religious apostasy, “from the right faith, from truth, and from right words.” (So Catech. Lect. xv.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ambrose, ordained Bishop of Milan A.D. 374 contributed this view:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only prophetical notices on the point proposed in the genuine writings of this father, are those in his Comment on Luke 21:20; Book x. § 15–18. He there (like Cyril) explains the apostasy of St. Paul to mean an apostasy from true religion: (“à verâ religione plerique lapsi errore deseiscent:”)—that it would be the Jewish inner or mental temple in which Antichrist would sit: and that then, seizing on the kingdom, (I presume the Roman kingdom or supremacy,) he would claim for himself a throne of divine authority; “sibi divinæ vindicet solium potestatis.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Comment on 2 Thess. 2. of the Pseudo-Ambrose, the hindrance to Antichrist’s manifestation is explained to be the Roman empire; its defection (αποστασια), or abolition, being the occasion of his appearance; and that he would then restore freedom to the Romans, “sub suo nomine:”—that the mystery of iniquity spoken of by St. Paul was Nero’s persecuting spirit against Christians, which still afterwards had continued to actuate succeeding Pagan emperors down to Diocletian and Julian; finally that he would, “in domo Domini, in sede sedeat Christi, et ipsum Deum se asserat.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chrysostom, ordained Presbyter A.D. 386 expresses the same gist:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He too (on Daniel) expounded Nebuchadnezzar’s quadripartite Image, and Daniel’s four Beasts, as the other fathers. “The days of those kings,” said of the time of the stone being cut out, he explains as the days of the Romans: and that, in smiting and destroying the Roman kingdom, it would destroy the others too, as included.—Also in his” Hom. iv. on 2 Thess. 2 he made the Roman empire to be the let or hindrance to Antichrist’s manifestation meant by St. Paul: τουτʼ εστιν ἡ αρχη ἡ Ῥωμαικη· ὁταν αρθῃ εκ μεσου τοτε εκεινος ηξει· and again: ὁταν αὑτη καταλυθῃ επιθησεται (ὁ Αντιχριστος) τῃ αναρχιᾳ, και την των ανθρωπων και την του Θεου επιχειρησει ἁρπασαι αρχην· and &lt;em&gt;he explained the temple in which Antichrist would sit to be rather “the Christian Churches everywhere,”&lt;/em&gt; than the Jewish temple.—The mystery of iniquity he thought might be Nero, as in spirit a type of Antichrist: Νερωνα ὡσανει τυπον οντα του Αντιχριστου· και γαρ οὑτος εβουλετο νομιζεσθαι Θεος· and that Antichrist was to be αντιθεος τις; overthrowing indeed the worship of idols and other gods, but only so as to enforce the worship of himself in the place of them and of God.—The apostasy Chrysostom identifies pretty much with Antichrist himself; ὡς πολλους μελλοντα απολλυναι και αφιστᾶν. &lt;em&gt;He adds that, as Rome succeeded Greece, so Rome would be succeeded by Antichrist, and Antichrist by Christ.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jerome, ordained Presbyter A.D. 378, has again the same:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Dan. 2. he expounds the gold, silver, brass, and iron of the symbolic Image to be the same four kingdoms as the other fathers: the stone cut out of the mountain without hands being Christ born of a virgin; whose kingdom, upon the destruction of all the other kingdoms, was finally to fill the whole earth. The breaking of the iron legs into ten toes,—part iron, part clay,—he explained of the weakness of the Roman empire at the time he wrote,—about A.D. 407....—On Dan. 7. he explains the four Beasts of the same four empires; the four heads of the third or Macedonian Beast indicating its subdivisions, on Alexander’s death, into the kingdoms of Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, Antigonus. On the divisions of the fourth, or Roman...—adding that &lt;em&gt;this eleventh king is to be a man, with Satan’s spirit indwelling, the same as St. Paul’s man of sin: also that the Roman empire is to be finally destroyed on account of this Antichrist’s blasphemies, and with it all earthly kingdoms&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Augustine notices and agrees in Jerome’s view of Daniel’s, four Beasts&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the identity of the fourth Beast’s little horn with St. Paul’s man of sin and St. John’s Antichrist.’ He explains the apostasy in 2 Thess. 2 of a religious apostasy; indeed, (expounding the abstract of the concrete,) as the apostate Antichrist himself; “Nisi venerit refuga primùm, utique a Domino Deo:”—also as to the temple he would sit in, that it seemed to him dubious whether it might mean. Solomon’s ruined temple, or the Christian Church: that at any rate it could not be an idol’s or dæmon’s temple; because that would not be called God’s temple:—further that the let, or hindrance, in Antichrist’s way might not absurdly be taken to mean the Roman empire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So we see that the church fathers while experiencing persecutions in Rome observed these prophecies with serious expectation that some new Roman power would rise within the churches themselves, claiming to be in some sense equal to Christ in authority over all the churches, ushering in a widespread apostasy and persecution if true believers.&lt;/strong&gt;  It is from this ancient belief that later generations came to consider that the papacy in its previous military and religious power was that 'horn' with religious oversight represented as 'eyes' and speaking 'blasphemous things' such as the Pope's claim as being Christ's vice-regent on earth and insinuating fake authority over all believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is rare a major biblical doctrine is to be entirely absent in the first few hundred years of Christianity and it should be of no surprise that this also has it roots there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T21:52:55.423" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17526" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6799" CreationDate="2013-07-13T20:50:02.937" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;I am not able to do that (forgive) myself, not even close. But that is what Jesus would do, and what we should aim for.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can not forgive of myself either, but I recently read a story about Corrie Ten Boom who harbors Jews away from Nazis during he holocaust, and she later met a Nazi and could not forgive him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, she prayed for Jesus to change her heart and enable her to forgive him. She was then able to forgive him from her heart as tears came to her eyes and forgiveness flooded her physical body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“And still I stood there with the coldness clutching my heart. But forgiveness is not an emotion—I knew that too. Forgiveness is an act of the will, and the will can function regardless of the temperature of the heart. ‘… Help!’ I prayed silently. ‘I can lift my hand. I can do that much. You supply the feeling.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“And so woodenly, mechanically, I thrust my hand into the one stretched out to me. And as I did, an incredible thing took place. The current started in my shoulder, raced down my arm, sprang into our joined hands. And then this healing warmth seemed to flood my whole being, bringing tears to my eyes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“ ‘I forgive you, brother!’ I cried. ‘With all my heart!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“For a long moment we grasped each other’s hands, the former guard and the former prisoner. I had never known God’s love so intensely, as I did then”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5093" LastActivityDate="2013-07-13T20:50:02.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17527" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-13T21:02:23.897" Score="9" ViewCount="189" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity &lt;em&gt;seems to me&lt;/em&gt; to embrace translation of its scriptural writings far more than other religions, and to give such translations nearly equal weight with the approximations of the original manuscripts based on surviving texts and textual analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this actually the case? If so, why is Christianity so friendly to scriptural translation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(Christianity's emphasis on proselytizing (&quot;make disciples of all nations&quot;) and de-emphasis of traditional cultural exclusion and conversion [&quot;neither Jew nor Gentile&quot;] are factors. The adoption of Greek scriptures requiring understanding of two languages [plus a minimal amount of Aramaic] may also have made translation more attractive. An emphasis on inward belief over outward practice and on universal calling may also have increased the importance of making the scriptures more easily and broadly understandable. A [more Protestant?] emphasis that the Bible is generally clear and that individuals are responsible for knowing the Scripture would also seem to be a factor.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-07-14T01:00:46.757" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T14:59:28.417" Title="Is Christianity more friendly to its own Scripture translation than other religions? If so, why?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;comparative-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1737" CreationDate="2013-07-14T01:43:08.537" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The phrase &quot;sons of God&quot; appears 4 times in the Old Testament, twice in the passage in Genesis, and twice in the book of Job. Job's passages are plainly angels, so in the context of the Old Testament, the Genesis references should be understood first as angels unless there is sufficient reason to rule it out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angels have the ability to take on human form (see Genesis 19:5-8). In the case of these fallen angels, they apparently took on human form complete with tweaked human DNA coded for extreme size and aggressiveness. Angels in heaven do not marry, but it doesn't say that they are incapable of taking on human form and marrying. God's angels who did not rebel have no use or need for human females, so they don't marry. Human females are made to correspond to the human male who is made in the image of God, and this explains their appeal to the fallen angels who were themselves created as &quot;sons of God&quot;. (Male and female are together God's image; but man is the direct image while woman is an indirect image according to 1 Corinthians 11:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These giants are called &quot;men&quot; in Genesis and elsewhere, indicating that regardless of their satanic origin, God considered them human, and dealt with them and judged them accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The groups listed by Moses in Deuteronomy are noted for their size. Og was a remnant of these groups, and his bed was about 13.5 feet long by 6 feet wide. This would make him roughly twice as tall as an ordinary person today. This cannot be explained by giantism today, since giantism is debilitating and does not result in &quot;mighty men&quot;. These giants were superior athletes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spies refer to the sons of Anak as having great size (albeit exaggerated), and by that they claim that they were &quot;Nephilim&quot;. So the spies are interpreting the Nephilim in Genesis as meaning giants in terms of size. If they were twice the height of normal men as Og's bed seems to indicate, then their fear and comparisons are understandable (though inexcusable in light of God's power).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 5 tribes of giants mentioned in the Bible after the Flood: Emims, Zamzummims, Horims, Avims, and Rephaims. They lived around the perimeter of Canaan. According to Genesis 6:4, they were produced the same way the Nephilim were produced before the Flood. Emims, Horims, and Rephaims (possibly the Zamzummims also) were defeated in the first wave of Chedorlaomer's invasion in Genesis 14:5-6 before he was defeated by Abraham. The giants were weakened in number by this attack. Later the Emims were eradicated from Ar by the Moabites, the Zamzummims were finished in Ammon by the Ammonites, the Horims were driven out of Mt Seir by Esau, and the Avims were finished off by the Caphtorites. Caphtor was a descendant of Mizraim (Hamitic, from Egypt). According to Josephus, their cities were destroyed in the Ethiopic war and so they migrated to Phillistia where they encountered and defeated the Avims. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Rephaims included Og and the Anakim, the sons of Anak who was a son of Arba. Arba himself may have been one of the first post-flood hybrids since his father is not cited. &#xA;These were defeated by the Isrealites as they invaded the promised land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joshua 11:22 states that there were giants left in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. This explains the later appearance of Goliath from Gath. Goliath was roughly 9.5 feet tall. A few generations removed from Og's size of approximately 13.5 feet tall, the original hybrids were likely the largest, and their descendants got smaller as they interbred.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude verse 6 refers to the punishment of angels; the judgment of some angels is reserved for the end in Revelation 12:7-8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:30 Jesus said that the angels of God in heaven do not marry. He said nothing about what the devil's angels (see Rev 12:7-8) do when they are on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 6:4 states that there were &quot;giants in those days, and also after that&quot;, and identifies this as a result of the aforementioned interbreeding. Giants after the Flood include 5 tribes mentioned in the Bible. It is highly unlikely that the interbreeding of believers and non-believers after the Flood would produce giants. If the production of giants requires a daughter of Cain and a son of Seth, then a daughter of Cain would have to have married a son of Noah. If that son was Ham, then all of Ham's sons should be giants. The tribes of giants lived around the Canaanites, but none of them are listed as the offspring of Canaan or Ham or anyone else in Genesis 10. This is best explained by the idea that they were generated by fallen angel/human hybridization, so their male lineage was not through a son of Noah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2015-07-10T18:35:06.027" LastActivityDate="2015-07-10T18:35:06.027" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17533" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17507" CreationDate="2013-07-14T02:50:50.380" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The actual question is :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are there any specific rules at all in any denomination of&#xA;  Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am Roman Catholic and can answer for my denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rules about prayer, meditation, and devotion ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The laity are expected to attend Mass each Sunday and on other specified Holy Days of Obligation, and to faithfully pray and meditate the various elements of the mass.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are expected to pray &quot;regularly&quot;, but the specific meaning of regularly is left to the person and priest to determine.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are expected to make the Sacrament of Penance (aka confession) when we know we are in a state of sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics eligible to receive Communion are expected to do so during the Easter season, which is the time between Easter and Pentecost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rules about diet and fasting ..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are expected to not eat or drink an hour before receiving Communion. We are expected to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, and to abstain from Meat on the Fridays in between, called &quot;Lent&quot;. There are no specific rules regarding diet and fasting the remainder of the year, although gluttony is a sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rules about pilgrimages ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None that I am aware of. Some would call the &quot;Easter Duty&quot;, meaning the duty to receive communion during the Easter season, similar to a pilgrimage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="448" LastActivityDate="2013-07-14T02:50:50.380" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17527" CreationDate="2013-07-14T04:37:59.257" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mark 16:15 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach&#xA;  the gospel to all creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 28:19 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,&#xA;  baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the&#xA;  Holy Spirit,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God wants all nations and languages to know Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Acts 1:8 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes&#xA;  on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all &lt;strong&gt;Judea&#xA;  and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per the words of Jesus Christ, the Gospel was first preached in Judea. After that, Philip preached the Gospel in Samaria. Latter, Paul became the main person to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, travelling as far as he could and end up in Rome, the center of the world at that time. The first century Christians spoke Aramaic and Greek, hence the New Testament was written mostly in Greek. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After 300 years, after persecuting the Christians for a long time, Rome finally became a Christian empire. Latin was the language of ancient Rome and hence was used for the language of sacred scripture. Till the 11th century, Christianity flourished mostly around Rome and Europe only and Latin was considered the sacred language. From the 15th century on wards, we see a great change. Reformations took place and many missionaries are sent to many parts of the world. This Missionary movement results in translation of Bible into different languages. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the will of God that the whole world should know Jesus Christ. The Gospel was already preached in Judea and Samaria. Now, it is our duty to fulfill the will of Jesus Christ that the Gospel should reach the ends of the world. Hence, translation of Bible in all languages is a necessity. For this reason, Christians tolerate translation of the Scripture unlike other religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-14T14:57:19.087" LastActivityDate="2013-07-14T14:57:19.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17536" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17548" CreationDate="2013-07-14T04:44:02.443" Score="12" ViewCount="14779" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize that some of Christianity believe God and Jesus to be one being, whereas some believe them to be separate and distinct beings. I come from the background of the latter group, which reasoning I am already familiar with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Christianity which holds &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tags/jesus/info&quot;&gt;Jesus to be God incarnate&lt;/a&gt;, who does Jesus pray to while He is in the Garden of Gethsemane or at Calvary, or before raising Lazarus, and at other points in His mortal life? Is it God being in two places at once, being omnipresent? Or am I misunderstanding something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's obvious that Jesus is praying to the Father, as He directly addresses &quot;Father,&quot; but what I'm trying to understand is what this really means to the group of Christianity I've mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bonus points if you could touch on &lt;em&gt;where&lt;/em&gt; Jesus is praying to (or rather, where God/The Father is while Jesus is praying).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="34561" LastEditDate="2018-11-04T05:21:58.667" LastActivityDate="2018-11-04T05:21:58.667" Title="If Jesus is God, who/where does Jesus pray to?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17538" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-14T05:24:38.480" Score="-1" ViewCount="87" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering the authority God gave the humans over the animals according to Gen 1:28:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in&#xA;  number; fill the earth and subdue it. &lt;strong&gt;Rule over the fish in the sea&#xA;  and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on&#xA;  the ground.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to consider the snake as a wayward animal, like a wayward sheep that the shepherd goes out to find it? Moreover, could we affirm that humans were the guardians of the animals?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5037" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-14T16:34:23.567" LastActivityDate="2013-07-14T16:34:23.567" Title="Was the snake a wayward animal?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17539" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17428" CreationDate="2013-07-14T05:44:18.540" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;The internal evidence of the authorship is found in four passages in the Book of Revelation. It is in these four passages that the author refers to himself as &quot;John&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev 1:1 This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Rev 1:4 From John to the seven churches in Asia.......&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Rev 1:9&quot;I, John, both your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Rev 22:8 &quot;Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the very title of the Book includes in it the name John. This title &quot;occurs in several MSS, including the Codex Sinaiticus&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the fingerprints of John the apostle are all over the apocalypse. For example, Jesus Christ as the Lamb is referred in both these books. Also, John, and John alone, identifies Jesus as the Word, or Logos (John 1:1, 14; Revelation 19:13). Likewise, John alone identifies Jesus as the true witness (John 5:31–47; 8:14–18; Revelation 2:13; 3:14), and it is John who most exploits the Mosaic requirement of two witnesses (John 8:12–30; Revelation 11:1–12).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With mention of this single name as John, with no attempt to clarify any further on it, obviously indicates that he was well-known to his first readers, to whom no further identification was necessary. This conclusion is supported by most ancient historians.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation has long been attributed to the author of John's Gospel, in spite of the differences in style of writing. The reason for this difference in style could possibly be that, the book of revelation was revealed to John the apostle at his old age and was possibly penned with the help of someone who was not good in Greek language. Since Domitian died in A.D. 96, the date attributed to the book of Revelation coincides with this date by which time John would have been quite old &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thingstocome.org/datrev.htm&quot;&gt;(Date of death of John is taken as 100AD at the age of 94)&lt;/a&gt;. The evidence against John the Apostle being the author is minimal, and largely based on grammatical and writing style differences with the John’s Gospel.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://main.nc.us/spchurchofchrist/RevIntroduction.htm&quot;&gt;Homer Hailey states concerning this matter&lt;/a&gt;:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Although a few relatively early writers raised the question of authorship, the Apostle John's composition of Revelation was never seriously questioned until modern nineteenth-century liberal criticism.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early church fathers were unanimous that it was John the apostle. As one examines this segment of history, one needs to be reminded that the further away from the first century one gets the lesser reliable evidence to know about the correctness of any claim on this issue.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (LXXXI) says. &quot;There was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by revelation,&quot; and then refers to the thousand years, the resurrection and the Judgment of Revelation 20. Again Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) quotes John the Apostle that Jesus Christ would dwell in Jerusalem one thousand years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irenaeus (120-200 A.D.) quoted in every chapter of Revelation. Irenaeus who had heard Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, wrote in his &lt;strong&gt;Against Heresies (IV. xx. 11), &quot;John, also the Lord's Disciple ..... says in the Apocalypse,&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; and then quotes profusely from that Book. (11) Having thus identified him as the &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Lord's Disciple&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt; Irenaeus says later: &lt;strong&gt;&quot;In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, revealed certain things,&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; which the writer proceeds to discuss (V.xxi 1).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tertullian (155-220 A.D.), sometimes called &quot;the Father of Latin Christianity,&quot; a voluminous writer, also quotes from almost every chapter of Revelation and attributes John the Apostle as author. He wrote five books &lt;strong&gt;Against Marcion&lt;/strong&gt;  Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.)  also attributed Revelation to John, he quotes Revelation chapter 17 and 18 a great deal. In book III. xxv, Tertullian writes of the Jerusalem let down from heaven. He quotes Paul, who called it &quot;our mother&quot; (Galatians 4:26), and he says, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;the apostle John beheld&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; it, referring to Revelation 21:2.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clement of Alexandria ( 150-211 A.D.) and Origen (185-254 A.D.) also attribute John the Apostle as the author of Revelation.  In his treatise, &lt;strong&gt;Who is the Rich man that Shall be Saved? (XLII),&lt;/strong&gt; writes of &lt;strong&gt;&quot;the apostle John&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; who &quot;&lt;strong&gt;returned to Ephesus from the Isle of Patmos&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; after &lt;strong&gt;&quot;the tyrant's death&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; The tyrant is unnamed but is believed to be Domitian.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ignatius (30-108 A.D.) writes regarding John the Apostle,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origen (A.D. 185-254), in &lt;strong&gt;De Principiis&lt;/strong&gt; says, &quot;According to John, God is Light&quot; (I. II. 7), unquestionably referring to the Apostle John. Then later he says, &quot;Listen to the manner in which John [the John whom he had quoted above] speaks in the apocalypse&quot;. (I. II. 10). Surely Origen knew only one John who wrote Scripture, and that was John the Apostle.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hippolytus (A.D. 170-236) ; Victorinus (Died in persecution A.D. 303) as well as the Muratorian Fragment, ect. all lend their support to the genuineness of Revelation and that of being from John the Apostle of Christ. It is with great surety that such an array of testimony can lead one to accept John the Apostle as the writer of Revelation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eusebius (A.D. 300-340) the father of church history writes in his Ecclesiastical History about the connection between John the Apostle and Domitian.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:  “&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm&quot;&gt;If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time&lt;/a&gt;, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/revelation/Introduction/&quot;&gt;Prior to the third century, there was no dispute of apostolic authorship&lt;/a&gt;.  The bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius (200-265 A.D.), &lt;strong&gt;was the first to raise questions about the apostle John being the author&lt;/strong&gt;.  He claimed, based on the writing style and the lack of an apostolic claim in the book, John the Elder (Presbyter) was the author not John the apostle.  Dionysius, who studied under Origen, also denied the teaching of a literal Millennium.  The teaching on the Millennium was based on a literal reading of the book of Revelation (Revelation 20:1-7).  The Alexandrian school taught scriptural symbolism and allegorical interpretation, rejecting a literal Millennium interpretation of Revelation.  &lt;strong&gt;By questioning John the Apostles authorship of the book, their Amillennial view had greater credibility.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is valuable information from the writings of Papias as brought out in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopaedia&lt;/a&gt;:&#xA;Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by Papias, in the following words: Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him.  In the Papia-I,  Papias describes his way of gathering information. This is preserved through Eusebius (III, xxix): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with....., but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Eusebius has caused a difficulty by pointing out that two Johns are mentioned, one being distinguished by the epithet presbyter from the other who is obviously the Apostle.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dionysius Misconception of two John:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The historian Eusebius adds that Dionysius of Alexandria said he heard there were two tombs of John at Ephesus. To quote Catholic Encyclopaedia, this view has been adopted by practically all liberal critics and by such conservatives as Lightfoot and Westcott. But Zahn and most Catholic writers agree &lt;strong&gt;that Dionysius was mistaken about the tomb&lt;/strong&gt;, and that Eusebius's interpretation of Papias's words is incorrect. For he says that Papias frequently cited John the Presbyter; yet it is certain that Irenaeus, who had a great veneration for the work of Papias, took him to mean John the Apostle; and Irenaeus had personal knowledge of Asiatic tradition and could not have been ignorant of the existence of John the presbyter, if there ever was such a person in Asia. Again, Irenaeus tells us that the Apostle lived at Ephesus until the time of Trajan, that he wrote the Apocalypse in the last days of Domitian.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Irenaeus had heard Polycarp relate his reminiscences of the Apostle. Justin, who was at Ephesus about 130-5, asserts that the Apostle was the author of the Apocalypse (and therefore the head of the Asiatic Churches). But if the Apostle lived at Ephesus at so late a date, (and it cannot be doubted with any show of reason), he would naturally be the most important of Papias's witnesses. Yet if Eusebius is right, it would seem that John the Presbyter was his chief informant, and that he had no sayings of the Apostle to relate. Again, &quot;The Presbyter&quot; who wrote I and II Johnhas the name of John in all manuscripts, and is identified with the Apostle by Irenaeus and Clement, and is certainly (by internal evidence) the writer of the fourth Gospel, which is attributed to the Apostle by Irenaeus and all tradition. Again, Polycrates of Ephesus, in recounting the men who were the glories of Asia, has no mention of John the presbyter, but of &quot;John, who lay upon the Lord's breast&quot;, undoubtedly meaning the Apostle. The second John at Ephesus is an unlucky conjecture of Eusebius.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://middleagedmarathoner.blogspot.in/2011/06/who-wrote-book-of-revelation.html&quot;&gt;Some more readings here&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/who-wrote-revelation/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-23T15:27:18.227" LastActivityDate="2015-12-23T15:27:18.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17536" CreationDate="2013-07-14T05:57:15.403" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 22:42  Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Php 2:7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 6:9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Word of Faith perspective we only pray to the Father others do it differently and we do not call them heretics nor do we actively burn people at the stake though we have been known to burn beef stakes.&#xA;Jesus did not pray to Himself. Luke 22:42 shows a clear differentiation between Christ and the Father. He did not have a split personality or dissociative identity disorder nor was he a megalomaniac. He lived on this earth as a man as per Philippians 2:7. He prayed to the Father whom He was (and is) in unity with while he was anointed by the Holy Spirit. Christ needs no mediator. Our prayers are different we have a mediator to the Father, Christ Himself. We pray to the Father while we are filled with the Holy Spirit and while we are in Christ. The Father being in heaven according to Mat 6:9.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T02:26:54.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17541" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17428" CreationDate="2013-07-14T05:58:16.560" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I thought I should provide this information. I just want to point out that this is from an Eastern Tradition Perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Aramaic Revelation (From Crawford Codex manuscript) used in Some Eastern Traditions, you will see this title - &quot;The Revelation which came to John the Evangelist from God in Patmos Island to which he was exiled by Nero Caesar.&quot; (Translation from Dave Bauscher's The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English, Pg. 363).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is believed among Aramaic Christians that Revelation is written by Apostle John during the time of Nero Caesar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2013-07-14T05:58:16.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17545" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17546" CreationDate="2013-07-14T11:56:46.710" Score="5" ViewCount="644" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have noticed in evangelical / Baptist circles that the phrase &quot;your testimony&quot; is mentioned heavily in suggestions as to how you ought to witness to nonbelievers.  It is said that citing personal evidence of how God was active in your life, through miracles or improved moral behavior over time, is the trump card in your witness.   I've also heard a Lutheran pastor say something like, &quot;It is transformed, not perfect, lives that will witness to Christ.&quot;  And I just now found similar &quot;transformed, not perfect&quot; wording on a Catholic site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, the sermons I find most inspiring (and assume would be more convincing to a nonbeliever who was like myself) instead focus on a conviction of sin, and the futility of works, as a lead-in to Christ as Redeemer. For example, C.S. Lewis' &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; talks about the nature of God and our sin moreso than how he prayed and got something from God.    A focus on material benefits and moral improvements risks missing out completely on the sin-death-resurrection narrative and are ultimately Antinomian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: What are the theological roots of stressing &quot;your testimony&quot; in evangelism? (From bible to church fathers to contemporary great evangelists?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-07-14T12:55:49.277" LastActivityDate="2015-10-22T05:37:18.640" Title="What are the theological roots of &quot;my testimony&quot; in evangelism?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17545" CreationDate="2013-07-14T14:36:29.857" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest the answer is found in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. There, Paul shared the gospel in various ways, such as popular culture (Acts 17:23, the unknown god) and local poetry (17:28).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then later he gave his personal testimony to the Jews of how Christ saved him and gave him a new purpose in life (22:1ff). Later he was taken and put in a cell, and there the Lord appeared and indicated that He was pleased with Paul's testimony of Him in Jerusalem. What's curious to me is that Jesus did not mention all the other cities in which he had preached. It was in Jerusalem before the Jews that he gave his testimony. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After that we find him giving his testimony again in 26:12 before Agrippa. Perhaps he had put two and two together and saw that reciting his personal encounter was more significant to the Lord, so he used that approach with Agrippa. Unfortunately, the book of Acts closes soon with no more mention about this approach. He was mainly a teacher and to the end taught from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, and how people must repent for the kingdom of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know you wanted examples from the church fathers on, but these few examples (and an example or two from the epistles) should be taken into account as probable origins of bearing one's personal testimony. After all, we do draw instruction from the Word of God. Paul gave his testimony without giving up teaching; he found a place for both. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T13:22:13.277" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T13:22:13.277" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17538" CreationDate="2013-07-14T15:38:06.930" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 3:1 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Now the serpent was more &lt;strong&gt;crafty&lt;/strong&gt; than any of the&#xA;  wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God&#xA;  really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible has no mention of the waywardness of the serpent, but says it was &lt;strong&gt;crafty&lt;/strong&gt;. We have no proof that the serpent was wayward or not. One thing is certain, the snake was completely under the control of Adam and Eve. The serpent did not force the woman nor was not in a position to do so, but was having a normal conversation with her with crafty approach. The craftiness of the serpent was not detected by Eve. We may presume that the serpent was possessed by Satan in order to deceive Eve with all his craftiness. Eve knew very well that she had the power to rebuke the serpent but instead, she was &lt;strong&gt;listening to the serpent&lt;/strong&gt; who was inferior to her. This left Eve without any excuse to defend herself for breaking the command of God that she should not eat the fruit of the tree in the middle of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-14T15:43:12.450" LastActivityDate="2013-07-14T15:43:12.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17536" CreationDate="2013-07-14T16:35:53.150" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity&quot;&gt;countless works&lt;/a&gt; already done on Trinity. Inspired by all these existing works, here is how we may address the question to whom Jesus prays to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus never said &quot;&lt;em&gt;I am God&lt;/em&gt;&quot; nor &quot;&lt;em&gt;I am the Father&lt;/em&gt;&quot; but said &quot;&lt;em&gt;I and my Father are one&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. The New Testament always address Jesus as the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lord&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christ&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Word&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of God and the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Son of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One with Father?&lt;/strong&gt; This word is the most confusing part. As we are only mortal flesh, we are not capable of understanding the unique nature of God. Jesus also many times found it difficult to explain about God and Heavenly things. It's like trying to explain how a computer works to the elderly people who are not familiar with it. Once I tried to explain how a computer works to my father, it was impossible and I gave up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 3:12 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not&#xA;  believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not wrong to say that Jesus is God because Jesus equated himself with God (John 8:58). Jesus is the Word of God, who was with God from the beginning, was (also) God, who became flesh in order to die for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:1-18 (NIV) -Excerpt&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word&#xA;  was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were&#xA;  made; without him nothing was made that has been made. The Word became&#xA;  flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the&#xA;  glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace&#xA;  and truth. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, &lt;strong&gt;who is&#xA;  himself God&lt;/strong&gt; and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made&#xA;  him known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus was praying to God, the Father, who is one with Him, who is in Heaven even when Jesus the Son was on earth. Jesus never did His own will but the will of the Father. Jesus came from the Father in Heaven to earth to fulfill His mission, which was to die for our sins. After the mission assigned to Him was completed, Jesus went back to the Father and sits at the right hand of the Father. Jesus is now a mediator between God and man, interceding for us always and acts as a High priest for us by using His own blood as an offering to the Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 12:50 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; For whoever does the will of &lt;strong&gt;my Father in heaven&lt;/strong&gt; is my brother and sister and mother.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 16:28 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and &lt;strong&gt;going back to the Father&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mark 16:19 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken&#xA;  up into heaven and &lt;strong&gt;he sat at the right hand of God&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Timothy 2:5 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; For there is one God and &lt;strong&gt;one mediator&lt;/strong&gt; between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 8:34 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ&#xA;  Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right&#xA;  hand of God and is also &lt;strong&gt;interceding for us&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T02:50:04.097" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T02:50:04.097" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17549" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17564" CreationDate="2013-07-14T19:26:50.657" Score="7" ViewCount="218" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was in an evangelical setting with some young kids and one of the helpers/ leaders basically did a sort of altar call with the kids. It actually surprised the other helpers/ leaders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the appropriate age for such an event / rite?  If that is too much of a Truth question, then what specific advice or training has been given on the age appropriateness of &quot;altar calls&quot; among denominations or groups that practice them?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2014-05-12T01:11:54.967" Title="What is appropriate age group for an altar call?" Tags="&lt;evangelism&gt;&lt;youth&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17550" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-14T19:42:21.713" Score="4" ViewCount="1393" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a tradition, perhaps strongest in Lutheranism, that opposes what it calls &quot;Decision Theology&quot;.  Biblical support for opposing Decision Theology would come in passages like, &quot;No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit,&quot; &quot;faith is a gift&quot;, and the seemingly involuntary conversion of Paul.  The existence of a tradition of denying our ability to choose Christ on our own is a verifiable historical fact.  I don't wish to debate it with this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When discussing Decision Theology in evangelical circles, I often see them react as if the only viable alternatives involve predestination and a lack of personal responsibility.  It is clear that the Lutheran tradition of opposing Decision Theology is not mere predestinationism.  I don't wish to debate that either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A careful reading of this tradition would not confuse it with predestination.  But the strongest practitioners of this tradition almost sound as if they were advocating Universal Salvation.  The hearer is invited to celebrate what Christ has done for them, rather than &quot;accepting&quot; it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question: how have opponents of Decision Theology distanced themselves from Universal Salvation?  (Sources: Confessions, sermons, seminary training, etc?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-06T15:33:03.830" LastActivityDate="2015-12-07T14:07:48.853" Title="How do opponents of Decision Theology distinguish themselves from Universal Salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;&lt;universalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17516" CreationDate="2013-07-14T22:37:56.663" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Protestant movement at least began as a turning to the scriptures to define belief; I think that Bible-believing Protestants would start there. The leaders of the Protestant movements all saw conflict between traditional Orthodox/Catholic teachings and the plain teachings of scripture. I'll address the 2nd issue first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus instituted the sacrament of communion in the upper room at the last supper before His death (Luke 22:19-20 and elsewhere). Yet after the resurrection, in John 20:22-23, He breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Ghost. If the sacrament of communion given by Jesus Himself had conveyed the Holy Spirit to the disciples, He would not have had to breathe on them and tell them to receive the Holy Ghost later. After that, He tells them in Luke 24:49 to wait in Jerusalem until they are endued with power by the Holy Spirit. They receive the Holy Spirit in John apart from any sacrament, and they are later endued with power from the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 apart from any sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 10:44-48, the household of Cornelius received the empowering of the Holy Spirit before they were given the sacrament of baptism. In Acts 8:12-19 the people of Samaria believed the gospel and were given the sacrament of baptism. Later, they received the Holy Ghost. In both cases the Holy Ghost was given independently of any sacrament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, only Jesus had the Holy Ghost descend on Him during a sacrament (John's baptism) to empower him for ministry as a human. No passage throughout the book of Acts describes the conveying of the Holy Spirit through any sacrament. Galatians 3:2 states in a question form that we receive the Holy Spirit by the hearing of faith. When we hear God's Word and believe in Jesus Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit who dwells in us and regenerates us, as the disciples did in John 20 after the resurrection. When we believe in Christ and are ready, we can also be endued with power for ministry as the disciples were in Acts 2 and Acts 10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 6:51 Jesus states that &quot;Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.&quot; This would seem to imply that the sacrament of communion is necessary for regeneration. But to site this scripture as proof of that idea is to ignore the words of Jesus just prior to it in John 6:35, in the same conversation. Jesus sets this up by saying, &quot;He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.&quot; So we satisfy our spiritual hunger and partake of the sacrifice of His body and blood by coming to Jesus and believing on Him. The whole analogy of eating and drinking in John 6 isn't even speaking about the sacrament of communion. It is speaking of obtaining the benefit of His sacrifice through coming to Him and believing in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the line of Apostolic succession: In James 5:14 he tells believers to call for the &quot;elders&quot; (plural) of the church (singular). In the days when each city had one church (Acts 20:17), plural elders were appointed to run them; but not to &quot;lord it over&quot; the congregation (1 Peter 5:3). &quot;Elders&quot; and &quot;Bishops&quot; are equated in Titus 1:5-7. If the churches of history and of today were in harmony with scripture, they would be run by all the qualified older married people willing to do the job (see 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1); not run by a singular pastor or singular priest or singular bishop. The apostolic succession was to appoint plural &quot;elders&quot; who were all &quot;apt to teach&quot; in every singular &quot;church&quot; in every singular &quot;city&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul warned in 1 Corinthians 1 against favoring one leader over another; we are to be led by Christ while working together, submitted to the plural elders in the local church who also follow Christ. The word &quot;pastor&quot; in the NT is always plural unless it is referring to Christ Himself. The church has lapsed by hiring one man to do the work that the elders are all supposed to share, while the congregation turns church into a spectator sport. If elders, assisted by deacons, together took responsibility to raise others to grow and do the work of the ministry, then the church would be following what the apostles were putting into place in scripture. When a church claims that they are in the line of Peter, they are saying &quot;I am of Cephas (Peter)&quot;, just like 1 Corinthians 1 tells them not to do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to whether or not certain groups are saved: The gospel is spelled out in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Saved groups are those who believe in Jesus Christ and what the Bible says about Him. Some church organizations believe in Jesus Christ, God the Son, who died for us and rose again bodily. But they may teach other things that contradict the Bible. They are to be likened to the church of Thyatira in Revelation 2:18-29; a true church in their core belief about Christ, but a church that also taught false doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believers are a priesthood (1 Peter 2:9); we are the priests that bring God and His love to the unbelievers. The unbelievers are our congregation; we need to go care for them. Avoid strifes (2 Cor 12:20) with other churches, but encourage them in the things they believe which are correct; and be an example bringing God's care and advice to the unbelievers. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-14T22:37:56.663" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17536" CreationDate="2013-07-15T00:41:20.277" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Matt said in his OP:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;some of Christianity believe God and Jesus to be one being, whereas some believe them to be separate and distinct beings&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, these are the prevailing opinions among &lt;strong&gt;χριστιανους&lt;/strong&gt; (Christians, followers of a messianic Jesus; see, e.g., Matt. 1:16; Acts 11:26).  But there are other followers of the teachings of a Jesus they see as non-messianic.  They believe that &quot;God&quot; (YHVH/JeHoVaH) is not Jesus' &quot;Father in heaven,&quot; but a separate and distinct spiritual entity referred to by Jesus in, inter alia, John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 14:7-11; 16:25-31.  Accordingly, when Jesus prays, it isn't &quot;God&quot; (YHVH/JeHoVaH) Jesus prays to, but that spiritual entity Jesus referred to as &quot;my Father&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several volumes were written to explain their beliefs, but they're out of print since the passing of the author in the 1990's. I could go on at length, but I think I answered (in part?) Matt's question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5099" LastEditorUserId="5099" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T23:19:28.713" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T23:19:28.713" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17554" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17523" CreationDate="2013-07-15T02:24:18.457" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The soldiers mocked Him in the hall called the Praetorium (Matthew 15:16). The Jewish leaders spit on Him in the palace of the High Priest (Matthew 14:65) and also at the cross (Matthew 15:31).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T02:24:18.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17555" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17416" CreationDate="2013-07-15T02:48:29.480" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;We can tell what &quot;clean&quot; means by what Noah did with them. They were not &quot;clean&quot; for eating, because God granted Noah permission to eat any moving thing (Gen 9:3). They were &quot;clean&quot; for sacrifice, because that is what Noah did with them (Gen 8:20). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sacrifice to cover sin was instituted by God when He clothed Adam and Eve with skins (Gen 3:21). It was taught to Cain and Abel (Gen 4:4). So we must assume that God clarified it to Noah either directly or through his forefathers so that Noah understood the animals to be used for that purpose. Extra pairs were included on the ark because they would be used later for both food and sacrifice (not just food) so that the world would need plenty of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T02:48:29.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17343" CreationDate="2013-07-15T04:11:22.220" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin is like cyanide, it is deadly in small or large doses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is also defined as missing the mark. If you hit the mark, you get the prize. If you miss the mark, you miss the prize.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you head into homosexual activity, you enter an addiction that causes you to miss out on something better. Genesis 1:27 states that God created man in His own image, male and female he created them. Therefore for every type of male DNA there must be somewhere a corresponding type of female DNA that is a compatible match for it. It is the enormity of the intended gift that determines the enormity of the sin that causes one to miss out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Divorce and remarriage are allowed in some cases. Homosexuality is never approved. Adultery is also never approved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All can be forgiven and restored through faith in Christ and the help of the Holy Spirit; deliverance can be instant but often it is long and difficult as in any case of addiction or allergic reaction. (addictions now are treated as allergies bringing on a strong and unusual response to stimuli that cause little or no response in others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this perspective helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T04:11:22.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17339" CreationDate="2013-07-15T04:22:21.773" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Genesis One is the introductory paragraph. Genesis 2 goes into the specific detail on the creation of man in Genesis 1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 5:1-2 ties the two passages together, wording it both ways, demonstrating Genesis 1 and 2 are speaking of the same event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T04:22:21.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17559" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17516" CreationDate="2013-07-15T04:24:08.487" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Full Disclaimer: I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian who is a former Protestant Christian. I have addressed how Protestants might respond to these points, with the understanding that Protestants are a very broad group with many differing beliefs on these issues. With that said, these responses must necessarily be broad and somewhat varied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;According to Whom/What?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First we need to have a brief discussion on &lt;strong&gt;authority&lt;/strong&gt;. For Protestants, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is a central tenet of the faith, i.e. &lt;strong&gt;scripture alone&lt;/strong&gt;. Different groups understand this differently, however. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more traditional Protestants, who for lack of a better term are more &quot;historically rooted&quot; (most Lutherans, some Anglicans, some Reformed, etc.), &lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt; does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; mean following the Bible subjectively in such a way that completely ignores the voices of the past (e.g. early Church Fathers, the decisions of Church councils, etc.). Indeed, the initial intention of the Protestant Reformers did not preclude ignoring patristic consensus and the traditions of the historic catholic Church. James C. Payton, Jr., a Protestant scholar, addresses this in his book &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830838805&quot;&gt;Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For most non-traditional Protestants, who for lack of a better term I will refer to as &quot;historically disconnected&quot; (those who reject most or all historic traditions, e.g. Baptists, mainstream evangelicals, most 'non-denominational' churches, Pentecostals, etc.), they claim to live by the guidance of scripture alone under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit (despite the fact that there is no Protestant consensus on much anything other than the fact that scripture is the only authority, which I personally find somewhat ironic). This is a purely subjective understanding of authority that gives little to no authority to traditions or voices outside of one's denominational organization, sometimes even ignoring the teachings of previous generations of leaders within the same organization and/or local church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Protestants will fall in between these two extremes, but I had to create some categories for the sake of making a point about authority. In contrast, Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Holy Tradition is the source of authority, in which scripture plays the preeminent role. It should also be noted that Roman Catholics also believe the Pope has the authority to interpret scripture and they include the deuterocanonical works in their canon (and in some cases consider the Latin Vulgate to have more authority than other manuscripts), and Eastern Orthodox Christians have several other apocryphal writings and are much looser on their definition of the canon (and believe the Septuagint is the authoritative Old Testament and apocryphal text). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This fundamental disagreement on authority is an important factor in all subsequent theological discussion, since the two have very different beliefs about authority and who/what can be appealed to in defense or refutation of a practice or belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Apostolic Succession&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There actually are Protestants who believe that apostolic succession is important, such as some conservative Anglican groups. But the vast majority do not. Of those who reject apostolic succession, they generally attack it from one of three angles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Historical fallacy&lt;/strong&gt; - Things got pretty convoluted in the early Church and it is pretty hard to back up the claim that there is a clear, delineated succession from the apostles through the present time. Protestants who take this approach will attempt to use historical evidence (or the lack thereof) to suggest that the succession was broken at some point in history, often by claiming that this process became corrupt through later practices (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy&quot;&gt;the Investiture Controversy&lt;/a&gt; and similar historical corruptions), or by claiming that there never was valid succession in the first place and it was only invented by corrupt leaders to establish power and control (Anabaptists are particularly fond of this stance).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No longer relevant&lt;/strong&gt; - Some &quot;historically connected&quot; Protestants actually will acknowledge the value of apostolic succession in early Church history, specifically the role it played in the defeat of Gnosticism and formation of the New Testament canon within the Christian Church. These Protestants may combine this perspective with the first, claiming that it was originally valid but later corrupted. Others will grant that the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church are still in apostolic succession but it is no longer important since Protestants believe that these churches have departed from the teachings of scripture.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Irrelevant&lt;/strong&gt; - This is the general stance of &quot;historically disconnected&quot; traditions. Since apostolic succession is not explicitly taught in the bible, it is therefore irrelevant (this is actually the refutation of most traditions for &quot;historically disconnected&quot; Protestants, due largely in part to the many individualistic biases that they hold thanks to &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment&quot;&gt;the Enlightenment&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars&quot;&gt;French&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War&quot;&gt;American&lt;/a&gt; revolutionary wars).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Sacraments as Means of Grace&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an Orthodox Christian, I have to take issue with your statement that the sacraments are &quot;the ways specially ordained by God for conveying the Holy Spirit.&quot; The statement is not entirely wrong, but it depends largely upon &lt;em&gt;which&lt;/em&gt; of the sacraments is being referenced. I would reword that to say that they convey &lt;em&gt;grace&lt;/em&gt;. I will proceed by operating under this revised definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is really not a fair charge: Protestants are divided on this issue. Most of the &quot;historically connected&quot; Protestants do indeed view the sacraments as means of grace. Conversely, the &quot;historically disconnected&quot; Protestants do not. Those that do are divided on the &lt;em&gt;number&lt;/em&gt; of sacraments and &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; they believe the sacraments convey grace (using Aristotelian metaphysical philosophical terms to explain their differences, thanks to the influence of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism&quot;&gt;Scholasticism&lt;/a&gt; in Western Christianity), but they agree that grace is conveyed nonetheless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those that disagree (not just the &quot;historically disconnected,&quot; some &quot;historically connected&quot; Protestants are also in this camp) will usually take one of three approaches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philosophical/Pagan-influenced&lt;/strong&gt; - Some Protestants recognize that most sacramental controversies center on the language of Aristotelian metaphysics and reject the sacraments as an altogether philosophical argument that has no bearing on the reality of their substance/essence. Others further argue that the philosophical concept of sacraments existed in paganism and thus the entire notion is pagan.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationalism&lt;/strong&gt; - Using Holy Communion (i.e. the &quot;Eucharist&quot;) as an example, these Protestants would argue that since the elements clearly do not change from an empirical/scientific standpoint, the entire notion of sacraments is absurd (again we can see the influence of the Enlightenment).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Irrelevant&lt;/strong&gt; - It's not explicitly mentioned in the bible, therefore it's wrong (often commingled with rationalism on this issue).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Protestant Disadvantage&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument here seems to be that since many Protestants reject apostolic succession and the belief that sacraments convey grace, they are at a disadvantage compared to Eastern Orthodox Christians (and presumably also Roman Catholic Christians). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Since I've demonstrated that not all Protestants reject these beliefs, this syllogism is actually false.&lt;/strong&gt; However, for the sake of providing a satisfactory answer, let me address this argument as it applies to those Protestants who do reject both practices (for whatever reason).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These Protestants would not consider themselves to be at a disadvantage, in fact they would assert that the opposite is true. Since they do not believe these practices are scriptural nor relevant in the contemporary Church, they would argue that they actually lead people away from God. There's not much more I can say on this one, especially since by and large it is a false syllogism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an Orthodox perspective, Protestants are not at a disadvantage for the rejection of any specific beliefs or practices, but rather their attitude towards the historic Christian faith in general. The &quot;family tree&quot; of Christianity has been around a lot longer than Protestants have, but this branch came along and now claims it's the whole tree! Claiming to be the entire tree while cutting off its trunk and roots is a recipe for disaster, and it's also very arrogant. Few Orthodox Christians would ever make a sweeping statement about the eternal destiny of all Protestants, yet many Protestants routinely claim that all Catholics (and Orthodox) are going to hell. So when we seem a little snarky, please understand that we're often responding to the arrogance inherent in Protestantism. Even so, this is a failure on our part to continue to model true humility to Protestants, and for that I apologize. Please pray for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, I've addressed each of the three points as well as the nature of authority, which I believe is an important underlying issue in the discussion of any belief or practice within Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T05:21:47.060" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T05:21:47.060" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17336" CreationDate="2013-07-15T04:56:18.447" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a young Earth creationist I see it this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God stretched out the heavens like a curtain on Day 4 (Isaiah 42:5) causing time dilation; generating billions of years' worth of starlight into the heavens in 24 hours of Earth time; to establish a clock that could run forever and be seen from the Earth from the beginning.(Genesis 1:14) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God caused a worldwide flood (Genesis 7) involving a second stretching of the heavens (rapid acceleration of the expansion rate) that resulted in accelerated nuclear decay, excess internal Earth heating, runaway plate tectonics (the bursting of the fountains of the deep), and extraterrestrial activity including possible planet fragmentation and asteroid bombardment of the planets in our solar system. The fossil record I interpret as a record of the progressive burial of ecosystems by the advance of floodwater tsunamis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, and archaic Homo Sapiens I interpret as post-Flood humans whose features and measured bone-growth rates for their skulls are in line with the generations after the flood which had long life spans (Genesis 11). Four generations had lifespans of 450 years, then 3 generations had lifespans of 250 years. The rapid genetic changes have leveled off to a max of about 120. I view the Australopithecines as an extinct form of ape, likely tree-dwelling due to their 15 degree valgus angle. (Humans and spider monkeys have a 9 degree angle, ground-dwelling apes have a 0 degree angle). The Australopithecines likely went extinct as the Sahara went from jungle to savannah to desert after the Flood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Adam and Eve would be the same species, but with far less harmful mutations and lifespans in the 950 year range. All peoples on Earth now would be descended from Noah and his 3 sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T04:56:18.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9863" CreationDate="2013-07-15T05:06:39.257" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Maccabees%2012:38-45&amp;amp;version=NRSVCE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Maccabees 12:38-45 (NRSVCE)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the&#xA;  seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the&#xA;  custom, and kept the sabbath there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went&#xA;  to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with&#xA;  their kindred in the sepulchres of their ancestors. Then under the&#xA;  tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of&#xA;  Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to&#xA;  all that this was the reason these men had fallen. So they all blessed&#xA;  the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that&#xA;  are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that&#xA;  had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas&#xA;  exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had&#xA;  seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of&#xA;  those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the&#xA;  amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to&#xA;  provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and&#xA;  honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not&#xA;  expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have&#xA;  been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was&#xA;  looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall&#xA;  asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he&#xA;  made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from&#xA;  their sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judas not only prayed for the dead men (&quot;turned to supplication&quot;), he also made a sin offering on their behalf. It is also the first reference of the resurrection in the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Keep in mind that this&lt;/em&gt; is &lt;em&gt;considered Scripture in Eastern Orthodoxy.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2014-06-06T14:46:21.633" LastActivityDate="2014-06-06T14:46:21.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17549" CreationDate="2013-07-15T05:45:14.127" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no age restriction. All are welcomed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic church never restrict salvation and baptism to adults alone. The Catholic church believes in Infant Baptism, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt; explains it. A passage from the site -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads:&#xA;  &quot;Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them;&#xA;  and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called&#xA;  them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder&#xA;  them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’&quot; (Luke 18:15–16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altar_call&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Altar Call&lt;/a&gt; is practiced by many churches, especially in Evangelical churches. Christianity in general welcomes every one to Christ, young or old, rich or poor, black or white. During the Altar Call, the preacher would invite the audience to repent and give their life to Jesus and proclaim publicly by coming forward. Many times, there are situations where children would come forward with sincere heart and with tears. The people usually responded to this by giving thanks to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, I have seen children below 10 years who received Jesus Christ during the Altar Call in Assemblies of God Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="9767" LastEditDate="2014-05-12T01:11:54.967" LastActivityDate="2014-05-12T01:11:54.967" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17092" CreationDate="2013-07-15T05:51:03.457" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 17:30 God calls all men everywhere to repent, and in 2 Peter 3:9 God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 6:44 implies that God initiates the process by drawing people to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 12:32 says &quot;I will draw all men unto me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So all men are drawn, and we are judged based on our response to that drawing and calling of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T05:51:03.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17536" CreationDate="2013-07-15T08:14:42.037" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I understand the question, it seems like it's getting at the nature of the Trinity -- that is, how does one person of the Trinity (the Son) relate to another person of the Trinity (the Father)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The short answer to your question might be:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Most contemporary Christian groups believe that the God of the Bible exists as a Trinity, so when Jesus prayed, one person of the Trinity addressed another person of the Trinity.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The extent to which that clarifies things is another question, and perhaps that's just the point: the Trinity is a thoroughly difficult concept, and theology that addresses trinitarian concepts can actually be rather confusing. It seems that efforts to come up with any sort of earthly analogy almost immediately bump into one historically defined heresy or another: tritheism, partialism, various forms of modalism, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;and so on&lt;/a&gt;. I think Affable Geek does an admirable job of explaining the &quot;unexplainability&quot; of the Trinity in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8883/4786&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt;, and there's plenty of valuable content about the Trinity in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/trinity&quot;&gt;a number of C.SE posts&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most widely accepted description of the Trinity is found in the Athanasian Creed. It has a complicated history, comprehensively explained &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.html?term=Athanasian%20Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, by vastly capable authors. (The same authors address the doctrine of the Trinity &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.t.i.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here, starting at page 18&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nicene Creed also provides some important info on the Trinity, including the idea that Jesus was &quot;begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.&quot; That particular section confronted Arianism, another heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The text of both creeds can be found in the &quot;Three Ecumenical Creeds&quot; section of the Lutherans' &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/creeds.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book of Concord&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the location of each person during Jesus' prayers: Jesus was on earth, and the Father was in heaven. Cf. Mt 6:9.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T13:09:47.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17569" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17571" CreationDate="2013-07-15T10:38:20.293" Score="4" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;The priest at our parish preached a twist on this parable this sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse Luke 10:30 being (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to&#xA;  Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment,&#xA;  and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using an interpretation of &lt;em&gt;&quot;fell among&quot; to be &quot;fell out with co-conspirators&quot;&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure this English interpretation is correct - and  I can see other versions are totally different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contemporary English Version (CEV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As a man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, robbers attacked&#xA;  him and grabbed everything he had. They beat him up and ran off,&#xA;  leaving him half dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a correct hypothesis or far-fetched?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His additional logic was that this could be why the Priest and the Levites did not want to rescue the man as he lay wounded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="999" LastEditorUserId="999" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T11:38:21.780" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T14:01:32.097" Title="Does the Gospel imply that the victim in the Good Samaritan parable was a thief himself?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9067" CreationDate="2013-07-15T10:40:34.843" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have also been curious about Lamech... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that he did kill Cain and the remark to his wounding was &quot;blindness&quot; the same MARK that was given to Cain to protect him from the horrors of the wilderness - Cursed to wander the earth forever for the murder of Abel... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lamech also mentions the young man to his hurt... This is his son Jabal whom was the Shepherd son... An Apocryphal book - the forbidden book of Adam &amp;amp; Eve tells us that Lamech (A Mighty Hunter), shot Cain with an arrow guided by his son Atuh... The arrow kills Cain whom is mistaken for the BEAST that has been harassing the cattle... In his grief, Lamech whom is also unable to see as he is old, strikes his Shepherd son and thinks he has killed him... To make sure that his Sin is covered he smashes a rock onto his sons head killing him and leaving no witness... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lamech cannot bear his guilt and confesses to his two wives (light &amp;amp; dark) and bears Cains curse 70 x 7 fold... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lamech's Spirit is the same spirit that is the one seeking those whom he can devour... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a look at the history of famous blind people = Very curious... If you dig you will find a man that is in custody that is also the worlds biggest bargaining chip and possibly the last human body that carries the same evil that Cain &amp;amp; Lamech succumbed too... He also has the mark of the Beast and his name also is a name full of evil...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Gen 4:23 [KJV])&#xA;And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Gen 4:24 [KJV])&#xA;If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5101" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T10:40:34.843" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17571" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17569" CreationDate="2013-07-15T11:16:28.947" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;By your own comparison of versions, you've shown it's not a good translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are right at least that the victim has been viewed as a very bad man. Many commentators have viewed the parable as having two meanings. One, a law message that you are to care for the needs of those who are your enemies. Two, it is a Gospel message where Jesus is the Good Samaritan and comes to rescue the man ruined by his sins. Here is a quote from Martin Luther's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlselk10.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sermon for the Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity; Luke 10:23-37&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The man who here lies half dead, wounded and stripped of his clothing' is Adam and all mankind. The murderers are the devils who robbed and wounded us, and left us lying prostrate half dead. We still struggle a little for life; but there lies horse and man, we cannot help ourselves to our feet, and if we were left thus lying we would have to die by reason of our great anguish and lack of nourishment; maggots would grow in our wounds, followed by great misery and distress.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The parable stands in bold relief, and pictures us perfectly, what we are and can do with our boasted reason and free will. If the poor wounded man had desired to help himself, it would only have been worse for him, he would only have done harm to himself and irritated his wounds, and only prepared more misery and distress for himself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T11:16:28.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17574" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17578" CreationDate="2013-07-15T13:38:50.227" Score="14" ViewCount="44198" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Nebuchadnezzar conquered Israel and took Daniel and other Jewish men into his court, he assigned them food and wine from the king's table.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The king appointed for them a daily ration from the king’s choice food and from the wine which he drank&lt;/strong&gt;, and appointed that they should be educated three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king’s personal service.  Daniel 1:5 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Daniel seems to believe it would be wrong for him to eat this, but eating vegetables and water is, somehow, alright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But &lt;strong&gt;Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank&lt;/strong&gt;; so he sought permission from the commander of the officials that he might not defile himself.  Daniel 1:8 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Please test your servants for ten days, and &lt;strong&gt;let us be given some vegetables to eat and water to drink.&lt;/strong&gt;  Daniel 1:12 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what was it about the food and what was it about the wine that made Daniel believe it was inappropriate to eat?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-09-13T02:47:07.973" Title="Why did Daniel consider the allotment of food and wine to be wrong for him to eat?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;daniel&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2016-09-13T12:25:08.240" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17527" CreationDate="2013-07-15T14:59:28.417" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because word of God is living and active, it cuts between soul and spirit, it discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart says author of Hebrews. St. John tells us that Jesus is word of God and he tabernacles in our midst. We are not Muslims where only Arabic is valid. No. Jesus spoke Hebrew/Aramaic which gets translated to Greek and Old Testament Masoretic text likely has been corrupted so Greek translation (LXX) is best. All we have is translation, because we do not worship a book, but a living God who is our Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3797" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T14:59:28.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17576" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17574" CreationDate="2013-07-15T15:00:32.193" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;My pastor preached a sermon on this exact question. There is a lot going on the that particular story but to answer your question. The reason had to do with the treatment of the food before it was served. Any of the kings choice food and drink was offered to idols before coming to the table. Thus the statement from Daniel about defilement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5102" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T18:11:06.130" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T18:11:06.130" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17354" CreationDate="2013-07-15T16:22:15.383" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please consider this only the start of an answer, I don't know too much about it and the Internet isn't much help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My wife and I participated in a Marriage Encounter Weekend, part of Worldwide Marriage Encounter (WWME) this weekend and it was mentioned the idea of &quot;Little Churches&quot;. In the back of the booklet there was a timeline that gave the progression of events that led to the creation of the WWME community. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dfwme.org/History_of_WWME&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;very beginning&lt;/a&gt; is traced back to the conferences given by Spanish Priest, Fr. Gabriel Calvo starting in 1952 as part of the &quot;Marriage teams of Pope Pius XII&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was a teaching, which for your benefit although it made me sound like a know-it-all doorknob Catholic. I specifically asked one of the facilitators about one of the ideas in the weekend called &quot;Little Churches&quot;, where it is specifically mentioned, although not attributed to any pope or council, the idea that the family is a little church.  I asked him if it came from John Paul II, and he said yeah, the Theology of the Body has a lot to do with the ideas WWME incorporates into the presentations (although certainly not explicitly), but the Little Church idea was present in his first encounter, which was 30 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that doesn't particularly help since the time-line puts it at the same time.  But I'd be hard-pressed to assume that particular theological point (as pertinent was it is) would get incorporated into WWME that quickly, which was clearly a product of the 1960's.  I almost think the Pope was more influenced by them than the other way around!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T16:22:15.383" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17574" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:03:20.723" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some possibilities why Daniel refused the King's choice of food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unclean animals:&lt;/strong&gt; According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_Babylonians_eat&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt;, pork was the choice meat of Babylonians. If this is true, it is certain that Daniel was ready to die by not eating nor touching the food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Leviticus 11:7-8 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not&#xA;  chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or&#xA;  touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cooking method:&lt;/strong&gt; According to  &lt;a href=&quot;http://suite101.com/article/food-in-ancient-babylonia-a106611&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt;, ancient Babylonians were very advanced in cooking method unlike the ancient Jews who were eating &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_cuisine#Biblical_era&quot;&gt;food with simple recipes&lt;/a&gt; prepared in a simple way. The Babylonian food might have upset the stomach of Daniel. Eating food prepared in a way other than what we are used to is not easy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Offered to idols:&lt;/strong&gt; Ancient Babylon was highly influenced by idolatry. They were ready to annihilate any group who did not bow down in front of their idols. The three friends of Daniel were also the victim of this. Idol worshipers have the habit of offering their foods to their idols before they eat. This is still in practice today by Hindus as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.krishna.com/offering-food-krishna&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt; says. Daniel was probably suspicious about the source of the food or he saw that it was offered to idols first and refused to eat it. Sacrificing food to idols was also in practice during the first century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Corinthians 8:7 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; But not everyone possesses this knowledge.&#xA;  Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat&#xA;  sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god,&#xA;  and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Daniel took a leap of faith towards his diet and God blessed him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T17:42:33.543" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T17:42:33.543" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17579" PostTypeId="7" CreationDate="2013-07-15T17:33:27.593" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&#xA;    On Stack Exchange, we believe the core moderators should come &lt;i&gt;from&lt;/i&gt; the community, and be elected by the community&#xA;    itself through popular vote. We hold regular elections to determine who these community moderators will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;    Community moderators are &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/&quot;&gt;accorded the highest level of &#xA;    privilege on our community&lt;/a&gt;, and should themselves be exemplars of positive behavior and leaders within the community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;    Our general criteria for moderators is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;patient and fair&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;leads by example&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;    Every election has three phases:&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Nomination&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Primary&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;    &lt;li&gt;Election&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&#xA;    Please participate in the moderator elections by voting, and perhaps even by nominating yourself to be a community moderator!&#xA;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/108193/2020-christianity-moderator-election-chat&quot;&gt;Election chat room&lt;/a&gt; - discuss the election, candidates, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For questions about the election process itself, visit &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/election&quot;&gt;Meta&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6922/2020-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire&quot;&gt;The candidates answer your questions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="42215" LastEditDate="2020-05-18T18:59:11.910" LastActivityDate="2020-05-18T18:59:11.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17580" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17581" CreationDate="2013-07-15T18:18:48.813" Score="4" ViewCount="2969" Body="&lt;p&gt;The meaning of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Zion&lt;/a&gt; is uncertain. There is a  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/m/a/marching.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hymn related to Zion&lt;/a&gt;. The refrain part says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We’re marching to Zion,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      Beautiful, beautiful Zion;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      We’re marching upward to Zion,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      The beautiful city of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the role and importance of Zion in Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-07-17T14:18:03.420" LastActivityDate="2013-07-21T19:05:23.040" Title="What is the role and significance of Zion in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17580" CreationDate="2013-07-15T20:20:55.313" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Zion&lt;/a&gt; says, Zion is a synonym for Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21 depicts the New Jerusalem, the dwelling-place of God with men:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21&lt;/strong&gt;:2&lt;/sup&gt;And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them. ...” [RSV(CE)]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is this Promised Land [a similar metaphor] to which Isaac Watts’ hymn refers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The hill of Zion yields&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  A thousand sacred sweets&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Before we reach the heav’nly fields,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Before we reach the heav’nly fields,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Or walk the golden streets,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Or walk the golden streets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Refrain&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then let our songs abound,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And every tear be dry;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  We’re marching through Immanuel’s ground,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  We’re marching through Immanuel’s ground,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To fairer worlds on high,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To fairer worlds on high.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Refrain&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There’s a Wikipedia article on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt; as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Based on the Book of Revelation, premillennialism holds that, following the end times and the second creation of heaven and earth (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Earth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The New Earth&lt;/a&gt;), the New Jerusalem will be the earthly location where all true believers will spend eternity with God. The New Jerusalem is not limited to eschatology, however. Many Christians view the New Jerusalem as a current reality, that the New Jerusalem is the consummation of the Body of Christ, the Church and that Christians already take part in membership of both the heavenly Jerusalem and the earthly Church in a kind of dual citizenship. In this way, the New Jerusalem represents to Christians the final and everlasting reconciliation of God and His chosen people, &quot;the end of the Christian pilgrimage.&quot; As such, the New Jerusalem is a conception of Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T20:20:55.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17582" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-15T20:28:54.787" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will make a good moderator because I have a passion for helping people, even when I don't agree with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been a StackExchange user for a couple of years now and understand how to help people ask and answer questions in a way that is useful today and relevant for users to come.  I understand that being patient and respectful while supporting a position is far more important than &quot;being right&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Topics on Christianity have potential to elicit strong emotions that can distract from the substantive support of the arguments being made.  These distractions make it more difficult for people to use and enjoy the site.  As a moderator, I will help people to ask and answer in a way that reduces these distractions and keeps this a pleasant place to seek and learn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/users/378800/jeff-wolski?tab=accounts&quot;&gt;my SE profile&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4258" LastEditorUserId="4258" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T02:22:40.537" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T02:22:40.537" CommentCount="8" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-15T20:28:54.787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17583" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:11:35.540" Score="27" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been on C.SE since it was in private beta (even have the &lt;kbd&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/badges/66/precognitive?userid=69&quot;&gt;Precognitive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/kbd&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/69/warren?tab=badges&quot;&gt;badge&lt;/a&gt; from being involved on Area51).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From both my &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/69/warren?tab=answers&quot;&gt;answers&lt;/a&gt;, my &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/69/warren?tab=questions&quot;&gt;questions&lt;/a&gt;, and my comments, I've tried to maintain a polite demeanor whenever possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am on the site [nearly] every day, and always do my best to work towards improving questions/answers if they need it via comments, edits, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before we left beta, I was involved in the day-to-day moderation of the site, as I had a high-rep in the beta site. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T21:09:58.410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T21:09:58.410" CommentCount="8" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-15T21:11:35.540" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17585" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17586" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:23:56.553" Score="3" ViewCount="376" Body="&lt;p&gt;As someone from a Muslim background, I have noted a major distinction between the Quran and the Bible; The Quran is seen by its adherents as the ipsissima verba of God, while (I've heard) the Bible isn't. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is quite simple, but I haven't been able to google it: Are there any parts in the Bible which are seen literally, unequivocally as the words of a Christian God? I'd imagine there have to be, but on the other hand if it isn't the literal word of God you could say the Bible might have gotten so altered by people over the time that there exists a possibility that no part of the Bible is actually God's word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5105" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T21:46:38.460" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T04:58:02.670" Title="Is the Bible literally the word of God?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;&lt;inspiration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-07-16T15:15:54.683" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17585" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:35:45.190" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible affirms that its words are &quot;breathed out by God Himself&quot;, and, indeed, God is the author--not men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All Scripture is breathed out by God&lt;/strong&gt; and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness  2 Timothy 3:16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, the Scriptures are often referred to as &quot;the word of God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;the word of God&lt;/strong&gt; is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  Hebrews 4:12 ESV (many other references as well)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The men who actually physically recorded the words were, in a sense, secretaries.  The message was from God, but they were the ones who wrote them down.  Peter affirms this high view of Scripture, that God's Spirit actively influenced, or &quot;carried them along&quot; in their writing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but &lt;strong&gt;men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.  2 Peter 1:21 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also affirmed that the message he gave to people came from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, &lt;strong&gt;you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,&lt;/strong&gt; which is at work in you believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the Word of God (Bible) itself is not a stale message, but as already noted, is alive and active (Hebrews 4:12).  Jesus Himself also affirmed that His words were spiritual in nature.  This indicates that the Bible specifically communicates with our own spirits in a supernatural manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.  John 6:63 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in conclusion, the Bible presents itself not as the work of men, but the work of God and, in fact, a spiritual, living, and active communication from God directly to us today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T21:35:45.190" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17587" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17589" CreationDate="2013-07-15T21:55:07.647" Score="13" ViewCount="4468" Body="&lt;p&gt;So my wife is Catholic and my daughter has been baptized in the Catholic faith and my new born son is soon to be baptized as well. I was baptized myself but I've fallen away from my Baptist roots for certain reasons and I've come to enjoy the structure of the Catholic faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is this, I spent a good amount of time in the military and overseas, I've done somethings that I don't like to talk about or want to even voice.  It makes me sick just thinking about them.  I really don't think I can voice these when it comes time for my first confessions and has kept me from join RCIA sooner for fear of the Priests response.  Would the confession be valid if I only voiced what I'm comfortable sharing and confess the rest in my heart to God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm really anxious about this, but truly desire to become closer to God once again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5104" LastEditorUserId="16688" LastEditDate="2018-03-04T02:33:52.457" LastActivityDate="2018-03-04T02:33:52.457" Title="Is a confession valid if I only voice the sins I'm comfortable sharing and confess the rest in my heart to God?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;confession&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17587" CreationDate="2013-07-15T22:20:11.593" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;You must confess all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=32-chapter13.xhtml%23para1857&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;mortal sins&lt;/a&gt; that you're aware of and any &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=32-chapter13.xhtml%23para1863&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;venial sins&lt;/a&gt; you feel compelled to confess. You are not absolved of any mortal sins you withhold, and intentionally &lt;strong&gt;withholding mortal sins&lt;/strong&gt; not only &lt;strong&gt;invalidates the whole confession&lt;/strong&gt;, but is a mortal sin itself. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-you-answer-some-questions-about-confession&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;catholic.com&lt;/a&gt;) And, if left in a state of mortal sin, you're expected not to receiving the Eucharist. The Eucharist is life-giving for those in a state of grace; it's a condemnation for those in a state of mortal sin. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.saintaquinas.com/howto_confess.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;how to confess&lt;/a&gt; for the basic details and process.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, be less afraid of how your priest might react than making your reception of the Eucharist into a condemnation against yourself! And don't worry! Just about every priest I've heard speak on the matter says pretty much the same thing: &lt;em&gt;You can't confess something I haven't already heard.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, a priest may not withhold absolution on the condition that you reveal your sins to another person. The only valid reason for withholding absolution is insincerity of the penitent. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-absolution-be-withheld-from-a-murderer-until-he-agrees-to-give-himself-up-to-auth&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;catholic.com Q&amp;amp;A&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2014-09-02T00:06:27.097" LastActivityDate="2014-09-02T00:06:27.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17590" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-15T22:45:40.563" Score="63" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to continue the privilege serving beyond pro tempore. My track record speaks for itself — I have been involved through all the ups and downs since private beta and understand the ramifications of moderator actions and various guidelines on site quality. While I have strong personal convictions, I have not and will not make these the basis for moderation or allow content to be censored based on doctrine. My knowledge and interest is broader than just my own tradition and I want to foster a constructive cross-tradition environment — only doing housekeeping based on quality and relevance to question scope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I regularly participate on meta: raising awareness of issues and listening for community consensus. I’ve always garnered support before acting. My opinions are generally well received; yet even where I deviate from public opinion my mod-actions support the users not my own whims. I also comment prolifically explaining my actions and educating new users.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to extensive participation across the SE network, my real life roles as pastor, EMT and programmer contribute to my experience in working with others, resolving disputes and listening while leading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T22:45:40.563" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T22:45:40.563" CommentCount="10" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-15T22:45:40.563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17593" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-15T23:15:51.390" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am willing to serve as a moderator, if the community agrees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have come a long way in the past couple of years, and a critical part of that was developing a firm sense of what this site ought to be like, in terms of tone and content. I feel that I understand that sense pretty well, and I hope that my past contributions and interactions show that. I haven't been the most active in all site tasks, but I have done a bit of everything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see moderation as a combination of (1) slog-work, and (2) setting the tone. I would aim to be even-handed and friendly, especially regarding new users whose expectations and background might create some friction. Although I am a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745649/quotes?item=qt0287551&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lily-livered bleeding-heart liberal egghead communist&lt;/a&gt;, like any &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; liberal&lt;/a&gt; I try to be almost sickeningly tolerant of those who disagree with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-07-15T23:15:51.390" LastActivityDate="2013-07-15T23:15:51.390" CommentCount="4" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-15T23:15:51.390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17595" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-16T00:37:45.870" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I first participated on C.SE in February. However, I believe I only posted a few stinkers before getting the site norms cemented in my mind. Since then, I have become a regular community member had have been praised more than once by some of the mods and high rep users. I now participate daily on main and meta.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If the current mods are running I encourage you to give &lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt; your vote.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you have decided to not vote for them or they are not running I am a good candidate for the position and I will serve the community wholeheartedly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I participate regularly on the main and meta and will continue to do so as a mod.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I fully support the community in all things. If policy is changed by the community I will support and enforce it. Becoming a mod would effectively make me more passive about making changes, but much more aggressive with enforcing current policy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I will do what I can to help the new users; they may become our most valuable asset in the future. They become regular users when their first experiences are fun and fruitful.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I will quickly and efficiently solve the problems that arise without hesitation, but I will be fair and patient.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T00:37:45.870" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T00:37:45.870" CommentCount="8" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-16T00:37:45.870" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17596" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-16T01:11:42.533" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every nomination needs a joke candidate... so that's me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no desire to be a moderator, and I'm not even really sure what it means to be a moderator. Furthermore, I am not willing to invest any extra time or effort to be a moderator. (Sorry.) But I suppose I wouldn't mind having the diamond power...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why am I entering my name? Partiall to be funny, and partially because I wanted to see how my &quot;review history&quot; looks compared to the others. (Plus I'm curious if I'll get any actual votes.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastEditorUserId="1548" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T01:11:42.533" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T01:11:42.533" CommentCount="2" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-16T01:11:42.533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16971" CreationDate="2013-07-16T01:13:41.367" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 11:13 and 11:16 indicate that this was an issue for the Corinthians specifically. &quot;Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?&quot; Most Americans would say &quot;Huh?&quot; While the Corinthians would say, &quot;Well, no.&quot; 11:16 says &quot;We have no such custom, neither the churches of God&quot;. In other words, this issue was specific to that culture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 1:3 is seen as an admonition to decorate the inside, and make that the top priority, not a prohibition against decorating the outside. I would say that Biblical literalists would enjoin the admonition of modesty, which culturally changes from venue to venue. 1 Corinthians 6:12 states that &quot;all things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient.&quot; So these are seen not as specific prohibitions to be followed but as specific applications of an overall rule of modesty and prioritizing the inward person over the outward appearance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take Peter straight, then your females have to be prohibited from &quot;putting on of apparel&quot;; they will have to go naked. :) Thankfully, 1 Timothy 2:9 clarifies this when Paul says that women &quot;adorn themselves in modest apparel&quot;. So the rule is modesty, and the examples given were not modest in that time and culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tell a woman to dress modestly, and she will know what that means in her culture. What is immodest in American culture? Dresses too high, too low-cut, too suggestive, too gaudy. Excessive jewelry, not jewelry altogether. Makeup in America is irrelevant to modesty in most cases. But she already knows this.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: If you tell her to dress modestly, you are helping her focus on the inward person. If you tell her she can't wear this or that, or she has to wear this or that, then you fall into the same trap of focusing on the OUTWARD person when the Bible passages you cite are trying to get your women to focus on the INWARD person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why Biblical literalists don't make rules governing what women can and cannot do on the outside. It would negate the inward focus of the passages in question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T01:13:41.367" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17598" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-16T01:29:29.410" Score="-6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have 4 kids. One of them is about a month old. I'm underslept and notably loony as of late. I have no time. I only occasionally enjoy poking around C.SE. And I really don't want to be responsible for the big questions like, &lt;em&gt;Is this a real question?&lt;/em&gt; Or, &lt;em&gt;Is this answer just spammy nonsense?&lt;/em&gt; Or, &lt;em&gt;What is the maximum number of slices a single toaster can toast simultaneously before things get ridiculous?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, I'm also Catholic. So, I don't want to artificially contracept God's plan for me to moderate if He so chooses :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I wouldn't mind having a little diamond by my name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If elected, I will not step on your house ... Probably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T01:29:29.410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T01:29:29.410" CommentCount="4" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-16T01:29:29.410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16968" CreationDate="2013-07-16T01:35:27.817" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;See Revelation 21:1. The Day of the Lord (the events of Revelation 6-20, Matthew 24, and elsewhere) will start unexpectedly, like a thief in the night. At the end of it, (Revelation 21:1), the heavens will pass away and the elements will melt, to be replaced by a new Heaven and Earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T01:35:27.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17462" CreationDate="2013-07-16T01:40:06.543" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Answering from the Reformed perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are essentially two covenants. The first covenant was with Adam, and is called the covenant of works. Adam was bound to obey the command not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If he obeyed, he would live. If he disobeyed, he would die. Adam disobeyed, and his sin, because of Adam's representative nature (see Romans 5), is passed on to all people by ordinary generation (that is, everyone but Jesus Christ). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second covenant is the covenant of grace. Most of the Bible is spent in tracing out this second covenant. Most of the OT covenants (except that of works) are in this line. They just keep getting bigger and bigger in scope. So you have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adamic Covenant (second one): Individual&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Noahic Covenant: Individual + family&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abrahamic Covenant: Individual + family + descendants&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mosaic Covenant: Nation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Davidic Covenant: Kingdom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, you get to the New Covenant in the grace line, which is so powerful it's retroactive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what to do with all these covenants? Well, first of all, I would point out that &lt;em&gt;if&lt;/em&gt; anyone could perfectly keep the terms of the covenant of works, that person would be saved. Big if. The fact is, Adam's sinful nature is passed on to us, which rules this possibility out from the get-go. How many sins does a person have to commit in order to go to hell? Zero, because of the sinful nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if we can't get to heaven with the covenant of works, that leaves the covenant of grace. Now, the New Covenant that Jesus instituted rather supercedes the previous ones, and indeed is the covenant to which all the other OT covenants in the grace line were pointing. It &lt;strong&gt;fulfills&lt;/strong&gt; them. Therefore, because Christ is the perfect sacrifice, it would actually detract from His sacrifice to continue offering up the OT sacrifices. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The definitive work on the subject, so I'm told (I haven't read it, but I've heard it's good), is &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0875524184&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Christ of the Covenants&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, by O. Palmer Robertson. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T01:40:06.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17601" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-16T02:00:21.513" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I'd like to start out by saying that if our current moderators are running, I would prefer you vote for &lt;em&gt;them&lt;/em&gt; before me&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As much as I'd like to try my hand as a moderator, I'm currently one of only three users that have full privileges on the site.  Until we get more high-rep users that have the ability and desire to help out, I think I can be more useful as a non-moderator, continuing to do what I've been doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of my time is spent welcoming new users to the site, and trying to help them learn the ropes.  I am very interested in the continued existence and success of this site, and whether I'm doing so in an &quot;official&quot; capacity as a moderator, or just continuing on as I have, I'll be just as active, and I doubt my priorities will change.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My platform:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't really have a platform.  If I am elected, my goal will continue to be what it has been - to do what I can to ensure the success of this site.  If not, I'll continue doing what I can anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-07-17T12:38:55.147" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T12:38:55.147" CommentCount="7" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-16T02:00:21.513" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16934" CreationDate="2013-07-16T02:26:28.747" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short, Christians believe that they are saved because Jesus told them in John 3:36, &quot;He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quran says, &quot;We (meaning Allah) sent forth Jesus and gave Him the Gospel&quot; in the 'Imrans 3:1-4. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Gospels Jesus states that God had a son (John 3:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quran states that &quot;Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood.&quot; (Mary 19:88)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the Quran says &quot;We believe in God and in what was revealed to Jesus by their Lord.&quot; (The Cow 2:135-140)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quran can't handle Jesus; in one breath it claims he is a prophet and an apostle, and that the Gospels were sent by God. In the next breath it says that whoever teaches that God had a son is preaching a monstrous falsehood. One can only conclude that the prophets and apostles of the Quran teach monstrous falsehoods, or that they have it wrong about Jesus and God's Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T02:26:28.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17603" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-16T02:27:45.203" Score="56" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First I'd like to humbly thank both this community and the SE community team for the privilege of serving this community and helping it grow over the past two years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first moments of this community's life made me question whether this site would succeed at all. As time went on, and as the community began to form it became obvious that this would indeed work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This site is by no means perfect, it has major flaws in both scope and quality. However, the thing that has been most encouraging to me is that through the leadership of both the members of this community and the moderators that were appointed to steward it, things have continued to improve, almost every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My vision for the future, whether you choose to elect me to continue my post as moderator or not is to continue assisting that improvement. I don't post much on the main site (though I've been better about that lately), but I am very active on meta and in chat helping users learn how to use the site in the best way possible. I'd also like to get our blog back up and running, that it's fallen off is at least partly my fault and I'd like to rectify this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd love to continue to serve you as moderator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T02:27:45.203" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T02:27:45.203" CommentCount="4" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-16T02:27:45.203" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17604" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-16T02:45:42.663" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are all thankful for the hard work that C.SE founders put into building it. I believe that moderator practices can make this not only a better &quot;C&quot; site but also a &quot;SE&quot; site.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is my platform:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;[W]e do not ask a man to accept all the creeds, any more than we ask him to accept all the Christians. We ask him to accept Christ, and the facts about Christ and the words of Christ. You will find the battle is half won when you have endorsed the man's objections, and possibly added a great many more to the charges which he has against ourselves.&quot; -- Henry Drummond&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the past month, this site bullied-into-quitting a person who had observations about evangelism practice on the ground in the Third World that was no more Trollish against the faith than words by Benedict XVI. My moderation strategy would err against using moderation to enforce orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;draw[] from standard sources of theology ...Scripture, Tradition, or Reason.&quot;  -- Affable Geek [who does NOT endorse me]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was his idea of acceptable sources for Answers. As moderator, I wouldn't allow Personal Opinion but I would not demand &quot;Identifiable Group&quot; for Answers, or Questions that can be answered from above list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-07-19T11:28:32.993" LastActivityDate="2013-07-19T11:28:32.993" CommentCount="8" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-16T02:45:42.663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17585" CreationDate="2013-07-16T02:55:34.110" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Which came first, Qur'an or Bible?&lt;/strong&gt; Bible&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did the Qur'an fall from the sky?&lt;/strong&gt; NO&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did the Bible fall from the sky?&lt;/strong&gt; NO&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did God(Allah) write the Qur'an with His finger?&lt;/strong&gt; NO&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did God(Jehovah) write the Bible with His finger?&lt;/strong&gt; The Ten Commandment was, at least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who wrote Qur'an and Bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Qur'an and Bible were written by men and both claimed to be from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How many authors Qur'an has?&lt;/strong&gt; One. Muhammad alone. No one was there to support the ideas of Muhammad. He alone handled the whole situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How many authors Bible has?&lt;/strong&gt; Approximately 40 men. All from different times and places with different languages but were writing in harmony to each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How many years Qur'an took to complete?&lt;/strong&gt; Approximately 23 years. 100 years later it was put into written form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How many years Bible took to complete?&lt;/strong&gt; Approximately 1500 years. This has a good historical evidence to prove its authenticity and timelessness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Method of communication from God in Islam:&lt;/strong&gt; Muhammad was the only person responsible for the origin of Qur'an. He claimed to receive the &lt;em&gt;last and final&lt;/em&gt; message from God through angel Gabriel. The communication usually took place in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hira&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cave of Hira&lt;/a&gt;. Muhammad was always alone in that cave. Who knows what he was doing! Probably thinking about what will be the contents for the next chapter for his composed book and revising the words that he has to say to his 50-60 companions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Method of communication from God in Bible:&lt;/strong&gt; There are many countless ways on how God communicated with the authors of the Bible. Some saw a vision. Moses was speaking with God like a friend. Paul saw a great light and met with Jesus. There are many examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Originality of stories from Qur'an:&lt;/strong&gt; Most of the stories from Qur'an are borrowed from the Bible with incomplete accounts and many times twisted. Years are not mentioned. There is no sequence. Names are also confusing. Example, Qur'an has no mention of the names of Cain and Abel and also who was the elder or who was the evil one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Surah 5:27&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  And recite to them the story of Adam's two sons, in truth, when they&#xA;  both offered a sacrifice [to Allah ], and it was accepted from one of&#xA;  them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], &quot;I will&#xA;  surely kill you.&quot; Said [the former], &quot;Indeed, Allah only accepts from&#xA;  the righteous [who fear Him].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Originality of stories from Bible:&lt;/strong&gt; The Bible itself is it's own source for it's stories without borrowing it from elsewhere. In fact, it's a historical record of Israel and Christianity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T04:58:02.670" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T04:58:02.670" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17607" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-16T04:09:16.710" Score="0" ViewCount="661" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman &#xA;  with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. &#xA;  Ecclesiastes 11:5 (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This quote states clearly that the &quot;spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child&quot;. This spirit, in my understanding, is the child's human spirit, as opposed to the Spirit of God that comes to a person to do the work of regeneration and the many blessings that flow out of that work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spirit &quot;comes to the bones&quot;, which implies that it does not come until bones are formed, beginning &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thebabyregistry.co.uk/pregnancy/your-pregnancy/your-unborn-baby-month-by-month&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at around 9 weeks.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can this scripture be used to determine the beginning of a human life? Also, what do various denominations teach about the beginning of a human life in relation to this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5060" LastEditorDisplayName="user5060" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T08:56:37.833" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T11:21:07.830" Title="Does this scripture shed light on the humanity of the unborn child?" Tags="&lt;spirit&gt;&lt;abortion&gt;&lt;humanity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-07-16T15:12:05.887" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17610" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-16T06:09:06.217" Score="52" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, I just want to say that it's been a pleasure and a great experience to moderate this site for the past 22 months (and some).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that time, I've handled hundreds of flags, deleted nearly a thousand comments, closed or deleted many questions, all to keep this site at least reasonably decent. I've also encouraged many users, a few times I've made an effort to help one user or another understand just how this site works, always in the hope that we would have yet one more good quality regular contributor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, with every passing day, the amount of bad content on this site grows, but so does the good content, and further more, so has the community. I am very pleased to see the community growing larger, more interesting, and more capable of running this site themselves, just as it should be. It's been a pleasure to work with Richard, Mason Wheeler, wax eagle, and Caleb in service of the community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, that's why I want to continue being a moderator. I love serving others. This site has become a great place, and I'd love to continue to help make it even better. I have gladly served this community for almost two years, and I'd love to serve for several more years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T06:09:06.217" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T06:09:06.217" CommentCount="4" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-16T06:09:06.217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17607" CreationDate="2013-07-16T07:51:22.083" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There can be no definitive answer on this. The easiest way is to &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/11-5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;compare all the different translations&lt;/a&gt;  and make your own conclusion, for yourself and not for others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples: Ecclesiastes 11:5 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;NIV - As you do not know the &lt;strong&gt;path of the wind&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand&#xA;  the work of God, the Maker of all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;KJV - As thou knowest not what is the &lt;strong&gt;way of the spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, nor how&#xA;  the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou&#xA;  knowest not the works of God who maketh all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;GW - Just as you don't know how &lt;strong&gt;the breath of life&lt;/strong&gt; enters the&#xA;  limbs of a child within its mother's womb, you also don't understand&#xA;  how God, who made everything, works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T07:51:22.083" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16613" CreationDate="2013-07-16T08:33:10.320" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Solomon pursued pleasure, knowledge, fame and wealth in his life. He disobeyed the rules for the king of Israel given by God through Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Deuteronomy 17:16-19 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; The king, moreover, &lt;strong&gt;must not acquire great numbers of horses&lt;/strong&gt; for himself or make the people return to Egypt&#xA;  to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go&#xA;  back that way again.” He &lt;strong&gt;must not take many wives&lt;/strong&gt;, or his heart will&#xA;  be led astray. He &lt;strong&gt;must not accumulate large amounts of silver and&#xA;  gold&lt;/strong&gt;. When he takes the throne of his kingdom, &lt;strong&gt;he is to write for&#xA;  himself on a scroll a copy of this law&lt;/strong&gt;, taken from that of the&#xA;  Levitical priests. It is to be with him, and &lt;strong&gt;he is to read it all the&#xA;  days of his life&lt;/strong&gt; so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and&#xA;  follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Solomon acted against the Law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Kings 11:3&lt;/em&gt; He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three&#xA;  hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Kings 10:26&lt;/em&gt; Solomon accumulated chariots and horses; he had fourteen&#xA;  hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in the&#xA;  chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Kings 10:14&lt;/em&gt; The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was&#xA;  666 talents&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later in his life, Solomon regretted and said that everything he did in his life was meaningless. He realized that he should have spent his life reading the Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ecclesiastes 12:8 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher.&#xA;      “Everything is meaningless!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ecclesiastes 12:13 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Now all has been heard;&#xA;      here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments,&#xA;      for this is the duty of all mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T08:33:10.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17607" CreationDate="2013-07-16T11:15:04.723" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that the bones must exist before the Spirit comes to them is invalidated by John 1:1 and John 1:14.  Jesus' eternal and preexistent Spirit predates his bones by a lot more than a few weeks!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that instance, I would be hard pressed to find a Christian who believes in the deity of Jesus to say he wasn't alive prior to his conception and incarnation. Indeed, as he said to the Pharisees, &quot;Before Abraham was, I am.&quot; If Jesus was alive prior to his bones, then it seems to imply the Spirit is the necessary, if not necessary and sufficient condition for life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ecclesiastes text merely speaks of a Spirit joining with the bones- as such there is no information to state which came first, and which defines &quot;life,&quot; although the fact that the Valley of Dry Bones vision (Ez. 37) which has bones that have no life, would tend to point to bones being insufficient for life on their own. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T11:21:07.830" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T11:21:07.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6403" CreationDate="2013-07-16T12:25:57.140" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You can find answer to this question in scriptures where people were asking the same question.&#xA;Acts 16:30-31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5111" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T12:25:57.140" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17275" CreationDate="2013-07-16T12:40:15.717" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think people or community or denomination can't call themselves as &quot;Christian&quot; if they were considering Jesus as a human moral teacher, rather than as the supernatural Son of God.&#xA;Still there are a lot of communities sharing that viewpoint and sometimes are considered to be &quot;Christian&quot; although they are not &quot;Christian&quot; like Jehovah's Witnesses or early (or later) heresies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5111" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T12:40:15.717" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17616" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-16T12:41:14.063" Score="9" ViewCount="7004" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:11 says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this was a blanket statement to everyone, people like Billy Graham would be sinning by living famous lives in the public spotlight. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that true? What is the real command here? How has this issue been addressed elsewhere in the Old &amp;amp; New Testaments, or by scholars and theologians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-18T04:20:32.410" LastActivityDate="2015-04-18T04:20:32.410" Title="Must everyone live a quiet life?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;1-thessalonians&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-04-19T07:30:28.303" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17617" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16403" CreationDate="2013-07-16T12:45:07.830" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Phrase “the saints are not keepers of the law, but legislators” recalls me&#xA;Romans 2:13-15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think this means the saints are those who obey the law and not those who hear the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5111" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T12:45:07.830" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17616" CreationDate="2013-07-16T13:11:32.290" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The clue to understanding this is found in verse 12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:12 (NLT)&lt;/em&gt; Then people who are not Christians will&#xA;  respect the way you live, and you will not need to depend on others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Living a quiet life&lt;/strong&gt;: Paul instructed the Christians in Corinth to live peacefully and not fight among themselves. When the non-Christians see the peace among the Christians, they will be respected by the community. Christians should maintain good characters.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Work with your hands:&lt;/strong&gt; Paul wanted them to be independent and prosperous so that they don't have to beg/ask from others. He encouraged them to work hard, make their own living without disturbing society. Paul did not want them to be lazy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T15:24:54.330" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T15:24:54.330" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17616" CreationDate="2013-07-16T13:25:48.047" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see in Explanatory Bible of Lopukhin following explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We should think that generous Christian charity caused big abuses and created class of people who preferred to live at the expense of other people, which left quiet and independent working life. Being free of work and job responsibilities, they devoted themselves completely to agitation, and, possibly, were the cause of abnormal grow eschatological expectations of Thessalonian citizens. Their fussiness, restlessness was destroying the quiet and peaceful lives of Thessalonian Christians and involuntary was undermining Christians amongst the pagans, making pagans look at Christians as gathering of idle and harmful people involved in sky-high dreams only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5111" LastEditorUserId="145" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T13:50:14.733" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T13:50:14.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17569" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:01:32.097" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the story the Jesus wants you to recognize that YOU are the injured man. You must choose who is to save you - the law, the prophets or the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you recognize that YOU are the injured man you will begin to understand that&#xA;the Good Sam parable was Jesus's way of answering the Lawyer's (and all of our) questions: Who is my neighbour, AND how do I inherit eternal life?&#xA;When you understand who Jesus meant by &quot;neighbour,&quot; you will receive the answer to the two questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T14:01:32.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17623" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17627" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:07:57.170" Score="17" ViewCount="35613" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, the KKK claimed itself to be a &quot;Christian&quot; organization, originally based on a lot of anti-Catholic and obviously anti-Black sentiment.  Famously, one of their intimidation techniques was to burn a cross, making others aware of their presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This surprises me - that any organization that claimed the name of Christ, no matter how bogus the claim - would do what appears to me to be sacrilege to its most potent symbol.  I have heard the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_burning&quot;&gt;claim that the KKK was 'lighting' the cross, not burning it&lt;/a&gt;, but that seems a bit of a stretch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any evidentiary / primary source material that corroborates this explanation, and more importantly, provides some form of theological or biblical justification for the practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T17:50:56.307" LastActivityDate="2014-11-26T17:41:13.440" Title="Why did the KKK &quot;light&quot; aka burn crosses?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17624" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18388" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:20:21.710" Score="15" ViewCount="2671" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a popular Protestant polemic that Catholics don't (or didn't) want people to read the Bible.  It is often furthermore assumed that the Catholic Church went so far as to &lt;em&gt;ban&lt;/em&gt; people from having the Bible in their own language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Supporting the claim are the stories of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Diet_of_Worms&quot;&gt;Martin Luther&lt;/a&gt; who is sometimes thought to have been persecuted for translating the Bible into German, but who in fact was accused of heresy, and in any event, was not the first to translate the Bible into German.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale#cite_note-3&quot;&gt;William Tyndale&lt;/a&gt; who was executed for heresy, but also did not even make the first English translation (rather there were others already extant)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe&quot;&gt;John Wycliffe&lt;/a&gt; who is often credited with the first English Bible, although older versions went back to the 6th Century, and who nonetheless was never charged with heresy until a good 30 years or so after his death.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In each of these cases, however, the position does not seem to be the act of translating the Bible, or of making it available, but rather of heretical teachings from these translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, clearly the example of the Jesuits, translating the Scripture into hundreds of languages, seems to run counter to the claim that translating Scripture or encouraging lay popele to read it was heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is, is there any papal directive that specifically addresses the possession of the Scripture in a vulgar (i.e. native) tongue, or addresses the translation of Scripture outside of Latin in a negative light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T05:32:23.487" Title="Is there any evidence for the claim that the Catholic church suppressed translation of Scripture?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17624" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:39:58.937" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not today. The Vatican uses the Vulgate in the Liturgy, and does not prohibit the Liturgy used outside the Vatican to be translated into the vernacular of any country. Since Vatican II, scholars and clergy have been encouraged to read other translations. In the USA, the American Catholic Church has adopted several translations including RSV, NAB, NSAB, and NRSV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fourth session&lt;/a&gt; of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) the Vulgate was declared to be authoritative. It had already been in use by the Roman Catholic Church since the 5th. cent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Translation into other languages &lt;strong&gt;by Roman Catholics&lt;/strong&gt; was forbidden by Papal decree until Vatican II.&#xA;Of course, before the Reformation everyone in the West was a Roman Catholic, including Tyndale.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Eastern Orthodox churches are different. Their New Testament and Old Testament have always been in Greek, and Syrian since the 4th. cent. (The Aramaic Gospels in the Brit. Museum are signed and dated AD 464.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T17:39:31.823" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T17:39:31.823" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6403" CreationDate="2013-07-16T15:52:42.090" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, God wants to save everyone - that's what He wants.  But it is not His sovereign will, or else everyone would be saved, which we know isn't true.  Also, it would depend on if Jesus had died on the cross yet.  Before Jesus died on the cross, the Jews would make sacrifices to please God's wrath.  It wasn't the act of the sacrifice, but it was the faith they had placed on God that he would save them.  Basically they were looking forward to the cross.  Now though, Jesus has died on the cross and it is said in the Bible that we must believe that yes, Jesus is God, and that He was a man, not an angel or &quot;holy man.&quot;  He was 100% God and 100% man.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, just because you are good, you are not good enough in God's eyes which is why God sent His son Jesus so we can be called righteous through Jesus, not through our good deeds.  God says that those who are saved will do good works because we are saved not to &quot;keep our salvation&quot; or anything like that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I don't think Jews, or Buddhists, or people who believe in a god will go to Heaven because it is clearly stated that everyone knows that there is a God or creator.  Aka general revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and this is from a 12 year old's knowledge so I am definitely no Bible Scholar xD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5114" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T15:52:42.090" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17623" CreationDate="2013-07-16T16:05:25.270" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Knight's Party website appears to be the official voice for the KKK today. Their &lt;a href=&quot;http://kkk.bz/?page_id=2896&quot;&gt;FAQ&lt;/a&gt; contains the following question and answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. Why do you burn the cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A. Many have been led to believe the Klan burns the cross as an act of&#xA;  desecrating a Christian symbol. Nothing could be further from the&#xA;  truth. The lighted cross is an old symbol used on the hillsides of&#xA;  Scotland. Many churches today use the lighted cross as a symbol. The&#xA;  Methodist church uses the cross with flames at its base sweeping up&#xA;  and around the cross. The Lutheran church uses the symbolism. When the&#xA;  Klan was founded there was not electricity. They could not light up a&#xA;  cross the way we light up a Christmas tree. Fire was used. The fire&#xA;  was used to symbolize the fiery light of Christ – a metaphor often&#xA;  used in the Bible. The Cross obviously is a symbol of Christianity.&#xA;  The Cross lighting ceremony gives honor to Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is no more a desecration of the cross than it is for the American Legion to respectfully lay to peace an American flag by setting it on fire – which is the correct procedure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other references echo the sentiment that, instead of destroying, they feel that they are honoring the cross. The reasoning appears to be primarily based on tradition rather than a particular scripture passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="407" LastEditorUserId="407" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T17:44:52.027" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T17:44:52.027" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17634" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17645" CreationDate="2013-07-16T20:14:47.763" Score="3" ViewCount="1255" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Methodist church my aunt grew up in back in the 50s and 60s relied almost exlcusively on the RSV, and she continued to use it until her death a few years ago as her preferred translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when going through Christian bookstores (or just Christian sections of bookstores) today, I see the RSV (and NRSV) group with the NAB and other &quot;Catholic&quot; Bibles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When/why did this occur (at least in the US)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there aspects of the RSV/NRSV considered less ideal to Protestants now that were not as widely known/cared about half a century ago?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2019-01-27T17:02:55.723" Title="When/why did the [N]RSV become a &quot;Catholic&quot; Bible instead of a &quot;Protestant&quot; Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;united-states&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17635" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-16T20:19:28.030" Score="3" ViewCount="1518" Body="&lt;p&gt;In related form to a previous &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/17634/69&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;, what makes a given translation (or translational family) more likely to be promulgated by a given denomination over others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the New American Bible is [almost] exclusively used by the Roman Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas the English Standard Version is generally favored by conservative Protestant churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New International Version and New Living Translation tend to be used heavily by middle-of-the-road and/or liberal denominations more than the New American Standard or New King James, which again tend to be used by more conservative congregations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What about a given translation makes it more apt to be utilized by a given denomination and/or be discouraged/banned by a denomination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T19:31:14.293" Title="What determines the denominational &quot;value&quot; of a given Bible translation?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17489" CreationDate="2013-07-16T21:10:10.753" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is no.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph Smith Jr. was succeeded by others who also received &quot;thus saith the Lord&quot; oracles. His successors Brigham Young and John Taylor were also the recipients of &quot;thus saith the Lord&quot; oracles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Prophet isn't the only person who can receive such oracles either. However, any person claiming to receive such for anything other than his own direct stewardship responsibility should bring them to the Prophet in order to have what they claim as revelation to be ratified as such and thereby become binding upon others. In actuality, Joseph Smith Jr. was instrumental in establishing a system of authority that makes all worthy men into prophets over their own stewardships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also important to understand there is more than one level of ministration that is possible when a Prophet/prophet is receiving revelation. Some of the oracles given to Joseph Smith Jr. and his successors were spoken by the Father and some were spoken by the Son. In LDS theology this is understood as Celestial and Terrestrial ministration respectively. According to D&amp;amp;C 76 when you keep the laws of the Celestial Kingdom you are entitled to receive ministration from the Father and when you keep the laws of the Terrestrial Kingdom you are entitled to receive ministration from the Son. It is also understood that all mankind is currently able to be ministered to by the Holy Ghost, which is understood as Telestial ministration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the Church has undergone some difficulties and is currently awaiting its redemption such that for the time being it only qualifies to receive Telestial ministration. This is why there hasn't been a &quot;thus saith the Lord&quot; oracle in the church from the Father or the Son for well over 100 years. Church leaders retain the authority of their offices but they are only able to get Telestial level ministration in the performance of their duties. This will not change or improve until the laws of the Terrestrial and Celestial Kingdoms are fully reinstituted and practiced by the Saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T21:10:10.753" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17637" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17643" CreationDate="2013-07-16T21:21:41.857" Score="4" ViewCount="1608" Body="&lt;p&gt;While &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwWI4PkLpkY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;listening to Peter Kreeft&lt;/a&gt; talking about &lt;a href=&quot;http://jp2forum.org/articles_about_pope/god_and_man/thomistic_personalism.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Thomistic personalism&lt;/a&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[PDF]&lt;/sup&gt;, he joked that C.S. Lewis isn't &quot;canonized on earth yet.&quot; I know it's a joke, but it seems it would only be funny if it is possible he may one day be canonized, though he was Anglican.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can a non-Catholic be canonized by the Catholic Church? If so, have they ever done so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possibly related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1598/4188&quot;&gt;What does the Catholic Church teach about the fate of non-Catholic Christians?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T01:55:06.617" Title="Can a non-Catholic be Canonized by the Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17536" CreationDate="2013-07-16T21:27:57.617" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was God in heaven, then became a man with no God power(except that he was born with the sinless nature of God, unlike us which have to be born again to get that nature). And when he died, became God again. &#xA;When he prays, he prays to God the father(one part of the trinity) . Keep in mind that all parts of the trinity are completely equal, father, son, holy ghost(spirit).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5117" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T21:27:57.617" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17639" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17734" CreationDate="2013-07-16T21:35:45.330" Score="6" ViewCount="427" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throughout the Bible “faith” coupled with God’s “grace” is essential for salvation.  The I in TULIP stands for irresistible “grace”, what role does “faith” hold in Calvinism and why is it isolated from &amp;quot;grace&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some scriptures with &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; coupled with &amp;quot;grace/love&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 6:23 Peace [be] to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:2 …we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us…according to the proportion of faith&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Timothy 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life1 John 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-20T13:18:15.740" Title="Why is “faith” omitted as a doctrinal consideration in TULIP (five point) Calvinism?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="525" CreationDate="2013-07-16T22:05:10.613" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Thanks for thinking about such topics!  I was very intrigued when I first heard of this idea, and I've grown to accept it over the years.  My pastor has written a fantastic article on why he believes in universalism, and it has a bunch of verses supporting this said belief:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tsdowntown.com/images/essays/all_things_new_and_a_place_we_call_hell.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tsdowntown.com/images/essays/all_things_new_and_a_place_we_call_hell.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing that I find interesting, though, is that when I read the bible with this belief, I've found that many verses seem to be consistent with this idea.  It just requires changing our understanding of a few things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's &quot;judgment&quot; is not eternal torture, but mercy.  It's a fire that may burn &quot;like hell&quot; but will cleanse you and make you whole.  It's a judgment of the old man that turns him into the new man.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hell may be temporal, and so it may come to an end.  Unbeliever's may be tortured for a time (just as we on Earth are tortured for a time) but God's love will prevail in the end.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another argument that's meant alot to me (but doesn't really have a basis in scripture) is that I believe God to be infinitely more loving than I am.  Therefore, if I feel that it is cruel for a person to be tortured forever, wouldn't God also?  And, being that he is all-powerful, wouldn't he choose to save that person?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's just a few verses that are discussed in detail in the referenced document:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God desires all to be saved: 1 Tim. 2:1-6, 2 Peter 3:8-10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 45:22-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 12:30-32 (particularly 32)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:15-19: &quot;For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!&quot;  To me, this states that God's grace overflows to the many in the same way that the trespass of Adam was given to many; in other words, every human being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 11:32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colossians 1:15-20: Look at all the parallel &quot;all&quot;s.  How could we possibly say that the &quot;all&quot; in 20 is different from the &quot;all&quot; in 15?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelations 21:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5118" LastEditorUserId="5118" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T10:40:29.183" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T10:40:29.183" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17639" CreationDate="2013-07-16T22:32:53.067" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The TULIP from Calvinism is derived from this one principle that is hard to deny if you are a Bible believing Christian:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has complete sovereignty over all that is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logic that Calvinists take after that consideration does not lead them to list faith as a major point, nor does it require them to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The faith of the individual is covered under the I, Irresistible Grace, and slightly under the U, Unconditional Election.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's grace is irresistible, meaning that you cannot refuse it once it is offered to you. That is your faith, for which you were unconditionally elected to receive, meaning you did not earn it in anyway, which includes whatever you might believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify things, here is the chronology of events:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You are unconditionally elected to receive grace.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God pours that grace upon you. It is irresistible and you accept it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The grace of God works in you and builds faith in you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You then freely and willingly come to God because of that faith within you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This site&lt;/a&gt; sums the points well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-07-16T22:52:32.710" LastActivityDate="2013-07-16T22:52:32.710" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17637" CreationDate="2013-07-17T01:55:06.617" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The present regime for canonization comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_25011983_divinus-perfectionis-magister_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Divinus Perfectionis Magister&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, an apostolic constitution of John Paul II (25 January 1983). More detailed rules for the diocesan stages are in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070517_sanctorum-mater_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sanctorum Mater&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (17 May 2007).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At first glance, it would seem that the present process does not allow for a non-Catholic to even be considered, since SM article 4 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The cause of beatification and canonization regards a Catholic who in life, in death and after death has enjoyed a reputation of holiness by living all the Christian virtues in an heroic manner; or enjoys a reputation of martyrdom because, having followed Christ more closely, he has sacrificed his life in the act of martyrdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Following the Code of Canon Law, &quot;a Catholic&quot; would be someone described by Canon 205: &quot;Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.&quot; This is more specific than &quot;the Christian faithful&quot;, meaning &quot;those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God&quot; (Canon 204). Since C. S. Lewis was baptized as an Anglican, and did not join the Catholic Church, he counts as a member of the Christian faithful but not a Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This in itself does not exclude him from being a saint, since the Church recognizes the possibility of salvation even for someone outside the visible structures of the Church (in certain circumstances). The language in DPM is all about &quot;followers of Christ&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Christi asseclae&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;qui Christi exemplum proximius secuti&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;qui Christum fidelitur sunt secuti&lt;/em&gt;). The issue, then, is not whether he really is a saint in heaven, but whether the Church would recognize him as such, given that part of her purpose is described in DPM as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Faithful to the serious duty entrusted to her of teaching, sanctifying and governing the People of God, she proposes to the faithful for their imitation, veneration and invocation, men and women who are outstanding in the splendor of charity and other evangelical virtues and, after due investigations, she declares them, in the solemn act of canonization, to be Saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since saints are meant to be imitated, the Church would have to be satisfied that Lewis was outstanding in virtue and doctrine. I don't think the Church would be ready to admit as an example of heroic virtue somebody who didn't join her when presented with the option. The theological test (which involves detailed examination of everything the candidate ever wrote) would surely also be difficult for a non-Catholic to pass - especially one who sometimes publicly disagreed with the Church, and who held some opinions that were distinctively Protestant, alongside others that were fairly idiosyncratic or even heterodox. So I think there are other people the Church is more likely to canonize first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second part of your question is about whether anyone who was not in communion with the Church has ever been canonized. I think this hasn't happened. The closest examples would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Individuals who gained some degree of local recognition, but who were never actually recognized by the proper authorities. Curiously, one &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Saint Josaphat&lt;/a&gt;, who had a degree of recognition, was actually Gautama Buddha (Josaphat = Bodhisattva).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Certain figures from years BC have feast days and are sometimes called saints, as well as featuring in the liturgy (see for example the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litany_of_the_Saints&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Litany of the Saints&lt;/a&gt;). Abraham's day is 9 October, for example (in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.liturgialatina.org/martyrologium/20.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1749 Martyrology&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;em&gt;memoria sancti Abrahae, Patriarchae et omnium credentium Patris&lt;/em&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Angels, like Saint Michael, may be called Saints but aren't in quite the same category as human believers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somewhere else where this might crop up is if there's anyone who one of the Eastern Catholic Churches recognized as a saint, between the Great Schism and their reunion with Rome, who was separated from the Roman Catholic Church during his or her lifetime and who remains venerated today. I don't know of an actual example but perhaps this has happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T01:55:06.617" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17634" CreationDate="2013-07-17T04:41:54.330" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason that many of them are considered &quot;Catholic&quot; is probably because there is now a &quot;Catholic Edition&quot; of the RSV and the NRSV. Both of these are gaining traction over the NAB if only because of the superiority of the translation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major difference between Catholic and Standard RSV is that the Deuterocanon is placed in the standard Catholic order and there are a number of small word changes (most notably &quot;brethren&quot; for &quot;brother&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T04:41:54.330" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17624" CreationDate="2013-07-17T04:58:02.880" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The evidence that the Church has ever completely forbidden the translation of scripture is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;dubious at best&lt;/a&gt;. As is stated in Wikipedia, there are a few times when a given college of bishops or a given region might have forbidden the vernacular, but these were almost always at times when mis-translations were more common than adequate ones. In these cases, the Church decided to &lt;a href=&quot;https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1453285/what-is-whitelist-and-blacklist-data&quot;&gt;whitelist instead of blacklist&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-05-23T12:41:56.337" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T04:58:02.880" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17647" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17661" CreationDate="2013-07-17T07:08:33.537" Score="14" ViewCount="11610" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible was not available in the hands of common people in Medieval times (5th - 15th century). Which of these possible reasons are plausible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The common people were poor and could not afford to get the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible was not for sale in the market.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Catholic Church did not want the common people to read the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The common people were illiterate.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The common people did not speak Latin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The people were not pious enough to bother reading the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The people had a mindset that reading the Bible is the job of scholars or bishops.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other possible reasons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-09-23T02:09:01.220" LastActivityDate="2017-09-23T02:09:01.220" Title="Why was the Bible not available to common people in the Medieval period?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;bible&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17648" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17650" CreationDate="2013-07-17T07:27:24.033" Score="6" ViewCount="2985" Body="&lt;p&gt;I began reading the KJV a couple months ago, and one question that keeps plaguing my mind is, &quot;How did Adam and Eve successfully hide from God?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis Chapter 3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in&#xA;  the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the&#xA;  presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art]&#xA;  thou?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,&#xA;  because I [was] naked; and I hid myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4268" LastActivityDate="2014-12-03T22:46:22.147" Title="How did Adam and Eve win at Hide and Seek?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;eden&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2014-12-05T05:26:47.563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3576" CreationDate="2013-07-17T07:41:15.183" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Calling Satan &quot;The god of this world&quot; stems from an ancient Canaanite religious pantheon, where Ba'al played a prominent role. He was often given the epithet &quot;God of this World&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In ancient Israel after the founding of Judaism, Ba'al was still worshiped widely. Read 1 Kings 18 if you're interested. The word &quot;Satan&quot; stems from the Hebrew word for challenger, which is exactly what Ba'al was to Judaism. Eventually Ba'al's religion died out, and he was remembered as the Devil. His epithet stuck with him for a while would seem to be the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5122" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T07:41:15.183" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17648" CreationDate="2013-07-17T08:18:33.397" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question because that scripture screams that question every time it is read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe that Adam and Eve successfully hid from God. How could they if God is omniscient? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 4:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all&#xA;  things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give&#xA;  account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 139:4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it&#xA;  altogether.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if God knows all, then the question becomes why did God ask the question, because it wasn't because he didn't know. So if the question wasn't for God's benefit, then it must have been for Adam's&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we process the whole scene, Adam and Eve had been in perfect relationship and fellowship with God until they disobeyed and sinned against God. Then all of the sudden Adam and Eve are trying to avoid God. When God asks the question, even in Adam's hearing of the question, he has to realize that something isn't right. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has never had to ask this question before, because Adam had never hidden from God before. So for God to ask, let's Adam know even before he answers, that God knows something is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in the same scripture God continues to ask questions. God could've just came in and said &quot;Adam and Eve you sinned and the serpent tempted you, here are your curses, see you later&quot;, but instead He questions them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then for Adam to answer he can begin to understand and process &quot;where&quot; he is in relationship to God versus where he was. Adam's position has changed, and he is not in the same place physically or spiritually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does this throughout scripture where He asks a question he already knows the answer to, but it is to the benefit of the hearer that he asked the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many scriptures where God asks questions, but indeed already knows the answer. Here are a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 4:6 NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why&#xA;  has your countenance fallen? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 4:9-10 NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said,&#xA;  “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” 10 And He said, “What have&#xA;  you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the&#xA;  ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Kings 19:9-10 NKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And there he went into a cave, and spent the&#xA;  night in that place; and behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and&#xA;  He said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 10 So he said, “I&#xA;  have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of&#xA;  Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed&#xA;  Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take&#xA;  my life.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Elijah's final answer God corrects him and gives him an assignment to go anoint Elisha&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T08:18:33.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17647" CreationDate="2013-07-17T08:50:11.043" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;A book during that period cost more than most people earned during a year or more. Only exceptionally rich people owned any books. Books were copied by hand back then. It's only when the printing press was invented that normal folks could afford books. There were some murmurings within the church about letting commoners read the Bible themselves, but little was actually done to prevent the Gutenberg press from creating thousands of cheap copies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible&quot;&gt;Gutenberg Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_Revolution#The_printing_revolution&quot;&gt;The printing press&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4990" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T08:50:11.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17648" CreationDate="2013-07-17T09:30:52.760" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like the Pulpit Commentary on this. It says that God called Adam because God wanted to bring him to confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adam's absence was a clear proof&#xA;  that something was wrong. Hitherto he had always welcomed the Divine&#xA;  approach. &quot;And said unto him, &lt;em&gt;Where art thou?&lt;/em&gt;&quot; Not as if ignorant of&#xA;  Adam's hiding-place, but to &lt;strong&gt;bring him to confession&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can't play a hide-and-seek game with God (Hebrews 4:13) because He is omnipresent(Psalm 139:8). God demanded confession from Adam. God also wanted to continue the fellowship even though Adam tried to avoid Him. God was seeking Adam because God still loved him despite his disobedience . God wanted to help Adam and Eve on how to cover their nakedness. Not yet skilled or aware of how to make garments, they tried to cover themselves in vain. God helped them by providing garments of animal skin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where art thou?&lt;/strong&gt; God is always calling us to repent and come to Him. It is our responsibility to response to His call and confess all our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 3:20 (NKJV)&lt;/em&gt; Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If&#xA;  anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and&#xA;  dine with him, and he with Me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-17T09:40:48.297" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T09:40:48.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17654" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17687" CreationDate="2013-07-17T11:30:21.463" Score="8" ViewCount="5994" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was the fall &lt;strong&gt;initiated&lt;/strong&gt; by a transgression of faith, because man trusted the word of the serpent more than the word of God, or was it a transgression of God’s law (an act of disobedience)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do different denominations vary on how they answer this question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-13T19:14:36.007" LastActivityDate="2015-09-13T19:14:36.007" Title="What caused the Fall of Mankind?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1083" CreationDate="2013-07-17T13:24:43.420" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Verse 6 gives the answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. (Genesis 11:6, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that point. mankind was not ready to deal with the intricacies of statecraft and the management of cities. It would also have meant that mankind would be concentrated in one spot on earth, establishing a huge central government, and only spread out it drips and drabs to the corners of the earth. Instead, it is clear that God meant for man to first populate the whole earth before establishing borders and rulers, instead of the other way round.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4990" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T13:24:43.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17648" CreationDate="2013-07-17T14:14:42.660" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God’s question: “where art thou” certainly proves that man’s position in relationship with God was altered from the original.  Hiding from God does not necessitate that man was physically hiding, but more likely a spiritual hiding.  We know that the &quot;death&quot; God warned against was &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;physical&lt;/em&gt; death because Adam did not immediately die.  Nor was Adam or Eve surprised by this, so one could conclude that they understood “death” in a spiritual form of separation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We mustn’t confine the early Bible accounts to space in time.  Adam &quot;walked&quot; with God, this does not require that God took on physical form and strolled down a path with Adam.  It does however indicate that God and Adam walked in some form (Spiritual/Eternal) together.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-07-17T14:36:46.870" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T14:36:46.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17639" CreationDate="2013-07-17T15:24:08.923" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The TULIP acronym is intended to define the Calvinist position - however it is not intended to define that position relative to non-Christians, it is intended to define it relative to other Christians. It doesn't include doctrines that are considered basic to Christianity, or Protestantism. So you will find no emphasis on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Necessity of faith;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Primacy of Scripture&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Deity of Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Trinity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;among others. All of these would absolutely be considered necessary to be a Calvinist, but would also be believed by the people the Calvinists are looking to distinguish themselves from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-07-18T13:36:02.457" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T13:36:02.457" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17647" CreationDate="2013-07-17T17:42:27.040" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Overall, general accessibility to books was difficult for two of the reasons you mention:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The were extremely expensive to make&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://scribalculture.org/weblog/2010/09/16/the-price-of-a-book-in-the-middle-ages/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt;, we have the report of a book taking four weeks to copy (by hand, of course, and costing &quot;53 shillings.&quot;  At that same point in time, a pig was 10 pence, meaning that one book would have been equivalent to 636 pigs.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise &quot;In Byzantium, annotations from around 900 in the books of Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea, value his copy of Plato at 21 nomismata and Euclid at 14 nomismata (perhaps not including the parchment). Manual workers in Byzantium were paid 6 to 10 nomismata per year.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That should put some perspective on the value of the materials and labor that were involved in making a book prior to the printing press.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Literacy was extremely low&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In England, anyone could avoid prosecution in trial (once anyway), by simply being able to quote Psalm 51.  The thought, derived from Common Law, was that only clergy could read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This graph below shows literacy rates in France in 1700s, and the remarkable shift in literacy.  At the beginning of the graph, note that only 1 in 3 people could read - and this nearly 300 years &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; the invention of the printing press highlights how low literacy would have been.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/8spQe.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, however, there was a practical decision made by the church: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Catholic understanding of intrepretation    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the institution of the church understood that people can misread Scripture.  As such, dogmatic interpretation was reserved to priests.  By focusing on those who could read and were trained to explain the Scriptures, the church imposed a sort of &quot;quality control&quot; on that reading.  This was anathema to the Protestant reformers who subscribed to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4746/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-priesthood-of-all-believers&quot;&gt;the notion of the Priesthood of All Believers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And, don't forget that the Bible was intended to be read aloud&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the books of the Bible were written, the primary intention was that a trained reader would read the words out loud - It was akin to a playback device to be tied to a reader.  Accusing the church of &quot;control&quot; of the Scriptures here would be like saying that the Catholic Church &quot;controlled&quot; sheet music because not everybody could play the piano.  The truth is, reading a book was a skill not many &lt;em&gt;bothered&lt;/em&gt; with.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T14:15:56.243" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17662" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17654" CreationDate="2013-07-17T18:17:13.550" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a common understanding among Christians that Adam and Eve disobeyed God but different groups have different ways of understanding it's role spiritually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Timothy 2:14 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the&#xA;  woman who was deceived and became a sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this verse, it suggests that Eve was the one who was deceived by the serpent. Here is an explanation from &quot;&lt;em&gt;Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Adam was not deceived,.... There is no need to say with&#xA;  interpreters, that he was not deceived first; and that he was not&#xA;  deceived immediately by the serpent, but by Eve; and that he is never&#xA;  said in Scripture to be deceived, as Melchizedek is never said to have&#xA;  a father or mother. The apostle's positive assertion is to be taken&#xA;  without any such limitations or qualifications; &lt;strong&gt;Adam never was&#xA;  deceived at all&lt;/strong&gt;; neither by the serpent, with whom he never conversed;&#xA;  nor by his wife, he knew what he did, when he took the fruit of her,&#xA;  and ate; he ate it not under any deception, or vain imagination, that&#xA;  they should not die, but should be as gods, knowing good and evil. &lt;strong&gt;He&#xA;  took and ate out of love to his wife&lt;/strong&gt;, from a fond affection to her, to&#xA;  bear her company, and &lt;strong&gt;that she might not die alone&lt;/strong&gt;; he knew what he&#xA;  did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of&#xA;  them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and&#xA;  knowledge, without any deception, &lt;strong&gt;his sin was the greater&lt;/strong&gt;: and hereby&#xA;  death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him: but the woman&#xA;  being deceived was in the transgression: and the serpent really&#xA;  beguiled her; she owned it herself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam decided to die along with his wife, this makes him the greater sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; The fall of mankind was initiated by the serpent's deception, followed by Eve who believed it, and finally by Adam who sacrificed his own life to share the same fate of his beloved wife. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This could be a symbol of God's love, who was ready to share our punishment for our sins, who gave His one and only Son, who died on the cross in our stead, bearing all our sins and suffered it's consequences even though He was without sin. Symbolically, Christians are the bride of Jesus Christ, who is also called the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Last Adam&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Adam gave his life for his wife Eve, and in the same manner, Jesus Christ gave his life for his bride, the Church. The only difference is, &lt;strong&gt;while Adam died with his wife but could not save her, Christ saved us through His death&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ephesians 5:25 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved&#xA;  the church and gave himself up for her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Corinthians 15:45(NIV)&lt;/em&gt; So it is written: “The first man Adam became&#xA;  a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-18T06:41:24.777" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T06:41:24.777" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17654" CreationDate="2013-07-17T19:00:11.230" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you could also make a case that the very first thing that went wrong was that Adam and Eve didn't keep the serpent out of the garden. They were to tend and keep the garden. Surely they knew who Satan was and what he was up to. They should have thrown him out of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T19:00:11.230" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17664" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-17T19:25:16.383" Score="9" ViewCount="153" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to TULIP Calvinism grace is &quot;irresistible&quot;.  If grace is irresistible then what role does faith play in salvation and can it still be considered a gift?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T20:38:15.857" Title="Can Grace be irresistible and still be a gift?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17665" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-17T20:08:25.973" Score="13" ViewCount="6870" Body="&lt;p&gt;John makes this startling claim in his first epistle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:7-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 John 4:7-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. &lt;strong&gt;Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I am to take the obvious interpretation of this verse, then I must make one of two conclusions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The act of loving causes us to be born of God, and thus saves us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The act of loving is impossible unless we have been born of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with the first, of course, is that it sets up an alternate, works-based mode of salvation.  This contradicts so much of the Bible, that I think we can immediately rule it out.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second is problematic (albeit, less so), because it claims that non-Christians are incapable of love, or at least makes some distinction between the character of Christian and non-Christian love.  This seems to contradict observation, because (in my view, at least) many non-Christians live just as lovingly and compassionately as many Christians.  I would find it hard to swallow that their love is somehow less authentic than my own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how do we explain this?  What is John getting at exactly, and how do we reconcile it with reality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in answers consistent with the protestant tradition, and particularly answers that are consistent with Arminianism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-07-19T19:53:56.180" LastActivityDate="2018-04-05T21:33:54.150" Title="Does the Bible make a distinction between Christian and secular love?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="11" ClosedDate="2018-04-09T07:12:08.817" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17666" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17673" CreationDate="2013-07-17T20:28:45.030" Score="2" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example, a woman lives in a physically abusive marriage or a teenager lives in an area where a gang determines what they can and can't do. (i.e. - situations that are chronic and very difficult to transcend.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They go to church and hear they need to trust God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should they be trusting that this is what God wants for their life or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can trusting God in these circumstances be justified?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-17T20:57:44.247" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T01:02:49.243" Title="What are Christians trusting God about, when in fallen world circumstance?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-07-20T18:30:57.593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17664" CreationDate="2013-07-17T20:32:14.880" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, salvation can still be considered a gift.  In general, something can be considered a gift if it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is positive/desirable&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is &lt;em&gt;given&lt;/em&gt; rather than earned (otherwise it should be called a wage)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is &lt;em&gt;given&lt;/em&gt; without obligation of repayment (otherwise it should be called a loan)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether a gift can be resisted or not has no bearing on its &quot;giftiness&quot;.  According to Calvinism, faith comes into play as the mode with which we receive the gift of salvation. So, in order to cause us to be saved, God regenerates us and then causes us to have faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The irresistible quality of the process (regeneration and subsequent faith) does not undermine it's &quot;giftiness&quot;.  On the contrary. According to Calvinism, salvation would not be purely a gift if it &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; resistible, because then the act of choosing to not resist the gift could be construed as meritoriously earning it, at least in part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="971" LastEditorUserId="971" LastEditDate="2013-07-17T20:56:13.923" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T20:56:13.923" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17668" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-17T21:32:29.107" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't really want to nominate myself, however I am, since I have yet to see &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/68/mason-wheeler&quot;&gt;Mason&lt;/a&gt; nominate himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have been active on the site basically since it entered open beta, and I care for the questions and answers that have been presented here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the other mods, I would work on clearing flags and all that other stuff. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But mostly I'm applying because of my historical knowledge and my knowledge base. I tend to frequent the same tags as Mason (especially the LDS tag). While I don't think that that should be all you consider, I do think that that particular tag takes... extra care since there is so much miss-information out there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally I participate heavily in the SE meta and &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/186894/181695&quot;&gt;have even stepped up&lt;/a&gt; when C.SE has been in question. My answer there is pretty much exactly how I would moderate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="432" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2014-04-23T13:45:28.603" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T21:32:29.107" CommentCount="1" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-17T21:32:29.107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17669" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-17T22:02:57.603" Score="15" ViewCount="8429" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholic doctrine, a saint has to (a) be “a dead person” and (b) be “in Heaven”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How is someone deemed a saint? The pope canonizes a dead person who has lived a life of heroic virtue and has performed a posthumous miracle in addition to the miracle required for beatification.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2222/214&quot;&gt;Peter Turner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Being in Heaven is the definition of a ‘capital-S’ Saint.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2234/214&quot;&gt;Ethel Evans&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, a saint may be an angel, though this is a different “category” of saint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Angels, like Saint Michael, may be called Saints but aren’t in quite the same category as human believers.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sub&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17643/214&quot;&gt;James T.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is an angelic saint? Are all angels saints, or just some of them? How is this determined?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can see one possible solution: All angels are in Heaven, and are therefore saints (per Ethel Evans), but they are not ‘deemed’ as saints (or, not canonized), because (per Peter Turner) they are not dead. They are therefore a different ‘category’ of saint (per James T.). This makes sense to me, but is it valid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="214" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2016-01-23T19:19:37.173" Title="According to Catholic doctrine, how can an angel be a saint?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17670" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-17T23:22:39.330" Score="6" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there biblical support to suggest that it is our Christian duty to vote, or be involved in deciding our governments actions, or to choose a certain party for election, etc...? Is there biblical support to take the opposite stand (ie., &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to vote; &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to be a voice for any particular party?).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5128" LastEditorUserId="16938" LastEditDate="2014-11-10T19:01:31.900" LastActivityDate="2014-11-10T19:01:31.900" Title="Does the Bible require us to vote?" Tags="&lt;politics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-02T06:27:33.527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17671" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17666" CreationDate="2013-07-17T23:41:17.613" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you point out, just saying &quot;trust God&quot; is horribly vague.  Trust him for what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In situations like this, it's important to keep an eternal perspective.  Paul reminds us that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we remember that this life is not about this life, but about preparing us for eternity, the right question becomes easier to ask: &lt;em&gt;&quot;What does God want me to learn from this bad experience?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again from 1 Corinthians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+10:13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 10:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see what it is we're supposed to trust about God: that he has an eternal plan for us, that we're supposed to be progressing and learning and improving, and that he will not allow us to be put in a situation where we are unable to do the right thing.  (This does not mean, of course, that doing what's right will always be easy.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T23:41:17.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17670" CreationDate="2013-07-17T23:46:34.860" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've never found something that would really suggest we have a Christian obligation to take part in politics, or not to take part. As far as voting, democracy is a relatively recent innovation. To whatever extent there was a sense of civic participation and responsibility, it was generally focused on the local community, not the government.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5108" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T23:46:34.860" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17666" CreationDate="2013-07-17T23:53:44.853" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I would get from that (vague) statement is that, in spite of everything that I think is wrong or can't understand, trust that God exists - that I'm not alone.  Trust that as bleak and hopeless as things may seem, that God is still there, even if He doesn't magically make everything perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is much that I think is wrong and can't understand... but I also believe that God does have bigger plans or has a larger view.  I have to trust that, no matter what my pains, fears, or disappointments here are, on a larger scale or a higher plane or however you want to phrase it, God is still watching (over) and will make things right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, I don't know what form &quot;will make things right&quot; will take... it may be as simple as &quot;Welcome home, I know that was hard, but it's all over now.&quot;  And, technically, I don't &quot;KNOW&quot; that it will happen, but I BELIEVE that it will happen.  And that is the &quot;trust&quot; that I put in God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5126" LastActivityDate="2013-07-17T23:53:44.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17674" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17664" CreationDate="2013-07-18T00:07:35.387" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17639/why-is-faith-omitted-as-a-doctrinal-consideration-in-tulip-five-point-calvin&quot;&gt;the answers here&lt;/a&gt; created this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Calvinism the grace is that God gives you faith, which then saves you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are elected to receive that grace &lt;em&gt;without condition&lt;/em&gt;. Nothing you do, could do, have done, or anything to do with you or your actions was weighed in determining your election. That is why is is called unconditional election. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the very definition of a gift. You are receiving something that you do not deserve, nor did you earn, nor will you have to do anything to keep it. You were elected to receive the gift of faith through the grace of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because that grace is irresistible is irrelevant to the fact that is is still a gift that you did not deserve. What you did deserve is death and hellfire. Instead God has poured out His grace on you, which gave you the faith to believe. You have then been saved by faith through His irresistible grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify things, here is the chronology of events:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You are unconditionally elected to receive grace. You did not do anything to deserve or earn this grace. Receiving it was by the will of God alone and had nothing to do with you.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God pours that grace upon you. This is the gift. You do not deserve it. It so happens that it is irresistible and you will accept it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The grace of God works in you and builds faith in you. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You then freely and willingly come to God because of that faith within you. You are officially saved by grace through faith.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T20:38:15.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17675" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-18T00:10:36.973" Score="48" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, all the cool kids are doing it, so I may as well nominate myself here as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know I've been less visible than the other mods during the extended beta, but I've definitely been keeping an eye on the community.  I've been active since day 1, and since being chosen by the beta community as a pro-tem moderator, I've tried to be a moderate moderator, as it were, preferring to let community members make their own decisions where possible.  In particular, I like to avoid unilaterally closing posts just because I don't think they're a good fit for the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have, however, taken part quite actively in what I see as the two main functions of a moderator on a site like this: welcoming newbies and showing them the ropes, and protecting the community, dealing with people who make it clear that they don't feel like following our standards of respectful behavior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Together, we (the moderators and the entire community in general) have taken what could have been a real mess of a site and turned it into something surprisingly civil and useful. So, if you like what we've done, vote for me and I'll keep on doing it as best I can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-07-18T00:10:36.973" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T00:10:36.973" CommentCount="2" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-18T00:10:36.973" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17666" CreationDate="2013-07-18T01:02:49.243" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would argue that Hebrews 11:6 answers this question directly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be pendantic about it, God is only pleased when you have faith - i.e. you &quot;trust in God&quot; - and specifically, there are two things that you trust / believe in / mentally assent are true:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That God Exists&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That he rewards people who seek Him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, put possibly even more simply, God wants you to trust that he is the One you should be searching for.  Not money, not power, not your own selfish desires, but Him, and Him alone.  In the same way that Solomon sought wisdom, and God chose to add power, money, and all the desires of his heart, so too, God rewards those who seek God first - who trust that he is the aim for which man was made - and direct their efforts towards reaching him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, as Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fideo is Latin for Trust - it is the root from which we get 'fiduciary.'  When you put your trust in a bank, you are willing to say, &quot;I believe that you will take care of my stuff and return it to me when I need it. I trust you with my very well-being.&quot;  God would demand nothing less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T01:02:49.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17669" CreationDate="2013-07-18T01:22:22.793" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't say for certain, but I can make some &lt;em&gt;inferences.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A saint is someone who has been sanctified. That is, they have been made holy or sacred, or have been purified. This process implies beginning from a state this is something less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angels are beings that exist in Heaven, and have always existed in heaven. This implies that they are without sin, and have been from the time of their creation. It would be impossible to sanctify such a being, because there would be nothing to change. They are already pure. The good news is that this line of reasoning also implies that angels already have sainthood in the ways that matter most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does bring up the case of fallen Angels. I suppose it may be possible for a fallen angel to repent, and then be redeemed and sanctified. It may even have happened... but there is no record of such an event in scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T01:22:22.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17679" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T02:44:12.303" Score="6" ViewCount="2371" Body="&lt;p&gt;I live in Chile, which is a country where 2 of the biggest 5 earthquakes occurred since humans measure earthquakes. The biggest occurred in 1960 and it was 9.6 in Richter scale(the soil cracked and big objects like houses were almost jumping) and the 5th biggest occurred in 2010 and it was 8.8 in Richter scale. The Tsunami produced after the earthquake of 1960 killed people even in other countries like Japan and Hawaii. So, when I read the Book of Revelation and see, for example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a &lt;strong&gt;great&#xA;  earthquake&lt;/strong&gt;. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the&#xA;  whole moon turned blood red,&#xA;  Rev 6:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And others like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar,&#xA;  and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder,&#xA;  rumblings, flashes of lightning and an &lt;strong&gt;earthquake&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  Rev 8:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 At that very hour there was a &lt;strong&gt;severe earthquake&lt;/strong&gt; and a tenth of the&#xA;  city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake,&#xA;  and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.&#xA;  Rev 11:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among others, I wonder about the magnitude of these earthquake, because I have experienced great and severe earthquakes here. The problem is small earthquakes here can be considered as severe and great in other countries. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Do any groups or doctrinal systems provide particulars on how strong of a quake or what kind of increase in quake frequency signifies the end times?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5037" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-07-18T18:36:13.623" LastActivityDate="2014-01-24T00:35:26.703" Title="Magnitude of the earthquakes of the Book of Revelation" Tags="&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17680" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17686" CreationDate="2013-07-18T03:27:35.653" Score="6" ViewCount="99856" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible is made up of &quot;66 smaller books&quot;. God used about &quot;40 faithful men&quot; to write them. According to them, the first five books were written by Moses about 3,500 years ago; the last book was written by the apostle John over 1,900 years ago. God communicated with the Bible writers by means of the holy spirit. They wrote down the thoughts of God, not their own thoughts. So &quot;Jehovah&quot; is the author of the Bible, according to Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who were the 40 faithful men?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2014-09-08T22:58:31.447" LastActivityDate="2015-01-26T18:36:10.433" Title="Who were the 40 men who wrote the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17681" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T03:38:32.407" Score="18" ViewCount="89194" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was foretold that a virgin shall give birth and the new born will be named Emmanuel then why was Jesus named &quot;Yeshua&quot;. (Isaiah 7:10) Please explain... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5129" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-10T01:57:56.547" LastActivityDate="2015-12-17T12:37:45.623" Title="If Jesus was Emmanuel why was he named Yeshua?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17669" CreationDate="2013-07-18T03:52:27.563" Score="8" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/828.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 828&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some angels have been recognized as saints because of their heroic virtue and fidelity to God's grace, and these angels can also fulfill the role of model and intercessor. One particular example is Saint Michael the Archangel, whom we know about from the book of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all angels are saints because not all angels have heroic virtue and fidelity to God's grace. (Fallen angels are an example of this.) Also, while many angels are in heaven, there are few angels who are saints because we do not know enough about them to canonize them. Saint Michael is one of the few angels that we do know a lot about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that while we believe all saints are in heaven, simply being in heaven does not mean that a person is recognized as a saint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5130" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T22:00:12.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17665" CreationDate="2013-07-18T04:16:45.727" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that the natural man cannot love properly, and they hate the Lord and His Church (which is the focus here, cf. &lt;em&gt;&quot;let us love one another&quot;&lt;/em&gt;), only the regenerate by the work of God can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the longer answer I'll give you John Gill's commentary, both on this and 1 John 3:14 which addresses the same issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-john-4-7.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Beloved, let its love one another&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle having finished what he proposed to say concerning the trying of spirits, returns to his former exhortation to brotherly love, and which comes with fresh force and strength; for since worldly men follow, hear, embrace, and cleave to the false teachers; such as are of God, and on the side of truth, should love one another, and their faithful ministers, and stand fast in one spirit by the truths of the Gospel, in opposition to every error:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;for love is of God:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to love one another is the command of God, it is his revealed will, and is well pleasing in his sight; it comes from him, is a gift of his grace, and a fruit of his Spirit, and which he teaches regenerate ones to exercise:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;and everyone that loveth&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, as the Alexandrian copy reads, or Christ, and the saints, who seem to be particularly meant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;is born of God;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for love to the brethren is an evidence of regeneration;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;and knoweth God;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;he knows God in Christ, and therefore loves those who have the grace of God in them, and the image of Christ upon them; he knows the mind and will of God, being taught of God to love the brethren; and he knows the love of God, and has had an experience of the grace of God, which influences him to love the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-john-3-14.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 3:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We know that we have passed from death to life&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a death in sin, a moral or spiritual death; which lies in a separation from God, Father, Son, and Spirit; in an alienation from the life of God; in a loss of the image of God, of righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, in which man was created; in a privation of all true sense of sin, and in a servitude to it, which is unto death, and is no other than death: and from a legal death, or death in a legal sense, under the sentence of which all men are, as considered in Adam; and which God's elect are sensible of, when convinced by the Spirit of God, and are in their own apprehension as dead men. Now in regeneration, which is a quickening of sinners dead in sin, a resurrection of them from the dead, the people of God pass from this death of sin, and the law, to a life of sanctification, having principles of grace and life implanted in them; and to a life of justification, and of faith on Christ, as the Lord their righteousness; and to a life of communion with Christ; and to such a life as is to the glory of Christ; and to a right to eternal life. And this passing from the one to the other is not of themselves, it is not their own act; no man can quicken himself, or raise himself from the dead; in this men are passive: and so the words are rendered in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, &quot;we know that we are translated&quot;; that is, by God the Father, who delivers from the power of darkness, and death, and translates into the kingdom of his dear Son, which is a state of light and life; or by Christ, who is the resurrection and the life, who is the author of the resurrection from the death of sin to a life of grace; or by the Spirit of life from Christ, by whom souls are quickened, and of whom they are born again: and this passage from death to life, or regeneration, is a thing that may be, and is known by the regenerate man; who, as he knows surely, that whereas he was blind he now sees, so that whereas he was dead in sin, he is now alive; and among other things it may be known by this,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;because we love the brethren:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this is not the cause of passing from death to life, but the effect of it, and so an evidence of it, or that by which it is known; brotherly love being what the saints are taught of God in regeneration, and is a fruit of the Spirit of God, and is what true faith works by, and is what shows itself as soon as anything in a regenerate man; nor can anyone love the saints, as such, as brethren in Christ, unless he is born again; a man may indeed love a saint, as a natural relative, as a good neighbour, and because he has done him some good offices, and because of some excellent qualities in him, as a man of learning, sense, candour, civility though he has not the grace of God; but to love him as a child of God, a member of Christ, and because he has his image stamped on him, no man can do this, unless he has received the grace of God; so that this is a certain evidence of it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;he that loveth not [his] brother, abideth in death;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in the death of sin, in a state of nature and unregeneracy; under the sentence of condemnation and death; and he is liable to eternal death, which is the wages of sin, under the power of which such a manifestly is. This is said to deter from hatred, as also what follows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="305" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T04:16:45.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17684" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17681" CreationDate="2013-07-18T04:55:47.737" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me use verses from Old Testament and New Testament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 7:14 (NIV) - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 1:23 (NIV) - “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Aramaic, it must be noted that Immanuel is written as &amp;quot;Ammanueil&amp;quot; (Aramaic form of Hebrew name &amp;quot;Immanuel&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 1:25, we see the naming of the child which is &amp;quot;Yeshua&amp;quot; in Aramaic (in English &amp;quot;Jesus&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe Aramaic name &amp;quot;Yeshua&amp;quot; can mean &amp;quot;YA has equated.&amp;quot; YA (in Aramaic OT and Aramaic NT) is the Aramaic form of Hebrew &amp;quot;YH&amp;quot; in &amp;quot;YHWH.&amp;quot; Because of this, Hebrew name &amp;quot;Yehochanan&amp;quot; is &amp;quot;Yochanan&amp;quot; in Aramaic. Another example is Hebrew name &amp;quot;Yehonathan&amp;quot; is &amp;quot;Yonathan&amp;quot; in Aramaic. For Respect, &amp;quot;YA&amp;quot; is addressed as &amp;quot;MarYA&amp;quot; (Master YA) in Aramaic OT and Aramaic NT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I learned, YA has equated (Yeshua) the mankind by becoming a human being. Through this, God is with us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-07-09T14:59:22.080" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17670" CreationDate="2013-07-18T05:13:00.107" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is actually a question I asked at my church during the last election season.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll break this down into 2 parts&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Voting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see any scriptural support for or against it. I reject the notion that it is a sin not to vote, as I haven't heard any sound scriptural evidence. I have heard people use &quot;Pray for your leaders&quot; (1 Tim 2:2) and &quot;Submit to authority (Romans 13). But the reason we pray for our leaders is because &quot;it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for submission to authority, until it is illegal to not vote, we are ok.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see this as a matter of conscience. Romans 14:23b - &quot;For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.&quot; and Romans 14:5 - &quot;Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is good to vote, it is a privilege, but there are times when your conscience will not let you vote for any of the choices, because each person represents something ungodly, that's ok too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Party Affiliations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When has any one political party totally held to exclusively biblical view points? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isn't it hypocritical to vote in a person because they stand for your beliefs but they themselves cheat on their wife? How does this glorify God? We put people in office to uphold a moral standard, but they themselves don't care to keep it. I think this actually does more harm than good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 2, describes those who are in position to judge others, but they don't do what they demand of others. This is the same complaint Jesus had against the Pharisees. Are we really doing God a service by voting for people that cater to us, when they don't live like us? Rom 2:24 in the context of hypocrisy - &quot;For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Referring to 1 Tim 2:2, we pray for them not so they can merely &lt;em&gt;act&lt;/em&gt; Christian, but so they can &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; Christian. Can the unsaved be spiritually minded? Can they obey the Spirit(1 Cor 2:14)? They are still slaves to the flesh (Rom 6:15-23). The unsaved will always reject biblically guided laws, because it is foolishness to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The greatest way to spread Biblical views is still the great Commission, Matt 28:18-20. My main caution is... yeah let's vote, but let's make sure we don't replace evangelism with political activism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T05:13:00.107" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17680" CreationDate="2013-07-18T05:56:21.377" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 40-author count is not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, so I'll provide the names of the forty commonly-accepted authors. Note that the authorship of some books (Hebrews, for example) is debated, so the number and names vary slightly depending on which scholars you ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Moses&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joshua &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Samuel &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ezra&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jeremiah &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nehemiah &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mordecai &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sons of Korah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Asaph&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heman&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ethan&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hezekiah&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;David &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Solomon &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Agur  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lemuel  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isaiah &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ezekiel  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Daniel  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hosea  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Joel  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Amos &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Obadiah  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jonah  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Micah  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nahum  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Habakkuk  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zephaniah  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Haggai  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Zechariah &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Malachi  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mark  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;James  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Peter &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jude&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it&quot;&gt;When was the Bible written and who wrote it?&lt;/a&gt; for a matchup of names to books, along with approximate dates of authorship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="407" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T05:56:21.377" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17654" CreationDate="2013-07-18T06:06:05.607" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eve was deceived by the serpent about the nature of God and the results of the sin. God was basically called a liar by satan because he said that God didn't want them to eat of the tree because they would be like Him (Gen 3:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once satan broke the trust that Eve had for God (she now believed that God had deceived her), it allowed her to disobey. So the broken trust she had for God started the process. However, it was the disobedience that finished it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Had she for instance waited till God came back to the garden and asked a few questions like &quot;who is this serpent&quot; she would have found out the truth and as long as she (and Adam) didn't disobey she would've been fine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd say her problem was she didn't have enough faith and patience to wait for God's answer, she also started to desire the fruit, which obviously also clouded her judgement, so just plain old temptation in effect there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you combine lack of faith and temptation, you will most likely get disobedience and sin as a result. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure about any denominational variances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T06:06:05.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17665" CreationDate="2013-07-18T06:06:46.737" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Taking a simple definition of love as 'desiring actual good for someone because you care for their actual happiness', we can see that love arising from faith, is different in nature to secular love.&lt;/strong&gt;    Here are some of the differences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Faith brings light and knowledge upon what is &lt;em&gt;actual good&lt;/em&gt;, therefore it produces the desire of true good for others. Secular love may seek evil for others, through ignorance, although accompanied by human affection. For example, a wife might not want her husband to go to church and worship God (which is for his actual good) because in her ignorance she denies the value of it. She loves him and would rather that he stay home to his personal harm.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Faith produces love for God by believing in his love for us. Therefore the love that springs from faith, &lt;em&gt;seeks to enjoy the highest good (God)&lt;/em&gt; and out of that spring, seeks good for men. Human love has self as it's goal, or at least just a few humans under the title friends and family, which is in many ways just an extension of our self-identity.  Although human affection can make someone care deeply for another and be attended with many sacrifices, like a Mother over her infant, there is no higher spiritual motive and spring lifting those emotions onto a higher ground, having a higher object that arouses them, namely the glory and goodness of God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The love produced by faith endures and &lt;em&gt;can't be defeated&lt;/em&gt;.  Human love often fails. Two people deeply in love hate one another a few years later.  Christian love continues and endures as it is accompanied with holiness and so can't be smothered forever in anger, jealousy, ambition, greed, etc. Rather in suffering and loss it often flutters with more peace, patience and inhuman endurance, growing more and more gracious as it lives under the awe of God's glory.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Love arising from faith is a fruit of a &lt;em&gt;spiritual life&lt;/em&gt; by the direct working of the Holy Spirit in those whose hearts are filled with him.  Therefore there is a spiritual loving influence that animates human affections within a Christian so that the fragrance of Christ is an accompanying aroma into the love of a Christian.  The spiritual element is a communion with God whereby his divine loving nature brings the heat of his light into our emotions, so that our deepest yearnings become loving desires that are inexpressible even as our own sinful nature opposes that inward yearning of love.  Human love has no additional sense of a spiritual holy realm diffusing it's life into ours.  Human love is often mixed with the unholiest of passions and appetites within hearts driven about by their lusts like wild animals. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christian love causes actions not just sentiments. And this from faith, not mere self righteousness and a desire for the respect and love of others.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On each of the points I have raised I could add many biblical quotes but I did not want to create a thesis paper here, I had a feeling you are just looking for some overall concepts to divide the two.  But to leave a couple verses that illuminate principles above a bit let me just leave a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even as a believer human love is not that great:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (NIV, Matthew 7:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human affection can go quite far, but still be secretly selfish based love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 13:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Spirit produces Christian love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, etc. (NIV, Galatians 5:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before we were Christian we actually all hated one another because we did not desire eternal salvation for anyone, nor did we desire the only great and good life in God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. (NIV, Titus 3:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could go on on on separating love produced by the Spirit and mere human affection, but I am sure we can start to see the diference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-07-18T15:27:15.627" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T15:27:15.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17689" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16053" CreationDate="2013-07-18T06:17:22.353" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ said to his disciples that &lt;strong&gt;the Sign&lt;/strong&gt; of Son of Man will appear in the sky (Matthew 24:30). Jesus Christ said that the son of Man will come in clouds &lt;strong&gt;with great power and glory (Mark 13:26)&lt;/strong&gt;. Jesus Christ said that the Son of Man will come with &lt;strong&gt;all the angels with him&lt;/strong&gt; (Matthew 25:31). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that the destruction of Jerusalem and his second coming will happen in the generation of his disciples (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) - &quot;This generation shall not pass until all these things happened.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Generation is 40 years in Bible. Here are some examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers 32:13 (ESV) - And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 1:34-36 (ESV) - And the Lord heard your words and was angered, and he swore, ‘Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land that I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh. He shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land on which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the Lord!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 95:10 (ESV) - For forty years I loathed that generation and said, “They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 3:9-10 (ESV) - Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Israelites wandered 40 years in the wilderness (Ex. 16:35; Deut. 2:7), in which time an entire generation died out (Num. 14:33; 32:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 13:36 (ESV) - For David, after he had served the purpose of God in &lt;strong&gt;his own generation&lt;/strong&gt;, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Samuel 5:4 (ESV)- &quot;David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned &lt;strong&gt;forty years&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that Jerusalem was destroyed within the generation Jesus taught (AD 30-70). So all of the prophecies were fulfilled in that generation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, People in Judea saw the chariots and soldiers in their armor running about among the clouds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This incident in the sky was recorded by Josephus and Tacitus who lived during that period. This was also later recorded by Church Historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, Latin Document Pseudo Hegesippus, and Jewish History Document called &quot;Sepher Yosippon.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the informations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus (Jewish Wars)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:289 (6.5.3.289) Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:290 (6.5.3.290) Thus also, before the Jews’ rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan], and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which light lasted for half an hour. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:291 (6.5.3.291) This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:296 (6.5.3.296) So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar], &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:297 (6.5.3.297) a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:298 (6.5.3.298) and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, &lt;strong&gt;before sunsetting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:299 (6.5.3.299) &lt;strong&gt;running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities&lt;/strong&gt;. Moreover at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, &#xA;Jewish War 6:300 (6.5.3.300) and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, &quot;Let us remove hence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tacitus, Histories, Book 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Prodigies had occurred, which this nation, prone to superstition, but hating all religious rites, did not deem it lawful to expiate by offering and sacrifice. &lt;strong&gt;There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies&lt;/strong&gt;, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing. At the same instant there was a mighty stir as of departure. Some few put a fearful meaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 8, Section 4-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself.&#xA;And not many days after the feast, on the twenty-first of the month Artemisium, (97) a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of such signs. &lt;strong&gt;For before the setting of the sun, chariots and armed troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And at the feast which is called Pentecost, when the priests entered the temple at night, as was their custom, to perform the services, they said that at first they perceived a movement and a noise, and afterward a voice as of a great multitude, saying, ‘Let us go hence.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pseudo-Hegesippus, Chapter 44. (Translated from the Latin by Wade Blocker. This excerpt taken from the Latin edited by Vincente Ussani):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Also after many days a certain figure appeared of tremendous size, which many saw, just as the books of the Jews have disclosed, and before the setting of the sun there were suddenly seen in the clouds chariots and armed battle arrays, by which cities of all Judaea and its territories were invaded&lt;/strong&gt;. Moreover in the celebration itself of the Pentecost the priests entering the interior of the temple at night time, that they might celebrate the usual sacrifices, assered themselves at first to have a felt a certain movement and a sound given forth, afterwards even to have heard shouted in a sudden voice &quot;we cross over from here.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sepher Yosippon&quot; is a 10th century historical Jewish document written in Hebrew that mentions about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Sefer Josippon also mentions about the vision of soldiers and chariots in the sky which we read in Josephus' Jewish Wars, Tacitus's Histories, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, and Latin Document &quot;Pseudo Hegesippus.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sepher Yosippon (A Medieval History of Ancient Israel) translated from the Hebrew by Steven B. Bowman. Excerpts from Chapter 87 &quot;Burning of the Temple&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Moreover, in those days were seen chariots of fire and horsemen, a great force flying across the sky near to the ground coming against Jerusalem and all the land of Judah, all of them horses of fire and riders of fire&lt;/strong&gt;. When the holiday of Shavu'oth came in those days, during the night the priests heard within the Temple something like the sound of men going and the sound of men marching in a multitude going into the Temple, and a terrible and mighty voice was heard speaking: &quot;Let's go and leave this House.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People usually ask what does chariots and soldiers in the sky have to do with sign of Son of Man and the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some examples. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 4:13 (KJV) – &quot;Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 66:15 (KJV) – &quot;For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 2:11 (KJV) - And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 6:17 (KJV) - And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zachariah 6:1-6 (KJV) - &quot;And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass. In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses; And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grisled and bay horses. Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth. The black horses which are therein go forth into the north country; and the white go forth after them; and the grisled go forth toward the south country.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other verses in the Bible that involve God and his chariots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This vision in the sky and the fall of Jerusalem (which includes the destruction of temple) happened between 30 AD - 70 AD (40 years). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 1:3 (NIV) - &quot;Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We read that the time is near. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 1:7 (NIV) - &quot;Look, he is coming with the clouds,&quot; and &quot;every eye will see him, even those who pierced him&quot;; and all peoples on earth &quot;will mourn because of him.&quot; So shall it be! Amen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We read that &lt;strong&gt;every eye will see him even those who pierced him&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take a notice &quot;He is coming with the clouds&quot; in Revelation 1:7 and read Jeremiah 4:13 (Mentioned above).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The generation of Jews during the time of Jesus was an extremely evil generation. We see Jesus calling them &quot;wicked (or sinful) and adulterous generation.&quot; (Matthew 12:39, Matthew 16:4, Mark 8:38, etc.). We also see Jesus calling people in that generation that their father is devil (John 8:44) due to their evil nature. We also see Both Jesus Christ and John the Baptist calling them &quot;offspring of vipers&quot; (Matthew 23, Luke 3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Priest Josephus agrees with Jesus on the wickedness of that generation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I shall therefore speak my mind here at once briefly: — that neither did any other city suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world.&quot; (Jewish Wars V, 10:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jewish Wars Book Six, Chapter 9, Paragraph 3, we read that 1.1 million people died and 97,000 people were taken as prisoners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information, check this link under Preterism - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Second_coming_of_jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Second_coming_of_jesus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2014-02-24T23:08:40.360" LastActivityDate="2014-02-24T23:08:40.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17690" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T06:35:11.507" Score="3" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Christ comes and our loved ones are raptured up, will we have no memory of them. I struggle with the idea that my child won't recognize or remember me or I her. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5131" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-18T12:35:12.383" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T12:35:12.383" Title="Will we not recognize our loved ones?" Tags="&lt;rapture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-07-18T12:42:18.743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17690" CreationDate="2013-07-18T06:46:54.260" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ said that he will come back in the generation of his disciples (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). I wrote the details about it here (check my post).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16053/how-will-jesus-be-recognized-at-the-time-of-second-coming&quot;&gt;How will Jesus be recognized at the time of &amp;quot;Second Coming&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have now access to the kingdom of God after we die. After we die, we will be like angels in heaven exactly like Jesus taught Saduccees in Matthew 22. I am sure you will recognize your child just like the disciples recognized Moses and Elijah in transfiguration. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T06:57:44.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17700" PostTypeId="6" CreationDate="2013-07-18T12:46:01.613" Score="25" Body="&lt;p&gt;Greetings &lt;a href=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Stantheman.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;true believers&lt;/a&gt;, I wanted to be an austere super awesome user on the site; one who is too cool for moderatorship. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would treat each post with an objective test for worthiness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Questions (and answers) must have a firm doctrinal basis&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Questions must apply to situations in which two or more persons are affected.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Answers must come from within the doctrinal framework of the question.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to see us require a doctrinal framework to be tagged on every single question.  I wouldn't ban &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/biblical-basis&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'biblical-basis'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;biblical-basis&lt;/a&gt; but I would like to see it 99% of the time tied to &lt;a href=&quot;/questions/tagged/protestantism&quot; class=&quot;post-tag&quot; title=&quot;show questions tagged 'protestantism'&quot; rel=&quot;tag&quot;&gt;protestantism&lt;/a&gt; or thereabouts.  See, I think I've been the most consistent Catholic on the site (I'm user #4 and the first to get a silver badge) and I've answered broad questions using resources from my Church and not just my opinions, but my answers don't get the recognition of a from-the-heart biblical answer. I want fix that and open the site up to more piercing questions that help us find out what we really want to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-07-26T18:37:24.313" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T18:37:24.313" CommentCount="8" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-18T12:46:01.613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17701" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17703" CreationDate="2013-07-18T12:59:19.853" Score="15" ViewCount="25787" Body="&lt;p&gt;Vegetarianism seems to becoming more and more popular in various parts of the world today.  Some even claim that Christians should be vegetarians to be in line with the command against killing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, then, is the biblical argument in support of eating meat?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-18T14:15:04.080" LastActivityDate="2014-10-10T21:01:18.543" Title="What is the biblical argument for eating meat, or that vegetarianism is possible but not commanded?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17702" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17701" CreationDate="2013-07-18T12:59:52.933" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God's Endorsement of Eating Meat&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, God specifically ordained that man could eat meat, starting after the flood.  The only prohibition in this was to drain the blood:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you&lt;/strong&gt;. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.  But you shall not eat &lt;strong&gt;flesh&lt;/strong&gt; with its life, that is, its blood.  Genesis 9:3-4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the Exodus, God sent quail into the camp to provide the Israelites with meat to eat:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the evening &lt;strong&gt;quail&lt;/strong&gt; came up and covered the camp, and in the morning dew lay around the camp. Exodus 16:13 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, the Passover was a feast that every Jewish person was under obligation to observe once a year in which they ate the meat of a lamb, so God, once again, ordained and commanded the eating of meat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall &lt;strong&gt;take a lamb&lt;/strong&gt; according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household.  Exodus 12:3 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vegetarianism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the Fall and perhaps up until the flood as well, it is true that mankind was enjoined to eat only vegetables, but that was a temporary command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.   Genesis 1:29 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego did not eat meat during their captivity in Babylon, but that was more likely due to either what kind of meat it was or how it was prepared--perhaps unclean animals that were not kosher for Jews. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17574/why-did-daniel-consider-the-allotment-of-food-and-wine-to-be-wrong-for-him-to-ea&quot;&gt;Why did Daniel consider the allotment of food and wine to be wrong for him to eat?&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.  Daniel 1:8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What Jesus Ate&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Jesus Himself ate meat, as He observed the Passover meal with His disciples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he said to them, “&lt;strong&gt;I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you&lt;/strong&gt; before I suffer.  Luke 22:15 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On other occasions, He ate fish as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They gave &lt;strong&gt;him&lt;/strong&gt; [Jesus] a piece of broiled &lt;strong&gt;fish&lt;/strong&gt;, and he took it and ate before them.  Luke 24:42-43 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paul's Instructions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most applicable passage, though, is perhaps found in Romans 14.  In this passage, Paul address the issue of eating meat that had been sacrificed to false gods.  Paul affirms that there is nothing wrong with eating meat, and it is the weaker brother who eats only vegetables in fear that eating meat would be wrong.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while &lt;strong&gt;the weak person eats only vegetables&lt;/strong&gt;. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.  Romans 14:1-4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, the Bible does not prescribe vegetarianism at all, but records that God actually gave meat to mankind for consumption.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T14:22:11.290" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17703" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17701" CreationDate="2013-07-18T15:39:45.737" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two really clear indications about eating meat in the bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.  &#xA;  8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any&#xA;  time entered into my mouth.  9 But the voice answered me again from&#xA;  heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.   10 And&#xA;  this was done &lt;strong&gt;three times&lt;/strong&gt;: and all were drawn up again into heaven.&#xA;  Acts 11:7-10, KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when Jesus died in the cross and fulfilled all the prophecies, He gave us freedom to choose what to eat, because it is impossible for the humans to fulfil the whole law. Jesus said this not only once, but 3 times to make this totally clear. Jesus also said another thing about this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and&#xA;  understand:   11  Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man;&#xA;  but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.&#xA;  Matthew 15:11, KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, this is not about eating meat or vegetables, it's about the attitude of the heart. From a Christian point of view, if you eat meat or vegetables you aren't sinning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5037" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T15:39:45.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17357" CreationDate="2013-07-18T15:40:36.023" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You identify yourself as a secular humanist raised in a deeply religious society.  Therefore I will answer your question with that understanding.  I am a Christian with no denominational leanings.  I do however believe the Bible is God’s word to His children, therefore my response will be non-denominational yet Bible based.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews had many names for God but “Father” was not predominantly one of them.  The Jews identified themselves as “Children of Abraham” not the children of God.  So when Jesus identified Himself as the “only begotten of the Father” this was revolutionary and the Pharisees understood the claim to be blasphemous.&#xA; John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ stood before Pilate he did not recant this perspective.  He could have very easily said, “Hey, I just meant that God is like a father to me and I am like a son to him”, but he did not, Christ went to the cross claiming to be the “only begotten of the Father”.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A phrase search in the KJV of “I can do nothing” yields three matches, all three are quotes from Christ.  In two verses Christ is speaking of Himself in relationship to his Father and in the third (John 15:5) Christ is speaking in regard to His followers in relationship with himself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 5:19   Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because &lt;strong&gt;I seek not mine own will&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;but the will of the Father&lt;/strong&gt; which hath sent me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus is told that His biological family was waiting for Him He said: “whosoever shall do the &lt;strong&gt;will of my Father&lt;/strong&gt; which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:50).   Son-ship to Christ centered on the “will” of God the Father being made manifest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ instructs us to pray “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. &lt;strong&gt;Thy will be done&lt;/strong&gt;, as in heaven, so in earth”. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 13 …born, not of blood, nor of the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of the flesh, nor of the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of man, &lt;strong&gt;but of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the manifest-will of God the Father born of the Holy Spirit.  This is evident in the role of Christ in creation: &#xA;Ephesians 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, &lt;strong&gt;who created all things by Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;; &#xA;Colossians 1:16 For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: &lt;strong&gt;all things were created by him&lt;/strong&gt;, and for him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Jesus is the first-fruit, the image of the invisible God, and the offspring of the will of God the Father.  Jesus is the “only begotten of the Father” the eternal reproduction of the will of God the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-07-26T19:27:44.303" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T19:27:44.303" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17705" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-18T16:06:39.837" Score="2" ViewCount="480" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romans 4:16 says:  Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this verse it appears that “faith” enables “grace”.  The case could be made that the initial breach with God was one of  ”faith”, mankind placed their faith in the &quot;word&quot; of the serpent rather than in the Word of God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Also Acts 14:27 speaks of “the door of faith”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question: Is there any early church teachings which link “the door of faith”, in which mankind exited a relationship with God to the “door of faith” wherein mankind enters into a relationship with God?  And does &quot;faith&quot; enable a loving relationship? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-07-18T18:49:43.317" LastActivityDate="2013-07-19T17:29:36.533" Title="Does &quot;faith&quot; enable &quot;love&quot;?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17681" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:08:01.020" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 1:1 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 1:14 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who&#xA;  came from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the Word of God, who himself is God, who became flesh and made his dwelling among us, hence, the meaning, &quot;&lt;em&gt;God with us&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Isaiah 7:14 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The&#xA;  virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him&#xA;  Immanuel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 1:23 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son,&#xA;  and they will call him Immanuel”(which means “&lt;strong&gt;God with us&lt;/strong&gt;”).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice here that Isaiah simply gave the name but Matthew gave us the meaning of the name Immanuel as &quot;&lt;em&gt;God with us&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. Isaiah also gave other names for the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Isaiah 9:6 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,&#xA;  and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called&#xA;  Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Immanuel was not the only name predicted by Isaiah, it has to do with the attributes of the Messiah. Literally, Jesus Christ is the meaning of Immanuel, God who dwelled among us, who became human, hence the title &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Son of Man&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 26:63-64 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said&#xA;  to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are&#xA;  the Messiah, the &lt;em&gt;Son of God&lt;/em&gt;.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But&#xA;  I say to all of you: From now on you will see the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Son of Man&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; sitting&#xA;  at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of&#xA;  heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T18:08:01.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17709" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17712" CreationDate="2013-07-18T18:47:54.357" Score="6" ViewCount="5224" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah 7:14, the prophet foretells that a virgin will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel, which means &quot;God with us&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name &lt;strong&gt;Immanuel&lt;/strong&gt;.  Isaiah 7:14 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 1:22-23 references this prophecy and indicates that it was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).  Matthew 1:22-23 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is understood by many that Immanuel was not intended to be a proper name, but to be a title or description.  What is the basis for this understanding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2017-05-04T19:43:24.550" Title="Why is the term Immanuel/Emmanuel considered to be a title rather than a proper name?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17679" CreationDate="2013-07-18T19:05:57.947" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Seventh Day Adventist Church*, there is no shortage of making connections to real historical events and the seals and other events in Revelation. Particular to your question, the SDA church has made connections to real earthquakes (and other &quot;cosmic events&quot;) and a few of the seals. With that, we can infer &quot;how big&quot; the earthquake should be, or rather, was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adventists have an historic view of eschatology. That means that they think the book of Revelation is a prophetic record of the entire history of the Church from its writing to the Second Coming of Christ. They also believe that seals represent an era in Christian history; they are not exact, shortly executed events (typically). So they do have some opinions on actual historical earthquakes being events that Revelation was indeed talking about. These events are often quoted to show that a certain point in history was in a particular seal era.&lt;sup&gt;see video Source 1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among them are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake&quot;&gt;1755 Lisbon Earthquake&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England%27s_Dark_Day&quot;&gt;New England's Dark Day of 1780&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonids&quot;&gt;A meteor shower in 1833&lt;/a&gt;. [&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology#Cosmic_signs&quot;&gt;Wikipedia source&lt;/a&gt;] &lt;sup&gt;see video Source 2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now the Lisbon Earthquake is estimated at about 8.7 magnitude.&lt;/strong&gt; The Lisbon Earthquake, by measure of how many people and lands were affected, was certainly no small event; countless people were affeted by it and tens of thousands perished because of it. It was a massive earthquake no matter where you live and what you are used to. &lt;strong&gt;With this in mind, you might infer that the SDA would say that a &quot;massive earthquake&quot; should be in this range.&lt;/strong&gt;  However, to SDA's, it is not necessarily the severity of the event itself that signal the event as a &quot;cosmic sign&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;cosmic sign&quot; is better recognized by people's reaction to it. In general, they look to see if the event caused a turning to God (out of fear). The Adventists quickly recognize that the time frame they mark as the era of the 6th seal was also a time of heightened religious interest. Some of those eras are called by secular historians The Enlightenment and also the Great Awakening. &lt;sup&gt;see video Source 4 &amp;amp; 6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Video Sources&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was lucky enough to find &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es11gZd3uVg&quot;&gt;this lecture on YouTube&lt;/a&gt; that supports what I have said about SDA doctrine and belief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Starting about 14 minutes in: &quot;The seals are a countdown to God [The Second Comming]&quot;. He describes the seals as eras.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Starting about 17 minutes in: He Justifies that the 6th seal cannot be an instanteaneou event.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Starting about 20 minutes in: The speaker just finished reminding the listeners that the &quot;time, times, and half a time&quot; from Daniel is the Dark Ages Church, which they say officailly ended its reign in 1798 (according to SDA's) then says that they should begin seeing the signs described in the sixth seal. He then explicitly states the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 as on of the signs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Starting about 25 minutes in: Mentions that people ran to the Churches for protection during the Lisbon Earthquake, but perished anyway. He then begins to discuss New England's Dark Day.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Starting about 30 minutes in: He beings to discuss the Lionid Showers in 1833.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Starting about 32 minutes in: He says that the opening of the 6th seal was a time during which people's religious interests were excited and awakened (The Enlightment). Also, he states explicitly that the 6th seal was not an instantaneous event.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Starting about 35 minutes in: He mentions an earthquake in Chile (thought you might be personally interested).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://greenwichadventist.org.uk/index.php?option=com_sermonspeaker&amp;amp;view=sermon&amp;amp;id=10002&quot;&gt;Additional lecture source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Disclaimer: The SDA is quite unique in a great deal of it's doctrines, especially eschatology. The greater portion of Christianity would either disagree with the above or weigh in no opinion at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-07-18T19:37:13.200" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T19:37:13.200" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17709" CreationDate="2013-07-18T20:28:31.853" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are certainly many names and titles by which the Messiah is called. As well as &quot;Emmanuel&quot;, Isaiah has in 9:6 (ESV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For to us a child is born,&#xA;      to us a son is given;&#xA;  and the government shall be upon his shoulder,&#xA;      and his name shall be called&#xA;  Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,&#xA;      Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aquinas says (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4037.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 3.37.2 ad 1&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which means &quot;salvation.&quot; For the name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is &quot;God with us,&quot; designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son of God, the result of which union was that &quot;God is with us.&quot; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He therefore sees no real contradiction, since both names/titles are apt ways to speak about the same person. (He does not distinguish here between a name and a title, though he of course acknowledges that &quot;Jesus&quot; is the proper name of Jesus.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Calvin (&lt;em&gt;Commentariorium in Isaiam prophetam&lt;/em&gt;) investigates the meaning of &quot;and (she) shall call&quot; (וְקָרָ֥את) in the Hebrew text of Isaiah. He asserts that the giving of a name, in Hebrew custom, was reserved to the father, and so since it is the mother who is doing the calling here, she must be doing something other than giving the child its regular everyday name. Calvin says she is announcing it like a herald (&lt;em&gt;in hoc nomine promulgando, virginem fore instar praeconis&lt;/em&gt;), and it is a designation which is far more splendid than any mere man could have. This all points to it being something other than an ordinary personal name. He further notices (&lt;em&gt;Commentarius in harmoniam evangelicam&lt;/em&gt;) that in Matthew, the verb is &quot;they shall call&quot;, indicating the shared faith of all believers in the fact and purpose of the Incarnation. If we are all doing the calling together, then it sounds a lot less like the bestowing of a personal name, and a lot more like the recognition of the nature of Jesus, in the form of calling him by a particular special title.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;in omnibus illis nominibus quodammodo significatur hoc nomen Iesus, quod est significativum salutis. Nam in hoc quod dicitur Emmanuel, quod interpretatur, nobiscum Deus, designatur causa salutis, quae est unio divinae et humanae naturae in persona filii Dei, per quam factum est ut Deus esset nobiscum.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-07-18T20:28:31.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17669" CreationDate="2013-07-19T04:52:38.900" Score="7" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Whether Angels can be considered Saints&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 1.&lt;/b&gt; It would seem that angels cannot be numbered among the Saints because during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the one presiding says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...all the Angels and Saints&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and furthermore, at benediction the one presiding says (and the people respond):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So these would seem to be two separate groups of people&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 2.&lt;/b&gt; Further, the Holy Church has shown throughout Salvation History that she only canonizes those who have died in the Grace of God. Angels have no capacity for death and therefore cannot be canonized as such. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Objection 3.&lt;/b&gt; Further, Holy Mother Church makes a distinction between those whom she knows, through:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;objective means (posthumous miracles) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;through her own power of binding and loosing (as is the case with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XXIII#Beatification_and_canonization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Pope John XXIII&lt;/a&gt;) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;by right of dying specifically for Christ (martyrdom). In this case one does not have the ability to recant the grace freely given. This makes their death the sacrifice &quot;beyond which there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A13&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;no greater love&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;On the Contrary&lt;/b&gt; the Catholic Church, which apparently is the arbiter of who is numbered among the Saints, has consistently referred to the angels as Saints. &lt;a href=&quot;http://morgabriel.org/news.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mor Gabriel Monestary&lt;/a&gt; is one of the oldest surviving Churches in the world, dedicated to St. Gabriel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;I answer that,&lt;/b&gt; the term saint is a qualifier used to &lt;a href=&quot;https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/84837/whats-the-difference-between-hallow-sacred-holy-and-saint&quot;&gt;mean holy&lt;/a&gt; but a canonized Saint is an office, as is Angel.  Angel is a job title meaning &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stlambert.org/RKIA/2-26-12%20Ordination%20and%20Pentecostalism-6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;messenger of God&lt;/a&gt;. Just as a person can be both a computer programmer and a father, one can be an Angel and a Saint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 1&lt;/b&gt; the words used in the sacred liturgies, whereas they are unsurpassed in beauty and reverence, are not, in and of themselves, theological treatises.  Therefore, if you hear Jesus referred to as thrice Holy, that isn't to say He isn't also holy four times over as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 2&lt;/b&gt; It is true that the relatively recently established &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_07021983_norme_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;norms of canonization&lt;/a&gt; are more or less ignored when it comes to Biblical figures, when it comes to those who do not need the grace of Christ's redemption to save them from death, the Ox &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/F6Hde.png&quot; height=&quot;20&quot; /&gt;&#xA; says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now a multitude ordained to one end, with distinct acts and duties, may be metaphorically called one body. But it is manifest that both men and angels are ordained to one end, which is the glory of the Divine fruition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1062.htm#article4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Summa III:62:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and so he lumps us all together in Heaven where Christ is the Head and we all (the Church) are His Body. And so, a thing that separates us from the Angels (the ability to die) does not separate us from becoming Saints any more than it separates Angels from being Saints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Reply to Objection 3.&lt;/b&gt; Lastly, the Church, through Holy Scripture knows which of the Angels clung to the true light (The Trinity) or the false light (Lucifer) because those who clung to the truth are the heroes of the Bible.  St. Raphael aids Tobias on his journey and saves him, his future wife's honor and his father.  St. Michael wrested from Lucifer the body of Moses and preserved the holy man from scorn.  St. Gabriel, best of all, announced the birth of Christ to Mary. But, to even accomplish this task, they must have gotten their orders from God Himself and therefore &quot;merited beatitude&quot; as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1937/4&quot;&gt;the Ox&lt;/a&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/F6Hde.png&quot; height=&quot;20&quot; /&gt;&#xA; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...ultimate beatitude exceeds both the angelic and the human nature. It remains, then, that both man and angel merited their beatitude. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4008.htm#article4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Summa III:8:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:38:10.840" LastActivityDate="2014-05-02T17:01:53.897" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17654" CreationDate="2013-07-19T07:56:00.283" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some interesting points in this thread.  I would agree that not trusting in God or having faith in God is disobedience.  The basic and ultimate proof is Jesus proclaims that you must put your faith in him to inherit salvation.  Now not putting your faith in your only Lord and Savior is the greatest disobedience there is.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another point I was interested in commenting on though was the subject about Adam eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge after Eve because of his love for Eve.  More specifically putting this &quot;love&quot; comparable to Jesus' love for us, (his bride)  I think is interesting but also a bit dangerous.  There are several scriptures that come to mind that makes me feel that it is dangerous to conclude that way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 5&#xA;(ESV) 5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here in John we can read clearly that the Holy Spirit defines Love from the greatest context.  Obeying God is Love and therefore in order to truly love yourself or others, especially a spouse, your love is weighed through the filter of obedience or the lack of obedience to God.  We see this in many scriptures like the one well know verse in Proverbs below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 13:24&#xA;(ESV)24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see that loving yourself or any other person with the love measured at it's ultimate definition takes acting in righteousness.  Not our own but God's righteousness.  That's why we counsel singles to commit to abstinence until they marry because if you find someone you love and want to marry you wouldn't want to do anything to harm them or them to harm themselves.  We know that sinning is harmful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that it is inaccurate to logically conclude that Adam ate the fruit because of his love for Eve and even further more conclude that the Bible teaches that Adam eating the fruit was a greater sin than when Eve ate the fruit.  (I think there are some logical conclusions that we make because the scriptures highly pulls them together but in other areas it is dangerous to logically conclude something that the Bible didn't speak on)  Now there is some truth to the statement about Adam eating the fruit because of his love for Eve.  The bible does speak of another kind of love that has a different premise and therefore a different consequence.  Here are a couple of scriptures that highlight this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Kings 11:1-3&#xA;(ESV) 11 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. 3 He had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart.&#xA;Proverbs 17:19&#xA;(ESV) 19 Whoever loves transgression loves strife; he who makes his door high seeks destruction&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see that there can be sin in our hearts that drives a type of love for our selves and towards others.  The Holy Spirit teaches in 1 Kings that God warned Solomon not to marry foreign pagan women because they would turn his heart away from God but Solomon disobeyed because he loved his sin.  This kind of love is not the same kind of love that God the Holy Spirit teaches about how God the Son loved us by dying for us in order for us to be saved.  He became sin even though he knew no sin but unlike the logical conclusion submitted about Adam disobeying God and eating the fruit (sinning) but not being able to save Eve, Jesus volunteering to die for mankind was an act of obedience to God the Father not disobeying Him.  Therefore expressing the Love in it's ultimate context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly I will end by sharing an example from another person in the bible other than Jesus that shows a love that is endorsed by God.&#xA;Job 2:8-10&#xA;(ESV) 8 And he took a piece of broken pottery with which to scrape himself while he sat in the ashes. 9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.” 10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.&#xA;Job 42:12-13&#xA;12 And the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. And he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. 13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job rebuked his wife and did not join in her sin just as a head of a house should.  (Adam was the head of his household) It does not mean that Job rebuked her and no longer loved her.  Job's obedience to God and rebuking his wife's disobedience was truly loving her.  Later we see that God blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning.  The scriptures mention that Job had seven sons and three daughters, now a logical conclusion that I think isn't dangerous and the scriptures seem to pull together, is that Job had these children with the same wife he rebuked years earlier.  Job was enjoying his &quot;more blessed&quot; life right along side his wife that he loved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great questions and comment, may God's peace be with you all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5149" LastActivityDate="2013-07-19T07:56:00.283" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17720" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17705" CreationDate="2013-07-19T14:31:10.577" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I know of Augustine, he would say that, rather, &lt;strong&gt;God's&lt;/strong&gt; love is the enabler of &lt;strong&gt;our&lt;/strong&gt; faith. That is, God's love for the sinner is the ultimate cause of creating new life in the believer, which enables that believer to have faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See Augustine's &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On Grace and Free Will&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, Chapter 17. And if you look at Chapter 12 and 13 of the same work, you will see that he says that out of love God shows mercy and grace, which links God's love for us to faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Augustine's &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Enchiridion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, Chapter 8, he says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now what shall I say of love? Without it, faith profits nothing; and&#xA;  in its absence, hope cannot exist. The Apostle James says: &quot;The devils&#xA;  also believe, and tremble.&quot; — that is, they, having neither hope nor&#xA;  love, but believing that what we love and hope for is about to come,&#xA;  are in terror. And so the Apostle Paul approves and commends the&#xA;  &quot;faith that works by love;&quot; and this certainly cannot exist without&#xA;  hope. Wherefore there is no love without hope, no hope without love,&#xA;  and neither love nor hope without faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Augustine, then, faith, hope, and love are a package deal. The general pattern here, overall, is that God shows us love, which gives us faith, hope, and love towards others, including God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the relationship between the &quot;two doors&quot;, as you've called them, again, I think Augustine would say that the exit door is a trap-door - a one-way door. Closing that door means you do not have the ability to open it again. Instead, God must open it for you. See &lt;em&gt;On Grace and Free Will&lt;/em&gt;, in Chapter 7, where he says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the&#xA;  grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastEditorUserId="1618" LastEditDate="2013-07-19T17:29:36.533" LastActivityDate="2013-07-19T17:29:36.533" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17722" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17743" CreationDate="2013-07-19T14:40:35.090" Score="13" ViewCount="561" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that there are some Christian groups that believe that it is possible for a Christian to live a life entirely free from sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the nature of this belief and what is the basis for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-09-10T15:59:53.613" LastActivityDate="2016-09-10T15:59:53.613" Title="What is the basis for the belief by some groups that a Christian can live a sinless life?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sanctification&gt;&lt;methodist&gt;&lt;holiness-movement&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17724" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18028" CreationDate="2013-07-19T15:37:58.487" Score="13" ViewCount="10862" Body="&lt;p&gt;The shamrock is a pretty bad analogy for the Trinity. In fact, it's somewhat of a heretical explanation if one puts much emphasis on it. It's partialism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Patrick's Bad Analogies (YouTube)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that in itself is good evidence that St. Patrick &lt;em&gt;wouldn't&lt;/em&gt; (or &lt;em&gt;shouldn't&lt;/em&gt;) have used the shamrock to teach the Trinity. And Wikipedia provides some evidence that he didn't:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first written mention of the link does not appear until 1681, in&#xA;  the account of Thomas Dineley, an English traveller to Ireland.&#xA;  Dineley writes: &lt;em&gt;The 17th day of March yeerly is St Patricks, an&#xA;  immoveable feast, when ye Irish of all stations and condicions were&#xA;  crosses in their hatts, some of pinns, some of green ribbon, and the&#xA;  vulgar superstitiously wear shamroges, 3 leav'd grass, which they&#xA;  likewise eat (they say) to cause a sweet breath.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It goes on:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is nothing&#xA;  in Dineley's account of the legend of St. Patrick using the shamrock&#xA;  to teach the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and this story does not&#xA;  appear in writing anywhere until a 1726 work by the botanist Caleb&#xA;  Threlkeld. Threlkeld identifies the shamrock as White Field Clover&#xA;  (Trifolium pratense album ) and comments rather acerbically on the&#xA;  custom of wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what do we have stronger evidence for? &lt;strong&gt;Did St. Patrick &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; use the shamrock as an analogy to teach the Trinity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, do we know what sort of emphasis or seriousness he placed on the analogy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-10T15:49:16.120" LastActivityDate="2021-03-25T23:18:10.510" Title="Did Saint Patrick actually explain the Trinity using a shamrock?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1695" CreationDate="2013-07-19T18:27:00.590" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are very few (if any) examples in the Bible where Jesus explicitly prays out loud. There are times when he will pray in public (e.g. giving thanks to God before feeding the 5,000), but it doesn't explicitly say this was done out loud. In fact, most of the times we see Jesus praying is when he removes himself from the group of disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One argument people often use in favor of public prayer is that the Lord's prayer is spoken from the first-person plural perspective (i.e. &quot;we&quot;, &quot;our&quot;). However as it's translated into English at least, the &quot;we&quot; pronoun is vague as to whether it means:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Me and you&quot; (which would indicate a more public prayer), or &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Me and the rest of human kind&quot; (which could be more consistent with a more private prayer acknowledging our connection and responsibility for other people).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally prefer to think of it as the latter interpretation. If prayer is indeed intended to be both private and silent, then it is free of the barriers of language such as vagueness and context. It is a direct conduit of your thoughts to God uninhibited by the clumsiness of words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5154" LastActivityDate="2013-07-19T18:27:00.590" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17722" CreationDate="2013-07-19T18:41:17.353" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you are referring to a doctrine called Entire Sanctification (also Sinless Perfection), which is taught by some Wesleyan and holiness churches.  A Google search on that term will give you more information, but basically, the idea is that it is possible with the Holy Spirit's help to avoid sin completely.  Some Scriptural basis for this belief can be found in Romans 6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, and 1 John 2:1-2, which talk about Christians being free from sin and blameless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastEditorUserId="83" LastEditDate="2015-06-16T05:35:46.257" LastActivityDate="2015-06-16T05:35:46.257" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17728" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-19T19:24:15.320" Score="1" ViewCount="28" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something I've been curious about for some time. There is a verse stating that &quot;scripture&quot; is the inerrant word of the Christian god:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness&quot;. 2 Timothy 2:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it doesn't go into specifics about what &quot;scripture&quot; is. At the time that this scripture was written (around the &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;first century&lt;/a&gt;), the modern New Testament canon had not yet been established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is the connection made between the use of the term &quot;scripture&quot; in certain passages, and the compilation of various writings currently called the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5036" LastActivityDate="2013-07-19T19:24:15.320" Title="The use of the term &quot;scripture&quot; in the Christian Bible" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-07-19T20:04:46.077" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17665" CreationDate="2013-07-19T19:40:08.420" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The act of loving is impossible unless we have been born of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key to understanding this verse is knowing the definition of the word &quot;love.&quot;  The ancient Greek language had more words for &quot;love&quot; than we do in English, so it sometimes can be misunderstood.  In this chapter, the Greek word is &quot;agape,&quot; which refers to an unconditional love that is entirely focused on the person being loved, with no regard to the well-being of the lover, and it is described further in 1 Corinthians 13.  This is the love that Christ showed us when he died for us, and this is the love that we as Christians are commanded to show to &quot;one another&quot; in these verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The chapter continues past these verses to explain further.  We as humans are not capable of this pure agape love on our own.  It is only because God has showed us this love first (1 John 4:19) and lives in us that we are able to show it to others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastActivityDate="2013-07-19T19:40:08.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17730" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-19T19:44:39.107" Score="4" ViewCount="348" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throughout the Old Testament God is likened to a “Rock” and within the New Testament the Rock that Moses struck is identified as Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God? (2 Samuel 22:32)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was such a metaphor for God as a “rock” unique to Israel, or was that a widespread view of Divinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-02-13T14:40:31.607" Title="Is reference to &quot;God&quot; as a rock unique to Judeo-Christian usage?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17732" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-19T20:48:59.537" Score="18" ViewCount="112828" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus have to go in order for the Holy Spirit to come?&#xA;Also does this mean the Holy Spirit was not present before Jesus went away?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="14272" LastEditDate="2015-01-22T19:26:30.857" LastActivityDate="2019-12-05T19:28:32.893" Title="Why did Jesus have to leave for the Holy Spirit to come?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;ascension&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17733" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17742" CreationDate="2013-07-19T21:05:38.610" Score="5" ViewCount="509" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which churches have decided to permit gay marriage at a denominational level?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5154" LastActivityDate="2013-07-20T08:21:16.730" Title="What Christian denominations (if any) permit gay marriage?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-07-20T09:08:14.557" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17639" CreationDate="2013-07-20T00:30:22.463" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The important thing to remember is that each of the items in TULIP was a response to the (Arminian) Remonstrants own five point rejection of Calvinism. Thus the simple reason why faith is omitted is because the Remonstrants weren't critiquing the place of faith, per se, but the place of grace in salvation. Because TULIP is a response to a critique, the debate was framed by the Remonstrants, not the &quot;Calvinists.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reformed theology has always closely affirmed the &quot;five solas,&quot; including sola fide (solely by faith). Faith is assumed an absolutely essential part of Reformed belief. For example, Westminster Confession of Faith 14.1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, and this is worked throughout the Westminster Standards, faith is seen as a part of God's grace. However, grace is obviously more than just faith -- it is also God's grace that &quot;the rain falls on the just and the unjust,&quot; for example (Mt. 5.45). But, directly to your question regarding TULIP, the issue is simply that neither Calvin nor the later Reformed theologians were the ones to frame the five point debate, they were only responding, and thus the fact that faith isn't in TULIP only speaks to a particular Reformed-&quot;Arminian&quot; controversy and not Reformed belief in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5003" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-07-20T13:18:15.740" LastActivityDate="2013-07-20T13:18:15.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17735" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-20T00:45:24.333" Score="-1" ViewCount="621" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this might be the first practical question on C.SE. Please don't close it because it sounds to speculative, I want to know what might be heretical about it according to Catholic doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've been mulling over a thesis in my head concerning a wonderful metaphor I can use to explain the Holy Trinity to 7th graders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy Trinity is like a Blue Plate special served in an old timey diner.  It is three portions of the same hearty meal wherein one portion precedes the second portion and the second portion precedes the third to make a complete unity in sustenance.  If you removed any part of the meal it would cease to be a blue plate special.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is there any reason to consider this a bad metaphor (other than the fact that some prefer meat over potato and some prefer potato over peas). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-07-20T08:05:39.903" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T18:53:31.290" Title="Blue plate special as metaphor for the Trinity" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17736" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17616" CreationDate="2013-07-20T01:57:48.127" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Living a quiet doesn't necessarily mean being a quiet person. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we look at Paul's 1st and 2nd letter to the Thessalonians I think we get more context on what Paul means&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Thessalonians 4:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to&#xA;  your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2nd Thessalonians 3:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work,&#xA;  but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the&#xA;  Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own&#xA;  living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1st scripture he particularly says &quot;your &lt;em&gt;own&lt;/em&gt; business&quot;. Then in the 2nd scripture he is saying that people are walking around doing nothing, just busybodies, basically meaning meddlesome and in other people's business, and not being productive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So instead quiet here means someone who minds their own work and not meddling in other people's affairs. (read this definition from the original greek: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=2271&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=2271&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to contrast that we have this command from Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:19-20 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the&#xA;  nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the&#xA;  Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and&#xA;  lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are supposed to go into the whole world and proclaim Christ, and that is the business we are to be about. (&quot;I must be about my father's business&quot; - Luke 2:49). I would say it is &quot;business&quot; versus &quot;busyness&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I think the key here is the definition of what Paul means when he says &quot;quiet&quot;, which according to context isn't referring to silence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in short Billy Graham did what was right. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if Billy Graham was just a traveling meddler, that had no work of his own and just meddled in other people's stuff, he would've been wrong, but he was actually doing what Paul commanded, he was busy doing the work (the work of the Lord), and working with his own hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="223" LastActivityDate="2013-07-20T01:57:48.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17679" CreationDate="2013-07-20T04:50:15.323" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 24:7-8 Jesus mentioned earthquakes as one of the &quot;beginning of sorrows&quot; associated with his discourse on the end-times. The word for &quot;sorrows&quot; (Strong's 5604) denotes the sorrows of birth pangs and this is pointed out frequently by evangelicals who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. The implication often drawn is that earthquakes and other signs like wars, famines, diseases, and astral phenomena will increase in frequency and intensity as the time of the end draws near, like contractions increase in frequency and intensity leading up to birth. There are quiet times in between the contractions which lead people to say that &quot;all things continue as they were from the beginning&quot; 2 Peter 3:4. I would also refer you to the Mercalli scale of earthquake damage which is a descriptive scale. As you read the description of quakes in Revelation you can compare them to it, and from the Mercalli you can estimate its Richter equivalent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this interpretation no specific earthquakes would be considered a sign by themselves until the events in context were clearly happening. But the overall pattern of increase in frequency and intensity coupled with other &quot;sorrows&quot; increasing would be considered a sign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-20T04:50:15.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17735" CreationDate="2013-07-20T05:18:09.280" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It sounds like a heretical understanding sometimes called &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17893/is-partialism-a-real-heresy&quot;&gt;Partialism&lt;/a&gt;, which suggested that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are parts of the one God. Partialism contrasts the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Athanasian Creed&lt;/a&gt;. Namely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and&#xA;  Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, &lt;em&gt;nor dividing the&#xA;  Substance&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And St. Athanasius writes in paragraph 28 of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Discourse 1 Against the Arians&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must&#xA;  not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be&#xA;  part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is&#xA;  not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which&#xA;  waits for periods by reason of its weakness. &lt;strong&gt;But with God this&#xA;  cannot be; for &lt;em&gt;He is not composed of parts&lt;/em&gt;, but being impassible and&#xA;  simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Blue Plate special example, each portion is only part of the meal. Any one individual portion is not &lt;em&gt;fully the meal&lt;/em&gt;. In the Trinity, each divine person is &lt;em&gt;fully God&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T18:53:31.290" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17616" CreationDate="2013-07-20T07:17:23.630" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Th 4:11  And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;G2270&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἡσυχάζω&#xA;hēsuchazō&#xA;hay-soo-khad'-zo&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the same as G2272; to keep still (intransitively), that is, refrain from labor, meddlesomeness or speech: - cease, hold peace, be quiet, rest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The King James translation of this verse is not very good. Strong's G2270 does not really mean to be quiet thats part of it but in other places it seems to mean stop argueing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 21:14  And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 11:18  When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 14:3  And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?&#xA;Luk 14:4  And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the words cease and peace in the three above verses are the same Greek word. Looking at its usage you can see it means to stop being annoying or nit picking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 23:55  And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.&#xA;Luk 23:56  And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also is used once to mean just flat out rest like they were commanded to do on the sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this one isolated text from the King James does not mean you must be quiet not at all. It means you must not argue or bother other people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-20T07:17:23.630" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17733" CreationDate="2013-07-20T08:21:16.730" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucc.org/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;United Church of Christ&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Churches in the UCC can sanctify same-sex unions.[28] The resolution&#xA;  &quot;In support of equal marriage rights for all&quot;, supported by an&#xA;  estimated 80% of the UCC's 2005 general synod delegates, made the&#xA;  United Church of Christ the first major Christian deliberative body in&#xA;  the U.S. to make a statement of support for &quot;equal marriage rights for&#xA;  all people, regardless of gender,&quot; and is hitherto the largest&#xA;  Christian denominational entity in the U.S. supporting same-sex&#xA;  marriage.[29] This resolution (and the sanctification of same-sex&#xA;  marriages), however, is not supported by some congregations.[29] Of&#xA;  particular note, the Iglesia Evangelica Unida de Puerto Rico, a&#xA;  long-standing conference within the UCC, voted by a 3–1 margin to&#xA;  withdraw its affiliation with the UCC over the same-sex marriage&#xA;  issue.[30] And the Biblical Witness Fellowship, a conservative&#xA;  evangelical organization that is a small but vocal voice within the&#xA;  denomination, accepts only heterosexual marriage.[31]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ#Same-sex_marriage&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ#Same-sex_marriage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2013-07-20T08:21:16.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17722" CreationDate="2013-07-20T10:30:44.540" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 10:10  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe your question is in reference to my group Pentecostal Holiness and Word of Faith. We believe that we believe in our heart unto righteousness. I will attempt to explain this doctrine. (but please do not down vote me to infinity if you want to call yourself a sinner). Here I've selected scriptures and comment on the scriptures and Strong's definition. I reference the scriptures by key words. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mar 11:22  And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. &#xA;  Mar 11:23  For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. &#xA;  Mar 11:24  Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. &#xA;  Mar 11:25  And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. &#xA;  Mar 11:26  But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 5:6  Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Col 1:10  That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rightful desire of every believer is to walk in the righteousness and Holiness which is ours in Christ. We do it by faith. Faith means believing, speaking, acting and thanking God for the things which He has provided for us in His word. Faith means acting counter to what is factual sometimes. The fact may be that you belong in Hell but the truth of the matter is the while you were dead in sins Christ died for you making you worthy. It is up to you to walk worthy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Co 5:21  For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 1:30  But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G1342&#xA;  δίκαιος&#xA;  dikaios&#xA;  dik'-ah-yos&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): - just, meet, right (-eous).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G38&#xA;  ἁγιασμός&#xA;  hagiasmos&#xA;  hag-ee-as-mos'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G37; properly purification, that is, (the state) purity; concretely (by Hebraism) a purifier: - holiness, sanctification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 6:11  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G1344&#xA;  δικαιόω&#xA;  dikaioō&#xA;  dik-ah-yo'-o&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G1342; to render (that is, show or regard as) just or innocent: - free, justify (-ier), be righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Co 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We would no sooner call ourselves a sinner than we would cuss the reason being is that we are do not believe that we had a dual nature as many other Christians believe. We believe that our spirit has been made one with the Lord and that we are new creations in Christ. We do believe that contented with the flesh and to a limited extent with devils however we put the emphasis on what we can do rather than what can affect us. Since we are new creatures we believe that we have been created in Christ. To be in Christ means to partake of His righteousness, holiness and justification. Just as Christ is holy in Him so are we. Christ is without sin and in Him we have been justified (or made just as if we had never sinned). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 9:14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Jn 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. &#xA;  1Jn 1:10  If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sinners need to experience the blood of Jesus. Those cleansed by the Blood of Jesus are cleansed perfectly and consciousness are purged from law of morality and Mosses but then turn in service and do the things which please the living God. We repent a whole lot and after every repentance we consider the scripture to be true when it says we have been purified. Needing repentance doesn't mean we are practicing sin and being sinners it simply means we failed to do what we could do and we must do better longer with God's help next time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be filled with righteousness to walk in the fullness of what Christ provided for us through his redemption is to be mature in Christ. Being mature in Christ to us is an obtainable non static Goal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Php 3:9  And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: &#xA;  Php 3:10  That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; &#xA;  Php 3:11  If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. &#xA;  Php 3:12  Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not count ourselves to have righteousness of ourselves but clothe ourselves in Christ. That we may obtain what has already obtained us. It has been said that God's Grace holds the believer and keeps them. We equally believe that we can hold onto God and grasp his goodness in our lives being fully mature in all that He has to offer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 5:48  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In commanding us to be perfect (or fully mature would be a better translation) Christ did not set an unobtainable goal. To say Christ told us to do something which was not possible for us to do is to call Christ a liar. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Jn 4:8  He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mar 12:29  And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: &#xA;  Mar 12:30  And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. &#xA;  Mar 12:31  And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 13:4  Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, &#xA;  1Co 13:5  Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; &#xA;  1Co 13:6  Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; &#xA;  1Co 13:7  Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. &#xA;  1Co 13:8  Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. &#xA;  1Co 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We believe the key to walking in full maturity and the nature of Christ and God is to walk in the God kind of Love rather than yielding to human emotions. This is a kind of brain washing or renewing of the mind begins when we are little. Other believer are taught as children to memorize the 10 commandments and do Bible memory verses about specific knowledge from or of God (orthodoxy) instead we teach some orthodoxy but major on orthopraxy. The reason for this is that though the word be perfect we have only a fraction of what there is to know. We access that which is known unknown by following the Holy Spirit being loving Rom 2:14. Children likewise begin when they are little being corrected by their parents and Bible teachers that their actions do not or do conform to the standard of God's Love given in 1Co 13. It is not uncommon for a child never to memorize the Lord's prayer because instead they are taught to just have a conversation with their loving heavenly Father (later in life in their own studies they learn the lesser Bible points). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our culture is different than other Christians. You have to understand since we have been striving to walk in love and all it entails since we were children. We tend to view those who have problems with walking in love as children and refer to them as spiritual children. We don't mean disrespect and we will teach you how to act it just will be harder for you since you are an adult.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not everyone chooses to follow this path as no one ever said it would be simple it is however easy with time. Those that do have had many years of training on how to respond in themselves and to others in a way which isn't sin not that they always do but the idea is that they always can. In commanding us to love God and love others Christ gave us a practicable and doable commandment. Those who follow those two commandments will automatically do anything righteous besides them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 5:16  This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, &#xA;  Gal 5:23  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. &#xA;  Gal 5:24  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. &#xA;  Gal 5:25  If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Pe 4:1  Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Pe 5:10  But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also Galatians 5 plays an important role in our worship. We believe that being born again and living in fellowship with the Holy Spirit of God is different than walking in the Spirit of God. That if we grow and display the fruit of the human/holy S/spirit (which are designed to help other people) we will be able to not give into our flesh. In resisting temptation we suffer. Likewise we suffer not doing other optional things like fasting or special offerings. In suffering we are able to train ourselves to cease from sin. This is not suffering being sick, broke or in any other anguish of the body or mind but a choice to follow what we perceive as the will of God as revealed by the scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jas 4:17  Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Jn 1:6  If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: &#xA;  1Jn 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To us the so called sins of omission are not real sin at all. Only that which is a violation of &quot;light&quot; or knowledge given from God is a sin intentionally walking in darkness is sin but ignorance in knowledge or action is not a sin. If you choose to stay ignorant after receiving the Gospel (or even basic truths contained in the gospel) that is a sin and you are liable for the continuance of that sin and the sins which you do as a result of that sin all your life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 25:23  His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 3:13  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. &#xA;  1Co 3:14  If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. &#xA;  1Co 3:15  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. &#xA;  1Co 3:16  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev 4:10  The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, &#xA;  Rev 4:11  Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The motivation behind our strives towards perfection is to look into the face of the Master and hear &quot;well done good and faithful servant&quot;. We do not believe that all believers will hear this on the day in which all believers are tried by fire. Our goal is to have as little part of our lives be burned and suffer as little amount of loss when the fire try's it so that we can receive the maximum reward to throw at the throne of Jesus a few minutes later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further reading along this line: &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1577700090&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Two Kinds of Righteousness by E. W. Kenyon&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cfaith.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=13309%3aunderstanding-righteousness&amp;amp;catid=45%3afaith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Righteousness by Kenneth E. Hagin&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rhema.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=1016%3areigning-in-life&amp;amp;Itemid=140&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reigning in Life by Kenneth E. Hagin&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.markhankins.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CD3-65&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Righteousness by Mark Hankins&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moorelife.org/listseries.php?xml=rss/SeparateFromSin.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Separate from Sin by Keith Moore&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moorelife.org/listseries.php?xml=rss/KeepingTheLoveCommand.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Keeping the Love Command by Keith Moore&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moorelife.org/listseries.php?xml=rss/GodIsLove.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God is Love by Keith Moore&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moorelife.org/listseries.php?xml=rss/LovesSacrifice.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Love's Sacrifice by Keith Moore&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moorelife.org/listseries.php?xml=rss/GrowingUp.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Growing Up by Keith Moore&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0892765046&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Growing Up Spiritually by Kenneth E. Hagin&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-07-20T10:57:48.613" LastActivityDate="2013-07-20T10:57:48.613" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17745" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-20T11:59:48.273" Score="10" ViewCount="612" Body="&lt;p&gt;The so called Two Kingdom view of the separate institutes of secular state vs the church identifies a fairly clear boundary between the authority of each: one demanding some compliance with a nominal set of ethical behaviors for the well being of both Christian and all members of society of any religious persuasion and includes powers (e.g. punishing injustice, warfare) while the other holds higher standards in both ethical and spiritual matters but who's authority is limited in scope to the spiritual (e.g. sacraments, doctrine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;According to adherents of this view&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, ordained church office bearers carry a special authority over spiritual matters in the context of the church. Likewise those who hold public office under any political structure&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; have a special charge to create and enforce laws that fulfill a specific purpose. Given the the separation between both domain and available powers, under any circumstances &lt;strong&gt;would it be valid for an individual man to hold both ordained office in the church and a public office&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; in the state&lt;/strong&gt;? Is such a dual role&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; possible for an office-bearer in the same way that it would be for a normal Christian to maintain any political role or is there a fundamental conflict of interest in being ordained resulting in some sort of unacceptable schizophrenia?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is a difference between the thinking of Reformation era theologians who used &quot;two kingdom&quot; terminology (viz. Martin Luther, John Calvin) and the modern &quot;Radical Two Kingdoms&quot; theological framework (viz. Meredith Kline, Michael Horton) on this issue, I would like to hear the difference between them spelled out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Please note that this is not the quite same as the modern Evangelical parlance of &quot;separation of church and state&quot;. Please limit answers to actual implementations of Two Kingdom theology.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; For the purposes of this question the sort of public office I am referring to might be characterized by those of a mayor or constable—offices that are charged with either legislating or enforcing civil structures as their primary responsibility.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; I am not thinking of the sort of office that might be conferred by the state automatically to religious office holders such as the right to officiate marriages, I'm thinking more along the lines of mayor or constable or parliamentary representative.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; I am aware that most 2K views see all Christians as holding dual citizenship. This question is not about citizenship or the roles of all believers but specifically about office bearing.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-01-22T12:46:46.487" LastActivityDate="2014-06-05T14:05:22.067" Title="According to Two Kingdom theology, could a man hold both secular and spiritual office?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17747" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-20T12:49:42.487" Score="5" ViewCount="18246" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus clearly identifies His relationship with God the Father; he is the “only begotten Son of the Father”.  What Biblical evidence do we have identifying the relationship between God the Father and the Holy Spirit?  How does the Bible differentiate the Holy Spirit from the Father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-07-20T12:57:27.100" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T12:24:28.613" Title="What is the relationship between God the Father and the Holy Spirit?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-07-25T08:39:28.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17748" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-20T13:58:59.800" Score="7" ViewCount="419" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the classic Nicene Christianity rendering of the Trinity, was not Jesus' self identification as the &quot;Son of God&quot; an instance of Partialism in that he turned the Godhead into a multi-member family? At least our human versions of &quot;father&quot; and &quot;son&quot; are of separate but related members of a family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among Trinatarian traditions are there any specific doctrines that identify the &quot;family&quot; aspect of the Trinity, and if so, do they see our own early understanding of &quot;family&quot; actually being part of our being created in God's image?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-25T12:16:05.580" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T06:42:39.970" Title="Does a classic Trinitarian formulation consider God to be his own &quot;Family&quot;?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17747" CreationDate="2013-07-20T17:35:40.347" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Act 10:38  How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me introduce you to God as described in the New Testament by Jesus through John and Paul. So to start briefly with 1st John 5 and Acts 10. In John 5 we see the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all called God or those which bear record in heaven and they are called three are one in the same sentence. No man accurately understands what that means and that's ok.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? &#xA;  Joh 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. &#xA;  Joh 14:11  Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father is God and one with Christ Jesus and worked through Christ on the Earth. The Father is revealed to us throughout the Old Testament using many different Names which reveal attributes of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god-titles.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;His personality&lt;/a&gt;. This is an edited version of the links semi-exhaustive study on the names of God focusing on those which had a clear translatable meaning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elohim (Mighty Ones) 2606x  Genesis 1:1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;El (Might, Power) 245x  Genesis 14:18&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eloah (Mighty One) 57x  Nehemiah 9:17&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adon (Lord, Ruler) 335x Joshua 3:11&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adonai (Lords, Rulers) 434x Genesis 15:2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;El-Elyon (Supreme Might)    Genesis 14:18&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;El-Shaddai (Might of the Powerful Ones) Genesis 17:1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cela (craig) Tzur (rock or strength)    Ps 18:2 (used interchangeably)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-sabaoth (Lord of Armies) 285x  1 Samuel 1:3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-jireh: will see or provide    Genesis 22:14 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-rapha: heals  Exodus 15:26 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-nissi: our banner or victory  Exodus 17:15 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-m'kaddesh: sanctifies Exodus 31:13&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-shalom: peace Judges 6:24 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-raah: my shepherd Psalm 23:1 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-hoseenu: creator  Psalm 95:6 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-tsidkenu: righteousness   Jeremiah 23:6  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;YHWH-shammah: Present and available when   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any of these words can describe God the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit however lets assume the focus of the revelation in the Old Testament was on the Father and these words are used with preference to describe Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psa 139:7  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? &#xA;  Psa 139:8  If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. &#xA;  Psa 139:9  If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; &#xA;  Psa 139:10  Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. &#xA;  Psa 139:11  If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. &#xA;  Psa 139:12  Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Heb 6:18  That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again the following attributes apply to God the Father, God the Son before and after His earth ministry (Php 2:8) and God the Holy Spirit. God is omnipresent as Psalms 139 goes into great lengths to describe. We also know God is not omnipotent as he cannot lie and cannot do evil like temptation (James 1:13) or be afraid (1 John 4:18). The Lord God is omniscient (Psalm 147:5,1Jn 3:20,Psalm 147:5).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14-16 is the dissertation on the Holy Spirit. Here Christ describes the Holy Spirit in clarity which is not seen again till the Pauline epistles. I don't pray to the Holy Spirit because in the farewell sermon Jesus never mentioned us expressly praying to the Holy Spirit. I do not condemn you if you do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 6:9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 14:16  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Superficially the first thing one would notice about the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit is: The Father's primary residence is in Heaven; The Holy Spirit's primary residence is on Earth. They are however both everywhere. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 17:16  They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. &#xA;  Joh 17:17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 14:17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Eph 3:16  That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; &#xA;  Eph 3:17  That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Jn 3:9  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. &#xA;  1Jn 3:10  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's Word Jesus Himself is truth. The Holy Spirit is not the Word which is truth He is the Spirit of truth. Christ and His Spirit dwell in our Hearts according to the scripture. According to 1st John 3:10 God the Father's seed is in us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 15:26  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;G1607&#xA;  ἐκπορεύομαι&#xA;  ekporeuomai&#xA;  ek-por-yoo'-om-ahee&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From G1537 and G4198; to depart, be discharged, proceed, project: - come (forth, out of), depart, go (forth, out), issue, proceed (out of).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. The word proceed has many sub words in Strong's Greek dictionary number G1607. Each of them describe the action of the Holy Spirit beginning His work on the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 16:7  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we experience with the Holy Spirit is better than having Jesus who was and is one with God the Father present with us on the earth today. It is unknown exactly why Christ is at the right hand of Majesty on High and the Holy Spirit was sent here. The Holy Spirit is very kool to be able to fill the void of Christ in a better way than Christ Himself. So here we notice the Holy Spirit is better for us than Christ physical presence on the Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh 16:8  And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: &#xA;Joh 16:9  Of sin, because they believe not on me; &#xA;Joh 16:10  Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; &#xA;Joh 16:11  Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 3:19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary work of the Holy Spirit on those in the world is to reprove or you could say convict of sin, righteousness and judgement. To be convicted means to be pronounced guilty.  It is often thought that the Holy Spirit condemns people to hell or bring condemnation but that is an act of the individuals heart caused by the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 16:12  I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. &#xA;  Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. &#xA;  Joh 16:14  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. &#xA;  Joh 16:15  All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a very high density amount of the word he. However it is important to note that the Greek word translated he here really is gender neutral however the word translated Comforter is indeed masculine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirits work in the Church today is to complete the scripture in the lives of the believers. The primary way He did this was through the apostles, Luke and Mark writings after He arrived on the Earth. However He guides us into all truth not just those expressly written in the Word. He is able to enlighten the eyes of our understanding so that we know. He does &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; speak of Himself which is why we only know Him through the writings in the word and what we have experienced of Him. He does not speak from his omniscience. He speaks what he hears the implication is what he hears through your ears. The Holy Spirit also primary function in the Church today is revelation while in rare situations this can mean visions and dreams the majority of the way people experience God is through supernatural knowings one of the manifestations of the spirit. This is not hearing voices but experiencing the enlightenment from the scripture for your situation. Again Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is glorifying Christ and revealing the nature of Christ in and to us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:4  Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. &#xA;  1Co 12:5  And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. &#xA;  1Co 12:6  And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again we see the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit in unison benefiting of the Church. God the Father is said to work all in all and to head the operations. God the Son administers and God the Holy Spirit is the Spirit behind the endowments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:7  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every instance of the endowments is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, administered by Christ and worked by God the Father's Power. I follow the Pentecostal pioneer &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Carter_%28Pentecostal_pioneer%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Howard Carter&lt;/a&gt; division of the Holy Spirits manifestations which I will briefly relate bellow. He divides them into three manifestations which know something, three manifestations which do something and three manifestations which say something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Co 12:8  For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Word of wisdom is a knowing about the future. Like if you knew you shouldn't go to work on 9/11. This is not fortune telling it is just a word a single element conveying understanding about a situation. It is not a paragraph or a book. Likewise work of knowledge is a single element conveying present or past tense knowledge about a situation. Combined with discerning of spirits these are the three gifts which know something. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:9  To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gift of faith is often called special faith as it is what is necessary to receive that which is beyond what a person may normally believe for on their own. Gifts of healing is plural. This is not going to a doctor but God working with the doctor to heal your aliment of body or mind. Spirits are not healed in the New Testament they are saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:10  To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The working of miracles are miraculous healings (like arms growing back) and other wonders (like supernatural provision or walking on water) which defy nature. Special faith, healing and miracles are the three gifts which do something. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Discerning of spirits is disliked because many people who claim to see spirits or hear spirits are in fact are sick and need help from doctors. However that does not change that the Holy Spirit sometimes chooses to reveal a spirit to a person. The good sense you cannot explain when you go to church is a right example of discerning of spirits. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 12:11  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every time one of these manifestations is rightly expressed the Holy Spirit is rightly getting His will and work accomplished in the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gal 5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, &#xA;  Gal 5:23  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. &#xA;  Gal 5:24  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally because everything is cross referenced in the word. We are able to discern whether what someone calls the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is in fact a manifestation of the Holy Spirit based on the attributes of the Spirit Himself as described in Galatians 5. If it does not meet the criteria of these verses people are just imagining that the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in summery to differentiate the Father from the Holy Spirit you take all the things which are known to be directly attributed to the Father and all the things which are directly attributed to the Holy Spirit and you compare and contrast them. I briefly gave you several names of God describing his personality and several names of the Holy Spirit. Then I described the Holy Spirit manifestation's in the earth which the Father works. Finally I list the attributes of the Holy Spirit at work in the individual believers life to give you an idea of what a believer should show evidence of when inspired by the Holy Spirit directly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-07-20T17:43:40.973" LastActivityDate="2013-07-20T17:43:40.973" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17755" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-21T02:17:31.523" Score="9" ViewCount="116" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Job is a beautiful and inspirational book of scripture with some of the clearest teachings on God's power, the nature of life, the beauty and worth of the Earth, and other important doctrines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I thought of recently, though, is that Job's friends say things that are more or less against Job, and at the end, God says that only Job spake right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any denominations that have officially marked the words of Job's friends as doctrinal or not doctrinal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4640" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T07:18:06.093" Title="Do any denominations have a positon on the doctrinal value of Job's friends?" Tags="&lt;canon&gt;&lt;job&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17730" CreationDate="2013-07-21T06:01:18.110" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah 26:11, some translations call God an everlasting Rock or Rock of Ages, where others translate as an everlasting strength.  I think the general idea is that God is the strength of those who believe in Him, one that is unmoving, one that we can lean upon.  Another theme related to God as a rock is He as a foundation, as found in Isaiah 28: 16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of verses, found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/foundation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that call God a foundation both in the Old and New Testament, something that a Jew then and a Christian now can stand firm on and have faith in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5162" LastActivityDate="2013-07-21T06:01:18.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14104" CreationDate="2013-07-21T13:40:37.880" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Each year, the Vatican announces the Pope's Intentions for the year ahead (see e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/faith/papalprayer.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ewtn.com/faith/papalprayer.htm&lt;/a&gt; ) - so by praying for the intentions the last Supreme Pontiff indicated for that month, surely you are praying for the Pope's Intentions, even when there is no current Pope?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5164" LastActivityDate="2013-07-21T13:40:37.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8000" CreationDate="2013-07-21T18:05:31.000" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I belong to a church where we actively use Cannabis as a sacred plant that allows for a deeper understanding of ourselves and god. It has opened my own understanding of scripture and given me an insight into deeper feelings of being one with God, therefore we consider the plant an &lt;em&gt;entheogen&lt;/em&gt; not an &quot;allucinogen&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe Cannabis is an incarnated spirit of consolation, a gift from God. It is such a pity that it is prosecuted by the laws of (most parts of) this world. I have faith it will be eventually freed from this prohibition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, it is a powerful plant that needs to be treated with respect. Always consacrate its use to God and use it for meditation, prayer or selfless service. In this way it will bring you inspiration and clarity of thought. If you use it all the time or in an inappropriate setting, you will not obtain the benefits but rather experience suffering, either by reduced energy, cloudy thinking and even axiety.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5166" LastActivityDate="2013-07-21T18:05:31.000" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17747" CreationDate="2013-07-21T18:22:01.473" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I did some research, and this is what &lt;strong&gt;I&lt;/strong&gt; understood about. I tried to put it in a way for easy understanding, thats why it looks brief and short.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;FATHER &lt;em&gt;(&quot;Insight on the Scriptures&quot; Volume 1, pages 814-815)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word &lt;code&gt;’av&lt;/code&gt;, translated “father,” is a mimetic (imitative) word taken from the first and simplest sounds of infant lips. The Hebrew &lt;code&gt;’av&lt;/code&gt; and the Greek &lt;code&gt;pa·ter´&lt;/code&gt; are both used in various senses: as begetter, or progenitor, of an individual (&lt;em&gt;Pr 23:22&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Zec 13:3&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Lu 1:67&lt;/em&gt;), the head of a household or ancestral family (&lt;em&gt;Ge 24:40&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Ex 6:14&lt;/em&gt;), an ancestor (&lt;em&gt;Ge 28:13&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Joh 8:53&lt;/em&gt;), a founder of a nation (&lt;em&gt;Mt 3:9&lt;/em&gt;), a founder of a class or profession (&lt;em&gt;Ge 4:20, 21&lt;/em&gt;), a protector (&lt;em&gt;Job 29:16&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Ps 68:5&lt;/em&gt;), the source of something (&lt;em&gt;Job 38:28&lt;/em&gt;), and a term of respect (&lt;em&gt;2Ki 5:13&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Ac 7:2&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;YHWH God as Creator is called Father. (&lt;em&gt;Isa 64:8&lt;/em&gt;; compare &lt;em&gt;Ac 17:28, 29&lt;/em&gt;.) He is also the Father of spirit-begotten Christians, the Aramaic term &lt;code&gt;’Ab·ba’´&lt;/code&gt; being used as an expression of respect and of close filial relationship. (&lt;em&gt;Ro 8:15&lt;/em&gt;.) All who express faith with a hope of everlasting life can address God as Father. (&lt;em&gt;Mt 6:9&lt;/em&gt;) Jesus Christ, the Messiah, because of being God’s Chief Agent of life, was prophetically called Eternal Father. (&lt;em&gt;Isa 9:6&lt;/em&gt;) Also, anyone who has imitators and followers, or those who exhibit his qualities, is regarded as a father to them. (&lt;em&gt;Mt 5:44, 45&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Ro 4:11, 12&lt;/em&gt;) In this sense the Devil is spoken of as a father.—&lt;em&gt;Joh 8:44&lt;/em&gt;; compare &lt;em&gt;Ge 3:15&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Applying “father” to men as a formalistic or religious title was forbidden by Jesus (&lt;em&gt;Mt 23:9&lt;/em&gt;). Because of Paul’s bringing the good news to certain Christians and nourishing them spiritually he was like a father to them, but in no scripture is “father” applied to him as a religious title. (&lt;em&gt;1Co 4:14, 15&lt;/em&gt;) Paul likened himself to both a father and a mother in his relation to the Thessalonian Christians. (&lt;em&gt;1Th 2:7, 11&lt;/em&gt;) Whereas reference is made at &lt;em&gt;Luke 16:24, 30&lt;/em&gt; to “father Abraham,” this is basically in the sense of fleshly ancestry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;SPIRIT &lt;em&gt;(&quot;Reasoning from the Scriptures&quot;, pages 380-384)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Definition: The Hebrew word &lt;code&gt;ru´ach&lt;/code&gt; and the Greek &lt;code&gt;pneu´ma&lt;/code&gt;, which are often translated “spirit”, have a number of meanings. All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the active life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and that causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired utterances originating with an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s active force, or holy spirit. Several of these usages are here discussed in relation to topics that may arise in the field ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the holy spirit?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A comparison of Bible texts that refer to the holy spirit shows that it is spoken of as ‘filling’ people; they can be ‘baptized’ with it; and they can be “anointed” with it. (&lt;em&gt;Luke 1:41&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Matt. 3:11&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Acts 10:38&lt;/em&gt;) None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person.&#xA;  Jesus also referred to the holy spirit as a “helper” (Greek, &lt;code&gt;pa·ra´kle·tos&lt;/code&gt;), and he said that this helper would “&lt;strong&gt;teach&lt;/strong&gt;,” “&lt;strong&gt;bear witness&lt;/strong&gt;,” “&lt;strong&gt;speak&lt;/strong&gt;,” and ‘&lt;strong&gt;hear&lt;/strong&gt;.’ (&lt;em&gt;John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13&lt;/em&gt;) It is not unusual in the Scriptures for something to be personified. For example, wisdom is said to have “children”. (&lt;em&gt;Luke 7:35&lt;/em&gt;) Sin and death are spoken of as being kings. (&lt;em&gt;Rom. 5:14, 21&lt;/em&gt;) While some texts say that the spirit “spoke,” other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (&lt;em&gt;Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Matt. 10:19, 20&lt;/em&gt;; compare &lt;em&gt;Acts 20:23&lt;/em&gt; with &lt;em&gt;21:10, 11&lt;/em&gt;.) At &lt;em&gt;1 John 5:6-8&lt;/em&gt;, not only the spirit but also “the water and the blood” are said to ‘bear witness’. So, none of the expressions found in these texts in themselves prove that the holy spirit is a person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The correct identification of the holy spirit must fit all the scriptures that refer to that spirit. With this viewpoint, it is logical to conclude that the holy spirit is the active force of God. It is not a person but is a powerful force that God causes to emanate from himself to accomplish his holy will.—&lt;em&gt;Ps. 104:30&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;2 Pet. 1:21&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;Acts 4:31&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this would answer your question... ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These 2 books I used is released by &quot;Watchtower Bible and Track Society&quot; in 1985/1989. In these books there are mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.watchtower.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;their web page&lt;/a&gt;, witch is actually looks like it's closed, and is guiding to visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;JW.org&lt;/a&gt;. This is where I found that they have many of their publications available to download in &lt;em&gt;e-pub&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;PDF&lt;/em&gt; formats, but I couldn't see the books I used to quoted from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5165" LastEditorUserId="5165" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T04:25:41.950" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T04:25:41.950" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17755" CreationDate="2013-07-21T19:21:17.890" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been taught (Reformed Presbyterian) that Job's first three friends did some things right (e.g., wait until Job spoke first), but mostly they did things wrong (applied &lt;em&gt;generally&lt;/em&gt; good theology incorrectly to the situation at hand). Elihu was not commenting on the previous history and whether Job had sinned before all the catastrophe; Elihu was commenting on what was happening with all the talking that takes up most of the book. For, while Job did not sin initially, he did sin later: that is what Elihu condemned. Elihu also condemned the inability of the first three friends correctly to see what Job's problem was. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-07-21T19:21:17.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17763" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17787" CreationDate="2013-07-21T20:37:35.353" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for just your &lt;strong&gt;header&lt;/strong&gt; question, the answer is simple - no.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;My answer to your next question will explain more detailed about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your next questions in the body (&lt;code&gt;How do these groups handle the question of whether a person can be both a homosexual and also a Christian?&lt;/code&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;code&gt;Are there any additional steps required?&lt;/code&gt;), I explain to you here:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;All the christian should seek, is to be approved by the Father. And the approval we can get only by &lt;strong&gt;doing&lt;/strong&gt; His will. &lt;em&gt;(This is where I fully agree with you that all the christians &lt;strong&gt;should do&lt;/strong&gt; what the Bible says to do, apply all the divine principles in their day-to-day life.)&lt;/em&gt; And the faith needs to be proven, as we can see from the last part of this verse: Genesis 17:1&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(NWT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When A′bram got to be ninety-nine years old, then Jehovah appeared to A′bram and said to him: “I am God Almighty. &lt;strong&gt;Walk before me and prove yourself faultless&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(CEV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Abram was ninety-nine years old when the LORD appeared to him again and said, &quot;I am God All-Powerful. If you obey me and &lt;strong&gt;always do right&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word of God in the Bible clearly states that the homosexuality is detestable to God eyes, and that God therefore condemns homosexuality.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;It's clearly explained in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/177/5165&quot;&gt;Richard's posted answer&lt;/a&gt; on another related question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being christian is not easy, specially as we are imperfect and being taunted and tempted by Satan the Devil day by day, as this &lt;em&gt;wicked system of things&lt;/em&gt; draws closer to its conclusion. Now you may want to do some &lt;strong&gt;BIG&lt;/strong&gt; changes in your life, as per to be approved and allowed into His new upcoming Kingdom in a restored paradise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;God is All-Powerful. Just pray for He give you the Holy Spirit to help you to dress up with the new personality. Be specific, ask. And you'll be heard. Pray from your whole heart, whole mind and whole soul full of &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;hope&lt;/strong&gt; (not doubt). And remember, God is kind to &lt;em&gt;patient&lt;/em&gt;, faithful and discreet servant. May God Bless You!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your last question &lt;code&gt;Do these groups teach that it would be sinful to continue practicing after one became a Christian?&lt;/code&gt;, there are no fitting answer (&lt;em&gt;As from my point of understanding&lt;/em&gt;). And that is because one cannot become a Christian until he\she completes certain requirements, stop being homosexual in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just genuinely want to help you. In any case I want you to have your own opinion and to decide for yourself, instead of accepting &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;other people&lt;/em&gt; viewpoints and understandings (regardless of what the majority or the authority has to say).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5165" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T10:10:03.060" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17764" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-21T21:05:54.180" Score="14" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/cpj3-contents.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Confessional Presbyterian, Vol. 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, p. 104ff., Daniel Hyde wrote about several different views of the Descendit - the descent of Christ into Hell - in his article &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/hyde.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;In Defense of the &lt;em&gt;Descendit&lt;/em&gt;: A Confessional Response to Contemporary Critics of Christ's Descent into Hell&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. I found the article helpful, but found myself a bit puzzled on what exactly each of the views thought concerning &lt;em&gt;where&lt;/em&gt; Christ was at any point during the Descendit. According to the orthodox view, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. His divine nature is God, and therefore omnipresent. But His human nature is the same as ours, yet without sin. So, for these different views of the Descendit, where is Jesus' human body, and where is His human soul during the events of the Crucifixion, Descent, Resurrection, and Ascension?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The four views about which Daniel Hyde wrote about are the following: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Punishment View (Christ's human soul undergoing more suffering in order to finish our redemption)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Second-Chance View (to give those who died before His first coming the chance to repent)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pronouncement of Triumph to Believers View&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pronouncement of Triumph to Satan View&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you know a particular view's beliefs (it doesn't have to be in this list), I'd be happy to see them here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm looking for is a sort of chart that has the four events I mentioned above along the top for the columns, and Jesus' human body and human soul along the left for two different rows. So that's 8 table entries per view of the Descendit. Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qHTEA.png&quot; alt=&quot;Example Table&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-05T17:35:19.307" LastActivityDate="2015-10-05T17:35:19.307" Title="Where, exactly, were Christ's body and soul during the Descendit?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;ascension&gt;&lt;apostles-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17732" CreationDate="2013-07-22T01:12:46.510" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Understanding the second part of your question is the key to answering the first part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part One: (How the Spirit was with them before and after Jesus &quot;going away&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 3:34, it is said of Christ that He had the Spirit of God &quot;without measure&quot;. So as He was living on Earth as a perfect sinless man, Jesus had unlimited access to the Holy Spirit, who descended on Him to empower Him for ministry at His baptism. So the Holy Spirit was here, empowering Jesus Christ without measure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 14:16-18, Jesus told the disciples, &quot;you know him, for he dwells with you and shall be in you.&quot; So the Spirit of God was with the disciples, but He (the Spirit) was going to be with them and in them in a new way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now in the context of John 16:7, Jesus talks about &quot;going away&quot; through the crucifixion (John 16:19-22). But He speaks of the Comforter in ways that also refer to the Spirit's ministry after the ascension (John 16:13). If you think about it, Jesus actually went away from the disciples twice: once for 3 days and nights from death to resurrection, and once at the ascension. There are two &quot;going aways&quot;, and there are two events involving the Holy Spirit that are mentioned after each of those &quot;going aways&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First event:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the crucifixion and resurrection, in the upper room, Jesus breathes on them and says &quot;receive ye the Holy Ghost&quot; (John 20:22). We breathe air in order to live, so this speaks to the aspect of the Spirit's ministry when He regenerates the believer and gives them new life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second event:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the ascension, the disciples waited in Jerusalem to receive power from on high (Acts 1:4-5). This speaks to the Spirit's ministry of empowering believers for service. This is like a mighty rushing wind that can be harnessed to help us do work. Natural air is breathed for life; and as wind, is harnessed for power: so the Spirit gives us life and empowers us for service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part 2: Why Jesus had to &quot;go away&quot; in both cases&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Regeneration to occur, the disciples had to have their sins atoned for. This could not occur until after His death and resurrection. So He had to leave them to atone for their sins. Once that was done, He could return and they could &quot;receive the Holy Ghost&quot; when He breathed on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Empowering to occur, it's a little more complicated. The disciples were going to be empowered to help them go and tell others about Jesus. Those people would have to believe their words (John 17:20) to be justified by faith. If Jesus had NOT gone away, it would be simple for everyone to just &quot;go check Him out&quot;, see the risen Lord, and prove it. There would be nothing to believe or not believe, there would only be proof that everyone would go check out, so there would be no justification by faith. And there would be no sense empowering the disciples with a measure of faith (Romans 12:3) to do anything because Jesus would be here and would have the Spirit of God without measure. The woman at the well in Samaria ran into something similar (John 4:39-42). At first people believed in Christ because of her words. But then others believed because they went and listened to Him directly, so until His ascension she was out of a job, so to speak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part 3: Why Jesus remains away during this Gospel Age&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that after the resurrection, Jesus only spends time with those who believed in Him before His death. Had He showed up publicly risen from the dead, there would be proof and no opportunity to believe God's words by faith. (Mankind fell through believing the lies of the Serpent; therefore mankind is justified through believing the words of God). The disciples already believed in Him, so He appeared to them confirming the faith they already had. Now, because He is not on Earth in a bodily form, mankind has the opportunity to respond in faith believing God's words and the freedom to disbelieve if they so choose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the church has the opportunity to preach God's words and work together with the Comforter who comes beside us to give us a measure of the Holy Spirit and work together with us to reach the unbeliever. We have a measure of empowering so we have to work together; there are no lone rangers who have it all on their own. When Christ returns to Earth, the time for faith will no longer be here because proof will arrive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might be said that Christ &quot;proved it&quot; to Paul and therefore He had no opportunity to believe by faith. But Paul is the one who wrote that we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1) so that perhaps he had the opportunity to reject the vision of Christ He received on the road to Damascus but instead responded by calling Jesus &quot;Lord&quot; (Acts 9:6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to sum it up: Jesus had to depart by dying to make regeneration available; and He had to ascend so that empowering for service would be needed to spread God's word. If the risen Christ were here on Earth there would be proof and no opportunity to believe by faith; and there would be no need for empowering to spread God's word because people wouldn't have to hear it and believe, they could just go check it out. Because He left Earth in bodily form, everyone has the opportunity to experience both aspects of the Spirit's ministry in their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And no, the Spirit was present the entire time; but He &quot;came to them&quot; in a different way each time Jesus &quot;departed&quot; from them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps! :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T01:12:46.510" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17701" CreationDate="2013-07-22T01:50:25.813" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;All I would add to what has been answered already is to compare lifespans before and after the Flood (Genesis 5 and Genesis 11). With longer lives, slower growth, and slower aging it follows that lower protein levels in plants would be adequate. After the Flood, declining longevity and rapid aging require higher concentrations of proteins to replace dying cells. God made the more concentrated sources of protein available to us as longevity dropped and aging rapidly increased. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T01:50:25.813" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17771" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T01:50:35.523" Score="7" ViewCount="3583" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the devil able to and make you doubt your faith? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there specific Biblical passages relating to this topic? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes I find myself doubting my faith when reading certain passages of the Bible, such as the beginning of Matthew (before Jesus gets his disciples) where Jesus seems more like a man than like God. A specific example is &quot;What if Christianity is just a big hoax perpetrated by ancient people?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I try to race these thoughts out of my mind and I try not to dwell on them, but is the devil able to give me such doubts or is he powerless to intervene in my relationship between me and God? The only other alternative seem to be that there are signs of my lack of faith, hinting that I am not truly saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T02:31:17.727" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T07:10:48.783" Title="Are there any Biblical passages that say that devil is able to make you doubt your faith?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17772" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T02:19:01.100" Score="8" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;To make things clear for everyone, OEC=old earth creationist (i.e. God used evolution to make his creation over billions of years). Most people arguing against OEC pose the seemingly irrefutable claim: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Life couldn't have evolved because this implies the death and suffering of millions of organisms, and death and suffering were introduced into this world at the same time that sin was introduced, and sin was introduced only when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden apple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not an OEC myself, but I have tried to think of a possible answer to this without success. My best shot was that Adam, Eve, and the tree of knowledge were fictional too, but I believe God makes it clear that sin entered the world at a specific time. So What is the typical OEC answer to this claim? Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T02:26:59.493" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T14:37:05.663" Title="How does OEC explain the existence of pre-fall death?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-07-23T07:03:17.533" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17665" CreationDate="2013-07-22T02:33:27.670" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The entire book of 1st John shows how to tell a believer from an unbeliever, and is meant to bring joy to the believer (1 John 1:4) and confirm their fellowship (1 John 1:3).&#xA;The uniqueness of the believer is shown in their response to their own sin, their belief in Christ, and their love for &lt;em&gt;other believers&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 3:13-14 states, &quot;Marvel not my &lt;em&gt;brethren&lt;/em&gt;, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love &lt;em&gt;the brethren&lt;/em&gt;. He that loveth not &lt;em&gt;his brother&lt;/em&gt; abideth in death.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;True believers are drawn to other believers and love them because they are believers. Loving your brother in the context of 1 John means loving believers &lt;em&gt;because they are believers.&lt;/em&gt; People outside the faith do not love us &lt;em&gt;because we believe&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 4:7 starts with &quot;let us love one another&quot; meaning &lt;em&gt;love other believers&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elsewhere in the Bible we are also to &quot;love our enemies&quot;. We are called to give God's love to everyone. But 1 John is talking specifically about the unique love believers have for other believers because they share faith in Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it in negative terms (1 John 4:20), if you hate people &lt;em&gt;because you see their love for Jesus&lt;/em&gt;  or hate people &lt;em&gt;who truly love Jesus&lt;/em&gt; then you aren't a real believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T02:33:27.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17771" CreationDate="2013-07-22T03:47:11.570" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jas 1:13  Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: &#xA;  Jas 1:14  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 13:2  And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Co 10:5  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes the devil can inject thoughts, imaginations, high mental things which rebel against the knowledge of God by way of temptation. The devil tempts us with our lusts. Judas lusted after money and the devil put the thought of betraying Jesus into Judas' heart and he gave into it and betrayed the Master. Giving into temptation therefore is dangerous. Being tempted is not a sin as even the Master Himself was tempted without sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joh 20:25  The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. &#xA;  Joh 20:26  And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. &#xA;  Joh 20:27  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus did not raise from the dead they do lie.&quot; was Thomas's thought. Your thought was the same phrased a littler differently. Doubt is not a big deal dwelling on doubt is a big deal. Thomas was simply admonished to believe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2Ti 2:13 NIV  if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doubting is faithless like Thomas but take heart God remains faithful to you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mat 14:29  And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. &#xA;  Mat 14:30  But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. &#xA;  Mat 14:31  And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter doubted that Jesus would sustain him as he walked on water. He could have kept his eyes on the Master and ignored to winds and the waves but he gave into the doubt and believed that he would sink so he sank. As you are metaphorically walking on the water with Jesus and you have a single doubting thought its important to get your eyes back on the Master and in no detail consider the winds and the waves lest, you like Peter, sink. Should you sink only cry out to Jesus and believe He has heard and forgiven you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T03:47:11.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17771" CreationDate="2013-07-22T04:34:04.313" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 8:44 states that the devil is &quot;a liar, and the father of it&quot; meaning the one who started all lying. Lies are things that are not true. Doubt would be that ground where we feel like we are wavering or considering two positions, one of which is true and one of which is false (a lie).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Kings 22:21-22, a spirit proposed to cause the downfall of Ahab by being a lying spirit in the mouth of his prophets. In Genesis, the serpent lied to Eve. So devils can lie to us directly or through other people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You cannot be forced to believe a lie. But a lie may be presented to you in idea form or through other people. You may think about this lie and start to think, &quot;what if this is true?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus met the postulates of the devil by using the word of God (Matthew 4). He did not ignore the questions, but He used the word of God to cut to the heart of the issues raised by the devil. So let's head in that direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You say that Jesus looks like just a man at the start of His life. The Bible calls Jesus both man (Matthew 25:31) and God (John 1:1). So if He is fully man and fully God, then we should expect Him to look like he was fully man. Especially at the beginning of His life. His ministry and revealing as the Christ did not start until after His baptism near age 30 (Luke 3:23). So we should expect Him to look like a normal human at first; Isaiah 53:2 states that &quot;there is no beauty that we should desire him.&quot; He took on no human advantage, including good looks; there was nothing &lt;em&gt;outwardly&lt;/em&gt; to distinguish him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now let's address the hoax idea. Hebrews 11:35-38 describes some of the things that people of faith have endured as a result of believing the Bible. Unbelievers do not dispute that the disciples were tortured and killed for their faith. Does it make sense that the disciples would all be willing to die for something they knew was not true?  Would the leaders who did not believe bother to persecute them, if they could simply point to a dead body? If they stole the body, would not one of the disciples admit it to gain their life? What did they gain by creating this hoax? Severe persecution. Was the motive of the hoax to deceive or entertain? Would these people deceive Jesus' mother? If not, why would she be in on it? If your leader is dead, why not just go back to fishing, since that's how you made a living since before this all started?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Christ is no more than a man, what is it about Him that drives unbelievers to use His name as a curse? What is so wrong about Him that makes men dead set against Him? Compare Christ with people's reactions against Him- who sounds more insane, Christ or those who rave against Him? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I ask you to consider this is because faith is not what you believe about yourself; faith is what you believe about Christ. So look at the whole picture of Christ; who He was from beginning to end, what He did for people, and what He went through willingly, and what He said. When the Bible talks about the condition of the human heart, does it ring true in your life? How could a hoax pull that off? It even speaks the truth about the people who rail against it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doubts can come from ideas or experiences that challenge truths. From experience, knowing God's word and understanding His point of view more and more can help the idea-based doubts resolve themselves. Don't be afraid to examine an idea, and question the question! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a circumstance-based doubt, it takes faith and patience to see the outworking of challenging circumstances and experiences (see Job). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T04:34:04.313" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17776" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17778" CreationDate="2013-07-22T06:49:23.960" Score="3" ViewCount="3374" Body="&lt;p&gt;God says thou shall not kill as one of the Ten Commandments but he actually instructs his chosen people to kill numerous times throughout the Old Testament. Then there is tons of killing, persecution, and even torture performed under the authority of the Catholic Church under the New Testament. Specifically I would like to sight the story of Saul when he is instructed to kill everyone of the Amalekites men, women, and children. Saul failed to do so and he was actually punished for it and would eventually lose his annionted kingship. So in short my question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does God condone or order so much killing when it is against the Commandments?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5171" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T13:27:17.940" Title="Thou shall not kill?" Tags="&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;killing&gt;&lt;murder&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-07-22T13:39:55.380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17777" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17771" CreationDate="2013-07-22T07:03:24.317" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;em&gt;Temptation of Jesus Christ&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(Matthew 4:1-11)&lt;/a&gt;, we can see 3 ways of temptation by Satan in order to introduce doubts in our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ignoring the word of God:&lt;/strong&gt; Satan told Jesus to turn the stones into bread. Satan always reminds us of our daily needs and make us worry over it instead of putting our faith in the Word of God. This introduces doubt in us over the importance of God's word in our daily life. As Jesus resisted the temptation by using the Word of God, we should also resist the temptation by meditating &lt;em&gt;&quot;Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Doubting the power of God:&lt;/strong&gt; Satan told Jesus to jump down from the temple to see whether God will help or not. When we have trials and temptations, we question the power of God by pondering &quot;&lt;em&gt;Can God really deliver me from this trouble?&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.  Satan will try to make us doubt the power of God but we must resist it by saying &quot;&lt;em&gt;Do not put the Lord your God to the test&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Worldly pleasures:&lt;/strong&gt; Satan tried to offer the whole world to Jesus on one condition, worshiping Satan. Satan is ready to give us worldly pleasures if we worship him knowingly or unknowingly by pursuing worldly pleasures. Worldly things can drift us away from our faith.  When we are attracted by worldly pleasures, we should reply, &lt;em&gt;“Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have doubt over the authenticity of the Bible itself, you will have to make a little extra research on the history of &lt;em&gt;&quot;How we get our Bible&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. Many good articles here and elsewhere will be convincing enough on the authenticity of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T07:10:48.783" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T07:10:48.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17776" CreationDate="2013-07-22T07:41:40.090" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Exodus 20:13 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; “You shall not &lt;strong&gt;murder&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Exodus 20:13 (KJV)&lt;/em&gt; Thou shalt not &lt;strong&gt;kill&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meaning* of the Hebrew word for &quot;kill/murder&quot; used in this verse has a wide range of meanings as explained in  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;. The act of killing in a warfare is not what this 6th commandment means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commands for the killings in the Old Testament had proper reasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; However, in the cities of the nations the&#xA;  Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive&#xA;  anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites,&#xA;  Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord&#xA;  your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow&#xA;  all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you&#xA;  will sin against the Lord your God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To annihilate all the inhabitants of Canaan:&lt;/strong&gt;  God promised the land of Canaan to the people of Israel. It was necessary to annihilate all the inhabitants of Canaan before they could settle there. It is logical that no one will allow a foreigner to occupy his land. Israelites had to fight their way into Canaan in order to rule and possess it. Once the whole promised land was occupied, God never commanded them to extend their territory by attacking their neighboring countries. The whole Canaan was taken under the rule of David, and after him God never commanded them to extend their territory.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To get rid of Idolaters:&lt;/strong&gt; God did not want the Israelite to mingle with the idolaters in Canaan less they also become like them. God also did allow them to marry idolaters. It was the command of God to annihilate all idol worshipers in Canaan but the Israelites failed to do it which resulted in idolatry in Israel. This idolatry caused the destruction of Israel under Assyria and Judah under Babylon. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the killings and tortures done by the Catholic Church, it had more to do with politics and ignorance, rather than the commands in the Bible nor from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;sub&gt; As Caleb commented, the meaning of the word &quot;kill&quot; could mean &quot;murder&quot; at the time when KJV was written. &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T11:06:49.533" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T11:06:49.533" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17779" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T08:19:19.713" Score="-6" ViewCount="3464" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the age old tale of Adam and Eve God place Adam and Eve in the garden with all the trees and the one they can eat off of. But God is omnipotent and omniscient so wouldn't he have known before hand that they would eat of the forbidden fruit? Whether you believe traditionally that this was a historical event or that it's just a legend or parable meant to educate is irrelavent to my question. But I want to bring this tale into modern terms have their are so many temptations or &quot;forbidden fruits&quot; in the world and we have to make a choice between sin and God. But the Bible says in Matthew 17:13-14 &quot;13—Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14—Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me this suggests that most men will choose sin and hell instead of godliness and heaven. Which sounds like a dumb decision at face value but we all have our &quot;forbidden fruits.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I'm asking is why does God allow so many temptations into the world knowing most will choose their flesh rather than him? Is he setting us up for failure know most won't resist their flesh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5171" LastActivityDate="2014-01-12T21:51:44.373" Title="Is God setting us up for failure?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-11-11T16:05:46.070" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17780" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T09:11:34.200" Score="4" ViewCount="3765" Body="&lt;p&gt;Early Christianity soon after Jesus’ death, in spite of the whole powerful world being against the first believers, kept spreading rapidly in that region. More so because up to the point of Jesus' death he was a rebel and a heretic.  This is also in spite of the fact that people who were propagating it were just illiterate fisherman and ordinary people. I was imagining this scenario, when an ordinary fisherman coming and telling me stories about Jesus and strangely I believe whatever these simple chaps telling me.  No sword nor power but only a simple message of love. No amount of bloodshed or violence or any horrific punishment could muffle its spread.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then after this initial struggle, a different kind of struggle continued over these two millenniums and is still continuing even now. During this period there were many forces acting against Christianity from outside but more dangerously from within. These internal forces were more dangerous elements who were in better position to discredit it and make it weak. Though this even continues till today, we find that it still striving and vibrant.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is that so appealing about Christianity in spite of its passive message?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;{I don't think &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/what-is-unique-about-christianity&quot;&gt;it is a duplicate of this question&lt;/a&gt; since that is about &quot;how Christianity is different from other religions&quot; whereas this  &quot;how it survived and spread&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T13:14:51.080" Title="What is so appealing about Christianity?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;global-christianity&gt;&lt;persecution&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-07-25T13:43:46.493" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17780" CreationDate="2013-07-22T11:49:30.233" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you've missed some key points in your imagined scenario.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It wasn't &quot;a simple message of love&quot; spread by a few ordinary fisherman. Jesus wasn't some hippie revolutionary who got a bunch of followers to parade around telling everybody they should just love each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What made Christianity appealing was that &lt;strong&gt;it was true&lt;/strong&gt;. This would have been much more apparent to the early followers. As time went on this has gotten increasingly hard to see, but lets look at the scenario again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ordinary fisherman spend a couple years hanging out with this dude Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Said dude wows some crowds but ends up on the wrong end of the political stick.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Said dude gets executed (in dubious circumstances) for blasphemy/treason.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ordinary fishermen go back to their nets.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously there are more layers to this. What Jesus was actually teaching during this time, the addition of miracles, and quite a number of other factors are significant and should be given more treatment than I will here. The reason I filtered the scenario down to just these factors is to highlight one significant factor I think is underestimated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The return to fishing is not an unexpected move. The fisherman were disillusioned, nobody really wanted to get strung up for association with a recently executed rebel and they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Bread wasn't going to put itself on the table and they no longer had (in their own estimation) a message that was going to change the world. Their own leader had failed — even let them down — and who were they to take up his mantle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then the resurrection happened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:22-24&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Acts 2:22-24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— &lt;sup&gt;23&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. &lt;sup&gt;24&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These fishermen weren't going to be taken in for a hoax. The real flesh and blood dude that they'd spent three years traipsing around the countryside with had just shown himself master over death itself. They could hear him, touch him and he ate their fish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The history of every nation revolves around Jesus of Nazareth. This is really an astonishing claim: to say everything depends on a guy who lived two thousand years ago, ate some fish, and got himself killed. And then ate some more fish. — Telford Work&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happened next is truly epic. After a couple weeks Jesus left the scene, heading back to his father. The disciples were now left with something completely different than what they had after three years of just hearing hearing the guy teach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This time instead of heading back to their nets, they committed themselves to telling the world about this dude at the cost of hardship, torture and eventual death. To the last man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These men would not have thrown their lives away for anything they were not absolutely convinced was true. In some circumstances it is possible to be absolutely convinced that a lie is true, but these men were were in a position to know if the guy was a fraud. And quite honestly they had their doubts for a while, but in the end nobody, least of all themselves had a motivation to perpetrate a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The leading Jewish religious leaders would liked nothing more than to have pointed to his grave.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Roman solders guarding his tomb would want to keep their heads. Attached to their bodies.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The disciples who the Jewish leaders tried to blame with a conspiracy would have the least reason of anybody to actually pull one off. And if it had been them, which of them would have gone to his death defending something he knew to be a lie that would have netted a fortune to revel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course the power of God through his Spirit made this possible. But at heart it wasn't a &quot;message of love&quot; that was irresistible. &lt;strong&gt;It was truth.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:36&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Acts 2:36&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;36&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T12:40:40.163" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T12:40:40.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17779" CreationDate="2013-07-22T12:01:06.227" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, my reply is from the Reformed Presbyterian tradition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not setting us up for failure. That is, He is not setting up His people for failure. The very phrase &quot;setting up&quot; sounds like people are machines, just automatons. That view does not do justice to the image of God in man. However, it is also true that God is sovereign. God is sovereign, &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; man is responsible for his own actions, including his sins. See Romans 9:14-24. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why would God set up a world in which man would fall into ruin? This is akin to asking about the problem of evil. And the only satisfactory answer I know of is that God set up the world this way in order for Him to get greater glory. There are certain attributes of God that show up in greater relief when there is sin in the world: justice, wrath, mercy, grace, and love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do believe in predestination: God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass. However, this does not violate the will of the creature, but rather establishes it. That is, the will of the creature is the mechanism through which God most often works. See Chapter 3 Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his&#xA;  own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:&#xA;  yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence&#xA;  offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or&#xA;  contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God saves &lt;em&gt;His people&lt;/em&gt;. They will go to heaven and be with Him forever. That does not sound like failure!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T12:01:06.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17779" CreationDate="2013-07-22T12:36:41.807" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;... God is omnipotent and omniscient so wouldn't he have known before hand that they would eat of the forbidden fruit?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, He knowns! But Adam and Eve were different of us, they are without sins, so their will was really &quot;free&quot; and it wasn't contaminated like us. The origin and consequences of the original sin are very different of our condition, so God knows why it happened...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;why does God allow so many temptations into the world knowing most will choose their flesh rather than him?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When children learn to walk, they need fall sometimes. No pain, no gain... God expects that you learn to walk, but looks that the mankind prefer wheelchairs...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="881" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T12:36:41.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17784" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6524" CreationDate="2013-07-22T12:54:58.643" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Water in John 3:5 is referring to amniotic fluid then one would have to be born natural to be saved. Hence aborted babies, miscarried children would be lost. Notice the text unless one is born of water AND the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom.  Also the same word ( water ) is used later in the chapter John was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much amniotic fluid there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where does the Bible the word of God ever tell you to accept Christ into your heart?  I have heard this a lot but still unable to locate it in the Bible, but there is a lot I don't know. Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not having been baptized by him.  I just wouldn't want to reject God's counsel, but that's me. I'll stand before God and be judged for my actions or lack thereof. Not trying to offend anyone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5175" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-23T10:48:30.857" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T10:48:30.857" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17776" CreationDate="2013-07-22T12:55:34.833" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, when God ordered the Israelites to kill various groups of people, the people being killed were always under judgement from God for their sins.  The Canaanites were particularly evil people who practiced idolatry, including brutal infant sacrifices.  As such, it could be argued that the people were guilty under the law and therefore, killing them would be a matter of capital punishment rather than murder.  As others have made clear, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder, not all killing.  The Mosaic Law includes capital punishment as a recourse for many crimes, so clearly, in context, the Ten Commandments were not intended to outlaw all killing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That explanation, however, is not, in my mind sufficient to answering the question.  For instance, that doesn't explain why it was just for the Israelites to kill babies.  Surely it cannot be said that the Canaanite infants were any more guilty of breaking the Mosaic Law than the Israelite babies were.  To answer the question of why it was just for the Israelites to kill innocent babies, you must go beyond a simple murder-versus-capital-punishment explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One answer to that question is that God is omnipotent and omniscient.  When we murder someone, it is wrong because we have taken something away that we cannot give back.  We do not have the power to give the person their life back.  When God takes someone's life, not only is it in his power to give it back to them, it was He who lent it to them in the first place.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, when we carry out capital punishment, we take great pains to ensure that we do not wrongly convict the innocent.  When God carries out capital punishment, he definitively knows, not only the persons guilt or innocence, but also their future decisions.  He knows whether or not they would ever repent if they were given the opportunity to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if it's just for God to directly apply capital punishment, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is also just for him to ask an executioner to carry out the punishment for him, as in the examples you mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning any killings that have been carried out by the Church, Catholic or otherwise: it cannot be said that God condoned those killings merely because they were performed in His name.  If Bob murders Sam and claims that Marty made him do it, that doesn't necessarily mean that Marty condoned it.  It's only true that Marty condoned it if what Bob claimed actually was true.  It's fallacious reasoning to claim that a religion supports murder merely because some of its adherents are guilty of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T13:27:17.940" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T13:27:17.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17787" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T13:20:30.477" Score="14" ViewCount="2649" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many Christian groups condemn homosexuality as a sin, pointing to specific passages in the Bible and traditional Christian views on sexuality and marriage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do these groups handle the question of whether a person can be both a practicing homosexual and also a Christian? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any additional steps required? Do these groups teach that it would be sinful to continue practicing after one became a Christian?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-08-03T01:28:54.367" LastActivityDate="2016-08-03T01:28:54.367" Title="Do Christian groups which think homosexuality is a sin think you can be a practicing homosexual and also a Christian?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-08-03T02:26:02.433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17747" CreationDate="2013-07-22T14:25:44.087" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some ways the best way to observe the different relations that exist within trinity is in how they operate in their unified works.  It is well described by John Owen:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The beginning of divine operations is assigned unto the Father, as he is fons et origo Deitatis,—“the fountain of the Deity itself:” “Of him, and through him, and to him, are all things,” Rom. 11:36. The subsisting, establishing, and “upholding of all things,” is ascribed unto the Son: “He is before all things, and by him all things consist,” Col. 1:17. As he made all things with the Father, so he gives them a consistency, a permanency, in a peculiar manner, as he is the power and wisdom of the Father. He “upholdeth all things by the word of his power,” Heb. 1:3. And the finishing and perfecting of all these works is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as we shall see. (Works of John Owen, Vol 3, P94)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can see these relations in the very first three verses of the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see that God the Father is the originating will being expressed through the Son, for 'God says' that is the Father expresses the Son who is his word in creating and sustaining the creation. The Son proceeds from the Father.  &lt;strong&gt;Regarding the Spirit, he is said to be sent from the Father and sent from the Son.  In this example right from the beginning, the earth is formless but the Spirit is hovering over the waters.  This establishes a concept that the Holy Spirit is about to add a perfecting completion of the Trinity's work, finishing the creation into perfection after originated in the Father's command through his word, the Son.&lt;/strong&gt;  The Spirit is acting as the perfecting and immediate cause of the operations of the Godhead in and on the creation. The relation therefore of the Holy Spirit to the Father, is that the Holy Spirit 'proceeds' from the Father, being his immediate presence to his creation and perfecting the works of the Godhead which originally proceed from the Father. The Spirit never sends the Father anywhere.  This seems to the key distinction in the Spirit's relation to the Father. It might seem like a minor point, yet it established a clear relation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T14:25:44.087" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17772" CreationDate="2013-07-22T14:31:07.670" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd encourage you to give a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;listen&lt;/a&gt; to William Lane Craigs 'Defenders' podcast series on Creation and Evolution, specifically episode 14 which touches on this (but the prior 13 episodes provide background info). This is probably the most erudite, methodical, and approachable analysis that I've ever come across on this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several issues touched on here. What does it mean for a non-human animal to suffer? Do non sentient beings suffer in the same sense that we do? What about animals that have some self awareness? There is a lot philosophical/ethical writing on this topic. The answer is, is that although animal undoubtedly feel pain, fear and anxiety, you do not necessarily have to hold that animals suffer in the same way that humans do (having a self awareness of their own suffering).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, it is hard to believe that many of the creatures that exist today would have been able to exist in an environment where no death or suffering was intended. Predators come to mind; parasites and virus as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally and most importantly, how you define death? When death enters into the world does it mean death in the physical sense? Or does death mean corruption and in the spiritual sense, that humans and creatures are not living to their true potential in harmony and communion with God? Indeed, when Adam and Eve sinned, they did not immediately die in any physical sense which is evident in the text itself, but they were immediately separated from God. In other words does sin=death=physical death for humans and all creatures? The answer if you hold to evolutionary theism is that the author of Geneses, and Paul (or anyone else) when he references these things in the NT, is that they mean spiritual death. If you read 1 John closely, he is using death and sin interchangeably, and the meaning is extremely spiritual in its use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So an OEC could believe that although the account of creation is primary metaphorical and doesn't describe a physical mechanism by which creation occurred, they can believe that Adam and Eve where historical characters (as you mention) and that they were in communion with God but when they sinned, death in the spiritual sense entered into the world, separating humans from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastEditorUserId="5" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T14:37:05.663" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T14:37:05.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7530" CreationDate="2013-07-22T14:43:57.830" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was asked this morning if angels can die. Angels are holy and live in the Kingdom of Heaven. They have the LORD'S protection. How can angels who never knew any sin, die; with the exception of Lucifer and the fallen angels? The angel in Daniel 10:13 did not die but was rescued by the archangel Michael. The LORD sent support. He backs up His angels in Battle. There is no way GOD would allow and angel to perish at the hands of the evil one. Daniel 10:13 just means there's a reason why sometimes the answers to our prayers are delayed. Do not be deceived by the enemy by wasting time contemplating nonsense this nonsense. GOD'S angels are HOLY. What can kill HOLINESS? NOTHING! Evil has no power over holiness. I once asked the LORD about angels and He said He takes them from Strength, to Strength, to Strength, to Strength. They only get stronger. That angel battled 21 days with the kings of Persia and may have won the battle but it may have just taken longer to do it and the LORD may have wanted Daniel's prayer answered sooner than that particular angel would have delivered His message so the LORD send reinforcements (Michael the Archangel) to help that angel out. The Bible does not say that the angel lost the battle. The angel said that he was withstood by the prince of Persia 21 days and that he had remained there (fighting) with the kings of Persia (Daniel 10:13). That angel was battling more than just one entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE SCRIPTURE: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty&#xA;  days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and&#xA;  I remained there with the kings of Persia&quot;  (Daniel 10:13, KJV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'Kings' is plural. That was one good fight that angel put up alone to battle 21 day. NOTE also, Scripture states, 21 days, not almost 21 days as mentioned above in the comment. Note this scripture states not only did the Michael the chief of princes come to help this angel but this angel still remained there. Hence, this angel &quot;DID NOT DIE.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The evil will bow before the good, And the wicked at the gates of the&#xA;  righteous&quot; (Proverbs 14:19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5179" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-12-06T21:14:55.263" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T21:14:55.263" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17793" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17796" CreationDate="2013-07-22T15:30:46.093" Score="6" ViewCount="8514" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know music is a form of worship that is expressed several times throughout the Bible, but how did singing gain such a pivotal role in church services? What biblical basis is there for congregational participation in music? Is there any, or is does the practice originate from traditional spirituals and hymn sings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no complaints against music, but it strikes me that it is not necessarily everyone's forte when it comes to artistic expression and I've been wondering if there are other practices which might be suitable substitutes for those of us who don't have the same aptitude for song (besides the art of lip-syncing of course :). I'm pretty good at that by now).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Great answers. Thanks, folks. This has my mind going and I've posted a follow up here for those interested: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17798/can-one-worship-without-song&quot;&gt;Is song a critical component of worship or something that we&amp;#39;ve just borrowed from example?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user5154" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T12:30:56.797" Title="What is the biblical basis for singing in church?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17793" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:06:56.333" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's very ancient! Song has been used in worship since before the Psalms were written, and certainly continued into New Testament times. And through Christian history to the present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See Psalm 81 (among lots of other references):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;strong&gt;81&lt;/strong&gt;:1&lt;/sup&gt;Sing aloud to God our strength;&#xA;  shout for joy to the God of Jacob!&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; Raise a song, sound the timbrel,&#xA;      the sweet lyre with the harp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the disciples sang too, as referenced in Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26, following the Last Supper, and it appears to have been common at the time of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Col &lt;strong&gt;3&lt;/strong&gt;:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as you teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm an organist, and I've often wondered what to do for those for whom singing is a bit of a trial. Generally, the advice is just to do it. It doesn't actually matter what you sound like (although perhaps joining the choir wouldn't be ideal). Raise a song with thankfulness in your heart that God accepts you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if there are other opportunities which might suit better where music is concerned, why not explore those. Do you play an instrument, for example?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand [third hand!] if lip-synching allows you to join in without embarrassment, that's not wrong either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T16:06:56.333" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17795" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:14:10.847" Score="3" ViewCount="223" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some people think that God cannot exist because he would be paradoxical, for example &quot;If God is omnipotent, can he create an object he cannot move?&quot; How should this question be answered? Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T17:33:27.073" Title="How to answer: &quot;If God is omnipotent, can he create an object he cannot move?&quot;" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;omnipotence&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-07-22T17:33:39.507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17793" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:21:10.080" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17); therefore it is not God's intention that you are obligated to do something with which you are uncomfortable, but feel free to worship God via a different expression. For example, David danced before the Lord (2 Samuel 6:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For singing in church: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus sang with the disciples in Mark 14:26.&#xA;Paul and Silas sang in Acts 16:25.&#xA;Romans 15:9 mentions singing among the Gentiles.&#xA;1 Corinthians 14:15 talks about singing with the spirit and singing with the mind.&#xA;Hebrews 2:12 talks about singing in the church.&#xA;James 5:3 says to let the joyful sing, let the sorrowful pray &quot;among you&quot; (in church).&#xA;Revelation 15:3 describes singing in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Singing is so popular probably because it involves the right and left sides of the brain. Also, we tap our feet to the rhythm, so it speaks to the body. We understand the lyrics of the melody so it speaks to the mind or soul. And it sets a mood or tone in the harmony so it speaks to our spirit. Hopefully the music we select harmonizes with the fruit of the Spirit; the lyrics help us set our minds on things in Philippians 4:8, and the rhythm helps our body be subject to the Spirit in harmony with the fruit and not out of control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take heart- no where does it say you have to sing or sing well! You can &quot;make a joyful noise&quot; (Psalm 100) or use a different art form and the real believers around you will rejoice along with you, and phooey with them if they look down on you- they should be looking up to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T16:21:10.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17797" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17799" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:21:21.870" Score="11" ViewCount="1145" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have encountered people in the past that have asserted that certain musical rhythms or beats are inherently immoral or sinful.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to follow, then, that even if the words of Scriptures themselves are put to music with the wrong beat, the result is somehow still immoral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the particular basis or argument for this belief?  Is there any biblical basis for this?  Did the Psalms follow a certain beat pattern that could be the basis for this thinking?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T19:08:37.287" LastActivityDate="2014-10-20T14:56:37.983" Title="What is the basis for why certain musical beats are deemed by some to be unchristian or immoral?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17798" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17803" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:25:24.053" Score="4" ViewCount="831" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a follow-up to this previous question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17793/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-singing-in-church&quot;&gt;What is the biblical basis for singing in church?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would worship be incomplete without song? Though their are examples of worship through song in the bible that doesn't necessarily mean to me that singing is a crucial component of worship. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible that it is entirely contextual? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, before the jukebox in bars we had drinking songs (aside: many of which have lent their tunes to the hymns churches sing today). That was just the standard form of communal entertainment at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe singing was just a convenient expression of communal worship in the early church and we've interpreted it to mean that we have to sing in every church service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does anyone see any flaws (biblically-based or otherwise) with this perspective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. I don't mean to rag on music. I happen to love the music in my church (so long as I can't hear myself sing :) ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user5154" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2015-04-06T05:25:09.143" Title="Is song a critical component of worship or something that we've just borrowed from example?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T20:01:46.150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17799" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17797" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:36:51.890" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I've read in several books on worship (see below), the basis for this belief goes back to the roots of various kinds of music in African tribal music. The reasoning goes that since the tribal music was demonic (by intention), therefore its successors must have a demonic back-beat. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I once read a senior thesis by a student at New St. Andrews College, in Moscow, Idaho, USA, that had a powerful argument against this line of reasoning. Alas, I do not have access to the thesis. She argued against the line of reasoning on various biblical bases. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have virtually no idea how the Psalms were originally sung. We certainly do not have any original tunes, and we have very little idea of instrumentation.  Again, that is simply something I have read in books (a few mentioned below). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a more general worship/music note, I've found the book &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1433528223&quot;&gt;All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, by Ken Myers, to be extraordinarily helpful, as well as &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1596381957&quot;&gt;Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, by T. David Gordon, and &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0802841023&quot;&gt;Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, by Marva Dawn. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T16:36:51.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17798" CreationDate="2013-07-22T16:48:49.493" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Allow me to answer this question via an illustration and another question.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's say there was someone who had an unhealthy emotional obsession with you. You tell your friends that you are concerned that this other person may even &quot;worship the ground you walk on&quot;. Now, in this scenario, which of the following activities would make you more concerned that they worship you?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They sing you a song about how much they love you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They sing you a song about how how great you are&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They spend a significant portion of their income, let's say 10%, buying gifts for you&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They buy property on the town-common and erect a giant structure in your honor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That certainly is not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. Clearly, all of these activities would be concerning, but I suspect some may be more concerning to you than others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not, itself, define what worship is. There are examples in scripture of people worshiping by singing, dancing, bowing, praising, and giving of gifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, &lt;code&gt;Genesis 24:26-27&lt;/code&gt; shows an example of bowing and praising as a form of worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord.  And he said, &quot;Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master's brethren.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;code&gt;Matt. 2:1-2&lt;/code&gt; describes how the wise men traveled to worship Jesus by giving him gifts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, &quot;Where is he that is born King of the Jews?  For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Often we think of worship as being synonymous with music. Many churches even refer to the people leading the singing as the &quot;worship leaders&quot;. Certainly music is a very common form of worship, but it is not the only one. I do not mean, nor intend, to denigrate music, as a form of worship, but we often forget that tithes/offerings and praise are also forms of worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2013-09-06T05:35:57.533" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T05:35:57.533" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17795" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:06:42.000" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is based on a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;false premise&lt;/a&gt;, that omnipotence means the ability to do anything.  Rather omnipotence means posessing infinite power:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;almighty or infinite in power, as God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;having very great or unlimited authority or power.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having infinite power does not give one the ability to do anything. It only gives them the ability to do anything which is possible by force.  No amount of power allows one to do the logically impossible: Draw a spherical square, or create an object so large it cannot be moved, sing the color purple, or any other logical impossibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See my &lt;a href=&quot;https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/1330/840&quot;&gt;answer on Philosophy.SE&lt;/a&gt; to a simliar question (which was originally here, but migrated).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:21.153" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T17:33:27.073" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17798" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:38:24.460" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said in John 4:22-23 &quot;true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth.&quot; Worship and praise extols God for His attributes and His actions (Revelation 4:8-11). Song is not a required mode for this, only spirit (in harmony with the Holy Spirit) and truth (in harmony with the word of God). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you could have something like a cake baking worship session where you make cakes and cover them with praises to God for His attributes and actions, then give the cakes away or  something. Or make praise pizzas (it's getting near lunch time- can you tell?) and give them to the homeless. Or make a mural that extols God and His virtues and portrays His actions and hang it up outside to praise God publicly. Run with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just don't set something up where people are forbidden from singing; because where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T17:38:24.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17798" CreationDate="2013-07-22T17:55:15.893" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the Reformed Presbyterian perspective, I would say that the basis for all public worship (i.e., worship with the Lord's people on the Sabbath) is found in the Regulative Principle of Public Worship: all elements of pblic worship must have an express warrant in Scripture. Put another way, you can only do those things in public worship that God has expressly set down in Scripture. The basis for the Regulative Principle is the Second Commandment in Exodus 20:4-6 or Deuteronomy 5:8. I'll quote the first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in&#xA;  heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You&#xA;  shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God,&#xA;  am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to&#xA;  the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing&#xA;  love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my&#xA;  commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 10:1-2 shows how seriously God takes worship of Himself. It must be done His way. Now, I am not arguing, obviously, that God kills people who worship Him in unauthorized ways today. However, if something warranted the death penalty in the OT, I think we may infer that it's a bad idea, even in our time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, contrary to some, I believe that the Regulative Principle does not end the matter, because now it becomes a question of &quot;In Scripture, what has God commanded His people to do in public worship?&quot; There are some (the Covenanters, dear brothers in Christ) who say that you should only sing Psalms in worship, and you should not use instruments (the so-called &quot;exclusive psalmody, no-instruments position&quot;). I am not of this view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The practice of singing in public worship has express warrant in Scripture. Aside from a myriad of Psalms that command the people of God to sing praises to Him in worship, there are passages such as Colossians 3:16: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and&#xA;  admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and&#xA;  spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context of the phrase &quot;singing psalms and hymns&quot; is &quot;teaching and admonishing one another&quot;, which can only realistically happen in the congregation. And there are other passages which command singing together. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, singing praises to God is considered an &quot;element&quot; of worship, to use the technical term often used in discussions of the Regulative Principle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T17:55:15.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17807" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17813" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:40:20.457" Score="9" ViewCount="2728" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know there are several Christian traditions that do not claim that scripture is inerrant (and therefore do not interpret everything in the Bible literally). If this is the case, then it seems like a slippery slope of interpreting the Bible in a way that favors one's own opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do these traditions use to keep their interpretations in check with what they understand to be God's will instead of what they want to be true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe another way to ask this question that will limit it to something that is not too subjective is: What other sources of &quot;truth&quot; do people use to supplement the Bible in their beliefs, and how do they justify it (Biblically or otherwise)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5154" LastEditorUserId="4101" LastEditDate="2015-09-02T21:34:05.527" LastActivityDate="2016-07-12T21:34:58.073" Title="How do Christians that do not believe in inerrancy interpret the Bible?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2746" CreationDate="2013-07-22T18:48:50.493" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:20-23&lt;/strong&gt; is the Scripture passage I always think of when I hear that phrase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His&#xA;  eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being&#xA;  understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.&#xA;  For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave&#xA;  thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish&#xA;  hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became&#xA;  fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to&#xA;  look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also &lt;strong&gt;Ecclesiastes 3:11b&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom&#xA;  what God has done from beginning to end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5181" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-07-22T22:59:26.603" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T22:59:26.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17809" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17810" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:06:28.650" Score="-1" ViewCount="1948" Body="&lt;p&gt;People don't like hypocrites, and they get a pretty bad rap in the Bible (especially from Jesus), but is hypocrisy itself a sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reformed theology at least, every one is fallen and cannot avoid sin, and is by definition a hypocrite if they point out anyone else's sin. It seems to me that hypocrisy is a necessary evil in the process of accountability. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference I see is in the manner of being hypocritical, Jesus was critical of the prideful hypocrites who could not see the flaws in themselves, but maybe there is a safe way to be both hypocritical and humbly acknowledging your own sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5154" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-10-20T01:12:36.223" LastActivityDate="2018-10-20T01:12:36.223" Title="According to reformed theology, is hypocrisy a sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17809" CreationDate="2013-07-22T19:25:22.740" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to take a stab at this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, reformed theology suggests that man is completely sinful. That's the T in TULIP for Total Depravity. We're so sinful that we're beyond saving on our power. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The thing that might get lost in this is that even a single sin. No matter how small is enough to keep us completely separated from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hypocrisy is definitely a sin. It's a sin motivated by pride, but ultimately it's bearing false witness. It's lying to yourself and other about how bad off your spiritual state really is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reformed theology though brings us out of that hypocrisy, we see and confess our sin for what it really is: Total and complete depravity and in such complete separation from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is where we get to the good stuff though. We don't leave it there. As sinful, hypocritical and depraved as we are, God's grace is more than sufficient to cover it all. Yes hypocrisy is sin, and considering the nature of the reformers as intellectuals it was certainly one they struggled with (I certainly do myself), but the truth is that Grace is sufficient. We're forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T19:25:22.740" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17812" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17828" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:32:59.657" Score="5" ViewCount="477" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was asking this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17807/if-you-dont-believe-in-the-inerrancy-of-scripture-on-what-basis-can-you-interp&quot;&gt;How do Christians that do not believe in inerrancy interpret the Bible?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;when I realized that my definition of inerrancy is probably different from others'. One definition (in my own words) is &quot;The Bible is inerrant so long as it is translated and interpreted correctly&quot; but a more extreme definition is &quot;The Bible is inerrant and must be interpreted literally&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that there are several things that could make the Bible errant (keep in mind that I'm not necessarily suggesting that any of these are the case):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is dis-proven by science or historical fact&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its original text was misrecorded&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its translation into our native language was incorrect&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Its interpretation is not correct&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Between the two examples I gave you will either hit up against the facts of science/history (sorry Young Earth creationists, just bear with me), and the infinite possibilities of non-literal interpretations (which, so long as they are not the same, cannot all be right). Therefore there must be some error between God's mouth thousands of years ago and our heads today. It is inescapable the way I see it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe it's just syntax that's holding me up, but where do people draw the line when they talk about inerrancy? Is it without error between God's mouth and the original transcription? That neglects to recognize the potential for error downstream to the reader. It seems to me that as soon as you allow for interpretation you taint the inerrancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, doesn't the fact that we are constricted by the boundaries and limitations of language (whether spoken, written, or read) make inerrancy impossible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2016-07-12T21:12:30.417" Title="What does biblical inerrancy imply?" Tags="&lt;inerrancy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-07-19T20:44:56.993" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17807" CreationDate="2013-07-22T20:43:20.423" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church,) Church tradition (the doctrine  of the first seven Ecumenical Councils)is supported by scripture when scripture is properly interpreted by the Fathers (2nd - 6th. cents.) Passages in the text that appear, when taken literally, to contradict one another, are resolved through mystical interpretation (communion with the Holy Spirit of God.) &quot;Blessed are the Peacemakers,&quot; Jesus said - which means we are to refrain from dissension, and are to find harmony with different readings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We depend on the Greek and Latin Fathers' mystical understanding  to check that our own understanding through the Holy Spirit is in agreement with the majority of Fathers' understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for inerrancy, it is considered that the NT has no errors when it comes to an explanation of morals and of Faith, but that in matters of science it may be in error. And of course during the transmission of the text from the 4th. cent. to today, there have been thousands of mistakes in copying, and there are many disagreements between publishers about the actual words to print, so that hardly any two versions of the NT agree word for word. The interpretation, however, should remain constant over time for this is the job of the Church - &quot;Keep my words,&quot; Jesus said. To ensure this, we return to the writings of the Church Fathers who were trained by disciples of the disciples, for an explanation of what Jesus said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Torah has been inerrant since the 11th. cent. through very careful copying. The interpretation of Torah, however, evolves with every generation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T20:43:20.423" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15876" CreationDate="2013-07-22T21:48:47.293" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will suggest an answer to your question and then I would like to offer you a different perspective about what happened on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On fellowship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It depends on how you define &quot;fellowship&quot;. 2 Corinthians 6:14 asks &quot;what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?&quot; 1 John 1:3-7 indicates that the believer who walks in the light has fellowship with the Father, the Son, and other believers. Philippians 2:1 mentions fellowship of the Spirit as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sinners are pursued by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11) and they are exposed to God's revelation through nature (Romans 1:20), conscience (Romans 2:15), the nation of Israel, Jesus, the church, and the Bible as it is preached. But to say that they have fellowship seems in scripture to imply a level of harmony reserved for believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly Christ was more in harmony with the Father than we as believers are, because we see through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far then: (Sinner, God), (Believer, God), (Christ, God)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I would like to suggest a different perspective on what happened on the cross &lt;em&gt;for your consideration&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that God and Jesus were separated on the cross, fellowship broken; is based on Habakkuk 1:13 where it says of God, &quot;Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity&quot;. So on the cross Jesus &quot;was made sin for us&quot; (2 Corinthians 5:21), so God hid His face and did not look at Jesus (or broke fellowship), so Jesus said &quot;My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?&quot; Matthew 27:46. Then the idea that Jesus suffered in hell is based on Acts 2:27 which says he didn't stay in hell and the reasoning that Jesus had to suffer eternity in hell for every man in order to take the punishment for sin in our place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you read &lt;em&gt;the entire verse&lt;/em&gt; of Habakkuk 1:13 it says &quot;Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: &lt;em&gt;wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he&lt;/em&gt;?&quot; Habakkuk was complaining, not because God &lt;em&gt;wasn't&lt;/em&gt; looking, but because He &lt;em&gt;was looking&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;not doing anything about it&lt;/em&gt; (yet). In other words, the verse means that God can't look on iniquity &lt;em&gt;and not do something about it&lt;/em&gt;. It doesn't mean He can't look on iniquity at all. This is supported by Jeremiah 16:17 where it says &quot;For mine eyes are upon all their ways: &lt;em&gt;they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from my eyes&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?&quot; is a quote from Psalm 22:1. That Psalm describes the crucifixion. Verse 24 of the same Psalm states &quot;For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; &lt;em&gt;neither hath he hid his face from him&lt;/em&gt;; but &lt;em&gt;when he cried unto him&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;he heard&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; The idea that God was hiding His face from Jesus and not looking goes against the very Psalm that Jesus was quoting at the time. It also goes against Isaiah 53:11 which says &quot;He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied&quot;. This is supported by John 16:32 where Jesus said that everyone would scatter and leave Him alone, &quot;yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also supported by 2 Corinthians 5:19 which states that &quot;God was &lt;em&gt;in Christ&lt;/em&gt;, reconciling the world unto himself&quot;. Romans 5:10 and Ephesians 2:16 make it clear that this reconciliation took place during His death on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In what way then was Jesus &quot;forsaken&quot;? Well, we know that His body was broken and his blood was shed, and He was mocked and rejected, and His human life was ended. So his human life was forsaken for us. There is no mention of His fellowship or connection with God or any form of &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; suffering. God forsook Him in His human body, blood, and life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some might object to this view and say &quot;Why would Jesus ask the question? He already knew the answer to why He was suffering physically.&quot; Well, Jesus already knew why He was suffering period, so that question could be applied to any point of view. I will suggest an answer to it later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are multiple verses including Hebrews 10:5-10 and Hebrews 9:12-14 that say that the human body and blood and life of Jesus was offered for our sins, and that was enough. There is not one verse that says that Jesus had to suffer in hell or suffer spiritual separation from God in order to pay for our sins. The whole point of the incarnation was to provide a human body, blood, and life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2:27 says that Jesus was in hell. But Jesus said in Luke 23:43 &quot;today shalt thou be with me in paradise.&quot; So Jesus went to the &lt;em&gt;paradise&lt;/em&gt; side, not the &lt;em&gt;suffering&lt;/em&gt; side of hell (see Luke 16:23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why did Jesus say &quot;My God my God why hast thou forsaken me?&quot; If His human body, blood, and life were being forsaken for our sins; and He already knew the answer; then He asked the question again because &lt;em&gt;He wanted God the Father to answer it again&lt;/em&gt;. We always assume that God didn't answer the question, but Psalm 22:24 says that &quot;when he cried unto him, he heard.&quot; Right after this, verse 27 says that &quot;All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.&quot; In other words, God showed Jesus all the people who would have the chance to be reconciled to God and be saved through His sacrifice. This is supported by Isaiah 53:10 which says &quot;when thou shalt make his soul (his human life) an offering for sin, &lt;em&gt;he shall see his seed&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some may say &quot;If Jesus was forsaken in His human body, blood, and life; and was not cut off from the Father, why would He pray 'let this cup pass from me?'&quot; I would say they underestimate the crucifixion and what it meant to Jesus to have His sinless body broken, His sinless blood shed, and His innocent life laid down and the suffering that He would endure on the cross being fully man as well as fully God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 12:2 states that Jesus endured the cross &quot;for the joy that was set before Him&quot;. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 show that the joy set before Him was to be able to make salvation available to you and me and all who will believe. &quot;Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.&quot; (John 15:13) By this perspective, when He asked &quot;Why?&quot;, God heard Him (Psalm 22:24) and showed Him why (Psalm 22:27) so that He for the joy set before Him endured the cross (Hebrews 12:2) out of love for us (John 15:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from this perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Sinners, God), (Believers, God), (Jesus, God)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T21:48:47.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17815" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17819" CreationDate="2013-07-22T22:15:55.670" Score="27" ViewCount="8989" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't want to spark a debate, but I'm curious how Christians in support of gay marriage interpret seemingly anti-gay Bible verses? See the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 20:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 6:9-11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 1:8-10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5154" LastActivityDate="2015-02-25T13:04:10.850" Title="How do Christians in support of gay marriage interpret anti-gay Bible verses?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15494" CreationDate="2013-07-22T23:45:38.753" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a premillennialist, here's my view:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the 1000 years (Revelation 20:6), Satan is loosed temporarily. He gathers those who remain on Earth who want to rebel against Christ to try one more time to defeat Him (Rev 20:7-8). Those forces are destroyed by God directly (verse 9). The devil is then permanently cast into the lake of fire to be tormented forever (verse 10). After this the universe and the Earth cease to exist (verse 11; also the end of 2 Peter 3:10). The final great white throne judgment occurs (verses 12-15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this, only those written in the Lamb's book of life remain (Rev 20:15). The Earth and the universe are replaced with a new one (Rev 21:1). It has one city called New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2-27). It has the river of the water of life and the tree of life having 12 varieties of fruit in it (Rev 22). God the Father and Jesus in His resurrected body and the Spirit are there (Rev 22). It will be like Eden when God walked with man face to face.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who rules it? There is one throne, therefore one authority, called the throne (singular) of God and the Lamb. So it is a co-regency of God the Father and God the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people of God are the only ones left. They are in resurrected bodies, so they will have no tendency to sin; sin will be as repulsive as eating dirt because we will see it clearly for what it is. &quot;Government&quot; and &quot;ruling&quot; will be different because we will all be in perfect harmony doing whatever good fun things we want (where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17). We will have a city to explore- if each floor is 10 feet high, there will be the square footage in it of 369,600 United States. Add to that an entire new planet, a new universe, and an infinite heaven outside the universe with forever to explore and enjoy with an infinite God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since all good things come ultimately from God (James 1:17) and all things in this universe have been tainted by sin (Romans 8:22), and God is infinitely complex; then we can assume that the next universe will:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look better than anything we can see, taste better than your favorite flavor, be more exciting, feel better, be more interesting, more refreshing, more fun, than anything we have now; and never boring. 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 states that &quot;Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them which love him. &lt;em&gt;But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God&lt;/em&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is so worth it to live for God now. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-22T23:45:38.753" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17817" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:14:53.133" Score="-1" ViewCount="1396" Body="&lt;p&gt;Background: I am not a catholic and I was just curious as to what exactly the Pope's role is in the church in present day. I know Pope's in the past have sanctioned the crusades, and conquering and converting of new people. I also know he is supposed to be the vicar of Christ, or his representative on Earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In today's Catholic Church what is the Pope responsible for?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5171" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T13:56:45.790" Title="What is the role of the Pope?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-07-23T07:10:38.360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17815" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:23:46.167" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;To &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; briefly summarize one &lt;a href=&quot;http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/08/22/side-a-justin-lee-explains-his-view-of-the-bible-and-gay-relationships/&quot;&gt;point of view&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Old testament:&lt;/strong&gt; These are understood as a purity law that was meant for Israel, alongside the other &quot;abominations&quot; like eating shellfish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New testament:&lt;/strong&gt; These are references to the adult male / young boy relationships that were rampant at the time in Greek and Roman culture, and understanding them to mean all homosexual relationships is misunderstanding their meaning and intent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a lot more detail and discussion about interpretation out there, but these two points seem to be the crux of the matter.  Another thing to note, is that the verses you quote have nothing at all to say about female homosexual relationships.+&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another entirely separate point of view follows from classic liberal democratic values - marriage is no longer a religious institution, but rather a civic one, and the rights, status, and responsibilities that go with it should not restricted based on any religions standards.  Provided that the arrangement is entered into willingly and uncoercedly, the age, gender, sex, religion or race of either participant should not be taken into account.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3942" LastEditorUserId="3942" LastEditDate="2013-07-23T01:38:46.743" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T01:38:46.743" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17815" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:27:36.773" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I would first like to thank you for asking in a polite and constructive way! The following answer is based on my experience as a member of a congregation which is accepting of QUILTBAG people - a category which includes the minister - and their loving relationships; not everyone is in favour of same-sex marriage, but we've talked about it quite a bit. I have affection and respect for people who disagree, and I hope that we can all get along as we learn about this issue in good faith.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two sides to the answer. You asked about one of them, which is how to deal with the apparently anti-gay passages in Scripture. The other one, which I'll get to as well because it is closely related, is the positive case for affirming homosexual people and relationships on the same level as heterosexual ones. (The title of your question asks about &lt;em&gt;marriage&lt;/em&gt;, and to get all the way over &lt;em&gt;there&lt;/em&gt; one must do a bit more than just say that homosexual behaviour or activity isn't that bad.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the &quot;clobber verses&quot; go, the usual answer is to distinguish between what it is that homosexual people do today, and what is being condemned in those passages. Today, the idea of &quot;same-sex marriage&quot; is proposed to be exactly the same as opposite-sex marriage, except that the two people in the marriage are the same sex. In all other respects - love, mutual trust, shared commitment, and so on - it is meant to be identical. But this is indeed a new idea, and is not characteristic of the way that relationships between people of the same sex were construed in the ancient world. In a system where the institution of the family hinges on the dominant presence of the &lt;em&gt;paterfamilias&lt;/em&gt;, typical male homosexual relationships ended up being socially marginal (no inheritance is going on here) and unequal (the penetrator being treated differently from the penetrated - the latter was shameful because he had degraded himself to the level of a woman). The point is that what's being condemned may be the unequal, abusive, lust-filled sort of relationship that would have come to Paul's original readers' minds when &lt;em&gt;they&lt;/em&gt; thought about men in sexual relationships with other men. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Accompanying textual criticism has tried to understand just what Paul might have meant by his neologism &lt;em&gt;arsenokoites&lt;/em&gt;, for example. This is the Greek word that is often translated as &quot;homosexuals&quot; or &quot;sodomites&quot; in the two NT passages you quote. It seems that there's definitely a sense of men (&lt;em&gt;arsenes&lt;/em&gt;) going to bed/having sex (&lt;em&gt;koite&lt;/em&gt;) but some have argued that he was upset about paedophiles, or procuring male prostitutes, or something else, in addition to the option I presented in the paragraph above. Lesbians do not seem to be treated here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a strand of interpretation that says that Paul &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; mean all homosexual people, but that he was wrong - and equally, that the Law of Moses &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; intend to condemn everyone who participated in a male homosexual act to death, but that it was wrong to do so. This differs from what I've mentioned so far because it doesn't even attempt to recover anything from Paul's words, instead only dismissing them as the product of a flawed culture. (In so doing, some obvious other problems are created.) This view is probably quite common but it is far from universal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now at last, the positive case is about believing that the love that exists between a couple is the &lt;em&gt;same love&lt;/em&gt; regardless of their sex, and that their love is of divine origin. In other words, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. &lt;sub&gt;Acts 15:8-9 (NRSV)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter was speaking there about whether Gentiles could become Christians, but he is also making a general point about the testimony of the Spirit. We Gentiles can be saved because&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. &lt;sub&gt;Galatians 3:28 (NRSV)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recall that for Paul, these three distinctions were all about social caste. There is still such a thing as male and female identity, but what has vanished is the associated power relationship and privilege that denies proper love. This goes right back to the divergent ideas about homosexuality I spoke about above. Christians who support same-sex marriage find that it fits better with passages like these than with the clobber verses. Moreover, the ideas expressed here by Peter and Paul are felt to be closer to the heart of the Gospel. While this is very far from an open-and-shut case - there's a ton of stuff to consider about natural law, reproduction, and so on - it is the central pillar of the argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T01:27:36.773" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17817" CreationDate="2013-07-23T01:34:30.987" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to understand the Roman Catholic Church, one must understand its long history. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicmissionleaflets.org/leafpope.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This website&lt;/a&gt; explains what the &lt;em&gt;Roman&lt;/em&gt; Catholic Church is. Basically, it describes that the Roman Catholic Church is founded by the Lord Jesus Christ and his twelve apostles. When Peter was granted the power to become the first pope, the head of the apostles, he also made precedence of what the Roman Catholic Church should look like. In the present era, the pope embodies Peter, and the pope's cardinals (a type of higher-ranking bishop) and bishops embody the original apostles. Together, the pope and his close circle of bishops represent the unity of the universal, or &lt;em&gt;catholic&lt;/em&gt;, church. Whenever there are disputes within the church, the pope has the final word on faith and morals due to the establishment of papal infallibility. The purpose is to make sure that the Church has a common mission, common background, common faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-08-04T13:56:45.790" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T13:56:45.790" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17827" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-23T03:47:11.520" Score="-1" ViewCount="804" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have compiled a list of definitions of &quot;sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;an act of disobedience toward God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the separation between God and man&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the wilful disobedience or imperfect obedience of the Torah*&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Source: &lt;em&gt;Saved by Obedience: Matthew 1:21 in Light of Jesus' Teaching on the Torah&lt;/em&gt;. Journal of Biblical Literature. Summer 2013, Vol. 132 Issue 2, p393-413. 21p.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe the word &quot;sin&quot; means all three, because all three definitions of sin are not mutually exclusive?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T07:02:02.410" Title="What exactly is sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-07-23T06:58:49.157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17812" CreationDate="2013-07-23T03:51:31.043" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to try to give you a good answer to the exact questions you asked; then I am going to suggest a perspective for your consideration based on the issues you have raised in the comments you made surrounding your questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) If you don't believe in the inerrancy of scripture, on what basis can you interpret scripture?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you believe that scripture may contain errors, then it could contain errors at any point. There is really no passage that would be off limits. You would be forced to decide which scripture you think matches what God originally said, and which scripture you think got messed up somewhere along the line. You could do this a variety of ways, for instance you could examine the oldest documents. But ultimately you would have to decide which parts were pure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2) Where do people draw the line when they talk about inerrancy?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some groups say that the original writings were inspired and inerrant. If you google half a dozen denominations you will probably hit on this a few times. Unfortunately, no one has the original writings as penned by the apostles and prophets. So we are back to trying to figure out which readings are probably the closest match to the original writings based on the age or quality of the manuscripts and our skill in interpreting the languages into English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christian Missionary Alliance&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://cmalliance.org/about/beliefs/doctrine&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cmalliance.org/about/beliefs/doctrine&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First Baptist Atlanta: &lt;a href=&quot;http://fba.org/main/statement-of-faith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fba.org/main/statement-of-faith&lt;/a&gt; &quot;without&#xA;  error in its original manuscripts&quot;; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Westminster Confession section 1.8 OT Hebrew and NT Greek are to be&#xA;  appealed to as a final resort&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://epc.org/about-the-epc/beliefs/westminster-confession/#ch1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;epc.org/about-the-epc/beliefs/westminster-confession/#ch1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other groups say that the concepts are inspired, but not the details. Since concepts are built up from details, again you must decide what is a concept and what is a detail, as well as which concept reflects accurately the ideas in the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Inerrant in what it intends to teach, not the details:&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://peterballard.org/errancy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;peterballard.org/errancy.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3) Is it without error between God's mouth and the original transcriptions?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, that is where many groups draw the line. And you are right to point out that it leaves room for problems down the line. And if we accept that premise, those problems are not resolvable without the original writings, which no longer exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are possibilities of error in the Biblical text, then you are right to point out that those errors could be generated by transcriptional mistakes or translation into our language. Errors could by exposed by science or history. Errors of interpretation could also be incorrect, but that would not affect the text itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Another perspective&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, let me propose another perspective for your consideration. Instead of asking &quot;Where do people draw the line on inerrancy?&quot;; I want to suggest a perspective on &quot;Where does the Bible itself draw the line on inerrancy?&quot; that I hope you will find interesting to consider.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 12:6-7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of&#xA;  earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O Lord, thou shalt&#xA;  preserve them from this generation for ever.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for&#xA;  doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in&#xA;  righteousness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This perspective would say that these passages point to God Himself preserving His words in written form on earth (&quot;scripture&quot;) for the church to use forever. So by this point of view, at any time in history, the church has had access to His pure words in written form. Since we no longer have the originals, this view trusts that God has continued the preservation process including through the translation process so that people who believe Him and follow Him at least have the potential to access His pure words in written form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This view depends on God to have a firm hand in the process. He has to guide translators that He chooses, and when they get it right, get that translation into the hands of believers and then bless their efforts so that those words get into the hands of everyone who needs them. All you have to worry about is whether or not you have the right version; but you don't have to really worry about that either because you can trust God, follow God, and seek after God and trust that He will put it into your hands and let you know you have it. &quot;Seek and ye shall find&quot; (Matthew 7:7), and &quot;he will guide you into all truth&quot; (John 16:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this view then, you should treat the version you have as the pure words of God until God shows you it isn't and shows you to replace it with the one that is. If you have the pure words of God in front of you, and science or history disagrees with it, then either you are reading the text wrong or scientists and historians are interpreting their measurements and artifacts wrong. Not making wrong measurements, but interpreting what they measure the wrong way and using the puzzle pieces to construct the wrong picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God will make sure the recording and translating process results in an end product that has His pure words in the language or languages needed for that time in history so that believers are equipped. You can make errors of interpretation, but as you continue to read and study it you will realize those errors and the text will correct your understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So rather than you finding and correcting errors in the text, the text will be finding and correcting errors in your mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This perspective is held by certain groups who would not draw the line as you have said but would put the whole process back on God to draw the line, preserve His words (Psalm 12), and put the right copies in the hands of believers as they need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of groups who believe preservation by God through history:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;group that holds to the divine preservation of all words:&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://preservedword.com/c/pres_doc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;preservedword.com/c/pres_doc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;group that holds to preservation in general but not to the detail&#xA;  level: &lt;a href=&quot;http://gotquestions.org/preservation-Bible.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;gotquestions.org/preservation-Bible.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your last question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;4) Doesn't the fact that we are constricted by the boundaries and limitations of language (whether spoken, written, or read) make inerrancy impossible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only if the process is up to us with no guaranteed oversight or intervention by the God who is not limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2014-10-18T15:40:29.030" LastActivityDate="2014-10-18T15:40:29.030" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17830" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17827" CreationDate="2013-07-23T05:22:49.993" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A sin is the act of doing something prohibited, or failing to do what is required of us. But, Scripture tells us that it's more than that... that it's our very nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by all sin: and so death passed upon all mean, for that all have sinned. For until the law was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:12 - 13 | KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's our nature to go astray from the Lord like sheep (Isiah 53:6), and to break His laws and overstep our boundaries (Psalm 51:1, Luke 15:29). The imputation (also meaning to ascribe or attribute) of sin was charged to Adam, who all of humanity is connected to. That doesn't mean that all of us are responsible for what he did, but we share the burden and the guilt of the aftermath. Sin always brings horrendous results, and greatly affects our relationship with God, as well as other people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, God can also impute righteousness to the account of a believer, that is the righteousness of Christ (Romans 5:21). When we finally meet Him, our record is made as perfect as Christ's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5184" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T05:22:49.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17793" CreationDate="2013-07-23T12:30:56.797" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the book of Job, God indicates that singing was present in creation when the angels sang as they watched the creation of the foundations of the earth.  This can quite probably be considered worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?&#xA;      Tell me, if you have understanding.&#xA;  5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!&#xA;      Or who stretched the line upon it?&#xA;  6 On what were its bases sunk,&#xA;      or who laid its cornerstone,&#xA;  7 &lt;strong&gt;when the morning stars sang together&#xA;      and all the sons of God shouted for joy&lt;/strong&gt;?  Job 38:4-7 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, singing can be traced back to creation itself with the angels, suggesting that it is natural for created beings to worship their Creator in song.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted in other answers, the entire book of Psalms is a book of songs to be sung in worship of God.  In the Psalms we are commanded to sing to God as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Israelites sang in worship immediately after God had conquered the Egyptian army once and for all, as Miriam did so with a tamborine.  Jesus and His disciples also sang together at the Passover meal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T12:30:56.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8829" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:05:47.970" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ did not die on the weekly Sabbath but he died on an high holy day Sabbath kept by the Jews known as Passover he died in the midst or middle of the week a Wednesday.  He was in the grave 72 hours and rose at twilight/sundown Saturday evening which is the beginning of a new day.  He had already risen and was gone long before Mary and Mary Magdalene came to his tomb. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He kept the Sabbath Holy because he was the law and he never changed the day at all.   He did not eliminate ONE JOT or TITTLE of his 10 commandments he just summarized them into two great commandments.  The first four including the Sabbath commandment fall under Love for God, the next six fall under Love for neighbor.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first day of the week fallacy is implied by people not understanding what is going on.  The disciples were not worshiping on Sunday the first day of the week when he appeared to them they were hiding for fear of their lives.    In Acts Paul tells people to bring things on the first day of the week a gleaning to help another congregation this was a work day not a Sabbath meeting.   Constantine a worshiper of the sun God ordered the new christian converts to keep Sunday it was he and the Roman empire and Catholic church that changed the day NOT Christ or God.   Christ never sinned and he never ever changed the laws in fact he said he came to Magnify make them greater not change them.  He also came to reveal the FATHER someone greater than himself.   He would never change something his Father and him agreed on as a Sabbath.    That would be usurping his father's ultimate authority just as Satan did.     The Feast of Tabernacles depicts the Millennium Sabbath Rest to come when Christ as King of King and Lord of Lord's comes and subdues ALL NATIONS and CONQUERS all Nations and will rule 1000 years ( One day to the God family) over all humanity NOT IN heaven but on earth and at the end he turns the Kingdom over to God the father who plans to dwell with Mankind perpetually.  There is NO rapture and we are not going to go live in heaven.  We only go to heaven IF we die and our spirit goes to God our dead body is laid to sleep until resurrection.   When God the father comes a NEW day begins and it is going to be a work day with new covenants established again.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5191" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-23T14:35:39.297" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T14:35:39.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17840" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18346" CreationDate="2013-07-23T15:57:49.270" Score="6" ViewCount="1335" Body="&lt;p&gt;How is the feet-washing ritual observed during Lent? How many denominations actually do this, besides the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England? What is significance of maintaining this tradition to the modern era, and can &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; get its feet washed or wash the feet of others?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-04-11T11:22:39.233" LastActivityDate="2020-04-11T11:22:39.233" Title="How is the feet-washing ritual observed during Lent?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;footwashing&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17841" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17843" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:28:32.103" Score="12" ViewCount="12323" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a follow up to this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1695/is-it-ok-to-pray-in-public/17725#17725&quot;&gt;Is it ok to pray in public?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many examples where Jesus prays privately and he will intentionally separate himself from his disciples, but are there examples where he actually prays out loud (not including the Lord's prayer where he is not actually praying but teaching the disciples how to pray)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5154" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-01-07T15:28:41.310" Title="Are there any examples of Jesus praying publicly?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17842" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17841" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:39:32.340" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;He prayed in public over the fish and bread, &quot;Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks...&quot; [John 6:11a].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;high priestly prayer&quot; of John 17 starts, &quot;Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that He also taught in the synagogues, it seems highly likely He prayed frequently in public (though never to &quot;be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.&quot; [Matthew 6:5])&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T17:39:32.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17841" CreationDate="2013-07-23T17:42:13.447" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus fed the 5,000, the Gospel of John records that Jesus took the bread and gave thanks:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. So also the fish, as much as they wanted.  John 6:11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, in Mark's account of Jesus feeding the 4,000, Jesus again gives thanks, presumably in a public setting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd.  Mark 8:6 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Jesus does appear to pray publicly, albeit not to make a show as the Pharisees did.  In this case, it appears to be private prayer prayed in public.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.  Matthew 6:5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it does not seem reasonable to conclude that it is wrong to pray in public.  Indeed, it is more reasonable to conclude that it is right to pray in both public and private settings, as long as it is with a right heart and not done for show.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-07-23T17:42:13.447" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17844" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-23T18:42:49.687" Score="8" ViewCount="390" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures seem to assert that love is an attribute of God--that it is part of His essence that has existed from all eternity, even before there were any other creatures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who does not love does not know God, because &lt;strong&gt;God is love&lt;/strong&gt;.  1 John 4:8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Trinitarian perspective, in eternity past, the Father loved the Son, the Son loved the Father, and so on.  This is recorded in part in the Scriptures as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because &lt;strong&gt;you loved me before the foundation of the world&lt;/strong&gt;.  John 17:24 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that &lt;strong&gt;I love the Father&lt;/strong&gt;. Rise, let us go from here.  John 14:31 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, from a non-trinitarian perspective, how is it understood that God &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; love as a single entity with no one to love?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T16:34:45.960" Title="From a non-Trinitarian perspective, how is love explained as an attribute of God?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17845" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17862" CreationDate="2013-07-23T19:15:22.283" Score="20" ViewCount="78976" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am planing to get one of these translations for my personal use. If these are &lt;em&gt;too different&lt;/em&gt; from one another, I would like to get both. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I love to compare &lt;em&gt;(for my personal study)&lt;/em&gt; different versions &lt;em&gt;(even different languages within the same version)&lt;/em&gt; of Bible. I own many Bibles, but as of &lt;strong&gt;KJV&lt;/strong&gt; or &lt;strong&gt;NKJV&lt;/strong&gt; I presently do not own any translation. This is why &lt;strong&gt;I want to get some knowledge about each&lt;/strong&gt; before deciding which one I will get...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version&quot;&gt;Wiki webpage&lt;/a&gt; about NKJV, but the results there are not enough, as I'm not about modernized English language. I'm interested for the accuracy to the original scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the differences between &lt;em&gt;NKJV&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;KJV&lt;/em&gt; translations?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5165" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-08T06:32:39.253" LastActivityDate="2021-04-01T10:54:55.670" Title="The differences between the NKJV and KJV Bible translations" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;nkjv&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17845" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:09:12.060" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The NKJV is probably the most similar translation to the KJV of any of the modern translations.  It should be noted that the KJV you are probably referring to is the latest update of 1769 and not the original 1611.  The translations that predate the KJV 1611, like the Bishop's Bible or Coverdale Bible, will likely be more similar to that than any of the modern translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, the Greek New Testament manuscripts used by the KJV and NKJV are the same or very close to it.  The Hebrew manuscripts are apparently different, although my understanding is that the differences are very minor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the versions will be quite similar.  I would suggest that it will be similar enough to just use the NKJV, although you might be interested to pick up a KJV 1611 in the original script at some point or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;view one online&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="5165" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T17:51:08.627" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T17:51:08.627" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17848" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17852" CreationDate="2013-07-23T20:56:29.640" Score="7" ViewCount="8319" Body="&lt;p&gt;My question, in strict propriety, is specifically what kind of relationships are defined as incestuous in Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am guessing that it is forbidden to marry one's parents/children or siblings but what about other relations like first cousins. I would appreciate some sort of a reference to maybe a specific passage in Christian holy scriptures. Is this something specifically commanded by God explicitly, listing forbidden relations? Or is it some sort of an interpretation done later by a scholar which is widely accepted today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I am talking about Christianity in general encompassing all of its sects. Do different sects have different rules?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5192" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T12:50:27.743" LastActivityDate="2017-09-18T06:58:49.053" Title="Which kind of relations are considered incestous in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;&lt;relationships&gt;&lt;incest&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17852" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17848" CreationDate="2013-07-24T06:51:34.847" Score="9" Body="&lt;h3&gt;First, a timeline.&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prohibition on incest was not given until well after creation. At least as far as traditions that believe Genesis to be a historical account are concerned, Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth, they procreated, had a whole bunch of  sons and daughters, some of which paired. For more on this see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5049/30&quot;&gt;Did Adam and Eve&amp;#39;s Progeny Commit Incest?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was actually another bottleneck in the human family tree much later at the time of Noah. While Noah's direct offspring brought their spouses along for the ride, his grandchildren would have been limited to marrying each other, so cousins if not siblings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commands about not marrying family relations that were too close didn't come for another couple thousand years, about the time of the Mosaic law that was to govern Israel after they were taken out of Egypt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prohibition is later affirmed and renewed in various places and still in effect today and won't be changed again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;So who's included?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a run down of relationships that are considered too close or otherwise off limits here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev%2018:6-18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 18:6-18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. &lt;sup&gt;9&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. &lt;sup&gt;10&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. &lt;sup&gt;11&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister. &lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative. &lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's relative. &lt;sup&gt;14&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. &lt;sup&gt;15&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. &lt;sup&gt;16&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. &lt;sup&gt;17&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. &lt;sup&gt;18&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also related reiterations of this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:11-21&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 20:11-21&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:30&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 22:30&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2027:20-23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 27:20-23&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically we have:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No parents (including inlaws or anyone intimate with parents)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No children (or anyone intimiate with them, son inlaw, dauther inlaw, etc)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No siblings (including half siblings)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No grandchildren (or any other level of offspring)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No aunts, uncles (or their intimates)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No inlaws (brother inlaw, sister inlaw)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also included here is having relationships with someone who is any of these connections to somebody you've been intimate with - with a notable exception for siblings if the original parter is diceased. In other words if your wife dies, marrying her mother (or daughter even if the child isn't yours) is not an option, but if she had a sister you could marry her. Another case worth mentioning is Levirite marriage where marrying your siblings spouse is allowed in the vent your sibling has died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notably absent from the list of specifically prohibited relationships is first-cousins. Some people make the case that these would be covered in the more umbrella statement of Lev 18:1 where &quot;any close&quot; (litterally blood) relatives are off limits. Another factor to consider here is that it is illegial in some states and countries, a factor Christians usually consider binding (although they may not consider all things allowed by the state as permissable, they usually consider those prohibited by the state as off limits). The same social taboos about first-cousins that exist in the West are not nearly as strong in the Middle East. How Christians view that case in practice, at least to some extent, mirrors the cultural understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That this assortment of off-limit relationships was still expected of Christians in the New Testament can be seen here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 5:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  5&amp;nbsp;It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Are these views consistent across sects?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost, but not quite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I mentioned above, there is some variation in understanding when it comes to doubtful cases not specifically listed above such as first-cousins or step siblings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/9586/30&quot;&gt;Does the Old Testament law prohibit marriage among step siblings?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the differences in understanding tend to be isolated more to regions than to sects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are of course a number of small sects with &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; different views on family relationships in general. (See LDS, it's sects and polygamy). However as a broad generalization incest is widely defined in roughly the same way as above, partly because the Scriptural prohibition is so specific.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Summary&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians generally consider incest to cover a wide variety of family relationships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T09:19:17.490" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17748" CreationDate="2013-07-24T08:00:02.010" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have not read anyone use an idea like a multi-member family of the Trinity. Father, Son and Spirit are indeed three separate Persons, with their own consciousness, wills etc, but They are of one Essence. The Essence is not a Person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Father/Son, the Son was begotton of the Father as to His Sonship (i.e. His role), not begotten as to His Godhood, for in that respect the 3 Persons stand equally as to power and glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of family, as an illustration of the 3 Persons Who are God, is not one that is used by the church fathers, that I am aware of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Being made in his image I gather (from the Westminster Shorter Catechism) is to be made in knowledge, righteousness and holiness).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="5197" LastEditDate="2013-08-05T06:42:39.970" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T06:42:39.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17747" CreationDate="2013-07-24T08:30:24.187" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Father, Son and Spirit are 3 separate persons. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit and vice-versa. (eg It was not the father Who died on the cross and it was the Spirit Who came upon the disciples at Pentecost.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All 3 Persons are equal in power and glory. There is no distinction at all on that point. That is because they all fully partake of the essence of what it means to be God (Eternal &amp;amp; unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth....Summary only). The one essence is not the persons though. I think of essence more as characteristics, though the characteristics must be combined in to an indissoluble whole to comprise the essence of what it means to be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there is no hierarchy of power between the 3 Persons. There is only differentiation of roles. eg the Father elects, the Son pays the price of redemption and the Holy Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-07-24T12:24:28.613" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T12:24:28.613" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17536" CreationDate="2013-07-24T09:09:47.950" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Much of what follows comes from the Westminster Shorter Catechism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Trinity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 separate Persons (each have their own consciousness, will etc). They partake of one essence (that is what makes each Person to be God).&#xA;The essence of God must never be confused with the 3 Persons Who are each God. The essence of God is not a person, otherwise we have 4 separate persons Who are God. That is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches one essence and 3 Persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essence can be applied to anything. It is akin to a definition. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to define anything since we are so slow of understanding. For example, what is a chair? Does it have 3 legs and a round top? What about 4 legs and a square top? What about steel tubes that curve around...and so on and so on. I'm sure you get the picture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So moving on from chairs, what is a rock? What is a tree? What is a human? Does a human need two arms? Does a human have to be &gt;3 feet tall? Does a human have to have a certain IQ? You see in all these examples we are trying to understand what set of characteristics make up what we are trying to define. ie what is the essence of a chair (or a rock or a tree or a human). You will see that the essence of anything is extremely hard to define, even for a chair! Yet, the essence has to be &lt;strong&gt;complete&lt;/strong&gt; in order for that thing/person to be really all that thing/person is. If you take away part of the definition (essence) then you have something else. eg take away the FULL definition of a chair (rock, tree etc) and you no longer have a chair, you have something else whatever that may be, but you no longer have a chair.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So apply this to God. What does it mean to be God? Well, in a very small way it means to be a Spirit Who is infinite and eternal in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. (obviously not a full definition). It is extremely hard to get a full definition of what it means to be God. But scouring the Bible leads us to at least a summary as just given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the 3 Persons, Father, Son and Spirit each have ALL the characteristics just mentioned (infinite, eternal etc). And ONLY these 3 Persons have those characteristics. Nothing else at all has these characteristics, otherwise that thing would also be God. These characteristics comprise the essence of what it means to be God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if a person has ALL of these characteristics, then that person must be God.... Just as if any object has ALL the characteristics of a chair, then we say that thing MUST be a chair. It cannot be a tree, since it does not have all the characteristics of what it means to be a tree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is also why I can say without reservation that you and I are not God. We simply do not have any of those characteristics and we certainly don't have all of them. But the Father, Son and Spirit each have ALL of those characteristics summarised above. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. They are equal in power and glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For Further Reading&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin in the 1500's taught what the Bible has to say on the subject (see his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xiv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Institutes, Book 1 Ch13&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and you can go to any good Systematic Theology to find the same answer (eg &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge?show=worksBy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Charles Hodge&lt;/a&gt;, Louis Berkhoff)...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="5197" LastEditDate="2013-07-25T10:14:42.630" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T10:14:42.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17858" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17859" CreationDate="2013-07-24T11:49:15.687" Score="8" ViewCount="3857" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics make this gesture during or after prayer, by using their right hand to touch the forehead, then the middle of the breast, then the left shoulder, and finally the right shoulder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the sign of the cross? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it symbolize Trinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the role of this gesture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T12:48:18.127" LastActivityDate="2016-02-25T05:25:58.427" Title="What is the role of &quot;Sign of the cross&quot; gesture in Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;devotion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17859" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17858" CreationDate="2013-07-24T12:22:31.080" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The gesture you describe is indeed the Sign of the Cross. Making that gesture is called &quot;crossing oneself&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sign of the Cross is called a &lt;em&gt;sacramental&lt;/em&gt;. These are &quot;sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P58.HTM&quot;&gt;[CCC 1667]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When crossing oneself, one is blessing (or, strictly, invoking God's blessing) on oneself. A blessing is not reserved to clergy, laypeople can bless; and particularly can bless themselves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a &quot;blessing,&quot; and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CCC 1671 deals specifically with the Sign of the Cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Among sacramentals, blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first. Every blessing praises God and prays for his gifts. In Christ, Christians are blessed by God the Father &quot;with every spiritual blessing.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;175&lt;/sup&gt; This is why the Church imparts blessings by invoking the name of Jesus, usually while making the holy sign of the cross of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sign is not representative of the Trinity &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, even though it normally accompanies the Trinitarian formula &quot;In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit&quot; (with each of the capitalised words of the Persons coinciding with the ends of the arms of the cross in the gesture). It represents the Cross, the symbol of Christ's triumph over death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM&quot;&gt;CCC 617&lt;/a&gt; says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us.&lt;sup&gt;450&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and thus we use that symbol of his passion as the symbol of justification and the sign of blessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;175: Cf &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+1:3&amp;amp;version=RSVCE&quot;&gt;Ephesians 1:3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;450: Council of Trent: DS 1529.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T12:22:31.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9206" CreationDate="2013-07-24T14:09:28.227" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;My take on this is that the bible says let God be true and every man be a lair. It also says that God is not a man that He should lie.It also says we as Christians can do anything in His name. With this in mind, I know whatever we ask in His name... It shall be done to the glory of God. The bible also says we are not to test God. So if we do something to test His greatness then He is not obliged to make it so. We are His creation and not the other way around, We can never dictate terms to our Lord and maker for He alone will have His way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible also says that faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains....The mountain is a challenge or a problem. Everyone has their own challenges and for others it could be possession. The book of Hebrews says it is impossible to please God without faith. Therefore why would he answer a prayer or request that is not pleasing to Him. We need to have faith to please Him. Faith that He can do what we ask and much more abundantly than what we can imagine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5200" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T14:09:28.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17845" CreationDate="2013-07-24T15:16:22.523" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are interested in accuracy, the NKJV is the way to go, since it corrects errors present in all other editions of the KJV.  Some are errors in the manuscripts used, some are translation errors, some are typographical errors present in the original 1611 edition (when compared to the translators’ notes), some typographical errors introduced in subsequent editions such as the 1769 one, some are changes of meaning in words since 1611.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if you want to know exactly what the original translators intended, you would be better off with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0521762847&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Cambridge paragraph Bible&lt;/a&gt;, which compared the 1611 edition with the translators notes to fix errors usually thought to be translation errors, but actually introduced by the editors and printers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you already have other translations, you are probably already aware of this, but it bears repetition: due to the low quality of the then‐available manuscripts as compared to those available nowadays, almost any modern translation will be more faithful to the original languages.  The best ones following the Tyndale/KJV style are probably the ESV and the NRSV; the TNIV is probably the best one in current language, but you should also consult a more dynamic translation such as the REB or the GNB2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;White, James, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0764206052&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The King James version-only controversy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fee; Stuart, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310246040&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;How to read the Bible for all its worth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, 1st chapter, ‘How to choose a translation’.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The introduction to &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0521762847&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The New Cambridge paragraph Bible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5201" LastEditorUserId="5201" LastEditDate="2015-05-11T16:59:34.780" LastActivityDate="2015-05-11T16:59:34.780" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17845" CreationDate="2013-07-24T16:42:20.797" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two translations are probably similar enough that you don’t need to get both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would recommend getting the KJV because of its historical importance. In your studies, it will be useful to get a &lt;strong&gt;historical perspective&lt;/strong&gt; on passages, as well as a taste of truly traditional language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wouldn’t advise getting the NKJV in your particular case: anything it has that the KJV doesn’t will probably be in another modern translation. Those other modern translations will have other advantages in scholarship and readability; the NKJV won’t have these because it was intended as a touch-up of the KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn’t to put down the NKJV; it’s perfectly adequate as a single translation. However, given that you’re using others as well, it doesn’t have anything that makes it &lt;strong&gt;stand out as excellent in a particular way&lt;/strong&gt;, as the KJV does because of its historical and literary value. The purpose of the NKJV was to make the KJV slightly more readable and correct a few possible errors in translation; some users may find that helpful. The KJV, on the other hand, was the most-used translation for centuries and occupies an important place in the history of the Bible in English—and indeed, the English language.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, excerpting from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html&quot;&gt;Bible Researcher&lt;/a&gt;: Though the NKJV “followed the essentially literal method of translation”, it “is less literal than the NASB […] because of renderings carried over from the KJV”. In other words, where literalness might be a plus, it isn’t because of its heritage. On the other hand, it doesn’t have the literary weight of the original KJV. Quoting John Richard Green, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/mcafee3.html&quot;&gt;another page on the same website&lt;/a&gt; says, “As a mere literary monument the [KJV] remains the noblest language of the English tongue, while its perpetual use made of it from the instant of its appearance the standard of our language.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disclaimer: In linking to any site, I do not necessarily subscribe to any or all of the author’s opinions.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2013-07-24T20:23:52.910" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T20:23:52.910" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8242" CreationDate="2013-07-24T16:48:29.520" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your question: I think some Calvinists hold the belief that God can do the logically impossible, but that's a wild guess. Omnipotence means that the entity is able to do anything and know anything at any point in time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like explaining this at the hand of a computer metaphor: God is the programmer/architect and can introduce code anywhere in the program or &quot;bring up a debug console&quot; as it were, to view the properties of anything He desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4990" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T16:48:29.520" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17865" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17866" CreationDate="2013-07-24T16:56:50.860" Score="13" ViewCount="2104" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a comment on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17858/what-is-the-role-of-sign-of-the-cross-gesture-in-catholicism&quot;&gt;What is the role of “Sign of the cross” gesture in Catholicism?&lt;/a&gt;, it was noted that Catholics make the Sign of the Cross by starting at the top, going to the left and then right, while Orthodox go from right to left (after starting at the top).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the origin and reason for this distinction?  I'm also wondering if this distinction is universal in each church or if it differs to some degree inside each branch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2018-01-08T07:44:59.090" Title="When did the Orthodox and Catholic Churches distinguish the manner in which the Sign of the Cross was to be made?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;practice&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17865" CreationDate="2013-07-24T17:53:46.980" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems to be down to an ambiguous instruction issued by Pope Innocent III around 1200.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; has this [extract]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[In the eleventh century] the manner of making [the sign of the Cross] in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left. The point, it must be confessed, is not entirely clear ... Still, a rubric in a manuscript copy of the York Missal clearly requires the priest when signing himself with the paten to touch the left shoulder after the right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems reasonable: up until the Great Schism in 1087, the entire Church was likely to have had a single custom which had built up over the previous seven hundred or more years. [The Use of York was celebrated in northern England until the Reformation in the sixteenth century].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0129.html&quot;&gt;Fr William Saunders&lt;/a&gt; appears to have done some research:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The earliest formalized way of making the sign of the cross appeared about the 400s, during the Monophysite heresy which denied the two natures in the divine person of Christ and thereby the unity of the Holy Trinity. The sign of the cross was made from forehead to chest, and then from right shoulder to left shoulder with the right hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The use of two fingers to make a large gesture was a reaction to the heresy. The shape of the fingers and the hand was further formalised to indicate the Trinity (details in the article).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He continues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An instruction of Pope Innocent III (1198&amp;ndash;1216) evidences the traditional practice but also indicates a shift in the Latin Rite practice of the Catholic Church: &quot;The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left).&quot; While noting the custom of making the cross from the right to the left shoulder was for both the western and eastern Churches, Pope Innocent continued, &quot;Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right....&quot; Therefore, about this time, the faithful began to imitate the priest imparting the blessing, going from the left shoulder to the right shoulder with an open hand. Eventually, this practice became the custom for the Western Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even here, a thirteenth-century pope is specifying that clergy make the sign of the cross from the right to the left, &lt;strong&gt;but&lt;/strong&gt; in order that they move the same way as the people (rather like a gym aerobics instructor) they may instead cross from  left to right. It would appear to be this ambiguous instruction which engendered the confusion, with some clergy going one way and some the other and the people copying them &amp;mdash; either copying the direction of motion as they saw it, or copying the movement of the priest (that is, going in the opposite direction). Things got hopelessly confused and have settled down as left-to-right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The decree of Innocent III would not have been recognised by the Eastern Church, and they have carried on just as they always did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T17:53:46.980" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17844" CreationDate="2013-07-24T17:59:40.000" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sinfulness and righteousness are not determined merely by actions.  They are also determined by our thoughts and intents.  &lt;code&gt;Prov. 12:5&lt;/code&gt; provides an excellent example of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The thoughts of the righteous are just,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also taught about this in his Sermon on the Mount, such as in &lt;code&gt;Matt. 5:21-22&lt;/code&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have heard that the ancients were told, &quot;You shall not commit murder&quot; and &quot;Whoever commits murder shall be &quot;liable to the court.&quot;  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;code&gt;Romans 14:141&lt;/code&gt;, when discussing whether or not Christians must follow the Mosaic Law, Paul says that if you believe something is unclean, then it is unclean for you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eating something which is unclean is a sin.  In other words, Paul is saying that if you believe that eating a particular food is sinful, and you do it anyway, then, for you, it is sinful.  God does not judge us only by our actions, but also by our thoughts, emotions, and intentions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as sin involves both intentions and deeds, love also involves more than just deeds.  Love is also a state of mind.  If you intend and desire to love others, even when you do not currently have the opportunity to do so, you are still following the law, as repeated by Christ, in &lt;code&gt;Matt. 22:37&lt;/code&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that the law was not to &quot;love God in all that you do&quot;, but rather to love Him in your heart, soul, and mind.  God is concerned with the matters of the heart.  God wants people to love him with their thoughts and intentions, not just with their outward actions.  To love, only by your actions, is to be a hypocrite (Paul warned against loving hypocritically in &lt;code&gt;Rom. 12:9&lt;/code&gt;).  That is why God was more interested in the circumcision of the heart than He was in the outward physical circumcision.  For instance, in &lt;code&gt;Deut 30:6&lt;/code&gt; the the Bible says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;code&gt;Romans 5:5&lt;/code&gt; Paul describes how, as Christians our hearts have been changed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;code&gt;2 Tim. 1:7&lt;/code&gt;, Paul also talks about a &quot;spirit&quot; of love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having a spirit of love, that was given to you, does not require that an object for that love was present at the moment the spirit was given.  A heart filled with love does not cease to be filled with love when the Christian leaves the company of others.  A circumcised heart will not regrow its metaphorical foreskin when it is lonely.  If it were not possible to remain loving towards others in spirit, even when others are not around, how could God judge our hearts and our minds?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When John stated that &quot;God is Love&quot;, he was not referring to any specific actions.  He was not describing the love that God has for any individuals in particular.  He was describing God's unchangeable nature.  As the verses above demonstrate, it is possible to have a nature of love without having any object to receive your loving acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a purely logical basis, since sin is not eternal, the same could be asked of God's mercy and long-suffering.  How can you explain that an unchanging God was merciful before sin existed?  I would argue that mercy and love are part of God's unchanging nature and someone's nature doesn't change depending on their circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Trinitarians, God's love compliments their theology perfectly, as you described.  For Unitarians, however, God's love does not contradict their theology.  God's nature doesn't prove that the Godhead necessarily includes multiple persons.  On the contrary, it actually provides an explanation for why God may have created us.  If His nature is love, it follows that He would create us so that He would have someone else with whom He could share His great love.  That is not to say that God needed us, in any way, but rather that the venture would appeal to Him, if you will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another, slightly less convincing, argument is that time, itself, is part of the creation.  Following that line of thinking, from God's perspective, there is no such thing as &quot;before&quot; or &quot;after&quot; creation because &quot;before&quot; and &quot;after&quot; are part of creation.  Saying that there was a &quot;time&quot; when God was alone is nonsensical when you consider that He is outside of time entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T16:34:45.960" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T16:34:45.960" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8177" CreationDate="2013-07-24T18:09:07.983" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are few verses that mention that one shall not consume the flesh of swine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch, &#xA;  they are unclean to you.” [Leviticus 11:7-8] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pork is also prohibited in the Bible in the book of Deuteronomy &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, &#xA;  it is unclean unto you. Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their &#xA;  dead carcass.” [Deuteronomy 14:8] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A similar prohibition is repeated in the Bible in the book of Isaiah chapter 65 verse 2-5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5204" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-07-24T18:15:00.470" LastActivityDate="2013-07-24T18:15:00.470" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17870" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17871" CreationDate="2013-07-24T20:43:50.000" Score="7" ViewCount="3550" Body="&lt;p&gt;I come from an Evangelical-Charismatic background, and for many years, I've heard much teaching and emphasis on the rebuilding of David's Tabernacle/Tent in the end times. The verses used are seen in parallel in the prophecy of Amos 9:11-12 and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15:16-18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name, declares the LORD, who will do these things. (Amos 9:11-12, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' that have been known for ages. (Acts 15:16-18, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I've seen these verses used is in the creation of 24/7 houses of worship modeled after David's tabernacle, with singers and musicians offering up constant praise to God. These ministries are intended to usher in salvation and revival, as glory is offered up to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I can tell, this interpretation of the verses (or at least the action taken in response to them) is a fairly new phenomenon, perhaps arising only in the last thirty years. Not that I disagree with this action, but I'm curious, how has the Church historically viewed this prophetic concept?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Vine's Dictionary entry for the word for &quot;Tabernacle&quot; used in Acts 15:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(&lt;em&gt;f&lt;/em&gt;) the house of David, i.e., metaphorically of his people, Acts 15:16;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Vine's seems to imply that it's only a metaphorical concept describing the entire body of Christ, under the headship of Christ(the heir to the throne of David).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my question remains: what is the historic Christian teaching on this rebuilding? Does orthodoxy teach that this will be one literal tabernacle, that it's a metaphor for the Church, or that it's a model we should build into?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5174" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-14T13:07:26.320" LastActivityDate="2018-03-30T10:27:42.200" Title="What is the historical Christian view on the rebuilding of David's Tabernacle?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;tabernacle&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17870" CreationDate="2013-07-24T21:59:14.427" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think if you read Acts 15:15 you'll see James' perspective on the fulfillment of this prophecy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 15:15&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So read together I think we can make some logical conclusions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 15:15-18&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 ‘Afterward I will return&#xA;      and restore the fallen house of David. I will rebuild its ruins&#xA;      and restore it, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 so that the rest of humanity might seek the Lord,&#xA;      including the Gentiles—&#xA;      all those I have called to be mine. The Lord has spoken— &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 he who made these things known so long ago.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God says through Amos that He will return and restore the fallen house (or tabernacle) of David. So that the rest of humanity can be saved (called his). So if James is saying that the second half of this prophecy is coming true through the Gentiles who were being saved at his time, then it seems to follow logically that the first half of this is already true. Then how was David's house restored? While I don't have sources to back me up I think it's pretty safe to put forward that it was Jesus who restored the house of David. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%201.1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mathew 1:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; calls Jesus a son of David:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And there are numerous other places where Jesus is referred to as the Son of David. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:32&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 1:32&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; might be the best example in this case:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe based on this that Jesus has already fulfilled this prophecy. I don't know if that answers your question on the historic Christian teaching, but it does appear to be what James taught. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="65" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-14T16:09:57.233" LastActivityDate="2016-01-14T16:09:57.233" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17872" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17874" CreationDate="2013-07-24T22:52:50.350" Score="16" ViewCount="15377" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is Matthew 6:13 different in the NIV that some other translations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NIV (the latest version, I think is 2010)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I checked the Chinese translation it also has the equivalent of &quot;For yours is the kingdom and power and glory, for ever. Amen.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is the NIV different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4993" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-18T04:06:57.070" LastActivityDate="2021-02-06T14:36:33.407" Title="Why is the Lord's Prayer different in the NIV and KJV?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;&lt;lords-prayer&gt;&lt;niv&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8177" CreationDate="2013-07-25T00:26:34.873" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christians eat Pork. Some Christians like me don't. You may ask why do I obey dietary laws? Let me state my reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Malachi 3:6 - &quot;I the Lord do not change.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:8 - &quot;Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see Jesus Christ saying this in John 10:30 - &quot;I and the Father are one.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Father and Son are one, we know that the son Jesus Christ cannot reject the teachings of his Father God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also remember what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 - &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets&lt;/strong&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you may ask what about Mark chapter 7:18 where Jesus says &quot;Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have to notice one major thing while we read this. Jesus Christ said this to the Pharisee Jews and other Jews who were with Pharisees. &lt;strong&gt;Not to the Gentiles&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the top of this, Jesus was a Jew and he didn't break a single commandment of Torah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what Jesus said to Jews - Whatever they eat goes into their stomach and then out of the body.  But what comes out of them is what defiles them, because it comes from their &lt;strong&gt;hearts&lt;/strong&gt;. Not from their &lt;strong&gt;stomachs&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We read this in Mark 7:21-23 - &quot;For it is from within, &lt;strong&gt;out of a person’s heart&lt;/strong&gt;, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Mark 7:3-4 - &quot;The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We read that Pharisees and other Jews favored the tradition of elders over Torah. Through favoring their traditions of the elders, they have set aside the commands of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Mark 7:8-9, Jesus says this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 7:8-9 - &quot;You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions. And he continued, “&lt;strong&gt;You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions&lt;/strong&gt;!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through their so called traditions, Pharisees and other Jews tried to make themselves very clean &quot;outwardly&quot;. But through &quot;inwardly&quot;, they have defiled themselves through their evil natures - adultery, murder, theft, fornication, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They have defiled themselves &quot;inwardly&quot; because they nullified the word of God through their so called traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 7:10-13 (NIV) - &quot;For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. &lt;strong&gt;Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have to understand that the generation of Jews during the time of Jesus was extremely evil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see Jesus calling them &quot;&lt;strong&gt;wicked (or sinful) and adulterous generation&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; (Matthew 12:39, Matthew 16:4, Mark 8:38, etc.). We also see Jesus calling people in that generation that their father is devil (John 8:44) due to their evil nature. We also see Both Jesus Christ and John the Baptist calling them &quot;offspring of vipers&quot; (Matthew 23, Luke 3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even Jewish Priest Josephus agrees with Jesus on the wickedness of that generation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I shall therefore speak my mind here at once briefly: — that neither did any other city suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world.&quot; (Jewish Wars V, 10:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Mark 7:6-7, we see Jesus Christ mentioning Prophet Isaiah and his prophesy when he tells this to Pharisees and teachers of the law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It must be noted that we read this in Isaiah 66:17 - “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one who is among those who eat the flesh of pigs, rats and other unclean things—they will meet their end together with the one they follow,” declares the Lord.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you may ask what about Peter's vision in Acts Chapter 10? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 10:9-16 – “About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners.  It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to a vision or a dream, We should not take them literally. This is because it can have &lt;strong&gt;figurative or symbolic meanings&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me take an example from Genesis Chapter 41. When Pharaoh saw the dreams in his sleep, he knew these dreams should not be taken literally. He knew these dreams had a figurative or a symbolic meaning. That's why he called in Magicians and Wise Men of Egypt to interpret the dreams. Later, we see Pharaoh calling for Joseph to interpret the dreams when others failed to interpret them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see Joseph &lt;strong&gt;interpreting&lt;/strong&gt; the dreams to Pharaoh in Genesis 41:25-27 (NIV) &quot;Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, “The dreams of Pharaoh are one and the same. God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do. The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good heads of grain are seven years; it is one and the same dream. The seven lean, ugly cows that came up afterward are seven years, and so are the seven worthless heads of grain scorched by the east wind: They are seven years of famine.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through this, we learn that a dream or a vision can have &lt;strong&gt;symbolic or figurative meanings&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 10:17 - &quot;While Peter was &lt;strong&gt;wondering about the meaning of the vision&lt;/strong&gt;, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that Peter was wondering about what the vision really meant instead of taking it literally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meaning of Peter's vision is that Peter should not call Gentiles as unclean or impure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We understand the meaning of Peter's vision in Acts 10:27-28. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 10:27-28 - &quot;While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: “&lt;strong&gt;You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through Jesus Christ, the salvation is also open to Gentiles. So Peter’s vision in Acts 10 has nothing to do with God’s dietary laws. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I believe it is absolutely necessary for the Christians to keep the dietary laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T03:06:25.927" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T03:06:25.927" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17872" CreationDate="2013-07-25T00:43:41.573" Score="20" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two differences here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;from evil&quot; (KJV) versus &quot;from the evil one&quot; (NIV)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;for thine is the kingdom...&quot; in the KJV but not the NIV.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first difference reflects an alternative translation choice for the Greek word &quot;πονηροῦ&quot;. This might be in the masculine or the neuter gender - the word forms are the same. But there is a difference in meaning: if it's masculine, then it's referring to a specific individual who is evil, &quot;the evil one&quot;, but if it's neuter, then it means non-personified &quot;evil&quot; in general. In the absence of any immediate grammatical clue, it's a matter of judgement which reading to choose. The NIV translators simply made a different call from those who translated the KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second difference reflects the fact that not all early source texts include this bit of the Lord's Prayer. In fact, there is a denominational distinction as well: the standard Catholic  version of the Lord's Prayer does not include it, but most Protestants do put it in. It is not present in the oldest manuscripts of Matthew, but there are versions that include it, so again it is a matter of judgement between the two sets of translators as to which text version is &quot;better&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T00:43:41.573" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1955" CreationDate="2013-07-25T02:47:07.080" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;After we die, We will be like angels in heaven exactly like Jesus taught Saduccees in Matthew 22. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the passage from Matthew 22:23-32 (NIV) if anyone is interested in reading it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:23-32 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-25T08:44:43.307" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T08:44:43.307" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15837" CreationDate="2013-07-25T05:43:59.597" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, the Catholic Church teaches that a man acquires the power of the papacy as soon as he has been duly elected and has accepted the office (provided he is already a bishop; otherwise he'd have to be consecrated a bishop first), even before any official installation, coronation, or even public announcement.  So a pope who died before his official installation would still have been a pope and have ruled the church briefly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T05:43:59.597" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17881" CreationDate="2013-07-25T07:25:38.017" Score="14" ViewCount="1379" Body="&lt;p&gt;I noticed that Catholics dip their fingers in Holy Water kept mostly at the entrance to the Church and apply it on their forehead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is Holy Water? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any specific liquid/water for it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the uses of Holy Water?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="16688" LastEditDate="2018-12-31T20:57:07.433" LastActivityDate="2018-12-31T20:57:07.433" Title="What is Holy Water in Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;holy-water&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17880" CreationDate="2013-07-25T08:43:56.063" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Holy water is water which is blessed. It is used as a reminder of our baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is blessed with salt using the following formula (although an &lt;a href=&quot;http://thepinoycatholic.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/read-and-compare-rite-of-blessing-of.html&quot;&gt;older formula&lt;/a&gt; is available), which also explains the purpose:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All make the sign of the cross&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Priest: May God who has given us a new birth in Christ by water and the Holy Spirit be with you all.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Response: &lt;strong&gt;And with your spirit.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;P: By this blessing of water, we recall the sacrament of baptism in which by water and the Holy Spirit we were reborn. Everytime we are sprinkled with this water or we use it in making the sign of the cross upon entering the church and in our prayer at home, we give thanks to God for his gifts beyond human telling and we implore his help so that we may live up to the sacrament which we have received by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Reading from the Gospel according to John (7:37-39)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;h3&gt;Prayer of Blessing&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;P: Let us pray. Lord, holy Father, look upon us who were redeemed though your Son and were reborn at the baptismal font and grant that those who would be sprinkled by this water may be renewed in body and mind and may offer you pure service through Christ our Lord together with the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. &lt;strong&gt;Amen.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If salt is added, the priest blesses the salt using the following prayer:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;P: Almighty God, we ask you to bless + this salt as once you blessed the salt scattered over the water by the prophet Elisha&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Wherever this salt and water are sprinkled, drive away the power of evil and protect us always by the presence of your Holy Spirit. Grant this through Christ our Lord. &lt;strong&gt;Amen.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;He adds the salt to the water.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;He sprinkles the water over the people as he says:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;P: Let this water call to mind our baptism into Christ, who by his death and resurrection has redeemed us. &lt;strong&gt;Amen.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salt is added because salt is a purifying agent against evil&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (as indicated in the prayer) and it may help to stop the water going off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1: See II Kings 2, Elisha healing the waters of Jericho.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2: Hence the custom of throwing salt over one's left shoulder, into the face of the devil sitting there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T08:43:56.063" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17735" CreationDate="2013-07-25T10:59:43.450" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It does sound like Partialism eg akin to the 3 leaf clover idea (see above you-tube for an entertaining explanation of that :) !! )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer the metaphor of a cube to explain the Trinity to those who may need something concrete to assist in their undestanding. There we have Length, Breadth and Height. The Length is NOT the Breadth is NOT the Height. They are separate. Yet they all are partakers of the same stuff of the cube (same essence). And one dimension is not more important than another (they are equal in power and glory).&#xA;Also, you cannot ever lose one of the dimensions, for then you do not have a cube any more (all Persons (Father, Son and Spirit) are co-eternal).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When they are a little older, the kids can also have the idea of the Trinity explained using X, Y &amp;amp; Z dimensions for space, or they might like to read the best explanation I have come across from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xiv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Calvin's Institutes&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;HTH&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T10:59:43.450" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17840" CreationDate="2013-07-25T11:07:50.967" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;strong&gt;en.wikipedia.org&lt;/strong&gt; , &lt;em&gt;Foot washing&lt;/em&gt; is observed by many denominations, not only Roman Catholics. But in non-catholic denominations, the rite is not necessarily observed during Lent only. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Excerpt from Wikipedia:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_washing#Protestant_practice&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Protestant practice:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Foot washing is observed by numerous Protestant and proto-Protestant&#xA;  groups, including Seventh-day Adventist, Pentecostal, and Pietistic&#xA;  groups, some Anabaptists, and several types of Baptists. Foot washing&#xA;  rites are also practiced by many Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist&#xA;  churches, whereby foot washing is most often experienced in connection&#xA;  with Maundy Thursday services and, sometimes, at ordination services&#xA;  where the Bishop may wash the feet of those who are to be ordained.&#xA;  Though history shows that foot washing has at times been practiced in&#xA;  connection with baptism, and at times as a separate occasion, by far&#xA;  its most common practice has been in connection with the Lord's supper&#xA;  service. The Moravian Church practiced Foot Washing until 1818. There&#xA;  has been some revival of the practice as other liturgical churches&#xA;  have also rediscovered the practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The observance of washing the saints' feet is quite varied, but a&#xA;  typical service follows the partaking of unleavened bread and wine.&#xA;  Deacons (in many cases) place pans of water in front of pews that have&#xA;  been arranged for the service. The men and women participate in&#xA;  separate groups, men washing men's feet and women washing women's&#xA;  feet. Each member of the congregation takes a turn washing the feet of&#xA;  another member. Each foot is placed one at a time into the basin of&#xA;  water, is washed by cupping the hand and pouring water over the foot,&#xA;  and is dried with a long towel girded around the waist of the member&#xA;  performing the washing. Most of these services appear to be quite&#xA;  moving to the participants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some churches, the Bishop may wash the feet of those newly ordained deacons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Examples:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unification Church USA.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://unificationnews.com/article/foot_washing_ceremony_marks_district_pastor_ordination_at_east_garden&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Church of England: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/ordinal/deacons.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source  (Notes 14)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Foot-washing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before the Welcome, the bishop may wash the feet of the newly ordained&#xA;  deacons. Appropriate hymns or chants such as &lt;em&gt;Ubi Caritas&lt;/em&gt; may be sung.&#xA;  After the foot-washing, John 13.12-17 may be read.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T11:07:50.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17787" CreationDate="2013-07-25T12:09:26.740" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Paul seems to address this particular question quite specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice &lt;strong&gt;homosexuality&lt;/strong&gt;, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.  1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, homosexuality is mentioned along with quite a few other things like adulterers, thieves, and even greedy people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it seems that no matter what anyone has ever been or done, that person can still be washed, sanctified, and justified (declared righteous) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  This person will become a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), be indwelt by the very Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 3:16), and become a child of God (John 1:12-13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a child of God whose body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, God calls us to live a holy life.  Such a life should be free from all of the things Paul mentions.  Thus the thief should steal no more, the drunkard should become sober, the adulterer should be faithful to his wife, the greedy person should become a generous giver, and the sexually immoral should live in purity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, from one perspective (but not all) that takes a literal reading of Scripture, anyone can become a Christian--a mass murderer, a rapist, a thief, a greedy person, an adulterer, or someone who practices homosexuality.  Once a person has come to Christ, though, God desires them to live a holy life and indicates that certain things should no longer be practiced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-25T12:15:21.313" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T12:15:21.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12637" CreationDate="2013-07-25T12:49:07.593" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is an attempt to alleviate much of the confusion in the Christian, 21st century mind, regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity and the confused idea that &quot;God is one Person and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each Persons, yet we do not have four persons but three and not three Gods, but one. The old 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 problem.&quot; Much of what follows comes from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Westminster Confession of Faith&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC_frames.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Westminster Shorter Catechism&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Trinity&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 separate Persons (i.e. each have their own consciousness). They each partake of one essence or nature (that is what makes each Person to be God). The nature of God must never be confused with the 3 Persons, Who are each God. The nature of God is not a person, otherwise we have 4 separate persons. The Bible teaches one essence, or nature, and 3 Persons. (As an  aside, when speaking with Muslims, one needs to be clear on this point). It is confusion to think that three are one and one is three &lt;em&gt;in the same sense&lt;/em&gt;. To say that there is One Person Who is God and Three Persons Who are God, is nonsense. And the Bible never makes this mistake. Neither do the creeds (like the Nicene), Calvin, or the later Confessions such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Westminster Confession (WCF)&lt;/a&gt;. (As an example from the WCF, consider the following, (speaking about the two natures of Christ), where the phrase &quot;&lt;em&gt;and distinct &lt;strong&gt;natures&lt;/strong&gt;, the Godhead and the manhood&lt;/em&gt;&quot; obviously teaches that the Godhead refers to the &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; of the Person, &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; to an actual Person, just as &lt;em&gt;manhood&lt;/em&gt; does not refer to a person, but the &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; of an individual).... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;man&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essence or nature can be applied to anything. It is akin to a definition. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to define anything since we are so slow of understanding. For a simple example, Let's define a chair? Does it have 3 legs and a round top? What about 4 legs and a square top? What about steel tubes that curve around like a &quot;S&quot;...and so on. I'm sure you get the picture. It is very hard to fully define even something simple, like a chair!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So moving on from chairs: What is a rock? What is a tree? What is a human? Does a human need two arms? Does a human have to be &gt;3 feet tall? Does a human have to have a certain IQ? In all these examples we are trying to understand what set of characteristics make up the nature of whatever we are trying to define. i.e. What is the nature or essence of a chair (or a rock or a tree or a human)? You will see that the essence of anything is extremely hard to define, even for a chair! Yet, the essence has to be &lt;strong&gt;complete&lt;/strong&gt; in order for that entity to be really all that that entity is. If you take away part of the definition (remove part of the nature) then you have something else. e.g. take away the FULL definition of a chair and you no longer have a chair, you have something else whatever that may be, but you no longer have a chair. The same is true of addition to the nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God &amp;amp; nature (or essence)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are shown clearly what one in essence and more than one person means from the very first chapter of the Scriptures. In Genesis 1 we read, &quot;So God created &lt;strong&gt;MAN&lt;/strong&gt; in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.&quot; (Emphasis added) We have MAN and we have two persons who are MAN, Adam and Eve. One MAN, two persons. It is the same with everything else, e.g. One TREE, individual gums, pines and willows. Yet we call them each a tree. One GOD, three Persons Who are GOD, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now apply this to God. What does it mean to be an entity called God (from the Bible)? Summarised, it means to be a Spirit, Who is infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC_frames.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;truth&lt;/a&gt;, (obviously not a full definition). It is extremely hard to get a full definition of what it means to be God. But scouring the Bible leads us to at least this summary, as just given.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the three Persons, Father, Son and Spirit each have ALL the characteristics just mentioned (Spirit, infinite, eternal, unchangeable etc). And ONLY these 3 Persons have those characteristics. Nothing else at all (even in our wildest imaginations of sci-fi characters) has these characteristics, otherwise those things would also be God. This full set of characteristics comprise the &lt;em&gt;essence&lt;/em&gt; of what it means to be God i.e. it describes the nature of a being we call God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Athanasian creed though is even more circumspect here. And we need to be careful that we do not think that if Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each omnipotent, then we have three omnipotents. No. The nature or essence cannot be divided like that. The three Persons are &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; in their omnipotence. They are &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; in their wisdom. &lt;em&gt;One&lt;/em&gt; in their eternity, &lt;em&gt;One&lt;/em&gt; in their holiness etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Think about another example. There is only &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; full definition of what it means to be a human. Yet we can see &lt;em&gt;two&lt;/em&gt; people, say a brother and a sister. But we do not say that we have two humanities. We have two persons, but they are each fully one humanity or human).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were to ask me, &quot;Who do you worship&quot;?&#xA;I would answer, &quot;I worship three Persons, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.' I do not worship a nature or essence or set of characteristics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;But do you worship God as omnipotent, eternal etc?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Yes, I worship each of the three Persons as omnipotent, eternal etc.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Doesn't that mean you worship 3 omnipotents, 3 eternals?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;No. The three each partake fully of each characteristic e.g. Omnipotence, eternal. They do not each have a part of omnipotence. They are each fully and equally omnipotent. One omnipotence, each fully invested in each of the three persons.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am one person. You are one person. But we each partake fully of what it means to be human.(Remember.....one set of human characteristics, but e.g. a brother and a sister).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For another example, there is an essence of a chair. But it does not mean that because we have two chairs or a dozen chairs then we have 2 or a dozen essences of chair. No, there is only one essence of what a chair is. And &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; chair fully partakes of that essence. The essence is not divided between the chairs. They each are a chair because they fully fit what it means to be a chair i.e. they each fully partake of the nature or essence of a chair. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if an entity has a particular set of characteristics for God, then that entity must be God.... Just as if any object has ALL the characteristics of a chair, then we say that thing MUST be a chair. It cannot be a tree, since it does not have all the characteristics of what it means to be a tree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is also why I can say without reservation that you and I are not God. We simply do not have any of those characteristics (and we certainly don't have all of them). But the Father, Son and Spirit each have ALL of those characteristics summarised above. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. They are equal in power and glory. They each have the same nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of the confusion about the Trinity today lies in two areas. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;For many the doctrine is hard to understand and they say that indeed the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be understood at all. It is said to be &quot;&lt;em&gt;a mystery&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. But that is not what Athanasius, or the creeds, ever said. When the church fathers, or men such as Calvin, refer to the &quot;mystery&quot; of the Trinity they are referring to the deepness of the doctrine in terms of what comprises the &lt;em&gt;essence&lt;/em&gt; of God. And to use modern language, the definition (or the nature) of what it means to be God is indeed mind-blowing [e.g. Just consider eternity (dwelling outside of time). A finite mind has trouble starting with that. But if the Father is the Creator (part of His &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt;), then He created time. But before time, He was, otherwise He could never have created it. But to be before time means He had no beginning (since you need the concept of time to posit a beginning), therefore God always was. i.e. He is eternal]. And ditto for the Son and Holy Spirit. This essence of what it means to be God is deep, very deep.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;But this leads us to the second area of confusion today on this subject. &#xA;It is hard when talking about God, not to use pronouns like He, Him, His etc. The problem arises when we translate (in our heads) from the pronouns to become a Person. The Bible never does that. In 99% of the time when the Bible refers to God, one can easily substitute the Father (Who is a Person) instead of the word &quot;God&quot;. So far so good. But when the Bible is describing the nature (characteristics) of God, it is wrong to substitute &quot;Person&quot; for &quot;God&quot;. That leads to the &quot;One Person is three persons&quot; confusion and then it is said to be a mystery that no one can understand!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is quite clear. There is one &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; (set of characteristics) that makes up any entity Who is God. Just like there is one nature or essence (set of characteristics) that makes up a thing called a chair. There are many separate and quite distinct chairs, but they ALL have the same nature or essence (characteristics) of what it means to be A CHAIR (one chair). Thus the Father is a Person and He has ALL the nature (characteristics) of God. The Son is a Person and He too has ALL the characteristics of God and the Holy Spirit is a Person Who has all the characteristics of what it means to be God. Three Persons, one nature. Not three Persons, one Person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we do not separate out nature or essence from Persons, we will forever be in confusion. The church fathers had no such confusion. Jesus had no such confusion. We see that Jesus does not pray to God as an essence, but He specifically addresses the Father, or He sends the Spirit. To think of the essence as a person leads to confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the Bible teaches that the Lord is One (essence (NOT Person)) and that there are three Persons Who each have the full essence (full set of characteristics) that make up God. (I could have said ...full set of characteristics that make up an entity called God, but could not have said...full set of characteristics that make up a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Person&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Who is God). The full set of characteristics (essence) are NOT a Person. Rather there are 3 Persons (Father, Son and Spirit) Who have all those characteristics of what it means to be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To show how the modern understanding of Deut 6:4 (the Lord our God, the Lord is one) is confusion, try reading this, substituting Tree for God: &quot;Behold the Tree.  The Tree is one.  And the one tree is three, or there are three that are the one tree&quot;....... Makes absolutely no sense, because I am keeping the same meaning (one tree) for the word &quot;three&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read something like the Westminster Confession on this you will see what I am talking about, even from the chapter heading on this subject: &quot;Of God, and of the Holy Trinity&quot; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;modern translation: &quot;Of what it means to be God, and the Three Persons Who are each God&quot;. No confusion here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we think about God, we need to meditate on what the Bible teaches about the essence of (what it means) to be God (eternity, omnipotence etc) and then adore the Three Persons Who are each fully God (equal in one essence i.e. equal in power, glory, eternity, wisdom, power etc). We cannot separate out the essence, for then we do not have God (remember the chair). But we &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; separate out the Persons (Father, Son and Spirit) Who are each blessed forever and each fully God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Addendum&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:30 &quot;I and the Father are one&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus cannot mean in this sentence that he and the Father are one person. That they are not one person is patently obvious, unless we think that when Christ prayed to the Father he was praying to Himself! ??&#xA;Rather, Jesus speaks to the Father and the Father speaks to Jesus. &#xA;If they are not one person, then what does Jesus mean when he says that he and the Father are one? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context is that he &quot;is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father....&quot;. Thus the Father and the Son are God, in the same way that two brothers are Human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please consider the following commentators on this verse and how they explain the &quot;Oneness of the Father and Jesus&quot;. You will note they refer to &lt;em&gt;essence&lt;/em&gt; for oneness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Now, it is nowhere there said that believers and the Father are one, but such a statement is scrupulously avoided. Numerous attempts have been made to escape from the stupendous assumption of this unity of power and essence with the Father. The whole gist of the assertion reveals the most overwhelming self-consciousness. The Lord declares that he can bestow eternal life and blessedness upon those who stand in close living relation with himself, and between whom and himself there is mutual recognition and the interchanges of love and trust. He bases the claim on the fact that the Father's hands are behind his, and that the Father's eternal power and Godhead sustain his mediatorial functions and, more than all, that the Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity. If he merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment&quot;? See &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/john/10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, &quot;I and my Father&quot;, &quot;we are one&quot;; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him&quot;. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/john/10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I and my Father are one—Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. &quot;Are&quot; is in the masculine gender—&quot;we (two persons) are&quot;; while &quot;one&quot; is neuter—&quot;one thing.&quot; Perhaps &quot;one interest&quot; expresses, as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. There seemed to be some contradiction between His saying they had been given by His Father into His own hands, out of which they could not be plucked, and then saying that none could pluck them out of His Father's hands, as if they had not been given out of them. &quot;Neither have they,&quot; says He; &quot;though He has given them to Me, they are as much in His own almighty hands as ever—they cannot be, and when given to Me they are not, given away from Himself; for He and I HAVE ALL IN COMMON.&quot; Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is not the precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true. And Augustine was right in saying the &quot;We are&quot; condemns the Sabellians (who denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead), while the &quot;one&quot; (as explained) condemns the Arians (who denied the unity of their essence)&quot;. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/john/10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An excellent summary of the above with Scripture references is &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/triune-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For Further Reading:&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;The best book I have read, by far, explaining clearly the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity is by Dr Gordon H. Clark, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.trinitylectures.org/trinity-the-book-p-193.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Trinity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin in the 1500's taught what the Bible has to say on the subject (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xiv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Institutes, Book 1 Ch13&lt;/a&gt;).&#xA;See also a &lt;a href=&quot;http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity/the-three-divine-persons&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Greek Orthodox explanation&lt;/a&gt; which is simple but Biblical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="5197" LastEditDate="2020-06-08T04:22:42.523" LastActivityDate="2020-06-08T04:22:42.523" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17888" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17891" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:42:36.750" Score="8" ViewCount="7882" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsiDukXIeVY&quot;&gt;Revelation Song&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus is portrayed as sitting on &quot;Heaven's Mercy Seat&quot; at God's right hand.  I'm trying to get a handle on what that is. (At 1:07, we praise 'Him who sits on Heaven's Mercy Seat&quot;  At 3:22, Jesus is explicitly identified) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the Mercy Seat is where God resides, and I think it might even be the Ark of the Covenant - but if that is the case, it seems as though it should be associated more with God the Father than God the Son.  Is this just a case of Phillippians 2 (At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow) or is there more? Or, am I just misinterpreting &quot;Him who sits on Heaven's Mercy Seat?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, biblically then, what exactly is the Mercy Seat? Where can I read about it, and more importantly, what does it mean for Jesus to be sitting on it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-07-25T14:51:35.110" LastActivityDate="2016-07-09T23:51:48.687" Title="What is Heaven's Mercy Seat?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;&lt;ark-of-the-covenant&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17889" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17902" CreationDate="2013-07-25T16:36:57.533" Score="5" ViewCount="3099" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many Protestant churches observe the Lord's Supper once a month and some do it very rarely. If I'm not mistaken, the Catholics celebrate Eucharist every Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is Eucharist observed in Catholic parishes every Sunday?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do they observe on other days too?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are Catholics obligated to attend the mass every Sunday?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-26T07:33:45.110" LastActivityDate="2019-11-25T17:07:05.543" Title="Why do Catholics observe Eucharist every Sunday?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17890" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18195" CreationDate="2013-07-25T17:14:10.573" Score="27" ViewCount="13595" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholicism puts great emphasis on the importance on the Mary, the Mother of God. It honors her and insists upon her perpetual sinlessness and perpetual virginity. And in my observation, it seems as though this high opinion of and devotion &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; Mary is integral to Catholicism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is very much in contrast to Protestant traditions which insist that Christ is of sole importance. In the loosely-quoted words of many-a-Protestants:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why wouldn't a Christian's devotion be to Christ &lt;strong&gt;alone?&lt;/strong&gt; Why set up&#xA;  intermediaries where none are needed? And why contort Mary's role as&#xA;  having any more significance than Christ's physical, human mother?&#xA;  Doesn't that smell like idolatry to you!?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why is she so important in and seemingly integral to Catholicism? &lt;strong&gt;Is there theological, symbolic, or spiritual significance?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do they just assume if they can convince Mary to pray for them, Jesus has to listen because she's His mom? (Lest he be put on a heavenly time-out?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sake of Christian unity or otherwise, &lt;strong&gt;why can't the Catholic Church just drop the Marian devotion?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Addendum/Clarification&lt;/strong&gt;: Is the theology and practice surrounding Mary roughly as integral to Catholicism as the doctrine and meditation of the Holy Trinity? Eliminating the doctrine of the Trinity would fundamentally change the Catholic understanding of God. Would eliminating Mary also change the Catholic understanding of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorDisplayName="user13992" LastEditDate="2014-09-25T07:57:03.017" LastActivityDate="2017-02-14T00:38:15.887" Title="Why can't Catholicism just drop its Marian devotion?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;mariology&gt;" AnswerCount="11" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17888" CreationDate="2013-07-25T17:55:31.463" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;mercy seat&lt;/em&gt; is an incredibly dense and intertextual image, with a long history in Christian culture. Below is an illustration by Michiel van der Borch from a 1332 copy of the &amp;quot;Rhyme Bible&amp;quot; (which despite the name, does not rhyme and is not a Bible), showing many facets of the concept. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/utbIR.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;The mercy seat (Gnadenstuhl) from the 1332 Rijmbibjel&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, God the Father sits on a throne that might look a bit like the Ark of the Covenant; he is holding the crucified Christ in his lap, and the Holy Spirit is also present as a dove. This is actually a fairly common artistic motif for showing the Trinity, often called the &amp;quot;Gnadenstuhl&amp;quot; image (German for &amp;quot;grace stool&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;mercy stool&amp;quot;). Anyone who thinks &amp;quot;oh, now that makes total sense&amp;quot; can stop reading now. For everyone else...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblically, the original element is the &lt;em&gt;Ark of the Covenant&lt;/em&gt;. From descriptions in the Torah&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, we learn that the Ark has a golden lid called the &lt;em&gt;kapporeth&lt;/em&gt; (כַּפֹּ֫רֶת). The lid therefore covers the tablets of the Law, kept inside the Ark. It also has two angelic figures mounted upon it, who stretch out their wings above the Ark: this space between the wings was particularly associated with the presence of God, and seen as a sort of earthly shadow of God's heavenly throne (see e.g. 1 Samuel 4:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, the whole Ark was meant to be kept in a place of sanctity, the summit of the system of ritual purity. Ultimately, only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies in order to offer a sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur - he would sprinkle the blood of a bull on the kapporeth, as the climax of all ceremonies and observances directed towards the seeking of atonement. The similarity between the words &amp;quot;Kippur&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;kapporeth&amp;quot; is no accident: the concept of &amp;quot;covering&amp;quot; is etymologically and philosophically linked to the idea of having sins &amp;quot;made better&amp;quot;. In the Greek Septuagint, the word used is &lt;em&gt;hilasterion&lt;/em&gt; (ἱλαστήριον), which more directly means something like &amp;quot;propitiation&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;atonement&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;expiation&amp;quot;, and appears again in the New Testament. (See: &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1526/how-should-hilasterion-be-translated-in-romans-325&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;How should ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) be translated in Romans 3:25?&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; on BH.SE.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A very direct connection is made by the author of Hebrews in chapter 9. Verse 5 repeats the idea of the hilasterion. But now Christ is come to be both High Priest and sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. &lt;sub&gt;(verses 11-12 and 25-26, NRSV)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mercy seat, which was the sign of God's presence and the place of atonement, is now identified with the ultimate act of atonement performed by Christ, in his own person. If we look back at the illustration above, we can now understand Christ being received as a sacrifice on the throne/altar/Ark. He has replaced the old system of purity under the Law, and is being crucified symbolically &amp;quot;above&amp;quot; the Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, God's presence in the world is now the body of Christ himself - &amp;quot;God with us&amp;quot;, the Word made flesh - and for that reason the mercy seat is also sometimes associated with the Eucharist. As Peter Turner points out in a comment above, the Ark may stand for Mary, which is another link to the reality of God's presence due to his Incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the Ark is a sort of earthly throne for God, mirroring the heavenly throne, there is some cross-pollination with other Biblical throne imagery. In Hebrews 4:14-16 is the famous language of the &amp;quot;throne of grace&amp;quot;, associated with Christ as High Priest. There is also the throne of Revelation 4. The song lyrics you refer to in the question are clearly drawing partly from this chapter (throne, rainbow, lightning, &amp;quot;Holy, Holy, Holy&amp;quot;) as well as the following one. The mercy seat reference is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worthy is the Lamb who was slain&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;Holy, Holy, is He;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;Sing a new song to him who sits on&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;Heaven's mercy seat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This comes from Revelation 5, where Christ is presented as the slain Lamb:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They sing a new song: &amp;quot;You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on earth.&amp;quot; [...] &amp;quot;To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb&#xA;be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!&amp;quot; &lt;sub&gt;(verses 9-10 and 13, NRSV)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the one who is &lt;em&gt;sitting on&lt;/em&gt; the mercy seat, or throne of Heaven, is God (the Father). The slain Lamb, who is God (the Son), is the offering in his own person - this may also be seen as &lt;em&gt;on&lt;/em&gt; the mercy seat, and as well, he is &amp;quot;at the right hand of the Father&amp;quot;. But in a way, Jesus also &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the mercy seat, as in this sixteenth-century exhortation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brethren, we haue Iesus Christ the righteous and aduocate with the Father, he is the mercie seate of our sinnes.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes sense if we read the image, in a more general way, as something like &amp;quot;the locus of God's sacrificing presence&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. Museum Meermanno (Den Haag), MS 10B21, folio 118r. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/exposities/rijmbijbel/indexNew.php&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Scanned copy here&lt;/a&gt;. The Rijmbijbel was written in 1271 by the Flemish poet Jacob von Maerlant, based on the twelfth-century &lt;em&gt;Historia scholastica&lt;/em&gt; Biblical paraphrase of Petrus Comestor.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;2. Exodus 25:18-22, 26:34, 30:6, 31:7, 35:12, 37:6-9, 39:35, 40:20; Leviticus 16:2-15; Numbers 7:89.&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;3. Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, under &amp;quot;Mercy-seat&amp;quot; sense 2a. John Marbeck, &lt;em&gt;A book of notes and common places with their expositions&lt;/em&gt;, 1581, p18.&#xA;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T18:19:52.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17888" CreationDate="2013-07-25T18:08:20.490" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Catechism refers to the &lt;em&gt;mercy seat&lt;/em&gt; explicitly in one paragraph:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The name of the Savior God was invoked only once in the year by the&#xA;  high priest in atonement for the sins of Israel, &lt;strong&gt;after he had&#xA;  sprinkled the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies with the sacrificial&#xA;  blood. The &lt;em&gt;mercy seat&lt;/em&gt; was the place of God’s presence.&lt;/strong&gt; When St.&#xA;  Paul speaks of Jesus whom “God put forward as an expiation by his&#xA;  blood,” he means that in Christ’s humanity “God was in Christ&#xA;  reconciling the world to himself.” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=15-chapter5.xhtml%23para433&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  433&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that it was &lt;em&gt;the place of God's presence&lt;/em&gt; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/Ex/25:22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 25:22&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There I will meet you and there, from above the cover, between the two&#xA;  cherubim on the ark of the covenant&lt;/strong&gt;, I will tell you all that I&#xA;  command you regarding the Israelites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/Leviticus/16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Leviticus 16:1-2&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; After the death of Aaron’s two sons, who died when they&#xA;  encroached on the LORD’s presence, the LORD spoke to Moses&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and said to him: Tell your brother Aaron that he is not&#xA;  to come whenever he pleases into the inner sanctuary, inside the&#xA;  veil, in front of the cover on the ark, lest he die, &lt;strong&gt;for I reveal&#xA;  myself in a cloud above the ark’s cover&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;cover&lt;/em&gt; in this and the surrounding verses was sometimes translated as &lt;em&gt;mercy seat&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Cover: the Hebrew term, kapporet, has been connected with kippur, as&#xA;  in the feast of Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement (Lv 16; 23:26–32):&#xA;  hence, influenced by the Greek and Latin versions, and Luther’s&#xA;  German, English translations have rendered it “propitiatory,” “mercy&#xA;  seat,” and the like. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/Ex/25:22#02025017-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ex 25:17 footnotes&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Biblical Mercy Seat is the Ark of the Covenant's cover. God made Himself present on the Day of Atonement between its cherubim, God's earthly throne and place of Lordship over The Ark of the Covenant and The Law. Because God said &lt;em&gt;He&lt;/em&gt; would appear there, it can be assumed that &lt;em&gt;He who appears there&lt;/em&gt; is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, transport the whole thing into heaven (into eternity), and the &lt;em&gt;Heavenly&lt;/em&gt; Mercy Seat can be understood as &lt;em&gt;God's &lt;strong&gt;eternal&lt;/strong&gt; throne&lt;/em&gt; over the &lt;em&gt;eternal ark&lt;/em&gt; of the &lt;em&gt;[new and] everlasting covenant&lt;/em&gt; of the &lt;em&gt;eternal Law&lt;/em&gt;. For the Lamb Slain, Christ, to appear on the Heavenly Mercy Seat is to assert that the Crucified Christ is the Lord of the New and Everlasting Covenant and the Eternal Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's an assertion that Christ is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Catholicism, the symbolism goes deeper. Mary is identified as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Ark of the New and Everlasting Covenant&lt;/a&gt;, for she carried Christ &lt;em&gt;within her&lt;/em&gt;. The Heavenly Mercy Seat could then be identified as the place where Mary's God sits. So, the image of Jesus sitting on the Heavenly Mercy Seat puts Him both &lt;em&gt;over&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;inside&lt;/em&gt; a Human Ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It asserts that Jesus is both fully God, fully Human, and is Himself the Eternal Law &lt;em&gt;and Lord of the Eternal Law&lt;/em&gt;, made flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-07-25T18:13:52.357" LastActivityDate="2013-07-25T18:13:52.357" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17893" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17896" CreationDate="2013-07-25T18:27:18.823" Score="16" ViewCount="10671" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This YouTube video&lt;/a&gt; identifies Partialism as a heresy. It states that Partialism is the heresy wherein The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described as 1/3 of God. To me, it's a vaguely familiar false understanding of the Trinity; but I can't find any solid information about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are there any historical documents, early Church writings, or documents from a major denomination (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) that assert this idea &lt;em&gt;by this or any other name&lt;/em&gt; as a heresy or false understanding of the Trinity?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the condemnation of this idea can't be pinned directly to a historical document or Church Father, when can we reasonably assert that it was condemned, if ever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/4/peter-turner&quot;&gt;Peter Turner&lt;/a&gt;, the wikipedia page on Partialism is an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasion_of_sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;occasion of sin&lt;/a&gt;. I have not attempted to verify this, but the relevant Wikipedia page is the one on &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;divine simplicity&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2015-10-27T18:46:51.697" Title="Is Partialism a real heresy?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17894" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17890" CreationDate="2013-07-25T20:18:51.520" Score="26" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many reasons why Catholics practice Marian devotion. One reason, given by Catholic &lt;a href=&quot;http://voices.yahoo.com/explaining-catholic-devotion-virgin-mary-6355980.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pam Brink&lt;/a&gt;, is that “If I ignore Mary, I am being disrespectful to Jesus”. Catholic apologist David MacDonald makes the same argument in &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary_do_catholics_pray_to_her.php#Catholic%20vs.%20Evangelical&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Why do Catholics pray to Mary?&lt;/a&gt;: Is it not disrespectful to someone not to honour his mother?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason David gives is that, like fellow believers on earth, the saints in heaven (especially Jesus' mother) pray for us. Protestants often ask saints on earth to pray for them, even though it is not ‘necessary’. Similarly, Catholics don't hesitate to ask the saints in heaven for intercession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More to your point, it is true that Catholics sometimes modify their Marian devotion in the presence of Protestants in order not to cause offence (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 14&lt;/a&gt;). However, like many Christians, Catholics don't feel that they need to avoid something they consider spiritually beneficial to avoid offending others—particularly since Catholics consider their church to be the true Church, and their faith to be the true faith. From their point of view, the question is similar to: should Trinitarian Christians avoid worshipping Jesus to promote unity with Jehovah Witnesses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics are maximalists, not minimalists. For them, a life of faith that does not include devotion to Mary and to the saints would be missing something beneficial for the Christian. True, such acts may not be strictly necessary for salvation, but like many Christians, Catholics don't believe people should do ‘just enough to get by’; they tend to believe that the more beneficial things done, the better. Fasting? taking monastic vows? These things are not required for salvation, but still spiritually beneficial, and while there may be very particular points of time when not practicing Marian devotion may be expedient, it is not good enough reason for Catholics as a whole to abandon the practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; All this assumes, of course that paying Mary respect does not detract from the respect given to God. Protestants tend to see honour as a zero-sum game: the more honour paid to Mary, the less paid to God. The Catholic does not see honour in these terms: honour paid to Mary is not detracting from honour given to God, but rather amplifies it; Jesus is glorified when his mother is honoured. Analogously, glory given to God the Father is not lessened when glory is given to Jesus. Of course, honour due to Mary is of a qualitatively different type than that due Jesus, even in Catholic theology, and there is a line that must not be crossed. Nevertheless, while some Protestants feel uncomfortable about paying &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; respect to Mary, Catholics only place the line at giving Mary divine adoration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Disclaimer: In linking to any site, I do not necessarily subscribe to any or all of the author’s opinions.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2015-06-15T17:01:56.993" LastActivityDate="2015-06-15T17:01:56.993" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17895" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17897" CreationDate="2013-07-25T21:10:22.413" Score="2" ViewCount="1410" Body="&lt;p&gt;The general usage of &lt;em&gt;to pray&lt;/em&gt; in non-Catholic religious settings seems to indicate &lt;em&gt;worship of God&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;raising one's heart to God&lt;/em&gt;, and forms of &lt;em&gt;reaching out&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;responding &lt;strong&gt;to God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. However, we often hear that Catholics &lt;em&gt;pray to saints&lt;/em&gt;, though Catholicism firmly asserts that it does not condone &lt;em&gt;worship&lt;/em&gt; of any being other than God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is &quot;praying to Saint So-and-so&quot; a mis-use of the verb &lt;em&gt;to pray&lt;/em&gt;? Are &lt;em&gt;worship&lt;/em&gt; and/or God not inherent to religious prayer? Or, is are they both correct uses: Are other modes or meanings to the verb intended in certain Catholic uses of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also notable that Catholics identify several forms of prayer: vocal prayer, meditation, and contemplation. Do those fit within the &quot;general Christian&quot; understanding of prayer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T00:26:56.370" Title="What does &quot;to pray&quot; mean in Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17893" CreationDate="2013-07-25T22:07:37.347" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The short answer:&lt;/strong&gt; No; it seems that partialism is not a &quot;real,&quot; historically defined heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Explanation:&lt;/strong&gt; Before writing this post, I checked the applicable titles from among my usual textual sources -- a variety of historic theological works that are now in the public domain and available online. When that yielded no references to &quot;partialism,&quot; I went several pages deep on various Google searches. That search turned up many pages that described &quot;partialism,&quot; although few of them listed any references, and those that did and those that did not all seemed to have come from one of two sources: Either a page at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Monergism.com on Trinitarian Heresies&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a YouTube video entitled &quot;St. Patrick's Bad Analogies.&quot;&lt;/a&gt; I then wrote the answer that follows, which offers some historic information on the doctrine of the Trinity, but does not reference &quot;partialism&quot; directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some time later, I decided to continue looking for answers by visiting a seminary here in town that has a pretty heavy duty library. Having searched there extensively, I'm now going to go ahead and say: &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Partialism&quot; is not an historically defined Trinitarian heresy.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My search at the seminary library included extensive online databases of academic theological journals; no less than twenty separate dictionaries of Christianity that covered the entirety of church history in (tens of?) thousands of pages; multiple encyclopedias of Christianity; and various other books. There was not a single, solitary occurrence of the word &quot;partialism&quot; to be found anywhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason I mentioned all this is to illustrate how it is that I reached the bolded conclusion above. While I of course could be wrong, it's also interesting to note that, in the &quot;St. Patrick's Bad Analogies&quot; video, where historic references are offered for various of the Trinitarian Heresies that are described, when &quot;Partialism&quot; is mentioned, a joke is offered in place of any history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps &quot;partialism,&quot; with its many internet references, belongs on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snopes.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Snopes.com&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Original Post:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; The Council of Nicea is one historic event that, though it did not addresses Partialism by that name, did clarify the orthodox doctrines regarding the ideas expressed in Partialism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer describes some church history events from the fourth century CE in detail. It specifically looks at the Council of Nicea, the Arian Controversy, and the work of Athanasius, all of which directly addressed the ways in which the Father and Son relate to each other as two Persons of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not directly address partialism by that name, however, and is offered as relevant historical background, as the Council of Nicea arguably created the frame within which all following Trinitarian doctrine was developed. (It's also a nice opportunity for me to make a few notes to summarize some of my recent reading).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Council of Nicea and the Arian Controversy&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Council of Nicea, or First Ecumenical Council, was held in 325 CE. The Roman Emperor Constantine had called the meeting of bishops from across his newly unified empire to decide the orthodox stance on various doctrinal issues, and especially to resolve the Arian Controversy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Arian Controversy had begun a few years earlier, as a dispute between two leaders of the Christian Church in Alexandria: Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, and a popular presbyter named Arius. The main issue was whether or not the Son was co-eternal with the Father, or whether the Son was created by the Father. The latter was Arius' teaching. While it may sound like a theological subtlety, it actually had profound soteriological implications at a point in history when many of the doctrines that we take for granted today had not yet been decided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the time came for the presentation of the Arian perspectives at the Council, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia -- not to be confused with Eusebius of Caesaria, the widely regarded &quot;Father of Church History&quot; -- presented the ideas taught by Arius', with whom he agreed, in a speech, since only bishops could address the Council. The response of the majority of the bishops in attendance was condemnatory, and some went so far as to tear Eusebius' notes from his hands and trample them underfoot, shouting &quot;blasphemer!&quot; and &quot;heretic!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nicene Creed was formulated by the Council as a response to Arianism. Emperor Constantine himself -- perhaps prompted by an advisor -- suggested the use of the Greek word &lt;em&gt;homoousios,&lt;/em&gt; &quot;of the same substance,&quot; to describe the nature of the Father and Son, and this word was included in the Creed. The official response to the Arian Controversy, now the Heresy of Arianism, seemed settled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Resurgence of Arianism and the Response Led by Athanasius of Alexandria&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not everyone accepted the findings of the Council of Nicea, however, and some of those who continued to embrance Arianism had significant political influence. The state had a important role in determining what was and what was not acceptable church teaching, and the matter was further complicated when Constantine died and was succeeded by his three sons, each of whom ruled over a different portion of the Roman Empire. Constantius, the son who ruled over the eastern portion of the empire, including Alexandria in Egypt, was pro-Arian, and years later would come to be the sole emperor in 353 CE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enter Athanasius of Alexandria, who had attended the Council of Nicea as a young man, where he was part of Alexander's group. Athanasius was not known as a particularly intellectual man, though he did write extensively, and neither were his political connections great, but he was widely revered for his monastic discipline and holiness of life. In 328 CE he became bishop of Alexandria, though he did not seek the office and even tried to avoid being appointed. He would go on to lead the response against the Arian resurgence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result of his efforts, Athanasius endured suffering both from the state and from other leaders of the church. He was banished from and returned to Alexandria on more than one occassion, and his opponents spread rumors to the effect that he practiced occult magic, that he was a tyrant over the Alexandrian church, and even that he was a murderer -- all of which rumors he successfully defeated in time. Athanasius remained &quot;a man of the people,&quot; and was given a hero's welcome when he returned from the banishment imposed by state officials, fearful as they were of his ability to influence the public.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After several years of many individuals working to teach the Nicene faith, Arianism was on the decline, with the majority of the church rejecting the idea that the Son was created by the Father. Many of those who plainly rejected Arianism were reluctant to accept the language of the Nicene Creed however, due to a concern that the word &lt;em&gt;homoousios&lt;/em&gt; could be interpreted as meaning that there was no distinction between the Son and the Father (which was related to Patripassionism, another doctrinal controversy). The word &lt;em&gt;homoiousios,&lt;/em&gt; &quot;of a similar substance,&quot; was suggested as a more accurate description of the relation of the Father and the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Initially, Athanasius said that those who favored the term &lt;em&gt;homoiousios&lt;/em&gt; were just as heretical as the Arians. He stated his doctrine in no uncertain terms in his &lt;em&gt;Four Discourses Against the Arians&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Continued study and debate over the next few years led him to a more comprehensive view, however. His final determination on the matter, as summarized by church historian Justo Gonzalez, was as follows:&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Finally, in a synod gathered in Alexandria in 362 CE, Athanasius and his followers declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as &quot;of one substance&quot; as long as this was not understood as obliterating the distinction among the three, and that it was also legitimate to speak of &quot;three substances&quot; as long as this was not understood as if there were three gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few years after Athanasius' death, the Second Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople in 381 CE, and the doctrine of the Council of Nicea was ratified. In addition to establishing the equality of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity, the Council further established the Nicene understanding as orthodox teaching across the Empire, and again condemned the Arian teaching as heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The emphasis during this period of history on the particular words used to describe the relative equality of the &quot;substance&quot; of which the Father and Son are composed seems to speak directly to the concept of Partialism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Story of Christianity,&lt;/em&gt; Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. Chapter 17, &quot;The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicea.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gonzalez. Chapter 19, &quot;Athanasius of Alexandria.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Four Discourses Against the Arians. &lt;a href=&quot;http://newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Discourse One&lt;/a&gt;, paragraph 28. New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gonzalez. Chapter 17.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-08-13T04:07:07.367" LastActivityDate="2013-08-13T04:07:07.367" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17897" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17895" CreationDate="2013-07-25T23:04:12.607" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic definition of &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/f/What_Is_Prayer.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prayer&lt;/a&gt; just means to communicate to God or the saints. To &quot;pray&quot; to a deity is to ask the deity for something, which involves communication. This is different from &lt;strong&gt;worship&lt;/strong&gt;, which means to honor or show respect. Because a prayer means communication and worship means respect, prayer may be an act of worship or reverence. When Roman Catholics &quot;pray&quot; to saints or God, they really mean they want to communicate with them, looking at how the saints lived their lives and how that would be an example to present Catholics, which, in my opinion, does not sound too far-fetched from veneration of the ancestors in Chinese folk religion. Whether it is veneration of ancestors or saints, the &lt;em&gt;veneration or worship&lt;/em&gt; should &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; be confused with the &lt;em&gt;adoration&lt;/em&gt; of the gods or God. Assuming that the definition of &quot;prayer&quot; means &quot;to ask or to beg a god for assistance&quot;, the Catholic definition seems to work nicely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-07-26T00:26:56.370" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T00:26:56.370" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17899" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17872" CreationDate="2013-07-26T02:15:32.790" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason for the presence or absence of the brief doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer is actually &lt;strong&gt;liturgical use&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Eastern-rite usage, the doxology is recited in the liturgy after the Lord's Prayer; this is probably how the phrase crept into Eastern Greek mediaeval manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts are ultimately the ones on which the KJV was based. The KJV served as the Bible for English liturgy for a long time, thus becoming traditional for Protestants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the doxology never made its way into the text of the Latin Bible, which was the basis of Western-rite (Roman Catholic) liturgy. So it is not understood as part of the Lord's Prayer proper in the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Newer Protestant translations make use of a scholarly critical text of the New Testament. Biblical scholars stand in general consensus that the original Gospel of Matthew did not have the doxology. They believe this because the earlier Greek manuscripts don't have the phrase, and neither do early translations of the text, while there is a clear motivation for adding it in later Greek manuscripts. So the phrase is absent from the text of most modern translations (though it might be noted in a footnote).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T02:15:32.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17900" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4239" CreationDate="2013-07-26T02:22:57.443" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics are ‘allowed’ to use the NIV in the sense that the NIV has not been officially condemned for heretical interpretations. May Catholics, in fact, do actively use and appreciate the translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the NIV has not been given any kind of official approval, either. (As Peter Turner mentioned, this might come in the form of a &lt;em&gt;nihil obstat&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;imprimatur&lt;/em&gt;.) This means that the translation is not used in Catholic liturgies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The major obstacle for the NIV's approval by the Catholic Church is that it does not contain all the books defined as canonical by the Council of Trent. The absence of these books (called the Deuterocanon) means that the NIV can never be considered a complete Catholic Bible. The NIV does contain all the books considered canonical by most Protestant definitions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T02:22:57.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17901" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-26T07:14:37.093" Score="17" ViewCount="15546" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic priests bless water to make holy water and they bless the faithful at the end of Sunday masses. The Pope has a special apostolic blessing that he gives out sometimes. I know that it is good to be blessed in this way. But why? Does anything change in the receptor of the blessing? If so, what exactly changes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1632" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-28T04:31:30.743" LastActivityDate="2016-01-28T04:31:30.743" Title="In Catholicism, what does it mean for a priest to bless an object or person?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;blessings&gt;&lt;priests&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17889" CreationDate="2013-07-26T07:50:12.423" Score="6" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do they observe (mass) on other days too?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. Each and every day except on Good Friday and holy Saturday (excluding Easter vigil). And btw Catholics don't observe mass like a show, they participate in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is Eucharist observed in Catholic parishes every Sunday?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to help Catholics attend mass on Sundays. Why on Sunday? Because it is the day of the Resurrection: the new creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are Catholics obligated to attend the mass every Sunday?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes they are. To be precise, they have to attend mass on all Holy days of obligation, in which all Sundays of the year are included.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-07-26T08:04:13.057" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T08:04:13.057" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17903" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17918" CreationDate="2013-07-26T09:52:28.077" Score="9" ViewCount="4182" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics teach that they literally eat the body of Jesus during communion, a belief called Transubstantiation. Protestant churches mostly do not share this belief and there is no obligation to partake in the Holy Communion every Sunday. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. &lt;em&gt;(John 6:53, NKJV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What common interpretations do protestants have of this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how I understand this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Given    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus Christ = The Word of God (John 1:14)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Word of God = Bible (2 Timothy 3:16)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus Christ = Bread of Heaven (John 6:51)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Assuming read=intake=eat, we have&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reading Bible = Reading the Word of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reading the Word of God = Eating Bread of Heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eating Bread of Heaven = Eating Jesus Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Therefore&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reading Bible = Eating Jesus Christ  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” &lt;em&gt;(Matthew 4:4, NKJV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse may imply that we need the Word of God every day. Therefore,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Reading Bible every day = Eating Jesus Christ every day&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a common understanding of &quot;eating Jesus&quot; by Protestant Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-01T03:02:36.477" LastActivityDate="2014-12-01T16:31:59.817" Title="How do protestants understand Jesus' statement that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man we will have no life?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-02-27T02:55:37.457" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17906" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17907" CreationDate="2013-07-26T12:38:34.083" Score="7" ViewCount="415" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to these sources, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oldearth.org/genesis1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source 1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/496/Genesis-Fact-Fiction.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source 2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hpcisp.com/~kls/page2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source 3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Relativity_in_direct_conflict_with_the_Genesis_account?&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source 4&lt;/a&gt;, the Genesis account was narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oldearth.org/genesis1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source 1&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  As in any scientific experiment, you make observations of what is&#xA;  occurring.  It is extremely important to consider your “frame of&#xA;  reference” when interpreting any observation.  In other words, where&#xA;  are you observing these events from.  For the entire creation event,&#xA;  the key to this is in verse 2.  To an observer, standing on the&#xA;  surface of the earth, God was hovering over the earth.  The rest of&#xA;  the creation events &lt;strong&gt;must be interpreted as if the observer were&#xA;  standing on the surface of the earth&lt;/strong&gt;.  Only with this “frame of&#xA;  reference” will you reach the right conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/496/Genesis-Fact-Fiction.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source 2&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/em&gt; It is narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface. This is the most important key to understanding&#xA;  Genesis 1. Most people view the creation account from the opposite&#xA;  direction: of someone in outer space looking down on the earth.&#xA;  Misunderstanding the proper frame of reference causes most of the&#xA;  confusion over this portion of Scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per this view, the sun was not created on the fourth day but rather was created prior to it (Day 1 or before) and became clearly visible from that day on wards. This can solve the problem of &lt;em&gt;the sun, moon and stars seem to have been created after the earth&lt;/em&gt;, which is not in harmony with science facts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1177/how-can-the-sun-be-created-after-day-and-night&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15564/what-was-the-light-of-the-first-day-of-creation&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17373/did-god-really-create-the-world-in-six-days&quot;&gt;here also&lt;/a&gt;, it looks like most of the people agree that the sun was created only on the fourth day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 1:16-19 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; God made two great lights—the &lt;strong&gt;greater light to&#xA;  govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night&lt;/strong&gt;. He also made&#xA;  the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the&#xA;  earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from&#xA;  darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and&#xA;  there was morning—the fourth day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking closely at this passage, there is no mention of sun and moon explicitly but many readers conclude it as implicitly mentioned. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oldearth.org/genesis1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source 1&lt;/a&gt; says, &quot;&lt;em&gt;Here the atmosphere is finally clear enough for the observer on the surface of earth to observe the sun and the moon&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Question:&lt;/strong&gt; Is it a common view among Creationists(OEC &amp;amp; YEC), to assume that Genesis account was narrated as if the observer were standing on the surface of the earth? Or, this view is not common at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2017-03-19T01:08:28.793" Title="Is &quot;the observer on earth&quot; view common among Creationists?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17906" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:12:03.797" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it is not common.  The &quot;observer on earth&quot; perspective is common and key to OEC, while it is tangential to the YEC interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Earth Creationist view of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/setting-the-stage-for-creation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hugh Ross&lt;/a&gt;, the Spirit's vantage point is key to a literal interpretation of the passage.  The cosmos was created in verse one, which would include sun, moon, stars, earth.  Now you have the Spirit hovering over the waters of an formless, empty, dark, earth which is experiencing accretion of dust . First the Spirit will say, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/word-studies-in-genesis-one&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;cause there to appear&quot;&lt;/a&gt; light, then later as more dust settles will the sun appear as a distinct object in the sky. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YEC, in contrast has no need to pay special attention to the vantage point of the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-07-29T11:38:36.627" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T11:38:36.627" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17906" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:16:22.857" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's hard to say that anything isn't common, unless you've interviewed everyone. I'm pretty sure it's not the mainline creationist view, though, if there even is such a thing. The biblical creation story implies that there was no one able to act as observers until day 6. Those who tend to buy in to the first part of the story are also likely to buy into the second part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead, I think many creationists would point you to Exodus 33. In this passage, we learn that God spoke directly with Moses, as you might talk with a friend. Creationists also tend to believe that the Genesis account was first written down by Moses, even though Moses was not an eyewitness. Some may be believe that Moses was writing down oral traditions that already existed. In that case, they might believe that this tradition began with an observer such as you describe. But I think the more common belief among creationists is that the Exodus 33 passage describes how God gave creation knowledge to Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are likely a number of other common theories as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastEditorUserId="258" LastEditDate="2013-07-26T13:23:14.653" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T13:23:14.653" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6588" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:33:10.167" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many years ago (1988) I took an excursion in Turkey which I blew off at the time as ridicolous. I'm a veteran and was stationed in Sinop on the black sea. We took a very interesting bus ride to what the Hittites considered to be the remnants of the garden of Eden. I admit it sounded cheesy at the time but on that bus we experienced things and saw things that even 25 years later I cannot explain. It was beautiful and it was said to be unkept. On the way to the garden was carnage and death where people started getting irritable and shouting including myself. I said theatrics or perhaps gases from a tar pit can explain that? Then as we entered through a stone gate the climate and mood instantly changed. Lush fruit trees and picturesque waterfalls and streams.I tell my story but ironically I cannot find any evidence of where the actual location was then or now. It was in Turkey and within a 2.5 hr bus ride of Sinop for certain. After growing and understanding the bible and it's teachings 25 years later has given me renewed interest in my personal journey and why I was given the visions I've seen throughout my life so Happy hunting!!!! Some things are supernatural and I've accepted it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5221" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T13:33:10.167" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8829" CreationDate="2013-07-26T13:37:20.550" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bart Ehrman gave the following explanation: &quot;[If] you translate from Aramaic however, Aramaic used the same word for man and son of man, 'barnash' so it really means, Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around&quot;. This agrees in principle with the currently accepted answer by @DJClayworth. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31548&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source: Rational Responders&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3439" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T13:37:20.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17912" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18066" CreationDate="2013-07-26T15:08:19.837" Score="12" ViewCount="301" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to this question, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17901/what-does-it-mean-for-a-priest-to-bless-an-object-or-person&quot;&gt;In Catholicism, what does it mean for a priest to bless an object or person?&lt;/a&gt;, there is a &quot;special apostolic blessing&quot; that the Pope can provide. Blessings can also be provided by the priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a hierarchy of blessings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference, if any, between the blessings?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3977" LastEditorUserId="16688" LastEditDate="2018-09-17T19:06:15.687" LastActivityDate="2018-09-26T13:24:39.280" Title="Can different levels of the Church hierarchy provide different types of blessings?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;blessings&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17913" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16661" CreationDate="2013-07-26T17:02:27.150" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yay! Found the answer!...In CS Lewis on the 'Kappa Element' he makes it pretty clear that he finds there is 'something else' to enjoy in particular hostile characters. Not merely their story telling use of providing danger and hence excitement, but commanding their own personal appeal unique to the elements they provide. For instance, jack the Giant slayer would appeal less to what sensations it now provides if you replaced the giants with, say, an ordinary thug or some other 'danger'. Villians are more than just for 'the thrill of life-endangerment'.&#xA;Now, if CS Lewis can take this stance without shame or apology, I reckon he would have agreed wth me that, whilst not 'the thing' or holy in themselves, fictional monsters (like my faves, the cybermen) are (for some of us) pleasureable and, presumably, thereby can cause a sense of sehnsucht.&#xA;Thanks all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-07-26T17:02:27.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17914" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-26T19:40:36.943" Score="3" ViewCount="147" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every thing I read about “sovereignty” associates it with having “authority” not how authority is exercised.  Some Protestant Denominations seem to claim that because God is sovereign then He is the causal agent of all things.  Must &quot;authority&quot; always employ &quot;power&quot;?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On what basis do these denominations exclude liberty from sovereignty?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-07-30T11:32:45.050" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T11:32:45.050" Title="Can a Sovereign-will authorize personal liberty?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;sovereignty&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17916" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19147" CreationDate="2013-07-27T00:29:01.010" Score="4" ViewCount="525" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the book The Three Muskateers a character is given a note from the Cardinal Duke saying that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By My word and for the good of the state, The bearer has done what has been done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was the Cardinal &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;who did exist&lt;/a&gt; able to do this as the Highest religious official in the country, or as a person in great power during a time of war? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or is this just a total fabrication of Dumas, with respect to princes secular or religious?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, this doesn't also qualify as absolution does it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T20:55:05.300" Title="Veracity of Carte Blanche in The Three Muskateers" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;reconciliation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17357" CreationDate="2013-07-27T05:51:25.910" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is more of a quick answer [not anymore]. And, to preface a bit more, I didn't closely [not necessarily anymore] read all of the above statements, because they seemed too preachy or missed the point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus referred to himself as both the &quot;Son of God&quot; and &quot;Son of Man.&quot; The first was used to express deity, and the other humanity. And, if we accept that Jesus was man, than He certainly experienced all of the things we experience now. That's why Jesus makes the perfect mediator! More on this contradiction after a few rabbits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think its an incorrect assumption to say God loves more (a) than he loves (b). Since, it doesn't appear to me anywhere that God's love is based upon degrees (though this does not negate uniqueness/specialness). There is certainly a dualism with God, such as light/dark, love/hate, life/death, righteous/unrighteous. This also applies to God's love for Jesus, which God certainly does, and involves more of uniqueness/specialness than degrees of love. @Mike, I'd leave a comment but I can't so I'll say it here. God's love is not simply spiritual. There are also practical/physical considerations too! Such as common grace, i.e. we are knit together in our mothers womb and, tend not to die immediately when we commit sin, which are practical considerations of God's love. And, @Mike again, the essential attributes of God is not only &quot;goodness and love,&quot; what about justice and wrath and hatred? Didn't God punish Israel all of the time for their sin? Did God not love Jacob and hate Esau? Just a thought, not trolling here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One other footnote before I go back to the Son-God-Man. God's will is certainly revealed to man and can be known--Rom 12:1, 1 Thess 4:something and 1 Thess 5:something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyways, @RyanFrame the argument from Aquinas' Summa Theologica is great! To call Jesus the son of God =&gt; that Jesus is a created being/Jesus is a lessor form of God. To maybe clarify, if you go back to the early fourth century, and look at Arianism/Council of Nicaea (and, @mike, it was this reason that the Nicene creed was created!--&quot;God from God, light from light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father...&quot;), which dealt with the substance/essence of Jesus, and whether He was 'of the same substance' or 'of like substance.' All of this was solved in Nicaea. This is the greatest determination that makes orthodox (not Orthodox e.g. Eastern O, Greek O, Russian O, etc--though they are infact orthodox) Christianity distinct from other non-orthodox/heretical Christians (e.g. LDS, Jehovah's Witness, UUC, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A rather short answer to &quot;how do Christians interpret Christ being the 'Son of God'?&quot; Answer: because the bible tells us! A good explanation is John 1, and it is certainly foundational to the Nicene argument. It's definitely circular--but, authority, inspiration, trustworthiness, etc, of the bible is a different animal to consider. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, last thought: @terdon, everyone is not certainly children of God in the sense that we are all going to heaven (whatever that may be), however, we are all children (not-God's) in the sense that we are creatures rather than creator. So, I can see the confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last thought, great question. Very thought provoking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5225" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T05:51:25.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17903" CreationDate="2013-07-27T06:48:56.657" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the Protestant tradition you follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, if you don't believe in consubstantiation, and believe in something similar to real-presence, than we don't necessarily consume the body/blood of Jesus in a physical way, but feed on Jesus in a real spiritual way. And, we are again nourished from the presence of God by daily bible reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, how is this necessarily different than transubstantiation? I have no idea. Even at the words of institution where the Holy Spirit is invoked, only the substance (spiritual) of the bread and wine changes to body and blood. The accidents (physical) remain the same. So, in a sense they (real-presence, con/transubstantiation) are very similar things. And, if you study reformation history, none of the reformers knew what to do with communion, but many were so consumed with removing any semblance of Catholicism, they changed some words around creating consubstantiation and real-presence. And, even during the articulation of the Eucharist, the Catholics didn't necessarily know how to articulate this rite other than to use Aristotelian logic to prove that communion is special/meaningful. Because, it is obvious that when the bread and wine are consecrated, they still physically remain bread and wine. But if you separate spiritual/physical, it is easy to extrapolate a literal feeding of the body and blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But with semantics aside, for Protestants there is not necessarily a eating of physical flesh or blood because as John 6:63 points out, it is the Spirit that gives life, and the flesh profits nothing. Something Zwingli is right about since, as a reformer, he was simply a remembrance kind of guy, who argued from 1 Cor 11. So he would argue that eating flesh and drinking blood was a metaphor and points to the benefits of faith during communion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully, this is helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5225" LastEditorUserId="5225" LastEditDate="2013-07-27T16:14:36.553" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T16:14:36.553" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17919" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-27T07:18:16.770" Score="8" ViewCount="396" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Christians argue that Apostles are always brought into their office under the facilitation of another Apostle, like a chain of links succeeding each other.  In the Old Testament, prophets seem just to appear under the direct authority of God, but it makes me wonder is there is any tradition that puts the 'succession' concept upon their view of the Prophets also?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T10:58:39.933" Title="Is there any tradition that argues for prophetical succession under the Old Testament just like some argue for Apostolic succession?" Tags="&lt;prophets&gt;&lt;apostolic-succession&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17906" CreationDate="2013-07-27T13:04:33.097" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a keen Young Earth Creationist, I can say that mainstream YEC's (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Creation.com&lt;/a&gt;) consider the whole Bible when interpreting Genesis 1-3.&#xA;As mentioned above, that would include Exodus 33. The Lord told Moses what happened at Creation and that is what Moses wrote down. The language of Genesis 1-3 is historical narrative, so God simply told Moses what happened as God made each day. So for YEC's the Sun was created on Day 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-28T14:12:00.817" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T14:12:00.817" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17903" CreationDate="2013-07-27T13:32:33.247" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There were differing streams of Protestantism which occurred during the 15th and 16th centuries (The Reformation in Europe). The two major ones were Lutheranism and Calvinism.&#xA;Lutheranism (Germany) rejected transubstantiation and went with consubstantiation as mentioned  already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinism rejected the viewpoints of both the Roman Catholic church and the Lutheran church on this point. Many Calvinists went to the stake because they would not agree that the Roman Catholic Mass was what the Bible taught about the body and blood of Jesus. They argued that Jesus Christ died once for the sins of His people and that to offer Him up as a fresh sacrifice each mass was against what the Bible taught. Rather they saw that the words of Jesus at the Last Supper indicate clearly that the eating of the bread and drinking the wine were instituted by Jesus so that believers would have a simple way to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;remember&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the sacrifice of their Lord. This was the way the inspired Apostle Paul said it: &quot;and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, &quot;For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; &lt;em&gt;do this in remembrance of Me&lt;/em&gt;.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, &lt;em&gt;in remembrance of Me&lt;/em&gt;.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:24&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I Corinthians 11:24&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, most protestants, (like Presbyterians, Baptists and Dutch Reformed), would follow the latter view above. They take the bread and wine as a &lt;em&gt;remembrance&lt;/em&gt; of the death of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-28T14:09:05.527" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T14:09:05.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17924" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-27T14:51:14.357" Score="1" ViewCount="735" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus, himself, said this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ref.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet, Jesus clearly had some money that was kept, for Judas was, according to John, 'the one who held the purse.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, when Jesus was a carpenter, did he give his wages directly to the poor immediately after having earned them?  It would seem contradictory if he would have kept the money he earned and spent it on himself - for that would not be &quot;perfect&quot; by his description in Matthew 19:21.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4576" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-07-29T17:19:21.053" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T17:19:21.053" Title="Does the story of the Rich Young Ruler preclude Jesus from having any money of his own?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-07-29T15:59:02.197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17924" CreationDate="2013-07-27T15:34:06.107" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus continuously said things that got to the heart of the matter. This example is no different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your quote from Matthew we see a young man that wants to know what good thing he must do to get eternal life. Eventually, Jesus says what you have quoted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What the man then does and what Jesus says immediately after revels what Jesus meant.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You see he loved his wealth more than life! He was willing to forego eternal life in the Kingdom of God for money here on Earth!&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus got to the heart of the matter for that young man; the thing that was keeping him from truly following God. He goes on to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse is highly debated, but most agree on at least this: Jesus is saying that for a man like this one, gaining eternal life will never happen as long as money is in his way; as long as love for money is in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the most important part follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You cannot save yourself!&lt;/strong&gt; Whatever you do, you cannot satisfy God's wrath. You will still deserve death. But by God's super-abundant grace, you can be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So you see the issue was not money, specifically. The issue is anything that is in your way from truly loving God and following Him wholeheartedly.&lt;/strong&gt; It is then that His grace will save you and you will gain eternal life.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The short answer to your exact question in light of the above:&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though Jesus likely gave to the poor regularly, he almost certainly earned and used money in the same way we do. He needed to make a living just like everyone else. Also, he was not making a description of &quot;perfect&quot; as much as he was showing that a perfect man has nothing between himself and God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Though I have not given a doctrinal perspective, I think I have represented the majority of Christianity in the interpretation of these verses.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) ADDENDUM&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other teachings from Jesus that say the same thing but use other things as the example that comes between you and God. Jesus did say you must &quot;hate&quot; your entire family and yourself before you can be His follower &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 14:26&lt;/a&gt;. If we follow the plain logic that your question and comments adhere to then we are stuck asking what the disciples did: If all with a family are doomed &quot;Who then can be saved?&quot; And Jesus then would correct us and saying &quot;With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.&quot; So you see, again, the issue is anything that comes between you and God. Whatever that thing is is actually much less important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scripture is filled with encouragements to remove all things that cause you to stumble and not follow God. The language in them is rough and ridiculous if you think it is literal prescriptive advice.  Here are a few:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 9:43&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:8&lt;/a&gt; - &quot;If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.&quot; Surely, you are not to cut off parts of your body. It is equally ridiculous to blame your eyes for engaging in fornication. However, it is not ridiculous to blame your lusts on the filthy television you watched last night, for example.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8:9&lt;/a&gt; Says to even remove things from &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; life that can cause &lt;em&gt;others&lt;/em&gt; to sin - &quot;Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.&quot; There is no ridiculous language in these verses; it is straight forward and gives a real example: eating animals that have been sacrificed to idols (though I admit that is less of a problem today).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 14:26&lt;/a&gt; -- “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.&quot; If we take &quot;hate&quot; literally then it is in contrast with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:39&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;second greatest commandment&lt;/a&gt;. Clearly, the message is that there must be nothing between you and God; to be a disciple of Christ you must be all in or not in at all; you must remove or change anything from your life that prevents you from following Him wholeheartedly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-07-28T23:46:52.560" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T23:46:52.560" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17926" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-27T15:44:28.323" Score="7" ViewCount="688" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following verses clearly credit Jesus Christ with “Creation.” &lt;strong&gt;How do Christians view the role of Christ in Creation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ephesians 3:9:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who &lt;strong&gt;created all things by Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:1-14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. &lt;strong&gt;All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made&lt;/strong&gt;…and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colossians 1:16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created&lt;/strong&gt;, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-07-28T11:47:59.840" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T12:44:37.340" Title="Is Jesus the Creator?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17926" CreationDate="2013-07-27T16:02:39.417" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Christians that are creationists, and that accept the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12637/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;doctrine of the Trinity&lt;/a&gt;, yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/jesus-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CARM.org&lt;/a&gt;, which believes and advocates both doctrines.  The idea that Jesus is Creator is one of the arguments to support that Jesus is God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* CARM is not alone in this belief, but I decided to link to only one reference.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/18acP.png&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To anyone who rejects the idea of Creationism altogether, or to anyone or any group that doesn't believe that Jesus is God, the answer would be &quot;no&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T16:02:39.417" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17903" CreationDate="2013-07-27T16:19:40.870" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am aware of one protestant view that has not been brought up, so here it is for your consideration:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To interpret John 6:53 we examine the context, close to the beginning of the conversation, at John 6:35. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.&quot; In this verse Jesus sets up the interpretation for the &quot;eating&quot; and &quot;drinking&quot; analogy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We &quot;eat&quot; to satisfy our &quot;hunger&quot;; we &quot;drink&quot; to satisfy our thirst. We partake of the benefit of His flesh and blood by &quot;coming to Him&quot; and &quot;believing on Him&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By this interpretation, John 6:53 is not talking at all about communion. Communion &lt;em&gt;reminds&lt;/em&gt; us of the sacrifice of Christ which is the price paid for our salvation (in remembrance of me, Luke 22:19). We &lt;em&gt;partake&lt;/em&gt; of His sacrifice (&quot;eat His flesh&quot; and &quot;drink His blood&quot;), not by communion, but by coming to Him and believing on Him (John 6:35).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have encountered this interpretation in every protestant church I attended for any length of time including congregational, Baptist, Foursquare, and Assembly of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5095" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T16:19:40.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17929" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17931" CreationDate="2013-07-27T17:09:05.817" Score="16" ViewCount="5940" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently learned from a John Piper podcast that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/slavery-and-jonathan-edwards&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards owned slaves&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edwards lived in the early and mid 18th century, long before the American Civil War, and passed away decades before Wilberforce would begin his abolitionist work in England.* Nevertheless, many believe that ownership of slaves seemed uncharacteristic of a man like Edwards who, in his preaching and writing, placed such an emphasis on piety and holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What did Edwards have to say about his ownership of slaves? Did he ever address the issue of slavery in any of his published works?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* Of course, that's simply context, and not an excuse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-10T17:18:50.730" LastActivityDate="2015-12-10T17:18:50.730" Title="What did Jonathan Edwards have to say about the fact that he owned slaves?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;slavery&gt;&lt;jonathan-edwards&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17748" CreationDate="2013-07-27T18:47:36.077" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Scope:&lt;/strong&gt; This post offers an answer for the first part of the question, as I understand it: whether or not Jesus' identification of himself as the Son of God makes the Trinity an instance of Partialism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Short Answer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, it doesn't. The fact that there is no earthly analogue for the Trinity makes it difficult to accurately describe in human language, so a certain amount of &quot;lexical flexibility&quot; is necessary, and theological terminology is necessary if one wants to describe the Trinity with any precision. History has affirmed this necessity. Let me try to explain...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The More Detailed Answer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The First Ecumenical Council&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of the Trinity began to acquire some of the distinctions by which it is known today at the First Ecumenical Council, or Council of Nicea, in 325 CE, though it did exist prior to the fourth century. At the Council, it was established as the orthodox teaching that the Son and the Father were 'of the same substance' (Gk. &lt;em&gt;homoousios&lt;/em&gt;), contra the Arian teaching that the Son was created by the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Athanasius of Alexandria&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Athanasius was present at the First Ecumenical Council as a young man, and went on to dedicate much of his life to leading the battle against the Arian heresy. In so doing, he contributed much of what we today recognize as the doctrine of the Trinity. Church historian Justo Gonzalez offers the following summary of the doctrinal position at which Athanasius' arrived after many years of study and debate:&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Finally, in a synod gathered in Alexandria in 362 CE, Athanasius and his followers declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as &quot;of one substance&quot; as long as this was not understood as obliterating the distinction among the three, and that it was also legitimate to speak of &quot;three substances&quot; as long as this was not understood as if there were three gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Second Ecumenical Council&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several years later, in 381 CE, the Second Ecumenical Council was held, this time in the city of Constantinople. Its findings were significantly influenced by the work of the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The Council affirmed the Nicene faith as orthodox under Emperor Theodosius, and equality of the Holy Spirit was incorporated in the teaching on the Trinity. The council also further clarified the nature of the Trinity. To again quote Gonzalez:&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[The Cappadocian Fathers'] main contribution was in clarifying the difference between &lt;em&gt;ousia&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;essence&quot;) and &lt;em&gt;hypostasis&lt;/em&gt; -- a word that literally means &quot;substance&quot; but which the Cappadocians defined as the translation of the Latin &lt;em&gt;persona&lt;/em&gt;. Thus, the Latin West and the Greek East came to agree on a common formula: one essense -- or &lt;em&gt;ousia&lt;/em&gt; -- in three persons -- or &lt;em&gt;hypostases&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it seems like those are a few important events in Church history that elaborate on some of the complexities involved in attempting to accurately describe the nature of the co-existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If the historic teachings are accurate understandings of the Biblical text, then it should be entirely acceptable to understand the Trinity as consisting of multiple &quot;persons&quot; -- so long as we also understand that they are of one &quot;essence&quot; or &quot;substance.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also think it's worth noting that, while composing a response to another recently asked question about Partialism (at the risk of self-promotion, the question can be found &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/17893/4786&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), I was unable to locate any historic references to the heresy under the particular name, &quot;Partialism.&quot; After checking several of my usual primary sources, I went through the first half-dozen or so results pages on a few different Google searches looking for some historical background for the term, all to no avail. As far as I can tell, the source of most of the Google-indexed references to Partialism can be traced to one of two web pages: a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Monergism list of Trinitarian heresies&lt;/a&gt;, and a comical &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;YouTube video&lt;/a&gt; that attempts to explain the Trinity through a cartoon of St. Patrick. Neither one lists any sources or offers historical background (though I've not viewed the entire YouTube video). The next step is to visit a fairly heavy duty seminary library that I thankfully have access to here in town.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sources:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1: &lt;em&gt;The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition,&lt;/em&gt; by Justo Gonzalez. Chapter 19, &quot;Athanasius of Alexandria.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2: &lt;em&gt;The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition,&lt;/em&gt; by Justo Gonzalez. Chapter 20, &quot;The Great Cappadocians.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Further searching has not revealed any historic theological references to the idea of the Trinity as a family. While the two following articles are no exception in that respect, and are from popular, rather than academic sources, you may find them to be of some use, if for no other reason than that they could point the way for continued research.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I'm not familiar with the work of these authors, and can't vouch for the reliability of either source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;em&gt;The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: The Trinity as Theological Foundation for Family Ministry,&lt;/em&gt; by Bruce A. Ware. Blog of The Center for Christian Family Ministry at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sbts.edu/family/blog/the-father-the-son-and-the-holy-spirit-the-trinity-as-theological-foundation-for-family-ministry/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;em&gt;The Most Holy Trinity: Supreme Model for Family And Marriage,&lt;/em&gt; by F. K. Bartels. Article at Catholic.com. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/hf/love/story.php?id=37200&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-08-03T07:45:34.697" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17929" CreationDate="2013-07-27T18:51:09.813" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No, he did not address the issue of slavery in any published works.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know this because of a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2953884?uid=3739448&amp;amp;uid=2&amp;amp;uid=3737720&amp;amp;uid=4&amp;amp;sid=21102565349607&quot;&gt;recently published paper revealing an unpublished draft letter by Edwards that does deal with slavery.&lt;/a&gt; It is described by the paper author thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is the only known instance of Edwards writing, however abstrusely, about slavery. Also it discloses differing views on slavery at the local level, divided along lay-clerical lines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of Edwards' letter writing process it is very difficult to determine his meaning from his drafts - for example lines through some passage might be deletions, or might indicate that they have been used in the final version. No copy of the sent letter exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-07-27T18:58:55.410" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T18:58:55.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9116" CreationDate="2013-07-27T18:56:52.630" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be no clear understanding of James 5:12. John Wesley (&lt;em&gt;Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible&lt;/em&gt;) wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;[The Apostle] does not forbid the taking a solemn oath before a magistrate. Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay - Use no higher asseverations in common discourse; and let your word stand firm. Whatever ye say, take care to make it good.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the &lt;em&gt;Pulpit Commentary&lt;/em&gt; informs pulpiteers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;James condemns only what is called profane swearing [profanity, and] hasty and frivolous oaths. Some commentators ..., some philosophers ..., some Fathers of the early Church, and some Christian sects ... interpret this command ... as an absolute condemnation of all kinds of swearing. [However,] upon solemn occasions oaths may be not only lawful, but sometimes also dutiful.... And Christian intelligence suggests that there can be nothing sinful in this, provided it be done only upon a solemn judicial occasion and in a reverent spirit. The words in the third commandment which are emphatic are evidently the words &quot;in vain,&quot; it being assumed that there is a lawful use of the Divine Name.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Swear not (mē omnuete).... The Jews were wont to split hairs in their use of profanity, and by avoiding God’s name imagine that they were not really guilty of this sin, just as professing Christians today use “pious oaths” which violate the prohibition of Jesus.&quot; ~ Robertson &lt;em&gt;Word Pictures&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;But let our yea be yea - Let there be a simple affirmation, unaccompanied by any oath or appeal to God or to any of his works. A man who makes that his common method of speech is the man who will be believed.&quot; ~ Albert Barnes' &lt;em&gt;Notes on the Bible&lt;/em&gt; (ca. 1850 A.D.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;When we become impatient and lose self-control we tend to say things better left unspoken. These include swearing [profanity], abusing the Lord's name, and appealing to heaven, earth, or whatever as confirmation that we are speaking the truth (cf. Matt. 5:33-37).&quot; ~ &lt;em&gt;The Expository Notes of Dr. Constable&lt;/em&gt; 2012&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Because even the best men sometimes through impatience slip and speak oaths sometimes lesser, sometimes greater, the apostle warns us to detest such wickedness, and to accustom our tongues to simple and true talk.&quot; ~ &lt;em&gt;Geneva Bible Translation Notes&lt;/em&gt; 1599&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5099" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T18:56:52.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9067" CreationDate="2013-07-27T20:27:07.527" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;the reason for a seventy fold curse is because Lamech killed someone who was attacking him. It's not important who it was because that isn't the point of the passage. The point is to show that if someone who took revenge on Cain; (who was an unrighteous murderer) were to suffer a 7 fold curse then the person who took revenge on Lamech (who only killed in self defense) would receive 10 times the curse. All in all God wants us to let him seek vengeance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5228" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T20:27:07.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15494" CreationDate="2013-07-27T22:18:58.067" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Book of Revelation chapter 21 verse 1 answers your question when it says: &quot;and I saw a new heavens and a new earth.&quot; The implication here is we simply enter into a new cycle or round of Creation as a result of God the Father establishing His Kingdom in victory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This comes into focus clearly when you understand how to decipher the Creation Account as the master blueprint for the Creation itself in order to reveal the hidden mysteries. In order to do so you take each Day of Creation as pertaining to a distinct Millennium of Creation. This means that one round or cycle of Creation has a duration of approximately 7 thousand years and that we are in the process of entering into the 7th Day of Creation, which is the Millennium when Christ rules and reigns in a period of rest from the Adversary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously there are implications in what I have said that many people will not find comfortable to contemplate. The biggest is that the Days of Creation are not directly speaking about the creation of our physical observable cosmos. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you look at Day 4 when the &quot;greater light to rule the day&quot; is being spoken of, you would need to interpret this as Jesus Christ, the light and life of the world who came in the 4th millennium instead of the creation of our physical sun that shines light for us day in and day out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As another example, look at Day 5 where it speaks of the &quot;creatures in the waters wherein dwells the breath of life&quot;. This is the part of the master blueprint calling for the ministry of the apostles to be &quot;fishers of men&quot; and to gather them into the body of Christianity as a new religion to begin the next level of this cycle of Creation's evolutionary stage of spiritual development. This is why Christian's put little fish symbols on their cars. It was right in the beginning of the 5th Millennium that Christianity was established, which is right on schedule according to the master blueprint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, just like we pass from Sunday to Monday to Tuesday to Wednesday to Thursday to Friday to Saturday and back to Sunday again, so too does the geo-geneo-political framework of things on our planet cycle through millennia such that a single cycle of Creation is like a week that repeats over and over again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is a difference that should be noted: The 7th Day is simultaneously the 1st Day as well. One cycle of Creation overlaps the adjacent cycle of Creation. This gives us the Alpha/Omega Millennial period. There are many hints to this in scripture I could elaborate upon if desired.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, while we are looking for the Millennial Rest under Christ as King of the Father's Kingdom on Millennial Day 7, we should also be anticipating a period of great darkness and chaos preceding this because we are also approaching a new Day 1 as well. We know that prior to a new Creation's Day 1 that there is a period of darkness and chaos. This is in a geo-political sense, mind you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it is the Father's Kingdom that is spoken of in Day 1 where it says the light breaks fourth putting an end to the darkness and chaos such that those of the dark are divided. This is the judgment or separation aspect that takes place during the Millennium. Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will embrace the light of the Father's Kingdom and attain to their spiritual birth (resurrection) while all else shall remain in darkness blinded by the precepts of men. These are those who draw near unto God with their lips but whose hearts are far from Him, having the form of Godliness but who deny the powers thereof and govern themselves via the commandments of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In their blindness they suffer themselves to continue to practice a dead religion that leaves them bound to the Adversary's cunning deceptions as his &quot;prison planet&quot; system takes captive all those who reject the light and truth of the Father's Kingdom. While on the other hand those who do recognize and accept the light and truth of the Father's Kingdom and join themselves to it by covenant shall be permitted to live in that Millennial society the Adversary loses all power over. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gulf of separation between those of the Father's Kingdom and those of the Adversary's Kingdom will become impassable. Those who the Adversary takes captive will loose all of their freedom to choose and will become mere subjects of a tyrannical state. Many will champion this as the answer to the world's problems and will be deceived into building this system of governance up and fall into the very pit they helped dig for others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, those in the Father's Kingdom will escape the clutches of this tyrannical system of governance and they will participate in what will appear like America rebooted, except it will be a Kingdom of kings instead of a republic of sovereigns. It will be the re-establishment of liberty where total respect will be renewed for the unalienable rights granted by our Creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T22:18:58.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16064" CreationDate="2013-07-27T23:05:29.463" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see this as a clarification of what predestination is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two major components are keys:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fore-knowledge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fore-ordination&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pattern for this is seen when you look at one creation being followed by another creation as is implied in Revelation 21:1. We go from this &quot;world&quot; we are now in to what the scriptures call the &quot;world to come&quot; when there shall be &quot;a new heavens and a new earth&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept here is there is a process we undergo between worlds that assigns to us some level of functioning in the world to follow. Paul talked about this in 1 Cor. 15 where he made an analogy to answer the question of what flesh shall we rise up in when we are resurrected in the &quot;world to come&quot;. He used the symbols we also see in the creation account. He said some shall rise up with the flesh of fishes, some of fowls, some of creeping things, etc. and the glory they rise up with shall be likened to the sun, moon and stars. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when we are judged by the Father, this is performed according to His knowledge of who and what we were in this world and then we have granted to us a &quot;new name&quot; that fore-ordains us to some particular manner of flesh in some capacity of glory for our &quot;world to come&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can think of this as when Adam was given dominion over all things and was commanded by God to have all creatures brought before him so that Adam could give them all a &quot;name&quot;. If you think of it this way, you can see Adam as a type of the Father passing judgment upon all &quot;creatures&quot; and assigning them to some level of glory when they come into the new heavens and the new earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at Adam's lifespan of 930 years, you can see that this great labor to &quot;name&quot; (judge) all &quot;creatures&quot; (people) into a new fore-ordained level of glory (per 1 Cor. 15), would be no small undertaking. Therefore, Adam was given a Bride, Eve, as a helpmeet and companion to assist in the performance of these tasks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can all clearly come into focus if you see Adam and Eve coming at the tail end of Creation's 6th Day (millennium) and being given dominion that was intended to span Creation's 7th Day (the Millennium). In other words, Adam was brought in at the latter-days of the current cycle of Creation in order to organize and prepare the new cycle of Creation to follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, God delegated to Adam and His Bride Eve the responsibility to perform the work of gathering all of the knowledge necessary in order to foreordain (name) all souls of that cycle of Creation to some level of glory in the cycle of Creation to follow. Thus, a very substantial amount of genealogical work would be required of Adam and Eve in order to properly and responsibly perform the duties God gave them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Genesis 2:4 says that everything spoken prior in the days of Creation pertains to the generations of people that was organized in &quot;one day&quot;, it was indicating that this labor to organize every soul to some level of glory took about one millennia. This labor is the &quot;spiritual creation&quot; that precedes the actual rolling out of the implementation of the &quot;material creation&quot;, in terms of people actually getting physically resurrected in accordance with what they had foreordained on their behalf according to what &quot;name&quot; Adam and Eve gave them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notwithstanding individuals all have a fore-ordination given to them by Adam based upon His knowledge of them, which is what they bring into their resurrection as their pre-destined circumstances, they can progress or digress depending upon their individual choices. Each cycle of Creation brings a new opportunity to have a new &quot;Book of Life&quot; written with new knowledge given to a new Adam who then issues a new name to all &quot;creatures&quot;. This cycle repeats over and over as worlds come and go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T23:05:29.463" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17926" CreationDate="2013-07-27T23:51:18.833" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the word of god that became flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The words of man are flimsy, men can lie and change their positions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The will and word of god never change, and as such the words that he speaks ring true and are consistent throughout time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because he has had all knowledge and all things are known until him, he does not &quot;grow&quot; as men do: he has made all things from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, Christ Jesus is the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is because GOD CANNOT LIE! he can only speak of himself, that in which means that when he speaks, he speaks himself! Every word that he utters IS the ESSENCE OF GOD!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, so Jesus has been there since the beginning and even before the world began.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5229" LastActivityDate="2013-07-27T23:51:18.833" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17939" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17942" CreationDate="2013-07-28T09:01:15.463" Score="10" ViewCount="23246" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the early years of Christianity, there was a lot of debate whether people of non-Jewish origin should follow the strict Mosaic laws, especially circumcision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A consensus was made that for pagans who wish to become Christians, no circumcision or other old Jewish traditions and laws should be compulsory, with four exceptions, as described in Acts 15:20.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:20&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KJV translation&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of&#xA;  idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from&#xA;  blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My non-English translation effectively says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;do not worship idols.&lt;/em&gt; (this is, of course, self-explanatory)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;no adultery&lt;/em&gt; (still clear)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;do not consume the flesh of animals who died by drowning&lt;/em&gt; (why? Of course, it makes sense in a sanitary way, but why make it a condition of being allowed to become a Christian?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;do not consume blood&lt;/em&gt;. (was that meaning ritual sacrifices that pagans might have done in that time? What about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sausage&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blood sausage&lt;/a&gt;, a common food in many parts of Europe, even among the strongly religious, except maybe a few small groups. Or was that, according the translations where the word &quot;consuming&quot; is missing, just &quot;thou shalt not murder&quot;?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1122" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-22T13:51:51.013" LastActivityDate="2015-10-23T13:47:46.267" Title="What is the significance of the four laws given to early Christians who were not ethnically Jews?" Tags="&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;&lt;law&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-25T00:42:20.047" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17939" CreationDate="2013-07-28T12:28:25.067" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The good 'ol Matthew Henry has quite a good explanation to your question &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/acts/15.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. Do a search on the page for &quot;From things strangled, and from blood,&quot; (without the quotes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, Matthew Henry says that the last two items are about not giving unnecessary offence to the Jews, who, being steeped in the Law, would find people doing these things to be repulsive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first two items in the list we hold, as it were, with a clenched fist and will not give ground on (idols, adultery). The latter two items we hold with an open hand, since we do not wish to give unnecessary offense to others, but wish to win them to Christ. HTH&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T12:28:25.067" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17926" CreationDate="2013-07-28T12:41:13.637" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2048:12-13&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 48:12-13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;em&gt;What is Jesus called in &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/revelation/22-13.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation&lt;/a&gt;? Alpha and Omega...&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above shows that the Bible teaches Jesus Christ to be the Creator. And Christians believe the propositions of the Bible to be true. Thus Christians believe that Jesus &quot;laid the foundation of the earth&quot; etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Christians, having established that Jesus is God the Son, the 2nd person of the Trinity and the Word of God, would thus see Christ as that Word which proceeded from the Father's mouth when He (the Father) spoke at creation. Thus Christ was the energizing Word that created all things for the Father.&#xA;We are not to imagine that the Father has vocal cords (He is a Spirit). His &quot;speaking' is an anthropomorphic term. The Word that He spoke, being that same Word which was in the beginning with God and was God (John 1). This shows us a glimpse of how tightly knit the Persons of the Trinity are. The Son is the very Word of the Father, Who brings all things into existence for the Father and the Holy Spirit is His breath. Amazing imagery to meditate upon! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a short reference to the above thought, please hear &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xiv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Calvin&lt;/a&gt; :&quot;Since at the very moment when God said, &quot;Let there be light,&quot; The energy of the Word was immediately exerted......&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="5197" LastEditDate="2013-08-01T09:58:55.347" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T09:58:55.347" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17939" CreationDate="2013-07-28T12:45:55.753" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The prohibition from eating the meat of strangled animals is essentially the same thing as the prohibition from eating blood.  If an animal was strangled, that means its blood was not drained from its body.  Therefore, eating the meat of strangled animals was another method of consuming their blood.  The Mosaic Law outlawed the consumption of blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2017:10-11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lev. 17:10-11 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.  For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2012:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut. 12:16 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2012:23&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut. 12:23 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since eating blood was so detestable to the Jews, and presumably associated with pagan rituals, the Apostles felt that it was important for the gentile Christians to abstain from eating blood, even though they were not following the rest of the Mosaic Law.  By doing so, they would not cause offense to Jews and weaker brethren.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:23-33&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 10:23-33 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?  Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some people take this command further and believe that, even today, it is a sin for Christians to eat blood.  They believe that, since God outlawed the consumption of blood prior to the Mosaic Law, it is a general moral law which applies to all people for all time, not just those subject to the Mosaic Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:4-5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen. 9:4-5 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T00:52:17.920" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17924" CreationDate="2013-07-28T12:51:19.133" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;He emptied Himself of all the glory of Heaven to become a man on Earth. Yes, I think that means He gave everything (more than we can imagine), not just for the poor, but for the whole of mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:4-8&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Philippians 2:4-8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;5&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;6&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;7&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;8&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-07-28T14:03:48.757" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T14:03:48.757" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17306" CreationDate="2013-07-28T13:26:59.193" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will first offer a prayer from &quot;A Common Prayer: A Cartoonist talks to God&quot; by Leunig &#xA;There are only two feelings.Love and fear.&#xA;There are only two languages.Love and fear.&#xA;There are only two activities. Love and Fear.&#xA;There are only two motives.two procedures, two frameworks,two results.&#xA;Love and fear.Love and Fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;might I add after contemplation in prayer: To act with Love is to act in kindness and this is heaven on earth and to act in fear is to save oneself and this is Hell on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;second part of reply:the Abyss is on the edges of the thin path that leads from earthly existence to heaven a city of good things in the apocryphal book of 2Esdras:7. We must walk the narrow path which is a meaningless as life on Earth to gain heaven which is wide and safe. This was given to the people of the old testament &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John&lt;/a&gt; is the Good NewsVia, Veritas, Vita.Direct path to heaven for all who believe with no fear of falling into the Abyss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5061" LastEditorUserId="5061" LastEditDate="2013-07-28T15:47:57.353" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T15:47:57.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17939" CreationDate="2013-07-28T15:02:09.080" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Idolatry:&lt;/strong&gt; This law was necessary because the gentile new comers were mostly idol worshipers. They did not know the law of Moses on idolatry. It was necessary to inform them that idolatry is a sin, otherwise they might start making idols of Jesus and bow down before it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Adultery:&lt;/strong&gt; This law also was required because the gentiles did not come from a stricter society like the Jews who maintained good moral practices. They need to be informed that sexual immorality is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dietary law:&lt;/strong&gt; A strangled animal or which died on it's own has blood still in it. It seems like this law was given in favor of the Jews so that Jews and gentiles could worship together. Jews abhorred people who eat strangled things and blood. This Mosaic law became their custom. This problem is common among people with very &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;different eating habits&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  This problem is still going on to this present day. For example, some newly converted members from religions which forbid eating meat (Hindus, Jains etc.) find it difficult to adjust with Christians who are mostly meat eaters. They never eat meat since childhood and participating in Christian festivals like Christmas where meat is usually served become troublesome to them. Paul addressed this issue very well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Corinthians 8:13 (NKJV)&lt;/em&gt; Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble,&#xA;  I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-28T15:23:16.707" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T15:23:16.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17929" CreationDate="2013-07-28T15:55:19.257" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although he never published his view on the subject, according to a book called &quot;Slavery and Sin: The Fight Against Slavery and the Rise of Liberal Protestantism&quot; By Molly Oshatz, &lt;strong&gt;Edwards was just slightly opposed to slavery in that he questioned the slave trade as it was existing and practiced, while not opposing the concept of having a slave if recognizing them as equal humans and if they had fallen into the state of slavery through some legal means.&lt;/strong&gt; We know his view only from his arguments for and against slavery in his defense of Benjamin Doolittle, a pastor who was criticized by his own congregation for owning slaves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slavery was only beginning to become a moral issue in Puritan New England at the time of Edwards.  This was not really America but England and Edwards as good hearted as he might seem from his sermons was still part of a ruling British mentality that did not seem aware of the concepts of full economic opportunity that we understand under the word equality today and as promoted by modern democracies in many parts of the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might seem contradictory but although he did have a slave/s he was also somewhat opposed to slavery even back then.  He did not take a stance against slavery as 'always' wrong, for he saw that the Bible itself does not even mandate, even in the New Testament, that Christian slave owners in the church must free their slaves, but he did personally begin to oppose the 'racial' slave trade and its philosophy of 'human inequality'. His opposition to slavery was only starting to dawn, even while he had his own slave, based on what he thought was an unjust practice of enslavement.  In other words, he questioned the means that people were brought into slavery. It would seem if he lived just a little later in history common sense would have extended this soft opposition to a more aggressive form, but I guess we will never know for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A fuller description can be found here &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=AgAb-y_rLIAC&amp;amp;pg=PA20&amp;amp;lpg=PA20&amp;amp;dq=%22Benjamin%20Doolittle%22%20slavery&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=sxBKQiTDFX&amp;amp;sig=gzZ4By3dXJhbXoCKwmtGjKi4G84&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=UjP1UezAAoX-lAX8t4Ao&amp;amp;ved=0CEEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%22Benjamin%20Doolittle%22%20slavery&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;Slavery and Sin: The Fight Against Slavery and the Rise of Liberal Protestantism&lt;/a&gt; and here &lt;a href=&quot;http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/files/2012/02/Thabiti-Jonathan-Edwards-slavery-and-theological-appropriation.pdf&quot;&gt;Jonathan Edwards, Slavery, and the Theology of African Americans&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T15:55:19.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17949" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-28T16:56:37.590" Score="0" ViewCount="358" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example in ps.80:8-16 there is vine which is easy use analyze that it is metaphorically about Israel. &#xA;But it still doesn't say in this passage that what vine is like, but it has to be analyzed from the context. &#xA;But then I have heard that all prophecies in the bible unless otherwise stated are to be interpreted literally like the rebirth of nation of Israel in Isaiah.66:8? And I have heard that unless it is seen evidently from the passage that interpretation is to be taken metaphorically, one should interpret passage literally. Is this correct strategy for interpretation of a passage of the bible? So when to use literal and when allegorical/metaphorical interpretation method?&#xA;Can you give some example passage that is not so easy to decide whether to interpret the passage literally or metaphorically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastEditorUserId="4380" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T10:55:41.243" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T10:55:41.243" Title="Can you give some example passage that is not so easy to decide whether to interpret the passage literally or metaphorically?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-07-29T13:50:55.427" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11455" CreationDate="2013-07-28T17:27:36.357" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The argument I have heard is from his speech to Agrippa where he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. (Acts 26:9,10 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The claim that he &quot;cast [his] vote against them&quot; suggests he was a member of the Sanhedrin which was a role normally reserved for married men.  I don't know whether this was an absolute rule or whether it would just have been very unusual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="688" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T17:27:36.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17954" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17139" CreationDate="2013-07-28T23:07:32.573" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic position is that there are certain sins that remove one's State of Justification, if one commits such a sin and dies, they will be condemned.  If someone is in such a state, that person can repent and be restored to Justification through the Sacrament of Confession.  There is no Catholic concept of &quot;being saved&quot; in the sense of &quot;eternal security&quot; or &quot;once saved always saved&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2013-07-28T23:07:32.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17955" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17890" CreationDate="2013-07-29T00:40:09.800" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The principle devotion to Mary is the Rosary.  The Rosary was given to St. Dominic directly from Heaven.  If you believed this, then your question wouldn't seem so reasonable.  Practically the Virgin Mary obtains favors from her Son.  It was on her request that he changed the water into wine at Cana.  He said, &quot;Woman, why do you involve me? My hour has not yet come.&quot;  This answer seems like a no, but she knew that he would not refuse her request and says,&quot;Do whatever he tells you.&quot;  The Virgin Mary is called the Star of the Sea.  She guides Catholics to Heaven.  I recommend the book &quot;The Glories of Mary&quot; by St. Alphonsus for a brilliant 500 page answer to your question.  I would paste the whole book here if I could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T00:40:09.800" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17049" CreationDate="2013-07-29T01:02:57.977" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestants do not recognize the necessity of a single worldwide leader other than Christ. So it is not as if Peter is dethroned so that Paul can take his place. Both are recognized as important leaders, but not one over the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of this thinking can be found from John Calvin in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes/&quot;&gt;Institutes&lt;/a&gt;. In Book 4, Chapter 6, he writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And yet, in truth, none can solve this question better than&#xA;     Scripture, if we compare all the passages in which it shows what office&#xA;     and power Peter held among the apostles, how he acted among them, how&#xA;     he was received by them (Acts 15:7). Run over all these passages, and&#xA;     the utmost you will find is, that Peter was one of twelve, their equal&#xA;     and colleague, not their master. He indeed brings the matter before the&#xA;     council when anything is to be done, and advises as to what is&#xA;     necessary, but he, at the same time, listens to the others, not only&#xA;     conceding to them an opportunity of expressing their sentiments, but&#xA;     allowing them to decide; and when they have decided, he follows and&#xA;     obeys. [...] &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After a number of scriptural examples, Calvin concludes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All these things make it manifest, either that&#xA;     there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or, at least, that Peter&#xA;     had no more authority over the rest than they had over him. This point,&#xA;     as I have said, Paul handles professedly, in order that no one might&#xA;     give a preference over him, in respect of apostleship, to Peter or&#xA;     John, who were colleagues, not masters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5239" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T01:02:57.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17957" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17149" CreationDate="2013-07-29T01:56:22.530" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps this could be better understood by looking at the most popular holiday of the world, specifically Christmas. Christmas is supposedly, or commonly celebrated or a celebration of the birth of the Christ Child, Jesus. Now, let’s find in the Scriptures where God instructs us to celebrate the birth of His Son.  There is not one place in either the Old or New Testament telling us to honor our Savior’s birth each year. As a matter of fact, Jesus Himself tells us to remember, His death (Luke 21:14-20; I Corinthians 11:23-26)! Undoubtedly, it is important that He was born, but the fact that He died and how and why He died has farther-reaching and more eternal consequences!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What most people do not fully realize is that Satan has deceived this whole world (Revelation 12:9). Many of the comfortable, familiar customs and traditions of this world have, indeed, been imitated from utter paganism and have nothing to do with proper Christianity. God tells us to prove all things (I Thessalonians 5:21). Before we accept any ritual, we should always inquire into its origins. We must assure ourselves that it does not transgress any of God's laws and that it follows the traditions and practices of the early New Testament church. So, is the sign of the cross really an emblem of true Christianity or is it something far different? Therefore, Christians saying they are saved by the power of the cross is also symbolic of the Power of the Blood of Christ in its inherent purity as it was shed on the cross. As to the shape of, or whether or not the cross had a crossbeam, or was just a stake for torture, is actually irrelevant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SYNCRETISM // &#xA;In Romans 1:18-20, Paul declares that things inclusive of God's existence, power, and nature are clearly seen, but men tend to squelch the truth. What God wants man to know; man freely ignores and squelches through the adding of beliefs, customs and traditions that cloak the truth. The truth is still there, hidden behind a screen of falsehoods that most never attempt to remove.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologians call this method syncretism. According to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, syncretism is &quot;the combination of different forms of belief or practice.&quot; Syncretism might perchance term in other arenas, like philosophy, but scholars use it most singularly in religious contexts. Syncretize, the verb form of the word, is very illuminating. It means &quot;to attempt to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity.&quot; In other words, those who syncretize will often attach one belief or tradition to their religion without trying to determine whether it is correct to do so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this is of help towards answering the question of why some Protestants hesitate to be accepting of symbols or symbolism when it comes or relates to Godly things. Otherwise outside of the bible I am not aware of any universal Protestant doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no degree, however I did two plus years of biblical studies at Toccoa Falls Bible College in North East Georgia, and I have been born again since March 1985. My answer is from those, and my own studies of scripture and many other text and many websites where I researched. I have tried to be as fluent as I could. I am somewhat novice to putting my words out as such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5238" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-07-29T02:49:57.570" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T02:49:57.570" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8968" CreationDate="2013-07-29T04:20:31.857" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just as Adams rib was taken from his side to create Eve, so has the blood and water, which represents the sacrifice of his life for ours and the washing away of sins and forgiveness for eternal life,  from Jesus side to create eternal life for us. Although death will try and pierce us it will not hurt or have power over us because Christ has already paid the price and so have we if we have made him lord. A few more scriptures that also relate... (Deut. 12:16 (NASB) Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.Deut. 12:23 (NASB) Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.) You lay down your life as Jesus did for God. The flesh can not inherit eternal life . The sacrifice of fleshy ways to grow spiritually is laying down your life for God. Because Jesus was pirced and blood and water came out it also showed prof that he gave up his life before they tried to kill him. Like Jesus laid down his life before he died for you  and became Christ so should you to show yourself aproved before God. You may not be perfect and you dont have to literally lay down your life because Christ already has but if you want Gods favor make Christ your lord by using Jesus as an example of how you should live your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5241" LastEditorUserId="5241" LastEditDate="2013-07-29T06:46:04.880" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T06:46:04.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17960" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-29T11:43:09.253" Score="1" ViewCount="2841" Body="&lt;p&gt;We have a great question about &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2863/what-does-the-bible-say-about-luck&quot;&gt;whether luck exists&lt;/a&gt;.  My question is to what extent have Christians frowned upon wishing someone &quot;good luck&quot; in church tradition.  Has it been frowned upon as a pagan practice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T11:46:43.683" Title="Have Christians opposed &quot;Good Luck&quot; wishes?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-07-31T16:46:37.023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17960" CreationDate="2013-07-29T11:46:43.683" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes in Word of Faith circles we are trained not to say good luck as there is no such thing as luck. We say other things like &quot;I'm praying for you&quot;, &quot;God bless&quot; and &quot;it will work out&quot;. The verse we go in relation to this like many others is Mark 11:22. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T11:46:43.683" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17962" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17929" CreationDate="2013-07-29T11:49:19.937" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jonathan Edwards the lesser (1745-1801) wrote &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/injusticeimpolic1834edwa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The injustice and impolicy of the slave trade, and of the slavery of the Africans&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Perhaps, though this truth be clearly demonstrable both from reason and revelation, you scarcely dare receive it, because it seems to bear hardly on the characters of our pious fathers, who held slaves. But they did it ignorantly and in unbelief of the truth as Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon were ignorant, that polygamy or concubinage was wrong. As to domestic slavery, our fathers lived in a time of ignorance which God winked at ; but now he commandeth all men every where to repent of this wickedness, and to break off this sin by righteousness, and this iniquity by showing mercy to the poor, if it may be a lengthening out of their tranquility. You therefore to whom the present blaze of light, as to this subject, has reached, cannot sin at so cheap a rate as our fathers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand it's not a direct answer to your question, but important to share.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T11:49:19.937" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2757" CreationDate="2013-07-29T16:52:19.940" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his book &lt;em&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/em&gt; he indicates that Christianity is one step in a sort of religious evolutionary system.  In his mind the thing after Christianity won't be constrained by religious divisions or dogmas.  This is one obvious reason he wasn't interested in becoming a Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evolution is approximately: Paganism → Christianity → Something Better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Perhaps a modern man can understand the Christian idea best if he takes it in connection with Evolution. (p. 218)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Never Forget that we are all still 'the early Christians'. The present wicked and wasteful divisions between us are, let us hope, a disease of infancy;...) (p. 221)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On this view the thing has happened: the new step has been taken and is being taken. Already the new men are dotted here and there all over the earth... Every now and then one meets them. Their very voices and faces are different from ours: stronger, quieter, happier, more radiant... They will not be very like the idea of 'religious people' which you have formed from your general reading... And I strongly suspect (But how should I know?) that they recognize one another immediately and infallibly, across every barrier of colour, sex, class, age, &lt;strong&gt;and even creeds.&lt;/strong&gt; In that way, to become holy is rather like joining a secret society. To put it at the very lowest, it must be great fun.&quot; (p. 223)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2018-02-08T12:27:47.903" LastActivityDate="2018-02-08T12:27:47.903" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17965" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-29T17:29:54.473" Score="10" ViewCount="579" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I was working out a UML diagram to expose holes in every attempt to analogize the Trinity, and I came to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;adored and glorified&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; (formerly, worshiped and glorified)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;everything else in the Creed are things that &quot;I believe&quot; what is the difference between saying, &lt;code&gt;who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified&lt;/code&gt; and saying &lt;code&gt;who with the Father and the Son I adore and glorify&lt;/code&gt;?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty much asking, who is the subject of the predicate of sentence, is it still me, or us, or the Church Triumphant?  To put it another way, complete this sentence, &quot;who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified by ...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd prefer a Catholic answer, and not one that challenges my premises either!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T08:49:19.867" Title="Doctrinal significance of the tense and subject of &quot;Adored and Glorified&quot; in the Nicene Creed" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;nicene-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17966" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-29T17:38:47.737" Score="10" ViewCount="1005" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church maintains that it does not have the authority to ordain women. I.e., the Church &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; ordain women. It's assumed then that God set a precedent or gave a mandate to ordain &lt;em&gt;only men&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Church, in what way, how, and when was this mandate or precedent given? What [sound] theology and Patristic writing supports the Church's interpretation of that mandate and/or precedent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To clarify: I'm looking for the justification the Catholic Church does/might give, which I expect is supported by Patristic writings, theology, and scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-07-29T20:09:34.063" LastActivityDate="2015-04-13T01:43:51.197" Title="On what basis does the Catholic Church teach that women cannot be ordained?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;holy-orders&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17965" CreationDate="2013-07-29T17:51:57.907" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The portion of the Nicene Creed as translated in the Catholic Encyclopedia online:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who&#xA;  proceeds from the Father (and the Son), &lt;strong&gt;who together with the Father&#xA;  and the Son &lt;em&gt;is to be&lt;/em&gt; adored and glorified&lt;/strong&gt;, who spoke by the Prophets. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia - The Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original translation uses &quot;we&quot; instead of the &quot;I&quot; from the Western liturgical form. And the words in brackets are added for Western Liturgical use. Regardless of whether this is confessed it the &quot;we&quot; or &quot;I&quot; form, the slightly varied translation in context of the whole creed suggests that &lt;em&gt;the professing believer(s)&lt;/em&gt; (Christians, anyone who adores and glorifies the Father and Son) &lt;strong&gt;ought to&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;will&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; adore and glorify the Holy Ghost as co-equal with the Father and Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As is obvious, the creed is a set of beliefs that the speaker(s) hold. The statement in question, in the most literal sense, suggests that &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; who adores and glorifies the Father and the Son should/will also glorify the Holy Ghost. So, it applies both to the Church Triumphant &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the speaker(s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And to a large extent, if you skew the statement in either direction, toward the professor or those in heaven, and you still sort of end up with a statement about &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; the speaker &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; the Church Triumphant since the Church Triumphant is the speaker's intended &quot;destination&quot; anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-07-29T18:17:23.317" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T18:17:23.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17965" CreationDate="2013-07-29T17:53:00.083" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It appears to be an issue directly related to the Latin. As we see in the original Latin that was brought out of the Council of Nicea the line:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Roughly translated to English, we see it translated to &quot;Who with the Father and to the Son, He is worshiped and glorified&quot;. (We'll ignore the literal translation of worship for now).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would gather that the original Council meant to have it taken that at this point of the creed we have already announced what we as individuals mean (I believe) and are now at the point where we talk about what the Church believes and holds true. Thus the Church Triumpant is the predicate of the sentence and no longer we as individuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5247" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T17:53:00.083" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17966" CreationDate="2013-07-29T19:47:42.987" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether or not one agrees with the interpretation, there is a reasonable biblical case to be made that a woman should not preach or teach in the church.  Paul writes in 1 Tim 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. &lt;strong&gt;12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.&lt;/strong&gt; 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A theological justification for the point then is this - Eve was deceived, and therefore all women can no longer be trusted. It is, in fact, Scriptural, using a very plain sense reading of the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was precisely the view of John Chrysostom (the Golden Mouth), who in full 4th century fair writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But I suffer not a woman to teach.” “I do not suffer,” he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. “For Adam,” says he, “was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”&#xA;  If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. 11:9.) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preëminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband.” (Gen. 3:16.) This had not been said to her before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John Chrysostom. (1889). Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy. (J. Tweed &amp;amp; P. Schaff, Trans.)A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume XIII: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (p. 435). New York: Christian Literature Company.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, this is not just 4th Century prejudice.  No less than the NIGTC (The New International Greek Testament Commentary) says of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some have suggested that Paul conveys here only a note of personal disinclination (cf. Phillips’s translation: “Personally, I don’t allow”). But such a suggestion misunderstands the authoritativeness of ἐπιτρέπω when used by Paul (cf. Robertson: “Paul speaks authoritatively”), which is demonstrated by a close analysis of the three occurrences in Paul (1 Cor. 14:34, a parallel; 16:7, an action of the Lord; here). The strength of the prohibition here is underlined by Paul’s appeal to the creation order (v. 13, γάρ); in 1 Cor. 14:34 the prohibition is correlated to “the law” (undoubtedly the same OT teaching as here in v. 13) and is further delineated by his covering statement in v. 37, “the things that I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, there are varying interpretations and contra-indications to such a plain instruction.  (2 John being addressed to &quot;the elect lady and her church&quot; comes to mind.)  But, if the standard interpretation is the &lt;em&gt;sensus plenior&lt;/em&gt; here, then the Bishop of Rome would simply being saying that the church has no authority to create a new teaching out of a very old Scripture. After all, the order of things was established far before him, and woe betide the one who tries to change it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T01:20:58.423" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T01:20:58.423" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17972" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-29T21:40:58.337" Score="18" ViewCount="12246" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Liturgy_of_St._John_Chrysostom&quot;&gt;Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom&lt;/a&gt;, for example, has been traced to the fourth century, and is purported to be based upon even earlier forms. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_St_James&quot;&gt;Liturgy of St James&lt;/a&gt; is even more ancient, and is supposed to be the oldest liturgy still in common use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have two related questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the earliest Christian liturgy that we have the actual (complete or partial) text of?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the earliest Christian liturgy, whether anonymous or attributed to a particular author, that is specifically referred to in ancient sources?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastActivityDate="2019-08-31T19:27:59.383" Title="What is the earliest written surviving liturgy?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="989" CreationDate="2013-07-29T22:06:32.090" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The understanding of &lt;strong&gt;what God is&lt;/strong&gt; is unique to each individual. God is to be experienced, and cannot be described, or truly known. The answer to your question of whether or not we understand our God to be the same can be found from our own personal experience of God, compared with that of a Jew, and a Moslem.&#xA;The question addresses the worship of God - and obviously the various monotheistic Religions have different methods of worship, which we abide by. Even though we worship differently, it does not imply that our God is in any way different  though some Religions do teach this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the ACC&#xA;the Doctrine of the Apostolic Churches was formulated before the 6th. cent. from the decisions of the Bishops during the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and this before the Muslim Religion was established, so there is no reference in the Church to any Moslem understanding of God.&#xA;The ACC does teach that the Jewish and Christian God is the same and God is written as the tetragrammaton YHVH (or YHWH) in the Hebrew writings. In Judaism when YHVH is read, the word spoken is &lt;em&gt;Adonai&lt;/em&gt;. In Christianity, the word spoken is &lt;em&gt;Yahwey&lt;/em&gt;, or &lt;em&gt;Jehovah&lt;/em&gt;. None of these words occur in the NT. So,&#xA;many Christians are unclear as to whom &lt;em&gt;The Father&lt;/em&gt; of Jesus is in relationship to God YHVH - what is, in fact,  the theological definition of &lt;em&gt;The Father&lt;/em&gt;? &#xA;And, today, how does this relate to the Moslem idea of God? This, I think is where the confusion lies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the first three centuries, the Bishops were unsure of how &lt;em&gt;The Father&lt;/em&gt; and the God of Judaism were related. For perhaps a hundred years after the crucifixion, most Christians taught that &lt;em&gt;The Father&lt;/em&gt; was not the same as the God of Judaism. Some people believe this today. But the catholic Church (the universal Church of East and West,) eventually stated that the Christian God was the same as the God of Judaism. They were forced into this in order to include Christians into &lt;em&gt;Israel&lt;/em&gt; the children of God to whom the covenants were given. At that time (when the statement was made,) the writings of Paul were influential in the Church, in which Paul explicitly says that Christians are grafted into the vine of Judaism, so that the promise of God to Israel also applies to Christians. And warns that if Israel does not gain the promise, then neither do the Christians, and all will be lost.&#xA;If, then, Paul is correct, we Christians share the same God as Judaism. And since Moslems also claim to be &lt;em&gt;people of the book&lt;/em&gt; (Torah) and share the same God, we can be reasonably sure that we all share the same God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T22:06:32.090" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17914" CreationDate="2013-07-29T23:07:11.990" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are correct that sovereignty relates to authority.  Where God is concerned, he is at the top.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are however Christians who will profess that God is &quot;In Control&quot; of everything that happens.  For example, if someone gets cancer, they will make the remark that whatever happens that &quot;God is in control&quot;.  I've also had friends die from cancer and their partners would say it must have been &quot;God's will&quot; for them to die.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caseyr547 is right to say that this type of thinking stems from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Calvanism&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;This &quot;hyper sovereignty&quot; as I'd call it is a particularly prevalent doctrine in the Open Brethren churches.  The NIV bible even translated phrases like &quot;God Almighty&quot; for &quot;Sovereign Lord&quot; in just about every place in the NIV text popularising the term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who take this view on the sovereignty of God also use scripture to back their view such as Romans 8:28.- all things work together for good...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this answers it for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would go on to say that in my experience this Sovereignty of God doctrine is a convenient doctrine and gives some comfort to people as it means they don't have to do anything.  It calls for believers to be passive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, scripture makes it perfectly clear that God does not override our decisions.  For example, God did not override Adam and Eve's decision to eat the forbidden fruit.  God guided Cain to make a right choice, but Cain still chose to go his own way.  Many of the things that happen in life as a result of the original sin.  We still live in a cursed world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just like an earthly king has to enforce his will through people, God uses people and in particular his church to bring about change in the world and to preach the gospel.  If his church are not preaching the gospel then people will not be saved.  It's still his will that people be saved regardless of what his church does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-07-29T23:07:11.990" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17975" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="46988" CreationDate="2013-07-29T23:12:14.513" Score="9" ViewCount="637" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some churches which hold to the regulative principle of worship (RPW) insist that recitation of creeds or portions of confessions or catechisms by the congregation is an important act in the public worship of God. Other churches who hold that principle do not consider such recitation lawful. Given that the principle has a &quot;guilty until proven innocent&quot; structure, how do those who hold to the principle and believe in confessional recitation demonstrate that God requires confessional recitation (since that is the condition demanded by that principle)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note&lt;/em&gt;: this question is about a disagreement among those who hold to the RPW. I'm not interested in this question in hearing about why the RPW is wrong, or why confessional recitation ought to be done in some other worship paradigm. Please refrain from answering unless you understand the RPW.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1481" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-02-15T13:16:44.540" LastActivityDate="2016-02-15T21:28:00.867" Title="What is the justification for reciting creeds in public worship according to the regulative principle?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;&lt;regulative-principle&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17914" CreationDate="2013-07-30T00:40:43.250" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically, Reformed Theology does not exclude liberty from sovereignty. Quoting from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_III.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III&lt;/a&gt;, point I:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, &lt;strong&gt;nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away&lt;/strong&gt;, but rather established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinists define free will as the freedom to act according to one's nature. From a Reformed perspective, including a truly random perturbation to provide a certain kind of freedom would not increase the power of the individual's will — the perturbation would be just as external as a Divine decree — but rather establish a lesser but coworking god called Chance to which (in some small part) creation would be subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, God accidentally getting creation just a little wrong so that unintended consequences occur would not increase the freedom of the individual, but such would indicate an imperfection in God. Such a concept of a fallible God is offensive to many Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his letter to the Romans, Paul provides a response to one complaint about such sovereignty. (This response seems similar to what God told Job — effectively, 'I am God and you are not'.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of you will say to me: &quot;Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?&quot; But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? &quot;Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'&quot; Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 8:19-21 [NIV])&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The writers of The Westminster Confession of faith closed Chapter III with a recognition that such is a difficult teaching and with a declaration that this teaching is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; an encouragement to passivity but rather toward worship and obedience (and peace/assurance):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T00:40:43.250" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17890" CreationDate="2013-07-30T02:30:43.117" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mary is totally integral to our faith. &lt;b&gt;She is the Mediatrix of All Graces!*&lt;/b&gt; She is the Cause of our Joy! She is the Singular Vessel of Devotion!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think you'd have a more productive time talking about Mary with Protestants than avoiding her. She didn't say &amp;quot;All generations would call me a schmo for letting God walk all over me&amp;quot;.  She said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All generations will call me blessed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/081512-mass-during-the-day.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lk 1:48 - Gospel from the Solemnity of the Assumption Blessed Virgin Mary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is something that is in the Bible and I think it is clearly stated in a way that it is asserted by the Holy Spirit and therefore true. Now, if Catholics decided decided to devote every Tuesday to the kind of ecumenism that refuses to call Mary Blessed, then every Tuesday the Church would cease to exist. But, since &amp;quot;the gates of hell&amp;quot; will not prevail over the Church on Monday, neither shall they prevail over her on Tuesday and therefore, in her incorruptible majesty, it seems as though she is incapable of abandoning her&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way to contemplate Jesus is through Mary's eyes. That's why the Rosary is such a powerful devotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can figure that out without being Catholic and I think that makes for common ground.&#xA;Perhaps too, there are some who fear that the Rosary is somehow unecumenical because of its distinctly Marian character. Yet the Rosary clearly belongs to the kind of veneration of the Mother of God described by the Council: a devotion directed to the Christological centre of the Christian faith, in such a way that “when the Mother is honoured, the Son ... is duly known, loved and glorified”. If properly revitalized, the Rosary is an aid and certainly not a hindrance to ecumenism!&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope John Paul II - Rosarium Virginis Mariae&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bl. Pope John Paul II the Great* goes on to quote St. Louis de Montfort&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our entire perfection consists in being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ. Hence the most perfect of all devotions is undoubtedly that which conforms, unites and consecrates us most perfectly to Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Louis de Montfort - Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;yes, St. Louis, but you said this was Total Consecration to Mary, what does she have to do with Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, since Mary is of all creatures the one most conformed to Jesus Christ, it follows that among all devotions that which most consecrates and conforms a soul to our Lord is devotion to Mary, his Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to her the more will it be consecrated to Jesus Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ibid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is by being an imitator of the one who is most conformed to Jesus that we become more and more consecrated to Jesus.  To Jesus through Mary... Where have I &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEV2MARY.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;heard that one before&lt;/a&gt;. Oh yeah, she is the Mediatrix of All Graces.  That's what that means, it means that sanctifying grace was allowed to permeate our souls because Mary freely chose to offer herself to God and bring Redemption into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To drop her Marian devotion, the Church would have to wipe out at least 17 feasts during the year in her honor (3-4 of which are Holy Days of Obligation), we'd have to get a lot of black paint; smash a lot of statues; stop praying the Rosary and the Hail Mary;  Find someone else to help us with our &amp;quot;purity issues&amp;quot;.  We'd have to be Protestants!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Forgot to read the second half of your question.  Maybe there's no sufficient answer for this and I will have to resort to bad analogies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the Trinity can be likened to a Blue Plate Special (which I doubt it can) at your favorite diner then Mary is your friendly waitress Cheryl.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the Trinity can be likened to a 3-in-1 Lego Creator kit, then Mary is your mom who bought it for you for Christmas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the Trinity can be likened to anticipation, experience and remembrance, then Mary is the one who got you all excited in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the Trinity is some strange fractal with triangles that infinitely recursively fall in upon themselves, the Mary is your 7th grade math teacher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Mary is as integral as getting to know Jesus, then she is equally integral in getting to know the Father and the Holy Spirit!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't want to go overboard and contradict myself, in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/640/how-is-veneration-similar-or-different-from-adoration/681#681&quot;&gt;this related question&lt;/a&gt; I said Marian Devotion is not essential to salvation and that's true.  But I think &amp;quot;integral to faith&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;essential to salvation&amp;quot; aren't exactly the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;*It's not heretical to call her that, even though it's not a dogma yet. If you don't believe me, ask another question!&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*Can I just future proof and call him St. Pope John Paul II the Great?&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T03:33:17.457" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17978" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-30T08:36:15.030" Score="3" ViewCount="5871" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verse clearly states by itself:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 3:31 Then Jesus’ mother and his brothers came. Standing outside, they sent word to him, to summon him. 3:32 A crowd was sitting around him and they said to him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you.” 3:33 He answered them and said, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 3:34 And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it correct interpretation to say that Jesus did not entertain His family’s request?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-07-30T08:55:45.203" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T20:04:50.927" Title="Is it a correct to say that Jesus did not entertain His family’s request in Mark 3:31-35?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-08-26T19:19:35.300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17978" CreationDate="2013-07-30T08:41:43.740" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have come across some interpretations of Mar 3:31-35, where this verse is being quoted by some to portray a kind of rejection by Jesus of His family. To interpret this verse in such a manner is to depict ignorance in understanding of the real and true nature (and message) of Jesus, who is source of all love and taught us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. This interpretation is without any essence since Mary mother of Jesus is much nearer to Him.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This approach of His relatives emanated out of their concern to the safety and wellbeing of Jesus on account of His relentless and unorthodox teachings against the powers at the helm of religious affairs at that time. Jesus makes them known that He is not out of His mind but knows what He is doing by continuing His preaching in spite of their request to meet Him. Jesus never taught us nor did Himself practice rejection of any of His creations. We find at many places in Bible that He said that He has come to save the lost ones. He said that it is sick who needs a doctor not the who one is well.  So in a nutshell when it is not in His nature nor His teachings to hurt or reject someone not even sinners nor His own enemies then how one can say that He rejected His own family? When He is the author of the commandment “ Honour your father and mother&quot; how in a figment of imagination can we say that He did not honour His family members.      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can imagine this scene similar to Luke 5:17-19, where Jesus was once again surrounded by a large crowd of people (Mark 3:32) in a hall. He is in the midst of His sermon and with no access to people from outside. Because of the crowd His mother and brothers possibly found it difficult to approach and converse with Him. So they sent a word through others.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the midst of this teaching when someone from the crowd suddenly tells Him that His mother and brothers are looking out for Him, what Jesus said was in the right perspective.  Grabbing this opportunity and possibly stressing further on what He was already teaching them, Jesus proclaims that His relations are not confined to earthly relations in flesh with only a handful of humans but rather with whole of humanity. Jesus is also telling us that whoever hears, accepts and proclaims the Good News is a part of this family which is not bound by blood relations but are related spiritually to each other. We find a similar message being conveyed by Jesus in the following verse:    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke. 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were overwhelmed. His mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” 2:49 But he replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With these two instances Jesus is trying to convince to His close relatives that He is not to be confined to a small earthly family but has come to make all those who believe in Him as one big God’s family.  Whoever does the will of Father are His mothers, brothers and sisters. It is not that His family did not do the will of the Father. Mary always did the will of the Father and that is how our Saviour came visiting us:    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:38 So Mary said, “Yes, I am a servant of the Lord; let this happen to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-07-30T09:26:38.083" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T09:26:38.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17965" CreationDate="2013-07-30T08:49:19.867" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Creed as promulgated at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Council of Nicaea&lt;/a&gt; was actually very short, and didn't include the &quot;worshipped and glorified&quot; phrase:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. &lt;em&gt;ousias,&lt;/em&gt; Lat. &lt;em&gt;substantia&lt;/em&gt;] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. &lt;em&gt;gennethenta,&lt;/em&gt; Lat. &lt;em&gt;natum&lt;/em&gt;] not made [Gr. &lt;em&gt;poethenta,&lt;/em&gt; Lat. &lt;em&gt;factum&lt;/em&gt;], consubstantial [Gr. &lt;em&gt;homoousion,&lt;/em&gt; Lat. &lt;em&gt;unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)&lt;/em&gt;] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we commonly know as the Nicene Creed was included in the record of the Council of Chalcedon (AD&amp;nbsp;451) as having been promulgated at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum02.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;First Council of Constantinople&lt;/a&gt; (AD 381). It's also known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in one God the Father all-powerful, maker of heaven and of earth, and of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be; for us humans and for our salvation he came down from the heavens and became incarnate from the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, became human and was crucified on our behalf under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried and rose up on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; and he went up into the heavens and is seated at the Father's right hand; he is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead; his kingdom will have no end. And in the Spirit, the holy, the lordly and life-giving one, proceeding forth from the Father, co-worshipped and co-glorified with Father and Son, the one who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the forgiving of sins. We look forward to a resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/constantinople-381-creed-greek-and-english/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greek phrase&lt;/a&gt; in question is &lt;strong&gt;τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον&lt;/strong&gt; (to syn patri kai yio symproskunoumenon kai syndoxazomenon). It's the &lt;em&gt;sym-/syn-&lt;/em&gt; prefix which is translated as &lt;em&gt;co-&lt;/em&gt; in the version above. -μενον appears as the suffix for the present participle passive form for verbs that have infinitives ending in -ειν. Thus συμπροσκυνούμενον means &quot;is being worshipped together&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because it's a passive form, there is &lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt; defined subject &amp;mdash; that's what the passive voice is used for, even in English. It's the current state [of being worshipped and glorified] which is important, not who is doing that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were pressed, I would posit that it is the whole Church &amp;mdash; militant, expectant and triumphant &amp;mdash; which is doing the worshipping and glorifying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T08:49:19.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17890" CreationDate="2013-07-30T11:12:11.993" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Catholicism&lt;/em&gt; includes a great range of traditions: Eastern, Greek, Syrian, Anglican, and Roman. Belief about the details of the nature of Mary may differ. But all agree that Mary is &lt;em&gt;Theotokos&lt;/em&gt; - the God bearer, or &lt;em&gt;Mother of God&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And consider this: On the Cross (Joh 19:26) the Master told this to a disciple &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, &lt;strong&gt;Woman, behold thy son&lt;/strong&gt;! Then saith he to the disciple, &lt;strong&gt;Behold thy mother&lt;/strong&gt;! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”&lt;/em&gt; John 19:26, 27, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church Fathers understand this command to be directed towards all &lt;em&gt;who believe that Jesus loves them.&lt;/em&gt; To be considered brethren to Jesus, &lt;em&gt;you shall consider Mary to be your Mother, and you must take her into your own home.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T11:12:11.993" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2881" CreationDate="2013-07-30T12:32:30.107" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes. There is a hierarchy in the Trinity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible scholars distinguish the relationship of the Trinity between &lt;strong&gt;ontology&lt;/strong&gt; (nature, attributes) and &lt;strong&gt;function&lt;/strong&gt; (role, job).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FUNCTIONAL SUBORDINATION&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The three persons are not equal in function. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 13:16 (ISV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, a servant isn't greater than&#xA;  his master, and &lt;strong&gt;a messenger isn't greater than the one who sent&#xA;  him.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 John 4:14 (ISV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have seen for ourselves and can testify that the Father has &lt;strong&gt;sent&#xA;  his Son&lt;/strong&gt; to be the Savior of the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 15:26 (ISV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When the Helper comes, whom &lt;strong&gt;I will send to you&lt;/strong&gt; from the Father—&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; of Truth, who comes from the Father—he will testify on my behalf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ONTOLOGICAL EQUALITY&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The three persons are equal in nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:19 (ISV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing&#xA;  them &lt;strong&gt;in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Philippians 2:6-11 (ISV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 In God’s own form existed he,&#xA;      and &lt;strong&gt;shared with God equality&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;          deemed nothing needed grasping. 7 Instead, poured out in emptiness,&#xA;      a servant’s form did he possess,&#xA;          a mortal man becoming. In human form he chose to be, 8 and lived in all humility,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reference: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40398&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40398&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psfuncsub.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psfuncsub.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2015-02-14T16:15:22.133" LastActivityDate="2015-02-14T16:15:22.133" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17984" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8002" CreationDate="2013-07-30T13:16:52.483" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Greek word translated &quot;only begotten&quot; (&lt;em&gt;monogenes&lt;/em&gt;) is a compound word of &lt;em&gt;monos&lt;/em&gt; (one/only) and &lt;em&gt;genos&lt;/em&gt; (offspring/kind) and means &quot;only offspring&quot; in every occurrence in the New Testament, and does not prove Christ's begottenness but only his being &quot;the sole offspring&quot; of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Word is the &quot;only offspring&quot; of the Father (John 1:14) but all humans collectively are also &quot;offspring&quot; of the Father (Acts 17:28), so is this a contradiction? No. John explains why. It is because the Word is &quot;the only offspring who is God as to his nature&quot; (John 1:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Romans 1:4 Paul wrote that Christ was declared or &lt;em&gt;made known&lt;/em&gt; to the world as God's Son with power &lt;strong&gt;at his resurrection&lt;/strong&gt; according to his spirit of holiness, i.e. divine nature (not the third person of the Trinity). Paul is very explicit here; Jesus is &quot;God's Son&quot; according to his divine nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In coherence with Romans 1:4, Paul elucidates in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5 that Christ was declared, &lt;em&gt;not made&lt;/em&gt;, to be &quot;God's begotten&quot; Son &lt;strong&gt;at his resurrection.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Paul adds more; he said that the Son is the &quot;first-begotten&quot; of the Father (Col. 1:15) which is in apposition to the clause which precedes it, meaning, the Son is the &lt;strong&gt;uncreated&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;Image of the Father&quot; (&lt;em&gt;homoousios&lt;/em&gt;) as opposed to us humans who were &lt;strong&gt;created&lt;/strong&gt; in the &quot;Image of the Trinity&quot; per Genesis 1:26-27 and hence, &lt;em&gt;heteroousios&lt;/em&gt; (of a different substance).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Divine Wisdom in the LXX Proverbs 8:25 is said to be born by God (Greek &lt;em&gt;genna&lt;/em&gt;) before creation.&#xA;The Messiah in the LXX Psalm 110:3 is said to be born by God from his womb before creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, the Apostle Paul explains the Sonship of the Word by his &quot;birth&quot; and John elucidates it by his being the &quot;only offspring&quot; of the Father. Both metaphors prove that the Word is consubstantial with the Father. The Word is the only offspring of the Father, birthed by him and hence, equal to him in nature, or as the Nicene Creed puts it &quot;only begotten, born not made, of one nature with the Father.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-07-30T15:06:35.153" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T15:06:35.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1991" CreationDate="2013-07-30T13:32:27.880" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Luke 1:35 notice that the &quot;holy one&quot; to be born from Mary &lt;strong&gt;will be called &quot; the Son of God&quot;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context says that God's power will overshadow Mary; i.e impregnate her via fertilizing her egg with an original-sin-free sperm cell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, the child who is called &quot;holy one&quot; will be called &quot;the Son of God&quot; because of his incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the Word is called &quot;only born Son&quot; before his incarnation (John 1:1, 18, John 3:16,18, 1 John 4:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hermeneutically, the incarnate Word will be called or declared to be God's Son at his resurrection per Romans 1:4. It is because of his incarnation that he will be made known to the world as God's Son who is consubstantial with the Father &lt;strong&gt;at his resurrection&lt;/strong&gt; per Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Acts 13:33.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-07-30T14:48:14.583" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T14:48:14.583" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17986" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17978" CreationDate="2013-07-30T14:51:46.120" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;this Scripture is not regarding who his Earthly Family is.  it is telling every person, Sinner or otherwise, that he who does the will of God is a son or daughter of God, and therefore his brother's and sister's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this Scripture doesn't really have anything to do with Entertaining the Request or not.  it comes out as a parable, he is speaking to them outside of the box so to say, he ignores the request for the moment, turns to those whom he is speaking and says these too are my Family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is telling them all that they should come to Him, not He to Them.  He is saying that He is waiting with open arms to Welcome them.  if they think that he is dishonoring them by &quot;refusing&quot; the request, it is their own selfishness that tells them He is being disrespectful,  He is waiting for them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Knock, and it shall be opened. ask and you will recieve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T14:51:46.120" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17989" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-30T16:05:25.263" Score="6" ViewCount="8300" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew records that immediately after the death of Jesus, many Old Testament saints who had died came back to life, went into Jerusalem, and appeared to many people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.  Matthew 27:51-53 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it is interesting that this occurred at the death of Jesus and not the resurrection, and I'm not sure what the reason for this could be.  My main question though is what the significance was of the Old Testament saints coming back to life physically at this time.  This appears to be a sort of &quot;Zeroth&quot; resurrection (borrowing from the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, that was asserted after there was already a first and second). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-05T17:28:06.027" LastActivityDate="2015-10-05T17:28:06.027" Title="What is the significance of dead saints being resurrected to life at the crucifixion of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-07-21T06:33:32.147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17991" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="17992" CreationDate="2013-07-30T18:01:42.857" Score="14" ViewCount="33333" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've occasionally heard of Jesus Christ referred to as &quot;The Christ&quot; and the phrasing has always struck me.  What are the differences (if any) between referring to him as Jesus Christ versus &quot;The Christ&quot;, and what is the origin of the title?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5259" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-29T22:13:58.013" LastActivityDate="2018-08-15T19:59:48.570" Title="Why is Jesus occasionally referred to as &quot;The Christ&quot;? Is there a different definition between the two?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17991" CreationDate="2013-07-30T18:19:50.043" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Christ&quot; is simply the English transliteration of the Greek word &quot;Χριστός&quot; (pronounced &quot;khristós&quot;). It has the same meaning as the word &quot;Messiah&quot; which is simply a loose English transliteration of the Hebrew word &quot;מָשִׁיחַ&quot; (pronounced &quot;mashíach&quot;). Therefore, you'll find the word &quot;Christ&quot; used in translations of the New Testament and the word &quot;Messiah&quot; used in translations of the Old Testament.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both words essentially mean &quot;the anointed one&quot;.  In other words, Jesus is the one chosen by God to save His people. He is the Messiah who was promised to the children of Israel. He is the fulfillment of the prophecies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When people call Jesus, &quot;Jesus Christ,&quot; they are simply using the word as his title or epithet.  And when Jesus is called &quot;The Christ,&quot; it is the same thing as calling him &quot;The Messiah&quot; or &quot;The Anointed One.&quot; There is no obvious distinction in meaning between the two. It is simply a matter of grammatical style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2015-02-21T18:45:00.363" LastActivityDate="2015-02-21T18:45:00.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17991" CreationDate="2013-07-30T18:20:11.853" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; Jesus' last name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Christ&quot; is a titled bestowed on that of the Messiah. Since Jesus is the Messiah, He is &quot;The Christ&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We refer to Him as Jesus Christ because it is easier to say and to differentiate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5247" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T18:20:11.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17991" CreationDate="2013-07-30T18:38:24.493" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The proper way to refer to him is &quot;Jesus, &lt;strong&gt;the&lt;/strong&gt; Christ,&quot; since the Greek text states, «Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός». Note the definite article ὁ which precedes Χριστός (&quot;Christ&quot;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, to be even more accurate, it would actually be proper to say, &quot;Jesus, the anointed one&quot; or &quot;the anointed one, Jesus&quot; (for the Greek «ὁ Χριστός Ἰησοῦς»), since the actual English translation of ὁ Χριστός is &quot;the anointed one.&quot; &quot;Christ&quot; is actually a transliteration, not a translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, of course, tradition is hard to overcome, so people simply say &quot;Jesus Christ&quot; since that is what they were taught (there's nothing &quot;wrong&quot; about this tradition, mind you).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2014-01-07T00:56:01.350" LastActivityDate="2014-01-07T00:56:01.350" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17995" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18008" CreationDate="2013-07-30T19:23:15.613" Score="19" ViewCount="26300" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a recent trip a nice nun took a picture of my family.  I noticed that the nun was wearing a wedding band on her left hand.  I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that nuns are considered to be “brides of Christ”, which leads to my two-part  question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do all nuns wear these symbolic wedding bands?  If not, is this practice limited to certain religious orders, or is it an individual choice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4227" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-08T14:44:22.957" LastActivityDate="2020-02-17T18:23:16.280" Title="Nuns wearing wedding bands?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;monasticism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17978" CreationDate="2013-07-30T20:04:50.927" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is the KJV translation followed by a commentary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mark 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.&#xA;32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.&#xA;33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?&#xA;34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!&#xA;35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see here that Jesus considers the multitude &lt;em&gt;that sat&lt;/em&gt; to be doing the will of God. How are they doing the will of God? They are waiting to learn Torah from the Master. It is God’s will that every  man studies Torah. It is a rabbinical teaching that when two or more are gathered together to read Torah, God will be present. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Jesus makes a comparison between those who &lt;em&gt;stand&lt;/em&gt; and those who &lt;em&gt;sit&lt;/em&gt;. Those who sit are ready to study Torah, Jesus calls them brethren. &#xA;(Perhaps Jesus is suggesting that there is another type of mother - the gathered disciples? Mother M. Angelica, Foundress of EWTN says “The Church is a Mother because she is a Bride who is forever bringing forth children of light …” And from RC Catechism 169: “Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: &quot;We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.&quot;55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.”)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Aramaic colloquialism &lt;em&gt;to sit&lt;/em&gt;, means to be ready to learn, to be open minded, &lt;em&gt;to sit at the Master’s feet&lt;/em&gt;, we might say today. The colloquialism &lt;em&gt;to stand&lt;/em&gt; means to challenge the speaker. (In the parable of the good Samaritan, the disciples sat, and the lawyer who challenged Jesus, stood up.)&#xA;Here the Mother, and His brethren are &lt;em&gt;standing&lt;/em&gt;, and calling. This shows that they  are not ready to study under the Master. They are in fact challenging what He is doing - He should leave the disciples and come home with them. &#xA;Jesus had said   &quot;A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.&quot; Mark 6:4&#xA;(Mothers, of course, don’t learn from a twelve year old child, they rather boss them around - as Mary did Jesus the adult, at the wedding in Cana.  Siblings also don’t obey one another. Only much later during Jesus’s ministry did James became a disciple.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We who read this passage are being reminded (by the multitude) that though we may have found Jesus we are, perhaps, just like his family, seeking Him while standing outside the synagogue, not yet ready to enter into it, to do the will of God.  We only call His name. The Master warns us:&#xA;“Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'23&quot;And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; Begone ...' Mt 7:23 a&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-07-30T20:04:50.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12050" CreationDate="2013-07-30T21:49:07.003" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before the fall, Adam and Eve were extremely noble(being almost Angelic they could not die) thus, there was no death and before Adam existed, animals were very noble, just as todays humans are more highly capable of being more noble than animals. In the same way animals before the Fall of Adam, animals were more noble than humans of today in a Certain Sense(One of many examples:Animals do not have human reasoning powers) only. Animals did not die since the environment did not support death, fermentation or decay before the Fall of Adam. For example: even after the Fall of Adam grape juice would not turn to wine because people would live upto 1000 years and there was very very slow decay. But only after the Water Deluge God allowed the reduction of the age limit of man and decay began rapidly. Thus grape juice would decay and turn to wine and for this reason Noah got drunk unknowingly since he did not  getting drunk with grape juice before the Deluge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before the Fall of Adam, there existed plants and trees which were more nourishing than animal flesh. Hence there was no need for animals to eat other animals since, the then existing highly nourishing plants and trees would supply their needs perfectly. After the Fall of Adam, those highly nourishing plants, began to become extinct, and those animals(For example: t-rex) which relied on them now began to look for alternatives, until the only alternative remaining was the flesh of other animals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Animals do not sin against the commandments of God because they naturally do not have higher intelligent reasoning capabilities like humans beings have thus they follow instinct. For example: some animals still continue to live unclothed in caves for thousands of years they do not have intelligence to wear suits and build skyscrapers. Thus animals are not &quot;cursed&quot; with suffering. Even humans are not &quot;cursed&quot; or &quot;punished&quot; by God, rather God has withdrawn His Blessings just as a smart father would withdraw a gun from his child if the child uses it to hurt himself or others without stopping or asking for pardon. Adam and Eve abused the gifts, control and freedom and did not even ask for pardon. Thus God withdrew the gifts and powers. Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why the Infinite God allows animals to suffer the consequences of Original Sin which man caused is because mankind would not tolerate animals easily if they were exempted from suffering the effects of Original Sin. God allowed animals to suffer and die because of Original Sin in order to grant mankind some bare minimum &quot;comfort&quot; in his Journey(unavoidable suffering and death) through this Valley of Tears(life on earth) until he may live worthily to merit Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5263" LastEditorUserId="5263" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T00:38:48.580" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T00:38:48.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18001" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-30T23:01:10.837" Score="6" ViewCount="216" Body="&lt;p&gt;A group called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scnci.org/&quot;&gt;Steering Committee for the National Consecration of Ireland to the Immaculate Heart of Mary&lt;/a&gt; is, as the name suggests, seeking the consecration of the nation of Ireland to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scnci.org/faq.html&quot;&gt;their FAQ&lt;/a&gt;, they say (in the answer to the last question):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some theologians teach that without Mary’s free fiat of “Let it be done to me according to thy word” God would not have worked the incarnation and others go as far as to say that without her perfect faith at the foot of the cross He would not have worked the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who are these theologians, and how generally accepted is their teaching in the Catholic Church? I'm curious whether there are important Catholic theologians who disagree - basically, whether there's a debate about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the second part specifically - do these theologians suggest that in this case, Jesus would have simply died and not been resurrected? Do they believe that Jesus would have died, and yet our redemption would not have come about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(I thought we had a past question which touched on the Annunciation part, but I can't find it right now. In any case, I'm pretty sure the second part is new.)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-14T19:59:00.333" LastActivityDate="2015-10-14T19:59:00.333" Title="Who believes the incarnation and resurrection wouldn't have happened without Mary's faith?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18002" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18007" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:21:09.537" Score="3" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have the fear that the devil and/or myself can lead me to a wrong form of Christianity, such as one subtly based on works, without you actually knowing it. Is there an example of this in the Bible, or are there passages that talk about this? Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T08:19:33.990" Title="Can the devil and/or yourself lead you to a wrong form of Christianity?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-07-31T08:23:31.820" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17991" CreationDate="2013-07-31T01:35:03.860" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From an Anglican Catholic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word Christos (khris-tos') is used 530 times in the KJV, and only 19 of those times was it translated as &quot;&lt;em&gt;The Christ&lt;/em&gt;,&quot; and only in the Gospels.&#xA;But in Young's Literal translation of the NT we find that the phrase &quot;&lt;em&gt;the Christ&lt;/em&gt;&quot; appears 155 times, including Acts the Pauline writings, and Peter and John. In the RC DRV it is &lt;em&gt;the Christ&lt;/em&gt; 24 times; in Greene's Literal Translation it is &lt;em&gt;the Christ&lt;/em&gt; 56 times; In Darby 131 times; in RSV 50 times. So, it depends on which Bible translation you read as to the usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christos is the anglicized Greek word for the Hebrew Messiach, a title given to  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The king of Israel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The high priest of Israel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cyrus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The patriarchs as anointed kings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Simon bar Kokhba, the commander of the Jewish revolt 132-136, was &#xA;acclaimed as a Messiah also.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It means someone who has been anointed by God for the special purpose of leading Israel. The title is given to the King of Judea. Many people thought Jesus was that King, but He did not accept the title, because His &quot;Kingdom was not of this world.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the ACC we almost always say the title as &quot;the Christ,&quot; which sometimes refers to His Kingship. Usually the name &quot;The Christ&quot; is identified with the divine personality of Jesus. To share in the divine spirit of God is to have &quot;the Christ within you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2018-08-15T19:59:48.570" LastActivityDate="2018-08-15T19:59:48.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2109" CreationDate="2013-07-31T03:28:56.603" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a first generation American Greek and I can tell you without any doubt that direct translation of the Greek words &quot;σταυρός&quot; and &quot;ξύλον&quot; are &quot;cross&quot; and &quot;wooden&quot;. There is no ambiguity here it it very plain and to the exact point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5268" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T03:28:56.603" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18006" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18002" CreationDate="2013-07-31T03:51:33.763" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Asuming that there is one objectively True form of Christianity, the mere existence of the wide array of beliefs, some exclusive and contradictory to others means that some forms of Christianity must be false.  Simply logic tells us that  two mutually exclusive things can't both be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, it follows that if some forms of Chrisianity must be false, then it must be possible for people to be led and allow themselves'to be led to follow a false form of Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without even going into doctrine, the clear answer to your question is &quot;yes, you can lead yourself to a false form of Christianity&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Delving into Scripture, we're warned of false prophets, false spirits, able to disguise themselves as spirits of light ( 2 Corinthians 11:12-15: ), leading us to believe in false doctrines... Doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1), so both logically and Scripturally, it's entirely possible to believe in a false form of Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, discussing which form of Christianity is the right one is not within site guidelines, but that there is a right form is a belief comonly shared across Christianity.  And we all believe that we are practicing it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T03:51:33.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18002" CreationDate="2013-07-31T05:41:59.747" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I totally agree with David Stratton and I want to add some more on &lt;strong&gt;Faith and Work&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the religions in this world like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. teach that you have to work out your salvation. You have to do some good things for other fellows and for God. After you die, your good works and your piety will be measured, and your destiny will be decided based on the assessment. The destiny may be heaven or hell, end of rebirth cycle or continuation of unhappy rebirth etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is different. Your good works count nothing for the salvation of your soul. You cannot save yourself, you cannot achieve salvation yourself. You need some external miraculous power to save you. Jesus Christ came from heaven and entered this world to die for our sins so that we may be counted sinless through His sacrifice. Salvation can be achieved by confessing our sins to Jesus and believe in His sacrifice, the work Jesus accomplished for our salvation and live our life according to His words, which is the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 3:16 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and&#xA;  only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have&#xA;  eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You must do good works because you are saved, not because you want to be saved.&#xA;Show your faith by your works. Our good works and obedience to God's laws should be inspired by our faith to God. Faith without action is useless and deeds without faith is also useless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;James 2:14-18 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if&#xA;  someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save&#xA;  them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.&#xA;  If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but&#xA;  does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same&#xA;  way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But&#xA;  someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith&#xA;  without deeds, and &lt;strong&gt;I will show you my faith by my deeds&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T08:19:33.990" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T08:19:33.990" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17995" CreationDate="2013-07-31T05:52:09.770" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Roman Catholic nuns consider themselves a &quot;Bride of Christ,&quot; and as such some wear a wedding ring.  This of course assumes that the nun you saw was a Roman Catholic nun.  Some nuns (or similar laity, such as Lutheran deaconesses) in other faiths are not bound by the same celibacy vows or simply do not wear wedding rings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More information:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Veil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia - Black Veil&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastEditorUserId="5270" LastEditDate="2020-02-17T18:23:16.280" LastActivityDate="2020-02-17T18:23:16.280" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17858" CreationDate="2013-07-31T06:26:32.657" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sign of the Cross combines the Trinitarian formula &quot;In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost&quot;, which Christ commanded to be used for baptism, with the cross, by which Christ obtained for us the possibility of baptism for the remission of our sins.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T06:26:32.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17991" CreationDate="2013-07-31T10:16:12.010" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Christ&quot; means &quot;anointed&quot; and can be easily shown because Acts 4:26 is basically a quotation of Psalms 2:2, except in Acts they used the word &quot;Christ&quot;, whereas in Psalms they use the word &quot;Anointed&quot;. Jesus is &quot;the Christ&quot; because He is the only One who is anointed to be the King of the world as described in Psalm 2:2,6 and more extensively in Psalm 45:6-7 (which is quoted again in Hebrews 1:8 confirming that this talking about Jesus). A more detailed explanation can be given in an article that a friend and I have put together: &lt;a href=&quot;http://biyn.org/gospel/theChrist.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://biyn.org/gospel/theChrist.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5272" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T10:16:12.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17989" CreationDate="2013-07-31T11:21:27.787" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we read the words carefully one interpretation has it that the graves were opened at his death but they were not raised out of them appearing to many people until &lt;strong&gt;‘after Jesus’ resurrection’&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. (NIV, The New International Version. (2011). Mt 27:51–53)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is how Lange takes it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The rising was the result, not the immediate accompaniment of the opening of the graves, and is mentioned here by Matthew in anticipation, but with the qualifying insertion: after His resurrection, to preven misunderstanding. Christ’s death opened their tombs. His resurrection raised them to life again, that He might be the first-born from the dead (Lange, J. P., &amp;amp; Schaff, P. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Matthew ,p. 528)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we follow this logic is seems to fit well. There is an earthquake; it strikes the temple curtain symbolizing the breaking of the death that separated man from God and subjected him to the separation and curse under God’s holy laws. Removed the curse of law and death is opening a way to a new heaven and a new earth. The earthquake comes across the earth, including rocks and tombs, shattering the death that bound us. After his resurrection, whereby he presented the merits of his death and righteousness to God as our high priest, some sample saints come from out of the tombs, to symbolize the guarantee of our future bodily resurrection into life forever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T11:21:27.787" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18017" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18026" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:16:35.500" Score="8" ViewCount="1166" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any Catholic teaching that differentiates between the “Body of Christ” (Church) and the “Bride of Christ”?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eve was taken from the Body of the First Adam, will the Bride of Christ be taken from the body (Church) of the Second Adam (Jesus Christ)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-01-16T16:28:46.810" LastActivityDate="2017-01-16T16:28:46.810" Title="According to Catholicism, is the Body of Christ the same as the Bride of Christ?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;ecclesiology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17357" CreationDate="2013-07-31T12:44:28.840" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;For Jesus to be &quot;the Son of God&quot; means that he has the very same nature of his Father. How is this so? John himself elucidated it in his gospel. He wrote that before the Word became flesh i.e. Jesus Christ, the Word is already &quot;the only offspring of the Father&quot; and more explicitly, &quot;the only offspring who is God as to his nature&quot;(John 1:14,John 1:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 1:35 , we are told by Luke that the &quot;holy one&quot; to be born will be called &quot; God's Son&quot; because of his incarnation.Noticing the futurity of the prophecy ( will be called), we discover that the incarnate Word, the &quot;holy one&quot; born of the Virgin, was declared or made known as &quot;God's Son&quot; at his resurrection per Romans 1:4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Jesus as the Word was not merely declared to be &quot;God's Son&quot; but in fact, he was declared to be &quot;God's birthed Son&quot; and this status he has was the one proclaimed by the Father per se at his resurrection( Hebrews 1:5,5:5, Acts 13:35).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The genetic metaphor of &quot;birth&quot; denotes that the Word is equally sharing the same nature of his Father.This is the reason why in Romans 1:4, Paul did not write &quot;God's begotten Son&quot; but simply &quot;God's Son&quot; for he already explained in the text what it means &quot; ...declared to be God's Son with power according to his spirit of holiness i.e. divine nature ( not the Third person of the Trinity)but in Hebrews 1:5,5:5,Acts 13:35, being a quotation of Ps. 2:7, Paul found it suffice to use it as proof text for the &quot;eternal Sonship&quot; of Jesus because he already knew in mind that Jesus was proven to be God in nature at his resurrection via his Sonship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The understanding of the New Testament writers about the Sonship of Christ is primarily about his Sonship as the Word, Wisdom and Power of the Father ( Hebrews 1:3, 1 Cor. 1:24, Joihn 1:1,14,18,3:16,18,1 John 4:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word translated &quot;only begotten&quot; (monogenes) is a compound word of monos (one/only) and genos (offspring/kind) and means &quot;only offspring&quot; in every occurrence in the New Testament, and does not prove Christ's begottenness but only his being the &quot;sole offspring&quot; of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Word is the &quot;only offspring&quot; of the Father (John 1:14) but all humans collectively are also &quot;offspring&quot; of the Father (Acts 17:28), so is this a contradiction? No. John explains why. It is because the Word is &quot;the only offspring who is God as to his nature&quot; (John 1:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is really important to know and have faith with the Sonship of Christ as taught and revealed in the Scriptures because this concerns our salvation from hell per se ( John 3:16,18; 20:31, 1 John 5:11-13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sonship of Christ is literal in sense and on the other hand, metaphorical in essence. The Word was not literally birthed by the Father. This is only an anthropomorphic imagery used so that we might understand that the Word is the Son, of one nature with the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T12:51:21.887" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T12:51:21.887" CommentCount="0" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-07-31T12:44:28.840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="633" CreationDate="2013-07-31T13:17:41.147" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer focuses on the Pre-Nicene and Nicene period of High Christology.  It explains the paradoxical phrase &quot;begotten not made&quot; of the Nicene Creed in light of the Scriptures and of the Ante-Nicene church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early church was not afraid to use Proverbs 8:22 (LXX) as their proof text that Christ is &lt;em&gt;of same nature&lt;/em&gt; with the Father [1].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PROVERBS 8:22 GREEK OT: Septuagint with Diacritics:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 ΚΎΡΙΟΣ &lt;em&gt;ἔκτισέν&lt;/em&gt; με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέν με ἐν ἀρχῇ &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Translation:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 The Lord &lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt; me the first of his way before his ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 I was made from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exegesis:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord created Jesus – the first creation — from eternity before all things (Proverbs 8:22-23 LXX).The language of “creating” has more than one meaning in the Biblical context. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures reveal two types of creating (making, producing) [2]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Creation ‘ad extra’ (from outside one’s being).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Creation ‘ad intra’ (from one’s being).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Creation ‘ad extra’ (from outside one’s being)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make something or someone that is non-existent to become existent. This type of creation goes hand in hand with creation ex nihilo (Hebrews 11:3). The product is always not the same in nature with its maker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example:&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;God created the trees (Genesis 1:12). The trees were created outside God’s being (Hebrews 11:3).The trees do not have the nature of being God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Creation “ad intra” (from one’s being)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To make someone have one’s nature. This is about “begetting” in and of itself. The offspring is always of same nature with the parent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Example:&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;Abraham begat Isaac (Matthew 1:2).Isaac was created from Abraham’s being. Isaac is of same nature with Abraham. Isaac is fully human the way Abraham is. Isaac has the nature of being human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man begets man (Matthew 1:2-16).God begets God (John 1:18). This biblical paradigm shows that Jesus had no beginning of existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Trinitarians and Arians agree that the Son is produced from the Father. But they do not agree on what it means to be ‘begotten.’ For Arians, it means “to make someone have a beginning of existence” but for Trinitarians, it means “to make someone have one’s nature.”[3]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest Christians believed that Christ, who was identified as Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 (LXX), was the first creation (Protoktistos) of God [4] but they did not view it in the sense of creation ex nihilo but rather, only in the sense of creation ad intra [5]. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, the early church believed that Jesus was the first begotten (Prototokos) of every creature just as the NT teaches [6]. It means that Jesus was the first creation -- &lt;strong&gt;ad intra&lt;/strong&gt; (begetting) and all other creation were created --  &lt;strong&gt;ex nihilo&lt;/strong&gt; [7].That is, Jesus was “made” in the sense of “begetting” (i.e. to make someone have one’s nature) and not in the sense of ex nihilo (i.e. creating someone or something from non-existence to existence).Therefore, we may only call Christ an “offspring” and never a “creature.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, in the early fourth century, Arius began to teach a new doctrine that Jesus Christ was the first creation in the sense of creation ad extra and ex nihilo [8].But the church stood still. The Nicene Creed was a reaction against the new doctrine taught by Arius’ [9]. &lt;strong&gt;The church upheld the ancient faith that the Son was “begotten (made ad intra) not made (ad extra/ex nihilo), of same substance (nature, essence) with the Father”&lt;/strong&gt; [10].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bottom Line:&lt;/strong&gt; Man begets man (Matthew 1:3). God begets God (John 1:18). This biblical paradigm is useful for teaching doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16-17).This biblical paradigm supports the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ had no beginning of existence because he is the [only] begotten Son of God (John 1:18; 3:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; In Proverbs 8 (LXX), Verse 25 explains verse 22: Jesus is begotten from the Lord. God shared his whole nature to Son. The Son is the exact likeness of God's being (Hebrews 1:3). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 8:22-25 teaches that Jesus Christ was the first activity inside God’s being, that is, He the first creation “ad intra” (the first begotten) from the Father. This reveals that Colossians 1:15-16 is an allusion to Proverbs 8:22-25. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christian-history.org/trinity-heresy.html]&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.christian-history.org/trinity-heresy.html]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/8-22.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/8-22.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.academia.edu/11702700/Opera_Trinitaris_ad_extra_tanquam_Providentia_Dei--A_Dogmatic_Adumbration_of_Gods_Teleological_Triune_Activity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.academia.edu/11702700/Opera_Trinitaris_ad_extra_tanquam_Providentia_Dei--A_Dogmatic_Adumbration_of_Gods_Teleological_Triune_Activity&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psnicea.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psnicea.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[3] &lt;a href=&quot;https://newbirthnewlife.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/eternally-begotten-nicene-creed/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://newbirthnewlife.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/eternally-begotten-nicene-creed/&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christian-history.org/the-trinity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.christian-history.org/the-trinity.html&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christian-history.org/definition-of-the-trinity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.christian-history.org/definition-of-the-trinity.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[4] &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/8-22.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/8-22.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Clement of Alexandria. Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved? Section 12. Proverbs 8:22 (Septuagint) Sirach 24:9 (Septuagint)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[5] Psalm 110:3 (Septuagint), Proverbs 8:25 (Septuagint), John 1:18; 3:16 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[6] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christian-history.org/doctrine-of-the-trinity.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.christian-history.org/doctrine-of-the-trinity.html&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.academia.edu/13545787/The_Jesus_Paradox_Begotten_Not_Made&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.academia.edu/13545787/The_Jesus_Paradox_Begotten_Not_Made&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Colossians 1:15-16 (GNV, 1599).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[7] Genesis 1:11-12, Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2, 10;11:3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[8] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[9] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/biography/Arius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.britannica.com/biography/Arius&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christian-history.org/homoousios.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.christian-history.org/homoousios.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[10] &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.de/search?q=nicene+creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.google.de/search?q=nicene+creed&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2821.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2821.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2016-06-12T06:06:27.017" LastActivityDate="2016-06-12T06:06:27.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18022" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="72" CreationDate="2013-07-31T14:07:22.227" Score="8" Body="&lt;h2&gt;What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer deliberately excludes Christian writings of the Pre-Nicene and Nicene church writers and leaders (A.D. c. 90-c. 325) so as to explain the Trinity doctrine solely in light of the inspired Greek NT Scriptures (A.D. c. 50-c. 90).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Monotheism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is not one person (Unity) but three persons (Trinity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Monotheism is not the same as Unitarianism. The former tells us that God is one while the latter tells us that God is one person. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only God is the one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4) and only God possesses divine nature (John 17:3 cf. Galatians 4:8).In these terms, no creature is exactly like God (Isaiah 40:18). God's oneness is his uniqueness &lt;a href=&quot;https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-one-and-the-only-god/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God the Father&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase 'God the Father' is scriptural. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From Paul, an apostle who is not sent from human authority or&#xA;  commissioned through human agency, but sent through Jesus Christ and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;God the Father&lt;/strong&gt; who raised him from the dead; (Galatians 1:1 CEB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the Father is ascribed primarily but not solely the appellation &lt;em&gt;theos&lt;/em&gt;  (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God the Father possesses one &lt;em&gt;hupostasis&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/1-3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(nature)&lt;/a&gt;. The divinity of the Father is his own glory, the invisible attributes and divine nature (Greek: &lt;em&gt;theiotes&lt;/em&gt; - Rom 1:20-25) which cannot be shared to idols (Isaiah 42:8). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God the [only] Son&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase 'God the only Son' (&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/6/should-john-118-read-the-only-begotten-god/2369#2369&quot;&gt;monogenes theos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;) is found in John 1:18.It is a variant of the phrase 'God the Son'  which became a common designation for the second person of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one has ever seen God. &lt;strong&gt;God the only Son&lt;/strong&gt;, who is at the Father’s&#xA;  side, has made God known (John 1:18 CEB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is called &lt;em&gt;theos&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/article/jesus-%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82-god-textual-examination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(God)&lt;/a&gt; in the strictest sense of the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is God himself in the flesh (Colossians 2:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is called God because he shares in the divine identity of the one God &lt;a href=&quot;https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/one-god-one-lord-third-edition-published/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus receives &lt;em&gt;latreutic&lt;/em&gt; worship  (Daniel 7:14 LXX;Revelation 5:13,14:4, 22:3) and receives prayers (John 14:14 cf. 1 Corinthians 16:22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that any biblical passage that speaks of Christ as &quot;inferior&quot; to the Father is a mere reference to his being &quot;the only Son&quot;, having begotten from God from all eternity (Ps. 110:3 LXX; John 1:1,18 cf.  3:16) as well as to his being &quot;fully human&quot; , having become flesh (John 1:1-14 cf. Phil 2:7-8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Holy Spirit&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/matthew/28-19.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;(Matthew 28:19)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is ,not an another name for Jesus , but an &lt;em&gt;another person&lt;/em&gt;  (John 14:16) who proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is invoked in major church activities (Matthew 28:19 - baptism | 2 Corinthians 13:14 - benediction). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we have cogently proven from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit, together with the Father and the Son, is worshiped and prayed to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2016-05-17T03:33:54.220" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="78" CreationDate="2013-07-31T14:30:23.843" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that Jesus is God incarnate because of his self-knowledge which is shown both in his words and in his actions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that He existed as the Son of Man prior to His Incarnation ( John 6:62).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that he is in existence even before Abraham came into existence ( John 8:58).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that he is one with the Father in terms of ability ( John 10:28-30). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus commanded to baptize disciples in the name of the Trinity ( Matthew 28:19). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The writers of the New Testament are Jesus' disciples and based on their experience with him, they recorded his words and deeds that are necessary for the teaching and edification of the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle John wrote that &quot;In the beginning was the Word[ Jesus] and the Word was with God[ the Father] and the Word was God&quot; ( John 1:1). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul wrote that Jesus originally existed &quot; in very nature, God&quot; ( Philippians 2:6 NIV ) and that Jesus is &quot; our great God&quot; ( Titus 2:13 KJV). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The writer of Hebrews wrote that Jesus is the &quot;exact imprint of his nature&quot;( Hebrews 1:3 ESV ). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter wrote that Jesus is &quot;our God and Savior&quot; ( 2 Peter 1:1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2015-02-13T11:15:26.460" LastActivityDate="2015-02-13T11:15:26.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18024" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="42294" CreationDate="2013-07-31T17:53:57.360" Score="3" ViewCount="3098" Body="&lt;p&gt;The God described in the Old Testament can be violent and vindictive and seems to hold to a different set of moral rules than the God we see in the New Testament. How does the Catholic church explain these differences? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few of the better known examples of the more violent nature of the Old Testament's God are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22:2&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 22:2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is then revealed to have been a &quot;test&quot; of Abraham's faith (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 22:12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since, by definition, the God of the Judeo-Christian faith is omniscient, this is not a test that could have provided Him with new information. It seems like a particularly horrible thing to do to a father. It is also at odds with the loving God of the later Christian faith.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The story of Lot (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 19&lt;/a&gt;). Two angels have visited Lot's house and he treats them as honored guests. The men of Sodom ask him to let them &quot;know&quot; them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lot wants to protect his guests and so, instead, offers up his virgin daughters:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is treated as a perfectly natural offer. Any father who would offer up his daughters for rape today would be considered the lowest of degenerate criminals, yet Lot is portrayed as the only righteous man in Sodom and the only one, along with his family, who is spared by God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of Lot also has two other examples of the extreme violence that the Old Testament God was capable of. The very smiting of the, presumably, hundreds or even thousands of inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for the rather innocuous sin of looking back at her home while it was being destroyed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a final example, the scourges of the Pharaoh. Each and every one of them is an action that does not square with the forgiving, loving and fundamentally good nature of the Christian God, but the following is particularly cruel (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2011&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus: 11&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a kind and loving God who will kill innocent babies. What's more, His wrath is not restricted to the children of those, like the Pharaoh, who oppressed his people but extends to ay and all Egyptians and even goes so far as to include their animals. Clearly, a sheepherder living out in the middle of nowhere who has never seen any of the Jews living in Egypt cannot be blamed for their oppression under the Pharaoh. Yet, even this innocent shepherd is not spared God's wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I imagine that all of these examples has been extensively debated and there will be various interpretations and apologetics for each. My question, however, is whether Catholics believe that the &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt; of God has changed between the Old and New testaments. Jehova seems to be a very different God from the one described in the New Testament, how is that dealt with in the Catholic faith? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS. I have restricted the question to the Catholic church so it is not too broad bu welcome answers that also mention the positions of other denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5026" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T18:17:12.027" LastActivityDate="2018-08-12T05:18:49.443" Title="How does the Catholic church deal with the differences between the God described in the old and new Testaments?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="16" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18017" CreationDate="2013-07-31T18:23:07.453" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a word, &lt;strong&gt;No:&lt;/strong&gt; there is no Catholic teaching which differentiates the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church holds that the Church is the Body of Christ &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; the Bride of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam prefigures Jesus, the &amp;quot;second Adam&amp;quot;. Just as Adam was perfect and became sinful, so Christ took on sin and conquered the death which Adam brought upon humanity. Just as woman was taken out of man, so the Bride of Christ is &lt;strong&gt;united to him&lt;/strong&gt; in one Body which is the Church. This is the doctrine expounded by St Augustine and quoted in the Catechism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 788&lt;/a&gt; When his visible presence was taken from them, Jesus did not leave his disciples orphans. He promised to remain with them until the end of time; he sent them his Spirit.&lt;sup&gt;218&lt;/sup&gt; As a result communion with Jesus has become, in a way, more intense: &amp;quot;By communicating his Spirit, Christ mystically constitutes as his body those brothers of his who are called together from every nation.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;219&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CCC 789 The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CCC 796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.&lt;sup&gt;234&lt;/sup&gt; The Lord referred to himself as the &amp;quot;bridegroom.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;235&lt;/sup&gt; The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride &amp;quot;betrothed&amp;quot; to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.&lt;sup&gt;236&lt;/sup&gt; The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.&lt;sup&gt;237&lt;/sup&gt; &amp;quot;Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;238&lt;/sup&gt; He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:&lt;sup&gt;239&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (&lt;em&gt;ex persona capitis&lt;/em&gt;) and in his role as body (&lt;em&gt;ex persona corporis&lt;/em&gt;). What does this mean? &amp;quot;The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;240&lt;/sup&gt; And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: &amp;quot;So they are no longer two, but one flesh.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;241&lt;/sup&gt; They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . &lt;em&gt;as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself &amp;quot;bride.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;242&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;218 Cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jn%2014:18&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jn 14:18&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jn%2020:22&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;20:22&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%2028:20&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mt 28:20&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:33&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2:33&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;219 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lumen Gentium&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 7.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;234 &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jn%203:29&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jn 3:29&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;235 &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mk%202:19&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mk 2:19&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;236 Cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%2022:1-14&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mt 22:1-14&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%2025:1-13&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;25:1-13&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%206:15-17&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Cor 6:15-17&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%2011:2&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Cor 11:2&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;237 Cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022:17&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Rev 22:17&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%201:4&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eph 1:4&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%205:27&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;5:27&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;238 &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%205:25-26&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eph 5:25-26&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;239 Cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%205:29&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eph 5:29&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;240 &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%205:31-32&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eph 5:31-32&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;241 &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%2019:6&amp;amp;version=NRSVACE&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mt 19:6&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;242 St. Augustine, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801075.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Enarrationes in Psalmos&lt;/em&gt; 74&lt;/a&gt;:4:PL 36,948-949.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T12:30:21.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18017" CreationDate="2013-07-31T19:14:51.097" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;On one hand, they refer to the same entity, the church. On the other hand, when the Bible uses these terms, it refers to different aspects of the church. In brief, the Body and the Bride both refer to the church. However, the Body emphasizes how the church fully expresses Christ as the church, and the Bride emphasizes how the church is Christ's intimate, loving match and counterpart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To understand these differences in a larger context, it helps to see the seven distinct designations of the church in the book of Ephesians. The entire book is needed to understand these points in context, but I will cite only a few key verses that highlight them most strongly. In response to your question, please particularly note the points on Body and Wife:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Church: Eph 1:22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the &lt;strong&gt;church&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Church&amp;quot; translates the Greek &lt;em&gt;ekklesia&lt;/em&gt;, meaning &lt;em&gt;called out&lt;/em&gt;. This word refers to the assembly of those whom God has called out of the world to accomplish His own purpose, as detailed in Ephesians 1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Body: Eph 1:22-23 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be &lt;strong&gt;head&lt;/strong&gt; over all things to the church, which is His &lt;strong&gt;body&lt;/strong&gt;, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ is Head whom God has established over all His creation. The church is the Body of this head, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Just as our physical bodies are the full expression of the personality, will and actions of our physical heads, the Body of Christ, when functioning properly, is the full expression of the personality, the will, the desire, and the actions of Christ the Head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Citizens: Eph 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow &lt;strong&gt;citizens&lt;/strong&gt; with the saints and members of the household of God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are citizens of God's kingdom, with the rights, protections and responsibilities there pertaining. We have the rights and enjoyment and blessings of the kingdom of God, and the obligation to be faithful to our King.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Family members: Eph 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and &lt;strong&gt;members of the household of God&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are God's own children, born of His life and sharing His divine nature. We are the members of His family, brothers and sisters to each other, equal without distinction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Building of God: Eph 2:21-22 in whom the whole &lt;strong&gt;building&lt;/strong&gt;, being fitted together, grows into a holy &lt;strong&gt;temple&lt;/strong&gt; in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a &lt;strong&gt;dwelling place of God in the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are God's house, His building, His real temple, His dwelling place in S/spirit. We are being built up together as one, not divided and scattered, to become God's home where He can rest for His satisfaction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wife of Christ: Eph 5:31-32 “For this reason a &lt;strong&gt;man&lt;/strong&gt; shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his &lt;strong&gt;wife&lt;/strong&gt;, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, &lt;strong&gt;but I speak concerning Christ and the church&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Eph 5:21-33 expound, we are the bride of Christ, His wife. Just as Eve was created out of Adam in his sleep, from his flesh and bone, we are created out of the death of Christ with His indestructible resurrection life (bone) in His resurrected human nature (flesh). We are His love, His counterpart, His match, His completion. Without us, He is only an incomplete half. Only in perfect intimate union with us can God say, &amp;quot;My new creation is very good.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Warrior: Eph 6:10-11 Finally, my brethren, &lt;strong&gt;be strong in the Lord&lt;/strong&gt; and in the power of His might. &lt;strong&gt;Put on the whole armor of God&lt;/strong&gt;, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We fight the spiritual warfare against God's enemy, not by weapons of flesh and not individually, but corporately as one Body fighting through prayers in the S/spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the second part of the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eve was taken from the Body of the First Adam, will the Bride of Christ be taken from the body (Church) of the Second Adam (Jesus Christ)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning &amp;quot;Second Adam&amp;quot;, I am not aware of such an exact expression in the Bible. The closest I can find is 1Co 15:45-49 where Paul calls Christ the &amp;quot;last Adam&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;second man&amp;quot;; these expressions are related, but they refer to distinct aspects to Christ. In brief, Christ as the last Adam is the one who terminates the old creation; Christ as the second man is the one who begins a new race of men, the resurrected men in the new creation. Let me quote from the footnotes of the Recovery Version of the Bible, 1Co 15:47 note 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ is not only the last Adam (v. 45) but also the second man. The first Adam (v. 45) is the beginning of mankind; the last Adam is the ending. As the first man, Adam is the head of the old creation, representing it in creation. As the second man, Christ is the Head of the new creation, representing it in resurrection. In the entire universe there are only two men: the first man, Adam, including all his descendants, and the second man, Christ, comprising all His believers. We believers were included in the first man by birth and became a part of the second man by regeneration. Our believing has transferred us out of the first man into the second. In regard to our being part of the first man, our origin is the earth and our nature is earthy. In regard to our being part of the second man, our origin is God and our nature is heavenly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that the correct way to interpret the Bible is to use the Bible to interpret the Bible (hence my Biblical references from Ephesians for the points above). Neither in this passage on 1Co 15:45-49, nor in the larger context of 1Co 15, do I see any reference to Eve or to the church being a match or counterpart or wife of Christ. Paul's focus in 1Co 15 is that Christ, the second man, is the prototype of human nature in resurrection (that is, the new creation). His emphasis is that individual believers in Christ (as distinct from the church, Body or Bride as a corporate entity) will physically become the same as the resurrected man Jesus, having bodies that are physical yet spiritual, not soulish as with our present nature from the first man Adam. Coming back to your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eve was taken from the Body of the First Adam, will the Bride of Christ be taken from the body (Church) of the Second Adam (Jesus Christ)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that you are asking if one can separate the Bride of Christ from the Body of Christ. I don't see any biblical basis for such a separation. When the Bible talks about the Body of Christ (e.g. Eph 1, Rom 12, 1Co 12), it does not simultaneously talk about the Bride. When the Bible talks about the Bride or Wife of Christ (e.g. Eph 5, Rev 19, Rev 21, Rev 22), it does not simultaneously talk about the Body of Christ. These are different aspects of the same church, so while they are both valid, true and real, they are not separate such that the Bride can be taken out of the Body as a separate entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5276" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T19:45:05.947" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17724" CreationDate="2013-07-31T21:03:47.770" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as we know, he did not use this analogy. It does not appear in the extant writings attributed to him, nor in early hagiographies. There are several places in these documents where a shamrock metaphor wouldn't go completely amiss, and yet it doesn't seem to appear anywhere. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;em&gt;Confession&lt;/em&gt; attributed to Patrick, he talks a lot about how he is a simple unlearned person, who has nevertheless managed to convert a large number of people. That might suggest use of easily-understandable metaphors rather than very precise theological statements. On the other hand, there are biographies that say he studied under Saints Germanus of Auxerre and Martin of Tours, received large numbers of books from Pope Celestine I, and so forth, suggesting that he might have understated his level of education. His reported speech is generally quite direct and Biblical - more of a &quot;repent, ye sinners&quot; flavour than any kind of gentle analogy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the complete lack of reference until the eighteenth century, it  seems more likely that the explanation was associated with him long after he actually lived, than that it was somehow preserved in tradition for the whole time, without appearing in any of the many &lt;em&gt;written&lt;/em&gt; sources about this popular saint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll now give some examples of shamrocks not appearing. There is a fifth-century poem or hymn attributed to him, called the Lorica of St. Patrick (Luireach Phadraig) or Deer's Cry (Faeth Fiada), which invokes the Trinity but does not use an analogy. The ninth century hagiography known as the Tripartite Life (Bethu Phátraic) recounts an episode where Patrick converts the two daughters of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B3egaire_mac_N%C3%A9ill&quot;&gt;Lóegaire mac Néill&lt;/a&gt;, saying in response to their question about what kind of God he worships:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;St. Patrick, full of the Holy Spirit, responded, &quot;Our God is the God of all, the God of heaven and earth, the God of the seas and rivers, the God of the sun and moon, and all the other planets; the God of the high hills and low valleys; God over heaven, in heaven, and under heaven; and He has a mansion, that is, heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them. He inspireth all things. He quickeneth all things. He enkindleth all things. He giveth light to the sun, and to the moon. He created fountains in the dry land, and placed dry islands in the sea, and stars to minister to the greater lights. He hath a Son, coeternal and coequal with Himself; and the Son is not younger than the Father, nor is the Father older than the Son. And the Holy Ghost breatheth in them. And the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not divided. I desire, moreover, to unite you to the Son of the heavenly king, for ye are daughters of an earthly king.&quot;  &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would be the perfect time to mention the shamrock, but it does not appear. The same goes for the seventh-century &lt;em&gt;Life&lt;/em&gt; by Muirchú moccu Machtheni, and the other sources. It is frequently mentioned that people in Ireland did not generally know about or believe in  the Trinity before Patrick, and that he baptized people in the name of the Trinity, but there is no record of him using any metaphor for it, shamrock or otherwise, when he baptized or taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tertullian's work &lt;em&gt;Against Praxeas&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Adversus Praxeam&lt;/em&gt;) uses a plant metaphor for the Trinity (chapter 8). Here, he says that the three persons of the Trinity are like the root, trunk, and fruit of the tree. This has something of a similar character to the shamrock metaphor, though the three parts for Tertullian have distinct roles&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and the clover leaves are all the same. It is possible that Patrick had some exposure to this idea, or independently reinvented it. But there is absolutely no evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. From the translation by James O'Leary, 1874. Original Latin and Irish text is on lines 1124-1138 of Kathleen Mulchrone's 1939 edition. &lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Partialism!? Modalism?! Perhaps. Metaphors are hard.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T21:03:47.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18029" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-07-31T22:09:56.857" Score="3" ViewCount="2045" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians that believe in the Trinity believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are one and the same God. How then, do they explain &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 17:21&lt;/a&gt; where Jesus prays that his disciples &quot;may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are the disciples supposed to become one with each other in the same way that God the Son is with God the Father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two other similar phrases appear in the same chapter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;v. 11: &quot;that they may be one, as we are&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;v. 22-23: &quot;And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5277" LastEditorUserId="5277" LastEditDate="2013-08-01T14:53:20.533" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T18:34:22.450" Title="How do trinity-believers explain these verses from John 17?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18030" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18033" CreationDate="2013-07-31T22:16:01.603" Score="21" ViewCount="31887" Body="&lt;p&gt;I feel like this is a dumb question, but maybe, just maybe, I'm not the only one confused by this.  Maybe if I'm willing to stick my neck out and look stupid, the answer will be here for those poor confused saps who come after me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like I often hear the terms &lt;em&gt;reformed&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;presbyterian&lt;/em&gt; being used interchangeably.  When I'm speaking about the presbyterian church, or rather, the reformed church, or... I often stumble over my words because I feel like I'm probably saying the wrong thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that in a technical sense, &lt;em&gt;reformed&lt;/em&gt; refers mostly to the theology and &lt;em&gt;presbyterian&lt;/em&gt; refers mostly to the church government (or maybe I'm wrong about that too), but, in every-day parlance, what do you call a church who follows in the tradition of John Calvin?  Surely you can't go around calling them churches-that-follow-in-the-tradition-of-John-Calvin.  It's a bit of a mouthful.  If I call them Presbyterian churches, will someone think I'm foolish and think that I don't know what I'm talking about?  If I call them Reformed churches, will I be wrong?  Is it just a matter of only usually being right?  Does it depend on the denomination/association?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do Christians who belong to such churches call themselves?  Do they call themselves Presbyterians?  Reformed Christians?  Calvinists?  All three?  None of the above?  Am I going to offend someone by using the wrong term?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2013-07-31T23:53:19.270" LastActivityDate="2021-02-04T22:07:01.737" Title="What is the difference between Reformed and Presbyterian" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18029" CreationDate="2013-07-31T23:31:48.167" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Read it in the context as one in purpose, yet separate in person... &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.1-14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 1:1-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I am a separate person, in purpose I am in unity and the same as other followers of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1569/jesus-prays-for-us-part-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sermon of John MacArthur's&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He [Jesus] prays that there may be a spiritual, holy, loving oneness, a visible oneness that the world can see in order that they may believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5278" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-08-01T14:18:19.880" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T14:18:19.880" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18030" CreationDate="2013-07-31T23:53:50.263" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;that's a totally appropriate question, and certainly shouldn't offend anyone...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;here are some resources, which should clear up the understanding that Presbyterians are simply a denomination that teach and align with Reformed church traditions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), or PC, is a mainline Protestant Christian denomination in the United States. Part of the Reformed tradition, it is the largest Presbyterian denomination in the U.S., followed by the Presbyterian Church in America. &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_%28U.S.A.%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;refs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the point of &quot;reformed church&quot; this is a good description:&#xA;The Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church, by priests who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice—especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences or the abuses thereof, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices—that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the Church's Roman hierarchy, which included the Pope.[[2]][2]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5278" LastActivityDate="2013-07-31T23:53:50.263" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18030" CreationDate="2013-08-01T00:59:58.997" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are Reformed Christians who are not Presbyterian (or at least wouldn't call themselves that), especially in the Dutch or Continental tradition such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Church_in_the_United_States&quot;&gt;RCUS&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Reformed_Churches_in_North_America&quot;&gt;URCNA&lt;/a&gt;. There are also Presbyterians that are not Reformed, such as many in the PCUSA, who would be better called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/books/chr_and_lib/&quot;&gt;liberal&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. Further complicating the matter is that, as Brian Johnson pointed out, the word 'Reformation' would certainly include Luther, who would not now be called Reformed or Presbyterian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would define someone who is Reformed as a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Reformed_theology&quot;&gt;covenantal Calvinist&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. There are Calvinists who are not Reformed (such as Calvinistic Baptists like John Piper or John MacArthur or Mark Dever or Al Mohler, Jr.) I would define a Presbyterian as one who subscribes to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_polity&quot;&gt;presbyterian form of church government&lt;/a&gt;, especially the plurality of elders elected by congregations and the connectedness of the wider Church. It is representative, like the American republic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could argue, actually, that some of the Dutch Reformed denominations such as the RCUS and URCNA are presbyterian in their polity, and there's some truth to that, even if their names for things are a bit different. Still, the label isn't usually applied to them, because they subscribe to the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unity&quot;&gt;Three Forms of Unity&lt;/a&gt; (the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession)  instead of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Standards&quot;&gt;Westminster Standards&lt;/a&gt; (Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Directory for Public Worship, and the Form of Church Government). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the Westminster Standards typify what it means to be Presbyterian &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; Reformed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary: the words are not exactly synonymous, though they are certainly related in church history. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The typical Reformed or Presbyterian, rather than getting all uptight about whether you're using the words accurately or not, would, I hope, just try to explain it to you! Labels &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be helpful, but they &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; only labels; sometimes they are not so helpful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastEditorUserId="1618" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T12:58:43.503" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T12:58:43.503" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17139" CreationDate="2013-08-01T02:05:23.640" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;You've asked how various groups of Christians handle the problem of the believer who continues sinning in a particular way (presumably without even a show of repentence?) I can give you maybe three schools of thought on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Carnal Christian&quot; view: this view takes the doctrine of the preservation of the saints to a different level (one not intended by most adherents). The idea is that if God saves me, I'll be saved no matter what I do, so I might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow I'll die and go to heaven. This idea is related to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation&quot;&gt;Lordship controversy&lt;/a&gt;. Anyone in the Lordship controversy who argued that one can have Jesus Christ as Savior but not as Lord of their life, would adhere to this Carnal Christian view.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism&quot;&gt;Arminian&lt;/a&gt; view: this view argues that one can lose one's salvation by sinning a lot. I don't think any Arminian would say that you could lose your salvation by sinning just once, but certainly, if you remain in sin for a long time, you would lose your salvation. Arminians include many, but certainly not all, Baptists, Methodists, Pentacostals, and no doubt others.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Reformed_theology&quot;&gt;Reformed&lt;/a&gt; view: people who are in this sort of sin are one of two kinds of people: the elect or the non-elect (impossible for humans to determine - only God knows). If the deeply sinning person is elect, then the Holy Spirit will work in that person's life to lessen the power of sin, since God's purpose is not just to remove the guilt of sin, but the power of it as well. If the person is non-elect, then his &quot;salvation&quot; was illusory in the first place. Since we don't know who is elect and who isn't, it is not possible to distinguish between the two cases. However, the approach is the same for either: assume that a true believer will improve in their holiness and start sinning less. Those holding to the Reformed view would include many Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed (Continental), and Calvinist Baptists. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T02:05:23.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18035" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-01T02:16:23.877" Score="6" ViewCount="1289" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who are the 144,000 mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207:4-8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 7:4-8 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Reuben 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Gad 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Asher 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Simeon 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Levi 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Issachar 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, &lt;br&gt;from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2014:1-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 14:1-5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have trouble with Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation that the 144,000 are 'spiritual Israel,' and that they are the same as the 24 elders introduced to us at Revelation chapter 4, and referred to again at 7:11, and 14:3, and also throughout Revelation chapter 5. This is because logically, if the 144,000 were the same as the 24 elders, then they would be singing to themselves in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2014:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 14:1-3 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe there is an &quot;Israel of God&quot; as mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%206:16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 6:16 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I have trouble believing that it means the same thing as what Jehovah's Witnesses call &quot;spiritual Israel.&quot; My reasons for this are beyond the scope of this particular question. (It involves John 10, regarding sheep and a sheepfold.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have trouble believing that &quot;every tribe of the sons of Israel&quot; at Revelation 7:4 is symbolic due to the specific naming of them at Revelation 7:5-8. And I find it hard to believe Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation that Israel has been rejected, because of Romans chapter 11, verses 1 and 2. And also because of how the rest of Romans chapter 11 describes Israel's disobedience leading to God showing them mercy, after &quot;the full number of people of the nations has come in.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because I have trouble believing these things, it is incredibly difficult to believe that some of Jehovah's Witnesses are part of the 144,000, for the reasons they believe they are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is why I ask, &quot;Who are the 144,000?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5280" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T06:22:54.153" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T06:22:54.153" Title="Who are the 144,000?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-08-02T10:42:20.877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18035" CreationDate="2013-08-01T05:28:33.883" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Of course like many things in Revelation depending on the school of belief, everything is looked upon differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From what I understand the preterist (most everything happened long ago) tends to think of them as literal Israelites that were spared in the destruction of Jerusalem who had faith in Christ.  The futurist (everything has not happened yet) also tends to take it as literally Jewish people who will be spared in some future period.  The symbolic view usually assigns them as a symbol of the total church, including both Jew and Israel. The view I am most persuaded by is the historical which assigns the meaning to around the time after the overthrow of heathenism in the Roman empire.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Shortly after Constantine the church became filled with unbelievers naturally as it became the Roman thing to do.  While the bulk of its external members would become in profession and external baptism the Christian Israel or Church, God’s true Israel or Church would be but a small election out of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sealing of God, of the elect, seems to take a ironic predictive vision of the corruption that the Roman Church begun to introduce at this time. At this time the external rite of baptism transformed into a somewhat superstitious sealing of the elect for salvation. In contrast to this the vision of the 144,000 indicates God's true sealing and preserving of his elect in the onrush of false believers into his church external.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One author that really captures both the history and the predictive element of the Apocalypse is Elliot.  He shows that in every detail, the sealing of God is in a negative and allusive contrast to the superstition that now became the standard way to pretend to seal the elect of Rome, which the apocalypse shows is opposed to God's actual sealing.  &lt;strong&gt;Under the historicist view the 144,000 represents the small elect population of Jew and Gentile among the wide and populous Roman Church after Constantine.&lt;/strong&gt;  A theologian that most perfectly representing one of these elect and coincidentally was facilitated with the doctrine of election around the same time! is St. Augustine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is Elliot showing the allusive contrast and parallel between the established superstitious rite of baptism and sealing at the time verses John's contrasted vision of God's true sealing of his church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now it is needful that I draw the reader’s attention to the parallel, or rather contrast in the way of parallel, which, point by point, meets the eye between this historical picture of the general professing Church catholic of the æra of Constantine, after becoming sole Emperor, and his successors in the 4th century, (specially in respect of the initiation of its members,) and that of the 144,000, God’s election of grace chosen out from them, as sketched to us in the Apocalyptic vision? In the ecclesiastical phraseology of the times,—a phraseology continued, it is to be observed, from Constantine’s time downwards,—the former were the elect, holy, and faithful. In the divinely inspired language of the Apocalypse these same titles elect, holy, faithful are attached to the latter, and to them distinctively and alone.2—The former, we read, claimed to have been marked with what they called the Lord’s seal and mark upon the forehead; yea, and often actually bore there a visible mark in sign of it: it was the seal of water-baptism, impressed on them by the officiating presbyter, and perfected with the chrism of the confirming Bishop.1 The latter are here represented as marked with God’s true seal on the forehead; even the seal of the Holy Spirit’s baptism, and as applied by Christ himself.—The former, looking to the east at the time of baptism, were supposed to receive from it, (and perhaps through angelic ministration on the waters of the font,) both life from the death of sin, and spiritual illumination as from Christ the Sun of righteousness. (HORÆ APOCALYPTICÆ, Vol 1, P282, Elliot)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even the angel in John's vision coming from the est to seal the elect matches the rite of baptism applied superstitiously in the Roman Empire, where the receipient looked to the east and received the sign of the cross on his forehead claiming external sealing by the power fo the Bishop.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T23:27:42.683" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18035" CreationDate="2013-08-01T06:58:25.827" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some of the ways to interpret the 144,000.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some of them are from the first century Christians and the remnants are from some  faithful members of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are the chosen people at the last days who will proclaim the last Gospel to the world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are literally from the 12 tribes of Israel. &lt;em&gt;(I endorse this view)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Let's take 144,000 literally that they are from the 12 tribes of Israel.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One important thing to know is that Jews today living in Israel are from one of the 12 tribes of Israel. They are the descendants of Judah, the fourth son of Jacob(Israel). Even during the time of Jesus, there were only Jews, not the whole Israelite. We don't know where are the other remaining tribes of Israel. &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ten tribes of Israel&lt;/a&gt; are lost till today. If we take 144,000 literally, then it must be from the 12 tribes of Israel only. The Gospel was preached only to the Jews and then to Gentiles. I believe that God wants to save the whole 12 tribes of Israel. This may be the reason why Rev 7 list down the 12 tribes. Even though 10 tribes are lost, I believe that God still knows where they are and God has a complete list of all the descendants of Jacob. There are many theories and studies on who are the lost tribes of Israel but God knows it better.&#xA;The descendants of Jacob, especially the Jews will believe in Jesus at the last days through the two witnesses, the last prophets who will convince the nation of Israel that Jesus is the Christ. These two witnesses will preach in Jerusalem and ultimately will be killed by the Antichrist but God will raise them after 3 days(Rev 11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why 144,000?&lt;/strong&gt; There can be two &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;possible views&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Total number of Israelites in Heaven:&lt;/strong&gt; We don't know how many Jews believed the Gospel till today. We don't know whether the number 12,000 allotted for Jews is already completed or not. We also don't know how many from the lost tribes have already believed in Jesus.  But at the last day, all complete 12 tribes will believe Jesus Christ, whether they are lost or not and their will be exactly 144,000 people in Heaven from the descendants of Jacob.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The elected evangelist at the last days:&lt;/strong&gt; God will chose 144,000 people from the descendants of Jacob in the last days and they will preach the Gospel to all the nations. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T06:58:25.827" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18030" CreationDate="2013-08-01T10:23:48.893" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Presbyterian is a name that defines a large body of believers. As mentioned above though, there are MANY Presbyterian denominations. As in all large groups, there will be vastly different opinions and beliefs of its members. Some members within a single Presbytery (local group of Pressie churches) will hold to the Westminster Standards (as mentioned helpfully above) and would be considered reformed in their stance. Other members of the same Presbytery might reject the standards of Westminster and thus would not be considered reformed (and I would argue not truly Presbyterian in an historical sense, since they have rejected the standards of Presbyterianism).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, Not all Presbyterians are reformed (if they disagree with the Westminster Confession as their standard).&#xA;And certainly there are many, many Christians from other non-Presbyterian denominations who would be reformed and agree with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Synod of Dordt&lt;/a&gt;, but do not necessarily hold to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westminster Confession of Faith&lt;/a&gt; as their standard e.g. Reformed Baptists, Dutch Reformed Church. They have other standards such as the 1689 Baptist Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvinism would, broadly speaking, be that set of doctrines as taught by John Calvin in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.toc.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Institutes&lt;/a&gt;. These are considered to be a Reformed understanding of Scripture and one of the best Systematic theologies ever written. But whereas the Westminster Confession is ~33 chapters of Systematic Theology, the Institutes are 2 Volumes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin was in the 1500's on the continent and the WCF was in the 1600's in Britain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an excellent summary of Church History and how some of these terms came into being have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0851513174&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sketches from Church History&lt;/a&gt; by S.M. Houghton. It is an excellent summary of how the Church developed since the Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="5197" LastEditDate="2013-08-01T10:39:46.507" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T10:39:46.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18042" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-01T14:07:22.813" Score="4" ViewCount="2071" Body="&lt;p&gt;In both Mark's and Luke's accounts of Jesus identification of the Greatest Commandment, they lists four different words rather than three, which Matthew lists and the Deuteronomy passage which they quote has as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your &lt;strong&gt;heart&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;soul&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;strength&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;mind&lt;/strong&gt;, and your neighbor as yourself.”  Luke 10:27 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And you shall love the Lord your God with all your &lt;strong&gt;heart&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;soul&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;mind&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;strength&lt;/strong&gt;.’  Mark 12:30 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your &lt;strong&gt;heart&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;soul&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;mind&lt;/strong&gt;.  Matthew 22:37 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall love the Lord your God with all your &lt;strong&gt;heart&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;soul&lt;/strong&gt; and with all your &lt;strong&gt;might&lt;/strong&gt;.  Deuteronomy 6:5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, why do Mark and Luke mention four words rather than three?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T16:12:57.080" Title="Why do Mark's and Luke's quotations of the Greatest Commandment have four different words instead of three?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-08-02T12:29:10.917" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18043" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18172" CreationDate="2013-08-01T14:09:47.103" Score="22" ViewCount="4626" Body="&lt;p&gt;In related form to a previous &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/72/69&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; on the basis &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; the Trinity, what is the Biblical basis for disbelief of the doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all Christians (and perhaps not all branches of Christendom) hold to a Trinitarian view - how are those views justified from the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, what verses do non-Trinitarians cite to support their views / contradict the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;note - I am a very committed Trinitarian, personally; this question should not be a platform to rail against non-Trinitarian beliefs&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2020-09-16T17:00:23.600" Title="What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18024" CreationDate="2013-08-01T14:22:42.927" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me answer the question in general - ie, the answer to the subject. I will not deal with specific examples as this would take way too long. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to catholic theology, &lt;strong&gt;God slowly revealed Himself to man, slowly revealed his nature, slowly teaches us.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like when we teach our children - we teach them obedience to our rules, first via punishment, in simple terms, in fear so to speak. As they grow, we explain the reasons for those rules and hope for them to choose the good. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Same with God. We grow in our understanding of God, and God slowly teaches us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One may wonder why we are not capable of learning as adults&lt;/strong&gt;. Like Jesus's answer on marriage - &quot;Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hear&quot;. In other words, it is our fallen nature that makes us like kids in my metaphor earlier. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T14:22:42.927" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18046" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17901" CreationDate="2013-08-01T14:36:44.053" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Blessing of an item is sort of a &quot;package for prayer&quot;. The blessing is essentially a prayer for something to remind us Christ and our faith. For example, water reminds especially baptism and everything Jesus did about it in the events recorded in Bible (not only in New Testaments, there are some images pointing to baptism in Old Testament, like passage through Red Sea), in history and in our lives. Another example: a blessing of a cross means a prayer for its wearer to be connected with Jesus, who died on a cross, with all its consequences.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;EDIT: Similarly, blessing of a person is a prayer for someone aiming not just to a &quot;one-shot&quot; benefit, but to a longer benediction - so that the person gets closer and closer to God, performs well in their job or just enjoy good luck in general.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic Church take all the blessings of water, crosses and other things and people by priests as sacramentals - they are not powered by God's promise as directly as sacraments (Eucharist, baptism etc.), but prayers of whole church somehow &quot;power&quot; the sacrament. Prayer is &quot;better&quot; when two or three agree on it - but in sacramentals, all the Body of Christ agree on it, even though most of us Christians (or at least Catholics) are not present or even don't know about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what exactly changes? It's the same as with any other prayer - a clear miracle may occur, but usually nothing apparently changes. But we know God heard the prayer, and we believe that He will answer somehow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-08-01T14:41:44.217" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T14:41:44.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18049" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18052" CreationDate="2013-08-01T16:56:39.793" Score="33" ViewCount="3933" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:4-6&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot;&gt;John 12:4-6&lt;/a&gt; we learn that Judas was a thief, but also that he was in charge of the money bag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always thought of this as Jesus way of allowing Judas to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:24&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot;&gt;master it rather than be mastered by money&lt;/a&gt; or possibly to show Judas &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6:33-35&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot;&gt;His love, even at personal cost&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I cannot also help but wonder whether it is a bit like leaving an alcoholic in charge of the bar. If Judas really had a money problem, should he have been the treasurer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has any prominent theologian ever addressed this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2019-05-28T13:22:59.513" Title="Has any prominent theologian ever explained why Jesus let a thief be in charge of the money?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2089" CreationDate="2013-08-01T18:18:43.453" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8111/3447&quot;&gt;DJClayworth&lt;/a&gt; said, there is some correlation to the position between &quot;real presence&quot; and &quot;entirely symbolic&quot;, but that's not everything. &quot;Entirely symbolic&quot; understanding of Eucharist usually lead to lower communion frequency, but this doesn't have to be the case - the consequence of lower importance of the communion is especially that it's &lt;em&gt;more arbitrary&lt;/em&gt;. This can lead to extremes remembered by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2092/3447&quot;&gt;Caleb&lt;/a&gt;, but usually it just means that &quot;we are used to celebrate Lord's Supper once per month and we see no reason to change it&quot;. &quot;Once a month&quot; probably has some historical roots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, in Catholic Church in 21st and big portion of 20th century frequent communion is the norm. But it wasn't always like this! There were times when &quot;once a week&quot; was most usual (especially in the earliest times), when daily communion was normal like today, but also when it was hard to get to communion more often than once a month or once a year. There were theological reasons for all the practices - they were usually closely tied to views of God's love and mercy and of how much is man sinful. &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jansenists&lt;/a&gt;, who focused on sinfulness and unworthiness of man, proposed rare communion (&quot;People are not worthy of receiving such a gift ever. Well, we can allow then to go to communion once a year, if the do proper repentance.&quot;). On the other hand, Catholic theology today focuses more on God's love for us and His willingness to give Himself to us, and frequent communion is a logical consequence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T18:18:43.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18049" CreationDate="2013-08-01T18:22:54.807" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;The theological problem is to explain why Jesus apparently trusted Judas, when he ought to have known better. There are a lot of possible answers! Some have tried to find symbolic or exemplary meaning in his actions - a lesson for the future Church. Others have centered the discussion around the character of Jesus, perhaps reaching similar conclusions for different reasons: framing Jesus principally in terms of love rather than as a ritual performer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine says in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701050.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Tractates on John&lt;/em&gt; 50.10-11&lt;/a&gt; that Jesus trusted Judas in order to show the Church should be patient and tolerant even of thieves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What lesson then, my brethren, did our Lord Jesus Christ wish to impress on His Church, when it pleased Him to have one castaway among the twelve, but this, that we should bear with the wicked, and refrain from dividing the body of Christ? [...] Why gave He admission to a thief, save to teach His Church patiently to bear with thieves? But he who had formed the habit of abstracting money from the bag, did not hesitate for money received to sell the Lord Himself. But let us see what answer our Lord gave to such words. See, brethren: He does not say to him, You speak so on account of your thievishness. He knew him to be a thief, yet did not betray him, but rather endured him, and showed us an example of patience in tolerating the wicked in the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To this, Thomas Aquinas adds two further suggestions (&lt;em&gt;Lectura super Evangelium Sancti Ioannis&lt;/em&gt; 12.1). The first is that Judas was given access to the common fund so that he could satiate his greed there, rather than condemn himself further by robbing others; Aquinas finds this doubtful, since the greedy are never truly satisfied. This matches his Aristotelian ethic of virtue and habit - indulging in theft only reinforces the &quot;bad habit&quot; of having a tendency to steal. He would certainly agree with you that it would be irresponsible for Jesus to not only put Judas where he could be tempted, but even to encourage him in his sinful habits. The second suggestion from Aquinas, which he prefers, is that Jesus sought to teach the Church that spiritual things are more important than temporal things: by giving the money over to Judas, he was showing how little it mattered. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origen (&lt;em&gt;Commentary on John&lt;/em&gt; 32) is of the same opinion as Augustine as far as the lesson - he argues that Jesus showed trust as a deliberate act of love. Moreover, he says that Judas should not be seen as simply an evil person, but as someone who had both good and bad in him (he was a disciple, after all), was continually presented with moral choices, and on several important occasions made terrible decisions. In Origen's view, Judas had the genuine free will to steal and betray, or not, and so Jesus was justified in trusting him. From 32.161-162 (trans. Ronald Heine; Catholic University of America Press, 1993):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I would not think that he would have been entrusted with the money-box if he were a thief from the beginning. He was trusted with it, therefore, because he was worthy of being trusted, although it was foreknown that he would fall away. And he was so great a man of Christ's peace that Jesus once had high hopes in him, as a good apostle, for hear the words, &quot;In whom I hoped&quot; [from Psalm 41:9, which is quoted in John 13:18].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and 32.240-241:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If Judas' evil had been obvious to Jesus' disciples it would have been known who was to betray the teacher, since Jesus had said, &quot;One of you will betray me.&quot; But now the disciples look &quot;at one another, doubting of whom he spoke&quot; [John 13:22]. Perhaps indeed the apostles were ashamed to suspect anything wicked of Judas because of his previous worthy deeds. It may have been, too, that Judas did not belong totally to evil, even though the devil had already put it in his heart that Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, should betray him [John 13:2]. It was because there was still a remnant of good choice in him that, when he saw that Jesus was condemned when &quot;they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor&quot; [Matthew 27:2] he repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, &quot;I have sinned in betraying innocent blood&quot; [Matthew 27:3-4].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Origen's exegesis does not see Judas as a moustache-twirling villain, or as a kleptomaniac who couldn't help himself from stealing, but as a very human figure. The fact that he returned the silver shows that he had the capacity to do good. Since the disciples were unaware of Judas stealing from the common purse, his acts must have been more like incidental pilfering than outright theft of the whole amount. Perhaps, along these lines, we can say that Jesus's trust in Judas was not too financially disastrous. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The absolute opposite view on free will is held by John Calvin, who says (&lt;em&gt;Commentarium in evangelium Ioannis&lt;/em&gt;) that firstly, the ways of God are mysterious (an admission that he has no real answer), but secondly, Judas was predestined to be lost: Jesus placed an untrustworthy person among the disciples because the plan required one of them to betray him. Calvin's Judas is &quot;required&quot; to be evil and then to be justly condemned, so Jesus can perfectly well put Judas in a position of temptation, knowing that he will fail. This resonates with the opinion of John Chrysostom (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240165.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Homilies on the Gospel of John&lt;/em&gt; 65&lt;/a&gt;), who says that Judas was given charge of the purse so that when he betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he wouldn't have the excuse that he &lt;em&gt;really needed&lt;/em&gt; the money. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps characteristically, Karl Barth (&lt;em&gt;Church Dogmatics&lt;/em&gt;, 35.4, &quot;The Determination of the Rejected&quot;) welds all of these ideas, and more, into a single incredibly dense lump of thought. He sees the sin of Judas, in betraying Jesus, principally as an exploitation or rejection of the sacred. This is mirrored in his eventual suicide, in his attitude to the anointing in this passage, and in his love of money. But he is still a human being and a disciple - and all of the disciples have their bad moments, as they fail to live up to the expectations of Jesus. So there is a sense in which Judas provides an example for us, not only personally but in the life of the Church (his replacement by Matthias is critical for this - a purging of &lt;em&gt;communal&lt;/em&gt; failure). But the more important statement, for Barth, is that Jesus is on Judas's side, even if Judas is not on his side. We are meant to imitate Christ in love of God and one another, even our &quot;enemies&quot;, just as he put trust in the one who would betray him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-08-05T15:01:20.720" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T15:01:20.720" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18053" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18062" CreationDate="2013-08-01T19:09:16.893" Score="12" ViewCount="3731" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Testament&lt;/a&gt; was originally written in Greek. But yet Roman Catholics held Mass in Latin for hundreds of years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What scriptural evidence, if any, caused Latin to be picked over Greek?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was any scriptural reasoning used to defend keeping the Mass in Latin for so long? What are the reasons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3977" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-04T14:23:34.477" LastActivityDate="2016-11-01T15:16:44.447" Title="What is the reasoning for Latin being the official language of Catholic Mass?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;language&gt;&lt;latin&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18053" CreationDate="2013-08-01T19:09:16.893" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While formulating this question I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.info/languages/why/latin.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this reading&lt;/a&gt; that helped me answer one of my questions, why the church had retained one single language across the world for so long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scriptural reasoning that was used to defend keeping the Mass in one language, Latin, for so long was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011:6-8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 11:7&lt;/a&gt;, The story of the Tower of Babel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since different languages was punishment because of sinning against God, the Church wanted to do away with sin and therefore different languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3977" LastEditorUserId="3977" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T18:14:41.627" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T18:14:41.627" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18053" CreationDate="2013-08-01T21:26:14.950" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think that there really is any scriptural reason for using Latin as the official language of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Church has been located in Rome since St. Peter was crucified there in &lt;em&gt;about&lt;/em&gt; 64 A.D. In Ancient Rome, the language that was the official language was that of Latin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason Mass has been said in Latin for so long is that it is the official language of the Church, even if it is no longer the official language of Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5247" LastActivityDate="2013-08-01T21:26:14.950" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18057" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-01T23:55:01.010" Score="1" ViewCount="4318" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 13:14&#xA;  New International Version (NIV)&#xA;  14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, is this meant figuratively or literally? I lean towards believing it is literal. But then it specifically mentions that it is those in Judea that should flee... is this also literal Judea? What about those of us in the nations, now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not like Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation that they are the symbolic mountains and that by joining them we are already 'safe'; I believe there is more to it than that. For instance it is only when we see the abomination causing desolation that we are meant to flee, so that does not make sense if you compare it to joining a religious group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what of people living far from any mountains? This is where it is difficult to believe that it is literal, yet the detail of the rest of the verses in Mark do suggest that actual fleeing is necessary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm a little stumped. What does &quot;fleeing to the mountains&quot; actually mean in this context?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5265" LastActivityDate="2016-03-23T15:28:38.830" Title="What does it mean to &quot;flee to the mountains&quot; as writen in Mark?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2016-03-27T02:42:09.783" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18059" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-02T02:23:46.630" Score="10" ViewCount="286" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, in my Baptist circles, a divorced pastor causes a lot of consternation.  It sort of went without saying that a minister in the midst of a divorce needed to resign, or at least take several years away from ministry.   In other words, there seems to be this idea that preachers who divorce are at least temporarily disqualified from ministry, and in some cases permanently so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Andy Stanley picks up on this in his book &amp;quot;Deep and Wide,&amp;quot; speaking of his father (Charles Stanley), who in 1992, underwent a very public divorce.  He writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While most of the congregants at First Baptist Atlanta (FBA) were willing to stand by my dad no matter what, there was a group that insisted he take some time off to work on his marriage. ... In addition to the take-some-time-off group, there was an element in the church that thought my dad should resign. It was their conviction that if my mom actually went through with the divorce, he would be disqualified to serve in his current capacity. As cruel as that may sound, you need to understand that until that time, First Baptist Atlanta had never had a divorced staff member or deacon. You couldn't be elected to the deacon board if you had been divorced. So, in the minds of the resign-now crowd, they were simply applying what they had been taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stanley, Andy (2012-09-25). Deep &amp;amp; Wide: Creating Churches Unchurched People Love to Attend (p. 38). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems related to the whole &amp;quot;deacons need to be the husband of one wife thing,&amp;quot;  but if this is the case, where does the chance at rehabilitation come from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In short, what teachings would only temporarily disqualify a divorced pastor from preaching?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2021-02-22T03:42:02.810" Title="What is the theological basis for readmitting a Protestant preacher to preaching after divorce?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;&lt;preaching&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5633" CreationDate="2013-08-02T02:36:48.120" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I admittedly did not attend seminary; &lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt; ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The general advice I've heard in homilies (and in at least a few videos by prominent Catholics online) was reminded to me a few weeks back at a Bible study when I mentioned to the group about the pitfalls of arguing God, religion, morality, etc. on Facebook. The advice, in brief, is that &lt;strong&gt;our main purpose in &lt;em&gt;communicating&lt;/em&gt; with people is &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/communion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;communion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; with them!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, while it &lt;em&gt;may&lt;/em&gt; be beneficial at times, under the whims and wisdom of the Holy Spirit, to lob a book at someone's head and walk away, &lt;em&gt;this is not &lt;strong&gt;normal&lt;/strong&gt; evangelization!&lt;/em&gt; The normal path entails knowing a person, being in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/communion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;communion&lt;/a&gt; with them, and building with them a &lt;em&gt;common&lt;/em&gt; relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, unless instructed by the Holy Spirit, more important than lobbing a book at someone is having a beer with them and enjoying manly silence together. As you come to be in communion with that person, and by simply &lt;em&gt;being&lt;/em&gt; in communion with that person, you can share your relationship with God &lt;em&gt;with them&lt;/em&gt;. If you find a good book for them, it's ideally not a handoff; it's an awkward, metaphoric man-hug.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, it's worthwhile to say &quot;I love you man&quot; during the exchange and have a brief awkward conversation afterwards that ultimately ends in &quot;That was awkward. Let's never do that again.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For reference: Dr. Scott Hahn talks about evangelization a good deal on Catholic radio. The general gist of his talks, and explicitly in some cases, talks about the personal, communal, and sometimes &lt;em&gt;cultural&lt;/em&gt; connection we need to make with people when evangelizing. A few notables:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJGx_SzCmfI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Importance of Personal Sanctity in Evangelization&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FjbukTzSu8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Avoiding arrogance while evangelizing.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfD83Q0TT70&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How did Saint Paul Evangelize?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-08-05T16:52:00.333" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T16:52:00.333" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18062" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18053" CreationDate="2013-08-02T03:10:55.647" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The evolution of the Latin Rite as we know it today does not necessarily come from Sacred Scripture as much as it does ecclesiastical functionality. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13155a.htm&quot;&gt;The Roman Rite aritcle&lt;/a&gt; at &lt;em&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/em&gt; puts it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Roman Rite was adopted throughout the West because the local bishops, sometimes kings or emperors, felt that they could not do better than use the rite of the chief bishop of all, at Rome. And this imitation of Roman liturgical practice brought about in the West the application of the principle (long admitted in the East) that rite should follow patriarchate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apart from his universal primacy, the pope had always been unquestioned Patriarch of the West. It was then the right and normal thing that the West should use his liturgy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church does, as it always has, teach that the the Greek language used by the New Testament writers is the inspired &quot;language&quot; chosen by God to reveal his Truth. Prior to the invention of the printing press only about 10% of the population could read.  This number dropped even lower with the advent of the &quot;dark&quot; ages initiated by the Barbarian invasions and the fall of Rome.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament as we know it was not officially canonized until A.D. 397 with the ratifying approval of Pope Damasus. By this date the Mass had already been celebrated in and around Rome for over 300+ years prior. St. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate the newly canonized Greek texts into Latin so that more people could understand the New Testament texts.  This is the same reason why the King James/Douay-Rheims editions have been translated into the more universally spoken English language of today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm&quot;&gt;Canon of the New Testament&lt;/a&gt; from &lt;em&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that the Eastern Catholic (and also Greek Orthodox) churches have all along used Greek in all of their liturgies and rituals to this day.  It is arguable that the language chasm that existed between the East and West is what ultimately lead to the East-West Schism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, during the Reformation period, the Council of Trent was convened to address and severely condemn the rampant abuses that had crept into the Church's liturgies, as well as respond to the Reformers.  The Council led to the solidification of the Tridentine Mass, which was celebrated universally in the Western Latin Rite for over 400 years until Vatican II.  Elements of the Tridentine Mass still exist in the &quot;Novus Ordo&quot; liturgy, which uses both Latin and the vernacular of the local region (i.e. English, German, French, or Spanish).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.liturgica.com/html/litWLTrent.jsp&quot;&gt;Reforms of the Council of Trent&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Latin's superiority and precision is 2nd only to Greek in the history of languages.  Perhaps this is why the Holy Spirit chose Greek for divine revelation.  This is also why the Catholic Church was hesitant to translate the Bible into English from Latin.  English is more likely to be manipulated to misrepresent meanings conveyed.  Latin is more pure than English. Greek, however, is the purest of all languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T14:52:13.600" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T14:52:13.600" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17912" CreationDate="2013-08-02T11:06:09.367" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Pope can bless objects and people implicitly during his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalaudience.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;audiences&lt;/a&gt; - any prayer and speech of the Pope gives Apostolic or Papal blessing to those listening and seeing the pope and to their loved ones unable to participate but connected through prayer. Any &quot;holy symbol&quot; the blessed people have with intention to have it blessed is blessed too (I guess that this doesn't apply to the loved ones who are not present, but I'm not sure). This is sort of a special rule, mostly designed to save time during audiences, when everyone wants to have something blessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now let's return tu the &quot;hierarchy of blessings&quot;: something like this is coined in Canon Law, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P46.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;canon 1169&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;§1 Consecrations and dedications can be validly carried out by those&#xA;  who are invested with the episcopal character, and by priests who are&#xA;  permitted to do so by law or by legitimate grant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;§2 Any priest can impart blessings, except for those reserved to the&#xA;  Roman Pontiff or to Bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;§3 A deacon can impart only those blessings which are expressly&#xA;  permitted to him by law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are blessings (as sacramentals; anyone can pray for blessing, but it's not this kind of blessing - see an answer for a related question for differences between priestly and lay blessings) reserved to the Pope, to bishops, to priests and to deacons - their hierarchy roughly copies hierarchy of Holy Orders or priestly ordination. I don't know if they are meant to be &quot;stronger&quot; and &quot;weaker&quot; - I think it's more a matter of personal faith and &quot;collectors' sport&quot; and in fact all the blessing are of equivalent &quot;strength&quot;, but I might be wrong in this assumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2018-09-26T13:24:39.280" LastActivityDate="2018-09-26T13:24:39.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18057" CreationDate="2013-08-02T11:13:02.097" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fleeing is both literal and figurativeThe first century jews at Jerusalem where told to literally flee from the that city when the roman armies surrounded it. &lt;strong&gt;*&lt;em&gt;Luke 21 20&quot;When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near&lt;/em&gt;*&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When jesus Christ destroyed the temple by means of the Roman empire.&lt;em&gt;(John 2 19. Jesus answered them, &quot;Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.&quot;)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then replaced it with a new type of worship.Christ becoming the temple and king and high priest&#xA; &lt;em&gt;(Hebrews 7 17.For it is declared: &quot;You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.&quot;) and his followers also becoming living temples.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The symbolism of the literal fleeing is for the call for jewish nation to repent and get out of the soon to be redundant jewish system, which was the old covenant.This was to be replace by the new covenant.&lt;em&gt;(Jeremiah 31 33. &quot;This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,&quot; declares the LORD. &quot;I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The majority of jews rejected Christ and would not benefit from the promises of this new covenant at that time.&lt;em&gt;Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: &quot;Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today.any religious system or organisation that resembles the jewish system in the first century really can be a likened to Babylon the Great or the type of rulership which originated with Nimrod.There is a distinct difference between Man rule and Gods Rulership.Mans rulership demands a strict hierarchy, which governs through many written laws from a select leadership.Gods rulership at this time is through Jesus Christ.Christ being the head of every believer, with God writing his laws upon our hearts by means of the Holy spirit. &lt;em&gt;1 Tim. 2:5, 6. There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would just like to let you know at this point.When I stumbled across this web site and felt impelled to answer the original question from one of your members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did not realise and now have noticed  that you as the moderator seems to lean towards catholic tradition.This worries me a little because, as a Jehovahs Witness who has recently  come to an understanding that the watchtower society can not claim to be Gods one and only true organisation.I do not want to get into endless debates with a member of another religious organization which regards itself in a similar way.I apologies beforehand,I dont want to make the presumption that everyone is the same!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have come to realise that the average Jehovahs Witness can only defend their position as a member of that group.Loyalty to that organisation and its teachings are paramount to each member.This causes a great deal of bias when reading bible texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original poster made a comment. “I do not like Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation that they are the symbolic mountains and that by joining them we are already 'safe”. What the poster has noticed about the watchtower society is that it attempts  to promote a sense of security to those who are its members by claiming to be Gods organization. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was  trying to convey in my answer that security or salvation was assured through the new covenant and being a member of it.The redundant jewish system with its priesthood mediator-ship was no longer necessary. To get out and flee is a clear enough instruction.to get out of that system is the symbolic equivalent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to clarify.Any religious system or individual that does not promote and strictly adhere or teach that  all true believers are to be a holy priesthood through Jesus Christ by means of the new covenant are to be avoided.If you are in such a system, get out and flee,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14 6.Jesus answered, &quot;I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5293" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-08-03T15:40:51.443" LastActivityDate="2013-08-03T15:40:51.443" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5633" CreationDate="2013-08-02T12:06:46.373" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Intimacy is the key: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is relational, and even within the Trinity, we know that God is “three persons” that are relational.  In His creation, God fashioned man for relationships.  If one had to identify the Bible or God Himself with one word, “love” would be the most likely candidate.  The reason is that “love” speaks specifically to “relationships”.  Literature speaks of love in timeless ways, because the essence of love is eternal.  “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (1John 4:8).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are relational, so when we share literary insight with others, we are sharing our heart or our personal economy.  We are saying: “This is important to me, this has helped me.  Perhaps it will be important to you, and will help you... you matter to me”. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 3:6 “Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God”  Literature allows us to “look upon God”.  It is like the insulation around a copper wire; literature allows us to handle the eternal realities of God and share those realities with one another. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is alive because the Bible speaks of God and mankind’s relationship with God.  John Bunyan, Andrew Murray, A.B. Simpson the Apostle Paul, C.S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton and many more capture timeless truths that can be shared with others.  They are proof that “truth” can be comprehended and shared, creating companionship through a common accord.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many today look at the relational division within the world (and within the Church) and believe a “common accord” is impossible, yet, these writings stand contrary to this opinion and promote relational wellness like a “light of the world”. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T13:11:10.517" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T13:11:10.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="271" CreationDate="2013-08-02T13:54:30.010" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;For believers in constubstantiation, there is a biblical precedent for prioritizing the Eucharist over the fast.  Since Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Christ is in fact, present.  And, if he is present, Mark 2:18-20 comes into play:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Eucharist often goes by the term feast for a reason - it is a joyous occasion that is properly &lt;em&gt;celebrated&lt;/em&gt; in the presence of the Christ. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19660217_paenitemini_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;During Lent, Sundays are specifically called out as feast days when the fast is supposed to be broken&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this reason, there is good biblical sanction &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to continue a fast when, in deed, the bride groom is here!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T13:54:30.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18057" CreationDate="2013-08-02T14:51:56.387" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is both literal and figurative.  On the one hand Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 AD and the people fled to the mountains.  It is also something that is foretold to happen in Revelation that was prefigured in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Machabees_NewMass_abomination.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Book of Maccabees&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Abomination&quot; is a similar word to mockery or sacrilege &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Desolation&quot; means emptiness, a place where no one is present&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the emptiness of the New Mass.  It is a &lt;a href=&quot;https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10557283/pics/clownMass.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mockery&lt;/a&gt; of the Tridentine Mass.  God is not present because the sacrament is not confected. It was cursed by Pope St. Pius V. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and &#xA;  observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church,&#xA;  Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful&#xA;  henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to&#xA;  read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published&#xA;  by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or&#xA;  rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance,&#xA;  command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and&#xA;  prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he&#xA;  will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter&#xA;  and Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="65" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T16:16:02.910" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T16:16:02.910" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18076" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18078" CreationDate="2013-08-02T18:31:07.097" Score="8" ViewCount="947" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;a meaning, a transvaluation&quot;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Meaning as in 'meaning of life' sort of meaning...like 'purpose' or 'reason'...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or 'meaning' as in, as he was talking about previously, the sort of 'new understanding' one might realise by finding out that the things pictures are of (trees, cathedrals and such like) are not, like the pictures themselves, 2d, but are, instead, 3d...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, 'meaning' as in 'purpose behind all' or as in 'full clarity of what we sense'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2015-09-22T13:31:04.280" Title="In CS Lewis's 'Transposition' essay, what does he mean, in the last sentence, by 'meaning'?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18077" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-02T18:35:44.557" Score="7" ViewCount="261" Body="&lt;p&gt;What was the main reason for excluding 35 latest names from the list of recognized saints by the Synodal Commission of Russian Orthodox Church on Canonization?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;strong&gt;РПЦ отзывает партию святых, оказавшихся бракованными&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vn1o9Q3YtI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(YouTube video).&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&#xA;The author of the video claims that the reason was that some KGB archives have been made available to the public, and a lot of bad, yet true stories are revealed about those priests who have been canonized. As the author says, some of them, if not all, were cooperating with KGB and reported. ROC excluded them suddenly, with no explanations&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-08-24T23:25:27.927" LastActivityDate="2016-09-23T23:34:50.180" Title="What was the main reason for excluding 35 latest names from the list of recognized saints by ROC?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18076" CreationDate="2013-08-02T19:09:56.433" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is a more full context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;May we not, by a reasonable analogy, suppose likewise that there is no&#xA;  experience of the spirit so transcendent and supernatural, no vision&#xA;  of Deity Himself so close and so far beyond all images and emotions,&#xA;  that to it also there cannot be an appropriate correspondence on the&#xA;  sensory level? Not by a new sense but by the incredible flooding of&#xA;  those very sensations we now have with a meaning, a transvaluation, of&#xA;  which we have here no faintest guess?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me it seems as if the word &quot;meaning&quot; here is being used as in &quot;signification&quot;. As in, &quot;What does it mean?&quot; Or, &quot;What does it signify?&quot; The word &quot;transvaluation&quot; means literally, &quot;a valuation beyond&quot;. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transvaluation&quot;&gt;dictionary&lt;/a&gt; has in its definition the idea of using a standard to evaluate that is not the normal one. Lewis is saying here that our senses will have experiences in &lt;em&gt;correspondence&lt;/em&gt; with what will be in heaven, but they will have a meaning that is on a whole different scale from what we experience now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That it does not mean &quot;purpose&quot; or &quot;reason&quot; in this context, I think we can gather from the fact that Lewis is talking about what will, at the time of the flooding of &quot;those very sensations we now have&quot;, be in the &lt;em&gt;present&lt;/em&gt;. He is not talking about purpose, I don't think, or telos. That is, he is talking about what our present sensations will mean at some future time. But that future time will not, in itself, be pointing even &lt;em&gt;further&lt;/em&gt; forward in time, as if it were a reason for something else. Indeed, time will have come to an end when this flooding happens!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastEditorUserId="1618" LastEditDate="2013-08-02T19:43:48.163" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T19:43:48.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17926" CreationDate="2013-08-02T19:16:36.980" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft/thecatechismofth00donouoft_djvu.txt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Council of Trent&lt;/a&gt; teaches that Creation is the common work of the Three Divine Persons&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let thus much suffice for the explanation of the first article of&#xA;  Creation, the Creed : it may not, however, be unnecessary to add that&#xA;  the creation is the common work of the three Persons of the Holy&#xA;  Persons, and undivided Trinity of the Father, whom, according to the&#xA;  doctrine of the Apostles, we here declare to be &quot; Creator of heaven&#xA;  and earth ;&quot; of the Son, of whom the Scripture says, &quot; all things were&#xA;  made by him ;&quot; and of the Holy Ghost, of whom it is written, &quot;The&#xA;  Spirit of God moved over the waters:&quot; and again, &quot; By the word of the&#xA;  Lord the heavens were established and all the power of them by the&#xA;  Spirit of his mouth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T19:16:36.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2932" CreationDate="2013-08-02T20:21:48.403" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a Ph.D. in Mathematical Physics, and have thought about these questions for some time. I am going to write down a few of my thoughts as an answer. The basic question is, it seems to me, &quot;How can we reconcile the biblical creation account with its (at least literal) account of a young earth, with scientific evidence for an old earth?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, I question whether the &quot;scientific evidence&quot; is all that scientific. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Karl Popper&lt;/a&gt; said that a scientific statement is one that can, in principle, be falsified by observation. He may have exaggerated the role of falsification, but surely no one can deny that if a statement cannot possibly be tested by an observation, it is not in the realm of science. So the question, &quot;Is it raining outside?&quot; is scientific, whereas, &quot;Is there a God?&quot; is not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us examine the statement, &quot;The universe is billions of years old.&quot; Is it scientific? Are there observations that could confirm or not confirm it? I believe the answer is &quot;no&quot;. To test it, we would have to construct hundreds (probably a much greater number) of parallel universes, evolve them in time over billions of years, and see where they wind up. We have no method of constructing parallel universes, so this procedure is impractical. That is, we have no basis for measuring the statement empirically. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now let us examine the statement, &quot;God created the universe a few thousand years ago.&quot; This statement fails to be scientific for nearly the same reasons as the other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sum up so far: no ultimate question about origins is scientific, because there can be &lt;em&gt;no experiments&lt;/em&gt; to test it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there is the creation account in the Bible, and as I take the inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration of the Scriptures as axiomatic, I see no reason not to believe in that historical account. Science, as we have seen, has no tool at its disposal to prove or disprove anything with respect to origins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another, mathematical, reason why science cannot disprove the idea of a mature creation: semigroup theory. Suppose you have a system that starts at state A, evolves in time through state B, and ends up at C. That is, the state evolves this way: A -&gt; B -&gt; C. Now, let's take an &lt;em&gt;identical system&lt;/em&gt;, and suppose that it evolves in time from B -&gt; C. Semigroup theory says that if you're in the system, and you have no outside knowledge or memory of the system, then there is no test you can perform to determine if you came from A or from B. So, if we take the universe as our system, and we have no outside knowledge or memory of its evolution in time, then we cannot tell at all whether the universe was created only a few thousand years ago to look billions of years old, or whether God really did create it billions of years ago, and its age and apparent age match. Therefore, science cannot disprove mature creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has been brought up in comments, and in the edit to the OP, that the appearance of age requires deception on the part of God, and is therefore inadmissable. To that I would reply that we are no judge. First of all, our judgement of the age of the universe can be, and almost certainly is, spurious. We have no memory of those kinds of vast eons of time. Secondly, if we are talking about the Creator of the universe, then He is not answerable to us, but we to Him. Thirdly, I would point out various portions of the Scriptures that indicate that His ways are far above ours. If we do not have the full picture, and we do not, then we should not confuse our short-sightedness with clear-sightedness. Do we have the full picture? Do we know all the things going on here? I think not. If we serve a God Who is by no means obligated to reveal anything &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt; to us, we should not complain if a &quot;few things&quot; are unclear. Fourthly, God is Who He is, and we cannot change Him. Our conception of God is quite unimportant. What matters infinitely more is the conception of God as He has revealed Himself to us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has also been noted in the comments the various reasons why God might have created things with an appearance of age: utility, more glory for Himself. Somewhat related to the second reason there is my favorite reason: for beauty. The stars would surely be more beautiful if their light was already streaming to the earth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another alternative is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;white hole cosmology&lt;/a&gt; proposed by Dr Russell Humphreys. This approach, fully supported in peer-reviewed literature, simply assumes that, instead of an infinite universe, the universe is finite. Then the equations of General Relativity produce a white hole, which can completely explain time differences and streaming starlight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few other aspects of this question that I have answered in different details on &lt;a href=&quot;http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/a-critique-of-creation-evolution-and-christian-lay-people-by-tim-keller/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this blog post&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastEditorUserId="1618" LastEditDate="2017-03-24T19:21:22.930" LastActivityDate="2017-03-24T19:21:22.930" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17975" CreationDate="2013-08-02T20:54:35.323" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It comes from vows and religious oaths. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/confession-faith-worship-33197/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this post&lt;/a&gt; on the Puritan Board for a discussion of the inclusion of creeds. In particular, this portion is of interest:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;WCF 21:5 &quot;...are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God&#xA;  (Mat_28:19; Act_2:42; 1Co_11:23-29): besides religious oaths (Deu_6:13&#xA;  with Neh_10:29), vows Isa_19:21 with Eccl 5;4, 5),...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1618" LastActivityDate="2013-08-02T20:54:35.323" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18083" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-03T00:14:13.673" Score="8" ViewCount="10020" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm a member of an &lt;a href=&quot;http://go.efca.org/&quot;&gt;Evangelical Free&lt;/a&gt; church and one of the members of my Sunday school class made an impassioned plea for us to nominate several women to be elders.  Currently our church has no women elders and never has as far as I know.  I also am certain that the denomination does not allow women in pastoral or board of directors positions.  But the only statement I can find is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/our-mission-and-history&quot;&gt;Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA)&lt;/strong&gt; www.ecfa.org &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Women may not serve as pastors, elders, or deacons. Men who are not ordained and women who would like to be involved in ministry may be &#xA;  granted the &quot;Christian Ministry License.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&amp;mdash;&quot;US Denominations and Their Stances on &#xA;  Women in Leadership&quot; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www2.cbeinternational.org/new/E-Journal/2007/07spring/denominations%20first%20installment--FINAL.pdf&quot;&gt;PDF&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trouble with this is that I our church &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; have women deacons.  I'd like to know what the official policy is and what arguments are made for the denomination's position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="914" LastActivityDate="2018-10-17T04:33:41.950" Title="Does the Evangelical Free Church allow women elders?" Tags="&lt;women&gt;&lt;leadership&gt;&lt;elders&gt;&lt;evangelical-free&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18084" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18086" CreationDate="2013-08-03T08:56:29.433" Score="10" ViewCount="3051" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/files/martyrs.html&quot;&gt;Foxe's Book of Martyrs&lt;/a&gt; purports to recount the lives and deaths of many who are regarded as the heroes of the Christian faith, and is revered as a classic within the genre of Christian literature. The author, however, cites few of his sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there a general agreement among recognized contemporary Christian researchers as to the reliability of the accounts given in Foxe's Book of Martyrs?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastActivityDate="2014-11-02T17:17:46.497" Title="Is there scholarly concensus on the historicity of Foxe's Book of Martyrs?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="113" CreationDate="2013-08-03T09:44:01.680" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is very much true. when you have the spirit of God. you will experience many changes. the evidence of speaking in tongues and also you will be led by that spirit Romans 8 :13-15 Ephesian 5:17-20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5298" LastActivityDate="2013-08-03T09:44:01.680" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18084" CreationDate="2013-08-03T10:31:17.083" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, there is not general agreement as to the exact historical accuracy of John Foxe's work. The majority of events are considered to be historical and widely accepted to be based on good sources such as eyewitness records, however doubt is often cast on the retelling aspect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary accusation brought against Foxe's Book of Martyrs (originally titled &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actes_and_Monuments&quot;&gt;Actes and Monuments&lt;/a&gt;) is its strong anti-Catholic bias. The doubt cast on the work is almost always the possible &quot;spin&quot; placed in the selection and retelling in order to elevate Protestantism as the true faith at the exclusion of other Christian sects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is widely accepted that Foxe's selection process excluded martyrs of any sort whose primary allegiance was to the Catholic church. The standards for what he considered to be a true martyr were heavily influenced by his own doctrinal position. This doesn't mean that the cases he did select to tell about are actually not real cases, but it does keep his work from being considered a broad treatment of the issue of martyrdom in Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;His doctrinal bias comes through quite consistently in smaller details in the individual telling of stories. It is in this that the historicity is most to be questioned: that the events happened is typically not in doubt but the generous amount of fiction added to the narrative and possibly leaving out relevant details that didn't fit the picture he wanted to paint leave the exact accuracy of the work as suspect.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article, which notes in the summary section the sometimes polemical tone of Foxe's work, has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actes_and_Monuments#Foxe_as_historian&quot;&gt;entire section devoted to his merits as a historian&lt;/a&gt;. Here is one excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The author's credibility was challenged as soon as the book first appeared. Detractors accused Foxe of dealing falsely with the evidence, of misusing documents, and of telling partial truths. In every case that he could clarify, Foxe corrected errors in the second edition and third and fourth, final version (for him). In the early nineteenth century the charges were taken up again by a number of authors, most importantly Samuel Roffey Maitland.[42] Subsequently Foxe was considered a poor historian, in mainstream reference works. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica accused Foxe of &quot;wilful falsification of evidence&quot;; two years later in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Francis Fortescue Urquhart wrote of the value of the documentary content and eyewitness reports, but claimed that Foxe &quot;sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article goes on to cite individual cases of criticism and includes sources identifying the major critics and their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02681a.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;, several contemporary church figures were among the first critics of his work. They also give several sources for additional studies critical of Foxe:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The most careful examination of his methods is to be found in Maitland, Essays on the Reformation in England (1849), and in Gairdner, History of the English Church from the ascension of Henry VIII to the Death of Mary (1903); Lee in Dict. of Nat. Biog. Gerard, John Foxe and His Book of Martyrs (Catholic Truth Society, London), includes the opinions of a number of Foxe's critics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be fair, Foxe's critics themselves are not without their own critics. Since the majority of those who oppose his work do so in defense of the Catholic church (often pointing out exacerbating circumstances in some of the deaths that weren't always purely religious in nature or the fault of the Catholic church) we can in fact conclude that there was also some accuracy to his work. While it might only have shown one side of the story, knowing that the primary point made by the other side was that he left out a whole set of martyrs and cast too much blame in one direction, we can actually conclude that much of what he did write is indeed grounded in history even if his telling of it is polemical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems likely to me based on the extended controversy that some or many of the stories told would not pass muster by any credible historian or journalist standards due to the large number of aspects that are dramatized. This does not, however, mean that the actual events were not historical and possibly just as —if not more— dramatic than the re-tellings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever the exact circumstances, that the basic events happened is not really in question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-08-04T07:08:20.190" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T07:08:20.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18087" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="73882" CreationDate="2013-08-03T10:50:51.480" Score="6" ViewCount="18261" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of the priests I know were recently given a sabbatical year (in both cases it wasn't for the sake of study - the priests ended their parish assignments lasting for many years and had time to think over whether to take another parish, enter a monastery or leave priesthood completely). When looking for details how sabbatical works for Catholic priests, I found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.seattlearchdiocese.org/OVC/Documents/sabbatical.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a document concerning archdiocese of Seattle&lt;/a&gt; - this seems to expect the priest on a sabbatical to study some special program.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here are my questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) What does Canon law say about sabbaticals (link to particular canons + brief summary should be OK)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) What is up to the Ordinary? How usual is the linked policy, and how different is practice in other dioceses? What reasons for sabbatical are accepted (provided that other requirements have been met) in most dioceses, what in some and what almost never?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm interrested especially in situations like that of the two priests I mentioned, but any other information about priests' sabbaticals is welcome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastEditorUserId="3447" LastEditDate="2013-08-03T13:21:50.280" LastActivityDate="2019-12-17T03:44:51.047" Title="What are legitimate reasons for a Catholic priest to take a sabbatical?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;canon-law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12637" CreationDate="2013-08-03T12:51:52.937" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of the Trinity as defined by Christianity is t&lt;strong&gt;hree persons in one Godhea&lt;/strong&gt;d.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is a Trinity. The Bible says so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Trinity is revealed in the New Testament not in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 29:29 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed&#xA;belong to us and to our children forever..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 25:2 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the glory of God to conceal a matter...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord Jesus did clearly reveal that there exists three persons who've the same nature. He revealed this by making known the one name of the three persons.Their one name is expressive of their one nature ( cf: Exodus 3:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 28:19 (ASV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them&#xA;into &lt;strong&gt;the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did create both male and female. This two people were given one name and this one name expresses their one nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 5:2 (ASV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;male and female created he them, and blessed them,  and called &lt;strong&gt;their&#xA;name Adam&lt;/strong&gt;, in the day when they were created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should call the male and female who have the same name collectively as 'two humans' because of their human nature (human genome) which consists of parts but we should not call the three persons who have the same name as 'three gods' because their one divine nature is spiritual and hence, indivisible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 4:24 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 &lt;strong&gt;God is spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, and his worshipers must worship in&#xA;the Spirit and in truth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-03-10T11:06:32.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18083" CreationDate="2013-08-03T12:56:19.487" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Error:&lt;/strong&gt; When I wrote this up I, I had misread the question and focused my answer on the office of Deacon. I will need to revise this to focus on the office of Elder. It won't be substantially different but there are a few extra considerations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is not a very clear answer to this question, but the statement on the CBE seems to beyond the scope of documentation coming from the EFCA itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The terminology used in the EFCA is a little bit confusing. You have the common monikers of &quot;Ordination&quot;, &quot;Elder&quot; and &quot;Deacon&quot;, but you also have the terminology of &quot;Credentialing&quot; (not at all the same as &quot;Licensure&quot; in Reformed circles) and various forms of &quot;ministry&quot; that have qualifications but do not require ordination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Relevant to this issue is something the EFCA calls a Certificate of Christian Ministry:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The primary purpose of the Certificate of Christian Ministry (CCM) is to identify theological proficiency. (This expands on the License, which focuses on theological competency and alignment with the EFCA, and is distinguished from the Certificate of Ordination, which focuses on theological mastery.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://go.efca.org/sites/default/files/resources/docs/2013/03/efca_credentialing_certificate_of_christian_ministry_paper_requirements.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Certificate of Christian Ministry, 2008 EFCA Statement of Faith&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This so called CCM can be issued to both men and women:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who can be credentialed? Can a woman be credentialed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Any who are in a qualifying ministry and fulfill the requirements as stated in “Steps” can be credentialed. This means women serving in local church staff positions can receive the Certificate of Christian Ministry. (The Certificate of Ordination is reserved for men who are qualified, as the EFCA Conference determined our national credentialing process would be complementarian.) Because of the importance of credentialing to the local church ministry and the EFCA, all women serving in qualifying ministries ought to be encouraged to be credentialed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://go.efca.org/sites/default/files/resources/docs/2013/03/efca_credentialing_faq_0.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EFCA Credentialing FAQ&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is distinct from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://go.efca.org/resources/document/credentialing-certificate-ordination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Certificate of Ordination&lt;/a&gt; which only men may hold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ordination credential may be issued to candidates who:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Are male in gender;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://go.efca.org/resources/document/credentialing-certificate-ordination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Credentialing: Certificate of Ordination&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far those procedures are pretty standardized. The remaining question is what kind of certification is necessary to hold the office of deacon. This is where things get foggy. Is a Certificate of Christian Ministry enough or must one be Ordained?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is, unfortunately, you don't actually need either, although the former is highly encouraged. EFCA churches are considered to be somewhat autonomous and each have their own constitution. You can see in &lt;a href=&quot;http://go.efca.org/sites/default/files/resources/docs/2013/03/sample_constitution.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the sample constitution&lt;/a&gt; that what offices a local church even consists of is something that a local church could amend. They are encouraged to change as little as possible here, but that doesn't mean that all local churches will have the same church governance structure. The exact role of Deacons is notably not well defined by the denomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The EFCA lumps Deacons in as part of the &quot;Church Board&quot; responsible for governance of the church (along with the Pastor and Elders), but they also draw a distinction between them, often citing &quot;Elders/Overseers/Pastors&quot; as one thing and &quot;Deacons&quot; as something different (along with different verses used to define their qualifications).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise strange to me, EFCA churches often allow non credentialed people into ministry roles (including holding titles of Pastor and Elder) before having completed (or even without) their credentialing process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One hint can be found in the Credentialing FAQ cited above (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Scripture clearly teaches that each believer has been given a grace-gift in order to serve our Lord and His Church. In addition, some believers have received the call of God upon their lives for vocational ministry and have been given grace-gifts for the task of preparing God’s people to carry out the works of service which build up the body of Christ. It is &lt;strong&gt;those in vocational &#xA;  ministry which&lt;/strong&gt; God Himself has chosen and appointed and which the local church affirms, and &lt;strong&gt;is subsequently recognized by the EFCA by&lt;/strong&gt; the act of the laying on of hands and the &lt;strong&gt;granting of an EFCA credential&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words the credentialing process can be done &lt;em&gt;post hoc&lt;/em&gt; in recognition of those already called to vocational ministry. This may or may not include Elders, much less Deacons. Local churches are encouraged to have their ministry staff pursue the credentialing process, but it is not necessarily a given. In particular, the requirements for credentialing define vocational ministry as at least 30 hours a week of compensated ministry time. Exceptions are made particularly for bi-vocational ministers because the importance of the credentialing process is stressed over other particulars, but the fact remains that it is not a strict requirement at all unless the local church makes it so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, you cannot learn whether a woman may serve as a deacon in an EFCA church based on any ordination or certification requirements. The certification requirements are valid for woman, and neither ordination or certification is actually required. The ordination process is for men only, but according to denomination minimum standards a woman could serve with the title of &quot;youth pastor&quot; and receive a Certificate of Christian Ministry rather than a Certificate of Ordination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems quite likely to me that any given local congregation might be confused on the exact difference between ordination and certification. A deacon might be hold a certificate of ministry and installed by the local church but that isn't actually the formal definition of ordination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can definitely say that according to EFCA standards those ordained for Ministry of the Word, especially to include lead Pastors, must be of the male persuasion. This is traditionally understood to also include Elders (who may be ordained if ministry roles call for it but are at least encouraged to hold a Certificate of Christian Ministry). On the other hand woman are clearly allowed to hold a CCM and participate in staff positions including vocational ministry, even hold the title of Pastor (in the context or Youth Pastor, Counseling Pastor or other administrative roles) but not that of a Lead Pastor. Whether the office of Deacon is seen as part of a Ministry of the Word and thus limited to men or whether it includes other acts of ministry is something decided on by the local church and hence their gender requirements may vary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-08-03T17:45:10.103" LastActivityDate="2013-08-03T17:45:10.103" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3549" CreationDate="2013-08-03T14:27:23.270" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic faith celebrates 7 Sacraments.  Most Protestant faiths celebrate 2, although they do not call them sacraments, but ordinances.  Some Protestant faiths that celebrate a liturgical form of practice like the Catholic church also celebrate more than 2.  Sacraments are outward signs that give inward holiness or grace to the soul.  Sacraments are just another way that God conveys His love to us as God loves to use matter to convey His love.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe that we are all called to be Priest, Prophet and King thru our Baptism.  We call this the &quot;common priesthood&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also believe that certain men are called by God to continue the mission entrusted by Christ to His apostles to be exercised thru His Church until the end of time.  We call this the &quot;apostolic ministerial priesthood&quot; in which there are 3 degrees:  episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, who is the one mediator between God and men.  The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique accomplished once for all, yet made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church as Jesus said at the Last Supper as He held up the Bread and Wine, &quot;to do this in memory of me&quot;.  The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ, it is made present thru the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood:  &quot;Only Christ is the true priest, the others are only His ministers of faith&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Cateechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;, paragraph 1547.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church also uses the name Pastor when referring to Her priests and also considers Protestant Pastors to be Jesus' ministers of faith as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5300" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-07T17:34:13.227" LastActivityDate="2016-11-07T17:34:13.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5633" CreationDate="2013-08-03T14:32:14.387" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To do the most good, the literature should be targeted. If the person has been asking about a topic, then any book you give on that topic has a chance to inform the person. Obviously, if he is asking about how to get saved, there is literature for this, whether in book form, email, a Chick tract, or printout from the Internet. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don’t choose books at random (well, sometimes I do). I choose books addressing something I am interested in. This will hold true for anyone who reads a book. To make sure it will help the person (having an “expectation that it will do some good”) &lt;em&gt;give him a book that addresses the topic he is interested in, and be available to answer any follow-up questions.&lt;/em&gt; If possible, tell the person what the book has done for you when you have been in the same situation and needed answers. You’ll want to give them a book that targets their comfort level; meaning that your don’t give a KJV book to a person who would be more comfortable with the CEV. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-08-03T14:32:14.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16773" CreationDate="2013-08-03T14:33:05.250" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have recently taken few lesson of Gregorian Chant and we sung something from the Ninth Mass to Virgin Mary. Unfortunately, we stopped at Kyrie and I've heard its Sanctus just once or twice, so I can't tell whether some part of it is similar to that Aleinu record or not. I have notes for the Sanctus, so at the first opportunity I can scan the notes and link the picture, so that someone more competent can verify this theory. The guy who taught me the chant has been to France few times, so it should be what we are looking for, not &quot;central-europian mutation&quot; of the same chant. Unfortunately, I'm not really competent in reading (medieval) musical notation, so there might be some piece similar to this even though I didn't find any similarity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, even if the two melodies were somewhat similar, still &lt;strong&gt;it is quite likely to be just an accident&lt;/strong&gt;. There is limited (though big) set of possible melodies, and set of melodies used for sacral music is not-as-big. Provided there are some similarities between Jewish sacral music and Gregorian Chant, such occasional similarities are inevitable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such random similarities in music are often exaggerated by conspiracy theorist. In my nation (Czech) vague similarities between our and Irish folk music are often presented as a proof that we are more Celtic than Slavic, but I remember one of the proponents of this theory to admit that he have heard music from Tibet that sounded more similar to some kinds of Czech folk music than Irish music does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3447" LastActivityDate="2013-08-03T14:33:05.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18057" CreationDate="2013-08-03T15:08:29.277" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You get the sense of literal fulfillment by reading the verses before and after. Jesus is not switching back and forth between the two in the chapter when He talks about what will happen in the last days. When Jesus told His disciples that the temple will be torn down (13:1-2), the disciples wanted to know when that would happen, and what the sign will be for it's fulfillment (13:4). In other words, Jesus was talking about a real temple (the one they were looking at, that Herod built), and real, discoverable signs concerning its end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The events in the verses immediately after that are easily discoverable in our literal world and relationships. In verse 14, Jesus starts answering the second part of the disciple's question about signs of the fulfillment. That sign refers to an event mentioned in Daniel 9:27, from which Jesus gets the phrase, &quot;abomination that causes desolation.&quot; Some pretribulation groups claim that this event will take place when an antichrist figure will set himself up as a god to be worshiped (taking their text as 2 Thess. 2:3-4). When the Jews see that literal sign, they are to flee out of Judea, which is surrounded by hilly, mountainous terrain. Read again verses 15-18; Jesus indicates in these verses that the fleeing is literal, and extremely urgent. If you are on your housetop, don't stop to pick up stuff on your way out (v15), if you are in the field, don't stop to pick up your garment (v16); if you are pregnant or care for little ones, it will be hard for you (v17); and &quot;pray that your flight may not be in winter&quot; (v18). All of these details emphasize the literalness of the event in question, of the urgency of fleeing when the sign is seen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The literalism comes to an end in the chapter when Jesus deliberately injects a parable, and says He does so (&quot;Now learn this parable from the fig tree&quot;). Once the brief parable is over, He goes back to using terms that can be understood literally. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some cases of prophecy, they have a near fulfillment and far fulfillment. It is so with this prophecy. In its near fulfillment, the temple was indeed torn down as He said it was, in 70 A.D. by the Roman armies of Titus, and those Jews who fled when they saw the armies surrounding the city (a detail recorded in Luke's version of this chapter of Mark, Luke 21:20-21) escaped to safety, and were spared the grievous horrors suffered by the Jews left behind recorded by Josephus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Abomination of Desolation was not set up at that time. That will be left for a future day, which must take place after another literal temple is built in Jerusalem. After that event, according to the sequence of events in Mark 13:24-27, Jesus will come again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-08-03T15:08:29.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18083" CreationDate="2013-08-03T20:37:11.543" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The EFCA leaves a large part of this to the local congregation. Very much like some of the Baptist denominations that prefer terminology other than a &quot;denomination,&quot; the E-Free congregations are autonomous and able to internally govern themselves mostly as they wish. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am now in a different denomination, but I grew up in a church that moved into the E-Free from the United Church of Christ. When it became part of the E-Free, it maintained its existing leadership structure, which, up until recently, only vaguely referred to elders and deacons at all. Men and women served on both the &quot;Church Council&quot; (deacons in the Baptistic sense) and &quot;Spiritual Council&quot; (quasi-elders). More recently, that church adopted language recommended by other E-Free churches, which prevents new women from being ordained elders, but grandfathered in those already on the Spiritual Council.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will find other E-Free churches that speak in terms reminiscent of the local polity of a Presbyterian church and others still that only have a &quot;deacon board,&quot; much very much like a Baptist church. Again, what role women can serve on these boards will vary, although in my experience those churches coming from the UCC -- and there are quite a few that have transferred in here in the Midwest -- will be more likely to allow women on the boards than churches that were founded as E-Free churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5003" LastActivityDate="2013-08-03T20:37:11.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5633" CreationDate="2013-08-03T21:44:03.493" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I attended Bible school about 10 years ago it was highly associated with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reallifeministries.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this nondenominational church&lt;/a&gt; that could not be described by any other word except evangelical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their &quot;formula&quot; (though they hated using that word) for evangelism was summed up thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Process:&lt;/strong&gt; “Developing disciples through SCMD.” Everything we do at Real Life Ministries revolves around these four purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;S -- We will SHARE Christ with a dying world, making disciples of all nations - 1 Peter 2:9&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;C -- We will CONNECT disciples into a leader directed small group - 2 Timothy 2:2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;M -- In small groups we will train disciples to MINISTER in the church, and in the world - Ephesians 4:11-12&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;D -- We will release those who have been developed to DISCIPLE others - Matthew 28:19 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reallifeministries.com/what-we-believe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their methods for evangelism went far beyond handing out literature. They depended on the whole congregation for evangelism; they take a strong belief in the priesthood of all believers, as most other evangelical churches do, but they did a good job actually convincing the congregation to spread the gospel everywhere in their daily life through the &quot;process&quot; quoted above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The process, as stated above, is deeper than &quot;this is what you should do&quot;. It also defined the maturity of any given christian. I will better explain each part, first from &quot;the process&quot; perspective then from the maturity perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Share - Clearly, the first thing you must do to evangelize the world is actually talk about the good news. You need to share what you know about Christ with those that do not know him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Connect - Those that are convinced, or at least interested, deserve more than an alter call. You personally are to invest in the new believer's life; you are to take personal interest in their spiritual well being. This is what was typically called intentional relationship. Their primary vehicle to facilitate this was small groups of church members that met weekly in somebody's home.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Minister - This is when that intentional relationship comes in handy. This is the step where you train young believers (I mean relatively new to the faith) in the mature wisdom that God has given us. This is where believers who know little about their faith grow spiritually, truly learn what Christianity is, and are educated in the particulars spelled out in the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Disciple - They used to call this &quot;prepare&quot;. After a young believer is successfully ministered, you are to then prime them to go out and &quot;make disciples&quot;. They are to go out and do this exact same process with another unbeliever or young believer. This is where they are trained in the particulars of this process, and they become like the mature Christians that counseled them up to this point.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the maturity perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Share - Typically, new Christians are excited about their new found faith. It is all they think about and are eager to &lt;em&gt;share&lt;/em&gt; it with everyone. That is a good thing, though it is a double edged sword. They have the little basics down about Christianity. They understand the sin state that we are all in and they also understand that Christ is the answer to save us from it. Beyond that, they are simply not spiritually mature enough to actually, effectively &quot;make disciples&quot;. They simply have not been a Christian long enough; they need counsel by more mature Christians.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Connect - Christians in this stage of maturity likely did not intentionally work their way to this point, however, mature Christians likely did intentionally push them to this point. Christians in this stage are quickly learning that our God is a relational God. He desires that we connect with Him, that we love Him. After that, He desires that we connect with fellow believers, that we love them as well.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After a time, when the new Christian has gained experience in being Christian, he has gained maturity, connected with fellow believers, and shifted his thoughts from being about himself to being about others, specifically, the lost and less mature Christians. The Holy Spirit has worked in him and he naturally desires to &quot;shepherd&quot; the Lord's flock. But he is still not quite mature enough yet to understand what exactly he should do. This is the step where the most maturity is gained. This Christian naturally develops the fruits of the Spirit, learning that they are vital to his mission to spread the good news. This is where he truly changes his life; where he removes the proverbial planks from his eyes.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Then after some more time this hypothetical Christian is quite mature. He knows much about God and the Bible and, above all else, wants to please God and show His love to the world. He's ready to get to business! He's ready to intentionally invest his life into another's with the hope that they will know God. He is a disciple of Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;So how does this all relate to your question about bridging the gap between giving a book and actually helping a young Christian in need?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Giving books to those who would benefit from it is only a very small part of evangelism. It is good that you would give books to those persons. What you should do after that is not necessarily an exact thing or method, but it is summed up in one phrase: intentional relationship. For example, you give someone a book. Then what you should do is continuously follow up. More than that you should show them Christ's love by serving them. If serving them spiritually (ie giving them the book) is a closed door, you can help open that door by serving them physically (ie help them with something around their house) or emotionally (ie empathize and sympathize with their condition and help in a way that is meaningful to them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To &quot;fix&quot; any problem at hand for any &quot;poor sinner&quot; starts with you, the mature Christian, intentionally making relationship with that person. Giving the book was &quot;sharing&quot;. Now you must &quot;connect&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;The senior pastor at the church has written a book on this exact thing (available on &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1615215603&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Amazon&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianbook.com/discipleship-building-churches-that-make-disciples/jim-putman/9781615215607/pd/215607&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ChristianBook.com&lt;/a&gt;. I have not read it because it was written after my two semester stint at the Bible school.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-05-21T20:50:05.880" LastActivityDate="2015-05-21T20:50:05.880" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18099" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18120" CreationDate="2013-08-03T22:46:52.607" Score="6" ViewCount="2942" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17890/why-cant-catholicism-just-drop-its-marian-devotion/17977#17977&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; it was stated that the Bible does support Marian devotion, which the Catholics practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke, Mary says &quot;all generations will call me blessed.&quot; I can see how this lends credence to Marian devotion, however, I think it is taking more than is given when you start saying things like &quot;She is the Mediatrix of All Graces! She is the Cause of our Joy! She is the Singular Vessel of Devotion!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is there more to the Marian devotion as given by the Bible? For such devotion that the Catholics give her I would think there should be. Of course, since I am asking Catholics, I would permit using the other Catholic books, if there is something to be found in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps this should be another question, but if answers to the first are not enough in content I would permit how early Church fathers spoke of Mary as support for the Marian devotion. I would like to see if they said anything similar &quot;cause of our Joy&quot; or mediatrix of all graces.&quot; I would prefer writings from as early as possible. I would say later than AD 500 is too late.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2014-10-18T18:03:58.170" Title="What is the biblical and traditional support for the Catholic Marian devotion?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;devotion&gt;&lt;veneration&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18101" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2987" CreationDate="2013-08-04T05:37:46.287" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Basically all that is above is what i felt but moreover,Jesus also addressed the earth not to condemn people-vs6 and vs 8,unless there is something that was meant by Jesus writing on the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5304" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T05:37:46.287" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18103" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="926" CreationDate="2013-08-04T06:50:09.783" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When reading Luke 11:5-8  what comes to mind and in my heart is that as Christians regardless of how we feel we should always serve those in need. To expand on this proverbs 25:21-22 if thine enemy be hungry give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head,and the Lord shall reward thee. (kjv)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5306" LastEditorUserId="5306" LastEditDate="2013-08-04T07:13:01.537" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T07:13:01.537" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18099" CreationDate="2013-08-04T16:35:33.597" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question has been explored by Harald Haarmann in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-53884636.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the peer-reviewed academic journal &lt;em&gt;ReVision&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. You may need subscription to read the whole article. Many libraries have subscription to many academic, peer-reviewed journals, so if you are a member of a library, then you may access the online article or look at the article at the library. Anyway, according to the article, it reports:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Taken as a whole, the biblical narratives in which the mother of Jesus&#xA;  is mentioned do not provide the basis necessary for an explanation of&#xA;  the emergence of Mary's profound veneration of later times, nor do&#xA;  they contain any clue as to the conditions of how the cult of Mary&#xA;  originated. Neither the Scripture nor its later commentaries are of&#xA;  any help for the crucial question of Mary's popularity among the&#xA;  Christians of all times. Even in the Protestant tradition and its&#xA;  various sectarian affiliations, Mary's role is more prominent than one&#xA;  would expect from the marginal literary embedding of the Savior's&#xA;  mother in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article emphasizes that the devotion to Mary lies in popular religiosity, or the piety of the people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;She did not become popular in the way that Jesus became known and was&#xA;  praised, this being evident from the efforts made by the apostles who&#xA;  tried their utmost to persuade the &quot;pagans&quot; of the righteousness of&#xA;  the Christian doctrine. Unlike Jesus, whose spiritual ideas were&#xA;  eloquently mapped out by his disciples and firmly imposed by officials&#xA;  of the early church on the pagan population in the provinces of the&#xA;  Roman Empire, Mary gained in prestige and status gradually, through&#xA;  the devotion of generations of Christian activists. If Jesus was the&#xA;  main character in the academic discourse of the early days, then Mary&#xA;  took the popular role of a caring mother and protectress, and she did&#xA;  not need any apologetic rhetoric.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It provides evidence that the clerical tradition of religious ideas and popular religiosity are two different things, thereby strengthening the idea that the people are attracted to the Blessed Mary as a caring mother and protectress, like other female divinities of the ancient world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mircea Eliade (1978-85) deserves credit for having been the first to&#xA;  emphasize the duality of the clerical tradition of religious ideas and&#xA;  popular religiosity and to elaborate on their different effects in the&#xA;  history of religion. Popular belief does not need literary sources.&#xA;  Instead, it relies heavily on oral and behavioral tradition. Popular&#xA;  religiosity is rooted in the mind, it appeals to emotions and feelings&#xA;  rather than to reason or to the dialectics of abstract logical&#xA;  thinking. Until recently, the history of religion was understood as&#xA;  the history of its institutions, rituals, and prominent figures, as&#xA;  the exegetics of sacred texts and the interpretation of commentaries&#xA;  on them, and as the philosophical reasoning about religious subjects&#xA;  through time. In recent years, archaeology, cultural history, and&#xA;  comparative anthropology have provided much additional data allowing&#xA;  for an assessment of popular religiosity and its intermingling with&#xA;  official religious trends across time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author explores the possible psychological and cultural factors that led to the Marian devotions. In the author's view,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For ordinary people, Christianity, with its male protagonist and its&#xA;  abstract salvation scheme for afterlife, the rescue of the soul, must&#xA;  have appeared to be much less comforting or comfortable than the&#xA;  rituals of immanent response from the gods that they were accustomed&#xA;  to in the world of polytheism. For instance, in the hemisphere of&#xA;  Roman culture, serving the gods was a matter of striking a bargain.&#xA;  The Roman way of religiosity followed the maxim of do ut des, &quot;I give&#xA;  [to you, God,] so that you give [to me].&quot; Obedience and conformity&#xA;  with the wishes of a divinity in rituals that had to be properly&#xA;  carried out were the main guarantors for the worshiper's success in&#xA;  daily affairs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a sense, the devotion of Mary is emotionally comforting, because Christianity is a mutually exclusive religion that forbids the worship of other gods. So, devoting to Mary is like a gap between the old polytheistic way of life and the new monotheistic way of life. It notes that Mary is the &quot;arbitrator of monotheism&quot; of the Christian religion due to devotion to her and making stone images of her. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A person who knows much about the history of monotheism, the field&#xA;  director of the Egypt Exploration Society's excavations at el-Amarna,&#xA;  Akhenaten's former capital, said in a recent pronouncement: &quot;I find it&#xA;  illogical that Christianity should be classed as a monotheistic&#xA;  religion. If I wander around a major European church, seeing it with&#xA;  the eye of an archaeologist, the number and variety of sacred images&#xA;  in stone, wood, brass and stained glass will lead me to reconstruct a&#xA;  very elaborate and many-centered system of belief which includes a&#xA;  Trinity or Triad of divine entities&quot; (Kemp 1989, 263). Those who are&#xA;  conscious of Mary's importance in Christian religion may be inclined&#xA;  to renounce its monotheistic character, while those who prefer to&#xA;  marginalize the female aspect will not. Anyway, the cult of the Virgin&#xA;  Mary will remain on the agenda to crystallize ordinary people's&#xA;  devotion and to inspire scholarly work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-08-04T16:43:56.583" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T16:43:56.583" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18106" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18107" CreationDate="2013-08-04T17:36:55.943" Score="9" ViewCount="3597" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the church government and polity documents (as well as the myriad of meta discussion on the internet) for various Protestant traditions it is common to find either the term &quot;Elder led&quot; or &quot;Elder ruled&quot;. What is the difference between these two terms?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T19:51:58.673" Title="What is the difference between &quot;Elder led&quot; and &quot;Elder ruled&quot;?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;church-polity&gt;&lt;elders&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18106" CreationDate="2013-08-04T17:36:55.943" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most significant difference is in how new Elders come into office.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In an Elder &lt;em&gt;Ruled&lt;/em&gt; church, existing ordained elders have the responsibility of finding or training equipped leadership and appointing them to office in the local church.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In an Elder &lt;em&gt;Led&lt;/em&gt; church, the appointed Elder board may exercise spiritual oversight over the body but ultimately also serves at the pleasure of that body. The current Eldership may bring a recommendation for new appointments, but it is the congregations responsibility to elect them to the board.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latter concept is actually a variant on congregationalism, in which the final say in major matters (e.g calling a pastor, changing the budget) is put in the hands of the whole church by means of a vote, usually having heard a recommendation from the Elders. On the other hand the Elder board is given authority to handle smaller issues without consulting the congregation. Examples of Elder Led Congregationalism are most &quot;community&quot; churches, many Evangelical churches (including most of the EFCA).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand Elder Rule tends to be found in in traditions with more ecclesiastical structure, especially Presbyterianism and most Reformed churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Bonus: Notably for being absent from my examples above is the Baptist tradition. While &quot;traditionally&quot; most Baptist denominations employ some form of Elder Led Congregationalism, there is also a wide enough variety in what this means and how it is implemented to make them hard to broadly categorize. In recent history, many churches with otherwise baptist doctrine have adopted a much less congregationalist and much more Elder Rule system.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-08-04T19:51:58.673" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T19:51:58.673" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7383" CreationDate="2013-08-04T17:45:19.640" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Certainly Angels would exist even today, as well have the same authority God has intended for them. No your likely not going to notice them and if u think u do u may consider it the possibility u just saw a demon. Demons would hope to allude you from the truth and in doing so will attempt to taint the faith in regard to what u believe rather than attempt to discredit it altogether. Just because you have a Guardian Angel doesn't make you exempt from bad things. If it did we wouldn't need prayer. This is how God answers our prayers many times by sending our angels to intervene when truly necessary. And remember that just because a Guardian Angel is appointed to you that I you have no faith then you also receive very little of any assistance. However, should someone else pray for you it exists the great possibility that the unfaithful may be influenced by their Guardian Angel. Interesting topic and wondrous to think about. When you pray to God please don't discount these facts and watch miracles happen in your life as they continue to happen in mine. Simply put, a prayer answered in any form is a miracle of intervention by our Heavenly Father who really does care when we need him. Not so much to the frivolous requests. Think about your prayer before you make the request so it is meaningful and not in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5310" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T17:45:19.640" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1794" CreationDate="2013-08-04T23:25:17.147" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Honoring and Obeying the parents depends upon the context. If parents are cruel and disobeys God, then &quot;Honoring and Obeying Parents&quot; cannot be applied on that context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me give examples from the Bible. Ahaz was a King who did extremely evil in the sight of God (2 Kings 16, 2 Chronicles 25).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ahaz's son Hezekiah became King after the death of his father Ahaz. He did exactly the opposite of what his father Ahaz did. He was righteous in front of God (2 Chronicles 29-31). We even read this in 2 Kings 18:5 (NIV) - &quot;Hezekiah trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Amon was a King who did evil in the sight of God (2 Chronicles 33:21-25). After the death of Amon, his son Josiah became King. Josiah did exactly the opposite of his father Amon. Josiah did what was right in front of God (2 Chronicles 34).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The children also have the right to punish their parents and grandparents if they do evil in the sight of God. Let me give an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Kings 15:9-12 (NIV) - &quot;In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Asa became king of Judah, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty-one years. His grandmother’s name was Maakah daughter of Abishalom. &lt;strong&gt;Asa did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as his father David had done. He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his ancestors had made. He even deposed his grandmother Maakah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive image for the worship of Asherah. Asa cut it down and burned it in the Kidron Valley.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2013-08-04T23:25:17.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18114" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16450" CreationDate="2013-08-05T02:43:13.790" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You did not ask, &quot;What is the meaning of 'the grave'?&quot; or &quot;What is Hades?&quot;, so I won't answer those questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simple answer: the difference between &quot;the grave&quot; and &quot;Hades&quot; depends on what translation of the Bible you are reading. In the NIV, there is usually no difference between &quot;the grave&quot; and &quot;Hades&quot;. It seems that the NIV mostly uses &quot;the grave&quot; in the Old Testament, and mostly Hades in the New Testament; in both testaments, it often uses &quot;the realm of the dead&quot;, but these three refer to the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NIV regularly translates the Hebrew word &lt;em&gt;sheol&lt;/em&gt; as &quot;the grave&quot;.&#xA;Here's a page that lists all NIV translations of the Hebrew &lt;em&gt;sheol&lt;/em&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7585&amp;amp;t=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7585&amp;amp;t=NIV&lt;/a&gt; (click the links for &quot;Continued Search Results&quot; for more results). In contrast, the NIV normally transliterates the Greek word &lt;em&gt;hades&lt;/em&gt; as &quot;Hades&quot;, though it sometimes renders it as &quot;the realm of the dead&quot;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&amp;amp;t=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&amp;amp;t=NIV&lt;/a&gt;. However, these two words are the same, as is seen in the fact that the Septuagint translates &lt;em&gt;sheol&lt;/em&gt; as &lt;em&gt;hades&lt;/em&gt;. (The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the New Testament normally quotes from.) As I mentioned, in both testaments it often renders either word as &quot;the realm of the dead&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the verses that you quoted, please note that in the NIV, &quot;the grave&quot; is different from just &quot;grave&quot; or &quot;graves&quot;. In particular, &quot;the grave&quot; as a translation of Sheol/Hades seems to occur only in the Old Testament; in the New Testament, the NIV mostly uses Hades. &quot;Graves&quot; in John 5:28-29 is from a completely different Greek word (&lt;em&gt;mnēmeion&lt;/em&gt;), which is often translated as &quot;tomb&quot;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3419&amp;amp;t=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3419&amp;amp;t=NIV&lt;/a&gt;. It should be understood as grave or tomb in the literal, physical sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A side note: if you want to do word studies like this, I recommend that you not use the NIV. Although it is quite readable, it is very inconsistent and often inaccurate. Rather, I recommend more literal yet highly readable translations like the Recovery Version and the New King James Version. I say this from my personal experience. My first five years as a Christian I used the NIV almost exclusively, but the more I got into word studies with interlinear Bibles and Greek and Hebrew, the more I realized how inaccurate and inconsistent the NIV was. I eventually dropped it completely. (And the TNIV which came later is in fact much worse than the original NIV.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5276" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T02:43:13.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18115" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5476" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:00:14.907" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. Am astounded that someone who is spiritual evolved and very learned, such as Bishop Fulton Sheen, would believe that Jesus is STILL hanging on that cross! (Just listened to a presentation on youtube.com where he said this.) If Jesus is still hanging on that cross, then EASTER never happened!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is NOT still hanging on that cross, except in artistic depictions, whose purpose is apparently to REMIND US of the enormous sacrifice that Jesus/God made on our behalf. Jesus went to heaven, where He sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5315" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T03:00:14.907" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17845" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:20:20.570" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since other answers respond well to your question, I will add only one point here. If you don't care about modernized English, then there is one important difference that few people tend to note. &lt;strong&gt;The KJV has one superiority over every single modern translation I've ever seen (including the NKJV): it correctly uses &quot;thees&quot; and &quot;thous&quot; to reflect the singular versus plural &quot;you&quot; in English.&lt;/strong&gt; Thus, if you want to read an English translation and instantly know, &quot;Is the 'you' here singular or plural?&quot; then look at the KJV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Thou&lt;/em&gt; means singular you as a subject, e.g. Thou, my friend, readest my response.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Thee&lt;/em&gt; means singular you as an object, e.g. I give my response to thee, my friend.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ye&lt;/em&gt; means plural you as a subject, e.g. Ye, my friends, doth read my response.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;You&lt;/em&gt; means plural you as an object, e.g. I give my response to you, my friends.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Yes, it is counterintuitive that &lt;em&gt;thou&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;ye&lt;/em&gt; are paired as subject pronouns, whereas &lt;em&gt;thee&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; are paired as object pronouns. But who ever said KJV English was easy?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, the KJV is the only common English translation to maintain these distinctions, distinctions that exist in the Hebrew and Greek texts. Note that several 19th and 20th-century translations use &quot;Thee&quot; and &quot;Thou&quot; to refer respectfully to God. There is no basis for this religious practice in the Hebrew and Greek texts--they have no special pronouns for addressing deity. Such usages introduce inaccuracy into Bible translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to directly answer your question, you should probably get both the NKJV (an excellent modern translation based on the Byzantine Majority Text that corrects many errors of the KJV) and the KJV (the only common English translation that reflects singular and plural &quot;you&quot;, and also probably the most poetic English translation ever written).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5276" LastEditorUserId="5276" LastEditDate="2017-08-27T21:00:49.890" LastActivityDate="2017-08-27T21:00:49.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2118" CreationDate="2013-08-05T07:03:01.717" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my understanding, there are no degrees of sin according to God. Romans 3:23 states &quot;For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.&quot; While there is the &quot;unforgivable sin&quot; which is blaspheming the Holy Spirit, that is out right refusing that God exists and saying He cannot save you. Therefore, yes one would probably suffer in Hell (I say probably because I am not God and cannot pass judgement on anyone). God judges us according to our sin, however as a Christian we are taught that everyone is made new in Christ. Therefore, when we stand before, yes we are guilty of sin, but God makes us new, and therefore sinless in our new lives. From what I have understood, with my flawed broken human knowledge, it is that not all sin leads to death because those who believe in Christ and accept Him as their Savior, will not die, but live again. Yes everyone dies. But it is whether our spirits live with Christ in Heaven or burn in Hell that is the difference between life and death. I noticed though some pointing to the verses about not pointing out a speck in the eye of your brother before removing the plank in your own. That is not referring to the degree of sin you committed, but rather saying who are you to judge the sin your brother has committed when you sin as well. We cannot judge each others sins, we are not righteous to be able to call someone out and say &quot;hey you're sinning.&quot; But that is just my understanding. One thing I do caution against is that it is very easy for us as human beings with limited knowledge to shape what the Bible says to go along with what we want to believe. While God may or may not have different degrees of sin, all sin separates us from God. I will use just one hypothetical example. Murder, in society, is considered unforgivable. And it is a sin. We are not to kill another human being. Rape, while still considered a very horrible thing to do, is not given the same weight in punishment in society as murder, particularly if the victim was &quot;asking for it&quot; or considered someone who is  already quite sexually active. But rape kills a person inside. It makes them question their value, not only to themselves but to society as well. And when society puts different degrees of punishment on rape cases, particularly judging on whether or not the person &quot;asked for it,&quot; the victim feels like less of a human being. But in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin. Every sin we commit makes God sad, as He longs for us to turn to Him and know Him. We will all have to answer for every sin we have ever committed. Whether it be lying, stealing, cheating, adultery, idolatry, or whatever sin we have committed. The difference is whether or not we have asked for forgiveness for our transgressions and are truly repentant for what we have done. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5317" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T07:03:01.717" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18059" CreationDate="2013-08-05T07:07:55.953" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hope the following does indeed contribute to the answer....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul writes that an elder must be above reproach, blameless, the husband of one wife, manage his own family well etc from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus.&#xA;A divorce is seen as causing serious question marks on these things for the man who has gone through such a tragedy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the qualifications from Paul are not &quot;&lt;em&gt;ought to haves&lt;/em&gt;&quot; but &quot;&lt;em&gt;must haves&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, then it has been the case in many Protestant denominations, that a divorce will disqualify a man from continuing to hold public office in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It in no way condemns the divorced people to not being christians any more, if there is repentance, but it does preclude a man from continuing in the office even if he is the innocent party.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's how it works in the circles I have seen....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for those circles that &lt;strong&gt;do&lt;/strong&gt; allow Pastors to re-enter the teaching office, it is generally because of arguments like &quot;Who are we to judge? If a man is innocent then it should not disqualify him. If he has repented then we should bring him back and welcome him as a brother.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Such reasoning though is contra the first set of principles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="5197" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T02:15:56.473" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T02:15:56.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18120" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18099" CreationDate="2013-08-05T07:15:16.127" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Below are some links for a comprehensive &quot;Bible study&quot; about the doctrines and devotions of Catholic Marian theology. They also include many passages from the writings of early Church Fathers. I also highly recommend reading &quot;Hail, Holy Queen&quot; written by Dr. Scott Hahn.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first 6 links establish a foundation for the Catholic doctrines pertaining to the veneration of Mary from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of scripture passages that impliclty/explicitly pertain to “devotion:” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Kings 2:19 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 2:7 - Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf, and responds to His mother's request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.&#xA;Matt. 2:11 - Luke emphasizes Jesus is with Mary His Mother, and the magi fall down before both of them, worshiping Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:28 - &quot;Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.&quot; These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God). Thus, when Catholics recite this verse while praying the Rosary, they are uttering the words of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase &quot;full of grace&quot; is translated from the Greek word &quot;kecharitomene.&quot; This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just &quot;highly favored.&quot; She has been perfected in grace by God. &quot;Full of grace&quot; is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:38 - Mary's fiat is &quot;let it be done to me according to thy word.&quot; Mary is the perfect model of faith in God, and is worthy of our veneration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:42 - &quot;Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.&quot; The phrase &quot;blessed are you among women&quot; really means &quot;you are most blessed of all women.&quot; A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone). We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth's use of &quot;Mother of my Lord&quot; (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used &quot;Adonai&quot; which means Lord God) is the equivalent of &quot;Holy Mary, Mother of God&quot; which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus' Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus' human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:44 - Mary's voice causes John the Baptist to leap for joy in Elizabeth's womb. Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples of devotion to Mary from  Church Fathers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger,[O you] alone pure and alone blessed.&quot; Sub Tuum Praesidium, From Rylands Papyrus, Egypt (3rd century).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground.&quot; Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain?&quot; Epiphanius, Panarion, 30:31 (ante A.D. 403).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Hail, our desirable gladness; Hail, O rejoicing of the Churches; Hail, O name that breathes out sweetness; Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace; Hail, most venerable memory…&quot; Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily 4:3 (ante A.D. 446).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-I&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-I&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080400.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080400.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080300.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080300.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/key2mary.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/key2mary.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next 6 links are simply compilations of writings from the Church Fathers addressing official Catholic teaching.  The 3rd link down specifically pertains to early Marian devotion, which specifically addresses the question of what the “pre-medieval” Church Fathers taught about devotion to Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.&quot; &#xA;Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin,71:216(ante AD 373),in MCF,106 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Hail to thee Mary, Mother of God, to whom in towns and villages and in island were founded churches of true believers&quot;&#xA;Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11(ante AD 444),in CE&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;O Virgin all holy, he who has said of you all that is honorable and glorious has not sinned against the truth, but remains unequal to your merit. Look down upon us from above and be propitious to us. Lead us in peace and having brought us without shame to the throne of judgment, grant us a place at the right hand of your Son, that we may borne off to heaven and sing with angels to the uncreated, consubstantial Trinity&quot;&#xA;Basil of Seleucia, PG 85:452(ante AD 459),in THEO,187&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, because thou didst conceive Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer of our souls&quot;&#xA;Coptic Ostraca (AD 600),in CE  (early form of the Rosary)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone who has attended a Melkite Catholic Divine Liturgy (considered the highest form of prayer in Catholicism) has heard the liturgy that was formulated St. John Chrysostom and has been celebrated in the East since the late 300’s.&#xA;The liturgy is saturated with the utmost devotion to The Blessed Virgin Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the entrance prayers and  1rst 2 antiphons the following prayer is offered to God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deacon:&#xA;          Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady,&#xA;          the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us&#xA;          commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ&#xA;          our God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/DILITSJC.TXT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/DILITSJC.TXT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most devoted Church Fathers is St. Augustine.  He is known for composing one of the most beautiful prayers to Mary in the Church (among many other great works):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prayer of Saint Augustine to the Blessed Virgin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;O blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay thee thy just dues of praise and thanksgiving, thou who by the wondrous assent of thy will didst rescue a fallen world? What songs of praise can our weak human nature recite in thy honor, since it is by thy intervention alone that it has found the way to restoration. Accept, then, such poor thanks as we have here to offer, though they be unequal to thy merits; and receiving our vows, obtain by thy prayers the remission of our offenses. Carry thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience, and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation. May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become pardonable through thee; may what we ask for with sure confidence, through thee be granted. &lt;em&gt;Take our offering, grant us our requests, obtain pardon for what we fear, for thou art the sole hope of sinners. Through thee we hope for the remission of our sins, and in thee, O blessed Lady, is our hope of reward. Holy Mary, succour the miserable, help the fainthearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for thy people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God; may all who keep thy holy commemoration feel now thy help and protection&lt;/em&gt;. Be thou ever ready to assist us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it thy continual care to pray for the people of God, thou who, blessed by God, didst merit to bear the Redeemer of the world, who liveth and reigneth, world without end. Amen. (emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/qt/Augustine_BWM.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/qt/Augustine_BWM.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/assumed.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/assumed.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/immac.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/immac.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary_dev.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary_dev.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/theotok.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/theotok.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/venerate.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/venerate.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/category/apologetics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/category/apologetics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also,the early reformers had a faithful devotion to Mary, and are perhaps good references for understanding Mary's place in salvation history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;St. Paul says ‘God sent his Son born of a woman, These words which I hold for true, really sustain quite firmly that Mary is the Mother of God.&quot; -Martin Luther (Martin Luther’s Works, vol 7, page 592)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph, and had more children after that.&quot; -Martin Luther (That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, 1523, LW, Vol. 45, page199)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.&quot; -John Calvin {Harmony of Matthew, Mark &amp;amp; Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, page 215; on Matthew 13:55}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/fr94101.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/fr94101.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics venerate Mary by keeping the commandment to &quot;honor thy Father and thy Mother.  Christians are the adopted sons and daughters of God.  Jesus honored his Earthly mother perfectly.  Catholics just follow in Christ's footsteps through the Biblically based Tradition of venerating Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T21:23:50.187" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T21:23:50.187" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17815" CreationDate="2013-08-05T07:25:13.467" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I appreciate how uncontroversially this question was asked. Personally, I know that homosexuality is a sin. However, one of the things the Bible tells us we are not to judge one another. Who are we to judge when we are not free from sin ourselves. In a modern time especially we cannot kill someone for being homosexual. That would be a hate crime, and illegal. The Bible warns us against homosexuality. It tells us that it is a sin, and punishable by God. However, Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:39 that the second most important commandment is to &quot;love your neighbor as yourself.&quot; So this is what affects my interpretation. While homosexuality is a sin, it is not any different from the sin that we have all committed and continue to commit. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves and most of us would not kill ourselves or even punish ourselves, so why would we do that to our neighbors. We are to love everyone, regardless of their sin. When the time comes they, just like ourselves, will have to answer to God for their sins. Until that day, let them live in peace. We cannot pass judgement on them because of their sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5317" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T07:25:13.467" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17647" CreationDate="2013-08-05T07:38:01.067" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;While books were expensive to print and therefore not easily available to the common citizen, most people also couldn't read. Only the wealthy could afford for their child/children to attend school. Bibles were also only available in Latin, which unless you went to school, and were able to read and understand Latin, one had no chance of making heads or tails of what the Bible said. The Bible was available but the common people could neither afford nor read the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5317" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T07:38:01.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18123" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18131" CreationDate="2013-08-05T11:52:59.220" Score="4" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;Among those who have a conviction that the Bible frowns on same-sex sexual activity, there is nonetheless a diversity of opinion on issues like whether there is an unchosen orientation, and whether Scripture calls folks with the orientation to achieve a &quot;re-wiring&quot; through some sort of therapy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The organization Exodus Ministries recently received attention in the news for changing its approach to reparative / re-orientation therapies.  Once an advocate of &quot;pray away the gay,&quot; the founder of Exodus Ministries has now publically said that reparative therapy does not change orientation and apologized for the &quot;trauma&quot; inflicted on those who tried to seek re-orientation through it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: Does this mean that there were any changes in their consensus on the theology of orientation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-05T19:21:59.890" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T19:21:59.890" Title="Does Exodus Ministries' about-face on &quot;pray away the gay&quot; signal a theological change?" Tags="&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18126" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18168" CreationDate="2013-08-05T15:26:07.003" Score="4" ViewCount="1975" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is Jeremiah 31:31-34 interpreted by Catholic Christians to point toward Jesus? How and why has Christianity fused together the idea of a Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, or messiah, with the concept of something that God will do? Is the verse really pointing to a prophecy that will be fulfilled by a מָשִׁיחַ, or are Christians just vulnerable to the hindsight bias?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please give the answer in English!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day&#xA;  I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that&#xA;  they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the&#xA;  Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel&#xA;  after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst&#xA;  and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and&#xA;  they shall be My people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his&#xA;  brother, saying, &quot;Know the Lord,&quot; for they shall all know Me from&#xA;  their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive&#xA;  their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;לֹא כַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת אֲבוֹתָם בְּיוֹם הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם&#xA;  לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי&#xA;  וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי&#xA;  הַיָּמִים הָהֵם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה נָתַתִּי אֶת תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם וְעַל&#xA;  לִבָּם אֶכְתֳּבֶנָּה וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה יִהְיוּ לִי&#xA;  לְעָם:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;וְלֹא יְלַמְּדוּ עוֹד אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו לֵאמֹר&#xA;  דְּעוּ אֶת יְהֹוָה כִּי כוּלָּם יֵדְעוּ אוֹתִי לְמִקְּטַנָּם וְעַד&#xA;  גְּדוֹלָם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה כִּי אֶסְלַח לַעֲו‍ֹנָם וּלְחַטָּאתָם לֹא&#xA;  אֶזְכָּר עוֹד:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-- Jeremiah 31:31-33, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16028&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chabad.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T16:49:06.927" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T03:45:58.567" Title="Why is Jeremiah 31:31-34 interpreted by Catholic Christians to point toward Jesus?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18128" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-05T16:47:32.660" Score="4" ViewCount="272" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1812/69&quot;&gt;Based&lt;/a&gt; on a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/11471/69&quot;&gt;variety&lt;/a&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6557/69&quot;&gt;previous&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/17680/69&quot;&gt;questions&lt;/a&gt;, it seems that specific authorship of many parts of the Bible are not known for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example (though I realize there are &lt;em&gt;traditions&lt;/em&gt; of who wrote what):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ruth&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Esther&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hebrews&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Question(s):&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is specific authorship considered important (eg the on-going scholarly debates over who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews)?&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Is it important?&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;When is it important?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;note - I am not looking for direct answers to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/canon&quot;&gt;canonicity&lt;/a&gt;, but for whether specific authorship is important&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T13:06:46.380" Title="Does specific authorship of a given book of the Bible &quot;matter&quot;?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;authority&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-08-06T13:45:49.993" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14226" CreationDate="2013-08-05T18:36:57.120" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see the two questions below as being your main concerns. I am no theologian either, but I will give my best ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How is it that if Christ is the last Adam and is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world that we still speak in terms of particular redemption and also limits as to who the atonement covers?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In answering this, I refer you to God's foreknowledge and his right as creator to have those whom he elects and those whom he rejects. This flies in the face of man's sense of justice, but we must understanding that God's justice rules. We cannot conceive God's nature. He does not live in time. He knows all things, past, present and future and all three elements of time are his &quot;present.&quot; He not only made vessels of honor, He made vessels of dishonor. Why, is something we cannot comprehend. Even so, the elect have freedom of action, to express or not express their love and faithfulness to the Creator, God. Nothing can shake them out of His fold. Good works are not part of salvation, but can be evidence of election. God greatly desires expressions of love and obedience to His Word. The atonement was sufficient for the whole world but was only efficient for the elect, as the previous writer stated.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2.God's justice was satisfied in Christ, and now he's also executing his justice on those in hell. How can this be justice, then? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, God is just, man is not. How could man's understanding of justice stand in the face of an omnipotent God. God is God. You could take your argument to the level of saying that the whole atonement was unjust because a perfect man/God (Jesus) should not have been required to suffer such humiliation as death on a cross. Why would a just God require this? Why would He even require animal sacrifice before Christ's death? This is where we simply have to accept, by faith, that God is perfect and we are not. We do not understand many things when it comes to God and will only become clearer when we are with Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5324" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T18:36:57.120" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18123" CreationDate="2013-08-05T19:12:19.653" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exodus International, and its founder, Alan Chambers, recently made news by very publicly changing its methodology of helping to change homosexual orientations. Once derisively called &amp;quot;pray away the gay,&amp;quot; Exodus' insistence that homosexual orientation can be changed through prayer has been abandoned.  Futhermore, on June 19, 2013,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/exodus-international-to-shut-down/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus International willingly ceased all operations&lt;/a&gt;.  This caused a situation in which Chambers said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also strange to be an outcast from powerful portions of both the gay community and the Christian community.  Because I do not completely agree with the vocal majorities in either group and am forging a new place of peaceful service in and through both, I will likely continue to be an outsider to some degree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his apology letter &lt;a href=&quot;http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/exodus-international-to-shut-down/www.exodusinternational.org/apology&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, Alan Chambers writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then there is the trauma that I have caused. There were several years that I conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions. I was afraid to share them as readily and easily as I do today. They brought me tremendous shame and I hid them in the hopes they would go away. Looking back, it seems so odd that I thought I could do something to make them stop. Today, however, I accept these feelings as parts of my life that will likely always be there. The days of feeling shame over being human in that way are long over, and I feel free simply accepting myself as my wife and family does. As my friends do. As God does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is apologizing for not for doctrine, but implementation. He apologizes for what he considers to be an ommission, not a doctrine.  He explictly states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More than anything, I am sorry that so many have interpreted this religious rejection by Christians as God’s rejection.  I am profoundly sorry that many have walked away from their faith and that some have chosen to end their lives. For the rest of my life I will proclaim nothing but the whole truth of the Gospel, one of grace, mercy and open invitation to all to enter into an inseverable relationship with almighty God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them.&lt;/strong&gt;  I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In making this very public about face, he is clear that he writes this out of a desire for radical alignment with Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My desire is to completely align with Christ, his Good News for all and his offer of peace amidst the storms of life. My wife Leslie and my beliefs center around grace, the finished work of Christ on the cross and his offer of eternal relationship to any and all that believe. Our beliefs do not center on “sin” because “sin” isn’t at the center of our faith. Our journey hasn’t been about denying the power of Christ to do anything – obviously he is God and can do anything&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, he saying, &amp;quot;I was wrong about the how, not the what.&amp;quot;  As such, this is clearly &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; theological change, but rather a tactical one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T19:12:19.653" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14226" CreationDate="2013-08-05T19:39:00.463" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both versions of the atonement here considered are limited -- Calvinists limit it in scope (or recipients), while non-Calvinists limit it in power (or efficacy). It's not a matter of &lt;em&gt;whether&lt;/em&gt; it is limited, but rather &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; it is limited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the scriptures, Christ was spoken of as the last Adam, a title&#xA;  which confers universality (in the same way that the first Adam did).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that a valid inference from the title? One way to think of it is in terms of the &quot;tree of salvation&quot; imagery in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011:1-24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 11:1-24&lt;/a&gt;. God had a chosen people, a subset of humanity, and Gentiles were added into that tree, while some of the natural branches were broken off and excluded from the tree. Only those in the tree are saved. Note here how the scope is explicitly limited. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, I don't think universality is properly applied to Christ in this way. There is an analogy to Adam, but not an identical role in every respect. He is the federal head or representative only those who belong to him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 10&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;em&gt;locus classicus&lt;/em&gt; for the Calvinist view of the atonement, though there are others).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T19:29:52.320" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T19:29:52.320" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2351" CreationDate="2013-08-05T19:54:47.943" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading in the Apocrypha and found something referring to the first estate in 1 Adam and Eve.  This book was likely written around the 5th or 6th century AD and was first translated into English in 1882.&#xA;1 Adam and Eve 5:7 &quot;But the wicked Satan who continued not in his first estate, nor kept his faith; in whom was no good intent towards Me, and who though I had created him, yet set Me at naught, and sought the Godhead, so that I hurled him down from heaven,--he it is who made the tree appear pleasant in your eyes, until you ate of it, by hearkening to him.&#xA;1 Adam and Eve 55:7-15 gives more details and is worth reading if you have the time to look it up.  It is similar to Revelations 12.  Satan and his followers were hurled down to Earth and are executing a backup plan.  This is to make war against the righteous, to tempt and deceive man.&#xA;Revelations 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5325" LastActivityDate="2013-08-05T19:54:47.943" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18138" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T04:43:27.573" Score="11" ViewCount="13588" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some traditions state that Jesus visited India between the ages of 12 and 33, in order to study and learn. What evidence is there that he did or did not visit India?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5330" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-14T19:09:02.637" LastActivityDate="2016-08-19T22:28:50.580" Title="Did Jesus visit India?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;christianity-in-india&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18138" CreationDate="2013-08-06T06:06:45.897" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was called Rabbi (&lt;em&gt;Teacher of the Law of Moses&lt;/em&gt;) by the Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 3:1-2 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night&#xA;  and said, “&lt;strong&gt;Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from&#xA;  God&lt;/strong&gt;. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were&#xA;  not with him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be called a Rabbi, one must be very expert in Torah. People spend their entire life learning the Torah. It is vast and complicated. Jesus was very expert in Torah and no one at that time could argue with Him. Jesus always quoted from the Old Testament, I can't list them all here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus was expert in Torah, it means that He spent his 12-30 years learning the Torah, if Jesus needed to learn something. Torah was available only in the hands of Jews, not in India. But I doubt that Jesus needed to learn because He is the Word of God himself, He is the creator of all things, His wisdom is far beyond our reach. He didn't have to learn from His own creation. Instead, He came to teach us about God, He came to lead us to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the world map, India is very far away from Israel and there is no direct sea route. If Jesus needed to learn something more apart from the Torah, He could have gone to Greece to learn from the great philosophers and mathematicians out there. Greece was much closer and could be reached by sea voyage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of Jesus replying from the Torah when a man asked about inheriting eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 18:18-22 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit&#xA;  eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is&#xA;  good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not&#xA;  commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall&#xA;  not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”&#xA;  “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. When Jesus heard&#xA;  this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you&#xA;  have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then&#xA;  come, follow me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not explain the man about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara&quot;&gt;Samsara (endless rebirth)&lt;/a&gt; and how to attain &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha&quot;&gt;Moksha (liberation from endless rebirth)&lt;/a&gt;, instead, Jesus told the man to sell everything and follow Him because there is eternal life in Him (John 3:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T06:06:45.897" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18138" CreationDate="2013-08-06T06:18:31.387" Score="44" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Where was Jesus from his age 12 to 33?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From age 12 to 30 he was in Nazareth. And from age 30 to 33 he was in and around Jerusalem. Where else? And no, he was not in India.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Why does scripture not mention this period in Jesus' life?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because scriptures are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; biographies of Christ. Their intention and purpose was different. They wanted to record the story of salvation. And from a Christian perspective, by divine providence, the hidden life of Christ (age 12 to 30) is not necessary for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;India as a hub of knowledge&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If assuming that Jesus &lt;em&gt;traveled&lt;/em&gt; to gain knowledge, rather than India, a more convenient and feasible destination would be Rome. Rome was connected by road to Jerusalem and by extension to Nazareth too. Think about the dangers of crossing all those countries to reach India. Also, India was not a single country at that time. A host of kingdoms ruled over India in those days. (All of this is under the assumption of ignoring Jerusalem, which was the center for Jewish studies, and the assumption that Jesus &lt;em&gt;needed&lt;/em&gt; to travel to gain knowledge, which he never preached about or talked about in his later years.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Other problems with this hypothesis&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other problems in this hypothesis. Some of them are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is absolutely no concrete evidence. Absolutely none!! Those people who claim that he went to India say that there are scrolls hidden deep in some monastery. But that is not evidence. It is just fables. Anyone could claim anything like this. These are not mentioned in any reliable sources, nor can they be verified at all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Being a devout Jew, Jesus would not have studied in a polytheistic religion. If he had, at least it should have been reflected in his teaching, which it is not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We know from his public life that just like every other devout Jew, Jesus made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem every year. The last recorded event of Jesus' childhood was a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. From this we can reasonably assume that he made the pilgrimage during his hidden life too. Even a single trip to and from India that time would be extremely dangerous and difficult no matter what the means of transportation. Also, the trip would be very costly, and Jesus' family was poor.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was known in his community as a carpenter, since it was a Jewish tradition for young boys to learn their father's trade. His parables were even influenced by his job. He told of building a house on a rock as opposed to sand (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A24-27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:24-27&lt;/a&gt;). This is a great indication that Jesus has spent his adolescent years in his own community.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are numerous passages in the Bible stating that people recognized him and refused to believe in him because he was just a carpenter and they knew him too well to accept him. This implies that Jesus was very well known in his community, which would not have been possible if he had been in India for most of his life. (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Matthew%202%3A23%3B%2013%3A54-56%3B%20Luke%202%3A51-52%3B%204%3A22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 2:23; 13:54-56; Luke 2:51-52; 4:22&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why did Jesus not talk about India to his disciples? None of the early records mention such a journey. The Jewish leaders did not like Jesus. So when they condemned him, they would certainly have said that he had learned heretical things in a foreign land. They knew who he was, and the people knew who he was. So this &lt;em&gt;going to India&lt;/em&gt; hypothesis does not hold water.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a similar theory called the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Swoon hypothesis&lt;/a&gt;, which claims that Jesus went to India &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; his death but before the ascension. Covering this would be beyond the scope of the question, but Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining the problems with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2016-08-19T22:28:50.580" LastActivityDate="2016-08-19T22:28:50.580" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18138" CreationDate="2013-08-06T06:45:24.717" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no biblical support or any evidence that Jesus left the land of His birth at any time, leave aside the speculation that He was in India before beginning His ministry in Israel. From the time when Jesus lived, it is unreasonable to expect to have each and every details account of any person, like we can have it today on any medium. Of the four Gospel accounts, only two mention the birth of Jesus (Matthew and Luke), and only one (Luke) mentions anything about Jesus' life prior to His beginning His three-year ministry in Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the Bible doesn't explicitly say this, it is implied from the following passage in the Gospel of Luke that Jesus grew up in Nazareth with His family until it was time to begin His ministry:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 4:16,22-24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was His custom. And he stood up to read.... All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from His lips. ‘Isn't this Joseph's son?’ they asked. Jesus said to them, ‘Surely you will quote this proverb to me: “Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.&amp;quot; I tell you the truth,’ he continued, ‘no prophet is accepted in his hometown’”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that Luke says that Jesus was &amp;quot;brought up&amp;quot; in Nazareth, and he also mentions twice that Nazareth was Jesus' hometown. Furthermore, the people in the synagogue knew Jesus and knew that he was Joseph's son. All of this leads to the conclusion that Jesus lived in relative obscurity in Nazareth until His baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite this fairly clear account, there are those who want to fill in the gaps in Jesus' life with extraordinary tales of adventure and mystery. Their ultimate source is the father of lies, Satan (John 8:44). As he did in the beginning, so he is doing now. At the baptism of Jesus, a voice from heaven proclaimed,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt.3:17 “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus of Nazareth was declared by God the Father to be His one and only Son. All of these conspiracy theories attempt to divert us from God's declaration that Jesus was His Son. They do so by downplaying or denying outright the deity of Jesus Christ. By denying His divinity, they reduce Jesus to just another rabbi, prophet, sage or wise man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Jesus went to India prior to His three-year ministry, then one would expect there to be a distinct Indian flavour to His teaching. However, Jesus' displays vast knowledge of the Torah. Jesus quotes the Hebrew Scriptures all throughout His earthly ministry to the point of correcting even the learned scholars of His day. His teaching style was consistent with the Jewish itinerant teachers of His day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if we assume for the argument sake that He came to India and studied some things about India then one would wonder why he ignored and not mentioned any Indian names while mentioning all the prophets of one true God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T07:38:18.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18143" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T07:42:47.207" Score="7" ViewCount="544" Body="&lt;p&gt;My observation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is portrayed, worshiped and promoted in his state on the cross: suffering, crucified, having wounds. I don't see what sense this makes. This seems like a form of sadism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is he not portrayed healthy? Why aren't his good deeds before the last supper remembered instead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5332" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-30T23:02:22.657" LastActivityDate="2017-07-06T13:58:16.667" Title="Why is Jesus portrayed and remembered in a state of suffering?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;art&gt;&lt;crucifix&gt;&lt;suffering-servant&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18145" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18151" CreationDate="2013-08-06T12:10:02.467" Score="8" ViewCount="1769" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic I believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and given the authority to teach infallibly on the topics of faith and morals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that many Protestants believe that individual Christians have the grace to interpret the Bible for themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those who believe this, how do you understand major differences in the beliefs between various Protestant denominations?  If any sincere believer who has &quot;been saved&quot; is able to read and properly interpret the Bible through the work of the Holy Spirit, why so many fundamental differences in belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, there seems to be wide disagreement on the necessity of baptism for salvation.  Some believe it to be the method of conferring sanctifying grace on the recipient, some believe it is merely symbolic, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5323" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T12:15:42.283" LastActivityDate="2016-03-05T04:52:16.750" Title="How do Protestants understand major differences in doctrine between denominations?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18145" CreationDate="2013-08-06T12:29:54.403" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The biggest issue that divides most Protestants isn't theology or Scripture, but rather church governance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the most radical end of the spectrum, Mennonites, Baptists, and other Anabaptists believe there is authority ceded to any priest beyond that which the local congregation gives it.  As such, they have no bishops or eccelesicatical authority - Baptists have &quot;conventions&quot; i.e. meetings were churches will voluntary associate, but that's it. Indeed even the famous &quot;Southern Baptist Convention&quot; only technically exists for three days  year. If these groups want to hire or fire a pastor, for example, they place an ad in the paper to get a new one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, Methodists have Bishops and dicoeses, and a person who (at least in theory) can reassign priests amongst churches at his will and discretion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presbyterians and Lutherans have Synods which can make binding rulings on their own members.  There are competing synods which have come down on certain issues (e.g. the PCUSA tends to take more liberal stances on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and social issues, whereas the PCA is a much more evangelical, conservative &quot;bible-based&quot; one) but neither would suggest the other is &quot;clearly going to hell&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, of course, you have the Episcopalians, who are basically Catholics in everything but the Pope.  They may stress their independence from Rome, but if you attend an Episcopal service, as a Catholic, you'll feel very much at home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it would be an error to say there are no doctrinal differences - Methodists are Arminian (meaning they believe that a person must &lt;em&gt;choose&lt;/em&gt; to be saved) whereas Presbyeterians are Calvinstic (and believe that God already elected those whom He presdestined to saved.)  Alternatively, Baptists would say that the communion elements are strictly symbolic, whereas a Lutheran might argue consubstantiation or transubstantion- but candidly, these are all minor issues for most modern day Protestants. When compared to &quot;You are going to hell if you aren't saved by Jesus Christ,&quot;  these things appear to most Protestants as minor points of mechanism - not life and death issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Primarily, Protestant identity stems from a reliance on personal interpretation of Scripture (and hence a rejection of Papal infallibaility, no matter how awesome Francis might be), and a stress on what a Protestant would probably call &quot;orthodoxy&quot; over against sacrementalism.  But again, even these differences can be seen as outgrowths of a rejection of governance, moreso than theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is Lord? Check&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saved By Grace? Check&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trinitarian? Hypostatic Union? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSfa56tjBQo&quot;&gt;Jesus is Way Cool&lt;/a&gt;, Dude?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check, Check, and Check.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, understand that &quot;personal interpretation&quot; does gloss over a lot.  Contracts are written to be as precise as possible, specifically to avoid differences of opinion over what a thing &quot;means.&quot; To ask, &quot;why should personal interpretation lead to differences?&quot; is almost silly one regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, think not of doctrine, but of politics.  Even a simple statement like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Congress shall make no rule regarding the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;can have radically different interpretations.  Is a student-led prayer coercion? Or is stopping that valedictorian prohibiting his free exercise thereof?  What about people who think that drugs are part of a spiritual experience?  That's why we have a Court - to officially interpret what those words mean - in the same way you have a Pope.  That said, we also have people with strong opinions that guide that decision making.  Is a Court less messy than the alternative? Sure.  But last time I checked, nobody thought they were infalliable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, no American is saying we should have Sharia Law.  Fundamentally, we can agree on the main points - that Jesus is Lord, that we are saved by Him, the Creeds, etc..., and still differ on shades of meaning and certain use cases.  That's really all that divides us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T12:43:08.277" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T12:43:08.277" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18147" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T12:55:04.173" Score="4" ViewCount="827" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 21&lt;/a&gt; we learn that following the resurrection Christians will inhabit a restored Earth called &quot;The New Earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What biblical evidence exists that this is the final destination for humanity and not simply part of an &quot;infinite finale&quot; series of events in which there are cycles of history similar to the ones that we are currently experiencing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T15:29:58.747" LastActivityDate="2014-05-01T06:46:56.223" Title="Is there biblical evidence that the New Earth is our final destination?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;new-earth&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18128" CreationDate="2013-08-06T13:06:46.380" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Author means the person who wrote a book, put pen to paper and signed his name to the work. As far as books of the original &quot;bible:&quot; what has been found are only copies of books. Some have been signed by the copier - a few early copies have been dated - and we can discover something about who authorized the copy. But as we have found no original writings, we cannot know who might have been the originator of the text we do have. Since we cannot know who was the author, this topic is not important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if you want to know who wrote the translations of the Bible &lt;em&gt;as we have them in our various Bibles,&lt;/em&gt; that's another topic, and worth discussing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T13:06:46.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9352" CreationDate="2013-08-06T13:32:09.253" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The parable is a story form used to convey spiritual truth to those listeners who had “ears to hear”. Others were mystified by the parable. The Master explained the parables to The Twelve, and they passed the explanations on to their disciples. Nothing was written in the Gospels in order to stop Gnostics, and Docetists using these explanations to draw people away from the emerging Christian religion. The explanations were instead held in the memories of the “messengers” who “kept” Jesus words safe from heretics.  [Messenger = Greek “Apostlos” . Apostles were the “&lt;em&gt;messengers of the Gospel of Jesus.&lt;/em&gt;”]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once the emerging Church solidified their position c. 325, the Bishops felt it safe to offer an understanding of the parables to their clergy. Recently translated into English (from Latin), we can read their understanding and check our inspirations (from hearing the parable with the spirit,) against their writings to make sure that we are on the right track.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the Parable of The good Samaritan Luke 10:25 - 37, KJV.&#xA;The Lawyer's question is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted&#xA;him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit ‘eternal life’?&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;The story The Master told includes the answer. But this answer is not obvious from the text, and most readers miss it entirely because their spirit is far from God - they are mostly criticizing the behavior of the two clergy, and their heart is far from love for them. Neither do they understand the role of the priest and the levite in the story - the metaphorical meaning. And many have no idea of the relationship between the Samaritan and The Master. Most non-religious think this is a story about being kind towards strangers, but this is far from the spiritual meaning. The meaning was first for the Jewish lawyer about his making a choice regarding salvation and eternal life. And the spiritual realization about who was his neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic teachers (mostly Bishops) understand the story. Some have written commentary on this parable. The Church Fathers taught the meaning. Cardinal Ratzinger taught about the parable and wrote about it. All of them agree on the metaphorical nature of the story, what it is really about, and who the key players represent. The understanding since the 3rd. cent. has been consistent among the Fathers. It is the Spirit that provides this consistency. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T17:08:51.587" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T17:08:51.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18145" CreationDate="2013-08-06T14:04:29.517" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the First Vatican Council (1869), the Catholic Church defined the doctrine of papal infallibility.  The Church certainly believed in papal infallibility long before that, but there was some disagreement over the specifics.  At that council, the long-held belief was codified as, itself, an infallible teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm&quot;&gt;First Vatican Council - Section 4, Chapter 4, Part 9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of papal infallibility was one of the primary things against which Martin Luther fought.  At the Diet of Worms, when he was questioned on the infallibility of the Pope, he stated, &quot;I deny that he is above scripture.&quot;  He argued that since Jesus rebuked Peter, Peter must have been fallible, and since Peter was fallible, it logically follows that all of his successors would be fallible too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther, and other reformers, did not believe that the Pope was &lt;em&gt;the wrong person&lt;/em&gt; to be considered infallible.  Rather, they believed that &lt;em&gt;no person&lt;/em&gt;, not even Peter, was infallible (save Jesus, of course).  Protestant churches do not believe that their church, leaders, or anyone else is infallible.  They typically believe that only the scriptures (&lt;em&gt;sola scriptura&lt;/em&gt;), in the form of its original writing, is actually inspired and infallible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not only admissible, but even expected, among Protestants, that different people will come to different conclusions about the meaning of the scriptures, because, as they believe, we are all fallible people.  It is expected that good-people will disagree for many reasons.  Depending on which ancient manuscripts you are using, which translation of those original languages you are reading, which hermeneutical approach you are using to interpret its meaning, and the theological framework to which you are pinning your understanding, there are many possible ways to &quot;properly&quot; interpret the same passage.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having so many theological differences does not contradict Protestant teaching.  On the contrary, it confirms their teaching of the fallibility of all people.  In Protestant circles, truthfulness of doctrine is not judged by who stated it, but rather by what methods they used in arriving at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T15:15:57.700" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T15:15:57.700" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18153" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T16:41:47.380" Score="4" ViewCount="1039" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 'The Great Divorce' a character asks, destraught, why she was born and a spirit replies, &quot;for infinite joy!&quot;&#xA;Is that what CS Lewis thought the meaning of life was? Ultimate joy? Is there any other thing he said to back up this idea of what he thought? It would seem odd if such a clever, philosophical man (in my opinion) ignored the BIG 'meaning of life' question entirely!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T18:01:35.280" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T18:15:05.677" Title="Did CS Lewis see 'pleasure' as being the purpose of our existence?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;belief&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18154" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18155" CreationDate="2013-08-06T16:45:54.970" Score="7" ViewCount="3181" Body="&lt;p&gt;I teach Sunday School at an evangelical congregation that is essentially nondenominational, but has various, historical ties to the Church of the Brethren and or one of the smaller Baptist denominations.  The pastor has generally given me free reign to come up with my own material: I send him my slides after the fact as a courtesy and to allow him to offer any correction or guidance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have learned in this forum that not all Christian groups have a catechism in the same way that Lutherans do.  My question is, do the Southern Baptists, American Baptist Association, or any other Baptist association have a common book that is relied on for instruction of youth in a similar way that Lutherans would have Luther's &lt;em&gt;Small Catechism&lt;/em&gt;?  If no, is there any standard of doctrine-- even a book of systematic theology, or works of a theological hero like Charles Spurgeon-- that &lt;strong&gt;is trusted&lt;/strong&gt; for doctrinal clarification beyond the bible?  If such a thing exists for &quot;nondenominational evangelicals&quot; and not Baptists, that's even better.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T16:52:24.417" LastActivityDate="2017-11-22T19:15:03.350" Title="What is closest thing Baptists have to a catechism?" Tags="&lt;baptist&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;&lt;catechism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18155" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18154" CreationDate="2013-08-06T16:50:47.250" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In fact, Baptists do have a catchecism.  As John Piper writes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-baptist-catechism-with-commentary-from-john-piper&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Written in 1677, &quot;The Baptist Catechism&quot; was patterned after the Heidelberg and Westminster catechisms to teach Reformed doctrine from a Baptist perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem isn't the existence, but rather how many Baptists are willing to &quot;cede my author-ITAY&quot; (imagine your best Cartman voice) and use it...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, if a Baptist is going to trust anybody, John Piper is a pretty good modern bet, and the 1677 Heidleberg &amp;amp; Westminster Confessions, from which Piper draws all his source material, is about as good as one can get.  As far as being &quot;trusted&quot; then, it definitely suits the bill.  Again, your primary problem in declaring &quot;a&quot; Baptist anything, however, is that there is a native distrust of anything that exists outside of the local congregation, hence the waffling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, John Piper has very solid evangelical credentials, so its applicability to &quot;nondenominational&quot; churches should be a good bet.  As just two data points (and with evangelicals that's about as good as your going to get), I was turned on to Piper by Mike Minter, the pastor of Reston Bible Church (approximately 4000 in regular attendance) and have heard similar endorsements from Lon Solomon, pastor of McLean Bible Church, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermoncentral.com/articleb.asp?article=top-100-largest-churches&quot;&gt;17th largest church in the United States&lt;/a&gt;.  Both of these should qualify.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-06T17:01:29.163" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T17:01:29.163" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18147" CreationDate="2013-08-06T17:26:26.163" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Bible Is &lt;em&gt;Sufficient Truth&lt;/em&gt; but not &lt;em&gt;Exhaustive Truth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible reveals sufficient truth about &lt;em&gt;who we are&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;who God is&lt;/em&gt; but does not reveal  exhaustive truth about everything we want to know. The Bible has sufficient truth to know about salvation that God prepared for us and how to live our life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; All Scripture is God-breathed and is &lt;strong&gt;useful for&lt;/strong&gt; teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;for every good work&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not everything is revealed to us. Not everything is recorded in the Bible. The Bible is not designed to contain every information about the past, the present or the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 21:25 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of&#xA;  them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not&#xA;  have room for the books that would be written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, the Bible does not reveal everything about Heaven or what the future holds. Even the hour when Jesus Christ will return is concealed from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The New Earth simply happened to be the last thing that the Bible recorded&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;New Earth&lt;/em&gt; is certainly the last thing that the Bible mentioned regarding the destination of the chosen ones. This does not necessarily mean that it is the end of everything. There is also no evidence that it is not the end either. It is simply the last thing recorded in the Bible and there is nothing more to it. The Bible does not record any information about &lt;em&gt;cycles of history&lt;/em&gt; unlike Hinduism which has &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a cycle of four ages&lt;/a&gt;. What ever is not revealed to us, I believe we should not bother pondering about it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-08-31T17:52:39.950" LastActivityDate="2013-08-31T17:52:39.950" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18158" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18159" CreationDate="2013-08-06T17:36:51.290" Score="10" ViewCount="7309" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it true that Luther removed James, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament? If this is true then what were his reasons for doing so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-21T05:22:45.637" LastActivityDate="2015-05-31T00:24:21.040" Title="Did Martin Luther ever remove books from the New Testament canon?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-08-14T04:54:46.617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18158" CreationDate="2013-08-06T17:42:25.210" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther disliked James, in particular, for its emphasis on works.  He called it his &quot;epistle of straw.&quot;  That said, there is simply not a mechanism for removing anything from the canon in Christian circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, of Revelation, Luther said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel.&quot;( Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald &amp;amp; H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (398). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. ) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, he didn't like, but again recognized his own inability to edit the canon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The canon is simply the consensus on what is best.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8446/1039&quot;&gt;The marks of canonicity&lt;/a&gt; are settled, insofaras there is basically consensus.  (Okay, there is a question about those 7 books between Protestants and Catholics, but it is a very, very minor point)  Indeed, if Luther were to publish &quot;his canon&quot; at best he could only have said, &quot;this is Luther's canon.&quot; And &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4474/why-was-martin-luther-attempting-to-change-the-canon/4476#4476&quot;&gt;there is evidence he wished he could&lt;/a&gt;, but again, he couldn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no doubt that Luther preached very rarely on these books - but he simply did not have the standing to &quot;remove&quot; them from the canon.  It would be like one person saying, &quot;Harry Potter is not on the best sellers list.&quot;  He might think it shouldn't have been, but he simply doesn't have the standing to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there is a deragatory term &quot;canon within the canon,&quot; which refers to a person's favorite books within the canon - the ones he or she may elevate over others.  That Luther suredly had. His canon within the canon was Paul's epistles - but that doesn't mean he could downgrade the status of the others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2014-07-20T12:59:35.437" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18161" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18153" CreationDate="2013-08-06T18:08:33.103" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&amp;gt; NO! For Lewis, Pleasure is temporary, Joy reminds us of what is to come&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First and foremost, I should admit that if the canon ever gets re-opened, &lt;em&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/em&gt; is my vote for book #67.  :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, C.S. Lewis has a very definite idea in mind when he says &amp;quot;Infinite Joy&amp;quot;.  In &lt;em&gt;The Weight of Glory&lt;/em&gt; he writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrast this with mere &amp;quot;pleasure&amp;quot; when Lewis writes in Chapter 9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Then is no one lost through the undignified vices, Sir? Through mere sensuality?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Some are, no doubt. The sensualist, I'll allow ye, begins by pursuing a real pleasure, though a small one. His sin is the less. But the time comes on when, though the pleasure becomes less and less and the craving fiercer and fiercer, and though he knows that joy can never come that way, yet he prefers to joy the mere fondling of unappeasable lust and would not have it taken from him. He'd fight to the death to keep it. He'd like well to be able to scratch: but even when he can scratch no more he'd rather itch than not.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joy is the end - the purpose - of what God designed us to be.  He sees joy as an &amp;quot;echo of heaven&amp;quot; which &amp;quot;works its way backwards into our memories.&amp;quot;  In other words, it is a reminder of the things that are to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As he says in &lt;em&gt;The Weight of Glory&lt;/em&gt; (again):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things—the beauty, the memory of our own past—are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea - that joy is an echo of heaven is more thoroughly developed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leaderu.com/marshill/mhr08/hall1.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, and is often referred to as Sehnsucht.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T18:15:05.677" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18163" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-06T20:01:36.070" Score="0" ViewCount="517" Body="&lt;p&gt;Considering the prominence of the works of popular authors like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and prominent theologians like Augustine and others in various Christian circles. Is there Biblical support for basing your beliefs on those who've come before?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Said another way, what different perspectives are there among notable Christian groups regarding the use of non-Biblical works for informing beliefs, and what Biblical support do they give for their perspective?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5337" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-08-22T16:29:36.877" LastActivityDate="2015-07-26T14:59:14.833" Title="Is there Biblical support for Christians basing their beliefs on extra biblical texts?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;extra-biblical&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5504" CreationDate="2013-08-06T20:05:24.327" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mormons believe that that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. At the same time He is the first spirit child of our Heavenly Father. Our spirits are also spirit children of our Heavenly Father according to Mormon doctrine. Therefore, we are all children of our Heavenly Father in the spirit (Heb 12:9). In this sense we are all brother and sisters and Jesus is our elder brother in the spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mormons believe that the universe and everything in it has an eternal existence and everything has been created from something. (The universe didn't just pop up out of nothing.) Therefore the creation is rather a question of organization. This also applies to our spirits and the spirit of Jesus. In this sense, Jesus is eternal and the spirits of mankind are also eternal. We all have been created from spiritual matter which is in LDS terms sometimes referred to as &lt;em&gt;intelligence&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus plays the special role of being the only begotten Son, He inherited some traits from our Father in Heaven, such as power over death and knowing all things (as is evident from the new testament). Before He came to this earth and received a mortal body, Jesus existed in a premortal existence as everyone of us did. In this premortal existance He created the earth and the rest of the universe under the direction of God, the Eternal Father. Jesus Christ is considered the Jehova of the Old Testament by latter-day saints. In many (most) instances, it is Jesus acting in proxy for our Heavenly Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father are distinct being with different roles but with the same goal and purpose which is the eternal wellfare of the souls of mankind. The role of our Heavenly Father is He is the Eternal Parent of our spirits, that He is the director of all things (though delegating many things to His Only Begotten). The role of Jesus is that of a mediator who atoned for the sins of mankind to blot our all our transgressions against the law of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a good &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzE6QFj6maQ&quot;&gt;talk by an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints about this topic here.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5336" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T20:05:24.327" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18165" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18167" CreationDate="2013-08-06T20:15:37.060" Score="8" ViewCount="281" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the LDS Church believes that everyone existed in the spirit world prior to their conception in the womb in the physical world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What specifically, though, does the pre-existence consist of?  As I recall, there is opportunity to live well and to live poorly in the pre-existence, and that has impact in this world.  What, then, does the LDS Church teach about this pre-existence, what it's like, and what tests a person must pass?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="24557" LastEditDate="2015-12-14T19:10:20.453" LastActivityDate="2015-12-14T19:10:20.453" Title="What does the LDS church teach about what men and women did or do in the pre-existence?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18167" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18165" CreationDate="2013-08-06T22:49:08.540" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Family: A Proclamation to the World&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped&#xA;  God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His&#xA;  children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to&#xA;  progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny&#xA;  as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family&#xA;  relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances&#xA;  and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for&#xA;  individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be&#xA;  united eternally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, the pre-existence (perhaps more correctly &quot;pre-mortality&quot; since the doctrine is we did, in fact, exist -- though I've seen the term used all over the place and I'm not sure why) consisted of all of God's children living in His presence. We were all taught the plan of salvation, or God's plan for us to come to earth, gain a body, and progress and be like Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We learned about agency (the power to choose), which we had before we came here. This included the choice to even come to earth and gain a body, which was God's plan. Those who rejected it followed Lucifer and were damned (stopped in their progression).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both the Bible and certain LDS scriptures refer to those who chose to follow God in the pre-mortal life (and, to use your words, &quot;passed the test&quot;) as those who &quot;kept their first estate&quot; (e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/jude/1.6?lang=eng#5&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jude 1:6&lt;/a&gt;; see also Isaiah 14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In mortality here on Earth, we do not remember our pre-mortal life. The Bible refers to this as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/13.12?lang=eng#11&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;seeing &quot;through a glass, darkly&quot;&lt;/a&gt; -- or, in more common lingo, being separated by the veil. There will be death and resurrection, through which we will remember all things again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer a comment, there is no doctrine of reincarnation in LDS theology. Birth to earth (that rhymes) was a one-time event, and after death we will be &lt;em&gt;resurrected&lt;/em&gt; but not reincarnated. The whole process of mortality is a one-time process for each of us and mortality is not repeated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS Topical Guide to the Scriptures has &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-antemortal-existence-of?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a very helpful index for scriptures related to pre-mortal existence&lt;/a&gt;, many of which come right out of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[ &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/plan-of-salvation/we-lived-with-god?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Further reading&lt;/a&gt; ]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T20:51:47.467" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T20:51:47.467" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18126" CreationDate="2013-08-06T23:52:56.107" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verses of Jeremiah 31:31–34 appear in seven paragraphs in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;, of which six (quoted below) are directly relevant. In all of these, Christ the Messiah is the bringer of the New Covenant, which is to be written on the hearts of his people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is entirely Biblical. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes the passage verbatim in &lt;a href=&quot;http://jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/119heb.html#8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapter 8&lt;/a&gt;, and then in &lt;a href=&quot;http://jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/119heb.html#9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapter 9&lt;/a&gt; describes the differences between the High Priest of the Old Covenant and the High Priest of the New, concluding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. [Heb 9:15 RSVCE]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only is the Jeremiah prophecy pointing to a prophecy which will be fulfilled by a Messiah, it points to the Messiah fulfilling the prophecy by providing the New Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;64 Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one's being, where the person decides for or against God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;580 In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but &amp;quot;upon the heart&amp;quot; of the Servant who becomes &amp;quot;a covenant to the people&amp;quot;, because he will &amp;quot;faithfully bring forth justice&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;715 The prophetic texts that directly concern the sending of the Holy Spirit are oracles by which God speaks to the heart of his people in the language of the promise, with the accents of &amp;quot;love and fidelity.&amp;quot; St. Peter will proclaim their fulfillment on the morning of Pentecost. According to these promises, at the &amp;quot;end time&amp;quot; the Lord's Spirit will renew the hearts of men, engraving a new law in them. He will gather and reconcile the scattered and divided peoples; he will transform the first creation, and God will dwell there with men in peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;762 But the prophets accuse Israel of breaking the covenant and behaving like a prostitute. They announce a new and eternal covenant. &amp;quot;Christ instituted this New Covenant.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: &amp;quot;I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[The seventh is paragraph 2713, about contemplative prayer.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-06T23:52:56.107" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17972" CreationDate="2013-08-07T00:10:47.673" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first source for the history of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist is obviously the account of the Last Supper in the New Testament. It was because Our Lord told us to do what He had done, in memory of Him, that Christian liturgies exist. Despite the  differences in the various Eucharistic liturgies they all obey His command to do &quot;this,&quot; namely what He Himself had done. A definite pattern for the celebration of the Eucharist had developed within decades of the death of Our Lord, a pattern which was carried on well past the conclusion of the 1st century, and which can still be discerned clearly in the finalized Roman Mass of 1570.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest and most detailed account of the Eucharist is found in St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, which, of course, predates the Gospels, and was written in Ephesus between 52-55 A.D. Scholars agree that the Consecration formula used by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, quotes verbatim from a stylized formula already in use in the Apostolic liturgy. St. Paul's account reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,&#xA;  that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took&#xA;  bread, and giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: This is&#xA;  My Body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the&#xA;  commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after He had&#xA;  supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in My Blood: this do&#xA;  ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as&#xA;  often as you shall eat this Bread, and drink the Chalice, you shall&#xA;  show the death of the Lord, until He come.&#xA;        Therefore whosoever shall eat this Bread, or drink the Chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood&#xA;  of the Lord.&quot; [1 Cor: 11: 23-27].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the first century or so after St. Paul's description of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist there can be found written fragmented accounts of how the early liturgical celebrations developed.    Most of these accounts are the testimonial fruits of of religious intolerance and/or persecution.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One account comes from Pliny (C. Plinius Caecilius, c. 62-113).  About the years 111-113 he writes as the young governor of Bithynia to his master, the Emperor Trajan, to ask about what he should do to Christians. He describes what he has learned about them from Christians who had apostatized under torture. Referring to his apostate informers, he recounts what the apostates revealed about Christian worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“They assert that this is the whole of their fault or error, that they&#xA;  were accustomed on a certain day to meet together before daybreak and&#xA;  to sing a hymn alternately to Christ as a god, and that they bound&#xA;  themselves by an oath (sacramento) not to do any crime, but only not&#xA;  to commit theft nor robbery nor adultery, not to break their word nor&#xA;  to refuse to give up a deposit. When they had done this, it was their&#xA;  custom to depart, but to meet again to eat food - ordinary and&#xA;  harmless food however.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest account of a finalized liturgy is given to us by St. Justin Martyr (100–165). In his apologetic account of Christian life to the Roman hierarchy he describes the Christian liturgy of the Early Church in his First Apology (ca. 150) (Chapter 65):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has&#xA;  assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are&#xA;  called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty&#xA;  prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for&#xA;  all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we&#xA;  have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens&#xA;  and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an&#xA;  everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another&#xA;  with a kiss. There is then brought to the president (i.e. presiding&#xA;  Presbyter) of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water;&#xA;  and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the&#xA;  universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and&#xA;  offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to&#xA;  receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the&#xA;  prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent&#xA;  by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to&#xA;  γένοιτο (so be it). And when the president has given thanks, and all&#xA;  the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us&#xA;  deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine&#xA;  mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to&#xA;  those who are absent they carry away a portion.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist has has somewhat changed extrinsically since the Last Supper, its basic components and movements have remained very similar to the liturgy described above in Justin Martyr’s apologetic account – especially in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.  The current ordinary form of the Latin Mass is synonymous to his liturgy in almost every aspect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2014-03-04T00:05:26.763" LastActivityDate="2014-03-04T00:05:26.763" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="847" CreationDate="2013-08-07T01:09:01.463" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The commandement to multiply and subdue the earth was not given to Adam and Eve. In Genesis 1:28 as you noted this commandment was given before/on the 6th day. This means the commandment was given to spirit beings male and female and not to flesh beings not yet created from dust at that time. What Adam and Eve got was a curse and not a blessing, sweat for male to get food and pain for women at child birth. The further curses was not to eat from the tree of life and that women's desire was for man. They were in no position to receive such a command blessing for what they did did not warrant blessings. You cannot surely bless someone for disobeying you. In Malachi God said take your lame offerings to your gorvernors and see if they will be pleased with you. Therefoe since God does not change He was not pleased in any way with disobedience. For listening and odience please God Job 36:11. As for Noah and Abraham I agree with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other measure to know whether someone is going to heaven or not, will leave in prosperity or poverty or have seen God is whether they completely adapt and adopt equal rights and that no emphasis is put on curses as the Yoke and curse was broken by Christ on the cross. Isiah 10:27 God fulfilled his promise. All spirit male and female was equal at creation without curse. ceteris peri bus at creation before the 7th day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will be happy to hear from you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5342" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T01:09:01.463" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18143" CreationDate="2013-08-07T01:56:15.343" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics portray, worship, and promote Jesus in all of His states of being, actions, words, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A strong emphasis is placed on his suffering and death on a cross because it was in this act that He atoned for the sins of all humanity.  This is the single most important thing He did because without it, we have no hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm&quot;&gt;Paragraph 623&lt;/a&gt; of the Catholic Catechism states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By his loving obedience to the Father, &quot;unto death, even death on a cross&quot; (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will &quot;make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities&quot; (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be highly mistaken to think that Catholics only focus on the suffering of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that in rising from the dead He confirms who he is and the work that He accomplished by His death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p2.htm&quot;&gt;Paragraph 651&lt;/a&gt; of the Catechism states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.&quot;521 The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure with a little investigation, many examples can be found of Catholic images, prayers, etc. the are devoted to the healthy, happy, resurrected, glorious, etc. natures of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5323" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T01:56:15.343" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18043" CreationDate="2013-08-07T03:02:57.303" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This answer addresses the question according to the perspective of the Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all the word Trinity does not exist in the Bible.&#xA;Second, the Trinity is an invention in the third century in Nicene Creed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;QUICK FACTS:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;“The Nicene Creed is actually not the product of the First Council of Nicea (325) . . . but of the First Council of Constantinople (381),” says The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History.&#xA;“The Council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for [the yet future Trinity] doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same substance . . . as the Father.’”—Encyclopædia Britannica.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201308/trinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Should You Believe in the Trinity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Athanasian Creed mentions : &quot;the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.&quot; In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Blessed Trinity&lt;/a&gt; - Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SCRIPTURES&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus is not God, he has a God:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;“To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus has a beginning while God has not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;“These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the    creation of God.”—Revelation 3:14.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;He[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all    creation.&quot; _ Colossians 1:15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus is not co-equal to God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;“I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the    head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” _ 1&#xA;  Cor. 11:3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;“‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But    when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it&#xA;  is    plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all&#xA;  things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  everything to every one.” _ 1 Cor. 15:27, 28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they    know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast&#xA;  sent.”    (John 17:1-3). [Think: who is Jesus praying to?]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Holy Spirit is not a person&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source for below information: &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989240&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Was Jesus Christ a real, historical person?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989276&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does John 1:1 prove that Jesus is God?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:1,  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with&#xA;  God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what&#xA;  God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the·os′ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*What did the apostle John mean when he wrote John 1:1? Did he mean that Jesus is himself God or perhaps that Jesus is one God with the Father? In the same chapter, Joh 1 verse 18, John wrote: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“No one [“no man,” KJ, Dy] has ever seen God; the only Son [“the&#xA;  only-begotten god,” NW], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has&#xA;  made him known.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(RS) Had any human seen Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously not. Toward the end of his Gospel, John summarized matters, saying: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, [not God, but] the Son of God.”—John 20:31, RS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what&#xA;  Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus’ own quotation&#xA;  from the Psalms in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as&#xA;  “gods.” (John 10:34, 35, RS; Ps. 82:1-6) Of course, Christ occupies a&#xA;  position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his&#xA;  position in relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (NW) Jesus is referred&#xA;  to as “the only-begotten god.” (See also Ro, By.) Isaiah 9:6 (RS) also&#xA;  prophetically describes Jesus as “Mighty God,” but not as the Almighty&#xA;  God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus’ being described as “a god,”&#xA;  or “divine,” at John 1:1 (NW, AT). The context helps us to draw the&#xA;  right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus’ death, Thomas had&#xA;  heard Jesus’ prayer in which he addressed his Father as “the only true&#xA;  God.” (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus’ resurrection Jesus had sent a&#xA;  message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: “I am&#xA;  ascending . . . to my God and your God.” (John 20:17, RS) After&#xA;  recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the&#xA;  resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: “These are written that&#xA;  you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that&#xA;  believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31, RS) So, if&#xA;  anyone has concluded from Thomas’ exclamation that Jesus is himself&#xA;  “the only true God” or that Jesus is a Trinitarian “God the Son,” he&#xA;  needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (Joh 20 vs. 17) and at&#xA;  the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (Joh 20 vs.&#xA;  31).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do the miracles performed by Jesus prove that he is God?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 10:34, 38, RS: “Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘ . . . God&#xA;  anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; . . .&#xA;  he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the&#xA;  devil, for God was with him.’” (So Peter did not conclude from the&#xA;  miracles that he observed that Jesus was God but, rather, that God was&#xA;  with Jesus. Compare Matthew 16:16, 17.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is Jehovah in the “Old Testament” Jesus Christ in the “New Testament”?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ps. 110:1: “The utterance of Jehovah to my [David’s] Lord is: ‘Sit at&#xA;  my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’”&#xA;  (At Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus explained that he himself was David’s&#xA;  “Lord,” referred to in this psalm. So Jesus is not Jehovah but is the&#xA;  one to whom Jehovah’s words were here directed.) Phil. 2:9-11: “For&#xA;  this very reason also God exalted him [Jesus Christ] to a superior&#xA;  position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,&#xA;  so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven&#xA;  and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should&#xA;  openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the&#xA;  Father. [Dy reads: “ . . . every tongue should confess that the Lord&#xA;  Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.” Kx and CC read&#xA;  similarly, but a footnote in Kx acknowledges: “ . . . the Greek is&#xA;  perhaps more naturally rendered ‘to the glory,’” and NAB and JB render&#xA;  it that way.]” (Notice that Jesus Christ is here shown to be different&#xA;  from God the Father and subject to Him.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the meaning of John 5:18?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 5:18, RS: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him,&#xA;  because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father,&#xA;  making himself equal with God.” It was the unbelieving Jews who&#xA;  reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by&#xA;  claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his&#xA;  Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straightforwardly&#xA;  answered the Jews: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing&#xA;  of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” (John&#xA;  5:19, RS; see also John 14:28; John 10:36.) It was those unbelieving&#xA;  Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were&#xA;  wrong also about that. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared:&#xA;  “It is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”—Matt. 12:10-12, RS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Texts in which the plural form of nouns is applied to God in the Hebrew Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At Genesis 1:1 the title “God” is translated from ’Elo·him′, which is&#xA;  plural in Hebrew. Trinitarians construe this to be an indication of&#xA;  the Trinity. They also explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to imply the unity of&#xA;  members of the Trinity when it says, “The LORD our God [from&#xA;  ’Elo·him′] is one LORD.” The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is&#xA;  the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition,&#xA;  Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol.&#xA;  V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a&#xA;  godhead. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to&#xA;  the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo·him′ is used; the&#xA;  accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the&#xA;  one god. At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the “lord”&#xA;  (’adho·neh′, the plural of excellence) of Egypt. The Greek language&#xA;  does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’ So, at Genesis 1:1&#xA;  the translators of LXX used ho The·os′ (God, singular) as the&#xA;  equivalent of ’Elo·him′. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is&#xA;  reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho&#xA;  The·os′ is similarly used. At Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew text&#xA;  contains the Tetragrammaton twice, and so should more properly read:&#xA;  “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (NW) The nation of Israel, to whom&#xA;  that was stated, did not believe in the Trinity. The Babylonians and&#xA;  the Egyptians worshiped triads of gods, but it was made clear to&#xA;  Israel that Jehovah is different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:7, 8:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;KJ reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,&#xA;  the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are&#xA;  three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the&#xA;  blood: and these three agree in one.” (Dy also includes this&#xA;  Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words “in&#xA;  heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are&#xA;  one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (RS, NE, TEV,&#xA;  JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.) Regarding this&#xA;  Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need&#xA;  not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were&#xA;  not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin&#xA;  copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a&#xA;  pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept&#xA;  into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed&#xA;  Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain&#xA;  Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883,&#xA;  third ed.), p. 654.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 10:30:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were&#xA;  equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus&#xA;  prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he&#xA;  added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same&#xA;  Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’&#xA;  disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to&#xA;  share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort&#xA;  of oneness that unites God and Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus was a Jew by birth, he was instructed to follow this same command. After his baptism, when tempted by the Devil, he said: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” (Matthew 4:10; Deuteronomy 6:13) We can learn at least two things from this incident. First, Satan was trying to entice Jesus to worship someone other than Jehovah, an attempt that would have been absurd if Jesus were part of the same God. Second, Jesus made it clear that there is just one God who must be worshiped when he said “him alone,” not “us,” which he would have said if he were part of a Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CONCLUSION&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the Bible teaches about God and Jesus is clear and simple. It is not difficult to understand. Neither the word “Trinity” nor the concept is found in God’s Word. The Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ is God’s firstborn Son. (Colossians 1:15) It also points to Jesus as being the “mediator between God and men.” (1 Timothy 2:5) About the Father, the Bible says: “You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”—Psalm 83:18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:32:&#xA;  He will be great and will be called the Son (huios) of the Most High.&#xA;  The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5343" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-01-23T04:58:25.757" LastActivityDate="2017-01-23T04:58:25.757" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18173" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-07T04:05:04.883" Score="3" ViewCount="1228" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul says in Romans that we should 'Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone'. (Romans 12:17. NIV). However, I would certainly not characterize Paul as being 'politically correct' by any stretch of the imagination.  It made me wonder they sound like the same thing, so how is doing 'what is right in the eyes of everyone' so different from being 'politically correct'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T10:13:27.953" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T11:07:35.963" Title="How is doing 'what is right in the eyes of everyone' different from being 'politically correct'?" Tags="&lt;ethics&gt;&lt;romans&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15710" CreationDate="2013-08-07T07:44:19.457" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The pope has several roles, which coincide nowadays but which St. Peter seems to have acquired at different times. Popes are (1) bishops of Rome, (2) vicars of Christ, (3) heads of the college of bishops (and perhaps additional roles that I'm not thinking of right now). There is some indication that St. Peter had role (3) already before Christ's ascension, in that Christ had promised to make him the rock on which the church is built, and that other apostles showed St. Peter a certain deference.  (St. John arrived at Christ's tomb before St. Peter on Easter day but waited for St. Peter to go in first.) Role (2) doesn't make much sense before Christ's ascension; while Christ was still on earth in human form, He wouldn't need a vicar. St. Peter might have assumed role (2) immediately after the ascension, but it seems that he exercised it publicly only from Pentecost on. Finally, St. Peter assumed role (3) only later in his life, when he moved to Rome after having been at Jerusalem and Antioch (and maybe other sees that I don't know about).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T07:44:19.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2013-08-07T09:51:47.650" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is something else hidden in the sentence when Moses striked the rock when he was told to speak to it. Here he was believing in himself his soul power, not god's power.  His eyes were lifted from god and it was on his soul power.  Hence he also says, &quot;Hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember Jeremiah 17:5 says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what the LORD says: &quot;Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses by trusting in himself was inadvertently bringing on gods curse.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dear brothers and sister we too some times end up trusting in our soul power, it is very subtle, but let us pray that when that happens god gives us wisdom to see it and repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5349" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T09:51:47.650" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18173" CreationDate="2013-08-07T09:53:06.347" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this is a translation issue (so possibly better at &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;BH SE&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:17&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Amplified Translation of Romans 12:17&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is honest and proper and noble [aiming to be above reproach] in the sight of everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also, eg, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;KJV&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:17&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Living&lt;/a&gt; versions of this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:9-21&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NIV calls this section (v9-21)&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;em&gt;&quot;Love in action&quot;&lt;/em&gt; which I think summarises Paul's thoughts here well. Therefore this is about acting properly toward everyone - not taking on &lt;em&gt;their morality&lt;/em&gt; but rather &lt;strong&gt;upholding God's standards before everyone&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T09:53:06.347" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18179" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18173" CreationDate="2013-08-07T11:07:35.963" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This whole chapter seems to be talking about the opposite of political correctness.  In verse 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verse 9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let love be sincere; hate what is evil, hold on to what is good;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verse 14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 16-19:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation. &#xA;  Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, &quot;Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of this, and probably more, taken together, talks about being sincere in what is good and evil, but treating others with compassion, love, and dignity when regarding them.  The &quot;if possible&quot; verse, has to do with how you treat others.  If you regard someone who has done evil in a haughty, better than you, disrespectful way, then you are guilty of not doing all that is possible to live at peace with that person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5323" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T11:07:35.963" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18180" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-07T11:50:23.293" Score="2" ViewCount="1398" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throughout scripture Jesus is identified as the “only begotten of the Father”.   Is Jesus eternally the Only Begotten of the Father or did He become the Son at His incarnation?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture to me seems clear that Jesus is eternally the begotten of the Father, which imposes an eternal &quot;family&quot; dynamic within the Godhead.  Do Christians generally agree with this perspective and &lt;strong&gt;if not&lt;/strong&gt; how do they view the sonship of Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T16:30:08.660" LastActivityDate="2018-04-01T00:18:05.430" Title="Is Jesus eternally the Son of God the Father?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-04-04T13:04:05.270" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18181" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-07T11:52:53.370" Score="1" ViewCount="207" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic I believe that God wants us to know with certainty if any given action is morally, objectively right or wrong and that He reveals this to us in various ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know what scriptural evidence supports this concept.  Answers should not be concerned with mitigating factors specific to an individual's circumstances.  Only with whether God &lt;strong&gt;desires&lt;/strong&gt; for us to know what is objectively right and wrong with certainty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5323" LastEditorUserId="5323" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T13:27:21.533" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T22:25:19.970" Title="What is the scriptural basis for believing that God wants us to know an action is morally, objectively right or wrong?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18182" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-07T11:58:38.097" Score="10" ViewCount="1199" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I want to know if there is evidence in the early Church of Christians venerating Mary.  Evidence from the time following Mary's earthly life is preferred, though not required.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5323" LastEditorUserId="5323" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T13:26:16.780" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T16:20:31.817" Title="What support is there in the Patristic writings for Marian Devotion?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18180" CreationDate="2013-08-07T12:38:40.107" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Nicene Creed (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians.&quot;) answers this question (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And in one Lord Jesus Christ,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  the only begotten Son of God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;begotten of his Father before all worlds,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  God of God, Light of Light,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  very God of very God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  begotten, not made,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  being of one substance with the Father;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  by whom all things were made;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T12:38:40.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15653" CreationDate="2013-08-07T13:08:22.680" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Refer back to Luke 5:33 where the same subject was broached by the disciples. The word &quot;make&quot; is &lt;em&gt;poieo&lt;/em&gt; which means &quot;to originate a petition or need, to cause or bring about or to be the author of&quot;. This was in sharp contrast to the way the religious order of the day prayed as they recited those prayers and praises in rote as given by God through their forefathers. This was something new that had been introduced through the birth of Jesus ... an openness for a personal relationship between man and his Creator, another indication of the love that God had for His creation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5352" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T13:08:22.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18182" CreationDate="2013-08-07T13:09:20.503" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As has been mentioned in answers to other questions, the prayer &lt;em&gt;Sub tuum praesidium&lt;/em&gt; appeared around 250. It was originally written in Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  καταφεύγομεν, Θεοτόκε.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Τὰς ἡμῶν ἱκεσίας, μὴ παρίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνων λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  μόνη Ἁγνή, μόνη εὐλογημένη. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Beneath your compassion,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  We take refuge, O Mother of God:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  but rescue us from dangers,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  only pure, only blessed one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr Mark Miravalle of the Franciscan University of Steubenville has written &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;an entire book&lt;/a&gt; on the subject, &lt;em&gt;Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion&lt;/em&gt; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=5608&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Queenship 2006&lt;/a&gt;], a summary of which &amp;mdash; with references &amp;mdash; is available from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/heart_mary/mary_early_church_miravalle.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;piercedhearts.org&lt;/a&gt;. He mentions St&amp;nbsp;Ambrose (d. 397) calling Mary &quot;Mother of Salvation&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Christian witness of the first centuries of the Church also provides us with examples of direct prayer to Mary as a means of intercession to the graces and the protection of her Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For St Irenaeus, Mary is an &quot;Advocate,&quot; or interceding helper, for Eve and for her salvation. St.&amp;nbsp;Gregory Thaumaturgis (d.350) depicts Mary interceding for those on earth from her position in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;St Ephraem (d.373), the great Eastern doctor and deacon, directly addresses the Blessed Virgin in several Marian sermons. Direct prayer to Mary is also found in a sermon of the great Eastern Father, St&amp;nbsp;Gregory Nazianzen (330-389). By the last part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, we have numerous explicit examples of direct prayer to the Mother of God, for example in the writings of St&amp;nbsp;Ambrose, as well as by St&amp;nbsp;Epiphanius.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T13:09:20.503" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18182" CreationDate="2013-08-07T13:15:30.393" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;To venerate is to revere or show respect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is venerated in scripture by angels, her relatives, the disciples and Jesus on the cross. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angel said: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:28-31 Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women…And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth said: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:42-43 Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Acts 1:14 Mary the mother of Jesus was identified with those that waited in the upper room for the Holy Spirit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 16:6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-11-01T16:20:31.817" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T16:20:31.817" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18188" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18190" CreationDate="2013-08-07T14:31:23.130" Score="11" ViewCount="1492" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the &quot;official&quot; stances of Reformed Baptists on Dispensationalism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What biblical base do they claim for such views?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, as a group, they would generally not teach Dispensationalism, are there aspects of it viewed as biblical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T16:16:54.367" Title="How do Reformed Baptists view Dispensationalism?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;dispensationalism&gt;&lt;reformed-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18181" CreationDate="2013-08-07T15:14:07.140" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are a few scriptures to start from. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;be as gods, knowing good and evil: Gen. 3:5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;knowledge rather than choice gold: Prov. 8:10&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;because thou hast rejected knowledge: Hosea 4:6&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To give knowledge of salvation unto his people: Luke 1:77&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? Rom. 10:14&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God: Rom. 11:33&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I would not have you ignorant: Rom. 1:13 . ( 1 Cor. 10:1 ; 1 Cor. 12:1 ; 2 Cor. 1:8 ; 1 Thes. 4:13 . )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly: 1 Tim. 1:13&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who can have compassion on the ignorant: Heb. 5:2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;For this they willingly are ignorant: 2 Pet. 3:5&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I have to go now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5336" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T15:14:07.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18188" CreationDate="2013-08-07T15:17:14.200" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GrwL5pXHbc&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GrwL5pXHbc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This video is very helpful at seeing the overlap and distinctions between Reformed Baptist theology and Dispensationalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, you'd have to define Reformed Baptist. I prefer to define it as someone who holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. The LBCF1689 is a covenantal confession which by definition rejects dispensationalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's hard to boil down into a small post the biblical basis for 1689 Federalism (covenant theology), but it is based on letting Scripture interpret Scripture, especially the New Testament as a fuller revelation of the Old. It also recognizes the typological relationship between Israel and the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with most systems, there is some overlap of good material. Dispensationalism rightly recognizes some of the problems with traditional Paedobaptist covenant theology, for instance, but their &quot;solution&quot; ultimately goes much too far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5357" LastEditorUserId="5357" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T16:16:54.367" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T16:16:54.367" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17966" CreationDate="2013-08-07T15:24:47.693" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Pope John Paul II &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html&quot;&gt;definitively reaffirmed the teaching in 1994&lt;/a&gt; he referred back to the doctrinal document &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm&quot;&gt;Inter Insigniores&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; of 1976, which, he says, &quot;recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching&quot;. Without attempting to go through &lt;em&gt;Inter Insigniores&lt;/em&gt; in depth here (it's not really that long to begin with), here are some quick excerpts that summarize the main points it covers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Constant and universal tradition:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;up to our own time ... the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance. ... The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. ... The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the East&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Practice of Christ himself:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the Twelve&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Practice of the Apostles:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus towards women&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;These practices not a sign of conformity to the social mores of antiquity:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;an examination of the Gospels shows ... that Jesus broke with the prejudices of his time, by widely contravening the discriminations practised with regard to women. ... [S]ocial and cultural conditioning did not hold back the Apostles working in the Greek milieu, where the same forms of discrimination did not exist. ... there is no reason for accusing [St. Paul] of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Clarity of the sacramental sign:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this 'natural resemblance' which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ministry in the Church a vocation, not a right:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;to consider the ministerial priesthood as a human right would be to misjudge its nature completely: baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry in the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the honour or advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God and the Church; it is the object of a specific and totally gratuitous vocation: 'You did not choose me, no, I chose you, and I commissioned you' (Jn 15:16; cf. Heb 5:4)&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vocation to public ministry not purely subjective:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;Since the priesthood is a particular ministry of which the Church has received the charge and the control, authentication by the Church is indispensable here and is a constitutive part of the vocation: Christ chose 'those he wanted' (Mk:13)&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, John Paul II seemed keen to put the notion to rest that there was some sort of unjust discrimination happening here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.&lt;/em&gt; (Ordination Sacerdotalis 3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T15:24:47.693" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18181" CreationDate="2013-08-07T15:51:15.257" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I got these two verses that I hope help you out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 4:17 ESV So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 5:20 ESV Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for  light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5358" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T15:53:47.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15680" CreationDate="2013-08-07T16:06:30.393" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first obvious point that should be established when discussing the “Hypostatic Union” is that this is one of the most mysterious doctrines of divine revelation, and must be understood as infinitely unattainable to the finite mind. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our human existence is so saturated with temporal contingency that for finite human intellect to try to reconcile an eternal person’s existence with his temporal actuality is impossible without divine revelation.  To put it simply – we will never fully understand the infinite existence of the Trinity – if we could we would be God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the Logos which is the eternal 2nd person of the Trinity.  The Logos is existence by his very nature.  Everything in the material universe from beginning to end was created by him via his eternal state of existence – including his own human nature.  Although his divine nature existed from the beginning, (“In the beginning was  the Word, and word was with God, and Word was God.”) his human nature unfolded in the temporal reality that is in our human nature out of material contingency. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Aquinas puts it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since God became man &quot;in the fullness oftime,&quot; the hypostatic union does not exist from eternity; itis the work or creation of God, and took place in time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of Trinity that Christians have become accustomed to believe isn’t exactly formulated in Sacred Scripture as clearly as it has been in Sacred Tradition.  The word Trinity cannot be found in the Bible. However, our understanding of this mystery has developed  over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can start  by leaning on the Church Fathers to establish an intellectually clear foundation for unpacking this divinely revealed Truth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power, the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, has not divested of the Logos-power Him who begat Him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Tatian the Syrian, Oration Against the Greeks, 5 (c. A.D. 175).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have already asserted that God made the world, and all which it contains, by His Word, and Reason, and Power. It is abundantly plain that your philosophers, too, regard the Logos--that is, the Word and Reason--as the Creator of the universe...And we, in like manner, hold that the Word, and Reason, and Power, by which we have said God made all, have spirit as their proper and essential substratum, in which the Word has inbeing to give forth utterances, and reason abides to dispose and arrange, and power is over all to execute. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun--there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence--in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Tertullian, Apology, 21 (A.D. 197).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Hippolytus, Refutation against All Heresies, 10:29 (A.D. 220).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if the Son is said to be sent by the Father on this account, that the one is the Father, and the other the Son, this does not in any manner hinder us from believing the Son to be equal, and consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father, and yet to have been sent as Son by the Father. Not because the one is greater, the other less; but because the one is Father, the other Son; the one begetter, the other begotten; the one, He from whom He is who is sent; the other, He who is from Him who sends.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Augustine, On the Trinity, 4:20 (A.D. 416).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Augustine, On the Trinity, 15:14 (A.D. 416).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2 (post A.D. 213).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frank Sheed, who is considered the greatest Trinitarian theologian of the last century, does an incredible job of presenting the doctrine of the Trinity in light of all the great doctors of the Church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He writes in his book “A Map of Life:”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christ is God-made-man: that is He is truly God and He is truly man. He is God–with the nature of God: He took to Himself and made His own a complete human nature–a real human body and a real human soul. He is, then, one person–God–with two natures–divine and human. Nor is all this mere abstract matter, of no real concern to us. Everything in our life is bound up with the one person and the two natures of Christ. We must grasp this central luminous fact, or everything remains in darkness.&#xA;  The distinction between person and nature is not some deep and hidden thing to which philosophy only comes after centuries of study. It is, on the contrary, a distinction so obvious that the smallest child who can talk at all makes it automatically. If in the half-light he sees a vague outline that might be anything, he asks &quot;What is that?&quot; If, on the other hand, he can see that it is a human being, but cannot distinguish or does not recognize the features, he asks &quot;Who is that?&quot; The distinction between what and who is the distinction between nature and person. Of every man the two questions–what is he? and who is he?–can be answered. Every man, in other words, is both a nature and a person. Into my every action, nature and person enter. For instance I speak. I, the person, speak. But I am able to speak only because I am a man, because it is of my nature to speak. I discover that there are all sorts of things I can do: and all sorts of things I cannot do. My nature decides. I can think, speak, walk: these actions go with the nature of man, which I have. I cannot fly, for this goes with the nature of a bird, which I have not.&#xA;  My nature, then, decides what I can do: it may be thought of as settling the sphere of action possible to me. According to my nature, I can act: apart from it, I cannot. But my nature does not do these things–I, the person, do them. It is not my nature that speaks, walks, thinks: it is I, the person.&#xA;  A man may then be thought of as a person–who acts–and a nature–which decides the field in which he acts. In man there is simply one nature to one person. In Christ there are two natures to one person: and our minds used to the one-nature-to-one-person state of man tend to cry out that there is a contradiction in the idea of two natures to one person.&#xA;  But once it has been grasped that &quot;person&quot; and &quot;nature&quot; are not identical in meaning: once it has been grasped that the person acts and the nature is that principle in him which decides his sphere of action, then we see that mysterious as Our Lord's person and nature may be, there is no contradiction. God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity,[1] assumed–took to Himself–a human nature: made it His own: not simply as something which He could use as a convenient sphere to act in, but really as His own: just as our nature is our own. In us the relation of person and nature is such that not merely do we say &quot;I have a human nature&quot; (as we might say &quot;I have an umbrella&quot;) but person and nature are so fused in one concrete reality that we say &quot;I am a man.&quot; So God the Son can say not only &quot;I am God with a human nature to act in&quot; but in the most absolute fullness of meaning He can say &quot;I am man.&quot; He does not simply act as man: He is man–as truly man as we.&#xA;  This one person has two spheres of action: Christ our Lord could act either in His nature as God or in His nature as man. Remember the principle stated a few paragraphs back, that it is not the nature that acts, but the person. Therefore, whether He was acting in His divine nature or in His human nature, it was always the person who acted: and there was only the one person–God.&#xA;  Then this is the position. Christ is God: therefore whatever Christ did, God did. When Christ acted in His divine nature (as when He raised the dead to life) it was God who did it: when Christ acted in His human nature (as when He was born, suffered and died) it was God who did it: God was born, God suffered, God died. For it is the person who acts: and Christ is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this being stated, I think perhaps the best and simplest answer for your question, &quot;How does Christ's hypostatic union affect the temporal nature of the Trinity,&quot; is,&quot; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T22:17:59.123" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T22:17:59.123" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18194" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18180" CreationDate="2013-08-07T16:11:24.457" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm just new here so don't have enough reputation score to comment on the previous answer, so even though I start with that I will answer the question too!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The variation of the Nicene Creed that was stated in the answer before mine isn't the one that I'm used to saying in church... the line highlighted, in my version, is &quot;eternally begotten of the Father&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a course I did at uni last year I read Pannenberg, who said that the Father generates the Son (the meaning of beget) and the two of them collectively spirate the Spirit.  Don't ask me to explain what spirate means because I got really confused about it!  Basically, he seems to say that the Father can eternally beget the Son but the Spirit is spirated slightly later than the beginning of this eternity.  Which I know is a digression from the original question, sorry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I firmly believe (along with my Anglican tradition) that yes, Jesus is eternally begotten from/by the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The trinitarian relationships are hard to explain since I haven't done much research on them, but yeah I believe that the Son is eternally the Son, rather than becoming the Son at the Incarnation.  It was always God's plan from the outset to send His Son to earth to die at Calvary; the main reason this has such an emotional effect on people is that we then think of God as a Father, who sends His Son to die; how many fathers could sit back and watch as their child dies, let alone decree it to happen?  If the Son only became the Son at the Incarnation, then there would not have been this Father/Son relationship in heaven which would greatly lessen the Father/Son relationship when Jesus came to earth, lessening the whole impact of the crucifixion and every bit of Jesus' words that state something about &quot;My Father in heaven&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry for such a long and convoluted way of saying &quot;yes,&quot; I didn't know I was going to get so many ideas in my head as I was typing!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5359" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T16:11:24.457" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18195" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17890" CreationDate="2013-08-07T16:19:16.893" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;Theologically and historically the veneration of Mary is inseparably linked to an orthodox understanding of the Incarnation. The Council of Ephesus affirmed St. Cyril's defense of the earlier fathers' use of the term  &lt;em&gt;Mother of God&lt;/em&gt; -- in St. Cyril's account this is an important part of avoiding &quot;the fallacy of speaking of two sons&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Word's becoming flesh means nothing else than that he partook of&#xA;  flesh and blood like us; he made our body his own, and came forth a&#xA;  man from woman without casting aside his deity ... This is the account of the true faith everywhere professed. So shall we find that the holy fathers believed. &lt;strong&gt;So have they dared to call the holy virgin, mother of God&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum03.htm&quot;&gt;Second Letter to Nestorius&lt;/a&gt;, emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this theological conviction, religious devotion to the Mother of God naturally follows. And this devotion constantly leads us back to Jesus, specifically by reminding us of Who He is. Blessed John Henry Newman:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every church which is dedicated to her ... every image ... every litany in her praise, every Hail Mary ... does but remind us that there was One who, though He was all-blessed from all eternity, yet for the sake of sinners, &quot;did not shrink from the Virgin's womb&quot;. Thus she is ... &quot;the Tower of David&quot;; the high and strong defence of the King of the true Israel; and hence the Church also addresses her ... as having &quot;alone destroyed all heresies in the whole world&quot;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse17.html&quot;&gt;Discourses to Mixed Congregations #17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on to argue that the converse is also true -- namely, that neglect of the Mother of God leads inevitably to a rejection of the orthodox doctrine of St. Cyril and of the Council of Ephesus. This amounts to a concrete application of the ancient dictum &lt;em&gt;lex orandi, lex credendi&lt;/em&gt; (i.e., as one prays, so one believes -- cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm&quot;&gt;CCC 1124&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On that note, it's illuminating to observe that Mary is continually invoked throughout the daily cycle of liturgical prayer in both East and West: multiple times in the Mass and in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and again more than once in the canonical hours (at least in the Roman Rite -- although I'd guess that, if anything, the Hours of the Eastern Churches mention Mary even more often). And here I'm referring &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; to the times she is mentioned in the ordinary course of the day, regardless of what feast is being celebrated, or whether any feast is being celebrated at all. Marian feasts, which are observed throughout the year, take the devotion to a whole new level of intensity -- and the most important of these feasts are obligatory, at least in the Roman Rite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If, then, &quot;liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition&quot; (CCC 1124 again), then one would expect an obligatory liturgical practice that constantly recurs in both East and West to express a fundamentally important aspect of the faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T21:14:21.103" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T21:14:21.103" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18196" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-08-07T16:29:18.457" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The term ‘Reformed Baptist’ best refers to those who adhere to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) in practice as well as in theory. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sometimes known as Calvinistic Baptists, Reformed Baptists are Baptists that hold to a Calvinist soteriology. They can trace their history through the early modern Particular Baptists of England. The first Reformed Baptist church was formed in the 1630s. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith was written along Reformed Baptist lines.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Such great biblical truths as sola fide (justification by faith alone), sola gratia (salvation by God’s grace alone), sola scriptura (the Bible alone is the basis for faith and practice), solus Christus (salvation through Christ alone), and soli Deo gloria (the fact that God alone is to receive glory in the salvation of sinners) are all noted hallmarks of the Protestant and Reformed faith.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;for more information, see (1) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rbtr.org/refbaptist.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;What is a Reformed Baptist&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; (2) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Baptists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reformed Baptists&lt;/a&gt; (sources for above quotes)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T17:07:22.327" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T17:07:22.327" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18197" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-08-07T16:29:18.457" Score="0" Body="Any believer or church holding dominantly to the London Baptist Confession of 1689 (or a derivative), with the possible exception of chapter 26, paragraph 4 and related text" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T17:07:17.827" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T17:07:17.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18199" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18205" CreationDate="2013-08-07T16:53:29.347" Score="5" ViewCount="540" Body="&lt;p&gt;When and where was it firstly stated in the history of Christianity that a human being has a personal freedom of choice and that God respects it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T18:44:07.440" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T19:39:06.387" Title="When the humans' freedom of choice was firstly stated in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18200" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-07T17:07:57.447" Score="-1" ViewCount="171" Body="&lt;p&gt;CS Lewis keeps calling the joy of the ressurection 'infinite joy'. I brought this up on a site (like this one) and someone replied that he probably meant it as a huge amount of joy...but not infinite because we are finite. God is the only One who has infinite qualities.&#xA;After that I also noticed Cs Lewis call our joy 'transfinite'...and, in Letters To Malcolm, argue that time will not be all present for us upon death (though different) because of our finite nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess we can't judge exactly how happy we will be!!!- But, well, any clues anywhere...in the Bible, in some philosopher's handbook, in Lewis....???&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T18:32:01.483" Title="HOW good will our joy be when we reach the ressurection? Infinite, transfinite or finite?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;&lt;infinity&gt;&lt;new-earth&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9352" CreationDate="2013-08-07T18:14:24.373" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In perfect Catholic form, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks pretty directly, but somewhat ambiguously if not &lt;em&gt;paradoxically&lt;/em&gt;, on interpreting scripture and the Gospels in particular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, scripture is still &quot;open&quot; for various &lt;em&gt;and new&lt;/em&gt; understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.”&#xA;  Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is&#xA;  “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and&#xA;  living.” &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter&lt;/em&gt;,&#xA;  Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy&#xA;  Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=11-chapter2.xhtml%23para108&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  108&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't grant us freedom to read into scripture whatever we wish. Our interpretation must fit within the existing framework and beliefs of the Church. But, it &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; support the idea that various truths can be extracted from the parables within reasonable bounds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With specific regard to the Gospels, we're fed two slightly contradictory messages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that &lt;strong&gt;the four Gospels&lt;/strong&gt;, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;faithfully hand on what Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;, the Son of God, while he lived among&#xA;  men, &lt;strong&gt;really did and taught&lt;/strong&gt; for their eternal salvation, until the day&#xA;  when he was taken up.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The oral tradition. “For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but&#xA;  with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious&#xA;  events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The written Gospels. “&lt;strong&gt;The sacred authors&lt;/strong&gt;, in writing the four Gospels, &lt;strong&gt;selected certain of the many elements which had been handed&#xA;  on&lt;/strong&gt;, either orally or already in written form; &lt;strong&gt;others they &lt;em&gt;synthesized&#xA;  or explained&lt;/em&gt; with an eye to the situation of the churches&lt;/strong&gt;, while&#xA;  sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that&#xA;  they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=11-chapter2.xhtml%23para126&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 126&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore (actually stated earlier):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret&#xA;  Scripture correctly, &lt;strong&gt;the reader must be attentive to what the human&#xA;  authors truly wanted to affirm&lt;/strong&gt; and to what God wanted to reveal to us&#xA;  by their words. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=11-chapter2.xhtml%23para109&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 109&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the one hand, we're told that the Gospels are true to the actual events. On the other hand, we're told that details were included and possibly fabricated to aid in our understanding. That in mind, I think the most reasonable understanding is that the events actually occurred, that Christ clarified things for his disciples, but that &lt;em&gt;all truths revealed by the parables were not necessarily written in the Gospels&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the CCC has to say with specific regard to the parables supports this notion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus’ invitation to enter his kingdom comes in the form of parables,&#xA;  a characteristic feature of his teaching. Through his parables he&#xA;  invites people to the feast of the kingdom, but he also asks for a&#xA;  radical choice: to gain the kingdom, one must give everything. Words&#xA;  are not enough; deeds are required. The parables are like mirrors for&#xA;  man: will he be hard soil or good earth for the word? What use has he&#xA;  made of the talents he has received? Jesus and the presence of the&#xA;  kingdom in this world are secretly at the heart of the parables. &lt;strong&gt;One&#xA;  must enter the kingdom, that is, become a disciple of Christ, in order&#xA;  to “know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” For those who stay&#xA;  “outside,” everything remains enigmatic.&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=15-chapter5.xhtml%23para546&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC&#xA;  546&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who wish to enter the kingdom, the disciples of Christ, will given the secrets of heaven. It's not at all a stretch to assume, then, that those closest to Christ were given specific explanation -- &lt;strong&gt;as the Gospel says&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TLDR&lt;/strong&gt;: My best understanding is that Christ clarified the parables in the greatest detail &lt;em&gt;necessary&lt;/em&gt; to the faithfully seeking disciples; but that each Gospel author recorded only those explicitly revealed interpretations He was aware of (obviously) and which were relevant to the community he wrote to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;And for what it's worth, I &lt;strong&gt;do not&lt;/strong&gt; suspect the the Gospel writers &quot;synthesized&quot; Christ's actual words; more likely for synthesis are the number of loaves and fish fed to an edited number of people on a hill.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastEditorUserId="3410" LastEditDate="2013-08-07T19:10:51.557" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T19:10:51.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18199" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:17:46.190" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;ACC: In the Garden of Eden, God gave freedom of choice to Adam and Eve. This was His greatest gift to them, since they had been created. Until Adam ate of the tree of good and bad, he had no idea that he was separate from God, or that he could do something on his own (without God telling him to do it.) This idea comes from Midrash (3rd. cent. C.E.,) and was discussed by the Fathers of the 4th. cent. (It will take some time to find the references. Probably Jerome, or perhaps Origen.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 5th. cent. whether or not Jesus had a free will was a heated topic. In the Creeds of The Church they finally decided Jesus had two wills, one very human and one divine, so he was free to disobey God, but chose not to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T19:17:46.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18204" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1071" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:26:12.960" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sect of the Nazarenes (later called Ebionites by people critical of their lifestyle) shared everything in common. The sect survived perhaps into the 2nd. cent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T19:26:12.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18199" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:39:06.387" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The exact meaning of &quot;free will&quot; is greatly contested, especially as it interacts with the sovereign power and foreknowledge of God. I understand your question as seeking evidence for early Christian thought, other than in the content of the Bible itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early church, several authorities wrote on the topic, in support of human freedom, including the following.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Justin Martyr&lt;/strong&gt; in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;First Apology&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (written at some point between 147 and 161AD), says: &quot;But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. [...] Unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. [...] For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Irenaeus&lt;/strong&gt; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103437.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Against Heresies&lt;/em&gt; 4.37&lt;/a&gt; (c. 180 AD) says: &quot;God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. [...] All men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it. [...] It is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. [...] And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Origen&lt;/strong&gt; devotes &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the third book of &lt;em&gt;De Principiis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (c. 212 - 215 AD) to the free will doctrine. At the beginning of the Latin text is the firm statement, &quot;It is undoubtedly indicated that it is within our own power to devote ourselves either to a life that is worthy of praise, or to one that is worthy of censure.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from these philosophical treatments, there are writings of the post-apostolic generation which indicate of a role for human will in choosing to do good or evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The letter of &lt;strong&gt;Clement&lt;/strong&gt; to the Corinthians (c. 70 - 96 AD?) exhorts readers to live a virtuous life; in 62.1 he characterizes the faithful as &quot;those who are willing to make [the journey]&quot; (τοις θελουσιν ... διευθυνειν [την πορειαν αυτων]), where the Greek θελουσιν comes from the verb ἐθέλω or θέλω, indicating wishing/wanting/desiring.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Didache&lt;/strong&gt;, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (date very contested, perhaps 50 - 120 AD) contrasts &quot;the way of death&quot; with &quot;the way of life&quot; and suggests that it is up to the individual not to be led astray from the true teaching. Didache 6.1-2 is translated by Robert Kraft as &quot;Beware lest anyone cause you to wander from this way of teaching, since such a one teaches without regard to God. For if you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The letter of &lt;strong&gt;Barnabas&lt;/strong&gt; (70 - 131 AD) says that the one who follows God's commands will be rewarded, but the one who chooses the opposite will be destroyed (21.1). The word for this chooser is &quot;ἐκλεγόμενος&quot;, from &quot;ἐκλέγω&quot; (pick/select/choose). It may still refer to God's choice, though; compare Ephesians 1:4 where the same word is used for God's foreordained choice of the elect.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T19:39:06.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9908" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:40:24.603" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the ACC doctrine: And this is attested by Ratzinger and the Church Fathers. Also modern Anglican theologians - the spirits were those who were drowned by God in the Great Flood of Noah. They were, so to speak, baptized by God, and then lifted up spiritually by the Spirit of the Son who &quot;preached to them.&quot; Though the time interval between baptism and resurrection seems long to us, in eternal time it was the blink of an eye. The commentaries suggest that all were lifted up, and that prison is now empty.&#xA;Though God condemned their behavior they were not &quot;lost&quot; for they had no knowledge of The Son of God, nor of the Abrahamic laws etc. so it wasn't their fault alone, God was partially responsible (he had no more patience) and so he baptized them and sent His Son to educate them, and offer salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not all the Fathers interpretations from the first few cents. have survived, so we don't know if they all had the same understanding. But since that understanding has appeared in various writings of Bishops since the 3rd. cent. until the current day, we can be pretty sure it was a wide held opinion of the Bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T19:40:24.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18207" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-07T19:45:12.337" Score="5" ViewCount="2465" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do animals have free will or are they already pre-defined in what they do?  Also, how does the answer to this question affect humans when we use our free will to interact with animals? I'm looking for the Catholic view point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5247" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-20T01:40:52.717" LastActivityDate="2015-09-20T01:40:52.717" Title="According to the Catholic Church, do animals have free will?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;animals&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18182" CreationDate="2013-08-07T21:15:09.707" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The amount of evidence that is found in early Church patristic writings to support Marian veneration/devotion is so overwhelming that it must be categorized into 5 basic teachings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 - Mary is the New Eve and Most Blessed Among Women&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 - Mary is our Powerful Intercessor&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 - Mary is Ever-virgin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 - Mary’s Immaculate Conception&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 - Mary is the Mother of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quoted here are only a handful of writings from Early Church Fathers.  There are many more excerpts predating A. D. 1000, but for now we will only look at the first four centuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is the New Eve and Most Blessed Among Women&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit;&#xA;  both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death;&#xA;  both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even&#xA;  Jesus Christ our Lord.&quot; Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;[T]hey blessed her, saying: O God of our fathers, bless this child,&#xA;  and give her an everlasting name to be named in all generations. And&#xA;  all the people said: So be it, so be it, amen. And he brought her to&#xA;  the chief priests; and they blessed her, saying: O God most high, look&#xA;  upon this child, and bless her with the utmost blessing, which shall&#xA;  be for ever.&quot; Protoevangelium of John, 6:2 (A.D. 150).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which&#xA;  proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same&#xA;  manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and&#xA;  undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth&#xA;  disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy,&#xA;  when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the&#xA;  Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest&#xA;  would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is&#xA;  the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy&#xA;  word.' And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many&#xA;  Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those&#xA;  angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to&#xA;  those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.&quot; Justin&#xA;  Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient,&#xA;  saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to&#xA;  thy word.' But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet&#xA;  she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but&#xA;  being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise 'they were both&#xA;  naked, and were not ashamed,' inasmuch as they, having been created a&#xA;  short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of&#xA;  children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult&#xA;  age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become&#xA;  disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the&#xA;  entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her],&#xA;  and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the&#xA;  cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on&#xA;  this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of&#xA;  him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus&#xA;  indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined&#xA;  together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the&#xA;  process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former&#xA;  ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former&#xA;  again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with&#xA;  the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who&#xA;  regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus&#xA;  also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the&#xA;  obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through&#xA;  unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.&quot; Irenaeus,&#xA;  Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon Himself&#xA;  the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which He wove&#xA;  for Himself, like a bridegroom, in the sufferings of the cross, in&#xA;  order that by uniting His own power with our moral body, and by mixing&#xA;  the incorruptible with the corruptible, and the strong with the weak,&#xA;  He might save perishing man.&quot; Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and&#xA;  antiChrist, 4 (A.D. 200).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the&#xA;  breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but&#xA;  when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself&#xA;  became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The&#xA;  universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy&#xA;  Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin&#xA;  mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had&#xA;  not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin&#xA;  and mother--pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her&#xA;  children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word&#xA;  for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child&#xA;  fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the&#xA;  young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the&#xA;  flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood.&quot; Clement&#xA;  of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:6 (A.D.202).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Accordingly, a virgin did conceive and bear 'Emmanuel, God with us.'&#xA;  This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God&#xA;  was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help,&#xA;  however, of the ancient seed, in order that He might reform it with a&#xA;  new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the&#xA;  re-moral of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth&#xA;  was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient&#xA;  type, the Lord being born as man by a dispensation in which a virgin&#xA;  was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet&#xA;  by no human labour, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when,&#xA;  as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul…For it was&#xA;  while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her&#xA;  ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin's soul, in&#xA;  like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise&#xA;  the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex,&#xA;  might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had&#xA;  believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency&#xA;  which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.&#xA;  But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil's word conceive in her&#xA;  womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil's word&#xA;  afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an&#xA;  outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a&#xA;  fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one&#xA;  day to secure salvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh,&#xA;  and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin's&#xA;  womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of&#xA;  the evil brother. Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth&#xA;  for the salvation of man, in that condition of flesh into which man&#xA;  had entered ever since his condemnation.&quot; Tertullian, Flesh of Christ,&#xA;  17 (A.D. 212).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit&#xA;  among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among&#xA;  women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the&#xA;  first-fruit of virginity.&quot; Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 10:17 (A.D.&#xA;  244).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The&#xA;  Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears&#xA;  witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel&#xA;  Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin&#xA;  Mother of God [Theotokos] bears witness: the blessed place of the&#xA;  manger bears witness&quot; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 10:19&#xA;  (A.D. 350).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In what remains we have the appointment of the Father's will. The&#xA;  Virgin, the birth, the Body, then the Cross, the death, the visit to&#xA;  the lower world; these things are our salvation. For the sake of&#xA;  mankind the Son of God was born of tile Virgin and of the Holy Ghost.&#xA;  In this process He ministered to Himself; by His own power--the power&#xA;  of God--which overshadowed her He sowed the beginning of His Body, and&#xA;  entered on the first stage of His life in the flesh. He did it that by&#xA;  His Incarnation He might take to Himself from the Virgin the fleshly&#xA;  nature, and that through this commingling there might come into being&#xA;  a hallowed Body of all humanity; that so through that Body which He&#xA;  was pleased to assume all mankind might be hid in Him, and He in&#xA;  return, through His unseen existence, be reproduced in all. Thus the&#xA;  invisible Image of God scorned not the shame which marks the&#xA;  beginnings of human life. He passed through every stage; through&#xA;  conception, birth, wailing, cradle and each successive humiliation.&#xA;  What worthy return can we make for so great a condescension? The One&#xA;  Only-begotten God, ineffably born of God, entered the Virgin's womb&#xA;  and grew and took the frame of poor humanity. He Who upholds the&#xA;  universe, within Whom and through Whom are all things, was brought&#xA;  forth by common childbirth; He at Whose voice Archangels and Angels&#xA;  tremble, and heaven and earth and all the elements of this world are&#xA;  melted, was heard in childish wailing. The Invisible and&#xA;  Incomprehensible, Whom sight and feeling and touch cannot gauge, was&#xA;  wrapped in a cradle.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 2:24-25&#xA;  (A.D. 355).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And when he had taken her, 'he knew her not, till she had brought&#xA;  forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word 'till,' not that&#xA;  thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform&#xA;  thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man.&quot;&#xA;  John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew, 5:5 (A.D. 370).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is our Powerful Intercessor&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God,&#xA;  having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel&#xA;  received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word.&#xA;  The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to&#xA;  obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the&#xA;  virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act&#xA;  of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.&quot; Irenaeus, Against&#xA;  Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our&#xA;  supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger,[O you] alone&#xA;  pure and alone blessed.&quot; Sub Tuum Praesidium, From Rylands Papyrus,&#xA;  Egypt (3rd century).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary&#xA;  to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in&#xA;  danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on&#xA;  the ground.&quot; Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how&#xA;  shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable&#xA;  One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain?&quot; Epiphanius, Panarion,&#xA;  30:31 (ante A.D. 403).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Give milk, Mother to him who is our food, give milk to the bread&#xA;  coming down from heaven ...give milk to him who made you such that he&#xA;  could be made fruitfulness in conception and in birth, did not take&#xA;  from you the ornament of virginity.&quot; Augustine, Sermon 369:1 (A.D.&#xA;  430).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Hail to thee Mary, Mother of God, to whom in towns and villages and&#xA;  in island were founded churches of true believers.&quot; Cyril of&#xA;  Alexandria, Homily 11 (ante A.D. 444).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Hail, our desirable gladness; Hail, O rejoicing of the Churches;&#xA;  Hail, O name that breathes out sweetness; Hail, face that radiates&#xA;  divinity and grace; Hail, most venerable memory…&quot; Theodotus of Ancrya,&#xA;  Homily 4:3 (ante A.D. 446)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is Ever-virgin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her&#xA;  delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of&#xA;  sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a&#xA;  mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is&#xA;  presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into&#xA;  his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and&#xA;  circumspect,' and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from&#xA;  this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more&#xA;  worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;'&#xA;  who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own&#xA;  person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the&#xA;  adherents to the spiritual temple,--that is, the Church. Such&#xA;  eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in&#xA;  adult age.&quot;Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no&#xA;  other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold&#xA;  thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually&#xA;  said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the&#xA;  case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ&#xA;  lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to&#xA;  Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to&#xA;  enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be&#xA;  committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing&#xA;  which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud&#xA;  by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?&quot; Origen, Commentary on&#xA;  John, I:6 (A.D. 232).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by&#xA;  nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human&#xA;  flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit&#xA;  to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or&#xA;  the flesh not true which He assumed.&quot; Athanasius, Orations against the&#xA;  Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought&#xA;  forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that&#xA;  thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform&#xA;  thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But&#xA;  why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is&#xA;  usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression&#xA;  without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark&#xA;  likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried&#xA;  up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when&#xA;  discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou&#xA;  art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is&#xA;  preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall&#xA;  righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken&#xA;  away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then&#xA;  here likewise, it uses the word &quot;till,&quot; to make certain what was&#xA;  before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the&#xA;  inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary’s Immaculate Conception&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified&#xA;  that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.&quot;&#xA;  Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary,&#xA;  worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.&quot; Origen,&#xA;  Homily 1(A.D. 244).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.&quot; Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity,&#xA;  15:23 (A.D. 370).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in&#xA;  thee and no stain in thy Mother.&quot; Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D.&#xA;  370).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For&#xA;  who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To&#xA;  whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are&#xA;  greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold!&#xA;  You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the&#xA;  true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.&quot; Athanasius,&#xA;  Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made&#xA;  inviolate, free of every stain of sin.&quot; Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D.&#xA;  388). &quot;We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to&#xA;  raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour&#xA;  to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for&#xA;  overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the&#xA;  merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.&quot; Augustine,&#xA;  Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from&#xA;  her contracting no stain.&quot; Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante&#xA;  A.D. 446). &quot;A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect,&#xA;  untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting&#xA;  among thorns.&quot; Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to&#xA;  whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she&#xA;  was pledged in the womb, when she was made.&quot; Peter Chrysologus, Sermon&#xA;  140 (A.D. 449).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is the Mother of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the&#xA;  dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore&#xA;  a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of&#xA;  God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the&#xA;  remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this&#xA;  suffered no diminution of His Godhead.&quot; Alexander of Alexandria,&#xA;  Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The&#xA;  Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears&#xA;  witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel&#xA;  Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin&#xA;  Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears&#xA;  witness.&quot; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D.&#xA;  350).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been&#xA;  sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and&#xA;  also in the case of Mary, bearer of God.&quot; Athanasius, Orations III,&#xA;  14(A.D. 362).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Just as, in the age of Mary the mother of God, he who had reigned&#xA;  from Adam to her time found, when he came to her and dashed his forces&#xA;  against the fruit of her virginity as against a rock, that he was&#xA;  shattered to pieces upon her, so in every soul which passes through&#xA;  this life in the flesh under the protection of virginity, the strength&#xA;  of death is in a manner broken and annulled, for he does not find the&#xA;  places upon which he may fix his sting.&quot; Gregory of Nyssa, On&#xA;  Virginity, 14 (A.D. 370).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He reshaped man to perfection in Himself, from Mary the Mother of God&#xA;  through the Holy Spirit.&quot; Epiphanius, The man well-anchored, 75 (A.D.&#xA;  374).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth&#xA;  in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of&#xA;  chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take&#xA;  your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of&#xA;  virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast. The&#xA;  first thing which kindles ardour in learning is the greatness of the&#xA;  teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God?&quot;Ambrose, Virginity,&#xA;  II:6 (c. A.D. 378).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is&#xA;  severed from the Godhead.&quot; Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius, 101&#xA;  (A.D. 382).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;To the question: 'Is Mary the bearer of Man, or the bearer of God?'&#xA;  we must answer: 'Of Both.'&quot; Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Incarnation,&#xA;  15 (ante A.D. 428).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was&#xA;  born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ&#xA;  ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but&#xA;  Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God. For no one,&#xA;  you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly&#xA;  foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be&#xA;  understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty&#xA;  can be accounted for by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say&#xA;  something later on. In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine&#xA;  testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God.&quot;&#xA;  John Cassian, The Incarnation of Christ, II:2 (A.D. 430).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. John Chrysostom’s well know Divine Liturgy is saturated with the utmost devotion to The Blessed Virgin Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the entrance prayers and 1rst 2 antiphons the following prayer is offered to God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deacon: Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady,&#xA;  the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit&#xA;  ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a final note,  St. Augustine (who is for the most part universally accepted as one of the Church’s greatest theologians) composed the following well known prayer of veneration to Mary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay thee thy just dues of&#xA;  praise and thanksgiving, thou who by the wondrous assent of thy will&#xA;  didst rescue a fallen world? What songs of praise can our weak human&#xA;  nature recite in thy honor, since it is by thy intervention alone that&#xA;  it has found the way to restoration. Accept, then, such poor thanks as&#xA;  we have here to offer, though they be unequal to thy merits; and&#xA;  receiving our vows, obtain by thy prayers the remission of our&#xA;  offenses. Carry thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly&#xA;  audience, and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation.&#xA;  May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become&#xA;  pardonable through thee; may what we ask for with sure confidence,&#xA;  through thee be granted. Take our offering, grant us our requests,&#xA;  obtain pardon for what we fear, for thou art the sole hope of sinners.&#xA;  Through thee we hope for the remission of our sins, and in thee, O&#xA;  blessed Lady, is our hope of reward. Holy Mary, succor  the miserable,&#xA;  help the fainthearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for thy people,&#xA;  plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God; may&#xA;  all who keep thy holy commemoration feel now thy help and protection.&#xA;  Be thou ever ready to assist us when we pray, and bring back to us the&#xA;  answers to our prayers. Make it thy continual care to pray for the&#xA;  people of God, thou who, blessed by God, didst merit to bear the&#xA;  Redeemer of the world, who liveth and reigneth, world without end.&#xA;  Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T19:31:07.613" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T19:31:07.613" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18210" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18217" CreationDate="2013-08-07T22:01:21.103" Score="1" ViewCount="384" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the Roman Catholic position on the validity of the marriage between an infertile man and infertile woman? Also, from this standpoint, what is the difference between a marriage in which both partners are opposing sexes but infertile and a marriage in which both partners are the same sex?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5005" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-10-03T16:07:31.040" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T16:07:31.040" Title="What is the Roman Catholic position on the validity of the marriage between an infertile man and infertile woman?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18211" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-07T22:07:07.557" Score="1" ViewCount="2183" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was listening to a sermon on K-WAVE from Calvary Chapel on the radio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pastor stated that &quot;globalization&quot; was a mark of the beast and that it signifies Jesus will be returning soon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What's the biblical definition of globalization and why is it the mark of the beast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-14T19:09:43.220" LastActivityDate="2018-10-25T16:06:33.057" Title="Why is globalization the mark of the beast?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;beast&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18180" CreationDate="2013-08-07T22:09:45.190" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a little difficulty with the name Jesus attached to the Son when discussing eternal existence. I will have a go at an answer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ACC: The Son and the Father always existed - &quot;there was never a time when they did not exist.&quot; The Son in ACC doctrine is not subordinate to the Father. They are of the same essence, and different hypostases. The Son took on flesh (was born of Mary) and became the God-Man Yeshua (Hebrew pronounced &lt;em&gt;ee-shoe&lt;/em&gt;) around 4 BCE, who, by definition of the Councils of Nicea and Nicea/Constantinople 4th. cent., had both human  and divine natures, but one divine personality. Later it was declared he had two wills, human and divine. The man part of the Man-God did not exist prior to conception in Mary. You might think of God taking on a human body at the incarnation, like putting on a new &quot;front,&quot; without changing the personality. The body by itself had no divine powers, just normal human power. The Master said &quot;I can do nothing by myself.&quot; All his divine power came from The Father. And He and the Father are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this isn't simplifying things too much. This is a complex subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BTW: The 1643 Westminster Confession of the dissenting Protestants  spelled &lt;em&gt;ee-shoe’s&lt;/em&gt; name as “Jesus”. In 1648 this Confession was adopted by the American Church in New England.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, AFAIK, The Son (also called God the Word) eternally existed, the man &lt;em&gt;ee-shoe&lt;/em&gt; at incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name &lt;em&gt;Jesus&lt;/em&gt; did not appear in any Bible before the American printing of the NT c. 1645. The man-God was never called anything but &lt;em&gt;Master, Good Master, rabbi, and teacher&lt;/em&gt; by the disciples. In the Gospels only the evil spirits called Him by name &lt;em&gt;ee-shoe&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T22:09:45.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18213" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18211" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:21:39.850" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good questions I think we can glean two questions here&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what is globalization and 2 - is it the mark of the beast&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If&#xA;  anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his&#xA;  forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of&#xA;  the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of&#xA;  His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the&#xA;  presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.&quot;&#xA;  Revelation 14:9-10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I think anyone can agree that if anyone receives this mark, whatever it is, they would be lost, for that is what the Bible says.  So based on what that pastor was saying if you receive globalization, you would be lost, eternally separated from God.  Based on Revelation 14:9-10 it is clear that whoever receives this mark would be separated from God, but that begs the question, what separates us from God, Biblically?  The Bible gives us the answer when it says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor&#xA;  His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated&#xA;  you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So&#xA;  that He will not hear.&quot; (Isaiah 59:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one thing that separates us from God, sin.  Therefore to receive this mark of the beast must be a sin.  That begs the question what is sin as defined not by man but by the Bible?  The Bible gives us a definition when it says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the&#xA;  transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mark of the beast, is something that separates us from God, it is a sin, and sin is defined as breaking one of God's ten commandments, which are still binding up Christians (see Matthew 5:17-20).  Is globalization itself a sin, that would earn us a spot in hell?  Perhaps more realistically what the pastor meant to say was that globalization is preparing the way for the mark of the beast for it is written &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to&#xA;  receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,  and that no&#xA;  one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the&#xA;  beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there will be a worldwide commandment regarding worship, which breaks one of God's commandments that will be enforced using the economy (no buying or selling).  Do we know of a law like that now?  No.  But globalization is preparing the way for a law like that.  For a more in-depth study and to know exactly who the beast is and what is his mark may I recommend this great Christian website - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.666truth.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.666truth.org/&lt;/a&gt; .  God bless!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your questions in the comments, it can be confusing because so many people break the 10 commandments constantly, but for those who love Jesus it should not be so for Jesus said &quot;He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.&quot; (John 14:21)  In fact while we know that those who receive the mark of the beast break one of God's commandments during a time of economic persecution, right after the warning about the mark of the beast the next verse says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the&#xA;  commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.&quot; (Revelation 14:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings us hope, for while it will appear that the whole world will follow the beast, John saw a small class &quot;who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God.&quot; (Revelation 15:2)  Could it be that John saw you?  You can be one of those individuals, redeemed and saved from sin by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ.  All the promises of the word of God are yours.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that&#xA;  by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped&#xA;  the corruption that is in the world through lust.&quot; (2 Peter 1:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no hesitancy in telling you that in order to obtain the immortal inheritance and the eternal substance, you must be overcomers in this probationary life. Everything that blots and stains the soul must be removed, must be cleansed from the heart. We must know what it means to be a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the corruptions that are in the world through lust. Are you willing to wage war against the lusts of the flesh? Are you ready to battle against the enemy of God and man? Satan is determined to enslave every soul if he can; for he is playing a desperate game to win the souls of men from Christ and eternal life. Will you permit him to steal from you the graces of the Spirit of God, and plant in you his own corrupt nature? or will you accept the great provision of salvation, and through the merits of the Infinite Sacrifice made in your behalf, become a partaker of the divine nature? God has given His only-begotten Son, that through His shame, suffering, and death, you might have glory, honor, and immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan claims this world as his own, but Christ has redeemed it through His sacrifice.  Revelation 13 tells us that during the final crisis Satan will attempt to get every individual on the planet to break the commandments of God at the same time.  Some may ask which commandment would Satan attempt to force individuals to break?  The Bible gives us a clue when it says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If anyone worships the beast and his image&quot; (Revelation 14:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan will give a counterfeit commandment regarding worship.  If you look at the 10 commandments, the first four commandments, thou shall have no other gods before me, no idols, do not take the name of the Lord in vain, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, these four commandments deal with worship.  The last six, honor your father and your mother, you shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness and covet, these deal with our relationship between men. Therefore the mark of the beast must deal with one of the first four commandments.  There is much more to share, but I have to go to work at the moment, this resource has more information - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.666truth.org/history/666-and-the-mark.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.666truth.org/history/666-and-the-mark.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May the Lord bless you as you follow Him!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastEditorUserId="5362" LastEditDate="2013-08-09T15:02:04.023" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T15:02:04.023" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18214" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18163" CreationDate="2013-08-07T23:34:11.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the question asks &quot;what different perspectives&quot;, let me present one perspective.  The answer would be &quot;Only if those extra-Biblical texts are in harmony with the Bible&quot; for it is written &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to&#xA;  this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it is written &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things;&#xA;  hold fast what is good.&quot; (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on&#xA;  all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men&#xA;  shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.  And also on My&#xA;  menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those&#xA;  days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and&#xA;  fire and pillars of smoke.  The sun shall be turned into darkness, And&#xA;  the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of&#xA;  the Lord.&quot; (Joel 2:28-31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in the last days some would prophesy truthfully, or there would be a true prophet even in our time, before the coming of Christ, but that true prophet must be in harmony with all the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-07T23:34:11.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18210" CreationDate="2013-08-08T03:31:03.317" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume you are asking about the validity of a marriage between people who cannot conceive children. The position is summed up in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0155.html&quot;&gt;this paper&lt;/a&gt;. To summarize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Infertility does not prevent a person from validly entering into marriage. The Code of Canon Law affirms, &lt;strong&gt;“Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage”&lt;/strong&gt; (No. 1084.3). Appreciating the suffering of an infertile couple, the Catechism states, “Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice” (No. 1654). In this case, a couple can consummate the marriage, but they just cannot conceive children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your last point, about marriage between partners of the same sex, is an entirely different question and I suggest you ask it separately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T03:31:03.317" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18218" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-08T03:36:09.997" Score="12" ViewCount="983" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently listened to Dr. Scott Hahn's conversion testimony.  One thing that really jumped out at me was that Dr. Hahn stated that Luther purposely inserted the German word &quot;allein&quot; (alone) into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:28&amp;amp;version=LUTH1545&quot;&gt;Romans 3:28&lt;/a&gt; despite the fact that it is not in the Greek texts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any writings from Luther that allude to his own translation of this &lt;em&gt;crucial&lt;/em&gt; verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-02-12T23:14:01.543" LastActivityDate="2015-06-12T06:43:38.617" Title="Is it true that Luther intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;romans&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-06-12T08:12:13.457" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18221" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18222" CreationDate="2013-08-08T06:37:54.460" Score="2" ViewCount="16781" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard about the concept ot Trimurti in Hinduism &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wiki&lt;/a&gt;. One for construction (Brahma), one for protection (Vishnu) and one for destruction (Shiva). And somehow I feel it is related to Trinity in Christianity. Are there any relations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1108" LastEditorUserId="1108" LastEditDate="2020-11-26T09:37:42.857" LastActivityDate="2020-11-26T09:37:42.857" Title="Trinity (Christians) = Trimurti (Hindus)?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;comparative-religion&gt;&lt;hinduism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18221" CreationDate="2013-08-08T07:56:02.597" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;One could do a great deal worse than quote &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15735/1377&quot;&gt;another answer&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are several heresies that one needs to be careful of when discussing a topic such as this. For example, &lt;strong&gt;Modalism&lt;/strong&gt; which declares that God is not three distinct persons, but that He merely reveals himself in three different forms. Or, &lt;strong&gt;Arianism&lt;/strong&gt; which declares that Christ and the Holy Spirit are creations of the Father and not one in nature with Him. Or &lt;strong&gt;Partialism&lt;/strong&gt; which declares that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons of the Godhead, but are different parts of God each composing a third of the divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each of the different views of the &lt;em&gt;Trimuti&lt;/em&gt; within Hinduism falls into one or more of those camps. My analysis (based on Wikipedia) may not be complete, but I posit this:&amp;mdash;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sauram: modalism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Vishaivism: Arianism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shavism and Smartism: partialism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: no, apart from both the Trinity and Trimurti being &quot;three&quot;, there are no similarities. Specifically, the Trimurti denies that the three gods are wholly three and wholly one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T07:56:02.597" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18221" CreationDate="2013-08-08T09:28:10.043" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trimurti and Trinity similarity:&lt;/strong&gt; The number &quot;&lt;em&gt;Three&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trimurti and Trinity differences:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit while Trimurti is Creator, Preserver and Destroyer. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trinity is &quot;Three persons in one God&quot;. Trimurti is &quot;Three distinct gods&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 John 5:7 (NKJV)&lt;/em&gt; For there are three that bear witness in heaven:&#xA;  the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the Trinity all three persons are participants in the creation while in Trimurti only Brahma is responsible for the creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 1:2-3 (NKJV)&lt;/em&gt; The earth was without&#xA;  form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Spirit of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; was hovering over the face of the waters.&#xA;  Then &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All the three persons in the Trinity always work together and are in agreement. In Trimurti Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer all have different functions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 5:30 (NKJV)&lt;/em&gt; I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and&#xA;  My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the&#xA;  will of the Father who sent Me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is strictly a monotheistic religion but Hinduism is generally known as polytheistic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Deuteronomy 6:4 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;  Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as God is a Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit), Satan also imitates God and creates the Unholy Trinity (Satan, Antichrist, False Prophet) at the end times (Revelation 12-13). An apologist Justin Martyr (100–165 AD) wrote that Satan always imitates God and His prophesies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When they [&lt;strong&gt;wicked demons&lt;/strong&gt;] heard it predicted through the prophets that&#xA;  Christ was to come, and that impious men would be punished by fire,&#xA;  they put forward a number of so-called sons of Zeus, thinking that&#xA;  they could thus make men suppose that what was said about Christ was a&#xA;  mere tale of wonders like the stories told by the poets. [ . . . ]&#xA;  But, as I will make clear, though they heard the words of the prophets&#xA;  they did not understand them accurately, but &lt;strong&gt;made mistakes in&#xA;  imitating what was told about our Christ&lt;/strong&gt;. (First Apology 54)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Trimurti also could be one of the ways Satan imitates God in order to make himself like God. Satan always wanted to become like God and that was the reason why Satan was cast out of Heaven (Isaiah 14:12-14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-07-11T18:34:17.200" LastActivityDate="2014-07-11T18:34:17.200" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18181" CreationDate="2013-08-08T11:00:06.397" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are deeds which are displeasing to God and have spiritual consequences:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.  Romans 6:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...  Romans 3:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, there are deeds which are objectively wrong, say, drunkenness and pornography.  However, whether there are deeds that are objectively right, or are not riddled with opportunities for sin, is another matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.  Isaiah 64:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if you decide not to get drunk &amp;amp; watch porn on a Saturday, but instead go volunteer at a soup kitchen, that is a good choice. One cannot however make the assumption that the shelter gives you any less opportunities for sin: pride, unlove, lust, impatience, judging, etc.  Your righteous act is like a filthy rag.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T11:00:06.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17764" CreationDate="2013-08-08T11:09:32.860" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This will take a bit of work...But thankfully, the work has already been done :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you go to Volume 2 of Charles Hodge's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Systematic Theology&lt;/a&gt;, p 591, you will there see a pretty good treatment of Christ's Death and Burial. (Search for &quot;Christ humbled Himself even unto death, and continued under the power of death for&#xA;a time.&quot; minus the quotes in the pdf)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Hodge presents various historical views on the subject, I am not game to try and fill in the table for you, but would be very interested to see what others can make of Hodge's treatment of this. I think the table could be filled in from reading Hodge. It certainly helped me with your questions in mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a snippet or two from Hodge....&#xA;That Christ died is universally admitted by all Christians. That His suffering finished when He died is also held firm for He cried “It is finished”. Hodge then goes on to say that what happened was Christ descended into Sheol (the place of the dead) or the invisible state.&#xA;He then quotes from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/larger1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westminster Larger Catechism&lt;/a&gt; “Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day, which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.” This Hodge argues is the correct view of Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Hence to be buried, to go down to the grave, to descend into hell, are in Scriptural language equivalent forms of expression”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“In Scriptural language, therefore, to descend into Hades or Hell, means nothing more than to descend to the grave, to pass from the visible into the invisible world, as happens to all men when they die and are buried.&quot; (As an aside, Christ did not go to Hell (Gehenna - the place of torment) as His sufferings finished on the cross. )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“This view is confirmed by the fact that these words were not in the creed originally.&#xA;They were introduced in the fourth century, and then not as a separate or distinct article,&#xA;but as merely explanatory. “He was dead and buried,” i.e., he descended into hell. That the&#xA;two clauses were at first considered equivalent is obvious, because some copies of the creed had the one form, some the other, and some both, though all were intended to say the same thing”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="5197" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T22:22:18.100" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T22:22:18.100" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18227" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-08T11:12:44.107" Score="3" ViewCount="178" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; has this text on the topic of the Magisterium, and the problems of Protestant approaches to scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: &quot;Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque, invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua.&quot; One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have there been any cases where Roman Catholics opposed bible study or other ecumenical worship in a public setting (say state-run schools) on the basis of this doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2014-01-07T11:12:10.897" LastActivityDate="2014-01-17T12:33:34.610" Title="Has Protestant-led public bible study ever been viewed by Roman Catholics as violation of the Magisterium?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18229" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18232" CreationDate="2013-08-08T12:05:20.037" Score="1" ViewCount="3496" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the book of Acts, a certain temple seems to be being referred to in chapter 2 verse 46:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which temple is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5369" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T13:49:18.737" Title="Which temple is being referred to in Acts 2:46?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;temple&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18230" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18240" CreationDate="2013-08-08T12:32:16.820" Score="16" ViewCount="2685" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic church teaches that only the Church (Magisterium) has the right to interpret Scriptures whereas Protestant churches typically believe that anyone has that right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the argument that supports the idea that anyone can and should interpret Scripture for himself or herself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-14T19:08:35.023" LastActivityDate="2019-12-12T23:39:04.540" Title="What is the argument in support of personal interpretation of the Scriptures?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;bible-reading&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18229" CreationDate="2013-08-08T12:42:21.897" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Acts 1:8, Jesus tells the disciples that they will be witnesses for him 1) in Jerusalem, and 2) in all Judea and Samaria, and 3) to the ends of the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses &lt;strong&gt;in Jerusalem&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;in all Judea and Samaria&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;to the end of the earth&lt;/strong&gt;.”   Acts 1:8 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2-7 has the disciples 1) in Jerusalem, so the temple in Jerusalem is what they are referring to.  After the persecution begins with the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, the disciples are scattered across 2 Judea and Samaria.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Saul approved of his execution.  And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the &lt;strong&gt;regions of Judea and Samaria&lt;/strong&gt;, except the apostles.  Acts 8:1 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T12:42:21.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18229" CreationDate="2013-08-08T12:49:07.420" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2 records how Holy Spirit was poured down on the Day of Pentecost (v 1-4). And then Peter addressed the crowd who were amazed and confused what was going on. Most of them were Jews who came to Jerusalem for the Pentecost festival (v 5). Following Peter's sermon, 3000 were baptized that day (v 41). From verse 42, the writer recorded the activities of the first believers. They devoted to the apostles’ teaching (v 42), they shared everything (v 44) and they met together in the temple courts everyday (v 46).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2 is no doubt before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Hence, it refers to the Temple in Jerusalem and none other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What were they doing in the Temple courts?&lt;/strong&gt; Meeting together and preaching about Jesus Christ as we see in the immediate next chapter, Acts 3, where Peter and John healed a lame man who was begging at the temple gate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Acts 3:11 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Solomon’s Colonnade&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The believers  used to meet together in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Porch&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Solomon’s Colonnade&lt;/a&gt;, which was  on the eastern side of the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Acts 5:12 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in &lt;strong&gt;Solomon’s&#xA;  Colonnade&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see the picture of how the temple at that time looked like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here in Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-08T13:14:35.527" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T13:14:35.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18233" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18230" CreationDate="2013-08-08T13:28:51.993" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus Died on the Cross, the veil was torn in the Temple, meaning that we do not need a high priest to intercede for us, to God, anymore.  Jesus actually does that interceding for us now, He is our high priest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this coupled with the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit)   means that we can interpret the scriptures for ourselves.  we can interpret the scriptures for our lives, to interpret the scriptures for the lives of others is still in the ballpark of those that spend their lives completely dedicated to studying the scripture and being in Prayer and fasting for days at a time, like, say, the Pope.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so really it is a two sided issue.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;you can interpret the scriptures for your life, but when you start doing it for others it becomes a delicate subject of whether or not God is really saying that or if you are laying it on someone instead of praying it on someone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T13:28:51.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18234" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18246" CreationDate="2013-08-08T13:33:24.610" Score="0" ViewCount="591" Body="&lt;p&gt;Brotherly love is a commandment: 1 John 4:20,21 …and this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Brotherly love is a Christian trademark: John 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early church coexisted predominantly in harmony while under great threat of physical harm: Throughout the book of Acts (1:14; 2:1; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6; 12:20; 15:25; 18:12; 19:29) the early Church is said to be in “one accord”.  Paul in Romans 15:6 admonishes his followers: “That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was a oneness of “Spirit”: 1Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.  Also see: (1Corinthians 4:12; Ephesians 2:8; Ephesians 4:4; Philippians 2:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today there are some 41,000 Christian Denominations in the World according to: &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Has their ever been any significant historical movements within Christianity to reverse the splintering?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Modern Christians seem to accept that a oneness of Spirit is an impossibility, are there any current movements within Christianity towards reconciliation and a common accord?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Most Christians await the return of Jesus Christ, are there any denominations that are concerned about His reaction to what He finds?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T00:52:39.367" LastActivityDate="2018-12-02T00:52:39.367" Title="Are Christians supposed to be like-minded?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;ecumenism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2018-09-06T13:20:07.607" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18235" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18448" CreationDate="2013-08-08T13:42:09.977" Score="9" ViewCount="329" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement&quot;&gt;Satisfaction Theory&lt;/a&gt; is a theory of atonement that, in a nutshell, says that God's justice demands a certain amount of punishment for sin.  In that, God's &quot;wrath&quot; is often used as a metaphor for that need.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/16202-presbyterian-church-usa-drops-hymn-over-wrath-of-god&quot;&gt;the PCUSA declined to add the hymn &quot;In Christ Alone&quot; in their new hymnal&lt;/a&gt;.  That the hymn is exceedingly popular is not in doubt.  The Baptist Hymnal, for example, included it, and even the PCUSA acknowledges that it is one they &lt;em&gt;wanted&lt;/em&gt; to include. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtL_li4GbE&quot;&gt;The hymn itself&lt;/a&gt; is replete with many deep theological statements, but this line is called out as being &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; reason for rejection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The controversy stems from the following lyrics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which is a clear indication of satisfaction theory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article (linked above) says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The PCUSA's hymn committee had a problem with God being portrayed in the song as wrathful, and asked the writers for permission to change the problem stanza to, “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified.” The author's refused, explaining that they had written the song to present the “whole gospel,” and in their view changing the line would compromise the message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I don't actually know if Mainline Presbyterians are opposed to satisfaction theory. If they are (say, preferring &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement&quot;&gt;substitutionary atonement&lt;/a&gt; or the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor&quot;&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/a&gt; model), then I guess this statement makes sense.  But, if there is no such opposition, then I don't understand how one could, as the article explains oppose the concept of &quot;God's wrath&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question then, is this - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the Mainline Presbyterian Church (and specifically the more liberal PCUSA) hold in regards to Satisfaction Theory specifically?  Is this a case of PC &quot;we don't like the idea of God being angry&quot; or is it an actual truck with Satisfaction Theory itself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-08-08T15:15:51.817" LastActivityDate="2013-12-18T12:24:55.577" Title="Do Mainline Presbyterians oppose Satisfaction Theory? Is this why &quot;In Christ Alone&quot; was rejected for their Hymnal?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;&lt;politics&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18236" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18706" CreationDate="2013-08-08T13:46:29.677" Score="12" ViewCount="3458" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/18233/5323&quot;&gt;this answer&lt;/a&gt; to another question, a protestant view is given on what it means that the temple veil was torn. I have started to do some quick research into how the Catholic Church has understood it, but have mostly found the words of modern apologists and don't have time to do extensive research. This given interpretation does not ring true in my heart and obviously does not reflect Catholic teaching so that is the reason for my question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5323" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2015-12-14T18:36:37.873" Title="How has the Catholic Church interpreted the tearing of the temple veil?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;temple&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18229" CreationDate="2013-08-08T13:49:18.737" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is this one modelled here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y0Ri2.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/26VUV.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, Jerusalem has one big old honking Temple.  When someone is DC says, &quot;the Washington Monument&quot; for example, you know they are talking about the big one in the center of town, and not some random little statue there.  This would be in contrast to many Asisan cities where there are lots of Temples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of Acts clearly calls out that the disciples were in Jerusalem, and Acts 3:11 points out they were running through Solomon's Collonade, ensuring that in fact yes, it was &quot;the&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Temple in Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T13:49:18.737" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18238" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-08T14:06:52.497" Score="10" ViewCount="597" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard a sermon that was recorded in the 1980s.  The speaker was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Toms&quot;&gt;Dr. Paul E. Toms&lt;/a&gt;, who at the time was senior pastor at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Street_Church&quot;&gt;Park Street Church in Boston, Massachusetts&lt;/a&gt;.  In his sermon, Dr. Toms referenced a hymn, but he didn't mention the title.  My mother and I would really like to find this hymn.  We would be very grateful for any clues or ideas that you might have!  Here is what I know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The hymn is about a man who lived and died.  At the gates of Heaven, the gatekeeper said, &quot;On whose authority should I let you in?  The man replied:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I come in the name of Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For me He bled and died.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And the pearly gates swung open&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and welcomed him inside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was all that Dr. Toms mentioned about the hymn itself; unfortunately, he did not mention the title.  Dr. Toms did mention that a certain visitor to Park Street Church, &quot;Bill Hoyt&quot; (or possibly &quot;Hoight&quot; or similar; since I only have the sermon on audio, I don't know the spelling) sang this hymn at the church.  (But since I'm not sure if &quot;Bill Hoyt&quot; is a famous person or not, I'm not sure if this is a helpful bit of information.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this is all that I know.  We will be really grateful for any clues that you might have!  Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5299" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-08-08T14:13:27.000" LastActivityDate="2019-08-14T14:06:11.580" Title="Could you please help me locate this hymn?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18234" CreationDate="2013-08-08T14:19:57.207" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is from an ACC perspective: Brotherly love is essential to be called a disciple of The Lord. That is: brethren of The Lord, are &lt;em&gt;to love one another as He has loved them&lt;/em&gt;. And The Master defines His Brethren as &lt;em&gt;those who do the will of my Father&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we are called to love those who do the Will of the Father - who are consequently &lt;em&gt;like-minded.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestant denominations are devisive. There has been no real progress in bringing them together. Too many &quot;rice bowls&quot; would have to be broken. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The splintering of the Episcopal Church since the 70's until today is an example of how new denominations are created - a difference of opinion on which text to be used in the liturgy, and of the spiritual meaning of the text. There is no central authority to interpret the text in the Episcopal Church, just as there is none in Protestant organizations. Everyone seems to be free to interpret God's Word as they see fit - even to change God's Word to fit their cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the Catholic Churches, East and West, Roman, Orthodox and Anglican, there have been and are ongoing discussion to heal the loss of Communion between them. We see some progress in agreements between the Latin and Greek theology but still no agreement on Holy Orders (credentialing of clergy,) with a few exceptions. Mostly the divisions are caused by misunderstanding of each other's language. The Latin theological terms are not easy to translate into Greek theological terms. The English clergy always have been trained in theological Latin, and the disagreements here are rather about Church hierarchy (who is in charge,) celibacy of clergy, and the infallibility of the Church to interpret scripture. The English Church split with the Roman Church on these issues while retaining the Apostolic traditions and the doctrine of the Church up to the 6th. cent. or so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course Protestant churches, for the main, have ignored the teaching of the Church Fathers, discarded tradition, and rejected any central authority for the interpretation of scripture. Do you see a connection between these decisions and the fragmentation of the churches?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son of God knows what is happening always, there will be no surprise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-08-08T18:35:55.247" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T18:35:55.247" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18240" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18230" CreationDate="2013-08-08T14:38:21.077" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible itself -- if you'll pardon my interpretation -- seems to support such a practice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, the law is read aloud to the people (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2031:10-13;%20Josh%208:34-35;%202Kgs%2023:2;%20Neh%208:1-3&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut 31:10-13; Josh 8:34f; 2Kgs 23:2; Neh 8:1ff&lt;/a&gt;) and the king is required to copy out the law so that he may know it and do it (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut17:18-20&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut 17:18ff&lt;/a&gt;). In both cases, it is read &quot;raw&quot; and the people and rulers are to understand it and do it. Likewise, the Psalms are meant to be sung by the people, and Proverbs is in part a training manual in wisdom for princes to be read and understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, Jesus preaches directly to the people, the Apostles and missionaries preach to the people, and Paul intends that his letters be read aloud to the people (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col4:16&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Col 4:16&lt;/a&gt; -- possibly with the courier providing some additional clarification). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now these are authoritative teachers teaching, so one could argue they are similar in function to the Magisterium, but the &quot;noble Bereans&quot; are also commended for independently searching the scriptures to confirm Paul's teaching (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ac17:11&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 17:11&lt;/a&gt;); Priscilla and Aquila, who are certainly not in the Magisterium, tutor Apollos (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ac18:24-28&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 18:24ff&lt;/a&gt;); and Luke-Acts was written for the private individual Theophilus (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke1:1-4;Acts1:1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 1:1ff; Acts 1:1&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of this is to say there is not a binding authority given to the church; there certainly is -- even in Protestantism (how else could church discipline exist as one of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marks_of_the_Church&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;true marks&quot; of the church&lt;/a&gt;?). But individuals are still encouraged to read, hear, understand, and apply the words of the Bible themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Richard Pratt's formulation of Reformed hermeneutics, IIRC, there are three sources of interpretation one seeks to respect: historical (the church of the past, tradition), community (the church of the present, your pastor and elders), and individual (&quot;private interpretation&quot;, conscience, internal illumination by the Holy Spirit). In &quot;remnant&quot; situations, the individual interpretation may be the most correct, and God expects his people to abide by his true word, regardless of what the corrupt authorities say (cf. the OT prophets, and Jesus and John the Baptist vs. the scribes and Pharisees in the NT). That being said, going against broad agreement in interpretation across history and in one's present community should be done only with great prayer, humility, self re-examination, and trepidation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A footnote on 2 Pet. 1:20 (&quot;no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation&quot;), a contested verse in this context: &quot;Prophecy&quot; here is effectively &quot;God's communication.&quot; Reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet1:19-21&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the surrounding verses&lt;/a&gt; shows (I think!) that the passage is concerned with the &lt;em&gt;origin&lt;/em&gt; of a prophecy, specifically that it does not come from a private or merely human source. It is not addressing &lt;em&gt;interpretation&lt;/em&gt; or understanding of that divine communication, which is what we're talking about in this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2013-12-03T18:19:28.830" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T18:19:28.830" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18230" CreationDate="2013-08-08T15:00:05.537" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The interpretation of scripture has always been a prerogative of educated clergy and laymen (able ministers - see below.) If one is uneducated in Theology, then any personal interpretation is fraught with difficulties.&#xA;Peter warns readers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul warns us: &#xA;“Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 2 Corinthians 3:6, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be safe, an interpreter should refer back to the writings of the Church Fathers, in order to confirm any personal understanding, and if there is a disagreement, then the personal interpretation is probably in error and not safe to teach others. The opinions of uneducated people (not trained in Hebrew, Greek and Latin) cannot be relied upon to accurately represent the meaning of the text. English Bibles disagree with one another on basic Christology, and interpretations will differ because of this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic churches (Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Syrian, and Roman) the Church Fathers are the source for interpretation of the text. Their councils since the 4th. cent. have been decisive in determining the Christology of the Church. In the confessions of the various Catholic churches the Church Fathers are considered to be the source for the Doctrine of the Church. Everything that has been told about Christ comes from the writings of the Church Fathers and the official documents of the Church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Worldwide Anglican Catholic Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are, therefore, in principle, not a sect but a Church, with a universal mission. In fact, as Anglicans we are less sectarian in fundamental impulse than almost any other Christian body: for we firmly assert that while our mission is universal, the particular forms of our own Anglican worship and our own Anglican culture are not exclusive. &lt;strong&gt;We deny that we have any unique Anglican Catholic doctrine, but rather we stand for the unique authority of the patristic witness and the Conciliar tradition,&lt;/strong&gt; and we assert the incompleteness of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches in their more exclusivist claims. We are Catholic, but do not claim to be the only Catholics. We are Orthodox, but do not claim that in principle all others are heretics. &lt;strong&gt;We have clarity of doctrine, but a clarity that embraces East and West, Rome and Orthodox, past and present.&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;... Our primary goal is not to preserve a tradition, but to share it, even as we recognize that we will have nothing to share if we do not preserve intact what we have received.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ACC confession of faith:&#xA;We declare this church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full Communion with all Anglicans throughout the world who remain faithful to Apostolic Order (including the male Episcopate, Priesthood, and Diaconate), as an integral portion of the one Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, &lt;strong&gt;and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided Primitive Catholic Church in the Seven Ecumenical Councils&lt;/strong&gt;; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments through the Ministry of the same Divinely instituted Apostolic Orders; and worship one God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit Who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Anglican Catholic Church is a constituent member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, faithfully continuing the Anglican tradition. This Church upholds the historic Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship, and Evangelical Witness as set forth in the 1962 Canadian and 1928 American editions of the Book of Common Prayer, &lt;strong&gt;and accepts as binding and unalterable the received Faith and Traditions of the Church,&lt;/strong&gt; and its teachings, including the male Episcopate, Priesthood, and Diaconate, as set forth in the Holy Scriptures; the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds; &lt;strong&gt;the writings of the &quot;ancient Catholic Bishops and Doctors&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;; and especially as&#xA;defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SECTION 4. OF TRANSLATIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. The Authorised (King James) Version is the received Standard English translation of the Holy Scripture (Old Testament, New Testament, Apocrypha).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We acknowledge that rule of faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins: “Let us hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all, for that is truly and properly Catholic”.The received Tradition of the Church and its teaching as set forth by &lt;strong&gt;“the ancient catholic bishops and doctors”,&lt;/strong&gt; and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-08-09T01:19:46.283" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T01:19:46.283" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18207" CreationDate="2013-08-08T15:14:55.830" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if the Church has an explicit doctrinal position on this question, but I can give you the view of classical philosophy,  as originally expounded by Aristotle and then developed chiefly by St. Thomas Aquinas. This view undergirds the thinking of most orthodox Catholic theologians, historically speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this way of thinking -- &lt;strong&gt;assuming you mean &lt;em&gt;non-human&lt;/em&gt; animals, the short answer is 'no'.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Classical philosophy identifies three kinds of soul, each with its own distinctive powers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;vegetative&lt;/em&gt; soul has the powers of nutrition, growth, and reproduction&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;sensitive&lt;/em&gt; soul has the powers of the vegetative soul but also the powers of sense, imagination, and memory.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;rational&lt;/em&gt; soul has the powers of the sensitive and vegetative souls, but also the powers of reason and will.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plants have vegetative souls&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Most animals have sensitive souls, but human animals have rational souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The implication of saying that men have wills and animals don't is that men can, at least in principle, choose what they understand to be good even when it's not what their senses immediately perceive as good. E.g. I can choose to eat my supper before my dessert even when both are sitting in front of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas non-human animals are pretty much compelled to pursue the goods that their senses perceive, unless they are directed otherwise by a rational will (e.g.,. a well-trained work animal is largely subject to the will of its owner).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Yep, I did indeed say &lt;em&gt;plants have souls&lt;/em&gt;. In classical philosophy the &quot;soul&quot; is in general just that which living things have, but non-living things don't have (that's a very informal account).&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-08-08T15:29:42.493" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T15:29:42.493" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18049" CreationDate="2013-08-08T15:59:00.617" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe another option is equally possible: that Jesus didn't know Judas was a thief (or that he would later become a thief if he wasn't one originally), and that he wouldn't necessarily have been in a position to &quot;ought to know better&quot; when he chose him as a disciple. And even further, I believe that Jesus might not have known much at all about any of the disciples beforehand--except only those things that the Father &lt;em&gt;wanted&lt;/em&gt; Jesus to know and thus chose to reveal to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a common assumption that Jesus brought all his supernatural powers with him from heaven to earth, and had all these at his disposal while in his earth body. I don't believe that he did. I believe he chose not to operate in his all-knowingness while on earth (e.g., &quot;no man knows the day or hour but the Father&quot;). I believe, instead, that he chose to live in the power of the spirit, always observing what his father was doing, and always doing what he thus saw (Jn 5:19). In effect, he chose to live his life on earth &lt;em&gt;exactly the same way&lt;/em&gt; he wants us to live our life on earth. I believe he was very purposeful in doing it this way, and so he could honestly say to us &quot;you will do even greater things than you have seen me do&quot;. We are to understand that such things are possible because we do not live life in the power of our own resources, but completely by his resources as he lives in us and as we no longer live, but Christ lives in us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So...did the Father reveal Judas' thieving inclinations or future sin to Jesus when Jesus chose Judas as one of his disciples? Even broader, did Jesus even use any of his own wisdom or understanding at all in choosing any of the disciples (and here, by &quot;his own wisdom or understanding&quot;, I mean whatever earthly wisdom or understanding he would have had...since I'm coming from the position that he didn't directly access his supernatural powers while in his earth body)? Or did he simply do as he was led by the Father to do? The scripture doesn't say, but I'm inclined to believe that he chose the disciples based on the leading of the Father to do so (&quot;Those whom &lt;em&gt;You gave Me&lt;/em&gt; I have kept&quot;...Jn 17:12), and not based on any earthly wisdom or understanding. After all, how many million random people were available in the surrounding communities for him to choose from? If there was no &quot;chance&quot; or randomness in the selection of the twelve, but instead they were the exact twelve that he was supposed to choose, then the question really comes back to whether or not Jesus carried with him the same omniscience and foreknowledge that he--outside of his earth body--always has access to as a part of being God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I believe that he chose not to operate in his omniscience while in his earth body, but instead chose to access that same omniscience in a different way--the way he wants us to--by walking continuously and completely in the spirit. Thus, not having direct access to your own omniscience (or omnipotence) becomes unnecessary as long as the one who &lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; those things is overjoyed to give you all that you need from those sources, and as long as you rely and depend completely upon him for that in all that you do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is a bit of a long answer simply to raise the &lt;em&gt;possibility&lt;/em&gt; that Jesus didn't know much of anything about any of his disciples when he chose them, other than the fact that these were the ones that the Father had chosen for him and had given to him. I believe it's possible that he &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; knew about his thievery while on earth. The Father simply may never have told him, and it's my feeling that Jesus never paid much (if any) attention to the money in the bag anyway. The money was really just a prop, in a way, as far as Jesus was concerned...wasn't it? The &lt;em&gt;disciples&lt;/em&gt; were obviously concerned with the money, and whenever the group needed something, their thoughts went to the money as their source of provision (&quot;You &lt;strong&gt;give&lt;/strong&gt; them something to eat.&quot; And they said to him, &quot;Shall we go and &lt;strong&gt;buy&lt;/strong&gt; two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?&quot;). But Jesus' thoughts always went to the Father as the source of provision. I believe it's likely that Jesus never gave a first thought to money, and only thought of it when the Father showed him that money would be a part of his plan for solving the need at hand (&quot;go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Father &lt;em&gt;had&lt;/em&gt; revealed various things to Jesus about Judas' character or future behavior before he chose him as a disciple, then I think many of the options proposed in JamesT's answer are very good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5370" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T15:59:00.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="596" CreationDate="2013-08-08T17:54:25.583" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The disciple whom Jesus loved, was loved more than the others because Jesus trusted Him with his greatest secrets or teachings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus put His Mother into the care of this disciple for her lifetime. Now consider the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author of The Gospel according to John, was not at the last supper. He knew the story well, through oral tradition from the disciples, perhaps from John of Zebedee himself. The Gospel itself was pen'd at the end of the century, and by a Greek theologian, perhaps the greatest in that century. The Hebrew who &lt;em&gt;was lying on Jesus's breast&lt;/em&gt;  was one of the twelve, and in comparison with the author, theologically rather naive. If the disciple whom Jesus loved was this John, He called him &lt;em&gt;the son of thunder&lt;/em&gt;. &#xA;&lt;em&gt;“And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:”&lt;/em&gt; Mark 3:17, KJV.&#xA;Here was the disciple who took care of Mary. What great love must Jesus have had for John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!&lt;/em&gt;” John 19:26, KJV.&#xA;And this disciple lived with Mary until her death (or ascension.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the Fathers think it was out of modesty (Augustine, and Chrysostom) and that the author and the disciple were the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is another consideration: Peter beckoned to the disciple, and he moved from the Master's bosom (or perhaps leaned away,) to hear the question Peter was to put to him. Then the disciple whom Jesus loved returned to lie on His breast to ask &lt;em&gt;&quot;Lord who is it?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Peter, the Chief Apostle, beckons to that disciple because of the special place he had in the Master's heart. Peter could expect an answer, but he did not hear what the disciple heard, nor did the disciple speak. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter saw the Master dip the sop, and only heard &lt;em&gt;&quot;what thou doest, do quickly.&lt;/em&gt;&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Master had taken the disciple whom he loved into His confidence, and the disciple did not betray the confidence by rising up and calling a warning to the others. This was out of the love between the disciple and the Master, which was stronger than with any other disciple. The others, even Peter, could not be trusted to keep quiet about Judas. Any one of them would have shouted out a warning to the others, had he known. Wouldn't we do the same?&#xA;But the disciple whom the Master loved, did not betray His Master. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also did not understand what was going to happen to the Master - and of the resurrection to come. &#xA;&lt;em&gt;“Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.”&lt;/em&gt; John 20:8, 9, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though Judas must have known, for he had been chosen by God to do what was necessary to fulfill the scripture:&lt;em&gt;“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”&lt;/em&gt; John 17:12, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the Master allowed Judas in the garden to kiss him, for love.&#xA;The Master does not mention anyone kissing Him but Mary Magdalene. &#xA;&lt;em&gt;“... he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.”&lt;/em&gt; Luke 7:43-45, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?”&lt;/em&gt; Luke 22:48, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How great is the love of the Master for those who trust Him and are obedient to Him? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T17:54:25.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18234" CreationDate="2013-08-08T18:06:49.143" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is obviously the will of Jesus Christ, the builder of the Church, that Christians should live in one accord. However, if we can belief that everything is controlled and monitored by God, then I do not think we should take our present splintering situation negatively. This might be the will of God, who knows?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some reasons why new denominations are born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The mother church goes off the right track.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Disagreement in political or management inside the church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Commotion among the members.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Disagreement in specific doctrines.&#xA;etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the mother church is clearly in the wrong and is not in a position to repent, there is no choice but to form a new group. Sometimes, political disagreement is the will of God to extend His kingdom as in the case of Paul and Barnabas, who splitted party which in fact was God's plan to reach out to Gentiles in Macedonia, for a greater ministry. It is also the work of Satan to divide the church by stirring the members to fight among themselves. Disagreement in doctrine is a serious issue where the power of Satan is usually at work. Satan brings confusion and doubt to the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no doubt that some denominations are planted by the Devil as we see in  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013:24-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the parable of the Weeds&lt;/a&gt;. But God allow the true and false church to grow together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 13:30&lt;/em&gt; Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell&#xA;the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be&#xA;burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything is in God's hand. We must trust in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some preachers who try bring denominations together and deliver good sermons towards unity in Christianity. Also, these days we have many non-denominational christians, who takes less interest in denominations but focus more on ministry and unification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, &lt;strong&gt;we are not that different from each other. Each of us are but a single organ in the Body of Christ and Christ is the Head of us all&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T18:06:49.143" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4803" CreationDate="2013-08-08T18:28:13.937" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible one of the 10 Commandments says &quot;Thou Shalt Not Kill&quot;.  However the belief is based on many other references too.  Quakers also refuse to swear oaths, on the basis that they always tell the truth and will not swear in God's name or any other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Quakers formed unarmed pacifist units to supply relief to refugees and ambulances to drive in battle zones picking up the wounded in WW2.  3 of my family served in these units.  The Quakers were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 for this work.  Some more background information can be found at this link:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1947/press.html&quot;&gt;http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1947/press.html&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a memorial recently erected to their pacifism and relief work during WW2:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/16/rare-memorial-inspires-quakers-work&quot;&gt;http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/16/rare-memorial-inspires-quakers-work&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5376" LastEditorUserId="5376" LastEditDate="2013-08-08T19:00:23.347" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T19:00:23.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8160" CreationDate="2013-08-08T18:39:00.883" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The relief work from the UK side of the Quakers (Friends Service Council) was carried out by the Friends Relief Service (FRS).  My mother worked with the FRS in London packing foodstuffs and supplies to be shipped to needy regions in Europe, primarily Germany.  My aunt worked with FRS in the field in Brunswick (Braunschweig) North Germany distributing food and supplies to people in distressed circumstances and helping displaced persons/refugees get passage to safer places directly after WW2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other branch of the UK Quakers was called the Friends Ambulance Unit (FAU).  These were ambulances which would work in WW2 battle zones picking up wounded soldiers while under artillery and regular fire.  The volunteers were all pacifists and carried no weapons, but had a clear chance of being blown up or shot in their duties!  My uncle drove ambulances in the FAU in North Africa during the Rommel campaigns and in other parts of the world.  He also helped Jewish refugees in Italy get passage to Palestine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of the work of these branches of Quakerism the FSC and the AFSC were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947.  There is also a memorial to their work unveiled just this year in the UK and more information can be found in this Guardian article:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/16/rare-memorial-inspires-quakers-work&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/16/rare-memorial-inspires-quakers-work&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more complete story about pacifism amongst Quakers can be seen at this link related to the 1947 Nobel Peace Prize:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1947/press.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1947/press.html&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5376" LastEditorUserId="5376" LastEditDate="2013-08-08T18:47:13.950" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T18:47:13.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17845" CreationDate="2013-08-08T19:46:37.893" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The major difference between the KJV and the NKJV, is that the King James Version 1611-1769 (the Authorized Version, so called) was written by the Bishops of the Church of England specifically to support the Ecclesiology and doctrine of that Church. American versions of the KJV are different, and not authorized to be read in the CofE. The Queens publishers are authorized to print the only version of the KJV approved to be read in the Liturgy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NKJV is an American publication that was written using similar language to the KJV (to become a modernized 17th. cent. English), but which was not written by Bishops of the CofE, and not approved to be read in the Liturgy of the CofE. It is a Bible that is translated by two Cambridge scholars in the first instance - one a very scholarly Bishop, the other a very distinguished Greek translator. Their work became the basis for all the post Darwinian Bibles that we have today - I use this term because it was the publication of Darwins theory (1859), that forced theologians to strengthen their position on Creationism, which incidentally led to the discovery of two ancient Greek Bibles (Sinaiticus 1859, Vaticanus 1859), one in the Vatican archives where it had lain since the 11th. cent., and one at the Monastery at St Catherine's on Mount Sinai, where pages were being used as fire starters. Vaticanus was the primary text used by Westcott and Hort to make a translation into modern Greek in 1881. This translation was used to produce the English translation called the Revised Version, which spawned the American Revised Standard Version, and countless others including the NKJV (1962) and of course the NIV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that is the background to the NKJV, and KJV. Here is the advice on which to choose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have 28 Bibles for reference (electronic of course) but I tend to stick to Bibles written before 1881 (the date of first publication of the RV NT). The most useful is the Authorized version of the King James Bible printed by the Queen's printers - by the Oxford printer for the USA. Almost all the 19th. cent. commentaries and Lectionaries (Strong's etc.) are keyed to the phrases in this Bible. So, when you read the commentaries you can look the verses up and find the same words in the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other Bible is the Duoay-Rheims English translation of the Vulgate Bible which was written in Classical Latin in the late 4th.cent from Old Latin manuscripts primarily, but compared to Hebrew Torah, and the Greek Septuagint from &quot;Origen's Hexapla&quot; of the 3rd. cent. King James version (AV 1769) and the DRV teach the same theology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word order and sentence structure of Bibles after 1881 are different enough from the standard Commentaries (of which there exist more than a thousand), that it makes it difficult to grasp the significance of the comment, when the text of a particular Bible is worded differently. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing to be wary of is a &quot;study bible&quot; because often the commentary is geared to the doctrine a particular religious group and then drafted into another Bible where it is not relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Bibles have been commissioned to support particular doctrines. You cannot use a Roman Catholic Bible to support non-Catholic doctrine. And Protestant Bibles cannot be read in the Catholic church Liturgy, nor in Anglican liturgy (&quot;liturgy&quot; applies to the order of Sunday Service.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an introduction to this, go to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.waeshael.com/Christianity/Studies/Entries/2012/4/9_Four_Bibles.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;my non-commercial web site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="5165" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T17:00:44.113" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T17:00:44.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18251" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-08T20:28:49.733" Score="2" ViewCount="79" Body="&lt;p&gt;If so, how can we agree that man will only reach the end he was meant to enjoy by achieving the highest happiness, where there is nothing left to want or can be had...if we assume we shall remain finite and therefore only recieve finite pleasures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess another way of asking 'how can we enoy the infinite Lord (as Thomas suggested) if we can only bear witness in a finite fashion? If our joy is 'less' how can it be that nothing is left to desire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T20:28:49.733" Title="Is Thomas of Aquinas's idea of 'beatification' still held?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;&lt;infinity&gt;&lt;new-earth&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-07-06T07:54:11.707" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10126" CreationDate="2013-08-08T21:17:22.580" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that one reason that this book was named Hebrews was due to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the earliest form of the text that has come down to us, P&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;, this book had the title &lt;em&gt;(Greek won't display here)&lt;/em&gt; - (Pros Hebraious, &quot;To[the]Hebrews&quot;).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. &quot;Hebrews.&quot; An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. 609. Print.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although authorial attribution is missing there seems to be a high likelihood of this being a possible original title.  I am no scholar though so I am just throwing this in as food for thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5378" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T21:17:22.580" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18253" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18256" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:12:07.563" Score="0" ViewCount="184" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the title asks, what is the Septuagint?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard it referred to in a number of questions on this site and other sources across the internet, but I what is the Septuagint and what is it's importance to Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also of interest is who wrote it, when was it written and why was it written?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T23:44:33.390" Title="What is the Septuagint?" Tags="&lt;septuagint&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-08-09T00:29:25.883" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18181" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:25:19.970" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes he wants us to know what is right and wrong, and encourages to in 1 Kings 9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The request to stand for good morals:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;verse 4 And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The promise if you do:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;verse 5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5380" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T22:25:19.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18180" CreationDate="2013-08-08T22:37:55.550" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fantastic Bible index of all scriptures by topic. Then click on Jesus Christ, Antemortal Existence of. (pre-earth existence)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=j&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=j&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 17:5 - glorify thou me … with the glory which I had with thee before the world was&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5380" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T22:37:55.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18253" CreationDate="2013-08-08T23:44:33.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Septuagint&lt;/a&gt; is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (The Old Testament).  It is often referred to, in shorthand, as the LXX.  The name means &quot;Seventy&quot; (hence LXX).  It is named after the 70 scholars who wrote it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Israel was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hellenized&lt;/a&gt;, it became popular, in Israel, as the everyday-man's scripture since Greek was spoken more often than Hebrew.  It is commonly referenced in Christian circles because it is the translation that was used by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament when they were quoting the Old Testament.  That is one of the reasons why the New Testament quotes of Old Testament scripture don't line up, word-for-word, with what you find in the Old Testament.  It was a somewhat loose translation of the Hebrew, roughly akin to the looseness of the modern NIV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has been immensely useful to those studying ancient Hebrew because it is a sort-of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rosetta Stone&lt;/a&gt;, providing slightly-more-modern Greek translations of ancient Hebrew words.  It is also important because, even though it is only a translation, it is older than many of the Hebrew manuscripts for the books in the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one knows specifically who the 70 scholars were who wrote the Septuagint, but the traditional story is that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_II_Philadelphus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ptolemy II&lt;/a&gt;, a King in Egypt from 283-246 B.C., commissioned it so that it could be used by the Greek-speaking Jews who were living Egypt at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastActivityDate="2013-08-08T23:44:33.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18257" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18261" CreationDate="2013-08-09T00:01:10.940" Score="6" ViewCount="1679" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have long been a fan of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;J. R. R. Tolkien&lt;/a&gt;, and have enjoyed his works from an early age.  I am aware that he was raised by a Roman Catholic priest, and remained a deeply religious man his whole life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wanting to pin down some of the major christian symbols and undertones in his works that are a byproduct of his Catholic world view. I would particularly like to know who or what symbolizes Christ in &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Lord of the Rings&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2020-03-02T22:14:33.590" LastActivityDate="2020-10-12T02:08:21.267" Title="Who symbolizes Christ in J. R. R. Tolkien's &quot;The Lord of the Rings&quot;?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;christian-literature&gt;&lt;tolkien&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18258" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-09T00:06:55.687" Score="8" ViewCount="776" Body="&lt;p&gt;Upon reading this chapter in the Brothers Karamazov I find myself confused as to why &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor&quot;&gt;The Grand Inquisitor&lt;/a&gt; is considered to be such a powerful argument for atheism and against theodicy. &lt;strong&gt;What are typical Christian responses (apologetic) to this argument?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please also address the following areas which confuse me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The chapter itself seems to state that Jesus set the bar much too high for man with respect to salvation, but isn't it true that humans were never intended to reach the level of holiness that Jesus attained and that salvation is a gift to those who repent? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why is Ivan's description of the suffering of children such powerful ammunition for rejecting God? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will accept answers sourced from any reputable apologetic organizations, or well-known apologists/theologians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5381" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-10T18:19:44.393" LastActivityDate="2016-01-10T18:19:44.393" Title="What are typical Christian responses to The Grand Inquisitor?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;&lt;theodicy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18257" CreationDate="2013-08-09T01:16:31.847" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Frodo's self-sacrificial trip to Mount Doom to &quot;destroy power&quot; has allegorical similarities to Christ's incarnation and &quot;descent to Hell&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T01:16:31.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18257" CreationDate="2013-08-09T01:38:55.560" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tolkien always denied that The Lord of the Rings was an allegory, let alone a Christian allegory. While many people have searched for Christian symbolism, the author did not intend that there should be any. Specifically there is no character who corresponds to Christ. There are of course strong themes of good and evil, of destiny and of guiding and creating spirits, sacrifice and nobility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T01:38:55.560" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16318" CreationDate="2013-08-09T02:56:28.393" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What about the NASB?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The SBC does not support the TNIV nor the 2011 revision of the NIV because of the inaccurate translations pertaining to gender.  There are resolutions stating such.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They were fine with the 1984 NIV, but it is no longer being printed.  They now support the HCSB.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5282" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T02:56:28.393" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18264" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13676" CreationDate="2013-08-09T04:20:14.323" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore &lt;strong&gt;shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so,&lt;/strong&gt; he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever &lt;strong&gt;shall do and teach them&lt;/strong&gt;, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mt 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding &lt;strong&gt;he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;by WAESHAEL: The revealed truth in Mt 11:11 is that John the Baptist was not in the Kingdom of Heaven while alive and in prison. On the other hand some people had entered the kingdom of heaven, even those who were just beginning to understand were allowed in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;by WAESHAEL: God chooses who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven -&#xA;those He declares righteous, He converts and makes as&#xA;little children. That is, He gives the grace of repentance,&#xA;to man, who then is drawn to change his fleshly life,&#xA;demonstrates this desire to others, accepts Christ as his&#xA;Lord and King, and studies the word of God - as if a&#xA;child, accepting all he is taught. And thereby man&#xA;enters the Kingdom of Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;by WAESHAEL: So you see here that to enter the KOH requires one to accept Christ as Lord and King. John the Baptist did not do this. He sent his own disciples to ask Jesus whether he was the one they waited for i.e JB did not know Jesus was Christ. And JB died before he could enter the kingdom of heaven. But He was declared by God to be righteous (Jesus calls him &quot;the greatest.&quot;) and presumably obtained Life Eternal through the Abrahamic covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and &lt;strong&gt;preaching the gospel of the kingdom&lt;/strong&gt;, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.” Matthew 4:23, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summary: To enter into the Kingdom of Heaven is to enter into a life as taught to the disciples by The Master. A life of doing things for others - &lt;em&gt;healing all manner of sickness&lt;/em&gt; - whether physical or spiritual. If you did God's will and showed others &lt;em&gt;&quot;teach others to observe whatsoever I have shown you.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; Jesus had told the disciples at a later time, then you are the greatest. If, on the other hand you disagreed with God's will, and taught others to disagree, you would be the lowest in the KOH - but you were not excluded from it, because you had accepted Christ as your Lord and King. You were only a &quot;child,&quot; and could repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="4793" LastEditDate="2013-08-09T04:30:35.523" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T04:30:35.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18266" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18272" CreationDate="2013-08-09T06:28:04.023" Score="12" ViewCount="5053" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; has a list of people burned as heretics by the Church in the past. Is there any Biblical basis for burning the heretics? Which specific verse was used for the  judgement on the heretics, which called for the &lt;em&gt;burning at the stake&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess, this verse might have influence on the method of execution, if interpreted wrongly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do&#xA;nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is&#xA;thrown away and withers; &lt;strong&gt;such branches are picked up, thrown into the&#xA;fire and burned&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;em&gt;John 15:5-6&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Couldn't the Church simply ignore the heretics? Is there any command in the Bible to burn the heretics? If such command is there, should we continue to burn the heretics in the Church today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-10-17T02:21:46.980" Title="Is it biblical to burn the heretics?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;capital-punishment&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="13" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18266" CreationDate="2013-08-09T10:46:04.053" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a scholarly article on the Inquisitions at a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ironmaidencommentary.com/?url=album10_xfactor/inquisition&amp;amp;lang=eng&amp;amp;link=albums#theological&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;rather surprising website&lt;/a&gt;. It says...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(From Deuteronomy 13 NIV) &amp;quot;If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you... and he says, 'Let us follow other gods'... &lt;strong&gt;That prophet or dreamer must be put to death... You must purge the evil from among you.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods'... do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him... &lt;strong&gt;You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death...&lt;/strong&gt; Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray... then &lt;strong&gt;you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly.&lt;/strong&gt; And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, &lt;strong&gt;you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(From Exodus 22:18 NIV) &lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;Do not allow a sorceress to live.&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does appear that the only NT verse which could be used as justification is the one you cite from John 15. However, S Thomas Aquinas was happy with the situation of heretics being delivered for execution:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but 'after the first and second admonition,' as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death... Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to whether the Church should be acting in the same way today, what Aquinas says is relevant: &amp;quot;...and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aquinas acknowledges that it is not the Church who is exterminating, but &amp;quot;the secular tribunal&amp;quot;. People are put to death in accordance with the laws of the State, which may or may not allow execution for heresy against the Church. Most secular law nowadays does not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With excommunication, the Church is protecting itself from pollution — both the Church Militant as the heretic will no longer have contact with it; and the Church Triumphant, as he won't reach heaven either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/brazilian-priest-excommunicated-for-heresy-for-denying-catholic-teaching-on/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;does still excommunicate&lt;/a&gt; for heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T13:35:36.357" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18257" CreationDate="2013-08-09T12:24:53.067" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Tolkien made the statement that there was no implied allegory in LOTR, I did pick up the following things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;LOTR can be read as an allegory of WW2.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;LOTR can be read as an allegory of the industrial revolution of the West (Saruman's &quot;mind of metal and wheels&quot;, the endless smoke from Mount Doom) and all the evil it entails for rural man (the hobbits).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;LOTR can be read as an allegory of the history of Christendom. It helps if one has read The Silmarillion. The Silmarils being analogues for the light of Christianity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for catholic allegories, ones that jumped out at me were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gandalf is an archangel and a keeper of the sacred fire (the word of God being an all-consuming fire).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The other wizards can also be seen as angels, Saruman being Azazel, one of the fallen.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elves are ante-deluvian man with their extremely long life spans and the knowledge such a long life makes possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The most obvious one for me: Aragorn is Jesus whose Kingdom will be established when evil has been conquered forever.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sauron is Satan, the corruptor and enslaver. Again, a very obvious one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also helps if one has read the Apocryphal Texts. Most notably the two books of Enoch which seems to have served as a strong influence for The Silmarillion (along with Norse mythology).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4990" LastEditorUserId="4990" LastEditDate="2018-06-20T07:29:05.040" LastActivityDate="2018-06-20T07:29:05.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18269" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18308" CreationDate="2013-08-09T13:09:42.933" Score="9" ViewCount="13424" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11;%20Luke%204:1-13&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13&lt;/a&gt; presented a different order of the temptations Satan offered after Christ completed his forty days fasting in the wilderness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down . . . &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here . . .&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why did they differ? Is it because either one of them forgot the order of the temptations presented? Who is right? Or, is there a theological point that is being highlighted for different purposes between the two Gospel writers?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-28T17:51:30.010" LastActivityDate="2016-06-15T06:11:58.193" Title="Why do Mathew and Luke present a different order of Satan's temptation of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;&lt;temptation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-15T19:57:15.927" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18270" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-09T13:50:58.770" Score="8" ViewCount="832" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 14&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2053&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 53&lt;/a&gt; are almost identical with little differences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any reason why the same psalm is repeated? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are these psalms composed by the same author?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-12-14T18:35:05.973" LastActivityDate="2021-04-19T13:51:21.517" Title="Psalm 14 and psalm 53 are similar?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18266" CreationDate="2013-08-09T14:03:40.577" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no verse in the New Testament stating that we need to punish &amp;quot;heretics&amp;quot;. Quite the contrary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In James 4:12 (NIV) it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:43-48 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The parable of the tares among the wheat could be applied to this problem. Matthew 13:24-30 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when Peter lopped off the ear of the slave of the high priest (Matthew 26:51-52), Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that the context is different, but it shows how the kingdom of heaven is not a militant kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="173" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T14:27:01.730" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18163" CreationDate="2013-08-09T14:12:15.577" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question asked here seems to be trying to imply something is happening which in virtually every case is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Restricting myself to Protestantism for the moment, the implication seems to be that because Lewis and Chesterton are widely read, somehow people are basing their doctrine on them. I think it's pretty safe to say they are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lewis and Chesterton would never claim that their writings were authoritative, and mostly would make it explicitly clear that they were not. So if anyone is taking them as authoritative then they are going against the authors intent. I know plenty of people who really like Lewis, and find him really helpful, but I have never heard of a single one who says that what Lewis writes is 'doctrine' and you have to believe it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Writings like this are either interpretations of Christian ideas that might make them more understandable to some people, or they are ideas that help explain Christianity that might or might not be actually the case, but are a helpful way of looking at things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that there is a big difference between 'doctrine' - stuff which is core Christianity - and other things you happen to believe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T14:12:15.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18274" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18315" CreationDate="2013-08-09T14:46:15.950" Score="6" ViewCount="3658" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder why Roman Catholics show devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary if their devotion can be shown to Jesus Christ and Mary instead? What's the difference?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-08-09T14:47:48.173" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T20:03:28.150" Title="Why do Roman Catholics show devotion to the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;devotion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="982" CreationDate="2013-08-09T14:53:33.440" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is found in the preface to the AV KJV of 1611 (&lt;em&gt;The Translators to the Reader&lt;/em&gt; 11 pages), which has been removed from American KJV Bibles, and is not available on official King James Version web sites. This AV also lists the translators (Pages 36-38) who were all ordained except one; Sir Henry Saville. Many were Bishops, several Deans. On the WEB, ordination of the translators is seldom mentioned, but is is given in the AV (pp 36 -38). In the C of E Bishops were always the final authority on the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tyndale's introduction to his NT also explains why he kept the word order of the original MSS (partly to retain Aramaic colloquialisms that were not then understood,) and how he made the translation. He was ordained (a Deacon) and a Cambridge scholar expert in classical languages. Many of his verses were adopted en masse by the English Bishops who were supervising the AV KJV translation, though Tyndale was not acknowledged as the creator of the work because he had been excommunicated and strangled to death (1535).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The guideline the translators received (though they did not follow it explicitly,) was to build upon the text of the Bishops' Bible, and they rather followed Tyndale's language and style.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T14:53:33.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18276" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-09T15:13:45.040" Score="1" ViewCount="434" Body="&lt;p&gt;(See 'Letters To Malcolm') CS lewis said, because mankind is by definition finite, that we shall always be in a situation of successive time, with the present becoming past. In 'The Problem Of Pain' he says that time in Heaven may not be so much like a linear line but have thickness like a plain as well.&#xA;I'm a bit confused by that analogy as that still inplies length...does he mean we will just experience 'a lot of things' within time or, erm, well, help!&#xA;Great guy CS Lewis but  am a little confused on 'how' he thought time would behave in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T23:57:40.040" Title="CS Lewis said time would probably continue in Heaven...But how?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;&lt;infinity&gt;&lt;new-earth&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18211" CreationDate="2013-08-09T15:53:27.657" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a little bit of conflation going on, but I believe the primary basis for the allegation to be Revelation 18, to wit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!&#xA;     She has become a dwelling place for demons,&#xA;  a haunt for every unclean spirit,&#xA;      a haunt for every unclean bird,&#xA;      a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.&#xA;  3 For all nations have drunk[a]&#xA;      the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality,&#xA;  and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her,&#xA;      and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The judgement is given in verse 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Come out of her, my people,&#xA;      lest you take part in her sins,&#xA;  lest you share in her plagues;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, a description of who and what she does continues throughout.  Specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As she glorified herself and lived in luxury,&#xA;      so give her a like measure of torment and mourning, ... And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo anymore, 12 cargo of gold, silver, jewels, pearls, fine linen, purple cloth, silk, scarlet cloth, all kinds of scented wood, all kinds of articles of ivory, all kinds of articles of costly wood, bronze, iron and marble, 13 cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, oil, fine flour, wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and slaves, that is, human souls. ... The merchants of these wares, who gained wealth from her, will stand far off, in fear of her torment, weeping and mourning aloud,... Alas, alas, for the great city&#xA;      where all who had ships at sea&#xA;      grew rich by her wealth!&#xA;  For in a single hour she has been laid waste&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can be ascertained is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Babylon is loved by the &quot;merchants of the earth&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Babylon is under the control of the beast, but is not the beast.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Babylon has been overthrown - therefore the international economic system has been overthrown&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically, most dispensational readings of this text say that Revelation 18 shows the unholy alliance between &quot;the beast&quot; and the economic system of the age.  A linkage between the merchants who sailed the known world of the time and the merchants who run corporations all over the world is not a stretch. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpd1GdWluKQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David Hocking in particular makes this explicit here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given this conflation, it is a natural step to associate today's globalized mega-corporations who &quot;grow rich on the sweat of the poor&quot; with this Babylonian economy.  John's message to the poor of his day is very much in tune with the poor of this day - The rich are going to get their due!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T15:53:27.657" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="286" CreationDate="2013-08-09T16:09:00.247" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is an Aramaic colloquialism, and means that the son would take care of his aging father until he dies(or other relative), which might take many years. So the would-be disciple could not follow Jesus.&#xA;see:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels&lt;/em&gt; by George M. Lamsa&#xA;HarperSanFrancisco (1985)&#xA;As an example from the book:&#xA;&lt;em&gt;21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go&#xA;and bury my father.&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;meant“take care of my father until he dies.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus suggested that those not believing in Christ (the spiritually dead) should take care of the aging parent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more examples of Aramaic Idiom download my PDF&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.waeshael.com/Christianity/Waking_Jesus/Entries/2007/1/21_Aramaic_Idiom_in_the_NT_files/AramaicIdiomNT.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.waeshael.com/Christianity/Waking_Jesus/Entries/2007/1/21_Aramaic_Idiom_in_the_NT_files/AramaicIdiomNT.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T16:09:00.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18280" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18297" CreationDate="2013-08-09T16:14:39.703" Score="5" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be two possible ways that a preacher can feed their flock.  One, they can be inspired by God to preach sermons that give people exactly what they need in due season without ever realizing the sermon just fits the needs of the church. Two, they really get to know each person in the congregation and develop a clear understanding what their needs are to preach sermons that match what they can see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, what is the biblical basis that a preacher must engage the members getting to know them and their thoughts, rather than just bury himself in theological study and prayer barely knowing his congregation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T00:53:52.743" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T00:53:52.743" Title="What is the biblical basis to say it is the duty of every minister to know his congregation?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;ministry&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15285" CreationDate="2013-08-09T16:30:05.743" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;“And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.” Matthew 10:11-13, KJV.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is what should we ( as disciples) be doing in order to follow this commandment of Jesus?&#xA;St. Augustine gave a sermon on this, and when I get back to my computer, I will add some comment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T16:30:05.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18276" CreationDate="2013-08-09T16:33:52.060" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, he is saying that our future perception may be &quot;expanded&quot;, while still being qualitatively the same - in particular, not approaching the very different perception of time that God has. (We experience time as a succession of cause and effect; we can remember the past but can only conjecture about the future. On the other hand, God sees all times at once.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the letter, he talks about the thicker line as a suggestion that we could experience a &quot;wider&quot; present than we currently do, by being able to see and understand more  things at once. However, we are still on the line, and so we have the same inability to see the future as we do now. This matches the standard account of angelic knowledge: angels' intellect is like our own, but better, so that they can make &lt;em&gt;more accurate&lt;/em&gt; deductions about the future, but still have to deduce rather than perceiving it directly. In the same way, angels are better than us at noticing things and in the general acuity of their senses, but they still fall short of God's ability to see things as they &lt;em&gt;truly are&lt;/em&gt;, as opposed to their being mediated by the senses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of Lewis's thought in the letter is that the future &quot;resurrection of the body&quot; implies that we will have bodies (and senses, and minds) that are still basically the same as now. They are perfected, but are still not divine. Scholastic philosophers argued that our &lt;em&gt;perception&lt;/em&gt; of time in heaven might be different for several reasons -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We couldn't measure the progression of time from our physiological processes (getting hungry or tired).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;With no celestial bodies to look at, we can't use them to measure hours, days, seasons, or years.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The same goes for measuring time by the decay of objects (eg, watching an apple go rotten). That doesn't happen any more.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;speed of thought&quot; may be different, and in any case is incommensurable with what's going on in the minds of others. You can spend an amount of time thinking about something, but did it &quot;really&quot; take ten minutes or ten years?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to match the Lewis conception of the thicker line. There is still a succession of moments, but we may perceive things differently during those moments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T16:33:52.060" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18283" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6593" CreationDate="2013-08-09T16:41:02.277" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I looked this up in my NAB Bible, it states it as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Be not just to excess, and be not overwise, lest you be ruined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the foot notes for the verse it states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;St. Jerome explains the warning against excessive justice in reference to the self-righteous man who is so stern that he is never willing to forgive sin in others;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This idea can be reflected in Verses 20-22:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...yet there is no man on earth so just as to do good and never sin. Do not give heed to every word that is spoken lest you hear your servant speaking ill of you, for you know in your heart that you have many times spoken ill of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, my first thought was a warning against &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3739&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;scrupulosity&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;the spiritual and psychological state of a person who erroneously believes he is guilty of mortal sin and is therefore seldom in a state of grace.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5323" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T16:41:02.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18270" CreationDate="2013-08-09T17:18:21.803" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found &lt;a href=&quot;https://web.archive.org/web/20130703105610/http://truthandpurpose.com/2011/04/the-fool-of-psalm-14/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; mentioning their similarity. The writer suggests it may have been an editorial adaptation since they seem to have been written at different times based on the words each uses for God (Psalm 14 = Yahweh, Psalm 53 = Elohim). It could be similar to how some old hymns are currently being updated with modern language to appeal to modern culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5385" LastEditorUserId="21030" LastEditDate="2021-04-17T04:20:12.890" LastActivityDate="2021-04-17T04:20:12.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18274" CreationDate="2013-08-09T17:38:13.467" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok.  I don't know if this will be an appropriate answer, because I have not had the time to dig deeply into finding any expert Catholic writings on this specifically.  Pope Pius XII's Encyclical &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HAURIETIS AQUAS&lt;/a&gt; on devotion to the Sacred Heart is about the closest I can find in the near term, but I have not read it fully to see if it addresses your question sufficiently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By my own reason though, I think of the analogy to understanding a very complex subject, design, etc. in our earthly life or to understanding any given person.  If you contemplate a very complex thing as a whole, as humans, it is hard to understand it at a very deep level.  If we narrow our focus of the subject in our contemplation, then we start to develop a deeper understanding of the larger subject.  I believe that is a large reason that the Catholic Church recognizes various titles, roles, and view points on Jesus, Mary, God the Father, the Church, and even ourselves.  It is to allow our limited human perception to penetrate the hugely complex (infinitely complex in the case of God) to understand them much more fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5323" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T17:38:13.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18286" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18288" CreationDate="2013-08-09T19:36:25.590" Score="16" ViewCount="553" Body="&lt;p&gt;More specifically: &lt;em&gt;How does the Roman Catholic Church reconcile the doctrine of Papal Infallibility with the Sixth Ecumenical Council's pronouncement regarding Pope Honorius?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Constantinople&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sixth Ecumenical Council&lt;/a&gt; (680–681 CE) posthumously declared &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Honorius&lt;/a&gt; to be a heretic because he had embraced the doctrine of monothelitism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of Papal Infallibility, formalized in 1870 but said to have been an accepted teaching for many centuries, says that when the Bishop of Rome speaks &quot;&lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;&quot; he is necessarily infallible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if Pope Honorius did not speak &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; when discussing monothelitism, it seems problematic that the same church which declared an individual capable of infallible speech could later find that the same individual was also a heretic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Has the Roman Catholic Church ever formally addressed this seeming tension, and if so, where and how?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-26T20:01:39.153" LastActivityDate="2017-07-27T12:59:57.873" Title="How could a seventh-century heretic have possessed papal infallibility?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;ecumenical-council&gt;&lt;papal-infallibility&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14693" CreationDate="2013-08-09T22:29:21.417" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to answer this  question logically, we must address 3 theological concepts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 – Time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 – The Incarnation of the 2nd person of the Trinity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 – The eternal state of the procession of the Son from the Father&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of Thomistic theology, first, let’s focus on time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the best (if not &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; best) Augustinian/Thomistic theologians is Frank J. Sheed.  His great work “Theology and Sanity” is a wonderful beginner’s guide to navigating St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sheed writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What, then, is time?  Philosophers use the word in two closely related&#xA;  senses; most of us find that one of these is sufficient for us.  Time,&#xA;  say the philosophers, is the duration of that which changes; time, say&#xA;  the philosophers again and we with them, is the measurement of the&#xA;  changes of the universe. What is common to both statements is the&#xA;  relation of time to change.  Where nothing changes, time has no&#xA;  possible meaning. Thus time and the universe started together.  God is&#xA;  infinite and therefore changeless.  He is “the Father of lights with&#xA;  whom there is no change or shadow of alteration” (James 1:17).  He&#xA;  possesses the utter fullness of existence, so that nothing can go from&#xA;  Him, for He already possesses all.  The universe He created is a&#xA;  changing universe.  And because change belongs to it and not to God,&#xA;  time belongs to it and not to God. To repeat, time and the universe&#xA;  started together: time is the ticking of the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we say, “Jesus was begotten before the universe was created,” then we are stating something that has no meaning at all.  &lt;em&gt;Before&lt;/em&gt; is a word of time, and there could be no time before the universe because time began with the universe.  To say “before the universe” means when there wasn't any “when”; which is to say that it doesn't mean anything at all.  The same is said about the phrase, “how many &lt;em&gt;times&lt;/em&gt; was (&lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; is also a time word) Jesus begotten.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Miaphysite heresy - which holds that the human nature and pre-incarnate divine nature of Christ were united as one divine human nature from the point of the Incarnation onwards - was officially denounced at the Council of Chalcedon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach&#xA;  people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the&#xA;  same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and&#xA;  truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial&#xA;  [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and&#xA;  consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like&#xA;  unto us, without sin; &lt;em&gt;begotten before all ages&lt;/em&gt; of the Father according&#xA;  to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our&#xA;  salvation, &lt;em&gt;born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God&lt;/em&gt;, according to&#xA;  the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be&#xA;  acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly,&#xA;  inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως,&#xA;  ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise,&#xA;  inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken&#xA;  away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being&#xA;  preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence&#xA;  (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the&#xA;  same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord&#xA;  Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared]&#xA;  concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and&#xA;  the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nicene Creed was formulated by the Early Church Fathers to authoritatively define the  Christological absolutes that orthodox Christians hold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe in one God, the Father almighty,&#xA;      maker of heaven and earth,&#xA;      of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,&#xA;          the Only Begotten Son of God,&#xA;          born of the Father before all ages.&#xA;      God from God, Light from Light,&#xA;          true God from true God,&#xA;      begotten, not made, consubstantial&#xA;         with the Father;&#xA;          Through him all things were made.&#xA;      For us men and for our salvation&#xA;          he came down from heaven,&#xA;          and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate&#xA;          of the Virgin Mary,&#xA;          and became man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this formula, Christ is &quot;the only begotten Son of God.&quot;  While being eternally &quot;born and/or begotten from the Father before all ages,&quot;  he was &quot;by the Power of the Holy Spirit &lt;em&gt;incarnate&lt;/em&gt; of the Virgin Mary, and became man.&quot; It is precisely because Jesus of Nazareth was eternally begotten/born (fully God and fully Man) before all ages, that the Blessed Virgin Mary can properly receive the coronation of being named &quot;Theotokos,&quot; or Mother of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are all mysterious truths that leave human finite intelligence in the dark.&#xA;Thomistic theology wonderfully helps to shed light on the infinite mystery of the Father eternally begetting the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frank Sheed goes on to discuss processions in eternity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There may still remain one error clinging to our knowledge of the&#xA;  processions of the Persons in the Blessed Trinity because of our own&#xA;  immersion in time.  As far as the statement of it goes, we are not&#xA;  likely to make the error of thinking that the Son is in some way less&#xA;  eternal than the Father, or the Holy Spirit in some way younger than&#xA;  the Father and the Son.  We know that there is no succession in&#xA;  eternity, no change in God.  God the Father did not first exist as a&#xA;  Person and then become a Father.  God, by the very act of being God,&#xA;  generates his Son; God the Father and God the Son, by the very act of&#xA;  being God, spirate the Holy Spirit.  As I say, there is not likely to&#xA;  be any error in our statement of this: the error will tend to cling to&#xA;  our idea in such a way that when we are looking directly at it, we do&#xA;  not see it, yet it is profoundly there: and, because time is so deeply&#xA;  woven into all our experience, our advance in the knowledge of God&#xA;  depends upon our deliberate effort to rid our mind of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the historical Church's creeds and councils, the only valid answer is, &quot;Christ is eternally begotten only of the Father.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T14:46:42.283" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T14:46:42.283" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18286" CreationDate="2013-08-09T22:42:48.603" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;One could perhaps say that the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility as expressed at Vatican I &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the Church's formal way of dealing with this tension. The case of Pope Honorius has of course been debated for centuries and was brought up prior to Vatican I as an argument against papal infallibility. The old Catholic Encyclopedia has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#vii&quot;&gt;helpful summary of the various positions in the debate&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So let's look at the definition again:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that ... &lt;em&gt;when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;, that is &lt;strong&gt;when ... he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,  he possesses ... that infallibility&lt;/strong&gt; which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%204.%20On%20the%20infallible%20teaching%20authority%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff&quot;&gt;Decrees of the First Vatican Council&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meaning is as plain as can be -- the Pope possesses infallibility &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; he speaks ex cathedra. The Council notably did &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; teach that the Pope possesses infallibility at any other time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's just a tidbit from Blessed John Henry Newman, writing in 1875:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;from this Pontifical and dogmatic explanation of the phrase [&lt;em&gt;ex cathedrâ&lt;/em&gt;] it follows, that, whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, and whatever he held, his words were not &lt;em&gt;ex cathedrâ&lt;/em&gt;, and therefore did not proceed from his infallibility. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html&quot;&gt;Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, section 8&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He says quite a bit more on the specific controversy of Honorius and then devotes the entirety of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section9.html&quot;&gt;next section&lt;/a&gt; to a discussion of papal infallibility and its narrow limits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T22:42:48.603" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18289" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18294" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:19:55.377" Score="7" ViewCount="2617" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Covenant was a bilateral covenant of which Yahveh and the nation of Israel were parties. The Israelites had to agree to the terms of the covenant, which they did (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=24&amp;amp;t=KJV#7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exo. 24:7&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the New Covenant a bilateral covenant?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2019-01-21T01:44:04.793" LastActivityDate="2019-01-21T01:44:04.793" Title="Is the New Covenant a unilateral or a bilateral covenant?" Tags="&lt;covenants&gt;&lt;new-covenant&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-03-11T23:15:17.737" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18280" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:28:34.510" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a Biblical basis for it is written &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&quot;Be diligent to know the state of your flocks, And attend to your herds;&quot; (Proverbs 27:23)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&quot;A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire;&#xA;He rages against all wise judgment.&quot; (Proverbs 18:1)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T23:28:34.510" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13676" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:46:49.713" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider logically if the answer is yes.  That would mean someone could teach that it is ok to worship idols or another god, never repent of a sin and enter the kingdom of God.  Would this be so?  Certainly not for it is written &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who regard worthless idols Forsake their own Mercy. (Jonah 2:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Listen to the words of Jesus &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and&#xA;  teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but&#xA;  whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom&#xA;  of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds&#xA;  the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means&#xA;  enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 20 is a description of the fate of those who break one of the least of the commandments and teach others to do so.  A little leaven leavens the whole lump, it is not safe to hold on even to little sins.  This is why Peter's declaration stands firm today &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted&#xA;  out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the&#xA;  Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto&#xA;  you: (Acts 3:19-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T23:46:49.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18276" CreationDate="2013-08-09T23:57:40.040" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are at least two solid Biblical scriptures which prove that time continues in heaven.  First in Revelation 19 Jesus returns in the second coming riding a white horse, we know that at that time the saved are taken to heaven for it is written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the&#xA;  voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in&#xA;  Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be&#xA;  caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the&#xA;  air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. &quot; (1 Thessalonians&#xA;  4:16-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very next verse after Jesus return in Revelation 19, Revelation 20:1-2 says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the&#xA;  bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the&#xA;  dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him&#xA;  for a thousand years;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see a time element, a thousand years.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also there is another verse that tells us that the seven day week will continue even in heaven for it is written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall&#xA;  remain before Me,” says the Lord, “So shall your descendants and your&#xA;  name remain. And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to&#xA;  another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to&#xA;  worship before Me,” says the Lord. (Isaiah 66:22-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Herein is evidence that the seventh-day Sabbath will still be kept even in heaven.  A comprehensive Christian site about this can be found here - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sabbathtruth.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sabbathtruth.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-09T23:57:40.040" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18289" CreationDate="2013-08-10T03:25:52.247" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it is a bilateral covenant! This is the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NIV) :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This new covenant started when Jesus poured out his blood (symbolized by the wine in the last supper), Luke 22:20 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All we have to do to accept this new covenant is stated in Romans 10:9-12 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus basically stated the &quot;terms&quot; in John 15:5-7 (NIV), though not speaking specifically about a covenant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="173" LastEditorUserId="173" LastEditDate="2013-11-18T16:41:22.680" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T16:41:22.680" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9724" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:03:43.793" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before the 4th. cent. the name of the Lord, and of God were considered to be too sacred to be written down anywhere. So these names do not appear in the early Bibles. Instead  &quot;nomina sacra&quot; were written. Whenever The Master was referenced in the Gospel it was usually written as IC with a bar over it to identify it as a metaphor. When the Gospel was read to the followers a non-sacred name was spoken in its place, such as (from the NT) Master (Jo 4:31), Rabbi (Jo 1:38), or Teacher (Jo 3:2). You will notice that in the NT no disciple ever calls the Master by His sacred name. Only those possessed by devils  called Him by name Mt 8:28  (having unclean spirit Mr 5:2 - 14.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Fish was another metaphor which could be written or painted without being sacrilegious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See Affable Geek answer also (above.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T05:03:43.793" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13794" CreationDate="2013-08-10T05:53:26.197" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Full time ministers of Jehovah's Witnesses are those that spend a minimum of 70 hours per month in some form of Christian service.  By far the vast majority of these ministers also work and pay taxes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A proportionally small number work in the Jehovah's Witness Branch offices and are offered logding and a small allowance and others are missionaries and travelling ministers that also get a small allowance from the organization.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether these individual pay taxes dépends on the law of each country but many do not because their income is so very low they are non-taxable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5387" LastEditorUserId="23657" LastEditDate="2016-07-05T12:31:48.307" LastActivityDate="2016-07-05T12:31:48.307" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18280" CreationDate="2013-08-10T10:40:19.220" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;My opinion is to look at the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;life of Paul&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's ministry was the largest and covered a wide geographical area. He met many different people along the way, many towns and cities. When I read the epistles of Paul, I'm surprised to see how well he remembered the believers from different corners of the region and his intimate relationship with them. In most of his letters, at the end, Paul included greetings to the church members by name and their activities that he remembered. I think this indicates how well Paul knew his church members. Here is an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 16  (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[....]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison&#xA;  with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in&#xA;  Christ before I was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Greet Ampliatus, my dear friend in the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Greet Apelles, whose fidelity to Christ has stood the test.&#xA;  Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew.&#xA;  Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord.&#xA;  Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in&#xA;  the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a&#xA;  mother to me, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the other&#xA;  brothers and sisters with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all&#xA;  the Lord’s people who are with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[.....]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; Inspiration from God is the most important factor for delivering effective sermons and additionally, it is also important for the minister to know the state of his sheep and have an intimate relationship with them, just as Paul did with his church members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T04:26:54.053" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T04:26:54.053" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18289" CreationDate="2013-08-10T12:48:38.440" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The First Covenant is unilateral:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram....  &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 15: 17-18a&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding on this point comes from a sermon by Tullian Tchvidjian, but I have found similar explanation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greenmeadows-stillwaters.org/types_abrahams_3_animals.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;contract covenants&lt;/a&gt; at the time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A Chaldean custom for the confirmation of a covenant or contract was for the covenanting parties to slay an animal, split it, and then walk between the two halves.  The thought behind the custom seems to have been that the fate of the slain animal should be also the fate of the one who would break the covenant or contract&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in our story, we only see one party-- the smoking firepot representing God-- doing the walking.  Paul confirms this (see also Romans 11):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise.  &lt;strong&gt;Galatians 3:18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Second Covenant is unilateral:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. &lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T12:48:38.440" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18299" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-10T12:53:37.680" Score="1" ViewCount="99" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read a book by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;George Fox&lt;/a&gt;, founder of Quakerism, where he spoke of his reluctance to endorse any creed, and part of the reason seemed to be the abuse he received in prison for being a heretic.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: What biblical or historical justifications have been given by those who eschew creeds &amp;amp; catechisms in their Christian faith walk?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T13:31:22.123" Title="What biblical or historical reasons have been given for avoiding creeds &amp; catechisms?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="525" CreationDate="2013-08-10T12:54:32.653" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Origen c.250 was the first systematic theologian. In addition to his exegetical commentaries, he offered some opinions about salvation in his book &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;De Principiis (Book I)&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Here is an extract. Ch. and verse divisions in the text are a modern innovation, and Origen's quotes are without them. This from Chapter 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) &amp;quot;From all which I am of opinion, so far as I can see, that this order of the human race has been appointed in order that in the future world, or in ages to come, when there shall be the new heavens and new earth, spoken of by Isaiah, it may be restored to that unity promised by the Lord Jesus in His prayer to God the Father on behalf of His disciples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I do not pray for these alone, but for all who shall believe in Me through their word: that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us&lt;/em&gt;; and again, when He says: &lt;em&gt;That they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And this is further confirmed by the language of the Apostle Paul: &lt;em&gt;Until we all come in the unity of the faith to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in keeping with this is the declaration of the same apostle, when he exhorts us, who even in the present life are placed in the Church, in which is the form of that kingdom which is to come, to this same similitude of unity: &lt;em&gt;That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(3) And hence it is that the whole of this mortal life is full of struggles and trials, caused by the opposition and enmity of those who fell from a better condition without at all looking back, and who are called &lt;strong&gt;the devil and his angels, and the other orders of evil,&lt;/strong&gt; which the apostle classed among the opposing powers. &lt;strong&gt;But whether any of these orders&lt;/strong&gt; who act under the government of the devil, and obey his wicked commands, &lt;strong&gt;will in a future world be converted to righteousness&lt;/strong&gt; because of their possessing the faculty of freedom of will, or whether persistent and inveterate wickedness may be changed by the power of habit into nature, &lt;strong&gt;is a result which you yourself, reader, may approve of,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, you see that &lt;strong&gt;universal reconciliation&lt;/strong&gt; was conjecture on Origen's part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation in this life is something else - though reconciliation with God at the end of this world, is of course salvation in its perfect experience - for there is a salvation in this life when man is reconciled with God through the love of Christ, a life in which &lt;em&gt;we are able to be in Christ, and He in us.&lt;/em&gt; Those wicked people have no share in this salvation, and must await God's judgment at the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T14:09:00.363" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18301" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18304" CreationDate="2013-08-10T13:20:57.080" Score="3" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was looking at the online biography (perhaps an AOL or MySpace biography) of the friend of a relative some 20 years ago.  I was alarmed that my relative was associated with this person, based on some very immoral vices the person was proudly describing on their page.  One point that shocked me was that this person said they were &quot;a priest of the order of Melchizidek.&quot;  It was the only religious statement on the page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: Do any orthodox Christian groups (perhaps defined here as affirming the Apostle's Creed) use such language to describe themselves? Or would this be some sort of cult? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-07T00:49:39.653" LastActivityDate="2015-08-07T00:49:39.653" Title="What Apostles-Creed affirming groups claim priesthood of Melchizidek?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;other-religions&gt;&lt;melchizedek&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18302" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18299" CreationDate="2013-08-10T13:25:50.180" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that The Bible itself claims to be God's authoritative Word, and as such, it is sufficient for teaching and preparing us to do God's will. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with that, Scripture warn against following any &quot;gospel&quot; other than the one preached in the Bible, and that false doctrines/teachings would arise. (Galatians 1, 2 John 1:9-11, Revelation 22:18-19, 1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, God gave each and every one of us the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth and an understanding of God's Word. (John 16:13, John 14:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical basis to reject creeds is an application of the verses above, and more like them.  The idea is that creeds are man-made, while God provides His Word and the Holy Spirit to guide us in to Truth. The idea is that man is fallible, and we shouldn't be following man's teachings, but rather God's.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more detailed response highlighting the same points can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://gospelway.com/bible/creeds.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thegospelway.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;George fox, who you asked about, seems to have taken a similar view, using much the same logic.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.strecorsoc.org/grubb/qth01.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;From George Fox and Christian Theology&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Westcott wrote,4 &quot;was then commonly preached with a crude violence&#xA;  which shook the very foundations of morality.&quot; Moreover, God was not a&#xA;  God at hand, but One afar off: He had prisoned Himself in a book to&#xA;  which no page had been added for fifteen hundred years; all the&#xA;  knowledge men now had of Him was bound within the covers of the Bible.&#xA;  It was against this gloomy creed that Fox came with his message of a&#xA;  God who was close to men, still speaking to them as in the days of&#xA;  prophets and apostles, teaching, leading and controlling them by His&#xA;  Spirit in their own hearts. The Bible was not the only fount of truth,&#xA;  for the same Spirit that inspired it was still at work, and only as&#xA;  men were enlightened by that Spirit could they understand or use the&#xA;  Bible aright. This last had been Luther's conviction, and it had been&#xA;  expressed (with caution) in the Reformed Confessions of Faith; but it&#xA;  had been largely overlooked and forgotten. There can be no doubt that&#xA;  to most of Fox's converts the assurance of a God who was in direct&#xA;  touch with their own souls was a joyful discovery that transformed&#xA;  their lives, and that it is this discovery which explains their&#xA;  attitude towards the Bible and theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fairness, the response from those that find value in creeds would likely be &quot;So these creeds, which are based on Scripture, written by those that have studied it, taken time to distill the meaning, in a rigorous fashion, with many minds working together to prevent error are less likely to be erroneous than the interpretation of individuals who may or may not have the same level of knowledge, experience, and discipline?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Therefore, I'd like to point out that this answer is not endorsing nor rejecting the idea the creeds should be endorsed or rejected.  I'm just giving the basis for which those that do reject creeds.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-08-10T13:31:22.123" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T13:31:22.123" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18289" CreationDate="2013-08-10T13:34:26.860" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the New Covenant is a bilateral covenant, and Dan the Man covers many of the salient points. I would also like to add a few points from the book of Hebrews, which gives a beautiful and in-depth description of how the New Covenant is so much better than the Old Covenant (Starting in Heb 7:11 and running through the end of chapter 10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But first, here's how I'm using the terminology. A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties (basically a contract--verbal, written, or otherwise). A bilateral covenant is the kind we're most accustomed to, where both parties are expected to consent to the agreement before the agreement comes to life and is seen as valid and enforceable. That is, unless and until both parties agree to abide by the covenant/contract, there is no covenant/contract. A unilateral covenant is an agreement where one party agrees to do something regardless of the approval, interest, commitment, compliance, or participation of the other parties. There is still a commitment and contract being made. One party is still obligated to follow through on everything in the covenant. However, the responsibility to follow through is not dependent on the participation or behavior of the other party(ies). This would be like a man on his wedding day saying to his bride, &quot;I promise to love you, for better or for worse, all the days of our lives.&quot; His promise is unilateral, and does not depend in any way on the performance or acceptance of his bride.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in Heb 7:23-25, the writer says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by&#xA;  death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood&#xA;  permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able&#xA;  to save to the uttermost &lt;strong&gt;those who draw near to God through him&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  since he always lives to make intercession for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we see that salvation is not strictly unilateral. It doesn't take effect unless/until we draw near to God through Jesus. Again, it's not the difficulty or effort involved that makes a covenant or contract bilateral. If there is any requirement on the other party to do &lt;em&gt;anything at all&lt;/em&gt; for that covenant or contract to go into effect &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; to stay in effect, then it is not unilateral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;But wait,&quot; you might say, &quot;the author here is talking about salvation...he hasn't said anything about the New Covenant per se.&quot; The writer &lt;em&gt;is indeed&lt;/em&gt; speaking of the New Covenant here, and it will become clear over the next couple of chapters. Up till this point in Hebrews, the writer has been laying the groundwork of how much more excellent Jesus is than the earthly priesthood that had preceded him, and now he's going to show this even further, in the context of how much better the New Covenant is than the Old Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrews 8:7-13, the writer makes the definite tie-in between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been&#xA;  no occasion to look for a second.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For he finds fault with them when he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,&#xA;      when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel&#xA;      and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers&#xA;      on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant,&#xA;      and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel&#xA;      after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds,&#xA;      and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God,&#xA;      and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor&#xA;      and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me,&#xA;      from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,&#xA;      and I will remember their sins no more.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And&#xA;  what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the writer of Hebrews is making direct reference to the Jeremiah 31:31-34 where the Lord foretells the future coming of the New Covenant. And after continuing his comparison of the New and Old Covenants in chapter 9, the writer says in Heb 10: 19-31,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places&#xA;  by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us&#xA;  through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a&#xA;  great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart&#xA;  in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an&#xA;  evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold&#xA;  fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised&#xA;  is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love&#xA;  and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of&#xA;  some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day&#xA;  drawing near.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of&#xA;  the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful&#xA;  expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the&#xA;  adversaries.&lt;/strong&gt; Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without&#xA;  mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse&#xA;  punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled&#xA;  underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant&#xA;  by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For&#xA;  we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again,&#xA;  “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into&#xA;  the hands of the living God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now at this point, some might say, &quot;Hey wait a minute, wasn't the book of Hebrews written to Jews? Does this all really apply to me?&quot; Well yes, it was written to Jews. It was written to Jews who had chosen to believe in Jesus, but who were struggling with their connection to the Old Covenant and what it now meant to be a Jew &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; a follower of Jesus. The ultimate question for these Jews was where the Old Covenant, Moses, all the Jewish traditions, and their now-tenuous connection to the Jewish community all fit in with life in Christ. So the writer of Hebrews was saying to them, &quot;Look brothers, you formerly trusted in the old sacrificial system to cover your sins, but that's no longer available. So now, having heard that the only way for your sins to be cleansed is through Jesus, &lt;em&gt;you really must come to him!&lt;/em&gt; Because if you don't, you have nothing to rely on under the Old Covenant anymore. &lt;em&gt;Fellow Jew, don't be tempted to leave your trust in Jesus and return to the Old Covenant!&lt;/em&gt; It's kaput. It's done. Unless you &lt;strong&gt;come&lt;/strong&gt; to Jesus and stay, your only future expectation is a fiery judgment.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it was necessary for the Jew to &quot;do something&quot; in order to enter into the New Covenant. First, he had to willingly leave his place of reliance on the Old Covenant. And then, he had to place that trust and reliance solely upon Jesus. And it's no different for the Gentile. We all are inaugurated into the New Covenant in the same fashion. We must leave our trust and reliance upon anything else for our righteousness, and place that hope firmly and solely in Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the New Covenant is bilateral. Our part is to come to Jesus, and to trust in him completely. The New Covenant is truly beautiful, truly powerful, and truly better than the Old Covenant it replaced. The New Covenant works (where the Old failed) because there is so much &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; for us to do, and so much more for God to do. &lt;strong&gt;In fact, if it weren't for the &quot;coming&quot; and &quot;trusting&quot; part, the New Covenant would be completely unilateral.&lt;/strong&gt; We simply come to Jesus and trust him fully, and in doing so, he changes us &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt; and comes to dwell within us. This is what makes the New Covenant work--Christ in us, because where the Old Covenant was lived out by &lt;em&gt;man's&lt;/em&gt; power and resources to obey, the New Covenant is lived out by &lt;em&gt;Jesus'&lt;/em&gt; power and resources to obey. The New Covenant is so much better because &lt;em&gt;Jesus is perfect&lt;/em&gt;, and because under this New Covenant it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me, and this I do by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5370" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T13:34:26.860" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18301" CreationDate="2013-08-10T13:36:30.507" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The LDS Church uses this phrase.  They divide the priesthood into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&amp;amp;sourceId=ec969daac5d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&amp;amp;vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Melchizedek Priesthood&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aaronic Priesthood&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Melchizedek Priesthood is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/melchizedek-priesthood?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;described on their site&lt;/a&gt; as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek&#xA;  and Aaronic” (D&amp;amp;C 107:1). The Melchizedek Priesthood, which is “after&#xA;  the Order of the Son of God” (D&amp;amp;C 107:3), is the greater of these. It&#xA;  “holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all&#xA;  the offices in the church” (D&amp;amp;C 107:8). It also holds “the keys of all&#xA;  the spiritual blessings of the church” (D&amp;amp;C 107:18). It is named after&#xA;  a great high priest who lived during the time of the prophet Abraham&#xA;  (see D&amp;amp;C 107:2-4; see also Alma 13:14-19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood are Apostle, Seventy,&#xA;  patriarch, high priest, and elder. The President of the High&#xA;  Priesthood is the President of the Church (see D&amp;amp;C 107:64-66).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Men in the Church must be worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holders in&#xA;  order to receive the temple endowment and be sealed to their families&#xA;  for eternity. They have the authority to administer to the sick and&#xA;  give special blessings to family members and others. With the&#xA;  authorization of presiding priesthood leaders, they can bestow the&#xA;  gift of the Holy Ghost and ordain other worthy men to offices in the&#xA;  Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When a man receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, he enters into the&#xA;  oath and covenant of the priesthood. He covenants to be faithful,&#xA;  magnify his calling, “give diligent heed to the words of eternal&#xA;  life,” and “live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of&#xA;  God.” Those who keep this covenant will be sanctified by the Spirit&#xA;  and receive “all that [the] Father hath.” (See D&amp;amp;C 84:33-44.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&amp;amp;sourceId=61fdbe335dc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&amp;amp;vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Taylor is quoted as saying&lt;/a&gt;  (Emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Seventh—That while the power of the higher, or Melchizedek, is to hold&#xA;  the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church; to have the&#xA;  privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have&#xA;  the heavens opened to them, to commune with the general assembly and&#xA;  church of the firstborn and to enjoy the communion and presence of God&#xA;  the Father, and Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to preside&#xA;  over all the spiritual officers of the church, yet the presidency of&#xA;  the high priesthood, &lt;strong&gt;after the order of Melchizedek&lt;/strong&gt;, have a right to&#xA;  officiate in all the offices in the church, both spiritual and&#xA;  temporal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-08-10T15:06:27.770" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T15:06:27.770" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18289" CreationDate="2013-08-10T14:08:35.393" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a sole fide or sola gratia perspective, the New Covenant is inherently &lt;em&gt;unilateral&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Probably the most famous verse on grace - Ephesians 2:8-9, states it explicitly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by grace, you are saved through faith.  &lt;strong&gt;It is not through any work of your own&lt;/strong&gt; lest any man should boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A bi-lateral covenant would entail work on the other party.  Grace (meaning &quot;Gift&quot;) explictly rejects that.  To say otherwise to someone who values grace tells me that a child receiving a christmas present has likewise entered into a bilateral covenant.  Try telling my kid that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T14:08:35.393" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16403" CreationDate="2013-08-10T14:14:10.263" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;The &lt;strong&gt;Wisdom of God&lt;/strong&gt;, the Lady Theotokos our Pammakaristos and Conciliation, St. Demetrios Kanavis, St. George the Trophy-bearer of the Phanar, and all the saints of our Church are not keepers of the law but legislators according to St. Symeon the New Theologian.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer will be in keeping with Symeon’s perspective!  Symeon identifies himself with the saints contrasting himself (a legislator of the law) with his chief adversary, Archbishop Stephen who was a (keeper of the law).  Symeon’s views were born from an actual encounter with the Holy Spirit (charismatic) as opposed to Stephen’s views which were theoretical yet not personal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the Gospel of Luke 7:35 “&lt;strong&gt;wisdom is justified&lt;/strong&gt; of all her children”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“All the saints” are “children of wisdom”, “wisdom” is the Holy Spirit, which legislates the will of God the Father through the hearts of the saints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Gabriel prophesies to Zacharias about his son John the Baptist: Luke 1:16,7 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him &lt;strong&gt;in the spirit&lt;/strong&gt; and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient &lt;strong&gt;to the wisdom of the just&lt;/strong&gt;; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;keepers of the law&quot; are watchdogs of the law they are like those that sat in the marketplace claiming John the Baptist had a demon and Jesus was a drunkard:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 7:31-35 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But &lt;strong&gt;wisdom is justified of all her children&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The children of wisdom are the legislators of the law!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T16:52:32.273" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T16:52:32.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18269" CreationDate="2013-08-10T15:21:16.597" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is sort of a combination and customization of several commentaries I perused on the subject, being curious myself.  As I am not directly copying any one of them I am not adding individual quotes.  The two that most influenced my opinion here is Edersheim and someone called Arthur Sloman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you read the verses carefully you will notice Luke does not imply chronology as much as Matthew.  Matthew uses the word 'then' a couple times. Luke just uses the word 'and' (i.e. this also happened among these things).&lt;/strong&gt;  At once we should see that the gospel narratives did not have an obsession with chronology as we might have in a modern account.  Those who spend years trying to chart the 'true' chronology of the gospel events have various perplexing decisions to make and leave many things under guesswork.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To wonder why Luke may have reversed the potential chronological order of Matthew's account we can only make an educated guess.  The 'education' part in a good guess is that we do know that Luke was thinking more of a Gentile audience whereas Matthew was minding a Jewish audience.  This is often the only handle we have to try and see why one goes in a certain direction and the other not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using this handle of the intended audience I can see one plausible explanation. For a Jewish audience they might instinctively understand that the temptation to 'throw himself down' or to become like a powerful Lord of the earth, are both increasing degrees of the same temptation to obtain a Messianic dream the easy way. That is to prove or force his kingdom without suffering or being rejected by his people.  To a Gentile, this order of increasing temptation might go right over their heads.  Without digressing and explanation the whole context, possibly Luke was satisfied in getting a less 'deep' understanding of the temptation that might be more applicable to a Gentile audience and their temptations.  The First the temptation is just to satisfy hunger, without any direct religious significance in the desire. The Second is then to a Gentile application, to satisfy a desire for raw power (neglecting the Messianic motive to have that power and fulfill the Jewish expectation of the Messiah's rule according the the flesh).  Finally to satisfy a desire for renown recognition and fame, which seems the ultimate dream of stardom like the gods of Greece and Rome we find the grand temptation (again avoiding the complexity of the Messianic nuances of the chronological order).  &lt;strong&gt;Maybe Luke switched the order of these temptations so as to better connect and apply more aptly the gist of the narrative to a heathen audience entirely ignorant of the Messianic nuances that the chronological order introduces. If he used a chronological order he may have had to embark on some digression and side notes of explanation cluttering his evangelical intentions.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-08-10T15:27:07.857" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T15:27:07.857" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2007" CreationDate="2013-08-10T15:43:48.427" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though this is speculative response to the question of why hands are place facing each other in prayer, it is not a form of begging or humility, but instead represents the joining of &quot;who we were born to become (true nature) - represented in the left hand&quot; and &quot;who we are actually becoming (fulfilled spirit of experiences) - represented by the right hand&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By praying with our hands placed against each other - the symbolism of this act is a reminder that when communicating with God, we are requesting that (as Jesus Christ fulfilled his purpose on Earth) we are also guided to fulfill our true purpose on Earth, to ensure that when our spirit leaves our physical body, that we bring &quot;home&quot; the experiences and learnedness that was expected of us during our time on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Lord's Prayer, this is also represented by the phrase &quot;thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven&quot;. In Heaven (or our original home) we were missioned to fulfill a specific purpose on Earth (as was expected of Jesus Christ) - so the prayer states (rephrased slightly) let me be on Earth as it was planned for me in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So - the praying hands are the reminder that we are to live every day on Earth (right hand) as our purpose was planned in Heaven (left hand).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5390" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T15:43:48.427" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15402" CreationDate="2013-08-10T16:33:20.907" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In addition&lt;/strong&gt;: Some notable scriptures to compliment with the previous answers (&lt;em&gt;that are some of my favorites&lt;/em&gt;) are...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 5: &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore it says,&#xA;  “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 17: &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness; when I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 146: &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Put not your trust... in the son of man... &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; His breath goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 115: &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great reference on questions pertaining to activites after death is a booklet &lt;a href=&quot;http://rcg.org/books/ttah.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Truth About Hell&lt;/a&gt; by David C. Pack.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5383" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T16:33:20.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18312" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-10T17:29:24.790" Score="6" ViewCount="333" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Letters to Malcolm, CS Lewis says, as we are finite, so time will always exist as progression with the past falling away behind us. Peter Kreeft seems to follow Lewis on most views and yet seems to suggest in both his books on Heaven, that time is more of a 'point' ('all swallowed up as one', if you will) rather than spread out. I find this most peculiar as he quotes Lewis whilst writing these chapters on time! Do I misunderstand Kreeft or Lewis? Or are they genuinely (for surely the first time ever!) on different sides of the debate here?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-09-29T03:48:04.397" Title="CS Lewis said time continues in Heaven...Peter Kreeft says that is exists more as a 'point'...which is right?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;&lt;new-earth&gt;&lt;time&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-02-21T16:44:47.267" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18274" CreationDate="2013-08-10T19:09:25.990" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wqom3.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary have been intimately related to one another ever since the moment of Incarnation.  Most parents know, especially Mothers, that if there is one thing that connects them to their child, it is the heart.  Faithful Christians throughout the Church's history have deductively assimilated the connective reality between the hearts of Jesus and Mary through study of the Gospels, private revelation, and reason.  Like all orthodox Christian practices, these devotions flow from  Christ's divinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclodepia presents three foundational aspects for the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus: the historical, the theological, and the scientific:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(a) Historical foundations&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In approving the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the Church did not&#xA;  trust to the visions of St. Margaret Mary; she made abstraction of&#xA;  these and examined the worship in itself. Margaret Mary's visions&#xA;  could be false, but the devotion would not, on that account, be any&#xA;  less worthy or solid. However, the fact is that the devotion was&#xA;  propagated chiefly under the influence of the movement started at&#xA;  Paray-le-Monial; and prior to her beatification, Margaret Mary's&#xA;  visions were most critically examined by the Church, whose judgment in&#xA;  such cases does not involve her infallibility but implies only a human&#xA;  certainty sufficient to warrant consequent speech and action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(b) Theological foundations&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Heart of Jesus, like all else that belongs to His Person, is&#xA;  worthy of adoration, but this would not be so if It were considered as&#xA;  isolated from this Person and as having no connection with It. But it&#xA;  not thus that the Heart is considered, and, in his Bull &quot;Auctorem&#xA;  fidei&quot;, 1794, Pius VI authoritatively vindicated the devotion in this&#xA;  respect against the calumnies of the Jansenists. The worship, although&#xA;  paid to the Heart of Jesus, extends further than the Heart of flesh,&#xA;  being directed to the love of which this Heart is the living and&#xA;  expressive symbol. On this point the devotion requires no&#xA;  justification, as it is to the Person of Jesus that it is directed;&#xA;  but to the Person as inseparable from His Divinity. Jesus, the living&#xA;  apparition of the goodness of God and of His paternal love, Jesus&#xA;  infinitely loving and amiable, studied in the principal manifestations&#xA;  of His love, is the object of the devotion to the Sacred Heart, as&#xA;  indeed He is the object of the Christian religion. The difficulty lies&#xA;  in the union of the heart and love, in the relation which the devotion&#xA;  supposes between the one and the other. Is not this an error long&#xA;  since discarded? If so, it remains to examine whether the devotion,&#xA;  considered in this respect, is well founded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(c) Philosophical and scientific foundations&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this respect there has been some uncertainty amongst theologians,&#xA;  not as regards the basis of things, but in the matter of explanations.&#xA;  Sometimes they have spoken as if the heart were the organ of love, but&#xA;  this point has no bearing on the devotion, for which it suffices that&#xA;  the heart be the symbol of love, and that, for the basis of the&#xA;  symbolism, a real connection exist between the heart and the emotions.&#xA;  Now, the symbolism of the heart is a fact and every one feels that in&#xA;  the heart there is a sort of an echo of our sentiments. The&#xA;  physiological study of this resonance may be very interesting, but it&#xA;  is in no wise necessary to the devotion, as its foundation is a fact&#xA;  attested by daily experience, a fact which physiological study&#xA;  confirms and of which it determines the conditions, but which neither&#xA;  supposes this study nor any special acquaintance with its subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/4YHHH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Veneration of the Heart of Mary is analogous to worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It is, however, necessary to indicate a few differences in this analogy, the better to explain the character of Roman Catholic devotion to the Heart of Mary. The Devotion to the Heart of Jesus is especially directed to the &quot;Divine Heart&quot; as overflowing with love for humanity. In the devotion to the Heart of Mary, on the other hand, the attraction is the love of her Heart for Jesus and for God.&#xA;A second difference is the nature of the devotion itself. In devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Roman Catholic venerates in a sense of love responding to love. In devotion to the Heart of Mary, study and imitation hold as important a place as love. Love is more the result than the object of the devotion, the object being rather to love God and Jesus better by uniting one's self to Mary for this purpose and by imitating her virtues&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic enceycopedia also highlights the slight difference in the historical and theological growth of these closely related  devotions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The history of the devotion to the Heart of Mary is connected on many&#xA;  points with that to the Heart of Jesus; nevertheless, it has its own&#xA;  history which, although very simple, is not devoid of interest. The&#xA;  attention of Christians was early attracted by the love and virtues of&#xA;  the Heart of Mary. The Gospel itself invited this attention with&#xA;  exquisite discretion and delicacy. What was first excited was&#xA;  compassion for the Virgin Mother. It was, so to speak, at the foot of&#xA;  the Cross that the Christian heart first made the acquaintance of the&#xA;  Heart of Mary. Simeon's prophecy paved the way and furnished the&#xA;  devotion with one of its favourite formulae and most popular&#xA;  representations: the heart pierced with a sword. But Mary was not&#xA;  merely passive at the foot of the Cross; &quot;she cooperated through&#xA;  charity&quot;, as St. Augustine says, &quot;in the work of our redemption&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07168a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07168a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T20:03:28.150" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T20:03:28.150" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18317" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-10T19:28:09.240" Score="5" ViewCount="2844" Body="&lt;p&gt;When one believes in Christ as Lord and King, and undergoes a water baptism,  in what document is the method described? What immediate effect did this baptism have? How does this baptism compare to the method that the Judeans underwent as part of teshuva, and what was the immediate benefit to the person of this ritual?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wondered this because IFAIK from the text, only five disciples were  baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan, and none was baptized by Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4793" LastActivityDate="2019-09-14T08:14:37.013" Title="In what manner did Christian baptism differ from ritual washing as part of Jewish Teshuva (repentance.)" Tags="&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8281" CreationDate="2013-08-10T19:32:35.737" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;With your reference to Ezekiel and Revelations saying some things such as Eden have already happened, but he (Ezekiel) also mentions Satan being consumed by fire, which won't happen till after Satan is released for a short time after the millennial reign of Christ. To clarify, it would help to understand that God is timeless and so He can tell these things as past tense to his prophets. To give a metaphor, our Universe is like a fish bowl, but instead of three dimensions of &lt;em&gt;where&lt;/em&gt; (latitude, longitude, and height), there's a fourth dimension of &lt;em&gt;when&lt;/em&gt; called time, and God being outside of this four dimensional fish bowl, for He made it, can look into it, and see all events that are to come.&#xA;This leads to an interesting twist to predestination, but that'd be for another question.&#xA;Satan is prince of the air right now (Eph 2:2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5394" LastActivityDate="2013-08-10T19:32:35.737" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18320" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18324" CreationDate="2013-08-11T00:36:14.713" Score="0" ViewCount="5726" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do United Methodist Church members really eat ham during Easter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I knew a classmate who was Methodist. She told me that she ate ham during Easter. Is this a Methodist church tradition? Are Methodists allowed to eat meat during Easter or Lenten season?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2016-03-20T11:56:07.367" Title="Do United Methodist Church members really eat ham during Easter?" Tags="&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;lent&gt;&lt;methodist&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18317" CreationDate="2013-08-11T02:08:06.930" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is some information on baptism in the early church and a few sources for further research.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Didache&lt;/a&gt; is one early writing that describes baptism, though its authenticity is disputed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapter seven describes baptism as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Concerning Baptism.&lt;/strong&gt; And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Acts tells us that, at that time, converts were often baptized as soon as they professed faith. By the beginning of the third century, however, baptism was usually preceded by a period of doctrinal training which commonly lasted up to three years, called the &quot;catechumenate.&quot; Baptism was administered once per year, on Easter Sunday, to those disciples who had completed the period of training.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The extensive duration of the catechumenate was due to the fact that, while many of the early believers were Jewish, or had some familiarity with Jewish beliefs and customs (of which Christianity was an extension), by this point in history, many converts came from pagan background and had little of no previous exposure to Judaism.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Chapter sixty-five of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Justin's &lt;em&gt;First Apology&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is devoted to baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the third century, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/feltoe/dionysius.dionysius.intro.i10.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dionysius wrote to Cornelius&lt;/a&gt; regarding certain then-current controversies over baptism. Research there will provide further information.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eusebius has several things to say about baptism in the first nine chapters of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250107.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;volume seven of his &lt;em&gt;Church History&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the time of Constantine, the most common architectural plans devoted a building to the baptistery, that building being large enough for several dozen people. There was a great curtain in the middle of the room, creating two separate areas, one for men and one for women. Baptism was by immersion and/or pouring, and involved descending a series of steps into the baptistery itself to kneel in the water, and on emerging from the water the individual would be clothed in a white robe. Gonzalez offers the following information as a parenthetical, though he does not cite a source:&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Actually, these were the normal ways of administering baptism at least until the ninth century. Baptism by dabbing water on the head had been practiced long before that, but usually only in extreme conditions of poor health, deathbed baptisms, or scarcity of water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not familiar with the Jewish Teshuva, but perhaps you can contrast this information with your own knowledge of the Judaic practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extensive further reading:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.html?term=Baptism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge&lt;/a&gt; on Baptism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; at New Advent on Baptism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Story of Christianity,&lt;/em&gt; Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. Volume 1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ibid,&lt;/em&gt; p. 147.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T03:08:30.413" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T03:08:30.413" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18266" CreationDate="2013-08-11T02:35:18.703" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just some thoughts, many of the priests, teachers of theology and the high priest during Jesus' time thought Jesus was a heretic.  It was the established church that put Jesus to death, even the pagan Pilate said &quot;I find no fault in Him&quot;.  The very individual that was sent to save them, they crucified and closed the door of their own salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there was ever anyone who qualified as being heretics, it was those who were determined to put Jesus to death.  But what was Jesus response?  Stone them?  Burn them at the stake?  No, instead He prays on the cross &quot;Father forgive them&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Acts it is again those who claim to be following God who are trying to put Paul and the other apostles to death.  They thought they were following God and would receive rewards for their zeal, but in the end they will be greatly disappointed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the dark ages the Bible was chained to pulpits and limited access was granted only to priests and theological leaders/scholars.  This suppress of the scriptures resulted in theological and spiritual straying away from the teachings of Christ for we have this divine promise, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Cease listening to instruction, my son, And you will stray from the&#xA;  words of knowledge.&quot; (Proverbs 19:27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord raised up a handful of faithful men who began to translate the Scriptures into the common languages and distribute them to the masses.  This would result in a fantastic revival for the word of God has power to revive the soul for it is written &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;It is the spirit who gives life, the flesh profitteth nothing, these&#xA;  words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life&quot;. (John&#xA;  6:63)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When man began to regain knowledge of the word of God, they learned that just like in Jesus' time, men had made merchandise of the grace of God.  Like those selling in the temple courts whom Jesus declared &quot;Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.&quot; (John 2:16) now men were claiming the forgiveness of sins by simply paying money to the church.  The infinite sacrifice of Christ was lost sight of.  When Simon the sorcerer tried to purchase the gift of God with money, the apostle Peter declared &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God&#xA;  could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in&#xA;  this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent&#xA;  therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought&#xA;  of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are poisoned by&#xA;  bitterness and bound by iniquity.&quot; (Acts 8:20-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Men began to protest against the abuses of the Church and a reformation began.  Those who rejected the light of God's word followed the same path as the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' time.  They began to persecute unto death.  This was no surprise for it is written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will&#xA;  be done, And there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good history of the inquisition can be found here - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T02:35:18.703" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18320" CreationDate="2013-08-11T02:58:50.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.upperroom.org/lent101&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This page (Lent 101 from the UMC)&lt;/a&gt; gives a guide to Lent from a Methodist perspective.  It is very similar to other protestant traditions.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lent is a time for fasting and prayer, but fasting means different things to different people/denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the page I linked to above:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FASTING:&lt;/strong&gt; Some people have been known to go without food for days. But that's not the only way to fast. You can fast by cutting out some&#xA;  of the things in your life that distract you from God. Some Christians&#xA;  use the whole 40 days to fast from candy, tv, soft drinks, cigarettes&#xA;  or meat as a way to purify their bodies and lives. You might skip one&#xA;  meal a day and use that time to pray instead. Or you can give up some&#xA;  activity like worry or reality tv to spend time outside enjoying GodÕs&#xA;  creation. What do you need to let go of or &quot;fast&quot; from in order to&#xA;  focus on God? What clutters your calendar and life? How can you&#xA;  simplify your life in terms of what you eat, wear or do? Some people&#xA;  have been known to go without food for days. But that's not the only&#xA;  way to fast. You can fast by cutting out some of the things in your&#xA;  life that distract you from God. Some Christians use the whole 40 days&#xA;  to fast from candy, tv, soft drinks, cigarettes or meat as a way to&#xA;  purify their bodies and lives. You might skip one meal a day and use&#xA;  that time to pray instead. Or you can give up some activity like worry&#xA;  or reality tv to spend time outside enjoying GodÕs creation. What do&#xA;  you need to let go of or &quot;fast&quot; from in order to focus on God? What&#xA;  clutters your calendar and life? How can you simplify your life in&#xA;  terms of what you eat, wear or do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that definition of &quot;fasting&quot; you can give up anything.  It's not about just giving up meats.  Therefore, there's no reason not to eat Ham during Easter or Lent. For Methodists, as with most Protestant denominations, how we celebrate Easter and lent are a very personal choice, rather than a rigid, prescribed, dictated way of celebrating.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no prohibition against eating meat, whether ham or any other kind, so if your classmate ate ham for Easter, it's really nothing to be surprised about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T02:58:50.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18320" CreationDate="2013-08-11T03:22:47.307" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you may be confusing the terms a little. There's a simple solution to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Easter&lt;/strong&gt; is the joyful celebration of Christ's resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lent&lt;/strong&gt; is the forty-day* period leading up to Easter. It is a time of penitence and fasting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christians observing the Western-style liturgical calendar (this probably includes your friend) fast in some way—often from meat, if possible—during Lent. This fast is &lt;em&gt;broken&lt;/em&gt; on Easter, when lots of rich foods are eaten. Ham is a traditional Easter meal in the West.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you understand this aspect of the calendar, it actually makes a lot of sense to eat meat on Easter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read more about the church calendar at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kencollins.com/holydays/default.php&quot;&gt;Ken Collins's web site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(*) You might notice that Lent is actually longer than forty days. The reason for this is a bit detailed and dry, so read only if you're curious!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The week before Easter is referred to as &lt;strong&gt;Holy Week&lt;/strong&gt;; it begins with Palm Sunday (the commemoration of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem). Holy Week contains Maundy Thursday (commemorating the Lord’s Supper) and Good Friday (commemorating the day of Jesus’ crucifixion). As you can imagine, this week is especially sombre and penitential.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Eastern church, Holy Week is not considered part of the forty days of Lent; they last forty days beginning from Clean Monday, with the last day on a Friday. The day after this is Lazarus Saturday, followed by Palm Sunday and Holy Week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the West, Holy Week got counted as part of Lent. The extra days are accounted for by making Sundays not count as full fasting days. Lent is then two days shorter than in the East, beginning on Ash Wednesday. Not counting Sundays, there are forty days from Ash Wednesday till Easter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both traditions, the season of Easter lasts 49 days till Pentecost. Fasting is not encouraged—in fact, it may be generally prohibited, especially in the first week of Easter, which is called Bright Week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T03:22:47.307" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16800" CreationDate="2013-08-11T03:41:23.253" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As user Ignatius Theophorus stated, Catholics do accept baptisms performed in other denominations as valid. The catch is that the baptism must also be performed properly to be valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptism not done &quot;in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit&quot; would not be considered a true (valid) baptism. The problem is not that it was performed outside the visible Catholic Church. The problem is that it was not performed in a valid manner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same applies to the Orthodox Churches generally, although there may be parishes that apply stricter guidelines for baptism. The more traditional Protestant churches (such as Lutheran and Anglican congregations) tend to be similar to Catholic practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evangelical denominations may vary in practice, although practice tends to be based on a belief in baptism as an outward sign and not as a sacrament. Some evangelical churches may recommend a full baptism as a &quot;public declaration of belief&quot;; if the Unitarian baptism was not an intentional of repentance and faith, it would probably not be &quot;accepted&quot;. People entering such congregations might also choose to be re-baptized if they had been baptized as infants, even in a Trinitarian church, but do not identify with that baptism as part of their personal Christian path. On the other hand, still reflecting the non-sacramental view of the rite, other evangelical churches may not view baptism or the validity thereof as a major issue, leaving it to the will or conscience of the person in question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T03:41:23.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18326" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17425" CreationDate="2013-08-11T04:22:53.397" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as we can tell, Christian twice-weekly fasting was based on Jewish twice-weekly fasting. Given the later tension between Jews and Christians, this makes an early adoption date likely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further evidence comes from the Didache (dating probably to the first century):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. (8.1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage seems to indicate that a formal twice-weekly fast was the norm—a practice which appears to be analogous to (but distinct from) the Jewish practice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2015-08-29T20:36:14.700" LastActivityDate="2015-08-29T20:36:14.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18327" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18334" CreationDate="2013-08-11T04:39:56.107" Score="2" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen? In many denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian), there is a concept called a &lt;em&gt;catechumen&lt;/em&gt;, who takes religious education course called a &lt;em&gt;catechumenate&lt;/em&gt;, that is taught by a &lt;em&gt;catechist&lt;/em&gt;. So, what is the equivalent of such a role in a Fundamentalist/Bible Church? How do Fundamentalist Christians deal with prospective Christians (i.e. teaching church history, official doctrine and practices, etc.)? For Fundamentalist Christians, does that include teaching prospective Christians about the Scopes trial?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T04:47:13.560" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T18:08:42.393" Title="From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen?" Tags="&lt;religious-education&gt;&lt;fundamentalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9588" CreationDate="2013-08-11T04:49:26.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The narrator in a literary work is distinct from the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since &lt;em&gt;Pilgrim's Progress&lt;/em&gt; is a work of fiction, it makes sense to believe the narrator is a literary device, not a factual retelling of an actual dream of the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a subjective point of view, I can't imagine ever having a dream so coherent and detailed, and with a well-crafted plot!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T04:49:26.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18329" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18355" CreationDate="2013-08-11T07:17:24.817" Score="5" ViewCount="1693" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is written that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian, as the apostle Paul wrote (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;v=16&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 3:16&lt;/a&gt; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&amp;amp;b=1Cr&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;x=76&amp;amp;y=12#conc/19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 6:19&lt;/a&gt;),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Don't you know that you are the temple of God and &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of God dwells in you&lt;/strong&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was browsing the internet, and to my surprise, I found quite a few sites that said that the Holy Spirit does not actually dwell in the Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.franklinchurchofchrist.com/sermons/date/2006/htm/20060425PM.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;For example&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word &quot;dwell&quot; does not necessitate a literal indwelling of the Person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to 1) &lt;strong&gt;Roman Catholicism&lt;/strong&gt;, 2) &lt;strong&gt;Protestantism&lt;/strong&gt;, and 3) &lt;strong&gt;Evangelical Christianity&lt;/strong&gt;, does the Holy Spirit actually dwell in the Christian, and if so, how does this occur (including, where does he dwell)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-10-11T14:03:12.240" LastActivityDate="2015-10-11T14:03:12.240" Title="Does the Holy Spirit indwell the Christian, and if so, how?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18327" CreationDate="2013-08-11T12:04:09.813" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can answer as to a nondenominational evangelical church, which may be what you are asking for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas many protestant and Catholic churches baptize infants and catechumize youth, nondenominational churches typically dedicate babies and then may hold a short, intensive class for baptism candidates as they reach an age of responsibility. The class may give an overview of the basics of doctrine. I know one church where the material is based on the pastor's modification of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.saddleback.com/lakeforest/adults/class/101/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rick Warren's 101 Material&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even among pastors who may hold a Young Earth Creationist view, I haven't seen mentions of the Scope trial. Even among those who hold six-24h-days as a necessary teaching, the focus would be on believing God's word, not an opinion on a 19th century trial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T18:08:42.393" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T18:08:42.393" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18331" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18338" CreationDate="2013-08-11T12:22:16.937" Score="4" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;Really, I am looking for an answer from a &quot;Trinitarian&quot; perspective, but specifically whoever that Joy Ann McDougall is citing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: McDougall, Joy Ann. &quot;A Trinitarian Grammar Of Sin.&quot; Modern Theology 27.1 (2011): 55-71. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cited Source: David Kelsey, “Whatever Happened to the Doctrine of Sin?” Theology Today Vol. 50 (July 1993), pp. 169–178.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Having lost its traditional moorings in the doctrine of creation, the&#xA;  doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some&#xA;  suspected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have checked Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the OED, it means &lt;em&gt;a place where a boat is moored or anchored&lt;/em&gt;, or it may refer to the &lt;em&gt;things that moor the boat in place&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the MWD, it (especially when used in the plural) means &lt;em&gt;an established practice or stabilizing influence&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the sentence could have been read as &quot;Having lost its traditional established practice or stabilizing influence in the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some suspected,&quot; or &quot;Having lost its traditional anchorage in the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some suspected.&quot; I noticed that &lt;em&gt;anchorage&lt;/em&gt; might be the right metaphor, because the author McDougall seems to be using it metaphorically to refer to sin having an anchor in creation later in the text. I am still unsure what that metaphor is supposed to be, or what the &quot;traditional&quot; interpretations of sin and creation and their relationship are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T18:16:31.590" Title="From a &quot;traditional&quot;, Trinitarian perspective, what is the effect of the doctrine of sin in the doctrine of creation?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16403" CreationDate="2013-08-11T12:26:27.987" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also coming from a purely language-based perspective, the saints are not successful at obeying or keeping the law. This is a common teaching in Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quote however speaks of two positive, God-given roles for these officers of the church: 1) Legislate, which would mean making rulings on the practical application of God's Law, and 2) Serving as a signposts of the faithful church, which would mean providing inspiration and leadership.  I read the statement as saying these positive duties are fulfilled even though leaders are not perfect in obeying the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T12:26:27.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18331" CreationDate="2013-08-11T12:51:03.687" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Young Earth Creationists (and Old ones) have argued for the doctrinal importance of taking the story of the Fall in Genesis as literal history.  Young Earthers have said that if you negate the creation story's claim, as they see it, that physical death did NOT happen before the Fall, you capsize the bible's whole doctrine of sin and need for a Savior. As one piece of evidence for my claim, this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/295/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Death Before Sin?&quot;&lt;/a&gt; article from the Institute for Creation Research has a whole subsection on &quot;The Effects of Sin Removed.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important verse in this controversy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned...  For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! &lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:12, 15b&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aware of these controversies, it is clear that the article is making note of the fact that the common view of creation has changed, yet the doctrine of sin has not disappeared.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T12:51:03.687" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18327" CreationDate="2013-08-11T14:54:01.073" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen?&quot; In my experience in several Protestant churches, Sunday School is the place of catechumen for young ones. The parents drop off their children in age-appropriate classrooms and the children are taught Bible stories/lessons by teachers from a church-approved lesson plan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The plan may include any mixture of Bible stories, memorization of verses, Q&amp;amp;A, singing, puppets, dress-up, skits and other lively interactions, all to help bring the Bible stories to life and help the children see the lesson is for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This takes place as the parents are edified by the pastor in the main sanctuary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T14:54:01.073" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18335" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-11T15:14:08.137" Score="12" ViewCount="3143" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I understand, Calvin not only taught, but effectively systematized the doctrine of &quot;predestinarianism,&quot; which holds that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God for His own glorification, and without any regard to original sin, &#xA;  has created some as &quot;vessels of mercy&quot;, others as &quot;vessels of wrath&quot;. &#xA;  Those created for hell He has also predestined for sin, and whatever faith &#xA;  and righteousness they may exhibit are at most only apparent, since all &#xA;  graces and means of salvation are efficacious only in those predestined for &#xA;  heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestinarianism&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is strict Calvinism so extreme that it says God created certain souls as &quot;vessels of wrath&quot; destined for destruction?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If so, then what criteria did Calvin say a person could use to determine whether they personally were created for salvation or destruction?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-08T00:24:27.023" LastActivityDate="2021-04-21T03:56:54.587" Title="Did John Calvin teach that God creates certain souls only to be destroyed?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;&lt;calvin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18336" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-11T15:49:28.520" Score="1" ViewCount="236" Body="&lt;p&gt;C.S. Lewis:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If that [to travel hopefully is better than to arrive] were true, and&#xA;  known to be true, how could anyone travel hopefully? There would be&#xA;  nothing to hope for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Am I missing something here? To paraphrase his own words in rejection to the idea that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive, if it were known that there was nothing to arrive at how could you travel hopefully?&#xA;If time continues, we would never reach a complete 'end' but our experiences would ever be evolving and changing. And if there were no time that would be inhuman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T17:22:06.600" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T19:44:07.660" Title="Isn't CS Lewis's idea that time is still successive in Heaven frustrating?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;&lt;new-earth&gt;&lt;time&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-08-26T19:28:02.210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18280" CreationDate="2013-08-11T16:45:46.683" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 John has an interesting closing.  It says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Out of a mere 13 verses (second shortest book in the Bible), he nonetheless chooses to say, &quot;my real teaching is when I visit you and talk with you face to face.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul, in 9 of the 13 epistles, starts with some variation of &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I give thanks to God when I think of you.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two of the others - Galatians and 2 Corinthians - are actually notable for their absence, followed by exceedingly harsh personal rebukes.  Thus, personal relationships are front and center in 11 of 13. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phillipians is explicitly about the link, identifing Paul's personal imprisonment &lt;em&gt;as&lt;/em&gt; his primary preaching vehicle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters,[b] that what has happened to me has actually served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard[c] and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this, he is able to distinguish between pure-motive preaching and bad - the difference being that bad-motive preaching is for personal ambition.  He then continues with the famous &quot;For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain,&quot; but then returns to his primary point, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. 25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, 26 so that through my being with you again your boasting in Christ Jesus will abound on account of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This all show a clear preference for incarnated, face to face communication even over against the permanence of the written word. If generic teaching were to be overemphasized over this pattern, it would be surprising that (especially in light of how expensive letters were!) the writers would all devote space to the focus of interpersonal pleasentries.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, when read in constant admonition of statements like &quot;be of one accord&quot; and &quot;minister to  one another&quot; and &quot;Little Children, Love one Another,&quot;  that &quot;one-anothering&quot; places this in perfect sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question would then need to be rephrased - What biblical precedent would there be from exempting the preacher from this clear teaching?  The answer to that is simple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T16:55:59.317" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T16:55:59.317" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18331" CreationDate="2013-08-11T18:07:41.133" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am going to break this sentence into its constituent parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The conditional:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Sin], Having lost its traditional moorings in the doctrine of creation, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here in the conditional, the author correctly states that sin is tied to creation.  Regardless of how creation happened, it is assumed that Creation was good, but something happened to make it bad.  That Creation is &quot;Good&quot; is attested to on every day of Creation, in the account of Genesis 1.  That the Creation &quot;fell&quot; is the story of Genesis 3, and expounded by Jews and Christians alike, most notably by Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— ...  14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(The last part of &quot;Creation, Fall, ...&quot; is Redemption, which is taken up in Romans 5, and is called &quot;The Big Story of Scripture&quot; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2012/november/big-story-of-scripture-creation-fall-redemption.html&quot;&gt;many evangelicals&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is simple: It was good, it got bad.  This is what Christians mean by &quot;Fall&quot; and the consequence of the Fall is &quot;Sin.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Effect:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some suspected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The premise being attacked by &quot;Kelsey&quot; is thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;If you disprove Creation, you disprove the idea of Sin.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that if the doctrine of sin has its origins in / is tied to (ergo is &quot;anchored&quot; or &quot;tied to the moorings of&quot;) creation &amp;amp; fall, then ... if you can get rid of the idea that there was ever a single &quot;creation&quot; you would also take out the idea that sin exists at the same time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem, is that sin, and hence the Fall, is empirically proven each day.  (e.g. JUST WATCH THE NEWS!!!).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The premise (that denying the creation denies sin) is thus demonstrably false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At least some people don't believe in a literal creation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even some of those still see that there is &quot;a fall&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Candidly, many evangelicals think that &quot;intellectuals&quot; want to believe there is no such thing as sin. (Indeed, I remember arguing with a professor so &quot;enlightened&quot; that he simply called sin &quot;too exclusive a concept&quot;.  I remembered thinking, &quot;What an idiot&quot;.)  Thus rooted to the story of Creation, it might have been assumed that successfully attacking the idea of creation could also disprove the existence of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Analysis&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kelsey via McDougall is saying, &quot;It didn't work.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-11T18:16:31.590" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T18:16:31.590" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18336" CreationDate="2013-08-11T19:44:07.660" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lewis is pointing out that if the object of hope can never be attained as a better state (i.e., it is better to seek with anticipation than to find), then true hope is impossible (with the exclusion of false perception, i.e., &quot;and known to be true&quot;). One cannot hope for a worse state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could say that in the glorified state hope is no longer significant. &quot;Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?&quot; (Romans 8:24, ESV) Passing beyond hope does not end joy (but, in this case, makes the joy complete).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to frustration, I am reminded of a comment in G.K. Chesterton's &lt;em&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt; in a rather different context:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, &quot;Do it again&quot;; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, &quot;Do it again&quot; to the sun; and every evening, &quot;Do it again&quot; to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T19:44:07.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15819" CreationDate="2013-08-11T20:09:21.640" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestants do not pray to the saints (like Mary, or any other &quot;saint&quot;).   We pray only to God.   Since God is revealled to Christians in 3 different ways (what we call different &quot;persons&quot;), you will hear Protestants paraying to The father  (God the creator, in Heaven), or to Jesus (who is God incarnate in human flesh), or to the Holy Spirit (the on-going presence of God in the world).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Because we pray to those 3, we don't bother praying to the saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Protestants base their beliefs and actions on Scripture (the Bible), and since the Bible doesn't recommend praying to saints (who, after all, are dead), we just stick to praying to God.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Protestants (such as certain Anglicans, or certain Lutherans) may pray to the saints, but if they do, they are careful to not ask the saint for anything.  Instead they ask the saint to pray for them to God the father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5400" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T20:09:21.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18341" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16019" CreationDate="2013-08-11T22:13:20.307" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The woman had knowledge to know about the tree b4 she ate,                                            yet the Lord say's it is about when the man has “knowledge”,                                                   that “knowing” when he “knew knowledge”,                                                       = eyes opened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God told the man he would have knowledge if he ate, then God gave him a woman.                                                           Genesis 2:16-17  the Lord God commanded ---the man---, saying,                                                                         of  the tree of the ---knowledge---of good--and--evil&#xA; Genesis 3:6-7 and 22  ---and--- he did eat.                                                                                                                                         ---And---the eyes of them both were opened,                                                                                                             and they---knew---that they were naked &#xA; And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, &#xA;to ---know---good and evil                                                                                       &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Lord God said  the man would have knowledge of evil when he ate,                                                                                               the serpent said  God knows the woman would be knowing evil when she ate,                                                                                         scripture says--they--knew evil--after --the man ate, not when she ate,                                                                                                  God says  the man now knows evil, just as God had told him would happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5401" LastActivityDate="2013-08-11T22:13:20.307" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18344" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-11T23:41:41.327" Score="7" ViewCount="202" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/9.6?lang=eng#5&quot;&gt;2 Nephi 9:6&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've stewed over this passage for many years. It has the basic premise that death is an integral part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/plan-of-redemption?lang=eng&quot;&gt;plan of salvation&lt;/a&gt;, but it doesn't say &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Death is the separation of our spirit from our body; death initiates the end of this life and the beginning of the next life. But why can't there be some other mechanism of passage from mortal life to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/paradise?lang=eng&quot;&gt;spirit world&lt;/a&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We actually know that there is another way: translation, like the city of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/enoch?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=e&quot;&gt;Enoch&lt;/a&gt;. Why aren't we all just automatically moved from earth to the spirit world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is death a vital piece of God's plan? Why isn't there some other mechanism that fulfills the same role?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user23" LastActivityDate="2016-09-29T04:17:34.080" Title="Why is death a vital piece of God's plan in LDS theology?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18345" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18349" CreationDate="2013-08-12T00:57:44.213" Score="13" ViewCount="2525" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholicism, how much water is necessary for someone to be baptized?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if the only water present is a single droplet on a leaf, is that sufficient to baptize or is more needed?  How much more?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or if there is not even a droplet of water, but it is a humid day, and there is water in the atmosphere, is the atmospheric water that is continuously in contact with the skin sufficient, or is more required?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3747" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T12:57:46.803" LastActivityDate="2021-03-30T12:20:16.527" Title="How much water is necessary for baptism (Catholic perspective)?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18346" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17840" CreationDate="2013-08-12T01:02:45.373" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When tied to a specific day of the church calendar, foot-washing is most often observed on &lt;strong&gt;Maundy Thursday&lt;/strong&gt;, often in the evening. This day commemorates Jesus' Last Supper with the disciples before his crucifixion the next day. The Last Supper is the day Jesus washed his disciples' feet (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+13%3A1-17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 13:1-17&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside the more traditional churches, there is probably less consistency between local congregations as to whether the practice is observed. The manner of the foot-washing depends on the denomination as well as the local congregation. For example, the Pope traditionally washes the feet of twelve representative people. In an Anglican church, the minister may wash the feet of the whole congregation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For further information, see Rev. Ken Collins' page &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kencollins.com/instructions/how-06.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How to conduct a foot-washing service&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T01:02:45.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18344" CreationDate="2013-08-12T01:16:53.987" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow, this is a good question. I dove into the search tools on LDS.org and came up with a few things that you've probably seen already, but they were instructive for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like the reason for death has directly to do with circumstances of the Fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Alma &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/12.23-24?lang=eng#22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;12:23-24&lt;/a&gt;, it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for&#xA;  Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time,&#xA;  there would have been no death, and the word would have been void,&#xA;  making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has&#xA;  been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless&#xA;  there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore&#xA;  this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God;&#xA;  a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by&#xA;  us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So death must come, among other reasons, because God said so. Is there yet a reason behind &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt;? I don't know. There's certainly lots to learn from death that may only be accomplished by having death. For instance, how does knowing that we will die affect how we live?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or, would it fair to say, that since Adam and Eve became even as gods through the Fall, knowing good from evil, and comprehending opposites, that life/birth must have its opposite, being death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We've also got &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/22.14?lang=eng#13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alma 22:14&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself;&#xA;  but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through&#xA;  faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of&#xA;  death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of&#xA;  death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did&#xA;  expound all these things unto the king.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although we aren't all translated, if we're righteous, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/15.56?lang=eng#55&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sting of death is swallowed up in Christ&lt;/a&gt; (1 Cor. describes the sting as sin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides, if all people were just translated/taken up instead, I think that kind of death wouldn't cause us to search for something more to life. Dying has a purpose in urging us to consider our state of being and our standing with God, or even to search for God, while we yet live. This thought is mostly philosophical, but even prophets use this reasoning to convince us to &quot;consider our ways,&quot; (Haggai 1:5) and &quot;turn again to the Lord&quot; (Lamentations 3:40).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T01:21:56.900" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T01:21:56.900" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18345" CreationDate="2013-08-12T02:07:31.010" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church has always taught that the three valid forms of Baptism are immersion, pouring, and sprinkling.  Evidence that the Church has validated the form of pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache which was written around A.D. 70:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these&#xA;  things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son&#xA;  and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as&#xA;  in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and,&#xA;  if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither,&#xA;  pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son,&#xA;  and Holy Spirit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the &quot;minimum&quot; amount of water required to effectively administer the sacrament is impossible to quantify. In order to answer the question as accurately as possible, lets assess which situation would call for the smallest amount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These days, the rules for administering the Sacrament of Baptism are clearly given in the Rituale Romanum:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The form for baptism is as follows: I baptize you in the name of the&#xA;  Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and it is absolutely&#xA;  essential. In no circumstance can it be altered, and these words must&#xA;  be pronounced simultaneously with the pouring of the water. The water&#xA;  is to be poured on the head with a triple ablution (or the head is to&#xA;  be immersed three times), each time in the form of a cross, saying the&#xA;  words simultaneously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Rituale Romanum also decrees that in the event of a complicated birth an emergency conditional baptism should be administered to the infant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No child is to be baptized while still enclosed in the mother's womb,&#xA;  as long as there is a probable hope that it can be properly brought&#xA;  forth and then baptized. If only the head of the child has come forth&#xA;  and there is danger of its dying, it should be baptized on the head;&#xA;  if afterward it is born and lives, baptism may not be repeated&#xA;  conditionally. If another member of the body makes its appearance and&#xA;  there is danger of death, the baptism should be conferred&#xA;  conditionally upon that member; if the child lives after birth it must&#xA;  be rebaptized conditionally. Should a mother die in confinement, the&#xA;  fetus should be extracted by those obliged thereto by their&#xA;  profession, and if there is a certainty that it lives, it should be&#xA;  baptized absolutely, otherwise conditionally. A fetus baptized while&#xA;  in the mother's womb must be rebaptized conditionally after birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One should see to it that every abortive fetus, no matter of what&#xA;  period, be baptized absolutely if it is certainly alive. If there is&#xA;  doubt about its being alive, it should be baptized conditionally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering that a new born (or, unborn in the case of an abortion) infant/fetus is about as small as any recipient might be, I would say, &quot;However much it takes to roll 3 beads of water across a baby's forehead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-12T02:15:48.027" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T02:15:48.027" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18351" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18864" CreationDate="2013-08-12T03:42:31.130" Score="6" ViewCount="291" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints view of historical-critical methods? The method calls for understanding the world behind the ancient text, accepting that the text has human origins, but still contains divine inspiration. However, with regards to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon&quot;&gt;controversies surrounding the Book of Mormon concerning historical inconsistencies&lt;/a&gt;, and the fact that the no one except Joseph Smith, the presumed translator of the golden plates, has access to the original language of the text (Reformed Egyptian), how can the historical-critical method be applied to this book in the same way it is applied to the Bible or the Quran? More so, how is it possible to defend the faith when the culture or world behind the text is a &lt;em&gt;mystery&lt;/em&gt; or unknown?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T03:38:21.093" Title="What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints view of historical-critical methods?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;&lt;historical-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18345" CreationDate="2013-08-12T07:32:14.517" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Charles Alsobrook has quoted authoritative sources in his answer, but there is another side to the question (or the answer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Didache&lt;/em&gt; indicates that the minister should use as much water as possible&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &amp;mdash; a river is mentioned first. And in every case the water must be moving, either of its own accord or having been enlivened by pouring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not a question of the minimum amount of water but of its quality. A drop from a pipette and running across the skin &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; enough: it's moving. If only a drop is available at all, it's enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the water does need to move, because it needs to be directed to the candidate. Relying on the humidity in the air is not enough, because it's not moving; but once dew has formed and can be used on an individual, any amount [the larger the better] will do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; As much as possible is used as a sign of God's generosity in giving life to man. The Sprinkling in the Shrine of Our Lady at Walsingham [Norfolk, UK] is a good example. There's a little bit about it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/the_shrine/index.htm&quot;&gt;on their website&lt;/a&gt; (bottom left of the page).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T07:32:14.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17745" CreationDate="2013-08-12T11:26:00.363" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Book of Concord&lt;/em&gt; is the seminal reference for Lutheran theology, and is a collection of statements from the period.  Some Lutherans ascribe to all of the &lt;em&gt;BOC&lt;/em&gt;, others argue about applicability of various documents beyond the Augsburg Confession.  Here one relevant text from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Augsburg Confession&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Article XVI: Of Civil Affairs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1] Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that 2] it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3] They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4] They condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for 5] the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such 6] ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates 7] and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have an explicit statement that individual Christians may hold state office, in the Augsburg Confession.  The &lt;em&gt;BOC&lt;/em&gt; continues with &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/defense_15_politicalorder.php#para53&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Defenses&lt;/a&gt; and Solid Declarations, which essentially repeat the explanation in the &lt;em&gt;AC&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sixteenth Article [of the Augsburg Confession] the adversaries receive without any exception, in which we have confessed that it is lawful for the Christian to bear civil office, sit in judgment, determine matters by the imperial laws, and other laws in present force, appoint just punishments, engage in just wars, act as a soldier, make legal contracts, hold property, take an oath, when magistrates require it, contract marriage; finally, that legitimate civil ordinances are good creatures of God and divine ordinances, which a Christian can use with safety. 54] This entire topic concerning the distinction between the kingdom of Christ and a political kingdom has been explained to advantage [to the remarkably great consolation of many consciences] in the literature of our writers, [namely] that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual [inasmuch as Christ governs by the Word and by preaching], to wit, beginning in the heart the knowledge of God, the fear of God and faith, eternal righteousness, and eternal life; meanwhile it permits us outwardly to use legitimate political ordinances of every nation in which we live, just as it permits us to use medicine or 55] the art of building, or food, drink, air.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This statement here makes reference to Luther's earlier writing on Two Kingdoms with &amp;quot;in the literature of our writers.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Twice the BOC explicitly states that &amp;quot;a Christian&amp;quot; may serve in civil office.  Any  speculation that there could be some distinction &lt;em&gt;in Lutheranism&lt;/em&gt; between what a pastor may do and what &amp;quot;a Christian&amp;quot; may do can easily be disproven by reading the appropriate sections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To explain it further, consider someone with dual vocations of pastor and sheriff. I've seen Two Kingdoms described as &amp;quot;hat you're wearing.&amp;quot;  Such a dual-vocation person would proclaim forgiveness of sins in church, and arrest bad guys in the saloon.  It is about separation of jobs.  Our hypothetical person shouldn't arrest people for failing to attend church, nor should he apply forgiveness of sins during the arrest of a bad guy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-12T15:16:06.797" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18329" CreationDate="2013-08-12T19:12:16.593" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally, Christians hold that the Holy Spirit dwells within the heart of man; man being body, soul and spirit.  This indwelling is not physical but spiritual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The heart consists of soul and spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 4:12&lt;/strong&gt; For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sending of the Holy Spirit was foretold within the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ezekiel 36:26&lt;/strong&gt; A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;True circumcision is of the heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans2:28,29&lt;/strong&gt; For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our personal economy, our value system is established within the heart and our actions are derived within the heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:21&lt;/strong&gt; For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:35&lt;/strong&gt; A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The “hidden man of the heart” is Jesus Christ born of the Holy Spirit, which resides within the heart of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 3:4&lt;/strong&gt; But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians 2:20&lt;/strong&gt; I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Galatians4:6&lt;/strong&gt; And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T12:24:57.863" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18356" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-13T04:42:10.917" Score="-1" ViewCount="279" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why are there so many Bible translations? Moreover, why can't we believers in Christ just have one book? I think that Jesus said NOT to do that. I'm pretty sure that this is quoted at the end of the Book of Revelation. Also, why do the scholars or whoever take or omit books, words, and/or passages out of the Bible? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5410" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T01:52:17.200" Title="Bible Translations and Omissions" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-08-26T19:28:45.260" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18357" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18390" CreationDate="2013-08-13T05:29:52.517" Score="5" ViewCount="4796" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Piper is the well known and highly regarded (and recently retired) Pastor for Preaching and Teaching at Bethlehem Church in Minnesota, and the leader of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Desiring God Ministries&lt;/a&gt;. Piper is widely recognized for his ability to teach, and he has contributed significantly to the revitalization of the Reformed faith that has taken place in the American church in recent decades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I recently heard it said that he does not subscribe to all five of the &quot;Main Points of Doctrine&quot; in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Canons of Dordt&lt;/a&gt;, popularly known as the five points of Calvinism, or &quot;T.U.L.I.P.&quot; -- specifically, that he does not agree with limited atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this true? If so, where has he said so online?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-12T06:58:47.940" LastActivityDate="2014-09-12T06:58:47.940" Title="Is John Piper a five point Calvinist?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;limited-atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18335" CreationDate="2013-08-13T05:30:07.100" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;More or less, yes, but the question is slightly misleading by the word 'only' (but about that later).&lt;/strong&gt;  As this discussion is so complex and visited by so many people with so many quotations, etc., I prefer to try and give you a summary view from many years studying many books on the subject. Mine is not the 'only view' but really on this question you can only get a well-read opinion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Calvin, like St. Augustine before him believed in dual predestination&lt;/strong&gt;, whereby God determines in advance of one's birth, if they will ultimately perish or be saved. However unlike St. Augustine who did not believe that we could obtain clear assurance that we are 'the elect' the reformation largely developed by Luther and then in some sense 'systematized' by Calvin, as you say, added the belief that one could and should enjoy the confidence of knowing they are 'elect'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine is more or less just a simple resignation to some bible verses that seem to say exactly the same thing.  For example if one just accepts these words without much resistance they automatically become a Calvinist of some sort:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “ For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.&#xA;   You will say to me then, “ Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “ Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:17-24, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now it is difficult to accept this doctrine for two reasons, one good and one bad.  The good reason is that we say but 'What about God's love?' and the bad reason is just human pride that will not accept being liable to destruction on any account but 'demands' God's love, even when fully deserving eternal wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now we come to the word 'alone'. This is the hinge where controversy turns, because it either allows God to be full of love for sinners, or refuses it.&lt;/strong&gt; If we were to say, 'Did God only created the Devil and the apostates in hell, for the 'sole purpose' of simply suffering, in order that God might be glorified' we would be going a tad further than what anyone has ever believed as we would absolutely be excluding his love for sinners in every way. We would not allow any other reason (.i.e., some loving reason) for their being created other then their destruction (which seems like hate to me).  If we say that 'God created the Devil and apostates in hell, full knowing that they would only end up in hell, although they may have served another purpose, yet, nevertheless as they will be in hell, it is now there ultimate purpose for being created as respects there own life', we would be more along the lines of a Luther or Calvin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But back to the question about God's love.  Here is where Calvin does seems to fail somewhat, compared to say Luther.&lt;/strong&gt; Luther would say, yes God chooses without men's will determining anything, yet he would also say God loves each one and to resolve the contradiction he would say, I do not know, it is a mystery, both are true and the answer is hidden from puny men.  Calvin would not directly disagree with Luther but he simply would leave some of the encouragements about God's general love for all, absent from the discussion, leaving some with the impression that his view of God was a cruel one.  In this sense yes, as great as he was in explaining so many doctrines possibly better than any other before him since the Apostle Paul himself I think he makes the impression that his hear was starting to grow a little cold on this subject as he did not seem to make much effort countering the balance of election and God's boundless love. In other words, I am a Calvinist and although I do not disagree with anything Calvin said on the subject of election, I do disagree on what he left out of the subject, which other like Luther put almost front and center.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Now regards assurance, this is quite straightforward.&lt;/strong&gt; The Calvinist belief is that anyone who sincerely believes in Christ, and has at least some moral assurance from a changed life aft conversions and a sense of their adoption by the Holy Spirit, proven foremost by their love of other believers, can and do entering into a blessed assurance of their eternal blessed state.  I guess we could say this is the warmer side to Calvin, for although he has little heart to consider God's love for the damned, he swings the gates wide open for the enjoyment of God's love without fear for any who flee from God's wrath to the dying love of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While generations before Calvin and Luther had to suffer without any assurance of their good state, performing penances and various works that were not able to cleanse the conscience, believers now filled with assurance really had the impetus to break away from every kind of cold legalism.  If you read Christian history, what really happened after Calvin was an explosion of missionary work across the globe as had never been seen before. This was partly due to the discovery of the new world and exploration of Europeans, but at the same time knowing God's love without fear, must have made people have a bit more heart for the lost and the opportunity of finding eternal security.  Therefore although the doctrine seems to have a cold edge to it, it many ways it seems to produce a warm effect and confidence in the free love and grace of God.  Seems almost like a contradiction, yet, so does the love of God and his dealings with Pharaoh.  &lt;strong&gt;Maybe Luther had it right. Don't try and explain it just believe both. God loves everyone and he elects some to heaven and some to hell according to his unknowable judgments and omniscience.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: ( I apologize that I do not have the time to collect a bunch of quotations to prove my summary but I actually have already posted them all in other answers on the same subject, so If asked about a particular point I might add a link to another answer where requested.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-08-14T01:23:50.057" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T01:23:50.057" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18356" CreationDate="2013-08-13T06:56:28.107" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer to your question is...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why are there so many Bible translations?&lt;/strong&gt; Because, the original languages of the Bible are very old and  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_language&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;no one speaks them anymore&lt;/a&gt;. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Old Testament Hebrew&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Testament Greek&lt;/a&gt; are no longer spoken today. Scholars are still trying their best to produce the original meaning but there is always debates and different opinions on how to translate it correctly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why can't we believers in Christ just have one book?&lt;/strong&gt; Protestants have 66 books in the Bible. Roman Catholics have 73. If you compile all these books (66 or 73) into one book and call it &lt;em&gt;The Holy Bible&lt;/em&gt;, then of course, we have exactly one book! We have many versions of the Bible because of translation issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I think that Jesus said NOT to do that:&lt;/strong&gt; Only the Book of Revelation mentions that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 1:10 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud&#xA;  voice like a trumpet, which said: “&lt;strong&gt;Write on a scroll what you see&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum,&#xA;  Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 22:18 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;  I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;this scroll&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: If&#xA;  anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues&#xA;  described in this scroll.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God forbids anyone to alter the contents of the Book of Revelation. Here &quot;&lt;em&gt;this scroll&lt;/em&gt;&quot; literally means the scroll that John was writing, which we call it the &lt;em&gt;Book of Revelation of Apostle John&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do we have the original scroll written by John?&lt;/strong&gt; NO! No original documents of the books of the Bible are available today. Only copies from the original documents are existing today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-13T07:51:02.697" LastActivityDate="2013-08-13T07:51:02.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18357" CreationDate="2013-08-13T07:38:44.650" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;John Piper is a Five Point Calvinist. From the limited atonement section of Bethlehem Baptist Church's doctrinal position &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism&quot;&gt;&quot;What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism&quot;&lt;/a&gt; (compiled by Piper and &quot;the Council of Elders&quot;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tried googling &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Canons%20of%20Dort%22%20%22John%20Piper%22&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Canons of Dort&quot; &quot;John Piper&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; so far I haven't found anything relevant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway, when did you heard it? recently?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Update 8/14/2013&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, I think I found the &lt;a href=&quot;http://surphside.blogspot.com/2010/08/atonement-piper-macarthur-and-mcmahon.html&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; by googling &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=%22john%20piper%22%20Amyraldian&quot;&gt;&quot;John Piper&quot; Amyraldian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. The author thinks that John sounds like holding onto amyraldian view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below is the statement of John Piper that the author highlighted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the&#xA;  cross in some sense.&lt;/strong&gt; 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is &quot;the Savior of&#xA;  all men, especially of those who believe.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;What we deny is that all&#xA;  men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the&#xA;  same way.&lt;/strong&gt; All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun&#xA;  (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) --&#xA;  is made possible because of the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold&#xA;  judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell?&#xA;  The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just&#xA;  abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy&#xA;  without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the&#xA;  savior of all men.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. &lt;strong&gt;He did not die&#xA;  for all men in the same sense.&lt;/strong&gt; The intention of the death of Christ&#xA;  for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising&#xA;  sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually&#xA;  saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died &quot;especially.&quot;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every&#xA;  individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved.&#xA;  But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore&#xA;  it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the&#xA;  propitiation of every person in the world.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if one will go through the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/piper_atonement.html&quot;&gt;whole page&lt;/a&gt; the author referenced from, especially John's last statements&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We can conclude this section with the following summary argument.&#xA;  Which of these statements is true?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christ died for some of the sins of all men.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christ died for all the sins of some men.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christ died for all the sins of all men.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because&#xA;  of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from&#xA;  sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for&#xA;  all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer,&#xA;  Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins&#xA;  for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by&#xA;  the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief&#xA;  is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can&#xA;  be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they&#xA;  must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all&#xA;  the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect&#xA;  so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is&#xA;  free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous&#xA;  light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, these statements are typical of a Five-point Calvinist showing that statements 1 and 3 does not hold water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way I see it, John Piper made it clear that Christ died for the elect, differently from the non-elect, by purchasing actual salvation, unlike the non-elect, who receives common grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, it's easy to be confused by John's statement because Limited Atonement is usually defined in context of the Elect and the saving benefits of the cross. After all Mark Driscol used the term Limited/Unlimited Atonement and his brand of Calvinism was called 4.5 pointer. It pays well to understand what someone is really saying before we pass judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="1156" LastEditDate="2013-08-14T06:17:32.107" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T06:17:32.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18361" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18379" CreationDate="2013-08-13T11:54:21.147" Score="8" ViewCount="3309" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Didache 7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first&#xA;  explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the&#xA;  Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in &lt;strong&gt;flowing water&lt;/strong&gt;. But if you have no&#xA;  running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold&#xA;  water, then in warm. &lt;strong&gt;If you have very little, pour water three times&#xA;  on the head&lt;/strong&gt; in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before the&#xA;  baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any&#xA;  others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two&#xA;  days beforehand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this old document(~70 AD), here are four possible ways of Baptism, in order of preference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Running water (Ocean, River etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Still and cold water (Lake, pool, tanks etc.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Still but warm water&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pouring on the head 3 times (&lt;em&gt;least and exceptional case&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_baptism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This article on Immersion Baptism&lt;/a&gt; is also in favor of immersion. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239 says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly&#xA;  speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and&#xA;  entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to&#xA;  the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most&#xA;  expressive way by &lt;strong&gt;triple immersion&lt;/strong&gt; in the baptismal water. However,&#xA;  from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by &lt;strong&gt;pouring&#xA;  the water three times&lt;/strong&gt; over the candidate's head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per the CCC, there are two types of Baptism, immersion and pouring. Which one is in common practice today? Which one is preferred today? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is immersion still practiced in Catholic Parishes today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-17T21:25:20.147" LastActivityDate="2015-08-17T21:25:20.147" Title="Which type of Baptism is preferred in today Catholic Parishes?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;catholic-catechism&gt;&lt;didache&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18362" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18365" CreationDate="2013-08-13T12:00:45.360" Score="3" ViewCount="7275" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2039&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 39 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; starting with verse 12, David said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Hear my prayer, Lord, listen to my cry for help; do not be deaf to my weeping. I dwell with you as a foreigner, a stranger, as all my ancestors were.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he's asking God to hear his prayer, listen to his cry for help, and to not be deaf to his weeping.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then in verse 13, he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Look away from me, that I may enjoy life again before I depart and am no more.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is this supposed to mean? It sounds like he is contradicting himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="173" LastEditorUserId="24557" LastEditDate="2015-12-14T19:11:40.807" LastActivityDate="2015-12-14T19:11:40.807" Title="What did David mean in Psalm 39:13?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;david&gt;&lt;psalms&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18364" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18362" CreationDate="2013-08-13T12:37:26.757" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Essentially, David is calling on God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2039:12&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;v12&lt;/a&gt;) to stop punishing him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2039:13&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;v13&lt;/a&gt;) and save him from the consequences of his sins (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2039:8-11&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;v8-v11&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Save me from all my transgressions;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;do not make me the scorn of fools.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I was silent; I would not open my mouth,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;for you are the one who has done this.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Remove your scourge from me;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;I am overcome by the blow of your hand.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  When you rebuke and discipline anyone for their sin,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;you consume their wealth like a moth –&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;surely everyone is but a breath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he is saying: &lt;em&gt;&quot;Please listen to me and stop punishing me for my sins.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's a lot more to say (like we could talk about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2039:9&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;David's humility&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2039:2-4&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;what he did wrong&lt;/a&gt;) but that appears to be out of the scope of your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-08-13T14:04:32.163" LastActivityDate="2013-08-13T14:04:32.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18362" CreationDate="2013-08-13T12:44:55.980" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you take the entire &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2039&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm&lt;/a&gt; in context, you'll see that the writer is being punished by God for some sin of which he is guilty.  The situation is described in verses 7-11 (NASB):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And now, Lord, for what do I wait?&lt;br&gt;My hope is in You.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Deliver me from all my transgressions;&lt;br&gt;Make me not the reproach of the foolish.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I have become mute, I do not open my mouth,&lt;br&gt;Because it is You who have done it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Remove Your plague from me;&lt;br&gt;Because of the opposition of Your hand I am perishing.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;With reproofs You chasten a man for iniquity;&lt;br&gt;You consume as a moth what is precious to him;&lt;br&gt;Surely every man is a mere breath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, the writer is being &quot;chastened&quot; by God for some &quot;transgression&quot;.  He is asking God how long must he wait for the reproof to come to an end.  The &quot;plague&quot; from God is so bad that it makes him feel like he is close even to death.  He describes how God consumes &quot;what is precious to him&quot;, so it's possible that the punishment involved the removal of something that he cherished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, when in verse 13, he asks God to look away, he is asking God to end his punishment.  He wants God to look away from his sin and to forgive him.  In the first 6 verses, the writer describes what he has learned from the ordeal.  He seems to be saying &quot;see, I've learned my lesson, now please make this stop.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presuming the author of the Psalm is David, the events described do line up quite well with the death of his first child with Bathsheba.  As likely as that seems, however, it is speculation, since the text doesn't specify.  Here's the account of his child dying, as judgment for his sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2012:15-18&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Sam. 12:15-18 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.  David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.  The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.  Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, “Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to him and he did not listen to our voice. How then can we tell him that the child is dead, since he might do himself harm!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2013-08-13T13:21:37.577" LastActivityDate="2013-08-13T13:21:37.577" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18366" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18409" CreationDate="2013-08-13T12:54:48.057" Score="7" ViewCount="5462" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 6:1-4 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may&#xA;  increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we&#xA;  live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us &lt;strong&gt;who were&#xA;  baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death&lt;/strong&gt;? We were therefore &lt;strong&gt;buried with him&lt;/strong&gt; through baptism into death in order that,&#xA;  just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the&#xA;  Father, we too may live a new life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do immersionists/Baptists understand the meaning of being &lt;em&gt;buried with Christ&lt;/em&gt;? What significant role does being buried with Christ have on the baptized person's spiritual life?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do immersionists use this verse as support for Immersion Baptism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-29T13:32:24.823" LastActivityDate="2017-06-20T23:59:36.893" Title="What do immersionists believe it means to be buried with Christ through Baptism?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;&lt;romans&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18367" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-13T12:57:36.067" Score="8" ViewCount="71621" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.” (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+4%3A8&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Pet 4:8&lt;/a&gt;, NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov+10%3A12&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Prov 10:12&lt;/a&gt;, NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean for &amp;quot;love to cover a multitude of sins&amp;quot;? Does it mean one of the following?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love prevents you from seeing or noticing sins at all?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love allows you to see sins, but you overlook/ignore them?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Love allows you to see sins, but you forgive them?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Something else?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in these two verses, the teaching/admonition seems to be directed toward man for human-to-human relationships, but how does &amp;quot;love covering a multitude of sins&amp;quot; play out in God's love toward man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5370" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-09-26T01:20:25.960" Title="What is meant by &quot;love covers over a multitude of sins&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;&lt;1-peter&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18367" CreationDate="2013-08-13T13:15:25.300" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Love certainly does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; mean ignoring sins or not noticing them at all. It is unloving for us to notice a fellow Christian living in sin and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; help them. And when they sin against us, we are not to act like nothing happened in all cases, but we are to confront them Biblically when appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;R.C. Sproul Jr. wrote an excellent article on the subject &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ligonier.org/blog/love-covers-multitude-sins/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. In summary, he said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When we are wronged our calling is to practice a careful moral calculus. Is this offense one I should let go of? Is it among the multitude that love covers? Or is this offense grievous enough that love means confronting in grace my brother? Sadly what we usually do is think we are practicing the former while actually holding grudges and putting miracle-grow on roots of bitterness. Peace in the church calls us to under-accuse, over-repent and over-forgive. Let us not be afraid to call sin sin, but let us not be slow to forgive it and to look past it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are cases where we are to overlook. If they were inconsiderate and bothered us, in many cases it is better to simply overlook and move on. But if the sin is greater, then we should confront them using the model presented in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 18:15-19&lt;/a&gt;. In all cases, we should have an attitude of forgiveness towards them, willing to forgive the wrong when they ask for forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In relationship to God's love towards man (and you could probably ask a second question on this part), we are to love because God first loved us. He paid the price for our sins on the cross, and forgave us our sins:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20103:11-12&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 103:11-12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's justice demands there must be a payment for our sins. But because Christ died on the cross for them, God forgives us if we truly repent. Sometimes, God confronts us with our sins using some earthly method. But God always forgives, and we should too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="671" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-08-22T21:46:32.487" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T21:46:32.487" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5122" CreationDate="2013-08-13T13:41:49.747" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we must take Ananias and Sapphira to have been believers. We are told in Acts 4:32-34 that the believers who had lands or houses sold them. Then we have two instances of specific individuals who did so. We know that Barnabas was a believer, but he is introduced as a Levite and Cypriot, neither of which designation carries any connotation of faith in Christ. So I don't see why the introduction of Ananias as Ἀνὴρ τις, 'a certain man', should make us think that he is not a believer, since believers are often referred to as 'men' in Acts, using the same Greek word ἀνὴρ. We must take him as the second example given of the believers who were selling possessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5412" LastActivityDate="2013-08-13T13:41:49.747" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18370" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-13T13:49:34.317" Score="4" ViewCount="1235" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible affirms in more than one place that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or do you not know that your body is a temple of &lt;strong&gt;the Holy Spirit within you&lt;/strong&gt;, whom you have from God? You are not your own,  1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A prominent understanding of mankind is that we have a body, soul and spirit.  So, my question is to understand in what sense does the Holy Spirit indwell the believer.  Is it in all three aspects?  The body, soul and spirit?  Or is it just perhaps the soul and spirit or just the spirit?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The body still seems to be under the curse at this point, since it will die, yet the verse immediately after the one above uses the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as an exhortation for the believer to glorify God with his or her body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that this question should be targeted to a specific tradition.  I am most interested in an evangelical perspective.  I don't even know, though, if this has ever been addressed in the Catholic or Orthodox traditions.  If so, perhaps a separate question targeted at those traditions would be appropriate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-12-28T17:37:51.063" Title="Does the indwelling of the Holy Spirit encompass a person's body, soul and spirit?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18361" CreationDate="2013-08-13T16:16:43.007" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I admittedly don't have a book citation for this, my experience (I've also worked as a cantor and have volunteered in different roles in a few different parishes and I've had three kids baptized) is that pouring is the norm. In addition to my experience of the actual rite, I will also point out that most baptismal fonts are simply too small for immersing even the smallest of infants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no idea, however, if this is the case in the third world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-08-13T16:16:43.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18375" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="27701" CreationDate="2013-08-13T17:48:49.257" Score="3" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the G.K. Chesterton's &lt;em&gt;The Ball and the Cross&lt;/em&gt; there's a point where it's obvious that Chesterton doesn't think Evan McIan's initial philosophy, if taken to its fullness, would bring about peace on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly was it about his philosophy that left him open to temptation (in his dream) and how did his viewpoint change.  Furthermore, what was it about seeing the old man that made him want to stop fighting?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask this as a Catholic who feels compelled to smash things occasionally, but somehow feels it's not the right thing to do!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2014-04-27T00:22:44.683" Title="In &quot;The Ball and the Cross&quot; where did McIan go wrong?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;christian-literature&gt;&lt;g-k-chesterton&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18378" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18414" CreationDate="2013-08-13T21:48:54.920" Score="6" ViewCount="7236" Body="&lt;p&gt;In discussion with others about God's will in situations that don't have any answers (i.e. - difficult prolonged situations) I hear a lot of (as also mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17666/what-are-christians-trusting-god-about-when-in-fallen-world-circumstance&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt; and answer) that God is &quot;teaching us lessons and preparing us for eternity&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when I put this together with the fact that humans are in all different stages of learning lessons (some almost barely getting by - to some here on vacation on this earth), sayings like &quot;she is an old soul&quot; and the fact that some people don't need to learn certain lessons, they just &quot;have it&quot; from birth, there is a chance after death for atonement - I logically, instinctively and intuitively get the feeling that souls are reincarnated and purified to be more like the light of Christ, through each human experience they occupy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard there are other religions that believe this but independently of them, are there any Chrisitian denominations that also believe this? Why or why not is it valid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2014-12-14T12:24:33.727" Title="Do any denominations believe in reincarnation?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;reincarnation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-12-15T02:10:58.443" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18361" CreationDate="2013-08-13T23:06:43.810" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From my service/experience in the Archdiocese of Atlanta I have observed that, like the CCC states, triple immersion is &lt;em&gt;preferred&lt;/em&gt;, but the pouring of water 3 times is much more common.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The variables that determine how each parish baptizes its members are numerous and overlapping, but usually can be lumped into several main categorical reasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Location - The majority of Catholic Churches (at least in Georgia) are not located near large bodies of water (i.e. rivers, lakes, oceans).   From a logistical standpoint this makes it difficult for Baptismal Masses to be performed by immersion.  From what I understand, 3rd world civilizations tend to gravitate toward significant bodies of water, which might be a logical reason as to why immersion baptisms are more frequently performed in these conditions. During the apostolic era, which is when the Didache was written, living conditions would perhaps be considered &quot;3rd world&quot; by today's standards.  There are special pilgrimages offered for catechumens to participate in that symbolically reenacts the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC-w4k7TgCU&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC-w4k7TgCU&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Architecture - Vatican II ushered in a slew of architectural ideas and innovations. Some where for the better, some for the worse.  At any rate, this allowed more possibilities for parish councils and pastors to design how the &quot;church&quot; should function.  These changes also made it easier for local communities to establish new parishes (which are called missions until permanent church membership reaches a certain level) by purchasing previously used protestant churches.  This is the case with my own parish, St. Katharine's.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see a picture of our baptismal font here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://saintkatharine.wix.com/trenton#!services/c24jx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://saintkatharine.wix.com/trenton#!services/c24jx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 years ago we purchased an old Methodist church building from the Dade County Historical Society and modified its structure to house our liturgies.  It was 101 years old at the time, and had no means of performing baptism by immersion. It was only possible within our parish's budget to buy a baptismal font - which leads me to my next reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;7&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Money - Baptismal pools are &lt;em&gt;extremely&lt;/em&gt; expensive. Most of the Churches I've encountered with baptismal pools are located in a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; wealthy area, or have 1000+ members. Parishes with large numbers have a high need for catechumens and children to be baptized, and usually set aside more money to put towards luxuries of that nature. Below is a picture I took of a fully functional baptismal pool located in Dunwoody, Ga, complete with a steady flow of warm water.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/EzXFA.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Our Lady of the Assumption&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are countless other factors that determine how a local parish baptizes its members. From apostolic times until now, the Church has faithfully baptized all walks of life from all corners of the world in every generation.  This is why the various forms of baptism have been adapted and permitted, while maintaining the true matter and form that is required.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-15T16:09:35.727" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T16:09:35.727" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18356" CreationDate="2013-08-13T23:41:00.987" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why are there so many Bible translations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are multiple reasons for this, there are two separate texts for the New Testament, the one that is used by the King James and New King James has thousands of copies that match or near match, there is another set of texts used by most modern translations like the NIV.  The NIV Greek text is dated as older, but is based off only two copies to my knowledge the textus sinaticus and the textus vatinacus, both contain heavy ommissions, the people on the NIV board thought these texts were better because they are dated as older, but an older copy of something does not necessarily make it better.  That is why when you read the NIV it is missing some verses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I actually grew up on the NIV, I sometimes quote scriptures from the NIV, but now I use the NKJV as in my humble opinion it is more literal and the texts for the New Testament are much better.  If you get a NKJV Bible that has footnotes you will notice a ton of scripture notes that say something like NU-TEXT omits the word abcd, that shows you the omissions of the relatively small copies used by the modern translations.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason for so many translations is money, everything except the King James Version to my knowledge is copyrighted and if you want to print a version of that Bible you need permission from the original publisher.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another reason for so many translations is who sits on the translation board.  Imagine four different boards, one board is Catholic, another Baptist, another Seventh-day Adventist, another some other denomination, are their interpretations of verses going to be different and affect the way verses are translated?  Of course.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-13T23:41:00.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18381" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18382" CreationDate="2013-08-14T00:59:46.000" Score="14" ViewCount="18294" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently visited the &lt;a href=&quot;http://museumofrussianicons.org/en/&quot;&gt;Museum of Russian Icons&lt;/a&gt; on vacation and while there I came across many icons that portrayed the crucifix with a skull at the base of cross (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.russianiconprints.com/crucifixion-133766.html&quot;&gt;example&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the significance behind the skull at the base of a crucifix? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3977" LastEditorUserId="3977" LastEditDate="2013-08-14T01:05:40.827" LastActivityDate="2021-04-10T09:04:57.627" Title="Meaning behind skull at the base of a cross?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18381" CreationDate="2013-08-14T00:59:46.000" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be two interpretations of the meaning of the skull at the base of the cross, the first is more symbolic and the second is more historical:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The skull represents Adam, the first man, along with original sin. Jesus was sent to Earth to absolve us of our sins through His death. Jesus' blood is washing away our sins by flowing across the skull of Adam and that Jesus is above sin. (Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://ricklobs.blogspot.com/2009/03/have-you-ever-noticed-skull-at-base-of.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://ricklobs.blogspot.com/2009/03/have-you-ever-noticed-skull-at-base-of.html&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The hill that Jesus was crucified on was called Golgotha, or Skull Hill. This is where Adam was reportedly buried and the Lord was crucified where Adam lay. (Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://mysite.pratt.edu/~wburg/paint/p3skull.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://mysite.pratt.edu/~wburg/paint/p3skull.html&lt;/a&gt;) (Source 2: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgota&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgota&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3977" LastEditorUserId="3977" LastEditDate="2013-09-05T15:56:35.830" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T15:56:35.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18356" CreationDate="2013-08-14T01:52:17.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the major reasons why there are so many translations have to do with textual variations in Greek NT Texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me take Greek NT manuscripts Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) as an example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Greek Scholar Herman C. Hoskier in his book &quot;Codex B and it Allies&quot; (1914) volume 2, &lt;strong&gt;there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone&lt;/strong&gt;, enumerated as follows: Matthew: 656, Mark: 567, Luke: 791, John: 1022. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) is not found in earliest Greek NT manuscripts like Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. It is not in Eastern Aramaic Peshitta NT manuscripts either. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Due to its textual variations and additions in Greek NT, Several English translations were made. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Side Note - Unlike Western Tradition, Several Eastern Tradition (Middle East and South India) use Eastern Aramaic Peshitta as New Testament text. Not Greek NT texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T01:52:17.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18386" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18401" CreationDate="2013-08-14T04:06:57.650" Score="8" ViewCount="7568" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any practical references about environmental protection as well as protection of earth? Whether Jesus mentioned about any of these topics somewhere? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5330" LastEditorUserId="5330" LastEditDate="2013-08-14T04:15:05.277" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T17:45:18.423" Title="Any mentions of Environmental protection in Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2014-12-20T02:30:04.523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18386" CreationDate="2013-08-14T05:08:49.013" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that human populations have the capability to significantly alter the ecosystem of the world around them for the worse is a fairly modern one.  Although a few manmade environmental catastrophes have occurred even in ancient times--Lebanon comes to mind, for example!--the concept that humans are destroying the planet and have a moral obligation to work to protect it is largely a product of modern times, when heavy industry made the negative effects of pollution severe enough and widespread enough for the general public to notice, and mass communication technologies enabled people to bring it to the attention of the common man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply put, it wasn't generally considered an issue in Biblical times, and therefore isn't directly mentioned in the Bible.  Therefore, any search for God's will on the subject would require some sort of interpretation and deduction based on tangentially related issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, we read in Genesis that Adam and Eve, and later Noah and his family, were given dominion over the earth.  And in the Parable of the Pounds, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2019:11-26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 19:11-26&lt;/a&gt;) Jesus speaks of a group of servants, each given stewardship over equal resources for a certain length of time.  Those who managed what they had been entrusted with wisely were rewarded, while those who did not were punished when the day of reckoning came.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems like the most relevant thing Jesus has to say on the subject.  Like the servants in the parable, all of mankind has been given stewardship over the resources of the earth, and the Savior's words lead us to believe that an accounting of what we have done with that which was entrusted to us--including the Earth we have been given to dwell upon--will be required when the day of judgment comes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said this, it's important to remember that this is only one thing out of many that are required of us.  There are some people and groups who have become infamous due to their extreme dedication to environmental causes, which occasionally lead them to commit crimes or other exceptionally poor behavior.  So we should also bear in mind Jesus's strong words of condemnation for those who have no sense of perspective in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023:23-24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 23: 23-24&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T05:08:49.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17624" CreationDate="2013-08-14T05:32:23.487" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Quoting from &lt;em&gt;The Story of Christianity,&lt;/em&gt; chapter thirty (emphasis added):&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Alexander died, Hildebrand was elected pope, although the order prescribed by the Second Lateran Council was reversed, for it was the people who demanded his election, and the cardinals who agreed. He took the name of Gregory VII, and continued the work of reformation in which he had been engaged for years. His dream was of a world united under the papacy, as one flock under one shepherd. &lt;strong&gt;Among the many steps he took in this direction, he declared that the Bible should not be translated into vernacular languages, for the ministry of teaching and interpretation must be in the hands of Rome...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Additional Context:&lt;/strong&gt; Chapter thirty is entitled &quot;Movements of Renewal,&quot; and Gonzalez is describing the Roman Catholic Church in the eleventh century, following the corruption which existed during and after the decline of the Carolingian empire. The &quot;reformation&quot; referred to is not the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, but rather the eleventh century ecclesiastical reformation internal to the RCC, as initiated by monks from Cluny and other monasteries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition,&lt;/em&gt; by Justo Gonzalez. Volume I, p. 337.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T05:32:23.487" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18386" CreationDate="2013-08-14T06:36:18.703" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you search on Google with keywords like &quot;&lt;em&gt;bible environmental&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, you will get many sites which claim that the Bible supports the idea of Environmental Protection.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earthcareonline.org/bibleverses.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EarthCare&lt;/a&gt; has a good summary of relevant verses on environmental care, some of them are...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Command to Care for Creation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work&#xA;  it and take care of it.&quot; (Genesis 2:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The land itself must observe a sabbath to the Lord. For six years sow&#xA;  your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and garner their&#xA;  crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest,&#xA;  a sabbath to the Lord.... The land is to have a year of rest.&quot;&#xA;  (Leviticus 25:2-5; cf. Exodus 23:10-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You shall not pollute the land in which you live.... You shall not&#xA;  defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the&#xA;  LORD dwell among the Israelites.&quot; (Numbers 35:33-34)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If you besiege a town for a long time, making war against it in order&#xA;  to take it, you must not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against&#xA;  them. Although you may take food from them, you must not cut them&#xA;  down. Are trees in the field human beings that they should come under&#xA;  siege from you?&quot; (Deuteronomy 20:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these verses are not directly referring to environmental protection, though they can be put forth for the argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Keep your Temporary Home clean:&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;The earth belongs to us and we must take care of it, not because God commanded us to do it so. This is a secular matter. Though we will stay here only for a while, lets take care of this &lt;em&gt;Temporary Home&lt;/em&gt;. It would be a foolish thing to pollute our home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can we really take care of the Earth?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NO!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; It is in God's care. God created this world according to His will and will destroy it again by the same will. No matter how hard we try to preserve the environment and wild life, God is going to destroy this earth by fire anyway on the Day of Judgement. In that sense, it might be pointless to strive hard in protecting the environment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;2 Peter 3:3-7 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will&#xA;  come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.They will say,&#xA;  “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died,&#xA;  everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But&#xA;  they deliberately forget that long ago &lt;strong&gt;by God’s word the heavens came&#xA;  into being and the earth was formed&lt;/strong&gt; out of water and by water. By&#xA;  these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.&#xA;  By the same word &lt;strong&gt;the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,&#xA;  being kept for the day of judgment&lt;/strong&gt; and destruction of the ungodly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God will destroy this present world by fire and will create a new Heaven and Earth, a new Earth far far better than the present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 21:1 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and&#xA;  the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not permanent on this earth, we have a destination ahead. We must not set our hearts on this world because we are only travelers here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 John 2:15 (NKJV)&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the&#xA;  world, the love of the Father is not in him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; If you want to protect the environment, go do it. There is nothing wrong in it. It's a good thing. It proves that you are a good human. Only good people think about those things and only fools neglect them. But please, do not include Christianity to the context. Don't try to relate them. Does that mean we should start polluting the environment? Not at all! Only foolish people would do that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-15T01:08:39.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T01:08:39.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18357" CreationDate="2013-08-14T07:20:49.553" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:&lt;/strong&gt; John Piper is clearly a five-point Calvinist. There appears to be no valid reason to think he is a four-point Calvinist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;More Information:&lt;/strong&gt; There are a number of places on the web that claim that John Piper denies the doctrine of limited atonement -- the &quot;L&quot; in &quot;TULIP,&quot; the acronym associated with five-point Calvinism. It appears that none of these claims offer a valid source citation of any of Piper's works; those that do offer a reference take statements out of context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Documents that substantiate the counter-claim that Piper is, in fact, a five-point Calvinist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a former elder at Bethlehem Baptist Church, he would have needed to assent to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/the-bethlehem-baptist-church-elder-affirmation-of-faith&quot;&gt;Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith&lt;/a&gt;. Section 7.3 of that document describes limited atonement, though it does not use that particular term.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The ministry that he leads, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/&quot;&gt;Desiring God&lt;/a&gt;, offers &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/searches/limited%20atonement.html?utf8=%E2%9C%93&quot;&gt;many messages that teach limited atonement&lt;/a&gt;. For example, here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/seminars/tulip-part-7&quot;&gt;an extensive video teaching on limited atonement, led by John Piper&lt;/a&gt;. Many additional messages that clearly affirm limited atonement are available: see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/rebuilding-some-basics-of-bethlehem-the-doctrines-of-grace&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/for-whom-did-jesus-taste-death&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; for two more unequivocal examples.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;He has described himself, somewhat facetiously, as a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist&quot;&gt;seven point Calvinist&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T07:20:49.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18386" CreationDate="2013-08-14T11:51:58.220" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Environmentalism is reminding folks how: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;violations of commandment against coveting (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-17.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 20:17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... will end up causing violations of commandment against murder (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus&#xA;20:13&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;... and commandment against theft ([Exodus 20:15])&lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The various catechisms of Christianity have held that the commandments against theft and murder speak of a duty not only to stop doing bad things but to preserve and promote the interests of your neighbor's body and property.  I cite them here to show how deeply rooted this interpretation of Scripture is found in the basic teaching documents of the faith: (Brackets below found in original material.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luther's &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Small Catechism&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Explanation to Thou Shalt Not Kill&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Explanation to Thou Shalt Not Steal&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We should fear and love God that we may not take our neighbor's money or property, nor get them by false ware or dealing, but help him to improve and protect his property and business [that his means are preserved and his condition is improved].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This duty for positive aid of neighbor is also shown in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westminster Catechism&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. 68. What is required in the sixth commandment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A. The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others.[156]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Q. 74. What is required in the eighth commandment?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A. The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/heidelberg-catechism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heidelberg Catechism&lt;/a&gt; says, &quot;to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther's &lt;em&gt;Large Catechism&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php#para192&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Explanation to the Fifth Commandment&lt;/a&gt;, even goes on to mention someone trapped in rising water:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is just as if I saw some one navigating and laboring in deep water [and struggling against adverse winds] or one fallen into fire, and could extend to him the hand to pull him out and save him, and yet refused to do it. What else would I appear, even in the eyes of the world, than as a murderer and a criminal?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as a practical example to explain how it all fits together, here are two:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) You covet your neighbor's boat and recreational life. You get a big one yourself bring your boat across the country without sterilizing it and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAHfqZI1Ieg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bring some new kind of mussel&lt;/a&gt; that clogs up water supplies, leaving shells behind that cut people's feet, increasing taxpayer costs and reducing property values.  Covetousness leads to harm to neighbor's body and property.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) I was once at a Christmas in April workday and saw a sad sight: a row of houses where one had an unusually low chimney and furnace in poor repair, and so the smoke on certain days caused the next-door neighbor to have asthma attacks.  There's an opportunity here to preserve neighbor's life and property, which could be addressed through charity (this was a neighborhood being visited by a housing charity), moral suasion (&lt;em&gt;&quot;Dude, you're killing me!&quot;&lt;/em&gt;), and/or regulation (I'm sure a &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/romans/13-4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;housing code regulation&lt;/a&gt; of chimney height was being violated here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-08-14T12:04:48.820" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T12:04:48.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18394" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18402" CreationDate="2013-08-14T09:19:01.380" Score="11" ViewCount="314" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;em&gt;Imitation of Christ&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_%C3%A0_Kempis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thomas à Kempis&lt;/a&gt; writes (Book I, Chapter XX, paragraph 5):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you desire true sorrow of heart, seek the privacy of your cell and&#xA;  shut out the uproar of the world, as it is written: “In your chamber&#xA;  bewail your sins.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does “In your chamber bewail your sins” refer to a particular Scripture passage, or is something else in mind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3956" OwnerDisplayName="Doubt" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-25T22:24:36.797" LastActivityDate="2015-07-25T22:24:36.797" Title="What is the source of the phrase &quot;in your chamber bewail your sins&quot;?" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18394" CreationDate="2013-08-14T13:27:52.317" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The quotation, which may not in fact be a quotation from the Scripture, could have come from a non-biblical source that was familiar to à Kempis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, it suggests to me a conflation of several biblical concepts such as we find in  Matthew 5:4, 6:6, and 6:12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put them all together, and you have the substance of  à Kempis' quotation.  I suggest the following paraphrase of the quotation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;If you want to experience true heart-sorrow, go into your private prayer closet where only God can see and hear you and where the din of the outside world is silenced; repent of and mourn for your sins; and receive the gift of forgiveness in proportion to your willingness to forgive others who may have sinned against you.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" OwnerDisplayName="rhetorician" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T13:27:52.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18396" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="27859" CreationDate="2013-08-14T15:13:09.397" Score="3" ViewCount="366" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Several times, then, Lewis suggests that heaven will be a place where thinking and experiencing come together. On earth we think about what love is; in heaven Love is a Person we can experience. On earth we read books about many different things, especially God, on the one hand, while some of our experiences of Him are so intense that we cannot put them into words; in heaven the Divine Word speaks to us face to face in a language that lets us hear and say everything we never could before. In heaven to think a thing will be to do it; to do a thing will involve knowing it completely. On earth our words are abstract thoughts that never quite say everything we want them to. In heaven language is a person, and to communicate will be to offer everything we are and to receive back every thought, feeling, and meaning from those with whom we share words&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.charliewstarr.com/c-s-lewis/charlies-lewis-essays/c-s-lewiss-vision-of-heaven.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Charlie Starr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="4737" LastEditDate="2013-08-14T16:00:42.760" LastActivityDate="2014-05-03T05:11:10.937" Title="Does anyone know where CS Lewis said (or maybe implied) the following...?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;love&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="834" CreationDate="2013-08-14T16:10:45.860" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is another example in Scripture of someone who was healed by just dipping into water. It is the story of Naaman the leper, in the Old Testament. 2 Kings 5:14 - describes how Naaman immerses himself as per Elisha's instructions in the Jordan River and was made whole. The point of the story is not so much the river, but God's love for a foreigner and faith in the message of the prophet Elisha. I have heard another interpretation of the Bethesda healing. In Jungian psychology water represents the unconscious. The story of the man healed by entering the water can be seen as an invitation about letting God heal our inner selves, that part of ourselves that we don't know, don't like, that is wounded and broken. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5420" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T16:10:45.860" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5020" CreationDate="2013-08-14T16:10:56.903" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that the best way to look at happiness is as God's 'rays of light'. If you hide from them you won't recieve their warmpth. It's up to the individual as to whether they hide or not. I believe, like in CS Lewis's The Great Divorse, man will be offered the hand of redemption regardless of their past or previous blindness to truth. Those that shall remain outside the heat and love of God's rays are those that will truly decide that they despise His glory and prefer to go their own way, even if that way is true death (He offers true personality and pleasure).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this is all guess work. But God IS love, joy and forgivness...What He isn't is despicable. Or (probably. Most probably) an old man with a beard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T16:10:56.903" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18399" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2609" CreationDate="2013-08-14T17:09:25.683" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You view is absolutely incorrect.  There are more than 3 typs of beings.  Look up the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherub&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cherubim&lt;/a&gt;.  The bible talks about different beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Hebrew term cherubim is cognate with the Assyrian term karabu, Akkadian term kuribu, and Babylonian term karabu; the Assyrian term means 'great, mighty', but the Akkadian and Babylonian cognates mean 'propitious, blessed'.[3][4] In some regions the Assyro-Babylonian term came to refer in particular to spirits which served the gods, in particular to the shedu (human-headed winged bulls);[4] the Assyrians sometimes referred to these as kirubu, a term grammatically related to karabu.[3] They were originally a version of the shedu, protective deities sometimes found as pairs of colossal statues either side of objects to be protected, such as doorways.[4][5] However, although the shedu were popular in Mesopotamia, archaeological remains from the Levant suggest that they were quite rare in the immediate vicinity of the Israelites.[5] The related Lammasu (human-headed winged lions — to which the sphinx is similar in appearance), on the other hand, were the most popular winged-creature in Phoenician art, and so scholars suspect that Cherubim were originally a form of Lammasu.[5] In particular, in a scene reminiscent of Ezekiel's dream, the Megiddo Ivories — ivory carvings found at Megiddo (which became a major Israelite city) — depict an unknown king being carried on his throne by hybrid winged-creatures.[6]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible NEVER gives the impression of angelic beings being the ONLY ones in existence besides man, god and angels.  And in this instance Cherubims are not baby like beings, they are to be so big that a human can walk under them or even ride them as they fly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5421" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-08-14T18:21:08.017" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T18:21:08.017" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18378" CreationDate="2013-08-14T19:30:10.270" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;this sounds a lot like the &lt;code&gt;Nature Vs. Nurture&lt;/code&gt; argument to me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;just because someone has wisdom beyond their years doesn't mean that they magically got it from a previous life.  I believe that they did sort of get it from a previous life, from their upbringing. I am good with logic and Mathematics, but that is because of the way that my Father talked to me and explained things to me. these things are true for everyone. motivation and patience and other things like that are learned through the years, during vital times of development.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;there is no way for those that are Dead to come back to Learn more, if they have not Learned it the first time then they are forever lost. as illustrated when Lazarus was with Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblia.com/books/esv/Lk16.19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 16:19-31&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, &#xA;in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, &#xA;and none may cross from there to us. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T19:30:10.270" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18386" CreationDate="2013-08-14T20:04:29.490" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;it's about being a good person, doing what is good. that is what God calls us to be and to do.  if you only do things that are expressly written in the bible your life will be empty, Jesus gave us an example, He didn't say you can only do what I have told you to do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said to Love others as yourself, I think that taking care of the environment falls under that for sure. if we pollute the environment we are not loving the people that will come after us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Gave us Guidelines, and sometimes you have to Pray and Ask, &quot;God is this your will?&quot;&#xA;Taking care of the planet falls under the &lt;code&gt;do that which is good&lt;/code&gt; category.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible can tell you about the kind of Person that God/Jesus is, therefore it's like saying &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;What would Jesus do?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T20:04:29.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18394" CreationDate="2013-08-14T20:10:53.663" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Rev. William Benham's translation (available at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1653&quot;&gt;Project Gutenberg&lt;/a&gt;) references this as Psalm 4:4. That translation renders the sentence thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If thou wilt feel compunction within thy heart, enter into thy chamber and shut out the tumults of the world, as it is written, Commune with your own heart in your own chamber and be still.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ESV translates Psalm 4:4 thus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be angry, and do not sin;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition might be closer to the Vulgate used by Thomas' community since the Septuagint on which it is based might vary a bit from the Hebrew texts preferred by the ESV translators. It translates the verse (4:5, because the annotation text is treated as verse 1): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be angry, and sin not: the things you say in your hearts, be sorry for them upon your beds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;be sorry for them upon your beds&quot; is reasonably close to &quot;in your chamber bewail your sins&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastEditorUserId="3331" LastEditDate="2013-08-14T20:17:03.853" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T20:17:03.853" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18403" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-14T21:01:18.840" Score="11" ViewCount="3680" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2015&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matthew 15&lt;/a&gt;, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Jesus] called the people to him and said to them, &quot;Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person ... Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mar%207:14-23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Mark's account&lt;/a&gt; that &quot;thus He declared all foods clean.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, when we move to James and the church elders in Acts 15, we find them &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=act%2015:22-29&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;writing a letter&lt;/a&gt; in which, among other things, they impose food requirements on the Gentile churches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do these statements contradict, or can they be correlated? If they contradict, then who gave James and the elders the authority to overrule the teachings of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5423" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2019-02-05T07:24:27.057" LastActivityDate="2019-02-05T13:38:49.240" Title="Does James contradict Jesus when he says some foods should not be eaten?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;diet&gt;&lt;council-of-jerusalem&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18394" CreationDate="2013-08-14T22:29:54.390" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wow! Nice detective work, Paul A. Clayton.&#xA;To add to your excellent answer... The original Latin in &lt;em&gt;De Imitatione Christi&lt;/em&gt; is: &lt;em&gt;Si vis cordetenus compungi; intra cubile tuum et exclude tumultus mundi: sicut scriptum est, In cubilibus vestris compungimini&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas à Kempis is quoting the (old) Vulgate (not the corrected Nova Vulgata), which reads for Psalms 4:5 — &lt;em&gt;quæ dicitis in cordibus vestris, in cubilibus vestris compungimini&lt;/em&gt;, literally: &quot;[those things] which you say in your hearts, repent [for them] in your chambers&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Masoretic Hebrew text for this verse reads אִמְרוּ בִלְבַבְכֶם עַל-מִשְׁכַּבְכֶם וְדֹמּוּ, &lt;em&gt;imru bilevavkhem 'al mishkavkhem wedommu&lt;/em&gt;, &quot;speak to your hearts on your beds and be silent&quot;, while it seems that Jerome was working with a different Hebrew text (noted in my BHS as a variant reading in the Greek manuscripts) where the conduction '&lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt;' [and] was moved two words up: *&lt;em&gt;imru bilevavkhem we'al mishkavkhem dommu&lt;/em&gt;, &quot;speak to your hearts, and on your beds be silent.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5425" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T22:29:54.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18405" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18403" CreationDate="2013-08-14T22:43:25.987" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question and welcome to Christianity.SE.&#xA;If you look at Matthew 15 the question Jesus was responding to was not what foods make you clean rather it is written &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus,&#xA;  saying,  “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the&#xA;  elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”&quot; &#xA;  (Matthew 15:1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Jesus is answering a question about unwashed hands, in that context he then says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the&#xA;  stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the&#xA;  mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. These are the things&#xA;  which defile a man, &lt;strong&gt;but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a&#xA;  man.&lt;/strong&gt; (Matthew 15:18-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the freedom declared in Matthew 15 is freedom to eat food with unwashed hands, leaving the ban against unclean foods in place. Therefore when the ban against eating blood is declared even for the gentiles in Acts 15, that shows that the clean/unclean food regulations in the Old Testament are still binding upon Christians today.  For it is written regarding Jesus second coming...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For behold, the Lord will come with fire And with His chariots, like a&#xA;  whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames&#xA;  of fire.  For by fire and by His sword The Lord will judge all flesh;&#xA;  And the slain of the Lord shall be many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the&#xA;  gardens After an idol in the midst,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse,&lt;/strong&gt; Shall be consumed together,” says the Lord. (Isaiah 66:15-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the Bible says that those who consume unclean meats when Jesus returns and do not repent will be destroyed.  More info on this topic here - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/22/t/death-in-the-kitchen.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/22/t/death-in-the-kitchen.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is perfect harmony therefore between Acts 15 and Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T22:43:25.987" CommentCount="21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18406" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18378" CreationDate="2013-08-14T22:56:46.537" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I logically, instinctively and intuitively get the feeling that souls&#xA;  are reincarnated and purified to be more like the light of Christ,&#xA;  through each human experience they occupy. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who&#xA;  can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a warning, you're instincts and feelings can betray you :).  The truth is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the&#xA;  judgment&quot; (Hebrews 9:27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are no denominations that support reincarnation to my knowledge, for it goes against the Bible.  May the Lord bless you as you study His word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-14T22:56:46.537" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11962" CreationDate="2013-08-15T03:36:51.053" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While it is true that according to Revelation 14:1-3, the apostle John wrote that the number of those &quot;bought from the earth&quot; to go to heaven is 144,000, Jehovah's Witnesses will point out that the Bible clearly shows that the vast majority of mankind (including most Jehovah's Witnesses) have the prospect of living on into, or of being resurrected in the future to life in Paradise on earth - not in heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.&quot; (Ps. 37:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.&quot; (Matthew 5:5 KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recommended Related Articles from the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eternal Happiness—In Heaven or on Earth?&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000721#p18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000721#p18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do All Faithful Christians Go to Heaven?&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011405&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011405&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5426" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T03:36:51.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2609" CreationDate="2013-08-15T04:58:45.277" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Where in the Bible does it say that Lucifer was one of the angels or an archangel?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Lucifer” is actually a Hebrew &lt;em&gt;word&lt;/em&gt; when translated means “shining one.” The Septuagint uses the Greek word that means “bringer of dawn.” That is why some translations render the original Hebrew “morning star” or “Daystar.” But Jerome’s Latin Vulgate uses “Lucifer” (light bearer), and this accounts for the appearance of that term in various versions of the Bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 'name' Lucifer occurs once in the Scriptures (Isa. 14:12) and only in some versions of the Bible. Traditionally, Lucifer is a name that in English generally refers to the Devil before being cast from heaven. But this description is given to a man and not to a spirit creature as is further seen by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Additionally, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the MAN that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature. - Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Careful Exegesis has actually conclude that Isaiah did not have Satan in mind when he says &quot;Lucifer,&quot; but actually the king of Babylon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CONCERNING THE TRADITION OF LUCIFER BEING A NAME FOR THE DEVIL&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have read that before the rise of Christianity, it was the pseudepigrapha of Enochic Judaism who interpreted Isaiah 14:12-15 as applicable to Satan, and presented him as a fallen angel cast out of Heaven. Christian tradition, influenced by this presentation, came to use the Latin word for &quot;morning star&quot;, lucifer, as a proper name (&quot;Lucifer&quot;) for Satan as he was before his fall. As a result, &quot;Lucifer has become a by-word for Satan in the Church and in popular literature&quot;, as in Dante Alighieri's Inferno and John Milton's Paradise Lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may appreciate the following link to further information: &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200275280&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SHINING ONE&lt;/a&gt; (Isaiah 14:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5426" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-07-18T03:48:17.853" LastActivityDate="2016-07-18T03:48:17.853" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18366" CreationDate="2013-08-15T06:22:00.120" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can only answer for my denomination (Baptist), but it was used as a supporting scripture for Immersion. During baptism, pastors would often say &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Buried in the likeness of His death, raised in the likeness of His resurrection&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...raised to walk in newness of life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that baptism is a the believer's public confession of faith. And the immersion itself is a symbol of Christ's burial and resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5382" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T06:22:00.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7188" CreationDate="2013-08-15T06:26:38.997" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Cor 15 v.4-5,why does Paul say that after his resurrection Christ, &quot;was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve..&quot; Firstly it suggests that Cephas might have been one of the 70 disciples, rather than Peter the Apostle; secondly it omits the two Marys mentioned as the first to see the risen Christ in Matthew 28 v 1-10?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5427" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T06:26:38.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18403" CreationDate="2013-08-15T14:17:12.443" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seem to be two different questions addressed by the New Testament relevant to this issue:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does eating certain foods defile a man?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should certain people abstain from certain foods?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don’t think the New Testament teachings contradict. Jesus’ teaching in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 7&lt;/a&gt; declares that the first question is answered ‘no’: there is nothing inherent in certain foods that makes them defiling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the answer to the second question is a tentative ‘yes’. Certainly Jews before the time of Christ were expected to keep the kosher laws. In the period directly following Jesus’ death, Jewish Christians were not about to give up their customs in an instant; they would continue to observe the kosher laws. As long as they didn’t fall prey to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees condemned by Jesus, there would be nothing very wrong with that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question then was: what about the Gentile Christians? Were they to keep the same laws as the Jewish Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This more general question was brought up at the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15&lt;/a&gt;). (The particular case addressed at that council had to do with circumcision, but their rulings had a broader impact than that. This is the decision they reached (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15%3a+19-20&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:19–20 NRSV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[James speaking:] “Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These restrictions placed on the Gentiles in no way encompassed all the precepts of the Torah; they are there to address the few violations which were particularly abominable to the Jews. The council did not declare that certain foods can defile a man; they only declared that at this place and time, it is better for the Gentiles not to offend the Jews by observing the things mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The issue is brought up again, once more with respect to food, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 14&lt;/a&gt;. In this passage, Paul acknowledges the right of each Christian to act according to his own conscience. At the same time, he recognizes that the food itself is not what defiles a man (this agrees with Jesus’ teaching); he also says that those who do eat must not look down on those who don’t, and even that they should abstain if it becomes a point of contention.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The takeaway from both the Acts and the Romans passages is that extra restrictions may be placed upon certain people at certain times. However these reasons are pastoral and in no way nullify Jesus’ basic claim that no food, &lt;em&gt;in and of itself&lt;/em&gt;, can be considered ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastEditorUserId="5203" LastEditDate="2013-08-15T15:57:31.947" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T15:57:31.947" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18414" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18378" CreationDate="2013-08-15T15:07:04.077" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source:&lt;/strong&gt; Morse, D. R. (2006, April). Reincarnation: Yes, No or Maybe!. &lt;em&gt;Journal of Spirituality &amp;amp; Paranormal Studies&lt;/em&gt;. p. 61.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although some sects of Christianity accept reincarnation, for some&#xA;  people (e.g., innocent infants, murder victims), generally,&#xA;  Christianity does not support reincarnation, because no matter how&#xA;  evil you might have been, if you repent and accept Jesus Christ as the&#xA;  Son of God and your savior, you will go on to Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source:&lt;/strong&gt; Davies, M. (2004). Should Christianity Embrace Mediumship, Healing and Reincarnation?. &lt;em&gt;Journal Of Religion &amp;amp; Psychical Research&lt;/em&gt;, 27(3), 132-144.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;St Paul very plainly rejects reincarnation in his letter to the Hebrews. (Hebrews 9:27-28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Gnostics did believe in reincarnation, but they were squashed&#xA;  after the Council at Nicaea in 325 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;St. Jerome tells us that metempsychosis (reincarnation) was a secret&#xA;  doctrine of certain sects in his day, but it was too evidently opposed&#xA;  to the Catholic doctrine of Redemption ever to obtain a settled&#xA;  rooting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However some sects — particularly the early Gnostics and the later&#xA;  Cathars of 13th century France — did believe in reincarnation, and&#xA;  often paid the price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While some individual Christians believe in reincarnation, the only&#xA;  major push for reincarnation from within official Christian circles&#xA;  has been from the &quot;Army of Mary,&quot; a Catholic sect that is based in&#xA;  Quebec, Canada.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although there are certainly Christian individuals and sects that accept reincarnation, reincarnation has always been an iffy issue, because it has long been perceived to undermine the significance of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. There are examples of such sects, as mentioned above. Sects who do believe in this reincarnation are often persecuted, and over the centuries, the non-heretics procreate non-heretic offspring, which is why the number of people who believes in reincarnation is in the minority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-08-15T15:20:58.590" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T15:20:58.590" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18416" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-15T16:10:40.347" Score="5" ViewCount="241" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;https://twitter.com/franzpieper/status/368039928052977664&quot;&gt;Tweet&lt;/a&gt; by some fans of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Pieper&quot;&gt;Franz Pieper&lt;/a&gt; recently said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God has blessed the &quot;repristination theology&quot; of our fathers with success also in this country. #lcms #lutheran&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Growing up in Lutheranism, that was the first time I'd ever heard the term. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/498536/Repristination-Theology&quot;&gt;Britannica&lt;/a&gt; defines it as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The Repristination Theology” (i.e., restoration of earlier norms), led by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802–69), made 17th-century orthodoxy normative for the interpretation of Luther’s teachings and fought the rising historical-critical approach to the Bible by affirming the verbal inspiration... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any Lutheran denominations (or parachurch reform groups) successfully represent &quot;repristination theology&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T01:07:14.780" Title="Do any Lutheran denominations (or parachurch reform groups) successfully represent &quot;repristination theology&quot;?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18417" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16450" CreationDate="2013-08-15T16:52:01.607" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you are asking what the difference between physical death and spiritual death are?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first one is pretty obvious so I won't expound on that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second one is more heavily debated. A person can be physically alive but yet in a state of spiritual death. Thus, you don't have to physically die in order to &quot;go to hell&quot;. The &quot;life and resurrection&quot; that Jesus Christ brought was meant to take people from their state of spiritual death to a state of being spiritually alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T16:52:01.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18419" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-15T17:09:56.113" Score="7" ViewCount="11710" Body="&lt;p&gt;Specifically when it comes to a parent disciplining their children or husband disciplining his wife - it seems there has been a lot of talk about both and I'm curious what different denominations and the Bible has to say on the topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is corporal punishment/discipline ever OK?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is corporal punishment/discipline from a parent to a child OK?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is corporal punishment/discipline between a husband and his wife OK?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5432" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-03T12:20:14.790" LastActivityDate="2014-12-16T04:02:04.577" Title="What does the Bible teach about domestic discipline?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;parenting&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-12-16T05:01:07.233" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18420" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18403" CreationDate="2013-08-15T17:11:36.683" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mark's parenthetical remark (viz., &quot;In saying this Jesus declared all foods clean&quot;) and James's letter to Gentile Christians only appear to contradict each other.  In fact, they can be harmonized quite easily.  We need first to lay some groundwork before harmonizing them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a given that Mark's words in his gospel and Luke's words in Acts are both part of inspired Scripture.  The Holy Spirit moved both men to record the truth of God, and there can be no real contradiction between two or more passages in the Bible, only &lt;em&gt;apparent&lt;/em&gt; contradictions.  James's words as Luke records them in Acts 15 were also inspired by the Holy Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you [Gentile believers] no greater burden than these essentials . . .&quot; (Acts 15:28).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like the way James phrased this part of his letter:  &quot;. . . it seemed &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; to the Holy Spirit . . .,&quot; because the words indicate that James, the elders, and the whole church in Jerusalem were embroiled in a controversy which needed to be resolved right away.  They therefore needed guidance from the Holy Spirit as to how to proceed, otherwise the fledgling--but expanding--churches in Judea and beyond were in danger of experiencing a paralyzing schism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke tells us how this potential schism was instigated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'&quot; (Acts 15:1).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By analogy, imagine that in 2013 some ultra-conservative Christians in the Church of the Absolute Truth denomination (COTAT) are going from church to church insisting that any person with a tattoo &lt;strong&gt;cannot&lt;/strong&gt; be saved and become a member of any local church in the COTAT denomination until he or she has the tattoo(s) removed surgically.  Stay with me now!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These legalists--for want of a better term--are placing a burden on potential church members who in fact are born again but who offend these anti-tattooists within COTAT by having these &quot;ungodly&quot; tattoos on their flesh!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I am not a big fan of tattoos (I do not have one and do not plan to get one), but I would welcome into the fellowship of my local church anyone (man or woman) with a tattoo who also professes faith in Christ.  I must add, however, that the leadership of my church has a God-given responsibility to inform all prospective members of some &lt;em&gt;biblical&lt;/em&gt; criteria for membership within our local church.  But I digress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How, then, should the leadership of the various local churches within the COTAT denomination handle this looming controversy which threatens to divide the church into two camps:  the exclusive anti-tattooists and the more-inclusive &quot;It's OK to have a tattoo&quot; faction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how the believers in the Jerusalem church handled their problem, which suggests how we might handle our tattoo controversy:    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(1) They convened a meeting.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James, the elders, and the entire church in Jerusalem got together with church planters Paul and Barnabus, apostles to the Gentiles in the outlying regions of Israel.  After an unsuccessful attempt of resolving the controversy through &quot;no small dissension and debate&quot; with the Judaizers (15:2), Paul and Barnabus decided wisely to take the issue to the denominational headquarters of &quot;The Way&quot; in Jerusalem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible tells us clearly, &quot;in the multitude of counselors there is safety&quot; (Proverbs 11:14; 15:22; 24:6).  Barnabus and Paul recognized this principle and they joined key church leaders in Jerusalem to resolve the controversy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The creation and fomentation of controversy within the local church is not of the Holy Spirit, whether the issue triggering the debate is tattoos or circumcision or dietary customs.  God has not called us to schisms and rancor, but to peace and unity within the body.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Let the peace of Christ rule [act as arbiter] in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body . . . (Colossians 3:15).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(2) They sought guidance from the Word through the Holy Spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since it is imperative for Holy Spirit-filled leaders to exercise oversight in the practical, day-to-day affairs of the local church, they need to be informed by both the clear instructions of God's word regarding the non-negotiables of the faith, and a wise pragmatism to implement those instructions on a case-by-case basis. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One such &quot;non-negotiable&quot; principle is salvation by grace through faith.  The Judaizers, who were much like the Pharisees and teachers of the law in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, were hung up on their own traditions and thereby effectively set aside a key foundational principle that salvation is &quot;not of works, lest any man should boast&quot; (Ephesians 2:8,9).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wise man once said, &quot;The challenge facing every local church can be summarized as follows:  The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.&quot;  Had the confabulation that convened in Jerusalem chosen to sweep the controversy under the rug, so to speak, the expansion of the church through conversions (see Acts 15:3) may have been imperiled.  Is not &quot;the main thing&quot; to expand the church through conversions, baptism, and discipleship of all people-groups (Matthew 28:18-20)?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While &quot;hot button&quot; issues within the church may change over time and are certainly different from culture to culture, church leadership in every local church is to use discernment in &quot;where they draw the line&quot; between secondary, &quot;grey&quot; issues, and issues of great import and significance based on the clear teaching of God's word.  In other words,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(3) They made a Holy Spirit-inspired, pragmatic, loving, God-honoring, and unanimous decision (see Acts 15:25).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That decision not only respected Jewish biblical traditions but at the same time recognized the &quot;new thing&quot; God was accomplishing in their midst; namely, the saving of Jews and Gentiles alike by His grace through faith alone, and not by grace through faith plus works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, the first-century church leaders in Jerusalem, all of whom were Jews (with very few exceptions) made their decision by a) respecting the Jewish majority in the body, who could say legitimately, &quot;Hey, we were here first&quot;; and  b) by respecting the Gentile minority which would soon be a majority, who could say legitimately, &quot;Hey, we weren't steeped in Jewish tradition, so it's not fair to make us play catch-up.  Besides, aren't we saved by grace through faith alone and not by works?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This principle of compromise is cause for stumbling, even among Christians today, as can be seen plainly in some of the other answers to the OP's question.  That is why Paul was moved to write 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 and 15, which provide us with guiding principles regarding our liberties in Christ.  By providing Gentile believers with two dietary guidelines, James and the church in Jerusalem were not contradicting our Lord's declaring all foods to be clean; rather, they were encouraging the Gentiles to respect  the scruples of their fellow believers who were Jews, years before the apostle Paul provided his Spirit-inspired guidelines in 1 Corinthians and Romans.  As for the Judaizers, their false doctrine was nipped in the bud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, since none of us lives to himself or dies to himself (1 Cor 14:7) but are linked to other believers within Christ's body who may not share our freedoms concerning food, drink, and tattoos, we are to consider others' feelings and scruples before exercising our liberty in Christ.  We all are free in Christ but at the same time are also bond-slaves of Jesus Christ, who did not come to please Himself but to do the will of Him who sent Him and to accomplish His work of ransoming sinners (Ro 15:3; Ma 20:28; Mk 10:45; Jn 4:34). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, James et al. were not &quot;laying down the law&quot; in their letter to the Gentiles, thereby imposing a &quot;greater burden&quot; on them (Acts 15:19, 28), nor were they ignoring the scruples of the Jewish converts who had a great deal of un-learning to do.  James et al. decided wisely to provide an interim solution to a temporary and divisive controversy.  By doing so they set an example for us Christians today who may be struggling with contemporary and culture-specific controversies of our own almost 20 centuries later. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, who's up for getting a tattoo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-08-17T04:08:51.760" LastActivityDate="2013-08-17T04:08:51.760" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18419" CreationDate="2013-08-15T17:29:44.653" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never heard of a husband disciplining their wife, I certainly don't do that. However parents have an obligation to discipline their children for it is written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines&#xA;  him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May I add that I don't use a physical rod :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Impatience in the parents excites impatience in the children. Passion&#xA;  manifested by the parents creates passion in the children and stirs up&#xA;  the evils of their nature. Some parents correct their children&#xA;  severely in a spirit of impatience, and often in passion. Such&#xA;  corrections produce no good result. In seeking to correct one evil,&#xA;  they create two. Continual censuring and whipping hardens children and&#xA;  weans them from their parents. Parents should first learn to control&#xA;  themselves, then they can more successfully control their children.&#xA;  Every time they lose self-control, and speak and act impatiently, they&#xA;  sin against God. They should first reason with their children, clearly&#xA;  point out their wrongs, show them their sin, and impress upon them&#xA;  that they have not only sinned against their parents, but against God.&#xA;  With your own heart subdued and full of pity and sorrow for your&#xA;  erring children, pray with them before correcting them. Then your&#xA;  correction will not cause your children to hate you. They will love&#xA;  you. They will see that you do not punish them because they have put&#xA;  you to inconvenience, or because you wish to vent your displeasure&#xA;  upon them; but from a sense of duty, for their good, that they may not&#xA;  be left to grow up in sin. (Testimonies For The Church Volume 1 p. 398, Ellen White)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T17:29:44.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18386" CreationDate="2013-08-15T17:45:18.423" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The commandments in Leviticus 25:2-5 already quoted by @Mawia give a plain teaching that the land needs rest. It directly implies that man cannot use the resources forever. God punishes Israel later in history for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hosea 2:3 talks about become like a wilderness like punishment. A wilderness is a bad thing, but is exactly what the land becomes when man extract resources without care. In Brazil, we have big areas devastated by sugarcane plantations. Where we had forests now we got only sand and lack of water. I´m certain that God will take account of the people who did it, if they did not repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a thought: maybe, if industries would extract resources to some point, take a pause or just move to another place in order to let the previous area to rest, we would have much less environmental problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4953" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T17:45:18.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18419" CreationDate="2013-08-15T18:54:15.873" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I did a &lt;a href=&quot;http://warrenmyers.com/blog/2012/08/a-word-study-of-chaste-and-chasten&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;word study&lt;/a&gt; on &quot;chaste&quot; and &quot;chasten&quot; several months ago, because I had heard of such topics discussed in the great portions of Christendom than I had previously been acquainted (&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I give some references to those websites both via a Google link, and directly in the footnotes to that article&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read the (few, but fairly detailed) sites that purport to be about &quot;Christian Domestic Discipline&quot;, they will typically give some form of biblical support for the practice (where CDD is between a husband and wife).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surely as representatives of Christ in the home, the husband/father is responsible for discipline in his family (Eph &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:23,28-30&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5:23,28-30&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:4&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;6:4&lt;/a&gt; as a quick start) - just as Christ is in His church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are to discipline ourselves (1 Cor &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%209:27&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;9:27&lt;/a&gt;), and we see in 2 Tim &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16-17&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3:16-17&lt;/a&gt; that discipline and correction rightly arise from scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that husbands should be allowed to exercise corporal discipline over their wives? The Bible does not say directly. We are to love our wives as ourselves - and we are to discipline ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You cannot spank yourself, but corporal punishment and discipline is not forbidden in the Bible in general. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, there is not truly a clear answer either way - and should be a matter of personal conviction, convincement, and agreement between a husband and his wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding corporal punishment/discipline between parents and their children, all throughout Proverbs, and many other places, discusses (and even encourages) corporal discipline &lt;em&gt;when appropriate&lt;/em&gt;. It is by no means the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; form of discipline available in a parent's repertoire, but it is, biblically, available. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a parent's job to know their children and to know what forms of discipline (both corrective and formative) will be most effective with their child - and that may vary from child to child, or age to age with the same child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-08-15T19:12:45.490" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T19:12:45.490" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17730" CreationDate="2013-08-15T19:16:38.690" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm unsure of other religions, but regarding Christianity today, the Bible tells us &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and&#xA;  declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed&#xA;  there is no other Rock; I know not one. (Isaiah 44:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when Jesus says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not&#xA;  prevail against it.&quot; (Matthew 16:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gates of Hades did not prevail against Jesus, He is the Rock, sinless and risen! Many Christian denominations today still consider Jesus the rock.  Popular hymns written long ago such as &quot;Rock of Ages&quot; also show that individuals many years ago saw this as true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-15T19:16:38.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18425" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18438" CreationDate="2013-08-15T22:05:09.470" Score="5" ViewCount="1195" Body="&lt;p&gt;At First Corinthians 9:24-27, the Apostle Paul writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. &lt;strong&gt;But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this verse understood by people who believe in the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Perseverance_of_the_saints&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;perseverance&lt;/a&gt;, such as those in the Reformed tradition?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-08-16T00:43:32.273" LastActivityDate="2017-01-01T04:20:59.277" Title="Does 1 Corinthians 9:27 contradict the doctrine of &quot;The Perseverance of the Saints?&quot;" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;&lt;perseverance-of-saints&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18426" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16064" CreationDate="2013-08-16T00:30:13.997" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the quotation in the body of your question points out, St. Augustine deduced from the New Testament texts the following definition: &quot;Predestination is the foreknowledge and the preparation of those gifts of God whereby they who are delivered are most certainly delivered.&quot;(1) In this definition the word &quot;foreknowledge&quot; is not taken as meaning that God foresees the merits of the elect, but that He foreknows and prepares the gifts by which the elect will actually be saved in the order of execution. &quot;By His predestination, God foreknew what He had to do,&quot;(2) so as to direct His elect infallibly to eternal life.  Here Augustine is echoing our Lord's words: &quot;My sheep . . . shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of My hand.&quot; (3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to St. Augustine, predestination presupposes a decisive and definite will on God's part to sanctify and freely save all the elect. (4) God knows them individually and He wills to have them perform meritoriously acts that are required for entering heaven. He wills to give them the grace to persevere until the end.  “..It is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish according to His good will.&quot;(5) The fact that God foresees our salutary and meritorious acts presupposes, according to the teaching of St. Augustine, the decree of the divine will as regards these acts. (6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Far be it that man should have the power to frustrate the intention&#xA;  of the omnipotent Being who has foreknowledge of all things.  These&#xA;  have but a faint conception of so great a question or what they have&#xA;  does not suffice, who think that the omnipotent God wills something&#xA;  and is powerless to effect it because of weak man preventing Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine says that God’s will is omnipotent and efficacious (most efficacious).(7) We read in one of his treatises as follows: &quot;There is no doubt that human wills cannot resist (in sensu composito) the will of God, who hath done whatsoever He willed in heaven and on earth, in that He does what He wills and when He wills. Undoubtedly He has the power to move the human heart to submit, as it pleases Him, to His omnipotent will.&quot;(8) From this we see that, in St. Augustine's view, the decrees of the divine will are infallible not because God foreknows that we will give our consent, but because He is omnipotent. He also says: &quot;The wills of men are more in God's power than in their own.&quot;(9) In another of his works he says: &quot;There is no doubt that we will whenever we will, but He is the cause of our willing what is good; . . . there is no doubt that we act whenever we act, but He is the cause of our acting, by most efficaciously strengthening our will.&quot;(10) Still more clearly when speaking professedly on this subject of predestination, he says that &quot;no one who is hardened in heart rejects grace, because it is primarily given to remove this hardness of heart.''(11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine repeatedly teaches and stresses that predestination is gratuitous. In discussing the gift of perseverance, he says: &quot;Of two children equally held captive by original sin, why is one taken and the other left? And of two wicked persons already advanced in years, why is one called and the other not? All this pertains to the inscrutable judgments of God.&quot;(12) He also says: &quot;Why God draws this one and not that other, seek not to judge, if thou wilt not err.&quot;(13) What precisely constitutes the crux of the mystery, according to St. Augustine's opinion, is man's inability to find out the reasons for the divine choice. He is continually harking back to this impossibility, and his opponents find no avenue of escape from it. This impossibility is a pledge of his fidelity to the teaching of St. Paul. It is, so to speak, the theme of his teaching. (14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Doctor of the Church, Augustine greatly developed the Catholic doctrine of predestination.  The fathers previous to the time of St. Augustine, especially the Greek fathers, often interpreted predestination as meaning the will to give glory after this life. They scarcely spoke of it except by way of exhortation, and then they had in mind the preconceived order of execution in which merits precede glory, whereas as intended by God it happens in the inverse order. (15) In the order of intention God wills the end before the means; that is why He wills to save the good thief to whom He grants the grace of final perseverance. But in the order of execution He gives eternal life as the reward of meritorious acts.  This distinction between intention and execution was only gradually applied to the problem of predestination. At first it was applied obscurely by St. Augustine, and then more and more explicitly by the Scholastic theologians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Predestination, (16) as is defined by the Church, has not been infrequently met with the heresy of predestinarianism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The essence of this heretical Predestinarianism (17) may be expressed in these two fundamental propositions which bear to each other the relation of cause and effect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;•   the absolute will of God as the sole cause of the salvation or damnation of the individual, without regard to his merits or demerits;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;•   as to the elect, it denies the freedom of the will under the influence of efficacious grace while it puts the reprobate under the necessity of committing sin in consequence of the absence of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church’s defense of St. Augustine’s doctrine of gratuitous free will clarifies to us what the Church has persistently taught, first of all against predestinarianism, and then against Calvinism, Bajanism, and Jansenism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the fifth century, Lucidus, a priest of the Catholic Church who was accused of having taught predestinarianism or predestination to evil, made a retractation of his teaching in the Council of Arles, which was held in the year 473. His opinion, as formulated by the council, reads as follows: &quot;That Christ the Lord, our Savior, did not die for the salvation of all mankind; . . . that God's foreknowledge forcibly impels man to everlasting death, or that those who are lost, are lost by God's will. . . . Likewise I reject the opinion of one who says that some are destined to everlasting death and others are predestined to everlasting life.&quot;(18) In his retraction, Lucidus affirmed that he who is lost could have been saved. (19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Council of Quierzy (853)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 1 - That God wills in a certain way to save all men&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 2 - That there is no such thing as predestination to evil, but that God decreed from all eternity to inflict the penalty of damnation for the sin of final impenitence, a sin which He foresaw and in no way caused but merely permitted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 3 - Almighty God wills without exception, all men to be saved, though not all are saved. That some are saved, however, is the gift of Him who saves; if some perish, it is the fault of them that perish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 3rd Council of Valence (855) insisted more strongly on the gratuity of predestination to eternal life in so far as it is distinct from simple foreknowledge, for this latter also extends to evil. According to the declarations of this council, the least good and the least punishment that is justly inflicted, never occur without a positive and infallible decree from God, and no sin is committed, and nowhere by preference, without His foreknowledge and permission.(20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Council of Langres (859)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 1 - Whatsoever the Lord pleased He hath done in heaven and on earth. For nothing is done in heaven or on earth, except what He Himself is pleased to do, or justly permits to be done. This means that all good things, whether easy or difficult to accomplish, whether natural or supernatural, come from God, and that sin does not occur, nor in this one rather than in the other, without His divine permission. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 2 - God wills all men to be saved and no one to perish. . . nor after the fall of the first man is it His will forcibly to deprive man of free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 3 - That those, however, who are walking in the path of righteousness, may continue to do so and persevere in their innocence, He heals and aids their free will by grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 4 - They who go far from God, who is desirous of gathering the children of Jerusalem that wills it not, will perish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 5 - Hence it is because of God's grace that the world is saved; and it is because man has free will that the world be judged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 6 - Adam, through willing what is evil, lost the power to do what is good. . . . &lt;strong&gt;Wherefore the whole human race became a mass of perdition. If no one had been rescued from it, God's justice would not have been to blame. That many are saved, however, is due to God's ineffable grace.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This last statement echoes what St. Augustine said. Thus at the end of these conferences of the ninth century, the bishops, assembled in council at Thuzey, rejected absolutely the theory of predestination to evil and affirmed God's universal will to save, as Prosper had done. God never commands the impossible, but He wills to make it possible for all to fulfil His precepts and obtain salvation. That is what all the bishops assembled in this last mentioned council affirmed with SS. Augustine and Prosper. But they do not deny the other aspect of the mystery, which is: the absolute gratuity of predestination, of true predestination as opposed to reprobation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this teaching of the Church was confirmed both by the decisions of the Council of Trent against the errors of Protestantism and by the condemnation of Jansenism. The Church again declares that man, though having contracted the stain of original sin, is free to do good by the aid of grace, consenting to co-operate with it, though at the same time he can resist it.(21) From this it follows that God predestines no one to evil;(22) but He wills, on the contrary, the salvation of all men; and Christ dies for all, although all do not receive the benefit that is the fruit of His death, &quot;but only those to whom the merit of His passion is communicated.&quot;(23) In the case of adults good works are necessary for salvation, and, in the order of execution, heavenly glory is the reward granted at the end of their probation for meritorious acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is likewise declared against Jansenism that Christ did not die only for the predestined, or only for the faithful; (24) that there is a grace which is truly sufficient, and which makes the fulfilment of God's precepts possible for all those on whom these precepts are imposed. The Church, quoting the words of St. Augustine, says again in refuting the Protestants and Jansenists: &quot;God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou art able, and to pray for what thou art not able to do.&quot;(25) She also says that &quot;God does not abandon the just without previously having been abandoned by them. That some perish, is the fault of those who perish.&quot; (26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Holy Scripture expressed the same thought in these words: &quot;Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me.&quot;(27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;De dono persever., chap. 14.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;De praed. sanct., chap. 10.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 10: 27-28.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cf. Enchiridion, chap. 100, no. 26&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Phil. 2: 13; cf. De praed. sanct., XVIII, 41; De dono persever., XXIII, 63.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;De dono persever., XVII, 41, 47; XIX, 48; XX, 50; De praed. sanct., XVII, 34; XVIII, 37.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cf. Enchiridion, chaps. 95 ff&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;De correptione et gratia, chap. 14.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid., cf. De civitate Dei, V, 9.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;De gratia et libero arbitrio, chap. 16.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;De praed. Sanct., chap. 8. In his tractae ad Simplicandum, Bk. I, q.2, no. 13, St. Augustine speaks of a congruent grace that is adapted to the dispositions of the individual, these being known by God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;De dono persever., chap.9&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Joan., tr. 26&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;De dono persever., VIII, 17; IX, 12, 21; XI, 25; XII, 30. De praed. sanct., VIII, 16; XIV, 26. De correptione et gratia, VIII, 17, 19(in the order of execution).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cf. Dict. de Théol. Cath., art. &quot;Prédestination,&quot; by Father Simonin, O.P. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php&lt;/a&gt;,  no. 316&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php&lt;/a&gt;,  nos. 321-22.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid., no. 797; d. no. 816&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid., no. 827.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid., no. 795.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid., nos. 1096, 1294, 1380 ff.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid., no. 804.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid., nos. 804. 806, 1794.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hosea 13:9&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-16T16:40:03.147" LastActivityDate="2013-08-16T16:40:03.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18427" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="27697" CreationDate="2013-08-16T01:48:03.797" Score="3" ViewCount="540" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember seeing a documentary about the life of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dietrich Bonhoeffer&lt;/a&gt;. One scene that was very interesting revolved around his leading a worship service in a transport between prisons, for all the prisoners, were he made some sort of special gesture to include non-Christian prisoners as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone describe this event in greater detail.  And could it be said to represent &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;some sort of use of worship as evangelism, (perhaps analogous to a small Billy Graham crusade)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a change in his beliefs to that of universal salvation,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;or a belief in the appropriateness of interfaith worship under&#xA;extreme circumstances?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-17T21:18:14.330" LastActivityDate="2016-12-30T06:06:22.227" Title="How can Dietrich Bonhoeffer's inclusion of non-Christians be explained theologically?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;inter-faith&gt;&lt;bonhoeffer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18428" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-16T02:05:18.060" Score="1" ViewCount="361" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 13:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage states that one reason to be nice to &quot;humanoids&quot; (my term) that you meet is that some of them may be angels in disguise, instead of ensouled human beings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q: Has this concept ever been invoked by prominent theologians as an answer to solve any theological problems?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of the type of problem that could be solved by &quot;angels among men&quot;. I just saw a pastor tweet that we have such a shallow view of God's love. I immediately thought of all the suffering from hunger and torture. Sometimes I hope that the bad guys have full culpability for their sins, but the humanoids they are abusing were instead angels walking among men, somehow able to take it or not lose their soul with a hateful response. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-12-15T03:51:58.547" Title="Has &quot;angels walking among men&quot; been invoked to solve theological problems?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18429" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18619" CreationDate="2013-08-16T03:08:54.897" Score="4" ViewCount="622" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/julyweb-only/7-29-31.0.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christianity Today&lt;/a&gt;, 07/02/02:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Twelve days after the September 11 attacks, David Benke followed Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu clerics to the podium of a Yankee Stadium event to honor the missing and the dead. Benke asked attendees to join hands and pray with him &quot;on this field of dreams turned into God's house of prayer.&quot; He prayed &quot;in the precious name of Jesus&quot; and sat down.&#xA;  That prayer has led to Benke's suspension from the clergy roster of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS). It has also exposed deep divisions in the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arguments I remember for this event at the time ranged from &quot;we were overcome by events&quot; to viewing it as an effective form of evangelism. Pr. Benke intentionally entered an arena with non-Christians and then asked them to close their eyes as he said an authentically Christian prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: Do any events in the Bible, early church fathers, tent revivalists, or Billy Graham ,  have essentially the same features? &lt;strong&gt;Specifically, initiating a prayer with someone who is (not yet, not necessarily intending to become) a Christian?&lt;/strong&gt; Perhaps the evangelism of the Apostles in either Jewish temples or public square? Did Billy Graham ever ask for public prayer at the beginning of a Crusade, before an altar call?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-08-16T10:55:32.633" LastActivityDate="2013-08-24T05:15:47.560" Title="Praying with non-Christians as evangelism?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18425" CreationDate="2013-08-16T05:10:24.417" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;From the point-of-view of someone who belives in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/doctrines-of-grace.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doctrines of Grace&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of Perseverance of Saints as defined in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Perseverance_of_the_saints&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; you provided&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Perseverance of the saints is the Calvinist doctrine that &lt;strong&gt;those who&#xA;  are truly saved will persevere to the end&lt;/strong&gt; and cannot lose their&#xA;  salvation. It doesn't mean that a person who is truly saved will never&#xA;  lose faith or backslide at any time. But that they will ultimately&#xA;  persevere in faith (inspite of failures) such as not to lose their&#xA;  salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The keyword in the doctrine is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;perseverance&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, that is, those who are truly born again will not fall from God's grace and these people will show that they are truly of God by persevering unitl the end (or when Christ returns)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding the verse you've showed, it's possible to view it as though Paul is striving the persevere with his walk as a Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, in the same letter of Paul to the chruch of Corinth, he mentioned this in his thanksgiving:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:4-9&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1:4-9, ESV&lt;/a&gt;, emphasis mine&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God&#xA;  that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were&#xA;  enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— even as the testimony&#xA;  about Christ was confirmed among you— so that you are not lacking in&#xA;  any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, &lt;strong&gt;who&#xA;  will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus&#xA;  Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look into other letter of Paul, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Phil. 1:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring&#xA;  it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see in another perspective that God works graciously on Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally I would like to term it as &lt;em&gt;Perseverance of the Saints through the Preservation of God&lt;/em&gt;, though it's too long to be catchy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1156" LastEditorUserId="1156" LastEditDate="2013-08-16T06:01:22.257" LastActivityDate="2013-08-16T06:01:22.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18432" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18434" CreationDate="2013-08-16T07:56:41.040" Score="4" ViewCount="1256" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Book of Revelation, 11:19—12:1-18, where the Woman of the Apocalypse is introduced, the passage describes &quot;she wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.&quot; Catholic tradition identifies the woman and the child as Mary and Jesus. However, the Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is incompatible with labor pains. Do the church fathers address this issue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5437" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-04T22:05:02.203" LastActivityDate="2016-12-05T13:19:43.037" Title="How is the Catholic interpretation of the Woman of the Apocalypse as being Mary reconciled with the dogma of perpetual virginity?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;perpetual-virginity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18432" CreationDate="2013-08-16T09:24:43.807" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 66:7 foretells the painless virgin birth: &quot;she brought forth; Before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy&quot;; So painless birth is scriptural and that is how the Catholic Church interprets it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And All the Church Fathers before AD 600 believed that Mary’s delivery was painless&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://taylormarshall.com/2010/12/marys-painless-delivery-of-christ.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about the pain of the women in Revelation? It can be reconciled as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Revelation is a prophecy of a Future event or is a cryptic narration of a future/past event. Pope St. Pius X says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;John therefore saw the Most Holy Mother of God already in eternal happiness, yet travailing in a mysterious childbirth. What birth was it? Surely &lt;strong&gt;it was the birth of us who, still in exile, are yet to be generated to the perfect charity of God, and to eternal happiness&lt;/strong&gt;. And the birth pains show the love and desire with which the Virgin from heaven above watches over us, and strives with unwearying prayer to bring about the fulfillment of the number of the elect.&quot; (Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The pain of the Woman may signify the suffering the people of Israel went through before the coming of the Messiah. &lt;sup&gt;cf. Jn. 16:21-22&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The women in the Revelation is not just Mary, but denotes more than her. The Woman in Revelation 12 is a composite image of the Daughter of Zion, Mary and the Church. Not every detail of this figure applies to each. As Held by H.H Benedict XVI.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://secretinfoclub.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The clause &lt;em&gt;wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth&lt;/em&gt; is figurative and alludes to Mary's spiritual suffering as prophesied by Simeon when the infant Jesus was presented in the temple (cf. Lk 2:35).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mary was preserved free from labor pains, &lt;em&gt;not perpetual virginity&lt;/em&gt; is a non-infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium and belongs to the deposit of faith. So Catholics are required to give their religious - as opposed to sacred - assent to this doctrine. Sacred assent applies to defined dogmas and the infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium. But a non-infallible teaching isn't necessarily untrue because it hasn't yet been defined as dogma. It wasn't until the 14th century that the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by transubstantiation was defined as dogma. Yet Catholics were required to profess their faith in this teaching of the Church.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=6615752#post6615752&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt; - Italics mine&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S: Catholics do not &lt;em&gt;necessarily&lt;/em&gt; interpret bible literally&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-08-17T15:08:21.107" LastActivityDate="2013-08-17T15:08:21.107" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18425" CreationDate="2013-08-16T11:24:06.827" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let's compare what Paul said in the Greek with a consideration of the doctrine of perseverance, in light of what several commentators taught on 1 Corinthians 9:27.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Adokimos&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word in 1Co 9:27 that is &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/9-27.htm&quot;&gt;commonly translated as &quot;disqualified&quot;&lt;/a&gt; is &quot;adokimos&quot; (ἀδόκιμος) in the Greek (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G96&quot;&gt;Strongs G96&lt;/a&gt;), and was normally used to refer to adulterated currencies, metals, soils, etc. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-9-27.html&quot;&gt;Specifically&lt;/a&gt;, it was used to describe materials that, when tested for integrity, were found to be impure -- that is, &quot;adokimos&quot; described counterfeits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Perseverance&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/&quot;&gt;perseverance&lt;/a&gt;, sometimes derisively termed &quot;once saved, always saved,&quot; should not be taken to indicate that mere superficial participation in Christian activities -- going to church on Sunday, claiming that one &quot;loves Jesus,&quot; etc. -- is an indicator of salvation. Passages such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21-23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:21-23&lt;/a&gt; and Christ's words to the church of Laodicia in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%203:14-22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Revelation 3&lt;/a&gt;, among many others Biblical texts, indicate that not all who call themselves Christian will enter into heaven. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Perseverance_of_the_saints&quot;&gt;Perseverance&lt;/a&gt; is granted to the members of the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXV.html&quot;&gt;invisible church&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (the &quot;wheat&quot;), as a subset of the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXV.html&quot;&gt;visible church&lt;/a&gt;,&quot; which also includes the &quot;chaff&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%203:12&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Mt 3:12&lt;/a&gt;). See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/john-darbys-synopsis-of-the-new-testament/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-9.html&quot;&gt;John Darby's Synopsis on 1Co 9:27&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several commentators have suggested that Paul was expressing concern not over his salvation, but rather over the particular reward (&quot;crown&quot;) that he sought to obtain in heaven.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/com/fbm/view.cgi?bk=45&amp;amp;ch=9&quot;&gt;F.B. Meyer&lt;/a&gt; saw the verse as indicating Paul's recognition of the fact that his ability to win souls to God was actually a result of Christ working through him, and that God could just as easily use another in Paul's place. (Cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%203:8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Lk 3:8&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-9-27.html&quot;&gt;Gill&lt;/a&gt; understood &quot;adokimos&quot; to refer to disapproval from people, rather than rejection by God, if Paul were to live in a way that was discordant with the Gospel that he preached.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, &lt;a href=&quot;http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/john-wesleys-notes-on-the-bible/notes-on-st-pauls-first-epistle-to-the-corinthians/#Chapter+IX&quot;&gt;Wesley's commentary&lt;/a&gt; describes the verse as a direct indication that the elect may lose their salvation, which interpretation was in keeping with Wesley's Arminian theology. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=45&amp;amp;ch=9&quot;&gt;Adam Clarke&lt;/a&gt;, as a Methodist, echoed Wesley's understanding in his own commentary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Calvin, the theologian most closely associated with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/&quot;&gt;Doctrines of Grace&lt;/a&gt; (which includes perseverance), offers &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xvi.iii.html&quot;&gt;the following interpretation&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;That, when I have preached to others...&quot;&lt;/em&gt; Some explain these words in this way — “Lest, after having taught others with propriety and faithfulness, I should incur the judgment of condemnation in the sight of God by a wicked life.” But it will suit better to view this expression as referring to men, in this way — “My life ought to be a kind of rule to others. Accordingly, I strive to conduct myself in such a manner, that my character and conduct may not be inconsistent with my doctrine, and that thus I may not, with great disgrace to myself, and a grievous occasion of offense to my brethren, neglect those things which I require from others.” It may also be taken in connection with a preceding statement, (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%209:23&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1Co 9:23&lt;/a&gt;) in this way — “Lest I should be defrauded of the gospel, of which others are partakers through means of my labors.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, we can remember that the passage from First Corinthians was written by the same Paul of Tarsus who wrote &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:4-8&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1:8&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:3-6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Phillipians 1:6&lt;/a&gt;, and other passages that are widely interpreted as clearly communicating that: 1) Perseverance requires diligent effort on the part of the individual, and 2) Perseverance is a work that God, in his own strength, accomplishes in believers. That Christians' perseverance is accomplished by God is made especially clear at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:35-40&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;John 6:35-40&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-9.html&quot;&gt;Scofield's Reference Notes on 1Co 9:27&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/com/bnb/view.cgi?bk=45&amp;amp;ch=9&quot;&gt;Albert Barnes' Notes&lt;/a&gt;. Barnes also calls on Edwards in support of the same interpretation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1873" LastEditorUserId="1873" LastEditDate="2013-08-16T11:34:13.797" LastActivityDate="2013-08-16T11:34:13.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18440" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18444" CreationDate="2013-08-16T16:17:32.907" Score="17" ViewCount="4384" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;strong&gt;What Does the Bible &lt;em&gt;Really&lt;/em&gt; Teach?&lt;/strong&gt;, a Watchtower publication, &lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005134#h=19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;pp.41–42&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only-begotton Son never even considered trying to be equal to his Father. The Bible clearly teaches that the Father is greater than the Son. (John 14:28).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:28&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:28&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which, on the surface, appears to agree with the JW claim that Jesus himself says he is &amp;quot;not equal&amp;quot; to his Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Protestant response to this, in the context of the divinity of Jesus.  How can Jesus be divine, and also &amp;quot;lesser&amp;quot; than the Father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-26T18:36:36.177" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T18:36:36.177" Title="How do Protestants respond to the JW interpretation of John 14:28?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15877" CreationDate="2013-08-16T16:40:13.790" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I want to be clear that perfectionism doesn't mean being perfect as in without error. So committing a sin, such as adultery, doesn't &quot;remove&quot; perfectionism. Perfectionism, in the Wesleyan sense, essentially means making up your mind to do your absolute best to keep the first two commandments: love god with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. That you fail along the way doesn't matter as long as you pick yourself back up and keep moving towards the mark. The loss of salvation can happen in two ways. First, in your effort to be &quot;perfect&quot; you fail at love (see Pharisees), the second is deciding that you can do whatever you want because you know God will always forgive you. Hosea 6:6 is a good summary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Wesleyan_perfectionism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.theopedia.com/Wesleyan_perfectionism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-08-16T16:40:13.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18440" CreationDate="2013-08-16T17:03:33.757" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question, it is written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,  who, being&#xA;  in the form of God, did not consider it robbery &lt;strong&gt;to be equal with&#xA;  God&lt;/strong&gt;, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a&#xA;  bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.&quot; (Philippians 2:5-7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Herein it says Jesus is equal with God (the Father), thus contradicting the watchtower quote you provided.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was&#xA;  manifested in the flesh&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+3:16&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 3:16 NKJV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 14:28 Jesus is saying he is subordinate to the Father, but Philippians 2:5-7 says he is equal.  So Jesus is subordinate but equal.  To be subordinate does not mean one is not equal, for example the Bible admonishes wives to be subordinate to their husbands in the Lord (Ephesians 5:22), yet they are 100% equal in value in God's sight.  More info on Jesus divinity from Scripture found here - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/77/t/the-trinity.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Trinity.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-08-27T15:56:54.930" LastActivityDate="2016-08-27T15:56:54.930" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18445" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18428" CreationDate="2013-08-16T17:20:01.270" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's the same set up as the start of Beauty and the Beast (how often stories echoes fact) where the prince spurns a poorly old hag but then regrets his actions when it is revealed that she is, in fact, not ugly but a lovely enchantress.&#xA;Sometimes even the best of us spurn others because we assume (for whatever reason) that they are 'lesser' than us or not worth dealing with...&#xA;So it helps to use 'angels disguised' as a good symbol to show that every being might well be more than they seem to be and that we musn't judge or ill-treat out of judgement.&#xA;Is it more than just a metaphor; a true symbol? I don't know. Probably. We are, as yet, unable to define 'angel' except as a messanger of the Lord- any greater attempt seems to stray into more folklore and superstition than biblical truth. I almost imagine them as abstract 'thoughts' sent by God (not his own consciousness but created thoughts) rather than people with wings. And Satan is the 'thought' that rebelled against goodness and decided to become the degregation of good. The thought that plagues man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-08-16T17:20:01.270" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5116" CreationDate="2013-08-16T18:08:04.873" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remarriage is not necessary.  The Catholic Church recognizes a Christian marriage as sacramental and indissoluble unless there was something that made it invalid.  Catholic communion is radically different from Protestant communion since it is the actual body of Christ.  Protestants only believe communion is symbolic.  Also, Protestant communion is not the body of Christ because only a Catholic priest can consecrate bread to change it to the body of Christ.  Protest pastors lack this power because they did not receive it through apostolic succession.  Some orthodox religions that broke off the Catholic Church still have valid masses because the priests the apostolic succession was unbroken.  A Protestant cannot receive Catholic Communion until they are instructed in the faith and understand it is the actual body of Christ.  Once Catholic then they are initiated into this sacrament as other Catholics at their First Holy Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5443" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-08-16T18:50:51.260" LastActivityDate="2013-08-16T18:50:51.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18235" CreationDate="2013-08-16T18:51:13.867" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to understand why the PCUSA's hymn committee rejected the hymn, then you should read its &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/brief-statement-faith/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;brief statement of faith&lt;/a&gt;. The statement of faith focuses heavily on grace, and satisfaction theology tends to focus on works. The line from the song in question is very much based in satisfaction theology and thus contradicts the statement of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-08-17T03:01:09.227" LastActivityDate="2013-08-17T03:01:09.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18450" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18403" CreationDate="2013-08-16T20:37:18.893" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, they don&amp;rsquo;t contradict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2015&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The letter sent by the council in Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt; lists 4 requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For completeness&amp;rsquo; sake, the whole letter is below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The apostles and elders, your brothers,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Greetings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization&#xA;  and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we&#xA;  all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear&#xA;  friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the&#xA;  name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and&#xA;  Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed&#xA;  good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything&#xA;  beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food&#xA;  sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals&#xA;  and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Farewell.&#xA;  &lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(Acts 15:23b-29 NIV)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The requirements are to abstain from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Food sacrificed to idols&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Blood&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Meat of strangled animals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sexual immorality&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 4th requirement isn't part of the question, so I&amp;rsquo;ll leave that out of my explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;h3&gt;As for the other 3 requirements:&lt;/h3&gt;Jesus said: &lt;em&gt;Nothing outside a person can &lt;strong&gt;defile&lt;/strong&gt; them by going into them.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sub&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mar%207:15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 7:15&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That doesn't necessarily rule out that consuming the food might be a sin &lt;strong&gt;in some other way&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now let&amp;rsquo;s take another look at these forbidden things to eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Food sacrificed to idols&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The reason for this is given by Paul in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 8&lt;/a&gt;; because eating food sacrificed to idols can &amp;ldquo;become a stumbling block to the weak&amp;rdquo; &lt;sub&gt;(1 Cor 8:9)&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Blood&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This commandment is from before the Law of Mozes. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%209&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 9&lt;/a&gt;, God says to Noah: “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.&amp;rdquo;. God doesn&amp;rsquo;t mention anything about &amp;ldquo;clean&amp;rdquo; or &amp;ldquo;unclean&amp;rdquo; here. No reason for it is given here.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;When God repeats the commandment in the Law of Mozes, he does give a reason: &amp;ldquo;For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.&amp;rdquo; &lt;sub&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:11&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lev 17:11&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt; Again, nothing about &amp;ldquo;clean&amp;rdquo; or &amp;ldquo;unclean&amp;rdquo;.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;So, the requirement to abstain from eating blood is not because it defiles somebody, but because &amp;ldquo;the life of a creature is in the blood&amp;rdquo;. Jesus also makes this clear by calling accepting the eternal live He gives through his sacrifice at Golgotha &amp;ldquo;drink[ing]&amp;rdquo; his blood in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:25-70&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 6&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt; Another possibility is that Jesus was specifically referring to eating with unwashed hands when he &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2015:10-20;marc%207:14-23&amp;amp;version=KJ21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;said&lt;/a&gt; that &amp;ldquo;what goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them&amp;rdquo;.&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;A possible third explanation is that not the fact &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; the blood enters the body is what counts as a sin, but whether or not this was the result of one's actions. Did (s)he know or should (s)he have known that (s)he was consuming it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Meat of strangled animals&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;The prohibition from eating the meat of strangled animals is essentially the same thing as the prohibition from eating blood. If an animal was strangled, that means its blood was not drained from its body. Therefore, eating the meat of strangled animals was another method of consuming their blood.&lt;br&gt;&lt;sub&gt;— [Steven Doggart](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17942/5444), in response to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17939/what-is-the-significance-of-the-four-laws-given-to-early-christians-who-were-not/17946&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;E.g., the reason for this is the same reason given at point 2.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5444" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T16:55:19.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18451" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-16T20:47:28.583" Score="10" ViewCount="560" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Russian Orthodox Christian, and I know other Russian Orthodox Christians who consider a woman's menses to be impure. As a woman, this monthly bleeding is not saying that I am evil or bad during that time. I am simply not pure. &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/menses.aspx&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a good explanation of this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I know we Orthodox Christians plan our weddings around the bride's menstruation cycle, because she should be completely pure at that time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do other Christian denominations do this too?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5442" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-08-18T20:39:42.407" LastActivityDate="2014-06-14T02:31:25.447" Title="In which Christian denomination(s), do people plan their weddings around the bride's menstrual periods?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;women&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2609" CreationDate="2013-08-17T05:23:20.533" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Freds Bend put it the best way I have ever heard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Also, angel may not be a species at all, but an office of position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true it never talks about Satan BEING an angel.... BUT! The bible also states the &quot;powers and the principalities&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 6:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evil can still be in the heavenly realms and FORCES is indeed plural...So I would take that and automatically think that angels are not the only things that turned evil. Correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5446" LastActivityDate="2013-08-17T05:23:20.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15891" CreationDate="2013-08-17T05:31:43.130" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Luther shared many of the feelings and opinions of the humanists concerning the ignorance, pride, andfolly of this decadent scholastic system so intimately entwined with the superstitions, errors, and corruption hehad to face. For that reason he at one time was greatly impressed by humanism — so much that he changed his German name Luder to the Greek Eleutherios...free, liberal, freeing, delivering&quot;&#xA;(Eckert, O.J., &lt;em&gt;Luther and the Reformation&lt;/em&gt;, p16) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wlsessays.net/files/EckertReformation.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.wlsessays.net/files/EckertReformation.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;'If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'&#xA;- John 8:31-32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5447" LastActivityDate="2013-08-17T05:31:43.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18455" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18419" CreationDate="2013-08-17T07:03:47.400" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are asking about &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;corporal punishment&lt;/a&gt; which I am taking to mean &lt;em&gt;physical punishment not designed to cause injury&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is corporal punishment/discipline ever OK?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, in one specific instance, see below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is corporal punishment/discipline from a parent to a child OK?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, this is the only instance I can find in the Bible where physical punishment is permitted. Three times in Proverbs it is mentioned that this is a way to discipline children, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+22:15&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;22:15&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+23:13&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;23:13&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+29:15&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;29:15&lt;/a&gt;. To take 23:13 as an example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Withhold not discipline from the child; for if you strike and punish him with the [reedlike] rod, he will not die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is necessary to discipline children; God does it; see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+3%3A12&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 3:1&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2012:6&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 12:6&lt;/a&gt;. That Hebrews passage goes on (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2012:7-10&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;v7-10&lt;/a&gt;) to show that parents should discipline their children just as God does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you are angry, you must be self-controlled (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:22-23&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galatians 5:22-23&lt;/a&gt;) or you yourself may sin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:26&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:26&lt;/a&gt;); you may hit too hard, too many times or use physical punishment when it might not be appropriate in that case. Bear in mind that in the same passage (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:1-4&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 6:1-4&lt;/a&gt;) where children are reminded of the command to love their parents, fathers have this command:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fathers, do not irritate and provoke your children to anger [do not exasperate them to resentment], but rear them [tenderly] in the training and discipline and the counsel and admonition of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is corporal punishment/discipline between a husband and his wife OK?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To me, this question misunderstands the Biblical relationship of a husband and wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First on the subject of adult-to-adult physical punishment. Jesus made a passing reference (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:49&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:49&lt;/a&gt;) to this that clearly shows that this is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, regarding husbands and wives, let us start with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:25&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesians 5:25&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does it mean for a husband to love his wife? In the text below, try mentally substituting &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt; with &lt;em&gt;loving husbands&lt;/em&gt; in this well known text &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:4-8&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:4-8a&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love endures long and is patient and kind; love never is envious nor boils over with jealousy, is not boastful or vainglorious, does not display itself haughtily.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not conceited (arrogant and inflated with pride); it is not rude (unmannerly) and does not act unbecomingly. Love (God’s love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way, for it is not self-seeking; it is not touchy or fretful or resentful; it takes no account of the evil done to it [it pays no attention to a suffered wrong].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not rejoice at injustice and unrighteousness, but rejoices when right and truth prevail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love bears up under anything and everything that comes, is ever ready to believe the best of every person, its hopes are fadeless under all circumstances, and it endures everything [without weakening].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Love never fails [never fades out or becomes obsolete or comes to an end].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if someone loves their wife, why would they sin by hitting her, even under the guise of discipline?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wife is not to be treated like a child or a servant but &lt;em&gt;loved as an equal&lt;/em&gt;: both men and women were together made in the image of God (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26-27&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:26-27&lt;/a&gt;). That is why I think this question misunderstands the heart of the Biblical relationship between a husband and a wife and what they were created to be. &lt;strong&gt;It is &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; right for a husband to strike his wife.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the subject of creation, I will close with the words of the theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/104025-eve-was-not-taken-out-of-adam-s-head-to-top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew Henry&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Eve was not taken out of Adam's head to top him, neither out of his feet to be trampled on by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be loved by him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Footnote: the only physical beatings I can think of in the New Testament are directly or indirectly demonic: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:27-30&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 27:27-30&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5:5&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 5:5&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019:16&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 19:16&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians+6:4-6&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 6:4-6&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T04:20:38.063" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18456" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-17T12:37:40.197" Score="7" ViewCount="8975" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all know the sin of Sodom. But my question is, why was Gomorrah destroyed? Please give references to your answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5449" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T00:33:48.430" LastActivityDate="2019-01-12T02:25:38.337" Title="What was the Sin of Gomorrah?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;sodom&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6035" CreationDate="2013-08-17T13:39:02.280" Score="-6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is because Ratzinger professes that the Bible was constructed from pagan sources and therefore he doesn't think its true or take it literally,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ratzinger, &lt;a href=&quot;https://books.google.com/books?id=WCkvAAAAYAAJ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;A New Song for the Lord&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, 1995, p. 86:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The pagan creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based...”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the biblical creation account in the book of Genesis is based in part on pagan creation accounts, then it is neither original nor inspired directly by God. It's heresy and another reason he is not a Catholic, and was not a Pope.  He was the head of the counterfeit Catholic Church set up in the last days prophesied by Our Lady of LaSalette, Pope Leo XIII, Our Lady of Fatima, and The Book of Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="1787" LastEditDate="2019-09-17T20:09:06.687" LastActivityDate="2019-09-17T20:09:06.687" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18459" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18456" CreationDate="2013-08-17T13:43:58.750" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their grievous sins along with other towns in the plain of the Jordan, except Zoar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 18:20-21 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Then the Lord said, “The outcry against &lt;strong&gt;Sodom and Gomorrah&lt;/strong&gt; is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down&#xA;  and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has&#xA;  reached me. If not, I will know.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were five cities in the plain of the Jordan - Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim and Zoar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 14:8 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Then the king of &lt;strong&gt;Sodom&lt;/strong&gt;, the king of &lt;strong&gt;Gomorrah&lt;/strong&gt;, the king of &lt;strong&gt;Admah&lt;/strong&gt;, the king of &lt;strong&gt;Zeboyim&lt;/strong&gt; and the king of Bela (that is, &lt;strong&gt;Zoar&lt;/strong&gt;) marched out and drew up their battle&#xA;  lines in the Valley of Siddim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Lot and Abram were separated, Lot chose to live in the plain of Jordan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 13:11-13 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the&#xA;  Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company: Abram&#xA;  lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the&#xA;  plain and &lt;strong&gt;pitched his tents near Sodom&lt;/strong&gt;. Now the people of Sodom were&#xA;  wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The four cities - Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim were destroyed but Zoar was spared because Lot pleaded the two angels to spare the town of Zoar as he wanted to run there for safety.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 19:23-24 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen&#xA;  over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and&#xA;  Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 19:29 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; So when &lt;strong&gt;God destroyed the cities of the plain&lt;/strong&gt;, he&#xA;  remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that&#xA;  overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The city of Sodom was known for &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;sodomy&lt;/a&gt; and that is exactly how we get this English word. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded by prophet Ezekiel, ~1500 years later -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ezekiel 16:49-50 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were &lt;strong&gt;arrogant&lt;/strong&gt;, overfed and &lt;strong&gt;unconcerned&lt;/strong&gt;; they did&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;not help the poor and needy&lt;/strong&gt;. They were &lt;strong&gt;haughty&lt;/strong&gt; and did &lt;strong&gt;detestable&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded by apostle Jude in the New Testament, ~2000 years later -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jude 1:7 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to &lt;strong&gt;sexual immorality and&#xA;  perversion&lt;/strong&gt;. They serve as an example of those who suffer the&#xA;  punishment of eternal fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-18T18:19:47.630" LastActivityDate="2013-08-18T18:19:47.630" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="204" CreationDate="2013-08-18T02:07:09.890" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The devil was the first creature / agent of free will to question the sovereignty of God.  God has given the devil time to attempt to prove that agents of free will do not need God in their lives.  This time is given because God is righteous.  God could have killed the devil but then the question of sovereignty would still be on the table being that the entire heavenly body is witness to these events.  So by allowing the devil time to prove his point God continues in his righteous nature.  Nothing however will ever work and the devil is ultimately doomed as mankind was designed to have God in our lives and we are designed to live the way he has ordained.  No other way will work.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally believe the end will be closest once the devil has had the time to try a one world goverment without the presence of the church.  In these dark hours, because by then we will have almost destroyed the planet with pollution and the love of the greater will have finally cooled off.  That is when god will shut the book, so to speak, on the devil and end the question of sovereignty once and for all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5455" LastActivityDate="2013-08-18T02:07:09.890" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18465" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18614" CreationDate="2013-08-18T07:48:09.427" Score="18" ViewCount="7526" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently came across the idea of identifying the angel Michael as Jesus. I'm surprised I hadn't heard it before. Wikipedia documents it as common to Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not interested in biblical support of this theory; there are several other questions in that vein with good answers. I'd like to know more of its origin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sub-questions to help guide what I'd consider a good answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How old is this idea? Wikipedia says &quot;early Protestants&quot;, but cites &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/M/michael.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John A. Lees&lt;/a&gt; (1939) who in turn cites &lt;a href=&quot;https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=PN5JAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;output=reader&amp;amp;authuser=0&amp;amp;hl=en&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg&lt;/a&gt; (1849) who doesn't appear to have a source beyond himself. They are far too recent to be &quot;early Protestants&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who (or what group) came up with the idea?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it started with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventists&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;adventists&lt;/a&gt;, how did it spread to Jehovah's Witnesses?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity accept the idea?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity explicitly reject the idea? (I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* &lt;strong&gt;fork&lt;/strong&gt;: picture the christian religion as a road. Way back, promoters of Arianism were a fork in the road that dead ended fairly quick. The Protestants led many forks in the road. Mormons are yet another fork in the road.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Re: &quot;early protestants&quot;. I just found a reference by John Calvin in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.v.xiv.html#v.xiv-p11&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Commentaries on Daniel&lt;/a&gt; vol. 2, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;pg 243&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to&#xA;  this opinion. [...] But as this is not generally admitted, I leave it&#xA;  in doubt for the present [...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and there's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.vii.i.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a bit more in chapter 12&lt;/a&gt;, but so far I haven't found who he is referencing by &quot;some&quot;. Calvin does go on to defend associating Michael with Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="212" LastEditorUserId="9619" LastEditDate="2015-04-20T21:57:39.890" LastActivityDate="2015-12-09T18:06:13.427" Title="What is the origin of the idea that Michael is Jesus?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;seventh-day-adventists&gt;&lt;michael&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18468" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18469" CreationDate="2013-08-18T16:44:14.880" Score="10" ViewCount="915" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/24.19?lang=eng#18&quot;&gt;Alma 24:19&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they&#xA;  buried the weapons of war, for peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently the author meant &quot;weapons of war&quot; but wrote &quot;weapons of peace&quot; instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the author made this mistake, why not simply overwrite it instead of using this phraseology? Or if a translator/scribe made this mistake, still: why not overwrite it to correct it? After all, the Book of Mormon is written; it's not like it's a transcript of a speech with words that can't be taken back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For bonus points: does similar phraseology appear in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2016-10-27T21:46:59.257" Title="Is this a mistake in The Book of Mormon?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;book-of-mormon&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18468" CreationDate="2013-08-18T17:16:43.583" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;That phrase does appear to be an &quot;imperfection&quot; (as it is called) which existed in the original text. And in fact, it was quite difficult to &lt;em&gt;take back&lt;/em&gt; words that were already written—so difficult, perhaps, that they decided to re-state the entire idea correctly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to LDS Church history, The Book of Mormon has unique origins as a volume of scripture. Like the Bible, its words were inspired by God. Unlike the Bible, its words were translated/copied only once, directly from the original document, which, in the case of The Book of Mormon, was a codex of golden plates. Instead of being written on papyrus or a typical form of &quot;paper,&quot; these plates were metal, and so it was difficult to engrave writings on them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why write on metal plates? Because &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/9?lang=eng&quot;&gt;it was a commandment&lt;/a&gt;, and because the properties of metal ensure longevity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/4.1?lang=eng#primary&quot;&gt;it was difficult to engrave writings on them&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Now behold, it came to pass that I, Jacob, having ministered much unto my people in word, (and I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates) and we know that the things which we write upon plates must remain;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... it was important to them that the plates were metal and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/1.4?lang=eng#3&quot;&gt;could be preserved for generations&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moroni was the last steward of The Book of Mormon. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/explanation?lang=eng&quot;&gt;His father Mormon abridged most of the text&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/9.30-34?lang=eng#29&quot;&gt;Moroni explains their difficulty in Mormon 9&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 Behold, I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I&#xA;  know that ye shall have my words.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father,&#xA;  because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him;&#xA;  but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you&#xA;  our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have&#xA;  been.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our&#xA;  knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed&#xA;  Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner&#xA;  of speech.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have&#xA;  written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if&#xA;  we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no&#xA;  imperfection in our record.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also&#xA;  that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none&#xA;  other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means&#xA;  for the interpretation thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/8?lang=eng&quot;&gt;in the previous chapter&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because&#xA;  of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater&#xA;  things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would&#xA;  make all things known unto you. ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we&#xA;  know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that&#xA;  condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...and on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng&quot;&gt;title page&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore,&#xA;  condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the&#xA;  judgment-seat of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, the authors knew they had faults, and it was easier to re-state the idea correctly than it was to hammer out the engraving to overwrite it. It also seems, from all the passages about their weakness in writing (I haven't shown all of them here) that it was necessary for there to be some minor flaws in the text. (Discovering the purpose for that is left as an exercise for the reader.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know of similar passages in the Bible, for whatever reason (if anyone can find some, I'd be interested to see). The Book of Mormon actually indicates that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/5.10-16?lang=eng#9&quot;&gt;the first several books of the Bible were written on metal/brass plates&lt;/a&gt; which Lehi took with them across the sea, but the earliest Biblical manuscripts we have aren't engraved on metal (that I know, at least), so it may not have been difficult to overwrite and change the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2013-08-18T17:16:43.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18470" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18484" CreationDate="2013-08-18T19:13:41.433" Score="3" ViewCount="3714" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it true that there are 735 prophecies in the bible of which 81 % have been fulfilled literally and 19% not yet? This fact is from David Pawson( Old testament revealed )  Can you give example about prophecies that have and haven't been fulfilled?&#xA;For example I think below is one that has not been fulfilled yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now learn a parable of the fig tree(Israel?); When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: &#xA;  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things(v.4-30), know that it is near, even at the doors. [it: or, he] &#xA;  Verily I say unto you, This generation(which sees &quot;these things&quot;) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. - math.24:32-35&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T17:32:40.800" Title="Can you give example about prophecies that have and haven't been fulfilled?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-08-29T19:53:58.517" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18471" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-18T21:31:53.787" Score="4" ViewCount="8297" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Catholic thought, if we are washed of Original Sin at the time of baptism, why do we transmit Original Sin to our children? In other words, how is it that my child is born with Original Sin when I was freed from Original Sin at the time of my baptism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5459" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-08-19T19:57:43.967" LastActivityDate="2017-07-19T12:55:16.407" Title="How does Original Sin come back in man even after being washed at the time of baptism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18474" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-19T00:48:22.907" Score="7" ViewCount="615" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rene Girard is a French historian and philosopher. The premise of his works is summarized by Wikipedia:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;mimetic desire: all of our desires are borrowed from other people;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;mimetic rivalry: all conflict originates in mimetic desire;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human&#xA;  evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the Bible reveals the three previous ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, that is a super high level overview of his thoughts. I realize you can go down the rabbit hole with the third point as far evolution and origin of religion goes. However, I am more interest in his work as it relates to Gospels. If anyone has any more in depth knowledge of his work, I'd like to know how orthodox his theories are in relationship with what is taught in most mainline seminaries or theology programs today (or even if his work taught or touched on at all).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2015-07-21T20:10:42.370" Title="Is the philosophy of René Girard compatible with mainline Christianity?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18476" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-19T02:47:34.240" Score="3" ViewCount="5601" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've always wondered this. Before they even have a chance to think for themselves, and they die in sin, does God send them to Hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5462" LastEditorUserId="5462" LastEditDate="2013-08-19T02:53:03.933" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T22:49:49.580" Title="Does God punish babies and children who die in sin?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;original-sin&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-08-19T18:44:04.753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18471" CreationDate="2013-08-19T02:50:22.120" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not being a Roman Catholic, I cannot give you an answer from the RC perspective and tradition.  I can, however, give you a brief overview about what the Bible has to say about Christian baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a wise man once told me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Baptism doesn't &lt;em&gt;make&lt;/em&gt; you a Christian; it &lt;em&gt;marks&lt;/em&gt; you as a Christian.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As good as infant baptism may be as a way for Christian parents to &amp;quot;sanctify&amp;quot; their offspring through a well-established rite (which exists in both the Catholic and Protestant traditions), nowhere in the New Testament is there any indication that infant baptism cleanses the infant from &amp;quot;original sin.&amp;quot;  If the RC church teaches this, all I can say is, the teaching is not biblical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the basis of Scripture, I say confidently but lovingly, the physical act of being baptized neither forgives us of sin nor frees us from sin.  To say otherwise is to contradict the clear teaching of Scripture.  If, however, Scripture is not the ultimate guide for your life and practice, then none of the following will be of help to you, and will certainly not answer your question--though I am glad you asked it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two baptisms in the New Testament, each having two aspects, both &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;literal/physical&lt;/em&gt;.  The first is the baptism of John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John the Baptizer fulfilled two roles: the first as a herald for the Messiah, and the second as a forerunner for the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) John as a herald.  In John's day, just as the king's servant who preceded his king during royal tours from city to city would announce in a loud voice, &amp;quot;The king is coming, the king is coming, get ready for the coming of your king,&amp;quot; so too did John announce the coming of the King Jesus, the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John, however, shouted&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, the kingdom of heaven is at hand&amp;quot; (Matthew 3:2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John certainly attracted the attention of the people with his announcement of the coming kingdom, and they came to him in great numbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) John as a forerunner.  Historically, when a king was scheduled to enter a city, he was not only preceded by a herald, but he also sent servants called &lt;em&gt;forerunners&lt;/em&gt; ahead of him to remove any obstacles such as rocks, tree branches, or potholes--anything that would impede his path as he was being carried by litter into the city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was hindering the entrance of Jesus the Messiah into the hearts of the people?  Sin.  John therefore had to tell the people&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;'Make ready the way of the LORD, Make His paths straight'&amp;quot; (Matthew 3:3; Isaiah 40:3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as the forerunners of old were responsible to remove obstacles from the road, so too was John responsible to get people to repent of their sins, removing anything that would hinder the entrance of Messiah into their hearts and lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John's message to the crowds who came to hear him was a simple one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Repent&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And repent the crowds did!   Repentance is simply a change of mind resulting in changed behavior.  It's doing an &amp;quot;about face&amp;quot;:  you are going in one direction, but you make a 180-degree turn and go in the opposite direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot; . . . and [the people from Jerusalem and the surrounding areas] were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins&amp;quot; (Matthew 3:2,6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before a watching world, the people baptized by John were declaring openly in the waters of the Jordan River--that's the &lt;em&gt;literal/physical&lt;/em&gt; part of baptism--what had transpired inside their hearts--that's the &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; part of baptism; namely, that they were turning their backs on their sins in preparation for the appearance of the coming Messiah, whose coming John foretold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being baptized did not cleanse anyone of sin, it merely bore witness to their repentance.  On the other hand, the baptism of the Messiah was completely different.  As John himself said of Jesus, the coming Messiah and king:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;. . . this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit&amp;quot; (John 1:33).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second baptism, then, is Christian baptism.  Like John's baptism, it has both a literal/physical aspect and a spiritual aspect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The physical aspect is the outward act of being immersed in (or sprinkled by)&#xA;actual water in the presence of witnesses, and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;. . . in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit&amp;quot; (Matthew 28:19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spiritual aspect is the inward process of conversion by the Holy Spirit, which takes place &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; we are baptized.  Call it regeneration, as in&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;. . . the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit&amp;quot; (Titus 3:5),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or call it being born again or born from above, as in Jesus' words,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . [and] unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God&amp;quot; (John 3:3,5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christian baptism is for believers in Jesus Christ who have been regenerated within their spirits by the Spirit of Christ, whom Jesus called a &amp;quot;Helper,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;the Spirit of truth&amp;quot; who &amp;quot;teaches us all things,&amp;quot; and the presence of Christ within us &amp;quot;forever&amp;quot; (see John 14:16 and ff.).  Believers who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit want to bear witness to that transformation by obeying the command of our Lord to be baptized.  To this day, in some countries of the world, being baptized openly and publicly is to invite persecution and even death!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul tells us in Romans 6, Christian baptism is a symbol of our having died to our old way of life.  When we die, we need to be buried.  Baptism, then, is a picture of burial that is enacted symbolically by immersing (&amp;quot;burying&amp;quot;) a person in water.  As the person comes up out of the water, symbolically he is coming alive in the Spirit of God, just as Jesus came alive in His glorious resurrection from the dead (vv.3-5 and ff.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does being baptized mean we will never sin again?  No.  Neither an infant who has been baptized nor a person who has experienced the new birth and has been baptized will cease to sin (see 1 John 1:8-10).  We can, however, have victory over sin in our lives, since as believers in Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;. . . our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin&amp;quot; (Romans 6:6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, we have the responsibility as baptized believers (literally and spiritually) to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;. . . consider [ourselves] to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus&amp;quot;;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;not [to] let sin reign in [our] mortal body so that [we] obey its lusts&amp;quot;;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;[to] present [ourselves] to God as those alive from the dead, and [our] members as instruments of righteousness to God&amp;quot;;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;[because] sin shall not be master over [us], for [we] are not under law but under grace&amp;quot; (Romans 6:11-14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, being baptized with water neither cleanses us from sin nor takes away our ability to sin.  It is, however, a way of telling both God and man that we have become new creatures in Christ, that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;the old things passed away; behold, new things have come&amp;quot; (2 Corinthians 5:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T00:58:39.880" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18474" CreationDate="2013-08-19T02:51:35.173" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mainline Seminaries&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;I went to a very conservative seminary and read Girard's Scapegoat, though the overall position of the school disagreed with it. However, &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; we read it indicates its prevalence in academic institutions. Others I know who went to mainline seminaries, however, are very well versed in Girard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Rowan Williams' (former archbishop of Canterbury) stunning book, &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0829815414&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Resurrection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, he writes in the forward to the revised edition, &quot;At the time of writing, I had no knowledge of the writings of Rene Girard on the scapegoat theme; and it was not for a few years after the publication of the book that Girard's ideas began to circulate widely... The first chapter in particular needs to be read alongside Girard...&quot; Given Williams' position as the then-head of the Anglican communion, I would say Girard is pointing toward something important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Orthodox&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;This is tricky and depends on where you are coming from. Conservatives will probably disagree. Liberals and moderates may often embrace it. (I can't back that up, though) But I'll point you toward some starting points. First, it strikes at the heart of your working understanding of Soteriology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Penal Substitution&lt;/a&gt; - Crudely defined in legal terms: A crime was committed, a judgement was rendered, Jesus became the saving substitute in the verdict. Adherents to this form of Soteriology are more conservative and will have nothing in common with Girard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(2) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; - Jesus conquered sin, or death, or even the Devil with his work on the cross. This view doesn't directly address Girards claims. The beauty of Christus Victor is that it can often compliment other views. Therefore, many who identify very strongly with Girard's work may also hold some form of &lt;em&gt;Christus Victor&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(3) &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Moral Transformation&lt;/a&gt; - Jesus was an example of how we ought to live. This definitely has tracking throughout the Church's history, but its more recent proponents have been fairly liberal. I would argue that proponents of this view feel very at home with Girard. In fact, the weaknesses of the view (apolitical, denies importance of death, etc.) are bolstered with the scapegoat theme.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2296" LastEditorUserId="2296" LastEditDate="2013-08-19T14:24:42.773" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T14:24:42.773" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18479" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-19T02:58:27.107" Score="0" ViewCount="6891" Body="&lt;p&gt;Something confuses me. God is omniscient, meaning He knows everything, including our decisions in life. God says we have free will, but how is that so if I can't make the choice to &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; do something God knows for a fact that I will do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God knows I will do something, I don't have the free will to &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; do it, meaning I don't have free will at all. So why does He say we have free will?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5462" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T11:58:32.727" Title="Do humans have free will?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-08-20T02:08:25.073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17919" CreationDate="2013-08-19T03:52:45.567" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only 3 Traditions that teach apostolic succession are Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. These Traditions do not argue for prophetic succession, simply because the biblical role of &lt;em&gt;prophet&lt;/em&gt; is inherently different from the biblical role of &lt;em&gt;apostle&lt;/em&gt;,  making it impossible to conceptually assign succession to both.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, let’s compare the words &lt;em&gt;apostle&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;prophet&lt;/em&gt; to see how they match up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word &quot;Apostle&quot;, from the Greek &lt;em&gt;apostello&lt;/em&gt; &quot;to send forth&quot;, &quot;to&#xA;  dispatch&quot;, has etymologically a very general sense. &lt;em&gt;Apostolos&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;  (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched--in other words, who&#xA;  is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has,&#xA;  however, a stronger sense than the word &lt;em&gt;messenger&lt;/em&gt;, and means as much&#xA;  as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In&#xA;  the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in 1 Kings 14:6&#xA;  (cf. 1 Kings 12:24). In the New Testament, on the contrary. it occurs,&#xA;  according to Bruder's Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes&#xA;  often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially&#xA;  called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect,&#xA;  gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent&#xA;  of which was &quot;Apostle&quot;. It seems to us that there is no reasonable&#xA;  doubt about the Aramaic word being &lt;em&gt;seliah,&lt;/em&gt; by which also the later&#xA;  Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted &quot;those who&#xA;  were dispatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any&#xA;  foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the&#xA;  tribute paid to the temple service&quot; (Lightfoot, &quot;Galatians&quot;, London,&#xA;  1896, p. 93). The word apostle would be an exact rendering of the root&#xA;  of the word &lt;em&gt;seliah,= apostello.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical usage of the word &lt;em&gt;apostle&lt;/em&gt; denotes one who is commissioned by Jesus and is sent forth with divine authority.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, &quot;All authority has been&#xA;  given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of&#xA;  all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son&#xA;  and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded&#xA;  you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Matt.&#xA;  28:18-20&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus commanded them to baptize and teach all nations.  It is obvious that this couldn’t be accomplished by only those hearing Jesus speak.  Logically, there had to be some kind of succession to perpetuate the teaching and baptizing that Jesus commanded.  He also comforts those in which he is commissioning by telling them that he will be with them, “even to the end of the age.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament writers commandeered the word &lt;em&gt;apostle&lt;/em&gt; to specifically distinguish the new teaching office (magisterium) commissioned with Divine authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be&#xA;  found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had&#xA;  committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from&#xA;  generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of&#xA;  the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted&#xA;  by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who&#xA;  followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look&#xA;  for it.  For the early Fathers, &quot;the identity of the oral tradition&#xA;  with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession&#xA;  of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . .&#xA;  . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the&#xA;  message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the&#xA;  Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who&#xA;  have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth. (Early Christian&#xA;  Doctrines, 37).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical context in which the word &lt;em&gt;apostle&lt;/em&gt; is used by the New Testament writers differs significantly from the word &lt;em&gt;prophet&lt;/em&gt;, not only in scope, but in meaning as well.  Again, we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Judging from a comparative examination of the cognate words in Hebrew&#xA;  and the other Semitic tongues, it is at least equally probable that&#xA;  the original meaning of &lt;em&gt;prophet&lt;/em&gt; was merely: to speak, to utter words (cf. Laur,&#xA;  &quot;Die Prophet ennamen des A.T.&quot;, Fribourg, 1903, 14-38). The historic&#xA;  meaning of nabî' established bybiblical usage is &quot;interpreter and&#xA;  mouthpiece of God&quot;. This is forcibly illustrated by the passage, where&#xA;  Moses, excusing himself from speaking to Pharao on account of his&#xA;  embarrassment of speech, was answered by Yahweh: &quot;Behold I have&#xA;  appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy&#xA;  prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall&#xA;  speak to Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his&#xA;  land&quot; (Exodus 7:1-2). Moses plays towards the King of Egypt the role&#xA;  of God, inspiring what is to be uttered, and Aaron is the prophet, his&#xA;  mouthpiece, transmitting the inspired message he shall receive. The&#xA;  Greek prophetes (from pro-phanai, to speak for, or in the name of&#xA;  someone) translates the Hebrew accurately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As noted above, the biblical use of &lt;em&gt;prophet&lt;/em&gt; seems to be generalized as someone who is called up by God to speak as His “mouthpiece.” The prophets of the Old Testament were not called by God to perpetuate a successive office, but were called up from among God’s people for a specific time, place, and purpose.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A well-known example of someone who God called to deliver a specific message is the prophet Jeremiah’s.  His sole purpose was to reveal the sins of the people and explain the reason for the impending disaster (destruction by the Babylonian army and captivity):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when your people say, “Why has the Lord our God done all these&#xA;  things to us?” you shall say to them, “As you have forsaken me and&#xA;  served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve foreigners in a&#xA;  land that is not yours.” &lt;em&gt;Jeremiah 5:19&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The intrinsic differences between the meanings of these 2 words seem to imply that successive offices are not relative to the Old Testament prophets. Both the Old Testament Prophets and the Apostles have the common function of delivering a message.  However, the Apostles were given authoritatively teaching &lt;em&gt;offices&lt;/em&gt; that were (and are) to be handed down to “all nations” and “even to the end of the age.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although succession of &lt;em&gt;prophecy&lt;/em&gt; isn’t explicitly displayed in the Old Testament, succession of &lt;em&gt;authority&lt;/em&gt;, is very evident in the Old Testament.  The succession of official authority in the Old Testament foreshadows not only &lt;em&gt;apostolic succession&lt;/em&gt;, but also &lt;em&gt;apostolic authority&lt;/em&gt; as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 2 parallel phrases in both the Old and New Testament that explicitly display God’s design for  apostolic authority and succession; “Keys to the Kingdom,” and “bind and loose.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a passage in the Old Testament where Isaiah is prophesying that there will be a dramatic change in the Kingdom of David.  Here we find an example of a &lt;em&gt;prophet&lt;/em&gt; prophesying that a change will take place in the &lt;em&gt;successive&lt;/em&gt; office of the king’s royal steward, or vizier.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is what the Lord, the LORD Almighty, says: “Go, say to this&#xA;  steward, to Shebna the palace administrator:  What are you doing here&#xA;  and who gave you permission to cut out a grave for yourself here,&#xA;  hewing your grave on the height and chiseling your resting place in&#xA;  the rock? I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted&#xA;  from your position. “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son&#xA;  of Hilkiah.  I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash&#xA;  around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to&#xA;  those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. &lt;em&gt;I will place&#xA;  on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one&#xA;  can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.&lt;/em&gt;  I will drive him like a&#xA;  peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of&#xA;  his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its&#xA;  offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all&#xA;  the jars.  (Is. 22:15-16, 19-24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking for God, Isaiah proclaims, “And I will place on his (Eliakim’s) shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” King Hezekiah ascended to the throne of David in 715 b.c. and ruled the land of Judah.  The key of David was on the shoulder of Shebna, the royal steward.  Isaiah prophesies that Shebna will be removed from his office and the key of David will be given to Eliakim, his successor.  The key of David, the key of God’s kingdom, belongs to Jesus.  He has come to restore the throne of David.  God binds himself with his people with covenants.  God made a covenant with David that his throne would be forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise&#xA;  up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will&#xA;  establish his kingdom.  He is the one who will build a house for my&#xA;  Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (2 Sam.&#xA;  7:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The kings of the Davidic covenant were the proud possessors of the “key of David,” signifying unquestioned royal authority.  Jesus possesses these keys as the heir to David’s throne, and he established a &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt; covenant, and eternal covenant.  This covenant was for all men, and was not limited to the Jews of the Nation of Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;keys&lt;/em&gt; of a kingdom have always been the sign of authority, and they belong exclusively to the king.  Kings, however, would delegate the keys to the stewards or viziers of their kingdom.  Jesus ascended to the throne of David and then, through his death and resurrection, extended the covenant to &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; men, not just to the Jews.  God gave him all authority in heaven and earth; he was now king of the eternal kingdom of God.  He was the proud possessor of the royal keys of God’s kingdom.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/UCWzn.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;The Keys of David&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Roughly 750 years after Isaiah delivered God's message of this shift in authority, Jesus resurrects this message in order to signify that the time has come for the &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; King to ascend the throne of David.  We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus recites the passage in Isaiah 22 practically verbatim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living&#xA;  God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this&#xA;  was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in&#xA;  heaven.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will&#xA;  build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. &lt;em&gt;I will&#xA;  give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth&#xA;  will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be&#xA;  loosed in heaven&lt;/em&gt;.” &lt;em&gt;Matt. 16:17-19&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We first see from this passage that Peter delivers a prophecy that could only come from God the Father.  Jesus responds to Peter’s prophetic message, “..for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” Jesus continues by prophetically echoing the words that Isaiah had spoken 7 centuries earlier be saying,  “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both passages are identical  in 2 key ways.  Both involve the key of the house of David, and both involve the juridical authority to &lt;em&gt;bind and loose&lt;/em&gt; in the name of the King. Later, in Matthew 18, Jesus also authorizes this power to &lt;em&gt;bind and loose&lt;/em&gt; for the rest of the Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as the Old Testament clearly testifies to an office of succession within the kingdom of God, the New Testament also indicates that Jesus established offices of succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other examples that imply succession in the Old Testament, but they do not directly pertain to any of the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Exodus 18:25-26, Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And choosing able men out of all Israel, he appointed them rulers of&#xA;  the people, rulers over thousands, and over hundreds, and over&#xA;  fifties, and over tens.  And they judged the people at all times: and&#xA;  whatsoever was of greater difficulty they referred to him, and they&#xA;  judged the easier cases only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers 3:3 shows us that the sons of Aaron were formally &quot;anointed&quot; priests in &quot;ordination&quot; to minister in the priests' &quot;office.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These the names of the sons of Aaron the priests that were anointed,&#xA;  and whose hands were filled and consecrated, to do the functions of&#xA;  priesthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers 16:40 displays God's intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That the children of Israel might have for the time to come&#xA;  wherewith they should be admonished, that no stranger or any one that&#xA;  is not of seed of Aaron should come near to offer incense to the Lord,&#xA;  lest he should suffer as Core suffered, and all his congregation,&#xA;  according as the Lord spoke to Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage in Numbers 27:18-20 shows God's intention that, through the &quot;laying on of hands,&quot; one is commissioned and has authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord said to him: Take Josue the son of Nun, a man in whom is&#xA;  the Spirit, and put thy hand upon him. And he shall stand before&#xA;  Eleazar the priest and all the multitude: And thou shalt give him&#xA;  precepts in the sight of all, and part of thy glory, that all the&#xA;  congregation of the children of Israel may hear him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see that in Deuteronomy 34:9 that Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, “..is there is any tradition that puts the 'succession' concept upon their view of the Prophets also?” is obviously directed toward Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism.  These are the only 3 “traditions” that teach apostolic succession.  As demonstrated above, the biblical role of &lt;em&gt;prophet&lt;/em&gt; is inherently different from the biblical role of &lt;em&gt;apostle&lt;/em&gt;, therefore making it impossible to conceptually assign succession to both. This is why none of these 3 &quot;traditions&quot; argue for Old Testament prophetical succession. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-19T10:58:39.933" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T10:58:39.933" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18476" CreationDate="2013-08-19T04:07:26.287" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church professes that unbaptized infants go to a part of Hell where there is no fire, known as The Limbo of the Children&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274:  “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell, but to be punished with different punishments.  (Denz. 464)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July&#xA;6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who&#xA;depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go&#xA;straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”&#xA;(Denz. 693)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;St. Augustine, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However the current hierarchy claims that there is no such thing as limbo and it in fact was never defined,   &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;[There are] reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, quoting the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general to The Associated Press.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2013-08-19T22:49:49.580" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T22:49:49.580" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18482" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18471" CreationDate="2013-08-19T08:50:01.047" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you misunderstood the role of Baptism in Catholicism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cathecism of the Catholic Church-1263 says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[1263] By Baptism all sins are &lt;strong&gt;forgiven&lt;/strong&gt;, original sin and all personal&#xA;  sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been&#xA;  reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom&#xA;  of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of&#xA;  sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't say original sin is washed away, it says it is forgiven. Forgiven doesn't mean you don't have original sin anymore; it only means your sins are forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our sins cannot be washed away by merely washing with water nor any kind of Baptism. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can wash away our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 John 1:7 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,&#xA;  we have fellowship with one another, and the &lt;strong&gt;blood of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;, his Son,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;purifies us from all sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 7:14 (NKJV)&lt;/em&gt; And I said to him, “Sir, you know.” So he said&#xA;  to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;washed their robes&lt;/strong&gt; and made them white &lt;strong&gt;in the blood of the Lamb&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 22:14 (DRA)&lt;/em&gt; Blessed are they that &lt;strong&gt;wash their robes in the&#xA;  blood of the Lamb&lt;/strong&gt;: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and&#xA;  may enter in by the gates into the city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T08:50:01.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18470" CreationDate="2013-08-19T09:58:04.917" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The example that you gave, the &lt;em&gt;lesson from a fig tree&lt;/em&gt; (Mathew 24:32-35) is actually already fulfilled in 1948, if we assert that the fig tree here represents the nation of  Israel, because the nation of Israel was reborn in 1948. After the destruction of Israel in AD 70 by the Roman Empire, after wandering around the world for almost 2000 years, the Jewish people could once again claim their land and the long lost nation of Israel was reborn.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to know prophecies in the Bible which are yet to be fulfilled, the best place to find them is the Book of Revelation. Some of the pending prophecies yet to be fulfilled are -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Rapture:&lt;/strong&gt; The faithful will be caught up in the clouds. (1 Thess 4:16-17) &lt;em&gt;If this prophecy had already happened, then we are the unlucky ones who are left behind to be tormented by the Antichrist.&lt;/em&gt; :-)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem&lt;/strong&gt;: Some Bible scholars say that the Third Temple in Jerusalem will be built in the last days. (Daniel 9:27, 2 Thess 2:4) This has not happened yet. The Western wall/Wailing wall still stands in Jerusalem and no progress of rebuilding it yet.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The fall of Babylon:&lt;/strong&gt; Usually identified as the false religion who will initially control the Beast. Also called the whore, who sits on seven hills. (Rev 17-18)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Antichrist:&lt;/strong&gt; The Beast who will enforce the number 666 and controls all economies. (Rev 13)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The two witnesses:&lt;/strong&gt; They will proclaim the truth about the Messiah, killed by the Beast in Jerusalem and resurrected by God after 3 days. (Rev 11)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Tribulation:&lt;/strong&gt; Followers of Christ will be killed by the Antichrist. (Rev 7)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Armageddon:&lt;/strong&gt; The last world war to be fought, probably world war III. (Rev 16:16)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The wrath of God:&lt;/strong&gt; The wicked people on earth punished by plagues, catastrophes etc. (Rev 16)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The second coming:&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus will come back as the &lt;em&gt;Rider on the White Horse&lt;/em&gt; to defeat the Beast and the kings of the earth. (Rev 19:11-21)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The 1000 years:&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus will rule the earth while Satan is in the abyss. (Rev 20:1-6)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Judgement Day:&lt;/strong&gt; Satan and anyone whose name is not in the Book of life will be thrown into the &lt;em&gt;Lake of Fire&lt;/em&gt;. (Rev 20:11-15)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Heaven and Earth:&lt;/strong&gt; The last thing that the Bible mentions about the destiny of the faithful believers. (Rev 21)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;etc.  etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-19T17:32:40.800" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T17:32:40.800" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18471" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:11:51.433" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Original sin is a state of human nature passed to all mankind, but it is not like a gene passed on from our immediate parents. It affects the nature of all humans. The Catholic Catechism discusses this in and around paragraphs 396 to 408.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In paragraph 404 talks a bit about what Original Sin is and its source:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but &lt;strong&gt;this sin affected the human nature that they [Adam and Eve] would then transmit in a fallen state&lt;/strong&gt;. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In paragraph 405 talks about what Original Sin is and the effects of Baptism on it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a &lt;strong&gt;deprivation of original holiness and justice&lt;/strong&gt;, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin — &lt;strong&gt;an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, &lt;strong&gt;erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the effects of Baptism, paragraph 978 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them. ... &lt;strong&gt;Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature&lt;/strong&gt;. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, in talking about Baptism of Infants in paragraph 1250:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5323" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T12:11:51.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18490" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18492" CreationDate="2013-08-19T13:17:40.020" Score="3" ViewCount="197" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew chapter 24 Jesus is describing his 2nd coming:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west,&#xA;  so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass,&#xA;  there the vultures will gather.“Immediately after the distress of&#xA;  those days&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘the sun will be darkened,&#xA;      and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,&#xA;      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the&#xA;  earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of&#xA;  heaven, with power and great glory. &lt;em&gt;And he will send his angels with&#xA;  a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four&#xA;  winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; *Matt. 24:27-31*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He says that a loud trumpet blast will be sounded as his angels are sent to gather his elect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later in the New Testament, we read St. Paul describing what seems to be the same event:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive,&#xA;  who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede&#xA;  those who have fallen asleep. &lt;em&gt;For the Lord himself will come down&#xA;  from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and&#xA;  with the trumpet call of God&lt;/em&gt;, and the dead in Christ will rise first.&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;1 Thess. 4:15-16&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are these 2 passages describing the same trumpet blast? It appears to me that they both include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The appearance (or reappearance) of the Son of Man.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Active participation of God's angels.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A trumpet blast.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm particularly concerned with the trumpet, which would logically be the connecting hinge  of these two passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, please no dispensationalism...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-14T19:11:26.493" LastActivityDate="2021-01-05T23:53:52.187" Title="Are these the same 2 trumpet blasts?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;1-thessalonians&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18490" CreationDate="2013-08-19T16:58:16.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes they are the same trumpet blast because during both Scriptures you have the second coming of Jesus and the resurrection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the angels &quot;will gather his elect from the four winds&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1 Thess 4:16-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain&#xA;  shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord&#xA;  in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;May I also add it is the same as 1 Corinthians 15:51-52&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all&#xA;  be changed—  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last&#xA;  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised&#xA;  incorruptible, and we shall be changed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T16:58:16.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18476" CreationDate="2013-08-19T17:09:33.620" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we can determine what sin is, we can determine if God would be able to punish a child for it.  Fortunately Jesus will never leave us in the dark.  He gives us a definition of what sin is in the book of 1 John 3:4 which states “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1  Sin is the transgression or the breaking of God’s law, His Ten Commandments.  Because of this we must ask which of the Ten Commandments has a child violated?  Has an infant murder, lying, theft, adultery, Sabbath-breaking or blasphemy?  Certainly not.  Is crying a sin?  “Jesus wept”.  (John 11:35) Jesus gives us great insight into how God judges sin when He said…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’&#xA;  Therefore your sin remains.” (John 9:41)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Listen closely, children are born with a sinful nature that is we have this inward pull or desire to sin but we are not born sinners.  Sin is the breaking of God’s law.  And we have concluded that babies have not broken the Ten Commandments.  Even if they did, Jesus told us in John 9:41 that were there is no understanding, there is no sin. Again Jesus said &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now&#xA;  they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where there can be no knowledge, there can be no sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine if one day a group of police officers showed up at your door.  They quickly handcuffed you, you were taken to a courtroom and declared guilty of war crimes.  “War crimes, I’ve never fought in a war!” you plead.  The judge responds and says “your great grandfather committed war crimes in World War 1 and we are punishing you for the crime, I hereby sentence you to death”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly a human judge would never make such an unfair sentence.  How could you be judged for a crime that occurred when you never even were alive? Yet would God throw someone in hell because of the sins of their parents, or grandparents?  Or because of the sins of Adam in the garden of Eden?  Does the guilt of one generation pass on from generation to generation through a bloodline?  The Bible gives us the answer in Ezekiel 18:20 when it says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the&#xA;  father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of&#xA;  the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked&#xA;  shall be upon himself.“&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the Bible says the son shall not bear the guilt of the father.  Again the Bible says “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)  You are not punished for the sins of any past generation.  “God is a just judge” (Psalm 7:11) and God is much fairer than any human court.  It is true, sin does have consequences. If your parents were abusive you may have suffered the consequences, when Adam sinned the earth received the curse of death, but the guilt of one generation does not pass from generation to generation.  This would be unfair.  Only those who have sinned will be condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of Isaiah chapter 65 tells us that yes, infants will be in heaven for it is written &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;  And the former&#xA;  shall not be remembered or come to mind. I will rejoice in Jerusalem,&#xA;  and joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in&#xA;  her, nor the voice of crying.  &lt;strong&gt;No more shall an infant from there live&#xA;  but a few days&lt;/strong&gt;”. Isaiah 65:17,19-20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Exodus 20 talks about visiting the iniquities to the third and fourth generation, it means sinful tendencies are transferred from generation to generation (example, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all struggled with lying, David and Solomon struggled with women, etc).  It does not mean people are thrown in hell for the sins of their grandfathers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T17:09:33.620" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18495" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-19T17:42:34.453" Score="9" ViewCount="642" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading today about the Governor of New Jersey acting to ban &quot;Gay Conversion Therapy&quot;, and wanted to know if this is just one more thing that Catholics would have a moral obligation to oppose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm&quot;&gt;Catechism is clear in its stance&lt;/a&gt;, but vague in what it requires that people do when it says that the act is intrinsically disordered, but unjust discrimination is to be avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to boil it down, is what the media calls Gay Conversion Therapy tantamount to unjust discrimination or is it a corporal work of mercy?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2015-07-08T16:57:13.963" Title="Do Catholics psychologists have a moral obligation to treat homosexuality as a perversion?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18500" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18509" CreationDate="2013-08-19T19:29:22.833" Score="15" ViewCount="18494" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 God blessed them and said to them, “Have many children. Fill the&#xA;  earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the&#xA;  birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the&#xA;  earth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are so many Christian concepts that make me scratch my head as to why God wants us to have children. Things like the ruler of this world is Satan, Christians must suffer in this world, we are anxiously waiting for Jesus' return and the rapture, fighting our carnal nature of a fallen world....etc. Wouldn't it be better to leave unborn children wherever they may originate from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So what is the reason God wants us to have children?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Also, if you happen to known - does God &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;NOT&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; want non-Christians to have children?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-17T02:19:46.107" LastActivityDate="2020-03-21T14:49:03.103" Title="Why does God command us to have children?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;children&gt;&lt;commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="14" CommentCount="12" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2020-03-21T17:43:00.550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18495" CreationDate="2013-08-19T19:44:56.013" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do Catholics psychologists have a moral obligation to treat homosexuality as a perversion?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes for it is written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?&#xA;  Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male&#xA;  prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers,&#xA;  robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is&#xA;  what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified,&#xA;  you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the&#xA;  Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NRSV Catholic Edition&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So you, mortal, I have made a sentinel for the house of Israel;&#xA;  whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning&#xA;  from me. If I say to the wicked, “O wicked ones, you shall surely&#xA;  die,” and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from their ways,&#xA;  the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but their blood I will require&#xA;  at your hand.  But if you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, and&#xA;  they do not turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their&#xA;  iniquity, but you will have saved your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now you, mortal, say to the house of Israel, Thus you have said: “Our&#xA;  transgressions and our sins weigh upon us, and we waste away because&#xA;  of them; how then can we live?”  Say to them, As I live, says the Lord&#xA;  God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the&#xA;  wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your&#xA;  evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel? - Ezekiel 33:7-11&#xA;  NRSV Catholic Edition&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we love people, and we saw that they were in danger of losing out on heaven, we would naturally want to turn them to Jesus that they may be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T19:44:56.013" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18505" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-19T20:26:30.327" Score="-1" ViewCount="1182" Body="&lt;p&gt;God created the devil, and in heaven Satan went to war with Him, correct? Did Satan reject God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5462" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T05:28:56.277" Title="Did the devil reject God in heaven?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-08-26T19:15:12.937" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18506" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18495" CreationDate="2013-08-19T21:08:27.980" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to a statement made by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Medical_Association&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Catholic Medical Association&lt;/a&gt; in November of 2000, gay conversion therapy is considered a corporeal work of mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.narth.com/docs/hope.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;statement&lt;/a&gt; clearly points out that Catholic therapists are obligated to encourage chastity in &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; situations. The Church has always taught (and will always teach) that chaste behavior is required for spiritual health and well-being. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It should be pointed out that Catholics cannot support forms of&#xA;  therapy which encourage the patients to replace one form of sexual sin&#xA;  with another. (Schwartz 1984) Some therapists, for example, do not&#xA;  consider a patient &quot;cured&quot; until he can comfortably engage in sexual&#xA;  activity with the other sex, even if the patient is not married.&#xA;  (Masters 1979) Others encouraged patients to masturbate using&#xA;  other-sex imagery. (Blitch 1972; Conrad 1976)  Catholic therapists&#xA;  working with Catholic individuals should feel free to use the wealth&#xA;  of Catholic spirituality in this healing process. Those with father&#xA;  wounds can be encouraged to develop their relationship with God as a&#xA;  loving father. Those who were rejected or ridiculed by peers as&#xA;  youngsters can meditate upon the Jesus as brother, friend, and&#xA;  protector. Those who feel unmothered can turn to Mary for comfort. &#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Homosexuality and Hope, part I, sect. 5-6&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you pointed out, the CCC is clear about the chastity of those afflicted with same-sex attraction:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of&#xA;  self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of&#xA;  disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can&#xA;  and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;CCC 2359&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church, as well as the CMA, teaches that &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; with &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; type of sexual disorder (i.e. masturbation, adultery, homosexuality etc.) should be approached with nondiscriminatory therapeutic charity.  Where ever mercy is needed, the Body of Christ should be there.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The teachings of the Catholic Church on sexual morality are explicitly&#xA;  clear and do not allow exceptions. Catholics have a right to know the&#xA;  truth and those working with or for Catholic institutions have an&#xA;  obligation to clearly enunciate that truth.  Catholics must, of&#xA;  course, reach out to individuals experiencing same-sex attraction, to&#xA;  those actively involved in homosexual acts, and particularly to those&#xA;  suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, with love, hope, and the&#xA;  authentic, uncompromised message of freedom from sin through Jesus&#xA;  Christ. (&lt;em&gt;Homosexuality and Hope, part I, sect. 5-6)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;History has shown that whenever the Church makes a counter-cultural stand to defend her morals, she is &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; met with opposition.  This sometimes puts a heavy burden on those providing medical and psychological treatment. Nevertheless, the Church stays true to the Law of Christ, which is the Law of Merciful Love.  Catholic physicians and therapists are obligated to do the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While any attempt to teach the sinfulness of illicit homosexual&#xA;  behavior may be greeted with accusations of 'homophobia', the reality&#xA;  is that Christ calls all to chastity in keeping with the particular&#xA;  state of life. The desire of the Church to help all live chastely is&#xA;  not a blanket condemnation of any who find chastity difficult but&#xA;  rather the compassionate response of a Church seeking to imitate&#xA;  Christ, the Good Shepherd.&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Ibid.&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-07-08T16:57:13.963" LastActivityDate="2015-07-08T16:57:13.963" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5007" CreationDate="2013-08-19T22:18:00.690" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your comments reflect a major misconception that evangelicals and the Reformed have of orthodox Christians. Lutherans do not believe that baptism is necessary (mandatory) for salvation. Not even the Roman Catholic Church believes this. All the saints of the Old Testament, the thief on the cross, and thousand of martyrs down through the centuries have been saved without Baptism. Baptism is not the &quot;how&quot; of salvation!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lutherans believe that baptism is one of several possible &quot;when&quot;s of salvation, it is not the &quot;how&quot; of salvation. The &quot;how&quot; of salvation is and always has been the power of God's Word/God's declaration of righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A sinner can be saved by the power of God's Word when he hears the Word preached in a church, preached on TV or radio, reading a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room, or reading a Gospel tract that contains the Word. Salvation is by God's grace alone, through the power of his Word alone, received in faith alone. In each of these situations, the sinner is saved the instant he or she believes. Baptism is NOT mandatory for salvation to occur.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the Bible in multiple passages, also states that God uses his Word to save at the time of Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the work of the Holy Spirit, using the Word of God, that works salvation in the sinner's spiritually dead soul, according to the second chapters of Ephesians and Colossians, and the third chapter of Romans. Your &quot;decision for Christ&quot; does not save you, neither does your decision to be baptized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God saves those whom he has elected, at the time and place of his choosing. Sometimes God saves them while hearing a sermon in church, sometimes at home reading the Word, and sometimes by the power of his Word spoken during Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does 100% of the saving. The sinner is a passive participant in his salvation. There is no passage in the New Testament that asks sinners to make a decision for Christ. The Bible states that God quickens sinners, gives them faith, and they believe and repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sinner does not decide to be saved. God decides to save the sinner! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gary&#xA;Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5470" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T22:18:00.690" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18508" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18522" CreationDate="2013-08-19T22:37:17.323" Score="2" ViewCount="6219" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Nicholas&lt;/a&gt;, who is one of my favorite saints, is well known for his charitable witness to the Gospel.  His legendary reputation, along with his feast days, have carried his spiritual presence down through the centuries to our present day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm fully knowledgeable of the origin and evolution of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Santa Claus&lt;/a&gt;.  In the last 100 years or so the &quot;Santa Claus&quot; recognized on the Coca Cola can has been heavily commercialized. The majority of children in America spend the first years of their lives believing that he is as real as the UPS man.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I've noticed, the common characteristics of &quot;Santa&quot; are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lives in the North Pole&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Employs elf labor&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Travels in a sleigh pulled by 8 magically propelled flying reindeer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Successfully delivers billions of toys to billions of children in an 8 hr period&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enters into houses via chimney&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eats cookies&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of these characteristics are true realities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume that its a universally accepted Christian truth that anything purported to be true but is not is a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also assume that its a universally accepted Christian truth that anyone who knowingly and willing purports a lie is committing a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is causing or allowing children to systematically/wholeheartedly buy into the commercialized element of Santa Claus within the context of the birth of Christ a sin? Even if its a little &quot;white&quot; lie, is it a sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I mean by &quot;causing&quot; or &quot;allowing&quot; are things like taking children to &quot;mall Santa&quot; and confessing their desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that by this point I might be sounding like Ebenezer Scrooge, but I'm approaching this from an absolutely moral angle that is free from nostalgia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it a lie or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could it be argued that by conditioning a child's intellect into believing in a &lt;em&gt;false&lt;/em&gt; invisible person - this could later undermine the child's faith in a &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; invisible person like Jesus Christ (or St. Nicholas).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P. S. Christmas is my favorite time of the year and I can't wait until Midnight Mass! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T11:28:38.403" Title="Is it immoral to allow children to believe in Santa Claus?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;morality&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-08-20T16:04:07.317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-08-19T23:37:16.310" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The verses you quote give one very obvious reason: to fill the earth, take control of it, and rule it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This might be slightly more understandable by analogy to adopted children of a good king. The king desires his children to not just like him in &lt;em&gt;title&lt;/em&gt; (accomplished simply by the adoption) but like him in character and action (rightly using authority develops right character and right character motivates a caring that demands that authority be exercised and exercised rightly). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Part of this rule would seem to be to command the obedience of &quot;lower creatures&quot; with respect to their being fruitful. [God's command to the sea and sky creatures in Genesis 1:22 to &quot;increase&quot; is implicit to other creatures.] This would seem to imply that human reproduction which prevents such obedience by destroying habitats would be contrary to the command.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One aspect of being made in the image of God is that human's are meant to be like images of a King scattered about the kingdom to declare the authority of the King. Images that more faithfully reflect the original more clearly make that declaration. (Declarations of autonomy--e.g., my labeling myself [as a statue] &quot;King Paul&quot;--would be perhaps the most outrageous violation of that purpose.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Parenting is also one of the ways that God helps humans understand his character (being like a husband and like a father to his creation but also to understand the Father's love to his adopted children that he would give his begotten Son for them), develop a like character, and display his character (in miniature and like a statue or picture). Even the act of procreation itself mimics (as a child imitating the parent) God's act of creation. It also seems that parenting wears very abrasively against self-will and self-sufficiency and more strongly forces prioritization of the use of time and other resources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biological reproduction is also a reasonably effective form of evangelism, of growing the kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to Satan as the prince of this world, the Christian is comforted that Jesus has overcome the world (John 16:33b--&quot;In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.&quot;, NIV). To reject children out of fear of Satan would be to reject this comfort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to the waiting for the return, the Christian is called to be active and fruitful in this time. Burying one's talent to be guaranteed not to suffer loss seems to be viewed rather harshly in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With respect to fighting our carnal nature, Biblical Christianity is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; like that form of Gnosticism that taught that the spirit is good and the matter is evil. In fact, the Bible teaches that the Christ ascended into heaven with a physical body (which ate food presumably with fleshly pleasure). While sexuality is a major area of human corruption, it is part of the created order that God originally declared &quot;good&quot;. By properly exercising sexuality, a couple declares God's redeeming power over this prominent area of fallenness. (For Roman Catholics, who reject the separation of the unitive and reproductive aspects of sexuality, the connection of reproduction with proper exercise of sexuality may be more explicit; but I suspect even most Protestants would not entirely separate sexuality from reproduction, at least recognizing that there is a creaturely desire to procreate that is linked with sexuality and that the full function of sexuality involves reproduction.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-08-19T23:37:16.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18505" CreationDate="2013-08-20T02:04:13.433" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Jehovah's Witness viewpoint, it is believed that, before the creation of everything, Jehovah God created Jesus, Satan, and other heavenly beings. In their view, Satan existed in heaven, before Satan became the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T02:04:13.433" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18508" CreationDate="2013-08-20T02:06:07.723" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not the entire answer, however, I'd like to give you a perspective that may inform the answer. I grew up in a Christian home, where Santa Clause was forbidden, whereas my wife grew up in a Christian home where Santa Clause was a celebrated and beloved part of the holiday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I read you question, I could almost here the voice of my mother speaking it. All of the reasons you gave were the reasons that they gave me for not believing. Beyond that (and implicit in your question I think), they also thought that if you were disillusioned of the fantasy of S.C. then you would be more easily disillusioned of your belief in God. Perhaps that was bit of what they experienced growing up, though their parents were not particularly religious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experience as a child was One of increasing apprehension and extreme burden carrying the HUGE weight of a terrible secret that I could not let any of my friends in on. I really cannot express the horror I felt, after carrying that burden for so long when inevitably my peers began to find out and started 'letting the cat out of the bag' to the other kids. I have vivid recollections to this day of Christmases in the 2nd and 3rd grade when this was happening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may be that not every kid is going to react that way, and I have no doubt it totally depends on the personality of individual kids. However, in my case, I believe it lead to a kind of resentment of parents having to carry around the burden of (what I began to think of, at the time, very young) as my parent's increasingly unfounded faith. When other kids got excited about Halloween candy and costume, I had to look forward to was a night with the lights outs, hearing the doorbell ring and hiding, whilst my mom wold sneak a peek out the window and bad mouthing the parents of any kids she happened to recognize. I spent Christmas hoping my parents would not catch me watching the S.C. history channel special when it aired on the TV, and tip toeing around the question, 'what is S.C. bringing you for Christmas?'. The answer by the way, was 'nothing, I don't believe in S.C.' when an adult ask me in front of my parents, to the considerable shock of the asker, the pride of my parents and the embarrassment of myself. And if another kid ask me at school, the answer was the same as any normal kid. Notice how the burden of my parents having to tell a lie, shifted to me (the child) having to lie? I doubt my parents wanted to field the calls from an upset teacher (or a mad parent) any more than I wanted to reveal the terrible secret.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long story short, I realized in my mid teens that I did not believe in God, and only came to faith much later. How much did this aspect in my upbringing influence this sad part of my life? I couldn't say, probably not heavily, but certainly was part the entire package of life experiences that lead me down the wrong path.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My wife grew up in believing in S.C. until one day she figured it out, but kept up pretenses for the sake of her parents and younger brother. She never wavered in her faith, and is a extremely devoted Christian to this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So all of that doesn't really answer your question. What should the Christian response be here? Certainly, the will of God overrides whatever embarrassment or discomfort that you, or your kids might feel because of it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 12:2 - NIV&#xA;Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think most Christian ethicists would agree that, as you said, telling some something that is not the truth, for what ever reason, is still a lie, and therefor a sin. I believe that Augustine says that telling an untruth, even if you believe it to be the truth, is still a sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I am genuinely conflicted. I have read Mark Driscoll's article here (&lt;a href=&quot;http://marshill.com/2010/12/13/what-we-tell-our-kids-about-santa-pastor-mark-for-the-washington-post&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://marshill.com/2010/12/13/what-we-tell-our-kids-about-santa-pastor-mark-for-the-washington-post&lt;/a&gt;) where he managed to find some middle ground. It is worth a read for sure. He suggest redeeming SC, telling the child he is real, in a way, through the person of St. Nick, and downplaying the commercialism that is so endemic around the celebration of the birth of Christ. At the same time it allows the child to participate in Santa as part of Christmas celebration, but the parent is being truthful at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T02:06:07.723" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-08-20T04:44:39.327" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 1:28 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;God blessed them&lt;/strong&gt; and said to them, “&lt;strong&gt;Be&#xA;  fruitful&lt;/strong&gt; and increase in number; &lt;strong&gt;fill the earth and subdue it&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every&#xA;  living creature that moves on the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was a blessing from God. Most of the other Bible translations also use the word &lt;em&gt;&quot;Be fruitful&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and it indicates blessing. God blessed them and at the same time commanded them to rule the earth. &lt;em&gt;&quot;Rule the earth&quot;&lt;/em&gt; is the first commandment we find in the Bible. Whether &lt;em&gt;&quot;Be fruitful&quot;&lt;/em&gt;  is a blessing or a commandment is up to individual's interpretation. For the sake of argument, let's say it was a command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Does this (command) &lt;em&gt;&quot;Be fruitful&quot;&lt;/em&gt; still stand?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament laws are always a problem to Christians. Though we all agree that animal sacrifice is no longer required, we have arguments on the rest of the laws in OT. Many Christians are still following OT laws for Sabbath, unclean animals, eating blood etc. My view is that we should focus more on New Testament and it has very few laws. &lt;strong&gt;Even the Law of Moses did not repeat this command&lt;/strong&gt;. Therefore, it might have less importance. The NT never encourages to have many children nor discourage it. Remember, &lt;strong&gt;Saint Paul was never married&lt;/strong&gt;. And if this command still stands, the Catholics will be the first to disobey the law by introducing unmarried man and women in the services of the Church.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;So what is the reason God wants us (or Adam and Eve) to have children?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This phrase &lt;em&gt;&quot;Be fruitful&quot;&lt;/em&gt; was spoken to Adam and Eve, and it was never repeated later, not by Moses nor in the New Testament. So, initially God wanted Adam and Eve to reproduce and have many children and God designed them for that. It was the will of God that we should fill the earth. Now that we have filled the earth (or even overpopulated it), God's words are accomplished. What ever words that God has spoken are always accomplished. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Isaiah 55:11 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; so is my word that goes out from my mouth:    It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire    and&#xA;  achieve the purpose for which I sent it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paul focused more on Evangelism than giving birth to more Christians:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Saint Paul had his own personal views towards marriage and it seems he was not concerned about marriage and having children. He suggested that unmarried life is better for engaging in the Lord's affairs and married people cannot serve the Lord as efficiently as the unmarried ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;8&lt;/em&gt; Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;32-34&lt;/em&gt; I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a&#xA;  married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can&#xA;  please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or&#xA;  virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted&#xA;  to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned&#xA;  about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;38&lt;/em&gt; So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Harvest is ready:&lt;/strong&gt; God created a couple and blessed them to be fruitful. Our great population proves our fruitfulness. Now is the time to harvest the souls. God had in mind to bring as many souls as possible to Heaven. Now there are many souls for the harvest but the workers are few.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Luke 10:2 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; He told them, “&lt;strong&gt;The harvest is plentiful, but the&#xA;  workers are few&lt;/strong&gt;. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out&#xA;  workers into his harvest field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-09-02T16:11:10.380" LastActivityDate="2013-09-02T16:11:10.380" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18513" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18505" CreationDate="2013-08-20T05:28:56.277" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two famous verses believed to record the history of Satan;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014:12-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:12-15&lt;/a&gt; and  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:12-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ezekiel 28:12-18&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ezekiel 28:14-15 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; You were anointed as a &lt;strong&gt;guardian cherub&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;      for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God;&#xA;      you walked among the fiery stones. You were &lt;strong&gt;blameless&lt;/strong&gt; in your ways&#xA;      from the day you were created  &lt;strong&gt;till wickedness was found in you&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God created the mighty Cherub (Satan), he was perfect. At first, he was not a devil nor was he called Satan. But later, wickedness was found in him, he became proud, violent and sinful. Then God threw him out of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Did Satan reject God?&lt;/strong&gt; YES&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Isaiah 14:12-15 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once&#xA;  laid low the nations! You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the&#xA;  heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit&#xA;  enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount&#xA;  Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; &lt;strong&gt;I will make&#xA;  myself like the Most High&lt;/strong&gt;.” But you are brought down to the realm of&#xA;  the dead, to the depths of the pit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan rejected the authority of God, the superiority of God and rejected his creator. Satan wanted to become like God, or superior to God and wanted to be worshiped like God which caused his downfall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T05:28:56.277" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7276" CreationDate="2013-08-20T06:16:36.407" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Birthdays cannot be a sin!! GOD loves celebration, and fellowship, breaking bread, and unity. The sin factor is what we as humans determine as celebration. To celebrate ones heart still beating is not sinful. To not make reference that GOD is the reason for the still beating is sinful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Example: Wake everyday, and give thanks for air in your lungs. If you do that everyday, celebrating your birthday will become as meaningful as every day you take another breathe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe its sinful to celebrate your birthday, and yet forget about the other 364 days he woke you up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5463" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T06:16:36.407" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18301" CreationDate="2013-08-20T08:46:56.040" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Scripture (the letter to the Hebrews), it is Jesus Himself who is a priest like Melchizedek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original Melchizedek was both king of the small city-state of Salem (which later because Jerusalem) and the high priest of its religion. (They worshipped &lt;em&gt;El Elyon&lt;/em&gt;, God Most High, which title Abraham recognized as another name for YHWH.)&#xA;There is only ever one &quot;priest in the order of Melchizedek&quot; at a time. There can't be more than one. Some scholars suggest that Melchizedek was actually a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's what Hebrews chapter 7 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He&#xA;  met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2&#xA;  and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name&#xA;  Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem”&#xA;  means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy,&#xA;  without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God,&#xA;  he remains a priest forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a&#xA;  tenth of the plunder! 5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi&#xA;  who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from&#xA;  their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from&#xA;  Abraham. 6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet&#xA;  he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the&#xA;  promises. 7 And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8&#xA;  In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the&#xA;  other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9 One might even say&#xA;  that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10&#xA;  because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of&#xA;  his ancestor. Jesus Like Melchizedek&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical&#xA;  priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that&#xA;  priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in&#xA;  the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the&#xA;  priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom&#xA;  these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from&#xA;  that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our&#xA;  Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said&#xA;  nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if&#xA;  another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a&#xA;  priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the&#xA;  basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You are a priest forever,&#xA;      in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless&#xA;  19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is&#xA;  introduced, by which we draw near to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any&#xA;  oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The Lord has sworn&#xA;      and will not change his mind:&#xA;      ‘You are a priest forever.’”[b]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better&#xA;  covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented&#xA;  them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he&#xA;  has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save&#xA;  completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always&#xA;  lives to intercede for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless,&#xA;  pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the&#xA;  other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after&#xA;  day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He&#xA;  sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For&#xA;  the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the&#xA;  oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made&#xA;  perfect forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sects which claim a Melchizedek priesthood for some of their clergy are talking unbiblical nonsense. Their clergy are mortal men who age and die. They are not &quot;without beginning of days nor end of life&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Jesus is the one and only Melchizedek-type priest, and the temporary priesthood of Aaron (which was central to the Old Covenant between God and the 12 tribes of Israel) is gone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5062" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T08:46:56.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18235" CreationDate="2013-08-20T10:42:10.983" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One does not need to subscribe to any specific theory of the Atonement in order to agree that God has &quot;wrath&quot; towards sin, as such is plainly stated in Romans chapter one. &#xA;Sadly, the attitude of some so-called &quot;churches&quot; seems to be one of &quot;never mind what the Bible actually says, we're going with teachings that we feel good about&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5062" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T10:42:10.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18029" CreationDate="2013-08-20T10:48:04.103" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is both Divine and human. So one simple answer is to take it that the disciples, as human beings, would have the same close relationship with God as Jesus in His human nature does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was fulfilled at Pentecost, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And its for all believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5062" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T10:48:04.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18520" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18561" CreationDate="2013-08-20T11:23:15.823" Score="4" ViewCount="337" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is all knowing. It says in the bible that God forgets our sins and transgressions. Is this a correct translation? It seems very contradictory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5467" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2013-08-21T04:27:59.577" LastActivityDate="2013-08-21T11:11:38.260" Title="If God is omniscient how can he &quot;Forget our Sins&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-08-29T19:53:09.763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18521" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18534" CreationDate="2013-08-20T11:23:24.853" Score="9" ViewCount="660" Body="&lt;p&gt;Among those denominations who practice infant baptism, does baptizing the baby have anything to do with the destination of the infant's soul? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which denominations, if any, believe that Infant Baptism is a means of securing the afterlife of the baby? Do they believe that they are actually sending the infants to heaven by baptizing them? And if the child dies before knowing good and evil, does the baptized infant go to heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-21T16:08:52.460" LastActivityDate="2015-12-21T16:08:52.460" Title="Does infant baptism determine the child's afterlife, according to practitioners?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;infants&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18522" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18508" CreationDate="2013-08-20T11:28:38.403" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the authority of the Catholic and Orthodox Church, Santa Claus is as real as Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just because people exaggerate his exploits doesn't make him less real.  If Santa Claus isn't the impetus behind putting presents under the tree then who is? The three kings, some friendly Christmas gnomes, the Child Jesus Himself?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a third party at work on Christmas Eve and it would be blasphemy (which is worse than murder or lying) to deny his existence.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T11:28:38.403" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18523" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-20T11:28:57.827" Score="-4" ViewCount="2138" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God is omniscient, he would have known that in the future he would have to kill everyone by sending the flood. He would have known about the ark. So, why start with Cain and Abel if sin would haunt the future mankind? What evidence in the Bible says that he believed all people would be good? And If he didn't know, could the Bible be wrong?!?!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5467" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-20T12:22:51.557" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T12:37:36.317" Title="If God is omniscient , He would have forseen how He would send the flood and kill everyone" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-08-20T14:44:52.770" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1479" CreationDate="2013-08-20T12:00:14.657" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “free will” as: “voluntary choice or decision ”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did God give man “free will”? Does man choose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians believe that the Bible is the “Word of God” and if the Bible is nothing else, it is a petition from God to mankind. So why would God petition mankind if man does not have the ability to choose? It is foolishness to argue with someone that is not culpable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free-will is not the same as an independent-will. An independent will is identified in the Bible as a “hard heart”. Pharaoh was “hard hearted”, and he was non-responsive to God. God used Pharaoh’s hard heart for His own purposes, God can do this because God is eternal. He is not bound by space or time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man’s fellowship with God is intentioned for man to do the will of God. Jesus said: “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:50).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A “free-will” does not mean that wills are free for the taking, Jesus paid dearly for the &quot;wills&quot; of His followers. Faith is the real issue: Romans 4:16 says: “Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace”. Faith enables God’s grace, faith is honor and respect, a faith-relationship enables the highest love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our freedom really only extends to a slave's choice in determining whom we will serve as master. To Whom will you be a slave to? Jesus says: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God eternally knows your finished work, He knows every choice you have made! Omniscience means that God knows all things, He is not bound by time, He simultaneously knows the beginning and the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question is: Since he controls decisions and knows what decisions I will make, do I truly have free will?  &quot;Controls Decisions&quot; is the hinge point of the question, is the hardening of the heart the same as forcing a decision?  Parents often receive blame for the adult lives of their children, Pharaoh had every benefit the World could offer, his heart was turned from God, He served himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pharaoh had a so called &quot;free will&quot; and God used Pharaoh's self-serving heart for His own purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-08-21T11:50:03.707" LastActivityDate="2013-08-21T11:50:03.707" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18523" CreationDate="2013-08-20T12:14:37.120" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is omniscient and He knew that he had to destroy the world by flood&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the bigger question is... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;If God knew that He had to die for human, why did He create human anyway?&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 13:8 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; All inhabitants of the earth will worship the&#xA;  beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of&#xA;  life, &lt;strong&gt;the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ephesians 1:4 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; For he &lt;strong&gt;chose us in him before the creation of the&#xA;  world&lt;/strong&gt; to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God created the world, Adam and Eve, Christ was already crucified in the mind of God. God created everything according to His will. There was no accident.  He knew what He was doing and what purpose it would serve. He knew that Adam and Eve might fall into the trap of Satan, fall under the power of sin and the Lamb of God had to be sacrificed for their sins. However, it was God's plan to create human and while creating them, God already conceived in His mind that the Son of God will be crucified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God foresaw that many will be destroyed by His wrath:&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;God had the foreknowledge of how He must purify the world by flood but there is a bigger judgement ahead. While God knew that many will be saved through Christ's sacrifice, He also knew that still many more will be destroyed by His wrath; He knew that many will go to Hell by rejecting Jesus Christ. God was ready for all the outcome, both the salvation of few and the destruction of many, and was ready to pay the price. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But why did God plan all this?&lt;/strong&gt; Only God knows. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Isaiah 55:8-9 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,&#xA;      neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth,&#xA;      so are my ways higher than your ways&#xA;      and my thoughts than your thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We have no right to question God our creator&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 9:20-21 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you&#xA;  make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of&#xA;  the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for&#xA;  common use?**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Isaiah 45:9 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,&#xA;      those who are nothing but potsherds&#xA;      among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter,&#xA;      ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say,&#xA;      ‘The potter has no hands’?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-20T12:37:36.317" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T12:37:36.317" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18527" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-20T14:10:16.147" Score="2" ViewCount="384" Body="&lt;p&gt;Judaism and Bani Israel have concept of Gentile to represent the pagans and Idolaters with a corpus of rules dealing with them, So does Christianity inherit this concept? If yes where ? and Are Jews considered to Be gentiles by Christians as its known that Jews consider the Christians to be Gentiles and Avodah Zarah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastActivityDate="2014-06-30T03:38:08.297" Title="Does the concept of Gentile exist in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;israel&gt;&lt;gentile&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18527" CreationDate="2013-08-20T14:29:55.313" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most branches of Christianity see Jesus, the Son of God, as the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecies and foreshadowing in the Jewish Scriptures.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God foretold, though, that the Seed of Abraham would be a blessing to all people--every tribe, tongue and nation.  The apostle Paul specifies that the gospel is to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, &lt;strong&gt;to the Jew first&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;also to the Greek&lt;/strong&gt; *&lt;em&gt;[Gentile]&lt;/em&gt;*.  Romans 1:16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was born to a Jewish mother in a Jewish city in the land of the Jews.  His first followers were Jews and the earliest growth of the church was among Jews (Acts 1-7).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, non-Jewish believers in Jesus identify themselves as the Gentiles--the ones who were once &quot;outside&quot; but who are now &quot;included&quot;.  We see ourselves as the &quot;other sheep&quot; of which Jesus spoke when He was addressing a Jewish audience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I have &lt;strong&gt;other sheep&lt;/strong&gt; that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.  John 10:16 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Messianic Jews--Jews who recognize Jesus as their Messiah--oftentimes consider themselves &quot;completed Jews&quot;, or Jews that recognize the Messiah that God foretold and sent into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in conclusion, non-Jewish Christians see themselves as the Gentiles that God blessed through Jesus, who is both the God of Abraham and the descendant of Abraham in the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T14:29:55.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18527" CreationDate="2013-08-20T14:35:02.580" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christianity, there are two sets of people, but one group is not excluded or held to different standards than the other. There are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God's chosen covenant people.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Everybody else.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's people are identified solely by their faith in Jesus Christ as savior/redeemer. By faith we become part of the same family. With those who have faith in His Son, God had made an everlasting covenant to bring them into His kingdom as join heirs with Christ himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everybody else can be labeled however you like (e.g. pagans, non-Christians) but it all boils down to the same thing. The &quot;rules&quot; that apply to them are simple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+16:31&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 16:31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;31&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; […] “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T14:35:02.580" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18531" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18616" CreationDate="2013-08-20T14:37:33.920" Score="8" ViewCount="666" Body="&lt;p&gt;The argument from contingency summarized by St. Thomas illustrates that in order for existence to be a reality there must be an &amp;quot;Uncaused Cause&amp;quot; that possesses existence in and of Himself.  &lt;em&gt;Everything&lt;/em&gt; else that exist does so by way of created contingency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2011/05/the-argument-from-contingency.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CONTINGENCY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Mormon theology, God the Father is a physical being of&#xA;&amp;quot;flesh and bones.&amp;quot;  Mormons identify him as the Biblical god Elohim.&#xA;Latter-day Saint leaders have also taught that God the Father was once a&#xA;mortal man who has completed the process of becoming an exalted&#xA;being. According to Joseph Smith, God &amp;quot;once was a man like one of us&#xA;and…once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the&#xA;flesh and like us.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Mormon scripture, &amp;quot;the elements are eternal&amp;quot;. This&#xA;means, according to Smith, that the elements are co-existent with God,&#xA;and &amp;quot;they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They&#xA;had not beginning, and can have no end.&amp;quot; This was elaborated by&#xA;Brigham Young, who said, &amp;quot;God never made something out of nothing; it&#xA;is not in the economy or law of which the worlds were, are, or will exist.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Thus, Mormons deny ex nihilo creation and instead believe that God&#xA;created or &amp;quot;organized&amp;quot; the universe out of pre-existing elements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;MORMON COSMOLOGY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does LDS cosmology address or reason with St. Thomas' contingency proof? In other words, according to the LDS, who or what causes existence to exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-14T19:44:18.673" Title="St. Thomas Aquinas' contingency proof and LDS cosmology" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;lds&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18521" CreationDate="2013-08-20T15:12:29.447" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, in Protestant understanding infant baptism does not in itself affect an infants' soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same goes for adult baptism actually. The rite of baptism itself is not seen as having any direct effect on the eternal status of the soul. It's primarily a visible acknowledgement that God has made a promise and a reminder of how Christs atonement works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of infant baptism, it is typically only done when at least one, preferably both parents (and indeed the rest of the visible church) are committed to raising the child in knowledge of and obedience to God's commandments, including teaching them to trust in Christ for their salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether an infant who dies before being able to confess (or reject) faith in Christ has been baptized or not is not a determining factor in their eternal security. We can only trust in Christ for that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic and Orthodox understandings of baptism are somewhat different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-08-20T20:07:56.797" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T20:07:56.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18538" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-20T15:55:16.990" Score="10" ViewCount="3790" Body="&lt;p&gt;A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to watch ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’.  It wasn't all that great and yes I found it a bit offensive, however it did get me thinking.  Why does it seem as if Mary Magdalene was portrayed as a prostitute? She appears to have been a supportive force for Jesus, and not in any sexually immoral way at that.  Could it be that during that time period women were seen as less than men, and those who were supportive were seen merely as prostitutes if they were not married?  There seem to be several women throughout the Bible that were followers of Christ, and made a difference but were not seen as prostitutes, such as Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2. So why portray Magdalene as such?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4517" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T03:03:56.607" LastActivityDate="2016-11-29T07:56:57.240" Title="Why has Mary Magdalene been portrayed as a prostitute?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;jesus-christ-superstar&gt;&lt;mary-magdalene&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18538" CreationDate="2013-08-20T16:35:45.167" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Traditionally Roman Catholics have identified St. Mary Magdalen with the &quot;woman in the town who was a sinner&quot; of Luke 7:36ff -- that's the Gospel reading for her feast day in the older form of the Roman liturgy. It's true that at face value the Gospel does not identify the nature of her sin but it seems clear that her sin is well-known, at least locally:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, &quot;If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.&quot; (Luke 7:39, RSV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it also appears to go beyond being ritually unclean, for the Lord himself seems to consider it fairly serious:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus said to him, &quot;... &lt;strong&gt;her sins, which were many&lt;/strong&gt;, have been forgiven&quot; (Luke 7:43 &amp;amp; 7:47)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the Gospel text may not establish for certain that she was a prostitute but it's at least a reasonable reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Her importance, of course, has less to do with her sin, whatever it was exactly, than with her conversion. Most female saints in the traditional liturgical calendar are identified as virgins or widows, but Mary Magdalen has the unique title of &quot;penitent&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-08-22T16:12:36.550" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T16:12:36.550" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18541" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-20T16:59:07.573" Score="11" ViewCount="1693" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one in the same.  However, in light of these two verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%209&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Jude 9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:10&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see that Michael was afraid to rebuke Satan directly, but Jesus was not.  This seems to clearly indicate that they are not the same person at all, but that Jesus is a higher authority than Michael.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain this apparent discrepancy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-07-28T02:11:25.270" LastActivityDate="2018-12-24T02:55:41.417" Title="How do JWs respond to Jude 9 in light of Matthew 4:10?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;jude&gt;&lt;michael&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18527" CreationDate="2013-08-20T17:22:27.493" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile&quot;&gt;Gentile&lt;/a&gt; in the Bible simply means &lt;strong&gt;non-Jew or non-Hebrew&lt;/strong&gt;. In Old Testament times, the Hebrews called the other non-Hebrews as Gentiles and in the New Testament, non-Jews are Gentiles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament, &lt;strong&gt;Paul&lt;/strong&gt; was famous for preaching to the Gentiles. Because Paul was a Jew, he was zealous for his own people and preached the gospel mostly to the Jews first. But later, as his own people rejected him, his focus shifted towards the Gentiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 10:1 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Brothers and sisters, &lt;strong&gt;my heart’s desire&lt;/strong&gt; and prayer&#xA;  to God &lt;strong&gt;for the Israelites is that they may be saved&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Acts 18:5-6 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that&#xA;  Jesus was the Messiah. But when they opposed Paul and became abusive,&#xA;  he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be&#xA;  on your own heads! I am innocent of it. &lt;strong&gt;From now on I will go to the&#xA;  Gentiles&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Romans 11:11 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to New Testament, anyone who is not a Jew is a Gentile, whether he is a Christian or not. And believe it or not, most of the users in this site are &lt;strong&gt;Gentile Christians&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some recent new Christian sects call all non-Christians including Jews as Gentiles but it's not biblical. All non-Jews are Gentiles but non-Jews who are non-Christians are more appropriate to be referred to as Pagans, Heathens, Infidels or simply non-believers, depending on the target. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-22T06:27:29.493" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T06:27:29.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18521" CreationDate="2013-08-20T17:44:01.207" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll address the two main questions from a Roman Catholic perspective:&#xA;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Question 1:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Does baptizing the baby have anything to do with the destination of the infant’s soul?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short answer: &lt;strong&gt;Yes.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism is normally a prerequisite for entering heaven, BUT&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are other forms of baptism besides water baptism, AND&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;At least one of those (the baptism of blood) is available to infants -- in fact the Church has a feast day for the infant martyrs of Bethlehem killed by Herod (Matthew 2:16); THEREFORE&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Water baptism is not absolutely necessary for heaven, and MOREOVER&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy to hope for the beatitude of infants who die without water baptism (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/OEBPS/26-chapter9.xhtml#subchapter156&quot;&gt;CCC 1261&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that being said, #1 is the most important point on a practical level. Catholic parents are encouraged to have their babies baptized as soon after birth as reasonably possible. For a healthy baby this means a baptism with full ceremony in a church, but Pope Pius XII &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM&quot;&gt;exhorted midwives&lt;/a&gt; to be ready to baptize infants immediately in the context of a birth-related medical emergency, because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that &lt;strong&gt;assures&lt;/strong&gt; entry into eternal beatitude (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/OEBPS/26-chapter9.xhtml#subchapter156&quot;&gt;CCC 1257&lt;/a&gt;, emphasis mine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Question 2:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;If the child dies before knowing good and evil, does the baptized infant go to heaven?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes! In fact in the traditional Roman liturgy the vestment color for the funeral of a baptized infant is white, which is normally worn on the feast day of a saint. And it's not uncommon for Catholic parents whose young baptized children have died to venerate those children as they would venerate any other saint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1102" LastEditorUserId="1102" LastEditDate="2013-08-20T18:21:51.713" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T18:21:51.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18029" CreationDate="2013-08-20T18:34:22.450" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In “On the Trinity” (&lt;em&gt;De Trinitate&lt;/em&gt;), Book XV, Ch. XXVI, St. Augustine wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in that highest Trinity which is God, there are no intervals of time, by which it can be shown, or at least inquired, whether the Son was born of the Father first and then afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both, &lt;strong&gt;since holy scripture calls him (i.e., the Holy Spirit) the Spirit of both&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For, it is he (i.e.., the Holy Spirit) of whom the apostle says (Gal. 4:6), “But because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts,” and it is he (i.e., the Holy Spirit) of whom the same Son says (Matt. 10:20), “For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And it is proved by many other testimonies of the divine word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is the Father’s and the Son’s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Deinde in illa summa Trinitate quae Deus est, intervalla temporum nulla sunt, per quae possit ostendi aut saltem requiri, utrum prius de Patre natus sit Filius, et postea de ambobus processerit Spiritus Sanctus. Quoniam Scriptura sancta Spiritum eum dicit amborum. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ipse est enim de quo dicit Apostolus: Quoniam autem estis filii, misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda vestra: et ipse est de quo dicit idem Filius: Non enim vos estis qui loquimini; sed Spiritus Patris vestri, qui loquitur in vobis. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Et multis aliis divinorum eloquiorum testimoniis comprobatur Patris et Filii esse Spiritum, qui proprie dicitur in Trinitate Spiritus Sanctus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In “Catechesis of the Illuminated,” Lecture XVII, §4, St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For he is called “Spirit” according what is just read (1 Cor. 12:8), “For to one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit.” And he is called “Spirit of truth,” just as the savior says (John 16:13), “But when that one comes, the Spirit of truth.” And he is called “Comforter,” just as it is said (John 16:7), “For if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you.” But that he is one and the same, while called by different appellations, is demonstrated from these. For, concerning the Holy Spirit and the Comforter being the same, it is said (John 14:26), “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit…” And concerning the Comforter and the Spirit of truth being the same, it is said (John 14:16-17), “…and I shall give you another Comforter, so that he may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth…” And again (John 15:26), “But when the Comforter comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth…” He is also called “Spirit of God,” just as it is written (John 1:32), “And I saw the Spirit of God descending…” And again (Rom. 8:14), “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” &lt;strong&gt;He is also called “Spirit of the Father,”&lt;/strong&gt; just as the Savior says (Matt. 10:20), “For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” And again, Paulos [says] (Eph. 3:14-16), “For this reason, I bend my knees before the Father, etc., …that He would grant you…to be strengthened with power by His Spirit…” He is also called “Spirit of the Lord,” just as Petros said (Acts 5:9), “Why is it that you have consorted to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?” He is also called “Spirit of God” and “[Spirit of] Christ”, just as Paulos writes (Rom. 8:9), “But you are not in the flesh, but rather, in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not his.” &lt;strong&gt;He is also called “Spirit of the Son of God,” just as it is said (Gal. 4:6), “But since you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son…” He is also called “Spirit of Christ,” just as it is written (1 Pet. 1:11), “…for what [person] or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating…” And again (Phil. 1:19), “…by your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Καλεῖται μὲν γὰρ πνεῦμα κατὰ τὸ ἀρτίως ἀνεγνωσμένον, ᾧ μὲν γὰρ διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος δίδοται λόγος σοφίας. καλεῖται δὲ πνεῦμα ἀληθείας, καθὼς ὁ σωτήρ φησιν, ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. καλεῖται καὶ παράκλητος, καθὼς εἴρηκεν, ἐὰν γὰρ ἐγὼ μὴ ἀπέλθω, ὁ παράκλητος οὐ μὴ ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. ὅτι δὲ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτό ἐστι διαφόροις ταῖς προσηγορίαις ὀνομαζόμενον, δείκνυται σαφῶς ἐκ τούτων. περὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ εἶναι τὸ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ τὸν παράκλητον εἴρηται ὁ δὲ παράκλητος τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. περὶ δὲ τοῦ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸν παράκλητον καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας εἴρηται καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσω ὑμῖν, ἵνα μεθ’ ὑμῶν μένῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. καὶ πάλιν ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. Καλεῖται καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ, καθὼς γέγραπται· καὶ εἶδον τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ καταβαῖνον, καὶ πάλιν, ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται, οὗτοι υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν. καλεῖται καὶ πνεῦμα πατρός, καθώς φησιν ὁ σωτήρ· οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν. καὶ πάλιν ὁ Παῦλος· τούτου χάριν κάμπτω τὰ γόνατά μου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἑξῆς, ἵνα δῷ ὑμῖν κραταιωθῆναι διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ. καλεῖται καὶ πνεῦμα κυρίου, καθὼς Πέτρος · τί ὅτι συνεφωνήθη ὑμῖν πειράσαι τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου; καλεῖται καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ, καθὼς γράφει Παῦλος· ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκί, ἀλλ’ ἐν πνεύματι, εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει, οὗτος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ. καλεῖται καὶ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, καθὼς εἴρηται· ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. καλεῖται καὶ πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, καθὼς γέγραπται· εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. καὶ πάλιν· διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son, dwells in Christians, the Christian is spiritually united with the Father and the Son, for &quot;he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Cr&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor. 6:17&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T18:34:22.450" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18552" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14416" CreationDate="2013-08-20T19:16:06.913" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is explained by Jesus in Matthew chapter 6:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. &lt;sub&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=RSV&amp;amp;search=mat+6%3A19-24&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:24&lt;/a&gt;) (See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=RSV&amp;amp;search=luke+16&quot;&gt;Luke 16:13&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with this rich man is that he loves his money more than God; this is a transgression of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=matthew+22:34-40&quot;&gt;the Greatest Commandment&lt;/a&gt;, &amp;ldquo;You shall love the Lᴏʀᴅ your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.&amp;rdquo; &lt;sub&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%206:5&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot;&gt;Deut 6:5&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. &lt;sub&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=RSV&amp;amp;search=mat+6%3A19-24&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:21&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A relevant parable is this one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And [Jesus] said to them, “Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man brought forth plentifully; and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ And he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” &lt;sub&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=RSV&amp;amp;search=Luke+12:13-34&quot;&gt;Luke 12:15-21&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, having money is not a sin; however, you can easily become more devoted to money than to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5444" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T19:16:06.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18521" CreationDate="2013-08-20T20:22:03.653" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer is not meant to replace the other well stated answers, but is meant to supplement/support them by addressing the following question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Which denomination(s) believes that infant baptism is a mean of&#xA;  securing the afterlife of the baby?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Nazarenes, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Reformed churches all practice infant baptism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox churches teach and believe that baptism is sacramentally regenerative. This means that baptism is not only an &lt;em&gt;outward sign&lt;/em&gt;, but is also an &lt;em&gt;inward rebirth&lt;/em&gt; or regeneration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church states explicitly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to&#xA;  life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives&#xA;  access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin&#xA;  and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are&#xA;  incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: &quot;Baptism&#xA;  is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.&quot; (&lt;em&gt;CCC&#xA;  1213&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism continues to explain the sacrament of Baptism within the context of infant regeneration:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children&#xA;  also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power&#xA;  of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children&#xA;  of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the&#xA;  grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The&#xA;  Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of&#xA;  becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after&#xA;  birth. (&lt;em&gt;CCC 1250&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church also emphasizes that &quot;baptism is a &lt;em&gt;required&lt;/em&gt; sacrament of faith.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The writings of the early Church Fathers clearly indicate that the sacrament of baptism has been thought of as necessary for the salvation of infants since the Ante-Nicene period of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can&#xA;  answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their&#xA;  parents answer or someone from their family.&quot; Hippolytus of Rome,&#xA;  Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the&#xA;  usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if&#xA;  there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and&#xA;  nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would&#xA;  seem superfluous.&quot; Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to&#xA;  be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that&#xA;  the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think&#xA;  one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the&#xA;  eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in&#xA;  council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we&#xA;  think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born&#xA;  persons…&quot; Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html&quot;&gt;INFANT BAPTISM&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the Reformation period of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the early reformers adopted the doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm&quot;&gt;sola fide&lt;/a&gt; (by faith alone). This doctrine teaches that the only way a person can obtain salvation is by an inward assent of faith in the saving  power of the blood of Jesus Christ and the imputation of his righteousness. Sola fide consequently and necessarily rejects baptismal necessity, therefore reducing the act of baptism to an outward symbolic acknowledgment of salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reformed theology teaches that since infants lack the capacity to place faith in Christ, there can be no inward assent to faith in Christ, rendering the salvific element absent from baptism. It also intended to celebrate the covenantal relationship between the infant and God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary - The Catholic/Orthodox churches have taught since the apostolic era that baptism sacramentally &quot;saves&quot; the infant, whereas most Protestant denominations have taught since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that baptism is a sign and seal of God's covenant to that child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-20T21:07:09.637" LastActivityDate="2013-08-20T21:07:09.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18555" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18557" CreationDate="2013-08-21T01:42:37.433" Score="12" ViewCount="3017" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 18:8-9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is either referring to saved or unsaved people. But either one, for unsaved it seems like they must cast away their sin to be saved, and for saved people it seems like they must not sin in order to remain saved. How is this explained in the context of non works-based salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-21T11:18:47.080" Title="How is Matthew 18: 8-9 explained in the context of non works-based salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;sola-fide&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18555" CreationDate="2013-08-21T04:09:36.123" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Note that this doesn't apply to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; groups that adhere to Sola Fide.  Plenty of groups believe that we have no part in our own salvation, even in choosing to believe, but this is &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; perspective that's relatively common among Evangelicals.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short version:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses are simply Jesus teaching on the true definition of what God's standard for &quot;good&quot; is.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Longer version:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses are very similar to those in &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/5.htm&quot;&gt;Matthew 5&lt;/a&gt;, where Jesus explains that lust is the same as adultery, hatred the same as murder, etc.  Jesus was dealing with the Jewish people, who were under the impression that their obedience to the Law would save them.  By teaching them the Truth of just how high God's perfect standard is, He was preparing them to understand that they are not truly &quot;good&quot; at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Any reasonable person&lt;/em&gt; would hear those words and think &quot;there's no way I can be &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; good and perfect.  I'm doomed&quot;.  To those that hold this view, that's the necessary realization of one's sinful nature that's necessary to drive us to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of one such ministry that holds this view would be Living Waters/The Way of the Master, headed by Ray comfort and Kirk Cameron.  Example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wayofthemaster.com/goodperson.shtml&quot;&gt;Am I good enough to go to Heaven?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Expanding a bit on the necessity of realizing our sinful nature to drive us to repentance, Ray Comfort says this in his Hell's best kept Secret teaching...  (This is a paraphrase from memory, but it's close)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You try to save a man from drowning when he doesn't think he is.  Jump&#xA;  in, pull him to the shore without telling him anything, he's not going&#xA;  to be too happy with you.  But if he sees that he is drowning, he will&#xA;  be grateful, and won't despise the gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses show that God's standard is perfect, and that we fall short.  This is perfectly in harmony with the idea of salvation by faith alone apart from works.  God's Law can't save us.  it can only show us ourselves in our true nature, so that we can see the need to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblestudyplanet.com/the-purpose-of-the-law/&quot;&gt;Bible Study Planet&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Once a person has understood the Law, and its spiritual meaning and&#xA;  content, he knows that can’t keep it. What’s the summary of the Law?&#xA;  It is: “You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all&#xA;  your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength; and you shall&#xA;  love you neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul also wrote of this extensively in the Book of Romans.  Two small excerpts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under&#xA;  the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held&#xA;  accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his&#xA;  sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become&#xA;  conscious of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the&#xA;  contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law;&#xA;  for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said,&#xA;  &quot;YOU SHALL NOT COVET.&quot; (Romans 7:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-08-21T04:31:57.160" LastActivityDate="2013-08-21T04:31:57.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8947" CreationDate="2013-08-21T04:23:56.063" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps Paul is saying that &quot;God will repay him&quot; meaning.....let God handle it. He warns them that he strongly opposed the message so they could not be harmed. Maybe one of the disciples was saying &quot;let me at him&quot; and Paul is saying &quot;God will handle it.....don't try to handle it because of what he did to me.&quot; I remember once a girl stole my money at school and I told my Mom I wanted to put peanut butter in her gym shoes. Mom said &quot;God will handle it...&quot; Just saying?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5493" LastActivityDate="2013-08-21T04:23:56.063" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18561" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18520" CreationDate="2013-08-21T11:11:38.260" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible uses many images to express the message it want to convey. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In exemple the Bible uses body part to explain the action of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt. 2 And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, 3 and the people of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the &lt;strong&gt;hand of the LORD&lt;/strong&gt; in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ex 16:1–3). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses that the LORD, the God of Israel, had given, and the king granted him all that he asked, for the &lt;strong&gt;hand of the LORD&lt;/strong&gt; his God was on him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Ezr 7:6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Bible maintains that God is a spirit and He does not have body parts like hand in the example above. The is a literary exercise called Anthropomorphism (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;wiki&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In your question it is the same scheme that is used. The biblical author used and image that we could easily understand &quot;forget&quot; to express that God will not impute the consequences of our sins. Since He decide not to judge us according to our sins it is the same has saying that he does forget them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1168" LastActivityDate="2013-08-21T11:11:38.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18562" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18555" CreationDate="2013-08-21T11:18:47.080" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The gospel never promises anyone with fake faith salvation. Rather it uses both encouragements and warnings as a means to preserve all the elect into everlasting eternity.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This sort of question can be asked from many verses in the Bible because it rests upon a sometimes-unconscious assumption that ‘God would never warn someone of something, that according to his foreknowledge would never happen.’ This is simply not true.  One reason why God knows that something will never happen is because he effectively ensures it does not – partly through his warning that it could.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the basic meaning of this verse, using bold imagery, is a sin like adultery, for example, should be despised at the utmost. Extending this imagery to its furthers extent, in principle if it came between having our eye, verses having women, we should depart with our eyes happily! In a less symbolic way, if we have the choice of sin and the world, or Christ and our own death, the principle of wisdom and spiritual survival would be to choose Christ.  This is the beginning of the gospel. Which goes ‘repent and believe’. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The gospel goes further, ‘repent and believe the good news’! One of the most precious things a sinner will not give up is his own righteousness. In fact this may be the most common idol men will not let go. Extending this sermon further to rank unbelief and self-righteousness we can easily extend the application by saying: &lt;strong&gt;‘If a man prefers self-righteousness to God’s free gift, then he is like a man that refuses to cut away his valued possession (eye). For that he can be certain that he will spend eternity in hell as a just reward for rejecting the gospel.&lt;/strong&gt; This is not a subject for playing eternal games with God and our own soul!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-08-21T11:18:47.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18565" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18566" CreationDate="2013-08-21T14:03:22.647" Score="0" ViewCount="507" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today &quot;marriage&quot; generally appears to be elevated over civil unions and other partnership relationships, has this been consistent throughout Church history?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marriage appears to be about much more than sexuality, what stance do mainline Protestants hold regarding the sanctity of marriage?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-08-21T16:20:36.913" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T14:00:13.050" Title="Does the Bible or Church tradition differentiate marriage from partnerships?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-08-22T00:23:06.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18565" CreationDate="2013-08-21T15:14:50.563" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Conservative pastor and OT scholar &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Hugenberger&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gordon Hugenberger&lt;/a&gt; of Park Street Church in Boston argues that the biblical view of marriage is less formal and ceremonial than we view it today. It had more economic overtones, less romantic ones (at least at the outset), and generally speaking, engaging in sex &lt;em&gt;automatically&lt;/em&gt; created the marital covenant. (See his dissertation published as &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0801021928&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Marriage as a Covenant&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and his sermon series on marriage -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/audio/hugenberger-genesis/hugenberger-gensermons.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MP3s here&lt;/a&gt; -- and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rededicate.org/archives/marriage/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;subsequent Q&amp;amp;A&lt;/a&gt;, which calls out the titles of the sermons in the MP3 link.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, I think he would say a male-female sexual relationship is viewed as itself &lt;em&gt;creating&lt;/em&gt; a marital bond, whether formalized publicly or not, and dissolution of that relationship would amount to a divorce or breaking of the marital covenant. (A non-sexual partnership or an otherwise prohibited sexual relationship would not create such a bond.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a qualification on this, he &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rededicate.org/archives/marriage/marriageq1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;notes&lt;/a&gt; that the issue of &quot;premarital&quot; sex was far less common than it is today in our wealthier, leisurely society with its delayed marriage age:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Throughout the entire ancient Near East, men and women normally got&#xA;  married in their mid-to-late teens. For this reason, there were very&#xA;  few individuals around who were old enough to be sexually mature, but&#xA;  who were not yet married or at least &quot;pledged to be married.&quot;&#xA;  (Engagement or &quot;betrothal&quot; gave couples the legal status of marriage,&#xA;  even though their marriage was not yet consummated.) This is why far&#xA;  more attention is given in the Bible to the problem of adultery than&#xA;  to the temptation of premarital sexual promiscuity. There was very&#xA;  little in the ancient world comparable to our practice of dating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for history, conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09douthat.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;argues&lt;/a&gt; that the Western, Judeo-Christian-derived ideal for marriage&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two&#xA;  sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the&#xA;  mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a&#xA;  uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life&#xA;  that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in&#xA;  intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely&#xA;  admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of&#xA;  achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of&#xA;  rituals, sanctions and taboos.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marriage in this understanding is &quot;not some universal, biologically inevitable institution&quot; but rather is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition,&#xA;  that establishes a particular sexual ideal [and] it &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; the Western&#xA;  understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic,&#xA;  more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent&#xA;  out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy. [emphasis added]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the whole Christian tradition has supported the idealistic vision thoroughly, until the mid to late 1900s when a &quot;less idealistic&quot; vision found some supporters among the more liberal members of various branches of the church and the culture at large. It has consequently seeped into more conservative churches in various ways (e.g., in how the church treats divorce), though most still hold out against some trends, such as premarital sex and cohabitation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your updated question about mainline denominations' views: the mainline churches are hardly a monolithic whole, so generalization usually leads to some inaccuracies in comparing between groups (say, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;UCC&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_%28U.S.A.%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PCUSA&lt;/a&gt;). The mainlines tend to be relatively &quot;big tent&quot; operations with a wider variety of views than a more theologically conservative denomination, though there are often still a conservative subset within their tents. As a rule of thumb, the more conservative the group as a whole, the less variance there will be in their views.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Views on marriage can and do range widely even within on particular mainline group. Some progressives have abandoned any semblance of a traditional or biblical ethic in setting the parameters for marital relationships, preferring some less stringent &quot;ethic of love&quot; (or whatever). Votes on such matters at the denominational level are often very close, indicating that there is not a strong consensus within the group. Even when a view is adopted, there can be a large minority group within the denomination that does not agree with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that being said, to my knowledge no mainline group officially recommends cohabitation, etc. They still prefer to see a public commitment in the form of marriage, even if their definition of marriage includes differences from the Western ideal described above, such as easy divorce or same-sex couplings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2013-08-22T14:00:13.050" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T14:00:13.050" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18576" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18577" CreationDate="2013-08-22T14:33:26.537" Score="3" ViewCount="914" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the upright will live in the land,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and the blameless will remain in it;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  but the wicked will be cut off from the land,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;and the unfaithful will be torn from it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 2:21-22 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The land&quot; seems like it is the land of God, which might symbolize heaven. So how is the eternal security doctrine defended in light of these verses? Does it have something to do with the fact that they are in the Old Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-10T04:15:38.553" LastActivityDate="2015-08-10T04:15:38.553" Title="How does Proverbs 2:21-22 not disprove &quot;once saved, always saved&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;&lt;perseverance-of-saints&gt;&lt;assurance-of-salvation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18577" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18576" CreationDate="2013-08-22T14:49:20.350" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is problematic to spiritualize verses too quickly.  Recall that the Proverbs were written by Jewish people living in the Jewish homeland of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant--not the New Covenant spoken of by Ezekiel and identified by Jesus at the Last Supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This proverb is speaking about upright and wicked people living in the land of Israel at that time.  Proverbs are general wisdom also--not incontrovertible truths.  Some upright people died young, and some wicked people live to be quite old.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, this is a general proverb that identifies that those who live righteously are often rewarded with long life.  The wicked, however, often receive God's judgment in various forms or are just exposed to greater risks for various reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This has nothing to do with the New Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T14:49:20.350" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18576" CreationDate="2013-08-22T15:20:12.377" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends what you mean by &quot;once saved, always saved&quot; (OSAS). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is usually a catch phrase of the Free Grace brand of evangelicals (Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley, et al.). That sort of doctrine is refuted better with regard to a James 2-type argument that true faith necessarily results in good works. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other brand of evangelicals that OSAS might apply to is Calvinists, but their doctrine is that God himself keeps his elect from falling away or being unfaithful and that any final apostasy implies the person wasn't truly saved to begin with. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See the Wikipedia's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;perseverance of the saints&lt;/a&gt; for a discussion of both types.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the passage in Proverbs, Narnian nailed it -- you're applying it in spiritualized way to OSAS without much warrant. There are plenty of real problem passages for OSAS such that you don't need to bend this one into service.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2013-08-23T13:01:43.997" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T13:01:43.997" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18579" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-22T16:01:37.307" Score="11" ViewCount="4164" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've seen many books and articles that use the word &lt;em&gt;God-talk&lt;/em&gt;. This seems, often, to be used as a friendlier alternative to &lt;em&gt;theology&lt;/em&gt;, which comes from the Greek θεός (theos) for God, and λόγος (logos) for word, talk, discourse, etc., and therefore meaning something like God-talk. Some examples from a Google Books search are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The End of God-Talk: An African-American Humanist Theology&lt;/em&gt;, Anthony B. Pinn (OUP, 2012)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Racism and God-talk: A Latino/a Perspective&lt;/em&gt;, Rub&amp;eacute;n Rosario Rodr&amp;iacute;guez (NYU Press, 2008)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Doing girlfriend theology: God-talk with young women&lt;/em&gt;,  Dori Grinenko Baker (Pilgrim Press, 2005)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God Talk&lt;/em&gt;, Delores Williams (Orbis, 1993)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology&lt;/em&gt;, Rosemary Radford Ruether (Beacon Press, 1983)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like this term is mainly being used by authors in feminist, womanist, and mujerista theology; African-American theology; LGBT and queer theology; and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am curious about how this term originated and became popular, especially in relation to the communities just mentioned, and about what its connotations are, in contrast to &quot;theology&quot;. (For example, I have a rough impression that &quot;God-talk&quot; covers any kind of talking about God in everyday life, as opposed to theology which is done in an academic or formal setting, but this is only an impression without evidence.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-08T06:23:31.107" LastActivityDate="2015-12-29T11:49:43.970" Title="Who uses the term &quot;God-talk&quot;, and what do they mean?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11453" CreationDate="2013-08-22T16:05:19.787" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul says he cast his vote against the believers he brought back to Jerusalem for trial (Acts 26:10). Paul also had authority from the high priest to arrest believers and punish them himself (presumably during interrogation - see Acts 26:11). This would be strange unless he was already some kind of officer of the court. One wouldn't think, for example, volunteers from Jerusalem's regular citizens would be authorized by the Jerusalem authorities to perform their will. The sense seems to be Paul already had some authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, Stephen seems to have been a member of Paul's synagogue - the Synagogue of the Libertines (Acts 6:9) where he disputed with the members there about Jesus, and the text says he was very convincing in that no one was able to resist his wisdom (Acts 6:10). It seems that there was a conspiracy against him according to Acts 6:11, but who are &lt;strong&gt;they&lt;/strong&gt; who organized the effort to put him in jeopardy with the court? Paul admits in his letter to the Romans that his great sin was covetousness (Romans 7:7-11), and before writing this he wrote to the Galatians that he excelled above those his equals (Galatians 1:13-14). If he was zealous for the traditions of the fathers but couldn't resist the wisdom of Stephen, could Paul have been covetous of Stephen's ability to defend himself well against those traditions? If so, could Paul have been the one who reported Stephen and instigated the conspiracy against him. All this seems to point to Paul as being an important young man in the Jews religion before his conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5507" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T16:05:19.787" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18582" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-22T17:38:18.150" Score="5" ViewCount="853" Body="&lt;p&gt;As the title suggests, is there any Biblical reason to believe it is possible to escape Hell after dying and going there? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there &lt;strong&gt;any&lt;/strong&gt; way to save those people after these punishments? Or are they permanently locked in hell?  Is there any way suggested anywhere in Scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5330" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-08-23T01:08:35.680" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T05:10:46.670" Title="Is there a Biblical basis for believing someone can be saved after dying and going to Hell?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-05-01T14:14:44.173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18584" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-22T21:10:57.793" Score="4" ViewCount="342" Body="&lt;p&gt;Upon reading &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15575/does-the-mormon-doctrine-of-exaltation-implicitly-require-acknowledging-the-exis&quot;&gt;Does the Mormon doctrine of exaltation implicitly require acknowledging the existence of sentient extra-terrestrial life?&lt;/a&gt; to satiate my curiosity on the who, what, and how of the exaltation doctrine I learned that not all faithful Mormons 'become gods'. Once I learned of the doctrine I immediately assumed that exaltation is the eternal destiny for all faithful Mormons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But now I know that is not the case, so I ask what are all the various possible eternal destinies in LDS Mormon doctrine? If it is not too much effort, the minimum requirements to gain those things would be nice to see as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, most Baptists would answer there is eternal life with God in heaven or eternal damnation is Hell. Catholics would include purgatory somewhere. Annihilationists would say eternal life or death (sometimes called eternal sleep). What would Mormons say, since they seem to have different &quot;levels&quot; of heaven for the faithful? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T11:51:44.203" Title="What are the various eternal destinies or after lives that are possible in LDS Mormon Doctrine?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18585" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18584" CreationDate="2013-08-22T21:46:12.327" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;LDS doctrine on the subject is found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants&lt;/a&gt;.  Referring to the circumstances in which he received this revelation, Joseph Smith stated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that&#xA;  many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken&#xA;  from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared&#xA;  self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every&#xA;  one according to the deeds done in the body the term ‘Heaven,’ as&#xA;  intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than&#xA;  one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon seeking clarification from the Lord, this revelation was received, regarding the nature of the eternal destiny of mankind.  It first speaks of the &quot;sons of perdition,&quot; people whose choices have placed them outside of the Atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and&#xA;  have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the&#xA;  power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my&#xA;  power—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it&#xA;  had been better for them never to have been born;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God,&#xA;  with the devil and his angels in eternity;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world&#xA;  nor in the world to come—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having&#xA;  denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto&#xA;  themselves and put him to an open shame.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and&#xA;  brimstone, with the devil and his angels—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due&#xA;  time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the sons of perdition are people who &quot;know my power and have been made partakers thereof&quot; and then &quot;deny the truth and defy my power,&quot; and they will be consigned to hell for eternity, with Satan and his fallen angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this, it moves on to a more pleasant topic, the fate of those who have not committed unpardonable sins, and defines three &quot;degrees of glory,&quot; as they're commonly known in LDS theology:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the&#xA;  testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth&#xA;  in the resurrection of the just—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on&#xA;  his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being&#xA;  buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment&#xA;  which he has given—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed&#xA;  from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of&#xA;  the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of&#xA;  promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and&#xA;  true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things&#xA;  present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and&#xA;  Christ is God’s.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;60 And they shall overcome all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of&#xA;  the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the&#xA;  sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reward of the most faithful is commonly known as &quot;the Celestial kingdom,&quot; or also &quot;exaltation,&quot; and is the idea that people unfamiliar with LDS theology are thinking of when they hear that Mormons believe they can become Gods in the afterlife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this, the revelation speaks of the the eternal rewards for people who have not lived a Celestial-grade life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these&#xA;  are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of&#xA;  the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the&#xA;  Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the&#xA;  firmament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;72 Behold, these are they who died without law;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the&#xA;  Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be&#xA;  judged according to men in the flesh;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but&#xA;  afterwards received it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were&#xA;  blinded by the craftiness of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of&#xA;  the fulness of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial,&#xA;  and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus;&#xA;  wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who inherit &quot;the Terrestrial kingdom&quot; can be thought of as people who were &quot;good, but not great,&quot; and thus their reward was not as great as those who were more valiant in their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, it speaks of &quot;the Telestial kingdom,&quot; the lowest of the three degrees of glory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that&#xA;  of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the&#xA;  glory of the moon in the firmament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the&#xA;  testimony of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the&#xA;  last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have&#xA;  finished his work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal&#xA;  world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the&#xA;  terrestrial;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of&#xA;  another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some&#xA;  of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus,&#xA;  neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the&#xA;  saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received&#xA;  into the cloud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and&#xA;  whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of&#xA;  Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have&#xA;  subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man&#xA;  shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the&#xA;  mansions which are prepared;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and&#xA;  Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who have not lived righteous lives, and yet have not committed the unforgivable sin, will eventually be forgiven after they have suffered for their sins, and receive a small reward in heaven according to the quality of the lives they chose to live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Section 76 is one of the longest chapters in the Doctrine and Covenants, and I've cut down the quotes a fair bit for brevity, but this covers the core of the LDS doctrine on the afterlife and the various different destinies available to mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T21:46:12.327" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7188" CreationDate="2013-08-22T23:15:30.190" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Maybe Paul calls Peter (Greek) Cephas (Aramaic) because his actions in Gal 2 denote an Old Testament mindset regarding Gentiles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me start by saying that in v6-9 Peter James and John recognises Paul's gift and anointing in reaching out to the Gentiles. In other words they recognize that Salvation through the Gospel is for gentiles too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul notes that Peter had no problem dining with the gentiles until &quot;certain&quot; Jews from Jerusalem came to visit him in Antioch at which point he began to disassociate himself from gentiles. Paul notes that these &quot;certain&quot; Jews were &quot;pro-circumcision&quot; (no circumcicion; no salvation). What makes this especially bad is that they are men of influence and other Christians started doing the same thing - even Barnabas who was with Paul a long time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's contention with Peter is that he (Peter) was not acting in consistency with the truth of what he knows in the Gospel (salvation is for everyone and not just the circumcised). Since Peter was one of the 3 disciples closes to Jesus I guess it was assumed that Peter should have known better. (If Paul who was not one of the 12 disciples understood this then surely Peter would understand it more) and even more so that in v6-9 Peter, James and John understands the need to bring gentiles into the fold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the way I see it; Paul is using the old school name Cephas because of the old school way of thinking especially after recognizing that reaching out to the gentiles is important and being influential men, they have caused other christians to avoid gentiles too. The effects of v11-14 seem to take away what they did in v6-9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This use of differing names is an interesting study and similar to Jacob/Israel name change and name use in the OT (however I am unable to find out why Jacob was used after the name change).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just my 2 cents anyway&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5512" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T23:15:30.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18587" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18588" CreationDate="2013-08-22T23:36:39.150" Score="16" ViewCount="160241" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am reading the book of Genesis, and I have noticed that God changes certain people's names, such as Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel. Why does he change their names? What does it symbolize?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now that Jacob had returned from Paddan-aram, God appeared to him again at Bethel. God blessed him, saying, &quot;Your name is Jacob, but you will not be called Jacob any longer. From now on your name will be Israel.&quot; So God renamed him Israel. &lt;em&gt;(Genesis 35:9-10, NLT )&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5513" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-23T00:01:44.000" LastActivityDate="2015-07-18T03:07:21.423" Title="Why did God change Jacob's name to Israel?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;jacob&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18587" CreationDate="2013-08-22T23:51:36.553" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Names were considered to be meaningful in some way.  For example, the younger of Isaac's twin sons with Rebekah was named Jacob (&quot;supplanter&quot;) because when he was born he was holding on to Esau's heel, as if attempting to overtake him.  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2027:24-26&quot;&gt;Genesis 25: 24-26&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Jacob's wrestle with the angel, when he demanded a blessing from the Lord, the angel pronounced a blessing upon him, and a new name to go with it: &lt;em&gt;Isra-El&lt;/em&gt;, which can mean &quot;He who prevails with God,&quot; or &quot;May God prevail,&quot; depending on the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise with Abram (&quot;Exalted father&quot;), when he was blessed by the Lord &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017:3-7&quot;&gt;in Genesis 17&lt;/a&gt;, he was given the name Abraham (&quot;Father of a multitude&quot;), in keeping with the promise of the Lord:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall&#xA;  be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of&#xA;  thee, and kings shall come out of thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that these different names are given to people as a blessing from the Lord, to signify that something about them, their nature or their life, has changed in some way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-08-22T23:51:36.553" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15472" CreationDate="2013-08-22T23:58:23.687" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I must state that I am, by no means, authoritatively/formally trained on the subjects of Thomistic theology, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, nature and grace, or any combination of each.  I only hope that this might be somewhat of a starting point for much more expansion.  This is such a massive subject and could easily fill the pages of many books. I am being as brief as possible with the hope that someone more qualified will (and &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt;) supplement or replace this answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Church Fathers taught about the relationship between nature and grace, and to compare St. Thomas to individual teachers of the early Church would take a tremendous amount of labor. There are, however, 2 “Champions of Grace” that rise up above the rest in the eyes of both secular and Christian scholars – St. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07016a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gregory&lt;/a&gt; of Nyssa in the East, and St. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Augustine&lt;/a&gt; of Hippo in the West.  These 2 Fathers seem to epitomize their own eastern and western schools of thought. St. Gregory was influenced by Origen and St. John Chrysostom, whereas St. Augustine studied under St. Ambrose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SS. Gregory, Augustine, and Thomas all viewed nature through the “lens” of Aristotle’s “categories.”  However, there are apparently 2 closely related characteristics between SS. Thomas and Augustine that drastically differ from St. Gregory in the East.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Both view Grace and Nature as intertwined due to necessitated contingency.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Both view Nature as corrupt from the fall of Man, and therefore must be redeemed by God’s Grace.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gregory, like Aristotle, distinguished between the category of&#xA;  substance and the other categories–relation, quality, quantity, place,&#xA;  time, action, passion (Categories 1 – 9). In themselves, qualities are&#xA;  ideas in the mind of God. But they can also be projected out from God;&#xA;  and when that happens, they become visible. Now Gregory observes that&#xA;  although we ordinarily speak of these immanent qualities as inhering&#xA;  in substances, all we really perceive are the qualities of things, not&#xA;  their substances. It is but a short step to the conclusion that a&#xA;  physical object is nothing more than the convergence of its qualities.&#xA;  Thus matter as such doesn’t really exist; bodies are really just&#xA;  “holograms” formed by this convergence of qualities. Consequently&#xA;  there is no problem of how an immaterial God could have created a&#xA;  material world, for the world isn’t material at all. (1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Gregory explicitly uses the term “energies” to cover those qualities that are immanent in the physical world. Energies are the “powers” and “movements” by which substances are “manifested”; the energy of each thing is its “distinguishing property” (idioma).  Gregory goes so far as to assert that apart from its energies a nature not only cannot be known, but does not even exist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even the inquiry as to that thing in the flesh itself which assumes&#xA;  all the corporeal qualities has not been pursued to any definite&#xA;  result. For if anyone has made a mental analysis of that which is seen&#xA;  into its component parts, and, having stripped the object of its&#xA;  qualities, has attempted to consider it by itself, I fail to see what&#xA;  will have been left for investigation. For when you take from a body&#xA;  its color, its shape, its hardness, its weight, its quantity, its&#xA;  position, its forces active or passive, its relation to other objects,&#xA;  what remains that can still be called a body, we can neither see of&#xA;  ourselves nor are taught by Scripture. . . . Wherefore also, of the&#xA;  elements of this world we know only so much by our senses as to enable&#xA;  us to receive what they severally supply for our living. But we&#xA;  possess no knowledge of their substance . . . . (2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Gregory diverged from SS. Augustine and Thomas by viewing nature as nothing more than “qualities” emanating from the mind of God.  SS. Augustine and Thomas believed that God purposely creates material elements, such as wine, bread and water, to convey supernatural grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine’s view of Grace was heavily influenced by his correspondence with Pelegius .  Pelegius taught that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, in contrast to 1 Corinthians 15:19-22 (especially verse 22), Adam's sin was &quot;to set a bad example&quot; for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to original sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as &quot;setting a good example&quot; for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine fought against the Pelegian heresy by developing the doctrine of grace and free will, therefore earning the title, “Doctor of Grace.”  Contrary to what was taught by Pelegius, St. Augustine said that Man’s nature was “at first faultless and without sin,” but through the sin of Adam, became corrupt so that nature was “darkened and weakened.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Man's nature, indeed, was created at first faultless and without any&#xA;  sin; but that nature of man in which everyone is born from Adam, now&#xA;  wants the Physician, because it is not sound. All good qualities, no&#xA;  doubt, which it still possesses in its make, life, senses, intellect,&#xA;  it has of the Most High God, its Creator and Maker. But the flaw,&#xA;  which darkens and weakens all those natural goods, so that it has need&#xA;  of illumination and healing, it has not contracted from its blameless&#xA;  Creator— but from that original sin, which it committed by free will.&#xA;  Accordingly, criminal nature has its part in most righteous&#xA;  punishment. For, if we are now newly created in Christ, 2 Corinthians&#xA;  5:17 we were, for all that, children of wrath, even as others,&#xA;  Ephesians 2:3 but God, who is rich in mercy, for His greatlove&#xA;  wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened&#xA;  us together with Christ, by whose grace we were saved. Ephesians 2:4-5&#xA;  (3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine’s development of grace and nature foreshadowed that of St. Thomas’ in the sense that Man’s nature had to be redeemed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This grace, however, of Christ, without which neither infants nor&#xA;  adults can be saved, is not rendered for any merits, but is given&#xA;  gratis, on account of which it is also called grace. Being justified,&#xA;  says the apostle, freely through His blood (Romans 3:24). Whence they,&#xA;  who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet&#xA;  able to hear, or because they are unwilling to obey; or again because&#xA;  they did not receive, at the time when they were unable on account of&#xA;  youth to hear, that bath of regeneration, which they might have&#xA;  received and through which they might have been saved, are indeed&#xA;  justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which&#xA;  they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from&#xA;  their own misconduct. For all have sinned— whether in Adam or in&#xA;  themselves— and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) (4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, St. Thomas seems to be echoing the Doctor of Grace:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is befitting Holy Scripture to put forward divine and spiritual&#xA;  truths by means of comparisons with material things.  For God provides&#xA;  for everything according to the capacity of its nature.  Now it is&#xA;  natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible&#xA;  things, because all our knowledge originates from sense. (5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a more in-depth exposition on St. Thomas' emphasis on the necessary perfection of nature by grace click &lt;a href=&quot;http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2008/04/12/grace-perfects-nature/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine upheld the early Christian understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, saying that Christ's statement, &quot;This is my body&quot; referred to the bread he carried in his hands, and that Christians must have faith that the bread and wine are in fact the body and blood of Christ, despite what they see with their eyes. St. Thomas’ doctrine of Transubstantiation only builds upon and clarifies the importance of the roles of nature and grace propounded by the Western fathers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my mind, if there was ever a divergence by St. Thomas from any of the Fathers, it would be due to the trickled down differences of the Eastern and Western Fathers on the subject of substance and matter.  Perhaps if we could look back into the history of the early Church with the &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; as our guidebook, we would be pointed more in the direction of the West than of the East. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frank Sheed summarizes the similarities of SS. Thomas and Augustine in his great work &lt;em&gt;Theology and Sanity&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Religion is the act of man — the whole man, soul and body. It is not&#xA;  the act of the soul only, for man is not only soul . . . The&#xA;  supernatural does not ignore the natural or substitute something else&#xA;  for it. It is built upon or built into the natural. Sanctifying grace&#xA;  does not provide us with a new soul; it enters into the soul we&#xA;  already have. Nor does it give the soul new faculties but elevates the&#xA;  faculties that are already there, giving intellect and will new powers&#xA;  of operation. God-as-Sanctifier does not destroy or bypass the work of&#xA;  God-as-Creator. What God has created, God sanctifies. (7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am, by no means, in a position to make conclusions about the differences and similarities of St. Thomas and the Church Fathers.  However, it appears to me that St. Thomas didn’t fall too far from the Western tree.  He does, in certain passages, seem to echo what St. Augustine taught. Like Augustine and Ambrose before him, St. Thomas further develops the idea that grace does not destroy nature, but efficaciously redeems it.  Both SS. Augustine and Thomas emphasized the necessity of the sacraments, which by definition are &lt;em&gt;natural&lt;/em&gt; channels of &lt;em&gt;supernatural&lt;/em&gt; Grace.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Against Eunomius II [949]&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hyman, Arthur, and Walsh, James J.  Philosophy in the Middle Ages : The Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions.  Indianapolis:  Hackett Publishing Co., 1973.  Second Edition.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Theology and Sanity, 300-301&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-24T23:47:04.713" LastActivityDate="2013-08-24T23:47:04.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18587" CreationDate="2013-08-23T00:11:42.757" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I agree with Mason, in the OT (Old Testament) names are given almost as an adjective about that person or the circumstances of their birth (Read Gen 30:1-24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A change in name is a change in God's description of you. This usually means God changing your circumstance or some part of your life to fulfill His ultimate plan for you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Israel; if you read the subsequent books of the bible you will discover Israel goes through many hardships and even persecution (just look at history in general)  and yet through out all of these hardships; Israel seems to &quot;prevail&quot; by virtue of coming back to God or crying out to God (He who prevails with God). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the name change from &quot;the supplanter&quot; to &quot;May God Prevail&quot; seems appropriate. But this is true for every name change given by God in scripture. More than just a trivial change in what they are called; It is a change in who they are or will become. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5512" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T00:11:42.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18591" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="35724" CreationDate="2013-08-23T00:44:23.757" Score="9" ViewCount="1513" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did the translators of the KJV make any comments or notes that explained the basis for their decision not to transliterate each occurrence of the Tetragrammaton into English, rather than translating it as all-caps &quot;LORD&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-23T03:22:36.177" LastActivityDate="2014-12-23T06:44:07.637" Title="Why didn't the KJV translators transliterate יהוה?" Tags="&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18582" CreationDate="2013-08-23T03:11:27.660" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, there's no Biblical reason to believe that there is any opportunity whatsoever to escape hell.  There are several non-Biblical arguments, but they are not based on the teachings found in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Longer answer:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several groups that believe that there is an opportunity to be &quot;saved&quot; after death.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS Church believes that the dead are still possible to redeem, and practice baptism for the Dead, for example.  From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an article on their site explaining Baptisms for the Dead&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many people have lived on the earth who never heard of the gospel of&#xA;  Jesus Christ and who were not baptized. Others lived without fully&#xA;  understanding the importance of the ordinance of baptism. Still others&#xA;  were baptized, but without proper authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Because He is a loving God, the Lord does not damn those people who,&#xA;  through no fault of their own, never had the opportunity for baptism.&#xA;  He has therefore authorized baptisms to be performed by proxy for&#xA;  them. A living person, often a descendant who has become a member of&#xA;  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is baptized in behalf&#xA;  of a deceased person. This work is done by Church members in temples&#xA;  throughout the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is only possible to believe, however, if you also believe in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/hell?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LDS definition of Hell&lt;/a&gt; as a temporary prison for some (only permanent for Satan, his followers, and the &quot;sons of perdition&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it&#xA;  is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal&#xA;  world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who&#xA;  were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of&#xA;  Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not&#xA;  redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of the LDS Church, the idea that you can be saved after death is very rare. Some groups do believe in what's known as &quot;Postmortem Evangelism&quot;. However, from a Biblical perspective, and one held by most Christian denominations, this is not supportable.  Scripture is quite clear that our eternal fate depends entirely on what occurs in this life, and that once we die in our sins, if we do not have the forgiveness of Christ, our fate is sealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/articles/is-there-salvation-after-death/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Christian Research Institute&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One well-known advocate of PME, Gabriel Fackre, argues that Scripture&#xA;  teaches that each human’s destiny is not fixed at death. The context&#xA;  of several key Bible passages, however, does not support his&#xA;  interpretation. In fact, these passages clearly say that everyone will&#xA;  die and be judged (Heb.9:27) and that each person’s eternal destiny,&#xA;  either reward or condemnation, will be based on what was done in this&#xA;  life (Matt.7:21–23;13:36–43; John5:28–29). Jesus, moreover, taught&#xA;  that each human’s destiny is fixed at death; for example, in His story&#xA;  of Lazarus, who was eternally in paradise, and the rich man, who was&#xA;  eternally in torment (Luke16:19–31). Finally, the description of the&#xA;  great white throne judgment in Revelation20:11–15 unquestionably&#xA;  indicates that our eternal destiny is based on our earthly life. In&#xA;  these and other passages, physical death marks the boundary of human&#xA;  opportunity to be saved. Belief in PME, meanwhile, has serious&#xA;  negative implications for Christian evangelism and missions. The&#xA;  weakness of PME arguments and the total silence of Scripture regarding&#xA;  opportunities to hear the gospel after death, therefore, should cause&#xA;  Christians to reject this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T03:11:27.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18541" CreationDate="2013-08-23T03:27:08.987" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both accounts in Jude 9 and Matthew 4:10 are the same person (Jesus). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is known as Michael, The Archangel while in heaven. There are also other things to keep in mind why Jesus is believed to be the archangel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.yourdictionary.com/arch&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.yourdictionary.com/arch&lt;/a&gt;) and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud cry of summons, with the shout of an archangel, and with the blast of the trumpet of God.” (AMP Bible) So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.&#xA;Now, in regards to your question about Jude 9 and Matthew 4:10. These verses do not contradict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jude 9, Jesus has apparently resumed his service as Michael the chief angel or Archangel. As you mentioned, Michael did not rebuke Satan in this instance. Why? Well, consider the surrounding verses before verse 9. &#xA;Jude 8 says, &quot;Nevertheless in like manner, these dreamers also corrupt the body, scorn and reject authority and government, and revile and libel and scoff at [heavenly] glories (the glorious ones).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, there were men during Jude’s time who spoke abusively and rejected the authority of the glorious ones. Jude does not speak highly of these such men who obviously lacked humility due to haughtiness. Then, at verse 9 Jude gives a contrast of the behavior of those ungodly men and how Jesus handled a situation in regards to Moses body in a dispute with Satan. Jude was using this example to illustrate the importance of humility. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Michael resisted Satan’s wicked scheme, he showed remarkable self-restraint. Satan surely deserved a rebuke, but Michael, who at the time he was disputing with Satan had not yet had “all the judging” committed to him, felt that such a judgment should come only from God. (John 5:22) As archangel, Michael had extensive authority. Yet, he humbly deferred to God rather than trying to seize additional authority. Besides humility, he also showed modesty, or an awareness of his limitations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude was inspired to write about this incident for a reason. Sadly, some Christians in Jude’s day were not humble. They were haughtily “speaking abusively of all the things they really [did] not know.” (Jude 10) So Jude was in essence saying that if Jesus did not rebuke Satan even though he very well deserved it, why should you (these ungodly men) speak abusively of the glorious ones? Just as Jesus left it to the God to address Satan, they were encouraged to do likewise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it wasn't that Michael was afraid to rebuke Satan, but rather Jesus did not want to go beyond his authority. Instead, God’s Son showed humility and modesty. He was pleased to have Jehovah God, the Supreme Judge of the universe, handle matters in His own way and time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5476" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T03:27:08.987" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18595" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18597" CreationDate="2013-08-23T06:47:35.533" Score="15" ViewCount="581" Body="&lt;p&gt;The KJV translators almost always translated the Tetragrammaton into English as &quot;LORD&quot; (all capital letters). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in Deut. 6:4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/u2NCh.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, on the rare occasion—&lt;strong&gt;extremely&lt;/strong&gt; rare—they chose instead to write &quot;IEHOVAH&quot; instead of &quot;LORD.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, this question is NOT about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. The question is, why did the KJV translators seemingly break their rule of writing &quot;LORD&quot; for the Tetragrammaton in these instances?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in Exo. 6:3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/9ALX1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in Psa. 83:18:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/GNEhs.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in Isa. 12:2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QW51w.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in Isa. 26:4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/QsZkI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2017-12-15T03:53:29.073" LastActivityDate="2017-12-15T03:53:29.073" Title="Why did the KJV translators translate יהוה on the extremely rare occasion as IEHOVAH rather than LORD?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18596" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18605" CreationDate="2013-08-23T07:20:18.700" Score="8" ViewCount="8183" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found out a few weeks ago from a friend that she celebrated her first communion around her 7th birthday, which seemed like an oddly specific age. In addition, the way she talked about it, and the fact that she was raised Roman Catholic, seemed to suggest to me that this was a Catholic tradition. Thus, I have a few closely-related questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How widespread is this tradition?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where, when, and why did this tradition start?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why was the first communion celebrated at &lt;strong&gt;seven&lt;/strong&gt; years old?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this tradition is also found in other branches of Christianity, then mentioning that would be great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="58" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-15T16:03:49.630" LastActivityDate="2015-12-15T16:03:49.630" Title="When and where did the Catholic tradition of first communion at 7 years old start?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18595" CreationDate="2013-08-23T08:04:50.397" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reason is that &amp;quot;Jehovah&amp;quot; (or any transliteration) &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; belong there, and in these specific cases, the replacement would sound strikingly incorrect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exo 6:3: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, but the Name of God Almighty, but by my name LORD was I not knowen to them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If both occurences were to be understood as &amp;quot;title&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;authority&amp;quot;, then the phrase would sound very incorrect. Thus, the correct interpretation is to treat &amp;quot;the name&amp;quot; as title, but &amp;quot;my name&amp;quot; as God's personal name:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, but the Name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not knowen to them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psa. 83:18: That men may knowe, that thou, whose name is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;sounds much more reasonable than&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That men may knowe, that thou, whose name is Lord, art the most high over all the earth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isa. 12:2:, Isa. 26:4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for the Lord Jehovah is my strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, you just &lt;em&gt;can't&lt;/em&gt; say &amp;quot;Lord Lord&amp;quot; here, and it's very hard to hide the fact that the original text uses a personal name here. Different translations used phrases like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+12%3A2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Lord, the Lord himself&amp;quot;[NIV]&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2012:2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Lord God&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1012.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;GOD the LORD&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1012.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The original says &amp;quot;יָהּ יְהוָה&amp;quot;(&amp;quot;Yah Yehwah&amp;quot;)&lt;/a&gt;, so the most correct translation could be along the lines of &amp;quot;Jah, Jehovah&amp;quot; - showing Isaiah's very deep relation to his God, Jehovah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look! God is my salvation. I shall trust and be in no dread; for Jah Jehovah is my strength and [my] might, and he came to be the salvation of me. -- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/isaiah/12/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Is.12:2 [New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the correct question is: why did the translators have such a rule in the first place? Why not translate יְהוָה as Jehovah or Jahveh?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Judaism 101 says:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as &amp;quot;in vain&amp;quot; literally means &amp;quot;for falsehood&amp;quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant &lt;strong&gt;Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed&lt;/strong&gt; accidentally or by one who does not know better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/deuteronomy/12/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deut. 12:3&lt;/a&gt;. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Mishnah confirms that there was no prohibition against pronouncing The Name in ancient times. In fact, the Mishnah recommends using God's Name as a routine greeting to a fellow Jew. Berakhot 9:5. &lt;strong&gt;However, by the time of the Talmud, it was the custom to use substitute Names for God. Some rabbis asserted that a person who pronounces YHVH according to its letters&lt;/strong&gt; (instead of using a substitute) has no place in the World to Come, and &lt;strong&gt;should be put to death.&lt;/strong&gt; Instead of pronouncing the four-letter Name, we usually substitute the Name &amp;quot;Adonai,&amp;quot; or simply say &amp;quot;Ha-Shem&amp;quot; (lit. The Name).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(link, emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20080801/name-in-new-testament/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5028" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-12-15T03:46:17.140" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18598" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18591" CreationDate="2013-08-23T08:52:19.820" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was indeed very wise to use the 'title' LORD in all caps there as it follows on with the Jewish custom of not pronouncing the LORD's name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in retrospect it might have actually prevented the LORD's Holy name to be taken much more in vain as is sadly done these days to the title God and even the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus and His holy title Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name of the LORD is sometimes translated as LORD, GOD or the actual name JEHOVAH is written out depending on the appropriate situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where it is Adonai Jehovah, it would be senseless to translate it as Lord LORD. However it is thus translated as if it was Adonai Elohim, Lord GOD. Yet the actual Name of the LORD always appears in capital letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The KJV translators had much wisdom in this wonderful translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good article about the Name of the LORD:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lamblion.net/eBooks/Scott%20PDF/jehovah.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lamblion.net/eBooks/Scott%20PDF/jehovah.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://wayoflife.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Way of Life&quot;&gt;Way of Life's&lt;/a&gt; email circular:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The following report by Thomas Ross is re-published [in the email] by&#xA;  permission of the author.   The vowels of the Tetragrammaton, that is,&#xA;  Yehowah or Jehovah (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4) are&#xA;  not a late addition, but represent the original and true pronunciation&#xA;  of the profoundly significant  Divine Name.  The commonly repeated&#xA;  modern idea that the pronunciation Jehovah is a late and incorrect&#xA;  invention, while Yahweh is the true pronunciation of the Name, is&#xA;  false. No known Hebrew manuscript on earth contains the vocalization&#xA;  Yahweh. On the other hand, the form Jehovah is found in a variety of&#xA;  locations in the oldest Hebrew copies, such as the Aleppo codex and a&#xA;  variety of Biblical fragments dated between 700 and 900, as well as&#xA;  being the universal pointing in the Old Testament Textus Receptus.&#xA;  Jewish scholars such as Maimonides (1138-1204) affirmed that the&#xA;  Tetragrammaton was pronounced according to its letters as YeHoWaH.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Were, as the common modern notion affirms, the vowels of the Divine&#xA;  Name simply lifted from Adonai, the yod of the Tetragram would have a&#xA;  hateph pathach underneath it, not a shewa. Furthermore, all the names&#xA;  in Scripture that begin with portions of the Tetragrammaton possess&#xA;  the vowels of Jehovah, not of Yahweh.    If one wanted to maintain&#xA;  that the vocalization of God’s Name had been corrupted in Scripture,&#xA;  contrary to His declarations that nothing of the kind would happen&#xA;  (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 5:18), one would also need to maintain that&#xA;  every name in the Bible that begins with part of the Tetragrammaton&#xA;  has also been corrupted. Jehoadah would really be something like&#xA;  Yahwadah;  Jehoahaz would be Yahwahaz; Jehoash would be Yahwahash, and&#xA;  so on.    Furthermore, no theophoric names anywhere in Scripture end&#xA;  with an eh, the expected ending were the Name pronounced Yahweh.&#xA;  Similarly, the word Hallelujah and the Greek Alleluia validate the ah&#xA;  at the end of the Divine Name.    Furthermore, the Mishna states that&#xA;  the Name was pronounced as it was written, that is, as Jehovah.This&#xA;  pronunciation is also consistent with Talmudic evidence.    The plain&#xA;  facts concerning what the vowels on the Name actually are in the&#xA;  Hebrew text, other theophoric names, the Mishna, and a variety of&#xA;  other evidences demonstrate that the Tetragrammaton is correctly&#xA;  pronounced Jehovah.   In contrast to the strong evidence in favor of&#xA;  the pronunciation Jehovah, very little favors the pronunciation&#xA;  Yahweh. Since this latter pronunciation is not favored by any evidence&#xA;  in the Hebrew of the Bible, nor in other ancient Jewish documents, its&#xA;  advocates must look outside of Scripture and Jewish texts for evidence&#xA;  in its favor. This they find in the late patristic writers Theodoret&#xA;  and Epiphanius, who give Iabe as the pronunciation of the&#xA;  Tetragrammaton, although the former distinguishes this vocalization as&#xA;  the pronunciation of the Samaritans.    These statements constitute&#xA;  the most substantive and strongest argument in favor of the&#xA;  pronunciation Yahweh. Also, papyri involving pagan magic, and in which&#xA;  every possible and impossible designation of deities, Greek, Egyptian&#xA;  and Semitic, is found in profuse variety, contain invocations that&#xA;  sound like the word Yahweh.    To use the speculations of two&#xA;  patristic writers—one of whom even specifies that Yahweh was a&#xA;  Samaritan pronunciation, and that the Jews used something else—to&#xA;  overthrow the vocalization of the Name in the OT Textus Receptus,&#xA;  Jehovah, is entirely unjustifiable.    To use a name found in some&#xA;  pagan papyri that are invoking numberless idols and demons to reject&#xA;  Jehovah is even worse.    The evidence for the pronunciation Yahweh is&#xA;  very poor, and totally insufficient to overthrow the powerful and&#xA;  numerous evidences in favor of the pronunciation Jehovah.   Thus, it&#xA;  is evident that Jehovah is the correct pronunciation of the Name of&#xA;  God. Jehovah has not allowed the pronunciation of His Name to be lost.&#xA;  The error that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation of the Divine Name&#xA;  is connected to the error that only the consonants of the Hebrew text&#xA;  are inspired, while the vowels were invented by a class of Jewish&#xA;  scribes around the tenth century A. D.  On the contrary, Scripture and&#xA;  solid evidence demonstrates that the words of the Hebrew&#xA;  text—including the vowels—are inspired and were recorded by the&#xA;  Biblical authors.  Extensive evidence for the inspiration of the&#xA;  Hebrew vowels is provided in my essay “Evidences for the Inspiration&#xA;  of the Hebrew Vowel Points” in the Bibliology section of my website&#xA;  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/&lt;/a&gt;). The evidence for the&#xA;  pronunciation Jehovah above is a summary of Appendix 1 of the same&#xA;  essay on my website, where extensive documentation and a more detailed&#xA;  discussion is provided.  The question is also discussed in lecture #1&#xA;  of my class on Trinitarianism (&lt;a href=&quot;http://faithsaves.net/trinitarianism/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://faithsaves.net/trinitarianism/&lt;/a&gt;).&#xA;  My essay &quot;The Debate over the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points&quot;&#xA;  should also be mentioned.   Furthermore, the fact that Jehovah is the&#xA;  correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is one of a number of&#xA;  strong reasons to reject the critical Hebrew text (the Leningrad MS)&#xA;  underlying the generality of modern English Bible versions.  While the&#xA;  Old Testament Received Text that underlies the Authorized Version&#xA;  properly and fully vocalizes the Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew critical&#xA;  text corrupts the Divine Name by omitting one of its vowels in&#xA;  thousands of passages.  Other serious corruptions are also present in&#xA;  the Leningrad MS.   Finally, the King James Bible is found to be&#xA;  correct in its vocalization of the Divine Name as Jehovah, while it&#xA;  properly omits the modern fictitious pronunciation Yahweh.  God’s&#xA;  people should do the same, and call, not on Yahweh, but on the Triune&#xA;  Jehovah.   The previous report by Thomas Ross is re-published [in the&#xA;  email] by permission of the author.&#xA;      Distributed by Way of Life Literature Inc.’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and&#xA;  other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5405" LastEditorUserId="5405" LastEditDate="2013-08-23T14:00:51.420" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T14:00:51.420" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7026" CreationDate="2013-08-23T10:48:45.497" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament the people were healed of sickness and death. In Jesus we are healed of sickness and death. As long as people keep believing that we are healed from sin alone Gods people are going to continue to die of sicknesses. My people perish from a lack of Knowledge, God says. When we look at a cross section of the Church we see that there is just as much sickness as the world, just as much cancer, obesity, diabetes, you mane it. It is time we allow ourselves to profit from Jesus in this life not just the next.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5517" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T10:48:45.497" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17038" CreationDate="2013-08-23T11:40:40.750" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the article on Antinomianism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider what is the Etymological root of Antinomian, a Hebraic term used by Jesus Christ in the Epistles as a heinous sin.  (Matthew. 7:23) &quot;I never knew you; depart from me you that work‚ (Greek Strong # 458) ANTINOMIAN.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us peel off the theological bark and shine the spot light on this dogma to learn the bare truth of what Antinomianism is in the Greek Epistles (Strong # 458 Antanomia) what it really means.  Greek Strong # 458 Antanomia i.e. Anomia, meaning Antinomian i.e. Antinomianism.  As Jesus and others spoke about Antinomianism again occurs 16 times in the Epistles all as a public rebuke of sinful wickedness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just look at one (Matthew. 7: 21-23) Who are those that find themselves expelled by Jesus.? ? ?  Who are these people? ? ?  The Antinomians being talked about here that call Jesus “Lord” and even do good works in His name.  These are church Antinomians involved in church activities.  They expect to inherit eternal salvation, nevertheless find themselves expelled by Jesus from salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Greek one can use a singular “A” prefix letter to abbreviate for “no,” “not,” “without” and “ANTI.”  “A” prefix letter attached to a Greek word gives the word a negative meaning, just as “A” prefix letter attached to English words as Amoral, Atheist, etc.  The disposition exhibit in the meaning of this word is that those who consider themselves as antinomian are against IE anarchists of God’s Law, Scripture Law is the (Greek Strong's # 3551 NOMOS.)  Antinomianism is antithetical to God's scripture sovereignty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Lev. 4:2) express this reprimanded sin as “Against the Commandments of Yahweh.” or Anti-commandments.  The Torah (Hebrew Strong's # 8451) meaning scripture Law, is interchangeable with the (Greek Strong's # 3551 NOMOS) and the Greek NOMOS, is the word used by the translators of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word Torah.  As used in (Hosea. 8:1) “They transgressed My covenant and transgressed against My law.”  As Hosea express, Against Yahweh Covenant and Torah, is coined by the word Antinomian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Antinomian” has been alternative form of expression for over two millennia meaning against the scripture Lawgiver and His Law.  It’s from the term in the Epistles {Greek Strong # 458 Antanomia i.e. Anomia.}  (Heb. 1:9) “Love righteousness and hate (G Strong # 458) ANTINOMIAN.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5518" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T11:40:40.750" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18605" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18596" CreationDate="2013-08-23T16:18:39.370" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholicism doesn't currently set a specific age at which First Communion is taken.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04170b.htm3&quot;&gt;The New Advent article on Communion of Children&lt;/a&gt; says this (Emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has&#xA;  been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was&#xA;  afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent.&#xA;  According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the&#xA;  Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but&#xA;  when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this&#xA;  sacrament. When may they be said to have attained the age of&#xA;  discretion? &lt;strong&gt;In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase&#xA;  means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather&#xA;  the arrival at a certain stage in mental development&lt;/strong&gt;, when children&#xA;  become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize&#xA;  in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the&#xA;  Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the&#xA;  sacramental veils. De Lugo (De Euch., disp. xiii, n. 36, Ben. XIV, De&#xA;  Syn., vii) says that if children are observed to assist at Mass with&#xA;  devotion and attention it is a sign that they are come to this&#xA;  discretion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The source of this is a decree, issued in 1910, named &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12590b.htm&quot;&gt;Quam Singulari&lt;/a&gt; addressed baptism of children.  Included in the section of the linked article titled &quot;Conditions for first confession and first communion&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before we get into what the new Advent article states, it appears that some Priests mistakenly believe that the Quam Singulari Decree gives seven as an exact age.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_7874_l3.htm&quot;&gt;Example here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The age of discretion, which applies equally to both sacraments. This may be judged (1) by the first indication of the child using its reasoning powers; (2) by the child knowing what is right from wrong. No determined age is placed as a condition; the age of seven is mentioned because the majority of children arrive at the years of discretion, that is, begin to reason, about this period, some sooner, some later.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A knowledge such as a child just beginning to reason can have about one God, Who rewards the good and punishes the wicked, and about the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is not necessary that the child should commit to memory accurate theological definitions, which may convey no idea to the little mind just beginning to unfold.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A child must be able to distinguish the Eucharistic from the common bread; that is, to know that what looks like bread is not bread, but contains the real, living Body and Blood of Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Children should be taught to receive Holy Communion devoutly.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Children should be instructed on the necessity of being in the state of grace and of having a good intention, also of fasting from midnight before Communion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The actual text of the Quam Singulari Decree can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  The section in which seven year-olds are mentioned reads as follows (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The principal interpreters of the Lateran Council and contemporaries&#xA;  of that period had the same teaching concerning this Decree. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The&#xA;  history of the Church reveals that a number of synods and episcopal&#xA;  decrees beginning with the twelfth century, shortly after the Lateran&#xA;  Council, admitted children of seven years of age to First Communion.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  There is moreover the word of St. Thomas Aquinas, who is an authority&#xA;  of the highest order, which reads: &quot;When children begin to have some&#xA;  use of reason, so that they can conceive a devotion toward this&#xA;  Sacrament (the Eucharist), then this Sacrament can be given to them.&quot;6&#xA;  Ledesma thus explains these words: &quot;I say, in accord with common&#xA;  opinion, that the Eucharist is to be given to all who have the use of&#xA;  reason, and just as soon as they attain the use of reason, even though&#xA;  at the time the child may have only a confused notion of what he is&#xA;  doing.&quot; Vasquez comments on the same words of St. Thomas as follows:&#xA;  &quot;When a child has once arrived at the use of reason he is immediately&#xA;  bound by the divine law from which not even the Church can dispense&#xA;  him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Using the above, we could say that the tradition started out in the twelfth century with some synods and decrees, which were later corrected by the Quam Singulari Decree.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That answers when it starts, but if seven is no longer a proscribed age, why is it so common now?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest answer I could find was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.holyfirstcommunion.com/first-communion-age.html&quot;&gt;this article from holyfirstcommunion.com&lt;/a&gt; .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You may be wondering, &quot;what is the proper First Communion age&quot;?.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Well, I hesitate to put an exact age here.  Requirements can literally&#xA;  vary from church to church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A general answer is that the children are usually age 7 or 8.  Some&#xA;  churches say at least second grade.  Some churches say after one year&#xA;  of formal religious education.  And I found one website that said they&#xA;  had no requirements as it is about God's grace and they were no longer&#xA;  going to base receiving First Communion on merit!  So,  when you are&#xA;  looking to find out the right First Communion age for your child,&#xA;  contact your specific church for their requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this, it appears that the age of seven is a common age, but not one that is dictated.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Admittedly, this next is at best, an educated guess, but it seems to me that, for the sake of convenience, a Church, or a diocese would settle on a simple, easy to remember common age that would serve as a &quot;rule of thumb&quot;.  When a child reaches this age or school grade level, he or she is likely to have reached the age of accountability.  This would make it much simpler to organize classes in the Church to provide the necessary training, education, and preparation in a group/class setting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going beyond this, it is relatively clear, simply from some Google searches that seven is a very common age, even if it's not a dictated age, set in stone.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ehow.com/info_8166378_first-7-year-old-boy.html&quot;&gt;E-How.com has a gift guide specific to giving a seven year old boy a meaningful First communion gift&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-08-23T17:01:05.817" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T17:01:05.817" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12588" CreationDate="2013-08-23T16:43:19.640" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;for the sound of bells to carry over the tops of buildings, the bells had to be higher than surrounding buildings.  Bells were used not only before church service, but also to notify people of emergencies, such as fires.  The buildings were regularly used as a town meeting place, as well, not like today where they are often locked except on Sunday mornings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5520" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T16:43:19.640" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1942" CreationDate="2013-08-23T18:09:02.690" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mysticism tries to bring oneself to a union and awareness of and with God. It teaches you to believe (or understand) that you and God are one, that God is in you and you in Him, and to realize (or be aware of, is the better term) the presence of Him is in and of everything in the universe. Your consciousness (or spirit, soul) comes from the Life Force that is God, (but don't think of God as just a &quot;Life Force&quot;, that's not Him at all, you watch too many movies) which means that makes everything living, a part of Him. Everything in the Material world and Spiritual world is of God. Mysticism also teaches that God did make man in the image and likeness of Himself. Meaning, He has the same human characteristics as we do, but infinitely more so. He has love, compassion, warmth, humor, irony- things you'd only think you'd see in a human being. But that is what makes humans so special, because we are literally the image of God. He is the Original Soul, The Being that always Was, always Is, and always Will be. Just like the souls you and I have. He laughs and makes jokes, He can feel, He thinks, He's infinitely creative, everything humans can do He can do infinitely greater. Don't think of Him as separate or different from you, He is exactly like you, only Perfect in Goodness (His Will Is only Good). This is why He so loves us and always has compassion for us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mysticism only tries to help you realize this concept that people have forgotten. Its the basis for life. Its in Scripture. It does state we are the Image of The Living God, we do have the same qualities as Him, He does infinitely love us, and we are a part of Him. It states that He is everywhere, in everything and of everything. It states that He is The Alpha and The Omega, The Beginning and The End, The First and The Last. He knows what we do, what we see, what we think, what we hear, what we take to heart, what we ignore in our hearts. Nothing is hidden from God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The definition of Mysticism is really misunderstood. Yes, you probably shouldn't go so far into it if you don't want to, because you don't know what you might get into. But I'm telling you the parts and concepts of it that aren't bad, and are encouraged in the Bible. If you'd like, you can meditate, whether silently outdoors, or indoors while reading the Word. Meditation on the Word is appropriate, and is what you do every time you read the Word. You read it, understand it, take it in, and maybe believe in it. Meditation outdoors just brings you back to reality that you live in this huge vast never ending universe. You smell the fresh air, the birds chirping, the bees buzzing (unless it's winter), the feel of grass (or if you live in the desert, dirt), the beautiful sky (whether its blue or gray, God made it beautiful) the wind blowing in your ears and on your face. This is all meditation is, and it brings such a peace to you that you won't imagine. It silences all your thoughts, and brings you to reality that all is well, and you are alive, and there's a God who loves you and will never ever stop. It shows you what truly matters in life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, that's all mysticism is. Just trying to have you know God more. At least, that's my take on it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: I encourage reading the book, &quot;Proof Of Heaven&quot;, by Eben Alexander. It's a #1 New York Times Best Seller and definitely worth the read. You might learn things that you've never understood before about the spirit, the spirit world, the physical world, and even the brain (how it doesn't produce consciousness, unlike opposite theories of other scientists). God Bless! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5522" LastEditorUserId="5522" LastEditDate="2013-08-23T18:16:59.297" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T18:16:59.297" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18610" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18613" CreationDate="2013-08-23T18:59:31.633" Score="2" ViewCount="372" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to this map:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/S0oRW.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Religion of Members of the US House of Representatives&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the predominant religion of a given region is usually more or less close to that of the Member of Congress who represents it.  Wisconsin and the Northeast are heavily Catholic (Svidgen, Peter Turner, I know you vote!), the South is basically Baptist, and Utah, shocker, is all Mormon.  What intrigues me, however, is the big bunch of white in the Great Plains - specificially the Dakotas and Nebraska. Grant you, these are At-Large districts, but I'm still wondering what &quot;Other Christian&quot; would be there.  What is the stated relgiion of the members from the Dakotas and Nebraska?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T23:27:52.843" Title="What is the dominant &quot;Other Christianity&quot; of the Members of the US Congress from the Dakotas?" Tags="&lt;united-states&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-09-07T08:10:00.837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18611" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18612" CreationDate="2013-08-23T19:31:26.857" Score="2" ViewCount="547" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 1:25 reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%201&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 1 &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;25&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Paul believed that God was omniscient and omnipotent I find his word choices quite odd. How can an omniscient God have any foolishness? Would not all His thoughts and actions be equally founded in Wisdom of the highest level? Likewise, how can an omnipotent God have any weakness? Would not all His abilities carry the same weight of the Almighty God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So for those that hold the doctrines that God is omnipotent and omniscient how do they explain what this verse implies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-08-25T23:24:54.250" Title="How do those who hold doctrines that God is omnipotent and omniscient answer what 1 Corinthians 1:25 implies?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;omnipotence&gt;&lt;omniscience&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18612" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18611" CreationDate="2013-08-23T20:15:35.007" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Looking at the context, one can see that the weakness and foolishness are &lt;em&gt;seemingly&lt;/em&gt; so from a perspective of Jews (for whom the weakness of the cross is a stumbling block--this seems to be implied in the mocking presented by the chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law in Matthew 27:41-43, that God would express his power by physically saving his servant) or Greeks (for whom the cross seems foolish).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:21-24, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be further seen by how Paul goes on to explain that God chose the weak and foolish things in the world to shame the strong and the wise of this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The comparison is between the weakest and most foolish seeming thing--the Messiah crucified (which even Peter, after years of being a student of the Messiah, rejected as weak and foolish)--is greater than any worldly (or even diabolical) strength or wisdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T20:15:35.007" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18610" CreationDate="2013-08-23T23:27:52.843" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to my obsessive Googling, these three representatives are Evangelical or Pentecostal. This makes some sense, given that neither category is listed separately in the map key. If they followed their state demographics, they'd be more likely to be Lutheran or Catholic, but just because they're Representatives doesn't mean they're representative in all ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;North Dakota: Rep. Kevin Cramer&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cramer's background is Lutheran, &quot;[b]ut he soon found his politics and philosophy to be too conservative for the church&quot;; his religious affiliation is given by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/north-dakota-at-large-house-district-20121101&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;National Journal (1 November 2012)&lt;/a&gt; as &quot;Evangelical Christian&quot;. A comment on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greatplainsexaminer.com/2012/04/25/infocus-with-u-s-house-candidate-kevin-cramer/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;an article in the Great Plains Examiner (25 April 2012)&lt;/a&gt; says &quot;Cramer is a very active member of New Song church in Bismarck&quot;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newsongbismarck.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Song Church&lt;/a&gt; is affiliated with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.foursquare.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (ICFG)&lt;/a&gt;, an evangelical Pentecostal denomination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;South Dakota: Rep. Kristi Noem&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some blogs (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2012/10/sister-aimee-is-that-kristi-noem-waggin-her-tongues-guest-poster/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2012/10/what-is-foursquares-effect-on-the-sd-political-scene/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2010/08/oh-those-vague-south-dakota-values/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://madvilletimes.blogspot.com/2010/10/noem-not-paying-attention-at-church.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;4&lt;/a&gt;) report that Noem is a member of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fwcsd.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Family Worship Center Foursquare Church&lt;/a&gt; (possibly dead link) in her hometown of Watertown, SD. This is also an ICFG church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Nebraska, 3rd district: Rep. Adrian Smith&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.necitizen.com/races/3rd.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this 2006 page&lt;/a&gt;, Adrian Smith was affiliated with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calvarygering.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Calvary Memorial Church&lt;/a&gt; in Gering, NE. This church is part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.efca.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Evangelical Free Church of America&lt;/a&gt;. On 15 July 2009, Smith &lt;a href=&quot;http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/display_gc.html?id=1041&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;introduced its pastor, Rev. Gary Hashley, to be a guest chaplain of the US House&lt;/a&gt;. Later, on 14 March 2013, &lt;a href=&quot;http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/display_gc.html?id=1915&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;he did the same for Rev. Dr. Ezekiel Pipher&lt;/a&gt;, who is senior pastor of another EFCA church, &lt;a href=&quot;http://heartlandefc.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Heartland Evangelical Free Church&lt;/a&gt; of Central City, NE. Buzzfeed (see below) categorize him under EFC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;&quot;Other Christian&quot; generally&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/us-house-of-representatives-members-religion&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;list form&lt;/a&gt; of the Buzzfeed map says exactly who they categorized as &quot;Other Christian&quot;, with several subcategories. In summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Assemblies of God (2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christian (11, including Cramer and Noem)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christian Reformed (1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Christian Scientist (2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Congregationalist (4)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Churches of Christ (2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Church of God (1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Disciples of Christ (1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eastern Orthodox (5)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Evangelical Free Church (2, including Smith)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fellowship of Evangelical Churches (1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nazarene (1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Non-denominational Christian (3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentecostal (1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Protestant (10)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Quaker (1)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Seventh-Day Adventist (2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;United Brethren (2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unspecified Christian (5)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from the three already mentioned, the other &quot;Other&quot; representative in the same general area is Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota's 6th district. Buzzfeed classifies her as generic Christian. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/us/politics/17bachmann.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reportedly&lt;/a&gt;, she attends &lt;a href=&quot;http://eaglebrookchurch.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eagle Brook Church&lt;/a&gt;, an evangelical megachurch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-08-23T23:27:52.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18465" CreationDate="2013-08-24T00:15:48.057" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is much negative information on the internet on this subject making it very difficult to earnestly study it and where the belief that the Archangel Michael is Jesus Christ originated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Jehovah's Witnesses surely inherrited it from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Charles Taze Russell&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, the founder of the movement that led to the formulation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He equates Michael with Christ in one of Daniel's prophecies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ia600308.us.archive.org/10/items/WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofPennsylvaniaWatchTowerpubs_0/wtclassic/pubs_1870-1960/1889_Studies_in_the_Scriptures_2.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Time is at Hand Page 145 - Written 1889&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The same events are referred to in Daniel’s prophecy: “And at that time shall Michael [Christ] stand up ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Russell doesn't plainly say &quot;Michael is Jesus&quot; but I think his use of brackets implies it well enough that it was a position he held or was considering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Seventh Day Adventists surely inherrited this bit of theology from &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ellen G. White&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, their prophetess, whom they hold in high regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She plainly states in several of her writings that Michael is Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whiteestate.org/books/pp/ppappendix.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patriarchs and Prophets Page 761 - Written 1890&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Again: Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave His revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord's host, Michael the Archangel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whiteestate.org/books/da/da10.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Desire of Ages Page 99 - Written 1898&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The words of the angel, &quot;I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,&quot; show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, &quot;There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whiteestate.org/books/pk/pk46.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Prophets and Kings Page 572 - Written 1917&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For three weeks Gabriel wrestled with the powers of darkness, seeking to counteract the influences at work on the mind of Cyrus; and before the contest closed, Christ Himself came to Gabriel's aid. &quot;The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days,&quot; Gabriel declares; &quot;but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Neither White nor Russell were the first to say this.&lt;/strong&gt; There is much disinformation claiming that the concept is an old &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Arian&lt;/a&gt; doctrine, however, there is no evidence for that in the history books, and I can find no evidence that it predates the 18th century, though you found John Calvin discussing it in the 16th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The oldest source I can find on this subject is &quot;The Glory of Christ as God-Man&quot; by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_watts#Other_works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaac Watts&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt; The linked source below was printed in 1795, but Watts died in 1748, so he clearly penned it earlier than 1748. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When examining the story of Daniel in the Lion's Den, Watts suggests it as a possibility that the Archangel Michael is Christ on page 223&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/gloryofchristasg00watt#page/222/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Glory of Christ as God-Man Page 223 - Written before 1748 from an edition printed 1795&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And may not Christ himself be this Michael the Arch-angel, the Prince of Israel? It has been observed by some writers, that the scripture never speaks of arch-angels in the plural number; perhaps there is but one arch-angel and that is Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, in a footnote on page 224, Watts notes that some think that the angel that appeared to Daniel was not Gabriel, but was Christ. Also interesting, Watts does not seem to be giving his own theology, but parroting what he has read or heard elsewhere. The fact that John Calvin was discussing it 200 years earlier is evidence of that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Moving on with another, pre-White, pre-Russell source ...&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A man named William Kinkade wrote &quot;The Bible doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, atonement, faith, and election&quot; in 1829, predating White and Russell by over 50 years. I cannot find any information on this particular man except that he wrote this book. In it, he dedicates an entire chapter to Michael and Jesus and the theology that they are the same person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archive.org/stream/bibledoctrineofg00kink#page/152/mode/2up/search/michael&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Bible doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, atonement, faith, and election Page 153 - Written 1829&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To me this evidence proves beyond resonable dispute, that Michael is one of the names of Christ; because if the Church is the seat of this war, and if Christ is the Captain of our salvation, and the leader of his people, he must be the person who is here mentioned under the name of Michael.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kinkade is not the only person of this time to hold this view, he claims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ibid Page 152&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I am not alone in this opinion; most of the principal writers of the Trinitarian school have advocated the same doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kinkade goes on to mention more than a few sources that support his theology. Here are some that go beyond calling Jesus an Angel and actually call Jesus and Michael the same person, according to Kinkade [the numbers are mine, but the text is Kinkade's]:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ibid Page 152 and 153&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(theologian)#Works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Brown’s dictionary of the Bible&lt;/a&gt; on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the archangel.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Woods Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown’s does.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/newconcordanceto00butt#page/n3/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Butterworth&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/crudensconcordan00crudrich#page/n3/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Cruden&lt;/a&gt;, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Guyse#Works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Guyse&lt;/a&gt; in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/practicalexposit05guys#page/n5/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Paraphrase on the New Testament&lt;/a&gt;, on Rev. 12:7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Doctor Watts in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/gloryofchristasg00watt#page/n5/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Glories of Christ&lt;/a&gt;, pp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/gloryofchristasg00watt#page/200/mode/2up/search/angel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;200-202&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/gloryofchristasg00watt#page/218/mode/2up/search/angel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;218&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/gloryofchristasg00watt#page/222/mode/2up/search/angel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;223&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/gloryofchristasg00watt#page/224/mode/2up/search/angel&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;224&lt;/a&gt;, teaches the same doctrine.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Thomas Scott, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/a608285500scotuoft#page/n5/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;his notes on the Bible&lt;/a&gt; ... asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The numbers below are for a brief description on the above sources listed by Kinkaid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wikipedia's article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(theologian)#Works&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Brown&lt;/a&gt; lists his dictionary as first in print in 1769 and having numerous editions through 1868. &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/ahistoricaldict00browgoog#page/n8/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This&lt;/a&gt; is the earliest edition I could find dated 1866. There is really no way of knowing which edition Kinkade was referring to.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I cannot find a &quot;Spiritual Dictionary&quot; written by someone named &quot;Wood&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John Butterworth's Concordance is from 1812. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruden&amp;#39;s_Concordance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Curden's Condordance&lt;/a&gt;, written by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Cruden#Concordance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Alexander Cruden&lt;/a&gt; is around 1849. The edition that Kinkade used could be any one of many. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_(dissenting_preacher)#Works_and_views&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John's Taylor&lt;/a&gt;'s concordance is an Hebrew concordance. I cannot find an online source.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Guyse's paraphrase is in several volumes and the one linked does not seem to contain the related parts (Revelation). Wikipedia lists the dates for the volumes as 1739-52.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Isaac Watts was quoted above as the earliest source found. He had a desire to bring the Church to an Arian view, which may be the reason that there is confusion that the &quot;Michael is Jesus&quot; perspective was originally an Arian perspective.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Scott_(commentator)#Publications&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Thomas Scott&lt;/a&gt; began writing his commentary (or notes, as Kinkade called them) in 1788. Searching the source linked does not reveal anything mentioning Michael. It may be the wrong source, or perhaps his notes on that subject have not survived.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now whether White or Russell learned this theology from Kinkade or another source is unknown. We do know that both were very well read so they may have learned if from any of them. They also may have independently conceived it, though I doubt it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Observations on the development of this theology&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Calvin in the 16th century mentions that &quot;some think&quot; Michael is Jesus then discusses it a bit further, but he clearly denies to hold that theology himself and further notes that it &quot;is not generally admitted.&quot; Watts is also careful to flatly claim it as his own theology, but is clearly not hesitant to discuss it at length. It is not until the 19th century that various theologians began claiming it as their personal belief, while discussing it, and sometimes, in the case of Kinkade and White, even preaching it to convince their readers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what are we to make of this? The only option that makes sense is that no prominent theologian was willing to discuss this idea until Calvin, though he wrote at a time when &quot;heretics&quot; were still being burned. Before Calvin, I suspect it was something that insignificant or amateur theologians discussed quietly among themselves to avoid persecution and accusations. But, slowly, as the Catholic church lost its grip on the stately matters of its Church-State, theologians holding this view came out of the shadows, no longer fearing persecution for the implications that this theology makes on the nature and divinity of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this still leaves the original question: Where did this theology originate? As it sits now, we do not know. But by my reasoning above it surely originated before Calvin, must have been somewhat known among theological circles, but quietly discussed, and was not openly professed until the 19th century. Because we cannot find any other theologians before Calvin mentioning it, or even the Catholic Church condemning it, I find it difficult to believe that it would remain a quiet or secret matter for more that 200 years before Calvin. I reserve the right, however, for the history books to disprove me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that the earliest surviving work to mention this subject is from the early 16th century. It does seem quite possible, however, that less popular theologians were teaching that the Archangel Michael is Jesus Christ before that time. Though, possible, however, the only evidence is Calvin's word that &quot;some think&quot;. Even today, the belief is not common among Christians and is considered exclusive to non-trinitarian sects, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, but this is not true, Seventh Day Adventists being classic trinitarians. These two groups together, make a meager 25 million persons among the billion plus Christian population.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notes on the differences that JW's and SDA's look at this bit of theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Witnesses would say that Michael is Jesus to support their belief that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but rather a god, and He has manifested Himself under the name Michael at times. To the Witness, they cannot reconcile Michael and Jesus being the same person and Jesus being the eternal God. Adventists can and do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adventists (I use this term to mean the modern SDA's) are classic trinitarians. They do, in fact, believe in the full divinity of Christ (though there is some evidence that there progenitors did not). And at the same time they believe that Michael the Archangel is actually Jesus Christ under a different name. They see no reason that the view that Michael is Jesus should affect the divinity of Christ.I have written more on this and much more on Adventists in general here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16239/what-are-the-main-differences-between-7th-day-adventists-and-catholic-protestan/16250#16250&quot;&gt;What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel compelled to give some credit to &lt;a href=&quot;http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-jesus-christ-michael-archangel.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this blog post&lt;/a&gt;. Without it I would not have found Kinkade's work, which means I would not have found Watts' work either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T18:19:15.193" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18615" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-24T00:29:58.953" Score="-1" ViewCount="432" Body="&lt;p&gt;If someone is saved, and they may have mistakenly or unknowingly committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is his/her salvation in question? Is he/her no longer saved or welcomed in the kingdom of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask this because blasphemy is the only sin that is unforgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 3:29 - &quot;But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5513" LastActivityDate="2013-08-24T05:14:23.563" Title="Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-08-24T05:12:44.197" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18531" CreationDate="2013-08-24T00:39:54.850" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The comments are quite right about an LDS viewpoint being that it hasn't been revealed yet as doctrine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However your question is asking how God exists or when the beginning of everything was. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is you are asking an infinite question with only the capability of a finite mind. Joseph Smith attempted to help our finite minds understand that of eternal or infinite aspects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man-the&#xA;  immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two;&#xA;  then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it&#xA;  continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man.&quot; - Joseph&#xA;  Smith, Teachings of Joseph Smith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way to think of it is that there are levels of science that we don't understand, elements of physics yet to be discovered that is above our physical capabilities in this current state. I know that doesn't give you a concrete answer but hopefully it helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5497" LastActivityDate="2013-08-24T00:39:54.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18615" CreationDate="2013-08-24T01:08:39.147" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit is not something you would do unknowingly or mistakenly. To blaspheme against The Holy Spirit you must know that He exists, as did the Apostles. Being saved isn't the bar for this it is a knowledge much greater than that it is to know as if you had seen it with your own eyes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be like Cain who lied to God and knew he was God, you must commit the sin with full knowledge of what you are doing and you do it on purpose with your own agency.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5497" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-08-24T05:14:23.563" LastActivityDate="2013-08-24T05:14:23.563" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18429" CreationDate="2013-08-24T05:15:47.560" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prayer has never been and never will be an act only reserved for Christians. It takes its form in almost every religious belief system on the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While prayer is not unique to a religion or restricted, the problems arise with people misunderstanding prayers on behalf of others. (ie. Pr. Benke) In his specific religious sect he was praying not just for himself but for all the people in the stadium therefore speaking in the name of Christ for people who possibly did not believe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically and scripturally there is nothing strictly against this specific act, but as we are aware religious sects interpret scripture and meaning differently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case you have people who are most likely looking at prayer as an earned rite for the believers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more specifics I would hope someone of that particular sect of christianity may help. But there is not canonical scriptural evidence backing the aforementioned actions in plain understanding of the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5497" LastActivityDate="2013-08-24T05:15:47.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18611" CreationDate="2013-08-24T07:39:32.807" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two possible explanations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. God appears foolish to men:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:25&amp;amp;version=NLV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 Corinthians 1:25 (New Life Version )&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God’s plan looked foolish to men, but it is wiser than the best plans&#xA;  of men. God’s plan which&#xA;  may look weak is stronger than the strongest plans of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The very idea that we are all sinners and God Himself had to come down to earth in human form to die for our sins is foolishness to those who do not want to accept it. For example, Islam explicitly states that God will never take the form of human and the idea of God dying on the cross is foolishness. That's what exactly Paul said in verse 18, &quot;&lt;em&gt;For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God&lt;/em&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Metaphorical comparison of God and men:&lt;/strong&gt; This verse may be read as follows - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even if a slightly foolishness is found in God, it is still wiser than the highest&#xA;  wisdom of men. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even if a slightly weakness is found in God, it is still stronger than the strongest of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-08-24T07:50:23.193" LastActivityDate="2013-08-24T07:50:23.193" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18624" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-24T15:47:58.887" Score="3" ViewCount="7808" Body="&lt;p&gt;Suppose one was to believe God exists and God gave us free will, and that God punishes those people who sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God gives us free will, why punish those that exercise their free will in a certain way? If God has given us free will, why does God punish those who choose to sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why give us free will, if we are going to be punished for &quot;not following God's commands and will for us&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3809" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T15:47:06.213" Title="Why does God punish people?" Tags="&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-08-26T19:35:45.603" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18625" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-24T17:08:50.693" Score="5" ViewCount="878" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read that the Latter-day Saints believe in Muhammad as prophet. How true is this and what does it mean for them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3812" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2015-10-09T12:25:25.947" LastActivityDate="2015-10-09T12:25:25.947" Title="Do Latter-day Saints believe Muhammad is a prophet?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;islam&gt;&lt;prophets&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18625" CreationDate="2013-08-24T17:48:09.577" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Latter-day Saints respect the beliefs of others, they don't revere or recognize Muhammad as a prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In LDS history, the first prophet in our dispensation (a consecutive period of time where the gospel is on the earth and revealed, or &quot;dispensed,&quot; through prophets) was Joseph Smith. Before that, the last prophet we have record of is Moroni, son of Mormon, who compiled The Book of Mormon. That was about 421 A.D, well before Muhammad's time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="1003" LastEditDate="2013-08-26T13:56:01.563" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T13:56:01.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17635" CreationDate="2013-08-24T21:21:54.117" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Below is a list of some widely used translations that were funded by particular denominations. This list does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; imply that they were originally (or currently) intended to be utilized only by their parent denomination (with the exception of the New World Translation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Catholic&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Douai-Rheims&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Confraternity Bible&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jerusalem Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Jerusalem Bible&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New American Bible&lt;/a&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Anglican&lt;/em&gt; – &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christian Reformed Church&lt;/em&gt; – &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New International Version (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lutheran&lt;/em&gt; – &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Word_Translation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God’s Word Bible&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Southern Baptist&lt;/em&gt; – &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCSB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jehovah’s Witnesses&lt;/em&gt; – &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New World Translation (NWT)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ROMAN CATHOLICISM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) is the only English text currently approved by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)&lt;/a&gt; for use in the United States.  It is the text found in all  current Lectionaries in the U.S. The Holy See accepted some use of inclusive language,  where the speaker/author intended a mixed audience (e.g. &quot;brothers and sisters&quot;, instead of the older &quot;brethren&quot;), but rejected it in references to God or Christ, and man, where the word has anthropological and theological significance (e.g. Psalm 1:1, with reference to Adam and Christ). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;USCCB states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American&#xA;  Bible is the only English-language Lectionary that may be used at Mass&#xA;  in the dioceses of the United States, except for the current&#xA;  Lectionary for Masses with Children which remains in use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The 1970 edition of the New American Bible is used in the Scripture&#xA;  readings and canticles of the Liturgy of the Hours (except the&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Benedictus&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Magnificat&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;Nunc dimittis&lt;/em&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that the USCCB approves of other translations for personal devotion and study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;APPROVED TRANSLATIONS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PROTESTANTISM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Considering the fact that there are over &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denominations_self-identified_as_Christian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;40,000&lt;/a&gt; different Protestant denominations and sects currently in existence, it is practically impossible to narrow down the answer to your question with specific accuracy. We can, perhaps, pin things down into 4 main reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Tradition – This especially applies to the King James Version.  The KJV was the only English translation accepted by Protestants for almost 400 years.  Virtually the entire North East United States was founded by settlers carrying the KJV under their arms. Children were educated and sermons were preached almost exclusively from the KJV for the first 200 years of settlement in New England. The tradition of using the KJV translation trickled down through the various branches of Protestantism from generation to generation as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denominationalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;denominationalism&lt;/a&gt; exponentially flourished.  Most conservative Protestant Christians today tend to be raised with a more “traditional” disposition and are taught from a young age that the KJV is the only orthodox translation.  “If it’s good enough for Grandfather, then it’s good enough for me.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Understandability – The main reason why newer translations (i. e. NIV, NKJV, HCSB) came into existence was to replace Early Modern English with today’s English, replacing “thou at saved” with “you are saved.” The King James Version was produced in the Elizabethan period of Early Modern English, and so it uses forms of the verbs and pronouns that were characteristic of that period. The newer translations make it easier to read and understand, especially for younger generations. This can easily be demonstrated by having a 13 year old read a chapter of Leviticus in front of a congregation using a KJV Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Inclusiveness – Translations that employ inclusive language use language that avoids the use of certain expressions or words that might be considered to exclude particular groups of people, especially gender-specific words, such as &quot;man,&quot;&quot;mankind,&quot; and masculine pronouns, the use of which might be considered to exclude women. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Private interpretation – There is one &lt;em&gt;overarching&lt;/em&gt; characteristic of all translations that determines whether or not it is to be utilized or shunned. It is the fact that &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt; translation contains any passages to be translated that remotely resembles any sort of commanding directive as to &lt;em&gt;which&lt;/em&gt; translation should be utilized or shunned. The Bible doesn't explicitly dictate how it should be translated. Although certain denominations strongly suggest the use of a particular translation, it is not left to the denominational leadership to decide. The Bible is the final authority within Protestantism. Therefore, in a world of private interpretation, it is ultimately the subjective opinion of the individual that decides which translation should be used.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-09-18T19:31:14.293" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T19:31:14.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18624" CreationDate="2013-08-25T04:26:23.313" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly God's punishment is being held until the judgment due to the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly our free will is given to allow us to make our own choices so that God will know at the judgement bar who loved him and who did not as John 14:15 says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If ye love me, keep my commandments.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just because we can choose doesn't mean there are no consequences of our choices. The commandments were given not to restrict us but to free us from sin and if followed will lead to a better and happier existence here on earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5497" LastActivityDate="2013-08-25T04:26:23.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18200" CreationDate="2013-08-25T04:43:10.907" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;CS Lewis keeps calling the joy of the ressurection 'infinite joy'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since he is referring to the resurrection and mostly likely is pairing that term with salvation we would have 'infinite joy'. Because all will be resurrected Good or Evil &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 5:29 -&#xA;  And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the&#xA;  resurrection of damnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Job 19:26 - And though after my skin worms destroy this abody, yet in&#xA;  my flesh shall I see God:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Resurrection is a inseparable union between the spirit and the body forever. Thus CS Lewis understanding realized that if a person attains salvation and is resurrected he will have 'Joy' because he is in the presence of God and he will be 'infinite' because he is immortal and cannot die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5497" LastActivityDate="2013-08-25T04:43:10.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18635" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18611" CreationDate="2013-08-25T06:23:06.727" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This verse is an excellent example of how certain elements of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally.  St. Paul is using metaphorical language to convey the paradox of the Cross.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is crucial to look at the broader context of this verse in order to correctly deduce what St Paul is teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the connection between verse 25 and verses 18-21:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,&#xA;  but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is&#xA;  written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of&#xA;  the learned I will set aside.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of&#xA;  this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since&#xA;  in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through&#xA;  wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the&#xA;  proclamation to save those who have faith. (&lt;em&gt;1 Cor. 1:18-21&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Paul is catechizing the young Corinthian church in order to prepare them to effectively evangelize the pagan Greeks. We read in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts Chapter 17&lt;/a&gt; that St. Paul had addressed the Athenians at the Areopagus who were worshiping an “unknown God. “  The Greek philosophers of St. Paul’s day were very proud of their level of philosophical logic and reasoning, and were considered to be extremely “wise.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most effective ways to evangelize is to meet people where they are and lead them to where they need to be, which is Christ.  St. Paul knew this, and was good at it. He was writing to the Corinthians in order to prepare them to go out and evangelize Corinth and the surrounding area. He was teaching that the Greeks would initially perceive the paradox of the Cross as at best foolishness, and at worst insanity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The paradox of the Cross is, that in the eyes of the world, Christ's crucifixion symbolizes impotence and absurdity.  Why would an omnipotent God allow himself to be brutally beaten and nailed to the worst torture device that was ever invented by the Romans?  To the “wisest” of Greek philosophers this God would be absolutely &lt;em&gt;foolish&lt;/em&gt; to do so. Perhaps the Greeks in Corinth would say about Christians, “These Christians are &lt;em&gt;fools&lt;/em&gt; to  believe in a defeated God – a God that couldn't even save himself from being &lt;em&gt;crucified&lt;/em&gt;!” These insults were hurled at Jesus as he hung suffering on the Cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the Corinthian Christians knew, as we do today, that when they received the Holy Spirit their entire world view was divinely changed.  The worldly scales had been removed from their eyes,  whether they were rich, poor, educated, or uneducated. They were infused with heavenly wisdom that only comes from above. This wisdom of Christianity inspires us to believe that perfect love empties itself completely in order to save.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love (&lt;em&gt;1 John&#xA;  4:8&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wisdom granted by the Holy Spirit allows us to perceive an all loving God, one who &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; love, bleeding to death as the “Sacrificial Lamb&quot; for the expiation of our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All wisdom comes from the Lord and is with him for ever (&lt;em&gt;Sirach 1:1&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What St. Paul is metaphorically saying to the Corinthians, which still applies to our skeptical society today, is that from the outside looking in, Christianity is a paradox by nature. It is only from the inside looking out that a person sees the magnificent beauty of a Cathedral’s stained glass window. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Paul’s God might have initially seemed to be foolish and eccentric to the Greek philosophers’ listening at Areopagus.  The 12 apostles chosen by Jesus to establish a Church and to evangelize the world were simple, uneducated, and obscure men. Their God (which is obviously the same God as St. Paul’s) might have initially seemed to be foolish and eccentric to the Jews and Gentiles at Pentecost.  But in reality God’s “foolish” chosen ones were wiser than the world’s “wisest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As stated above, St. Paul is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; saying that God is foolish, but is metaphorically teaching that worldly wisdom is infinitely inferior to the wisdom of God. This verse should &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; be interpreted as literal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. John Chrysostom once preached a homily centered on this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All these things, therefore, Paul bearing in mind, and being struck&#xA;  with astonishment, said that the foolishness of God is wiser than men,&#xA;  and the weakness of God is stronger than men; in relation to the&#xA;  Cross, speaking of a folly and weakness, not real but apparent. For he&#xA;  is answering with respect unto the other party's opinion. For that&#xA;  which philosophers were not able by means of reasoning to accomplish,&#xA;  this, what seemed to be foolishness did excellently well. Which then&#xA;  is the wiser, he that persuades the many, or he that persuades few, or&#xA;  rather no one? He who persuades concerning the greatest points, or&#xA;  about matters which are nothing? (μηδὲν όντων Reg. ms. μη δεόντων&#xA;  Bened.) What great labors did Plato endure, and his followers,&#xA;  discoursing to us about a line, and an angle, and a point, and about&#xA;  numbers even and odd, and equal unto one another and unequal, and&#xA;  such-like spiderwebs; (for indeed those webs are not more useless to&#xA;  man's life than were these subjects;) and without doing good to any&#xA;  one great or small by their means, so he made an end of his life. How&#xA;  greatly did he labor, endeavoring to show that the soul was immortal!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220104.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Homily 4 on First Corinthians&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas weighed in on this subject roughly 1000 years later:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then when he says, for the foolishness of God, he assigns the reason&#xA;  for what he had said and tells how something weak and foolish could be&#xA;  the power and wisdom of God, because the foolishness of God is wiser&#xA;  than men. As if to say: Something divine seems to be foolish, not&#xA;  because it lacks wisdom but because it transcends human wisdom. For&#xA;  men are wont to regard as foolish anything beyond their understanding:&#xA;  “Matters too great for human understanding have been shown you (Sir&#xA;  3:23). And the weakness of God is stronger than men, because something&#xA;  in God is not called weak on account of a lack of strength but because&#xA;  it exceeds human power, just as He is called invisible, inasmuch as He&#xA;  transcends human sight: “Thou dost show thy strength when men doubt&#xA;  the completeness of thy power” (Wis 12:17). However, this could refer&#xA;  to the mystery of the incarnation, because that which is regarded as&#xA;  foolish and weak in God on the part of the nature He assumed&#xA;  transcends all wisdom and power: “Who is like to you among the strong,&#xA;  O Lord?” (Ex 15:11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SS1Cor.htm#13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Commentary On the First Epistle to the Corinthians&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Better is one day in God’s court than thousands elsewhere. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-25T23:24:54.250" LastActivityDate="2013-08-25T23:24:54.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12552" CreationDate="2013-08-25T07:54:38.743" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems clear to me based on D&amp;amp;C:49 and 89 as well as the Joseph Smith Translation of Gen: 9:11 that the Lord's encouragement to eat little meat is also about His love and concern for animals. As a church and as Americans we now eat meat as the main course of most every meal. The church leaders are remaining silent on the issue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5541" LastActivityDate="2013-08-25T07:54:38.743" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5122" CreationDate="2013-08-25T09:44:11.617" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No real believer is or will be happy to hear that a fellow believer is in hell. But note Acts 5:3 &quot;But Peter said, Ananias, Satan has filled your heart...&quot; Dont know if Heaven has room for a Satan filled heart that died without the opportunity to REPENT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5542" LastActivityDate="2013-08-25T09:44:11.617" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14957" CreationDate="2013-08-25T22:50:24.183" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both the words &lt;em&gt;icon&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;idol&lt;/em&gt; are used in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word &lt;em&gt;eikōn&lt;/em&gt; (icon) is translated &lt;em&gt;portrait&lt;/em&gt; in Ma 22:20, Mk 12:16; and Lk 20:24.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek words &lt;em&gt;eidōlothytos&lt;/em&gt; and  &lt;em&gt;eidōlon&lt;/em&gt; are translated &lt;em&gt;idolatry&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;idol&lt;/em&gt; in 1 Co 10:14,19 and &lt;em&gt;passim&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From both the Catholic and Protestant traditions, Christians (with very few exceptions) do not oppose the use of icons, since Jesus Himself handled coins with icons on them and taught His followers to &amp;quot;render unto Caesar [whose portrait was stamped onto coins] the things that are Caesar's.&amp;quot;  Since an icon is simply a likeness, a portrait, or other representation of a human being (e.g., a statue), there is no biblical reason for not producing them in whatever medium (e.g., oil paints, watercolors, pencils, mixed media, granite, wood, cloth, paper).  Jesus was, after all, &amp;quot;God's self-portrait in human flesh&amp;quot; (Gerald L. Sittser, &lt;em&gt;Water From a Deep Well&lt;/em&gt;, p.177).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-02-25T15:55:02.537" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18640" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18644" CreationDate="2013-08-26T00:21:13.690" Score="11" ViewCount="45649" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard my whole life that one of the major signs to look for concerning the end of the world is that no one will be able to tell what season it is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of my fundamentalist friends and family (especially my Southern Baptist Grandmother) assume that this &quot;end-times prophecy&quot; is biblical, and that it should be thrown right in there    with all the other &quot;signs of the times.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have made it all the way through the New Testament several times now and haven't noticed anything about strange seasons. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest thing I have noticed is in Matthew chapters 24 and 25, where Jesus is describing what will happen right before he returns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him&#xA;  privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will&#xA;  be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will&#xA;  come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.&#xA;  You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are&#xA;  not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.&#xA;  Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There&#xA;  will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the&#xA;  beginning of birth pains. &lt;em&gt;Matt. 24:3-8&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing&#xA;  mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the&#xA;  Sabbath. &lt;em&gt;Matt. 24:19&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Immediately after the distress of those days&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“‘the sun will be darkened,&#xA;      and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,&#xA;      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’  “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the&#xA;  earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of&#xA;  heaven, with power and great glory. &lt;em&gt;Matt. 24:29-30&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is prompted by a conversation I had the other day with some of my pastor friends. We are experiencing an unusually mild summer here in North Georgia, and during our conversation it was brought up that &quot;in the end times you won't be able to tell what season it is.&quot;  I responded, &quot;Ya know, I've heard that saying my whole life. Where is that in the Bible?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one had an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is anyone else familiar with this idea? Am I missing something? Where is this in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;, then where did this &quot;end-times prophecy&quot; originate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-02-16T15:47:48.857" LastActivityDate="2015-02-16T15:47:48.857" Title="Are there any passages in Sacred Scripture that explicitly describe apocalyptic weather patterns?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18641" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18624" CreationDate="2013-08-26T00:46:52.800" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You raise a good question, and a profound one at that!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm glad you acknowledge God created us in His image by giving us a free will.  Some  Christians believe that &quot;free will&quot; does not really exist.  They reason if God is truly in control of His creation, if He is truly sovereign, then free will is simply an illusion.  According to them, regardless of what we do, whether good or bad, our actions are in a sense out of our control and under God's control.  In other words, God's will &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; come to pass, regardless of what we do or don't do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with many errors in thinking, this view of free will has an element of truth to it, to wit:  there &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; aspects of God's will which &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; be changed, altered, or frustrated.  Call these aspects of His will whatever you like; the truth is, God will ultimately have the &quot;last word&quot; regarding the &quot;big picture&quot; and His grand plan of redemption for the human race. No one and nothing can stand in His way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&quot;In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out &lt;strong&gt;everything&lt;/strong&gt; in conformity with the purpose of His will&quot; (Ephesians 1:11, my emphasis).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of God's ability to work out everything according to His will, we might be tempted to ask, which you seem to be doing in your question, &quot;Then how can we have free will if it does no good to resist His will?&quot;  That is almost exactly the same question Paul raised in Romans 9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then why does God still blame us?  For who [can resist] His will?&quot; (v.19).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In one sense, the answer to that question is &quot;No one!&quot;  In another sense, however, God gives all humans a &lt;em&gt;limited&lt;/em&gt; free will, such that our lives and the lives of the people around us can be made better or worse depending on the quality of our free-will choices.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A wise man once said, &quot;Free will does not mean we are free to choose the consequences of our decisions.&quot;  For example, we are free to commit sexual sins, but one consequence of doing so may be to contract a fatal disease such as AIDS, which no one in his right mind would choose beforehand.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contracting AIDS is not so much a punishment by God as it is a consequence of having free will.  The saddest cases of AIDS, in my opinion, are the babies who are born with the disease.  They are innocent victims of their parent's (or parents') bad choices.  Who is to blame?  God?  Of course not.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether our decisions are good ones or bad ones, however, God's ultimate will &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; ultimately &quot;be done [one day] on earth as it is in heaven.&quot;  We know Christ taught us to pray &quot;Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.&quot;  While He therefore expects His church to work toward that end, He knows that our obedience to His will, at best, will be only partial.  Does this hinder God in any way from  bringing history to a close and ushering in &quot;a new heaven and a new earth , the home of righteousness&quot; (2 Pe 3:13)?  No.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gave us, His creatures, free will because He loves us and because He desires our love in return.  God does not need our love to &quot;complete&quot; or &quot;fulfill&quot; Him, since He is already complete and perfectly fulfilled in Himself.  Moreover, for Him to &quot;force&quot; us to love Him would be unworthy of God.  He therefore put some power of decision into our hands--we call that free will, and stood back to see what we would do.  Did He know in advance we would disobey?  Yes.  Did His knowing we would choose to sin cause us to sin?  No. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, God will one day judge all of us, believers and unbelievers alike, with fairness, justice, righteousness, and impartiality.  Until then, unbelievers in particular punish themselves and others through their willful disobedience to their God-given consciences, which can at times become seared and useless.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, God punishes true believers who have become His children through the new birth (Jn 3:3,7; Tit 3:5).  We call this process &quot;divine discipline&quot; (see He 12:4-11; cf. Pr 3:11,12).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a father of two children (now grown), I can only agree with God's kind of loving discipline, or &quot;tough love,&quot; in that it was critical in the rearing of my children.  Had I refused to discipline or punish my children, I would have been a poor father indeed, and my children would almost inevitably have caused me shame and disappointment, tears and heartache.  As the writer to the Hebrews puts it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;&quot; . . . we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it.  How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!  Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.  No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful.  Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it&quot; (12:9-11). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-08-27T15:47:06.213" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T15:47:06.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18640" CreationDate="2013-08-26T02:46:48.510" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no such verse. In Genesis, God promised the exact opposite:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“As long as the earth endures,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  seedtime and harvest,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  cold and heat,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  summer and winter,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  day and night&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  will never cease.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+8&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 8:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sure though, there might be a group out there that interprets one verse or another to mean that there will be this kind of trouble in the end. The Seventh Day Adventists might be one. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17679/magnitude-of-the-earthquakes-of-the-book-of-revelation/17711#17711&quot;&gt;Magnitude of the earthquakes of the Book of Revelation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The SDA consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England%27s_Dark_Day&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New England's Dark Day&lt;/a&gt; and some of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonids&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leonid Meteor Showers&lt;/a&gt; to be signs of fulfillment for Revelation 6:12-13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 6 &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;12&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, &lt;sup&gt;13&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt; and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ancient cultures generally considered anything that involves the sky, Sun, or Moon to be &quot;weather&quot; (consider Aristotle's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology_(Aristotle)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Meteorologica&lt;/a&gt; including Earth, Fire, and Water &lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt; Air). But these were short lived events; they didn't even last a full season, so they certainly cannot lend credence to the notion that you will not be able to tell the seasons at the time of the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There really are no verses that say you will not be able to tell the seasons at the time of the end, but there is the verse in Genesis saying the exact opposite, so my money is on &quot;No, the seasons will persist until the time of the end.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T21:49:29.100" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18640" CreationDate="2013-08-26T02:50:25.840" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isa 24:20  The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth. When the Northern hemisphere is experiencing winter the southern hemisphere is experiencing summer. The middle of the earth experiances some temperature changes as the earth moves closer and further away from the sun due to the elliptical orbit but it is not as distinctive as the poles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earth reeling as a drunkard will certainly change how we experiance seasons. However&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen 8:22  While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are promised that summer and winter are part of God's plan for the earth as long as there is an earth and will continue to happen as long as the Earth exists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openbible.info/topics/weather_in_the_last_days&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link from open bible&lt;/a&gt; has many other verses on the topic of weather in the end of days. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user4060" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T02:50:25.840" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18647" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18640" CreationDate="2013-08-26T02:59:20.577" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only passages that come to mind regarding weather patterns in the end times have to do with clouds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joel 2:2  A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of&#xA;  thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great&#xA;  people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall&#xA;  be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Zep 1:14  The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth&#xA;  greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall&#xA;  cry there bitterly.  Zep 1:15  That day is a day of wrath, a day of&#xA;  trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of&#xA;  darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it the quantity of clouds? Will they be blacker than normal? We can expect unusual weather patterns when much of the earth's greenery is burnt (&quot;The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up&quot; -- Rev. 8:7), the air is scorched, and smoke is everywhere. From what I've seen in my life on earth, dense smoke turns the sun red: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Joel 2:30  And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth,&#xA;  blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.  Joel 2:31  The sun shall be&#xA;  turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and&#xA;  the terrible day of the LORD come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The abundance of burning vegetation will surely cause crazy weather patterns. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T02:59:20.577" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15477" CreationDate="2013-08-26T03:44:23.707" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic Bibles do not come from just one publisher. They contract with hundreds of publishers to produce Catholic Bibles and other works. Although the Vatican does have a printing office it seems to only be used for Anthologies and other more recent publications. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a few examples&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/about.php&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/about.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.firesidecatholic.com/Churches/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.firesidecatholic.com/Churches/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baroniuspress.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.baroniuspress.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/bible/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.catholic.org/bible/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sum up the church uses large and small publishers to fill their needs throughout the world. It appears that the publishers are selected by region so they can meet the needs of the local Churches quickly and reduce cost on shipping and storage. Which of these publishers is the largest would be almost impossible to determine as I doubt the Catholic church publishes that information. But I hope this helps in some way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5497" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T03:44:23.707" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18649" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18650" CreationDate="2013-08-26T03:58:25.617" Score="11" ViewCount="9101" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I was reading Exodus 3 chapter 5, this passage got my attention. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why it is considered as unholy?  Even in churches they are said to remove your sandals and shoes.  When considered this as unholy, what about other things as our clothes, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-01-12T20:36:40.133" LastActivityDate="2019-05-19T06:17:55.840" Title="Why are sandals considered to be unholy?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18649" CreationDate="2013-08-26T04:12:34.383" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not so much that sandals or slippers are considered to be unholy, it's that they're dirty, and removing them is a sign of respect similar to removing one's hat when entering a building, or perhaps removing a nose ring when entering a strict parent's house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ucg.org/christian-living/take-your-sandals-why/&quot;&gt;United church of God's article on the subject&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Taking off your sandals was like the old custom of a man taking off&#xA;  his hat when entering a building or greeting a lady—it was a token of&#xA;  respect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ground was holy because of God's presence. People were to approach&#xA;  God with solemnity and humility. Taking off their sandals expressed an&#xA;  inward reverence through an outward behavior in their worship. Showing&#xA;  such respect avoids anything casual, sloppy or rude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some Eastern religions today still require bare feet when entering&#xA;  their temples. Anciently the Greeks, in the worship of Diana and&#xA;  Jupiter, required worshippers to take off their shoes (Adam Clarke's&#xA;  Commentary, Exodus 3:5 ). A common custom in the Orient and for many&#xA;  in North America is to take off your shoes when entering a person's&#xA;  home. God Has a High Standard for Approaching Him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/exodus/3-5.htm&quot;&gt;Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;put off thy shoes—The direction was in conformity with a usage which&#xA;  was well known to Moses, for the Egyptian priests observed it in their&#xA;  temples, and it is observed in all Eastern countries where the people&#xA;  take off their shoes or sandals, as we do our hats. But the Eastern&#xA;  idea is not precisely the same as the Western. With us, the removal of&#xA;  the hat is an expression of reverence for the place we enter, or&#xA;  rather of Him who is worshipped there. With them the removal of the&#xA;  shoes is a confession of personal defilement and conscious&#xA;  unworthiness to stand in the presence of unspotted holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, from the Pulpit Commentary (available at the link in the preceding section)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rather, &quot;thy sandals.&quot; Shoes were not worn commonly, even by the&#xA;  Egyptians, until a late period, and would certainly not be known in&#xA;  the land of Midian at this time. The practice of putting them off&#xA;  before entering a temple, a palace, or even the private apartments of&#xA;  a house, was, and is, universal in the East - the rationale of it&#xA;  being that the shoes or sandals have dust or dirt attaching to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T04:12:34.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18654" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18200" CreationDate="2013-08-26T13:39:12.403" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the Bible says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is what the Scriptures mean when they say,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“No eye has seen, no ear has heard,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and no mind has imagined&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;what God has prepared&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for those who love him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%202:9&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 2:9&lt;/a&gt;, quoting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2064:4&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 64:4&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we don't know if it will be &lt;em&gt;infinite&lt;/em&gt; (whatever that would mean in this context) but we do know that it is way beyond what anyone has even considered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it another way: I don't think there will be any complaints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T13:39:12.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18655" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18649" CreationDate="2013-08-26T14:29:43.950" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;emman: FYI from the NET Bible--&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The removal of sandals was, and still is in the East, a sign of humility and reverence in the presence of the Holy One. It was a way of excluding the dust and dirt of the world. But it also took away personal comfort and convenience and brought the person more closely in contact with the earth. (Exo. 3:5, note 20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5099" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T14:29:43.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18656" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-26T14:37:28.430" Score="3" ViewCount="804" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen Christians study the Scriptures for clues as to how one can tell that the Second Coming, the Tribulation, the events of Revelation, the End Times are upon us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the purpose for such preparation? Would it be to stop participation in a particularly bad sin? To be able to point things out to weaker-faith faith family members so that they can get assurance Bible is true?  What have prominent theologians who hold to the importance of an End-Times theology written about the necessity of preparation, or action upon knowing the signs (as opposed to everyday duties for Christians)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, one theologian that doesn't fit this criteria would be Martin Luther, or others who might say it's an allegory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T16:47:24.680" Title="What is purpose of being ready for the End Times?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18656" CreationDate="2013-08-26T15:35:35.787" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The purpose for preparation of the second coming is made clear throughout the New Testament.  There are three related primary effects:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It holds you accountable for your actions (2 Peter 3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It keeps you from living too closely attached to a fallen world. (Hebrews 11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It reminds you that your work is for the unseen Master, and that there will be a reward (Jesus' parables)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And note, 2 Thessalonians points would what this should look like.  It isn't about trying to figure out &amp;quot;the day or the hour,&amp;quot; but rather leading a blameless life so that the master will be happy when he returns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, Jesus' parables often talk about being prepared for the return of the Master.  Be it the parable of the Wedding Guests, or the Foolish Virgins, the Talents, or the Wheat and the Tares, being found ready when the Master returns is always commended.  Indeed, Jesus specifically says in Matthew 24:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? &lt;strong&gt;46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.&lt;/strong&gt; 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Peter 3, we read this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”  ... 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ... 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This then begs the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the author of Hebrews commends those who are detached from this world.  The author specifically points out those who lived as &amp;quot;aliens and strangers&amp;quot; for special value in faith, writing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By longing for that which is to come, these people are specifically showing they value God above the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T15:40:48.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18658" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-26T15:41:00.483" Score="3" ViewCount="437" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've listened to many sermons, from Jerry Falwell to Tim Keller to Tullian Tchividjian. One common theme is that bad theology, that misapplication of Scripture, can be the direct cause of temporal sadness, even clinical depression. It wouldn't be too hard to find citations from the above pastors' work, and I imagine that every pastor eventually makes the claim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, I just heard a sermon from Tullian that said having a legalistic, reward/punishment view for improving the behavior of your wife only leads to conflict. Here's another similar quote: &quot;Legalism breeds a sense of entitlement that turns us into complainers&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet &quot;legalism&quot; may be a fair description of many philosophies and non-Christian religions. And we don't necessarily see a 1:1 correlation between depression and having other religions. I've known nonbelievers, usually immigrants, who have a very cheerful disposition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q:What have prominent theologians said about happy nonbelievers?&lt;/strong&gt; Are they said not to be really happy? Having a short, temporal happiness? Or have they been careful to point out that bad theology causing unhappiness isn't indication lack of good theology dooms one to general unhappiness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-04T20:09:14.653" LastActivityDate="2015-11-04T20:09:14.653" Title="What has been said about happy unbelievers?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;non-christians&gt;&lt;emotions&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18656" CreationDate="2013-08-26T16:01:12.160" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholicism, eschatology is one of the most prominent topics of doctrinal study simply because it deals with the most important historical event that is to ever occur, namely, the 2nd Coming of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sacred Scripture teaches that Christ instructed his disciples (and consequently us as well) to be watchful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Watch out that no one deceives you.  For many will come in my name,&#xA;claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. (&lt;em&gt;Matt. 24:4-5&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &amp;quot;endtimes&amp;quot; applies both to the era of Christ's first coming (Heb 1:2, 1 Cor 10:11, Heb 9:26) and to the events immediately before his return and the end of the ages (Mt 24:13, 2 Tim 2:1, 2 Peter 3:3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that Christ wants us to &lt;em&gt;worry&lt;/em&gt; about the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things&#xA;will be given to you as well.  Therefore do not worry about&#xA;tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough&#xA;trouble of its own. (&lt;em&gt;Matt. 6:33-34&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a teaching of the Church that Christ instructs us to be watchful, not with worrisome anxiety, but with holiness.  We are to constantly keep in the forefront of our consciences the end of the world, as well as the end of our lives.  We are to stay in a state of Grace at all times, as if death is only one heartbeat away. Contemplation of the eschatological realities awaiting us is crucial for having a healthy spiritual life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are we to watch for?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty clear about what we should expect to happen when Christ's return is about to take place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final&#xA;trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution&#xA;that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the &amp;quot;mystery of&#xA;iniquity&amp;quot; in the form of a religious deception offering men an&#xA;apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the&#xA;truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a&#xA;pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and&#xA;of his Messiah come in the flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;676The Antichrist's deception&#xA;already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made&#xA;to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be&#xA;realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The&#xA;Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the&#xA;kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the&#xA;&amp;quot;intrinsically perverse&amp;quot; political form of a secular messianism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;677The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this&#xA;final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and&#xA;Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic&#xA;triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by&#xA;God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his&#xA;Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil&#xA;will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic&#xA;upheaval of this passing world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/catechism.htm#ixzz2d5cvP8wo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;more:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism provides us with a general order of events at the End [CCC 673-677]. Chronologically they are,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the full number of the Gentiles come into the Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the &amp;quot;full inclusion of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles&amp;quot; (#2 will follow quickly on, in the wake of, #1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;a final trial of the Church &amp;quot;in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.&amp;quot; The supreme deception is that of the Antichrist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christ's victory over this final unleashing of evil through a cosmic upheaval of this passing world and the Last Judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Benedict XVI recently pointed out (in the context of the message of Fátima), we are not at the end of the world. In fact, the Second Coming (understood as the physical return of Christ) cannot occur until the full number of the Gentiles are converted, followed by &amp;quot;all Israel.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also extremely important to be stay clear of &amp;quot;end times prophecy&amp;quot; traps and predictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One dangerous end times theological system is dispensationalism.  As a system, dispensationalism is expounded in the writings of John Nelson Darby (1800–82) and the Plymouth Brethrenmovement, and propagated through works such as Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. As there was no Christian teaching of a &amp;quot;rapture&amp;quot; before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the &amp;quot;secret rapture&amp;quot; theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove his bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theology of dispensationalism consists of a distinctive eschatological end times perspective, as all dispensationalists hold to premillennialism and most hold to apretribulation rapture.  Dispensationalists arepremillenialists who affirm a future, literal 1,000-year reign of Jesus Christ which merges with and continues on to the eternal state in the &amp;quot;new heavens and the new earth” and they hold that the millennial kingdom will betheocratic in nature and not mainly soteriological, as it is viewed by George Eldon Laddand others who hold to a non-dispensational form of premillennialism. Dispensationalism is known for its views respecting the nation of Israel during this millennial kingdom reign, in which Israel as a nation plays a major role and regains a king, a land, and an everlasting kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vast majority of dispensationalists hold to the pretribulation rapture, with small minorities holding to either a mid-tribulation or post-tribulation rapture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Great Disappointment&lt;/strong&gt; was a major event in the history of the Millerite movement, a 19th-century American Christian sect that formed out of the Second Great Awakening. Based on his interpretations of the prophecies in the book of Daniel (Chapters 8 and 9, especially Dan. 8:14 &amp;quot;Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed&amp;quot;), William Miller, a Baptist preacher, proposed that Jesus Christ would return to the earth during the year 1844. The more specific date of October 22, 1844, was preached by Samuel S. Snow. Thousands of followers, some of whom had given away all of their possessions, waited expectantly. When Jesus did not appear, October 22, 1844, became known as the Great Disappointment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Great Disappointment is viewed by some scholars as an example of the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. The theory was proposed by Leon Festinger to describe the formation of new beliefs and increased proselytizing in order to reduce the tension, or dissonance, that results from failed prophecies. According to the theory, believers experienced tension following the failure of Jesus' reappearance in 1844, which led to a variety of new explanations. The various solutions form a part of the teachings of the different groups that outlived the disappointment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many cases like these in which hundreds of people are led to believe in a false prophetic prediction of Christ's return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;FALSE PREDICTIONS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church teaches that it is much more important for Christians to be more concerned about their own death rather than the end of the world. The chances of a person dying within the next 5 minutes is extremely more probable than the world coming to an end in their lifetime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ tells us to be watchful and prepared for time giving way to eternity, whether that is death or Christ’s return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T16:47:24.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18661" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18658" CreationDate="2013-08-26T16:14:13.303" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be sure, unbelievers can live in a certain state of fulfillment (happiness).  However, that fulfillment would be limited to body and soul.  A person may be very healthy and may have a great career, a great family and great relationships.  Christianity would assert that fulfillment in these areas comes as a result of following the teachings of the Bible, whether knowingly or not.  For instance, overindulging the flesh does not lead to fulfillment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, from a biblical perspective, we are not merely bodies and souls, but spirits as well.  Just as our bodies need and enjoy and are satisfied with physical things, so too our spirits need and enjoy and are satisfied only within a relationship with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted, though, that many people who have never experienced a relationship with God really do not know or have no experience to understand what they are missing.  Thus, they may feel completely satisfied, having no understanding that there is more to be enjoyed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person who has never tasted ice cream may assume that all that they have is all they could ever hope for.  One stop at Dairy Queen, though, and they realize they were missing out and will never be satisfied again if they have to live without a hot fudge sundae.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is a deeper spiritual fulfillment that can only be found in God that unbelievers do not experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-08-26T20:21:52.520" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T20:21:52.520" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18663" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18200" CreationDate="2013-08-26T18:32:01.483" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;infinite&quot; is difficult in this context. This is because it can have several meanings:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Infinite meaning all time&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Infinite meaning starting at this size and ever ending&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Infinite meaning starting at this point and never ending&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Graphically we might represent the first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;----------------------- Time -----------------------&amp;gt;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is clearly impossible, for there will be a point when we are in heaven but were not in heaven before.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second might be this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; ^&#xA; | Joy&#xA; |            Time&#xA; *----------------------------&amp;gt;&#xA; |&#xA; \/&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this is also impossible because we are finite beings. We cannot &lt;em&gt;reach&lt;/em&gt; the infinite point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there is &quot;infinite&quot; in the sense that it will be inexhaustible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    /&#xA;   /&#xA;  /&#xA; /&#xA;* (perpetual growth in time and joy)&#xA; \&#xA;  \ &#xA;   \&#xA;    \&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In that sense it is not only possible, but it is something which I think is directly conveyed by, for example, Lewis's description of heaven in &lt;em&gt;The Last Battle&lt;/em&gt; (further up, further in). And, if you're wondering, this is a concept that I've found in the writings of the Saints (John of the Cross comes to mind, but I seem to recall reading a couple of treatises on love which relate a similar idea).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T18:32:01.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8680" CreationDate="2013-08-26T18:45:24.007" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we evaluate God's actions with our limited brain and limited moral light, all death and loss in Book of Job may seems to be wrong and against our concept of ever loving God.  Yes only when we evaluate God's actions within our conceptual framework... Just think who are we to evaluate God's actions? Who are we to evaluate the level of love of God. Didn't He allow His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ to suffer so huge humiliation, persecution, pain, agony and death. Isn't that real Love? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words our pride is the culprit when we try to evaluate God's actions. Pride is a base sin which produce further more sins like self justification and hypocrisy. This pride is the only sin Job had before he is visited by God. Job seems to self justify his actions and condemn God for His inequity.  The moment Job heard God, he was transformed and says he was wrong. This pleases God and He justifies Job and gives back all his lost possessions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5552" LastActivityDate="2013-08-26T18:45:24.007" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18668" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-26T20:25:24.010" Score="4" ViewCount="7371" Body="&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 2:9 (KJV) states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that the joy of Heaven is incomprehensibly great or that some &lt;em&gt;quality&lt;/em&gt; of the experience is beyond the current ability to contemplate? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, for foods that one has not tasted one might be unable to contemplate the particular taste (qualitative factor) but have had previous experience of the same degree of pleasure in tasting. Such tasting of new foods would be beyond contemplation in the second sense but not in the first sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So was Paul indicating that what is beyond contemplation is how much joy or some qualitative aspect?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-21T07:33:47.767" LastActivityDate="2016-05-11T01:18:22.490" Title="Does 1 Corinthians 2:9 mean Heaven will be more joyous than we can contemplate?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;&lt;joy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-05-13T15:58:36.657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18671" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18672" CreationDate="2013-08-27T01:32:40.787" Score="6" ViewCount="1207" Body="&lt;p&gt;If one's entry into the church is solemnized by baptism, then how does one leave the church? What are the ways that one may leave the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;apostasy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;backsliding&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;heresy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;blasphemy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a way to leave the church with a good reputation? Committing apostasy, backsliding, heresy, and blasphemy all sound like bad things. For instance, if a person does not commit blasphemy, heresy, backsliding, and apostasy, but still leaves the church out of a personal disenchantment or disinterest of the visible church, then would that still be considered &quot;leaving the church&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T00:10:13.997" Title="If one's entry into the church is solemnized by baptism, then how does one leave the church?" Tags="&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;blasphemy&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18671" CreationDate="2013-08-27T03:17:14.860" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no biblical precedent for formal disassociation with the church, other than &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication&quot;&gt;excommunication&lt;/a&gt;.  Excommunication is a church censure for some gross act for which as Paul says, one must be &quot;handed over to Satan,&quot; with the idea that the offender will repent and (hopefully) be reinstated.  1 Corinthians 5 goes into this. One might be excommunicated for blasphemy or active, persistent heresy, but it would be rare indeed for simple backsliding to be the cause.  In Amish circles, you might be &lt;a href=&quot;http://amishamerica.com/why-do-the-amish-practice-shunning/&quot;&gt;shunned for for your behavior&lt;/a&gt;, but that is a different matter indeed from actual excommunication. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a practical matter, excommunication in a body that is now a voluntary association is now thus a very rare thing.  It takes a special individual to voluntarily remain a part of a body that  has formally expelled him.  As such, while it is still &quot;on the books&quot; so to speak, it's rarely used.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, since excommunication comes from the church rather than the individual, there is still the question of how one would leave voluntarily.  Indeed, many Christians - especially those who believe in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints&quot;&gt;eternal security aka 'perseverance of the saints'&lt;/a&gt; would say that once saved, you're always saved, and as such there is no ontological means by which one &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; renounce their salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From 1983 until 2009, the Catholic church &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_act_of_defection_from_the_Catholic_Church&quot;&gt;recognized defection from the same&lt;/a&gt; but has since rescinded it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To fill this &quot;gap&quot;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://unbaptism.org/&quot;&gt;some atheists have created 'unbaptism certificates'&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAo_rEgR4xU&quot;&gt;others have devised makeshift ceremonies&lt;/a&gt;, but these are mostly jokes. Indeed, probably the most famous - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.countmeout.ie/&quot;&gt;Count Me Out&lt;/a&gt; an Irish group -  formally closed its doors on August 8, 2013, because they acknowledged the church has no official means of voluntary departure. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8379.htm&quot;&gt;Madelyn Murray O'Hair in particular liked to issue 'debaptismal certificates'&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice, what most people do is simply stop attending church.  There have been no laws forcing compulsory attendance in a church in the US since the Bill of Rights, and I am unaware of any &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; country that still has any such laws on the books. (Muslims, different story, but no legally enforced &lt;em&gt;Christian&lt;/em&gt; compulsion to attend service exists). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as one's reputation goes, that's strictly subjective.  Most Christians will &quot;respect&quot; anyone's decision to leave, but there's no way anyone would be happy about it.  If you're lucky, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMAr6M54A1s&quot;&gt;Michael W. Smith might write a sad song about you&lt;/a&gt;, but that's probably as far as it is going to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-27T17:22:46.867" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T17:22:46.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18671" CreationDate="2013-08-27T04:14:23.160" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Roman Catholic doctrine, there is no such thing as an &quot;Ex-Christian&quot; (or even an &quot;Ex-Catholic&quot;). This is because we believe that the sacraments of initiation leave an &quot;indelible mark&quot; on the soul, a mark which we are simply unable to remove by any human effort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T04:14:23.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18671" CreationDate="2013-08-27T13:24:10.337" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;To look at the various aspects of your question from a Catholic point of view...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If one's entry into the church is solemnized by baptism&lt;/strong&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What does the Catholic Church teach about baptism?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the&#xA;  gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), 4 and the &#xA;  door which givesaccessto theother sacraments. Through Baptism we are&#xA;  freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ,&#xA;  are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission:&#xA;  &quot;Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.&quot; (1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Does this indelable mark protect a person from willingly and knowingly removing his or herself from what the Church defines as the Body of Christ (a.k.a. the Bride of Christ, a.k.a. the Church universal)?&lt;/em&gt; No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most&#xA;  severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the&#xA;  sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for&#xA;  which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon&#xA;  law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized&#xA;  by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties&#xA;  for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and&#xA;  excommunication. (2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;...then how does one leave the church?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;What exactly is excommunication?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio,&#xA;  communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest&#xA;  censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty&#xA;  Christian of all participation in the common blessings of&#xA;  ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being&#xA;  the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally&#xA;  supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a&#xA;  vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit,&#xA;  as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It&#xA;  necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the&#xA;  recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external&#xA;  consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy&#xA;  the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are&#xA;  loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the&#xA;  members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by&#xA;  baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and&#xA;  do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed&#xA;  rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics,&#xA;  interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc.&#xA;  Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these&#xA;  penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the&#xA;  social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it&#xA;  is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never&#xA;  be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian&#xA;  society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of&#xA;  ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the&#xA;  Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable&#xA;  satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a&#xA;  stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the&#xA;  Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric,&#xA;  he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of&#xA;  spiritual authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it&#xA;  simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian&#xA;  society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details&#xA;  proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which the&#xA;  excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived. The effects of&#xA;  excommunication must, however, be considered in relation also to the&#xA;  rest of the faithful. From this point of view arise certain&#xA;  differences according to the various classes of excommunicated&#xA;  persons. These differences were not introduced out of regard for the&#xA;  excommunicated, rather for the sake of the faithful. The latter would&#xA;  suffer serious inconveniences if the nullity of all acts performed by&#xA;  excommunicated clerics were rigidly maintained. They would also be&#xA;  exposed to grievous perplexities of conscience if they were strictly&#xA;  obliged to avoid all intercourse, even profane, with the&#xA;  excommunicated. Hence the practical rule for interpreting the effects&#xA;  of excommunication: severity as regards the excommunicated, but&#xA;  mildness for the faithful. We may now proceed to enumerate the&#xA;  immediate effects of excommunication. They are summed up in the two&#xA;  well known verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Res sacræ, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas,  prædia sacra, forum,&#xA;  civilia jura vetantur,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;i.e. loss of the sacraments, public services and prayers of the&#xA;  Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction, benefices, canonical&#xA;  rights, and social intercourse. (3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Can a Catholic just stop going to Mass or replace attendance with any other weekly denominational worship?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all&#xA;  Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to&#xA;  participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for&#xA;  a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or&#xA;  dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this&#xA;  obligation commit a grave sin. (4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there a way to leave the Church on good terms?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to that question is that it is impossible to leave the Roman Catholic Church on good terms - with one exception.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people do not know that the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Catholic Church.  There  are many &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Churches&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eastern Catholic Churches&lt;/a&gt;, and it is absolutely possible for a Roman Catholic to become a member of any of these churches.  The usual requirement to switch is that a person attends an Eastern liturgy for at least 2 years, and both Bishops approve. It should be noted however, that these churches are still in union with the Pope, and it is still a requirement to adhere to church teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible for a person to leave a local church and transfer membership to another church for any legitamate reason (i. e. relocation, lack of youth ministry, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize - Is it possible for a Catholic to leave &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; church on good terms? Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is is possible for a Catholic to leave &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Church on good terms? No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At &quot;best,&quot; this would result in grave sin, and at worst being publically reprimanded. Its important to note that there are many gray areas with no one size fits all case.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1463.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1463.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-27T16:20:37.600" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T16:20:37.600" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1543" CreationDate="2013-08-27T14:33:58.633" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any good or charitable act done for self-serving purposes is rejected by God and therefore could be considered sinful (though in this case it is not the act that is sinful so much as it is the person who is performing the act is sinning in the process of committing it).  Jesus said of these people &quot;The have their reward&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, a good or well intended act forbidden by God such as Uzzah who sinned by the &quot;good&quot; work of trying to stop the Ark from touching the ground.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, the argument could be made a good or well intended act that is outside the will of God for you or for that situation such as Moses striking the rock at Horeb.  Providing water for the people was good, but outside of God's will Who wanted the Isrealites to trust Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Granted, it could also be argued that any act that is sinful cannot be considered &quot;good&quot; no matter the intent behind it, so there is that, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5558" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T14:33:58.633" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4615" CreationDate="2013-08-27T17:47:59.517" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The return ministry of Elijah is according to the Bible. The ordained one will come in the Spirit of Elijah doing the same works of Elijah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;does not compromise on the Word of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;will stand alone if &quot;he&quot; has to&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;will indict the generation for the second crucifixion of Jesus Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;will not be someone after money or popularity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;will forerun the coming WORD&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;will reveal the anti Christ system &quot;Mystery Babylon&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;above all he will have &quot;thus saith the LORD&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5560" LastEditorDisplayName="user23" LastEditDate="2013-08-27T17:51:02.967" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T17:51:02.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18678" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2157" CreationDate="2013-08-27T19:17:16.693" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that God is a very loving God that knows all. If we pray in submission to God we are praying in His will. I am age 77 and baptised at age 17. I was taught that there is but one God and but one bible, His holy word. Never had all this confusion as to what God,s word was or meant. The bible was God's word and there was none of this, &quot;It means this, or it means that.&quot; We have drifted a long ways..........&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5561" LastActivityDate="2013-08-27T19:17:16.693" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18668" CreationDate="2013-08-27T21:28:35.490" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is one of those passages that is more metaphorical and should be taken in context with the entire passage, and, like the entire New Testament, it should be taken in context with common Judaic beliefs of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people to whom Paul is speaking know what heaven is supposed to be like. The resurrection of the dead and the paradise that awaits is often repeated. Paul wouldn't be trying to describe heaven in a single verse to people who'd been hearing about heaven their entire lives. Verse 9 is an analogy used to explain that Paul didn't come up with this stuff on his own. He is teaching what God taught him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simply, Paul is saying that compared to anything any person could have come up with, this wisdom from God is like this world compared to what we know heaven will be like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-08-30T18:30:36.680" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T18:30:36.680" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16565" CreationDate="2013-08-28T01:19:30.733" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few things to explain first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, this may be a revelation to many but people was not held accountable for sin until the law entered which was only given to the Hebrew people.  They were the ones under it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when&#xA;  there is no law. - Romans 5:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, when the law entered it came in with two sides to it.  On the one hand, if the Hebrew's kept all the laws they would be greatly blessed.  On the flip side, if they didn't then they were cursed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see these blessings and curses in Deuteronomy 28.   The Hewbrews had said to God before the law came - we will do all that you say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now with that in mind, the question still remains - what about the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose you were to get gangrene in your leg.  The normal course of action to take is to remove the infected part to save the whole.  It's like that, the people in the OT times could not be born again and delivered from demonic oppression.  In Sodom and Gomorrah they were so corrupted and so demonized that there was no way to save them until Christ came. They couldn't have devils cast out of them because no one had the authority to do so. So you could say although these judgements looked harsh, they were in fact an act of mercy on the world as a whole.  Had these people been left in the world, it would have been so corrupted that there wouldn't be a virgin left for a savour to be born through.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, the law had an imperfect but helpful effect of keeping one group of people partially (imperfictly) upright and focused on God.  The law had this effect of being like a whip that helped keep them in order.  So while the punishment looks extremely harsh, in actual fact if you look at it from this overall perspective that it was to help keep a people morally upright enough for a saviour to be born who would die for the sin of the entire world... it changes your perspective.  Because the real nature of God is exactly like Jesus.  Many think Jesus and the father are of a different nature, but actually Jesus said if you've seen me you've seen my father also.  In another verse it says he is the visible representation of the invisible God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that Jesus has paid the price for all sin, doesn't that just mean I can go and do what I want?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes and no.  You have free will to do what you want.  But, as pointed out by others, there are consequences.  You will open yourself up to the devil.  You will reap what you sew. e.g. if you have sex with a prostitute, you run the risk of catching a sexually transmitted disease. And causing all sorts of strife in your family.  But, if you do fall into sin you have an advocate with the father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not.&#xA;  And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ&#xA;  the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for&#xA;  ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. - 1 John 2:1-2 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No longer is the father judging you, and Jesus is not condemning you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgement unto the&#xA;  Son John 5:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that&#xA;  the world through him might be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T01:19:30.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18684" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18687" CreationDate="2013-08-28T07:04:30.503" Score="9" ViewCount="24605" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+22%3A3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:3&lt;/a&gt; (NIV)&lt;br /&gt; Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this verse imply that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judas had no more control over his own actions as he was possessed by the devil.    &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judas yielded himself to the temptation of 30 pieces of silver offered by the priests for betraying Jesus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first option would mean that Judas was possessed and hence had no control over his own will whereas the second option would mean that the betrayal was a self-willed one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="635" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-03T13:32:40.873" LastActivityDate="2015-09-12T05:29:12.077" Title="Did Judas betray Jesus willfully?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;judas-iscariot&gt;&lt;demon-possession&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18685" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18686" CreationDate="2013-08-28T08:03:23.320" Score="4" ViewCount="102547" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 5&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in&#xA;  his own image; and he named him Seth. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; After Seth was born, Adam&#xA;  lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. &lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; Altogether, Adam&#xA;  lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father[b] of Enosh. &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had&#xA;  other sons and daughters. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912&#xA;  years, and then he died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we continue reading, we see that we are descendants of Seth as his genealogy leads to the birth of Noah. God destroyed other families and spared only the house of Noah (8 people), from whom the earth was repopulated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam-&gt;Seth-&gt; ... -&gt;Methuselah-&gt;Lamech-&gt;Noah-&gt;(Noah's Sons)-&gt; .... -&gt;Us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%207:11-24&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 7:23&lt;/a&gt;-&lt;/b&gt; Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped&#xA;  out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground&#xA;  and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those&#xA;  with him in the ark&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cain's descendants and Seth's siblings' descendants were therefore wiped out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-26T02:37:15.367" LastActivityDate="2015-01-18T15:40:31.393" Title="Does Cain still have descendants on the earth?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;cain&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-01-24T04:44:02.200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18686" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18685" CreationDate="2013-08-28T13:46:17.580" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your answer seems correct. As God has never approved of being unequally yoked. Cain's descendants followed after Cain and dwelt in his city (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:17&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen 4:17&lt;/a&gt;). God never wanted people to live clustered in cities, where sin would abound, and there are various examples of this throughout Genesis. God's people stayed in the wilderness, tilling the ground and doing the work God had commanded to them as a blessing, even though the ground was now cursed.  These were the people that began &quot;calling on the name of the LORD.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen 4:25&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could see the striking difference between the people that followed God and obeyed His commandments and those that did not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this point you can infer that Noah and his sons, being righteous in the eyes of God, would not mix with those who did evil in the eyes of God. If this is so, then Noah and his 3 sons would have wives that loved the LORD and were not of the lineage of Cain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course it could also be that one or more of the wives were descendants of Cain that decided to follow in the way of the LORD. Nevertheless, the Bible offers no such insight on this matter. So the true answer is we do not know, but I'm definitely more inclined to say that they all were destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-12-17T20:03:06.833" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T20:03:06.833" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18687" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18684" CreationDate="2013-08-28T13:55:34.270" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just because it was already prophesied, does not mean that Judas did not make a conscious choice. A man can most definitely choose to be used by Satan or by the Holy Spirit. Judas, by his actions, was already choosing, as he was choosing to steal from the purse.(John 12:6) This showed that even though he was with Jesus, the Holy Spirit was not working within him. He made a series of bad decisions and the devil took the opportunity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is blamed for many things, but just because He allows it to happen, does not mean He causes it to happen. Many times we put ourselves in this position. Isaiah 59:1-2 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,&#xA;    nor his ear too dull to hear.&#xA;But your iniquities have separated&#xA;    you from your God;&#xA;your sins have hidden his face from you,&#xA;    so that he will not hear.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judas put himself in this position. In a position where God allowed Satan use Judas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T13:55:34.270" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11830" CreationDate="2013-08-28T14:41:34.533" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul wrote (in Romans 6) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;should we continue in sin because is abound?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the answer is no.what if  at  the cause of you commiting that sin,Jesus just arrive? Wil he consider that you have been in faith because,no,He can never go against his unchanged word in Ephesians chapter 5 which He said that He will present to His father a perfect church,church without wrinkles nor spot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Jesus expect from us is that we should stand in the liberty which He had set us free according to apostle paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before we go to christ for forgiveness &amp;amp; salvation there is an old man of sin living in us which the blood of Jesus pursuid it away by force.&#xA;But the point is that this man left some properties like hatred,lies,fornication,malice,lust,fight,etc in the life of the newly saved person because because the pernetration of Jesus' blood is like fire entering your house in a very hesten way to the devil,you will not wait to take every thing out of the house before you go out but rather save your life.&#xA;But after every thing,you will go back to the ablazed house because of some properties you left there,though some will be destroyed but some tough ones will still remain.&#xA;That is why the devil come back to your life to make you sin.for instance,he make you fornicate after giving your life to Christ,it means that he left that very property in your life and now he come back to remind you of it and you fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main truth here is that the presence of christ in you cannot alow the devil to come in again but some of his properties still remain in you.&#xA;You must not rest after receiving christ fight against those properties in you now so that you will not be denied to enter the kingdom.&#xA;Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5570" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-28T21:52:37.923" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T21:52:37.923" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18689" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-28T15:01:30.280" Score="6" ViewCount="479" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does God today have different knowledge than yesterday?&#xA;In other words, did God not know yesterday what will happen today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm mostly interested in Catholic and Protestant traditions&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5569" LastEditorUserId="5569" LastEditDate="2013-08-28T15:14:29.633" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T13:39:56.623" Title="Does God's knowledge increase in time?" Tags="&lt;foreknowledge&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11830" CreationDate="2013-08-28T15:40:00.107" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think context helps a good deal here.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 6 starts by taking on the premise that since God is glorified when His grace covers the sins of believers, believers should therefore sin all the more so that grace should abound all the more. Paul seems to recognize that this might seem a reasonable conclusion, but that it misses the point.  As people who find their identity in Christ, pursuing sin (even with noble intentions...or rationalizations) should not be our desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of this passage is a sort of rebuttal and analysis of the argument posed in Romans 6:1 (&quot;What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?&quot;).   When Paul reminds Christians they they are dead to sin, he's reminding them that their identity is linked to Christ.   When Jesus was crucified on the cross, our old sinful self was crucified with him (Romans 6:6).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians don't stop sinning cold turkey because of this (as evidenced by Paul's struggles, and verses like 1 John 1:8), but, through verses like Romans 6:11 (&quot;So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.&quot;), I think Paul's tone here is one of exhortation for believers to remember where our identity lies, and to remember the implications of that:   We're not to be lazy or complacent about falling into old habits of sin (under the pretense that grace may abound), because we are no longer slaves to sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="701" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T15:40:00.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18692" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18708" CreationDate="2013-08-28T16:09:41.360" Score="2" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;Should I abandon the concept that God of the Bible is person, but say that He is spirit? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would mean that God the Father, God the son and God the spirit are persons, but God means different qualities in the Bible that make it one essence. So God would not be person like eg. Son of God is, but rather a spirit being. God is of one essence, but exists in three &quot;persons&quot;. That is what I meant when I asked that whether to interpret God as person or as a spirit. I meant that God the Father, Son of God, God the spirit are defined as persons, but God defined as spirit being rather than person. I mean by spirit that he is not literally made of matter, but is a spirit being like Holy Spirit is. So in this matter it seems that God of the Bible is of one essence of divinity; spirit being, and manifests in three persons, who yet are each God. So our God is of one essence, but of three persons.&#xA;I ask to answer my first question and maybe comment on the last phrase.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I do, is this in keeping with the historical expressions of the faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My motive for this is to discern how the concept of God in Islam is different from the concept of God in the Bible. In other words I try to help myself to discern how the concept of God in the Bible is different from the God of Islam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastEditorUserId="4380" LastEditDate="2013-08-29T14:46:39.697" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T12:10:15.547" Title="Is it orthodox to abandon the concept that God of the Bible is person, but say that He is spirit?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2015-09-07T21:33:51.943" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18692" CreationDate="2013-08-28T16:15:34.590" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a mainstream evangelical understanding, God's essence does not consist of anything created.  Matter is created.  God is spirit and existed as such before the creation of matter or time or space.  A &quot;body&quot; is something physical, and only the Second Person of the Trinity has a body, which He received at the Incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personhood does not mandate a physical body.  Every creation is lesser than its creator.  Thus, we could not have personhood unless God first possessed Personhood.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary, God is spirit, which is not matter, and He does exist in Three Persons, only One of which has a body, but He did not always have one, receiving His body at the Incarnation, which was later glorified at His resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-08-28T16:36:43.183" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T16:36:43.183" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18694" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18671" CreationDate="2013-08-28T16:29:45.340" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Non-Denominational Standpoint, if you are worried about what God will think, then you need not worry about what the Church goers are saying about you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;if you are leaving a church because it interferes with you being one with God, then it doesn't matter what &quot;the church&quot; is going to say about it.  the church is there for you, not the other way around, if that church isn't giving you your &quot;Daily Bread&quot; then it's probably not where God wants you to worship him in the first place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;every church has little things that it believes and doesn't believe, you have to look at what you believe and know to be true in your Heart.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;there is no Sin in leaving a Church to find a church that serves you your &quot;Daily Bread&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;another point, Probably a &lt;strong&gt;Better Point&lt;/strong&gt;, if there is something about the church that you are attending that is keeping you from having a meaningful relationship with God, then that church is not serving the purpose that God intended,  I am not saying that it is a bad church, it may be helping others have a meaningful relationship with God in a way that doesn't work for you.  Your goal should be that meaningful relationship with God.  if there is someone or something that is interfering with that, you should avoid it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T16:29:45.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2013-08-28T16:37:13.400" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is what the parable of the shrewd Manager means-especially where the Master says&#xA;'For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Example: In a worldly organization, they welcome you on board, introduce you to the Team, hand over the office to you, and probably mentor you so that they are sure you know the policies and expected output so that the Worldly organization will make even more profits with a new employee such as you who brings new skills on board.&#xA;On the other hand, The people of the light when you are newly born again (i.e. a new employee) will look at you judgmentally remembering your past sins that the Master has forgiven you, will be afraid to be close to you-a recent known sinner- will whisper behind your back, will Grumble against your lack of experience, rage at the sins you commit without taking time to tell you about the critical need to be Spirit filled and may not take time to train you in the Holy Ways of the Master Lord Jesus-yet the LORD has saved you and brought you on board to contribute to the Increase in HIS Kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence the people of the world HELP their own kind to achieve in worldly gains but the people of the light oftentimes HINDER their own to achieve in the Holy ways of The Kingdom of GOD. The answer lies in this-The people of The Kingdom need to show LOVE and patience, and not constantly complain, judge, condemn and grumble against each other. How much do we grumble about our Pastors, about the needy in church, about our children whom we have failed to set a good example for? the recovering alcoholic, the reformed prostitute in church... we remember their sins constantly. Jesus said, do not Cry for Me-Cry for yourselves and your children. Let us Repent and struggle to live a righteous life that we may be judged worthy to enter the Kingdom of God. Lord Jesus the Master is the Judge-not us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5572" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-28T21:48:48.440" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T21:48:48.440" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4483" CreationDate="2013-08-28T20:06:26.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 17:24-27 probably takes place at the house of Peter in Capernaum (Peter, being the master of the house, would have been the one to go outside to meet the tax collector).  Therefore, as the narrative in this location continues into Chapter 18, when Jesus calls a child over in v2 to serve as an illustration for His teaching, it is reasonable to infer this child (likely male though the gender of the word is neutral), is Peter's as any children the other disciples had would likely not have traveled with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5558" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T20:06:26.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18689" CreationDate="2013-08-28T22:00:32.887" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God is increasing in knowledge, then God is by definition changing.  As such, technically you would be rejecting the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Immutability_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;immutability&quot; of God&lt;/a&gt;, the doctrine that says God never changes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While proponents of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Open Theism&lt;/a&gt; would be more than happy to reject it, these are a fairly minor subset of Christians. Indeed, for the Open Theist, God is able to form relationships with humans only if he doesn't know what is happening in that relationship. And for the Open Theist, God's whole creation is a journey of discovery of the consequences of his Creation, hence God's knowledge is increasing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, most Evangelicals and technically all Catholics would reject all of this.  In a nutshell, if God is mutable, he cannot be omniscient nor can he be omnipotent. Many heresies spring from Open Theism and rejection of God's immutability.  Amongst other mainline Protestants, you'll most likely find more reject the assertions of Open Theism than those who would accept it. Historically, the immutability of God &lt;em&gt;was the point&lt;/em&gt; - that God never changes - and to deny it would be heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is much more in this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16129/what-is-the-basis-of-the-argument-that-asserts-that-open-theism-is-heretical&quot;&gt;What is the basis of the argument that Open Theism is heretical?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and this one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16076/can-god-change-his-mind/16077#16077&quot;&gt;Can God Change his mind?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you'd like to understand the relative merits of the positions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T19:37:45.400" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18701" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18685" CreationDate="2013-08-28T22:13:01.820" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether or not Cain has any DNA remaining in any or all of the humans now existant on earth, it can be unequivocally stated that Cain has no &quot;descendants.&quot;  A descendant - at least in a legal sense - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineal_descendant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;implies legitimacy&lt;/a&gt; to which the Bible itself does not lend credence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham, for example, is technically the ancestor of Ishmael, but after he was kicked out, was not reckoned as a descendant.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Noah is reckoned as a descendant of Seth, regardless of whether or not a daughter in the line of Cain was a grandmother of some relation.  Cain's line was wiped out with the flood, as were the Nephilim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cain's legacy was to be &quot;a restless wanderer on the earth.&quot;  This would imply that any progeny would not necessarily have his legacy, and hence while he may be an ancestor, his children are not &quot;descedants.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-08-28T22:13:01.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18703" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-28T23:45:30.207" Score="6" ViewCount="40756" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a difference between 'books' and 'gospels'? I've read that there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible, but are all of these considered gospels? Or are there just four gospels in total: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5578" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-10T07:28:10.687" LastActivityDate="2017-03-09T04:59:11.980" Title="What is a gospel, and how many gospels are there in the Catholic Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;catholic-bible&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18704" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18703" CreationDate="2013-08-28T23:56:57.990" Score="17" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How many gospels are there in the Roman Catholic Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The quantity of gospels are the same in both the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. There are &lt;strong&gt;only four&lt;/strong&gt;, in the same order, at the beginning of the New Testament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are there only gospels in the New Testament? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, the New Testament contains other books, including:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Acts of the Apostles&quot; (also known as &quot;Acts,&quot; &quot;Book of Acts&quot;), which is a chronicle of the acts and ministry which the apostles and disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ performed after his resurrection and ascension. It is commonly attributed to the physician, Luke.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;twenty-one epistles (an epistle is a letter)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;thirteen epistles written by the apostle Paul&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle to the Romans (also known as &quot;Romans&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First Epistle to the Corinthians (also known as &quot;1 Corinthians&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second Epistle to the Corinthians (also known as &quot;2 Corinthians&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle to the Galatians (also known as &quot;Galatians&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle to the Ephesians (also known as &quot;Ephesians&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle to the Philippians (also known as &quot;Philippians&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle to the Colossians (also known as &quot;Colossians&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First Epistle to the Thessalonians (also known as &quot;1 Thessalonians&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (also known as &quot;2 Thessalonians&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First Epistle to Timothy (also known as &quot;1 Timothy&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second Epistle to Timothy (also known as &quot;2 Timothy&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle to Titus (also known as &quot;Titus&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle to Philemon (also known as &quot;Philemon&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;one epistle written to the Jewish believers in the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., the Hebrews), sometimes attributed to the apostle Paul, but whose author is otherwise considered to be unknown&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle to the Hebrews (also known as &quot;Hebrews&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;one epistle written by James, the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle of James (also known as &quot;James&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;two epistles written by the apostle Peter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First Epistle of Peter (also known as &quot;1 Peter&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second Epistle of Peter (also known as &quot;2 Peter&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;three epistles supposedly written by a John, perhaps the same author as the Gospel of John&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First Epistle of John (also known as &quot;1 John&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Second Epistle of John (also known as &quot;2 John&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Third Epistle of John (also known as &quot;3 John&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;one epistle written by Jude, another brother of the Lord Jesus Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Epistle of Jude (also known as &quot;Jude&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;the Book of Revelation (formerly known as &quot;the Apocalypse&quot;; also known as &quot;Revelation&quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What are the names of gospels? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The names of the gospels in order are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gospel of Matthew (also known as &quot;Matthew&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gospel of Mark (also known as &quot;Mark&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gospel of Luke (also known as &quot;Luke&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gospel of John (also known as &quot;John&quot;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is there a difference between books and gospels? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The smallest division of the Bible is a &quot;verse.&quot; A collection of related verses (not necessarily composed by the same author) is a &quot;book.&quot; The Protestant Bible contains 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. The Catholic Bible not only contains those books found in the Protestant Bible but additional books known as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;deuterocanonical books&lt;/a&gt;. (However, if you ask a Catholic, they would probably say that the Protestant Bible is missing these books.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A gospel is a book of the Bible. It is simply a different genre of literature than the other books of the Bible (e.g., epistles).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I've read that there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible, but are all of these considered gospels? Or are there just 4 gospels in total, including: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and no others between the Old and New Testament? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The latter. There are only four gospels in both Protestant and Catholic Bibles. There is absolutely no exception to this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2015-01-09T08:24:44.103" LastActivityDate="2015-01-09T08:24:44.103" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18705" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17212" CreationDate="2013-08-29T00:06:07.910" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's a basic explaination I found online. It gives a simple, streamlined answer to at least part of your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bridal Veil&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not only does the bridal veil show the modesty and purity of the bride and her reverence for God, it reminds us of the Temple veil which was torn in two when Christ died on the cross. The removing of the veil took away the separation between God and man, giving believers access into the very presence of God. Since Christian marriage is a picture of the union between Christ and the church, we see another reflection of this relationship in the removal of the bridal veil. Through marriage, the couple now has full access to one another. (1 Corinthians 7:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/weddingceremony/a/weddingtraditions_2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5578" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-12-04T12:14:16.147" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T12:14:16.147" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18706" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18236" CreationDate="2013-08-29T03:08:07.933" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the tearing of the veil, we &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; have a proper understanding of the Catholic priesthood's relativity to the Temple of the Old Covenant.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Priesthood&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three types of priesthood in the Catholic Church: (1) Priesthood of Christ as the High Priest and true Priest, the only mediator between God and men; (2) ministerial (or hierarchical) priesthood comprising bishops and priests and (3) priesthood of all faithful though baptism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured&#xA;  finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the &quot;one mediator between God&#xA;  and men.&quot; The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, &quot;priest of&#xA;  God Most High,&quot; as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the&#xA;  unique &quot;high priest after the order of Melchizedek&quot;; &quot;holy, blameless,&#xA;  unstained,&quot; &quot;by a single offering he has perfected for all time those&#xA;  who are sanctified,&quot; that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once&#xA;  for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the&#xA;  Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made&#xA;  present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the&#xA;  uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: &quot;Only Christ is the true priest,&#xA;  the others being only his ministers.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church&#xA;  &quot;a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.&quot; The whole community of&#xA;  believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal&#xA;  priesthood through their participation, each according to his own&#xA;  vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through&#xA;  the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are&#xA;  &quot;consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and&#xA;  priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate,&#xA;  &quot;each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.&quot; While&#xA;  being &quot;ordered one to another,&quot; they differ essentially. In what&#xA;  sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the&#xA;  unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a&#xA;  life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the&#xA;  service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of&#xA;  the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a&#xA;  means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For&#xA;  this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of&#xA;  Holy Orders. (&lt;em&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1544 to 1547&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While accepting the first and the third ones, Protestant and other post-Reformation churches have rejected the ministerial priesthood for two reasons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;New Testament does not apply the title priest (Greek iereus) to the apostles, bishops (Greekepiskopos) and elders (Greek presbuteros).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Eucharist or Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, is only a remembrance of Christ, following his request (Luke 22:19) – it does not have sacrificial nature as believed by Catholics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of&#xA;  Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy&#xA;  sacrifice of the Mass, &quot;sacrifice of praise,&quot; spiritual sacrifice,&#xA;  pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and&#xA;  surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds&#xA;  its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this&#xA;  sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred&#xA;  Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the&#xA;  Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the&#xA;  tabernacle are designated by this same name. (&lt;em&gt;Catechism of the&#xA;  Catholic Church #1330&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe the priesthood of the Old Covenant is the one that prefigures that of the New.  First the Priesthood of Christ is prefigured by that of Melchizedek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a&#xA;  priest of God Most High. (&lt;em&gt;Genesis 14:18&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming&#xA;  a high priest. But God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have&#xA;  become your Father.” And he says in another place, “You are a priest&#xA;  forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” During the days of Jesus’ life&#xA;  on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and&#xA;  tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard&#xA;  because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned&#xA;  obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the&#xA;  source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by&#xA;  God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. (&lt;em&gt;Hebrews 5:5-10&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The priesthood of all the elect in the New Covenant is prefigured by all of God's chosen Israelites of the Old Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations&#xA;  you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,&#xA;  you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are&#xA;  the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” (&lt;em&gt;Exodus 19:5-6&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by&#xA;  God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built&#xA;  into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual&#xA;  sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. But you are a&#xA;  chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special&#xA;  possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out&#xA;  of darkness into his wonderful light. (&lt;em&gt;1 Peter 2:4-5, 9&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and&#xA;  has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to&#xA;  him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. (&lt;em&gt;Revelation 1:5-6&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, God chose Aaron and his sons to be His priests, and appointed them and the tribe of Levi (to which Aaron belonged) for liturgical service in the Sanctuary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites,&#xA;  along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may&#xA;  serve me as priests. Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to&#xA;  give him dignity and honor. Tell all the skilled workers to whom I&#xA;  have given wisdom in such matters that they are to make garments for&#xA;  Aaron, for his consecration, so he may serve me as priest. (&lt;em&gt;Exodus&#xA;  28:1-3&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The LORD said to Aaron, “You, your sons and your family are to bear&#xA;  the responsibility for offenses connected with the sanctuary, and you&#xA;  and your sons alone are to bear the responsibility for offenses&#xA;  connected with the priesthood. Bring your fellow Levites from your&#xA;  ancestral tribe to join you and assist you when you and your sons&#xA;  minister before the tent of the covenant law. They are to be&#xA;  responsible to you and are to perform all the duties of the tent, but&#xA;  they must not go near the furnishings of the sanctuary or the altar.&#xA;  Otherwise both they and you will die. They are to join you and be&#xA;  responsible for the care of the tent of meeting—all the work at the&#xA;  tent—and no one else may come near where you are. (&lt;em&gt;Number 18:1-4&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These were the divisions of the descendants of Aaron: The sons of&#xA;  Aaron were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. But Nadab and Abihu died&#xA;  before their father did, and they had no sons; so Eleazar and Ithamar&#xA;  served as the priests. With the help of Zadok a descendant of Eleazar&#xA;  and Ahimelek a descendant of Ithamar, David separated them into&#xA;  divisions for their appointed order of ministering. 4A larger number&#xA;  of leaders were found among Eleazar’s descendants than among&#xA;  Ithamar’s, and they were divided accordingly: sixteen heads of&#xA;  families from Eleazar’s descendants and eight heads of families from&#xA;  Ithamar’s descendants. They divided them impartially by casting lots,&#xA;  for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of God among&#xA;  the descendants of both Eleazar and Ithamar. (&lt;em&gt;1 Chronicles 24:1-5&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus &lt;em&gt;priests&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Levites&lt;/em&gt;, whenever these two appear in the Bible refer to these two groups specially chosen by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They brought up the ark of the LORD and the tent of meeting and all&#xA;  the holy utensils, which were in the tent, and the priests and the&#xA;  Levites brought them up. (&lt;em&gt;1 Kings 8:4&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Hezekiah questioned the priests and the Levites concerning the&#xA;  heaps. (&lt;em&gt;2 Chronicles 31:9&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves together; all&#xA;  of them were pure. Then they slaughtered the Passover lamb for all the&#xA;  exiles, both for their brothers the priests and for themselves. (&lt;em&gt;Ezra&#xA;  6:20&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Likewise we cast lots for the supply of wood among the priests, the&#xA;  Levites and the people so that they might bring it to the house of our&#xA;  God, according to our fathers' households, at fixed times annually, to&#xA;  burn on the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the law;&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Nehemiah 10:34&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and&#xA;  Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, &quot;Who are you?&quot; (&lt;em&gt;John 1:19&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Sanctuary&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sanctuary is the place where God was present with Israelites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them.&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Exodus 25:8&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We read how God instructed Moses to build a tent to function as the Sanctuary in the book of Exodus chapters 25-27.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later God chose Solomon to build the first Temple in Jerusalem to house the Sanctuary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out&#xA;  of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the&#xA;  month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the&#xA;  LORD. (&lt;em&gt;1 Kings 6:1&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Consider now, for the LORD has chosen you to build a house for the&#xA;  sanctuary; be courageous and act.&quot; (&lt;em&gt;1 Chronicles 28:10&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sanctuary consisted of 2 parts separated by a veil the (outer) &lt;em&gt;Holy Place&lt;/em&gt; and the (inner) &lt;em&gt;Holy of Holies&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted&#xA;  linen, with cherubim woven into it by a skilled worker. Hang it with&#xA;  gold hooks on four posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold and&#xA;  standing on four silver bases. Hang the curtain from the clasps and&#xA;  place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will&#xA;  separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. (&lt;em&gt;Exodus 26:31-33&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the&#xA;  table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.&#xA;  Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which&#xA;  had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the&#xA;  covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that&#xA;  had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were&#xA;  the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. &#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Hebrews 9:2-5&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only priests were allowed to offer sacrifice in the (outer) &lt;em&gt;Holy Place&lt;/em&gt;.  One of the priests will be appointed as High Priest and only he can enter the (inner) &lt;em&gt;Holy of Holies&lt;/em&gt; and only once every year to offer blood atonement &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make&#xA;  atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a&#xA;  year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD.&quot;&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Exodus 30:10&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered&#xA;  regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the&#xA;  high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and&#xA;  never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the&#xA;  people had committed in ignorance. (&lt;em&gt;Hebrews 9:6-7&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe that the priesthood of Melchizedek prefigures that of Christ, while the priesthood of Aaron and his sons prefigures that of bishops, institution of seventy elders prefigures that of priests (the English word priest is derived from Greek presbuteros), the Levites prefigures the deacons while priesthood of all Israelites prefigures the common priesthood of all faithful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion&#xA;  with God by sacrifices and prayer, this priesthood nevertheless&#xA;  remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its&#xA;  sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive&#xA;  sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured&#xA;  finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the &quot;one mediator between God&#xA;  and men.&quot; The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, &quot;priest of&#xA;  God Most High,&quot; as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the&#xA;  unique &quot;high priest after the order of Melchizedek&quot;; &quot;holy, blameless,&#xA;  unstained,&quot; &quot;by a single offering he has perfected for all time those&#xA;  who are sanctified,&quot; that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church #1540, 1544&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most, if not all, Protestants and “Bible only” Christians will argue that priesthood of Aaron or Levitical priesthood is abolished in New Testament.  Yet Scripture prophesies that the Levitical priesthood shall never lack a man in God’s presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifice &lt;strong&gt;forever&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this is what the LORD says: ‘David will never fail to have a man&#xA;  to sit on the throne of Israel, nor will the Levitical priests ever&#xA;  fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt&#xA;  offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.’ ”&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Jeremiah 33:18&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Veil Is Torn&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ established the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25) on the night he was betrayed.  The old covenant refers to the one God made with Moses, and it is to be replaced with the new and better covenant of Christ (Hebrews 8:6), prophesied in Jeremiah 31:33-34 (Hebrews 8:8-12, 10:16-17). The Sanctuary of the New Covenant is heavenly and not man-made - it is heaven itself (Hebrews 8:5, 9:11, 24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Covenant priests offered sacrifice in the outer Sanctuary. The Veil separated it from the inner Sanctuary into which only the High Priest  could enter (prefigured Christ).  The torn veil as testified in Matthew 27:51 shows that in the New Covenant there is no longer separation between the sacrifice offered by priests and Christ, the High Priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;All&lt;/em&gt; Catholics receive their common priesthood through Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church&#xA;  &quot;a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.&quot; The whole community of&#xA;  believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal&#xA;  priesthood through their participation, each according to his own&#xA;  vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through&#xA;  the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are&#xA;  &quot;consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.&quot;  (&lt;em&gt;Catechism of the&#xA;  Catholic Church # 1546&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ, being the the only mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5), is the only true Priest. Both ministerial and common priesthood participate in this one priesthood of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and&#xA;  priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate,&#xA;  &quot;each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.&quot; While&#xA;  being &quot;ordered one to another,&quot; they differ essentially. In what&#xA;  sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the&#xA;  unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a&#xA;  life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the&#xA;  service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of&#xA;  the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a&#xA;  means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For&#xA;  this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of&#xA;  Holy Orders.  (&lt;em&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1546-1547&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New American Bible, Revised Edition presents an orthodox summary of Matthew’s account of the tearing of the veil: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke puts this&#xA;  event immediately before the death of Jesus. There were two veils in&#xA;  the Mosaic tabernacle on the model of which the temple was&#xA;  constructed, the outer one before the entrance of the Holy Place and&#xA;  the inner one before the Holy of Holies (see Ex 26:31–36). Only the&#xA;  high priest could pass through the latter and that only on the Day of&#xA;  Atonement (see Lv 16:1–18). Probably the torn veil of the gospels is&#xA;  the inner one. The meaning of the scene may be that now, because of&#xA;  Jesus’ death, all people have access to the presence of God, or that&#xA;  the temple, its holiest part standing exposed, is now profaned and&#xA;  will soon be destroyed. The earth quaked…appeared to many: peculiar to&#xA;  Matthew. The earthquake, the splitting of the rocks, and especially&#xA;  the resurrection of the dead saints indicate the coming of the final&#xA;  age. In the Old Testament the coming of God is frequently portrayed&#xA;  with the imagery of an earthquake (see Ps 68:9; 77:19), and Jesus&#xA;  speaks of the earthquakes that will accompany the “labor pains” that&#xA;  signify the beginning of the dissolution of the old world (Mt 24:7–8).&#xA;  For the expectation of the resurrection of the dead at the coming of&#xA;  the new and final age, see Dn 12:1–3. Matthew knows that the end of&#xA;  the old age has not yet come (Mt 28:20), but the new age has broken in&#xA;  with the death (and resurrection; cf. the earthquake in Mt 28:2) of&#xA;  Jesus; see note on Mt 16:28. After his resurrection: this&#xA;  qualification seems to be due to Matthew’s wish to assert the primacy&#xA;  of Jesus’ resurrection even though he has placed the resurrection of&#xA;  the dead saints immediately after Jesus’ death.  (&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/27&quot;&gt;USCCB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-29T04:02:12.663" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T04:02:12.663" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18708" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18692" CreationDate="2013-08-29T06:13:54.383" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is not a human:&lt;/strong&gt; The word &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt;, as commonly understood means a &lt;em&gt;human&lt;/em&gt;. But when we refer to God as a person, we are not saying that God is a human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;We are created in the likeness of God&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Genesis 1:26 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;image&lt;/strong&gt;, in our &lt;strong&gt;likeness&lt;/strong&gt;, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild&#xA;animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we say human is a person, then &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is far more a person than we are&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. We are created in the likeness of God, with the same appearance, with the ability to think and many other qualities of God are imparted to us. But we are not created exactly like God. We resemble only a fraction of the personality of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;God the Father is a spirit&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said to the Samaritan woman that God the Father is a spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 4:23-24 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true&#xA;worshipers will &lt;strong&gt;worship the Father in the Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; and in truth, for&#xA;they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. &lt;strong&gt;God is spirit&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Jesus the Word&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The identity of Jesus is quite confusing sometimes. Before the creation of the world, He was called &lt;em&gt;The Word&lt;/em&gt;. This &lt;em&gt;Word&lt;/em&gt; took the form of flesh in order to die for us on the cross and pour out His blood for the forgiveness of our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 1:14 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;The Word became flesh&lt;/strong&gt; and made his dwelling among us.&#xA;We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came&#xA;from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was a human when He was on earth, having flesh, bone and blood. After the resurrection, Jesus said that He has flesh and bone but didn't mention blood. It is a mystery what kind of body Jesus has right now in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Luke 24:39 (NKJV)&lt;/em&gt; Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself.&#xA;Handle Me and see, for a &lt;strong&gt;spirit does not have flesh and bones&lt;/strong&gt; as you&#xA;see I have.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Holy Spirit&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the name explicitly says, the Holy Spirit is a spirit. The Holy Spirit was sent on the Day of Pentecost, just as Jesus promised that the Father will send in the name of the Son Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 14:26 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; But the Advocate, the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, whom &lt;strong&gt;the Father&#xA;will send in my name [Jesus]&lt;/strong&gt;, will teach you all things and will remind you of&#xA;everything I have said to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; You can safely believe that God is a spirit and there is nothing wrong to say that God is a person. The infallible truth is that &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is not a human&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T06:13:54.383" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18709" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18685" CreationDate="2013-08-29T07:11:06.007" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is silent on this matter. The Bible doesn't mention explicitly that only the descendants of Cain are destroyed in the flood. Therefore, &lt;strong&gt;we can only speculate&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other less authentic books apart from the books of the Bible. These books sometimes help us to understand the accounts written in Genesis better and in more detail. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_Adam_and_Eve_with_Satan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan&lt;/a&gt; and other books like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Adam_and_Eve&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Life of Adam and Eve&lt;/a&gt;, the descendants of Cain lived completely isolated from the descendants of Seth. &lt;strong&gt;It was the descendants of Cain who were wicked and God wiped them from the earth by flood, saving only the descendants of Seth, who were only eight people when the flood happened.&lt;/strong&gt; The descendants of Cain were numerous because unlike the descendants of Seth, they were very active sexually and reproduced rapidly, resulting in large population.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T07:11:06.007" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4966" CreationDate="2013-08-29T08:51:13.223" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a reference to a vision in the book of the prophet Daniel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;13&lt;/sub&gt; I saw in the night visions,&#xA;  and behold, with the clouds of heaven&#xA;      there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days&#xA;      and was presented before him. &lt;sub&gt;14&lt;/sub&gt; And to him was given dominion&#xA;      and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages&#xA;      should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion,&#xA;      which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one&#xA;      that shall not be destroyed. &amp;mdash; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%207&amp;amp;version=RSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 7:13-14 RSV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus refers to this when He is brought before the council, as described in Mark 14: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;61b&lt;/sub&gt; Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ,&#xA;  the Son of the Blessed?” &lt;sub&gt;62&lt;/sub&gt; And Jesus said, “I am; and you&#xA;  will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming&#xA;  with the clouds of heaven. &amp;mdash; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14:53-65&amp;amp;version=RSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 14:61b-62 RSV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-25934&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:69&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also refers to it when speaking about the End Times:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. &amp;mdash; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 24:30 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013&amp;amp;version=NIV#en-NIV-24744&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 13:26&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021&amp;amp;version=RSV#en-RSV-25842&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 21:27&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5444" LastEditorUserId="5444" LastEditDate="2013-08-29T09:12:29.437" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T09:12:29.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18684" CreationDate="2013-08-29T11:17:04.883" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Answer:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Judas Iscariot indeed betrayed Jesus willfully and also had a chance to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus deliberately chose a devil:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;It seems to appear that Jesus deliberately chose Judas to be one of the 12 disciples, knowing that he was a devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 6:70-71 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet &lt;strong&gt;one of you is a devil!&lt;/strong&gt;”  (He meant Judas, the son of Simon&#xA;  Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas was a devil, but He chose Judas in order to fulfill the prophecy and God's plan..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 17:12 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except &lt;strong&gt;the one&#xA;  doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus has the power to see the hearts of men. When Jesus elected the 12 disciples, He had the intention in mind to chose a devil as one of His disciples. Jesus then saw Judas, a devil by birth, full of treachery, and Jesus willfully elected him. Jesus also was able to see the future of Judas, who will not repent and ask for forgiveness, hence He said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 26:24 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be&#xA;  better for him if he had not been born.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judas had a chance:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Everyone is given a chance to repent and ask forgiveness from Jesus, and Judas was not an exception. Even Peter disowned Jesus three times and all disciples left Jesus when He was arrested. Judas also had a chance to repent and ask for forgiveness. The thief crucified at the right hand side of Jesus is a good example of salvation at the last hour. Even a crucified thief had a chance. If Judas repented and asked for forgiveness, he would definitely be saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judas should have waited for Jesus to forgive him, instead of committing suicide in remorse. He was not able to see the forgiving power of Jesus though he was a witness to it. Judas might have never believed in Jesus as the Messiah but was simply following Jesus with expectations, probably to fight against the Roman Empire. Judas was not able to see the divinity of Jesus unlike the other disciples and the crucified thief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T11:17:04.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18713" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-29T12:29:23.440" Score="0" ViewCount="397" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am hearing with increasing frequency that Islam is not a religion. Here's one citation, from the upcoming &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religionnews.com/2013/08/27/newest-values-voters-adversary-to-america-the-emergent-church/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Value Voters Summit&quot;&gt;&quot;Value Voters Summit&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Why would Satan use Islam? Same reason. It’s not a religion. It’s a movement to dominate the world under the guise of religion.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How have missionaries to Islamic countries (or other prominent evangelists) described or worded the &quot;incorrectness&quot; of Islam?  What criteria have been used, if this phrase has roots in church history, between a non-salvific religion, and &quot;not a religion?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T15:51:57.170" Title="What terms have been used by missionaries to Islamic countries to describe Islam?" Tags="&lt;islam&gt;&lt;missions&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-09-02T02:58:19.893" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18692" CreationDate="2013-08-29T13:17:36.693" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is an answer directed to you personally in regard to your question.  God the Father is omniscient (all-knowing).  The Holy Spirit is omnipresent (all-present).  The Son is omnipotent (all-powerful).  Because they are a trinity any of these attributes can be identified with each of the persons of the trinity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As has already been stated personhood does not necessitate a physical form.  Jesus is credited with creation well before He took on flesh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this answer will not resonate well with this site one can understand that Jesus Christ’s identification of God as Father and Himself as the only begotten Son does identify God as Family.  God is not a person; God is however three persons, yet one God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as there are family dynamics that we naturally understand, within the Godhead these same family dynamics exist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God the Father was never a man, however Jesus Christ only does what He sees the Father do.  In other words Jesus is the image of the invisible God, He is the manifest will of God the Father.  The Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father bearing His will.  The Holy Spirit brings to fruition the will of God the Father.  Jesus Christ is that manifest will born of the Holy Spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus never once mentioned the Holy Trinity, Jesus repeatedly mentioned the Kingdom of God, His Heavenly Father and His own son-ship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the three persons of the Trinity are God, God the Family. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-09-03T12:10:15.547" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T12:10:15.547" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18692" CreationDate="2013-08-29T14:05:24.827" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's too much that we do not know about the LORD and would not even understand with our finite minds. The little I have come to understand is the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is one. (Deut 6:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word for 'one' here is the same one used in this passage.(Genesis 2:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt; That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they&#xA;become one flesh.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Bible speaks of the LORD's oneness, it is speaking about how He is united, of one accord, one mindset, one purpose. When two people are joined in marriage, they become one flesh. This does not mean that they have one body and are one 'person'. This means they are now (or at least should be) of the same mindset, same accord, same purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, God is not 'one' meaning the same body. God is 3 co-existent (have always existed) People as in 3 Spiritual Beings, One of whom willingly took human shape to save the fallen humanity. (Philippians 2:6,7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Who, being in very nature God,&#xA;    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;&#xA;rather, he made himself nothing&#xA;    by taking the very nature of a servant,&#xA;    being made in human likeness.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is a spirit, that is, not flesh and bone like us. Yet we know a lot about His character because Jesus came to show us what the Father was like through Himself. This is why when Philip asked Jesus to show them the Father, Jesus answered: (John 14:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me,&#xA;Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a lot that we don't understand about the nature of God the Father and probably never will. The most important thing is to focus on what has been shown to us through the Bible. That Jesus, being God, made Himself a man in order to die and and pay for the sins of humanity so that you may have a chance to live with Him and reign with Him. The question is, have you accepted Him as your Savior and King? He has done it all, but you still must choose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T14:05:24.827" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18716" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18717" CreationDate="2013-08-29T14:33:43.807" Score="22" ViewCount="38630" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are any Greek or Roman gods mentioned by name in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, are any Greek or Roman mythological characters or creatures mentioned in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5391" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2015-02-08T20:20:01.530" LastActivityDate="2015-02-21T20:14:03.570" Title="Are any Greek or Roman gods mentioned by name in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;gods&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18716" CreationDate="2013-08-29T14:40:17.727" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, several different Romans and Greek gods are mentioned.  Artemis, Zeus, and Hermes are all &lt;strong&gt;Greek&lt;/strong&gt; gods and Ashteroth was known as Astarte or &lt;strong&gt;Aphrodite&lt;/strong&gt; to the &lt;strong&gt;Greeks&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Artemis&lt;/strong&gt; was also known to the &lt;strong&gt;Romans&lt;/strong&gt; as &lt;strong&gt;Diana&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Ashteroth&lt;/strong&gt; was known to them as &lt;strong&gt;Venus&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is &lt;strong&gt;Artemis&lt;/strong&gt; of the Ephesians!”  Acts 19:28 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barnabas they called &lt;strong&gt;Zeus&lt;/strong&gt;, and Paul, &lt;strong&gt;Hermes&lt;/strong&gt;, because he was the chief speaker.  Acts 14:12 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After three months we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria, with &lt;strong&gt;the twin gods&lt;/strong&gt; as a figurehead.  Acts 28:11 ESV  [This apparently refers to Castor and Pollux.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Solomon went after &lt;strong&gt;Ashtoreth&lt;/strong&gt; the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.  1 Kings 11:5 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionary-of-bible-themes/8747-false-gods&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;List of false gods mentioned in the Bible.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T14:55:38.187" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18713" CreationDate="2013-08-29T15:51:57.170" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I know from speaking with those who have been missionaries in Islamic countries and from reading books written by such people, it seems that the strategy is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to demonstrate that Islam is incorrect, but to simply present Jesus (the prophet Isa) to people.  Jesus is acknowledged as a prophet by Islam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Koran on Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Koran talks about Jesus and says quite a few good things about him.  I actually met a man who was formerly a Muslim from a very Islamic country who discovered for himself from the Koran that Moses received the Law, Mohammed received the Koran, but Jesus received the Spirit.  He reasoned that what Jesus received was greater than the Law or the Koran, and so he went in search of Jesus.  So, pointing Muslims to the verses in the Koran about Jesus is one strategy that is used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Koran on the Word of God&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another tactic is to read the verses in the Koran that teach how God's word cannot be changed and its commands to read the Scriptures given beforehand.  Many Muslims are taught that the Bible is corrupted, but the Koran contradicts this by saying that God's word cannot be altered.  This often leads Muslims to start reading the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dreams&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it seems that quite a few Muslims have had dreams where Jesus appears to them.  So common is this that some missionaries have simply started to ask Muslims that they meet if they have ever had a dream about Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, the strategy with followers of Islam is pretty much the same with anyone else.  Jesus is presented as the eternal Son of God, crucified, and risen from the dead.  The point is not to criticize other teachings, but to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T15:51:57.170" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18684" CreationDate="2013-08-29T17:15:01.357" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Judas Iscariot was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; predestined to betray Jesus, and he had a choice in the matter. Consider Psalm 41:9: “The man at peace with me, in whom I trusted, who was eating my bread, has magnified his heel against me.” (NWT) Notice that the prophecy does not specify which close associate of Jesus it would be. Jehovah God knew that the Devil had used David’s counselor Ahithophel to betray him, and He had that recorded because it demonstrated how the Devil operated and what he would do in the future. It was not God but “the Devil . . . [who] put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him [Jesus].” (John 13:2) Instead of resisting, Judas yielded to that satanic influence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In connection with the incident where Jesus declared that one of the twelve was “a slanderer” close to Passover 32 C.E., John says: “From the beginning Jesus knew . . . who was the one that would betray him.” (John 6:64) From Hebrew Scripture prophecies, Christ knew that he would be betrayed by a close associate. God also had seen that such a one would turn traitor, but it is inconsistent with God’s qualities and past dealings to think that Judas had to fail, as if he were predestined. Rather, at the beginning of his apostleship Judas was faithful to God and to Jesus. Thus Christ must have meant that “from the beginning” of when Judas started to go bad, started to give in to imperfection and sinful inclinations, Jesus recognized it. Judas must have known he was the “slanderer” Jesus mentioned, but he continued to travel with Jesus and the faithful apostles and apparently he made no changes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not discuss in detail the motives for his corrupt course, but an incident that occurred on Nisan 9, 33 C.E., five days before Jesus’ death, sheds light on the matter. At Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, Mary, Lazarus’ sister, anointed Jesus with perfumed oil worth 300 denarii, about a year’s wages for a laborer. (Matthew 20:2) Judas strongly objected that the oil could have been sold and the money “given to the poor people.” Judas’ real reason for objecting was that he cared for the money box and he “was a thief . . . and used to carry off the monies” put in the box. So Judas was a greedy, practicing thief. (John 12:2-7). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;He must have had a good heart to begin with, since Jesus would not otherwise have chosen him as an apostle. But after being reproved by Jesus at that time, Judas resentfully plotted his Master's betrayal. (Matthew 26:6-16)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;At this time &quot;Satan entered into Judas,&quot; likely in the sense that the traitorous apostle gave himself in to the will of the Devil, allowing himself to be a tool to carry out Satan's design to stop Christ.&lt;/strong&gt; A few days later, on Nisan 12, Judas went to the chief priests and temple captains to see how much they would pay him to betray Jesus, again showing his avarice. When Jesus later revealed that one of the 12 would betray him, Judas innocently asked: &quot;It is not I, is it?&quot; (Matthew 26:25) He also betrayed Jesus with a sign of friendship--a kiss. Only a &lt;em&gt;deliberate&lt;/em&gt; sinner could maintain such a bold facade. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5583" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T17:15:01.357" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4658" CreationDate="2013-08-29T18:13:29.267" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the (quite minor) risk of being controversial, I'm going a different route. Let me state upfront that I am wholeheartedly Christian and have been for years.&#xA;I've been reading the Bible carefully, trying to understand the text beyond what I've been raised and taught to see in it. In addition, I've been culling other sources to compare and contrast their views to better refine my own. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through-and-through, the conclusion I've reached is that the way Jesus conceived of his role was as God's perfect revelation here on the earth. That is, he was so much in God's image, reflecting God's being and character to the people around him, that he effectively stood in the role of God. Thus he could say, &quot;I and the Father are one.&quot;&#xA;But, at the same time, being human, he perceived a difference between himself and God, which is why, in the same book as the previous quote, he could say, &quot;The Father is greater than I.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, I see no contradiction between distinguishing between himself and God and his other claims and statements, nor with my belief in him &lt;em&gt;as&lt;/em&gt; God.&#xA;It's confusing, sure, but isn't that a given when dealing with Christology?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5585" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-08-29T19:44:00.607" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T19:44:00.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18722" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-29T20:52:25.710" Score="5" ViewCount="2148" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the end of Job, God blessed him and gave him twice as much as he had in the first part of his life but he still has seven sons and three daughters.  Is it a common interpretation that his first seven sons and three daughters who were killed are alive in heaven? This would be twice as much--fourteen sons and six daughters. What are other interpretations from groups that would find the former interpretation unacceptable?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5525" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2014-04-30T12:13:38.397" LastActivityDate="2014-04-30T12:13:38.397" Title="Are Job's seven sons and three daughters in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;job&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18689" CreationDate="2013-08-29T21:28:16.750" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;To supplement Affable Geek's answer...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Christian philosophy (especially Thomistic), the question, &quot;Does God's knowledge increase in time?&quot; is intrinsically invalid. God is eternal. Eternity, by definition, transcends time altogether. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What, then, is time? Philosophers use the word in two closely related&#xA;  senses; most of us find that one of these is sufficient for us. Time,&#xA;  say the philosophers, is the duration of that which changes; time, say&#xA;  the philosophers again and we with them, is the measurement of the&#xA;  changes of the universe. What is common to both statements is the&#xA;  relation of time to change. Where nothing changes, time has no&#xA;  possible meaning. Thus time and the universe started together. God is&#xA;  infinite and therefore changeless. He is “the Father of lights with&#xA;  whom there is no change or shadow of alteration” (James 1:17). He&#xA;  possesses the utter fullness of existence, so that nothing can go from&#xA;  Him, for He already possesses all. The universe He created is a&#xA;  changing universe. And because change belongs to it and not to God,&#xA;  time belongs to it and not to God. To repeat, time and the universe&#xA;  started together: time is the ticking of the universe. (1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our finite human intellects are so soaked and submerged in time that we struggle even to formulate sentence structures to effectively discuss God's nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English language tends to  break down when dealing with the true nature of God's existence. For instance, If we say, “Jesus was begotten before the universe was created,” then we are stating something that has no meaning at all. &lt;em&gt;Before&lt;/em&gt; is a word of time, and there could be no time before the universe because time began &lt;em&gt;with&lt;/em&gt; the universe. To say “before the universe” means when there wasn't any “when”; which is to say that it doesn't mean anything at all. The same is said about the question, “Does God &lt;strong&gt;today&lt;/strong&gt; have different knowledge than &lt;strong&gt;yesterday&lt;/strong&gt;?&quot; &quot;Yesterday&quot; is what our finite intellects understand to be the measurement of change occurred in the universe 24 hours ago. &quot;Today&quot; measures the amount the universe has/will (&lt;em&gt;has&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; are verbs used to express past and future) change in the current 24 hour measurement period. Even the fundemental elements of our human languages cannot escape the effect that time has on our existence.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a constant struggle against time as we contemplate God's &lt;em&gt;eternal&lt;/em&gt; nature. God created time, and therefore is not bound to be subjected by it. It is this reality of God's utter transcendence of time is precisely why the Incarnation is so mysterious. How can an eternal infinite God reduce himself to a crying infant?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There may still remain one error clinging to our knowledge of the&#xA;  processions of the Persons in the Blessed Trinity because of our own&#xA;  immersion in time. As far as the statement of it goes, we are not&#xA;  likely to make the error of thinking that the Son is in some way less&#xA;  eternal than the Father, or the Holy Spirit in some way younger than&#xA;  the Father and the Son. We know that there is no succession in&#xA;  eternity, no change in God. God the Father did not first exist as a&#xA;  Person and then become a Father. God, by the very act of being God,&#xA;  generates his Son; God the Father and God the Son, by the very act of&#xA;  being God, spirate the Holy Spirit. As I say, there is not likely to&#xA;  be any error in our statement of this: the error will tend to cling to&#xA;  our idea in such a way that when we are looking directly at it, we do&#xA;  not see it, yet it is profoundly there: and, because time is so deeply&#xA;  woven into all our experience, our advance in the knowledge of God&#xA;  depends upon our deliberate effort to rid our mind of it. (2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Frank Sheed, &lt;em&gt;Theology and Sanity&lt;/em&gt;, pg. 105&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Frank Sheed, &lt;em&gt;Theology and Sanity&lt;/em&gt;, pg. 108&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastActivityDate="2013-08-29T21:28:16.750" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18725" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18671" CreationDate="2013-08-30T00:10:13.997" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would first challenge that from a Biblical perspective, many doctrines would not agree that membership in the church is solemnized through baptism, but rather that baptism is an outward display of the inward change which produces that solemnized joining to the spiritual Church (acceptance and belief in Christ as personal Lord and Savior).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To ask about leaving the big C Church really is to ask if salvation can be lost and thus be cut off from God.  The Bible is clear in John 10:28-30 that nothing can snatch followers of Christ from his hand and this leads to a once saved always saved theology.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 3:29 describes the only unforgivable sin as blaspheming the Holy Spirit which would result in being cut off from the spiritual Church, but it isn't particularly clear what that is as no further explanation is given.  Personally, I've always interpreted it to mean that the only way to give up salvation is to truly within your heart reject God again after truly accepting him.  I also think it is the kind of thing that if you were to do it, you would never again have any desire to be saved anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the little c church goes (an individual community of believers), I think simply explaining why you are leaving and not showing up anymore is the best path.  It's nice to let them know why you are deciding to leave, if it's a problem with the church, there may be something they can do to work on it.  Be polite certainly, but most churches that have any hope of improving should take it well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People change churches or back out of churches pretty regularly and it isn't normally taken personally by any churches I've known over the years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T00:10:13.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18689" CreationDate="2013-08-30T01:01:38.140" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Judeo-Christian tradition within Protestantism and Catholicism, God is immutable.  Simply put, He does not change (see 1 Samuel 15:29; Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Numbers 23:19; and “Does God ‘Change His Mind’?” &lt;em&gt;Bibliotheca Sacra&lt;/em&gt; 152:608 [October-December 1995]:387-99).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for &lt;strong&gt;knowledge&lt;/strong&gt;, God's omniscience precludes His acquiring knowledge (or as you put it, &quot;different knowledge&quot;).  When God knows all there is to know, what is left to know?  Obviously, nothing.  As Paul put it in Colossians 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;. . . a true knowledge of God's mystery . . . is Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge&quot; (vv.2,3).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord God said in Revelation 1, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I am the Alpha and the Omega . . . who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty&quot; (v.8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's use of the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet (our English A and Z) is a merism, a figure of speech that encompasses everything, including the &lt;em&gt;knowledge&lt;/em&gt; of the beginning from the end and the end from the beginning.  Since God inhabits eternity, and since time is His creation, not ours, God exists, as some theologians put it &quot;in the eternal present.&quot;  From everlasting to everlasting, He &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; God (Psalm 90:2).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To suggest God somehow increases in knowledge is clearly unbiblical because it negates His omniscience.  Being created in God's image, Human beings have knowledge and can increase their knowledge.  Our knowledge, however, is imperfect and incomplete, but God's knowledge is complete and perfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that God's foreknowledge of everything that will take place causes it to happen?  No.  Within a fairly circumscribed area, God has given human beings a measure of freedom.  All the invitations of Scripture would not make sense otherwise.  Clearly, God gives people the freedom to accept or reject His promises, and thus accept or reject Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Come unto me,&quot;  Jesus said.  &quot;All of you who are weary and heavily burdened, come.  I will give you rest&quot; (Matthew 11:28-30).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we come to Jesus, He will give us the rest and peace He promises.  If we choose not to, we hurt only ourselves.  God will not make us come to Him, though He does draw us, which is implied in every one of His gracious invitations (e.g., see Isaiah 55:1-3; John 7:37,38; 6:44).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While clearly beyond the scope of your question (so &quot;tune out&quot; if you'd like), the concepts of &lt;em&gt;anthropomorphisms&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;anthropopathisms&lt;/em&gt; help us to appreciate the impossibility of understanding fully the person and attributes of God, including His omniscience, or perfect and infinite knowledge.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, anthropomorphisms (&lt;em&gt;anthropo-&lt;/em&gt; + &lt;em&gt;-morphism&lt;/em&gt;, man + form, shape or appearance) are figures of speech which ascribe to God human body parts (eyes, ears, a nose, hands, arms) or human limitations.  These figures of speech do not constitute blasphemy or idolatry; rather, they make God more understandable to us, and for our benefit God moved the writers of Scripture to include them in holy writ. If He had not, our understanding of the person of God would be greatly diminished.  God is certainly ineffable in so many ways, and yet He is also understandable, no more so than in the person of His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:15:2:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While God does not have eyes, He can see (2 Chronicles 16:9); He has no ears, but He hears (see Psalm 94:9); and so on.  While God is omniscient and all knowing, that did not stop Him from asking His erring creatures, Adam and Eve, several questions after they had sinned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then the LORD called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'. . . [and] Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?'. . . Then the LORD God said to the woman, 'What is this you have done?'&quot; (3:9,11,13).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knew the answers to these questions, but He asked them anyway to give our first parents an opportunity to confess.  They did not; instead, they made excuses!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, anthropopathisms (&lt;em&gt;anthropo-&lt;/em&gt; + &lt;em&gt;-pathos&lt;/em&gt;, man + emotion) describe God as having human emotions, such as anger, jealousy, wrath, joy, happiness, frustration, and regret.  Dr. Bruce Ware, in his series of articles entitled &quot;Attributes of God: Incommunicable and Communicable&quot; (at biblicaltraining.org) suggests that rather than labeling God's emotions as anthropomorphisms we should call them &lt;em&gt;theomorphisms&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas anthropopathisms denote the human tendency to project our fallible and imperfect emotions onto an infallible and perfect God (which is really a form of idolatry), theomorphisms denote the God-like emotions with which He endowed us when He created us in His own image (Genesis 1:26,27).  Dr. Ware suggests theomorphisms is a more accurate word, and I concur. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When our emotions are not under God's control they often wreak havoc in our lives and in the lives of those around us.  Controlled by the Holy Spirit of God, however, they are manifest in &quot;the fruit of the Spirit&quot; (viz., love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, and self control--Galatians 5:22,23).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's emotions, on the other hand, are never out of control.  While God's reaction to the idolatry of the Israelites in Moses' absence (Exodus 32) may seem to us to be &quot;a fit of pique&quot; or a &quot;temper tantrum,&quot; these are projections of fallible human emotions onto an infallible God, and they are not only unworthy of Him, but they also minimize the legitimacy and holiness of God's wrath.  God's wrath is never capricious, unpredictable, vindictive, or out of control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, there are attributes of God which are His alone (e.g., omnipresence, eternity, infinity, self-sufficiency, aseity, and immutability itself), which theologians call &lt;em&gt;incommunicable&lt;/em&gt;.  The attributes of God which we reflect, albeit imperfectly and finitely as His image bearers, are &lt;em&gt;communicable&lt;/em&gt; (e.g., knowledge, wisdom, rationality, love, emotionality, and volition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within the Godhead, all God's attributes, whether incommunicable or communicable, are inherently and infinitely perfect in ways that are beyond human comprehension.  As Isaiah tells us, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD.  'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts'&quot; (55:8,9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within God's image bearers, His communicable attributes, including His emotionality and His knowledge, are mere reflections or adumbrations of the ineffable, transcendent God, whom we will spend eternity worshiping and serving and getting to know, more and more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-08-30T13:08:56.040" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T13:08:56.040" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18728" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18814" CreationDate="2013-08-30T01:56:38.683" Score="5" ViewCount="553" Body="&lt;p&gt;While perusing the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) website I came across this &lt;a href=&quot;http://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/catholic-and-orthodox&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I fully understand what the word &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;catholic&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by itself means.  Orthodox Christians (like many liturgical Protestant denominations) recite the Creed with the understanding that the phrase &quot;one, holy, &lt;em&gt;catholic&lt;/em&gt;, and apostolic Church&quot; emphasizes the word &lt;em&gt;catholic&lt;/em&gt; with a general meaning, whereas the Catholic Church obviously implies that the word &lt;em&gt;Catholic&lt;/em&gt; is more specific. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the website:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Orthodox Christians understand the word “catholic” word to mean&#xA;  “whole, complete, lacking in nothing.” Hence, when we say “one, holy,&#xA;  catholic, and apostolic Church,” we mean that the one, holy, and&#xA;  apostolic Church is “whole, complete, and lacking in nothing.” The&#xA;  word “catholic” with a small “c” has nothing whatsoever to do with&#xA;  Roman “Catholic” with a capital “C”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This explanation makes sense to me in all aspects except one - the writings of the early Church Fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/catholic.htm&quot;&gt;CATHOLIC&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many early writings, both East and West, that are very clear and direct about the Catholic Church being named the Catholic Church with a capital &quot;C.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the&#xA;  Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also&#xA;  reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office]&#xA;  the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the&#xA;  Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist,&#xA;  which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has&#xA;  entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the&#xA;  multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he&#xA;  has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the&#xA;  multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is,&#xA;  there is the Catholic Church.&quot; &lt;em&gt;Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the&#xA;  Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Orthodox Bishops and theologians view these specific and direct Patristic quotes in light of the Orthodox definition of the word &quot;catholic?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-08-30T02:01:47.953" LastActivityDate="2013-12-22T03:44:50.053" Title="How do Orthodox Bishops and theologians view the Church Fathers' definition of the word &quot;catholic?&quot;" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18729" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-30T04:38:57.970" Score="5" ViewCount="6091" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 4:24 (KJV)&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;God is a Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;: and they that worship him must&#xA;  worship him in spirit and in truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel of John tells us that God is a Spirit. What about the angels? According to the Bible, what are angels?  Are they also spirits or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-20T22:41:16.030" LastActivityDate="2019-05-25T12:50:09.810" Title="Are angels spirits?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18733" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18753" CreationDate="2013-08-30T08:49:44.710" Score="4" ViewCount="6278" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said (Luke 4:27):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several possible interpretations occur to me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Others were cured too; Jesus is simply wrong or misquoted.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Others were not cured. (Why?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even Naaman was not cured, because miracles are fantasy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does the evidence say? Is there any extra-biblical source confirming Naaman's curing? Is there any explanation why the other lepers are not cured?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am mainly looking for extra biblical evidence that would convince the agnosis. After all, if Jesus says so and it were true is not an assumption we all share. Moreover, Jesus often says vague things, (like the time is near) and easily misinterpreted things, like mustard seed is the smallest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-01-18T12:00:02.133" LastActivityDate="2016-01-18T12:00:02.133" Title="Why did God only cure Naaman?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;healing&gt;&lt;elisha&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-01-18T17:26:32.953" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18735" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19092" CreationDate="2013-08-30T11:24:05.297" Score="20" ViewCount="36792" Body="&lt;p&gt;How did the Crusades affect the Pope's power/authority, during and after the Crusades?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Crusades&lt;/a&gt;, from Wikipedia&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land. The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291; historians have given them numbers, later unnumbered crusades were also taken up for a variety of reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5592" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-08-22T21:40:57.647" Title="How did the Crusades affect the Pope's power and authority?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;authority&gt;&lt;crusades&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18736" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-30T12:06:24.377" Score="7" ViewCount="673" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in the Bible are angels feminine.  If angels are messengers from God, why do these messengers always manifest themselves as masculine?  Is it because they assume the gender of their Divine dispatcher?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-08-30T13:10:39.623" LastActivityDate="2015-02-13T19:35:32.157" Title="Why are all angels masculine?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;spirit&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18736" CreationDate="2013-08-30T12:31:37.470" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, angels are different beings from us as they do not procreate. Matthew 22:29,30 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of&#xA;      God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be&#xA;      like the angels in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because they do not procreate, gender really is irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I will add; I believe that in the Bible they take the shape of a man, but as in human shape. We know not if this is a female or male shape. Just like in the Garden of Eden:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So God created &lt;strong&gt;man&lt;/strong&gt; in his own image, in the image of God created he him; &lt;strong&gt;male and&#xA;      female&lt;/strong&gt; created he them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So man can be used to refer to mankind, instead of just male.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-08-30T23:00:57.713" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T23:00:57.713" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18738" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18733" CreationDate="2013-08-30T12:50:13.887" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many accounts of people being healed in the Scriptures.  It seems that God sometimes used this to authenticate His message or His messenger.  Other times, it seems to be just an act of compassion.  The resurrection of Jesus is the most significant miracle, of course, and it is certainly not fantasy.  There is ample evidence to support the occurrence of miracles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The particular instance in Luke 4 comes as Jesus is speaking in His hometown of Nazareth.  The people there are rejecting Him because they are familiar with Him and His family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus cites two examples where non-Jewish people were healed and Jewish people were not.  The Jews were God's chosen people, to be sure, but their history is one of consistent rejection of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This appears to be a warning to the people of Nazareth to not reject Jesus just because of their familiarity with Him.  In times past, God had turned from the Jews and bestowed His blessings on Gentiles, so just because the people of Nazareth were Jewish did not preclude them from being rejected by God if they rejected Jesus as the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the&#xA;gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, &lt;strong&gt;“Is not&#xA;this Joseph's son?&lt;/strong&gt;” 23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote&#xA;to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you&#xA;did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 And he said,&#xA;“Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But&#xA;in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in &lt;strong&gt;Israel&lt;/strong&gt; in the days of&#xA;Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and&#xA;a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none&#xA;of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of &lt;strong&gt;Sidon&lt;/strong&gt;, to a woman who&#xA;was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in &lt;strong&gt;Israel&lt;/strong&gt; in the time of&#xA;the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Syrian&lt;/strong&gt;.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were&#xA;filled with wrath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town&#xA;and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built,&#xA;so that they could throw him down the cliff. 30 But passing through&#xA;their midst, he went away.  Luke 4:22-30 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T13:01:31.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18739" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18733" CreationDate="2013-08-30T12:52:09.117" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well the context of this passage is that &quot;no prophet is accepted in his own country.&quot; (Luke 4:23) There are people who are not IN the fold of Jesus who believe on Him more than the ones who are supposed to be of His fold. But like Naaman and the widow in Elijah's time, they believed unto the LORD and became part of His fold. Because of this faith, Naaman was healed, and the widow was provided for and her son resurrected. It was because of their faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I choose to believe what Jesus says as fact and true. I don't believe there is any extra-biblical source for Naaman's cleansing, but in my opinion the Word of God is historical fact. Also also the Word made flesh, Jesus, spoke about it. To me this is more than enough to confirm its reliability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T12:52:09.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18740" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-30T13:03:41.193" Score="9" ViewCount="1354" Body="&lt;p&gt;In an answer to another question, @PeterTurner wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Good answers from a Catholic perspective should be able to stand on all three legs of Sacred Scripture, Magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between the last two items, and can an example of each be given?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-08-30T15:15:28.710" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T21:41:31.867" Title="What is the difference between Magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition in Roman Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18741" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18744" CreationDate="2013-08-30T13:19:52.950" Score="12" ViewCount="7967" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've noticed that Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have shockingly differing views of wisdom and knowledge:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Her [wisdom and understanding personified] ways are pleasant ways and all her paths are peace.” (Proverbs 3:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.” (Ecclesiastes 1:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly peace is not the same thing as grief, nor is pain the same as pleasant.  Considering that there is no argument over that, what then make sense of these two verses.  Can they both be true at the same time?  Is wisdom and understanding a grievously pleasant and peacefully painful thing?  Are we supposed to do the math and determine that wisdom is just average then in every regard?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can these two verses be understood so that they are both true, but can be in harmony with each other and not be a ridiculously obvious contradiction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5593" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-05-30T15:48:15.050" Title="Do Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have polar opposite views of wisdom?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;proverbs&gt;&lt;wisdom&gt;&lt;ecclesiastes&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-05-31T17:21:43.387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18741" CreationDate="2013-08-30T13:26:50.697" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Living wisely allows a person to avoid a great deal of calamity.  For instance, someone who is wise with his money and stores up wealth for his later years can enjoy the blessings of wisdom, whereas someone who spends money foolishly will suffer for that.  So, there is blessing in living wisely with the things of this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Ecclesiastes probably addresses the folly of focusing exclusively on the things of the world, as such things are only temporal.  Riches and wealth can satisfy the desires of the flesh but not the cravings of the soul and spirit.  Thus, it is good and honorable to live wisely in regard to the things of this world, but even better to live wisely in regard to eternal things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T13:26:50.697" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18743" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18741" CreationDate="2013-08-30T13:58:13.883" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is “worldly wisdom” and there is “wisdom from God”:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Corinthians 3:19 “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes speaks further of wisdom that is not polar to proverbs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7:11 Wisdom [is] good with an inheritance: and [by it there is] profit to them that see the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7:19 Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty [men] which are in the city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9:18 Wisdom [is] better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T13:58:13.883" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18744" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18741" CreationDate="2013-08-30T14:43:42.180" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have of late taught that &quot;wisdom&quot; in the book of Proverbs is best understood as the understanding of God's ways or will and the application of such.  In other words, acting and behaving in the manner which God intends for us.  &quot;Knowledge&quot; can be understood in a similar fashion.  This interpretation of wisdom, in my opinion, can be applied to all instances of &quot;wisdom&quot; within Proverbs with the resulting understanding of the passage remaining consistent with all of scripture.  Again, this is my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if we look at Ecc 1:16-18, it would seem the author is boasting that he is responsible for his wisdom and intelligence, not God, and through that he could determine on his own what was foolishness in thought and deed apart from the discernment and direction of God.  But, he knows now such a thing is futile because the more he did what he thought in his own mind as wise, the more trouble he brought upon himself.  So, in this sense, despite both books using the same word the connotation of it is different in these three verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question, then, yes, the two instances of wisdom are indeed polar opposites in that God's wisdom, the understanding and application of His will for our lives, is diametrically opposed to following our own &quot;wisdom&quot; which is selfish, self-interested (Pr 14:2 and others), and governed by a deceitful heart (Jer 17:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5558" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T14:43:42.180" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3783" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:16:56.097" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Re &quot;the OT laws are still in effect&quot;? Well they have not been abolished have they? However the religious ceremonies associate to the OT laws do not resolve the offenses committed under this code. Sacrificing an animal in your place fails to produce a residual issue, but the sacrifice of a man in your place who just happens to be the only begotten son of the living God results in an entire different matter. For the OT code of laws do not allow any possibility of resolving that sin. What is Jesus illustrating regarding the wineskins? The new wine goes into a new wineskin, i.e. law, which does allow for the resolution of the sin of only one a man's murder. However it is only past sins that are forgivable. NOT having the faith to repent of the one sin of Jesus' crucifixion is in and of itself a sin by law and is the sin which is not forgivable. The grace of God is that by Jesus' crucifixion it was justifiable to make a change of the law in regard to what God had promised to his son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And for Your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Pal you ain't outside of the box this term of God, 'each man,too,' he has put your tail in, are you?      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law was fulfilled by making an addition to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See Isa. 2:3, Isa. 51:4b, Acts 7:53, Gal.3:19, Rom. 2:13, Rom. 5:20, Heb. 7:12&#xA;The OT law or written code was delivered at Sinai. The new law was delivered in Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who have the faith to obey it will be declared righteous by God. Those who refuse cut themselves off from obtaining the right to eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.&quot; — Rom. 2:13 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5056" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-08-30T16:17:42.127" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T16:17:42.127" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18746" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-30T15:48:17.757" Score="5" ViewCount="20513" Body="&lt;p&gt;Don't we have a good idea of when each was written? Wouldn't it make more sense?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5564" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T18:14:39.080" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T18:14:39.080" Title="Why aren't the books of the Bible in chronological order?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;chronology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18740" CreationDate="2013-08-30T16:06:09.173" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Peter pointed out the Church's authority rests upon Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial teaching/interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apostolic Tradtion is the root source of Christian revelation. Christ entrusted the message of salvation and doctrinal authority to the Apostles, who in turn handed Christ's revelation through apostolic succession (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The CCC defines Tradition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;75 &amp;quot;Christ the Lord, in whom the entire&#xA;Revelation of themost high God is summed&#xA;up, commanded the apostles to preach the&#xA;Gospel, which had been promised&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;beforehand by the prophets, and which he&#xA;fulfilled in his own person and promulgated&#xA;with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel,&#xA;they were to communicate the gifts of God&#xA;to all men. This Gospel was to be the source&#xA;of all saving truth and moral discipline.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the apostolic preaching. . .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the&#xA;Gospel was handed on in two ways:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;orally &amp;quot;by the apostles who handed on, by&#xA;the spoken word of their preaching, by the&#xA;example they gave, by the institutions they&#xA;established, what they themselves had&#xA;received - whether from the lips of Christ,&#xA;from his way of life and his works, or&#xA;whether they had learned it at the&#xA;prompting of the Holy Spirit&amp;quot;;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in writing &amp;quot;by those apostles and other men&#xA;associated with the apostles who, under the&#xA;inspiration of the same Holy Spirit,&#xA;committed the message of salvation to&#xA;writing&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;. . . continued in apostolic succession&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;77 &amp;quot;In order that the full and living Gospel&#xA;might always be preserved in the Church the&#xA;apostles left bishops as their successors.&#xA;They gave them their own position of&#xA;teaching authority.&amp;quot; Indeed, &amp;quot;the&#xA;apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a&#xA;special way in the inspired books, was to be&#xA;preserved in a continuous line of succession&#xA;until the end of time.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;78 This living transmission, accomplished in&#xA;the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is&#xA;distinct from Sacred Scripture, though&#xA;closely connected to it. Through Tradition,&#xA;&amp;quot;the Church, in her doctrine, life and&#xA;worship, perpetuates and transmits to every&#xA;generation all that she herself is, all that she&#xA;believes.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;The sayings of the holy&#xA;Fathers are a witness to the life-giving&#xA;presence of this Tradition, showing how its&#xA;riches are poured out in the practice and life&#xA;of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;79 The Father's self-communication made&#xA;through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains&#xA;present and active in the Church: &amp;quot;God, who&#xA;spoke in the past, continues to converse&#xA;with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the&#xA;Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of&#xA;the Gospel rings out in the Church -and&#xA;through her in the world - leads believers to&#xA;the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ&#xA;dwell in them in all its richness.&amp;quot;  (&lt;em&gt;CCC, Sect. 1, Chapt. 2, Para. 75-79&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word Magisterium is just a fancy word for &amp;quot;teaching office.&amp;quot; Magisterial teaching is guided by the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret both Tradition and Scripture. The Magisterium is necessary for Sacred Scripture to remain authoritative. Without an authoritative interpreter to interpret Scripture, then Scripture loses its authority. Any one could interpret it anyway they wish. Perhaps this is why there are thousands of denominations.  This is analogous to the necessity of the U. S. Judicial branch  interpreting the Constitution in order to prevent &lt;em&gt;total&lt;/em&gt; anarchy that would result from the private interpretation of U. S. citizens. However, unlike the Judicial branch, the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The CCC also emphasizes the necessity of an authoritative interpreter to defend and protect the authority of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;84 The apostles entrusted the &amp;quot;Sacred deposit&amp;quot; of the faith (the&#xA;depositum fidei),contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the&#xA;whole of the Church. &amp;quot;By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy&#xA;people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching&#xA;of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the&#xA;prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that&#xA;has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the&#xA;bishops and the faithful.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Magisterium of the Church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;85 &amp;quot;The task of giving an authentic&#xA;interpretation of the Word of God, whether&#xA;in its written form or in the form of&#xA;Tradition, has been entrusted to the living&#xA;teaching office of the Church alone. Its&#xA;authority in this matter is exercised in the&#xA;name of Jesus Christ.&amp;quot; Thismeans that the&#xA;task of interpretation has been entrusted to&#xA;the bishops in communion with the&#xA;successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;86 &amp;quot;Yet this Magisterium is not superior to&#xA;the Word of God, but is its servant. It&#xA;teaches only what has been handed on to it.&#xA;At the divine command and with the help of&#xA;the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly,&#xA;guards it with dedication and expounds it&#xA;faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as&#xA;being divinely revealed is drawn from this&#xA;single deposit of faith.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles:&#xA;&amp;quot;He who hears you, hears me&amp;quot;, the&#xA;faithful receive with docility the teachings&#xA;and directives that their pastors give them&#xA;in different forms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The dogmas of the faith&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the&#xA;authority it holds from Christ to the fullest&#xA;extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when&#xA;it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian&#xA;people to an irrevocable adherence of faith,&#xA;truths contained in divine Revelation or also&#xA;when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths&#xA;having a necessary connection with these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;89 There is an organic connection between&#xA;our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas&#xA;are lights along the path of faith; they&#xA;illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely,&#xA;if our life is upright, our intellect and heart&#xA;will be open to welcome the light shed by&#xA;the dogmas of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;90 The mutual connections between dogmas,&#xA;and their coherence, can be found in the&#xA;whole of the Revelation of the mystery of&#xA;Christ. &amp;quot;In Catholic doctrine there exists&#xA;an order or hierarchy of truths, since they&#xA;vary in their relation to the foundation of&#xA;the Christian faith.&amp;quot; (&lt;em&gt;CCC, Sect. 1, Chapt. 2, Para. 84-90&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tradition is the source of both Scripture and the Magisterium. The New Testament wasn't completed until the end of the 1rst cent., and wasn't canonized until the end of the 4rth. The Gospel was transmitted by Tradition and was interpreted by the Magisterium long before the canon was approved by Pope Damasus I. From then on the Church has been supported by those 3 legs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T21:41:31.867" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18746" CreationDate="2013-08-30T16:16:24.113" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chronology is certainly one really good way to organize the books of the Bible, and some people may prefer this.  There certainly are editions of the Bible in chronological order that are available.  It should be noted that the order of the books of the Bible is not inspired, so you are really free to organize them however you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the problems with chronology, though, is the overlapping of some accounts. The book of Acts covers quite a bit of history, so the epistles occur throughout it.  Furthermore, there are some books that are not historical in nature, like the Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.  Sure, they were written mostly by David and Solomon, but there really isn't a lot of reason to place them in between chapters of 1 and 2 Kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, there is a common order that does have a purpose.  This historical narratives in the Old Testament are pretty much in chronological order.  The prophets span several kings and are not written historical narrative but has prophetic utterances in history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of my favorite representations is found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://visualunit.me/2011/10/23/periodic-table/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Periodic Table of the Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/cL8sa.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The divisions highlighted here are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pentateuch (Moses)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;History Narrative (chronological, for the most part, with some overlapping)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wisdom Literature&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Major Prophets&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Minor Prophets&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gospels (generally chronological, but each overlaps the others)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;History (Acts) - chronological&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Letters to Churches, named for cities&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Letters to Individuals, named for recipient&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Letters by People, named for authors&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophecy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, order them however you want for your personal reading.  If you don't like the common order, that's totally fine.  I remember an old mentor of mine reading through the Psalms backwards, which was an interesting idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T16:16:24.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18750" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18746" CreationDate="2013-08-30T16:17:00.280" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Why aren't the books of the Bible in chronological order?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In which Bible, there are plenty of translations, and the order depends on who was the translator/editor, since you can order the Bible books as you wish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Don't we have a good idea of when each was written? Wouldn't it make more sense?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know partially who write what. For example, for centuries we thought the Hebrews epistle was authored by Paul, but it was not as many &quot;recent&quot; studies demonstrate.&#xA;Ordering by author would make a result very much like ordering chronologically, since most of books are from different centuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a very big subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5595" LastActivityDate="2013-08-30T16:17:00.280" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18733" CreationDate="2013-08-31T01:02:49.987" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for your first question:  When Jesus says something happened in the history of His people, Israel, you can rest assured it happened.  He is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the one who knows the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end.  Nothing in history escapes His notice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your second question:  The lepers who resided in Israel during the prophet Elisha's ministry evidently did not have the faith of Naaman the Syrian, a lone Gentile Captain of the Syrian army who had heard of Elisha's miraculous powers through a Hebrew servant girl who had been taken captive in a battle between Syria and Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for question number three:  Of course Naaman was healed.  Again, if Jesus said he was, then he was.  As Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther film would say, &amp;quot;Case is sol-ved.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let's contextualize Jesus' comments to the members of the synagogue who heard them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First&lt;/strong&gt;, we know that Jesus was not able to perform many miracles in his hometown of Nazareth.  Mark tells us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And [Jesus] could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them.  And He wondered at their unbelief&amp;quot; (6:5,6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus finished his remarks about a prophet's not being without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives, and then launched into a little history lesson that took his audience back to the days of Elijah and Elisha, He knew His words would &amp;quot;hit home,&amp;quot; which indeed they did!  After hearing Jesus mention two Gentiles who were recipients of miracles in the days of the prophets, we read&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things&amp;quot; (v.28).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They would have cast Jesus off a cliff and then rained down stones upon His body until He was dead, had He let them.  It was not &amp;quot;his time,&amp;quot; however, and He simply &amp;quot;passed through their midst&amp;quot; (v.30).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Constable observed in his notes contained in the NET Bible,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Jesus did not say that Elijah and Elisha went to Gentiles because the Jews rejected them but because God sent them there. God sent them there even though there were many needy people in Israel. Nevertheless Israel then was in an apostate condition. The three and one-half years was a period of divine judgment on Israel (cf. Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev. 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5). The implication of these two illustrations [of the Zarephath widow and the Syrian captain] was that God had sent Jesus to Gentiles as well as to Jews. The Nazarenes, therefore, should not expect preferential treatment. Jesus ministered to Jews first, but He also ministered to Gentiles. These examples would have encouraged Luke’s original Gentile readers since they had a similar mission.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' and His disciples' primary audience, then, comprised Jewish people in the main, but they by and large rejected Jesus and His message of repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In perhaps Jesus' most scathing denunciation of all, He told the crowds of people who gathered around Him after He had sent the Twelve on a preaching mission, people who were from the Galilean cities that failed to repent even though He had performed many miracles there:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;'Woe to you, Chorazin!  Woe to you, Bethsaida!  For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago . . ..  Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.  And you, Capernaum . . . if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. . . .  It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you'&amp;quot; (Matthew 11:20-24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're all familiar with Paul's statement about the gospel being the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek  (Romans 1:16).  We're also familiar with Jesus' interaction with the Syrophoenician woman--whom Mark calls &amp;quot;a Gentile of the Syrophoenician race&amp;quot;--in which Jesus engages in a little playful repartee with her:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;. . .  she kept asking [Jesus] to cast the demon out of her daughter.  And He was saying to her, 'Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good [proper] to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.'  But she answered and said to Him, 'Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs.' And He said to her, 'Because of this answer [word] go; the demon has gone out of your daughter.'  And going back to her home, she found the child lying [thrown] on the bed, the demon having left&amp;quot; (Mark 7:26-30).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Jesus' primary ministry was to &amp;quot;the lost sheep of the house of Israel&amp;quot; (Matthew 10:6), He nevertheless rewarded faith wherever He encountered it,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;whether it was at a well in &amp;quot;Samaritan country&amp;quot; where a woman with a shady past experienced Jesus' forgiveness when she believed He was the Messiah (John 4:7-30, 39-42);&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;whether it was in Tyre where a Syrophoenician woman who--not so coincidentally came from the same general vicinity of Captain Naaman, the leper of 2 Kings 5--begged for the life of a daughter being ravaged by an evil spirit;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;or whether it was in the big city where a Roman centurion's servant in dire distress received a healing long-distance when his master, in faith, asked Jesus to heal him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Each person approached Jesus in faith, and Jesus, who was not a respecter of persons, gave each of them their healing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was Jesus' reaction to the centurion's faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&amp;quot;Now when Jesus heard [the centurion's request], He marveled and said to those who were following, 'Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel'&amp;quot; (Matthew 8:10).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At this point, the unbelieving Jews who witnessed the miracle were probably feeling a bit salty, having heard Jesus' clear rebuke of His &amp;quot;own people&amp;quot; (see John 1:11), whom He considered to be lacking in faith.  In effect, Jesus was saying, &amp;quot;Shame on you; you should know better!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Second&lt;/strong&gt;, the notion of jealousy--or the &amp;quot;jealousy factor&amp;quot;--is relevant in Jesus' approach to His own people vis a vis outsiders to the faith.  Paul speaks of this in Romans 11, where he says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;. . . By [Israel's] transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles to make [Israel] jealous.  Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!  But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles.  Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them&amp;quot; (vv.11-14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, while on earth, Jesus looked for childlike faith, He looked for sincere belief.  Whenever and wherever faith and belief were evident, Jesus saved, healed, and forgave.  Ultimately, the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah and King.  Consequently, in the years after His resurrection, Jesus' message was taken to more and more Gentiles.  One day, however, the &amp;quot;fullness of the Gentiles&amp;quot; will signal the end of the &amp;quot;church age&amp;quot; (see Romans 11:25), and God will once again turn His attention to His people according to the flesh,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.'  'This is my covenant with them, When I take away their sins'&amp;quot; (vv.26,27).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-08-31T19:03:39.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8177" CreationDate="2013-08-31T02:18:28.940" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I may speak from my convictions, Acts 10, while a fun story is not the definitive passage on this issue.  Neither is Matthew 15:11-20, though I do love teaching that passage to middle school boys :)  No, Paul wrote the treatise on clean and unclean foods in Romans 14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him.  Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (vv1-4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you who eat vegetables only – why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything – why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. (v10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. For if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you consider good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. For the one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by people. (vv14-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean, it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble. (vv19-21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New English Translation, 2008&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is Paul, a former Pharisee, declaring that there is no food that is unclean (vv14a, 20a) unless the person eating it or watching someone eat it thinks it is unclean.  Even then it not &quot;unclean&quot; as much as it is a stumbling block to those for whom eating that food seems wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize Paul, if a person wants to eat any kind of meat (except that offered to false idols), let them eat it to the glory of God.  Those that don't think they should eat a certain type of food, let them abstain to the glory of God.  If God is pleased, great!  If God is not, He will deal with the one who needs correcting.  It is not our job to correct, condemn, judge, or ostracize a person over their dietary habits if their heart is in the right place.  There are much bigger things in the Kingdom to worry about.  Paul sums up the whole argument so succinctly in v20: &quot;Don't destroy the work of the Kingdom over some barbecue and shrimp.&quot; (my paraphrase).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5558" LastEditorUserId="5558" LastEditDate="2013-08-31T17:11:21.890" LastActivityDate="2013-08-31T17:11:21.890" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18746" CreationDate="2013-08-31T03:29:03.870" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the problem is that some books cover overlapping time periods.  How do you order the Gospels for example.  John for example even hits on creation briefly.  This would complicate things greatly since there isn't any way to logically order them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many cases, things are Chronologically ordered where it makes sense.  Genesis comes at the beginning, Revelation comes at the end, New Testament comes after Old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another problem is how do you judge prophecy or things like psalms that don't deal with a particular time period or deal with a much later time period?  There are lots of issues in determining just what chronological order would make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could try doing Chronological order by writing, but do you then do it by the first time it is written down or the time that it was original presented?  Again, some points can get tricky as some were assembled over generations which can overlap.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus we end up with the common approach being a loose chronological order that is subgrouped by category to help resolve overlapping books that cover different purposes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-08-31T03:29:03.870" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18758" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18722" CreationDate="2013-08-31T04:35:44.310" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;At &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/2/#v44002034&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:34&lt;/a&gt; we see that not even David, who was considered to be one of the righteous kings, ascended to heaven. The Bible indicates that Jesus was the first one to be resurrected to spirit life and ascend to heaven. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/3/#v43003013&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:13&lt;/a&gt;) This would include Job and his sons and daughters. They are still potentially eligible for a resurrection to earthly life during the thousand year reign of Christ. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/job/14/#v18014014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job:14:14-15&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/24/#v44024015&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 24:15&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/20/#v66020013&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:13&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. You can read more about the condition of the dead and the hope for the dead in chapters 6 and 7 of the book &quot;What Does the Bible Really Teach?&quot;, which you can &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/is-this-what-god-purposed/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;read for free online.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2014-04-30T06:05:59.880" LastActivityDate="2014-04-30T06:05:59.880" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18760" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18147" CreationDate="2013-08-31T07:20:15.753" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does indicate that the earth will always be mankind's home and it will never be destroyed. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/104/#v19104005&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 104:5&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/37/#v19037029&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 37:29&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/115/#v19115016&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;115:16&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several clues in the scriptures which help us to see that we will not have repeating cycles of history with mankind falling into sin and corruption and needing to be restored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For one thing, the Bible indicates that Jesus only needed to die once, for all mankind, forever. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/hebrews/7/#v58007027&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 7:27, 28&lt;/a&gt;) The value of his sacrifice is completely satisfactory forever, because his perfect human life corresponded to Adam's. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-timothy/2/#v54002006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 2:6&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/15/#v46015045&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:45&lt;/a&gt;) That ransom gives God the legal right to forgive repentant sinners and restore them to perfection without breaking his own standard of justice. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/deuteronomy/19/#v5019021&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 19:21&lt;/a&gt;). Once the value of this ransom has been fully applied to mankind, and those living have regained the sinless and endless life that Adam gave up, any future offspring would be born without any inherited sin or death. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/5/#v45005012&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/21/#v66021004&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:4&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another line of evidence is that Satan and his demons will be completely destroyed after the final test at the end of Christ's thousand year reign. Prior to this they are only restrained, so that they can be &quot;released from his prison&quot; to see who will still choose to follow them even after attaining perfection. After that final test Satan and all who choose to follow his course of rebellion against God are completely destroyed in the &quot;lake of fire&quot;. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/20/#v66020002&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 20:2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/20/#v66020007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;7-10&lt;/a&gt;) Fire is here used to represent destruction (which is what fire does). Burning there &quot;forever and ever&quot; indicates that their destruction is permanent, as in they will never receive a resurrection. After the rebels are destroyed, those remaining will have already been tested and proven to be faithful. It is unlikely that a person would choose to rebel after that, but if they did, they could simply be destroyed quickly without dragging the rest of us down. This is because any future rebellion by any individual person could be handled totally differently from the initial rebellion of Satan, Adam, and Eve. At that time it made more sense for God to allow them to choose an independent course in order for humans and spirits to see that such a course can never work for them and their offspring. Certainly by the end of the final test, God's universal sovereignty, or his right and ability to rule will have been fully proven to the satisfaction of all reasonable humans and spirit creatures. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/jeremiah/10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 10:23&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/34/#v19034008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 34:8&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way we know our problems are being handled in a permanent way is because of God's qualities such as love, holiness, wisdom, and power. His love makes him want to end suffering forever. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-john/4/#v62004008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/a&gt;) His holiness makes him incapable of allowing wickedness to exist forever. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/isaiah/6/#v23006003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 6:3&lt;/a&gt;) His wisdom and power make him capable of knowing and achieving the best and permanent solution. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/daniel/2/#v27002019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Daniel 2:19&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. For more information visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://jw.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jw.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2014-05-01T06:46:56.223" LastActivityDate="2014-05-01T06:46:56.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4195" CreationDate="2013-08-31T15:44:12.070" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding Psalm 68:29 -- it is an illogical premise to suppose that because scripture refers to &quot;not blotting out&quot; that there is the ability to blot out. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, scripture indicates that the names of God's people were written in the Book of Life before the foundations of the world. God is sovereign. Scripture indicates He choose whom He wants, not based on anything they do. We are born again via God alone, not by human will or desire. These are the names in the Book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5603" LastActivityDate="2013-08-31T15:44:12.070" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18765" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7493" CreationDate="2013-08-31T16:06:31.383" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see why it could not be Judas.  Granted, Jesus made this statement to the remaining 11 disciples after Judas had left the room.  However, Judas expressed obvious remorse and regret over his betrayal of Jesus as he killed himself.  Similarly, if 1 Peter 3:18-20 means Jesus in body or spirit did preach the gospel to those in Hades after His death, since Judas died before Jesus, if he had not repented before his death he would have had the chance to repent at that time.  I agree, though, that we cannot know and won't until we see it in person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the record, I don't agree with Matthias but could see it being Paul.  Or maybe just the 11 of &quot;y'all&quot; :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5558" LastActivityDate="2013-08-31T16:06:31.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18729" CreationDate="2013-08-31T18:09:48.903" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Abraham's servant went to find a wife for Isaac (Gen 24), he had angelic influence (no mention of the angel physically accompanying him).  The angels who came to escort Lot and his family out of town were corporeal as they ate dinner (Gen 19:3).  In Matthew 2:13, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream.  However, an angel was able to physically kick Peter in the side to wake him up (Acts 12:7).  The author of Hebrews says we may entertain angels (13:2) which suggests a physical form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem angels have the ability to assume both corporeal and non corporeal forms as they see fit, suggesting they have both physical and spirit attributes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5558" LastActivityDate="2013-08-31T18:09:48.903" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18769" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-31T19:31:40.347" Score="8" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is not uncommon when talking to someone about the authenticity or composition of the Biblical canon to for the subject of the so-called &quot;lost&quot; gospels to be brought up.  An explanation of the process used to determine canon, specifically the criteria the criterion of cohesion with the rest of the Bible can, among the more skeptical, bring about the claim that the early church was guilty of suppressing documents showing accounts that &quot;show the truth&quot; about the claims of Jesus or show Him in a negative light, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One would expect, if the claims at truth are indeed valid, these pseudepigraphal writings would show some degree of harmony within themselves, both the early (The Gospel of Judas, for instance) and the late (Gospel of Thomas).  This is equally true for Old Testament non-canonical books such as The Book of Enoch.  Harmony within these writings would support the truth claim and make a reasonable argument for their content.  Disharmony amongst themselves would lessen the credence and support those which are harmonious as being true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, to what degree is there harmony among the books left out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5558" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-28T19:55:42.950" LastActivityDate="2015-08-28T19:55:42.950" Title="Harmony in the pseudepigraphal writings?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;canon&gt;&lt;apocrypha&gt;&lt;gnosticism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-08-31T22:32:41.390" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first thing I will note is an issue with the question. It is not fair to ask &quot;Why does God ...&quot; because it is wholly unanswerable unless the Scripture says explicitly why, but it usually does not explain God's actions. So I will focus more on &quot;Why do some Christians believe ...&quot; as there is usually an abundance of text where they explain &lt;em&gt;their&lt;/em&gt; thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In today's modern society the question of whether to procreate or not is hidden under the question of whether &lt;em&gt;contraception&lt;/em&gt; is moral or not. Yes, to some groups, using contraception is morally offensive, however, to the larger majority, it is more of a concern for the perpetuation of the faith. Invariably, allowing contraception leads to fewer births, which in turn leads to relatively fewer believers for the next generation. This concern is legitimate; the common phrase among those being candid about the issue is &quot;out-breed the non-believers&quot;. The phrase is not unique to Christians either. Islamic clerics have said it on more than one occasion [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.assaultweb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=64089&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;]. It is often said and employed by racist groups as well, wanting to &quot;out-breed&quot; the other races&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Even some atheists are worried they will be &quot;out-bred&quot; by the religious [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/03/16/will-atheists-be-out-bred-by-believers/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So what does all this have to do with your question? Well, to answer it effectively for a modern audience, an examination on the various views on contraception will be very illuminating.&lt;/strong&gt; There are a few categories (According to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_birth_control#Current_views&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia source&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Children in abundance - Often members of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Quiverfull Movement&lt;/a&gt;, those in this group believe that any contraception, even &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Family_Planning&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Natural Family Planning&lt;/a&gt; (as defined by the RCC) is morally unacceptable. They believe that the use of birth control undoes God's purpose (or one of them) for marriage. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Children in managed abundance - Those is this group stress the importance of having many children, however, they are more open to the outcome. Generally, you are to have however many you can conceive, but Natural Family Planning is acceptable. The Catholics are very similar to this position.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Children in moderation - Those in this group  encourage families to have children, however, they place a higher stress on exercising prudence when family planning. As an effect, they approve of the use of artificial contraception. Generally, the number of children you have is your choice.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;No children - Those in this group believe they may choose to live their lives without consideration or obligation to having children. There really are not many denominations that fall into this category. The nearly defunct &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Communal_spiritual_family&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Shakers&lt;/a&gt; believe procreation is immoral.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because your question assumes that God commands Christians to procreate I will only discuss the theologies of the first three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For the &quot;children in abundance&quot; group&lt;/strong&gt;, naturally, they often quote the Genesis command to Adam and Eve, and also the repeat of that command to Noah. More commonly is that they quote &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+127%3A3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pslams 127:3&lt;/a&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Behold, children are a gift of the Lord,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;The fruit of the womb is a reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They argue that if children are a gift from God, then it is greatly disrespectful to refuse those gifts. You would not refuse a gift of wealth from God; likewise a gift of health and long life. So, they argue, you should not refuse a gift of children. In addition to this, they also point to a large number of verses using the phrase &quot;open and close womb&quot; to support that God is in control of childbearing. Those verses are: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2020:18;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 20:18&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2029:31;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 29:31&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2030:22;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 30:22&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:5-6;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samuel 1:5-6&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2066:9;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 66:9&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;To answer &quot;Why does God command ...&quot; is clear. It is because He wants to bless us and give us the precious gifts of children.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it seems to me, that &lt;strong&gt;the &quot;children in managed abundance&quot; and &quot;children in moderation&quot; groups are very similar to the first group&lt;/strong&gt;. They will certainly agree that children are a gift and that God does, indeed, control the miracle of conception, but they consider at least this one thing: care for the children. The use of the word &quot;prudence&quot; by some in the third group implies that the welfare of the child should be considered when family planning, and there are circumstances when a new child under your care would put unnecessary hardship on the parents, the child, or both. The difference between groups two and three just seems to be the degree to which &quot;prudence&quot; is applied. However, I would note that the cultural &quot;out-breed the non-believer&quot; stance may be a factor in group two's beliefs, but likely not in group three's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How would groups two and three answer &quot;Why does God command ...?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; Group two may reference the blessing verse, but group three certainly would not. In fact, what is more likely is that both groups would not necessarily agree that it is a command for all mankind. Some would even likely quote Paul saying &quot;It is good for a man not to marry,&quot; (See &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7 &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)) pointing out that neither him, nor Jesus married nor sired any children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia (again) has a section discussing &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_birth_control#Denominational_positions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;denominational positions on contraception&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An anecdote. My wife worked with a man that admitted freely he believed in white racial supremacy and his church (likely very small) taught that they must &quot;out-breed&quot; the three M's: Mormons, Muslims, and Mexicans. Clearly, the first two could be taken without racism implied, however, not so much for the third.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-09-04T21:09:23.210" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T21:09:23.210" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13710" CreationDate="2013-08-31T23:13:28.907" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is the New Testament silent on Infant Baptism? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptist/evangelical response:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason there is no mention of infant baptism in the New Testament is because this practice is a Catholic invention that developed two to three centuries after the Apostles.  The Bible states that sinners must believe and repent before being baptized.  Infants do not have the mental maturity to believe or to make a decision to repent.  If God had wanted infants to be baptized he would have specifically mentioned it in Scripture.  Infant baptism is NOT scriptural.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lutheran response:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God made his covenant with Abraham, God included everyone in Abraham's household in the covenant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abraham, the head of the household.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His wife.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His children:  teens, toddlers, and infants  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His servants and their wives and children.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His slaves and their wives and children.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis records that it was not just Abraham who God required to be circumcised.  His son, his male servants, and his male slaves were all circumcised; more than 300 men and boys.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the act of circumcision save all these people and give them an automatic ticket into heaven?  No.  Just as in the New Covenant, it is not the sign that saves, it is God's declaration that saves, received in faith.  If these men and boys grew in faith in God, they would be saved.  If they later rejected God by living a life of willful sin, they would perish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This pattern of including the children of believers in God's covenant continued for several thousand years until Christ's resurrection.  There is no mention in the OT that the children of the Hebrews were left out of the covenant until they reached an Age of Accountability, at which time they were required to make a decision:  Do I want to be a member of the covenant or not?  And only if they made an affirmative decision were they then included into God's covenant.  Hebrew/Jewish infants and toddlers have ALWAYS been included in the covenant.  There is zero evidence from the OT that says otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Infants WERE part of the covenant.  If a Hebrew infant died, he was considered &quot;saved&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, circumcision did NOT &quot;save&quot; the male Hebrew child.  It was the responsibility of the Hebrew parents to bring up their child in the faith, so that when he was older &quot;he would not depart from it&quot;.  The child was born a member of the covenant.  Then, as he grew up, he would have the choice:  do I want to continue placing my faith in God, or do I want to live in willful sin?  If he chose to live by faith, he would be saved.  If he chose to live a life of willful sin and never repented, and then died, he would perish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ established the New Covenant, he said nothing explicit in the New Testament about the salvation of infants and small children; neither do the Apostles nor any of the writers of the New Testament.  Isn't that odd?  If the new Covenant no longer automatically included the children of believers, why didn't Christ, one of the Apostles, or one of the writers of the NT mention this profound change?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is there no mention in the NT of any adult convert asking this question:  &quot;But what about my little children?  Are you saying that I have to wait until my children grow up and make a decision for themselves, before I will know if they will be a part of the new faith?  What happens if my child dies before he has the opportunity to make this decision?&quot;  But no, there is no record in Scripture that any of these questions are made by new converts to the new faith.  Isn't that really, really odd???  As a parent of small children, the FIRST question I would ask would be, &quot;What about my little children?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the New Testament is completely silent on the issue of the salvation or safety of the infants and toddlers of believers.  Another interesting point is this:  why is there no mention of any child of believers &quot;accepting Christ&quot; when he is an older child (8-12 years old) or as a teenager and then, being baptized?  Not one single instance and the writing of the New Testament occurred over a period of 30 years, approximately thirty years after Christ's death:  So over a period of 60 years, not one example of a believer's child being saved as a teenager and then receiving &quot;Believers Baptism&quot;.  Why???&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So isn't it quite likely that the reason God does not explicitly state in the NT that infants should be baptized, is because everyone in first century Palestine would know that infants and toddlers are included in a household conversion.  That fact that Christ and the Apostles did NOT forbid infant baptism was understood to indicate that the pattern of household conversion had not changed:  the infants and toddlers of believers are still included in this new and better covenant.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Circumcision nor Baptism was considered a &quot;Get-into-heaven-free&quot; card.  It was understood under both Covenants that the child must be raised in the faith, and that when he was older, he would need to decide for himself whether to continue in the faith and receive everlasting life, or choose a life of sin, breaking the covenant relationship with God, and forfeiting the gift of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which of these two belief systems seems to be most in harmony with Scripture and the writings of the Early Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gary&#xA;Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5598" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-09-01T00:37:59.070" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T00:37:59.070" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-09-01T03:09:42.793" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is that, according to the Bible, Christians are neither obligated or encouraged to have children. What follows is a more in-depth, Bible based answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/1/#v1001028&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:28&lt;/a&gt; was a command given to Adam and Eve, the first humans, not to Christians. Why did got want them to produce offspring? Well, to put it simply, if they did not, they would have been the only two humans on the earth. The purpose of the earth is to support human life and be our home. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/115/#v19115016&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 115:16&lt;/a&gt;) You have to remember that at the time God said this, Satan was not yet the ruler of the world. It was and still is God's purpose that the earth be filled with happy, healthy people. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/37/#v19037029&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 37:29&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/104/#v19104005&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 104:5&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian Greek Scriptures do not repeat the command to produce offspring as being binding on Christians. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/15/#v44015028&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 15:28, 29&lt;/a&gt;) They also do not forbid getting married or having children. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-timothy/4/#v54004001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 4:1-3&lt;/a&gt;) While singleness is never a requirement for Christians, the apostle Paul does discuss the benefits of singleness, provided we are not under excessive pressure, not &quot;inflamed with passion&quot; and therefore in danger of committing fornication. The course of singleness is &quot;better&quot; in that it allows one to serve God without distraction. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/7/#v46007001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7:1, 2&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/7/#v46007008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;8, 9&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/7/#v46007029&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;29-38&lt;/a&gt;) In reference to singleness, Jesus said &quot;Let the one who can make room for it make room for it.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/19/#v40019010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:10-12&lt;/a&gt;) Since the Bible recommends singleness for Christians under certain circumstances, we can safely say it is not encouraging us to have more children. Ultimately however, the decision to remain single, or get married and not have children, or to get married and have children is left up to a personal decision on our part. We should weigh seriously the effects and responsibilities that accompany these decisions. Even so, none of those options is considered a sin and we are permitted to choose what we want as long as we do not commit fornication or adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. For more information, you can visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://jw.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jw.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, much of this information comes from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004138&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;section on Singleness in Insight on the Scriptures&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2014-05-01T05:18:29.427" LastActivityDate="2014-05-01T05:18:29.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3167" CreationDate="2013-09-01T05:08:32.737" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We should feel the way David felt as expressed at Psalm 139:21, 22. We should hate those who hate God. We would restrain from judging most people, but we should hate those who are confirmed enemies of God, such as Satan and the demons, as well as men who deliberately and knowingly take their stand against God. This does not mean that we try to inflict harm on others and is not synonymous with spite or malice. It is an abhorrence of what is wicked and avoiding what is bad and those intensely hating God (Romans 12:9, 17, 19). Even if someone is persecuting you, they do not necessarily understand what they are doing. But if they were at one time a servant of God, and are now taking a firm stand against him, this is more serious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2013-09-01T05:14:12.940" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T05:14:12.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8228" CreationDate="2013-09-01T06:04:51.280" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's way of saying, &quot;Dung&quot; Happens. Even though we might have to, and it's never fun to clean up the poop, it's worth it in the long run because of how much good can come from the ox. Much like how God uses adversary in our lives to produce a good outcome in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyhow, that's my take on it.&#xA;Blessings&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5610" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T06:04:51.280" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14906" CreationDate="2013-09-01T12:21:11.553" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When man and woman have sex they enter a state called &quot;one flesh&quot; regardless of whether they are virgin or married or in fact having sex with a prostitute.&#xA;You can be &quot;one flesh&quot; with many but God intends only one (living).&#xA;&quot;One flesh&quot; is a state of spiritual union initiated by a fleshy act which can only be ended by death.&#xA;The act of marriage creates a physical union and this should correspond with the spiritual union , so sex and marriage go together, even if the sex comes first.&#xA;Jesus made a definitive statement on sex and marriage in Matthew 19.4 onwards which has deep spiritual meaning as well as a very simple literal meaning ; we wouldn't expect less from the top spirit himself.&#xA;Over the years the Church has emphasised the marriage union and shied away from the &quot;one flesh union&quot; because it can easily control the former.&#xA;The bible is a spiritual guide and the words used don't always do justice to the message.&#xA;To those of you who have received messages from the Holy Spirit you will recall that you receive the message not in words; but your brain assigns words to it in a clumsy way...so when  we read the Bible we ask the Holy Spirit to give us the understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5611" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T12:21:11.553" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3167" CreationDate="2013-09-01T13:03:10.883" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, we should not love Satan.  Satan (as many contributors, above, have already noted) is not like our human enemies who still have a chance to repent and thus avoid the condemnation of holy, just, and righteous God.  Satan is &lt;em&gt;already&lt;/em&gt; judged, he's been given a sentence, and he's simply biding his time until he is thrown into his jail cell for all eternity:  hell.  To him, no chance for repentance is given and no one can commute his sentence, since God the righteous judge, who in this case is also the jury, is incapable of error, and His rulings are final.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Abraham of old so eloquently said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Will not the judge of all the earth do right?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to Abe's rhetorical question, of course, is yes.  We, being finite, may not understand fully the judgments of God, but we are nevertheless called upon to trust them, since God is trustworthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 19:9 (KJV) tells us,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We thank God that His judgment of human beings at both the Great White Throne Judgment and at the Judgment Seat of Christ--the &lt;em&gt;bema&lt;/em&gt; (see Revelation 20:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 5:10) has yet to take place, which means that within our brief life-span we--unlike Satan--are given a chance to repent and believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though we are, according to Jesus, judged or condemned already because of our unbelief, thanks be to God that whoever believes in Jesus is not subject to the judgment of the lost and condemned.  We praise God, then, for Jesus' having already been judged, sentenced, and condemned to death for us through His cross (see John 3:14-21, particularly vv.16-18).  As Paul said so triumphantly in Romans:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us&quot; (5:8).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The righteous One died for the unrighteous ones, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God if we simply believe (see 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Corinthians 5:21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, praise the Lord!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-09-01T16:58:31.480" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T16:58:31.480" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="570" CreationDate="2013-09-01T14:58:59.393" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God says infant baptism is wrong.  Consider the following passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8.35-37&lt;/a&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has made it clear in this passage that before anyone can be baptised, they must meet this prerequisite: they must believe with all their heart that Yahshua is The Son of God.  Philip knew this was true in the case of the eunuch, because the eunuch confessed it with his mouth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of an infant who cannot yet speak, how can we possibly know whether or not they believe with all of their heart that Yahshua is The Son of God?  We can’t.  Furthermore, in the case of an infant who is not yet old enough to understand spoken or written words, it’s clear that they cannot even understand what the words ‘If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest’ mean, let alone believe them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, we must conclude that an infant does not meet the prerequisite which God has set for a person to be ready to be baptised in water and so if whilst we are seeking to fulfil God’s command to ’[go] … and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…’ (Matthew 28.19), we encounter (as I have many times) someone who says “I have been baptised” and we find out after probing that this was as a baby, we know we have some explaining to do, since this baptism was completely and utterly ineffectual.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To respond to Peter Turner's question about whether the infants in Cornelius' household were rebaptised when they reached the age of majority, I would pose the following question: why do you assume there were any children in Cornelius' household that were so young that they couldn't understand the meaning of spoken (or indeed written) words, hence being too young to believe that Yahshua is The Son of God, hence being too young to be baptised?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now let's think about the assertion above that John's baptism was invalid.  If we examine the scripture quoted (Acts19.3-5), we find that nowhere did Paul say John's baptism was invalid.  We actually find that it was a different baptism to being baptised in The Name of The Lord Jesus.  There was nothing wrong with it.  It was God's will for their lives, as He makes clear in John 7.29-30:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28 For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist;[d] but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”&#xA;  29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was God's will for them to be baptised with the baptism of John before Yahshua had died on the cross, risen from the dead and given the following instruction:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.&#xA;  19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:&#xA;  20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28.18-20)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nowhere in The Bible does it say anyone was baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost before Yahshua had died on the cross.  I suspect this is because it took Yahshua's death on the cross to make this possible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the church wants to regain the favour of God that the early believers enjoyed, we need to examine how they operated and do likewise.  You'll find in the book of Acts that when people believed the preaching of the apostles or an evangelist (Philip), they were baptised &lt;em&gt;immediately&lt;/em&gt;.  Salvation is urgent.  People have died and gone to a lost eternity today (unless perhaps someone raises them from the dead and they get some more time in this life), to be thrown into the lake of fire, because they didn't understand the word that was preached:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.&#xA;  19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. (Matt 13.18-19).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.&#xA;  49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.&#xA;  50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. (John 12.48-50).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?&#xA;  47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:&#xA;  48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.&#xA;  49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. (Luke 6.46-49).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Make no mistake: if you want to be like the man in the parable of whom The Lord said &quot;the ruin of the house [he built] was great&quot;, when you here Yahshua's words, don't do them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yahshuas' words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16.16).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to Affable Geek's comment below, to which counter case do you refer?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to fredsbend, thanks for the edit and formatting help.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5613" LastEditorUserId="5613" LastEditDate="2013-09-01T16:36:53.550" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T16:36:53.550" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13754" CreationDate="2013-09-01T18:20:46.000" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In answering this question, I first want to requote the passage quoted above in the second answer&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(1 Cor 1.10-14,16-18), but this time including the omitted verse (v 15), which interestingly enough is the verse which answers the question) and omitting the final verse (v 18). Reading the whole passage (vv.10-17) is useful because it provides the context for the single line of Paul's letter which is quoted in the question (v 17).  I use the KJV:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.&#xA;  11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.&#xA;  12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.&#xA;  13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?&#xA;  14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;&#xA;  15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.&#xA;  16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that Paul acually gives us the reason that Ha-Masciach (Christ) sent him not to baptise in verse 15: 'Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.' The point Paul is making here is on the subject of names (which is instructive when considering the subject of denominations, since the word denomination means to give something a name). Believers are not given the Holy Spirit to glorify any name except the name of Yahshua. The point is that believers are to be united in glorifying this noble  name in word and in deed, rather than divided. Thus it is wrong to say &quot;I'm of Apollos&quot; or &quot;I'm of Cephas&quot; or &quot;I'm pentecostal&quot; or &quot;I'm baptist&quot; or &quot;I'm Church of England&quot; or even &quot;I'm of Christ&quot;. He's not saying it's wrong to say &quot;I'm of Christ&quot; in general: only when it's in the context of dividing yourself from other believers who are saying they're of some other name. The point is clear: unity is essential. It's so essential that there are cases where you shouldn't even say you are of Christ because you'll wound and alienate others (who are your brothers and sisters in The Lord) who are saying they are of some person or name other than Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; saying that baptism is unnecessary (or else why would he have baptised anyone). Neither is he nullifying these word of Yahshua:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16.16).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What he's saying is that noone should baptise in their own name, or even be seen to be doing so, because in doing so there is a danger that people will begin to divide on the basis of favouring one person who is baptising over another, when in fact we need to recognise that we are to be united in glorfying The Lord: we are called to be colabourers, as he says in these passages:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Galatians 6.13-14)      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.&#xA;  2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.&#xA;  3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?&#xA;  4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?&#xA;  5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?&#xA;  6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.&#xA;  7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.&#xA;  8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.&#xA;  9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.&#xA;  10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.&#xA;  11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (1 Cor 3.1-11)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Yahshua Ha-Maschiach (Jesus Christ) is the foundation and no man can lay any other, we ought to be careful to avoid nullifying or doubting His words, which I quote again:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16.16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle Peter warned us to be very careful when reading Paul's letters in 2 Peter 3.15-16:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;&#xA;  16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to your comment Mike, I don't believe Paul thought baptism was unimportant, since he did baptise people. Why would a man as serious and dedicated as Paul waste his time doing anything he thought unimportant?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do think it may be worth stating my final argument though, as you suggest. My final argument is not that Paul put unity above baptism, but rather that he put unity above his needing to be the one to baptise every single new believer he could: it was ok for someone else to do the baptising. That Paul recognised the crucial importance of baptism is evident from the following excerpts from his letters:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?&#xA;  4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.&#xA;  5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:&#xA;  6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.&#xA;  7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Romans 6.3-7)    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Galatians (3.27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:&#xA;  11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:&#xA;  12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Colossians 2.10-12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I feel it's so important to observe in the Romans and Colossians passages at this point is that Paul says we can only enter into Christ's death by being baptised. Some have said this is symbolic, because of verse 5: 'For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection'. I don't believe it's symbolic however. I believe that when a person is baptised they really do die and when they emerge from the water they really are born again. I've heard people say baptism is a symbol by which they imply that it's not necessary for salvation, which would nullify Christ's words in Mark 16.16. In 1 Peter 3.21, the apostle Peter describes '[the baptism which now saves us]' as the antitype of Noah and his family being saved '&lt;em&gt;through water&lt;/em&gt;' in the ark. This means that the salvation of Noah and his family is actually the symbol (or type) whilst baptism is the 'real' thing (antitype) of which Noah and family's salvation is the symbol. This actually shows that real things that people go through involving real salvation which saves real people's lives can still be a symbol, which means that even if baptism is a symbol, that doesn't mean it has no bearing on people's eternal salvation. The Lord's words in Mark 16.16 assure us incontrovertibly that it does.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5613" LastEditorUserId="5613" LastEditDate="2013-09-02T11:35:35.017" LastActivityDate="2013-09-02T11:35:35.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2013-09-01T19:33:32.770" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faith that isn't tested isn't faith.  We are indeed saved by faith and not works, but a faith without works is a dead faith and that won't save anyone.  If I say I have 1 million pounds in the bank, you can say you believe me as much as you like, but how do I know you really do believe me without some sort of test? So here's the test: I give you a cheque for 1 million pounds. And by the way you happen to be living in a country where you owe a debt of 1 million pounds, and the penalty for failing to pay is death (actually eternal death in the lake of fire). Now you can tell the judge you believe that some kind benefactor (not me actually, but God) has given you a cheque for 1 million pounds as much as you like and you're not lying at all. (Aside: the benefactor is the judge, and that's God). You didn't earn the 1 million pounds. God did. But if you don't pay the cheque into your bank (get baptised), you won't be able to use a single penny of that money, and so you'll be condemned to death. Paying the cheque into the bank (getting baptised) didn't earn you the money and the faith to believe that you needed to pay the cheque into the bank as well as the strength to do so are both gifts of God. Grace and works are not enemies, but friends:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (1 Cor 15.10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doing work (i.e. being baptised means that the grace is not in vain i.e. faith isn't woolly, but concrete. It accomplishes something. The word which is sown bears fruit if the hearers have a root and receive it, as the Lord explains in the parable of the sower:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.&#xA;  19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.&#xA;  20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;&#xA;  21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.&#xA;  22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.&#xA;  23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is faith in something, or rather someone: in God and His Word: His Son. If we believe His words, this means we act accordingly, or else how can we believe? In this case, we're believing the opposite of God' words, just like Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Now, if you don't pay the cheque into the bank and you say you believe you have a cheque for 1 million pounds and God's paid your debt, there are only 2 conclusions: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;You are lying and you don't believe the cheque for 1 million pounds in genuine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;you don't understand how the banking system works. This is true of many, as The Lord warned us in the first verse of the parable of the sower (which I repeat) and 2 other places:  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. &#xA;  (Matt 13.18-19) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock.[h] 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell.[i] And the ruin of that house was great.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Luke 6.46-49) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (John 12. 48-50)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yahshua's words:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.&#xA;  (Mark 16.16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't allow the devil to deceive you into thinking you will be ok if you ignore God's words spoken by His Son on baptism as he deceived Eve into thinking it was a good idea to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, against God's express command, which she even quoted (you can quote God's Word as much as you like. If it's a command, and you disobey it, it won't help you in the slightest to quote it. What's required is obedience):  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?&#xA;  2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:&#xA;  3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.&#xA;  4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:&#xA;  5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.&#xA;  6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Genesis 3.1-6)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember also this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.&#xA;  22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?&#xA;  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.&#xA;  24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:&#xA;  25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.&#xA;  26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:&#xA;  27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.&#xA;  28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:&#xA;  29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The subject of the thief on the cross and Yahshua forgiving people 'without the need for actions on their part' is very interesting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.&#xA;  40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?&#xA;  41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.&#xA;  42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.&#xA;  43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the following:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the thief on the cross did do something. He challenged the other thief who was deriding The Lord. These words obviously came out of the abundance of his heart. In his heart, he believed The Lord had done nothing wrong and even that He was a king, but much more importantly:&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The thief on the cross and the other people referred to were forgiven &lt;em&gt;before&lt;/em&gt; Yahshua died on the cross, before He'd risen and issued the following command &quot;...Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.&quot; (Mark 16.15-16)  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even the man let down through the roof who was healed and forgiven was instructed to do something:  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And again He entered Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that He was in the house. 2 Immediately[a] many gathered together, so that there was no longer room to receive them, not even near the door. And He preached the word to them. 3 Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men. 4 And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying.&#xA;  5 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.”&#xA;  6 And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”&#xA;  8 But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” 12 Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that it was when Yahshua &lt;em&gt;saw&lt;/em&gt; their faith, that He responded. It's impossible to please God without faith, and faith is something God can see, because what we believe is shown by how we act. It wasn't the man's strength that healed him. It was the grace of God that gave him the power to walk, but nevertheless he walked! In the same way, it isn't our strength which gives us forgiveness and strength when we get baptised, but we still get baptised and thereby appopriate what Yahshua did on the cross! It's the grace of God that made the man walk and it's the grace of God that makes people get baptised. If we could be saved without being baptised, then why in Mark 16.16 are we told that Yahsua said &quot;He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned&quot;? Not because God's contradicting Himself (He's not), but because it's perfectly true that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Never disagree with anything Yahshua said: your eternal salvation depends on it. Getting baptised doesn't mean we saved oursleves by our own work, since it's the goodness of God which leads us to get baptised and the grace of God which empowers us to. Grace doesn't mean you don't do anything. It means you do impossible things and you don't get the glory: God does, but you still do the stuff and you feel great beacuse God has glorified you too (Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified, (Romans 8.30)), as you are abiding in His Son, who has been, is being and will be glorified. I ask people who think that noone's perfect so we can just sin as we please and still get to heaven this question: did The Son of God die on the cross to make us imperfect? Of course not: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (1 Cor 5.21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does righteousness mean? Clearly it means &lt;em&gt;doing&lt;/em&gt; what is right, not what is wrong. That doing what is right takes place by the grace of God, but it still takes place. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (1 Cor 6.9-11)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Romans 8.13)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To respond to the note that the question is about GRACE rather than FAITH, I quote Paul again: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:&#xA;  2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.&#xA;  (Romans 5.1-2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5613" LastEditorUserId="5613" LastEditDate="2013-09-01T21:10:10.813" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T21:10:10.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18788" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18807" CreationDate="2013-09-01T20:00:56.577" Score="3" ViewCount="1753" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it was founded? The Roman Catholic Church holds that the first pope was St. Peter, and his burial became the St. Peter's Basilica. If I remember correctly, National Geographic &lt;em&gt;Inside the Vatican&lt;/em&gt; seems to support the idea that the first pope was St. Peter. Anyway, is the present-day version of the church the same church on which it was founded? In what ways has the church changed or modified to deal with the times?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Different popes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Different worldly events&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Different cultures&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doctrinally, how is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same or different from the one led by the first Pope in Rome?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T05:27:33.547" Title="Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it was founded?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-09-08T20:08:08.593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18789" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8625" CreationDate="2013-09-01T21:25:46.613" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mark 16.16, Yahshua made the following statement: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By a simple process of substitution then, we find that the question equates to this:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation - is it still necessary?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, given that the name Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yahshua into Greek and the translation of Yahshua from Hebrew into English is 'Yah is salvation', the question in fact becomes:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation - is He still necessary? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5613" LastEditorUserId="5613" LastEditDate="2013-09-01T21:30:54.400" LastActivityDate="2013-09-01T21:30:54.400" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18790" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-09-02T03:34:51.550" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a somewhat more radical answer and I don't know of any established sects that have it as their view, but one theory I've had, which I don't hold as truth, but only a possibility, is that Adam and Eve may have been the first people to have souls and that they needed to multiply to spread this characteristic throughout humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very unconventional view and why I don't view it as a certainty, but only a theory, but when Cain was sent away, it indicates there were people there and that he was able to find a wife.  There are also references to the sons of man and the sons of God intermarrying which brings up a question of where those other people came from since they are not mentioned directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I actually came up with this theory as one of several possible ways that a literal reading of Genesis could match with what science believes about evolution of life on Earth.  If this theory is accurate, then the command to multiply would serve to spread human spirit throughout the population.  We clearly don't see anyone now that doesn't have a spirit since the only survivors of the flood would have had it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again though, I have to stress that this is just a theory and should not be taken as doctrine.  Ultimately, the reason for the command isn't doctrinally significant.  As others have pointed out, it was never repeated to anyone else and the general reason that most theories agree on was that it was to start the species, either to populate the planet or to introduce spirit and free-will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why this would be a good thing, ultimately, God's plan has always been to bring anyone who is willing to come back to him back.  Without giving someone that opportunity, they can't make that choice.  The opportunity comes with costs of it's own (living in a fallen world), but isn't a life in this world worth the opportunity to choose to follow God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-09-02T03:34:51.550" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-09-02T03:39:30.490" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In light of a suggestion I may want to edit this answer to make the connection to the OP clearer, I am submitting this reworked version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question being discussed is “So what is the reason God wants us to have children?”  So far several theories have been submitted discussing various permutations of God’s command to Adam and Eve to “Go forth and multiply”, why that command was given and if it still bears true for us today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this is an SE dealing with hermeneutics, sometimes the best answer to a question does not come through proper exegesis, but through practical application.  Therefore, I would offer a different approach to this in that the command for the having of children is not so much as to increase population, although that is the primary reason implicit in the command, as it is to serve as an object lesson teaching us some of the nature of God and our relationship with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is through having children that God may show us many truths that, while we can gain some level of understanding through reading them, when personally experienced open our eyes more so than simply reading about them ever could.  For instance, through the role of parenting, He might help us to understand better that God does not put laws into place to restrict our action but to protect us from harm and therefore give us more freedom than we would have ever had before.  He will show us a more direct example of the grace and patience He extends to us out of love.  We should hopefully understand better the willingness to sacrifice anything and everything for the well-being of our child.  Though we understand God sometimes answers our prayers “no”, we can better understand why God says &quot;No&quot; to what we think are perfectly reasonable requests but He knows is not the best thing for us.  He can also help us to realize why He blesses us at times we have done nothing to deserve such blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition to learning about being a parent, we can also see our roles as children of a perfect father. Not that any of us are perfect parents, but through our own failings we can understand God better.  For instance, when we lose patience with a child doing something they know not to do, God says &quot;Now you know how I feel.&quot;  We get a better grasp of God’s frustration when we rebel against him as our teens do to us.  Parenting helps us to know on a personal level how God loves it when we spontaneously tell Him we love Him, not because we are responding to a blessing, but just because we love Him.  Maybe we see better how frustrated God gets when we fight and argue and get selfish with others -- especially those in our own family of Christians.  But we can also realize how He looks at us with pride when we are kind and helpful.  Finally, through being a parent and helping our own children learn to walk, we can learn how He does not look at our stumbles as we are trying to walk with anger and impatience but celebrates each wobbly step we take and when we fall on our (spiritual) diaper, He picks us back up, hugs us, and helps us to take another step.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest God commanded us to have children because He loves us. Being a parent is a practical way of giving us a glimpse just how much.  He wants us to be parents because He is a parent.  He wants us to have children because we are His children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5558" LastEditorUserId="5558" LastEditDate="2013-09-03T03:36:12.163" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T03:36:12.163" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2013-09-02T11:01:43.707" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the most beautiful definitions of faith i heard is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/living_balance&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andrew Wommack&lt;/a&gt;. He defines faith as &quot;The positive response to grace(unmerited favor)&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="635" LastEditorUserId="635" LastEditDate="2013-09-02T11:24:39.530" LastActivityDate="2013-09-02T11:24:39.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18794" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18797" CreationDate="2013-09-02T11:16:51.527" Score="14" ViewCount="79664" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following &lt;strong&gt;the prince of the power of the air&lt;/strong&gt;, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the apostle Paul is referring to Satan by &quot;prince of the power of the air&quot;. Why would he be called that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="635" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-25T01:49:19.373" LastActivityDate="2020-03-06T18:51:35.873" Title="Why is Satan called the prince of the power of the air?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;ephesians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-09-02T13:37:30.617" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The fruitfulness of the creation is something God intended according to the design of the world. He made the world a certain size intending that it become full of various things including vegetation, water, animals and man.  &lt;strong&gt;To be fruitful is not a command as though fishes that did not propagate were sinful fishes, it is more of an 'ordinance of blessing' and thus a declared 'law of nature'.&lt;/strong&gt; Yes the word of God says to the fish ‘Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the sea’ (Ge 1:22) but this is simply a confirmation of his goodwill and design confirmed upon the fish. This is naturally not understood as an actual proscription against a fish negelecting procreation. The same applies to human propagation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Various commentators on Genesis have recognized this basic feature of the intended fruitfulness of God’s creation according to his own infinitely wise design. For example in Luther we find this argument:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this word which God speaks, “Be fruitful and multiply,” is not a command. It is more than a command, namely, a divine ordinance [werck] which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore. Rather, it is just as necessary as the fact that I am a man, and more necessary than sleeping and waking, eating and drinking, and emptying the bowels and bladder. It is a nature and disposition just as innate as the organs involved in it. Therefore, just as God does not command anyone to be a man or a woman but creates them the way they have to be, so he does not command them to multiply but creates them so that they have to multiply. And wherever men try to resist this, it remains irresistible nonetheless and goes its way through fornication, adultery, and secret sins, for this is a matter of nature and not of choice. (Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, &amp;amp; H. T. Lehmann, Eds., Vol. 45, p. 18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again Philip Henry (Matthew Henry’s father) wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be fruitful and multiply. This is not a command, of which they are transgressors that never marry, or that have no children; but a promise that they should be fruitful.( Henry, P. (1839). Exposition of the First Eleven Chapters of Genesis (p. 240). London: J. Nisbet and Co.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-09-02T14:00:03.213" LastActivityDate="2013-09-02T14:00:03.213" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18797" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18794" CreationDate="2013-09-02T17:00:44.383" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Satan was a mighty angel (&lt;em&gt;Ezekiel 28:12-14&lt;/em&gt;), who was cast out from Heaven because of his pride and rebellion (&lt;em&gt;Isaiah 14:12-15&lt;/em&gt;). Latter, Satan deceived Adam and Eve and became the father of sinners. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 8:44 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to&#xA;  carry out your father’s desires&lt;/strong&gt;. He was a murderer from the beginning,&#xA;  not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies,&#xA;  he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of&#xA;  lies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now that Satan had infected the whole world with his sins, he is now the ruler of this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 14:30-31 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; I will not say much more to you, for the &lt;strong&gt;prince of this world&lt;/strong&gt; is coming. He has no hold over me&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After we believe in Christ, we became new creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;2 Corinthians 5:17 (NKJV)&lt;/em&gt; Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have&#xA;  become new.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though we are save by the blood of Christ and are born again in Christ, we are still living in the world where Satan rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1 John 5:19 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; We know that we are children of God, and that &lt;strong&gt;the whole world is under the control of the evil one&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Satan is called the Ruler of the air.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ephesians 2:1-2 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt; As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed&#xA;  the ways of this world and of the &lt;strong&gt;ruler of the kingdom of the air&lt;/strong&gt;, the&#xA;  spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is always moving about the air and working in the hearts of men to commit sinful things. The majority of this world population is following Satan or Satan is at work in their life. The air itself is polluted with sins created by the works of Satan. Satan will continue to work until Jesus Christ comes back again to defeat him (&lt;em&gt;Revelation 19:11-21&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-09-03T06:05:57.530" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T06:05:57.530" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18794" CreationDate="2013-09-02T19:00:59.377" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would simply add to Mawia's anwer that the expression &quot;the air&quot; is a way of identifying the evil, sentient beings in the spiritual realm; namely, Satan and his minions, or demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrews believed in, and wrote about, three heavens, and in English we would call them &quot;the firmament,&quot; &quot;space,&quot; and &quot;the home of God&quot; (or &quot;the highest heaven,&quot; as in &quot;God resides in heaven,&quot; or &quot;God is enthroned in heaven&quot;; see Isaiah 6:1-7).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, the New Testament phrase &quot;in the heavenlies&quot; (or &quot;in the heavenly realms&quot;) describes the believers' position or &lt;em&gt;standing&lt;/em&gt; IN Christ.  We are seated in the heavenlies with Him by faith at the right hand of God (see Hebrews 8:1; 12:2).  Positionally--that is, in a judicial sense--believers in the eyes of God are IN Christ (see Ephesians 1:3,20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12; and 2 Corinthians 5:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, Satan and his demonic forces, referred to variously in the New Testament as principalities, powers, rulers, authorities, world forces of darkness, and spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places (see Ro 8:38; Eph 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:15; 1 Pet 3:22) occupy, in a sense, the first heaven, although we see the evidence of their work vey clearly on earth, in and through people and perhaps even through some acts of nature (which we sometimes, perhaps mistakenly, call &quot;acts of God&quot;!).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This evidence takes many forms, and not just in obvious ways such as violence, wars, genocide, widespread injustice, and sexual immorality, but also in not-so-obvious ways, as in godless ideologies and worldviews, corrupt and repressive governments, and much more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fallen humankind has its own role in the creation and maintenance of wickedness, too.  We cannot claim as comedian Flip Wilson did years ago, &quot;The devil made [us] do it&quot;!  There is an expression &quot;to be in league with the devil,&quot; which encapsulates quite well how both Satan (or the devil) &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; humankind each assumes a degree of culpability, though Satan assumes more, since he instigated the rebellion against God and exerts more influence than we do within the spiritual realm (see Matthew 18:7). Although Satan is a powerful enemy, we are not to fear him (2 Timothy 1:7; 1 John 4:4). We are also to resist him and even on occasions rebuke him in the name of Jesus (see 1 Pe 5:8,9; Jas 4:7; Jude 9).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, Satan is well organized and systematic in his assault on anything and everything God calls good.  Aided by a hierarchy of demons under his control, the hallmarks of his &lt;em&gt;cosmos&lt;/em&gt;--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16)--are evident in every society and culture in the world:  from the blatant consumerism and materialism of the minority world, to the oppressive political and religious regimes in the majority world, the latter of which are manifested in atheistic communism and radical Islam, for example.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is alive and well on planet Earth.  He is organized; his army of demons and unclean spirits is well staffed and well trained, with unwavering loyalty to their &quot;prince; and his mission is clear:  to kill, to steal, and to destroy anything and everything that God has made or is in the process of building, including the universal church of His Son and of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (John 10:10).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Empowered both by Jesus' victory on the cross and by the Holy Spirit's empowering and channeling of the unwavering loyalty of God's ever-expanding family on earth, Satan is a defeated foe (see John 10:10; 1 John 3:8; and Revelation 12:10-12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, we thank God that Satan was dealt a death blow at the cross of Christ, which freed God to &quot;wrap things up&quot; by bringing history as we know it to a close in a way that is consistent with His eternal plan, the counsel of His will, and His holy, righteous, and just character.  In so doing, God will eradicate completely Satan's strongholds in the world and then usher in a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness will reign supreme, where sin will never again intrude, and where Satan will never again spoil what God has called good (see Revelation 20:10 and 21:1). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-03-06T18:51:35.873" LastActivityDate="2020-03-06T18:51:35.873" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18799" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="27684" CreationDate="2013-09-02T19:03:32.780" Score="10" ViewCount="1525" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many people believe that a pet goes to Heaven upon its death. I was curious, what did the Early Church Fathers (e.g., Augustine, John of Damascus, Tertullian, etc.) say about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2014-04-26T15:05:57.917" Title="What did the Early Church Fathers think about pets (animals) going to Heaven upon death?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18803" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18817" CreationDate="2013-09-03T05:13:10.033" Score="9" ViewCount="2128" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:18&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;Genesis 2:18(KJV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I&#xA;  will make him an &lt;strong&gt;help meet&lt;/strong&gt; for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within the broader Christian tradition, are wives still called to help their husbands in their work for the Lord, such as in the home and in the husband's ministry? (I don't mean that they should be employed at the same job as their husbands.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I see, many wives do not support their husbands' ministry, but either have their own non-overlapping ministry, or simply are not interested in participating for other reasons, such as preferring more worldly pursuits. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible teach elsewhere that this helper role should be a fundamental aspect of being a Christian wife today? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-09-03T11:19:57.537" LastActivityDate="2015-04-30T14:09:02.503" Title="Are wives still called to be a &quot;help meet&quot; for their husbands?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;ministry&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-05-01T14:13:01.713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8625" CreationDate="2013-09-03T08:00:01.410" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Believer's baptism is simply an act showing what the LORD has fulfilled in the Sinners life. That the Sinner died in Christ, was also buried and is now risen as a new creature in Christ. &lt;code&gt;Romans 6&lt;/code&gt; It is a picture, a symbol. Yet it still is very important, since it is the first command given to a new Christian to fulfil. Why?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because it requires an act of obedience, because this road of being a Christian is a very hard and even lonely narrow road. You need to lear to say NO to the World and YES to Christ. So the Sinner, at this point after Salvation now a Saint, needs to take a &lt;strong&gt;public&lt;/strong&gt; stand and &lt;strong&gt;proclaim&lt;/strong&gt; that he has laid down the old man and will now serve the Lord Jesus as his King.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;THAT IS WHY IT IS SO DIFFICULT&lt;/strong&gt; for people, especially those who came from infant sprinkling backgrounds, to follow through with this first step of obedience, as it requires a public acknowledgement of yourself and your past being a failure. (By the way, when anyone calls himself a Christian, he is really stating that he himself is a miserable wretch who can only be saved by the almighty hand of God, nothing else. Which happens to be the truth for all of us.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(It also shows the beautiful place something such as an &quot;altar call&quot; has as it teaches the Sinner to make a public acknowledgement of needing a Saviour from the very first.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One needs to learn to be obey to the Scriptures, not learn how to wrest or corrupt them. See 2 Pet 3:16 and 2 Cor 2:17 in your KJV Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Acts 8:36,37 we learn the requirement for someone to be baptised is to first believe with all his heart. So if you can find a baby of a few days/months old who can declare that he believes in the Lord Jesus for salvation, then by all means go ahead and baptise him...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5405" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T08:00:01.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18803" CreationDate="2013-09-03T12:19:28.980" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word for &quot;help meet&quot; means more than just a helper. She was to be his counterpart. This is not limited to just man's ministry, but to everything in his life. She was not to be seen as lesser, or just a helper, but as his divinely appointed co-equal complement. This quote I believe explains it better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God Himself gave Adam a companion. He provided “an help meet for&#xA;  him”—a helper corresponding to him—one who was fitted to be his&#xA;  companion, and who could be one with him in love and sympathy. Eve was&#xA;  created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she&#xA;  was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet&#xA;  as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and&#xA;  protected by him. A part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his&#xA;  flesh, she was his second self; showing the close union and the&#xA;  affectionate attachment that should exist in this relation. “For no&#xA;  man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it.”&#xA;  Ephesians 5:29...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Faith I Live By&quot; P.251&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you see it from this perspective, she is not limited to only help in man's ministry. They are to have one purpose and work together in every aspect of life. After sin came in, she was to be subject to her husband, but notice that this was as a result of sin. God's original plan was to have her be equal with her husband.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-09-03T19:52:59.043" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T19:52:59.043" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18807" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18788" CreationDate="2013-09-03T14:30:33.810" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it &#xA;  was founded?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The shortest and simplest answer is: yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The longer and significantly more complex answer would fill many volumes of an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/&quot;&gt;encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, to very briefly scratch the surface...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church maintains that, although her fundamental doctrine hasn't changed, it has &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop&quot;&gt;developed&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; over the centuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic apologists compare the Catholic Church's growth and development to that of an acorn. An acorn, in its smallest and simplest form, is genetically the same as a 200 year old Oak tree. An acorn looks nothing like an Oak, even though it fundamentally has everything it needs to grow and develope into a giant 200 year old tree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way the early primitive Church and her &lt;em&gt;depositum fidei&lt;/em&gt; was planted by Christ through Holy Spirit. Of course the Church had to grow and develope in order to preach the Gospel to all nations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of &#xA;  the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure &#xA;  these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the &#xA;  spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of &#xA;  those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of &#xA;  truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly &#xA;  moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.  (&lt;em&gt;Dei Verbum 8&lt;/em&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over time the Church has developed various doctrines and dogmas that aren't explicitly displayed in Sacred Scripture. Some examples are the doctrines of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity&quot;&gt;Trinity&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_%28Christianity%29&quot;&gt;Incarnation&lt;/a&gt;, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_Union&quot;&gt;Hypostatic Union&lt;/a&gt;. These doctrines are fundamental to the Faith, yet haven't always been as clearly defined as they are now. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the Church's development of doctrine has been brought on by the assaults of heresies such as Arianism and Monothelistism. Various councils and synods have been called to develope these crucial doctrines in order to protect her fundamental truths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php&quot;&gt;DENZINGER&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, its important to distinguish between the &lt;em&gt;true&lt;/em&gt; teachings of the Church and the &lt;em&gt;abuse&lt;/em&gt; of the teachings of the Church. Many Christians have been scandalized by false representations of the truths of what the Church teaches. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martin Luther posted his 95 theses primarily because the Church's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences&quot;&gt;indulgences&lt;/a&gt; were being fraudulently abused.  The true purpose of the granting of indulgences is simply to help Catholics grow in holiness, but millions of people have been scandalized because the abuses of men like Johann Tetzel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same goes for marriage. Marriage is, by definition, a holy and righteous sacrament institiuted by Christ.  Millions of people are scandalized everyday because marriage is abused.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;abuse&lt;/em&gt; of a good does not diminish the &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; of a good.&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Matthew Kelly, Rediscovering Catholicism&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-09-03T23:11:21.757" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T23:11:21.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18803" CreationDate="2013-09-03T16:15:24.373" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is one thing to answer these questions in the tongue and lingo of the Bible; it is a whole new universe trying to &lt;em&gt;bring this home to our everyday life&lt;/em&gt;. I will try to keep this short and simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does the Bible teach elsewhere that this helper role should be a&#xA;  fundamental aspect of being a Christian wife today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;somewhere in Ephesians 5 (as stated above)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God saw Adam was &quot;lonely&quot; in Genesis—the creation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;…and other metaphors from the lives of Sarah, Ruth, Naomi, Mary—mother of Jesus, …and so on—dare I add Rahab.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, bear it in mind that these teaching were in times when the female gender was naturally subjugated to the authority of the male in the dim light of ignorance. So allow me break down your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does the Bible teach elsewhere that this helper role should be a&#xA;  fundamental aspect of being a Christian wife…?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;…today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was no possible means to infer into the standards of a future culture for people and prophets to use as a reference point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the answer still remains &lt;strong&gt;yes&lt;/strong&gt; women should be helpers. All other laws and conventions of love (as states in the New Testament as the greatest law of all) binds them to the help role—especially as it is generally known that they have a greater emotional capacity. But we shouldn't be blind to the intricacies of this answer—for men are should be helpers too. And women should never &lt;strong&gt;never&lt;/strong&gt; be subjugated. For nowhere was it written &quot;I have created thee a lesser of thyself that thou mayest &lt;em&gt;dominate&lt;/em&gt; cleansing thy heart of loneliness&quot; …nope!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end, we are all souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="132" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T16:15:24.373" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18809" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18810" CreationDate="2013-09-03T16:18:18.490" Score="9" ViewCount="723" Body="&lt;p&gt;I attended a service of the Episcopal Church (USA) which happened to come from a more high-church tradition than I'm used to. During the service, quite a lot of incense was deployed at various times - over the celebrant and his assistants, the altar, etc. Before the reading of the Gospel, the thurible was also swung towards the deacon who was holding the Gospel book. It was not clear to me whether the intention was to cense the reader, the book, or both. (The thurifer was rather enthusiastic about her mission, and I was grateful that the chain looked sturdy.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone explain what was happening? It would be helpful if answers could mention why incense is used at all, and then explain the specifics here with reference to that general pattern, rather than only quoting a rubric.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(If the answer is the same for Catholics, Orthodox, etc. as for Anglicans, then answers from those perspectives are welcome.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T18:52:42.950" Title="Is the Gospel book censed, or the reader, or both?" Tags="&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;anglicanism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18810" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18809" CreationDate="2013-09-03T16:30:38.460" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;[Answer from high-church Anglican/Catholic perspective.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The deacon is not censed &amp;mdash; or should not be censed &amp;mdash; at the reading of the gospel. The thurifer should hand the thurible to the deacon, who censes the book. The thurifer generally remains while the gospel is read, and indeed the gospel may end up proclaimed from within the cloud.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incense is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a ceremonially purifying agent&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a symbol of honour (incense was given to the Christ-child and used in Temple worship)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a symbol of prayer rising (cf Ps 141:2)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a pleasant smell (the smell of heaven, as opposed to sulphur, the smell of The Other Place)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The deacon is not censed at this point because he is not the Word, he is merely the agent. The point of censing the gospel is to show it honour; it is the Word proclaimed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to “official sources” (from the comments), that’s surprisingly difficult. The modern documents of the Roman Church such as the &lt;em&gt;General Instruction of the Roman Missal&lt;/em&gt; don’t lay down the ceremonial; it’s all tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/details/anglicanmissal00churuoft&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;English Missal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; is just about the most authoritative extant English source for high ceremonial, is available and more accessible. It was published in 1921, and probably reflects what was laid down at the Council of Trent, which carried out the last major revision of Catholic worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Thurifer&lt;/em&gt; While the responsory is in singing the Deacon shall place the Book of the Gospels on the Altar: and the Priest, the Deacon ministering the incense-boat, shall place incense in the censer. Then shall the Deacon say the prayer: Cleanse my heart, and taking the book from the Altar ask a blessing of the priest. Afterward, the Subdeacon holding the book between two Acolytes with lighted candles, the Deacon shall sign and cense the book, and sing the gospel in the customary manner, whereafter the Subdeacon shall bear the book to be kissed by the priest, who is also censed by the Deacon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book was (is) censed before to show honour to the proclaimed Word; the celebrant was censed afterwards because he is acting &lt;em&gt;in Persona Christi,&lt;/em&gt; which I can see might raise all sorts of other questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this level of ceremonial &lt;strong&gt;can&lt;/strong&gt; be found these days if you look hard enough, most celebrations nowadays are simpler; some actions have been removed. In particular, the book of the gospels is kissed by the person who reads it unless the celebrant is a bishop; and the celebrant is not censed after the reading. The &lt;em&gt;Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani&lt;/em&gt; published in 1969 lays down what should happen now, in the absence of specific directions in the 2010 version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;131&lt;/strong&gt; Dum Alleluia vel alter cantus profertur, si adhibetur incensum, ad impositionem thuris secerdoti ministrat, deinde, ante sacerdotem inclinatus, benedictionem petit, submissa voce dicens, Iube, domne, benedicere. Sacerdos eum benedicit, dicens: Dominus sit in corde tuo, etc. Diaconus respondet: Amen. Deinde librum Evangeliorum, si est in altari, sumit et ad ambonem pergit, ministris, si adsunt, cum candelabris et incenso pro opportunitate eum praecedentibus. Ibi populum salutat, librum incensat et proclamat Evangelium. Quo finito, librum osculo veneratur, secreto dicens, Per evangelica dicta etc., et ad celebrantem redit. Si vero homilia non fit neque symbolum dictur, potest manere in ambone pro oratione universali, recedentibus ministris.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ceremonial is never added, it's only simplified. Between 1921 and 1969, the ceremonial changed so that the book is no longer routinely processed to be kissed and the celebrant is no longer censed. The deacon himself has never been censed at the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-09-04T18:52:42.950" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T18:52:42.950" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-09-03T16:52:07.703" Score="1" Body="&lt;h1&gt;Why?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may never know. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20103:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ps. 103:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Why&lt;/em&gt;&quot; would mean your looking for reason. This asks the reason God does things; thereby a peek into the grand scheme of his plans, an understanding into God's innate motivation, ultimately… inferring into the very mind of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are yet to fully understand the human mind, let's leave the mind of God for a later day (:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="132" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T16:52:07.703" CommentCount="1" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-09-03T16:52:07.703" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4309" CreationDate="2013-09-03T19:00:06.107" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A Generation is 40 years in Bible. Here are some examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Numbers 32:13 (ESV) - And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 1:34-36 (ESV) - And the Lord heard your words and was angered, and he swore, ‘Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land that I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh. He shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land on which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the Lord!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 95:10 (ESV) - For forty years I loathed that generation and said, “They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 3:9-10 (ESV) - Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Israelites wandered 40 years in the wilderness (Ex. 16:35; Deut. 2:7), in which time an entire generation died out (Num. 14:33; 32:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 13:36 (ESV) - For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2 Samuel 5:4 (ESV)- &quot;David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned &lt;strong&gt;forty years&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that Jerusalem was destroyed within the generation Jesus taught (AD 30-70). So all of the prophecies were fulfilled in that generation. Although this may look like a little off topic, still it is related to the end times in the generation of Jesus' disciples and clarifies the confusion of the reader about the generation (30-70 AD).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said that the sign of Son of Man will appear in the sky (Matthew 24:30). This was supposed to happen in the generation of his disciples (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). During the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. This extraordinary incident was recorded by Josephus and Tacitus who lived during that period. This is also recorded in Jewish History Document &quot;Sepher Yosippon&quot;, Latin Document &quot;Pseudo Hegesippus&quot;, and Historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus (Jewish Wars)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:289 (6.5.3.289) Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:290 (6.5.3.290) Thus also, before the Jews’ rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan], and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which light lasted for half an hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:291 (6.5.3.291) This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:296 (6.5.3.296) So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar],&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:297 (6.5.3.297) a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it**,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:298 (6.5.3.298) and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; &lt;strong&gt;for, before sunsetting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:299 (6.5.3.299) &lt;strong&gt;running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities&lt;/strong&gt;. Moreover at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish War 6:300 (6.5.3.300) and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tacitus, Histories, Book 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Prodigies had occurred, which this nation, prone to superstition, but hating all religious rites, did not deem it lawful to expiate by offering and sacrifice. &lt;strong&gt;There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies&lt;/strong&gt;, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing. At the same instant there was a mighty stir as of departure. Some few put a fearful meaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 8, Section 4-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And not many days after the feast, on the twenty-first of the month Artemisium, (97) a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of such signs. &lt;strong&gt;For before the setting of the sun, chariots and armed troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And at the feast which is called Pentecost, when the priests entered the temple at night, as was their custom, to perform the services, they said that at first they perceived a movement and a noise, and afterward a voice as of a great multitude, saying, ‘Let us go hence.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sepher Yosippon&quot; is a 10th century historical Jewish document written in Hebrew that mentions about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Sefer Josippon also mentions about the vision of soldiers and chariots in the sky which we read in Josephus' Jewish Wars, Tacitus's Histories, and Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sepher Yosippon (A Medieval History of Ancient Israel) translated from the Hebrew by Steven B. Bowman. Excerpts from Chapter 87 &quot;Burning of the Temple&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Moreover, in those days were seen chariots of fire and horsemen, a great force flying across the sky near to the ground coming against Jerusalem and all the land of Judah, all of them horses of fire and riders of fire&lt;/strong&gt;. When the holiday of Shavu'oth came in those days, during the night the priests heard within the Temple something like the sound of men going and the sound of men marching in a multitude going into the Temple, and a terrible and mighty voice was heard speaking: &quot;Let's go and leave this House.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This vision of the chariots and soldiers in the sky happened during fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may ask what does chariots and the soldiers in the sky have to do with the sign of Son of Man and Bible and also generation in the bible. Here are some examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 4:13 (KJV) – &quot;Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 66:15 (KJV) – &quot;For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 2:11 (KJV) - And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 6:17 (KJV) - And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zachariah 6:1-6 (KJV) - &quot;And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass. In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses; And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grisled and bay horses. Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth. The black horses which are therein go forth into the north country; and the white go forth after them; and the grisled go forth toward the south country.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other verses in the Bible that involve God and his chariots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This vision in the sky and the fall of Jerusalem (which includes the destruction of temple) happened between 30 AD - 70 AD (40 years). More informations are available here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://secondcomingofjesuschrist70ad.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://secondcomingofjesuschrist70ad.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2013-09-03T19:26:33.357" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T19:26:33.357" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18728" CreationDate="2013-09-03T20:05:04.663" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Greek manuscripts were written in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_script&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greek uncial script&lt;/a&gt; from approximately the 3rd century BCE through the 12th century CE, and Latin manuscripts were written in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_square_capitals&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Roman majuscule script&lt;/a&gt; from the 7th century BCE through the 4th century CE. But even after miniscule script began being used, 'catholic church' was still rarely capitalized in the literature initially, because it likely was not being used as a proper title but rather as a simple adjective. The first use of the combination ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία (&quot;the Catholic Church&quot;) is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/lake/fathers2.iii.vi.html#iii.vi-p9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the exact reference cited in the question (Ignatius of Antioch's &lt;em&gt;Epistle to the Smyrneans&lt;/em&gt; 8:2&lt;/a&gt;, written approximately 110 CE. Since capitalization is irrelevant in this time period, it is best to allow context to help us understand the intended meaning. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Catholic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;catholic&lt;/em&gt; &quot;was freely used by the earlier Christian writers&#xA;  in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus&#xA;  we meet such phrases as the &quot;the catholic resurrection&quot; (Justin&#xA;  Martyr), &quot;the catholic goodness of God&quot; (Tertullian), &quot;the four&#xA;  catholic winds&quot; (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of &quot;the general&#xA;  resurrection&quot;, &quot;the absolute or universal goodness of God&quot;, &quot;the four&#xA;  principal winds&quot;, etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to&#xA;  μερικός (partial) or ἴδιος (particular), and one familiar example of&#xA;  this conception still survives in the ancient phrase &quot;Catholic&#xA;  Epistles&quot; as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were&#xA;  so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but&#xA;  to the Church at large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Catholic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This Catholic Encyclopedia entry&lt;/a&gt; goes on to point out:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the&#xA;  distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological&#xA;  significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the&#xA;  &quot;Catechetical Discourses&quot; of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he&#xA;  insists on the one hand (sect. 26): &quot;And if ever thou art sojourning&#xA;  in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's house is--for the&#xA;  sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of&#xA;  the Lord--nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic&#xA;  Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of&#xA;  us all.&quot; On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which&#xA;  already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks:&#xA;  (sect. 23) &quot;Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is&#xA;  throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There can be no doubt, however, that it was the struggle with the&#xA;  Donatists which first drew out the full theological significance of&#xA;  the epithet Catholic and passed it on to the schoolmen as an abiding&#xA;  possession. When the Donatists claimed to represent the one true&#xA;  Church of Christ, and formulated certain marks of the Church, which&#xA;  they professed to find in their own body, it could not fail to strike&#xA;  their orthodox opponents that the title Catholic, by which the Church&#xA;  of Christ was universally known, afforded a far surer test, and that&#xA;  this was wholly inapplicable to a sect which was confined to one small&#xA;  corner of the world. The Donatists, unlike all previous heretics, had&#xA;  not gone wrong upon any Christological question. It was their&#xA;  conception of Church discipline and organization which was faulty.&#xA;  Hence, in refuting them, a more or less definite theory of the Church&#xA;  and its marks was gradually evolved by St. Optatus (c. 370) and St.&#xA;  Augustine (c. 400). These doctors particularly insisted upon the note&#xA;  of Catholicity, and they pointed out that both the Old and the New&#xA;  Testament represented the Church as spread over all the earth. (See&#xA;  Turmel, &quot;Histoire de la theologie positive, 1904, I, 162-166, with&#xA;  references there given.) Moreover, St. Augustine insists upon the&#xA;  consensus of Christians in the use of the name Catholic. &quot;Whether they&#xA;  wish or no&quot;, he says, &quot;heretics have to call the Catholic Church&#xA;  Catholic&quot; (&quot;De vera religione&quot;, xii). &quot;Although all heretics wish to&#xA;  be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of&#xA;  worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle&quot;&#xA;  (Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti, iv). Of later exponents of&#xA;  this same thesis the most famous Vincent of Lerins (c. 434). His canon&#xA;  of Catholicity is &quot;That which has been believed everywhere, always,&#xA;  and by all.&quot; &quot;This&quot;, he adds, &quot;is what is truly and properly Catholic&quot;&#xA;  (Commonitorium, I, ii).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I highly recommend you read &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Catholic&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the entire entry&lt;/a&gt; for more information. Of course later in history after the Eastern and Western church split, the bishop of Rome called the Western church the Roman Catholic Church, and the East opted to go with the title 'Orthodox.' It should be noted that the Greek adjective orthodox (ὀρθόδοξος) is dated to the late 3rd or early 4th century, and thus was in common use in the whole church prior to this split as well. It should also be pointed out that this distinction did not develop until much later in history (i.e. after the 11th century). Early on Eastern Christians were merely called &quot;Greeks&quot; and Western Christians &quot;Romans.&quot; Phrases such as &quot;the orthodox faith&quot; and &quot;the catholic church&quot; were still applied to Christians both East and West (and still are in many ways).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question clearly, any speculation about the meaning of the word 'catholic' has nothing to do with capitalization. Only context can guide interpretation, in which case the Eastern Fathers tended to retain both uses: that of a title and as a simple adjective. It should be no surprise that Eastern Orthodox Christians today also retain both meanings, albeit using capitalization as a means of distinction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="1304" LastEditDate="2013-09-03T20:10:32.377" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T20:10:32.377" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1054" CreationDate="2013-09-03T21:36:46.530" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;For some going to church is like going to school it is to further their knowledge and show something for it. Like a diploma. For church, goer’s acceptance of a greater experience offered in fellowship and the comfort of knowing that they are better for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For most of us, we get our diploma from the school of Hard Knox. Life offers experiences where faith in God does not come from the pulpit but from the wish of being  connected and follow the teachings of Jesus. Church goers are no better for it just because the  frequency of  their attendance than a college graduate that has spent practically all his life working from  one designation to another  without ever securing a job or a profession. I guess the expression may describe those who don't know  they teach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lack of reason or purpose not having faith is a man without direction.&#xA;The teachings in the Bible provide a roadmap for  all those who are committed to better understand what Jesus stood for. The example of the thief next to him on the cross had never spent day in church, yet his trust in Jesus made him as good a Christian as one could be. I have no problem how people worship or how often they go to church. It matters how they conduct their lives and live in peace with others. How they take care of their families and treat their neighbors.&#xA;To know, that giving is greater than receiving. To know not to steal murder or covet an other men's wife is wrong. I guess by now you get my meaning it is as simple as following the Ten Commandments. What better way of following these commandments would make us more like how God intended. I am a part of that congregation. When I fail which I do often. I ask for His forgiveness. So far He has never let me down. Try it at home in your car or if you need to in your neighborhood church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All nations including ours are following this basic example. One does not get special treatment from our laws just because you go to church every day.&#xA;There are more hypocrites that make you believe that you will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Talk to Joan of Arc or if you don't know her by name just think how the devoted men of God treated Jesus.  If the example is a bit vague try not to see the cinder in  the eyes of others when  you cannot see the boulder in yours.&#xA; Stop being judgmental and calling those that don't go to church regularly as heathens. Yet you consider yourself a stand up Christian  just because you attend church every week.  We are all  sinners. There is only one pure soul that gave his life so that we would be  forgiven for our sins . I follow  Him. &#xA;He is my church. I look around me and He is everywhere. When did you see him last? &#xA;When you want to talk to God like me which I do regularly I ask for  His secretary Jesus. He will answer no doubt no missed connections here.. Try it may be something worth talking about. Guess what? No long distance or roaming charges.&#xA;Amen&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5636" LastEditorUserId="5636" LastEditDate="2013-09-03T22:02:12.787" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T22:02:12.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18803" CreationDate="2013-09-03T22:17:55.350" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, it still applies, but it has to be properly understood.  It is not a question of worth or independence, but rather a question of role.  God looked at Man and saw that Man was not ideally suited to life by himself and that he should have someone to be with.  Woman was created to fill this role as a partner and helper to man just as man is a helper to his wife.  This passage specifically does not lay out any hierarchy, but rather just the relationship of men and women as complementary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, in Ephesians 5, a more specific relationship is laid out by the instruction for wives to submit to their husbands, but this is easily abused if taken out of context if the follow up that men are to love their wives as their own bodies.  In short, the meaning of Ephesians 5 is that if living rightly, it is the husband's responsibility to make choices such that his wife benefit and that in the event of a conflict, wives should trust their husband to put them first.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a conflict resolution strategy more than anything else and puts more burden and responsibility on the husband, who is expected to sacrifice for his wife just as Christ sacrifices for the Church.  Again, it is not intended to put women in a position of lesser importance or rights than men, but rather to instruct men that they should treat their wives as themselves, which includes not requesting submission unless they truly believe it is in their wife's best interest.  Similarly, while men are asked to sacrifice their interest for their wives interest, wives are asked to sacrifice for their husband in following his leadership in the case where he feels that something is genuinely for his wife's best interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 5 particularly is a hard passage to internalize, but with proper understanding that it in no way establishes one as more worthy or more powerful than the other.  It is not an establishment of authority of one over the other, but rather a template of the type of sacrifices that should be made in a healthy relationship.  This is a mirror to Christ's relationship to the Church where we submit ourselves willingly to God's will even when it isn't what we think is best and how God does what is best for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-09-03T22:17:55.350" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18818" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-04T00:03:07.810" Score="6" ViewCount="635" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church is a massive organization, with members in nearly every country numbering over 1 Billion individuals. With such massive numbers and such extensive influence in the world, it is difficult to guess and estimate where tomorrow's Roman Catholics will come from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can think of four distinct possibilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most of today's converts are from the missionary work done in lands that have little Christian influence, such as many parts of Asia, those being mostly Hindu, Islam, and Buddhist.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most of today's converts are from the missionary work done in lands that have much Christian influence, such as Europe or the Americas, which focus on persons not claiming to already be Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most of today's converts are from other Christian denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most of today's &quot;converts&quot; are the newborn children raised in the Faith who do not leave it when they become adults.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I wonder if there are studies that show the numbers for the Roman Catholic Church. Are there studies that can show me how many people convert, and where they are from, and what they believed/followed previously? I would like to see a breakdown of conversion numbers by continent, or country if possible, and which category they fit into. A superb answer would include numbers for those who leave the Faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2014-06-13T19:36:38.770" Title="Where are the majority of Roman Catholic converts from today?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;conversion&gt;&lt;membership&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18820" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18788" CreationDate="2013-09-04T01:53:56.837" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No.  The Catholic Church used to proclaim it was the Church of Christ, now it claims it only &quot;subsists&quot; in the Church of Christ (this means that its one tiny piece of the Church Christ founded but not equivalent to it).  The Catholic Church used to proclaim it was the only way to Salvation, now it claims that there are many paths to salvation.  The Catholic Church used to refer to Protestantism as heresy and condemn Martin Luther, now it considers Protestantism to be something &quot;other than heresy&quot; and promotes the &quot;Zeal&quot; of Martin Luther.  The Catholic Church used to say that Islam was paganism and that the pagans worshipped demons, now it claims that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. I could go &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/8_VaticanII.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T01:53:56.837" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18821" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-04T02:48:06.383" Score="0" ViewCount="308" Body="&lt;p&gt;Satan, to my understanding, punishes souls in hell as a result of their immoral acts on earth.  It also is my understanding that the concept of Satan represents pure immorality (evil).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that mean it is &lt;em&gt;immoral&lt;/em&gt; to punish souls in hell or is it actually &lt;em&gt;moral&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="200" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-09-04T03:22:35.913" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T15:59:20.280" Title="Is it moral or immoral for Satan to punish souls for immoral acts?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-09-05T12:43:06.347" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18822" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18821" CreationDate="2013-09-04T02:59:55.087" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Dante's Inferno, that may have been the case, however, in the Bible, that is absolutely not the case.  Satan was never given dominion over hell.  In fact, Revelation 19 and 20 tells us Satan will be bound and thrown into the Abyss for 1000 years.  After his release, he will be cast into the Lake of Fire with Death, the Grave, the Beast and the False Prophet to burn forever.  Satan receives eternal punishment for his actions according to the Bible.  Aside from 14th Century literature, he never gets to take his revenge out on anyone.  In other words, Satan does not ever punish any souls for immoral acts according to the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the morality of &quot;punishing&quot; someone in Hell, I would contest that as well.  I would say a person who rejects God has chosen Hell over Heaven and God forcing a person who wanted nothing to do with Him in life to spend eternity with Him in a relationship they didn't want is tantamount to kidnapping.  Think Jayce Dugard.  &lt;em&gt;That&lt;/em&gt; would be the truly immoral thing to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5558" LastEditorUserId="5558" LastEditDate="2013-09-04T11:25:31.237" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T11:25:31.237" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18821" CreationDate="2013-09-04T04:13:33.617" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Satan does not punish anyone for sin.  Punishment for sin is solely and exclusively claimed as a right by God.  Romans 12:19 makes this abundantly clear when it says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, &#xA;for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] says the Lord.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T04:13:33.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8281" CreationDate="2013-09-04T05:18:36.487" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;By looking at Rev. chapter 12 it appears Satan our adversary , who stood before the throne accusing us day and night (example ; Job) as an adversarial prosecutor was cast out of Heaven and replaced by our mediator , the man Jesus Christ. Also see Hebrews 2:14 .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the first few verses of Rev. chapter 12 we see Satan has drawn on all his resources bringing them out of Heaven to earth ,in an all out attempt to kill the Messiah from birth. He was unsuccessful , and when Jesus was about to go to the cross it could be that he took his resources back to Heaven to accuse Jesus for ordaining 70 plus ministers to go out and preach the gospel as well as empowering them to perform miracles (in what might have been seen as unlawful by God's law on earth and an opportunity to accuse Jesus before the throne of Heaven , my thinking is &quot;finally we got Jesus on a technicality!&quot;) . In other words Satan's contention was that Jesus did not have legal authority to send them out or empower them for spiritual service, and when they stormed Heaven to make their case they were met by resistance , a war breaks out and Satan and his followers have no more place in Heaven . Hence the witnessing of Jesus observing the falling to earth of Satan while the 70 + evangelists are about their commission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as Satan's fall before Adam and Eve's fall. There other instances in scripture where one was not guilty (?) until the actual act was committed. In other words , no real judgement was made by God until the deed was done . Now we see Satan caused the death of the first man and woman and is &quot;indeed&quot; guilty of murder . His fall was seemingly gradual in that first he was a part of the original curse , became our &quot;accuser&quot; , was cast out of Heaven , will be cast down to the sides of the pit (bottomless) , released for a season , and ultimately cast into the lake of fire .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5638" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T05:18:36.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18826" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18829" CreationDate="2013-09-04T11:05:34.210" Score="9" ViewCount="556" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read an &lt;a href=&quot;http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/pope-announces-day-fasting-prayer-syria-20129395&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; yesterday about Pope Francis announcing a day of fasting on Sept. 7th for the situation in Syria. According to Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican doctrine, exactly how does my fasting affect violent situations in the middle East?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-04T15:01:28.260" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T18:57:00.487" Title="How does fasting affect violent situations not under my control?" Tags="&lt;fasting&gt;&lt;war&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18828" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18826" CreationDate="2013-09-04T14:29:32.743" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not the fasting that affects violent situations in the Middle East, it's what God leads you to do next.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fasting is a spiritual discipline that helps you focus on God. It's a sacrifice that underscores the seriousness of your prayers. Hunger reminds you to pray and meditate. God responds to prayer by guiding you to actions that you can take to help. You can also choose to donate the money you'd be spending on food to a relevant organization.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you choose to fast on Sept. 7, you will be a part of a large group of people who are asking God for peace in Syria. God responds by guiding people to their part in the solution. Peace happens when we all do our part.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T14:29:32.743" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18826" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:07:49.180" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Our own wickedness is the cause of the wickedness around the world. Personal fasting is a sign of personal repentance that, it is hoped, will lead God to mitigate similar evils in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/03/pope-calls-all-catholics-to-pray-and-fast-for-syria-on-saturday/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Francis said this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“We will gather in prayer and in a spirit of penance, invoking God’s great gift of peace upon the beloved nation of Syria and upon each situation of conflict and violence around the world. Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/angelus/2013/documents/papa-francesco_angelus_20130901_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;The full text of his September 1st Angelus Address can be found here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In making this proclamataion, he joins thousands of others in explicitly seeing the fallen condition of the world not merely a result of some generic sin, but &lt;em&gt;our&lt;/em&gt; sin.  In calling us to fast, he is calling us to repent of our part in making this world a fallen place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln called us to a similar fast.  He asked the nation to &amp;quot;fast and humble&amp;quot; itself as an outward manifestation of our repentance.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/fast.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;full text&lt;/a&gt; can be seen here.  Within that, he wrote a justification as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell - God is punishing us by bringing these events to come to pass.  Maybe if we show our contrition for what &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; have done, God will relent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is both simple and has a long basis in history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, Paul, in Romans acknowledges the link, in Romans 1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people of Nineveh, when confronted by Jonah (in Chapter 3), made almost the exact same leap:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“By the decree of the king and his nobles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The logic is simple:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Violence is a result of our wickedness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are sorry for this&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perhaps if God sees our sorrow, he will relent, and change the situation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T18:57:00.487" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18451" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:21:10.710" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most protestant traditions don't focus on religious purity at all, let alone menstruation. First, Gentile Christians aren't required to follow Mosaic law. (Acts 15) Second, because of Grace and Christ's sacrifice, our sins and impurities are cleansed. There's nothing we can do to make ourselves more pure and that includes waiting a couple of days for your cycle to end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T15:21:10.710" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18769" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:33:25.987" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;tl;dr&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metalog.org/files/gnostic.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patterson Brown&lt;/a&gt;, in particular, has argued the &lt;em&gt;disunity&lt;/em&gt; within the Nag Hammadi Corpus.  That's about the best you're going to get without defining a positive corpus, as opposed to the inverse of the canon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with answering this question is that you are asking a question akin to &quot;Are the books not on the NY Times Best-seller list as unified as the ones that are?&quot;  At a very basic level, of course you can say that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts of Thecla&lt;/a&gt; doesn't harmonize well with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gospel of Judas&lt;/a&gt;.  One is popular orthodox fiction, the other is Gnostic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To posit that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9488/1039&quot;&gt;every other book has some sort of cohesion is problemmatic&lt;/a&gt;, because &quot;Gnostics&quot; especially in the time of Paul and the early church, were as diverse as that heterodox entity that became the church. Furthermore, Gnostics weren't the only heterodox &quot;false teachers&quot; out there.  Judaizers, Docetists, Marcionists, and others wrote their own books.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Marcion&lt;/a&gt; in particular may or may not have shared Gnostics views - but his existence alone would show there is not unanimity amongst the non-canonical Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The real question then, isn't &quot;Do non-canonical books all agree?&quot; but rather are there things present in the canonical ones that aren't in everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8446/1039&quot;&gt;marks of canonicity&lt;/a&gt; that are widely accepted, but the inverse leaves &quot;everything else.&quot;  That there should be a presumption of harmony in &quot;everything else&quot; is a hard thesis to make in any endeavour, let alone canonicity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also useful to actually &lt;em&gt;read&lt;/em&gt; the supposedly &quot;suppressed&quot; Scriptures.  When you do, the differences become obvious.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question directly, then, I would invite you to check out &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; Gnostic &quot;Gospel&quot; - probably the most famous - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Gospel of Thomas&lt;/a&gt;. Rather than focusing on its harmony with other Gnostic Gospels (discussed below), it is probably more fruitful to understand the exact nature of its &lt;em&gt;disharmony&lt;/em&gt; with canonical Scripture.  By understanding what it does and does not purport to do, anyone should be able to see what message if any is being &quot;Suppressed(TM)&quot; and why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reading that Gospel (its short - just 115 verses), a few salient facts will jump out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unlike the four canonical Gospels, Thomas does not purport to give any sort of chronology.  It is merely a list of the sayings of Jesus.  To ask &quot;does this line up with the account of the Gospels&quot; is akin to asking if Gen. Custer's shopping list lines up with his battlefield report prior to Little Big Horn.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is actually substantial &lt;em&gt;overlap&lt;/em&gt; between the actual actual sayings that are recorded, and those found in the canonical Gospels.  Rather than showing some kind of conspiracy theory that the early church tried to &quot;Supress(TM)&quot; these, reading it belies the Truth that there isn't anything that is &quot;covered up.&quot;  Rather, the wheat is already recorded in the Gospels, and the chaff- those parts peculiar to the Gospel do line up with what the majority of the church &lt;em&gt;did accept.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John - the disciple who most stressed love (&quot;Little Children let us love one another&quot;) - actually made the criteria explicit in canonical Scripture. (Again, it's a bit of a chicken and egg, because nobody actually said 'This is good, this isn't quite as good' until much later).  He wrote in 2 John:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would directly contradict Thomas, who records Jesus as &quot;saying&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, it is a wonder. But if the spirit (came into being) because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Gnosticism - that Jesus only appeared to flesh directly countered what the majority had &quot;received and been taught.&quot;  It wasn't evil, it was just wrong.  There are &quot;churches&quot; that teach that &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godhatesfags.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God hates fags&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;  The overwhelming majority of Christians have rejected their writings as well.  This was just an error that the majority of the church rejected. One should not be surprised if the corpus of Republican Presidential platforms is not in harmony with those of the Democrats.  This is exactly why the two corpi are distinct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church, holding to what it &lt;em&gt;had been taught and received&lt;/em&gt; likewise rejected this notion - and equally preserved their &lt;em&gt;false&lt;/em&gt; writings to show it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The traditional marks of canonicity - apostolic authorship, harmony with the received message, fidelity to the person of Jesus (again as understood by the church at the time) are simply missing in everything Gnostic or Apocraphyal.  As such, these were rejected.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The result, one can show the disharmony between everything that wasn't accepted and everything that was canonical. The most famous compilation of Gnostic Scriptures - the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nag Hammadi Library&lt;/a&gt; is available online, and oddly enough, was perserved (once found) through the Coptic church. Other collections in the past have been available to scholars who read them.  Reading them is fruitful to understand the heresies and false teachings against which the church contended in the early centuries.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to presume everybody who disagreed with the church in exactly the same way is unreasonable.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metalog.org/files/gnostic.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patterson Brown&lt;/a&gt;, in particular, has argued the &lt;em&gt;disunity&lt;/em&gt; within the Nag Hammadi.  He posits the three most famous (Thomas, Peter, and &quot;Truth&quot;) actually differ from the others in being closer to accepting the incarnation.  He points to his proof in the linked article.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, the skeptic needs to define what the criteria for study is.  There are differences to be sure, but finding universally accepted truths in any of the corpora is difficult indeed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T16:23:06.760" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18821" CreationDate="2013-09-04T15:59:20.280" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus gives us a picture of the Judgement. Notice that there are ONLY 2 groups. The ones on the right, His sheep, those that followed Him, will &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;inherit the kingdom &lt;strong&gt;prepared for you&lt;/strong&gt; from the foundation of the&#xA;  world (v. 34)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;; and the ones on His left, the goats, who chose not to follow in His footsteps, will go &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;into everlasting fire, prepared &lt;strong&gt;for the devil and his angels&lt;/strong&gt; (v. 41)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that heaven was prepared for us, but the fire was prepared to the devil and his angels. Revelation 20 also gives us a closer look into Judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the same, the people who have received the seal of God, whose names were written in the Book of Life, they will sit on thrones; while the devil, his angels, and those who were not found written in the Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire. If we follow the succession of Revelation 20, the devil and his angels are tossed in the lake of fire first and then the ones not found in the Book of Life. Then it says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;death&lt;/strong&gt;. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was&#xA;  cast into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:14, 15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan is cast into the lake of fire, the second death, eternal death and separation from God, because they did not wish to follow the Truth that was revealed to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many schools of thought on the matter. Based on the parables of Jesus &lt;strong&gt;it seems to me&lt;/strong&gt; that the punishment, hell, will come AFTER the Judgement. I think this is only fair because it would be unfair to condemn someone to 10 years of prison without a fair trial and judgement. In the same way it would not be fair to send people to burn in hell and then be judged. This is a VAST subject and cannot be comprehensively discussed in detail in a single post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Satan does not punish anyone in hell, because no one has been judged and condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-09-04T15:59:20.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18835" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-04T18:31:52.270" Score="12" ViewCount="45604" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Separateness&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; states this as a fact but does not explain further. In conversations with JWs, I understood that this is based on two birthdays in the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Job's eldest son: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201:13-19&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot;&gt;Job was attacked by Satan on that birthday&lt;/a&gt; and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Herod's: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2014:6-10&amp;amp;version=AMP&quot;&gt;John the Baptist was beheaded on his birthday&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But how do these two &lt;em&gt;instances&lt;/em&gt; become translated to a &lt;em&gt;general&lt;/em&gt; rule for all Jehovah's Witnesses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2014-07-22T06:00:46.037" Title="Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not celebrate birthdays?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18839" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18826" CreationDate="2013-09-05T01:12:14.720" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would add by giving this premise&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in Matt 18:18 - “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our prayers affect the spiritual realm which in turn affect the physical realm. For example I imagine that SOME denomination's prayer on Sept 7 would go something along the lines of &quot;We bind the works of the enemy and release the spirit of hope and love...&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Daniel 10:12-14 - tells how an Angel was on his way to answer Daniel's prayer but was delayed the prince of persia (not a real prince but a spiritual power over persia) again the principle holds true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We pray in the physical&#xA;the words are reflected in the spiritual realm&#xA;the spiritual realm resolves it (God does what he needs to do)&#xA;it is manifested in the physical in the form of miracles and answered prayer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While this applies to prayer in general, keep in mind that fasting IS prayer + abstinence so this principle should also apply. The logical next question would be what would fasting do that regular prayer can't? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I've read of scripture, fasting is almost a forsaking of your personal well being for the supplication of another or situation or circumstance. If prayer is potent, fasting is even more so. It is clear with many examples in the Old testament and today (just ask for testimonies of many Christians who fast) that fasting is almost like a more potent version of prayer. (this is just by observation so I can't give you any imperical evidence im afraid). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The greater the need the greater the supplication just like in Mark 9. The disciples could not cast out the demon (even though they could in previous instances) what's different in Mark 9 was the boy was possessed over a long period of time. in verse 23 Jesus famously says &quot;this kind can only be cast out by prayer and fasting&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5512" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T01:12:14.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="306" CreationDate="2013-09-05T02:50:44.967" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;1,000 years before John Calvin was an idea. After His apologetic battle with Pelagius. Augustine wrote a book called On Grace and Free Will. This was necessitated by two extremes that he saw and had concluded (in agreement with all the fathers before him) that both extremes were in error and he would not be accused (as some were saying) that because of his arguments against Pelagius that he was denying the role of men's freedom of will. Augustine believed in neither a &quot;total&quot; depravity (as in absolute incapability) or in a post-Dordt Reformed position. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He writes in chapter 1 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;*But since there are some persons who so defend God's grace as to deny man's free will, or who suppose that free will is denied when grace is defended, I have determined to write somewhat on this point to your Love, my brother Valenti*us, and the rest of you, who are serving God together under the impulse of a mutual love…*&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on page after page defending the necessary requirement by God of man to respond to the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation. God speaks (whether through the word preached or read or heard through another) and God has sovereignly determined from before the foundation of the world that man must demonstrate belief (which is not a work according to Romans 4:2-5). He quotes form over 30 scriptures which in the Greek are in the imperative mood which precludes man can turn unto Him, receive, open the door when He knocks, etc.,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Opening chapter 2 he relates that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the fact that God's precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards. For they are given that no one might be able to plead the excuse of ignorance, as the Lord says concerning the Jews in the gospel: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin…&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In chapter 4 he asks the logical question &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;What is the import of the fact that in so many passages God requires all His commandments to be kept and fulfilled? How does He make this requisition, if there is no free will?&lt;/em&gt;&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then answers it...he says ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;...&lt;em&gt;there are so many commandments which in some way are expressly adapted to the human will; for instance, there is, Be not overcome of evil, Romans 12:1 and others of similar import, such as, Be not like a horse or a mule, which have no understanding; and, Reject not the counsels of your mother; Proverbs 1:8 and, Be not wise in your own conceit; Proverbs 3:7 and, Despise not the chastening of the Lord; Proverbs 3:11 and, Forget not my law; Proverbs 3:1 and, Forbear not to do good to the poor; Proverbs 3:27 and, Devise not evil against your friend; Proverbs 3:29 and, Give no heed to a worthless woman; Proverbs 5:2 and, He is not inclined to understand how to do good; and, They refused to attend to my counsel; Proverbs 1:30 with numberless other passages of the inspired Scriptures of the Old Testament. And what do they all show us but the free choice of the human will? So, again, in the evangelical and apostolic books of the New Testament what other lesson is taught us? As when it is said, Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth; Matthew 6:19 and, Fear not them which kill the body; Matthew 10:28 and, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself; Matthew 16:24 and again, Peace on earth to men of good will. Luke 2:14 So also that the Apostle Paul says: Let him do what he wills; he sins not if he marry. Nevertheless, he that stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. 1 Corinthians 7:36-37 And so again, If I do this willingly, I have a reward; 1 Corinthians 9:17 while in another passage he says, Be sober and righteous, and sin not; 1 Corinthians 15:34 and again, As you have a readiness to will, so also let there be a prompt performance; 2 Corinthians 8:11 then he remarks to Timothy about the younger widows, When they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they choose to marry. So in another passage, All that will to live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution; 2 Timothy 3:12 while to Timothy himself he says, Neglect not the gift that is in you. 1 Timothy 4:14 Then to Philemon he addresses this explanation: That your benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but of your own will. Servants also he advises to obey their masters with a good will. Ephesians 6:7 In strict accordance with this, James says: Do not err, my beloved brethren . . . and have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect to persons; and, Do not speak evil one of another. James 4:11 So also John in his Epistle writes, Do not love the world, 1 John 2:15and other things of the same import. Now wherever it is said, Do not do this, and Do not do that, and wherever there is any requirement in the divine admonitions for the work of the will to do anything, or to refrain from doing anything, there is at once a sufficient proof of free will. No man, therefore, when he sins, can in his heart blame God for it, but every man must impute the fault to himself. Nor does it detract at all from a man's own will when he performs any act in accordance with God. Indeed, a work is then to be pronounced a good one when a person does it willingly; then, too, may the reward of a good work be hoped for from Him concerning whom it is written, He shall reward every man according to his works. Matthew 16:27&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the exact opinion (the mutual existence of predestination and free will and NOT TOTAL depravity) that one will find going all the way back to Justin. All the fathers in whatever church, in whatever nation, regardless of which Apostle founded the church and taught and appointed these earliest teachers, all taught the self same one unified doctrine. After Calvin a theological war began that has lasted 500 years (you shall know then by their fruit)...Calvin is precisely the extreme error Augustine here refutes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5648" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-09-05T21:19:20.287" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T21:19:20.287" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18845" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-05T03:55:12.997" Score="17" ViewCount="22659" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was a child I remember hearing that some Christians strongly opposed the use of playing cards. If I remember correctly, it wasn't just for gambling games such as Poker, but even for children's games such as Go Fish. I have always assumed that this prohibition was linked to a particular denomination(s), but I have not personally encountered anyone since then that has held this view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any Christian groups that prohibit the use of playing cards, and what is their basis for doing so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5370" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-17T05:49:48.410" LastActivityDate="2017-04-26T00:05:07.540" Title="Which Christian groups prohibit playing cards, and what is their basis for doing so?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18845" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:10:02.160" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a general rule, if you look hard enough, it's usually possible to find a Christian group opposed to just about anything you can think of.  That doesn't mean that mainstream Christianity is opposed. Sometimes it's a fringe group, sometimes it's a vast majority of Christians.  Playing cards is no exception to that general rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.demonbuster.com/cards.html&quot;&gt;This group&lt;/a&gt; believes that your standard deck of playing cards is &quot;The Devil's Bible&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A small excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The king represents Satan, Prince of Darkness, usurper and foe of our&#xA;  Lord Jesus Christ. The ten card is for the Spirit of lawlessness, in&#xA;  opposition to the moral law in the Word of God. In 1300, clubs were&#xA;  the chief weapons used by murderers, therefore this suit represents&#xA;  the Spirit of Murder and death by violence. The jack represents the&#xA;  lustful libertine, from pimp to adulterer and whoremonger, a moral&#xA;  leper whose chief ambition is to gratify sensual fleshly lusts. The&#xA;  queen represents Mary, Mother of Jesus, but in the card language she&#xA;  is called Mother of Harlots. The joker represents Jesus Christ, the&#xA;  Son of God. Joker means fool and therefore Jesus is held up to&#xA;  ridicule. The joker is said to be the offspring of licentious jack and&#xA;  the queen, Mother of Harlots.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, it's not a denomination per-se, it's one of the &quot;fringe groups&quot; I mentioned above.  I'm not aware of any denomination that takes this stance as a whole.  It usually seems to be individuals with personal convictions and beliefs within various denominations that adheres to such fringe beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why they believe this?  They don't really say.  They make some vague claims that this is a historical stance of the Church, but with no references to back it up.  Other possible reasons:  Personal interpretation, they heard it from someone and believed it and are now passing it along, they are just the type to see Satan in anything, they're right?  Who knows?  It could be any of those or something else entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T04:10:02.160" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18847" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18845" CreationDate="2013-09-05T04:18:46.103" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's an excerpt from an academic journal, concerning the morality of playing cards in Christianity. Note that it mentions Evangelicalism - the type of Christianity that was influential in the Victorian era according to the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Great Expectations appears three years later, games, particularly&#xA;  card games, are associated with the physically and morally decayed&#xA;  gentility of Satis House and the corrupt legality of Mr. Jaggers. Even&#xA;  gentlemanliness comes to seem nothing but an empty game. We can only&#xA;  speculate at the reasons for this change in Dickens’s portrayal. For&#xA;  one thing, the rising middle class and the influence of&#xA;  evangelicalism, among other social developments, precipitated a&#xA;  Victorian earnestness in which game-playing – especially cards, which&#xA;  were associated with gambling – was not always seen as respectable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may be hinted that card-playing - even among innocent children who have no money - is not considered respectable, because it is associated with &lt;em&gt;gambling&lt;/em&gt;. The children were playing Beggar-My-Neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: Parkinson, K. L. (2010). What do you play, boy?&quot;: Card Games in &quot;Great Expectations. Dickens Quarterly, 27(2), 119-138.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T04:18:46.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-09-05T05:47:19.863" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;God told Adam and Eve this as part of His blessing to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...&quot; (Genesis 1:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Children are a blessing to the parents, and also are part of the pleasure that God receives from His creation.  &quot;Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.&quot; (Revelation 4:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the flood, God knew that the survivors may have been reluctant to have large families, after having seen the mass destruction of so many people, so He encouraged them repeatedly in Genesis 8 and 9 to have the confidence to again replenish the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was in this context that God's 1st covenant with man was given to Noah, (promising that the earth would not be destroyed) as a further reassurance that they should &quot;Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth&quot;. Genesis 9:1 [the first covenant was given in Genesis 9:9-17]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context of the second covenant, given to Abraham (or Abram), also shows God's mind as to children in the light of being a blessing.  &quot;Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be.&quot; (Genesis 15:5)  [the 2nd covenant was given in verse 18]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God stresses this point to the Children of Israel, telling them that having children was part of His blessing to them.  See, for instance Deuteronomy 7:13 &quot;Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament we find that the act of raising children was considered a merit.  For instance widows were to be cared for if she were &quot;well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children...&quot; (1 Timothy 5:10), and the younger women (in verse fourteen) &quot;that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the men, children were also listed in the description of what traits were to be seen in an &quot;elder&quot; and a &quot;deacon&quot; in 1 Timothy 3.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly an added blessing for Christians is to see their children &quot;grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior&quot;.  As John wrote to &quot;the elect lady, and her children&quot; in his second epistle, &quot;I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.&quot; (See verses 1 &amp;amp; 4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is His reward.&quot; (Psalm 127:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5651" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T05:47:19.863" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18850" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18500" CreationDate="2013-09-05T07:11:37.390" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h3&gt;So what is the reason God wants us to have children?&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? Because he &lt;em&gt;loves&lt;/em&gt; us &lt;em&gt;so much&lt;/em&gt;. If I were to say it the way I'd really want to, I'd say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God wants us to &lt;strike&gt;have&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;em&gt;become&lt;/em&gt; children because he really, really loves us.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, &lt;em&gt;God wants us to become living, breathing humans because he loves us so much. And his way of making humans, naturally, is as the human children of human moms and dads.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God wants us to &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; children so that he can bring people into the world, and these are not just generic human beings stamped out from the presses of heaven. These people are &lt;em&gt;you and me&lt;/em&gt;. These people are people that he &lt;strong&gt;knew&lt;/strong&gt; long before he ever formed them in their mother's womb (Jer. 1:16)...people whose every day he prepared in advance (Ps. 139:16) so that we could &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; him (Phil. 3:10, Eph. 2:10), &lt;em&gt;walk&lt;/em&gt; in him (Col. 2:6), &lt;em&gt;live and move and have our being&lt;/em&gt; in him (Acts 17:28), and completely find our identity in him (Col. 2:20). &lt;strong&gt;Giving us the opportunity to live life on this Earth gives us a unique opportunity that is only possible this side of heaven.&lt;/strong&gt; That opportunity is to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7, Jn. 20:29). Can this kind of opportunity ever really exist again once we get to heaven? For there we will walk by faith &lt;em&gt;and&lt;/em&gt; sight, as we will evermore behold him face to face (1 Jn. 3:2, Rev. 22:4, 1 Cor. 13:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know how important faith without sight is to the Lord:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of&#xA;  things &lt;strong&gt;not seen&lt;/strong&gt;. For by it the people of old received their&#xA;  commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by&#xA;  the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that&#xA;  are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice&#xA;  than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending&#xA;  him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he&#xA;  still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see&#xA;  death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he&#xA;  was taken he was commended as having pleased God. &lt;strong&gt;And without faith&#xA;  it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God&#xA;  must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  (Heb. 11:1-6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How deeply pleasing it is to him when we give our lives completely to him even though we can not see him with our earthly eyes. During our lives here on earth, we have the only opportunity we will ever have to walk by faith without sight. So then, what an immensely precious thing it is to God that we have this earth-life now before eternity! How precious it is to him that our love for him be proven real in the scope of a world where we can only apprehend him by the spirit...where the physical eye and ear will likely never behold his form this side of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For you formed my inward parts;&#xA;      you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works;&#xA;      my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret,&#xA;      intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;in your book were written&lt;/strong&gt;, every one of them,&#xA;      &lt;strong&gt;the days that were formed for me,&#xA;      when as yet there was none of them&lt;/strong&gt;. (Ps. 139:13-16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary, God want us to &lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt; children because there are many more people who have not yet been created that he &lt;em&gt;already knows&lt;/em&gt;. He wants them to be given human form so that they would have the chance to &lt;em&gt;know him likewise&lt;/em&gt;. And in particular, he wants them to know him from the vantage point of an earthly existence, where faith without sight--something so difficult to have in a world where the earthly senses rule--&lt;em&gt;proves real&lt;/em&gt; the love of a man toward God. God loves us so much, and living life on earth gives us a unique opportunity amidst all time, space, and eternity to walk by faith and not by sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5370" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T07:11:37.390" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18845" CreationDate="2013-09-05T07:47:59.217" Score="13" Body="&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_cards#Symbolism&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; offers some reasons why cards, specifically of the &quot;French Design&quot; (that is, a &quot;standard&quot; 52-card deck) might be prohibited, especially by sects which take a fairly strict anti-pagan, or anti-astrological stands:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Popular legend holds that the composition of a deck of cards has religious, mystical, or astrological significance.[citation needed]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus each suit of 13 cards represents the 13 lunar months of the Earth year. Since the sidereal lunar month may be approximated to 28 days, each deck is equal to 364 days of the year.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Similarly, the whole deck of 52 cards represents the 52 weeks of the year. Therefore, the whole deck is also equal to 364 days of the year (the positivist calendar) with the four suits corresponding to the four seasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ace is symbolically “alpha and omega” or “the beginning and end.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Apparently official &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2010/07/29/do-mormons-really-ban-playing-cards-from-the-home/&quot;&gt;Mormon doctrine&lt;/a&gt; does (or did?) prohibit playing card games with a standard 52-card deck (Rook is permitted):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Growing up, conventional playing cards were banned in my home. We only used Rook. One only had to open up “Mormon Doctrine” to see why my parents banned the cards. It reads, “Members of the Church should not belong to bridge or other type of card clubs, and they should neither play cards nor have them in their homes. By cards is meant, of course, the spotted face cards used by gamblers. To the extent that church members play cards they are out of harmony with their inspired leaders. Innocent non-gambling games played with other types of cards, except for the waste of time in many instances, are not objectionable.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://trionfi.com/tarot/0p-early-playing-cards-documents/05-card-prohibition-florence/index.php&quot;&gt;This history of playing cards&lt;/a&gt; makes references to several places where card games were prohibited in or near churches--I see no reference to church members being prohibited from playing in other locations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Summary&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a common rule among certain, generally more conservative Christian groups, that card games should not be played, and the rule varies a lot in how strictly it is interpreted.  It is also a rule which, like many such rules, has almost certainly been observed more strictly in the past than in the present.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some groups may go so far as to prohibit &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; playing cards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More common is prohibiting the standard 52-card deck. Either because of its association with gambling, or the occult/astrology, apparently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More common these days is a simple prohibition of gambling games--possibly even when money isn't used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Anecdote&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My parents both grew up in the Nazarene church, my dad the son of a Nazarene pastor.  They were forbidden to drink, dance, and attend movie theaters.  I'm pretty sure I remember my mother telling me she also wasn't allowed to play card games as a child.  The reason, as I understood it, is that cards are used for gambling, so they carry the &quot;appearance of evil&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Thessalonians 5:22&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe my mother played Dutch Blitz as a child, which uses a different deck design.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;I'm pretty sure the card prohibition is not a Nazarene doctrine; perhaps just her specific church. Google shows multiple references to Nazarene-church-sponsored events where participants are encouraged to bring card games!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-09-05T19:40:13.293" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T19:40:13.293" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18853" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18854" CreationDate="2013-09-05T10:08:26.463" Score="15" ViewCount="60002" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do Rastafarians believe that Jesus is the way to God in the same way that Christians believe? I find that their singing speaks a lot about God and spiritual matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5525" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-04-17T15:24:25.893" LastActivityDate="2017-04-17T15:24:25.893" Title="Do Rastafarians believe in Jesus as the Way to God?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;rastafarian&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18854" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18853" CreationDate="2013-09-05T10:23:09.187" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, I think it's necessary to point out that Christianity is not defined by being a &quot;lot about God and other spiritual matters&quot;. Most world religions could include this. You could just as easily be Muslim and &lt;a href=&quot;https://youtu.be/ZKJ3qUHJPaI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;sing a lot about a god and spiritual matters&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even more specifically than that, a group may have a set of beliefs that draw on many common themes from Christianity without being Christian. Such is the case with the Rastafari Movement. It is a philosophy and loosely organized way of life that includes some common themes and often reuses terms and phrases found in Christianity, but at it's core is a completely separate set of beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To directly answer your question, no Rastafarians do not believe that Jesus is the way to God in the same way that the majority of Christians (of any major tradition) do. In fact they believe the Christian scriptures have been &lt;a href=&quot;http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/a/rastafari.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;corrupted&lt;/a&gt;. Being a loosely organized set of beliefs it is important to note that you might run into a few people who do believe in Jesus and claim to be Rastafarian. However the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari#World-views_and_doctrines&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;normative Rastafari beliefs&lt;/a&gt; are quite different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They do not hold the same beliefs about sin, the reasons for our separation from God or the only solution to that problem. They are usually willing to credit Jesus with being a good moral teacher and admire his rebel tendencies, but they completely miss the main point of who he was: God in the flesh and the &lt;strong&gt;only&lt;/strong&gt; incarnate Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That last bit is important, because they typically do believe in a &quot;christ&quot; or &quot;messiah&quot;, but they believe he had another name, took a body at another time, etc. See &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie#Rastafari_messiah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Haile Selassie&lt;/a&gt;, Emperor of Ethiopia, to whom Rastafarians attribute many of the things found in Christian scriptures rather than to Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Confusingly, you might even hear &quot;trinity&quot; nomenclature being used by Rastafarians, but be aware that they mean something completely different by this than Christians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rastafari doctrines concerning the Trinity include stressing the significance of the name &quot;Haile Selassie,&quot; meaning power of the Trinity, might of the Trinity, powerful trinity in Ge'ez or also Haile Selassie I (qedamawi Haile Selassie) meaning the (first power of the Trinity) name given to Ras Tafari upon his baptism and later assumed as part of his regnal name at his November 2, 1930 coronation by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, then known as just the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari#The_Trinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2017-02-02T10:59:15.440" LastActivityDate="2017-02-02T10:59:15.440" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18855" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18845" CreationDate="2013-09-05T13:44:36.323" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;While not exactly a denomination, the famous baseball-player-turned-pastor, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Sunday&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Billy Sunday&lt;/a&gt;, is probably most associated with the evils of &amp;quot;theater, cards, and dance.&amp;quot;  His influence on Fundamentalists, Baptists, and Evangelicals of all stripes is legendary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sunday's popularity influenced thousands (if not millions) in the United States in the early 1900s.  His brand of fundamentalism led directly to many of the beliefs you see. Early in the Century, this type of preaching was de riguer. Its influence, however shall we say, has since waned. (I for one, do not mourn its passing.) That said, for those who grew up in it, the tenants still hold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his estimation, the primary issue with cards is that they do lead to gambling.  His takes inspriation from Galatians, in which it says &amp;quot;Do not be decieved, God is not mocked - for that which a man soweth, so shall he reap.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He preaches as follows:  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&amp;amp;%20Preaching/Printed%20Sermons/Billy%20Sunday/theater_cards_dance-billy_sunday.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The full text is here&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You sow bridge whist and auction pitch and five hundred in the home and you reap a crop of gamblers. You sow the dance and the ballroom and you reap a crop of brothels. You sow saloons and you reap a harvest of drunkards.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You must want a lot of prostitutes or you wouldn't sow dances; you must want a lot of vomiting, puking drunkards or you wouldn't sow saloons, and you must want a bunch of gamblers or you wouldn't play cards in your homes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have any cards in your home, you had better throw them in the furnace when you get back there or else throw your Bibles in the furnace. The two won't mix. Oh, you need not gasp! I am handing it to you straight! There is no use having Bibles around your house if you are going to make a joke of His Word by playing bridge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(As you can tell, he gets emotional about it.)  Perhaps his most damning indictment is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many a boy is inveigled into a gambling room and listens to the roulette wheel ¥ the faro bank and keno and listens to the ribaldry and the jest and the blasphemy, and he is reminded of home. What a wonderful heritage to bequeath to a boy! To have him go into a hellhole like that and have it remind him of home! Men who have been spending their funds and lives to ferret those things out tell us that nine-tenths of the gamblers are taught in their homes by their mothers, or eighty per cent of them first learned gambling in the homes of professing Christian people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When I talk to you about card playing in your home, I am trying to pound through your head that every pack of cards is but another steppingstone to Hell. I think the old painted hag or the broken down roue, hanging around the tables at Monte Carlo, or a down-and-out card shark bucking a crooked game in a gambling joint at three o'clock in the morning a sight more respectable than the church people or the professed Christian who permits card playing in his home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;You take that picture back and give it to my mother, and tell her 'Damn her!' I never want to see her. She taught me to play cards and I killed a man at a gambling table and am serving fifteen years to pay for it. Now she has the audacity to send me her picture after she pushed me behind the prison bars,&amp;quot; so said a condemned boy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say it may not injure you, but it is damning others. Many a boy leaves home and goes to board in some miserable, no-account church-member family. The first night they draw out a card table and take out a deck of cards and say: &amp;quot;Won't you play a game with us?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T15:22:02.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18856" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18835" CreationDate="2013-09-05T15:21:58.950" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've not heard the bad birthday's story.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My family and friends who are Witnesses explain that birthdays, like most holidays, were originally pagan and celebrating paganism is an affront to God. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jehovah's Witness website&lt;/a&gt; has some brief explanations of paganism and major holidays. I also found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-not-celebrate.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blog&lt;/a&gt; that discusses birthdays specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T15:21:58.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18857" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18845" CreationDate="2013-09-05T19:10:47.223" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that one explanation I had heard from a Christian that was opposed to gambling was that it was due to Jesus' possessions being divided by casting lots.  It also may be kind of similar to prohibitions against alcohol where the fear is that it will lead to a problem, so why not avoid it entirely.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly drinking and gambling could lead to sin in the extreme, but most churches don't have a problem with either in moderation, though many avoid them on the church grounds or at church functions.  The reason for this is generally that while it may not be sinful to participate in moderation, it can be a stumbling point for those who are weak in those areas and the church doesn't want to cause problems for someone who has an actual problem.  (Not causing your brother to stumble, as it were.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2090" LastActivityDate="2013-09-05T19:10:47.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18858" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18866" CreationDate="2013-09-05T21:01:44.207" Score="6" ViewCount="2497" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize there are many variations even among Baptists, but I personally have never heard this area discussed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do baptists view the &quot;gambling&quot; associated with games like &lt;em&gt;Jeopardy!&lt;/em&gt;? For those unfamiliar with the game show, a variety of trivia clues are hidden on a board with varying dollar amounts in front of them, arranged more-or-less by category. When a contestant has control of the board, they ask for a clue (eg &quot;Potent Potables for $400, Alex&quot;), at which point the host reads the clue and the contestant must answer in the form of a question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they get it wrong, they lose the $400. If they respond correctly, they gain the $400. During the game, some squares will allow the player to wager on their response to the as-yet-unshown clue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given the popularity of the program, and other similar games like it, what is the Baptist view on this type of &quot;wagering&quot;? Technically it's not gambling, because it's not your money until you end the show (and then only if you're the highest-placing after &lt;em&gt;Final Jeopardy!&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do other denominations / traditions take different views of this type of &quot;gambling&quot;? If so, how do they differ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question could be extended to other forms of &quot;wager&quot; games (eg spades, pinochle, etc), too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T04:52:25.993" Title="What is the baptist view on &quot;gambling&quot; in scenarios like &quot;Jeopardy!&quot;?" Tags="&lt;baptist&gt;&lt;gambling&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18689" CreationDate="2013-09-06T01:03:39.627" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To imply that God increases His knowledge is to imply that there is information that God doesn't already know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that Heb 13:8 - God is the same yesterday today and forever&#xA;and that 1 John 3:20; 1 Sam 2:3; Job 37:16 (and more) God is all knowing&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say no God's knowledge does not increase, it is the same yesterday today and forever and it is complete and unending.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do think the question of &quot;Can God change His mind&quot; in light of the above verses is an interesting discussion and a good followup.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5512" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T01:03:39.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18863" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5623" CreationDate="2013-09-06T03:17:40.987" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The accepted answer is an excellent response, however, the only &lt;em&gt;biblical&lt;/em&gt; basis for prohibition of instruments is the &quot;silence of the scriptures&quot; argument.  The argument states that if the Bible is absolutely silent on a given action, then that action is prohibited.  Note that for many who use the argument, any concept of &quot;permissive silence&quot; is not silence at all, rather such actions are considered a &lt;em&gt;necessary inference&lt;/em&gt; under an explicitly approved generic action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, the Bible does not speak explicitly about traveling via car or airplane to &quot;preach the gospel to every creature.&quot;  It merely says &quot;go.&quot;  So &quot;go&quot; would be the explicit, generic action under which &quot;drive car&quot; or &quot;fly airplane&quot; could be implied/necessarily inferred.  This is not the same as &quot;silence&quot; with this particular line of argumentation.  The Bible does speak on these matters, just not explicitly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, back to the topic of instrumental music.  If the Bible, or rather, New Testament, says absolutely nothing about instrumental music, then it is prohibited (per the argument).  So then the &lt;em&gt;biblical&lt;/em&gt; basis of whether or not instrumental music is prohibited hinges on whether or not the New Testament says absolutely nothing about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So is there absolute silence on the topic?  I don't think so.  For one, I could argue that singing is a generic action under which optional instrumental accompaniment is implied, and therefore permissible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another line of argumentation goes something like this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Old Testament explicitly permitted instrumental music (2 Chr. 29:25; Ps. 33:2) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The first Christians were Jews who used instrumental music&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Old Testament was &quot;unbound&quot; as a law (Col. 2:14-17)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Unbound&quot; Old Testament law is now optional (Col. 2:16; Rom. 14:1ff.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is no explicit prohibition against instrumental music in the New Testament&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Therefore, instrumental music is optional&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5659" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T03:17:40.987" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18351" CreationDate="2013-09-06T03:38:21.093" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The official stance seems to be that it's a non-issue.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/beliefs/joseph-smith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;official narrative&lt;/a&gt; is what it is.  It claims that Joseph Smith was singled out by God through the angel Moroni to receive the golden plates, and the means to translate them via God's supernatural fiat.  If true, one wouldn't &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;need&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; external validation. If it came directly from God through His supernatural power, well, God's word is all we need.   God doesn't need humans to verify His revelation, humans just need to have faith in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FAIR wiki,&lt;/a&gt; an LDS site dedicated to LDS Apologetics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is important to remember that what we do know for certain is that&#xA;  the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out &quot;by the gift and&#xA;  power of God.&quot; These are the only words that Joseph Smith himself used&#xA;  to describe the translation process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As Elder Russel M. Nelson stated in the July 1993 Ensign, the &quot;details&#xA;  of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known.&quot;&#xA;  We do know, based upon witness accounts, that Joseph employed&#xA;  instruments designated for that purpose: The Nephite interpreters and&#xA;  his own seer stone. Many have offered their own opinions about how&#xA;  these devices &quot;functioned&quot; in the process, but it should be kept in&#xA;  mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the&#xA;  translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed&#xA;  the Prophet doing at the time. We also know that at some later point&#xA;  in time, both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's seer stone were&#xA;  referred to using the term &quot;Urim and Thummim.&quot; Whether Joseph used the&#xA;  &quot;original&quot; Urim and Thummim (i.e. Nephite interpreters or&#xA;  &quot;spectacles&quot;) or his own seer stone to perform this sacred task is&#xA;  beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting&#xA;  work. One should read the Book of Mormon itself and evaluate its&#xA;  message rather than get wrapped up in the detail of its exact method&#xA;  of translation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and further down...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Church response&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In 1993, Elder Russell M. Nelson stated that &quot;[t]he details of this&#xA;  miraculous method of translation are still not fully known.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://mormon.org/beliefs/joseph-smith&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All that we know for certain is that Joseph translated the record &quot;by&#xA;  the gift and power of God.&quot; (DC 135:3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T03:38:21.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6690" CreationDate="2013-09-06T03:54:30.643" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question stems for a more general one. What is the purpose of worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Who is supposed to be the recipient of worship?&lt;/strong&gt; Is it an event for us to ‘get something out of’? Or do we worship so that God can receive our praise and adoration, however imperfect and tainted it may be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word ‘worship’ denotes the latter: a service is meant to serve &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt;; worship similarly is meant for &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt;. Of course God does not ‘need’ our worship (cf. Acts 17:24–25), but he graciously accepts our humble offerings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly there is much in a liturgy intended for human benefit. Scripture reading, for the most part, falls into this category, as does the sermon. The Eucharist certainly benefits those who partake. However, the hymns, prayers, intercessions, petitions and thanksgivings are directed towards God, and the Eucharist also can be seen as a God-ward communion (and worship) rather than a human-ward communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that the ‘high-church’ traditions concentrate on this act of giving to God, while ‘low-church’ Protestant traditions emphasize the human aspect. This plays out in the liturgy. ‘Low-church’ liturgies tend to have longer sermons, which may even replace the Eucharist as the central aspect of the service. Similarly in music: instead of hymns (which technically refer to songs of praise addressed to God), spiritual songs addressed to others or as a monologue seem to be more common. (As an example, compare “O Gladsome Light” with “Amazing Grace”.) Of course there are many exceptions; this is just a trend I think may exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seen in this light, it may be a secondary question as to how a service makes the worshipper feel. The specific question would then become: Does the use of an iPad make me more or less worshipful? Does it enable me to give greater or lesser glory to God? The contemplative/instructive dichotomy then becomes a single coin with two sides: something certainly desirable, but not necessarily primary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5203" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T03:54:30.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18866" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18858" CreationDate="2013-09-06T04:07:21.447" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that personal opinion matters don't typically count, but as a Baptist that's had a conversation with other Baptists on this exact subject...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have yet to run into one that has a problem with Jeopardy or other game shows for the following reasons...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's not gambling because it doesn't rely on luck but rather knowledge and skill. It' more like winning a spelling bee or geography bee. The prize is a reward for your God-Given intelligence, and your hard work in studying.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's also not gambling because you don't have people losing their own money so that the winner can prosper at others' expense.  The game show is making money for the network.  It's mutually beneficial, not one person greedily profiting at another person's expense &#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This addresses the &quot;If they get it wrong, they lose the $400. If they respond correctly, they gain the $400. During the game, some squares will allow the player to wager on their response to the as-yet-unshown clue.&quot; in the questionn.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Also, it's not gambling because there's no wager or bet.  There's just rewards for right answers.  In a &quot;wager&quot; you can lose money that was already yours. In this show, none of your own money is at risk, you can only increase or decrease your winnings.  You have no risk of leaving with less than you came in with.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, &lt;a href=&quot;http://greenwichbaptistchurch.org/Booklets/gambling.html&quot;&gt;gambling is considered sinful by Baptists because it involves a direct relationship between gain for some party at the harmful expense of another. It's an expression of greed and covetousness&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.richmondhillbaptist.org/articles/discussion-gambling&quot;&gt;This article addresses&lt;/a&gt; what gambling is and isn't from a Baptist perspective, and the ills associated with it.  Game shows at worst can fall into the &quot;&lt;em&gt;money for nothing&lt;/em&gt;&quot; category, making it roughly an equivalent sin to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag&quot;&gt;playing guitar on the MTV&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Excerpt from the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definitions – What Is Gambling&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It would be helpful to develop a working definition of what we mean by&#xA;  &quot;gambling&quot;. We should also point out that there are varying kinds of&#xA;  gambling, e.g. the local bingo hall and the hard-core, back room poker&#xA;  game. Some are referred to as “innocent” and others as “criminal”.&#xA;  Here are some definitions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Gambling can be defined as “risking money in an attempt to multiply the money on something that is against the odds.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Webster's Dictionary: &quot;to play games of chance for money or other stake.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;A Popular definition: “Getting something for nothing”. This can be expanded to, &quot;Getting something for nothing without rendering service&#xA;  or exchange of goods, and is essentially stealing and a form of&#xA;  robbery&quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;It is to “assume irresponsible risk in hope of unearned gain at the expense of less fortunate players.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have found this definition particularly helpful:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;“Gambling is an agreement between two or more people, with the conscious risk of loss and hope of gain, whereby the transfer of&#xA;  something of value is made dependent on an uncertain event  in such a&#xA;  way that one party will gain and another lose.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using that last, game shows don't fit the bill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-09-06T04:52:25.993" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T04:52:25.993" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18788" CreationDate="2013-09-06T04:15:52.690" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catechisms and catechists break down the teachings of the Catholic Church into four categories stemming from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Apostles Creed&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Seven Sacraments&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Ten Commandments&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Lords Prayer &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I guess I could stop now and you could go find out for yourself whether or not these things have consistently been the pillars of the Church from its inception, but I'll ramble on a bit, but one point should be very clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not only is the Catholic Church the &lt;i&gt;largest&lt;/i&gt; religious organization in the world today, but it is the &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; institution that has survived the fall of the Roman Empire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Faith of Millions - Rev. John A. O'Brien Ph,D.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Apostles Creed&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When folks are baptized, or have their children baptized, they recite the Apostles Creed in communion with the assembly gathered and the priest says at the end&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it, in Christ Jesus our Lord&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI recently wrote on the same subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The faith is a theological virtue, given by God, but transmitted by the Church throughout history. St Paul himself, writing to the Corinthians, affirms he has communicated to them the Gospel that he too had received &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/15/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(cf. 1 Cor 15:3)&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and he goes on to quote the Vatican II document Dei Verbum saying: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Council says: “The apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by a continuous line of succession until the end of time”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20121031_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pope Benedict XVI - General Audience August 31, 2012&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Sacraments&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Seven Sacraments&lt;/a&gt; are all biblical in nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Eucharist&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Jesus and the Apostles&lt;/b&gt; that the Holy Eucharist contains the Body and Blood of Christ (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/26/26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 26:26-28&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/10:16&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 10:16&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;The Catholic Church&lt;/b&gt; holds fast to the clear teaching of Christ and the Apostles that the Holy Eucharist contains the Body and Blood of Jesus under the appearances of bread and wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Faith of Millions, pp71&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Confession/Reconciliation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus gave His disciples the ability to forgive peoples sins (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/20:23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 20:23&lt;/a&gt;) and St. Paul reiterates this teaching (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/2corinthians/5:18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Cor 5:18&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Since they inherit their power from the Apostles, the Bishops and their helpers the priests continue the ministry of healing the soul through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Marriage&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Christ taught the indissolubility of marriage (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19/6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mat 19:6&lt;/a&gt;) and pointed out strongly that men who even look at other women commit adultery (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/10/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 10:11&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So far as anyone can tell, the Catholic Church still forbids divorce, she even gave up England to prove that point. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Anointing of the Sick&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;St. James (one of them) called the sick to be brought before the priest of the Church and have them be prayed over (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/james/5/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James 5:14&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church continues the practice of anointing the the sick and those in danger of death.  She always allows for extraordinary practices in danger of death (for instance, anyone can baptize a person in danger of death).  But the ordinary circumstances call for a priest to be present, as naturally would what St. James wrote about in his letter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Confirmation&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;As is written in The Acts of the Apostles, Sts. Peter and John confirmed the new Christians who had already been baptized (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/8/15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:15-17&lt;/a&gt;).  They did so by laying hands on them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Today a Catholic Bishop (or priest under his authority) places his hands upon the confirmandi and prays over them so that they may receive the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Confirmation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The 10 Commandments&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The commandments make up the fundamental social doctrine of the Apostolic and Catholic Church.  Jesus, throughout His preaching reiterates and strengthens the commandments. The Church in turn, keeps the commandments and bases it's entire moral teaching on them and the two Greatest Commandments (Love of God and Love of Neighbor) proclaimed by Christ in the Gospel and there is evidence of it throughout salvation history:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ever since St. Augustine, the Ten Commandments have occupied a predominant place in the catechesis of baptismal candidates and the faithful. In the fifteenth century, the custom arose of expressing the commandments of the Decalogue in rhymed formulae, easy to memorize and in positive form. They are still in use today. The catechisms of the Church have often expounded Christian morality by following the order of the Ten Commandments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 2066&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism goes on to quote two of the last few of Councils saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: &quot;The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CCC 2068&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Lord's Prayer&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like a large portion of the Latin Rite Mass (and other Catholic/Byzantine Rite Liturgies) the prayer Jesus taught to His disciples is repeated at every Mass and most other prayers (Liturgy of the Hours, The Rosary, etc...).  The Our Father in English isn't exactly what one reads in the the Gospel, but in Latin is much more similar:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;PATER&lt;/i&gt; NOSTER, qui es in caelis, &lt;i&gt;sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum.&lt;/i&gt; Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. &lt;i&gt;Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis&lt;/i&gt; debita &lt;i&gt;nostra&lt;/i&gt; sicut et nos &lt;i&gt;dimittimus&lt;/i&gt; debitoribus nostris. &lt;i&gt;Et ne nos inducas in tentationem&lt;/i&gt;, sed libera nos a malo. Amen&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/prayer/latrosar.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EWTN Latin Prayers - The Lord's Prayer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pater, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. Et dimitte nobis peccata nostra, siquidem et ipsi dimittimus omni debenti nobis. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 11:2-4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from the additions (completely from the nearly as ancient [Didache]) The only word that is different between the Latin Vulgate and the Latin Mass is Debts vs Sins. And since I'm not a Latin aficionado, I'd be hard pressed to tell you why the Latin differs in the opposite way from English, but oh well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main point is that Catholics from the Early Fathers to Pope Francis love talking about the Lord's Prayer and how it's the heart of all Christian prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0322.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tertullian on Prayer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160308.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Augustine on the Lord's Prayer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/350809.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. John Cassian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050704.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Cyprian on the Lord's Prayer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3083.htm#article9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Thomas Aquinas on the 7 petitions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T04:15:52.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18868" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-06T05:25:43.707" Score="15" ViewCount="7716" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think its safe to say that Martin Luther, being one of the fathers of Protestantism, was primarily at odds with the &lt;em&gt;Roman&lt;/em&gt; Church.  He posted his 95 theses to confront what he thought to be corruption that centered around Roman Catholic indulgences.  Later on he became convinced that the Pope was the Anti-Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the&#xA;  blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the&#xA;  tyranny of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem&#xA;  my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his&#xA;  papists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and&#xA;  restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among&#xA;  them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this&#xA;  miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon,&#xA;  yes, the kingdom of the real &lt;strong&gt;Antichrist&lt;/strong&gt;! For who is &quot; &lt;strong&gt;the man of sin&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&#xA;  and &quot;&lt;strong&gt;the son of perdition&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; but he that with his doctrines and his laws&#xA;  increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church, while he sits&#xA;  in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has&#xA;  fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries. It has&#xA;  extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the Gospel.&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Page 536, chapter 3&lt;/em&gt; - emphasis added)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I understand, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are basically the same doctrinally, with the exception of a few points, such as the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, etc. I also understand it to be true that it is an historical fact that, before the Great Schism, there was only &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; Church consisting of both the &quot;Eastern lung&quot; and the &quot;Western lung.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Luther believe that the Church needed to be doctrinally reformed even before the Great Schism? &lt;strong&gt;If not then why didn't he just embrace Eastern Orthodoxy, and in turn direct his &quot;reforming&quot; constituents toward the East?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I haven't read &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of Luther's works to know whether or not he conscientiously protested Rome exclusively, or the sacramental lineage of the unified East/West Fathers and ecumenical councils of the early Church &lt;em&gt;altogether&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-09-06T14:52:23.540" LastActivityDate="2016-04-13T21:42:31.787" Title="Did Martin Luther believe the Church needed to be reformed before the Great Schism of 1054AD, or after?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;rome&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18788" CreationDate="2013-09-06T05:27:33.547" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No it wasn't. The church had undergone many reformations. Read more: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation&lt;/a&gt;. Essentially, it became less power centered over the centuries, as well as more about unity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5661" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T05:27:33.547" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18870" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18872" CreationDate="2013-09-06T06:51:57.850" Score="10" ViewCount="25731" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes, people say that everything happens for a reason (as in &quot;God has a purpose with everything that happens, good or bad&quot;). It seems to me that the Bible is not clear on the subject. On one hand, it seems to contradict, for example, our free will, and on the other hand, there are passages, such as the following verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were&#xA;  written in your book before one of them came to be. (Ps 136:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; looking for the &quot;right&quot; Christian view on this, because I know people come to different conclusions. But I would like an answer that provides important biblical passages to support or fail to support the two views and a commentary for each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Related: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16632/all-my-days-are-ordained-before-i-was-born&quot;&gt;All my days are ordained before I was born?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1600" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-09-08T05:44:00.257" Title="Does everything happen for a reason, and what is the biblical support for the different views?" Tags="&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-09-10T13:44:16.647" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18872" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18870" CreationDate="2013-09-06T12:40:33.937" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;God has a purpose with everything that happens, good or bad and he does have a plan for each of us&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(Jeremiah 29:11)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but his will for us does not come to pass automatically because his adversary satan too has his agenda which is opposed to Gods will for man&#xA;(John 10:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; &lt;strong&gt;I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Peter 5:8  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but he has power over us, as explained &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18794/why-is-satan-called-the-prince-of-the-power-of-the-air&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, and brings sickness and disease and trials and temptations against us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has given us free will, the power to choose between good and evil. But satan teaches that the power to choose is an illusion, because he is the spirit of deception.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;John 8:44&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gods plan for us is revealed in&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Romans 12:2.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately we may choose life by being led by his Holy Spirit or choose death.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Deuteronomy 30:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Planet Earth is the battle field where the kingdom of heaven is at war with the kingdom of this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 6:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="635" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T16:01:34.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18870" CreationDate="2013-09-06T14:06:11.860" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;@Martin.kv Good answer! I would only add Romans 8:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And we know that &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; things work together for good to them that love&#xA;  God, to them who are the called according to &lt;strong&gt;his purpose&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All things, whether good or bad, work together for good to those who love God and follow His plan for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like Joseph said in Genesis 50:20 to his brothers&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good,&#xA;  in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people&#xA;  alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It wasn't God's plan for his brothers to work evil against him and sell him as a slave, that was the enemy's doing. But God USED this opportunity for good, and in the process, perfected Joseph's character so that he would be ready to do what God had planned for him to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, God has plans for us. Even if sometimes things happen that we do not understand, God plans to use these to prepare us to carry out the plans He has for us. Nevertheless He does not violate our free will, so this only happens if we so choose to submit our will to His.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-09-06T14:44:18.430" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T14:44:18.430" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18868" CreationDate="2013-09-06T15:36:23.393" Score="18" Body="&lt;p&gt;Luther saw the church becoming significantly corrupted much earlier than we might think.  Generally I would say that Luther perceived a split between the 'real' church and the 'false church' basically around the time of St. Augustine, for he always separated the ritualistic ecclesiastical doctrine of religion, from the Augustinian spiritual doctrine of saving grace. &lt;strong&gt;To garner direct quotes from Luther in establishing a factual date of the church apostasy, we would do well to start at St. Gregory and the establishment of the papacy, according to Luther, right after at around 603 AD.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While having some respect for Pope Gregory, primarily in that he refused to become a pope in the modern sense of the word, &lt;strong&gt;Luther heaps more blame upon St. Gregory (540-604 AD) than anyone before him.&lt;/strong&gt; In some ways he begins to be a point for galvanizing all the heresies and abominations slowly and gradually building up to that time, making a good first landmark to answer the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gregory alone is the originator of the fables about purgatory. He also originated the Masses for the dead. Somewhere he tells that there was a certain steward in his monastery who by chance and negligence left three guldens among his papers. When Gregory found these after the man’s death, he had made a terrific uproar about the deceased man and had cried out that the man was accursed because of the crime of thievery and would be subject to eternal punishments, although it was likely that this monk had had greater opportunity to steal in other respects; yet nothing had been pilfered by him, but this money had lain hidden among his papers without his knowledge. Yet Gregory declares that by this example and as a result of his shouting the others were so terrified that from then on no one of them was willing to keep back even a heller. Finally, however, Gregory ordered 30 Masses to be said for the man, and when these had been completed—so he writes—this steward appeared to him and thanked him profusely for the great service by which he had been freed from punishments and the curse of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This was undoubtedly the “strong delusion” referred to in 2 Thess. 2:11, and from this example of Gregory there spread into the whole world that infinite multitude of abominations and the offering of the sacrament for the dead&lt;/strong&gt;. But the specter which appeared to him was the devil in all his wickedness, who came out of hell to mock the whole human race. For the horrible and rash falsehood of purgatory and Masses for the dead exceeds all understanding and power of speech.  (Luther's Works Vol 7.297)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Another landmark the more direct to the answer would be just after, in Pope Boniface III who Luther technically thought was the first Pope (603 AD)&lt;/strong&gt; (Unlike the Catholic church of course who assumes the Papacy started way back with Peter).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is very easy to prove that the pope is neither the commander or head of Christendom, nor lord of the world above emperor, councils, and everything, as he lies, blasphemes, curses, and raves in his decretals, to which the hellish Satan drives him. He himself knows full well—and it is as clear as the dear sun from all the decrees of the ancient councils, from all the histories, from the writings of the holy fathers, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyprian, and from all of Christendom before &lt;strong&gt;the first pope, who was called Boniface III*&lt;/strong&gt; —that the bishop of Rome was nothing more than a bishop and should still be that. St. Jerome dared to say freely, “All bishops are equal, all together they have inherited the throne of the apostles,” and adds the example, “as the bishop of a small city—like Engubium67 and Rome, Regium and Constantinople, Thebes and Alexandria. (Luther's Works Vol 41.290)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the topic of the papacy Luther does not speak negatively about Gregory at all, rather he seems to admire him in spite of his other low opinions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In addition, St. Gregory, when it [the title “universal pope”] was offered to him by several great bishops, sharply refused it and writes that none of his predecessors had been so bold as to accept or wish to carry such a title,71 although the sixth council in Chalcedon72 had offered it to them; he closes by saying briefly and to the point that no one should call himself the highest bishop or head of the whole of Christendom, as many decrees also say, and furthermore, that the bishop of Rome too, though he is one of the greater ones, is nonetheless not to be called universalis, the head of “all” Christendom. (Luther's Works Vol 41.291)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is after Gregory that Luther truly pins the fall of the church under the papacy:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But after Gregory’s death Sabinianus was a bishop for a year and a half; I count him among the popes, for he was a big monster, like a pope is, and wanted to burn the books of St. Gregory, his immediate predecessor—perhaps because in his writings St. Gregory did not want the papacy to be tolerated. &lt;strong&gt;Boniface III was elected after him. This is when God’s wrath began.&lt;/strong&gt; This Boniface persuaded the regicide Phocas that he should be pope, or chief of all the bishops in the whole world. The bell was cast then, and the Roman horror accepted with joy, as the one who was now lord over all the bishops in the world.  (Luther's Works Vol 41.291)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could trace some of the other streams of perceived corruptions by investigating the origins of many practices Luther opposed but I think starting with St Gregory but absolutely occurring with Pope Boniface III (603 AD) followed by the Popes after him is really where the true church under the Augustinian faith split from the ritualistic ecclesiastical church under the corrupt doctrines of the papacy, according to Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T15:36:23.393" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18876" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-06T15:52:35.073" Score="6" ViewCount="13264" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is common among many Christians to say &quot;God bless you&quot; (or simply &quot;bless you,&quot; which implies the former) to a person when they sneeze. I have heard that this may have originated with an old belief that evil spirits were coming out of a person when they sneezed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any basis (scriptural or otherwise) within Christianity for saying &quot;God bless you&quot; when a person sneezes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5370" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-06T06:28:47.937" LastActivityDate="2015-04-06T06:28:47.937" Title="What is the basis for saying &quot;God bless you&quot; when a person sneezes?" Tags="&lt;blessings&gt;&lt;superstition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18876" CreationDate="2013-09-06T17:18:14.607" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The practice is not Christian, by doctrine, but became Christian by circumstance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Black Death&lt;/a&gt;, a plague which killed approximately 25% of the Earth's population in 14th century, sneezing was thought to be a first symptom of the infected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the practice can be traced to long before that, however, it is still related to the Black Death. Gregory I in AD 590 ordered unending prayer and chanting in the streets to help ward off an approaching epidemic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia also says the following are possible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another legend holds that the heart stops beating during a sneeze, and that the phrase &amp;quot;bless you&amp;quot; encourages the heart to continue beating.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In some cultures, sneezing is seen as a sign of good fortune[1] or God's beneficence. In such cases, &amp;quot;bless you&amp;quot; may be spoken as a recognition of that luck.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, it may be possible that the phrase began simply as a response for an event that was not well understood at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bless_you&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia discusses this a little bit&lt;/a&gt;. I think there is enough in that article to satisfy your curiosity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T17:18:14.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18879" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18876" CreationDate="2013-09-06T18:02:31.250" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an ancient custom which predates Christianity. Pliny (&lt;em&gt;Natural History&lt;/em&gt; 28.5) records a custom among the Romans of greeting someone who sneezes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why is it that we salute a person when he sneezes, an observance which Tiberius Caesar, they say, the most unsociable of men, as we all know, used to exact, when riding in his chariot even? Some there are, too, who think it a point religiously to be observed to mention the name as well of the person whom they salute. [...] These usages have been established by persons who entertained a belief that the gods are ever present, in all our affairs and at all hours, and who have therefore found the means of appeasing them by our vices even.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he says that superstitions of this kind are attributable to the belief that certain apparently meaningless events are actually &quot;signs&quot; from some spiritual power. Homer also gives an account of a sneeze-omen in the &lt;em&gt;Odyssey&lt;/em&gt; 17.528-550, where Penelope predicts that Odysseus will kill her suitors if he returns: at this point, Telemachus sneezes (Τηλέμαχος δὲ μέγ' ἔπταρεν), and Penelope interprets that as a sign that her prediction is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that sneezing is involuntary might make it more likely for people to see a hidden hand at work. Augustine (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On Doctrine&lt;/em&gt; 2.20&lt;/a&gt;) writes about &quot;the most frivolous practices&quot; of superstitious observances when &quot;any part of the body should jump&quot;, or &quot;to go back to bed if any one should sneeze when you are putting on your slippers&quot;. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; In this case, the sneeze is interpreted as a divine warning that today is a bad day to do anything important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because a sneeze comes from the head, the seat of reason, it may be regarded as being of divine origin, according to the school of Aristotle; and moreover, it was seen as a sign of good health and vitality, unlike coughing, which was more commonly associated with disease (&lt;em&gt;Problems&lt;/em&gt; chapter 33, &quot;Concerning the nose&quot;). The only Biblical sneeze is in 2 Kings 4, where Elisha restores a dead boy to life, demonstrating a perceived link with the breath of life:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. So he went in and closed the door on the two of them, and prayed to the Lord. Then he got up on the bed and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and while he lay bent over him, the flesh of the child became warm. He got down, walked once to and fro in the room, then got up again and bent over him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. &lt;sup&gt;2 Kings 4:32-35 (NRSV)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just from these examples, we can see that sneeze customs are a bit ambiguous when it comes to the sneeze being &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;. &quot;God bless you!&quot; could be an appropriate response either way. But Scripture also often speaks against the interpretation of omens - or at least encourages people to seek &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; divine guidance - so we could say that a &quot;get well soon&quot; kind of &quot;bless you&quot; is acceptable, but the &quot;ooh, that's unlucky&quot; kind is not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard the evil nasal demon explanation many times but I have never seen a source which endorsed the theory. (It's not hard to find people sneering at the silly mediaevals, but this may be yet another case where they weren't so silly.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;a href=&quot;http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/28%2a.html&quot;&gt;Original&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;em&gt;cur sternuentes salutamus? quod etiam Tiberium Caesarem, tristissimum, ut constat, hominum, in vehiculo exegisse tradunt, et aliqui nomine quoque consalutare religiosius putant?&lt;/em&gt; [...] &lt;em&gt;haec instituere illi, qui omnibus negotiis horisque interesse credebant deos et ideo placatos etiam vitiis nostris reliquerunt.&lt;/em&gt; English translation above by John Bostock and H. T. Riley (Taylor and Francis, 1855).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.augustinus.it/latino/dottrina_cristiana/index2.htm&quot;&gt;Original&lt;/a&gt; phrases: &lt;em&gt;inanissimarum observationum&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;si membrum aliquod salierit&lt;/em&gt;; &lt;em&gt;redire ad lectum si quis dum se calceat sternutaverit&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-09-06T18:02:31.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18886" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18888" CreationDate="2013-09-07T00:41:07.917" Score="10" ViewCount="488" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've often wondered, while watching the various televised Eucharistic celebrations on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;EWTN&lt;/a&gt; (i.e. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Eucharistic adoration, World Youth Day events, etc.), whether or not there is any connection between the reality of Christ's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist#Roman_Catholic_and_Orthodox_views&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Real Presence&lt;/a&gt; that is being recorded/broadcast &lt;em&gt;live&lt;/em&gt; and the viewer(s) who are perceiving the &lt;em&gt;live&lt;/em&gt; broadcast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/MNUp9.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lets hypothetically say that I'm flipping through TV channels and I happen to land on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;EWTN&lt;/a&gt; precisely at the moment that Fr. Mitch Pacwa is elevating the consecrated Host during the liturgy of the Eucharist. As a Catholic, I'm obligated to believe that in that situation I would be looking at a real-time image of Jesus' body, blood, soul, and divinity present on the altar. Of course there should be some sort of reverence involved, but to what extent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found it very interesting that during World Youth Day 2013 there were giant screens set up throughout the audience in order for everyone (3 million+) to be able to see the Eucharistic celebrations. It seems apparent to me that Catholics were able to actively participate in the WYD 2013 Eucharistic events even though they might have been a mile or two down the beach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qVdJC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wanting to know what the Catholic Church officially teaches about the metaphysical relationship between Christ's &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; presence on the altar, and his &quot;presence&quot; on the receiving end of a live broadcast. Can someone who is home bound and is unable to attend Mass/adoration adore the Host as if they were truly present? To what extent are &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; Catholics obliged to revere the televised Host? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to understand that this question is &lt;em&gt;exclusively&lt;/em&gt; about a &lt;em&gt;live&lt;/em&gt; broadcast feed in &lt;em&gt;real time&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; about any other type of Eucharistic image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is specifically a Catholic question...so please no anti-Catholic &quot;new age iconoclasm&quot; please.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="16688" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2019-02-19T05:25:49.300" LastActivityDate="2019-02-19T05:25:49.300" Title="Can or should a consecrated Host be adored by way of a live Eucharistic televised broadcast?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;metaphysics&gt;&lt;eucharistic-adoration&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18887" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-07T03:33:56.017" Score="1" ViewCount="8813" Body="&lt;p&gt;How did the Crusades affect the King's power/authority, during and after the Crusades?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5592" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T11:14:18.027" Title="How did the Crusades affect the King's power?" Tags="&lt;crusades&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-11-13T14:08:57.030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18886" CreationDate="2013-09-07T04:02:46.260" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the obligation for the people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. (Code of Canon Law 1247)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the requirements of the elderly/home bound:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families. (Code of Canon Law 1248 §2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the standard is, &quot;participate unless it is impossible&quot;, and &quot;participate&quot;, as it is used in Canon Law, would necessitate actual attendance. Televised broadcasts would certainly fulfill the recommendation in 1248 §2, but that is clearly on a subservient level and can be readily exchanged for other forms of prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to &quot;how are we to reverence the image of the Eucharist in a televised broadcast?&quot; well, it would seem that this would be less than the amount of reverence would be due as if you were walking by a Church and saw the elevation of the Host through an open door. It is a good thing to acknowledge that you are looking at Jesus, but you are not required to fall on your knees, or do anything at all, really. (Personally, I do the sign of the cross when passing in front of Churches)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the long and the short: the Eucharist, as a televised image, is worthy of reverence and it is a good thing to watch Mass when you can, but it is never necessary and nothing compares to the real thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-09-07T04:02:46.260" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18889" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14416" CreationDate="2013-09-07T04:08:27.697" Score="-6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Jesus was not thinking that the rich man would make a giant blender and liquidize the camel to put it through the eye of a needle. I think he was making a joke and the answer is it is impossible. How improbable is it that a camel could walk through the eye of a needle? Even in the Bible, with all the miracles (burning bush, water into wine, raising Lazarus, resurrection of Christ) I think seeing a camel walk through the eye of a needle would be the best miracle. Rich people (or even middle class by our standards) probably can't get into heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5671" LastActivityDate="2013-09-07T04:08:27.697" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18890" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-07T04:12:15.090" Score="-7" ViewCount="32653" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 14:16 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will pray to God that he will send to you another &lt;em&gt;comforter&lt;/em&gt;, who will abide with you for ever!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Muslims claim  that &quot;another comforter&quot; means Ahmad in Arabic, which means &quot;Praised One&quot;; and Muhammad also means &quot;Praise One&quot; hence, Ahmad and Muhammad are synonyms (same meaning).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Hence John 14:16 talks about prophet Muhammad of Islam!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As per me, names given to humans  by their elders don't necessary reflect the attributes of that particular human. For example, Shah-Rukh Khan, the superstar of  Indian films was named  Shah-Rukh by his elders (parents). Shah means king, Rukh means face. Hence, Shah-Rukh means &lt;em&gt;face of the king&lt;/em&gt;! But, it doesn't mean that actor Shah-Rukh Khan is the King of some country.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, Muhammad was so named by his  grandfather Abdul-Muttalib. It is his  original name. But  Ahmad is not the original name of  prophet Muhammad. Ahmad is an attribute of prophet Muhammad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just like Rashid (guided one), Bashir (bringer of good tidings), Rasul (messenger), Nabi (prophet), Mustafa (chosen one) are attributes of the prophet Muhammad, not original-names. The original name of the prophet Muhammad is Muhammad only, name given by his grandfather.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is  the difference between Muhammad and Ahmad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But sura 61 verse 6 in the Quran, in a nutshell, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus told the children of Israel that, after him, a messenger will come whose &lt;em&gt;name&lt;/em&gt; will be Ahmad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Name in Arabic means &quot;bisma, us muha, I-sma&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sura 61, verse 6 should have said &quot;a messenger will come after me who &lt;em&gt;will be  Ahmad&lt;/em&gt;&quot; instead of &quot;whose &lt;em&gt;name&lt;/em&gt; will be Ahmad&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in sura 61 verse 6 , &quot;AHMAD&quot; is NOUN (name of a person )  instead of  ADJECTIVE ( attribute of the person ) which is  exactly opposite to  John 14:16 in which  PARCLETE -COMFORTER-PRAISED-ONE  or  AHMAD  is ADJECTIVE instead of  NOUN &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I explained before, there is  a  vast difference between formal, official names and attributes, which are taken as names of the concerned human. Muhammad is the former (official name) of the prophet, and Ahmad is the attribute  of the prophet, assumed as a name of the prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or John 14:16  should  have said: &quot;and I will pray to God that he will send  another comforter &lt;em&gt;whose name will be Praised One or Comforter or Counselor&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (Ahmad in Arabic) instead of &quot;and I will pray to God that he will send another comforter&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to understand if John 14:16 really talks about prophet Muhammad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5664" LastEditorUserId="5664" LastEditDate="2013-09-08T00:11:47.617" LastActivityDate="2013-09-08T00:11:47.617" Title="Does John 14:16 really talk about prophet Muhammad?" Tags="&lt;islam&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-09-07T13:07:14.400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18890" CreationDate="2013-09-07T04:38:02.660" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is the text in context. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 14:15-21 (New International Version)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father,&#xA;  and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you&#xA;  forever— &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of truth.&lt;/strong&gt; The world cannot accept him, because&#xA;  it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with&#xA;  you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will&#xA;  come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but&#xA;  you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day&#xA;  you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am&#xA;  in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves&#xA;  me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will&#xA;  love them and show myself to them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, Jesus is referring to the Spirit of Truth, aka Holy Spirit, as annotated by the NIV. Muhammad is a human being who is a prophet in Islam. I do not see the connection, unless somehow you take a human being as a &quot;spirit&quot;. However, I am afraid that takes things out of context, because Muhammad existed after Jesus, so Jesus would not have known Muhammad intimately.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-09-07T04:38:02.660" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18893" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18890" CreationDate="2013-09-07T05:29:46.077" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This claim has two parts:  1) that the word is the same as Mohammed's name, and 2) that the word (I think in Aramaic if I remember correctly) sounds like Mohammed's name (mehmet).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the first point, I think it's the same as someone today named Joshua claiming to be Jesus.  The name Jesus in it's original form is Yeshua which was an alternative spelling of Yehoshua, which is today's Joshua.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second point is transliteration.  The word that was used sounded like Muhammed (mehmet), but it was a different word.  It's transliteration because it's across different languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, even within the same language you have the same type of thing happening.  They're called homonyms/homophones.  For example, the words &quot;see&quot; and &quot;sea&quot; sound like the same word but in fact they have different meanings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Words in aramaic or hebrew cannot be &quot;spelled&quot; the same way as in arabic, so you must concede a difference in spellings.  However we even have examples of words that are spelled the same but have different meanings.  Bow means:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the front of a boat&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to bend at the waist&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;to tie with a ribbon&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a device for shooting arrows&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no, in my judgement the scriptures could not have possibly been even alluding to Mohammed.  I can understand why muslims may find this coincidence of a word sounding like Mohammed to be interesting since it lines up with their world view.  If I were muslim I'd probably feel there was something to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also please note the comforter is to abide with us forever, and help us forever.  Muhammed died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5672" LastEditorUserId="5672" LastEditDate="2013-09-07T05:37:48.317" LastActivityDate="2013-09-07T05:37:48.317" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18908" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-08-05T22:50:35.203" Score="5" ViewCount="1680" Body="&lt;p&gt;The three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, generally view sex and sexuality as a taboo: Private matters, restricted from the public sphere (both the practice and discussion of it).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Abrahamic religions tend to sanctify sex and sexuality as a matter between a man and a woman in a private institution. Pornography is deemed sinful. There are also many restrictions on sexual actions and relations, for example incest, homosexuality, anal intercourse, and masturbation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This tendency is not seen among other religions. For example, in pre-Meiji Japan (before strong influences from the West) &lt;em&gt;shunga&lt;/em&gt; pornography is a common public consumption in urban areas. Sex is understood as a worldly pleasure and should be embraced - it could be seen on how in transaction among merchants, prostitutes is sometimes offered to smooth the deal. In pre-colonial Nusantara (contemporary Indonesia), the story of Prince Puger of Mataram who performed oral sex on his recently deceased uncle is widely believed among the masses as a legitimation of his rule. Practice of homosexuality was also common in Japan and Nusantara. Kamasutra, the popular sex manual which actually also includes sexual mores, originated from ancient India, is available for public consumption and didn't draw complaints from priestly authorities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes me wonder: What was the social context that provided a background for this tendency? Why does it prevail in three different religions that arose in three different eras?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3485" OwnerDisplayName="deathlock" LastActivityDate="2014-09-26T05:21:06.330" Title="Why do the Abrahamic religions tend to keep sexuality in the private sphere?" Tags="&lt;religion&gt;&lt;islam&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-09-28T14:21:07.367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18912" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18932" CreationDate="2013-09-08T00:09:16.857" Score="11" ViewCount="5892" Body="&lt;p&gt;In popular culture, it is believed that holy objects, such as garlic, crosses, and holy water, can protect against evil, like vampires. Also, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1209/what-is-the-origin-of-the-evil-eye-in-christianity&quot;&gt;Caleb's response to this question&lt;/a&gt; inspired me to ask whether or not using those things (garlic, crosses, and holy water) have any legitimate basis in Christian practice, or whether or not they are merely idols and only part of the fictional world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2016-05-13T04:57:37.033" Title="Is there a Christian basis for using garlic, crosses, and holy water against evil?" Tags="&lt;culture&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;practice&gt;&lt;folk-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-05-16T13:39:33.023" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18913" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-08T04:42:17.947" Score="4" ViewCount="365" Body="&lt;p&gt;The root of this question stems from wondering whether someone can have a saving relationship with Jesus &lt;em&gt;without&lt;/em&gt; having the mental capacity or maturity that would be required to understand the gospel &lt;em&gt;even as a little child&lt;/em&gt;. Three specific types of people who might fall into this category are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People with profound mental disabilities&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Unborn (or newborn) children&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;People in a &quot;vegetative&quot; state due to some trauma or medical condition&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example that might apply to this is John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit &quot;from the womb&quot; (Luke 1:15). Are there any other scriptures that speak to the possibility of knowing God apart from an active, intellectual assent by the &quot;understanding&quot; part of the human mind?&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;UPDATE:&#xA;If it helps to clarify, the underlying element I'm most interested in is whether or not there is a scripturally identifiable division between the &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; part of us and the &lt;em&gt;physical&lt;/em&gt; part of us in terms of how we relate to God. Perhaps it sounds pretty simple when phrased this way, as most people would probably say &quot;yes&quot;, but I've not heard much discussed on how that division actually plays out. Perhaps because in life we attempt to worship him with every part of our being, there isn't as much need to understand the division. But in the case of a person whose natural mental faculties are diminished or undeveloped, it seems to me that the &lt;em&gt;spiritual/soul&lt;/em&gt; part of them should still be able to relate to God on that level. And my question, then, is do the scriptures speak to how the spiritual/soul part of us may still be able to commune with God in such circumstances. The salvation part of it is important (because true fellowship/communion with God can't be separated from salvation), but it's the &quot;can such a person still relate to God on a deep level in the spiritual/soul plane though facing limitations in the capacity of their earthly mind&quot; question that I'm interested in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5370" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-18T15:13:19.190" LastActivityDate="2015-09-18T15:13:19.190" Title="Is an intellectual comprehension of the gospel by the earthly mind required for salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;disabilities&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2015-09-20T07:57:19.057" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18917" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18913" CreationDate="2013-09-08T11:18:30.973" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Reformed understanding of the Bible places those above categories together in terms of God's mercy to those who cannot reason from the Scriptures. I have applied it especially to infants dying in infancy below. A couple of helpful references are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spurgeon&lt;/a&gt; and B. B. &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/developmentofdo00warf#page/n3/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Warfield&lt;/a&gt; who explain the doctrine quite clearly from the Bible. Warfield also deals with the historical development of this doctrine from the early Church fathers to the 19th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;[David] answered, &quot;While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.&quot; (2 Sam. 12:22-23, NIV). Thus if we assume David to be saved, then he will meet with the infant in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus said, &quot;Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.&quot;&quot; (Matt. 19:14, NIV). See also Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16. Here we see the compassion of the Lord Jesus upon little children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 7:9 also supports this view, &quot;How can there be in heaven a countless number of people from every nation, tribe, people and language (Rev. 7:9)? Surely not every tribe of people around the world has adult believers. Is it not possible, therefore, that a number of tribes will be represented by children who die in infancy?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There being a &quot;multitude that no man can number&quot;, seems to be a stretch if we consider the number of adults who profess Christ in any generation. But those dying in infancy since Creation would indeed be a vast multitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jonah 4:10-11 &quot;But the Lord said, “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”   Now it would seems highly improbable that Nineveh had 120,000 mentally handicapped people running about that could not tell their right hand from their left, but perhaps they did. Rather it seems more likely that there were 120,000 infants upon whom the Lord would shower His mercy, for infants cannot tell their right hand from their left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem that if there are more people in Hell than Heaven, then the Devil has won the contest. I do not think he will be able to gloat on the Last Day for a milli-second when the full number of the elect are gathered around the Throne of the Lamb. God will get the glory in the numbers He has saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It gives great comfort to parents whose little ones have died. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And should indeed be a great spur to those same parents to believe in Christ, so they will see those babes again and not stand condemned by them!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastActivityDate="2013-09-08T11:18:30.973" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18918" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16654" CreationDate="2013-09-08T12:35:47.057" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it is helpful to notice that there is a &quot;Chiastic structure&quot; in these seven letters to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3.  There is a lot of literature describing &quot;Chiastic structures&quot;, but for a quick explanation it describes the pattern where topics are discussed, and then revisited in reverse order. So the outline of topics in a Chiastic Structure might look like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Topic 1&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Topic 2&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Topic 3&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Topic 2 (revisited)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Topic 1 (revisited)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in the case of these letters to the 7 churches, we would pair the letter to Ephesus in Revelation 2:1-7 (as &quot;topic 1&quot;) with the letter to Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-22 (as &quot;topic 1 (revisited)&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we can see how we arrive at an explanation of &quot;lukewarm&quot; by reading that the admonition to Ephesus, which notices their &quot;works, labor, patience&quot;, that they didn't bear with evil, etc, but He adds &quot;Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love&quot; (verse 4). He follows this with an earnest appeal to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When this topic is revisited in Laodicea, we see it developed as it would be in the hearts of believers who heard the admonition to Ephesus.  He first takes up the outcome of those who didn't sincerely heed the call to repent.  The &quot;works, labor, patience&quot; in Ephesus has now become &quot;I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot...&quot;.  Having &quot;left their first love&quot; and continuing to not remember &quot;from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works&quot; (2:5)  they now delude themselves into believing that they are &quot;rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing;&quot; (3:17) not knowing that in reality they are &quot;wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind&quot;...  and &quot;lukewarm&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the lukewarm state can be labeled &quot;indifference&quot;.  They were indifferent to the loving appeal to return to their first love, and then indifferent to their spiritual state that they eventually became.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, those who do respond to His appeal to repent and return to their first love would be seen described as having fellowship with Him: &quot;if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.&quot; (3:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5651" LastActivityDate="2013-09-08T12:35:47.057" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18919" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18913" CreationDate="2013-09-08T13:01:21.560" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding the question of comprehension and responsibility when it comes to salvation, there are 2 quotations from our Lord that we can compare or contrast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 19, He sees Zacchaeus while traveling through Jericho, telling him &quot;this day is Salvation come to thy house.&quot; This was after the crowd &quot;murmured, saying, that He was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.&quot;  Zacchaeus was a man, responsible for his actions, capable of comprehension when addressed by our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case the quote that our Savior gives is &quot;For the Son of man is come &lt;strong&gt;to seek and to save&lt;/strong&gt; that which was lost.&quot;  (Luke 19:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparing this with a very similar quote in Matthew 18, we read (about children): &quot;Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come &lt;strong&gt;to save&lt;/strong&gt; that which was lost.&quot; (Matthew 18:10-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shows that He makes a difference for the children - they may not be capable of comprehending their need, or His wonderful provision... but He &quot;saves&quot; them.  With those who can understand, He &quot;seeks and saves&quot;, working with the heart and conscience to bring them to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5651" LastActivityDate="2013-09-08T13:01:21.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11468" CreationDate="2013-09-08T14:40:44.953" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lucifer doesn't hold a pitchfork, its a trident. Tridents were common among indo-european gods, like Poseiden and Shiva. The name Lucifer, is Latin, and was the name of a minor Roman and Greek god. Lucifer was an epithet for Bacchus: the reborn god and succesor to Jupiter. Bacchus is also conflated with Neptune and Prometheus. Prometheus brought the gift of fire to humankind, and was punished for eternity by the titans (until Hericles saved him). Red and Black were sacred colors in Egypt. Horns were a symbol of power, such as the Mesopotamian sun-god Utu/Shamash, had horns + a hola(Which the halo represents the sun and enlightenment through self empowerment.) It is said that 'Satan' is hebrew for enemy; but this is inaccurate. 'Satan' comes from the Sanskrit word Satanama. -Sa means infinity; -Ta means life; -Na means death; and -Ma means rebirth. Devil comes from Devi, the Sanskrit word for a goddess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5687" LastActivityDate="2013-09-08T14:40:44.953" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18923" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-08T16:29:22.887" Score="3" ViewCount="67" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems contradictory that our school system teaches about prehistoric Dinosaurs, that roamed the earth far before humans arrived, and yet at the same time (in Catholic schools) the children are taught that God created the world equipped with human beings in seven days. Are there any official statements by the Church on this subject? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5688" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-09-09T19:05:15.280" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T19:05:15.280" Title="What is the Bible's take on the existence of dinosaurs?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-09-09T02:18:28.943" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18912" CreationDate="2013-09-08T21:57:26.203" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Book of Concord&lt;/em&gt; is the seminal collection of Lutheran doctrine. The only power it &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/sd-originalsin.php#para22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;claims that garlic has&lt;/a&gt; is to temporarily reduce the power of magnets:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Or that original sin is not a despoliation or deficiency, but only an external impediment to these spiritual good powers, as when a magnet is smeared with garlic-juice, whereby its natural power is not removed, but only hindered; or that this stain can be easily washed away, as a spot from the face or pigment from the wall.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-09-08T21:57:26.203" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18926" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-08T22:07:22.243" Score="1" ViewCount="405" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy&#xA;  hands without anger or quarreling&lt;/strong&gt;  (1 Timothy 2:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there any groups in Christian circles that take the part about &quot;lifting holy hands&quot; as an admonition or command for how to pray, and therefore practice this regularly? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If so, do they also make a distinction between men and women doing so (by the fact that the first part of the verse may be seen as being addressed directly to the men)? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;And finally, is it known whether lifting hands during prayer was just a common tradition at the time Paul wrote to Timothy, in which case the emphasis might not have been on the &quot;lifting hands&quot; part, but more on the &quot;holy...without anger or quarreling&quot; part?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5370" LastActivityDate="2017-03-07T18:38:59.867" Title="Do any Christian groups regularly practice the &quot;lifting up of holy hands&quot; during prayer?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18931" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2746" CreationDate="2013-09-09T02:34:34.617" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept is biblical: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 7:37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, &quot;If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38 &quot;He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.'&quot; 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. NAS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;innermost being&quot; is the Greek &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblesuite.com/greek/2836.htm&quot;&gt;koilos, meaning hole or empty place&lt;/a&gt;. It is often translated belly or womb. In Jn 7, Jesus is describing a spiritual empty place in the heart of man, not a physical belly or womb. This empty place is the source of thirst and the divine solution to this hunger/thirst is to fill it with living water from the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5694" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-09-09T03:05:43.557" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T03:05:43.557" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18912" CreationDate="2013-09-09T02:52:48.920" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholic Tradition and culture, vampires only exist in scary novels/movies, and garlic is only used for seasoning delicious meals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, crosses, holy water, and various other holy objects and gestures can be ordained by the Church as &lt;em&gt;sacramentals&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13292d.htm&quot;&gt;Sacramentals&lt;/a&gt; are material objects, things or actions (&lt;em&gt;sacramentalia&lt;/em&gt;) set apart or blessed by the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Churches, the Independent and Old Catholic Churches, and the Lutheran Churches to manifest the respect due to the sacraments, and so to excite pious thoughts and to increase devotion, and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin, according to the Council of Trent (&lt;em&gt;Session XXII, 15&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sacramentals are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The characteristics of sacramentals&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain&#xA;  ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of&#xA;  circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to&#xA;  man. In accordance with bishops' pastoral decisions, they can also&#xA;  respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian&#xA;  people of a particular region or time. They always include a prayer,&#xA;  often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands,&#xA;  the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls&#xA;  Baptism).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized&#xA;  person is called to be a &quot;blessing,&quot; and to bless. Hence lay people&#xA;  may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns&#xA;  ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration&#xA;  reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way&#xA;  that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to&#xA;  receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. &quot;For well-disposed&#xA;  members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and&#xA;  sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the&#xA;  divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion,&#xA;  Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and&#xA;  sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of&#xA;  material things which cannot be thus directed toward the&#xA;  sanctification of men and the praise of God.&quot; (&lt;em&gt;CCC 1668-1670&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/47-blessings-and-other-sacramentals-intro.html&quot;&gt;Rituale Romanum&lt;/a&gt; clearly defines the order in which a priest or deacon may bless a sacramental. Sacramentals such as crosses, holy water, and blessings are employed during most rituals in the Catholic Church.  These rituals range anything from Baptism (which itself is a protective exorcism) to weddings to demonic exorcisms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;About exorcisms...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, the Catholic Church performs hundreds of &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; exorcisms every year. Demonic possession in the Church is &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; real, and sacramentals have been used since apostolic times to battle evil spirits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But don't be fooled by over-blown Hollywood concoctions of &quot;head-spinning&quot; myths and &quot;green vomit&quot; superstitions about how the Catholic Church &lt;em&gt;supposedly&lt;/em&gt; performs exorcisms.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most realistic and accurate portrayal one will find of how the Catholic Church performs the rite of exorcism is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCv0AZeyCaQ&amp;amp;list=PL9594FD0F23DAB885&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Rite&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; with Anthony Hopkins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus&#xA;  Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the&#xA;  Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus&#xA;  performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and&#xA;  office of exorcizing. In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the&#xA;  celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called &quot;a major&#xA;  exorcism,&quot; can be performed only by a priest and with the permission&#xA;  of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly&#xA;  observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at&#xA;  the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession&#xA;  through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church.&#xA;  Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter;&#xA;  treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an&#xA;  exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is&#xA;  dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness. (&lt;em&gt;CCC&#xA;  1673&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia says about sacramentals:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to&#xA;  drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect&#xA;  sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power&#xA;  the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect&#xA;  is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor. Thus&#xA;  in the blessing of a cross the Church asks that this sacred sign may&#xA;  receive the heavenly blessing in order that all those who kneel before&#xA;  it and implore the Divine Majesty may be granted great compunction and&#xA;  a general pardon of faults committed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its important to recognize that sacramentals, such as crosses and holy water, are &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; magical.  They are &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; idols.  They are simply material objects that are connected to the heart of the Church (the 7 sacraments instituted by Christ) via the ordaining power of the Holy Spirit and are entrusted to the priesthood of all believers for both edification and protection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All sacramentals draw their power from Jesus Christ...who is God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And from my personal experience, garlic is only effectively used when its sprinkled on buttered toast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-09-09T21:23:59.467" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T21:23:59.467" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18933" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-09T03:33:05.127" Score="6" ViewCount="16898" Body="&lt;p&gt;Torah, Tanach, gospels, septuagint, dead sea scrolls, masoretic, whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which one is the oldest and how far?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastActivityDate="2016-03-13T21:55:55.687" Title="What are the oldest surviving manuscripts of the scriptures?" Tags="&lt;torah&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18935" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18933" CreationDate="2013-09-09T03:46:55.573" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Currently, the oldest known manuscript is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/403870/Nash-Papyrus&quot;&gt;Nash Papyrus&lt;/a&gt;, dated at 150 BC.  It contains the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) and Deuteronomy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for more than just one book, the Codex Sinaiticus is considered the oldest Bible in the world.  It was written by a number of hands around the time of Constantine the Great &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#Date_of_the_codex&quot;&gt;sometime between 325 and  360 AD&lt;/a&gt;, well over 1600 years ago.  It's available for online viewing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-09-09T03:54:50.063" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T03:54:50.063" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18936" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18926" CreationDate="2013-09-09T03:54:17.607" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many Christian groups practice this.  It's quite common. So much so, that it's considered ordinary among many groups.  It's especially common in Charismatic groups, but it's also found in more conservative groups such as Baptists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joyfulheart.com/scholar/hands.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joyful Heart Ministries&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To classic Pentecostals lifting the hands in praise and prayer is&#xA;  second nature, flowing from a tradition decades old. But to the new&#xA;  convert or non-Pentecostal just entering the Charismatic movement, the&#xA;  custom may be new and awkward. Most traditional Protestants have only&#xA;  seen the minister lift his hands to give the benediction or blessing&#xA;  upon the people. Questions follow: Why lift hands to worship and pray?&#xA;  What does this practice mean? As we explore the twenty-eight verses in&#xA;  the Bible on this subject we will find answers to these questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And later on in the article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lifted hands must not mask sin. Worship offered to God while still&#xA;  practicing iniquity is an abomination (cf. Ps 40:6-8; 50:7-23;&#xA;  51:16-19; Is 1:11-18). Defiled lives must be cleansed by repentance:&#xA;  &quot;When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even&#xA;  though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full&#xA;  of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean ....&quot; (Isaiah&#xA;  1:15-16; cf. 59:1-3). R*&lt;em&gt;ather we are to lift up &quot;holy hands without&#xA;  anger or quarreling&quot; (1 Timothy 2:8).&lt;/em&gt;* The prophet Jeremiah admonishes&#xA;  the Israelites mourning the destruction of Jerusalem, &quot;Let us search&#xA;  and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord! Let us lift up our&#xA;  hearts with our hands to God in the heavens&quot; (Lamentations 3:40-41,&#xA;  KJV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bing.com/search?q=lifting%20up%20of%20hands%20in%20prayer&amp;amp;pc=MOZI&amp;amp;form=MOZSBR&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A typical search on a major search engine&lt;/a&gt; will list thousands of results for anyone wishing to learn more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T03:54:17.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18937" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18913" CreationDate="2013-09-09T05:43:31.703" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rom 2:11-12 - or God does not show favoritism. All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 14:12 - So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context for the above verses has to do with judging others but I believe it applies as it gives us an idea that God deals with people as individuals taking into account their circumstance rather than being legalistic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rom 2 asserts that if you live outside of the law (by choice or otherwise) you will be judged by the moral standards you live by. also as an observation of what I know to be God's character&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10 - Jesus the good shepherd (even leaving the 99 to go after the 1)&#xA;Rom 8 - nothing can seperate us from the love of God&#xA;1 John 3 - God loves us and call us his children&#xA;...and many more...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It simply doesn't make sense that this God would disregard the circumstance of those who did not choose to be disabled or handicapped in any way. A god who arbitrarily punishes a person because the letter of the law was not followed just doesn't yell love and compassion (God IS love by the way 1 John 4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes I understand that in the OT (Old Testament) God was sometimes like this too. But you can't put OT God in today's context - to which the question is asking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5512" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T05:43:31.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18584" CreationDate="2013-09-09T11:51:44.203" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are four major different eternal destinations after this life according to Mormon doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The celestial (heavenly) kingdom or glory. Those who have faith in Jesus Christ and obey his gospel (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.50-70?lang=eng#49&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 76:50-70&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The terrestrial (earthly) kingdom or glory. Those who are honorable people but have not proven faithful enough. For more details see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.71-80?lang=eng#70&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 76:71-80&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The telestial (distant) kingdom or glory. Very roughly, those are the bad people. Yet the glory of the telestial kingdom &amp;quot;surpasses all understanding&amp;quot; (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.81-90,98-106?lang=eng#80&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 76:81-90,98-106&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Outer darkness. Those who commit the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost after having received a full knowledge and a perfect witness of the truthfulness of the gospel including Satan and his fallen angels (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.25-39?lang=eng#29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 76:25-39&lt;/a&gt;). Only very few people living on the earth will end up there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I only wrote roughly who goes where, but in the given references it explains more detailed the requirements and the state of these glories. The most interesting place is the celestial kingdom. Accoding to LDS doctrine the gospel of Jesus Christ requires one to&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;have faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;repent of their sins,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;be baptized by immersion,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;keeping the covenants they have entered into until the end&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in order to enter the celestial kingdom. There are many who did not have the chance to do these things. Here the following scripture applies (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/137.7-10?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 137:7-10&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 [...] All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it [...], shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 [...] all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we do not baptize little children until they can make a conscious decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore the celestial glory itself has three degrees (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131.1-2?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-2&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In practice this means that the highest degree in the celestial kingdom can only be received, if a man and a women are sealed (married) in an LDS temple. The same principle as in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/137.7-10?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 137:7-10&lt;/a&gt; applies here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5336" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T11:51:44.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18940" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18926" CreationDate="2013-09-09T11:56:56.220" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New American Bible (used at the Catholic Mass) uses the &quot;Holy Hands&quot; translation and that's a pretty 1-to-1 translation from the Latin &lt;em&gt;puras manus&lt;/em&gt; don't know about the greek, but other Bibles translate it as &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;hands that are sanctified&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which means the same thing, but certainly reads differently and might have a different connotation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Catholic tradition, the hands of a priest are venerated and considered holy as it is his hands who consecrate the bread and wine which become the Body and Blood of Christ. At ordination, a priest's hands are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/40-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-rite-of-priestly-ordination.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;anointed with oil&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The priest also lifts his hands when he prays the Lord's Prayer at mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/pw4hK.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/pw4hK.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Priest lifting hands during Lord&amp;#39;s Prayer at mass&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in some congregations, the people for some strange reason &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9144/whats-the-tradition-behind-hand-holding-during-the-our-father-at-mass&quot;&gt;follow along&lt;/a&gt;, maybe their hands are holy too?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2017-03-07T18:38:59.867" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18941" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6524" CreationDate="2013-09-09T12:03:20.177" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;KJV Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse explains what meaning Jesus had in mind in his use of the term, &quot;born out of water&quot;, if you understand this verse;  Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word/message of God.&#xA;     Hebrews 11:6 But without faith/trust it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe/come to trust, that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.&#xA;   How back to John, the one who into Immerses into God's message, &quot;Repent/turn from your missing the 'Mark'/sin, back to God's righteous path, so that you can enter the Kingdom of God which is now at hand for you to enter! John spoke words/ God's message which washes away the lies of darkness with the message from God Himself. Did John use water as a sign, YES!  It was what he, John was told to do by God Himself.&#xA;   Jesus followed with the same message, Repent/&quot;turn from&quot; and &quot;turn to&quot;, and Jesus' disciples baptize into water(the liquid), but Jesus, himself did not baptize this way, for his' would be in the Spirit which is of God, The Father. &#xA;   This immersion had to do with past sins and not the new birth, which Jesus began to proclaim the promise that God had made to HIS people, speaking of it into the mouths of HIS prophets.&#xA;    Ezekiel 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.&#xA; Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.&#xA; Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.&#xA; Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.&#xA; Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.&#xA; Romans 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,&#xA; Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?&#xA;  It is a cycle of events, that is the immersion, which must take place in you until you trust and obey the message and HE GOD put the spirit of HIS SON into your heart!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5697" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T12:03:20.177" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18942" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18933" CreationDate="2013-09-09T12:53:06.323" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ketef Hinnom&lt;/a&gt; is typically dated to 600BC - prior even to the fall of Jerusalem.  It only contains 3 verses, however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1979, Gabriel Barkay (or more properly his 13 year old assistant), unearthed the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ketef Hinnom&lt;/a&gt;, a small silver scroll containing the blessing in Numbers 6: 24 - 26.  To wit, it is a traditional blessing still used today:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The Lord bless you and keep you;&#xA;   the Lord make his face shine on you&#xA;      and be gracious to you;&#xA;  the Lord turn his face toward you&#xA;      and give you peace.”’ &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's text is essentially unchanged from what we have today, matching both the Masoretic Text and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dead Sea Scrolls&lt;/a&gt;, which have been dated anywhere from 418 BC to 318 AD. (Personally, I favor the Qumran-as-an-Essene-community 200 BC interpretation.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lebtahor.com/Archaeology/inscriptions/silverscroll.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ge5fj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2004, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17741&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the scroll was unrolled and discovered to contain what is probably the oldest scripture we have - from 600 BC&lt;/a&gt;.  The primary significance of the fragment is to put a &quot;latest date&quot; of composition on the Torah.  JEPD traditionally held that the Scriptures were composed over various authors between 1000 BC and 600 BC.  This fragment shows this blessing, at very least, was in its current form, no later than 600 BC, although some scholars insist that generalizing the blessing to the entire book would be an over-interpretation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-09T12:59:05.750" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T12:59:05.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18943" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-09T14:49:12.827" Score="6" ViewCount="817" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any mentions of seraphs intermingling with other characters in the Bible? All I know about them is that they are in hymns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5467" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T15:15:15.090" Title="Seraphs in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18943" CreationDate="2013-09-09T15:15:15.090" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only reference in Scripture to the seraphim is in the book of Isaiah (though the apocryphal &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thepearl.org/Book_of_Enoch.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Book of Enoch&lt;/a&gt; makes several references to the seraphim as well):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Above him [God] stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: &amp;quot;Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!&amp;quot; And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: &amp;quot;Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!&amp;quot; Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: &amp;quot;Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%206:2-7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 6:2-7 ESV&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the translation notes of the NET Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[The] Hebrew שָׂרָף (saraf, &amp;quot;seraph&amp;quot;) literally means &amp;quot;burning one,&amp;quot; perhaps suggesting that these creatures had a fiery appearance (cf. TEV, CEV &amp;quot;flaming creatures&amp;quot;; NCV &amp;quot;heavenly creatures of fire&amp;quot;). Elsewhere in the OT the word &amp;quot;seraph&amp;quot; refers to poisonous snakes (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=num%2021:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Num_21:6&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deu%208:15&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Deu_8:15&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%2014:29&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa_14:29&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%2030:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isa_30:6&lt;/a&gt;). Perhaps they were called &amp;quot;burning ones&amp;quot; because of their appearance or the effect of their venomous bites, which would cause a victim to burn up with fever. It is possible that the seraphs seen by Isaiah were at least partially serpentine in appearance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There may be indirect references to the seraphim in other passages, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20104:4&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 104:4&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%201:7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 1:7&lt;/a&gt;): &amp;quot;He makes His messengers winds; His ministers a flaming fire.&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://bibleapps.com/jfb/isaiah/6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;It has been speculated&lt;/a&gt; that Satan was a seraph because he has been described as a serpent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T15:15:15.090" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18946" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18933" CreationDate="2013-09-09T15:39:49.413" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Complete manuscripts of the scriptures are very rare, and the ones we do have are quite &quot;late&quot; in archeological terms.  Generally speaking, manuscripts will occasionally comprise a complete &quot;book&quot; (or almost a complete book, as in the &quot;Great Isaiah Scroll&quot; from the cave at Qumran near the Dead Sea), but other than that, the oldest complete copy of the Old Testament came over a thousand years after the Dead Sea Scrolls (see &lt;a href=&quot;http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More often than not, passages of scriptures are found on papyrus fragments, fragments of codices, palimpsests, and the occasional scroll.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the 1990s, Carsten P. Thiede took a &quot;second look&quot; at the Magdalen papyrus which was housed at Magdalen College in the UK.  With technologically sophisticated measurements he dated the fragment to the first century AD.  The papyrus contained a couple verses from the gospel of Matthew, and Thiede identified it as coming from a codex, an ancient form of book, with writing on both sides of the papyrus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with most &quot;discoveries,&quot; Thiede's findings were and are contested.  See, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm&lt;/a&gt;.  Thiede published his findings in an article titled  &quot;Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland P64): A Reappraisal,&quot; TynB 46 (1995) 29-42, though Thiede’s article was originally published in ZPE 105 (1995) 13-20, and a book followed: &lt;em&gt;Der Jesus- Papyrus&lt;/em&gt;, by Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Peter M. Head (&quot;The Date of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64): A Response to C.P. Thiede&quot;), &quot;Thiede’s arguments concerning the date of P64  suggest that he both over-estimated the amount of stylistic similarity between P64 and several Palestinian Greek manuscripts and under-estimated the strength of the scholarly consensus of a date around AD 200&quot; (see Tyndale.cam, above).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming professor Head is correct, even AD 200 is very early indeed for a fragment of the New Testament.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one of the implications of your question (and hence my inference) is that you are wondering how good the evidence is for the scriptures' being reliable and faithful to the &quot;originals&quot; (which have in all likelihood long since turned to dust), I suggest quite confidently that there is no other book on the face of the earth that has been more faithfully and meticulously transmitted down through the centuries than the various books comprising the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Manuscript evidence , though far from satisfyingly complete (as a layman and non-specialist would measure completeness today) is plentiful, and more evidence of the Bible's historicity is being unearthed and/or discovered all the time.  If you haven't already, I suggest you read a book or two on the general theme of &quot;how we got our Bible,&quot; which will only solidify your confidence in the historicity, reliability, and accuracy of the Bible you hold in your hands today.  Simply &quot;google&quot; the words &quot;how we got our Bible.&quot;    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-09-10T23:14:40.250" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T23:14:40.250" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18948" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-09T16:06:21.063" Score="11" ViewCount="1497" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_were_beheaded#Christian_saints&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Many Christian martyrs have been beheaded&lt;/a&gt;, and they are often shown in art carrying their own severed heads. Sometimes, the halo appears not around the head, but where the head should be, as in the following French examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/HIIpH.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;St Denis - Facade, Notre Dame de Paris&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St Denis, on the facade of Notre Dame de Paris (nineteenth century restoration).&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vvJlz.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Le Martyre de Saint Denis&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Martyrdom of St Denis, in the Pantheon (Paris), by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Bonnat&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Léon Bonnat&lt;/a&gt;. Here, there are two halos in different styles!&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/To9cn.png&quot; alt=&quot;Martyrs in the Petites Heures of Jean de Berry (f. 105r) &quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A beheaded bishop and martyr (possibly St Denis again) in the &lt;em&gt;Petites Heures&lt;/em&gt; of Jean de Berry; flanked by St Stephen with his stone and St Lawrence with his griddle (&lt;a href=&quot;http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8449684q/f219.item.r=Heures&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Latin 18014, f. 105r&lt;/a&gt;). I don't know who the saint is behind them, with the top of his head removed and carrying his own brain - St James the Less, maybe?&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the rationale behind showing the halo above the stump, instead of around the head?&lt;/strong&gt; I am looking for answers that can speak to the symbolic purpose of the halo, and of the common practice of showing saints carrying their own body parts - not an answer based solely on aesthetics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2019-04-09T11:08:59.480" Title="Why does a beheaded saint have the halo above the stump?" Tags="&lt;saint&gt;&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18949" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-09T16:51:40.663" Score="2" ViewCount="838" Body="&lt;p&gt;In which denomination(s) are Christians allowed to bury or hold a Christian funeral for their deceased nonreligious or just non-Christian relative in a Christian cemetery near the church? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am thinking about an instance where a non-Christian or nonreligious family member dies, and relatives just happen to be Christians. Do Christians ask their minister to perform a funeral for the deceased individual, or do they ask a humanist funeral officiant to do the job? Also, is there a general rule for allowing or disallowing non-Christians to be buried in a Christian cemetery, or is that more of a denominational sort of thing or is that up to the pastor to decide?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2014-08-29T21:46:58.980" Title="In which denomination(s) are Christians allowed to bury and hold a Christian funeral for their deceased nonreligious or just non-Christian relative?" Tags="&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;funeral&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-08-30T20:16:02.027" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18949" CreationDate="2013-09-09T19:03:30.970" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I haven't had to organize any funerals in this fashion, so this is going to be more of an opinion than anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that you should be able to perform a Christian Funeral for anyone, whether they be Christian or otherwise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Mawia, I don't think that a Christian Minister would have a hard time preparing a message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I grew up LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints {Mormon}) and when my Brother Passed away, my father asked me to speak.  So I picked something that I thought was relevant, I talked about when Jesus was on the Cross, his conversation with the two thieves, and the one acknowledged who Jesus was pretty much with his last breath, and Jesus said that he would be standing next to him in Heaven.  by doing this Jesus Said I don't care when you decide to believe in Me, I just want you to Believe in me.  pretty much saying you don't necessarily have to be baptized, that he knew this man's life was lived in Sin, but that the man saw the error of his ways and accepted that Jesus would save him, and that was enough for God's Grace.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this message given at a Funeral might seem like a low blow, but when someone is at a funeral they need that hope that there is life after death, and need to know that God Cares, and that He is patiently waiting for you to Accept His Son, and give you Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I no longer claim to be LDS and at the time I didn't claim to be LDS either.  I claim to have a relationship with Jesus, and any church that helps that relationship grow is a good one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that most churches that claim to be Christian would have no problem performing a funeral service for someone that was not Christian.  The real question comes down to what the family wants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastEditorUserId="4158" LastEditDate="2014-08-29T21:46:58.980" LastActivityDate="2014-08-29T21:46:58.980" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18948" CreationDate="2013-09-09T19:18:09.257" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_%28religious_iconography%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, the halo was initially used for Jesus as a symbol of His Glory. Applied to the saints, it could be the outpouring of God's Glory, often talked about in the Bible, where the living water would flow from you, or His Light shine from you. &#xA;If the position of the halo is usually from the Head of the body then I would make the assumption that the glory does not come from the physical body/head but from the soul/spiritual body/head.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-09-09T20:20:44.080" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T20:20:44.080" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18952" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-09T19:43:44.453" Score="0" ViewCount="50" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to know if it is wrong to lie in bed and pray. I know we should kneel and pray but when I do that I lose focus and is not as meaningful as when I am in bed so is it okay to lie in bed and give a meaningful prayer or should I just focus more and be patient until I get used to kneeling on my knees &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5701" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-09-09T19:56:02.600" LastActivityDate="2013-09-09T19:56:02.600" Title="Is there a prescribed posture for prayer?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-09-10T00:20:07.207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18953" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18958" CreationDate="2013-09-09T19:54:28.487" Score="3" ViewCount="447" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are the gospels (and especially claims on the identity of Jesus in the Gospels) comparable(equal) to contemporary works of contemporary historians like Tacitus and Josephus, in terms of objectivity( claims are not too far reaching conclusions), historical accuracy(telling only what really happened) and quality of research( time spent on writing work, number of members in this team that makes up the work in question) they did? In other words can I trust on the claims of identity of Jesus and historicity of the events? Can you give some reasons why gospels are equal with the documents of those historians?&#xA;For example in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; author claims that quote;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It increasingly appears that the &quot;biblical Jesus&quot; and the &quot;historical Jesus&quot; are one and the same!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastEditorUserId="4380" LastEditDate="2013-09-12T11:50:42.793" LastActivityDate="2015-03-02T06:11:28.980" Title="Are the gospels comparable(equal) to contemporary works of historians?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18954" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-09T22:02:06.280" Score="16" ViewCount="11731" Body="&lt;p&gt;What passages of Scripture were used by the popes and crusaders to justify the Crusades? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am specifically interested what the individuals that were contemporary to the crusades were saying. For the purpose of this question, I am only interested in arguments based in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="145" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-10-17T22:27:49.153" LastActivityDate="2017-10-17T22:27:49.153" Title="What passages of Scripture were used by the popes and crusaders to justify the Crusades?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;&lt;crusades&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18953" CreationDate="2013-09-09T23:21:33.040" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The primary reason the Gospels hold more gravity is that the authors had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A historians perspective is often hearsay, where an eyewitness account holds more weight in our court system, it is simply more credible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Few people are willing to die for something that they hope to be true, no one is willing to die for something that they know is not true.  These witnesses died knowing that their testimonies were true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-11-06T23:35:52.580" LastActivityDate="2013-11-06T23:35:52.580" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18953" CreationDate="2013-09-10T01:50:54.130" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, everybody has an agenda. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that &quot;history&quot; in the modern almost journalistic sense of the word was not really even a concept at this time.  The point was not to convince &quot;scholars&quot; but regular people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, who then are the contenders as &quot;historians?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tactitus&lt;/a&gt; gave us the first mention of the Christians, and provides external evidence of Pontius Pilate as the procurator of Palestine who had Jesus executed.  His agenda in writing, however, was mostly to vilify Nero, blaming him for the destruction of Rome in 64 AD.  Nero, of course, had alrady blamed the Christians - so Tactitus' agenda would be to exculpate the original scapegoats.  By being non-Christian himself, however, he answers &lt;em&gt;modern&lt;/em&gt; charges of being too interested a party.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Flavius Josephus&lt;/a&gt; also mentioned the Christians, but again, really only in the course of his agenda.  Josephus was a nothing more than a traitor to his own Jewish cause.  Although he fought with the Jews, when he was caught, he turned traitor. Eventually becoming a Roman citizen, he wrote a story about the war that modern historians find to be questionable in some places - but again, because of his agenda.  In passing, however, he too &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;mentions the Christians&lt;/a&gt;, but his agenda isn't really focused on them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Gospel writers were all &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18966/who-were-mark-and-luke&quot;&gt;eyewitnesses to Jesus&lt;/a&gt;.  Did they have an agenda? Sure!  The saw a dead man become not a dead man.  They heard his message, and their lives were transformed by it.  Of course they are biased!  But, and this is a big but, they had the most most information about Jesus.  Their agenda is to make Jesus known, and they all died really horrible deaths to do that.  By modern standards of 'history,' their primary accounts would be discounted because they are too close to it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark (who studied Peter) had probably written down his Gospel by 68 AD (before the Temple was destroyed), Luke (who studied under Paul) by the early 70s, and Matthew, who was an eyewitness and disciple by the mid 70s.  John's Gospel may have been the last - written at the latest, by around 95 AD.  Each of these was an eyewitness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Later Christian &quot;historians&quot; like &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Papias&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Iraneus&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Tertullian&lt;/a&gt; were all Christian bishops who based their histories on the Gospels' record.  Papias is the earliest of the three, writing in the early 100s.  Tertullian lived from about 160 - 225, and Iraneus (Bishop of Lyon) lived about the same time, dying in 202.  Each of these men (and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Eusbeius&lt;/a&gt;, who should also be in the category as well) lived well after the events of the New Testament.  These men saw the Gospels as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;primary accounts&lt;/a&gt;, and wrote their own works as secondary ones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later historians, using many sources - not just the Gospels - compiled their accounts in later centuries.  They never claimed to be eyewitnesses.  But, they also never claimed the four canonical Gospels were fundamentally more &quot;accurate&quot; than any of the other sources.  Canonization wasn't even really discussed until Iranaeus - and Iraneus was the one saying that these four canonical Gospels were the best sources he found.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even today, a primary account of an event that transforms a person is going to be biased.  Ask a New Yorker about 9/11, and there will be a bias.  Ask a Palestinian, or a member of Al Qaeda, and it will be equally biased.  Indeed, I would argue that &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; account will be told from a certain perspective.  Was Mohammed Atta a terrorist? a common criminal? or a martyr for Muslim cause?  There is no way to be neutral, nor is there any need to be.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point, then, is not to ask &quot;who to trust,&quot; since none of these accounts directly conflict.  The only difference is in the fullness of the information (hint: the Gospel writers tell you a heck of a lot more about Jesus), and the agenda.  To ask, &quot;Are Tacitus and Josephus more 'unbiased'?&quot; is thus still a flawed question, because in the end, every account has a bias.  The question is, are the biases explicit, and do they interfere?  Neither Tacitus nor Josephus really have much bearing at all on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the Gospel writers? Of course they are biased.  That's the point. They were transformed! They had a story to tell.  The only question is, do you believe their stories?  I know that my life has been transformed in the same way by the same man who died and then came back.  Personally that is the kind of evidence I need.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T22:22:56.787" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18959" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18913" CreationDate="2013-09-10T02:44:03.113" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can such a person still relate to God on a deep level in the&#xA;  spiritual/soul plane though facing limitations in the capacity of&#xA;  their earthly mind?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blesses are the pure in heart: for they will see God. (&lt;em&gt;Matt 5:8&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not judge us by what we know. He judges us by &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; we love, and &lt;em&gt;how much&lt;/em&gt; we love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are saved or damned according to what we love. If we love God, we&#xA;  shall ultimately get God: we shall be saved. If we love self in&#xA;  preference to God then we shall get self apart from God:  we shall be&#xA;  damned. (&lt;em&gt;Frank Sheed, Theology and Sanity&lt;/em&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture isn't clear as to how exactly how a mentally handicapped person is saved (using &quot;handicapped&quot; in the modern sense of the word).  From the Apostolic period to relatively recent times mental disabilities and vegetative states of existence were addressed more as some sort of retribution from God.  Today the science of psychology and medicine have revealed much more depth about what causes these afflictions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closest Sacred Scripture comes to expliclty addressing the handicap of ingnorance is when Jesus speaks of children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 18:17 - Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the&#xA;  kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be&#xA;  converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the&#xA;  kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 10:13-16 - And they brought young children to him, that he should&#xA;  touch them: and [his] disciples rebuked those that brought [them].&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Read More...)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 21:16 - And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And&#xA;  Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of&#xA;  babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church has no official policy about the sacraments and the developmentally disabled as such. The nearest parallel can be found in the principles relating to infant communion, specifically, the age of reason. According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Communion of Children:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the&#xA;  attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a&#xA;  certain stage in mental development, when children become able to&#xA;  discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some&#xA;  measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to&#xA;  believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental&#xA;  veils.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 913 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;§1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires&#xA;  that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that&#xA;  they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and&#xA;  are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;§2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children&#xA;  in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from&#xA;  ordinary food and receive communion reverently.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of Canon Law, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncpd.org/views-news-policy/policy/church/bishops/sacraments&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities&lt;/a&gt; states that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The criterion for reception of holy communion is the same for persons&#xA;  with developmental and mental disabilities as for all persons, namely,&#xA;  that the person be able to distinguish the Body of Christ from&#xA;  ordinary food, even if this recognition is evidenced through manner,&#xA;  gesture, or reverential silence rather than verbally. Pastors are&#xA;  encouraged to consult with parents, those who take the place of&#xA;  parents, diocesan personnel involved with disability issues,&#xA;  psychologists, religious educators, and other experts in making their&#xA;  judgment. If it is determined that a parishioner who is disabled is&#xA;  not ready to receive the sacrament, great care is to be taken in&#xA;  explaining the reasons for this decision. Cases of doubt should be&#xA;  resolved in favor of the right of the baptized person to receive the&#xA;  sacrament. The existence of a disability is not considered in and of&#xA;  itself as disqualifying a person from receiving the eucharist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is essential that all forms of the liturgy be completely accessible&#xA;  to persons with disabilities, since these forms are the essence of the&#xA;  spiritual tie that binds the Christian community together. To exclude&#xA;  members of the parish from these celebrations of the life of the&#xA;  Church, even by passive omission, is to deny the reality of that&#xA;  community. Accessibility involves far more than physical alterations&#xA;  to parish buildings. Realistic provision must be made for persons with&#xA;  disabilities to participate fully in the eucharist and other&#xA;  liturgical celebrations such as the sacraments of reconciliation,&#xA;  confirmation, and anointing of the sick (&lt;em&gt;Pastoral Statement of U.S.&#xA;  Catholic Bishops on Persons with Disabilities, November 1978; revised&#xA;  1989&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Speaking from  a parent's perspective with a child with autism, I have learned more from my son about living the Gospel by loving unconditionally than I ever could from any of the best theologians.  I've observed from working with disabled children in the field of Psychology that the more severely handicapped a child is, the more beatific their disposition - at least in most cases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more detailed resources about the implementation of programs that draw people with disabilities visit the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncpd.org/ministries-programs/specific&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;National Catholic Partnership on Disabilities&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-09-10T03:08:09.107" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T03:08:09.107" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18960" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18970" CreationDate="2013-09-10T04:07:47.293" Score="5" ViewCount="571" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking, the bible is very clear that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Authority is set up by God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If this authority, eg, a the governing heirachy, is in conflict with God (as was the case in the book of Daniel), then it is to God that we must submit to, not to man.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I seem to remember one place where a man's actions, which would have been sinful if he had any choice in the matter, were regarded as acceptable behaviour because he performed them without free will in obedience to his king.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly I can't remember if this was something as trivial as being cup bearer, where one consumes potentially poisoned drinks at risk of great personal harm, or if there was a more significant event.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could someone tell me of any such situations?  This is relevant today if, eg, in the army you are commanded to kill someone, and for some reason you believe that, in that particular case, it might be murder.  Where does the bible stand on such grey situations?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note:  I am not talking about clear situations - some readers here will adopt a hardline answer, to the point where a solder should not kill anyone in the course of battle. That is fine, those readers have a clear answer.  I am asking about what to do when the situation is NOT clear, perhaps due to insufficient information, insufficient knowledge, or simple lack of free will).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1444" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-09-11T16:13:27.143" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T22:12:08.663" Title="In what situations does the Bible say it's acceptable, perhaps, to do an action you might consider sinful?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-07-08T17:57:49.297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18964" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18960" CreationDate="2013-09-10T11:34:59.517" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Peter's Vision in Acts 10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the most transformative events in Acts is Peter's vision of the clean and unclean animals in Acts 10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a practicing Jew, Peter would not have eaten pork or other unclean animals.  In his vision, however, God commanded Peter to eat unclean meat - a clear for Peter.  Indeed, Peter objects saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To this, however, God responds:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point of the vision, as Karl Barth goes on to say, is that God's nature supercedes his commandments.  God was doing a new thing, insofar as the religious Jews of the day were concerned.  God was reaching out to the Gentiles! While Christians can go back and see that this was God's plan all along, for the Jew of the day, that was radically dirty.  But God's nature of love overrode his laws on purity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, God can and has commanded people to do what they considered sin, in order to accomplish his will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Peter's response to the Snahedrin in Acts 5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a pure man-on-man thing, Acts 5 records a stern admonition from the Sanhedrin concerning Peter's preaching of Jesus' resurrection in the city.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter famously responds in v. 29:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 Peter and the other apostles replied: &lt;strong&gt;“We must obey God rather than men!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31 God exalted Him to His own right hand as Prince and Savior that He might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the point of view of the religious authorities, this preaching was sinful. Indeed, even Paul writes in Romans 13 &amp;quot;Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.&amp;quot;  But, in those instances where the authorities are countermanding God's clear, expressed will, they are no longer acting as an authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T16:12:43.267" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18966" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18972" CreationDate="2013-09-10T12:34:28.953" Score="16" ViewCount="64323" Body="&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+6%3A13-16&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 6:13–16&lt;/a&gt; (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of&#xA;  them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter),&#xA;  his brother Andrew, James, &lt;strong&gt;John&lt;/strong&gt;, Philip, Bartholomew, &lt;strong&gt;Matthew&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas&#xA;  son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John and Matthew were included, but the remaining two authors of the Gospel – Mark and Luke – were not.  Why is this, and how did they come to know Jesus so closely as to later write his Gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="280" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-03T14:43:36.827" LastActivityDate="2021-03-19T05:04:07.770" Title="Who Were Mark and Luke?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;&lt;luke&gt;&lt;mark&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18968" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18960" CreationDate="2013-09-10T12:57:03.493" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dos and don’ts are of the Law; the Law does not save, so why do we continue to trouble ourselves with the Law?  Can I? What should I do? How can I know for sure? If this or that, and what about? All of this is chasing after the wind and very unchristian-like. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 3:19-28&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets…Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 4:16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian is one that knows the source of their salvation revealed through the Gospel.  A Christian knows whom they serve as Lord.  A Christian has the benefit of the Holy Spirit’s overshadowing presence, so Jesus Christ might be born out throughout their life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4158" LastEditDate="2013-09-11T16:15:34.510" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T16:15:34.510" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18966" CreationDate="2013-09-10T13:18:09.983" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 10:1 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After this the Lord appointed seventy-two&lt;sup&gt;[a]&lt;/sup&gt; others and sent them two by&#xA;   two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt; [a] Some manuscripts seventy; also in verse 17 &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not have only Twelve disciples. There were other &lt;strong&gt;Seventy&lt;/strong&gt; or Seventy-two disciples that Jesus appointed to preach the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_disciples&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, it is possible that Mark and Luke were included in the Seventy disciples &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_disciples#The_first_list_and_other_lists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(check the list of Seventy disciples)&lt;/a&gt;. If this is the case, it is no wonder that Mark and Luke could write the Story of Jesus accurately. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-10T14:59:07.260" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T14:59:07.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18960" CreationDate="2013-09-10T13:23:23.930" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The situation you are probably thinking of is Naaman, whose story appears in 2 Kings chapter 5. Naaman, 'commander of the army of the king of Aram', was healed of leprosy through the prophet Elisha, and becomes a follower of God. He says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.” (verse 17-18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if you read the story of Daniel, he and his companions Shadrach, Mesdhach and Abednego refused to follow the commands of the King and were thrown into a den of lions/fiery furnace for this. So you can't take this as a universal example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also like to read Matthew Chapter 12, where Jesus gives a couple of examples of doing things that were not lawful - especially David, who ate the forbidden bread when he and his companions were hungry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T13:23:23.930" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9580" CreationDate="2013-09-10T13:32:58.533" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure, ancient art work displays many middle eastern fishermen naked as they ply their trade.  This would make sense with the knowledge of the scarcity of clothes, thus making many individuals to only have one outfit.  As fishing is a stinky and arduous task, it also makes sense to remove valuables (clothes) while not engaging in such activities.&#xA;So why would Peter grab his clothes prior to jumping in the water, There is no guarantee the boat would make it back (although likely), nor is there a promise he and Jesus wouldn't immediately depart, leaving the rest of the disciples at the beach/dock. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5708" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T13:32:58.533" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18972" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18966" CreationDate="2013-09-10T13:59:49.227" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship_and_sources&quot;&gt;Mark is seen as one of Peter's disciples&lt;/a&gt;.  The historian Papias in the 2nd Century refers to him as such.  Likewise, the evidence in the narrative, for example, indicates that Peter was a significant source for most of the material, and most theologians accept Mark as &quot;Peter's&quot; Gospel.  Also, its seeming indication that the Temple is still standing marks it as an early Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke%E2%80%93Acts&quot;&gt;was Paul's travelling companion&lt;/a&gt;.  From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke%E2%80%93Acts&quot;&gt;very early on&lt;/a&gt;, this is what the church has taught. Luke and Acts were clearly written by the same individual (See Acts 1), and Luke is the traditional author. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T13:59:49.227" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18973" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18998" CreationDate="2013-09-10T15:56:41.047" Score="6" ViewCount="681" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the passage of Luke where Jesus is carrying the Cross, he turns and addresses the weeping women witnessing his Passion:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for&#xA;  yourselves and for your children..&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then he prophesies about a certain group of people:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are&#xA;  the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never&#xA;  nursed.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to&#xA;  the hills, ‘Cover us!’ (&lt;em&gt;Luke 23:29-30&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who are these people He is describing that are saying this horrible things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New American Standard footnote says that Jesus is generically saying that his disciples are called to carry the Cross, but I think that is a little vague.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just wondering if there are any interpretations of the Church Fathers, or any contemporary scholars that lean upon historical Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T05:31:44.707" Title="Who is Jesus referring to when he is speaking to the daughters of Jerusalem?" Tags="&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;cross&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18975" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18912" CreationDate="2013-09-10T16:39:03.543" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Garlic, crosses and &quot;holy water&quot; have absolutely no place in the christian's spiritual life. Only Christ should have any influence upon the believer. As the Spirit, He resides in them to be their life. All these outward signs i.e crosses, &quot;holy&quot; water etc., do absolutely nothing to advance the spiritual growth or perfecting of the genuine christian. Only Christ Himself can do that. Trusting in anyone or anything else is a waste of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5679" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T16:39:03.543" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18976" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2013-09-10T17:40:51.937" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Paul writes (1 Cor 10.4) that the Rock was Christ, and (in accord with Jewish tradition) the same Rock (perhaps figuratively) actually followed Israel from Horeb (Ex 17 where Moses struck the rock) to Nebo (Deut 32 where he got in trouble for striking it again). In my view, the faithlessness of Moses was in not accepting that &quot;the Christ suffered once for all.&quot;    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5709" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T17:40:51.937" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18978" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8281" CreationDate="2013-09-10T19:23:46.390" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have a lot of time at the moment but I have some thoughts that perhaps you will appreciate as a contribution to getting your question answered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, I'm going to clue you in on some aspects that are in the context of where I am speaking from. I mention these because they are less commonly held views. In Revelation 21 it says &quot;and there shall be a new heavens and a new earth&quot;, so we understand that the heavens and the earth undergo life cycles where when one creation waxes old there is another birthed to continue. Just as human parents create children in their own likeness and image, so too does one creation birth a new creation after its own image and likeness to carry on. The book of Revelation taps into this as it helps us understand the dynamic or the process by which a person can know the &quot;end from the beginning&quot;. Put another way, so that a person can understand how one cycle of creation gives way to a new cycle of creation. Knowing this assists you in coming to decipher the distinct roles of the Eternal Godhead, of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Each personage plays a critical role in the birth, redemption and death of a cycle of Creation. There is also a role for the adversary to fulfill in each cycle of Creation, which cycles are patterned after one another. This means what is happening now has happened already before and that it will also happen again in the future. This is why prophets can reveal past, present and future, because they know these greater cycles shall repeat and the truths they teach are timeless. Therefore, it becomes helpful to distinguish things in terms of where everything fits within the basic blueprint of a single creation. And, it becomes vastly clarified when we understand the creation account itself as the blueprint that is written in a coded manner that is easily decoded when you read Genesis 2:4 that says &quot;These (everything just mentioned previous) are the generations...&quot; What this is saying is all of the stuff mentioned in the days of creation pertains to generations or genealogies. This is why the &quot;begats&quot; are such an important part of scripture. Your lineage implies you where were organized because all creations are foreordained where certain lineages are destined to perform/fulfill various aspects of what it takes for a cycle of creation to play out. Thus, our &quot;final judgement&quot; is when we are foreordained to what status and role we will perform/fulfill in the following cycle, and so on and so on, as each cycle of creation has a &quot;final judgment&quot;. The creation is all about people and who governs who, etc. and each day of creation pertains to a thousand years for us. (See 2 Peter 3:8) For example, Jesus called himself the light and life of the world and he was born in the 4th millennia. This corresponds to creation day 4 saying the &quot;greater light to rule the day&quot; was created. This isn't describing a physical cosmos, but rather is describing how a foreordained geo-geneo-political cosmos is going to play out among specific tribal groupings on particular portions of our planet. For example, creation day 5 talks about the creation of the fishes and this is when the movement of Christianity, who refers to themselves as fishes, was scheduled to come about. It's all in the blueprint.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when this creation account as a blueprint of repeating cycles is used as a calibrating template you can come to understand more clearly what all things the Bible is talking about without all the hokus pokus mystery that turns it all into a bizzare fantasy. For example, you can come to understand Adam's real identity as a being of flesh and bone, which is a body that Paul describes by implication in Ephesians 5:30. He speaks of the people themselves as members of the church as being a part of a greater body. Eve is the church and Adam is the priesthood/governing body. The &quot;Father's Kingdom&quot; is Adam's dominion given to Him in the 6th millennia, which is a kingdom of kings, or put another way, a kingdom of sovereigns. We have a very good representation of such a kingdom when you look at what the founding fathers of the United states of America created. It made of its citizens sovereigns. However, just as the pattern implies, Adam and Eve transgress and succumb to &quot;paradise lost&quot; and are brought to a state of death. This is why we are experiencing decay and chaos on our global political scene. We are entering into the fall of Adam and Eve, prior to their redemption. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The redemption of Adam and Eve after being cast out of their garden paradise is an unfortunate part of our previous cycle's history that went missing from holy writ. The loss of this plain and precious key of information is what has caused our first Parents Adam and Eve to be viewed in such a negative way. But, They were redeemed and Adam did obtain the victory for His kingdom and He and Eve spent the remainder of their nearly 1,000 year lifespan ruling and reigning in righteousness over the dominion God gave to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look at the blueprint again we see Adam and Eve coming right at the end of day 6 and if they lived for nearly 1,000 years this means that their lifespan will significantly overlap into creation day 7, which many understand as &quot;the Millennium&quot;, a period of peace and prosperity for the righteous as they enjoy their &quot;rest&quot; from all of the evils of the world, etc. Thus, this all points to Adam being the one who rules and reigns over the Father's Kingdom during the Millennium, but it's Adam after He has been redeemed from His fall. It is the redemption of Adam out of a period of chaos, darkness and destruction, that gives birth to a new cycle of creation while at the same time the old creation is taken into complete captivity and destruction by the adversary. This doesn't mean a bodily physical destruction but is rather a condition of having been subjected into the adversary's kingdom because you failed to recognize and/or rejected the Father's Kingdom. The victory of the Father's Kingdom isn't that it totally vanquishes all evil from the planet. Rather, it is that it obtains a position of complete sovereignty such that the adversary shall have no power over it or those who are citizens of that Kingdom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those in the Father's Kingdom shall continue to enjoy true liberty while those not in the Father's Kingdom will continue with the current trend to build up and enslave themselves into the adversary's &quot;prison planet&quot; system of &quot;government knows best&quot; tyranny. This is the state of spiritual death that scripture warns about and thus the death it warns of is the death of an individual's ability to make their own decisions in life matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, at some point in the near future, when more and more people's eyes become opened to what is really going on, there will be an upsurge of people who will take courage and recognize the Father's Kingdom for what it truly is and they will stand in the face of whatever obstacles are necessary to stand fast in the liberty the Father's Kingdom gives them. In due time, all those who are in governance above these people shall cast out the spirit of Lucifer and provide godly leadership or they will be removed from their offices of authority. Casting Lucifer from &quot;heaven&quot; to &quot;earth&quot; simply means that this spirit of force, control, tyranny, etc. shall be removed from the realms of governance. Thus, the fall of Lucifer takes place upon Adam's redemption when He regains the dominion God gave to Him in victory. Then, the Lucifer of this cycle becomes the Satan of the following cycle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastEditorUserId="4363" LastEditDate="2013-09-10T19:40:57.730" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T19:40:57.730" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18980" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19050" CreationDate="2013-09-10T21:32:48.017" Score="4" ViewCount="13075" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Abomination of Desolation spoken of in both Matthew and Mark is specifically in reference to “End Time” perspectives.  Are there any Christian teachings that the Dome of the Rock is the “Abomination of Desolation”?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-01T21:00:29.753" LastActivityDate="2017-01-18T14:03:22.973" Title="Is the “Dome of the Rock” the “Abomination of Desolation” spoken of by the prophet Daniel?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;daniel&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-01-18T04:24:36.613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18981" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="631" CreationDate="2013-09-10T22:20:31.727" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, the righteous sheep were going to be given a Kingdom prepared for them before time. This is way before they did any good works. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.&quot; It reminds me of Romans 9:11 where Jacob is chosen and Esau rejected &quot;11  (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)...&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we do is an indication of what we are. &quot;17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.&#xA;18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.&#xA;19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.&#xA;20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.&#xA;The tree is cut down because it's fruit indicate that the tree is bad. We are judged by our works, but are condemned by who we are, unrepentant sinners. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, the sheep were not working to enter the Kingdom, they had no idea they were doing good works. They were just following their heart. If they were working for their salvation, they would definitely had a nice list and would have agreed with the King of all the good thing that they did. Just like the rich young ruler in Mark 10. He recounted, All these things I have done from my youth up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their works indicate what kind of heart they had. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mt 15:18  But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mt 12:35  A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mt 15:18  But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.&#xA;19  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mt 12:35  A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eph 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:&#xA;9  Not of works, lest any man should boast.&#xA;10  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5714" LastActivityDate="2013-09-10T22:20:31.727" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18983" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18954" CreationDate="2013-09-11T03:11:32.193" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;St. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/bernard2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bernard of Clairvaux&lt;/a&gt; is perhaps the most well known promoter of the Crusades. He is credited for sparking the 2nd Crusade by writing very convincing letters to the Kings of Christendom. On Christmas Day, 1144, the Seljuk Turks captured Edessa, chief city of one of the Christian principalities set up by the First Crusade. Appeals for help went at once to Europe, for the position of all Christians in Syria was jeopardized. King Louis VII of France announced his intention of leading a new crusade, and the Pope commissioned Bernard to preach the Holy War. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bernard sent a number of theologically charged letters to the various Kings and Queens of Christendom asking for support on behalf of the Church.  His main selling point was the biblically sound cause of liberating the Jews from Muslim oppression, and also for their protection from rogue Crusaders.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/258-bernard-of-clairvaux&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;letter written in 1146AD&lt;/a&gt; to Eastern France and Bavaria, Bernard promotes the 2nd Crusade by appealing to the role of Jews in God's plan of salvation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Besides, brethren, I warn you, and not only I, but God's apostle,&#xA;  &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Believe not every spirit&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; We have heard and rejoice that the&#xA;  zeal of God abounds in you, but it behooves no mind to be wanting in&#xA;  wisdom. The Jews must not be persecuted, slaughtered, nor even driven&#xA;  out. Inquire of the pages of Holy Writ. I know what is written in the&#xA;  Psalms as prophecy about the Jews. &quot;God hath commanded me,&quot; says the&#xA;  Church, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Slay them not, lest my people forget&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They are living signs to use, representing the Lord's passion. For&#xA;  this reason they are dispersed into all regions, that now they may pay&#xA;  the just penalty of so great a crime, and that they may be witnesses&#xA;  of our redemption. Wherefore the Church, speaking in the same Psalm,&#xA;  says, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Scatter them by thy power; and bring them down, O Lord, our&#xA;  shield&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; So has it been. They have been dispersed, cast down. They&#xA;  undergo a hard captivity under Christian princes. Yet they shall be&#xA;  converted at even time, and remembrance of them shall be made in due&#xA;  season. Finally, when the multitude of the Gentiles shall have entered&#xA;  in, then, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;all Israel shall be saved&lt;/strong&gt;,&quot; saith the apostle.&#xA;  Meanwhile he who dies remains in death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elsewhere, he writes to the Archbishop of Mainz:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fellow you mention in your letter [a monk named Raoul, who had&#xA;  urged violence against Jews as the Second Crusade was being organized]&#xA;  has received no authority from men or through men, nor has he been&#xA;  sent by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Does he consider himself greater than our father Abraham who laid down&#xA;  his sword at the bidding of him by whose command he took it up? Does&#xA;  he consider himself greater than the Prince of the Apostles who asked&#xA;  the Lord: &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Shall we strike with our swords&lt;/strong&gt;?&quot; He is a fellow full&#xA;  of the wisdom of Egypt which is, as we know, foolishness in the sight&#xA;  of God. He is a fellow who answers Peter's question differently to the&#xA;  Lord who said: &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Put back thy sword into its place; all those who&#xA;  take up the sword will perish by the sword.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; Is it not a far better&#xA;  triumph for the Church to convince and convert the Jews than to put&#xA;  them all to the sword? Has that prayer which the Church offers for the&#xA;  Jews, from the rising up of the sun to the going down thereof; that&#xA;  the veil may be taken from their hearts so that they may be led from&#xA;  the darkness of error into the light of truth, been instituted in&#xA;  vain? If she did not hope that they would believe and be converted, it&#xA;  would seem useless and vain for her to pray for them. But with the eye&#xA;  of mercy she considers how the Lord regards with favor him who renders&#xA;  good for evil and love for hatred. Otherwise where does that saying&#xA;  come in, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Not for their destruction I pray&lt;/strong&gt;,&quot; and &quot;&lt;strong&gt;When the&#xA;  fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, then all Israel will be&#xA;  saved&lt;/strong&gt;,&quot; and &quot;&lt;strong&gt;The Lord is rebuilding Jerusalem, calling the&#xA;  banished sons of Israel home&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;? Who is this man that he should make&#xA;  out the Prophet to be a liar and render void the treasures of Christ's&#xA;  love and pity? This doctrine is not his own but his father's. But I&#xA;  believe it is good enough for him, since he is like his father who&#xA;  was, we know, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;from the first a murderer, a liar, and the father of&#xA;  lies&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course we know from history that the 2nd Crusade was an overall failure. It is debatable whether or not the Pope's commission for St. Bernard to preach this failure was a good idea. Whatever the case may be, St. Bernard carried out his mission as a loyal servant to both the Church and to Sacred Scripture, ultimately becoming a canonized Doctor of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Crusades began with Pope Urban II's speech at the Church Council at Clermont in 1095. The Crusades, as institutionalized Holy War with papal sanction against the perceived enemies of Christendom, ended in 1798 with the expulsion of the Hospital of St John from Malta by Napoleon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Bernard's story is just one little chapter in a long book...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-09-11T03:27:31.307" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T03:27:31.307" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18986" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="18989" CreationDate="2013-09-11T06:39:32.283" Score="8" ViewCount="10186" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%203:13-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 3:13-18 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent&#xA;  the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their&#xA;  minds were made dull, for &lt;strong&gt;to this day the same veil remains when the&#xA;  old covenant is read&lt;/strong&gt;. It has not been removed, because only in Christ&#xA;  is it taken away. &lt;strong&gt;Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers&#xA;  their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken&#xA;  away.&lt;/strong&gt; Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,&#xA;  there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the&#xA;  Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with&#xA;  ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul is speaking here about a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;veil&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; that covers the hearts of people (probably the Israelites) which prevents them from seeing the glory of God when they read the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly is this &quot;&lt;em&gt;veil&lt;/em&gt;&quot; that Paul speaks of? What exactly does it conceal? Does it still cover the hearts of people? Is there any possibility that this &quot;veil&quot; still covers the hearts of some Christians today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-16T18:59:59.580" LastActivityDate="2018-03-31T08:00:26.787" Title="What is the &quot;veil&quot; that covers the heart when the Old Testament is read?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;2-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2018-04-01T01:25:21.347" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18989" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18986" CreationDate="2013-09-11T10:22:08.377" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Moses, after speaking with God, had a shining face.  When he came out from speaking with God he would give the people God's commands under the Law with the glory of a 'shining face' which they feared with trembling and fright.  Before the glory faded, signifying the non lasting nature of the covenant under the law, Moses would put a veil over his face. He was hiding something, not God's glory but its fading.  This means the nature of the law under the old covenant, especially its temporary aspect, was not revealed fully and openly to the people but hidden.  Moses was not trying to deceive them, making them think that his face always shining but was simply doing whatever God required of him.  Possibly it would made no sense to the the people to clearly see at that time in progressive revelation that the law was merely a 'fading glory' when first introduced. That would be counter-productive according to God's purpose of that stage of history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now Paul is grabbing this old fact about the veil and transferring the symbolism to the Jews, for although the gospel had come and superseded the law, Christ superseding Moses, yet they still clung on to the law thinking its glory will 'never fade'.  Now the gospel is declared 'openly' with no hidden parts because it will never fade or need something in addition (not like Moses who put a veil over the temporary nature of the law). Yet the Jews were not seeing it. It must therefore be a veil upon the heart, i.e. a stubborn unbelief blinding their minds from seeing the truth of the gospel and the temporary nature of the law.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin blinds the mind and so even carnal Christians have a certain kind of veil making them unable to see the glory of the gospel.  That is why Paul writes to the Ephesians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength. (NIV, Ephesians 1:18-19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all unbelievers this veil is thick and damming, not just blurring the vision:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (NIV, 2 Corinthians 4:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In conclusion the veil is the ignorance to spiritual truth by which sin blurs the mind of a believer or totally blinds the mind of a sinner under the bondage of the Devil.  This covering of the eyes through ignorance is metaphorically called a veil.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorDisplayName="user32" LastEditDate="2014-01-28T03:32:23.257" LastActivityDate="2014-01-28T03:32:23.257" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18986" CreationDate="2013-09-11T14:03:46.923" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not wish to cause controversy, but I also cannot stay quiet about the subject. I will humbly reply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;@Mike I don't agree with a few things on your answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't believe Moses was hiding anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two&#xA;  tablets of the Testimony were in Moses’ hand when he came down from&#xA;  the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone&#xA;  while he talked with Him. So when Aaron and all the children of Israel&#xA;  saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and &lt;strong&gt;they were afraid to&#xA;  come near him.&lt;/strong&gt; Then Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the rulers&#xA;  of the congregation returned to him; and Moses talked with them.&#xA;  Afterward all the children of Israel came near, and he gave them as&#xA;  commandments all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. And&#xA;  when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.&#xA;  But whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him, he would&#xA;  take the veil off until he came out; and he would come out and speak&#xA;  to the children of Israel whatever he had been commanded. And whenever&#xA;  the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’&#xA;  face shone, then Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he&#xA;  went in to speak with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exodus 34:29-35&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ is God's glory,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath&#xA;  appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his&#xA;  person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had&#xA;  by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty&#xA;  on high.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 1:3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so God's Glory will never fade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Moral Law (10 Commandments), also does not fade as it is written in the hearts of the people of God under the New Covenant&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a&#xA;  new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like&#xA;  the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took&#xA;  them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant&#xA;  that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For&#xA;  this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after&#xA;  those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I&#xA;  will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall&#xA;  be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each&#xA;  his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from&#xA;  the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will&#xA;  forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 31:31-34&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Moral Law has always and will always stand. Since the beginning it was there and in the end will be there, but it CANNOT cleanse us form our sins. It was not made for that purpose. Jesus is the ONLY One who can give grace and forgive us for our sins, as He is the One who paid for them. This is why it is called the ministry of death, because it shows us that we deserve death, but once we accept Christ and repent of our sinful ways, we are now in the ministry of righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament speaks of Jesus, but in a concealed manner. Just like with a veil, you can still see glimpses of Jesus in it. Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and&#xA;  they are they which testify of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 5:39&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And at that moment, the only part of the Scriptures written was the Old Testament. Jesus also showed that there were glimpses of Him there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that&#xA;  the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these&#xA;  things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all&#xA;  the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things&#xA;  concerning himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 24:25-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament is Christ revealed, no veil. Those that do not believe in Christ are once again covering themselves with a veil, but one of unbelief.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-09-11T14:41:11.087" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T14:41:11.087" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18949" CreationDate="2013-09-11T18:47:01.007" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Neither the Book of Common Prayer nor the United Methodist Book of Discipline have rules on funeral services and burial for non-Christians. Most other denominations follow similarly. The decision is left up to individual pastors, but part of being a Christian pastor is providing Christian services to anyone who asks. This includes providing a Christian funeral to a non-Christian at the request of a Christian family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the United States, most cemeteries are privately owned and will accept anyone of any faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T18:47:01.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18998" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18973" CreationDate="2013-09-11T19:52:22.253" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was speaking prophetically of what would occur to His people Israel--not just women--in both AD 70, when the Roman general Titus sacked Jerusalem, and in an unspecified time when the whole world, including Israel, would experience the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation, which is described in detail in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, &quot;daughters of Jerusalem&quot; is a synecdoche:  a part (daughters) for the whole (Israel).  Whether the women Jesus was addressing were hired mourners or actual disciples of Jesus whose tears and gestures were heartfelt, Jesus' words to them had a double significance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, within a generation of His ascension, Rome would invade Jerusalem, and the second temple (&quot;Herod's temple) in Jerusalem would be destroyed.  Jesus prophesied about this earlier in Matthew 24:2.  The huge stones of the temple that were &quot;torn down&quot; in such a way that not one would be left standing on the other are still visible today in Jerusalem.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, during what has been called The Great Tribulation (again, see Matthew 24, especially vv.9 and 21) Satan's &quot;false prophet&quot; and &quot;antichrist&quot; will deceive not only Israel, but the entire world, and during the various calamities that befall the world during those days (viz., the judgments of the seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls of Revelation 6-16) the unbelieving inhabitants of not only Jerusalem but of the entire world  will prefer death over life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Their cries (taken from Hosea 10:8 and repeated in Revelation 6:16) reflect their panic, helplessness, and hopelessness in the face of &quot;the wrath of the Lamb.&quot;  Remarkably enough, however, they will still not repent and turn to God (Revelation 9:20, 21); rather, they will plead for a quick end to their suffering through death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' words in Luke 24:31 comprise a proverb.  As the NET Bible points out in its notes, &quot;The green tree stands for good conditions resulting from God’s blessing and the dry tree for bad conditions resulting from divine judgment. If God allowed innocent Jesus to perish in times of His blessing, what would happen to guilty Jerusalem when God judged her?&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This proverb is characterized by the &quot;how much more&quot; line of reasoning; that is, if something bad happens in the best of conditions (the green), how much more will something even worse happen in the worst of conditions (the dry).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As terrible as the destruction of Jerusalem was for her inhabitants in AD 70, the destruction that occurs during the Great Tribulation will make General Titus's invasion look like a romp in the park by comparison.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, “If the Romans condemned to death the one they admitted to be innocent, how would they deal in the future with those whom they found guilty?”  That future, again, had a double aspect, the first aspect would be fulfilled in AD 70, and the second  during the ruthless seven-year reign of the man of sin (the antichrist), whose power, not unlike that of Rome, will be manifest, and not just in part of the world as in Rome's heyday, but in the entire world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-09-15T00:54:42.240" LastActivityDate="2013-09-15T00:54:42.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18960" CreationDate="2013-09-11T21:23:02.333" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question reminded me of the concept of &quot;situation ethics,&quot; a term coined by--interestingly enough--an Episcopal priest by the name of Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991).  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208300/theories/situationism.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208300/theories/situationism.html&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Sometimes called 'contextualism' or 'relational ethics,' situation ethics maintains that the collective wisdom of the past can be used to guide ethical decision making in the present but must be set aside if love requires something else&quot; (ibid.). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with many, if not most, ethical theories, there is an element of truth to Fletcher's theory of ethical behavior.  How big an element depends on a number of things, not the least of which is the situation or scenario to which the theory is being applied!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hypothetically, if a bad person--and a complete stranger to me--were to break into my home, threatening the life of my spouse, and I had a loaded gun at my disposal, would I be justified in shooting (even shooting to kill) the bad guy?  Both the Law of God and the laws of Pennsylvania where I live, would hold me guiltless, particularly if the bad man threatened the use of deadly force (i.e., he himself brandished a lethal weapon, such as a gun, or knife, or baseball bat).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even this seemingly clear-cut scenario may not be as clear-cut as it seems at first, especially if we &quot;tweak&quot; the scenario a little.  What if, for example, I know or sense the intruder is mentally deranged, and he threatens my wife with an imaginary (i.e., invisible) ray gun he's supposedly holding in his hand, while demanding I give him want he wants.  The laws of Pennsylvania would likely still exonerate me, but what about the Law of God?  Here is the crux of the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all know that when &quot;the authorities that be&quot; order Christians to stop spreading the gospel, we must appeal to a higher authority (Acts 5:29).  That appeal does not exempt us, however, from using sound judgment when we choose to &quot;flout&quot; the law, particularly if in doing so we endanger the lives of other people, Christians or non-Christians alike.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in a repressive regime, the powers that be might forbid the printing of Bibles or any religious literature.  I as a Christian have a computer and a printer and my friends and neighbors are unbelievers.  Moreover, they are genuinely interested in the Christian faith.  Do I then post a sign with foot-high letters on my front door that says &quot;FREE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AVAILABLE HERE, 24/7&quot;?  Of course not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd probably hide my computer and printer under the floorboards inside a closet, and during the wee small hours of the morning would retrieve the printer and proceed to do covertly what I believe to be the will of God.  Later I would look for opportunities to distribute the literature covertly.  Why covertly?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, not to do so would be stupid!  Boldness in the face of imminent persecution is one thing; stupidity when there is no direct threat of persecution is quite another.  How will my friends and neighbors hear about Christ if I am in prison or dead because I stupidly put a billboard on my front door?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This example may seem preposterous, but I hope it at least illustrates the importance of balancing the demands of God's law that we be in subjection to the authorities He has established, with some equally important concepts of love, justice, conscience, and discretionary wisdom.  Is there a hierarchy of right and wrong?  Of course.  Personally, if the authorities come looking for my wife, whom I know has done nothing wrong, and they ask me menacingly, &quot;Do you know where your wife is?&quot;, guess what I'm going to do?  I'm going to lie to the very best of my ability! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, Corrie ten Boom, author of &lt;em&gt;The Hiding Place&lt;/em&gt;, tells the story of her sister (I believe) who had a particularly sensitive conscience.  Consequently, when during World War II the German soldiers came to her house in Holland and asked her pointblank &quot;Are you hiding Jews in this house?&quot;, not wanting to &quot;lie&quot; she said nervously but with a hint of facetiousness, &quot;Why yes, sir, they are here under the table!&quot;  The fact was, the Jews &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; under the table but were hidden by a large tablecloth.  Thankfully, the soldiers thought she was kidding and failed to look under the table. She likely let out a huge sigh of relief.  Phew! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was Corrie's sister being overly sensitive, if not foolish?  That's not for me to decide.  Would I have said anything different?  Probably, but then God knows what is in our hearts, and when we act in faith by doing what we think God wants us to do, we can be confident that God has our back! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, in a war scenario, a Christian soldier may feel perfectly justified in shooting an enemy soldier who is shooting at him.  On the other hand, if his commanding officer tells him to open fire on a group of unarmed, bound and gagged enemy soldiers, would he be justified in either obeying the order or in defying the order?  It is at that very moment the soldier needs to consult his conscience, say a quick prayer (as did Nehemiah, for example, in Nehemiah 2:4), and make a decision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personally, I hope he would choose to disobey the order.  Perhaps, however, the Lord might tell the soldier to reason with his commanding officer first, before deciding to obey or disobey.  You, on the other hand, might feel differently.  That's OK, too, although if you think the soldier is justified in pulling the trigger, I would love to debate you as to why I think you are wrong!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nevertheless, God is ultimately the judge of us all.  As Abraham asked so long ago, &quot;Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?&quot;  The answer of course is yes (see Genesis 18:25).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-09-11T22:12:08.663" LastActivityDate="2013-09-11T22:12:08.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16138" CreationDate="2013-09-11T22:29:52.063" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the&#xA;  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching&#xA;  them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you&#xA;  always, to the very end of the age.” (&lt;em&gt;Matt. 28:19-20&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The normal, &quot;extroverted&quot; role of women in missionary work has existed on a &lt;em&gt;grand scale&lt;/em&gt; ever since the Apostolic age. Various religious congregations and orders of &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; men and women have been established throughout the centuries with the specific purpose of obeying Jesus’ Great Commission. Some of these female congregations, such as those founded by SS. Augustine and Benedict (Augustinians/Benedictines) date back to the 4th and 5th centuries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Never the less, in order to address the question specifically, I'll briefly focus on the participation and pro-activity of women missionaries on a world-wide scale during and after the Reformation period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Age of Discovery&lt;/a&gt;, immediately following the advent of the Reformation, Catholic missionaries – both men and women – set out to evangelize the newly discovered Americas. The Ursuline Sisters were the first Catholic nuns to land in the new world. In 1639, Mother Marie of the Incarnation, two other Ursuline nuns, and a Jesuit priest left France for a mission to Canada. When they arrived in the summer of 1639, they studied the language of the native peoples and then began to educate the native children.(1)  They taught reading and writing as well as needlework, embroidery, drawing and other domestic arts.(2) The Ursuline Convent established by Marie has been in continuous use by the Ursuline Sisters since its construction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the end of 1640, there were many Ursulines in Canada who taught the catechism to indigenous children. There is also an Ursuline convent in Quebec City that is the oldest educational institution for women in North America.(3) Their work helped to preserve a religious spirit among the French population and to Christianize native peoples and Métis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1727, 12 Ursulines from France landed in what is now New Orleans. These Ursulines were the first Roman Catholic nuns in what is now the United States. They instituted a convent and school, both of which continue today.(4) Ursuline Academy (New Orleans) is the oldest continually operating Catholic school in the United States and the oldest girl’s school in the United States.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ursuline tradition holds many U. S.  firsts in its dedication to the growth of individuals, including the first female pharmacist, first woman to contribute a book of literary merit, first convent, first free school and first retreat center for ladies, and the first free education for female slaves (which continued until abolition). The Ursulines also established the first social welfare center in the Mississippi Valley.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other notable religious orders that were/are specifically commissioned by Rome to do missionary work during the post-Reformation period:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Sisters of Mercy was founded by Catherine McAuley in Dublin, Ireland in 1831, and her nuns went on to establish hospitals and schools across the world.(5) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Little Sisters of the Poor was founded in the mid-19th century by Saint Jeanne Jugan near Rennes, France, to care for the many impoverished elderly who lined the streets of French towns and cities.(6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Britain's Australian colonies, Australia's first canonized Saint, Mary MacKillop, co-founded the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart as educative religious institute for the poor in 1866, and by the time of her death her religious institute had established 117 schools and had opened orphanages and refuges for the needy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The list goes on and on, including contemporaries such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Missionaries_of_Charity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Missionaries of Charity&lt;/a&gt; founded by Mother Teresa of Calcutta. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For much of the early twentieth century, Catholic women continued to join religious institutes in large numbers, where their influence and control was particularly strong in the running of primary education for children, high schooling for girls, and in nursing, hospitals, orphanages and aged care facilities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within &lt;strong&gt;Protestantism&lt;/strong&gt;, the participation of women in post-Reformation missionary work &lt;em&gt;sharply&lt;/em&gt; contrasts that of Catholicism, in that it was practically &lt;em&gt;non-existent&lt;/em&gt; up until the turn of the 20th century. This was mainly because the majority of Protestant churches upheld the traditional position which restricted ruling and preaching roles within the Church exclusively to men until the 20th century.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Protestant Reformation, by shutting down female convents within the movement, effectively closed off the option of a full-time religious role for Protestant women.(7) Martin Luther himself taught that &quot;the wife should stay at home and look after the affairs of the household as one who has been deprived of the ability of administering those affairs that are outside and concern the state….&quot;(8) John Calvin agreed that &quot;the woman's place is in the home.&quot;(9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his &lt;em&gt;A Very Short History of the World&lt;/em&gt;, the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that, in removing the institution of the convent, the Reformation at first indirectly reduced the power of women, for convents had been places where women could achieve power and influence, as in Zurich where the Benedictine abbesses had helped administer the town.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Knox (1510–1572) also denied women the right to publicly evangelize, as he asserted in his famous &lt;em&gt;First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptist theologian Dr. John Gill (1690–1771) comments on 1 Corinthians 14:34,35, stating:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In Gen 3:16, &quot;thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule&#xA;  over thee&quot;. By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why&#xA;  women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly,&#xA;  or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an&#xA;  act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary&#xA;  to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men.&#xA;  The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be&#xA;  drawn into a rule or example in such cases.(10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Methodist founder John Wesley (1703–1791) and Methodist theologian Adam Clarke (1762–1832) both upheld male headship, but allowed that spiritual Christian women could publicly speak in church meetings if they &quot;are under an extraordinary impulse of the Spirit&quot;(11)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Puritan theologian Matthew Poole (1624–1679) concurred with Wesley, adding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But setting aside that extraordinary case of a special afflatus,&#xA;  [strong Divine influence] it was, doubtless, unlawful for a woman to&#xA;  speak in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It wasn't until the founding of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Missionary_Union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Women’s Missionary Union&lt;/a&gt; in 1888 that Protestant women began to effectively facilitate missionary work abroad. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to historian Patricia Hill, the interdenominational women's foreign mission movement was the largest of the great women's movements of the nineteenth century, eclipsing the more famous temperance movement and women's rights movement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Local [women's mission] auxiliaries, like temperance groups and&#xA;  women's clubs, offered conservative women a forum for developing&#xA;  skills in public speaking, fund- raising and organizational management&#xA;  that could be easily transferred from these semiprivate spheres to the&#xA;  public arena. And when the women of small-town America embarked upon&#xA;  the systematic study of foreign mission fields, their cultural&#xA;  horizons were considerably broadened. Women who served overseas as&#xA;  missionaries or who headed denominational societies at the national&#xA;  level carved out careers for themselves in mission service. Thus,&#xA;  paradoxically, this eminently respectable, religiously conservative&#xA;  movement fostered a wider sphere of responsibility for ordinary&#xA;  churchwomen and opened up new professional opportunities for several&#xA;  thousand American women.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Foreign missions gripped the imaginations and enlisted the support of&#xA;  hundreds of thousands of middle-class churchwomen in the late&#xA;  nineteenth century. By 1915 there were more than three million women&#xA;  on the membership rolls of some forty denominational female missionary&#xA;  societies. The interdenominational women's foreign mission movement .&#xA;  . . was substantially larger than any of the other mass woman's&#xA;  movements of the nineteenth century.(13)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Women have played an indispensable role throughout salvation history. From the Virgin Birth of Christ, down to the present day, women have played a tremendously integral part in the  mission of Christ’s Church. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10375a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Missionary work&lt;/a&gt; is alive and well in today's Church, as &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; men and women are working &lt;em&gt;together&lt;/em&gt; to preach the Gospel to &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23848&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23848&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=325&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=325&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/The_Ursulines&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/The_Ursulines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbase.com/septembermorn/ursuline_academy_and_convent_after_hurricane_katrina&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pbase.com/septembermorn/ursuline_academy_and_convent_after_hurricane_katrina&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Sisters_of_Mercy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Sisters_of_Mercy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12248a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12248a.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3241&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3241&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luther’s  &lt;em&gt;Lectures on Genesis 3:11&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.covenanter.org/JCalvin/titussermons/srmtts11.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.covenanter.org/JCalvin/titussermons/srmtts11.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-14-34.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-14-34.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John Wesley's notes on the Bible, 1 Cor. 14:34,35&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/harris/sbc/wmu.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/harris/sbc/wmu.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-09-12T20:29:26.270" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T20:29:26.270" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16190" CreationDate="2013-09-12T00:54:57.830" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Madeleine L'Engle gives a possible opinion in her novel &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_Waters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Many Waters&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; where she shows them interacting with the humans during the time of Noah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding this at the prompting of David Stratton, though I think the Wikipedia entry will be more useful and factual for readers: as I recall (it's been a number of years since I read it), L'Engle portrays nephilim as shadowy, quasi-evil individuals of great beauty, power, and persuasion. There are examples of intermarriage with humans of the time and something about it being difficult to deliver the child of a nephil. When I read the book, I had not yet come across nephilim in any other context and remember wondering if she was portraying fallen angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5733" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-03T14:15:57.610" LastActivityDate="2015-09-03T14:15:57.610" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19004" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-12T00:59:53.270" Score="12" ViewCount="1759" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm clear that according to scripture, humans don't become angels. I read through the question on the topic (&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1955/can-humans-become-angels&quot;&gt;What Bible verses suggest that humans can become angels?&lt;/a&gt;) and didn't find an answer to my question: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone provide references to the &lt;em&gt;reason&lt;/em&gt; that people began to believe that loved ones become angels? I'm trying to understand how this well-established tradition evolved in Western culture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5733" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-02-18T09:53:50.867" Title="Where did the &quot;humans become angels&quot; tradition come from?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-05-27T16:22:22.890" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="736" CreationDate="2013-09-12T08:37:07.423" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;you have to becareful what you want to be ambitious in. satan wants us to be ambitious as much as God does why he wants us to put our minds off from doing Gods work. So we as Christians we need to be careful. Always follow the spirit in all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5736" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T08:37:07.423" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19008" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="736" CreationDate="2013-09-12T08:52:43.957" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God tells us that if we keep our eyes on Him, He will us everything we need. He made Solomon the richest man on earth just because Solomon chose wisdom (of which the root is the knowledge of God) over riches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we should not be ambitious. But only because we don't need to be. In my personal life, I've moved from being a minimum wage earner (that's African-style minimum wage, BTW) to being an senior software developer without the benefit of a tertiary education. And I owe it all to the fact that God has made things go my way because I strive to put Him first in everything I do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4990" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T08:52:43.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19009" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="736" CreationDate="2013-09-12T10:29:47.473" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question of being successful and enjoying your career being a sin or not depends on where your heart is. I find that whatever job I am currently doing, I do my best at for a few reason's. 1) by doing my best will make the company look better 2) Taking pride in the work I present keeps customers happy 3) Happy customers refer others to company's they like 4) More customers means no employee cut backs. No matter if I'm at work, home, with friends, or in public, I always give God the credit to my success. I have a lot of people come to me for guidance and advice or sometimes to just vent. I've had people say to me that I have helped them heal. My response to them is always, &quot;I didn't heal you, God did. I only carried the message from God that you needed to hear in order to make that change. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are important Chapters in the Bible because it show's us exactly how to live our lives as children of God. God sent his son Jesus to be a living, breathing, walking example of how we are to live our lives like. Who would better know God the Father's expectations than Jesus Christ? If it was important to God the Father then Jesus mentions it in his teachings. These four disciples walked, talked, and lived with Jesus. Jesus's job was to teach us how to live pure lives. He was successful and had many followers. He enjoyed engaging with people of all walks of life. There were parts of what he had to do that he wasn't looking forward to but was willing to do it anyway. He didn't limit his audience or who he spent time with to only Christians. He spent his time with thieves, prostitutes, people that were greedy, etc... Take pride in your work cause it is a visual presentation of your portfolio and job qualities. Always give thanks and credit to God the Father. It's possible your path in life lead you there to cross paths with someone that is in need. God placed you in that situation to help guide someone back on to the right path. People take notice when a person walks the way Jesus demonstrated to us. Jesus never said work hard for your employers but don't enjoy your career. What if your a preacher? You shouldn't enjoy bringing a new child to God and baptizing them? There isn't a better time to be rejoicing than that! What if your a guidance counselor, police officer, fire fighter, teacher, and the list goes on. By all means, enjoy and be happy for everything in your life. Just don't forget to thank the Lord for all that you have!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5737" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T10:29:47.473" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19010" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19014" CreationDate="2013-09-12T13:03:37.123" Score="17" ViewCount="18318" Body="&lt;p&gt;Were the Pharisees being sarcastic in John 7:52, when they claimed that &quot;no prophet ever came out of Galilee&quot;? It is written that Jonah came from Gath-hepher, in Galilee (2 Kings 14:25).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5525" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-04T15:33:04.597" LastActivityDate="2020-10-18T06:58:20.427" Title="Was &quot;No prophet ever came out of Galilee&quot; sarcastic?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;jonah&gt;&lt;pharisees&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19004" CreationDate="2013-09-12T14:23:05.703" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;this might not truly answer your question. but it does shed some light about &amp;quot;us&amp;quot; becoming &amp;quot;like&amp;quot; angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 12:25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage--&amp;quot;neither can they die any more&amp;quot; ( Luke 20:36 ). Marriage is ordained to perpetuate the human family; but as there will be no breaches by death in the future state, this ordinance will cease.&#xA;but are as the angels which are in heaven--In Luke ( Luke 20:36 ) it is &amp;quot;equal unto the angels.&amp;quot; But as the subject is death and resurrection, we are not warranted to extend the equality here taught beyond the one point--the immortality of their nature. A beautiful clause is added in Luke ( Luke 20:36 )--&amp;quot;and are the children of God&amp;quot;--not in respect of character, which is not here spoken of, but of nature--&amp;quot;being the children of the resurrection,&amp;quot; as rising to an undecaying existence ( Romans 8:21 Romans 8:23 ), and so being the children of their Father's immortality ( 1 Timothy 6:16 ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/mark/12-25-compare.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bible Study Tools&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I imagine that somewhere along the way that people saw this as they would become angels when they went to heaven.  this doesn't say that at all. it really means &lt;code&gt;equal unto the angels&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this may be where we started thinking that we too could become Angels. but we really shouldn't want that.  We as saved individuals will become physical/spiritual beings after the resurrection, the Angels are only spiritual beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could not find much more information on the subject, I am at work so I am rather limited in my research time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T14:23:05.703" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19012" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19026" CreationDate="2013-09-12T14:26:54.217" Score="5" ViewCount="724" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think so, but some articles online indicates that he was a Fullerist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, was &quot;Fullerism&quot; orthodox?&#xA;Ex: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2006i/5_harmon.pdf&quot;&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any thought?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2110" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-09-12T15:18:55.937" LastActivityDate="2013-09-13T10:31:12.980" Title="Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a five-point Calvinist?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19010" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:28:46.260" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many commentators have enjoyed pointing out the Pharisees' mistake, which is just one of several errors they make in this chapter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &quot;pure&quot; sarcasm would mean that the Pharisees considered Galilee to be &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; place where prophets came from - a bit like associating Washington, DC with politicians. But the context is their rejection of Jesus (known to them as a Galilean) as a prophet, which makes that reading a bit tricky. It is more likely that they are being rude or sarcastic, but at the same time, incorrect to dismiss Galilee as a prophet-free zone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas&quot;&gt;Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt; in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://dhspriory.org/thomas/CAJohn.htm#7&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Catena Aurea&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; collated some earlier discussion on this passage. This includes &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom&quot;&gt;John Chrysostom&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240152.htm&quot;&gt;Homily 52 on the Gospel of John&lt;/a&gt;) characterizing the tone of the Pharisees as &quot;rude&quot; and &quot;insulting&quot; (&lt;em&gt;rudius&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;iniuriose&lt;/em&gt;), which would cover sarcasm; and on the other hand &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin&quot;&gt;Alcuin of York&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/list/one/csg/0258&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Commentary on the Gospel of John&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, where the emphasis is on their ignorance. If it is sarcasm, then it is still misaimed sarcasm, because the Pharisees are incorrect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But their mistake is significant. The story of Jonah prefigures that of Jesus in several important ways, and so it is interesting that the two prophets are, in a sense, rejected together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;N. T. Wright says of this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Pharisees further show their ignorance of Scripture in that both the prophets Jonah and Hosea came from Galilee. And when John has them say that no prophet &quot;rises up&quot; or &quot;arises&quot; from Galilee, the word he uses is almost always used elsewhere in the book to refer to the resurrection. Jonah was proverbial for coming, so it seemed, &quot;back from the dead&quot; after three days in the belly of the fish; and Hosea contains the prophecy that God will &quot;raise us up on the third day&quot; (Hosea 6:2).&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek verb in question is ἐγείρεται (ἐγείρω), which originally meant &quot;to wake up&quot; or &quot;to arouse&quot;, and was later applied to rising from a sick-bed or death-bed, as well as from sleep. It can also mean rousing someone to activity from a previous state of torpor. The other instances in John's gospel are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus's resurrection / metaphor of raising the Temple: 2:19, 2:20, 2:22, 21:14&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Healing at the pool of Bethesda: 5:8&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Raising the dead in general: 5:21; and Lazarus specifically: 12:1, 12:9, 12:17&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Standing up  / being called to action: 11:29, 13:4, 14:31 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;resurrection&quot; sense is also strongly present elsewhere in the New Testament. So we could say that John's account has a certain level of &lt;em&gt;irony&lt;/em&gt;, even if the Pharisees are not themselves being sarcastic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some versions of John 7:52 have the Pharisees talking about &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; prophet, rather than &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; prophet. They would then be arguing about whether &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; Messiah ought to be from Galilee, as opposed to whether prophets in general could come from there. If this is the reading then the Jonah question does not arise - but instead, we have to ask about the Pharisees' knowledge or interpretation of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 9 (or in the Hebrew, starting at 8:23). Here, &quot;Galilee&quot; is to be made glorious by a son who is to be called &quot;Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace&quot;. The application to Jesus hinges on him being &quot;from&quot; Nazareth as well as Bethlehem, and of the line of David - facts which were not generally known (John 7:42). As before, the tone of the argument could very well be sarcastic, with the Pharisees being wrong, but this time for a different reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. N. T. Wright. &lt;em&gt;John: 26 studies for individuals and groups&lt;/em&gt; (InterVarsity Press, 2009). Chapter 10, &lt;em&gt;Disputes about Jesus&lt;/em&gt;, p. 60.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-09-12T15:37:25.557" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T15:37:25.557" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18735" CreationDate="2013-09-12T15:29:58.570" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I won't comment on the popes' intentions but sending European kings and nobles and large segments of their armies to fight a foreign war meant there were fewer people left in Europe to challenge their authority. People supported the early crusades because they were trying to save Eastern Christians and holy places from the Turks. Thus people were more supportive of the popes for leading them in a holy war.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The increased support during the 11th and 12th centuries was certainly a factor in the increase in secular political involvement and financial excesses noted in the 13th and 14th centuries. The combination of secular politics, criticism, and the schism surrounding the Avignon papacy laid the foundation for the protestant reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T15:29:58.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18980" CreationDate="2013-09-12T17:58:16.463" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Daniel 9, the 70 weeks are 70 weeks of years, where &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-year_principle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;each day is a year&lt;/a&gt;. The 70 weeks would not be completed until &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Daniel 9:24  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and this has not happened yet. However, the first 69 weeks have  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be &lt;strong&gt;seven&lt;/strong&gt; ‘sevens,’ and &lt;strong&gt;sixty-two&lt;/strong&gt; ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Daniel 9:25-26  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and was crucified, and the Romans destroyed the city.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last week, or seven years, is understood to be the 7 years of tribulation. At the end of tribulation, Christ will come and accomplish Dan. 9:24 and put an end to the abomination and the one who set it up. The Dome of the Rock was completed around the year 691AD. Jesus says &quot;then let those who are Judea flee to the mountains&quot;. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/the_jews_of_babylon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jews were in Babylon at that time&lt;/a&gt;. Jesus also says that the abomination will cause desolation, which the Dome itself does not. Given these, I would say no, the Dome of the Rock is not &quot;the abomination of desolation&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Something to consider, in Revelation 13, we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Revelation 13:14-15  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The image that the beast causes man to build and worship, he will give it the ability to speak and to kill those who do not worship it. Also this supposedly takes place amidst tribulation and end times, and the Jews will (currently &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt;) dwelling in Israel, which they haven't since 70AD. Perhaps this &quot;image&quot; is it. It does not say where it will be built, but if the beast is the false messiah, it could very possibly be at the temple mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2013-09-16T02:07:41.053" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T02:07:41.053" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13805" CreationDate="2013-09-12T22:44:09.030" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original poster asks three questions about Mary approaching Jesus regarding the wine situation at Cana.  Many interesting answers have been posted and I have only my own opinion to contribute.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me give my answer to the second question first:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Was the family very close to her/them ?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John gives us a hint about the relationship of the families:&#xA;  ' On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.&#xA;  Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious naive interpretation here is that Mary was a friend of the bride or the groom or their families or some combination of this, and that Jesus and his disciples were invited as a courtesy.   I think she was most likely a friend of the mother of the bride as she has a roughly thirty year old son and the ages work out, and a female friend seems more likely than a male. Possibly a relative also, look at how many people of note in the Gospels are related, e.g. John the Baptist is Jesus' cousin and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to amplify: If I wrote about a wedding in the early US, &quot;Abigail Adams was there, and John Quincy Adams and his friends were also invited&quot;, wouldn't one's natural assumption be that Abigail is the primary guest and the others mentioned were invited because of her?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Actually some of the other posters have inspired me to speculate what this might 'mean' for humanity if true -  I think that the wedding feast might be like our little world, and that Jesus came here for Mary's sake, that without her Jesus would be doing other things.  I think God has /plenty/ of worlds, universes, to take care of, and that if anything made him single out this world for special attention, it was Mary. The rest of us are just 'baggage', what God wanted from our universe was Mary - he conceived her as a perfect character (immaculately!) then I think the rest of our world is arranged around her.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now my answer to the first question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Is there any indication or insight as to why she did so ?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John tells us &#xA;   'When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see Mary as a close friend of the family pointing out a problem to Jesus, she is pointing it out BECAUSE it is her friends who have the problem. It's nothing to do with him in some sense  but she is concerned for her friends. In particular the parents who are providing the refreshments might look bad and I think Mary felt for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then:&#xA;  [And] Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”&#xA;   Jesus seems not to understand Mary's concern here. Now we are pretty sure he really does understand the problem, even if he weren't God he was still very intelligent - we know he confounded educated people at the temple, that he seemed like a prodigy to them when he was much younger.  Mary knew him better than anyone, much better than we do, she knows he doesn't mean &quot;I don't understand the situation.&quot;  I read this as a much more sophisticated exchange. We know he is an adult at this time and even if she is humanity's greatest genius (which I suspect she might be) he is something more than that. So my guess is that he is teaching her something, if she wants to learn it, and incidentally, teaching us something as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What could he be teaching her? or us? I don't know but what I see here is that he is saying that he is detached from the situation, that the time hasn't come for him to interfere in human affairs.  I'm reminded of stories about ascended beings in science fiction and the like. Jesus could solve this problem but he could solve /any/ human problem if what we (Catholics at least) believe about him is true - he could have the Romans leave Judea, he could make humans immortal, he could bring back unicorns and so on. But he doesn't work that way. People are free to do what they please and have to accept the consequences of their choices. It isn't time for him to fiddle things around and fix things, without being invited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that brings us to this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.&quot;'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She doesn't tell Jesus &quot;They have a problem, fix it.&quot; She doesn't say &quot;make a miracle&quot;. If the childhood legends of Jesus are true she knows he can do miracles, certainly she knows he is special from what Gabriel told her! Plus he grew up with her, even if she has forgotten he is miraculous or divine, she knows he is a genius, he can figure out a solution that will save the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But he says 'My hour is not yet come.'  I don't think his hour is set on a schedule, at least not one that she knows!  It's sometime in the future, and she figures it out, because she is a genius also! Not surprising that she is no dummy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His hour comes when he it comes. She causes it to come!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She tells the servants, &quot;Do what he tells you.&quot;  And she sets the ball rolling for the rest of the story, his rise to fame and glory.  She knows this is risky, but it is she who triggers his hour coming by telling the servants to obey him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What can we learn from this?  Again, I don't know, but to me the obvious thing is that Jesus leaves us to live life without interference until he is invited.  Christians are like the servants whom Mary tells, &quot;Do what he tells you&quot;  (she says something similar elsewhere to people in general but I haven't found it just now).  Our job is to make the wedding nice for everyone, including non Christians, we are just the servants. Jesus can handle all the miraculous parts and can tell us the strategy but he allows us to help by fetching water to fill the jars and so on - he tells them to fill the jars with about 100 gallons of water, note that he doesn't just miracle that water in there. So there is plenty for us to do.  I also think that whatever we do actually helps, sure He doesn't /need/ the help, he could just miracle away problems or fetch the water himself, but that's not the /optimal solution/, the optimal solutions involves us doing some of the work. I think that miraculous solutions are probably /just as much work/ as normal methods, or /more/, but since God does all the heavy lifting, we say &quot;Oh that looks easy&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Or was it simply the time for Jesus to perform a public miracle and it came about in this manner?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't see this but it sounds insightful.  I feel it worked the other way around, that this was the first public miracle because of the situation, and that if it was &quot;time for it&quot; that just means that the overall storyline of the universe had a miracle-shaped space there. Hmm this makes a bit of sense. But  my feeling is that we can study the actual storyline and learn more than by studying some screenplay formula that says &quot;miracle at the end of act two&quot; in general, which what I take &quot;time for it&quot; to mean. Apologies if I am missing the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5741" LastActivityDate="2013-09-12T22:44:09.030" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19019" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-12T22:57:16.623" Score="14" ViewCount="725" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Francis made some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/pope-francis-atheists-abide-consciences&quot;&gt;recent comments in a letter&lt;/a&gt;, which are being summarized in headlines like, &quot;Pope Francis tells atheists to abide by their own consciences.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the full context of the Pope's remarks represent a change in doctrine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-07T15:19:58.577" LastActivityDate="2015-08-07T15:19:58.577" Title="Do Pope Francis' recent comments on atheism represent a change in doctrine?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;atheism&gt;&lt;conscience&gt;&lt;pope-francis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19019" CreationDate="2013-09-12T23:43:37.103" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will quote the Council of Florence and let you draw your own conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that&#xA;  all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but&#xA;  also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life&#xA;  and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil&#xA;  and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of&#xA;  their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such&#xA;  importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s&#xA;  sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, alms giving and other&#xA;  works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal&#xA;  rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given&#xA;  away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ,&#xA;  unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic&#xA;  Church.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-01-24T21:40:52.357" LastActivityDate="2014-01-24T21:40:52.357" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19022" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-13T03:16:02.067" Score="2" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;I thought God is omniscient. So how come He doesn't know the place he will be worshiped during the exodus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the Bible says the place God will choose, not the place God will reveal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;there will be a site that God &lt;strong&gt;will choose&lt;/strong&gt; as the place dedicated to&#xA;  His name. It is there that you will have to bring all that I am&#xA;  prescribing to you as your burnt offerings, eaten sacrifices,&#xA;  [special] tithes, hand-delivered elevated gifts, and the choice&#xA;  general pledges that you may pledge to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, the Jews believe that the place is Jerusalem and the Samaritans, never being told where the place should be, just picked their own place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Was&lt;/strong&gt; God still undecided where the place of the temple would be, &lt;strong&gt;during the Exodus&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He &lt;strong&gt;didn't&lt;/strong&gt; know what he would choose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-09-18T14:29:16.337" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T12:02:58.990" Title="Why didn't God decide where the temple should be built during the exodus?" Tags="&lt;will-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19023" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19022" CreationDate="2013-09-13T07:31:49.447" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God did not reveal everything at once to the Prophets in the past.&lt;/strong&gt; Revelation from God is a progressive revelation. Lets see some examples-&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Law was a progressive addition:&lt;/strong&gt; God gave few laws to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9). God then gave circumcision law to Abraham (Genesis 17). At last, the complete law was given in a written form to Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Messiah was not clearly revealed in OT:&lt;/strong&gt; For the Christians, the New Testament is the truth for interpreting the Old Testament. The NT is the final revelation of who the Messiah is and gives us a clear picture of the Messiah, not a vague and shadowy picture like the OT.  The name of the Messiah as &quot;Jesus&quot; was not clearly predicted in the OT. If the name of Messiah was clearly written in OT, I believe there is higher probability for the Jews to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The OT did not clearly mention that Messiah will be crucified, though the NT says the prophecy is hidden in Psalms 22 and others.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Applying the same concept to the Temple, we can infer that God did not reveal the chosen site for the Temple at once to Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How the Temple site was chosen in Jerusalem:&lt;/strong&gt; In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2021&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Chronicles 21&lt;/a&gt;, David aroused the anger of the LORD by counting the fighting men in Israel. The Lord sent Gad, David's prophet to inform the punishment from God. God sent a plague on Israel and sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then &lt;strong&gt;the angel of the Lord ordered Gad to tell David to go up and&#xA;  build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the&#xA;  Jebusite&lt;/strong&gt;. So David went up in obedience to the word that Gad had&#xA;  spoken in the name of the Lord. While Araunah was threshing wheat, he&#xA;  turned and saw the angel; his four sons who were with him hid&#xA;  themselves. Then David approached, and when Araunah looked and saw&#xA;  him, he left the threshing floor and bowed down before David with his&#xA;  face to the ground. David said to him, “Let me have the site of your&#xA;  threshing floor so I can build an altar to the Lord, that the plague&#xA;  on the people may be stopped. Sell it to me at the full price.” (1&#xA;  Chronicles 21:18-22, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David then decided to built the Temple there at the threshing site of Araunah the&#xA;Jebusite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then David said, “The house of the Lord God is to be here, and also&#xA;  the altar of burnt offering for Israel.” (1 Chronicles 22:1, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible doesn't clearly mention why David chose that place for the Temple site. There was probably some divine understanding given to David that God has chosen that site for the Temple or David was divinely inspired because he was a man of God. We can see how God approved the alter built there by sending a fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels of gold for the site.&#xA;  David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt offerings&#xA;  and fellowship offerings. He called on the Lord, and the &lt;strong&gt;Lord answered&#xA;  him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering&lt;/strong&gt;. (1 Chronicles 21:25-26, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And later, when Solomon built the Temple there, God approved it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord said to him: “I have heard the prayer and plea you have made&#xA;  before me; &lt;strong&gt;I have consecrated this temple, which you have built, by&#xA;  putting my Name there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be&#xA;  there&lt;/strong&gt;. (1 Kings 9:3, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-09-13T08:05:03.947" LastActivityDate="2013-09-13T08:05:03.947" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19024" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19019" CreationDate="2013-09-13T07:51:18.613" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;A change in doctrine, if it is possible at all, can only be expressed with a definitive statement &lt;em&gt;ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt;. The Pope wrote in his letter&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Le accolga come la risposta tentativa e provvisoria,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Please accept this as a tentative and provisional response&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so no, it does not express any change in doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_letter-66336961/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the English translation&lt;/a&gt;, the Holy Father writes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt; Each of us is called to accept the view and the choice of love made by Jesus, become a part of his way of being, thinking and acting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a definitive statement of what God expects of mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He goes on,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt; First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.  Given that  &amp;mdash;  and this is fundamental  &amp;mdash;  God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience.  In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil.  The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is saying much the same thing as Benedict XVI did when he spoke about the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7487/did-pope-benedict-xvi-grant-permission-for-hetrosexual-couples-to-use-artifical&quot;&gt;use of condoms&lt;/a&gt; in combatting AIDS. Consideration of one's actions and the reasons for them is the first step on the road to faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In explaining that God's mercy has no limits, Pope Francis writes &quot;if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart&quot;. That presupposes that the person asking for mercy is asking of a God he believes in [or who is he addressing?] and with sorrow for not having believed in the past. The Pope has not contradicted the tenet that belief in God is necessary; far from it. What he has done, though, in directing people to obey their conscience &amp;mdash; their God-given sense of good and evil &amp;mdash; is to point them in the direction of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both Popes are encouraging that first step in searching out the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Truth is not] variable and subjective ... it is given to us only as a way and a life.  Was it not Jesus himself who said:  &quot;I am the way, the truth, the life&quot;?  In other words, the truth is one with love, it requires humbleness and the willingness to be sought, listened to and expressed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Seek the truth; find it and repent; and you will enter heaven.&lt;/strong&gt; This is consistent with the teaching of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T15:46:04.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19022" CreationDate="2013-09-13T08:51:30.087" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mawia is correct (+1):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God did not reveal everything at once to the Prophets in the past. Revelation from God is a progressive revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is eternal. He exists outside what we know as &quot;time and space&quot;. That means that he can see everything within our time and space &amp;mdash; he &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; omniscient. And &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/18700/1377&quot;&gt;he doesn't change&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in order to interact with mankind, he needs to act within our time and space. He isn't limited; he could do whatever he wanted; but by acting within the laws he created for our time and space he doesn't blow our tiny minds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that although he knows what the situation is (in his time-frame, whatever that is), &lt;strong&gt;we&lt;/strong&gt; need to work though a process and he needs to facilitate that by a progressive revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-09-13T08:51:30.087" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19012" CreationDate="2013-09-13T10:31:12.980" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no doubt but that Spurgeon was a five point Calvinist:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://weecalvin1509.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/chsindex.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://weecalvin1509.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/chsindex.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Spurgeon's own quotes affirming all the 5 points together and each of the 5 points individually. As for Andrew Fuller - In the foreward of his book on the Sovereignty of God, AW Pink described Fuller as &quot;eminent and honored.&quot; See:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://weecalvin1509.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/carey.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://weecalvin1509.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/carey.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5744" LastActivityDate="2013-09-13T10:31:12.980" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19027" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19029" CreationDate="2013-09-13T12:28:03.473" Score="3" ViewCount="256" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Father's love for us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;See what &lt;strong&gt;great&lt;/strong&gt; love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be&#xA;  called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world&#xA;  does not know us is that it did not know him. (1 John 3:1, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that&#xA;  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John&#xA;  3:16, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son's love for us:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for&#xA;  us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.&#xA;  (1 John 3:16, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Greater&lt;/strong&gt; love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s&#xA;  friends. (John 15:13, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which one is a greater love; to give the one and only son, or to give one's own life?&#xA;Is the love of the Father and the Son for us equally same? Who has greater love for us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2014-01-03T00:02:31.820" Title="Is Christ's love for us greater than the Father's?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-09-04T02:58:22.133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19028" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19027" CreationDate="2013-09-13T12:42:03.720" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I and my Father are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 10:30&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus and the Father had the plan of redemption from the beginning of this world. Their plans are the same because they are the same in thought. They love us immensely and equally. Their very essence is love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 John 4:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you read through 1 John 4 you will see that love is from God, that is the Godhead. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore because of this, the love of Jesus is not greater than that of His Father, or the Holy spirit for that matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I'll also include this one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my&#xA;  love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 15:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-09-13T12:42:03.720" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19027" CreationDate="2013-09-13T12:54:22.123" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is problematic whenever we attempt to separate the inseparable Trinity, so let us acknowledge that to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible never seems to suggest that the Holy Triune God has the capacity to love in varying measures.  Indeed, God only knows one way to love.  His love is complete and total--not partial.  His love, like He Himself, does not increase or decrease.  His love does not grow, diminish, expand or contract.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the fact that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) each love mankind indicates that their love is equivalent and complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-09-13T12:54:22.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19030" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-13T16:36:11.707" Score="0" ViewCount="46843" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the&#xA;  road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small&#xA;  is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few&#xA;  find it. (Matthew 7:13-14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For any individual to enter the kingdom of God, it is necessary to use a gate. Why is it true that so few find this gate?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5056" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-09-14T06:35:26.343" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T13:01:24.170" Title="What did Jesus mean by saying &quot;only a few find the narrow gate&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2013-09-18T14:27:42.080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19030" CreationDate="2013-09-13T17:01:30.767" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ask, and It Will Be Given&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this is the Verse Preceding what you are referring to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;what I think that this means is that without the example of Jesus Christ finding this gate to heaven would be very difficult, like a camel through the eye of a needle, living the way that is expected through the law is near impossible (Jesus Did it) but he came and saved us, and &lt;strong&gt;showed us the way&lt;/strong&gt;, all we need to do is ask for his salvation that he gives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reference to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.biblegateway.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Additional&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;King James Version of Verse 7:14 Reads &lt;code&gt; Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this says that the &lt;strong&gt;narrow way&lt;/strong&gt; is what few find.  not the gate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and again I will repeat my comment,  it doesn't specify the amount of people that find the way, it only says few,  which could mean that fewer people find the way than those who don't find the way, and if you look at the world today you can see why this is true, too many people have no &lt;strong&gt;desire&lt;/strong&gt; to walk the straight and narrow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-13T18:45:13.587" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19032" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19030" CreationDate="2013-09-13T17:15:35.413" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The narrow road that leads to the gate is more metaphorical. He says the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to life because this path is not the easy path, and Jesus told us that it would be like this. He is saying to do the things he teaches is going to be a challenge and require discipline. It is not easy or natural to have humility, be slow to anger, resist your lusts, give to the poor, be discriminated or ridiculed for your faith, love your enemies, fast, forgive those who hurt you, etc. (&quot;bear your cross&quot; and follow Jesus in His example).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a short &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adBWAdJwwzk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;youtube video&lt;/a&gt; of a sermon on this I found on google.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Few people will find the gate because they are unwilling to walk the narrow road and follow Jesus. The majority would rather go their own ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Update: It seems from your comments under Malachi's answer that you think few means 2 or 3, and that's what you're asking about. So just to make this more complete..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;adjective&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  1.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  not many but more than one: Few artists live luxuriously.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  noun&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  ( used with a plural verb ) a small number or amount: Send me a few.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  3.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;the few&lt;/strong&gt;, a special, limited number; the minority: That music appeals to the few.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/few?s=t&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/few?s=t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2013-09-13T21:44:19.570" LastActivityDate="2013-09-13T21:44:19.570" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18835" CreationDate="2013-09-13T22:04:39.360" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;To begin answering your question let me first begin by saying that the Bible makes only two references to birthday celebrations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen. 40:20-22 (NWT): “Now on the third day it turned out to be Pharaoh’s birthday, and he proceeded to make a feast . . . Accordingly he returned the chief of the cupbearers to his post of cupbearer . . . But the chief of the bakers he hung up.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt. 14:6-10 (NWT): “When Herod’s birthday was being celebrated the daughter of Herodias danced at it and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Then she, under her mother’s coaching, said: ‘Give me here upon a platter the head of John the Baptist.’ . . . He sent and had John beheaded in the prison.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our view on the matter is take note that God’s Word reports &lt;strong&gt;unfavorably&lt;/strong&gt; about birthday celebrations and for this reason we reject participating in these sort of occasions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's no Bible law that says that we must not celebrate birthdays. However, if we think about it principle, then we can discern if celebrating is even close to something that God would disapprove of. After all, everything that is in the Bible is there for a reason. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if we take a look back into history, we can observe that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[…] &quot;the origins of birthday celebrations lie in the realm of magic and religion. The customs of offering congratulations, presenting gifts and celebrating—complete with lighted candles—in ancient times were meant to protect the birthday celebrant from the demons and to ensure his security for the coming year […] Down to the fourth century Christianity rejected the birthday celebration as a pagan custom.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  —Schwäbische Zeitung (magazine supplement Zeit und Welt), April 3/4, 1981, p. 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea […] This notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and the patron saint […] The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks […] Honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were placed on the temple altars of [Artemis] […] Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes […] Lighted tapers and sacrificial fires have had a special mystic significance ever since man first set up altars to his gods. The birthday candles are thus an honor and tribute to the birthday child and bring good fortune […] Birthday greetings and wishes for happiness are an intrinsic part of this holiday […] Originally the idea was rooted in magic […] Birthday greetings have power for good or ill because one is closer to the spirit world on this day.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  —The Lore of Birthdays (New York, 1952), Ralph and Adelin Linton, pp. 8, 18-20.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sounds familiar? Again, these references are only to show you what birthday celebrations are connected to. In sight of what you find at Deuteronomy 18:10-14, We as Jehovah's Witnesses take our stand against engaging in what the God's word speaks unfavorably of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that we do not celebrate anything? No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5751" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-07-22T06:00:46.037" LastActivityDate="2014-07-22T06:00:46.037" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19030" CreationDate="2013-09-14T06:09:31.637" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will go by the New Living Translation version.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:13-14&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 7:13-14 (NLT)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway&#xA;  to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who &lt;strong&gt;choose&lt;/strong&gt; that&#xA;  way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult,&#xA;  and only a few ever &lt;strong&gt;find&lt;/strong&gt; it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the meaning of the word  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/find&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;find&quot;&lt;/a&gt; is &quot;&lt;em&gt;To come upon or discover by searching or making an effort&lt;/em&gt;&quot;. To find something requires some effort from the person who is searching for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The gate and the way represent the same thing&lt;/strong&gt;. The context here in this verse is that many people choose the broad and easy way but very few choose the narrow and difficult way. The broad way has a wide gate and the narrow way has a narrow gate. It is not important here whether the gate comes first or is at the end of the road.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The way of the world, connoted as the &lt;strong&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Highway to Hell&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;, is an easy to choose broad way. It is so easy to find it. The way of this world is everywhere; immorality, ungodliness, waywardness etc. are all around us. In fact, you don't even have to search the &quot;Highway to Hell&quot; because it's all around you. If don't want to follow Jesus Christ and carry your own cross, you have already chosen to go through the &lt;em&gt;Highway to Hell&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Narrow way to Heaven&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, in contrast, is difficult to choose because our sinful nature always drag us towards the world. Following Jesus requires carrying your own cross, run your own race, obeying the word of God. Many people know this way but are not willing to choose it and go through it. Instead, many people love this world so much and can't just let go of it. Still, many people are blinded by Satan and choose to believe lies and false religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus is the gate and the way to Heaven&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am the gate&lt;/strong&gt;; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will&#xA;  come in and go out, and find pasture. (John 10:9, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “&lt;strong&gt;I am the way&lt;/strong&gt; and the truth and the life. No one comes&#xA;  to the Father except through me. (John 14:6, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let us choose Jesus as this song says - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL2bZfHmsDs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I choose Jesus (Moriah Peters)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-09-14T08:35:36.537" LastActivityDate="2013-09-14T08:35:36.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19042" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1855" CreationDate="2013-09-14T07:04:33.857" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is said in 1 Thessalonians 5:17 to pray continually, so you don't have to care about the positions of the body, because if you're praying continually, you pray in every position, so just pray in every moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5755" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-09-14T11:35:18.953" LastActivityDate="2013-09-14T11:35:18.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19030" CreationDate="2013-09-14T17:32:30.193" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew Chapter 7 is often thought to be in reference to those that will enter into the kingdom versus those that will not.  If one reads in advance to verse 13 they will discover that the opening line is “judge not, that ye be not judged” and what follows is a warning: “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then in verses 7-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you…if ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”  In verse 12 we are given insight: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the &lt;strong&gt;law and the prophets&lt;/strong&gt;. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This whole narrative is in regard to our relationship with one another.  “Judge not”,  “remove the plank out of your own eye”,  “whatsoever ye would that men should do to you”, this is the law of the Prophets.  In Matthew 22 Jesus also spoke of the law of the Prophets: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind… love your neighbor as yourself.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore in keeping with the narrative the wide gate that leads to destruction would be those works Paul speaks of that will not stand the test of fire and the narrow gate would be those works that stand the test of fire as they are conceived by God’s love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 3:8-…every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour…Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: &lt;strong&gt;but he himself shall be saved&lt;/strong&gt;; yet so as by fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word in Matthew 7 translated as “narrow” is done so only in this verse.  The Greek word being translated “thlibō” generally is translated as trouble or afflict.  Grace, Christ’s work on the cross (His trouble or affliction) is the narrow gate and the greatest love.  John 15:13 “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:9 &amp;quot;I am the door (gate): by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:24 &amp;quot;Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T13:01:24.170" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18980" CreationDate="2013-09-15T02:35:55.600" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure I'd limit the application &quot;abomination of desolation&quot; to a single event/place/thing.  Many scholars believe that the references in the book of Daniel (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) refer to the time of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes who made an unclean sacrifice in the Jewish temple (among other terrible things) in the 2nd century BC.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, in the New Testament (Matt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14) this would be a past event, so would be applied to something else.  If you look at the parallel passage in Luke you'll find something interesting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mk. 13:14 - &quot;So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken by&#xA;  Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, then let those who&#xA;  are in Judea flee to the mountains.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lk. 21:20-21 - &quot;But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then&#xA;  know that its desolation is near.  Then let those who are in Judea&#xA;  flee to the mountains...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And then notice Mk. 13:30:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Assuredly I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away&#xA;  until all these things take place.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if you take &quot;generation&quot; to mean the people living at that time, then the application here would refer to the time when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies sometime in the first century.  And in fact, we find that the Roman armies did so and destroyed the entire city and temple (70 AD).  The Romans were an abomination that made the city desolate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Multiple applications seem to make sense because Antiochus IV Epiphanes matches so remarkably well to the descriptions in Daniel, yet Jesus' application had to be different because Antiochus was already past.  They were both abominations of desolation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, as to the &quot;Dome of the Rock&quot; theory.  It is interesting that the Dome of the Rock only exists because the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 AD, so perhaps, in a sense an application of &quot;abomination of desolation&quot; could be made here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures in Daniel and Matthew/Mark/Luke seem to specifically point to the applications I've cited above, but certainly a Jew would view the mosque as &quot;an&quot; abomination of desolation due to its location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5659" LastActivityDate="2013-09-15T02:35:55.600" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4015" CreationDate="2013-09-15T06:49:56.013" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;the sixth seal (rev 6:12-13) are prophecies that have already been fulfilled, it is the sign of the opening and establishment of the new world., where people went to escape religious prosecution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;verse 12 gives us three signs signifying the sixth seal being opened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and lo there was a great earthquake&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Great earthquake of Lisbon 1755 which killed a huge amount of people and was one of the biggest earthquakes in history&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and the sun became black as a sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the dark day of New England may 19th 1780 it was dark in the daytime, and the moon was red.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth , even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The great meteor shower of 1833 when countless meteors shot across the sky, and the meteors appeared to fly in all directions, and has been one of the biggest meteor showers in recorded history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;notice how all these events happened in the order that rev 6:12-13 puts them in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But these are only telling us that we are close, but we will never know how close.&#xA;Because we cannot guess when the day will come, because he comes as a thief in the night, and people will not be prepared for his coming.&#xA;we can only look to the signs and prophecies that signify that his coming is close, but not yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;may peace be upon you all, and i pray that each and every one of you who read this will stay fervent seekers of truth, and will come to understand the truth more and more.&#xA;do not pray to god to be right in what you say, but pray that you will find what is right instead. and continually seek for truth, and to understand it. &#xA;Because even an 80 year old man who has studied the bible for almost his whole life, still finds, and comes to understand more things the more he studies it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;god speed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5761" LastEditorUserId="5761" LastEditDate="2013-09-15T06:55:26.113" LastActivityDate="2013-09-15T06:55:26.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19030" CreationDate="2013-09-15T14:44:35.090" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand why few people find it, it's important to define the narrow way and why it is narrow. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus spoke these words as part of a sermon spoken on a mountain to the people. The context of the sermon answers the question of the narrow way’s identity. The sermon is about the character of the kingdom of God in a believer’s life. The narrow way is the kingdom of God, as distinct from the established religion the people were familiar with. Let’s look at several examples taken from the Sermon on the Mount, one from each of the three chapters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Matthew 5:7). How easy it is to withhold mercy than to extend it. We say, “He hurt me, so I’ll make him suffer,” rather than show mercy and forgive. How much easier it is to bear grudges than let them go with compassion. How quick we think of revenge for the wrongs against us, and hope the person is terribly punished. How quickly our tempers flare; and we seethe, wanting to tell off that person, or talk about him behind his back to hurt him indirectly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be merciful is a product of God’s work in the believer. It is not natural to us. This is a narrow way and it leads to life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Our Father prayer in Matthew 6 is instructive for the narrow way. “Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). Who is seeking God’s will about a matter? Are we not naturally self-seeking? Do we not look at our time and resources and figure out how to get whatever we want? Don’t we check our own feelings and thoughts about an issue and make a decision? What is God’s will for your life? Do you think about it? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11). In our unrelenting self-reliance, who ever says the Our Father prayer anymore, except by rote memory in some churches? Who has developed the sense that God has taken it upon himself to care for those who are trusting in him as little children? To be dependent on God is a product of God’s work in the believer. It is not natural to us. This is a narrow way and it leads to life. The narrow way is God’s way influencing our thoughts and actions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). How readily we judge/condemn others! It seems as if entire radio, Internet, and television shows are developed just for judging others. “Did you see their hairdo? Like a mop!” “Who would wear a thing like that?” The judgment calls roll nonstop while the audience rolls their eyes in agreement, clap in appreciation at the “insight,” and shake their heads in tune with the condemnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is a narrow road, a rare thing, for someone to turn the judgment to oneself and speak the truth in the heart about oneself. Rather than judging someone else, can we turn the observation inward and see how we are all fallen? How we all share the same failures, the same sins? May we find the help and mercy of God to remove our planks; then when a person relates her problem, instead of judging her, we could tell them we’ve had the same problem, but God has helped us overcome, and we are confident that God could well handle their much smaller problem, or speck. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be self-judging and gaining victory over our major faults through God’s patient help is a product of God’s work in the believer. It is not natural to us. This life where God changes us a narrow way and it leads to life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reasons why the narrow way is so hard to find are quite varied. 1) It requires personal dependence on a Savior from sin, but society has wired us to find quick solutions to problems rather than go deeper to cultivate a life with God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) In general, people misunderstand their organized religion, thinking that going to church, being nice, and doing one’s best is all that God requires. We can’t remember everything in the Bible, so we sum up some basic ideas (“Do to others as you want them to do to you”) and never go deeper. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) We become like those we associate with. We naturally conform to the culture in which we take part. If their tendency is to defer to the local leadership or local custom, then we will eventually parrot that to others; but is the custom to seek God? Is the culture a God-seeking culture, or a culture of established ritualistic habits (think of the Pharisees)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“”Few there be that find it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everlasting life is knowing God (John 17:3). But our fast-paced society continually encourages us to remain on the broad way. It’s no wonder that it’s a narrow way and few find it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-09-15T14:58:59.733" LastActivityDate="2013-09-15T14:58:59.733" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19055" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15353" CreationDate="2013-09-15T15:23:50.610" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll certainly unpack this for you. Although I would not trust that internet reading alone would give anybody a comprehensive understanding of the Jewish religion (or any other religion, for that matter), you can read about Jewish conceptions of the afterlife here, for example: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife &lt;/a&gt;. There is no single doctrine to which Jews adhere regarding the afterlife (in fact, many Jews do not have any defined concept of an afterlife at all). What I would like to propose is that Jesus' words that do seem to reference a state of exile or suffering may not be doctrinal, but rather metaphorical in nature. Whether this state is an external, otherworldly one or an internal state of mind / soul in this life is a matter of debate. I should mention here that the &quot;traditional&quot; Christian doctrine of an otherworldly heaven and hell has been linked by scholars to Zoroastrianism--a religion which strongly influenced some types of early Christianity as well as Judaism. Therefore, a question: how do we know that orthodox Christian doctrines are not the outgrowth of historical misunderstandings / misinterpretations of Jesus' words? To further complicate things, you have the entirety of the Gnostic scriptures to deal with (which include some of the earliest known Christian writings), and if, after reading them, you do not find your traditional understanding of Christian doctrines disturbed, you probably aren't reading closely enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read about Gehenna, Zoroastrianism, and Gnosticism on Wikipedia or do some scholarly / historical research on your own, and thus come to your own conclusions. There is a gigantic body of research already done regarding these matters, and I would not consider any list of books that I could provide comprehensive enough to do this body of work justice. In addition, please do not simply accept my, or anybody's, answers to these questions without thinking for yourself and doing some investigation into them on your own. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm glad that Matthew 7: 17-23 was brought up. Here are the verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, AffableGeek, is it possible to say that, for those Jesus is speaking about here, simple belief in Jesus/God does not suffice to allow entrance into the &quot;kingdom of heaven&quot;? They did all kinds of miracles in Jesus' name and called upon him as their &quot;Lord,&quot; but still, they did not actively &quot;do the will of [Jesus'] Father in heaven&quot; and so they do not enter into the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What might it mean to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Let's look at another passage. Here is Luke 17:20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he [Jesus] said in reply, 'The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or 'There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is within you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus does not say that the kingdom of God is external to you or that it is a destination that one reaches only after physical death, but that it is within you--present in this very life at this very moment. Perhaps, then, it would be wise to consider that both &quot;heaven&quot; and &quot;hell&quot; as they are traditionally conceived (as eternal, external states of being) are, in actuality, inner states of mind or soul that are generated by actions in this life. In short, perhaps these notions are only metaphors, as I stated above. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this light, let’s consider the beginning of the Gospel of Thomas:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Jesus said, If your leaders say to you, ‘Behold, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds in the sky will get there before you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will get there before you. Rather, the kingdom is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and embody poverty” (Saying 3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is never clear about the existential ontology of a physical “heaven” or “hell,” but he is clear about other more important issues. He is clear about the fact that love is that which is most central to his message, not judgment. In answer to a scholar of the law who asks Jesus, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus asks him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” The scholar (not Jesus himself) answers, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus replies to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live” (Luke 10: 25-28).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer to AffableGeek's question regarding John 3:18--please note that these are not Jesus' words, but the words of whomever it was who wrote the Gospel of John (and whoever that person was, it was certainly not the apostle John himself. Contemporary scholars know that none of the four traditional Gospels were written by those whose name they bear.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The initial question was whether or not Jesus actually ever said &quot;If you don't believe in me you go to hell.&quot; Did he say these words exactly, ever? If I am missing something, please let me know. Yes, the author of the Gospel of John says something approximate to this (depending on how you interpret his words), and yet Jesus never did himself. And yes, Jesus is said to have spoken the following words after the resurrection, according to Mark 16:16: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, as I have already shown above, Matthew 7:17-21 refutes the notion that mere faith suffices for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Another question: how do we know that the passage from Mark’s Gospel (or any other passages in the bible, Gnostic scriptures, etc. for that matter) quotes Jesus directly? Like most other accounts of episodes in Jesus’ life, resurrection accounts greatly contradict one another. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the Official Doctrine of Hell was so important to Jesus himself (like it is to so many fundamentalists), why didn't Jesus explicitly say that one must believe in him and accept him as one’s “personal savior” to get to “heaven” while he was alive over and over again? Also, if we are to take everything written in the bible as absolute truth, we should also, for example, wholeheartedly support slavery, since Paul tells us that slavery is a natural state of being (Ephesians 6:5). There are a great number of other horrible, violent, and/or nonsensical “dogmas” that the writers of the books of the bible advance as well. Must we accept all of them unquestioningly, and return to a medieval state of existence in which—for example—our “women” are considered untouchable during their menstrual cycles, as Leviticus 15: 19-30 dictates?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is much more to say about all these matters, and much more evidence to be considered that I cannot speak of here due to space and time issues. Please do reading on your own, and don't expect the internet or other people to answer such important questions. If you're serious about an intellectual foray into questions of this nature, sign up for some university courses about religion or do reading on your own, as I said. It may be that you'll be surprised at what you can discover.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peace to all of you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5763" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2017-02-01T23:46:38.717" LastActivityDate="2017-02-01T23:46:38.717" CommentCount="21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19062" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-15T22:07:38.987" Score="6" ViewCount="1546" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many hymns refer to the immense cost that Jesus paid on the cross. In one sense this is consistent with evangelical theology in that Jesus was taking the sins of the world upon himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But some songs use phrases like &quot;You gave up everything for me&quot;, or &quot;So infinite the cost&quot;. What can that mean? Presumably it must be either the Incarnation or, more likely, his sacrifice on the Cross, right? But, well, Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later, and ascended back into heaven 40 days after that, going back to the Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It always seems to me that Jesus, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, had spent a long time in heaven even after Earth was created before his first coming (at least four thousand years and possibly millions); he's spent at least two thousand years between his first and second comings; and will have eternity with the redeemed praising him after the second coming. So why is spending 3 days (or rather 1-and-a-half days) separated from the Father, or even 33 years on earth, such a big sacrifice in the grand scheme of things? Even more so given &quot;a thousand years are like one day to the Lord&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm most interested in answers compatible with a (British) evangelical position, but up for helpful answers from anyone :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5494" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T01:22:48.623" Title="Why was Christ's sacrifice such a big cost?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;&lt;sacrifice&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-06-20T07:10:04.293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19062" CreationDate="2013-09-15T23:10:34.160" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Philippians chapter 2 shares some good light on this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 ...Christ Jesus,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God a treasure to be grasped,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 But emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of a cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To go from Creator to creature, that's a big cost. But He not only became a creature, but He became like a slave among men. Even if He were to come down and be a king, that's still a big cost, but He was mistreated, hated, and abused by the very people He was doing so much to save. That's quite a cost. After all His living and work on the earth, His closest disciple, Peter, swore and cursed, saying he never even knew Jesus, right as Jesus was being tortured, and about to be crucified. That's quite a cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's the physical pain, too. I've heard that when they whipped people, as they did Jesus, they had to count out the whippings to make sure the people didn't die. They also had a doctor stand by to make sure they can survive to continue in the whippings. He didn't drink for about 24 hours I think in that last day, and He lost a lot of water when He was bleeding out. His hands and feet were nailed with big, rough (not factory made) nails into a cross and He was hung from these wounds. The way they put people on the cross means you can't breathe properly, so you have to pull on your hands to lift up your torso for every breath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in all these things He never cried out. He only cried out in the last moment, to say &quot;My God, why have You forsaken Me?&quot;. This indicates that with all the sin laid up on Him, God the Father turned away from His Son, and that was worse to Jesus than any of the humiliation, rejection, betrayal, physical and emotional pain that He suffered up to that moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I used to think that it wasn't a big deal, if Christ could just resurrect again, it doesn't matter if He dies; but I think it's much bigger a deal than I'll ever know ;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5767" LastActivityDate="2013-09-15T23:10:34.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15353" CreationDate="2013-09-15T23:21:23.893" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short Answer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible talks about people who reject/don't believe in Jesus as condemned, judged by the Spirit (in John 16) and by God at the end of this age (Revelation). In terms of &quot;Hell&quot;, that's a word we made up later, but in Revelation there is a lake of fire, where Satan is cast. I think those who follow Satan are also cast there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hell as a noun has many meanings all mashed up together. To make things clearer, it is designed to be a place of suffering for Satan, who rebelled against God. All thoughts of Satan or demons ruling the place or torturing people is completely wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Longer Answer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 16&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And when He comes, He will convict the world concerning sin and&#xA;  concerning righteousness and concerning judgment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 Concerning sin, because they do not believe into Me;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and&#xA;  you no longer behold Me;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been&#xA;  judged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;He&quot; in verse 8 is the Spirit.&#xA;So from this, the &quot;ruler of this world&quot; (Satan) has been judged, and because he has been judged, his kingdom has been judged, which sadly is the earth, especially the people on the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, these verses don't refer to &quot;hell&quot; explicitly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire&#xA;  and brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophet were; and&#xA;  they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the&#xA;  throne, and scrolls were opened; and another scroll was opened, which&#xA;  is the book of life. And the dead were judged by the things which were&#xA;  written in the scrolls, according to their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the&#xA;  second death, the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was&#xA;  cast into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What qualifies us to be written in the book of life, I don't know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 25&lt;/strong&gt; 41 Then He will say also to those on the left, Go away from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the&#xA;  devil and his angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this confirms that the lake of fire, a.k.a hell, is specifically prepared for &quot;the devil and his angels&quot;, but people who are rejected by God will also go into this &quot;eternal fire&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5767" LastEditorUserId="5767" LastEditDate="2014-06-27T01:12:49.610" LastActivityDate="2014-06-27T01:12:49.610" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19067" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-16T07:32:31.837" Score="3" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;Indeed it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this a straight foward verse or he was meaning only that rich man&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5770" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T18:01:13.447" Title="What did Jesus mean in Luke 18 vs 25" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-09-16T15:09:13.877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14416" CreationDate="2013-09-16T09:38:09.700" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems like a standard metaphor used through out the teaching of the bible to explain fairly basic concepts ( in my personal opinion this was done to remove complex explainations to very important teachings. Which prevents cultism with a leader proclaiming more knowledge then the others ) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does seem to explain away the impossibility of rich men to get into heaven in verse 27 . I feel it means that rich people need to rely on god even more so then the poor because they have to overcome an impossible feat in order to attain a place in heaven ( although this is not explicit in the text ) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a beautiful verse actually because it leads to this idea of impossibility and over coming impossibilities even in the physical. Its seems ( in my interpretation and in no way an absolute ) provide an underlines principle in reality. That we an not autonomous being like that of the creatures of the earth , but are far more .. to the degree that each one of us rich or poor , with the guidance of god himself hold the keys to the fabric of perceived reality itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SIDE TRACK&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course this also opens up a pandora's box so to speak , in that if anything is possible including the transversing of a camel through a needle , then what will happen if ( and I is taking this into hyperthetical land ) an immovable object is hit by an unstoppable force?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this regard, are paradox's themselves a mere creation by humans to understand away certain perceived uncertainties. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SIDE TRACK OVER&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the rich if they do believe should take warning of this verse and others like it. The love of money is the root of all evil and if you read psalms and proverbs and basically all of the new testament, the warnings of rich and wealth are never a good thing. Its sad that very powerful Christians leaders seem to flaut their wealth as a blessing and the not the curse that is seems to be presented as.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user3468" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T09:38:09.700" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13768" CreationDate="2013-09-16T13:16:30.680" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Who are the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses church?&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; The One True Almighty God &lt;strong&gt;JEHOVAH&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; His only begotten Son &lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt; who has &lt;em&gt;granted authority&lt;/em&gt; to Christ's &quot;&lt;strong&gt;faithful and discreet slave&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; as THE ONLY appointed channel by God during Christ's Heavenly &lt;strong&gt;PRESENCE&lt;/strong&gt; (from the GREEK word &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Parousia&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; which is often &lt;em&gt;mistranslated&lt;/em&gt; as &quot;Coming&quot;) of the Last Days of this world / system of things to provide the spiritual food and oversight needed to nourish Christ's domestics here on earth (&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:3,%2045-47&amp;amp;version=NLT;AKJV;AMP;YLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matt 24:3, 45-47&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;&lt;strong&gt;faithful and discreet slave&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; are the &lt;em&gt;remaining ones&lt;/em&gt; *still alive on earth* &lt;strong&gt;*&lt;em&gt;viewed as a collective body&lt;/strong&gt; / &lt;strong&gt;group&lt;/strong&gt; / &lt;strong&gt;whole&lt;/strong&gt; who have the true God given hope of &lt;strong&gt;RULING&lt;/strong&gt; with Christ in his Heavenly Kingdom.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This collective body and in fact &lt;strong&gt;ALL&lt;/strong&gt; dedicated and baptized members of the unified worldwide Christian Congregation of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;JEHOVAH'S&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Witnesses is theocratically governed by a centralized group of faithful, experienced, dedicated and baptized men known as &lt;strong&gt;the Governing Body&lt;/strong&gt;. Consequently, the members of the Governing Body &lt;em&gt;are ALL part of Christ's &quot;faithful and discreet slave&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We who are Jehovah's Witnesses therefore have but only &lt;strong&gt;ONE LEADER&lt;/strong&gt; and that Leader is the one &lt;em&gt;specifically appointed&lt;/em&gt; by Jehovah THE Almighty God Himself... Jehovah's beloved only begotten Son &lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt; (Matt 23:10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, our Leader is Almighty &lt;strong&gt;JEHOVAH&lt;/strong&gt; God &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; His appointed only begotten Son &lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt; whose leadership we greatly respect and submit to by remaining in OBEDIENCE to those &lt;em&gt;appointed&lt;/em&gt; by God through Christ &lt;em&gt;as outlined in the Holy Scriptures&lt;/em&gt; to take the lead among us (Heb 13:17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;~ NOTE: I am a dedicated and baptized member of the unified worldwide Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastEditorUserId="5773" LastEditDate="2013-09-16T13:31:34.483" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T13:31:34.483" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11962" CreationDate="2013-09-16T13:48:18.260" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;If most of the Jehovah's Witnesses today are not a part of the 144,000, then what exactly are they?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; While the scriptures show that a limited number of 144,000 have the God given hope of living FOREVER as Kings &amp;amp; Priests &lt;strong&gt;RULING&lt;/strong&gt; in God's Heavenly Kingdom with Christ himself, &lt;strong&gt;the overwhelming vast majority&lt;/strong&gt; of Jehovah's Witnesses have the awesome God given hope of living FOREVER on the Biblically foretold paradisaic New Earth as &lt;strong&gt;royal &lt;em&gt;subjects&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; of God's Heavenly Kingdom wherein the Scriptures state that such ones will &lt;em&gt;indeed&lt;/em&gt; find their &lt;strong&gt;exquisite delight&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;in the abundance of peace&lt;/em&gt;. (&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2037:11,%2029;%20Isaiah%2065:17,%2020-23;%20Matthew%205:5;%202%20Peter%203:13;%20Rev%2021:3-5&amp;amp;version=NLT;AKJV;AMP;YLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 37:11, 29; Isaiah 65:17, 20-23; Matthew 5:5; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:3-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the vast majority of the Churches of Christendom teach that there is but only one final destination for the faithful of God's chosen people, the Holy Scriptures teach and show that there is in fact &lt;em&gt;not one&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;but TWO final destinations&lt;/strong&gt; for the faithful of God's chosen people (Ruling in &lt;em&gt;Heaven&lt;/em&gt; or The foretold Paradisaic &lt;em&gt;New Earth&lt;/em&gt;). Almighty Jehovah God by means of His Holy Spirit through Christ determines who goes where in accordance to His divine will and everlasting purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;~ &lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; I am a dedicated and baptized member of the unified worldwide Christian Congregation of JEHOVAH'S Witnesses.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastEditorUserId="5773" LastEditDate="2013-09-16T13:58:35.447" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T13:58:35.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17275" CreationDate="2013-09-16T14:31:24.523" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unitarian Universalists maintain the Jesus was only a man, but with a unique relationship to God. Unitarians makeup the majority of a sect of Christianity known as nontrinitarianism. Nontrinitarians reject many parts of christian doctrine that other sects find essential. The most notably difference is their rejection of the concept of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ are all equal parts to a whole. This rejection of the trinity leads to the belief that Jesus was not supernatural but only a great prophet. Other belief systems that maintain this are:  Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, and the United Church of God. Islam and the sects of several sects of Judaism maintain the Jesus was only a great prophet as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5775" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T14:31:24.523" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19078" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4573" CreationDate="2013-09-16T15:01:09.807" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;jesus never claimed to be god and neither did his disciples believe he was god. on the contrary, they believed he was the messiah the son of the god of their fathers.This was clearly illustrated in acts 5:30 where peter says that the god of their fathers, (ie the beign who spoke to abraham,isaac,jacob and moses through angels) raised jesus from the dead. This clearly shows that they knew that jesus was not the god of their fathers and that it was the god of their fathers who raised and glorified his servant jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5774" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T15:01:09.807" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14503" CreationDate="2013-09-16T15:28:08.083" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, where does the Devil come from?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; ALL of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on and found within the Holy Scriptures. The question therefore should more accurately be &quot;According to the Holy Scriptures, where does the Devil come from?&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We who are Jehovah's Witnesses DO NOT believe that there are MANY ways to &quot;interpret&quot; the Scriptures, rather, being that the Holy Scriptures are &lt;strong&gt;inspired by God THE Almighty Himself&lt;/strong&gt; (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) via His Holy Spirit which operated on the minds and hearts of the imperfect men He used to write the Scriptures (1 Thess 2:13), we who are Jehovah's Witnesses firmly believe that there is but only ONE WAY to &quot;interpret&quot; the Scriptures and that &quot;one way&quot; is to allow the Holy Scriptures &lt;em&gt;to &quot;interpret&quot; themselves&lt;/em&gt; and not resort to &lt;em&gt;philosophical arguments&lt;/em&gt; to evade its &lt;strong&gt;clear statements of truth&lt;/strong&gt;. We simply let the Bible provide its own explanation instead of giving our theories as to its significance (1 Cor. 2:13). Indications as to the meaning of certain terms or doctrine are usually found &lt;em&gt;in other parts of the Bible&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is, contrary to popular but highly erroneous belief, God did not create the Devil. ‘Yet if God created everyone,’ a person may say, ‘he must have created the Devil. Who else could have? Where did the Devil come from?’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible explains that God created many, many &lt;em&gt;spirit persons&lt;/em&gt; similar to himself. In the Bible, these spirits are called &lt;strong&gt;angels&lt;/strong&gt;. Also, they are called “&lt;strong&gt;sons of God&lt;/strong&gt;.” (Job 38:7; Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:7, 13, 14) God created them ALL perfect. Not one of them was a &lt;strong&gt;devil&lt;/strong&gt;, or a &lt;strong&gt;satan&lt;/strong&gt;. The word &lt;em&gt;“devil”&lt;/em&gt; means &lt;strong&gt;slanderer&lt;/strong&gt; and the word &lt;em&gt;“satan”&lt;/em&gt; means &lt;strong&gt;opposer&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The time came, however, when &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; of these spirit sons of God &lt;em&gt;made himself &lt;strong&gt;the Devil&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, that is, a hateful liar who speaks bad things about another. He also &lt;em&gt;made himself &lt;strong&gt;Satan&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, that is, an opposer of God. He was not &lt;em&gt;created that way&lt;/em&gt;, but later &lt;strong&gt;became that kind of person&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate: A thief is not born a thief. He may have come from a good family, having honest parents and law-abiding brothers and sisters. But his own desire for what money can buy is what may have caused him to become a thief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How, then, did one of God’s spirit sons make himself Satan the Devil?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The angel &lt;em&gt;that became the Devil&lt;/em&gt; was present when God created the earth and later the first human couple, Adam and Eve (Job 38:4, 7). So he would have &lt;em&gt;heard&lt;/em&gt; God tell Adam and Eve to have children, fill the earth and subdue it (Genesis 1:27, 28). He knew that after a while the whole earth would be filled with &lt;em&gt;righteous&lt;/em&gt; people &lt;strong&gt;worshiping God&lt;/strong&gt;. That was God’s purpose. However, this angel thought a great deal of &lt;em&gt;his own beauty and intelligence&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;and wanted to receive for himself the worship that would be given to God&lt;/strong&gt; (Ezekiel 28:13-15; Matthew 4:10). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead of putting this wrong desire out of his mind, &lt;em&gt;he kept thinking about it&lt;/em&gt;. This led to his &lt;strong&gt;taking action&lt;/strong&gt; to obtain the honor and importance &lt;em&gt;he desired&lt;/em&gt;. What did he do?—James 1:14, 15.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rebellious angel used a lowly serpent to speak to the first woman, Eve. He did this much as a skilled person can make it &lt;em&gt;seem&lt;/em&gt; as if a nearby animal or a dummy figure is talking. But it was &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; this rebellious angel, the one called in the Bible at Revelation 12:9 “&lt;strong&gt;the original serpent&lt;/strong&gt;,” who was speaking to Eve. At Genesis 3:1-5, he said that God &lt;strong&gt;was not&lt;/strong&gt; telling her the truth, &lt;em&gt;and was &lt;strong&gt;holding back&lt;/strong&gt; from her knowledge that she should have&lt;/em&gt;. This was &lt;strong&gt;a hateful lie&lt;/strong&gt; and it made him &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;a devil&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. He thus also became &lt;strong&gt;an opposer of God&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;or &lt;strong&gt;a Satan&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, it is &lt;strong&gt;wrong&lt;/strong&gt; to think of the Devil as a creature with horns and a pitchfork who oversees some underground place of torment. He is really a &lt;em&gt;very powerful&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;but wicked&lt;/strong&gt;, angel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;~ &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; I am a dedicated and baptized member of the unified worldwide Christian Congregation of JEHOVAH'S Witnesses.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastEditorUserId="5773" LastEditDate="2013-09-16T19:59:51.527" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T19:59:51.527" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="201" CreationDate="2013-09-16T15:43:08.760" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are Lucifer and Satan different beings?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; Satan filled &lt;strong&gt;the king of Babylon&lt;/strong&gt; with the ambition to have complete domination over the earth, even over “Jehovah’s throne” (1Ch 29:23) and “&lt;strong&gt;the stars of God&lt;/strong&gt;,” the kings of the line of David sitting on the throne at Mount Moriah (by extension, Zion). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This “&lt;strong&gt;king&lt;/strong&gt;,” that is, &lt;strong&gt;the dynasty of Babylon&lt;/strong&gt;, ‘lifted himself up’ in his own heart and was in his own eyes and in the eyes of his admirers a “&lt;strong&gt;shining one&lt;/strong&gt;,” a “&lt;strong&gt;son of the dawn&lt;/strong&gt;.” (In &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; Bible translations the &lt;strong&gt;Latin Vulgate&lt;/strong&gt; term “&lt;strong&gt;Lucifer&lt;/strong&gt;” is retained. It is, however, merely &lt;em&gt;the translation&lt;/em&gt; of the Hebrew word &lt;strong&gt;heh·lel′&lt;/strong&gt;, “&lt;strong&gt;shining one&lt;/strong&gt;.” Heh·lel′ &lt;strong&gt;is not a name or a title&lt;/strong&gt; but, rather, &lt;strong&gt;a term&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;describing the boastful position taken by Babylon’s dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar&lt;/em&gt;.) (Isa 14:4-21) Since Babylon was a tool of Satan, &lt;strong&gt;its “king” reflected Satan’s own ambitious desire&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: This answer represents the Jehovah's Witnesses perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-07-15T20:49:59.440" LastActivityDate="2014-07-15T20:49:59.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11348" CreationDate="2013-09-16T15:44:54.180" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;SPIRITUAL FORNICATION&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most would-be bible scholars prefer that literal fornication and adultery are one and the same. This scenario presents too many problems seeing that the scripture makes a clear distinction. They are not consistent in their interpretations, whereas, on the one hand they say, they are the same, but on the other, they are different. That being true, the same would apply to the spiritual. As noted in the companion article &quot;Spiritual Adultery&quot; in this web site, spiritual adultery is considered as being a friend with the world. However, spiritual fornication goes far beyond that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;James 4:4 &quot;Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.&quot;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Galatians 5:19-20 &quot;Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness.....Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,&quot;&quot;&quot;A clear distinction is made between adultery, fornication and idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;1 Corinthians 6:13 &quot;Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.&quot;&quot;&#xA;&quot;1 Corinthians 6:18 &quot;Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.&quot;&quot;Far too many people get caught up in their emotions of personal dislikes for whatever thing it is and totally disregard what God has to say about the matter. They are going to have their way or else. There is absolutely only one sin against the body and that is fornication. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;1 Cor 6:9-10 &quot;Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,.....Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.&quot;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here again, there is a distinction made between fornication and homosexual activities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jude 1:7 &quot;Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.&quot;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here homosexuality is attributed to fornication, but we shall see at the end of this discussion that there are several other sins that also fit the description. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord Jesus Christ used many parables to impart spiritual lessons by way of the illustration of literal things. This is a common practice today whereby, we also explain more complex matters by simple things that are easily understood. It is my belief that literal fornication can be best understood first by understanding the spiritual. Why? Because there is much more evidence in the bible regarding spiritual fornication.&#xA;God Almighty used an explicit allegory in Ezekiel 23:1-21, to reflect the great spiritual whoredoms of two women represented as Samaria and Jerusalem. Idolatry is also considered adultery.&quot;Ezek 23:37 &quot;That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.&quot;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Never in the entire bible does the scripture identify the adulterer as married or single, but only the wife as an adulteress in the sin of adultery. However, the two exceptions is that God is identified as the husband of Israel the wife. Spiritually we are married to Christ and the wife (the Christian) can commit adultery against her husband Christ. Where the fleshly man is concerned, it does not make any difference whether married or single, the sin is the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jer 3:8-9 &quot;And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also......And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jer 3:14 &quot;Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jer 3:20 &quot;Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jer 29:23 &quot;Because they have committed villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours' wives, and have spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them; even I know, and am a witness, saith the LORD.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezek 16:32 &quot;But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hosea 4:13-14 &quot;They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery......I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.&quot;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the more recent translations of the bible add a great deal of confusion to the subject by improperly translating the word &quot;fornication&quot; as &quot;sexual immorality.&quot; Of the thirty two places in both testaments of the KJV, all are found as fornication. In the NKJV, seventeen are rendered &quot;sexual immorality&quot; and fifteen &quot;fornication&quot; None in old testament are rendered &quot;sexual immorality&quot; in the NKJV. Why? Obviously they do not pertain to divorce.&#xA;&quot;Sexual immorality&quot; covers a myriad of sins and therefore, divorce is further enhanced by reason of a selection from this broad spectrum of sins. The words used by the NKJV range from, harlotry, fornication and sexual immorality, of which in some places are not consistent with the context of the scripture. Therefore, the use of the modern versions in this matter of properly understanding the meaning of fornication only leads one into circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5778" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T15:44:54.180" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7998" CreationDate="2013-09-16T16:25:54.493" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The record of creation in Genesis is a record of the creation of the physical universe and has nothing to do with the creation of the spiritual realm. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As it was recorded in Job, the angels sang for joy when the foundation of the world was laid, and its is a basic principle that before building a house or any structure,laying a foundation is the beginning or the first thing to be done. So if the angels were there when the foundation of the world was laid, then that means they were already there before the genesis creation. This was illustrated in the fall of lucifer in Ezekiel 28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;`You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you. 16&quot;By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, And you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the stones of fire. 17&quot;Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor. I cast you to the ground'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage shows that Lucifer the covering cherub had been trading (or whatever it is angels do) abundantly, which means he had been doing it a lot, or as some other bible translations render it as `by the multitude of your trade'. So, if Lucifer had been doing it a lot, to the point that he became filled with violence, that is a clear indication that he had probably been around with other angels before the creation of the physical universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as there is no record of the creation of heaven ( when I say heaven, I mean the home of God and his angels, and not the skies and the firmament) in Genesis, there is also no record of the creation of angels, and the most reasonable reason  for that is that God had already created the spiritual realm of which the angels and heaven belong to, way before he decided to create the physical universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, angels are not part of our space-time, as with all spirits, angels are not limited by our physical laws because they do not belong to our physical realm and can also enter and exit our realm at will, this is illustrated in almost all cases of angelic appearance in the bible, where they exhibit characteristics that defy all natural laws, like they can choose to be either visible or invisible, they disappear at will,enable humans to talk to animals as in the case of Balaam, they can fly etc. in the case of Daniel, the angel was given a message and was supposed to deliver it to Daniel. Daniel is a man and he exists in the physical realm, so for the angel to give the message to Daniel, he had to enter into the physical realm or our space-time, and that was where he was held by the Prince of Persia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, angels are not part of the Genesis creation and were thus created before the first day of the creation in Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5774" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-16T16:56:13.227" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T16:56:13.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18428" CreationDate="2013-09-16T18:32:23.100" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may not agree with me, but your question conflates a number of issues we need to unpack and reframe.  If you bear with me I will try to explain why and perhaps in the process provide an answer to your question.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I infer correctly from the paragraph that follows your question (in bold print), you are wondering if any Christian thinkers have ever used Hebrews 13:2 to provide at least a partial answer to the theological problem called theodicy.  My answer, simply, is no.  Let me explain.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a theodicy is an explanation for how a holy, just, and loving God could allow sin and suffering to exist in the world He created, then we somehow, it is thought, need to come up with a way to reconcile these two seemingly and intuitively irreconcilable notions in an intellectually satisfying way.  On the one hand, God is holy, just, and loving.  This is a given in traditional Christian theology.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there is a great deal of sin and suffering in the world, and the scriptures do not seem to sugarcoat this fact (e.g., not just Romans 3:23, but the entire book of Job!).  How, then, can we square the one with the other, if at all? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The specific &quot;theological problem&quot; you cite is &quot;suffering from hunger and torture,&quot; both of which (i.e., hunger and torture) are evident in the world today.   You need not have seen those commercials for Christian charities on television that feature African babies with bloated stomachs to know that suffering caused by hunger is very real indeed.  Furthermore, a quick perusal of a newspaper makes it eminently clear that torture is part and parcel of repressive regimes and conflicting ideologies throughout the world.  Or read Richard Wurmbrand's &lt;em&gt;Tortured for Christ&lt;/em&gt;.  [By the way, when is the last time you prayed for the persecuted church in China, North Korea, Egypt, or Sudan?]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How, then, do we reconcile--if indeed it is possible--the one with the other?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First, no Christian thinker or theologian of whom I am aware ever used Hebrews 13:2 as a basis for an intellectually satisfying theodicy&lt;/strong&gt;.  The writer of Hebrews 13:2 was likely thinking of Abraham and his encounter with the three men, one of whom was YHWH.  During this encounter, YHWH told Abraham that his wife Sarah, who was well beyond the age of childbearing, would give birth to a son, the son of promise (see Genesis 18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While we cannot say for certain the two men who accompanied YHWH were angels, Abraham nevertheless entertained two strangers (and YHWH) and showed them hospitality by having their feet washed and by providing them a meal, complete with veal parmesan!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The primary &lt;em&gt;interpretation&lt;/em&gt; of Hebrews 13:2, then, is that as Christians, we should be hospitable (literally, &quot;lovers of strangers&quot;), because strangers could in fact be angels sent by God.  One &lt;em&gt;application&lt;/em&gt; of the verse is to the situation James described in James 2:1-9, in which believers show partiality in their assembly to a stranger who is evidently rich but give short shrift to a stranger who is evidently poor.  To show partiality based on appearances alone is a failure of the royal law, as James puts it, which is to love one's neighbor as oneself (vv.8,9). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:2, then, is not relevant to the existence of suffering caused by hunger and torture.  While I do not even remotely suggest I have an intellectually satisfying answer to the problem of suffering, I do suggest that we can find at least a hint of a theodicy in Romans 8:28, where we read&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, this verse does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; say all things are good.  By implication, however, it does say that all things, both good and bad, work together &lt;em&gt;for good&lt;/em&gt;.  Paul also said in Ephesians 1:11 that God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;works all things after the counsel of His will . . . to the praise of His glory.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While verses such as these are tremendously comforting to believers, since their application is to &quot;those who love God,&quot; they are also, I suggest, of significance to lost and suffering humanity to whom believers are commissioned to reach out in the &quot;sacrificial service of worship.&quot;  It is natural and even understandable to curse the darkness; it is &lt;em&gt;super&lt;/em&gt;-natural, however, to light a candle in the darkness, if in doing so we bring relief in the name of Christ to those who are suffering.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not need for us His children to come to His defense.  He has broad shoulders and thick skin.  We do need, however, to do two things:  1.) we need to own up to our own contribution to the suffering in the world through our own sinful actions or inactions (see James 2:10); and 2.) we need to light a candle by going into all the world, preaching the gospel, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching all peoples even to the remotest part of the earth that God loves them and that we love them too (Ma 28:18-20; Mk 15:15,16; Acts 1:8).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no complete, intellectually satisfying theodicy.  Frankly, I am not completely satisfied with my &quot;defense&quot; of God as laid out above.  Job tried unsuccessfully to get a satisfying answer from God as to why God allowed him (whom God described as blameless and upright) to suffer (Job 1:8).  God told him simply, in the form of two rhetorical questions,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'Will you really [attempt to] annul My judgment?  Will you [dare to] condemn Me that you may be justified?'&quot; (40:8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over and over again, I come back to Isaiah 55:8,9, which says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD.  'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, when Christians are faced with seemingly unanswerable questions, God is not annoyed with us when we attempt to wrestle with the issues and use the Scripture, discussion, and prayer to guide us in answering those questions.  At some point, however, when faced with an unsatisfying answer, we must simply bow to God in humble recognition of His flawless character, on the one hand, and our imperfect, incomplete, and often self-serving, self-justifying criticisms of Him, on the other.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did He allow sin and suffering to enter the universe?  Yes.  Is He therefore to blame for sin and suffering?  No.  He may have allowed evil to come into existence, but each of us has perpetuated that evil by being sinners. Furthermore, each of us needs to bear his or her share of blame for the suffering in the world, especially if and when we fail to light our candles in the presence of the darkness.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-09-18T01:02:37.977" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T01:02:37.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18735" CreationDate="2013-09-16T21:03:24.010" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The era of the Crusades certainly coincides with a dramatic increase in the authority of the Pope, both in practical terms and in the development of doctrine. It is a bit hard to untangle how much of this is due to the Crusades themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, a word of warning! It is very easy to slip into anachronistic habits when thinking about the medieval papacy. It is often confused with:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the nineteenth-century papacy - with a well-developed bureaucracy, unquestioned disciplinary authority, and infallibility. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the sixteenth-century papacy - the institution that Martin Luther was so upset about. The seeds of later doctrine were present at the time, but were less developed and more contested; and it was in this period that many of the major institutions of the Roman church began.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another word of warning: it's tempting to imagine that this history is the result of a single papal master plan to increase their power, a sort of conspiracy theory. Actually, individual popes differed enormously in  their personal beliefs about the role of the Church and the Papacy, let alone their ability to implement them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the following, I'll explore the relationships between the See of Rome and other  contemporary powers: the Emperor, other rulers, other bishops (as well as abbots and so on) in the Western church, and the patriarchs of the Eastern sees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Emperor&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The overwhelmingly most important power conflict was with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_roman_emperor&quot;&gt;Emperor&lt;/a&gt;. This was &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; struggle that animated contemporary political theory, as well as the grounding theology of the Pope's temporal power. Both parties claimed a kind of supreme authority (as well as claiming to be the legitimate heirs of the Roman Empire) and so it was quite the puzzle to decide who was allowed to tell the other one what to do, and who appointed new Popes or Emperors. The doctrine of the &quot;two swords&quot; divided their responsibilities - but not like&#xA;our modern idea of the separation of the church and the state. In the version of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_of_Clairvaux&quot;&gt;Bernard of Clairvaux&lt;/a&gt; (enlisted by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_III&quot;&gt;Eugene III&lt;/a&gt; to preach support for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade&quot;&gt;Second Crusade&lt;/a&gt;) there is a spiritual sword, belonging to the Pope, and a temporal sword, in the custody of the Emperor, but ultimately subject to papal authority. The church does not fight, but it commands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A good example here is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_III&quot;&gt;Innocent III&lt;/a&gt;'s decree &lt;em&gt;Per venerabilem&lt;/em&gt; (1202) which asserts a papal power to supervise the Imperial election, since he sees the institution of the Empire as a creation of the Church. Innocent III was not only a reforming and monarchical Pope, but also the one who called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade&quot;&gt;Fourth Crusade&lt;/a&gt;, and excommunicated &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor&quot;&gt;Otto IV&lt;/a&gt;. Although the Empire became a less relevant political force in later years, the contest between Empire and Papacy (partly driven by the issue of control over the Crusades) did help to solidify the doctrine of papal supremacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Other secular princes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, other rulers were meant to have a duty to fight&#xA;for the Church when requested (on pain of deprivation of Communion, at the&#xA;least, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gratiani&quot;&gt;Gratian&lt;/a&gt;). This applied to the suppression of heresy,&#xA;and to the Crusades in the East. The duty was not the same as the normal&#xA;feudal obedience, though; it applied even to those who did not have a cleric&#xA;as their feudal lord (such as the papal possessions in central Italy that were&#xA;to become the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States&quot;&gt;Papal States&lt;/a&gt;). But in practice, it's not like a bishop could just turn&#xA;up at a castle and start telling the king what to do, especially when the &#xA;king considers the bishop to be one of &lt;em&gt;his&lt;/em&gt; subjects. Perhaps he even&#xA;nominated the bishop to the see, and expected regular tax payments rather than&#xA;being asked to pay some sort of crusading tax in the other direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So crusades tended to create local political crises of this kind: and in the &#xA;long term, the Church was able to negotiate a standard where clergy were&#xA;in a sort of parallel legal world. They had their own law (canon law), their&#xA;own system of taxation (tithes and so on), and their own hierarchy of loyalty.&#xA;Although much of this was systematized at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Lateran_Council&quot;&gt;Fourth Lateran Council&lt;/a&gt;, under Innocent III once again, it had been a long time in the building. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Local clerical authorities&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's easy to take for granted, now, the extent to which local diocesan bishops are subordinated to Rome. In the past, bishops (and abbots) were much more independent - legally, in the scope of their ability to make law for their diocese; and politically, in the power they could draw from tithes, assignment of benefices, and so on. During the time of the Crusades, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_curia&quot;&gt;papal curia&lt;/a&gt; developed into an institution that was not just for the Pope's household and his diplomatic efforts, but was a bureaucratic organ for the whole church. Increased centralization was at the expense of bishops' autonomy. It's hard to say if this was &quot;because of&quot; the Crusades, but there are some key points that helped:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The levying of Crusading taxes, payable directly to Rome, on all clergy (not just those in the diocese of Rome, and not passing through the bishop's hands).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crusade-related indulgences were established by the Pope and universally applicable. This coincides with the expansion of the formal system of penance, wherein the pardoning of certain offences was reserved to the Holy See, and regular standing tribunals were set up in Rome with universal jurisdiction.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Roman control over doctrinal orthodoxy grew. (Even though &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Damian&quot;&gt;Peter Damian&lt;/a&gt; had asserted as early as 1062 that disagreeing with the Pope is automatically heresy, it took quite a while for this to filter down into actual practice.) Local ad-hoc synods for the judgement of heresy were replaced by (1) the &lt;em&gt;studium generale&lt;/em&gt; system for theological training, with universities having a papal mandate and being exempt from local episcopal control, and (2) more standardized canon law. This is more relevant to the later European Crusades, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade&quot;&gt;the one against the Cathars&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Eastern churches&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious doctrinal roadblock to Papal supremacy is the fact that there were all these other Patriarchs in the East, who thought that the Pope was first among equals, rather than being a level above. Calling a Crusade &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt; is a direct assertion of a Pope's universal authority, since it invoked papal jurisdiction outside his traditional territory. During the era, there is a shift from the First Crusade (partially justified by the idea that Constantinople had asked for help from the West) to the Fourth (in which &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople&quot;&gt;Constantinople was sacked&lt;/a&gt;); put crudely, people in the West cared less about what the Eastern Church wanted. The ultimate failure of the Crusades to maintain Christian hegemony over the Near East meant that the Patriarchs were in no position to challenge claims of papal authority in the Western Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Aftermath&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The papacy was no longer a merely local institution, but a prize which was definitely worth fighting over. After the Crusades come the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy&quot;&gt;exile in Avignon&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism&quot;&gt;Western Schism&lt;/a&gt;, and conciliarism - all of these represent attempts, by one party of another, to control the papacy. In the longer term, the increased centralization and organization of the Church ultimately created its own internal challenges to unfettered papal authority. Among these are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Curia: now an institution with real power.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The College of Cardinals: transformed from a body of local helpers and advisors, into a sort of Senate of the most important clerics from anywhere in the Church.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Councils: various versions of conciliar theory saw regular general councils as an alternative mode of governance for the church (carrying papal authority, but possibly without the Pope himself).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Universities: the complexity of theology and law required experts, because Popes couldn't realistically run things on their own. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Chivalric orders: wealthy, powerful, and potentially disinclined to obey papal directives.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, there were and are many schools of thought about exactly what the scope of papal power ought to be. The Crusading era saw the emergence of a particularly strong version of the doctrine of papal authority, which the Popes were ultimately unable to maintain, but which is in continuity with the present forms and structures of the Roman Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T21:03:24.010" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18835" CreationDate="2013-09-16T21:49:57.817" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not celebrate birthdays?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; For the same reasons that God's faithful worshippers during both the pre-Christian period and during the time of the 1st century Christianity DID NOT partake / participate in the custom of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;annually&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; celebrating birthdays. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say &lt;em&gt;&quot;annually&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, due to the fact that God's faithful worshippers during the pre-Christian period, during the time of 1st century Christianity and of today fully recognized and recognize the joy that comes from having a child born and &lt;em&gt;celebrating&lt;/em&gt; this blessed event among family and friends (after-all, LIFE is a blessed gift from God). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the custom of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;annually&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; celebrating the day of ones birth &lt;em&gt;is an entirely different matter altogether&lt;/em&gt; and the faithful worshippers of God during the pre-Christian period, during the time of 1st century Christianity and of those of today fully recognized and indeed recognize this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general.”&#xA;—&lt;strong&gt;The History of the Christian Religion and Church&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;During the Three First Centuries&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;strong&gt;New York&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;1848&lt;/strong&gt;), Augustus Neander (translated by Henry John Rose), &lt;strong&gt;p. 190&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The later Hebrews looked on the celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days.”&#xA;—&lt;strong&gt;The Imperial Bible-Dictionary&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;strong&gt;London&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;1874&lt;/strong&gt;), edited by Patrick Fairbairn, &lt;strong&gt;Vol. I, p. 225&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are in actuality 4 main reasons as to why we who are Jehovah's modern day Witnesses DO NOT partake in the custom of annually celebrating birthdays (our own and or anyone else's).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;#1.&lt;/strong&gt; The Holy Scriptures themselves &lt;strong&gt;DO NOT&lt;/strong&gt; put the practice in a favorable light by THE Almighty God whatsoever. There are but only TWO instances of the custom of annual celebration of birthdays recorded in the Bible and it is of &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt; noteworthiness to seekers of God's TRUTH (be such ones members of Jehovah's Witnesses or not) that on BOTH occasions THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED WERE NOT GOD'S FAITHFUL WORSHIPPERS and the events of the celebration were obviously unrighteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;#2.&lt;/strong&gt; The custom of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;ANNUALLY&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; celebrating ones date of birth &lt;strong&gt;is of PAGAN origin&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The various customs with which people today celebrate their birthdays have a long history. Their origins lie in the realm of magic and religion. The customs of offering congratulations, presenting gifts and celebrating—complete with lighted candles—in ancient times were meant to protect the birthday celebrant from the demons and to ensure his security for the coming year. . . . Down to the fourth century Christianity rejected the birthday celebration as a pagan custom.”—&lt;strong&gt;Schwäbische Zeitung&lt;/strong&gt; (magazine supplement Zeit und Welt), &lt;strong&gt;April 3/4&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;1981&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;p. 4&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea. . . . This notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and the patron saint. . . . The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks. . . . Honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were placed on the temple altars of [Artemis]. . . . Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes. . . . Lighted tapers and sacrificial fires have had a special mystic significance ever since man first set up altars to his gods. The birthday candles are thus an honor and tribute to the birthday child and bring good fortune. . . . Birthday greetings and wishes for happiness are an intrinsic part of this holiday. . . . Originally the idea was rooted in magic. . . . Birthday greetings have power for good or ill because one is closer to the spirit world on this day.”&#xA;—&lt;strong&gt;The Lore of Birthdays&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;strong&gt;New York&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;1952&lt;/strong&gt;), Ralph and Adelin Linton, &lt;strong&gt;pp. 8&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;18-20&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;#3.&lt;/strong&gt; The Scriptures reveal at Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:23, 5:12, 19 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 that (1) &lt;strong&gt;ALL&lt;/strong&gt; human descendants of Adam are born IMPERFECT (fall short of God's glory / grace). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;#4.&lt;/strong&gt;  The world &lt;em&gt;we are ALL born into&lt;/em&gt; is ruled &lt;strong&gt;NOT&lt;/strong&gt; by God THE Almighty, but rather, by &lt;strong&gt;Satan the Devil&lt;/strong&gt; (God's CHIEF enemy) whom &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%204:4;%20John%2012:31,%2014:30;%20Ephesians%206:12&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 4:4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; reveals to be &quot;the god of this world&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only begotten Son of God (Jesus Christ) was born into the world as a PERFECT / SINLESS human being (Heb 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22), however, absolutely &lt;strong&gt;NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE&lt;/strong&gt; will one find either Jesus Christ himself, Jesus' parents (Mary his mother and his adoptive father Joseph her husband) or any of Jesus' followers partaking in the custom of annually celebrating Christ's birth (in fact, the Holy Scriptures DO NOT even provide the date of Jesus' birth... &lt;em&gt;But that's for another topic&lt;/em&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If none of the aforementioned partook in the custom of annually celebrating the Son of God's date of birth into the world and or their own birthdays... Why would &lt;strong&gt;anyone&lt;/strong&gt; find fault in the fact that we who are Jehovah's Witnesses &lt;em&gt;in this modern day&lt;/em&gt; *choose also not to participate in the custom of annually celebrating ones date of birth?* &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, there are those who claim that Job 1:4 indicates that Job’s children annually celebrated their birthdays, however, Job 1:4 &lt;strong&gt;DOES NOT&lt;/strong&gt; apply to birthdays. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 1:4 reads: “And [Job’s] sons went and held a banquet at the house of each one on his own day; and they sent and invited their three sisters to eat and drink with them.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“&lt;strong&gt;Day&lt;/strong&gt;” in Job 1:4 translates the Hebrew word &lt;strong&gt;yohm&lt;/strong&gt; and refers &lt;em&gt;to a period of time from sunrise to sunset&lt;/em&gt;. On the other hand, “&lt;strong&gt;birthday&lt;/strong&gt;” is a compound of the two Hebrew words &lt;strong&gt;yohm&lt;/strong&gt; (day) and &lt;strong&gt;hul·le´dheth&lt;/strong&gt;. The distinction between “&lt;strong&gt;day&lt;/strong&gt;” and one’s birthday may be noted in &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 40:20&lt;/strong&gt;, where &lt;strong&gt;both&lt;/strong&gt; expressions appear: “Now on the third &lt;strong&gt;day&lt;/strong&gt; [&lt;strong&gt;yohm&lt;/strong&gt;] it turned out to be Pharaoh’s birthday [literally, “the day (&lt;strong&gt;yohm&lt;/strong&gt;) of the birth (&lt;strong&gt;hul·le´dheth&lt;/strong&gt;) of Pharaoh”].”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At Job 1:4, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;hullédeth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; *&lt;em&gt;does not appear&lt;/em&gt;*; &lt;strong&gt;only &lt;em&gt;yowm&lt;/em&gt; is used in the Hebrew text&lt;/strong&gt;. So it speaks of Job’s sons’ doing something “&lt;strong&gt;each one on his own day&lt;/strong&gt;,” &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; ‘&lt;strong&gt;each one on his own birthday&lt;/strong&gt;.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is beyond certain that Job 1:4 &lt;strong&gt;DOES NOT&lt;/strong&gt; refer to a birthday, as is &lt;strong&gt;unquestionably&lt;/strong&gt; the case at &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 40:20&lt;/strong&gt;. It would seem that Job’s seven sons simply held a family gathering (possibly a spring or harvest festival) and as the feasting made the week-long circuit, each son hosted the banquet in his own house “&lt;strong&gt;on his own day.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As already stated elsewhere above in this answer, the Bible makes direct reference to only &lt;strong&gt;two&lt;/strong&gt; birthday celebrations, those of Pharaoh of Egypt (18th century B.C.E.) and Herod Antipas (1st century C.E.). Again, these accounts &lt;strong&gt;were not&lt;/strong&gt; depicted in the Bible in a favorable light. These birthdays were celebrated by people who clearly &lt;strong&gt;did not&lt;/strong&gt; worship God and both accounts were marked with great feasting and granting of favors and both are remembered for executions: the hanging of Pharaoh’s chief baker in the first instance, the beheading of John the Baptizer in the latter. Everything that is in the Bible &lt;strong&gt;is there for a reason&lt;/strong&gt; (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Jehovah’s Witnesses take note that God’s Word most definitely reports &lt;em&gt;unfavorably about birthday celebrations&lt;/em&gt; and so we choose to shun these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would also be good to consider &lt;em&gt;that even if the account at Job 1:4 were talking about his son's birthdays,&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;the Scripture DOES NOT mention Job attending&lt;/strong&gt;. In fact, according to what is recorded at Job 1:5, Job &lt;em&gt;prayed for them&lt;/em&gt; and was concerned that they had &quot;sinned and have cursed God in their hearts.&quot; In addition, they all died on one of the occasions, so even if it was a birthday celebration, we would then have not two BUT THREE birthday accounts of which were marked by people dying. Hardly a stellar record. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses &lt;strong&gt;respect&lt;/strong&gt; the fact that &lt;em&gt;others&lt;/em&gt; who are not members of the unified worldwide Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses may and do freely choose to annually celebrate their date of birth and the date of birth of their family and friends and we do not interfere in such ones right to do so... &lt;em&gt;You just won't find US participating (for reasons already stated) and we simply would like people to mutually respect our right and choice NOT to do so.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Blessings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;~ &lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; I am a dedicated and baptized member of the unified worldwide Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastActivityDate="2013-09-16T21:49:57.817" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19094" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-16T23:32:01.230" Score="5" ViewCount="2261" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, so I am doing research for a fictional book and in my research I have come across the names of 2 fallen angels (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;book of Enoch&lt;/a&gt;) that take advantage of mankind and allow man to worship them like god. Abezethibou (Egypt) and Nisroch (Babylon). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that the book of Enoch isn't considered Canon to most Christian groups, but I'm wondering about similar recorded accounts recognized by any Christian groups, Scripture, or Deuterocanonical books?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is this: Are there other fallen angels that humans worshiped recorded or recognized as described above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5788" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-09-17T01:17:29.137" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T12:19:43.663" Title="Fallen Angels worshiped in ancient civilizations?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;pagan&gt;&lt;gods&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7998" CreationDate="2013-09-17T02:18:59.007" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The expression &quot;all things” (as it appears in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, for example) includes the angelic host, to be sure.  [Furthermore, as a side point, Christ’s death on the cross, Paul tells us, has reconciled &quot;all things to Himself . . . things on earth or things in heaven&quot; (Col 1:20), since sin has infected perhaps a third of the angelic host and all humankind.]  The question then arises:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Did God's creation of all things occur at some point in the creation week described in Genesis 1 and 2?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not necessarily.  We of the human species are bipartite (or tripartite) beings, consisting of flesh/blood and spirit (or flesh/blood, spirit, and soul).  Angels, on the other hand, are purely spiritual beings, although God seems to have given them the ability (which He Himself had even before Christ's incarnation) to assume human form at His direction (e.g., Genesis 18).  Because they are purely spirit does not mean they couldn't therefore have been created at some time during the creation week of Genesis, particularly if the &quot;days&quot; of Genesis 1 and 2 are ages and not literal 24-hour days.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As difficult as it may be to comprehend, however, the angelic host could have been in existence &quot;billions and billions of years&quot; (as the late Carl Sagan would say!) before God spoke the corporeal universe into being.  To me, this premise makes perfect sense, even though there is likely no biblical proof to back it up (although Psalm 148 could perhaps be pressed into service in this regard).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, I simply like the idea of an angelic host worshiping God enthusiastically and  ceaselessly &quot;both day and night&quot; (sorry for the corporeal slip, but it's biblical!) for aeons and aeons,* well before God spoke the first atomic particle into existence in Genesis 1:3.  The general tenor, or feeling, of the few passages describing what God's heaven is like, is that the worship of Almighty God has been going on long before humans came on the scene.  Angels, as it were, constituted &quot;phase one&quot; of creation; human beings constituted &quot;phase two.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scene Isaiah describes in his chapter six, as well as almost the entire book of Revelation, gives us an inkling of what God's heaven is like.  We sing the chorus (in part), &quot;Angels bow before Him, Heaven and earth adore Him, What a mighty God we serve!&quot;  Well, the unfettered worship and adoration of our ineffable God may very well have been going on uninterrupted long before Genesis 1:3.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As important--and perhaps even as central--as the redemption of humankind is in the grand arc of all history, the history of the corporeal universe, by analogy, could very well be a grain of sand, and the history of the incorporeal universe (if &lt;em&gt;universe&lt;/em&gt; is the correct word) prior to the fall of Satan and his minions could, by contrast, be all the grains of sand on all the seashores.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And why not?  God has been and always will be worthy of praise, glory, and honor.  What a privilege, then, is ours as mere children of clay to be allowed to join, on earth and someday in heaven, with the angelic host in ascribing praise, glory, and honor to God and to the Lamb forever and ever by virtue of God's grace in redeeming us through His Son's blood and the new birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Interestingly, the very word &lt;em&gt;aeons&lt;/em&gt; also denotes in Gnostic terms one of a class of powers or beings conceived as emanating from the Supreme Being and performing various functions in the operations of the universe.  I am not a gnostic, by the way!     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-09-18T20:56:12.467" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T20:56:12.467" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8281" CreationDate="2013-09-17T02:37:59.360" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been reading this interesting post about the casting out of Lucifer, to earth, and threatening that &quot;I will arise above the clouds&quot; which place him here on earth since there are no clouds in heaven, of course. But my quest is before that time, subtly or non-mentioned in the scriptures. What was the argument that caused Lucifer to be thrown out of heaven, and strongly enough to cause one third of the Heavenly Host to join him? What was the accusation about? Was it anger over God creating Man? Was that it? He &quot;so loved the World that He gave His only Son, Jesus! He loved us greater than His own! That wouldn't be a cause of extreme jealousy in the heavens, to the point that one third of the Angels went with Satan? When did Lucifer become Satan anyways? When he was expelled, stripped of his authority? Why did God send him down to earth, and strong evidence is given as to a &quot;Pre Adamite Creation&quot; where Satan/Lucifer distributed his &quot;wares&quot; or accusations against God and ultimately destroyed earth and much of the Creation with the first Flood and sought to &quot;Be&quot; God on the high sides of the North when he himself was but a created being with a purpose only God Himself really knows? So preoccupied with his own beauty and intelligence and pomp that he thought himself greater than God? All that time &quot;amongst the stones&quot; and the Praise and Worship of God rubbed off on him, with instruments built right into his body for the Worship of the Almighty, did he begin to think that the attention of Worship was aimed at himself? After all, he was over the throne of God walking amongst the colorful spectrum of lights we here on earth can't even imagine! Our light is caused by the interaction with the Sun and earth and atmosphere thus giving us the colors of the rainbow, but in Heaven the Light is Jesus, and what hidden to us colors can that represent? And the sounds, here are of a frequency and spectrum of earthly composition, what about the sounds of heaven? &quot;Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, those things that the Lord has prepared (for those who Love Him). So exactly what was it in the heavenly bliss that went amiss? Angels! Not third grade drop outs! Extremely intelligent and Powerful, Angels, went over to Lucifer's side? What! In Heaven, mind ya! He had that much of a reasonable quarrel against God the Almighty? Omniscient, Omnipresent, Loving, Merciful, Everlasting Father? Put on the stand of Judgment by those whom he Created? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5791" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T02:37:59.360" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19103" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-17T12:00:38.403" Score="7" ViewCount="964" Body="&lt;p&gt;In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of hyperdispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What, specifically, is the logical basis for this position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-04-26T19:23:39.763" LastActivityDate="2017-10-26T07:30:04.447" Title="What is the basis for the position that only Paul's writings are applicable to the church today?" Tags="&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;dispensationalism&gt;&lt;hyperdispensationalism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19104" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19111" CreationDate="2013-09-17T12:02:49.710" Score="6" ViewCount="772" Body="&lt;p&gt;In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hyperdispensationalism&lt;/a&gt;), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the logical and biblical argument against this position?  I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-29T13:40:32.077" LastActivityDate="2015-07-29T13:40:32.077" Title="What is the argument AGAINST the position that only Paul's writings are applicable to the church today?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;paul-apostle&gt;&lt;dispensationalism&gt;&lt;hyperdispensationalism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19094" CreationDate="2013-09-17T12:19:43.663" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Corinthians 10:19-20 (NIV), Paul writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This indicates that &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; idol worship is actually worship of demons (fallen angels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 3:26-27 (ESV) describes a human sacrifice which seems to be effective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him 700 swordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom, but they could not. Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that this sacrifice had such a dramatic effect seems to imply that the being to whom the sacrifice was directed existed and had power to influence a battle. Typical Christian theology identifies such gods as demons (fallen angels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3331" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T12:19:43.663" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19106" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19104" CreationDate="2013-09-17T12:32:48.190" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable&lt;/strong&gt; for teaching, for&#xA;  reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the&#xA;  man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 3:16-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not just a portion, but ALL Scripture is profitable so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as &lt;strong&gt;our&#xA;  dear brother Paul also wrote you&lt;/strong&gt; with the wisdom that God gave him.&#xA;  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these&#xA;  matters. His letters contain some things that are &lt;strong&gt;hard to&#xA;  understand&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;which ignorant and unstable people distort&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;as&#xA;  they do the other Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;, to their own destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Peter 3:15-16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People even in the early church had started to take Paul's writings and twist it for their own use. Today the same is being done, and because some of Paul's writings are hard to understand, we must be careful and use the Bible as a whole so that we may know the message that Paul is trying to convey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: In order to make this answer complete I've been researching on this subject and reading the word. I read through 2 Peter and it is an amazing aid in this subject. Nevertheless, if someone only believes in the writings of Paul, I must find the answer in the writings of Paul. I will continue the research and post my findings as soon as I have an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-09-17T14:09:48.897" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T14:09:48.897" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15876" CreationDate="2013-09-17T13:02:57.767" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems this question is attempting to establish an eternal economy by which relationships with God are in variance.  The assumption seems to be if God allowed Christ on the cross to be separated from Him so that we (sinners) might be in fellowship with Him, then He must value sinners more than Christ on the cross.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course “Christ on the cross” was even yet “Christ”.  Christ makes manifest the will of the Father: John 5:19 “…the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise”.  This was also true in creation: Ephesians 3:9 “…which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ”.  And this is also true in us: Ephesians 2:10 “…we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is eternal; therefore He does not make decisions from contingencies as the question implies.   In Revelation 13:8 we know that God from eternity allowed “…the Lamb (to be) slain from the foundation of the world”.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God (Christ on the cross) cannot be &amp;lt; God and still be God!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sacrifice spoken of by Lutzer allows us to imagine the eternal magnitude of God’s love, not because we are lovely but because He is!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-09-18T16:57:19.537" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T16:57:19.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19110" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-17T13:50:47.533" Score="9" ViewCount="711" Body="&lt;p&gt;As an orthodox Jew I have seen quite a stir lately regarding the topic of biblical criticism, specifically towards the Old Testament (Torah). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have perused several questions in this stack which seem to address this topic in general, and learned a lot about apologetics, but I have not seen answers that address some of the major claims of biblical criticism, especially as it pertains to the Old Testament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The story of Noah and the flood seems to be contradicted by archaeological evidence as well as having been 'borrowed' from earlier flood narratives such as the Gilgamesh story&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many of the portions of the Old Testament seem to be borrowed from earlier near eastern texts such as the Hammurabi code &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The notion that there are multiple authors (&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis&quot;&gt;documentary hypothesis&lt;/a&gt;) of the Old Testament.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, how does Christianity deal with some of the major contentions of biblical criticism towards the Old Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I apologize if any parts of my question offend any sensibilities to which I am unaware. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5796" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-06T04:46:19.063" LastActivityDate="2015-08-06T13:17:19.177" Title="How does Christianity deal with biblical criticism related to the Old Testament?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;&lt;historical-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19104" CreationDate="2013-09-17T14:43:19.077" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This was actually the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Marcionite&lt;/a&gt; position - namely that the Gospel of &amp;quot;grace&amp;quot; as revealed by Paul, superceded everything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Marcion's Canon consisted of 10 books - 9 of which were Pauline Epistles and the remaining of which was the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Euangelion&lt;/a&gt;, a &amp;quot;Gospel&amp;quot; of sorts that rejected the bodily incarnation of Christ and understood the Hebrew Bible to be the result of the demiurge - an evil counterpart to the God who was strictly one of grace.  Indeed, Marcion is often considered one of the first heretics - precisely for believing that &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; Paul's words were inspired.  (On the bright side, it was his canon that eventually led the church to form a consensus on what the full canon was.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That early Gnostic tendencies are being rediscovered by moderns who have innovative views of Scripture is not overly remarkable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer, of course, is that Paul himself rejected the later Marcionite position. His warnings against false teachers who taught things other than what Jesus and the Dsiciples did.  He writes in 2 Thessalonians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as first fruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul's message shows God's grace, but reminds us as well that God's justice is also a part of his nature.  Indeed, the role of the law is not to be discounted. He writes in Galatians 3:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That isn't a rejection of the law at all.  Grace may be greater than Law, but law is still there!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T13:37:03.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19112" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19110" CreationDate="2013-09-17T15:17:39.460" Score="2" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Archaeology does not contradict a worldwide flood. There are different opinions on the matter. For more in-depth information watch these presentations as they present an alternate view. Especially presentations 2 (A Universal Flood) and 3 (Bones in Stones). The complete presentation can be seen &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDB7OUBh-k&amp;amp;list=PL3CB9DAF62BC67143&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, they are by a Researcher and Professor in Zoology.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is also a matter of opinion. Many different people could write about a different event and that does not necessarily mean they borrowed from one another. They merely wrote about the event. The Epic of Gilgamesh could just easily be a story &quot;based on true events.&quot; Just like today's movies, much of it could've been made up just for entertainment value, or to fit into a certain belief system. One more thing about this. Just because they were written first, does not necessarily mean they are more truthful. The reason we believe that the Genesis account is truthful is because we believe that the whole Bible is inspired. Jesus spoke about Noah, Lot, Adam, and other Old Testament characters as historical figures, not simply characters from a fable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also along with what Narnian said about literary analysis that suggests that there were multiple authors, in the New Testament some of the writings are attributed to the people that we believe today. For example, Luke attributes the quotation from Isaiah to Isaiah; Luke 4:16-18.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T15:17:39.460" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19113" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19110" CreationDate="2013-09-17T15:26:42.340" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians are very diverse on how they handle this type of criticism. Probably the most visible school of thought in today's media are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism&quot;&gt;literalists&lt;/a&gt;. These Christians accept that the Bible was fully authored by God and is complete and infallible. For them, Gilgamesh is either &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html&quot;&gt;fiction&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/&quot;&gt;a pagan account of the Genesis story&lt;/a&gt;. Hammurabi's code is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/code_of_hammurabi.html&quot;&gt;a set of inferior pagan laws&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most liberal Christians treat the Bible as one of many worthwhile ancient writings and as a product of the sharing of knowledge across cultures. The Genesis account was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm&quot;&gt;inspired&lt;/a&gt; by Gilgamesh. Mosaic Law and Hammurabi's Code &lt;a href=&quot;http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/code-of-hammurabi2.htm&quot;&gt;may have been derived from the same source&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians fall somewhere in between the two. The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum and it's just a matter of course that there are similarities to other writings from other cultures. It doesn't change the Bible's supremacy and it doesn't impact their faith. An explanation I heard from a conservative reform Jew fits nicely. God spoke to lots of people. The Jews were just the ones who heard and obeyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That there were multiple authors of the Bible is just a given. Even the most conservative literalists believe that God used many people to write His word. Different groups might disagree on how many authors there were, but there was definitely more than one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T15:26:42.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19115" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19116" CreationDate="2013-09-17T16:10:19.827" Score="15" ViewCount="16237" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been discussing Matthew 16:18 for years now with both Catholics and non-Catholics. This verse is obviously a very important verse concerning the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome being Supreme Pontiff. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The non-Catholic argument that I come up against time and time again is the &quot;play on words&quot; interpretation summed up pretty well &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9023/when-jesus-gave-peter-his-name-rock-what-is-the-significance-that-he-then-said&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that, according to this interpretation, Jesus calls himself &quot;big rock,&quot; and calls Peter &quot;small rock.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two&#xA;  types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the&#xA;  same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone&#xA;  (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – &quot;a mass of connected rock”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The accepted answer goes on to say...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This revelation, being from God, is infallible, and if the Church is&#xA;  built upon it, it can never fall. Simon was named petros because he&#xA;  was the &lt;strong&gt;archetype&lt;/strong&gt;, the first (of his contemporaries at least) to have&#xA;  received this personal revelation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've also heard other interpretations that place the &quot;Rock-ness,&quot; if you will, on Peter's faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer above labels Peter as an &quot;archetype&quot; for those &lt;em&gt;individuals&lt;/em&gt; with faith, or those &lt;em&gt;individuals&lt;/em&gt; who receive infallible revelations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this reads to much into it when considering the context of scripture, and is perhaps a presupposition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously Catholics believe that Christ, by changing Simon's name to Peter, established a foundational office of headship upon which the &quot;Keys to the Kingdom of God&quot; rests until his return. Catholics believe that &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; change signified a newly established office, and is &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; Christ changed Simon the fisherman to Peter the fisher of men to begin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The keys of the kingdom&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men,&#xA;  twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission.280&#xA;  He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to&#xA;  preach the kingdom of God and to heal.&quot;They remain associated for&#xA;  ever with Christ's kingdom, for through them he directs the Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;    &lt;p&gt;As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that&#xA;    you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones&#xA;    judging the twelve tribes of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;&#xA;  Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the&#xA;  Father, Peter had confessed: &quot;You are the Christ, the Son of the&#xA;  living God.&quot; Our Lord then declared to him: &quot;You are Peter, and on&#xA;  this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not&#xA;  prevail against it.&quot;Christ, the &quot;living Stone&quot;,thus assures&#xA;  his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death.&#xA;  Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable&#xA;  rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every&#xA;  lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: &quot;I will give you&#xA;  the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth&#xA;  shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be&#xA;  loosed in heaven.&quot;The &quot;power of the keys&quot; designates authority to&#xA;  govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good&#xA;  Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: &quot;Feed my&#xA;  sheep.&quot;The power to &quot;bind and loose&quot; connotes the authority to&#xA;  absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make&#xA;  disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority&#xA;  to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in&#xA;  particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he&#xA;  specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (&lt;em&gt;CCC 551-553&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, from a non-Catholic point of view, why did Jesus choose &quot;Rock&quot; as a name for Peter in the first place? Answering whether or not Peter is called big rock or little rock doesn't answer why Jesus called him a rock - of any size.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm wanting to know &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt; exactly non-Catholics believe Christ changed Peter's name (rock...big or small), and what does it signify in comparison to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-and-the-papacy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;what the Catholic Church teaches&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2018-09-10T15:24:52.227" Title="Why did Jesus change Peter's name, according to non-Catholic theology?" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19115" CreationDate="2013-09-17T16:37:57.603" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus first met Peter, he was known as &quot;Simon, son of John&quot;.  Simon was a fisherman as likely his father was and his father's father and so on.  In eastern and middle-eastern cultures, a person's identity is much more closely associated with who his father is.  Simon's identity as a fisherman was closely tied to who his father was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus calls Peter to Himself in John 1, Jesus says, &quot;You &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Simon, Son of John&lt;/em&gt;.  You &lt;strong&gt;will be called&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Cephas [Peter]&lt;/em&gt; (John 1:42).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the other gospels, we hear Jesus telling Peter after the miraculous catch of fish that Jesus would make him a fisher of men.  Peter &lt;strong&gt;was&lt;/strong&gt; a &lt;em&gt;fisher of fish&lt;/em&gt;--Jesus &lt;strong&gt;would make him&lt;/strong&gt; a &lt;em&gt;fisher of men&lt;/em&gt;.  (Matthew 4:19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the name change seems to identify a change in identity and calling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly enough, after the resurrection, Jesus finds Peter fishing again--for fish!  Jesus repeats the miracle of the enormous catch of fish, then addresses Peter directly.  Each time, Jesus calls him by the name of &quot;Simon, son of John&quot;, which was associated with his previous live as a fishermen.  It is as if Jesus is asking him what his identity is going to be.  Will it be &quot;Simon, the son of John--the fishermen&quot; or will it be &quot;Peter, the fisher of men&quot;.  Incidentally, the distinguishing factor seems to be Peter's confession of love for Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,&#xA;  “&lt;strong&gt;Simon, son of John,&lt;/strong&gt; do you love me more than these?” He said to him,&#xA;  “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my&#xA;  lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “&lt;strong&gt;Simon, son of John&lt;/strong&gt;, do you&#xA;  love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He&#xA;  said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time,&#xA;  “&lt;strong&gt;Simon, son of John&lt;/strong&gt;, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he&#xA;  said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him,&#xA;  “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to&#xA;  him, “Feed my sheep.  John 21:15-17 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter is, indeed, hardly ever referred to as &quot;Simon, son of John&quot; in any of the gospels.  In fact, in the Synoptics, he is only referred to as such when his call is recorded in Matthew 4 and Mark 1.  The only exception is upon Peter's confession as Jesus as the Christ in Matthew 16.  However, in this case, Jesus affirms who he was in referring to him as Simon, but then affirming who has become in immediately calling him by the name of Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, &lt;strong&gt;Simon Bar-Jonah&lt;/strong&gt; [son of John]! For flesh&#xA;  and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in&#xA;  heaven. And I tell you, you are &lt;strong&gt;Peter&lt;/strong&gt;, and on this rock I will&#xA;  build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against&#xA;  it.  Matthew 16:17-18 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John is the only book in which Peter is frequently referred to as &quot;Simon&quot; or &quot;Simon Peter&quot;. The reason for this, however, is likely that John knew Peter for many years by the name of &quot;Simon&quot;--not &quot;Peter&quot;, while the other writers knew him primarily as Peter.  So, John seems to retain this familiar reference, much like childhood friends still call each other by nicknames or familiar names many years later.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So... all that to say that there is good reason to conclude that the reason for the name change in this case was to demonstrate the change from &quot;Simon, son of John, the fisher of fish&quot; to &quot;Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ, fisher of men.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-09-17T16:46:20.313" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T16:46:20.313" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19118" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-17T18:25:24.570" Score="2" ViewCount="4828" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Exodus 19:8 it reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 All the people answered together and said, “All that the Lord has&#xA;  spoken we will do!” And Moses brought back the words of the people to&#xA;  the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The part I am interested in is the part that the people say &quot;we will do&quot;. It seems to be that the time before the Law was a time of Mercy (2500 years) and the Law came in after the Isrealites said what they said in verse 8, which coincidentally also lasted for 2500 years. (My timescales are approximations of course) Until Nowadays, where we live in a time of Grace. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding of this passage is that the Israelites are signing up to what God has said, and they have responded positively to God. However, I have heard that the Law came (instead of Grace, which was what God really wanted to establish at the time) as a result of the Israelites claiming that they would do all God asked, but claiming with the attitude that they can do it in their own power. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the views of others in this forum, and what understanding can they bring to this backed up of course and as usual with biblical verses. I am particularly interested in goig back to the Hebrew to understand the connotations of this verse to see if there are any indications of the attitude of the Israelites in their promise to do as God had spoken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ok, so to add a bit more context to what I asked and why I have asked it I will explain a few things which caused me to ask this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that the Israelites were trying to be obedient and had the right intentions, I had not even considered that the Israelites had anything but the right intentions and right attitude. So, I am trying to ask this question from a point of view that I am not sure I agree with. However let me continue trying to give a fuller explanation of the argument I had heard around this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The argument put forward gave reference to Adam and how he was cast out of Eden as an act of mercy because God could not allow Adam to remain alive in Eden after what had happened. So as an act of mercy God cast Adam out and continued to maintain a relationship with Adam. The next phase happened with Cain and how God dealt with him after he murder Abel. God showed mercy to Cain. I am glossing over this a lot he so please bear with me as I try and get the gist across of what I heard. The next part spoke about the decisions Abraham took and how it affected his relationship with God. For example when God told him to leave Canaan and take no one but Sarah with him, but he also took Lot, an act of disobedience to God which triggered quite a few issues for Abram in the future. Abraham also lied/deceived about Sarah being his wife instead of trusting his safety to God who had sent him on his journey. Abraham later took matters into his own hands in trying to take matters into his own hands regarding the promise God made to him about having descendants. This gave rise to Ismael, but also 13 years of silence from God because Abraham tried to take matters into his own hands rather than trust in the promises and provision of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example was taken from the New Testament; the story of the rich young ruler who had come to Jesus asking what more he should do and explaining to Jesus how he kept all the rules and done all that was required of him. Jesus responded to him by saying sell all you own at which point the young ruler went away upset because he could not do what was asked of him. He could not do it because he did not trust that God was more than able to provide but Jesus also knew the young rulers heart as someone that did things by their own strength rather than rely on God to provide the answer for him. What was interesting is that the very next story was also about a rich man Zachaeus, who was likely even wealthier than the young ruler. The story highlights how Jesus went and ate with Zachaeus and Jesus said 'Salvation has come to this house' instead of putting a regulation or demand on Zachaeus. The reason was that Zachaeus came with an attitude of allowing Jesus to do what was neccessary rather than like the young ruler who wanted to know what &lt;em&gt;he&lt;/em&gt; must do rather than what Jesus &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that I have managed to explain the premises sufficiently (I probably haven't) for you to see the arguments presented. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to know if there is any meaning lost in the translation from Hebrew to English as to whether or not the Israelites demonstrated the same attitude as the rich young ruler or whether they were truly submitting with the attitude that Zachaeus demonstrated, is to go back to the Hebrew and understand what it means in the original Hebrew and see if it does indeed connote what the arguments say they were attempting to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course if the former truly is the case then it has massive significance to understanding how the Covenant God made with the Israelites was based around the Law, because it would mean that the Israelites were given what they had asked for rather than what God wanted to give them, which is a covenent based more around the grace principles rather than a rule based system. If you see what I am saying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3322" LastEditorUserId="3322" LastEditDate="2013-09-23T07:41:43.870" LastActivityDate="2014-01-27T11:58:39.210" Title="Does Exodus 19:8 imply a will of the Jews to fulfill the Law in their own strength?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;&lt;law&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-01-30T20:38:52.797" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19119" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-17T18:48:59.117" Score="4" ViewCount="179" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the case of no-fault divorce, if one spouse files for divorce and the other spouse does not want a divorce, then can the other spouse receive protection from the Catholic priest in order to prevent the former spouse from remarriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T14:18:50.193" Title="Can a Catholic ask for protection from a priest in case his/her spouse has filed a no-fault divorce?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;lifestyle&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19122" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19119" CreationDate="2013-09-17T21:10:40.337" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, I think I should point out that priests have no say in who gets a secular divorce. (Depending on circumstances, it might actually even be the right thing to do.) A tribunal, on the other hand, does have the authority to grant an annulment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My experience is that the no-fault annulment is possible, but very difficult. It becomes incumbent upon the person who wants the annulment to prove that the marriage is not valid. Sometimes this is easy (one spouse says, &quot;I was piss drunk for our wedding, I slept with her maid of honor (or best man), and I am a schizophrenic who had skipped a month of medication before the ceremony&quot;), other times it becomes almost impossible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, that's still &quot;almost&quot;. I did have a friend who got an annulment, and her then husband was not too fond of it (though there was clear grounds). He dragged his heals in the process and even managed to delay it for at least a year (the process took three altogether), but eventually she was able to get the Church to hear her out, and the Church agreed with her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T21:10:40.337" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19123" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19118" CreationDate="2013-09-17T21:22:40.793" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the verse in hebrew. I highlighted the word &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%94&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;naase&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;. It's the first person plural form of &amp;quot;asah&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6213&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Strong's H6213&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;:ח. וַיַּעֲנוּ כָל הָעָם יַחְדָּו וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָֹה &lt;strong&gt;נַעֲשֶׂה&lt;/strong&gt; וַיָּשֶׁב משֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל יְהוָֹה&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found at least one [commentary] that describes the relationship with God as a two-sided agreement. The Jews agreed to obey God and God agreed to teach, protect and provide for them. this is reflected in many other places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my loving eye on you. Psalm 32:8 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Show me your ways, Lord, teach me your paths. Guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior, and my hope is in you all day long. Psalm 25:4-5 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on this I would call it a stretch to say that the Jews intended to obey God under their own power. It's more accurate to say that they trusted God to help them obey his laws and thus attain salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-17T21:22:40.793" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19126" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-18T01:24:40.187" Score="0" ViewCount="113" Body="&lt;p&gt;So over the summer I was on a mission trip and was thinking of angels protecting us while we were in some sketch situations, then later I began to ask myself where in the Bible does it say angels were created? The only evidence I have found is in Colossians 1:16&amp;amp;17..but then in John 1:3 it says &quot;all things were made by him, and without him there was nothing made that was made&quot;. The end of the verse seems to imply that there are things that were not made. Am I misinterpreting that? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5801" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T12:17:01.650" Title="We can't say for sure when angels were created, but can we even say if angels were created at all?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-09-23T12:44:22.390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6215" CreationDate="2013-09-18T02:34:11.337" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to note the difference between desire or lust and sin.  Our bodies want food, sleep, and sex.  There isn't anything we can do to stop that.  We can control whether we act on it though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 1:14 - 15.  It is sin once we are drawn away by our lust and chose to follow the flesh over the spirit, not when we have the desire itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5805" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T02:34:11.337" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19115" CreationDate="2013-09-18T04:53:24.483" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer may be simplistic, but sometimes even the most profound concepts can be laid out in terms that even a child can understand.  (Does my assertion remind you of someone who spoke of the necessity of becoming as a child to enter the kingdom of heaven?  Could it have been--oh, I don't know . . . Jesus?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus changed Simon Bar-Jonah's name to Peter (viz., a stone) because Jesus knew what would transpire in Matthew 16, where Peter would utter those famous words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to traditional Protestant theology (to which I subscribe), Peter's confession was the rock upon which Christ would build His church.  This rock was not the foundation, as Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 3:11, where we read&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Christ Jesus,&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but it was certainly a &lt;em&gt;foundational truth.&lt;/em&gt;  Peter's confession and the testimony of the early apostles were all foundational, essential truths.  Christ, however, IS the foundation upon which the whole superstructure of the temple of God rests.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Peter reminds us, each believer is a living stone, just as Peter was, and we all are being &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ&quot; (1 Peter 2:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter would probably be the first to admit that he himself was but another stone among many other stones.  Joined together, however, we are living stones in a spiritual house, with Jesus as THE living stone, whom Peter also described as&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;choice&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;precious&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the cornerstone&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;of precious value to believers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;rejected by unbelievers&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;a stone of stumbling&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;a rock of offense&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the saying goes, &quot;the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.&quot;  There can be no superstructure, however, without a foundation, and that foundation is Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-09-20T20:34:49.043" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T20:34:49.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18451" CreationDate="2013-09-18T06:00:48.923" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Though I'm not a woman or a confidant of women, I've never heard this spoken of before in Protestant circles. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I don't think this is a typical consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assigning (religious) impurity to menses would require adherence to the Law of Moses, I think. As a personal matter, there's nothing to prohibit someone from concluding that about herself, but since such a link between impurity and menstruation is ever made in the New Testament, I suspect that most protestants won't ever say that the two are inherently linked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T06:00:48.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19132" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-18T08:05:11.167" Score="5" ViewCount="201" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church has several encyclicals giving guidelines for Biblical Interpretation, such as &lt;em&gt;Divino Afflante Spiritu&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Providentissimus Deus&lt;/em&gt;.  Are there any Eastern Orthodox equivalents to these encyclicals? I imagine they use the writings of the Church Fathers such as Augustine's &lt;em&gt;De doctrina christiana&lt;/em&gt;, but I was wondering if there is any later reference work that they use to define their interpretation methodology. (Any other references concerning Eastern Orthodox Biblical interpretation methodology would be appreciated, including Slavonic / Russian or Greek works).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5546" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T02:11:34.840" LastActivityDate="2015-08-03T02:11:34.840" Title="For Eastern Orthodox churches, what are the main references concerning Biblical Interpretation methodology?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19134" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19148" CreationDate="2013-09-18T09:26:01.210" Score="5" ViewCount="694" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Are the Disciples of Christ trinitarian?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The identity statement from their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.disciples.org/&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt; is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are Disciples of Christ, a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world. As part of the one body of Christ we welcome all to the Lord’s Table as God has welcomed us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot find any references to a trinitarian understanding of the Christian God on their website. I assume this is intentional, in line with another statement of theirs:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;we don’t require acceptance of any formal creed for membership in the church&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that they are not taking a stance. This might make them non-trinitarian in the eyes of many, though I would not be surprised if members instead regard their own position as non-committal or members simply differ in opinion. Instead of speculating further, I am hereby asking the community for knowledge or opinions, official or unofficial.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3922" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T22:28:43.360" Title="Are the Disciples of Christ trinitarian?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19135" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19136" CreationDate="2013-09-18T09:41:00.940" Score="10" ViewCount="1061" Body="&lt;p&gt;A liturgical rite is a way to celebrate the Mass. At least for the purpose of this question I will assume this meaning of the term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The standard way Mass is celebrated by Roman Catholics is in the Roman Rite. This normally refers to celebration of the Mass originally based on the Missale Romanum from 1970 as commissioned by Pope Paul VI (there have been recent modifications); this happens (always?) in the local language. The so-called extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is the Tridentine Mass, celebrated in Latin, nowadays according to the Missale Romanum of 1962.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aside from these two liturgical rites (which some will say are technically just two forms of a single rite), I have seen mention of others, such as the Ambrosian Rite, Anglican Use, and Zaire Use. Which forms of Mass (rites) are presently used within the Roman Catholic Church? How can one characterize them, and where are they used?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3922" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-09-18T11:21:34.893" LastActivityDate="2017-09-24T18:40:28.680" Title="Which liturgical rites (forms of Mass) are presently used in the Roman Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;mass&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19136" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19135" CreationDate="2013-09-18T11:47:07.540" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can one characterize (&lt;em&gt;a rite&lt;/em&gt;)?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A rite represents tradition about how sacraments (not just Mass) are celebrated. As the early Church grew and spread, it celebrated the sacraments as would be best understood and received in the context of individual cultures, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;without ever changing&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; their essential form and matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Which forms of Mass (rites) are presently used within the Roman Catholic Church? and where are they used?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Counting novus ordo and tridentine as a single rite, there are totally 5 western rites and 22 eastern rites (with five eastern liturgical tradition). The complete list of &lt;em&gt;functional&lt;/em&gt; rites and their jurisdiction can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gcatholic.org/dioceses/rites.htm&quot;&gt;gcatholic.org&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please see Wikipedia article titled &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_rites_and_churches&quot;&gt;List of Catholic rites and churches&lt;/a&gt; for the list of defunct rites, But I really doubt that this is an exhaustive list of defunct rites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-09-18T11:55:29.710" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T11:55:29.710" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19126" CreationDate="2013-09-18T12:17:01.650" Score="7" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou &lt;strong&gt;hast made heaven&lt;/strong&gt;, the heaven of&#xA;  heavens, &lt;strong&gt;with all their host&lt;/strong&gt;, the earth, and all things that are&#xA;  therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them&#xA;  all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Nehemiah 9:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Praise ye the Lord. Praise ye the Lord from the heavens: praise him in&#xA;  the heights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the&#xA;  heavens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 148:1-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And lastly, but probably the best answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,&#xA;  visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or&#xA;  authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is&#xA;  before all things, and in Him all things hold together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Colossians 1:16-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also about John 1:3 it is explaining that Jesus has always been there and that He is the Creator. All things were made by Him, and if He hadn't been there nothing would've been created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T12:17:01.650" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7412" CreationDate="2013-09-18T13:43:31.070" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If original sin is transmitted only through our fathers then the only answer I find is that it is through blood.&#xA;We don't have the blood of our mothers and the ovum doesn't have that ability, it is through the sperm fertilising the egg that has the ability to produce blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore the blood of the mother and the blood no not mix although there are occasions that it will happen.&#xA;So Jesus was sinless he didn't have a drop of Adams blood in his veins&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5810" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T13:43:31.070" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19115" CreationDate="2013-09-18T15:33:54.153" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lutherans have held that the special powers or duties given to Peter are not solely to persons who hold the office of the Bishop of Rome, just as they were not solely given to Peter, &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;. They hold it to be signifying the Office of the Keys, which is a power or Office given to ordained pastors.  The first scriptural citation in &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=k&amp;amp;word=KEYS.OFFICEOFTHE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this LC-MS Lutheran explanation of Office of Keys&lt;/a&gt; is your Matthew 16 verse.   The duties of the Office of the Keys include adminstering sacraments, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#keys&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;declaring forgiveness of sins&lt;/a&gt; to those who repent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T15:33:54.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19141" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15547" CreationDate="2013-09-18T15:56:27.680" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You might want to look at the book &quot;Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma&quot; by Ludwig Ott. In addition to saying what the Catholic Church teaches, it annotates the teachings with indications of how certain they are and (therefore) how obligatory it is to believe them.  The highest level is &quot;De fide&quot; (&quot;of the faith&quot;); these are doctrines infallibly proclaimed by popes or ecumenical councils as part of the deposit of faith and therefore to be believed &quot;with Divine and Catholic faith&quot;.  (If you deny one of these doctrines, you're a heretic.)  The introductory part of the book also contains an explanation of the other levels of certainty, such as &quot;sententia fidei proxima&quot;, &quot;sententia certa&quot;, and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T15:56:27.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19142" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7007" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:15:31.587" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolom is not so much a type of Christ as he is a type of sin in that he represents the sin that Christ became for us while His Father turned His back on Him as He hung on the cross.  Sin entered the world through subtlety, overthrew Gods rule and enslaved His people. In order to defeat this enemy God came up with a plan to destroy sin and it's literally infinite consequences by attributing sin to His equally infinite son who is also God, Jesus.  The point where Jesus was lifted up on the cross and God the Father turned His back on His son was what Absolom was a type of. The sin that Christ became in order to free Gods people and restore His throne. The heart of David shows the heart of God the Father wishing He could take the place of His own son Jesus as He turns His back on the sin He is attributing to Him on the cross.  Hope that makes sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5814" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T16:15:31.587" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4059" CreationDate="2013-09-18T16:48:27.060" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The original questioner credited an Old Testament source, Daniel &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%207:13-14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;7:13-14&lt;/a&gt;, as being significant in the use of the title &quot;Son of Man&quot;.  Clicking on the link takes one to the passage in the NIV, where there's also a footnote about the translation.  The footnote reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Daniel 7:13 The Aramaic phrase bar enash means human being. The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus, probably based largely on this verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is entirely circular.  It seems to say that an incorrect translation here is likely the source of New Testament usage of &quot;the Son of Man&quot; as a title of Jesus.  It also says that it's because of the incorrect New Testament usage that the translators of the NIV have retained &quot;a son of man&quot; in Daniel 7:13. It states that the correct rendering should just be: &quot;human being&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblegateway.com website allows you to display other translations side-by-side.  The King James translations used the definite article and capital letters: &quot;the Son of Man&quot;, which fits its usage as a title given to Jesus.  The NIV translation retains a nod to the previous interpretation, but it's clear that the translators disagree with the interpretation given in the King James versions, by the use of the indefinite article &quot;a&quot; instead of &quot;the&quot;, the removal of the capital letters, and with that footnote.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Son of man&lt;/a&gt; indicates that in the Hebrew texts, when referring to the singular (son of man), the source is &quot;ben-'adam&quot; (literally, &quot;son of adam&quot;).  The source in Daniel is the Aramaic &quot;bar enash&quot;, not &quot;ben-'adam&quot;, which the editors of the NIV have indicated should be rendered as &quot;human being&quot; and not &quot;son of man&quot;, and definitely not &quot;the Son of Man&quot;.  Moreover, the use of the definite article in &quot;&lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; Son of Man&quot; is said to be entirely new to the Greek texts and did not occur in the Old Testament at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10342-man-son-of&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this source&lt;/a&gt; at The Jewish Encyclopaedia, while favoring the interpretation of Daniel 7:13 as a reference to the Messiah, claims that &quot;son of man&quot; is an often used expression of the time, used to refer to oneself.  It has no divine connotations in such usage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've had a book I'd been meaning to read called Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the Bible and why, by Bart D. Ehrman.  One point from the back cover reads &quot;The King James Bible was based on inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5812" LastEditorUserId="5812" LastEditDate="2013-09-18T16:58:23.563" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T16:58:23.563" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2217" CreationDate="2013-09-18T17:55:30.130" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I disagree that there is a contradiction here. It is more of a subtle difference in the meaning of the two words being compared, “expected” and “hope”.  I do see how “expected end” can be a greater indicator of an actual end that the word hope indicates.  But, it appears that you are assigning the secular meaning to the word “hope” which is really wishful thinking, which I totally disagree with.   As a Believer we have a “hope” that is a rock solid assurance based on the Biblical evidence in many promises God has completely full filled.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, I dislike the KJV because we pour a meaning that is different than what the writers meant into some words of that version, which of course causes confusion.  In this particular case, and at this time in history, the KJV is probable more accurate than the modern versions. Using Strong’s Dictionary the word expected in Hebrew is “tiqvah” which is noted as H8615 and defined as, “hope, expectation, line, the thing that I long for, expected.”   So you can see the connection between hope and expected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I agree with some of the other commenters, the “future” or the “end” is Heaven. If Randy Alcorn’s insight, as stated in his book Heaven, is anywhere near accurate, Heaven is going to be unimaginably wonderful way beyond our hopes and expectations.  I highly recommend that book.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5817" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T17:55:30.130" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19146" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-18T18:05:06.823" Score="3" ViewCount="1356" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember when I first sought God, I felt like I was going out into the dark. I simply followed people at the church without really believing, but willing myself to believe. In other words, I didn't have faith, but I was obedient. Now I can see God a little more clearly than before, and I have more faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if anybody has tried to connect God's demands of faith from Abraham (and us)  to the fall. Given that faith requires an obedient, seeking heart, it almost seems like this is a way to remedy the fall of humankind, and to restore our obedience to God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-04-15T16:05:51.977" LastActivityDate="2014-04-15T16:05:51.977" Title="Does God require us to have faith because Adam and Eve sinned?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-04-25T16:12:59.420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17916" CreationDate="2013-09-18T20:11:59.220" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The concept of &lt;em&gt;carte blanche&lt;/em&gt; goes back at least to Roman law, from which it was received into early medieval European civil and canon law. &lt;sup&gt;1, 2&lt;/sup&gt; The basic idea is that someone with authority (A) can choose a delegate (B) to represent them, with &amp;quot;full powers&amp;quot; meaning that A agrees in advance to be bound by whatever B decides to do. B may well be given more specific instructions, and in any case the grant of authority does not mean that B is allowed to harm A's interests with impunity. B is only meant to do what A would have done, had A been present. The concept was known in the jurisprudence of France, as well as in the Roman Catholic Church, so Richelieu is certainly covered either way. In our days, we encounter the concept when ambassadors are described as &amp;quot;plenipotentiary&amp;quot;, with the same sense of them being delegates of their head of state. But note that in the religious context, such delegation is still only ever intended to mean that B represents A's interests. If A is a bishop, B does not gain any episcopal powers; Papal legates are not Popes themselves; etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his time, the term in French was usually applied to military orders, and indeed Richelieu himself granted &lt;em&gt;carte blanche&lt;/em&gt; to his generals (or relayed that of the king) on several occasions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see nothing to do other than to give you &lt;em&gt;carte blanche&lt;/em&gt;; the king leaves you free to attack anywhere that seems good to you. [...] For I repeat once more to you that the King leaves you &lt;em&gt;carte blanche&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Nous ne voyons de loin autre chose à faire qu'à vous donner la carte blanche; le roy vous laisse libre d'attaquer telle place que bon vous semblera.&lt;/em&gt; [...] &lt;em&gt;Car je vous redis encore une fois que le roy vous laisse la carte blanche.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within the context of the novel, it is Richelieu's civil power which is being invoked. When he gives the letter to Milady (chapter 44), the idea is to give her immunity from the criminal law, although it is written in more general terms. Their conversation mentions the Bastille prison, but not purgatory. It's true that when our heroes come into possession of the letter (chapter 47), Aramis describes it as an &amp;quot;absolution&amp;quot; from all rules. This is an echo of his &amp;quot;confession&amp;quot; conversation with d'Artagnan in chapter 26, where the latter had joked &amp;quot;I'll give you absolution in advance&amp;quot; (i.e., before hearing the story), and Aramis responded &amp;quot;Don't joke about holy things, my friend&amp;quot;. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Although Aramis instinctively uses religious language, there's no real sense that the letter involves Richelieu's religious authority, in the way that the musketeers make use of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the cardinal had intended to write a letter granting absolution (or remittance of temporal punishment) to the bearer, he was exceeding his powers in several ways. It is true that as a bishop, he had the right to issue indulgences to people under his authority or in his diocese, just as the Pope could do so for people anywhere. We could argue that Milady and the musketeers all count as such, even if the letter itself is written in a more general way. But this document does not meet the well-established criteria for the validity of indulgences, or for penitence in general. Principally, you can't be absolved from a sin that you are intending to commit, but haven't done yet; you are not free from &amp;quot;attachment to sin&amp;quot;. Compare Dante in &lt;em&gt;Inferno&lt;/em&gt; 27.118-120 (Longfellow's translation of 1867):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For who repents not cannot be absolved,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Nor can one both repent and will at once,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Because of the contradiction which consents not.&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the specific instance, Richelieu could never absolve Milady of murder before she actually did it, no matter what he wrote down in relation to her temporal punishment. Finally, sacramental absolution (for the other &amp;quot;bearers&amp;quot;) cannot happen by means of a letter, as the priest and penitent are required to be in the same place for confession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;Consent, Coercion, and Limit: The Medieval Origins of Parliamentary Democracy&lt;/em&gt;, Arthur P. Monahan (McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987); section 3.1.C, p121ff on &lt;em&gt;plena potestas&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;Studies in Medieval legal thought: Public law and the state, 1100-1322&lt;/em&gt;, Gaines Post (Princeton University Press, 1964).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'Etat du Cardinal de Richelieu&lt;/em&gt;, Avenel (Imprimerie nationale de Paris, 1853). Letter to Richelieu's nephew &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Charles_de_La_Porte_de_La_Meilleraye&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;La Meilleraye&lt;/a&gt;, 17 May 1639: Volume 6, &lt;a href=&quot;http://archive.org/stream/lettresinstructi06richuoft#page/354/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;pp354-356&lt;/a&gt;. Found from a citation in &lt;em&gt;Richelieu's Army: War, Government and Society in France, 1624-1642&lt;/em&gt;, David Parrott (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p136&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. My translation; original dialogue is &amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;Et moi, je vois donne l'absolution d'avance, vous voyez que je suis bon homme.&lt;/em&gt; / &lt;em&gt;Ne plaisantez pas avec les choses saintes, mon ami.&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5. &lt;em&gt;Ch'assolver non si può chi non si pente, / né pentere e volere insieme puossi / per la contradizion che nol consente.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T20:11:59.220" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19134" CreationDate="2013-09-18T20:32:41.353" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I recall from my time (decades ago) as an ordained and licensed Disciple of Christ minister, anyone who had publicly professed that Jesus was their Savior and Lord was freely received--with no dogmatic strings attached--into fellowship with any Disciple's of Christ assembly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if they believed in the Trinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Welcome! Come worship with us and feast at the Lord's Table!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if they did &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; believe in the Trinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Welcome! Come worship with us and feast at the Lord's Table!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why? Because asking someone to confirm their personal believe in the Trinity was a &quot;test of faith&quot;. Such tests aren't necessary to one's salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In brief: not every Disciple of Christ is a Trinitarian, nor is every Trinitarian a &quot;disciple&quot; of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5099" LastEditorUserId="5099" LastEditDate="2013-09-18T22:28:43.360" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T22:28:43.360" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19146" CreationDate="2013-09-18T20:57:41.153" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a direct answer to the question in your title.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible states that all are required to have faith (need salvation) not only because of Adam's sin, but because &quot;all sinned.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.&quot;  (Romans 5:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-09-18T20:57:41.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19150" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19166" CreationDate="2013-09-18T21:08:42.637" Score="11" ViewCount="6785" Body="&lt;p&gt;Time and again we hear that Christ died for our sins, or that Christ died so that we could be saved. But I've never understood how exactly the two are connected? In what way does the death of Christ benefit us, or lead to our salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This may be asking too much, but what I'm really looking for is the rationalization (essentially, God's reasoning) behind it. @Mawia and @Malachi have both offered very good and very thorough answers, but neither really addresses what I'm really looking for (most likely because I haven't explained that well enough).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answers have provided great references to scripture to show that sinless blood is consistently required to atone for sins, and that man is in a perpetual state of sin, therefore atonement is required. But I get stuck on the first part: why does someone without sin need to be punished in order to atone for another person's sins? I understand Christ sacrificed Himself, He chose to pay for our sins, and that's important because it shows His love for all of us. But it doesn't explain why sacrificing something that is sinless is even acceptable, let alone a suitable payment for sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to answer @PeterTurner's point: I'm open to any answer from a learned Christian perspective: the important thing to me is that it explains some reasoning behind it, even if that reasoning is not universal among Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5819" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-14T20:00:58.080" LastActivityDate="2016-02-16T10:54:08.203" Title="How does Jesus' death and resurrection save humanity?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;&lt;atonement&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="5" ClosedDate="2016-02-16T15:44:25.707" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19146" CreationDate="2013-09-18T21:15:13.037" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Original sin began with Lucifer, the “&lt;strong&gt;I will&lt;/strong&gt;” sin. Isaiah 14:13,14 “For thou hast said in thine heart, &lt;strong&gt;I will&lt;/strong&gt; ascend into heaven, &lt;strong&gt;I will&lt;/strong&gt; exalt my throne above the stars of God: &lt;strong&gt;I will&lt;/strong&gt; sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: &lt;strong&gt;I will&lt;/strong&gt; ascend above the heights of the clouds; &lt;strong&gt;I will&lt;/strong&gt; be like the most High.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eve was deceived and placed her faith in the words of the serpent rather than in the Word of God (transgressed faith ).  Mary, in contrast, placed her faith in the Word of God and said: “Let it be as you say”.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam sided with Eve, “her will” rather than God’s will.  In contrast, the second Adam, Jesus Christ said “thy will be done” and bore the sins of mankind, resulting in grace being eternally extended to mankind, grace which is apprehended by faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The original sin is born from a “self-sovereign&quot; perspective, &quot;My will be done. Do not impose your will upon my life.&quot;  Contrast: “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God’s grace is tangible evidence that we should want God’s will to be done in our life.  So where does “me-centeredness&quot; come from?  Originally, Lucifer transmitted to Eve by deception, who then transmitted to Adam by fear, or faithlessness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Transgressed faith was the window in which man fell out of a relationship with God.  It stands to reason that man must enter into a relationship through that same window of faith.  After all, we are saved by God’s grace &lt;strong&gt;through faith&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-09-19T11:47:25.867" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T11:47:25.867" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19152" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19150" CreationDate="2013-09-18T22:28:22.793" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;this is a good question,  in the old Testament an animal sacrifice was required to be given to God as an offering to atone for the sins that were committed after the last sacrifice,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have borrowed the first paragraph from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament?&lt;/a&gt; a website I found with a quick search on animal sacrifice in the bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the Lord. Cain's was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel's was acceptable because it was the “firstborn of his flock” (Genesis 4:4-5). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;when Jesus came He was the perfect sacrifice, He was unblemished, as was required of the animal sacrifices.  the innocence of the animal covered our &quot;not being innocent&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;another Paragraph from the site listed above says it very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why, then, do we no longer offer animal sacrifices today? Animal sacrifices have ended because Jesus Christ was the ultimate and perfect sacrifice. John the Baptist recognized this when he saw Jesus coming to be baptized and said, “Look, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). You may be asking yourself, why animals? What did they do wrong? That is the point—since the animals did no wrong, they died in place of the one performing the sacrifice. Jesus Christ also did no wrong but willingly gave Himself to die for the sins of mankind (1 Timothy 2:6). Jesus Christ took our sin upon Himself and died in our place. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made him [Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Through faith in what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, we can receive forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read more: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html#ixzz2fHn1afk6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html#ixzz2fHn1afk6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Additional&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Animal had to be &lt;strong&gt;YOUR&lt;/strong&gt; Animal, your &lt;strong&gt;BEST&lt;/strong&gt; Animal, it was a sacrifice that you made, something that you gave up because you wanted to atone for your Sin. God made a Sacrifice by giving us His Only Son to be the Ultimate Sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastEditorUserId="4158" LastEditDate="2013-09-27T13:17:05.807" LastActivityDate="2013-09-27T13:17:05.807" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19150" CreationDate="2013-09-19T08:32:17.127" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The atonement theology is a complicated one to explain. To the believers, it is a simple acceptance of one's imperfection and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the perfect one to render us perfect in the eyes of God. To the unbelievers, it is foolishness that God would become human to die for their sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are&#xA;  perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1&#xA;  Corinthians 1:18, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some facts from the Bible,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All have sinned (Romans 3:23)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All must die because all have sinned (Romans 5:12)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Sin entered the world through one man&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Sin is like a deadly disease which infected the first man Adam and the effect continued down to all generations. There was no death before the fall of man in the garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, sin entered the world and death along with it, for the wages of sin is death. Man is now sinful and cannot be with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death&#xA;  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all&#xA;  sinned. (Romans 5:12, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;The blood of Christ is the remedy for sins&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;Man cannot create a cure from sin. Man cannot do anything to stop sinning. Only God can cure us from our sickness. The medicine to cure sin and death is the Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Only the blood of Christ can cleanse us from all sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship&#xA;  with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from&#xA;  all sin. (1 John 1:7, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Christ died for us&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Jesus Christ not only poured out His blood but also gave His life. The death penalty of sin was also paid by Jesus by dying on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still&#xA;  sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Christ defeated death&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; After receiving the death penalty, Jesus again rose from the death to declare victory over death. The resurrection of Christ enables us to share in His resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is&#xA;  your faith. (1 Corinthians 15:14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will&#xA;  certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans&#xA;  6:5, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;We will be resurrected like Christ&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; The main purpose of the death and resurrection of Christ is that, one day we will be resurrected like Christ to live forever with God and there will be no more death. God will cleanse us from all our sins by the blood of Christ and we will be transformed to immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will&#xA;  all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last&#xA;  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised&#xA;  imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must&#xA;  clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.&#xA;  When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the&#xA;  mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come&#xA;  true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”&#xA;   “Where, O death, is your victory?&#xA;      Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Corinthians 15:51-55, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;Why does someone without sin need to be punished in order to atone for another person's sins?&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; It's not only the punishment that plays the main role here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's the blood of Christ which can wash away our sins and make us perfect like Jesus Christ. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's the resurrection of Christ which gives us victory over death.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's the wounds of Christ which give us healing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's the punishments received by Christ which liberates us from the eternal punishment of Hell. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole idea is, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;You cannot save yourself from sin and death, you need God to do that for you&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-09-19T13:18:16.437" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T13:18:16.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4192" CreationDate="2013-09-19T10:24:55.687" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I totally agree with the first answer on here. The Judgment Seat of Christ is definitely only for the believer and the Great White Throne Judgement is for all unsaved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although i can say according to scripture i do believe that the Great White Throne Judgement and the Judgement Seat of Christ Judgement will definitively be at 2 different times. In Revelations 20:12 it shows multiple books being opened.  If your name is written in the book of life then you get kinda a pass on this judgement due to you've already been judged.  See we are all sinners destination HELL, that is without the Saving Blood of Jesus to cover us of course, (Romans 3:23). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can say that the Church will be raptured up before the complete end, Great White Judgement, and all the believers will also be slain before this judgement as well. During the time between all the saints being delivered out of the Wrath of God and the Great White Judgement i can definitively say that's when the Marriage Supper of the Lamb will take place and this is also the Judgement Seat of Christ.  Where the believer only gets judged and awarded for his work.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5823" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-19T16:39:08.117" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T16:39:08.117" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19146" CreationDate="2013-09-19T11:29:34.457" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The argument,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Given that faith requires an obedient, seeking heart, it almost seems&#xA;  like this is a way to remedy the fall of humankind, and to restore our&#xA;  obedience to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that faith is a requirement to please God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who&#xA;  comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who&#xA;  earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it is not true that God demanded faith only after the fall of Adam and Eve. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree&#xA;  in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of&#xA;  good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”&#xA;  (Genesis 2:16-17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first command given by God was not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. God gave a warning to Adam &lt;em&gt;&quot;when you eat from it you will certainly die&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. Here God was not only giving a command but demanded trust from Adam. It is like saying &lt;em&gt;&quot;Believe me Adam when I say 'you will certainly die'&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. Here death was not yet experienced by Adam but I believe that it was well understood by Adam. Allow me to even make a conjecture here that Adam understood the consequence of death that it was separation from God and probably, going to Hell. Here Adam had to have faith in God and the same goes to Eve. I believe that Adam explained very well about the fruit and the punishment to Eve but she failed to have faith in God and believed the words of the serpent who was inferior to her. In other words, Eve had no faith. She was not even putting her faith on the serpent. To put faith on the serpent would mean that even if death actually came over them, the serpent could nullify it's effect. But the serpent did not promise anything to Eve but only said that she will become like God. Eve did not ask the serpent, &quot;OK, if what God said was true, do you have the power to save me from death?&quot;. Eve was only curious about what the serpent was saying and wanted to try it, probably, without a second thought. Because Eve failed to have faith, she transgressed, which Adam followed because he loved his wife and now we are all doomed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith was always a requirement from the beginning. Now that Jesus opened the way to God, it is still faith alone that can lead us to God. Without having faith that Jesus is the way to heaven, how can anyone please God. Without believing that Jesus is the Son of God, how can anyone please God who sent Him? If Eve had faith in God, we would not have suffered and Jesus should not have died. Now that Jesus died for us, we need to have faith in Jesus to reconcile with God again.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who&#xA;  sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over&#xA;  from death to life. (John 5:24, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T11:29:34.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19161" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-19T11:54:28.407" Score="3" ViewCount="82" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand it, Christian education over the centuries often involved a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/18155/2212&quot;&gt;catechism&lt;/a&gt;, decade after decade, where both the student and teacher memorized a long and complete set of doctrines, often in question and answer format.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, it seems that Sunday School teachers are expected to use a book-- even magazine-- that provides new material each and every week. [Insert link to such publishers.] The teacher is as new to the material as are the students, even if it involves eternal truths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When, historically speaking, did such publishing industries arise? (Bonus points: have any prominent theologians commented on such a trend in Christian education publishing?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2014-01-20T23:21:43.990" Title="What is the history of the &quot;Sunday School publishing industry&quot;?" Tags="&lt;religious-education&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19163" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19150" CreationDate="2013-09-19T12:44:47.657" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”.  This is a spiritual law, it is as certain as any natural law. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, essentially, we understand that death is separation.  In this case, the death spoken of above is separation from God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus always makes manifest the will of God the Father, yet he was put to death.  Christ (who never sinned) suffered death in every way, even unto separation from God the Father.  Christ died for sin as the law requires, however, it was not for His own sin, but for the sins of mankind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathematically, this spiritual law is like this: A(life) + B(sin) = C(death)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christ it becomes: C(death) – B(sin) = A(life)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-09-19T13:42:52.140" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T13:42:52.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19165" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-19T13:16:53.403" Score="7" ViewCount="1506" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind&#xA;  on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth&#xA;  shall be loosed in heaven.” (&lt;em&gt;Matthew 16:19&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the main verse that Papal Supremacy (the final authority of the Pope to bind or loose) rests upon.  The Roman Church's interpretation of the contextual significance of this verse obviously differs from that of Orthodoxy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The footnote of the New American Bible says the following about this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably&#xA;  drawn from Is 22:15–25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master&#xA;  of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he&#xA;  authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Mt 22:22). Whatever you&#xA;  bind…loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature&#xA;  of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to&#xA;  the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of&#xA;  authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of&#xA;  excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that&#xA;  of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing.&#xA;  In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Mt&#xA;  18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing,&#xA;  but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of&#xA;  excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the&#xA;  kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church&#xA;  on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection&#xA;  between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of&#xA;  heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the most (if not &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; most) &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;divisive doctrines&lt;/a&gt; concerning the relationship between East and West.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems pretty clear to me, as the Catholic interpretive footnote denotes above, that Jesus was speaking directly to Peter, which implies that Peter is specifically given the &quot;Keys to the Kingdom&quot; (a.k.a. the final authority to bind and loose, a.k.a. Papal Supremacy).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To my knowledge, Eastern Orthodoxy differs from Catholicism concerning Peter's authority by teaching that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. Peter and his successors hold the highly dignified position of &quot;first among equals&quot; and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; &quot;Supreme Pontiff.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. Infallibility rests not in the Chair of Peter, but in the decrees and canons of ecumenical councils only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;C. The doctrine of papal supremacy derives from the gradual usurpation of jurisdictional authority - emerging definitively around the 8th and 9th cent. and reaching its full implementation with the 1054AD schism which was immediately followed by the Crusades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who do the Eastern Orthodox Church's believe the &quot;Keys to the Kingdom&quot; where given to by Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am specifically interested in answers from strictly an Orthodox standpoint.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-09-19T21:06:11.317" LastActivityDate="2014-06-25T13:36:23.080" Title="To whom do the Eastern Orthodox Church's believe the &quot;Keys to the Kingdom&quot; were given by Jesus?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19166" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19150" CreationDate="2013-09-19T13:41:08.483" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I once hear this story that really helped me understand&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you know why Jesus had to die? Can I tell you a story that might&#xA;  help make it clear? There is a story told about a particular Indian&#xA;  tribe who was suffering from the effects of a severe drought. Food was&#xA;  scarce and the members of the tribe were beginning to steal from each&#xA;  other in order to survive. Well the chief knew that that would be the&#xA;  death of the tribe so he issued a law that the next person caught&#xA;  stealing  would be taken to the center of the village, tied to a pole&#xA;  and publicly whipped. The next day, sure enough a thief was caught.&#xA;  Everyone turned up to see who it was and to witness the punishment. &#xA;  To everyone’s shock, the thief turned out to be the Chief’s own mom.&#xA;  What was he going to do. He was a good chief,  and could not justly&#xA;  ignore the law he had made the day before. He had to be just. But good&#xA;  grief, this was his mom. She was old, and frail, the beating could&#xA;  very well kill her. And he loved her. How  could he cause her to&#xA;  suffer? What do you think he should do? Which should win: His love or&#xA;  his justice? Well, here’s what he does. He orders that her wrists be&#xA;  tied to the pole so the beating can begin. And he calls the  punisher&#xA;  to step forward, whip in hand. But before he gives the order to&#xA;  commence, he steps in between his mom and the punisher.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He stretches&#xA;  his broad  shoulders across her frail back and with her body&#xA;  completely protected underneath his own, orders that the punishment be&#xA;  carried out. As the cords of the whip fall, they fall on him, and he&#xA;  absorbs the full brunt of her penalty. In that act he was both  just,&#xA;  in carrying out the penalty, and loving, by suffering it himself. That&#xA;  is what Jesus did for us. We are guilty of breaking His laws, and we&#xA;  know it. Everyone of us has a list of things  we are ashamed of, and&#xA;  things that we can’t stop doing even though we know it’s wrong. The&#xA;  Bible is clear that sin  earns a penalty and that God is just. The&#xA;  penalty must be paid. But it’s also clear that God loves us. He wants&#xA;  good  things for us. He doesn’t want us to be punished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So here’s what He did. He declared us guilty and ordered that the&#xA;  penalty be paid. Then He came to earth, became  a man, and hung on a&#xA;  cross for us. When Jesus was being crucified, what He was doing was&#xA;  stepping in between us  who are guilty, and God the Father who&#xA;  demanded justice. He absorbed the blows of that punishment so we&#xA;  wouldn’t  have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all have sinned and deserve death, but Jesus covered our sins by taking the death that belonged to us and paying for it with His life. The debt has been paid, all we have to decide is whether we will accept what He did for us. If we do then we do not sin anymore because we know what a great price was paid for us. If we don't accept it, we will pay with our own life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person only has one life. So you cannot pay for someone else's sin, because you yourself are a sinner. But Jesus, who was without sin can cover your sins, and the sins of everyone else because He did not sin and because it was the life of the Creator and not just the life of a created being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://crupressgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/theindianchief.pdf&quot;&gt;Link to Chief Story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-09-19T13:49:57.680" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T13:49:57.680" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19167" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19174" CreationDate="2013-09-19T14:00:38.037" Score="4" ViewCount="1967" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do  biblical literalists defend that if a star is 10 million light years away and we can see the light from it, therefore the Earth would have to be at least 10 million years old?  That is, because one of the laws that God set is that matter cannot be created or destroyed.  All matter would have to have been created at the same time, when God spoke and all was created (secularly known as the Big Bang).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2013-09-19T15:59:12.130" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T12:17:08.353" Title="Biblical literalness and the speed of light" Tags="&lt;science&gt;&lt;literalism&gt;&lt;fundamentalism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2013-09-23T12:49:24.260" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19167" CreationDate="2013-09-19T14:11:51.710" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the literalist. A Young Earth Creationist would directly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;challenge&lt;/a&gt; the scientific method used to define the speed of light and therefore the light year. Other literalists might shrug and say who can know the mind of God. (Romans 11:34)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, when arguing the age of the universe old/young universe proponents often argue that it is a cumulative case which involves several lines of evidence from several different fields. Therefore, in addition, young earth creationists assert there are anomalies in several old earth dating methods and they claim there are dating methods which show a young earth. See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How old is the earth?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;101 evidences for a young earth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="8698" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T12:17:08.353" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T12:17:08.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19165" CreationDate="2013-09-19T14:35:26.833" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue here is not Peter. Peter received the keys to the kingdom. Peter was the first leader of the entire church. The issue is with his successors. The Roman Catholic church decided that Peter's successor was not only head of the church in Rome but of the entire church. Eastern bishops took issue with this because they believed that the keys weren't ONLY given to Peter. (I'm deliberately glossing over the secular politics involved here.) Therefore, Linus had no authority over the entire church. And sadly, the absolute refusal of anyone on either side to give any ground on the issue means that there may never be any reconciliation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-09-19T21:34:44.157" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T21:34:44.157" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19171" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1594" CreationDate="2013-09-19T15:54:49.017" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two additional reasons for More's canonization. The first reason is that the Vatican wished to support English Roman Catholics over against the Church of England. Anglican-RC relations at this time were very frosty; and because More had defended papal (as against royal) supremacy in the church, and died for his conviction, he qualified as a martyr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second reason had to do with the times. In 1935, when More was canonized, Hitler had been in power for two years. More, in this context, was a great example of a layman standing up for his faith and resisting tyranny. It was a way of encouraging German Catholics to do the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5825" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T15:54:49.017" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7412" CreationDate="2013-09-19T16:16:08.117" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As to the question of &quot;how exactly is original sin passed down to the rest of mankind&quot;, it seems believable that: &#xA;1) it is transmitted both through father and mother, because both became sinful.&#xA;2) it is transmitted both by spirit and body&#xA;3) no one knows the exact way of transmission. &#xA;Why? Because the exact opposite way of restoring is also not known &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (Jn 3.8). We only can see the consequences, but not the process itself.&#xA;The second question: &quot;If so, what exempted Christ from sin but allowed him to remain 100% man&quot;. Fathers of Church, namely Cyrill of Alexsandria, say  that from the moment of incarnation, Jesus' body became incorruptible through the power of Almighty God who wished to be a human. This is a large topic and there is lot of literature on this. If necessary, I can cite some of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5824" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T16:16:08.117" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9032" CreationDate="2013-09-19T16:39:35.117" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripture clearly states, that &quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (Heb. 13:8). This means that if He in the age 30 new that He is Christ, then in His infancy too He knew that. This view is supported by 4-5 century Fathers. The places of the New Testament that seem to imply the contrary (for instance, His words about not knowing the day of Doom) are interpreted by Fathers of the Church as follows: any of human qualities that imply limitation, like hunger, fear, tears, ignorance, He accepted voluntarily and only when He wished that, and not involuntarily like us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5824" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T16:39:35.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19167" CreationDate="2013-09-19T18:07:15.420" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;God is not controlled by laws of science&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; I don't know whether you can share this idea with me or not. The truth is, science cannot explain everything. Simple things like dreams, thoughts, feelings and emotions cannot be explained by science. Science can only understand the things that human can see, touch, feel and hear. I don't think the law of science as we have here on earth or this universe will still apply in Heaven. The place where God dwells will surely have a different science. For instance, I don't think the light in heaven will consists of only seven colors, it might have more. I also don't think gravitational force will have any effect on God or heavenly beings while even light can be attracted by gravitational force, according to Einstein. For example, in the movie &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix&quot;&gt;&quot;The Matrix&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, everything inside the Matrix was programmed using advance computer languages; the gravity, the taste of food etc. were all designed but it was different from the real world in many ways, it was incomplete. While you can bend the laws of science in the Matrix, it's not the same in the real world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;God created science&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  If we can believe that God created this universe out of nothing, we should also believe that everything, and literally everything in this universe came into existence by the mere words of God. That would include the laws of science which governs this very universe; the speed of light, law of gravity, law of refraction, planetary motions, rotations and revolutions, birth and death of stars, etc...  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God said, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Let there be light&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and lo and behold, there was light! God created the light with a single sentence from His mouth. Creating the light means creating the very nature of it, it's speed, it's power, the substance through which it can pass, the energy that it carries, its behavior and so on. For instance, when a car is designed, it's speed, it's size, etc. are decided. In the same manner, God designed the speed of light, the speed of sound, the mass of every particles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;God is bigger than you can imagine&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; It doesn't matter you believe in Old Earth or Young Earth, the most important thing is how big can you imagine God to be? How powerful do you think God is? How far can you put your faith in God. If the Bible says God created the whole universe within 6 days, do you have a problem in believing it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?&#xA;  (Jeremiah 32:27, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T18:07:15.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19175" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-19T19:59:27.493" Score="-2" ViewCount="76" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who is more important to God the Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus His Only Son?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The people Jesus died for?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was posed to me today by a friend and I have no idea how to answer it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If 1. is chosen, then it would suggest that it would be stupid for God to sacrifice His only beloved Son for people who don't deserve it. In other words the sacrifice of Jesus just would not have happened. e.g. If I have 2 cars of the same model, a good one and a not so good one, I would ALWAYS take parts from the bad one to put in the good one (if needed), never the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If 2. then what does that say about God the Father and His love for Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-09-20T12:20:13.660" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T12:20:13.660" Title="Comparison of worth to the Father between Jesus and His people" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19176" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19175" CreationDate="2013-09-19T20:10:36.813" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is based on bit of faulty logic which isn't really appropriate to the scenario. Firstly, the analogy of a car isn't appropriate when it's applied to people. The car analogy wouldn't be used, for example, if you were trying to compare the importance of your wife versus your children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, two important points are forgotten:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is a willing participant in this. God the Son &lt;em&gt;chose&lt;/em&gt; to descend from heaven and pay the price to redeem mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus and the Father are also in some sense one. God the Father is not just sacrificing his son, he is also sacrificing himself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This issue is not a logical economic transaction and should not be approached that way. People do 'stupid' things all the time to save the ones they love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-09-20T12:19:39.953" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T12:19:39.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19177" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19484" CreationDate="2013-09-19T20:28:04.187" Score="27" ViewCount="23905" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not all translations are created equal, and often the public domain ones freely available online are some of the worst. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine fans out there – whose translation of &lt;em&gt;Confessions&lt;/em&gt; is the best in English? I'm looking for readability (out-loud or otherwise) here, not necessarily technical accuracy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the English translations that I'm aware of (I doubt this is a complete list):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;E.B. Pusey (1838) In Public Domain, free online at Project Gutenberg&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;J.G. Pilkington (1886), free online at www.newadvent.org&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;F.J. Sheed (1948)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Albert C. Outler (1955), free online at www.ccel.org&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John K. Ryan (1960)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Maria Boulding (1997)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hal M. Helms (2010)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pusey translation revised by Cormac Burke (2012), free online www.cormacburke.or.ke&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Benignus O'Rourke (2013)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are four excerpts from different translations, all from the first few sentences of Book I, Chapter 3:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pusey:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do the heaven and earth then contain Thee, since Thou fillest them? or&#xA;  dost Thou fill them and yet overflow, since they do not contain Thee?&#xA;  And whither, when the heaven and the earth are filled, pourest Thou&#xA;  forth the remainder of Thyself? or hast Thou no need that aught&#xA;  contain Thee, who containest all things, since what Thou fillest Thou&#xA;  fillest by containing it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Burke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do the heaven and earth then contain You, since You fill them? or do&#xA;  You fill them and yet overflow, since they do not contain You? And&#xA;  whither, when the heaven and the earth are filled, pour You forth the&#xA;  remainder of Yourself? or have You no need that aught contain You, who&#xA;  contain all things, since what You fill You fill by containing it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Boulding:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So then, if you fill heaven and earth, does that mean that heaven and&#xA;  earth contain you? Or, since clearly they cannot hold you, is there&#xA;  something of you left over when you have filled them? Once heaven and&#xA;  earth are full, where would that remaining part of you overflow? Or&#xA;  perhaps you have no need to be contained by anything, but rather&#xA;  contain everything yourself, because whatever you fill you contain,&#xA;  even as you fill it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;O'Rourke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do heaven and earth contain you, then, since you fill them? or do you&#xA;  fill them, and is there something of you left over because they are&#xA;  not able to contain you? If so, where else do you pour the rest of&#xA;  your being, when heaven and earth are filled? Or is it that nothing&#xA;  can contain you, because you contain everything and fill everything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My initial impression is that Boulding sounds the most contemporary and in many regards is &quot;easier to read,&quot; but perhaps it is weak in other areas. Sheed seems to be a very close second (and superior in other regards).  The book reviews on Amazon rarely address the translation, so I'm asking here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5754" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-07-12T12:49:35.090" LastActivityDate="2018-04-22T10:23:34.257" Title="Which translation of Augustine's Confessions is the easiest to read in English?" Tags="&lt;translation&gt;&lt;augustine&gt;&lt;christian-literature&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19178" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19167" CreationDate="2013-09-19T20:46:26.060" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Historically, Creationists when confronted with this issue have often subscribed to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Apparent Age Theory&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2011/10/al-mohler-and-the-apparent-age-of-the-cosmos/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Al Mohler, for example&lt;/a&gt; is an advocate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also called the &quot;Omphalos Hypothesis,&quot; the idea is that when God created the universe, he did so in such a way as to make Creation appear to have a certain age.  Thus, Adam had a belly button (even if he didn't need one per se), light starts already along its path, and rocks look old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a philosophical point of view, there are problems - Last Thursdayism and the Five Minute Hypothesis essentially cry &quot;unfair,&quot; since it makes the hypothesis unfalsifiable. Regardless, however, it is a common defense amongst Creationists, including the &lt;a href=&quot;http://creationwiki.org/Apparent_age&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Institute for Creation Research and the &quot;Creation Wiki&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T20:46:26.060" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19179" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-19T20:55:00.013" Score="6" ViewCount="354" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.,) we really don't see Matthew &amp;amp; Rose, Mark &amp;amp; Betty, Luke &amp;amp; Beatrice, John &amp;amp; Sally, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do churches put so much emphasis on couples, inferring that singles who have chosen celibacy really don't have a place (of course unless they are teen or twenties)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I gave my life to Jesus at 16, and now am 61, and chose a path of singleness, according to the ability God gave me. I am confused because there seems to be such heavy emphasis on couples (nothing wrong with couples; I had extra-terrific parents for example). However, it is hurtful to feel like singles are the &quot;low end of the totem pole&quot;in Christian service and responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My parents had two girls (one married, and one single...me).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do pastors cater to couple images because they presume tithing is higher? Is there cultural etiquette persuading the church more than templates of the New Testament church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5827" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-06-30T14:59:22.673" LastActivityDate="2018-06-30T14:59:22.673" Title="so few churches acknowledge singles in light of 1 Corinthians 7: 6-9 is this an oversight?" Tags="&lt;singleness&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2016-08-04T09:04:50.940" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19167" CreationDate="2013-09-19T22:16:51.400" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Old Earth Creationists consider themselves literalists, and hold that light was created in Gen 1:1 along with the rest of matter and energy.   A Spirit who happened to be hovering on the waters made light to appear as dust was coalescing around the dustball we now call Earth.  A defense of the literalness of an Old Earth Creation exegesis can be found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1-2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; form Reasons to Believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-09-19T22:16:51.400" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19183" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-20T04:20:02.637" Score="5" ViewCount="4166" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus came to Earth or was born roughly 2000 years ago. At least 500 years earlier, there were civilizations in the Middle Eastern / Near Eastern region that could &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakhamaneshian&quot;&gt;carve the faces of their kings and queens on stones&lt;/a&gt;. So, why does no one know what Jesus looks like? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5830" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-09-20T12:30:01.917" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T12:30:01.917" Title="Why does no one know what Jesus looks like?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-09-29T14:31:26.457" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8327" CreationDate="2013-09-20T04:33:59.873" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hello there Tom MacLachlan here. I think that most of the replies are missing the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think again of the first time God uses the words darkness in Genesis chapter 1. Think also of the eternal God in his own realm He calls eternity; and then think again on how in an instant He creates our whole world and universe in an instant out of &quot;Nothing&quot; which He calls is a new founded place which is &quot;Void and without Form and Darkness and Upon The Deep&quot; and think again of how lifeless this means. That there is no micro-biology in there to instigate the big bang theory; and that there was no light - life breath of God in it to bring it to life. Think also of the fact that this whole place is no larger than a pin head in God's eternal eternity, and that He instantly creates our whole world in it's entire structure and functionability in an instant - now with His breath of Life in it to sustain it and us and all of the animals and insects and creepy crawlies and dust and oxygen and carbon and nitrogen and the heavens and the cosmos and all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then think of how perfect God had made it; where no rust and no corrosion and no defect in it at all. Then think of this perfect universe that God sustains by His very will and breath and word, will soon to be cast into darkness and bound in darkness, bound by the power of Sin from the moment Adam eats of that forbidden fruit. Then think of how perfect the animals have it amongst themselves and with Adam and Eve and the weather conditions as mentioned in Genesis chapters 1-3; and how soon that peace and harmony will soon be shattered for all time in Adams Sin. And then think of how perfect we are in Adam before the fall to do with out health, and our spirit/soul's condition to do the will of God freely, and without restraint, nor tainted in any way; and then think of how perfect we are in him to do with our moral fibre and conscience and body functions and stature before God, before the fall of us all in Adams Sin. And then think of why God uses the terms in Genesis chapter 3 to do with the two Seeds - the one to do with Jesus Seed and the other to do with Satan's Seed. And then think of why this out come is necessary as to the two Seeds, and only the two Seeds, before and after the fall. And then think of how from the moment Adam did eat of that forbidden fruit that Sin entered into the Seed of Jesus Christ only in Adam; and then think of how the perfect condition of the whole universe was shattered by that Sin of Adam's which started the whole universe to begin to decay and die in due time according to God's almighty wisdom and counsel and providence as well;and then think of how this same Sin that Adams Sin has wrought upon the animal kingdom as well, so that they are now at odds with each other and the so called food chain of God's perfect world has now been set into dis-array and collapse as well. And then think of how God also uses the word darkness as the judgement upon the world and in the world and upon mankind and upon His seed in Adam and upon Satan's Seed in Satan as well, and why He has to introduce us to His Ten Commandments and how to set up our societies and nations structures and laws each time and every where by the simple structure of a man and a woman in holy matrimony; firstly by Adam and Eve, and then by Noah and his wife, and then by their sons and their sons wives and so on, since then. And then think of how God continues to use the word Darkness and Sin to do with Satan's Seed only who will never enter into His heavenly kingdom in Jesus Christ; and are in fact pre-ordained to end up in His judgement place called Hell and Damnation since before the beginning of God's creation time. Then think again of how God uses the term Darkness and Sin with the word Bondage and being Bound in Sin and in Darkness to described how His people only are bound by Sin and darkness in a temporary state - till they are called out of darkness by Jesus Christ to do with The Lamb's Book of Life, and the biblical doctrinal standards as they are mentioned in the Westminster Confession of faith and in the Larger and Shorter Heidelberg Catechisms. And as to why Satan and his Seed are always bound in Darkness and in Sin for all eternity because they are darkness and sin incarnate in themselves in Satan and the fallen angels. Then think of why God uses such pictorial words like &quot;The Potter and the Clay&quot; and &quot;Vessels for Honour and Vessels for Dishonour to drive His points home to us since those times. And why God always keeps a remnant of His Seed in Jesus Christ even though He starts again in Noah and so on; and as to why He decides to scatter the whole of the human race (Jesus' Seed and Satan's Seed), in Genesis chapter 11. And think also of why God uses the word Darkness and Sin to be in the world and in us too (those who are truly of God's elect in Jesus Christ) as to how a strong man's home can never be invaded and corrupted and taken into captivity if he keep it according to God's Word and Ways; and how easily it can be over taken (meaning his soul), can be over taken by this same Sin in him again and again if he does not remain under God's power and authority and influence spiritually and consciously -  hence the word Darkness and Sin are being used inter changeably here. And think again of why a nation can be led into captivity against God from the moment they turn from God and become like Sodom and Gomorragh all over again and again, so that, that nation is living by darkness as much as they re living in darkness by the power of Sin in them. And then think of why we have so many so called mental health diseases diagnosed to us these days when in fact we have a mortal physical spiritual condition in us and around us called Sin within and darkness all around us to deal with from the womb to the tomb. Again these are lies which take us away from knowing God and being obedient to Him in Jesus Christ by the very same Seed of Satan amongst us to this very day; and then think of how God uses the word Darkness and Sin to describe some one who has been captured by a demon with in them that has similar symptoms to do with insanity appears to be to their parent and why some people suffer from blood disorders and so on. And why the only cure all for all of these things is in the name of Jesus Christ all of the time.And then think again of why God has put in place such people as Kings and Queens and their national laws and constitutional laws against all forms of murder and espionage and insurrection and the worshiping of false gods. Again these are done so as to teach the ungodly in satan's seed how to worship God in between times and why God's people who are still held in darkness at this time and who still have the corruptness of Sin in them affecting their ability to worship God as they ought to do still need to be abiding in these self same man made laws that do not contradict nor usurp any and all of God's Laws to do with The Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that when they are called out of darkness and filled with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and Baptised in His name, how they are to live by all of God's laws from then onwards, because they now can due to the influence of in the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in them from then onwards. And how Jesus Christ is still the Sovereign Lord and God above all gods and lords and kings and queens and governments and false religions as seen in Matthew 28: last three verses - 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, *&lt;em&gt;All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.&lt;/em&gt;*19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Which includes the Lord's prayer too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the word Darkness is inter linked with the word sin to do with the physical condition the whole universe is in, and as to the physical condition mankind is in to do with our mortal bodies being so easily falling victim to various colds and flues and diseases both natural and man made ones as well. And as to why Satan's Seed always wants to go for world domination and control over every ones mind and consciences; that is why Jesus uses the metaphor to do with &quot;If a house be divided against itself it can not stand, but will fall.&quot; So too that is why none of Satan's Seed can stand by each other unilaterally for very long, except for their one determination -  World domination and control just as Nimrod did in his day to do with the Tower of Babel. Nimrod was Noah's great, great grandson, but not of the true Seed of Jesus Christ - just as Cain rose up against his fellow man (brother in this respect) Able and killed him from a Sinful resolution in him we know as spite.So too does the Seed of Satan rise up constantly against God and His seed in each and every generation.And why God is always forewarning us all and especially our women folk not to rise up above their rightful place at the side of their husband and want to have dominion in the home and in their society and in their nation all of the time (as seen in Isaiah chapter 3, and in Numbers chapter 30, and in the first five books of Moses and in the book of Proverbs and in the New Testament as well - which takes us back to Genesis chapter 3 where God tells the woman this about her place in the world from that moment onwards - 3: 16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt ring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And yet how often do we see darkness and sin having the dominion in their homes because they often break this simple rule of Gods. And we also see the same thing in husbands like this when Adam said to God - don't blame me for what I've just done...it's your fault God, you gave her to me to be my wife. I'm not to blame at all. Then think again of how and why our children raise up against us since the fall of mankind in Adam, simply by the indwelling of sin in us all, in Adam's Sin. Which takes us back to the whole significance of the two words darkness and sin, throughout God's Holy Bible. And the need for His divine saviour in himself in Jesus Christ (His only begotten Sonship in His Son), by the power of the Holy Spirit just as John the Baptist said of Him by the river Jordan where he said &quot;I indeed do baptise you with water, but there comes such a one from God whose shoe latches I am unworthy to loosen; and it is he who will baptise you with power by the power of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Amen.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So think again most deeply and prayerfully as to how you choose to understand this word Darkness because if you allow the same Sin that is in us all to misdirect you to some other interpretations then you are going to get it wrong all of the time and then you will teach others the wrong things too. And you will teach your children the wrong things too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sincerely, Tom MacLachlan, Mount Gambier, South Australia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5831" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T04:33:59.873" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19183" CreationDate="2013-09-20T06:01:54.873" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Civilisations have to put a lot of effort into recording images. It's only rulers and powerful or politically-influential people who get their portraits painted or made into some other reasonably-permanent physical form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's true today: how many portraits are there of the British Queen, for example [on every coin and banknote and many many more] compared to Joe Bloggs? Even if Joe lives in a nice house, or is a Member of Parliament, far fewer. In this internet age, there are many images of media celebrities, but even they are mainly digitally stored and don't exist in a permanent form like a sculpture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus wasn't a ruler. He was an itinerant preacher. If there were any portraits of him they were likely to be on Wanted posters; even if his disciples had painted portraits they would have been on ephemeral materials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;theological&lt;/strong&gt; reason that there are no images is that what he looked like is not important. In fact it could be counterproductive. It's what Jesus did and what he said which are important, and they were certainly remembered and written down for posterity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the epitome of being &quot;all things to all men&quot; (1 Cor 9:22) &amp;mdash; because there is no contemporary image, we are free to imagine him as we will so that what he tells us is relevant to &lt;strong&gt;us&lt;/strong&gt; and not limited to those in some far-off place who happen to look like him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T06:01:54.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9032" CreationDate="2013-09-20T08:52:17.470" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1.&lt;/strong&gt; As has been stated in one of the other answers the Lord Jesus made at the age of twelve a public distinction between His Father and Joseph and stating that He must be about His Father's business (KJV); not house (ESV). Else He would have spend the rest of His earthly days in the Temple...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 2:41-52 (KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the&#xA;  passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem&#xA;  after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days,&#xA;  as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and&#xA;  Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have&#xA;  been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among&#xA;  their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they&#xA;  turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that&#xA;  after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of&#xA;  the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all&#xA;  that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And&#xA;  when they saw him, they were amazed:and his mother said unto him, Son,&#xA;  why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought&#xA;  thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me?&#xA;  wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they&#xA;  understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down&#xA;  with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them:but his&#xA;  mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in&#xA;  wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2.&lt;/strong&gt; He also throughout his ministry never called Mary &quot;Mother&quot; but rather &quot;Woman&quot;. Respectfully, but to not place any spiritual authority with her as Roman Catholicism does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 2:3-5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They&#xA;  have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with&#xA;  thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants,&#xA;  Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 19:25-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's&#xA;  sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus&#xA;  therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved,&#xA;  he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the&#xA;  disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her&#xA;  unto his own home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3.&lt;/strong&gt; For the Lord Jesus Christ to be a sinless sacrifice must mean that He never sinned, not even as a child. For a child not to sin takes some extraordinary, supernatural work because it is simply an impossibility. Every child sins in so many ways even when they are but a few weeks/months old; as any parent can testify when watching that first tantrum... So for the Lord not to have sinned must mean that He not only was aware of His sinless holy Nature, but that He was by this Godly Nature able to restrain Himself from sinning, even as a little babe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 4:15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the&#xA;  feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we&#xA;  are, yet without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5405" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T08:52:17.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="72" CreationDate="2013-09-20T08:59:55.347" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 5:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And why not add the Apostle Thomas' own confession in John 20:28?&#xA;&quot;And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;=========&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Read this:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Support for 1 John 5:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5405" LastEditorUserId="5405" LastEditDate="2016-05-23T08:49:19.853" LastActivityDate="2016-05-23T08:49:19.853" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19188" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-09-20T10:32:03.160" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-09-20T10:32:03.160" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T10:32:03.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19189" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-09-20T10:32:03.160" Score="0" Body="A physical sign of respect and humility such as bending one knee to the ground. Such gestures are a part of corporate worship in the Roman Catholic Church and some other churches." OwnerUserId="5826" LastEditorUserId="5826" LastEditDate="2013-09-20T12:29:34.260" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T12:29:34.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19022" CreationDate="2013-09-20T12:02:58.990" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Holy Scripture speaks here from man's perspective. It does not limit God in any way. It will appear that God chooses a place when he reveals it to David. From the fact that Isaac was 'sacrificed' by Abraham on the same spot clearly shows that the all-knowing God had this spot in mind all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5405" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T12:02:58.990" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19192" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-20T12:08:40.677" Score="4" ViewCount="24975" Body="&lt;p&gt;After reading &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19167/biblical-literalness-and-the-speed-of-light&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;, another question came to my mind. If God created the light only after the creation of the universe, then does it mean there was no light in Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we read the context in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1-5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 1:1-5&lt;/a&gt; carefully, the light created in &lt;code&gt;Genesis 1:3&lt;/code&gt; seems to be the light that we have here on earth, which consists of seven colors. God has already existed long before the universe was created. If there was no other form of light in Heaven before the creation of this universe, that would mean there was no light in Heaven and God was dwelling in darkness. But &lt;code&gt;1 John 1:5&lt;/code&gt; says, &lt;em&gt;&quot;God is light&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. This could mean that the light in Heaven and the light we have on earth are not the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is&#xA;  light; in him there is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God is light, then what was the need to create light again? Does it mean the light that God naturally has is different from the light that God created in &lt;code&gt;Genesis 1:3&lt;/code&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was God living in darkness before He created the light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-03-04T12:54:21.763" Title="Was God living in darkness before the creation of light?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-05T06:35:23.493" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19179" CreationDate="2013-09-20T12:09:50.833" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Churches/Pastors should never discriminate or cater to any specific group. This is especially true with a group that appears to be elevated in the heart of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible speaks of a group, yes those that Paul identifies with: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7:7,8 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But &lt;strong&gt;every man hath his proper gift of God&lt;/strong&gt;, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How amazing that this group would be shunned as less significant.  It does not appear that this was always so.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 56:4,5 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;Even unto them will &lt;strong&gt;I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters&lt;/strong&gt;: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus speaks to this same group:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 19:11,12 …he said unto them, &quot;All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who are the eunuchs spoken of by Isaiah? Are they those to whom it is given, those born to live a celibate life?  Are they those like Paul, unencumbered by a physical marriage, wholly united to Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This group should be elevated, set apart, and sought out for their insight into the things of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are in an age where &quot;herd mentality&quot; is very strong and unfortunately a celibate life in an age of hyper-sexuality is not likely going to be understood.  Rest-assured, your Heavenly Father esteems those so born.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-12-05T12:39:30.360" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T12:39:30.360" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19194" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-20T12:25:26.353" Score="3" ViewCount="158" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am writing a story wherein a pill to increase empathy and awareness of your fellow human being is invented. I was wondering what the view of the Catholic church is on self-enhancement. I went to a catholic school all of my life and have read large parts of the Bible, but the most I got out of my limited education on the subject was that one should be cautious when adopting new technologies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did see a few questions on medication and seeking medical treatment, where the general consensus was that it depended on personal beliefs. I was wondering if there were any passages of the bible relevant to this or if the Catholic church has made any statement. I think this question is plausibly answerable considering the Catholic church has made statements about various other sci-fi phenomenon, such as the possibility of extra-terrestrials.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5833" LastEditorUserId="22426" LastEditDate="2018-11-12T15:57:03.850" LastActivityDate="2018-11-12T15:57:03.850" Title="Catholic's view on artificial self-enhancement" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;technology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19196" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19201" CreationDate="2013-09-20T14:24:39.913" Score="3" ViewCount="116" Body="&lt;p&gt;If God created the world with the intention that his creatures should live in harmony (as pictured in Isaiah 11:6-9) why did he create some animals with lethal weapons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do spiders make webs to trap insects? Why do scorpions have venomous stings? Why do lions have teeth that are great for eating meat but lousy for eating grass?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5838" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T15:29:25.607" Title="What is the creationist view on animals equipped with lethal weapons?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19197" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19179" CreationDate="2013-09-20T14:31:46.583" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To many &quot;innocent&quot; eyes will be blinded by the Light of liberty when it is ultimately revealed. Both in this age and the age to come with greater and greater celebration and fearful self-reflection. The mirror that is the Word. Will accurately reveal Christ in anyone who looks &quot;into&quot; it. They wont see... gender divisions as &quot;real&quot; differences but as utilitarian in order and wholly unreliable at understanding its own spirit inhabitant and others. lol &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One by one. I think I am last. Would love to add to a real converts experience. My own has proven to only open more vistas than one lifetime...possibly fix and discover. His words are lively and in the light of new understanding, the old &quot;devotions&quot; speak anew to me. So some are touched and some read with a hunger to experience and it drives them from their country. He awaits all who dare to seek. He quenches all thirsty from wanton desire. He satisfies all living beings with himself. Sustaining them without bread or water but with His will. His will to be light is what causes light to continue unhindered. His will to subject another element to vanity in hope of this greater reward for his only begotten is righteous and those elements have declared as much. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let his people go... they will find him on the Way. :)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5839" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T14:31:46.583" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19198" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19209" CreationDate="2013-09-20T14:38:58.707" Score="9" ViewCount="35126" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the book of Acts Chapter 1:v 4-5 regarding an earlier speech of Jesus, it is written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On one occasion,while he was eating with them he gave them this command:Do not leave Jerusalem,but wait for the gift my father promised,which you have heard me speak about.&#xA;  5:For John baptised with water but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the disciples were choosing one of their own to replace Judas,it is written Acts 1:v23-26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So they proposed two men:Joseph called Barsabass (also known as Justus) and Matthias.&#xA;  24:Then they prayed,&quot;Lord,you know everyone's heart.Show us which of these two men you have chosen 25: to take over this apostolic ministry,which Judas left to go where he belongs.&quot; 26:Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias;so he was added to the eleven apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they were to baptised by the Holy Spirit in a few days time,then why did they use a form of divination by casting lots to discover who to choose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5525" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2015-06-18T12:57:50.117" LastActivityDate="2015-10-11T23:23:01.677" Title="Why did the disciples cast lots when the Holy Spirit was promised" Tags="&lt;acts&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-25T00:41:23.243" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19192" CreationDate="2013-09-20T14:59:15.630" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the consensus interpretation of the Fathers to be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;light&quot; that is continually attributed to God's nature is its own concept, which we commonly speak of using &quot;optical&quot; language. God has never been without it. Its absence is spiritual darkness. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;light&quot; of Genesis 1:3 refers principally to the creation of certain spiritual things - heaven, the angels, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Secondarily, this &quot;light&quot; is some sort of primordial energy, which may include the kind of light that we experience in everyday life, but isn't limited to that. (This is not necessarily cleanly distinguishable from the spiritual light of the previous bullet point, though; we with our scientific knowledge want to say that light is just a simple matter of physics, but the Bible was not written in the time of Maxwell.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, &lt;em&gt;light&lt;/em&gt; is associated above all with God, as in your quotation from 1 John. This light illuminates us, so that being &quot;in darkness&quot; means being dissociated from God (in a state of sin, deprivation, etc.) and being &quot;in light&quot; is the opposite. Some more examples from the New Testament (NRSV) are John 1 (or actually pretty much anywhere in John):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light— for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true. Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and 1 Thessalonians 5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, heaven, the angels, and the saints are all described in terms of light, for example in the Revelation. It would appear that 1 John 1:5, &quot;God is light&quot;, should be talking about this kind of light, as opposed to the electromagnetic phenomenon that resembles it. This interpretation is supported by the writings of the Fathers. For example, Augustine reads the creation of light in Genesis 1 as mainly referring to the creation of the heavenly realm and its angels (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt; 11.7, 9&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits. [...] When God said, &lt;em&gt;Let there be light, and there was light&lt;/em&gt;, if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels, then certainly they were created partakers of the eternal light which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made, and whom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they, being illumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called Day, in participation of that unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God, by whom both themselves and all else were made. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar remarks can be found in Basil's &lt;em&gt;Homilies on the Hexaemeron&lt;/em&gt;, Chrysostom's &lt;em&gt;Homilies on Genesis&lt;/em&gt;, and so on. Ambrose, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Exposition of the Christian Faith&lt;/em&gt; 1.13(79)&lt;/a&gt;, has a particularly relevant comment: &quot;Think not, then, that there was ever a moment of time when God was without wisdom, any more than that there was ever a time when light was without radiance.&quot; God could certainly not have been living in spiritual darkness. The heavenly city, created under the name of &quot;light&quot;, should be understood as reflecting the glory of God's eternal &quot;light&quot;. (The optical metaphor of reflection is very common in these writings.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that Augustine (et al.) &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; see in Genesis 1:3 the creation of &quot;ordinary&quot; light, though they are at a loss to explain exactly what it means for light to exist without some light-giving body (only created in verses 14-19). Augustine says: &quot;What kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it.&quot; (11.7). Basil  suggests that the light here created was, at least, a special sort of light of indescribable beauty (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32012.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2.7&lt;/a&gt;). In contemporary speculation, and certainly up to the scholastic period, the light meant some kind of abstract energy, not limited to what we perceive as visible light. It is primordial light, analogous to the primordial, unformed, chaotic matter of Genesis 1:2; writers of this period were strongly influenced by Plato's &lt;em&gt;Timaeus&lt;/em&gt; and its account of the progressive formation of all things from &quot;raw&quot; substance, the &lt;em&gt;ylem&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T14:59:15.630" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19200" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19205" CreationDate="2013-09-20T15:28:10.273" Score="4" ViewCount="554" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find it a confusing paradox, maybe someone can help clear this up.  If someone considers themselves to be a Biblical Literalist AND an Old Earth Creationist, how do you handle the dates within the bible?  &lt;a href=&quot;http://answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Please see here for the complete article&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/kvVoY.png&quot; alt=&quot;Chart&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And simply: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we&#xA;  add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using&#xA;  the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or&#xA;  secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C.&#xA;  (4,000 years ago).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some grey areas in the calculation, however they're not thousands or millions of years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2013-09-20T15:58:54.883" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T01:47:54.467" Title="How do Old Earth Literalist handle the Biblical Earth age?" Tags="&lt;literalism&gt;&lt;old-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19196" CreationDate="2013-09-20T15:29:25.607" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer is He didn't create animals with lethal weapons in the beginning.  In the beginning (Genesis 1) there was no death, thus no animal ate another.  &quot;By man came death&quot; through the entrance of sin. (1 Corinthians 15:21, Romans 6:23)  Therefore after sin animals began to devour one another.  A full 40 minute well done presentation on the creation and fall of man is found here- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQmLVU_nvo8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQmLVU_nvo8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T15:29:25.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19202" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-20T16:52:24.567" Score="0" ViewCount="309" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is one of the things about the idea of eternal life that I don't understand and that seems paradox to me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a human has no existence before having been begot by his parents, yet if a human has then potentially infinitely long existence in eternal life, not bringing each extra potential human life into existence would seem to amount to an infinitely large loss. It's quite a tall order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why could we justify not making children all (and I mean all) the time? How could we bear each moment when it brings yet another responsibility of potentially infinite consequence: should one (or does one have to) launch yet another human life into  eternal being? If so, even having dozens of children would not seem to be good enough. And what then about related moral issues such as rape, etc.? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What does theology have to say about this on a fundamental level and how does it solve the seeming dilemma around this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5842" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T01:22:32.157" Title="Seeming paradox arising from idea of eternal life" Tags="&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-09-29T14:36:07.127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2464" CreationDate="2013-09-20T17:06:28.770" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 2:16 NASB says:&#xA;[16] &quot;For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.&quot;&#xA;This verse is in the context of Christ's incarnation as a human to provide a way of salvation. The &quot;help&quot; not given to Angels but given to mankind implies Angels have no savior for redemption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5843" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T17:06:28.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19204" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19206" CreationDate="2013-09-20T17:17:41.033" Score="4" ViewCount="2045" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was Jesus perfect his entire life? This passage seems to suggest otherwise. I've never had a good answer to this question when referring to this passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it&#xA;  be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask,&#xA;  and I will not put the Lord to the test.” And he said, “Hear then, O&#xA;  house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary&#xA;  my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. &lt;strong&gt;Behold,&#xA;  the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name&#xA;  Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the&#xA;  evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the&#xA;  evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be&#xA;  deserted.&lt;/strong&gt; The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon&#xA;  your father's house such days as have not come since the day that&#xA;  Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”&#xA;  ~ Isaiah 7:10-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5844" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T21:48:02.770" LastActivityDate="2016-06-04T19:54:38.533" Title="Was Jesus perfect his entire life? - Isaiah 7" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;&lt;perfection&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-06-05T04:57:58.507" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19205" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19200" CreationDate="2013-09-20T17:40:40.580" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://godandscience.org/youngearth/old_earth_creationism.html&quot;&gt;Here's one answer&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis added):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Professor William Henry&#xA;  Green and theologian Benjamin B. Warfield noted gaps and omissions in&#xA;  the Genesis genealogies. This suggested the creation was conceivably&#xA;  older than the 6,000-year timeframe proposed by Ussher and Lightfoot.&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Today many Bible scholars believe the Genesis genealogies were written&#xA;  primarily to provide only highlights and not necessarily a complete&#xA;  record of every actual generation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-genesis-genealogies&quot;&gt;here's another&lt;/a&gt; from Reasons to Believe that argues in essence that there is telescoping and theological (rather than strictly historical -- but that's not to say unhistorical) content therein.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This theological telling of history is akin to what we see in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, for instance. See &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://thirdmill.org/articles/ra_mclaughlin/nt.ra_mclaughlin.matt.1.html&quot;&gt;The Adoption of Jesus&lt;/a&gt;&quot; where the (conservative) author notes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The generations are not counted in a precisely similar fashion —&#xA;  Jeconiah is counted twice. This is not inappropriate given that [the&#xA;  genealogy] is primarily a literary device intended to highlight the&#xA;  four markers [&lt;em&gt;viz&lt;/em&gt;., Abraham, David, the exile, and Christ].&#xA;  Moreover, Jeconiah rightly belongs in both groups: in the first group,&#xA;  he is in a line of kings; in the second group, having been deposed, he&#xA;  is merely counted as a man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3808" LastEditorUserId="3808" LastEditDate="2013-09-20T17:56:48.887" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T17:56:48.887" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19206" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19204" CreationDate="2013-09-20T18:01:00.523" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the passage you mention it never says Jesus sinned or did evil.  We can find the answer to that question in Hebrews 4:14-15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through&#xA;  the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. &#xA;  For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our&#xA;  weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More info here - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/18/t/christs-human-nature.aspx&quot;&gt;http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/18/t/christs-human-nature.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T18:01:00.523" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19204" CreationDate="2013-09-20T18:29:16.373" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the NIV translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Children are not aware of good or evil until they reach a certain age, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;age of accountability&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, and understanding. One cannot choose to do good or evil until one is aware of what good and evil are and the differences between them, and choose for themselves. That seems to be what this verse is implying. Bible passages would tell us that &lt;em&gt;we&lt;/em&gt; are sinful even at birth (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2051:5&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 51:5&lt;/a&gt;), but as @HelloWorld said, this verse does not necessarily say that Jesus was sinful before that time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before I was born the Lord called me&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Isaiah 49:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T18:29:16.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19208" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19204" CreationDate="2013-09-20T18:31:21.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't see that the passage you quoted suggests 'the boy' Jesus sinned.  It talks about Him being in a state which is before He knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, but noone in such a state could be said to have sinned, since sin is a choice.  If someone doesn't know how to refuse the evil and choose the good, it means they are too young to be able to make choices and so too young to sin, rather than that they are constantly doing evil because they don't know how to refuse it, as you seem to have read it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5613" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T18:31:21.453" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19209" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19198" CreationDate="2013-09-20T19:11:18.083" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, casting lots is not the same thing as divination.  Divination is one of the forbidden practices mentioned in the Old Testament, and it involved the attempt to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means.  Diviners were just one class of people forbidden to practice their &amp;quot;arts&amp;quot; in Israel's midst.  Others included wizards, questioners of the dead, witches, sorcerers, people who purge children with fire, augurers, omen readers, and enchanters (though this is not an exhaustive list).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, the early 11 apostles were not seeking God's guidance by occult, magical, or supernatural-apart-from-God means.  Notice they&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;prayed, 'Lord, you know the hearts of all. Show us which one of these two you have chosen to assume the task of this service and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place'&amp;quot; (vv.24,25).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostles knew enough to seek God's face &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt;.  This is significant, I feel.  They also considered carefully the qualifications of the two &amp;quot;applicants&amp;quot; (see vv.21-23), much as the early church in Jerusalem did when they appointed deacons (Acts 6:1-7).  Finally, they did not &amp;quot;put it to a vote,&amp;quot; with 51 percent of the vote carrying the day.  No, they prayed and then they put out a &amp;quot;fleece,&amp;quot; so to speak (see Gideon's experience in Judges 6:39,40).  In short, their hearts were in the right place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More in answer to your question:  Yes, the apostles were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Moreover, Jesus gave them a &amp;quot;temporary&amp;quot; endowment of the Holy Spirit to &amp;quot;tide them over,&amp;quot; so to speak, prior to Pentecost (see John 20:22,23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have two questions:  1) Did the disciples truly know and appreciate fully what Jesus did in John 20 when He breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Spirit?; and 2) Did they appreciate what being baptized with the Holy Spirit signified (see John 15:5-15 and Acts 1:8)?  To both questions I have to answer no--at least not fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with so many of the things Jesus told them (sometimes over and over again), Jesus' words went right over their heads.  It was not until after His resurrection that they &amp;quot;remembered&amp;quot; His words and were able to make sense of them (see Lk 24:8; Acts 11:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostles did at the time the best they knew how.  They did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; know (which we do today with 20/20 hindsight) that Jesus' &amp;quot;temporary&amp;quot; endowment was probably sufficient for making this important decision, and that they therefore did not need to resort to an Old Testament method such as the Urim and the Thummim to confirm God's will in the matter (see Ex 28:30; Lev 8:8; Ezra 2:63; and Neh 7:65).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps some even better questions (and I'm surprised you did not ask them) would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why did the apostles feel it was incumbent on them to appoint a twelfth apostle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Did Jesus reveal His will to them in this matter prior to His death and resurrection, and  His words simply did not find their way into the canon of Scripture?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, were the eleven being presumptuous in concluding that a twelfth apostle was indeed God's will for them at that time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Had God really wanted Paul, who had yet to appear on the scene, to be the twelfth apostle (though I do not personally feel this was the case), and by electing the twelfth apostle themselves they &amp;quot;cheated&amp;quot; Paul of the honor?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before I close, I'll share a personal anecdote you might find enlightening and constructive.  I had a professor in Bible College who told us of a desire he once had to join with the Wycliffe Bible translators in their translation work among people-groups having no Bible in their heart language.  The day came when his application papers were all ready to be signed and then mailed to the mission's headquarters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course he had prayed about the decision, seeking God's face and will, and he by no means took the decision lightly.  When he reached the dotted line at the bottom of the application form and was just about to sign his name, something unusual happened: he forgot his name!  Yes, he forgot his name completely, and no amount of wracking his brain would bring it to mind so that he could sign the application.  He took his mental block as a &amp;quot;sign&amp;quot; God did not want him to become a Wycliffe Bible translator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with Gideon's fleece, the Urim and the Thummim, the occasional casting of lots, and perhaps any other non-biblical way of making an important decision, my professor cautioned us that this type of guidance should be the exception to the rule and not the rule itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, I have found that prayer and fasting (individually and corporately); the advice, opinions, and confirmation of godly people; and last but not least the witness of the Spirit within us (especially the gift of His peace when making an important decision), are more than sufficient to determine God's will regarding the majority of decisions for which God's Word does not provide clear answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you've exhausted those three avenues of guidance, however, and you still do not have a clear answer, I say pursue other means of guidance (e.g., a &amp;quot;fleece&amp;quot;), and then expect an answer, and possibly a miracle!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-10-11T23:23:01.677" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19202" CreationDate="2013-09-20T20:11:37.370" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm thinking your definition of paradox is quite different from mine.  One of the best paradoxes from the mouth of Jesus is where He said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it; whoever loses his life for my sake and for the gospel will find it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paradox requires, by definition, an apparent contradiction that turns out to be true and non-contradictory.  Exactly what is contradictory about Christian families having three children, two children, twelve children, or no children at all?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your use of the word &lt;em&gt;paradox&lt;/em&gt; reminds me on people who use the term &lt;em&gt;ironic&lt;/em&gt; indiscriminately.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;It's ironic that we had pancakes for breakfast two days in a row!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word they should use, more often than not, is &lt;em&gt;coincidental&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That issue aside, let's talk about one drawback in having a passel of kids.  First, there is no guarantee that each child is going to spend eternity in heaven with his or her parents (with all the saints, and Jesus of course).  As my pastor is fond of saying, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;God does not have any grandchildren!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, each generation of children (and hence, each child) has to make up its mind to follow or not to follow Jesus.  It's great when they do; it's tragic when they do not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; saying we should therefore refrain from procreating out of fear of giving birth to a soul who may spend eternity in hell.  I &lt;em&gt;am&lt;/em&gt; saying there are no guarantees that our offspring will become believers in Jesus Christ.  Would to God it were so; sadly, it will not be so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You talk about &quot;fundamental levels,&quot; which is good.  One fundamental that screams from your question is that life--every life, even the life of a baby in utero--is a sacred gift from God.  While not making light of a woman who conceives as a result of rape, even the life within her has a right to be born.  For her to abort that baby would &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;, however, be the unforgivable sin, in my opinion.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are certainly indications in the scriptures that children are a blessing from the LORD.  Moreover, the psalmist talks about the blessedness of the man whose quiver is full of arrows (i.e., children; see Psalm 127:5).  Then, too, while the LORD's command to &quot;be fruitful and multiply&quot; is still a good command, it's just not as crucial today as it was when the entire population of the world numbered exactly two:  one man and one woman!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, I agree with you that having children is a good, albeit sobering, thing.  This life we have is not all there is; there is a life--or death--to come, and for this reason each Christian couple should have only as many children as they think God wants them to have.  For some, that number will be none; for others, 12; for others, only foster and/or adopted children; for still others, 2.5 (!)--I'm talking averages here (&quot;lol,&quot; as the young people say nowadays).  Your suggestion that we all have as many children as we possibly can may be well intentioned, but it misses the mark in both discernment, wisdom, and balance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastActivityDate="2013-09-20T20:11:37.370" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19211" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19243" CreationDate="2013-09-20T20:22:01.723" Score="1" ViewCount="149" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a passage in the Bible talks about an eunuch traveling on the road and reading from Isaiah. The Phillip saw him, talked to him, and baptized him. Which passage is it? Is that passage enough to prove that repentance, faith, and therefore salvation is not necessarily followed by an emotional experience, but it is as decision to follow Christ? Especially if one has grown up in the church and taught to obey the 10 commandments anyway? Also, do we have an account of Timothy's (or someone else who grew up in the church) salvation?  Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastEditorUserId="4691" LastEditDate="2013-09-20T20:42:01.150" LastActivityDate="2013-09-22T20:55:06.923" Title="The Eunuch being converted by Phillip?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-09-29T14:27:15.380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19215" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19200" CreationDate="2013-09-21T01:26:39.767" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some say that, since the Bible says a thousand years is like a day to the Lord, that the 7 days of creation aren't literal (after all, we measure the day by the sun, which wasn't created until the fourth day).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another theory is called the &quot;gap&quot; theory. Genesis 1:1 says that God made the heavens and the earth. The rest of the chapter could be a description of how He did it, or it could be something further done to the heavens and the earth that He had already made. This theory hinges on verse 2 in Genesis 1. Many translations say &quot;And the earth was void and empty&quot;, or something like that. Other translations say &quot;And the earth &lt;em&gt;became&lt;/em&gt; waste and emptiness&quot;, or something similar. The idea is that God made all things perfect, He would never make something as &quot;waste and emptiness&quot;, but at some point Satan rebelled against God and corrupted the earth. God then judged the earth, similar to Noah's time, with water. This sets the scene for Genesis 1:2 and onwards, where the earth is simply darkness and water, and God restores it to what it is today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both of these theories state that although mankind is ~6000 years old (which I've seen no solid evidence to prove otherwise), the earth itself is much older.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5767" LastActivityDate="2013-09-21T01:26:39.767" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19216" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19200" CreationDate="2013-09-21T02:29:05.237" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer is simple: water into wine. What this miracle demonstrated was that God can create something that has, not only the appearance, but the very substance of being aged, even if it has only existed for a mere moment. Another example would be Adam, who, being formed from the dust of the ground, was formed as a mature human, not an infant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-09-21T02:29:05.237" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2464" CreationDate="2013-09-21T08:50:29.173" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Within Eastern Orthodoxy, this is not really known, yet there are monks who in their ascetic prayer, pray even for the fallen angels to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3714" LastActivityDate="2013-09-21T08:50:29.173" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19221" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19226" CreationDate="2013-09-21T15:40:17.933" Score="3" ViewCount="1185" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for one or more examples, preferably stories, of common sense in the Bible. This is for teaching church children, aged 5-8. Ideally, the story will involve peer pressure, and someone resisting going along with the group.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are examples of foolishness which I could use, eg:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aaron and the Golden Calf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings+12&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rehoboam's revolt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and numerous others but I'm looking for the opposite, a wise decision. I'm trying to find a situation that children can relate to, so eg &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%203:16-28&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Solomon judging between two women&lt;/a&gt; wouldn't work. And though I say wise, I'm looking for more like &quot;common sense&quot;. That is, sometimes we just need to use the brain God has given us and not wait for Divine Inspiration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any stories fit this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-09-21T15:59:11.853" LastActivityDate="2013-09-21T22:02:45.213" Title="Example for children of common sense in the Bible" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19222" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19230" CreationDate="2013-09-21T15:57:52.720" Score="3" ViewCount="2768" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19221/good-example-of-common-sense-in-the-bible&quot;&gt;also&lt;/a&gt; looking for an example of believers (Old Testament Jews or New Testament Christians) getting advice from other believers. Again, this is for teaching children aged 5-8 so ideally it will be a story to which they can relate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are individual verses that help eg:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2012:15&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 12:15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2015:22&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 15:22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but a story is better. I briefly considered the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&amp;amp;version=NLT&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;council at Jerusalem&lt;/a&gt; which is a story but I don't think children could relate to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2018-06-30T22:49:59.913" Title="Is there a good example of believers seeking out advice from other believers in the Bible, especially one that is a story children would understand?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;children&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19223" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19179" CreationDate="2013-09-21T16:02:50.310" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;speculation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;there is a lot of Talk in the new testament about &lt;strong&gt;fellowship&lt;/strong&gt; and this could be the very reason that it &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; like a lot of churches cater to couples rather than singles. &#xA;no one wants to be lonely, and everyone wants to be closer to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but really I think that you may be mistaking &lt;strong&gt;fellowship&lt;/strong&gt; between members of the Church for the relationship between a couple.   Members of the Church all have a Relationship with each other linked by God, so does a Couple, but in a different way.  a single person is part of the Church Fellowship the same way that a couple is part of the church fellowship.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know what Church that you go to, but I have never had the feeling that any church I have gone to catered to Couples over Singles.  there are a lot of places where the relationship between members of the church and Jesus and God have been compared to that of a Family, but any member, even if they are not married, is still a member of that Family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest to you that if you feel the messages in your church are being geared toward Couples that you talk to your minister/preacher/pastor and talk to him/her about it, I don't think that they are intentionally trying to make singles feel out of place, and just bringing it up may help them to see from a singles point of view when they are preparing their messages. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastActivityDate="2013-09-21T16:02:50.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5076" CreationDate="2013-09-21T18:22:52.630" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here's how I understand it. The people who have become believers during the Millennium Kingdom won't die! Think about it. We know from Scripture that the people who make up the population during this time are those who were martyred during the Tribulation and came back to life to reign with Christ, and those who didn't take the mark of the beast, instead choosing to believe and accept Christ and survived the Tribulation.&#xA;The other inhabitants are the Saints-the dead in Christ who were resurrected and those raptured before the Tribulation. They will also rule and reign with Christ.&#xA;The people who are still in fleshly bodies will be like as in Noah's day, eating and drinking, working and playing, marrying and having children. Everyone will live long, long lives. The age of accountability will be extended to a hundred years! There will be no babies or children that die. All who are born during that time will have to choose Jesus (be saved) just as before the Millennium. Those who don't accept Christ will be cursed. If they die during the Millennium, they will go to Hades to await the final judgment. If they remain alive until the thousand years over ended, then they will have an opportunity to accept Christ or participate in the last rebellion when Satan will be loosed for a time to deceive the nations. There will be absolutely no fence sitting at this time. After the thousand years are ended, the rest of the dead will come back to life and be judged. Read Rev. 21 for what happens next!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5850" LastActivityDate="2013-09-21T18:22:52.630" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19221" CreationDate="2013-09-21T22:02:45.213" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;How about the stories of Daniel and his friends where they didn't give in to peer pressure? How about 1 Samuel where Jonathan sides with the David instead of his jealous father? And the story of Joseph where he made the right choice?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastActivityDate="2013-09-21T22:02:45.213" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19194" CreationDate="2013-09-21T23:35:34.240" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, the Church has no official policy on &quot;self-enhancement&quot;. Medicine, even psychoactive medicine, in areas other than fertility and euthanasia is largely a secular issue. If your fictional drug appeared miraculous (read: unexplainable by science), then that might be a different matter. The power to perform miracles is, in Catholic doctrine, granted by God, and the Church might declare that such a drug is heretical or magical, and therefore sinful to use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5852" LastActivityDate="2013-09-21T23:35:34.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19222" CreationDate="2013-09-22T03:58:25.133" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would offer 1 Samuel also, but specifically &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%203:1-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Sam 3:1-10&lt;/a&gt; in which Samuel as a child receives advice from Eli on responding to God's call.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5854" LastEditorUserId="5854" LastEditDate="2013-09-22T14:10:36.800" LastActivityDate="2013-09-22T14:10:36.800" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19231" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4670" CreationDate="2013-09-22T11:05:19.770" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although as many others go through life's celebrations etc... so do I but this is my mindadventure on this subject.&#xA;,&#xA;  Ephesians 6:10  example&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A central theme to this letter is that God's purpose is to bring together from many nations all people under the universal church of Jesus Christ. Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel that paganism is not what is good in Gods eyes. Therefore, would it not make sense as Nations being brought together under one Christ to follow in his footsteps?  Even Jesus and the disciples were ever mentioned celebrating holidays. Actually mentions a type of superstition that was attached to the day of birth. More importantly, as The World Book Encyclopedia says, the early Christians “considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom.” The only birthday observances mentioned in the Bible are those of two rulers who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 40:20;  Mark 6:21) Birthday celebrations were also held in honor of pagan deities. For example, on May 24 the Romans celebrated the birthday of the goddess Diana. On the following day, they observed the birthday of their sun-god, Apollo. Hence, birthday celebrations were associated with paganism, not with Christianity.&#xA;  Sometimes I think the only thing pure enough to celebrate is the death of Jesus ND HIS RESURECTION. personally, that's the ultimate celebration of love and selflessness, and as it is furthest from impurity.&#xA;On another note I have often thought of this and asked myself a strange question... So many say the holidays are for the kids, blah blah so on... when do we first teach our kids that's its okay to lie? as long as its just for fun!? Santa will leave presents and the Easter bunny leaves eggs, and you will get money from the tooth fairy.....lies. I guess that's for another time. Thanks for listening.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5856" LastActivityDate="2013-09-22T11:05:19.770" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19233" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-22T12:01:02.270" Score="6" ViewCount="22238" Body="&lt;p&gt;Satan seems like God's prosecutor in Job.&#xA;Lucifer is just the planet Venus that's used to describe king of Tyre.&#xA;Then Jesus talks about the devil once in Matthew &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&amp;amp;version=KJV&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are those the same guy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They look like a bunch of different guys&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-05T17:12:21.497" LastActivityDate="2015-08-05T17:12:21.497" Title="How do we know that Satan, Lucifer, and Devil are the same guy?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;job&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-07-15T21:48:41.470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16239" CreationDate="2013-09-22T12:10:26.827" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a Seventh Day Adventist. I was a Catholic for 55 years, and converted 10 years ago. I would like to respond to your question here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Sunday Worship as the mark of the beast.&lt;/em&gt; Ellen White specifically said that it is &lt;em&gt;not now&lt;/em&gt; the mark of the beast. Some time in the future, laws will come into place requiring Sunday worship. (With the strength of Evangelical Christianity in the US today, I can see it coming sooner rather than later.) When Sunday worship is required, and Sabbath-keepers are persecuted for keeping the Sabbath holy, then the mark of the beast will be enforced. The mark of the beast is really efforts on the part of the individual to work their own way into heaven. Adventists keep the Sabbath because it is a blessing. Those who think that it merits them the Kingdom are no better than those Catholics who think that going to church on Sunday is a key ticket to heaven. The only ticket to heaven is what Christ said in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:6&lt;/a&gt;, that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. To get to the Father, you must go through Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will respond to other points as I go through them. I wanted to get this down now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key differences between Adventists and other Christians are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Sanctuary, its meaning and message.&lt;/em&gt; Twenty some chapters in the Bible are devoted to the Sanctuary. There is a reason. God thinks it is important, and so do we.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The state of the dead.&lt;/em&gt; It is not Biblical that a soul outlives the body. Over forty verses support the Adventist position. See the movie &lt;em&gt;Hell and Mr. Fudge,&lt;/em&gt; or read Edward Fudge's book, &lt;em&gt;A Fire that Consumes.&lt;/em&gt; Or read the Bible!&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Sabbath.&lt;/em&gt; The Catholic church, which was the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; Christian church at the time (200-350 AD), changed the day of Sabbath rest, and admits to doing so in its own Catechism.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The imminent return of Christ in His Second Coming.&lt;/em&gt; (This, too, is in the Bible.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicist_interpretations_of_the_Book_of_Revelation&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Historicist&lt;/a&gt; viewpoint of the Book of Revelation,&lt;/em&gt; originally posited by the Reformers. Adventists, I believe, are the only ones who currently hold this position. Most Christians either don't think about it, or don't have a position, or think it is too difficult to understand (though Jesus says it is a Revelation for all to understand), or hold the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_(Christianity)&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;futurist&lt;/a&gt; position or the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;preterist&lt;/a&gt; position (&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Interpretation_of_the_Book_of_Revelation&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;which originally started as a Catholic position during the Counter-Reformation&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;The health message&lt;/em&gt; is admittedly not entirely Biblical except that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and we must be careful what we put into them (and onto them). Consider &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012%3A1-2&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 12:1-2&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5857" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T00:47:42.210" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T00:47:42.210" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19235" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19233" CreationDate="2013-09-22T14:51:55.320" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Traditionally the fallen angel is referred to as Lucifer (&quot;light-bringing&quot;). And he was named The devil (&quot;slanderer&quot; or &quot;accuser&quot;) and Satan (&quot;adversary&quot; or &quot;opposer&quot;) after he apostatized. He is called both The devil or Satan in the bible&lt;sup&gt;Rev 12:7-9&lt;/sup&gt;. Whenever the article &quot;The&quot; (Hebrew: ho) is used in-front of devil, it always denotes Lucifer. Just like the example you showed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name Lucifer occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible to denote the fallen angel. That is at Isaiah 14:12-15. Comparing its reference to the morning star and fallen angel cast out of heaven with Revelation 12 where the fallen angel is called 'The devil' or 'Satan',&lt;sup&gt;Rev 12:7-9&lt;/sup&gt; we can conclude all three are one and the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All other fallen angels are usually given the name demons&lt;sup&gt;Mat 7:22; Mark 1:34&lt;/sup&gt;, and the chief of the demons is called the devil. This must not be taken, however, to indicate that there is a difference of nature with demons and the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that devil is never used in plural form in the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[P.S The name Lucifer was first attributed to the principle fallen angel by St. Jerome. But many church Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen. Also note that many early Christians had &quot;Lucifer&quot; as their name and even Jesus was referred as Lucifer in their writings]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2014-04-12T08:46:16.670" LastActivityDate="2014-04-12T08:46:16.670" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19236" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19233" CreationDate="2013-09-22T15:03:57.923" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible says the devil = Satan in Revelation 12:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the&#xA;  Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the&#xA;  earth, and his angels were cast out with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding Lucifer the Bible says in Isaiah 14:12...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you&#xA;  are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this Lucifer fell from heaven, and Jesus said in Luke 10:18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus Lucifer = Satan.  Name changes often denote changes in character in the Bible, thus Lucifer the light bearer (once a good angel) had become Satan (the adversary).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Learn more Bible truth at - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazingfacts.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazingfacts.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastEditorUserId="5406" LastEditDate="2014-04-10T20:42:54.327" LastActivityDate="2014-04-10T20:42:54.327" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19242" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14081" CreationDate="2013-09-22T20:42:47.153" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We humans are extremely limited in our vision, that is that we can only see that which is material. God is not material, Genesis 1 tells us that all things material were created by God on the first day and Revelation 21:1 tells us that they will pass away. This necessarily dictates that God was and is Spiritual, and eternal; and omnipotent. So did Moses see the face of God, that must be an emphatic no, since God has no face as is pictured here(ie. a material face).&#xA;We cannot and must not think of God in any material form, first of all if God had a material form he would of necessity be subject to the laws of physics, and we know that as creator the laws of physics are subject to God.&#xA;What God can do and I would guess probably did in both cases is to give them some sort of apparition, to satisfy their expectation of some material thing.&#xA;We are given proof that the so called laws of physics are subject to God in the incident of Jesus not only walking on water, but also overcoming those laws to allow Peter to also walk on water.&#xA;We must expand our concepts to include a realization that what those things which we regard as real  (the material realm) is not real but a creation and what is truly real is the Spiritual realm, or if you will the realm in which resides God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-09-22T20:42:47.153" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19211" CreationDate="2013-09-22T20:55:06.923" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, notice that after being baptised, the eunuch went on his way rejoicing, which is an expression of joy, which some would call an emotional experience. Whether or not it is, it flies in the face of the suggestion that obedience to God and joy are unconnected. There are many scriptures which underline the link between joy and righteouness. Here are 2:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;&#xA;  Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You&#xA;  With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (Hebrews 1.9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.&#xA;  “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (John 15,10+11) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5613" LastActivityDate="2013-09-22T20:55:06.923" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19244" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23410" CreationDate="2013-09-22T23:53:48.613" Score="5" ViewCount="969" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Pope Francis' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview&quot;&gt;recent interview&lt;/a&gt;, he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this &lt;em&gt;infallibilitas in credendo&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together.&lt;/strong&gt; This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks. When the dialogue among the people and the bishops and the pope goes down this road and is genuine, then it is assisted by the Holy Spirit. So this thinking with the church does not concern theologians only. ... This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians; if you want to know how to love her, you have to ask the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He even goes on to explain it a little bit, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and, of course, we must be very careful not to think that this infallibilitas of all the faithful I am talking about in the light of Vatican II is a form of populism. No; it is the experience of ‘holy mother the hierarchical church,’ as St. Ignatius called it, the church as the people of God, pastors and people together. The church is the totality of God’s people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thing is (and I almost hate to admit this), but I've never heard of that before.  &quot;People Infallibility&quot;, if you will, seems rather novel. (And yes, I get that its not really that, but I can see it being misinterpreted as such).  Is this a new term, or one that I just missed out on being of from the heretic arm of the church? :) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-18T05:17:24.173" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T05:17:24.173" Title="Is *infallibilitas in credendo* a new or established doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;infallibility&gt;&lt;pope-francis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19222" CreationDate="2013-09-23T00:02:21.613" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simplest (or at least to my mind most obvious) illustration of this point is that of Jesus himself.  When he was 12, he famously ditched his parents and went to the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke (2:46) records a little detail that I think makes all the difference:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is God, asking the priests questions.  If He can do that, I feel very comfortable following his example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T00:02:21.613" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19246" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19202" CreationDate="2013-09-23T00:06:05.613" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we consider Jeremiah 1:4&amp;amp;5 we are told that God forms the child in the mother's womb. Therefore if God forms the child it is he who determines who will and who will not be born. Not always is pregnancy the result of intimacy, and so that alone should be enough evidence that the birth (or intended birth) of any child is a decision made by God, and not by us. We must never assume God is not in charge of all facets of life, or that we mere mortals can in any way determine anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please note in 1st Samuel that Hannah was barren and that God gave a child after she implored him and also vowed to give Samuel back to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are entrusted with children by God, and we should as did Hannah, endeavor to give them back to God by doing our best to have them give their lives to Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5868" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-23T00:53:27.757" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T00:53:27.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19247" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19256" CreationDate="2013-09-23T00:06:06.617" Score="9" ViewCount="7812" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Francis, in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview&quot;&gt;recent interview&lt;/a&gt;, uses a very common metaphor for the church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I see clearly,” the pope continues, “that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've heard this, and even preached this, but I'm realizing that I don't really know where its Biblical basis comes from.  What is the biblical justification for understanding the church as a place where believers are supposed to be emotionally healed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-13T14:40:10.933" LastActivityDate="2021-03-09T20:57:20.633" Title="What is the biblical basis for the idea that the church is a hospital for sinners?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-universal&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19202" CreationDate="2013-09-23T00:47:46.907" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a number of theological perspectives that discuss how many children a couple should have. Those theologies are hidden under a different, much more sensational topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In today's modern society the question of whether to procreate or not is hidden under the question of whether &lt;em&gt;contraception&lt;/em&gt; is moral or not. Yes, to some groups, using contraception is morally offensive, however, to the larger majority, it is more of a concern for the perpetuation of the faith. Invariably, allowing contraception leads to fewer births, which in turn leads to relatively fewer believers for the next generation. This concern is legitimate; the common phrase among those being candid about the issue is &quot;out-breed the non-believers&quot;. The phrase is not unique to Christians either. Islamic clerics have said it on more than one occasion [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.assaultweb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=64089&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;]. It is often said and employed by racist groups as well, wanting to &quot;out-breed&quot; the other races&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. Even some atheists are worried they will be &quot;out-bred&quot; by the religious [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/03/16/will-atheists-be-out-bred-by-believers/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So what does all this have to do with your question?&lt;/strong&gt; Well, to answer according to the site rules we are here to ask and answer questions about doctrines, theologies, etc. And also to answer your question effectively for a modern audience, an examination on the various views on contraception will be very illuminating, but none of the following theologies consider the possible eternal life for the children in question. There are a few categories (According to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_birth_control#Current_views&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia source&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Children in abundance - Often members of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Quiverfull Movement&lt;/a&gt;, those in this group believe that any contraception, even &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Family_Planning&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Natural Family Planning&lt;/a&gt; (as defined by the RCC) is morally unacceptable. They believe that the use of birth control undoes God's purpose (or one of them) for marriage. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Children in managed abundance - Those is this group stress the importance of having many children, however, they are more open to the outcome. Generally, you are to have however many you can conceive, but Natural Family Planning is acceptable. The Catholics are very similar to this position.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Children in moderation - Those in this group  encourage families to have children, however, they place a higher stress on exercising prudence when family planning. As an effect, they approve of the use of artificial contraception. Generally, the number of children you have is your choice.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;No children - Those in this group believe they may choose to live their lives without consideration or obligation to having children. There really are not many denominations that fall into this category. The nearly defunct &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Communal_spiritual_family&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Shakers&lt;/a&gt; believe procreation is immoral.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because your question assumes that there is some sort of pressing need for Christians to procreate I will only discuss the theologies of the first three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For the &quot;children in abundance&quot; group&lt;/strong&gt;, naturally, they often quote the Genesis command to Adam and Eve, and also the repeat of that command to Noah. More commonly is that they quote &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+127%3A3&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pslams 127:3&lt;/a&gt; (NASB)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Behold, children are a gift of the Lord,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;The fruit of the womb is a reward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They argue that if children are a gift from God, then it is greatly disrespectful to refuse those gifts. You would not refuse a gift of wealth from God; likewise a gift of health and long life. So, they argue, you should not refuse a gift of children. In addition to this, they also point to a large number of verses using the phrase &quot;open and close womb&quot; to support that God is in control of childbearing. Those verses are: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2020:18;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 20:18&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2029:31;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 29:31&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2030:22;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Genesis 30:22&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:5-6;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Samuel 1:5-6&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2066:9;&amp;amp;version=49;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 66:9&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;To answer &quot;Why does God command ...&quot; is clear. It is because He wants to bless us and give us the precious gifts of children.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it seems to me, that &lt;strong&gt;the &quot;children in managed abundance&quot; and &quot;children in moderation&quot; groups are very similar to the first group&lt;/strong&gt;. They will certainly agree that children are a gift and that God does, indeed, control the miracle of conception, but they consider at least this one thing: care for the children. The use of the word &quot;prudence&quot; by some in the third group implies that the welfare of the child should be considered when family planning, and there are circumstances when a new child under your care would put unnecessary hardship on the parents, the child, or both. The difference between groups two and three just seems to be the degree to which &quot;prudence&quot; is applied. However, I would note that the cultural &quot;out-breed the non-believer&quot; stance may be a factor in group two's beliefs, but likely not in group three's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How would groups two and three answer &quot;Why does God command ...?&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; Group two may reference the blessing verse, but group three certainly would not. In fact, what is more likely is that both groups would not necessarily agree that it is a command for all mankind. Some would even likely quote Paul saying &quot;It is good for a man not to marry,&quot; (See &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 7 &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (NIV)) pointing out that neither him, nor Jesus married nor sired any children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia (again) has a section discussing &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_birth_control#Denominational_positions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;denominational positions on contraception&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;An anecdote. My wife worked with a man that admitted freely he believed in white racial supremacy and his church (likely very small) taught that they must &quot;out-breed&quot; the three M's: Mormons, Muslims, and Mexicans. Clearly, the first two could be taken without racism implied, however, not so much for the third.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer was adapted from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/18770/3961&quot;&gt;a previous answer&lt;/a&gt; I wrote on a similar question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T01:22:32.157" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2464" CreationDate="2013-09-23T01:29:20.907" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, salvation is for people alone.  Jesus became a man to redeem people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the qualifier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born&#xA;  of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.&quot; &#xA;  John 3:5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Angels are not born of water (as in the waters in the womb) and can not be born again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Neither is there any salvation for fallen angels. Jude 1:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: If &quot;born of water&quot; meant water baptism then those that believe and who die before being baptised are not saved.  But Jesus said to a man who was crucified with him on the cross &quot;Today I'll see you in paradise&quot; - Luke 23:43.  Believing on Jesus is what saves you and when you believe you receive a brand new spirit man on the inside.  The 3rd part of your being and different than the soul.  1 Thes 5:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastEditorUserId="4711" LastEditDate="2013-11-05T00:29:41.253" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T00:29:41.253" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19251" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T03:12:12.540" Score="2" ViewCount="640" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament talks about Levites as priest and the New Testament talks of priesthood of all believers. But then there is the gift to some as pastors, teachers and evangelists (Eph 4:11) in the New Testament. If all are priest, one can not be singled out and called a priest. Are the church leaders to be called pastors instead? But the pastor is meant to be a shepherd, who leads, guides, protect, and feeds. If so then the name pastor fits them better.&#xA;However some congregations consider them as elders or presbyters with the responsibility as teacher. By this is the gift of pastor and the teacher the same for them to be teachers? What then is the suitable name for them to bring their biblical role out clearly? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5870" LastEditorUserId="5870" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T05:02:25.810" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T05:02:25.810" Title="With the priesthood of all believers do we need priest or pastor as church leaders?" Tags="&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-09-27T19:26:11.700" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19252" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22869" CreationDate="2013-09-23T03:14:05.803" Score="5" ViewCount="4431" Body="&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia has an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Hall#Construction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article on Kingdom Halls&lt;/a&gt; that states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In many countries, a number of standard designs of construction are used that can be built in just a few days. The act of constructing a Kingdom Hall in this manner is called a quick-build, although typically the preparation work involving the structural foundation and surrounding surface may take several weeks prior to the scheduled build. For various reasons, not all Kingdom Halls are constructed as quick-builds or using the standard designs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeing many issues that can go wrong with building something so quickly I figure there is some sort of theological importance in doing this, however, not all are &lt;em&gt;quick-builds&lt;/em&gt;, so it cannot be all that important.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do Jehovah's Witnesses build their Kingdom Halls in three days?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Please provide quotes and links to official sources&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-27T20:05:44.987" LastActivityDate="2020-03-12T17:51:38.673" Title="Why are Kingdom Halls sometimes built in the &quot;quick-build&quot; manner?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;architecture&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19252" CreationDate="2013-09-23T10:23:33.980" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, not to be too blunt about it, but JWs are demographically typically drawn from the least well-off amongst society. Put crassly, they tend to be the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thebroadroad.com/m/photos/view/Jehovah-s-Witnesses-are-Poor-and-Uneducated&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;poorest and least-educated Christians in the United States&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, this is a very cheap method of putting together a building. Especially when you consider the amount of volunteer labor (think Amish barn-raising) what you may be seeing could simply be a manifestation of resource constraints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, they might not be able to afford anything else. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may very well be just a matter of economics. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-23T12:49:12.050" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T12:49:12.050" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19255" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T12:07:48.293" Score="7" ViewCount="1760" Body="&lt;p&gt;Contrary to the Roman Catholic assertion that Peter and his successors are the &lt;em&gt;Supreme Pontiff&lt;/em&gt;, the Orthodox Catholic Churches assert that Peter and his successors hold the honorary title of the &lt;em&gt;First Among Equals&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When was the actual title of &lt;em&gt;First Among Equals&lt;/em&gt; used to define the Petrine bishopric?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm curious as to whether the Orthodox Churches began asserting this title specifically after the Schism began to take shape, or if it was something that the Latin Church decided to reject that was there from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastActivityDate="2016-02-29T07:01:50.583" Title="Where did the Petrine title of &quot;First Among Equals&quot; originate?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19256" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19247" CreationDate="2013-09-23T12:12:57.303" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and&#xA;  sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and&#xA;  drinketh with publicans and sinners?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no&#xA;  need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the&#xA;  righteous, but sinners to repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 2:16-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' ministry was not limited to just the spiritual. He healed the sick, physical healing; he ministered to the brokenhearted, emotional healing; and he taught and preached, spiritual healing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their&#xA;  synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every&#xA;  sickness and every disease among the people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 9:35&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed&#xA;  me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up&#xA;  the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the&#xA;  opening of the prison to them that are bound.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 61:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T12:12:57.303" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19233" CreationDate="2013-09-23T12:16:37.150" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the&#xA;  bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he laid hold on &lt;strong&gt;the dragon, that old serpent, which is the&#xA;  Devil, and Satan&lt;/strong&gt;, and bound him a thousand years,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 20:1-2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Ezekiel passage, though this is God speaking to the King of Tyre, He also speaks to Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to&#xA;  him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘You were the seal of perfection,&#xA;      full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. &lt;strong&gt;You were in Eden&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;      the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you:&#xA;      carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,&#xA;      topaz, onyx and jasper,&#xA;      lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.[b] Your settings and mountings[c] were made of gold;&#xA;      on the day you were created they were prepared. &lt;strong&gt;You were anointed as a guardian cherub&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;      for so I ordained you. &lt;strong&gt;You were on the holy mount of God&lt;/strong&gt;;&#xA;      you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways&#xA;      from the day you were created&#xA;      till wickedness was found in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 28:12-15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The king of Tyre was not in Eden, or a guardian cherub, or on the holy mount of God. This is descriptive of Lucifer, who became Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-09-23T12:32:55.757" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T12:32:55.757" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19258" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T14:01:10.147" Score="18" ViewCount="1955" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Sunday school this week we discussed (among several other things) the sacrifice of Isaac. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The teacher pointed us to a footnote that appears in several editions of the scripture. It seems that scholars think that Mount Moriah, where Abraham was told to go to sacrifice his son is now the location of the Dome of the Rock, which makes it the historic location of the temple, and just a few hundred yards from the historic location of Golgotha. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What historic, archeological and traditional evidence is available to confirm this theory?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T03:36:36.803" LastActivityDate="2015-08-05T03:15:13.743" Title="What evidence is available that Mt. Moriah is actually the Temple Mount?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;&lt;temple&gt;&lt;geography&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19259" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T14:49:49.737" Score="10" ViewCount="586" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Galatians chapter 2 Paul explains how he had to rebuke the Apostle Peter as he was acting hypocritically over a matter very serious and central to the meaning of the gospel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (NIV, Galatians 2:11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rebuke does not seem as some extremely reverential private matter but the rebuke was more stinging seemingly very public being said in front of 'them all':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (NIV, Galatians 2:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was just wondering if other church leaders within the Roman Catholic faith can correct the Pope in the same way or not?  I suspect 'No' but have no assurance of my suspicion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Under Catholic dogma can someone rebuke the Pope like Paul rebuked Peter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T04:36:57.970" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T04:36:57.970" Title="Under Catholic dogma can someone publicly rebuke the Pope like Paul rebuked Peter?" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19260" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19276" CreationDate="2013-09-23T15:15:28.437" Score="6" ViewCount="206" Body="&lt;p&gt;To which prophecies does Peter refer in these verses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Peter 1:10,11:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched&#xA;  diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which&#xA;  was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings&#xA;  of Christ, and the glory that should follow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for scriptures of prophets telling about the grace that should come unto us. I'd like to see the cross reference between the old and new testament. &#xA;I know the verses in Isaiah, but I'm looking for one or two more references.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3355" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-09-23T16:07:18.167" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T23:07:01.100" Title="To which prophets does Peter refer in 1 Peter 1:10-11?" Tags="&lt;prophets&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19261" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T16:04:16.967" Score="4" ViewCount="523" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was watching the &quot;Truth Project&quot; (a religious DVD) and the speaker kept referring to &quot;Jehovah Jireh&quot;.    A recent &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/19220/2212&quot;&gt;answer here&lt;/a&gt; makes a reference to &quot;Yahshua Ha-Maschiach&quot;, whom we have to infer is Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Q: What are the intended purposes by those who would use &quot;unusual&quot; names for God or Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My speculative answer is that such persons believe they are beholden to a specially refined orthodoxy-- &lt;em&gt;hey we all do to some extent&lt;/em&gt;-- but believe they need to refer to a more special name in order to clue others that they have many false ideas about the &quot;god&quot; they worship. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this answer is wrong, I beg forgiveness and correction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T23:01:36.273" Title="What are the reasons for having special names for God/ Jesus?" Tags="&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19262" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T16:09:19.783" Score="7" ViewCount="192" Body="&lt;p&gt;Writer Randy Alcorn suggests we CAN imagine Heaven. In fairness to his viewpoint the 'Eye hath not seen nor ears heard...&quot; quote from Corintheans (if fully read through) does NOT mean we cannot contemplate the afterlife.&#xA;I prefer the seemingly widespread notion that the happiness of Heaven is immeasurably greater than even the greatest happiness here. But WHERE is there anything suggestive of this in the Bible itself?! It seems utterly 'added on' by us!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="4737" LastEditDate="2013-09-23T17:44:03.597" LastActivityDate="2014-01-23T06:31:52.193" Title="Is there anything in the Bible that suggests joy in Heaven is greater than best of Earthly joy?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-01-23T13:50:14.923" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19265" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19259" CreationDate="2013-09-23T17:04:58.850" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question, and the evidence of the Galatians passage, was hotly contested by mediaeval  theologians and canonists, especially during the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Western Schism&lt;/a&gt; (when there were up to three simultaneous papal claimants). It certainly seems to show that dissent is possible, and that an individual Pope might not always practice what he preaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond ordinary criticism of a particular Pope, the passage was read in the context of an ongoing debate about papal fallibility and power. A rebuke might imply the ability to censure or even remove a Pope. It was generally accepted that there was no regular authority which could judge the Pope - any such tribunal would be &lt;em&gt;ipso facto&lt;/em&gt; superior to him if it could command his obedience. Some believed that a general council could do it in an emergency, as a special exception; the council might possess some kind of legitimacy as a representative assembly of the church, even if it was not convened by the Pope himself. The college of cardinals was another possibility, for the same reason, and because of its direct institutional association with the Holy See.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scope of this emergency power was probably imagined as being limited to two cases:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heresy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Manifest grave crimes (including acts destructive of the constitution of the Church, the classic hypothetical being a Pope who tried to depose all bishops in order to cut off the apostolic succession)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the first, the point is that heretics are automatically excommunicated, and also forfeit any church office they might have held. The influential canon lawyer &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguccio&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Huguccio of Pisa&lt;/a&gt; argued that cases of papal heresy should be treated differently, depending on whether the Pope has fallen into an old heresy (already anathematized by a general council, etc.) or a new one (in which case the Pope could not be automatically removed). The other case distinguishes manifest crimes from clandestine ones. Legally, the idea is that if the crime is public knowledge, then the question of a trial does not arise, obviating the need for a Pope to be judged by another authority at all. In such cases, there may be some &amp;quot;declaratory&amp;quot; action by the college of cardinals (say) which amounts to &lt;em&gt;recognizing&lt;/em&gt; that the Pope has forfeited his office, rather than them actually &lt;em&gt;ordering&lt;/em&gt; his removal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contemporary canon law does not allow a general council to be constituted except by papal authority (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P17.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CIC 338 §1&lt;/a&gt;), and does not give any express power to anyone to declare that a Pope has forfeited the papacy. It has recently been demonstrated that a Pope can resign of his own accord. Automatic excommunication for heresy is still applicable to the Pope, according to some commentators - although this is very much a hypothetical. The argument is that although the Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, and the final interpreter of its law - therefore potentially able to exempt himself from the juridical consequences of heresy - he only has authority to legislate or interpret according to divine law. God's law (in this interpretation) does not permit a heretic to be in charge of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Galatians case touches the &amp;quot;heresy&amp;quot; idea. Early commentators questioned the extent to which the disagreement here might be counted as heresy, and its relation to the Petrine office. It was agreed that the Pope did not teach with his supreme authority in all circumstances, and in particular, he could have legitimate scholarly or theological disagreements without any question of heresy arising for either party. (Good news for the theologians!) This is obviously an attractive option in reading the interaction between Peter and Paul, because neither of them are doing wrong. Jerome even suggested that the disagreement might have been staged (&lt;em&gt;Commentarium in Epistolam Beati Pauli ad Galatas&lt;/em&gt;; in Migne's &lt;em&gt;Patrologia Latina&lt;/em&gt; vol. 26). In any case, this kind of rebuke does not necessarily amount to bringing down the full force of anathema on an errant Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the Church today, the relevant law is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PU.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon 212&lt;/a&gt; of the Code of Canon Law:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This should obviously be read in combination with an understanding of what the Church teaches about its own Magisterium, including the differentiated roles of the Pope, the bishops, etc. See especially &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;canons 747-755&lt;/a&gt; on the obligation to respect the authentic doctrine that the Church expounds. But the basic tenor is that people are bound to follow the teaching of the Church and respect its discipline, but can still make their opinions known if they are doing it in an orderly way. This does not amount to license to contradict the established doctrine of the Church. Publicly denouncing the Pope on the steps of St Peter's with a megaphone - no. Polite conversation, writing scholarly articles, and so on - yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Paul Clayton mentions in comments below, the Pope also has a regular confessor, who has a specific duty in the examination of his conscience. This creates a situation where he could be rebuked for sinful behaviour, though obviously in private. His advisors, especially the cardinals, could also raise concerns in a discreet way (as opposed to calling him out in public).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;References and further reading&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Church, the Councils and Reform: The Legacy of the Fifteenth Century&lt;/em&gt;. Gerald Christianson, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Christopher M. Bellitto (eds.). Catholic University of America Press, 2008.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;Fallibility instead of infallibility? A brief history of the interpretation of Galatians 2:11-14&lt;/em&gt;. Karlfried Froehlich. In: &lt;em&gt;Teaching Authority and Infallibility of the Church&lt;/em&gt;, ed. Paul C. Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess. Augsburg Fortress, 1980.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Bible in Medieval Tradition: The Letter to the Galatians&lt;/em&gt;. Ian Christopher Levy. Wm. Eerdmans, 2011.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians&lt;/em&gt;. J. B. Lightfoot. Warren F. Draper, 1870.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;Foundations of the Conciliar Theory&lt;/em&gt;. Brian Tierney. Cambridge University Press, 1995.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350&lt;/em&gt;. Brian Tierney. Brill, 1972.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T00:47:47.753" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24408" CreationDate="2013-09-23T19:53:30.100" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many ways of coming at your question.  In somewhat random order, I suggest the following as answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why do you think another word for heaven is &lt;em&gt;paradise&lt;/em&gt;?  Is it because its joys are fewer and less intense than the joys on earth?  There's an ironic phrase that goes &quot;trouble in paradise,&quot; which is ironic simply because there &lt;em&gt;is no&lt;/em&gt; trouble in paradise!  See Paul's description of what he heard in the &quot;third heaven,&quot; which he also called paradise (2 Cor 12:1 ff.).  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How could heaven not be better than the best that life has to offer here on earth, since in heaven there will &lt;em&gt;none&lt;/em&gt; of the following:  tears, death, mourning, crying, pain (Rev 21:4); the old things (Rev 21:5); thirst (Rev 21:6); ugliness (look at Revelation 21 and its description of the holy city, New Jerusalem); dogs, sorcerers, immoral persons, murderers, idolaters, liars (Rev 22:15); darkness (Rev 21:23); Satan and his demons (Rev 20:10)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How about the positive things heaven has to offer:  the presence of Jesus (1 Thes 4:17); perfect, complete, face-to-face knowledge, and not the knowledge of imperfect reflections as in a mirror (1 Cor 13:10-13); eternal life (John 3:16); all of God's saints from time immemorial to saints whom we knew on earth as family members, friends, acquaintances, mentors (1 Thes 4:13-18, and Revelation, passim); the worship of God without the distractions of sin, time limitations, unanswered questions, trials and tribulations, and a host of factors that cause our fellowship with other believers to be less than joyful here on earth, such as: divisions according to sex, denomination, skin color, national origin, language, culture, customs, appearance in general, in-groups and out-groups, cliques, theological differences, age, and so much more.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could go on for quite a bit, but I think you get the idea.  I haven't even dipped into the hints of eternal bliss that are found in the Old Testament, and I'm sure there are many.  Maybe I'll revise my answer another time! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T19:53:30.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19222" CreationDate="2013-09-23T20:42:41.167" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I like the story of Saul seeking out the Witch of Endor from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2028&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Samuel 28&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Saul had become desperate to hear the wisdom that God would offer him, but the Lord had long since stopped talking to Saul. So Saul broke the law and sought out a medium to summon Samuel for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story shows that you cannot only accept Godly wisdom when &lt;em&gt;you think&lt;/em&gt; you need it. A good Christian would strive to learn new wisdom daily and consult the Lord and other, wiser Christians on every issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T20:42:41.167" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19270" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T20:44:48.720" Score="9" ViewCount="2074" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard it suggested the male/female ratio of Christians is such that there are significantly more female Christians than male Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this true? I don't seem to be able to find an answer online, but presumably statistics must exist, e.g. census or church registers (although of course there are potentially biases within such records).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="16" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-03-30T00:01:05.253" LastActivityDate="2016-03-30T00:01:05.253" Title="Are there equal numbers of male and female Christians?" Tags="&lt;global-christianity&gt;&lt;gender&gt;&lt;demographics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19271" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T21:25:06.830" Score="3" ViewCount="639" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are organisations such as the Church of England and the Catholic Church funded at all by the taxpayer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was something I thought of the other day but I thought it couldn't possibly be true as it would be so ridiculous, but the thoughts been getting at me and I've really been wanting to make sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1666" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-13T14:39:26.540" LastActivityDate="2014-02-13T14:39:26.540" Title="Does the taxpayer take any part in funding Christian Churches in Britain?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;money&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19259" CreationDate="2013-09-23T21:40:35.217" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;James T's answer is mainly about whether popes can be deposed or judged under canon law.  Since the question refers to rebuking the pope and specifically mentions the example of St. Paul rebuking (but not trying to depose or officially judge) St. Peter, it seems worthwhile to add the following observations. If &quot;rebuke&quot; is taken (as I take it) to mean merely telling the pope that he's wrong about something, then certainly this can be done, and has been done, even by people who have no particular authority or position in the Church.  Usually in such situations, the pope is right and the rebuker is wrong, but not always.  For example, St. Catherine of Siena told the pope that he was wrong to stay in Avignon and should return to Rome, and the pope eventually agreed and did return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T21:40:35.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19261" CreationDate="2013-09-23T21:48:02.083" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;some of the Names come from the difference in Language throughout the Bible.&#xA;Greek, Jewish, etc&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that paired with what God can do or will do or who He is, makes a compound name of description like &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yahshua Ha Mashiach is &quot;Jesus the Messiah.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jehovah Rapha (The Lord who heals) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;they are all names for the same God, to better describe who He is and what He does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;there are many compound names for Him throughout the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elohim or El &quot;Strong One&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh (YHWH) &quot;to exist, be&quot; {see Link below}&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adonai &quot;Master, Owner&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Theos Greek Translated &quot;God&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Kurios Greek Translated &quot;Lord&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Despotes Greek Translated &quot;Master&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Father&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;of which many Compound names are given&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;El Shaddai &quot;God Almighty&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;El Elyon &quot;The Most High God&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;El Olam &quot;The Everlasting God&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh Jireh (Yireh) “The Lord will provide.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh Nissi “The Lord is my Banner.” &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh Shalom “The Lord is Peace.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh Sabbaoth “The Lord of Hosts.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh Maccaddeshcem “The Lord your Sanctifier.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh Ro’i  “The Lord my Shepherd.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh Tsidkenu “The Lord our Righteousness.” &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh Shammah “The Lord is there.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yahweh Elohim Israel “The Lord, the God of Israel.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;there are many more than just these, but the resource that I used is a Website&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/article/names-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Names of God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it explains slightly better than I have and gives more insight into some of these names.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really these Names are just descriptors of God &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4158" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T21:48:02.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="24408" CreationDate="2013-09-23T22:45:27.997" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also consider that we will be known as we have been known and it will be revealed to us what we shall be. All creation is in anticipation of this and it will be marvelous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom_8:18  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are&#xA;  not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in&#xA;  us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 8:19  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Co 13:12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to&#xA;  face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am&#xA;  known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1Jn_3:2  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet&#xA;  appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we&#xA;  shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T22:45:27.997" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19261" CreationDate="2013-09-23T22:53:59.450" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God refers to himself as &lt;strong&gt;I am that I am&lt;/strong&gt;, more accurately in Hebrew &lt;strong&gt;I Will Be What I Will Be&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exo 3:14  And God said unto Moses, &lt;strong&gt;I AM THAT I AM&lt;/strong&gt;: and he said, Thus&#xA;  shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto&#xA;  you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is infinite we are not. So as we discover more about him it is only natural that we need multiple ways of describing him as we grown in knowledge of him and his attributes. He is complete but to us sometimes he appears bigger as we draw closer and spend more time with him (as Lucy once said to Aslan in one of CS Lewis stories &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3348636-prince-caspian-the-return-to-narnia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;prince Caspian&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Aslan&quot; said Lucy &quot;you're bigger&quot;. &quot;That is because you are older,&#xA;  little one&quot; answered he. &quot;Not because you are?&quot; &quot;I am not. But every&#xA;  year you grow, you will find me bigger&quot;.”  ― C.S. Lewis, Prince&#xA;  Caspian: The Return to Narnia&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastEditorUserId="3594" LastEditDate="2013-09-23T23:01:36.273" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T23:01:36.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19260" CreationDate="2013-09-23T23:07:01.100" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;King David in Psalm 22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psa 22:15-18  My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue&#xA;  cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. &#xA;  (16)  For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have&#xA;  inclosed me: they &lt;strong&gt;pierced my hands and my feet.&lt;/strong&gt;  (17)  I may tell all&#xA;  my bones: they look and stare upon me.  (18)  They part my garments&#xA;  among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and less directly&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psa 2:1-3  Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain&#xA;  thing?  (2)  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers&#xA;  take counsel together, against the LORD, and &lt;strong&gt;against his anointed&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  saying,  (3)  Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their&#xA;  cords from us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T23:07:01.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19277" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19271" CreationDate="2013-09-23T23:15:05.930" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a common misconception that the Church of England budget comes from the government. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/facts-stats/funding.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;In fact&lt;/a&gt;, most of their money comes from individual donations or bequests, or from investments (including rent on land they own). The same is true for other UK churches which are not &quot;established&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Churches and their ministers / employees may enjoy favourable tax status - often, they are organized under charity law. They may collect &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/individuals/giving/gift-aid.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gift Aid&lt;/a&gt;, a scheme where you give money to the charity, and the charity is able to reclaim a proportion of that from the tax you pay. In addition, churches may receive specific government funding for the upkeep of historic buildings, for running schools, and so on. But almost all of this is not specific to their status as &lt;em&gt;churches&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-09-23T23:15:05.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2464" CreationDate="2013-09-23T23:59:32.750" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can those angels ever be saved?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bob Black seems to answer that quite well, with his two verses, one of which I will again share:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jude 1:6&lt;/strong&gt; And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has &lt;strong&gt;reserved in everlasting chains&lt;/strong&gt; under darkness for the judgment of the great day;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To expound on that verse a little, the &quot;proper domain&quot; of the angels is their likeness and proximity with God; &quot;Their own abode&quot; is heaven. Those who did leave their proper domain, God has confined to darkness with everlasting chains. On the day of judgement, the last bonds with God will be broken and they will get what was reserved for them (the &quot;everlasting fire&quot;). I certainly take that to mean that once the demons fell, they have no way of returning. What a great reminder for us to keep on the right path!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also: Some of the answers to this question seemed to state that angels did not have free will, but were predestined.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I know that some may disagree with what I say here, but I am fully convinced that angels do/did have free will (at this point however, those who have fallen, seem to have no way out). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Note: My reasoning might only be taken seriously by those who believe that men are not predestined, but all have free-will.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to King David (Ps 8:5):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, man is higher than the beasts (who are bound with Obedience to God and can not go against his commands) and lower than the angels... As I see it, The Angels then must have all the things that Man has (don't take me too literally), including free-will. &#xA;Forgive me, those of you who think that we are predestined. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can the angels that remain choose to change sides?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know about anyone else, but I grew up with the knowledge, that, before God's conception in the womb of the virgin, all angels in heaven still had the choice to go against God and follow the Devil. However, once they saw God in the flesh (at the conception), the angels could not fall anymore. That isn't saying that they were restrained, but that they now had no inclination ever to go against their God, now that they saw what He had in store for his creation. I know that this might seem like a Tradition thing, since I can't really think of any verses to go upon, and can't even remember where I first heard this teaching, so I am sorry about having no &quot;proof&quot; for all you Sola Scriptura people out there (also sorry if I seemed to use that term derogatorily; I didn't mean to). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my conclusions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The angels and demons are both stuck where they are at.&lt;/strong&gt; :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="1838" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T23:47:46.683" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T23:47:46.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19279" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-24T01:28:37.390" Score="2" ViewCount="119" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's been said that women are better represented in the pews of US congregations. &lt;a href=&quot;http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This link&lt;/a&gt; says it's 61% female.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Is the ratio this strong if you account for higher female longevity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Has any scholarly study looked at the reasons for the divide as a function of the theological outlook of the congregations?  Such as fundamentalist/revisionist, patriotic/peacenick,  theology of cross/glory, high/low worship style? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T01:49:41.010" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T20:16:07.913" Title="Can theological trends explain reasons for male / female divide in (US) worship?" Tags="&lt;women&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19282" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-24T05:15:45.040" Score="5" ViewCount="270" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the biblical support for the practice that only ordained church leaders should administer the only sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5870" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-24T13:26:01.960" LastActivityDate="2016-10-24T13:26:01.960" Title="What is the biblical basis for restricting administration of the sacraments to ordained church leaders?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19283" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-24T05:23:42.943" Score="6" ViewCount="420" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been thinking a lot about creation lately, and I am just curious as to whether most scientists believe the literal account or if they believe in some form of theistic evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5879" LastActivityDate="2015-03-06T11:56:55.480" Title="Do most Christian scientists have a Literal Creationist viewpoint?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19285" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5209" CreationDate="2013-09-24T08:34:29.397" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am going to give an answer from a scripture-based Catholic point of view. &lt;strong&gt;The devil had no intention of making Adam fall. His full aim was to deceive Eve and Eve alone.&lt;/strong&gt; This is the reason why Bible says that &quot;Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.&quot;&lt;sup&gt;1 Timothy 2:14&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In revelation we know that all angelic beings' minds (including devil's) was illuminated by God with the plan of salvation, that God will be born of a woman: The woman will bring forth a child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.&lt;sup&gt;Rev 12:5&lt;/sup&gt; This is clear that a human being who is less than angelic beings, will be brought to higher glory than them. This human was to be brought forth by the woman. And the devil had a problem with this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He knew that the woman was the central figure to this plan, and bringing down the woman will spoil the entire plan. The vision clearly states that the dragon was chasing the woman to kill her, seek his revenge and spoil God's plan. Rev 12:13-16 narrates his attempt. This vision happened before the creation of the material world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the creation of the material world, the Devil acted as soon as he saw a creature (Eve) who looked like in the vision he had before the fall, and decided to tempt her. The problem is he chose the wrong woman. Also note that the woman in the vision (before the fall) was timid and fearful. She runs for her life and earth has to protect her. The execution of devil's plan had cost the whole of humanity, not just the woman. So God cursed the devil/snake differently than He did with Adam and Eve. He foretells the victory of the woman and her seed and that they both will hate him. This shows that the woman will no longer be timid, but victorious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember the war in heaven is not between God and the devil, but rather between creatures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why Catholics believe that of all creatures Mary is the one Satan hates the most. His hate for all other creatures put together will not be equal to the amount of his hatred of Mary. Because when he sees Mary, he sees his loss and his doom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T14:09:31.227" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T14:09:31.227" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19287" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19283" CreationDate="2013-09-24T10:57:16.327" Score="-5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most believe in evolution. They believe that, yes, God literally created the Universe- via the Big Bang.&#xA;For many years, atheists maintained that the Universe had NO beginning. The Big Bang theory more or less disproved this. HOW ON EARTH such groundbreaking support became a banner for atheists to rally under as 'their thing' (along with evolution)- I have no idea!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should add that I ASSUME most Christian scientist don't take the 'seven days thing' literally as Creationists are a very small minority. I don't actually have the figures in front of me but I would be astounded beyond belief if it turned out otherwise...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="4737" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T13:16:53.280" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T13:16:53.280" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19288" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19290" CreationDate="2013-09-24T12:00:14.057" Score="10" ViewCount="4171" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, Popes sin too. (At least, I assume they do.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Presumably, they confess their sin and do penance.  Who hears his confession? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it an office that rotates, or one individual?  And, does the Pope select that person, or is he selected for the Pope? And finally, clearly the confession would be protected by the seal of the confessional, but, is there a recorded instance of it being broken?  Surely the secrets would have been tempting to give out...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-07T15:11:41.633" LastActivityDate="2017-08-13T14:41:36.143" Title="To whom does Pope Francis confess?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;confession&gt;&lt;pope-francis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19289" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19294" CreationDate="2013-09-24T12:14:18.453" Score="10" ViewCount="149130" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recall someone suggesting to me one time that Adam and Eve had a total or twenty of so children, and that this came from some Jewish writings.  Is there any indication, then, from history regarding how many children they had?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems they would have likely had at least seven, as Cain, Abel and Seth are named.  Seth was considered to be in place of Abel, and it is said that after Seth, Adam and Eve had other sons (plural) and daughters (plural).  Thus, Cain (1) + Abel (1) + Seth (1) + other sons (2+) and daughters (2+) would equal at least seven children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.  Genesis 4:25 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.  Genesis 5:4 ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, again, is there any indication from tradition or historical writings regarding how many sons and daughters Adam and Eve had altogether?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-10-28T19:05:38.577" Title="How many children did Adam and Eve have?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19290" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19288" CreationDate="2013-09-24T12:18:23.350" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Popes confess to another priest, like any other priest. Pope Francis' long-standing confessor is &lt;a href=&quot;http://dalje.com/en-world/personal-confessor-says-pope-holds-croatians-in-high-esteem/459584&quot;&gt;a Croatian Franciscan priest in Argentina&lt;/a&gt;, Fr Berislav Ostojic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People get to choose their own confessor whom they are comfortable with and trust to give good advice. The Pope is no different to anyone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that confession can be conducted by telephone, so presumably one goes to see the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T12:29:19.703" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T12:29:19.703" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19244" CreationDate="2013-09-24T12:36:40.203" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe it to be the reason that faithful Catholics like myself can even attempt to answer questions like this!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we do this&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgement of one's own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then we can do this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...uphold especially all the precepts of the Church, and not censure them in any manner; but, on the contrary, to defend them promptly, with reasons drawn from all sources, against those who criticize them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wps.ablongman.com/long_longman_lwcdemo_1/0%2C9493%2C1532993-%2C00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;St. Ignatius Loyola - Rules for Thinking with the Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I asked a priest when I got really into this website whether or not it was a decent thing for a lay Catholic to do, especially with regards what would seem to be Biblical interpretation.  He said to always say &amp;quot;I think&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;It is my interpretation that&amp;quot; and not project my personal and inept interpretations of scripture or tradition on the Church.  So, I don't believe there is any pretext for saying that the whims of &amp;quot;a faithful&amp;quot; is infallible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as Chesterton pointed out in &lt;i&gt;Orthodoxy&lt;/i&gt; somewhere as well as &lt;i&gt;The Ball and the Cross&lt;/i&gt; and innumerable essays. The people in the middle ages who wrote books were the nutty savants, the sane men plowed fields and the sane women reared children. Sanity, by virtue of the Natural Law which God instituted and gave to all mankind must be infallible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when the common Christian believed in the the Assumption of Our Lady, lots of Bible alone people and common materialists doubted it could be true, but&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the entire community of the faithful can not err in matters of belief (&lt;i&gt;infallibilitas in credendo&lt;/i&gt;) Pope Pius XII enlisted this in 1950, for the definition of the dogma of the Assumption.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dizionarioesoterico.com/definizione-significato/infallibilita_92665.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.dizionarioesoterico.com/definizione-significato/infallibilita_92665.html&lt;/a&gt; (translated from Italian)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And therefore, a dogma which was true for about 1900 years because men and women believed it, is still true today, when the pope elevates the doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T12:44:41.990" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19289" CreationDate="2013-09-24T13:49:02.783" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;Less than 1011. More than 7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adam only had one wife (Eve), which is an argument based strictly on a lack of evidence&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That Eve's normal gestational period was 9 months and had twins no more than average (1 in 86).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;That Eve lived approximately the same amount of time as Adam (again an argument from lack of evidence),&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then we can say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;800 years / 9 months per child (assuming no rest between children) = 1000&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Twins appear in 1 out of every 86 births = 11&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think we can then establish an upper limit for Adam and Eve having a maximum of 1011 children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, one can only speculate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2014-10-28T19:05:38.577" LastActivityDate="2014-10-28T19:05:38.577" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19289" CreationDate="2013-09-24T14:12:21.663" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, I did some searching, and there seems to be some tradition that alleges Adam and Eve and &lt;strong&gt;33 sons and 23 daughters&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is actually mentioned in one of the answers to a question on this site regarding &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5922/how-did-the-world-get-populated-according-to-bible&quot;&gt;how the world got populated&lt;/a&gt;.  The answer references &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/adam-and-eve.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creationmoments.com/content/how-many-children-did-adam-and-eve-have&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Another page&lt;/a&gt; suggests that it is a footnote in the works of Josephus, whom I like to refer to as &quot;Joe Cephas&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is believed by old Jewish traditions &lt;strong&gt;the children of Adam and Eve numbered 56&lt;/strong&gt;. Adam had &lt;strong&gt;33 sons and 23 daughters&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a link to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the works of Josephus&lt;/a&gt;, where this appears:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition was &lt;strong&gt;thirty-three sons, and twenty-three daughters.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-09-27T14:26:52.383" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19296" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-24T14:40:36.403" Score="3" ViewCount="324" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard several Christian philosophers (Robert Koons, Dallas Willard, for example) say that Christianity emphatically answered a lot of questions posed by ancient Greek philosophy. For example, there is the case of the Logos, which according to Greek philosophy was that hypothetical principle which if honored would allow you to fulfill your true purpose. Christianity says that the Logos exists but is not a principle, but a person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What other questions of the ancient Greeks were answered by Christianity? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-13T23:40:53.913" LastActivityDate="2020-01-07T18:55:33.517" Title="What questions raised by ancient Greek philosophy were answered by Christianity?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;philosophy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-17T00:55:43.210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19297" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13682" CreationDate="2013-09-24T15:54:13.443" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not a Catholic so I guess I cannot give you the best answer, but here's my answer from &lt;strong&gt;an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint&lt;/strong&gt;, which might be quite different from the Catholic one (or not?):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ultimate purpose of marriage is actually &lt;strong&gt;the salvation of the bride and groom together&lt;/strong&gt;. Bearing children is not a purpose in itself, but a consequence. Having children is encouraged but not 'mandatory'. Not bearing children was seen as a damnation in the Old Testament, but nowadays Orthodox fathers teach that it is fine if married couples choose to live together, but in chastity. See the works of Romanian Orthodox Fr. Arsenie Papacioc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3714" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T15:54:13.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19296" CreationDate="2013-09-24T16:03:25.440" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I won't give you a list of these questions for I don't know them but I think it is very important to know that Greeks, in their search for truth, somehow realized there should be a God to worship (distinct from the gods they had created in their mythology) so at the time when the apostles came, they had been worshipping a so-called 'Agnostos Theos' (The Unknown/Anonymous God). And apparently, at least, the Christian truth that was preached by Paul was exactly what they had been waiting for!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3714" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T16:03:25.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12434" CreationDate="2013-09-24T16:18:03.393" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Personally, I believe that there is no such thing as infinity in the rational material world. When used as mathematical concepts, they are ok, for Mathematics are a rational science. But I as an (Eastern Orthodox) Christian, admit that many concepts that Maths admit are not possible in real material life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also this case is with &lt;strong&gt;the number Pi, which is not only irrational, but transcendental&lt;/strong&gt;. This means that in the material world, it is not possible to construct a perfect circle out of anything. Nevertheless, equations and formulae with Pi which involve perfect circles exist and will continue to exist...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe, but I don't hold this is the ultimate truth, that it's ok to imagine that infinity and other ideas related to perfection exist &lt;strong&gt;within Mathematics&lt;/strong&gt; for the good flow of our work, but we should say they are not really possible in the 'worldly' world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3714" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T16:18:03.393" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1051" CreationDate="2013-09-24T17:00:19.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Pastor Doug makes a great case for life on other worlds: &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/news/id/528/bible-answers-with-pastor-doug.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/news/id/528/bible-answers-with-pastor-doug.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He highlights the idea that perhaps were the one fallen planet of many:&#xA;“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?” (Luke 15:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to respond to Wikis comments as well:&#xA;--------&quot;I think it is unlikely that God created life outside Earth for two reasons:&#xA;- Scientific: because of the Fermi paradox which says essentially that if there is extra terrestrial life we should have seen evidence of it by now.&#xA;- Theological: because Jesus died once only (Hebrews 10:10). So if there are aliens, would they need redemption? Apparently the answer is &quot;Yes&quot;, if they have freewill. However, since Jesus has already died here on Earth, He couldn't die again for them. Therefore aliens with freewill cannot exist (though animal life might).&quot;-------------&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Scientific - The universe is vast - in our Milky Way Galaxy there 1 million x 1 million star systems, then there are 1 million x 1 million galaxies - we're talking near infinite numbers, and with the speed of light we are seeing 'evidence' from millions of years ago (if a star is 1 million light years away we're seeing light from it 1 million years old, so considering the massive scale of the universe we're only seeing 'recent' events from stars nearby that are say 50 years old (50 light years away). Basically if anyone exists right now but they're on the other side of the galaxy, it's impossible to see what's happening let alone another Galaxy right now, and they can't see us either (if they exist). Even if you could see evidence of galactic scale engineering, if they're building it now and they're 100 light years away (a relative neighbour) or 1 million light years away, we won't see that evidence for another 100 or 1 million years respectively. Of course for them to travel here, means a colossal expenditure of resources and time (unless they've invented the Warp Drive). But they'd have to know we were here in the first place...if somehow they did find out about us, then it's still doubtful it would be worth the trip. So I kind of agree with Paster Doug that perhaps there's a galactic restriction around us, or God may well have placed us so far away from any other life that the sheer impracticalities of travel and discovering each other places nearly insurmountable barriers between us all so no 'mystical' barrier is needed. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Theological - we are taught in the Bible that each of us is special, as pastor Doug points out perhaps he's come after the lost people. There's nothing to say each and every race isn't special. It's quite possible Jesus died only once for each of us, or that they didn't need redemption because by one method or another they don't have free will (though it may not feel like that to them). Working on a lot of science fiction projects it's easy to imagine many worlds where this could be the norm. A society of machines with the rules hardcoded in not to break them, yet still with the apparent 'free will' to worship God and his creation. Let's try not to go around in circles though. In Jesus's teaching we learn that he has died for us, you, me - personally for us, so I feel in a sense that on a galatic scale he too could have singled out our world as a sacrifice, perhaps as a demonstration to the rest of the universe (if they know) of his all powerful love. Imagine billions of worlds full of life (and not necessarily intelligent, there could be millions with just unintelligent creatures) perhaps trillions of worlds of life, billions of trillions of living souls, how great his love for us then, how great his sacrifice to save this one sheep amongst the enormous flock in the heavens. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to imagine just our world, just our few billion people, seems to diminish God's power in the universe and just increase my sense of self worth, when I would rather imagine a God who  is unlimited in his creation.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;And finally, am I the only Christian who would grin stupidly if the first friendly aliens we met turned out to have red skin, horns and a tail? And were ever so holy! :-) I'd love God to turn our terrible preconceptions on their heads!&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5885" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T17:00:19.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19301" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-24T17:39:41.560" Score="1" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to prove the concept of Trinity from using the actual sayings of Jesus himself in the bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5886" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T23:24:16.847" Title="Can you proof trinity by Jesus's words alone?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-09-24T18:42:25.660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19302" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19303" CreationDate="2013-09-24T17:46:28.087" Score="14" ViewCount="5543" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder what the early Christians were officially persecuted for by the high priests? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Acts we see that Saul, before his conversion, received some letters from the high priest that were giving him an official power to persecute early Christians (Acts 9:2). I wonder what was the official reason for that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mean, the Bible does let us know that the high-priests didn't want the new teaching to spread (Acts 4:17), that they were quite jealous witnessing the miracles performed by Peter and John (Acts 5:16,17), and even the fact that they were simply afraid of Jesus' blood being brought upon them (Acts 5:28). However, I don't think they would officially state something like &quot;Christians must be persecuted because we feel jealous regarding their growing number&quot;. There must have been some &quot;official&quot; and &quot;scientific&quot; reason put forth, perhaps based on the books of law (Old Testament), in order to persecute the early Christians. So, what was that reason?         &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2013-09-24T22:59:26.873" LastActivityDate="2016-04-01T21:33:05.233" Title="What were the early Christians officially persecuted for?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;acts&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19302" CreationDate="2013-09-24T18:24:12.027" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. The Jews persecuted Christians for Blasphemy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the perspective of the High Priest, the followers of the Way were violating the primary profession of the Jewish Faith:  &quot;Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, in claiming to be God, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14653/what-was-the-charge-levied-on-jesus-in-the-courts&quot;&gt;was, according to the High Priest, blaspheming&lt;/a&gt;.  Those who followed him would, to the Jewish mind, have been guilty of bifurcating God - of making God out to be polytheistic - of being two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The disciples specifically were charged with teaching in the name of this &quot;heretic&quot; and &quot;blasphemer.&quot;  This had the effect of subverting the authority of the High Priest and causing social discord. And yes, sedition and insubordination are valid charges in a kingdom, regardless of whether or not they are in a democracy like ours today.  Acts 5 records this exchange:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “&lt;strong&gt;We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name&lt;/strong&gt;,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. The Romans persecuted Christians for Atheism&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the Romans, however, the charge was different.  The Romans saw the Christians as being A-Theos (literally atheists) by denying the gods they grew up with, thus inviting destruction amongst everybody by their disbelief.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2007/10/book-review---t.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;In rejecting the &quot;gods&quot; of their land, they had become 'godless Christians' and atheists&lt;/a&gt;. Unlike the Jews, who had special exemption from the requirement that they believe in &quot;gods,&quot;  the Christians, to the extent that they were not being Jews, were not privy to these exemptions, because the Christians had no historical basis on which to base their 'religio'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, Acts 19 shows this in practice.  To wit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. 24 A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. 25 He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. 26 And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. &lt;strong&gt;He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all.&lt;/strong&gt; 27 There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty.” 28 When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 Soon the whole city was in an uproar. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here you see the charge - 'he is saying our gods are no gods at all!' (and, incidentally, you're not very good for business either!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. The Jews persecuted the Christians by using Roman charges&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Jews had no law to put a man to death, the next best thing was to charge that these Jewish non-Jews (and the Gentiles that accompanied them) were not privy to the Jewish exemptions and were subject to the Roman penalties against Atheism.  As such, they just had to differentiate the Christians from the Jews in order to aid in their persecution.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Christians held that there was no God but God the Father, incarnated through God the Son, they were subject to the invective of Rome by means of the Jews.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T15:13:53.427" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19305" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19301" CreationDate="2013-09-24T18:37:55.213" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible teaches all over there is &lt;strong&gt;one&lt;/strong&gt; God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mk%2012:29-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 12:29-30&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father and Son are one and fully God:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I and the Father are one.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2010:22-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 10:30&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit is God:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the &lt;strong&gt;Holy Spirit&lt;/strong&gt; and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ... You have not lied just to human beings but to &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:3-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 5:3-4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1080" LastEditorUserId="1080" LastEditDate="2013-09-25T23:24:16.847" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T23:24:16.847" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19306" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19308" CreationDate="2013-09-24T18:42:36.583" Score="8" ViewCount="3299" Body="&lt;p&gt;God continually tells people throughout the Hebrew Bible to not turn to idolatry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 20:4: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean that they should not try to understand what God &quot;looks&quot; like by trying to recreate an image of Him (we are finite minds, God is an infinite mind), or that they should not make such images because that would lead them to venerate nature gods? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the Israelites do make carved images of something that is &quot;in heaven above,&quot; namely angels (cherubim): God tells Moses to place cherubim on the Ark.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So then the making of images mentioned in Exodus 20:4 (and other laws concerning idolatry) does not pertain to, for example, making an image of Jesus or making images of various Saints, because those figures are, (in the Christian sense), a continuation of the OT, and thus they are beings created &quot;in the image of God&quot;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is actually meant by all this?   To not make images of various things for worship because they were not created &quot;in the image of God&quot;? (God is above, beyond, and outside of nature, and equating God to nature images by creating what is &quot;in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath&quot; is offensive to God?) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because, once again, didn't God tell Moses to place Cherubim on the Ark? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5887" LastEditorUserId="5887" LastEditDate="2015-05-29T09:40:24.680" LastActivityDate="2020-05-03T04:31:28.863" Title="Commandment about idols and idolatry in OT" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;idolatry&gt;&lt;commandments&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19308" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19306" CreationDate="2013-09-24T19:04:16.967" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Normally, I don't link to my own sermons.  But in this case, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/pictures-dont-lie-michael-hollinger-sermon-on-commandments-idols-90744.asp?Page=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;I'm going to make an exception&lt;/a&gt;.  As a Baptist pastor, I wrote this sermon specifically to address this question - Why would God prohibit making graven images?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The upthrust of the answer is that images stick the thing of which the image is made in a fixed point in time.  And, the truth is, that as humans change, our images need to change with us.  Idols don't do that. But our perception of our God does. My image of parents is not the same image I had when I was 5. If it were, something would be seriously wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike Muslims, we don't have a prohibition on images per se - only on images that we would worship.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Seventh Ecumenical Council&lt;/a&gt; in particular clarified that images of Jesus weren't sinful - indeed, God himself had incarnated and taken an image.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant were decoration - indeed, they were only said to &quot;adorn&quot; the Mercy Seat.  The Ark itself was &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; something to be worshipped, but rather the God who sat there.  To have prohibited any adornment would have been to diminish from the grandeur afforded any monarch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians may have images that remind us to worship, but we are specifically &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; worshipping the thing itself.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5412/why-isnt-the-cross-considered-an-idol&quot;&gt;Crosses and crucifixes can, incorrectly, be viewed as idols to the unitiated.&lt;/a&gt; But the theology behind it (again see the Seventh Ecumenical Council), is clearly not idol worship any more than a To Do application on my phone dictates my life or a telephone is the thing to which I talk.  It may be a medium that reminds me, but it is not the thing in and of itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But to make an image of God specifically is an affront to his character and our own.  By fixing an image of God, it becomes too easy for that to become our &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; image of God.  And, no one image can capture the full magnificence of his splendor.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example, I have, on my desk, this picture I took of the Grand Canyon.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/eK9Iw.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Grand Canyon&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I took that one my way down.  The Canyon itself hasn't changed in thousands of years, but as I walked, my perspective of it changed dramatically.  The deeper I got, the more amazing it got.  I can't give you one picture of the Canyon that captures its full essence - and no one can give you one picture of God that communicates his full majesty.  We just aren't equipped for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is God's motivation - he wants us to experience His fullness and not settle for a &lt;em&gt;single&lt;/em&gt; image.  As such, the prohibition on making his image isn't because he doesn't want us to imagine him at all - but rather because he doesn't want us to settle for limited scope.  I can show you what Ganesh looks like.  There are pictures of other &quot;gods&quot; that abound.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the God that Christians serve is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... exchange the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then we know that our foolish hearts will be darkened (Romans 1:22) and that we become sinful and stuck. (the rest of Romans 1).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tl;dr&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; In short, the prohibition on images isn't for God's protection, but our own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T15:24:01.103" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19270" CreationDate="2013-09-24T19:59:34.287" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would suggest it's impossible to know how many Christians there are in the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slightly easier would be the number of people claiming to be Christian - a look at Census data in a lot of countries will tell you this information. The Australian Bureau of Statistics suggests that more percentage wise more women than men claim to be Christians (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/FA58E975C470B73CCA256E9E00296645?opendocument&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/FA58E975C470B73CCA256E9E00296645?opendocument&lt;/a&gt;). Whether these people actual are Christians and whether they are practicing Christians (attend church, read their bible, live in a &quot;Christian&quot; way) is unknown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although I'm not sure if it is reflected globally, there is an organisation called NCLS that runs surveys in churches in Australia (and possibly around the world). There numbers show that men represent 39% of church attendees (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=137&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=137&lt;/a&gt;). You could rightly argue that not everyone attending church is a Christian but that brings me back to my first point that it's impossible to know how many Christians there are in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T19:59:34.287" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19150" CreationDate="2013-09-24T20:54:55.380" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is to be answered by examining marriage law and how it provides the framework for both collective and individual salvation. The Mosaic Covenant was essentially a marriage between Jehovah and His &quot;chosen people&quot; Israel. Moses was the instrument in Jehovah's hands who performed the labor of salvation to bring a remnant out of bondage in Egypt and to enable them to become a sovereign nation in the land of promise that Jehovah promised Abraham would be the land where his posterity would be blessed. As is always the case, covenants have conditions. And, unfortunately, Israel was not a faithful &quot;bride&quot; to Jehovah. In due time Israel essentially committed adultery against Jehovah by putting aside the statutes and judgment He ordained for Her and by adopting the corrupted ways of Her neighbors. As a consequence for this adultery, Jehovah had both Israel and the adulterous men who enticed her &quot;stoned to death&quot;. This can be seen as the siege and destruction of Samaria by Assyria first and then subsequently the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon. And, subsequent to doing their dirty work against Israel and Jerusalem, both Assyria and Babylon were also destroyed. This is the consequence of adultery. Israel became scattered and mixed in among the &quot;Gentiles&quot; as if She was the bits and pieces of a deceased and decomposing corpse with only bones remaining scattered about. While in this state Israel would be subject to many privations and sufferings because She was no longer under the system of governance and protection that She formerly enjoyed. She would not have the ability to rise above the corrupt powers around Her and She would remain in this state until the terms and conditions of the Mosaic Covenant were all fulfilled, every last bit of it. This includes the punitive conditions. Thus, it has been a bit of a mixed blessing and cursing to the Gentiles to have Israel mixed and diffused in among them. They bring the potential of their future blessings and redemption as well as the consequences of their violation of the Mosaic Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if this basic approach is understood, this context also provides the reason someone like Jesus was required to die in order to &quot;save&quot; mankind. The terms in which salvation can be understood is all about being an heir of the Father's Kingdom. Much is spoken about how when the Father's Kingdom comes that those who inherit it are heirs of salvation. This essentially means that there shall come a day when God will establish a new covenant with a new &quot;chosen people&quot; and this people will be purged and refined and ultimately enabled to receive a new &quot;land of promise&quot; where they will be under oath and covenant to have integrity to the statutes and ordinances the Father's Kingdom requires. This is, essentially, a new marriage. However, there's a problem if God is going to marry Israel again. God's marriage law forbids a husband from receiving back a wife that he has formerly puts away. Once she is put away she causes whatever man with whom she marries to commit adultery also with her. There is only one thing that releases a woman from what is called the &quot;law of her husband&quot; and that is if he dies. Once this aspect of Israelite marriage law us clearly understood and it is applied on the level of God and His Bride Israel, the conclusion you naturally come to is in order for Jehovah to establish a new covenant with Israel, He first must die. Once Jehovah dies, Israel is then freed from the restriction and becomes eligible to be remarried to Jehovah. This is also why it is so important that Jehovah be raised from the dead. Otherwise, what would be the point?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what I am getting at here is this: Jesus became Jehovah incarnate by receiving within himself the spirit of Jehovah and provided official representation such that on Jehovah's behalf Jesus could suffer death in order to break the bands that prevented Him from being able to receive Israel into a new covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T20:54:55.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19306" CreationDate="2013-09-24T22:48:06.277" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue is verse 4 is not a complete sentence, you need to read verse 5 to finish it which says...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of&#xA;  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or&#xA;  that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them&#xA;  nor serve them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prohibition is against bowing down to or serving a carved image.  So when they made cherubim for the ark, they never bowed down to the cherubim nor served them.  If I had an artistic picture of say Mary the mother of Jesus on a wall or on a cover of a book, not a violation, why, because I'm not bowing down or serving it. But if I make say a Mary statue and bow down and pray before it, even if I do not serve it, it is still idolatry because you shall not bow down OR serve.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-09-24T22:48:06.277" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19316" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19317" CreationDate="2013-09-25T00:31:04.023" Score="16" ViewCount="29143" Body="&lt;p&gt;In some churches I have seen, the peacock is used in furniture or other similar items:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/X1ArI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/wDSLC.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It can also be seen in some Iconography and decoration:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/0bxiI.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was just wondering what the symbolism of the Peacock actually is, and what churches this symbol is used in?&#xA;Seems to me to that it is just a proud bird!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-13T14:38:28.377" LastActivityDate="2016-09-29T03:19:24.223" Title="What is the symbolism of the Peacock?" Tags="&lt;symbolism&gt;&lt;church-building&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19317" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19316" CreationDate="2013-09-25T00:33:55.630" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;One can find a reference to the peacock in the book of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Revelation 4:6&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Full of eyes&quot;... &quot;The tail of the peacock, with its ‘thousand eyes’ are symbolic of omnipotence and often ascribed to the Archangel Michael. The peacock’s feather is sometimes associated with St. Barbara.&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://symboldictionary.net/?p=1333&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;Also, The peacock, (due to an ancient myth that Peacock flesh did not decay),&#xA;is seen as a symbol of immortality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The peacock is also seen as a symbol of resurrection: &quot;When the peacock sheds his feathers, he grows more brilliant ones than those he lost.&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/orthodoxsymbolism.aspx&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One may also hear the opinion that the peacock is the symbol of (ironically) humility, since it has great beauty, yet hides it all behind itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a fleur de lis symbol, it is often seen as a symbol of Beauty, power, and knowledge.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fleurdelis.com/symbolism.htm&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What churches is this symbol used in?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the best of my knowledge, the Protestant denominations have never really used the Peacock as a symbol. It is used somewhat commonly in the Orthodox church (which is where I was first acquainted with its use), and can be seen in medieval Catholic churches. Not sure if the Catholics still use it to this day, but I know that the Orthodox certainly do. For more on this, take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/f023_Peacock.htm&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="1838" LastEditDate="2013-09-25T23:28:50.507" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T23:28:50.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15737" CreationDate="2013-09-25T04:03:41.100" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Christianity, it has been central tenet that Christians are free from the Law since the very beginning. The New Testament very much makes it clear that observance of holy days, including the Sabbath, is optional for Christians. Paul makes it clear in Romans 14.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The vast majority of Christians have not celebrated the Jewish Sabbath since the time of Paul, based on this teaching. Over time there has arisen a tradition of observing a day of rest on the first day, and this has grown up and been strong in the Catholic church, but also in many others (Scottish Presbyterians are very fervent in keeping, so please don't try to tell them it's a Catholic tradition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pronouncement at the council of Laodicia is not against those who keep a day of rest. It is against those who insist that keeping a Sabbath is necessary for the Christian. Such an insistance is viewed as a return to the jewish Law, and thus entirely incompatible with Christianity (other have of course disagreed with them).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T04:03:41.100" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19306" CreationDate="2013-09-25T12:36:41.260" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Making images and vowing to them and serving them in sinful. Also trying to make images of God is sinful because it lowers our perception of God. I believe pictures of Jesus also lower our perception of Him, but more importantly it prepares us for deep deception in the last days. I believe that it is important to note the words of Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;believe it not&lt;/strong&gt;. For there shall arise false Christs, and false&#xA;  prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it&#xA;  were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told&#xA;  you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, &lt;strong&gt;Behold&lt;/strong&gt;, he is in the&#xA;  desert; go not forth: &lt;strong&gt;behold&lt;/strong&gt;, he is in the secret chambers; believe it&#xA;  not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even&#xA;  unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 24:23-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does this have to do with pictures of Christ you ask? We are very visual creatures. We have gotten used to an image of Christ. In the last days Satan himself will take the form of Jesus, the Jesus we see in pictures. And many will fall and be deceived because he will &lt;strong&gt;look&lt;/strong&gt; like Jesus and do wonders like He did, when in reality we don't even know what He really looked like, or if the artists' depiction of Him is even close to the real one. Notice Jesus says that we should not even LOOK, or behold, when someone tells us the Christ is in this place or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many will be deceived by the physical aspect of Jesus and because they do not know the Jesus of the Bible. Get to know the real Jesus, not by pictures but through His Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Even though I know it might get me down-voted, this is in direct opposition to God. I'm not judging people from any religion or denomination, though it seems to happen in some more than others. I'm just saying that this is EXACTLY what God prohibited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/jwy81.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/pontiff.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-09-25T12:43:28.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T12:43:28.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19302" CreationDate="2013-09-25T12:50:09.280" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate&#xA;  saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests&#xA;  answered, &lt;strong&gt;We have no king but Caesar&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 19:15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what they used against early Christians. Accepting Jesus meant they were accepting Him as king and God, instead of Caesar which was supposed to be just that. This was seen as high treason deserving of death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T12:50:09.280" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19321" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19328" CreationDate="2013-09-25T13:44:45.990" Score="5" ViewCount="4766" Body="&lt;p&gt;Throughout the New Testament there seems to be a distinction drawn between grace and works, it is almost as if one salvation question is “who you are” and the second salvation question is “what have you done”.  On the one hand, we know we are saved by grace not by works, and yet we read that only the &quot;doers&quot; of the will of the Father will enter Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems as if there are two salvation questions: Have you received God’s grace by faith, are you born anew with the Holy Spirit and as such a child of God’s? The second seems to be as a child of God’s and with the availability of the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God bearing out Jesus Christ through your life's work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples from Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Beginning with Jesus chastising Nicodemus&lt;/strong&gt; in John 3:5,6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Grace to the Gentiles:&lt;/strong&gt; Acts 15:8-10 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (&lt;strong&gt;by grace ye are saved&lt;/strong&gt;;)…2:8,9 &lt;strong&gt;For by grace are ye saved through faith&lt;/strong&gt;; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: &lt;strong&gt;Not of works&lt;/strong&gt;, lest any man should boast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In contrast Jesus says:&lt;/strong&gt; Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that &lt;strong&gt;doeth the will of my Father&lt;/strong&gt; which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Corinthians 3:13-15 &lt;strong&gt;Every man's work shall be made manifest&lt;/strong&gt;: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:7 &lt;strong&gt;He that overcometh shall inherit all things&lt;/strong&gt;; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any historical references within Christianity where the salvation of the soul by grace and the salvation of ones life works are differentiated (realizing that they are related)?  It certainly seems that 1 Corinthians 3:15 differentiates these perspectives: (If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved).  It seems the &quot;new birth&quot; assures entrance into God's kingdom and the &quot;works&quot; born of faith in the will of God the Father determines how much of ones life will will enter into the Kingdom of God, is this correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-09-30T12:13:33.147" LastActivityDate="2014-06-07T01:56:57.360" Title="Are we saved by grace or works?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-16T05:25:03.960" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19321" CreationDate="2013-09-25T14:34:32.880" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have a false dichotomy in your question title - it is not an either-or situation, it is a both-and.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grace saves us through faith by which we will perform good works (as the scriptures you quotes indicate).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also missed quoting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:14-26&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 2:14-26&lt;/a&gt;, in which the Apostle says the same thing:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, &amp;quot;Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,&amp;quot; and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But someone may well say, &amp;quot;You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.&amp;quot; You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, &amp;quot;And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,&amp;quot; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="69" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T14:34:32.880" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19323" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19321" CreationDate="2013-09-25T15:03:24.113" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to start by saying that the Bible does NOT contradict itself. Also, grace and works are not mutually exclusive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is &lt;strong&gt;grace&lt;/strong&gt;? &quot;The free and &lt;strong&gt;unmerited&lt;/strong&gt; favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings&quot; (from Google)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are &lt;strong&gt;works&lt;/strong&gt;? &quot;Activity involving mental or physical &lt;strong&gt;effort done in order to achieve a purpose&lt;/strong&gt; or result.&quot; (Also from Google)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all have sinned. (Romans 3:23) Because of this we deserve death. Jesus died to take our sins onto Himself so that we would get what He deserved (eternal life) and He would get what we deserved (death). When we accept the sacrifice He made for us, we are given what He deserved, life eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you are a sinner. You accept Jesus Christ and are baptized, which is a public confession that Christ is your Lord and Savior. Salvation has been attained. You can ONLY be saved by grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what happens now that you are a follower of Christ? Does your life end here? No! You must continue to live but not in the way you used to live but by following  the loving commandments of your LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not&#xA;  known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law&#xA;  had said, Thou shalt not covet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 7:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;HERE AND ONLY HERE is where works are involved. Christ saved you by giving you grace, but now because He saved you by grace, you must walk as He walked and must persevere in the Christian walk, through works, the works of Jesus Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will illustrate this in this example. You are speeding through the freeway and are pulled over by a police officer. You are guilty because you have broken the law (sin). The police office lets you off with a warning (grace). Do you go back to speeding? No! Does the officer letting you off mean now you can speed all you like? Absolutely not! Out of respect and gratefulness that you were let off with a warning, you obey the law (works).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has given you grace, through the redemptive blood of Christ. But because Jesus died, are you now free to go back and do what condemned you to death and was paid at such a high cost? ABSOLUTELY NOT! If you truly accepted the sacrifice of Jesus and wish, out of gratefulness, to do His will, your works must display that you have been saved. Works are the fruit of true conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, salvation could ONLY be attained by the grace of God. Once saved works are the RESULT of Christ living in you through the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered&#xA;  Isaac his son upon the altar?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith&#xA;  made perfect?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 2:20-22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I would like to add one more thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens if you fall back into sin after having been baptized and have accepted Christ? This is a reality most, if not all, face. You must once again ask forgiveness of God and ask once again to be saved by grace. He is not waiting for you to do something wrong so that He can condemn you, instead He WANTS you to be saved and is WAITING for you with open arms to forgive you. Unfortunately, people take advantage of such love and do this time and time again until they can no longer hear the calling of the Holy Spirit and remain in their sins. This is why Jesus calls this the unpardonable sin. So Go to Jesus while His grace is still available and while His voice can still be heard!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-09-30T13:05:59.613" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T13:05:59.613" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19321" CreationDate="2013-09-25T15:13:23.317" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of&#xA;  yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should&#xA;  boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good&#xA;  works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.&#xA;  (Ephesians 2:8-10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Good works do not earn us a ticket into heaven, the merits of the sacrifice of Christ alone earn us a ticket into heaven.  But it is also written&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who regard worthless idols Forsake their own Mercy. (Jonah 2:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although good works do not earn us a ticket to heaven, evil works if not confessed and overcome can disqualify us from heaven.  Therefore we can say &quot;For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and faith if it has not works is dead&quot; (Ephesians 2:8, James 2:17) You are absolutely on the right track when you say we must be doers of the word, and overcomers of sin, yet we are saved by grace.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have no hesitancy in telling you that in order to obtain the&#xA;  immortal inheritance and the eternal substance, you must be overcomers&#xA;  in this probationary life. Everything that blots and stains the soul&#xA;  must be removed, must be cleansed from the heart. We must know what it&#xA;  means to be a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the&#xA;  corruptions that are in the world through lust. Are you willing to&#xA;  wage war against the lusts of the flesh? Are you ready to battle&#xA;  against the enemy of God and man? Satan is determined to enslave every&#xA;  soul if he can; for he is playing a desperate game to win the souls of&#xA;  men from Christ and eternal life. Will you permit him to steal from&#xA;  you the graces of the Spirit of God, and plant in you his own corrupt&#xA;  nature? or will you accept the great provision of salvation, and&#xA;  through the merits of the Infinite Sacrifice made in your behalf,&#xA;  become a partaker of the divine nature? God has given His&#xA;  only-begotten Son, that through His shame, suffering, and death, you&#xA;  might have glory, honor, and immortality. The Signs of the Times, June&#xA;  15, 1891&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T15:13:23.317" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19306" CreationDate="2013-09-25T16:49:18.153" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Moses interpreted God. The way to experience God is to have no image of God. If we think on what an image is, then we can see that it is an expression of a person or an object in another form. For example an image formed by a camera on a film. &#xA;Thus creating Gods image would be to depict God in another form. Speaking about God or thinking about God or Writing about God in another way is also an image of God in a different form. So even though we say we don't worship idols, we have a mental image, written image or a verbal image of God. &#xA;Gods name in the Bible was represented by 4 words YHWH and was not to be pronounced. Which means that Moses did not want to have a verbal image of Gods name. So the attachment to God in general was supposed to be a feeling or an experience than a mental image or an idea of the mind.&#xA;So when people experienced God, they depicted him in the ways they could interpret it, and hence the idols and images. And the perfect form of it is to have no image at all anywhere even in our minds. When you have no image at all in you, you will be in a position to experience God to the fullest. And if we are able to live like that every moment, we would be following Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When someone makes a specific image he gets stuck in that form. The experience of God doesn't widen out. But after some time people will move from one form to another. If you would have to express God in a population where they cannot hear, speak or write, you have to convey it in a different form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exact inverse idea of this is that the whole existence is GOD. This is the external view in some religions. Some religions define it internally and some religions define it externally. And once you are able to merge both of them, you would be led to spiritual enlightenment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was the living image of God. As Moses himself said that Man was created in God's image. He was talking of a man who is experiencing GOD in all moments of his awakened life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worshiping images misleads the ignorant person. He is misled to think of beliefs where power is concentrated and thus can create harm for himself and others. Hence an image of God is not necessary. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus told the 2 commandments in which everything is included is sufficient&#xA;1. Love God &#xA;2. Love Neighbour&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Love is very difficult to define :). This along with the Lords prayer is the fastest way to experience GOD :). The reason why Jesus suggested to ask for todays bread is to get rid of all the worries and the mind is free. And once it is free of the past and the future, thoughts are less, and hence you can have no images in your head and experience God and his will might be revealed. Knowing or unknowing it is only Gods will that happens. But if we are aware and accept it we reduce our suffering within.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have done my best to explain the gist to the way in which to think why there should be no image and the way to experience God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5901" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T16:49:18.153" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19327" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19447" CreationDate="2013-09-25T16:54:40.240" Score="7" ViewCount="271" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;Evangelical Theology: An Introduction&lt;/em&gt;, chapter 8, Karl Barth &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=8iQgolN1WTMC&amp;amp;pg=PA85#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;writes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is splendid and beautiful to be assigned a duty by the God of the Gospel who is the object of evangelical theology, but it is also demanding, exalting, and finally terrifying. A &lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt;, a noble charge, is confided and entrusted to man; but this charge implies that he is expected to fulfill his ministry. He is privileged to do what is expected of him. But he also &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; do what he is chosen to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was struck by the Latin phrase &quot;&lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, which has a specific meaning in Scotland. For the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/&quot;&gt;Church of Scotland&lt;/a&gt;, at least historically, it refers to the power of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about_us/general_assembly&quot;&gt;General Assembly&lt;/a&gt; to regulate itself (including to modify its own rules of procedure as necessary) and to act in the interests of justice when the existing law does not provide a remedy. Likewise, in the civil courts, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Session&quot;&gt;Court of Session&lt;/a&gt; is said to have a &lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt;, described by Andrew MacDouall, Lord Bankton, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=THdPAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA517#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;as follows&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They are intitled, in some cases, to interpose, otherwise than according to  the ordinary rules or forms of law, and even contrary to the form of ordinary proceedings, when the case requires it, in order to bring out the truth, which could not otherwise be done; or to interpose in points necessary for the public good of the society; or for making justice effectual in private cases, where the ordinary forms cannot reach the end [...] This is a supereminent power, founded in their high jurisdiction. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not convinced that Barth had this meaning in mind, but I also don't know what he &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; mean to imply, and I don't know of any other use of the term &lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt;. Elsewhere he refers to theology as a &quot;free science&quot; - free from &quot;any dependence on subordinate presuppositions&quot; - so perhaps there is some connection with the concept of a supreme court being free to act. But I can't quite seem to make this work in my mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can any Barth experts help me out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. From &lt;em&gt;An Institute of the Laws of Scotland in Civil Rights&lt;/em&gt;, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1752), p517. Compare Viscount Stair in &lt;em&gt;The Institutions of the Law of Scotland&lt;/em&gt; (Edinburgh, 1693), book 4, title 3; and other institutional writers.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-10-05T15:41:05.390" Title="What does Karl Barth imply by God entrusting us with a &quot;nobile officium&quot;?" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19321" CreationDate="2013-09-25T17:09:49.033" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is much confusion in this area because no one takes the time to clarify what is meant by &quot;salvation.&quot;  Let us first generally define the term then look at specific uses in scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whenever people see the one of these terms mentioned in scripture, they tend to assume that &quot;saved&quot; or &quot;salvation&quot; means &quot;to be delivered from eternal damnation&quot; or &quot;getting a ticket into heaven,&quot; but this is only one meaning or use of the term in scriptures.  The term &quot;saved&quot; most generally means &quot;to be delivered or rescued from harm or danger.&quot;  There are three tenses of salvation that apply to Christians.  If someone is a Christian they have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved.  The past tense of salvation refers to being &quot;born again.&quot;  The present tense refers to &quot;sanctification.&quot;  The future tense refers to being glorified and being delivered from the great tribulation.  Let us look at each of these three tenses in more detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Born Again (Was Saved)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A person is born again when they accept that God is God, admit that they are a sinner, believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and repent from their sins, making Jesus their Lord.  When a person is born again they become a new creation.  Man is composed of body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess 5:23) (among other things).  Becoming a new creation means that your old spirit dies and you are given a new spirit (2 Cor 5:14-17).  Being born again delivers a person from being a slave to sin (Rom 3:7), allows a person entrance into the kingdom of God (John 3:5-7), and places them into an eternal relationship with God (John 17:3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The born again Christian posses both a new spirit and the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:16).  A Christian's new spirit is a pure desired to know and love God.  The born again Christian also still possess their old flesh, which has retained it's old, sinful lusts and desires (Rom 7: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man is born again by grace alone.  The three of the first four passages referenced above in the question (John 3:5-6; Eph 2:5, 8-9; 1 Tim 1:9) have to do with being born again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sanctification (Am Being Saved)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sanctification is an on-going process in which a Christian is made more like Christ.  Sanctification is done by works. As a Christian matures in their faith, they will do fewer &quot;works of the flesh&quot; and more &quot;works of the Spirit&quot; (Gal 5:19-25), doing more acts of love, possessing more joy and peace, extending more gentleness and kindness, and displaying more faith, etc.  At some point after a Christian dies or is raptured, they will be judged by Jesus for all of the works that they did from the point which they were born again to the point that they either died or were raptured (1 Cor 3:11-15, 2 Cor 5:10).  In 1 Cor 3:12 the &quot;wood, hay, and straw&quot; represent the works of the flesh, while the &quot;gold, silver, and precious jewels&quot; represent works of the Spirit.  Works of the flesh can be either overtly sinful acts or apparently righteous acts done from prideful or selfish motivations (e.g. someone feeding the poor not because they love the poor and have compassion for them but because they want people to think they are religious).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sanctification is God maturing the Christian from the inside, causing them to do more works of the Spirit on the outside.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Glorified and Delivered from the Wrath of God to Come (Will be saved)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result of being born again, the Christian will one day be delivered from their sinful desires and will, therefore, no longer be able to sin at all.  This will happen at an event call the rapture, where Jesus will remove all of the Christians from the earth, thus delivering them from the coming &quot;great tribulation.&quot;  There simply is not enough time to discuss the timing of this event here, so my comments on this topic will be terse.  1 Cor 15:42-57 and 1 Thess 4:14-16 describes the rapture and glorification, where Christians receive a new, immortal body and will no longer be subject to sin and death (in either the physical or spiritual senses of death) and will be with Jesus forever.  1 Thess 1:10 and 5:1-11 show that Christians will be delivered from the &quot;wrath to come,&quot; which is a reference to the Great Tribulation (Matt 24:21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Glorification and deliverance from the wrath to come are by grace alone - think of them as &quot;necessary results,&quot; or perks or benefits of being born again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5903" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T17:09:49.033" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19329" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19330" CreationDate="2013-09-25T17:35:42.003" Score="9" ViewCount="13485" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that Jesus died for the whole world, but sometime this is phrased as Jesus died specifically for me.  What is the Biblical basis for thinking that Jesus died for me specifically? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4691" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-11-16T03:48:49.290" LastActivityDate="2018-11-16T03:48:49.290" Title="What is the Biblical basis for thinking that Jesus died for me specifically?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19330" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19329" CreationDate="2013-09-25T17:51:46.020" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Timothy 1:12-17, Paul - or someone writing as him - says (NRSV translation):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am grateful to Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because he judged me faithful and appointed me to his service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the foremost. But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The author describes himself as being the pre-eminent sinner, although (from context) we know that he does not mean that he is actually worse than other people. Rather, his intention is to say that whenever anyone sins, he or she is condemned; and that everyone who is saved from the domination of sin is saved by Christ. The author counts himself as the chief of sinners because there is no greater sinner he can hide behind. There is no excuse for us. We can all describe ourselves in this way - but equally, we can all say &amp;quot;Jesus came to save me&amp;quot;. And because of this knowledge, we must be careful to remember (as you point out) that the same is true for other people - Jesus did not come to save &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In response to your clarification:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You would like to know whether Jesus had you, specifically, in mind during his Passion. What we know from Scripture is that Jesus &amp;quot;gave his life as a ransom for many&amp;quot; (Matthew 20:28), and that &amp;quot;he died for all&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;reconcile us to himself&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;not counting our trespasses against us&amp;quot; (2 Corinthians 5:15, 18-19). This act of reconciliation unites us with him in love; &amp;quot;our old self was crucified with him&amp;quot; (Romans 6:6) and now &amp;quot;we abide in him and he in us&amp;quot; (1 John 4:13). Further, it is written (Isaiah 53:4-6 and partially quoted in Matthew 8:17):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surely he has borne our infirmities&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and carried our diseases;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;yet we accounted him stricken,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;struck down by God, and afflicted.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;But he was wounded for our transgressions,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;crushed for our iniquities;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;upon him was the punishment that made us whole,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and by his bruises we are healed.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;All we like sheep have gone astray;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;we have all turned to our own way,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and the Lord has laid on him&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;the iniquity of us all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is certain that every sin was part of his burden on the cross, including even those sins yet to happen. If this were not so, then our sins could not be redeemed, and we could not be united with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus certainly suffered in his crucifixion, as the Gospels attest. We might argue about the extent to which he was conscious of each sin individually. While some would say that Jesus in his earthly life had only a human intellect, the transcendent nature of the Passion is surely a plausible candidate for an exception. In any case, he felt the pain of every sin, including yours and mine, regardless of precisely how he felt it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T01:47:20.747" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19331" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-25T20:57:35.107" Score="2" ViewCount="9927" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a multi-part question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what is a Spirit Attachment?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For those that believe in it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;what is it, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how does it work, &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;how does one protect ones self from it?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5905" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T13:30:14.010" LastActivityDate="2018-11-02T08:50:21.470" Title="What is a spirit attachment?" Tags="&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6297" CreationDate="2013-09-25T23:25:51.250" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis, the lifespans of people - denoting from birth to death - are described in the following manner, &quot;...the days of [so-and-so] were [number of] years, and he died...&quot; The exception being that of Enoch &quot;...and he was not, for God took him.&quot;  Later on, Pharoah asks Jacob, Joseph's father, &quot;How many are the days of the years of your life?&quot;  The difference here being Jacob hasn't yet died, and the question adds the necessary words, &quot;are&quot; and &quot;of your life?&quot;  It's interesting that God uses the same idiom for &quot;man&quot;.  God: &quot;...yet his days shall be 120 years.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before God determined that immense decrease in lifespan for the human race (no specific time frame was given for when this would begin to happen to our race), there had been no common maximum lifespan for the human body, other than people seemed to die short of a thousand years; I read in amazement the news some years ago, that scientists discovered the approximate, NATURALLY optimum lifespan capable within the human body is 120 years.  Obviously, God can alter this in specific instances for certain individuals, for His own purpose, as He alters other ordinances of His occasionally (such as Enoch being spared the common sentence of physical death of all humans).  Granted, few of us - what with poor diet, toxins around us that weaken our immune systems, and warfare - are able to live to that maximum lifespan, even though it exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5907" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T23:25:51.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19334" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="633" CreationDate="2013-09-25T23:34:51.380" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think I might see it a little differently. To beget is not merely to copy oneself. A father is not the same as a son and yet a creator has the power to manipulate their creation to perfection, they are inscribed in it, just as God is inscribed in man. Controversially it indicates that the problems of man originated in God, and so the solution must originate outside of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is created/made is 'of the creator' perhaps more than a son is 'of the father', just as the nest is a representation of what the bird wishes to create. However a child is independent. Although a child comes from us, we can not, try as we may, predict or control exactly who they become. They have the capacity to disobey our law. Whereas a nest can only be a nest and men can not defy gravity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this sense, for Jesus to have been begotten indicates him as God, not merely an agent of a God above, but something beyond what God had been, beyond only God's own plan and therefore a transformation in the power and nature of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5908" LastActivityDate="2013-09-25T23:34:51.380" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4163" CreationDate="2013-09-26T00:01:35.477" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Oops, got timed out by the computer, trying this again: In Genesis, the earliest patriarchs' individual lifespans are expressed the following way: &quot;...the days of [name] were [number of] years, and he died...&quot;  The exception to this being Enoch, &quot;...and he was not, for God took him.&quot;  Similarly, Pharoah asks Jacob, &quot;How many are the days of the years of your life?&quot; (the difference there being he had not yet died).  It's interesting that God uses the same idiom for &quot;man&quot;/humanity: &quot;...yet his days shall be 120 years.&quot;  Until God decided that, there had been no common maximum lifespan for humans, other than they seemed to die short of a thousand years, nor was any specific date given for when this descreased lifespan would start for humankind.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read, of course, some years ago of scientists' discovery that the approximate, NATURALLY optimum lifespan for THE human body is 120 years: now God can alter this ordinance Himself for individuals for His own purpose, as He does for other ordinances (i.e., Enoch spared the common sentence of physical death for all humans), OR humans can medically alter it with ever-developing technology to rejuvenate human cells; nonetheless - but for godly or human intervention - 120 years is the natural optimum age the body is capable of on its own - barring poor diet, toxins that weaken our immune systems, disease, warfare, etc., that cause most of us to fall far short of that natural maximum age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5909" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T00:01:35.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19336" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19339" CreationDate="2013-09-26T00:17:50.797" Score="6" ViewCount="1565" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_and_levitation&quot;&gt;There are many stories of certain saints levitating or even flying&lt;/a&gt;. Many include reports of some particular saint seen hovering a few feet above the ground as they were deep in prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Roman Catholic Church have an official position on this? Are some saints officially recognized as 'levitators' or are the stories dismissed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T06:44:32.157" Title="What is the Roman Catholic stance on levitation?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19337" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19329" CreationDate="2013-09-26T00:39:22.920" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Christ died for all&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God loved the people of this world so much that He gave His one and only Son Jesus Christ(John 3:16). The Bible  doesn't say Jesus died only for the righteous or the Israelites, but He died for all mankind. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for&#xA;  themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. (2&#xA;  Corinthians 5:15, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Am I included?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; The Bible says that Jesus died for sinners. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still&#xA;  sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does that include me? What can convince me that I am a sinner? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach&#xA;  and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a&#xA;  person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For &lt;strong&gt;out&#xA;  of the heart come evil thoughts&lt;/strong&gt; — murder, adultery, sexual immorality,&#xA;  theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person;&#xA;  but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” (Matthew 15:17-20, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though you have not committed any crime outwardly, if you have evil thoughts in your heart, you are already a sinner. If you think that your heart is pure, you don't need Jesus to die for you. But if you are convinced that &quot;&lt;em&gt;all have sinned&lt;/em&gt;&quot; &lt;sup&gt;(Romans 3:23)&lt;/sup&gt;, you indeed need the righteous Son of God to die for you. After accepting the fact that you are a sinner, then you can say with confident, &lt;em&gt;&quot;Jesus died for me&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Jesus died only for me?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Saying that Jesus Christ died for me and me alone is egoistic, self centered and greedy. It means you want Heaven only for yourself and you don't want others to come. God desires everyone to be in Heaven with Him forever, and not only one person. You like it or not, there will be countless people in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no&#xA;  one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language,&#xA;  standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing&#xA;  white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they&#xA;  cried out in a loud voice:&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;“Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the&#xA;  Lamb.”&lt;/em&gt; (Revelation 7:9-10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T00:39:22.920" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19336" CreationDate="2013-09-26T00:50:59.900" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Skip to the &quot;however&quot; toward the end to avoid a lot of build-up.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not finding anything official, and my favorite source is coming up inconclusive, but leaning toward &quot;It's either bogus or of the devil, not of God.&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A search for &quot;Levitation&quot; on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia site returns exactly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&amp;amp;cx=000299817191393086628%3aifmbhlr-8x0&amp;amp;q=levitation&amp;amp;sa=Search&amp;amp;cof=FORID:9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;four results.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The first&lt;/strong&gt; is an article called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07698b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Impostors&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, which recounts various, well, impostors.  Excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;More to our purpose are a number of feigned or deluded ecstaticas who&#xA;  often traded upon the popular credulity in countries like Spain that&#xA;  were ready to welcome the miraculous. Amongst the most famous of these&#xA;  was Magdalena de la Cruz (1487-1560), a Franciscan nun of Cordova, who&#xA;  for many years was honoured as a saint. She was believed to have the&#xA;  stigmata and to take no other food than the Holy Eucharist. The&#xA;  Blessed Sacrament was said to fly to her tongue from the hand of the&#xA;  priest who was giving Holy Communion, and it seemed at such moments&#xA;  that she was raised from the ground. The same miraculous levitation&#xA;  took place during her ecstasies at which time also she was radiant&#xA;  with supernatural light. So universal was the popular veneration, that&#xA;  ladies of the highest rank, when about to be confined, sent to her the&#xA;  cradles or garments prepared for the expected child, that she might&#xA;  bless them. This was done by the Empress Isabel, in 1527, before the&#xA;  birth of Philip II. On the other hand St. Ignatius Loyola had always&#xA;  regarded her with suspicion. Falling dangerously ill in 1543,&#xA;  Magdalena confessed to a long career of hypocrisy, ascribing most of&#xA;  the marvels to the action of demons by which she was possessed, but&#xA;  maintaining their reality. She was sentenced by the Inquisition, in an&#xA;  auto-da-fé at Cordova, in 1546, to perpetual imprisonment in a convent&#xA;  of her order, and there she is believed to have ended her days most&#xA;  piously amid marks of the sincerest repentance (see Görres, &quot;Mystik&quot;,&#xA;  V, 168-174; Lea, &quot;Chapters from Relig. Hist. of Spain&quot;, 330-335). A&#xA;  large number of similar cases have been discussed in considerable&#xA;  detail by Lea both in his &quot;Chapters&quot; just cited, and also in the&#xA;  fourth volume of his &quot;History of the Inquisition of Spain&quot;, but Lea,&#xA;  though indefatigable as a compiler, is not to be relied on in the&#xA;  conclusions and inferences he draws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Score:  Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The second&lt;/strong&gt;, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08480a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. John of the Cross&lt;/a&gt;&quot; doesn't actually mention levitation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Score remains Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The third&lt;/strong&gt;:  &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14221a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Spiritism&lt;/a&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll spare you the quote, but levitation is listed as one of the phenomena associated with Spiritism, which is seen as not of God, but of the opposite. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Score:  Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The fourth&lt;/strong&gt;, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06467c.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;St. Gerard Majella&lt;/a&gt;&quot; also doesn't actually mention levitation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Score remains Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other searches:  &quot;Levitate&quot; returns similar articles, plus a few Latin verses, but in these, the word &quot;levitate&quot; is translated to English as &quot;light&quot;, &quot;lightly&quot; or &quot;lightness&quot; consistent with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://mymemory.translated.net/t/Latin/English/levitate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;normal translation&lt;/a&gt;.  Example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co001.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 1:17&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other sites that look less official to me suggest otherwise.  There are several seemingly legitimate cases reported, which are seen as genuine miracles, and seem relatively accepted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frustratingly, I cannot find an official statement at all.  The most plausible I've found to an official stance is in an un-cited, un-referenced answer that sounds entirely plausible and consistent with all the &quot;noise&quot; I've found.  It is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34569&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CatholicCulture.org's article on Levitation.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to Benedict XIV, in order to verify genuine levitation it is&#xA;  first of all necessary to make a thorough investigation to eliminate&#xA;  any chance of fraud. Then he states that a well-authenticated&#xA;  levitation cannot be explained on merely natural grounds; that this&#xA;  phenomenon is not, however, beyond the power of angels or demons; and&#xA;  that with the saints it is a kind of anticipation of a prerogative of&#xA;  glorified bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This same statement can be found on many sites, and appears to be commonly accepted as a valid assertion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-11-29T06:44:32.157" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T06:44:32.157" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4192" CreationDate="2013-09-26T05:33:35.727" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I disagree that the Great White Judgment is only for the unsaved. But I was a long time arriving at that conclusion. Let me explain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation shows two resurrections, one in 20:4, and the other in 20:12. I believe these are the resurrections of the just (righteous) and the unjust (wicked), separated by 1000 years, a concept mentioned several times in the Bible (such as Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29). Since I did not understand the concept, it was easy to rephrase it in my mind as the resurrection of the saved and unsaved. This is the same as a child not understanding “holy” in the Our Father prayer, so he changes it so it makes sense: “Our Father, which art in heaven, Harold be thy name.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Just&quot; does not mean saved or believer; &quot;unjust&quot; does not mean unsaved or unbeliever. The correct terminology is righteous and wicked, and any Christian can fall into either of these camps. Paul the apostle knew this, and cautioned us strongly about it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Act 24:15&lt;/strong&gt;  And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the&#xA;  just and unjust.  &lt;strong&gt;Act 24:16&lt;/strong&gt;  And herein do I exercise myself, to have&#xA;  always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Paul saw two resurrections, and his response to the doctrine was to live with a clear conscience. Why do this if all the saved will make res #1 anyway? Because it was the res. of the just, not the saved, so he wanted to make sure he lived righteously, and he saw that God gave us a conscience to help us to this end. We reject the conscience or make excuses about it to our sorrow.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1Co 3:13&lt;/strong&gt;  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire&#xA;  shall try every man's work of what sort it is.  &lt;strong&gt;1Co 3:14&lt;/strong&gt;  If any man's&#xA;  work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;1Co 3:15&lt;/strong&gt;  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but&#xA;  he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.  &lt;strong&gt;1Co 3:16&lt;/strong&gt;  Know ye not&#xA;  that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in&#xA;  you?  &lt;strong&gt;1Co 3:17&lt;/strong&gt;  If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God&#xA;  destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, we learn that we will be judged according to our works. We will be rewarded by our works, not our thoughts or correctness of faith and doctrine. Note the promise of a Christian (the person in whom the Spirit of God indwells) being destroyed, yet the person is still saved. I suspect this person is rejected as res #1 and rises again in res #2. Of those who make it through res #1, “the second death has no power” --no being cast into the Lake of Fire. No wonder Paul strove to make res #1! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1Co 9:24&lt;/strong&gt;  Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.  &lt;strong&gt;1Co 9:25&lt;/strong&gt;  And&#xA;  every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things.&#xA;  Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;1Co 9:26&lt;/strong&gt;  I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as&#xA;  one that beateth the air:  &lt;strong&gt;1Co 9:27&lt;/strong&gt;  But I keep under my body, and&#xA;  bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached&#xA;  to others, I myself should be a castaway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul wanted to get the incorruptible crown, which we see is awarded for those making res #1. It’s possible for him to be cast away if he is not temperate in all things. The thought does not end here, but continues in chapter 10, which tells the sad story of the Israelites who were cast away from a chance of entering the rest, the Promised Land which was only given to the two who continued to the end in faith, and the children of those who did not believe. Paul applies this lesson to all Christians: if we continue in the flesh, we shall not make it to res #1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2Co 5:9&lt;/strong&gt;  Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.  &lt;strong&gt;2Co 5:10&lt;/strong&gt;  For we must all appear before the&#xA;  judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in&#xA;  his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. &#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;2Co 5:11&lt;/strong&gt;  Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;&#xA;  but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest&#xA;  in your consciences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul knew the “terror of the Lord” at the judgment. God will not show favoritism in His judgments (Rom. 2:11), as we see in His willingness to judge King David harshly, a man of God, when he sinned. So Paul “labored” to accepted by God. It was not enough that he was positionally righteous with imputed righteousness by faith (Rom. 3:22, 4:5), for at the judgment, works and character will matter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Php 3:11&lt;/strong&gt;  If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.  &lt;strong&gt;Php 3:12&lt;/strong&gt;  Not as though I had already attained, either were&#xA;  already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for&#xA;  which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.  &lt;strong&gt;Php 3:13&lt;/strong&gt;  Brethren, I&#xA;  count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do,&#xA;  forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto&#xA;  those things which are before,  &lt;strong&gt;Php 3:14&lt;/strong&gt;  I press toward the mark for&#xA;  the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul did not account himself as already having obtained res #1, such as when he first trusted Christ. According to Philippians 3:3-10, he abandoned his former religious works so that his faith would be solely on Christ and not in himself. There is no path to righteousness when we are trusting in ourselves. It was not enough that he trusted in Christ some years ago; it was imperative that he continue trusting Him. The high calling of God is, in Paul’s view, res #1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1Pe 2:24&lt;/strong&gt;  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by&#xA;  whose stripes ye were healed.  &lt;strong&gt;1Pe 2:25&lt;/strong&gt;  For ye were as sheep going&#xA;  astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your&#xA;  souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We were saved from our sins that we may live righteously. Living righteously is not automatic; it means following the example of the Lord as He bore the cross. One mark of righteousness is following the Lord, the Shepherd. First Peter is full of exhortations to holy living, which makes little sense if we are all merely getting a free pass to heaven! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2Pe 1:10&lt;/strong&gt;  Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall&#xA;  never fall:  &lt;strong&gt;2Pe 1:11&lt;/strong&gt;  For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you&#xA;  abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus&#xA;  Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We will either have an abundant entrance into the kingdom, which is res #1, among those who reign with Christ a thousand years, or miss that part of the kingdom. Through the diligence of good works and maturing character (2 Peter 1:5-9) we show that we are indeed of those are responding to God’s call to die to ourselves and live for Him. If we do not deal with sin, we are “shortsighted” (2 Peter 1:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1Jn 2:28&lt;/strong&gt;  And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at&#xA;  his coming.  &lt;strong&gt;1Jn 2:29&lt;/strong&gt;  If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that&#xA;  every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It’s possible to appear before God in confidence or in shame; it’s not automatic that all Christians will appear before God righteous. We see here also that righteousness is of works, not just faith or doctrinal correctness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rev 2:26&lt;/strong&gt;  And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:  Rev 2:27  And he&#xA;  shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall&#xA;  they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.  Rev 2:28 &#xA;  And I will give him the morning star.  Rev 2:29  He that hath an ear,&#xA;  let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“he that overcometh.” Christ here makes a difference between those who overcome the issues He raises in the churches in the letters to the 7 churches and those who don’t. The spiritually alert will see their character deficiencies and seek the Lord to overcome them by His grace. They will feel the chastisement of the Lord in trials and bear the fruit of righteousness (Heb. 12:10-11). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The first resurrection&lt;/strong&gt; is characterized in Revelation as reigning with Christ. We see in Matt. 24:45-51 and several other passages (like Matt. 25:14-30), that those who are faithful will rule according their faithfulness in laboring for the Lord to the end. I believe that res #1 will include these people; res #2 will not. As we die, so shall we appear before the Lord. If we die unfaithful with our works, then we’ll appear before God unfaithful. Death and resurrection may change our bodies, but it doesn’t alter our character. Character matters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rev 20:15&lt;/strong&gt;  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to imply that some will have their names in the book of life and some will not (“whosoever”). This is the res Paul sought with all his life to avoid. It appears to me that if we will not live this one lifetime for the Lord Jesus, then we will forfeit 10 lifetimes between resurrections, then be raised to the kingdom. But it will be without rewards or honor. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main difficulty that kept me from accepting these concepts was that of confusing rejection for a reward with losing our salvation. We can’t lose our salvation, but we can lose our rewards through careless living. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the books that helped me understand these concepts were:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Reign of the Servant Kings,&lt;/em&gt; by Joseph Dillow. &#xA;&lt;em&gt;The Rod: Will God Spare It?&lt;/em&gt; by J. D. Faust. &#xA;&lt;em&gt;The Believer’s Payday,&lt;/em&gt; by Paul N. Benware.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-09-26T13:07:34.360" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T13:07:34.360" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19346" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19372" CreationDate="2013-09-26T15:54:28.553" Score="10" ViewCount="664" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just listened to a podcast of an Orthodox priest talking about his conversion into the Eastern Orthodox church. He mentioned something about how he once courted an irish Catholic girl who had a big old coffee table Bible from the early 1900's. In the front of the bible there was a chart for how to obtain specific indulgences for specific amounts of &quot;time&quot; in purgatory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a grandson of Vatican II, I've always understood purgatory as a &lt;em&gt;process&lt;/em&gt; and not a &lt;em&gt;place&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Benedict XVI does an amazing job of clearing up misconceptions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate, I am curious as to whether or not these &quot;indulgence charts for time reduction &lt;em&gt;in purgatory&lt;/em&gt;&quot; were ever actually inserted into catholic bibles...obviously erroneously?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would prefer answers from Catholics...or non-Catholics who are very knowledgeable about this, rather than anti-Catholic exaggerationalist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-05T01:20:22.423" LastActivityDate="2016-12-01T22:36:10.870" Title="Old Roman Catholic Bibles having indulgence charts?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;bible&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;&lt;indulgence&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19347" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19374" CreationDate="2013-09-26T16:06:20.083" Score="6" ViewCount="1108" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches communion is given to infants at baptism along with chrismation. What about after that? Do they continue all throughout childhood, or is it just a one time thing until they are older?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-09-28T13:41:00.777" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T13:41:00.777" Title="How young do children start to receive communion regularly in Eastern Catholic/Orthodox churches?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19349" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19350" CreationDate="2013-09-26T16:40:22.827" Score="10" ViewCount="8938" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been studying Nietzsche, and I find his ideas thought-provoking. Doing a wider search of the literature on the subject of nihilism, I note that very nearly all of the content that espouses nihilism is irreligious, and all of the religious sources attempt to refute nihilism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There must be some dissenters in this regard -- it's a big world, and there are &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Forms_of_nihilism&quot;&gt;many forms of nihilism&lt;/a&gt;. Ecclesiastes, for instance, sure sounds nihilist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Meaningless! Meaningless!”&#xA;  says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless!&#xA;  Everything is meaningless.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually, I hear this explained away (e.g. -- &quot;Yes, meaningless &lt;em&gt;without God!&lt;/em&gt;&quot;), and that may be the correct response, but surely there must be someone with an interpretation of Ecclesiastes that takes Solomon's words at face value.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any well-known Christian nihilists whose literature I can examine? Where can I find discussions on this topic that do not take an anti-nihilist view?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just to clarify, I am &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; asking someone to explain whether or why Christianity and nihilism are (in)compatible. I'm trying to get a sense of what's out there on pro-nihilism Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5917" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-09-26T17:14:58.870" LastActivityDate="2020-02-03T18:23:22.080" Title="Are there any well-known Christian nihilists?" Tags="&lt;reference-request&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19349" CreationDate="2013-09-26T17:14:37.680" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there is school of theological nihilism influenced by Nietzsche, known as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_God_theology&quot;&gt;&quot;Death of God&quot; movement&lt;/a&gt;. Probably the most famous individual associated with it is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich&quot;&gt;Paul Tillich&lt;/a&gt;. This work explores the idea that the traditional concept of God has &quot;died&quot;, and the extent to which faith (or reason, or ethics, etc.) can still exist in such a world. We can argue about whether this sort of thing is nihilist, or existentialist, or both, or not really either; but in any case it comes out of that general area of thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be distinguished from the older and more &quot;respectable&quot; pursuit of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology&quot;&gt;apophatic theology&lt;/a&gt;. This is an approach to God founded on describing God in &quot;negative&quot; terms (he is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; evil, he is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; limited, etc.). Typically, this theology is mystical rather than rational, and Eastern rather than Western. A standard idea in apophatic theology is that God &lt;em&gt;does not&lt;/em&gt; exist, meaning that the mode of his &quot;existence&quot; transcends the way in which ordinary everyday stuff is said to &quot;exist&quot;. Contemplation of paradoxes associated with the divine is also part of apophatic practice - without necessarily trying to &lt;em&gt;solve&lt;/em&gt; them in the manner of rationalist theology. Apophatic theology has influenced nihilistic theology but they are not identical. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another relevant writer is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard&quot;&gt;Kierkegaard&lt;/a&gt; for his exploration of paradox and despair in a Christian context. He is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Kierkegaard&quot;&gt;not a nihilist but there is a good deal of later work&lt;/a&gt; which responds to him. I would suggest &lt;em&gt;Fear and Trembling&lt;/em&gt; as a good starting point (because out of the two books I've read by him, it was the one I liked the best). In it, he works through the story of the Binding of Isaac with an emphasis on the supposed moral of the story, Abraham's greatness through faith; this is contrasted with the anxiety and subjectivity of Abraham's personal experience, in the context of an apparently immoral command to murder his son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-26T17:46:01.580" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T17:46:01.580" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19329" CreationDate="2013-09-26T17:47:39.133" Score="0" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me (John 10:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[...], the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world. (Revelation 13:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. (Psalm 147:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said while living as a human he knew who belongs to him. Revelation says the death of Christ was planned from the beginning of this world. If God could name all the stars in heaven, yes, He could name all of us and the divine nature of Jesus surely knew for who he was dying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you believe in the doctrine of Election, as I do, it is easy to understand that Jesus knew me in the eternity and died for me specifically, but not only me of course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if your belief is that man has free will to accept salvation so Christ paid for all sins of all men in a generic way and is up to you to accept or not the salvation, it is more difficult to conciliate Jesus dying specifically for anyone. Nevertheless you can also believe that Jesus foreknew you would repent and believe in the Gospel so He knew He was dying for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4953" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T17:47:39.133" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2641" CreationDate="2013-09-26T18:43:12.793" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It refers to Adam and the Fall of Man, in my opinion.  Just as in the 2Enoch, where Adam is referred to as a &quot;second angel, honourable and glorious..&quot; so here Man in his perfection is referred to as an angel.  And just like in 2enoch, where it says  &quot; Adam has life on earth, and I created the heavens open to him, that he should see the see the angels singing the song of victory and the gloomless light&quot;  so here it refers to Adam having the Mountain of God open to him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5921" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T18:43:12.793" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19356" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-26T18:59:15.860" Score="16" ViewCount="1920" Body="&lt;p&gt;The unusual image of a &quot;wax nose&quot; has been used in a few different ways,&#xA;to describe some sort of &quot;twisting&quot; of the meaning of Scripture. It appears&#xA;to have been used by both Protestants and Catholics, with different intent.&#xA;For example, John Calvin attributes the phrase to (unnamed) Catholics &#xA;apparently describing their own method of exegesis,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Against opposing arguments they will set up this brazen wall: Who are you to question the interpretation of the Church? This, no doubt, is what they mean by a saying common among them, in that Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes. &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was this really a common saying? What did they mean by it - and is it the&#xA;same as what Calvin wants them to mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. John Calvin. &lt;em&gt;Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto&lt;/em&gt; (Geneva, 1547). Antidote to the fourth session.&#xA;&quot;Adversus contrarios rationes hic oppositus erit muris aheneus: Tu quis es, qui ecclesiae&#xA;interpretationi obstrepis? Hoc scilicet est, quod vulgari proverbio inter se praedicant:&#xA;Scripturam esse nasum caereum; quia converti possit in omnes formas.&quot; English translation&#xA;by Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2020-02-13T22:12:35.990" Title="Why is the Bible said to be twisted like a wax nose?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19356" CreationDate="2013-09-26T18:59:15.860" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;This was a common image from at least the eleventh century onwards, but it did not always&#xA;mean the same thing. In particular, Calvin is taking the least favourable possible&#xA;meaning, out of all those ever used by his opponents. I will now explain everything in tediously footnoted detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The root image of the wax nose comes from the use of wax to make prostheses. &#xA;Wax is cheap, malleable, and is not too different from the typical range of European skin colours. &#xA;This had been common since the classical era, and Petrarch (1303-1374) includes wax noses among the common&#xA;prosthetic devices of his time&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In connection to the earliest usages of the&#xA;wax nose simile, it can be noted that a wax nose is a pretty low-class sort of prosthesis.&#xA;Although skin diseases were abundant in all strata of society, rich people might make&#xA;use of precious metals (as with the golden nose of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_II&quot;&gt;Justinian II&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;the original having been amputated after his deposition in 695). Even the less wealthy might&#xA;have noses of leather or wood. Loss of the nose might also be the result of&#xA;punishment for crime, including adultery. All of these factors suggest that&#xA;the possessor of the proverbial wax nose is likely to be of low status&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may distinguish two cases of wax-nose-twisting language:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Your wax nose is tweaked by somebody else - invariably a bad thing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You twist your own nose however you want - which may be good or bad.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest sense is the former, where the nose is meant to represent the law.&#xA;Our oldest citation is from the &lt;em&gt;Chronica Boemorum&lt;/em&gt; by&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_of_Prague&quot;&gt;Cosmas of Prague&lt;/a&gt; (c.1045-1125),&#xA;which describes how &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_III,_Holy_Roman_Emperor&quot;&gt;Henry III&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;(1017-1056) in the year 1040&#xA;tried to collect more tax from the Bohemians than the law seemed to permit;&#xA;when they protested, he apparently said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He who rules the laws is not ruled by them: for the law, as the common people say,&#xA;  has a nose of wax, while the king has an iron hand and a long one, so that he can twist&#xA;  it however he likes&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In later Germanic usage, the wax nose of the &lt;em&gt;law&lt;/em&gt; was a common image&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xA;An example is a Middle High German poem by&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_von_Wolkenstein&quot;&gt;Oswald von Wolkenstein&lt;/a&gt; (1376-1445),&#xA;comparing the law to a wax nose that may be twisted about just as freely as a hound&#xA;runs to and fro&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;. But the most famous and influential occurrence was&#xA;in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Fools_%28satire%29&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ship of Fools&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;(&lt;em&gt;Das Narrenschiff&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Stultifera Navis&lt;/em&gt;)&#xA;of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Brandt&quot;&gt;Sebastian Brandt&lt;/a&gt; (1457-1521),&#xA;a political-religious satire; the law is compared to a wax nose in chapter 71 &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xA;We will shortly return to the&#xA;commentary by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Geiler_von_Kaisersberg&quot;&gt;Johann Geiler von Keysersberg&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;(1445-1510),&#xA;which develops the theme and was an influence on Martin Luther and other key figures of the&#xA;Reformation and Counter-Reformation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second sense above - you get to reshape your own nose - is first attested in the&#xA;philosophical writing of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Lille&quot;&gt;Alain of Lille&lt;/a&gt; (1116-1202).&#xA;His &lt;em&gt;De Fide Catholica&lt;/em&gt; includes two defenses of the immortality of the soul, the first of which&#xA;draws from the authority of Greek philosophers. In the linking passage, he asserts that &#xA;such authority has a nose of wax, and can be made to mean whatever we want, it must be strengthened&#xA;by the use of reason &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;. It is possible that the wax, for him, is meant to be&#xA;analogous to the Platonic primordial matter of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_%28dialogue%29&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Timaeus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;called ἐκμαγεῖον (a substance that can receive an image) &#xA;and μαλακῶν (a soft material) in 50c2, 50e8 respectively&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xA;The idea that wax can take any image is analogous to the way that anything can be written on paper;&#xA;these images were combined in a poem of Bruno von Sch&amp;ouml;nebeck (fl. 1275).&#xA;The poem explicitly references Scripture, comparing it to a wax nose&#xA;because of the whitish-yellow colour of paper, and the fact that either one can take on any&#xA;image (&quot;etslich bilde&quot;) one cares to impose&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Boccaccio&quot;&gt;Boccaccio&lt;/a&gt; (1313-1375) also compares the&#xA;many possible sense of Scripture to the proverbial wax nose, in his commentary on the many senses of&#xA;Dante's &lt;em&gt;Divine Comedy&lt;/em&gt; &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xA;There are many other contemporary uses of the proverb, across Europe&lt;sup&gt;13, 14&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The usage of Boccaccio is an example of the &quot;good&quot; kind of twisting your own nose. The&#xA;so-called &quot;four senses&quot; of Scripture (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical) &#xA;were greatly in vogue in popular preaching, and the Bible was presented as a sort of miraculous&#xA;treasure chest. A related metaphor is the egg, which may be cooked in many ways; or the&#xA;sheath which can contain any sword&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;. There is some suspicion about whether theologians&#xA;are justified in their wax-twisting, for example from &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus&quot;&gt;Erasmus&lt;/a&gt; (1466-1536) &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xA;Geiler's commentary on the &lt;em&gt;Ship of Fools&lt;/em&gt; contains a defense of his preaching against the&#xA;charge that he can twist too many meanings out of a single passage, as if he were twisting&#xA;a wax nose to suit himself &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;. In another sermon, he endorses the &quot;four senses&quot;&#xA;to which Scripture may be turned, like a wax nose, whereas other writings are less fruitful &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xA;But some of Geiler's sermons use the metaphor in a different way, to emphasize the danger of&#xA;private interpretation, absent the authority of the Church. &lt;strong&gt;This is the provocative &#xA;usage for the Reformers.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Reformation era, we see just about everyone, on all sides, using the wax nose&#xA;metaphor against their opponents. The Catholic usage follows that of Geiler (and indeed&#xA;Alain of Lille) in asserting Church authority to extract the correct meanings from the Bible - anyone&#xA;else can only read their own meaning into the text. Protestants were furious at&#xA;this apparent disrespect to Scripture, drawing on the original Germanic tradition&#xA;where the nose-twisting is due to unjust exercise of personal power over the law (sense 1 above, rather than the intended sense 2).&#xA;So Martin Luther writes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So we see how neatly the Romanists deal with the Scripture, making of it just what they want,&#xA;  as if it were a wax nose, that one can pull this way and that. &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;just as Calvin repeated in sermon after sermon&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;. On the other hand,&#xA;when &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Damasus_Lindanus&quot;&gt;Willem van der Lindt&lt;/a&gt; (1525-1588)&#xA;uses the wax nose metaphor, he accepts it as &quot;true&quot; that Scripture is malleable,&#xA;but blames Luther, Calvin, Bugenhagen &lt;em&gt;et al.&lt;/em&gt; for their incorrect twisting&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in fact, there were comparatively few on the Catholic side who endorsed&#xA;Scripture as lacking &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; fixed structure at all.&#xA;Indeed, there is really just one person who was continually quoted, &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pighius&quot;&gt;Albertus Pighius&lt;/a&gt; (1490-1542).&#xA;For example,&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jewel&quot;&gt;John Jewel&lt;/a&gt; (1522-1571)&#xA;in his &lt;em&gt;Apology of the Church of England&lt;/em&gt; rails against those who say&#xA;that Scripture is a dead letter, malleable, uncertain, useless, and worst of&#xA;all, a wax nose; and it's Pighius who is cited for these opinions&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; -&#xA;specifically, his tract on ecclesiastical hierarchy&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;, though other&#xA;writings repeat the assertion in broadly the same terms. &#xA;This is the position against which Calvin was arguing, in the original question&#xA;which by now is long forgotten. The rhetorical culture of the controversialists of the time&#xA;allowed the nasal metaphor to be greatly exaggerated. In effect, even &quot;harmless&quot;&#xA;occurrences of the wax nose metaphor were tainted by its use in more extreme writings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To summarize: not everyone who describes Scripture as a wax nose is being disrespectful. They may only mean that many true ideas can be drawn from it. They do not necessarily mean to endorse the tyrannical reinterpretation of the Bible, but only to warn against inexpert eisegesis, abandonment of traditional wisdom, or of the Church itself (outside of which they believed there to be no guarantee of wisdom). That doesn't mean that the Church gets to do whatever it likes, with impunity. Equally, the Protestant assertion isn't that every believer can legitimately twist the Bible to suit themselves - it's that the ability to draw correct conclusions from the Bible isn't limited to those who are endorsed by the ecclesiastical establishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_remediis_utriusque_fortunae&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;De remediis utriusque fortunae&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;Petrarch writes in section 2.93, &lt;em&gt;De tristitia et miseria&lt;/em&gt;:&#xA;&quot;Denique modis sese omnibus adiuvat, attollitque, quin amissis artubus, pedes ligneos,&#xA;manus ferreas, &lt;strong&gt;nasos caereos&lt;/strong&gt;, fabricari didicit, et fortunas casibus obstare.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Giorgio Sperati. &lt;em&gt;Amputation of the nose throughout history&lt;/em&gt;. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica&#xA;Italica 29(1):44-50, February 2009.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;Chronica Boemorum&lt;/em&gt;, book 2, chapter 8; &lt;a href=&quot;http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00000683/images/index.html?id=00000683&amp;amp;no=&amp;amp;seite=192&quot;&gt;p94, lines 11-14&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumenta_Germaniae_Historica&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Monumenta Germaniae Historica&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;,&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Scriptores&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Nova Series&lt;/em&gt;), vol. 2 (Berlin, 1923). &#xA;My translation of: &quot;Nam qui regunt leges, non reguntur legibus, quia lex, ut aiunt vulgo,&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;cereum&lt;/strong&gt; habet &lt;strong&gt;nasum&lt;/strong&gt; et rex ferream manum et longam, ut eam flectere queat, quo sibi placet.&quot;&#xA;See also references 4-6 below.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;4. J. H. Burns. &lt;em&gt;The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c.350 - c.1450&lt;/em&gt; (Cambridge University Press, 1988). Wax nose on p251.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;5. Peter Dronke. &lt;em&gt;A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy&lt;/em&gt; (Cambridge University Press, 1988).&#xA;Wax nose on pages 7-8 and 442, further citing Shippey (6, below) and many of the other sources&#xA;I have listed.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;6. Tom Shippey. &lt;em&gt;London Review of Books&lt;/em&gt;, 27 October 1988, p16. Indicates the use by Cosmas of Prague.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;7. Oswald von Wolkenstein. &lt;em&gt;Mich fr&amp;acirc;gt ain Ritter &amp;acirc;n gever&lt;/em&gt;. Lines 122-125 of the poem read: &#xA;&quot;Das recht hat gar ain &lt;strong&gt;w&amp;atilde;xe nas&lt;/strong&gt; / Es l&amp;acirc;t sich piegen als der has, / s&amp;ocirc; in der hund pringt in den wangk / nur hin und her st&amp;ecirc;t sein gedanck.&quot; No. 26 of the &quot;Historische Gedichte&quot; in Beda Weber, &#xA;&lt;em&gt;Die Gedichte Oswalds von Wolkenstein&lt;/em&gt; (Innsbruck, 1847) = No. 118 in Josef Schatz,&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Die Gedichte Oswalds von Wolkenstein&lt;/em&gt; (G&amp;ouml;ttingen, 1904).&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;8. Sebastian Brandt. &lt;em&gt;Das Narrenschiff&lt;/em&gt; (Basel, 1494).&#xA;The text in Johann Scheible's &lt;em&gt;Das Kloster, weltlich und geistlich&lt;/em&gt; (Stuttgart, 1845), volume 1,&#xA;reads: &quot;Verlossend sich, das sie das recht / Wol bugen, das es nit blib schlecht, / Als ob es wer &lt;strong&gt;eyn wachsin na&amp;szlig;&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;9. Alain of Lille. &lt;em&gt;De Fide Catholica Contra Haereticos&lt;/em&gt;. Book 4, chapter 30. In Migne, &lt;em&gt;Patrologia Latina&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;vol. 201, 305C-322A at 333C. &quot;Sed quia auctoritas &lt;strong&gt;cereum&lt;/strong&gt; habet &lt;strong&gt;nasum&lt;/strong&gt;, id est diversum potest flecti&#xA;sensum, rationibus roborandum est.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;10. Nikolaus H&amp;auml;ring. &lt;em&gt;Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and his school&lt;/em&gt; (Pontifical&#xA;Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1966), p76ff, quoting &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_of_Chartres&quot;&gt;Thierry&lt;/a&gt;'s comparison of Plato's &lt;em&gt;ylem&lt;/em&gt; to wax,&#xA;&quot;for what exists in potentiality can be bent to this and to that&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;11. Bruno von Sch&amp;ouml;nebeck. &lt;em&gt;Das Hohe Lied&lt;/em&gt;. Lines 960-967 (or 1063-1070 in the alternative numbering)&#xA;read: &quot;von der schrift ist noch me gelesen: / di schrift hat &lt;strong&gt;eine wechsene nesen&lt;/strong&gt;. / &#xA;daz wachs ist gel var und ouch wiz, / als daz wachs behende is mit vliz / zu nemen an sich etslich bilde, /&#xA;iz si ru zam adir wilde, / also nimpt di schrift an sich / itslich bilde daz sage ich&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;12. Giovanni Boccaccio. &lt;em&gt;Espozioni sopra la Commedia di Dante&lt;/em&gt; (1373). The commentary on &lt;em&gt;Inferno&lt;/em&gt; 7,&#xA;in 2.172, says &quot;Ora si suole interno a queste esposizioni spesse volte dire per i laici,&#xA;La Scrittura avere &lt;strong&gt;il naso di cera&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;13. &lt;em&gt;Thesaurus proverbiorum medii aevi&lt;/em&gt; (de Gruyter, 1999). Volume 8, p414ff.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;14. Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm. &lt;em&gt;Deutsches W&amp;ouml;rterbuch&lt;/em&gt;. Citations under &quot;Wachs&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;15. For example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Coster&quot;&gt;Francis Coster&lt;/a&gt; (1532-1619) in his&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Enchiridion controversiarum praecipuarum nostri temporis de Religione&lt;/em&gt; (Cologne, 1585),&#xA;chapter 1, compares Scripture to a sheath that can contain swords of many possible materials, but&#xA;only the Church knows which one is the true sword.  &quot;Illa vero cum scripta sit Spiritu Dei vivi, &#xA;in cordibus vivis Ecclesiae, truncari &amp;amp; torquerise non sinit, sed sui per omnia similis perseverat.&#xA;Proinde hoc est instar vaginae, quae quemlibet gladium admittit, non modo chalybeum, sed etiam &#xA;plumbeum, ligneum, aereum: patitur enim sequavis interpretatione trahi. Illa autem retinet in vagina &#xA;verum gladium, nimirum genuinum sensum scripturae in cortice literae, quia non in solis&#xA;characteribus, sed in sensu cernitur Dei verbum.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;16. Erasmus of Rotterdam. &lt;em&gt;Μωρίας Εγκώμιον&lt;/em&gt; / &lt;em&gt;Laus stultitiae&lt;/em&gt; (1511).&#xA;&quot;Iam illud quantae felicitatis esse putatis,&#xA;dum arcanas litteras, perinde quasi &lt;strong&gt;cereae&lt;/strong&gt; sint, pro libidine formant ac reformant.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;17. Commentary reproduced in Scheible (see reference 8). On Brandt's chapter 11, Geiler writes: &#xA;&quot;Als da sein etlich, die sprechen, &#xA;lieber, was sagst mir vil von der Heiligen geschrifft, sie ist&#xA;gleich als &lt;strong&gt;ein w&amp;auml;chsene na&amp;szlig;&lt;/strong&gt;, man mag sie auff alle ding&#xA;leiten unnd formieren, dann auff disen, dann auff jenen,&#xA;sie nennt doch niemandt mit dem nammen: was sagst vil,&#xA;die Pfaffen haben gut sagen daruon, sie haben alles was&#xA;sie w&amp;ouml;llen von der Heiligen geschrift, es wirdt ihnen dardurch kisten und keller gef&amp;uuml;lt.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;18. Johann Geiler von Keysersberg. &lt;em&gt;Predigt von den drei Marien&lt;/em&gt;. &quot;Einer spricht, die heilige&#xA;geschrifft ist wie &lt;strong&gt;ein wechseni nas&lt;/strong&gt;, man b&amp;uuml;gt es war man wil. Du sagst war, sie ist also&#xA;fruchtbar das vier sententz in ir erl&amp;uuml;chten, das in andern geschrifften nit ist.&quot; See C. Schmidt,&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Histoire litt&amp;eacute;raire de l'Alsace &amp;agrave; la fin du XVe et au commencement du XVIe si&amp;egrave;cle&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;(1879), vol. 1, p423.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;19. Martin Luther. &lt;em&gt;Werke&lt;/em&gt; 1.343.28 (1520).&#xA;&quot;Also sehen wir wie fein die Romanisten mit der schrifft handeln,&#xA;machen drau&amp;szlig; was sie nur wollen, als were sie &lt;strong&gt;ein wechsern nasen&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;die man hyn und her zihen mocht.&quot; My translation.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;20. See many examples in Richard Stauffer, &lt;em&gt;Dieu, la cr&amp;eacute;ation et la Providence dans la&#xA;pr&amp;eacute;dication de Calvin&lt;/em&gt; (Peter Lang, 1978). Vol. 33 of &lt;em&gt;Basler und Berner Studien&#xA;zur historischen und systematischen Theologie&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;21. William Damasus Lindanus (Willem van der Lindt). &lt;em&gt;Panoplia evangelica&lt;/em&gt; (Cologne, 1560).&#xA;&quot;Scripturae testimoniae (quae, ut vulgo videre est, ob facilem ipsius in varias sententiarum&#xA;formas flexum, recte &lt;strong&gt;naso&lt;/strong&gt; fui a&amp;szlig;ilimata &lt;strong&gt;cereo&lt;/strong&gt;)&quot;.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;22. John Jewel. &lt;em&gt;Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae&lt;/em&gt; (1562).&#xA;&quot;Itaque sacrosanctas scripturas, quas Servator nostra Jesus Christus non&#xA;tantum in omni sermone usurpavit, sed etiam ad extremum sanguine suo&#xA;consignavit, quo populum ab illis, tanquam a re periculosa et noxia, minore&#xA;negotio abigant, solent literam frigidam, incertam, inutilem, mutam, occiden-&#xA;tem, mortuam appellare; quod nobis quidem perinde videtur esse ac si cas&#xA;omnino nullas esse dicerent. Sed addunt etiam simile quoddam non aptis-&#xA;simum; eas esse quodammodo &lt;strong&gt;nasum cereum&lt;/strong&gt;, posse fingi flectique in omnes&#xA;modos, et omnium instituto inservire. An pontifex ista a suis dici nescit? aut&#xA;tales se habere patronos non intelligit?&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;23. Albertus Pighius. &lt;em&gt;Hierarchica Ecclesiastica&lt;/em&gt; (1538), 3.3.&#xA;&quot;Sunt enim illae ut non minus vere quam festive dixit quidam,&#xA;velut &lt;strong&gt;nasus cereus&lt;/strong&gt;, qui se horsum, illorsum, et in quam volueris partem trahi,&#xA;retrahi, fingique facile permittit, et tanquam plumbea quaedam Lesbiae aedificationis regula,&#xA;quam non sit difficile accommodare ad quidvis volueris.&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T18:59:15.860" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2161" CreationDate="2013-09-26T19:11:39.133" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is, indeed, a sin, as the ones who answered before me have pointed out it is said in the Scripture. But incest was permitted from the creation of man until the giving out of the laws to Moses. In the time before that, humanity was in its 'young age'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like when a parent only imposes the first rules on his child when he is old enough to need and to understand them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3714" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T19:11:39.133" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19360" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19150" CreationDate="2013-09-26T20:24:37.003" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to answer your question, about how Jesus death on the Cross can and does pay for the sins of all men; we must take a look at how we got into this mess to begin with and what God demanded in repentance for sin.&#xA;These verses from Genesis give us the reasons that is possible.&#xA;Gen 2:9  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. &#xA;Gen 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. &#xA;Gen 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: &#xA;Gen 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. &#xA;There are two very important points that we must remember;&#xA;1. God breathed the breath of life into Man (Adam), but God nowhere breathed life into any other human being. That includes Eve who was made from Adam's rib, this is because life already existed in Adam's rib.&#xA;2. God told man (not just Adam alone) that that life would be demanded for his disobedience.&#xA;Now comes the essential, but hardest part to comprehend'&#xA;Ready?&#xA;Everyone from Adam to the newest newborn shares that same breath of life God breathed into the first man.&#xA;That includes the man Jesus, (but not the Deity Jesus which was alive in the beginning).&#xA;That was the LIFE that Jesus sacrificed on the Cross! That fulfilled God's demand of life in reparation for SIN.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation comes when we allow our life inherited from Adam to be also sacrificed on the same cross with Jesus.&#xA;We do this when we ask Jesus to live within us, as Paul said in;&#xA;Gal_2:20  I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.&#xA;This ETRNAL LIFE, is given to us by Christ at Salvation;&#xA;Joh_17:2  As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other  Scriptures which may help you to understand that sacrifice are;&#xA;Mat_10:39  He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. &#xA;Mat_16:25  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. &#xA;Mat_19:17  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. &#xA;Mat_20:28  Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. &#xA;Mat_25:46  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. &#xA;Mar_10:30  But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. &#xA;Joh_3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. &#xA;Joh_5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. &#xA;Joh_6:27  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. &#xA;Joh_10:17  Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. &#xA;Joh_17:3  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. &#xA;Rom_6:6  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-09-26T20:24:37.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19361" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-26T21:11:19.913" Score="11" ViewCount="69999" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+samuel+7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 7&lt;/a&gt;, King David seems to have a heart to build a temple for God.  However, he seems to be disqualified for some reason, but his son is identified as the one who will build it instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What was it about David that disqualified him in particular from building the temple?  He was a man of war, of course, but why would that preclude his involvement in the building of a place of worship?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the king was settled in his palace and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2 he said to Nathan the prophet, “&lt;strong&gt;Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the Lord is with you.”  4 But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: &lt;strong&gt;Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in?&lt;/strong&gt; 6 I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. 7 Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”’  2 Samuel 7:1-7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-08-18T17:55:47.797" Title="Why was David disqualified from building the temple?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;david&gt;&lt;temple&gt;&lt;2-samuel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19361" CreationDate="2013-09-27T05:03:09.743" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;When David provoked the anger of God by counting the fighting men in Israel, the punishment was so severe. Then  God commanded David to build an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2021&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;(1 Chronicles 21)&lt;/a&gt; to pray to the LORD to have mercy on Israel. David called on the Lord, and the Lord answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.&#xA;David then decided to build the Temple there at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. David then commenced the building of the Temple of God immediately. But God already forbade David from building the Temple as David had shed much blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2022&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Chronicles 22:1-10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then David said, “&lt;strong&gt;The house of the Lord God is to be here&lt;/strong&gt;, and also&#xA;  the altar of burnt offering for Israel.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So David gave orders to assemble the foreigners residing in Israel,&#xA;  and from among them he appointed stonecutters to prepare dressed stone&#xA;  for building the house of God. He provided a large amount of iron to&#xA;  make nails for the doors of the gateways and for the fittings, and&#xA;  more bronze than could be weighed. He also provided more cedar logs&#xA;  than could be counted, for the Sidonians and Tyrians had brought large&#xA;  numbers of them to David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;David said, “My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house&#xA;  to be built for the Lord should be of great magnificence and fame and&#xA;  splendor in the sight of all the nations. Therefore I will make&#xA;  preparations for it.” So David made extensive preparations before his&#xA;  death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house&#xA;  for the Lord, the God of Israel. David said to Solomon: “My son, I had&#xA;  it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God. But&#xA;  this word of the Lord came to me: ‘You have shed much blood and have&#xA;  fought many wars. &lt;strong&gt;You are not to build a house for my Name, because&#xA;  you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight&lt;/strong&gt;. But you will have a&#xA;  son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from&#xA;  all his enemies on every side. &lt;strong&gt;His name will be Solomon&lt;/strong&gt;, and I will&#xA;  grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. &lt;strong&gt;He is the one who will&#xA;  build a house for my Name&lt;/strong&gt;. He will be my son, and I will be his&#xA;  father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel&#xA;  forever.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prophet Nathan also prophesied long before David married Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, that David was not the one to build the Temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish&#xA;  the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will&#xA;  be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by&#xA;  men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. (2 Samuel 7:13-14, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before Solomon was born, God already decided that Solomon should build the house of the Lord. David was not qualified because his hands were stained with blood. Moreover, David's purpose was to establish the kingdom of Israel. After 300 years of war with the inhabitants of Canaan, it was time to make an end to turmoil. David had the responsibility to build a powerful nation for Israel, the people of God. The reign of Solomon was the right time to build the Temple. God wanted to build His house in a peaceful environment, without shedding of blood in the country. After David defeated all enemies of Israel, the nation was in peace and his son Solomon received the honor of building the Temple of the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-09-27T05:30:30.273" LastActivityDate="2013-09-27T05:30:30.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15639" CreationDate="2013-09-27T12:27:09.443" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you want to understand Catholic teaching you really ought to consult the Catechism. After all, authentic teachings are always going to be more accurate than what you have 'heard'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that Adam and Eve were constituted in an original &amp;quot;state of holiness and justice&amp;quot; (CCC 375, 376 398), free from concupiscence (CCC 377). The preternatural state enjoyed by Adam and Eve afforded endowments with many prerogatives which, while pertaining to the natural order, were not due to human nature as such. Principal among these were a high degree of infused knowledge, bodily immortality and freedom from pain, and immunity from evil impulses or inclinations. In other words, the lower or animal nature in man was perfectly subject to the control of reason, the will (subject to GOD,) and most importantly, GOD. Besides this, the Catholic Church teaches that our first parents were also endowed with sanctifying grace by which they were elevated to the supernatural order.[1] By sinning, however, Adam lost this original &amp;quot;state,&amp;quot; not only for himself but for all human beings (CCC 416).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right: the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, and the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth.[2]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result of original sin, according to Catholics, human nature has not been totally corrupted (as opposed to the teaching of Luther and Calvin); rather, human nature has only been weakened and wounded, subject to ignorance, suffering, the domination of death, and the inclination to sin and evil (CCC 405, 418). This inclination toward sin and evil is called &amp;quot;concupiscence&amp;quot; (CCC 405, 418). Baptism, Catholics believe, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God. The inclination toward sin and evil persists, however, and he must continue to struggle against concupiscence (CCC 2520).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Source&lt;/em&gt;: Wikipedia entry on &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#Catholic_teaching&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Concupiscence - Catholic teaching section&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Footnotes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;¹ &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia entry on &lt;em&gt;Terrestrial Paradise&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;² &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/original-sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia entry on &lt;em&gt;Original Sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5930" LastEditorUserId="10672" LastEditDate="2021-03-31T15:08:42.870" LastActivityDate="2021-03-31T15:08:42.870" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19368" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19371" CreationDate="2013-09-27T15:54:13.380" Score="15" ViewCount="3084" Body="&lt;p&gt;When was it first said in Christianity by a church leader that heretics must be put to death? Who came up with this idea and presented it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="234" LastEditDate="2019-11-03T22:42:58.547" LastActivityDate="2019-11-03T22:42:58.547" Title="Who was the first Church Father to argue for executing heretics?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;papal-execution&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19306" CreationDate="2013-09-27T15:54:52.377" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having read the answers to your question, I find it hard to believe no one seems to have interpreted Exodus 20, verses four and five in light of the New Testament's teaching on idols and its application to our lives today.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle John concluded his first letter with the following words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Little children, guard yourselves from idols&quot; (5:21).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An idol is a substitute for God.  In other words, an idol is a god, with a lower-case G.  Someone has defined a god as &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The one from which you seek your highest satisfaction, to which you yield supreme allegiance, for which you’ll pay your greatest price to retain, upon which you pin your hopes for your security, your well-being, and your future.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the modern age, the worship of idols which are fashioned after creatures, real or imagined, is relatively rare, save perhaps among primitive people-groups with an animistic bent.  What is much more common today--and some would suggest it is virtually all-pervasive--is the worship of God-substitutes.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most pervasive God-substitutes, particularly in the minority world, are the four P-words:  &lt;strong&gt;p&lt;/strong&gt;- possessions, &lt;strong&gt;p&lt;/strong&gt;-power, &lt;strong&gt;p&lt;/strong&gt;-pleasure, and &lt;strong&gt;p&lt;/strong&gt;-preeminence, none of which requires much, if any, explanation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other not-so-readily identifiable idols or gods, many of which flow from the four Ps, include&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Intellectualism and the worship of knowledge&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Self, in its many guises, such as self-improvement, self-actualization (i.e., achieving one's potential through one's own efforts), self-advancement, and self-promotion&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Entertainment, an offshoot of pleasure&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Financial security&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The cult of celebrity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One's family, and modern forms of tribalism, including the belief in the superiority of one's family tree&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Nature and its many wonders, intricacies, and beauties, but without reference to God, the Master Designer&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Food, and living to eat rather than eating to live&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The latest fashions and the emphasis of the fashion industry on externals, appearance, and youthfulness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Fitness and nutrition, and the quest for a &quot;fountain of life&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Belonging and group identity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The founders of false religions and cults&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above list is far from exhaustive, but it covers perhaps the major bases.  Universally, human beings are drawn to any number of God-substitutes in search of something which will fill the God-shaped vacuum within their innermost being.  We Christians know, however, that no God-substitute can ever satisfy the human heart.  For this reason Jesus came to offer us Himself as the bread of life and the water of life, so that by believing in Him we need never hunger or thirst again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, many Christians today, myself included, live divided lives, torn between knowing intellectually that God has given us all things richly to enjoy, and yet allowing the things of this world to obscure our spiritual vision and at times even to blind us to eternity's values.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy&quot; (1 Timothy 6:17).  &quot;'You cannot serve God and wealth'&quot; (Matthew 6:24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Jesus commanded us, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;. . . store up for yourselves treasure in heaven . . . for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also&quot; (Matthew 6:20,21).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-10-03T23:29:31.207" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T23:29:31.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19370" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19349" CreationDate="2013-09-27T16:24:20.357" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is not an easy one to answer in that nihilism takes many shapes and forms, and therefore it is hard to pin down how nihilism relates to any particular part of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance the commonly known divisions of nihilism fall into the following categories&#xA;Metaphysical nihilism,&#xA;Epistemological nihilism,&#xA;Mereological nihilism,&#xA;Existential nihilism,&#xA;Moral nihilism &amp;amp;&#xA;Political nihilism&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians that I know would subscribe to Metaphysical nihilism, prior to Genesis 1:1 in that there were no concrete (material) objects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To embrace Epistemological nihilism would be to dispute that there was a tree of the &lt;strong&gt;KNOWLEDGE&lt;/strong&gt; of good and evil in the garden of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mereological nihilism would be denying creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Existential nihilism which you seem to be referring you question citing Solomon is tantamount to ascribing Creation to be a meaningless effort.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moral nihilism would dictate that the 10 commandments are only a fabrication with no intrinsic meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if Law which is denied as part of Political nihilism has no meaning and really does not exist then God never gave the Law to Moses on the mount. (check out Leo Strauss)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also care to read Martin Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For my part other than the idea that before creation nothing material existed, none of these other ideas could be accepted by Christians, I most assuredly cannot!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-09-27T16:24:20.357" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19368" CreationDate="2013-09-27T16:24:52.483" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;Technically, the first ecclesiastical authority to say that heretics should be persecuted was Pope Gregory IX in 1229.  The first Church Father to say that heretics should be compelled to recant would be Augustine around 400 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first heretic actually put to death (385AD) was killed by the Emperor - and the Pope was very annoyed at the development. It wasn't for another 800 years that the church followed suit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The church typically did not execute heretics. Rather, the state, sometimes at the behest of the church or other times of a monarch desiring no discord amongst his subjects, would carry out such persecution and executions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The earliest Christian heretics were not put to death by the Church, but rather by the Roman Empire. Note for example, the first &amp;quot;heretic&amp;quot; to be executed - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscillian&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Priscillian&lt;/a&gt; - was put to death not by the church, but rather the state.  Furthermore, those responsible for getting the state to put him to death were subsequently excommunicated by the Pope for their actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The first person to define what heresy was Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (2nd Century).  He simply warned about the dangers of a multitude of opinions on how God works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The first person to make heresy a crime was Emporer Constantine (320s).  He made the assembling of heretics an offense, the penalty of which was the confiscation of property.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 380 AD under the Christian Emperor Theodosius I laid down the rule that only the Catholic Christians could define orthodoxy within the confines of the Roman Empire. As noted already, it was under his reign that the first heretic was put to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Augustine (AD 354-430) taught that error has no rights. He cited biblical texts, notably Luke 14:16-23, to justify the use of compulsion&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Emperor Justinian issued severe laws against heretics in AD 527 and 528. (It should be noted, this was in the aftermath of a severe series of riots that left thousands dead.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pope Paschal II (Pope from 1099 and 1118) was the first to say that anyone who disagreed with the apostolic see was a heretic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pope Innocent III (1199) was the first to declare heresy to be high treason against God, having already called for the execution of those who persisted in their heresies after being excommunicated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was not until 1229 that Pope Gregory IX declared that it is the duty of every Catholic to persecute heretics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From Justinian:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Henceforth those who dissented from the authorised line were debarred from public office, forbidden to practice certain professions, prohibited from holding meetings, and denied the civil rights of a Roman Citizen. For them, said Justinian &amp;quot;to exist is sufficient&amp;quot; - for the time being. In the middle of the fifth century Pope Leo the Great commended the Emperor for torturing and executing heretics on behalf of the Church.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Per &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia on heresy&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first known usage of the term heresy in a legal context was in AD 380 by the Edict of Thessalonica of Theodosius I,[12] which made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. Prior to the issuance of this edict, the church had no state-sponsored support for any particular legal mechanism to counter what it perceived as &amp;quot;heresy&amp;quot;. By this edict the state's authority and that of the Catholic Church became somewhat overlapping. One of the outcomes of this blurring of church and state was the sharing of state powers of legal enforcement with church authorities. This reinforcement of the church's authority gave church leaders the power to, in effect, pronounce the death sentence upon those whom the church considered heretical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within five years of the official criminalization of heresy by the Emperor, the first Christian heretic to be prosecuted, Bishop Priscillian, &lt;strong&gt;was executed in 385 by Roman officials.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However, his accusers were excommunicated both by Ambrose of Milan and Pope Siricius.[13]&lt;/strong&gt; For some years after the Reformation, Protestant churches were also known to execute those they considered heretics, including Catholics. The last known heretic executed by sentence of the Roman Catholic Church was Cayetano Ripoll in 1826. The number of people executed as heretics under the authority of the various &amp;quot;ecclesiastical authorities&amp;quot;[note 1] is not known.[note 2]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE 2: ^ Only very fragmentary records have been found of the executions carried out under Christian &amp;quot;heresy laws&amp;quot; during the first millennium. Somewhat more complete records of such executions can be found for the second millennium. To estimate the total number of executions carried out under various Christian &amp;quot;heresy laws&amp;quot; from 385 AD until the last official Roman Catholic &amp;quot;heresy execution&amp;quot; in 1826 AD would require far more complete historical documentation than is currently available. The Roman Catholic Church by no means had a monopoly on the execution of heretics. The charge of heresy was a weapon that could fit many hands. A century and a half after heresy was made a state crime, the Vandals(a heretical Christian Germanic tribe), used the law to prosecute thousands of (orthodox) Catholics with penalties of torture, mutilation, slavery and banishment.[14] The Vandals were overthrown; orthodoxy was restored; &amp;quot;No toleration whatsoever was to be granted to heretics or schismatics.&amp;quot;[15] Heretics were not the only casualties. 4000 Roman soldiers were killed by heretical peasants in one campaign.[16] Some lists of heretics and heresies are available. Thousands were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which lasted for nearly seven centuries.[17] From time to time, heretics were burned at the stake by an enraged local populace, in a certain type of &amp;quot;vigilante justice&amp;quot; , without the official participation of the Church or State.[18] Religious Wars slaughtered millions. During these wars, the charge of &amp;quot;heresy&amp;quot; was often leveled by one side against another as a sort of propaganda or rationalization for the undertaking of such wars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T19:00:06.837" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19346" CreationDate="2013-09-27T20:55:07.060" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would imagine that the Orthodox priest, his interlocutor, or both, misinterpreted what they were seeing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you know, the Church has a concept of &quot;partial indulgence&quot;, historically often associated with a specific amount of time. The intention, as I understand it, is that gaining the indulgence corresponds &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to that amount of time off Purgatory, &lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt; to a remission equivalent to what one would get from performing &quot;old-school&quot; penance for that duration. In effect, the counts in days and years are units of measure of the penance that is being done, not the results. I have also seen indulgence lists where the measure was given not in terms of time, but something like &quot;all the remissions one would gain if one were to make a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Genericus in Exampleton&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lists of indulgences have been published for a long time. There are books that reproduce every prayer, etc., in full detail. I have also seen leaflets and prayer cards which give very abbreviated reminders, like &quot;&lt;em&gt;Benedictus qui venit&lt;/em&gt; - 500 days&quot;. The big books will obviously include much more explanation of the doctrine. If summaries of this kind were printed in a Bible, or a devotional book other than a Bible, in early 1900s Ireland, I'd assume that such a book would only be produced with the &lt;em&gt;nihil obstat&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;imprimatur&lt;/em&gt; of the local bishop. That approval would certainly be required from the perspective of the Church, and anyone producing a book for Catholics in Ireland would be pretty motivated to follow the rules. I don't know what process is required for more ephemeral materials, but in that case it's certainly more likely that someone would just print the thing on their own account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, I think that any &lt;em&gt;official&lt;/em&gt; list of this kind would not be &lt;em&gt;intended&lt;/em&gt; to refer to &quot;time off Purgatory&quot;. That does not stop it being &lt;em&gt;read&lt;/em&gt; that way, especially if it's one of the highly abbreviated reminder lists. I imagine that this sort of confusion lies behind the abolition of temporal measures for partial indulgences (Paul VI, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Indulgentiarum Doctrina&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, 1967; section 12 and norm 5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, I suspect that the &quot;list&quot; may not have been an actual list, but just a reproduction of the specific indulgences related to the reading of Scripture. I have found a few Catholic Bibles on Google Books which include this text; for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=ODEyAQAAMAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;a 1914 Douay-Rheims Bible&lt;/a&gt; from the USA. After the approbations by three American cardinals, and before the preface and table of contents, there is a single page with the following text:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An indulgence of three hundred days is granted to all the Faithful who read the Holy Gospels at least a quarter of an hour. A Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading. &lt;em&gt;13 December, 1898&lt;/em&gt;. LEO XIII.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This reference must be to the edition of &lt;em&gt;Enchiridion indulgentiarum&lt;/em&gt;, the official indulgence manual, published on that date. There is no further explanation of the doctrine of indulgences, the &quot;usual conditions&quot;, and so forth. It is followed by a 1778 letter of Pius VI commending the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue, and a suggested prayer for the reading of Scripture. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems quite likely to me that the Bible in question was one like this, and the reference to &quot;three hundred days&quot; - in the absence of any text explaining the doctrine - was misinterpreted by the readers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-09-27T20:55:07.060" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19347" CreationDate="2013-09-27T23:13:44.637" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the Orthodox church&lt;/strong&gt;, communion is seen as a thing to be obtained as often as possible (since it is seen as truly the body and blood of Christ), though not more than once per day. In monasteries there will often be &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Divine_Liturgy&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Liturgies&lt;/a&gt; every day. In most churches, though, the liturgies will normally take place only once a week. This being said, every Orthodox christian, of any age, will partake of The &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Mysteries&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Holy Mysteries&lt;/a&gt; (unless they have not confessed their sins to their spiritual father recently, and think that they are not worthy. &lt;em&gt;Note: At monasteries, the rules for confession may be more strict: confession before every communion, confession within at most the past week, etc.&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &lt;strong&gt;in the Orthodox Church, most Believers will receive Holy Communion roughly once a week from the time they are baptized, until the day they die.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Note: It is seen as a great blessing to receive communion on or right before the day you die.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As far as the Catholic church goes,&lt;/strong&gt; things are relatively the same; do not receive Communion if you have not confessed any mortal sin you may have done recently, et cetera. They also share the belief in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;transubstantiation&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;However, &lt;strong&gt;in the Roman Catholic Church, infant and children communion is much less common than in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches.&lt;/strong&gt; According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_communion&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Infant Communion (also Paedocommunion) refers to the practice of giving the Eucharist, often in the form of consecrated wine, to infants and children. This practice is standard in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches; here, communion is given at the Divine Liturgy to all baptized and chrismated church members regardless of age. Infant communion is less common in most other Christian denominations, including the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For more on the Catholic's view of who can receive communion, see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastActivityDate="2013-09-27T23:13:44.637" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19375" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19385" CreationDate="2013-09-28T02:56:35.337" Score="4" ViewCount="232" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ed Stetzer, a renowned evangelist and church planter with 100k followers on Twitter, made two tweets today on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ipcc.ch&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;IPCC report&lt;/a&gt; on global warming. In one &lt;a href=&quot;https://twitter.com/edstetzer/status/383594472938151937&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;he said&lt;/a&gt; that &quot;... I'm sure they are all lying.&quot; In another, &lt;a href=&quot;https://twitter.com/edstetzer/status/383605785357713408&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;he referred to a poll&lt;/a&gt; on how prevalent such skepticism was among US protestant pastors, whom he claimed, &quot;aint buying it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, what are the reasons for such a widespread skepticism? What are theological and/or sociological roots?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2017-01-07T13:59:25.447" Title="What is theological root of global warming skepticism?" Tags="&lt;morality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19375" CreationDate="2013-09-28T05:59:58.487" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to his evangelism and church planting, Ed Stetzer conducts surveys of pastors for LifeWay. One of the survey questions he asks from time to time is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I believe global warming is real and manmade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stetzer has asked the question in 2008, 2010, and 2013.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2010 Stetzer found that the number of American Protestant pastors agreeing with the statement dropped sharply compared with 2008. This matched a trend seen in polls of the American public at large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2011/april/new-research-protestant-pastors-environment-shifting-on.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Research: Protestant Pastors &amp;amp; the Environment, Shifting on Global Warming and Teaching on the Environment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Earlier this year, Stetzer found that the number of pastors agreeing with the statement is beginning to trend upward again, but has not yet reached 2008 levels. Again this corresponds with the public at large.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/april/new-research-on-protestant-pastors-views-of-environment.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Research on Protestant Pastors' Views of the Environment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stetzer further broke down the latest poll results by region, denomination, and political party.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pastors identifying as Democrats are the most likely to strongly agree (76 percent) in the validity of man-made global warming, followed by Independents (20 percent). Just 7 percent of Republican pastors strongly agree. Conversely, Republican pastors are the most likely to strongly disagree (49 percent), followed by Independents (35 percent) and Democrats (5 percent).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;• Pastors in large cities (32 percent) are more likely to strongly agree with the statement than pastors in small cities (20 percent) and rural areas (18 percent);&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;• Southern pastors are less likely (18 percent) to strongly agree with the statement than pastors in the Northeast (30 percent) and West (25 percent);&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;• Self-identified mainline pastors are more likely than self-identified evangelical pastors to strongly agree (35 percent vs. 15 percent) with the statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although there is a difference between Mainline and Evangelical pastors, it is much smaller than the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and it is nearly identical to the gap between urban and rural areas. The data suggest the difference is political rather than theological.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A 2009 survey of the general public by the Pew Center &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/03/03climatewire-rising-partisanship-sharply-erodes-us-public-47381.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;seems to confirm this&lt;/a&gt;, showing that political party affiliation is the dominant factor affecting views about climate change, and that the economy and the weather may have a small influence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, despite Stetzer's tongue-in-cheek tweet, &amp;quot;I'm sure they are all lying,&amp;quot; he &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/may/morning-roundup-052213-christians-civility-politics.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;points out in his blog&lt;/a&gt; that &amp;quot;the consensus in scholarly papers is clear.…A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T06:10:32.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4658" CreationDate="2013-09-28T07:09:11.983" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a scholar but I suspect that Jesus responded as a rabbi might. The custom was for potential disciples to approach a rabbi whom they wanted to follow. If the rabbi was interested he'd ask them questions to determine if they were suitable cantidates.  If not be would send them away and they would go home and take the trade of their father. If he accepted them, he would say, 'come, follow me' and they became the rabbi's disciple. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One teaching technique that rabbis used was posing questions. He would ask a questions his disciples, and the disciples  would debate amongst themselves and the rabbi would listen. When he had decided the correct answer, the discussion was over and the disciples accepted the rabbis judgement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To us it seems a counter intuitive that asking a question is how others (not the asker) learns. But this idea was understood by those living at Jesus time. That's why when jesus was 12 he was found at the temple asking questions of the teachers and they were amazed at his knowledge. He wasn't learning from them, he was teaching them. Likewise, when his disciples finally realise he came from God, they said, 'now we know that you know everything and don't even need anyone to ask you questions.'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I really don't think that the question was a rhetorical question for emphasis, meaning, 'Of course I'm not God! I'm not that good!' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Instead it was probably a combination of a job interview and a teachable moment. I'm not sure if the rich young man intended to offer himself as a disciple of Jesus (it seems pretty clear that he was genuine in wanting to know how to secure eternal life.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either way Jesus answers by inviting him to be his disciple, beginning by testing his theological knowledge and teaching about himself, 'If you want to be my disciple, the most important requirement is that you know who I am. Here is a riddle to get you thinking: if I am good, and you said I am, and God is one, and only God is good, then who am I?' &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He then concludes by testing the young man's ability to forsake everything for him, and invites him to be a disciple, 'Come, follow me.' Thus he answers the question in two ways, firstly, 'Believe that I am God,' and secondly, 'Be my disciple.' (Both of these are the same thing-- following the commandments wasn't enough, following Jesus is the greater thing, therefore Jesus is greater than the commands of God, therefore he is God.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I disagree that this is an example of Jesus perceiving a difference between himself and God the Father. Whenever Jesus is talking about what is required of people to inherit eternal life, he always refers to believing in him. For Jesus to say anything different on this occasion is contradictory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5940" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T07:09:11.983" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19388" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15935" CreationDate="2013-09-28T09:40:38.877" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several accounts in the scripture where we can find Abraham lacking in the uprightness God desires of His children. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although a man of faith as we know, there were times Abraham doubted the ability of God to provide, deliver and fulfil His promises. In Gen. 12, after God led him to the land of Cannan and famine struck, he didn't trust God for provision. This indeed is lack of faith although it was the early stage of his conversion. Hence, Abraham travelled Egypt to be confronted with a circumstance that made him engage in conspiracy to deceive the Egyptians (vs 12). Although many believers have called Abraham a liar and all sorts, words which I'm very careful to use because the scripture didn't explicitly say so. I rather stick to the point that Abram doubted God and deceived Egyptians. Thereafter, the doubt of Abraham and Sarah took a different dimension resulting in the extra- marital union with Hagar which preceded the birth of the troublesome Ishmael. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are not blameless life God wants. Morever, a lot of other things that might not have been recorded in the scripture because they won't be necessary for our learning might had taken place necessitating God's rebuke. What this tells us is that Abraham was a man just like us and wrestled with challenges of life and sins as we do today. Another thing to learn is that God's standard has always remained the same: ' walk before me and be thou perfect'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5941" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-28T12:35:24.243" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T12:35:24.243" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4658" CreationDate="2013-09-28T10:29:47.703" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The writers of the four book of the Gospel portrayed Jesus in four distinct yet conforming ways; a thing that makes the person of Jesus interesting for those led by the Holy Spirit. At the same time, it's a source of confusion to the unbelievers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew gave account of Jesus as a King, the coming Messiah, Mark portrayed Jesus as the servant, Luke gave account of Jesus as a proper man while John portrayed Him as God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these revelations are perfectly correct. He is a King yet a servant, He is a man yet God. Alleluia!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since it is in the book of Luke (18:19) that Christ clarified the Jew He wasn't good as he (the Jew) thought, I will look closely at Luke's account.  This account is simply emphasising on the human part of Jesus starting from His genealogy, biological birth, childhood, etc. It also seeks to present Him as a humble man who didn't equal Himself to God ( Philippians 2). His human nature shows that He is a man cloned in human flesh with water and blood circulating in Him. He had human desires, thoughts, struggles with sin, trials and temptations but disciplined Himself to do His Father's will. As such He was a man and therefore not perfect or good. Note that it's only on the human side. But there is the other side of Him - the God side (John 1:1). There are amazing thing to know about Christ on the God side which I reserve for another piece. Hence, that He wasn't good or perfect on the human side doesn't change His divinity as God. God bless you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5941" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-28T12:36:38.360" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T12:36:38.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19395" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-09-28T12:19:55.173" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think you can understand the concept of heaven, hell and the cross without understanding God's attributes of holiness, love and mercy, and justice. We're all condemned as unbelievers since we're not perfectly holy. Yet, God has made a provision through the cross. The cross is our escape from the judgement of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I doubt your coworker would claim to be absolutely holy. Your point will have then been made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(In other words, your coworker is thinking of a loving God, who doesn't have the attributes of justice and holiness. He or she is worshiping a man-made &quot;god&quot;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T12:19:55.173" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19402" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-28T15:18:41.597" Score="2" ViewCount="224" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I saw a video clip with pieces of an Christian lecturer telling about a Biblical end time prophecy about Damascus. And it may have some connection with the recent chemical attack happened there. Is there any such prophecy in Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3607" LastEditorUserId="545" LastEditDate="2013-09-28T23:27:20.843" LastActivityDate="2014-10-30T02:10:41.693" Title="Is there any Biblical prophecy about Damascus?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;prophecy&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3649" CreationDate="2013-09-28T18:44:41.887" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Jehovah's Witness perspective&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the ALMIGHTY Sovereign Lord and Creator of all Heaven &amp;amp; Earth, the physical and spiritual universe and everything within, Almighty JEHOVAH God doesn't &quot;need&quot; anything at all being that he is quite literally complete within himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah God has a &quot;chosen people&quot; due to the Holy covenant / agreement he long ago made with Abraham because of Abraham's tremendous act of faith and love shown to God on account of Abraham's only begotten son Isaac. This Holy covenant / agreement extended to Abraham's decendants (Isaac, Isaac's son Jacob whom God renamed Israel, to Jacob's / Israel's children who became known as Israelites).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JEHOVAH loved Abraham, so He showed loyal love to Abraham’s descendants. For over 15 centuries, he viewed the nation of Israel, which descended from Abraham, as his chosen people, his “special property.” (Read Deuteronomy 7:6.) Did that mean that Jehovah totally &lt;em&gt;disregarded&lt;/em&gt; people of other nations? No. During that time, non-Israelites who desired to worship Jehovah God were allowed to attach themselves to his special nation. These converts, or proselytes, were viewed as part of the nation. &lt;strong&gt;They were to be treated as brothers&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;strong&gt;Lev. 19:33, 34&lt;/strong&gt;) And they were &lt;em&gt;required&lt;/em&gt; to obey all of Jehovah’s laws.—&lt;strong&gt;Lev. 24:22&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Jesus Christ (the only begotten Son of Almighty Jehovah God) made this startling declaration to the Jews of his day: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits.” (&lt;strong&gt;Matt. 21:43&lt;/strong&gt;) Who would make up this &lt;strong&gt;new nation&lt;/strong&gt;, and how are we today affected by this change?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle Peter &lt;em&gt;clearly&lt;/em&gt; identified this &lt;strong&gt;new nation&lt;/strong&gt;. He wrote the following &lt;em&gt;to his fellow Christians&lt;/em&gt;: “You are ‘&lt;strong&gt;a chosen race&lt;/strong&gt;, a royal priesthood, &lt;strong&gt;a holy nation&lt;/strong&gt;, a people for &lt;strong&gt;special possession&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;that you should declare abroad the excellencies’ of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light&lt;/em&gt;.” (&lt;strong&gt;1 Pet. 2:9&lt;/strong&gt;) As foretold, natural Jews who &lt;em&gt;accepted&lt;/em&gt; Jesus as the Messiah were the first members of that &lt;strong&gt;new nation&lt;/strong&gt;. (&lt;strong&gt;Dan. 9:27a; Matt. 10:6&lt;/strong&gt;) Later, many non-Israelites were &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; included in this nation, for Peter went on to say: “You were once not a people, &lt;em&gt;but are now&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;God’s people&lt;/strong&gt;.”—&lt;strong&gt;1 Pet. 2:10&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To whom was Peter here speaking? In the beginning of his letter, he says: “[God] gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you.” (&lt;strong&gt;1 Pet. 1:3, 4&lt;/strong&gt;) So this &lt;strong&gt;new nation&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;is made up of anointed Christians, who have the heavenly hope&lt;/em&gt;. They are “&lt;strong&gt;the Israel of God&lt;/strong&gt;.” mentioned at &lt;strong&gt;Galatians 6:16&lt;/strong&gt;. In a vision, the apostle John saw that these &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Spiritual&lt;/em&gt; Israelites&lt;/strong&gt; number 144,000. They are “bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb” to serve as “&lt;strong&gt;priests&lt;/strong&gt;” and to “&lt;strong&gt;rule as kings&lt;/strong&gt; with [Jesus] for the thousand years.”—Rev. 5:10; 7:4; 14:1, 4; 20:6; Jas. 1:18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, then, the phrase “&lt;strong&gt;Israel of God&lt;/strong&gt;” at &lt;strong&gt;Galatians 6:16&lt;/strong&gt; refers &lt;em&gt;exclusively&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;strong&gt;anointed Christians&lt;/strong&gt;. However, are there instances when Jehovah uses the nation of Israel as a picture, or illustration, that includes Christians &lt;em&gt;other than the anointed who have the God given hope of ruling alongside Christ as kings / priests in the Heavenly Kingdom&lt;/em&gt;? The answer can be found in these words of Jesus to his faithful apostles: “I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones &lt;strong&gt;to judge the twelve tribes of Israel&lt;/strong&gt;.” (&lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:28-30&lt;/strong&gt;) This will take place during “the re-creation,” or time of regeneration, during Christ’s foretold &lt;strong&gt;Millennial Rule&lt;/strong&gt;.—Read Matthew 19:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 144,000 will serve as &lt;strong&gt;heavenly kings, priests, and judges&lt;/strong&gt; during the Thousand Year Reign. (&lt;strong&gt;Rev. 20:4&lt;/strong&gt;) Whom will they judge, and over whom will they rule? At &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 19:28&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Luke 22:30&lt;/strong&gt;, we are told that they will judge “&lt;strong&gt;the twelve tribes of Israel.&lt;/strong&gt;” Whom do “the twelve tribes of Israel” picture in this context? They represent &lt;strong&gt;all those with an earthly hope who will be ruled over as royal subjects of the Heavenly Kingdom. They put faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice but *&lt;em&gt;are not&lt;/strong&gt; included in the royal ruling priestly class&lt;/em&gt;*. (The tribe of Levi was not included in the listing of the 12 tribes of natural Israel.) Those pictured in this context by the 12 tribes of Israel are the ones who will gain spiritual benefits from the priestly services of the 144,000. They are the ones whom Jesus' words at &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:5&lt;/strong&gt; apply being that such ones are comprised of &quot;the meek&quot; who will inherit, not heaven, but rather... The Earth (when the Earth is transformed to the paradisaic state it was meant to be acording to God's purpose. These nonpriestly beneficiaries are also God’s people, and he loves and accepts them. It is appropriate that they are &lt;em&gt;likened&lt;/em&gt; to his people of ancient times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-10-03T18:48:03.117" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T18:48:03.117" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11975" CreationDate="2013-09-28T21:10:12.207" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Righteousness is a gift from God through Jesus Christ (2Cor.5:21)&#xA;Holiness is a responsibility (2Cor.7:1) as kings in the kingdom of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5951" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T21:10:12.207" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6657" CreationDate="2013-09-28T21:17:09.527" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In short- God loves all people- (even the guy trolling on this site saying he'd raped my mother!); that does not mean he loves their sins.&#xA;I also believe (and this is one area of thought that is open to dispute) that God=joy and thereby all who truly seek joy, whether in this life or in the next, will be redeemed. This makes me a Universalist but I am not entirely alone in that belief. Seeking God means seeking the light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-09-28T21:17:09.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19425" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="587" CreationDate="2013-09-29T01:20:47.690" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;1Cor 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.&#xA;1Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.&#xA;Isa 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sign to them that believe not of 1Cor14:21 comes from Isa 28:11-12. Israel would know God's judgment was upon them because a nation whose language they did not know would make them prisoners. &#xA;The Corinthian Church was rejoicing in the fact that so many of them spoke in tongues, but with no translation. This meant that nobody understood what was being said. They were experiencing the very thing Isaiah had told Israel they would experience as a judgment because of their unbelief. A language was spoken which they didn't understand. Israel heard it, and the Church in Corinth both practiced and heard it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it wasn't just tongues alone that were the sign; it was uninterpreted tongues. Thus, Paul’s instructions on the use of this gift during their worship service, not forbidding it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5953" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-09-29T20:18:23.510" LastActivityDate="2013-09-29T20:18:23.510" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19427" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19402" CreationDate="2013-09-29T03:21:46.083" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you partake in in-depth study of the Bible's use of city names, you will realize that each city that comes under judgement symbolically refers to a specific idea or relational context. For example, Damascus, the city you cite, is used in scripture to represent man-made civilization (usually in the context of God judging the errancy of our attempts to define our own sense of civility). Damascus, Syria, is historically the oldest civilization and city on Earth, representing the core of social justice, and how it stems from us making our own rules about how society should operate. God had already set his rules through the 10 commandments, however, man in his sin, has suggested other, more injust means of living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5954" LastActivityDate="2013-09-29T03:21:46.083" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19428" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18312" CreationDate="2013-09-29T03:48:04.397" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever I have asked God about this question, a very simple analogy comes to mind of geometry. To begin, I was in a fellowship meeting once, and the question was asked of how God can be three in one. A word of wisdom was then shared where the woman who responded said, &quot;He is not 1 + 1 + 1, but 1 x 1 x 1&quot;. God has three dimensions (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), which are 1 squared, or a cube, if you'd like to visualize it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is God who defines and limits time. Think for example, of God's conversation with Job where he states that he is the one who puts limits on the sea and waves and has set the boundaries of where they begin and end on the shore (the sea representing the terrestrial world of experience, and the land representing the spiritual realm which emerges higher than the terrestrial). We are in this cube of time - the universe as we know it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, however, is also eternal, which means he is both inside and outside of time simultaneously. To that end, He is a sphere, an unending existence without time. Inside that sphere, is the cube that we call time. (For example, the figure of speech a &quot;chunk of time&quot; would nicely fit to explain my context). All light sources on earth emit light energy in a spherical dimension, reflecting on how God as light is spherical, if you'd like to visualize things. So in many ways, time is a point, per se. In other ways, as nothing within God can truly perish, neither can time. We, in uniting with God when all things are renewed, will experience both as He does. So in essence, both authors are correct.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To cap off this idea, the outer darkness Christ speaks of so many times, is the void outside of the sphere of God in which there is no light (understanding) to be found, the weeping and gnashing of teeth being men who weep in remorse for their new abode, the gnashing of teeth them futilely attempting chew on and understand how they got to where they are in the first place. Unfortunately, their hell is eternity never understanding why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5954" LastActivityDate="2013-09-29T03:48:04.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18317" CreationDate="2013-09-29T04:10:57.017" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Teshuva, to my knowledge, would take place in a ritual bathing pool called a Mikveh. Mikveh's were typically constructed with a set of steps separated by a middle divider (a risen stone divider several inches to a foot high) next to the entrance of the outer court of a Jewish synagogue or temple or in a town square. This water was also heated or &quot;living&quot; water, as the Jews called it, typically provided by hot springs or other means. Jews, before entering the Mikveh, often fasted several days to cleanse soul, spirit, and body, as the Mikveh was a required ritual bath upon intention to enter a synagogue or temple, as well as a pool used for other religious purification. Separate Mikveh's existed for men and for women. The partaker of the Teshuva would then walk down one side of the steps unclean, immerse oneself in water, and then walk up and out of the pool on the other side of the steps and be proclaimed clean. Only then were they allowed to enter the temple. The pools of Bathesda, and in particular, the pool of Siloam were probably both Mikvehs to this effect. (Bathesda in the gospel mentioning the &quot;stirring of the waters&quot; provided by it's probable hot springs periodically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Partaking in a Christian baptism was essentially based on the same premise as the Teshuva. Baptism in ancient Judaism had both to do with ritual cleanness, but also to do with agreement. In obtaining water baptism you agreed to the laws, statutes, and beliefs of the institute or theology presented by the temple or prophet providing the means of baptism. In effect, it is symbolic of dying to your old way of thinking, and being reborn in unity with the beliefs of your baptizer. John the Baptist, for example, was readying hearts for Christ's arrival by preaching repentance, or the realization of one being a sinner needing forgiveness. One cannot fix a problem if one is in denial of it existing, after all. Then, upon Christ showing up, Jesus provided the answer to this revelation of sin in man. Water baptisms, to this effect, helped others in the Christian church publicly identify with John the Baptist's idea of needed repentance, that those who got baptized, were publicly proclaiming their agreement with their baptizers that Christ was the one who would solve their issues of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5954" LastEditorUserId="5954" LastEditDate="2013-09-29T04:23:26.470" LastActivityDate="2013-09-29T04:23:26.470" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19430" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-29T04:38:14.053" Score="6" ViewCount="173" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not a tough question, just something I never knew or understood about Protestantism.  I'm a Catholic, and in my diocese post-baccalaureate seminary education is subsidized by collections taken.  It's one of the largest places we put our money.  I've heard that if you don't make it to the priesthood in seminary that you've got to pay back the expense of your education, but if you do, then it's all paid for (which makes sense because priestly vows more or less prohibit other means of paying it back). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But for Protestants, this doesn't seem to be the case and I'd like to know how an average pastor manages to pay off his or her debt.  I was surprised when a friend of mine told me that his pastor was fresh out of college, with just a bachelors degree, but it would seem to make a bit more sense to preach your way through graduate school, if you need to go to it at all since tuition has been crazy expensive for the last couple of decades. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If &quot;Protestant&quot; is too broad for this question, I can limit it to protestants similar to non-Evangelical Lutherans.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T18:00:19.350" Title="Who pays for Protestant seminary education for aspiring ministers?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;seminary&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19430" CreationDate="2013-09-29T05:07:54.193" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Baptist circles, seminary is just like college for secular students. The student pays for his or her own tuition.  (O.K. for Pastors in conservative Baptist Churches I may as well just say &quot;his own tuition&quot;.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As an example... In my neck of the woods, most Baptist pastors-to-be attend Maranatha Bible College.  their tuition and costs page is found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mbbc.edu/tuition-and-costs/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, explaining what a student needs to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just like secular schools, there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mbbc.edu/financial-aid/&quot;&gt;scholarship and financial aid options available&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-09-29T05:23:32.677" LastActivityDate="2013-09-29T05:23:32.677" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19436" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19437" CreationDate="2013-09-29T09:44:58.657" Score="5" ViewCount="36324" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Luke 23:38 it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was a written notice above him, which read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was the notice placed at the crucifixion proclaiming Jesus to be King?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5525" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-08-13T12:10:22.103" Title="Why was Jesus called the King of the Jews?" Tags="&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19436" CreationDate="2013-09-29T11:32:28.717" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was hailed as the Messiah - the &quot;Anointed One&quot; (in Greek 'Christos' from which we get Christ).  The Messiah was thought to be the one who would restore the kingdom of Israel.  (Which, of course, Christians believe he did in the heavenly sense, but not the earthly sense.) You anoint a King, of course, which is where the confusion begins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the &quot;Zealots&quot; of which Simon Zealotes was a member, assumed that Jesus' plan was to be the King of this new newly restored Israel.  It was assumed that the Christ would give Israel its land back and be its new ruler. In Jeremiah 23 it says of this Messiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,&#xA;      “when I will raise up for David[a] a righteous Branch,&#xA;  a King who will reign wisely&#xA;      and do what is just and right in the land.&#xA;  6 In his days Judah will be saved&#xA;      and Israel will live in safety.&#xA;  This is the name by which he will be called:&#xA;      The Lord Our Righteous Savior.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when Pilate is questioning Jesus (in John 18), he inquires along these lines, asking of Jesus if he is a King.  To this, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jews' rejection of Jesus as their king is thus made explicit, when in John 19, Pilate says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not Jesus was a &quot;King&quot; then, is a matter of interpretation.  To be sure, in Revelation, when he returns it is written on his thigh that he is &quot;King of Kings and Lord of Lords&quot;, but to lower it to merely earthly place is to denigrate who He really is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be understood that Pilate was mocking Jesus with the sign. John continues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pilate was contemptuous saying &quot;See, this is what a would-be King of the Jews is&quot;.  The Chief Priests knew it and tried to change it. But if Pilate's going to mock somebody, he does it fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-09-29T11:38:53.950" LastActivityDate="2013-09-29T11:38:53.950" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19446" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-29T18:36:12.363" Score="2" ViewCount="1016" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always believed that if you go to hell your soul will be there for ever.  After looking at all the versus talking about heaven and hell, is there any verse that clearly states your soul will LIVE forever in hell. What does the words parish and destroy mean in Hebrew and Greek?    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5957" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-11-26T03:17:44.597" LastActivityDate="2015-11-26T03:17:44.597" Title="Is it impossible to think that after judgment day being thrown into hell and then not existing after that is way worse than being in hell?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;greek&gt;&lt;hebrew&gt;&lt;eternity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-09-30T13:28:47.593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19327" CreationDate="2013-09-29T19:43:37.590" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You did well, I believe, in beginning your search for the meaning of &lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt; vis-à-vis the powers of the General Assembly in the Church of Scotland.  You might also take a dip into the strictly legal/civil application of the concept to centuries of Scotch and English Common Law.  See, for example, a condensed version of Black's Law Dictionary at thelawdictionary.org.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barth, though a &quot;professional&quot; theologian, was at one time a church pastor.  We should not be surprised, then, he would view theology as vital to the task of a pastor.  In his own words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Theology is committed directly to the community and especially to those members who are responsible for preaching, teaching, and counseling. The task theology has to fulfill is continually to stimulate and lead them to face squarely the question of the proper relation of their human speech to the Word of God, which is the origin, object, and content of this speech&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Evangelical Theology:  An Introduction&lt;/em&gt;, p. 41).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would not be surprised, then, if by &lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt; Barth was alluding to what we call the “Great Commission.”  Jesus said in Matthew 28:18-20:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;”’All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There could not be a charge more noble than Jesus’ command to “Go therefore and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Make disciples&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptize disciples,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teach disciples to obey all Jesus’ commands&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Barth himself said, &quot;the hearing, understanding, and application of the biblical message . . . is the fundamental task of all theological study&quot; (&lt;em&gt;id.&lt;/em&gt;, p. 175). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One difficulty I have with Barth’s theology, however, is his view on what constitutes the “biblical message.”  While Barth sees Scripture as a witness to the Word of God, he does not consider the written Word of God (as canonized and preserved through the centuries) to &lt;em&gt;be&lt;/em&gt; the Word of God.  Perhaps out of fear of being labeled a “fundamentalist” and a “literalist” he preferred to elevate the authority of biblical witnesses over the authority of the written record of the witnesses' testimony.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, according to Barth, “even the smallest, strangest, simplest, or obscurest among the biblical witnesses has an incomparable advantage over even the most pious, scholarly and sagacious latter-day theologian&quot;. (&lt;em&gt;id&lt;/em&gt;., pp. 31-32).  In other words, Barth would call the Bible a “witness of divine revelation,” and as in all human testimony, whether in a court of law or in the world of fallible people, “A witness is not absolutely identical to that to which it witnesses” (&lt;em&gt;ibid.&lt;/em&gt;, my emphasis).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A question naturally arises, then: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If all Christians in general, and Christian pastors in particular, have a divine mandate—or &lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt;—to teach the &lt;em&gt;kerygma&lt;/em&gt; (loosely, the content of the gospel) to every creature, how can we know what parts or aspects of the &lt;em&gt;kerygma&lt;/em&gt; are the Word of God, and which are not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my point of view, and the view of many evangelical Christians and theologians throughout the world, I regard the Bible’s witness, in and of itself, revelatory.  As theologian John Murray said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;”Scripture is God's own witness to us, borne through the instrumentality of men but borne by such a unique mode that the witness of men is God's own witness” (&lt;em&gt;Collected Writings of John Murray.  4: Studies in Theology&lt;/em&gt;, p.3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put differently, God does not speak to us through Scripture so that the Bible &lt;em&gt;becomes&lt;/em&gt; the Word of God. No, God reveals himself to us in the &lt;em&gt;witness of&lt;/em&gt; the written Word of God. That God was both willing and able to accomplish this revelation without bypassing each biblical writer’s personality, background, education, and culture, and yet still communicate accurately and completely His will and Word for humankind, is a miracle of the first order.  Does one therefore have to be an inerrantist to pass theological muster?  No, but to be an inerrantist is not necessarily the same as being a “wooden literalist.”  But I digress. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A more significant question is, Who determines what the message of the Word of God is?  Theologians?  Pastors?  Average Christians?  Missionaries?  Academics?  Who?  What happens when one preacher, teacher, or exegete of the Word comes to a completely different conclusion from that of another preacher, particularly when the other preacher considers his conclusion to be a non-negotiable tenet of the faith?  Who is to settle the contradiction, and how?  Or is the message sufficiently flexible to accommodate almost any teaching and interpretation so long as it doesn’t go too far afield. Who determines, however, whose view is too far afield and whose is not?  I’m not sure how Barth would answer these questions, though I am sure he would.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Barth’s concept of &lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt; is likely at odds with that of many evangelical theologians and students of the Bible, which of course does not make Barth wrong.  Moreover, he certainly has many worthwhile insights.  If the heart of any “noble charge” emanating from God resembles a plebiscite more than a fiat from on High, however, then theologically and practically we are on shaky ground indeed.  Peter said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;”If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God . . .” (1 Peter 4:11 KJV).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a pastor friend of mine likes to pray before he preaches and teaches:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Lord, make my words a true echo of heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When as communicators of the oracles of God we say humbly, yet fervently, “Thus saith the Lord,” we are simply obeying the &lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt; of God Himself, and He alone can take His Word, through the instrumentality of mere vessels of clay, and can cause that Word to echo His truth in convicting power.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When an earthly court, tribunal, or council is faced with the dilemma of having to make a decision in equity but there is no existing law enabling them to do so, they choose to err on the side of fairness, grace, and mercy and not on the letter of the law.  That is &lt;em&gt;nobile officium&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What a privilege is ours as believers in Jesus Christ to bear witness to the truth on behalf of the One who said “I am the truth” (John 14:6).  Moreover, He is the one of whom John said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And we beheld His glory, the glory of the only Begotten Son of God, full of &lt;em&gt;grace&lt;/em&gt; and truth&quot; (1:14, my emphasis).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In God's dealings with human beings, His grace always precedes His truth.  The truth of God condemns us, and rightly so; His grace, on the other hand, when received by faith, delivers us from condemnation (John 3:16,17).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Praise God that&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus&quot; (Romans 8:1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-09-30T13:58:30.910" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T13:58:30.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11572" CreationDate="2013-09-29T22:39:03.217" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting that no one has mentioned that the only person Joseph Smith favored to succeed him was his brother, Samuel, who died shortly after the martyrdom--probably murdered by Hosea Stout by poison, in an attempt to delay succession to the presidency until Brigham Young returned to Nauvoo from Boston.  Both Samuel's daughter and brother William believed that Stout was acting under orders from Young and Willard Richards.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The enmity between Emma Smith and Brigham Young is well known, and Emma never recognized Young as the rightful successor to her husband.  The real Emma is far from the Emma the Church portrays today, as is Brigham Young.  I doubt many Latter-day Saints could gain much of a testimony is they were asked outright if they sustained Young as a true prophet of the Lord, or have even read the Journal of Discourses, and studied his heretical doctrines, such as of blood atonement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Current LDS claims of succession are not based on any historical evidence, but only on the belief that the Twelve and not the Nauvoo High Council comprised the leadership of the Church.  Even then, Young was not sustained as president and prophet until 1847, more than three years after the martyrdom.  In other words, the LDS pioneers saw no need for succession or a prophet until they reached Utah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5961" LastActivityDate="2013-09-29T22:39:03.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19451" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19479" CreationDate="2013-09-30T00:06:33.843" Score="7" ViewCount="2896" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before anything else, a point of order.  This question has the ability to be construed as mean-spirited towards my Mormon brothers.  I'd like to hope that I have the credibility on this site to be believed when I say, this question is NOT intended as a forum in which to bash Mormons.  Answers that are not respectful to Mormons will be downvoted by me and will NOT be accepted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when I was with Baptist missionaries in Kazakhstan, I first heard the line that &quot;You know, Mormons and Muslims are almost exactly the same religion.&quot;  They both claim that the Bible needed updating, they both deny the Trinity, they both tend to emphasize works over faith, they both are revelations by an Angel to a conveniently placed prophet, they both divide heaven into different levels for increasing belief, etc... And, recently I watched this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7bukaRhbI0&quot;&gt;6 minute video&lt;/a&gt; from a Lutheran making a very similar claim.  To an evangelical or another Christian predisposed towards rejecting Mormon claims, it's very persuasive stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, I'd like to hear the counter-claim.  How does the Mormon church react to being so closely compared to the Muslim religion?  My suspicion, of course, is that the Mormon church rejects such comparisons, but I wonder what aspects of the faith they would use to differentiate themselves from Islam.  Likewise, the video linked above is short enough to be fact-checked and debunked.  Lutheran Satire is normally fairly level-headed (although deliciously funny, such as when they skewer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIqEYP_ZvM&quot;&gt;Westboro Baptist Church&lt;/a&gt;). So, what is the case that Islam and Mormons have nothing in common?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2014-07-18T21:03:03.877" Title="What are the differences between Mormonism and Islam, and how do Mormons react to comparisons with it?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;islam&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19446" CreationDate="2013-09-30T00:07:32.770" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes there is and it is the Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 20:11  And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 20:13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 20:14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 20:15  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also look at the words of Jesus in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar_9:44  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar_9:46  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mar_9:48  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and if I may I suggest you read the entire 9th chapter of Mark&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2013-09-30T00:35:21.367" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T00:35:21.367" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19454" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-30T01:16:51.673" Score="13" ViewCount="930" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 1:1 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt; reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is the image I get: Sometime before an angel sent by Jesus gave John the revelation, Jesus was given the revelation from God. I first wonder when Jesus was given the revelation: before his birth (assuming the validity of the Trinity doctrine), during his life, after his death but before his resurrection, after his resurrection but before his ascension, after his ascension. Then I obviously wonder how Jesus, being God fully, would not know the nature of the things spelled out in Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how do classic Trinitarians answer this question? Why does it appear that Jesus at some time did not know what God knew concerning the little details of the last days?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-04T19:43:50.540" LastActivityDate="2019-11-22T18:40:23.127" Title="How do classic Trinitarians answer the implications of Revelation 1:1?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;special-revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19458" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-30T04:47:12.367" Score="9" ViewCount="9251" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a follow on from the question&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7531/why-does-the-messiah-have-to-be-god&quot;&gt;Why does the Messiah have to be God?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fully Man:&lt;/strong&gt; I agree that Jesus had to become man, I believe this is VERY well supported in the bible. Hebrews 2:17-18, Hebrews 4:14-15 and much more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fully God?&lt;/strong&gt; I know that Jesus himself claimed deity, (See all the references here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moodyministries.net/crp_mainpage.aspx?id=598&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Moody Global Ministries&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Question:&lt;/strong&gt; What is the &lt;strong&gt;Biblical basis&lt;/strong&gt; for saying that  Jesus must be fully God and fully man? Why does Jesus have to be God himself?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it not sufficient that he is the son of God? The son of God can still save, the son of God can still be our intercessor, the son of God can still have fully God attributes (because he is the only son of God), the son of God can still exist from before there was time. So back to the question, WHY does Jesus have to be God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5967" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-01-12T02:50:19.203" LastActivityDate="2018-01-12T02:50:19.203" Title="Why does Jesus have to be fully God and fully man? Is it not sufficient to be the son of God and fully man?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16875" CreationDate="2013-09-30T12:21:53.403" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The story of Samson throughout the Bible supports this perspective:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Samson is unique: He is mentioned as one of the Faithful in Hebrews 11 and God never once chastises Samson for His behavior.  What follows is a line by line commentary on how the life of Samson and the life of Christ parallel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 14:1-4 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/14/1/s_225001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/14/1/s_225001&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Samson seeks a wife outside of his own kind in the same way Jesus Christ sought His bride of humanity outside of His divine heritage. God sought an occasion against the Philistines and he also sought an occasion against the satanic realm by betrothing His Son to a bride that belonged to the world. The Philistines typically represent the “satanic realm” or that which belongs to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 14:5-9 &lt;a href=&quot;http://.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/14/5/s_225005&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/14/5/s_225005&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Many assume Samson disobeyed the Nazarite requirement of not touching a dead thing. We see that he took the honey, which does not necessarily mean he touched the carcass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 14:10-14 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/14/10/s_225010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/14/10/s_225010&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Jesus Christ is the “Lion of Judah” and from His broken body (death) comes grace (Jhn 6:55 “is meat indeed”) that is sweeter than honey!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 14:15-20 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/14/15/s_225015&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/14/15/s_225015&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Humanity (in Eden) was unfaithful to God; trusting in the words of the serpent rather than in the “Word of God”. This resulted in mankind being handed over to Satan, the “prince of this world”. Samson’s intended was unfaithful to him as well when she revealed what he had asked her to withhold. This resulted in her being handed over to Samson’s best man from his own wedding party (a type of Lucifer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 15:1-2 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/1/s_226001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/1/s_226001&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: While out collecting a bridal debt for his in-laws, Samson’s father-in-law gave his daughter to another man. Her younger sister was offered to Samson as a substitute, with no recorded outcome. This is similar to Christ’s 1st Advent when He was scorned and wifeless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 15:3-5 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/3/s_226003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/3/s_226003&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Here Samson uses the craftiness of the fox to execute judgment upon the worldly provision of the Philistines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath no where to lay His head.***&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Jesus Christ turned the tables on the Pharisees (the establishment) by surrendering to an unjust execution, which transferred the right of judgment into His hands. The victim of injustice is the only one that can legitimately administer judgment and forgiveness!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Firebrand (Strong’s # 3940) is often translated as lamp, but always signifies God’s work, just as in&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 62:1 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp [03940] [that] burneth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Jesus Christ in His 1st Advent is the lamp spoken of by Isaiah and the firebrand caught between two world systems (Rome and Pharisaical Israel).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox (Herod), Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third [day] I shall be perfected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod (foxes, tail to tail) were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.***&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 15:6-13 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/6/s_226006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/6/s_226006&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Samson made sure that his own people did not harm him and ultimately gave his life while in Philistine captivity. Likewise, Jesus was arrested by a mob of His own people and died voluntarily in the hands of His enemy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 15:14-16 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/14/s_226014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/14/s_226014&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: David is often thought of as a type of 2nd advent Christ, in fact it was for a king like David that Israel was looking for.  David’s first weapon against the Philistines was a rock, which he used to defeat Goliath (a type of Satanic realm). David, by using a rock, makes a direct connection with Christ who is the “Rock”, or Petra. All the victories that 2nd Advent Christ will realize are built upon the foundation of His 1st Advent work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: In the balance of King David’s conquest, the most striking contrast between he and Samson is their choice of weapons. Later, David fought with a sword and Samson fought with his only hand-held weapon, the jawbone of a donkey.&#xA;Note: Jesus Christ in His 2nd Advent will conquer with a sword. In the book of Revelation, He uses the “sword of the Spirit” to execute judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: In contrast, the donkey is the premier beast of burden throughout the Bible. Jesus Christ came initially to bear the burden of sin in the world.  Samson’s wielding the jawbone of a donkey (in-lieu of a sword) prophesied that the bearing of sin (underpinned by the word of truth) produced Christ’s victory in his 1st Advent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 15:17-19 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/17/s_226017&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/15/17/s_226017&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: The hollow place that opened up in the jawbone (Judges 15:19) is like the leaven of Jesus Christ in contrast to the leaven of the Pharisees. The leaven of the Pharisees (sin) results in death, while the leaven of Jesus Christ (righteousness) results in eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 23:16,17 Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD. Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; [they are] the firstfruits unto the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew 13:3 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 10:12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it [is] most holy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: Leaven is used in parables to show the infectious aspects of either sin or righteousness. It is from the hollow place (vacuum) caused by the sinless death of Jesus Christ, that eternal life flows and is dispersed throughout this temporal realm. The penalty of sin is death (a=life; b=sin; c=death; a+b=c; c-b=a), thus a sinless death results in eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.***&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 15:20 And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Judges 16:1 Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:  Many commentators believe Samson went into the harlot’s home for sexual gratification. This reads more into the scriptures than they actually reveal. Samson was the Philistine’s single greatest adversary; he more likely took refuge with her until midnight. Jesus Christ was also falsely accused because of the company He kept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 16:2-3 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/16/2/s_227002&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/16/2/s_227002&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: The Cross-is our door into the eternal realm. Jesus Christ carried His door (the cross) on His back up to the hill of Cavalry, just as Samson carried the city door on his back and set it upon a hill. The Jews should have recognized the significance of this act. By taking the door (post, bar and all), he makes a connection to their own Passover, where the lamb’s blood was placed on the post and lintel of the door so the “angel of death” would pass over them.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges  16:4-5 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/16/4/s_227004&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/16/4/s_227004&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:  Jesus, like Samson, was betrayed by a fellow Jew for silver!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 16:6-16 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/16/6/s_227006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/16/6/s_227006&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note:  Jesus was tempted three times and He withheld the source of His power until His “time had come”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judges 16:17-30 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/16/17/s_227017&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jdg/16/17/s_227017&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Finally, you be the judge:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two wooden pillars hold up the balcony in the Philistine arena. Today, an Israelite named Samson, with arms spread wide is tied in-between those pillars. He is to serve as a novelty, to be made sport of for the sake of Philistine entertainment.&#xA;The Philistines dominated Samson’s world. Arenas of amusement nurtured their social arrogance. They were a people that defied the God of Israel and mocked His children.&#xA;This was a special day, for the Philistine’s greatest adversary was under their control. His eyes had been gouged out and he appeared to be powerless against their taunts. The Philistines could see Samson praying to his God, and this incensed the crowd all the more, for their god had been victorious over the God of Israel, having delivered Samson over to them. Dagon, the Philistine’s god, had discovered, through betrayal, the source of Samson’s strength. It was his hair, his covering since birth. Once his hair was cut from him he would become like every other man, helpless. However, one thing had gone unnoticed, his hair once again covered his head!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hell, demons shouted with joy, for their greatest adversary, Jesus Christ, had been captured. His Father for the first time had been cut off from Him. He was Spiritually isolated and blinded to any possible escape from His abductors.&#xA;Satan’s empire was built upon two simple laws; the first “all have sinned” and the second “the penalty for sin is death” (which is separation from the Creator). Now he held the very “Son of God” captive by sin and its penalty. Mysteriously, with arms spread wide, sin came upon the Son while He hung upon the cross.  This amazed Satan for he had no record of God’s Son having ever sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Philistines were startled; those in the upper deck sensed it first. It was almost undetectable, a feeling of instability, a gentle movement. Suddenly, all realized Samson had dislodged the two center pillars that the arena rested upon. Just as quickly, a loud crash and total annihilation consumed all within the facility. It was finished. Samson, in his death was more victorious than in his entire life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suddenly, the Spirit of God engulfs Hell and the Father is immediately reunited with His Son. Hell begins to tremble as the Son of God stirs, and the two pillars of sin and death begin to wobble. Confusion ensues as the law of sin and death give way. Satan’s legal claim on the captives of sin and death collapses and his prison is destroyed. God’s truth radiantly reveals that while the penalty for sin is death, a sinless death offers eternal life! Creation once again can be restored to its Creator!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15:55-58 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory? The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law. But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 1:18 I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.**&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-05-11T18:03:50.040" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19446" CreationDate="2013-09-30T12:56:07.393" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does hell really burn forever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ask yourself this, are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning? No they are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner,&#xA;  giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jude 1:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because they are set as an example of what eternal fire will be like, you can see that they are not burning eternally. The everlasting fire means the fire cannot be quenched. There is no escape. The fire comes from Him who is an All-consuming fire, God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are different schools of thought on this, but to me it is evident that hell is not happening right now, and that it is not forever. For many reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) God is a JUST God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a man were to enter a store and steal something, would it be fair for him to receive life in prison? Definitely not. The punishment does not fit the crime. In the same manner, God will not punish those who living a sinful life of 70 or 80 years with millions, billions, or trillions of years of burning. The punishment does not fit the crime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rich man and Lazarus is surrounded by parables. In Luke 15 Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son, a story that is accepted as a parable. In the beginning of Luke 16 He tells the parable of the rich man and his dishonest manager (which as you can see starts the same way as the rich man and Lazarus). Then the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be too lengthy to get into the specifics of why Jesus said that parable and its meaning, but I'll out a resource at the bottom. Just a couple of things. If you take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as reality, then you must accept that people who go to heaven go to Abraham's physical bosom and people who go to hell can be seen by those in heaven and can even speak to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) Pain in the new heavens and the new earth&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the Earth is recreated (new heavens and new earth), there will be no more sorrow, pain or suffering. If you believe in an eternal hell, there will still be sorrow, pain, and suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4) Destroy both body and soul&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eternal suffering in hell is made under the presumption that we 'have an immortal soul'. How can the soul be immortal if it can be killed? These are contradictory and I choose to believe the Bible and the direct words of Jesus when He says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the&#xA;  soul: but rather fear him which is able to &lt;strong&gt;destroy both soul and body&#xA;  in hell&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 10:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are just a few reasons but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that hell is not burning right now, that it will not be eternal, and that the soul is NOT immortal. It you wish to know more about what the Bible says about this visit this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.helltruth.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, if you'd like to watch a short video on this, it can be found on this website, or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkRxGAhVqmc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: A sermon explaining this topic from the SCRIPTURE ONLY can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqtqaZPs_dI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-10-01T12:30:59.070" LastActivityDate="2013-10-01T12:30:59.070" CommentCount="19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19464" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19458" CreationDate="2013-09-30T14:58:49.883" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is whether God &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt;, or perhaps &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt;, have chosen to save us other than by becoming incarnate himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To begin with, the Incarnation is an act of grace. From the teaching we have received in the sacred scriptures, we know that the coming of God into the world, in the person of Jesus Christ, was a free and unmerited gift of God's love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (John 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many more passages I could have quoted. But my point here is that God was in no sense &lt;em&gt;obliged&lt;/em&gt; to dwell among us. His sacrifice of himself was freely given, as the ultimate act of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical testimony does show that, in the way it did happen, the joining of human and divine natures in the person of Christ was capable of bringing about our reconciliation with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:10-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Might this have been possible if Jesus was not fully God - but only a lesser divinity? The letter to the Hebrews, which you cite, says in chapter 1 that the son of God is more than a mere angel; he is &amp;quot;the exact imprint of God's very being&amp;quot; (v3), temporarily made &amp;quot;lower than the angels&amp;quot; (2:9) in order to be the &lt;em&gt;direct&lt;/em&gt; link between God and ourselves. He is more than a servant of God, more than an ordinary prophet or priest or king. This is the free gift of God: he did not send the messenger we asked for, but came himself (9:11ff).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is this teaching that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leo I&lt;/a&gt; expressed in his &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/chalcedo.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Tome&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, famously received by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Council of Chalcedon&lt;/a&gt; with the acclamation, &amp;quot;This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles.&amp;quot; With more than an echo of Philippians 2, he wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The theology of this letter was also influenced by Augustine, who wrote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130113.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;De Trinitate&lt;/em&gt; 13.13&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those then who say, &lt;em&gt;What, had God no other way by which He might free men from the misery of this mortality, that He should will the only-begotten Son, God co-eternal with Himself, to become man, by putting on a human soul and flesh, and being made mortal to endure death?&lt;/em&gt; - these, I say, it is not enough so to refute, as to assert that that mode by which God deigns to free us through the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, is good and suitable to the dignity of God; but we must show also, not indeed that no other mode was possible to God, to whose power all things are equally subject, but that there neither was nor need have been any other mode more appropriate for curing our misery. For what was so necessary for the building up of our hope, and for the freeing the minds of mortals cast down by the condition of mortality itself, from despair of immortality, than that it should be demonstrated to us at how great a price God rated us, and how greatly He loved us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this way, Augustine asserts God's sovereign capacity to find some other means for our salvation, but also the fact that the Incarnation was the best possible means - the one most expressive of God's love. Thomas Aquinas, citing these and other authorities (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article2&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa&lt;/em&gt; 3.1.2&lt;/a&gt;), finds additional reasons, including the idea that the union of natures is essential to lift us above the dominion of evil spirits and the slavery of sin. This is only an elaboration of the fundamental Biblical doctrine of Christ's sacrifice being the supreme act of love, because of his full divinity. A lesser sacrifice would be a lesser expression of the love and grace of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T14:58:49.883" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19283" CreationDate="2013-09-30T15:14:43.223" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't find any more specific polling, but from this ongoing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gallop Poll:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only 40% of all Americans believe in a strict Young Earth Creation model (be that Genesis or otherwise) - the majority support some form of theistic evolution or natural evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you look at those with post-graduate education, nearly 50% hold a theistic evolution view, with 25% supporting a naturalistic evolution view and only 22% supporting a young earth model.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we take &quot;scientists&quot; to mean those with a post-graduate degree involved in the active study of some natural science, then it would a reasonable (though quite unscientific) assumption to say that the majority of scientists their post-graduate peers and support the evolutionary model, either from a theistic standpoint or a naturalistic one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This obviously isn't firm evidence either way - there is some evidence that those in the natural sciences have higher rates of religious belief than those in more social sciences, but not to any extreme degree, and it would be a stretch to claim that scientists reject evolution at a higher rate than the general populace. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also only looking at American data, but outside of Islamic countries, you're only going to see more support for evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3942" LastEditorUserId="3942" LastEditDate="2013-10-16T04:19:32.730" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T04:19:32.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19466" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19454" CreationDate="2013-09-30T15:40:48.400" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the key things about the Trinity is that God is three persons of one essence. They have the same action, will, and power. They are all equals and eternal but the key is that they are not the same person. They interact with each other and with humanity in different ways. It's difficult to understand, even for systematic theologians (which I am not). It is something that we all accept by faith and trust in the teachers that have come before us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of ways this could have played out. Trinitarians are still very diverse in their beliefs on the exact nature of God and how He operates. Discussing when Jesus knew and what he knew could last a lifetime. However, given that the Revelation was written sometime between AD 70 and AD 90 (well after Jesus' ascension around AD 30), the generally accepted answer is that Jesus was with God in Heaven and thus was fully divine at the time he told John about the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not a question I've ever heard before, and it's a good one. The short version of the answer is that it gets glossed over in favor of talking about the actual revelation and not the details of how the message got to John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T15:40:48.400" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5042" CreationDate="2013-09-30T16:06:40.543" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;Why do Jehovah's Witnesses exclude pagan influences from their doctrine?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; Because the doctrine we who are members of the unified worldwide Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses strive &lt;em&gt;to the very best of our imperfect ability&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;strong&gt;obey&lt;/strong&gt; is the doctrine found in God's word the Holy Bible... and I quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Therefore &lt;strong&gt;do not&lt;/strong&gt; become partakers with them; 8 for YOU were once darkness, but YOU are now light in connection with [the] Lord. Go on walking as children of light, 9 for the fruitage of the light &lt;strong&gt;consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth&lt;/strong&gt;. 10 &lt;strong&gt;Keep on making sure of what is acceptable &lt;em&gt;to the Lord&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;; 11 &lt;strong&gt;and quit sharing with [them]&lt;/strong&gt; in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness, but, rather, &lt;strong&gt;even be &lt;em&gt;reproving&lt;/em&gt; [them]&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~ Ephesians 4:7-11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Do not&lt;/strong&gt; become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what &lt;strong&gt;fellowship&lt;/strong&gt; do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what &lt;strong&gt;sharing&lt;/strong&gt; does light have with darkness? 15 Further, what &lt;strong&gt;harmony&lt;/strong&gt; is there between Christ and Be′li·al? Or what &lt;strong&gt;portion&lt;/strong&gt; does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 “‘Therefore &lt;strong&gt;get out from among them&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;and separate yourselves&lt;/strong&gt;,’ &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;says Jehovah&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, ‘and &lt;strong&gt;quit touching the unclean thing&lt;/strong&gt;’”; “‘and I will take YOU in.’” 18 “‘And I shall be a father to YOU, and YOU will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.”&quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~ 2 Corinthians 6:14-18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I &lt;strong&gt;solemnly charge you&lt;/strong&gt; *&lt;em&gt;before God and Christ Jesus&lt;/em&gt;*, who is destined to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his kingdom, 2 &lt;strong&gt;preach the word&lt;/strong&gt;, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season, &lt;strong&gt;reprove&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;reprimand&lt;/strong&gt;, exhort, with all long-suffering and [art of] teaching. 3 &lt;em&gt;For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching&lt;/em&gt;, but, in accord &lt;strong&gt;with their own desires&lt;/strong&gt;, they will accumulate teachers for themselves &lt;strong&gt;to have their ears tickled&lt;/strong&gt;; 4 and they will turn their ears away &lt;strong&gt;from the truth&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;whereas they will be turned aside to &lt;strong&gt;false stories&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~ 2 Timothy 4:1-4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Now this is the basis for judgment, that the light has come into the world &lt;strong&gt;BUT MEN HAVE LOVED THE DARKNESS RATHER THAN THE LIGHT, FOR THEIR WORKS WERE WICKED&lt;/strong&gt;. 20 For he that &lt;strong&gt;PRACTICES&lt;/strong&gt; vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, &lt;strong&gt;IN ORDER THAT HIS WORKS MAY NOT BE REPROVED&lt;/strong&gt;. 21 But he that does what is true comes to the light, in order that his works &lt;strong&gt;MAY BE MADE MANIFEST AS HAVING BEEN WORKED IN HARMONY WITH GOD&lt;/strong&gt;.”&quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~ John 3:19-21&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;~ NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; I am a dedicated and baptized member of the worldwide unified Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastEditorUserId="5773" LastEditDate="2013-09-30T16:32:38.110" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T16:32:38.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7861" CreationDate="2013-09-30T16:26:35.907" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;Are JWs restricted from expressing things in their own words?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We who are members of the worldwide unified Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses both can and do express ourselves / our Bible based beliefs in our own words, however, we would much rather and prefer to express ourselves / our Bible based beliefs in the way in which our Leader, King and Exemplar (Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of Jehovah God) expressed himself / his Bible based beliefs... and I quote King Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach &lt;strong&gt;is not mine&lt;/strong&gt;, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know &lt;strong&gt;concerning the teaching&lt;/strong&gt; whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 &lt;strong&gt;He that speaks of his own originality&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;is seeking his own glory&lt;/em&gt;; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him. &quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~ John 7:16-17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;because &lt;strong&gt;I have not spoken out of my own impulse&lt;/strong&gt;, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment &lt;em&gt;as to what to tell and what to speak&lt;/em&gt;. 50 Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life. Therefore the things I speak, &lt;strong&gt;just as the Father has told me [them], so I speak [them]&lt;/strong&gt;.”&quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~ John 12:49, 50&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, Christ is our PERFECT example whom we strive to the very best of our imperfect ability &lt;em&gt;to imitate&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 2:21&lt;/strong&gt;). Was Jesus Christ restricted from expressing things &lt;strong&gt;in his own words&lt;/strong&gt;? We pattern our way of life and the way we teach on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;~ NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; I am a dedicated and baptized member of the worldwide unified Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastEditorUserId="5773" LastEditDate="2013-09-30T16:31:46.793" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T16:31:46.793" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19458" CreationDate="2013-09-30T16:33:54.057" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unless Jesus came in Human flesh, there could be no acceptable sacrifice for sin. Unless a sinless human sacrifice was presented to God, God's command that man's death was required in reparation for sin could not be fulfilled:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am taking the liberty of including excerpts from something I have written on the subject of Salvation it was an effort to explain it in a form which would be interesting, and yet give the requirements for Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope you will find it both informative and enjoyable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does Jesus death on the Cross give us Salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see it's like this in Genesis 2:7 is the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that Scripture has three separate parts, first God created man from dust, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and finally the most important part in that man became a living Soul. For now we need to consider that part about breathing the breath of life into his nostrils.&#xA;    God never breathed the breath of life into any other human being, yes he did breathe the breath of life into the animals, but that was not repeated either with successive animals or man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the breath of life was breathed into man by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;since God is eternal and the breath of life is a part of God, therefore the breath of life is also eternal. That is why he did not breathe it into Eve, because life already existed in the rib taken from Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That same life is passed on to successive generations from parents to children. God referred to descendants as seed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 4:25  And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have to ask if God is a just God why would he punish us for what Adam and Eve did? The answer to that question, because God is a just God he gives us a chance to avoid that punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;After Adam and Eve messed up and disobeyed God in order to provide some way &#xA;to let us escape a sinless sacrifice had to be provided. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there was a big problem: now that they had the knowledge  of good and evil, any seed that they might have would also have that knowledge and even though just having that knowledge in itself is not the reason man has to die; (it is sin {disobedience to God} that condemns man to die).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knew that man would not be able to withstand the temptations of Satan, and since all men were destined to sin, How could man ever be reconciled to God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;There is only one way that man can ever be reconciled to God, and that being &#xA;that every man must die that God's word in Genesis 2:7 be fulfilled:&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 9:4  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God says that the blood is the life, and so only the shedding of blood(the life) must be shed in order for man to be reconciled to God, but not just any blood it must be a certain blood. That must be the blood which contains the life God breathed into man at creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since all men's hearts are inherently evil how could man ever be reconciled to God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to that is that it must be innocent blood, or if you will a life which never sinned (disobeyed God) God showed us in the book of Leviticus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 4:3  If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 4:23  Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 4:28  Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 4:32  And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 5:15  If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any sacrifice to the LORD must be without blemish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is our unblemished sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was a man and Jesus was also Deity, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus the man was tempted in every way that man is tempted by Satan, and having also the life form of deity was able to withstand Satan's temptations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus the man, in dying on the cross; fulfilled God's demand that man must give back that life which he breathed into the first man (or that he must die for his disobedience).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It allows you to have a pathway to salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is very important that you realize that Salvation is something you must accept and that you too must die on the Cross along with Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You give up the life you inherited through your parents and take up the new life which Jesus gives you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 6:27  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 10:28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God breathed the breath of life into Man (Adam), but God: nowhere else, breathed life into any other human being. That includes Eve who was made from Adam's rib, this is because life already existed in Adam's rib.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God told man (not just Adam alone) that that life would be demanded for his disobedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone from Adam to the newest newborn shares that same breath of life God breathed into the first man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That includes the man Jesus, (but not the Deity Jesus which was alive in the beginning).&#xA;That was the LIFE that Jesus sacrificed on the Cross! That fulfilled God's demand of life in reparation for SIN.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation comes when we allow our life inherited from Adam to be also sacrificed on the same cross with Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do this when we ask Jesus to live within us, as Paul said in;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Galatians 2:20  I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why not just keep the eternal life you got through my parents?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you remember that back at the start I said that Genesis 2:7 had three parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do you also remember that I said the most important part was the part about man becoming a living soul?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Soul is the part we really need to worry about because that is the part which will continue throughout eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once a soul is created it cannot ever die, and that is why Jesus gives us a new eternal life, or if you will a new eternal being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember that the breath of life which created the Soul in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we accepted Salvation also sacrificed our old life on that cross too. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A soul must have a life associated with it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God cannot abide Sin, and so no sinners will be in his presence. Any Soul which has sin will have to be somewhere else, and it is that somewhere else that is so horrible we should avoid it at all costs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="4158" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T22:28:08.597" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T22:28:08.597" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16356" CreationDate="2013-09-30T16:56:48.227" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; Why do Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance or salute the flag?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; The answer is found in the very definition of what the words &quot;pledge&quot; and &quot;allegiance&quot; mean and on what God's word the Bible states / shows to Whom we are to pledge our allegiance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;pledge&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  noun \ˈplej\&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;a serious promise or agreement  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;a promise to give money  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;something that you leave with another person as a way to show that you will keep your promise&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;~ Above definition taken directly from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pledge&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Merriam Webster online dictionary&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;al·le·giance&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  noun \ə-ˈlē-jən(t)s\  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;(1) :  the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government&lt;br&gt;&#xA;   (2) :  the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;~ Above definition taken directly from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegiance&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Merriam Webster online dictionary&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them &lt;strong&gt;nor be induced to serve them&lt;/strong&gt;, because I Jehovah your God &lt;strong&gt;am a God exacting &lt;em&gt;EXCLUSIVE&lt;/em&gt; devotion&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;~ Exodus 20:4, 5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So he brought him up and showed him &lt;strong&gt;all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth&lt;/strong&gt; in an instant of time; 6 and the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, &lt;strong&gt;because it has been delivered to me&lt;/strong&gt;, and to whomever I wish I give it. 7 You, therefore, if you do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” 8 In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is &lt;strong&gt;Jehovah your God&lt;/strong&gt; you must worship, &lt;strong&gt;and it is &lt;em&gt;to him alone&lt;/em&gt; you must render sacred service&lt;/strong&gt;.’”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;~ Luke 4:5-8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we who are members of the worldwide unified Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses will &lt;strong&gt;ONLY&lt;/strong&gt; pledge our allegiance to the One who as the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth exacts &lt;strong&gt;EXCLUSIVE&lt;/strong&gt; devotion / allegiance... JEHOVAH God (the Heavenly Father of Jesus Christ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we had an official pledge it would probably be recited in the following way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I pledge allegiance to &lt;strong&gt;JEHOVAH GOD&lt;/strong&gt;, the Almighty Creator and Sovereign Lord of Heaven and Earth. And to &lt;strong&gt;His Kingdom&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;of which Christ stands&lt;/em&gt;, holiness under God indivisible with &lt;em&gt;righteousness&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;justice&lt;/em&gt; for all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, on the subject of allegiance to one's country, Jehovah directed ancient Israel to use warfare to take possession of the land that He himself as the Sovereign Lord of the universe designated as their inheritance and to execute people whose depraved practices and defiance of the true God caused Jehovah to view them as being no longer fit to receive His gift of life and continue to live. (&lt;strong&gt;Deut. 7:1&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;2&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;5&lt;/strong&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;9:5&lt;/strong&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;Lev. 18:24&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;25&lt;/strong&gt;) Nevertheless, mercy was shown to Rahab and to the Gibeonites (who were not Jehovah's Witnesses / members of the nation of Israel) because they demonstrated faith in Jehovah. (&lt;strong&gt;Josh. 2:9-13&lt;/strong&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;9:24-27&lt;/strong&gt;) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Law covenant given through Moses, God laid down very specific rules for warfare that He Himself would approve, stipulating exemptions and the manner in which this warfare was to be carried out. Such were truly HOLY WARS OF JEHOVAH. That IS NOT true of the carnal warfare of ANY nation (including the United States of America) today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the establishing of the 1st century Christian congregation, a NEW situation came into existence. True Christians ARE NOT under the Mosaic Law. Christ’s followers were to make disciples &lt;em&gt;of people of all nations&lt;/em&gt;; so worshipers of the true God would in time &lt;strong&gt;be found in all those nations&lt;/strong&gt;. However, what is the motive of those nations &lt;em&gt;when they go to war?&lt;/em&gt; Is it to carry out the will of the Creator of all the earth &lt;strong&gt;or is it to further some nationalistic interest?&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all know the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If true Christians &lt;em&gt;in one nation&lt;/em&gt; were to go to war &lt;strong&gt;against another nation&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;they would be fighting against fellow believers, against people who prayed for help to the same God that they did&lt;/em&gt;. Such an action as that is utterly unacceptable and chaotic, being that true Christians are in fact &lt;em&gt;part of the same worldwide spiritual &lt;strong&gt;family&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Appropriately, Christ directed his true followers to lay down the sword at Matt. 26:52. He himself, glorified in the heavens, would &lt;strong&gt;henceforth&lt;/strong&gt; carry out the execution of those who showed &lt;strong&gt;defiance&lt;/strong&gt; of the true God and His will as recorded at —&lt;strong&gt;2 Thess. 1:6-8&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;Rev. 19:11-21&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastEditorUserId="32540" LastEditDate="2017-06-20T17:22:10.723" LastActivityDate="2017-06-20T17:22:10.723" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19471" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-30T17:33:09.063" Score="10" ViewCount="15565" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Civil Disobedience Justified&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a Biblical precedent for civil disobedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's refused to worship an idol in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%203:18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Daniel 3&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Israelites' openly rebelled against the government of Egypt in the book of Exodus.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:27-32&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 5&lt;/a&gt;, Peter teaches despite being commanded otherwise by the civil authority.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Civil Disobedience Prohibited&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a Biblical precedent for obeying a country's laws regardless of whether the laws are good or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 8&lt;/a&gt; says to obey the king's command.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus says to pay taxes in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2020:20-26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 20&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul instructs believers to obey the laws of their country in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013:1-7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Romans 13&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Modern Examples&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some modern examples of where this issue is a sticky one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rosa Parks broke the law by &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_parks#Her_refusal_to_move&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;refusing to give up her seat to a white person&lt;/a&gt; during the American civil rights movement.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Aaron Swartz believed that the current U.S. copyright law was wrong, and practiced civil disobedience by &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;downloading academic articles&lt;/a&gt; in a manner that was considered illegal. Copyright law &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3069/is-there-any-biblical-support-for-copyright-law&quot;&gt;may or may not be Biblical&lt;/a&gt;, but if copyright law is harmful, then it's possible that illegal downloading of copyrighted material could possibly be considered a form of civil disobedience.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adolf Eichmann dutifully obeyed the laws of his country by carrying out the execution of Jews. After WWII, he was sentenced to death on the grounds that he was &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Trial&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;obligated to break German law&lt;/a&gt;, but did not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Question&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not able to differentiate between the cases where civil disobedience is justified and the cases where it is not justified. I can make up answers in each case based on intuition, but what is the Biblical criterion for sifting through each case? Under what circumstances is disobeying a bad law justified or even obligatory? Please provide a clear definition of when civil disobedience is justified Biblically and when it is not justified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note on similar questions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2259/are-christians-bound-to-the-laws-of-their-country&quot;&gt;Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?&lt;/a&gt;, asks if there are some laws that should be obeyed even if they are not Biblical. The question, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2827/should-christians-uphold-unjust-laws-that-are-not-overtly-immoral&quot;&gt;Should Christians uphold unjust laws that are not overtly immoral?&lt;/a&gt;, looks at the same question from a different angle. Neither question sufficiently answers the question: what is the Biblical definition of appropriate civil disobedience?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5917" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-09-07T01:47:28.137" Title="Under what circumstances is disobeying a bad law justified or even obligatory?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-06-27T11:52:58.100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7321" CreationDate="2013-09-30T17:34:40.973" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Stick with scripture.  John 3.  You must be born again.  Even if you think you are a good baptist or catholic, it's pointless.  Jesus only.  Not anything to do with your works.  Ephesians 2:8-9.  Don't make this too hard by trying to sound philosophical driven by intellectual or moral blindness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5971" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T17:34:40.973" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19471" CreationDate="2013-09-30T19:39:41.560" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Civil disobedience isn't universally condoned or prohibited by the Bible. There's a difference between what God defines as right and just and what man defines as right and just. And in the cases where obeying God requires disobeying man then God wins. In each of your examples it's pretty easy to see that the decisions being made are based on God's rules and not man's rules.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Hebrew boys were obeying God's law to have no other Gods before&#xA;him. The Exodus story isn't about human rebellion. It's about God&#xA;liberating his people. The Israelites spend half the time complaining&#xA;(starting here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%205:20-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 5:20-21&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In Ecclesiastes, Solomon continues on to say that &quot;there is a proper time and procedure for every matter&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%208:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ecclesiastes 8:6&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus comments on not just paying taxes but remembering to separate earthly things from things of God. &quot;Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2020:25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 20:25&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Paul also says that &#xA;And he commands the believers to &quot;do what is right&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans&#xA;13:3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 13 is one of the hardest passages to reconcile with civil disobedience. But, because Paul says that &quot;there is no authority except that which God has established&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 13:1&lt;/a&gt;) and that &quot;they are God’s servants&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 13:4&lt;/a&gt;) means that any real authority will follow God's commands. If they don't follow God and if obeying them means disobeying God then they aren't really in charge. Which fits with Paul's statement before the Jewish leaders, &quot;We must obey God rather than men&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:29&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 5:29&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best Christian defense of civil disobedience comes from the American Civil Rights Movement. A group of religious leaders in Alabama wrote &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stanford.edu/group/King//frequentdocs/clergy.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Call for Civility&lt;/a&gt; as a response to the protests going on in Birmingham. In it they mention several outside agitators. One of those agitators, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stanford.edu/group/King//frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Letter from Birmingham Jail&lt;/a&gt; in response. In his letter, King insists that the mistreatment of the Negro in America is contrary to the will of God and goes on to several passages of scripture (including some of the ones you cited) along with several Christian and Jewish philosophers to show that direct, persistent action is the only correct response to immoral authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I encourage you to look at the works of King, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and Georg Hegel. King used Hegel's doctrine of right to develop the believe that &lt;a href=&quot;http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/our_god_is_marching_on/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;justice is inevitable&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T19:39:41.560" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19475" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9272" CreationDate="2013-09-30T20:44:39.840" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;com•pel / kəmˈpel/ verb&#xA;past tense: compelled; past participle: compelled&#xA;1. force or oblige (someone) to do something.  &quot;a sense of duty compelled Harry to answer her questions&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to the question is YES!!!  The Spirit can and does compell us regardless of what our Will is.  When we accept Jesus we give up our rights, (designed to protect us from Men), and are completely in His charge.  we WILL do His Will whether we want to or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &quot;Jonah&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5977" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-01T01:23:08.593" LastActivityDate="2013-10-01T01:23:08.593" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19471" CreationDate="2013-09-30T21:26:04.120" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;One verse that sprang immediately to my mind was 1 Peter2:16.  To provide a context for the verse, I'll start with vs.13:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.  For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.  Act as free men [and women], and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.  Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps&quot; (1 Peter 2:13-21 NIV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What strikes me in this passage is that Christians are free.  Ironically, however, we express our freedom as slaves to God!  When we submit to and honor the &quot;powers that be&quot; we are fleshing out our obedience to God, who alone is the One with ultimate power and authority in all the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that Peter was quick to qualify the Christian's freedom.  Never are we to use our freedom in Christ as an excuse or cloak for doing something evil.  Christians are not to be antinomianists who flaunt the law, whether man's or God's.  God, after all, expects His children to fulfill &lt;em&gt;His&lt;/em&gt; law's demands as they are led by the Holy Spirit (see Romans 8:4).  While we are perhaps wise to abandon the old adage &quot;Let your conscience be your guide,&quot; Christians in particular are to have enlightened, sensitive consciences to which they are to listen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, however, just as there are always going to be controversial, &quot;grey areas&quot; of behavior within a given community of Christians today (as there was in the first century with the issue of meat sacrificed to idols--see Romans 8:1-9:15 and 1 Corinthians 9), so also will there be differences of opinion among well-meaning Christians as to whose conscience is correct and whose is not, as well as which secular laws and regulations must be obeyed and which may or must not be obeyed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly an edict from a government or repressive regime making it illegal to preach the gospel is something we cannot obey in good conscience.  Other laws will not be so clear-cut, however, as the ban on preaching Christ crucified.  (Having said this, I assume the better part of wisdom in countries where &quot;proselytizing&quot; is banned is to limit preaching, teaching, and sharing one's faith either to underground, home churches, or to clandestine gatherings of people, generally, whether in remote locations or any other non-public places.  The same would apply, I feel, to bans on disseminating the written word of God, in any medium.  Years ago an uncle of mine frequently smuggled Bibles into countries where Bibles were prohibited.  Today, an organized effort among Christians in repressive countries to transmit Scripture via email, podcasts, Twitter, or carrier pigeons would be, I believe, sanctioned by God.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other less-obvious ways, we must not be dogmatic.  For example, to one Christian the seemingly insignificant act of putting money into an expired parking meter as a &quot;random act of kindness&quot; is clearly wrong (particularly if there is a local ordinance making the act a misdemeanor!), whereas to another Christian, it is quite permissible.  In such situations, I suggest each Christian must listen to his or her conscience.  If the latter believer is doing the good deed deliberately to flaunt the law, then perhaps s/he should re-examine his or her motives!  If the former, seemingly &quot;overly sensitive&quot; believer does not feed the meter, does that therefore mean the latter Christian is right and the former, wrong?  No, before God each one is right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, when God's word is clear about a given action's rightness or wrongness, and the powers that be agree with God's word, Christians have an obligation before God both to obey and not to disobey.  In the few cases in which to obey the government would be to disobey God, we should listen to our enlightened consciences, which are to be informed by God's word, and we should also seek advice from and follow the example of the Christian leaders among us, whether godly elders, deacons, pastors, ministers, priests, mentors, and so on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you feel I should bolster my answer with more concrete examples, do let me know and I'll try to come up with a few more.  Don&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2014-11-21T00:07:22.403" LastActivityDate="2014-11-21T00:07:22.403" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19477" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17779" CreationDate="2013-09-30T21:27:49.607" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is eternal, and He declares the end from the beginning. He gave man a free will, but because He is all-knowing, He also knew the choice that man would make. For example, He knew that mankind would sin before He created them and He made the plan for redemption long before creating the world. That's the reason 1 Pet. 1:20 and Rev 13:8 talk of the Lamb being chosen and being slain before the foundation of the world respectively. That's why Jesus knew beforehand that few would enter by the narrow gate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, God still created people and gave them opportunities to turn to Him, knowing that some would reject Him. For example Heb 4:7 gives the instruction 'Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts'. God said this knowing ahead of time that some would listen and obey, while others would still harden their hearts. We definitely know that there are people who have been convicted of sin but have refused to receive salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary God has the big picture and He 'works all things according to the counsel of His own will' (Eph. 1:11). Knowing the choices people would make, He fitted all into His eternal plan in a way that all events would harmonize with His eternal purpose. In most cases He does not interfere with the people's free will and just because some make wrong decisions doesn't mean He caused them to do it. He just knew that they would make the choices (no matter how much He tried to influence them to make the right ones) and He fitted it all in His grand plan. He's not setting people up for failure through temptation, because the choice to give in to temptation lies with the people. Scriptural reference: Genesis 4:7 '...But if you don't do well, sin is crouching at your door. It desires to have you but you must master it.' and 1 Cor 10:13 'But God is faithful who will not allow you to be tempted beyond that which you can bear..' He allows temptation to prove those who will be faithful and obedient.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5976" LastEditorUserId="5976" LastEditDate="2013-10-03T15:55:06.553" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T15:55:06.553" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19478" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19451" CreationDate="2013-09-30T22:32:03.807" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mormons claim that there were several witnesses to God's revelation to Joseph Smith. In the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/three?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Testimony of Three Witnesses&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/eight?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Testimony of Eight Witnesses&lt;/a&gt;, there were several people who signed a document stating that they had seen the tables of gold from which Smith read. The eight-witness testimony states the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom&#xA;  this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this&#xA;  work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which&#xA;  have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said&#xA;  Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the&#xA;  engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work,&#xA;  and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of&#xA;  soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and&#xA;  hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of&#xA;  which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness&#xA;  unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing&#xA;  witness of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, Muhammed was a prophet who received revelation from the angel Gabriel while praying in a cave. (Sorry for &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Beginnings_of_the_Quran&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quoting Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Islamic tradition holds that during one of his visits to Mount Hira,&#xA;  the angel Gabriel appeared to him in the year 610 and commanded&#xA;  Muhammad to recite verses which would later be included in the Quran.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your second question, I'm afraid I can't answer it with cited sources. Because it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, I will venture to guess that Mormons would regard the authenticity of Joseph Smith's revelation as verifiable and Muhammed's as not verifiable. As to Muslims' defense of Muhammed's authority, I suspect at least some would point to the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Muhammad&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;supernatural events attributed to Muhammed&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if this is normal procedure on Christianity.SE, but... disclaimer: I am not a Mormon or a Muslim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5917" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T22:32:03.807" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19451" CreationDate="2013-09-30T22:50:40.250" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;From an LDS perspective, Islam actually looks much more like traditional Christianity than Mormonism, because, despite the similarities mentioned above, it lacks what Latter-Day Saints consider one of the most important features of their faith: continuing revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The simple fact of the matter is that Islamic doctrine &lt;em&gt;ends&lt;/em&gt; with its &quot;conveniently placed prophet,&quot; whereas Mormonism &lt;em&gt;begins&lt;/em&gt; there.  Islam, much like conventional Christianity, has a closed canon and a belief that, after a certain arbitrary point in the distant past, no more prophets or scriptural revelation are given, or have been needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By contrast, the modern successors to Joseph Smith and the Apostles who presided over the church in his time are considered to have the same authority and divine responsibility today as their mid-19th century counterparts.  In fact, Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the Church, proclaimed that this is an essential feature of Mormonism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. &lt;em&gt;If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;-- Addendum to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng&quot;&gt;the first Official Declaration&lt;/a&gt;, emphasis added.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The importance of continuing revelation and the continuity of the authority of the church is also underscored in four of the thirteen &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&quot;&gt;Articles of Faith&lt;/a&gt;, which Joseph Smith wrote as a brief synopsis of the fundamental principles of LDS doctrine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While many superficial similarities exist between Mormonism and Islam (or, to be honest, between just about any two religions you could name,) the idea of continuing revelation, that the heavens are not sealed, that prophecies and divine leadership and guidance from the Lord have not ceased, is quite a unique thing, particularly among the Abrahamic religions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T22:50:40.250" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19480" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-09-30T23:41:34.197" Score="8" ViewCount="4945" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do Catholics recite the phrase &quot;Thanks be to God&quot; during Mass?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They say this many times too. After the priest speaks, the congregation follows in unison, &quot;Thanks be to God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2017-03-18T18:16:43.493" Title="Why do Catholics recite the phrase &quot;Thanks be to God&quot; during Mass?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19480" CreationDate="2013-09-30T23:54:41.120" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is the English translation of &lt;em&gt;Deo Gratias&lt;/em&gt;, which is repeated “in thanksgiving for the graces received at Mass” (&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04737a.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="925" LastActivityDate="2013-09-30T23:54:41.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19482" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-01T02:22:48.943" Score="6" ViewCount="1624" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do Chinese Christians wear to a Western or Chinese Christian funeral? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the West, it seems that black is the popular color for death and funerals. You see this in movies, where women would wear black veils and black formal dresses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Chinese culture, it is known that white is the color reserved for death and funerals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, do Chinese Christians wear white or black at a funeral? Is there a preference for a single color in Christianity for certain occasions, or is this more of a Western cultural thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T16:29:01.500" Title="What do Chinese Christians wear to a Western or Chinese Christian funeral?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;funeral&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19483" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9459" CreationDate="2013-10-01T03:35:32.903" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The disciples were continually learning. They didn't have it all together and they didn't truly understand everything Jesus said or tried to teach them. They saw him calm a storm and raise the dead to life again. They even were given power to heal the sick and cast out demons, but we're limited by their lack of faith on occasion. Peter figured out Jesus was the Christ, the son of the Living God, but then he denied knowing Him. It wasn't until after the resurrection did the disciples eventually come to know who Jesus really was. Thomas got it right fairly quickly at least in word when he exclaimed &quot;My Lord and my God&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5978" LastActivityDate="2013-10-01T03:35:32.903" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19177" CreationDate="2013-10-01T03:38:08.607" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I were, for some strange reason, compelled against my will to read &lt;em&gt;Confessions&lt;/em&gt; aloud before a crowd, I would choose F. J. Sheed’s translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my mind, Sheed not only sufficiently translates the originals into English, but also does the &lt;em&gt;best&lt;/em&gt; job with the electrifying high poetry of Augustine's writing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, compare Sheed’s translation of Book I, Chapter III with the examples in the body of your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if you fill heaven and earth, do they contain you? Or do you fill&#xA;  them, and yet have much over since they cannot contain you? Is there&#xA;  some other place into which that overplus of You pours that heaven and&#xA;  earth cannot hold? Surely You have no need of any place to contain You&#xA;  since You contain all things, and fill them indeed precisely by&#xA;  containing them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that, unlike the other more technical translations, the last sentence in the above excerpt is molded into an imperative sentence rather than an interrogative.  This appears to be a subtly significant attempt to convey both the theological, as well as the emotional dynamism that St. Augustine is canonically known for. This also breaks up the monotony of questions by giving some intelligible credit to a philosophical &lt;em&gt;giant&lt;/em&gt; such as Augustine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When reading Sheed’s translation of &lt;em&gt;Confessions&lt;/em&gt; (as well as his other works) I often catch myself reading the passages with a sort of rhythm, almost like I’m reading one of C. S. Lewis’ works of poetry. It combines just the right amount of the post-Elizabethan, King James-ish English with a more modern Chesterton-like prose, both of which I am truly fond of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here I have loosely rearranged a passage of Sheed’s translation in order to illuminate the rhythmic structures of sentences that help me to stay zeroed in on what Augustine is actually saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if You are already in me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since otherwise I should not be,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why do I cry to You,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To enter into me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even if I were in Hell You would be there,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if I go down into Hell, Thou art there also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus, oh God, I should be nothing,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Utterly nothing,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unless you were in me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or rather unless I were in you,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Of whom and by whom and in whom,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Book I, Chapt. II&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sheed’s translation is thoroughly saturated with a kind of seamlessness, that of which other translations I have read (or have attempted to read) seem to lack.  As in all of his theological works, (which I &lt;em&gt;very highly&lt;/em&gt; recommend every single one of them) Sheed does an incredible job of efficiently manipulating the English language into transporting eternally understandable truths to simple minds like mine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Give Sheed a chance…you won’t regret it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-10-01T03:54:32.463" LastActivityDate="2013-10-01T03:54:32.463" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19485" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-01T06:54:20.870" Score="4" ViewCount="765" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having lately studied the bible from Second Epistle to the Corinthians I have pondered whether or not unions between nonbelievers and those in faith are really fully and undisputedly condemned by the scripture. There are numerous passages where they are at least discouraged if not bluntly denied as sin, but throughout the word there is the message of love, sharing and caring that seems to conflict this by limiting e.g. marriage to those who share faith. I'd like to hear your ideas especially regarding the passage on  2. Cor.6:14-16?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question, hence, is: is the union (by union I suppose the reference is to marriage but I'm also interested if there is something to be said about cohabitation prior to marriage that is quite common these days) of a believer and a non-believer condemned without exemptions and in case of such marriage, is the one in faith committing continuous sin as long as the marriage lasts, and will that turn used against him/her in the final judgment? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5979" LastEditorUserId="4158" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T22:28:03.657" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T12:28:54.387" Title="How to interpret the ban of unions between believers and non-believers?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;non-christians&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19482" CreationDate="2013-10-01T09:56:11.330" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It might depend on the church and the individuals.  I attended a Chinese church one time and people wore all sorts of colours to them.  Sometimes black, sometimes white, and anything in between.  I don't think the church I went to was very superstitious in that regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-10-01T09:56:11.330" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19492" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19485" CreationDate="2013-10-01T13:34:48.773" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sex outside of marriage is strictly prohibited by the Bible. The Bible calls this fornication if you are not married or adultery if you are married but commit it with another person. 1 Corinthians 5 talks about this. It is for our own good that God prohibits this as this cleaves us unto the person that we commit this sin with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible also tells us not to associate with people like this as friends, as they might influence us. It doesn't tell us to ignore them or hate them, but to love them and pray for them. But do not invite them into your home as they might lead you or your family astray, and especially do not seek a lasting relationship with them (marriage) as this is being unequally yoked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what&#xA;  fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion&#xA;  hath light with darkness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: I'll add a few references to not invite them into you home.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral&#xA;  people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral&#xA;  people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or&#xA;  idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But&#xA;  now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a&#xA;  brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a&#xA;  reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a&#xA;  person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 5:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important to know that this speaks of so-called Christians that are living in open sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even&#xA;  be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no&#xA;  filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place,&#xA;  but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this,&#xA;  that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous&#xA;  (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ&#xA;  and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of&#xA;  these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7&#xA;  Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were&#xA;  darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light&#xA;  9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and&#xA;  true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no&#xA;  part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 5:3-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The example of Lot's family living among the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah should also be noted. Abraham decided to stay in the wilderness while Lot went for the much more attractive valley close to the cities. It was a disaster, as it ruined his home. His family was destroyed. Only He and his two daughters were saved, but it was too late. His daughters were already corrupted with the influence of Sodom and Gomorrah. Because of this, they committed this terrible and vile act of giving their father fermented wine and committing the terrible sin of fornication and incest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T14:27:47.787" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T14:27:47.787" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19493" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3124" CreationDate="2013-10-01T13:55:17.123" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The old testament sacrifices were valuable only because God Himself would become, at some time in the future, the Sacrifice Himself. Gen. 3:15. So until He became a Man and died on the cross, a system of sacrifices were given to Abel-Gen.4:4;to Noah-Gen.8:20,21; to Job-Job 1:5;42:8;to Abraham-Gen.15:9,10 and to the nation of Israel-Ex. 12:3;Lev.3;4;5;16, etc.,etc.Therefore the concept, since Adam's fall, that man could no longer approach God without the shedding of blood of an innocent victim, was cemented in their minds. They were righteous but were not innocent as Adam was BEFORE he fell. God could no longer be approached without the death of a victim-covenant. You need to accept the fact that Jesus is the fulfilment of Hebrew prophecies as in Psalm 16;10;22;Isaiah 9:6,7;53; Daniel 9:24-27. In Psalm 22,verses 14-17, David is describing the agonies of execution by being nailed to something. He wrote this about 900 years before the death of Christ, even before crucifixion was invented. And in Isaiah 53:9, it is stated that someone will die with the wicked and be buried with the rich. Jesus Christ was surrounded by thieves at the cross and afterwards was buried in the brand new tomb of a rich man, Joseph of Arimathea, Matt. 27:57-60. Daniel 9:24-27 predicts the coming of someone Who would bring everlasting righteousness, reconciliation for iniquity with exact precision of time-483 years from the order to reconstruct Jerusalem by the Persian king Artaxerxes until the birth of Christ. His rejection would bring the complete destruction of Jerusalem again. All these events have been fulfilled by the Person of Jesus Christ. These prophecies should make you think. May the Lord help you to reason from the Scriptures the truth that you desperately need in order to be saved and avoid the lake of fire&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5984" LastActivityDate="2013-10-01T13:55:17.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19485" CreationDate="2013-10-01T15:45:22.103" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a passage from St Paul's - I can't remember where right now - where he talks about divorce and says that each spouse is redeemed by the other (whichever the faithful one is, the man or the woman) and that is why they should not divorce, but that if the unbeliever wants to leave, the faithful one should let them go. Furthermore, Paul also said the memorable words: &quot;Where there is no love, there is nothing.&quot;, so I guess as long as you love your spouse/partner and feel a certain level of attraction for them and they for you, you mustn't worry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5983" LastActivityDate="2013-10-01T15:45:22.103" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19497" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19664" CreationDate="2013-10-01T19:18:08.350" Score="6" ViewCount="159" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard Methodists describe themselves as the &quot;People of the Extreme Center&quot;. It gets used to mean that Methodists take the center road on a lot of issues. But I would like to know where the expression started and what it meant originally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T19:42:14.917" Title="Who was the first to describe Methodists as the &quot;People of the Extreme Center&quot;?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;methodist&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19500" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-02T02:32:19.483" Score="5" ViewCount="347" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have recently started reasearching the differences and similarites between religion's and their definitions of manhood. I was very interested to find that this question had not been previously asked when I search manhood:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How should a man should conduct himself in modern society, according to scriptures in the Holy Bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5171" LastEditorUserId="5171" LastEditDate="2013-10-05T23:18:38.820" LastActivityDate="2013-10-05T23:18:38.820" Title="Is manhood defined in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;scriptures&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-10-05T21:53:41.280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6576" CreationDate="2013-10-02T04:35:47.033" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In summary God created the Earth to bask in his Glory as it is just for him to do so. And he created the people in love of Himself. People are to be active citizens in love for themselves, and ultimately Him. And Socrates's Allegory of the cave clearly exemplifies such. Bible versus to support my claims: &quot;Proverbs 1:5, John 3:20-21, Matthew 5: 14&amp;amp;16.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5902" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T05:36:44.383" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T05:36:44.383" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19503" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-02T10:55:59.790" Score="11" ViewCount="2477" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question can be restated as: how to interpret &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%206:25-34&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;Matt 6:25-34&lt;/a&gt; where Jesus tells us not to worry about food and clothes. Is it a promise that a Christian will never die for lack of food? Or is it not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5840" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T11:18:33.770" LastActivityDate="2018-07-18T02:04:17.220" Title="Did it ever happen that a Christian died simply because he had no food at his disposal?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19500" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:54:52.680" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And to Adam he said, &quot;...cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; (Genesis 3:17) - Men are primarily responsible for working the earth for food.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Ephesians 4:13, 14) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Men are not confused by every new religion or philosophy that comes around, but know Jesus are united with others who know him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... (Ephesians 5:25) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a man is married, he should sacrifice his selfishness in the way he loves his wife.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a man is un-married, his commitment should be to pleasing the Lord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a man has children, he is primarily responsible for instructing them in God's ways and correcting them when they go astray.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4742" LastEditorUserId="4158" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T20:43:48.443" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T20:43:48.443" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19505" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11691" CreationDate="2013-10-02T12:57:47.343" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm only in my 1st year , so take my info cautiously, I think the separation really started after the reformation , that's when the west put God in a 'box' and separated him from science and the other disciplines , so the westernized version of Christianity focuses on scholarship( like you said ) and the easternized version focuses on the inner spirituality e.g. Stillness,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5994" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T12:57:47.343" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19506" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19508" CreationDate="2013-10-02T14:33:23.807" Score="11" ViewCount="50176" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any verses in the Old or New Testaments that forbid a man from dressing like a woman?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question was prompted by &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiannews.net/2013/10/01/harvest-crusades-invite-to-crossover-band-who-dressed-like-women-questioned/&quot;&gt;this news article&lt;/a&gt; about the Harvest Crusade event and the comments that followed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2014-11-19T20:34:46.977" LastActivityDate="2014-11-19T20:34:46.977" Title="Does the Bible forbid a man from dressing like a woman?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;gender&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19507" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19503" CreationDate="2013-10-02T14:33:35.747" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;: and he delighteth in&#xA;  his way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down&lt;/strong&gt;: for the Lord&#xA;  upholdeth him with his hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I have been young, and now am old; yet &lt;strong&gt;have I not seen the righteous&#xA;  forsaken, nor his seed begging bread&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 37:23-25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not have a statistical answer, but I do have a promise from the Word, which is worth more than gold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we&#xA;  robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole&#xA;  nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bring ye all the tithes&lt;/strong&gt; into the storehouse, that there may be meat in&#xA;  mine house, &lt;strong&gt;and PROVE me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I&#xA;  will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing,&#xA;  that there shall not be room enough to receive it.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Malachi 3:8-10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a promise which I have lived and continue to live until this very day. He has poured out His blessings and I am thankful for His mercies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all&#xA;  these things shall be added unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 6:33&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question plainly, based on the other biblical support, I believe we should interpret it just as it is written. Do not worry about food and clothes because the LORD will provide the means. This does not mean that we should not work and just go to church everyday. What this means is that if we entrust God with our daily duties, putting Him first everyday, He will take care of the details. As the Hymn says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God will take care of you,  through every day, o'er all the way;  He&#xA;  will take care of you,  God will take care of you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T15:53:13.027" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T15:53:13.027" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19508" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19506" CreationDate="2013-10-02T14:38:36.173" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Mosaic Law, God strictly forbids this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 22:5 NASB&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It must be stated, however, that this was specifically in the Mosaic Law, so it cannot necessarily be extended outside of the Jewish people and that covenant.  In this case, however, it does not seem to be an issue of covenant, but an actual abomination to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T19:08:07.750" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T19:08:07.750" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19509" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19331" CreationDate="2013-10-02T15:03:57.030" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Spirit attachments would be spirits that attach themselves to a human life.  This was evidently more common or at least more identifiable during Jesus incarnation as reflected in the following gospel accounts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 8:16&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 10:1&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 3:11&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;And the unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out, saying, “You are the Son of God.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The following scripture provides insight into so called “spirit attachment” and how they work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 12:43-45&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;em&gt;“When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. “Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. “Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 5:13&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;And at once Jesus gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 8:2&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice these spirits seek residence or a host; evidently their wills can be exerted upon God’s creation more easily through a host.  Hosts are anything from Mary Magdalene to swine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Biblical behavioral modification comes through authority; Christ has supreme authority within this realm and His authority can be extended to His disciples. &#xA;Predominantly spirit manifestations are identifiable through the host’s behavior, but there are indications within the above verses that physical infirmities can also exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the abolition of superstition few attempt to reconcile the influence or even the viability of spiritual influences within our daily life.  Certainly Paul was not unaware of spiritual activity as proven in his Ephesians 6:11-13 warning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today, Christians have to negotiate between “realities”.  Christians believe in a “spirit” reality and that the “spirit reality” impacts our daily lives.  To deny this is to deny that the Holy Spirit is real and capable of influencing our daily lives toward God’s will.  Modern Christians also have the benefit of understanding neurological and circumstantial behavioral influences as well.  Faith, hope, peace and joy are real human encounters that generally cannot be dismissed through empirical observation.  Love of course is the most difficult reality to understand merely from this physical perspective. &#xA;The whole armor of God consists of: the shield of faith, which is always employed in the love of God.  When we trust God’s love the enemy of God stands condemned, for that is exactly what He failed to do.  We are to put on the helmet of salvation and carry the sword of the Spirit, which is Christ, made manifest.  This is revealed in the early verses of John, “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God…all things that have been created were created by Him…and the World became flesh and dwelt amongst us…&#xA;The waist must be girded by “truth” upon which the breastplate of righteousness rests.  Our feet should be prepared to bring the gospel of peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally in Ephesians 6:1 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-16T01:39:41.767" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T01:39:41.767" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19510" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19503" CreationDate="2013-10-02T16:16:29.507" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Who is Jesus petitioning here? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?  Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life.&lt;/em&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is petitioning His followers and urging them to seek first the Kingdom of God, which is found by grace through faith.   In John 4:23 we read: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“…true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him”.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If being a Christian assured one that they would not starve then Jesus would be saying something like: &quot;Do you not know that once I complete my work upon the cross you will become a Christian and as a result you will not be able to starve?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this is before the completed work on the cross one should question the viability of holding such a statement to a physical constraint and should not be directed to Christians only. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T18:00:14.623" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T18:00:14.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19511" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19512" CreationDate="2013-10-02T17:02:43.790" Score="7" ViewCount="307" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostiarius&quot;&gt;ostiarius&lt;/a&gt; was a person that guarded the church door to prevent unbaptized people from entering the church during the Eucharist. What ever happened to this role?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Relating to this subject, why do so many churches now have door greeters that actually welcome people (really anybody) into the church, &lt;em&gt;even during&lt;/em&gt; the Eucharist, including allowing the participation of such unbaptized individuals at the Eucharist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-10-17T11:27:10.223" LastActivityDate="2016-10-17T11:27:10.223" Title="What ever happened to the ostiarius?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19511" CreationDate="2013-10-02T17:38:45.423" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Porter,_doorkeeper&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ostiarius&lt;/a&gt; (or door keeper) evolved after the legalization of the church from existing Roman customs. While initially, (under church persecution) there was a need for protection from persecution, this did not become an official title until well after that need.  It became fashionable, however, to adopt the roman custom. Just about &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; good house would have had a &quot;bouncer&quot; so to speak.  As the church grew in the Middle Ages, and by fiat the entire populace was assumed to be Christian, the role itself became vestigal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The death knell for the ostiarious was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_ii&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Vatcian II&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To wit, Wikipedia says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The porter was not a part of Holy Orders administering sacraments but simply a preparatory job on the way to the Major orders: subdiaconate (until its suppression, after the Second Vatican Council by Paul VI), diaconate and the priesthood. Like the other minor orders and the subdiaconate, it is retained in Indult Catholic societies such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, Vatican II is often hitched with a view towards opening the doors to the common man.  The early church was a very open and flexible thing - Paul, for example, would say that he became &quot;all things to all men so that by any means I might save some.&quot;  Vatican II re-emphasized this, seeking to knock down &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; barriers that kept people from Jesus. Saying the mass in the venacular (as opposed to Latin), for example, was designed explicitly to knock down a barrier.  The ostiarious was literally one such symbol.&#xA;In general, the attitude of what the church is has shifted over the centuries.  In the Middle Ages, it was a powerful thing, and by its own admission, a self-selected elitist club.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The modernization and secularization of the culture has made this stance impossible to hold. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18671/if-ones-entry-into-the-church-is-solemnized-by-baptism-then-how-does-one-leave&quot;&gt;Like with excommunication, adding a bar to an voluntary organization is inherently counter-productive, but also not the point of the church in any event.&lt;/a&gt; Today, the metaphor now is more akin to the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19247/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-idea-that-the-church-is-a-hospital-for-sinner&quot;&gt;church as a hospital for wounded sinners&lt;/a&gt;.  All of this openness is, for many, simply a return to the model of the early church, and hence a Good Thing(TM).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T17:47:40.957" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19513" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19514" CreationDate="2013-10-02T17:42:46.397" Score="3" ViewCount="366" Body="&lt;p&gt;Original: Genesis 6:15, 'the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits': &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to King James Bible, Genesis 6:15, when the Lord told Noah to make an ark of gopher wood, He specified that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'&lt;em&gt;the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits&lt;/em&gt;'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans, Egyptians, Sumerians, and Persians at least all have different measurements for a &quot;cubit.&quot; Is there an explanation regarding how Noah known what God was talking about? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T16:35:02.657" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T16:35:02.657" Title="What 'cubit' did the Lord refer to in Genesis 6:15?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-10-05T21:50:26.387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19513" CreationDate="2013-10-02T17:52:45.603" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;cubit&lt;/a&gt; is a general form of measure - it is approximately the length of your arm, from the elbow to your finger.  As such, a cubit isn't specific to a &lt;em&gt;culture&lt;/em&gt;, it is specific to a man.  On average, 18 inches is a good approximation, but that can differ from person to person - for some people it might be 15&quot; for others, 21&quot;. The various cubits that you see reflect later legislative (and historians') attempts to &quot;standardize&quot; the measure.  The exactitude you look for in modern groups didn't exist then.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Robert Creese points out in his wonderful book &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B005LW5J94&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement&lt;/a&gt;, human based measures were never intended to match the precision we look for today.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/637/whats-the-origin-of-miles-and-yards&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cecil Adams points out that the 'mile' has varied in length over time as well&lt;/a&gt;. &quot;18 inches&quot; is specific. Cubits are not that specific. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, there are two good options to answer your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God was saying to Noah - &quot;Use your cubit.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God didn't care about the exact dimensions to the precision you are looking for.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And of course Narnian is right on when he points out that Persia, Rome, Sumer, and Egypt were hundreds of years &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; Noah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Incidentally, Creese specifically mentions that there are even different kinds of cubits - sacred cubits were 25 inches!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Indeed, Taylor said, the pyramid had been built to provide “the measure of the Earth” for humans. Furthermore, the unit used to measure the stones was the “sacred cubit” (about 25 inches) that had been used by God’s chosen people throughout the ancient world in their holy construction projects—Noah in his ark, Abraham in the tabernacle, and Solomon in the temple.7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Crease, Robert P. (2011-10-17). World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement (Kindle Locations 2295-2298). Norton. Kindle Edition. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-02T18:05:32.363" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T18:05:32.363" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19515" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19503" CreationDate="2013-10-02T18:23:57.520" Score="19" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/12/globalReligion-full.pdf&quot;&gt;95% Christian&lt;/a&gt;. The recent conflicts have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/22/us-congo-democratic-death-idUSL2280201220080122&quot;&gt;killed as much as 5.4 million people&lt;/a&gt;. A &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo&quot;&gt;summary of the details&lt;/a&gt; states,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;more than 90% were not killed in combat, dying instead from malaria,&#xA;  diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition, aggravated by displaced&#xA;  populations living in unsanitary and over-crowded conditions that&#xA;  lacked access to shelter, water, food and medicine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could argue that the death toll is wrong, and some people have done so. Or, one could argue that for the deaths that were due to malnutrition and starvation were only among the remaining 5% who weren't Christian. One could also argue that the statistic is inaccurate by saying that those who died weren't &lt;em&gt;real&lt;/em&gt; Christians. None of that seems convincing to me. At least one Christian died from hunger-related causes in that conflict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For individual, anecdotal cases, you may refer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_of_starvation&quot;&gt;this list&lt;/a&gt;. Perhaps none were Christian. &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Thomas_Johnson&quot;&gt;Thomas Johnson&lt;/a&gt; seems like one, but maybe forced starvation doesn't count? Granted, one can explain away individual cases all day, so I prefer the statistical answer, but sometimes both are useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My tongue-in-cheek comment, &quot;Has a Christian ever stubbed his toe?&quot; is intended as a joke (for which I meant no offense), but it's related to this issue. Coming from the same chapter as my glib (and probably bad) joke, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2091:3&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Psalm 91:3&lt;/a&gt; states,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you interpret verses that insist on God's protection and provision as being for our physical needs, you will only be right some of the time. Christians die from car accidents; Christians die from cancer; Christians die from starvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What did Jesus mean in Matthew 6? I'll suggest emphasis on his question in the last part of verse 25, &quot;Is not life more than food?&quot; Surely food is required for life, yes? He is not referring to physical food. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:35&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;John 6:35&lt;/a&gt;, I think this is more clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not claim that those who follow him would never go (physically) hungry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5917" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T18:23:57.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11691" CreationDate="2013-10-02T20:27:11.793" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before I can answer, I must clarify several terms that you are using incorrectly/ambiguously and define how I will approach this question. I also must begin with the disclaimer that I will be answering from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Eastern Orthodox vs. Oriental 'Orthodox' vs. Nestorianism&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nestorianism was condemned at the third and fourth ecumenical councils (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesus I&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Chalcedon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Chalcedon I&lt;/a&gt;), so calling them 'Orthodox' is incorrect. While some Eastern Orthodox Christians do lump Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox Christians together as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;monophysite churches&lt;/a&gt;, Oriental Orthodox Christians reject this label and distinguish themselves from Nestorians as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;miaphysite churches&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, the difference is that the latter accept only the first three ecumenical councils (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicaea I&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Constantinople I&lt;/a&gt;, &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ephesus I&lt;/a&gt;), while the former accept &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;seven ecumenical councils&lt;/a&gt;. There are some Eastern Orthodox Christians who consider the controversy between Oriental Orthodox and themselves to be primarily semantic (and some dialogue has been made in the 20th century to reunite the churches, but full communion has not yet been restored), but officially they are not considered to be 'Orthodox' (despite their use of the title) as they were condemned as heretical for rejecting the fourth ecumenical council (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Chalcedon&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, &lt;strong&gt;Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that they are the only Church that can rightly be called 'Orthodox,' and thus Nestorians and Oriental &lt;em&gt;Orthodox&lt;/em&gt; Christians are actually heterodox.&lt;/strong&gt; With that said, I will focus exclusively on defining some key differences between Eastern Orthodox Christians and Western Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Painting Western Christianity With Broad Brush Strokes&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Comparing Western Christians only to other Western Christians would be too broad to address in an answer on this site. Similarly, comparing Eastern and Western Christians will necessarily have to be even broader. For this reason, &lt;strong&gt;I must make a caricature of Western Christianity that will not fit all Western Christians at all times and in all places.&lt;/strong&gt; My apologies are extended to those of whom this caricature is not representative. It is also difficult since Western Christianity is extremely divided. For the sake of simplicity, I am lumping Roman Catholicism and Protestantism together (I am aware that many Protestants actually reject this label and consider themselves a separate division altogether, perhaps rightly so in the case of Anglicans - however in this response I will only recognize the two divisions as stated yet treat all of Western Christianity as one group).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some of the primary characteristics of Western Christianity (that stand in sharp distinction from Eastern Orthodox Christian views) that I will use to define it:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Western Christianity has assimilated much of Hellenistic philosophy/thought.&lt;/strong&gt; Oddly enough, the opposite charge is often made. However, close study of philosophy and history will reveal that Eastern Christians almost immediately began challenging Hellenistic philosophy and created a distinctly Christian philosophy, while due to historical and linguistic circumstances, much of Hellenistic thought and knowledge of the Greek language was lost in the West for some time and only rediscovered later, and was adopted uncritically by many theologians (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Scholasticism&lt;/a&gt;). For more information on this, please read Jaroslav Pelikan's outstanding work published through Yale University Press entitled &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0300062559&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;The implications of this point affect every other point of difference.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Western Christians believe that mankind has inherited some form of original sin from Adam and Eve that includes an inheritance of guilt.&lt;/strong&gt; There is a wide spectrum within Western Christianity concerning this issue, but generally it is held that man is depraved to some extent and will go to hell because of 'original sin' if one is not 'saved.' &lt;strong&gt;Death is thus viewed as a form of punishment inflicted on mankind because of sin, and 'hell' is a place of intentional, conscience punishment by God&lt;/strong&gt; (or complete separation from him, which is intended as a punishment).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Western Christians believe in a juridicial atonement, that is, God's wrath had to be propitiated by a perfect sacrifice: Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt; Western Christians generally believe that someone &lt;em&gt;has to be&lt;/em&gt; punished in order to satisfy divine justice. In other words, mankind deserves to be punished but Jesus gets punished for us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Western Christians discuss (forensic) soteriology as an isolated issue within theology (as distinct but related to anthropology, Christology and the theology of the Godhead), and focus on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;ordo salutis&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (which often defines the primary contentions between various Western Christian groups).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could go on but this will have to suffice (again, this is a &lt;em&gt;broad&lt;/em&gt; question).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Key Differences Between Eastern and Western Christianity&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the above definitions and considerations in mind, I offer the following &lt;em&gt;key&lt;/em&gt; differences. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, and they are all interrelated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Historically, culturally, and linguistically, the two churches have grown apart.&lt;/strong&gt; The churches grew apart for lots of historical reasons, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Great Schism&lt;/a&gt; was precipitated by numerous factors and made permanent by unfortunate conflicts (namely the Roman Catholic Church's decision to sack Constantinople, the seat of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, during &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the fourth Crusade&lt;/a&gt;). The East continued to mainly speak Greek until the 15th century, while the West soon forgot Greek and spoke mostly Latin and a mixture of other languages (but Latin remained the ecclesiastical language through the Reformation - and it still is within Roman Catholicism).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As previously stated, Western Christianity has assimilated much of Hellenistic philosophy/thought (largely uncritically). Conversely, Eastern Christians went through a long phase of assimilating, challenging, condemning, and modifying Hellenistic thought until a distinctly Christian philosophy emerged (largely attributed to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Fathers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Cappadocian Fathers&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/strong&gt; Fr. Alexandre Kalomiros explains this in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;his speech &lt;em&gt;The River of Fire&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paganism is ignorance of the true God, an erroneous belief that His&#xA;  creation is divine, really a god. This god, however, who is Nature, is&#xA;  impersonal, a blind force, above all personal gods, and is called&#xA;  Necessity (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananke_%28mythology%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ἀνάγκη&lt;/a&gt;).... The pagan gods are parts of the world,&#xA;  and they are immortal because of the immortality of nature which is&#xA;  their essence. In this pagan mentality, man is also god like the&#xA;  others, because for the pagans the real man is only his soul, and they&#xA;  believe that man's soul is immortal in itself, since it is part of the&#xA;  essence of the universe, which is considered immortal in itself and&#xA;  self-existent. So man also is god and a measure of all things....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is this pagan way of thought that was mixed with the Christian&#xA;  teaching by the various heresies. This is what happened in the West,&#xA;  too. They began to distinguish not between God and His creation, but&#xA;  between spirit and matter. They began to think of the soul of man as&#xA;  of something eternal in itself, and began to consider the condition of&#xA;  man after death not as a sleep in the hands of God, but as the real&#xA;  life of man, to which the resurrection of the dead had nothing to add&#xA;  and even the need of the resurrection was doubtful....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...they began to feel that God was subject to Necessity, to this&#xA;  rationalistic Necessity which was nothing else but human logic. They&#xA;  declared Him incapable of coming into contact with inferior beings&#xA;  like men, because their rationalistic, philosophical conceptions did&#xA;  not permit it, and it was this belief which was the foundation of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychast_controversy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the&#xA;  hesychast disputes&lt;/a&gt;; it had already begun with Augustine who&#xA;  taught that it was not God Who spoke to Moses but an angel instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is in this context of Necessity, which even gods obey, that we must&#xA;  understand the Western juridical conception of God's justice. It was&#xA;  necessary for God to punish man's disobedience. It was impossible for&#xA;  Him to pardon; a superior Necessity demanded vengeance. Even if God&#xA;  was in reality good and loving, He was not able to act lovingly. He&#xA;  was obliged to act contrary to His love; the only thing He could do,&#xA;  in order to save humanity, was to punish His Son in the place of men,&#xA;  and by this means was Necessity satisfied....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the triumph of Hellenistic thought in Christianity. As a&#xA;  Hellenist, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Origen&lt;/a&gt; had arrived at the same conclusions. God was a&#xA;  judge by necessity. He was obliged to punish, to avenge, to send&#xA;  people to hell. Hell was God's creation. It was a punishment demanded&#xA;  by justice. This demand of justice was a necessity. God was obliged to&#xA;  submit to it. He was not permitted to forgive. There was a superior&#xA;  force, a Necessity which did not permit Him to love unconditionally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, Origen was also a Christian and he knew that God was full of&#xA;  love. How is it possible to acknowledge a loving God Who keeps people&#xA;  in torment eternally? If God is the cause of hell, by necessity then&#xA;  there must be an end to it, otherwise we cannot concede that God is&#xA;  good and loving. This juridical conception of God as a instrument of a&#xA;  superior, impersonal force or deity named Necessity, leads logically&#xA;  to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocatastasis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;apokatastasis&lt;/a&gt;, &quot;the restoration of all things and the&#xA;  destruction of hell,&quot; otherwise we must admit that God is cruel....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So the loss of God's grace, which is eternal, spiritual death, in&#xA;  other words, hell, is in reality an act totally dependent on God. It&#xA;  is God Who is punishing these people by depriving them of His grace,&#xA;  by not permitting it to shine upon them. So God is the cause of the&#xA;  eternal, spiritual death of those who are damned. Damnation is an act&#xA;  of God, an act of God's justice, an act of necessity or cruelty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is far too much that could be said here, so I will allow the quote to stand. I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/The%20River%20Of%20Fire%20-%20Doctor%20Alexandre%20Kalomiros.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;reading the entire speech&lt;/a&gt;. Also, I know that the quote hits on a myriad of differences in worldview (which really must be understood before the differences can be understood, as many of the biases inherent in Western Christianity are part of the Western worldview itself), but this will have to suffice for now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, as it stands, I would expect a large number of Western Christian rebuttals to this point. However, please understand that without first studying the underlying thought, it is impossible to have constructive conversation about this (the East and West don't even use terms like 'faith', 'grace', or 'prayer' in the same way/meaning).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The two churches approach theology differently.&lt;/strong&gt; The East takes &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;an apophatic approach to theology&lt;/a&gt; while the West a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphatic_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;cataphatic&lt;/a&gt; one (this is somewhat of an unfair caricature as both groups take both approaches, and Eastern Orthodox generally balance both ways of doing theology - but again, these are broad caricatures). This represents a fundamental difference in how God may be approached intellectually. In the East, theology begins with the premise that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93Energies_distinction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God is unknowable in his essence, but we can encounter him through his energies&lt;/a&gt;. It is thus impossible for finite creatures to make cataphatic statements about their infinite Creator. Thus theology is something that the East &lt;em&gt;does,&lt;/em&gt; it is not an abstract field of study. The purity of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;nous&lt;/a&gt; that has been attained by the theologian is vital in the task of theology. Having advanced degrees and knowledge does not make one a theologian, but rather the one who prays is rightly called a theologian in the East, and his or her journey in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_%28Eastern_Orthodox_theology%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;theosis&lt;/a&gt; is directly proportional to his or her ability to 'understand'/'experience' theology, which is an encounter with God himself (as opposed to merely studying a topic; cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoria&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;theoria&lt;/a&gt;). The West largely approaches theology cataphatically &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;within a Scholastic framework.&lt;/a&gt; It would not be fair to deny that the West has had theologians in the Eastern sense of the word, but the West generally labels these individuals as 'mystics,' while in the East all theology is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism#Early_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;mystical&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The East views salvation as the &lt;em&gt;process&lt;/em&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_%28Eastern_Orthodox_theology%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;theosis&lt;/a&gt;, and thus the Incarnation is the central event in redemptive history. The West views salvation through a multitude of singular &lt;em&gt;events&lt;/em&gt; within the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ordo salutis&lt;/a&gt;, and the crucifixion is generally seen as the central event (although some Protestants would argue that the resurrection is the central event).&lt;/strong&gt; In Eastern Orthodoxy (as well as in Roman Catholicism and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergism_%28theology%29#Arminian_Protestantism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Arminian Protestantism&lt;/a&gt;), salvation is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergism_%28theology%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;synergistic&lt;/a&gt;, while in much of (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Calvinist-influenced&lt;/a&gt;) Protestantism it is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monergism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;monergistic&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The East believes that the central tenet of Western theology is that Western Christianity considers God to be the real cause of all evil - regardless of whether or not Western theologians acknowledge this position or not (some staunch Calvinists admit this).&lt;/strong&gt; Obviously many Western Christians would disagree. Eastern Orthodox Christians therefore have no need of justifying God (cf. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;theodicy&lt;/a&gt;). In Eastern Orthodoxy, evil is the estrangement from God who is life. Thus death is evil. However, most Western Christians teach that death is a punishment from God, although some Protestants consider death to be 'natural'. Either way, since God is the Creator of all things, the West necessarily believes that God is the real cause of death. They also apply this to the soul, so that God is also the cause of spiritual death for mankind (by punishing mankind in hell). As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Fr. Kalamiros explains&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The 'God' of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for&#xA;  the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to&#xA;  torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives&#xA;  an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride. What is the Western&#xA;  dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His&#xA;  pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it&#xA;  not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the&#xA;  salvation of some of us? What is salvation for Western theology? Is it&#xA;  not salvation from the wrath of God? Do you see, then, that Western&#xA;  theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our&#xA;  Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the&#xA;  hands of God!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer is necessarily incomplete. Asking about how the East and West differ in regards to specific doctrines or positions is a much more attainable goal. However, given the broad question, this is my best attempt at answering it. Also, this is certainly a biased answer as it represents an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Obviously a Western answer will differ considerably.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, to avoid the duplication of content and repeating myself, I did not address topics that I've answered on before in any depth. You may also wish to check out these responses of mine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/12287/1304&quot;&gt;Universalism in the Orthodox Church?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/13778/1304&quot;&gt;What is the ecclesiastical 'hierarchy' of the Eastern Orthodox Church?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16433/1304&quot;&gt;Is the Eastern Orthodox Church independent from regional governments?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15927/1304&quot;&gt;What happens with a soul after one's death according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15007/1304&quot;&gt;Who is a Christian according to the Russian Orthodox Church?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8339/1304&quot;&gt;How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6107/1304&quot;&gt;Is there a significant difference between salvation by faith with works and salvation by faith and works?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17559/1304&quot;&gt;How do Protestants in general respond to these points concerning them?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a great book that explains these differences in greater depth to those already well-versed in Western theology, check out James R. Payton's &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0830825940&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2015-08-29T06:13:28.097" CommentCount="21" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19480" CreationDate="2013-10-02T20:35:27.223" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Thanks be to God&quot; is the congregational response given after a &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0673.html#10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reading from the Bible&lt;/a&gt; in the Catholic mass.  Christians give thanks to God for revealing Himself to us through His Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastActivityDate="2013-10-02T20:35:27.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19520" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19500" CreationDate="2013-10-02T21:43:15.280" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Men's minister &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Louis_Cole&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Edwin Louis Cole&lt;/a&gt; used to say, &quot;Manhood and Christlikeness are synonymous.&quot; His point was that Jesus is our example in all things, including manhood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not saying that the picture of Jesus we have from the Bible tells us &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; about manhood, but rather that it gives us more insight into what manhood is really all about than any thing or anyone else. There are, of course, other great examples of manhood in the Bible - Abraham, Moses, David and other heroes of the faith - but none of them gets close to the perfection we see in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the difficulties with this view is that Jesus circumstances vary from ours in all sorts of different ways - he didn't marry or have a family for example. However, the principles that he taught (both through instruction and example) apply to all our situations. For example, his actions towards his disciples illustrate the kinds of behaviour he expects us to show our children. His directive to love others as ourself applies to our relationship with our wives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditDate="2013-10-04T09:01:43.743" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T09:01:43.743" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19523" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19560" CreationDate="2013-10-03T02:19:12.483" Score="6" ViewCount="798" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a former parish council member of a recently founded Catholic mission, I'm somewhat familiar with the  process of establishing a Catholic mission/church within the parameters of canon law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the process for establishing an Antiochian Orthodox mission?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(A) What are the requirements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(B) How many members are needed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(C) How is a priest assigned to the mission?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T22:29:06.257" Title="What are the requirements for establishing an Eastern Orthodox church or mission?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;canon-law&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19524" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19563" CreationDate="2013-10-03T02:27:10.863" Score="21" ViewCount="1084" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism&quot;&gt;Sedevacantism&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is the belief that the See of Rome is currently vacant; that is, there is no current Pope.  There are not very many people who believe it, but they do seem to be pretty vocal on the Internet. One thing that I don't understand about it is: What do they think &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; happen in the future in order to resolve the situation? (Of course, the non-sedevacantist majority don't think there's a situation to be resolved at all.) The bulk of what I've read consists of their detailed complaints about recent Popes, along with some wrangling about election procedures and the like; but I haven't seen much that's about the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that some of these groups have tried to elect their own Popes. Do they think that the global Church will/should come around to their position? Is there any kind of plan for how this might happen? Or are they content to remain as an elite minority while everybody else is condemned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ask partly because I have a sense that there is an eschatological dimension. The contemporary movement reminds me of the late mediaeval apocalyptic theory of an usurping pseudo-papal antichrist and his battle with the true Pope, this being one of the signs of the end of history. (See for example Bernard McGinn, &lt;em&gt;Apocalypticism and Church Reform 1100-1500&lt;/em&gt;, in vol. 2 of &lt;em&gt;The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism&lt;/em&gt;, 2000.) I have seen sedevacantists talking about the so-called &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes&quot;&gt;Prophecy of the Popes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, which has quite an end-of-the-world flavour. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-08-21T14:21:33.963" LastActivityDate="2018-08-21T14:21:33.963" Title="What is the endgame for sedevacantists?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;sedevacantism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19506" CreationDate="2013-10-03T10:20:33.430" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 22:5&#xA;English Standard Version&#xA;&lt;em&gt;“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But MIND you, this is from the Law.&#xA;we are no longer under the law so congratulations.&#xA;These laws were given to Jewish people and not to Gentiles.&#xA;So we don't need to follow it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a woman was asked to come for an interview for a business job and she was asked to dress smart. Will you say &quot;God said don't wear trousers for it is detestable to him&quot;?&#xA;Once again..you are imputing law into people's lives which causes them to stumble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it a sin to cross dress? No because if you are in Jesus Christ, you will live by Faith.&#xA;As Habakkuk said &quot;the just shall live by faith&quot; not the just shall live by law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears;&#xA;And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. &#xA;2 Timothy 4:3-4&#xA;This has nothing to do with The Law, which is a covenant, the first writer is correct, a man dressing as a woman is an ABOMINATION. It is not a New Testament/Old Testament Covenant issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6008" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2014-08-03T20:00:37.977" LastActivityDate="2014-08-03T20:00:37.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19530" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19503" CreationDate="2013-10-03T10:27:29.737" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do Not Worry&#xA;means you should not be worried about anything.&#xA;Right now in the economy, families are struggling because of bills and bad economy.&#xA;People are sacrificing their food just to pay bills and travel fares.&#xA;And what about ones with family? they need to starve just to feed their families.&#xA;If they don't eat how would they work? so should they use the remaining money to feed their family or themselves so they can continue to work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why Jesus said do not worry about it all.&#xA;For if you worry you will be doing overtime, begging for money, getting loan and having 2 jobs.&#xA;But by believing and just trusting in Jesus...he &lt;strong&gt;shall&lt;/strong&gt; surely make a way out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last month I was paid less and I thought, &quot;ok time to make sacrifices, i won't be going to a bible study on weds, and I won't pay my tithes because I need money to survive for the rest of the weeks till i get paid&quot;.&#xA;A work mate/brother said to me I had no faith, he was right so I totally committed everything to the Lord.&#xA;And yes the Lord got me through till I got paid, Is till paid my tithes but I did not attend the bible studies for reasons. the Lord allowed me to get money from someone and also being fed by others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6008" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T10:27:29.737" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19531" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19402" CreationDate="2013-10-03T10:35:39.180" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 17&#xA;English Standard Version (ESV)&#xA;An Oracle Concerning Damascus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;17 An oracle concerning Damascus.&#xA;Behold, Damascus will cease to be a city&#xA;    and &lt;strong&gt;will become a heap of ruins&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this the actual prophecy? I don't know.&#xA;But many of the prophecies in the Bible have all not yet been fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6008" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T10:35:39.180" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19321" CreationDate="2013-10-03T10:56:59.643" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;QUOTE&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It seems as if there are two salvation questions: Have you received&#xA;  God’s grace by faith, are you born anew with the Holy Spirit and as&#xA;  such a child of God’s? The second seems to be as a child of God’s and&#xA;  with the availability of the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God bearing&#xA;  out Jesus Christ through your life's work?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*There is only 1 salvation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*It is only by Father's mercy that we are saved. &quot;many are called but few are chosen&quot;. Don't forget about the Elects. For the chosen ones are the ones God had called from the beginning before the creation of the world.&#xA;Anyone who believes and trusts in Jesus Christ are all saved by faith and Grace&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Whoever is Born Again will get the Holy Spirit! If you are God's child, you have the Holy Spirit. For Father has imprinted on you a special seal, seal of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*The Holy Spirit is the guarantee that you will be saved and have eternal life. For the Holy Spirit resurrected Jesus Christ, the same Holy Spirit who gives us gift will also resurrect us when we die or at the end.&#xA;For if you have the Holy Spirit, you cannot curse Jesus or perform the Unforgivable sin.&#xA;read 1 Corinthians 12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Who ever is Born Again..even though is sinning &lt;strong&gt;will be&lt;/strong&gt; saved! For that is the Will of Jesus Christ. SO that whoever Father gives him, Jesus will not lose them!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*You don't need Baptism to be saved or get to heaven. It is just obedience and to show the world your faith in Jesus.&#xA;You will not receive the Holy Spirit after you are baptised. For you get the Holy Spirit the moment you are Born Again/Saved/Gave your life to Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Kingdom of God is within you. It is not a place, it's inside you. Jesus brings the Kingdom of God for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*we &lt;strong&gt;DO NOT&lt;/strong&gt; need to do any WORKS to get to heaven. All we have to do is just believe in Jesus Christ!&#xA;Jesus's blood has made us holy.&#xA;We CANNOT be holy.&#xA;If we cannot inherit salvation by ourselves&#xA;If we cannot please God by ourselves&#xA;If we cannot stop sinning by ourselves&#xA;If we cannot be made righteous by ourselves&#xA;If we cannot get to Heaven by ourselves&#xA;Why do people say we have to be Holy? Those things above can only be done by Jesus Christ, his blood and Holy Spirit. If so...then his blood has made us Holy!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Matt 7:21 is for the Jews.&#xA;They believed if they follow Moses Law and 10 commandments, they can get to Heaven. But they cannot. We can only do it with Jesus.&#xA;What is the Will of the Father?&#xA;Will of the Father is to believe in his Son&#xA;&lt;em&gt;John 6:40&#xA;For this is the will of my Father, &lt;strong&gt;that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.&lt;/strong&gt;”&lt;/em&gt;&#xA;You need to 24/7 always believe in Jesus...which is equivalent to Loving God with your mind, heart and strength.&#xA;loving God with all your mind, strength and heart is impossible. But just believing in Jesus is just like loving God with all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*1 corithians 3 is used by Catholics to justify Purgatory. This is not true!&#xA;What works is this? the works of the Holy Spirit, which is bearing fruits.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 21. Goes back to Matthew 13, Parable of the Sower. Of course only the good seeds will be the one to conquer and inherit all things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please understand there is no works involved in Christ Jesus.&#xA;All we have to do is believe in him and love everyone.&#xA;2 simple commandments.&#xA;1 John 3&#xA;&lt;em&gt;23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God,[d] and God[e] in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God bless!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6008" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T10:56:59.643" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19192" CreationDate="2013-10-03T11:22:02.683" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are 3 types of Heavens&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heaven 1- is the Sky&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heaven 2- is the Universe called Heavens&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heaven 3- is where God dwells&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the light God created was not physical light but actual light to see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;in a dark room, if you light a match, you will see the light of the match.&#xA;If God did not create light, even though you light a match, it will still be dark.&#xA;That is why God had to separate light from darkness, as you already know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;yes the Light that God has is different to our light, because we cannot approach God's light, it is too much to bare or handle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and God was not dwelling in Darkness.&#xA;If God is made of light, how can he dwell in darkness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;god bless&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6008" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T11:22:02.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19503" CreationDate="2013-10-03T11:55:18.613" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whenever you are interpreting Scripture, context must always be considered to avoid deriving the wrong meaning from it. In those verses quoted above (Matthew 6:25-34), notice that verse 25 begins with the word 'therefore', meaning that the statements about to be made are in reference to what has just been stated. In verse 24, Jesus had been speaking about how we cannot serve two masters. He was dealing with the issue of giving God priority and not being preoccupied with the things of this world. In verse 33 this point is clearly expressed when He says that we should seek God's Kingdom and righteousness first and all these things (the necessities of this world, including food and clothing) shall be added unto us. This means that our receiving provision for these things is predicated upon our fulfilling the condition of seeking the Kingdom first and His righteousness. It does not come automatically. So if a Christian is not meeting the requirements, that's the only time he can fail to see the results. God's promises always consist of two sections: our part and His part. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5976" LastEditorUserId="5976" LastEditDate="2013-10-03T15:55:55.320" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T15:55:55.320" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19537" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19485" CreationDate="2013-10-03T12:28:54.387" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We all have ways of justifying our actions, even when we know deep in our hearts they are neither biblical nor good for us.  We can rationalize almost any behavior, as if we're looking for loopholes and exceptions to God's clear commands.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have a friend (who is not a close friend, but a friend nevertheless) who claims to be a believer in Jesus Christ.  Let's call him Carl.  In recent years Carl has married a woman whom he knew to be trouble, with a capital T, from the get-go.  She and he even had pre-marital counseling in a Christian context.  In spite of godly counsel, they committed fornication and she became pregnant.  They married, and within a year, they divorced.  She went back to drug addiction and Carl was forced to care for the son who was born to them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fast forward ten years, and Carl has had a succession of girlfriends, with whom he has committed fornication.  In conversations with Carl, I've pointed him to scriptures that prohibit sexual sins, and since these girlfriends are not Christians, I've also warned him about being unequally yoked together with unbelievers.  His unbiblical behavior continues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Carl's latest rationalization is what I call the &quot;missionary relationship&quot; with an unbeliever.  In short, Carl believes that his relationship with a woman whom he knows is not a Christian is an opportunity to influence her for Christ.  Moreover, in his opinion, she keeps him in line, so to speak, and holds him accountable to a higher standard, knowing he claims to be a Christian.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Carl being a missionary in this situation?  Of course not!  If he is truly a Christian (and I have some doubts about this), will not God hold him responsible for his clear disobedience?  Of course He will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, I find it amazing how we all can rationalize our disobedience to God.  God, however, sees through our excuse-making, and He wants us to obey Him, but He will not force us.  Rather, God wants us to do the right thing, for three reasons:  1) because God says not to, and God knows best; 2) because we love God and want to please Him, even when we find it difficult to do so; and 3) because the world is watching us, and God wants us to be light in a dark world, which is impossible to do when there is willful darkness in our lives.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T12:28:54.387" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19524" CreationDate="2013-10-03T14:30:35.750" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you elect your own Pope you are called a Conclavist. Most sedevacantists think that the &quot;endgame&quot; is Judgment Day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why would anyone believe this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The real &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qs6A7MQu74&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3rd Secret of Fatima&lt;/a&gt; is about the apostasy of the heirarchy, additionally, Sister Lucia said it the end times were upon us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2_LeoXIII.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Full version of the Prayer to St. Michael&lt;/a&gt; composed by Pope St. Leo the Great indicates apostasy in Rome with the words:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most  holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they&#xA;have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the  iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may  be scattered.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is the message of Our Lady of LaSalette&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A counterfeit church is set up in the Book of Revelation (Whore of Babylon is the spiritual counterfeit of the Bride of Christ)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You've already mentioned the Prophecy of the Popes of St Malachi which ends with &quot;dreadful judge will judge his people. The End&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revelation 12:1 is talking about the The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima (which means in 1917 already we were pretty far into the Book of Revelation)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's quite a bit more interesting points that would be lost of the general reader like, the connection between the Maccabees, and the parallels between the first Antipope John XXIII and the modern one, the curse in Quo Primum on deviations of the Tridentine Mass, the parallel between the changes in the New Mass and Cranmer's changes, the significance of Apostolicae Curae in relation to the changes to the new rite of Ordination, the relationship of the 7 kings in Revelation and the new lines of kings created by the Lateran Treaty on February 11, 1929.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or are they content to remain as an elite minority while everybody&#xA;  else is condemned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is an uninformed question, since sedevacantists are active in proselytization of their views, meanwhile Antipope Francis refers to proselytization as &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mostholyfamilymonastery.com/n/?p=3535#.Uk2AfSSkqhs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Solemn Nonsense&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and just asserts that everyone should follow their own conscience, and the &quot;church&quot; should stop obsessing over abortion, gays, and contraception.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastEditorUserId="424" LastEditDate="2014-06-26T02:46:54.500" LastActivityDate="2014-06-26T02:46:54.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19548" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-03T17:02:35.043" Score="13" ViewCount="481" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two films, each called Pope Joan &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069110/&quot;&gt;one in 1972&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458455/&quot;&gt;one in 2009&lt;/a&gt; repeat an old legend about a female Pope.  What is the nature of this theory, and is there anything to substantiate it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6013" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-10-03T18:22:26.310" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T18:22:26.310" Title="What is the nature of the theory for Pope Joan and the evidence that substantiates it?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;legend&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19548" CreationDate="2013-10-03T17:11:59.520" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most scholars dismiss this is as fiction.  Indeed the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08407a.htm&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; brings up multiple variations on the story, each of which can be easily debunked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the most damning proof that this is a legend would stem from the fact that nobody - including enemies at the time - ever made such accusations. From Wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is also notable that enemies of the papacy in the 9th century make no mention of a female pope. For example, Photios I of Constantinople, who became Patriarch in 858 and was deposed by Pope Nicholas I in 863, was an enemy of the pope. He vehemently asserted his own authority as patriarch over that of the pope in Rome, and would have made the most of any scandal of that time regarding the papacy; but he never mentions the story once in any of his voluminous writings. Indeed, at one point he mentions &quot;Leo and Benedict, successively great priests of the Roman Church&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pardos/PopeJoanHome.html&quot;&gt;This book&lt;/a&gt; is a book dedicated entirely to dealing with all the variations on the story, and debunking each.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T17:11:59.520" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="252" CreationDate="2013-10-03T17:15:55.790" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The current Jewish canon did not arise until after the time of Christ. The Old Testament apocrypha were in the Greek translation of the Bible known as the Septuagint, which is older than any existing version of the Bible except for books found relatively recently among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The standard Hebrew version of the Bible that exists is much newer than the Greek version. The early church, like most Jews at the time, accepted the extra books as scripture, and so should Protestants.In fact, the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament that was read by New Testament authors. Rejecting the books written in Greek is just a current Protestant tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6014" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T17:15:55.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19551" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14727" CreationDate="2013-10-03T18:27:35.840" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am unsure whether other Christian philospohers have taken this farther, but I have heard several preachers say something of similar effect when talking about faith and believing. &#xA;They say that we don't understand then believe, we believe then we begin to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pro 9:10  The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;James' central argument in &quot;The Will to Believe&quot; hinges on the idea that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without evidence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is seen in scripture When God speaks to Moses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exo 3:12  And He said, I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you that I have sent you, when you bring out the people from Egypt: You shall serve God on this mountain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sign that it was indeed Him was the accomplished task. Moses had to believe then see.&#xA;Echoed in Romans 12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rom 12:2  And be not conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, in order to prove by you what is the good and pleasing and perfect will of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your transformation proves the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that to say there is more in scripture if you are looking to research that idea more. &#xA;Also you could look into Bill Johnson at Bethel in Redding CA. &#xA;Possibly Kris Vallotton from same. &#xA;I believe they were some that I heard speak on this idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6015" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-04T04:16:00.530" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T04:16:00.530" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19552" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="40192" CreationDate="2013-10-03T18:27:39.643" Score="14" ViewCount="27710" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/z8m2N.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is one of the consequences of the Pope Joan story, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/19548/1304&quot;&gt;whether it was true or false&lt;/a&gt;, the use of a marble chair with a large, toilet-like hole in its seat?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the picture above shows, it seems that that chair has been a part of the papal enthronement, when the pope-elect had to sit on the seat naked from the waist down while cardinals filed past, either peering or feeling to confirm his masculinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testiculos_habet_et_bene_pendentes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; (which is in Dutch; there is no English version), the cardinals said '&lt;em&gt;Testiculos habet et bene pendentes&lt;/em&gt;' in confirmation of the pope having passed the inspection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the truth of such a papal testing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2019-10-22T21:39:24.610" Title="Were the medieval popes examined on a toilet-lid-like chair to establish their masculinity?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19553" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9968" CreationDate="2013-10-03T19:42:38.010" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in annihilation?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A.&lt;/strong&gt; Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We whole heartedly believe in what is stated under divine inspiration of God's holy spirit found at &lt;strong&gt;2 Thessalonians 1:6-10&lt;/strong&gt; and 2 &lt;strong&gt;Peter 3:7&lt;/strong&gt;... and I quote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for YOU, 7 but, to YOU who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 &lt;strong&gt;These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of EVERLASTING &lt;em&gt;DESTRUCTION&lt;/em&gt; from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength&lt;/strong&gt;, 10 at the time he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder in connection with all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among YOU.&quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~ 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment &lt;strong&gt;AND OF &lt;em&gt;DESTRUCTION&lt;/em&gt; OF THE UNGODLY MEN&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~2 Peter 3:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, contrary to popular but highly erroneous belief, we who are members of the unified worldwide Christian congregation of Jehovah's most certainly DO in fact firmly believe in Hell / Sheol / Hades / The Grave as it's stated numerous times within God's Word the Bible. However, we DON'T believe that Hell / Sheol / Hades / The Grave is a place of everlasting literal fiery torment that God Almighty sends the wicked to roast forever. In short, we believe that the Bibles teaching on what Hell / Sheol / Hades / The Grave truly is, is VERY different from what the overwhelming vast majority of the Churches of Christendom are and have been teaching people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, by the use of God given reasoning skills and God's Word the Holy Bible, we find that both Adam &amp;amp; Eve were created &lt;strong&gt;PERFECT&lt;/strong&gt; when God made them (Gen 1:31; Deuteronomy 32:4), they were &lt;em&gt;flawless&lt;/em&gt; as far as Jehovah God was concerned regarding His standards for humans.  When Adam &amp;amp; Eve of their own God given free-will chose to defy God and take of the forbidden fruit, they became &lt;strong&gt;IMPERFECT&lt;/strong&gt; (no longer met up to God's perfect standard in human beings) &lt;em&gt;and through Adam &lt;strong&gt;ALL of us humans&lt;/strong&gt; inherit sin, sickness and death&lt;/em&gt; (Romans 3:23, 5:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's the point... Where &lt;em&gt;in scripture&lt;/em&gt; did Jehovah God &lt;strong&gt;eternally&lt;/strong&gt; send Adam to as his punishment for &lt;strong&gt;DELEBERATELY&lt;/strong&gt; sinning against God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind also that what Adam did &lt;strong&gt;was not a mistake&lt;/strong&gt; *&lt;em&gt;because he knew exactly what he was doing&lt;/em&gt;*, he wasn't &lt;em&gt;deceived&lt;/em&gt; / fooled into eating the forbidden fruit as his wife Eve had been (&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 2:14&lt;/strong&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;through&lt;/em&gt; our ancient forefather &lt;strong&gt;Adam&lt;/strong&gt; that sin and death entered the world and is passed on to we who are of the human race and therefore by reason of necessity and JUSTICE, &lt;em&gt;whatever Adam received as his punishment&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;we who are from Adam receive &lt;em&gt;the exact same punishment&lt;/em&gt; passed on to us and our children as the inheritance of Sin&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of E′den to cultivate it and to take care of it. 16 And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it &lt;strong&gt;YOU WILL POSITIVELY DIE&lt;/strong&gt;.”&quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~ Genesis 2:15-17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And to Adam he said: “Because &lt;em&gt;you listened to your wife’s voice&lt;/em&gt; and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘&lt;strong&gt;You must not eat from it&lt;/strong&gt;,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 And thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread &lt;strong&gt;until you &lt;em&gt;return to the ground&lt;/em&gt;, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are &lt;em&gt;and to dust you will return.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;”&quot;&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;~ Genesis 3:17-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than a fiery place of torture / torment, Adam was sentenced &lt;em&gt;back to the dust from whence he was created from&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;he returned back to being non-existent&lt;/strong&gt;. That's what the Bible also shows happens to we who are his sinful descendants. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks to Almighty Jehovah God through Christ there has been made a glorious way out of this otherwise hopeless condition! Again though... That's for another topic. ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE:&lt;/strong&gt; I am a dedicated and baptized member of the worldwide unified Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5773" LastEditorUserId="5773" LastEditDate="2013-10-04T07:37:22.587" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T07:37:22.587" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19555" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-03T20:46:22.927" Score="0" ViewCount="6261" Body="&lt;p&gt;I often hear people saying that God doesn't like the handicapped etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What evidence is there in the Bible that suggests this? Of course there must be somewhere in the Bible that either directly suggests this or insinuates it enough for people to come to this conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what mentions are there in the Bible that are related to the handicapped - I'm mainly looking for negative quotes but the good won't go amiss.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1666" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-18T15:14:30.070" LastActivityDate="2015-09-18T15:14:30.070" Title="Why do people say that God denounces the handicapped in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;disabilities&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2014-01-31T20:53:48.343" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19555" CreationDate="2013-10-03T21:15:48.610" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Disclaimer: I wholly reject this view, but I can offer citations as to the reason. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way in which people have claimed that, as you say, God denounces the handicapped in the Bible, is to say that the portions of the bible should be set aside because they provide an &quot;anti-disability bias&quot;. It all revolves around the numerous stories of Jesus healing people in the Gospels. Here is evidence of one such writer making the claim.  In this interview, the writer sees two problems: 1) the idea that Jesus healed anyone shows God loves people less in their disability. If he loved disabled, he could have loved them in their disability; and 2) the idea that Jesus must have passed by 250 sick persons for every one he healed shows he doesn't care about everyone.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gracematters.org/2008listen.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;January 13, 2008 — Jim Autry – Rethinking Miracle Stories&lt;/a&gt; episode of this program, once billed &quot;the radio ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jim Autry is a former Fortune 500 business executive, a leadership consultant, poet and author. But he is something else too. He is the loving father of an autistic son. Raising this son has caused Autry to read the healing miracles of Jesus in a way that might surprise many conventional or orthodox Christians. If you are wondering whether or not to believe in miracles, and whether they might be pointing to something larger, this program is for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T21:15:48.610" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19557" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19555" CreationDate="2013-10-03T21:16:59.140" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You may be referring to the fact that descendants of Aaron were disqualified from being priests if they had any defect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the Lord’s offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God.  Leviticus 21:21 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this was not the only thing that would disqualify someone.  In fact, 11 out of the 12 tribes were disqualified from the start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the fact that some were disqualified for physical defects did not mean that God denounced them or did not love them--they were still a part of His covenant.  It merely indicated that they were not qualified for a particular office.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I don't know if that was that basis for what you heard or not.  If you find the references, please let us know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T21:16:59.140" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19558" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19555" CreationDate="2013-10-03T21:29:56.253" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;That will depend on who you ask. Probably the most commonly cited passage in scripture is in Leviticus 21:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  The L&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ORD&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; said to Moses:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Say to Aaron: None of your descendants, throughout their generations, who has any blemish shall come forward to offer the food of his God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Anyone who has any of the following blemishes may not come forward: he who is blind, or lame, or who has a split lip, or a limb too long,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  or a broken leg or arm,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  or who is a hunchback or dwarf or has a growth in the eye, or who is afflicted with sores, scabs, or crushed testicles.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such blemish may draw near to offer the oblations of the L&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ORD&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;; on account of his blemish he may not draw near to offer the food of his God.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  He may, however, eat the food of his God: of the most sacred as well as sacred offerings.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Only, he may not enter through the veil nor draw near to the altar on account of his blemish; he shall not profane my sacred precincts, for it is I, the L&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;ORD&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;, who make them holy.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Moses, therefore, told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Leviticus 21, NAB&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This passage forbids Aaron and his descendants (who were given priestly responsibilities) from approaching God if their bodies were blemished in certain ways. Some of these blemishes would permanently deny this aspect of the priesthood to those people who had them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;permanent blindness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;permanent lameness&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;dwarfism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;uneven limbs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;crushed testicles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage does not specifically identify the reason that God considers these blemishes to profane the altar of the temple. As far as this passage goes, “God doesn’t like the handicapped” is only an interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="925" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T21:29:56.253" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19560" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19523" CreationDate="2013-10-03T22:29:06.257" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Firstly, you will need your Bishop's approval. However, before that (sorry if that is ironic), you will need to make sure that you have enough people in the area who would like to be in a mission. Enough people? Hmm...&#xA;Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=3330.0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; that has some info. Quoting from it (member David):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Here is how most OCA missions have been established in our diocese for the last twenty years or so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Secure a core group to explore starting a mission (usually 2-5 families/individuals) that are Orthodox&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Contact your bishop, letting him know of your desire to start a mission in your area.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If the bishop approves, he will give you permission to start holding reader's services.  Perhaps one or more of the starting members will be tonsured a reader if a member in good standing at their last parish.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Once you have secured a place to meet and have had reader's services for a month or two, the local dean and/or bishop will arrange to have supply priests hold a liturgy at the mission at least once a month.  At this point the mission usually receives it's name.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;After showing enough growth that demonstrates that the community has the potential to evangelise their local area and support a priest and his family either a priest will be assigned to the mission or one of the mission families will go to seminary.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really, though, this type of question should be asked of a Priest (or Bishop :)), not of online strangers... :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastActivityDate="2013-10-03T22:29:06.257" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19561" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-03T23:04:10.143" Score="4" ViewCount="15913" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/3.13?lang=eng#10&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:13&lt;/a&gt; (King James Version) we read that Eve was &quot;beguiled&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this context, what does &quot;beguiled&quot; mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not so much looking for a linguistic explanation. I have looked up the definition and etymology of the word &quot;beguile&quot; and see that there are many different meanings for the word (to charm; fascinate; to delude; influence by slyness; deceit, wile, fraud, ruse, trickery; sorcery, witchcraft).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really want to understand what it means that Eve was beguiled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4278" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-31T14:15:32.237" LastActivityDate="2018-04-13T07:26:55.613" Title="What does it mean that Eve was beguiled?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19524" CreationDate="2013-10-03T23:11:37.353" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are, unfortunately, numerous sedevacantist groups that disagree with each other. As indicated in the question, there are some that have tried to elect their own popes. There are also the Feeneyites, particularly associated with Most Holy Family Monastery, who deny the doctrines of baptism of desire (and, I believe, also of baptism of blood).  For another viewpoint, one with which I agree, I strongly recommend that you look at some of the material at the web site &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.traditionalmass.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.traditionalmass.org/&lt;/a&gt; and particularly the link &quot;Key Issues&quot;.  You might also listen to some of the sermons at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org&lt;/a&gt; particularly those of Bishop Sanborn.  (You'll be able to tell from the titles which ones are relevant to your question about sedevacantism and which ones are general Catholic doctrine).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One example of how these groups could see the issue resolving is  Bishop Sanborn's position, which is essentially that the &lt;em&gt;administrative&lt;/em&gt; structure of the Catholic Church continues, despite heresy, so that the modernist popes have valid elections (and the cardinals valid appointments) but are impeded from having the authority of the papacy by their lack of the Catholic faith. So the crisis would be ended if one of these popes were to abjure heresy and profess the Catholic faith (and, I suppose, receive ordination and episcopal consecration in traditional rites).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-06-26T06:27:11.900" LastActivityDate="2014-06-26T06:27:11.900" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19564" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8333" CreationDate="2013-10-04T00:30:02.703" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are 23 different types of Catholic Christians. What most call Roman Catholic are actually Latin Rite Catholic while the Eastern Orthodox are made up of the rest of the 22. I'm what you call Latin Rite but the Eastern Rites are older.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6022" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T00:30:02.703" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19567" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19561" CreationDate="2013-10-04T05:56:28.710" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eve when she ate of the tree of good and evil instantly became aware of the sin of disobedience and she knew she was in trouble with God when He asked her what she had done.  She realizing now what the guilt of sin was, blamed the serpent who truly was the great deceiver he is.  Her reply &quot;He beguiled me.&quot;  He tricked me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5409" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T05:56:28.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19568" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19578" CreationDate="2013-10-04T08:29:37.123" Score="2" ViewCount="10249" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is biblical view on curiosity? Is curiosity sin and therefore impossible for God?&#xA;One reference is rom.10:17 that tells that first proclaiming the gospel, hearing it and faith cometh, but before that you need to have curiosity or need aroused through advertisement by the media or what?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastEditorUserId="4380" LastEditDate="2013-10-04T08:37:07.060" LastActivityDate="2018-05-01T03:11:16.137" Title="What is biblical view on curiosity?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2015-10-16T07:48:00.107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19569" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19568" CreationDate="2013-10-04T09:52:18.100" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only bit I can think of curiosity is with Uzzah.&#xA;I think curiosity can be a good and a bad thing.&#xA;Uzzah was carrying the Ark of the Covenant, he tripped over and he was warned not to look inside.&#xA;Because of curiosity, he did look inside and God had to smite him down and he died.&#xA;He was commanded not to look and he listened to his curiosity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+6&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Samuel 6 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  5 And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the Lord, with songs[c] and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. 6 And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God. 8 And David was angry because the Lord had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzzah[d] to this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is just like hearing the Gospel for the first time. I hear different testimonies of people saying they were searching for Jesus and wanted to know who he was, until they found him or he allowed them to be seen (not his image).&#xA;Because the Word does said &quot;you will search me and find me&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the conclusion:&#xA;curiosity can be a good thing if you hear the Gospel and want to know who Jesus is. Or you're a Christian and want to keep researching what something in the bible or someone said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;curiosity can be a bad thing, if you were warned and commanded not to do this/that or that is wrong. You may have curiosity to find out what it is and essentially you will sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also goes back to Garden of Eden, when Eve was deceived by the snake, she would think &quot;why didn't God want us to eat the fruit but said we would die, why?&quot;&#xA;the reason for her curiosity is WHY&#xA;same way Uzzah wondered Why should we not look inside the Ark? WHY? what's inside?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Bless&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6008" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-10-04T15:44:01.170" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T15:44:01.170" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19572" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19568" CreationDate="2013-10-04T12:17:16.673" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is the creator, and He creates with purpose.  Curiosity is a feature of eternal design that God uses to compel mankind.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%204%3A23-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 4:23,24 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%206%3A45&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 6:45 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Curiosity, wonderment is contemplation or a consideration born from the heart of man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012%3A34&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 12:34 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The human heart holds our personal economy (the things that matter most).  When young lovers first encounter one another, curiosity naturally encourages discovery, discovery of a deeper love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is especially true in regard to God.  God designed the human heart to esteem Him and naturally we should be curious about God and His will for our life.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2018-05-01T03:11:16.137" LastActivityDate="2018-05-01T03:11:16.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5151" CreationDate="2013-10-04T14:15:06.373" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suspect a very influential factor is how Christianity was linked to Korean nationalism in opposition of the Japan occupation and the effort to eradicate Korean culture. I've read other analysis of this, but wikipedia puts it fairly succinctly as: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;One of the most important factors leading to widespread acceptance of Christianity in Korea was the identification that many Christians forged with the cause of Korean nationalism during the Japanese occupation (1910–1945). During this period, Japan undertook a systematic campaign of cultural assimilation. There was an emphasis on Showa, so the Koreans would revered the Japanese emperor. In 1938, even use of the Korean language was prohibited.[16] However, the distinctly Korean nature of the church was reinforced during those years by the allegiance to the nation that was demonstrated by many Christians. While the subsequent constitution of South Korea guarantees freedom of religion as well as separation of church and state, the South Korean government has been favorable to Christianity, regarding the religion as an ideological protection against Communism.&#xA;  On 1 March 1919, an assembly of 33 religious and professional leaders known as the &quot;March 1 Movement&quot; passed a Declaration of independence. Although organized by leaders of the Chondogyo religion, 15 of the 33 signatories were Protestants[17], and many of them were imprisoned. Also in 1919, the predominantly Catholic pro-independence movement called &quot;Ulmindan&quot; [18] was founded, and a China-based government-in-exile was at one time led by Syngman Rhee, a Methodist.[19]&#xA;  Christianity was linked even more with the patriotic cause when some Christians refused to participate in worship of the Japanese Emperor, which was required by law in the 1930s.[20][21] Although this refusal was motivated by theological rather than political convictions, the consequent imprisonment of many Christians strongly identified their faith, in the eyes of many Koreans, with the cause of Korean nationalism and resistance to the Japanese occupation. Catholics and Methodists complied with demands to attend Shinto ceremonies.[24]&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a validation of this is to see how Christianity is actually practiced in S. Korea, is it as the Bible teaches to have concern for others or is it more ethno-centric and/or concern only for your family? Is being Christian more a country club membership than changing the way you live?  Of course there will be genuine Christians, but the question is about the majority? Would be good to hear some firsthand accounts of what Christianity means to a cross-section of Christians there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6026" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-04T17:25:52.557" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T17:25:52.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19575" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-04T14:27:52.610" Score="2" ViewCount="2665" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a two-part question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First: Throughout the Old Testament we read of the “imagination of the heart” and in Genesis 6:5 “imagination of the thoughts of the heart”.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In an earlier question “curiosity” was singled out and I wonder if there are any historical Church teachings that link the imagination of the heart with Holy curiosity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly: Are their any Christian teachings as to why God gave man an imagination?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T11:20:25.437" Title="Why did God give man an imagination?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2015-01-05T20:21:32.247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19568" CreationDate="2013-10-04T15:38:04.247" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is omniscient; He knows everything. Curiosity spawns from a lack of knowledge, therefore, God cannot be curious by logical extension.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mankind, however, certainly is curious; we do not have to make that point. But does the Bible condone curiosity? I would think it does:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20143&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 143:5 NIV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I meditate on all your works&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and consider what your hands have done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Curiosity is a strong desire to learn about something. We see in this particular Psalm a strong desire to understand God and His work and Creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Naturally, curiosity can lead you astray, such as the example with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prodigal Son&lt;/a&gt;. The young man tells his father to give him his inheritance then immediately sets off to see what is in the world. We know what that got him; he was soon broke and stranded far from home with no one to help him. Curiosity led him to sin against his father and to make poor life decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-10-04T18:06:20.427" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T18:06:20.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19482" CreationDate="2013-10-04T16:29:01.500" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity does not claim or recommend any color for funerals. The bible does not claim or recommend any color for funerals. Wear whatever you want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If anything, Christianity might teach to &lt;em&gt;avoid&lt;/em&gt; traditional wear at funerals, whatever the local tradition may be. Funeral wear, such as Western black, is generally seen as a sign of &lt;em&gt;mourning&lt;/em&gt;. While we may mourn the fact that those who remain behind are for a time denied the company of the deceased, if the individual was a believer this should be an occasion of ultimate triumph for that person. &quot;To live is Christ. To die is gain.&quot;, and thus such outward signs of mourning could deny our hope for the deceased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="258" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T16:29:01.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19581" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19568" CreationDate="2013-10-04T16:38:18.053" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is curiosity a sin? Not according to the thinking minds of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arnold Edinborough:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Curiosity is the very basis of education and, if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Albert Einstein:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.... Never lose a holy curiosity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians are encouraged in sermon, song, and literature to &quot;only believe&quot;. But which is better?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A mind closed by belief?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A mind opened by curiosity?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5099" LastActivityDate="2013-10-04T16:38:18.053" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14282" CreationDate="2013-10-04T20:24:25.647" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that it would not make much sense for the four living creatures to represent the four evangelists, considering John was one of the four, and John was the one looking into heaven to witness these four living creatures. Why would John be represented in heaven during his own vision? I think that places the importance of John on a higher level than it should.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe the four creatures represent all of creation: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lion - wild animals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ox - tamed animals&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Man - humans&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Eagle - birds&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6034" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-05T15:32:08.190" LastActivityDate="2013-10-05T15:32:08.190" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19585" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-04T20:34:23.170" Score="19" ViewCount="1070" Body="&lt;p&gt;William Blake's preface to &lt;em&gt;Milton&lt;/em&gt;, commonly called &lt;em&gt;Jerusalem&lt;/em&gt; and set to a famous hymn tune by Hubert Parry, questions whether the child Jesus might have visited England.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And did those feet in ancient time&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Walk upon England's mountains green:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And was the holy Lamb of God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  On England's pleasant pastures seen!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This apparently refers to an old tradition, not originated by Blake, that Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus to Glastonbury; after the crucifixion, Joseph returned, possibly carrying the Holy Grail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether this actually happened is not my question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I would like to know is: what is the origin of the &lt;em&gt;story&lt;/em&gt;? &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glastonbury&quot;&gt;According to Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_Boron&quot;&gt;Robert de Boron&lt;/a&gt; wrote about Joseph and the Grail, but it does not mention if he wrote about an earlier visit by Jesus himself. So how and when did the &lt;em&gt;story&lt;/em&gt; get started?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2017-04-12T21:20:04.730" LastActivityDate="2017-04-12T21:20:04.730" Title="Did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green? (Origin of the story)" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6702" CreationDate="2013-10-05T00:55:28.410" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Miracles are only miracles until you understand them  God does not have to break physical laws...he just has to understand them and know how to use them.  A lot of the time instead of a physical miracle he can apply a &quot;spiritual&quot; miracle.  Take the place where he fed a large crowd with a few fish.  I always believed that the fish was there, but the people that had it were too selfish to share...leaving a lot of people with no food.  By having someone give what he had it evolved into the selfish people coming out of their shells and helping out.  I love those parts of the New Testament, because to me the miracle is not Christ showing what he can do for us, but what we can do for each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6039" LastActivityDate="2013-10-05T00:55:28.410" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19593" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19611" CreationDate="2013-10-05T07:14:53.440" Score="3" ViewCount="214" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Peter believers are represented as a Priesthood that 'offer spiritual sacrifices'. Assuming that they can't be for expiation as only Christ was worthy to offer his own soul for that (represented by animal blood in the OT) what sort of sacrifices are these?:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to &lt;strong&gt;offer spiritual sacrifices&lt;/strong&gt; acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (ESV, 1 Peter 2:4-5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I used a technical word that seems to require a definition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Expiation definition&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Guilt is said to be expiated when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. Expiation is made for our sins when they are punished not in ourselves but in another who consents to stand in our room. It is that by which reconciliation is effected. Sin is thus said to be &amp;quot;covered&amp;quot; by vicarious satisfaction. The cover or lid of the ark is termed in the LXX. hilasterion, that which covered or shut out the claims and demands of the law against the sins of God's people, whereby he became &amp;quot;propitious&amp;quot; to them. The idea of vicarious expiation runs through the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices. (Bible Dictionary)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T11:56:31.840" Title="Under a Protestant perspective what sort of ‘sacrifices’ as a symbolic priest can a believer perform within the ‘priesthood’ of all believers?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;priesthood&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19575" CreationDate="2013-10-05T12:56:44.407" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;A key verse in regard to the imagination is 2 Corinthians 10:5”:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The imagination allows us to see what is physically unseeable.  The imagination is to be given to truth (Christ) not to the Father of lies (Satan). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 8:17,18 …have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast the imagination has been so overrun with un-truth that we associate the imagination with fiction.  We tell our children “you were just imagining that” and believe an overactive imagination is to blame.  God equipped man with an imagination so that man might be able to see things of eternal substance, in order to comprehend His eternal reality.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth in our imaginations are critical to our relationship with God; the problem is our imaginations have become slums neglected and ignored because we have convinced ourselves that it is the residence of superstition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the soul’s battlefield is within the imagination of the heart.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Chronicles 29:18 “O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-10-07T11:20:25.437" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T11:20:25.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19593" CreationDate="2013-10-05T15:26:55.507" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand your question, you seem to be confused about orders in the priesthood and if one priest is more qualified than another to offer Sacrifice. As I read the book of Exodus and Leviticus, God only had Moses divide the priesthood into two sections, that of a priest and that of a High priest. As far as I can determine from Moses writing the only difference between the two is that the High Priest only could enter into the presence of God(the Holy of Holies in which was the Mercy seat). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were differences in the functions of the priest, but all had a part, that is a different function in the ceremony of sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your question assumes that you or another, can present an acceptable sacrifice to God. As far as sin is concerned no other sacrifice is needed, or can be offered since that sacrifice requires a sinless offering. Only Jesus  could have and did be that offering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far a sacrifice for sin Goes, I refer you to the following Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:12  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:13  From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 10:14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is only one other sacrifice in the new Testament that we have the opportunity to offer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:15  By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-05T15:26:55.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4126" CreationDate="2013-10-05T20:49:31.560" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;They wanted to get Jesus in trouble with them (disregarding Moses' Law) or with the Roman government -- or both, if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adulterers were to be put to death, but the Law required two witnesses minimum to prosecute and convict before executing -- or at least two witnesses to cast the first stones (Deut 17:7).  I'm not sure how easily the adultery was proven.  Note that the man involved in the adultery was not recorded as being brought to Jesus, only the woman.  It's possible that the law-professors set up the adultery situation themselves, laying a stumbling block in her path in order to lay a different one in Jesus' path.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6044" LastActivityDate="2013-10-05T20:49:31.560" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19552" CreationDate="2013-10-06T06:29:23.453" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;On a historical note, as with Pope Joan story, this too never happened. These the two myths became connected in a well circulated rumor which what eye-witnesses to medieval papal coronations believed they were watching. The result was the often repeated report of a public rite &lt;strong&gt;always seen by others, never by the narrator&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Pope Joan story is not true, then this ritual(?) will not be necessary at all. Because at any point no one would have doubted the masculinity of a Cardinal. But even if Pope Joan story is true, there are other better ways to make sure that the pope-elect is a man like pulling his beard etc., Even if it was done, there is no necessity to do it in public. Just like the conclave, it could have been done in private, which would make it impossible to be known to the outside world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that the Wikipedia article that you have cited has no reliable reference. The oldest surviving version of the story is from the mid-13th century, believed to be propagated by the followers of a cult of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Guglielma&quot;&gt;Saint Guglielma&lt;/a&gt;. Interestingly these followers had their own &quot;pope&quot; too. It is said that they were spreading these rumors to invalidate the catholic papacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T06:29:23.453" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19593" CreationDate="2013-10-06T11:56:31.840" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best place to look for an answer to how Lutherans would view the 1 Peter passage on sacrifices is to look at the section on &lt;a href=&quot;http://bookofconcord.org/defense_23_mass.php#para19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Defense of the Augsburg Confession on sacrifice.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;19] Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;25] Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3:1f.; 7:11f.; Ps. 56:12f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints, yea, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the remission of sins or reconciliation. For they are made by those who have been reconciled. 26] And such are the sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches, 1 Pet. 2:5: An holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human works offered ex opere operato, because spiritual refers to the movements of the Holy Ghost in us. Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12:1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, which is your reasonable service. Reasonable service signifies, however, a service in which God is known, and apprehended by the mind, as happens in the movements of fear and trust towards God. Therefore it is opposed not only to the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain, but also to a service in which a work is imagined to be offered ex opere operato, The Epistle to the Hebrews 13:15, teaches the same thing: By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; and he adds the interpretation, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. He bids us offer praises, i.e., prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These avail not ex opere operato, but on account of faith. This is taught by the clause: By Him let us offer, i.e., by faith in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T11:56:31.840" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19612" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-06T12:45:52.467" Score="2" ViewCount="141" Body="&lt;p&gt;During the New Testament era were the political and religious interests of the Pharisees closely aligned with the Herodians? Or did the nationalistic elements of Phariseeism make them allies? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-04T15:31:27.147" LastActivityDate="2015-09-04T15:31:27.147" Title="What evidence is there that the Herodians were distinct from mainstream Phariseeism?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;israel&gt;&lt;pharisees&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19613" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-10-06T13:45:53.057" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've recently come to consider the possibility that maybe a person who truly loves others as Jesus urged them to, will go to heaven. Now I know how heretical that sounds, but here me out. I don't think that what Jesus said in versus like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16-18&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;john 3:16-18&lt;/a&gt; was wrong, I just think we've misunderstood due to inadequate translation and over simplified popular teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An explanation of the ins an outs of why i think that, would take to many words for one comment, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.judeochristianity.org/hell.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; covers most of the points for it. Its really worth a read and gives really logical evidence that is based in scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I dont agree with all of it, for example it tries to suggest that deeds are what bring salvation, where i would argue that love and God's forgiveness through Jesus does. However, it does makes some good points that are relevant to your situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Here is a excerpt:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the references connecting the punishment of hell to the failure to accept the Christian faith come from the Gospel of John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems pretty clear. But the impression most people have of these verses is based on a mistranslation. One must go back to the original Greek. The Greek word translated “condemned” really means “judged.” In addition, the word translated “believe” really means “to have faith,” which is a much richer idea than the narrow English word “believe.” This is how the passage should be translated:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten Son, so that all who have faith in him may not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world that he might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Those who have faith in him are not judged; but those who do not have faith are already judged, because they did not have faith in the name of the only begotten Son of God.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not have to speculate about what this “judgment” means, or to read into it damnation to an everlasting hell. The Bible itself tells us what it means, and in the very next verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God. (John 3:19-21)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this passage the word “judgment” is from exactly the same Greek root as the word in the previous passage usually translated as “condemned.” We are told what the judgment (“condemnation”) is, and it has nothing to do with an everlasting fiery hell. It has to do with loving darkness rather than light, trying to hide from the light, and doing evil deeds. Yes, there is a judgment and there is an accounting, but it is not connected to a hell that never ends and that leaves no possibility for forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6052" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T13:54:02.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-10-06T16:38:25.910" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The one who doesn't understand why his good works are not enough misses the concept of salvation: God wants a loving and obedient relationship with us. If we do not believe Him, if we continue from the position of distrust, then that relationship can't even get started. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's like a man who is looking for a woman for a wife. Which woman would he choose, the one who ignores him and tries to be good, or one who takes the time to learn about him? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going to heaven or hell are not the main issues regarding salvation; the issues involved are greater than that. Those who continue in faith will learn to love and obey the Lord more; they start to take on themselves the values of the Lord and become those who could be trusted to reign in His coming kingdom. That is more than merely going to heaven when you die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But those who continue in unbelief do not even begin this process. They will not learn the ways of God's kingdom and will be found unfit to reign there. We had a lady at work who spurned the company's way of doing her job and insisted on doing things her way. She was at odds with the other workers. This is the self-righteous atheist who can't participate with the worship and Bible study of the Christian. He is at odds with the community, and God is building up a community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One reason the relationship starts with faith is that we have fallen short of God's standards, and we enter into a right relationship with Him by acknowledging our sins against God. It is only from that perspective will we read the Bible and follow through to become a better person who is made in God's image. If we don't start in faith, that God forgives the fallen and redeems them, then we'll continue in life with our own ideas of goodness, and that goodness won't be compatible with a God who is looking for an obedient bride for His Son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T16:38:25.910" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19619" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19585" CreationDate="2013-10-06T16:40:07.230" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is William Blake. It is all in the reading of the poem and understanding Blake. He wished that instead of Israel, Jesus was born in England. Why were the Jews the chosen people and not the English? Because of the 'dark satanic mills'. Jesus will not come to England unless the social injustices are removed. After Blake a supposed legend about Jesus visiting England started. There is no earlier legend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T16:40:07.230" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19622" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19555" CreationDate="2013-10-06T17:09:36.767" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 Samuel 5: 8 - 'the lame and the blind who are hated by David's soul'. This refers to the practice of using the lame and blind as human shields as warriors refused to kill them as it brought 'dishonor' and it was believed, bad luck. All soldiers hate willing human shields - civilians that place themselves on the battlefield and that then complain. The Levites were not allowed to be handicapped so they did not look like all the other beggars at the Temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T17:09:36.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19623" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20088" CreationDate="2013-10-06T17:30:45.217" Score="10" ViewCount="5713" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was the choice of Jesus (Joshua) in addition to Immanuel(Matthew 1: 21 and 23) in order to fulfil the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18: 15? This gives a message that Jesus, like His namesake, would lead Israel into the promised land and not Moses (the law).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can the answers concentrate on the prophesy in Deuteronomy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastEditorUserId="34561" LastEditDate="2018-10-19T23:13:18.920" LastActivityDate="2018-10-19T23:13:18.920" Title="Why was Jesus called Jesus, and not Immanuel?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;deuteronomy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2014-09-02T05:03:46.863" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19624" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19645" CreationDate="2013-10-06T17:35:56.953" Score="3" ViewCount="1312" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there more instances, in the Bible, of people turning into pillars of salt (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+19%3A26&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen. 19:26&lt;/a&gt;) and does it have a specific meaning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6053" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-09-25T18:48:40.097" LastActivityDate="2015-09-25T18:48:40.097" Title="Are there other biblical examples of people turning into pillars of salt?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;punishment&gt;&lt;lot&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2015-09-26T23:40:06.753" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="960" CreationDate="2013-10-06T18:57:03.043" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Another biblical passage applicable to the Mark 16 verses on poison is in 1Tim 4:4-5.  In correcting those who spout &quot;doctrines of demons&quot; that include abstaining from certain foods, the apostle says that &quot;every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer.&quot; Many Christians obsess over eating only certain kinds of foods, thinking that is the key to a long and healthy life (even though Eph 6:1-3 says the key to longevity is something else).  Looking for unhealthy foods to eat or poisons to drink would be &quot;tempting God,&quot; which Jesus reminds us we must not do (Mat 4:7); but inadvertent ingestion of bad things or inadvertent stepping on serpents is not something we have to worry about, since God promises to protect us.  But extracting a verse like the ones in Luke and Mark to develop an ecclesiastical practice of snake handling and poison drinking will surely end in sorrow, because to do such a thing is to tempt the Lord thy God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6057" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T18:57:03.043" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19626" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-06T20:02:22.007" Score="2" ViewCount="964" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Paul writes: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, &lt;strong&gt;descended from David&lt;/strong&gt;. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal (NIV, emphases mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From my reading of this, Paul's gospel is Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. I understand why Jesus rising from the dead would be part of the Gospel, but why include descendant of David? Wouldn't something like Son of God be more important to have in your gospel?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-07-05T13:46:27.763" LastActivityDate="2019-07-06T09:44:36.817" Title="Why does Paul emphasise that Jesus is the Son of David in 2 Timothy" Tags="&lt;david&gt;&lt;2-timothy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19626" CreationDate="2013-10-06T20:49:40.247" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because Jesus descended from the family line of David.&#xA;As Isaiah says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 11 English Standard Version (ESV) The Righteous Reign of the&#xA;  Branch&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,&#xA;      and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Branch is Jesus. Jesse is the father of David. In fact many prophecies from Old Testament said the one to redeem Israel is from house of David. Often the Bible would refer Jesus as David.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also remember the blind man that was calling out to Jesus, he referred to Jesus as &quot;son of David&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 9:27 [ Jesus Heals Two Blind Men ] And as Jesus passed on from&#xA;  there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us,&#xA;  Son of David.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 132:11 The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will&#xA;  not turn back: “One of the sons of your body I will set on your&#xA;  throne.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 1:1 [ The Genealogy of Jesus Christ ] The book of the&#xA;  genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6008" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T20:49:40.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19629" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19623" CreationDate="2013-10-06T20:56:18.850" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because Emmanuel/Immanuel is a nick name.&#xA;It is like saying Clark Kent, his name is SuperMan, though people also know him as Man of Steel.&#xA;Which is the same with Jesus, he's name is Jesus of Nazareth, we call him Jesus Christ (Christ means Messiah) but we know him as Emmanuel because he's God in the flesh who walked with us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the prophecy is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 7:14 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.&#xA;  Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his&#xA;  name Immanuel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(And Abram to Abraham has no connection to this. Abram did wrong things, lying to those kings and allowing Sarai to be taken as the King's wife while Abram accepted the good/provision over Sarai. A man to be Father of all nations should not bare a name and remembrance of someone who lied and gave up his wife. God had to change his name to Abraham.&#xA;The thing was back in those times, names actually meant something. Jacob's name meant cheating and his name was changed to Israel. Jacob who would become the first to bear Israel was cheating a lot of people and did wrong things, so we cannot let the Jews bare the forever name Jacob to someone who cheats. That was why God had to change his name to Israel. Saul people knew him as a persecutor so he had to change his name to Paul.&#xA;I do think it's important for us to look at our name meanings for they can impact our lives. If name makes changes to our life as a bad thing, it is best to change our name. If you look at the prophet names in the bible, they all have good meaning outcome like David means beloved.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God bless&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6008" LastEditorUserId="6008" LastEditDate="2013-10-06T22:23:51.403" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T22:23:51.403" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19631" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-06T21:25:33.800" Score="0" ViewCount="161" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been raised in Prodestant church all of my life and I have heard several times from members of various churches about an age of accountability—which is an age once a person reaches it they are solely acountable for their own sins. For example, if they died before reaching this age they wouldn't go to hell for any sins they have commited. I have heard various ages for this such as 10 and 13. Considering this my question is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there scriptural evidence that states the age of acountablality? Does it even exist? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5171" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T21:46:46.810" Title="Age of accountability?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-10-07T07:12:38.260" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19631" CreationDate="2013-10-06T21:46:46.810" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are accountable for our actions, words, teachings and judging.&#xA;No such thing for age accountability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;it is just another man made doctrine to bound people by their laws, doctrine and beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 12:35-37 ESV&#xA;  The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unbelievers will give an account&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 14:10-12 ESV&#xA;  Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let the people who judge give an account for their judging&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Bless&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6008" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T21:46:46.810" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14733" CreationDate="2013-10-06T21:50:03.370" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem is that the Bible teaches something contrary to what you are positing.  How are the unrighteous dead judged at the Great White Throne Judgment in Revelation 20?  They are not condemned to the Lake of Fire because they did not believe!  What is taught in that passage is that everyone has the choice of how to be judged.  We can either be judged on the basis of our faith in Christ (as evidenced by our names being written in the Lamb's Book of Life), or we can be judged out of the &quot;books,&quot; according to what we have done.  Simple.  God does not judge anyone because they do not believe in Him and His Son.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what standard does God use to judge such people?  What is the measuring stick against which their behavior is judged?  Surprisingly, it does not seem to be God's Law against which they are measured, but  rather their judgment is according to their own moral judgments of others.  What could be more fair?!  The scriptural basis for this assertion is the following:&#xA;Romans 2:1-6 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.&#xA; 2 We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.&#xA; 3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?&#xA; 4 Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?&#xA; 5 But according to your hardness and unrepentant heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;&#xA; 6 who &quot;will pay back to everyone according to their works.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, Matt 7:1-5 &quot;Don't judge, so that you won't be judged.&#xA; 2 For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.&#xA; 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?&#xA; 4 Or how will you tell your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye;' and behold, the beam is in your own eye?&#xA; 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God, who would certainly be justified to do whatever He wants, since He is God, graciously does NOT judge us for not believing, does NOT judge us according to His own moral standards, but rather does so on the basis of our own standards, as evidenced by our moral condemnation of others.  He then keeps track (in &quot;the books&quot; of Rev 20:12) of what we have done, and whether our works measure up to our own moral judgments of others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bad news for such folks is the success rate is zero.  Nobody passes their own test.  100% of everybody who is judged out of the books (since their name was not written in the Book of Life) fails their own standard of judgment, and 100% of such people are thrown into the Lake of Fire that was not prepared for them, but for the Devil and his angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So i would very strongly encourage any non-Christians out there to seriously consider giving their lives to Jesus, and asking Him to be their Savior.  Until you do, notice all the times you judge others over things you yourself do.  Try to be honest with yourself, and you will realize you failed your own test, your own standards, long ago, and that you have so failed countless times.  Get off that path you are on, before it is too late.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6057" LastActivityDate="2013-10-06T21:50:03.370" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5116" CreationDate="2013-10-07T02:34:46.493" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Regarding the scriptural authority for the central church, Christ gave us the church first not the new testament.  He celebrated two masses before ascending to heaven.  One the last supper and the second on the road to Emmaus.  The new testament was written much later than the ascension and the compilation of the new testament complete with translations did not occur until around the 4th century through the work of a Catholic Priest, now known as St Jerome.  So the Holy Church is the mother of the Bible not the other way around.  God speaks to us through the Bible.  He provided the apostles the ability to forgive or retain sin, Consecrate the Eucharist and grow His Holy Church through baptism and preaching.  Saint Paul was clear about adhering to both the written and oral traditions we have been taught. The Catholic Church also considers Christians with belief in the Trinity to be members of the Catholic church and we are all God willing headed to the same place!  For questions on the Eucharist, I recently saw an excellent video entitled Science Tests Faith.  I love my fellow Christians but I will confess I am saddened that the belief in the body of Christ has been somewhat lost along the way.  He did say &quot;This is my body&quot;  Watch the video and give it some thought.  God bless everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6062" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T02:34:46.493" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19641" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-07T07:22:05.810" Score="11" ViewCount="2048" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard and read that when we die, and we go to heaven, we won't have bodies. We'll be spirits only, but so happy that we won't need bodies or objects.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In School we were taught that when we go to Heaven, we can have everything we want. Now, that's not possible at all if we're only spirits, and there is no physical world (i.e. an Earth)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Doesn't the Bible talk about God's Kingdom, White horses and gates and pearls? I mean, what good is all of that if we can't touch/interact with it (remember, we won't have bodies)?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So this leads me to ask, does the Catholic church teach that we will have physical bodies in heaven?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5803" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-26T01:29:15.740" LastActivityDate="2015-10-26T03:16:25.347" Title="According to the Catholic Church, will we have physical bodies in heaven?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;resurrection-body&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19643" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19641" CreationDate="2013-10-07T11:14:10.410" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt; has this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1026&lt;/strong&gt; By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has &amp;quot;opened&amp;quot; heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1027&lt;/strong&gt; This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father's house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: &amp;quot;no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.&amp;quot; [1 Cor 2:9]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the Catholic Church makes no claim about a physical body. We will be &amp;quot;perfectly incorporated into Christ&amp;quot;; as indicated by 1 Cor 15:50–53...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. [RSVCE]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our mortal nature is changed to an immortal, imperishable nature. As no-one knows what that will be like [1 Cor 2:9] we can't say whether it will be a physical body or not. What is certain, however, is that it will be nothing like what we can understand now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T11:14:10.410" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19624" CreationDate="2013-10-07T12:43:16.717" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are no other instances in the Bible of becoming turned into a pillar of salt. Regarding the meaning of salt there does not seem to be a symbolic correlation of 'salt' with the judgment that lot's wife suffered. In fact salt generally means to preserve, like an antibiotic due to its pure composition and ability for preserving meat from rotting. I suppose if we said she was condemned absolutely or 'purely' we might extend the metaphor but  that seems forced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The fact that she became a solid rock-salt-like figure who must have stood there for sometime does have meaning. She was turned into a memorial of death for all to witness.&lt;/strong&gt; Even today the region where Sodom and Gomorra was said to be (around the river Jordan and the Dead Sea) is filled with unusual salt levels. Swimmers can even float in the water. This long lasting memorial shows that loving the world and turning our eyes to gaze upon it when we should be fleeing from the 'wrath to come' by turning to Christ through faith, indicates that all unbelieving souls will ultimately be judged in an absolute and severe sense. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maybe the solidity itself has meaning too, beyond its lasting memorial effect. The heart that is wicked is often referred to as 'hard' in the Bible. Hard hearted is a sign of rebellion and wickedness. In this sense not only is she a memorial but it shows that loving the world makes one absolutely hard an insensitive to God and his love. But this is again possibly a slightly forced metaphor. &lt;strong&gt;The striking point about the story is its simplicity and avoidance of any further explanation.&lt;/strong&gt; Maybe that is more to the point. God will judge the sinner and there is nothing complicated about it. No alternate solutions will be found. It will just happen while standing dead in one's tracks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-10-07T12:51:04.803" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T12:51:04.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19646" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19650" CreationDate="2013-10-07T13:21:34.650" Score="4" ViewCount="461" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible has lots of names and titles for God: the Tetragrammaton (&quot;YHWH&quot;), Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, Yah, Adonai, HaShem, Adoshem, YHWH Tzevaot, as well as Adonai, Baali, El, Elah, Eloah, Elohim, El Roi, El Shaddai, Elyon, The Eternal One, Shalom, Shekhinah, HaMakom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But it seems to me that orthodox Christians only call him God, and when they read the Bible pronounce Lord, LORD, and lord the same &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/LORD-GOD-Lord-God.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;even though they're distinct in Hebrew.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So why aren't the other terms used in Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that some people perceive the names as titles and not names, however that's not how they were understood in Judaism.  Also, I don't believe this is a hermeneutics excursion as it's more of a &quot;why did Christianity do that?&quot; instead of &quot;how is this translated / transliterated?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-19T23:45:33.920" LastActivityDate="2015-01-19T23:45:33.920" Title="Why are the other names of God not used in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;tetragrammaton&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19647" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-07T14:08:11.180" Score="6" ViewCount="240" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'd like to know where to look for scholarly articles that could help elucidate unclear points in ancient writings. For instance, Desert Fathers speak a lot about &quot;heart&quot;, &quot;spirit&quot;, &quot;mind&quot;, &quot;thoughts&quot;, etc., and consider all to be different. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, I fail at mapping those notions to something more understandable in modern terms. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Meister Eckhart&lt;/a&gt;, in particular, clearly separates &quot;ground&quot; of the soul (&quot;spark&quot;, &quot;castle&quot;) from &quot;powers&quot; of the soul (higher intellect, will, lower intellect, emotions, etc.). I don't clearly understand the difference. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moreover, I sometimes fear that the difference cannot be grasped in verbal terms, because analytical thinking might be constricted to &quot;powers&quot; of the soul in Eckhart's terms. That said, any direction in helping to describe these otherwise ineffable concepts would be useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6070" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-04-15T17:47:52.787" LastActivityDate="2014-04-15T17:47:52.787" Title="When Meister Eckhart deliniates the &quot;ground&quot; and &quot;powers&quot; of the soul, what is he differentiating?" Tags="&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;mysticism&gt;&lt;christian-psychology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19648" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19646" CreationDate="2013-10-07T14:26:06.877" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be clear, Christians do use other names of God in some contexts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Michael Card's song &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKHa6Cm62uI&quot;&gt;El Shaddai&lt;/a&gt; was wildly popular in the 80's, and is often credited with launching the career of Amy Grant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I remember singing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cBUoufez3M&quot;&gt;Jehovah Jireh&lt;/a&gt;, and dozens of other songs like that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1578564395&quot;&gt;Kay Arthur has a popular study based on the names of God&lt;/a&gt;, directed especially at women.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That list came to mind in the first 30 seconds of thinking.  There are many, many others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why these aren't more popular? I'd suggest it's simply linguistic.  People gravitate towards the familiar when addressing a person.  Even if the Duke of Cambridge has &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge&quot;&gt;4 main names and 21 titles&lt;/a&gt;, they're still going to call him &quot;Prince William&quot; ninety nine times out of a hundred.  It's the same with &quot;God.&quot; Hebrew is hard to pronounce, has the appearance of being overly formal in the King James, and generally is more foreign to the culture of mainstream American evangelicalism than anything else.  In spite of that, as shown above, we &lt;em&gt;often&lt;/em&gt; incorporate it.  As such, I think the question should actually be reversed - why use the Hebrew as much as we do?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T14:26:06.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19649" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19651" CreationDate="2013-10-07T14:39:55.590" Score="6" ViewCount="2027" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard some people say that the nails went into Jesus's hands and I have also read that in a crucifixion, the nails went into the wrist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What really happened on the cross?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5525" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2014-12-31T13:23:02.500" LastActivityDate="2015-06-08T21:33:25.027" Title="When Jesus was nailed to the cross, did the nails go through his hands or through his wrists?" Tags="&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19646" CreationDate="2013-10-07T14:41:09.713" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A very long time ago, the Church decided that it was important for people to hear the gospel in their own language. That's at the core of why the New Testament was written in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2012/06/what-was-the-original-language-of-the-bible/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greek&lt;/a&gt; and not in Hebrew. The earliest churches used the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_language#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;common languages of the day&lt;/a&gt;. The Roman Catholic church picked up &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Latin&lt;/a&gt; along the way and it's still their official language. For several reasons, the church didn't really keep up with the tradition and held on to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/ritesrituals/tridentinemass_1.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Latin mass&lt;/a&gt; well into the 20th century. Martin Luther picked up the tradition again by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;translating the Bible into German&lt;/a&gt;. He was then followed by several translators over the centuries who translated the Bible into their native languages. That tradition continues today with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/dec/20/bible-translation-ivorian-village&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible translators&lt;/a&gt; who work to give small tribes Bibles in their own languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Translators try to be as accurate as possible but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sil.org/translation/translation-principles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;conveying the meaning takes priority over literal word for word translations&lt;/a&gt; so little nuances like that sometimes get lost. English speaking Christians sometimes use the different names of God in Hebrew and in English for worship and prayer. They're just not usually in the translation of the Bible we use.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T14:41:09.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19649" CreationDate="2013-10-07T14:47:18.163" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word used in the Bible can mean any part of the hand or arm. People who study crucifixion in general found that the nails most often went through the wrist and that the weight of the body would cause the nail to tear through the flesh of the hand as is most commonly depicted in Christian art. Thus, a fairly common view is that the nails actually went through the wrist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Nail_placement&quot;&gt;Crucifixion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T14:47:18.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19653" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-07T15:24:59.640" Score="-1" ViewCount="331" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there evidence that Plotinus and the Neoplatonists got their philosophy of their 'trinity' from the Bible or from Christian sources? Or the other way round, was Augustine influenced by Plotinus when he developed the doctrine of the Trinity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastEditorUserId="6043" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T17:54:31.080" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T09:08:14.323" Title="Did Plotinus get his ideas from the Bible?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="14" ClosedDate="2013-10-07T17:15:02.513" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19656" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19649" CreationDate="2013-10-07T15:52:24.547" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nails were not as we know them today being thick. Going through the wrist with a nail like that would require great skill if hitting an artery and bleeding out was to be avoided. No evidence has yet been found but based on the large tradition of the nails going through the hands and the practicalities involved we can assume that the arms were tied on with rope and the nails were there to prevent the crucified from freeing an arm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T15:52:24.547" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19653" CreationDate="2013-10-07T16:00:56.007" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer was suggested when the question was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do we need the Trinity in Christianity when we have 'in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? What is wrong with that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why embrace something so complex (the Trinity concept) that only a few people can understand it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Merely believing in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit leaves open too many possibilities, most of which were long ago ruled out as heresies. The Trinity is a label for the concept of a God who is a complex unity. If you say you are Trinitarian then you are saying you believe all three persons are divine, that all three are uncreated, that all three are equally eternal, that all three are distinct, that all three are united together, etc. You could still have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit while rejecting the trinity by believing any of the classical heresies. The Trinity may be hard to understand, but the heresies and the problems they lead to are often fairly straightforward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T09:08:14.323" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19663" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19811" CreationDate="2013-10-07T19:03:34.247" Score="8" ViewCount="1547" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am under the impression that the fasting patterns of the Orthodox church were established over the course of several centuries. I am interested in some sources that would clarify when the pattern was &quot;cemented&quot;. I am having a difficult time googling this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to know a general date of when the pattern was established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By &quot;the fasting patterns&quot;, I mean the Lenten fast, the Apostle's fast, the Dormition fast, the Nativity fast, the fasting prior to receiving the mysteries/sacraments, and the normal fasting on Wednesday and Friday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6080" LastActivityDate="2015-02-24T09:25:28.127" Title="When were the Fasting Patterns of the Eastern Orthodox Church Established?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;fasting&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19497" CreationDate="2013-10-07T19:42:14.917" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Methodist Bishop &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_J._Jones&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Scott Jones&lt;/a&gt; borrowed the term to describe John Wesley's teachings. He continues to use the phrase in sermons and interviews when describing Methodist beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jones read a magazine in which someone described himself as being in the &quot;extreme center&quot; in politics. The term &quot;extreme center&quot; is set in opposition to the &quot;dead center&quot; - rather than leaning too far right or too far left, the dead center does nothing. In contrast, the extreme center is living, holding both the left and right in tension, without compromising either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On &lt;a href=&quot;http://extremecenter.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;his website&lt;/a&gt; he explains the term &lt;a href=&quot;http://extremecenter.com/videos/why-extreme-center/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;via video&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It goes back to a deep conviction I have about the Wesleyan form of Christianity. Back when I was trying to Wesley's theology to students and lay audiences, I began to talk about the ways in which Wesley combines things that, well, too often Christians see as opposites and not possible to hold together, like... justification and sanctification, evangelism and social justice. For all of these polarities, really it's about holding them together, in tension, as it were, yet each one informing the other.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a presentation Scott Jones gave in 2007 on &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://methodistthinker.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/bishop-scott-jones-united-methodist-way.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The United Methodist Way&lt;/a&gt;&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;United Methodists are people of the extreme center. United Methodist conservatives are compassionate. United Methodist liberals are responsible...&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Taken as a whole, this way of salvation exhibits the paradox of the gospel, and we Wesleyans have it right. It is the extreme center that includes both justification and sanctification, both grace and good works, both individual salvation and the transformation of the world. It is all about God’s grace saving us and not our works. However, we are saved for the purpose of doing good works, of transforming the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T19:42:14.917" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19665" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19676" CreationDate="2013-10-07T21:11:45.610" Score="7" ViewCount="31718" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yesterday, &lt;a href=&quot;http://nymag.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New York Magazine&lt;/a&gt; published an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Antonin Scalia&lt;/a&gt;, in which is he quoted as saying that he believes &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_devil&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Devil&lt;/a&gt;&quot; has given up taking possession of humans to make them sin, in favor of causing them to be atheists.  His reasoning is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to him, I guess, the fact that we don't see demonic possession on a regular basis, yet people are sinning and not believing, proves that The Devil is changing tactics - because in what Christians call the New Testament he is a regular feature.  But, as far as I know, there isn't much of an occurrence of &quot;the Devil&quot; in TaNa&quot;Ch, or what Christians refer to as the &quot;Old Testament&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know what the standard &lt;a href=&quot;https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/28036/5&quot;&gt;Jewish approach is&lt;/a&gt; regarding &quot;the Devil&quot; (short version: he doesn't get a mention, and we don't believe in such a being - at least not in the way commonly talked about by Christian preachers). But according to the Christian view (across most denominations, as far as I can tell), there is some being called &quot;The Devil&quot; who possesses people and causes them to sin, etc. Where is he in what you call the Old Testament, and why would he just suddenly appear later?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1948" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:42:05.287" LastActivityDate="2014-11-10T00:30:43.663" Title="Where does the Old Testament mention &quot;the devil&quot;?" Tags="&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19665" CreationDate="2013-10-07T21:34:38.190" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Devil is derived from the Greek word διάβολος (diábolos) which means slanderer or accuser. Satan is derived from the Hebrew word הַשָּׂטָן (ha-Satan) which also means accuser. So the two terms are essentially synonymous. Christians use Devil because the NT is of course written in Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan, the Devil or Lucifer are mentioned throughout the Book of Job.  Also mentioned in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 109:6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zechariah 3:1,2 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 14:12-14 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it does not appear that he materialized in the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T02:00:31.190" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19665" CreationDate="2013-10-07T22:42:39.747" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where is the devil now? According to Job 1:7, in which God asks the devil, &quot;From where do you come?&quot; Satan answers, &quot;From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Satan is still &quot;all over the place,&quot; and he also gets called to the throne of God now and then. Even Jesus encountered him on earth (Matthew 4). The devil is not now in Hell or any such place, contrary to the paintings of the masters and cartoonists everywhere. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-10-07T22:42:39.747" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19668" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2109" CreationDate="2013-10-07T23:15:00.827" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interestiung reading, so I did some research and found that JW's are not the only ones who ever believed that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger, in The Companion Bible (which was completed and published in 1922,[3] nine years after his 1913 death), was emphatic in his belief that stauros never meant two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;but always of one piece alone ... There is nothing [of the word stauros] in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bullinger wrote that in the catacombs of Rome Christ was never represented there as &quot;hanging on a cross&quot; and that the cross was a pagan symbol of life (the ankh) in Egyptian churches that was borrowed by the Christians. He cited a letter from English Dean John William Burgon, who questioned whether a cross occurred on any Christian monument of the first four centuries and wrote: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The 'invention' of it in pre-Christian times, and the 'invention' of its use in later times, are truths of which we need to be reminded in the present day. The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed in any manner.&quot;[4]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course anytime an article is obviously targeting someone because of their bias of prejudice of someone or a group is never a good thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6082" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T02:51:31.343" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T02:51:31.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19671" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-08T02:14:20.973" Score="7" ViewCount="350" Body="&lt;p&gt;I received two conflicting reports from two women whose catholicity I highly respect, but whose sources are circumspect, or at the very least circumlocutory. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One says that if and when we get to heaven, our guardian angel gets&#xA;promoted up the ranks.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The other says that if and when we get to heaven, our guardian angel&#xA;stays with us, and remains our guardian angel in heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not an expert, nor do I know if these things can be known. However, I do know a contradiction when I see one. Which is right? Do our angels graduate, or do they remain with us in Eternity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholic answers only, please - no Sylvia Browne.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2015-08-25T02:27:41.923" LastActivityDate="2015-08-25T02:27:41.923" Title="According to the Catholic Church, do guardian angels graduate?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;guardian-angels&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19672" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-08T02:35:19.843" Score="14" ViewCount="1853" Body="&lt;p&gt;An associate wrote an open letter (email) of condolence to a friend who'd lost a child. The letter stated that that deceased was now an angel in heaven with wings.  What is the ultimate source of this belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-07-24T06:23:33.797" LastActivityDate="2017-07-24T06:23:33.797" Title="What is the source of the belief that the deceased become angels?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;&lt;origin&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19671" CreationDate="2013-10-08T03:55:03.037" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think angels can be promoted from one order to another within the 9 orders. Simply because they are in that specific order by their very nature. Just like a dog can't be a cat or a Rose can never be Lilly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note that they are helping us to save our souls because God wanted them to do that, not to get &quot;promotion&quot; in their Job. After the end of their duty, the angelic orders will continue to exist, but their offices will not be altogether the same as they now are, for they will then no longer need to help human beings in the process of saving their souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The distinction of grades among the angels ... will ever remain in the angels; for these &lt;strong&gt;differences of natures cannot be taken from them&lt;/strong&gt; unless they themselves be corrupted. The difference of glory will also ever remain in them according to the difference of preceding merit. As to the execution of the angelic offices ... &lt;strong&gt;It will cease accordingly as their offices are directed towards leading others to their end;&lt;/strong&gt; but it will remain, accordingly as it agrees with the attainment of the end.  &lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1108.htm#article7&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica 1:108:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As said above by St. Thomas Aquinas the only purpose of Guardian angel is to save our souls, their function towards us cease to exist after we enter heaven or hell. (Since we are in the process of being cleansed, our angels do continue to pray for us and urge saints and humans to pray for us when we are in purgatory)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also remember:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our Guardian Angels are not our servants but our masters.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://taylormarshall.com/2011/06/you-are-not-allowed-to-name-your.html&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In heaven we will have God and so we will lack nothing. He will be our only need and our provider of our need, we will not need an angel's help anymore.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T04:16:27.327" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T04:16:27.327" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19674" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-08T04:40:11.390" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T04:40:11.390" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T04:40:11.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19675" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-08T04:40:11.390" Score="0" Body="A guardian angel is an angel assigned to protect and guide a particular person or group." OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T12:04:58.647" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T12:04:58.647" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19665" CreationDate="2013-10-08T04:50:02.960" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;While שטן (&lt;em&gt;satan&lt;/em&gt;) does indeed mean &quot;adversary,&quot; I doubt that every occurrence in the Tanakh of the word שטן should be understood as a (human) adversary as opposed to the angelic adversary whom most Christians refer to as &quot;the devil&quot; (from Gr. ὁ διάβολος). In fact, this isn't the standard in Jewish literature either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in the Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Massekhet Sanhedrin &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4411.htm&quot;&gt;95a&lt;/a&gt;, Gemara, it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;יומא חד נפק לשכור בזאי אתא שטן ואדמי ליה כטביא פתק ביה גירא ולא מטייה...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;that is,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One day, he (King David) went out to Shekhor Bezai. Satan came and appeared before him as a deer. He shot an arrow at him, but it did not reach him...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, based on the reasoning that שטן always means a human adversary, we're forced to believe that the rabbis of the Gemara wrote that a man appeared as a deer in front of David. Obviously that idea is nonsensical. Elsewhere in Jewish literature, Satan is said to assume the form of a bird (כציפרתא; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4411.htm&quot;&gt;San. 107a&lt;/a&gt;), a woman (כאיתתא; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l3704.htm&quot;&gt;Kid. 81a&lt;/a&gt;), a poor man (כעניא; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l3704.htm&quot;&gt;Kid. 81a&lt;/a&gt;), etc. Therefore, this particular שטן is no mere man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Coincidentally, the New Testament refers to Satan as &quot;the old serpent&quot; (ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος) (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;v=9&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=1179009&quot;&gt;Rev. 12:9&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&amp;amp;c=20&amp;amp;v=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#s=1187002&quot;&gt;20:2&lt;/a&gt;), an allusion to the serpent in Gan Eden (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;t=KJV#1&quot;&gt;Gen. 3&lt;/a&gt;). This Greek phrase has its equivalent in the Hebrew phrase הנחש הקדמוני (&lt;em&gt;ha-nachash ha-kadmoni&lt;/em&gt;), which is mentioned in various Jewish literature, such as &lt;a href=&quot;https://play.google.com/books/reader?printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;output=reader&amp;amp;id=Hm5EAAAAcAAJ&quot;&gt;Tzeror ha-Mor&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l3501.htm&quot;&gt;Sotah 9b&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4403.htm&quot;&gt;Sanhedrin 29a&lt;/a&gt;, etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish literature often equates Satan with the evil inclination (&lt;em&gt;yezter ha-ra&lt;/em&gt;) and the Angel of Death (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4301.htm&quot;&gt;Bava Batra 16a&lt;/a&gt;: הוא שטן הוא יצר הרע הוא מלאך המות). But, it also equates him/ it with Sama'el, the name of an angel. For example, in Tzeror ha-Mor,&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;נחש הקדמוני הוא שטן הוא יצר הרע הצד ציד הוא סמאל&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The old serpent is Satan; he is the evil inclination; he is &quot;he who has taken venison&quot; (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=27&amp;amp;v=33&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/33&quot;&gt;Gen. 27:33&lt;/a&gt;); he is Sama'el.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Should Satan always be understood as a human adversary? No.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Where is Satan in the OT? Many places.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As the evil inclination (יצר הרע), he influences man to sin (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4301.htm&quot;&gt;Bava Batra 16a&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;t=KJV#5&quot;&gt;Gen. 6:5&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#21&quot;&gt;8:21&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;As the Angel of Death, he has power to take a man's soul (תנא יורד ומתעה ועולה ומרגיז נוטל רשות ונוטל נשמה; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4301.htm&quot;&gt;Bava Batra 16a&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Job&amp;amp;c=2&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/6&quot;&gt;Job 2:6&lt;/a&gt;: אך את נפשו שמור).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see no evidence that שטן in Job 1-2 is a human adversary, especially when many Jewish sources insist it is a supernatural being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;References&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Avraham ben Ya'akov Saba. &lt;em&gt;Tzeror ha-Mor&lt;/em&gt;, Parashat וישלח יעקב, folio מו , second column. | &lt;a href=&quot;https://play.google.com/books/reader?printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;output=reader&amp;amp;id=Hm5EAAAAcAAJ&quot;&gt;Hebrew&lt;/a&gt; |&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T04:50:02.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19677" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19506" CreationDate="2013-10-08T08:53:04.707" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 22: 5 is a very complicated verse with many different opinions and a variation in translation that is pertinent. Google it and see for yourself. I want to stick with what Maimonides said. Amonst the idolaters men wore women's clothing when honoring Venus and women put on armor when honorin Mars. Here it is the use made of the clothing/item that is important. The intention of the wearer not the garment. This eliminates a lot of the debate around unisex clothing, women in combat uniform, and as was the case in the article, men wearing women's clothing for a joke (common during Purim). Based on this, the sin for Christians is in the 'why', not the what. Was it done for idolatary? For immoral purposes? To deceive? Etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T08:53:04.707" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2456" CreationDate="2013-10-08T09:22:04.093" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;United Methodists have a &quot;clandestine&quot; form of apostolic succession. John Wesley an Anglican priest and founder of the Methodism movement was secretly and illicitly consecrated a bishop by a rogue Greek Orthodox Bishop named Erasmus. There is much debate as to whether the succession from Wesley onward was validly continued or whether there is a break in the succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the Evangelical Lutherans, in 1999 the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Episcopal Church formed an ecumenical full communion agreement known as &quot;called to common mission&quot;. As part of the agreement from that point forward all evangelical Lutheran bishops will be consecrated by episcopal bishops until all evangelical Lutheran bishops are in the apostolic succession. Additionally, all future evangelical Lutheran pastors will be ordained by bishops in apostolic succession. Strict adherence to the called to common mission document requires that any Lutheran pastor that wishes to serve in an episcopal church must be ordained by a bishop in the apostolic succession.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the Swedish Lutheran church always retained apostolic succession as did several other European Lutheran branches. The Lutheran church when it came to America began having pastors ordain other pastors, then pastors installing bishops and in doing so, broke the line of succession. The episcopal church simply gave American Lutherans back something which they had but lost... The historic episcopate. Luther was never against the concept of the apostolic succession. He was against papal supremacy and the intense divide between the clergy and the laity that existed during the Middle Ages. After his death some of his followers took it a step further renouncing apostolic succession completely and purposely breaking the line of succession. This was done by the Danish Lutheran church as well as several other Lutheran branches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6085" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T09:22:04.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19680" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2013-10-08T12:20:35.520" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;To be born by Water and Spirit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Water means the Word of GOD which speaks to us, as the Word comes alive by the power of the Holy Spirit and convicts us of our sin. The Word of GOD and the Holy Spirit working in us allow us to see our sinfulness and and make us understand what JESUS CHRIST did on the cross, who took our sins and the penalty of death on our behalf. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we acknowledge our hopeless sinful state and accepts the gift of redemption that GOD the Father gave through His Son, we are freed from the power of sin into the power of GOD's redeeming love. We are moved from the power of satan, and born into the Kingdom of GOD. Much like the repentant thief, when JESUS, The Word talked to him and humbled himself, he was saved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Water represents GOD's Word that speaks to us by the power of the Holy Spirit, and as we surrender to the Lordship of CHRIST, He washes us of our sins and moves us from the clutches of satan into the Kingdom of GOD. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nicodemus is a learned man of the Word of GOD. Unfortunately, he literally interprets being born again as going back to one's mother's womb. We need to understand that it always takes the Holy Spirit for the Word to come alive (rhema). For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, it takes the Water and the Spirit for a man to be born again, back into the fold of GOD the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To GOD alone be the glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6089" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T12:20:35.520" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19681" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19682" CreationDate="2013-10-08T12:40:38.057" Score="11" ViewCount="20957" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus tell Martha, who was serving the Lord and making preparations, that Mary had &quot;chosen what is better&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village&#xA;  where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister&#xA;  called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But&#xA;  Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She&#xA;  came to him and asked, &quot;Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left&#xA;  me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Martha, Martha,&quot; the Lord answered, &quot;you are worried and upset about&#xA;  many things, but few things are needed-or indeed only one. Mary has&#xA;  chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.&quot; (Luke 10:38-42)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="280" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-08-20T12:16:58.217" LastActivityDate="2016-04-24T23:46:43.940" Title="Why did Jesus say that &quot;Mary has chosen the better part&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-26T05:22:29.743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19681" CreationDate="2013-10-08T12:57:03.797" Score="13" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all&#xA;  these things shall be added unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 6:33&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what Mary was doing. Although what Martha was doing was not wrong, her focus was on those things and not on Jesus. Many people can get so caught up in church and completely forget about Jesus. Fixing things, making sure everything is ok, cooking, etc... They're not bad things, but when you leave Jesus aside, you are leaving salvation aside. We must seek Him first, everything else will be added on. This is what Mary did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T12:57:03.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19665" CreationDate="2013-10-08T13:00:36.630" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;'ha-satan' in Hebrew does indeed refer to 'the adversary' or 'the accuser', but there are a few occasions in the Old Testament where 'satan' appears without the definite article- i.e.  'the' - (most notably 1 Chronicles 21:1 and Psalm 109:6b) and therefore it reads like a name. In Job, although it has the definite article, 'ha-satan' / 'the accuser' is certainly a divine being, and a member of the divine council. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Wikipedia page has a list of references (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Judaism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Judaism&lt;/a&gt;) and also explains the emergence of the 'Devil' idea in Second Temple Judaism. It's certainly a pre-Christian idea. You'll notice that Jesus doesn't have to explain to the crowds who the Devil is!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a point of clarification: in the New Testament the Devil tempts but doesn't 'possess'. It is &lt;em&gt;demons&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;evil spirits&lt;/em&gt; who inhabit people, causing oppression and illness - and it is these that Jesus and the apostles cast out. &#xA;The devil is a much more authoritative figure in the NT - he is 'god of this world' (2 Cor 4.4) and 'prince of the power of the air' (Eph 2.2). Again, see the excellent list on Wikipedia: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_in_Christianity#New_Testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_in_Christianity#New_Testament&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6088" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T13:00:36.630" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19681" CreationDate="2013-10-08T13:10:56.883" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 10:38-42 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, &quot;Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!&quot;&#xA;  &quot;Martha, Martha,&quot; the Lord answered, &quot;you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed-or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have in Mary an illustration of a heart that is given to the Lord and in Martha a heart that is given to pleasing the Lord by works.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Jesus said of Martha &quot;you are worried and upset about many things”; this indicates that faith in God’s grace was lacking in Martha.  The one thing that is needed is “faith in God’s grace” from which eternal service legitimately proceeds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T13:10:56.883" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19686" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-08T13:44:54.090" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mysticism is a religious tendency and desire of the human soul towards an intimate union with the Divinity, or a system growing out of such a tendency and desire. As a philosophical system, Mysticism considers as the end of philosophy the direct union of the human soul with the Divinity through contemplation and love, and attempts to determine the processes and the means of realizing this end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T14:50:10.673" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T14:50:10.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19687" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-08T13:44:54.090" Score="0" Body="Christian mysticism refers to the development of mystical practices and theory within Christianity. It has often been connected to mystical theology, especially in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions." OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T14:50:14.983" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T14:50:14.983" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19119" CreationDate="2013-10-08T14:18:50.193" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a difference between marriage in secular sense and in a religious sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The state will allow re-marriage regardless of a persons religion as long as they have followed the state rules regarding divorce and re-marriage.  Your priest will have no say in these matters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics believe that a marriage cannot be dissolved unless there was some issue with form, consent or could not be consumated.  Therefore, either spouse cannot marry in the Catholic church without an annulment.  The couple could go to another denomination or a Justice of the peace, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1663" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T14:18:50.193" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19689" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19692" CreationDate="2013-10-08T15:17:28.097" Score="7" ViewCount="2094" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am a constant listener to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rzim.org/podcasts/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ravi's Podcasts&lt;/a&gt; and he always says &quot;Intent is always prior to content.&quot; What does that mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6092" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T17:41:45.777" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T19:32:31.957" Title="What does Ravi Zacharias mean when he says &quot;Intent is always prior to content&quot;?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19690" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16216" CreationDate="2013-10-08T15:42:41.657" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The likely&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; source for this image is Nicholas's mentor, Heymeric de Campo (1395-1460),&#xA;who wrote a treatise on a geometric figure he called the &quot;seal of eternity&quot; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. This is&#xA;related to the well-known image of the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity&quot;&gt;shield of faith&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, &#xA;a triangular diagram representing the persons of the Trinity. Unlike the shield, Heymeric's picture &#xA;is a regular geometric picture; the various lines are coloured; and the interpretation is more &#xA;complex. Note that the central point does not represent God - the whole picture is &quot;an image of &#xA;the divine government&quot; (&lt;em&gt;figura thearchica&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jz1n6.png&quot; alt=&quot;Seal of Eternity&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As shown above, there is an equilateral triangle within a circumscribing circle. In addition,&#xA;three radii of the circle are drawn to connect with the points of the triangle. Heymeric writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;three lines dropping down perpendicularly from these three angles [of the triangle] towards the centre of the circle&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;tres lineas ab illis tribus angulis supra centrum eiusdem circuli perpendiculariter cadentes deorsum&lt;/em&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is, these lines are orthogonal to the &lt;em&gt;circle&lt;/em&gt; at the point of intersection; the angle of the triangle itself is not a right angle. Heymeric tends to call them &lt;em&gt;funiculi&lt;/em&gt;, little cords. The colours are not reproduced in Imbach and Ladner - the picture above is based on my interpretation of Heymeric's description,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first side of the triangle, with the portion of the circle of which it is the chord,&#xA;  and the dependent line from its angle of origin, is to be blue in colour.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;latus primum trianguli cum porcione circuli cuius est corda et linea dependente ab eius angulo&#xA;  originali sit coloris blavei&lt;/em&gt; [and then similarly for the other colours]  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Heymeric, the circle represents perfection, the points of the triangle are the&#xA;persons of the trinity, and the &lt;em&gt;funiculi&lt;/em&gt; are the efficient, exemplary, and final causes&#xA;of Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy. These are justified with reference to three Biblical&#xA;quotations,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From him and through him and for him are all things (Romans 11:36)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  A threefold cord is not easily broken (Ecclesiastes 4:12)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  God has weighed out the dust of the earth with three fingers (Isaiah 40:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last one follows Jerome's interpretation of the Hebrew word בַּשָּׁלִ֖שׁ (Strong's 7991), which has various &#xA;meanings related to the number three; depending on context, it may refer to an officer &#xA;&quot;of the third rank&quot;, a triangular musical instrument such as a nabla/nevel, or, as here,&#xA;a unit of measure of some kind. The three colours stand for celestial substance (blue),&#xA;life (green), and flame (red), corresponding to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.&#xA;It would be tempting to imagine some knowledge of the RGB colour system, but Heymeric is&#xA;writing long before Newton, let alone &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%E2%80%93Helmholtz_theory&quot;&gt;Young and Helmholtz&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bulk of Heymeric's treatise consists of a point-by-point explication of how this&#xA;figure represents the Trinitarian doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, as described in Book 1&#xA;of his &lt;em&gt;Summa contra Gentiles&lt;/em&gt;. For example, the concept &quot;God is blessed and his&#xA;blessedness exceeds all other blessedness&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#100&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;SCG&lt;/em&gt; 1.100-102&lt;/a&gt;)&#xA;is expressed by the fact that the figure may be geometrically expanded to&#xA;any desired size (para. 66, f. 84v); and &quot;Creatures may carry a resemblance to God&quot;&#xA;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#29&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;SCG&lt;/em&gt; 1.29&lt;/a&gt;) by the radii, &#xA;representing causality, that drop down like rays of light (para. 45, f. 83r).&#xA;In particular, the orthogonality of these lines to the circle is used almost as a pun,&#xA;for the &quot;rectitude&quot; and &quot;rightness&quot; of God, whenever these ideas arise in the comparison.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the adaptation by Nicholas of Cusa, the diagram is &quot;really&quot; meant to be infinite,&#xA;so that (according to his mathematics) the component parts merge into an indistinguishable unity.&#xA;This mirrors the continual assertion of Heymeric that the figure is only a metaphor,&#xA;suitable to our senses and imagination, of something transcendental; and both authors are&#xA;known for their insistence on the fallibility of human reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. Paul Wilpert. &lt;em&gt;De docta ignorantia&lt;/em&gt; / &lt;em&gt;Die belehrte Unwissenheit&lt;/em&gt;, volume 1.&#xA;Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1964 (1st ed.). Note at 15a.120.n34.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. &lt;em&gt;Tractatus de sigillo eternitatis omnium arcium et scienciarum exemplari&#xA;a magistro Heymerico de Campo Basilee tempore concilii editus&lt;/em&gt;. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cusanus.de&quot;&gt;Cusanusstift&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;MS 106, f. 77r - 85r. Written between 1432 and 1435. The Latin quotations in this answer&#xA;are reproduced from &lt;em&gt;Heymericus de Campo Opera Selecta&lt;/em&gt;, volume 1,&#xA;Ruedi Imbach and Pascal Ladner (eds.), Univ. Freiburg Schweiz, 2001. The English translation is my own fault.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T15:42:41.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19689" CreationDate="2013-10-08T16:45:59.113" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ravi Zacharias is a renown apologist for the Christian faith.  I, too, enjoy listening to him.  His account of his interview with the Grand Mufti of the Islam faith, which he describes as perhaps the most tension-fraught interview he has ever conducted, is unforgettable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Mr. Zacharias is an astute apologist, I am guessing that his phrase &quot;Intent is always prior to content&quot; is a good &quot;mantra&quot; for anyone aspiring to be an apologist and a witness for Christ.  Before one opens his or her mouth in defense of the faith, a good question to ask oneself is,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now, why am I about to defend the faith?  Is my intent to make myself look good by out-arguing the person with whom I am engaged in conversation, or is my intent first, to build a bridge of communication with my interlocutor, and second, to bear witness to the truth in Christ Jesus, but in a spirit of love, gentleness, and godly fear?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your intent is the former, then you should probably not open your mouth; you'll do more harm than good.  If on the other hand you are genuinely interested in hearing the person out, responding appropriately in a Spirit-led way, and all the while being in an attitude of prayer and dependence on God, then you are probably in a position to accomplish something for God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember, our task is not to make ourselves look good, but to make our Savior look good.  Moreover, achieving eloquence and thus acquitting ourselves in a prideful way must never be the goal; pointing to Jesus is.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If I can speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am simply a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal&quot; (Paul, 1 Corinthians 13).    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-10-09T15:17:05.880" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T15:17:05.880" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19697" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-08T19:30:14.430" Score="5" ViewCount="10717" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe this came about as a Jewish tradition. Why is this done and what does it symbolize?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is a father walking his daughter down the aisle at her wedding a biblical tradition? What is the father's biblical role in the wedding specifically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the father have a role in the wedding if this is the daughter's second marriage, after a biblical divorce in her first marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6094" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-16T09:14:42.763" LastActivityDate="2016-04-29T15:25:27.647" Title="What does the Bible say about a father walking his daughter down the aisle at her wedding?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19698" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19697" CreationDate="2013-10-08T20:10:41.843" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea is not specifically mentioned in the Bible.  However, there is a biblical concept of &amp;quot;headship&amp;quot; that applies to every husband, which would seem to apply both to a woman's father prior to her marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.  Ephesians 5:23 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The root of this comes from Genesis 2, when God brought the woman to the man--and not the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.  Genesis 2:22 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is illustrated further in Genesis 3, where the woman sins first, but God's interrogation begins with Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the &lt;strong&gt;woman&lt;/strong&gt; saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, &lt;strong&gt;she took from its fruit and ate&lt;/strong&gt;; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.   Genesis 3:6 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Then the Lord God called to the man,&lt;/strong&gt; and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13 &lt;strong&gt;Then&lt;/strong&gt; the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”   Genesis 3:9-13 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of &amp;quot;headship&amp;quot; is certainly a controversial topic today.  However, it is likely the concept upon which the modern marriage ceremony is built.  The giving of the bride by the father to the husband symbolizes the transfer of responsibility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-04-29T15:25:27.647" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19699" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-08T21:05:02.870" Score="5" ViewCount="87460" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that the bible say that we should believe in the lord Jesus but I need someone to help me understand more about the original meaning of the word believe so I can fully believe in a proper way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6095" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-10-08T21:08:47.683" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T14:16:55.003" Title="What is the biblical meaning of &quot;believe&quot;?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-10-31T15:33:03.167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19699" CreationDate="2013-10-08T21:15:57.690" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;To start, it is instructive to understand that the words &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;trust&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;believe&amp;quot; in English translations all come from the same Greek root (pisteuo).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Charles Spurgeon describes it well in his book, &lt;em&gt;All of Grace&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is faith? It is made up of three things—&lt;strong&gt;knowledge, belief, and trust&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Knowledge&lt;/strong&gt; comes first. &amp;quot;How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?  I want to be informed of a fact before I can possibly believe it...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mind goes on to &lt;strong&gt;believe&lt;/strong&gt; that these things are true. The soul believes that God is, and that He hears the cries of sincere hearts; that the gospel is from God; that justification by faith is the grand truth which God hath revealed in these last days by His Spirit more clearly than before. Then the heart believes that Jesus is verily and in truth our God and Saviour, the Redeemer of men, the Prophet, Priest, and King of His people. All this is accepted as sure truth, not to be called in question...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So far you have made an advance toward faith; only one more ingredient is needed to complete it, which is trust. Commit yourself to the merciful God; rest your hope on the gracious gospel; trust your soul on the dying and living Saviour; wash away your sins in the atoning blood; accept His perfect righteousness, and all is well. Trust is the lifeblood of faith; there is no saving faith without it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He later summarizes it this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is believing that Christ is what He is said to be, and that He will do what He has promised to do, and then to expect this of Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In reality, the Greek word is not anything mysterious.  However, it does not mean intellectual assent, as the demons believe there is a God--and tremble in fear as a result.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the definition comes from understanding the Gospel--what is to be believed and why.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-08T21:15:57.690" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19713" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="384" CreationDate="2013-10-09T14:14:56.523" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've also wondered about this.  I feel like Miracles somewhat defy the idea of evidence, as Miracles seem to cease to be Miraculous if once you can completely explain how they happened.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, most witnesses of miracles will document what they've seen, and give a witness of it if it's happened.  This was similar to how Miracles were proven in during Christ's ministry.  You either believed it or you didn't.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.  2 Corinthians 13:1 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think of this quote applying not only to the word of God, but the word of the testimony of others.  Multiple witnesses are usually the best thing we've got.  It works the same way in the scientific world.  You publish some findings, and you have some witnesses of those findings being true.  With the scientific evidence you can repeat the process, and get the same results.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Miracles are a little different, as you aren't going to have the same results just doing the same things.  Miracles have a lot to do with our own Faith in miracles.  The conditions to make a Miracle happen follow a different system of laws than the more easily verifiable scientific laws of Chemistry, Biology, and Physics.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the cases of people coming back to life or being healed, I suppose someone could take a measure of the condition of the person before and after, and come up with some way to prove that it was the same person.  In those cases it's difficult to explain what happened because mankind still knows so little about how/why the human body really works (It's far more complex then the microchips we create that contain billions of transistors). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really think if you're searching for evidence, but don't believe you'll find it, you may find it, but not realize it's evidence.  If you truly believe in miracles, and have faith in Christ, you'll probably be a witness of them, but being a witness is evidence for you, not usually for anyone else.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2056" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T14:14:56.523" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19699" CreationDate="2013-10-09T14:16:55.003" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Faith, believing, trusting all these are akin to one another.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 11 says: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith is a tangible force; faith is the substance of our hopes and is the evidence of unseen realities.  Faith can almost be likened to currency, all initiate life with a measure of faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This measure of faith that each of us were dealt by God is for us to discover the highest investment for.  Love is the ideal target of faith; this transaction is to be demonstrated early in life by loving parents.  A child learns to trust in the love of their parents and later in a loving God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All men without exception spend their life searching for a worthy place to invest their faith.  Many trust only themselves; their faith investment does not extend beyond the love that they hold for themselves.  Others search for the love of a spouse or boyfriend and girlfriend.  Some are in search of their kindred spirit but all are trusting, placing their faith in places that may or may not prove prudent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all know those that can no longer trust anyone, their faith has been bankrupt they no longer have faith to invest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible says that God’s love is the intended target for mankind’s love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T14:16:55.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19716" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19681" CreationDate="2013-10-09T16:36:52.183" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Good question.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though the above answers are excellent, I'll be coming at things from a different direction and with a different perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Middle Eastern culture, and to a certain extent even today in cultures around the world, the responsibility of hosts is to make their guests feel welcome, accepted, and loved.  Although Jesus loved Mary, Martha, and Lazarus and had spent a good deal of time with them, He was still a guest in their house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which was more important to Jesus: the cleanliness of the house and what was for dinner, or conversation with His friends and His disciples?  Obviously, the latter.  I suggest that Jesus, instead of having a big meal with His friends and disciples, would rather have fasted (i.e., skipped the meal) and simply conversed with the people who had gathered in the house.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember Jesus' words in John 4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But [Jesus] said to [His disciples], 'I have food to eat that you do not know about. . . . My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work'&quot; (vv.32,34).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'It is written, MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD'&quot; (Matthew 4:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, which is more important:  bread? or words from God's mouth?  Since Jesus was the God-Man, Mary's listening to what He had to say was the &quot;better part,&quot; as compared to Martha's distracted serving.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When people get distracted, in effect they are forgetting that &quot;the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing!&quot;  Mary got it; Martha, not so much.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;better part&quot; of hospitality for us Christians today is to make our guests feel welcome, accepted, and loved.  In Greek, the New Testament word &lt;em&gt;hospitality&lt;/em&gt; means literally &quot;lover of strangers,&quot; which concept has its roots in the Tanakh and its teaching on the responsibility of God's people to care for orphans, widows, and &lt;em&gt;aliens&lt;/em&gt; (i.e., &lt;em&gt;strangers&lt;/em&gt;).  That God was concerned about the aliens in Israel's midst suggests to me that God has the heart of an evangelist who wants aliens/strangers to become part of His forever-family.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, the main thing for Jesus was to do His Father's will and to finish His work.  For Jesus, this involved preaching, teaching, healing, forgiving, discipling, and ultimately giving His life as a ransom for many.  Mary realized this and consequently hung on His every word.  Martha, though she may too have realized this, she had forgotten it, temporarily, by allowing herself to become distracted, worried, and upset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When's the last time you skipped a meal to get to know Jesus a little better and to listen to what He has to say to you?  His words proceed from the mouth of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Food for thought (pun intended).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T16:36:52.183" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19717" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19641" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:16:16.347" Score="10" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily&#xA;  condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world.&#xA;  Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can&#xA;  raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this&#xA;  reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to&#xA;  regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since &lt;strong&gt;God has&#xA;  created it and will raise it up on the last day&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM&quot;&gt;Cathecism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 322&lt;/a&gt; states that our bodies will be raised on the last day, so after that we will have bodies in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3647" LastEditorUserId="3647" LastEditDate="2013-10-09T18:22:10.043" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T18:22:10.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14906" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:26:05.333" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe, as was stated by Chris, that &quot;one flesh&quot; is essentially created by the act of physical union in the act of sexual intercourse and I do believe that this is by God's design. Sexual activity was never meant to be taken lightly and was never meant to be something between many partners but between one man and one woman. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say this because of what it says about sexual activity in the bible it also from personal experience. I believe firmly that a spiritual bonding takes place during the physical act that is not easy to dissolve. Having multiple partners outside of marriage creates multiple spiritual bonds and interferes with any future permanent relationship. I also personally believe that these bonds need to be recognized, confessed and renounced before God if they are not to cause a problem within the marriage relationship. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6103" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T18:26:05.333" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19719" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-09T19:14:25.203" Score="3" ViewCount="943" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many people who are technicially born into Christian homes, yet they don't fully agree with the doctrine of Trinity etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the creed of Roman Catholic Christianity, if someone is not 100% comfortable with the concept of Trinity (that is, believing it without a doubt in their mind), does that automatically make them 1) a Non-Christian and consequently 2) go to Hell&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6104" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-07-29T14:40:19.523" LastActivityDate="2015-07-29T14:40:19.523" Title="Is a Roman Catholic obligated to believe in the Trinity?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;doubt&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19722" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-09T20:18:44.947" Score="14" ViewCount="398" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the enthronement of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Welby&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Justin Welby&lt;/a&gt; as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Welby&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Archbishop of Canterbury&lt;/a&gt; on 21 March 2013, the following exchange took place as part of the ceremony. Evangeline Kanagasooriam is a  layperson from the diocese, and a pupil at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kings-school.co.uk&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;a school&lt;/a&gt; with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kings-school.co.uk/document_1.aspx?id=1:31658&amp;amp;id=1:31637&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; long association with the cathedral. (The text is from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anglicancommunion.org/_userfiles/File/EnthronementService-v2-PRINT_1.PDF&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;order of service&lt;/a&gt;, p14, and it can be enjoyed &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtu.be/DLirdU0QIdM?t=2m53s&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;on video&lt;/a&gt; as well.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;When the Archbishop arrives at the West Door he strikes it three times with his pastoral staff. The doors are opened and a fanfare is sounded.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Evangeline Kanagasooriam&lt;/em&gt;: We greet you in the name of Christ. Who are you and why do you request entry?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Archbishop&lt;/em&gt;: I am Justin, a servant of Jesus Christ, and I come as one seeking the grace of God, to travel with you in his service together.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Evangeline&lt;/em&gt;: Why have you been sent to us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Archbishop&lt;/em&gt;: I am sent as Archbishop to serve you, to proclaim the love of Christ and with you to worship and love him with heart and soul, mind and strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Evangeline&lt;/em&gt;: How do you come among us and with what confidence?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Archbishop&lt;/em&gt;: I come knowing nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified, and in weakness and fear and in much trembling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Evangeline&lt;/em&gt;: Let us then humble ourselves before God and together seek his mercy and strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that this is new for the occasion. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/abc/104/enthronementservice.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;order of service&lt;/a&gt; for Rowan Williams in 2003 does not contain it, but it does have the triple knocking followed by a welcome by the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_of_Canterbury&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dean&lt;/a&gt; (which also occurred slightly later in the Welby ceremony).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there a precedent for this question-and-answer text in Anglican or earlier practice? (I don't mean just the scriptural allusions, but the use of a question-and-answer format when welcoming a new bishop.) What is the rationale for having the interview with a member of the laity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-07-14T18:09:28.897" Title="What is the origin and purpose of a new bishop being questioned by a layperson?" Tags="&lt;liturgy&gt;&lt;anglicanism&gt;&lt;bishops&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19672" CreationDate="2013-10-09T22:23:49.913" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Within Christianity, the belief that humans become angels seems to stem from a misinterpretation of Jesus' words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:30&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Matthew 22:30&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luk%2020:34-36&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Luke 20:34-36&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems many people incorrectly interpret &quot;like&quot; and &quot;equal to&quot; to mean &quot;identical to.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mainstream Christianity has never taught this; the early church fathers argued over many things concerning angels (whether they are only spirit or have material bodies, what categories of angels exist, etc.), but it doesn't look like they had to argue against the idea that men became angels. Not one of the thirteen commentaries I've read make the claim (or even leave open the possibility).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside mainstream Christianity, a few groups do teach that humans become angels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Latter Day Saints:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.&#xA;  For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.16-17?lang=eng#15&quot;&gt;D&amp;amp;C 132:16-17&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And LDS teaching on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/angels?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=a&quot;&gt;angels&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either been resurrected from the dead or translated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Swedish philosopher/scientist-turned revelator &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg&quot;&gt;Emanuel Swedenborg&lt;/a&gt;, in his book &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=crkVAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;dq=Heaven%20and%20Hell%20Emanuel%20Swedenborg&amp;amp;pg=PA41#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Heaven%20and%20Hell%20Emanuel%20Swedenborg&amp;amp;f=false&quot;&gt;Heaven and Hell&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; published in 1758, wrote that angels are man's perfect form (they are the same race; angels are pure/purified humans).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;... heaven is a communion -- sharing all it has with each one, and each one sharing all he has from this communion. An angel is a recipient, and is thus heaven in least form... Man, too, as far as he receives heaven, is so far a recipient, a heaven, and an angel. This is described in the Apocalypse in the words, &lt;em&gt;He measured the wall of the holy Jerusalem a hundred and forty and four cubits, the measure of a man, that is of an angel (xxi, 17).&lt;/em&gt; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2021:17&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot;&gt;NKJV&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2021:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;ESV&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-10-09T22:23:49.913" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19725" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T02:29:24.847" Score="9" ViewCount="1084" Body="&lt;p&gt;I recently read &lt;em&gt;Every Good Endeavor&lt;/em&gt; by Tim Keller and also &lt;em&gt;Surprised by Hope&lt;/em&gt; by N.T. Wright.  Both are amazing books, focused on the resurrection theology that God will raise up a new heaven and a new earth, and we will dwell in the presence of God, not just sitting around, but living life with new redeemed bodies and doing redeemed work that isn't corrupted by sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ideas of heaven are very exciting: that we won't be just sitting around playing harps, but will live much like we do currently, although without the corruption of sin and in the presence of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another exciting theme in these books is that the work we do here matters towards the new heaven and new earth, and will be redeemed and made full when God comes.  While this is exciting to me, it is also very confusing. Can anybody shed some light into how the work we do here transfers to Gods kingdom, according to Keller and/or Wright, even if it is &quot;secular&quot; in nature?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6107" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-09-30T09:27:14.927" LastActivityDate="2015-09-30T09:27:14.927" Title="How does our work on this earth transfer into the new earth when God returns?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;new-earth&gt;&lt;nt-wright&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19727" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14019" CreationDate="2013-10-10T02:49:30.480" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wonder if his prayer wasn't answered in verse 16. The hearts of the children of Israel being turned to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Zechariah was shocked by the way God was going to answer this righteous request (he and Elizabeth are described as righteous ), and obviously literally &quot;couldn't believe it!&quot; (Judging by the discipline that followed.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, the life of this Spirit filled child was the answer to his prayer and would bring much joy!  I don't believe he was praying for something he didn't think could happen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6109" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T02:49:30.480" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19728" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T04:09:18.803" Score="4" ViewCount="2517" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was going to ask, &quot;Why are Methodists called Methodists&quot;, but that's pretty easily googleable.  Apparently it's the same reason the Sioux aren't called Lakota. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, in the days since the &quot;Holy Club&quot; became known as the &quot;Methodists&quot; has there been any attempt to define what &quot;The Method&quot; actually is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T06:12:22.077" Title="Is there any Method in Methodism that people practice?" Tags="&lt;methodist&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19729" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T04:19:38.110" Score="5" ViewCount="349" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are Presbyters in Presbyterian groups the same thing St. Luke calls Presbyters in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/11:30&quot;&gt;Acts 11:30&lt;/a&gt;, which seems to be more like a congregation of elders or what St. Peter calls a Presbyter in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/1peter/5/&quot;&gt;1 Peter 5&lt;/a&gt;, which I think is more like a priest? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T06:51:06.593" Title="What are Presbyters in Presbyterian groups supposed to be?" Tags="&lt;priesthood&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19719" CreationDate="2013-10-10T05:43:09.673" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Trinity is a Dogma of the Catholic Church. Hence as with all dogmas a Catholic is bound to believe it in order to maintain the bond of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have asked: &lt;strong&gt;if &lt;em&gt;someone&lt;/em&gt; is not 100% comfortable.....&lt;/strong&gt; Who is this someone? If they are non-baptised person, Catholic church has no official stand regarding them, only God will know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If they are baptized Catholic then:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Once a Catholic always a Catholic. Even a excommunicated person is a Christian who is not in union with the body of Christ. Baptism leaves a indelible mark on your soul.&lt;sup&gt;CCC 1272&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;No-one can be sure about any specific individual will or will not go to hell. That is, only God can tell whether they will be saved or not. But if they are willfully refusing to believe a dogma, &lt;em&gt;a divinely revealed truth, proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church&lt;/em&gt;, then it can be implied that they are refusing to remain in the church. And those who refuse to remain in the Church will not be saved.&lt;sup&gt;CCC 846&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One &lt;em&gt;being not comfortable&lt;/em&gt; is different from one &lt;em&gt;says he believes Jesus is not God&lt;/em&gt;. Your question title and its content differ in its meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one is not comfortable:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please remember you don't have to understand a dogma to believe it. So, you can believe in a dogma even if you have doubt. All that is required is your full will, &lt;em&gt;For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CE : Heresy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;says&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; he does not believe in a dogma, and they fully understand the way they are in disagreement with the Catholic Church:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will make him a Heretic. A person who obstinately persists in heresy will not be in union with the church and hence cannot be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-07-28T15:52:34.497" LastActivityDate="2015-07-28T15:52:34.497" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19731" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T06:11:10.243" Score="1" ViewCount="14200" Body="&lt;p&gt;So is a funeral something the Bible requires, either directly or indirectly, if an unbelieving family member dies?&#xA;Would it make a difference if the dead person was a Christian, whether to have a funeral or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastActivityDate="2016-05-12T17:57:32.020" Title="Is it against the Bible not to have a funeral for a family member who dies?" Tags="&lt;funeral&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-05-12T21:41:05.930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19728" CreationDate="2013-10-10T06:12:22.077" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1983/issue2/216.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Oxford Holy Club&lt;/a&gt;, founded by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Wesley&lt;/a&gt;, was the first of many Methodist societies that followed a set of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&amp;amp;b=5068507&amp;amp;ct=6466529&amp;amp;notoc=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;general rules&lt;/a&gt; developed by Wesley himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is therefore expected of all who continue therein that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By doing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power; as they have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all men&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By attending upon all the ordinances of God; such are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The public worship of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The ministry of the Word, either read or expounded.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Supper of the Lord.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Family and private prayer.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Searching the Scriptures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Fasting or abstinence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea was to help Christians draw closer to God and attain &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_perfection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christian perfection&lt;/a&gt; through the process of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sanctification&lt;/a&gt;*. Basically (my words here) you follow the rules and you build good habits and that helps you be a better Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These three rules have been apart of Methodism since the very beginning and they're still prominent in many Methodist organizations today. There's actually a book based on the Wesley method called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.firstsaints.org/files/worship/the_great_experiment_fscc.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The John Wesley Great Experiment&lt;/a&gt;. In the 60s, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.johnwesleyumc.com/clientimages/43780/images/50th%20history%20book.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Wesley UMC&lt;/a&gt; in Tallahassee, FL started a study group based on the book called &quot;Wanted: Ten Brave Christians&quot; that still gets used today (I know because I did it last month).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*I can't begin to explain this well enough to do it justice so I suggest you visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the source&lt;/a&gt;. CCEL has an amazing collection of John Wesley's writings (among so many others) that are free and in the public domain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T06:12:22.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19729" CreationDate="2013-10-10T06:51:06.593" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word that is translated Presbyter in both places (or elder in some translations) is πρεσβύτερος or presbyteros. (Strong's G4245)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were four types of leader in the early church:&#xA;1. apostles (ἀπόστολος or apostolos meaning delegate or messenger)&#xA;2. bishops (ἐπισκοπή or episkopē meaning overseer or guardian)&#xA;3. presbyters (πρεσβύτερος or presbyteros meaning elder)&#xA;4. deacons (διακονέω or diakoneō meaning servant or minister)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Presbyterian church takes it's name from the presbyterian method of church governance. It's a &quot;bottom up&quot; approach instead of the &quot;top-down&quot;, episcopal method favored by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Methodist churches. It's a church governed by the presbyters instead of the bishops. It's not always clear from the Biblical texts who had which responsibilities but in the Catholic church, presbyters ended up being called priests. That carries over to the protestant denominations. The presbyter or elder, does what a priest does in Catholicism: lead worship, administer sacraments, council, teach, etc. Churches group together and then groups group together to form a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.presbyteryofflorida.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;presbytery&lt;/a&gt; which is a council of Church elders who govern the churches within their respective groups.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I suppose the short answer to your question is that they're both.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_polity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Presbyterian Polity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T06:51:06.593" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19736" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T06:55:12.840" Score="4" ViewCount="244" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard from some preachers(not prominent) that assurance of going to Heaven is a self-consciousness. You yourself will have the evident, proof or confident that you are indeed going to heaven. If you are saved and are going to Heaven, you will know it. Some kind of consciousness will occur to you that Heaven is yours. Also, if you are not sure of your entry to Heaven, it means that you are not actually saved and are not going to Heaven at all. If you are saved you will know for sure that you are and if you have doubt about your afterlife, you are not saved at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there any prominent preachers or theologians who teaches that having no confidence about our afterlife implies that we are not actually saved?&lt;/strong&gt;    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-10-10T11:52:17.023" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T06:42:22.007" Title="Who says, &quot;If you are going to Heaven, you will know it&quot;?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19745" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T11:27:32.143" Score="5" ViewCount="4065" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where in the Bible does it mention that God mourns with us when we mourn? I have heard this from the philosopher Peter Kreeft, and some others as well. I would like to be pointed to the biblical source of this. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Or is it an extrapolation of Christ's suffering?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T23:29:31.533" Title="Where in the Bible does it mention that God mourns with us when we mourn?" Tags="&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19736" CreationDate="2013-10-10T11:37:15.653" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only prominent preacher I could find was Paul:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 11 speaks of faith and even faith that leads to a “good report”.  What follows is Hebrews abbreviated to focus on the distinction of this question.  Do we have the benefit of assurance that was not available prior to the completed work of the cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible…By faith Abraham…was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God…All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth…they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them…These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So faith and faith’s effectiveness in a relationship with God has ever been extended to mankind.  We who live on the other side of the cross are not unique because of our heavenly destination but that we have received the promise; we have the benefit of knowing whom to serve as Lord.  And as a result of Christ’s finished work on the cross we uniquely have the benefit of the Holy Spirits presence within our heart.  This unique presence of the promise enables Christ to be made manifest through our lives. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith in God’s grace saves the soul of mankind, assurance of God’s grace within the heart of mankind comes when we become less and He (Christ) becomes more, when we take up our cross and follow Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evidence of His presence in our lives gives us assurance that we belong to Him, we are no longer our own. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-10-10T12:31:30.433" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T12:31:30.433" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19747" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T11:48:35.213" Score="0" ViewCount="167" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know where the Bible prophesies about the Middle East, and much less do I know if they're coming true in our day. I've heard people witnessing to others by saying &quot;look at the Middle East&quot;, but I'm at a loss about it myself, even though I am a Christian too. Can anyone shed some light?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-01T01:18:36.623" LastActivityDate="2015-12-01T01:18:36.623" Title="What prophesies are people alluding to when they say &quot;look at the Middle East&quot;?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;middle-east&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8557" CreationDate="2013-10-10T12:10:10.627" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the Scripture is seemingly silent on any particular topic that is of concern to the Christian church generally, there is a temptation to wonder why God was not &quot;clearer&quot; concerning this or that issue or question.  When this occurs, a better course of action is to remember that while the Scripture is very specific on some things, a great deal of its content comes to us in the form of general principles which God expects us to apply to existential situations, questions, and decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, nowhere in Scripture can we find a prohibition against abortion.  We are &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; therefore free to conclude that abortion is perfectly acceptable to God.  On the contrary, we take the clearly understood principles in the Scripture, such as the infinite worth of every human life, whether in the womb or out of the womb, and we apply those principles to the issue at hand.  Christians can and should be guided in their thinking by those passages which underscore the sanctity of life, as they press their case in the dialog with people who are pro-choice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example would be the tobacco habit.  Scripture does not specifically forbid smoking.  It does, however, teach us that our bodies are given to us by God and that we are to be good stewards of them.  Moreover, the body of each believer in Christ is a temple of the Holy Spirit who indwells him or her.  Just as sexual immorality is associated with a host of sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are incurable and even fatal (e.g., AIDS), and all of which, by the way, are prohibited in Scripture, so too the tobacco habit is associated with a host of avoidable diseases, all of which can shorten our lives unnecessarily.  Again, smoking is a stewardship issue and a sanctity of life issue.  The same principle could apply to gluttony, illegal drugs and alcohol abuse, texting while driving, and on and on and on.     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In His teaching, Jesus never spoke of an &quot;age of accountability&quot; (AOA) per se.  While I cannot speak to the traditions of various denominations in regard to the AOA, I can,  however, suggest we use a well respected method of interpretation, by which we take the principles which are clearly taught in the Scripture and apply them to what is not so clear.  This approach is a common interpretive method applicable to virtually any writing, from the Bible to a modern-day parking ticket, and it is particularly invaluable when the Bible is seemingly silent on an important issue.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Jesus was silent on AOA.  He did, however, have a great deal to say about children, infants, and &quot;little ones&quot; (who generally were not children at all, but a term for His followers).  As we take these teachings, glean important principles from them, and then apply these principles to the issue of AOA, we begin to realize the Scripture is not as silent as we first thought it to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Over and over again Jesus stressed the necessity of coming to God as a little child, and to do so in simple, childlike faith.  &quot;Jesus loves the little children,&quot; we used to sing in Sunday school.  &quot;Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight.  Jesus loves the little children of the world.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When His disciples sought to keep the little babies and ankle-biters away from our Lord, He rebuked His disciples, saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven&quot; (Matthew 19:14). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to capture the context and flow of the passages from which this famous verse comes, I'll reproduce here Orville E. Daniel's &lt;em&gt;A Harmony of the Four Gospels&lt;/em&gt; (p.182) so that by conflating the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, each unique detail of the narrative from each of the Synoptics is included:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them.  People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them.  When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.  When Jesus saw this, he was indignant.  He called the little children to him and said, &quot;Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.&quot;  And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them (Ma 19:13-15; Mk 10:13-16; Lk 18:15-17).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was indignant that His disciples wanted to shoo away the children and the parents who had brought their babies to Him.  To be indignant is to have a feeling that something is not right, that an attitude or a behavior is not worthy of a laudable value or a preferable standard for attitudes and behaviors (&lt;em&gt;indignity&lt;/em&gt; coming from the Latin stem stem &lt;em&gt;dignus&lt;/em&gt;, worthy + &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt;, not) .  To Jesus, the attitude that children are somehow unworthy of His ministrations was antithetical to, and unworthy of, the principles by which He lived.  Hence, Jesus felt indignant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why were children so important to Jesus that He would encourage them to come to Him, that He would take them in His arms and bless them, that He would pray for them, and that He would use them as illustrations of important biblical principles?  I suggest it was not because children are pure, innocent, and without sin; rather, it was because children almost instinctively trust their elders through a three-step process which Spurgeon used to define faith:  faith begins with knowing, it proceeds to believing, and it culminates in trusting.  In the same manner adults must exercise faith in a knowing, believing, and trusting process.  Otherwise, we will never experience God's forgiveness, cleansing, and God's acceptance of us into His forever-family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trusting does not require a great deal of smarts, which is why Jesus thanked His Father that His teachings were revealed not to the wise and the intelligent, but to &quot;infants&quot; (see Matthew 10:25; Luke 10:21).  In the context of these two verses, Jesus was thanking His Father primarily for His &quot;infant&quot; disciples.  At the same time, however, Jesus was also underscoring the importance of exercising simple, childlike trust in God, as opposed to the relative unimportance of using worldly intelligence and wisdom to come to God (see 1 Corinthians 1:18-25). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, then, Jesus did not speak of an &quot;age of accountability,&quot; but He clearly valued children and used them as an example when He taught His followers on the importance of trust and humility in being converted.  Children, according to Jesus, already have the requisite and sufficient trust and humility to be considered part of the kingdom of heaven.  If we as adults do not become like them, we'll never be converted, and thus we will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven'&quot; (Matthew 18:3,4). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, had Jesus expected children to repent and be converted, He would have addressed them as He did His adult audience.  Clearly, however, He did not do that, not even on one occasion.  Since Jesus clearly loved the children and used them as an example of the values of humility and trust, we can safely conclude that children are part of God's forever family.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes when the Scripture is seemingly silent on an issue, that silence, if it is truly there, is there because God did not deem it necessary to provide more guidance than what is already in His Word in the form of guiding principles.  As for the specifics of what age is the age of accountability, we need to apply those principles on a case-by-case basis, just as God will in the day of judgment. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T12:10:10.627" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19725" CreationDate="2013-10-10T12:21:37.627" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:5,6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus here is instructing Nicodemus, which in verse 10 He says: “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”  The interesting thing here is that Jesus is chastising Nicodemus for not knowing that one has to be “born again” before His (Christ’s) completed work on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Hebrews chapter 11 we know that those that lived before the cross received a good report by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First Corinthians 3:13-15 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Life appears to be an eternal genealogy, where the “books” seem to record ones life works, either born of the Holy Spirit or conceived and born outside of the will of God the Father and of the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in answer to the question: Fire is the agent that separates eternal substance from temporal substance, this is also true with our life works as well.  Fire typically depicts God's judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T13:10:06.167" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19751" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19770" CreationDate="2013-10-10T13:17:56.297" Score="7" ViewCount="31584" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not&#xA;  forbid speaking in tongues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any &lt;strong&gt;instruction&lt;/strong&gt; given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2015-08-21T12:46:36.837" Title="How to receive the gift of tongues according to the New Testament?" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-08-22T10:10:08.137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19752" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T13:25:28.170" Score="4" ViewCount="559" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not&#xA;  forbid speaking in tongues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any &lt;strong&gt;instructions&lt;/strong&gt; given by the early &lt;strong&gt;church fathers&lt;/strong&gt; on how to receive the gift of tongues? Since the New Testament doesn't give any specific instructions on how to receive the gift of tongues, there must be some writings from the church fathers on this issue. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2015-12-16T21:15:51.127" Title="Any instructions given by the church fathers on how to receive the gift of tongues?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19753" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19751" CreationDate="2013-10-10T13:25:49.370" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Testament does not give us a method for receiving the gift of tongues.  On the contrary, we are taught that the Holy Spirit distributes various gifts according to His own will.  Thus, it may not be His will that you or me receive the gift of tongues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians is the key text on all of this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Now there are &lt;strong&gt;varieties of gifts&lt;/strong&gt;, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For &lt;em&gt;to one&lt;/em&gt; is given &lt;strong&gt;the word of wisdom&lt;/strong&gt; through the Spirit, and &lt;em&gt;to another&lt;/em&gt; the &lt;strong&gt;word of knowledge&lt;/strong&gt; according to the same Spirit; 9 &lt;em&gt;to another&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; by the same Spirit, and &lt;em&gt;to another&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;gifts of healing&lt;/strong&gt; by the one Spirit, 10 and &lt;em&gt;to another&lt;/em&gt; the &lt;strong&gt;effecting of miracles&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;to another&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;prophecy&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;to another&lt;/em&gt; the &lt;strong&gt;distinguishing of spirits&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;em&gt;to another&lt;/em&gt; &lt;strong&gt;various kinds of tongues&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;to another&lt;/em&gt; the &lt;strong&gt;interpretation of tongues&lt;/strong&gt;. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, &lt;strong&gt;distributing to each one individually just as He wills&lt;/strong&gt;.  1 Corinthians 12:4-11 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the Spirit will give believers gifts as He Himself wills--not as we will.  We may desire the greater gifts, but that is all.  From the following passage, it appears the the gift of tongues is not considered one of the greater gifts, as apostleship, prophecy and teaching are given as the first three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, &lt;strong&gt;first apostles&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;second prophets&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;third teachers&lt;/strong&gt;, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 &lt;strong&gt;But earnestly desire the greater gifts.&lt;/strong&gt;  1 Corinthians 12:27-31&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T13:25:49.370" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19725" CreationDate="2013-10-10T13:29:03.027" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The works themselves, the particular activity we engage in, do not seem to matter as much as the faithfulness to the Lord with which we render the works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 24:45-51 shows us the outcome of the work. One servant found his usefulness recalled to mind when the master returned after a long while, and he was rewarded with greater responsibilities. But if that same servant had been found untrustworthy, then he would have been disqualified from any such reward. Note that the same servant is in view; we may prove trustworthy or not in the end; there is no guarantee that we'll reign with Christ; the trustworthiness of our character matters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 25:14-30 shows us the same situation. The two servants who were faithful in what they did received greater responsibilities. The one servant who did not pursue his duties like the other two was rejected. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that if we are able to follow the Lord's will honorably when we cannot see Him, then we would be able to be trusted to follow Him in the next life with whatever commensurate responsibilities He gives us. See also Luke 16:11-12: &quot;If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God wants to give us something to do in the future kingdom, but He will give it to those who have been found to be of such proven character that it can be entrusted to him/her. This is not a strange or weird idea. Many well-run businesses operate this way, rewarding the top performers (alas, not all governments are).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 16:10 tells us, &quot;He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much.&quot; Do not despise the day of small things; God sees our work as serving Him or serving something else. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T13:29:03.027" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19755" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19759" CreationDate="2013-10-10T13:39:24.520" Score="1" ViewCount="121" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there any method/instruction given by prominent preachers recently on how to receive the gift of tongues? Some specific way of prayer, some specific steps to follow, what kind of attitude is required and so forth? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T14:55:59.117" Title="Any instructions given by contemporary prominent preachers on how to receive the gift of tongues?" Tags="&lt;spiritual-gifts&gt;&lt;speaking-in-tongues&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19745" CreationDate="2013-10-10T14:05:53.673" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we must start to be satisfied in the concept that 'God suffers' in some sense when we suffer, from the basic premise that he loves us.  On the other hand, God can't suffer in the sense that it takes away the endless joy and boundless relaxed tranquility of the infinite pleasure he has in his perfect will, without any shadow of turning in his own joy.  In other words, God is always rejoicing with infinite joy, therefore you will not find any scripture speaking about God as suffering within his own divinity. His suffering can only be another kind as an outflow of his love for us which can exists together with eternal infinite joy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are grappling with a mystery here so words are not quite good enough for the explanation. However, we must proceed upon something when grappling with the incarnate mystery of God in the flesh and how that has manifested his divine live for humans.  So we will proceed to map it out from a scriptural standpoint without trying to fully understand it. One one hand, we know that God suffers when we suffer because love can't rest when its beloved suffers. It's a fact of god given reason.  It's an essential emotional element of love that must have a spiritual equivalent in the infinite glory of God, otherwise he would not have created love to behave this way.  Furthermore, Christ being the manifestation of tue divinity with his divine love possessing a human soul and body and we see that Christ also suffered when his loved ones suffered.  Christ also proved that he suffers by literally suffering that we might not suffer. This clearly shows that God suffers in human terms, using human words to describe it.  &lt;strong&gt;Although the divinity can't cry or walk around moping and mourning, being eternally joyful, we see God's empathy (the ability to suffer when others suffer) when assuming human form, having compassion on us, being 'a man of sorrows' and dying for us. It's an extrapolation of redemption through the incarnation and death of God's only son.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We might not have known that God had the attribute of empathy but as manifested in the God-Man this divine quality became more than just an abstract inference from the basic assumption in the word 'love':&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are —yet he did not sin. (Hebrews 4:15, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course we see the divine empathy everywhere when we read the gospels.  The way Christ speaks to individuals shows that his emotions are filled with empathy, never breaking the bruised reed, or snuffing out a smoldering wick. (Matth12:20).  Even the simple fact that Christ's emotions were tender by the direct unlimited influence of the Spirit, causing his empathetic and generous soul to 'deeply feel' for those about to be judged, indicates his suffering for the suffering of others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it. (Luke 19:41, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So although the bible does not say anywhere 'God suffers when we suffer' it must be true in a certain sense for he empathizes with us in our pain and works hard to relieve ours as a result. Even to the point of offering his only Son to greatly suffer by becoming our sin that we might be his righteousness, all to take our pain into himself, for our eternal relief. If this is not divine empathy then I do not know what it is to feel the pain of another person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-10-10T23:29:31.533" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T23:29:31.533" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19759" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19755" CreationDate="2013-10-10T14:55:59.117" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are overlooking the most important word in your question, and that is 'gift'. A gift is something that is freely given - the giver chooses whether or not to give, and the receiver can only choose whether or not to accept it - if it is given. If the receiver can compel the giver in any way, or tries to earn it, then it isn't a gift. It's long been part of Christian theology that Tongues and rather supernatural abilities are 'gifts' in that sense. Check out 1 Corinthians 12, where this is made explicit. Also check out 1 Corinthians 13, which is an explanation of something better and more important than spiritual gifts - Love. It's not accidental that those chapters are next to each other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;General advice as far as I know is that if you earnestly desire a specific gift, keep praying for it. But be aware, as with all other prayers, God may not grant you what you are asking. He may have a better, alternative plan for you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The exceptions to this are the Pentecostal traditions where speaking in tongues is a sure and necessary sign of being a true believer. In that case if you don't have that gift, consult with a Pastor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T14:55:59.117" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19760" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T16:42:41.703" Score="3" ViewCount="3491" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have often wondered if Earth was created not for man, but as a place of temporary confinement for Satan and his demons. That idea was provoked by,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, &#xA;Rev 12:8  And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. &#xA;Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus said he saw Satan cast out of Heaven it would mean that he was present to witness Revelation 12;7 thru 9.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would also mean that he was present at creation since according to Revelation 12:9 Satan and his Demons were cast into the Earth, indicating that Creation must have progressed at minimum beyond Genesis 1:1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Confinement to Earth would be about the same as confinement in Prison for them since they would no longer be free to roam endless space.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have reviewed all those referenced questions, but do not feel that they adequately address  my particular enigma. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2015-01-14T22:45:26.503" Title="Did God create Earth as a temporary place of confinement for Lucifer and his Angels?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-16T21:54:32.497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19764" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T17:50:45.263" Score="1" ViewCount="48" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have never read in the bible whether eating of unclean meat as described in the Old Testament where it is allowed to eat &quot;unclean meat&quot; or unclean meat is now clean meat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Except for one vision from Peter where the vision orders him to &quot;eat unclean meat&quot; however, this is clearly not literal as the context is for Peter to preach unto the Gentiles: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(17) While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men&#xA;  sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the&#xA;  gate.  (18) They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was&#xA;  staying there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(22) The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is&#xA;  a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish&#xA;  people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that&#xA;  he could hear what you have to say.” (23) Then Peter invited the men&#xA;  into the house to be his guests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other verses in the bible tells &quot;all foods are clean&quot; however we should take note that it says nothing about &quot;all meats are clean&quot;, food is totally different word from meat. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was the vision literal or not? If its literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what could be it's relation to Isaiah 66:17 which states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the&#xA;  gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the&#xA;  abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD. (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which by deduction &lt;em&gt;swine flesh&lt;/em&gt; as described in this verse refers to unclean meat, and the verse says, those who eat these &lt;em&gt;Shall be consumed together&lt;/em&gt; which by deduction again means, AFAIK, refers to the end of the world. So in other words, those who consume unclean meat  shall perish together in the end of the world, which basically puts the interpretation of Acts 10:17-118, 22-23 in question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;It's okay to eat unclean meat as interpreted in the vision but doing so will cause you perish in the end&quot; -- a questionable argument. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6120" LastEditorDisplayName="user6120" LastEditDate="2020-05-21T21:47:44.390" LastActivityDate="2020-05-21T21:47:44.390" Title="Eating of unclean meat" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-10-10T17:58:51.143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19766" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-10T19:13:20.763" Score="6" ViewCount="1354" Body="&lt;p&gt;At what age and how do young Catholics know or be notified that they have committed a mortal sin or a venial sin? Basically, do they tell the priest at Confession that they have committed a mortal sin or venial sin, or does the priest tell the Catholic what type of sin the person has committed and what the consequences will be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;how&quot; is asking for the process by which the young Catholic will be notified of the sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T01:35:33.303" Title="At what age and how do young Catholics know or be notified that they have committed a mortal sin or a venial sin?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19767" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19766" CreationDate="2013-10-10T19:22:56.337" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ordinarily, people (children and adults) simply tell the priest in confession what they did. The priest will determine whether the sin was mortal or venial (or perhaps no sin at all), possibly after asking the penitent some questions to get a clearer idea of the penitent's intention and state of mind, or of the circumstances surrounding the sin.  The priest might but need not tell the penitent explicitly whether he considers the sin mortal or venial.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T19:22:56.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19760" CreationDate="2013-10-10T20:16:07.940" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The world may be a place of confinement for the devils, in some sense, but it is &lt;em&gt;primarily&lt;/em&gt; a place created for humans and for the glory of God. Perhaps your question was partly inspired by the famous lines from Marlowe's &lt;em&gt;Faustus&lt;/em&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;FAUSTUS: Where are you damn'd?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  MEPHISTOPHELES: In hell.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  FAUSTUS: How comes it then, that thou art out of hell?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  MEPHISTOPHELES: Why, this is hell; nor am I out of it:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Think'st thou that I, that saw the face of God,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And tasted the eternal joys of heaven,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Am not tormented with ten thousand hells&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  In being depriv'd of everlasting bliss?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hell as separation from God is a very common and orthodox concept. Thomas Aquinas (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1064.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 1.64.4 ad 3&lt;/a&gt;), in the same way, says &quot;Although the demons are not actually bound within the fire of hell while they are in this dark atmosphere, nevertheless their punishment is none the less; because they know that such confinement is their due.&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Daemones licet non actu alligentur gehennali igni, dum sunt in aere isto caliginoso, tamen ex hoc ipso quod sciunt illam alligationem sibi deberi, eorum poena non diminuitur.&lt;/em&gt;) This reference to the &quot;dark atmosphere&quot; follows Augustine, after Paul in Ephesians 2:2 and 6:12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Earth is certainly not identical with Hell. The various narratives of creation present the universe as a place formed and hallowed by God: it is &quot;very good&quot; in his sight (Genesis 1:31) and it is a home for humans and other creatures (see Psalm 104 for extended praise of God's handiwork and sovereign care). John proclaims that God &quot;became flesh and lived among us&quot; (John 1:14), literally &quot;pitched his tent&quot;, as part of a constant Biblical theme of God choosing to become known in the world and making it &quot;his&quot; place. The preaching of Jesus is also full of positive references to the Earth's inhabitants, as in Matthew 6:26-29, from the Sermon on the Mount:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An Earth which contains birds and lilies, beloved in their own way by God, is not a prison for devils. At other times, Jesus speaks of the world as a place &lt;em&gt;occupied&lt;/em&gt; by evil powers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.&quot; (John 12:31)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &quot;I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father.&quot; (John 14:30-31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The world does not rightly belong to the present &quot;ruler of this world&quot;, but to God; Jesus came to liberate us from the lordship of evil. The Revelation culminates in &quot;a new heaven and a new earth&quot; (21:1), distinct from Hell which is thrown into &quot;the lake of fire&quot; (20:14). The new Earth is not an improved prison, but a new and better home for God and us: &quot;The home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them&quot; (21:3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(All Biblical quotations are from the NRSV.)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T20:16:07.940" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19751" CreationDate="2013-10-10T20:26:30.613" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The gift of tongues is just one of many spiritual gifts.  The Bible provides examples of many people throughout history who had been imparted with various Spiritual gifts.  For instance, Isaac had the gift of granting blessings (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2027&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen 27&lt;/a&gt;).  Balaam had the gift of cursing (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2027&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Num 22&lt;/a&gt;).  Daniel (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dan 2&lt;/a&gt;) and Joseph (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2040&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen 40&lt;/a&gt;) had the gift of interpreting dreams.  Elisha had the gift of healing (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%205&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Ki 5&lt;/a&gt;).  Many people, such as Samuel, Isaiah and Jeremiah had the gift of prophesy (speaking God's word and revealing His mysteries).  Even Saul, before he became the king of Israel, was given the gift of prophesy for a period of time (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2010&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Sam 10&lt;/a&gt;).  There are many more gifts and many people who had them in the Bible.  Also, many people had multiple gifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Outside of the account of Babel, where God supernaturally altered the native tongue of all of the people (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gen 11&lt;/a&gt;), the Old Testament never describes anyone who has the gift of tongues.  The closest that it comes to doing so would be the account of Daniel, who seemingly had the gift of tongue interpretation (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%205&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dan 5&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Cor 12:10&lt;/a&gt;).  The only place in the Old Testament where the gift of speaking in tongues is specifically mentioned is in a prophesy of Isaiah:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2028:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 28:11 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Indeed, He will speak to this people&lt;br&gt;Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Paul quoted Isaiah's prophesy, and related it to the gift of tongues, in his first letter to the Corinthians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2014:20-25&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 14:20-25 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,” says the Lord. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on that evidence, it seems likely that the specific gift of speaking in tongues is unique to the church age.  In the Old Testament, it seems clear that there were a select few people who were chosen by God to be recipients of His spiritual gifts.  The outpouring of spiritual gifts, including that of tongues, upon a vast number of believers in the early church was an unusual occurrence, based on Old Testament precedence.  According to Peter, in his sermon on Pentecost (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2&lt;/a&gt;), the following prophesy of Joel was specifically referring to their time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joel%202:28&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joel 2:28 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“It will come about after this&lt;br&gt;That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;&lt;br&gt;And your sons and daughters will prophesy,&lt;br&gt;Your old men will dream dreams,&lt;br&gt;Your young men will see visions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament records two different manners through which spiritual gifts were imparted to the early Christians.  The first manner was through an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, by God, on a large group of people.  The New Testament describes two occasions in which this happened: once for the Jews on Pentecost (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2&lt;/a&gt;), and once for the Gentiles at Caesarea (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 10&lt;/a&gt;).  The second manner through which spiritual gifts were imparted was by an Apostle laying his hands on an individual believer (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:14-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:14-19&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019:1-%206&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;19:1-6&lt;/a&gt;).  If there were any other means through which the early Christians received spiritual gifts, they are not recorded in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Interpretation&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is certainly clear that supernatural spiritual gifts do exist, and that many believers in the early church had such supernatural gifts.  Different denominations, however, interpret these scriptures in different ways.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentecostal and Charismatic churches often teach that spiritual gifts are available to all believers today, but that they do not receive their spiritual gifts until they are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_with_the_Holy_Spirit&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;baptized in the Holy Spirit&lt;/a&gt;.  They believe that spiritual baptism is a separate act which is different from salvation/regeneration and water baptism.  They base this belief on certain passages in the New Testament, such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:4-5&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 1:4-5 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2011:16&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 11:16 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also typically equate baptism of the Holy Spirit with being &quot;filled&quot; by or with the Holy Spirit, which is referenced many times throughout both the old and new testaments.  They typically believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is received through earnest prayer in which the christian requests that God baptize them with His Holy Spirit and impart His spiritual gifts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptists, on the other hand, typically equate baptism of the Holy Spirit, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, with being indwelt and sealed by the Spirit.  In their view, all believers are filled with the Holy Spirit and already have their spiritual gifts.  They, however, believe that the supernatural spiritual gifts were only temporary.  They believe that today, only the natural spiritual gifts, such as preaching and teaching, are imparted by God.  They believe that the supernatural spiritual gifts were provided for a short time as a sign from God to serve the purpose of quickly growing the early church.  Baptists are typically skeptical of any modern supernatural activity, such as spiritual gifts, miracles, and demon possession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not an expert on Catholicism, so I cannot speak to their beliefs authoritatively, but they are certainly more open to supernatural activity.  The Catholic Church teaches that miracles are still a relatively common occurrence.  They commonly believe in modern demon possession as well.  The Catholic Church also teaches that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Charasmatic services and practices are welcome&lt;/a&gt; among their ranks.  As such, there are a number of Charasmatic Catholic parishes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another, perhaps less common, view is that spiritual gifts, of any kind, are no longer imparted to all believers.  Christians of this persuasion believe that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Jews on Pentecost (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2&lt;/a&gt;) and the Gentiles at Caesarea (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 10&lt;/a&gt;) were the only two times in history where such a thing has occurred.  They believe that the rest of the early Christians who had spiritual gifts obtained them only through an Apostle laying his hands upon them.  They base this belief on several biblical passages:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:14-19&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 8:14-19 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019:1-%206&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 19:1-6 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:11&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 1:11 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim.%201:6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 1:6 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People who hold to this belief would argue that during the time of the early church, God imparted to the Apostles a special gift whereby they could impart spiritual gifts to others through the laying-on of hands.  Many people became Christians, but did not receive spiritual gifts until they were visited by an Apostle.  In other words, God temporarily delegated to the Apostles the authority of choosing who should be filled with the Spirit.  As such, once the Apostles died, spiritual gifts returned to only being accessible to the select few people chosen by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What is Speaking in Tongues?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also worth mentioning that different sects of Christianity interpret the gift of tongues, itself, differently.  Charismatic Christians believe that speaking in tongues was often done in unknown spiritual languages.  They often use the following verse as a basis for their belief:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:1&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 13:1 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If I speak with the tongues of men &lt;strong&gt;and of angels&lt;/strong&gt;, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who are more skeptical of modern supernatural spiritual gifts often believe that most or all of the instances of speaking in tongues that are described in the New Testament were actual, contemporary, earthly languages.  They believe that the gift of tongues was meant to be used as a means for evangelizing the whole world by supernaturally speaking in all of the languages of the world.  They often point to the following passage for support:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:4-6&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:4-6 (NASB)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.  Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak &lt;strong&gt;in his own language&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2013-10-26T22:36:03.693" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T22:36:03.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7118" CreationDate="2013-10-10T22:28:27.877" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ex 34 v 19&#xA;The LORD answered: I will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim my name, “LORD,” before you; I who show favor to whom I will, I who grant mercy to whom I will.&#xA;...Jesus is the Goodness of the Father shown to Moses in the entire journey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6123" LastActivityDate="2013-10-10T22:28:27.877" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19766" CreationDate="2013-10-11T01:35:33.303" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question has more to do with culpability than it has to do with anything else, and that is a sticky subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a sin to be mortal it must:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;be a grave matter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;be consensual&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;be done by someone who can understand what is going on.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if a three year old fires a gun and kills someone, that would be a grave matter, the act might have had consent of the will, but does the child understand? Probably not (not impossible, but probably not).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe I read this in a commentary on the Code of Canon Law (but maybe not), but the loose standard for full culpability is a rule of sevens.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Under seven you almost certainly cannot have a full understanding of the consequences of actions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Between seven and fourteen, you probably do not have full understanding of the consequences of actions, but it is possible that you do.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Between fourteen and twenty-one, you probably do have full understanding of the consequences of actions, but it is possible that you do not.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Over twenty-one you are almost certainly capable of understanding the consequences of actions.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously there are exceptions, but those are guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T01:35:33.303" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19776" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19731" CreationDate="2013-10-11T02:58:17.503" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible neither requires nor prohibits the funerals of anyone. In general this is a wisdom issue - would not having a funeral offend the family? Would it damage relationships?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus does however say something that might be taken to say that Christians shouldn't be involved in the funerals/burials of nonchristians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” (Matthew 8:21-22, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shouldn't however be taken as a blanket prohibition of Christians attending funerals for their fathers. These verses, and the ones immediately before them, tell us that there is a high cost to following Jesus, that following Jesus will require us to make sacrifices and that our ties with our families will be strained. And indeed, there are many Christians who have been unable to attend funerals because they are serving God in circumstances that don't permit them to return, such as missionaries in foreign countries.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T02:58:17.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18818" CreationDate="2013-10-11T03:21:33.203" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From 2000-2008:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Over these nine years, the Catholic presence in the world has grown from 1.045 billion in 2000 to 1.166 billion in 2008, an increase of 11.54%. Considering the statistics in detail, numbers in Africa grew by 33%, in Europe they remained generally stable (an increase of 1.17%), while in Asia they increased by 15.61%, in Oceania by 11.39% and in America by 10.93%. As a percentage of the total population, European Catholics represented 26.8% in 2000 and 24.31% in 2008. In America and Oceania they have remained stable, and increased slightly in Asia.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/number-of-catholics-on-the-rise&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source: zenit.org (from the Statistical Yearbook of the Church)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately this doesn't help identify the converts' previous religious beliefs, but possibly the Yearbook might have those sort of details.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2013-10-11T05:17:52.300" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T05:17:52.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19779" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19747" CreationDate="2013-10-11T05:03:35.727" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I have heard people say &quot;look at the Middle East&quot;, it is generally in regards to the formation of the Israelite state in 1948. For close to 2000 years there had been no Israelite state or temple, and for around 2500 years there had been no independent Israelite state. The establishment is seen as the beginning of the end - a necessary step before a temple can be built (which is frequently referred to in Revelation.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a great many prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the re-establishment of an Israelite state, for example Isaiah 66:8. Many of these prophecies could also be interpreted as referring to the Province of Judah that was established after the Exile, or to the creation of the Church, but those who are saying to &quot;look at the Middle East&quot; would most likely interpret them as referring to the current Israelite state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T05:03:35.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19785" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19255" CreationDate="2013-10-11T08:31:31.247" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume that your question is not about the &lt;em&gt;exact usage or origin&lt;/em&gt; of the phrase &lt;em&gt;First Among Equals&lt;/em&gt; rather the primacy of the bishop of Rome. i.e., The office of the bishop of Rome is considered preeminent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox Churches &lt;strong&gt;did not begin&lt;/strong&gt; to assert this title after the Schism &lt;strong&gt;nor did the Catholic Church reject it&lt;/strong&gt; after it. Both the churches always agreed that the bishop of Rome is first among the Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). The problem was on whether this primacy is just a honorary title or does it have functions/privileges attached to it (which is in and of itself a completely different question).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There has been many instances before the Schism which shows that the papal supremacy was an accepted fact.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its &lt;strong&gt;more powerful preeminence that every other church&lt;/strong&gt;, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree, inasmuch as in this church the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who come from everywhere.&quot;  St. Irenaeus (&quot;Against All Heresies,&quot; c. 180 A.D.) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The first bishop to claim primacy in writing was Pope Stephen I (254-257)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Where Peter is, There is the Church - St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan (&quot;Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David&quot; c. 389 A.D.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . &lt;strong&gt;one among the twelve is chosen to be their head&lt;/strong&gt; in order to remove any occasion for division.&quot;  St. Jerome (&quot;Against Jovinian,&quot; c. 393 A.D.) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&quot;Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to &lt;strong&gt;represent the whole Church&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;   St. Augustine of Hippo (&quot;Sermon 295,&quot; c. 411 A.D.) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Edicts of the Emperor Theodosius II and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Roman bishop as &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Rector of the whole Church&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. The Emperor Justinian, who was living in the &lt;em&gt;East in Constantinople&lt;/em&gt;, in the 6th century published a similar decree.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;First Council of Constantinople decreed: &quot;The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor &lt;strong&gt;after the Bishop of Rome&lt;/strong&gt; because Constantinople is New Rome.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They might have used different words, but neither the Catholic church nor the orthodox church has ever refused the primacy of the Bishop of Rome till today. They always considered him to be First Among Equals. It is whether this primacy has extra function is what is been questioned after the east-west schism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T08:31:31.247" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19786" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20162" CreationDate="2013-10-11T09:42:01.633" Score="6" ViewCount="1109" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Roman Catholicism the faithfuls are supposed to say Angelus prayer thrice a day and at designated time of the day. When and how saying of Angelus came into being and what is the history behind it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2014-10-02T15:13:57.730" Title="What is the history behind Angelus prayer?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19789" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-11T14:02:31.383" Score="5" ViewCount="23193" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude 1:11 (KJV): Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude 1:11 (NIV): Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who is “them” mentioned above and what is the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of Korah?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-10-16T03:29:50.187" Title="What is the way of Cain, the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of Core (Korah)?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;jude&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19789" CreationDate="2013-10-11T14:17:26.257" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Them&quot; refers to the people mentioned in verse 4 of Jude:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;certain persons&lt;/strong&gt; have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, &lt;strong&gt;ungodly persons&lt;/strong&gt; who &lt;strong&gt;turn the grace of our God into licentiousness&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;.  Jude 4 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, &quot;they&quot; are the proverbial &quot;wolves in sheep's clothing&quot;--people who were among the believers, but were not believers.  They were &quot;among&quot; them, but they were not &quot;of&quot; them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Way of Cain&quot; refers to Genesis 4:16:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then &lt;strong&gt;Cain went out from the presence of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Balaam tried to go against the will of God (Numbers 22), and Korah opposed God's servant Moses (Numbers 16).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-10-11T14:27:14.007" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T14:27:14.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19792" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16377" CreationDate="2013-10-11T14:46:45.863" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should also look at the Open English Bible here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://openenglishbible.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Welcome to the Open English Bible.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Open English Bible project aims to create the first modern English translation of the Bible which is completely free of copyright restrictions and available without cost for any purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The OEB has no restrictions on what its readers and users can do with it (for both good and bad). You may quote it, publish it in part or full, on their blogs, in your churches, remix it, reword it, correct its egregious translation mistakes or indeed add your own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6134" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-10-05T14:10:39.517" LastActivityDate="2016-10-05T14:10:39.517" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19789" CreationDate="2013-10-11T14:52:04.230" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;This isn't an arbitrary grouping of Old Testament sinners, but instead a group of three men who each had the particular error of trying to corrupt the rightful worship of God. Good intentions are not enough when it comes to worship - we must not go against his instructions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Cain, the implication is that God did not accept his sacrifice because he did not offer the best of his crops. (Genesis 4:3-5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Balaam, Numbers 34:16 says that he not only had intended to curse the Israelites, but that he had advised the Moabites into seducing the Israelites and getting them to worship Baal, which is told in Numbers 25.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Korah, Moses and Korah actually had a worship contest! (Numbers 16) Korah was a Levite, but he wasn't one of the priests, and so he wasn't allowed to do all that Aaron was. This made him jealous, but God confirmed that only those he said could present incense at the tabernacle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We could add to the list Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons, who in Leviticus 10 burned &quot;strange fire&quot; at the tabernacle and were burned up by God. Creativity was a dangerous thing when it came to worshipping God at the tabernacle!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude 10 says that these people &quot;do whatever their instincts tell them, and so they bring about their own destruction.&quot; We must be careful not to follow our instincts blindly, but check them against the revealed word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T14:52:04.230" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19794" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19798" CreationDate="2013-10-11T14:59:13.067" Score="4" ViewCount="602" Body="&lt;p&gt;In view of John 5:17;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh_5:17  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the fact that Hubble shows us that new stars, etc. are forming in the Cosmos, it would appear that Creation is an ongoing process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How does this compare with;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 2:2  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T17:40:35.603" Title="Is God still in the process of creation?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19796" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19789" CreationDate="2013-10-11T15:30:26.627" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Jude is primarily a book of do's and don'ts for the Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The three you  refer to are cited along with the Angelic rebellion as instances of attempts to usurp the Authority of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may find that if you read these instances in the old testament, and then consider the complete narrative of Jude it will be easier to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also if you are interested there are several free Bible study programs available for download on the internet, I have found two which I recommend highly; The Word @ theword.org, and e-sword @ e-sword.net.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are multiple Bible translations, commentaries, dictionaries, and other helps also downloadable for free on thee sites. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T15:30:26.627" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19794" CreationDate="2013-10-11T17:00:48.373" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The traditional Christian view on this is that God completed the work of creation in six days (whether you take that literally or metaphorically). However he is still in the business of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Sustainer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;sustaining&lt;/em&gt; his creation&lt;/a&gt;. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in 301: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, without God's continual work, nothing could continue to exist. It's a separate kind of work from the work of Creation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Ryan Frame says, the discovery of new stars does not mean that they were created recently. Also the birth of new stars (or animals, or people for that matter) doesn't imply new creation. God had set in motion at the time of creation the &lt;em&gt;mechanisms&lt;/em&gt; by which they are created (coalescing matter clouds, sexual reproduction). That was the work of creation. The bringing-to-birth is the work of sustainment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additional references to show that this view is not limited to Catholics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/11/18/sustains-us-every-day&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Answers in Genesis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/art.5.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mennonite Articles of Faith&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bic-church.org/about/beliefs/god_creation.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brethren in Christ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://anglicansonline.org/basics/catechism.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Anglican Catechism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-10-11T17:46:30.787" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T17:46:30.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19802" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14906" CreationDate="2013-10-11T20:33:47.453" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;One flesh - Connected sexually first. The result is &quot;one flesh&quot;, a newborn baby that is &quot;one flesh&quot; of the woman and man who joined together. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also it means the two of you are now one &quot;until death do (you) part&quot;. One team raising a family. One set of loving parents guiding their children. One set of legs, arms, eyes, mind working to fulfill the will of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5990" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T20:33:47.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19803" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-11T21:00:22.467" Score="6" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;When looking at Old Testament Mosaic law, I'm confused as to what applies to Christians and what does not.  In an &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/19508/4412&quot;&gt;answer to a previous question&lt;/a&gt; that I asked, it was said that a certain law did &quot;not seem to be an issue of covenant, but an actual abomination to God.&quot;  Are an &quot;issue of covenant&quot; and an &quot;abomination to God&quot; different categories of laws in the Old Testament?  What is the Christian view of how different types of Mosaic law apply to us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T00:00:03.883" Title="What is the difference between an &quot;issue of covenant&quot; and an &quot;abomination to God&quot;?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19804" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-11T21:09:19.307" Score="11" ViewCount="801" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When we encounter the Cross, we turn to Mary: Give us the strength, Mary our Mother, to accept and embrace the Cross! &lt;br /&gt;&amp;mdash;His Holiness Pope Francis&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://mobile.twitter.com/Pontifex/status/388661733650219009?p=v&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone explain, according to Catholic doctrine, why, when we encounter the Cross, we turn to Mary, rather than to Christ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2015-08-07T16:23:40.157" LastActivityDate="2015-08-07T16:23:40.157" Title="Why did Pope Francis say, &quot;When we encounter the Cross, do we turn to Mary,&quot; rather than to Christ?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;cross&gt;&lt;pope-francis&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19805" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19806" CreationDate="2013-10-11T23:33:37.763" Score="3" ViewCount="102" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example, the King James Version translates Gen. 1:1 as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I translate it as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning, the god created the heavens and the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would any denomination object to that translation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T12:38:34.013" Title="Do any denominations object to writing/ saying &quot;the god&quot; instead of &quot;God&quot;?" Tags="&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19805" CreationDate="2013-10-11T23:42:30.237" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;No denomination I know of would &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; object to that text. The reason being that using &quot;God&quot; refers specifically to the god of Israel and Christians, whereas &quot;the god&quot; refers to &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; god creating the heavens and the earth, meaning that &quot;the god&quot; only gains meaning from context. Should this excerpt be taken without its reference (Genesis 1:1) and its reader not knowing it was from the Bible, it would look like it was simply referring to &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; god, not &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6140" LastActivityDate="2013-10-11T23:42:30.237" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19803" CreationDate="2013-10-12T00:00:03.883" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;They are not different categories of laws, the answerer of your other question is referring to the exact text of the verse&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;is an abomination to the Lord your God&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and then combining it with the fact that God is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the same yesterday today and forever (Hebrews 13:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;so it is not a matter of covenant, which we were freed from through Jesus, but rather of Gods &quot;preference&quot; (so to speak) which do not change&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6140" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T00:00:03.883" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="109" CreationDate="2013-10-12T01:51:36.773" Score="1" Body="&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;                             &quot;How far is 'too far'?&quot;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the days of horse-drawn carriages, a wealthy man was looking for an expert driver to take him on his many business trips.  Looking for only the most experienced drivers, he narrowed the applicants down to the two most experienced men.  All that was left was to have each man demonstrate his prowess with the prospective employer as a passenger.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first man was certainly expert, and his handling of the horses and the carriage was deft and flawless.  When driving on a narrow path with a sharp drop-off, however, the driver, as if to show off his superior skill, steered as closely to the drop-off as he could. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second applicant's skill and expertise were also quite apparent.  Driving on the same narrow path with the sharp drop-off, however, he appeared to steer the carriage as far from the drop-off as possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Guess who got the job?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T16:25:47.743" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T16:25:47.743" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19811" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19663" CreationDate="2013-10-12T02:41:20.857" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Fasting_periods&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The time and type of fast is generally uniform for all Orthodox Christians; the times of fasting are part of the ecclesiastical calendar, and the method of fasting is set by the Holy Canons and Sacred Tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sacred tradition could mean just about anytime (well, within reason...), but I found some things on fasting within the Orthodox Canons. In the LXIX Canon from the 85 apostolic canons:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canon LXIX.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or sub-deacon, or Anagnost, or Psalt fails to fast throughout the forty days of Holy Lent, or on Wednesday, or on Friday, let him be deposed from office. Unless he be prevented from doing so by reason of bodily illness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this canon (to the best of my knowledge) dates 'from 375 to 380 AD'&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;, we can say that the Wednesday and Friday fasts and Holy Lent were already established by that time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing I might mention: I would be wary before I just went and read through the Canons of the Orthodox Church, looking for a certain thing (even if I used a search feature), because now-a-days, the Canons are really meant to be interpreted only by Bishops and clergy, and they are considered &quot;more like guidelines anyway&quot; by most people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To continue where I left off, when I use my reasoning (uh oh...) it seems to me, that fasts such as the Dormition Fast, Great Lent, and The Nativity Fast would have been established much earlier than that specified date. Why? For instance, picture what would have happened after the death of the Theotokos. Personally, I can picture the Apostles reverently commemorating her repose every year, and gradually deciding to fast before that date... Not sure if that seems like logic to anyone besides me... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, that's all I have for now... If I learn anymore I will certainly update this answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a little more on the Orthodox Fasts go to this &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Fasting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;. Has about one sentence under the history, but oh well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also interesting to note is why Orthodox normally fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Fasting_periods&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In addition to these fasting seasons, Orthodox Christians fast on every Wednesday (in commemoration of Christ's betrayal by Judas Iscariot), and Friday (in commemoration of Christ's Crucifixion) throughout the year. Monastics often fast on Mondays (in imitation of the Angels, who are commemorated on that day in the weekly cycle, since monastics are striving to lead an angelic life on earth, and angels neither eat nor drink).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps those also were established early on...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://theocacna.tripod.com/canonsaa.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a link to the version of the Orthodox Canons which I used in my Answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="1838" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T14:19:14.683" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T14:19:14.683" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19813" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19804" CreationDate="2013-10-12T04:00:14.277" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;A priest whom I highly respect &lt;a href=&quot;http://freric.uwcatholic.org/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;and recommend his homilies&lt;/a&gt; almost always ends with a &amp;quot;turn to Mary&amp;quot;.  I'm glad the Pope's saying the same thing I've always heard him say and the same thing the Catholic Church has always said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Incarnation is the truth that God saved the world through through the birth of a child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/philippians/2:8&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Phil 2:8&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the Incarnation is the center of all human history.  Catholics honor Mary because she is the channel by which salvation came into the world. They call her Mother of God and Mother of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary is Mother of the Church because, on account of the eternal Father's ineffable choice and due to the Spirit of Love's special action, she gave human life to the Son of God, &amp;quot;for whom and by whom all things exist&amp;quot; and from whom the whole of the People of God receives the grace and dignity of election.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02rh.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Redemptor Hominis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lumen Gentium 65&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An important point is that, regular Christians, have always turned to Mary and found their way to Jesus.  She's not a stumbling block, she's certainly not Satan!  And that's why certain doctrines, which ordinary non-Catholics find to be pretty strange are only strange because even more ordinary Catholics took them for granted. Then, when the pope goes and says something that ordinary Catholics take for granted (and he probably took for granted when he was an ordinary Catholic) non-Catholics get the feeling that the visible head of the Church on earth is trying to deflect a few prayers to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, the fact is, asking for the Queen's intercession is pretty normal. It was Esther's intercession, at her cousin's prompting, that saved the her people.  The people of God could of, and did, pray for salvation, but they also asked Esther, who also prayed and had salvation granted to her people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics turn to Mary, because Jesus is the King.   They give all due deference to Mary, honor her, but not adore her, because God honored her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T04:00:14.277" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19816" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19848" CreationDate="2013-10-12T12:21:52.330" Score="9" ViewCount="1100" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've heard popular retellings of the Lutheran view of pope as Antichrist that range from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a delusion that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Leo X&lt;/a&gt; was the incarnate figure of prophecy, to&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a slur (like calling George Washington a communist), to&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;a conviction that it's a simple statement of the doctrine of &#xA;justification: no one is &quot;ante&quot; (stands before, between Christ and sinner) in the mechanism of salvation&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15544/what-is-a-brief-history-on-the-idea-that-the-papacy-is-the-anti-christ&quot;&gt;previous question&lt;/a&gt; focused on the role of prophecy in the idea.  But my question is to what extent this concept is not a mere slur but rather a necessary consequence of the doctrine of justification. Both bases may offend, but one is unavoidable consequence of there being two different denominations.   Quotes from Reformers and prominent Lutheran theologians are of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2018-05-05T22:58:04.930" Title="Does the Lutheran view of pope as AntiChrist stem from doctrine of justification?" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19817" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19805" CreationDate="2013-10-12T12:38:34.013" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure that denominations would actually object to that as a theological point so much as a linguistic point. אֱלֹהִים translates to &quot;God&quot; or &quot;Divine beings&quot; (yes, the word can be plural). And while  ὁ  θεὸς , on the other hand (the words used in Acts 3:13 to say, &quot;the God of Abraham&quot;) translate to &lt;em&gt;the God&lt;/em&gt;, in the Hebrew they are rendered as אֱ&quot;הֵ י, which also does not have a definite article.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to use of &quot;the God&quot;, it is syntactically awkward in English unless contextualized (so &quot;the God of Abraham&quot; is fine). This is especially true since &quot;God&quot;, in a monotheistic construct (the dominant concept in western nations), functions as much as a name as it does a title or description. While it is not syntactically incorrect to say, &quot;the Barak Obama&quot;*, people will look at you strangely. And this has much to do with the way the Hebrew was structured. For example, Psalm 90:2 has the line &quot;Thou Art God&quot;. When I cross checked German, Italian, and French translations I found that there was no definite article there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;* Not saying that he should be equated to God, but he was the first person I thought of when I thought, &quot;who is someone that everyone will know?&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T12:38:34.013" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19794" CreationDate="2013-10-12T12:48:11.767" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We also can only see that part of the Universe where light has been given enough time to travel, if we could travel to another part of the Universe faster than the speed of light then  we would see more and more of Creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T12:48:11.767" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19819" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19804" CreationDate="2013-10-12T14:19:03.807" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mary is the mother of the incarnation.  If the incarnation matters, then Mary matters.  Mary matters because God mattered to Mary.  Mary said “be it unto me according to thy word”.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Word of God is Jesus Christ; Mary bore the Word that became flesh.  She did this as a humble servant.  When we look to Mary, we look to the reality of the incarnation. We look to the heart of a mother, the human mother of Jesus Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are to have the heart of Mary and want what God wants for us, setting aside our agenda, our will, and doing the will of God the Father through the overshadowing presence of the Holy Spirit. This is what Mary did while yet on Earth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 12:47-49  Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren…For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary physically bore the “Son of Man” who in glory is the “Son of God”.  Surely, it is foolishness to attempt to divide the incarnation (Mary) from the risen Lord (Jesus Christ).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when we turn to Mary, we turn to the incarnation, and this is not turning from, but towards, Christ.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-10-12T15:25:32.910" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T15:25:32.910" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19821" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-12T14:49:59.883" Score="1" ViewCount="3635" Body="&lt;p&gt;As near as I can determine from Scripture; Creation and ejection of the rebellious angels, both happened at about the same period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That led me to begin to wonder, since it seems logical to me that God created the Angels for a specific duty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It also seemed logical that the rebellious Angels being ejected would leave some functions undone, and if my concepts gained from Revelation are true that would probably be in the area of worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course God could simply create more Angels, but in creating man he could have man make the choice of whether to worship him or Satan before placing them in Heaven as is the procedure for entering the Ultimate Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2014-09-12T18:03:59.340" Title="Did God create man to replace the fallen Angels?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2014-09-14T05:32:01.007" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19822" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19824" CreationDate="2013-10-12T15:51:11.240" Score="8" ViewCount="83388" Body="&lt;p&gt;I heard it many times from some Christians and even preachers that God created us to worship and praise Him. I think this idea came from the fact that Psalms contain many phrases like &lt;em&gt;&quot;Praise the Lord&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and many words related to worship. I'm still not convinced with verses from Psalms that the &lt;strong&gt;main purpose&lt;/strong&gt; of creating us was to praise and worship God. The purpose of creating human, as I see from &lt;code&gt;Genesis 1:28&lt;/code&gt; is to &lt;em&gt;multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any verses from the Bible that clearly indicates we were created mainly to praise and worship God? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T19:30:26.890" LastActivityDate="2015-01-28T19:48:00.740" Title="Did God create man to worship and praise Him?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;creation&gt;&lt;worship&gt;&lt;purpose&gt;&lt;praise&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-12-14T05:02:43.803" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19823" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20384" CreationDate="2013-10-12T16:07:52.080" Score="6" ViewCount="1314" Body="&lt;p&gt;Which denomination allows homosexuality and what Biblical support do they have to accept homosexuals in the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T05:24:05.193" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T20:20:18.710" Title="Which denomination allows homosexuality and why?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19822" CreationDate="2013-10-12T17:14:55.047" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually, the answer to that question is longer than one should post on a question and answer site, but I would recommend the book &quot;Desiring God&quot; by John Piper. He explains it excellently , but in summary he says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is the greatest thing that exists, ever has existed  or ever will exist. Therefore, for us to glory anything else, would be sin, as there is nothing greater than God, there is no calling greater than praising God. This is true not only for us, but surprisingly also for God himself, he being the greatest , to glory in anything else would be idolatry. Therefore, if the greatest thing God can do is give himself glory, and no created thing does can be greater than God, the greatest thing we can do (our purpose, you might say) is to glory him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6140" LastEditorUserId="8575" LastEditDate="2013-11-19T11:53:11.460" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T11:53:11.460" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19822" CreationDate="2013-10-12T17:15:05.583" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Colossians 1:16 states: &quot;For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis shows what Man is supposed to do/ the goal we've been given, but I'd argue that that doesn't necessarily mean that that was God's purpose in creating Man. I don't think that God created man to subdue the earth, but the earth for man to subdue. (Mar 2:27  And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From experience I'd say that worship, while it can be an intentional choice, is generally a result of witnessing something 'awesome,' or awe inspiring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue based on Colossians 1:16 that Creation was formed as a gift from God to Jesus. So we are a gift, which frames the question of our purpose in an different light. As a gift from one of the Trinity to another, made in his image and given free will, I'd argue that while we were given duty (to multiply and fill the earth), our wider purpose is to enter into 'deeper' relationship with the Trinity. Our duty and our responses to God are subsets of this wider 'purpose' to interact with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd argue that this gives God &quot;glory&quot; and could be seen as worship, but in a less traditional and perhaps fuller or more holistic fashion, as the 'worship' goes beyond a set of actions and encompass the whole of our lives (including traditional worship and praise).&#xA;Colossians 3:23: Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6145" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T17:15:05.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19826" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19822" CreationDate="2013-10-12T17:19:37.193" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I cannot give any definitive Scripture stating that that was his purpose in creating man, from the following scriptures it would seem that it is a logical conclusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 35:1  And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exo 20:2  I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. &#xA;Exo 20:3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me. &#xA;Exo 20:4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: &#xA;Exo 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 17:36 But the Lord, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev_3:9  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev_4:10  The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev_13:8  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T17:19:37.193" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19831" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9026" CreationDate="2013-10-12T19:37:53.520" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;'Rules' regarding hygiene are literally a matter of life and death. The Pharisees enforced their 'rules' strictly to ensure the health of the Jewish community. The rules became laws that separated, when less hygienic gentiles started mixing with the Jews. The Galileans followed the custom of the Greeks who did not wash their hands before eating. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the Pharisees only Jews went to heaven. Those that did not wash their hands were deemed defiled and not Jews. This led to a conflict that was so serious that when Eleazer ben Enoch questioned the Pharisees&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; about the washing of hands he was condemned to death by stoning but he died before the sentence could be carried out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pharisees sent a legal delegation to investigate if they should declare the Disciples defiled as they did regularly especially in the Galilee and amongst the poor. Jesus had to act firmly to show that man-made laws did not determine defilement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Mishnah, Eduyoth 5: 6&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-01-31T20:49:25.470" LastActivityDate="2014-01-31T20:49:25.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19832" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2133" CreationDate="2013-10-12T19:52:27.630" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Because there has been a valid &lt;em&gt;Ex cathedra&lt;/em&gt; Papal decree that is clearly now false and which is no longer accepted by the Church we can regrettably no longer assume any Ex cathedra is infallible. The Ex cathedra statement by Pope Eugene the 4th in &lt;em&gt;Cantate Domino&lt;/em&gt; 1441 is one such example. It proclaims and teaches for all Christians to believe that: if not subject to the Pope, even if you give your life to be burnt for Christ, you will go to hell: Pagans, Jews and heretics are listed. This proclamation is both valid as by Ex Cathedra definition and clearly false and clearly rejected effectively by current Church teaching especially Vatican Two. As catholics we are required to believe in the Vatical 1 infallible decree on Papal Ex cathedra Infallibility under pain of &lt;em&gt;anathema&lt;/em&gt; as in excluded from the sacraments. Our Church also requires us to always follow our consciences once we have done our best to inform them. This means that one can be anathema for sincerely following ones conscience by believing that this Vat. 1 decree must logically be false. For thinking Catholics who love their Church this can be a very painful reality to come to terms with. Clearly the Church must come up with a response about some Ex cathedra statements such as the above or else humbly step down from its current claim regarding Ex Cathedra authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6146" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T19:52:27.630" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19834" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-12T21:14:12.040" Score="4" ViewCount="29757" Body="&lt;p&gt;How many angels left with Lucifer when God banished them from heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6147" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2013-10-12T23:12:34.190" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T01:00:47.080" Title="Original number of angels and fallen angels" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;angels&gt;&lt;demons&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-10-14T16:27:17.990" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19821" CreationDate="2013-10-12T22:20:05.510" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is a Bible based answer. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Creation and the eviction of rebellious angels from heaven did not occur at the same time. The angels were in existence before the creation of the earth. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/job/38/#v18038004&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 38:4, 7&lt;/a&gt;) The earth has been given to mankind as a home, not a testing ground. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/115/#v19115016&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 115:16&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/37/#v19037029&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Psalm 37:29&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The eviction of rebellious angels from heaven did not happen until Jesus was appointed as the king of God's kingdom. Under inspiration, David helps us to see that at some point, the Messiah would receive a certain amount of authority, but that after this he would still have to wait for a period of time before given authorization to act against his enemies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 110:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jehovah declared to my Lord:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Sit at my right hand&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts, the Bible helps us to see that this refers to Jesus sitting at God's right hand after being resurrected back to heavenly life, and that even after that, there was still a waiting period before he would act against his enemies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 2:32-35&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses.&#xA;Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and&#xA;received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out&#xA;what you see and hear. For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he&#xA;himself says, 'Jehovah said to my Lord: &amp;quot;Sit at my right hand until I&#xA;place your enemies as a stool for your feet.&amp;quot;'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/1914-a-significant-year-in-bible-prophecy/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bible prophecy and world events&lt;/a&gt; point toward the year 1914 as the year when Jesus was anointed to king of God's kingdom and he acted to evict Satan and his angels out of heaven, with Satan thereafter being confined to the earth. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/12/#v66012007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 12:7-12&lt;/a&gt;) The idea that this did not occur until the start of the &amp;quot;last days&amp;quot; is supported in Revelation 12:17 when it brings out that once the Devil is confined to the earth he knows he only &amp;quot;has a short period of time&amp;quot; remaining. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-timothy/3/#v55003001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:1-5&lt;/a&gt;) That means that we can rejoice because the time of living under Satan's &amp;quot;system of things&amp;quot; is nearing its end. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-corinthians/4/#v47004004&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 4:4&lt;/a&gt;) After that mankind can fully enjoy the earth as their home with God's physical and spiritual protection and blessing! (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/21/#v66021003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:3, 4&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/15/#v46015026&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:26&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information look at this related question in the &amp;quot;Good News From God!&amp;quot; brochure: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/why-did-god-create-the-earth/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;What is God's Purpose for the Earth?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-12T22:41:45.930" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19836" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19925" CreationDate="2013-10-13T00:54:31.473" Score="10" ViewCount="1165" Body="&lt;p&gt;So my question is about churches (or more specifically the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church) which bar all forms of fellowship (to include prayer) unless all points of doctrine are agreed upon.  For example, two Lutherans, one from WELS and one from LCMS, have very similar doctrines.  The LCMS Lutheran believes in limited fellowship, but will pray with non LCMS Lutherans.  The WELS Lutheran will not pray with the LCMS Lutheran however.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes me wonder: How is it possible to help someone grow in the faith when you cannot even pray with a person until you agree on all points of doctrine?  How can they even learn all points of expected doctrine without having a community they are in fellowship with?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do they make an exception when someone is growing in the faith?  Do they not bring people to worship services until they're ready to be baptised - and agree to believe all points of doctrine?  (So do they discourage parishioners from bringing friends to church?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastEditorUserId="5270" LastEditDate="2019-10-31T16:14:10.567" LastActivityDate="2019-10-31T16:14:10.567" Title="How do churches (specifically WELS) proselytize while barring all forms of fellowship?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;proselytizing&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19838" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18416" CreationDate="2013-10-13T01:07:14.780" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Lutheranism#Repristination_versus_Erlangen_school&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia's Neo-Lutheranism article&lt;/a&gt;, repristination theology beget Confessional Lutheranism.  There are two major churches in America which describe themselves as &quot;Confessional Lutherans.&quot;  They are the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America#ELCA_and_LC-MS&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt; lists some (albeit debateable) differences between non-Confessional and Confessional Lutheranism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T01:07:14.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19842" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-13T03:09:46.637" Score="7" ViewCount="1123" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do practicing Catholics keep track of all the sins they commit before going to Confession? Do they have to confess &lt;em&gt;all of them&lt;/em&gt; or as many as they can remember? Is contrition the sign of having committed a sin, so every time the person feels guilty or remorseful of something (i.e. stuffing the whole chocolate cake slice into one's mouth and leaving none for brothers and sisters), would that be counted as something to confess to the priest the next time that person goes to Confession?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T12:56:15.003" Title="How do practicing Catholics keep track of all the sins they commit before going to Confession?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;sacraments&gt;&lt;confession&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19834" CreationDate="2013-10-13T04:07:43.860" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a passage in Revelation, chapter 12, verses 3 and 4, which may be the only passage to tell us the proportion of the angelic host to have fallen from their exalted state in heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then another sign appeared in heaven:  and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.  And his tail swept away a third of the starts of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give, birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other verses which speak of angels and a war in heaven, the result of which was their being cast out of heaven along with their leader, Satan (cf. vv. 8-9; 9:1; Dan. 8:10; Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2:4).  Moreover, other passages link metaphorically the &quot;stars of heaven&quot; (or simply &quot;stars&quot;) with angelic beings (see Job 38:6,7; and Isa.14:12,13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To attempt to come up with an even approximate number of angels who kept their abode in heaven is an exercise in futility.  True, Revelation 5:11 says there are 10,000 times 10,000 angels--besides living creatures and elders--around God's throne, though some versions (e.g., the NIV) describe the number of angels as &quot;myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands.&quot;  Then thousand times ten thousand is a hundred million, but then thousands of thousands on top of the hundred million will still not give us an accurate count.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About all we can say about the number of angels is that there are a lot of them.  Who knows, there could (I repeat, could) be as many angels as there are stars, and the number of stars . . ., well, lets put it this way:  only God Himself knows not only how many there are, but He also has a name for each one (see Psalm 147:4; cf. Gen.1:16, where it says simply, &quot;He also made the stars,&quot; as if it was no big deal!).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-10-16T01:00:47.080" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T01:00:47.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19842" CreationDate="2013-10-13T05:47:10.700" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do practicing Catholics keep track of all the sins they commit before going to Confession?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They don't &lt;strong&gt;keep track&lt;/strong&gt; of sins. Before going to confession they do something called &lt;em&gt;examination of conscience&lt;/em&gt;. This is in layman term trying to recall all the sin one has committed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An examination of conscience is a “prayerful self-reflection on our words and deeds &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;in the light of the Gospel&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to determine how we may have sinned against God” - Glossary, CCC&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many ways to examine one's conscience. Some of them are listed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments/penance/examinations-of-conscience.cfm&quot;&gt;USCCB website&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do they have to confess all of them or as many as they can remember?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They have to confess as many as they can remember. They have to say all mortal sins that they are aware of, and the number of times they’ve committed them, if they know that number. Venial sins do not have to be named, but can also be said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is contrition the sign of having committed a sin?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, contrition is not a sign of having committed a sin. Contrition is a sign of good conscience but &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a necessary one to know that you have committed a sin. Feeling bad or guilty is not a necessity for confession. But will to be sorry is. that is, even if you don't &quot;feel&quot; sorry, you should want to be sorry with your will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is an enormous difference between regret and repentance. Regret is simply rooted in emotion. I “feel” bad. This can be a good first step, but it cannot be the only step. And it is not even a necessary step. While there is something very healthy about “feeling bad” for “doing bad” (it shows that your soul is a bit more sensitive to the reality of sin), it alone is not a return to God. That’s what repentance is. In fact, this is what “repentance” means: it simply means “turning”. Repentance is the choice to return to God. You do not need to regret what you’ve done (believe me, that will come with time), but you do need to make the decision that you will no longer continue on in this particular sin.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umdcatholic.org/Northern%20Cross/RemorsevsRepentance.pdf&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;stuffing the whole chocolate cake slice into one's mouth and leaving none for brothers and sisters, would that be counted as something to confess to the priest the next time that person goes to Confession?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can't be a judge to the actions of others. Only God will know. Assuming generic conditions, &lt;em&gt;eating food that is excessive in quantity&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;eating too eagerly or too soon&lt;/em&gt; looks like gluttony (mortal sin), and not sharing with siblings looks like greed (mortal sin). So these have to be confessed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="5270" LastEditDate="2013-10-13T12:56:15.003" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T12:56:15.003" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19845" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15116" CreationDate="2013-10-13T07:40:16.527" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Sefer ha Yashar, an ancient midrash that has the backstory on many of the Torah narratives, Terah father of Abram had been appointed by Nimrod as a &quot;prince&quot;.  Abram was born late in Terah's life, and as a statement to his own honor, Terah named him because of his own pride, &quot;exalted father.&quot;  You really have to question a guy who would name his son &quot;My dad is an important guy.&quot; Abram had already been called to Canaan and had obeyed when God finally renamed him.  When God changed his name to Abraham, he not only divorced him from his father's legacy but provided him his own great identity before God.  His name was both a promise and a blessing.  In the New Testament, specifically Revelation, Jesus promises to rename all of his brothers (his followers) in the next life, but the name will be private between each one and God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6154" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T07:40:16.527" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19847" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19871" CreationDate="2013-10-13T13:06:12.210" Score="4" ViewCount="745" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading in 2 Corinthians 11: 13-15,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as&#xA;  apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as&#xA;  an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants&#xA;  masquerades as servants of righteousness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Could these scriptures apply to the Church of today?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5525" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-17T03:16:22.990" LastActivityDate="2021-02-14T04:24:17.260" Title="Does Satan still masquerade as a angel of light among Christians?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;&lt;2-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2021-02-14T04:32:28.540" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19848" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19816" CreationDate="2013-10-13T13:18:04.553" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Despite my love for Martin Luther and the doctrine of justification, I believe the answer to your question is (for the most part) yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I don't believe that most modern Lutherans believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, Martin Luther did say it as a criticism of papal supremacy and the sale of indulgences.  So as you put it, &lt;em&gt;a conviction that it's a simple statement of the doctrine of justification: no one is &quot;ante&quot; (stands before, between Christ and sinner) in the mechanism of salvation&lt;/em&gt; might be most correct for the original view held by Luther himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.&quot;&#xA;  --Martin Luther&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Lutherans may still have strong views regarding the Pope, but most do not.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wels.net/about-wels/doctrinal-statements/antichrist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The WELS webpage about this topic&lt;/a&gt; may give you additional insights into the view of some Confessional Lutherans, or at least some within WELS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5270" LastEditorUserId="5270" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T08:40:14.957" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T08:40:14.957" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19849" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19873" CreationDate="2013-10-13T14:36:19.173" Score="-1" ViewCount="342" Body="&lt;p&gt;What &quot;are in christ&quot; means in romans.8:1? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I get to be in Christ so that I would have no condemnation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastEditorUserId="4380" LastEditDate="2014-01-15T19:57:05.367" LastActivityDate="2014-01-15T19:57:05.367" Title="In Romans 8:1, what does &quot;in Christ&quot; mean?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;righteousness&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-10-31T15:32:10.837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19850" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23431" CreationDate="2013-10-13T14:40:58.727" Score="-2" ViewCount="98" Body="&lt;p&gt;Could you add in romans.8:1 &quot;made righteous&quot; either just before &quot;in Christ&quot; or after &quot;in Christ&quot; and if it is doctrinally heresy, then why?&#xA;I mean that how do you get to be &quot;in Christ&quot; if you are not first be made righteous? Or is &quot;in Christ&quot; same as &quot;to make righteous( justified, saved)&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T16:58:45.750" Title="Could you add in romans.8:1 &quot;made righteous&quot; either just before &quot;in Christ&quot; or after &quot;in Christ&quot;?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;righteousness&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2015-10-16T07:48:55.100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19851" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-13T14:43:55.207" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-13T14:43:55.207" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T14:43:55.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19852" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-13T14:43:55.207" Score="0" Body="The doctrine that God is all powerful" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-13T14:50:14.087" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T14:50:14.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19853" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-13T14:47:37.490" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-13T14:47:37.490" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T14:47:37.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19854" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-13T14:47:37.490" Score="0" Body="Temptation is an incitement to sin whether by persuasion or by the offer of some good or pleasure." OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-13T14:50:30.773" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T14:50:30.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19855" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19882" CreationDate="2013-10-13T14:48:22.243" Score="8" ViewCount="774" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do holy relics lose power over time? It seems as if holy relics account for fewer miracles than in times past. The handkerchiefs of Paul had incredible power to heal (Acts 19: 12). Today one seldom hear that anyone gets healed by a relic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone that knows can answer but I think the Catholics, etc are the experts and I am very interested in the use of relics in exorcisms. The question was prompted by the classification of relics so maybe an explanation of how that works as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T17:28:26.393" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T17:28:26.393" Title="Do holy relics lose power over time?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;relics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19856" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-13T14:49:16.667" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-13T14:49:16.667" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T14:49:16.667" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19857" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-13T14:49:16.667" Score="0" Body="Martin Luther (1483-1546), German theologian, inspired the Protestant Reformation." OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-13T14:50:08.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T14:50:08.397" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19860" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19885" CreationDate="2013-10-13T18:15:36.110" Score="5" ViewCount="425" Body="&lt;p&gt;While studying Matthew; I came to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 27:52  And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that began a search for more definitive scriptures and only came up with these:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deu_31:16  And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2Sa_7:12  And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Ki_1:21  Otherwise it shall come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job_14:12  So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dan_12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh_11:11  These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joh_11:13  Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act_13:36  For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone shed more light on the subject? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2017-07-29T14:54:54.360" Title="Were the sins of the Israelites forgiven with the animal sacrifices or simply held in abeyance until Jesus death on the cross?" Tags="&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19861" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2206" CreationDate="2013-10-13T20:05:17.137" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an interesting passage in the magnificat in Luke,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The phrase in verses 2:56,47   seems to indicate that Spirit and Soul basicly mean the same thing. Jewish verse uses a technique called parallelism where one line says something, and the next ,the same thing but using diifferent words for emphasis. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It might be pushing it a bit but the phrasing here does tend to present an interterminology and holistic viewpoint of the inner aspect of man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Logicaly to say that there are two seperate parts of Mary rejoicing or exulting leads to an assumption that there are two independendant self consciouse, self expressing entities with in one person, who by the way is aware that they are present and active! Such a conclusion does not make sense.Especialy to the Jewish thinking, which was not so clear cut as the Greek dualism of the time. Up to that time many scholars indicate that the view was held that the body and the soul were a composite whole one linked to the other and not seperate in the way that later Theology developed and expressed the nature of man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore we must conclude that these terms &quot;spirit&quot; and &quot;soul&quot; refer to the immaterial part of human beings and are aspects and interchangable terms of expression of these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I feel it is rather difficult and confusing to try to define too clearly the various parts of the above in terms of differentials. Especialy with those are all used in the NT particularly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are mysteries within the acts of God that are beyond our comprehension.cf Psalm 139. The problem we have is that we always want things to be 2+2= 4. It is just not that easy to come down hard and fast and defend a particular emphasis on the Biblical expressions of the nature of mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the classic text in Thessalonians Paul seems to be making a tri-partite affirmation, but it could well be he is using interchangeable terms to relate that he is talking about the entirety of the human being. Once again a kind of parallelism or overstatment for emphasis to give fullness of meaning could be the style in this passage. The rich vocabulary of the Greek Paul used gave ample opportunity for this kind of prose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary the full data of the scripture uses the terms spirit, soul, and even heart interchangeably and the context indicates the process or functionality rather than a difference in substance or place within a human being. To press one or the other to make an absolute point of reference and fixed meaning tends to move away from the holistic view that the biblical record suggests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6157" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T20:05:17.137" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19862" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-13T21:02:30.037" Score="24" ViewCount="25835" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Baptists and many other evangelicals use grape juice in communion. Is this explained on any catechism (or systematic theology available online) ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the reason for not using wine have to do with keeping oneself pure or the moral problems with alcohol?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-10-13T21:17:03.417" LastActivityDate="2019-09-09T17:01:42.987" Title="Why do many churches use grape juice in communion?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19863" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19865" CreationDate="2013-10-13T12:44:06.083" Score="4" ViewCount="1862" Body="&lt;p&gt;Truth-seekers on a mission of scientific inquiry who turned out to be right were threatened to be burnt to the stake by Roman Catholic leaders in Medieval Europe. Why should a difference in opinion amount to such a huge threat to the all-powerful religious figures then? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why were the theories of scientists such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galileo&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Giordano Bruno&lt;/a&gt; about the nature of the Sun and Earth such a threat to Medieval Roman Catholic leaders that they were forced to recant or burnt at the stake? After all, scientists do not bear arms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="24127" OwnerDisplayName="curious" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2017-11-21T14:20:31.947" LastActivityDate="2017-11-21T14:20:31.947" Title="Why was heliocentrism such a threat to Roman Catholic leaders that their proponents were threatened to be burnt at the stake?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;medieval-church&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19863" CreationDate="2013-10-13T17:06:17.963" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No-one was burned at the stake &lt;em&gt;for being a scientist&lt;/em&gt;; only for challenging Catholic theology. At the time, Catholic theology taught that the Earth was the centre of the universe, so claims to the contrary were heretical, and dealt with accordingly. The below is from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/brun-f16.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OP's link&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Throughout his life Bruno championed the Copernican system of astronomy which placed the sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="Pieter Geerkens" LastActivityDate="2013-10-13T17:06:17.963" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19865" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19863" CreationDate="2013-10-13T19:12:01.353" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Summary: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer boils down to a matter of whether the Catholic Church should retain the power to dictate what is &quot;truth&quot; or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Longer answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church was used to have a monopoly on the interpretation of the Bible, and since God was the ultimate authority and truth, in practice the church had the monopoly on all kinds of truths in Western Europe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This did not in itself mean that there was no intellectual discourse, it was just that it was held within the church. Before the renaissance, if you were an intellectual, you were generally a monk or a priest. As such &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_of_Cusa#Science_and_Mathematics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa&lt;/a&gt; published radical cosmologies that removed Earth from the centre of the universe, and made it a star, like other stars (remember that the planets then was thought to be stars). He did this in the 15th century completely without being threatened by burning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could get executed as a heretic at this time even if you were clergy, of course, but to do so you generally would have to either subscribe to a theological opinion that had been deemed a heresy, or otherwise challenge church authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in the early 16th century things changed with the rise of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;protestantism&lt;/a&gt;, which denied the Pope and the Catholic Church’s ultimate authority to decide which interpretation of the Bible was true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time the Renaissance meant that many intellectuals now were &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; monks or priests, and therefore philosophical/scientific claims were increasingly being made by people who were not a part of the church. This also challenged the church's monopoly on truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1543 Copernicus book placing the sun in the centre of the universe was published. Copernicus himself avoided problems by dying before his book was published, but the book sparked discussion within the church. Although &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Giordano Bruno&lt;/a&gt; held several heretical views and was burned at the stake it's unclear if his cosmological views had anything to do with that. He seems to have based himself more on Cusa than on Copernicus, and as such his cosmology was not a direct challenge on the church authority. But it may have contributed to the discussion about cosmology within the church, a discussion that ended the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Sentence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;24th of February 1616&lt;/a&gt; when a commission of theologians decided that the heliocentric view &quot;explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture&quot; and hence was a heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a result of that decision &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Galileo Galilei&lt;/a&gt; was asked to stop teaching Heliocentrism, and when he didn't he was put to trial, where he recanted his views completely to avoid execution.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the centre of the commisions decision of 1616 is the question of what should be the ultimate truth, reality or the church. And the Catholic Church unsurprisingly decided that it should remain the church. The unstated reason for this is that they were worried that accepting a heliocentric view would make the &lt;a href=&quot;https://web.archive.org/web/20130330064424/http://vaticanobservatory.org/index.php/en/history-of-astronomy/197-the-galileo-affair&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;whole theology crumble&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And although the catholic church has only slowly accepted the otherwise more common consensus, that science gets to look for earthly truths and the church takes care of the heavenly, I can't find any references to the church actually threatening to execute scientists after Galileo. They did continue to add scientific books to the list of forbidden books though. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the end no-one was ever burned for being a scientist, but the Catholic Church attitude to science and the trials of Galileo did put the Catholic Church on a collision course with science that didn't really end until John Paul II, who admitted that Evolution was not just a hypothesis and Vindicated Galileo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6164" OwnerDisplayName="Lennart Regebro" LastEditorUserId="6164" LastEditDate="2017-11-21T10:56:28.923" LastActivityDate="2017-11-21T10:56:28.923" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19867" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19911" CreationDate="2013-10-14T00:55:50.360" Score="6" ViewCount="481" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am reading the book &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0814656161&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The First Seven Ecumenical Councils&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; by Leo Donald Davis. This is my first introduction to Trinitarian and Christological disputes within the Early Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears to me: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that Nestorians believed that Christ had two natures, two wills, and two hypostasis; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that Chalcedonians believed that Christ had two natures and two wills, but in one hypostasis; &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;that Monophysites believed that Christ had one (or two, dependent on sub-sect) nature, one will, and one hypostatsis.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A) Is my assessment accurate? (This isn't the crux of my question: B is.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B) Regardless of my assessment&amp;rsquo;s veracity, is it fair to state that the Chalcedonian position is a moderate position in between the Nestorian position and the Monophysite position? Why or why not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6080" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-10-13T05:56:43.977" LastActivityDate="2016-10-13T05:56:43.977" Title="Is it Proper to State that Chalcedonianism is a Moderate Position In-between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;&lt;nestorianism&gt;&lt;chalcedonian-definition&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19862" CreationDate="2013-10-14T01:05:12.600" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;All Protestant churches that use grape juice instead of wine will attempt to show that it is either biblical to forgo wine or not unbiblical to do so; biblical, meaning that the terms &quot;cup of wine&quot;, &quot;wine&quot;, in the Bible do not necessarily mean the fermented wine, according to them. Once they state this proposition, they add that alcohol has the tendency to cause immorality and therefore is unnecessary for use in the Lord's Supper/Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Critics will point out that the majority of Protestant churches that forgo the use of wine historically (20th century) supported Prohibition and also used wine prior to the Temperance movement. Baptists are notable for this turn around. Read more about this phenomenon &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brucesabin.com/alcohol.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So critics would call it political while those Protestants would call it biblical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6080" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-03-29T16:43:13.290" LastActivityDate="2014-03-29T16:43:13.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19862" CreationDate="2013-10-14T01:05:57.107" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;At least one good reason is because there are children in the congregation, and to make communion something that not everyone can participate in is contrary to the principles of the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6140" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T01:05:57.107" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19847" CreationDate="2013-10-14T01:23:22.457" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is a Bible based answer. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses Believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These words to still apply today in the sense that there are many who claim to be Christians who are not really living as Christians and are promoting beliefs that do not harmonize with true Christianity as taught in the Bible. The ones doing this are helping Satan to accomplish his will because someone looking to be a Christian could be mislead by them as to what it means to be a Christian or what the Bible teaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some scriptures that help us to see that there are still many today like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 7:22-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Many will say to me in that day: 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in&#xA;  your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful&#xA;  works in your name?' And then I will declare to them: 'I never knew you!&#xA;  Get away from me, your workers of lawlessness!'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not going to get into the time period of when &quot;that day&quot; refers to, but clearly just because many today claim to serve &quot;the Lord&quot; does not automatically make it true. If they make a practice out of disregarding Christian laws and principals, then they are really workers of lawlessness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 3:1, 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal&#xA;  with will be here...having an appearance of godliness but proving&#xA;  false to its power; and from these turn away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many today have an appearance of godliness, even an appearance of being Christian, but show with their life that God's standards have virtually no effect or power over them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Timothy 4:3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the&#xA;  wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will&#xA;  surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many religious leaders today within Christendom will promote acceptance of things that flagrantly disregard Bible principals. Many will even publicly disavow large portions of the Bible as being accurate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 13:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because&#xA;  many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mathew 7:13, 14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious&#xA;  the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through&#xA;  it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into&#xA;  life, and few are finding it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the billions of people who think of themselves as &quot;Christian&quot; would it be reasonable to think that all of them are helping others to go down the cramped road leading to life? Doesn't it seem more reasonable that some of them are encouraging people to go down the broad and spacious road that is leading off into destruction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4:5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;one Lord, one faith, one baptism;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this scripture, Christians are supposed to be united. Can the collection of all Christian denominations be thought of as a collective, united group if they have distinctly contradictory beliefs? Wouldn't it be more in harmony with this scripture to believe that God is organized enough to use just one religious group to teach and help people to serve him unitedly and acceptably?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 4:24&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit&#xA;  and truth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This scripture helps us to see that in order for our worship to be acceptable to God, we must worship him in accordance with the truth. Could all religious leaders within all denominations be promoting the truth about how to worship God even though they teach contradictory ideas? Clearly that cannot be the case. Since God requires us to worship him with truth, then anyone promoting things not true is promoting worship that is not acceptable to God and is therefore a minister of Satan in the sense that they are serving his interests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there are sincere people within all religions and not all who are aiding Satan realize they are doing this. That is why we continue to preach to all that will listen. For more information, please see &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/recognize-true-worshippers/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;How Can You Recognize True Worship?&quot; in the brochure &quot;Good News From God!&quot;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1937" LastEditorUserId="1937" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T01:35:40.773" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T01:35:40.773" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19873" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19849" CreationDate="2013-10-14T02:42:39.513" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;How do I get to be in Christ so that I would have no condemnation?&quot; According to Romans 6:11, &quot;Likewise you also reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.&quot; It is obtained practically through reckoning it so by faith, as this verse says. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We accept Jesus by faith as the one who saves us from our sins (Rom. 5:1). To be practically saved from its effects in our lives, we go the next step, as outlined in Romans 6. We see that as Jesus was buried and rose again, we too (our old nature) had been buried and our (new) nature is risen with Him, separate from the old nature buried below (see Rom. 6:1-10). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a reckoning faith in that the Bible says this process is true and ready to be put into action, and when we reckon it is so and practice it, then we enjoy its benefits. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take this practically, when temptation arises, we surrender our mind and body to serve Christ instead of the motions of the flesh, and start serving Him (Rom. 6:11-14). With this reckoning, to use Paul's word, all the passages of &quot;in Christ&quot; become available to us, including the ones you seek, righteousness in Christ and no condemnation to those in Christ, Rom. 8:1. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if we continue in the flesh and not die to it, then we will know self-condemnation or self-righteousness. Paul counted everything he formerly trusted in as loss so that he may have the righteousness of Christ (Phil. 3:8-9). He didn't think it enough to believe in Jesus for salvation once long ago. To get the righteousness that receives a reward, all his trust needed to be in Christ. He &quot;died to sin&quot; in that he ceased trusting in old forms of righteousness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He had obtained positional righteousness without the law by faith alone. Now through reckoning himself dead to sin alive to God he was reaching out to practical righteousness that will be rewarded at the judgment seat. It is this latter point I am addressing in this answer, living in practical righteousness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2013-10-16T12:19:29.293" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T12:19:29.293" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15263" CreationDate="2013-10-14T06:51:09.443" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Romano-Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus&#xA;&quot;Antiquities of the Jews&quot;, AD 93–94&#xA;Book 18, Chapter 3,&#xA;3. &quot;Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Talmud, AD 70-200&#xA;Sanhedrin 43a&#xA;&quot;On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, 'Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it.' But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover.&quot;&#xA;Sanhedrin 107b&#xA;&quot;The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6162" LastEditorUserId="6162" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T07:00:35.050" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T07:00:35.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19876" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-10-14T06:56:35.777" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not too sure about &quot;striving&quot; to be without sin, in the sense that perfection is self-atchieved, while Christ only provides the &quot;down payment&quot; or the one time bail. This brings us to another related subject namely &quot;grace vs works&quot;. And should I go on sinning because grace is abundant? God will judge us according to our intentions and hearts' desires. Then one day we (all) will be transformed to His likeness and wear His perfection in order to be MADE worthy of an eternal presence with the perfect and Holy God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our practices will have to include, confessing our sins in humility, while urging our hearts to grow hostile to sin and loving to God and to God's creation and purpose. Thus we allow God to change us, making us worthy of His Eternal Kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6163" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T06:56:35.777" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19877" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19855" CreationDate="2013-10-14T08:27:06.660" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's not the power of the relics that has changed, but peoples belief in miracles. With the rise of science since the renaissance, people are less inclined to believe claims of miracles without proof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6164" LastEditorUserId="6164" LastEditDate="2013-10-15T05:22:25.830" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T05:22:25.830" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19878" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14306" CreationDate="2013-10-14T08:40:16.747" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read in a comic book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were indeed a snake that can turn into staffs. The snake have acupuncture points. Only a special species of snake can do that and they are small.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, the fact that Aaron's snake is big and Aaron took the snake by the tail is actually significant. God wanted to show the magician that this is not the magic trick they're familiar with.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="933" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T08:40:16.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19880" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19903" CreationDate="2013-10-14T10:16:04.927" Score="6" ViewCount="702" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Mark 10:46-52, we have the story of Blind Bartimaeus Receives His Sight&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've seen some treatments of the story that claim Bartimaeus would have been so poor as to possess &lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt; but a mat and a cloak, so would have come to Jesus naked. Thus, extra theological meanings are drawn about coming without any works or individual merits, the scandal of free grace etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A google image search turns up many inspiring depictions of the event from historical paintings or woodcuts, but none hint at nakedness. But many hardly depict a desperately poor person who's thrown off anything.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What evidence do we have for this? What prominent theologians have made this claim?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-10T01:52:00.370" LastActivityDate="2015-08-10T01:52:00.370" Title="What evidence do we have that Blind Bartimaeus approached Jesus naked?" Tags="&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;&lt;nakedness&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19881" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19862" CreationDate="2013-10-14T12:44:15.067" Score="-6" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Seventh Day Adventist Perspective&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Seventh Day Adventists, we believe it is the same reason why unleavened bread was used. Bread was a symbol of Christ, and leaven was a symbol of sin or corruption (as it is a bacteria). Jesus never saw corruption. In the same way, fermented wine is wine(the fruit of the vine, aka grape juice) after it has been fermented or corrupted. The blood of Jesus cannot be symbolized with corrupted wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Bible, both fermented and unfermented wine (grape juice) is referred to as wine. You must look at the context to figure out whether it's talking about fermented or unfermented wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EXAMPLES of fermented wine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors,&#xA;      pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk,&#xA;      so that he can gaze on their naked bodies!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Habakkuk 2:15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour&#xA;  in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverbs 23:31-32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EXAMPLES of unfermented wine:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between&#xA;  his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the&#xA;  people be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice&#xA;  vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of&#xA;  grapes&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 49:10-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Definitely unfermented as the wine is being squeezed from the grapes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field; and in&#xA;  the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be&#xA;  shouting: the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I&#xA;  have made their vintage shouting to cease.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 16:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Same here. Unfermented as the wine is pressed from the fruit of the vine(grapes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&#xA;EXAMPLES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE LAST SUPPER&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeing as the Bible refers to wine as both fermented and unfermented, which was used at the last Supper?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 26:27-29&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them,&#xA;  saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the&#xA;  covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. &#xA;  I tell you, I will not drink from this &lt;strong&gt;fruit of the vine&lt;/strong&gt; from now on&#xA;  until that day when I drink it &lt;strong&gt;new&lt;/strong&gt; with you in my Father’s kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both &quot;fruit of the vine&quot; and &quot;new&quot; are descriptions of unfermented wine, and are not descriptions of fermented wine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 14:23-25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them:&#xA;  and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is &lt;strong&gt;my blood&lt;/strong&gt; of&#xA;  the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I&#xA;  will drink no more of &lt;strong&gt;the fruit of the vine&lt;/strong&gt;, until that day that I&#xA;  drink it &lt;strong&gt;new&lt;/strong&gt; in the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once again in Mark, Jesus makes the same mention of the fruit of the vine, and new. Luke mentions the same. There is more Biblical proof that this is unfermented, new wine (plain grape juice) than fermented. If anyone feels any different, I challenge you to show me Biblical proof that fermented wine was used in the last supper. You will find there is no Biblical support for this kind of thinking, only traditions of men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just ask yourself this. Why would God denounce the use of fermented wine in one part of the Bible, but allow His own Son to drink this? Isn't this inconsistent?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information on this, here are some great articles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adventistworld.org/article/635/resources/english/issue-2009-1010/why-i-don-t-drink-alcohol&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Why I Don't Drink Alcohol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/inside-report/id/331/christian-alcohol.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian &amp;amp; Alcohol&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeing as how this got negative votes, I am revisiting this answer, though I really cannot see why the votes were negative. From the Biblical perspective, it is clear that there are two types of wine. GOD AND HIS WORD DO NOT CONTRADICT. However, from the texts it may seem as if they do. Jesus was completely pure, the lambs that were slain, that were symbolic of His death, were supposed to be unblemished. How then can we say that Jesus partook of this substance that has gone through the process of putrefaction? More importantly, why would Jesus say that this substance symbolizes His blood? Let us try to reason without prejudice. Does this make sense?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear that Jesus refers to untainted, pure wine, or grape juice as we call it today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now many made claims that, historically, this was impossible because there were no methods of preservation. This is false. There were many methods of preserving food and drink in Bible times, including grapes and unfermented wine. Some of these methods include boiling, filtration, cold storage, and sulphur fumigation. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, in his book &quot;Wine in the Bible - A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages&quot; explains many of these processes. Chapter 4 deals with a very in-depth study on the subject of the preservation of grape juice. I have included a link to Chapter 4 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer aimed to answer the question from a Biblical perspective, nevertheless, here is the counter argument for anyone that claims that there was no way to preserve unfermented wine beyond the season.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2017-04-07T17:41:47.620" LastActivityDate="2017-04-07T17:41:47.620" CommentCount="34" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19855" CreationDate="2013-10-14T13:09:16.100" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did they ever have power? Relics, like people, do not have power. The power comes from God. If you have faith that God can heal, He will reward your faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it&#xA;  upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten,&#xA;  when he looketh upon it, shall live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came&#xA;  to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the&#xA;  serpent of brass, he lived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Numbers 21:8-9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the middle of the desert, people began to doubt God and speak against Him and His servant Moses. And so, God retired His divine protection from them, giving open way for the beasts of the desert to attack. Then God gave Moses the command to make a serpent. Was there anything special about the handcrafted serpent? No. Was there any power in it? No. Why have them look at it then? Because those who believed (had faith) in God and in the words of His servant Moses looked, and were healed by God. Those who did not and looked for their own remedy died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The power is not in the relic. The power is not even in a person. The power comes from God Himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T13:09:16.100" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19883" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7981" CreationDate="2013-10-14T13:10:01.173" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This might also provide some explanation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mrm.org/fall&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.mrm.org/fall&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't always fully understand it either, but I am working hard to.  I think it was such a very important event.  And honestly a most difficult decision that Adam and Eve had to make. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6165" LastEditorUserId="6165" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T13:16:10.640" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T13:16:10.640" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19884" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11352" CreationDate="2013-10-14T13:32:22.940" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Armenian Orthodox Church has practiced animal sacrifice since its inception in 301 AD and still does until this day.  It is referred to as Matagh and performed outside of the church on holy days such as Easter or to ask for forgiveness.  The practice was instituted by St. Gregory the Illuminator in his efforts to convert pagans, so it is an example of adapting a pagan practice to further conversion efforts.  Please refer to the following article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jstor.org/stable/3154334&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.jstor.org/stable/3154334&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please note that the Armenian Orthodox Church was the first nationally established church, the country officially converting in 301 AD.  The second was its neighbor, the Kingdom of Georgia, which was officially declared Christian in 337 AD. Georgian Christians also occasionally perform animal sacrifices.  The Armenian Orthodox Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches which rejected the ruling of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, over the definition of the Trinity, so it has split with the larger Eastern Orthodox community.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also for a history of animal sacrifice within Eastern Orthodoxy, see the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.academia.edu/1183305/The_Encaenia_of_St_Sophia_Animal_Sacrifice_in_a_Christian_Context&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.academia.edu/1183305/The_Encaenia_of_St_Sophia_Animal_Sacrifice_in_a_Christian_Context&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6166" LastEditorUserId="6166" LastEditDate="2013-10-15T11:34:56.420" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T11:34:56.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19860" CreationDate="2013-10-14T13:33:42.803" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The sacrificial system was a mere shadow of the true sacrifice, Jesus Christ. This is why the animals used must have no blemish or spot, because they represented Christ. As John the Baptist said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “&lt;strong&gt;Behold! The&#xA;  Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world&lt;/strong&gt;!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:29&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus takes away the sin of the world. The sins of those that were before Jesus were forgiven in credit, and they were to look forward towards the Messiah who would come and truly pay for their sins. Many forgot this and simply made it a routine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We look back at the one who paid our sins and look to sin no more as we know what it cost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who have trusted Jesus to take their sins, and have walked as He walked, will be raised in the last day, to everlasting life. This is why many of the texts you provided speak about the last day and why Jesus and Martha have this conversation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus saith unto her, &lt;strong&gt;Thy brother shall rise again&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the&#xA;  resurrection &lt;strong&gt;at the last day&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that&#xA;  believeth in me, &lt;strong&gt;though he were dead, yet shall he live&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And whosoever &lt;strong&gt;liveth and believeth in me shall never die&lt;/strong&gt;.&#xA;  Believest thou this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the&#xA;  Son of God, which should come into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 11:23-27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary, Martha, and Lazarus were very close friends of Jesus. He visited them often. He taught them many things, and it was obvious that this is one of the things He taught them. This is also what He taught others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“&lt;strong&gt;When the Son of Man comes in His glory&lt;/strong&gt;, and all the holy angels with&#xA;  Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will&#xA;  be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as&#xA;  a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep&#xA;  on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say&#xA;  to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit&#xA;  the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 25:31-34&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether they lived before Jesus, or after Jesus, those who believe on Him, repent of their sins, and then walk according to the will of the Father, when they die, they sleep until the coming of Jesus where they will be resurrected unto everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: After reading the comments, I realize i should be more precise. According to the Bible, only a very few number of people are alive in heaven right now. These are Elijah (2 Kings 2) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24) who did not die, but were taken by God; Moses (Jude 1:9), who died but was resurrected by God and taken to heaven; and probably the people who resurrected with Jesus (Matthew 27:52-23) as witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everyone else, like David, is &quot;sleeping&quot; awaiting the Second Coming.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;David&lt;/strong&gt;, that he is both &lt;strong&gt;dead and buried&lt;/strong&gt;, and his &lt;strong&gt;sepulchre is with us&#xA;  unto this day&lt;/strong&gt;... For &lt;strong&gt;David is NOT ascended into the heavens&lt;/strong&gt;: but he&#xA;  saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right&#xA;  hand...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 2:29,34&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T13:53:46.460" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T13:53:46.460" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19887" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19804" CreationDate="2013-10-14T14:35:23.977" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &quot;turn towards Mary&quot; has been integral to Christianity since its inception. Mary is the great &quot;yes&quot; to the Word of God. So much of a &quot;yes&quot; is she that the Word of God literally dwells within her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, when we struggle to say &quot;yes&quot; to God, which is always the case, but especially so when faced with crosses, we're encourages to turn to Mary as an example, encouragement, and intercessor. Her perfect yes and perfect submission to the Word of God is the gateway &lt;em&gt;to&lt;/em&gt; the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, Jesus &lt;em&gt;explicitly&lt;/em&gt; entrusts his beloved (John) at the foot of the cross to Mary and Mary to his beloved:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his&#xA;  mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he&#xA;  loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;  Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that&#xA;  hour the disciple took her into his home. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://usccb.org/bible/john/19:25&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 19:25-27&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could argue from this passage alone, particularly in light of how deeply symbolic and packed full of significance John's Gospel is, that &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;turning to Mary&quot; and even &quot;taking Mary into your home&quot; is an act of defiance against Christ's command.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;So, in the very least&lt;/b&gt;, we turn to Mary when we encounter the cross because Christ &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;told&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;his beloved&quot;&lt;/em&gt; to behold His Mother &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;at&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the cross!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3410" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T14:35:23.977" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19888" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19862" CreationDate="2013-10-14T14:36:13.543" Score="15" Body="&lt;p&gt;The United Methodist Church is a denomination that uses grape juice instead of wine. I am using them as an example because their reason is explicitly stated in the Book of Worship:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Although the historic and ecumenical Christian practice has been to use wine, the use of unfermented grape juice by The United Methodist Church and its predecessors since the late nineteenth century expresses pastoral concern for recovering alcoholics, enables the participation of children and youth, and supports the church's witness of abstinence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Book of Discipline also asks ordained clergy to abstain from alcohol in solidarity with recovering alcoholics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes within the United Methodist Church people will try to teach that the wine of the day wasn't alcoholic or that the wine used by Jesus wasn't alcoholic. There is no absolute, verifiable evidence, biblical or otherwise, for this view. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T22:26:23.940" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T22:26:23.940" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19889" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-14T14:58:59.643" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T14:58:59.643" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T14:58:59.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19890" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-14T14:58:59.643" Score="0" Body="The Last Supper is the final meal that Jesus shared with his Apostles in Jerusalem before his crucifixion. " OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T15:51:44.200" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T15:51:44.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19891" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-14T15:03:03.740" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T15:03:03.740" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T15:03:03.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19892" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-14T15:03:03.740" Score="0" Body="The elevation of Christ into heaven by His own power in presence of His disciples the fortieth day after His Resurrection. It is narrated in Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, and in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles." OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T15:50:44.353" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T15:50:44.353" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19893" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-14T15:09:40.160" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T15:09:40.160" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T15:09:40.160" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19894" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-14T15:09:40.160" Score="0" Body="Outward practice of one's religion in worship or prayer expressed through rituals and ceremonies." OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T15:52:34.390" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T15:52:34.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19895" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-14T15:10:35.567" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T15:10:35.567" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T15:10:35.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19896" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-14T15:10:35.567" Score="0" Body="The ceremonies honoring a dead person, typically involving prayers and burial/cremation" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T15:52:39.500" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T15:52:39.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19899" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-14T16:40:39.537" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T16:40:39.537" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T16:40:39.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19900" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-14T16:40:39.537" Score="0" Body="An explanation of the bible or way of explaining the bible." OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-14T18:00:59.877" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T18:00:59.877" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19901" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19880" CreationDate="2013-10-14T18:53:17.537" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before attempting an answer to your question I went back and spent some time studying the passage in Mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since I find no other passages in the KJV covering the incident I am only able to tell you what I feel concerning it, perhaps someone with a better background in Theology could give you a better answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beggars were not necessarily indigent, but in those days, (before welfare) anyone unable to support themselves were forced to become beggars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only indication that he was indigent would be in that he was a beggar. That is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he is called 'the son of&quot; which would indicate that he had family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While his family may not have been able to support him totally it does not mean that they left him with only a cloak (the outer garment worn over a tunic).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short I find no evidence to either indicate that he was or was not naked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T18:53:17.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19902" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18057" CreationDate="2013-10-14T18:55:53.330" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The story is both figurative and in a sense literal. It actually has dual applications. First off, when the ancient city of Jerusalem was surrounded in 68-69 A.D. by the &#xA;Romans...the Christians feared for their lives. They remembered the prophecy uttered by Christ some 40 years earlier that when Jerusalem was surrounded by the 'abomination of desolation' that its destruction would be near. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unexpectedly...the Roman armies which were representative of this abomination that 'makes desolation' withdrew. The Jews rejoiced that they had stayed the mighty hand of pagan Rome. The Christians knew that Roman would not allow this to stand and when the Roman armies withdrew...the Christians fled just as they were warned to the city of Pella which was found in the mountains outside of Jerusalem. Rome came back and in 70 A.D. sacked the city. It was surrounded, and then starved. Any one that came out trying to escape was put to a horrible death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Inside the city...chaos reigned. Gangs took by force the few resources that remained. Mothers soon turned on their children and actually killed them for food. Soon the temple was burned and razed to the ground. Over a million Jews are believed to have been killed. The few that survived were scattered abroad as slaves or taken to Rome and killed. In the last days...God's holy people that keep all his commandments (not just 9 but all 10 including the 7th day Sabbath) will be surrounded by worldly governments that Satan has seized control of with the purpose of exterminating once and for all the truth from the Earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The abomination of desolation in our day is corrupt Protestantism in bed with the corrupt State prosecuting the people of God. Read the Great Controversy by Ellen White and the bible and I'm sure you will be blown away.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6169" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-15T00:54:16.807" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T00:54:16.807" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19880" CreationDate="2013-10-14T18:59:15.900" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not know who &lt;em&gt;else&lt;/em&gt; has said this, but one prominent commentator who is of this opinion is the&#xA;Venerable &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bede&lt;/a&gt; (672-735), in his commentary on Mark.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xA;He does not offer historical reasons for why the blind man might have been naked, but presents&#xA;his nudity in the context of the doctrine of being &quot;born again&quot; in Christ. As you say, this&#xA;involves casting off the old ways, like taking off ones old clothes (compare Mark 2:21).&#xA;In imitation of Christ, for which Bede cites John 12:26, we must re-enter the world (metaphorically)&#xA;naked and vulnerable, knowing that we may face terrible hardships; and we choose to humble ourselves&#xA;rather than submit to false worldly comforts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My fairly free translation of the key passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Since there are many, who so they may merit the treasure of eternity in heaven, cast off worldly ways &#xA;  and follow naked the gospel of life, it is rightly said of the illumination of the blind man:&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;Who throwing his garment aside, leaped up and came to him&lt;/em&gt;.&#xA;  He indeed throws aside his garment and leaps, coming to be illuminated by Christ, who,&#xA;  with the snares of the world discarded, hurries with bold and eager steps to the granter of eternal &#xA;  light. [...] See, how the Lord and creator of the angels, in his taking up and joining with our&#xA;  nature, came in the womb of a virgin. But he did not wish to be born in this world from the wealthy,&#xA;  but chose poor parents.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Latin &lt;em&gt;nudus&lt;/em&gt; may not mean precisely &quot;naked&quot;, but at least refers to a condition of vulnerability or destitution. Even if Bartimaeus was not strictly naked, he was at least making a &quot;leap of faith&quot; in throwing his cloak aside: discarding what little comfort he had in order to follow Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. &lt;em&gt;In Marci Evangelium Expositio&lt;/em&gt;, book 3, chapter 10. In Migne's &lt;em&gt;Patrologia Latina&lt;/em&gt;,&#xA;vol. 92, p238-239.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Quia [...] ut plurimi, relictis mundi facultatibus, nudi evangelicam vitam sequerentur,&#xA;quo aeternum in coelis mererentur habere thesaurum, recte de illuminando caeco subditur:&#xA;&lt;em&gt;Qui projecto vestimento suo exsiliens venit ad eum.&lt;/em&gt; Projecto quippe vestimento exsilit,&#xA;ut adveniens illuminetur a Christo, qui abiectis mundi retinaculis, expedito mentis&#xA;gressu ad largitorem aeternae lucis properat. [...] &#xA;Ecce cum sit Dominus et creator angelorum, suscepturus naturam nostram quam condidit,&#xA;in uterum virginis venit. Nasci tamen in hoc mundo per divites noluit, parentes pauperes&#xA;elegit.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-10-14T18:59:15.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19906" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19908" CreationDate="2013-10-14T21:07:49.860" Score="11" ViewCount="545" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was recently on a tour in London, where one of the tourists asked the guide whether the Queen is still the head of the Church of England, to which the guide replied “Yes.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Wikipedia claims that the head of the Church of England is the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_of_Canterbury&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Archbishop of Canterbury&lt;/a&gt;, which position is currently held by &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Welby&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Justin Welby&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what is the monarch’s official relationship to the Church of England, if there is any (other than simple parishioner)?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2014-07-01T20:59:44.227" LastActivityDate="2014-07-01T20:59:44.227" Title="What is the English monarch's current relationship to the Church of England?" Tags="&lt;anglicanism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19906" CreationDate="2013-10-14T22:41:36.433" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Sovereign is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church_of_England&quot;&gt;Supreme Governor of the Church of England&lt;/a&gt;. The Head of the Church is Christ, not the Sovereign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm&quot;&gt;Act of Supremacy of 1534&lt;/a&gt; gave Henry VIII the style &quot;supreme head of the Church of England&quot;, doubts were expressed about it and when the Act was reaffirmed by a similar &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-text.htm&quot;&gt;Act in 1559&lt;/a&gt; (having been repealed by Queen Mary I in 1555) the title &quot;supreme governor&quot; was used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sovereign appoints bishops who are elected by their electors&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and the Crown has rights in certain Church of England parishes. The Crown governs the Church of England through primary legislation passed either by Parliament or the Church's General Synod.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of All England (a title conferred by Pope Innocent VI and confirmed by the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539). He is the senior bishop in the Church of England and by convention the &quot;first among equals&quot; within the Anglican Communion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; This isn't quite as democratic as it seems: the Crown has a big part to play in presenting the single candidate for the electors to vote on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-10-15T09:11:04.023" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T09:11:04.023" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19862" CreationDate="2013-10-15T00:56:56.773" Score="24" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Protestant practice of traditionally substituting grape juice for wine during &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;communion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; must largely be credited to one man - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bramwell_Welch&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Thomas Bramwell Welch&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;While some Christians consider the use of wine from the grape as&#xA;  essential for the validity of the sacrament, many Protestants also&#xA;  allow (or require) pasteurized grape juice as a substitute. Wine was&#xA;  used in Eucharistic rites by &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;all Protestant groups&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; until an&#xA;  alternative arose in the late 19th century. Methodist dentist and&#xA;  prohibitionist &lt;strong&gt;Thomas Bramwell Welch&lt;/strong&gt; applied new &lt;strong&gt;pasteurization&#xA;  techniques&lt;/strong&gt; to stop the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;natural&lt;/em&gt; fermentation process&lt;/strong&gt; of grape juice.&#xA;  Some Christians who were part of the growing &lt;strong&gt;temperance movement&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  pressed for a &lt;strong&gt;switch from wine to grape juice&lt;/strong&gt;, and the substitution&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;spread quickly&lt;/strong&gt; over much of the United States, as well as to other&#xA;  countries to a lesser degree. There remains an ongoing debate between&#xA;  some American Protestant denominations as to whether wine can and&#xA;  should be used for the Eucharist or allowed as an ordinary beverage,&#xA;  with Catholics and some mainline Protestants allowing wine drinking in&#xA;  moderation, and some conservative Protestant groups opposing&#xA;  consumption of alcohol altogether. (&lt;em&gt;emphasis added&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone with basic knowledge of wine making knows that once grape juice is successfully squeezed and collected, it doesn't remain as juice for very long. Unpasteurized grape juice, if not consumed within a few days of harvest, will quickly ferment, rendering it not consumable (unless treated and stored to begin the wine making process). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the excerpt from Wikipedia above states, prior to the turn of the 20th century &quot;grape juice communion&quot; was practically non-existent. Before the modern discovery of the pasteurization process, it would have taken a significant amount of effort to have enough freshly squeezed juice for a congregation readily available every Sunday (or less frequently depending on the denomination). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/itSmx.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, contrary to the traditional presuppositions held by Temperance Movement grandchildren, the theological &quot;roots&quot; of sipping grape juice instead of wine during communion has more to do with &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#History&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;pasteurization&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Winemaking_during_Prohibition&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;prohibition&lt;/a&gt; than it does biblical exegesis. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-10-15T01:03:37.193" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T01:03:37.193" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19911" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19867" CreationDate="2013-10-15T01:15:47.600" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;A better summarization of your statement would be &quot;Monophysitism and Nestorianism are heresy; the Chalcedonian position is orthodox. The heresies over-emphasize one of the natures, but the orthodox position stresses that both are fully present and effective.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8395/what-is-heresy&quot;&gt;heresy&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is a word that carries a strong connotation, but it does have an actual definition - heresy is heresy because the orthodox position is to reject.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nestorianism&lt;/a&gt; was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD by Theodosius.  As you said, it emphasizes the human nature of Jesus to such an extent that his divine nature often gets overlooked.  A good modern example would be &quot;Jesus Christ Superstar&quot; by Andrew Lloyd Weber.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Monophysitism&lt;/a&gt; was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. This position emphasizes the divine nature to the exclusion of his human one.  Many old school Baptists in particular want to think of Jesus as this magical God whom they neglect to see as also human, sharing in our sufferings and knowing our pains.  This too, is heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Council of Chalcedon&lt;/a&gt; was, by definition, church dogma - indeed, it being one of the first &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Seven Ecumenical Councils&lt;/a&gt;, it is accepted by Orthodox and Catholic alike as reflecting the will of the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The line &quot;fully human, fully divine,&quot; emphasizes that both natures are fully Christ, and is the orthodox position of the &quot;Church&quot;, even to this day.  While there are denominations that reject this position, to do so is to put oneself at odds with the historical consensus of the church assembled, as defined by the best measure of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/888/1039&quot;&gt;Christian&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your overall assessment then &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be taken as fully accurate, although admittedly, I don't like the idea of it being a &quot;compromise.&quot; A compromise suggests that both positions are valid, but that are optimized by rawing from each. Rather, here, I consider it to be the middle way that represents the truth, and either of the other positions is an error that emphasizes one nature in hypostasis over against the other.  Most (All?) heresies - Christological and Trinitarian - tend to result from the over emphasis of one part to the exclusion of the whole.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T03:01:58.610" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9585" CreationDate="2013-10-15T05:27:24.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't have alot of time, but I'd like to do my best to contextualize what the priest on relevant radio was saying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is &lt;i&gt;technically&lt;/i&gt; correct to say that Jesus didn't need to die on the Cross, in the sense of, God is not restrained by something other than Himself.  (And, although I don't have time to look it up, I believe St. Thomas mention this as a theoretical, and purely conjectured possibility.  God can do anything that is not against reason, He could have redeemed us simply by saying so.  That being said, in the fuller sense, God chose to save us in a given manner because it was the most fitting (as has been pointed out above).  The priest on relevant radio was not heretical, nor was he denying any of the above points made, but (I would guess) merely pointing out the fact, as St. Thomas does, that God chose the route of suffering and death as a means of a) fittingness, and b) showing &lt;i&gt;us&lt;/i&gt; his limitless love.  We need the signs and demonstrations, not him.  So, in answer to your question, &quot;what does the Crucifixion do more for us?&quot; I would answer, it shows us, it demonstrates to us how much He loves us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summed up: God &lt;i&gt;could&lt;/i&gt;, theoretically, have saved us without the crucifixion, etc., but He chose to undergo all the &quot;extra&quot; things for our sake - so that we could SEE it. It is ironic that the Jews demanded He &quot;show his power&quot; and come down from the cross, because that is exactly what He &lt;i&gt;was&lt;/i&gt; doing - showing his power by going through the absolute worst punishments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6175" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T05:27:24.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19915" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-15T06:35:12.543" Score="8" ViewCount="9718" Body="&lt;p&gt;My husband is a disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witness and he has filed for a divorce. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Jehovah's Witness belief about divorce and the responsibility of the husband to a non JW wife? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6176" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-22T05:51:00.977" LastActivityDate="2014-07-23T04:46:06.353" Title="How do Jehovah's Witness view divorce?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;divorce&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9585" CreationDate="2013-10-15T14:31:29.687" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The priest was quoting Aquinas' prayer &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=2196&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adoro Te Devote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (emphasis mine):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O Godhead hid, devoutly I adore Thee,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Who truly art within the forms before me;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  To Thee my heart I bow with bended knee,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  As failing quite in contemplating Thee.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesu, eternal Shepherd! hear our cry;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Increase the faith of all whose souls on Thee rely.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sight, touch, and taste in Thee are each deceived;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The ear alone most safely is believed:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I believe all the Son of God has spoken,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Than truth's own word there is no truer token.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ave Jesu, Pastor Fidélium;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Adáuge fidem ómnium in te credéntium.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God only on the cross lay hid from view;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  But here lies hid at once the manhood too;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And I, in both professing my belief,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Make the same prayer as the repentant thief.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ave Jesu, Pastor Fidélium;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Adáuge fidem ómnium in te credéntium.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thy wounds, as Thomas saw, I do not see;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Yet Thee confess my Lord and God to be;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Make me believe Thee evermore and more;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  In Thee my hope, in Thee my love to store.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ave Jesu, Pastor Fidélium;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Adáuge fidem ómnium in te credéntium.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O Thou memorial of our Lord's own dying!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  O living bread, to mortals life supplying!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Make Thou my soul henceforth on Thee to live,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Ever a taste of heavenly sweetness give.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ave Jesu, Pastor Fidélium;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Adáuge fidem ómnium in te credéntium.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O loving Pelican! O Jesus Lord!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Unclean I am, but cleanse me in Thy Blood!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Of which a single drop, for sinners spilt,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Can purge the entire world from all its guilt.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ave Jesu, Pastor Fidélium;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Adáuge fidem ómnium in te credéntium.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus, whom, for the present, veil'd I see,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  What I so thirst for, oh! vouchsafe to me;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  That I may see Thy contenance unfolding,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And may be blest Thy glory in beholding.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ave Jesu, Pastor Fidélium;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Adáuge fidem ómnium in te credéntium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was thought that the pelican (&quot;O loving Pelican! O Jesus Lord!&quot;), when necessary, would wound itself and allow its children to drink its blood rather than let them starve. It became a symbol of Christ choosing to shed His blood for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aquinas is not teaching here that Jesus' death was unnecessary for our salvation (though he does say in the &lt;em&gt;Summa&lt;/em&gt; that for all we know there could have been another way, but this is the one God chose), but rather that Jesus gave an overabundance; He paid more than enough. Aquinas is not speaking in quantitative terms at all. We're not talking about how many pints of blood was necessary for forgiveness, but of the greatness of the grace and love of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T14:31:29.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19922" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14596" CreationDate="2013-10-15T14:56:45.050" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The reference edition of the New World Translation is available online, and answers questions in this regard in the sections &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;Foreword&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;Appendix&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New World Translation, Reference edition, 1984&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other details are found in &amp;quot;Study 8&amp;quot; in the publication “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial”, found at the same web site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990135&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Advantages of the “New World Translation”&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Below follows a few excerpts from these and other sources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 750-page book &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993037#h=24&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;chapter 27 page 608&lt;/a&gt;, writes about the wish for a new translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Jehovah’s Witnesses wanted a translation that embodied the benefits of the latest scholarship, one that was not colored by the creeds and traditions of Christendom, a literal translation that faithfully presented what is in the original writings and so could provide the basis for continued growth in knowledge of divine truth, a translation that would be clear and understandable to modern-day readers.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060000#h=2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reference Bible, 1984-revision, Foreword&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, the translators tells the readers about their feelings beeing translators of the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;It is a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern speech. ... The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation. ... It was with such a sense of solemn responsibility that over the course of many years this committee of dedicated men have produced the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The translators of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New World Translation, 2013-revision&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; write about this edition in its Foreword:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Recognizing the importance of the Bible’s message, we have undertaken the revision of this text with a profound respect for the content of the Bible. We feel the full weight of our responsibility to convey its message accurately. This revised edition has built on the fine foundation laid in previous editions of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a Bible that was first released more than 60 years ago. However, the English language has changed during the past half century. Such change prompted current members of the New World Bible Translation Committee to initiate this comprehensive revision. Our goal has been to produce a translation that is not only faithful to the original texts but also clear and easy to read.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Reference Bible, 1984-revision, &lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060001#h=5&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Introduction&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, lists some of the manuscripts which is the basis of the translation; and the translation philosophi used:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;HEBREW TEXT: The Masoretic Hebrew text used for the preparation of the English text of the Hebrew Scripture portion of the New World Translation was the Codex Leningrad B 19A (of U.S.S.R.), as presented in R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (BHK), seventh, eighth and ninth editions (1951-55). An update of this work known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), 1977 edition, was used to prepare the footnote apparatus of this 1984 edition. Italicized words designated as “Heb.” are transliterated from BHS.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;GREEK TEXT: The basic Greek text used for the preparation of the English text of the Christian Greek Scripture portion of the New World Translation was The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort (originally published in 1881). The Greek texts of Nestle, Bover, Merk and others were also considered. The Greek transliterations for the Christian Greek Scripture portion of the Bible, identified as “Gr.,” are from the Westcott and Hort text as reproduced in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (1969). In the Hebrew Scriptures “Gr.” refers to transliterations from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), by A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935. Other Greek sources have been indicated by their respective symbols.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;SYRIAC TEXT: “Syr.” indicates words transliterated from the Syriac Peshitta (Sy), S. Lee, 1826 edition, reprinted by United Bible Societies, 1979. Other Syriac versions are indicated by their respective symbols.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;LATIN TEXT: The edition of the Latin Vulgate (Vg) used was the Biblia Sacra, Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975. “Lat.” designates words from this text. Other Latin versions have been indicated by their respective symbols.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;In the New World Translation an effort was made to capture the authority, power, dynamism and directness of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and to convey these characteristics in modern English.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Paraphrases of the Scriptures are not offered. Rather, an effort has been made to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern-English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not, by any awkwardness, hide the thought.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Taking liberties with the texts for the mere sake of brevity, and substituting some modern parallel when a literal rendering of the original makes good sense, has been avoided. Uniformity of rendering has been maintained by assigning one meaning to each major word and by holding to that meaning as far as the context permits. At times this has imposed a restriction upon word choice, but it aids in cross-reference work and in comparing related texts.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Special care was taken in translating Hebrew and Greek verbs in order to capture the simplicity, warmth, character and forcefulness of the original expressions. An effort was made to preserve the flavor of the ancient Hebrew and Greek times, the people’s way of thinking, reasoning and talking, their social dealings, etc.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Note that some original-language words have been carried over into English, for example, “Sheol,” “Hades,” “Gehenna,” “Amen,” “manna” and “Messiah.”&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;The New World Translation makes every effort to be consistent in its renderings. For a given Hebrew or Greek word, there has been assigned one English word, and this has been used as uniformly as the idiom or context permits in giving the full English understanding. For example, the Hebrew word ne′phesh is consistently translated “soul.” The corresponding Greek word, psy·khe′, is translated “soul” in every occurrence.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;The New World Translation gives special attention to conveying the sense of the action of the Greek and Hebrew verbs. In doing so, the New World Translation endeavors to preserve the special charm, simplicity, forcefulness, and manner of expression of the original-language writings. It has thus been necessary to use auxiliary verbs in English to convey carefully the actual states of the actions. Because of the power of their verbs, the original Scriptures are so dynamic and so expressive of action.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060076#h=12-13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Appendix 1D - The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot; explains the basis for using the devine name &amp;quot;Jehovah&amp;quot; in the new testament. Here follows an excerpt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;To know where the divine name was replaced by the Greek words Κύριος and Θεός, we have determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way we determined the identity to give Ky′ri·os and The·os′ and the personality with which to clothe them. To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from the Hebrew versions to confirm our rendering.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &amp;quot;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990135#h=14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Study 8, Advantages of the New World Translation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;quot; in the publication “&lt;strong&gt;All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial&lt;/strong&gt;”:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;As to this feature of uniformity, note what Hebrew and Greek commentator Alexander Thomson had to say in his review on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. The version aims to keep to one English meaning for each major Greek word, and to be as literal as possible. . . . The word usually rendered ‘justify’ is generally translated very correctly as ‘declare righteous.’ . . . The word for the Cross is rendered ‘torture stake’ which is another improvement. . . . Luke 23:43 is well rendered, ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.’ This is a big improvement upon the reading of most versions.” On the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the same reviewer made this comment: “The New World Version is well worth acquiring. It is lively and lifelike, and makes the reader think and study. It is not the work of Higher Critics, but of scholars who honour God and His Word.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7, and June 1954, page 136.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6179" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-26T18:35:31.210" LastActivityDate="2021-04-26T18:35:31.210" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19924" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19927" CreationDate="2013-10-15T15:14:32.680" Score="17" ViewCount="28348" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have often wondered if God deliberately intended for the miracles of Elisha to be a preview of the miracles our Savior would perform, as a way of verification of Jesus Deity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elisha brought the dead son of the Shunammite back to life in 2 Kings 4:33 thru 35.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus brought the daughter of a certain ruler back to life in Matthew 9:24 and 25, and also Lazarus in John 11:43.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both were preceded by a prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elisha turned a small amount of oil into an abundance in 2 Kings 4:1-7.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus turned water into wine in John 2:1-10.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elisha turned poison stew into good stew to feed a hungry group in 2 Kings 4:38-41, and fed a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn in 2 Kings 4:42 and 43.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus fed 4,000 with a few fishes and loaves in Matthew 14:15-20, and 5,000 in Luke 16 and 17.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elisha cured Naaman of Leprosy in 2 Kings 5:1-14.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus cured 10 lepers in Luke 17:11-19.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Elisha made an iron axe head float in 2 Kings 6:5-7.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus made himself and Peter to walk on water in John 6:19 and 20, and in Matthew 14:25-29.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that these miracles are too uncommonly alike to be merely coincidental. Have any prominent theologians or teachers made the same connection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-19T15:39:10.590" LastActivityDate="2016-02-11T07:13:18.097" Title="Were the similarities between the miracles of Elisha and Jesus deliberate or simply coincidental?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;typology&gt;&lt;elisha&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19836" CreationDate="2013-10-15T15:34:19.820" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/questions-answers/fellowship&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;WELS website&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If anyone is willing to sit down and talk with us, we'd be happy to explain what we mean and what statements of the Bible are involved...If we find that the other people are ignorant or unaware of the errors in their churches, we would never avoid or refuse to encourage them or possibly even worship with them on occasion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like they are willing to talk to and worship with people who don't agree with them.  It's just that fellowship has to be on their terms and not on the terms of the person from outside the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T15:34:19.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19924" CreationDate="2013-10-15T16:38:31.730" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two salient facts should inform the reasoning:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus was shown to be in league with the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Elisha had asked to receive a &quot;double share&quot; of Elijah's gifts - and that was granted.  Elisha performed many of the same miracles that had accompanied Elijah's ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, then, was shown to be a prophet performing the same miracles as a prophet. That these miracles were similar would have the effect of showing that Jesus was fully a prophet (in addition to being fully the lawgiver and fully God) in a way that would have made sense to those who already knew the works and role of the prophets from the Ketuv'im.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T16:38:31.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19930" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19836" CreationDate="2013-10-15T17:48:04.800" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the WELS statements &quot;Fellowship&quot; means cooperating and working together as Christians. Their doctrinal statement means they will only cooperate (including as you say, praying with) Christians who completely agree with them. It does not mean that they cannot eat, work, play hockey or discuss theology with those that disagree with them - including Christians of differing view and atheists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-10-15T17:48:04.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19936" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-16T00:19:14.787" Score="15" ViewCount="2906" Body="&lt;p&gt;From what I understand, the Western and Eastern churches fasted identically for a long time: Wednesday and Friday, and the entirety of Lent. Is this untrue?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If not, when and why did the Catholics stop fasting on Wednesday and Friday and throughout Lent as the Orthodox fast?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6080" LastActivityDate="2019-03-12T16:34:53.620" Title="When Did Catholics Cease to Fast as the Orthodox Do?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;fasting&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19937" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-16T01:05:56.457" Score="6" ViewCount="10506" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witnesses are known to have no pastors or priests, because having pastors or priests would go against their theology. Instead, they have &quot;elders&quot;. From an outsider's perspective, elders appear to function in the same way as the priests or pastors from other Christian denominations, namely because these elders do not include women. Women, however, are allowed and encouraged to become ministers and preach the gospel door to door.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the requirements for a person to become an elder? What type of training do elders have? And have elders ever been formally trained in Christian history, biblical studies, or theology? A related question: are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to read a mainstream, scholarly bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2019-08-03T06:01:24.783" Title="How trained are the elders in the Jehovah's Witness denomination?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;religious-education&gt;&lt;elders&gt;&lt;seminary&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19939" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-16T02:10:42.593" Score="8" ViewCount="304" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been answering a few questions on this site raised about the intercessory power of the  Blessed Virgin Mary and this question popped into my mind.  St. Thomas Aquinas can posit a rational proof for God's existence, glory, omnipresence, omniscience, eternal nature and beneficence.  I don't think he ever said, God exists because &amp;quot;we need Him&amp;quot;.  But, He does exist and it's reasonable to say the He doesn't need us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, there is a sensitivity that is natural to man that brings him closer to God, to want to know what we can about Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm#article1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Summa Theologica Book 1, Article 32&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Christ's death and resurrection, the Catholic laity has had an ardent devotion to the Mother of God and also consider her to be the mother of the Church and their own spiritual mother.  The truths which Sacred Tradition kept through constant devotion to Our Lady (i.e. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) are considered by the present Pope and the popes who promulgated said dogmas to be infallible (that's saying something coming from the Pope).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, here's the question, if we can know God through reason alone, is it also reasonable that God willed that we have a maternal queen in Heaven as well who acts as a spiritual mother?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Looking for Catholic answers rooted in the Natural Law&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T18:11:57.383" Title="Is the desire for a spiritual mother natural to mankind?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;&lt;mariology&gt;&lt;summa-theologica&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19937" CreationDate="2013-10-16T10:08:20.643" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, we are allowed to read any bible and most of us have a few different translations at home. Furthermore, every Jehovah's Witness is trained to become an ordained minister and publisher. An instrument for that training is our Theocratic Ministry School. Besides that we have several 'schools' that are specialized in training , elders, overseers, pioneers and missionaries. A well known facility we use for that purpose is the Watchtower Educational Center in Patterson (google it to see some pics). Studying theology on a university does not qualify someone to become an elder or even a minister of our faith. For more information visit our official website, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org&quot;&gt;http://www.jw.org&lt;/a&gt;. Kindest regards from the Netherlands Europe&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6191" LastEditorUserId="5440" LastEditDate="2013-10-16T14:58:41.197" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T14:58:41.197" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19944" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19252" CreationDate="2013-10-16T10:13:13.803" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is because we like to use our time wisely... so the less hours we put in a building the more hours we have left for our meetings... and preaching work. Furthermore we build our Kingdom Halls with volunteers. Most of the time they come from all over the state(s) so its more efficient if we do the job in only a few weekends with hundreds of workers. It has nothing to do with money as one suggested. We can afford anything but we just build what we need. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6191" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2020-03-12T17:51:38.673" LastActivityDate="2020-03-12T17:51:38.673" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14503" CreationDate="2013-10-16T10:17:08.917" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah made angels with a free will.. like he did with humans. So its just a matter of choice. Satan has chosen himself to become an opposite of Jehovah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;for more information : &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011171?q=devil&amp;amp;p=par&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011171?q=devil&amp;amp;p=par&lt;/a&gt;  The article is on our official website and is called 'Did God create the Devil?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6191" LastEditorUserId="6191" LastEditDate="2013-10-16T14:16:57.410" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T14:16:57.410" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19946" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-16T11:03:33.693" Score="-1" ViewCount="6594" Body="&lt;p&gt;Assuming that a gay/lesbian person is genuinely kind, religious, and follows the Ten Commandments. Is it possible for them to go to heaven after death?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And when they go to heaven will they still be gay/lesbians or be man/woman?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-10-16T11:06:55.630" LastActivityDate="2014-05-19T03:52:28.840" Title="Can a gay/lesbian person get to heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-10-16T17:03:28.743" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19946" CreationDate="2013-10-16T11:08:18.463" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, it is not possible, because the person you described is not following the Ten Commandments. No one is. Romans 3:23:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T11:08:18.463" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19946" CreationDate="2013-10-16T11:19:27.957" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The church does not condem Gay/Lesbian people but homosexual acts.This is only in the case that the said homosexual person feel repentant for his acts. if he feels like he has sinned and repents for then he/she may go to heaven provided the remaining part of his/her life is proper.&#xA; as for the question of will the still be a man or a woman.I think we are souls and not classfied under gender in heaven &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6192" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T11:19:27.957" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19946" CreationDate="2013-10-16T12:45:10.623" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question indicates that you are unaware of the fundamentals of Christianity:  God’s children place their faith in God’s love for them, not because His children are lovable but because it is God’s nature to love.  Jesus is God’s love made manifest (grace).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8 for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith in God’s love, wants what God wants for His children in this life.  God has provided His children with the Holy Sprit in order for His will to be made manifest in their lives.  This outcome determines how much of their life will stand the test of fire. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 3:13,14 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So can a gay person get to Heaven, the answer is yes, Jesus died on the cross in order that sinners can get to Heaven.  However, sinners will not enter Heaven, only those that have been born anew and washed with the blood of Jesus.  The new birth comes with a new identity, we become God’s children those “born of the Holy Spirit” and as a result our old sinful identities are no longer relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian is one that has the ability through the presence of the Holy Spirit to bear Jesus Christ out in their life, thus the works that will stand the test of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why would one stand before God ignoring His new identity in favor of a sexual identity?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-12-03T22:39:30.203" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T22:39:30.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19951" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19946" CreationDate="2013-10-16T12:50:47.177" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Rom 1:27, we find that homosexuality is an expression of a world that did not acknowledge God as the Creator to be worshiped. But the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, including the sins of the homosexual, when we trust in Him for salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is a redeemed homosexual to do? The same as a redeemed thief or adulterer -- sin no more. Turn away from living for the flesh to living for God (Romans 6). Paul gives us a warning that if we willfully pursue the flesh, such &quot;will not inherit the kingdom&quot; (1 Cor. 6:9-10). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Benware's book, &lt;em&gt;The Believer's Payday,&lt;/em&gt; inheriting the kingdom means being rewarded with riches and honor for one's good works. So a redeemed homosexual, continuing in his homosexual practices, may make it to heaven, but will appear before the judgment without inheriting the kingdom, in shame and not joy (1 John 2:28-29). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So 2 Peter 1:5-11 encourages us to grow in godliness rather than continue in the flesh in order to prove that we are worthy of the special privileges of those who inherit the kingdom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4546" LastEditDate="2014-05-19T03:52:28.840" LastActivityDate="2014-05-19T03:52:28.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19946" CreationDate="2013-10-16T13:09:37.827" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;You cannot keep the 7th Commandment and be a homosexual, that is homosexuality is breaking the 7th commandment, &quot;Thou shalt not commit adultery.&quot; The Bible expounds on the matter saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, and God denounces homosexuality as an abomination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman,&#xA;  both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to&#xA;  death; their blood will be on their own heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Leviticus 20:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of&#xA;  God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters&#xA;  nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the&#xA;  greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the&#xA;  kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 6:9-10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we must not forget though is that WE HAVE ALL SINNED. To God homosexuality, theft, murder, deceit, is a sin and you cannot go to heaven if you have done any of these. That is why Jesus came along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were to murder a child, would it be fair if a judge acquitted me of my crime? No, it would be a terrible injustice to the parents and to society if I'm still walking free. God is just and any crime, or sin, cannot be pardoned just because I say I'm sorry. I need to pay for my crime. The payment for any sin is death. So are we doomed to die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, Jesus paid for my sins at the cross. He also paid for the sin of homosexuality, and all the other sins of every person. But because of this am I free to murder again? God forbid! This is what repentance is about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word repentance means a turning away from sin. If we are to be forgiven we need to turn away from our sin and follow Jesus. Like Jesus said to the woman.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no&#xA;  more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 8:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people have been taught that trying to keep God's Law is legalism and to try to follow it is impossible, but this cannot be further from the truth. Jesus said to the multitude in His sermon on the Mount:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is&#xA;  perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:48&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was Jesus lying? No, we can do it, through Christ who strengthens us! We cannot be saved by the Law, because that is not its purpose. We have the blood of Jesus for that. The Law shows us where we are at fault. If we do break the Law again, we are no longer under grace and are in need of Jesus' salvation again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Going back to the above text, there was a part I didn't include on purpose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of&#xA;  God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters&#xA;  nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the&#xA;  greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the&#xA;  kingdom of God. &lt;strong&gt;And that is what some of you WERE. But you were&#xA;  washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the&#xA;  Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 6:9-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The grace of Christ is sufficient for all sinners who have broken God's perfect Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion a person that is gay/lesbian CANNOT inherit the Kingdom of God, just like a murderer cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, because they are sinners. A sinner has broken the 10 Commandments and so cannot keep them. Can they go to heaven? No. Only if they repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior will they go into heaven, but if this is the case, they are NO LONGER Gay or lesbian or murderer. They are no longer a sinner because Jesus has washed their sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T13:09:37.827" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19953" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5981" CreationDate="2013-10-16T13:40:59.877" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been rereading many texts I thought I knew well, and finding new surprises. Revelation 9:11 (ESV) says: &quot;They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.&quot; And, we may not know until all things are revealed what the true roles of the angels actually are. But here is another named angel (other than Michael, Gabriel and Lucifer).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6194" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T13:40:59.877" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19957" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19958" CreationDate="2013-10-16T16:38:58.493" Score="4" ViewCount="124" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis chapter 18 Abraham negotiated with one of the three men who came to his tent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 18:20 refers to that individual as 'LORD' , and only two of those are called Angels and go on to Sodom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since all things material were created by God in Genesis chapter 1, using the word 'Lord' would seem to indicate that that being was non material.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet we know that Abraham saw three men, that leads me to wonder if that one with which Abraham negotiated were an apparition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was further intrigued by the fact the other two (who are referred to as Angels) continued to Sodom while the  'LORD' did not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do Theologians say about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T18:28:40.827" Title="Was the Lord with whom Abraham negotiated material or Holistic?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19958" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19957" CreationDate="2013-10-16T17:50:33.070" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It was the understanding of many Church Fathers from the early Christians that the LORD who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Moses and the prophets was Jesus Christ, the word of God, who is distinct from God the Creator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_with_Trypho&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;The Dialogue with Trypho&quot;&lt;/a&gt; written by &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Justin Martyr(100-165 AD)&lt;/a&gt;, Justin explained to Trypho the Jew that one of the three men who visited Abraham was God in human form, who is distinct from God the Creator. Justin said that it was Jesus Christ, who appeared to Abraham, Jacob and Moses, who is called &quot;LORD&quot; in the Scripture, and recorded by Moses in the Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LVI&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I replied again, &quot;If I could not have proved to you from the&#xA;  Scriptures that &lt;strong&gt;one of those three is God, and is called Angel&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God&#xA;  the Maker of all things wishes[messages to be brought], then in regard&#xA;  to Him &lt;strong&gt;who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form&lt;/strong&gt; in like manner&#xA;  as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the&#xA;  creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the&#xA;  same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Assuredly,&quot; he said, &quot;for up to this moment this has been our&#xA;  belief.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I replied, &quot;Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to&#xA;  persuade you, that &lt;strong&gt;He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to&#xA;  Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who&#xA;  made all things&lt;/strong&gt;,--numerically, I mean, not[distinct] in will. For I&#xA;  affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made&#xA;  the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both&#xA;  to do and to engage Himself with.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-10-16T18:28:40.827" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T18:28:40.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19959" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-16T19:56:53.260" Score="4" ViewCount="692" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have always been told, and I thoroughly believe that Jesus was wholly God and wholly man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since there are multiple occasions in the Bible where pre-incarnate Jesus apparently appeared to people, and yet we know that Jesus was  also born in human form to Mary, I feel that there had to be both a man Jesus and a deity Jesus occupying that same human body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope that no-one will think that that is in any way Heretical and I certainly am not questioning the Deity of any part of the Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have pondered that for quite some time and included the following in trying to come up with an answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When God created man he breathed the breath of life into only the man he created from dust. He has not breathed the breath of life into any others including Eve, and yet man continues to have the breath of life in posterity even to today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this indicate that we are still sharing the same breath of life that God breathed into the first man?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God told man that when he partook of the knowledge of good and evil that that life would be demanded back for hs disobedience.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since God is eternal is not the breath of life also eternal?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus died on the cross was it that same life given to original man that he sacrificed?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If that were so then it would fulfill the demand of God that man must surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;When we surrender to Christ are we too sacrificing that same breath of life given to original man.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;That would tend to further explain why Jesus death on the cross gives us forgiveness for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;That also helps me to understand the following scriptures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 10:39:  He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my     sake shall find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 16:25:  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose    his life for my sake shall find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 19:17:  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good     but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 14:26:  If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and    wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot    be my disciple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 5:24:  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth  on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation;   but is passed from death unto life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 17:3:  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,  and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it causes me to believe that not only do we become a new creature when we accept Christ, but that he gives us a new eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:22-42&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 10:28&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  shall any man pluck them out of my hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:1-5&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 17:2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (KJV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  life to as many as thou hast given him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any Theologians or denominations share those beliefs or am I just off my rocker?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-09-21T00:32:55.060" LastActivityDate="2018-09-21T00:32:55.060" Title="Was Jesus two separate individuals in one body?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;hypostatic-union&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19962" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="19977" CreationDate="2013-10-16T21:05:41.423" Score="16" ViewCount="1612" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Catholic doctrine, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition teach that Jesus Christ died specifically for the expiation of our sins. Historical Christianity professes that God became a man by way of Incarnation to restore man's fallen nature to full communion with the Godhead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all&#xA;  people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life&#xA;  for all people. (&lt;em&gt;Romans 5:18&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that&#xA;  whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.&quot;For&#xA;  God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that&#xA;  the world might be saved through Him.…  (&lt;em&gt;John 3:16&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed professes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was&#xA;  incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The current Catholic Catechism states about man's specific responsibility for &quot;nailing&quot; Jesus to the Cross with our sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paragraph 598&lt;/strong&gt; In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that &quot;sinners&#xA;  were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the&#xA;  divine Redeemer endured.&quot; Taking into account the fact that our&#xA;  sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute&#xA;  to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted&#xA;  upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often&#xA;  burdened the Jews alone:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the&#xA;  cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify&#xA;  the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him&#xA;  up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is&#xA;  greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness&#xA;  of the Apostle, &quot;None of the rulers of this age understood this; for&#xA;  if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.&quot; We,&#xA;  however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in&#xA;  some way seem to lay violent hands on him&lt;/em&gt;.(1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins&lt;/em&gt;.(2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Roman Catechism I, 5, 11; cf. Heb 6:6; 1 Cor 2:8.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;St. Francis of Assisi, Admonitio 5, 3.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; teaches that God gave man free will...beginning with Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MAN'S FREEDOM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paragraph 1730&lt;/strong&gt; God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.&#xA;  &quot;God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,'&#xA;  so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain&#xA;  his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.&quot;(1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will&#xA;  and is master over his acts.(2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;MAN'S FIRST SIN&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paragraph 397&lt;/strong&gt; Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's&#xA;  command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.(3) All subsequent&#xA;  sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his&#xA;  goodness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paragraph 398&lt;/strong&gt; In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against&#xA;  the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his&#xA;  own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be&#xA;  fully &quot;divinized&quot; by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to&#xA;  &quot;be like God&quot;, but &quot;without God, before God, and not in accordance&#xA;  with God&quot;.(4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;GS 17; Sir 15:14.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,4,3:PG 7/1,983.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Cf. Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua: PG 91,1156C; cf. Gen 3:5.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However, paradoxically speaking...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; explicitly teaches that Jesus Christ is God - who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word&#xA;  was God. He was with God in the beginning. (&lt;em&gt;John 1:1-2&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. &lt;em&gt;(Hebrews&#xA;  13:8&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Miaphysite heresy - &lt;strong&gt;which holds that the human nature and pre-incarnate divine nature of Christ were united as one divine human nature from the point of the Incarnation onward&lt;/strong&gt; - was officially denounced at the Council of Chalcedon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach&#xA;  people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the&#xA;  same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and&#xA;  truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial&#xA;  [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and&#xA;  consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like&#xA;  unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according&#xA;  to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our&#xA;  salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to&#xA;  the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be&#xA;  acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly,&#xA;  inseparably; (ν δύο φύσεσιν συγχύτως, τρέπτως, διαιρέτως, χωρίστως –&#xA;  in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter)&#xA;  the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union,&#xA;  but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring&#xA;  in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted&#xA;  or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only&#xA;  begotten God (μονογεν Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the&#xA;  prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the&#xA;  Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy&#xA;  Fathers has handed down to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Considering all this...it seems to me that, although the Incarnation is a temporally necessary for Man's salvation, it ultimately is eternal in essence since the essence of God eternally transcends time.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Question:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Adam, by exercising his free will, had chosen &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to partake of the forbidden fruit (a.k.a. Original Sin), &lt;strong&gt;would the Incarnation still have taken place due to God's omnipresence?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking for authoritative Catholic/Orthodox teaching about this subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="9637" LastEditDate="2014-01-20T06:12:43.050" LastActivityDate="2016-07-12T21:43:25.413" Title="Does Catholic doctrine teach that the Incarnation would have taken place regardless of Adam's decision?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;incarnation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19963" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19959" CreationDate="2013-10-16T21:33:38.643" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the Westminster Confession of Faith:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature,(1) with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;(2) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.(3) So that &lt;strong&gt;two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person&lt;/strong&gt;, without conversion, composition, or confusion.(4) Which person is very God...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This appears to suggest that your &quot;two persons&quot; theory is mistaken, because Christ is &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; person with two natures. Whether or not this answers your question rather depends on your view of WCF, and assumes that your definition of person is the same as that used by WCF.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastActivityDate="2013-10-16T21:33:38.643" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19966" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-17T09:43:32.407" Score="5" ViewCount="3803" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a story in the Bible that Adam and Eve ate the fruit and thus sinned against God. But other religions, including some Christians, describe that they were having intercourse and that's why God threw them out of the garden. Which Christian groups believe this, and what is their reasoning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6207" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T02:23:09.067" LastActivityDate="2020-06-17T04:00:05.653" Title="What Christian groups believe sex was the original sin, and not disobedience?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;adam-and-eve&gt;&lt;fall-of-man&gt;&lt;sex-acts&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="17" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19967" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-17T10:59:07.733" Score="9" ViewCount="132" Body="&lt;p&gt;A recent question here caused some confusion, and increases my curiosity about this topic. Someone asked why people say Christians have disdain for the handicapped. (Apparent) practicing Christians responded with incredulity: who says that? The point is that such an idea doesn't appear to be taught anywhere today within circles of practicing Christians. Interestingly enough, the internet is full of claims made by non-Christians that Christianity necessarily requires disdain for the handicapped, or various cruelties or brutality. That's because activists have picked up a handful of verses that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html&quot;&gt;by themselves could point to some kind of &quot;ethic&quot; for cruelty&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is whether the church fathers (or any more recent prominent theologians) have specifically dealt with such criticism. For example, could I find an apologetic for this question, in say, a chapter of St. Augustine's &lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt;? A sermon by someone like Martin Luther that advocates feeding the poor is not what I'm looking for. I want to see rebuttals of the practice of objecting to Christianity on the basis of picking a handful of tough passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="2212" LastEditDate="2013-10-17T14:11:51.160" LastActivityDate="2015-07-22T15:23:31.717" Title="Did church fathers ever deal with &quot;Bible requires brutality&quot; critics?" Tags="&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;violence&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19968" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-17T11:16:51.960" Score="6" ViewCount="146" Body="&lt;p&gt;A long time ago, I complained to some LC-MS Lutheran pastors that my own hometown congregation had been full of racists, as evidenced by their comfort in using the &quot;N word&quot; around children.  Years later I can &lt;strong&gt;now&lt;/strong&gt; understand that this should not be too surprising, if we understand the church to be a &quot;hospital for sinners.&quot;  However, the pastors' rebuttal pointed to communion. They said if the sacraments were rightly offered, and if we believe that the sacraments have salutary effects, then the congregation would be where God wants, and it was wrong to criticize it for being insufficient in any spiritual way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This raises the question, what do Lutheran teachings say about the salutary effects of communion are?  Who has said that the effects are &quot;descriptive&quot; (God &lt;strong&gt;did&lt;/strong&gt; his work) as opposed to merely &quot;salutary&quot; (God &lt;strong&gt;will continue to&lt;/strong&gt; work to improve you)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers from any Christian group that practices any sort of real presence (as opposed to using only the terms &quot;symbol&quot; or &quot;reminder&quot;)  are very welcome here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2014-06-22T10:10:13.690" LastActivityDate="2014-06-22T10:10:13.690" Title="What are Lutheran teachings on salutary effects of communion?" Tags="&lt;communion&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19959" CreationDate="2013-10-17T12:03:28.380" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God the Father.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the Creator:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Creates from the “will” of God the Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only those that do the will of God the Father are related to Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 12:48-50 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren… for whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the eternal manifest-will of God the Father, eternally born of the Holy Spirit. When the “Word became flesh”, it was not so we could ponder what divine flesh might be, but that the imagination of the heart of man might be fully enabled to it’s divine calling.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 4:23,24 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The incarnation was not to hold God captive within human form, but rather that mankind through a relationship with Jesus Christ might be made spiritually alive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-10-17T12:14:37.037" LastActivityDate="2013-10-17T12:14:37.037" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19966" CreationDate="2013-10-17T12:33:56.830" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that you are referring to the theory that the original sin was sex. This, however, is not Biblically true. Before the fall, God said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;multiply&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;replenish the earth&lt;/strong&gt;, and subdue it: and have dominion&#xA;  over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every&#xA;  living thing that moveth upon the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How could they multiply if sex was a sin? The original sin, according to the Bible, was disobedience. (See Genesis 3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Because the question was edited, my answer has now been edited too. I have ran into a few people, mostly from the Catholic faith,  who believed in this teaching. As far as I know, this is not Catholic doctrine, they just had been misinformed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-10-18T13:05:59.730" LastActivityDate="2013-10-18T13:05:59.730" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19973" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8829" CreationDate="2013-10-17T14:10:13.310" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it is very important to put the seventh day Sabbath in its proper perspective.  Simply put, it is a commandment of God.  As Christians, abiding under God's new covenant we are instructed to follow His commandments out of love for Him.  1 John 5:3 &quot;For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.&quot;  Also, 1 John 2:3-4 &quot;3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.&quot;  Many try to say that these commandments are of the old covenant and some of them are not applicable to the new covenant.  I disagree.  I believe that, as Christ put it, &quot;not the smallest letter shall depart from the Law&quot;.  There are definite changes in how God's Law is applied under the new covenant, however, it is all still relevant to believers today.  The change in the Law is that Christ is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.  Christ's priesthood is in the Heavenly realm and overshadows Aaron's priesthood on earth.  Under the New Covenant Christ's sacrifice ended the requirement for animal sacrifice's once and for all.  This is the change in the Law but even this change did not put an end to the Levitical Priesthood.  The author of Hebrews comments that Christ cannot be a priest on earth because of Aaron's priesthood.  If the priesthood has ended then this would not be so.   As New Covenant believers in Christ we enter into the Covenant by faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross.  We are saved by Grace through Faith.  Once, we enter into the New Covenant by faith we walk out our faith and know God by keeping his commandments.  Keeping God's commandments is the fruit of our faith, not the root of our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6208" LastActivityDate="2013-10-17T14:10:13.310" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8829" CreationDate="2013-10-17T14:41:37.830" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer to Jesus statement &quot;I am Lord over the Sabbath&quot; is best answered by understanding who Jesus is in relation to God.  In John 1 it says &quot;In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God&quot; and in verse 14 it goes on to say &quot;and the word became flesh and dwelt among us.&quot;  By this understanding, we see that God created all things through the &quot;word&quot;, who is Jesus.  This means that Jesus is Lord over the Sabbath because through Him the Sabbath was instituted at creation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just a thought......&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6208" LastActivityDate="2013-10-17T14:41:37.830" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19962" CreationDate="2013-10-17T18:00:06.700" Score="17" Body="&lt;p&gt;St Thomas Aquinas asks in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article3&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; 3.1.3&lt;/a&gt;, &amp;quot;If man had not sinned, would God nevertheless have become incarnate?&amp;quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth4001.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Latin&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;em&gt;Si homo non peccasset, nihilominus Deus incarnatum fuisset?&lt;/em&gt;). His answer is &amp;quot;no&amp;quot;, while acknowledging that God &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; have still chosen to become incarnate for other reasons; although he recognizes a diversity of thought on the issue, and his opinion should probably be taken as trying to be persuasive more than definitive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His patristic authority is a sermon of St Augustine (numbered 174 in &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=_P5Win6wF0wC&amp;amp;pg=PT458#v=onepage&amp;amp;q&amp;amp;f=false&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Migne's &lt;em&gt;Patrologia Latina&lt;/em&gt; vol. 38, col. 939ff&lt;/a&gt;, and also known as Sermon 8 &lt;em&gt;De Verbis Apostoli&lt;/em&gt;). He says on 1 Timothy 1:15 (sermon chapter 2),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If man had not perished, the Son of man would not have come. Because man did perish, the God-man came, and man is found. Man died by free will: the God-man came by liberating grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Si homo non perisset, Filius hominis non venisset. Ergo perierat homo, venit Deus homo, et inventus est homo. Perierat homo per liberam voluntatem: venit Deus homo per gratiam liberatricem.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and then later in the same sermon (chapter 7),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was no other reason why he would come into the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Alia causa non fuit quare veniret in mundum.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This assertion is explored through the metaphor of sickness; the healthy do not need a doctor (cf. Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas also considers whether some form of Incarnation might have been desirable even for un-fallen humanity, in order to bring human nature closer to the divine. He does not object to the idea, but he wishes to make it clear that this, as an act of grace, is not &lt;em&gt;inevitable&lt;/em&gt; (in the sense that the imperfection of merely human nature &lt;em&gt;demands&lt;/em&gt; action on God's part). The fact that it &lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt; happen for fallen humanity, even in accordance with God's foreknowledge and predestination, doesn't stop it from being a free gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the thrust of your question is about the implications for Christology. Orthodox Trinitarianism insists that the Trinity is a correct description of the way that God is (as otherwise the work of Christ in revealing God to us is flawed) and always has been (the nature of God is not contingent on created things, including time). The Son is meant to be eternally begotten of the Father. But the Incarnation is not part of the essential nature of God, as that would make God ontologically dependent on part of his creation - us. This relates to the fourth-century debate over the nature of the relationship between Father and Son, as a result of which the Nicene-Chalcedonian formulation of the faith came to distinguish between the Son being &lt;em&gt;begotten&lt;/em&gt; but &lt;em&gt;not created&lt;/em&gt;. So the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/chalcedo.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Tome&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of Pope St Leo the Great, received at Chalcedon, says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God is believed to be both almighty and Father, the Son is clearly proved to be co-eternal with him, in no way different from the Father, since he was born God from God, almighty from the Almighty, co-eternal from the Eternal, not later in time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not distinct in being. The same eternal, only-begotten of the eternal begetter was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. &lt;strong&gt;His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his&lt;/strong&gt;: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we can believe at the same time:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Incarnation was predestined (as in Jerome's translation of Romans 1:4, &lt;em&gt;praedestinatus est&lt;/em&gt;) from the beginning of time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Son's relationship to the Father is, and always has been, one of being &amp;quot;begotten&amp;quot;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Incarnation was an act of grace, that was not caused or merited by us, but depends only on the free action of God himself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The fact of the Incarnation does not make the Son's son-ship or begotten-ness logically dependent on us. The unincarnate Word is still the Word.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, &lt;em&gt;whether we sinned or not&lt;/em&gt;, the Incarnation was not &amp;quot;forced&amp;quot; on God (i.e., he does not have to become incarnate in order to be true to his own triune nature). If we had not sinned, then the Incarnation would not have been needed in order to conquer sin. It could still have happened for another reason, as Thomas says: &amp;quot;For God would have been able to become incarnate, even if sin did not exist&amp;quot; (&lt;em&gt;potuisset enim, etiam peccato non existente, Deus incarnari&lt;/em&gt;). And further (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;ST&lt;/em&gt; 3.1.1 ad 1&lt;/a&gt;), &amp;quot;The mystery of Incarnation was not completed through God being changed in any way from the state in which He had been from eternity, but through His having united Himself to the creature in a new way, or rather through having united it to Himself&amp;quot; (&lt;em&gt;incarnationis mysterium non est impletum per hoc quod Deus sit aliquo modo a suo statu immutatus in quo ab aeterno non fuit, sed per hoc quod novo modo creaturae se univit, vel potius eam sibi&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-17T18:00:06.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19980" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19967" CreationDate="2013-10-18T03:30:59.707" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;My recollection of the section in &lt;em&gt;Confessions&lt;/em&gt; where Augustine discusses the Bible with Ambrose was that they took most of the Old Testament far more figuratively than we do today (it should be noted that one of Augustine's primary objections to Christianity, when he was Manichean, was that the OT is inconsistent and often poorly written). Approaching the desert monastics, I see a very similar approach to the texts &amp;mdash; they took things as relating to spiritual warfare and far less as a literal account of history (and it can be argued that they couldn't care less about the literal account anyhow).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I guess that my impression is that if you complained to one of the Fathers, &quot;the Old Testament is so barbaric&quot; the response would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;You're not reading it right&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is tame compared to what other philosophies and religions have taught.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-10-18T03:30:59.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19981" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-18T03:54:37.757" Score="6" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do Latino Christians treat their patron saint's day more importantly than their birthday? Would a fifteen-year-old girl's Quinceañera be as important as a birthday or more important than a birthday, with similar value to a patron saint's day or the day on which they would be confirmed in the church? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T15:18:51.670" Title="Why do Latino Christians treat their patron saint's day more importantly than their birthday?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;culture&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19987" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19939" CreationDate="2013-10-18T13:28:49.160" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his book, First Comes Love, Scott Hahn outlines a concept of God that is in concert to this question.  He cites a writing of Pope John Paul II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“In the light of the New Testament it is possible to discern how the primordial model of the family is to be sought in God Himself, in the Trinitarian mystery of His life.  The divine “We” is the eternal pattern of the human “we”, especially of that “we” formed by the man and woman created in the divine image and likeness…God in His deepest mystery is not a solitude, but a family, since He has in Himself fatherhood, son-ship and the essence of the family, which is love.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hahn concluded:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Now we must be very careful readers here, because many people understand these statements precisely backward, which mans they don’t understand them at all.  The Pope was not saying that God is like a family.  He was not presenting the family as a cozy, homey metaphor for the Trinity.  He said that God is a family.  Thus, it would be more accurate to say that my wife, my kids, and I are like a family than to say God is like a family.  God is not like a family.  He is a family.  From eternity, God alone possesses the essential attributes of a family, and the Trinity alone possesses them in their perfection.  Earthly households have these attributes, but only by analogy and imperfectly.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's creation tells us that a Father has a Wife and a Son has a Mother as well as a &#xA;Father.  The Holy Spirit bears fruit from the will of God the Father and the First-Fruit is Jesus Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word “Ruwach” is a feminine noun, therefore when Jesus spoke of the Holy Ruwach He understood that spirit by nature is feminine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, which is eternally pregnant with the will of God the Father.  Just as Mary the mother of the incarnation we also through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit bear out the will of God the Father in our lives, which is Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So &quot;yes&quot;, The Holy Spirit is Mother, the Church is Mother and Mary is Mother!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-11-07T18:11:57.383" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T18:11:57.383" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19988" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6799" CreationDate="2013-10-18T15:00:33.823" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to the question lies in the text &quot;as God has forgiven you&quot;.  That is, we forgive in the same way He does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, how exactly does God forgive us?  Does He simply change His anger into something else, or simply cancel the debt?  We can with certainty say He does not forgive us by &quot;releasing&quot; something like feelings or debts, or arbitrarily changing something; He forgives us only by executing His Son on the cross, so that He died our deaths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are to forgive each other &quot;as&quot; God forgives us, then we must stop disconnecting this action in our minds from His action on the cross.  The &quot;as&quot; shows grammatically that we are to forgive with the exact same means as God forgives.  The difference is that when we forgive, we invoke His completed action; we do not declare our own. This is also how Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic; He invoked the Father's action on the cross that still lay in the future.  Now we invoke that same action that lies in the past.  For the sins of those who will never be part of God's kingdom, we invoke God's justice to be completed perfectly in the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6219" LastActivityDate="2013-10-18T15:00:33.823" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19991" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="26909" CreationDate="2013-10-18T16:05:51.600" Score="11" ViewCount="211" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Gunton&quot;&gt;Colin Gunton&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;em&gt;The Doctrine of Creation&lt;/em&gt; (T&amp;amp;T Clark, 1997), he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In view of what we have just noted [in the previous section on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas&quot;&gt;Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus&quot;&gt;Duns Scotus&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham&quot;&gt;William of Ockham&lt;/a&gt;] about the non-trinitarian treatment of creation in the Middle Ages, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther&quot;&gt;Luther&lt;/a&gt;'s claim that he was the only person to have understood the first chapter of Genesis is only slightly exaggerated. The change he brings about is remarkable. (p71)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A footnote further on in the text says: &quot;Luther is contemptuous of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&quot;&gt;Augustine&lt;/a&gt;'s mystical interpretation of the text, as well as of his and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_of_Poitiers&quot;&gt;Hilary&lt;/a&gt;'s view that God created instantaneously.&quot; There is a citation to Luther's &lt;em&gt;Lectures on Genesis&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am curious about the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What did Luther himself think was the major contribution of his interpretation? Was it the trinitarianism, the literal/material reading, the non-instantaneous creation, or something else?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Did he actually say that nobody else had ever understood Genesis 1 properly? (Perhaps this is an example of Lutheran hyperbole.) Did he specifically engage with the full range of patristic writings on the creation?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2014-03-28T16:16:02.233" Title="What did Luther consider to be novel in his theology of creation?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19992" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20050" CreationDate="2013-10-18T16:47:33.767" Score="5" ViewCount="15322" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Revelation it says that Satan was overcome by Salvation, and yet he continues to vex Christians today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that at the great white throne judgment he will be cast into the lake of fire, but it seems that once we give our lives to Christ, and we have through the Grace of God, been plucked out of Satan's hands, that he would no longer have any power to trouble us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 12:9-12  KJV  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the Christian has already rejected Satan and his ways and been given eternal life through Jesus, why does Satan still have the power to vex us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2015-02-04T11:02:03.030" Title="Since Satan was defeated by Jesus on the Cross, why is he still allowed to vex us today?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-02-05T19:30:18.860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2013-10-19T07:51:15.863" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Noah was in his own private tent after a hard earned celebration of rescuing all land bound life in the world, with wine he had grown, pressed, and fermented by his own hard efforts, and then his thoughtless son just storms into his private tent as his father slept off the celebrations of the evening, got an eyeful and proceeded to make a big deal about it to his far more respectful brothers, thus causing them to worry unnecessarily, and thus outraging his father who had thought better of his son that to disrespect him like that; that's what the passage says.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where people get tripped up is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our modern culture's insensitivity of inappropriate and disrespectful behavior from our offspring, calling outright rebellion and lack of regard for elder-ship &quot;maturity&quot; and &quot;exploration&quot;, when what our youth really need is guidance and discipline; and &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Judging Noah for drinking when drinking isn't a sin; being a drunkard is however, and just because you get drunk every once in a while, like right after you save the biological world doesn't mean you're a drunkard &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6223" LastEditorUserId="1838" LastEditDate="2013-10-19T14:30:30.540" LastActivityDate="2013-10-19T14:30:30.540" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19998" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-19T08:05:28.510" Score="8" ViewCount="1796" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am discussing and debating the various subtle doctrinal differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy with a very close friend of mine. One question I've asked is, &quot;How do Orthodox Christians view the Immaculate Conception.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His exact answer was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Orthodoxy believes the Immaculate Conception to be superfluous. Saint&#xA;  Gregory the Theologian (4th c.) writes regarding the Incarnation,&#xA;  &quot;That  which has not been assumed has not be saved.&quot; To make the&#xA;  Virgin Mary free of the taint of original sin pulls her out of the&#xA;  human chain, robbing Jesus of the Father's will for him to assume all&#xA;  of our fallen humanity in order to redeem and save it. (2 Cor. 5:21;&#xA;  Gal. 3:13a)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this is a pretty solid argument. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially the part that says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To make the Virgin Mary free of the taint of original sin pulls her out of the&#xA;  human chain, robbing Jesus of the Father's will for him to assume all&#xA;  of our fallen humanity in order to redeem and save it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What explanation does the Catholic Church put forth to refute the statement above?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think my question above differs from this &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4362/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-immaculate-conception&quot;&gt;question&lt;/a&gt; because I'm not necessarily asking for a scriptural argument (although it would definitely be welcomed).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, I am only interested in answers that are aimed at &lt;em&gt;defending&lt;/em&gt; the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2020-06-13T10:40:45.877" Title="What is the Catholic response to the Eastern Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception remove Jesus' ability to redeem all of humanity?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;immaculate-conception&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20000" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19998" CreationDate="2013-10-19T09:56:33.133" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a thin line of differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the doctrine of Immaculate conception and seems to be in relation to the interpretation of doctrine of Original sin &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;as seen here&lt;/a&gt;.  I though find hardly any difference between these two views, after reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/orthodox-view-on-Immaculate-Conception.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;. Here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/imconcep.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this work&lt;/a&gt; however  indicate that Eastern  Orthodoxy did have same views as Roman Catholic Church on this issue.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Notwithstanding these two views, the doctrine of Immaculate Conception still hold good because a Son who is Divine in nature cannot come in a womb of a woman who is defiled (whichever view one takes, whether it is the source of man's fallen nature or transmitted mortality) by the very nature as human beings.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God at the instance of conception in St Anna’s womb, Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin. This was done by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits (Divinity) of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race “.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luke 1:47, Mary proclaims:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;My spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour.&quot;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is referred to as Mary's pre-redemption by Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin (Whether it is the source of man's fallen nature or transmitted mortality). But by special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way ---by anticipation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Immaculate Conception does not imply that Mary did not need redemption through her Most Holy Son, Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#492&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;From the Catechism of the Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;492 The &quot;splendor of an entirely unique holiness&quot; by which Mary is &quot;enriched from the first instant of her conception&quot; comes wholly from Christ: she is &quot;redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son&quot;. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person &quot;in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places&quot; and chose her &quot;in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-10-22T09:15:45.557" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T09:15:45.557" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20003" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-19T12:44:59.507" Score="0" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jonathan Edwards said that terms such as 'ecstacy' and 'joy' were too meager to describe Heaven but were 'low shadows' of the reality.&#xA;This (if so) is obviously hugely exciting and, for me, (as a Christian) it is very inspiring. However, one thing puzzles me. If this is the truth (or most likely truth) how come so little is written on the matter? I have done endless research and few other great theologists seem to have hazarded such a guess. Even CS Lewis (my favourite and, indeed, perhaps the most inspirational speaker of recent years to speak on Heaven and joy) never (or, at least, extreemly rarely) seem to venture a guess as to exactly HOW great Heaven's happiness is.&#xA;I take it that it is a 'better place'...but does that mean the great happiness of Earth minus the sorrow...or also a greater form of happiness than can be concieved of here?&#xA;Seeing God obviously provides a joy as yet unknown and longed for. I assume this joy is above even the greatness of romantic love here? Or is there no higher quantity of happiness than that but, rather, it is unknown because it is qualitively different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this is clear (and ok). I seem to have a habit of writing the sort of questions this site objects to as I'm not much of a seasoned pro when it comes to scholarship. Maybe I'll get there in the end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T02:31:13.127" Title="Why is there so little written on the greatness of the happiness in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2014-07-06T02:23:05.157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20004" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-19T15:26:59.370" Score="4" ViewCount="3154" Body="&lt;p&gt;Job in his distress stated that he believed that he would be redeemed by a redeemer who would in the latter day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job 19:25  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this was said by Job while he was in contention with God, I have wondered if he was predicting the birth of a savior much in the same way that Isaiah did in Isaiah chapter 53 (not quoted here for the sake of brevity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any theologians, or doctrines from any denominations concerning this? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-10-22T19:30:04.870" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T00:25:10.650" Title="Is Job's statement that his redeemer lives and would stand upon the Earth, a statement of faith or a prediction of Christ?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20005" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8343" CreationDate="2013-10-19T16:05:41.777" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately I have witnessed much abuse of these miraculous gifts and and they tend to bring down the body rather that uplift them. The interpretations of what they are only offer confusion and we never really have a clear definition or current real life example of the true operation of them. I also think it causes many to chase the spiritual manifestations and neglect Jesus Christ and His Truth. They remain immature in their thinking and never grow into a mature believer in Christ. There are also many who operate in these gifts who are deceivers and who are unsaved. These gifts if given for today would operate in the same way as in the beginning. I believe we would be able to discern the true from the false because they would be absolutely the real deal. If God wanted us to operate in these we would be given them instead looking for them. We would know how they operate because it would be clear and no confusion would be present. Too many twist scripture to give themselves biblical permission to bring so much confusion and deceptive teaching into the body. Hurting people come expecting God to heal them and they give their money for a chance at healing and then what they do leave with is something...an experience. They hear tongues praying(no interpretation), prophets prophesying healing and hands on them with what seems shocks and waves of healing going through them. They feel like they have been with God and God has touch them. But their sickness remains, they go home in their wheel chairs, some end up dying. But some continue to come back because they feel in love with the experience. They are offered hope that God just may heal them if they keep their faith or have enough faith and they keep coming and keep paying. Its like a lottery. &quot;Will I be the winner this time?&quot; These types of experiences are very powerful and can overshadow the truth of what is happening. Its very sad. Who would not want God to work in this world like in Acts but sadly it seems to be only an imitation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6226" LastEditorUserId="6226" LastEditDate="2013-10-19T22:23:04.767" LastActivityDate="2013-10-19T22:23:04.767" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14467" CreationDate="2013-10-19T16:36:06.310" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I wrote a near one thousand word answer to this question, but I have tried to condense it and my answer is now in over a third of that. I hope this helps and encourages you to learn more about what the scripture teaches about Heaven and Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I see a lot of answers here which state, 'We don't really know' or something like that. This is true only for those who don't realise that the answer to this question is clear. The scriptures make it very clear just how the nature of our life in Heaven will be. It also reveals what the nature of death in Hell will be. It is important to know this second part.  So let us consider what we DO know, not dabble in what we think we don't know which can be a seed of doubt.&#xA;'How can Heaven exist if we know that people in Hell will suffer?' Or as my question was worded, 'How can Heaven be heaven if there is a Hell?’ If you understand all that scripture tells us about Heaven and Hell, you can see that these questions answer themselves. We see now that with all that has happened in the world and with all that will happen, Heaven WOULDN'T BE Heaven without Hell. Heaven wouldn't be heaven if there evil in it to taint it and that which is good. And as it is, all that will be in Heaven is that which is good; Love, Joy, Peace, etc. Indeed, God's judgement is the definition of true Justice! We praise him that he is Just! Because it means that He will not allow ANYTHING evil to taint his creation! Heaven won't be tainted by the fact that there is a Hell, rather, Heaven wouldn't be heaven if evil was still there to taint all that is good. So since all evil will be thrown into Hell, there will be no unrighteous suffering anymore! Suffering is unrighteous if it is something good that suffers, but since there will be nothing good in Hell, nothing good will suffer. In Hell, there will only be the self-destructive nature of that which is evil. That which is evil suffers BECAUSE it is evil. There will be nothing which is good in Hell to suffer any more for evil, and for that, rejoice in the Lord and know that He IS God! He IS Righteous! He IS Just! And He is Righteous!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6227" LastActivityDate="2013-10-19T16:36:06.310" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20012" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23781" CreationDate="2013-10-19T21:43:56.550" Score="9" ViewCount="508" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Pelikan's first volume of The Christian Tradition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;[The Savior] is also a way of distinguishing between Gnostic and non-Gnostic species of &#xA;Christianity, for one of the characteristics of Gnostic doctrine was its denial that the &#xA;Savior was possessed of a material, fleshly body .... an explicit effort to protect the &#xA;person of the Savior from involvement in matter and in suffering soon became a hallmark &#xA;of most Christian Gnostics.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Docetism a necessary feature of the label &quot;Gnosticism&quot;, and are all Gnostics necessary Docetist, or are there examples of Gnostics that were not Docetist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Docetism is a necessary feature of Gnostics, why is this so? Pelikan mentions that they were very concerned with preserving the conflation of the Savior with matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6080" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-10-21T12:26:25.863" LastActivityDate="2013-12-14T01:03:14.957" Title="Were all the various systems of Gnosticism Docetist?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;gnosticism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20013" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20003" CreationDate="2013-10-19T21:47:54.940" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would think so little is written on the happiness of heaven due to the fact that once you get there you don't come back to explain the 'Happiness&quot;. Christ spoke on Heaven, and to be in His presence...going to be awesome!! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If as Christians we are not in a constant state of communication with our Lord, then we will lose our connection to &quot;Joy&quot;. We should be striving to be like Christ and in that we should find Happiness. The very fact that we have &quot;hope&quot; in Him is Happiness. Our flesh does not always support this, and as we mature, we should begin to understand that the Spirit of Christ in us is what pushes us forward until we enter heaven either through death or by His return and our exchange of flesh and blood to our new body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15 &#xA;50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: &lt;strong&gt;“Death is swallowed up in victory.”[g]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;55 “O Death, where is your sting?[h]&#xA;O Hades, where is your victory?”[i]&#xA;56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.&#xA;58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helped somewhat. (copied from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Biblegateway.com&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6233" LastEditorUserId="1838" LastEditDate="2013-10-20T02:31:13.127" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T02:31:13.127" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5042" CreationDate="2013-10-19T23:56:11.487" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;JW's pick and choose which pagan practices are O.K. or not. Sorry, not the individual JW's (they get no say in anything, nor are they supposed to investigate anything that isn't JW literature). Why do JW's go on a honeymoon after they marry? This is a definate pagan practice from Babylon no less!: Honey moon. In ancient Babylon, the father of the bride supplied the groom with a months supply of honey-mead as a present. Some Eastern european cultures suggest that the bride be taken and hidden for a month, in case the brides family didn't approve of the marriage..Wedding rings? JW's wear wedding rings. :An ancient Roman custom. It signified a financial arrangement between the betrothed families. All in all, I learnt a lot of Biblical stuff I didn't know from the local JW elder. A lot of Bible 'knowledge' most people, including myself, had was/is wrong. The JW's, I believe, are correct in a lot of their Bible interpretations, wrong in others. When my research leads me to believe what the JW's also believe,(the trinity, the torture stake, satan etc) the local elder says that is Jehovah imparting His knowledge to you. When my research brings me answers that the JW's don't believe in, this elder says this 'independent thinking' is actually satan. When I am commanded to 'Make sure of all things', what it really means is: Get all your facts and answers from JW publications only!. If only the JW publications provided a list of references and scholars for their claims. Anything else is urinating on my back and telling me it's raining.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6236" LastActivityDate="2013-10-19T23:56:11.487" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20018" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-20T00:41:55.407" Score="4" ViewCount="263" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 2:4 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'God our Savior [sic] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anticipating his suffering and death, Jesus proclaims, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 12:31-32 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted upg from the earth, will draw all people to myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do the above verses tell us that, after Jesus saved man, eternal damnation no longer exist?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="2202" LastEditDate="2013-10-20T08:52:35.477" LastActivityDate="2019-02-11T13:34:26.183" Title="Does eternal damnation still exist?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;hell&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2019-02-11T13:45:42.090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7118" CreationDate="2013-10-20T04:07:01.733" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As many have already stated, there are many times when Moses spoke of Jesus whether in writing Genesis or though times and situations in his own life... however I'm pretty sure that in the Gospel passage you quoted from Jesus was referring to Deuteronomy 18:15-19 specifically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6241" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T04:07:01.733" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20021" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-20T05:56:52.597" Score="1" ViewCount="346" Body="&lt;p&gt;i mean in this question that many people  don't believe he died and don't believe he is the true lord :Do other people of other religions have salvation if they do not believe in salvation by Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6243" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T12:02:46.357" Title="Do non-christians of other religions have salvation or not beacuse they don't believe Christ is Lord?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-10-21T14:57:28.963" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20022" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20034" CreationDate="2013-10-20T06:28:51.030" Score="7" ViewCount="834" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please answer! I have been wondering for ages! I have tried google and all sorts, but can't find the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6206" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-06-01T03:08:15.117" LastActivityDate="2016-06-01T03:08:15.117" Title="What does the Bible say about this question- Why do Jesus and God have two seats in heaven when they are the same God?" Tags="&lt;throne-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-05-18T22:17:57.217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20023" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-20T07:57:41.573" Score="3" ViewCount="672" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am very confused about the question of saints and if to pray to them and to The Blessed Virgin.  My confusion is that as a Christian I believe that Christ died on the cross for our sins and rose again to heaven.  I also believe in the second coming of Our Lord.  My question is this:  I believe there were Saints and that these saints were human beings who have walked this earth like I am now.  But when they died, were they resurrected like our Lord?  Do they dwell in heaven?  I believe that Christ was the only one to die and resurrect.  When The Virgin Mary died, did she also go straight to heaven?  I can't understand this and I do not pray to saints, b/c I believe they were saints when they walked this earth, ex: Mother Theresa was a living saint.  When I pray, I pray directly to our Lord..... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6244" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T01:11:43.230" Title="Saints in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2016-01-26T19:45:18.970" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20025" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20021" CreationDate="2013-10-20T12:02:46.357" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The book of Romans touches on the subject of those who do not have the law. The law itself does not make a person holy. The righteousness even being written on the heart. Their conscience bearing witness&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&gt; God’s Righteous Judgment&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone&#xA;  else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning&#xA;  yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we&#xA;  know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on&#xA;  truth. 3So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet&#xA;  do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or&#xA;  do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and&#xA;  patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to&#xA;  repentance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are&#xA;  storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his&#xA;  righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will repay each person&#xA;  according to what they have done.”a 7To those who by persistence in&#xA;  doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal&#xA;  life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and&#xA;  follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and&#xA;  distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then&#xA;  for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does&#xA;  good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show&#xA;  favoritism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law,&#xA;  and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is&#xA;  not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is&#xA;  those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14*&lt;em&gt;(Indeed, when&#xA;  Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the&#xA;  law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the&#xA;  law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their&#xA;  hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts&#xA;  sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)&lt;/em&gt;*&#xA;  16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets&#xA;  through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&gt; The Jews and the Law&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and&#xA;  boast in God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior&#xA;  because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you&#xA;  are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an&#xA;  instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you&#xA;  have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then,&#xA;  who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against&#xA;  stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit&#xA;  adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob&#xA;  temples? 23You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking&#xA;  the law? 24As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the&#xA;  Gentiles because of you.”b&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the&#xA;  law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26So&#xA;  then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements,&#xA;  will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one&#xA;  who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn&#xA;  you who, even though you have thec written code and circumcision, are&#xA;  a lawbreaker.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision&#xA;  merely outward and physical. 29No, a person is a Jew who is one&#xA;  inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the&#xA;  Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from&#xA;  other people, but from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3426" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T12:02:46.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20026" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-20T12:11:01.677" Score="2" ViewCount="142" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jonathan Edwards said terms like 'joy' and 'ecstasy' were too meager to describe the greatness of the happiness in Heaven. Was Edwards right in saying our strongest words come nowhere near the reality? Are there levels to happiness (as Thomas of Aquinas thought) or is utter bliss available- but short lived and tainted by sin- here? For instance, romantic love is fairly spectacular- can we guess it is beyond even that? I guess it's the difference between the idea that Heaven as ineffable, versus the idea that Heaven is basically a problem- and sin-free Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously this is all guesswork and we won't truly know until death. Yet can we make an educated guess?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is some verses in 2 Corinthians 2 that say, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 but just as it is written,&#xA;  “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,&#xA;  And which have not entered the heart of man,&#xA;  All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”&#xA;  10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%202:9-10&amp;amp;version=NASB&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(vv.9,10)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of these verses, the second of which is often not quoted with the first, it seems that God may have revealed some aspects of the things He has prepared for those who love Him. If so, what are some of these things? Are they perhaps mentioned in other scriptures? Am I perhaps misinterpreting 2 Cor 2:9 and 10?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="58" LastEditDate="2014-01-02T00:04:39.843" LastActivityDate="2014-01-03T06:42:14.703" Title="Is it a good guess that Heaven's joy surpasses even the keenest felt here?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2014-07-06T07:55:49.613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20029" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20063" CreationDate="2013-10-20T13:14:53.043" Score="12" ViewCount="36432" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that Jesus wept. Where can I find in the bible that Jesus expressed joy, laughter or happiness?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5525" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-08-28T16:23:18.720" LastActivityDate="2015-07-26T19:40:40.147" Title="Which scriptures tells us that Jesus laughed or was happy?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;reference-request&gt;&lt;joy&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-07-31T06:09:34.970" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7118" CreationDate="2013-10-20T13:24:36.933" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;All of the feasts are an introduction to the coming and second coming of Christ.  The law and the feasts were only the foreshadowing of the coming of the Messiah. The death angel passes by those who have the blood of the lamb on the doorpost, the high priest on the day of atonement was the connection between God and man, etc.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Most don't study the feasts anymore, do you realize that the sacrifice of the blood on the day of atonement was for the forgiveness of sins for the coming year?  Jesus's blood covered the sins of the world forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6247" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T13:24:36.933" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20031" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20029" CreationDate="2013-10-20T13:32:43.293" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The long and the short, is that you won't. Clearly he had to (it would be inhuman to live to adulthood without having laughed). The Teaching Company has a set on comparative religion (I think), which makes the point: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Buddha never weeps, but he laughs. Jesus never laughs, but he weeps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But far from this being a case of &quot;Christ's message is so depressing&quot;, I think it is the opposite: Jesus' work is so cheerful that the one time he does weep is a profound exception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T13:32:43.293" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20033" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20026" CreationDate="2013-10-20T14:29:56.713" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The only person capable of answering your question is someone who has been there, and that person is Jesus. So here is what the Bible says and what Jesus said.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan offered Jesus all the Kingdoms of the Earth and all their Glory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (Mat 4:8,9,10 KJV). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if there were more joy in the Earth than in Heaven why would Jesus &quot;pass&quot; on the devil's offer of all the world's kingdoms and choose instead a cruel, torturous death on a Roman cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are the things he said concerning the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance (Luke 15:7 KJV). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets (Luke 6:23 KJV).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember Heaven does not exist for our edification, it is the home of God! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev 4:11 KJV). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2014-01-03T06:42:14.703" LastActivityDate="2014-01-03T06:42:14.703" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20022" CreationDate="2013-10-20T14:41:40.610" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Part of the answer is found in recognizing the King imagery of a throne and who sits on a King's 'right hand' in ancient monarchies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Kings place at their right hand those whom they design to honour, or whom they associate with themselves in dominion. No creature can be thus associated in honour and authority with God, and therefore to none of the angels hath he ever said: Sit thou at my right hand. Heb. 1:13. That divine honour and authority are expressed by sitting at the right hand of God, is further evident from those passages which speak of the extent of that dominion and of the nature of that honour to which the exalted Redeemer is entitled. It is an universal dominion. Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:22; and it is such honour as is due to God alone. John 5:23. (Hodge, Ephesians 1:20)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course God the Father is omnipresent and does not literally sit anywhere, so the throne that he sits on is representative of his original authorship and ruling position over all that has been created by his will.  The eternal Son also does not literally sit anywhere and along with the Father and the Spirit omnipotently rules over creation, so the question is really about the Trinity and their respective roles in redemption. To get down to the root of the question then, it seems reasonable to assign the imagery of a Father on a throne with his Son on his right hand with the human aspect of the redemption obtained in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the gospel we see the Father beginning the process in 'sending' the Son.  The eternal Son, entering humanity through the incarnation, was a work to restore creation to its original glory.  In Christ's resurrection his human nature was raised up as the Lord of the universe and so those who believe in Christ are actually seated there as well in him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only remaining question is what about the Holy Spirit, why is the Spirit not also said to be sitting on a throne?  Well, the imagery sort of automatically answers it. The  Father sent the Son and through his resurrection lifted the human nature of Christ into a universal lordship over all creation 'by the Spirit'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 1:18-20, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Spirit who acts as the immediate presence of the Father through the Son, who performs and perfects the works of God among us is the communicator of the kingdom of God in us, so that even though we still live on the earth, we are mystically united into Christ and experience heaven at God's right hand, inheriting the universe and eternal life.  Therefore, the Spirit is filling all in all in the imagery and lifting us up into heaven according to the Father's will. The Father and the Son are 'sitting' and 'sending' the Spirit, therefore, the Spirit can't be sitting in the imagery, as the Spirit is always 'being sent' to ensure God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-10-21T09:29:25.793" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T09:29:25.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20035" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-20T16:24:25.260" Score="2" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If people don't repent then they are not ressurected in Heaven and so are not joyous- therefore the 'more than' would go without saying...however, I assume it does not mean this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it's talking about truly 'just' people with no sin (and its not being ironic) then, erm, they don't exist. Does it mean angels? Does it mean we are happier for having sinned but repented and, thereby, better off than Adam and Eve pre-sin?! Help!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-10-22T19:25:29.070" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T19:25:29.070" Title="What is the meaning of the following Bible quote" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-10-21T14:41:43.880" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20022" CreationDate="2013-10-20T16:37:36.203" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus and the Father are one God, but they are two persons. Two persons deserve two seats.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To expand slightly, according to mainstream (i.e. Trinitarian) Christianity, Jesus and the Father are separate persons. In fact this passage is considered evidence that Jesus is not simply a different manifestation of God the Father. I recommend consulting a detailed explanation of the Trinity for more information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mike gives an excellent answer describing the imagary, by the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2016-05-18T22:40:31.287" LastActivityDate="2016-05-18T22:40:31.287" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20038" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20057" CreationDate="2013-10-20T18:49:52.503" Score="4" ViewCount="296" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following passages from Genesis led me to think that all who perished at the time of Noah were cast into Sheol to await the great white throne judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%206:5-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen 6:5-7,17 KJV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved  him at his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all&#xA;flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the&#xA;earth shall die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What do theologians say about it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T10:51:25.453" Title="Were those who perished in the flood of Noah eternally damned?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20035" CreationDate="2013-10-20T19:12:55.450" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you interpret the Bible, you have to look at whole passages and not just individual verses out of context. The surrounding text will give you a reference for the meaning of a verse. In this case the verse is in the middle of a chapter where the entire focus is on the reactions of people to things that were lost and are now found - a lost sheep, a lost coin, and a lost son. This gives us a pretty clear indication that Jesus is driving home a point about how people react to things that were lost and area now found, and how this applies to Heaven. We should therefore look at this statement, and all the ones around it, to find out things about lostness and being found - not about the nature of sin and angels. It is a general principle with parables that you can come to wrong conclusions by pushing an analogy too far.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The universal interpretation of this entire passage is addressed to the Pharisees, who really did think that they could work their way to becoming acceptable to God. In their eyes the better you were, the more God approved and appreciated you, and the more joy there would be in heaven when you got there. In their eyes the rejoicing would be for those that most nearly reached God's standards. The stories told here by Jesus are meant to indicate entirely the opposite. To take the parables to mean something about the nature of perfection would be to go in the wrong direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.johndubler.com/Parables_25_Parables_of_the_Lost_Sheep_and_Lost_Coin.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lectionary.org/EXEG-Concise/NT/ConNT03-Luke/Luke%2015.01-03,%2011-32.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&amp;amp;b=42&amp;amp;c=15&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-10-20T19:19:52.763" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T19:19:52.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20035" CreationDate="2013-10-20T20:09:05.003" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume that your question is in reference to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk_15:7   KJV&#xA; I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was a parable (a story used by Jesus to explain Heavenly concepts to the people).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This parable was intended to teach the people that there would be great joy in Heaven when a sinner repents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To try to draw a conclusion that it has any bearing on anything else is useless. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story about a shepherd caring about each sheep's safety was one that all the people could understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should draw the conclusions from Scripture and especially what Jesus tried to teach that he tried so hard to convey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was very out spoken in his teachings and we should not try to insert any alternative meanings to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T20:09:05.003" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20023" CreationDate="2013-10-20T21:37:50.980" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;I'm answering the &lt;strong&gt;Do saints dwell in heaven?&lt;/strong&gt; part of your question, which appears to be your main question (judging by the comment you added).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I wrote &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2780/why-didnt-david-ascend-into-heaven/2783#2783&quot;&gt;elsewhere on this site&lt;/a&gt;, I conclude that these saints are in heaven because of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:32-40&amp;amp;version=NIV1984&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11:32-40&lt;/a&gt;.  In verse 40 it says, &lt;em&gt;&quot;together with us would they be made perfect&quot;&lt;/em&gt;; they can only be perfected in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, I draw the same conclusion from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:43&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 23:43&lt;/a&gt; when Jesus said to the thief being crucified next to Him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, &lt;strong&gt;today&lt;/strong&gt; you will be with me in paradise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-10-20T21:45:11.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20048" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-20T22:56:40.987" Score="2" ViewCount="56" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why not the Orthodox beliefs instead of the Protestant Reformation? What prompted the Reformers to &quot;rewrite&quot; everything?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6252" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T12:23:59.007" Title="Why not the Orthodox beliefs instead of splitting away?" Tags="&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-10-21T14:55:07.387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20049" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14582" CreationDate="2013-10-21T00:44:01.583" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There's a key part of this analogy missing&lt;/strong&gt;. The point of the shepherd breaking the sheep's legs is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;NOT to discipline the sheep&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. If that was the case the sheep probably wouldn't even have a clue why its legs were being broken- which would defeat the purpose of disciplining the sheep. The shepherd would break the wandering sheep's leg, and then that would require the shepherd to carry the sheep around on his shoulders afterwards for an extended period of time. A connection and deeper intimacy would grow between the sheep and its shepherd, so when the sheep was able to walk, it was not likely to wander again. God may &lt;em&gt;allow&lt;/em&gt; certain situations in our life to happen in order to draw us into a closer, more intimate relationship with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6253" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T00:44:01.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19992" CreationDate="2013-10-21T00:58:40.567" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the theological problems that has plagued theologians and Christians generally throughout the church age is theodicy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the heart of theodicy is an apparent contradiction.  On the one hand you have an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and holy God, whose purpose concerning humankind is to redeem a people for His glory.  This people, composed of members of every ethnic group in the world, will one day bear the image of God's well beloved Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ, who came to earth to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8).     &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand you have a powerful, cunning, hate-filled, unholy spiritual being, originally created sinless by God, but who allowed pride to enter his heart and rebelled against God's authority.  It is Lucifer, a fallen angel, who is responsible not only for introducing sin into the universe but also for much of the misery on planet Earth.  His goal is to usurp God's Lordship in the universe and to dethrone God.  His modus operandi is to kill, steal, and destroy (John 10:10); in short, to do everything within his finite, though awesome, power, and for his own glory and honor, to defeat the works of God.  As Martin Luther said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;His craft and power are great, And armed with cruel hate, On earth is not his equal&quot; (&lt;em&gt;A Mighty Fortress Is Our God&lt;/em&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How, then, can we reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable truths?  Can they in fact be reconciled?  I suggest the greatest existential problem which has confronted humankind from the Garden of Eden to today has in its solution the answer to these difficult and vexing questions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three phrases which together can frame an answer to your question about the seemingly unnecessary protraction of Satan's diabolical activities.  Each phrase begins with the letter C, and they are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;C&lt;/strong&gt; osmic war&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;C&lt;/strong&gt; ross of Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;the &lt;strong&gt;C&lt;/strong&gt; hurch of God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The cosmic war&lt;/strong&gt; between God and Satan, which rages on planet Earth, the focal point and stage for this epic struggle between good and evil will ultimately be won by God.  As you pointed out in your question, God's Salvation is in one sense a &lt;em&gt;fait accompli&lt;/em&gt;, but more on that in the next point.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has not been silent since Satan first challenged His power in the rebellion he instigated in heaven.  In the counsels of eternity God had a plan, and when God has a plan, no one and nothing can prevent that plan from coming to fruition.  Victory is assured, but on God's terms, not ours.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we human beings and not God were all-powerful and in charge of the universe, we probably would have thought it wise to destroy Satan and his angels from the get-go, annihilating him and his cohorts by fiat, thus sparing humankind from the ravages of sin and death.  I know that's how I would have done things!  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank God, however, we are not God!  Our point of view is finite and flawed; God's point of view and plan are infinitely wise in both conception and implementation.  Moreover, not one of His attributes is compromised in any way as He brings His plan for the ages to fruition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What if God were to have annihilated Satan the very moment pride entered Lucifer's heart?  After all, He is all-powerful, is He not?  Yes, of course.  God is much more than the possessor of awesome power, however, and He most definitely is not a cosmic bully who zaps His enemies the very moment they begin to rebel.  God created sentient beings in the first place (angels first and then humankind) so they could enter into relationship with Him by their own choice.  He gave us all the ability to make decisions.  The prohibition God gave to our first parents would not make sense otherwise.  Why tell someone not to do something if they cannot do otherwise?  That's not freedom; that's something altogether different. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, God is all about relationships.  He did not create angels and human beings because He needed them; He did so in love, so they would have the privilege of glorifying and enjoying Him forever.  God also takes delight in His creatures, especially when they willingly and wholeheartedly love, worship, serve, and adore Him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, God's delight in us extends to every child of His, each one of whom is unique and has something uniquely special to offer God.  That is true not only here on earth, but it will be especially true in heaven, where we will be distracted neither in our worship of God nor in our service for God.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must not take lightly the radical freedom we have on earth to choose to obey or disobey God. How we exercise that freedom determines our eternal destiny, and God desires that as many people as possible join His forever-family.  Sin, however, prevents this from happening.  Since we all are fallen creatures in need of God's forgiveness and cleansing, God provided a way whereby He could justly and righteously put away the sin that separates us from Him.  He did so by making the greatest sacrifice possible:  by giving us His well beloved Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The cross of Christ&lt;/strong&gt;, then, was the means whereby holy God could atone for our sins, thus turning aside His righteous anger from us and onto Christ, &quot;the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.&quot;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings&quot; (Hebrews 2:10 NAS). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The cross of Christ, then, was fallen humanity's only hope.  The &quot;perfection&quot; of which the writer to the Hebrews speaks is not sinless perfection but &quot;a fitness for the fulfilling of the office assigned to Him&quot; (see Everett F. Harrison in “The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” &lt;em&gt;Bibliotheca Sacra&lt;/em&gt; 121:484, October-December 1964:338).   In other words, Jesus was the high priest who offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin, once and for all, and through the unimaginable suffering He endured in being crucified, we have been redeemed--set free--through His shed blood. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the cross, Jesus wrestled with Satan and won.  Satan indeed had bruised Jesus' heel, but Jesus had dealt Satan a death blow (see Genesis 3:15), which brings us to the final phrase. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Church of God&lt;/strong&gt; is a living organism composed of believers in Jesus, each one of whom has placed his or her faith in Him and received Him into their lives as Savior and Lord.  Through the Church of God, the Body of Christ, God demonstrates to the world and to Satan and his minions that God will prevail, but only after the church universal is complete and the last &quot;living stone&quot; is added to the superstructure of which Christ is the chief cornerstone (see 1 Peter 2:4-8).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the church is gathered up to heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16,17), the earth will undergo a cataclysm unlike any other it has experienced since the beginning of time.  Through the events of the Great Tribulation and the Battle of Armageddon spoken of in Revelation, the earth as we know it will be destroyed; Satan, the archenemy of God and of His saints, will be cast forever into the lake of fire, along with his minions; and the unbelieving portion of humanity who refused to repent of their sins will along with Satan be cast into the lake of fire.  God will then usher in a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells forever (see Revelation 20:7-21:8).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the meantime, the church of God has to endure much suffering.  If our God and Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, the pioneer of our salvation had to be perfected through suffering--and he had committed no sin, can we as His redeemed people, whose sins were nailed to His cross, expect any less (see Colossians 2:14)?  Suffering is hard, but for those who endure it there are great rewards:  patience, endurance or perseverance, proven character, God's comfort to us and through us to others, and hope, because as Paul points out, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us&quot; (Romans 5:3-5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, God allows Satan to remain on the scene today, for a time, because God's timetable, though fixed, cannot be rushed.  Furthermore, God's forbearance and patience are not to be construed as slackness.  As Peter said, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish , but that all should come to repentance&quot; (2 Peter 3:9 KJV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While for a time God will allow Satan to do his best to make life difficult for us, we can take comfort in Martin Luther's great hymn:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,&#xA;   We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:&#xA;   The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;&#xA;   His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,&#xA;   One little word shall fell him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;&#xA;   The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:&#xA;   Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;&#xA;   The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,&#xA;   His kingdom is forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another hymn which underscores the importance of endurance in running the race set before us, is Isaac Watt's &quot;Am I a Soldier of the Cross?&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Am I a soldier of the cross,&#xA;   A follower of the Lamb,&#xA;   And shall I fear to own His cause,&#xA;   Or blush to speak His Name?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Must I be carried to the skies&#xA;   On flowery beds of ease,&#xA;   While others fought to win the prize,&#xA;   And sailed through bloody seas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Are there no foes for me to face?&#xA;   Must I not stem the flood?&#xA;   Is this vile world a friend to grace,&#xA;   To help me on to God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Sure I must fight if I would reign;&#xA;   Increase my courage, Lord.&#xA;   I’ll bear the toil, endure the pain,&#xA;   Supported by Thy Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thy saints in all this glorious war&#xA;   Shall conquer, though they die;&#xA;   They see the triumph from afar,&#xA;   By faith’s discerning eye.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When that illustrious day shall rise,&#xA;   And all Thy armies shine&#xA;   In robes of victory through the skies,&#xA;   The glory shall be Thine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2014-02-06T17:49:41.783" LastActivityDate="2014-02-06T17:49:41.783" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20051" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20023" CreationDate="2013-10-21T01:01:18.837" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are the saints in heaven already?  The Bible gives us the answer when it says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits&#xA;  of those who have fallen asleep.  For since by man came death, by Man&#xA;  also came the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, even&#xA;  so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order:&#xA;  Christ the firstfruits, &lt;strong&gt;afterward those who are Christ’s at His&#xA;  coming.&lt;/strong&gt; (1 Corinthians 15:20-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the Bible says the saints are made alive again when Jesus comes the second time.  At this moment many of the saints are sleeping in the graves, &lt;a href=&quot;http://willfults.com/happens-when-you-die/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an entire study on this topic can be found here&lt;/a&gt;.  There are only a small handle of individuals in heaven such as Elijah, Enoch (both never died), Moses, etc (Bible evidence is given in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://willfults.com/happens-when-you-die/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;linked article&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But what about Luke 23:43 which says &quot;Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” This is a good question, the answer is in the original Greek there is no punctuation so Jesus could have said  “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” OR “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.”  We can know for certain which translation would be correct based on the fact that Jesus did not go to paradise that day, thus neither did the thief on the cross.  For after the resurrection Jesus said to Mary, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go&#xA;  to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your&#xA;  Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” (John 20:17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding praying to the saints, so that individuals such as Mary can act as a mediator for you, the Bible says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man&#xA;  Christ Jesus&quot; (1 Timothy 2:5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is only one Mediator and it is Jesus, to place someone else in that position would be an attempt to place someone in the place of Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T01:01:18.837" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20052" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20068" CreationDate="2013-10-21T01:06:22.797" Score="7" ViewCount="4427" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3274700032.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;This site&lt;/a&gt; makes mention of a &quot;Methodist lay pastor.&quot; What does this person do? How is this role different from the &quot;pastor&quot; in the Methodist Church? What type of religious training or education does this person have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-10-21T11:47:15.500" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T14:01:21.487" Title="What is the role of a &quot;Methodist lay pastor&quot;?" Tags="&lt;religious-education&gt;&lt;methodist&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20029" CreationDate="2013-10-21T09:12:12.177" Score="10" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 10:21 On that same occasion Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your gracious will.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Jesus is rejoicing in the wisdom, and beauty, and grace of God, and how could He do anything but smile when He uttered those words? Certainly He smiled as He rejoiced.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt. 19:14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can't imagine little children be hugged by Him if He just sat there glum and gloomy.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down on the right hand of the throne of God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus surely must have smiled quite often when He considered all that was to follow. There is great rejoicing in heaven when a soul is saved and one can imagine Jesus was able to see the fruit of His suffering as great joy.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know from the scriptures that Jesus had great love for His disciples, especially John; and also for Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. We know that when we are with those we love most dearly here on Earth, our spouse, our children, family and friends; we are most filled with joy, and cannot help but smile.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible doesn't use modern narrative devices to describe action or expression. If we read the Bible, we would not see a description of Abraham laughing, or Paul laughing, or Peter laughing. We cannot think of a line in the Bible like, &quot;Isaac smiled fondly as he saw his beautiful wife emerge from the tent.&quot; It just doesn't happen. Those sentences, while they help paint a picture, are a product of our modern obsession with appearance. We know Isaac loved his wife, and we can assume that because he was human he smiled at her. We don't need to hear it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A TASTE for fun is all but universal in our species, which is the only joker in Nature. The rocks, the plants, the beasts, the birds, neither do anything ridiculous, nor betray a perception of anything absurd done in their presence. And as the lower nature does not jest, neither does the highest. The Reason pronounces its omniscient yea and nay, but meddles never with degrees or fractions; and it is in comparing fractions with essential integers or wholes that laughter begins.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is how Bible reveals the divinity of Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-10-21T09:21:29.973" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T09:21:29.973" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20038" CreationDate="2013-10-21T10:51:25.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting that it is &lt;em&gt;that passage&lt;/em&gt; that leads you to the conclusion that &lt;em&gt;&quot; all who perished at the time of Noah were cast into Sheol to await the great white throne judgment&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. I say that because there is &lt;em&gt;another&lt;/em&gt; passage which &lt;em&gt;explicitly agrees with your conclusion!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, &lt;strong&gt;putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;&lt;/strong&gt; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) – if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and &lt;strong&gt;to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202:4-9&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 2:4-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't know for sure if they were &lt;em&gt;eternally damned&lt;/em&gt; - only that they are being held for judgement. However, it is logical to think that they were / will be damned because they are being &lt;em&gt;&quot;held for punishment&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and because they did not &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20023/saints-in-heaven/20043#20043&quot;&gt;go to heaven when they died&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T10:51:25.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20059" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20052" CreationDate="2013-10-21T11:56:21.427" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I expect in the context of your reference, the point is simply being made that the the mother of the author, Sandra Sue, has pastoral duties (perhaps leading a small group, Sunday school, etc), but is unpaid in this position, and has a professional career outside of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The concept of a Lay pastor is not new, but is recently (in the last 10-20 years?) seeing a resurgence in popularity as a concept, at least in the U.S.  The basic idea is that lay people (those without formal pastoral or religious training) should be heavily involved in ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A brief explanation, from the forward of a book co-authored by my father, &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0801090059&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Lay Ministry Revolution: How You Can Join&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During more than twenty years of pastoral ministry, I have often tried to fulfill the many expectations that go along with what I call a clergy-centered approach to ministry but have always ended up feeling frustrated and guilty. I never have enough time, never enough talent, never enough energy to fulfill all the expectations. And, while feeling overwhelmed, I have often observed laypeople who are gifted and willing to serve but remain stifled and unfulfilled in their expressions of discipleship.&#xA;  I believe that many of the frustrations of both overburdened pastoral staff and unfulfilled laity spring from the same source--the unbiblical division of God's people into categories of &quot;ministers&quot; and &quot;non-ministers.&quot; And I feel strongly that the solution to both problems, and a key to the church's spiritual power, is to be found in the recovery of lay ministry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another related concept is that of &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tentmaking&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tentmaking&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Tentmaking, in general, refers to the activities of any Christian who, while dedicating him or herself to the ministry of the Gospel, receives little or no pay for Church work, but performs other (&quot;tentmaking&quot;) jobs to provide support. Specifically, tentmaking can also refer to a method of international Christian evangelism in which missionaries support themselves by working full time in the marketplace with their skills and education, instead of receiving financial support from a Church. The term comes from the fact that the apostle Paul supported himself by making tents while living and preaching in Corinth (Acts 18:3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-10-21T13:01:33.283" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T13:01:33.283" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20060" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20065" CreationDate="2013-10-21T12:16:25.837" Score="7" ViewCount="33475" Body="&lt;p&gt;How does falling in love work in heaven? Do we still fall in love? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to fall in love with more than one person? Or are we set to love just one person or none at all? Are intimate relationship in allowed heaven at all? Is having sexual relationship allowed in heaven?  Or, is heaven just a sexless, harp-playing place?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, what is the role of sex and love between humans in heaven, beyond the place of the love for God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-21T13:32:30.043" LastActivityDate="2014-09-08T05:27:25.213" Title="Can humans fall in love with each other in heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;&lt;love&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-09-10T14:20:51.203" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20029" CreationDate="2013-10-21T12:29:08.723" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 19:14&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a very strong argument can be made that if there was a question of hindering children from going to Jesus, that Jesus must have been fun to be around, for the children.  He must have been playful and loving toward them or they would not have been attracted to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T12:29:08.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20062" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-21T12:48:20.593" Score="5" ViewCount="2375" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to&#xA;  the ground, since from it you were taken; for &lt;strong&gt;dust you are and to dust&#xA;  you will return&lt;/strong&gt;. (Genesis 3:19, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Just as &lt;strong&gt;people are destined to die once&lt;/strong&gt;, and after that to face&#xA;  judgment. (Hebrews 9:27, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From these verses, we can deduce that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;All must die once (or at least once) and return to dust&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command,&#xA;  with the voice of the archangel and with the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;trumpet&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; call of God, and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;the dead in Christ will rise first&lt;/strong&gt;. After that, &lt;strong&gt;we who are still&#xA;  alive and are left will be caught up&lt;/strong&gt; together with them in the clouds&#xA;  to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.&#xA;  (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all&#xA;  be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;trumpet&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. For the trumpet will sound, &lt;strong&gt;the dead will be raised&#xA;  imperishable&lt;/strong&gt;, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe&#xA;  itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1&#xA;  Corinthians 15:51-53, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These verses are very important basis for Christian eschatology belief called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rapture&lt;/a&gt;. As per these verses, on the the day of Rapture, first, the dead who belonged to Christ will be resurrected and they will be transformed, second, those who are alive and believe in Christ will be caught up, who may or may not be transformed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I cannot understand is that &lt;strong&gt;if all are destined to die, then it is a contradiction that believers will be caught up alive&lt;/strong&gt;, without ever facing death. Though &lt;strong&gt;Enoch and Elijah&lt;/strong&gt; were taken alive, some believe that they are the two witnesses mentioned in &lt;code&gt;Revelation 11&lt;/code&gt;, who will be killed by the Beast, thus still fulfilling the words of God that all must die. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is there any possibility (apart from the scripture about Rapture), that some people will never face death?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Does God's word &lt;em&gt;&quot;Dust to dust&quot;&lt;/em&gt; leave any exception?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do theologians explain this contradiction? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-10-21T20:11:13.240" LastActivityDate="2018-06-03T20:57:45.003" Title="Is &quot;Rapture&quot; or &quot;Caught up alive&quot; in contradiction to God's words &quot;Dust to dust&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;rapture&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="9" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-06-04T18:17:01.443" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20063" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20029" CreationDate="2013-10-21T12:59:13.190" Score="14" Body="&lt;p&gt;The classic book on this subject is &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0060686316&quot;&gt;The Humor of Christ&lt;/a&gt; by Elton Trueblood.  While it is true that the Scripture rarely tells Jesus' emotion, there are considerable places in Scripture where Jesus is most likely making a joke:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When the Syrophoenician woman quips back that even the dogs get the crumbs&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When the Pharisees strain out the gnats but swallow a camel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When Jesus describes the Pharisees as the blind leading the blind &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, we may not have 'Jesus laughed,&quot; but we know that Jesus loved a party:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;His first miracle was at a party, turning water into wine (and embarrassing Baptists ever since).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 9:15 &quot;Jesus replied, &quot;Do wedding guests mourn while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. But someday the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.&quot; - basically telling the Pharisees to lighten up about the fact that the disciples weren't fasting.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Numerous parables about wedding feasts.  This was almost a staple of the genre.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, finally, Jesus upbraids the Pharisees for their double-mindedness on the subject of fun in Matthew 11:16 - 19:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17“ ‘We played the pipe for you,&#xA;  and you did not dance;&#xA;  we sang a dirge,&#xA;  and you did not mourn.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T12:59:13.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20060" CreationDate="2013-10-21T13:27:21.460" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, there are passages that are particularly relevant here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:29 - 32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this we know that there is no &lt;em&gt;marriage&lt;/em&gt; but that doesn't say there isn't love.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 13:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historically there has been an interpretation of this verse that says our current understanding of love is highly limited - our sinful nature is such that we are capable only of a simulcrum of love, one which gets jealous when it reaches more than one, and one which is held back by our fleshly nature.  In contrast, in heaven, where there is perfection, we are able to love more deeply more fully than here. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, C.S. Lewis' &lt;a href=&quot;http://readanybooks.net/fantasticfiction/The_Great_Divorce/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/a&gt; explores this theme, suggesting an almost open kind of love that is neither pornographic nor chaste.  Mere Christianity picks this up, saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He develops this further, saying that sex is a second thing, not a first one. In&lt;a href=&quot;http://rough.superjunction.com/2011/04/first-and-second-things.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;First and Second Things&lt;/a&gt;, he shows that sex is spiritual, but that made an end unto itself, it loses its meaning. As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Peter Kreeft writes&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It could certainly be spiritual intercourse—and, remember, that includes sexual intercourse because sex is spiritual. This spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man. We are made complete by such union: &quot;It is not good that the man should be alone.&quot; And God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment. The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. Monogamy is for earth. On earth, our bodies are private. In Heaven, we share each other's secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, the idea of heaven in this understanding is that sex will be way more open, the complete perscription to the diagnosis in Genesis that it is not good for the man to be alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is true, we'll be getting way more, and way better sex up there than down here. Whether or not this is physical, whether or not this is even true, the real point is that anyone who is simply convinced there can't be sex in heaven does have a bit of theology against which to contend.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-09-08T00:48:56.003" LastActivityDate="2014-09-08T00:48:56.003" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20052" CreationDate="2013-10-21T13:42:05.107" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lay pastor is actually an official designation in the Methodist church.  There is some formal training that goes along with it --but nothing that comes close to the training required of a fully ordained pastor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm basing this answer on attending a Methodist church that has two fully ordained pastors and a lay pastor on staff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T13:42:05.107" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20068" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20052" CreationDate="2013-10-21T14:01:21.487" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the United Methodist Church, a lay pastor is a church member who has received training and can assist with preaching and care ministries, but does not have a formal seminary education.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lay pastor can perform &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&amp;amp;b=4043485&amp;amp;ct=6843063&quot;&gt;most of the duties of ordained ministers&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The certified lay minister shall preach the Word, provide a care ministry to the congregation, assist in program leadership, and be a witness in the community for the growth, missional and connectional thrust of The United Methodist Church as part of a ministry team with the supervision and support of a clergy person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, lay pastors cannot lead Holy Communion unless they receive special ordination to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="126" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T14:01:21.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20069" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20073" CreationDate="2013-10-21T14:40:08.677" Score="12" ViewCount="392" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Runciman&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Steven Runciman&lt;/a&gt;'s &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0521313104&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Great Church in Captivity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;excerpt&lt;/a&gt;), the Orthodox Patriarch &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremias_II_of_Constantinople&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeremias II&lt;/a&gt; wrote a letter detailing the differences between the Orthodox doctrines and Lutheran teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is an English translation of the letter publicly available, and where can I find it? My searches keep taking me back to the linked book excerpt above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-19T23:15:28.280" LastActivityDate="2015-10-19T23:15:28.280" Title="Where can I find the Orthodox response to the Augsburg Confession?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;lutheranism&gt;&lt;creeds-and-confessions&gt;&lt;resource-request&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20071" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14416" CreationDate="2013-10-21T15:45:17.003" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rich people should not be able to get to heaven unless they sell their riches and give their money to the poor either by giving food, building shelter or some other generous thing. If not they are storing up treasures and loving the world instead of having compassion on the people of the earth which is what Jesus was trying to teach. Also I think the translation was messed up because the same word can be translated into rope, instead of camel lol. If you unwind the rope it can fit through the needle but a camel? That doesn't even make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6259" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T15:45:17.003" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20060" CreationDate="2013-10-21T17:01:45.863" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question seems very much to me like the original question asked of Jesus in Matthew 22 (also quoted by Affable Geek) about the the validity of earthly marriages in heaven --a question, it's worth noting, that was asked by the Sadducees specifically to mock the notion of resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would argue that we shouldn't interpret Jesus' answer --that in heaven they do not marry --as specifically ruling out a particular heavenly analog to a particular earthy institution, but rather as a general warning that we err by trying to understand heaven as just an extension of our earthly lives.  Rather, it is different in ways we cannot understand, and that will make things such as marriage and sex --which are so important here on earth --irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the question of whether we will love each other, I would venture that in heaven we will all follow the commandment of John 15 --to love each other as God loves us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T17:01:45.863" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20069" CreationDate="2013-10-21T17:23:24.927" Score="11" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;h1&gt;Is an English translation of the letter publicly available, and where can I find it?&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are talking about finding it online, you aren't going to have any luck. These letters, as far as I know, are not available to read online. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if you are willing to spend some money, an English book compilation of the letters by George Mastrantonis can be &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0916586820&quot;&gt;bought from Amazon&lt;/a&gt; (published by &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.holycrossbookstore.com/&quot;&gt;Holy Cross Orthodox Press&lt;/a&gt;, however it seems to be &lt;a href=&quot;http://store.holycrossbookstore.com/916586820.html&quot;&gt;more expensive&lt;/a&gt; on their website).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quoting a review on Amazon by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A30B4ZKMKLQLPA/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp&quot;&gt;Dusk&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This book is very meaty, but I recommend it strongly to those interested. The letters provide a deeper understanding of both Lutheran and Orthodox beliefs. They provide a window into the age they were written in: the manners used in disagreement are delightful. They also provide a look into human nature itself. Read carefully or you may injure yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps! Have fun...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T17:23:24.927" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20074" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20062" CreationDate="2013-10-21T17:50:14.437" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following statement is directed specifically to Adam as only Adam technically came from dust!  We of course as the offspring of Adam are affected relationally.  However, this statement would not be substantial enough to impose death or the &amp;quot;returning to dust&amp;quot; upon every member of humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. (Genesis 3:19, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul uses the word koimaō (Strongs G2837) in both of the following verses.  Notice that the word is translated as “dead” in 7:39 and could not be appropriately translated as sleep.  Conversely 15:51 could easily have used the word died in place of sleep.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband &lt;strong&gt;be dead&lt;/strong&gt;, G2837 she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all &lt;strong&gt;sleep&lt;/strong&gt;, G2837 but we shall all be changed,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 9 is not about how many times a man dies, but about the one time sacrifice of Christ.  “Appointed once to die” is in accordance that Christ does not have to continue to be crucified for our sins in the way the Temple sacrifices had to continue to die.  Essentially it is saying that it is natural for a man to die once.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 9:24-28 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrews 9:27 the Greek word &amp;quot;hapax&amp;quot; is translated as &amp;quot;once&amp;quot;, it could just as well be translated as &amp;quot;conclude&amp;quot;, certainly not a strong enough statement to make a claim of contradiction.&#xA;It is also generally accepted form scripture that Elijah (Kings II Chapter 2, Verse 11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:22-24) did not die.&#xA;Therefore, While it is generally true that each man dies once, it does not mean that all men must die once.  Therefor, these verses are not in conflict with &amp;quot;Rapture&amp;quot; theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-10-10T15:09:09.310" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20062" CreationDate="2013-10-21T18:51:53.407" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In addition to Rick's great answer&lt;/em&gt;, I would like to add that there are many exceptions to the rule of &quot;dying once&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;People who never died:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205:23-24&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Enoch&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings+2:11&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Elijah&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;People who died more than once:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011:1-44&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lazarus&lt;/a&gt;, an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;unnamed man&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:7-12&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eutychus&lt;/a&gt;, amongst many others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T18:51:53.407" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20077" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20062" CreationDate="2013-10-21T20:38:46.927" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is very Specific in that there are two deaths, and you seem to be confusing the two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 1st death as I refer to it is physical death or in your question where the body turns to dust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any Christian who has not physically died at second coming of Christ will meet him in the air.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The operative word here is Christian, in becoming a Christian we are in effect dying to the things of this world  and committing our basal beings to be crucified with Christ on the cross. And even though we do not immediately turn to Dust we have moved from death into eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;John_17:3  KJV And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only &#xA;         true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Joh_10:28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,  neither     shall any man pluck them out of my hand. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the beginning of the millennial reign of Christ on the Earth, and all the Saints will rule with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This will take place while Satan and his Angels are locked in the bottomless pit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then there is the second death, which is eternal separation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rev_2:11 KJV  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the  churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rev_20:6 KJV  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on   such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of    Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rev_20:14 KJV  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the  second death. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rev_21:8 KJV  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and     murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall     have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the     second death. &#xA;However this isn't really a death as we know it, since Death and Hell have both been thrown into the lake of fire before unbelievers from all ages are thrown in.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate we need not worry as Christians about our physical bodies since Heaven and Earth as we know them will have passed away and there will be a new Heaven and Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I may be so bold as to suggest that we are far better off worrying about being in right standing with God than ever worrying about material things. After all ' All the gold in California' won't even buy you a meal in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-21T20:38:46.927" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20079" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20147" CreationDate="2013-10-21T22:21:23.603" Score="6" ViewCount="22791" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand the main differences with Evangelicals vs. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;protestants&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; are the strong beliefs in being &quot;born again&quot; and Biblical fundamentalism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, what are some of the main differences in theology, personal belief, politics, structure of leadership and interpretation - specifically speaking between Evangelicals and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Presbyterians&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="1400" LastEditDate="2013-10-22T23:07:43.310" LastActivityDate="2016-08-04T02:09:28.293" Title="What is the difference between Presbyterianism and Evangelicalism?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20083" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-22T01:14:28.720" Score="1" ViewCount="1480" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the claimed properties of God that define Christianity, and what is the basis or reason for each attribution?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6266" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T02:26:51.777" Title="What properties does Christianity attribute to God" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;christian-identity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-10-23T06:35:40.460" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20084" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20325" CreationDate="2013-10-22T01:34:28.720" Score="10" ViewCount="2713" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he&#xA;  determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to&#xA;  every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are&#xA;  preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and,&#xA;  accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends,&#xA;  we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Calvin,&#xA;  Institutes, Book III&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've noticed, from my theological discussions with various Calvinists,  that the &quot;go-to&quot; early Church Father figure concerning the Calvinist view of &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html&quot;&gt;double-predestination&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; is St. Augustine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who else in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers&quot;&gt;early Church&lt;/a&gt; directly influenced Calvin's doctrinal formulation of predestinarianism.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I prefer references to writings of the Church Fathers preceding St. Augustine, but &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; Patristic texts will do...as long as they are not Augustine's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-10-24T21:07:37.870" LastActivityDate="2015-01-02T01:23:24.670" Title="Other than Augustine, which Church Fathers have directly influenced John Calvin's teaching of &quot;double-predestination?&quot;" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20085" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14582" CreationDate="2013-10-22T01:48:36.943" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When i was 18 my life only existed in the fast lane. Then one weekend on a ski trip i had a severe accident, that would change my life forever. I was a ski instructor 6 years and an expert at skiing. I broke my knee and could not walk for days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suddenly i could no longer do things i previously could. It left a large hole in my life. I was always a believer, but when i became broken i genuinely began searching for the Lord. Never before had i experienced the presence of the holy spirit, although i believed in the Bibles truth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When i broke my knee i became weaker, however my faith became stronger than ever. I would not want to turn back the clock and trade my knee for his spirit. In the beginning my injury seemed to be a punishment, but now i know it was a great gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God can use any circumstance for his purpose at any time. I was broken so i could be healed internally and spiritually. I may be weak in my leg now but he is still strong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6267" LastEditorUserId="6267" LastEditDate="2013-10-22T02:03:52.163" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T02:03:52.163" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20086" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-22T01:53:28.670" Score="18" ViewCount="8842" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know the difference between heresy and schism, but I don't know why various Protestant reformation leaders, Martin Luther in particular, wouldn't have been satisfied by merely being a schismatic group.  Were there any reformers who rebelled against papal and church authority, but didn't attempt to change any of the other doctrines of the Catholic Church?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happened that caused Luther to go from the 95 thesis, which pales in comparison to anything a modern day &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X&quot;&gt;Lefebrite&lt;/a&gt; might say about the Catholic Church, to outright rejection of the core tenants of the Catholic Faith?  Did he even reject them initially or did the Catholic Church leaders somehow coax him into heresy?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2017-10-30T16:20:16.033" Title="What made Luther a heretic and not a schismatic?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;martin-luther&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;&lt;schism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20087" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-22T02:22:29.830" Score="12" ViewCount="1667" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently there has been a ban on the use of the word &lt;code&gt;Allah&lt;/code&gt; to refer to the Christian God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the good alternatives to the word &lt;code&gt;Allah&lt;/code&gt; in countries where it is banned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard &lt;code&gt;Tuhan&lt;/code&gt; is one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5532" LastActivityDate="2021-04-15T22:41:25.447" Title="What are the good Bahasa / Malay / Indonesian words to refer to the Christian God?" Tags="&lt;language&gt;&lt;christian-identity&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20088" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19623" CreationDate="2013-10-22T02:56:57.750" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Immanuel means &quot;god with us.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ means &quot;messiah&quot; which we know means savior. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Christians we believe that Jesus is the only person who walked and never sinned. God descending to Earth in human flesh.(while the father still exists in heaven also. Father, son, Holy Spirit)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People in Jesus life called him by the name Yeshua.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Really the thing that matters most is what Christ did for us. The technicalities are good to have opinions on, but never something we divide ourselves over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6267" LastEditorUserId="6268" LastEditDate="2013-10-24T11:34:10.313" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T11:34:10.313" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20083" CreationDate="2013-10-22T02:58:59.120" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty broad question, and you have to understand that there are varying views within Christianity.  There's no one, single understanding, but here is a fairly comprehensive list.  Assume in this list that it applies to most groups within Christianity unless otherwise noted.  I'm going to ignore such groups a s &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian Atheists&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (Who would answer with one attribute: &quot;Imaginary&quot;.) or &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://arganteswell.tripod.com/id1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christian witches&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and focus on more mainstream commonly accepted Christian circles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, in the interest of brevity, I'm going to NOT directly include &quot;what is the basis&quot; for each.  Instead, I'm linking on each to an article that explores each attribute in further detail.  The basis for each attribute is, ultimately, Scripture.  Most of the articles linked to offer several verses supporting each attribute.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whatthebibleteaches.com/wbt_070.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Omniscient:&lt;/a&gt;  God is all knowing, without limitation - even as far as past/present go.  He knows all that has ever happened and all that will.  He knows each star that he created, by name.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Omnipotent:&lt;/a&gt;  God is infinite in His power.  He can do anything.  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/if-god-can-do-anything-then-can-he-make-a-being-more-powerful-than-himself-omnipotence&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Some would say that this means Intrinsically possible&lt;/a&gt;.  Misunderstandings of the definition of &quot;Omnipotent&quot; lead to foolish questions like &quot;Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Others believe that this limitation doesn't apply, and God id limited only by His own perfect nature ans will.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gospeltruth.net/1843OE/431206_benevolence_god.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Omnibenevolent&lt;/a&gt; - God is purely good.  There is no evil in Him.  Note that this doesn't mean purely &lt;em&gt;kind&lt;/em&gt;.  He is not limited to our personal understanding of what &quot;good&quot; is.  Put simply, God knows more than we, in our limited capacity do.  What we might consider &quot;cruel&quot; or &quot;not fair&quot; may be good.  Just like a child might not understand why his parents discipline him for dangerous behavior, we may not understand why God does what he does.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Side note #1:&lt;/strong&gt; Taking a break in the list here, many atheists use the above three attributes to come up with arguments that God couldn't&#xA;  possibly be all three, or evil wouldn't exist.  That's addressed&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8743/how-can-a-wholly-good-god-deliberately-create-evil&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Sovereignty.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sovereign:&lt;/a&gt;  God is completely sovereign.  he answers to nobody, and everybody answers to Him.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is some debate on what this means for free will.  Some say that free will is an illusion because if we had any free will, Cod's sovereignty would be nullified  In other words, He is in complete and total control.  Others say that He grants us free will, but he could assert His sovereignty at any time.  There are other views as well.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some also use god's sovereignty to show that God is evil because He allows suffering.  Again, see side note #1.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.allaboutgod.com/infinite-god.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Infinite:&lt;/a&gt;  God is without limits.  He is limited only by His will and what is intrinsically possible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://fridaystudy.org/html/2peter/2peter3_9.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Patient (aka longsuffering)&lt;/a&gt;:  God is slow to anger, quick to forgive.  Which is good, because when I look at my own behavior over my lifetime, I can't help but think that, were I in God's place, I'd have been a crispy critter long ago.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog8.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Holy&lt;/a&gt;: God is separate from sin and is completely, utterly, incorruptible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Impeccability_of_Jesus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Impeccable&lt;/a&gt;:  Strongly related to holiness, God is &lt;em&gt;completely unable&lt;/em&gt; to sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/immutability-God.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Immutable&lt;/a&gt;: God Cannot change.  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Side note, skeptics sometimes point to verses that showed that God repented and decided not to smite this group or that.  That's addressed &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5220/does-god-change&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Omnipresence_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Omnipresent&lt;/a&gt;: God is everywhere, always, all at once.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Transcendence_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Transcendent&lt;/a&gt;: God exists outside space and time or anything else he has made.  he is not limited by either.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theopedia.com/Immanence_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Immanent&lt;/a&gt;: Closely related to &quot;Omnipresence&quot;:  God is always near.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heavendwellers.com/hdt_chapter_2__koh.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Jealous&lt;/a&gt;:  God is jealous of glory due Him being given to another god, and righteously so.  This is to be distinguished from petty jealousy (envy).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.discovergod.com/character08.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Righteous&lt;/a&gt;: God is completely Right, or Just.  It is His righteousness that demands that sin not go unpunished.  (Would you consider a judge to be righteous if he let a murderer go free out of love?  No, you'd call that a corrupt judge.  in the same way, God cannot be righteous if he allows sin to go unpunished.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/seriespage/wrath-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wrathful&lt;/a&gt;:  God's wrath, when unleashed, is unparalleled. His wrath is directed toward sin, evil, unrighteousness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.allaboutgod.com/god-is-love.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Love&lt;/a&gt;:  While God's wrath is terrifying, his love is amazing.  It is his love that is expressed in the fact that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  The cross is the ultimate expression of his love for us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.saintaquinas.com/article3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Incorporeal&lt;/a&gt;: Scripture tells us that god is spirit, and has no physical body.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Note that this is something that some groups, such as the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;LDS church&lt;/a&gt; disagree with.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/20/god-is-triune&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Triune&lt;/a&gt;: God exists in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pretty much undisputed in mainstream Christianity, u&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;nderstood differently in LDS theology&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/trinity/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;refuted utterly by other groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heavendwellers.com/hdt_chapter_2__koh.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Incomprehensible&lt;/a&gt;: God is so far above us that we can never know or understand Him fully.  All we can know or understand is what He has revealed, and even that is filtered through our own interpretations.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T02:26:51.777" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20090" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20086" CreationDate="2013-10-22T03:16:37.200" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If one reads over the 95-theses Luther made, they would see he is mostly upset with priests and bishops using the power of forgiveness to make money. Not the pope of the time. However, statements like this go directly in opposition to Catholic beliefs:&#xA;&quot;If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think a read over of the Wikipedia section on Luther titled &quot;Anti-Judaism and antisemitism&quot; would provide another answer. The Catholic church has had a long history of asserting rules that people not attack the Jews, and providing some secluded protection for the Jews while they are under persecution. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As demonstrated in the case of &quot;Fr. Roberto Francisco Daniel&quot; the Catholic church will not excommunicate individuals for simply having or discussing with others beliefs contrary to Catholicism, but more explicitly teaching such contrary beliefs as truth to others, and refusing to correct themselves.&#xA;It is Luther's excommunication that make's him defined as a heretic.&#xA;Because if you read his works you will see that he never considered himself separated from the true Catholic Church.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Today I think Luther would more proudly put on himself the title heretic, as his intentions appear to never push for a schism in the Catholic Church (from my reading of his works, and my point of view). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6268" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T03:16:37.200" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20091" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20083" CreationDate="2013-10-22T04:25:05.260" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word of God is the first reference for All questions. (the bible) Gods word is the root of the vine which bears his fruit. Afterwards comes the harvest which is when he will separate the light from the darkness. (the wheat and the tares, Matthew 13:24-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gods attributes are found throughout all scripture from the beginning of the bible (genesis) to the end (revelations). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In corinthians we find that God is love, however Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love you neighbor. (Mark 12:31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to embrace God and find his true heart, become rooted in the scripture (his word, the bible). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you seek you will find, but you must (should) initiate the first step, i promise he will be faithful to answer those who genuinely seek him&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;search this (Matthew 7:24-27)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6267" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T04:25:05.260" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20092" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20087" CreationDate="2013-10-22T04:25:37.583" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Christian God is given a wide range of names in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My first thought was to clarify with a generational phrase. You might say &quot;The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,&quot; but that might confuse you with Jews. Also, Since &quot;Allah&quot; is the usual translation for &quot;God&quot; you would risk offending Muslims and breaking the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My second thought is &quot;Yahweh.&quot; In the Old Testament God refers to himself as &quot;I am.&quot; The transliteration of the Hebrew for this is &quot;YHWH.&quot; The original vowels are unknown, but it has become common to pronounce it &quot;Yaw - way&quot; and spell it &quot;Yahweh.&quot; A less popular pronunciation that has fallen out of vogue is &quot;Jehovah.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You might also choose to say Jesus Christ, but I suspect that would even be more offensive to Muslims. It seems that believing Jesus is God is a major sticking point that upsets many Muslims.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God#Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia has an interesting article on the names of God&lt;/a&gt; and gives a few other options that might work for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Some Quakers often refer to God as The Light. Another term used is 'King of Kings' or 'Lord of Lords' and Lord of the Hosts. Other names used by Christians include Ancient of Days, Father/Abba, 'Most High' and the Hebrew names Elohim, El-Shaddai, and Adonai. The name, &quot;Abba/Father&quot; is the most common term used for the creator within Christianity,[citation needed] because it was the name Jesus Christ (Yeshua Messiah) himself used to refer to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am partial to &quot;King of Kings&quot; or &quot;Lord of Lords.&quot; I'm sure there are those are common words, once translated into Arabic, that will not offend Muslims or break the law. From what I can tell &quot;Tuhan&quot; means &quot;Lord,&quot; so using it in &quot;Tuhan of Tuhans&quot; would work (obviously I have Englishized the Arabic word).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T04:25:37.583" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20093" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20083" CreationDate="2013-10-22T07:12:43.290" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to omnipotence and omniscience the Bible lists a few characteristics of the &quot;Spirit,&quot; which is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A22-23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, though these qualities were listed with people in mind, they come &lt;em&gt;from&lt;/em&gt; God, therefore, we can conclude that God holds these characteristics as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T07:12:43.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1095" CreationDate="2013-10-22T07:47:49.683" Score="6" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 37:4.&lt;/strong&gt;   Delight yourself in the lord &amp;amp; he will give you the desires of your heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 12:31.&lt;/strong&gt;  Instead seek his kingdom &amp;amp; these things will be added unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jeremiah 29:11.&lt;/strong&gt;  For I know the plans I have for you,declares the&#xA;  lord,plans for wholeness &amp;amp; not for evil, to give you a hope &amp;amp; a future&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are numerous passages of Scripture that supports the idea of success &amp;amp; prosperity.  Prosperity is not only limited to money.  I believe that there is always a word of revelation or truths for every generation in relation to God's prophetic timetable. There are people who have taken this teaching too far &amp;amp; distorted the fundamental principles that governs this Biblical teaching. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6269" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-10-22T12:39:18.803" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T12:39:18.803" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20095" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15679" CreationDate="2013-10-22T11:51:45.310" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Love is the opposite of lust  but have similar powers thats why lust is deceiving, lust is selfish love is not . Everything else follows suit there powers  over you so to say is so similar lust disguises itself in the description and definition amongst love more so with those who lack in experience of love so keep it simple lust is selfish love is selfless when you in love you can adapt to change with no problem in lust its hard cause there's other reason to change than the effortless changes made when you love who or what you are changing for and everything else follows that same example. Lust is a manipulator of wants love is a joyfulness of what is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6271" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T11:51:45.310" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20096" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-22T14:06:25.080" Score="13" ViewCount="673" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did St. Thomas the apostle come to India? Most of the Indian people believe that he came to south India, and spread the good news even before the Roman Catholic Church is formed. However, the church doesn't accept this teaching. What is the truth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-28T19:53:55.917" LastActivityDate="2020-12-18T21:31:42.603" Title="Did St. Thomas come to India?" Tags="&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;christianity-in-india&gt;&lt;thomas-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20097" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20099" CreationDate="2013-10-22T14:17:51.973" Score="8" ViewCount="22864" Body="&lt;p&gt;While studying the book of John I came to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. &lt;em&gt;(John 20:17, KJV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus would not allow Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection until he had ascended to God the father, and in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. &lt;em&gt;(John 20:27, KJV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because he tells Thomas to stick his hand into his side, does it indicate that he had already ascended to God the father in Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then in Luke we have the account of him ascending into Heaven as he was blessing the disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any other passages which might help answer my question?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-24T07:26:30.113" LastActivityDate="2015-04-01T01:34:34.057" Title="Did Jesus ascend to Heaven twice?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;ascension&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20099" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20097" CreationDate="2013-10-22T15:32:48.917" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Gospels, Matthew and Luke, are based off of the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John is based independently on its own source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Savior said He was not to be touched until He has ascended to God. Perhaps He was to present Himself Resurrected to His Father. As far as we can tell by His conversation with the disciples versus His conversation with Mary, this had occurred by the time he was with the disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, I believe it is implied in Acts that the Savior visited people after that ascension after Mary saw him. So yes, he had ascended before the time they saw His final ascension in the first chapter of Acts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Places where the Savior shows up after resurrection (not comprehensive):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:9-10 (held him by the feet),&#xA;Matthew 28:16-20,&#xA;Mark 16:12 =? Luke 24:13-33,&#xA;Mark 16:14 =? Luke 24:36-49 =? John 20:26-29,&#xA;John 20:19-23,&#xA;John 21,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 1:3&#xA;Acts 7:55&#xA;Acts 9:5&#xA;Acts 9:10&#xA;Acts 9:27&#xA;Acts 10:40&#xA;Acts 13:31&#xA;Acts 18:9&#xA;Acts 22:18&#xA;Acts 23:11&#xA;Acts 26:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Cor. 15:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6272" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-04T23:14:28.033" LastActivityDate="2014-07-04T23:14:28.033" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20100" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20086" CreationDate="2013-10-22T15:55:54.713" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand by your question and follow up comment, you are really asking, &lt;strong&gt;'Why did Luther reject the traditional sacraments of the Catholic church, which in turn was one of the reasons why the Catholic church branded him as a heretic?'&lt;/strong&gt; The answer is complex as the rejection of traditional views of the sacraments was not central to what Luther saw as his difference with the papacy and because his rejection of the papacy was gradual and somewhat tit-for-tat in the papacy's gradual rejection of his faith in salvation apart from works.  However we can narrow the scope of his rejection of the papacy, and the papacy's rejection of Luther in this context of 'faith versus works' within the narrow subject of the sacraments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Luther, once faith was established apart from works he saw the devil in the traditional manner in which the sacraments had departed from the simplicity of the scriptural guidance.  Starting with the scriptures only and with a will to test all traditional claims by the scripture he found plenty of fault with traditional Catholic sacraments.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First Luther thought that the sacraments had become corrupted with a view that they were effective without faith and that faith was actually at the center of any benefit that could be obtained from a sacrament.  Since faith justifies apart from any work, only faith could be the key in receiving grace through a particular sacrament:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In his Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses (1518) &lt;strong&gt;Luther stated that it is not the sacrament but rather faith that justifies&lt;/strong&gt;....It is also clear that the sole authority of Scripture, given more and more stress as early as in the indulgence controversy, was also decisive in discussing sacramental doctrine. Just as on the question of the authority of pope and council, so now on the doctrine of the sacraments, Luther was no longer prepared uncritically to follow certain church decisions. He tested these decisions by the statements of Scripture  (MARTIN LUTHER’S THEOLOGY, Its Historical and Systematic Development, BERNHARD LOHSE, P127)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To zero in on your main question, the Eucharist, Luther did not really begin to develop his new theology until the spring of 1520 when he composed his sermon on the New Testament, this is where he started to develop his principle beliefs about the Lord's supper.   The main departure points was that he did not think of it as a sacrifice and more importantly that faith again was at the center and thus the words of institution and their careful interpretation were more important than any other aspect, as it was a 'word' to be 'believed'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luther set up a principle that he continually stressed from this point onward, and that Reformation church orders later endeavored to follow: &lt;strong&gt;“Now the closer our masses are to the first mass of Christ, no doubt the better they are; and the further from Christ’s mass, the more dangerous.”&lt;/strong&gt; This axiom followed from the Reformation principle on Scripture. At the same time it included sharp criticism of all “additions,” which at best falsify the institution of the Supper and thus Jesus’ original intent. Further, in the words of institution “lies the whole mass, its nature, work, profit and benefit. Without the words nothing is derived from the mass.” ( (MARTIN LUTHER’S THEOLOGY, Its Historical and Systematic Development, BERNHARD LOHSE, P133)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So there you have it.  It always comes back to the same two principles for Luther, first, only faith in Christ apart from works matters and second, only the scripture can be our guide in how to please God and obey him in that faith. Luther naturally then puts faith as the central way to receive a sacrament and only the scripture as the authorized guide (as oppossed to tradition) in practicing that faith, even with regard to sacraments.&lt;/strong&gt; By having this attitude he was rejecting key elements of the Catholic faith, was excommunicated for it, and in turn believed he was actually excommunication the papacy from the true church of God by returning to simple obedience to God's word and having faith in Christ above anything else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is possible that if the Pope would have allowed Luther to be a christian by simple faith in Christ, Luther might not have rejected the Pope&lt;/strong&gt;. However as Luther was rejected for what he considered simple saving faith and eventually saw that rejection full and unreasonable, Luther eventually came to the conclusion that the Pope was actually the 'anti-christ', for having been placed in the highest position of the external church and yet rejecting true faith in Christ, which Luther was convinced he had, must be an evil of an unimaginable proportion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T15:55:54.713" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20102" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20060" CreationDate="2013-10-22T16:35:36.410" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand your question and the answers I see here your question is really asking if Eros love exists in Heaven. The love that permeates Heaven is Agape Love. Eros love is the physical love which God gave mankind in order that his command to fill the Earth might come to fruition, and is only inherent in our Earthly bodies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our Earthly bodies will not be transported to Heaven as was the Earthly body of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 3:19 KJV  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our Earthly bodies will eventually return to dust, and since in Heaven there will be no more procreation there will also be no more need for sex.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the other functions of our genitals since we will no longer have physical bodies we will no longer require nourishment and therefore no need to excrete waste.&#xA;So why would they even be part of our Heavenly bodies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my studies of the Bible I have come to the conclusion that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is an indication that we like the Angels will be sexless beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T16:35:36.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20103" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20132" CreationDate="2013-10-22T16:49:45.610" Score="3" ViewCount="291" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please keep in mind &#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5:39 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on&#xA;  the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was searching for something to write a blog post about, when I stumbled upon this site which mentioned things I found offensive&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.topix.com/forum/city/beckley-wv/TD3FOU7CNPFGEJO46&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;site&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You believe that the entire population of this planet with the&#xA;  exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in&#xA;  all rival &lt;strike&gt;sects&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;em&gt;denominations&lt;/em&gt; [sic] - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of&#xA;  Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most &quot;tolerant&quot; and&#xA;  &quot;loving.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, thinking of an answer to this, I found myself stuck.  &lt;strike&gt;What are the characteristics of Christianity that make it tolerant?&lt;/strike&gt;  Which denomination has a history of showing toleration or is toleration not a Christian attribute?  To be clear, I am looking for documented cases in the bible which fit a historical example.&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;I define tolerant as, &quot;showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.&quot;  However, should there be another definition that fits the Christian use of the word &quot;tolerant&quot; please define.&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;Here's an example of how Christians are expected to &lt;a href=&quot;http://christianteens.about.com/od/christianliving/a/Tolerance.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;practice tolerance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2013-10-22T18:00:10.657" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T19:36:33.783" Title="Christian Toleration" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;christian-identity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20103" CreationDate="2013-10-22T18:12:03.737" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is an interesting question, indeed. The person you quote finds Christianity to be &quot;intolerable&quot;, while Christianity is completely tolerable of other opinions and beliefs, as you defined tolerance.  Christianity does not impose its beliefs on others nor does it vilify people that reject Christianity.  However, the person quoted does vilify Christians.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This comes back to the definition of tolerance, which some today claim means that no one can ever say that anything or anyone is ever wrong about anything.  They claim it is wrong to claim that something is wrong. Of course, this is illogical, but even if it weren't, merely making such a claim does not mean it is true.  One is free to believe that it is wrong to believe that anything is wrong.  One can believe that there is no absolute truth and be absolutely sure of it, despite the logical fallacy of such a belief, but that does not make people who acknowledge absolute truths to be intolerant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity, therefore, is completely tolerant.  We do not impose our beliefs on anyone, but merely attempt to persuade.  C.S. Lewis said it this way, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God does not ravage -- He must woo&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that Christianity does, in fact, believe that there is both a heaven and a hell and certain people will go to each place does not mean that it is intolerant at all.  It is just a belief that is held.  It tolerates other opinions, but it does believe that its own opinion is true--just like everyone else believes that his or her opinion is actually true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tolerance does not preclude anyone from believing certain things.  It merely precludes them from forcing everyone to believe a certain way.  Thus, Christianity is not at all intolerant.  The person who vilifies Christians for their beliefs is the one who is intolerant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2013-10-22T18:53:03.693" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T18:53:03.693" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20105" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20103" CreationDate="2013-10-22T18:17:52.510" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Tolerant of what? &quot;Tolerance&quot; is one of those words that people overuse yet never define. It generally carries the assumption that a person is only as good/strong/important as his ideas - if you reject a person's idea, you must be rejecting that person as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs... will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most &quot;tolerant&quot;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;You believe that you know the truth and that this truth isn't happy for all people, therefore you hate some people.&quot; This is an emotional argument with no grounding in rationality. (He doesn't seem to realize that any person who accuses another of intolerance, is by definition, the pot calling the kettle black.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity has always &lt;em&gt;accepted people&lt;/em&gt; without tolerating &lt;em&gt;their sins&lt;/em&gt;. All people, whether Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc, are created in the image of God Almighty. To hate a person is to hate the One who made him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:20&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 John 4:20&lt;/a&gt;). &quot;Tolerance&quot; is a cheap substitute for the love we (Christians) have been called to show all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T18:17:52.510" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20108" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20103" CreationDate="2013-10-22T19:04:41.307" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;[Protestant perspective]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When it comes to &lt;strong&gt;faith, belief and dogma&lt;/strong&gt;, Christianity is &lt;strong&gt;not tolerant&lt;/strong&gt; at all. Christianity will never agree that the belief and philosophies of other religions are true, unless there is a common ground. For instance, a Hindu has no problem to accept that Jesus is the Son of God. A Hindu will gladly include Jesus to the existing list of 330 million Hindu gods and goddesses. In contrast, Christians cannot do the same. Christians will never accept that Jesus is another incarnation of Krishna.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, Christianity is &lt;strong&gt;highly tolerant&lt;/strong&gt; (or most tolerant to emphasize) against &lt;strong&gt;blasphemy and mockery&lt;/strong&gt;. If a man blasphemes a Hindu god in public, or desecrates their sacred places, he is sure to get beatings from the Hindus who saw him. It get worst when someone blasphemes the Muslim god Allah, they will pay it with their lives. In all these cases, Christians will not act out in violence, or in vengeance, because Jesus taught us not to take revenge but to accept it gladly and pray for them instead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-10-23T05:06:41.673" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T05:06:41.673" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20109" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-22T19:47:48.090" Score="9" ViewCount="902" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know Latin was a vulgarization in attempting to make Mass more accessible to Christians. So which were the languages used in paleo-Christian Mass? Koine Greek, classical Greek, or something else? What other languages were used, up until the Council of Trent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6276" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-12T02:39:30.677" LastActivityDate="2020-12-05T18:18:30.730" Title="What languages were used during Mass from paleo-Christianty until the Council of Trent?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;early-church&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;language&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20130" CreationDate="2013-10-22T20:45:45.863" Score="-1" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Transposition, when CS Lewis talks of the negations of what will be in heaven in their temporal form, when he said 'art' did he mean art as in 'painting' or books, music, sculpture, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...Hence our notion of Heaven involves perpetual negations: no food, no drink, no sex, no movement, no mirth, no events, no time, no art. Against all these, to be sure, we set one positive: the vision and enjoyment of God. And since this is an infinite good...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a lovely bit of writing. I am astonished it is not one of his most quoted and cherished works. All his most famous are great but this hidden, secret beauty seems to make the boldest, most thrilling claims about Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is relevant to some research I'm doing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-10-23T12:27:57.963" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T12:32:39.847" Title="What did CS Lewis mean by 'art'?" Tags="&lt;books&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;&lt;art&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-10-23T20:49:50.460" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20116" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20004" CreationDate="2013-10-22T21:44:12.640" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the NIV, there is a note associated with word ‘Redeemer’ which indicates ‘Vindicator’ could be used. In the on-line NET Bible, the note for ‘Redeemer’ (#59) contains: “The word is well-known in the OT because of its identification as the kinsman-redeemer (see the Book of Ruth). This is the near kinsman who will pay off one’s debts, defend the family, avenge a killing, marry the widow of the deceased. The word “redeemer” evokes the wrong connotation for people familiar with the NT alone; a translation of “Vindicator” would capture the idea more.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To help get the context, we read Job 19:23-24 where Job wants his words etched into something so permanent that they would last forever. In Job 19:25, the verse in question, Job is not questioning who that vindicator will be or if there is one yet to come. Job already knows his Redeemer and that his Redeemer lives but his distress is that his Redeemer is presently hiding His face from him. In the NIV, this verse reads:  “I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job wants his words written down and saved throughout history until his Redeemer comes and stands on the earth and can read them and vindicate Job for what has happened to him. Job thought God had turned His face from him and no longer knew what was going on. Job thought if God knew what was going on, He would have stepped in and done something about it as He had in the past. With what happened to him ‘etched in stone’, Job could even die but would still be vindicated. He had a problem believing God would not be doing something if He already knew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not a messianic prophecy but the cry of a servant trying to understand why everything was happening to him and wanting vindication for it. I left a link below to an article that shows how this suffering brought Job to the point of humility where such an attitude of vindication was no longer necessary. As Job learned, “I had heard of You by the hearing of the ear but now my eyes have seen You” (Job 42:5) and “I know you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). In humility Job came to realize his suffering was but momentary intended to do what it accomplished, drive him closer to God. He no longer needed vindication, he had God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2019:23-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 19:23-29 (NIV - www.biblegateway.com)&lt;/a&gt; &amp;nbsp; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Job+19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 19 (on-line NET Bible - net.bible.org)&lt;/a&gt; &amp;nbsp; &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Go to www.bible.org and search for: &quot;The Ideal of Submission (Job)&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Updated!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Messianic Prophecy is scripture recording future events related to Messiah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Messianic prophecy is recorded evidence produced by many people disconnected across time or distance that finds complete fulfillment in the life of Jesus Christ. It is never an interpretation or idea just thought up by an individual or group or somehow passed down through tradition. It is not possible for all the different people to record different prophecies with such coherency and accuracy without guidance in what they were recording. Messianic prophecy is revelation from a single source, the Holy Spirit.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Peter 1:20-21 - &quot;Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.&quot; (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Throughout the Bible there is other prophecy recording future events that are not necessarily related with Messiah. Yet this too carries the distinction that it is not thought up by an individual or group but was revealed by the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we analyze the book of Job, we do not see the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit like we do in Isaiah 53. There the suffering servant is described in such detail and in a number of ways that the only one who can fit is Jesus Christ. For example: as one who will be marred so badly he didn’t look human (speaking of the beating Jesus Christ received); as one who people would question if God’s power really was revealed through him (speaking of the leaders who did not want to believe his miracles were of God); or as one who would be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted (speaking of the resurrection of Jesus Christ to the right hand of God). In all of this, Isaiah could have written all of these only if the Holy Spirit was revealing them to him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Job 19:25 reads: I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But if we add the context around the verse we find an indication that Job wanted to be vindicated by God but thought he was going to die before that happened. As a result, he desired a permanent record of the events so they could be on hand when God would stand on this earth. As I ponder this, what I think it is referring to is the final judgement before God that all people will go through in the future. Hebrews 9:27 refers to judgment after one dies. But what I think connects better is Revelation 20:11 thru 22:5. This is where the Great White Throne Judgement takes place followed by the New Jerusalem descending to the earth and lit up with the glory of the Almighty God and his Lamb, Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Job knew something of what is recorded in Revelation, then that would be when he would be able to plead his case and that would be when God would stand on the earth. But nowhere else in the book of Job do I see an indication that the Holy Spirit was leading Job to record a revelation. If we care to assign a revelation to Job 19:25, I think it must be a revelation of the Great White Throne Judgement and New Jerusalem being setup rather than Messianic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6282" LastEditorUserId="6282" LastEditDate="2013-10-26T18:07:09.130" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T18:07:09.130" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2780" CreationDate="2013-10-22T22:40:13.570" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus did go to the bosom of Abraham and the scriptures do say they were set free. psalm 68:18&#xA;and Ephesians 4:8 also Matthew 57:52-53 speak of those who came out of the grave.&#xA; The verse is speaking of Christ,that it would be Jesus who would ascend up and sit on the throne,not David.David was speaking prophetically of Jesus.&#xA; David did not ascend to heaven,speaking of the one who would sit on the throne,he was speaking of Jesus.No one ascended till Jesus first ascended, then captivity was led to heaven meaning no one is no longer in the bosom of Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6284" LastActivityDate="2013-10-22T22:40:13.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20119" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20126" CreationDate="2013-10-22T23:03:55.653" Score="4" ViewCount="235" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lately, the &lt;em&gt;Christian Post&lt;/em&gt; uploaded &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianpost.com/news/chuck-smith-memorial-service-to-include-global-webcast-from-18000-seat-arena-106743/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;several articles&lt;/a&gt; on the late beloved Pastor Chuck Smith. The reception was ambivalent. Some people said he was chosen by God to lead them, while others claimed he was on the other side of that spectrum. It is clear that he intended to live a Christian life and affected many people's lives positively. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Which Christian denomination(s) recognize his organization, and which ones do not? Why?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What was his leadership style like, and what made it distinctive?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Which Christian denomination(s) is/are in conflict with his theology, and which one(s) is/are most in harmony?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;How were his congregants' lives any different than other Protestants' lives?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Who was Chuck Smith, and what was his place in Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-10-22T23:48:59.017" LastActivityDate="2020-04-05T18:52:01.990" Title="Who was Chuck Smith, and what was his place in Christianity?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;evangelicalism&gt;&lt;pastoral-care&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20103" CreationDate="2013-10-23T00:17:02.827" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think Mawia has a good foundational answer.  Regarding your good point about the Crusades, Catholic persecution, dark ages, etc...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We need to remember that Jesus said &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of&#xA;  heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  Many will&#xA;  say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your&#xA;  name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your&#xA;  name?’  And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart&#xA;  from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matthew 7:21-23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not by profession but by fruit is a true Christian determined.  Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is following Christ.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibleprophecytruth.com/prophecy-resources/bible-prophecy-charts.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Also the persecution and violence during the dark ages is found in Bible prophecy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding &quot;spending Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering&quot; I completely agree that this would not fit a crime of say 16 years of sin.  The reality is hell is real, but the punishment is not infinite.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.helltruth.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;To prove that a good site about the truth about hell can be found here&lt;/a&gt;.  Hope that helps!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T00:17:02.827" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20122" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-23T01:55:03.200" Score="1" ViewCount="130" Body="&lt;p&gt;Lucifer willed to become &quot;like the most high.&quot; Do mainstream believers agree that there was an invisible war in the spiritual realm that was an interval of time before God spoke creating our known universe? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read the book The Invisible War which supports this theory, however I also heard Hank (the bible answer man) say he didnt support this. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6267" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-10-23T12:36:17.157" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T14:37:02.770" Title="Do mainstream believers believe there was a large interval of time that elapsed between the fall of angels and God speaking creating the universe?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20125" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-23T02:47:51.027" Score="3" ViewCount="407" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not interested in the Truth Question of whether it is a sin to celebrate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm particularly interested in citations of what has been said about having too much fear of evil spirits, and a fear that makes folks seek out some rite of avoiding the spirits to put their faith in, as opposed to faith in Christ's sufficient and fully available work, a fear that looks to great evils outside themselves.  Or does the weight of writing point to the danger of failure to take seriously the idea of devils roaming about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2014-02-26T04:50:35.810" Title="What have prominent theologians said about Halloween?" Tags="&lt;culture&gt;&lt;holidays&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2014-02-26T13:25:01.823" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20119" CreationDate="2013-10-23T03:20:13.540" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll answer your questions from his book, &lt;em&gt;A Memoir of Grace,&lt;/em&gt; by Chuck Smith (2009). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Which Christian denomination(s) recognize his organization, and which ones do not? Why?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know the answer to this question. Not sure what you mean by &quot;recognize,&quot; for I would recognize any organization if it had regular meetings and members. Do you mean anything different from this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol start=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;What was his leadership style like, and what made it distinctive?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book did not address this, other than to say that he believed in not placing any programs or techniques above the sovereign work of God. He kept everything simple; just teach the whole Bible, book by book, chapter by chapter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol start=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Which Christian denomination(s) is/are in conflict with his theology, and which one(s) is/are most in harmony?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any denomination that sets rigid plans and programs would be in conflict with his theology of the moving of the Spirit. He specifically talked about an earlier version of a Foursquare church that set church competing against church to do membership drives, and those who drove in the most members &quot;won.&quot; Chuck rejected this program approach after a time of prayer where the Lord spoke to him that He Himself will &quot;add to the church daily.&quot; He went on preaching as usual and got more members by simply preaching the word chapter by chapter. His superintendents invited him to come to the next convention and tell the others what techniques he used to such great success! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol start=&quot;4&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;How were his congregants' lives any different than other Protestants' lives?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chuck found that by teaching through the whole Bible in depth, Genesis to Revelation, the people got more out of it. Expositional preaching, as opposed to topical preaching or gospel preaching. They were more grounded in their faith and were excited to tell others about Jesus and the Bible. Calvary Chapels sprung up all over the world without Chuck making 5-year church-planting plans or anything like that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol start=&quot;5&quot;&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Who was Chuck Smith, and what was his place in Christianity?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chuck Smith will always be known as the person who started Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and the person who helped the hippies' brand of Maranatha! rock/contemporary music spread everywhere. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-04-05T18:52:01.990" LastActivityDate="2020-04-05T18:52:01.990" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20127" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2220" CreationDate="2013-10-23T03:27:18.843" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God wealth is His true love, unconditional forgiveness and inconceivable grace to us, His mangers. But we are failure here on earth, born in sin, but are unable to manage His wealth due to our selfish nature. Our self effort fails Him because we struggle in our flesh (all sin and fall short) Because of this, He says we should use what we have and know in our riches of this world to get close to those who reject Him so that our lives may be a witness to the world. He is saying that the world rejects Christ's followers, but deals nicely to those who don't stand judgement and righteousness. We tend to Judge and push the lost away through conviction, but Jesus never condemned, not one. Be kind and treat eachother kindly and His Love through us and our living witness will help those find His eternal Light and Life.  This how my spiritual eyes and ears have read and heard this. I pray this brings blessing to your spiritual heart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6286" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T03:27:18.843" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20129" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-23T03:32:42.767" Score="6" ViewCount="12882" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've read a highly favored &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1183/4384&quot;&gt;answer here&lt;/a&gt; on C.SE that when people get to heaven they are no longer capable of sinning yet they still have free will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is simple, why did he ever create us with capability to sin and then punish us if we do sin? Free will is out of the question now since it was clear that we can have free will without the capability of sinning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2015-09-02T21:19:12.723" Title="Why did God create man with the ability to sin?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="9" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-09-03T05:01:44.437" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20112" CreationDate="2013-10-23T12:32:39.847" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't really think this question is on-topic for this site, since it's not about Christianity.  It's probably not really on topic on any SE site, since it's just a discussion topic, and the only authoritative source for an answer died 49 years 11 months ago today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, I think the best answer I can provide to your question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When he said 'art' did he mean art as in 'painting' or books, music, sculpture, etc.?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It doesn't matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point Lewis is making isn't about art at all.  It's about &quot;perpetual negations.&quot;  He's describing how many people describe heaven as an absence of things, only to say that's not a healthy way to describe heaven. Does it really matter if, when he said &quot;art,&quot; he was imagining the Mona Lisa, or if he was imagining something more abstract?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, when he said &quot;food,&quot; did he mean biscuits and tea, or was he being more abstract?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It doesn't matter in the least.  The entire concept he's portraying is abstract (thus one might assume each element in the list is also abstract). By getting bogged down in the details of the definition of &quot;art,&quot; or of &quot;food&quot; or &quot;events&quot;, one completely misses the point he's trying to make.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's my 2¢.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T12:32:39.847" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20131" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20129" CreationDate="2013-10-23T12:33:32.420" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you say: “when people get to heaven they are no longer capable of sinning” not all Christians would agree with this response.  There is no evidence that any “free will” creature who has been reborn and experienced the wholeness of God’s love, would then rebel against that love.  Can’t and won’t are two different things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So a faith relationship enables a loving relationship.  God created man for a loving relationship, thus man was created with choice.  Faith is a choice, whom will I trust, will I trust the serpent or will I trust the Word of God?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So your question: “why did he ever created us with capability of sin and then punish us if we do sin”?  God desires a loving relationship with mankind and the wholeness of love with some is evidently of more value to God than the rejection and damnation of others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God does not want any to perish!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-10-23T21:14:15.360" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T21:14:15.360" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20103" CreationDate="2013-10-23T13:08:58.880" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is an example of tolerance in the bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Cor. 9:19-23 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto&#xA;  all, that I might gain the more. &lt;strong&gt;And unto the Jews I became as a&#xA;  Jew,&lt;/strong&gt; that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as&#xA;  under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; &lt;strong&gt;To&#xA;  them that are without law [non-Jews], as without law,&lt;/strong&gt; (being not&#xA;  without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain&#xA;  them that are without law.  To the weak became I as weak, that I might&#xA;  gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all&#xA;  means save some.  And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be&#xA;  partaker thereof with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The context here is that Paul the apostle will make himself a part of their culture (Jewish or Gentile) in order to win them over to Christ. &quot;But under the law to Christ&quot; means he will do so without compromising the biblical law of faith and the moral tenets in the bible that reflect love, compassion, and respect for other persons. Missionaries who go into foreign cultures often take on the clothing and cultures of the people for this same reason, to show them how a believer lives before Christ, and thus win them to Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can participate in many of their seasonal traditions, knowing that they cannot influence us for good or bad, such as Christian Jews eating meat offered to sacrifices, which was once forbidden under the law of Moses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the Christian, evil is not to be tolerated in the believer's life. And Christians have been involved in stopping many evil practices, as seen in the organizations that battle drug use and pornography, that set sex slaves free, and so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One basis for tolerance (among mature Christians, anyway) for differing viewpoints is the fact that all of us were born without Christ and without hope; only through the gospel can people be won to the truth of Christ. In humility we acknowledge their viewpoint as from a fallen world that we once shared and that once enslaved us; in humility, too, we share the news of Christ with the hope that the Spirit will convict their hearts and open them up to salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2013-10-24T19:36:33.783" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T19:36:33.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20133" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20122" CreationDate="2013-10-23T13:13:46.590" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;All Christians &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; glean from Scripture is that Lucifer was an angel, got proud, opposed God, and was cast out for it.  There is simply no data to say anything about the when, where, or why of those events.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even what was stated above is only a tangential case at best. The entire &quot;Lucifer falling out of heaven&quot; narrative is not one that is explicit in Scripture.  Indeed, the three closest references are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ezekiel 28&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You were the signet of perfection,[a]&#xA;      full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.&#xA;  13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;&#xA;      every precious stone was your covering,&#xA;  sardius, topaz, and diamond,&#xA;      beryl, onyx, and jasper,&#xA;  sapphire,[b] emerald, and carbuncle;&#xA;      and crafted in gold were your settings&#xA;      and your engravings.[c]&#xA;  On the day that you were created&#xA;      they were prepared.&#xA;  14 You were an anointed guardian cherub.&#xA;      I placed you;[d] you were on the holy mountain of God;&#xA;      in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.&#xA;  15 You were blameless in your ways&#xA;      from the day you were created,&#xA;      till unrighteousness was found in you.&#xA;  16 In the abundance of your trade&#xA;      you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;&#xA;  so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,&#xA;      and I destroyed you,[e] O guardian cherub,&#xA;      from the midst of the stones of fire.&#xA;  17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;&#xA;      you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.&#xA;  I cast you to the ground;&#xA;      I exposed you before kings,&#xA;      to feast their eyes on you.&#xA;  18 By the multitude of your iniquities,&#xA;      in the unrighteousness of your trade&#xA;      you profaned your sanctuaries;&#xA;  so I brought fire out from your midst;&#xA;      it consumed you,&#xA;  and I turned you to ashes on the earth&#xA;      in the sight of all who saw you.&#xA;  19 All who know you among the peoples&#xA;      are appalled at you;&#xA;  you have come to a dreadful end&#xA;      and shall be no more forever.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 14:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“How you are fallen from heaven,&#xA;      O Day Star, son of Dawn!&#xA;  How you are cut down to the ground,&#xA;      you who laid the nations low!&#xA;  13 You said in your heart,&#xA;      ‘I will ascend to heaven;&#xA;  above the stars of God&#xA;      I will set my throne on high;&#xA;  I will sit on the mount of assembly&#xA;      in the far reaches of the north;[c]&#xA;  14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;&#xA;      I will make myself like the Most High.’&#xA;  15 But you are brought down to Sheol,&#xA;      to the far reaches of the pit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of the two in the Old Testament, these are actually prophecies directed against the King of Tyre - although many for historical reasons see an allusion to Satan in this.  The last one, in the NT, explicitly references Satan, but this appears to be a present day thing, not related to the Fall from Heaven at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, where do we get the narrative? John Milton's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Paradise Lost&lt;/a&gt; is the most famous telling of the narrative, but the origin of the story is unknown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the timing involved, there is simply no data on which to make any claim in one direction or another.  Many believe that all of this occurred before the Creation of Man, since the Serpent in the Garden clearly wanted man to fall - but beyond that, much in the same way physicists can only speculate about existence a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang, there is simply no data, no framework, and no information to say any more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T13:13:46.590" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20129" CreationDate="2013-10-23T13:18:43.457" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;God did not create us with a sinful nature. God created Adam and Eve with freedom of choice, and put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden to test their obedience and loyalty to Him. There had to be a choice in order to show true free will. His character had been put into question by Lucifer in the rebellion in heaven. So God gave them a choice to love Him by their own choice, not because He was the ONLY choice. Tricked by Lucifer himself, our first parents fell into sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They had a nature inclined towards good, as opposed to us, after the fall, who have a natural inclination towards evil. So Adam and Eve had to go against their nature to sin against God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the Second Coming of Christ, when people go to heaven, they will have a nature like Adam and Eve, inclined towards good, because they will be transformed. They will still have the possibility to sin, but no one will, knowing how much suffering stemmed from the sin of Lucifer, and knowing at what high cost God and His Son redeemed us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someone shared a great link to a short video explaining from the Bible the rebellion in heaven and the link to Adam and Eve. I highly suggest you watch it as it will help you understand the topic much better, and more importantly, will show you God's love for you and what He did for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQmLVU_nvo8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cosmic Conflict - The Origin of Evil&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T13:18:43.457" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20129" CreationDate="2013-10-23T14:02:15.160" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Father of Sin is Satan&lt;/strong&gt;. Satan was also perfect when he was created but later, evil was found in him and he became the Father of Evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You were blameless in all you did from the day you were created &lt;strong&gt;until&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  the day &lt;strong&gt;evil was found in you&lt;/strong&gt;. (Ezekiel 28:15, NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is perfect and His creations are also perfect&lt;/strong&gt;. When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect, no evil was found in them. Evil or Sin was originally not a part of human nature, until Satan brought it in by convincing Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. After putting their faith in Satan the serpent, &lt;strong&gt;they became children of Satan&lt;/strong&gt;. They lost their original identity and are now imperfect beings with inherent sinful nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;you are the children of your father the devil&lt;/strong&gt;, and you love to do&#xA;  the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has&#xA;  always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he&#xA;  lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;father of lies&lt;/strong&gt;. (John 8:44, NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus came to this world to give us back our original identity, that is, children of God. Since, we are now children of Satan, we need to be born again in Christ to be called children of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are &lt;strong&gt;born again&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:3, NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he&#xA;  gave the right to become &lt;strong&gt;children of God&lt;/strong&gt;. (John 1:12, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not create man with evil nature in the beginning, but freewill was given to man. It was freewill that led man to fall into the trap of Satan and became a sinner. Man's nature was changed after the fall. Though there still is freewill in heaven, there is negligible possibility of misusing it because we have already learned from our past mistake. We will always remember the sufferings of Jesus and how much our disobedience have cost us and God.  In heaven, we will be encompassed by the love of Jesus Christ eternally. The incomparable love and the experience of our past mistake will avert us away from all thoughts of evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T14:02:15.160" CommentCount="22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20122" CreationDate="2013-10-23T14:37:02.770" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your question as asked would portend that one could read the thoughts of every Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot do that, but what I can do is give you the Scriptures which cover the subject and let you draw your own conclusions./&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 12:3  &amp;amp; 4 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;3.  And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon,&#xA;having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.&#xA;&#xA;4  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them&#xA;to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to&#xA;be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev_12:7  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the  dragon; and&#xA;he dragon fought and his angels, &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk_10:18 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isa_14:12 KJV  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut&#xA;down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only clues I find in the Bible are that Isaiah said He was cut down to the ground, and that Satan was in the garden to tempt Eve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can draw your own conclusion as to whether or not Isaiah's statement indicates that the Earth was already formed or not&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T14:37:02.770" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20129" CreationDate="2013-10-23T16:25:11.910" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;God did not create man with an evil nature, He created us as children, innocent and not knowing the good from evil, this knowledge was gained when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. By partaking of the fruit, it allowed Adam and Eve to know what is good and bad, what is virtue and vise, and what is pleasure and pain, which is why, in Genesis 3 of the King James version of the Bible it says,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eeat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Children do not understand that nudity is a bad thing - just as Adam and Eve did not understand - many young children may take off their clothes anywhere and in front of anyone. But as the child grows older they come to a &quot;knowledge&quot; that nudity is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After God found that Adam and Eve were no longer childlike he created enmity (animosity, hatred) between Satan and the children of Adam and Eve so that we would understand and strive to choose the right. God also sent Jesus Christ to be our Savior and our example of perfection so that through our faith in Him we may return to the presence of our Father. (See John 3:16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 ¶For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's intention was never to punish us, no parent enjoys disciplining their child, but for a child to learn, there needs to be consequences. This same relationship is true between ourselves and our Heavenly Father. The punishment for Adam and Eve was that they were banned from the Garden of Eden, otherwise they would have eaten from the Tree of Life and lived forever in their wickedness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for your question about becoming sinless, in Genesis 3 it  says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 ¶And the Lord God said, Behold, the man &lt;strong&gt;is become as one of us, to know good and evil:&lt;/strong&gt; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not that our freewill is taken away from us, it is that we have a perfect understanding of good and evil. We are able to choose because we will know the consequences of such actions and we will choose not to sin, because &quot;no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6291" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T16:25:11.910" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20142" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20143" CreationDate="2013-10-23T16:38:48.637" Score="4" ViewCount="5563" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading a question on this site I suddenly realized that I do not know what 'free will' means. I cannot find a definition in other questions asked and my philosophy books clouded the whole issue. Augustine says a lot but also seem to think I already know what it means. So I thought I would look in the Bible but can't find the term.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where in the Bible can I find a definition or explanation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-02-22T01:30:19.983" LastActivityDate="2016-02-22T01:30:19.983" Title="What is the definition of 'free will' as explained in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-02-22T07:27:05.347" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20142" CreationDate="2013-10-23T16:57:33.467" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &quot;An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith&quot; (ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως), Book II, Ch. XXX (§44), John of Damascus wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Χρὴ γινώσκειν, ὡς πάντα μὲν προγινώσκει ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντα δὲ προορίζει· προγινώσκει γὰρ καὶ τὰ ἐφ' ἡμῖν, οὐ προορίζει δὲ αὐτά· οὐ γὰρ θέλει τὴν κακίαν γενέσθαι οὐδὲ βιάζεται τὴν ἀρετήν. Ὥστε τῆς θείας προγνωστικῆς κελεύσεως ἔργον ἐστὶν ὁ προορισμός. Προορίζει δὲ τὰ οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ· ἤδη γὰρ κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ προέκρινε πάντα ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὴν ἀγαθότητα καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which I translated as,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is necessary to understand, while God foreknows everything, yet He does not predetermine everything. For He even foreknows those things that are dependent on us, but He does not predetermine them. For He neither wills evil to occur nor forces virtue, so that predetermination is the work of the divine command of foreknowledge. On the other hand, God predetermines those things which are not dependent on us, according to His foreknowledge. For according to His foreknowledge, God has already forejudged all things according to His goodness and righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T16:57:33.467" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20142" CreationDate="2013-10-23T18:21:30.583" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The word &lt;em&gt;&quot;Freewill&quot;&lt;/em&gt; doesn't exist in the Bible but the concept does exist&lt;/strong&gt;. The Bible doesn't spell out the term &quot;Freewill&quot; clearly and hence doesn't provide any clear definition of what freewill is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Freewill theology has a long history, at least &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_antiquity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2000 years ago, discussed by  philosophers&lt;/a&gt;. Many Christian theologians have studied this and made many theories on it. One of the first being &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Augustine&lt;/a&gt; and many &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Calvinist%E2%80%93Arminian_debate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;debates&lt;/a&gt; were held among theologians on the topic of Freewill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many instances from the Bible to explain what freewill is. Let's see few examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;whoever believes&lt;/strong&gt; in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John&#xA;  3:16, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear from this verse that anyone, who believes in Jesus Christ is promised an eternal life. This means that we are given freewill to accept or deny Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example is Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. God gave them orders not to eat the fruit and told them that they will die as a result, but when they were about to eat it, God did not stop them, though God was aware of it because He is omnipresent. God did not interfere in there choice making. God allowed them to choose death, even though God knew that it would result in the death of His one and only Son Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-10-23T18:52:40.963" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T18:52:40.963" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20147" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20079" CreationDate="2013-10-23T18:45:55.340" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, the word evangelical means of the Gospel. Technically all Christians are evangelicals. Just like all Christians are born again in Christ. However, a group of Christian conservatives started using those words to define themselves and it caught on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, as asked, your question makes no sense because evangelicals are not necessarily a denomination with their own established doctrine. Evangelicals exist across several denominations, &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblebased.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/13-differences-between-the-pca-and-the-pcusa/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Presbyterians included&lt;/a&gt;. So, I will your answer your question as to what is the difference between Evangelical Protestants and Mainline Protestants (with a focus on Presbyterianism).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main difference between Evangelicals and Mainline Christians&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; has to do with the sources for theological interpretation. The Catholic church defined two sources for theological interpretation &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sacred Scripture&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Tradition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sacred Tradition&lt;/a&gt;. The Protestant reformation introduced the idea of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sola Scriptura&lt;/a&gt;: scripture alone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sola Scriptura is a part of Calvinist theology. However, scripture is not generally interpreted literally nor is it the only valued source. For example, there are Presbyterians who will use the Nicene creed since it is based on scripture while evangelical Presbyterians usually will not because it's not written in the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Evangelical Presbyterians carry sola scriptura much further. Their literal view of the Bible leads them to teach creation only, ordain men only, and follow other evangelical viewpoints. There are evangelical Presbyterians in all Presbyterian organizations, evidenced by the recent turmoil in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcusa.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PCUSA&lt;/a&gt; over &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/the-end-of-the-presbyterian-church-u-s-a/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;homosexuality&lt;/a&gt;. But there are at least two evangelical Presbyterian groups: the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcanet.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PCA&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.epc.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EPC&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;I'm using this to mean the central or moderate Christian view not necessarily the correct or most popular view.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T18:45:55.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20148" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18579" CreationDate="2013-10-23T19:12:08.613" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm pretty sure &quot;God-talk&quot; is just a colloquial term for theological discussion.&#xA;We live in a very secular world, and it's probably just the new popular label for religious discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice what google has to say:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=god-talk#q=god-talk+define&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.google.com/search?q=god-talk#q=god-talk+define&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Google references wikipedia's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Talk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Talk&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which redirects to theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that enough of an answer?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6272" LastActivityDate="2013-10-23T19:12:08.613" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20149" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22815" CreationDate="2013-10-23T20:35:49.257" Score="4" ViewCount="2344" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Babylon spoken of in Revelation chapter 14;8 KJV is clearly labeled as a city, and in Chapter 18:1 &amp;amp; 2 it seems to be more of a systematic degradation of God's holy words. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In chapter 19:1, 2 &amp;amp; 3 God is judging Babylon which would lead me to believe that it would more suit judging Satan and his minions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev_14:8 KJV  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city,&#xA;because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 18:1 &amp;amp; 2 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great&#xA;power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;2  And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is&#xA;fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a&#xA;cage of every unclean and hateful bird. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 19:1, 2 &amp;amp;3 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying,&#xA;Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: &#xA;&#xA;2  For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which&#xA;did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants&#xA;at her hand. &#xA;&#xA;3  And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David Gusik puts forth these words in his commentary on Revelation 14:8;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 14:8 An angel announces Babylon's fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&amp;gt;And another angel followed, saying, &quot;Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city,&#xA;because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;    Babylon is fallen: More on Babylon will come in Revelation 17.  For now, it is&#xA;    enough &#xA;    to see it representing mankind in organized rebellion against God.&#xA;&#xA;        &quot;Prophetically, 'Babylon' sometimes refers to a literal city, sometimes to a&#xA;        religious system, sometimes to a political system, all stemming from the evil&#xA;        character of historic Babylon.&quot; (Walvoord)&#xA;&#xA;Because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication:&#xA;When we are told that Babylon has led all nations into fornication, the main idea is&#xA;spiritual fornication - the worship of other gods.  However, we are never surprised&#xA;to see spiritual fornication accompanied with literal immorality. &amp;lt;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And his comments on Revelation 18:5 are;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&amp;gt;Revelation 18 - The Fall of Commercial Babylon&#xA;&#xA;  A. Announcing the fall of Babylon.&#xA;&#xA;    1. Introduction: is this the same Babylon as is described in chapter 17?&#xA;        a. Good scholars see the issue differently. Some point to two manifestations &#xA;        of Babylon, one religious and one commercial or material.  Others see the   &#xA;        two as one, both being judged at the same time.&#xA;&#xA;        b. There are definite similarities between Babylon as described in Revelation&#xA;        17 and Revelation 18.  Both are under the rule of Antichrist, and have ruling&#xA;        queens; both are filled with blasphemy; both hate the saints, and shed their  &#xA;        blood; both are associates with kings in fornication; and both are under &#xA;        judgment and destroyed.&#xA;&#xA;        c. However, there are also some significant differences:&#xA;        Religious Babylon (Rev. 17) Commercial Babylon (Rev. 18)&#xA;&#xA;        1. Mystery Babylon           1. Great Babylon; Babylon the Great&#xA;&#xA;        2. Symbol: a harlot woman   2. Symbol: a great city&#xA;&#xA;        3. Identified with Rome (inland)    3. Identified with a port city&#xA;&#xA;        4. Woman, whore, and mother     4. Habitation, great city, market place&#xA;&#xA;        5. Guilty: religious             5. Guilty: greed, self-indulgence&#xA;        abominations&#xA;&#xA;        6. Destroyed by a political      6. Destroyed by a sudden act of God &#xA;&#xA;        power that previously supported &#xA;        her&#xA;&#xA;        d. In my view, it is best to see them as intertwined, yet somewhat distinct.&#xA;        Religious Babylon of Revelation 17 is judged at the mid-point of the seven- &#xA;        year period of tribulation. Commercial Babylon is judged at the end of that&#xA;        period.&amp;lt;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those and other commentaries I have studied have caused me to wonder if they were the same or one religious and one Commercial  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone recommend any sources for further study on this subject?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-07-12T02:40:48.807" LastActivityDate="2017-07-12T02:40:48.807" Title="Is the Babylon of Revelation 14 the same as the Babylon of Revelation 18?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20154" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20086" CreationDate="2013-10-24T02:08:18.400" Score="9" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Luther and the Church&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It must be said that Martin Luther was originally a servant of the Church, and prior to posting his &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses&quot;&gt;95 theses&lt;/a&gt;, he expressed loyalty (at least superficially) to the Pope.  Despite his frequent battles with spiritual &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder&quot;&gt;depression&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, Luther proved himself to be a very intelligent man, was ordained a priest, and became a doctor of theology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Initially, he was so &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mania&quot;&gt;maniacally&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; in favor of the papacy that he professed his desire to be “&lt;strong&gt;the most brutal murderer&lt;/strong&gt;” on the pope’s behalf and “&lt;strong&gt;to kill all who even by syllable refused submission to the pope.&lt;/strong&gt;”(1) Of course, this was also while he was also disregarding the guidance of his confessor, the rules of his monastery, and traditional Catholic teaching in his excessive forms of self-prescribed penance and refusal to believe that he had been absolved of sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Stemming from an abusive childhood relationship with his German occultist Father(2), Luther suffered from frequent God-fearing, self-judgmental panic attacks. He could not look upon a crucifix. He tried to avoid performing Mass or being in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. His life was one continual terror of damnation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then came his “thunderbolt” revelation, and he felt he had broken free of his own sinfulness, not by the sacraments of the Church, but by faith alone. As Luther says, rather arrestingly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice&#xA;  in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for&#xA;  a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin&#xA;  must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you&#xA;  acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin&#xA;  cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a&#xA;  hundred times a day and commit as many murders.”(3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Luther posted his &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses&quot;&gt;95 theses&lt;/a&gt; on the church door in Wittenberg in 1517, his immediate cause of protest was the sale of indulgences by a Dominican friar named John Tetzel whose mission was to raise money, in part, for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica. Tetzel was renowned for packing in the peasant faithful with his preaching. His commercial pitch, however, went far beyond the bounds of propriety and canon law, if not common practice. Ironically, it echoed, in a way, Luther’s own doctrines of salvation by faith alone - Tetzel merely gave that saving faith a monetary value and material form. Anything could be forgiven, said Tetzel, if a punter paid his money and bought a papal indulgence. Luther struck at this inviting and disreputable target. While it was not an unusual occurrence for churchmen and academicians to publicly post theses and then debate them, this time a rhetorical firestorm erupted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historian H.W. Crocker III sums up Luther’s separation from Rome(4):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luther had not, at this point, entirely broken with Rome. While he&#xA;  dismissed Julian II and Alexander VI as inferior popes, he wrote to&#xA;  Pope Leo X in loyalty and submission to Church discipline. In this,&#xA;  however, Luther was less than honest. He swore he would accept his own&#xA;  death if the pope ordered it. But when Leo beckoned him to Rome,&#xA;  Luther shied away. Nor did Luther confide in the pope that in his&#xA;  private correspondence he was already linking the office of the papacy&#xA;  with the Antichrist. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...[L]eo took the initiative in reforming the Church precisely on&#xA;  the point Luther had attacked. In 1518, the pope clarified Catholic&#xA;  practice on indulgences, reminding the faithful that they could not&#xA;  buy their way to Heaven; indulgences were merely forms of penance,&#xA;  alms offered for forgiveness of temporal punishment, and certainly not&#xA;  a blank check for sins to be committed or to buy the freedom of a soul&#xA;  in Purgatory. A papal emissary ensured that Tetzel was disciplined,&#xA;  and Luther again affirmed his submission to the pope, while concealing&#xA;  his continuing doubts about “whether the pope is the Antichrist or his&#xA;  apostle.(1) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The full break came when, in a debate, Luther denied the&#xA;  primacy of the pope, held the Council of Constance in error, and even&#xA;  praised some of the doctrines of Jan Hus.&lt;/strong&gt; He had now moved from being&#xA;  one of the many vocal Church reformers - though easily the most&#xA;  politically powerful because of anti-papal sentiment among the people&#xA;  and princes in Germany - to being a &lt;strong&gt;Hussite heretic.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By 1520, Luther was penning such reformist tracts as his “Epitome,”&#xA;  which openly declares “that the true &lt;strong&gt;Antichrist&lt;/strong&gt; is sitting in the&#xA;  temple of God and is reigning in &lt;strong&gt;Rome&lt;/strong&gt; - that empurpled &lt;strong&gt;Babylon&lt;/strong&gt; - and&#xA;  that the &lt;strong&gt;Roman curia is the Synagogue of Satan&lt;/strong&gt;….[T]here will be no&#xA;  remedy left except that the emperors, kings, and princes, girt about&#xA;  with force of arms, should attack these pest in the world, and settle&#xA;  the matter no longer by words but by the sword….[W]hy do we not attack&#xA;  in arms the &lt;strong&gt;Roman Sodom&lt;/strong&gt; which has without end corrupted the Church of&#xA;  God, and wash our hands in their blood?”(2) (&lt;em&gt;emphasis added&lt;/em&gt;)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Quoted in Durant, p. 349 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Ibid.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luther’s mind, the religious hierarchy of the Church deserved no special esteem and no independence under its own canon law from the state. Canon law, in Luther’s view, was merely the law laid down by the Antichrist in Rome. The real church, according to Luther, was an invisible institution, held only in the faith of men. The state - the German princes, the German “Reich” - was the only true, temporal reality, and it was to it, not to the Church in Rome, that men and law should be subordinate. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luther’s words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one need think that the world can rule without blood. The civil&#xA;  sword shall and must be red and bloody.(5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther’s political platform was earthly, populist, and nationalist - completely at odds with the ideals of Christendom, which were historical, hierarchal, and Catholic, with all nations unified under Christ’s Church, resting on the bones of St. Peter in Rome, with the pope, the Vicar of Christ, a monarch set over kings by Christ. The German people and their rulers were more than ready, by this time, to throw off the power of the Italian &lt;em&gt;Pontifex Maximus&lt;/em&gt;.  This secular seizure of localized power not only enthroned Lutheranism as the state religion, but also &lt;strong&gt;nailed the lid on the coffin&lt;/strong&gt; concerning the communion of Luther's Germany with St. Peter's Rome.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly, Germany can claim credit for being the birthplace of Protestantism, &lt;em&gt;as well as&lt;/em&gt; Nationalism, both of which have survived to this day. German nationalism, as we know, came into its own fullness at the turn of the 20th century, but was drastically deflated by the end of the second World War. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By 1525, Germany had been launched into a state of revolutionary turmoil. In less than 10 years Luther’s spiritual disposition had radically evolved from a masochistic Augustinian monk into a Germanic-tribe religious Chieftain.  It goes without saying that Western Christianity has never been the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes Luther’s theological wake:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luther the reformer had become Luther the revolutionary; the religious&#xA;  agitation had become a political rebellion. Luther's theological&#xA;  attitude at this time, as far as a formulated cohesion can be deduced,&#xA;  was as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;• The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary&#xA;  inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental&#xA;  character.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;• Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man,&#xA;  accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or&#xA;  bad, is not his own work, but God's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;• Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently&#xA;  believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a&#xA;  full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its&#xA;  penalties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;• The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or&#xA;  necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or&#xA;  useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications,&#xA;  monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the&#xA;  soul nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;• All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and&#xA;  penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;• The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body&#xA;  of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God&#xA;  is needless and a usurpation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;• There is no visible Church or one specially established by God&#xA;  whereby men may work out their salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Luther and the Eucharist&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By 1521, Luther had vehemently replaced the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm&quot;&gt;transubstantiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;strong&gt;which He considered to be the pagan brain child of Aristotelian Scholasticism&lt;/strong&gt;) with &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm&quot;&gt;consubstantiation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;. He taught that there is a change of the substance of the bread and wine, but emphasized that it is symbolical of our union with the spiritual body of Christ. This change must be interpreted not only sacramentally but spiritually and is aimed at the change of the natural man by a common life with Christ.  The sacramental change finds its fulfillment in the incorporation into Christ and fellowship with all Christians. However, all further considerations of just how the presence of Christ comes about are purposely omitted by Luther.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his &lt;em&gt;The Babylonian Captivity of the Church&lt;/em&gt;, he labels the doctrine of transubstantiation as the &quot;second captivity,” which the Roman Church imposes as a matter of faith.(6) Luther rejects it because it lacks the support of Scripture, of an approved revelation and of reason.  For himself, the literal sense of Scripture imposes the belief that the species do not change. He maintained that there is no peril of idolatry in the fact that the substance of bread remains because it is Christ that is adored and not the bread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To show the reasonableness of his stand against transubstantiation, Luther appeals to an example: &quot;Fire and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron that every part of it is both fire and iron. Why may not the glorious body of Christ much more be in every part of the substance of the bread?&quot;(7)  He sees a further analogy in the Hypostatic Union.9 The Divinity is not present under the accidents of the human nature in Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short summary, Luther’s argumentative reasoning for the rejection and denial of the Catholic definition of the Eucharist are as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Transubstantiation is not in accord with the Scriptures.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This dogma is a philosophical explanation based on Aristotelian metaphysics.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is unnecessary in view of the analogy with the Hypostatic Union and the omnipresence of the humanity of Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm&quot;&gt;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See H.W. Crocker III, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;See Phillip Hughes, A History of the Church: An Introductory Study, vol. 3, p. 520&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. October, 1520&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ibid.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-10-24T13:17:50.130" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T13:17:50.130" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20158" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-24T05:01:16.130" Score="29" ViewCount="96622" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, &amp;quot;Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?&amp;quot; that is, &amp;quot;My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of those who stood there, when they heard &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt;, said, &amp;quot;This Man is calling for Elijah!&amp;quot; (Matthew 27:46-47, NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to a number of sites, including &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus#Eli_Eli_lema_sabachthani_.28.CE.97.CE.BB.CE.AF_.CE.97.CE.BB.CE.AF_.CE.BB.CE.B9.CE.BC.CE.AC_.CF.83.CE.B1.CE.B2.CE.B1.CF.87.CE.B8.CE.B1.CE.BD.CE.AF.29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, the saying &amp;quot;Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani&amp;quot; (or in Mark's version &amp;quot;Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani&amp;quot;) was originally Aramaic:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;אלהי אלהי למא שבקתני.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Courtesy of Wikipedia&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, according to some other sites it is Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of which is right, I don't think it can be denied that the Jews mistook what he said. I used to take this to mean that he was speaking in a language they did not understand. However, as far as I know and have learned from our good friend Google, Jews at that time spoke both Hebrew &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; Aramaic (plus some Greek, and perhaps Latin).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How, then, did the Jews mistake his meaning?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-10-10T13:24:56.227" Title="Why didn't the Jews understand &quot;Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani&quot;?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;aramaic&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20129" CreationDate="2013-10-24T05:26:38.940" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reason why God created us with capability to sin.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created humans with capability to sin and that is an outcome of free will without which we would have been just robots doing what God wanted us to do.God is a personal being and the greatest passion of personal beings is the desire for personal relationships with other personal beings. Therefore, God, created us in such a way that He could have a meaningful, personal, and loving relationship with us. Nevertheless, this had a severe price.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise. If you have the capacity to, not to love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity and meaning. You cannot have a love relationship with a computer. It is pre-programmed to serve you. Without that choice, man would have been like puppets, able to do only what God wanted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God therefore wanted to demonstrate his glory through humans, by giving them their own free will. When he receives the glory and obedience from humans in spite of having with them the free will, it is an immense satisfaction for Him. God expects that His most important creature would give greater glory to Him by remaining obedient, in spite of having free will with them to disobey Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We cannot have free will without the capability of sinning.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Free will without the capability to sin could not be termed as free will. With free will there is always choice to choose evil as well as good.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you must be careful not to conflate independent will with a natural inclination to sin - for example, God has perfectly independent will, but it's not within his perfect nature to sin (indeed, since sin is fundamentally asserting your will over God's it's not possible by very definition for Him to sin)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it's our nature that decides what we choose to do and not the free will that we have. You may not inclined to do some of the things which are against your nature even though you have a free will to do everything and anything. If I say that you adopt a type of primitive belief system where they kill humans and drink their blood, you probably would not do so.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-11-07T10:38:10.560" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T10:38:10.560" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20162" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19786" CreationDate="2013-10-24T07:33:17.017" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;V.-Leader says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;R.-All say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. The Angel of the Lord brought the message to Mary,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. And she conceived from the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. See the servant of the Lord;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Do to me according to your Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. And the Word was made flesh,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. And lived among us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Pray for us, holy Mother of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. So that we will be made worthy of the promises of Christ.&#xA;  Let us pray: Lord, through the angel's message we have come to know that Christ your Son became human. We pray to You, pour Your grace into our hearts so that by His cross and suffering we will be brought to the glory of His rising from the dead, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R.Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another Revision is as:&#xA;[edit]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. And she was conceived by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Behold the handmaid of the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Be it done unto me according to thy Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. And the Word was made flesh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. And dwelt amongst us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;V. Let us pray: Pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord, your grace into our hearts, that we to whom the incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion and Cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection; through the same Christ our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;R. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prayer is a simple recitation of the Biblical Tradition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:28, 35, 42 (and end of Jeremiah 37:3) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:38&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;repeat Luke 1:42 &amp;amp; end of Jeremiah 37:3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;then John 1:14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;repeat Luke 1:42 &amp;amp; end of Jeremiah 37:3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 37:3 &amp;amp; Hebrews 13:18-19 &amp;amp; other places asking &quot;Pray for us&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:9-11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Almost any source on the subject introduces with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia&lt;/a&gt; quote &quot;The history of the Angelus is by no means easy to trace with confidence, and it is well to distinguish in this matter between what is certain and what is in some measure conjectural.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first record of such a prayer in writing comes from an Italian Franciscan monk Sinigardi di Arezzo (died 1282). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01486b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Angelus is used as the introduction to the Hail Marys in an 11th-century monastic custom of reciting three Hail Marys during the evening bell.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6268" LastEditorUserId="6268" LastEditDate="2013-10-24T07:38:18.020" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T07:38:18.020" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20164" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20170" CreationDate="2013-10-24T10:20:38.670" Score="11" ViewCount="18978" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Luke 12:51-53 Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but&#xA;  division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against&#xA;  each other, three against two and two against three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There must have been a larger point to this. What was the &lt;em&gt;division&lt;/em&gt; that he spoke of? I can't imagine it's as simple as separating the &quot;good&quot; from the &quot;bad&quot; since he often made it clear that God holds no distinction between those two types of people, and loves everyone equally and unconditionally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="280" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-30T02:34:57.640" LastActivityDate="2017-07-23T22:02:20.233" Title="Why did Jesus say he came to create division?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;division&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20167" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23156" CreationDate="2013-10-24T11:15:08.533" Score="6" ViewCount="1173" Body="&lt;p&gt;Today I heard an instructor (a monk) saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;At &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Constantinople&quot;&gt;The Third Council of Constantinople&lt;/a&gt;, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council by the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, met in 680/681 and condemned monoenergism and monothelitism as heretical and defined Jesus Christ as having two energies and two wills (divine and human).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he explained that Jesus had two wills, as a human, he was able to do the wrong or the right thing, he chose the right path, to show us that we could be just like him and follow the road to salvation. He also had the will of a God, because he is God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He added, we all have two wills, take saints as an example, they have the will of a human, they can make decisions, to do the wrong or the right thing, but when they become saints, they have the will of a saint, which is to be with God and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I asked him: well the devil was a spirit right? So he made the wrong decision and became a devil, in fact all devils were angels. Which poses two questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If Spirits/souls/angels (call them what you want) do think and make decisions, wouldn't be possible to someone in heaven, maybe a saint, to make a wrong decision and end up in hell, just like the devil?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If they don't think and don't make decisions, meaning that if you were a saint on earth, you'll be a saint forever. Then how did the devil make the wrong decision? Furthermore, how do spirits live in heaven or hell, as objects?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He said we'll discuss that later, let me finish the course, so I'm bringing this topic to here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6278" LastEditorUserId="6278" LastEditDate="2013-10-24T12:01:15.913" LastActivityDate="2019-05-25T13:02:16.977" Title="Do spirits/souls make decisions/think?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;afterlife&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20168" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5656" CreationDate="2013-10-24T12:31:20.587" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Having read the whole Bible twice, I don't remember seeing anywhere where there's one particular passage in the Bible that spells it out much above and beyond, &quot;If you sin, you deserve to go there, and God is just and perfect.&quot;  However being a Christian a long time, wondering about the same thing, and then seeing one particular explanation brought up a couple of different times, I think the following is the answer.  It does line up with the general message and nature of the Holy Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short Answer:  Essentially, punishment.  Justice.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Metaphor:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I were to walk down the street and just suddenly punch some random person, what are they going to be able to do to me in response to that?  Punch me back?  No big deal.  Even if it's illegal, if I punch another man once and leave it at that, I'm probably not going to jail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will go to jail, however, if I punch a cop.  And if I punch a high-ranking government official, it could get a whole lot worse than that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why?  It's the same act of wrongdoing, isn't it?  Shouldn't it be the same punishment in all three cases?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's because of varying levels of authority.  The more authority someone has, especially that they have over you, the more punishment is fair and just for you to endure for the same act of wrongdoing.  You will see earthly authorities taking this too far sometimes, but this holds true even without acts of abuse.  The more disregard to authority, the more dishonor, and for multiple reasons, the greater a just punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's authority:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of how much authority God has.  Infinitely much.  And He has infinitely much authority over all of creation.  So when something is done against Him, a just punishment would be of an infinite magnitude.  Some other religions talk about letting your good outweigh your bad or something like that, but given God's infinite authority, one bad thing is all that it takes for you to deserve an infinite punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's love:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, if this were all about revenge and hate, He wouldn't have sent his Son, would He?  And since Jesus and God are also the same person, as mentioned by the Gospel of John, you could also say that God Himself went through all that trouble to &lt;strong&gt;freely&lt;/strong&gt; give you forgiveness - not only salvation from hell, but also the gift of an eternity in heaven.  As for Satan and the fallen angels, there may or may not be some actual revenge there, but you have to remember that Jesus did not die for them, and there's almost definitely something extra going on with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yeah, &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; punishment, not revenge.  But God went out of His way to suffer and to create an escape from that punishment.  To take the punishment for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Purpose behind Hell:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hell serves to establish God's authority.  That is essentially its purpose.  God's authority is real and absolute, not just something on paper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However sending humans there was never the intention.  Going by the English Standard Version, Matthew 25:41 reads, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal&#xA;fire prepared for the devil and his angels.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though some humans, through forsaking the LORD and not receiving His forgiveness, essentially have to endure justice as a result, hell is for prepared for Satan and his angels &lt;strong&gt;instead&lt;/strong&gt;.  (The question is not splitting hairs between hell and Hades, and neither will this answer.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically just having hell there and letting it be a real consequence is enough though; if every single human being were to worship the LORD and receive His forgiveness, which is through Jesus Christ and through Him taking our place on the cross, then that still serves to establish His authority.  Hell would still be there as a very real consequence, sin would have still been infinitely punished on the cross through Jesus Christ's death, and God's forgiveness, salvation, and authority would still be very real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6017" LastEditorUserId="6017" LastEditDate="2013-10-27T22:36:34.963" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T22:36:34.963" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20170" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20164" CreationDate="2013-10-24T12:49:08.837" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Man was created for a loving relationship with God, therefore the first and greatest commandment: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 12:30 …thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do we love God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 1:5 …from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The division Christ speaks of is between those that love God and those that will not.  Those that want what God wants for their lives and those that want what they want for their lives.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T12:49:08.837" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20086" CreationDate="2013-10-24T12:55:08.830" Score="2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;To answer your title questions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question lacks the short and simple answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Schism means that you agree on doctrine but not on hierarchy.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heresy means you have rejected a defined doctrine of the Church.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means you can have people who have separated themselves from the Church but agree on doctrines (say, the SSPX), and you can have people who claim to be full members of the Church when they really teach something contrary to Christ (like Hans Küng).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther disagreed on some fundamental doctrines of the Church, therefore he was a heretic. He &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; separated himself from the Church, therefore he was schismatic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Were there any who were merely schismatic?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, I think Henry VIII actually fits this definition. The doctrines of the Church of England remained largely the same until after Henry died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What made Luther become a full heretic?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A large number of things, some personal, some theological. At a minimum, the 95 Theses demonstrate that he was not in agreement with the majority over the place of the papacy. It can also be argued that the concepts outlined in the 95 demonstrate a fundamental departure in an understanding of grace (such as the question, &quot;Why not simply empty purgatory?&quot;). However you interpret those facts, it is undeniable that by the time the Pope was threatening to excommunicate him (making him a clear schismatic), he was already well opposed to Catholic doctrines such as transubstantiation (On the Babylonian Captivity came out that same year). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, considering the timing &amp;mdash; three years from Augustinian monk to full out rejection of transubstantiation (transubstantiation had been an established doctrine for centuries before Luther was born) is not a very long time at all &amp;mdash; it is quite probable that the seeds of these disagreements were well established long before the 95 were posted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastEditorUserId="1748" LastEditDate="2013-10-24T13:29:18.820" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T13:29:18.820" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20158" CreationDate="2013-10-24T13:51:35.003" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the narrative is followed from verse 35, one will note that the Roman soldiers were present throughout, they “sitting down they watched him”.  Note not all but “some of them that stood there…said, this man calleth for Elias”.  Spoken by a Roman soldiers that did not know Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. &lt;strong&gt;And sitting down they watched him there&lt;/strong&gt;;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27:46…And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, &lt;strong&gt;This man calleth for Elias.And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar&lt;/strong&gt;, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27:54..Now when the &lt;strong&gt;centurion&lt;/strong&gt;, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, &lt;strong&gt;Truly this was the Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The comment came from the ones that &amp;quot;took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar&amp;quot;, a non-Jew!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 23:36 &amp;quot;And the &lt;strong&gt;soldiers&lt;/strong&gt; also mocked him, coming to him, and &lt;strong&gt;offering him vinegar&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-10-10T13:24:56.227" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20177" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20164" CreationDate="2013-10-24T14:39:15.297" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've often wondered about this passage.  I currently read it less as a mission statement and more of a prophetic warning about religious conflicts that will arise as a result of some people accepting Christianity and others rejecting it.  Jesus is warning his followers that following Him will not be easy, and that it may lead to conflicts even within single families.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T14:39:15.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20181" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20149" CreationDate="2013-10-24T15:23:15.327" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/study-guide/e/4999/t/the-other-woman.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Many&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://revelationmystery.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;see&lt;/a&gt; the Babylon as mentioned in Revelation 14, 17, 18 &amp;amp; 19 as the same.  The second link in that sentence actually contains a great DVD which has many scholars interviews on the subject such as &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Susanna Elm, D.Phil., UC Berkeley &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;David Trim, Ph.D., Newbold College&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Obery Hendricks, Jr., Ph.D., New York Theological Seminary &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Radio &amp;amp; TV evangelist Doug Batchelor and others&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are scholars from various different denominations.  Some of the reasons I see for connecting Babylon together throughout Revelation is...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It would be nearly impossible to identify Babylon in Revelation 14 in&#xA;just a few verses alone.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revelation 17 gives a great description of Babylon's religious&#xA;background, Revelation 18 describes that this entity must also have&#xA;commercial interests.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revelation 18-19 reveal the judgment that will fall on this entity&#xA;for it's sins, and it makes a gracious call for those in this entity&#xA;to come out of her (Revelation 18:4).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Bible does the same with the 144,000, they are mentioned briefly in Revelation 7, but Revelation 14 gives more detail.  This is done many times throughout the Bible, for example in the opening chapter of Genesis it gives us an overview of creation, then in goes back and gives more detail etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some brief Biblical identifying characteristics of Babylon in the book of Revelation....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She is a persecuting power who has killed Christians for she is &quot; drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus&quot; (Revelation 17:6)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;She is referred to as a woman (Revelation 17:4), and a woman in Bible prophecy represents a church for it is written &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I have likened the daughter of Zion To a lovely and delicate woman.&quot;&#xA;  (Jeremiah 6:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Christ the bridegroom is coming for His bride the church (Ephesians 5, John 3:29-30)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;She is referred to as a &quot;great harlot&quot; (Revelation 17:1) the meaning is given in Hosea 1:2 which says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry And children of harlotry, For&#xA;  the land has committed great harlotry By departing from the LORD.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;She continues until the end of time on this earth for she receives her punishment during the seven last plagues (Revelation 18-19)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we are looking for a church, that professes to be Christian, but has fallen away, that has persecuted and killed Christians.  This church is still around today.  Also we are given another clue which says &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the&#xA;  kings of the earth&quot; (Revelation 17:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During the time the book of Revelation was written, Rome was that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.  Thus we are looking for a Christian church in Rome, that continues till the end of time, that has fallen away from God, and has persecuted and martyred Christians.  This can only be the Roman Catholic Church.  Also the church of Rome is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/21/vatican-secret-property-empire-mussolini&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;heavily involved in commercial enterprises fulfilling Revelation 18&lt;/a&gt;. In case someone thinks I am bashing Roman Catholics &lt;strong&gt;not so&lt;/strong&gt; for it is written &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Come out of her, &lt;strong&gt;my people&lt;/strong&gt;, lest you share in her sins, and lest&#xA;  you receive of her plagues.&quot; (Revelation 18:4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus many of God's people are still in the Roman Catholic Church, but they  must come out before the final crisis lest they share in her sins.  It's also noted that Babylon has daughters (other churches) for she is referred to as a mother (Revelation 17:5).  Thus she is the mother church but there are other churches that follow her that would also make up Babylon.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5362" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T15:23:15.327" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20182" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20189" CreationDate="2013-10-24T15:25:50.440" Score="9" ViewCount="551" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a standard version of the Bible, compared to which, all other versions would be considered either translations or paraphrases? If yes, when was the standardization done? And how common is it to study that Bible? And is it accepted across different denominations of Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3607" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2016-05-08T15:18:52.513" LastActivityDate="2016-05-08T15:18:52.513" Title="Is there a standard version of the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20182" CreationDate="2013-10-24T15:34:31.393" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The standard resides in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  While there are, admittedly, small variances in the Greek manuscripts (New Testament) in particular, these variances are completely insignificant, consisting mostly of spelling variances for proper names, word order, and very slight verb tense differences, which happen to translate the same into English anyway.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most advanced students of the Bible will learn Greek at least and oftentimes Hebrew as well and reference the original languages.  My pastor translates each passage from scratch whenever he preaches on a New Testament text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T15:34:31.393" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20184" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20380" CreationDate="2013-10-24T15:36:19.310" Score="4" ViewCount="220" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know people who believe the bible is true and authoritative, and insist you get best meaning from King James Version. At the same time, I've heard a pastor quoted as saying, &quot;You can trust the bible, just not the one you've got,&quot; implying it was true and authoritative, just not necessarily in the English versions we carry around.  Further still I've met theological-liberals who say things like &quot;Bible contains the Word of God.&quot; I'm not interested in debating the merits of any approach.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the terms used to describe the main schools of thought? I'm particularly interested in the flavors of &quot;literalism&quot;, if there are any objectively-describable differences in camps here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2212" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T12:26:46.067" Title="What's a list of theological terms to describe how one approaches the bible?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="19" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-10-30T15:43:32.787" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4986" CreationDate="2013-10-24T15:44:20.307" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;It would make sense angels have wings if you are to accept that cherubim and seraphim are indeed angels. I don't. You are hard pressed to find anything in Scripture that indicates they are. It just isn't there. C andS beings are not messengers, comforters or have any attributes of the other angels except to say they worship and obey God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The common accounts of angels (not C or S) never mention angels having wings. As a matter of fact they were always mentioned as being who appeared as though they are human. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How much sense would it make for Paul to implore his readers to be kind to everyone because they never know when they are entertaining angels? If an angels is standing beside me with wings, I think I would have inkling there might be an angelic being in front of me.​​​​​​&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the statement angels are &quot;floating&quot; proves they have wings, then you have to assume to the same for Jesus after he ascended into heaven or wings were needed for Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6299" LastEditorUserId="102" LastEditDate="2015-06-11T03:58:31.277" LastActivityDate="2015-06-11T03:58:31.277" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20186" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7441" CreationDate="2013-10-24T16:37:32.247" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches are named after saints. The Reformed (Calvinistic) Churches, which theologically are very much the same as the Presbyterians (just historical differences, Presbyterianism born in the British Isles and Reformed Churches in the European Continent) very rarely have churches with name of saints, and I think (not sure) only in the United States. You can do that exercise: google &quot;Saint (one very well known like Paul, or the evangelists) (succesively write Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed) Church&quot;, and you will find lots of web sites of these churches. The Congregational churches are now part of the UNited Church of Christ so you must write &quot;Saint (famous) United Church of Christ&quot;. Remember that denominations with British (Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian) origins also have their patron saints (Saint George, Saint Andrew, Saint Patrick). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6300" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T16:37:32.247" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20164" CreationDate="2013-10-24T17:04:10.473" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ was prophesizing the severe punishment Israel was going to face which happened during Jewish Wars (66-70 AD). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The generation of Jews during the time of Jesus was extremely evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see Jesus calling them &quot;wicked (or sinful) and adulterous generation.&quot; (Matthew 12:39, Matthew 16:4, Mark 8:38, etc.). We also see Jesus calling people in that generation that their father is devil (John 8:44) due to their evil nature. We also see Both Jesus Christ and John the Baptist calling them &quot;offspring of vipers&quot; (Matthew 23, Luke 3).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even Jewish Priest Josephus agrees with Jesus on the wickedness of that generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I shall therefore speak my mind here at once briefly: — that neither did any other city suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world.&quot; (Jewish Wars V, 10:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all know that Jesus Christ came to forgive those who repent. But Jesus Christ also came to judge those who didn't repent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 12:51-53 can also be read in Matthew 10:34-36.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 10:34-36 (NIV) - &quot;Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;A man's enemies will be the members of his own household&quot; - This can also be read when Jesus Christ prophesized about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the city of temple of Jerusalem in Mark 13, Luke 21.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 13:12-13 (NIV) - &quot;Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 21:16-19 (NIV) - &quot;You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. Everyone will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. Stand firm, and you will win life.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T17:04:10.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20158" CreationDate="2013-10-24T17:53:13.313" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Eli Eli lama sabachthani?&quot; is Greek transliteration of Aramaic words. If it was Hebrew, then azabthani would have been used instead of Aramaic word &quot;Sabachthani.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check this link for Hebrew NT of Matthew 27.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Matthew_27.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Matthew_27.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrew, &quot;Eli Eli lama sabachthani?&quot; will become &quot;Eliy ‘Eliy lamah `azab’taniy?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an explanation I found on why people thought Jesus was calling for Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus Christ was suffering horrendous pain for about SIX HOURS. He called out for “Eli”, His exhaustion and heavy breathing could have caused Him to add an “ah” on the end. Try talking when you have gone for a long run and you’ll see what I mean. “Eli-ah” sounds a lot like “Eliyah” does it not?&quot; (Source - &lt;a href=&quot;http://ellhn.e-e-e.gr/books/assets/NewTestament.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://ellhn.e-e-e.gr/books/assets/NewTestament.pdf&lt;/a&gt; on Page. 52)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eliya (also written as Eliyah in English) is Aramaic for &quot;Elijah.&quot; (Source - Mark 15:35 of Aramaic Peshitta New Testament)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also want to point out that the spoken language of first century Israel was Aramaic. Not Hebrew or Greek. This is confirmed by New Testament and Jewish Historian Josephus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Historian Josephus states that Jews didn't speak Greek in first century Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Historian Josephus wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods&lt;/strong&gt;; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; &lt;strong&gt;on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; - Antiquities of Jews XX, XI&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1) - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, &lt;strong&gt;to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians&lt;/strong&gt;. Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also note the names in English Bible of New Testament - &quot;Bar&quot;tholomew, &quot;Bar&quot;abbas, &quot;Bar&quot;nabbas, &quot;Bar&quot;sabbas, &quot;Bar&quot; Jesus, Simon &quot;Bar&quot; Jonah, &quot;Bar&quot; Timaeus, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic word Bar means Son. In Hebrew, Ben means Son. For example, Benjamin in Old Testament, and First Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 1:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;And it became known to &lt;strong&gt;all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Akel dama&quot; is Greek transliteration of Aramaic words &quot;Khqel Dama.&quot; &quot;Khqel Dama&quot; is also written as Hakel Dama in English.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We clearly see &quot;Field of Blood&quot; was called &quot;Khqel Dama&quot; by &lt;strong&gt;all the inhabitants of Jerusalem in their own language which is Aramaic&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I translate aramaic words &quot;Khqel Dama&quot; into Hebrew, then &quot;Khqel Dama&quot; will become &quot;Sh'deh Hadam.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through this, we can read that all inhabitants of Jerusalem spoke in their own language in first century AD which was Aramaic. If Hebrew was used as spoken language in first century Israel, then &quot;Sh'deh Hadam&quot; would have been mentioned along with &quot;Khqel Dama&quot; (a.k.a akel dama in Greek and English NT) in Acts 1:19.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the link to Acts Chapter 1 (Hebrew translation from Greek)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Acts_1.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Acts_1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will see &quot;s'deh Hadam&quot; at the end of Acts 1:19. To match the words, see S'deh (Green color) and Field (Green Color). Hadam (in purple color) and Blood (in purple color).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus' Antiquities of Jews 3:32 - Now the Hebrews call this food manna; for the particle man, &lt;strong&gt;in our language&lt;/strong&gt;, is the asking of a question, What is this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Man&quot; is Aramaic. In Hebrew, Aramaic word &quot;Man&quot; will become &quot;Mah&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist, Yigael Yadin, Aramaic was the language of Jews until Simon bar Kokhba tried to revive Hebrew and make Hebrew as the official language of Jews during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD). Yigael Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew during the time of Bar Kokhba revolt (132 - 135 AD). In Yigael Yadin's book &quot;Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome&quot;, Yadin notes, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;It is interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew. Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar-Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state&quot; (page 181).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Book &quot;A Roadmap to the Heavens: An Anthropological Study of Hegemony among Priests, Sages, and Laymen (Judaism and Jewish Life)&quot; by Sigalit Ben-Zion (Page 155), Yadin remarked: &quot;&lt;strong&gt;it seems that this change came as a result of the order that was given by Bar Kokhba, who wanted to revive the Hebrew language and make it the official language of the state&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Book &quot;Naming the Witch: Magic, Ideology, and Stereotype in the Ancient World&quot; written by Kimberly B. Stratton (p. 232), Yadin suggests that Bar Kokhba was trying to revive Hebrew by decree as part of his messianic ideology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2014-05-25T15:04:29.547" LastActivityDate="2014-05-25T15:04:29.547" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20189" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20182" CreationDate="2013-10-24T18:03:44.247" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There isn't any one standard copy of the Bible. There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;several copies&lt;/a&gt; of the books of the Bible primarily in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic that are used together when translating the Bible. Which books are canonical was decided over several centuries by different groups, a process that wasn't finalized until well into the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;16th century&lt;/a&gt;. Each part of the Bible was standardized at a different time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The oldest established section are the 5 books of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Torah&lt;/a&gt;. They were canonized sometime before &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Origins_of_the_Bible/Other_Ancient_Texts/Bible_as_Ancient_Literature/Canonization.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;444 BCE&lt;/a&gt; but possibly around the 7th to 6th century BCE. The prophets - Joshua, Judges, 1 &amp;amp; 2 Samuel, 1 &amp;amp; 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and 12 more - were also established sometime around the 4th century BCE. There's no agreed upon date for when the remainder of the Old Testament books, called the writings, were established for Judaism. They were still disputed as late as the 2nd century CE. Some of them were included - Ruth, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, etc - while others were not - Tobit, Judith, Macabees, etc. However they were still in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Septuagint&lt;/a&gt;, that was used widely by early Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament was compiled over a few centuries and was informally agreed upon as early as the 4th century CE but there wasn't a formally approved canon for Roman Catholics until the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Council of Trent&lt;/a&gt; in 1546. Trent included 45 books from the Septuigant, the 37 in the Hebrew Bible and 8 deuterocannonical books as the Old Testament plus 27 books in the New Testament. Martin Luther's translation listed the deuterocanonicals under a separate heading in 1543 and the Westminister confession excluded them completely in 1647.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-05-07T10:37:59.563" LastActivityDate="2016-05-07T10:37:59.563" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5052" CreationDate="2013-10-24T18:19:30.427" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Orthodox Church is older than the Catholic Church. They broke away from us; we didn't break away from them. However, the Orthodox Church will still respect them as Christian brothers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6302" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-10-24T19:10:38.530" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T19:10:38.530" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5281" CreationDate="2013-10-24T20:30:25.153" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, I should make it clear that I am not Catholic, it's just that Thomas Aquinas' &lt;em&gt;Summa Contra Gentiles&lt;/em&gt; is the most cogent explanation for the doctrine of divine simplicity I've seen. Yes, it is panentheism, but if you run a search for &quot;biblical panentheism&quot; you will find no less than 17 verses in the Bible that can be interpreted as being wholly consistent with panentheism. In my view, if we accept that God is truly infinite, panentheism and God's volitional self-limitation is unavoidable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of divine simplicity is, to me, the most coherent theological position I've come across. I've seen the arguments against it, but if the Father is infinite and eternal, to deny the possibility of his volitional self-limitation amounts to a denial of the concept of his volitional absoluteness. There are many conceptual difficulties with this, but I am not willing to surrender my belief in the logical necessity of the eternity, immutability and infinity of God or his volitional absoluteness for the sake of simplicity. For example, if true, Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature. This might seem to distance God from man. But although it is not easy to grasp, Aquinas explains it in a way that makes God feel closer than my own breath. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get &lt;em&gt;Summa Contra Gentiles&lt;/em&gt; in PDF format here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicprimer.org/aquinas/aquinas_summa_contra_gentiles.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://catholicprimer.org/aquinas/aquinas_summa_contra_gentiles.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6303" LastActivityDate="2013-10-24T20:30:25.153" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20195" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20201" CreationDate="2013-10-25T00:05:06.717" Score="5" ViewCount="794" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been talking with friends about different methods of contraception and the relationship of the Catholic church towards them. If I understand correctly, most widespread means of contraception (birth control pills, condoms etc.) are not acceptable as they contradict God's will (e.g. see Genesis 9:7).&#xA;However does this mean that one should try to have children by all means? If not, why not? &lt;s&gt;Would Catholics be obligated to use Viagra, if it aided them to conceive a child?&lt;/s&gt; Wouldn't it be a moral obligation to use more invasive methods as in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think it boils down to the question, if God wants man to reproduce (as much as they can?) or if that should only happen with the available means without medical help. However then any medical help that prevents one from dying during childhood is artifically helping you to reproduce.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We merely had an amusing conversation about the topic and thought this was a funny provocative question to ask a Catholic. However I am seriously interested in an answer as I had not come across this question before and I'd be interested how it would be approached by someone with more insight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question was split in two and the striked-out part has been moved to: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20308/what-is-the-catholic-churchs-attitude-to-the-use-of-viagra-in-marriage&quot;&gt;What is the Catholic Church&amp;#39;s attitude to the use of Viagra in marriage?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1823" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2015-01-22T20:02:22.857" Title="Should Catholic christians be obligated to use in vitro fertilisation? If not, why not?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;contraception&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20196" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-25T00:44:53.477" Score="4" ViewCount="688" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm doing a research paper on Pope Francis, and I need to know from a Catholic's view how Pope Francis's popularity ranks over Pope Benedict XVI's. Can you help?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6306" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-10-25T03:44:12.543" LastActivityDate="2013-12-15T04:17:53.587" Title="How does Pope Francis's popularity compare to Pope Benedict XVI's?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-12-16T18:35:16.317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20198" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-25T02:37:41.443" Score="2" ViewCount="1033" Body="&lt;p&gt;Saint Pio (Pius) of Pietrelcina, O.F.M. Cap. (May 25, 1887 – September 23, 1968) was a Capuchin Catholic priest from Italy who is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is claimed that no more than Anecdotal evidence supports Pio’s alleged mystical abilities. Some of his bilocations are consistent with hallucinations and the supposed odor of sanctity was purported to be Eau de Cologne. He was never watched continually to ensure that chemicals like carbolic acid or iodine were not used to prevent wounds from healing, as has been claimed. Pio over many years wore fingerless gloves which concealed his wounds or prevented him having to tend to the wounds. Near his death Pio avoided covering his hands and there was no sign of injury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The founder of Milan's Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, friar, physician and psychologist Agostino Gemelli, who met Padre Pio once, for a few minutes, but was unable to examine his stigmata, concluded Padre Pio was &amp;quot;an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity.&amp;quot;[16] In short, he was accused of infractions against all three of his monastic vows: poverty, chastity and obedience.Agostino Gemelli also speculated that Padre Pio kept his wounds open with carbolic acid. As a result of the Gemelli assessment, the wounds were wrapped in cloth. According to believers, the bleeding continued for some 50 years until they closed within hours of his death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On 29 July 1960, an Italian monsignore, Carlo Maccari, who later became the archbishop of Ancona, began yet another investigation on behalf of Pope John XXIII and the Holy Office. The 200-page report he compiled, though never published in full, is said to be devastatingly critical. Vatican gossip long had it that the “Maccari dossier” was an insuperable obstacle to Padre Pio’s sainthood. According to official Capuchin literature, however, Maccari later recanted and prayed to Padre Pio on his deathbed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 1940, Padre Pio began plans to open a hospital in San Giovanni Rotondo, to be named the Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza or &amp;quot;Home to Relieve Suffering&amp;quot;. The hospital opened in 1956. Barbara Ward, a British humanitarian and journalist on assignment in Italy, played a major role in obtaining for this project a grant of $325,000 from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In order that Padre Pio might directly supervise this project, Pope Pius XII, in 1957 granted him dispensation from his vow of poverty. Padre Pio's detractors used this project as another weapon to attack him, charging him with misappropriation of funds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Padre Pio was subject to numerous investigations. Fearing local riots, a plan to transfer Padre Pio to another friary was dropped and a second plan was aborted when a riot almost happened. In the period from 1924 to 1931 the Holy See made various statements denying that the happenings in the life of Padre Pio were due to any divine cause. At one point, he was prevented from publicly performing his priestly duties, such as hearing confessions and saying Mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By 1933, the tide began to turn, with Pope Pius XI ordering the Holy See to reverse its ban on Padre Pio’s public celebration of Mass. The Pope said, &amp;quot;I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed.&amp;quot;In 1934, he was again allowed to hear confessions. He was also given honorary permission to preach despite never having taken the exam for the preaching licence. Pope Pius XII, who assumed the papacy in 1939, encouraged devotees to visit Padre Pio. According to a recent book, Pope John XXIII (1958–1963) apparently did not espouse the outlook of his predecessors, and wrote in 1960 of Padre Pio’s “immense deception.&amp;quot; However, it was John XXIII's successor, Pope Paul VI, who, in the mid-1960s, firmly dismissed all accusations against Padre Pio.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pietrelcina&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;[Wikipedia]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: Can anyone explain Pope Paul VI's arguments in favor of Padre Pio?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-03-10T17:23:17.393" Title="Can anyone explain Pope Paul VI's arguments in favor of Padre Pio?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;saint&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20195" CreationDate="2013-10-25T04:24:59.247" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not a Catholic and by no means an expert, but my understanding is that the Catholic argument against artificial means of conceiving is the same as the argument against euthenasia: that it's tantamount to &amp;quot;playing God.&amp;quot;  Matters of life and death are in God's hands; the Catholic position is that we aren't supposed to take them into our own hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Donum vitae II,4.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(55) The doctor is at the service of persons and of human procreation. He does not have the authority to dispose of them or to decide their fate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally performed&amp;quot;,(56) On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a medical procedure technologically replaces the conjugal act in order to obtain a procreation which is neither its result nor its fruit. In this case the medical act is not, as it should be, at the service of conjugal union but rather appropriates to itself the procreative function and thus contradicts the dignity and the inalienable rights of the spouses and of the child to be born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-01-22T20:02:22.857" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20200" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20129" CreationDate="2013-10-25T07:37:45.847" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The short answer is, He didn't. The question makes sense only if we think of God as an utterly and absolutely transcendent being who is directly responsible for us being the way we are. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is infinite, &quot;and in him is no darkness at all.&quot; (1 John 1:5) There is &quot;One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.&quot; (Ephesians 4:6) It seems it would be better to ask why we don't hear God's &quot;voice.&quot; The answer to that is quite simple: we are too occupied with temporal decisions having to do with the material problems of our animal side of existence to hear it. A finite and incomplete existent in the presence of the Infinite constitutes a relativity of reality, creates necessity for intellectual choosing, and establishes gradations of spirit recognition and response. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we take the verse from Ephesians (among others) seriously, then we have reason to believe that God is different than man in degree but not in kind; that we are &lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt; made in the image of God. It is even fair to say that we are gods in embryonic form. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6303" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T07:37:45.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20201" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20195" CreationDate="2013-10-25T08:15:17.877" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;tl;dr&amp;gt; &lt;strong&gt;The Church opposes &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt; fertilisation,&lt;/strong&gt; but not because it is humanity playing at being God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first port of call in determining what the Catholic Church teaches is always the Catechism. If question can be answered by fundamental principles, the answer is likely to be found there. So: first it's necessary to examine the fundamental principles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catechism states&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1753&lt;/a&gt; A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1754&lt;/a&gt; The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1755&lt;/a&gt; A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting &amp;quot;in order to be seen by men&amp;quot;).&#xA;The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though the creation of life is good, it cannot justify a sinful method.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt; fertilisation a sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6B.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1852&lt;/a&gt; There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. the Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: &amp;quot;Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;127&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1849&lt;/a&gt; Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as &amp;quot;an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;121&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt; fertilisation contrary to the eternal law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eternal law is “the source — in God — of all law”. It finds its expression in what is called &lt;em&gt;moral law&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6T.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1952&lt;/a&gt; There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In vitro&lt;/em&gt; fertilisation is obviously an intervention designed to overcome what is seen to be a defect — the inability to conceive naturally. But this condition is part of God's plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6P.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1936&lt;/a&gt; On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; The &amp;quot;talents&amp;quot; are not distributed equally.&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6P.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;1937&lt;/a&gt; These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular &amp;quot;talents&amp;quot; share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I distribute the virtues quite diversely; I do not give all of them to each person, but some to one, some to others.... I shall give principally charity to one; justice to another; humility to this one, a living faith to that one.... and so I have given many gifts and graces, both spiritual and temporal, with such diversity that I have not given everything to one single person, so that you may be constrained to practice charity towards one another.... I have willed that one should need another and that all should be my ministers in distributing the graces and gifts they have received from me.&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ability to create life &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt; may also be seen as a talent not given to everyone, to be shared with those who need it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So: both infertility and the ability to counter it appear to be God-given. The one is the result of Original Sin whereby imperfection entered the world, and which it is part of the human condition to bear. The other may be given for temporal alleviation prior to eternal bliss where there shall be neither tears nor crying&lt;sup&gt;A&lt;/sup&gt;; or it too is sinful &lt;strong&gt;because&lt;/strong&gt; it counters God's plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well done for reading this far; unfortunately &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt; fertilisation appears to fall between two fundamental principles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has recognised this dichotomy in an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Instruction&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a position to act.&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The artificial creation of life is not inherently wrong. &lt;strong&gt;But&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conception &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt; is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET&lt;sup&gt;B&lt;/sup&gt;, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become &amp;quot;cooperators with God for giving life to a new person&amp;quot;.&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;way&lt;/strong&gt; in which artificial fertilisation and the methods associated with &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt; creation of life &lt;strong&gt;can be&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;are&lt;/strong&gt; inherently wrong. The expression of sperm is generally outside the conjugal act and “is another sign of this dissociation [between the unitive act of love and the act of procreation]: even when it is done for the purpose of procreation, the act remains deprived of its unitive meaning: ‘It lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love”’.&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A procedure included in most implementations of IVF is the disposal of surplus embryos. That is, once life is created in the zygote with the fertilisation, any which are “not required” are destroyed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To destroy life is repugnant to the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the while it is impossible to unite the methods of IVF with conjugal union,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remain opposed from the moral point of view to homologous &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt; fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; CDF &lt;em&gt;Declaration on Procured Abortion,&lt;/em&gt; 12-13: AAS 66 (1974) 738.&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; Cf Matt 6:24&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; Cf &lt;em&gt;Gaudium et Spes&lt;/em&gt; 29 # 2.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; Cf Matt 25:14–30; Luke 19:27&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt; S Catherine of Siena, &lt;em&gt;Dial.&lt;/em&gt; I, 7.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt; Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation &lt;em&gt;Familiaris Consortio.&lt;/em&gt; 14: AAS 74 (1982) 96.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt; CDF &lt;em&gt;Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual ethics,&lt;/em&gt; 9: AAS 68 (1976) 86: &lt;em&gt;Gaudium et Spes,&lt;/em&gt; 51. Cf. &lt;em&gt;Decree of the Holy Office,&lt;/em&gt; 2 August 1929: AAS 21 (1929) 490; Pope Pius XII, &lt;em&gt;Discourse to those taking part in the 26th Congress of the Italian Society of Urology,&lt;/em&gt; 8 October 1953: AAS 45 (1953) 678.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;121&lt;/sup&gt; S Augustine, &lt;em&gt;Contra Faustum&lt;/em&gt; 22: PL 42, 418; S Thomas Aquinas, &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt; I-II, 71, 6&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;127&lt;/sup&gt; Gal 5:19-21 CE; Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 9-10; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5-8; 1 Tim 9-10; 2 Tim 2-5.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;A&lt;/sup&gt; Cf Rev 21:4&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;B&lt;/sup&gt; Homologous (between husband and wife) &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt; fertilisation and embryo transfer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T08:20:58.840" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20202" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20167" CreationDate="2013-10-25T10:32:20.217" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When thinking about angels the scripture does not provide details of how they followed the Devil's pride in rebellion to God. However the two things it does it impress upon us is that &lt;strong&gt;they fell together&lt;/strong&gt;. In other words God allowed something to test them and this split the good angels from the evil ones accordingly.  &lt;em&gt;As God is omnipotent he is perfectly able to test the will of a creature and then prevent all future tests and temptations ensuring they are forever protected by the measure of godliness that he has filled them with, securing the boundary of their own volition within his boundless glory&lt;/em&gt;. This does not mean they are now robots it just means they are protected. It means they only make free choices that are not harmful to themselves, a heavenly freedom from earthly bondage including the tyranny of the Devil, sin and death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we turn to humans its all different.   &lt;strong&gt;Each human is born from another human, so individual testing could not occur all at once to winnow out the good and the bad.&lt;/strong&gt; Furthermore due to the fall of mankind in Adam in some sense everyone failed the test in Adam. This means the choice was no longer possible accept under a redemption plan whereby our choice is enabled.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once in heaven the same reality applies to saints as it does to angels. God is able to protect us from the type of test that fell upon the angels and he can do this forever and ever. This is clearly implied by the fact that saints inherit 'eternal life', not merely the 'potential' of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T10:32:20.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20203" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20129" CreationDate="2013-10-25T10:33:44.710" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Bible or any other scripture tells that God Created the man  With Evil Nature&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:27 says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; &#xA;male and female he created them.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he pour his spirit to man. If we go back to the stage of Adam,  His life life was holy ans no sin, We can see that in scripture. Spirit of Evil can come to our body, so we are becoming Evil nature. Whenever you will have a sinful nature evil can come there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created Human like him only. Like Holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;          See again Genesis 1:26&#xA;    Then God said, &quot;Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, &#xA;    so that they may rule over the fish in the sea&#xA; and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that &#xA;    move along the ground.&quot;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6297" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T10:33:44.710" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20206" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-25T10:56:55.330" Score="-1" ViewCount="95" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did the stone in front of the tomb roll away or as in Greek terms it was Sizmos or fly away, from the front of the tomb?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6308" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-10-25T12:46:09.320" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T14:31:59.740" Title="The stone in front of our Lord's Tomb" Tags="&lt;kjv&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20209" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-25T11:26:09.010" Score="-3" ViewCount="88" Body="&lt;p&gt;Now a Days we can see the Independent Pentecostal churches all over the world. I want to know &#xA;When these Pentecost people raised ???? till 19th century there is o news about that people&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6297" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T10:24:23.437" Title="How and when Pentecost People raised in this world recently" Tags="&lt;pentecost&gt;&lt;pentecostalism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-10-28T13:15:20.717" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20206" CreationDate="2013-10-25T11:51:58.573" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;An Angel moved it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28:2&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:2&lt;/a&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There was a violent earthquake, for &lt;strong&gt;an angel of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt; came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, &lt;strong&gt;rolled back the stone&lt;/strong&gt; and sat on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Footnote: the other Gospels (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:4&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;Mark&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:2&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;Luke&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:1&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;John&lt;/a&gt;) only mention that the stone was moved, but not by whom.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T11:51:58.573" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20212" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20182" CreationDate="2013-10-25T13:23:23.043" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to keep in mind that the Bible is a collection of books and not one single book.  Therefore, there are standard versions of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible#Table&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bible per denomination.&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There have been many attempts canonize the Bible which have had a lot of success.  However it's still far from standardized.  Taking is a step further, the translations and transliterations are also a concern.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first attempt was the Septuagint which was more of an exercise of translating Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek.  Which then became a &quot;canon&quot; for the Greek speaking people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first &quot;Christian&quot; canon was in 140AD and it was called &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Marcion of Sinope&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The big attempts are mentioned by @crownjewl82.  There are also specific &quot;canons&quot; for Latter Day Saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, to directly answer your question, &quot;Is there any standard version of Bible?&quot;.  Assuming that the context is the entire world and everyone in it... &quot;no&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T13:23:23.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20216" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-25T14:04:24.980" Score="0" ViewCount="152" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm trying to understand what the correct understanding would be according to Catholic teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I understand the concept of Trinity is 3 persons who are one and the same.  Is this correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from this understanding, would you say God(Father) sent Jesus or would you say God(Father) is Jesus also?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was reading a catholic website and it was describing their beliefs and it mentioned that Jesus will sit at the right hand of God(Father).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is Jesus God or not?  And is he All-Knowing like God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5886" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T15:45:11.357" Title="Clarifications on the concept of Trinity according to Catholic creed" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-10-26T05:11:21.147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20217" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20182" CreationDate="2013-10-25T14:17:49.077" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is more tangentially related to the question, but in a sense, there are authoritative collections.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to point out that certain translations are considered definitive, though these are much more subject to linguistic evolution. For a long time, the Authorized Version (otherwise known as the King James) was the de facto standard bible translation in English (and modern versions like the NIV and the NRSV are heavily influenced by the KJV). The Vulgate serve that purpose in Latin, and the Septuagint serves that purpose in the Orthodox Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1748" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T14:17:49.077" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20216" CreationDate="2013-10-25T14:25:08.407" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From what I understand the concept of Trinity is 3 persons who are one and the same. Is this correct?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. But your statement is incomplete. Trinity is 3 persons who are one and the same &lt;strong&gt;God&lt;/strong&gt; NOT one and the same &lt;strong&gt;person&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So from this understanding, would you say God(Father) sent Jesus or would you say God(Father) is Jesus also?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholics claim God the Father sent Jesus. They do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; say God the Father is Jesus, because Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is Jesus God or not? And is he All-Knowing like God?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is God and so he is omniscience (knows everything that there is to know).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume the distinction and the similarity between the three persons of the trinity is causing you confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;251&lt;/sup&gt; In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: 'substance', 'person/hypostasis', 'relation'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;252&lt;/sup&gt;The Church uses&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the term 'substance' (rendered also at times by 'essence' or 'nature') to designate the divine being in its unity,&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the term 'person' or 'hypostasis' to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the term 'relation' to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;253&lt;/sup&gt;The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the 'consubstantial Trinity'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;254/255&lt;/sup&gt; The divine persons are really distinct from one another and are relative to one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(From CCC)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T15:45:11.357" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20206" CreationDate="2013-10-25T14:31:59.740" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 28:2 uses the word απεκυλισεν (&lt;em&gt;apekulisen&lt;/em&gt;, rolls away).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Mark 16:4 uses the word αποκεκυλισται (&lt;em&gt;apokekulistai&lt;/em&gt;, has been rolled away).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Luke 24:2 uses the word αποκεκυλισμενον (&lt;em&gt;apokekulismenon&lt;/em&gt;, having been rolled away).&lt;br&gt;&#xA;John 20:1 uses the word ηρμενον (&lt;em&gt;ermenon&lt;/em&gt;, having been lifted/taken away).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No mention of flying, and the word &quot;lifted&quot; only indicates that the stone was taken from one place and put in another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reference: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Greek Interlinear Bible&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T14:31:59.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20220" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20253" CreationDate="2013-10-25T14:50:29.810" Score="3" ViewCount="448" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do one get to be in Christ? Is it same as to be righteous before God? I consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:1&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:1&lt;/a&gt; as axiom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4380" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-22T00:38:14.410" LastActivityDate="2016-08-31T20:12:32.627" Title="How do you get to be in Christ?" Tags="&lt;romans&gt;&lt;righteousness&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-06-29T05:30:05.487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20220" CreationDate="2013-10-25T14:54:10.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's just an alternative way to express that you have accepted Christ as Savior.  It generally is used communally --&quot;together in Christ&quot; -- representing the way Christian belief unifies us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T14:54:10.137" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2013-10-25T14:56:57.293" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rock symbolizes Jesus Christ who is to be crucified once.&#xA;Striking the rock symbolizes crucifying Jesus Christ.&#xA;After crucifying Jesus Christ (striking the rock), we ought to speak (pray) for solutions.&#xA;However, Moses did strike (crucify) again and again! &#xA;No one can ever or should never try to change the plans of God!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6311" LastEditorUserId="6311" LastEditDate="2013-10-25T15:04:39.477" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T15:04:39.477" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20223" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-25T15:09:23.813" Score="5" ViewCount="1570" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-24.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 15:24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is safe to say he was rejected by the Jewish people (in general, excluding the few who may have believed he was legitimate)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means who ever did not follow Jesus from the lost sheep of Israel are considered unbelievers and will be in Hell forever correct?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;From a Catholic perspective.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5886" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-01-11T05:11:45.483" LastActivityDate="2017-01-11T05:11:45.483" Title="Jesus said he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, so what is their destiny, according to Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;israel&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20223" CreationDate="2013-10-25T16:11:14.660" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There were quite a few Jewish followers of Jesus from the very beginning.  Immediately after the resurrection, the Bible records 3,000 Jews becoming believers in a single day.  1 and 2 Peter were both written primarily to Jewish believers as was &quot;Hebrews&quot;, obviously.  So, there were a good number of Jews who did believe in Jesus at the outset.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true, though, that may rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and this has been true throughout history.  Both Jews and Gentiles reject Jesus.  However, in the last 50 years, it is true that the number of Jewish believers has exploded.  There are an estimated 150 Messianic Jewish congregations in Israel today with 20,000 Jewish believers.  This is four times as many as there were in 1997. &lt;a href=&quot;http://jewishisrael.ning.com/page/statistics-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question, however, really centers on what happens to those who reject Jesus.  The answer to this does not differ based on whether one is a Jew or Gentile, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostle John clearly gives the answer in this verse:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.  1 John 2:23 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, whoever denies the Son does not even have a relationship with God at all.  Jesus affirmed this as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.  John 5:22-23 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, according to Jesus Himself, if one does not honor the Son, it is impossible to honor the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, then, a person's eternal destination depends on whether to accept or reject Jesus:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that &lt;strong&gt;whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.&lt;/strong&gt; 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 &lt;strong&gt;He who believes in Him is not judged&lt;/strong&gt;; &lt;strong&gt;he who does not believe has been judged already&lt;/strong&gt;, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.   John 3:16-18 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, anyone who rejects God's promised Messiah, God's Passover Lamb, God's sacrifice for sin, God's offer of forgiveness--that person is destined to pay for his own sin.  God is a just God and does require a payment for sin.  He offers to pay it on our behalf, but He does not force us to accept it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-10-25T16:29:47.380" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T16:29:47.380" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19823" CreationDate="2013-10-25T16:49:05.723" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Episcopal Church in the United States is probably the largest and most prominent Christian Protestant denomination to publicly affirm support for full inclusion of gay and lesbian members, notably electing the openly gay and presumably non-celibate Gene Robinson to the post of Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.  I'm not aware of the specifics underlying their decision, but I believe Robinson has written extensively on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T16:49:05.723" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20226" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17091" CreationDate="2013-10-25T17:03:35.050" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some non-Christians make good points about the incompleteness of Christian teachings on forgiveness particularly like this one:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/08/christian-forgiveness-its-a-bug-not-a-feature/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/08/christian-forgiveness-its-a-bug-not-a-feature/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;christian forgiveness its a bug not a feature&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;However the focus is most often on how the benefits of forgiveness are not obtainable by the person who has been wronged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Catechism stipulates that forgiveness from God can only be provided to those who have &amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Satisfaction&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satisfaction&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must &amp;quot;make satisfaction for&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;expiate&amp;quot; his sins. This satisfaction is also called &amp;quot;penance.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, &amp;quot;provided we suffer with him.&amp;quot;63&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of &amp;quot;him who strengthens&amp;quot; us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth &amp;quot;fruits that befit repentance.&amp;quot; These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.64&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, to obtain this &amp;quot;Satisfaction&amp;quot; it would make sense the person compensated those who they have wronged. A human can not be satisfied while knowing another will not give them forgiveness for what they have done wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though the word &amp;quot;Satisfaction&amp;quot; hardly does the concept any justice, it is important to note the deep reaching implications of such a concept. Say a minister gives someone the penance of eating cake, for all the bad things they did. No one could feel satisfied upon such a penance, thus they are obligated to attend confession with another minister until they are satisfied.&#xA;Hopefully this gives people a glimpse into the importance and numerous implications of &amp;quot;Satisfaction&amp;quot; in the process of forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this kind of propping up &amp;quot;forgiveness&amp;quot; makes many Christians forget the reason for such a concept in the first place, to refocus efforts on making a better future by correct actions in the present. This is how the best compensation can be made, by those who have done wrong conducting good actions in everyday life. The death of the evildoer only provides compensation to those with hard harts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6268" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T17:03:35.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19623" CreationDate="2013-10-25T19:28:06.323" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The best reason I know of is because God told them to name him Jesus&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 1:21 KJV&#xA;    And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall&lt;br&gt;&#xA;    save his people from their sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T19:28:06.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17054" CreationDate="2013-10-25T20:41:52.150" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This actually comes down to a perspective question, the facts and sources hardly matter, however lets start with a source, the critical one for answering questions regarding Catholicism&#xA;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Catechism&lt;/a&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to &amp;quot;social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.&amp;quot;88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. &amp;quot;Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!&amp;quot;90&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may be confused as to how this relates, but deeper thought will lead us to understand why the Catholic Church does not provide condoms for the poor or in this case provide money to people who do not get abortions. The Catholic Church, despite having many branches that do, can never do or advocate these kinds of things at the higher level. They would be encouraging sin if they did.  Someone who knows they can be paid to have a child may start conceiving more children in an immoral manner to get paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, as David Stratton has demonstrated this can all be resolved at the local level. Say I personally know Jane, she has been a good person, but her boyfriend was a jerk and somehow convinced her to do something she now regrets. A general policy of the church not to get involved, is not going to stop me from getting involved as a good Catholic who understands we all make mistakes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be clear, I am not saying that even a fraction of Christians believe no help should be provided to such individuals.  Just that the help should be given by those who understand the situation, not some overarching body of regulations. Christians of any denomination always believe in helping the poor, but unless they themselves know a good portion of the specifics around any situation, they cannot know the person is poor, needs help, or is even willing to accept help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How would a Christian church respond if someone said they would kill unless they are paid by the church. I would hope the church refuses to pay, unless the church knows something about this threaten-er I don't. Because if they did pay, they would only be encouraging others to conduct the same actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6268" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-25T20:41:52.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20235" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-26T00:38:15.223" Score="1" ViewCount="5374" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God: Attis&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born of a virgin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born on December 25th&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crucified&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dead for 3 days&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Resurrected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God: Krishna&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born of a virgin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Star in the east&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Performed miracles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Resurrected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God: Dionsyus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born of a virgin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born on December 25th&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Performed miracles, including turning water into wine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Referred to as the &quot;King of Kings&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Referred to as &quot;Gods only begotten son&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Resurrected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God: Mithra&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born of a virgin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born on December 25th&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;12 Disciples&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Performed miracles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dead for 3 days&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Resurrected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sunday is day of worship for Mithra&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the most striking and seemingly the base for all other mythologies:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God: Horus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born on December 25th&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Born of a virgin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Star in the east&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adored by 3 kings&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Teach at 12&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptized at 30&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;12 Disciples&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Performed Miracles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Known as &quot;Lamb of God&quot;, &quot;The Light&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Crucified&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Dead for 3 days&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Resurrected&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interesting, here is a photo of what is claimed to be Horus's crucifixion:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/nBPog.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/k2Eyh.gif&quot; alt=&quot;http://a10.idata.over-blog.com/500x732/3/00/74/64/Afrique/Djed/ani1.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does seem to be some uncanny relations between these different Gods and I do consider Jesus to be a God or the God, though I understand it is a little more complex than that summation. But for the sake of clarity of the question I am just addressing Jesus as a God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard references to astrology in driving some of these coincidental factors such as the Star in the East, December 25th and even maybe Sunday as the day of praise for some Gods of history. But what about the 12 disciples, virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion, 3 day death and resurrection. These aspects of multiple Gods' stories from different societies transcend particular star patterns and celestial movements. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there perhaps a historical influence from older societies on the stories in the Bible or perhaps maybe there are some natural human psychological tendencies for purity (virgin birth) and guilt (crucifixion) and ego (desire for a survivor who was born from purity and made to suffer that is one of us, is human) that drives humans to tell these spiritual tales to comfort the very minds that create them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rishyrich.hubpages.com/hub/Parallels-between-Jesus-Horus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://rishyrich.hubpages.com/hub/Parallels-between-Jesus-Horus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=181421&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=181421&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Parallels_between_Jesus_and_Horus_an_Egyptian_God.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Parallels_between_Jesus_and_Horus_an_Egyptian_God.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6110" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-07-12T13:21:58.157" LastActivityDate="2014-07-22T19:05:00.860" Title="How do Christians respond to and/or explain the similarities between other societies' Gods and that of Jesus" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;comparative-religion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-07-13T15:48:12.003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20235" CreationDate="2013-10-26T03:41:24.740" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your source has more than a few issues; I'm not going to worry about the specific details raised (many of which are answered with a simple &quot;false&quot;) but paint in broad strokes to attempt to answer the question behind the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many similarities between Jesus and other gods are superficial, and others may have actually &lt;em&gt;borrowed from&lt;/em&gt; the life of Jesus. The cult of Dionysus, for example, did not fully develop until the 3rd or 4th century &lt;em&gt;after&lt;/em&gt; Jesus. This naturally raises the question, &quot;who borrowed from whom?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of the big differences between Jesus and the rest is that his existence is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4618/4188&quot;&gt;virtually undisputed&lt;/a&gt;; you may find a scholar or two that believes Attis was based on a real person, but to my knowledge, nobody claims that Attis actually existed in history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is curious to note that even Tacitus who was a rather big critic of the early church never thought that Jesus was a myth or never existed. When even Christianity's first century opposition talk about Jesus as a historical figure then it really becomes unreasonable to buy into this atheist rhetoric of him being a myth. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4618/4188&quot;&gt;Neil Meyer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the death and resurrection as symbolism of the harvest, the Jewish followers of Jesus would not have copied the pagan idea of a dying and rising god (I believe it was N.T. Wright that said &quot;if your favorite messiah went off and got himself crucified, you either went home or found yourself another messiah&quot;). These myths are seasonal; the story occurs again and again, while the death and resurrection of Jesus is explicitly a single event occurring &lt;em&gt;in history&lt;/em&gt;. Gary Habermas, in a survey of academic publications on the resurrection, found that 75% of scholars accept that Jesus' tomb was actually empty three days after his crucifixion (note that they do not all believe he actually rose from the dead; some have alternative theories (stolen body, etc.))&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, God may have chosen to place glimpses of the truth in various times and cultures so they can recognize it once someone teaches it to them (this is sometimes called &lt;em&gt;fulfillment theology&lt;/em&gt;, generally considered to have its origins with Justin Martyr in the second century AD). The Bible gives an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:22-27&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;example of Paul&lt;/a&gt;, introducing the people of Athens to &quot;the Unknown God&quot; they were worshiping (&quot;What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Sources and further reading&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, &lt;em&gt;The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want an in-depth examination of Christianity and comparative religion, I highly recommend G.K. Chesterton's &lt;em&gt;The Everlasting Man&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2014-01-09T14:19:31.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20235" CreationDate="2013-10-26T04:18:18.747" Score="23" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will post later using this information here, but for now, I have copied the image supplied by &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20235/how-do-christians-respond-to-and-or-explain-the-similarities-between-other-socie#comment51477_20235&quot;&gt;Jayarathina Madharasan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that there are actually not as many similarities as certain people on the internet would like you to believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/29UE7.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Myths that don&amp;#39;t actually share too much with Jesus&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T07:04:43.450" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20129" CreationDate="2013-10-26T05:24:19.820" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simple answer to the question, “Why did God create man with an evil nature?”,  is that the god of the Bible, that mad created in man’s image in the Bible, is evil and since God created man in his image, and since God is evil (so He says), man is evil.&#xA;Enough said!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a lawyer I have approached the question on the basis that the only source of evidence that I rely on are the various Bibles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now in that regard I mention that the Bible authors pulled no punches in ascribing to God all the evils of the world. They actually have the Word of God saying that he is in charge of all evil on earth, and He appears to have an immense capacity for evil. He must have, in order to live up to the reputation of being the cause of all evil, as is evident from the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And what follows is what God, ever so proudly and gleefully proclaims about his evil disposition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah. 45:7-King James Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“The will of the Lord alone is always carried out. Good and evil alike take place at his command.” (Lamentations 3:38)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“… shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6 King James Version&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“… an evil spirit sent by the Lord tormented him” (1 Samuel 16:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“… an evil spirit from God suddenly took control of Saul…”  (1 Samuel 18:10); &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“… one day an evil spirit from the Lord took control of Saul.” (1Samuel 19:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.” (Judges 9:23 King James Version) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;scch@mweb.co.za &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6318" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T05:24:19.820" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20240" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-26T06:11:43.333" Score="14" ViewCount="116476" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the word and pronunciation for God in Aramaic? I saw 'AaLaH'  is the pronunciation for God from this link: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.peshitta.org/lexicon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Aramaic Lexicon and Concordance  &lt;/a&gt;. Did Jesus uses the word 'AaLaH'  for God during his speeches? And also in Aramaic Bible, is this word is used for God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is true then the Arabic word 'Allahu' and this word 'AaLaH' are same or different?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I want to know on which language did Jesus cry this expression - &quot;Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4356" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-09T18:26:37.133" LastActivityDate="2021-01-15T07:40:27.173" Title="What word did Jesus use for God in Aramaic?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;word-study&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20240" CreationDate="2013-10-26T08:07:03.157" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The name of God in the Hebrew Bible is &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;YHWH&lt;/a&gt;, pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many words used in the Hebrew Bible for the word 'God' (not the name of God), such us &lt;strong&gt;El&lt;/strong&gt; (god), &lt;strong&gt;Elohim&lt;/strong&gt; (god, plural form), El Shaddai (god almighty), Adonai (master), Elyon (highest) and Avinu (our father) are regarded by many religious Jews not as names, but as &lt;strong&gt;epithets&lt;/strong&gt; highlighting different aspects of YHWH and the various 'roles' of God &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt;.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Etymology&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Allah&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite&#xA;  article al- &quot;the&quot; and ilāh &quot;deity, god&quot; to al-lāh meaning &quot;the [sole]&#xA;  deity, God&quot; (ὁ θεὸς μόνος, ho theos monos). Cognates of the name&#xA;  &quot;Allāh&quot; exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and&#xA;  Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural form (but&#xA;  functional singular) &lt;strong&gt;Elohim&lt;/strong&gt;. The corresponding Aramaic form is &lt;strong&gt;ʼĔlāhā&#xA;  ܐܠܗܐ in Biblical Aramaic&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;ʼAlâhâ ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ in Syriac&lt;/strong&gt; as used by the&#xA;  Assyrian Church, &lt;strong&gt;both meaning simply 'God'&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Elohim is not the name of God, it is simply 'God' in Hebrew. Many languages have some similarities because many of them share the same origin. &lt;em&gt;'God'&lt;/em&gt; in English, &lt;em&gt;'Elohim'&lt;/em&gt; in Hebrew, &lt;em&gt;'Elaha'&lt;/em&gt; in Aramaic, &lt;em&gt;'Alaha'&lt;/em&gt; in Syriac etc. but the name of God in the Bible is YHWH, not Allah as some Muslim scholars may try to relate them. Hence, &lt;strong&gt;the God in the Bible is YHWH and the god in the Qu'ran is Allah.&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;The most specific Hebrew name for God is YHWH, also mistakenly referred to as Yehovah, meaning self-existent and eternal. YHWH is rooted from ‘Hayah’, the to be verb, which is from ‘Hava’, to breathe, or to be, which connects to ‘Ayil’.  Finally ‘Ayil’ leads us back to ‘El’, which is the root of all the Semitic names for God.  YHWH is spoken aloud on rare Jewish celebrations as just “Ya.” Jews often replaced the actual name of God for Adonay (Lord) orally and in their written scripts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, see this &lt;a href=&quot;http://praiseyah.webs.com/thetencommandments.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;typical translation of Exodus 20:7&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thou shalt not take the name of &lt;strong&gt;YHWH thy Elohim&lt;/strong&gt; in vain; for YHWH will&#xA;  not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus spoke Aramaic&lt;/strong&gt; many times during His ministry, hence, he must have used the word 'Eli' or 'Elaha' (ʼĔlāhā) many times to say 'God'. For instance, while Jesus was on the cross, He &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus#Eli_Eli_lema_sabachthani_.28.CE.97.CE.BB.CE.B5.CE.B9_.CE.97.CE.BB.CE.B5.CE.B9_.CE.BB.CE.B5.CE.BC.CE.B1_.CF.83.CE.B1.CE.B2.CE.B1.CF.87.CE.B8.CE.B1.CE.BD.CE.B5.CE.B9.29&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;cried out in Aramaic&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “&lt;strong&gt;Eli,&#xA;  Eli&lt;sup&gt;[a]&lt;/sup&gt;, lema sabachthani&lt;/strong&gt;?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you&#xA;  forsaken me?”)  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:46&amp;amp;version=NIV#fen-NIV-24176a&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;[Matthew 27:46, NIV]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[a] Some manuscripts &lt;strong&gt;Eloi, Eloi&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2015-06-24T16:25:30.460" LastActivityDate="2015-06-24T16:25:30.460" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20240" CreationDate="2013-10-26T09:54:43.703" Score="21" Body="&lt;p&gt;The normal generic word for God is &quot;alaha&quot;/&quot;aloho&quot; (ܐܠܗܐ), which is linguistically related to the Hebrew word for God &quot;elohim&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The translation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, on the other hand, is &quot;maria&quot;/&quot;morio&quot; (ܡܪܝܐ), usually decomposed as mar-yah, Lord-Yah (&quot;mar&quot;, lord, also being used by syriac speaking churches as a title for saints/doctors of the Church: &quot;mor Ephrem&quot; = Saint Ephrem). (Note: this word has nothing to do with the proper name Maria, coming from the Hebrew Mariam)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, Jesus would almost certainly have used one of the two, or both at the same time as it is commonly done in Syriac: Maria Alaha. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last remark: The arabic word Allah, used also by Arabic Christians, is no more no less related to the Aramaic Alaha than to the Hebrew Elohim. The three share a common linguistic root, which is nothing exceptional, so no point being dragged on sterile arguments concerning this point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the cry on the cross (quote from Psalm 22:1), the Peshitta (the earliest christian Aramaic translation) translate it using the word alaha, with the first person possessive suffix -i : alahi (ܐܲܠܵܗܝ ܐܲܠܵܗܝ ܠܡܵܢܵܐ ܫܒܲܩ̣ܬܵܢܝ̱ ). The original Hebrew Psalm used &quot;Eli&quot;. Since the scriptor of the Greek gospel may not have been fluent in Aramaic, or used to transliterate Aramaic with Greek characters, it may be expected that the transliterations are approximates, hence a possible : eloi/alohi confusion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5546" LastEditorUserId="5546" LastEditDate="2013-10-26T10:08:32.200" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T10:08:32.200" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20244" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20209" CreationDate="2013-10-26T10:24:23.437" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Azusa Street Revival from 1906-1915 is almost universally accepted amongst Pentecostals to be the event in which the Holy Spirit revisited the church with the charismatic gifts of the early one. This included tongues. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T10:24:23.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3510" CreationDate="2013-10-26T11:38:46.493" Score="4" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The pharisees did not want to arrest him in public for the fear of the people. During day time Jesus was always surrounded by the multitude.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;So it was necessary that he should be arrested during night. But He might not be that distinctive in the night as the disciples also might have similar dress as he wore. Besides, the pharisees could not be sure about where Jesus would be at a particular night.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Roman soldiers were sent to arrest him. They might not be very familiar with Jesus, so they did not want to make a mistake by arresting the wrong man...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6319" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-12-05T21:54:52.113" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T21:54:52.113" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20246" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-26T12:17:42.703" Score="6" ViewCount="4984" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have seen Salvation Army church members going to church in white uniforms. Here is a sample image  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chathamsa.org.uk/2010/05/26/brenda-scoulding/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPWqE.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Salvation Army&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the role of uniforms in the Salvation Army? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it compulsory for them to wear uniforms in the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-10-26T15:09:13.323" LastActivityDate="2021-01-13T15:09:04.920" Title="Why do Salvation Army members wear uniforms in the church?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20247" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23089" CreationDate="2013-10-26T12:32:31.100" Score="3" ViewCount="195" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think it is a tradition to have a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_band&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Brass Band&lt;/a&gt; in almost every church in the Salvation Army. I see them performing on many occasions like Easter Sunday and Christmas. Here is a sample image (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/uki/Brass_Bands_Heathrow_Airport&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/wiD7G.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Salvation Army Brass Band&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another image (&lt;a href=&quot;http://neoevsmith.blogspot.in/2011/01/1-1-11.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;): &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/lqadP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the importance of Brass Band in the Salvation Army? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it compulsory for a Salvation Army church to have a brass band? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-05-30T16:16:40.710" LastActivityDate="2016-05-30T16:16:40.710" Title="Salvation Army and the brass band" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;&lt;salvation-army&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20196" CreationDate="2013-10-26T13:42:39.597" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will not give you my opinion, but rather my understanding of Pope's reception from the reading of the catholic resources on the topic, which I suggest you study yourself as well.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In general, Pope Francis is very much liked by all but &quot;the traditionalist&quot;. He is a pastor more than a theologian so he resonates better with a &quot;common catholic&quot;. So an average catholic, appears to like Pope Francis's approach more than his predecessor's. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;traditionalist&quot; or &quot;conservative&quot; Catholics (I hate these terms, hence the quotes), those who liked JPII's or Benedict's philosophical (apparently rigid &amp;amp; dogmatic), theology, especially Benedict's seeming support for pre Vatican II practices like Latin mass, have strong reservations or hostility to Pope Francis; there are some groups ready to call him the antichrist. for those views, go to www.Gloria.tv.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is also very much liked by liberal Catholics who wrongly interpret some of the things he says as supporting changes that they want to make; while those same Catholic's despised benedict's &quot;conservatism&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many &quot;moderate&quot; &quot;thinking&quot; Catholics are concerned how the Pope's remarks are being twisted, but hold Pope Francis in great esteem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4689" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T13:42:39.597" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20249" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20252" CreationDate="2013-10-26T13:43:58.937" Score="7" ViewCount="11606" Body="&lt;p&gt;These days we can see many churches using latest musical instruments to worship God in the church, example - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.calvaryag.info/worship/&quot;&gt;Assembly of God&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once I attended a Catholic church. Some sisters were sitting at the front and singing songs from a hymn book. There was no music, no musical instruments. I wonder if this is how they worship always.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Catholic Church allow latest musical instruments(guitars, drum set, piano etc.) to be played while worshiping in the church?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2017-06-07T06:53:26.840" Title="Modern musical instruments in Catholic church service" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;music&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20250" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2033" CreationDate="2013-10-26T14:08:57.393" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The claim that the Bible depicts a flat earth is out of misinformation spread against the Bible. Some of the Scriptural references are used with an aim of justifying this hollow claim. Some of the verses such as:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 7:1 7 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, this passage makes reference to the cardinal directions as seen on a compass – i.e. north, south, east and west. Terminology to a similar effect is used today when we speak of the sun rising and setting each day, even though we know that it is, in fact, the earth which orbits around the sun. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another passage often referred to is:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 75:3, 7 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here it speaks of God holding the pillars firm. However, the psalms are written in the poetry genre. Rather than referring to literal pillars, this is representative of God’s guaranteeing the earth’s stability. Even when the moral order of the world seems to have crumbled, God will not fully withdraw His sustaining power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In contrast to the supposed “flat earth” verses&lt;/strong&gt;, there are numerous Scriptures that clearly indicate otherwise. The earth is described in:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Job 26:7 7  He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here it depicted as being suspended over empty space, implying a spherical figure. This notion is further entertained in:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 40:21-22, Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22  It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are blike grasshoppers; stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This  refers to “the circle of the earth.” This is further supported by:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverbs 8:27 (NKJV), 27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here it speaks of God drawing a circle on the face of the deep. From a “bird’s-eye view” of the ocean, the horizon is seen as a circle. Such an observation indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins, describing the reality of day and night on a spherical earth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The round-earth idea is further supported by Jesus in:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 17:31,34: “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back...I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This would seem to indicate the phenomenon of day on one side of the globe while darkness abides on the other.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, the curvature of the earth is certainly a biblical concept, and there is little or no basis for the charge that the Bible teaches a flat earth. The Scriptures that seem to present a flat earth can all easily be explained when correctly interpreted and understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T14:08:57.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20249" CreationDate="2013-10-26T14:38:22.793" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;//&lt;strong&gt;Does the Catholic Church allow latest musical instruments(guitars, drum set, piano etc.) to be played while worshiping in the church?&lt;/strong&gt;//&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No. Modern musical instruments are not allowed unless permitted by the local bishop. &lt;strong&gt;Guitars and Drums are explicitly forbidden for Liturgical use.&lt;/strong&gt; I am not a musical student so I don't know the difference between a Organ, Keyboard and a Piano. &lt;strong&gt;But an Organ is the standard liturgical instrument. (Any instrument that can replicate organ's &lt;em&gt;sound&lt;/em&gt; in a similar way will be permitted)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Liturgical services are not parties, but are celebrations of the Church. Center of the liturgy is Christ but these instruments put the player in the center. And that is the main reason why these instruments are banned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;62 The &lt;strong&gt;pipe organ is to be held in high esteem&lt;/strong&gt; in the Latin Church,.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;63 ... Any musical instrument permitted in divine worship should be used in such a way that &lt;strong&gt;it meets the needs of the liturgical elebration&lt;/strong&gt;, and is in the interests both of the beauty of worship and the edification of the faithful.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;64 The use of musical instruments to accompany the singing can act as a support to the voices, render participation easier, and achieve a deeper union in the assembly. However, &lt;strong&gt;their sound should not so overwhelm the voices that it is difficult to make out the text;&lt;/strong&gt; and when some part is proclaimed aloud by the priest or a minister by virtue of his role, they should be silent.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;66 The playing of these same instruments as solos is not permitted in Advent, Lent, during the Sacred Triduum and in the Offices and Masses of the Dead. &#xA;  From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MUSICAM SACRAM - Instruction on Music In The Liturgy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;//&lt;strong&gt;Once I attended a Catholic church. ... There was no music, no musical instruments. I wonder if this is how they worship always.&lt;/strong&gt;//&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No it is not without music always. Music is an integral part of liturgy. And musical instruments have aided in the liturgy for ages. The problem is with the modern music and instruments. For instance solemnities like Easter and Christmas people are strongly advised/urged to celebrate mass with proper music and choir. They both exercises its own liturgical function among the faithful by law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-26T14:47:34.300" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T14:47:34.300" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20249" CreationDate="2013-10-26T15:02:19.863" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Pius X issued a &lt;em&gt;motu proprio&lt;/em&gt; in 1903, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adoremus.org/MotuProprio.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Tra le Sollecitudini&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;15.&lt;/em&gt; Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the &lt;em&gt;Caeremoniale Episcoporum.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;19.&lt;/em&gt; The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;20.&lt;/em&gt; It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This formed the basis for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adoremus.org/1958Intro-sac-mus.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;De musica sacra et sacra liturgia&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1958:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;68.&lt;/em&gt; Other instruments besides the organ, especially the smaller bowed instruments, may be used during the liturgical functions, particularly on days of greater solemnity. These may be used together with the organ or without it, for instrumental numbers of for accompanying the singing. However, the following rules ... are to strictly observed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) the instruments are truly suitable for sacred use;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) they are to be played with such seriousness, and religious devotion that every suggestion of raucous secular music is avoided, and the devotion of the faithful is fostered;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;c) the director, organist, and other instrumentalists should be well trained in instrumental techniques, and the laws of sacred music.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;70.&lt;/em&gt; Musical instruments which by common acception, and use are suitable only for secular music must be entirely excluded from all liturgical functions, and private devotions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The use of bands and particularly drums may suggest &amp;quot;raucous secular music&amp;quot;, so they are to be avoided.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Musicam Sacram&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; was promulgated by the Second Vatican Council in 1967.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;63.&lt;/em&gt; In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.[&lt;em&gt;De music sacra etc&lt;/em&gt; n.70 [above]]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Vatican II Constitution allows a little more leeway by permitting appeal to local culture and tradition and whether a particular instrument is suitable only for secular music. This decision would be made by the local bishop or Bishops' Conference. However, the earlier documents indicate the direction that decision should go.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite the 1903 rules, the use of the piano and acoustic guitar is not uncommon in the UK.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T15:02:19.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20253" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20220" CreationDate="2013-10-26T15:27:53.797" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;That little word &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; is packed with profundity, significance, and comfort for believers in Jesus Christ.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One way of approaching this little word is via one of the many names for the Church Universal:  the Body of Christ.  A body, of course, is composed of many parts (viz., appendages and external and internal organs), and so it is with Christ's body, the church, of which He is the Head.  All of the parts of the physical body are &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; the body and are thus joined to the whole body.  Each part has its function, but they all function together.  The main point of the analogy of the body can be summed up, I feel, in the expression&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Unity within Diversity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; Christ, then, is to be a part of His body.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically, the word &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; signifies where a believer is, positionally in the eyes of God; namely, &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; Christ.  To be in Christ is to be united with Christ in His righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God &lt;strong&gt;in&lt;/strong&gt; Him&quot; (2 Corinthians 5:21, my emphasis).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We who are sinners saved by grace are anything but righteous.  Moreover,  Isaiah tells us that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away&quot; (64:6). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, even the best we have to offer God cannot outweigh in the divine scale of justice our uncleanness, filthiness, and iniquities.  Along comes Jesus, however, and His righteousness tips the scale in the opposite direction, so to speak.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of a zillion-pound weight being on one side of the teeter totter.  That's our sin.  Our righteous deeds piled up to the sky on the opposite side utterly fail to budge the zillion-pound weight one scintilla. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus' cross death, however, means that God, when He imputes our sin to Jesus and then in turn imputes Jesus' righteousness to us when we believe, tipped the teeter totter as far as it can go in the opposite direction, as if the zillion-pound weight were but a feather!  Aren't you glad you're &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; Christ?  There is no safer place to be in all the universe, because when God sees us, He sees us &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; His Son.  And as Paul reminds us,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Whoever is &lt;strong&gt;in&lt;/strong&gt; Christ is a new creation:  the old has passed away, and all things have become new&quot; (2 Corinthians 5:17, my emphasis).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T15:27:53.797" CommentCount="14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20254" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23487" CreationDate="2013-10-26T15:45:09.947" Score="3" ViewCount="689" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been unable to gain a consensus on whether Jesus was referring to Ministers etc in Luke  12:47 as David Guzik  asserts or if both verses 47 &amp;amp; 48 refer to the amount of knowledge of one has of God's word as John Gill and several others assert?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 12:47 &amp;amp;  48 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;47  And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. &#xA;48  But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David Guzik's commentary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Selected exerpts&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known: The &#xA;art of being a hypocrite depends on concealment, but one day all will be revealed. We can&#xA;only be hypocrites before men, but never before God. He sees through the actor's mask we&#xA;put on.&#xA;&#xA;    In 1985, a nationally known evangelist and preacher wrote a book condemning sin in&#xA;   America, especially sexual sin and pornography. Just a short time later, he tearfully &#xA;   confessed years of involvement in these very sins, and promised repentance - but was&#xA;   arrested for similar crimes again a few years down the road. His hypocrisy may have &#xA;   surprised many people, but not God. He knew all along.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter said to Him, &quot;Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people? Jesus answers Peter, saying that this is addressed to every one, that all are to be like a faithful and wise steward (manager).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;In this sense, we are all in the Jesus Management Training school. He is teaching us&#xA;all how to be good, godly stewards for Him.&#xA;&#xA;All who are servants of Jesus must be ready for His return, but those who are ministers &#xA;among His servants must all the more be ready. &quot;Ignorance of the Divine shall not&#xA;wholly excuse the sinner, he shall be beaten, but his stripes shall be few, his damnation&#xA;shall be gentle compared with a minister's, that knows his Master's will but does it not;&#xA;teaches it to others, but does it not himself . . . God looks upon wicked, loose, and &#xA;scandalous and mischievous ministers as the greatest transgressors, and he will deal &#xA;with them as such.&quot; (Poole)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Gill's commentary&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;And that servant which knew his Lord's will,.... Not his secret, but his revealed  &#xA;will; the will of God, which lies in the declarations of his grace and mercy in the&#xA;Gospel, and in the commands and ordinances expressed in his word; and which are the  &#xA;good, perfect, and acceptable will of God; the knowledge of which is necessary, in&#xA;order to practice: and where there is a spiritual and saving knowledge, there   &#xA;will be practice: but there may be knowledge, where there is no practice, and which  &#xA;was the case here: Christ here distinguishes between wicked servants, some being &#xA;knowing, and others ignorant; and accordingly the aggravations of their guilt are &#xA;more or less:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;and prepared not himself; so the Arabic and Ethiopic versions supply, but the Syriac&#xA;version, &quot;for him&quot;, that is, for his Lord: but it may as well be read as in the &#xA;Vulgate Latin, without any supplement, &quot;and prepared not&quot;; he took no thought nor &#xA;care about doing it; there is no preparation, readiness, nor disposition, in a &#xA;natural man, to the will of God: no man is prepared or ready to do it, but he that &#xA;is regenerated, or is made a new creature; who has the laws of God written on his &#xA;heart, and who has the Spirit of God put within him, to cause him to keep them; and &#xA;who has faith in Christ, and strength from him to observe them; but there may be &#xA;knowledge, where such a preparation is wanting; persons may know much, and profess &#xA;to know more, and in works deny all, and be to every good work, unfit, disobedient, &#xA;and reprobate: this clause is left out in the Persic version:&#xA;&#xA;neither did according to his will; the will of God is done aright, when what is &#xA;done, is done according to the command of God, in the strength of Christ, from love &#xA;to him, in the exercise of faith on him, and with a view to his glory, and without &#xA;any dependence on what is done; but there may be knowledge, without any thing of &#xA;this: the words, &quot;neither did&quot;, are wanting in the Syriac version: and such a man &#xA;that has knowledge without practice,&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;here are some Scriptures I have consulted in search of an answer&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 15:22 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no&#xA;cloke for their sin.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 5:19  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach &#xA;men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do &#xA;and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 12:37  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew Chapter 23 which excoriates the Scribes and Pharisees says that they will be more guilty by virtue of their position in the Synagogues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, if I read John 15:22 correctly it would seem to agree with Gill's assessment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there are any other sources to help me understan this enigma please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T05:02:29.057" Title="Did Jesus tell us that at the Bema judgment Minister, Evangelists, and etc. would face a higher standard of judgment than other Christians?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20240" CreationDate="2013-10-26T17:34:25.190" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?&quot; is Greek transliteration of Aramaic words. If it was Hebrew, then azabthani would have been used instead of Aramaic word &quot;Sabachthani.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check this link for Hebrew NT of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Mark_15.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mark 15:34.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Hebrew, &quot;Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?&quot; will become &quot;Eliy ‘Eliy lamah `azab’taniy?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The spoken language of first century Israel was Aramaic. Not Hebrew or Greek. Check this link for more information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20158/why-didnt-the-jews-understand-eli-eli-lama-sabachthani/20188#20188&quot;&gt;Why didn&amp;#39;t the Jews understand &amp;quot;Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word for God in Aramaic was Eil and Elaha (also written as Alaha). In first century Judea, they used both &quot;Eil&quot; and &quot;Elaha&quot; for God. But in Samaria, Galilee, Lebanon, and in Syria during first century, they mostly used Elaha (also written as Alaha).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus Christ grew up in Galilee, he would have used Elaha. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you check Matthew 27:46 of Aramaic Peshitta (Aramaic NT), then you will see &quot;Eil Eil.&quot; This was somewhat clumsily transliterated by Greek scribe as &quot;Eli Eli.&quot; Sometimes Greek scribes have difficulty transliterating Aramaic words into Greek. For Example, Aramaic words &quot;Khqel Dama&quot; in Acts 1:19 is transliterated as &quot;Akeldama&quot; in Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YHWH is Hebrew. But Jesus spoke Aramaic. Not Hebrew. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In first century Israel, Jews used Aramaic Old Testament known as Peshitta Tanakh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The information about Peshitta Tanakh is available &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pshitta.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YA (in Aramaic OT and Aramaic NT Peshitta) is the Aramaic form of Hebrew &quot;YH&quot; in &quot;YHWH.&quot; Because of this, Hebrew name &quot;Yehochanan&quot; becomes &quot;Yochanan&quot; in Aramaic. Another example is Hebrew name &quot;Yehonathan&quot; becomes &quot;Yonathan&quot; in Aramaic and Hebrew name &quot;Yehoseph&quot; becomes &quot;Yoseph&quot; in Aramaic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Respect, &quot;YA&quot; is addressed as &quot;MarYA&quot; (Master YA) in Aramaic OT, in Aramaic NT, &amp;amp; in First century Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T18:30:54.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20260" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-26T18:35:45.000" Score="1" ViewCount="7722" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no scripture that tells about Jesus' life from 12 to 30 years. Is there evidence of Jesus' during this time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6297" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2018-12-02T00:54:43.500" LastActivityDate="2019-03-21T09:57:28.697" Title="Life of Jesus from the age of 12 to 30?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;historical-jesus&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2019-03-21T14:49:36.560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20261" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20260" CreationDate="2013-10-26T18:41:06.437" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Scripture does mention about the life of Jesus between 10 to 30 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 2:41-51 (NIV) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the&#xA;  Passover. &lt;strong&gt;When he was twelve years old&lt;/strong&gt;, they went up to the&#xA;  festival, according to the custom. After the festival was over, while&#xA;  his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in&#xA;  Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their&#xA;  company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him&#xA;  among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they&#xA;  went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found&#xA;  him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to&#xA;  them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at&#xA;  his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were&#xA;  astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like&#xA;  this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to&#xA;  be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he was&#xA;  saying to them. Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was&#xA;  obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her&#xA;  heart. &lt;strong&gt;And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God&#xA;  and man&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-10-27T15:24:57.327" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T15:24:57.327" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20249" CreationDate="2013-10-26T19:03:12.713" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't speak for countries out side of  the U. S., but here in the States any type of musical instrument is permitted as long as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A. They are approved by the right authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;B. They are played in a manner that is edifying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sacrosanctum Concilium 120:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The use of other instruments may also be admitted in divine worship,&#xA;  given the decision and consent of the competent territorial authority,&#xA;  provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be&#xA;  adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the&#xA;  temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I, myself, have been actively involved in liturgical services for 20 years.  I have either personally played or attended many Masses in multiple states.  The majority of the liturgical services I have attended have been in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and Louisiana.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About 80% of these Masses included (but is not limited to) the following instruments for the various elements of the Mass (responsorial Psalms, etc.):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acoustic/electric guitar&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Percussive drum sets.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Other types of percussion instruments including bongos, xylophones, tambourines, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acoustic/electric/amplified guitar.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All instruments included in an orchestra.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Keyboards/pianos&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/MUVgm.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/8VAhi.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/uH1rO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/qhCME.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have participated in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1uMwxTkfgM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a youth retreat&lt;/a&gt; held every year throughout the U. S. that incorparates very intense praise and worship music in order to appeal to teenagers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;dramatic&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; change of liturgical music in the U. S. is one of the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;major&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; topics of debate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-10-26T19:09:12.313" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T19:09:12.313" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20264" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-26T19:54:22.953" Score="5" ViewCount="14008" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just read this passage and had never heard of this prophecy regarding Elijah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%204&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Malachi 4:5-6&lt;/a&gt; ESV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and&#xA;  awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers&#xA;  to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I&#xA;  come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Taking account of this passage in Malachi, will Elijah make a re-appearance on earth at some point in the future, specifically, as it appears from the passage, at the time of or around the time of the final judgement? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was this a fulfilled prediction of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfiguration_of_Jesus&quot;&gt;transfiguration&lt;/a&gt; prior to Jesus's execution? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was this prophecy fulfilled at some other point in the past? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is Malachi literally talking about Elijah coming back to earth or was he speaking metaphorically?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How is this prophecy regarded or interpreted in dispensationalism (if at all). How so in Catholicism, or any of the other major Christian groups?  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Also, Does this passage inform the beliefs of the people at the time of Christ, when they were confused about his identity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:14-29&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 6:14-15&lt;/a&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known.&#xA;  Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and&#xA;  that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Others said, “He is Elijah.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Mark 8:27-28&lt;/a&gt; NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea&#xA;  Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still&#xA;  others, one of the prophets.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5" LastActivityDate="2015-02-17T10:46:35.577" Title="Will Elijah return before the final judgement?" Tags="&lt;prophecy&gt;&lt;elijah&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-02-17T23:00:19.857" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19258" CreationDate="2013-10-26T23:46:46.663" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.weseejesus.com/bibledictionary/moriah.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New and Concise Bible Dictionary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The land in which was situated the mount on which Abraham was told to offer his son Isaac. Gen. 22: 2. The name of the mountain is not recorded. On the third day after leaving Beer-sheba, Abraham saw the mount afar off, and it was doubtless some lonely spot suitable for such an incident. The Jews say it was the mount bearing this name in Jerusalem. The Samaritans and some modern authorities judge it to have been Gerizim; but it is unknown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5651" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-08-01T03:35:50.853" LastActivityDate="2015-08-01T03:35:50.853" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20254" CreationDate="2013-10-26T23:57:44.240" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;All those people consider themselves as servants of Jesus Christ, so all of them will be held to higher standards than those who knew little. The verses you gave all point in that direction. There is no enigma here. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Moreover is is required in stewards that one be found faithful&quot; (1 Cor. 4:2). Faithfulness to God's will in what one does is the main criteria, and that cannot be known until the end: &quot;judge nothing before the time&quot; (1 Cor. 4:5). Jesus taught in Matthew 24:45-51 that one could be faithful to the end and be rewarded, or one could change and become unfaithful and be punished. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of punishing those who are more knowledgeable is also stated in Matthew 11:20-24, in which the Lord rebuked several cities which saw Christ's miracles and did not repent. They would receive a greater judgment than Sodom and Gomorrah, which would have repented had they saw the same miracles. Acting on what one knows is important to ALL people, not just highly visible servants. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 1:22 warns us to be doers of the word and not just hearers only, otherwise we're deceiving ourselves, owning a security that may be shaky at best. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-10-26T23:57:44.240" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20269" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20264" CreationDate="2013-10-27T01:35:12.323" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 11:13-14 Jesus says John the Baptist is &quot;the Elijah who was to come&quot; before the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T01:35:12.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20260" CreationDate="2013-10-27T03:38:31.917" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The custom during the time was that men would prepare and study to become a rabbi. Throughout the New Testament Jesus is referred to as &quot;rabbi&quot; and &quot;teacher&quot; such as in John 3:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was preparing himself to become a rabbi so that he could lead His people to salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6291" LastEditorUserId="6291" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T05:12:52.320" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T05:12:52.320" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20271" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="508" CreationDate="2013-10-27T05:15:47.850" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hades in the New testament is the same as Sheol in the Old Testament which is translated as the place of the dead.&#xA;paradise is simply the place of the righteous after dead until the appearing of Christ in the air where the elect will meet him or be caught up to him. hell however is de place of the wicked after death. it must be noted however that the word hell as used in de new testament is a translation of the Hebrew word Gehenna which was a place were refuse is burnt and for that matter fire continually burns over there.&#xA;lake of fire is the place of the devil and hid cohorts and the wicked after the great judgement. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6325" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T05:15:47.850" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20272" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20264" CreationDate="2013-10-27T07:49:42.470" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to some religions Malachi is speaking literally about Elijah coming to the Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some Jewish sects believe that Elijah would come before the Second Coming and Wikipedia states that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;In the Talmudic literature, Elijah would visit rabbis to help solve particularly&#xA;difficult legal problems. Malachi had cited Elijah as the harbinger of the eschaton.&#xA;Thus, when confronted with reconciling impossibly conflicting laws or rituals, the &#xA;rabbis would set aside any decision “until Elijah comes.”  &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah#Elijah.27s_cup&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah#Elijah.27s_cup&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The references you used in Mark do support this Jewish belief. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Latter-day Saint/Mormon theology, Elijah has already come. In section 110 of The Doctrine and Covenants, which the LDS Church accepts as scripture, Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland, Ohio temple on April 3, 1836.&lt;br&gt;&#xA; &lt;a href=&quot;http://prophetjosephsmith.org/files/2008/08/elijah-kirtland-temple-mormon.jpg&quot;&gt;http://prophetjosephsmith.org/files/2008/08/elijah-kirtland-temple-mormon.jpg&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doctrine and Covenants 110:13-16 :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;13 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; &#xA;for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before &#xA;us, and said:&#xA;14 Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi&#xA;—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of &#xA;the Lord come—&#xA;15 To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the&#xA;fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—&#xA;16 Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by &#xA;this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They believe this appearance restored the same sealing keys that Christ referenced when speaking to Peter: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:19 :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou&#xA;shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on &#xA;earth shall be loosed in heaven.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These same keys are the reason that the LDS Church builds temples and focuses so much on genealogy/family history. They believe that through the sealing keys brought by Elijah they can be with their families forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the transfiguration is concerned in Matthew 17, that is not a &quot;coming&quot;, just as in Acts 9 when Christ appears to Paul. This is not considered the Second Coming by Christianity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(all references from the King James Version)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6291" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T07:49:42.470" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12511" CreationDate="2013-10-27T10:15:07.557" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;...behold a great red Dragon... And his tail drew&#xA;the THIRD PART OF THE STARS OF HEAVEN, and&#xA;did cast them to the earth...&quot; (Rev.12:3-4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;assuming those stars to be angels. that means 1/3 of angels were cast out during the purge. I am a Catholic Christian from The Republic of India. we are outnumbered by Hindus by 40:1. I know some of their mythology pretty well. they have a guardian God or godess for each village, family, region likewise. it is said they have 333333333 devatas and devees ( well devatas and devees are demigods of different status). I am going to make a far fetched assumption here. considering these devees and devatas as to be those angels purged out. then the rest which remained faithful I.e 2/3 of heaven would amount to 666666666. adding these we get number 999999999. one angel is left out- Satan who caused the division. adding him we get the no. 1000000000: the total no of angels. that's the closest I could get. any yes these Hindu gods are somewhat similar to Egyptian ones. thanx for reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6327" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T10:15:07.557" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20274" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5175" CreationDate="2013-10-27T13:45:38.660" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God wanted Moses to pray for his people.By  doing so,Moses was showing love for them.On verse 7(Genesis 32.7),God himself tells Moses what is going on.God knew it,it was no surprise to him , but for sure it would be a great surprise and disappointment to Moses if God had not prepared him for what was about to come.God knew Moses,He knew Moses would probably grow weary.God  was not lying,as some may think,but he was coaching Moses,more than that he was leading him,teaching him at a level of understanding which Moses could graspIf that conversation had not happened ,Moses himself might have destroyed everyone and given up on his mission at his moment of fury.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6328" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T13:45:38.660" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20275" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20264" CreationDate="2013-10-27T14:41:29.283" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some theologians believe that &lt;strong&gt;Enoch and Elijah&lt;/strong&gt; will come back again as the &lt;strong&gt;Two Witnesses&lt;/strong&gt; of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011:1-12&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 11:1-12&lt;/a&gt;. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:27&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 9:27&lt;/a&gt; all men must die once, or at least once. Since Enoch and Elijah are the only two people who have not face death yet, excluding those people at the Rapture &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:51-53&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(1 Corinthians 15:51-53)&lt;/a&gt;, some theologians believe that they are reserved to die at the end times &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godsoutreachministryint.org/RevivalEndTimeHARVEST2Witnesses.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If this is true, then Elijah must return before the final judgement&lt;/strong&gt;. Apparently, Elijah and Enoch are now in Heaven or somewhere else, waiting for their time to return to earth at the time of the Antichrist, to be a witness of Christ to the Jews and all nations, to be killed in Jerusalem by the Antichrist, and to be raised again by God after 3 days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T05:24:02.320" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T05:24:02.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8968" CreationDate="2013-10-27T16:06:40.113" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The redeeming blood and regenerating water that sustain the believers in Christ. We are kept by the water of God's word and cleansed from sin by the power of Jesus blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6330" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T16:06:40.113" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20277" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-27T16:39:57.460" Score="-1" ViewCount="1940" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was pondering whether a sin is still a sin even if it is done with good intention or if it is destined by God in that way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are instances where in order to avoid hurting others or have a soothing effect on others we say things which are contrary to what they are or what we feel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from the perspective major Christian denominations like Roman Catholics, Protestants and other Reformed Churches, are white lies justifiable in some instances?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T12:34:55.490" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T12:34:55.490" Title="Are white lies sometime justified?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2013-10-29T12:04:15.410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20278" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-27T16:58:38.373" Score="9" ViewCount="22872" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to know what is the difference between &lt;em&gt;belief&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;faith&lt;/em&gt; from a Protestant perspective. Can anyone explain this to me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6297" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-09-16T12:54:08.323" LastActivityDate="2015-09-16T12:54:08.323" Title="What is the difference between belief and faith, from a Protestant perspective?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;belief&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20278" CreationDate="2013-10-27T17:27:54.677" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Greek, they are the same: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4102&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;πίστις&lt;/a&gt;. Ideally, you'd want to know what the ancient Hebrews understood by the word אמונה, and what the ancient Greeks understood by the word πίστις.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-10-27T17:27:54.677" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20282" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20315" CreationDate="2013-10-27T18:06:33.287" Score="2" ViewCount="264" Body="&lt;p&gt;One New Testament exhortation is &quot;judge not, lest you be judged.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, Romans 3:23 says, &quot;For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any Christian sect, or school of thought believes the converse of the first line, something like &quot;Judge and let yourself be judged?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The core belief here would be something like, &quot;You are a wicked, evil, sinful (wo)man--and so am I.&quot; (That's per the Romans passage.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Put another way, is it possible to pass judgment on e.g. Adolf Hitler, knowing that &quot;in his shoes, you or I might have done the same or similar things?&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some commenters below believe that a Christian can, and should judge the actions of others, while refraining from judging the &quot;righteousness&quot; of the person. Another opined that the admonition is against &quot;hypocrisy,&quot; that the &quot;converse&quot; is OK, if you realize that &quot;as you deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal.&quot; Are either of these ideas in line with what the Scripture says?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="418" LastEditDate="2020-05-06T14:48:59.783" LastActivityDate="2020-05-06T14:48:59.783" Title="Is there a converse of &quot;judge not, lest you be judged?&quot;" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;romans&gt;&lt;words-of-jesus&gt;&lt;judging-others&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2015-04-08T19:57:34.843" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20283" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20304" CreationDate="2013-10-27T19:31:27.687" Score="4" ViewCount="11731" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation tells us that there is a Temple of God in Heaven, and that in that Temple is the Ark of his testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation  11:19  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God directed Moses twice to make sure that he built the Tabernacle after the pattern God had shown him on the Mountain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 25:9  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus  25:40  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the Mount. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word translated here as &lt;em&gt;pattern&lt;/em&gt; could have just as easily been translated &lt;em&gt;model&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;H8403 תַּבנִיתּ tabniyth (tab-neeth') n-f.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  1. structure&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2. (by implication) a model, resemblance&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  KJV: figure, form, likeness, pattern, similitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any theological suppositions about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-10-27T22:46:21.613" LastActivityDate="2018-05-19T19:47:02.997" Title="Was the Tabernacle and its furnishings a copy of things in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20278" CreationDate="2013-10-28T01:35:56.637" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The understanding that I am most familiar with - a Protestant understanding, if it matters, is that &quot;belief&quot; is an intellectual belief, while &quot;faith&quot; is a matter of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;trust&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that leads to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;action&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This can be summed up in an illustration of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.creativebiblestudy.com/Blondin-story.html&quot;&gt;Charles Blondin&lt;/a&gt;, a  tightrope walker who asks a crowd if they believe that he can safely walk a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls on a tightrope.  Many in the crowd ask who believes that he can do this, and of course, most say that they do.  Then he asks who is willing to get into the wheelbarrow.  Only those whose &quot;belief&quot; reaches the point of faith will get in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is similar to how it's explained by many, many, Christian groups, and while I can't claim that the understanding is universal, it is quite common.  For example, The Feral Apologist has an article explaining the difference &lt;a href=&quot;http://feralapologist.com/2011/09/02/belief-and-trust/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  They put it like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How are we, as Christians, to understand our faith? We need to first&#xA;  discover the meaning of the word “faith” in the Bible, and how that&#xA;  meaning is somewhat different from the meaning many attach to it&#xA;  today. To avoid the cultural baggage associated with the term, let’s&#xA;  look at the Greek words that are used in the New Testament and&#xA;  translated as “faith.” There are three primary forms of this word in&#xA;  Greek, the noun form pistis, the adjective form pistos, and the verb&#xA;  form pisteuo. Each form’s meaning is a variant of the word “trust.”&#xA;  Hence pistis is “a trust” in someone or something, pistos is&#xA;  “trusting” as applied to someone adjectivally, and pisteuo literally&#xA;  means “I trust.” It is important to keep this in mind because we have&#xA;  often misunderstood these words (translated as “faith”) in our culture&#xA;  to be, not variants of the word trust, but variants of the word&#xA;  belief, used in an intellectual sense. It is true that some places in&#xA;  scripture, such as James 2:19, the verb form is rightly translated as&#xA;  “believe” because of contextual issues and what James was trying to&#xA;  accomplish. In other places, such as John 14:1, a variant imperative&#xA;  form of the verb is translated as Jesus’ exhortation to “trust” in&#xA;  him. When we encounter the word “faith” in scripture then, our default&#xA;  understanding should be that it means “trust.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Faith Baptist Church, in New jersey also uses the Blondin story in one of their devotionals on the subject. The devotional says this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The historical stunts of Blondin help us understand what it means to&#xA;  have &quot;faith&quot;. First of all, faith is not mere intellectual assent. If&#xA;  anyone in the crowd truly believe that Blondin could cross the raging&#xA;  Niagara with someone in the wheelbarrow, he or she would have&#xA;  volunteered to ride along. &quot;Faith&quot; always means that we are really&#xA;  trusting someone or something. &quot;Faith&quot; is more than the words of&#xA;  mental assent as the words that were shouted by the crowds lining the&#xA;  shores of Niagara. To say, &quot;We believe&quot; means that we believe not only&#xA;  with our head, but with our heart and our wills. Faith means that we&#xA;  believe that God can do what He has said and that we believe it so&#xA;  thoroughly that we are willing to fully act upon it. Faith does not&#xA;  mean that we believe God can do it, but that God can do it with us in&#xA;  that &quot;wheelbarrow&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-12-29T07:13:41.953" LastActivityDate="2014-12-29T07:13:41.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20289" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-28T07:08:03.720" Score="5" ViewCount="978" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does anyone know if there are digital versions of these greek New Testament texts available? Not just online or pdf versions, but complete downloadable full Greek texts in unicode text format:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Textus Sinaiticus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Textus Vaticanus&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=downloads.showDownloadMain&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Textus Receptus&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://unbound.biola.edu/downloads/bibles/greek_tischendorf.zip?CFID=33385784&amp;amp;CFTOKEN=80815906?CFID=33385784&amp;amp;CFTOKEN=80815906&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Download&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=downloads.showDownloadMain&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westcott and Hort&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://unbound.biola.edu/downloads/bibles/greek_WH_UBS4.zip?CFID=33385784&amp;amp;CFTOKEN=80815906?CFID=33385784&amp;amp;CFTOKEN=80815906&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Download&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ivan Panin Greek New Testament edition&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And maybe if you know any other good options for comparative studies, I'd appreciate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will add hyperlinks to the titles, when I have found pleasing site for my purpose with your help.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6335" LastEditorUserId="6335" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T17:24:37.273" LastActivityDate="2020-07-01T17:11:24.193" Title="Digital versions of Greek Bibles" Tags="&lt;greek&gt;&lt;manuscript&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20293" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2097" CreationDate="2013-10-28T07:26:13.680" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;That's a wise question. Eating an apple cant be a sin. Also the almighty god cant be so short tempered to blame Adam and Eve as sinners for eating just an Apple. I have put the similar question, i strongly think the story is simply a metaphor. The apple is nothing but the symbol of selfish desires. That's why it was forbidden to eat. The selfish desires are the root of all man's pain. The longing to sensual pleasures binds him with the worst karma like killing animals, humans , cheating each other , robberies , thefts , hurting each others emotions and many more. God almighty got angry because man chose the bad thing , the apple of selfishness. And as a result humans suffered the sin cycle of birth and rebirth which occurs because of bad karma. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6334" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T07:26:13.680" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20277" CreationDate="2013-10-28T09:38:40.453" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;A sin is not expiated because of a &amp;quot;greater good&amp;quot;. In respect of &lt;em&gt;lying,&lt;/em&gt; a lie is to be condemned by its very nature as an offence against truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8K.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Catechism&lt;/a&gt; has&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2482 &amp;quot;A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;280&lt;/sup&gt; The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: &amp;quot;You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;281&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. the deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. the culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The paragraph omitted from that chunk is also specially relevant:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2484 The &lt;em&gt;gravity of a lie&lt;/em&gt; is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A lie is a lie; it is a sin; in the Catholic Church it needs to be confessed. Whether it &lt;strong&gt;constitutes a grave sin&lt;/strong&gt; is open to determination. In the case of diverting an assassin, it probably falls into the definition of a &lt;em&gt;venial sin&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;A&lt;/sup&gt; by allowing charity to exist, even though it offends and wounds it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;280&lt;/sup&gt; St Augustine, &lt;em&gt;De mendacio&lt;/em&gt; (On Sin) 4, 5&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;281&lt;/sup&gt; John 8:44&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;A&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 1855&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T10:00:35.997" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20295" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20277" CreationDate="2013-10-28T10:24:31.693" Score="0" Body="&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;In very Simple Way i am answering..&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose some one is Living a good life, with good heart good intention in this world and died.&#xA;If bible is the true Word of God, Sure he still under Sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only the Blood of Jesus Can wash the Sins of any mankind, No one else can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin&amp;amp; Curse come to our life through our for-fathers. So it is necessary to Clean the sin through jesus Blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its possible only by Believing him that he is the Saviors ad he died for the Sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is Why Bible tells the Word &lt;code&gt;Born Again&lt;/code&gt;.if you r not born again no one enter the Kingdom of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks, i tried to give answe in very simple Way according my Knowledge&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6297" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T10:24:31.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20297" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-28T10:32:46.807" Score="-1" ViewCount="275" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to Bible,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man exists on earth before 7000 years Ago. But science has got too much improvements recently in all kind of area.Did the science can prove that there was existence of human before 7000 years. with whole proof??? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If yes How Bible can explain that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6297" LastEditorUserId="6297" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T10:39:14.697" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T00:42:15.027" Title="Man Exists in earth" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;science&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-10-28T17:17:23.417" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20298" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20277" CreationDate="2013-10-28T10:57:21.020" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am starting this answer where @Andrew has stopped.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consider the scenario in which your moral obligation to protect life is pitted against your moral obligation to tell the truth.  Protecting life is the weightier moral imperative of the two, and thus lying to protect that life would be the right thing to do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In truth no lie in deception is really good. For instance: You tell someone their hair looks good when it doesn't. Some day they will realize they look stupid and wonder why you said it was good. Or say a husband lying to his wife about their financial situation, if his purpose for doing so was good that is to prevent her from worrying. &lt;strong&gt;Note that there is a deception involved which when the truth is known, will hurt them.&lt;/strong&gt;    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand consider the following:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;You are planning a surprise party for a family member.  In order to keep it a secret, you have to lie about where you are going, what you have in the bag, what you spent your money on, etc.  When the person for whom the party is being thrown learns that they were told untruths in order to keep the party a surprise, do they respond, “I can’t believe you lied to me!”?  No, they do not think you have done anything wrong.  &lt;strong&gt;Note that there is no deception involved here which can be hurtful later when the truth is known.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those are the real life situations. Yet to know the right Christian perspective I did a long search and found this very useful information on the subject here at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-lying-ever-right&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-lying-ever-right&lt;/a&gt;. It was very interesting and briefly I will try to summarise it:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Augustine in his treatise on lying (De Mendacio), cites the case of a holy bishop, Firmus of Thagasta, who wished to protect a man who had sought refuge with him. The bishop was so careful of the truth that, rather than lying to the imperial officers, he told them frankly that he would not reveal the man’s location. Firmus maintained this resolve even under torture and emperor was so impressed with the bishop’s virtue that he both praised the bishop and pardoned the fugitive.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Augustine tells this story to note that God is perfectly capable of extricating from trouble those who stand fast in the truth. In the monumental Summa Theologiae, Thomas states the same position: &quot;Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever. Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says&quot; (II:110:3).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Can a Lie Ever Be Necessary?&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lying is held to be prohibited by the Eighth Commandment, but that commandment literally condemns only the bearing of false witness (as in a legal proceeding), so lying and other verbal sins are included by extension, through moral reasoning. The importance of speaking the truth is thoroughly rooted in the natural law. For this reason, not only Christians but for most others, at the least, it is intrinsically immoral to speak falsely in a serious matter for an unworthy motive (such as to gain something to which one has no right, or to avoid a punishment that is justly due).   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And yet the problem of the &quot;necessary lie&quot; presents itself immediately, a problem recognized and discussed by Christians, non-Christians, and even those of no religion at all. Since the mid-20th century, the same problem has been posed in terms of whether Christians hiding Jews in Nazi Germany could morally lie to those seeking to find and destroy them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For convenience, consider a man with a house guest whom a group of thugs wants to murder. Because they don’t wish to create an outcry before they’re sure they’ve found their quarry (giving him time to escape, say from a neighboring house), they don’t force their way in to search. Instead, they knock on the door and simply ask whether their intended victim is within. So here is the dilemma: If you answer the door, and you don’t trust the thugs’ intentions, do you have to tell the truth?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite the strictures of both Augustine and Aquinas, the vast majority of well-formed Christians would answer this question in the negative. Under these circumstances, they believe it is perfectly permissible to deceive the thugs at the door and they have saints on their side as well. But even these well-formed Christians cannot explain why they may deceive the thugs, or at least they can’t explain it in a way which is universally accepted by sound moral theologians down through the ages, nor in a way that has (yet) been endorsed by the magisterium of the Catholic Church. In other words, most of us believe we can (and indeed should) lie under these circumstances, but we don’t know exactly why.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What Is a Lie?&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that a solution to this conundrum could come in one of two forms. It may be that: (1) The immorality of lying admits of exceptions such that there is no objective evil, or at least no subjective evil (guilt), in lying to the thugs; or (2) a very careful definition of &quot;lying&quot; will show that speaking falsely to the thugs is not a lie at all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many have suggested that the immorality of lying admits of exceptions. These argue, for example, that one is not obligated to tell the truth to an enemy. Such exceptions may be permitted by the principle of double effect: Just as one can morally kill to defend someone’s life, so one can morally lie for a similar reason. The deception (or killing) is a secondary effect of a legitimate action. But with killing there is more at work than double effect. It is not moral to kill anyone whose existence threatens our own lives (consider the case of abortion to save the life of the mother, or cannibalism in a life raft). Rather, the one killed must somehow have the character of an unjust aggressor. Thus we commonly define murder as the taking of an &quot;innocent&quot; life (that is, the right to life has not been forfeited) and we distinguish murder sharply from mere killing. If the same is true of lying, the solution is not so much a matter of exception as of definition.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difficulty of conceptualizing the perfect definition has caused many over the centuries to insist on the existence of the necessary lie. Such a lie arises from a conflict between justice and veracity when the exercise of both virtues is demanded by the selfsame moral situation. In other words, we are obliged to tell the truth, and we are also obliged to keep secrets, but there are times when the only way to keep a secret is to lie. Both keeping secrets and speaking truthfully are included under all standard expositions of the natural law and the eighth commandment. When our obligation to protect a secret conflicts with our obligation to tell the truth, the result is a necessary lie—necessary not because it helps us to avoid some potential pain but because it is the only way to preserve justice. We may—indeed, we must—deceive the thugs because it is the lesser of two evils.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Our Intentions&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving&quot; (a citation from Augustine), and &quot;To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error&quot; (CCC 2482, 2483). &#xA;Perhaps the very emphasis on the intention to deceive in this definition suggests another possible line of thought. For, when we speak falsely to our murderous thugs, we may at least question whether our intention is to deceive. Presumably, that intention—if it exists consciously at all—is very secondary. What we primarily intend is to prevent them from doing evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T06:22:56.663" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T06:22:56.663" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20299" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20297" CreationDate="2013-10-28T11:20:51.357" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church accepts the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;scientific understanding&lt;/a&gt; that our planet is older than 7,000 years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could an omnipotent God create the world according to our 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, Gregorian measured snipets of time? Yes, absolutely!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Did he choose to do it that way?&lt;/a&gt; No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is ultimately necessary for Catholics and/or like minded Christians, who trust Sacred Scripture to keep in mind that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is a collection of different types of literature...none of which are to be considered 100% scientific.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible is not given to humanity to explain &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt; the universe came into existence, but &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Pius XII warned us, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the &#xA;   speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the &#xA;   works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be &#xA;   determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by &#xA;   the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to &#xA;   those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, &#xA;   archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what &#xA;   modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would &#xA;   be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in &#xA;   order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds &#xA;   of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their &#xA;   times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot &#xA;   determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of &#xA;   the ancient literature of the East&quot; (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It &lt;em&gt;should be stated&lt;/em&gt; that although &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Theistic evolutionism&quot; is the official position of the Catholic church&lt;/a&gt;, Catholics are technically &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; obligated or required to hold this idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Concerning the doctrine on creation, Ludwig Ott in his &lt;em&gt;Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma&lt;/em&gt; identifies the following points as essential beliefs of the Catholic faith (&quot;De Fide&quot;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The world was created for the Glorification of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God has created a good world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The world had a beginning in time.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God alone created the world.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God keeps all created things in existence.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church makes it clear that salvation is not determined by knowledge, but by love. The bottom line is that the created world was made to &lt;strong&gt;glorify &lt;em&gt;God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-10-30T00:42:15.027" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T00:42:15.027" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20300" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20289" CreationDate="2013-10-28T12:58:18.320" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I did some Google search for you. I found these online resources. Some are Unicode, some are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Codex Sinaiticus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://archive.org/stream/CodexVaticanusbFacSimile/Codex-Vaticanus-NT#page/n0/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Codex Vaticanus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Textus Receptus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/w/westcott/gnt/toc.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Westcott and Hort&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/644433/Ivan-Panin-The-New-Testament-in-the-Original-Greek-&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ivan Panin Greek New Testament edition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T12:58:18.320" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20301" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20297" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:00:27.140" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure what you are asking, but I will attempt to clear some doubt here. Most people who take the creation account as historical believe that the Earth is 6000-7000 years old.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a scientific point of view, you can use half-lives to tell how old things are. However, to have a starting point, assumptions must be made. For example, in physics, you can scientifically tell where a ball is going to land, but you must make some assumptions, about some external factors (that you do not know) that might change the course of the ball, such as air or physical interference. In the same way, assumptions must be made in dating techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Carbon-14 dating, is a technique used to find how old organic material, a living thing, is. For Carbon-14 dating, the assumption that the amount of it has always been constant, which is not necessarily true, must be made. Experiments by Dr. Willard Libby, founder of the Carbon Dating method, found this to be untrue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the Bible says stands. The Bible is not there to explain certain scientific experiments that, as revolutionary as they may be, could be based on erroneous assumptions. Time and time again, scientific 'fact' has been proven incorrect, more recently &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;absolute zero&lt;/a&gt;. The Bible has never been proved wrong, and it is my firm belief that it never will, for it is the Word of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information, read these articles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-carbon_dating_radiometric_decay_rates&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Is Carbon-Dating Accurate?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T13:08:25.150" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T13:08:25.150" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20303" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20282" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:25:11.150" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two passages you quote are not converses. In fact they are strongly linked. The point about &quot;judge not, lest your be judged&quot; is &lt;em&gt;reinforced&lt;/em&gt; not contradicted by &quot;all have sinned and fallen short&quot;. The point is that 'nobody is perfect', therefore making (condemnatory) judgements about others invites those same judgements to be applied to you. If you want to be treated with mercy and understanding, you should do the same to others. You are absolutelyh right that God, who is all-knowing, should be the one to judge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is not to say that sins 'don't matter', or that there should be no such thing as earthly justice. Jesus pronounces condemnation on those who are wicked, and there are examples of Paul and the Apostles doing the same. Passages in Romans clearly indicate the role of secular authorities in maintaining justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the case of Nazis, who are of course an extreme case, we are absolutely right to try and condemn them as war criminals and punish those left alive appropriately. However maybe we should not be quick to state with certainty that even they are necessarily eternally condemned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T13:25:11.150" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20283" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:38:32.583" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%208&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 8:4-5 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already&#xA;  priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at &lt;strong&gt;a&#xA;  sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven&lt;/strong&gt;. This is&#xA;  why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See&#xA;  to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on&#xA;  the mountain.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hebrews 9:19-23 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people,&#xA;  he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and&#xA;  branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He&#xA;  said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you&#xA;  to keep.” In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the&#xA;  tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law&#xA;  requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and &lt;strong&gt;without&#xA;  the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. It was necessary, then,&#xA;  for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these&#xA;  sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices&#xA;  than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human&#xA;  hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven&#xA;  itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence&lt;/strong&gt;. Nor did he enter&#xA;  heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest&#xA;  enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses did not build a Temple with walls and foundations of stone. The tabernacle built by Moses was a movable tent. What the Bible meant by a 'copy' is the &lt;strong&gt;design and positioning&lt;/strong&gt; of the items inside the tabernacle. The tabernacle on earth cannot be equally the same like the one in Heaven but it reflected all the important aspects of the one in Heaven. The design and positioning of the items are same but the material and quality cannot be the same. While the earthly tabernacle was temporary, the heavenly tabernacle is eternal. While the high priest had to offer the blood every year, Jesus offered His eternal blood only once which is for eternity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T13:38:32.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20278" CreationDate="2013-10-28T13:56:00.553" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know that everyone uses these words consistently, but, by connotation, it's quite possible to &lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt; in God's existence without &lt;em&gt;having faith&lt;/em&gt; in God (having absolute trust in God).  I believe the government exists, but I don't have faith in the government (trust in it to do the right thing in all circumstances). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T13:56:00.553" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20264" CreationDate="2013-10-28T14:04:44.483" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To understand this, you must understand what Elijah's mission was, what he did and also what John the Baptist did as Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not&#xA;risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the&#xA;kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the&#xA;Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the&#xA;violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied&#xA;until John. And if you are willing to receive it, &lt;strong&gt;he is Elijah who&#xA;is to come&lt;/strong&gt;. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 11:11-14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John the Baptist was not the same Elijah, but He carried out Elijah's mission and purpose. In the same way, there will be an Elijah in the last days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the&#xA;great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the&#xA;fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their&#xA;fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. Malachi 4:5, 6.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The closing words of Malachi are a prophecy regarding the work that&#xA;should be done preparatory to the first and the second advent of&#xA;Christ. Those who are to prepare the way for the second coming of&#xA;Christ are represented by faithful Elijah, as John came in the spirit&#xA;of Elijah to prepare the way for Christ’s first advent. Our message&#xA;must be as direct as was that of John. He rebuked kings for their&#xA;iniquity. Notwithstanding the peril his life was in, he never allowed&#xA;truth to languish on his lips.... In this time of well-nigh universal&#xA;apostasy, God calls upon His messengers to proclaim His law in the&#xA;spirit and power of Elias. As John the Baptist, in preparing a people&#xA;for Christ’s first advent, called their attention to the Ten&#xA;Commandments, so we are to give, with no uncertain sound, the message:&#xA;“Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is&#xA;come.” With the earnestness that characterized Elijah the prophet and&#xA;John the Baptist, we are to strive to prepare the way for Christ’s&#xA;second advent. The hour of God’s judgment has come, and upon the&#xA;members of His church on earth rests the solemn responsibility of&#xA;giving warning to those who are standing as it were on the very brink&#xA;of eternal ruin. All can do something in the work. None will be&#xA;pronounced guiltless before God unless they have worked earnestly and&#xA;unselfishly for the salvation of souls. Your duty cannot be shifted&#xA;upon another. No one but yourself can do your work. If you withhold&#xA;your light, someone must be left in darkness through your neglect. The&#xA;Lord has a place for everyone in His great plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Faith I live By, P. 290&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T14:04:44.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20308" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20338" CreationDate="2013-10-28T14:09:05.383" Score="-3" ViewCount="1960" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there an obligation to use Viagra if it would enable a couple to have children which they otherwise couldn't?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question originated from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20195/should-catholic-christians-be-obligated-to-use-in-vitro-fertilisation-if-not-w&quot;&gt;Should Catholic christians be obligated to use in vitro fertilisation? If not, why not?&lt;/a&gt;. There the question included Viagra and In-vitro fertilisation, however there seems to be a difference in how the Catholic Church approaches those two practices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In response to the first two comments by @Flimzy and @ElberichSchneider, I am providing more detail to hopefully improve the question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How can the church obligate someone to use a specific drug? And which&#xA;  church committee would be responsible for evaluating all new drugs to&#xA;  know if they ought to be mandated on their membership?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Viagra is merely an example of different similar drugs (already on the market or not even in development yet). How far does &quot;be fruitful and multiply&quot; go? Isn't - if one didn't want children in their marriage - the non-use of contraception a step into the same direction in a similar fashion as using lifestyle drugs to overcome erectile dysfunction, i.e. if I am fertile (in the sense of healthy sperms), but can't consummate due to physiological problems and could with Viagra, would I be obligated to use it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adding to what Flimzy said, I think that you should cite at least one&#xA;  reliable study which proves a positive correlation between the use of&#xA;  'viagra' and the probabilty of having children. If you don't have one,&#xA;  the question is NARQ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sake of the example could we replace Viagra with a theoretical drug with a correlation coefficient r(druguse,conception)~1?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1823" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T08:22:17.673" Title="What is the Catholic Church's attitude to the use of Viagra in marriage?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20309" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20297" CreationDate="2013-10-28T15:11:20.687" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question is based on a twenty four hour day. The 24 hour day is based on the rotation of the Earth in relation to the sun which did not happen until Genesis 1:5:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:3 through 5&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. &#xA;  4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. &#xA;  5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so verses 1 and 2 even though they may have been 24 hours long since time began at Genesis 1:1. We cannot say with certainty that it was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we can say with certainty is that Man was created on the sixth day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 1:26 through 31 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. &#xA;  27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. &#xA;  28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. &#xA;  29  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. &#xA;  30  And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. &#xA;  31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is also worth noting that Genesis 1:5 says that the evening and the morning were the first day, however we do not know if the evening began at verse 1 or verse 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No one but God can definitively answer your  question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However if you are interested you might like to watch;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;amp;v=1KMd-5MVF_E]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T15:11:20.687" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20277" CreationDate="2013-10-28T15:48:52.740" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question makes me think about the story of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.corrietenboom.com/index_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Corrie ten Boom&lt;/a&gt;. She was one of many Christians who hid Jews from the Nazis. To do that, they had to lie almost constantly. Is lying a sin? Certainly. However, handing someone over to be murdered is also a sin. So then you have to ask yourself which is more important: keeping yourself from sin or saving someone's life. This is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he asked the Pharisees, &quot;Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.com/111/luk.14.3.niv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 14:3&lt;/a&gt;) There are of course less extreme examples: stealing to feed your family or lying to surprise someone for their birthday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The other question you have to ask yourself is what makes these sins special. After all, you probably committed at least 5 other sins for terrible reasons on the same day you committed the one sin for a good reason. Sin comes as naturally to humans as breathing. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.com/111/rom.3.23.niv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:23&lt;/a&gt; says that &quot;All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God&quot;. Now I'm not saying that all sins are equal, but that all sinners &quot;are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.com/111/rom.3.24.niv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:24&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;TL;DR Even if you sin for a good reason, it's still sin. But, &lt;a href=&quot;http://marshill.com/2013/01/06/all-sin-is-equal-is-that-true&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;regardless of what sin we have committed, forgiveness is found at the cross of Jesus Christ&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T15:48:52.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20311" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-28T15:57:04.847" Score="1" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the interpretation of Genesis-1 concerning the age of the earth and universe is still open, but is there consensus &lt;code&gt;on the age of human civilization&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;on the date of first man Adam&lt;/code&gt;? Can I say both literal interpretation and human history all agree that the age of human being is around 4000~10000 years?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1960" LastEditorUserId="1960" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T18:40:09.910" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T21:56:42.907" Title="Is there consensus on the age of human civilization?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2013-10-30T15:43:08.003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20278" CreationDate="2013-10-28T16:35:36.067" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as Protestantism is concerned Belief is based on some sort of evidence such as belief in the Bible.&#xA;Faith on the other hand is trusting in things not seen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To Believe that the Bible exists is based on whether or not the book really exists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To have Faith that the Bible is God's word is not based on it's existence, but on  a personal choice not proven in any Material form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To belong to Hinduism, or Islam, or any other Religious affiliation is Belief, and to live in the precept that only believing that Jesus death on the cross will get you to Heaven is Faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T16:35:36.067" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20311" CreationDate="2013-10-28T16:46:27.463" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It'd depend on how you go about defining civilization.  The Lascaux cave paintings are dated by archeologists to 17000 years ago.  Farming communities, along with animal domestication and pottery started roughly 10000-12000 years ago at the beginning of the paleolithic.  Actual written language started possibly as early as 5000 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit: So to clarify... the definition of civilization is ambiguous.  A Biblicist creationary view and a secular archeologist could probably agree on the date of written language.  They would very likely disagree on the date range of the first farming communities, they most certainly would disagree on the date range of the cave paintings.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;age of human being&quot; taken to be the accepted date of the first &lt;em&gt;homo sapiens sapiens&lt;/em&gt; would be well beyond any kind of reconciliation between the two viewpoints (on the order of a couple hundred thousand years).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3942" LastEditorUserId="3942" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T21:56:42.907" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T21:56:42.907" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20289" CreationDate="2013-10-28T16:57:12.993" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you are interested there are two excellent free downloadable Bible study programs, both of which have numerous Bible versions for download including both Hebrew and Greek translations. They are http//www The word.org and http//www. e-sword.net. you can preview either one prior to downloading. I have both and find them extremely valuable. You also can compare translations side by side, and there are many other aids that can be downloaded to enhance each program. Something else that may be helpful if you wish to study Scripture is a program named what the Bible says you can download a free trial version, and if you like it it is very cheap to buy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T03:04:49.780" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T03:04:49.780" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20315" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20282" CreationDate="2013-10-28T18:00:15.547" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+27%3A17&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Proverbs 27:17&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As iron sharpens iron,&#xA;      so one person sharpens another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb%2010:24&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:24&lt;/a&gt; says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, the whole concept of &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=mutual+exhortation&amp;amp;oq=mutual+exhor&amp;amp;aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.4620j0j4&amp;amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;amp;espv=210&amp;amp;es_sm=91&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mutual exhortation&lt;/a&gt; essentially reinforces the notion that &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. (Romans 15:1)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in general, yes, the duty of one Christian to another is to exhort and encourage one another to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:27&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;live a life worthy of the calling we were given&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is more of a thing for believers to call one another too, however, rather than an injunction to tell the world to shape up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T18:00:15.547" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20317" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-28T18:32:06.710" Score="7" ViewCount="497" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the &quot;rules&quot; of a Catholic church? I wanted to start attending Church a few years ago (I wasn't brought up in a religious family - but I was baptized) and the lady at the Church basically told me that I cannot join the Church. Actually, I didn't even really know what she meant by &quot;join the church&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there rules in the Bible that say anything about who can attend a Church and &quot;join&quot; it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5803" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T11:53:06.523" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T11:53:06.523" Title="Does the Bible prescribe any rules for who may attend and &quot;join&quot; a Catholic church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20318" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20317" CreationDate="2013-10-28T19:00:59.123" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;TL;DR Yes. Everyone is welcome. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28%3A16-20&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Matthew 28:16-20&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The apostles were instructed to teach all nations in the Great Commission. There are many other verses that reiterate that everyone is welcome and I could be here all day going through all of them. One of my favorites on the subject is Paul's statement that he became all things to all men so that he might save some. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+9%3A19-23&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 9:19-23&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Joining the Church&quot; can mean one of two things. First, a professed Christian who is becoming a member of a church. Membership generally involves taking on the responsibility to support the church financially and to be an active participant in the operations and ministry of the church. Second, a person going through the process of converting to Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were baptized and confirmed Catholic then you only need to receive the Sacrament of Penance. If you were not baptized Catholic or if you were baptized Catholic but not Confirmed, you will be required to go through the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/rcia/&quot;&gt;Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults&lt;/a&gt;. It involves some classes, receiving the sacrament of penance, making a profession of faith, then Confirmation and the Eucharist. Traditionally this happens during the Lenten season.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's possible that she meant that you cannot become a member without becoming Catholic or that the process doesn't start until the Lenten season. Either way this is an important process that you need to discuss with the priest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T19:00:59.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5389" CreationDate="2013-10-28T19:27:30.960" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Abraham married his wife before his calling from God and before the 10 commandments. Every wrong action after the 10 commandments is a sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6342" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T19:27:30.960" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20084" CreationDate="2013-10-28T20:18:17.633" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;From Calvin's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.iii.html&quot;&gt;Institutes of the Christian Religion&lt;/a&gt;, Book 2, Chapter 2, Section 4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moreover although the Greek Fathers, above others, and especially Chrysostom, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly Calvin felt that only &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&quot;&gt;Augustine&lt;/a&gt; understood predestination correctly. But, in the same section of the Institutes he invokes at least 3 other Church fathers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian&quot;&gt;Cyprian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What, then, is meant by Cyprian in the passage so often lauded by Augustine, “Let us glory in nothing, because nothing is ours,” unless it be, that man being utterly destitute, considered in himself, should entirely depend on God?&#xA;  Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 2, Section 9&#xA;  Here Calvin is referring to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/105/1051118.htm&quot;&gt;Chapter 36 of A Treatise on the Gift of Perserverance&lt;/a&gt; by Augustine. Augustine is in turn quoting Cyprian's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.xii.iv.vi.html&quot;&gt;Testimonies Book III Section 4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucherius_of_Lyon&quot;&gt;Eucherius of Lyon&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;In the next sentence Calvin invokes Augustine and Eucherius:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What is meant by Augustine and Eucherius, when they expound that Christ is the tree of life, and that whoso puts forth his hand to it shall live; that the choice of the will is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that he who, forsaking the grace of God, tastes of it shall die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom&quot;&gt;John Chrysostom&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;And in the following sentence he quotes John Chrysostom&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What is meant by Chrysostom, when he says, “That every man is not only naturally a sinner, but is wholly sin?” If there is nothing good in us; if man, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is wholly sin; if it is not even lawful to try how far the power of the will extends,—how can it be lawful to share the merit of a good work between God and man?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's hard to say whether these other fathers directly influenced the doctrine of double predestination since so few of them, by Calvin's research, taught predestination at all. The closest would be Cyprian especially since I was able to find Cyprian's own books. The reference to John Chrysostom is interesting since Calvin condemns him and then quotes him to support his doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="5440" LastEditDate="2013-10-28T20:29:11.410" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T20:29:11.410" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20324" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20097" CreationDate="2013-10-28T20:50:14.183" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father in Heaven&quot;, could be interpreted more as &quot;Don't worry, I'm not going leaving for Heaven just yet.  You don't have to cling to me like that.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6345" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T20:50:14.183" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20325" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20084" CreationDate="2013-10-28T20:59:41.773" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Augustine is &lt;em&gt;certainly&lt;/em&gt; the major patristic source that Calvin uses, for all topics. For his use of the Fathers in general, he was not particularly invested in finding out what they believed: the witness of Scripture was paramount. He did not take the practice of the Church in that era as normative. In his use of Augustine, Calvin wished to insulate himself against the charge that the Reformation amounted to inventing new doctrine (cf. his preface to the &lt;em&gt;Institutes&lt;/em&gt;). So he needed someone respectable who (he could say) read the Bible in the same way as he did. There was also a polemical purpose, since the dependence of the Western theological tradition on Augustine meant that Calvin's &amp;quot;reclaiming&amp;quot; of him was an attack on the scholarly integrity of Catholic teaching.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From recent textual analysis of Calvin's writing, scholars have tried to guess at which sources he had available. (He, like other contemporary writers, did not provide detailed citations, and frequently reworded or paraphrased his sources. Nonetheless, painstaking analysis of word choices and errors, plus such hints as his occasional references like &amp;quot;on the next page, Basil says ...&amp;quot;, has allowed patient people to gain some degree of certainty about &lt;em&gt;specific editions&lt;/em&gt; of the books he owned.) Aside from Augustine, his patristic library included three works by Basil, one by Ambrose, the &lt;em&gt;Contra Haereticos&lt;/em&gt; of Irenaeus, the &lt;em&gt;Recognitiones&lt;/em&gt; of Pseudo-Clement, and the records of the councils of Carthage, Milevis and Orange.&lt;sup&gt;1, Introduction&lt;/sup&gt; This is a significantly smaller collection than was available to his opponents. (He had read more works than these, but did not necessarily possess them and so was not able to consult them in detail when writing.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Consequently, almost all of the evidence for his extra-Augustinian reading comes from his responses to critics. For (double) predestination, Albertus Pighius wrote against him in &lt;em&gt;De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia&lt;/em&gt; (1542), including a full range of references to the Fathers. Calvin's response was in two parts: after only a few months, he published his &amp;quot;On the bondage and liberation of the will&amp;quot; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, and ten years later &amp;quot;On the eternal predestination of God&amp;quot; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. The latter work was delayed because after the death of Pighius, Calvin did not consider it an urgent matter to refute him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The former work contains very little on predestination to damnation. Almost the only clear reference is the assertion (in Book 3, p183) that Augustine believed that the impious are predestined to death. Although other authors are discussed, there do not seem to be any other points where there is an unambiguous mention of the doctrine, as opposed to statements that are used primarily to support predestination in general. I choose not to count the &lt;em&gt;Hypognosticon&lt;/em&gt;, because even though it wasn't written by Augustine, Calvin thought it was. And in any case, it is not from the correct era.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the second treatise, I did find something: an extract from Ambrose's sermons on Luke (pp30-31). The following is Calvin's Latin and French, which differ a bit from one another:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christus &lt;em&gt;quem miseratur, vocat&lt;/em&gt;. Item: &lt;em&gt;si voluisset, ex indevotis fecisset devotus; sed Deus quos dignatur vocat, et quem vult religiosum facit&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Christ appelle à soy ceux ausquels il veut faire misericorde.&lt;/em&gt; Item, &lt;em&gt;S'il eust voulu, il eust bien faict devots ceux qui ne l'estoyent pas, mais Dieu appelle ceux qui luy plaist et donne sa crainte à qui il veut.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The English meaning is that Christ calls those to whom he wishes to be merciful; he could make the unfaithful faithful if he wanted; but calls (only) those who he finds deserving. This is from Ambrose's &lt;em&gt;Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam&lt;/em&gt;, 1.10 and 7.27 (vol. 15, col. 1527 of Migne's &lt;em&gt;Patrologia Latina&lt;/em&gt;). The first quotation is from a comment on Luke 1:3, and the second from the introduction to Luke 9:53ff. &lt;em&gt;However&lt;/em&gt;, although this is a work by Ambrose and not Augustine, it was probably known to Calvin because Augustine used it in his &lt;em&gt;De dono perseverantiae&lt;/em&gt; 19.49.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In summary, there is basically nobody among the Fathers, other than Augustine, who can be considered influential on Calvin's doctrine of double predestination. This does not bother him at all: at the beginning of Book 4 of the &lt;em&gt;Defensio&lt;/em&gt;, he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is the true Church to be distinguished from the false? By appeal to the multitude, says Pighius. However, I reckon judgement from the word of God, so that the Church is counted as those who follow Scripture. &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1. Ioannis Calvini Opera Omnia. Series 4: &lt;em&gt;Scripta didacta et polemica&lt;/em&gt;. Volume 3: &lt;em&gt;Defensio sanae et orthdoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii adversus calumnias Alberti Pighii Campensis&lt;/em&gt;. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2008. Eds.: Anthony N. S. Lane and Graham I. Davies.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2. Ibid. Series 3: &lt;em&gt;Scripta ecclesiastica&lt;/em&gt;. Volume 1: &lt;em&gt;De aeterna Dei praedestinatione&lt;/em&gt; / &lt;em&gt;De la prédestination Éternelle&lt;/em&gt;. Geneva: Librarie Droz, 1998. Eds.: Wilhelm H. Neuser and Olivier Fatio.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;3. &lt;em&gt;Veram Ecclesiam a falso quomodo discernere conveniet? Ad multitudinem, inquit Pighius. Atqui putabam ex verbo Dei iudicandum, ut quae Scripturae adhaereret, Ecclesia censeretur.&lt;/em&gt; Ref 1, p211.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T20:59:41.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20327" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18582" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:31:07.340" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is, is there any Biblical basis for the idea that a person might be saved after he dies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer, I think, is yes.  That is, a Biblical case can be made for some people escaping eternal punishment after they die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some passages that might help build such a case:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1.&#xA;1 Cor. 15:21-28:  This passage starts out seeming to proclaim universalism: &quot;as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive&quot;, but then says &quot;each in his own turn&quot;, and seems to describe a series of events.  Christ is the first to be &quot;made alive&quot;, then &quot;those who are his at his coming&quot;, and then some other things happen, but the end result seems to still be a good result for everyone -- God is all in all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2.&#xA;Philippians 2:9-11 says: &quot;Therefore God exalted him [Jesus] to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Take that passage in connection with Romans 10:9-10 which says that &quot;if you confess with your mouth ‘Jesus is Lord', you will be saved” and “it is with the mouth that you confess and are saved”.  So we have one passage saying that, eventually, everyone will confess with the mouth that &quot;Jesus is Lord&quot;, and another saying that such a confession results in salvation.  Since we know that not everyone makes this confession during their lives, it might be that some people make them after they die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3.&#xA;1 Peter 3:19 and following seems to be saying that Jesus went into Hell and &quot;made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits&quot;, referring to people of Noah's day, who would obviously have been dead by Jesus' time. The implication seems to be that these people were given an opportunity to be saved.  In another place it speaks of Jesus, upon his resurrection, &quot;leading captivity captive&quot;, possibly interpreted as referring to his leading those imprisoned spirits out of imprisonment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6345" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T21:31:07.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20328" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20097" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:43:01.333" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the passage in John 20:17, the word used for Touch &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G680&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ἅπτομαι&lt;/a&gt;, is not used in John 20:27.  This word is used in different ways throughout the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means that it is not unreasonable for the passage to have meant &amp;quot;to hold on to&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;grasp&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some eisegesis here, but if a person had a loved one they presumed to be dead, and they find them alive.  What would they do?  I would embrace them in excitement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now this is speculation, but we do know that Jesus wanted Mary Magdalene to not touch him (embrace) and instead wanted her to tell His disciples the news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage never explicitly states that she &lt;strong&gt;did not&lt;/strong&gt; touch him either, but the next verse makes it reasonable to believe that she did not since it says that Mary saw Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Furthermore&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to be the assumption that this means Jesus ascended into heaven at that very moment, which doesn't seem to be apparent to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Also, look at other translations&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many translate &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G680&amp;amp;t=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ἅπτομαι&lt;/a&gt; as hold.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6280" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-28T21:43:01.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20329" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5389" CreationDate="2013-10-28T21:52:38.723" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Ancient times, the word for &quot;sister&quot; also means &quot;cousin&quot; in Semitic languages. Aramaic word &quot;Khtha&quot; can mean sister or cousin. I believe the intended meaning here was Cousin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 11:26-27 (NIV) - &quot;After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of &lt;strong&gt;Abram, Nahor and Haran&lt;/strong&gt;. This is the account of Terah’s family line. Terah became &lt;strong&gt;the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Sarai (later Sarah) was the daughter of Terah, then Sarai would have been listed along with Abram, Nahor, and Haran.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we can confirm that the intended meaning was cousin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In ancient Semitic languages, it must be noted that the word for father can also mean ancestor. For Example, Aramaic word &quot;abba&quot; can mean &quot;father&quot; or &quot;ancestor/progenitor&quot; (Source - Book &quot;Introduction to Syriac&quot; by Wheeler Thackston, Page 65)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham was an Aramean (Deuteronomy 26:5) and Arameans spoke Aramaic. Abraham spoke Aramaic before he came to the land of Canaan where Old Hebrew was spoken. Laban the Aramean spoke Aramaic (&quot;Jegar Sahadutha&quot; in Genesis 31:47).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check on Footnotes (at the bottom of the website) for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2031&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;Jegar Sahadutha&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also want to point out that the commandments were established as early as the time period when Noah lived. For Example, Noah knew about clean animals and unclean animals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 7:2-4 - Take with you seven pairs of every kind of &lt;strong&gt;clean animal&lt;/strong&gt;, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of &lt;strong&gt;unclean animal&lt;/strong&gt;, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gave Abraham commands, decrees, and instructions. Abraham obeyed God and kept all of what God taught him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 26:4-5 - &quot;I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because &lt;strong&gt;Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the same type of instruction God gave to Moses in Deuteronomy 11:1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 11:1 - &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you may ask what about Moses' father marrying his aunt? In Hebrew Masoretic Text, it says this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:20 (1917 JPS Tanakh English translation of Hebrew Masoretic Text) - &quot;And Amram took him Jochebed &lt;strong&gt;his father’s sister to wife&lt;/strong&gt;; and she bore him Aaron and Moses. And the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty and seven years.“&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is confirmed as an error by Scholars, because Septuagint and Peshitta Tanakh (Aramaic Old Testament used in first century Israel) says Amram married his cousin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:20 (Samuel Bagster &amp;amp; Sons' Translation from Septuagint) - &quot;And Ambram took to wife Jochabed &lt;strong&gt;the daughter of his father's brother&lt;/strong&gt;, and she bore to him both Aaron and Moses, and Mariam their sister; and the years of the life of Ambram were a hundred and thirty-two years.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Exodus/index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt; to check this information. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:20 (Lamsa translation of Peshitta Tanakh)- &quot;And Amram took &lt;strong&gt;his uncle’s daughter&lt;/strong&gt; Jokhaber, and she bore him Aaron, Moses, and Miriam; and the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty-seven years.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Peshitta Tanakh (Aramaic Old Testament) agrees with Hebrew Masoretic Text about Ambram’s age.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cousin Marriage is permitted in the Bible. It is not in the prohibited marriage list mentioned in Leviticus Chapter 18. Aside from Exodus 6:20, we see cousin marriages in Genesis 29, Joshua 15:17, Numbers 36:1-11, 1 Chronicles 23:22.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-09T18:42:17.520" LastActivityDate="2016-11-09T18:42:17.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20331" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16150" CreationDate="2013-10-29T00:47:43.780" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Vision 2025 goal, being supported in prayer and in other ways, by more and more Christians all over the world, is the goal to have Bible translation at least STARTED, in EVERY language in the world that needs it, by the year 2025.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lots of work still to be done, but work is accelerating, as more and more people pray!  It is actually possible to reach this goal now, with the Lord's help and more and more Christians becoming involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have lots about all of this on my Facebook (Roger Doriot) and on my web site (www.rogerdoriot.com). I also have a prayer calendar I am happy to share with anyone.  It has a specific request for each day of the month, for some aspect of Bible translation, the strategy of using national translators as much as possible, and for Vision 2025.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Roger Doriot  (rogerdoriot@gmail.com)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6349" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T00:47:43.780" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20332" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7222" CreationDate="2013-10-29T03:42:35.927" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is interested in our spiritual development so that we be made perfect in the likeness of his Son Jesus Christ. If we fail in a test assigned by God, we will have to undergo the same test after some time. This continues till we pass that particular test. Please look at the Following Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JEREMIAH 18:1-6&#xA;&quot;The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.&#xA;5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan's purpose of a Temptation is to Destroy us. But God will never allow his evil designs to succeed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture says that God will never give us more to bear than we can and that he will always provide a way out. From our experience, that's surely been true although we admit that sometimes we think God thinks we can bear more than we think we can. He is always right about that, too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6350" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T03:42:35.927" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20333" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20096" CreationDate="2013-10-29T04:09:49.730" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes Saint Thomas had been to India and there are enough of evidences which seems to substantiate those claims. There are christian communities in South Western India (Kerala State) which trace back their ancestry to conversions that happened during that time.A substantial part of the Christian community in that Indian state has Syrian Christian lineage. It is said that they had come over to India from Syria and Iraq during the early part of Islamic persecution. Some claims are also made about Christians coming there in the First Century along with the Traders along the Spice route.&#xA;The RC church does not have much history in this part, but grew rapidly among the populace following the Portugese conquest of south India. Demographically a majority of RC population in India, can trace back their lineage to Hindu communities in South India unlike the Syrian Christians who are predominantly of the Orthodox and Marthoma church folds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6350" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T04:09:49.730" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20334" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-10-29T05:59:11.967" Score="0" Body="" OwnerUserId="-1" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T05:59:11.967" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T05:59:11.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20335" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-10-29T05:59:11.967" Score="0" Body="Origins, practices, traditions and customs of Indian Christians" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T11:45:29.537" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T11:45:29.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3172" CreationDate="2013-10-29T06:39:40.917" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Im a Christian, and I know God is a God of unspeakable wrath. Did anyone consider those women may not have wanted to marry their violators? If a woman today is raped, she is not going to marry her raper. So its clear to me that these women were under Gods wrath. read &#xA;Isaiah 13:12-17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold, even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.&#xA;  13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts and in the day of His fierce anger.&#xA;  14 And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up; they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land.&#xA;  15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.&#xA;  16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be despoiled and their WIVES RAVISHED.&#xA;  17 “Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, who shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Zechariah 14:1-3&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.&#xA;  2 FOR I WILL gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the WOMEN RAVISHED. And half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.&#xA;  3 Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly Rape is a tool of Gods wrath, he will destroy his enemies and his enemies wives.&#xA;Then in the end cast them in the lake of fire for their trouble.&#xA;Look God is not a lovy-dovy, he is a GOD OF UNSPEAKBLE CRULE WRATH against those who don't know Christ. People say God loves the Sinnner but hates the Sin, that's is a lie. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 5:4-6&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  4 For Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with Thee.&#xA;  5 The foolish shall not stand in Thy sight; Thou HATEST all workers of iniquity. &lt;em&gt;(Side note: Not only their deeds, them)&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;  6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak lies; the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has a perfect hatred, if one repents God embraces that person and loves them. all the sins of the past are forgotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Malachi 1:2-4&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  2 “I have loved you,” saith the Lord. “Yet ye say, ‘Wherein hast Thou loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” saith the Lord. “Yet I loved Jacob,&#xA;  3 and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”&#xA;  4 Whereas Edom saith, “We are impoverished, but we will return and rebuild the desolate places,” thus saith the Lord of Hosts: “They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them the Border of Wickedness and the people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Don't say that God was just saying Esau lost his inheritance, because the following sentence is clear, God laid his land waist.&#xA;God has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked of course that's true, because he commands them to repent.. that's not a request, not a choice, do it or else. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 5:7-9&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  7 For scarcely will one die for a righteous man, yet perhaps for a good man some would even dare to die.&#xA;  8 But God commendeth His love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.&#xA;  9 Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God made a way to escape his wrath, God sent Christ, then it pleased God to Smite him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 11:20-22&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  20 Thou sayest well! Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear;&#xA;  21 for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.&#xA;  22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness. Otherwise, thou also shalt be cut off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 8:31-33&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  31 What then shall we say of these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?&#xA;  32 He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?&#xA;  33 Who shall lay anything to the charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifieth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6351" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T16:06:41.223" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T16:06:41.223" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20337" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-29T06:42:02.623" Score="5" ViewCount="16700" Body="&lt;p&gt;What distinction do The 10 Commandment have over other rules in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is breaking any of The 10 Commandments an immortal, unforgivable sin while other sins are not? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just want to know the difference; why is there in a &quot;top 10&quot; list? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2015-08-21T16:31:06.530" LastActivityDate="2015-11-04T04:13:29.683" Title="What is the difference of the 10 commandments from other Biblical laws?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;leviticus&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-11-06T15:23:17.250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20338" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20308" CreationDate="2013-10-29T08:22:17.673" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The issue with this question (and the earlier one) is that they are based on the false premise that Catholics are required to have children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no obligation to have children. What there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; is an obligation not to deliberately prevent the conception of children (because of the sanctity of life outlawing abortion, and the provision of the conjugal act for procreation). Married Catholics who follow the teachings of the Church are likely to have lots of children; most couples will not want to abstain from sex and children are the natural consequence. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But children follow from sex: sex is a gift, not an obligation. The ability to have children is a gift: it is a gift not given to some couples as part of the human condition, and they have been called to bear their Cross. However, medical science has allowed that burden to be lightened or removed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church does not abhor all advances in medical science, as demonstrated by its attitude to IVF shown &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html&quot;&gt;by the CDF&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IVF is ultimately condemned not because it is artificial, but because it separates the conjugal act from the conception of life. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The use of drugs and surgical interventions to enable sex &quot;bear witness to the art of medicine&quot;. They do not separate conception from sex &amp;mdash; quite the opposite.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus they will not be condemned. But the Church cannot &lt;strong&gt;oblige&lt;/strong&gt; its members to use external methods to counter what God has caused them to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T08:22:17.673" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20339" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16047" CreationDate="2013-10-29T08:33:20.217" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;By eating of the forbidden fruit, God had promised death. Satan wanted to cause man to sin and thus have God to kill his own creation. If satan could could do something that would cause God to go back on His own word, then he could prove that God had faults. So God, knowing that by Adam and Eve eating the fruit, having said that they should surely die, instituted the substitution principle into the equation. Thus being able to stand by His own word, but also not having to kill Adam and Eve. By instititing the substitution principle and killing a blameless animal and having the flesh of the animal cover their nakedness (Sin), He was foretelling of Christ that was the substitute sacrifice for our sins. Even though, as Christians, our sins are covered under the blood of Christ, we still have to deal with our earthly consequences of our sin, just as Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, but the covering of our sins, that we should have eternal death for, has been covered by the ultimate substitution sacrifice in Christ Jesus, that allows us to have that eternal life in Heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6353" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T08:33:20.217" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20340" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20337" CreationDate="2013-10-29T08:37:34.070" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The  10 commandments were written by the hand of God personally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those Laws are just as cogent today as they were when God gave them to Moses on the mount.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not do away with any Old Testament Law instead he fulfilled them, that is why he is the Lord of the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To try to say that any Law is more important than another is not possible since the penalty for disobedience is the same no matter what law you break, and that penalty is death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the reason we need a Savior and the reason Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Disobedience of God is not like disobeying your parents when you were young. Telling a white lie is in God's eyes no lesser a crime than murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T08:37:34.070" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20343" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20369" CreationDate="2013-10-29T13:23:33.597" Score="4" ViewCount="203" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he&#xA;  listens to you, you have won your brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that&#xA;  'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three&#xA;  witnesses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the&#xA;  testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If they still refuse to listen, &lt;em&gt;tell it to &lt;strong&gt;the church&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;; and if they&#xA;  refuse to listen &lt;em&gt;even to &lt;strong&gt;the church&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, treat them as you would a pagan&#xA;  or a tax collector.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It must be noted that the word Church is used in the singular form - not &lt;em&gt;a&lt;/em&gt; church, and not &lt;em&gt;one of the&lt;/em&gt; churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of this verse, what happens in a situation where there are two &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;brothers&lt;/a&gt;&quot; from two different denominations, (baptist, presbyterian, pentacostal, etc.) and one of the brothers commits a very scandalous, heinous sin against the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who's church would the sinful brother be taken to?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Either church would have no jurisdictional rights over the other. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic I know that there is a canonical process for one to follow...but the RCC is the most centralized religious body in the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Have any Protestant pastors here ever had to deal with a situation like this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-13T14:38:05.123" LastActivityDate="2014-02-13T14:38:05.123" Title="How do decentralized churches/denominations practically deal with &quot;brothers&quot; from another denomination in light of Matthew 18:17" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;ecumenism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20344" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20343" CreationDate="2013-10-29T13:27:04.693" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I remember when Dr. Walter Martin, the &quot;Bible Answer Man&quot;, met with a man regarding false doctrine and asked another member of that man's church to accompany him in accordance with this passage. That's how one man handled it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T13:27:04.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20337" CreationDate="2013-10-29T13:27:33.773" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Ten Commandments are the only thing in the Bible that God wrote Himself, with His own finger. He did not trust any man to write it for Him. This shows how important these are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin is breaking the 10 Commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he&#xA;  is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: &lt;strong&gt;for&#xA;  sin is the transgression of the law&lt;/strong&gt;. And ye know that he was&#xA;  manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;abideth in him sinneth not&lt;/strong&gt;: whosoever &lt;strong&gt;sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 John 3:3-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever breaks the Ten Commandments deserves death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life&#xA;  through Jesus Christ our Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 6:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But whoever truly repents from their sin and ask Jesus shall be forgiven. This is the reason why Jesus came to die. So that He would take the punishment of our sin so you wouldn't have to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our&#xA;  sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 John 1:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Breaking just 1 of these (the Sabbath) you are guilty of all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For whosoever shall keep the whole law, &lt;strong&gt;and yet offend in one point,&#xA;  he is guilty of all&lt;/strong&gt;. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said&#xA;  also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill,&#xA;  thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as&#xA;  they that shall be judged by the &lt;strong&gt;law of liberty&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 2:10-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is keeping the law legalism? No, trying to attain salvation by keeping the law is. The function of the Law is to show you WHAT you are doing wrong, so that you can go to Jesus and be cleansed. Go to Jesus and SIN NO MORE, by not breaking God's Commandments. You keep the law because you do not wish to grieve Jesus anymore&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What shall we say then? &lt;strong&gt;Shall we continue in sin&lt;/strong&gt;, that grace may&#xA;  abound? &lt;strong&gt;God forbid&lt;/strong&gt;. How shall we, that &lt;strong&gt;are dead to sin, live any&#xA;  longer therein&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 6:1, 2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God the Father and His Son Jesus, who is also God, DO NOT CHANGE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Malachi 3:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The words of Jesus Himself:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not think that I have come to &lt;strong&gt;abolish the Law&lt;/strong&gt; or the Prophets; &lt;strong&gt;I&#xA;  have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them&lt;/strong&gt;. For &lt;strong&gt;truly&lt;/strong&gt; I tell&#xA;  you, &lt;strong&gt;until heaven and earth disappear&lt;/strong&gt;, not the smallest letter, not&#xA;  the least stroke of a pen, will by any means &lt;strong&gt;disappear from the Law&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  until everything is accomplished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:17, 18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Heaven and earth are still here. God's Law is still binding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happens with that which God blesses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now therefore let it please Thee to bless the house of Thy servant,&#xA;  that it may be before Thee for ever; &lt;strong&gt;for Thou blessest, O Lord, and&#xA;  it shall be blessed for ever&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Chronicles 17:27&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Seventh Day, the LORD's day which HE blessed is the 4th Commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And on the &lt;strong&gt;seventh day&lt;/strong&gt; God ended his work which he had made; and&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;he rested on the seventh day&lt;/strong&gt; from all his work which he had made. And &lt;strong&gt;God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it&lt;/strong&gt;: BECAUSE that&#xA;  in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:2, 3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament the Sabbath was kept:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If thou turn away thy foot from the &lt;strong&gt;sabbath&lt;/strong&gt;, from doing thy&#xA;  pleasure on &lt;strong&gt;MY holy day&lt;/strong&gt;; and call the sabbath a delight, &lt;strong&gt;the&#xA;  holy of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine&#xA;  own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own&#xA;  words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause&#xA;  thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the&#xA;  heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken&#xA;  it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 58:13-14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus kept the Sabbath:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, &lt;strong&gt;as his&#xA;  custom was&lt;/strong&gt;, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood&#xA;  up for to read.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 4:16&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But do we have to do what Jesus did?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He that says he abides in him ought himself also so to walk, even as&#xA;  he walked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 John 2:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the disciples keep the Sabbath?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came&#xA;  to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, &lt;strong&gt;as his&#xA;  manner was&lt;/strong&gt;, went in unto them, and &lt;strong&gt;three sabbath days&lt;/strong&gt; reasoned&#xA;  with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ&#xA;  must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this&#xA;  Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 17:1-3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were the Gentiles willing to worship on Sabbath?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the &lt;strong&gt;Gentiles&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  besought that these words might be preached to them the &lt;strong&gt;next&#xA;  sabbath&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 13:42&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What day will be kept in Heaven and in the recreated new heaven and earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For as the &lt;strong&gt;new heavens and the new earth&lt;/strong&gt; Which I will make shall&#xA;  remain before Me,” says the Lord, “So shall your descendants and your&#xA;  name remain. And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to&#xA;  another, And from &lt;strong&gt;one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to&#xA;  worship before Me&lt;/strong&gt;,” says the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 66:22-23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So throughout the Old Testament the Sabbath was kept. Jesus kept the Sabbath. The disciples kept the Sabbath. In the new heaven and earth the Sabbath shall be kept. Why should we not also keep it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People said that the Law was changed by Jesus, but He Himself said in Matthew 5:17 that He did not come to abolish the LAW! Does the Bible talk about someone who would try to change the Law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And &lt;strong&gt;he shall speak great words against the most High&lt;/strong&gt;, and shall wear&#xA;  out the saints of the most High, and &lt;strong&gt;think to change times and laws&lt;/strong&gt;:&#xA;  and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the&#xA;  dividing of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Daniel 7:25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Antichrist would come and TRY to change times and laws. Interesting how the ONLY part of the LAW that has tried to be changed is the Commandment dealing with TIME.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Whosoever therefore shall &lt;strong&gt;break one of these least commandments&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  and &lt;strong&gt;shall TEACH men so&lt;/strong&gt;, he shall be called the least in the&#xA;  kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same&#xA;  shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:19&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Law of God is still binding. Jesus offers forgiveness from your sins, the breaking of His Commandments. But He does not want you to abide in sin, but to abide in Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you love me, keep my commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 14:15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who will be the people of God in the last days, who Satan is wroth with and are the remnant of the true church of God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the &lt;strong&gt;dragon was wroth&lt;/strong&gt; with the woman, and went to make war with&#xA;  the &lt;strong&gt;remnant&lt;/strong&gt; of her seed, which keep the &lt;strong&gt;commandments of God&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  and &lt;strong&gt;have the testimony of Jesus Christ&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 12:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will leave you with the words of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the&#xA;  kingdom of heaven; but he that &lt;strong&gt;doeth the will of my Father&lt;/strong&gt; which is in&#xA;  heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 7:21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;EDIT:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was putting this as a comment to DJ but I'll put it as part of my answer. In the Bible, Jesus was once asked what was asked here. &quot;Which is the greatest of all the Commandments?&quot; Obviously the Bible is composed of many commandments not just the 10 Commandments. Do they differ from the others or are they just done away with? Let's see what Jesus answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Master, which is the great commandment in the law?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy&#xA;  heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This is the first and great commandment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as&#xA;  thyself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:36-40&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus says on these two hang ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS (Old Testament). So everything else goes back to this. Now let's see the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 - “You shall have no other gods before me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 - “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything&#xA;  in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You&#xA;  shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God,&#xA;  am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to&#xA;  the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love&#xA;  to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my&#xA;  commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 - “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord&#xA;  will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 - “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall&#xA;  labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the&#xA;  Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your&#xA;  son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals,&#xA;  nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord&#xA;  made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but&#xA;  he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath&#xA;  day and made it holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 - “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in&#xA;  the land the Lord your God is giving you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 - “You shall not murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 - “You shall not commit adultery.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 - “You shall not steal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 - “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 - “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet&#xA;  your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey,&#xA;  or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you look closely, Commandments 1 - 4 ARE The First Great Commandment because they show HOW you love your God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, Commandments 5 - 10 ARE The Second Great Commandment because they show HOW you love your neighbor as yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How are the 10 Commandments and the other commandments different? Here are a few differences between the Law of God (10 Commandments), and the Law of Moses (other Commandments) in question answer form.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is it called?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of Moses - Called &quot;Law contained in ordinances&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EPH. 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of&#xA;  commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain&#xA;  one new man, so making peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of God - Called &quot;the Royal law&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;JAMES 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou&#xA;  shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where was it written and by whom?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of Moses - Written by Moses in a book&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 CHRON. 35:12 And they removed the burnt offerings, that they might&#xA;  give according to the divisions of the families of the people, to&#xA;  offer unto the LORD, as it is written in the book of Moses. And so did&#xA;  they with the oxen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of God - Written by God on stone&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EXO. 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of&#xA;  communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables&#xA;  of stone, written with the finger of God. EXO. 32:16 And the tables&#xA;  were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven&#xA;  upon the tables.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where was in Placed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of Moses - Placed in the side of the ark&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;DEUT. 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the&#xA;  ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a&#xA;  witness against thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of God - Placed inside the ark(Which represents the very throne of God)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EXO. 40:20 And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the&#xA;  staves on the ark, and put the mercy seat above upon the ark:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When did it end?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of Moses - Ended at the cross&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;EPH. 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of&#xA;  commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain&#xA;  one new man, so making peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of God - Will stand forever&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;LUKE 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one&#xA;  tittle of the law to fail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What was its purpose?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of Moses - Added because of sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;GAL. 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of&#xA;  transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was&#xA;  made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of God - Points out sin&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ROM. 7:7 What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I&#xA;  had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except&#xA;  the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.    ROM. 3:20 Therefore by the&#xA;  deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for&#xA;  by the law is the knowledge of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it grievous to us?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of Moses - Contrary to us, against us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;COL. 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of &lt;strong&gt;ordinances&lt;/strong&gt; that was against&#xA;  us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it&#xA;  to his cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of God - Not grievous&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 JOHN 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:&#xA;  and his commandments are not grievous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judgement&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of Moses - Judges no man&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;COL. 2:14-16 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was&#xA;  against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,&#xA;  nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers,&#xA;  he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man&#xA;  therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday,&#xA;  or of the new moon, or of the sabbath &lt;strong&gt;days&lt;/strong&gt;: (Please notice the 's' this is not talking about THE Seventh Day, but about the sabbath days as in the feasts, yearly sabbaths, etc... which were ORDINANCES)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Law of God&lt;/strong&gt; - Judges all men&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;JAM. 2:10-12 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in&#xA;  one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit&#xA;  adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet&#xA;  if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye,&#xA;  and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spiritual or carnal?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of Moses - Carnal&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;HEB. 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but&#xA;  after the power of an endless life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Law of God - Spiritual&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ROM. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold&#xA;  under sin.  Made nothing perfect&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;HEB. 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a&#xA;  better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. Perfect&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;PSALMS 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the&#xA;  testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible most assuredly shows that there is a BIG difference between the Law of God (10 Commandments) and the Law of Moses (ordinances). If there was no difference the Bible would be contradicting itself speaking about the Law in one way in one place, and in another way somewhere else. However, the Bible IS the Word of God, and it does NOT contradict itself, therefore there IS a difference between the 10 Commandments and the ordinances given to Moses (the law of Moses).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastEditorUserId="5568" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T16:25:42.690" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T16:25:42.690" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20337" CreationDate="2013-10-29T14:41:52.820" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Baptistic perspective, there is very little difference between the 10 commandments and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;other 603 rules and regulations&lt;/a&gt; of the Torah.  Note: I'm specifically not addressing &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply/494#494&quot;&gt;the extent to which the law of Moses still applies&lt;/a&gt;, as it is well covered elsewhere&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;10 commandments&lt;/a&gt; are a succinct guide to right behavior, their popularity really only stems from that point.  Taking a step back, most of the other Torahic Law deals with ceremonial functions - and if its choice between remembering &quot;Don't Steal&quot; and whether one needs to present a bull offering or a grain offering, which one would you promote?  Likewise, the priest needs to know what's leprosy and what not, but &quot;Don't commit adultery&quot; has a much wider applicability. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A cursory reading of Leviticus will show that the bulk of the Torah concerns not how a person should act, but rather what kinds of offerings and atonements should be made to resolve things.  Sure, there's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:8-10&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ScapeGoat&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/leviticus/13-40.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Baldness&lt;/a&gt;, rules about what does and does not constitute &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;incest&lt;/a&gt; - but there's actually far less about personal behavior even in &quot;the Law&quot; than you might expect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, when Jesus was asked, what is the most important, he didn't say &quot;the 10 commandments.&quot;  Rather, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matt 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His answer reflects several established Talmudic traditions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Schema (Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One) is the primary law.  Everything else stems from it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The 10 Commandments themselves divide neatly into two categories:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the first 4 (in Protestant numbering) are about how you love God (No other Gods, idols, No Blasphemy, Sabbath)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the other 6 are about how you love others (Don't steal, lie, kill, cheat on your spouse, covet)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Jesus did was to emphasize the fact that love undergirds all of this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T15:41:30.160" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20351" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20343" CreationDate="2013-10-29T17:12:10.500" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;If appealing to authority is necessary, then you would have to appeal to authority that the brother in the wrong is submitting himself to. In this case, it would need to be someone in his congregation (or its hierarchy of authority).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The entire goal of the church discipline described in Mt 18 is to win him over to the truth. He ought to have close ties to the people in the congregation he's a part of, and so if those people must cut him off, the hope is that he will care about those lost/damaged relationships enough to reconsider what he's doing and repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T17:12:10.500" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18853" CreationDate="2013-10-29T17:18:42.343" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Rasta, I feel led to point out some things. First of all, to answer the question, some Rastas recognize Yeshua (Jesus) as their lord and savior, and see Selassie I as one who continues the work of Christ, through the line of David. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelations references Yeshua telling His people of a man that God would send to Earth to continue His work. Rastas believe that man to be Haile Selassie I. Some Rastas see Selassie as God, some as Christ incarnate, and some simply as a prophet who continued God's work on Earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rastafari should not be compared to Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, b/c Rastafari is a livity, not an organized religion, and there are Rastas who follow these faiths.  Christianity in the West is not pure Christianity, but Chaldean Christianity.  This form of Christianity was taken from it's original home in East Africa and &quot;remade&quot; to serve political purposes of the Roman empire, and later Western European societies. It is very political, and very far from the teachings of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rastas denounce Chaldean principles, and advocate consciousness and righteous living, through love, respect, and unity of God's people. I personally feel that some Rastas are lost and confused about what righteous living means, but then, I feel the same way about many who call themselves &quot;Christian&quot;, &quot;Jewish&quot;, or &quot;Muslim&quot; too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6358" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-02-01T21:36:12.027" LastActivityDate="2017-02-01T21:36:12.027" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20354" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-29T17:36:31.967" Score="5" ViewCount="134" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some things about the natural law (in Christian perspective), which I do not understand. If I have understood it right, then the natural law is based on our conscience, like everyone know that killing is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If natural law is based on conscience we received from God, should not we all act alike? That it's just based on luck? Like if you have a wealthy family that gives you everything you want, then you're just stupid if you steal, but if you on the other hand steal to support you're family, then you perhaps feel like it's you'r only hope?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6360" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-10-29T23:26:22.887" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T03:11:59.050" Title="A little more about natural law, the rules and punishment within natural law?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20356" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-29T18:21:11.633" Score="5" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;When it comes to natural law (in Catholicism perspective), I understand that there is wrong to kill, also when it's suicide, but is it wrong with self defense? And what if there is an accident? Like you forget to turn off the oven at home and someone on the block gets hurt, is that the same as taking a life? On purpose?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6360" LastEditorUserId="4517" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T18:37:50.260" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T18:37:50.260" Title="Natural law, accident" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;natural-law&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20337" CreationDate="2013-10-29T18:22:45.980" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Ten Commandments are the stipulations of the Covenant between God and Israel and not just laws. See Deuteronomy 4: 13. It is the only words that all Israel heard God speak and therefore incontestable. See Deuteronomy 5: 22.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T18:22:45.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20359" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20356" CreationDate="2013-10-29T18:42:16.063" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally speaking the intentions/motivations of the person make it right/wrong or allowable/forbidden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sin has always been rebellion against God—generally speaking, doing something that you believe to be wrong. The Jews had some mandates about accidental sins, but with the atonement that Jesus made, I don't see how there's a need for any form of repentance for things that you did not knowingly choose to do (or not do, in the case of something you &lt;em&gt;ought&lt;/em&gt; to have done).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If someone dies due to my negligence or irresponsibility, then that might constitute a sin on my part, because I made that choice. Accidents that you could not have controlled do not constitute a choice. You're choices are what will condemn or exonerate you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T18:42:16.063" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20356" CreationDate="2013-10-29T20:30:13.440" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Biblically, there is no exception. By both word and deed, Christ taught that it is wrong to take a human life or hurt another person, even in self-defense. &quot;But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.&quot; Matthew 5:39 (NIV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But actions speak louder than words, and Christ did not resist his arrest and execution. When Peter picked up a sword and attempted to defend him (cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant/slave) Jesus forced him to put the sword down.  John 18:11-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Catholicism and many other churches have made doctrinal exceptions, but these do not have any Biblical basis that I can find.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even under the law of Moses, causing an accidental death was not treated as murder. &quot;If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past— as when someone goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he may flee to one of these cities and live, . .&quot; Deut. 19:4-13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4792" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T20:30:13.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20364" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-29T21:12:56.090" Score="1" ViewCount="593" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2013/10/18/0674/01515.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;22nd annual meeting&lt;/a&gt; of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Catholic-Jewish_Liaison_Committee&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee&lt;/a&gt;, they released a statement that said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jews and Christians share the heritage of the biblical testimony of God's relationship with the human family throughout history. Our Scriptures bear witness to both individuals and the people as a whole being called, taught, guided and protected by Divine Providence. In light of this sacred history, Catholic and Jewish participants in the meeting responded to emerging opportunities and difficulties facing religious belief and practice in today's world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why, in the official statement above, signed by Catholic Church and Jews, is 'Divine Providence' used, and not 'Holy Spirit'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps there is an ontological difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit'? If so, can anyone explain what the difference is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-10T18:56:40.230" LastActivityDate="2015-11-10T20:25:53.453" Title="What's the difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit' in this statement?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;providence&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20365" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20264" CreationDate="2013-10-29T22:45:43.420" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;John the Baptist was Elijah. But &quot;spiritually.&quot; This was confirmed by Jesus Christ in Matthew 17 and by the angel in Luke 1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 17:9-13 (NIV)- &quot;As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?” Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. &lt;strong&gt;But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:11-17(NIV)- &quot;Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. &lt;strong&gt;And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah&lt;/strong&gt;, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All prophecies concerning Elijah was fulfilled through John the Baptist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T22:45:43.420" CommentCount="20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20366" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14874" CreationDate="2013-10-29T22:57:13.850" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As you all know, Aramaic was the language of first century Israel (Check here for more information - &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20158/why-didnt-the-jews-understand-eli-eli-lama-sabachthani/20188#20188&quot;&gt;Why didn&amp;#39;t the Jews understand &amp;quot;Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Aramaic, the name &quot;Thomas&quot; is &quot;Tauma.&quot; In Aramaic, the word for &quot;Twin&quot; is &quot;Taama.&quot; Tauma was also known as Taama. In Aramaic, &quot;Tauma who was called Taama&quot; will become &quot;Thomas who was called Didymus&quot; in Greek losing the wordplay and the meaning becomes more obscure. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more information on this, check Yukhanan Chapter 11 at www.peshitta.org under the category of &quot;Interlinear NT&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-10-29T22:57:13.850" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20367" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9580" CreationDate="2013-10-30T00:50:07.350" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scripture says&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We should stop trying to make things more holier than they are. It is what it is. He was naked. Just as Mark 14:51 says this young boy was also naked that followed Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6366" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-10-30T11:39:56.920" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T11:39:56.920" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20368" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20364" CreationDate="2013-10-30T01:26:56.077" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Christian tradition, the &quot;Holy Spirit&quot; refers specifically to the &quot;advocate&quot; Jesus promises God will send to his followers after Jesus' crucifixion, see John 14:26.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it seemingly makes sense to equate the Holy Spirit with the Old Testament manifestations of God's presence, I assume the neither the Catholics nor the Jews who prepared the paper you quote wanted to make a leap of that magnitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T01:26:56.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20369" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20343" CreationDate="2013-10-30T01:57:26.167" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Short answer:&lt;/strong&gt;  Baptists would qualify as a &quot;decentralized&quot; denomination, and from a baptist perceptive, the answer is &quot;we wouldn't deal with brothers from another church/denomination in that manner&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;More details:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptists (in general) and other decentralized denominations tend to hold to the autonomy of the local Church. This means a single local congregation, typically a group that meets in one building under the care of one pastor.  It precludes the very possibility of being accountable to anything other than the local Church that you are a member of.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;References:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baptiststart.com/print/autonomy_quotes.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/autonomy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/AutonomyOfTheLocalChurch.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The membership of a particular local congregation is a voluntary thing.  Nobody forces anyone to recognize a Church authority, we choose to join with like-minded brothers and sisters in Christ in a local Church.  We voluntarily place ourselves under the authority of the Pastor of said Church, and discipline is typically handled through the deacons/Pastor/members that we have voluntarily chosen to bind ourselves to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that in mind, we recognize that if any brother or sister in Christ is in need of discipline, it is not our place to do so.  We will speak to them, try to point out the error of their ways, and perhaps bring more than one brother in to try to talk sense into them, but the very idea of us having authority over anyone who has not willingly chosen to subject themselves to the authority of our particular Church is simply unthinkable.  It makes no sense.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If subjecting ourselves to a Church's authority is voluntary, how can we possibly claim any authority over anyone that has not voluntarily chosen to align themselves with us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's not a matter of not recognizing that this person is a brother in Christ, it's just that we don't claim any sort of authority over that brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-10-30T02:17:39.860" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T02:17:39.860" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20370" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20372" CreationDate="2013-10-30T02:49:12.393" Score="3" ViewCount="349" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is a common concern in all humans to know about the afterlife, but what do religions say about the &lt;em&gt;beforelife&lt;/em&gt;? Some religions say reincarnation, and I think the vast majority of the rest just takes the subject very tangentially (since practically nothing is said about this too publicly). I would include the Christianity that is commonly taught in this category, since I don't think there is a public (non-academic, at least) discussion about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;What does the Bible say about this?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6368" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T16:33:14.727" Title="What about the &quot;beforelife&quot;?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-man&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20354" CreationDate="2013-10-30T03:11:59.050" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Charles Rice addresses this question more or less in his 50 questions on the Natural Law.  (See q. 35).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'll try and synthesize it a bit while my new baby forms his or her conscience about whether or not today is a good day to be born. He mentions three reasons why your conscience is subjectively culpable (and, being subjective, not the same as anyone else's by degrees). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not all consciences are formed according to the &quot;moral obligation to see the truth&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A conscience should always be followed regardless if it came up with the right conclusion. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;A doubtful conscience should never be acted upon, but sometimes is. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in all those cases you see people acting in ways that are the opposite of how we objectively should act. Ignorance, pride and cowardice can increase the odds of people acting that way. And, to your question, the love of money increases our vulnerability ignorance, pride and cowardice.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, stealing is unjust in any circumstance  and violates the 6th commandment in a pretty obvious way. If a person is incapable of acquiring sustenance then they're actively being oppressed any civilization that does that is doomed (mainly according to the Natural Law principle of solidarity).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope John Paul II wrote &quot;it is not wrong to want to live better, what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed toward 'having' rather than 'being'&quot;.  So we'll never be royalty, oh well.  As my favorite priest said, the best way for a man to make sure he is poor and happy and not greedy is to have a big family, and that is a good that is far more in accord with the natural law than what the average rich man seeks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T03:11:59.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20370" CreationDate="2013-10-30T03:12:42.240" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible is absolutely silent about any &quot;before life&quot; other than &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/1-5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeremiah 1:5&lt;/a&gt;, which says God knew us even when we were in our mother's Womb.  that doesn't speak so much about our &quot;before life&quot; as God's Omniscience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The LDS Church teaches about the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lds.about.com/od/basicsgospelprinciples/p/pre-existence.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Premortal existence&lt;/a&gt;&quot; but that's a doctrine unique to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-10-30T09:11:53.583" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T09:11:53.583" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20356" CreationDate="2013-10-30T04:04:07.103" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 question are asked here and 2 assumptions are made. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assumption 1) Killing is wrong.  If this were true in all cases, then accidents, suicides, self defense, killing during armed combat, abortion and other forms of premeditated murder would have the same gravity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assumption 2) Suicide is wrong. This is true &quot;suicide is always as morally objectionable as murder&quot; pope John Paul II (Evangelium Vitae).  Even assisted suicide and euthanasia, but one needs to make a distinction in cases of euthanasia between withholding extraordinary means of keeping a person going and withholding the normal means (food and water).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question 1.) Killing in self defense is not wrong, it's not the same as murder.  Reason dictates that man doesn't have to die just because someone else desires to kill him. Self preservation is in the Natural Law, not against it. Pope John Paul II applies to reason when he says the death penalty should never be used &quot;except in cases of extreme necessity&quot;. One of those reasons is that society is unable to protect itself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Question 2.) Accidents, a person is not morally culpable for something which they did not intend if they followed their consciences.  A person should seek to know the truth and not act with any doubt in their conscience.  If you forgot you left the oven on and had an inkling that you did that, then you owe it to your neighbors to check.  It is unlikely that any true accident could have the gravity of premeditated murder, but it could come close!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T04:04:07.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14769" CreationDate="2013-10-30T05:29:18.023" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Gospel of Matthew was actually written in Aramaic. Not in Greek or Hebrew. The language of first century Israel was Aramaic. Not Hebrew or Greek. Check here for more details on the language of first century Israel - &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20158/why-didnt-the-jews-understand-eli-eli-lama-sabachthani/20188#20188&quot;&gt;Why didn&amp;#39;t the Jews understand &amp;quot;Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani&amp;quot;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are thousands of textual variations in Greek NT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me take famous Greek NT manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Greek NT Scholar Herman C. Hoskier, there are, without counting errors of iotacism, &lt;strong&gt;3,036 textual variations&lt;/strong&gt; between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus &lt;strong&gt;in the text of the Gospels alone&lt;/strong&gt;, enumerated as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew: &lt;strong&gt;656&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark: &lt;strong&gt;567&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke: &lt;strong&gt;791&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John: &lt;strong&gt;1022&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are &lt;strong&gt;656 textual variations&lt;/strong&gt; between Gospel of Matthew in Codex Sinaiticus and  Gospel of Matthew in Codex Vaticanus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Check here for more information on this - &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_codices_Sinaiticus_and_Vaticanus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_codices_Sinaiticus_and_Vaticanus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic New Testament is called Eastern Aramaic Peshitta. In Aramaic Peshitta, there are no textual variations. Check this website for more infos - www.peshitta.org&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic Peshitta even clarifies many of the errors and tamperings found in Greek NT Manuscript.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an example from Gospel of Matthew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Simon the leper or potter/jar maker? – Matthew 26:6 / Mark 14:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The KJV says (Matthew 26:6): “Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the &lt;strong&gt;leper&lt;/strong&gt;,”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The KJV says (Mark 14:3): “And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek reads (&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Simônos tou leprou&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;), which literally means &quot;Simon the Leper&quot; or &quot;Simon the Skin-Diseased&quot; (&quot;λεπρου&quot; (leprou, or lepros in the nominative case) can stand for various skin diseases like it's Hebrew-Aramaic counterpart). This seems strange, because according to the Law laid down in Leviticus, Lepers are not allowed within the city:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 13:45-46 - And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gariba' can easily be confused with Garoba' since Aramaic at that time was written without vowel markers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gariba' means POTTER or JAR MERCHANT where, Garoba' means LEPER or SKIN DISEASE&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But both are spelled with the same consonants: Gomal - Reesh - Beyth – Alap&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, why was there no record of Jesus healing Simon? If he were a leper, it would be very dangerous for His disciples and other people in the house. Leprosy is a very contagious disease and not worth the risk of catching. Here the Aramaic sheds some light on a story whose host was a non sequitur of the circumstances.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Aramaic was written without vowels in first century AD, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words. Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While Aramaic words are identifical, they are not in Hebrew. The Hebrew for a potter is יוצר (yotser) while leper is צרוע (tsaru'a). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T05:29:18.023" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20376" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14953" CreationDate="2013-10-30T07:32:15.267" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The bible says that WE who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are SAINTS. So we become part of the saints who are the Great Cloud of Witnesses. If we think that God is not able to allow His saints to be spectators to what enfolds on earth we are limiting God. For the bible also says that His angels rejoice when one soul comes to Salvation. Thus, the angels have been spectators, messengers and participants to our lives as humanity vs. satan. If the angelic hosts rejoice, then why not the brethren saints whose loved ones on earth are part of Creation which began in the Garden of Eden? We are all linked to our two parents Adam and Eve, are we not? We are part of the lineage of Adam and Eve, just as Jesus is. So who but our loved ones would have a vested interest in rooting for us and praying for us other than our earthly family who have made their new residence in heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6370" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T07:32:15.267" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20377" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20364" CreationDate="2013-10-30T12:59:36.613" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One Theory&lt;/strong&gt;: It's possible that the Jews (which Jews? There's not just one body of &quot;orthodox&quot; Jews.) do not wish to endorse the Christian idea of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not exactly described as a divine person in the OT. &quot;Spirit&quot; and &quot;Spirit of God&quot; are used, but not really in the same sense as &quot;Holy Spirit&quot; is used in the NT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps alluding to the Holy Spirit is not a concession that the Jews wish to make, and for the sake of expressing positive things in common, &quot;Divine Providence&quot; was something both groups could agree on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T12:59:36.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20379" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20390" CreationDate="2013-10-30T13:27:42.663" Score="6" ViewCount="588" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following appeared on my facebook feed today:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The &quot;what random things do we have short formulated prayers for&quot; game is almost as funny as the &quot;how many bizarre things do we have patron saints of&quot; game. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I seriously just found a blessing for bacon. Specifically for bacon. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Bless, O Lord, this bacon, that it may be a meritious food for Thy children, and grant that through the invocation of Thy holy name all those who eat of it may obtain prosperity, health, and preservation of their souls, through Christ our Lord. Amen. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realize that for Baptists, this is totally acceptable. We can pray about anything, and since potluck is a sacrament, and if you take out the &quot;preservation of their souls,&quot; probably has been done.  We can pray about anything. And, we wing it a lot. For Catholics, however, I assume there is a little more rigour around making a prayer &quot;official.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, several questions came to mind in regards to this question, all centered around the legitimacy of this claim and authentication thereof.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this actually a thing, or is someone pulling my leg? &#xA;(Note: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=371&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; link appears to substantiate it)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How would I find out?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who within the heirarchy has the ability to declare an official &quot;blessing for bacon?&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2020-06-16T17:14:17.317" LastActivityDate="2020-08-12T16:45:01.610" Title="Is there really a Catholic &quot;blessing for bacon?&quot;" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;diet&gt;&lt;blessings&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20380" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20184" CreationDate="2013-10-30T13:38:05.973" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting question, and worth a measured response, either here or in Stack Exchange Biblical Hermeneutics Beta.  By the way, I assume you are not after a mere list of different schools of thought vis a vis literalism but an explanation of what distinguishes one &quot;faction&quot; of literalists from another faction of literalists. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Dr. Bob Thiel, Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote c. 180 A.D., was one of the earliest proponents of the &quot;literal&quot; approach to biblical interpretation. Thiel, by the way, is known online as COGwriter.com, and he is a widely published spokesperson for the Continuing Church of God (with which I am in no way affiliated).  Thiel contrasts Theophilus's approach with the &quot;allegorical&quot; approach to biblical interpretation espoused by Origin of Alexandria, who borrowed extensively from  Clement of Alexandria.  These two &quot;schools of thought&quot; or &quot;camps&quot; are in some ways the antithesis of each other.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the one hand, Theophilus, a literalist, would explain the concept of God's anger in very human terms, albeit not in a sinful sense.  Call it righteous indignation or an aspect of the wrath of God, but God's anger is literal, according to Theophilus, and its expression is real.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, Origin, an allegorist, would insist the human concept of anger is not worthy of God but must be explained not in anthropomorphic terms but in figurative and allegorical terms.  In other words, there needs to be a &quot;deeper&quot; meaning than simple, human anger.  The literalist camp would insist that while there may in fact be an occasional deeper meaning in a biblical text, the &quot;default setting&quot; (my term, copyright 2013!) for reading the Bible should be literal, not figurative. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the third century in the Common Era, variations of the two camps (not to mention other, competing camps) have come and gone.  I would not be surprised if by google-ing various key terms in this regard, one might come up with a scholarly work which traces the evolution--or devolution, as the case may be--of the literal method.  In fact, I will do that search myself and edit this answer if I find any sources worth quoting.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, I would not be surprised, either, if someone has written a tome on the various ways in which Christian literalists have gone about the art of interpretation since the first century A.D.  Come to think of it, the &quot;higher critics,&quot; so called, may in fact be literalists in some ways.  What sets them apart from other literalists, however, is their tendency to explain away or discount such things as miracles and even the inspiration of the Scripture by the Holy Spirit.  In other words, they may believe there was an actual Moses, for example, but not that Moses spoke to a rock and out gushed water.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same reasoning applies to the crossing of the Red Sea.  Higher critics lean toward believing the sea was a Sea of Reeds, and that there was nothing particularly miraculous in the way the Israelites crossed that shallow body of water that could not be explained through natural phenomena. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope someone takes up the challenge I've issued and answers the OP's question based on knowledge which has already be acquired in this regard before I've had time to prepare a more thorough answer than my partial answer.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T12:26:46.067" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T12:26:46.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20381" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20370" CreationDate="2013-10-30T14:09:08.083" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand your question, you seem to be asking if our Souls and Spirits existed before birth of the human body?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I misunderstand I apologize, but if my assumption is correct I wish to point out a few Scriptures which may help you to come to a conclusion about that, but first let me point out that that question as I have understood it is really asking did man 's Souls exist before their creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To believe that would to elevate man to the same status as God, in that the Soul would have no beginning and no end, and we must be careful in that area as it was the reason Satan was expelled from Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have a definite answer to that in  Genesis;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:7  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his &amp;gt;nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To believe that man's Soul existed prior to God creating man is contrary to what Genesis 2:7 states.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the first man became a living soul when he received the breath of life we have no reason to believe that any other human would be  any different.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also two of the major prophets have stated that God creates everyone in the mother's womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 44:2, &amp;amp; 24  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2  Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will &amp;gt;help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 49:5 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring &amp;gt;Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of &amp;gt;the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in Jeremiah it states that God created man in the womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 1:5 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do believe that the Bible is God's word, as I do; it would behoove you to tread lightly in this area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T16:33:14.727" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20382" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5122" CreationDate="2013-10-30T14:10:49.063" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The two were believers and i presumed they were saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They belong to the church with right doctrine&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They sold their property&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They will not be disciplined if they were unbelievers nothing to lose.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They lied and not blasphemed as contemplated in Mark 3:28-29&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The filing of the heart in Acts 5:3 is nothing but similar to the heart of peter in Mark 8:33 when Peter was called &quot;Get thee behind me, satan... &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Death is just a mean to be transported to the next life and it doesn't invalidates salvation. Romans 8:38/I Cor. 15:15-16&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We all know that there are sins that leads to death I Cor 11:30 and James 1:15&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is just a case similar in the old testament of sudden death in the wilderness during Moses' timeline.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6375" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T14:10:49.063" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20383" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7996" CreationDate="2013-10-30T14:21:54.920" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is possible that the Reformers did not know about Lectio Divina. It had fallen out of disuse by the time of the Reformation. It has only been recently that the practice was revitalized.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T14:21:54.920" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19823" CreationDate="2013-10-30T15:11:00.193" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As mentioned by @ChrisSunami above, the Episcopal Church is the largest. There is also the Evangelical Lutherans, the United Churches of Christ, and the Metropolitan Community Churches. Then there are individual congregations that affirm LGBTs within the United Methodist Church, the Brethren, the Quakers, the American Baptists, and the Presbyterians. Then there are plenty of non-denominational and independent churches that are LGBT affirming (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gaychurch.org/&quot;&gt;gaychurch.org&lt;/a&gt; has a list).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Biblical defense of their position is usually that we either misinterpret the 6 passages that seem to condemn homosexuality (there is only 6 that seem to condemn it, whereas every other sin seems to be condemned hundreds of times), or the verses or mistranslations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) is about gang rape, not about monogamous same sex relationships. The 2 verses in Leviticus (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) seem to be in the context of Molech worship, which would indicate that what is being condemned is ritual same-sex sex, again not monogamous same sex relationships. The Romans passage (Romans 1:26-27) is describing idolatry leading to same-sex sexual rituals, not homosexuality in general (read the entire chapter, not just verses 26-27). Then we have the problem of translating the terms arsenkoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. No one really knows what arsenkoitai means because Paul coined the term. Many LGBT-affirming Christians believe this is harking back to the Leviticus passages and thus refers to those participating in the same-sex sexual rituals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you accept these interpretations, monogamous same-sex relationships are never condemned in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastEditorUserId="4537" LastEditDate="2013-10-30T15:36:22.417" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T15:36:22.417" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20158" CreationDate="2013-10-30T15:29:28.697" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As already mentioned, there were Romans who were present at the Crucifixion, so its possible that the phrase &quot;Some of those who stood there...&quot; in v. 47 is referring to the Romans. Also, it could refer to Hellenized Jews. These are the Jews who lived outside of Palestine in other parts of the Roman Empire. They usually did not speak Hebrew or Aramaic. Instead, they spoke Greek. But most still visited Palestine for the Pilgrimage feasts (Passover, Pentecost, and The Festival of Tabernacles) as required by the Law of Moses (Torah).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the phrase &quot;Some of those who stood there&quot; in verse 47 who misunderstood what Jesus was saying is probably referring to the Romans and the Hellenized Jews who were present and not the Palestinian Jews who lived in Palestine at the time and spoke both Aramaic and Hebrew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although some may deny the existence of Hellenized Jews in the ancient world (I only know of one person!), their existence is affirmed in the New Testament in Acts 2 (all the Jews in Pentecost heard the Apostles in their own languages, meaning they didn't all speak Hebrew and Aramaic) and in Acts 6 (where there is a dispute between the Hellenized Jews and the Palestinian Jews). The Septuagint (A Greek translation of the Old Testament) was translated a few hundred years before Christ because most of the Jews outside of Palestine no longer spoke Hebrew. This ancient translation also serves to indicate the existence of Hellenized Jews well before the time of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastEditorUserId="4537" LastEditDate="2013-10-30T16:33:08.077" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T16:33:08.077" CommentCount="20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20387" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17815" CreationDate="2013-10-30T15:47:41.360" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are many interpretations of the so-called clobber passages that are LGBT-affirming. I will give just one set of interpretations of these passages below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 19&lt;/strong&gt;) is about gang rape, not about monogamous same sex relationships. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 2 verses in Leviticus (&lt;strong&gt;Leviticus 18:22, 20:13&lt;/strong&gt;) seem to be in the context of Molech worship, which would indicate that what is being condemned is ritual same-sex sex, again not monogamous same sex relationships. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Romans passage (&lt;strong&gt;Romans 1:26-27&lt;/strong&gt;) is describing idolatry leading to same-sex sexual rituals, not homosexuality in general (read the entire chapter, not just verses 26-27). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then we have the problem of translating the terms arsenkoitai and malakoi in &lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 6:9&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;1 Timothy 1:10&lt;/strong&gt;. No one really knows what arsenkoitai means because Paul coined the term. Many LGBT-affirming Christians believe this is harking back to the Leviticus passages and thus refers to those participating in the same-sex sexual rituals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you accept these interpretations, monogamous same-sex relationships are never condemned in Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;LGBT-affirming Christians also like to point out that Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuals. Also, the Bible only has 6 passages which seem to condemn homosexualit, yet has dozens, if not hundreds, of condemnations against other sins like adultery, fornication, greed, etc. If homosexuality was as big a sin as many Christians say it is, why would Jesus have never mentioned it, and why would it be mentioned so relatively few times in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4537" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T15:47:41.360" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4157" CreationDate="2013-10-30T20:16:12.233" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe mature, spiritual Christians who know what the bible says are called to judge behavior accordingly.  (See John 7:24, Galatians 6:15. 2 Corinthians 2:15, 2 John 10)  There are so many examples in the bible where the early Christians had to resolve conflict in the church (thus judging a behavior) and deal with the perpetrators. I'm so tired of hearing people say &quot;don't judge lest you be judged&quot;.  This doesn't mean you can never judge someone's behavior. This is taken out of context because no one quotes the rest of the verses which states if you have sin in your life that is keeping you from walking righteously, you better not point out the splinter in your neighbor's eye. The bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but people like Pope Francis an other compromising churches, don't want to judge. Well we are supposed to point out sins to others based on the word of God to help redirect them and put them on a path of righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6378" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T20:16:12.233" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20390" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20379" CreationDate="2013-10-30T21:45:27.007" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I really like this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It draws attention to an important point to be made, which is, of all the things explicitly managed by the Church, personal &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1c3a1.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;prayer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is relatively low on the list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Catholic belonging to a predominately Southern Baptist extended family (most of them consider fried chicken a sacrament in lieu of potluck), I must constantly remind myself that the Church can appear from the outside to be rather rigid. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth is that, although the Church explicitly defines the rituals surrounding the Sacraments and sacramentals, personal &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/common-catholic-prayers&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;devotion and prayer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is, for the most part wide open. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can a Catholic pray a spontaneous prayer? Absolutely! – as long as it is not inappropriately interruptive. (e.g. not during functions such as weddings, funerals, Mass, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can Catholics “wing” prayers? Sure…I know I have a time or two. My priest does all the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In all reality, my blessings aren't that much different than that of my ordained Baptist Brother-in-Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this “bacon prayer” an “official prayer” of the Catholic Church? No.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I can tell, this is, at best, a prayer of a particular localized pious tradition. &#xA;The closest “official prayer” I can find of this nature is found in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/50-blessings-of-animals.html&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;RITUALE ROMANUM&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;,  which is a collection of the &quot;officially approved&quot; prayers to be used in the Church’s &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;official&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; rituals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Blessings of animals&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lord God, King of heaven and earth, Word of the Father by whom were&#xA;  made all creatures destined for our sustenance; we beg you to look&#xA;  with favor on our lowly condition; and as you have given us assistance&#xA;  in our work and in our needs, so may you bless,   shield, and watch&#xA;  over these animals (this animal) with your mercy and heavenly care.&#xA;  And to us, your servants, be pleased to give everlasting grace&#xA;  together with creature needs, thus enabling us to praise and glorify&#xA;  and offer thanks to your holy name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;standard&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; prayer for blessing soon to be eaten food (including bacon, fried chicken, and even pot-luck) is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bless us Oh Lord and these thy gifts which we are about to receive&#xA;  through thy bounty through Christ Our Lord, Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wherever you are in the world, this is probably the blessing prayed before &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; Catholic meals. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even so…this doesn't necessarily have to be prayed over food - given the appropriate situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance - my 3 years old daughter and 5 years old son do good just to get out: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In name of da Fater, Son, whole Spirit…tank you Jeus for dis food.&#xA;  Hayman!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We actually let the small children of the family pray the above prayer for all family functions, completely safe from canonical infraction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All things considered, I’m afraid that what you read in your FB feed was perhaps a slight pseudo-caricature of Catholic devotion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the above “bacon prayer,” I truly hope someone comes up with the origin of this prayer. It will make for a great conversation starter at my next pot-luck Knights of Columbus function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T01:25:42.153" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T01:25:42.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8928" CreationDate="2013-10-30T21:50:42.190" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic Professor Geoffrey Saint-Clair, from Catholic Dossier Magazine (September/October 2001), writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Success or failure often depends on leadership—what leaders do or fail to do. When it comes to the Reformation, the lion’s share of the blame rests squarely with the hierarchy, including the papacy. Or at least so said Pope Adrian VI, who in 1523 sent his legate to confess the following before the German princes gathered in Nuremberg:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“We freely acknowledge that God has allowed this chastisement to come upon His Church because of the sins of men and especially because of the sins of priests and prelates . . . We know well that for many years much that must be regarded with horror has come to pass in this Holy See: abuses in spiritual matters, transgressions against the Commandments; indeed, that everything has been gravely perverted” (quoted in K. Adam, One and Holy, p. 97).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Medieval papal scandals, including the so-called Babylonian Captivity of the Church and the Great Western Schism, in which there were first two, then three, claimants to the papal office, brought derision upon the papacy, as did scandalous living and nepotism. Furthermore, the popes themselves failed to reform the Church, even when they were in a position to do so. And when the Reformation eventually broke out, the papacy failed to understand the challenge to the Church and failed to act quickly to address the problems that gave rise to it. At the same time, when the Church finally did get around to reform, the papacy helped lead the way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6379" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T21:50:42.190" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20392" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20393" CreationDate="2013-10-30T22:04:42.173" Score="6" ViewCount="2692" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone explain the origin &amp;mdash; i.e., when it was first used, the Pope who wore it the first time and when, its name &amp;mdash;  of that red hat worn by Pope Ratzinger?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/W1Kml.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="2202" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T21:57:38.270" LastActivityDate="2016-08-15T14:37:55.463" Title="What is the historical origin of this hat [image] - worn by Pope Ratzinger" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20392" CreationDate="2013-10-30T23:47:42.760" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Emeritus#Retired_bishops&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Emeritus&lt;/a&gt; Benedict XVI (formerly known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) is depicted above wearing what is known as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappello_romano&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&quot;cappello romano,&quot;&lt;/a&gt; which is Italian for &quot;Roman hat.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does not originate from papal attire, but was simply a fashionable hat worn by 17th century clergy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From wikipedia:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A cappello romano (literally Roman hat in Italian) or saturno (because&#xA;  its appearance is reminiscent of the ringed planet Saturn) is a hat&#xA;  with a wide, circular brim and a rounded crown worn outdoors in some&#xA;  countries by Catholic clergy, when dressed in a cassock. It is made of&#xA;  either beaver fur or felt, and lined in white silk. Unlike many other&#xA;  articles of ecclesiastical attire, it serves no ceremonial purpose,&#xA;  being primarily a practical item.  The cappello romano is not used in&#xA;  liturgical services. Since the general abandonment of the cassock as&#xA;  street dress, it is uncommon even in Rome today, though it was quite&#xA;  popular there and in some other countries with a Catholic majority&#xA;  population from the 17th century until around 1970.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There are some, mostly minor, differences in the designs of cappelli,&#xA;  depending on the rank of the wearer. The pope wears a red cappello&#xA;  with gold cords. Cardinals formerly also had the privilege of wearing&#xA;  a red cappello, but this rule was overturned by Paul VI, and now&#xA;  Cardinals' cappelli are black, as are those of all other clerics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/zsrqk.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/znS6g.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/e1tVO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastActivityDate="2013-10-30T23:47:42.760" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20397" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20379" CreationDate="2013-10-31T03:06:24.793" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Searched the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.saintsworks.net/books/The%20Raccolta%20-%201910.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;raccolata&lt;/a&gt; for bacon and came up empty. So I'd suspect if there is any bacon blessing, it is a private devotion. Although its adherents are clearly numerous. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The official organization who evaluates popular piety is the Congregation for Divine Worship. And you can read tons about its rules &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  I'd imagine that if this prayer were made official, unless it was promulgated by them (which it isn't) it would be A. Something instituted by a Bishop for use in his diocese that was &quot;leaked&quot; inappropriately for use in the entire Church or b.) for private use only.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prayers that are for private use only include those praying for the intercession of those whose causes for Sainthood have been started outside the diocese in which the particular aspiring saint has his or her cult. That would include prayers for folks like G.K. Chesterton which is being spread by the American Chesterton Society, outside the diocese in which his cause is being evaluated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T03:29:38.730" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T03:29:38.730" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20399" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-31T07:18:58.930" Score="2" ViewCount="1096" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Ezekiel 3, the prophet is made a watchman to Israel. A similar passage is also found in Ezekiel 33.&#xA;e.g.  “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me....&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some commentaries apply the watchman idea to Christian Ministers.&#xA;Is it a stretch to say that all Christians, not just ministers, are watchmen from this passage in Ezekiel 3 or 33?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastActivityDate="2019-03-21T16:56:06.007" Title="Is it just Christian Ministers who are Watchmen, or are we all...Ezekiel 3" Tags="&lt;ezekiel&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2019-03-21T17:31:57.990" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20317" CreationDate="2013-10-31T08:20:39.677" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Anyone can join the Catholic Church, as others have said already. However, also as some have mentioned, this is not just a question of ticking a box and signing up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you just want to attend the Sunday Mass, or even the daily ones during the week, there is absolutely nothing to stop you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will hear the Bible readings and homilies that hopefully explain quite a bit about the Christian faith, and following the prayers of Mass will help you enter into the mystery of following Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, don't go up to receive Communion until you have been formally received as a Catholic as this would be a sign that you knowingly accept and understand the full teaching of the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as others have said, ask the priest or deacon about how one formally becomes a Catholic. He might suggest some good books to read and maybe a parish group that you could meet to get to know other people better and explore the practical aspects of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6384" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T08:20:39.677" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20399" CreationDate="2013-10-31T11:30:06.747" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God makes or determines the Prophet and sets a “Prophet (as) a Watchman”.  The Prophets are the Son’s of Adam, which Jesus Christ identified Himself also as the “Son of Man” or the Son of Adam. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within Christianity there are many perspectives in regard to God’s placement and gifting of the “Sons of Man”.  The “Watchman” has an obligation to issue an alarm in the presence of an intruder, just as a supernatural “Watchman” has an obligation to issue an alarm in the presence of a supernatural intruder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today we have many self-proclaimed Prophets!  Historically, a Prophet (thus a Watchman) is so identified as a result of their spiritual sightedness, proven over time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T13:23:53.517" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T13:23:53.517" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20403" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20399" CreationDate="2013-10-31T13:38:47.840" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, God establishes a personal relationship with only a small number of selected individuals who are then God's representatives on earth.  But all Christians have a personal relationship with God through Christ, therefore I would agree that we are all at least potentially in the position of the Watchman as described by Ezekiel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T13:38:47.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19503" CreationDate="2013-10-31T13:59:39.683" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you look at the passage in question, who is Jesus talking to? Everyone who reads it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He was talking to the disciples there during His ministry in the first century. Jesus was a nomadic preacher, and so if you wanted to sit under His teaching and play a role in what He was doing, you could not at the same time be working in a &quot;normal&quot; job.&#xA;In that passage, He was reassuring the disciples that leaving their normal livelihood to follow Him would not result in their physical needs going unmet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the fact that some of the people currently dying of various causes are probably Christians does not contradict that passage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To the person who mentioned the Congo: the major problem there is prolonged war. People are going without food because they are busy killing each other. Which is not a very Christian thing to do. Even if the promise in the Sermon on the Mount was addressed to them at all, they are not &quot;seeking God's kingdom and His righteousness&quot; - they are seeking the cause of &quot;our tribe gets to be the last one standing.&quot;&#xA;95% Christian? I doubt it. Most of those people are heathen animists, with a veneer of Christianity over their unconverted culture and beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5062" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T13:59:39.683" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20406" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:12:27.297" Score="5" ViewCount="89138" Body="&lt;p&gt;If I want to buy a copy of the Bible, which version does one buy that would be the official Roman Catholic version?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems the Kings James version is the most popular, is that the one?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will this contain both the New and Old Testament?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5886" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T20:49:03.773" LastActivityDate="2016-05-07T05:41:25.980" Title="What is the official Roman Catholic Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2014-08-25T17:27:33.167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20407" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:31:07.483" Score="2" ViewCount="200" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just had an interesting conversation at Ask The Atheist: &lt;a href=&quot;http://asktheatheist.com/?p=1860&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://asktheatheist.com/?p=1860&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, I asked: Do atheists believe that everything came from nothingness or do they believe that something has always been?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conclusion of the conversation was that there is an eternal imperative and that the eternal imperative is likely extra-dimensional. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This line of reason I am told is an old argument, is this in fact so and in light of new Scientific evidence that supports a divine creator; is this line of thought being advanced within Christianity today?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-11-01T14:12:32.107" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T15:43:46.107" Title="Is the Eternal imperative?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20406" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:38:06.600" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a list of several &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;approved English translations&lt;/a&gt; published by the USCCB. The Vatican has a copy of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New American Bible&lt;/a&gt; on it's website. These translations include the New Testament and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Roman Catholic Old Testament Canon&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The King James Version is a popular translation for English-speaking Protestant Christians. It contains the New Testament and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Protestant Old Testament Canon&lt;/a&gt;. There is a subset of conservative English-speaking Christians that consider it to be the only authorized version of the Bible but for most English-speaking Christians it is only one of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianpost.com/news/top-10-bible-translations-in-the-united-states-92219/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;many popular translations&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2016-05-07T05:41:25.980" LastActivityDate="2016-05-07T05:41:25.980" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20406" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:47:13.240" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Official Bible is the Vulgate&lt;/a&gt;, translated into Latin from (mainly) Greek by St. Jerome in the 4th Century after the canon was finally established.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Council of Trent's Fourth Session defined the old Vulgate as authentic (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ii.html#v.i.i.ii-p0.50&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and &lt;strong&gt;vulgate edition&lt;/strong&gt;, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're looking for an English translation, any Bible with an &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;imprimatur&lt;/a&gt; should be good.  I wrote another answer here a while ago about whether Catholics &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4239/are-catholics-allowed-to-read-the-niv-translation/4244#4244&quot;&gt;can read the NIV&lt;/a&gt; that might be of use to you.  The point is, Catholics should look to the Church for official interpretation no matter what the translation is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2014-08-23T08:25:32.307" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11455" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:48:43.630" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apparently some of the church fathers believing he was married. I'm reading &quot;The History of the Church&quot; by Eusebius and he quotes Clement in saying &quot;And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.&quot;. This book obviously isn't Scripture, but the mention is interesting nonetheless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6387" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2014-01-02T08:34:13.407" LastActivityDate="2014-01-02T08:34:13.407" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20411" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20407" CreationDate="2013-10-31T16:41:27.597" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea you are referencing - that God started everything from nothing - is called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;creation ex nihilo&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  It is by far the most common Christian understanding of how the world came to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis, the first words we have say that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This presupposes that there was nothing, then God acted, and then there was something.  This is not altogether unlike the Big Bang, in which there was {nothing | nothing that bears any resemblance to our world}, and then something happened, and there was the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The term &lt;em&gt;eternal imperative&lt;/em&gt; is not one with which I am familiar, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Aquinas' &lt;em&gt;cosmological argument&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and more specifically the argument from contingency may be what you are referring to.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While rarely the first argument we turn to, it hasn't necessarily been rejected. The very simplistic idea is that because things exist, there had to be a thing that caused them to exist, necessarily proving God.  The &quot;First Cause&quot; argument is still relatively popular.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You will note, however, that the argument itself is not contingent on science - it is derived theologically, using methods of logic which originally came from theology and philosophy - a set of techniques that &quot;science&quot; later incorporated into the scientific method.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-10-31T17:17:02.287" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T17:17:02.287" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20407" CreationDate="2013-10-31T16:56:25.793" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although scientists may believe that the universe had a beginning from nothing, they can’t tell us who was there to start it all. The strongest argument for God to be the creator of everything is the Cosmological argument: God is the cause of the beginning of the universe, which is attested by physics and cosmology and that was argument made by &lt;a href=&quot;http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/summary-and-audio-william-lane-craig-debates-alex-rosenberg-does-god-exist/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Lane Craig here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible at many places makes it clear that God is eternal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rev.22:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 90:2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world,&#xA;  from everlasting to everlasting you are God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a moment imagine a time when there was nothing in existence neither God existed nor the universe or even the voids (empty space). Not even energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts or any physical laws. There was absolute nothing or absolute non existence. In this state of nothingness, the question that arises: how something had its origin from this state of “absolute nothing”?   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Absolute nothing”, is complete “non-existence”. No energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc., and no minds to consider this complete &quot;lack-of-all&quot;. The mind of the reader trying to visualize this would be gone as well. But, in this &quot;absolute nothing”, there would be also no mechanism present, to change this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. Nonetheless, because we can see and perceive that “something” is here now, the only possibility then is that “absolute nothing” was somehow instrumental in creating this “something”.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is: This “absolute non existence” is not same as our mind’s conception of non-existence. In this absolute non existence neither the mind nor anything else is present. Because our minds exist, our mind's conception of non-existence is dependent on existence; that is, we must define non-existence as the lack of existence. But, non-existence itself, and not our mind's conception of non-existence, does not have this requirement; it is independent of our mind, and of existence, and of being defined as the lack of existence. Non-existence itself is on its own, and on its own, completely describes the ENTIRETY of what is there and is thus an “existent state” (which is inconceivable with our existent mind). Thus this “existent state” was instrumental in creating this “something” from itself. To our finite mind it is “absolute nothing” but that “State” is God eternal.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore God is existing from eternity. He is a unique Force, capable of producing something from what we define as “absolute nothing”. It is an Eternal Entity that has been the initial cause of everything that we perceive-universe and everything that universe comprises of.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T16:56:25.793" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20413" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-10-31T17:31:11.260" Score="2" ViewCount="7842" Body="&lt;p&gt;To what extent can we be sure that the red letters in a KJV Bible are the actual words of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6388" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-27T13:09:59.787" LastActivityDate="2018-12-29T20:01:40.310" Title="Are all of the red letter text the words of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;kjv&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20413" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:01:12.127" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;TL;DR to the same extent we can be sure that the KJV translation is accurate at all&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wycliffe.org/Go/Careers/TypesofWork/LanguageWork/Translation/BibleTranslationStepbyStep.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible translators&lt;/a&gt; use their understanding of ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to study the different Biblical manuscripts that they have available to them to determine how to translate the words. Since the manuscripts don't use quotation marks, the translation process includes determining which words are actually Christ's words. The practice of highlighting Christ's words in red text was started by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblecollectors.org/articles/red_letter_bible.htm%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Louis Klopsch&lt;/a&gt; in 1899. It's especially helpful in the KJV and in other translations that don't use quotation marks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's also important to know that not all of the words highlighted in red are where the author quoted Christ. Some Bibles also highlight &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophany&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christophanies&lt;/a&gt; (basically visions of Christ) in the Old Testament and the Epistles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="5440" LastEditDate="2013-11-01T15:54:34.170" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T15:54:34.170" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20413" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:04:31.217" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 'red letters' are not themselves part of the KJV translation. The red letters appear in many different translation of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question: no, there is not universal agreement about exactly what words in the Bible were spoken by Jesus. The New Testament languages did not include punctuation like quote marks. Most of the time it is pretty clear from the text where Jesus words begin and end. Occasionally however it is hard to tell where a quote of Jesus ends and where an explanation from the Gospel author begins. For example in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3&lt;/a&gt; there is some uncertainty about whether Jesus quote which begins in verse 10 continues to verse 21 or stops after verse 15, with the remainder being explanation by the author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are asking about actual words, then Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, and so even the original Greek is not an untranslated quote. English and other modern language renditions are further translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-11-04T14:44:22.577" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T14:44:22.577" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20419" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7118" CreationDate="2013-10-31T20:04:07.480" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are referring to John 5:46-47&#xA;46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several messianic prophecies that were known to the pharisees and specifically Isaiah 7:14, which states that the messiah will be called Immanuel or &quot;God with us&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 7:14&#xA;14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pharisees didn't believe Jesus was himself God in the flesh.  Using Isaiah 7:14 and the miracles they saw, they should have known and believed Him when he said he was the Son of God and the great &quot;I AM&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 22:70&#xA;Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 8:58&#xA;Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some of the verses He was talking about:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 12:7&#xA;Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 17:1&#xA;When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 18:1&#xA;Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 26:2&#xA;Then the Lord appeared to him and said: “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 26:24&#xA;And the Lord appeared to him the same night and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham; do not fear, for I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants for My servant Abraham’s sake.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 35:7&#xA;And he built an altar there and called the place El Bethel, because there God appeared to him when he fled from the face of his brother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 35:9&#xA;Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 48:3&#xA;Then Jacob said to Joseph: “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 3:2&#xA;And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 3:16&#xA;Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me, saying, “I have surely visited you and seen what is done to you in Egypt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:1-2 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh. For with a strong hand he will let them go, and with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land.”&#xA;2 And God spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am the Lord. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Lord[a] I was not known to them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a. Hebrew YHWH, traditionally Jehovah&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6392" LastActivityDate="2013-10-31T20:04:07.480" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2013-11-01T00:07:11.973" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rock is indeed Jesus Christ who died once and for all for our sins. In the first instance God told Moses to take Moses' rod which brought judgement and hit the rock. It symbolises Jesus being punished instead of us. In the second instance God told Moses to take the rod from God's presence, which is the High priest' rod symbolising grace.As many have explained when Moses hit the rock when God told him to speak to the rock, Moses being the shepherd of the Israelites did not demonstrate God's grace as God intended, in the presence of the people. But he demonstrated judgement. As St. Paul says crucifying Christ again.  Such leaders cannot lead their congregation into the promised land because they will only look at  the judgement but not accept God's grace. Only through grace we shall enter into the rest of the promised land! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that although Moses hit the rock God did not withhold the water. So although as leaders we see results amidst our congregations be watchful of the message you give. If you don't preach the message of grace you cannot lead your flock to where God wants them to be. That's in the promised land. Praise be to God! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6395" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T00:07:11.973" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20424" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7417" CreationDate="2013-11-01T03:51:27.680" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe all of the prophecies in the bible were fulfilled in the generation of Jesus' disciples through the destruction of Jerusalem and Jerusalem temple in 70 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 21:20-32 (NIV) - “&lt;strong&gt;When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written&lt;/strong&gt;. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. &lt;strong&gt;Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.“&lt;strong&gt;Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So no prophecies are fulfilled outside of the scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T03:51:27.680" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20425" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-01T04:59:47.427" Score="4" ViewCount="114" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.news.va/en/news/holy-fathers-annual-address-to-the-diplomatic-corp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an official Pope's discourse&lt;/a&gt; it is said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Holy See currently maintains full diplomatic relations with 179 States, to which must be added the European Union and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. &lt;strong&gt;It also has relations of a special nature with the Palestine Liberation Organisation.&lt;/strong&gt; (emp. mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone explain why the nature of Vatican - PLO' s relation is 'special'? What is 'special'? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-01T12:33:52.000" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T08:10:16.553" Title="Why are Holy See-PLO's relations &quot;special&quot;?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-05-01T14:10:02.707" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20428" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20480" CreationDate="2013-11-01T07:12:04.867" Score="5" ViewCount="1304" Body="&lt;p&gt;If the Synagogue of Libertines (Acts 6: 9) was Hellenist it would not have been regarded as properly Jewish by conservative Jews. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;synagogue of the Libertines&lt;/strong&gt;, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of&#xA;  them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. (Acts 6:9, KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this what Revelation 2:9 and Rev. 3: 9 talks about?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich)&#xA;  and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not,&#xA;  but are the &lt;strong&gt;synagogue of Satan&lt;/strong&gt;. (Revelation 2:9, KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, I will make them of the &lt;strong&gt;synagogue of Satan&lt;/strong&gt;, which say they are&#xA;  Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and&#xA;  worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.&#xA;  (Revelation 3:9, KJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-01T12:50:05.230" LastActivityDate="2013-11-03T14:45:21.107" Title="Was the Synagogue of Satan the same as the Synagogue of Libertines?" Tags="&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20429" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20428" CreationDate="2013-11-01T08:57:41.423" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Synagogue of Satan&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, according to theologians, may refer to -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Assembly of Jews who rejected Jesus Christ and persecuted the Christians &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Pulpit Commentary)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have here strong evidence of the early date of the Apocalypse.&#xA;  Throughout this book &quot;Jew&quot; is an honourable name for the worshippers&#xA;  of the Christ; &quot;Gentiles,&quot; a name of reproach for those who oppose the&#xA;  Christ. [...] These persecutors of the Church of Smyrna are Jews in&#xA;  name, but in reality are rather Gentiles - opponents, and not&#xA;  worshippers of the Messiah. (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/revelation/2-9.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;source: Bible commentaries on Rev 2:9&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Heretics who professed Christianity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;they professed Christianity in words, but in works denied it; they&#xA;  were men of bad principles and practices, and both blasphemed the ways&#xA;  and doctrines of Christ themselves, and caused them to be blasphemed&#xA;  by others also; they were false Christians, nominal professors, and&#xA;  shunned persecution for the Gospel; who were not what they would be&#xA;  thought to be: these were the broachers of heresies in this period of&#xA;  time (&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/revelation/2-9.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;source: Bible commentaries on Rev 2:9&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Synagogue of Libertines&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt; was probably the assembly of the Freedmen from Rome, descendants of the Jews enslaved by Pompey after his conquest of Judaea in 63 BC.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue_of_the_Libertines&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt;. They were persecuting the Christians, they were responsible for the death of Stephen, the first martyr. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Synagogue of Libertines were Hellenistic Jews and were persecuting Christians. &lt;strong&gt;If&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;&quot;Synagogue of Satan&quot;&lt;/em&gt; means &lt;em&gt;&quot;Jews who reject Christ&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;then&lt;/strong&gt; we can deduce that &lt;em&gt;&quot;Synagogue of Libertines&quot;&lt;/em&gt; was indeed one of the Synagogues of Satan mentioned in Rev. 2: 9 and Rev. 3: 9.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T08:57:41.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18180" CreationDate="2013-11-01T09:24:37.267" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;No. The Son was begotten by the Father before creation. He was begotten in a &lt;em&gt;timeless&lt;/em&gt; realm.He's not &lt;em&gt;eternally&lt;/em&gt; begotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LOVE FELT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;[God is alone doesn’t mean there’s a point when he’s not love but that love is an emotion that cannot stay inactive and hence, because God is fruitful by nature, he naturally desires to beget an offspring of his own. The fact that action is inevitable in love makes God naturally begets]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is alone and being fruitful &lt;em&gt;by nature&lt;/em&gt; he naturally desire to beget and being perfect, only his Wisdom is the offspring that he can beget. He did beget his own Wisdom to be his offspring so that Wisdom is not an &lt;em&gt;inanimate&lt;/em&gt; trait but a &lt;em&gt;conscious&lt;/em&gt; person exactly as him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 8:21-30 (Septuagint)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God’s wisdom is how he manages his knowledge. God naturally desires to beget Wisdom to be his fellow so that he doesn't need knowledge but his offspring to be his Wisdom ( 1 Cor. 1:24-25).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LOVE SHARED&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;[God &lt;em&gt;cannot&lt;/em&gt; stay alone for all eternity although he did at some point but no too long because it is inevitable for him to beget an offspring so that he could share his love to a fellow person]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God begets a Son &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; dependent in creation. It means that even without creation the Son will be begotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moment Wisdom was begotten (i.e. made person not made God) was the moment God became the “Father” and Wisdom became the “Son”. Hence, God and Wisdom are coeval in getting their natural roles and function yet not coeval in co-existence as personalities. Hence, No eternal Father, no eternal Son but once assumed such roles it will be forever, that is, no ending. The relationship is &lt;em&gt;impossible&lt;/em&gt; to destroy once it became existent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the moment the Son was begotten was the moment he began existing and &lt;em&gt;instantly&lt;/em&gt; he gained all knowledge the Father has by the Father’s command and therefore, he is co-equal with the Father in &lt;em&gt;knowledge&lt;/em&gt; but not co-equal with him in &lt;em&gt;experiential knowledge&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son knows his status as a Son and hence, he knows that he is subordinate to the Father in authority ( functional subordination) and that he is equal to the Father in nature(ontological equality). The Father and the Son shares the &lt;em&gt;same substance&lt;/em&gt; but not the &lt;em&gt;same experience&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father is without beginning of existence and without ending of existence&#xA;The Son has beginning of existence without ending of existence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son has the following abilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--to be present everywhere at the same time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--to know everything absolutely&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--to do everything not contradictory to his nature&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But all of these abilities the Son cannot use unless he’s given the authority or the right to use it ( Acts 1:7, John 17:2)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LOVE PROVEN&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;God gave Wisdom the very life he has i.e. personality, self-sufficiency and self-existence( John 5:26). Abstract became concrete. This is given in God’s act of begetting Wisdom and in this begetting the Holy Spirit was also made a person through being breathed by the Son. This single breathing is act which produces (the person not the nature) of the Spirit is inevitable because the Son is indeed alive. This Spirit is the same Spirit the Father has for all eternity albeit non-person but became a person at the very moment of the Son’s begetting. Because of this, he is under the Father and the Son (as God and Wisdom they are his one source). The breathe of the Son became a person exactly like him. This means that the Son’s evidence of life is alive (and it also confirms God’s for he’s the begetter of the Son). A living life proves a living love for the Father begets because of love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the moment of the Son's existence was the same moment the Spirit became existent and they both instantly &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit has a beginning of existence and without ending of existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit has the following abilities:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--to be present everywhere at the same time&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--to know everything absolutely&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;--to do everything not contradictory to his nature&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But all of these abilities the Spirit cannot use unless he’s given the authority or the right to use it.( Mark 13:32, 1 Corinthians 2:10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CONCLUSION:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although it’s impossible for the Son and Spirit to cease to exist, eternality is the only thing they don’t possess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son and the Holy Spirit are equal to the Father in all honor, glory, praise and worthiness of worship for they are three persons who shares one single indivisible nature (Matthew 28:19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T09:24:37.267" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20432" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20425" CreationDate="2013-11-01T09:53:19.110" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's special because &lt;strong&gt;the PLO is not a sovereign body,&lt;/strong&gt; that is, it is not a national or supra-national body like other countries or the United Nations or European Union. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is headquartered in Rome, and is &quot;widely considered a sovereign subject of international law&quot; [according to a quote in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the Palestinian National Authority was established (by the PLO) in 1994, the PLO Executive Committee performs the functions of the government of the State of Palestine. Currently, the PLO maintains a network of offices in foreign countries and also represents the PNA abroad [&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestine_Liberation_Organization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;]. Thus foreign relations are maintained with the PLO rather than the Authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may also be considered special because neither representative resides in the territory of the other. The PLO representative is in London, and the Apostolic Nunciature is in Tunis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-11-02T08:10:16.553" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T08:10:16.553" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20433" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18180" CreationDate="2013-11-01T11:45:18.337" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is important to note that God is spirit--not physical.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is spirit&lt;/strong&gt;, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.  John 4:24 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, in eternity past, Jesus was in relation to the Father as the Son--but this has nothing to do with biology or reproduction, as the Son is co-eternal with the Father.  Paul describes Jesus as the creator of all things--thus, Jesus is un-created and eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For &lt;strong&gt;by Him all things were created&lt;/strong&gt;, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.  Colossians 1:16 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The terms &quot;Father&quot; and &quot;Son&quot; describe the kind of relationship--not reproduction or order of existence.  The Bible never speaks of God the Mother, and, indeed, without a Mother, there could be no divine Family.  God uses the terms &quot;Father&quot; and &quot;Son&quot; in order for us to understand a relationship that would otherwise be obscured to us.  A basic principle of teaching is that you use the known to describe the unknown.  God uses concepts with which we are familiar in the physical realm to describe a relationship in the spiritual realm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible never indicates in any way that there was or ever will be any reproduction in the spiritual realm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Only Begotten&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A note about the phrase &quot;only begotten&quot;...  This comes from the word in Greek &quot;monogenes&quot;, which is a compound word--&quot;mono&quot; and &quot;genes&quot;.  A literal translation of this could be &quot;one kind&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Interestingly enough the term is actually used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) in reference to Isaac--who was not the only son of Abraham, nor was he even the first.  Abraham's first son was Ishmael, and he had five sons by Keturah, whom he married after Sarah died.  Isaac was then the 2nd of 7 sons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, he is still called the &quot;one kind&quot; or &quot;one of a kind&quot; son of Abraham.  Why is this?  Not because of his uniqueness of being a son, but because of the uniqueness in which he &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; a son.  He became a son from a promised miraculous birth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God refers to all His followers as &quot;sons (and daughters) of God&quot;.  Jesus' sonship, however, is what makes Him unique.  He is eternal.  He always existed.  If He always existed, He could never be born and He could never be the product of reproduction.  Thus, the eternal nature of Jesus is precisely what invalidates any idea that He was ever conceived or born in the spiritual realm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His sonship is a &quot;one of a kind&quot; sonship specifically because He is the only eternal Son.  His sonship is unlike any other.  It describes relationship, but not progression or succession.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-11-01T11:58:45.660" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T11:58:45.660" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20434" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20407" CreationDate="2013-11-01T15:43:46.107" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The 'creation from nothing' theory is not Biblical. It clearly says in Genesis 1: 2 &#xA;'And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters'.&#xA;That means there was 'waters' at the beginning.&#xA;The earth/matter was unformed.&#xA;The deep/space was without energy.&#xA;The only thing that was there was water.&#xA;That's what the Bible says.&#xA;So the right question to ask is:&#xA;What is meant by water?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-11-01T15:43:46.107" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20437" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-01T19:36:28.520" Score="13" ViewCount="3416" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the position of the Church on asexuals?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An asexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction towards any person, thus does not desire to have sex. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy,  which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An answer from the Church tradition is welcome. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does the Bible mention anything about asexuality? The church? Jesus himself? Is asexuality a sin and is it considered the same as homosexuality?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6406" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T02:20:00.047" LastActivityDate="2020-06-17T02:20:00.047" Title="What is the thesis of the church towards asexuality?" Tags="&lt;singleness&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="15" ClosedDate="2020-06-17T02:20:04.210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20440" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-01T22:18:19.090" Score="4" ViewCount="529" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... the Pope explained that the text from the Revelation, which speaks of a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet and a garland of twelve stars upon her head, refers both to the Virgin and to the Church. In part, &amp;quot;the woman of the Apocalypse is Mary ... the symbol of the luminous robe clearly expressed a condition referring to Mary in all her being: She is 'full of grace', filled with the love of God&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The moon beneath her feet symbolises death: &amp;quot;Mary is fully linked to the victory of Jesus Christ, her Son, over sin and death... just as death has no power over Christ resurrected, so by the grace and singular privilege of omnipotent God, Mary overcomes death. This is made manifest in the two great mysteries of her existence: at the beginning, the conception without original sin, the mystery we celebrate today; and at the end, her assumption in body and soul in Heaven&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What it is written above is an official discourse, yet it is written that the Virgin was assumed 'in body', other than in soul, in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anybody explain what 'in body' precisely mean there? Does it refer to material or human body? If so, from where does Catholic Church deduce that believing? What do other Christian denominations, especially Lutherans and Orthodoxes, say about that believing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you and peace be with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T15:25:17.430" Title="What does it mean that the Virgin was assumed &quot;in body&quot; in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;virgin-mary&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20443" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-01T23:53:30.270" Score="1" ViewCount="9974" Body="&lt;p&gt;I hear some Christians say that we should command the blessings or command our morning to align itself with our day and faith. I believe this is true, but I want a biblical framework to reference when this topic comes about. I believe the kingdom is based on Kingdom principles, and when we act in faith upon these biblical principles, it becomes the key that unlocks Heaven's riches to us.  However, it's something I just believe, but where is that found? How do I explain this theory to a newbie, or a young believer in Christ from a scriptural basis? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6411" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T17:28:23.917" LastActivityDate="2015-02-27T19:46:59.620" Title="What biblical (scriptural) basis does a Christian have to command the blessings?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20437" CreationDate="2013-11-02T01:12:34.363" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;Plus one for a decent, albeit unusual, question.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After reading your question for the first time, I thought immediately of Jesus' words to his disciples in the context of His teaching on divorce:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  He who is able to accept this, let him accept it'&quot; (Matthew 19:12 NASB, Updated Edition).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Compare Jesus' words with Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, where the apostle says, in effect, it is better to be single than to marry, but &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that&quot; (7:7b).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Combine these two teachings with other teachings throughout the Scripture, which for brevity's sake I'll not cite, and the message is clear:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Marriage is good and right and proper, and it is better to marry than to burn with lust and be tempted into sin by Satan because of a lack of self-control.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Singleness is good and right and proper, whether a person never marries or a person marries and is divorced, but then decides not to re-marry.  Each person has his or her gift from God, so there is no hard and fast rule as to whether to marry or not to marry. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Neither marriage nor singleness is superior.  As Constable has noted, &quot;. . . neither Jesus nor the apostles viewed celibacy as an intrinsically holier state than marriage (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Heb. 13:4; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5). They viewed it as a special calling that God has given some of His servants so they can be more useful in His service.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A eunuch can be a eunuch in the flesh (i.e., he is castrated), but he can also be a eunuch in spirit, and for the sake of the kingdom decides to remain single.  If he is so gifted, that is the sensible thing to do.  Married life has many distractions and complications that the single life does not, whether you are a single man &lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt; or a single woman!  A woman, too, needs to be guided by her &quot;gift&quot; in this regard, and there is nothing inherently bad about choosing to marry or inherently good about choosing not to marry.   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The number of Christians who are truly asexual is probably very small indeed.  The number of Christians who have a normal sex drive--neither weak nor strong-- but decide in effect to put their sexuality on hold for the sake of the kingdom is probably a little higher.  This is not to say they will never be tempted.  Moreover, in light of the Bible's silence on  masturbation, I am of the opinion that occasional, &lt;em&gt;private&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;individual&lt;/em&gt; masturbation is understandable for these gifted believers and does not mean they should necessarily reconsider their calling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The number of Christians is likely very large, if it does not in fact constitute the vast majority of adult Christians worldwide, who have a normal sex drive (albeit of individually different strengths) and who neither desire nor have the gift to be single.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, God has a wonderful plan for all His children's lives, whether that plan involves marriage, singleness, or even the pain associated with divorce, remarriage, or widowhood.  The key is for us to function within the parameters of our giftedness, to do so in the strength and joy of the Lord, and to be content in all circumstances (Philippians 4:11-13), because as Paul said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I can do all things through Him who strengthens me&quot; (v.13).             &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T01:12:34.363" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20445" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-02T01:19:07.910" Score="1" ViewCount="95" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I am discussing the Bible and I use the Old Testament, often I am told that that portion does not apply to us because it is addressed to the Jews.  By the time I am finished with my discussion I may as well go through the Bible and cut out all the scriptures that are to the Jews.  I am told that I must read the context.  If this is true then it seems that I have very little to support many of my understandings of Scripture. I cannot even use the words of Jesus because he lived and spoke during the time of the law and not grace.   Can you help me with this.  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6412" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T14:02:24.827" Title="Using context in interpreting Scripture" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20413" CreationDate="2013-11-02T04:31:28.847" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whether the words are red or black, those are the words of Jesus. Of course the words were originally written in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. But nevertheless, these are the very words of Jesus through the eyewitnesses of those people in that time. Some translations are questionable.(I.E. The Message by Eugene Peterson) Some versions of the Bible translate it either word for word, or thought for thought. But overall, they are Inspired by God and written by Godly men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6414" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T04:31:28.847" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20448" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20445" CreationDate="2013-11-02T06:42:55.380" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The context of the New Testament is the primarily the Old Testament.&#xA;Everything else is secondary.&#xA;Jesus Christ studied and lived according to the Old Testament. Jesus said in Matthew 4: 19, 'Follow me . . .'&#xA;No Christian can get away from those words.&#xA;What Jesus attacked was not the Old Testament but interpretation of the law especially by the Pharisees.&#xA;There are modern 'Pharisees' as well.&#xA;(It sounds as if you are being bullied. Don't stand for it. Study, think, and judge for yourself. It is your soul.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T06:42:55.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20449" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="33515" CreationDate="2013-11-02T08:04:01.853" Score="10" ViewCount="1232" Body="&lt;p&gt;What I know from history books is that Semi-Arians held to the neutral theological position of &lt;em&gt;homoiousians&lt;/em&gt; against both strict &lt;em&gt;homoousians&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;anomoeans&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I found a very scant knowledge about their theology and these are what I want to know:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is eternal or not? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is a creature?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What do they believe about the Holy Spirit?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="69" LastEditDate="2014-07-01T19:46:31.253" LastActivityDate="2020-01-07T18:25:11.720" Title="What is the theology of the Semi-Arians?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;arianism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20450" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-02T08:20:34.077" Score="1" ViewCount="684" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was the Son begotten continuously or just once?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question revolves around the begetting of the Son before the creation of the universe NOT his incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was the Son begotten &lt;em&gt;continuously&lt;/em&gt; forever? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Was the Son begotten &lt;em&gt;once&lt;/em&gt; forever?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2013-11-02T09:24:17.167" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T01:08:51.730" Title="Was the Son eternally begotten?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2017-01-28T01:32:55.897" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20451" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8025" CreationDate="2013-11-02T08:59:04.333" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes. There is a proof from the Bible that the second person of the Trinity was the only begotten Son of the Father before his incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early Christians loved to quote the following Old Testament Bible verses to prove that the second person of the Trinity was the only begotten Son of the Father before his incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 110:3 (Douay-Rheims Bible) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the&#xA;  brightness of the saints: &lt;strong&gt;from the womb before the day star I begot&#xA;  thee.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 45:1 (Douay-Rheims Bible)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unto the end, for them that shall be changed, for the sons of Core,&#xA;  for understanding. A canticle for the Beloved. &lt;strong&gt;My heart hath uttered&#xA;  a good word&lt;/strong&gt; I speak my works to the king; My tongue is the pen of a&#xA;  scrivener that writeth swiftly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psalm 2:7 (Douay-Rheims Bible)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord hath said to me: &lt;strong&gt;Thou art my son, this day have I begotten&#xA;  thee.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverbs 8:25 (NetBible)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;before the mountains were set in place--&lt;strong&gt;before the hills--I was&#xA;  born,&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early Christians loved to quote the following New Testament Bible verses to prove that the second person of the Trinity was the only begotten Son of the Father before his incarnation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:1-4 (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came&#xA;  into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being&#xA;  that has come into being. 4 In Him was life&lt;/strong&gt;, and the life was the&#xA;  Light of men. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:18 (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18 No one has seen God at any time; the &lt;strong&gt;only begotten God&lt;/strong&gt; who is&#xA;  in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:16 (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 “For God so loved the world, that &lt;strong&gt;He gave His only begotten&#xA;  Son&lt;/strong&gt;, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal&#xA;  life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 1:24 (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, &lt;strong&gt;Christ the&#xA;  power of God and the wisdom of God.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The early church used the &lt;em&gt;Greek Version&lt;/em&gt; of the Old Testament known as the &lt;em&gt;Septuagint&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Latin Vulgate's Old Testament is from the Septuagint. The Dhouay-Rheims Bible is from the Latin Vulgate.Hence, the reading of the Septuagint is preserved in both translations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2015-02-14T16:21:16.737" LastActivityDate="2015-02-14T16:21:16.737" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20452" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="50137" CreationDate="2013-11-02T09:00:37.510" Score="0" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;h2&gt;Why does the Son have a source of existence?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early church fathers believed that the Son has an source or origin of existence &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/library/binning/the_works_of_the_rev_hugh_binning/lecture_xiii_of_the_unity.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(reference)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;To have an origin is different from having a beginning. Things could have an origin without having a beginning. For instance, the time a ball is placed onto a pillow, the cushion as well as the ball placed thereon are &lt;strong&gt;co-eval&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The source of the Son is the Father himself, the one who begat him from all eternity (cf. John 1:1; 1:18).The Father is expressedly identified as the fountain of the Godhead &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/eternal_generation.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Note&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question is not about the &lt;em&gt;Incarnation&lt;/em&gt; but about the &lt;em&gt;eternal generation&lt;/em&gt; of the Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2016-06-12T06:14:44.093" LastActivityDate="2016-06-12T17:55:54.547" Title="Why does the Son have a source of existence?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2711" CreationDate="2013-11-02T09:19:50.427" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Son has the &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ability&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; to know but he does not have the &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;authority&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; to know.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A classic example of this is found in John 17:2 wherein the Father gave the Son &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;authority&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; to give eternal life which means he has the &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ability&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After his resurrection, he was given &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;all authority&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; to use his divine nature and therefore, he knows both the day and the hour of his own return ( Matthew 28:18, cf. Colossians 2:3, 2:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus has power and this power cannot cease.What he doesn't have is the permission or the right to use it because he is &lt;strong&gt;the Son of the Father&lt;/strong&gt; (2 John 1:3). A son is naturally of same nature with his father yet he is also naturally submissive to his father at the same time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus was born as a baby, he grew in wisdom just like other humans (Luke 2:52). The reason is that Jesus chose to be born as a baby to live as a genuine human being. He was born in the likeness of humans [ομοιοματι ανθροπον] and he was found in form &amp;quot;as a man&amp;quot; [οσ ανθροπος] (Phil 2:7c-8a).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth shown in Mark 13:32 are these two:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Functional Subordination&lt;/em&gt; - the Son is not equal to the Father in role,&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;authority&lt;/strong&gt; and function.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ontological Equality&lt;/em&gt; - the Son is equal to the Father in &lt;strong&gt;nature&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Key words:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ability - the quality/state of being &lt;strong&gt;able&lt;/strong&gt; to do something.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Authority -the freedom granted by one in authority i.e. &lt;strong&gt;right&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nature - a set of &lt;strong&gt;attributes&lt;/strong&gt;, it is what innately belongs to someone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2020-07-04T03:40:49.847" LastActivityDate="2020-07-04T03:40:49.847" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20454" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20452" CreationDate="2013-11-02T12:50:51.350" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are confusing the Deity Jesus with the man Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the Angel Gabriel announced to the Virgin Mary that she would become Pregnant and bear a son, he told her that she would be overcome by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 1:35  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and &#xA;  the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which &#xA;  shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Ghost himself placed the seed of God into Mary's womb which combined with Mary's seed then grew into the baby Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Jesus had both the seed of man which he inherited through Mary his mother and the seed of God which the Holy Spirit placed in the womb of his mother Mary, Jesus was both man and God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is no different than the fact that you are the son of both your mother and your father, and have characteristics of both of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 1:18  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused &#xA;  to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 1:20 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared&#xA;  unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary &#xA;  thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That seed from the Holy Ghost is eternal therefore the Deity part of Jesus is also eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T12:50:51.350" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20456" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20445" CreationDate="2013-11-02T14:02:24.827" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Whomever is saying that the Old Testament is no longer applicable is totally in error.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus himself said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:18 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 16:17 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When will it ever come that Murder will no longer be against God's law, or any of the other nine commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you search the scriptures you will find that all of the other Old Testament and New Testament is either an extension or in some way a description of those ten Commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also said;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:17&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This statement shows the basis of his ability to forgive sin, in that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;No ordinary man could fulfill the Law, because he could not negate all the times that man had broken God's laws.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Only a man who had never broken the Law of God (disobeyed)  could cause them to be forgiven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did not do away with the Law, or even do away with the fact that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 3:23 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the end comes it will be the Law (as described in the Old Testament) by which we will all be judged, both the saved and unsaved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 2:12  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference will be that the saved will be judged innocent because of the sacrifice of Jesus, and that judgment will determine their rewards, while the unsaved will be judged as to whether they ever broke the Law or not and those found guilty (which is all of them) will be cast into the lake of fire, to burn for eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T14:02:24.827" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20458" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20440" CreationDate="2013-11-02T14:34:16.937" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, this refers to Mary's material, human body.  The Catholic Church teaches that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mary was assumed&lt;/a&gt; into heaven, body and soul.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an explanation of the reasons behind this teaching, you would do well to read the decree &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Munificentissimus Deus&lt;/a&gt;&quot; of Pope Pius XII, in which he officially defined this dogma of the assumption.  The &quot;punch line&quot; is &quot;by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.&quot;  This is from section 44 of the decree, so you can see that a lot of explanation preceded it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The whole decree is available on the Vatican web site, at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html&lt;/a&gt; (in English).  I should probably mention explicitly that, although this decree dates from 1950, the Church celebrated the feast of the assumption for many centuries before that. As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox churches agree with this teaching, but protestants do not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-05T15:25:17.430" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T15:25:17.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20440" CreationDate="2013-11-02T17:39:32.337" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church has &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; taught, and &lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt; teaches that Mary, Mother God (in Greek: Theotokos) was assumed into Heaven completely. Her physical body was taken to Heaven, along with her immaculate soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see this forshadowed in scripture, especially in the Old Teastament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We read in Genesis 5:24, and Hebrews 11:5 that Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God&#xA;took him away. (&lt;em&gt;Gen. 5:24&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience&#xA;death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” [a]&#xA;For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.&#xA;(&lt;em&gt;Heb. 11:5&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Kings 2:11-12 tells us that Elijah was assumed into heaven in a fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there&#xA;appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both&#xA;asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.&#xA;And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of&#xA;Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took&#xA;hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces. (&lt;em&gt;2 Kings 2:11-&#xA;12&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary's Assumption has been explictly taught by the Church Fathers from very early on in the Church's history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St Gregory of Tours writes in the 6th century:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and&#xA;they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord&#xA;stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded&#xA;that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul,&#xA;[Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones...&amp;quot; Gregory of Tours, Eight&#xA;Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two centuries later, John Damascene writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth,&#xA;should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It&#xA;was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast,&#xA;should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse,&#xA;whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine&#xA;mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross&#xA;and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which&#xA;she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he&#xA;sits with the Father, It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what&#xA;belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as&#xA;the Mother and as the handmaid of God.&amp;quot; John of Damascene, Dormition&#xA;of Mary (PG 96,741), (ante A.D. 749).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;There are many other writings by Church Fathers attesting to the Tradition of the Assumption&lt;/a&gt;...too many to list here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps you can see how this dogma was believed and taught by the Church well before the recent precisions you have cited.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T15:20:37.617" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20462" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20450" CreationDate="2013-11-02T17:52:56.667" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the Angel Gabriel announced to the Virgin Mary that she would become Pregnant and bear a son, he told her that she would be overcome by the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 1:35 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Ghost himself placed the seed of God into Mary's womb which combined with Mary's seed then grew into the baby Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Jesus had both the seed of man which he inherited through Mary his mother and the seed of God which the Holy Spirit placed in the womb of his mother Mary, Jesus was both man and God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is no different than the fact that you are the son of both your mother and your father, and have characteristics of both of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 1:18 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 1:20 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That seed from the Holy Ghost is eternal therefore the Deity part of Jesus is also eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T17:52:56.667" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2109" CreationDate="2013-11-02T18:21:09.527" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 20:25 Settled this for me. &#xA;&quot;The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.&quot; Nails (plural) in His hands, would have to go at least one to each hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6419" LastEditorUserId="6419" LastEditDate="2013-11-02T18:52:57.850" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T18:52:57.850" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20464" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-02T18:21:57.423" Score="2" ViewCount="26543" Body="&lt;p&gt;For thousands of years, the Devil has been associated with the left hand in various ways and is normally portrayed as being left-handed in pictures and other images.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the seventeenth century it was thought that the Devil baptised his followers with his left-hand and there are many references in superstitions to the &quot;left-hand side&quot; being associated with evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We say &quot;do the right thing&quot; thus favoring the right side to the left one. Jesus is portraited using his right hand and on the contrary, Devil using the left. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the traditions of the Church towards left handness? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6406" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-13T14:37:12.433" LastActivityDate="2014-02-13T14:37:12.433" Title="Are Left handers servants of the devil?" Tags="&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-11-06T20:34:41.600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20450" CreationDate="2013-11-02T18:41:30.740" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question seems to be based on the idea that the internal relations between the persons of the Holy Trinity are in some sort of time --- in particular that the begetting of the Son by the Father happened at a single moment or continued through an interval (perhaps an infinite interval) of time.  I don't think that's the case. More importantly, as far as I know, Catholic theologians regard God as not being bound by time, but rather existing separately from time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think modern physics provides some support for this theological position.  General relativity describes a very close relationship between space, time, and matter.  So knowing that God created matter, one can reasonably conclude that space and time themselves were also created by God, not existing somehow separately from Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T18:41:30.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20467" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20450" CreationDate="2013-11-02T19:09:28.333" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the best (if not &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; best) Augustinian/Thomistic theologians is Frank J. Sheed.  His great work “Theology and Sanity” is an excellent guide for contemplating questions like these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sheed writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What, then, is time?  Philosophers use the word in two closely related&#xA;  senses; most of us find that one of these is sufficient for us.  Time,&#xA;  say the philosophers, is the duration of that which changes; time, say&#xA;  the philosophers again and we with them, is the measurement of the&#xA;  changes of the universe. What is common to both statements is the&#xA;  relation of time to change.  Where nothing changes, time has no&#xA;  possible meaning. Thus time and the universe started together.  God is&#xA;  infinite and therefore changeless.  He is “the Father of lights with&#xA;  whom there is no change or shadow of alteration” (James 1:17).  He&#xA;  possesses the utter fullness of existence, so that nothing can go from&#xA;  Him, for He already possesses all.  The universe He created is a&#xA;  changing universe.  And because change belongs to it and not to God,&#xA;  time belongs to it and not to God. To repeat, time and the universe&#xA;  started together: time is the ticking of the universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we say, “Jesus was begotten before the universe was created,” then we are stating something that has no meaning at all.  &lt;em&gt;Before&lt;/em&gt; is a word of time, and there could be no time before the universe because time began with the universe.  To say “before the universe” means when there wasn't any “when”; which is to say that it doesn't mean anything at all.  The same is said about the phrase, “how many &lt;em&gt;times&lt;/em&gt; was (&lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; is also a time word) Jesus begotten.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frank Sheed goes on to discuss processions in eternity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There may still remain one error clinging to our knowledge of the&#xA;  processions of the Persons in the Blessed Trinity because of our own&#xA;  immersion in time.  As far as the statement of it goes, we are not&#xA;  likely to make the error of thinking that the Son is in some way less&#xA;  eternal than the Father, or the Holy Spirit in some way younger than&#xA;  the Father and the Son.  We know that there is no succession in&#xA;  eternity, no change in God.  God the Father did not first exist as a&#xA;  Person and then become a Father.  God, by the very act of being God,&#xA;  generates his Son; God the Father and God the Son, by the very act of&#xA;  being God, spirate the Holy Spirit.  As I say, there is not likely to&#xA;  be any error in our statement of this: the error will tend to cling to&#xA;  our idea in such a way that when we are looking directly at it, we do&#xA;  not see it, yet it is profoundly there: and, because time is so deeply&#xA;  woven into all our experience, our advance in the knowledge of God&#xA;  depends upon our deliberate effort to rid our mind of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the historical Church's creeds and councils, the only valid answer is, &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Christ is eternally begotten only of the Father&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nicene Creed was formulated by the Early Church Fathers to authoritatively define the  Christological absolutes that orthodox Christians hold:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I believe in one God, the Father almighty,&#xA;      maker of heaven and earth,&#xA;      of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,&#xA;          the Only Begotten Son of God,&#xA;          born of the Father before all ages.&#xA;      God from God, Light from Light,&#xA;          true God from true God,&#xA;      begotten, not made, consubstantial&#xA;         with the Father;&#xA;          Through him all things were made.&#xA;      For us men and for our salvation&#xA;          he came down from heaven,&#xA;          and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate&#xA;          of the Virgin Mary,&#xA;          and became man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to this formula, Christ is &quot;&lt;strong&gt;the only begotten Son of God&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;  While being eternally &quot;&lt;strong&gt;begotten from the Father before all ages&lt;/strong&gt;,&quot;  he was &quot;by the Power of the Holy Spirit &lt;em&gt;incarnate&lt;/em&gt; of the Virgin Mary, and became man.&quot; It is precisely because Jesus of Nazareth was eternally begotten/born (fully God and fully Man) before all ages, that the Blessed Virgin Mary can properly receive the coronation of being named &quot;Theotokos,&quot; or Mother of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-11-03T17:27:20.990" LastActivityDate="2013-11-03T17:27:20.990" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20468" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5389" CreationDate="2013-11-02T20:22:16.797" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;If Sarai (later Sarah) was the daughter of Terah, then Sarai would have been listed along with Abram, Nahor, and Haran.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we can confirm that the intended meaning was cousin.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hmm, but in Genesis 20 Abraham says ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Abraham replied, “I said to myself, ‘There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.’ 12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... So I guess she was his half-sister and the marraige very much was an incestuous one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6420" LastActivityDate="2013-11-02T20:22:16.797" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20452" CreationDate="2013-11-02T21:15:21.533" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 1:1,14 is the classic proof text of the eternality of the Son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through Him all things were Made, and by him was nothing made that was made. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:14 goes on to say that this is Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore the creeds are very clear that he was begotten not made, which precisely is there to address the whole &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;subordinationism&lt;/a&gt; debate.  Basically, the creeds work out in more precise detail how it is that the Son is not subordinate to the Father, by nature of his eternal begottenness.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To go too much further would really be to stumble into book territory, which is beyond the scope of the site.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-05T02:02:19.320" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T02:02:19.320" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20470" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20464" CreationDate="2013-11-03T00:44:39.947" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Traditionally, and not just in the Church, the right hand was considered more &quot;noble&quot; than the left, probably just because there are a lot more right-handed than left-handed people.  As a result, the Church's traditional rubrics specify that some ceremonial actions be performed with the right hand, even if the person performing them is left-handed. For example, I believe priests are supposed to distribute communion with the right hand.  This also applies to some actions that are not strictly governed by rubrics; for example, even though I'm left-handed, I make the sign of the cross with my right hand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until fairly recently, this sort of preference for the right hand was much more visible in secular society too.  For example, my father, who was (like me and two of my four siblings) left-handed, was forced, as a child, to learn to write with his right hand.  The preference also shows up in the English language, not only in phrases like the ones you mentioned in the question, but also in single words like &quot;dexterous&quot;, &quot;ambidextrous&quot;, and &quot;sinister&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, to answer the original question: No, I'm not a servant of the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-11-03T00:44:39.947" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16121" CreationDate="2013-11-03T01:18:31.037" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several evidences that New Testament was written in Aramaic. First century Israel spoke Aramaic. Not Greek. Jewish Historian and Priest Josephus tells us that Greek wasn't spoken in first century Israel and also &quot;the extreme rarity&quot; in terms of a Jew knowing Greek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods&lt;/strong&gt;; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; &lt;strong&gt;on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; - Antiquities of Jews XX, XI (AD 93).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1):&#xA;I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, &lt;strong&gt;to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians&lt;/strong&gt;. Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In New Testament Bible, there are several names with &quot;Bar&quot;. They are &quot;Bar&quot;tholomew, &quot;Bar&quot;abbas, &quot;Bar&quot;nabbas, Joseph &quot;Bar&quot;sabbas, Judas &quot;Bar&quot;sabbas, &quot;Bar&quot;Timaeus, Simon &quot;Bar&quot; Jonah, and &quot;Bar&quot; Jesus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic word &quot;Bar&quot; means Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Wars Book 5, Chapter 4, Paragraph 2 - This new-built part of the city was called &quot;Bezetha,&quot; in &lt;strong&gt;our language&lt;/strong&gt;, which, if interpreted in the Grecian language, may be called &quot;the New City.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;tha&quot; at the end of &quot;Bezetha&quot; is the Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun in an emphatic state (Source - Book &quot;Introduction to Syriac&quot; by Wheeler Thackston, Page 44).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 1:19, Field of Blood was known to &lt;strong&gt;all the inhabitants of Jerusalem in their own language as Akeldama which is the transliteration of Aramaic words &quot;Khqel Dama&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Greek NT manuscripts contains several textual variations. According to Greek Scholar Herman C. Hoskier in his book &quot;Codex B and it Allies&quot; (1914) volume 2, there are &lt;strong&gt;3,036 textual variations&lt;/strong&gt; between Greek NT manuscript &quot;Codex Sinaiticus&quot; and Greek NT manuscript &quot;Codex Vaticanus&quot; in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows: &lt;strong&gt;Matthew: 656, Mark: 567, Luke: 791, John: 1022&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many of the textual variations and confusions in Greek NT manuscripts are corrected by Aramaic New Testament known as Eastern Aramaic Peshitta. Here are 2 major examples. I want to write more. But it will be too long.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1) Romans 5:7-8 (Translated from Greek NT&lt;/strong&gt;) - &quot;For scarcely for &lt;strong&gt;a righteous man&lt;/strong&gt; will one die; though for the good man perhaps some one would even dare to die; but God renders his love for us conspicuous in this, that, we being yet sinners, Christ died for us.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the word &quot;righteous.&quot; This is confusing, because righteous and good are synonyms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe H T Anderson's English translation of Greek NT manuscript Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD) is one of the easiest to access on Internet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is Aramaic Peshitta translation of Romans 5:7-8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:7-8 (Etheridge Translation) - &quot;for hardly for &lt;strong&gt;the wicked one&lt;/strong&gt; dieth; for on account of the good one may perhaps dare to die. Nevertheless Aloha hath manifested his love for us, in that, when we were sinners, the Meshiha for us died.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unlike Greek NT which says &quot;righteous&quot;, Aramaic Peshitta says &quot;Wicked.&quot; Why is that?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This error in Greek NT happened due to a horrible mistranslation from Aramaic Peshitta which is explained in the below 5 minute youtube video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJ0WDIvA7w&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJ0WDIvA7w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) &lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 13:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 13:3 (KJV) says: “And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ISV of 1 Corinthians 13:3 says: “Even if I give away all that I have and surrender my body so that I may boast but have no love, I get nothing out of it.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Versions that say burned or a variation thereof: ALT, AMP, ASV, BBE, CEV*, DARBY, Douay- Rheims, ESV*, Geneva, GodsWord, Holman, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, MSG, NASB*, NIV*, NIVUK, NKJV*, RSV, TEV, WE (Worldwide English), Webster, Weymouth, WYC (Wycliffe), YLT (Young’s Literal Translation).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The versions marked by an asterisk, *, have footnotes that mention that early mss (manuscripts) have boast or a variation thereof, rather than burn. It is noteworthy that the Alexandrian NU Text says boast also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Versions that say boast or a variation thereof: ISV, NLT (New Living Translation), Rotherham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reading (kauchswmai, “I might boast”) is in Greek manuscripts like Ì46 Í A B 048 33 1739*.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The competing reading, (kauqhsomai, “I will burn”), is found in Greek manuscripts such as C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers. A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: (kauqhswmai) (“I might burn”) and καυθη∋ (“it might be burned”) read by 1505.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, it just so happens that the Aramaic root yqd can mean “to burn”, but can also mean “to boast”. It is clear that the disagreement in the Greek texts points to the Aramaic original.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the verse from Aramaic Peshitta, translated by Aramaic scholar Paul Younan:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may ask why would Apostle Paul write to Jews &amp;amp; Gentiles in Aramaic in Greek or Turkish regions? Through Josephus, we know that Jews knowing Greek were extremely rare in first century AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that Jews took their Aramaic language wherever they went. In Acts 21, when Jews who came from Asia (Turkish regions) saw Paul at temple of Jerusalem, they called &quot;Men of Israel&quot; for help in Aramaic. Asia refers to Turkish region in first century AD. Here is the link to the map - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1stMithritadicwar89BC.png &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can get more information from the below video and also through video description below the video.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP3sOqY2hc&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP3sOqY2hc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another difference between Greek NT manuscripts and Aramaic NT manuscripts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3 (of Greek NT manuscripts) point out that many of the important early Christians were Greek, such as Timothy and Titus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3 of Aramaic NT (Aramaic Peshitta) tell us that they were Arameans. Arameans are Aramaic speaking Gentiles in Syria. Greeks called Arameans &quot;Syrians.&quot; This was mentioned by Greek Historian and Geographer Strabo (64 BC- 23 AD) in his book Geography. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why Laban the Aramean (in Genesis 31:24 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) is called Laban the Syrian (in Genesis 31:24 of Septuagint), &quot;Aram&quot; and &quot;Arameans&quot; (in 2 Samuel 8:6 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) are called &quot;Syria&quot; and &quot;Syrians&quot; (in 2 Samuel 8:6 of Septuagint). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why NIV translates &quot;Aramean language&quot; in (2 Kings 18:26 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) as &quot;Aramaic&quot; and Douay Rheims Bible translates &quot;Syrian language&quot; in 2 Kings 18:26 of Septuagint and &quot;Syriace&quot; in 2 Kings 18:26 of Latin Vulgate as Syriac.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you may ask how is it possible that Jesus could not have spoken Greek since we see a Greek woman born in Syrian Phoenicia begging Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter in Mark 7:26?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Greek NT manuscripts, we read that the woman is Greek. But in Aramaic Peshitta, it says the woman was heathen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 7:26 (Greek NT and NIV Translation of Greek NT) - &quot;The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in Mark 7:26 of Aramaic NT says this - &quot;But the woman was a heathen, from Phoenicia in Syria; and she besought him to cast out the demon from her daughter.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to write more informations. But the post is too long already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2013-11-04T01:30:25.267" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T01:30:25.267" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20476" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19506" CreationDate="2013-11-03T05:42:45.170" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It says in Deuteronomy 22:5 (NIV) - &quot;The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it applies to Christians too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ obeyed all of the commandments in Auraytha (Aramaic word for Torah). We even see Jesus Christ criticizing Pharisees for setting aside God's commands to observe their human traditions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 7:8-9 (NIV) - &quot;You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” And he continued, “&lt;strong&gt;You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions&lt;/strong&gt;!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ taught this (below)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 22:37-40 (KJV) - &quot;Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind&quot; comes from Deuteronomy 6:5 and is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 30:6. &quot;Love they neighbour as thyself&quot; comes from Leviticus 19:18. Jesus Christ is teaching the greatest commandments in Auraytha.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Malachi 3:6 - &quot;I the Lord do not change.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:8 - &quot;Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ tells in John 10:30 (NIV) - &quot;&lt;strong&gt;I and Father are one&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus and Father are one, Jesus Christ can never deny the teachings of his Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:15 (NIV) - &quot;&lt;strong&gt;If you love me, keep my commands&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in order to obey the greatest commandment - &quot;Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind&quot;, we must keep the commandments of Both Father God (Old Testament) and the Son (New Testament).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2013-11-03T05:42:45.170" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20428" CreationDate="2013-11-03T10:18:28.320" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most synagogues outside of Israel would be influenced by Greek culture and therefore of the 'hellenistic' variety, so the Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, were probably among them. What conservative Jews may or may not have thought about their brethren would have no bearing in what they thought about themselves.  Probably both conservative and Hellenistic Jews would have considered Christian Jews as not Jews at all and Christians at large as not God's children.  Therefore when we come to Revelation and find Jews claiming the title of 'Jew' while denying the title  to Christians, who were true Jews in spirit, in Symrna (a city near Ephesus) they would be &lt;em&gt;a very similar synagogue&lt;/em&gt; like those in Acts. However they would not be the exact same synagogue but probably one assembling right in Smyrna, at tongue lashing distance of that church who suffered under their slander directly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-11-03T14:45:21.107" LastActivityDate="2013-11-03T14:45:21.107" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="321" CreationDate="2013-11-03T11:08:54.643" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first mention of an &quot;escape&quot; event outside of the scripture (according to my studies) is The Shepherd of Hermes. The following is an excerpt from my book, &lt;strong&gt;The Partial Rapture &quot;Theory&quot; Explained / Escaping The Coming Storm.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Shepherd of Hermes is one such ancient document. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We will acknowledge first that much of what is recorded in these texts does not agree with the teachings of the scripture. That fact alone establishes the complete set of manuscripts of no doctrinal value. But, setting aside that detail for the moment in order to analyze the contents of these documents, we learn one of the records makes mention of a vision the “shepherd” had of a giant raging beast. This animal made an attempt to charge the shepherd presumably to cause him great harm. The shepherd however was able to escape by relying on God for protection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next vision he encounters is that of a beautiful maiden, identified by the shepherd himself as the Church. She in turn identifies the creature as an illustration of the Great Tribulation to come, and tells him he escaped it by putting his full trust in God. She then gives him the responsibility of informing all other believers they can do the same, but only if they too put their full trust in the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very brief look and oversimplification of the content of those manuscripts. But since they have been accepted to have been written in the second century, it is concrete proof that the “concept” of the Rapture in general (as referring to an escape from a future time of Great Tribulation) and conditions connected to participating in that specific escape existed outside of Biblical text, but inside the body of the Church, to within approximately one hundred years of the physical death of Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if the doctrine is in error, it was a belief of a portion of the membership of the Church, regardless of how few, documented to as early as the second century and there exists earlier evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More info can be found on my message board at, revjwwhitejr.conforums.com/index.cgi&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6428" LastActivityDate="2013-11-03T11:08:54.643" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20452" CreationDate="2013-11-03T16:31:08.513" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;... his Son, with an origin,....&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one of the classic misconception of Trinity. Jesus is not begotten in a particular point in time by The Father. As you have mentioned Jesus is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;eternally&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; begotten. That is, in the very nature of God's existence, Jesus was/is/will-be begotten by the Father for eternity. This is same as how holy spirit was/is/will-be proceeding from the father (and the son). That is being eternally begotten is not an event in the past, rather the state of existence (&lt;em&gt;being&lt;/em&gt;) of second person of the Trinity &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; the Trinity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2013-11-04T02:02:22.510" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T02:02:22.510" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20488" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-03T16:45:29.377" Score="2" ViewCount="135" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;I have tried since . . . to make every pleasure into a channel of adoration. I don’t mean simply by giving thanks for it. One must of course give thanks, but I meant something different . . . Gratitude exclaims, very properly, “How good of God to give me this.” Adoration says, “What must the quality of that Being whose far-off and momentary coruscations are like this!” One’s mind runs back up the sunbeam to the sun . . . &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is Hedonism, it is also a somewhat arduous discipline. But it is worth some labour.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is from 'Letters To Malcolm' by CS Lewis. I assume he is, once more, talking about 'joy'/sehnsucht...an ineffible longing for we know-not-what but something 'hinted' at via beauty/pleasure. &#xA;But, using God as Lewis's 'Sun' metaphor, is he saying we shall experience God as being the white heat, if you will, of all pleasure that we may/shall experience...or is he saying that God is a person who is full of happiness and goodness as a characteristic rather than his actual material substance and 'energy' he automatically gives off?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Appologies if this seems another whacky question, it's just, well, I like that kind...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="4737" LastEditDate="2013-11-04T10:36:52.073" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T01:00:33.180" Title="Is this about 'sehnsucht'; in which case, can God be Pleasure manifest or is he a being who is full of pleasure?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;cs-lewis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20489" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12435" CreationDate="2013-11-03T17:03:23.660" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholics no longer practice intinction, and have not  done so in any recent time. I have never once seen it done in a Roman Catholic Mass, though I have participated in it at Eastern Orthodox services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article explains more:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/10/16/reader-question-communion-and-intinction.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/10/16/reader-question-communion-and-intinction.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6436" LastActivityDate="2013-11-03T17:03:23.660" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20490" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20503" CreationDate="2013-11-03T18:31:12.300" Score="11" ViewCount="20328" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+4&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Exodus 4&lt;/a&gt; we are told that God sought to kill Moses for not circumcising his son in accordance with the law given to Abraham in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 17:11 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;but he relented on killing Moses when Moses' wife Zipporah took a sharp stone and circumcised the child, even though Moses himself did not circumcise the boy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus  4:24  through 26 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems strange that God relented with Moses and yet killed the men of Bethshemesh:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Samuel 6:19  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of&#xA;the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had&#xA;smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Uzza for using his hand to keep the Ark from falling off thee cart:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1Ch 13:9 &amp;amp; 10  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the&#xA;ark: and there he died before God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I full well understand that God does not need to explain his reasons, it would seem that a just God would treat both Moses and Uzza the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God must have had his reasons for doing it this way; are there Biblical reasons for believing his behavior in this case was consistent with the other behavior I've mentioned?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-12-17T19:02:18.703" Title="Why did God relent on killing Moses when Zipporah circumcised their son?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;circumcision&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-11-03T23:19:09.020" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;do not be the generation of them that are wise in their own eyes. You do not want to prove that you know better than God, do you? I'm sure you do not want to go there. Exodus 32:33 says &quot;Whosoever&#xA;hath sinned against me, him will&#xA;I blot out of my book .&quot; The Word of God can NEVER be changed, &quot; The Lord perfectly knew what He was saying, I MEAN HOW COULD YOU EVER DOUBT THAT!!!! &quot; Proverbs 11:23 says &quot;Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished&quot; so if you really want to go to heaven, throw away that satanic ideology because sin CAN NEVER enter there. &quot;If you cling to sin till death,&#xA;When you draw your latest breath,&#xA;You will sink in dark despair&#xA;To the regions of the lost,&#xA;Thus to prove at awful cost,&#xA;Sin can never enter there.&quot;- Charles W. Naylor. 1 John 3:9 says &quot;Whosoever is born of God doth&#xA;not commit sin; for his seed&#xA;remaineth in him: and he cannot&#xA;sin, because he is born of God.&quot; From Genesis to Revelation the Lord rejects sin, i pray you will not be found to be an enemy of God. In Hebrews 9, the Bible says&#xA;&quot;13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats,&#xA;and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling&#xA;the unclean, sanctifieth to the&#xA;purifying of the flesh:&#xA;14 How much more shall the blood of&#xA;Christ, who through the eternal&#xA;Spirit offered himself without spot to&#xA;God, purge your conscience from&#xA;dead works to serve the living God?&#xA;25 Nor yet that he should offer himself&#xA;often, as the high priest entereth&#xA;into the holy place every year with&#xA;blood of others;&#xA;26 For then must he often have suffered&#xA;since the foundation of the world:&#xA;but now once in the end of the&#xA;world hath he appeared to put away&#xA;sin by the sacrifice of himself.&#xA;28 So Christ was once offered to bear&#xA;the sins of many; and unto them&#xA;that look for him shall he appear the&#xA;second time without sin unto&#xA;salvation.&quot; &#xA;Note the BIBLE clearly states that He has come(appeared) to PUT AWAY SIN by the sacrifice of Himself. Surely the blood of the second Personality in the Trinity is potent enough to set you free from sin and should not (i mean NEVER) be compared to the blood or bulls and calves which were &quot;a shadow of things to come&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;MY CONCLUSION (More like the BIBLE'S CONCLUSION):&#xA;It sure is possible to live without sin. How? Repent of your sins, be sorry for commiting them, totally turn away from all sin and ask Jesus Christ to forgive, cleanse, make you a new creature and a sheep in His fold. Ask Him to come into your heart, to be your LORD and Saviour, to grant you the grace never to go back to sin anymore and make up your mind never to go back to sin anymore. God bless you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6440" LastActivityDate="2013-11-03T23:19:09.020" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11299" CreationDate="2013-11-04T05:58:04.697" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not sure how I missed out on answering such a fun question, but it's back on the radar now for some odd reason. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I understand about the issue of oral sex within the context of the marital act is that it is perfectly ok as long as its not the end of the business.  Christopher West, the North American spokesman for the Theology of the Body (teachings of Bl. John Paul II about what the the story of creation, the Gospel and the actual makeup of the human apparatus as God created us have to do with each other) writes about this in The Good News About Sex and Marriage, of which I have only skimmed the juicy parts where he explains why oral (and other) sex is licit so long as the end result could produce a child.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, Christopher West recently had voluntarily taken a second look at his own teachings and I don't know of he's recanted of this or not. People accused him of getting to pepped up about sex. Still, I don't see how it could be harmful, in the context of baby making to &quot;have a time of it&quot; as they used to say. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T05:58:04.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20464" CreationDate="2013-11-04T06:15:21.743" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the final analysis it's not the goats sitting at the left hand at the marriage supper of the lamb. If anything it's that lady who was chases off into the desert.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditionally though, in Cathoiic Churches, Mary is in the right hand side of the altar and her most chaste spouse is to the left.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also when genuflecting, one goes down on the right knee and makes the sign of the cross with the right hand. When one knelt before a human sovereign, they would go down on the left knee. And only make the sign of the cross if they were about to get their head chopped off. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All this is to put your mind at ease, as a lefty myself, I know I'm a tad less dexterous than my right handed peers (and children) but I make do. Theologically however, the left hand side just isn't as cool as the right hand side l. Sometimes infinitely less cool, but that's no reason to declare a fatwa against us lefties. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I belive the word you're looking for is gauche. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T06:15:21.743" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16047" CreationDate="2013-11-04T11:21:15.737" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We don't know why. It is only conjecture as to why God made clothes for them at that point in the story. There is a belief that is was to cover them (their shame) and that seems to make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It could be just the way the story tellers wanted to bring into the scene that God now needed to protect them since they now knew good and evil. Obviously fig leaves would not have made good clothes!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6413" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T11:21:15.737" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20502" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2785" CreationDate="2013-11-04T11:40:33.967" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;SALVATION FOR THE MILITARY, PARAMILITARY AND OTHER AGENCIES WORLDWIDE&#xA;Christians should serve in the military.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today many people (worldwide) totally condemned the activities of this agencies, the Lord Jesus the not condemned them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;National duties must be separated from religious sentiments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 8:8-10&#xA;Before reading verses 8-10, this is a little summary from verses 5-7, a centurion (a Roman soldier, may be a group captain) was begging Jesus to come and heal his servant, from palsy. When Jesus decided to come and heal his servant, the centurion said;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 8:8-10&#xA;The centurion replied “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 9 for I my self am a man under authority with soldiers under me. I tell this one “Go” and he goes; and that “Come” and he comes. I said to my servant do this and he does it”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 10 when Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him “I tell you the truth, I have not found any one in Israel with such great faith.&#xA;Jesus recommended this soldier as the man with great faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need salvation, police need salvation, soldier need salvation, so as Christians all we need to do is to preach the word and not condemn people and we must not mix National duties with religious sentiments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, as a Christian, we need to pray for this group of people worldwide, we all knew that the security and live of people is in the hands of God. Yet this people volunteered themselves to render National services to their nations worldwide.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6449" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T11:40:33.967" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20490" CreationDate="2013-11-04T13:53:18.217" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible &quot;stories&quot; teach us about the nature of God.  They sometimes serve as a warning and other times they encourage a closer relationship with God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These stories are not casual happenings; they are recorded in the Bible as an everlasting message to God’s children.  So in the case of Uzza, the Ark is the presence of God on Earth.  When Uzza reached out to save the Ark this is in complete contrast to the “truth”, God saves man, man does not save God.  So while this seems harsh and Uzza may have reacted out of instinct the eternal-stakes were much greater than Uzza’s life.  We also must realize that just because God took Uzza’s life it does not follow that Uzza went to Hell, but may have gone to be with the Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once Moses’ son was circumcised God no longer sought to kill Moses.  God instructs Moses to tell Pharaoh that Israel is God’s first-born son.  Israel ultimately bore the “only begotten Son” Jesus Christ.  Obviously Moses’ neglect regarding his own son was inexcusable and compromised the validity of God’s full message to humanity.  God will not compromise; He is not tolerant but patient (long-suffering), which is an attribute of God’s love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same is true with the people of Beth Shemesh that compromised these sacred articles of God, by looking into the Ark of the Covenant.  All of these stories send a message even to this day.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-11-04T14:10:58.730" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T14:10:58.730" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20490" CreationDate="2013-11-04T13:58:42.650" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The judgments of the LORD are always done for the good of the people. They are God's desperate cry for them to come back to Him so that they will not suffer by their own hands. God will not protect those who willingly put themselves in harm's way because they put themselves out of God's reach by living in sin. All that God does is for people to hear His voice and come back to Him. He is more harsh with the leaders, because they could lead people astray. this was the case of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Moses was to be the leader of the nation of Israel. People were to look at him and he'd be their intermediary. He was a type of Jesus. He was to be obedient in ALL things including the ritual for the covenant with God, which was circumcision. Moses had to see the extreme importance of this, for if he had not been circumcised, he would have been a stumbling block for all of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the way from Midian, Moses received a startling and terrible&#xA;  warning of the Lord's displeasure. An angel appeared to him in a&#xA;  threatening manner, as if he would immediately destroy him. No&#xA;  explanation was given; but Moses remembered that he had disregarded&#xA;  one of God's requirements; yielding to the persuasion of his wife, he&#xA;  had neglected to perform the rite of circumcision upon their youngest&#xA;  son. He had failed to comply with the condition by which his child&#xA;  could be entitled to the blessings of God's covenant with Israel; and&#xA;  such a neglect on the part of their chosen leader could not but lessen&#xA;  the force of the divine precepts upon the people. Zipporah, fearing&#xA;  that her husband would be slain, performed the rite herself, and the&#xA;  angel then permitted Moses to pursue his journey. In his mission to&#xA;  Pharaoh, Moses was to be placed in a position of great peril; his life&#xA;  could be preserved only through the protection of holy angels. But&#xA;  while living in neglect of a known duty, he would not be secure; for&#xA;  he could not be shielded by the angels of God. In the time of trouble&#xA;  just before the coming of Christ, the righteous will be preserved&#xA;  through the ministration of heavenly angels; but there will be no&#xA;  security for the transgressor of God's law. Angels cannot then protect&#xA;  those who are disregarding one of the divine precepts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 255-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the people of Bethshemesh, this paragraph explains it best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The men of Beth-shemesh quickly spread the tidings that the ark was in&#xA;  their possession, and the people from the surrounding country flocked&#xA;  to welcome its return. The ark had been placed upon the stone that&#xA;  first served for an altar, and before it additional sacrifices were&#xA;  offered unto the Lord. Had the worshipers repented of their sins,&#xA;  God's blessing would have attended them. But they were not faithfully&#xA;  obeying His law; and while they rejoiced at the return of the ark as a&#xA;  harbinger of good, they had no true sense of its sacredness. Instead&#xA;  of preparing a suitable place for its reception, they permitted it to&#xA;  remain in the harvest field. As they continued to gaze upon the sacred&#xA;  chest and to talk of the wonderful manner in which it had been&#xA;  restored, they began to conjecture wherein lay its peculiar power. At&#xA;  last, overcome by curiosity, they removed the coverings and ventured&#xA;  to open it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All Israel had been taught to regard the ark with awe and reverence.&#xA;  When required to remove it from place to place the Levites were not so&#xA;  much as to look upon it. Only once a year was the high priest&#xA;  permitted to behold the ark of God. Even the heathen Philistines had&#xA;  not dared to remove its coverings. Angels of heaven, unseen, ever&#xA;  attended it in all its journeyings. The irreverent daring of the&#xA;  people at Beth-shemesh was speedily punished. Many were smitten with&#xA;  sudden death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 589&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Uzzah, he was punished for his distrust in God and his impatience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The ark remained in the house of Abinadab until David was made king.&#xA;  He gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand,&#xA;  and went to bring up the ark of God. They sat the ark upon a new cart,&#xA;  and brought it out of the house of Abinadab. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of&#xA;  Abinadab, drave the cart. David and all the house of Israel played&#xA;  before the Lord on all manner of musical instruments. “And when they&#xA;  came to Nachon’s threshing-floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark&#xA;  of God, and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. And the anger of&#xA;  the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his&#xA;  error; and there he died by the ark of God.” Uzzah was angry with the&#xA;  oxen, because they stumbled. He showed a manifest distrust of God, as&#xA;  though He who had brought the ark from the land of the Philistines,&#xA;  could not take care of it. Angels who attended the ark struck down&#xA;  Uzzah for presuming impatiently to put his hand upon the ark of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Truth About Angels p. 126&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T13:58:42.650" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20515" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-04T20:46:32.763" Score="7" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;'&lt;strong&gt;We are all sinners&lt;/strong&gt;. But God heals us with an abundance of grace,&#xA;  mercy and tenderness.' (emp. mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the Holy Father, Pope Francis, said on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why does the Pope say '&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;We&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; are all sinners' clearly including himself among the sinners? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I know, it seems at least strange, if not absurd, that the Holy Father is a sinner, but I'm not an expert of these things and, perhaps, I'm not well aware about what sin is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I think that a sin is something that is against one or more of the ten commandments. But, if so, I cannot think of the Pope make something in disagreement to the ten commandments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please, can anybody explain? (Peace be with you)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="2202" LastEditDate="2013-11-05T13:26:18.830" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T17:38:45.853" Title="Why does the Pope include himself among the sinners?" Tags="&lt;papacy&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20515" CreationDate="2013-11-04T20:54:09.647" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin is not confined to a mere ten commandments.  Jesus Himself expanded on this in the Sermon on the Mount.  There He asserted that it wasn't just murder that was sinful, but hatefulness in the heart.  It wasn't just adultery that was immoral, but lust in the heart.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, we are all sinners&amp;mdash;and really bad sinners for that matter.  Romans 1-3 asserts this pretty clearly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Pope actually has someone to which he confesses his own sins according to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11872/do-priests-cardinals-and-popes-have-a-confessional-to-which-they-themselves-ca&quot;&gt;this question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be sure, the Pope likely does not engage in anything considered too bad.  It should be noted, though, that the sin of covetousness is, in fact, one of the ten commandments.  So, an inappropriate desire to possess anything that is not rightfully yours and belongs to another, is a sin.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T22:35:29.303" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20517" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20515" CreationDate="2013-11-04T23:37:04.100" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;original sin&lt;/a&gt; says that &lt;em&gt;every human being&lt;/em&gt; is a sinner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, the Bible also says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 3:10&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As it is written: &quot;There is no one righteous, not even one;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 56:3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and Isaiah 64:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, only Jesus escaped this sin - as Hebrews 4:15, in describing the uniqueness of Jesus writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, the obvious implication is that even High Priests (and their modern counterparts) sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, even the canons of the church explicitly clarify this point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Trent-Justification Canon 1. &quot;If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the possible exception of &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19548/what-is-the-nature-of-the-theory-for-pope-joan-and-the-evidence-that-substantiat&quot;&gt;Pope Joan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, every Pope is man.  As man, he is subject to the same consideration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;total depravity&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionary-of-bible-themes/6023-sin-universality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;universality of sin&lt;/a&gt; says that &lt;em&gt;everyone&lt;/em&gt; (and that includes a Pope who knows his scripture well!) is both a sinner and under judgment.  Indeed, this idea gives birth to many popular sayings on the matter, such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metrolyrics.com/we-fall-down-lyrics-donnie-mcclurkin.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;A saint is just a sinner who falls down, and gets back up&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://quotationsbook.com/quote/12792/#sthash.XqLXJgVy.dpbs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Evangelism is just one beggar telling another where to find bread&lt;/a&gt; - D.T. Niles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it is tempting to chalk this up to &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/james/4-10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;humility&lt;/a&gt; the truth of the matter is that any priest worth his salt already knows this in his soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh, and finally, before you ask, yes, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19288/to-whom-does-pope-francis-confess/19290#19290&quot;&gt;Pope Francis has his own confessor&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*The Pope Joan thing was a joke, in case you are wondering.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T17:38:45.853" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20515" CreationDate="2013-11-04T23:37:13.763" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;He is calling himself a sinner because his doctrine determines him to be so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christians will also call themselves sinners.  Likewise, other believers know themselves to be saints.  What's important though is what the bible says about them that believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In most of Paul's letters he calls the people in the church (the believers) &quot;saints&quot;.  He even addresses the Corinthian church as a people who are called to be saints. Remember, this was one messed up church - there were men who were having sexual relations with their father's wife among other perversions.  Yet their calling was to &quot;be&quot; saints.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about that. Do you think that men who had had this horrid stuff going on in their lives qualify to be saints? According to scripture - YES.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The very same that Jesus called to salvation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are&#xA;  sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in&#xA;  every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs&#xA;  and ours:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's another verse that reveals saints as not perfect people but people who are being perfected.  That's a huge difference.  Saints can sin, but it's not right behaviour.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for&#xA;  the edifying of the body of Christ: - Eph 4:12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word saint means in greek - most holy thing. Counter intuitively the word Holy also means the same thing, Saint or Holy.  So, what does it really mean to be Holy or to be a Saint? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians think that to be Holy means to to good, to keep God's laws.  But: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So this is not an accurate definition of what Holiness is.  And likewise, I haven't met a christian yet who hasn't sinned after becoming a believer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever it means to be Holy or a Saint must have nothing to do with us, because no one qualifies on their own goodness.  Romans makes that pretty clear in the first couple of chapters.  We have nothing to boast about and the only way to be saved is through faith in God's saviour Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You'll also notice that in the OT, certain things in the temple were Holy.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Q. What made them Holy?    My definition of Holy is set apart.  Likewise, believers (christians) are set apart.  We are told to be in the world and not of the world.  We are told to be ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor 5:20.  We now represent Him.  To do that, we need to know who were are in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's a glimpse which is a little too much to write in a few paragraphs but:&#xA;When we believe we are born again.  We receive a brand knew spirit in our inner man (the new man) and we now have the mind of Christ.  1 Cor 2:16. The old man is dead (your old spirit) The Spirit and the Soul are not the same thing.  Your spirit is the new creation.  Your soul and body are yet to be renewed, but your spirit is perfect, it is holy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-11-04T23:37:13.763" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20527" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20515" CreationDate="2013-11-05T04:59:01.500" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What the pope is saying is correct.  A sin is whenever you do anything wrong at all, period.  In Romans 3:23-24 (ESV), it is written, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&quot;...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his&#xA;grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus...&quot;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is all about the fact that &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; of us have sinned, so all of us must use God's mercy and grace through Christ Jesus's death and resurrection to obtain eternal life.  Also read 1 John 1:8-9 and Romans 3:9-10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6017" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T04:59:01.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17396" CreationDate="2013-11-05T09:26:56.530" Score="-2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is the only righteousness God will accept is the perfect righteousness of Christ”. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All you have to do is receive it by inviting Jesus into your life, into your inner man. What has God done to attract us to His plan for our salvation? He sent His Son to live a perfect life as an example for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and makes a clear distinction before God acquired who Christ is righteous in His sight because of both the imputation of his sin to the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience to him, on which ground he is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 6:41-60 (Phi) At this, the Jews started grumbling at him. “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose parents we know? How can he now say that 'I have come down from Heaven'?&quot;... Jesus answered and said, &quot;I myself am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate manna in the desert, AND THEY DIED! The bread which I give you is my own body, and I shall give it for the life of the world.&quot; This led to a fierce argument among the Jews, some of them saying, &quot;How can this man give us his body to eat?&quot; So Jesus said to them, &quot;Unless you do eat the body of the Son of Man and drink his blood, I assure you that you are not really living at all. The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up when the last day comes. For my body is real food, and my blood is real drink.&quot; ...Many of his disciples heard him say these things and commented, &quot;This is a hard teaching indeed; who could accept that?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one condition that God has put upon His offer to justify you. And that is that you have complete faith in the sufficiency of what the Lord Jesus Christ has done for you. Justification in God's sight is received by us on the basis of faith alone in Christ alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Romans 3:26 says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;that he (God) might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And again in Romans 4:5, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having faith in someone is the issue of placing your complete trust, reliance, or confidence in him; depending solely upon him and his ability to do for you what you cannot do for yourself. And this is just what placing your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ means. This is what &quot;believing in Jesus&quot; means. You depend upon His death payment for your sins as your only means of acceptance with God, and not upon any of your own works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When anyone does this, then God counts his faith for righteousness, just as His gospel declares. God freely forgives him his sins and gives unto him the perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. And at that moment he is justified unto eternal life with God.&#xA;Have you received God's gift of perfect righteousness and eternal life? Are you perfectly righteous in God's sight? If you have never settled this issue, we urge you to settle the matter right now. And you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Right now and right where you are, &quot;believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.&quot; God can look upon your heart and He can see your faith. And when He sees it, He will do exactly what He says He will do — He will count your faith for righteousness. If you have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as your all-sufficient Savior, then the following is now true of you:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:&#xA;  2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. &#xA;  The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.&#xA;  Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us &quot;co-heirs&quot; with Christ and worthy of obtaining &quot;the promised inheritance of eternal life. “The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. &quot;Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God sees us believers, he sees us in Christ, covered under the blood and cloaked in righteousness. He does not see sin in our lives, he only sees righteousness. When it comes to dealing with other believers we should see them as Christ sees them, perfect and cloaked in righteousness. We are not here to judge anyone as Jesus took all our judgments upon himself on the cross. We should only display love to others because God first loved us.&#xA;No one is perfect, even yourself. When it comes to other believers we should only see the God in them, see them as God’s righteousness. No matter how someone lives their life or acts, we are called to love them with the love of the Lord. If you view someone in their shortcomings, you are viewing them from your sin consciousness, so you would not love them from the fullness of God’s love. Love will not be made perfect in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6466" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-05T14:46:21.243" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T14:46:21.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20530" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-05T10:30:52.200" Score="5" ViewCount="11410" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Stop trusting in mere humans,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  who have but a breath in their nostrils.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Why hold them in esteem?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;(Isaiah 2:22, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All humans breathe with nostrils. So, should we distrust all people?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6254" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditorDisplayName="user6254" LastEditDate="2015-12-10T14:56:21.300" LastActivityDate="2018-04-26T21:17:23.203" Title="What does Isaiah 2:22 mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;isaiah&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-04-26T21:37:34.377" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20531" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-05T10:36:20.433" Score="0" ViewCount="360" Body="&lt;p&gt;Acts 13:39 (NIV) &amp;mdash;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the law of Moses is not anymore valid, then why does the Catholic church still obey the ten commandments (which is the law of Moses)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6254" LastEditorDisplayName="user6254" LastEditDate="2013-11-05T11:20:00.990" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T11:29:39.830" Title="What does Acts 13:39 mean?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;ten-commandments&gt;&lt;moses&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-11-05T20:05:30.167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20532" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1450" CreationDate="2013-11-05T10:42:43.877" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;“Christian religion” is “the faithful observance of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 1:27: Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Care for the needy and personal virtue are externals which are present when one has a true love for God. The very fact that James is speaking of “pure and faultless” religion, there exist an “unclean and imperfect” type of religion as well—a religion not based on love for God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many good practices that we have today in the world and some of which have been conveniently adopted by some other religion have their roots in Christian religion. That is why Christian religion is better than other religion and observing the teachings of Jesus Christ is better than not observing them.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ is the Way to God.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That which leads to God is better than that which leads away from God. We have sinfully wandered away from God. Jesus is the guide that leads us back to God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is that Way, the One who came to seek the lost:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is, in fact, God Himself in human flesh, so to find Jesus is to find God:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 14:9  Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ is the Truth.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian religion is truer than other religions because things that are true are better than things that are false. Jesus is “the Truth” and He is the embodiment of truth, the revelation of God to humanity. The Christian religion is grounded in truth, being based on a historical Person whose acts were verified by eyewitnesses and recorded by four different biographers. In following Christ, Christians have the utmost regard for truth, as opposed to hollow externals and the hypocrisy of false appearances. The Christian religion is unique in that it forces us to face the truth about ourselves and speak the truth with others.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ is the Life.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian religion is true religion because life is better than death. A religion whose leader is still alive compared to religions whose leaders have all died. Jesus is “the Life”; He is the source of life, and without Him one cannot truly live (John 1:4;3:36;5:24;10:10). Jesus provides what we need: the Bread that satisfies forever (John 6:35), the Water that gives eternal life (John 4:14;7:37-38), and the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). These are not empty claims; Jesus proved His ability to give life by raising from the dead Lazarus (John 11), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5), and the boy from Nain (Luke 7). Then, after His own death on the cross, Jesus rose again the third day.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ transforms mankind.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian religion is true religion because righteousness is better than wickedness. Other religions may impose conformity to a certain code of behavior, but they have no power to change the heart. Christianity teaches that the believer is “dead to sin” and now lives “in newness of life” (Romans 6:2,4). The Christian’s zeal for doing good has resulted in the founding of countless orphanages, hospitals, clinics, schools, homeless shelters, and emergency relief agencies—all in the name of Christ. The Christian religion is unique in that it does not force change from without but revolutionizes lives from within.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ is loving.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian religion is true religion because love is better than the absence of love. Jesus showed His love for us in providing for our salvation by dying on the cross (John 15:13). Jesus gave His followers a new command: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35). Christianity is unique in that it is not a system of rules but a celebration of unselfish love.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-11-07T10:28:49.770" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T10:28:49.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20535" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20531" CreationDate="2013-11-05T11:29:39.830" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church still teaches the Ten Commandments. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P78.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the Catechism&lt;/a&gt;: Part Three, Section Two is enormous&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. However, there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P79.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a helpful summary&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2075 &amp;quot;What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?&amp;quot; — &amp;quot;If you would enter into life, keep the commandments&amp;quot; (Mt 19:16–17).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2076 By his life and by his preaching Jesus attested to the permanent validity of the Decalogue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2077 The gift of the Decalogue is bestowed from within the covenant concluded by God with his people. God's commandments take on their true meaning in and through this covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2078 In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with Jesus' example, the tradition of the Church has always acknowledged the primordial importance and significance of the Decalogue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2079 The Decalogue forms an organic unity in which each &amp;quot;word&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;commandment&amp;quot; refers to all the others taken together. To transgress one commandment is to infringe the whole Law (cf Jas 2:10-11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2080 The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law. It is made known to us by divine revelation and by human reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2081 The Ten Commandments, in their fundamental content, state grave obligations. However, obedience to these precepts also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2082 What God commands he makes possible by his grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &amp;quot;Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.&amp;quot; [&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T11:29:39.830" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20538" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20530" CreationDate="2013-11-05T12:39:32.077" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question is not whether or not to trust people, but whether or not to put your trust &lt;strong&gt;in&lt;/strong&gt; people.  Obviously, people are quite capable of telling the truth.  However, trusting in people to meet your needs is where the problem comes in.  People are mortal and finite with limited power.  Indeed, they have &quot;only a breath in their nostrils&quot;.  This may be suggesting that everyone is living breath to breath.  If you put your trust in your parents to provide for you or get you out of trouble, you should be aware that there is no guarantee that they will be alive tomorrow or will have the power to help you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God, however, is infinite and self-existent.  He will be around tomorrow and has all power to meet your needs whenever and however He chooses.  Thus, it is prudent and wise to look to God and trust Him for your needs and life--not a fellow human being whose life is but a vapor that appears for a little while and then is gone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T12:39:32.077" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20542" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20547" CreationDate="2013-11-05T14:37:03.130" Score="4" ViewCount="553" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading an interesting article suggesting that &quot;Christians&quot; should embrace economic freedom, and was rather taken by the following paragraph:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Full article at &lt;a href=&quot;http://tifwe.org/research/five-reasons-christians-should-embrace-economic-freedom/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://tifwe.org/research/five-reasons-christians-should-embrace-economic-freedom/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We are told in Scripture that the righteous care about justice for the poor.14 &lt;strong&gt;Christians believe that poverty is an affront to human dignity.&lt;/strong&gt; Justice means enabling the poor to elevate their dignity by helping them escape the trappings of poverty. There is no other way of organizing society that has lifted more people out of poverty than global markets which are supported by economic freedom. - See more at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://tifwe.org/research/five-reasons-christians-should-embrace-economic-freedom/#sthash.EHH8yf5d.dpuf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://tifwe.org/research/five-reasons-christians-should-embrace-economic-freedom/#sthash.EHH8yf5d.dpuf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I left the footnote (14) in there specifically, because I am aware of the Scripture that would support that claim.  The sentence right after it - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christians believe that poverty is an affront to human dignity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;however, doesn't have a footnote.  I agree about justice - but dignity is not necessarily justice. They are different ideas. And, to be clear, it is a both widely accepted (you really can't go through seminary without hearing it, especially from the more liberal side of the campus), and frankly, it seems pretty obvious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I'm not sure I could make that case &lt;em&gt;from Scripture.&lt;/em&gt;  Pastorally? Yes.  Psychologically? Sure.  Spiritually? Sounds good to me.  But, scripturally, I'm trying to understand where &quot;we&quot; got the idea that human dignity is inherently part of the Gospel message.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0030397/quotes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;you might even say (and I can't possibly comment on that)&lt;/a&gt; that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20515/why-does-the-pope-include-himself-among-the-sinners&quot;&gt;total depravity and the universality of sin&lt;/a&gt; would, in practice contradict it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, please do not read into what I'm saying - I'm not arguing it's not.  I'm just trying to understand the basis behind it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what am I missing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T12:25:39.923" Title="What is the biblical basis for ascribing theological worth to &quot;human dignity&quot;?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6998" CreationDate="2013-11-05T14:37:25.620" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the aforementioned answers were very correct.  Just to add my own view point... The matter of Moses with God was simply what I call TOTAL obedience and also a failure to acknowledge God in the sight of the Israelites, as we  all know that God says we should be perfect as He is.  There is not 0.000001% imperfection in God, so 99.999% obedience is not of God (1John 1:5b). God could still have forgiven King Saul in 1 Samuel 15, but because he failed to carefully and totally obey God, God regretted selecting Saul in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's standard in our service to Him is that we TOTALLY and CAREFULLY obey him, which is the simple definition of HOLINESS.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6474" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-11-05T14:41:16.703" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T14:41:16.703" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20490" CreationDate="2013-11-05T14:55:24.447" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What the question is trying to do is measure two &lt;em&gt;different&lt;/em&gt; sins with the expectation that they should result in &lt;em&gt;equal&lt;/em&gt; judgments.&lt;/strong&gt; When we try to do this we are making a implicit and incorrect assumption that the sins have equal degrees of profanity and require equal reactions from God's law and justice over the people under the Old Covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The two situations are both grave but not equal.  The first has to do with Abraham and the only external rite that was established to represent God's covenant with him.  It seems that Abraham neglected for whatever reasons his duty yet in his heart  may have not been as negligent as might appear, for when God was about to kill him, possibly under some disease, his wife (possibly in submission to Abraham's wish who was too weak to argue about it) cut the skin.  Interpreters have various views about this because there are a few difficult passages involved but what seems to stand out is under the chastisement the heart of Abraham and his wife are corrected and the situation restored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second case has to do with a high profanity in disrespecting the holy instruments of the tabernacle under the Old Testament. The tabernacle was the visible pledge in those days of God's protection and kingship over his called out people.  Having any disrespectful attitude towards those holy instruments was outlawed under the penalty of death.  In fact the death penalty under Moses was so further established and made known for many offenses, that one answer to your question is already provided herewith. For Abraham was not threatened with death under so many laws as was developed under Moses.  As Abraham was before these laws his conduct would not necessarily be judged by the letter of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to this 'profane' high handed disrespect of the arc of the covenant it is worth looking at some language of the law regarding the death penalty. We can see the seriousness when looking at the instructions concerning the Kohathites who were basically the tabernacle manual moves, when camp was moved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And when Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sanctuary and all the furnishings of the sanctuary, as the camp sets out, after that the sons of Kohath shall come to carry these, but they must not touch the holy things, lest they die. .....Let not the tribe of the clans of the Kohathites be destroyed from among the Levites, but deal thus with them, that they may live and not die when they come near to the most holy things. (ESV, Numbers 4:15-19)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now with the death penalty clearly prescribed prior to this incident of gazing upon the ark with some un described profane curiosity, and because we can also understand God could have also seen deeper into a hideous degree of that profanity in the hearts of those who were gulty.  And because this sin could have quickly become a disease spreading into the whole camp, being a public sin, we find many reasons why the sins may have been very different and requiring a very different correction from an infinitely wise and all knowing judge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The bottom line is God weighs different sins, circumstances, peoples sate of heart, consequences on the public and many other things into a balance beyond our comprehension.  Even from a human standpoint we can perceive differing aspects of these sins requiring some difference in an all-wise judgement of them.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T14:55:24.447" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20545" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14467" CreationDate="2013-11-05T15:24:54.740" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the saddest things you could ever think about is the probable answer to this question.  God said he will &quot;wipe away all tears&quot; on that last day.  Did you ever stop to consider what all that might entail??  Heaven will be bliss.  All sin, bad things (to include unpleasant memories, things of pain, etc...) all that will be wiped from our minds.  So, what makes you think you will even be allowed to remember &quot;ANY&quot; of those who were condemned??  That's also part of the punishment for those who are condemned(The fact that they will know-and God will make sure they do- that they are now &quot;alone&quot; for the rest of Eternity).  When I say &quot;alone&quot; it's in a way that you and I connot even begin to fathom!  SO, this kinda makes you want to get out and try and win people over, doesn't it.  We may think of how painful it would be to know a friend or loved one is in Hell while we are in Heaven, but...I truly believe that person (those people) will be taken away from our memories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6475" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T15:24:54.740" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20542" CreationDate="2013-11-05T15:34:40.523" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ok, this is going to be more of a logical argument that's a bit jumpy and I don't have all of the scripture in mind, but there &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; scripture underpinning the ideas here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Postulates&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We are created in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;image of God&lt;/a&gt;. As such human dignity is established as a part of our &lt;em&gt;pre-fall state&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Poverty exists because of the broken relationship between God, the self, the creation, and other men.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Our job as Christians is to be the restoration. Healing broken relationships is part of that job.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Connections&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Poverty is part of the fall, and our dignity is established based on a pre-fall standard, much link sin, poverty is a concept driven &lt;em&gt;by the fall&lt;/em&gt; and is an affront to our dignity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because our job as Christians is to work to restore the relationships that the fall broke, confronting poverty and restoring the folks who are in poverty (restoring their relationships with the creation, their fellow man, and most importantly God), is a prime concern of Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Loose Scriptural Basis&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Caring for the poor, and providing them with dignity is an emphasis both of the law given to Israel and also a primary focus of the ministry of Jesus and the New Testament church. Jesus repeatedly gives wealthy people the instruction &quot;sell all you have and give your money to the poor.&quot; The Old Testament law goes on for pages about widows and orphans, provides clear instructions for not harvesting part of your crops so that the poor may go an glean from the leavings. One of the &lt;em&gt;very first&lt;/em&gt; things that the apostles do following the ascension of Christ is to appoint deacons to care for the widows, orphans and other poor folks. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because God cares so deeply about the creation that is made in his image, and sees poverty as an affront to our dignity, he is &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; concerned about making sure that the poor among his people (before, during and after the ministry of Christ) are well cared for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="49" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-05T15:44:01.483" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T15:44:01.483" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20548" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20542" CreationDate="2013-11-05T15:49:24.887" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ecclesiastes 10:6 Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Habakkuk 1:7 They [are] terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dignity is viewed by most as an entitlement, a protocol of civil behavior.  Only barbarians ignore this civil protocol and strip their enemies of their dignity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not prescribe dignity, but rather love. We are to love our neighbors and value them in our hearts the way God esteems them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nobility is rooted in dignity, after all a noble man is a ‘dignitary’.  Human dignity celebrates the nobility of humanity, thus dignity enables the nobility of ‘Self’.  Self-sovereignty is the human condition that isolates man from his Creator, yet it is our self-dignity that we fight the hardest to preserve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dignity often bypasses love and entitles mankind to “civil treatment” out of respect for humanity. Now, some may say humanity is entitled to dignity as a result of man being imaged in the likeness of God. And while this is partly true, the part that is true is generally ignored. Man is uniquely equipped to enable Christ (True Eternal Nobility) to be born out in his life.  Therefore genuine dignity must come from God, it is not something that mankind measures out to one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Doctrines of Dignity are very cleaver, because they appeal to man’s higher calling, yet they remain outside of God.  The Pharisees proclaimed Doctrines of Dignity as they prescribed condemnation, guilt and self-righteousness.  They showcased their own personal dignity and would then lord over others that did not measure up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personal guilt is one of the chief tools of dignity.  After all, a dignified person feels guilty about moral failure, so personal nobility is proven by guilt’s acknowledgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ has something to say in this regard, “Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast.  Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.” (Matthew 6:16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personal dignity expects noble behavior and disenfranchises God’s grace.  Love is not an entitlement; love is a gift that flows from the Father and is born from the Holy Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Personal pride is another chief tool of dignity.  A dignified person takes pride in the things they do, so personal dignity is proven by the care one gives to their personal work. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”  (1 John 2:16)   Pride reveals self-dignity, whereas humility reveals God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The  “poor in spirit” that Christ identified as “blessed” in Mathew 5: 3 holds no personal dignity.  In contrast, the ‘dignified’ are strong in spirit and have a sense of personal significance.  Snobbery, often as “blue bloods” is the fruit of dignity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 3:18 says, “For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So genuine human dignity only comes from God and is extended to all of humanity.  Personal-dignity is “pride”, a perspective that has journeyed with mankind since the fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T12:25:39.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20549" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20542" CreationDate="2013-11-05T16:21:22.467" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This may sound simplistic, but it's something I've been wanting to share for a long, long time with someone who will listen.  It is simply this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is a huge difference between the words &lt;em&gt;worth&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;worthy&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God alone is worthy.  He is worthy of our worship, praise, adoration, and exaltation, not to mention (but I will, anyway) our entire beings--spirit, soul, and body (or heart, soul, mind, and strength).  Worship, after all, is a celebration of the worthiness of God, which is borne out by the etymology of the word &lt;em&gt;worship&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Worth, on the other hand, is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; something we ascribe to God.  Speaking of His worth is neither proper nor dignified.  We ascribe worthiness to God, not worth.  You do not ascribe worth to someone who is infinitely worthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could be off base here, but when I think of worth, I think of the word &lt;em&gt;value&lt;/em&gt;.  Humanly speaking, value can certainly have an economic aspect, but there are people who, as the saying goes, know the price of everything and the value of nothing!  Value is more than just a price tag.  Value speaks of inherent worth and qualities to which a cost, or price tag, cannot be attached. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've always wondered about the advisability of referring to people, who are created in the image of God, as &quot;totally depraved,&quot; the first &lt;strong&gt;T&lt;/strong&gt; in Calvin's TULIP.  (I realize the word is &lt;em&gt;depravity&lt;/em&gt;, not &lt;em&gt;depraved&lt;/em&gt;!).  Why go beyond what Scripture says in attaching the label &quot;total depravity&quot; to the human species?  The truth is, people are simply dead in sin.  Perhaps that's what the word &lt;em&gt;depravity&lt;/em&gt; meant to Calvin.  I do not know, though I could look it up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact remains, one cannot get any worse than &quot;dead in sins and trespasses,&quot; at least  in terms of one's relationship with God.  A corpse is incapable of having a relationship!  That's what the Bible means by &quot;dead in sins.&quot;  Whether we've committed one sin, or a million and one sins, in God's sight we all are dead in sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I realize there are degrees of sin, and the Bible makes this very clear.  God's judgment of sinners will be harsher one day for people guilty of heinous sins, such as mass murder and the like, than for your ordinary, &quot;garden variety&quot; sinner who refused to repent and believe.  Nevertheless, the only type of Godward behavior a sinner can offer to God initially which has value in His estimation is belief, pure and simple.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even belief or faith is a gift from God.  He alone can make us alive in Christ.  Our belief that sin separates us from God forever unless God interposes a sacrifice for sin, is the first step to a relationship with God; in other words, belief that no amount of good works can purchase salvation, and belief that Jesus is the only way to a relationship with holy God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is something of almost infinite worth in each human being.  Notice I did not say &quot;infinite worthiness,&quot; since worthiness, as I've already suggested, is an attribute of God alone.  He alone is unqualifiedly good.  He alone is goodness and holiness personified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ truly died for sinners, but He did not die for worthless junk.  God loves all humanity not because we are worthy of His love.  Quite the opposite in fact.  He loves us because we have worth in His eyes, not because He by nature is simply attracted to total depravity!  God loves us in spite of our sin, which is the greatest manifestation of love, &lt;em&gt;agape&lt;/em&gt; love.  Jesus demonstrated that miraculous kind of love when He said on the cross, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Father forgive them.  They do not know what they are doing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, your final question is &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;So, what am I missing?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest the missing piece of the puzzle you've created for us is that poverty, injustice, oppression, torture, the marginalizing of people, and discrimination against people on the basis of color, nationality, religion, socio-economic status, sex, age, disability, or the way they part their hair(!) are all offenses against people who have worth in God's eyes because they are created by God in His image, as tarnished as that image may be by sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T16:21:22.467" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20556" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4236" CreationDate="2013-11-05T22:46:15.893" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Im very impressed with Caleb's explanation of God's Sovereignty and Calvinism as opposed to hyper-Calvinism and those who hold to Man's Free Will choice.   God has put it into my heart to delve into this apparent paradox for the last few years.  Ive heard the TULIP view and the Man's Free Will views.   Both have support in the Scriptures, and both can be taken to a hyper extreme to the point where they become useless.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;H.A. Ironside, {In the Heavenlies (Ephesians), pages 27-28} handles this apparent paradox with his Door to Salvation analogy.   Its purpose is to find a way to simplify this debate, but as with most analogies do, loses some of the resolution along the way.  Caleb helps with that loss of signal integrity.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I cannot improve Caleb's comments, but I can hopefully add another perspective.  That being that the doctrine of Sovereignty is best taught to believers as a blessing to know that their salvation is secure, and that the responsibility of who we shall serve is a call to those who have ears to hear the call of God so that they can exercise their faith through grace.   Everything God does is done with love, grace and mercy.  At judgement day, no one will be able to righteously claim that God was not just.  Now human &quot;fairness&quot; is not exactly aligned with God's plan.  For His ways are not Man's.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6476" LastActivityDate="2013-11-05T22:46:15.893" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20565" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2780" CreationDate="2013-11-06T05:47:31.917" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The belief that one goes to heaven or hell immediately upon death is totally wrong. David has not ascended into Heaven because he is still dead and buried as Peter said. There's no need to twist his words to fit one's preconceived idea of what happens at death. There is no need to rely on a parable Jesus told abou the rich man and Lazarus. One cannot possibly think that you start living among Abraham's chest hairs when you die. The parable had a point and that point wasn't to teach what Heaven is like. No one ascends into Heaven (save for Enoch, Elijah and Moses) until the Lord returns with a shout and resurrects the dead as it says in 1 Thessalonians 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ever wonder why the Bible refers to death as a sleep so many times? So and so &quot;slept&quot; with their fathers, etc. Because there is no awareness in death! It's like a dreamless sleep. &quot;For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything&quot; Ecclesiastes 9:5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6481" LastActivityDate="2013-11-06T05:47:31.917" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20568" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20570" CreationDate="2013-11-06T12:24:01.377" Score="25" ViewCount="14211" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yesterday we were studying the ten plagues in Exodus. One of the things that confused us was this. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+9%3A6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 9:6&lt;/a&gt; reads: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; And the next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died. [NIV]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This means, the Egyptians did not have any livestock left. But in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+9%3A20-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;verses 20 and 21&lt;/a&gt; we read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt; Those officials of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord hurried to bring their slaves and their livestock inside. &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; But those who ignored the word of the Lord left their slaves and livestock in the field.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wait, which livestock? Wasn't the livestock already dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+9%3A25&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;verse 25&lt;/a&gt; we read that the livestock was indeed killed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; Throughout Egypt hail struck everything in the fields—both people and animals; it beat down everything growing in the fields and stripped every tree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we discussed this, and thought well, maybe the ten plagues took place over a longer time so the Egyptians could restore their livestock. However this seems not really possible as Moses did die at 120 years old (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+34%3A7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 34:7&lt;/a&gt;) where Moses was 80 years old (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+7%3A7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exodus 7:7&lt;/a&gt;) when he was called by God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would be a good explanation for this conflict? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3355" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-07-07T12:26:24.470" LastActivityDate="2020-04-18T02:39:03.187" Title="How did the livestock of the Egyptians die twice?" Tags="&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;moses&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20570" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20568" CreationDate="2013-11-06T13:00:52.863" Score="34" Body="&lt;p&gt;Answers in Genesis, an Apologetics site dedicated to defending the Bible as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;inerrant&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/09/20/contradictions-livestock-deadstock&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;gives five &quot;reasonable&quot; possibilities:&lt;/a&gt;  Bear in mind that the real answer is, &quot;we don't know for sure&quot;, and we can't answer what &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;did&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; happen. The best we can do is offer plausible explanations of what might have happened.  Typically this is done using &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12272/rules-behind-resolving-alleged-biblical-discrepancies&quot;&gt;common rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies&lt;/a&gt;.  So, from an Apologetic standpoint, their answers do offer plausible resolutions to the apparent conflict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, Exodus 9:3 states, “&quot;Behold, the hand of the Lord will be on&#xA;  your cattle in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the&#xA;  camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe pestilence.&quot;”&#xA;  Surprisingly, this verse does not mention one of the most important&#xA;  domestic animals at that time—the goat.1 Therefore, it is possible&#xA;  that all of the livestock except goats were killed in the first plague&#xA;  on the livestock (fifth plague overall), and in the second instance it&#xA;  was goats that were affected by the plague of hail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second, Exodus 9:19–20 mentions that those who “&quot;feared the word of&#xA;  the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh&quot;” were told to get their&#xA;  livestock out of the fields. Some scholars mention that these&#xA;  Egyptians may have been warned about the previous plague of pestilence&#xA;  (although it was not recorded), so they still had all of their&#xA;  livestock left. In this scenario, God warned them to put all of their&#xA;  livestock in barns so they wouldn’t be killed by hail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The third possibility is similar to the previous explanation except&#xA;  that the survival of their livestock hinges on the phrase “servants of&#xA;  Pharaoh.” Perhaps this means they were not actually Egyptians, but&#xA;  other vassal subjects who were warned of the plagues so that their&#xA;  animals could be spared. So in Exodus 9:6, where it says that all the&#xA;  livestock of Egypt died, this view suggests that the animals belonging&#xA;  to these foreign vassals were spared if they obeyed God and not&#xA;  Pharaoh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Fourth, the Bible does not reveal how much time passed between the&#xA;  fifth plague and the seventh plague. Following the fifth plague, which&#xA;  wiped out the livestock of Egypt, the Egyptians may have taken some of&#xA;  the livestock belonging to Israel. Another possibility is that they&#xA;  bought (or took) livestock from surrounding areas (Libya, Ethiopia,&#xA;  Canaan, etc). The first option would require very little time to&#xA;  complete while the second would probably require at least a few weeks.&#xA;  But since the Bible does not specify how much time passed, either is&#xA;  possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The fifth, and perhaps simplest solution, would be to acknowledge the&#xA;  fact that “all” does not always mean exclusively “all.”2 We must use&#xA;  the context to determine its meaning. In the case of Exodus 9:6, it&#xA;  might be best translated that “&quot;all manner of livestock of the&#xA;  Egyptians died.&quot;” In other words, the plague included all kinds of&#xA;  animals, as clarified in the third verse: “&quot;on the horses, on the&#xA;  donkeys, on the camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe&#xA;  pestilence.&quot;” This is the approach taken in Coverdale’s translation,&#xA;  and the New English Translation includes a footnote with a similar&#xA;  explanation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA; - &#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-11-06T13:15:59.493" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20577" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20578" CreationDate="2013-11-06T19:51:19.080" Score="3" ViewCount="181" Body="&lt;p&gt;Preparing for a service at our church, I was reading Luke 8:22-25 when Jesus was asleep in the boat, is woken by his disciples and calms the storm. The same story is also told in Mark 4:35-41 and Matthew 8:23-27.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I had always assumed that Jesus and the disciples are on the Sea of Galilee, however it never says what sea they are crossing. Although not the greatest source ever, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calming_the_storm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; also says it happened on the Sea of Galilee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, how do we know that it is the Sea of Galilee? And if it isn't, is there other alternatives that it could be?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1379" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-07T01:42:42.777" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T01:42:42.777" Title="Do we know which sea Jesus calmed?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20578" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20577" CreationDate="2013-11-06T20:15:08.983" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The next verse, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%208:26&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Luke 8:26&lt;/a&gt;, places the event:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake&#xA;  from Galilee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galilee is on the west side of the Sea of Galilee, which means that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0003750&quot;&gt;Gerasenes&lt;/a&gt; were likely on the east side.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastEditorUserId="4412" LastEditDate="2013-11-06T20:23:56.053" LastActivityDate="2013-11-06T20:23:56.053" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="722" CreationDate="2013-11-07T00:38:21.130" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no difference between Roman and Irish catholic. They are all the same. they both belong to the same catholic CHURCH.&#xA;Actually there is no Roman catholic church, it's just the &lt;strong&gt;catholic church&lt;/strong&gt;. the roman catholic is a RITE in the The catholic church which is composed of 23 rites &lt;code&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_rites_and_churches&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am for example Maronite catholic and I still belong to the catholic church. All the rites have their culture and heritage, but in the end we all follow the pope. That's all!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;WE ARE ALL CATHOLIC&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God Bless you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6494" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T00:38:21.130" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20584" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-07T02:52:48.873" Score="4" ViewCount="160" Body="&lt;p&gt;I've been wondering about the status of Jewish commentators on the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Rashi, Ibn Ezra, etc.) and other post-Biblical Jewish authors (e.g. Josephus) in Christianity. Are there prominent modern Christian scholars or strains of thought that make use of the writings of these figures? Are there examples of them being cited by well-known Christian exegetes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I'm not interested in the status of the Christian Bible itself as a commentary on the Hebrew Bible. I'm only interested in examples of purely Jewish sources being used in post-Biblical Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6496" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-07T15:02:10.680" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T04:27:02.930" Title="How do Christian theologians view and/or use Jewish commentators?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;bible-commentary&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" ClosedDate="2013-12-06T21:09:22.163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20585" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-07T03:43:32.887" Score="-1" ViewCount="1098" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can anyone give me a good reason to how it is ok to celebrate the resurrection of Yehoshu'a Immanuel in Pagan Ritual. And also to celebrate his birth in Pagan Ritual, even though he was not born in December to begin with. But it is such a bad thing to celebrate Halloween? And don't even try to go the stick with your traditions crap because when that was said these pagan holidays were not celebrated by Yehoshu'a and his disciples if anything we should be celebrating Yehoshu'a's birth during the feast of tabernacles and his resurrection on the feast of the Passover since these were the traditions of that time and they were what was practiced by the people the are in the Bible. And are the ones that closely relate to each event. But I imagine so of you will say that you are not Jewish so that is why you do not celebrate the feast days even though so much Bible prophecy is tied to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6492" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-07T13:08:36.830" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T15:48:11.117" Title="Why is it that so many Churches have a problem with Halloween but not with the other pagan holidays?" Tags="&lt;holidays&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="15" ClosedDate="2013-11-07T18:04:40.387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20587" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-07T05:21:20.573" Score="4" ViewCount="219" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was reading this article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Good-Housewife&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How To Be A Good Housewife&lt;/a&gt;, and what got my attention was the fact that Mexican women are encouraged to become housewives, because the Bible says so, and Mexico is very Catholic. It also suggests that Proverbs and Song of Songs support the existence of housewives and their important place in the world. Now, if there have been biblical verses that have been used to justify housewives, have there also been biblical verses that have been used to inspire women to work outside the home?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-11-07T05:30:23.817" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T01:32:39.153" Title="What biblical verses have been used to justify or even inspire working women?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;culture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20584" CreationDate="2013-11-07T06:09:04.053" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John Gill&lt;/a&gt; was one Christian scholar who made frequent use of the Jewish commentators.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T06:09:04.053" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20584" CreationDate="2013-11-07T06:13:02.143" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jewish commentators like Rashi, Ibn Ezra, etc. write comments on the Old Testament(Torah). Jews only have the Torah while Christians have one more set of books, the New Testament. Jewish commentators write explanations based on Jewish traditions and oral traditions, some of which are unknown to Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also Christian Bible commentators. For instance, see this site, &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;biblehub.com&lt;/a&gt;  for reading Christian Bible online, it has Commentaries. Sometimes they also take the help of Jewish commentators to better understand the background, culture, history and the context.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Christians, the &lt;strong&gt;New Testament explains the Old Testament&lt;/strong&gt;. For instance, Rashi wrote that &lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 53&lt;/strong&gt; is speaking about &lt;strong&gt;Israel nation&lt;/strong&gt; while the New Testament says that it speaks about the suffering of Jesus Christ, the promised &lt;strong&gt;Messiah&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15984#showrashi=true&amp;amp;v=3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rashi's commentary on Isaiah 53:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to&#xA;  illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held&#xA;  him of no account. (Isaiah 53:3, Jewish Bible)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[RASHI'S COMMENTARY] &lt;em&gt;Despised and rejected by men: was he. So is the custom of this prophet: &lt;strong&gt;he mentions all Israel as one man&lt;/strong&gt;, e.g., (44:2), “Fear not,&#xA;  My servant Jacob” ; (44:1) “And now, hearken, Jacob, My servant.” Here&#xA;  too (52:13), “Behold My servant shall prosper,” he said concerning the&#xA;  house of Jacob. יַשְׂכִּיל is an expression of prosperity. Comp. (I&#xA;  Sam. 18:14) “And David was successful (מַשְׂכִּיל) in all his ways.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:26-40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 8:30-34 (NIV)&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading &lt;strong&gt;Isaiah the&#xA;  prophet&lt;/strong&gt;. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How&#xA;  can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited&#xA;  Philip to come up and sit with him. This is the passage of Scripture&#xA;  the eunuch was reading:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,&#xA;      and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,&#xA;      so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.&#xA;      Who can speak of his descendants?&#xA;      For his life was taken from the earth.”&lt;/em&gt;[a]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The eunuch asked Philip, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking&#xA;  about, himself or someone else?”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Then Philip began with that very&#xA;  passage of Scripture and told him the &lt;strong&gt;good news about Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[a] Isaiah 53:7,8 (see Septuagint)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T04:27:02.930" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T04:27:02.930" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20587" CreationDate="2013-11-07T06:42:57.207" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2031:10-31&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Proverbs 31:10-31&lt;/a&gt; is a famous passage on The Virtuous Woman. In addition to taking care of her family, the passage describes a woman who contributes financially to her household.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 31:16-18&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;She considers a field and buys it;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;She sets about her work vigorously;&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    her arms are strong for her tasks.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;She sees that her trading is profitable,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    and her lamp does not go out at night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 31:24&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;She makes linen garments and sells them,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;    and supplies the merchants with sashes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T13:06:16.577" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20594" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1450" CreationDate="2013-11-07T13:03:00.380" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As pointed out already frequently, the claim obviously comes from the bible. However whether that makes it a valid claim or not is interesting to ponder:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As most other religions, Christianity is self referential: By definition, you are Christian because you believe in Jesus, and since you believe in Jesus you are Christian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same line of reasoning applies for pretty much all other religions as well. &quot;I believe in Zeus and therefore I'm a Hellenist&quot;. &quot;I believe in Tenri-O-no-Mikoto and therefore I am a Tenrikyo&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most religions do have an exclusion clause the explicitly declares other religions and gods invalid. In Christianity that's, for example, the first commandment (second commandment in the Talmud) &quot;Thou shalt have no other gods before me&quot; . Interestingly, the wording seems to imply that other gods do exist, you are simply required to stay away from them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once you make this fundamental believe statement, the rest follows easily. For a &quot;Christian&quot; the claim is true &quot;because it says so in the bible&quot;. For a non-Christian the bible is irrelevant and the claim cannot be substantiated. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4020" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T13:03:00.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20585" CreationDate="2013-11-07T13:13:40.207" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Christians and/or churches oppose Halloween, it is because the holiday is perceived as a celebration and glorification of evil.  Children (and adults) dress up as ghosts, witches, monsters, and all manner of &quot;evil&quot; thing.  Many claim (although my research suggests that historical evidence is lacking to support such claims) that the tradition of dressing as other creatures--even non-evil ones (angels, plumbers, etc) has a pagan spiritual significance that is anti-Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You don't see this on Christmas or Easter.  While it's true these holidays are celebrated on what were once pagan holidays, for reasons of history which are beyond the scope of this answer, they do not glorify evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, having said that, there are Christians who refuse to celebrate Christmas and Easter for the very reason that they are originally pagan holidays. And many Christian groups celebrate the birth of Christ on different days than December 25, as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are also many Christians who celebrate Halloween in one form or another; often choosing not to dress as an &quot;evil&quot; creature, or perhaps having a party that doesn't even involve costumes, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T13:13:40.207" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20600" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20585" CreationDate="2013-11-07T15:48:11.117" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;What Churches, and Christians alike do not like about Halloween is not the celebration, but the fact that they believe Evil, Satan, Demons and etcetera, are real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because they believe that they fear that such celebrations minimize the danger posed by those beings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They also worry that children will learn to not fear evil, and thereby become more susceptible to being influenced by them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Christians feel that the depredated state of our society is directly related to the mitigation of the danger which those entities pose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate the current course of our society, is contrary to the ideals of we Christians today, and we are very apprehensive about exactly what effect it is having on our religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example; the recent denial of Military Chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus. That we pray in the name of Jesus is one of the fundamental precepts of Christianity, and to deny a Christian Chaplain to do so is to cause him to be at odds with his faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are innumerable other situations I could site, but I feel that my point has been adequately stated.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T15:48:11.117" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6494" CreationDate="2013-11-07T16:17:54.850" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In All Things trust In Jesus through his Gospel of Grace, Grace Personified is Jesus. By All means Plan and Work and your talents will show you the way but Pray everyday that you make the right decision and the Holy Spirit Guides you in every step. As he is in Heaven So are we in this world. 1 John 4:17. He is not poor, he is not sick, he does not have lacks,, hence so are we in this world because we died and Rose with him.The Storms for the believer and the Non believer are going to be the same BUT the believers Rock is Solid Foundations. That foundation is Jesus. Next thing is to trust in him completely. Then All the minute questions you have will fade away giving you Peace. The scripture says in John 14: Let not your hearts be troubled&quot; Don't let your heart be troubled but trust in the saviour's love for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6501" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T16:17:54.850" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20530" CreationDate="2013-11-07T17:09:59.810" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chapters 2,3, &amp;amp;4 all go together in Isaiah. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah is lamenting the fact that God has apparently abandoned the Nation of Israel and is attempting to get his Nation to once again trust in the Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In chapter 2 especially he is telling them that they should not put their faith in any earthly government since they all come into prominence and ultimately fade into oblivion. But God is always preeminent and dictates who will be in power at any given period. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the point of verse 22 why would they put their faith in a temporary government instead of almighty God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That same question could be asked of any period of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah is pointing out that even the Earth is temporary, but Heaven is eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T17:09:59.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20606" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19279" CreationDate="2013-11-07T20:16:07.913" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The apparent discrepancy in the male to female ratio apparently does not stem from theological or ideological precepts, but from historical happenstance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until World War 2 most of the duties around the church were performed by the men of the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;World War 2 being waged both in Europe and the Pacific required so many men that most if not all churches, were left with to few men to maintain the Buildings and grounds, let alone prepare for services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the duties around the church were assumed by women, and the churches became a gathering place for them where they met and exchanged news about how the men were faring in the war. There was ample news about battles and such, but things concerning local men, could only be gotten from the letters received by their wives, or parents.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Churches not only became the center for local news but also a place to gather and pray for the men who were serving in the Armed services.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was also a shortage of many things needed by families, due to the necessity of supplying the troops.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So many lives were lost  in the War that there was virtually no community which went untouched.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The women of the church would comfort and aid the families who lost their husbands, sons, and fathers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even after the war ended casualties had been so great that most churches either did not have enough men left to take over church duties, or many of those who returned from the war had sustained injuries that precluded them reassuming those duties.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After World War 2 women kept most of the duties in keeping up the churches, and continue to do so today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Today women still feel like the church is like family more than men do, and to this day the camaraderie among the churches women, is far greater that that of the men. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-07T20:16:07.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15687" CreationDate="2013-11-08T00:37:20.197" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the tradition is that in Matthew 7:21-23 &quot;... did [I] not ... in your name drive out demons...&quot;. And in John 14:12 &quot;whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically, God will use anybody to carry out his will, jew/non-jew/disciple/non-disciple.  Luke 9:49 is just a reminder. The one I like most is David's Mighty Warriors (2 Sam 23 &amp;amp; 1 Chro 11). Some of the best warrios of the time were non-jewish. God just reminded David to use them. Just like Jesus is reminding the disciples to let non-disciples do great things for God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;anyways I was writing fast so I hope it makes sense and answers your good question :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6506" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T00:37:20.197" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20609" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20450" CreationDate="2013-11-08T01:08:51.730" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not know when God put himself into threes but as far as I know he alway has been in threes. 1)GOD 2)the word of GOD 3) His Holy Spirit now this is before Christ. the holy spirit or ghost if you prefer came upon mary and placed the seed/ word of God into her and the word was made flesh. So now we have 1)God the Father 2) God the Son 3) His Holy Spirit. Sorry to put my personal opinion here but I believe that God the Father is the greater of the three because the Holy Spirit( his essence) and the Son both serve the Father. Never once that I have read in the Bible does it say otherwise. Now I know that theologians have said they are the same but like i said it is my personal opinion. So to answer the question, No God the Son did not exist before Christ. But the word of God did and Christ is the word, so yes he was there all along but not has the Son. He was begotten to us when the word was made flesh sent to die for our sins.      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6492" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T01:08:51.730" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20611" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-08T04:25:51.140" Score="4" ViewCount="656" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before I start, I realize that this question is &lt;em&gt;related&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2010/how-should-we-dress-when-attending-church-worship-activities-services&quot;&gt;another question&lt;/a&gt;. However, this question is more concerned about the &lt;strong&gt;custom&lt;/strong&gt; of wearing one's &quot;Sunday best&quot;, which usually means a nicely brimmed Sunday hat and modest-looking dress. This has been portrayed in literature and in movies. Example: &lt;em&gt;Chicken Sunday&lt;/em&gt;, written by Patricia Polacco, and &lt;em&gt;Bridge to Terabithia&lt;/em&gt; (2007 movie). Is this solely an American Christian custom? Are there examples in other Christian cultures? How did this custom come about, and how did it evolve over time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2021-02-09T21:47:16.950" LastActivityDate="2021-02-09T21:47:16.950" Title="Is dressing oneself in formal attire on Sundays (Sunday hat and dress) solely an American Christian custom?" Tags="&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;culture&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20612" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-08T04:46:10.023" Score="-1" ViewCount="884" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is accepted by church tradition that St. Thomas the Apostle &lt;em&gt;somehow&lt;/em&gt; came to India, but it is unclear to me how he managed to get through the language barrier. Did India have any contact with the West at this time? Could St. Thomas have an interpreter or something to ease the language barrier? Broadly speaking, how do missionaries do missionary work without previous exposure to the people's language? Can missionaries just communicate the gospel using body language or pictures?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T15:17:53.423" Title="How do missionaries communicate to people in foreign countries without previous exposure?" Tags="&lt;missions&gt;&lt;great-commission&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-11-08T16:05:16.620" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20614" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20612" CreationDate="2013-11-08T05:34:16.830" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;We don't know how Saint Thomas managed to communicate with the Indians. God might have given him the knowledge without the need to learn, or he might have used his spiritual gift of tongues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I believe that even Saint Thomas was not an exception, who did not need to learn the language of the targeted people. &lt;strong&gt;Missionaries who go to foreign countries need to learn the language of the people before they can start preaching the Gospel&lt;/strong&gt;. Here are some examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey_%28missionary%29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;William Carey&lt;/a&gt;, an English Baptist missionary, who was a missionary in &lt;strong&gt;India&lt;/strong&gt;, translated the Bible into Bengali, Sanskrit, and numerous other languages and dialects. Wikipedia says -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;During the first year in Calcutta, the missionaries sought means to&#xA;  support themselves and a place to establish their mission. &lt;strong&gt;They also&#xA;  began to learn the Bengali language to communicate with others.&lt;/strong&gt; A&#xA;  friend of Thomas owned two indigo factories and needed managers, so&#xA;  Carey moved with his family north to Midnapore. During the six years&#xA;  that Carey managed the indigo plant, &lt;strong&gt;he completed the first revision&#xA;  of his Bengali New Testament&lt;/strong&gt; and began formulating the principles upon&#xA;  which his missionary community would be formed, including communal&#xA;  living, financial self-reliance, and the training of indigenous&#xA;  ministers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoniram_Judson&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adoniram Judson&lt;/a&gt; was an American Baptist missionary, who served in &lt;strong&gt;Burma(Myanmar)&lt;/strong&gt; for almost forty years. He translated the Bible into Burmese, and established a number of Baptist churches in Burma. Wikipedia says - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Judson, who already knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, immediately &lt;strong&gt;began&#xA;  studying the Burmese grammar but took over three years learning to&#xA;  speak it&lt;/strong&gt;. This was due, in part, to the radical difference in&#xA;  structure between Burmese and that of Western languages. He found a&#xA;  tutor and spent twelve hours per day studying the language. He and his&#xA;  wife firmly dedicated themselves to understanding it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T15:17:53.423" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T15:17:53.423" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20615" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-08T08:40:52.020" Score="2" ViewCount="163" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:17 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a &lt;strong&gt;new creation&lt;/strong&gt;. The old&#xA;  has passed away; behold, the new has come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is undeniable that no one can live a perfect sinless life like Jesus. When we receive Jesus(i.e. born again), what exactly happens spiritually and physically? Our body remains the same, we are still struggling with sin(though it has reduced to some extend). What is the essence of &lt;em&gt;New Creation&lt;/em&gt;? Is it a &lt;em&gt;'change of heart'&lt;/em&gt;? or &lt;em&gt;'change of character'&lt;/em&gt;? or &lt;em&gt;'rebirth of spirit'&lt;/em&gt;? How can we identify or know that something has changed? To what degree of 'change' is counted as a new creation? What is being created new here? It may be difficult to explain but attempts must have been made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How have Mainstream Protestant denominations/theologians explained &lt;strong&gt;what is &lt;em&gt;&quot;New Creation&quot;&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T09:50:18.730" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T04:53:17.263" Title="What is &quot;New Creation&quot; according to Protestants?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20617" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-08T09:42:55.440" Score="2" ViewCount="510" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 5:17 (ESV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a &lt;strong&gt;new creation&lt;/strong&gt;. The old&#xA;  has passed away; behold, the new has come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know if this subject has importance in Catholicism. Therefore, I want to know what Catholicism has to offer regarding this topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How has Catholicism explained what is &lt;em&gt;&quot;New Creation&quot;&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-09-12T06:57:50.480" LastActivityDate="2014-09-12T06:57:50.480" Title="What is &quot;New Creation&quot; according to Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20618" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2561" CreationDate="2013-11-08T09:48:26.763" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Someone asked me to address all of the passages in Scripture that deal with baptism. One of the most important passages is the one in John 3:5 where Jesus said the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way to approach this passage is to ask yourself a few questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1)  Can physical water (H20) lead to salvation?&#xA;2)  Can repentance lead to salvation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am sure we can all agree that #1 cannot lead to salvation whilst #2 can lead to salvation. Combine the two – water and repentance – and you have what Paul said of John’s baptism: “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” (Acts 19:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nicodemus, like every Jew, knew exactly what Jesus meant when He referred to water as a requirement to enter the Kingdom of God. It couldn’t have been physical water of which he spoke because He made it abundantly clear that washing ceremonies couldn’t produce spiritual purity. Ponder these passages for a moment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (Matthew 15:1-11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. (Matthew 23:25)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having established that Jesus couldn’t have referred to physical water as a requirement to enter God’s Kingdom (to be saved), it must have been something else to which He referred. And indeed, it was. The “water “refers to the repentance ministry of John the Baptist. Jews were very particular about signs (Matthew 12:38-39; 16:1). With John’s baptism the Jews expressed their change of mind (metanoia) in regard to Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell then; the water points to the repentance ministry of John the Baptist and the “Spirit” to the application by the Holy Spirit of Christ to an individual. As such the water baptism of John was a preliminary and anticipatory baptism (Matthew 3:4) making it clear that repentance (a change of mind) was necessary before a repentant sinner could be saved. So Jesus was actually saying that Nicodemus, in order to enter the Kingdom of God, needed to turn to Him (repent) (Matthew 11:18) in order to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. As such it does not follow salvation (the baptism with the Holy Spirit) as a signal or sign that the repentant sinner has died, been buried and raised with Christ but actually precedes it. Therefore, repentance (expressed in the rite of John’s baptism) leads to salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Repentance (a change of mind) is of itself not salvation. There is nothing man can do of his own accord to be saved. This is where Calvinists miss the boat when they argue that man is unable to do anything to be saved. They presume that anyone who has repented (changed his mind) for the remission of his sins (the message John preached in the wilderness – Matthew 1:4) is assisting God in his redemptive work. Therefore God must sovereignly and irresistibly regenerate the elect only so that they may repent which amounts to a kind of “the elect must first be saved before they are able to repent.” They have reversed the order of salvation, i.e. from “repentance leads to salvation” to “sovereign election and regeneration leads to repentance.” Jesus gave us the order of salvation — “water” (John’s baptism of repentance) and then the baptism of the Holy Spirit (salvation proper). It is impossible to reverse the two. In fact, those who believe water baptism by immersion is a sign or symbol of a believer’s immersion into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are doing the very same thing. They are saying: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the Spirit and of water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” “Water now becomes the sign or symbol of salvation itself (no longer of repentance as in John’s water baptism) and therefore must be administered after salvation (baptism with the Holy Spirit), making it a so-called Believer’s Baptism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To reiterate what I said earlier, I need to remind you that the believer’s baptism (immersion) into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not constituted by a once-off symbol bearing sacrament but a continual and obedient reckoning (rational) that we are indeed dead to sin and alive to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin (and NOT, look back in retrospect to your once-off baptism by immersion in water), but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:10-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/10/28/importance-baptism/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Importance of Baptism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6513" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T09:48:26.763" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20619" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-08T10:17:02.370" Score="2" ViewCount="54774" Body="&lt;p&gt;I just want to ask this question because when God created us we were naked (I assume) and probably there's not even a leaf covering our genitals like how children's books portray it. But then when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they got ashamed of being naked. So does our awareness and concern of being nude came from Satan? Or is it even bad at all that we are concerned about being naked? Because the bible mentioned like it was kind of a big deal that we have discovered that we are naked and we got ashamed of it. If there is nothing to be ashamed of, then maybe we should go to church naked to honor the purity of humans, like what God had intended right? But on the opposite we wear our best clothes to church. So this is kinda ironic to me.. Does God consider naked good or bad? Or does it even matter at all?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T14:32:38.433" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T16:27:24.597" Title="Does God consider nudity a sin?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-11-08T17:24:55.840" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20620" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18887" CreationDate="2013-11-08T10:54:03.733" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;They helped to break down feudalism by increasing the authority of kings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some nobles died in battle without leaving an heir. Their lands passed to the king.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some nobles sold their land in an effort to raise money to pay the special tax levied by the king to offset the cost of the crusades.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some nobles gave their serfs a chance to buy their freedom in an effort to raise money they needed to buy armor and weapons&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some young men who could buy their way out of feudal obligation joined the crusades. Many died. That reduced the work force. If a farm failed, it passed to the king. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6515" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T11:14:18.027" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T11:14:18.027" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20615" CreationDate="2013-11-08T11:48:41.187" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The New Creation passage occurs in 2 Corinthians 5:17. We get the meaning from reading the passages before it as we follow the train of thought. In chapters 4-5, we find that Paul has a view of life that is colored by what happens to the faithful believer after death. Paul sees that the glory to come is greater than his trials &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=NKJV#s=1082016&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(4:16-18)&lt;/a&gt;, which includes his gospel-work-related sufferings &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=NKJV#s=1082007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(4:7-15),&lt;/a&gt; and helps him bear the trials. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;t=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5:1-8&lt;/a&gt; continues the train of thought, telling us a specific hope when we die, that we will be clothed upon with a glorious body. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;t=NKJV#s=1083009&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5:9-11&lt;/a&gt; This glory comes at a price, and that's careful holy living while in this body. Paul has the &quot;terror of the Lord&quot; because of the impartial judgment of the believer, whose doings in the body will be recompensed, &quot;whether good or bad.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;t=NKJV#s=1083012&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;5:12-16&lt;/a&gt;, in which occurs the &quot;new creation&quot; phrase, Paul sees Christ and the world in a new way. He lives for Christ out of love. We all died through Christ's death. We rose again and are seated with Christ, rescued from the tyranny of the flesh. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the new creation person has &lt;strong&gt;a new outlook on life and death&lt;/strong&gt; because of an inward work on the Holy Spirit. Trials do not daunt him or her. The judgment seat cautions to holy living. The love of Christ urges us on to sacrifice all. We see Christ in a new way. This is the character of the new creation, which is in contrast to the &quot;old man&quot; that lived for self and against God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T04:53:17.263" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T04:53:17.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20623" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20619" CreationDate="2013-11-08T12:29:00.880" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (Genesis&#xA;  2:25, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first couple were, at first, roaming about without any clothes on. It was as natural as wearing clothes. Wearing or not wearing wouldn't have any difference at all. Sex was already introduced, as God already told them to multiply (Gen 1:28) but nudity and its shame was never felt. Something awful happened after they ate the forbidden fruit; they were now afraid to meet God for the first time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the Lord God called to the man, &lt;em&gt;“Where are you?”&lt;/em&gt; He answered, &lt;em&gt;“I&#xA;  heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I&#xA;  hid.”&lt;/em&gt; And he said, &lt;em&gt;“Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten&#xA;  from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”&lt;/em&gt; (Genesis 3:9-11,&#xA;  NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam had been naked always, but never felt uncomfortable with it. Something made Adam feel uncomfortable with nudity. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-10.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;This also was not the true reason; he was naked from his creation as&#xA;  to his body, and it caused no shame in him, nor any dread to appear&#xA;  before God; he conceals the true cause, &lt;strong&gt;which was sin, that made the&#xA;  nakedness of his body shameful&lt;/strong&gt;, and had stripped his soul of its&#xA;  native clothing, purity and holiness; and therefore it was, he could&#xA;  not appear before a pure and holy Being:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After paying heed to the Devil's voice, they are now under sin, of whose origin is the Devil. Their souls are now stripped off of holiness, and as a result, imparted with unholiness. Their mind is now sinful, their heart is now sinful. Before the fall, there was no lust in their heart, but now they are overtaken by lustful thoughts, which made them uncomfortable when naked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nudity itself is not a sin, we were created naked. Does it mean we should go to church without clothes? If you can stay with a pure mind and worship God without any hindrances, it's totally fine, but that is not easy. We need to cover ourselves modestly, so that our minds should not be distracted by lustful desires. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is not the nudity which is sin, but it is our lustful eyes which we cannot control, is sin. Sin starts inwardly from the heart, and if not suppressed, manifested through the body and commits sin outwardly.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But&#xA;  I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already&#xA;  committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T15:15:20.773" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T15:15:20.773" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20619" CreationDate="2013-11-08T12:41:23.827" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nakedness, is to be uncloaked, God created man cloaked in His righteousness:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nakedness is vulnerability, when man elected to eat of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, he moved out from under the covering of God’s righteous judgment in pursuit of his own.  Man became aware of his nakedness and spiritually became vulnerable. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Physical nakedness is only a shadow of eternal nakedness, which is being uncloaked before the Lord.  Here legitimate “fear” governs, we recognize our nakedness before God, our true vulnerability to God and we rightly fear God.  This fear is met with God’s love and He covers us with His righteousness, Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is nudity a sin? One could make the case that spiritual nakedness is the original sin!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T16:27:24.597" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T16:27:24.597" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20625" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4258" CreationDate="2013-11-08T13:07:09.600" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I’m not sure who I am addressing this to, or how old this is, so I hope this helps.  Bear in mind that I am not a biblical scholar, nor did I go to seminary.  These are just my observations.  From what I’ve seen topics in the bible very often have a multi-layered approach to them.  For example, when we look the story of the Exodus we can see all sorts of wonderful pictures of Jesus Christ in it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the 7 churches though, it seems like many people only want to take one approach and stick with that.  (1) The literal approach, that this is discussing the 7 churches in Asia Minor and their character.  This is certainly true, but God put it there to be relevant to us.  The characteristics of the 7 churches certainly do apply to Christian congregations all over the world; First Love, Persecution, Joined with the World, congregations in recovery, congregations that are full of the Holy Spirit, congregations that have become lukewarm, etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These can also apply to various phases of a believers experiences as he walks with Christ, and experiences that first love, and then that distress when the enemy attacks, or we find that we’ve been too abrasive and made enemies, etc, or that point where we find ourselves seeking accommodation with the world around us, or later when we recommit ourselves to Christ.  So here we have 3 applications: the literal 7 churches, 7 distinct types of characteristics of a church congregation, and 7 attitudes or even attitude phases of a Christian’s development.  I think it also applies to 7 distinct ages of Christianity, beginning with the early church (Ephesus), the church under Roman persecution (Smyrna), the church joined with the world under Constantine (Pergamos), the church in a kind “Babylonian captivity”, the papal system (Thyatira), the reformation that started a work but didn’t finish it; The first Orthodox split and/or the early reformation (Sardis), and so on.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other images that paint broad-strokes of the future from the time they were written, such as the images in Daniel and the Beasts of Revelation, so it makes sense that this application would also apply here.   So; (1) original churches (2) congregational attitudes (3) individual attitudes (4) Eras.  I think all 4 apply and that this is another multi-layered thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like I said, I’m not a theological scholar, but I hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6518" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T13:07:09.600" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20626" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20615" CreationDate="2013-11-08T13:22:47.407" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:4-10 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old…Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God…Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice that this conversation took place prior to the cross.  Also notice that Jesus chastised Nicodemus for not knowing of the new birth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 6:8 Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As did those mentioned in Hebrews 11 that placed their faith in the promise of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ said: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This new thing that required the departure of Jesus Christ and His finished work established by His seat at the right hand of God the Father, enables the Holy Spirit to dwell in our heart. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit bears out the will of God the Father.  Jesus Christ is the eternally-begotten, the manifest &quot;will&quot; of God the Father.  Christians are equipped by the overshadowing presence of the Holy Spirit to bear out Jesus Christ in their lives.  This is why Paul says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the &lt;strong&gt;new creation is &lt;em&gt;&quot;Christ in our life&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T04:47:24.567" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T04:47:24.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20628" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9246" CreationDate="2013-11-08T15:16:25.383" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Book of Mormon (which you might accept as Holy Scripture or not, at least i do), the same event is prophesied by Samuel the Lamanite in the following words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Helaman 14:25  And many graves shall be opened, and shall yield up many of their&#xA;  dead; and many saints shall appear unto many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, when Christ appears after his resurrection, he says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 Nephi 23:9 Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day&#xA;  that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many&#xA;  saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many,&#xA;  and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did&#xA;  prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this&#xA;  thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did&#xA;  minister unto them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not&#xA;  been written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be&#xA;  written; therefore it was written according as he commanded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what i take from this passage is that we need to imagine this as personal experiences as jayyeshu already pointed out. This event was probably more like many people having apparitions/visits of the risen than them actually walking the streets randomly. From what i understand, they did not just &quot;come to life&quot; again, and did not stay with, let's say, their family, for the rest of their life(and then die again as Lazarus). I understand it more as a form of Resurrection, which would explain why&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The people are not mentioned afterwards (they didn't stay on earth after they appeared) &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the other people didn't freak out about open graves (after all, Christ was able to leave his grave without opening it) - on the other hand, Christ's open grave didn't get much public attention either...&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is mostly my interpretation, but it clears a lot of the confusion around this event, and also explains why there is only one line in the New Testament that even speaks about it - heck, in the sciptures i mentioned we even have people that were perfectly aware of the matter, but still didn't write it down until Jesus commanded them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6520" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T15:16:25.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9239" CreationDate="2013-11-08T15:32:27.047" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;To achieve a holy life in this life? David said &quot;Thy word have I hide in my heart that I might not sin against thee&quot;. Today we have that word , the very word that is God (Jesus)John 1:1, in our hearts! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul said in Romans chapter 7 that he was in a wretched war with the flesh, but chapter 8 tells us his great victory through faith in Jesus Christ in the spirit! Verse 9, &quot;But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if indeed the spirit of God dwells in you.&quot; Thats a big if, but not impossible! Paul in Titus 2:11-13 gives us instructions. &quot;...teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lust, we should live soberly, righteously, and Godly in this present world.&quot; Well how do we do that? Verse 13 By &quot;Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and savior Jesus Christ.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are conscience of Him and in expectation of Him, we will live accordingly.There is great reward for those that keep oil in their lamps (the spirit and the word). These will go to the marriage supper of the lamb, Matthew 25:1-13, especially verse 13,&quot;Watch therefore...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, if holy living is impossible, then why did Peter say in 1 Peter 1:15,16 &quot;But as he which has called you is holy, so be you holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be you holy; for I am holy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6519" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-11-08T15:38:45.273" LastActivityDate="2013-11-08T15:38:45.273" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9239" CreationDate="2013-11-08T17:11:51.197" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;That is exactly what Jesus Christ did.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I take your question to mean, can one of God’s created beings (humans) possibly live without sin on earth. The answer to that is no and the justification is really very simple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A created being does not understand the mind of the Creator. The clay does not declare to the potter, it is not right for you to make such and such of me. The pile of clay can only allow the potter to make something of it. It cannot fashion itself into a plate or a pot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the clay, we need to go to our Creator to learn, first, just what sin is(!), then to learn how God would like us to deal with it. And if we are still learning, then we cannot live a life without sin because we do not yet properly act or react with the appropriate love or other quality that is needed. Presently, God alone knows perfectly how to properly act and react with the appropriate love or other quality and so lives without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Someday, we will have learned fully and live without sin, but not today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I apologize, I was not very careful. I answered only the title of this question. I have not fully answered the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The biblical doctrine you are asking about can be termed “&lt;em&gt;total sanctification&lt;/em&gt;”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now the water is muddied a little by equating a “completely holy” life as that which is one without any acts of sin in it. I submit that a “completely holy” life must be much broader than simply not sinning. Where is worship? Where is praise? Where is a willingness to serve as our Lord would like?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I write this, I am asking myself the question, is a sin free life my only goal? My answer is, I don’t think so because there is no fruit bearing in simply living a life free of sin. In John 10:10 Jesus says “I have come so that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.” Life with God is meant to be so much more than simply not sinning. But I digress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two seemingly valid but opposite views for total sanctification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt 5:48 where Jesus tells his hearers, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul says saints will be equipped for building the body “until we all reach unity in the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Eph 4:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul prays “May your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:23)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in Hebrews “the God of peace . . . equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ” (Heb 13:20-21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above view seems to indicate it is very possible to achieve total sanctification. But the opposite view seems to also be clearly endorsed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 John 1:8-10: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then what about Paul in Romans: “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing (Rom 7:18-19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how is one to deal with a doctrine that seems to have two valid and totally opposite views? I think we should turn to the book of Job. God himself declared Job blameless and upright. I submit he must be an example of total sanctification. Job feared God and turned away from all evil. Clearly total sanctification - a life without sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as we read the rest of the book, we find things broke down and Job sinned. In the end Job confessed and repented and God accepted and restored him. If he was restored, didn’t he return to when he feared God and turned away from all evil? Wasn’t he back to a life without sin?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So let me explain what I believe is a doctrinal position for total sanctification. To your question I say, yes, it is possible to live a life without sin in it. However, if this goes on for an extended period of time, you are stagnate and not growing in the grace of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I choose not to be stagnate, then I will be asking the Holy Spirit to make known any inner sin I am hiding or sin I am somehow blinded to or to put me in some sort of situation where I will, like Job, be tested and fail so I might gain a more complete level of purity like Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For: “Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continue to sin has either seen him or known him.” (1 John 3:3-6)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I want to be found living a life where the Almighty God of Creation is active in cleansing me of all sin. I think if I am living a life without sin, either I have achieve this perfect cleansing (ha!) or I am not seeking all that God can make of me. I guess I am not really eager for my “total sanctification.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6282" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user4060" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-05-13T00:39:41.130" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20636" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20644" CreationDate="2013-11-09T00:50:37.613" Score="4" ViewCount="3795" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are several similarities between the Beast described in Revelation chapter 13 and the one described  in Daniel chapter 7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 13:1 and 2 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dan 7:6  and 7  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do any Theologians support this idea?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2020-08-22T10:42:52.470" Title="Is the beast of Revelation 13 the same as the beast of Daniel 7?" Tags="&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;symbolism&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2020-08-22T13:07:43.167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20638" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14596" CreationDate="2013-11-09T02:08:57.060" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The academic credentials of translators is unknown since the committee chose to remain anonymous just like translators of some notable Bible translations. Any suggested names on the translators are pure speculations and are uncorroborated by publishers. Most of the first edition translators are likely deceased by now. Note that not just the NWT, everything JWs published since around 1940 are contributed by anonymous editors and writers. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as qualifications, the New World Translation itself testifies its quality. If it was a bad Bible translation it would be none a reputed scholar who would have endorsed it. Note below what some scholars, Greek instructors and writers have opined about it. Given that majority of Christendom's scholars are Trinitarians and anything reading different from their traditional Bible would be considered as heresy by most churches, these evaluations are surprising.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Commenting on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, British Bible critic Alexander Thomson wrote: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, page 52&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professor Jason Beduhn from Northern Arizona University wrote a letter to the NWT publishers as below. He had &lt;a href=&quot;https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0761825568&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;published a book&lt;/a&gt; comparing different bible translations and concludes that New World Translation is the most accurate English Bible Translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I know a quality publication when I&#xA;  see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done its&#xA;  job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic,&#xA;  cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our&#xA;  own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal&#xA;  translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the&#xA;  Greek. It is, is many ways, superior to the most successful&#xA;  translation in use today...Simply put, it is the best interlinear New&#xA;  Testament available...My students used [it] as one of&#xA;  the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to&#xA;  the course and very popular with my students.&quot;—The Watchtower 1998 2/1 p. 32&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Hebrew scholar and Professor, Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein from University of Haifa wrote as below. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text&#xA;  that is as accurate as possible...Several years ago I quoted the&#xA;  so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in&#xA;  articles that dealt with purely philological [pertaining to the&#xA;  study/science of languages] questions(such as the rendition of the&#xA;  causative hiphil, of the particple qotel). In the course of my&#xA;  comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives&#xA;  evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of&#xA;  hebrew as well as an honest effort to faithfully render these in the&#xA;  target [English] language. A translation is bound to be a&#xA;  compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this&#xA;  applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the Hebrew&#xA;  Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous&#xA;  rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias.&#xA;  Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the Watchtower-Bible who&#xA;  turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses&#xA;  for a renewed scrutiny. This was either not done or else the verse&#xA;  submitted ..did not prove the point, namely a tendentious [with a&#xA;  purposed aim/biased] translation.—The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. Elihu Books. pp. 296–297 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in &quot;An American Translation&quot;, wrote in a letter to the NWT publishers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous&#xA;  translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as&#xA;  I can testify.—The Watchtower (15 March 1982), p. 23.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professor Thomas Winter, an instructor of Greek at the University of Nebraska, considered the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;to be a highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine and classical Greek,&quot; adding that the translation &quot;is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.&quot;— &#xA;  Review of New World Bible Translation Committee's The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of&#xA;  the Greek Scriptures (4/1/1974)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite noting what he felt were a few unusual renderings, author Charles Francis Potter said: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.”—The Faiths Men Live By, page 300.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although he felt that the New World Translation had both peculiarities and excellences, Robert M. McCoy concluded his review of it by stating:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement [Jehovah’s Witnesses] of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, page 31.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Professor S. MacLean Gilmour, while not agreeing with some renderings in the New World Translation, still acknowledged that its translators &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, page 26.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there would be critics, people who hate Jehovah's Witnesses who just want to hear what their ears need to be tickled with. But you have to see what many unbiased scholars have to say.  The New World Translation has already been published in more than 100 languages with print copies exceeding 200 million pieces in count.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only major change the translators made from the available Greek manuscripts is the replacement of the word LORD with JEHOVAH in Greek Scriptures [so called new testament], especially when the name appears in Hebrew Scriptures [so called old testament quotes] (about 230 times I guess, of which about 70 times on quotes from Hebrew scriptures where the name appears). Again this is based on their honest belief that the name was replaced by later copyists due to Jewish superstition of hiding God's name arose during late half of 1st century CE.&#xA;Regardless it does not change the meaning of passages since the word LORD in new testament is mostly used to represent the father JEHOVAH God as understood by the Jewish listeners. However critics of NWT should first criticize the removal of Gods name from old testament in most popular Bibles, while it is evident that it appears nearly 7000 times in available Hebrew and some Greek manuscripts. Some argue that since the exact pronunciation of Jehovah is not known it is okay to use LORD. By that logic JESUS' name should be translated as LORD since exact pronunciation of the name JESUS is unknown. The point is that its important to identify the name of God rather using a title like LORD or PRESIDENT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it is naive to say that the JWs don't have enough scholars who can translate Greek or Hebrew, given that they are called publishing titans in the field of translation. They translate their Watchtower and Awake magazines simultaneously to nearly 200 Languages and had published Bible based literature for nearly 600 languages in the past century. All these translators are full time volunteers often serving their lifetime in their branch offices and headquarters. Remember that many masterpieces in the past are from autodidacts, since they are motivated deeply by interest in subject rather than just a need or paid work.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After 60 years, a highly revised version was published in 2013. It is very easy to read with quality footnotes for a serious Bible reader, showing that they have qualified people to handle the difficult problem of translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Added two diagrams from Wikipedia (which is again a reconstruction from a JW publication on NWT) regarding the source used for NWT.&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/setxO.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Hebrew &amp;amp; Aramaic scriptures&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/LqnMt.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Greek scriptures&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6526" LastEditorDisplayName="user40186" LastEditDate="2018-02-02T15:46:30.500" LastActivityDate="2018-02-02T15:46:30.500" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16889" CreationDate="2013-11-09T02:13:16.257" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apollos was a Hellenized Jew (meaning he most likely only spoke Greek) from Alexandria, Egypt. He was raised under the instruction of Priscilla and Aquila, becoming so prominent that the Corinthian Church had a rift between followers of Paul and followers of Apollos. It was quite common for Hellenized Jews (as well as other people) to have Greek and Latin names during this period, such as Phillip, Andrew, Mark, Priscilla and Aquila, and others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6528" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T02:13:16.257" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20636" CreationDate="2013-11-09T04:16:30.387" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source:&lt;/strong&gt; Backus, I. (2000). THE BEAST: INTERPRETATIONS OF DANIEL 7.2-9 AND APOCALYPSE 13.1-4, 11-12 IN LUTHERAN, ZWINGLIAN AND CALVINIST CIRCLES IN THE LATE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. Reformation &amp;amp; Renaissance Review: Journal Of The Society For Reformation Studies, (3), 59.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is obvious that the Apocalypse passage is based on Daniel 7 and it&#xA;  is equally obvious that both seers or writers seek to establish an&#xA;  explicit link between the beast or beasts and the temporal powers of&#xA;  their time. Confining ourselves to a limited but representative sample&#xA;  of commentators, we shall examine Melanchthon's and Selneccer's&#xA;  Commentaries on Daniel and the Apocalypse, as well as Calvin's&#xA;  Commentary on Daniel, Colladon's on the Apocalypse and Bullinger's&#xA;  Commentaries on both the books. Our aim will be to see how those&#xA;  theologians' interpretations of Daniel and the Apocalypse reflected&#xA;  their perception of temporal power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It appears that, in Backus' point of view, the Apocalypse 13 is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;based on&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Daniel 7, not just referring to the same entity as Daniel 7. That is to say that Apocalypse 13 may have been influenced by Daniel 7. However, the respective authors may have &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;adapted&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; the books to reflect the times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T04:21:34.767" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T04:21:34.767" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20643" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-09T05:05:28.430" Score="4" ViewCount="151" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Roman Catholicism, I understand that as per traditions, while praying for the salvation of departed souls, we usually have to recite “Our Father and Hail Mary”.  Are there any Church guidelines along these lines? There is some confusion as to whether we should conclude this with “Glory to the Father and the Son ....” or not. Either way, what is the significance of concluding it with or without &amp;quot;Glory to....&amp;quot; at the end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2021-02-18T22:40:40.063" LastActivityDate="2021-02-18T22:40:40.063" Title="In Roman Catholicism, what is the right way of praying for the salvation of departed souls?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20644" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20636" CreationDate="2013-11-09T05:29:58.930" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;From some books that I read, it is understood that the Beast that came out of the sea in Revelation 13 is the &lt;strong&gt;combination of the three beasts in Daniel 7&lt;/strong&gt;. Daniel saw three separate beasts - lion, bear and leopard. John saw one beast which is an &lt;strong&gt;integration of lion, bear and leopard&lt;/strong&gt;. The three beasts in Daniel are now combined into one giant Beast in Revelation. Just have a look at those passages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Daniel 7:4-6 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The first was like a &lt;strong&gt;lion&lt;/strong&gt;, and it had the wings of an eagle. I&#xA;  watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the&#xA;  ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind&#xA;  of a human was given to it. “And there before me was a second beast,&#xA;  which looked like a &lt;strong&gt;bear&lt;/strong&gt;. It was raised up on one of its sides,&#xA;  and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told,&#xA;  ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’ “After that, I looked, and there&#xA;  before me was another beast, one that looked like a &lt;strong&gt;leopard&lt;/strong&gt;. And&#xA;  on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had&#xA;  four heads, and it was given authority to rule.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation 13:2 (NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The beast I saw resembled a &lt;strong&gt;leopard&lt;/strong&gt;, but had feet like those of a &lt;strong&gt;bear&lt;/strong&gt; and a mouth&#xA;  like that of a &lt;strong&gt;lion&lt;/strong&gt;. The dragon gave the beast his power and his&#xA;  throne and great authority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, what do they mean? It's up to you to interpret. Daniel was told, &lt;em&gt;&quot;The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth(Daniel 7:17)&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. If the three beasts saw by Daniel represent three separate kingdoms, that would mean, the Beast at the apocalypse will be a single kingdom formed by uniting the previous three kingdoms from Daniel's vision, or something like that. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T06:28:49.197" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T06:28:49.197" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20645" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20643" CreationDate="2013-11-09T05:50:08.047" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there's two questions here:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is the &amp;quot;Glory to the Father&amp;quot; prayer? and&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is the proper way to pray for the dead?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;Glory to the Father&amp;quot; prayer is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05150a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;doxology&lt;/a&gt; and is a traditional way to end a prayer or series of prayers.  It's prayed at the end of each decade of the Rosary and at the end of each psalm in a psalter such as the Liturgy of the Hours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A pious custom is to recite 3 Hail Mary's, 3 Our Father's and 3 Glory Be's when visiting a church. I believe that constitutes a partial indulgence (under the normal criteria), which is a good and easy way to get an indulgence every day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... the Holy Council says, “that the usage of Indulgences is most wholesome to Christian people, Indulgentiarum usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem esse;” wherefore it ought to be a holy duty in every Christian to endeavour to gain them, as far as he is able, as well for his own spiritual good, as by way of suffrage in behalf of the faithful departed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/indulgences.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;From the Raccolta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though it's not the norm for the Church any more, the Raccolta is chuck full of different prayers that could be prayed to receive indulgences and those indulgences can be applied to a holy soul in purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I think you do need to pray a Glory Be prayer, if that indulgence is specifically what you're going for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T05:50:08.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20646" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20617" CreationDate="2013-11-09T06:04:13.873" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, as a Catholic, I'm not going to attempt to interpret the Bible, here's the commentary from the New American Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A new creation: rabbis used this expression to describe the effect of the entrance of a proselyte or convert into Judaism or of the remission of sins on the Day of Atonement. The new order created in Christ is the new covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I asked a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4866/whats-the-new-rite-in-tantum-ergo&quot;&gt;similar question&lt;/a&gt; concerning St. Thomas Aquinas' Hymn  concerning the what he meant by the &lt;b&gt;New Rite&lt;/b&gt; and apparently he's talking about the New Covenant and the New Covenant is the Gospel message which is Salvation through Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a superficial level, I'd assume he was talking about Baptism.  When you're baptized you're made a &quot;new creation&quot; in Jesus.  The new creation would be the new life of the spirit dwelling within the newly minted Christian. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T06:04:13.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20647" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-09T06:36:25.503" Score="0" ViewCount="1974" Body="&lt;p&gt;The early church agree that the Son is begotten by the Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;To beget is to produce an offspring of same nature.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father has no beginning that is why the Son has no beginning (like begets like).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pre-Nicene Church Father Tertullian explains the begetting this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God made [the pre-existent] Logos [a] second [person] to himself by agitating it within&#xA;  him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;St. Athanasius explains the begetting in this way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son is not &quot;from nothing&quot; but &quot;from the Father&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is the Son begotten? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T18:41:06.227" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T08:10:46.163" Title="How is the Son begotten?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-11-11T13:32:38.930" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20648" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-09T08:39:05.513" Score="5" ViewCount="58332" Body="&lt;p&gt;Given that the Bible and Scripture is referred to as God's word, would the meaning of John 1:1 and John 1:14 be changed if the word 'scripture' was interchanged for the word 'word'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:1&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; He was with God in the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 1:14&lt;br&gt;&#xA;      The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6413" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T09:45:04.723" LastActivityDate="2014-08-05T15:53:27.933" Title="Why does John 1 say &quot;the Word was with God&quot; and not &quot;scripture was with God&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20649" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9239" CreationDate="2013-11-09T09:07:02.017" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some say that we can not live a life without sin, as this is unattainable! &#xA;Why not? &quot;...:go and sin no more&quot; John 8:11, This is what Jesus told a woman caught in sin. &#xA;I think those that don't believe we can live without sin in our lives are getting sin and temptation mixed up! Temptation is like the birds flying around your head, sin is like allowing them to build a nest in your hair! &#xA;How long did it take this woman to learn? Repent means to turn from sin. This is what she did!&quot;... now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.&quot; 2 Corinthians 6:2. Salvation came to her that day. She was not about to go back into what she just got forgiven for. And Jesus would not have told her to do something that's imposable. &#xA;She will be tempted, but Jesus did not tell her not to be tempted, He told her not to sin! James 1:14,15 &quot;But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.&quot; There is a progression. We are to &quot;nip it in the bud&quot;. Thats what Jesus was saying and thats what we must and can do with the spirits help.&quot;But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.&quot; Romans 8:9. Paul said in Galatians 5:16, &quot;This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.&quot;&#xA;Are you any of his or none of his? Thats the only thing you need concern yourself with!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6532" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T09:07:02.017" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20650" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20648" CreationDate="2013-11-09T09:16:45.243" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's because the Greek word translated as &quot;Word&quot; is &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos&quot;&gt;Logos&lt;/a&gt;&quot; and it basically means&quot; something that communicates.&quot; Historically, it has a very particular philosophical meaning that may encompass &quot;Scripture,&quot; but also exceeds it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Context of John 1:1 and John 1:14 speaks of a Person having the &lt;em&gt;function&lt;/em&gt; of being the Logos in the sense of &quot;revealer&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:18 No one has ever seen God yet; The Unique One [who is] God [in nature], is in the bosom of the Father. &lt;strong&gt;This one he did exegete&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T10:56:00.333" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T10:56:00.333" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20651" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20647" CreationDate="2013-11-09T10:05:55.823" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most theologians do not speculate as far as your question searches, but then again I think it is a valid question. &lt;strong&gt;The idea of the Son being begotten from the Father does not carry a connotation of time being that it was before time existed.&lt;/strong&gt; Your question is therefore what connotation is expressed by 'begotten' if time is irrelevant? It would seem that the connotation of 'some essential filial' aspect of the Trinity is implied, so that in some sense the Father produces the Son, yet not independently of by his will alone. Without the Son there would be no Father, as God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost; eternally past, eternally present and eternally future, always and forever the same.  This may seem like a 'non-asswer' as it deals with the unknown but if we appreciate it as a basic manifestation of the triune relationships between the three persons of the unchanging Godhead, it naturally helps us understand that as God approaches time and his creation, he sent his Son and not himself. I mean the Father sent the Son to save us through an incarnation because the Father begets the Son and not viva-versa. The Spirit does not send the Son, the Son does not beget the Father, rather the Father begot the Son and both the Son and the Father sent the Holy Spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The relational aspects within the three persons of the Trinity our incomprehensible to us as they stand outside of time because we only live and understand a world in time. We can only really perceive its meaning within the time that God has entered to make himself known, the gospel. &lt;strong&gt;So how is the Son produced? Eternally, we can't know the inner workings of the Trinity beyond its basic definitions and assertion, but as the Father does eternally produce the Son outside of the concept of time, the Father has partly manifested what that means 'in time' by the incarnation.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T10:05:55.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20652" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20648" CreationDate="2013-11-09T12:27:41.213" Score="18" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the &lt;strong&gt;Word&lt;/strong&gt;, and the Word was with God, and the Word&#xA;  was God. (John 1:1, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All &lt;strong&gt;Scripture&lt;/strong&gt; is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,&#xA;  correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Greek word for '&lt;em&gt;Word&lt;/em&gt;' in &lt;code&gt;John 1:1&lt;/code&gt; is Logos(λόγος) and '&lt;em&gt;Scripture&lt;/em&gt;' in &lt;code&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/code&gt; is Graphey(γραφή). Though 'Word' and 'Scripture' are very much related, they are necessarily not the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The 'Word' in the context of John-1 is a divine entity, which is Jesus Christ, who existed in the beginning with God. 'Scripture' in the context of the Bible mostly refers to the written words of God. Scripture is a subset of the Word. The Scripture may represent the Word and illustrates the picture of the Word but it cannot fully explain it, because scriptures are written in human language which has limitations to describe Heavenly things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot say that the words we have in the Bible are the only words that God has spoken. Therefore, the Scripture that we have is not equivalent to the Word, it is only part of the Word. Hence, &lt;code&gt;John 1:1&lt;/code&gt; was written as such by the writer, using Word(λόγος), instead of Scripture(γραφή), where the &lt;strong&gt;Word refers to Jesus Christ, who is the source of Scripture.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T12:27:41.213" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20654" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="20659" CreationDate="2013-11-09T13:54:08.980" Score="2" ViewCount="2318" Body="&lt;p&gt;As I understand Original sin it is being guilty of sin at birth because of Adam and Eve's first sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also understand that man has a propensity toward sin because of the inheritance of the Knowledge of good and evil which Adam and Eve acquired from that sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However having an urge to sin is not the same as knowing the difference between right and wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If a child is born already guilty of sin and died within the first few years of life, they would not be able to repent, or ask forgiveness for that sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any Scriptures that delineate what the difference if any is?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T02:04:54.987" Title="What is the difference between original sin and a sin nature?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20655" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-09T13:54:17.480" Score="1" ViewCount="428" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read CS Lewis say that the Beatification is an &quot;infinite good&quot; and, hence, &quot;infinitely outweighs the negations&quot; (the stuff we shall leave behind here). He also argued, in Letters to Malcolm, that we shall not experience time as an infinite present because we are finite creatures and, therefore, can only experience what suits our humanity. Being that we are finite, does that mean when he (or other writers) talk of 'infinite joy' they mean it metaphorically rather than literally? In Weight of Glory, Lewis also refers to it as 'transfinite'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T16:56:14.557" Title="Can humans aquire 'infinite' joy when they are finite beings?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;nature-of-man&gt;&lt;books&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-06-25T13:57:01.797" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20657" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5981" CreationDate="2013-11-09T16:19:58.603" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are more then one fallen angel as &#xA;Lucifer (the morning star)  is a angel an he was the reason of the fallen because he wanted his own kindgom so therefore Jehovah banned him and any of the angels that agree with lucifer. He is the ruler of hell and it his job to test both humans and the fallen. &#xA;Sammeal/Satan is the only archangel to fallen and he rules in hell as the prince.&#xA;Ori was one Fallen it was his job to hell luicfer by killing any rouge demons. Also he was excellent at seducing both men and women.&#xA;Gusion (fallen) was known for seeing the future, he was also Ori friend, it was said that he help Ori in battle against Sarteal. &#xA;Sarteal (fallen) want to to rule hell instead of Lucifer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the fallen mated with humans and produced nephilim (half-angel half-human) &#xA;There are seven archangels and they are &#xA;1. Uriel, one of the holy angels, who presides over clamer and terror &#xA;2. Raphael, one of the holy angels, who presides over the spirts of men&#xA;3. Raguel, one of the holy angels, who take vengeance on the world of the luminaries &#xA;4. Micheal, one of the holy angels, to wit, he that is set over the best part of mankind and chos&#xA;5. Sarakiel, one of the holy angels, who is set over the sports, who sin in the spirt (and the only female archangel) &#xA;6. Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who is over paradise and the serpents and the cherubim &#xA;7. Remiel, one of the holy Angels, whom god set over those who rise&#xA;- the book of Enoch 20:1-8 &#xA;Therefore Micheal can't be a fallen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6535" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T16:19:58.603" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20658" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20655" CreationDate="2013-11-09T16:31:01.623" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Before I get to the point, I'm going to start with how we understand Scripture, even though your question is not about an exact phrase found in Scripture, because it sets a principle for understanding literature that is common not just to Biblical studies, but to other texts as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, I'm going to preface this with an honest &quot;We really don't know, we can just give our best guess&quot;.  We would have to ask the original author to know for sure, so I'm torn about whether to answer the question, or VTC as opinion-based.  I'm answering because I think the question has merit, and I think that most would agree with the assessment I'm about to give.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically, &quot;infinite joy&quot; isn't taken as literal, it's taken as a figure of speech. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As explained in my answer on  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase “Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God” mean?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism. As noted&#xA;  above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we&#xA;  believe that God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the&#xA;  writing of Scripture. Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure&#xA;  of speech. Example, &quot;I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.&quot;) is allowed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a principle applied to any form of textual criticism.  Determining the line between literal and allegorical can be summed up in a simple principle:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The &lt;em&gt;Biblical Research Society&lt;/em&gt; out it much more simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other&#xA;  sense;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal&#xA;  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the&#xA;  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths&#xA;  indicate clearly otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the question is, does it make sense that a finite being could experience infinite joy?  I don't think so, becuase infinite implies that there wouldbe no joy in existence that a person doesn't have.  I would have to have your joy, you'd have to have mine, and there would be in &quot;individuals&quot;  We'd all be One.  There's no corresponding Scripture to support the idea that we lose our individuality after death, so it just doesn't make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems apparent that CS Lewis and the others who write of &quot;infinite joy&quot; are using hyperbole to express &quot;a joy so great that we cannot imagine it&quot; or perhaps &quot;the most joy it is possible for a finite being to experience&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T16:56:14.557" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20659" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20654" CreationDate="2013-11-09T16:38:39.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Original sin is used as a theological shorthand for the fact that we are born with a sin nature, and why.  In other words, the term &quot;original sin&quot; encompasses both the &lt;em&gt;event&lt;/em&gt; of the original sin and the &lt;em&gt;consequence&lt;/em&gt;, whereas &quot;sin nature&quot; only defines the &lt;em&gt;consequence&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Adam and Eve ate the fruit, we,as their descendants, inherited the sin nature that they gained when they ate the fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catholic Encyclopedia:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed;&#xA;  (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which&#xA;  we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common,&#xA;  as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: &quot;the deliberate sin of&#xA;  the first man is the cause of original sin&quot; (De nupt. et concup., II,&#xA;  xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to&#xA;  the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it&#xA;  was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the most part, they both refer to the same thing, but the term &quot;original sin&quot; carries a more specific connotation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T21:26:48.417" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T21:26:48.417" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21660" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19937" CreationDate="2013-11-09T17:45:57.853" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The requirements can be found in the bible. The traits looked for in an elder can be found in &lt;strong&gt;Titus chapter 1 verses 5-9&lt;/strong&gt;. Another good one to look at is &lt;strong&gt;1st Timothy chapter 3&lt;/strong&gt;. It gives the requirements of overseers, elders, ministerial servants, and how women fit into the role of the congregation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not entirely sure what the function of a priest or pastor is as my time in other denominations was very brief. I do, however, perceive that they play the role of a leader. An elder is much the same to us. They lead in the teaching and preaching work as well as watch closely the congregations spiritual progress and health. They make sure everything is done in an orderly and fine way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The elders are also there for anyone who needs help or advice and also help encourage us in personal study and for our work in the ministry. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I truly appreciate about the witness arrangement is the use of scripture to back everything. Every paragraph found in our spiritual food has at least 1 scripture to support it, usually more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the schools there are many. I know that there are schools for elders and overseers as well as pioneers in the ministry, school for christian couples, single brothers and sisters, etc... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for what we are allowed to view spiritually anything really. Whatever we see fit to read. I have many bibles new and old that I study and compare. Though we find it proper to use our own bible at the meetings. I think its proper as it has the name of god restored to it. &lt;strong&gt;Psalm 83 verse 18&lt;/strong&gt; shows Jehovah want's his name known. In most places its easier to understand because you don't have to figure out which Lord is being referred to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a member of the unified worldwide Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. I am currently an unbaptized publisher working towards baptism. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-11-15T22:15:04.350" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T22:15:04.350" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22660" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22683" CreationDate="2013-11-09T18:53:15.927" Score="4" ViewCount="86" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.iv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Procatechesis&lt;/a&gt;, §1, Cyril was talking about events that had occurred before a Christian was baptized. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ὀνοματογραφία τέως ὑμῖν γέγονε, καὶ στρατείας κλῆσις· καὶ νυμφαγωγίας λαμπάδες, καὶ οὐρανίου πολιτείας ἐπιθυμία, καὶ πρόθεσις ἀγαθὴ, καὶ ἐλπὶς ἐπακολουθοῦσα·&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My translation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hereto, there has been an inscription of your names, and a στρατείας κλῆσις, and torches of a bridal procession, and a desire of a heavenly citizenship, and a good purpose, and an attending hope. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is about the στρατείας κλῆσις. The Greek word κλῆσις means &quot;call&quot; (i.e., calling; cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=11&amp;amp;v=29&amp;amp;t=KJV#29&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom. 11:29&lt;/a&gt;). Philip Schaff described the phrase &quot;as a call to military service.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What event in the life of a Christian does this describe? When does this call to &quot;military service&quot; occur? Do any of the NT authors describe it? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-11-09T20:07:48.223" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T10:09:54.173" Title="&quot;καὶ στρατείας κλῆσις&quot; - Cyril, Procatechesis, §1" Tags="&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22662" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-09T19:33:41.273" Score="3" ViewCount="366" Body="&lt;p&gt;A friend of mine has posited that it is impossible to be Sola Scriptura and also be pro gay-marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think he is right in a traditional sense. However, I am curious to know if there any churches that claim to be 'Sola Sciptura' that also are pro gay-marriage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if so, do they have any doctrinal statement that addresses the concern that conflict might create for some people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ben Miller below has answered that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America claims to be Sola Scriptura and also pro gay-marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, please keep coming with answers if there are other churches that do the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6413" LastEditorUserId="6413" LastEditDate="2013-11-10T08:46:26.590" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T21:33:21.947" Title="Are there any churches that claim to be Sola Sciptura that also are pro gay-marriage?" Tags="&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;homosexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22664" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9836" CreationDate="2013-11-09T20:44:44.787" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Being an active witness involves doing the work that god has commanded of us. Matthew chapter 28 verse 19 says &quot;go, therefore, and make disciples of peoples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from this we display the model Jesus left for us. We take after him in the way we minister and teach. We witness or try to teach people about Jehovah god, his qualities, and his purpose for the earth and those on it. We usually do this door to door, but we also have public arrangements where people can approach and learn. We also witness informally to friends and family. What I am doing right now is considered witnessing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't the only factor. To be considered active you also have to attend the meetings. That command is found at Hebrews 10:25. It says there &quot;Not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;**EDIT:**Ok so I did some researching and dug out an article that is close. I have already defined an active member, but I found this which distinguish's the difference between an inactive and dissociated member. It clarifies what is considered to be inactive. Sorry in advance for the copy and paste. I will look for a copy of this on the site so I can paraphrase it and give a link.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My son, who was baptized as a teenager, is now married and has a family. Because of the pressure of earning a living he has cooled off spiritually and does not associate with the congregation. Should he be viewed as a “disassociated” person?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is nothing in your description that would require such a viewpoint. The question may have arisen because of misunderstanding what it means to be viewed as “disassociated.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 23, showed that there is a difference between (a) a Christian who becomes spiritually weak and inactive, and (b) a person who clearly renounces his being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, leading the congregation elders to announce that he has “disassociated” himself. It seems that your son fits the first description.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Watchtower mentioned that some Christians become weak in faith and spirituality. This occurred also in the first century. (Romans 14:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 11:30) It does not mean that they have ceased to be Christians. Even if they become so weak that they no longer share the “good news” with others and stop attending meetings, and they are not bringing reproach on the Christian congregation, they are still to be regarded as our spiritual brothers and sisters. We should want to help them lovingly, following the apostle Paul’s counsel: “We exhort you, brothers, admonish the disorderly, speak consolingly to the depressed souls, support the weak, be long-suffering toward all.” While the elders often take the lead in this, it is to be noted that this counsel was directed to all “the congregation of the Thessalonians.” (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 5:14) So the elders and others might offer loving help and encouragement, having in mind the advice: “Straighten up the hands that hang down and the enfeebled knees, and keep making straight paths for your feet, that what is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather that it may be healed.”—Hebrews 12:12, 13; Revelation 3:1-3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is quite a different matter with a former Christian who is “disassociated.” This designation is applied basically in two situations:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;First, though it is uncommon, a person might decide that he absolutely no longer wants to be a Witness. We do not mean a person such as is described above, a spiritually weak or discouraged Christian who may express some doubts. Rather, we mean someone who resolutely declares that he absolutely is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since in the past he voluntarily became a baptized member of the congregation, it would now be proper for him to inform the congregation that he is ending this relationship. It would be best if he did this in a brief letter to the elders, but even if he unequivocally states orally that he is renouncing his standing as a Witness, the elders can deal with the matter.—1 John 2:19.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second situation involves a person who renounces his standing in the congregation by joining a secular organization whose purpose is contrary to counsel such as that found at Isaiah 2:4, where we read concerning God’s servants: “They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.” Also, as stated at John 17:16, “they are no part of the world, just as I [Jesus] am no part of the world.”—Compare Revelation 19:17-21.&#xA;  In either of these two situations, the person by word and/or actions has clearly terminated his status as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, disassociating himself. Hence, the elders will announce briefly to the congregation that this individual has disassociated himself. Those in the congregation will accept the person’s decision and thereafter will view him as a former brother with whom they would not fellowship, in harmony with what we read at 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 2 John 9-11.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;As can be appreciated, the spiritually weak and inactive son about whom the question was asked has not become a “disassociated” person in either of these two senses and no such announcement has been made in the congregation. So it still may be possible to aid him in the spirit of Romans 15:1: “We, though, who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those not strong.”—See also Isaiah 35:3.&#xA;  **&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taken from the 1982 watchtower on the topic of &quot;disassociated person different from an inactive one&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I am an active Jehovah's witness. If anyone would like more information you can ask me or you can request information or a bible study from here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;JW.org&lt;/a&gt; If you look under the section &lt;strong&gt;Ministry&lt;/strong&gt; it sheds some more light on what we do and why. The request info is on the bottom right of the website under contact us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="23657" LastEditDate="2018-06-05T14:26:58.173" LastActivityDate="2018-06-05T14:26:58.173" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22665" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4470" CreationDate="2013-11-09T20:55:11.320" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two important things will happen to us at the last judgment that were not already done at our particular judgment. First, although our souls will already have gone to heaven (possibly via purgatory) or to hell, at the last judgment our bodies will be reunited with our souls, to join in their joy or suffering.  Second, the last judgment will be public, seen and understood by the whole world, whereas our particular judgment was private, just between God and ourselves.  At the last judgment, everyone will see how each of us has cooperated or failed to cooperate with the graces God has given us. Both God's mercy and His justice will be visible to all, and even those who, in this life, worry about how a good God can condemn anyone to hell forever will see that those condemnations are entirely appropriate.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T20:55:11.320" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22666" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5042" CreationDate="2013-11-09T21:00:55.647" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was learning I asked a question similar to this. I asked why we don't celebrate the holidays or celebrate holidays that seem harmless like Thanksgiving.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Bible study teacher put it like this. You are walking and see a piece of candy lying in the gutter. The candy is sweet and tastes good, but you just don't know its origins, whats touched it, or why it was thrown there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Holidays are like that candy. They are appealing and fun, but we don't know their origins. Most of the holidays we do know their origins and they are pagan. The first-century Christians didn't observe these celebrations and we should follow their example.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there is even a small chance that these would anger god I wouldn't risk it. Every time the Jews strayed from true worship and worshiped other gods and idols god punished them for it. My love for God keeps me from doing things that may displease him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I looked through the Teach book and found the section that my answer is based on. It's from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/is-this-what-god-purposed/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;What does the Bible Really Teach?&lt;/a&gt; Free to download. It explains everything we believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do celebrate some things, such as weddings, anniversaries, and a few others. I know why on most and very little on some. If we have questions on why then we ask an elder and they usually have a good answer with a bunch of scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-22T19:58:31.113" LastActivityDate="2021-04-22T19:58:31.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22667" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20643" CreationDate="2013-11-09T21:07:48.867" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Various specific prayers have, as Peter Turner explained, indulgences attached to them, and various prayers have become customary in praying for the dead, but there's nothing to prevent a Catholic from praying for the dead (or for any other purpose) in whatever words he wants.  I often say a very brief prayer of the form &quot;Father, please bring [name] to heaven soon if you didn't already.&quot;  There's probably no indulgence attached, but I'm sure God pays attention, as He does to everything we say or do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-11-09T21:07:48.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22669" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="82" CreationDate="2013-11-09T23:58:09.793" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Also remember that even Satan is referred to as a god. We don't worship Satan, but he is referred to in 2 Corinthians 4:4 as &quot;The god of this system of things&quot;. God simply means having more power than what a human does or superhuman. Jesus was a god, but when the bible talks about YHWH it magnifies his god-ship with almighty and so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example of this is 1 Corinthians 11:3. It shows the hierarchy of Jehovah's arrangement. The woman submits to the man, the man submits to the Christ, and the Christ submits to god. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:14 shows the relationship between Jesus and god. It says he is the &quot;only begotten son from a father&quot;. That is Jehovah is the father of Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to directly answer your question yes Jesus was a separate god from Jehovah or YHWH. We don't worship Jesus, but we do recognize and respect his sacrifice to save us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you do some research on triad gods you see that they existed even before the bible was finished being written. The largest example being Babylon. Some quick places to look at.&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201308/trinity/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;jw.org&lt;/a&gt;--- &lt;a href=&quot;http://members.tripod.com/~debbie_pittman/Babylon.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trinities before Abraham&lt;/a&gt;---&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hard to read long history lesson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T04:09:44.970" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T04:09:44.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22672" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22662" CreationDate="2013-11-10T02:00:11.763" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) &lt;a href=&quot;https://web.archive.org/web/20131112083447/http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=5300&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;elected an openly gay bishop&lt;/a&gt; earlier this year.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://web.archive.org/web/20130616205538/http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/The-Basics/What-Lutherans-Believe.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;On their website, they claim&lt;/a&gt; to &quot;hold to the basic principles of Luther’s theological teachings, such as &lt;strong&gt;Grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastEditorUserId="4412" LastEditDate="2013-11-18T21:33:21.947" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T21:33:21.947" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22673" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20654" CreationDate="2013-11-10T02:04:54.987" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Original sin is the doctrine that explains why we are born sinners&lt;/strong&gt;. I did not deserve to be born a sinner but since the guilt and condemnation of Adam's sin was charged against all humanity in Adam, I was born guilty and deserved to be born a sinner due to Adam's sin. In the same way, I do not deserved to be counted righteous and sinless when believing in Christ, yet his righteousness is imputed to be and I obtain life through the gospel. The idea of being judged by the actions of another Adam, or Christ, humanities two federal heads is the basis of the gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The sinful nature is the result of Original sin&lt;/strong&gt;. It means that as soon as a child is able to make a moral decisions it will be an evil one. As soon as a human knows right from wrong a human will do what is wrong. In other words as soon as a baby knows what it is to love God, the baby will not love God with it's whole heart. Yet there is more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sinful nature is not just a result of original sin but is a result of being found obnoxious and guilty under God's moral law. Therefore Christ must find a way to remove the law's ability to condemn us to restore the nature from its sinfulness. As long as the law has a right to judge, we will be cast into a fully corrupt nature. Only by removing the law's right to judge us can our nature be free from original sin and its guilt.  This again is by Christ fulfilling the demands of the law and providing his perfect righteousness to us, so that under the law we are considered perfect. As the law no longer casts us into a sinful nature we are free from sin. Therefore the only way a human can do good is to first have the law removed through the death of Christ and the imputation of his righteousness to sinners.  In fact the moral commands of the law was added that our sinful nature would become more sinful and thus be made known to our minds, revealing our sinful nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Non-Protestant churches accept a form of this doctrine called 'justification' but reduce its meaning to nothing by saying it is a life time process that you can ruin any time you wish. Protestants teach that this justification happens in a moment when a sinner believes in the gospel. In fact this is the greatest point of division between any kind of theology about God that can ever be made and the most important point to be decided on by a student of scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a good summary of what I am arguing and the distinction of the concepts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! &#xA;  18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. &#xA;  20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV, Romans, 5:15–21)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T02:04:54.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22675" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9067" CreationDate="2013-11-10T06:02:44.747" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Cain was given the sevenfold protection it was due to him doing something wrong. So for Lamech to believe he should receive a seventy and sevenfold protection leads me to believe he committed a murder far worse than his ancestor Cain.  I tend to lean toward the notion that Lamech killed Cain on accident &quot;to his wounding&quot; meaning wounding his spirit man not his physical body meaning he was sorrowful.  Then killing his own son for instructing him in error, to Cain's demise.  This murder was done in rage and after the rage wore off and he realized what he did, his spirit was even more hurt &quot;to my hurt&quot; and sorrowful for murdering his own son.  This remorse being conveyed by admitting his sins to his two wives. Just my thoughts after research.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8542" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T06:02:44.747" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22676" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18238" CreationDate="2013-11-10T06:37:35.277" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe you are referencing the lyrics for &quot;Jesus loves me&quot; by William Batchelder Bradbury (1816&amp;ndash;1868)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus loves me! This I know,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For the Bible tells me so.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Little ones to Him belong;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  They are weak, but He is strong.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yes, Jesus loves me!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Yes, Jesus loves me!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Yes, Jesus loves me!&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  The Bible tells me so.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus loves me! This I know,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  As He loved so long ago,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Taking children on His knee,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Saying, “Let them come to Me.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yes, Jesus loves me!...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus loves me still today,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Walking with me on my way,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Wanting as a friend to give&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Light and love to all who live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yes, Jesus loves me!...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus loves me! He who died&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Heaven’s gate to open wide;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  He will wash away my sin,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Let His little child come in.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yes, Jesus loves me!...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus loves me! He will stay&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Close beside me all the way;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Thou hast bled and died for me,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I will henceforth live for Thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yes, Jesus loves me!...&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8542" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-11-10T09:55:01.183" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T09:55:01.183" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22679" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20530" CreationDate="2013-11-10T06:59:14.857" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What does &quot;Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem?&quot; mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree with the other answers, but I thought I would add some historical context for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%202:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem?&quot;&gt;Isa 2:22&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah was sharing God's message of pending judgment against Israel in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%201:2-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;1:2-4 Hear me, you heavens! Listen, earth! For the Lord has spoken: 'I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me.  The ox knows its master, the donkey its owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand. Woe to the sinful nation, a people whose guilt is great, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption!  They have forsaken the Lord; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him.'&quot;&gt;Book of Isaiah&lt;/a&gt;.  Why was God judging Israel?  Because Israel had a long history of abandoning worship of God in favor of earthly things.  A few examples of many to choose from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2014:2-4&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the whole assembly said to them, 'If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this wilderness! Why is the Lord bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn't it be better for us to go back to Egypt?'  And they said to each other, 'We should choose a leader and go back to Egypt'&quot;&gt;Num 14:2-4&lt;/a&gt; After Caleb and the other eleven spies returned from scouting across the Jordan River, ten of the spies said the people of the land were too powerful.  So, the Israelites lost confidence in God's protection / provision for them and longed to return to Egyptian bondage. (circa 1300 - 1200 B.C.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%208:7&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;And the Lord told him: 'Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.'&quot;&gt;1 Sam 8:7&lt;/a&gt; - Israel demanded a King from the prophet, Samuel.  God says this to Samuel: &quot;they have rejected me as their king.&quot; (circa 930 B.C)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Instead of fully trusting God, Israel's &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;King Hezekiah&lt;/a&gt; had recently formed an alliance with pagan Egypt &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20kings%2018:19-21&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;The field commander said to them, 'Tell Hezekiah: This is what the great king, the king of Assyria, says: On what are you basing this confidence of yours? You say you have the counsel and the might for war - but you speak only empty words. On whom are you depending, that you rebel against me?  Look, I know you are depending on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces the hand of anyone who leans on it! Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who depend on him.'&quot;&gt;for protection against Assyria&lt;/a&gt; (circa 701 B.C.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's ultimate point behind &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%202:22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem?&quot;&gt;Isa 2:22&lt;/a&gt;, is that He is asserting Himself as Israel's rightful king (cf &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2044:6&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;This is what the Lord says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: 'I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.'&quot;&gt;Isa 44:6&lt;/a&gt;), instead of all these human distractions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1862" LastEditorUserId="1862" LastEditDate="2013-11-10T12:54:57.557" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T12:54:57.557" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22682" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="263" CreationDate="2013-11-10T07:41:33.040" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe prophets are now and have always been a virtual part of the church since the 1st century start of the church. Only because of arrogance present in today's church they are not recognized as such. But are still there. Not preaching. Not teaching. Not missionary type. But as always trying to steer the discussions and clarify. Gods word and bring His will to the forefront. Many no longer even realize they are prophets as in today's church this title has faded. But they still are acting the precise way God designed them to act. Gods is not interested in titles. His plan is full of action and not words.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8545" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-11-10T08:06:17.233" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T08:06:17.233" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22683" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22660" CreationDate="2013-11-10T09:36:59.663" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;One example of military items in the service of the Lord occurs in the Epistle to the Ephesians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;6&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;   Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. &lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt; Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt; For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; &lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. &lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt; And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.  [RSV-2CE]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;helmet of salvation&lt;/em&gt; is found in the traditional prayers a priest makes while vesting for Mass, specifically, putting on the amice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Impone, Domine, capiti meo galeam salutis, ad expugnandos diabolicos incursus.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Lord, set the helmet of salvation on my head to fend off all the assaults of the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The metaphor is carried through to modern times too. The Church of England baptism service introduced in 1980 had:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Name,&lt;/em&gt;    I sign you with sign of the cross.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world, and the devil,&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;and continue his faithful soldier and servant to the end of your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Church is often described as the Church &lt;strong&gt;militant,&lt;/strong&gt; expectant and triumphant, explained by Wikipedia with reference to the above passage from Ephesians:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Christian theology, the Christian Church, or Church Universal, is traditionally divided into:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Church Militant (&lt;em&gt;Ecclesia Militans&lt;/em&gt;), comprising Christians on earth who are living; Christian militia, who struggle against sin, the devil and &amp;quot;..the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places&amp;quot; (Ephesians 6:12).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Church Triumphant (&lt;em&gt;Ecclesia Triumphans&lt;/em&gt;), comprising those who are in Heaven, and&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the Church Suffering, a.k.a. Church Padecent or Church Penitent (&lt;em&gt;Ecclesia Penitens&lt;/em&gt;) or Church Expectant (&lt;em&gt;Ecclesia Expectans&lt;/em&gt;), which in Catholic theology comprises those Christians presently in Purgatory.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T10:09:54.173" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22684" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-10T12:15:26.573" Score="1" ViewCount="77" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Saints are people who belong fully to God,&quot; Pope Francis said, thus introducing a degree of belonging to God, fully or less fully or, even, not fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anyone explain, in the light of Gospel, what &quot;belong fully to God&quot; means and how it is different  from &quot;belong to God&quot;, even if not fully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thank you and peace be with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T17:46:12.093" Title="What is the difference between &quot;belong fully to God&quot; and &quot;belong to God&quot;?" Tags="&lt;kingdom-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22685" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22684" CreationDate="2013-11-10T14:07:03.460" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose you may have read &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.va/en/news/pope-francis-it-is-everyones-church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pope Francis' words&lt;/a&gt;. I think it means that Pope Francis just wants Christians to be active participants in church rather than loafing around and doing nothing. Inactive, non-practicing Christians are no more useful than the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wicca.cnbeyer.com/fluffy.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fluffy bunnies&lt;/a&gt;&quot; of neo-pagan religions, bordering on being false believers and utter hypocrites. One may &quot;belong to God&quot; by receiving the invitation of salvation, but that's easy. One must participate in the party in order to belong fully to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Francis explains his rhetoric by alluding to the Parable of the Great Banquet. Salvation is being compared to a great delicious feast that God holds for all his invited guests. If his invited guests (people who self-identify as Christians) do not come, then God will think of them as being ungrateful and skips them; God will instead look for more grateful guests by gathering believers on the streets. Additionally, it is known that Roman Catholics baptize infants. Using the same analogy, these Catholics are put on the guest list by their parents who expect them to worship God and presumably live a holy life. Well, these Catholics claim to be Catholics but aren't real Catholics because they do not follow God or the church, or even live a moral life. Therefore, non-practicing Catholics aren't really saved at all.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*It is NOT to say or give the impression that nonreligious people cannot ever be moral. This is just about a particular group of &quot;Christians&quot; that identify themselves as Christians but really do not do Christian things like praying, worshiping, attending services regularly, or at least implementing Christ's teachings in everyday life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4789" LastEditDate="2013-11-10T17:46:12.093" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T17:46:12.093" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22687" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22688" CreationDate="2013-11-10T17:43:22.973" Score="2" ViewCount="336" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 6: 32 (&quot;For all these things the Gentiles seek.&quot;) it seems as if Jesus divided the world into gentiles and non-gentiles.&#xA;Who were the non-gentiles implied in the verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T16:43:51.637" Title="Who were the non-gentiles implied in Matthew 6: 32?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22688" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22687" CreationDate="2013-11-10T18:18:27.997" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;A gentile is anyone who is a non-Jew.  That's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gentile&quot;&gt;standard definition&lt;/a&gt;.  So the &quot;non-gentiles&quot; are the Jews.  There's really not much more to it than that.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the relevance:  The Jews (Israelites) worshiped the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in contrast with the Gentiles, who sought after other gods.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For after all these things do the Gentiles seek,.... Or &quot;the nations&#xA;  of the world&quot;, as in Luke 12:30. The Syriac reads it so here: the&#xA;  phrase, &quot;the nations of the world&quot;, is used of the Gentiles, in&#xA;  distinction from the Israelites, thousands of times in the Jewish&#xA;  writings; it would be endless to give instances. These knew not God,&#xA;  nor acknowledged his providence; the greater part of them thought,&#xA;  that the soul perished with the body; few of them thought, that&#xA;  anything remained after death; and they that did, spoke very&#xA;  doubtfully of it: wherefore it is no wonder, that such persons should&#xA;  greedily seek after, and be anxiously concerned for all these things,&#xA;  food, raiment, and riches, and a great plenty of them; since this is&#xA;  all the happiness they expect; and imagine, that this is to be&#xA;  acquired by their care, thought, diligence, and industry; having no&#xA;  regard to a superior being, and his all wise providence: but for the&#xA;  Jews, and so Christians, who have a divine revelation, the knowledge&#xA;  of God, and his providence, and of a future state after this life, to&#xA;  act the same part the Heathens do, is exceedingly unbecoming, absurd,&#xA;  and wicked: and besides, such greedy desires, immoderate care, and&#xA;  anxious solicitude, are altogether unnecessary;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-11-10T18:58:26.230" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T18:58:26.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22691" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5607" CreationDate="2013-11-10T21:19:47.990" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I find that going right to the source is the best answer. All of the Jehovah's Witnesses' books are free and displayed on the website. I myself am not terribly knowledgeable in this area so I looked up the articles that help explain this a bit better.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This article is from the 2013 Watchtower article &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003124?q=memorial&amp;amp;p=par#p23&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;What Does the Lord’s Evening Meal Mean to You?&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This next link is already partially covered above. It is taken from the book Insight from the Scriptures volume II and the article is &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002773&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lords Evening Meal&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would say (in my opinion) that the participation is mandatory. Jesus commanded the apostles to keep observing the meal in remembrance of him (1 Corinthians 11:23). It would be very disrespectful to not attend and acknowledge Jesus's sacrifice for us even if we are only observers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to age restrictions, those restricted from observing or participating, and maybe other questions I think that the article explains more effectively than I.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="50259" LastEditDate="2021-04-22T18:32:30.803" LastActivityDate="2021-04-22T18:32:30.803" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22692" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="695" CreationDate="2013-11-10T21:41:29.613" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The name of god is rendered in English Jehovah. We do not know that that is exactly how it is pronounced. Your name in your language is familiar to you, but yet when you hear your name in another language it will sometimes sound very alien.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't expect a foreign person to be able to pronounce my name correctly. In fact most do not. I am very pleased when someone remembers my name and uses it. It shows me that they cared enough or where interested enough in me to remember my name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another example. The bible tells us that god wants us to know both his name and the qualities attached to it. Say then that we know the president, but we don't know his name. Knowing the job of the president doesn't help us to understand the man behind the position. We don't know him as a person, only that he is our leader and generally what he is supposed to do. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for gods name, in the exodus when Moses asked god what he should call him god answered  “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” (Exodus 3:14). In other words that means he will become whatever I need to become. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The jews stopped using gods name because of superstitious reasons. God commanded them not to take up his name in a worthless way. Today most bible translations have taken that same aspect of substituting Jehovah's name for Lord and god. Like the president those are just titles and don't allow us to truly identify the traits of god with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another article to consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/the-divine-name-its-use-and-its-meaning/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Divine Name&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T21:41:29.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22693" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12534" CreationDate="2013-11-10T21:53:45.463" Score="-6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I must disagree with all of these possible sayings.  Ultimate death from crucifixion is caused by suffocation which would have made any coherent speech impossible.  At best there might have been some gasping or wheezing sounds but that wouldn't have made a good story.         &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8552" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T21:53:45.463" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22695" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="121" CreationDate="2013-11-10T23:09:59.853" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that this was covered pretty well. I have a few links that may help further. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found this site while looking for side by side comparisons of what different bible translation say or are worded. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/parallel-bible/passage.aspx?q=leviticus+18%3A22&amp;amp;t=niv&amp;amp;t2=ceb&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible Study Tools&lt;/a&gt; This link is Leviticus 18;22 and shows that the wording has the same meaning no matter what bible you are using. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found another article where Leviticus 18;22 is broken down and discussed. I didn't read all of the material found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; , so it may not reflect what I believe personally. Just a reference that may be helpful. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some reasoning from myself on the matter. Why would god create man and then create for him a partner if he would create in them a desire for their same sex? It doesn't make sense that he would do that and then later write a law that such a thing is detestable to him. The bible tells us that god loves justice. So why then would he do something like that? I conclude then that man created homosexuality not god and then we are not born inherently homosexual. I think Environment and upbringing effects that choice or lack thereof, but we are getting into a whole new can of worms here and is off topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-10T23:09:59.853" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22696" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-10T23:18:19.880" Score="0" ViewCount="2551" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is about the Holy Trinity. Did the Scriptures explained that God is necessarily three persons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[ This question doesn't challenge the Trinity if it is true but rather, the question, if answered will be for the benefit of the Trinitarian]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T14:52:24.687" Title="Why is God three persons rather than four or more?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-11-11T13:58:23.100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22697" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9239" CreationDate="2013-11-10T23:29:30.087" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't know exactly what you mean by salvation. Until we are restored to perfection after Armageddon there is no way to be free from sin. It is a condition we see we obtained at the inception of the human race back in the garden of Eden. Adam and eve disobeyed god by eating the forbidden fruit and that is when sin entered the world. After that account they started having children after they where no longer perfect through sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/5/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 5:12&lt;/a&gt; explains this &quot;12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned. 13  For sin was in the world before the Law, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. 14  Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam transgressed, who bears a resemblance to the one who was to come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus provided us with a means for forgiveness and salvation with his ransom sacrifice. It allows god to forgive us because we are imperfect and sinful. We will remain Imperfect until we are made perfect again. As for the timing on when that happens, well that's up to god to decide when all people have had the chance of serving him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T00:14:50.543" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T00:14:50.543" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22699" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22696" CreationDate="2013-11-11T00:25:22.453" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is covered in other places such as &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/22669/7536&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible does not anywhere in it say that god is clearly three persons. That is a human perception of what is written. There are many scriptures such as John 1;1 that obscurely support it.  There are many more scriptures that suggest that God and Jesus are separate such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/11/#v46011002&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 11;2&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is, however, no scripture that comes out and says directly Jesus, Jehovah, and the holy spirit are 1 being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T00:25:22.453" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22700" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9295" CreationDate="2013-11-11T00:58:12.587" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes we have our own Bible that we use, but we sometimes do study and compare with other Bibles. I myself have an old pre-1985 King James that still has the name Jehovah in it, as well as 5 other translations (not counting internet access to many more).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason we don’t use the King James Version any more (it used to be the Bible the Witnesses used) is because we have an easier to understand Bible with Jehovah’s name restored to it. The old English from the KJV is difficult to understand.  The NWT has been translated from the oldest original language manuscripts available  into modern English so that the reader can better understand the scriptures. The reason why the NWT was produced is explained in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/holy-scriptures-foreword/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the forward at the beginning of the book&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the NIV, that was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;published and copyrighted in 1973&lt;/a&gt;. The Watchtower Society had produced and copyrighted our Bible earlier, in 1961, so naturally by the time the NIV was published we were already using the NWT.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="23657" LastEditDate="2020-01-21T14:04:37.710" LastActivityDate="2020-01-21T14:04:37.710" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22706" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22735" CreationDate="2013-11-11T04:06:53.210" Score="5" ViewCount="953" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 1:32 reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And John gave this witness, saying, &quot;I saw the Spirit coming down from&#xA;  heaven like a dove and resting on him&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did John the Baptist compare the holy spirit with a dove?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why is the dove considered a special bird? Is this related to its use in the peace logo?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4776" LastEditorUserId="13677" LastEditDate="2015-07-10T12:36:53.120" LastActivityDate="2015-07-10T12:36:53.120" Title="Why did John the Baptist compare the holy spirit with dove?" Tags="&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;john-the-baptist&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22711" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1855" CreationDate="2013-11-11T05:49:42.310" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is not complicated; just Pray. We know that&#xA;The Lord knows our heart, as he is all knowing.&#xA;If you prefer to kneel or assume a biblical Praying&#xA;Position that is fine. If you prefer Praying lying in bed, this is fine as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many people who have no other choice but to Pray lying down. The quadrapelegics have found out that Praying to The Lord in Jesus' name can be done in a myriad of positions including the position that they assume most of the time.... Sitting down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want to Pray upside down, right side up, left side up .. etc., fine. Just Pray as often as you can.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8556" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T05:49:42.310" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22712" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1855" CreationDate="2013-11-11T06:20:23.270" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In fact , the position is not the strong point in order to connect with God , not to take the whole Bible , not to discuss religion, if you are consentrado in their faith in God , you are connected to it , we should not believe everything have you heard this right also in the Bible , but you 'll have to read several pages , because you can not take a phrase from the book of life and use only one, would you choose and translate everything , so you have time to do,&#xA;but in everything , remember , you do not need to be in a position to speak with God ,&#xA;because one day you can this in a room lying on a sick bed unable to get up , even so God will be with you , waiting for your prayers .&#xA;if this is the case you will not be sinning .&#xA;But God also deserves your respect , consider a dog , if he does not do everything a man wants , the man would be sad do not you think ?&#xA;so if you are doing well and not get up and get in position for resar God also would be sad .&#xA;hope this helps everyone improve .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8557" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T06:20:23.270" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22714" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22696" CreationDate="2013-11-11T06:40:43.383" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The problem with many people when they contemplate about the Trinity is that they try to view the Trinity from the perspective of Polytheism. You cannot find the word 'Trinity' in the Bible nor any notion of three Gods. The Bible clearly says that God is one, not three.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, &lt;strong&gt;the Lord is one&lt;/strong&gt;. Love the Lord your&#xA;  God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your&#xA;  strength. &lt;em&gt;(Deuteronomy 6:4-5, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing&#xA;  that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the&#xA;  commandments, which is the most important?” “&lt;strong&gt;The most important one&lt;/strong&gt;,”&#xA;  answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, &lt;strong&gt;the Lord&#xA;  is one&lt;/strong&gt;. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your&#xA;  soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ &lt;em&gt;(Mark&#xA;  12:28-30, NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;one Lord&lt;/strong&gt;, one faith, one baptism; &lt;strong&gt;one God&lt;/strong&gt; and Father of all, who is&#xA;  over all and through all and in all. &lt;em&gt;(Ephesians 4:5-6, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You believe that there is &lt;strong&gt;one God&lt;/strong&gt;. Good! Even the demons believe&#xA;  that—and shudder &lt;em&gt;(James 2:19, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Trinity defines God, His personality, His nature and His attributes. We don't have three Gods. Some people are confused with this idea that they think that Christians have three Gods. &lt;strong&gt;If we try to relate the Trinity with polytheism, it is a valid question to ask why there are only three incarnations of God and why not four or more.&lt;/strong&gt; But Christianity is monotheism, believing in one God, a God who never comes through many forms with different natures. God came as He is, without changing His nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All complex substances are composed of many parts. For instance, we may divide man into three parts - body, soul and spirit. We may divide an egg into three parts - shell, white and yolk. God has three parts - Father, Son(Word) and Spirit. We may understand this as - &lt;strong&gt;God, God's Word and God's Spirit.&lt;/strong&gt; Parts of a man can be separated. For instance, when we die, our body remains on earth while our spirit is either in Hell or Heaven. The unique quality of God is that, all three parts of God can function like a person. The Father has the function of the head and controller of all things, the Son(Word) has the function of a mediator between God and men, the Holy Spirit has the function of transforming and sustaining men. All three parts have their own specific roles and yet they act in one mind. They can never go against each other because they are one. This is our God, who is awesome, full of love and full of grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trinity is the nature of God and God never changes. Trinity is what God is and it will never change. Our God will always be a Triune God, in the past, now and forever more.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who&#xA;  was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” &lt;em&gt;(Revelation 1:8, NIV)&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. &lt;em&gt;(Hebrews&#xA;  13:8, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T06:40:43.383" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22715" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9542" CreationDate="2013-11-11T07:34:52.313" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 2:7, the first human was created in the following steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) God formed man &lt;em&gt;out of&lt;/em&gt; the dust ( creation of the human body)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) He then breathed into its nostrils and became a &lt;em&gt;living&lt;/em&gt; soul ( making alive of the human body)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From this creative act of God, we learn that a human body is not alive or functioning without a human spirit which is also evident in James 2:26.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, a functioning body is called &quot;soul&quot; for it has a spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eve was created &lt;em&gt;out of&lt;/em&gt; Adam ( Genesis 2:18-25). In Romans 5:12, it is said that &quot;by one man (i.e. Adam) sin entered the world&quot;. Based on this, we can conclude that Eve's spirit wasn't created separately but is &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; Adam.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also,it is written that God finished creating on the seventh day ( Genesis 2:2). This implies that the offspring of our progenitors, Adam and Eve, has their spirit at the instance of their conception. Hence,our spirit wasn't created separately but is &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt; Adam. This explains why it is said that &quot;through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men&quot;( Romans 5:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot; He [ God] made every nation &lt;strong&gt;out from one&lt;/strong&gt; [Greek: ek henos] to dwell upon all the face of the earth,having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation &quot; ( Acts 17:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Although the human spirit is pre-existing in some form in Adam, it is &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; functional &lt;strong&gt;if&lt;/strong&gt; it is united with the body it's prepared beforehand to enliven ( Job 33:4,Psalm 139:13, Acts 17:26 compare to Romans 5:18 to Genesis 2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T07:34:52.313" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22718" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20647" CreationDate="2013-11-11T07:57:27.743" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This answer follows the Nicene Creed of 381 C.E. as its primary foundation because the Nicene Creed itself is rooted in the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Father = unbegotten&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father is unbegotten because he has no source or origin of existence. No one begets the Father. He alone does the begetting. This is why he is the first person in the Trinity for he has no source but is the source of the other two persons. He is the first-among-equals ( Matthew 28:19) because he has the personal properties (function not essence) that is high than the other two, namely, (i) source, (ii) authority, (iii) primary subsistence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;1)      Source&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father is the source of the other two persons. Without him,both  the Son ( John 6:57, 1 John 1:1-3) and the Spirit could not exist ( Matthew 10:20).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;2)      Authority&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father has authority over the other two persons. He alone has authority over himself, the Son (Acts 1:7, Matthew 28:18) and the Spirit. [The Son has authority over the Spirit ( John 16:13-15) but not over himself ( John 5:19) and the Father ( John 5:30)].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;3)      Primary Subsistence&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son is the Wisdom of the Father ( 1 Corinthians 1:24-25) and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father ( Acts 5:3-4) and the Son( Galatians 4:6). This shows that although the three are fellow persons, only the Father is in full function of being a person not in essence (being) but in personal property ( function) that is why he is the primary or the principal subsistence. This same reason why he holds the appelation &quot;God&quot; ( Hebrew: El/ohim Greek: ho theos/ theos) as his distinguishing title ( 1 Corinthians 8:6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Son= begotten&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son is begotten because he has source or origin of existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between divine and human begetting:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Corporeal begetting ( Human)&lt;/strong&gt;           &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Maturation age ( fertile couple at least at the onset of puberty)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Female wife is needed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sex is needed&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Offspring has beginning of existence&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spiritual begetting ( divine)&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the first instance of existence, God begets, that is, because God is eternal he begets eternally ( John 5:26)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Begetting doesn’t involve a female wife ( John 4:24, Psalm 45:1LXX)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Begetting doesn’t involve sex ( John 4:24, Psalm 110:3 LXX)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Offspring has no beginning of existence ( John 1:1, 1 John 1:1-3)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How is the Son begotten?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To beget is to produce an offspring of same essence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In humans, sexual activity is the main mechanism of producing an offspring of same essence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In God, there is no sexual activity needed because he is &lt;em&gt;spirit&lt;/em&gt; ( John 4:24) but only &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt; which itself a vital part of sexual activity in humans to beget.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LOVE and ACTION&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By being love itself in his very being( 1 John 4:9), God produces his offspring. He produces him through being love. Love is in the &lt;em&gt;mind&lt;/em&gt;. In God’s mind is his &lt;em&gt;Logos&lt;/em&gt;. This Logos is without beginning or ending because God is coeval with his own reason, intellect and word and with his own internal activities (ad intra) as opposed to his activities though his offspring (ad extra).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Premise 1: God produces Logos&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Premise 2: Logos is eternal&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: God eternally produces Logos*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, in mathematical formula, God’s begetting is like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Love + thinking – Sex = Offspring&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My heart emitted my most excellent Logos (Psalm 45:1 LXX)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I birthed you from my womb before the morning star (Psalm 110:3 LXX)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TIME and ETERNITY&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every activity or acts of God has time in it. God makes his own time by acting. Action demands time. Or to put it more clearly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Action is something that is done. &quot;Done&quot; means it was completed in the past. When you do something, &quot;do&quot; is in the present tense. Both past and present tense is in relation to time. Therefore, action demands time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Time doesn't have to mean change. You could walk out of a room and five minutes later come back to the exact same room.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The time of the begetting can be explained as coevality with God because he is the begetter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Proverbs 8:25 LXX&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He begets me (active voice)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I am begotten by him ( passive voice)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Begets (Present Tense) Am ( present tense) , Begotten (Past&#xA;  Participle)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This highly presupposes the being of God is the point. God is without beginning or ending. He is who he is. He simply is. He is the I am who I am. The Greek says “ I am the (sole) one existing (eternally)” capturing the Hebrew’s denotation per se.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Premise 1: Begetting in the present time (Proverbs 8:25 LXX)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Premise 2: God is the one who begets&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Premise 3: God is without beginning or ending (Exodus 3:14)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: The present time reflects back to eternity for God is the begetter himself.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Admittedly, the question of &lt;strong&gt;how is the Son begotten?&lt;/strong&gt; is a very tough question to answer because we humans are trying to grasp the infinite but this doesn't mean we can't know the answer. In fact, it was given already by God himself through revelation in the Holy Scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son has no beginning of existence because of three reasons, namely, (i) consubstantiality,(ii) spirituality,(iii) internal relations (personal property)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Consubstantiality&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Like begets Like.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Father that has no beginning has a Son that has no beginning.&#xA;A Father that has a beginning has a Son that has a beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The former is divine reality while the latter is a fleshy reality,of human nature. Both realities corresponds to the scientific law of biogenesis and Gregor Mendel's laws in Genetics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The origin or source of the Son is the Father.&#xA;Naturally and inevitably the Son is caused to exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between the begetting of Jesus and of the saints:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The begetting of the Christian&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:12-13, 3:3-7, 1 Peter 1:3- Christian &lt;strong&gt;begotten again&lt;/strong&gt; by God himself and is born again&#xA;2 Peter 1:4 -Christians participates in &lt;strong&gt;God's own nature&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 8:15- Christians are &lt;strong&gt;adopted&lt;/strong&gt; children of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 3:26 -children of God through &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The begetting of the Son&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 8:22-30 compare to 1 Corinthians 1:24-25, (Compare Romans 1:3-4 to Acts 13:35, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5), 1 John 5:18 -The Son &lt;strong&gt;begotten&lt;/strong&gt; by the Father himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9 - The Son has &lt;strong&gt;God’s own nature&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 5:18, Romans 8:3 – The Son is God’s own i.e. &lt;strong&gt;proper Son&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 1:2-3 -- The Son of God through &lt;strong&gt;communication of nature&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Spirituality&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The begetting is not physical but metaphysical. It happens in the being of God as spirit ( John 4:24).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father has one nature. This nature is indivisible. Because of this, either the Son has the whole nature or not. He can't be part of the whole for God's nature is indivisible. Ergo, the Son has the whole substance of the Father. He was not from nothing ( ex nihilo) but from the Father ( John 16:28).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3. Internal relations ( personal property)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son is the reason, wisdom and power per se of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Offspring of God is his very own: (i) logos (John 1:1) (ii) sophia ( Hebrews 1:3) (iii) dynamis ( 1 Corinthians 1:24)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the begetting of the Son, there is a real originination of existence and there is a real production that is happening not just a metaphor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Origin&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son truly has an origin or source of his very existence. He is not dependent of himself for existence because he himself is a son. He depends on his Father for existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot; The Son is auto-theos because of his nature not because of his sonship.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son has an origin of existence (i.e. the Father) but does not have a beginning of existence.&#xA;Someone/something who has an origin can still be co-eval with its source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Example:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A heavy ball is placed on a cushion, there's a depression caused in the cushion. The moment it was placed on the cushion was the exact moment when the depression was caused. Hence, the cause and the effect are coeval.&#xA;In the Bible, the Father begets the Son. The cause of the Son is the Father but yet he is without beginning because the Father is without beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures itself in John 1:1-3 and 1 John 1:1-3 stated that the Son, the Logos, is &quot;from the beginning( i.e. God)&quot; for God is the &quot; beginning, origin and source of all things&quot; ( 1 Cor. 8:6).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2. Production&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God truly produces his offspring.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father ( the Primary Subsistence) begets ( produces) his own Son ( Wisdom, Power, Word) out of his own self.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do the Father begets his own Son out of himself?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through t*hinking of his own self*.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thinking- a process of intellect by which a rational being knows and understands and makes actions and judgments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we think, we use our schema (i.e. past information) to either form a new one from it or to add a new one from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Information is gained via experience and hence the term &quot;experiential knowledge&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But in God, he has the ability to know all things but he doesn't have ability to experience all that he knows for he has the trait of immutability, that is, he cannot do anything that contradicts his nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Example:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knows hell but he cannot experience it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A human person thinks of himself, gaining self-knowledge. A man is a duality of expressive image. He is both corporeal and spiritual. The flesh is the body while the psyche is the mind/spirit. The psyche is responsible for gaining the ultimate meaning of the whole personality while the body is through which personal function is  experienced via the senses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact is, humans do not have complete, perfect knowledge of himself. This case is evident in the first instance of human existence, and what is that single word that describes the whole of happenings in a human being? GROWTH and or DEVELOPMENT. Hence, showing our incompleteness per se in our very own being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In God, however, neither is growth nor development needed for he is complete in himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The evidence that God is perfect is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(i) logos- God does not need an explanation, logic and understand of anything existing including his own existence from outside himself ( ad intra) . We humans, being rational, does make reason and do reasoning involving logic and understanding form outside ourselves ( ad extra).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(ii) sophia - God doesn't need knowledge to make wise decisions on a matter. We humans need knowledge and specifically, an experiential knowledge to make right judgments, decisions etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(iii) dynamis - God doesn't need food, water, etc. to have the ability to do something. We humans, without proper nourishment, will inevitably be in the state of malfunction , inertia and eventually,of  demise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why God doesn't need human operations for his divine traits?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is because he is not human! His own logos, sophia and dynamis are in fact, the very &lt;em&gt;function&lt;/em&gt; of his own Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the generation of the Son out of the Father through self-thinking. This is like seeing your self in a mirror that reflects all of your totality: body, soul and spirit, with all of its minute details. In God, however, he is perfect. His own being generates a second person of himself. A Person -- not nature-- produces another person. In this act we have the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) Distribution of substance(2) Distinction of persons&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOT&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(1) Division of substance&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;SOURCES:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christian-history.org/nicea.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.christian-history.org/nicea.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/dictionary-eternal-generation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://carm.org/dictionary-eternal-generation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bible-researcher.com/eternal-generation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bible-researcher.com/eternal-generation.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-generation.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-generation.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T08:10:46.163" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T08:10:46.163" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22719" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20452" CreationDate="2013-11-11T08:24:32.743" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Origination (source) is a property of a &lt;em&gt;person&lt;/em&gt; not of &lt;em&gt;nature&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in nature. They have the same nature but not the same person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In regards to their person-hood, each of them are distinct rational individuals persons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Christianity at large, there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of &lt;em&gt;origin&lt;/em&gt; as the Fourth Lateran Council declared:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy&#xA;  Spirit who proceeds&quot;) and in their relations with one another, they&#xA;  are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and&#xA;  consubstantial, and &quot;each is God, whole and entire&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/sscr.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(source)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2015-09-10T14:39:15.487" LastActivityDate="2015-09-10T14:39:15.487" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22721" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2300" CreationDate="2013-11-11T11:07:39.717" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The interpretation of verse doesn’t say God “needed” to rest; but that God stopped His acts of creation on the seventh day.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:2  And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hebrew word “u•ishbth” when translated has one of the main definitions as “to cease or stop.” So the understanding is that God “stopped” His work; He “ceased” creating on the seventh day.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God said, “Let there be light,” the light appeared. He simply spoke creation into existence. Throughout, Bible depicts God as omnipotent—He has all power— and it doesn’t make much sense that He would need to “rest.” That is not the intended meaning of this verse or the word. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because God ceased from work that day, the Israelites were to cease from their work on the Sabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T11:07:39.717" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22722" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22751" CreationDate="2013-11-11T11:49:47.617" Score="3" ViewCount="10365" Body="&lt;p&gt;Did God allowed incest before? Did Noah and his family committed incest? If yes when did God start forbidding it and why? If no, how did Noah and his family repopulate the world and how about the risk of genetic diseases caused by the inbreeding?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="4384" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T11:58:53.130" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T04:34:36.140" Title="Was incest allowed by God before?" Tags="&lt;noah&gt;&lt;incest&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-11-13T21:37:30.597" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22723" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22722" CreationDate="2013-11-11T11:59:25.077" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sexual relations between close relatives was indeed permitted&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; until the time of The Law, given through Moses. You can read about it in detail in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Leviticus 18&lt;/a&gt; but it is summarised in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18:6&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;verse 6&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was it forbidden? Possibly because of genetic problems that occur in offspring of close relations, though that is speculation - that chapter does not give any general reason.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1 As an example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2020:12&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Abraham was married to Sarah, his half-sister&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See also:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5389/was-the-marriage-between-abraham-and-sarah-incestuous&quot;&gt;Was the marriage between Abraham and Sarah incestuous?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5049/did-adam-and-eves-progeny-commit-incest&quot;&gt;Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T12:06:49.047" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22725" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="44940" CreationDate="2013-11-11T12:24:49.527" Score="19" ViewCount="37031" Body="&lt;p&gt;During yesterday's sermon, the pastor mentioned the theory that the thieves crucified next to Jesus likely weren't simple thieves to warrant such a sentence, but were probably &quot;thieves with a cause.&quot;  He suggested today they would likely have been considered religious or political zealots, or &quot;terrorists.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pastor's suggestion seems a &lt;em&gt;little&lt;/em&gt; far-fetched to me, based on how the thieves responded to Jesus:  One mocking him, the other asking pardon.  These don't seem like the sorts of attitudes that religious or political zealots sentenced to death are likely to exhibit.  I would expect &quot;terrorists&quot; to more closely identify with their cause.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we have enough information, historically or textually, to draw any conclusions about these thieves' crimes?  Was crucifixion used to punish &quot;simple thieves?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-10-30T14:05:24.397" LastActivityDate="2020-11-19T03:37:31.070" Title="What crime was committed by the &quot;thieves&quot; crucified with Jesus?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;civil-government&gt;&lt;thief-on-the-cross&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22726" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22729" CreationDate="2013-11-11T12:41:19.640" Score="7" ViewCount="5668" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Luke 23, there is a brief conversation between Jesus and one of the thieves crucified beside him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This seems to be a promise to the thief of salvation, of eternal life, and that this promise will be fulfilled imminently; not after a long period in Purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do Catholics interpret and explain this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-03-11T14:59:32.160" Title="How do Catholics explain Jesus' words to the thief on the cross, in light of the doctrine of Purgatory?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;purgatory&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22728" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22726" CreationDate="2013-11-11T13:06:39.583" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Reading the biblical narrative, we can conclude that the good thief's sins are forgiven by Christ on the cross. And that the thief would have followed Christ if he were to live (&lt;em&gt;baptism of desire&lt;/em&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A sinner who dies after receiving baptism without atoning for his sins he will not enter purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With these two reasonable assumptions, we can say that the necessity for entering purgatory for him did not arise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, &lt;strong&gt;as well as all punishment for sin&lt;/strong&gt;. CCC 1263&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their &lt;em&gt;explicit desire to receive it&lt;/em&gt;, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, &lt;strong&gt;assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament&lt;/strong&gt;. CCC 1259&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T13:06:39.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22729" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22726" CreationDate="2013-11-11T13:07:14.583" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Benedict XVI addressed this in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120215_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;General Audience on 15 February 2012&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second word spoken by Jesus on the Cross recorded by St Luke is a word of hope, it is his answer to the prayer of one of the two men crucified with him. The good thief comes to his senses before Jesus and repents, he realizes he is facing the Son of God who makes the very Face of God visible, and begs him; “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power” (v. 42). The Lord’s answer to this prayer goes far beyond the request: in fact he says: “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (v. 43). Jesus knows that he is entering into direct communion with the Father and reopening to man the way to God’s paradise. Thus, with this response, he gives the firm hope that God’s goodness can also touch us, even at the very last moment of life, and that sincere prayer, even after a wrong life, encounters the open arms of the good Father who awaits the return of his son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dear brothers and sisters, the words of Jesus on the Cross at the last moments of his earthly life offer us demanding instructions for our prayers, but they also open us to serene trust and firm hope. Jesus, who asks the Father to forgive those who are crucifying him, invites us to take the difficult step of also praying for those who wrong us, who have injured us, ever able to forgive, so that God’s light may illuminate their hearts; and he invites us to live in our prayers the same attitude of mercy and love with which God treats us; “forgive us our trespasses and forgive those who trespass against us”, we say every day in the Lord’s prayer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the same time, Jesus, who at the supreme moment of death entrusts himself totally to the hands of God the Father, communicates to us the certainty that, however harsh the trial, however difficult the problems, however acute the suffering may be, we shall never fall from God’s hands, those hands that created us, that sustain us and that accompany us on our way through life, because they are guided by an infinite and faithful love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that there is no mention of &lt;em&gt;Today&lt;/em&gt;. Eternity is outside time: while the thief was indeed to die &amp;quot;today&amp;quot;, he then entered eternity, which cannot be measured in earthly time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is entirely possible that the repentant thief went through Purgatory, but any time spent there cannot be measured.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism&lt;/a&gt; has more to say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that Christ himself imparted his grace and friendship to the penitent thief, who are we to say that he was not perfectly purified by those words? It is entirely possible that he did not experience Purgatory at all, and that Christ's &lt;em&gt;today&lt;/em&gt; did actually mean &lt;em&gt;today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One difficulty with timings in earthly time is that Christ descended to the dead before his Resurrection, and then spent six weeks on earth before ascending to his Father. This gives weight to his &lt;em&gt;Today&lt;/em&gt; pointing to an Eternity outside earthly time: from an &lt;strong&gt;earthly&lt;/strong&gt; point of view, it certainly wasn't &lt;em&gt;today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The end result? We don't know. We can be certain of Benedict's interpretation that we have &amp;quot;the firm hope that God’s goodness can also touch us, even at the very last moment of life, and that sincere prayer, even after a wrong life, encounters the open arms of the good Father who awaits the return of his son.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T13:07:14.583" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22730" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19937" CreationDate="2013-11-11T14:09:58.040" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses my entire life, 35 years, and was recently appointed as an elder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What are the requirements for a person to become an elder?&lt;/strong&gt; - They have to fulfill the requirements mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-9.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What type of training do elders have?&lt;/strong&gt; - When they are first appointed as elders they usually have had the same training as all other members of the congregation; years of personal bible study and regular meeting attendance. After they are appointed they get ongoing training every few years at different seminars.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And have elders ever been formally trained in Christian history, biblical studies, or theology?&lt;/strong&gt; - Christian history - yes. Biblical studies - I guess so (not sure what you mean). theology - no, unless they got that training when they were part of another religion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A related question: are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to read a mainstream, scholarly bible?&lt;/strong&gt; - We are allowed to read any bible we choose. During our meetings it is preferred that we use the New World Translation so we can be on the same page (pun intended).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user8561" LastEditorDisplayName="user8561" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T14:20:53.813" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T14:20:53.813" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22732" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19981" CreationDate="2013-11-11T15:18:51.670" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not just Mexican, mostly a Catholic tradition.&#xA;(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one way to carry-out this tradition:&#xA;Catholics ask saints to give a word or two to God for them.&#xA;So, if my name is Peter, I should IDENTIFY myself with Peter's Day,&#xA;present gifts, ask people to help me with extra treatment/presents, so&#xA;together with Saint Peter, in God's favor, I can ask what I want/need. &#xA;Can't get that on a b-day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it is a TOOL to help a Catholic identify with God.&#xA;Never the less, a tradition, not that is right or wrong. But far from the truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Quinceañera, is a right-of-passage, personal birthday. Not answered here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6506" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T15:18:51.670" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22733" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9272" CreationDate="2013-11-11T15:19:18.577" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Salvation from hell is by grace through faith in Christ alone ( Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 6:23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once a person received Christ the Lord as his Savior ( John 1:12), he/she is now possessing free will either to disobey God ( consequence is chastisement not hell- Hebrews ) or to obey God ( consequence is temporal blessings not heaven- Hebrews , Matthew 6:33).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we can notice, the consequence of a believer's action always leads to persevering in the faith just as the Scriptures says &quot; the just shall live by faith&quot; and &quot; from faith to faith&quot;( Romans, Hebrews).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:2 Look on Jesus who is the source and the completer of our faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What this means is that salvation from hell is monergistic but sanctification on earth is synergistic ( Philippians 2:11-13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, the Holy Spirit cannot completely control the Christian in the sense that he/she did not choose it. God acts upon our choice. [ Note that this is only for those saved by grace through faith apart from any works].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Christian will be under the complete control of the Holy Spirit via exterminating his/her free will to disobey either at death , rapture or at the resurrection.[ As to why God still allows his children to sin is for their sake because he\she can prove himself\herself the victory over sin he\she have in Christ Jesus].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2013-11-11T15:30:29.050" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T15:30:29.050" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22734" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22726" CreationDate="2013-11-11T15:26:26.183" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Andrew points out &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/22729/1377&quot;&gt;in his answer&lt;/a&gt;, Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) has effectively written a great deal in order to precisely clarify what the Church teaches concerning the necessity of purgatory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his book &lt;em&gt;Death and Eternal Life&lt;/em&gt; he writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The transforming 'moment' of this encounter cannot be quantified by the&#xA;measurements of earthly time. It is, indeed, not eternal but a transition,&#xA;and yet trying to qualify it as of 'short' or 'long' duration on the basis of&#xA;temporal measurements derived from physics would be naive and&#xA;unproductive. The 'temporal measure' of this encounter lies in the&#xA;unsoundable depths of existence, in a passing-over where we are burned&#xA;and where we are transformed. To measure such Existenzzeit, such an&#xA;&amp;quot;existential time,&amp;quot; in terms of the time of this world would be to ignore&#xA;the specificity of the human spirit in its simultaneous relationship with,&#xA;and differentation from, the world. . . .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[Purgatory] is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which&#xA;a person becomes capable&#xA;of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole&#xA;communion of saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most, if not all of the misconceptions surrounding the doctrine of purgatory stem from our finite projection of time upon the existential nature of life after death. Once the presupposition of seeing purgatory as a &amp;quot;holding cell&amp;quot; rather than a purification process is rejected or thrown away - that is when real progressive understanding can be somewhat made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T12:06:54.967" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22735" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22706" CreationDate="2013-11-11T15:55:58.697" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Although I cannot give you a definitive answer to your question, I will tell you what I have come to believe from my study of the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It may have been God himself who decided to use the image of a dove in this case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that time the heart of worship was the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible written by Moses. these were supported by the prophets.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All Israelite children were educated on these books, since the Law was the guide for all facets of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They would be very familiar with the story of Noah and the flood, and when Noah sent out  Raven to see if the waters had begun to dry up the Raven did not return, so Noah then sent out a Dove which returned with an olive branch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 8:7 through 11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7  And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8  Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9  But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10  And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11  And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And just as the Dove announced that the world was beginning to become available as a habitant. So the Dove in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 3:16  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 1:10  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 3:22  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:32  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Announced that Heaven was beginning to become to become available as an eternal habitant for man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course that is only my belief and you may or may not accept that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;you can vote however you want&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T15:55:58.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22737" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22726" CreationDate="2013-11-11T17:00:09.613" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way the Good Thief entered Heaven is an example of how God is not bound by His sacraments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are &amp;quot;reborn of water and the Spirit.&amp;quot; God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1257.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;CCC 1257&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Good Thief received Sanctifying Grace in an extraordinary way and AFAIK from listening to Easter Vigil preaching during Adult Baptisms, the Church's teaching on Baptism is that if one was to die immediately after receiving Baptism that their soul would go straight to heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;You might then ask, why are not all deathbed converts Saints?  &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well, you can't know what's going on in a person's soul at the moment of their death, no one can discern how attached someone is to the sins of their past life any more than you can discern if a suicide is sorry for what they've done to themselves and their family.   That's why proof in the form of miracles is needed for Holy folks who die peacefully and not for martyrs.  For martyrs it is clear that the martyr laid down his or her life for Christ so the state of their soul is made visible by the manner in which they died.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke 23 is not a good example for Purgatory or Baptism&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God is not bound by His sacraments&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Baptism doesn't make you a Saint, but it helps.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T17:00:09.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22741" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2300" CreationDate="2013-11-11T19:12:38.750" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In a sense, Jesus settled this issue with His words in Mark 2:27, where He said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.'&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for God's &quot;resting&quot; on the seventh day of creation was for our benefit, not His.  He set a pattern for us to follow by giving us the command to work for six days and rest for one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As important as work is, it is not the end-all and be-all of life. We need to seek balance in all things, and to set aside time to worship God within a local assembly of believers is not only a key part of our service of worship but it an important means of having our spiritual batteries recharged for the week ahead.  On Sunday, the traditional day many Christians &quot;go to church,&quot; ever since Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week, we &lt;strong&gt;give back&lt;/strong&gt; to God by singing His praises and celebrating His faithfulness and goodness during the past week, and we &lt;strong&gt;receive&lt;/strong&gt; the strength to enter a new week with renewed spiritual vigor for doing God's will, individually and corporately. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To &quot;work&quot; on the seventh/first day is not a sin, as Jesus pointed out. He, being Lord of the Sabbath, put His imprimatur on &quot;doing good&quot; on the Sabbath (see Matthew 12, Mark 2, and Luke 6). That good could very well involve working for wages, on the one hand, or helping a brother or sister in Christ to move into a new apartment, on the other.  However, as soon as we start to neglect to our own hurt and the hurt of others the gathering of ourselves together in a local fellowship, we risk losing that balance which God desires for all of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T19:12:38.750" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22742" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22726" CreationDate="2013-11-11T20:09:58.653" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Depends on where you put the comma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;“Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” &#xA;“Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.”&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told the Good Thief that the two of them would be together &quot;this day&quot; in &quot;Paradise&quot; (Luke 23:43; see also Matthew 27:38); but between on the Sunday of his resurrection he said that he had &quot;not yet ascended to the Father&quot; (John 20:17). Some say that the descent of Jesus to the abode of the dead, his presence among them, turned it into a paradise.[4][5] Others understand the text to mean not &quot;I say to you, This day you will be with me in paradise&quot;, but &quot;I say to you this day, You will be with me in paradise&quot;. Timothy Radcliffe explained the &quot;today&quot; as a reference to the &quot;Today of eternity&quot;.[6]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2013-11-11T20:09:58.653" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22745" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20452" CreationDate="2013-11-11T21:50:59.870" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In NME culture, the firstborn, especially the firstborn son, was very special indeed. He had privileges and perquisites subsequent children did not.  Interestingly, one of the titles for Jesus is&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Firstborn of all creation&quot; (Colossians 1:15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This expression does not mean Jesus was created; it does mean that He bears the honorific title of Firstborn, with all the privileges that accrue from being so named. Moreover, He is the creator of all things (ibid., v.16); He existed before all things and holds all things together by the word of His power (ibid., v.17); He is the head of the church, His body; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; He has the first place in everything (ibid., v.18); and all the fullness of Deity dwells in Him (ibid., v.19). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the greatest verse to indicate the equality of Jesus with the Father (besides Jesus' own words, &quot;He who has seen me has seen the Father. The Father and I are one person,&quot; John 10:30; 14:19; 17:21) is Colossians 2:9,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For in [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse does not say that Jesus became Divine when He came to earth as a baby, born of the virgin Mary.  He was God the Son in eternity, and He never ceased being God the Son, even during the 33 years of His self-emptying life on earth as the God-Man, Jesus Christ (see Philippians 2:7 ff.).  Moreover, He will never cease being God, albeit as God in the flesh-and-bone body of a man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Within the triune Godhead, there is one shining star, and that is Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.  No one preceded Him; no one followed Him.  He is &lt;em&gt;sui generis&lt;/em&gt;, as the French say. While some Roman Catholics will disagree with me on this point, the eternal Son of God, the second person of the trinity, was neither conceived nor born; He simply is:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In eternity past, the Son was the delight of His Father, and the Father of the Son.  In other words, they loved one another, and always will. Moreover, each person in the Trinity seems to have a unique, yet overlapping, role to play.  Concerning the Father and the Son, Jesus said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'All things have been handed over [or delegated] to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him'&quot; (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While your question bypasses the role of the Holy Spirit, He too has been delegated a role; namely, to reveal Jesus to people by removing the blindness from their spiritual eyes and by imparting Jesus' words of life to them, first, when they are first born from above, and second, as they grow in Christ.  Christ, in other words, is formed in us by the unseen work of the Holy Spirit of God during the lifelong process of sanctification. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Trinity is indeed a mind-blowing doctrine, neither easily explained nor easily understood.  It is, however, part of the bedrock of the Christian faith.  The only acceptable sacrifice for sin had to be both fully God and fully man, the infinitely perfect, spotless, and holy Lamb of God.  Anything less would not suffice to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb 9:26). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2015-02-18T17:47:47.857" LastActivityDate="2015-02-18T17:47:47.857" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22746" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6039" CreationDate="2013-11-11T21:59:45.970" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Mormon beliefs are one of the few I haven't studied. I'm not sure if what they say is in harmony with the bible or not. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-timothy/3/&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3;1-7&lt;/a&gt; Shows the actions and qualities of those who are &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; walking on God's path to life. The bible warns about the men who try to subvert the truth. It says towards the end of that paragraph from 2 Timothy in verse 5 those men would be &quot;Having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power&quot;. In that same chapter Paul goes on to say that men will go on misleading and being misled and that we need to use the holy scriptures to avoid being misled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way of looking at this question is to ask are their actions in harmony with the bible teaches? If you are looking to see if they are possibly a form of true religion then you can turn to the bible for that answer. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/7/&quot;&gt;Matthew 7;15-20&lt;/a&gt; shows us that by his worshipers fruits, or that is to say actions, you will know them as God's people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible gives us a list of qualities that identify his worshipers. First and foremost is Love for God and second love thy neighbor which means everyone not just those in your congregation (John 13;35, Mark 12;31)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His true worshipers will teach the people of all nations about Jehovah God's name, his purpose for the earth and those on it, and baptize them in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/28/#v40028001&quot;&gt;Matthew 28; 19-20&lt;/a&gt; ). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They observe the moral standards set by God in the bible and follow Jesus example. They are no part of the world. That involves not involving yourself in any form of politics, war, worldly lifestyles that conflict with christian morals, etc..(John 18;36) If the laws of the land you live in do not conflict with God's laws then you are to follow them (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/13/#v45013001&quot;&gt;Romans 13;1&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly true worship must accept Jesus's ransom sacrifice as their only means of salvation. The bible states that &quot;There is no salvation in anyone else&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/4/#v44004012&quot;&gt;Acts 4;12&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adding onto the bible is already addressed above so there is no need for me to do so. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on the statements of identifying true worship do you think The Mormons beliefs and actions Harmonizes with the bibles?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-12-27T01:48:10.847" LastActivityDate="2013-12-27T01:48:10.847" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22747" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6602" CreationDate="2013-11-12T00:50:13.543" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the wheels of God's throne are to indicate to us that God's throne is not staying in &quot;Heaven&quot; (which is actually where God's throne is)! Revelation 21-22 reveal that God's throne will MOVE - it will descend with the New Jerusalem to the (New) Earth after Jesus' Second Coming! God's ultimate plan is to join with His creation, creating Heaven on the New Earth, dwelling with us face-to-face forever, just as was the case before the Fall in Genesis 1-2. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God's ultimate plan is to bring the Heavenly and Earthly realms together in the resurrection and eternal Kingdom of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth.&quot; - Ephesians 1:10 (NLT)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is all thanks to Jesus' victory over sin and death on the cross, and His future victory in establishing the Kingdom of God in power and fullness as He vanquishes the evil worldwide empire of the AntiChrist. All glory to the lamb that was slain! The eternal dominion of the eternal Kingdom of God belongs to the Son of God and Son of Man, our amazing, loving, humble, just, and mighty savior! As the second/last Adam who fulfilled perfectly the will of the Father as a human (yet eternally was and is fully God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity), He alone is worthy to fulfill the dominion mandate given by God to humanity, as the fully-God, fully-man, King of kings and Lord of lords. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8572" LastEditorUserId="8572" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T00:56:19.567" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T00:56:19.567" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22748" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20587" CreationDate="2013-11-12T01:32:39.153" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I couldn't say it for certain but I imagine the book of Ruth could justify women working.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Ruth, after Naomi returned with Ruth to her homeland, Ruth gleaned from the fields. (See Ruth Chapt 2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specifically:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go to the fields and&#xA;  pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favor.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Naomi said to her, “Go ahead, my daughter.” 3 So she went out, entered&#xA;  a field and began to glean behind the harvesters. As it turned out,&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;she was working&lt;/strong&gt; in a field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of&#xA;  Elimelek.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T01:32:39.153" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22749" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2003" CreationDate="2013-11-12T01:56:24.087" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I don't think this is a very serious logical problem at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, we need to define omnipotence properly. It is not the ability of God to do anything. Christians have always recognised that God cannot sin, lie, cease to exist etc. Omnipotence is God's ability to do all that He pleases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondly, we must realise that the basis of God's omniscience is His knowledge of Himself. As John Frame puts it, God’s knowledge depends only on Himself. God knows all things by knowing Himself and knowing His plan for the universe. Since both of these objects of thought are eternal, God’s knowledge is eternal.(J. Frame, The Doctrine of God, 481)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this is the case, then God's knowledge of all that has been, is and will be is grounded in His pleasure (i.e. the purpose of His will). God's omniscience is in part, His knowing what He has been pleased to bring about in space and time, and His omnipotence is His ability to do His pleasure. Where is the contradiction?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8573" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T01:56:24.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22751" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22722" CreationDate="2013-11-12T04:34:36.140" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The passengers on the ark included three sons of Noah and their wives. The next generation of the family would be first cousins. Even leaving aside the fact that the Law came long after Noah, first cousins is not one of the forbidden relationships.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Plenty of places permit marriage between first cousins even today; the US is relatively unusual in forbidding it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T04:34:36.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22752" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22766" CreationDate="2013-11-12T04:40:32.227" Score="4" ViewCount="10515" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the Bible I have seen (Catholic and Protestant) have the books in the Bible divided into two groups - Old Testament and New Testament. There is always a dedicated page just before the Book of Genesis with the title &lt;em&gt;&quot;The Old Testament&quot;&lt;/em&gt; which indicates that the books that follow after this page falls under this category. There is also a dedicated page just before the Gospel of Matthew with the title &lt;em&gt;&quot;The New Testament&quot;&lt;/em&gt; indicating that the books after this page are categorized as New Testament. I have also seen some Christians holding a small Bible having only the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs as an addition. I wonder why do we have this division. I'm also perplexed by the use of the terms &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Old&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;New&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. I need some historical and theological background to help me understand this division. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When did this division happen?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why did they make this division?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Does this division bear any significant importance?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Can we simply divide the Bible as &lt;em&gt;&quot;Books written before Christ&quot;&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;&quot;Books written after Christ&quot;&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Was the use of the terms &lt;em&gt;'Old'&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;'New'&lt;/em&gt; accidental or intentional?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is this division necessary?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there any Bible that doesn't have this division?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T07:32:03.940" LastActivityDate="2021-01-18T03:58:52.803" Title="Why is the Bible divided into Old Testament and New Testament?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22753" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-12T05:10:26.523" Score="3" ViewCount="268" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete;&#xA;  and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. &lt;em&gt;(Hebrews 8:13,&#xA;  NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the light of the Epistle to Hebrews, what did the author mean by &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;The First Covenant&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;The New Covenant&quot;&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the &lt;em&gt;First Covenant&lt;/em&gt; which is now outdated and will soon disappear?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T15:51:44.197" Title="What is the Obsolete Covenant?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;hebrews&gt;&lt;covenants&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2013-11-12T16:37:37.963" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22754" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18973" CreationDate="2013-11-12T05:31:44.707" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rhetorician I can't comment yet, but would like to tell you you'r explanation is amazing both in its detail and clarity. I can't explain the answer any better myself, so I will just leave my own thoughts and possibly some bias from what I've been taught.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As explained above we see in the second fulfillment of this prophecy that in the time of the end things will be so miserable that people will wish they where dead and any parent doesn't want to see their own child suffer. &lt;strong&gt;Luke 23;29&lt;/strong&gt; states that &quot;Happy are the barren women&quot; because they will not have to watch their children suffer . This also doubles as a warning. The end times are no time to be starting a family. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/mark/passage.aspx?q=mark+13:8-13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 13;8-13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; NIV translation. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/mark/13/#v41013008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NWT here&lt;/a&gt; We see from 8-13 that the end times are going to be chaotic and also that your own family will betray you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This isn't just what I'm taking away from that chapter. The bible comes right out and says it. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/mark/13/#v41013017&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 13;17-19&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people Jesus is describing are those who have not come to know him and do not observe &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; of gods commandments. I think that the reference to the mountains and hills falling over them and covering them is to provide shelter from gods anger. Some will &quot;weep and gnash their teeth&quot; because they thought they were serving god, but where in fact involved in false religion and where thus destroyed. They were tricked so they are understandably angry. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/13/#v40013042&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 13;40-42&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could say this next article is biased, but it has a lot of good information and graphs that illustrate the first and second coming. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/jesus-prophecy-last-days/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;first&lt;/a&gt; article in this magazine covers the first and second fulfillment of that prophecy. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/jesus-parable-wheat-and-weeds/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;second&lt;/a&gt; breaks down and explains Jesus's parable of the wheat and the weeds.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T05:31:44.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22756" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22752" CreationDate="2013-11-12T07:31:43.340" Score="3" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The events, or historical division happened at the time of Christ's arrival.  The New Testament books, of course, hadn't been written yet.  The New Testament books were written after this event, and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64496/biblical-literature/73387/The-process-of-canonization&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;canonization of Scripture&lt;/a&gt; happened later, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;by the fifth century A.D.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Because &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/hall-sacrifice.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christ is the fulfillment of the old Testament&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Absolutely!  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Covenant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Old Testament dealt with the old covenant, which was the promise between God and His people based on obedience to Mosaic law&lt;/a&gt;.  The New Testament is based on God's promise of eternal life, based not on man's ability to keep the law (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&amp;amp;flypage=flypage.tpl&amp;amp;product_id=92&amp;amp;category_id=8&amp;amp;option=com_virtuemart&amp;amp;Itemid=199&amp;amp;lang=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;we can't&lt;/a&gt;) but rather on the perfection of Christ and &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;His substitutionary sacrifice&lt;/a&gt;.  The division between the two marks two distinct covenants, the one replacing the other.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sure, that's one way of looking at it.  You might be interested in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8554/why-are-the-books-of-the-protestant-bible-in-the-order-that-they-are-in&quot;&gt;Why are the books of the Protestant Bible in the order that they are in?&lt;/a&gt; for a less simplistic view.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;I'm sure that they are intentional.  One is, after all, older than the other.  (Implying that the other is the new one.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Yes.  Christ is the turning point. It is upon Him that all of Christianity is based. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(crickets chirping.)  I can't answer that one.  I'm not aware of any, but it's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;impossible to prove the non-existence of anything&lt;/a&gt;.  But, remember that the Bible isn't one book, or even 2 - but rather 66 (or 73 if you're Catholic!).  To &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; have a division is to misrepresent what these things are.  It would be akin to going to a library and finding all the books shoved into one.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T16:28:23.883" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22757" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4620" CreationDate="2013-11-12T10:05:52.613" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;From an LDS perspective:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Christ always said  he was sent from his father in heaven.  He  did not just begin to exist  from his earthly  birth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We all talk about death like being called  home to God .  If we are called home that means we use to live there once before.  As it states in Jeremiah' before I formed thee in the belly and before thou camest forth from the womb I knew thee and foreordained thee to be a prophet unto the nations.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The plan of salvation enables us God's  spirit children to have a chance to come to earth and prove ourselves worthy to return to heaven.  We will not be singing and playing harps all day long like some people think of heaven.   God will endow us with more knowledge and power to enjoy the things that he enjoys, do as he does, and yes even create as he creates.  His angels have a portion of that power now.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8576" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T15:14:49.503" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T15:14:49.503" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22758" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22773" CreationDate="2013-11-12T10:05:58.167" Score="4" ViewCount="873" Body="&lt;p&gt;All the Bible I have seen have title-pages for both New Testament and Old Testament. There is always a dedicated page just before the Book of Genesis with the title &quot;The Old Testament&quot; which indicates that the books that follow after this page falls under this category. There is also a dedicated page just before the Gospel of Matthew with the title &quot;The New Testament&quot; indicating that the books after this page are categorized as New Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to know how it was in the antique Greek Bibles and I checked the Codex Sinaiticus online. Have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?dir=prev&amp;amp;folioNo=1&amp;amp;lid=en&amp;amp;quireNo=74&amp;amp;side=r&amp;amp;zoomSlider=0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this particular page&lt;/a&gt;, which is the last page of the Book of Job and the last page for the Old Testament in Codex Sinaiticus. The next page is Gospel of Matthew. I did not find any extra page dedicated for the title &quot;The Old Testament&quot;. (&lt;em&gt;I can't read Greek, so please someone read for me what is written at the bottom right corner of the page as I believe it marks the end of Old Testament or something like that&lt;/em&gt;)  :P&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When did the division of the Bible into Old Testament and New Testament started?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When was it decided that it should be divided?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Thanks in advance to whoever read those Greek words for me)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T19:21:41.300" LastActivityDate="2018-08-05T20:29:20.430" Title="When did the insertion of title-page for Old Testament and New Testament started?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22761" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-12T13:31:21.183" Score="-1" ViewCount="262" Body="&lt;p&gt;Philippians 1:1 says, &quot;Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus is not here but seated above in heaven, how do his people get a sense or assurance of really serving him? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-06-18T03:25:42.777" LastActivityDate="2014-06-18T03:25:42.777" Title="How can you serve God when you can't see him?" Tags="&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-11-23T17:34:49.750" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22762" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22761" CreationDate="2013-11-12T13:37:05.653" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Jesus' own words, we serve Him by serving our fellow man as He commanded.  This is, perhaps, clearest in the following passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 25:31-46 King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy&#xA;  angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate&#xA;  them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the&#xA;  goats:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the&#xA;  left.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye&#xA;  blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the&#xA;  foundation of the world:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye&#xA;  gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in&#xA;  prison, and ye came unto me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee&#xA;  an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and&#xA;  clothed thee?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,&#xA;  Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my&#xA;  brethren, ye have done it unto me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me,&#xA;  ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his&#xA;  angels:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye&#xA;  gave me no drink:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me&#xA;  not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an&#xA;  hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison,&#xA;  and did not minister unto thee?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch&#xA;  as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the&#xA;  righteous into life eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also serve Him by keeping His commandments, and by fulfilling the Great Commission.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His physical, visible presence isn't required for us to serve Him. That's true in many cases outside the realm of Christianity. Do we not serve our soldiers by ensuring their families' needs are met while they are overseas? Do they not serve us, and our country though they can't see us?  I could list many other examples, but you can see the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T16:34:46.240" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T16:34:46.240" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22764" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4192" CreationDate="2013-11-12T14:17:26.783" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The deciding factor at the Great White Throne judgment is whether one's name is written in the LAMB'S Book of Life. Actually if a person's name had been inscribed there, he would have already been a part of the first resurrection. So this verse applies only to those who stand before the Great White Throne.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8579" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T14:17:26.783" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22765" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-12T14:21:01.753" Score="20" ViewCount="11392" Body="&lt;p&gt;An important part of Catholicism is the canonization of saints in the present day. One of the criteria for canonization is the confirmation of miracles associated with the would-be saint. In particular, a great number of &quot;modern&quot; Catholic miracles involve the Virgin Mary, e.g. the &quot;Miracle of the Sun&quot; at Fatima. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Given that protestants believe miracles occurred historically, as recorded in the Bible, and also that protestants are unlikely to believe that the Virgin Mary is performing miracles in the modern days, my question is the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How do protestants react to Catholic miracles? If these claims are met with disbelief, how does a protestant defend her disbelief in the miracles in a way which is not also applicable to the miracles in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it will result in a sharper answer, a response which focuses on one specific miracle, like the Miracle of the Sun, would be helpful and interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1657" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T15:10:50.597" LastActivityDate="2016-03-20T00:23:24.127" Title="How do Protestants view &quot;Catholic&quot; miracles, such as those that attest to a saint?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;miracles&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22766" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22752" CreationDate="2013-11-12T14:36:43.590" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The New Covenant Foretold&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key to the division can be seen in Jeremiah, where God speaks of the old covenant and the new covenant.  Israel had broken the old covenant, so God spoke of a new covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make &lt;strong&gt;a new covenant&lt;/strong&gt; with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 &lt;em&gt;not like the covenant which I made with their fathers&lt;/em&gt; in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, &lt;em&gt;My covenant which they broke&lt;/em&gt;, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;33 “But &lt;strong&gt;this is the covenant which I will make&lt;/strong&gt; with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for &lt;strong&gt;they will all know Me&lt;/strong&gt;, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for &lt;strong&gt;I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more&lt;/strong&gt;.”  Jeremiah 31:31-35 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Breaking of the Old Covenant&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The enumeration of covenants includes those with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David, among others.  So, if we were being precise, we might say the &quot;Old Testaments&quot; (plural) and the &quot;New Testament (singular).  However, the primary covenant that governed all of Israel was probably the Mosaic covenant, which the people broke.  The book of Hebrews affirms this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 But now &lt;strong&gt;He&lt;/strong&gt; [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also &lt;strong&gt;the mediator of a better covenant&lt;/strong&gt;, which has been enacted on better promises.  7 For if &lt;strong&gt;that first covenant&lt;/strong&gt; had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, &#xA;  When I will effect a new covenant&#xA;  With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;&#xA;  9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers&#xA;  On the day when I took them by the hand&#xA;  To lead them out of the land of Egypt;&#xA;  For they did not continue in My covenant,&#xA;  And I did not care for them, says the Lord.&#xA;  10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel&#xA;  After those days, says the Lord:&#xA;  I will put My laws into their minds,&#xA;  And I will write them on their hearts.&#xA;  And I will be their God,&#xA;  And they shall be My people.&#xA;  11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,&#xA;  And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’&#xA;  For all will know Me,&#xA;  From the least to the greatest of them.&#xA;  12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,&#xA;  And I will remember their sins no more.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 When He said, “&lt;strong&gt;A new covenant&lt;/strong&gt;,” He has made &lt;strong&gt;the first obsolete&lt;/strong&gt;. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is, thus, the mediator of the New Covenant, as Hebrews 12 affirms:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to &lt;strong&gt;Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant&lt;/strong&gt;, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.  Hebrews 12:22-24 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Inception of the New Covenant&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This division is affirmed in several places. It was introduced by Jesus at the Last Supper.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “&lt;strong&gt;This cup is the new covenant in My blood&lt;/strong&gt;; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, everything does change with the coming of Jesus. The New Testament is the collection of all the books that being with the life of Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T14:36:43.590" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22767" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22769" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:16:54.517" Score="0" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not familiar with Christianity so I have some questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1- Is Jesus one and only god? I have read some other questions and answers and I have found that there is a real God and Jesus is his son and Jesus is also a god. Isn't it illogical I mean there are 2 god and they have infinite power.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2- Is there any other god except two of them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3- If Jesus is a God then how people killed him? Why he let people to kill?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4- How jesus was born? Is real god create him? If answer is yes can he create more gods?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are my questions for now. Sorry for my english.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8580" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T15:36:24.260" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T17:37:01.637" Title="Are Christians monotheists and what is the nature of Jesus? (i.e. Give me the basics of Christianity please)" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-11-13T00:05:11.837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22768" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12197" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:24:02.227" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This website &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arielministries.org/ariel/roar_main_december2012.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.arielministries.org/ariel/roar_main_december2012.html&lt;/a&gt; has some useful information where there is additional information about the swaddling of the sacrificial lambs.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have always wondered about the significance of Jesus' having been swaddled and the reason that the Angels proclaiming his birth to the shepherds would have included the statement about swaddling cloths.  I was sure that it must have a deeper meaning. As a mother of four, I have always wondered how Mary, who was apparently a wise woman, could have left her home for a long journey without bringing something to wrap her baby in since his delivery was very close.  Mothers are known for nesting as soon as they feel the first kick, and I left my &quot;hospital&quot; bag with all the things I knew my newborns would need in the car for the last few weeks of my pregnancies, just in case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The article I read from the above link tells us that the shepherds near Bethlehem were shepherd-priests, who were the ones who delivered, cared for and raised the lambs which were to be used sacrificially at the nearby Temple.  These shepherds swaddled the Passover lambs right after birth as part of their ceremony to keep the animals from blemish.  So, it stands to reason, that the Angel described Jesus' being swaddled to them so #1 they would know better where to find him( the birthing cave) and #2 they would know him as the Lamb who would be slain for redemption of their sins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8581" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T16:36:02.583" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T16:36:02.583" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22769" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22767" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:27:23.350" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;This answer will mostly link to other answers already on the site - please understand that I'm really taking this as a basic &quot;Give me the basics of Christianity.&quot;  Please understand, normally this would be off-topic, as we are really more geared to experts, but I think having one basic answer here is helpful.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer really needs to explain the two big points of Christianity:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the Nature of God, and &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What is the Nature of Jesus.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two things are both as basic as it gets and hard to understand for non-Christians. As such, putting them in one place helps to define what Christians believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Note: This is stuff that &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/q/884/1039&quot;&gt;all Nicene (read &quot;Mainstream&quot;) Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; believe at one level (+ or - a few very small fringe groups &amp;lt;2%) at a basic level, although there may be nuances in the particulars.  The only real exceptions are those deemed 'heretical' since 325 or a few modern splinter groups, of which the Jehovah's Witness and LDS churches would be the largest outliers.&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the Nature of God?&lt;/strong&gt; (Answer: Trinitarian)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1- Is Jesus one and only god?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In classic, Nicene Christianity, we believe in &quot;The Trinity,&quot; namely that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are three persons but also one.  While it seems illogical, it's not really - it's just that there is no good metaphor to explain it.  The Athansian Creed puts it as such:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more, see&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/13655/1039&quot;&gt;What is the Doctrine of the Trinity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8883/1039&quot;&gt;Is God Three or One?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2- Is there any other god except two of them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, please see what the Trinity is - it isn't two (or three) but one, even though they have different personalities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the Nature of Jesus? (Christology)&lt;/strong&gt; (Answer: Hypostatic Union)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3- If Jesus is a God then how people killed him? Why he let people to kill?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Classically, Jesus is &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;fully god and fully man&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  If he is not God, then he has sins of his own for which he must pay. If he is not man, he is not an acceptable sacrifice. As both God and man, he can subject himself to death as He desires, and overcome it as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to 'why did he let them kill him?'  The classic answer is John 3:16 -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so &lt;em&gt;loved&lt;/em&gt; the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosever should believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Along with that are several models of salvation, all of which seek to answer why it is that God required the death of his son to &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;satisfy&lt;/a&gt;&quot; or &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;atone for&lt;/a&gt;&quot; the sins of a fallen humanity, or if there was simple some &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;victory&lt;/a&gt;&quot; that had to be won. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more see &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7797/1039&quot;&gt;Was Jesus created?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19458/why-does-jesus-have-to-be-fully-god-and-fully-man-is-it-not-sufficient-to-be-th&quot;&gt;Why did Jesus have to be fully God and Fully Man?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4- How jesus was born? Is real god create him? If answer is yes can he create more gods?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus wasn't &quot;born&quot; he was begotten.  Per John 1, He was from the beginning - and &quot;without Him was nothing made that was made.&quot;  He was incarnated - meaning he became man - in Palestine around 4BC, lived, died on a cross, and was resurrected.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He sent the Holy Spirit, but does not &quot;beget&quot; more gods because God already is - he is eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T16:44:02.380" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22770" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22761" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:37:32.550" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have posted on other questions that where close to this, but I'll post here also :).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though we can't see god, we can and do serve him. Jesus when he was alive set the perfect example as both a teacher and preacher of gods word. He talked to crowds both small and large to tell them about gods will for the earth and those on it. The people he talked to where anywhere from ordinary unlettered men like fishermen to the jewish leaders of the day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He spent a lot of time especially teaching the apostles. Jesus knew he didn't have much time left on earth. He was setting the platform for a christian congregation that could function much the same way in the manner of preaching gods word and teaching its meaning. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fast-forward to today. We to continue Jesus' preaching work on earth. We teach gods intention for the earth &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/45-18.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 45:18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. We teach about Jehovah's qualities and commandments thus making disciples of all the nations &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+28:19-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 28:19-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Jesus also assigned the apostles or leaders of the christian congregation at the time to care for the spiritual needs of the congregation &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/24-45.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:45&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can't see god, but we can follow his laws and commandments. We can also learn a lot about gods qualities through his action in the past and what he has promised for the future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T15:37:32.550" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22771" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22753" CreationDate="2013-11-12T15:41:10.583" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the old covenant which God made with Abraham and his posterity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 15:18 NRKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18 In the same day יהוה made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 17:1 through 14 NRKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, יהוה appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am El-Shaddai1 ; walk before me, and be thou perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3 And Abram fell on his face: and Elohim talked with him, saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be an Elohim unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their Elohim.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 And Elohim said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the New covenant which Jesus made with all people and not just the seed of Abraham.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 26:27 through 29 NRKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the first covenant was only with Abraham and his seed, since Jesus death would now provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile it did not cancel the old covenant, but actually expanded the first covenant to include the Gentiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is called the new covenant because it is the first covenant with the Gentiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T15:51:44.197" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22772" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22765" CreationDate="2013-11-12T16:23:30.413" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on the mentality of the person.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Protestants hear some miracles happening from the Roman Catholic side, the 3 most common reactions are -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Joy:&lt;/strong&gt; When I hear a catholic healing others in the name of Jesus, I praise God and simply say, &lt;em&gt;&quot;Wow! God still loves the Roman Catholic Church!&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Criticism:&lt;/strong&gt; Some protestants who deem the RCC as the Anti-Christ would simply say that it is the work of the Devil or the wolf in sheep's clothing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ignore:&lt;/strong&gt; Many liberal protestants don't really care what is going on in other denominations. They only focus on their relationship between God and them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T16:23:30.413" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22773" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22758" CreationDate="2013-11-12T16:28:23.460" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament and the New Testament are different sections of the library.  To think of this division as &quot;insert a title page&quot; is too far off the mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine, if you will, a library of 66 books, written over the course of 1500 years, by 40 different men (possibly one woman).  As each of these works was created, it doesn't make sense to ask &quot;When did someone insert a title page?&quot; Rather, each work was created individually, and had its own distinction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually, these 66 (or 73 if you are Catholic) were recognized as the &quot;best of the best.&quot;  And, as such, these became the manuscripts to have in your collection.  Over time, the Jews assembled the 39 manuscripts known as the &quot;Old Testament&quot; and even dictated the order in which they should be shelved on the library.  (The 12 minor prophets, for example, have a keyword at the end of each book that corresponds to the keyword at the beginning of the next.) An additional 7 books were considered the best runners up, and shelved accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By around 400 BC or 200 BC, the &quot;Old Testament&quot; was pretty well decided, and fixed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the First century after Christ, however, his work was so important to Christians that the apostolic writers' works were seen as being as important, if not moreso, to Christians then the original Jewish Scriptures.  While each of the works in question (Gospels, histories, letters from Paul, Peter, and James) was written between about 50 AD and 100 AD, they were, over time, also selected as the best of the best.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to distinguish the two origins - one distinctly Jewish, one Christian - they were shelved in different places - Old Testament and New.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With the invention of the printing press in 1453, it became affordable for people to have all of these manuscripts.  In order to save on printing costs, all 66 - 73 books were eventually printed under one binding.  The canonical order of the books was set by tradition, and the contents were already in agreement.  In order to help people locate the books, they were separated into the two categories.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, the technical answer to your question is - Gutenberg is responsible for the &quot;Title Page,&quot; but all he was doing was following history and convention. These separate books had been separate all along.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: The 'title page' you show is just a restatement of a creed:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ϊωβ&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Job&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ὁ παλαιᾶϲ καὶ καινῆϲ διαθήκηϲ θϲ&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Oh God of the old and new covenant&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;ὁ ἐν τριάδι ὑμνούμενοϲ&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  who in trinity is praised&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;καὶ ἐν μονάδι δοξολογούμενοϲ αὐτὸϲ&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and in unity is glorified:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;δέξαι τὴν μετάνοιαν τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ θεοφυλάκτου&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  receive the repentance of a God-guarded* sinner&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;καὶ ἀξίωϲον αὐτὸν τυχεῖν τῆϲ βαϲιλείαϲ ϲου&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  and count him worthy to attain your kingdom  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;διὰ ϲπλάχνα ἐλέουϲ ϲου&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  by the bowels of your mercy  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;καὶ ἐλέοϲ ἀμέτρητον&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  yea mercy immeasurable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest Greek Manuscript we have - but it is just that - a codex.  (Tischendorf found these manuscripts in a trash can in the monastery at Sinai and &lt;strike&gt;stole&lt;/strike&gt; brought them back to England. It's the oldest manuscript we have.  What you are linking to are copies of each of the bound manuscripts.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*Possibly the scribe's name: &quot;this sinner, Theophylact&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="13677" LastEditDate="2016-02-26T17:31:25.330" LastActivityDate="2016-02-26T17:31:25.330" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22774" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6560" CreationDate="2013-11-12T17:04:07.333" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;In referencing John 10:34 at least I would look at several other translations of that verse in the process too...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 10:34 References&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;KJV (King James Version) &#xA;  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;AMP (Amplified Bible)&#xA;  34 Jesus answered, Is it not written in your Law, I said, You are gods?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;CJB (Complete Jewish Bible)&#xA;  34 Yeshua answered them, “Isn’t it written in your Torah, ‘I have said, “You people are Elohim’ ”?[b] b: Psalm 82:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(ERV) Easy-to-Read Version&#xA;  34 Jesus answered, “It is written in your law that God said, ‘I said you are gods.’&#xA;  [d] Psalm 82:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(CEV) Contemporary English Version&#xA;  In your Scriptures doesn’t God say, “You are gods”?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or at least read these different bible versions, especially the CJB one from John 10:34-36. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I'm not trying to answer answers here, but I am just pointing out that maybe looking at scripture from different bibles could help out with what was said in the article in some way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8583" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T18:24:28.767" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T18:24:28.767" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22775" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22767" CreationDate="2013-11-12T17:37:01.637" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christianity for beginners&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity is a &lt;strong&gt;monotheistic&lt;/strong&gt; religion. There is only one God and He has &lt;strong&gt;three parts/personalities - Father, Word and Spirit&lt;/strong&gt;. God created everything through the Word and by the power of the Spirit. The last and most important creation recorded in the Bible was &lt;strong&gt;Adam and Eve&lt;/strong&gt;, the first couple on earth. They disobeyed God's warning by eating a forbidden fruit, motivated by the tempting words of a serpent. &lt;strong&gt;Sin and Death entered the world&lt;/strong&gt; through them and everyone born from them are now sinful. Man was perfect at the creation but now is sinful and cannot change himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God then selected the descendants of &lt;strong&gt;Abraham&lt;/strong&gt; the patriarch and promised them through many prophets that He will send a deliverer, the &lt;strong&gt;Messiah&lt;/strong&gt;. God then sent His Word as the Messiah and call Him &lt;strong&gt;His Son&lt;/strong&gt;, who was born from a virgin and was given a human name, Jesus. &lt;strong&gt;Jesus fulfilled the prophecies by dying on the cross for us&lt;/strong&gt;. Jesus gave His life for us to pay the penalty of our sins because the penalty for sin is death. God raised Jesus from the dead after three days and is now sitting at the right hand of God, interceding for us and acts as a mediator between God and man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus will come again&lt;/strong&gt; to judge the world and gather those who believe in Him to Heaven. There will be a &lt;strong&gt;Judgement Day&lt;/strong&gt; for all souls and those who believe Jesus will enter Heaven and those who don't will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. After this, God will destroy the earth and create a &lt;strong&gt;new earth&lt;/strong&gt;, far far better than the present one and those justified through Jesus will live there forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T17:37:01.637" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22776" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22778" CreationDate="2013-11-12T18:09:03.253" Score="6" ViewCount="560" Body="&lt;p&gt;Could there possibly ever be a new set of books added to the Bible which have modern stories and rules for future generations?  Such as a book describing internet etiquette - which isn't so far out of scope considering dietary laws in the bible. But not specifically or limited to internet etiquette; it was just an example.  Maybe some new revaluations of God - there probably has been at least SOME in the last 2000 years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If so, who would have the authority to do so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T18:37:46.287" LastActivityDate="2020-02-01T20:03:20.123" Title="Could there be a &quot;Newer&quot; Testament? If so, how would it become canonical?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;canon&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22777" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22798" CreationDate="2013-11-12T18:26:09.873" Score="-1" ViewCount="389" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is little consensus in commentaries as to the meaning of that phrase in Genesis chapter 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 4:26  NRKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of יהוה.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is this covered in Baptist Bible College?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T19:45:17.040" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T12:15:30.430" Title="What is the meaning of the statement in Genesis 4:26 stating then began men to call upon the name of YHWH?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22778" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22776" CreationDate="2013-11-12T18:31:07.043" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is the position of the Mormons and the Ba'hai, but not of Nicene Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that there is &lt;em&gt;no&lt;/em&gt; authority to &quot;open the canon.&quot;  The traditional marks of christianity (See &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5527/1039&quot;&gt;What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11442/1039&quot;&gt;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11442/1039&lt;/a&gt; ) are apostolic authorship and historical consensus.  As all the apostles are, in fact dead, there is no means for using this mark.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, it is taken as an article of faith by most Christians that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutability_(theology)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God never changes&lt;/a&gt;.  By opening up the canon, too many &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16129/what-is-the-basis-of-the-argument-that-asserts-that-open-theism-is-heretical&quot;&gt;cans of worms get open&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.westmont.edu/~work/faq/prophecy.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;prophetic word&lt;/a&gt; doesn't continue to be uttered, but they exist within the realm of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;revelation&lt;/a&gt; which is assumed to be complete at this time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, there is one more point to consider - the church is long since past the place where it can definitively speak with one voice on something as large as a whole new addition to Scripture.  I would point you to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9064/1039&quot;&gt;the last paragraph on this question about canonization&lt;/a&gt; in which I wrote this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even today, there are certain Christian authors who are considered &quot;more important&quot; than others. If you asked me to pontificate about who is canonical, for example, I'd want to throw in C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesteron, Augustine, and a couple of others. David Barton, Joel Osteen, Tim Lahaye, not so much. And, I would clearly reject, say, (and I only speak for myself) anything by Joseph Smith or the Watchtower society. Why do I say that? Because my canon speaks to what is important to me. Many Evangelicals would probably agree with me, and do, as can be shown by what other Evangelicals tell others &quot;should be read.&quot; The point is not what I've picked, but rather that the same process was in place 2000 - 1600 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, if you read anything other than the Bible, you &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; picking your canon. Whether or not others agree with you is up to them.  I recommend &lt;a href=&quot;http://readanybooks.net/fantasticfiction/The_Great_Divorce/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Great Divorce&lt;/a&gt; a lot.  As such, I'm making my own canon.  Indeed, many people would probably agree with me on it - but not the whole church.  And that is the problem you'd have to contend with if you wanted to reopen a &quot;Newer&quot; Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.883" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T19:17:19.737" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22780" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22782" CreationDate="2013-11-12T20:41:49.933" Score="8" ViewCount="1099" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible (NT) seems to have contrasting views on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:14 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ref.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm&quot;&gt;http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas Matthew 6:2 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, &lt;strong&gt;so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ref.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/6.htm&quot;&gt;http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/6.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure how to interpret these; what is the way?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4576" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T21:31:04.037" Title="Doing Good Deeds In the Sight of Others" Tags="&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22781" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22780" CreationDate="2013-11-12T20:50:55.530" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a couple distinctions.  The first one has to do with how many people need to know.  In Matthew 6, the needy person obviously knows what you have done when you give to them, but you don't have to proclaim it to everyone else.  They don't need to know.  So, give to the needy, and the needy will receive it and know what you have done.  Just don't give in such a way that everyone sees it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Matthew 6 passage, Jesus also mentions prayer.  Many religious leaders would pray to God so loudly that everyone else would hear them--solely for the purpose of sounding pious.  They don't need to hear it, and praying for show is praying for the wrong reason.  So, if you want to pray to God, then pray to God.  To put it another way, when you pray, pray so that God hears you--not everyone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another distinction should be noted.  This regard who is glorified.  In Matthew 5, it is noted that it is the Father who is glorified--not us.  In Matthew 6, the issue concerns gaining glory for oneself.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, do good to the needy and to your neighbors in general.  They will certainly know that you are being good to them.  Forgive them, serve them, and love them.  However, don't post on Facebook how much what you've done so that everyone can see how great you are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T20:50:55.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22782" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22780" CreationDate="2013-11-12T21:25:32.240" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nice question! I think the key here is to look at the &lt;em&gt;context&lt;/em&gt;. Both quotes are included in &lt;strong&gt;The Sermon on the Mount&lt;/strong&gt; (Matthew 5-7); both are spoken by Jesus and probably both were spoken on the same day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First the context. Jesus says (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:13-16&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:13-16&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;‘You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;‘You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I interpret this to mean we should be doing good deeds for other people because this will encourage them to glorify God. &lt;strong&gt;So our &lt;em&gt;motivation&lt;/em&gt; is to help people to turn to God, not to bring glory to ourselves.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again the context; Jesus says (in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:1-4&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:1-4&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;‘Be careful not to practise your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;‘So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honoured by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This clarifies what I said above - the glory should not go to us. But note &lt;strong&gt;this is specifically talking about giving&lt;/strong&gt;. If a number of people give to a church (or temple or synagogue, in this case), then the church can then in turn give to the needy. The recipients will then hopefully praise God, knowing only that this was given in His name but not knowing specifically by whom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Giving can be anonymous in a way that other forms of light (eg &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:36&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;visiting the sick or those in prison&lt;/a&gt;) are not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, giving (like the things that follow in chapter 6: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:5-15&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;prayer&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:16-18&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;fasting&lt;/a&gt;) is &lt;strong&gt;between you and God&lt;/strong&gt; - so only God needs to know about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T21:31:04.037" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22783" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="17405" CreationDate="2013-11-12T21:37:03.070" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Rice Christians. Maybe Gandhi should have said Beef Christians.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;I mean, I cried too when Pi killed the fish. [slipped-out]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately or fortunately the Word of God is book of human-action,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;unlike a calculus math book. Searching for facs/truth...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About &quot;Rice Christians&quot;, &lt;br&gt;&#xA;1) Christ Jesus healed many people,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;which is recorded on the gospels of the new testament.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;2) Christ Jesus helped anyone, Matthew 11:28,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;3) Not all who were helped said thanks, Luke 17:17&lt;br&gt;&#xA;4) Nor all who were helped became Disciples, only about 120 left in Acts 1:15&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Basically He came to give hoping the ones he helped would repent, Romans 2:4&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About Culture Shock, the problem is Christ Jesus said in Matthew 28:19,&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&quot;... make Disciples of all nations&quot;. Which can cause kaos like you said.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;So, Disciples of Christ Jesus make disciples everywhere like in Asia&lt;br&gt;&#xA;and give [rest] to anyone [who is weary]. So I think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;About [pouring abuse on Hindus], well this about what someone/somebody did or say.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;However, Romans 2:1-4 helps to point out that passing judgment comes around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I ever find a Disciple of Christ Jesus,&lt;br&gt; &#xA;I would ask for a bowl of rice or two also :) &lt;br&gt;&#xA;Thanks for reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6506" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T21:37:03.070" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22784" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22787" CreationDate="2013-11-12T22:14:05.623" Score="-1" ViewCount="3030" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unarguably God could prevent any type of suffering, pain, and sadness. We see from the Bible accounts that he has the power to part great bodies of water, heal the sick and infirm. He can feed many from few. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So my question is this. God has the power to stop suffering, so why doesn't he? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please have at least 1 reference or source in your post. Thank you&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;edit: Sorry I should have done a search for the question before posting this one. I can't delete the question so community and moderators feel free.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-11-13T21:09:16.550" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T21:09:16.550" Title="Why doesn't God stop suffering?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-11-13T05:28:12.697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22787" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22784" CreationDate="2013-11-12T23:12:24.880" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Unarguably? I think you need to think again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God doesn't stop suffering because God is not sovereignly in control of every single thing that happens on the earth.  He's not violating your actions and will not force you to believe in him.  He wants us to be a people of faith.  Forcing us to believe in him is not of faith.  How can you love someone who decides everything that happens to you?  You're made in his image.  You have emotions, thoughts of your own and you have the ability to believe in him or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God were in control of everything then he would have to be responsible for every murder, rape, theft, sickness and every single wrong thing that has happened in the world since it was created.  Why? because he allowed it to happen which means he has endorsed it.  But I can tell you, this is absolutely wrong.  You need to accept that God is not responsible for man's actions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the NIV bible translation that has popularised the phrase Sovereign Lord.  God is sovereign in the sense that he is the creator of all.  He is Lord.  But religion has come along and said that God controls everything that happens.&#xA;This belief is untrue.    God is not responsible for all the things that happen in the world.  God does not violate man's will.  God gave men the ability to choose from the very beginning when he placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden.  He then gave man dominion over the earth.  That is why we have the ability to make choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen 1:26 - &quot;And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our&#xA;  likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and&#xA;  over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,&#xA;  and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, God has always been reaching out to men.  Despite the belief by some that God can't be anywhere near us because of sin.  I would like you to note how it is Adam and Eve who hid from God not the other way around.  God has always been reaching out to men from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen 3:8 - And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the&#xA;  garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves&#xA;  from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Adam and Even choosing to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and hiding themselves from God.  They are in a sense rejecting God and choosing to go their own way.  Now if God is a good God and was in control of everything, this never would have happened.  So you can see that God is not controlling our actions.  This isn't to say that God can't help you in your time of need, but he's not forcing you to make right choices.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the suffering and bad things that happen.  The Lord has already answered by sending our saviour Jesus.  If everyone were born again and were to be walking according to the spirit as in Romans 8 then I think the world would be a very different place.  But do remember, this earth and everything we see is temporary.  There will be a new heaven and a new earth some day.  It's all part of the big plan he has made for those that believe.  And when we do die physically, we do not die eternally because through Jesus we have eternal life right now.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev 21:1 - And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first&#xA;  heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more&#xA;  sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastEditorUserId="4711" LastEditDate="2013-11-12T23:23:48.583" LastActivityDate="2013-11-12T23:23:48.583" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22788" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22784" CreationDate="2013-11-13T03:09:05.500" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;While the four-star generals plan their theater operations in the Pentagon, the ground troops carry out the actual missions in the conflict. A company’s board of directors decide which products they will carry. However, it is the men and women with specialized skills in other departments who carry out the orders. The judge hands down the prison sentence, but the sheriff, warden, and prison staff carry out the actual incarceration.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same way, God often chooses to work through people under him. For instance, he worked through Moses, King David, Jesus, and the apostles. He still works through people today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He works through several Christian organizations established to battle poverty. He works in the tiny soup kitchens many churches run to help the poor in their communities. Through them, many children receive food, clothing, shelter, toys, and the message that God loves them. God IS stopping some suffering. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This does not take into account the people working hard to get children adopted, build AIDs orphanages in Africa, help drug and alcohol addicts, rescue sex slaves, and transform children’s lives that were ruined by crime.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not starve the children, nor cause riots and tortures. Evil people do all these things, and Christians do what they can as willing servants of God to right wrongs and relieve suffering.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working” (John 5:17b). Jesus saw what the Father was doing and he did the same. Whenever Jesus did good, God worked through him: “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs which God did through Him in your midst” (Acts 2:22b). Many have blamed God for all the wrongs in the world. We can blame God all we want, but we would do better to surrender to God’s will, sign up with a charitable group, roll up our sleeves, and get to work. Then we’ll find God working right where we are!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is still the same today. God is not lazy or impotent. He is working. Paul could say it and so can many Christians today: “To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily” (Colossians 1:29).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have heard it said that suffering improves one’s character. (For instance, the pain we bear as the result of a bad decision trains us to avoid that kind of a decision next time.) If you believe this is true, name one example in your life or in the life of someone you know when suffering improved character.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some people bear suffering patiently with gentleness while others endure the same trouble with bitterness and depression. If some have borne the trial well, was the trial to be blamed? What are the reasons for your answer?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T03:09:05.500" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22791" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20443" CreationDate="2013-11-13T06:11:30.373" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The closest verse i can think of is Isaiah 45:11 &quot; Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8590" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T06:11:30.373" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22792" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-13T07:39:34.250" Score="4" ViewCount="3645" Body="&lt;p&gt;There may be some denominations that believe faith is the only necessary thing to have to attain salvation or eternal life. However, I do not conform with this because faith is just the beginning, and faith is not just the only commandment given by Christ. Can you tell me Biblical facts or verses concerning this topic, whether faith is the only thing necessary or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6254" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2016-01-07T20:03:29.750" LastActivityDate="2016-01-07T20:03:29.750" Title="Is faith the only thing we need to attain salvation?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-11-13T14:39:07.200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22793" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22792" CreationDate="2013-11-13T08:29:03.787" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(&quot;Faith&quot; is a very vast topic. Here is a short summary of what Faith is)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;The Law cannot save us&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God gave the Ten Commandments in the past but it did not promise salvation, it promised only blessings. The Gospel of Jesus Christ alone can give salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because&#xA;  “the righteous will live by faith.” (Galatians 3:11, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness&#xA;  that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The&#xA;  righteous will live by faith.” (Romans 1:17, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;We attain salvation by faith&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; We are saved by believing in the Jesus Christ, the Son of God. One has to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and by having faith in Jesus, he is saved from eternal damnation in Hell. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that&#xA;  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John&#xA;  3:16, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;We are saved by faith, not by works&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Our good deeds cannot save us. Following the Commandments alone cannot save us. Whatever we do, whether for men or for God cannot save us. It is by faith alone that we are saved, and not by works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not&#xA;  from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one&#xA;  can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-10, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;We need to live by faith&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; We need faith in our every day life. We need to walk by faith, we need to live by faith, we need to pray by faith and we need to worship God by faith. Without faith we cannot please God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we live by faith, not by sight. (2 Corinthians 5:7, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Show your faith by your works&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; We need to show our faith by our action. We need to prove to others that we have faith, and that can be done only by works. For faith without work is dead, it is an incomplete faith and in fact, it is not faith at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your&#xA;  faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.&#xA;  (James 2:18, ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 11&lt;/a&gt; gives us a list of people who lived their life by faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now &lt;strong&gt;faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what&#xA;  we do not see&lt;/strong&gt;. This is what the ancients were commended for.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; we understand that the universe was formed at God’s&#xA;  command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith&#xA;  he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings.&#xA;  And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not&#xA;  experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him&#xA;  away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased&#xA;  God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;And without faith it is impossible to please God, because&#xA;  anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he&#xA;  rewards those who earnestly seek him.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear&#xA;  built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world&#xA;  and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt; Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later&#xA;  receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not&#xA;  know where he was going.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(And the list goes on)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-13T09:25:14.177" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T09:25:14.177" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22794" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22792" CreationDate="2013-11-13T08:31:48.263" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Justification-By-Faith-Alone/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;number of verses&lt;/a&gt; which can be brought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 5:1 — Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 4:5 — But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 3:28 — Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 2:24 — Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;... which might support the different view that we are justified simply by works and how we act. However, context is important and James goes on to say&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James 2:26 — Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is that faith engenders good works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:16 — Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 5:22 — But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not justified by slavishly following the Law (which is what “not justified by works” is saying) — we are justified by faith, and that faith will transform our lives with the fruit of the Spirit which pervades every act so that our works show that we are justified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter wrote of this in 2 Peter 1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; But whoever does not have them is short-sighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter deliberately lists the fruits of the Spirit. In &amp;quot;making every effort&amp;quot; to add those virtues to faith, Peter is saying &amp;quot;allow the Spirit to do his work&amp;quot; because a living faith will engender good works (cf James 2:26). Any effort we bring to bear for ourselves is using our conscience to do good works. Verse 4 says that we participate in the divine nature by virtue of God's great and glorious promises. This means that it is necessary that we believe those promises will be fulfilled: this is faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that good works are not inherently good! They point towards — and ultimately come from — God, as Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19019/do-pope-francis-recent-comments-on-atheism-represent-a-change-in-doctrine/19024#19024&quot;&gt;pointed out&lt;/a&gt;. One's conscience is God-given, formed by the natural Law, and in doing what we inherently perceive to be good we are allowing the Spirit to work in our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we are saved by faith. That is all that is necessary. Everything else comes from faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T11:30:00.087" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22795" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15199" CreationDate="2013-11-13T09:07:54.820" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Moses represents the law and Elijah the prophets,what simply happened there was a handover or a transition from the law and prophets into the dispensation which we are now in which is the dispensation of grace.After they saw moses and elijah,God said this is my beloved son hear him,he did not say hear them and they looked up and saw only Jesus..hence we are no longer under the law and prophets but under Grace..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8592" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T09:07:54.820" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22797" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-13T09:39:51.963" Score="1" ViewCount="172" Body="&lt;p&gt;I want to know what is fasting prayer and why we want to do the fasting prayer. What does the Bible say about this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6297" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2013-11-13T12:28:40.600" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T13:55:51.430" Title="Why fasting prayer?" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;belief&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-11-13T15:40:37.863" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22798" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22777" CreationDate="2013-11-13T12:15:30.430" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are some Bible commentaries available on this verse. Read them &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/genesis/4-26.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here at BibleHub.com for commentaries on Genesis 4:26&lt;/a&gt;. There are three available - Matthew Henry, Gill and Jamieson-Fausset.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best one I find is &lt;em&gt;Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible&lt;/em&gt;. It says (excerpt) - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;then began men to call upon the name of the Lord; not but that Adam&#xA;  and Abel, and all good men, had called upon the name of the Lord, and&#xA;  prayed to him, or worshipped him before this time personally, and in&#xA;  their families; but now the families of good men being larger, and&#xA;  more numerous, &lt;strong&gt;they joined together in social and public worship&lt;/strong&gt;: or&#xA;  since it may be thought there were public assemblies for religious&#xA;  worship before this time, &lt;strong&gt;though it may be they had been neglected,&#xA;  and now were revived with more zeal and vigour; seeing the Cainites&#xA;  incorporating themselves, and joining families together, and building&#xA;  cities, and carrying on their civil and religious affairs among&#xA;  themselves, they also formed themselves into distinct bodies; and not&#xA;  only separated from them, but called themselves by a different name;&#xA;  for so the words may be rendered: &quot;then began men to call themselves&quot;,&#xA;  or &quot;to be called by the name of the Lord&quot; ; the sons of God, as&#xA;  distinct from the sons of men; which distinction may be observed in&#xA;  Genesis 6:2&lt;/strong&gt; and has been retained more or less ever since: some choose&#xA;  to translate the words, &quot;then began men to call in the name of the&#xA;  Lord&quot; ; that is, to call upon God in the name of the Messiah, the&#xA;  Mediator between God and man; having now, since the birth of Seth, and&#xA;  especially of Enos, clearer notions of the promised seed, and of the&#xA;  use of him, and his name, in their addresses to God; see John 14:13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Gill is saying that, from the time of Enosh, the descendants of Adam are now worshiping God together and called themselves &lt;em&gt;&quot;sons of God&quot;&lt;/em&gt;; while the descendants of Cain are called &lt;em&gt;&quot;sons of men&quot;&lt;/em&gt;, who lived separately and busy around building cities. Read the same verse in New Living Translation -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When Seth grew up, he had a son and named him Enosh. At that time&#xA;  people first began to &lt;strong&gt;worship&lt;/strong&gt; the LORD by name. (Genesis 6:2, NLV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T12:15:30.430" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22800" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22797" CreationDate="2013-11-13T13:42:14.353" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Fasting prayer is thought be more sincere than just praying by some Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That belief is based on the following excerpt from the book of Matthew, this particular saying of Jesus is not included in any other Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 17:15 through 21 NRKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15  Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16  And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17  Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18  And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19  Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20  And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21  Howbeit this kind goeth not out but &lt;strong&gt;by prayer and fasting&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-13T13:55:51.430" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T13:55:51.430" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22803" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22792" CreationDate="2013-11-13T14:36:45.613" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Remember that &quot;salvation&quot; has several components. When we believe God's offer of salvation through Christ, then our sins of the past are immediately washed away in the blood of the Lamb and we are adopted into His family. That's by faith alone at that moment. No works entered in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But God saved sinners for a reason, and that's for us to become productive members of His kingdom. That part will take works on our part. Think about it: if you have faith that Jesus wants to save you from your sins, then you show that faith by participating with Him in getting rid of sinful behaviors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you believe God's word by faith that you will face the judgment of God for your lifestyle, then you will do those works that help you prepare for it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our salvation is made up of different parts. As I have shown, one part is by faith alone; the other part I mentioned shows a different aspect of our faith life, of working out what we believe. Both &quot;save&quot; us in different ways. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T14:36:45.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22804" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22792" CreationDate="2013-11-13T15:37:51.403" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Early Christians believe that they are saved from hell by faith in the Son of God for their salvation ( John 3:16, 1 John 5:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They do not believe that good works are in any way part of their salvation:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot; We are saved NOT  because of any good deeds we have done but according to his mercy by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Spirit.&quot;( Titus 3:5).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;[God]who has saved us and have called us to a holy life-- NOT because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.&quot;( 2 Timothy 1:9).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For them, good works is an inevitable result of having salvation. That is why James said that &quot; show your faith BY your good works&quot; ( James 2:18). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation is God's work alone ( 1 Peter 1:2). It is received by grace through faith not of works lest any man should boast ( John 1:12,Ephesians 2:8-9).If we are allowed to cooperate or participate in our own salvation from hell then how could we say with Paul that &quot; eternal life IS a free gift in Jesus Christ our Lord?&quot; Is there a gift that is worked for? ( Check out Romans 4:4-7).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't add to Jesus' soteric work. What Peter is commanding us in 2 Peter 1:5 is to add the gifts of the Holy Spirit to our faith, that is, do the enlisted virtues. Why is the command? Context says that it's because &quot; His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness...for this very reason make every effort to add...&quot;( 2 Peter 1:3,5 NIV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same concept is found in Philippians 2:12-13 wherein we are commanded by Paul to &quot; work OUT [not work for] your salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who works IN you both to will and to act according to his good purpose&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on these facts, Christians who are saved by grace through faith alone in Christ alone has been given ability by God to obey him as never before. What this means is explained below:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Christian has free will to obey ( consequence is temporal blessings not entrance to heaven- Mt. 6:33) and to disobey ( consequence is chasetisement in order to continue to obey not damnation in hell- Hebrews 12:2).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[ Note: A non-saved person naturally does not have the ability to glorify God so his/ her will is all evil - Romans 3:10-11 &quot;No one is righteous, no one seeks God&quot; says the Scripture].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A saved person has God's rigtheousness through &quot;faith to faith&quot; ( Romans 1:17). The Scripture is explicit &quot; the just shall live by faith ( Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17c, Hebrews 10:38). The just does not need to do good works to become just! He is already just and this is by faith and he does not need to preserve his salvation by works but he must live only by faith. Hebrews 12:2 says &quot; Let us fix our eyes on Jesus-- the origin and completer of our faith&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who believe that salvation is synergistic ( i.e. Involves human cooperation) than monergistic(i.e. Salvation God's work alone) always confuse sanctification with salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, the early church as recorded in the New Testament believes that water baptism is a &quot;response&quot; to God for having [already] a good conscience.Hence, a person who desires water baptism are none other than those who &quot;have eternal life&quot; ( 1 John 5:18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2016-01-06T05:36:52.403" LastActivityDate="2016-01-06T05:36:52.403" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22805" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9989" CreationDate="2013-11-13T16:13:09.627" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Holy Spirit also not only Satan has a motive in the temptation of Christ:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot; Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the Devil&quot;( Matthew 4:1 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The motive of the Holy Spirit is to prove that the Son is God just as his Father is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Temptation 1: If Jesus is really God's own Son, consubstantial with him, then he surely has the ability to turn those stones into bread.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;( This is selfish and not the essence of life --Philippians 2:1-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Temptation 2: If Jesus is really God's eternally begotten Son, superior to angels, then he surely cannot be void of his servant's service, he cannot be hurt when he falls as it is written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;( This is not the divine will of the Trinity albeit possible and even good -- Mark 14:35)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Temptation 3: Satan commands Jesus to worship him and he will give his world to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Satan does not understand the hypostatic union-- 1 Peter 1:12)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In every instance of temptation, Christ appealed wisely to the Scriptures for he himself is God's &#xA;Wisdom ( Greek: sophia theou) --1 Cor. 1:24-25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2013-11-13T16:20:19.800" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T16:20:19.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22806" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22687" CreationDate="2013-11-13T16:43:51.637" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look at the versus surrounding 6:32 you see that Jesus is trying to use illustrations to get his point across. If you read down from versus 19-34 You can see that he is trying to teach the Christians then to focus on the preaching and teaching work instead of material things they need. &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/40/6#h=72:0-72:118&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:33-34&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is in effect telling them that they don't have to worry about food, shelter, clothing, and such because god knows that you need them and will provide. He was also talking about how the gentiles sought after riches, fame, and positions of power. He was warning them that a man cannot slave for 2 masters &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/Rbi8/E/1984/40/6#h=50:0-51:0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 6:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; or that is that they couldn't try and gain fame and fortune and still devote their time to serving god. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He illustrates with lesser thing such as birds and vegetation of the field. Those lesser things are taken care of, but yet how much more so for his people will he make sure they are taken care of? &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/Rbi8/E/1984/40/6#h=51:0-51:235&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:25-32&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T16:43:51.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22808" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22725" CreationDate="2013-11-13T19:55:44.843" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The most probable reason that he said that is because Crucifixion was so horrendous that it was reserved for the most egregious crimes against Rome. Usually rebellion or sedition. Common criminals were not crucified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was so horrible that Roman citizens were usually exempt from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The punishment of Roman crucifixion was chiefly inflicted on slaves and the worst kind of criminals.          Crucifixion was considered a most shameful and disgraceful way to die and condemned Roman citizens were     usually exempt from crucifixion.&lt;/strong&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-life/roman-crucifixion.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was why the Sanhedrin accused Jesus of claiming to be a King when they took him to Pontius Pilate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 27:1,2,11, and 12  NRKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1  When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2  And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11  And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12  And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At any rate it can be said that they were not common criminals, and since they are called thieves, they had most likely stolen something of value from the Roman officials, perhaps something such as tax money.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T23:19:48.370" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22809" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22725" CreationDate="2013-11-13T20:11:03.507" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no mention of the crimes committed by thieves that were crucified along with Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But through the testimony of the repented thief, we know that both of those thieves deserved crucifixion. So they have committed crimes that deserved crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:39-43&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 23:39-43 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? &lt;strong&gt;We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve&lt;/strong&gt;. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2014-02-12T08:53:09.607" LastActivityDate="2014-02-12T08:53:09.607" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22812" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20611" CreationDate="2013-11-13T22:29:41.110" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am unsure as to most other Christians. Among those that I have studied with and continue to study with they have always dressed formally. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that Christians of any denomination dress nicely when going to worship god. It's part of giving god your best. Here in an article that may explain a bit better and I think it is relevant not only to witness', but all Christendom. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/jehovahs-will/dress-and-grooming/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why dress up for meetings&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This doesn't mean your clothes had to be expensive. As long as you are clean and presentable then that is acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems as far as history goes Christians not only wore, but where encouraged to wear simple clothing so as to not distract from the meaning of the occasion. This is especially true in the 18 and 19th centuries. Worshipers usually dressed plainly with no ornate jewelry and such. This is not only for the reason stated above, but that your everyday person didn't have the means to come by these things.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/church-practice/dressing-up/dressing-up-for-church.php#.UoP6LfnUnng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Origins&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; /&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychurchchanges.com/studies/edwards2d.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;3rd Century changes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; / &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/dress-up-church.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why dress nice?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on a little more research it seems dressing up was a social status thing and then later became a part of representing and honoring god.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-13T22:29:41.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22814" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20004" CreationDate="2013-11-14T00:25:10.650" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;To expound maybe upon Warrens answer &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;But if we add the context around the verse we find an indication that Job wanted to be vindicated by God but thought he was going to die before that happened. As a result, he desired a permanent record of the events so they could be on hand when God would stand on this earth. As I ponder this, what I think it is referring to is the final judgement before God that all people will go through in the future. Hebrews 9:27 refers to judgment after one dies. But what I think connects better is Revelation 20:11 thru 22:5. This is where the Great White Throne Judgement takes place followed by the New Jerusalem descending to the earth and lit up with the glory of the Almighty God and his Lamb, Jesus Christ.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Job was just recognizing that god could resurrect him in &lt;strong&gt;19:25&lt;/strong&gt;. It was known in Job's time that a person could be resurrected from previous scripture &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/hebrews/11/#v58011019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 11:19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;(scroll down. highlighted in red) Actually the book of Job was written by Moses who would have known of it also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see from that scripture in Hebrews that Abraham knew about the resurrection and trusted in gods promise. In footnotes you will see that redeemer was originally repurchaser. To build on that a little to see what Job meant here is a good definition with uses &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003702&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Repurchaser&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; taken from the book Insight from the Scriptures, volume 2 page 781.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T00:25:10.650" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22815" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20149" CreationDate="2013-11-14T00:52:48.277" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes the Babylon that is referred to through revelation is the same. Babylon the great is the name of the combined groups of false religion that are fornicating with the world leaders. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Babylon is a city, but also a symbol. It was known for its False religions for example they worshiped idols, believed in trinities or triad gods, and they believed in immortal soul. Babylon sort of collected all sorts of different god worship and those beliefs spread all over. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Babylon became the symbol for false religion because of its qualities of false worship and extravagance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A great book that really digs deep into the scriptures is &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000531&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Insight from the Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Its online and free to use. It is great when doing research on whatever you can think of. Here is a link to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Index&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can see that the governments. merchants, and other tradesmen are separate from her &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/17/#v66017007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelation 17:7-12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. She rides on the beast that is carrying her. The beast that she is riding or fornicating with is the governments of the nations. All the merchants are crying out in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/18/#v66018009&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rev. 18:9-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; because the harlot lived a life of extravagance which put revenue in their pockets. When Babylon the great had fallen their income was then cut off. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T17:22:54.613" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T17:22:54.613" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22816" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6588" CreationDate="2013-11-14T01:33:20.697" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Most sources conclude that finding Eden would be just about impossible. That's aside from the fact that god placed an angel to guard it. That tells me god doesn't want us in there and that's assuming anything survived the flood &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/1208/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another source with information on Eden and some clues to location &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001256&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Insight&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. scroll down it's the last article.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many believe that south of Van lake in modern day Turkey may have been the location of Eden. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geocreationism.com/science/eden-lake-van-lake-urmia.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Source&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T01:33:20.697" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22818" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6588" CreationDate="2013-11-14T03:47:50.757" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question can't really be answered. All we can do is guess. John Calvin could not answers this and I know that I have no clue. When you factor in how the earth changed from Pangea to what we have today and then the changes the Flood would have caused no one can say for certain. But here are some links that talk about the Garden of Eden, Creation, and A map of Pangea. And two links for any who would like to venture into the Tanakh online. chabad.org is the better of the two if you just want to read the books of the Tanakh. Torah - The Pentateuch is part of the Tanakh (Jewish Bible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/where-was-eden&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Where was the Garden of Eden Located?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070718140829.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/humans_out_of_africa.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Out of Africa or Out of Eden: Does Science Contradict the Bible?&#xA;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://geology.com/pangea.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Plate Tectonics - Pangaea Continent Maps&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mechon Mamre&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Complete Tanach with Rashi's Commentary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6492" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-08T18:14:37.447" LastActivityDate="2016-11-08T18:14:37.447" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22822" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-14T07:37:37.517" Score="9" ViewCount="1925" Body="&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:12-26&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;Acts 1:12-26&lt;/a&gt; we read the story of how Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. This kept the number of apostles at Twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometime later, James, the brother of John was murdered (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2012:2&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;Acts 12:2&lt;/a&gt;). James was also one of the original twelve (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4:21&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;Matthew 4:21&lt;/a&gt;) but unlike Judas, there is no record of him being replaced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was this? Did the policy change?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Alternatively, if he &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; replaced but it was not recorded in the New Testament, when did the  &quot;Twelve Apostle&quot; policy end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-03T17:43:05.650" LastActivityDate="2017-01-18T15:32:15.467" Title="Why (and when) did the Apostles stop requiring exactly twelve apostles? Why was James not replaced?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;james-apostle&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22824" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22822" CreationDate="2013-11-14T08:25:57.997" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Twelve Apostles elected by Jesus were &lt;strong&gt;not meant to live forever&lt;/strong&gt; and rule the earth. They represented the fathers of Christianity and the church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Judas was a betrayer&lt;/strong&gt;. He betrayed his master Jesus, which is the same as betraying the whole group of twelve, and it implies that he is no longer a part of the group of the Twelve Apostles. Judas deserted the company of Twelve. It was now necessary to replace the office of Judas, possibly because they believed that 12 was the divinely appointed number by Jesus Christ and it should be maintained. The number twelve might also represent the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus, it seems like it was necessary to continue the tradition of the number Twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The death of James did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; end his position in the Twelve as he was not a betrayer like Judas. In fact, all the apostles (according to tradition) were martyred. They are now all dead and probably are now in Heaven, occupying the Twelve Thrones reserved for them in Heaven (my speculation).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, Jesus did not elect &lt;strong&gt;Twelve Popes&lt;/strong&gt;, rather Twelve Apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-14T08:47:48.143" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T08:47:48.143" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22825" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20611" CreationDate="2013-11-14T11:22:32.157" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the UK, customs vary wildly between churches. Catholic, High Anglican, Methodist and far-right baptist traditions tend to promote, at least implicitly, smart dress but with no particular dress codes. Pentecostal and Evangelical traditions tend to promote the relationship aspect of corporate worship, seeing church as a place for people to come into God's presence in safety and support, and so avoid the idea of &amp;quot;Sunday best&amp;quot; - often supported by 1 Samuel 16:7 (NIV):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is always a caveat that people should be dressed modestly - in a way that is not sexual or overly distracting from the main point of worship: communion with God. Some churches do follow a dress code very similar to that seen in America - for example in Brethren traditions. But these days, very few churches would pass comment if a person arrived shabbily dressed, and and in many churches jeans and tee-shirt might be considered the norm!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="913" LastEditorUserId="913" LastEditDate="2021-02-09T18:00:54.327" LastActivityDate="2021-02-09T18:00:54.327" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22826" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22827" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:01:45.020" Score="9" ViewCount="14256" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 3, God curses the serpent Satan in the following words:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Lord God said to the serpent&lt;/strong&gt;, “Because you have done this, cursed&#xA;  are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field;&#xA;  pn your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your&#xA;  life; And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;your seed&lt;/strong&gt; and her Seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you&#xA;  shall bruise him on the heel.”  Genesis 3:14-15 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most Christians understand the Seed of the woman to be referring to Jesus, who was uniquely born of woman.  However, it seems unclear who the seed of the serpent is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To whom exactly is this referring?  I'm not sure a particular tradition matters here, but I'm most interested in a perspective that at the very least views the Scriptures as the divine Word of God (a biblical literalist), but again, I'm not sure other perspectives would really impact an understanding of this too much.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2018-10-26T08:45:52.130" Title="Who is the &quot;Seed of the Serpent&quot; spoken of in Genesis 3?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;satan&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2018-10-29T17:53:48.067" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22827" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22826" CreationDate="2013-11-14T13:12:42.553" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will&#xA;  do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,&#xA;  because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh&#xA;  of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye&#xA;  not believe me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not,&#xA;  because ye are not of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 8:44-47&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who do not do the will of God, but live in sin are the devil's seed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with&#xA;  me scattereth abroad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Matthew 12:30&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are only two teams. Those who are the seed of the woman, and those who are the seed of the serpent. Those who are with God and those who are against God. There is no neutrality.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5568" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T13:12:42.553" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22828" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-14T14:09:44.757" Score="6" ViewCount="937" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse seems to suggest that Jesus will begin to be called the Son of God after he is born, rather than always being the Son of God as the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should we understand this verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-30T21:31:59.573" LastActivityDate="2016-05-06T10:27:48.773" Title="Why would Jesus begin to be called the Son of God?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;names-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22829" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22828" CreationDate="2013-11-14T14:19:01.943" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Begetting of the Son in the Virgin&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It’s explicit in Luke 1:35 that the Virgin conceives by the Holy Spirit that is why her offspring will be called “God’s Son”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was no human father involved. It’s just the Holy Spirit and the Virgin as recorded in the Bible:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“She [Mary, the Virgin] was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18 NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, Gabriel is right when he proclaimed that the Holy offspring to be begotten in Mary will be called “God’s Son” because the one she conceives is the pre-existent offspring of the Father without human father just as John also firmly believes ( John 1:1-18).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew concurs with Luke, the one begotten in the Virgin is “the God [who is] with us” (Matthew 1:23).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The begetting of God’s own Son in the Virgin through the Holy Spirit is a messianic prophecy (Isaiah 7:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, the reason why the one to be begotten in the Virgin will be called “God’s Son” is because of lack of human father to be involved because it is already having a Father who is God himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gabriel believes that the One the Virgin conceives is without a human father but is conceived only through the Holy Spirit and that the one the Virgin conceives is God’s own pre-existent Son that is why the offspring will be called “ God’s Son” not “Joseph’s son” as soon as it was conceived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Son of God was named Jesus just as expected. The One the Virgin conceives and gives birth to is a one person with two unmixed, united and distinct natures: divine and human as the Chalcedonian Creed affirms.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-05-06T10:27:48.773" LastActivityDate="2016-05-06T10:27:48.773" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22832" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22837" CreationDate="2013-11-14T16:44:46.457" Score="1" ViewCount="169" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus charged his disciples to watch and pray in Matthew Chapter 26, and in earlier reading it seemed to me that he was probably referring to the events of that night.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my more recent studies the statement in verse 41 &amp;quot;That ye not enter into temptation&amp;quot; caused me to wonder if he might not be giving a continuing instruction to watch for the temptations of Satan because he knew that after his death and resurrection, that Satan would then concentrate on the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 26:38 through 41  NRKJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;38  Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;39  And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;40  And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;41  Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T20:10:24.320" Title="Was Jesus command to watch in Matthew 26 just for that night or was it a general caution for the Church?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22833" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13755" CreationDate="2013-11-14T17:27:31.650" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the beginning, Christians considered themselves Jews. Christianity was Judaism with the additional belief that God sent his Son to earth. And of course, a Jew will attend the Jewish synagog.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sunday is our holy day because the Christians assembled in church on that day. Why? On Saturday, they were at the synagogs and had to rest afterwards (Jews have specific rules about &lt;em&gt;how many steps&lt;/em&gt; one may walk on Sabbath). So they assembled on Sunday before work started.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later on, pagans (meaning non-Jews) were allowed to become Christians. Slowly, Christians did not see themselves as Jews anymore, but as a separate religion, so they stopped going to synagogs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6260" LastEditorUserId="15567" LastEditDate="2014-10-11T15:36:22.340" LastActivityDate="2014-10-11T15:36:22.340" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22834" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22832" CreationDate="2013-11-14T17:32:27.087" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;To watch and pray as long as it takes keep Satan from ENTER-ing the disciples of Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;(enter how? don't ask)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And you are right, this story is about the betrayal of Judas. A human like any of us. And how Satan got the best of Judas. see the story in Mt26/Mk14/Lk22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Mt26:38, Jesus knowing that &quot;Satan entered Judas&quot; (Lk22:3), made the point that Satan knows the bad plans/ideas in our heart and it is waiting an opportunity to ENTER and to carry-out the bad plans/ideas in our heart. Specially talking to Peter because he is about to deny Jesus as the story continues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus prayed so Satan would not change his mind so He told the Disciples to do the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for reading&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6506" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T17:32:27.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22835" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22828" CreationDate="2013-11-14T18:13:47.017" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christ Jesus is the fulfillment of &quot;God's Son&quot; promise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christ, always had the title &quot;God's Son&quot;, so everybody was waiting for Him to be begotten.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know God has a Son (Mt 14:14-15) and not begotten, until the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary begot a Son. She called him Jesus. When Jesus was born, He was begotten of God and of Mary. He was also Christ Jesus because it was a spiritual begetting. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, Jn 1:1-18, in a similar sense, anyone who believed in his name, was spiritually begotten, as a child of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this answers your question, thanks for reading!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6506" LastEditorUserId="8641" LastEditDate="2013-11-17T22:54:02.143" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T22:54:02.143" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22836" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22832" CreationDate="2013-11-14T18:20:54.820" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the context of this passage, I would consider it Risky Exegesis™ to apply it to people beyond who the speaker intended (based on what he says). In this case, he is speaking &quot;to the disciples.&quot; I take that to mean meaning the three that went with him farther in: Peter, James and John. The text seems to indicate the objects of his speaking, and so redirecting the statement to new objects is the point at which I would be very cautious.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you want a command from the Lord about prayer and temptation, the Lord's Prayer would probably suffice:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/passage.aspx?q=matthew+6:9-13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:9-13&lt;/strong&gt; KJV&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br/&gt; After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. &lt;strong&gt;And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil&lt;/strong&gt;: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This command has no limitations on audience or duration, and I read this section (the Sermon on the Mount) as applying to all Jesus' followers, henceforward throughout time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An related question of interest might be, &quot;How can I know if a Biblical mandate applies?&quot; I see a number of people choose commands from the Bible (that they like, presumably) and say that those things apply to them, even though I cannot (personally) make build a logical case to support the idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1757" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T18:20:54.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22837" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22832" CreationDate="2013-11-14T20:00:01.110" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While Matthew 26:38 may or may not be an imperative for all future generations, the thrust of it is consistent with many, many other stories that clearly do suggest all of Jesus followers should &quot;watch and pray with me, that you do not enter temptation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus tells these parables to his followers, all of which could be said to varying degrees are an admonition that one watch for the return of the Lord, so that you are not caught unawares.  And, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-11.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Peter&lt;/a&gt; reminds us of the implication, &quot;Seeing that all things will be ended in this fashion, what manner of life ought we to live? We ought to live holy lives.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Parables which teach this &quot;watching and waiting, being prepared&quot; aspect:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Ten_Virgins&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parable of the Foolish Virgins&lt;/a&gt; Matt 25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The foolish virgins who are not prepared are not allowed to enter into the feast.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parable of the Wedding Feast&lt;/a&gt; Matt 22, Luke 14&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wedding guests who did not eagerly anticipate the joy set before them were not invited, those who arrived unprepared were cast out into the darkness where there is &quot;weeping and gnashing of teeth&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard&lt;/a&gt;, Matt 20&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reward for those worked, regardless, but who stayed until the end, was the same.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Wicked_Husbandmen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parable of the Wicked Laborers&lt;/a&gt;, Mark 12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How terrible it will be for those who rejected the seemingly absentee vineyard owner...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parable of the Talents&lt;/a&gt;, Matt 25&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who labored until the return of the Master were rewarded.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A24-30&amp;amp;version=NKJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Parable of the Wheat and the Tares&lt;/a&gt;, Matt 13&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the end, everyone's deeds will be exposed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/matthew/9-37.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few'&lt;/a&gt;, Matt 9.37&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, rewarding those who labor&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-43.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'If the man had known when the thief would come.'&lt;/a&gt; Matt 24:43&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A general admonition towards being prepared.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And note - this was just from memory, and pretty much all of these were from the same book of Matthew.  As such, even if this specific verse may just be for those disciples with Jesus, the general principle seems to be pretty much everywhere else around it - so its inclusion probably can be taken more generally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This teaching is also not even unique to the Gospels.  Paul picks up on it, and even Genesis (think Cain - Watch and be on your guard, for Satan is seeking those whom he can devour) and Chronicles (For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro, seeking those upon whose behalf He can show himself strong.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, regardless of the proof texts used to support the claim, I think it is safe to say that the whole Biblical witness would support it, even if this verse itself were clearly categorized one way or another. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-14T20:10:24.320" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T20:10:24.320" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22838" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-14T20:01:30.623" Score="6" ViewCount="162" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard people say that the Five Books of Moses had to be divine and written 3-4 thousand years ago because there is content in it that later writers (a la Documentary Hypothesis) simply could not have known. I'm unsure what specifically that includes. Perhaps some details of culture of Bronze Age Ur or Egypt. Could it have been written by ordinary scribes in the Iron Age, or are there actually specific details that could have only been known at one point in time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4567" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2016-06-23T12:15:16.563" LastActivityDate="2016-06-23T12:15:16.563" Title="What specifically is in the Pentateuch that later writers could not have known?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22839" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-14T20:06:01.747" Score="3" ViewCount="168" Body="&lt;p&gt;Please forgive me, I'm not Christian but I have wondered: Why do Christians seem to try to prove Noah's flood or a young earth? Considering the overwhelming evidence for human and geologic history that there was no global flood that wiped out life on earth or civilizations and that modern humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, can an allegorical reading of the beginning of Genesis be allowed?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4567" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-11-14T20:12:12.113" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T23:14:10.900" Title="Does Christianity allow allegorical readings of creation and the deluge?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;flood-of-noah&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-11-18T01:25:47.030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22840" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22838" CreationDate="2013-11-14T20:26:44.393" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since the story of creation, and especially from creation in Genesis 1:1 until the sixth day; The only ones around were the three members of the Trinity; those revelations could only be divine. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several other incidents such as Cain slaying Able did not have a lot of eye witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several pastors I have encountered have felt that these things were probably told to Moses during is first 40 day visit with God on the mountain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T20:26:44.393" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22843" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22839" CreationDate="2013-11-14T23:14:10.900" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Seeing as it is almost impossible for bias to &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; slip into our research, we will always see what we want to see or at least try to. Scientists will find reasons that such things aren't true while we believers will believe because we want to. Until 100% undeniable proof is found we will always debate this question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for my opinion on the matter, no we should not try to find a deeper meaning of the scriptures. We should read in the lines of the scriptures and not necessarily between them. There are a few exceptions to this such as the book of Revelation which uses heavy symbolism, but most of it is explained so again I think we should let the bible translate itself. Here is some &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;research&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; into the wording of the days and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Genesis the day's may or may not have been 24 hours. That doesn't matter because there could have been any length of time after the earth was finished that god made man. If you look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/2/#v1002004&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 2:4-7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; we see that there was no time span given between the finishing of earth and the creation of man. Man may have lived for only the past 6000 years, but because of the lack of details the earth may be much older. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My answer then is no, the bible should be read as it was intended and thus as it is written.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-14T23:14:10.900" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22844" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22838" CreationDate="2013-11-15T01:03:05.350" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em&gt;To head off non-constructive debate in comments, bear in mind that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1808/how-we-are-different-than-other-sites&quot;&gt;whether these are convincing arguments is off-topic for the site&lt;/a&gt;.  That sort of thing belongs in chat.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the medical knowledge implicit in some of the Mosaic law.  The standard &lt;a href=&quot;http://carm.org/apologetics&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Apologetic&lt;/a&gt; argument goes that long before modern medical knowledge, God gave Laws relating to cleanliness and avoiding disease and other scientific knowledge that was well ahead of its time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example is found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibleevidences.com/medical.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;bibleevidences.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sample:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sanitary Practices&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For centuries doctors denied the possibility that disease could be&#xA;  transmitted by invisible agents. However, in the late 19th century&#xA;  Louis Pasteur demonstrated in his Germ Theory of Disease that most&#xA;  infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from&#xA;  outside the body. This new understanding of germs and their means of&#xA;  transmission led to improved sanitary standards that resulted in an&#xA;  enormous drop in the mortality rate. Yet these core principles of&#xA;  sanitation were being practiced by the Israelites thousands of years&#xA;  earlier.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in&#xA;  running water if they had a bodily discharge, if they came in contact&#xA;  with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human&#xA;  or animal carcass. They were also instructed to wash any uncovered&#xA;  vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead&#xA;  carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed. Items recovered&#xA;  during war were also to be purified through either fire or running&#xA;  water. In addition, the Israelites were instructed to bury their human&#xA;  waste outside of camp, and to burn the waste of their animals (See&#xA;  Numbers 19:3-22, Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33, Deut 23:12).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Circumcision and Blood Clotting&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For centuries scholars must have been perplexed by God's law of&#xA;  circumcision which required the procedure to be performed on the 8th&#xA;  day after birth (Gen 17:12, 21:14, Lev 12:3, Luke 2:21). Medical&#xA;  researchers recently discovered that the two main blood clotting&#xA;  factors, Vitamin K and Prothrombim, reach their highest level in life,&#xA;  about 110% of normal, on the 8th day after birth. These blood clotting&#xA;  agents facilitate rapid healing and greatly reduce the chance of&#xA;  infection. You can verify with any Obstetrician that the 8th day of&#xA;  life is the ideal time for a circumcision, and that any circumcision&#xA;  done earlier requires an injection of Vitamin K supplement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you move beyond the Pentateuch and into other Old Testament books, there are other scientific statements that don't match up with the beliefs of Pagan societies at the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Earth and Space&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The earth's shape is perhaps the most important to deal with first&#xA;  since many critics claim that the Bible portrays the earth as flat.&#xA;  This couldn't be farther from the truth and in my opinion is one of&#xA;  the most vaporous arguments used by skeptics against the Bible. There&#xA;  is not a single passage that plainly states that the earth is flat1.&#xA;  The groundswell of this criticism gets its roots from the inaccurate&#xA;  but common belief among many that the ancients on up through the&#xA;  middle ages believed that the earth was flat. The truth is, virtually&#xA;  all learned people have known for the last 2500 years that the earth&#xA;  is spherical [please see footnote 2].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before the learned ancients surmised that the earth was spherical, the&#xA;  divinely inspired Isaiah wrote &quot;It is He who sits above the circle of&#xA;  the earth...(Isaiah 40:22)&quot;. In addition, from the Book of Job we have&#xA;  &quot;He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on&#xA;  nothing (Job 26:7)&quot;. It should be noted that just last century&#xA;  scientists believed space consisted of a hypothetical substance called&#xA;  Ether (not the chemical), which was the medium between the celestial&#xA;  bodies.  Also, the pagans of that time believed in such things as a&#xA;  mythical Atlas character who supported the pillars that held heaven&#xA;  and earth apart, and later carried the earth around on his shoulders.&#xA;  Another interesting tidbit that illuminates the divine nature of Job&#xA;  26:7 is the recent discovery of a huge hole in space in the direction&#xA;  of the northern hemisphere3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Hydrologic Cycle&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The circulation and conservation of earth's water is called the&#xA;  hydrologic cycle, which is accurately portrayed in several passages of&#xA;  the Bible, including the following: &quot;For He draws up drops of water,&#xA;  which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and&#xA;  pour abundantly on man. (Job 36:27-28)&quot; . Centuries after the Book of&#xA;  Job was written, Aristotle demonstrated only a vague understanding of&#xA;  this process. Though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he&#xA;  incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are more, and the site I linked to covers them in more depth, as does &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this site&lt;/a&gt;.  Putting them all here would be counter-productive (and plagiarism) so I'll stop there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T15:49:03.177" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T03:14:32.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22846" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22828" CreationDate="2013-11-15T01:57:09.850" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you look closely at &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 28:19&lt;/strong&gt; it only says that he is baptizing them in the name of those 3. The 3 could be separate or any other number of possibilities, but this scripture does not confirm the trinity, only that the Father, son, and holy spirit exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think the answer to your question is in the wording of the scripture at &lt;strong&gt;Luke 1:35&lt;/strong&gt;. It says there:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you,+ and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy,+ God’s Son.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;OK, so Mary just found out that she will be pregnant in the &lt;strong&gt;future&lt;/strong&gt;. Because Jesus is not born yet, he is not yet the son of god. All the angel is saying is that Jesus will be born and called holy, son of god. All of this is not even including my personal religious bias into the scope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you ask a Jehovah's witness they will tell you he was Jehovah's only begotten son before he was given a fleshly body, but I don't think that is what you are asking for so I won't elaborate on it unless you ask me to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T21:52:31.747" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T21:52:31.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22847" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22853" CreationDate="2013-11-15T08:21:36.493" Score="11" ViewCount="20116" Body="&lt;p&gt;Except the book of Genesis, I believe that it is possible to make some plausible possibilities on how the books of the Bible were written. Moses wrote about himself, Joshua recorded his conquest of Canaan, some priests or prophets recorded the stories of Gideon, Samson and Ruth. Samuel recorded the events in his lifetime, historians recorded the chronicles of the kings of Israel, prophets wrote down their visions and messages from God, the apostles recorded the life of Jesus, apostles wrote letters and John wrote down his visions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I can't make any hypothesis how Moses could write down the stories which were around 2000 years before him. The Creation story where no one was there to witness is the most astounding account. Genesis contains many complicated contents such as the years of the first men, thousands of names, complicated family trees, detail stories of people and such.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How have historians and theologians explained how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-27T15:56:00.117" LastActivityDate="2018-07-08T00:15:30.387" Title="How did Moses write the events which happened ~2000 years before him?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;moses&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22849" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22847" CreationDate="2013-11-15T08:49:54.607" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;One hypothesis is that God instructed Moshe, not only what to write on the stone tablets, but also what to write on the scrolls, while Moshe communed with God during the 40 days on Mount Sinai.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T08:49:54.607" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22850" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-15T11:13:37.727" Score="6" ViewCount="259" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;It seems that the idea that created beings become timeless in heaven is not one that is widely held. God, as the Creator of time, space, and matter, is the only Being that exists outside of time, space, and matter.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a quote I have taken from a commentator on this very site (I would gladly cite WHO if I felt this was wanted or indeed, allowed). To me, the idea of time passing just the same in Heaven is, frankly, awful- you'd always be a traveller and never reach a complete conclusion...even if perfect happiness were yours, you'd still be going on to the next thing and then the next...). BUT, I confess, a great many (if this site is anything to go by- MOST...) Christians believe otherwise. Even (hauntingly) my hero, CS Lewis, seems to disagree with me on that score.&#xA;Do most Christians believe Time WILL continue in Heaven?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I realise (before anyone leaps there) that this question begs an OPINION. So let me rephrase the question a little bit...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the magority of written works, sermons and opinions heard by you lovely folk, have they been supportive or against the idea of a timeless Heaven? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suppose one must also throw into the ring, whether the Biblical account of Heaven is literal or symbolic...if literal, then (as it does refer to things like 'months' passing) we must realise there IS time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="8641" LastEditDate="2013-11-17T18:32:57.637" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T18:32:57.637" Title="How many Christians believe there is time in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;eternal-life&gt;&lt;time&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22851" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22850" CreationDate="2013-11-15T12:09:30.023" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians are diverse in their view about &lt;em&gt;time&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;eternity&lt;/em&gt; but nonetheless, it does not affect orthodox teachings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eternity-&lt;/strong&gt; without beginning or ending. The Father, Son and Spirit are the only persons who are eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Time-&lt;/strong&gt; the measure of any activity done either by sense in action (as in &quot;I did it&quot;) or by sense in the stars, moon and sun (as in 9:30 pm).Immortals such as men's spirits and angels has a beginning but no ending. Mortals such as humans has both beginning and ending.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every activity or acts of God has time in it. God makes his own time by acting. Action demands time. Or to put it more clearly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Action is something that is done. &quot;Done&quot; means it was completed in the&#xA;  past. When you do something, &quot;do&quot; is in the present tense. Both past&#xA;  and present tense is in relation to time. Therefore, action demands&#xA;  time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between God's time and our sense of time is that in us, change is involved in time because we are in the realm of space and matter while in God, time does not involved change because he is outside space and matter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Classic example of this view of time is in the doctrine of &lt;em&gt;Eternal Generation of the Son:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is outside our time but he himself is coeval with his own time as anthropomorphic revelation in the Bible allows. The Scripture says that God does things and thus, he has his own time for action demands time. In us humans, we understand God’s activities via our own concept of time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did accurately communicate with us his reality. Hence, the begetting of the Son is always said to be done at the &lt;em&gt;present&lt;/em&gt; time in order to reveal the nature of the begetting as &lt;em&gt;without beginning nor ending&lt;/em&gt; because the begetter himself is &lt;em&gt;without beginning and ending&lt;/em&gt; ( Exodus 3:14 LXX, Psalm 45:1 LXX, Proverbs 8:25 LXX, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Acts 13:33)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems like it's explicit in the Bible that time exists in heaven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. &lt;em&gt;Day and night&lt;/em&gt; they never stop saying:“‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 8:1 When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about &lt;em&gt;half an hour.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 6:10-11 &quot;&lt;em&gt;How long&lt;/em&gt;, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?&quot;And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for &lt;em&gt;a little while longer&lt;/em&gt;, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2013-11-15T13:53:49.700" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T13:53:49.700" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22853" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22847" CreationDate="2013-11-15T14:30:40.300" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pretty clearly, there has to be a mixture of revelation and tradition in Genesis. There are several time periods written about in Genesis, and these should be examined individually:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Creation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly the only observer to the Creation was the Creator. (Or no-one if you are disinclined to believe in a Creator, but from a Christian perspective, no one other than the Creator is even claimed to be present.)  That said, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Creator spoke to Adam about his Creation process, and that an oral tradition would have developed around it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Seeing as we exist, and most people are going to ask 'How we came to be' at some point, it is very easy to assume that a narrative tradition would have been passed down at some point. Indeed, pretty much every culture has a narrative myth of some kind - the Egyptians, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_creation_myths&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;thought the world was masturbated into existence&lt;/a&gt; - passed down from generation to generation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus the fact that there is a Creation story is not unique.  That the world is created &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ex nihilo&lt;/a&gt; is, however, usually attributed uniquely to the Jews. That alone is a sufficiently startling claim to either be passed down or be something revealed. The startling &lt;em&gt;dissimilarity&lt;/em&gt; to other local myths leads many scholars to assume something difference happened to the Jews - regardless of the scholar's status of belief.  This culture either composed something unique or was given a special revelation.  Which it is a clearly a matter of faith in either direction. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antediluvian&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Antedeluvian&lt;/a&gt; Period of Cain &amp;amp; Abel, Enoch, the Flood, and Babel&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One could ask how we &quot;know&quot; that William Wallace tried to liberate Scotland against the rule of Edward Longshanks.  The paper records are scant, but the story is strong and compelling - much like the tales of Genesis 1 - 12.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15462/1039&quot;&gt;Indeed, many scholars see this as a special case within Bible&lt;/a&gt;, and so if any part of Scripture is going to be questioned for its historical value, it is this one.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, it is not an impossibility that this faithfully records the witness of the period.  Indeed, the &quot;list of kings&quot; in Genesis 5 bears &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3262917?uid=3739936&amp;amp;uid=2&amp;amp;uid=4&amp;amp;uid=3739256&amp;amp;sid=21102943446341&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a striking resemblence to the historical record of the Sumerian kings of antiquity&lt;/a&gt;, lending credence to the idea of traditional narrative being passed down. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8345/1039&quot;&gt;Christians obviously disagree over how to read Scripture as a whole&lt;/a&gt; but there is no compelling archeological or extrabiblical evidence in either direction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Indeed even &quot;dialog&quot; from these Pilgrim and Settler experiences &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6525/1039&quot;&gt;is &quot;documented&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, in much the same fashion as appears in these stories, showing that tradition can be documented in an &quot;historical&quot; fashion, even if not with the same precision as modern historians can do with modern history.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Abrahamic Narrative (Genesis 13 - 50)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the time of Abraham in Genesis, a qualitative difference appears in Genesis.  While 2000 years of history is glossed over in scant detail in the first 12 chapters, the remainder of the book concentrates on just 4 generations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.  The events here probably may take place around 1800 - 1700 BC, and begin to take a much more detailed perspective.  Here, for example, we know the names of all the children and the wives.  We learn about their rivalries and their rise to power.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The situation, from Moses' perspective, would be much more akin to that of a modern American to say, the Pilgrims and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Standish&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Myles Standish&lt;/a&gt;, or the founding of Jamestown and Pocohantas.  As part of the founding mythos of Moshe's culture, it is not all surprising that these events would be part of family history, passed down from generation to generation.  And, if &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5061/what-are-the-arguments-for-the-exodus-occuring-in-1440bc-or-1290bc&quot;&gt;Moses lead his people out of Egypt in 1440BC&lt;/a&gt;, it would be surprising the history - especially in an oral culture - had &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; been passed down.  Here, no revelation would have been necessary, as it would have been as common knowledge as say, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Cherry_tree&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;George Washington &quot;chopping down a cherry tree&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, in sum, Moshe probably would have relied on a combination of passed on historical narrative and special revelation in order to write about the things that happened before him.  But we do the same things today, so it isn't surprising in the least.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T14:48:53.700" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22859" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:10:08.603" Score="4" ViewCount="263" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine about Christophany teaches that before the eternal Son was incarnated he already appeared in the Old Testament as &lt;strong&gt;the Angel of the Lord&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question is if there is a New Testament backround about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T22:34:30.713" Title="Is there an evidence about the doctrine of Christophany in the New Testament?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;christophany&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22860" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:15:18.237" Score="0" ViewCount="1036" Body="&lt;p&gt;How did the New Testament writers view Jesus' title of &quot;Son of God&quot;? What did the early church believes about what it means?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-06-12T18:50:40.090" LastActivityDate="2017-06-12T18:50:40.090" Title="Is the title of Jesus &quot;Son of God&quot; synonymous with &quot;Messiah&quot;?" Tags="&lt;christology&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;name-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22861" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:32:30.510" Score="2" ViewCount="129" Body="&lt;p&gt;John's prologue does support the begetting of the Word by using the term &quot; only-begotten&quot; but bible scholars nowadays almost always consider it as a mistranslation of the Greek word &quot; monogenes&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the question really revolves around the said word &quot; monogenes&quot;. Is there a Biblical, Historical and Linguistic proof for it to be translated as &quot; only begotten&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The NASB is a very current  English Bible version that still translate &quot;monogenes&quot; as only begotten. Therefore, my question is answerable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T10:02:50.397" Title="Is there a scripture affirming the begetting of the Word?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;greek&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22862" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22765" CreationDate="2013-11-15T19:41:08.897" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some time ago a pastor said to me:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God makes miracle among the catholics, even though they pray to theis saints, because of his mercy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my pont of view, you find many claims of miracles happening around the world in various religions and even in non religious groups. For example, you will fin many &quot;testimonies&quot; of people saying that they were heald by some diet, from headaches to cancer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of all that, mature christians will not be very impressed by miracles itself, since theis faith is based in the written Word of God, the Bible. Miracles do exist, but the Bible says the Anti-Christ and his false prophet will operate many signs and miracles in order to deceive humankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;People tend to think that if something supernatural happend to someone, that person is somehow better than others. But, in the Bible we see Paul, a great &quot;miracle maker&quot;, saying to the church do not listen to him if he preach another gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To sum up, miracles and other signs does not validate one's faith. So, my approach before a miracle in any religion (or outside any religion) would be:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If you received a miracle, give all the glory to God and Him alone. If you share His glory to another, you will put youself in a dangerous position, since the entire Bible condemns people that give credit to God's work to other people or deities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4953" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T19:41:08.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22864" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22861" CreationDate="2013-11-15T22:01:27.223" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The following is a list of multitudes of Greek words that share the same suffix -γενής, each with possesses the sense of “born”/ “begotten”:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἀφρογενής = “foam-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Αἰγυπτογενής = “born of an Egyptian”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;αἰθρηγενής = “born in Aether (clear sky)”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἁλιγενής = “sea-born” (also, ποντογενής; θαλασσογενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἀλλογενής = “born of another [race]”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἀρτιγενής = “just now born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ἀσιαγενής = “Asiatic born” (also, Ἀσιατογενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ἀτλαγενής = “born of Atlas”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;αὐθιγενής = “born here”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;βοηγενής = “born of an ox”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;βραδυγενής = “late-born” (also, ὀψιγενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;γηγενής = “earth-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Δηλογενής = “born in Delos”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;διδυμογενής = “twin-born” (born as a twin) (also, ὁμηγενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;διγενής = “double-born” (born as both sexes; androgynous)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Διογενής = “born of Dio” (also known as “Zeus”)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Διθυραμβογενής = “born of Dithyramb” (also known as “Dionysius”)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;δρακοντογενής = “born of a dragon”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;δυσγενής = “low-born” (also, νοθαγενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἑβδομαγενής = “born on the seventh day”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἐγγενής = “inborn”; “innate”&#xA;ἑλειογενής = “marsh-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἐνδογενής = “born in the house” (also, οἰκογενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;εὐηγενής = “well-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἠπειρογενής = “born or living in the mainland (esp. of Greece)”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;θεαγενής = “god-born” (also, θεηγενής; θειογενής; θεογενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ἰδογενής = “born on Mount Ida”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ἰνδογενής = “born in India”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἰθαγενής = “legally born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;κακογενής = “evil-born”; “base-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;κογχογενής = “born from a shell”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Κοιογενής = “born of Koios”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;κρατογενής = “head-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;κρυφογενής = “secretly born” (also, κυθηγενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Κυπρογενής = “born in Cyprus”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Λητογενής = “born of Leto”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Λυκηγενής = “born in Lycia”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;μελιηγενής = “ash-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;μεταγενής = “born after”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Νειλογενής = “born in the Nile”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;νεογενής = “new-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;νυμφαγενής = “born of a nymph” (also, νυμφογενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ὀφιογενής = “born of a serpent”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ὀμβρηγενής = “born in the rain”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ὀνειρογενής = “born of a dream”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ὀρειγενής = “mountain-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;παλαιγενής = “born of old”; “born long ago”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πατρογενής = “father born”; “begotten of the father”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Περσογενής = “born in Persia”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πετρηγενής = “rock-born” (also, πετρογενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πρεσβυγενής = “first-born”; “eldest-born” (also, πρωτογενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;προγενής = “born before” (also, προσγενής; προσθαγενής; προτερηγενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Πυλοιγενής = “born in Pylos”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πυριγενής = “born in fire” (also, πυρογενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Σουσιγενής = “born at Susa”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;συγγενής = “born with”; “congenital”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ταρσογενής = “born at Tarsus”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;τετραγενής = “born four times”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;τριγενής = “born three times”; “thrice-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Τριτογενής = “born of Triton”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ὑδογενής = “born in water”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ὑλιγενής = “born in the forest” (also, ὑλογενής)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ὑπερευγενής = “exceedingly well-born”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;φοινικογενής = “born in Phoenicia”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice the suffix of all the words. It is -γενής, just like in the word μονογενής.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for a verse that confirms the eternal begetting, aside from those containing μονογενής, consider &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/42&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 8:42&lt;/a&gt;, in which it is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν ἠγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμέ ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, Yeshua a said to them, &amp;quot;If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out of God and have arrived. For neither have I come of myself, but the same sent me.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;De Trinitate&lt;/em&gt; (&amp;quot;On the Trinity&amp;quot;), Hilary of Poitiers strives to refute numerous heresies, one of which denied the force of the aforementioned scripture. In response to these heretics, he wrote,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Postremo quod dixit: Ex Patre exivi, et veni (John 8:42), utrum ambiguitatem reliquerit, quin intelligeretur non aliunde quam ex Patre esse quod Deus est? Ex Patre enim exiens, neque aliam nativitatis habuit naturam, neque nullam: sed eum sibi testatur auctorem, ex quo se profitetur exisse. De his autem demonstrandis atque intelligendis posterior mihi sermo est.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Pending my English translation)  See link below for Schaff's translation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;em&gt;De Trinitate&lt;/em&gt; (&amp;quot;On the Trinity&amp;quot;), Book VI, §16. | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.vi.html?scrBook=John&amp;amp;scrCh=8&amp;amp;scrV=42#ii.v.ii.vi-p62.1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/pt/grl.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Latin&lt;/a&gt; |&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ateret-tiferet.com/exegesis/A_List_of_New_Testament_Verses_Containing_Exerchomai_and_Ex-Ek.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;This pdf&lt;/a&gt; contains a list of all the NT verses in which we find a conjugation of the verb ἐξέρχομαι followed by the preposition ἐκ/ ἐξ. What this list demonstrates is that Yeshu'a must have actually come out of God --- not in a figurative way, nor by simply being sent (which is expressed elsewhere by another Greek phrase: ἐγὼ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον, cp. John 16:27), but actually, by a spiritual generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The peculiar thing about this Greek phrase is that it is also used in the LXX to indicate offspring being begotten from a father (cp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=15&amp;amp;v=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen. 15:4&lt;/a&gt;: ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=17&amp;amp;v=6&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen. 17:6&lt;/a&gt;: ἐκ...ἐξελεύσονται; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&amp;amp;b=Gen&amp;amp;c=35&amp;amp;v=11&amp;amp;x=55&amp;amp;y=15#conc/11&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen. 35:11&lt;/a&gt;: ἐκ...ἐξελεύσονται; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&amp;amp;c=46&amp;amp;v=26&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/26&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Gen. 46:26&lt;/a&gt;: ἐξελθόντες ἐκ) and coming forth from a mother's womb (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Job&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=21&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Job 1:21&lt;/a&gt;: ἐξῆλθον ἐκ), both acts of generation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Commenting about the Greek phrase ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον in John 8:42, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/john-8-42.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John Gill&lt;/a&gt; notes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the former of these phrases is observed by many learned men to be used by the Septuagint, of a proper natural birth, as in (Gen. 15:4, 35:11); and here designs the eternal generation of Christ, as the Son of God, being the only begotten of the Father, and the Son of the Father in truth and love; and the other is to be understood of his mission from him, as Mediator:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his commentary on John 8:42, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.studylight.org/com/hac/view.cgi?bk=42&amp;amp;ch=8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Henry Alford&lt;/a&gt; notes,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ἥκω conveys the result of ἐξῆλθον, as Meyer; who also remarks that mere sending will not exhaust ἐξῆλθον, which must be taken metaphysically, of the proceeding forth of the Eternal Son from the essence of the Father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T10:02:50.397" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22865" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-15T23:16:55.663" Score="-1" ViewCount="73" Body="&lt;p&gt;I love the British sci-fi series 'Dr Who'... also films, movie monsters and statues of film characters, film collectables and so on...some love golf...others flower arranging etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I've heard it said that loves like these are shadows, echoes or reflections of God and that, through seeing Him, our ultimate want in EVERYTHING desirable will be complete.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before anyone tells me, I don't mean that this means we should worship our enjoyments AS God (nor should we allow such things to cause ill- drink may be good but too much equals drunkenness (as an example)).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this idea correct? Are our joys 'sunbeams' to God's 'Sun'? Or is the experience of God (Beatification) completely other to ANYTHING here, not just by degree of satifaction in relation to Him but also 'type' experience?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before this sends anyones alarm bells ringing, I'm not asking for an opinion, merely what the Church tends to think as regards this question; &quot;it doesn't&quot; or &quot;it depends from person to person WHAT is believed as regards this&quot; are perfectly good answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T02:04:45.670" Title="Is the experience of God the fulfillment of all our desires here...or an unknown quantity?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-07-06T07:56:41.860" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22866" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22875" CreationDate="2013-11-15T23:17:08.257" Score="2" ViewCount="526" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Bible account of Exodus, God gives the Jews a type of bread called &quot;Manna&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What exactly is manna? What is in it? Do Jews or Christians still eat it today? If so, do they eat it at certain times? What does it taste like? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wanted to be a chef many years ago, but that didn't pan out, so to speak. Cooking food has always been a passion, as is learning. I want to find out more about this bread and try to recreate it if possible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in reference to researching the historical diet of both the early Jews and Christians. The scope of that is much to wide to ask in total right now, so I will ask in parts, starting with manna. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-07-31T14:45:12.217" LastActivityDate="2015-07-31T14:45:12.217" Title="What exactly is manna?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;tradition&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;diet&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22867" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10187" CreationDate="2013-11-15T23:49:04.100" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think that that verse just means that love drives god to do everything he does. It is why he acts with righteousness and justice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also this scripture to build on this. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/14/#v43014008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:8-9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. &quot;He who has seen me has seen the father also&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was a perfect reflection of his father. When we look at the works of Jesus, we see the desire and work of god. So what where some of the qualities of Jesus? Compassion, mercy, patience, generousness, peaceful. All of these stemmed from his love for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When asked what the greatest commandment is Jesus responds &lt;em&gt;&quot;You must love Jehovah&lt;/em&gt; your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38  This is the greatest and first commandment. 39  The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40  &lt;strong&gt;On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets&lt;/strong&gt;.”* &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/22/#v40022037&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:37-40&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, and therefore god, are saying that Love is the platform for everything they have done. Remember also the name of Jehovah. It means &quot;I shall prove to be&quot;. Not only does that mean that god can be anything he want's, but it also means he can change the purpose of anything to become what he needs it to be. Just because gods motive is love doesn't take away from his power. There is no power anywhere that can match his.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-15T23:49:04.100" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22868" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5949" CreationDate="2013-11-16T00:49:22.530" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hard to believe folks here are ignoring the contribution of the other Gospel writers who provide more threads to this cloth. Pilate was not in the dark about Jesus and knew of His truth claims as well as what had been reported about Him. It seems unreasonable to restrict hos comments to so narrow an interpretation (&quot;What is THE truth?&quot;) when the article is absent and the issue at hand is much wider.&#xA;  He was adept in his acquisition of the throne and just as adept in defending it (as being under the watchful eye of Tiberius in Rome for his assault on the Jews earlier). Truth as a category did not matter to him. He knew it did not matter to Jesus' accusers, either...the presumed guardians of Truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8618" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T00:49:22.530" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22869" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19252" CreationDate="2013-11-16T00:49:53.467" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;As another answer stated, we get the building done in 3 days for convenience mostly. The whole thing is amazingly organized and thus moves quickly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nothing&lt;/strong&gt; is done to be cheap. That would be disrespect to Jehovah. The main concern is to not take time away from the builders lives and to continue the preaching work. The preaching work is the #1 priority to us. Look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/6/#v44006001&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 6:1-4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. A situation arose where the Greek widows weren't getting food, but the Hebrew ones where. Instead of taking up the time of the Apostles with fixing this the twelve assigned reputable men to take care of distribution. What is their motive? Furthering and focusing on the preaching work. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like the apostles, we too focus mainly on our ministry. We use our resources and time wisely, so as not to slow the preaching works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't know why we decided on 3 days, but we do it and do it well. The level of education doesn't matter. It matters only that you are motivated to do so. If you don't know how to do anything, then chances are you are going to learn a lot. There are a lot of skilled brothers on site working on whatever section is their trade.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We get a lot of volunteers from all over the state and some out of state. Here is a video showing the building of a kingdom hall. This one actually only took 2 days. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOkjneqg5I0&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Quickbuild&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of us tend to not have a ton of money, but that is because we work to pay bills and provide for what we need. A lot only work part time, so that they have more time to go out and preach. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When building we want 3 things Quality, safety, speed. I think we achieve those remarkably well. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/activities/construction/safety-inspector-kingdom-hall/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Safety&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. To attest to the quality of the building, just attend a meeting. The building is not extravagant, but also not cheap. The buildings are made to last and are well maintained.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am currently an unbaptized publisher working towards baptism. I am prospectively looking at going to trade school for something like electrician, HVAC, etc.. sometime early 2014. I will most likely be helping with quick builds very soon :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2013-11-28T00:17:00.457" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T00:17:00.457" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22870" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8453" CreationDate="2013-11-16T01:20:20.840" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus was quoting Aramaic. Not Septuagint. Aramaic was the spoken language of first century Israel. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to first century Jewish historian, Josephus, Jews didn't speak Greek in first century Israel. He wrote:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods&lt;/strong&gt;; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; &lt;strong&gt;on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains&lt;/strong&gt;. – Antiquities of Jews XX, XI&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1):&#xA;I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, &lt;strong&gt;to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians&lt;/strong&gt;. Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh is Aramaic Old Testament used among Jews in first century AD (source -&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pshitta.org/english/intro.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.pshitta.org/english/intro.php&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus calls Aramaic as &quot;our tongue&quot; or &quot;our language&quot; or &quot;the language of our country.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jewish Wars Book 5, Chapter 4, Paragraph 2 – This new-built part of the city was called &quot;Bezetha,&quot; in &lt;strong&gt;our language&lt;/strong&gt;, which, if interpreted in the Grecian language, may be called &quot;the New City.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;tha&quot; at the end of &quot;Bezetha&quot; is the Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun in an emphatic state (Source – Book &quot;Introduction to Syriac&quot; by Wheeler Thackston, Page 44).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T01:20:20.840" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22871" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22865" CreationDate="2013-11-16T02:04:45.670" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;On the basis of I Corinthians 2: 9-10, I would expect that the joy of heaven is beyond anything we can imagine naturally, and therefore far beyond anything we can experience in this life, but that we can understand it, at least to some degree, through God's revelation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T02:04:45.670" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22872" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-16T04:19:19.420" Score="1" ViewCount="1176" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do young Catholics remember a set of prayers in order to pray the rosary? Do they have to memorize everything by rote, or do they get some help with mnemonics? Should they pray in Latin or in the vernacular? Is there a bit of wiggle room if someone is a little amnesic so that they don't have to remember a set of prayers? Would just &lt;em&gt;reading&lt;/em&gt; the prayers suffice instead of actually memorizing, or is memorizing a form of pious behavior for young people who are taught to become faithful practicing Catholics?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, I was reading this article [Cunningham, L. S. (1999). Mary in Catholic Doctrine and Practice. Theology Today, 56(3), 307.], and I noticed that the author was raised Catholic as a youngster, as shown.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;By the time I was in elementary school, I knew how to say the&#xA;  rosary-which meant that I had memorized the Hail Mary, the Lord’s&#xA;  Prayer, the Apostle’s Creed, and the Glory be to the Father as well as&#xA;  the titles of the fifteen mysteries upon which we meditated as we&#xA;  prayed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2016-05-10T08:39:26.903" Title="How do young Catholics remember a set of prayers in order to pray the rosary?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;religious-education&gt;&lt;rosary&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22874" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22872" CreationDate="2013-11-16T05:41:15.650" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How do young Catholics remember a set of prayers in order to pray the rosary? Do they have to memorize everything by rote, or do they get some help with mnemonics?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rosary is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rosary-center.org/howtodom.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;combination of many prayers&lt;/a&gt; like Apostles' Creed, Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory to the Father.., twenty mysteries divided into four sets,  Hail holy Queen, Litany of Mary etc. All these individual prayers are therefore memorised so that one can say them fluently at the time of their recital. All these prayers are mandatory (to be learnt by heart) before the members are made eligible for Sacraments like First Communion, Confirmation etc.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Should they pray in Latin or in the vernacular?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All these prayers are said in vernacular languages. In my place the Litany sometimes is still recited in Latin, but that is by a few exceptional groups of people who are of older generation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Is there a bit of wiggle room if someone is a little amnesic so that they don't have to remember a set of prayers?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not very sure but for such members only the basic prayers like  Apostles creed, Our Father, Hail Mary  are made to remember  so that they become eligible for requisite Sacraments.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Would just reading the prayers suffice instead of actually memorizing, or is memorizing a form of pious behavior for young people who are taught to become faithful practicing Catholics?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is necessary and mandatory that all these prayers are memorised and this is usually done at home as well as in the Sunday catechism classes. There are about seven text books that children have to learn and pass during the catechism classes. During these classes they are taught these prayers as well as other tenets of Roman Catholicism/Christianity. But mostly the memorising is done at home. Then they have to answer exams of sort in the catechism classes and pass them. The Sacrament of First Communion is given for those who have learnt and passed first two text books. And those who have completed all the seven would be selected for the Sacrament of Confirmation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T05:41:15.650" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22875" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22866" CreationDate="2013-11-16T05:56:15.440" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, the word &quot;manna&quot; itself means &quot;What is it?&quot; so I'm not sure you're going to find a perfectly satisfactory answer to your question. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, it was created supernaturally by God, and He didn't share the recipe. :-)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since it was a single miracle, and not something that people still eat today, no one really knows personally what it tastes like. However, the KJV states in Exodus 16:31, &quot;It was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would not say that it was necessarily bread as we think of it, since Exodus 16:21 states that when the sun beat down in the afternoon, the manna melted.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8621" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T05:56:15.440" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22877" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-16T10:52:50.123" Score="18" ViewCount="3000" Body="&lt;p&gt;What are the 'Scriptures' mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15: 3 - 4?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;. . . Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;. . . He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Paul called something 'scriptures' I would like to know what it was and take his opinion seriously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did the Corinthians have the same Bible we have?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did they have access to 'Scriptures' other than the modern Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did Paul teach from the same 'Scriptures' they had?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-08-14T13:15:17.473" Title="What are the 'Scriptures' mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;1-corinthians&gt;" AnswerCount="8" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22881" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:26:09.117" Score="0" ViewCount="267" Body="&lt;p&gt;Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you ( 2 Peter 1:10 NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastActivityDate="2015-02-14T14:12:33.477" Title="Does 2 Peter 1:10 teach salvation can be gained through faith plus works?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-06-16T08:31:18.347" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22882" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22881" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:28:02.643" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;2 Peter 1:10 teaches to make our calling and election sure not make our salvation sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;calling is not our work- 2 Timothy 1:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;election is not our work-Romans 9:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if calling and election are both not our works then HOW are we to MAKE sure of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer is found in the Greek word &quot; spoudasate&quot; ( go fast by applying fully one's self with diligence) in the qualities said in v. 5-7.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter exhorts and reminds us redeemed persons to be diligent in those qualities because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1.it is ours( v. 8a),&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2.we have it (v. 8b) and &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3.we are practicing it( note the present continuous tense of poiountes in v. 10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By exemplifying those qualities we are making 'sure' not making ourself 'save', that is, that we are indeed called and chosen by God apart from our works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just like James 2:26 and Philippians 2:12, we must show forth our faith by our works. Faith alone in Christ saves but works proves real faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2015-02-14T14:12:33.477" LastActivityDate="2015-02-14T14:12:33.477" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22883" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-16T14:41:58.530" Score="0" ViewCount="258" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Book of John says that God is the Word in the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. &lt;em&gt;(John 1:1, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How is Jesus Christ the son to the Word?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus, when he was with the Twelve Apostles, told his disciples that no one was going to the Father except through him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? &lt;em&gt;(John 14:6-9, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, are these verses trying to say that Christ is God and that he has always been since the beginning, so Mary who came later bore Christ who was before?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8625" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-01-20T22:56:22.113" Title="Is John saying that Christ is God and eternal?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-25T13:56:23.103" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22884" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-16T15:13:18.603" Score="4" ViewCount="5948" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will&#xA;  become of the godless man and the sinner? (1 Peter 4:18, NASB).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that Peter wasn't talking about salvation from hell here because the subject is already righteous, but he's clearly talking about salvation. So, what sort of salvation is he talking about? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-10-16T18:51:22.547" LastActivityDate="2015-10-16T18:51:22.547" Title="In 1 Peter 4:18, what does Peter mean by the righteous having difficulty to be saved?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;1-peter&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2015-10-25T00:50:51.177" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22885" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22884" CreationDate="2013-11-16T15:22:28.650" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In 1 Peter 4:18, the Apostle Peter is talking about salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Salvation simply means &quot;rescue&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter is talking about rescue from &lt;em&gt;sufferings on earth&lt;/em&gt; not from &lt;em&gt;damnation in hell&lt;/em&gt; as the immediate context shows.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Peter 4:12-19 (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the &lt;strong&gt;fiery ordeal&lt;/strong&gt; among you,&#xA;  which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing&#xA;  were happening to you; 13 but to the degree that you share the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;sufferings&lt;/strong&gt; of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. 14 If you are&#xA;  reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of&#xA;  glory and of God rests on you. 15 Make sure that none of you&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;suffers&lt;/strong&gt; as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; 16 but if anyone &lt;strong&gt;suffers&lt;/strong&gt; as a Christian, he is not to be&#xA;  ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. 17 For it is time for&#xA;  judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us&#xA;  first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel&#xA;  of God? 18 &lt;em&gt;And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved,&#xA;  what will become of the godless man and the sinner?&lt;/em&gt; 19 Therefore,&#xA;  those also who &lt;strong&gt;suffer&lt;/strong&gt; according to the will of God shall entrust&#xA;  their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why the righteous has difficulty with having salvation from sufferings on earth is because he still has the ability to sin ( John 1:5-10). The point is that it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; impossible for the rigtheous to be saved from sufferings on earth but rather, it's possible yet with difficulty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you&#xA;  should &lt;strong&gt;suffer&lt;/strong&gt; for what is right, you are blessed. 1 Peter 3:13-14&#xA;  (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For it is better, if it is God’s will, to &lt;strong&gt;suffer&lt;/strong&gt; for doing good than&#xA;  for doing evil.For Christ also &lt;strong&gt;suffered&lt;/strong&gt; once for sins, the righteous&#xA;  for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the&#xA;  body but made alive in the Spirit. 1 Peter 3:17-18 (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5256" LastEditorUserId="5256" LastEditDate="2013-11-16T15:34:07.783" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T15:34:07.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22886" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="695" CreationDate="2013-11-16T17:13:25.773" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;the question was &quot;what are the different names of god in the bible and what do they mean?&quot; However, &lt;em&gt;IN TH BIBLE&lt;/em&gt; there is only ONE name for god! best identified from the tetragrammaton &quot;YHWH&quot; Yahweh which means &quot;hayah asher hayah&quot; translated &quot;I AM THAT I AM&quot; in Exodus 3:14. To which many bible scholars and teachers admit. This name speaks to the awesomeness of the creator's power to be self existent. Nowhere in the bible refers to the NAMES of God only NAME (singular). It has been a very common error for persons to use the creator's &quot;TITLES&quot; for names. Man-given titles such as god, lord, Lord God are common in the bible and the man-given name Jehovah. As someone previously posted, there is no J in the Hebrew alphabet. The name was first given in Hebrew. The letter J was not a part of the english alphabet until around the middle to late 1800s. So what was the creator's name before that time?...could not have been Jehovah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8627" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T17:13:25.773" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22889" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22907" CreationDate="2013-11-16T22:31:34.283" Score="12" ViewCount="19592" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the scriptures, a phrase such as &quot;in the name of the Lord&quot; or &quot;in the name of Jesus&quot; is typically used at the beginning of statements, especially commands. In our day, I notice that most of our prayers, for instance, &lt;em&gt;end&lt;/em&gt; &quot;in Jesus' name&quot; or &quot;in the name of Jesus Christ.&quot; By way of another example, it seems that even most special Priesthood blessings by Latter-day Saints end with such a phrase, instead of starting with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there significance in the reversal of the placement of this phrase? Does the meaning change whether at the beginning or end?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Sometimes I think when we say a prayer and &lt;em&gt;end&lt;/em&gt; it with that phrase, it tends to get lost behind the other words, or is said quickly as a part of just ending the prayer, instead of carrying the meaning of praying &lt;em&gt;in the Lord's name&lt;/em&gt;, which is why I'm asking this question.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastActivityDate="2017-09-25T12:04:38.120" Title="Why is &quot;in the name of Jesus Christ&quot; usually used at the end?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22890" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5861" CreationDate="2013-11-16T23:25:00.020" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The central thought of the Bible is Christ and the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament reveals Christ and the New Testament reveals the church as the counter part of Christ (Ephesians 5:32). We cannot simply remain in just knowing Jesus Christ. Our issue of knowing Him must be the edifying, the building up, of the church, which is His body (As revealed in Colossians 1:18). This is God's purpose and desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how can we build up the church? 1 Corinthians 14:26 :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much grace, fellow believers in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8633" LastActivityDate="2013-11-16T23:25:00.020" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22891" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22877" CreationDate="2013-11-17T00:04:55.980" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scriptures that are referred to in Corinthians 15:3 and 4 are far too many to cite here on this site but here are just a few for reference.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the part about dieing for our sins these are a few, there are many, many more.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 11:1 through 10 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1  And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2  And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3  And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4  But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5  And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6  The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7  And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8  And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9  They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10  And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 53:1 through 12 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1  Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2  For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3  He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and &#xA;  we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4  Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5  But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8  He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9  And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10  Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11  He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12  Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as rising on the third day that is a little more nebulous, but it has to do with the fact&#xA;that  decay of the human body begins after three days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 11:39  KJV  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 16:10 and 49:9  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;49:9  That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T00:04:55.980" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22892" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14282" CreationDate="2013-11-17T01:46:55.667" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The four living creatures can be identified as the last priest king given understanding of the most high, and only Lord God's will. Lion- king, Ox- priestly sacrifice, Eagle as it is soaring- one of understanding (includes the many eyes within).&#xA;They four are the one mightiest angel (Chayot), who authored the small scroll; sweet in the mouth, but bitter in the belly. He would absolutely have to be foretold of throughout the entire old and new testaments. Such mystery as was commanded to be with-held. Yet, in the last day, a more pure and sure definition of the Fathers holiest name, and will, would be disclosed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8634" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T01:46:55.667" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22895" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8504" CreationDate="2013-11-17T05:02:42.243" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Aramaic, Jesus Christ addresses God as MarYA. In Aramaic Peshitta (Aramaic NT), you will see Jesus Christ saying MarYA several times.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;YA&quot; (Yodh Alap) is Aramaic form of Hebrew &quot;YH&quot; in &quot;YHWH.&quot; MarYA means &quot;Master YA&quot; in English. Aramaic was the spoken language of first century Israel. So they used MarYA to address God. So the names will also get changed when they are converted from Hebrew into Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some examples. I will put Hebrew &lt;strong&gt;on the left&lt;/strong&gt;, Aramaic &lt;strong&gt;in the middle&lt;/strong&gt;, and English &lt;strong&gt;on the right&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;YH (Hebrew)    -   YA (Aramaic)  - English&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yehochanan     -   Yochanan      - John&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yehonathan     -   Yonathan      - Jonathan&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yehoseph       -   Yoseph        - Joseph&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yehoyachim     -   Yoyakim       - Joachim&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic was the spoken language of Jews in first century AD and upto 130 AD in second century AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From 131 AD, Jewish opposition started against Emperor Hadrian which led to the rise of Simon Bar Kokhba (also known as Simon Bar Kosiba) and Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD). Simon Bar Kokhba revived Hebrew and tried to make Hebrew the official language of the state during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD) instead of Aramaic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist, Yigael Yadin, Aramaic was the spoken language of Jews until Simon bar Kokhba tried to restore Hebrew as the official language of Jews during Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135). Yigael Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew during the time of Bar Kokhba revolt—in his book Bar Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome, Yadin notes, &quot;It is interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew. Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar-Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state&quot; (page 181). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Book &quot;A Roadmap to the Heavens: An Anthropological Study of Hegemony among Priests, Sages, and Laymen (Judaism and Jewish Life)&quot; by Sigalit Ben-Zion (Page 155), Yadin remarked: &quot;it seems that this change came as a result of the order that was given by Bar Kokhba, who wanted to revive the Hebrew language and make it the official language of the state.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The names also &quot;started&quot; to convert back to Hebrew during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD). From this point onwards, Hebrew &quot;YH&quot; was used instead of Aramaic &quot;YA.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Example, &lt;strong&gt;Yoseph Bar Yoseph&lt;/strong&gt; in Aramaic became &lt;strong&gt;Yehoseph Ben Yehoseph&lt;/strong&gt; in Hebrew during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you know, Aramaic word &quot;Bar&quot; means son (&quot;Bar&quot;tholomew, &quot;Bar&quot;abbas, &quot;Bar&quot;nabbas, &quot;Bar&quot;sabbas, etc) while the word for son in Hebrew is Ben.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the link where you can see Yehoseph Ben Yehoseph in Bar Kokhba letters.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_Bar_Kokhba_Letters:_Day-to-Day_Conduct_of_the_Revolt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_Bar_Kokhba_Letters:_Day-to-Day_Conduct_of_the_Revolt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2013-11-17T05:21:12.640" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T05:21:12.640" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22896" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8140" CreationDate="2013-11-17T05:28:22.653" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of the old testament had to be written by word of mouth. the first 5 books of the old testament were written by Moses. Adam was created around 4000 B.C.E. Moses wrote Genesis in 1513 B.C.E. The other 4 books he was present for, but everything up to then he must have learned from word of mouth. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books-of-the-bible-list/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Table of the Books of the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem with the whole bible is that so much time has gone by that anyone could have changed the words of it. That could have been done on accident or on purpose during translation. For example the tetragrammaton YHWH, the name of god, was taken out of the bible due to superstitions of the Jews. This had to do with the 3rd commandment at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/20/#v2020007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 20:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. The Jews take on that was, &quot;Well we will just take his name out and nobody can say it&quot;. That is clearly not what Jehovah god intended. Today sadly many bible translations are going that way. Just because we don't know the exact pronunciation doesn't mean we shouldn't try.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old testament is still pretty accurate, more of the scriptures has come to light. Take for instance the dead sea scrolls of Isaiah. Ancient, untouched, unmodified documents that we can compare our translations to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You also have to take into account that this is God's written word. Jehovah would never let anyone contaminate his word. In the Greek scriptures you find this verse at &lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:16&lt;/strong&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17  so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work&lt;/em&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Everything god put in the bible, he put there for our benefit. I would have to say that the old testament would be just as accurate as the new. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-11-18T05:29:18.217" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T05:29:18.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22898" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22884" CreationDate="2013-11-17T06:55:03.520" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would not separate this 'salvation' from salvation from hell, for I do not think there is any other kind of salvation. Sin, hell, the world and the devil are all arrayed against the believer making our death to the world and our life in Christ a target of conflict; an inwardly felt weakness and struggle. This target (the faith of believers) is the end direction of all the energy, malice and aggression that the Devil and all the whole world enslaved to sin aims at, making our salvation very difficult. Not that we can ever loose it but that it is a road of conflict by nature of the evil in this world and the remans of sin within our own selves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, sinners often have an easy life for their lusts are harmonious with the desires of the whole world.  If a sinner has wealth, or very good looks or a very reputable name in business or religion, he may live an easy life without intense inner conflicts against sin, for he freely follows his lusts without conflict in the world and is praised for it by the world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The statement is saying that if a real believer who 'feels so weak' and is often actually 'externally weak' in terms of worldly power, and who 'struggles daily' like a 'bruised reed and a smoldering wick', if they are saved through this kind of 'difficulty', how will the wicked find the final judgment to be after their life of ease and lack of struggle?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The answer is clear, sinners who have no struggle with a world of sin will find hell swallowing up their souls in sudden terror, whereas the struggling weak and tortured believer, whose faith seems always tested from without and within due to our backsliding hearts, will enter at last into glory forevermore.&lt;/strong&gt; What a contrast! This is the point of it, a contrast of life in this world and one's corresponding destiny hereafter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T06:55:03.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22900" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-17T09:47:12.990" Score="5" ViewCount="695" Body="&lt;p&gt;Back in the 1980s, Archbishop Lefebvre of the Society of St. Pius X consecrated four priests as bishops without the Pope's approval. Does this action make the Society schismatic?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6344" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-12-18T07:20:56.963" LastActivityDate="2015-12-18T07:20:56.963" Title="Is the Society of St. Pius X schismatic or not?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;schism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22903" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22850" CreationDate="2013-11-17T11:40:43.360" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think we must start by understanding that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;God sees all things as one&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;..He sees The end from the beginning. He does not see as we see neither does He think as we think &quot;For as the heavens are higher than the Earth so are My ways higher than your ways&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah 46:10 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 10 Declaring the end&#xA;  from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been&#xA;  done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish&#xA;  all My good pleasure’;,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He sees the end, because He determines that end, &quot;My purpose will be established&quot; Why? Because &quot;I will accomplish&quot; ! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before God all things are one..Before the foundation of the Earth, before the creation of any creature, God determined and therefore foreknew and foresaw all things!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say that &lt;strong&gt;*action equates to time&lt;/strong&gt; is fallacious to the extent that God has always been working, John 5:17-18&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself&#xA;  am working.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before there was any creature, God is and had no beginning. Do you think you can understand that? The creature sees time because he is created and  has a beginning. But God, who can look on His face and live? All representations of Eternity, are necessarily couched in time, simply because we cannot understand Gods eternity, as we are not eternal. When John says there was &quot;Silence in heaven for half an hour&quot; that was his perception. God does not see in time as we do. In order to understand &quot;Not having a beginning&quot; we must put ourselves in that place, something we cannot do! The question arises though, whether we will when we see Christ, for then we will &quot; Know fully even as we have been fully known&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from Gods point of view, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;everything is one&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, there is no progression, as we experience life and the created realm.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question we must first determine what Heaven is. Is it &quot;In His presence forever&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalm 16:11&#xA;New American Standard Bible (NASB)&#xA;11 You will make known to me the path of life;&#xA;In Your presence is fullness of joy;&#xA;In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We certainly, cannot contemplate what it will be like, as &quot;eye hath not seen neither ear heard neither has it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for them&quot; ! It is futile, to try and imagine, in fact it could be idolatry to do so! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If time, is the awareness of events passing, of forward movement, then yes we experience this now. But I doubt we will be looking at a clock when we are in the presence of the Eternal God..and I doubt whether time will be an element in that experience, certainly not in the way we experience time now. For now we long to see Him in the future. Time has many emotions connected with it. Regret, longing, hoping and others. None of these will be experienced in Heaven as we will know even as we have been known. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thoughts of heaven must always fall into the category of, &quot;Eye has not seen-neither has it entered into the hearts of men, what God has prepared for them that love him&quot; ! Time may be swallowed in eternity just as this, &quot;Mortal will be swallowed up in immortality&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8641" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T11:40:43.360" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22904" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22900" CreationDate="2013-11-17T11:42:38.360" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Societies of Apostolic Life, &amp;quot;without taking religious vows, pursue the apostolic purpose proper to each society. Living a fraternal life in common in their own special manner, they strive for the perfection of charity through the observance of the constitutions&amp;quot; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2G.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon 731&lt;/a&gt;]. The Society of S Pius X is constituted as a Society of Apostolic Life with the canonical approval of the Bishop of Fribourg [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon 579&lt;/a&gt;]. Such Societies, &amp;quot;since they are dedicated in a special way to the service of God and of the whole Church, are in a particular manner subject to its supreme authority&amp;quot; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon 590&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Society itself &lt;a href=&quot;http://sspx.org/en/about/organization&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;says&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Society of St. Pius X humbly submits to the authority of the pope, supreme guardian of the faith, and pays him all the reverence due to the chosen head of God’s Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If and when the time-honored teachings of the Church are obscured or perhaps even seemingly contradicted by the authorities in Rome, however, the SSPX stands firm for tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four priests as bishops in 1998 without authority, an act which was schismatic under Canon Law [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Canon 751&lt;/a&gt;] and resulted in all five being &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;excommunicated by Pope John Paul II&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI remitted the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated without authority by Archbishop Lefebvre, and explained in an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;apostolic letter&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He went on&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This mirrors the Society's own statement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Benedict then dealt with the status of the Society and its ministers:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus although the ministers within the SSPX who were illegitimately consecrated have been released from the individual penalty of that schismatic act, the fact that they belong to an organisation constituted as a Society of Apostolic Life which has reservations about the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council [cf Canon 590] means that they cannot minister within the Church: they remain under interdict.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the Society itself (in the second sentence quoted at the top of this answer) has &lt;strong&gt;set itself&lt;/strong&gt; to be the authority to determine if &amp;quot;time-honoured teachings are obscured or seemingly contradicted,&amp;quot; it remains schismatic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T11:42:38.360" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22905" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11491" CreationDate="2013-11-17T13:30:21.520" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;2nd Corinthians 5:17 is all you need to be concerned about. It is every second every day thing that takes place in Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8644" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T13:30:21.520" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22907" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22889" CreationDate="2013-11-17T15:27:16.723" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to your question is in several Scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Matthew He told us first of all that we should pray directly to the Father, and not for rewards here on Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 6:5 through 7 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Jesus taught his disciples (which of course includes us) in the model prayer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 6:9 through 15 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11  Give us this day our daily bread. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14  For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15  But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was given as an outline and not meant to be recited word for word, but even if you recite it word for word, what matters is your intent; and so praying the &quot;Lord's Prayer&quot; in not in any way sacrilegious as long as your intent is right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He went on to say that we need to pray knowing that God has the power to grant our every wish, and that He will grant them in accordance with His plans for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 21:22  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:13 and 14 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13  And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally He tells us that if we expect him to grant our request we must continue in his word, and be the best Christian we know how to be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 15:7  KJV &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It really doesn't matter when you acknowledge Jesus Authority, either before or after, but it does matter that you acknowledge it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T15:27:16.723" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22908" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14953" CreationDate="2013-11-17T17:55:30.127" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &quot;afterlife&quot; does not appear in the Bible.  That's because the only hope we have for eternal life is the resurrection.  We as Christians await eagerly for the &quot;redemption of our bodies&quot; (Rom 8:23) which comes about at the second coming of Jesus Christ.  Here's what the Bible says in Philippians 3:20-21: &quot;20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason why the resurrection is our hope is because the Bible says &quot;For the living know that they will die, &lt;strong&gt;but the dead know nothing&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; Ecclesiastes 9:5.  Here's another: &quot;3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; &lt;strong&gt;in that very day his thoughts perish&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot; (Psalm 143:3-4)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, your grandmother is dead, she has no thoughts and she does not know anything about what is happening to you.  That also makes sense right?  Because in heaven there are no more tears.  How would your grandmother feel if she could look in on you from heaven and something really sad happened to you?  Would she not have tears?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An in regards to the story of Lazarus referenced above please note that this is not a literal description of what happens when we go to heaven or hell. Why? Because clearly this is a parable.  And if the parable was literal, then the people in hell can see the people in heaven and talk to them, and a drop of water on the tongue can provide comfort from the agony of hell.  Rather the point Jesus was making in the parable was that once we die it is too late for us to repent.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In light of the clear scripture about the resurrection and about the thoughts of the dead perishing, we know that the dead cannot see what's happening to us once they pass away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8648" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T17:55:30.127" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22909" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9567" CreationDate="2013-11-17T19:12:22.323" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I will  answer this separately. &lt;strong&gt;Jesus Christ was a Carpenter.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mark 6:1-3 (KJV) - &quot;And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? &lt;strong&gt;Is not this the carpenter&lt;/strong&gt;, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus was also a Rabbi.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Aramaic word &quot;Rabbi&quot; has 2 meanings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The root of Rabbi is Rabb means Great or Big (Book &quot;Introduction to Syriac&quot; by Thackston Pg. 218). Rabbi &quot;literally&quot; means &quot;My Great One&quot; (&quot;i&quot; at the end of Rabbi means &quot;my&quot; - Introduction to Syriac - Page 19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rabbi also means teacher or an instructor. A Teacher or instructor received the title of &quot;Rabbi&quot;, because teachers were considered as &quot;Great ones.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you all know, &quot;teachers&quot; were well respected by all of our ancestors in the history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus was a Rabbi, because he was considered as both &quot;a Great one&quot; and an excellent &quot;instructor&quot; among people in Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T19:12:22.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22910" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="10003" CreationDate="2013-11-17T20:42:08.953" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It is written that Satan lifted his heart above the throne of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 14:12-17&#xA;New International Version (NIV)&#xA;12 How you have fallen from heaven,&#xA;    morning star, son of the dawn!&#xA;You have been cast down to the earth,&#xA;    you who once laid low the nations!&#xA;13 You said in your heart,&#xA;    “I will ascend to the heavens;&#xA;I will raise my throne&#xA;    above the stars of God;&#xA;I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,&#xA;    on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.[a]&#xA;14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;&#xA;    I will make myself like the Most High.”&#xA;15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,&#xA;    to the depths of the pit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its very difficult to imagine that a being in Lucifer's position could contemplate overcoming God. We can easily conclude, from him doing so, that he did not understand who God was. If he had known, he would not have staged a rebellion, in the hope of overthrowing the Almighty unborn God, would he! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;So why did he not understand who God was?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; He was there with God, they talked together and Lucifer saw something of the glory of God. God must have told him how he created him out of nothing and breathed the breath of life into him. Yes, so why did Satan do what he did? &#xA;Let me ask a question..Can the creature, you or me, or any creature, understand the eternal nature of God. Can we look back to where there was no beginning, when there was no beginning!..&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Can any creature see Gods face an live?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; God cannot show Himself to the creature, in His true form! He is beyond the creatures capacity to understand Him, simply because the creature is created. This is the fundamental difference between the Creator and the creature. The Creator is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;un-created&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, the creature &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;created&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A created being cannot contemplate the nature of the un-created.! Our whole experience is of beginnings. For us everything has a beginning, its all we can understand. A seed a tree, a conception a birth. Everything for the creature has a beginning, this is our reality, its all we know and all we can know and understand. Lucifer was and is the evidence of this assertion. A being of his magnitude, in the presence of Almighty God, but he failed to understand who God was! I understand that Satan imagined that God was like him, that God must have been created also.                                                                    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we consider the theory of Evolution and the multiplicity of gods in many religions and their theories, particularly the New Age, regarding life, we quickly see a common thread in them all. That thread is the rejection of an eternal singular sovereign God. Positively they assert that there are many gods and also that the whole universe is God. Yes pretty crazy.! I believe that Satan's thoughts were as such. He could not see, that God was unborn, he believed that another god, had created the God that he saw. Therefore it was possible to overcome Him, because he thought God was created. Satan has perpetuated this lie and assimilated his belief into the hearts and minds of men, leading to the multiple religions and in many of those religions, the belief in multiple Gods.                &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Satan's first sin,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; was in fact &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;UNBELIEF&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;! Indeed any relationship between the created and the creator, the potter and the clay, must be on a basis of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;FAITH&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;! As no creature can see Gods face and live,(that is Gods essential self and essence) any relationship with the creator, from a created perspective, must be on the basis of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;FAITH&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;! We believe that He is, the &quot;I AM&quot;! We cannot understand how &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;GOD&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; is, but we believe. How can we believe when satan could not. Surely he was far superior in intellect to what we are. Surely he felt the breath of God, on his fair face and worshiped at the footstool of Glorious Light and Peace.  And we hear a word from a stranger and we believe...Surely this is the gift of God, the supernatural power of God, intervening and overcoming the natural man, with all his bitter, twisted reason and hatred of God.                                      &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;That we do believe, is certain evidence of the transcendent power of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. For Jesus said, &quot; no man, can come to me, unless the father who sent me, draws him and I will lift him up on the last day&quot; John 6..Here we see the Spirit of God, interacting in the minds of men and drawing them, against their natural will, against their satanic nature of unbelief. Faith is the work and gift of God. Jesus Christ purchased the right for the creature to be, like Him in Him..! The creature was not perfect when he was created because he was not God by nature and could not be so either, on his own merit. Gods plan before he created anything was this, namely to purchase righteousness, even His own righteousness, in order to impute to the creature. the very righteousness of God. Along with righteousness He has also purchased immutability for the creature. The creature, as it was created, was obviously mutable and therefore not perfect. We hear that the Angels that did not fall, were &quot;Elect&quot;. Chosen. Yes we ask, why did not all the angels fall if all creatures were born mutable. We must assume that they we preserved by their faith, in the sacrifice of Christ. One might argue that it was free will only. But look what happened with Adam. The whole race fell every single one, &lt;strong&gt;*&quot;for there are none righteous, not even one&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;*Paul Romans. If Lucifer was the head of the angels, how is it that his infection did not spread to all, as all were mutable and very naive, to say the least, as is shown by Satan, believing he could overcome the Alfa and the Omega, The Living God.! We believe, by the very power of God, transforming our dead minds and giving us life, in hope of the glory to come! &quot;For by grace are you saved, through faith and that &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not of yourselves,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; it is the gift of God&quot;.....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8-9 New American Standard Bible (NASB) &quot; For by grace you&#xA;  have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is&#xA;  the gift of God;  not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;We have &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;believed and have come to know&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that You are the Holy&#xA;  One of God.” John 6:69 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;For of Him and through Him and to Him, are all things to whom be&#xA;  glory forever Amen&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  Romans 11:36&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8641" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T20:42:08.953" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22912" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-17T21:47:49.853" Score="4" ViewCount="9738" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why does the Catholic church have so many Masses throughout the week? For the practicing Catholic, which Mass service is most important? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are the weekly worship services, weekend worship services, and even holiday worship services. Where would Bible Study and devotionals fit in? Do children worship with the parents, or do they have their own little worship area/classroom setting where they learn about God and stuff?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2015-02-08T20:01:53.560" Title="Why does the Catholic church have so many Masses throughout the week?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;mass&gt;&lt;religious-practice&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22913" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-17T21:59:42.220" Score="5" ViewCount="459" Body="&lt;p&gt;Do Christians still make icons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Typically, it's easy to find Christian icons from the Middle Ages. But are there any Christian icons in the modern age?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T07:44:22.853" Title="Do Christians still make icons?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;iconography&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22914" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22913" CreationDate="2013-11-17T22:21:48.017" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Google &quot;Icons religious modern&quot; and click the &quot;images&quot; heading on the search page to see lots of examples.  I wouldn't call all these things icons, but some of them surely are.  (Googling without &quot;religious&quot; brought mostly &quot;icons&quot; in the computer sense.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T22:21:48.017" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22915" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22913" CreationDate="2013-11-17T22:47:15.747" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are certainly modern iconographers. I have a small icon I bought in Walsingham (in Norfolk, UK), which is painted and uses gold leaf in the traditional Orthodox style. Not a particularly good photo of it, but here it is: about 8&quot; &amp;times; 5&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/N0GzP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Fyodorov&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sergei Fyodorov&lt;/a&gt; (b. 1959) has executed a number of commissions for English cathedrals: an icon of Saint Richard of Chichester; a set of icons of local saints for Winchester Cathedral, and an enormous fresco in Rochester Cathedral.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T22:47:15.747" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22916" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="695" CreationDate="2013-11-17T23:47:41.017" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;HERE ARE SOME OTHER NAMES OF GOD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;JANELLE - GOD IS GRACIOUS&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;THOR - THY MAKER&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ABBA - FATHER&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ALPHA &amp;amp; OMEGA - THE BEGINNING &amp;amp; END&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;IMMANUEL - GOD WITH US&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8650" LastActivityDate="2013-11-17T23:47:41.017" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22919" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22924" CreationDate="2013-11-18T03:54:07.343" Score="8" ViewCount="602" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholicism venerates people's works as that is the only way to become a saint - you actually have to DO something.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand that there has been a strong debate regarding faith or works (or faith AND works)  requirement for salvation.  That isn't what I am asking.  I am asking; is Catholicism a works based denomination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastActivityDate="2016-03-14T19:40:41.203" Title="Is Catholicism a &quot;works&quot; denomination?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;works&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22920" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22913" CreationDate="2013-11-18T04:06:44.200" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, for example, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;vesica pisces&lt;/a&gt; is a newer invention.  Sure some will argue that the fish has always been a Christian symbol, however the modern / Christian usage of the vesica pisces is not the same symbol used in the early church as seen below.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/m1POj.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;vs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSbDe.gif&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T04:06:44.200" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22921" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22912" CreationDate="2013-11-18T04:34:06.997" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why does the Catholic church have so many Masses throughout the week?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is because of what Mass &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; to the catholic church. Mass is the Single most important commandment given by Christ to do until the end of times (&lt;em&gt;Do this in remembrance of me&lt;/em&gt; &#xA;Lk 22 / 1 Cor 11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, &lt;strong&gt;a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The mass is so important to the catholic church, that no-day passes without a Mass said at-least in one place in the world. This is not scientific, but it is folklore that there are three Masses being said every second in the world. (It is jokingly said that many Kings, dictators wanted to destroy the Catholic church. they tried different ways and failed. But all they have to do was to stop them from celebrating Mass.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;For the practicing Catholic, which Mass service is most important?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the word &lt;em&gt;important&lt;/em&gt;, if you mean the importance of the Mass itself, then for Catholics all mass is the same Calvary sacrifice, no one mass is greater than the other.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the word &lt;em&gt;important&lt;/em&gt;, if you mean the importance of participating in the Mass. Then important Mass would be Mass on Sundays and other Days of Obligation. There are specific &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranking_of_liturgical_days_in_the_Roman_Rite&quot;&gt;ranks assigned to certain days&lt;/a&gt;. But this does not make the Mass more important (in the sense others are less important) in anyway. But it is important in the sense that they have to attend it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Where would Bible Study and devotionals fit in?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First part of every Mass &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; starts with Readings from the bible. This is called the Liturgy of the Word. (Priests are required to read prayers from the bible three times a day. This is called divine office. Along with the Mass, divine office is the only public prayer of the Catholic Church)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On an ordinary day three passages are read. These passages are from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Old testament or non gospel new testament. This is made into two separate passages on On Sundays and great feast-days (Solemnities)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Psalms (Some times, very rarely, other canticles from the bible too)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gospel&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After this during Liturgy of the Eucharist, all prayers said is based on biblical verses. So, in a way Mass is bible in action.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do children worship with the parents, or do they have their own little worship area/classroom setting where they learn about God and stuff?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mass is the primary form of worship in the Catholic church. There is a provision for a children mass where special prayers are said for them But worship is not to be done in a classroom setting. But almost as a norm Children always attend Mass with their parents. It is always recommended to do so. In-fact certain age children have a specific role in Mass called alter servers. Usually in parishes children (not toddlers) perform this role.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is only one Mass for all. But there are separate Catechisms class (usually after Sunday mass) for Children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="4303" LastEditDate="2015-01-06T15:10:17.147" LastActivityDate="2015-01-06T15:10:17.147" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22923" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22889" CreationDate="2013-11-18T06:13:31.860" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The above answer is correct. The main scriptural basis is found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/14/#v43014006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 14:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;No one comes to the Father except through me.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically you are recognizing Jesus' ransom sacrifice and accept him as a mediator between you and god. Cecil covered everything else very well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some articles that answer questions about prayer. &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008922&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus' Unique Role&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/draw-close-to-god-in-prayer/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Draw Close to God in Prayer&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, and a huge list of more on this topic here &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=prayer&amp;amp;p=par&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Insight from the Online Library&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All of these books and magazines are given free of charge and are available for download on the main publications page.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T06:13:31.860" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22924" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22919" CreationDate="2013-11-18T07:10:01.833" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolutely, definitely not. Works are important, but we are not &lt;strong&gt;justified&lt;/strong&gt; by works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PX.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism states this&lt;/a&gt; unequivocally:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; “Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end.’”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt; Cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:36, 6:40 et al.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are not justified by slavishly following the Law (which is what “not justified by works” is saying) — we are justified by faith, and that faith will transform our lives with the fruit of the Spirit which pervades every act so that our works show that we are justified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:16 — Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter wrote of this in 2 Peter 1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. &lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt; Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; &lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; &lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. &lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; But whoever does not have them is short-sighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Peter deliberately lists the fruits of the Spirit. In &amp;quot;making every effort&amp;quot; to add those virtues to faith, Peter is saying &amp;quot;allow the Spirit to do his work&amp;quot; because &lt;strong&gt;a living faith will engender good works&lt;/strong&gt; (cf James 2:26). Any effort we bring to bear for ourselves is using our conscience to do good works. Verse 4 says that we participate in the divine nature by virtue of God's great and glorious promises. This means that it is necessary that we believe those promises will be fulfilled: this is faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that good works are not inherently good! They point towards — and ultimately come from — God, as Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19019/do-pope-francis-recent-comments-on-atheism-represent-a-change-in-doctrine/19024#19024&quot;&gt;pointed out&lt;/a&gt;. One's conscience is God-given, formed by the natural Law, and in doing what we inherently perceive to be good we are allowing the Spirit to work in our lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we are saved by faith. That is all that is necessary. Everything else comes from faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may recognise some of this as coming from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/22794/1377&quot;&gt;another answer&lt;/a&gt; to a very similar question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T07:10:01.833" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22925" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22912" CreationDate="2013-11-18T07:24:40.233" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer the question “which Mass is most important,” it’s Sunday. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P39.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catechism states&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;The Lord's day&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1166 &amp;quot;By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ's Resurrection, the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord's Day or Sunday.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; The day of Christ's Resurrection is both the first day of the week, the memorial of the first day of creation, and the &amp;quot;eighth day,&amp;quot; on which Christ after his &amp;quot;rest&amp;quot; on the great sabbath inaugurates the &amp;quot;day that the Lord has made,&amp;quot; the &amp;quot;day that knows no evening.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; The Lord's Supper is its center, for there the whole community of the faithful encounters the risen Lord who invites them to his banquet:&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord's day, the day of Resurrection, the day of Christians, is our day. It is called the Lord's day because on it the Lord rose victorious to the Father. If pagans call it the &amp;quot;day of the sun,&amp;quot; we willingly agree, for today the light of the world is raised, today is revealed the sun of justice with healing in his rays.&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1167 Sunday is the pre-eminent day for the liturgical assembly, when the faithful gather &amp;quot;to listen to the word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the Passion, Resurrection, and glory of the Lord Jesus, and giving thanks to God who 'has begotten them again, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead' unto a living hope&amp;quot;:&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we ponder, O Christ, the marvels accomplished on this day, the Sunday of your holy resurrection, we say: &amp;quot;Blessed is Sunday, for on it began creation . . . the world's salvation ... the renewal of the human race .... On Sunday heaven and earth rejoiced and the whole universe was filled with light. Blessed is Sunday, for on it were opened the gates of paradise so that Adam and all the exiles might enter it without fear.&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a large number of masses on Sunday (including the Vigil Mass on Saturday evening) in order that the largest number of the faithful can attend: it would not be possible for all the Catholics in a particular church’s “catchment area” to fit into a church if there were only one. I have been told that there is a Catholic church at each corner of Clapham Common in London; and &lt;em&gt;each&lt;/em&gt; of those churches has an attendance at mass of over 2000 people per week.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;Sacrosanctum Concilium&lt;/em&gt; 106.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt; Byzantine liturgy.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt; Cf. Jn 21:12; Lk 24:30.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt; St. Jerome, &lt;em&gt;Pasch.:&lt;/em&gt; CCL 78, 550.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt; SC 106&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt; Fanqith, &lt;em&gt;The Syriac Office of Antioch,&lt;/em&gt; vol. VI, &lt;em&gt;first part of Summer,&lt;/em&gt; 193 B.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T07:24:40.233" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22926" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22913" CreationDate="2013-11-18T07:44:22.853" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, there are lots of examples! There are still professional Iconographers who go around painting Iconography for a living!&#xA;In the Orthodox Church the Temples are traditionally fully covered in frescoes.&#xA;Here is an example:&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/ih1zl.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since this is a great part of the Orthodox Church, there are many people who have been trained in this Holy Art and are going around the world adorning Temples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, at this very moment, the church which I am going to is having it's hitherto white and barren walls covered in frescoes! An iconographer from Serbia is doing all the painting of the frescoes throughout the whole church. At the moment, though, only slightly more than the dome is done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Here is a snapshot of the dome from a little while ago:&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/VqvY8.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There is also a slightly outdated video of the Iconographer at work which can be seen &lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/45357279&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And if you are really interested, every now and then, some very good Iconographer will hold an Iconography work-shop... I have never attended one, but from what I hear they are very fun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I even found a link on OrthodoxWiki which has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_modern_iconographers&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;list of Modern Iconographers&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Also, probably of great interest to you, is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodox-icon.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the website of one Iconographer, Vladimir Grygorenko&lt;/a&gt;. Take a look at his portfolio if you want to know the answer to this question...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, a little more which probably won't be useful to you, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ikonograph.com/prayers.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here is a link&lt;/a&gt; which gives the Orthodox Iconographer some rules and prayers as guidance.&#xA;One of the prayers is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A Prayer Before Beginning an Icon:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;O Divine Lord&lt;/strong&gt; of all that exists, Thou hast illumined the Apostle and Evangelist Luke with Thy Holy Spirit, thereby enabling him to represent Thy most Holy Mother, the One who held Thee in her arms and said: The Grace of Him Who has been born of me is spread through the world!&#xA;  Enlighten and direct my soul, my heart and my spirit. Guide the hands of Thine unworthy servant so that I may worthily and perfectly portray Thine Icon, that of Thy Mother, and all the Saints, for the glory, joy and adornment of Thy Holy Church.&#xA;  Forgive my sins and the sins of those who will venerate these icons and who, kneeling devoutly before them, give homage to those they represent.&#xA;  Protect them from all evil and instruct them with good counsel. This I ask through the intercession of Thy most Holy Mother, the Apostle Luke, and all the Saints. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&#xA;Simply put:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Yes, Christians do still make Icons!&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1838" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T07:44:22.853" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22927" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12639" CreationDate="2013-11-18T11:00:49.193" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The scriptures containing this statement were written in Greek, by Greek thinking people, and to refer the word Satan to an earlier spoken language distorts both the translation and the interpretation of a memorized meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever Jesus said, and whichever language he spoke in, the writers of the scriptures were recalling his words and translating the sense and meaning of them into their language. &#xA;This is how interpretation works, meaning is converted into currently used words and contained in what is then said or written, and to assume that a back-referenced, literal translation of Satan holds the meaning of an earlier-spoken language, can only lead to confusion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan, in the form of Greek used by the writers of New Testament scriptures meant accuser, as in someone who is prosecuting a case that seeks to allocate guilt, blame and shame, and an admonishment for the tone of voice that Peter spoke to him in, as well as his choice of words, is contained in Jesus reply.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is said to have used the same word when he spoke of his time in the desert. What he said was meaningful, and Jesus Satan, as recorded by Greek writers, was a voice that tried to blame him and others, while ignoring the house of glass that this accuser lived in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8653" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-18T13:46:12.950" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T13:46:12.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22928" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22889" CreationDate="2013-11-18T13:25:08.103" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Long prayers are more convenient to end with the name of Jesus;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Lord/Father I pray that you be with me as I am going to ...... And&#xA;  Lord I also pray that .... Lord I also need your grace in ..... [&lt;em&gt;many requests&lt;/em&gt;]... ...  All this I ask in the name of Jesus Christ.&#xA;  Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short prayer or command is convenient to start with the name of Jesus;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the name of Jesus Christ, I declare victory over this problem. Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As you can see, there isn't much difference in the reversal of the placement of the phrase &lt;em&gt;&quot;In the name of Jesus&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. It is only a matter of the grammar and the convenience of the person using it. This phrase is not only used in the starting and ending but you can also use a it anywhere anytime during the prayer. However, it is more appropriate or convenient to repeat this phrase at the end of the prayer, simply to conclude the prayer or to make sure that you are praying in the name of Jesus because it's easy to forget sometimes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Using the name of Jesus at the beginning or in the middle or at the end doesn't matter. What matters is that we pray in the name of Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will&#xA;  receive, and your joy will be complete. (John 16:24, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T13:25:08.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22929" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23631" CreationDate="2013-11-18T13:44:57.100" Score="7" ViewCount="5402" Body="&lt;p&gt;So, I've been learning to love a new (for me) song called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXDGE_lRI0E&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;10000 Reasons&lt;/a&gt;.  I discovered that he is also the writer of another &amp;quot;modern classic&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du0il6d-DAk&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Blessed Be Your Name&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In writing his music, he takes an approach to infusing Scripture that I find rather fascinating, described &lt;a href=&quot;http://worshipleader.com/song-story-10000-reasons/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This song is Bible-based, but you didn’t use the text word-for-word. Please explain some good practices in capturing Scripture in song.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Redman: My ideal for songwriting is to infuse passion with truth. I love worship songs that are so rich with the word of God, but very obviously exploded out of the heart of the songwriters in a passionate way. You can, of course, take a big chunk of Scripture and keep it word for word, composing a melody for it. I’ve never been very good at that approach and honestly I think it’s a very tricky thing to do, within the style that I tend to write in. The main benefit of that approach is that people can commit the Bible to memory through song, and there’s much to be said that’s very commendable about that (my personal aim has never really been the memorizing of Scripture, as brilliant as that is). But my main aim in songwriting is to see something of Jesus, and then reflect it. So I’ve always taken a different approach.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The best way I can describe it is actually found in Eugene Peterson’s book, Under the Unpredictable Plant. He writes that when Jonah is in the belly of the fish he pours out a prayer of great passion but notes that not one phrase in the prayer is original—it all comes from the Psalms. In fact, it comes not just from one psalm, but many different psalms. So he’s not just reciting a piece of Scripture in that moment. He’s pouring out his heart, and many different phrases from the Psalms are being woven together into his prayer. The point is, Jonah is in an intense situation, and what pours out of him is utterly heartfelt, and yet also utterly full of the Word of God. My ideal is that the same could be true in the writing of worship songs—that we could be so full of the truth of Scripture that in our most intense moments in life, be it joy or sorrow, what pours passionately out of our hearts is infused with the Word of God. It may not be a whole portion of Scripture—perhaps the song contains an essence of something Paul said in one of his letters, with a phrase or two from the Psalms, with an overtone of what Jesus said at one point in the Gospels, and something from the Old Testament in there too. That’s definitely a key to make sure our songs are raw and real—and yet full of life-changing and God-honoring truth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While obviously not dogma, I'm finding that approach to feel really both authentic and scriptural.  What I am curious about is the tradition that encouraged such an approach.  Does Matt Redman talk about his faith journey somewhere that expresses where this comes from?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2018-06-22T11:02:13.477" Title="What is Matt Redman's denominational background?" Tags="&lt;hymns&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22930" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-18T14:23:40.547" Score="0" ViewCount="669" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does Christianity claim to be the last true religion that will ever exist, or does it admit the possibility of being supplanted by a new revelation, like Judaism was with Christianity?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user247" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-03-17T13:41:34.637" LastActivityDate="2016-03-17T13:41:34.637" Title="Does Christianity claim itself to be the final revelation from God?" Tags="&lt;special-revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22932" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22930" CreationDate="2013-11-18T14:54:52.243" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; doesn't make claims about &lt;em&gt;itself&lt;/em&gt; but rather makes claims about &lt;strong&gt;Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;. And those claims are based on the Bible, which records Jesus' own words. So what does Jesus say about being supplanted by a new revelation? He was asked exactly this question - here is His answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the men came to Jesus, they said, ‘John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or &lt;strong&gt;should we expect someone else?&lt;/strong&gt;”’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, illnesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind.  So he replied to the messengers, ‘&lt;strong&gt;Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.  Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.&lt;/strong&gt;’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:20-23&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 7:20-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in another place He specifically says that there is no other way to God than through Him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. &lt;strong&gt;No one comes to the Father except through me.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 14:6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So He's the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22:13&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;First Revelation and The Last&lt;/a&gt;. As Peter said&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6:68&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;There is no one else.&lt;/a&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1 And here you'd have to specify which &lt;em&gt;flavour&lt;/em&gt; of Christianity you're talking about.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2 My paraphrase.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T14:54:52.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22934" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22930" CreationDate="2013-11-18T15:55:00.933" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christianity is based on the New Testament. What ever the New Testament says, that is what Christianity believes. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the NT, Jesus is the promised Messiah from the Old Testament, which is the scripture for the Jews. Basically, without the Jewish scripture, there is no New Testament, which means no Christianity. The New Testament claims that Jesus is the promised Messiah whom the Jews were waiting, even today. Which means that Christianity is the completion or the ultimate stage of Judaism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christianity itself never claims to be a new religion. Christians believe that God is a Trinity, three persons in one, known as - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus is God the Son, Christianity doesn't produce any new Deity. It's the same God from the Old Testament. Christianity claims that there are many scriptural proves in the Jewish scripture which refers to the Trinity, and also the Messiah as the Son of God who would be flogged and crucified for our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T15:55:00.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22935" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22938" CreationDate="2013-11-18T16:21:27.137" Score="5" ViewCount="8477" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus tomb was empty, he obviously arose in his material body, and throughout the Bible references to shutting the door at night, is the same as us locking the door at night since it is obvious in Acts 12:13-16 that Peter was unable to open the door until someone inside opened it for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Acts 12:13-16, KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13  And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14  And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15  And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16  But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet in John 20 He appears inside a locked door in his physical body since Thomas was physically able to touch him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 20:26-27, KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;26  And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-05-15T16:46:08.543" Title="How could Jesus get through locked doors?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;acts&gt;&lt;resurrection-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22938" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22935" CreationDate="2013-11-18T20:12:13.930" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Great question! I'm sure it was a miracle because John would not have bothered to mention the locked doors otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, &lt;strong&gt;with the doors locked&lt;/strong&gt; for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:19&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 20:19&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how did it happen? Jesus clearly had a physical body:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and &lt;strong&gt;he took it and ate it in their presence&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24:41-43&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 24:41-43&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So how did Jesus just &lt;em&gt;appear&lt;/em&gt;  in a different location? Well, this is not the only time in Scripture this has happened:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When they came up out of the water, &lt;strong&gt;the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away&lt;/strong&gt;, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. &lt;strong&gt;Philip, however, appeared at Azotus&lt;/strong&gt; and travelled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:39-40&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 8:39-40&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here the &lt;em&gt;Spirit of the Lord&lt;/em&gt; performed a miracle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, we also read that Jesus also could suddenly disappear (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A31&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 24:31&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then their eyes were opened and they recognised him, and he disappeared from their sight.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether Jesus Himself in His resurrected body could perform miracles by Himself (which I suspect) or whether The Holy Spirit did it for Him, the conclusion must be - &lt;strong&gt;it was a miracle&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2017-01-27T15:50:56.513" LastActivityDate="2017-01-27T15:50:56.513" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22939" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22877" CreationDate="2013-11-18T20:39:06.933" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that, during the events of the New Testament, parts of what we now call the NT were gradually being accepted as &lt;em&gt;&quot;Scripture&quot;&lt;/em&gt;. For example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Peter considered Paul's writings as Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, &lt;strong&gt;as they do the other Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;, to their own destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3:16&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Peter 3:16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Paul apparently considered the Gospel of Luke Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and &lt;strong&gt;‘The worker deserves his wages.’&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205:18&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;1 Timothy 5:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The part in &lt;strong&gt;bold&lt;/strong&gt; comes from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:7&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 10:7a&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for &lt;strong&gt;the worker deserves his wages&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, which Scriptures was Paul referring to in 1 Corinthians? Possibly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+9:22&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20:19&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew&lt;/a&gt;, or even The Old Testament, which Paul certainly had access to - for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053:5&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah&lt;/a&gt;. But there are &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7118/where-did-moses-write-about-jesus&quot;&gt;many more possible answers&lt;/a&gt; - we simply don't know for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T20:39:06.933" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22943" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22877" CreationDate="2013-11-18T21:17:34.747" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/acts/23-6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pharisee amongst Pharisees&lt;/a&gt;,&quot; Paul would have seen the Scriptures as the Scriptures of the Jews - the Torah, the Ketu'vim, and the Nevi'im, or as we say in English, the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15201/1039&quot;&gt;When Jesus was on the transfiguration mount&lt;/a&gt;, he prefigured this. These Scriptures are the Old Testament to modern Christians, or &quot;the Hebrew Bible&quot; as some scholars like to say.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dead for three days, in the OT Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Paul was speaking of Jesus, rising again after three days, for example, he was probably remembering what the eyewitnesses had said, and which Matthew later wrote as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Matthew 12:40&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here, Jesus explicitly called out Jonah (an Old Testament prophet) as being prophetically foretelling that the Son of Man would also be dead for three days. Paul admits to having been &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/galatians/1-18.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;taught by Peter&lt;/a&gt;, and Peter would have been privy to this teaching from Jesus himself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dying for our sins in the OT Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, Paul may very well have read into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Isaiah 53&lt;/a&gt; for inspiration about Jesus death paying for our sins, when the prophet writes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But he was pierced for our transgressions;&#xA;  he was crushed for our iniquities;&#xA;  upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,&#xA;  and with his wounds we are healed.&#xA;  6 All we like sheep have gone astray;&#xA;  we have turned—every one—to his own way;&#xA;  and the Lord has laid on him&#xA;  the iniquity of us all. ... 10 his soul makes an offering for guilt,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While scholars may disagree on the nature of substitutionary atonement as the &quot;Gospel&quot; that Paul preached, this prophecy could at least be seen to be in harmony with Paul's understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus calling himself the OT Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While the specific passages may or may not &quot;clearly&quot; be the exact references in question, the overall point is explicit - that Jesus &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; the fufillment of what the Jews had long believed. Jesus says as much to the Pharisees in &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/john/5-39.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 5:39&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Herein the obvious implication is that the Scriptures are those Scriptures that the Pharisees and the religious folk of the day had been searching for centuries. Presented with the Christ who literally &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; the Word (John 1), it all began to make sense. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament, by definition, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/22758/when-did-the-insertion-of-title-page-for-old-testament-and-new-testament-started&quot;&gt;came after the Hebrew Scriptures&lt;/a&gt; and to the Hebrews for whom those Scriptures were written. By definition, the &quot;Scriptures&quot; should mean to those authors what &quot;Scripture&quot; meant to the contemporaries of those authors.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11436/were-the-gospels-considered-scripture-when-the-rest-of-the-new-testament-was-wri&quot;&gt;When Paul was writing his letters, there were no &quot;Gospels&quot;, only eyewitness accounts&lt;/a&gt;, so he couldn't have been referring to anything more. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Corinth itself, as a port city in Greece, was home to a substantial Jewish population, so there is no reason to assume the word would have meant anything different than what you'd expect a Jew to think it - namely those books we now call the Old Testament.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T21:34:51.087" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22944" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-18T22:49:18.010" Score="7" ViewCount="21766" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why did Jesus said there is no marriage in Heaven? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 12:25 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage;&#xA;  they will be like the angels in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it because Heaven's better than even joyous things like marriage?  Or is it because marriage is to procreate and sex is, well, a bit too 'earthly'?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-30T22:32:14.893" LastActivityDate="2014-10-30T23:17:37.000" Title="Why is there no marriage in Heaven?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;heaven&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;gospel-of-mark&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-10-28T11:16:19.240" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22945" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22944" CreationDate="2013-11-18T23:32:23.113" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I assume you're refering to &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.com/111/mrk.12.25.niv&quot;&gt;Mark 12:25&lt;/a&gt; where it says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First a couple of notes on context. This was the answer to a trick question from a group of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12989-sadducees&quot;&gt;Sadducees&lt;/a&gt;. The Sadducees were an elitist liberal group similar to the Pharisees, who were an elitist conservative group. Among their many beliefs was a rejection of &lt;a href=&quot;http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/137/&quot;&gt;the resurrection&lt;/a&gt;. Their question from &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.com/111/mrk.12.18-23.niv&quot;&gt;Mark 12:18-23&lt;/a&gt; is an attempt to make Jesus look ridiculous for believing in the resurrection.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So back to the original question. &quot;Why did Jesus say there will be no marriage?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first answer, from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/mark/12.htm&quot;&gt;Pulpit Commentary&lt;/a&gt; on Mark 12:18, is that if she'd been the wife of only one or all seven brothers someone it would cause problems and after the resurrection there's not supposed to be any problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second answer, also from the Pulpit Commentary this time on Mark 12:25, states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There will be no necessity for marriages in heaven. Here, on earth, the father dies, but he lives on in his children after death. In heaven there is no death, but every one will live and be blessed for ever; and therefore it is that St. Luke adds here, &quot;Neither can they die any more.&quot; St. Augustine says, &quot;Marriages are on account of children; children on account of succession; succession on account of death. But in heaven, as there is no death, neither is there any marriage.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Remember that this was (and still is) a conservative Jewish belief. It's not something Christ introduced.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-11-18T23:32:23.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22946" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23372" CreationDate="2013-11-18T23:36:05.620" Score="2" ViewCount="194" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it theologically correct to refer to the Trinity as &quot;Others&quot; when speaking about them in a particular sentence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ie&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You cannnot change yourself without the help of the &lt;strong&gt;Others&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3594" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T01:28:28.470" Title="Can you refer to the Trinity as &quot;Others&quot;" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-06-04T06:35:27.660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22947" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="778" CreationDate="2013-11-19T01:11:23.540" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word fornication was not even invented until 1300 AD.&#xA;The original word porneia meant all of the sexual &quot;nasties&quot; as highlighted in Leviticus. The word porneia never specifically included sex outside of marriage. The nearest it came was (basically) with regard to girls/young women living at home being forbidden to have sex, unless married. That is just a basic outline.&#xA;The word porneia was translated to fornication. Therefore the true meaning of fornication is the same as with porneia, that is with regard to those sexual things expressly condemned in Leviticus.&#xA;Later the word fornication came to mean sex between singles. Thus this meaning has been  incorrectly applied to the term fornication in recent years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8660" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T01:11:23.540" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22948" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18468" CreationDate="2013-11-19T02:38:02.120" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;weapons of peace&quot; was clearly not a MISTAKE, but just a bad way of saying what he wanted to say. He wanted to say in as few words as possible that they had buried their weapons for the purposes of peace, then read it and saw how it made no sense, and clarified what he meant.&#xA;Something I find interesting is the 'Los Lunas inscription' found in America, which contains the Ten Commandments in Hebrew. This may possibly be a hoax, but the WAY it is written is interesting. A portion of it was COMPLETELY MISSED OUT, and then added underneath, with an arrow pointing to where it belonged. Also there may POSSIBLY be a spelling mistake in it, but it may be acceptable spelling.&#xA;Apparently when the Jews were copying the scriptures, if they found a tiny error in it, the whole thing was destroyed and started again. But the Nephites clearly did not follow this practice!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8661" LastEditorUserId="8661" LastEditDate="2013-11-19T02:45:14.797" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T02:45:14.797" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22950" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2987" CreationDate="2013-11-19T05:56:03.630" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In this incredible story we see a tremendous clash between law/judgement and grace/forgiveness.  I always wonder if Jesus simply began to write the 10 Commandments and each one of the accusers was convicted of his own &quot;coming short of the Glory of God&quot;.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only did Jesus mercifully forgive the woman but when He spoke, &quot;sin no more&quot; he imparted the &quot;grace to change&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How good it would be if we lived in such a way that our very lives convicted others without &quot;condeming&quot; them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beautiful story of mercy triumphing over Judgement and grace lifting a sinner out of their sin to live like Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8664" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T05:56:03.630" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22952" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19822" CreationDate="2013-11-19T10:37:03.223" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;These verses say that people are created for God's glory and to praise him:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  1 Peter 2:9 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’&#xA;   and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’&#xA;   Bring my sons from afar&#xA;   and my daughters from the ends of the earth—&#xA;   everyone who is called by my name,&#xA;   whom I created for my glory,&#xA;   whom I formed and made.”&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Isaiah 43:6-7 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the people I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  Isaiah 43:21 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8665" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-01-28T19:48:00.740" LastActivityDate="2015-01-28T19:48:00.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22956" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22883" CreationDate="2013-11-19T12:46:20.667" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Question: “How is Jesus Christ the son to the Word?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 1:1-17  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made… He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not… But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth… And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is not the Son of the Word; He is the Word that made all things.  He is the Word that the World knew not.  He is the Word that gave power to become the sons of God.  He is the Word that became flesh and dwelt amongst us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ is the Eternally begotten of the Father, the manifest will of God the Father!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T20:32:10.093" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22959" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-19T13:12:23.823" Score="-10" ViewCount="1342" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to 1 Kings 3:16-28, two prostitutes came to Solomon for a judgment over their dispute concerning a child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him... Then the king answered and said, “Give the living child to the first woman,&#xA;  and by no means put him to death; she is his mother.” And all Israel&#xA;  heard of the judgment that the king had rendered, and they stood in&#xA;  awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in&#xA;  him to do justice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If prostitution was illegal (more specifically, if sex outside marriage is condemned by God), why were they willing (perhaps even comfortable) coming to the king and admitting to be prostitutes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of our assumptions must be false. Which ones? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, what's the explanation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact, one of the highly voted answer in this site, claim that sex outside marriage is never prohibited at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no evidence that pre-marital sex is an instance of porneia,&#xA;  nor is there any prohibition of responsible pre-marital sex stated in&#xA;  Scripture.&#xA;  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/778/is-premarital-sex-porneia?lq=1&quot;&gt;What&amp;#39;s is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I need factual answers. For example, if some says that prostitution is illegal but by God's grace, prostitutes deserve justice and come to Solomon, then I would need to see more evidences. Perhaps, some historians could tell that prostitution is indeed illegal during 2500 ago in Israel with penalty of stoning or what, etc and somehow the Solomon didn't punish the prostitutes that come to him despite knowing full well what their jobs are. I wonder if it's likely?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8667" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.487" LastActivityDate="2017-03-11T17:35:50.643" Title="Why Can Prostitutes Come to Solomon?" Tags="&lt;sexuality&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22961" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22959" CreationDate="2013-11-19T13:34:37.893" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is predicated on completely faulty assumption - namely that criminals do not come to the palace to seek justice.  At that time, the King was also the judge, and the judge was specifically ordered to give justice to all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prophets are replete with invective against those hypocritical government officials who would only seek justice for those on top of society.  As just one example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Amos#Themes&quot;&gt;Amos&lt;/a&gt; goes out of his way to say that Israel is under the same condemnation as its neighbors. Leviticus demands &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/24-22-compare.html&quot;&gt;one law for you and the alien in your midst&lt;/a&gt; - again, fairness for &lt;em&gt;everyone.&lt;/em&gt; When the Scripture commands that the judge give justice to the poor as well as to the widow and the orphan, the clear indication is that justice shouldn't depend on your status in society.  Indeed, for many at the time, the poor and the criminal would have occupied similar places in the mind. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, when two women of whatever station came to Solomon, asking for justice in regards to the one living child, Solomon, in the wisdom that God gave him, would necessarily give justice to &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; who came to seek it.  What these women were outside of this case is 100% irrelevant in the face of a God who sees all in place of judgement, all who are unworthy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Isaiah says, &quot;All we like sheep have gone astray, each to our devices&quot; and &quot;all our righteousness is as filthy rags.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Judah says to Tamar - a woman who has played the prostitute and slept with her own father-in-law (him!) in order to get pregnant, &quot;You are more righteous than I!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, as Jesus, who modelled this radical love showed, justice belongs even to the prostitutes and even worse, the tax collectors.  After all, those who are healthy do not need the Great Physician.  But our God showed his love for us in this - while we were yet &lt;em&gt;sinners&lt;/em&gt; he died for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: convicted criminals use courts all the time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-09-08/local/35275281_1_strip-club-aids-funds-lawsuit&quot;&gt;http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-09-08/local/35275281_1_strip-club-aids-funds-lawsuit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/drug-dealer-suing-state-keeping-dying-mother-article-1.1444094&quot;&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/drug-dealer-suing-state-keeping-dying-mother-article-1.1444094&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and in this instance &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/iowa-man-calls-cops-i-was-stiffed-drug-deal/&quot;&gt;an Iowa man called the cops when he was stiffed in a drug deal&lt;/a&gt;.  Google &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=criminals+do+stupid+things&amp;amp;oq=criminals+do+stupid+things&amp;amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j0.5868j0j4&amp;amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;amp;espv=210&amp;amp;es_sm=91&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&quot;&gt;criminals do stupid things&lt;/a&gt;&quot; for more results.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Directly to the question, however:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prostitution was illegal under Jewish law, as per &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2023.18&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Deuteronomy 23:18&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prostitution was &lt;a href=&quot;https://sites.google.com/site/hashtaumd/contents-1/prost&quot;&gt;rather common&lt;/a&gt; however.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This toleration of an otherwise illegal activity, merely supports what is written above - namely that prostitutes would have been legally culpable and socially marginalized, but that justice demanded that they be heard in spite of their status.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T14:35:26.507" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T14:35:26.507" CommentCount="13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22965" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22970" CreationDate="2013-11-19T16:55:54.563" Score="6" ViewCount="4551" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have come across a chapter in the Book of Mormon that is very interesting. It details how the Nephites thought it would be better to bury their swords and never kill another person again. The Lamanites came against them for war, but the Nephites did nothing and about 1000 of them were killed. After that some of the Lamanites felt regret for killing them anyway and repented of their sins. They then joined the Nephites and buried their swords as well.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/24.18?lang=eng#17&quot;&gt;Alma 24:18&lt;/a&gt; Sums up the Nephites' disposition:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man’s blood; and this they did, vouching and covenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives; and rather than take away from a brother they would give unto him; and rather than spend their days in idleness they would labor abundantly with their hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this story in mind, what is the LDS position on war, self-defense, and keeping weapons?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2018-03-24T17:44:33.887" Title="What is the Mormon position on keeping weapons and on war?" Tags="&lt;lds&gt;&lt;war&gt;&lt;weapons&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22967" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13754" CreationDate="2013-11-19T18:05:18.937" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why ==&gt; He didn't put it that way. Baptism is important. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul just said that He is GLAD for not baptizing the Corinthians (in question). Other wise they would follow him instead of Christ Jesus. Those Corinthians (in question) were notorious for following idols.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is also how denominations think: If I get baptize in the Catholic church then I am a Catholic. BUT, According to the scripture in question, If I really get baptize in the name of Christ INSIDE a Catholic chruch, then no only should I be a Catholic, BUT also a Mormon, Jehova Witness, Mormon, a Pentocastal, etc, since they also baptize in the name of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or the OPPOSITE would be that am only a Catholic because I was baptize in the name of the Pope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In anyway, the scripture in question is a rebuke to the Corinthians (in question). Not us right.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks for reading&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6506" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T18:05:18.937" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22968" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-19T18:22:21.427" Score="1" ViewCount="120" Body="&lt;p&gt;...and, come to that, does it actually state, beyond doubt (or a different interpretation) that the joy there is far, far beyond that we can experience in this world or even imagine?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;BEFORE anyone points to the Corintheans &quot;Eye hath not seen...&quot; it must be pointed out that that is followed by an explanation that, despite the fact we couldn't have guessed for ourselves, God has revealed it to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Despite God having revealed it, I'm seeming to find that all the things people had excited me about Heaven with seems to have been 'added on' as good guesses. Current joys are mere sunbeams of that to come? All joys will be ressurected as impossibly greater than they were now? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T18:54:32.393" Title="Does it actually SAY that Heaven will be joyous in The Bible?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;resurrection&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22969" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20399" CreationDate="2013-11-19T18:33:31.253" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is something I am currently wrestling with. What strikes me is that every Christian has far more knowledge than Ezekiel had. We know what the plans of the the Lord are for the future of every individual we meet - that he has appointed a day when he will judge the world by the man he has appointed, and that he has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead (Acts 17). And we know that the only hope for anyone on at that day is to come to Jesus as Lord and Saviour now before we meet him as our judge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is correct that there is little in the New Testament setting out a positive obligation on Christians to evangelise and tell people about the coming judgement. However, that is not as surprising as it might seem because the Bible of the early church was the Old Testament. It was the Old Testament that they went to for training, correction and rebuke so that they were fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3), and the Old Testament through Ezekiel sets out that those who have knowledge from God about the future destiny of a person are responsible for sharing that knowledge. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, it seems to me that the obligation Ezekiel had to warn people to repent and believe is an obligation that every Christian has, and like every obligation that Christians have, we need to bring our daily failures to carry them out to the Lord, receive his forgiveness and ask for strength to keep going. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8669" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-19T20:12:28.977" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T20:12:28.977" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22970" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22965" CreationDate="2013-11-19T18:38:16.263" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you read a bit further on, you see that this particular group of Nephites--known as the Ammonites after Ammon, who converted them to the Gospel--was exceptional. The Ammonites made this covenant to bury their weapons and never take them up again &lt;em&gt;as part of their repentance for past sins before they accepted the gospel,&lt;/em&gt; and the rest of the Nephite nation was a lot more pragmatic on the subject of weapons, warfare, and self-defense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Ammonites were given land to settle on in an area that was well behind the border, where Nephite armies could protect them in the case of another war, and because the covenant that they had made kept them from contributing men to the army, they received additional taxes instead.  And when the next war finally did break out several years later, and things were going very badly for the Nephites, it got to the point where many of the Ammonites were very seriously considering the possibility of taking up arms to defend themselves.  They were urged not to by their spiritual leaders, though, and instead a few thousand of their sons, who had never made the oath to never take up arms due to being either too young or not alive yet when it happened, ended up enlisting instead, and nobody seemed to think that this constituted &quot;breaking the rules&quot; in some way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Having said that, the law given to Latter-Day Saints in the Doctrine &amp;amp; Covenants regarding war is that it is justifiable to fight in self-defense, but more blessed to choose not to.  It can be found in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.23-48?lang=eng#22&quot;&gt;Section 98, verses 23-48&lt;/a&gt;.  It's fairly long, so I won't quote the whole thing here, but the gist of it is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It is always justified to fight back in self-defense, but if &quot;ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded,&quot; particularly in the case of multiple offenses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a person attacks you, but then sincerely repents and seeks forgiveness, they are to be forgiven, always.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Neither a person nor a nation is justified in going out to battle against their enemy (offensively, not defensively) except on a direct command by the Lord, and if an enemy comes upon your nation to battle, you should offer peace first, and only go to war when it becomes clear that they are not looking for a peaceful resolution.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Even when you are in the process of making war upon them, if an enemy repents of their sins against you and seeks peace, you are to forgive them and accept their offer of peace.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the personal ownership of weapons, this is a highly contentious political issue in the United States and various other places in the world.  As far as I know, the LDS church does not have any doctrine on the subject either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="68" LastEditorUserId="68" LastEditDate="2013-11-19T20:59:04.710" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T20:59:04.710" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22971" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22968" CreationDate="2013-11-19T18:54:32.393" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not say there will be infinite joy, but rather the absence of its opposite.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 21:4&lt;/a&gt; states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The absence of death (cf. 1 Corinthians 15) and the absence of tears seems to indicate an abundance of joy.  It isn't explicit, but it is pretty easy to extrapolate to that position.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T18:54:32.393" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22972" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22985" CreationDate="2013-11-19T19:07:46.950" Score="3" ViewCount="11102" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis 3:22 through 24  KJV man is ejected from the Garden of Eden and Cherubims are stationed on the East side of the garden to prevent man going back and eating from the tree of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23  Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24  So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From the fact that the Cherubims were stationed on the East side it would necessarily portend that the rest of the World would be to the West otherwise they would have been stationed all around assuming that entry could be gained through other than the eastern gate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question then is assuming that the Garden of Eden was a physical place why isn't it known of today, and if it is not a physical place then there are whole new batch of questions in my mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-06-24T11:20:51.297" Title="Does the garden of Eden still exist?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-06-24T22:11:07.733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22973" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="26228" CreationDate="2013-11-19T19:47:19.273" Score="6" ViewCount="3086" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_Creek_Community_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Willow Creek Community Church&lt;/a&gt; has long had a policy of both men &lt;strong&gt;and women&lt;/strong&gt; in leadership roles - which was (and is still) counter to what many other churches teach. From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.willowcreek.org/beliefs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;their site&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We believe churches should be led by men and women with God-given leadership gifts.&lt;/strong&gt; This includes the concepts of empowerment, servant leadership, strategic focus, and intentionality (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%201%E2%80%932&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nehemiah 1–2&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:8&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 12:8&lt;/a&gt;; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%206:2-5&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 6:2–5&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd really like to know how they came to this view and &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; their Biblical basis for this belief (beyond the verses quoted above which, while they are about leadership, do not mention women specifically).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-11-20T12:08:46.407" LastActivityDate="2017-06-24T17:14:51.197" Title="How did the Willow Creek church come to allow and encourage women in leadership?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;women&gt;&lt;leadership&gt;&lt;willow-creek&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22974" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="256" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:01:07.020" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;Children that cannot understand sin cannot commit sin. Therefore they do not need baptism and cannot repent of their sins. Therefore unborn children (along with other very young children) gain immediate acceptance into heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wholeheartedly agree with this viewpoint found above.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Mark 10:14 seems in line with this: &quot;But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8670" LastActivityDate="2013-11-19T20:01:07.020" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22975" PostTypeId="5" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:01:38.350" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_Creek_Community_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Willow Creek Community Church&lt;/a&gt; (or simply Willow Creek Church) is a non-denominational, multi-generational Evangelical Christian megachurch located in the Chicago suburb of South Barrington, Illinois. It was founded on October 12, 1975 by Bill Hybels, who is currently the senior pastor. The church has three weekend services averaging 24,000 attendees, making it the third-largest church in the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Willow Creek and Bill Hybels are also known for creating the Global Leadership Summit for church leaders.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-17T19:04:35.453" LastActivityDate="2015-08-17T19:04:35.453" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22976" PostTypeId="4" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:01:38.350" Score="0" Body="Willow Creek Community Church is a non-denominational, multi-generational Evangelical Christian megachurch located in the Chicago suburb of South Barrington, Illinois." OwnerUserId="62" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2015-08-17T19:04:46.340" LastActivityDate="2015-08-17T19:04:46.340" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22977" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16748" CreationDate="2013-11-19T20:14:22.970" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are 2 groups of apostles. Both in a sense, means being sent out (ambassadors). But the first office is the 12. Many say that the 12 were ordinary Christians who happened to live at the same time as Jesus. Not true, they were specially appointed by God for a specific reason. Someone above said they noticed the emphasis on the number 12. SThe same is with the 12 apostles because they are another caliber of Christians. Yes, they were sinners like you and me, and yes they were men, but there office was divine specific.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:14  And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There were specific requirements of being an Apostle of Christ. One being the witness of the resurrected Christ. (Acts 1:22, 1 Corinthians 9:1). Another being able to perform signs and wonders (2 Corinthians 12:12, Hebrews 2:4).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is some debate over who replaces Judas. Matthias or Paul. Matthias was the only not directly appointed by Jesus Christ. Anyways, this office wasn't as some confuse with disciples. They weren't ordinary Christians. One example of not ordinary is the writings of the New Testament. The writing and teaching of the apostles weren't received by a man or bok, but directly from Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This verse was given directly to the apostles. I understand the we can claim this verse in a sense, but in it's context it was to the apostles to lay the foundation of the church. And to reveal the mystery of Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 3:4-5 4  Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5  Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second group were apostles that were called by man. They were appointed by the apostles and the church. These were not the same as the 12. This group had the title of an apostle, but not the office. Hope that makes sense. The main group are apostles of Christ. The secondary group are apostles appointed by the church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8671" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2014-06-30T08:01:25.413" LastActivityDate="2014-06-30T08:01:25.413" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22979" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5389" CreationDate="2013-11-19T21:59:25.833" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sibling marriage, and later, &quot;near kin&quot; marriage, was the only initial option; the limited selection repeated with Noah's 3 sons and their wives following the great flood. Just 340 year later Abram, was 10 when his half-sister Sarai  was born. During this time period sibling and &quot;near kin&quot; marriage was less common, but not certainly accepted and not prohibited yet; even forms of endogamy was still practiced at this time. Genesis 19:30-38 shows a good example of the times when the daughters of Abram's nephew, Lot, sleep with their father Lot out of necessity of circumstance; endogamy is demonstrated when Jacob, then Abraham's grandson, was instructed by his father Isaac to seek a marriage within the family, and Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor was chosen by God to be Isaac's wife. It was over 500 years later that near kin marriage was declared as wrong within Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy; it's interesting to note that marriage between a man and his step sister, his wife's niece or daughter are not prohibited specifically anywhere in those texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8632" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2016-05-20T11:11:11.953" LastActivityDate="2016-05-20T11:11:11.953" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22982" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19936" CreationDate="2013-11-19T23:55:37.697" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Charles Alsobrook is on the right path in pointing you toward the changes made by Vatican II.  The Catholic fasting rules used to be much stricter but have relaxed significantly since Vatican II.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, even among Orthodox churches the fasting rule varies in regards to the specifics (for example, which kinds of oil are allowed).  This probably held true even through the centuries when there was no Catholic/Orthodox split simply because of regional variances in diet and slower communication.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long discussion on the whole topic here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=54726.0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Orthodox Christianity.net &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8674" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2016-11-11T00:13:44.393" LastActivityDate="2016-11-11T00:13:44.393" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22985" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22972" CreationDate="2013-11-20T03:31:04.660" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The garden of Eden was a physical place. It was believed to be situated south of Lake Van in Turkey. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geocreationism.com/science/eden-lake-van-lake-urmia.html&quot;&gt;Ancient Turkey&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot know the exact location of Eden because of the flood. The flood could have changed the geography of the whole area. It almost certainly would change how the 4 rivers flowed. Those 4 rivers are really the only way of knowing the exact spot of Eden. You can speculate the exact spot, but nobody knows for sure.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an article from &lt;strong&gt;Insight from the Scriptures Volume 1&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;The traditional location for the garden of Eden has long been suggested to have been a mountainous area some 225 km (140 mi) SW of Mount Ararat and a few kilometers S of Lake Van, in the eastern part of modern Turkey. That Eden may have been surrounded by some natural barrier, such as mountains, could be suggested by the fact that cherubs are stated to have been stationed only at the E of the garden, from which point Adam and Eve made their exit.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km [20 mi] and 160 km [100 mi] thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to answer the question, no it is very unlikely. If Eden had mountains everywhere, but east, then Eden was in a small valley of sorts. The genesis account says even the tallest mountains where covered. This means that the valley would have been underwater for quite a long time. It is speculated that the water took almost a year to subside. That is more than long enough to drown any plant life that was in Eden. The site of Eden may still exist, but because of the flood it would be vastly different than what it originally was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T03:31:04.660" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22986" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-20T03:55:00.137" Score="3" ViewCount="304" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a question one of my Catechism students asked.  We were playing a Bible based board game where if you don't know the answer you look it up in the Bible.  That's pretty great, if you know how to find verses in the Bible.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, given a standard super thick, thin paged Bible with no tabs and characteristically ignoring the index page like one would expect an eighth grader might, what mnemonic and memorization devices do people use to find the relative position of certain books in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I'd prefer Catholic answers using Catholic Bibles, but any wisdom is appreciated)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2018-06-14T13:54:39.000" Title="How to find bible verses?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22987" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-20T04:01:55.137" Score="5" ViewCount="25647" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you see a reference to (2 Mc 7:1, 20-31) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/112013.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tomorrow's Old Testament reading&lt;/a&gt;  how are you supposed to pronounce that?  And what if it spans two different chapters?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Catechism class, sometimes I need to ask kids to look stuff up referenced like that and I don't know how to succinctly say it to them.  Other times they need to say the reference while reading something in the textbook and they always skip it because they don't know how to say it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I want is a pronunciation guide to go with the style guide for referencing bible passages that the publishers of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/FaithAndLIfe/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Faith life Series&lt;/a&gt; would expect me to teach the kids, so we can read their books.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-11-20T14:57:07.310" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T14:57:07.310" Title="How to pronounce references in the Bible?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="12" ClosedDate="2013-11-20T14:48:22.577" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22989" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="22991" CreationDate="2013-11-20T09:33:20.770" Score="5" ViewCount="24641" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are they just to light up the night? Does the bible even talk about other planets and other solar system with the capability of life or the people who wrote the bible does not know about these solar system because of lack of scientific advancement at that time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4384" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-16T23:53:50.763" LastActivityDate="2016-04-04T05:50:11.157" Title="What is the purpose of other planets and solar system according to the bible?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-04-16T04:50:40.217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22991" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22989" CreationDate="2013-11-20T11:31:22.590" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Bible does recognise the existence of heavenly bodies of some sort, and the fact that they move and come and go during the year:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen &lt;strong&gt;1&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it calls them &lt;em&gt;lights,&lt;/em&gt; which is how they appear from the earth. There is no reference to planets or other such worlds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There was astronomy in late Biblical times: the Wise Men followed &quot;a star&quot; at the time of Jesus' birth. However the difference between astronomy and what we now call astrology was not clearly defined, and technology had not developed to the extent that Jupiter (the largest and most clearly-featured planet) could be seen to have coloured bands or moons. It was Galileo who first observed its moons, and he got into serious trouble for documenting it and supporting Copernicus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We may say the Bible is incomplete in describing the heavenly bodies as &lt;em&gt;lights&lt;/em&gt; rather than being more specific; but it was written by the writers of the time &amp;mdash; they could not be expected to write down what they could not have understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T11:31:22.590" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22992" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22986" CreationDate="2013-11-20T12:49:12.523" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;I learned this technique on Protestant Bibles but you could easily adapt it for any Bible. It works best if you have everyone use their own Bible so that they can see how the technique applies to the Bible they use most.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Psalms is usually at the center of most Bibles. If you're looking for Psalms you try to open to the middle of the book.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The New Testament tends to start around the last quarter of the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;So let's say you're looking for John 3:16.&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's in the New Testament so it's in the last quarter of the Bible.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's a Gospel so it's at the front of that last quarter.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Flip to about the last quarter of the book. If you land on John great.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If you landed somewhere else is it before or after John?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This also goes hand in hand with memorizing the order of the books which the best I can do is a song that I think I might still have somewhere on VHS but you can just hit up YouTube and find something your kids will like.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even more helpful is understanding the sections of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Law&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;History&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Poetry &amp;amp; Wisdom&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Major Prophets&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Minor Prophets&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gospels&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Pauline Epistles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;General Epistles&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Prophecy&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So from the example above, if the open the Bible to somewhere other than John it goes:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What book are you on?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is it before or after John?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is it Old Testament or New? If it's old you move back. New could be either way.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What section is it in? If it's a Gospel, which one? (in this case any one means move back slowly)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If it's not at least one of the minor prophets then you're probably way too far ahead.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Likewise if you landed in Revelation then you're too far back. (This actually happens because of maps and other stuff they cram into Bibles these days.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It plays out like a game of 20 questions. Every time you move you repeat the steps. I don't remember it taking long for us to pick this up but, the more time they spend using an actual Bible with no search aids, the faster they'll get it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T12:49:12.523" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22993" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22987" CreationDate="2013-11-20T12:50:48.437" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second Maccabees seven one and twenty through thirty-one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or to be more explicit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Second Maccabees chapter seven, verses one and twenty through thirty-one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="20" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T12:50:48.437" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22994" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22989" CreationDate="2013-11-20T13:29:40.633" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;As to the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;purpose&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, Psalm 19 tells us that &lt;a href=&quot;http://wandamacavoy.com/2013/11/09/the-heavens-declare-the-glory-of-god/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;they, like all of creation, declare the glory of God&lt;/a&gt;:  See also: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tharptown.com/about/gospel.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God has created all things to bring glory to Himself.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of&#xA;  his hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal&#xA;  knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends&#xA;  of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion&#xA;  rejoicing to run his course.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the&#xA;  other; nothing is deprived of its warmth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the lack of scientific knowledge, and the ability of those that were &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;inspired by God to write down His words&lt;/a&gt;, it's clear that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_Scientific_Foreknowledge&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;they had knowledge that was unknown to science at the time&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the matter of extra-terrestrial life and the possibility including planets capable of supporting life, the Bible is silent. I try not to speculate beyond that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T13:36:22.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22995" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22989" CreationDate="2013-11-20T13:31:01.947" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;They are just there to display the glory of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of&#xA;  his hands. (Psalm 19:1, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look at the sun, the moon, solar systems, galaxies, we see how great is our God and how big is our God. The universe declares the glory of God. The more we know about the universe, the more we are awed by the greatness of our God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Giglio&quot;&gt;Louie Giglio&lt;/a&gt; gave a sermon on the universe - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNgJhuICrVA&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Indescribable (YouTube)&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, explaining that we can see the glory of God by simply looking at the universe. Here is one quote from the video (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faithandentertainment.com/21-great-louie-giglio-quotes/&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;) -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“We haven’t built a big enough telescope yet to see exactly what is&#xA;  out there that God has created, but every time we build a bigger&#xA;  telescope we’re ‘Wowed’ once again, that it’s (the universe) bigger&#xA;  than we thought. There’s more amazing stuff out there that we have&#xA;  never seen, and God is laughing all over again going ‘Yeah,&#xA;  congratulations. Is that all you’ve got? Go back and build a bigger&#xA;  one and I’ll show you something else that you haven’t seen yet.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T13:31:01.947" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22996" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22989" CreationDate="2013-11-20T14:13:43.677" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The word &lt;code&gt;planet&lt;/code&gt; is not found in the bible. In ancient times, there were stars and wanderers. Wanderers are planets, named this way because they didn't move like the other &lt;strike&gt;&quot;stars&quot;&lt;/strike&gt; heavenly bodies.  Few understood the difference between a star and a planet. Please consider reading the lyrics of &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearer,_My_God,_to_Thee&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nearer my God to thee&lt;/a&gt;&quot; - also know that in that song, the cross is not a crucifix but Jacob's ladder. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please consider reading this &lt;a href=&quot;http://threeworldsweb.com/starlore/planets.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;regarding ancient times and planets&lt;/a&gt; - extra-biblical. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that I'm going to catch some flack for this comment, but it needs to be said to help answer this question.  The bible is full of truths, but that doesn't mean that there aren't truths that exist outside of the bible.  The Bible doesn't talk about the internet, subatomic particles, or how to calculate volume (Leibniz) or acceleration (Newton).  That doesn't mean that they do not exist.  It means it is out of scope for what the bible is - inspiration for daily living.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2013-11-20T14:37:38.490" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T14:37:38.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22997" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22989" CreationDate="2013-11-20T14:37:58.553" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here is an obscure answer that appears to have surfaced in the mid-1800s:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The purpose of the greater universe i.e. “stars etc.” is addressed in: Witness of the Stars, by E. W. Bullinger&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Essentially, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.heavendwellers.com/stars_chapter_one.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bullinger&lt;/a&gt; along with others advanced that God in creation established the “Gospel” message in the stars.  He goes into great detail within his book to show how the constellations depict the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  He believed that the stars proclaimed the same truth that we now have in the Bible.  Therefore, mankind has never been without the Word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also used Psalms 19:1 as one of his proof verses: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/jewish-worship-pagan-symbols/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Archeologists&lt;/a&gt; have discovered multiple mosaic floors in ancient Synagogues that depict the zodiac along side illustrations of Biblical stories.  Most historians assume that this is evidence of the Israelites chasing after pagan gods.  However, it could indicate that Bullinger was correct and these early depictions are remnants of divine understanding from an earlier time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This answer is not without controversy, many have and still &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/gospel-in-stars-further-examination&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;challenge&lt;/a&gt; the legitimacy of the message in the stars perspective.  However, modern archeology and their discoveries of astrological signs within ancient synagogs and early churches may cause a resurgence of interest in this obscure perspective.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2014-01-22T13:11:47.317" LastActivityDate="2014-01-22T13:11:47.317" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22999" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22973" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:02:00.683" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Willow Creek has held an egalitarian stance about women in leadership since their inception. Yesterday Lynne Hybels reposted the chapter in the book mentioned above on her blog. The link is below. I attended Willow for two years in the 1990s and benefitted greatly from the women on the teaching team and the stellar leadership of the mixed-gender elder board. It was a defining time in my personal and spiritual growth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to point out that while it is true that some churches do not hold this perspective, I believe that is mostly Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, and of course the Catholic church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are MANY denominations with a long legacy of fully including women in church leadership: Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Foursquare, Nazarene, Society of Friends, and of course many mainline churches. Christian organizations like Compassion, World Vision, Intervarsity, as well. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A founding elder at Willow, Dr. Gilbert Bilezekian, wrote the classic book on this subject: Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says about a Woman's Place in Church and Family. I highly recommend it as a good introductory text on egalitarianism. Hope that is helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://lynnehybels.blogspot.com/2013/11/evangelicals-and-gender-equality.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://lynnehybels.blogspot.com/2013/11/evangelicals-and-gender-equality.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8683" LastActivityDate="2013-11-20T18:02:00.683" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23000" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:14:45.980" Score="5" ViewCount="1462" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have recently heard many preachers and teachers, in particular &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Osteen&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joel Osteen&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Prince&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph Prince&lt;/a&gt;, say things like, &quot;God has already forgiven you. All you have to do is accept God's free gift of salvation.&quot; Is there any biblical basis for this kind of teaching? I can only find the opposite:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If&lt;/strong&gt; we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+1:9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 1:9 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="173" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-25T23:24:36.773" LastActivityDate="2015-07-26T13:03:11.393" Title="What is the Biblical basis for &quot;God's already forgiven you&quot; teaching?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;forgiveness&gt;&lt;confession&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23001" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23000" CreationDate="2013-11-20T18:30:40.040" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;From a Calvinist perspective, any teaching which makes God contingent on man in any way negates the supremacy of God.  Put another way, who is man to say anything to God?  Any choice which man makes for God is the result of an election that occurred &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=ante+praevisa+merita&amp;amp;oq=ante+prae&amp;amp;aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.5224j0j4&amp;amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;amp;espv=210&amp;amp;es_sm=91&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ante praevisa merita&lt;/a&gt;, and is thus a decision man made long before any person &quot;decided&quot; he or she wanted forgiveness.  In such a scheme, to say that God has &quot;already&quot; forgiven you makes logical sense, because God, who exists before and outside of time, would have already made the decision.  Any scripture backing predestination thus applies, such as Ephesians 1:4:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him (ESV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From an Arminian perspective, of course, free will is paramount, and the above argument would be nonsensical at its core. As such, for Methodists and the like, the timing of God's forgiveness could be a question - but Osteen in particular isn't Methodist. But, a Methodist would state the obvious - if Christ's death isn't sufficient for future sins, what is?  Hebrews is clear that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:28)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As such, even from the polar opposite soteriology, the timing of Christ's forgiveness would predate any individual's decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, it should be noted that &lt;a href=&quot;http://thecripplegate.com/why-seminary-joel-osteen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joel Osteen has never been to seminary, nor does he profess to be &quot;much of a theologian&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, so don't expect too strong of a case if you're basing it on him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T13:18:54.737" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T13:18:54.737" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23003" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23000" CreationDate="2013-11-20T19:32:16.650" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Grace is the forgiving of sin:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy &lt;strong&gt;sins be forgiven&lt;/strong&gt; thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God’s grace is a gift:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 2:8 For by &lt;strong&gt;grace&lt;/strong&gt; are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the &lt;strong&gt;gift of God&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“Faith” enables “grace”:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 4:16 …it is &lt;strong&gt;of faith, that it might be by grace&lt;/strong&gt;…&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God provides “faith”:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 12:3 …as &lt;strong&gt;God hath dealt&lt;/strong&gt; to every man the measure of &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grace while ratified upon the cross is eternal:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 6:8 ..Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A gift by nature is given in advance, out of love.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;A wage is given after ones works are measured.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grace is God's forgiving, because it is a gift it has to be fore-given!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4746" LastEditorUserId="4746" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T12:34:18.217" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T12:34:18.217" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23004" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14582" CreationDate="2013-11-20T22:33:54.720" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is no lagging Father! :)  The sufferings of His Son prove that His love is fierce enough to penetrate through any veil of sin! For it is in this the God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were still actively rebellious towards Him, He crushed His own Son &lt;strong&gt;(Romans 5:1-11)&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have no answer yet to the fact in question concerning the shepherd and one of his sheep which continue to wander; that is actually how I found this site, while looking for that answer. And after many of the articles and websites that I have found, it seems to me that most people are answering this question out of a mindset which states: &quot;God is too loving to hurt us!&quot; I could be wrong in this, but the overwhelming sense is that most people view God in this way; and in the least those authors of such articles do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that before we begin to qualify the love that the Father has toward us, we must define the love which the Father has for His Son.According to Jesus in &lt;strong&gt;John 17: 23&lt;/strong&gt;  the Father loves us &lt;strong&gt;even as&lt;/strong&gt; he loves the Son. Therefore, the love of God for us is defined by the love which God has for His Son. There is no love that compares to the love God has for His Son.... For the Father has spoken from Heaven concerning His Son saying, &lt;strong&gt;&quot;This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well-pleased&quot; Matthew 3:17.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 1:6&lt;/strong&gt; speaks of the Son as &lt;strong&gt;the Beloved.&lt;/strong&gt;    &lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 42:1&lt;/strong&gt; speaks of the coming Servant of God (Jesus) as His chosen One, and the One in Whom His soul delights! Do you hear that language; God the Father trying to describe to us the pleasure that He takes in His Servant( His Son) says that His soul ( an expression to relate His fulness) takes delight in this One. There is only One  person here who is so loved and delighted in. &quot;Wisdom&quot; &lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 8&lt;/strong&gt; is classically interpreted as the Son of God due to the living and pre-creation descriptions being used; and here it says that Wisdom was &quot;daily&quot; the delight of the Father. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;   I bring all of this up to point to the fact that the love which we experience from God is first and foremost grounded in the love which the Father has for us **in the Son**. In order to save His people from their sins, Jesus our Lord had to take our sins upon Himself. He had to become the very thing that was bringing the judgment of God against us (**2Corinthians 5:21**, **He made Him to be sin who knew no sin; **Isaiah 53:6** but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him...**). And in this transaction taking place, the wrath of God  which belonged to the sinner, fell upon the Sinless! Hear **Isaiah 53:10 ** **But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief;**  Now, I am no genius, but I think that if in order to save sinners God not only crushed His Beloved Son, but was **well-pleased** to do so (not maniacally, but with purpose), then I am confident to conclude that He will go to great lengths to remove sin from the life of one of His sheep. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lamentations&lt;/strong&gt; speaks of the Lord afflicting men and speaking forth both good and ill upon people, exposing their sins so that they might repent of their sins and turn back  to the Lord. This is not out of anger, or severe displeasure, or even rage, but rather out of a love that desires to turn them away from that which will bring them infinite harm. What grace!!! For this is not what we deserve! My life is a testimony to this purging! And Scripture testifies to this as well. .  &lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 12&lt;/strong&gt; says that if you are a son of God through Jesus Christ, God the Father will discipline you! What does this discipline look  like? In brief, Scripture which speaks of the purifying of God's people makes reference to the Lord refining them as silver is refined in fire, and that He Himself is the One doing it (&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 1:6-7, Malachi 3:1-4&lt;/strong&gt;). Fire hurts, and burns, and damages!But this fire is meant to make the &quot;sons of Israel&quot; pure,and to make their offerings pure in the sight of the Lord.  When Jacob wrestled with God, before the Lord ever gave him the blessing, Jacob was disciplined; the Lord physically hurt him( &lt;strong&gt;Genesis 32:24-32&lt;/strong&gt;)! And Jacob did not complain, but rather, he glorified the Lord, being astonished that he had seen God face to face, and yet he lived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sadly, when most people think of discipline, due to the way in which our culture has changed the meaning of the word, they believe it to be something negative. But all throughout the book of Proverbs, a father who does not discipline his child is said not love that child at all. Jesus Himself learned obedience through the things which He suffered (&lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 5:8)&lt;/strong&gt;, which is speaking of His suffering of death! Why should we expect any less? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  The point at the end is this: the Father of our Lord Jesus is serious about sin. If He crushed His own  Beloved Son when He took  sin upon Himself for us, then one may conclude that He will go to any means to purify His sheep as silver is purified, for they are called by His Name (**Ezekiel 36:22-32**). He will wash them with pure water, and they shall be cleansed from all of their filthiness and idols.  This however does not diminish the Love of God; for He loves us so much that He will save us from us! He will accept us in Christ, but He will not leave us the same! He will conform us to the image of Christ Jesus (**Romans 8:28-29**), and this involves taking up an instrument of death, the cross (**Matthew 16:24**).&#xA;&#xA;Scripturally, it sounds like all of God's people have &quot;broken legs&quot;, which we will not be healed from until the day that we shed these mortal bodies. &#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8687" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T17:28:37.680" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T17:28:37.680" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23006" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:03:57.587" Score="3" ViewCount="744" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is or are the mechanism(s) behind the naming conventions for a church building or organization in a denomination, say Presbyterianism?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question can be reworded as &quot;When churches assign names to themselves in this fashion 'First Presbyterian Church; Second Presbyterian Church; Third Presbyterian Church', are they accounting for the fact that there are other Presbyterian churches in the locality (regardless of the sub-denomination or organization name, evangelical or mainline) or that there may be other churches in the &lt;strong&gt;EXACT&lt;/strong&gt; same sub-denomination under Presbyterianism and that one Presbyterian church chooses to name itself as a way to distinguish this Presbyterian church from that Presbyterian church?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2014-02-13T14:36:39.850" LastActivityDate="2015-04-11T22:25:36.480" Title="What is or are the mechanism(s) behind the naming conventions for a church building or organization?" Tags="&lt;church-local&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;presbyterianism&gt;&lt;church-building&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23007" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15871" CreationDate="2013-11-21T00:39:32.137" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Clerical Celibacy was not instituted in the eleven hundreds, it was established 800 years before by Emperor Constantine I at the Council of Nicaea in 325.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Canon 3&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8689" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T00:39:32.137" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23010" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14763" CreationDate="2013-11-21T01:57:27.377" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia, Yeshua's ministry lasted about one year. See the writings of the early Church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and Lactantius. It was Eusebius, in the 4th century, who suggested a duration of 3 1/2 years, trying to align it with his interpretation of the prophet Daniel's vision in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel+9&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chapter 9:20-27&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ&quot;, under the heading &quot;Relative chronology&quot;, sub-headed &quot;The public life of Jesus: its duration&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8692" LastEditorUserId="17111" LastEditDate="2014-12-27T03:16:47.480" LastActivityDate="2014-12-27T03:16:47.480" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23011" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11263" CreationDate="2013-11-21T02:12:28.463" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;you cannot add words to the Bible.   there is a difficult situation to understand with Balaam.  yes he is a diviner and all, but the Bible states clearly that our God is talking to him, and more than once.   What is God doing talking to this guy?   Hard to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;people surmise that Balaam has bad motives and that is of course correct but what is up with God saying he could 'go' and then getting mad at balaam for going?   people are splitting hairs trying to discern why this is worded this way in Numbers, in the Word of God.  it IS hard to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8693" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T02:12:28.463" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23012" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-21T07:08:50.723" Score="-2" ViewCount="1000" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dr. Sarfati, who is with Creation Ministries International, says the earth is about 6,000 years old according to the Bible and the scientific evidence supports this age (see: &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How old is the earth?&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is the earth about 6,000 year old according to the Bible and does the scientific evidence support this matter? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8698" LastEditorUserId="49" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T14:28:23.177" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T11:19:04.443" Title="How old is the earth?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;young-earth-creation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-12-07T14:28:13.700" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23013" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23020" CreationDate="2013-11-21T11:28:51.827" Score="3" ViewCount="319" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Colossians 3:13 (KJV) - Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: &lt;em&gt;even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as I am aware, God only forgives those who confess their sin to Him and repent of it.  Does this then mean, contradictory to all teaching on forgiveness I've heard, that we only need to forgive those who confess to us they have wronged us and repent of it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6064" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T17:33:19.720" Title="Forgive Others As We Have Been Forgiven?" Tags="&lt;forgiveness&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23014" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23012" CreationDate="2013-11-21T11:57:17.220" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to this question cannot be 100 percent conclusive, and will ultimately be dependently satisfied by your own subjective faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Currently in the scientific world it is believed that the known evidence leans heavily toward the Earth being roughly &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;4-5 billion years old&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;conservative protestant denominations&lt;/a&gt; hold that the timeline presented in the Bible is literally defined by 24 hour days, whereas more scientifically liberal groups (such as Catholics) tend to accept the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Theistic Evolution position&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Its important to remember is that the Bible is not primarily a science textbook.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T02:48:22.793" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T02:48:22.793" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23015" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23013" CreationDate="2013-11-21T12:11:48.717" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But God demonstrated his love for us that at while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us&quot; --Romans 5:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Especially in light of Hebrews 9:28&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;we understand that the sacrificial death took away the sins of people.  This seems to be a clear enough analogue to forgiveness to be able to say that Christ's forgiveness was given in that sacrifice, and therefore occurred before our repentance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We had neither confessed nor repented, and yet Christ forgave, modeling how we ought to forgive each other- selflessly and unconditionally. Jesus forgave us before we cried out to him, negating the premise. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T13:22:28.173" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T13:22:28.173" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23016" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23006" CreationDate="2013-11-21T12:24:52.327" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Catholic Parishes are faith communities named after a Catholic Saint; a combination of Saijts whose names appear together in the Liturgy of the Mass; a title of Our Lady;  or a title of the Holy Trinity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Examples: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;St. Augustine Parish&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sts. Pepetua and Felicity Parish&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Holy Mother of Consolation Parish&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Divine Mercy Parish&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T12:24:52.327" CommentCount="1" CommunityOwnedDate="2013-11-21T12:24:52.327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23017" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23006" CreationDate="2013-11-21T13:37:58.033" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Within Baptist churches, there tends to be a significant number of ordinal and locational church names, although the modern trend is to eschew both &amp;quot;Baptist&amp;quot; and incorporate more soteriological concepts.  So, let me unpack that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ordinal naming&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Baptists are a highly missiological group - they want to plant as many churches as they can, and are often highly aware of their parentage.  When a new Baptist church is planted in a particular area, it is often named for the area.  The First Baptist Church of {Clarendon | Crewe | Alexandria | insert all sorts of cities where I've attended} is often succeeded by the Second Baptist Church of {X}.  (And, incidentally, African American Churches tend to be 'Second Baptist of X' a lot, because the whites kicked out the blacks at a certain point.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Locational naming&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Absent a First or second, there is often just a {X} Baptist church, when it isn't expected there will be more than one.  I have preached at Middleburg, Marshall, The Plains, and Antioch Baptist churches, for example - all based on the place name. Because the city or place is sufficiently ambiguous, some churches in cities will just take the name of the street.  In Washington DC, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.firstbaptistdc.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Sixteenth Street Baptist&lt;/a&gt; has historically been known as that - although it is now going to a First Baptist of DC moniker in order to establish its history. Martin Luther King, Jr. served at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dexterkingmemorial.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Dexter Avenue Baptist Church&lt;/a&gt;, which incidentally is located on Dexter Avenue, right below the State Capitol.  (Got to visit that church and had a 'D'oh' moment on that one.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Soteriological Concepts&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The more more modern church naming scheme tends towards concepts.  &amp;quot;United Baptist Church&amp;quot; in Annandale was the merger of two locationally named churches (Barcroft and Annandale). Fireside Church, New Life Church, and many other 'Community Churches' (eschewing the name 'Baptist') now pop up.  These tend to be younger and 'edgier' than the old First and Seconds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is rare amongst Baptist is naming after a Saint.  Baptists as a whole tend to be rather leery of anything &amp;quot;Popish&amp;quot; and because of their love of local autonomy, tend to avoid tying themselves to any one individual.  While there is the occasional William Broaddus Memorial Church or Smith Memorial, it is very rare to find a &amp;quot;St X of X&amp;quot; Baptist church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T13:37:58.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23018" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23013" CreationDate="2013-11-21T13:41:04.960" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus did say &quot;if your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And He clearly condemned those who refuse to forgive those who are obviously sorry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5062" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T13:41:04.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23019" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23012" CreationDate="2013-11-21T14:25:55.480" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to the question, &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5107/is-the-age-of-the-earth-in-the-bible?lq=1&quot;&gt;Does the Bible say the earth is 6000 years old?&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is no.  The Bible does not directly give the age of the earth explicitly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What the Bible does do is give a chronology in Genesis 5 that, according to some calculations (most famously &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Bishop Usshar who derived that the earth was created on the evening of October 23, 4004 BC&lt;/a&gt; ) indicate that Adam lived around 6000 years ago.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;This chronology, when coupled with a {literal | plain sense} reading of seven &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/642/what-is-the-specific-meaning-of-day-in-genesis-1&quot;&gt;days&lt;/a&gt; of Creation, leads &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1526/what-is-young-earth-creationism&quot;&gt;&quot;Young Earth&quot; Creationists&lt;/a&gt; to conclude the earth is 6000 years old. Any further &lt;a href=&quot;http://creationwiki.org/Apparent_age&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;apparent age&lt;/a&gt; is strictly due to God creating the universe as if it had already been in existence longer. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Old Earth&quot; Creationists (or &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Theistic Evolutionists&lt;/a&gt;) take a less &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8345/1039&quot;&gt;literal view of Genesis 1 - 12&lt;/a&gt;, and suggest that the days are either metaphorical or that these verses mean something else.  To a YEC, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10051/why-do-young-earth-creationists-make-such-a-big-deal-about-the-yec-view&quot;&gt;this flies in the face of a good reading of Scripture&lt;/a&gt;, but to more secular scientists represents a compromise between faith and perceived observations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, many liberals read Genesis 1 - 12 (and hence the Creation story) as pure &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;myth&lt;/a&gt; and hence not to be read in the same &quot;scientific&quot; terms that modern man would use when discussing the age of the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus, the answer to 'How old is the earth?' as a matter of fact is completely dependant on how one reads Genesis 5.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T14:59:42.717" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23020" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23013" CreationDate="2013-11-21T15:31:45.507" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where your confusion seems to lie is in the fact that Salvation(forgiveness) is a gift from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what Christians believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that Jesus died on the Cross So that our sins might be forgiven;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 20:28  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please notice that this scripture says &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;many and not all&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is rather simple in that Salvation is a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;gift&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; from God due to his enormous grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God sacrificed his son on the cross, so that we might receive his gift of Salvation , but just as any other gift it must be received by the person to whom it is presented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance if you never open your Christmas gifts they are still gifts, but they do not do you any good until you do open them and begin to use them. And if you never do it is not the fault of the person who gave the gift .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is with Salvation it is there &lt;em&gt;just waiting for acceptance&lt;/em&gt;, and even beyond acceptance to be used by the receiver. The two go hand in hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus died on the cross God heaped on him punishment for all the sins of the World, but it must be remembered that as terrible as it sounds that too was a gift &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;(albeit a miserable gift)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and as with all gifts Jesus had to accept them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Colossians 2:13  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must also remember that a gift not only has to be received, but it must also be given and remember that those are &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;our sins&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, they do not belong to either God or Jesus, therefore &lt;em&gt;it is us&lt;/em&gt; who must make a gift of them to Jesus so that he too can make use of them to justify his dieing on the cross. Since he has taken the punishment,  we should at least make it worth his sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next step would logically be to do that, but the question is how can we?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well that's a good question and I'm glad you asked it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1st John 1:9  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how it is done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1  We must admit that those sins belong to us. (that is confession)&#xA;&#xA;2 We must ask God to allow Jesus death on the cross to be the remission of our sins. (ask for forgiveness)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God will then turn to Jesus (who is at his right hand) and ask if he will accept your sin . (of course Jesus will say yes since he already suffered torture in your name).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that time your sins will be taken from you and sacrificed on the Cross with Jesus.(that is forgiveness)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believe then that your sins have been paid for in full, and you have &lt;em&gt;been born again, not of the flesh but of the Spirit&lt;/em&gt;, and you have become worthy to enter Heaven since you are now sinless in God's eyes, and have become perfect as Jesus was perfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key word here is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1st John 1:12  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I said before a gift is only a gift not only when it is opened, but it must also be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose you are given a car, and all you do with it is set it up and look at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is still a gift and it is yours but until you start to dive it you are not making use of your gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two ways in which you can use your gift of Salvation, you can bask in it, which God wants you to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John  10:10  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like the more abundantly part!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and you can also share it. (which is what I am doing now.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some other Scriptures which help to explain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All are from the King James version of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 4:12  That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 9:6  But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4:32  And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T15:31:45.507" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23021" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23000" CreationDate="2013-11-21T15:42:54.700" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Where your confusion seems to lie is in the fact that salvation (forgiveness) is a gift from God. This is what Christians believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus died on the Cross so that our sins might be forgiven:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 20:28 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason for this is rather simple: salvation is a gift from God due to his enormous grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God sacrificed his son on the cross so that we might receive his gift of salvation, but just as any other gift it must be received by the person to whom it is presented.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance if you never open your Christmas gifts, they are still gifts, but they do not do you any good until you do open them and begin to use them. And if you never do it is not the fault of the person who gave the gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is with salvation. It is there just waiting -- for acceptance, and even beyond acceptance -- to be used by the receiver. The two go hand in hand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus died on the cross, God heaped on him punishment for all the sins of the World, but it must be remembered that as terrible as it sounds that too was a gift (albeit a miserable gift), and as with all gifts Jesus had to accept them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Colossians 2:13 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We must also remember that a gift not only has to be received, but it must also be given. And remember that those are our sins, they do not belong to either God or Jesus, therefore it is we who must make a gift of them to Jesus so that he too can make use of them to justify his dying on the cross. Since he has to take the punishment, we should at least make it worth his sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next step would logically be to do that, but the question is how can we?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well that's a good question and I'm glad you asked it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1st John 1:9 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how it is done:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We must admit that those sins belong to us. (that is confession)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;We must ask God to allow Jesus' death on the cross to be the remission of our sins (ask for forgiveness).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God will then turn to Jesus (who is at his right hand) and ask if he will accept your sin. (Of course Jesus will say yes since he already suffered torture in your name.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At that time your sins will be taken from you and sacrificed on the cross with Jesus. That is forgiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Believe then that your sins have been paid for in full, and you have been born again, not of the flesh but of the Spirit, and you have become worthy to enter Heaven since you are now sinless in God's eyes, and have become perfect as Jesus was perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key word here is believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1st John 1:12  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I said before a gift is only a gift not only when it is opened, but it must also be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose you are given a car, and all you do with it is set it up and look at it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is still a gift and it is yours but until you start to drive it you are not making use of your gift.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are two ways in which you can use your gift of Salvation, you can bask in it, which God wants you to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 10:10 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I like the &quot;more abundantly&quot; part!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And you can also share it. (Which is what I am doing now.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some other Scriptures which help to explain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 4:12 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 9:6 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4:32 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-07-25T23:43:16.593" LastActivityDate="2015-07-25T23:43:16.593" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23022" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-21T15:45:41.213" Score="2" ViewCount="103" Body="&lt;p&gt;I read something recently from a highly regarded poster on a sister site, which states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;I should extend the courtesy of allowing people to have evidence which they can't use to convince me, given that I'm asking others to extend the same courtesy towards me.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I understand this correctly (and please correct me if I haven't), then this is advocating the deliberate ignoring of evidence.  The use of the word &quot;evidence&quot; is key here, as this indicates something which is provable.  Surely if something is provable, ignoring it is an act of deliberate ignorance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can this ever be a good thing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, don't get me wrong.. This is not a trolling attempt (although I suspect you chaps may receive a few of those), I am just curious as to what you think.  I appreciate that the first response may be &quot;Why not ask him?&quot; but I've found that when you approach someone one-on-one about their beliefs they unsurprisingly tend to take it personally, which makes it much harder to have a proper discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regards,&#xA;Dave&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8699" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T17:12:52.930" Title="Curious re: Scientific evidence" Tags="&lt;faith&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-11-23T17:36:11.720" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23023" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-21T15:50:30.190" Score="1" ViewCount="515" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am under the impression that Scripture teaches tolerance, not resentment.  However it seems there has been some tension between Catholics and Protestants over the centuries – to the point of war in some cases – take the Thirty Years War for example.  On a personal note, when I was going through Catechism classes, I found it a little irritating that the Catholic Church says it’s the only true Christian Church.  Yet, even amongst the Protestants, there seems be derision between each denomination and in today’s world, within a single denomination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, I was under the impression that Scripture teaches tolerance.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Ephesians 4:30-32 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with&#xA;  whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all&#xA;  bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every&#xA;  form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving&#xA;  each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could even go as far as to add this from Corinthians as well:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 12:12-14 12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts,&#xA;  but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.13 For we&#xA;  were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews&#xA;  or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to&#xA;  drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what gives with the grief - then and now?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a curiosity question that is both looking at things historically and psychologically, I don't mean to offend anyone (and if I have, I am sorry).  I know that things are more amicable these days, but it seems that there can still be some issues (take the IRA for example, so glad they've decided to put their weapons down!).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tolerance is my main theme here however.  Thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4517" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T13:30:43.050" LastActivityDate="2014-06-05T15:00:55.120" Title="What is the historical and theological basis for Protestant anti-Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2013-11-22T01:36:51.187" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23024" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-21T15:50:32.853" Score="1" ViewCount="409" Body="&lt;p&gt;When reading the bible you read Jesus telling people to follow the commandments, whoever breaks even the least of the commandments will be in the lowest level in the kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/5-19-compare.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/5-19-compare.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and&#xA;  shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven:&#xA;  but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the&#xA;  kingdom of heaven.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is preaching One God, and to follow the commandments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Did his message fundamentally change after his death to the Romans?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How to you reconcile these 2 very different messages?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5886" LastEditorUserId="5886" LastEditDate="2013-11-21T17:48:03.900" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T09:27:37.130" Title="Did Jesus preach One God and follow the commandments to the Jews, and another message to the Romans?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23025" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-21T16:52:23.193" Score="4" ViewCount="17302" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is there a reason, other than humility, that we are taught to pray with bowed heads and clasped hands? Other religions, such as Judaism and Muslim – even with the variety of Pagan pantheons – raise their hands and lift their faces Heavenward.  Is it that most find doing so ‘odd’ or ‘strange’ – or is there more to it than just an outward appearance?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4517" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T18:13:24.003" Title="Why do folks clasp their hands and bow their heads when praying?" Tags="&lt;prayer&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-11-29T06:14:50.390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23026" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23023" CreationDate="2013-11-21T17:12:13.593" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Thirty Years War was a really bad time, and in many ways may be responsible for the grief between Catholics and Protestants.  While I would argue this animosity is way, way less bad than it was in the past, in the past it could be very bad.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Pilgrim's Progress, for example, the Protestant John Bunyan (who was in jail for preaching!), compared the Pope to a Pagan heretic, and calls him dying but not yet dead:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In this light, therefore, he came to the end of the valley. Now I saw in my dream, that at the end of the valley lay blood, bones, ashes, and mangled bodies of men, even of pilgrims that had gone this way formerly; and while I was musing what should be the reason, I espied a little before me a cave, where two giants, Pope and Pagan, dwelt in old times; by whose power and tyranny the men whose bones, blood, ashes, etc., lay there, were cruelly put to death. But by this place Christian went without much danger, whereat I somewhat wondered; but I have learnt since, that Pagan has been dead many a day; and as for the other, though he be yet alive, he is, by reason of age, and also of the many shrewd brushes that he met with in his younger days, grown so crazy and stiff in his joints that he can now do little more than sit in his cave’s mouth, grinning at pilgrims as they go by, and biting his nails because he cannot come at them&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No less a luminary than Charles Spurgeon warned against letting down the guard against &quot;Popishness&quot;, saying in his sermon &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/popery.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The Attractions of Popistry&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now, all this has mainly passed away, and we are relaxing our resistance against the dreaded foe just in proportion as he grows more formidable. It has become the fashion to condemn controversy and to affect the widest charity for this and all other foes of Christ and of souls. High Presbyterian authority even is quoted as saying, that henceforth our concern with Romanism should be chiefly ironical!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, this book &lt;a href=&quot;https://archive.org/stream/cihm_94100#page/n7/mode/2up&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;On the Evils of Popery&lt;/a&gt; calls on protestants to &quot;resist the evil aggressions of Rome&quot; in its very first paragraph.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Protestant perspective, there is an historical case and a theological case.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In brief, historically, many good Christians died at the hands of the Roman church. Whether it be Hugenots, Waldensians, and many of the Reformers themselves, there is no doubt the church persecuted its theological enemies.  That said, there is no doubt the Protestant church in England did the same to its adversaries, and the pattern is not unique to either Catholicism in particular or Christianity in general.  (Indeed, one only need examine the Shia-Sunni wars in Islam to see this is a &lt;em&gt;human&lt;/em&gt; tendency, not a Christian one.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically, there are differences between Catholics and Protestants - chiefly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Governance.  In general, Protestants have a disdain not for any particular Pope, but for the idea of a Pope in general.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Marian Devotion. In general, Catholics have a regard for Mary that strikes many Protestants as worship&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Latria. What Catholics view as honoring Saints and their icons, many Protestants view as idol worship&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Purgatory, Indulgences, and other Accretions. Many Protestants view Catholics as having added a lot to Scripture - Purgatory being one example of a concept not really known to Scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Issues like these contributed to a situation in which Protestants had legitimate grievances against a church. Indeed, in much the same was as Anti-Semitism was considered proper for a long time, so too Anti-Catholicism was as American as Apple Pie, leading to the formation of the Freemasons, the KKK, and the Know-Nothings, and derailing the Presidential ambitions of Al Smith in 1928 and nearly costing JFK the Presidency in 1960. (Only by declaring independence from the Pope could he diffuse the issue.) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From a Roman Catholic perspective, Protestants were schismatics - Christians who were denying the authority of the church. This is treason at best and apostasy at worst - serious stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, in fairness, I would argue most enlightened Christians on either side now view many of thee issues as secondary, and most of the fighting as historic hurt and not present issues - but to gloss over it is to forget a important divide.  These are rarely first order concerns however.  We both believe in Jesus as being divine, fully god-fully man, all of the creeds and all that stuff. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5821/1039&quot;&gt;Indeed, much like Common law, the Protestant position is to &lt;em&gt;accept&lt;/em&gt; Catholic dogma, unless if there is a modern precedent to overturn it.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say there are no grievances between the churches is thus wrong - but it is really easy to overemphasize them too.  Christians are still humans. Humans always have something to fight about.  So, the answer to your question, Why do Protestants not like Catholics is this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We're still human.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2014-06-05T15:00:55.120" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23027" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23022" CreationDate="2013-11-21T17:12:52.930" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;This person kind of seems like they just bury their head in the sand when it comes to something they don't want to hear. To illustrate they could claim that the sky is purple. You know that it is blue. You offer that they look outside to see, but they refuse. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These kinds of people are either so convinced they are right that they won't look, or they are so afraid of being wrong they can't. I think a reason for this is that when they realize they are incorrect, they:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;they A have to take responsibility&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then B have to adjust their knowledge base accordingly along with their actions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is never a good thing. This is especially true when coming to a forum such as this. If you refuse to look at evidence contrary to what you believe, then what are you doing on a forum to exchange biblical views?&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:12&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;“All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are not willing to look at their evidence or beliefs, why should they in return look at yours? What if they are correct? It could indeed mean your life and being stubborn in not looking for knowledge is not an excuse. I look at and research everyone's evidence regardless of my own knowledge. It generally keeps me from making a fool of myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T17:12:52.930" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23029" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23013" CreationDate="2013-11-21T17:33:19.720" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Forgiving those who have wronged us is only a part or even a facet of what we need to do to be forgiven. What about when you have done something wrong and need forgiveness? Asking for forgiveness is part of the equation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also need to repent or in other words actively show that we are remorseful. This means that we need to show that we are actively seeking to not do what we are asking forgiveness for. If you ask for god to forgive you, for say fornication, and then the next day go out and commit the act again and so on god will not listen to your requests. &lt;strong&gt;Lamentations 3:44&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;You have blocked approach to yourself with a cloud, so that our prayer may not pass through.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to be forgiven we need to forgive others, but more is required of us than that for salvation. Forgiveness is a large piece of what we need to demonstrate, but again only a piece.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T17:33:19.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23030" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23025" CreationDate="2013-11-21T17:53:20.470" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;IDK about clasping hands, as I don't do it. I do know that we bow our head in respect for the one we are praying to, God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is much the same in a legal case. When you approach a judge you address him differently than say a sales clerk. When you talk to the judge, your speech is more respectful as is your body language. When you talk casually to someone your mannerism change completely. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we do these things for God, we are showing regard for his position of authority. We are also showing that we are in subjection to our father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The clasping of hands may be to show love  and encouragement for your brothers in the congregation. &lt;strong&gt;Hebrews 10:24-25:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near&quot;.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T17:53:20.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23031" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-21T18:12:53.317" Score="4" ViewCount="277" Body="&lt;p&gt;I bet I've got it wrong but does &quot;ask and thou shalt recieve&quot; mean we can ask for anything and recieve anything? In which case, could I have a 'wish-list' of things I want glorified in heaven? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like I said, I just KNOW I'm missing the point here. Having said which, surely it doesn't mean ask but make sure it's for something within this selection, otherwise why make the point at all? Being it was said by Jesus I'm guessing there was, not only a point, but a rather important one!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-11-03T12:17:37.723" LastActivityDate="2014-11-03T12:17:37.723" Title="&quot;Ask and you shall recieve&quot; Can we ask for anything?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;prayer&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2020-07-09T00:45:21.550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23034" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23024" CreationDate="2013-11-21T18:44:18.470" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that you may be misreading the scripture.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These Scriptures elaborate on the subject:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jas 1:25  KJV But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jas 2:10  KJV For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;you may compare that to saying she was only a little bit pregnant. The meaning here being that you cannot be only slightly guilty of breaking the Law, any more than you not really a sinner because all you did was to tell a white lie.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have taken the liberty of quoting a couple of the more prominent commentaries here&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;David Gusik's commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments: The&#xA;commandments    are to be obeyed as explained and fulfilled by Jesus'&#xA;life and teaching, not as in the legalistic thinking of the religious&#xA;authorities of Jesus' day. For example, sacrifice is commanded by the&#xA;law, but it was fulfilled in Jesus, so we do not run the danger of&#xA;being called least in the kingdom of heaven by not observing animal&#xA;sacrifice as detailed in the Law of Moses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom&#xA;of heaven: The Christian is done with the law as a means of gaining a&#xA;righteous standing before God. One passage that explains this is Gal.&#xA;2:21: For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in&#xA;vain. However, the law stands as the perfect expression of God's&#xA;ethical character and requirements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The law sends us to Jesus to be justified, because it shows us our&#xA;inability to please God in ourselves. But after we come to Jesus, He&#xA;sends us back to the law to learn the heart of God for our conduct and&#xA;sanctification.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Gill's commentary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,....&#xA;Which are to be understood not of the beatitudes in the preceding&#xA;verses, for these were not delivered by Christ under the form of&#xA;commandments; nor of any of the peculiar commands of Christ under the&#xA;Gospel dispensation; but of the precepts of the law, of which some&#xA;were comparatively lesser than others; and might be said to be broke,&#xA;loosed, or dissolved, as the word here used signifies, when men acted&#xA;contrary to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And shall teach men so; not only teach them by their example to break&#xA;the commandments, but by express orders: for however gross and absurd&#xA;this may seem to be, that there should be any such teachers, and they&#xA;should have any hearers, yet such there were among the Jews; and our&#xA;Lord here manifestly strikes at them: for notwithstanding the great&#xA;and excellent things they say of the law, yet they tell us, that the&#xA;doctors of the sanhedrim had power to root anything out of the law; to&#xA;loose or make void any of its commands, for a time, excepting in the&#xA;case of idolatry; and so might any true prophet, or wise man; which&#xA;they pretend is sometimes necessary for the glory of God, and the good&#xA;of men; and they are to be heard and obeyed, when they say, transgress&#xA;anyone of all the commands which are in the law {h}. Maimonides says&#xA;{i}, that the sanhedrim had power, when it was convenient, for the&#xA;time present, to make void an affirmative command, and to transgress a&#xA;negative one, in order to return many to their religion; or to deliver&#xA;many of the Israelites from stumbling at other things, they may do&#xA;whatsoever the present time makes necessary: for so, adds he, the&#xA;former wise men say, a man may profane one sabbath, in order to keep&#xA;many sabbaths. And elsewhere {k} he affirms,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;if a prophet, whom we know to be a prophet, should order us לעבור על&#xA;אחת מכל מצות, &amp;quot;to transgress anyone of the commands&amp;quot;, which are&#xA;mentioned in the law, or many commands, whether light or heavy, for a&#xA;time, we are ordered to hearken to him; and so we learn from the&#xA;former wise men, by tradition, that in everything a prophet shall say&#xA;to thee עבור על דברי תורה, &amp;quot;transgress the words of the law&amp;quot;, as Elias&#xA;on Mount Carmel, hear him, except in the case of idolatry.''&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And another of their writers says {l},&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;it is lawful sometimes to make void the law, and to do that which&#xA;appears to be forbidden.''&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nay, they even {m} say, that if a Gentile should bid an Israelite transgress anyone of the commands mentioned in the law, excepting&#xA;idolatry, adultery, and murder, he may transgress with impunity,&#xA;provided it is done privately. You see what reason Christ had to&#xA;express himself in the manner he does, and that with resentment,&#xA;saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;he shall be called, or be the least in the kingdom of heaven; meaning&#xA;either the church of God, where he shall have neither a name, nor&#xA;place; he shall not be in the least esteemed, but shall be cast out as&#xA;a worthless man; or the ultimate state of happiness and glory, in the&#xA;other world, where he shall not enter, as is said in the next verse;&#xA;but, on the other hand,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;whosoever shall do and teach; whose doctrine and conversation,&#xA;principles and practices agree together; who both teach obedience to&#xA;the law, and perform it themselves: where again he glances at the&#xA;masters in Israel, and tacitly reproves them who said, but did not;&#xA;taught the people what they themselves did not practise; and so were&#xA;unworthy of the honour, which he that both teaches and does shall&#xA;have: for&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven; he shall be&#xA;highly esteemed of in the church here, and be honoured hereafter in&#xA;the world to come. The Jews have a saying somewhat like this;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;he that lessens himself for the words of the law in this world, נעשה&#xA;גדול, &amp;quot;he shall become great&amp;quot; in the world to come {n},''&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or days of the Messiah.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T19:11:38.240" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23036" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18230" CreationDate="2013-11-21T19:46:54.897" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we do not personally examine the scriptures, how can we then take them to heart? There are many arguments to be made from the scriptures. I will start with just simple reasoning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Through daily bible reading we reinforce the information we have regarding all the scriptures. If we know the scriptures well, then we know what we are commanded to do, whats expected of us, and the qualities we are to display as Christians. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now for a scriptural basis for personal interpretation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Paul recognized in his second letter to Timothy at &lt;strong&gt;2 Ti 4:3-5&lt;/strong&gt; that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.4  They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.5 You, though, keep your senses in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Paul is saying here is that there would come a time when the truth would be twisted. They would teach things that would tickle their ears, or that is things that would be taught according to their own desires. By allowing people to read the scriptures as they please, they find truths in the scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005481?q=have+their+ears+tickled&amp;amp;p=par&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Watchtower 2005&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; states: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Religious leaders tickle people’s ears by condoning practices that appeal to wrong desires, such as sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, and drunkenness. The Bible clearly states that those who approve of such things and those who practice them “will not inherit God’s kingdom.”—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Romans 1:24-32.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Do we not see this today? A prime example is the acceptance of homosexuals in the church. If we did not know, from our own reading of the scriptures, Gods commandments on the matter then we would just go along with it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example is from 1st century Christendom. The article is from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013283?q=read+daily&amp;amp;p=par&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2013 Watchtower article: Receive Full Benefit From Reading the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Apollos was a Jewish Christian who was “well versed in the Scriptures” and “aglow with the spirit.” The book of Acts relates about him: “He went speaking and teaching with correctness the things about Jesus, but being acquainted with only the baptism of John.” Without realizing it, Apollos had been teaching an out-of-date understanding of baptism. After hearing him teach in Ephesus, a Christian couple named Priscilla and Aquila explained “the way of God more correctly to him.” (Acts 18:24-26) How did this benefit Apollos?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like Apollos, we today may be well versed in scripture. In the case of the above account Apollos was wrong, but how would he have known it if someone with a better understanding didn't come along and adjust his knowledge?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Studying the bible and having our understanding adjusted not only benefits us. In the next verses of acts we see that with Apollos's new information, he was able to teach the baptism accurately. &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/44/18#h=131:518-132:0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 18:27-28&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see then that there are many benefits to daily reading and interpreting the bible on our own. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T19:46:54.897" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23037" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23031" CreationDate="2013-11-21T21:03:03.683" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;What Jesus means is that you will not go without what you need. Take a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/40/6#h=64:0-65:61&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:25-32&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; I'm primarily focusing on versus 31 &amp;amp; 32. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;So never be anxious and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or, ‘What are we to drink?’ or, ‘What are we to wear?’ 32 For all these are the things the nations are eagerly pursuing. Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can pray for all sorts of things like strength, wisdom, discernment or good judgement, patience, his holy spirit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is a way of illustrating the situation. Imagine God is your friend. This friend would do anything to make sure you did well. Your friend has the means to do anything or buy anything. What happens when you start using that friendship to gain money and valuable things? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What you ask for shows your motive.  If you ask for things that help you keep Gods commandments then he will indeed bless you. If you ask for thing out of desire for personal gain selfishly then God will ignore your prayer. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the example of Jesus. He owned nothing, but the clothing he wore. Another guiding scripture is yet another verse from Matthew &lt;strong&gt;6:19-21&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Stop storing up for yourselves treasures on the earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal. 20  Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21  For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T21:03:03.683" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23038" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22859" CreationDate="2013-11-21T22:34:30.713" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, before Jesus was born there was references to the Angel of the Lord. Take a look at &lt;strong&gt;Exodus 23:20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could say that Jesus protected the true Christians both spiritually and physically. It also refers to this angel bringing them to a place God prepared. This could be referring to Jesus's sacrifice opening the way to salvation for all men.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God also foreshadows more about this angel in the next verse of &lt;strong&gt;Exodus 23:21&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, because my name is in him.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;because my name is in him&quot;. This could be referring to Jesus being a perfect reflection of his father. This could also be talking about the translation of Jesus's name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;(Je′sus) [Lat. form of the Gr. I·e·sous′, which corresponds to the Heb. Ye·shu′aʽ or Yehoh·shu′aʽ and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are all from the Old testament. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The new testament also has scripture that show Jesus was around even before man and the earth. Most people don't accept my bibles rendering of &lt;strong&gt;John 1:1&amp;amp;2&lt;/strong&gt;, however it still shows that the Word or Jesus was around before the earth and even helped create it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another verse from &lt;strong&gt;John 1:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, yes, he cried out: “This was the one of whom I said, ‘The one coming behind me has advanced in front of me, &lt;strong&gt;for he existed before me&lt;/strong&gt;.’”)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This same thought is reiterated later in &lt;strong&gt;Colossians 1:16&lt;/strong&gt;. There are a few other scriptures, but I think this should cover it enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T22:34:30.713" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23039" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22877" CreationDate="2013-11-21T23:06:46.340" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The letters to the Corinthians where finished in 55 C.E. So any of the scriptures that where finished or even partly written at that time could be what he is talking about. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously the Old testament was finished, so really we need to look at the books of the new testament and when they where written in comparison with the finished date of Corinthians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By 55 C.E. the books of 1&amp;amp;2 Thessalonians(50 &amp;amp; 51 C.E.) and the book of Matthew(41 C.E.) where completed. Mark(finished 60-65 C.E.) and Luke(finished 56-58 C.E.) could have started being written at the time, but I don't know that for sure. The testament of John and Revelation where not written until the end of Johns life. That was WAY after these letters where written by about 30 years. So I know Johns testament wasn't included when Paul was referencing the scriptures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible that Paul knew what would be contained in the Unfinished or not yet written scriptures as he was present in the Christian congregation at the time. Note also that some of those dates are approximate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books-of-the-bible-list/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Table of the Books of the Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Make sure to enlarge that picture so you can see dates where the page got cut off.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Corinthians would not have had the same bible we have because it was not yet finished. The account of Matthew was written and had enough time to get to them. The Corinthians would have had the scrolls of the bible or manuscripts up to that date. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because the other scriptures hadn't been written its pretty safe to assume Paul was teaching them from the same scriptures. The account of Jesus's death and Resurrection where in Matthew, so that is probably what he is talking about with Jesus dying for our sins and rising up. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT:&lt;/strong&gt; Continuing research on this to find more evidence of dates. So far I've only found this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16) Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”—Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9. &#xA;  As regards the date of completion: &#xA;  Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression “to this very day” (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew - Writing Completed: c. 41 C.E. &#xA;Mark - Writing Completed: c. 60–65 C.E. &#xA;Luke - Writing Completed: c. 56–58 C.E.*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-11-25T06:35:29.627" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T06:35:29.627" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23040" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="613" CreationDate="2013-11-21T23:34:11.883" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I personally feel there were several plausible reasons why Noah got drunk, aside from the reasons I think it's more important to attempt to examine the spiritual reasons for the story being told in the first place.  I tend to believe that with drinking and substance usage being so prevalent in society that God knew it would be a pretty big issue for people someday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could be wrong but what I got out of it is that God wants us to know that, while we are instructed not to be drunkards and to be of a sound mind and sober.  Maybe God knew that there would be problems that would cause some people to fall once in awhile.  He doesn't want us to fall into sin and get drunk or high but he does want us to know it happens due to things like stress chronic pain emotional pain and many other triggers.  if these things catch us off guard the message is even the people of God occasionally fall in this area so if it ever happens to one of us repent and move on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8704" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T13:25:29.737" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T13:25:29.737" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23041" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6297" CreationDate="2013-11-21T23:34:21.313" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Notice the wording of:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis 6:3 (NLT)&#xA;  3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verse only says &lt;strong&gt;&quot;In the future&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. That could be at anytime God wanted. Look at humans today. How many humans live to 120? Heck you are lucky to make it to 90.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also this scripture is pre-flood. This is what God said before he decided to wipe them off the earth. When God feels regret, it is not in the sense that God made a wrong decision he regrets. Instead what that means is “change one’s mind with regard to past (or intended) action&quot;. God felt regret then when he found favor in Noah. He could also have felt &quot;regret&quot; over his decision to shorten mans life. If God had wiped wickedness off the earth then there would be no need to administer such a punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-21T23:34:21.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23043" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9406" CreationDate="2013-11-22T00:56:09.523" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Prophecy usually is thought of as &quot;Telling of &lt;strong&gt;history before it happens&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. An example of this is Gods prophecy about the fall of Babylon. That is found in &lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 44:26-28&lt;/strong&gt;. Here God predicts Babylons conquering by Cyrus the great 200 years before Cyrus is even born. Not only that, but he also tells in great detail how it would happen. The events took place just so, as it is recorded in history and the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Prophecy can involve much more. It may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come. We see this from great bible prophets such as Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Enoch, Lamech, Noah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Malachi, so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyone with teachings of a divine nature. Even a conversation with God is technically prophetic. Basically anyone claiming their words to be from god is a prophet and thus is making a prophecy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is defined in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prophecy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dictionary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; as being:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;proph·e·cy  (prf-s)&#xA;  n. pl. proph·e·cies (-sz)&#xA;  1.&#xA;  a. An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will.&#xA;  b. A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration.&#xA;  c. Such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally or in writing.&#xA;  2. The vocation or condition of a prophet.&#xA;  3. A prediction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-11-23T20:38:03.150" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T20:38:03.150" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23044" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20443" CreationDate="2013-11-22T02:25:18.933" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is none to support commanding our God to do anything. Would you walk into court and command a judge to reduce your sentence? Absolutely not, you would ask respectfully and explain your circumstance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same would go for your fleshly father. If you needed something all you have to do is ask respectfully. What father wouldn't give his children something they needed? How much more so our heavenly father. This is demonstrated by Jesus at &lt;strong&gt;Luke 11:11-13:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Indeed, which father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will hand him a serpent instead of a fish?12  Or if he also asks for an egg, will hand him a scorpion? 13  Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then at &lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:32&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;For all these are the things the nations are eagerly pursuing. Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see that God knows what we need and is eager to give it to us when we ask. If we want to show our love for god we show &quot;fear&quot; or respect for him. This means asking and not demanding. When we command something to happen, it is as if by our own hands or power we can make it happen. When we do that we take away from the glory of our father. Look at the example made of Moses when he didn't glorify god at &lt;strong&gt;numbers 20:10&lt;/strong&gt;. We don't want to take the credit for something god does. We show humility and meekness by just asking and those are qualities God finds very favorable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T02:25:18.933" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23045" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22765" CreationDate="2013-11-22T02:37:39.093" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question strikes very close to the heart of the Protestant Reformation, along with the subsequent generations of the Reformers. This topic mainly revolves around what the Catholic Church defines as the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_of_saints&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;communion of Saints&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, which is one of the main Catholic theological DNA strands rejected by Protestants. Perhaps the most feasibly specific answer can be narrowed down to the positions held by the Reformers of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/303091/Jesus-Christ/13688/The-Reformation-and-classical-Protestantism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Classical Reformation&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Its important to note that there are quite a few categories of Catholic miracles such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Eucharistic&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;stigmatic&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11186584&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;healing&lt;/a&gt;, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, for the sake of conserving time and space, let's focus specifically on the two aspects indicated in the body of your question...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Miraculous intercession of the Saints&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What the Catholic Church teaches&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;em&gt;canonized&lt;/em&gt; saint, according to Rome, is a Christian who during his/her life lived a life of exemplary holiness. At first martyrs were singled out as such. From the 4th century on, confessors, those who had refused to deny Christ in the face of death, were also recognized. Finally many others who had lived remarkable lives of holiness were admitted to the cultus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of&#xA;  Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very&#xA;  earliest days of the Christian religion, has honoured with great&#xA;  respect the memory of the dead; and, &quot;because it is a holy and a&#xA;  wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from&#xA;  their sins&quot; (2 Mac. 12:46) she offers her suffrages for them. The&#xA;  Church has always believed that the apostles and Christ's martyrs, who&#xA;  gave the supreme witness of faith and charity by the shedding of their&#xA;  blood, are closely united with us in Christ; she has always venerated&#xA;  them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels, with&#xA;  a special love, and has asked piously for the help of their&#xA;  intercession. Soon there were added to these others who had chosen to&#xA;  imitate more closely the virginity and poverty of Christ, and still&#xA;  others whom the outstanding practice of the Christian virtues and the&#xA;  wonderful graces of God recommended to the pious devotion and&#xA;  imitation of the faithful. (&lt;em&gt;Lumen Gentium 7.50&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the 12th Century popular devotion to saints swelled so incredibly that it became difficult to separate fact from fiction. It was Alexander III, who in 1170 first declared that no one should be venerated as a saint apart from the Roman Church. This found its way into canon law. The process of beatification and canonization was an attempt to regulate the cult of the saints and to remove the abuses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Beatification&lt;/strong&gt; is the act by which the Pope permits the restricted public veneration after death of a Christian who lived an exemplary life of holiness. Normally, the person in question had to have performed one attested miracle. Those beatified receive the title &quot;Blessed.&quot; Only those beatified are eligible for Sainthood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Canonization&lt;/strong&gt;, as mentioned above, is the definitive declaration by the Pope, that a Christian previously beatified has entered into eternal glory and therefore a public cult is established for the new Saint throughout the whole Church. Prior to this declaration, however, is a long legal process which begins at the diocesan level, proceeds to the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in Rome, and eventually comes before the cardinals and bishops who advise the Pope. Normally one miracle since beatification is required for canonization. There must be a miracle associated with the person's grave or relics, which is said to occur through the intercession of the saint in heaven. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What the Reformers taught&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Protestant Reformation&lt;/strong&gt; of the sixteenth century, however, involved a &lt;em&gt;radical&lt;/em&gt; reaction against the cult of saints and their relics. The Reformers rejected the idea of saintly intercession, which was thought in Lutheran terminology to constitute reliance on works rather than on faith. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Traditional Lutheran theology teaches that saints pray for the Church in general, but are not mediators of miraculous intercession. Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism, approved honoring the saints, but condemned with strict sobriety the acceptance and promulgation of miraculous intercession by the Saints in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From his commentary on 1st Peter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Thus Scripture calls us holy while we are still living here on earth,&#xA;  if we believe. The papists have taken this name away from us and say:&#xA;  `We should not be holy; only the saints in heaven are holy.' Therefore&#xA;  we must get the noble name back. You must be holy. But you must be&#xA;  prepared not to think that you are holy of yourself or on the strength&#xA;  of your merit. No, you must be holy because you have the Word of God,&#xA;  because heaven is yours, and because you have become truly pious and&#xA;  holy through Christ. This you must avow if you want to be a Christian&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Luther's Works 30:7&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luther is commenting here on the phrase in 1 Peter 1:2, &quot;by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.&quot; But his emphasis, as in the previous quote, is on the Scriptural fact that all believers in Jesus Christ, all Christians, are holy, that is, are saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Luther's 1531 Galatian commentary he reflects on the view of saints he previously held.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When I was a monk, I often had a heartfelt wish to see the life and&#xA;  conduct of at least one saintly man. But meanwhile I was imagining the&#xA;  sort of saint who lived in the desert and abstained from food and&#xA;  drink, subsisting on nothing but roots and cold water. I had derived&#xA;  this notion about unnatural saints from the books not only of the&#xA;  sophists but even of the fathers . . . But now that the light of truth&#xA;  is shining, we see with utter clarity that Christ and the apostles&#xA;  designate as saints, not those who lead a celibate life, are&#xA;  abstemious, or who perform other works that give the appearance of&#xA;  brilliance or grandeur, but those who, being called by the Gospel and&#xA;  baptized, believe that they have been sanctified and cleansed by the&#xA;  blood of Christ. Thus whenever Paul writes to Christians, he calls&#xA;  them saints, sons and heirs of God, etc. Therefore saints are all&#xA;  those who believe in Christ, whether men or women, slaves or free&#xA;  (&lt;em&gt;Luther's Works 27:81-82&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A little later in the same work...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When we have repudiated this foolish and wicked notion about the name&#xA;  &quot;saints&quot; which we suppose applies only to the saints in heaven, and on&#xA;  earth to hermits and monks who perform some sort of spectacular work&#xA;  let us now learn from the writings of the apostles that all believers&#xA;  in Christ are saints (&lt;em&gt;LW 27:83&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John Calvin composed a systematic critique of the cult of miraculous relics in the vernacular (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.museeprotestant.org/Pages/Notices.php?cim=134&amp;amp;lev=2&amp;amp;noticeid=872&amp;amp;scatid=5&amp;amp;Lget=EN&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Traité des reliques&lt;/a&gt;,1547), in which he rejected the veneration of relics on theological grounds. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thirty-Nine Articles&lt;/a&gt; formulated by the Anglican Church condemned the &quot;invocation of saints&quot; as...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;...a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of&#xA;  Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. (&lt;em&gt;Article XXII&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theological opposition often turned to violent iconoclasm on the part of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Huguenots&lt;/a&gt;  during the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Religion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wars of Religion&lt;/a&gt;. Collections of Catholic relics that had been revered as miraculous were destroyed and the statues of the saints in many French churches still bear the scars of attack. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many Protestant churches strongly reject all saintly intercession, on  the basis of verses like 1 Timothy 2:1–5, which says that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man, as well as Deuteronomy 18:10-11, which seems to forbid invoking departed souls. They also point to the fact that there are no examples in the Bible of anyone requesting the intercession of the dead - Jesus Christ being the lone exception, because he is believed to be alive and resurrected, and because he is believed to be both human and divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Marian apparitions&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the era of public revelation ended with the death of the last living Apostle. A Marian apparition, if deemed genuine by Church authority, is treated as private revelation that may emphasize some facet of the received public revelation for a specific purpose, but it can never add anything new to the deposit of faith. The Church may pronounce an apparition as worthy of belief, but belief is never required by divine faith. The Holy See has officially confirmed the apparitions at Guadalupe, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-%C3%89tienne-le-Laus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Saint-Étienne-le-Laus, Paris&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_Medal&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rue du Bac, Miraculous Medal&lt;/a&gt;), La Salette, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lourdes&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fátima&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Pontmain&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Pontmain&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauraing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Beauraing&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Banneux&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Banneux&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only way a protestant (or anyone else) could justify belief in Marian apparitions is to accept &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt; the Roman Catholic view of Mary. If these apparitions are authentic and are performed under the auspice of almighty God, then we are dealing with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mary revealed in Roman Catholic theology&lt;/a&gt;.  These apparitions do nothing but confirm &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm%20about%20Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;distinctly Catholic beliefs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition#Our_Lady_of_Lourdes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;For example&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In 1858 Saint Bernadette Soubirous was a 14-year-old shepherd girl who&#xA;  lived near the town of Lourdes in France. One day she reported a&#xA;  vision of a miraculous Lady who identified Herself as &quot;the Immaculate&#xA;  Conception&quot; in subsequent visions. In the second vision she was asked&#xA;  to return again and she had 18 visions overall. According to Saint&#xA;  Bernadette, the Lady held a string of Rosary beads and led Saint&#xA;  Bernadette to the discovery of a buried spring, also requesting that&#xA;  the local priests build a chapel at the site of the visions and lead&#xA;  holy processions there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The messages of these approved apparitions are, for the most part, cut and dry. You won't find many (if any at all) protestants willing to accept any of this. If you &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; find any...then perhaps you might consider quietly and charitably directing him or her to their nearest parish priest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2014-01-04T12:05:00.483" LastActivityDate="2014-01-04T12:05:00.483" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23047" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="642" CreationDate="2013-11-22T03:41:14.313" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would like to present this article:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning” a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We cannot be sure of the exact time God spent creating the earth. What is time to someone who always was and always will be? When we are able to speak with God again, then maybe he will answer this question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T03:41:14.313" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23048" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23031" CreationDate="2013-11-22T05:18:49.490" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;No, you cannot ask for &lt;em&gt;anything&lt;/em&gt; and expect to receive it. You can only expect God to give you what you pray for if what you ask for is consistent with His will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:14-15&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 5:14-15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask&#xA;  anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he&#xA;  hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Don't expect God to give you what you ask for if what you ask for is not in His will.&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-15.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary&lt;/a&gt; (Emphasis mine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5:13-17 Upon all this evidence, it is but right that we believe on the&#xA;  name of the Son of God. Believers have eternal life in the covenant of&#xA;  the gospel. Then let us thankfully receive the record of Scripture.&#xA;  Always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that our labour is&#xA;  not in vain in the Lord. The Lord Christ invites us to come to him in&#xA;  all circumstances, with our supplications and requests,&#xA;  notwithstanding the sin that besets us. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Our prayers must always be&#xA;  offered in submission to the will of God.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; In some things they are&#xA;  speedily answered; in others they are granted in the best manner,&#xA;  though not as requested. We ought to pray for others, as well as for&#xA;  ourselves. There are sins that war against spiritual life in the soul,&#xA;  and the life above. We cannot pray that the sins of the impenitent and&#xA;  unbelieving should, while they are such, be forgiven them; or that&#xA;  mercy, which supposes the forgiveness of sins, should be granted to&#xA;  them, while they wilfully continue such. But we may pray for their&#xA;  repentance, for their being enriched with faith in Christ, and&#xA;  thereupon for all other saving mercies. We should pray for others, as&#xA;  well as for ourselves, beseeching the Lord to pardon and recover the&#xA;  fallen, as well as to relieve the tempted and afflicted. And let us be&#xA;  truly thankful that no sin, of which any one truly repents, is unto&#xA;  death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T08:08:32.030" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T08:08:32.030" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23049" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-22T05:51:25.760" Score="0" ViewCount="137" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been contemplating the existence of a god for years now, and have settled upon the idea as a remedy to the absurd. I would like to believe in God, but my mind is so apt to lean on reason that committing to the belief is difficult. So is there any sort of &quot;jumping off&quot; point where I can finally start to realize my faith?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S.: I do not mean the word 'absurd' in any sort of offensive context. I mean it solely in reference to the writings of Camus and Kierkegaard, where the absurd is a word describing the impeccable improbability and zaniness of human existence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8708" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T13:28:33.837" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T14:51:08.577" Title="What are some good resources that explain the rational reasons behind the faith for a questioning Atheist?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;belief&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-11-22T13:45:36.290" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23050" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14888" CreationDate="2013-11-22T08:20:11.597" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 18, Jesus declares to Pilate that His kingdom is not of this world, and further confirms that He is a King born for a purpose. Prophet is different from a King.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18:33-37&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 18:33-37 (English Standard Version)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8710" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T19:25:46.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23052" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23049" CreationDate="2013-11-22T11:55:34.453" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Technically this is off topic and your absolute best course of action is to talk with pastors, priests etc... But your query is so obviously crying out for one witness in particular that I want to break the &quot;rules&quot; of this site and give you an answer.  I do not wish to speak to your personal circumstance - you &lt;em&gt;really&lt;/em&gt; need a person for that, but there is one answer that I suspect you'll hear a lot if you ask.&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fifty years ago today (November 22, 1963), &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;C.S. Lewis&lt;/a&gt; died. If there ever was a man &quot;convinced by reason&quot; into the Kingdom of God, it was he. Lewis was an Atheist Oxford don whose rationality and logic convinced him of the existence of God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;His semi-autobiography &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprised_by_Joy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Surprised By Joy&lt;/a&gt;&quot; will probably seem very familiar to you. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mere Christianity&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is a classic if densely packed work of systematic theology &lt;sup&gt;see below&lt;/sup&gt; that also seeks to present the reasons for the basics of the faith in a clear, rational fashion. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.verber.com/mark/xian/weight-of-glory.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Weight of Glory&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is a brief sermon in which Lewis talks about the real reason for the faith - JOY, and not just mere pleasure.  He argues that faith in God enables a man to see more clearly what man was created for, if man is willing to trust in God.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion,_the_Witch_and_the_Wardrobe&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is a children's book, in which an allegory in which the sacrifice of Christ and its role in salvation is pretty explicit. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Man&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Abolition of Man&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is a brief invective against an educational system that seeks to remove virtue from its aims. &quot;Men without chests&quot; is a phrase he uses to decry the condition. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwtape_Letters&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Screwtape Letters&lt;/a&gt;&quot; further explores how Christians can avoid the truth of the love of God in extraordinarily clever writing. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Divorce&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Great Divorce&lt;/a&gt;&quot; highlights how the choices we make have logical consequences in the afterlife. It has changed my life. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, if C.S. Lewis isn't your cup of tea, consider Lee Stroebel's &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310235081&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Case for Faith&lt;/a&gt;&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are an academic looking for the meatiest of systematic theologies and something older, consider Calvin's &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Institutes of Christian Religion&lt;/a&gt;.  Any good &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;systematic theology&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0842339604&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;J.I. Packer&lt;/a&gt;, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Francis of Assisi, Karl Barth, Alistar McGrath, Louis Berkhof, etc... - these are all books that attempt to systematize and explain the reasons behind the articles of dogma many Christians take for granted.  While rarely a starting point to convince someone &lt;em&gt;of&lt;/em&gt; the faith, they are really good for explaining it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, for most people, reading the Bible (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John&lt;/a&gt; is usually a good book to start) and talking to other Christians and or trying out several churches is usually the best way to go. I have a particular passion for the intellectual who is seeking with rationality and faith so I get your reluctance to start with the followers and I wish you well on this journey. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T13:52:04.430" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T13:52:04.430" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23053" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-22T13:33:05.027" Score="8" ViewCount="190" Body="&lt;p&gt;Two terms that get thrown around on this site a lot are 'hermeneutics' and 'exegesis.'  To the layman, what exactly do these terms mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T13:42:43.673" Title="What exactly is hermeneutics and exegesis?" Tags="&lt;terminology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23054" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23053" CreationDate="2013-11-22T13:42:43.673" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;Both terms relate to how a person translates the symbols in a document into a meaningful thought.  Depending on how one approaches a given set of symbols, different meanings can be made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In at least one classic example, consider:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;GODISNOWHERE&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As word-based people, we want to insert spaces.  But, do we insert them as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;GOD IS NO WHERE&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;GOD IS NOW HERE&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How you do is based on your perception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At its most fundamental, hermeneutics attempts to systematize both how people add meaning (Sapir-Whorf, Act-Theory, etc. etc. etc.), and attempts to suggest some basic principles that guide how it should be done.  For example, some commonly agreed upon hermeneutics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A text can never mean what its intended audience could not have thought it meant.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A text has meaning when the audience hears it, regardless of what the author may have intended.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If there is disagreement about which the original author most likely intended, the more difficult meaning should not be discounted just because it is difficult.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;A word is presumed to mean what it would have meant in most contexts, unless otherwise redefined.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, further things like that.  The question of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16-17&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot;&gt;inspiration&lt;/a&gt; also comes up a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis&quot;&gt;exegesis&lt;/a&gt; is a method that one uses to literally &quot;draw meaning out&quot; of a text.  Given a small bit of Scripture, a preacher doing good exegesis will extract the core meanings out of the text, as opposed to writing his particular meaning into a text. (This is often derivisely called &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis&quot;&gt;eisegesis&lt;/a&gt; for 'writing into')&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some activities that typically happen in good exegesis relate to good hermeneutical principles:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Outlining the passage to see the context in which a particular word or verse stands.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learning about the culture of the intended audience, to understand how they would have understood it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Researching alternative uses of a given word, to find the commonalities amongst them.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These principles seek towards one aim- arriving at a common consensus on what a verse really is supposed to &quot;mean&quot; regardless of the biases one might have in approaching the text in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T13:42:43.673" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23056" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="3028" CreationDate="2013-11-22T14:28:44.847" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God wants us to do listen to his voice, or that is obey him. He wants us to learn about him and his qualities. He wants us to try to reflect his qualities as best we can. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lastly he wants us to recognize his position and power. We are also his witness that Satan the devil is a liar. These are the only &quot;things&quot; that we can give back to god. What material things can we give god that he doesn't already have or can create? &lt;strong&gt;Acts 7:48-50&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands, just as the prophet says: 49 ‘The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. What sort of house will you build for me? Jehovah says. Or where is my resting-place? 50  My hand made all these things, did it not?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has us give him our material things, but this is not because God needs them. Rather he is looking to see by our actions how much we love him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T14:28:44.847" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23057" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12480" CreationDate="2013-11-22T14:41:21.127" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, David has given a more than adequate answer, so I guess I'll make a simplified one. The above answer brought out &lt;strong&gt;James 1:17&lt;/strong&gt;. It is up to the man to decide what he gives thanks for, but we have God to thank for everything. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Usually we give thanks when we have something happen we asked for or something good that sparks our memory to give thanks. We really should be praising God for more than just health and such, so that giving thanks for Gods generosity isn't forgotten. That is what it really comes down to. Life is hectic and we are busy. Sometimes people don't give credit when its due. I would rather over praise God than to forget to do it entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Your analogy of the wife is a good way to illustrate. Your wife does something nice for you. In order to make her feel appreciated you give her thanks. In this way we show God that we don't take anything for granted and that we recognize everything he does for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T14:41:21.127" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23059" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23061" CreationDate="2013-11-22T15:01:26.670" Score="7" ViewCount="11500" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Catholic Church issues annulments in place of divorces under certain circumstances.  When did this practice first begin and under what was the reasoning given for it and its distinction from divorce?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-12-30T04:47:29.240" LastActivityDate="2020-01-28T16:41:54.070" Title="When and why did the Catholic Church first start issuing annulments?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;annulment&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23060" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12480" CreationDate="2013-11-22T15:16:37.177" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, you have to realize that Christians come in different stages of Spiritual maturity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you expect a brand new believer to be thankful (and understand why) or to be thankful for the wrongs in the world, then it is the same thinking that expects a toddler to be able to write a doctoral thesis (and understand why). It does not work because the capacity is not there yet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being thankful for specific things in life requires you to know God first. If you have not experienced the goodness of God (including His being there with you in your lowest points in life), then you will not really know why you ought to be thankful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A one-time deep sense of gratefulness can be triggered by a profound realization of what the other has done for you. For example you are saved from drowning by a lifeguard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But a continuous sense of thankfulness can only stem out of a deep relationship. Don't try to understand why we ought to be thankful to God yet, make sure you understand what a deep relationship with God means first, and why we need it so badly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps as a way to think about the question.&#xA;And thank you for a good question asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T15:16:37.177" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23061" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23059" CreationDate="2013-11-22T15:48:56.840" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definition:&lt;/strong&gt; An annulment doesn't dissolve a marriage; an annulment is a solemn pronouncement that there never was a marriage contract (as explained in the pronouncement) and, therefore, what was perceived as a marriage was in fact null.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why:&lt;/strong&gt; In order for a marriage to be valid, it cannot be null.  If a marriage is ruled to be null then the couple can either try to fix the issues regarding the cause of nullity or must separate (which typically already happened).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When:&lt;/strong&gt; Presumably this practice was with the Church from the beginning. The reason it was so rare previously is that Catholics used to be taught their Faith before seeking to get married, and as part of their marriage preparations they used to be &quot;annulment proofed&quot; both by the priest insuring the couple are mature, sane, morally capable and aware adults, as well as the custom of &quot;reading the bands&quot; which, among other things, was a moral requirement for anyone who knew of an impediment for the couple to get married (which would be grounds for nullifying the attempted wedding contract) to come forward and make it known to the priest.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These days, with inadequate education in the Faith, general immaturity of the populace in general and people seeking to get married in particular, and no moral requirement to make impediments known to the clergy, it can only follow that the number of annulment cases will skyrocket.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1244" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2020-01-28T16:39:40.130" LastActivityDate="2020-01-28T16:39:40.130" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23062" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23097" CreationDate="2013-11-22T16:03:59.220" Score="5" ViewCount="4316" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that the Catholic Church issues annulments under certain circumstances for some marriages.  What are the specific circumstances necessary to qualify a marriage for an annulment?  I'm wondering if some annulments are denied, leaving the couple to resort to divorce instead, and what circumstances might lead to that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-08-14T15:45:23.137" Title="What are the necessary circumstances that qualify a marriage for annulment in the Catholic Church?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;annulment&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23064" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20443" CreationDate="2013-11-22T17:33:52.443" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;One passage often used to defend this doctrine is the words of Jesus in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2011:23-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mark 11:23-24&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw&#xA;  yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes&#xA;  that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I&#xA;  tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have&#xA;  received it, and it will be yours.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastEditorUserId="4412" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T17:48:06.223" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T17:48:06.223" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23065" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18001" CreationDate="2013-11-22T17:40:47.823" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;With or without Mary, God does what he intends to do. God tells us so at &lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 55:11&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;So my word that goes out of my mouth will be.&#xA;  It will not return to me without results,&#xA;  But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight,&#xA;  And it will have sure success in what I send it to do.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If Mary had not found favor in gods eyes, she would not have been used for his purpose. God could have picked any women that fit the prophecy. He chose her because of the qualities he found in her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regardless of Mary, Jesus did all that his father instructed him to do. We see from further accounts from the bible, that Jesus's purpose was more than the ransom sacrifice. Jesus also instructed us in what we need to do in order to be saved. Jesus of course met all those requirements and was resurrected. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the theologians that that website's FAQ is talking about, I cant find any good research on it. that website has absolutely nothing to help me research, besides key terms that I'm looking for on my own.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I found a few articles, but I'm not sure they will answer your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fisheaters.com/sh.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Devotion to the sacred Heart of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, [deleted this one as it just reiterates what you said].... ,&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=43496&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Beside the Cross of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &amp;lt;- this site here has the teachings of the catholic church. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It looks like they are inferring that without Mary, Jesus wouldn't have been born in the flesh. I cant find any article that exclusively says that without Mary's faith Jesus would have not been resurrected. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also I find it very frustrating that none of these sites show where they got all this information, so I can research it.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080102_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vatican&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is referenced for a few on that site. &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://catholiceducation.org/articles/lesson_plans/lp0087.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CatholicEducation&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; gives some more of the same insight. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T17:40:47.823" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23066" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="588" CreationDate="2013-11-22T18:12:10.857" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As for the second part of your question, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;. . . is there a particular moment of saving I should be able to identify?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some Christians, at least in my sphere of influence, who believe in a &quot;point in time&quot; salvation.  Truth be told, many Christians can and do point to a specific day when they were saved.  For them, the circumstances were such that the day of their salvation is indelibly etched in their minds.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This point-in-time salvation is legitimate, powerful, and quite persuasive, and the church and the world benefit from such testimonies.  I call people in this category &quot;trophies of [God's] grace,&quot; and for good reason.  For them, their &quot;before&quot; (their BC, before Christ) and their &quot;after&quot; (their AD, after deliverance) are like night and day.  God's unmerited favor shone into their lives in dramatic ways.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some former drug addicts, for example, testify to being delivered from their addiction virtually instantly.  Some atheists or agnostics testify to a day and time when the light finally dawned on them and they stepped from unbelief into belief.  The Apostle Paul, of course, had a dramatic conversion, complete with a literal voice from God asking him why he was persecuting Jesus by persecuting Jesus' church, a literally blinding light, and a miraculous healing of that blindness just days after it occurred with the help of a man to whom God appeared in a vision (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=Acts%209https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=Acts%209&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 9&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=Acts%209https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=Acts%2022&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;22&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=Acts%209https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=Acts%2026&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;26:9-18&lt;/a&gt;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, some Christians in my tiny sphere of influence do not put much stock in point-in-time conversions, and for various reasons.  That is not to say they do not believe in such conversions; it &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; to say they are more flexible in how they look at the whole conversion process.  To them, conversion is just as likely to occur over time in stages, with one link in the chain being joined to the next link in the chain until the chain finally reaches from heaven to earth, as it were.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For such folks, if you were to ask them &quot;When were you saved?&quot; they would register a quizzical look on their faces and with a shrug of their shoulders say, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Gee, I don't know. I just know I'm saved. As to the 'when' of it all, I'm drawing a blank.  All I know is that my being saved was a gradual process, and I cannot point to a specific time and place and say 'That's where and when I was saved.'&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to where I stand in this matter, I can pinpoint fairly accurately the when and where of my conversion.  It was not a dramatic conversion, by any means, because I was only seven years old at the time!  Years later, as a teen, I was struggling with what is commonly called &quot;assurance of salvation,&quot; or more accurately &quot;a lack of assurance of salvation,&quot; and I told God, again, I was really serious about being saved.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking back, however, who is to say which experience was the one that clinched things for me?  All I know is at the age of 63, almost 56 years after my childhood conversion (if indeed it was that), I am saved and have full assurance of it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In conclusion, while all Christians can have full assurance of salvation (see &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=Acts%209https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=1John%205&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 John 5:13&lt;/a&gt;), can anyone truly KNOW she or he is saved?  If so, then where does faith enter the picture?  Without getting into the intricacies of epistemology (loosely, the study of the nature of knowledge and how we know what we know),  I suggest we can never, this side of heaven, know we are saved.  We can, however, through the eyes of faith say with the Apostle Paul, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed unto Him until the day [of His appearing]&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=Acts%209https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=2Tim%201&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(2 Tim 1:12)&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, I suggest, our assurance of salvation rests on the unchanging character of the One who saved us, and when you KNOW Him, you simply know you are saved.  Will occasional doubts creep in from time to time?  Of course.  When they do, we must then fall back on the promises of God's word, such as &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;'My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.  My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand'&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=Acts%209https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&amp;amp;search=John%2010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(John 10:27-29)&lt;/a&gt;.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2014-07-11T23:04:15.173" LastActivityDate="2014-07-11T23:04:15.173" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23067" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23062" CreationDate="2013-11-22T18:40:00.767" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some of the circumstances that allow for annulment are: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Psychological incapacity, absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death. Lack of judgement when married (young age, pressure, so on).  One spouse carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage. Perhaps a person, unfaithful during courtship, continues the infidelity after marrying. Marriage because of a pregnancy. If one of the marriage mates is violent.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Catholic Update&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &amp;amp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj081505.asp#F3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Friar Jacks&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some annulments can be denied if they are lacking enough reason to do so. For instance if the couple are fighting(not violently) a lot and want to be separated, that is not terms for an annulment. Marriage counseling would be recommended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the couple where to get divorced without the annulment, I presume, there would be spiritual consequences. &lt;strong&gt;Mark 10:11&amp;amp;12:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He said to them: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12  and if ever a woman after divorcing her husband marries another, she commits adultery.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Without first dissolving the marriage, a new marriage would be considered adultery. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T18:40:00.767" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23068" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="24490" CreationDate="2013-11-22T19:16:12.940" Score="2" ViewCount="462" Body="&lt;p&gt;I understand that in Catholicism, annulments are sometimes issued for marriages that meet certain criteria.  I'm wondering if the simple fact that the couple entered into a marriage that was not right or properly sanctioned by God if it is considered to have been a sin to do so.  It does appear, perhaps, that the couple would have been involved in a sexual relationship with someone who was not rightfully their spouse.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, the question is, &quot;Is there any penance required for those who have entered into a marriage that is later annulled?&quot; and, if so, &quot;What is the nature of that penance?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2014-01-06T18:46:58.243" Title="Are those that enter into a marriage that is later annulled required to do any penance?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;marriage&gt;&lt;annulment&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23069" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5133" CreationDate="2013-11-22T20:18:36.487" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There seems to be a basis for sprinkling. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 36:25-27. &quot; I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will become clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your disgusting idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit inside you, and I will cause you to walk in my regulations, and you will observe and carry out my judicial decisions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8717" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T20:18:36.487" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23070" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-22T21:40:05.660" Score="11" ViewCount="795" Body="&lt;p&gt;I see a few different uses of the term &lt;em&gt;prevenient grace&lt;/em&gt; in questions here, so I will define what I meant first: a belief held by traditional Baptists and other non-reformed evangelicals, that though we are all totally depraved and unwilling to come to Christ on our own free will, God gives us a enabling grace that allows us to come to regeneration and faith. But this grace can be resisted and ignored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Biblical basis for this type of grace?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="962" LastEditorUserId="17279" LastEditDate="2015-01-17T13:25:05.957" LastActivityDate="2020-01-04T02:06:26.957" Title="What is the Biblical basis for a resistable enabling (prevenient) grace?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;arminianism&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23071" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-22T22:12:51.507" Score="2" ViewCount="1340" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was God holding back on the Israelites when it came to the promised land?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, they were promised fertile land, creating lots of food, bread and honey, beautiful landscape, a place of their own....etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, we &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?q=austria%20landscape&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;hs=n9K&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;amp;source=lnms&amp;amp;tbm=isch&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=1NWPUrvZKYjwoATLl4CAAw&amp;amp;ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&amp;amp;biw=1170&amp;amp;bih=822&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;see lands like in Austria&lt;/a&gt; and I scratch my head when the Isrealites were wandering in circles for 40 years in a desert, just to eventually reach another slightly better desert.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Other lands were 1000X's the promise of the Promised Land - why didn't God bring them to those places?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(and then what does that mean for the people who were already living in paradise? and if people are still fighting over the Holy Land what will they get when they own it? Will it transform?)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/R6gar.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;enter image description here&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1400" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T09:56:56.960" Title="The land of bread and honey or just a diversion?" Tags="&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;old-testament&gt;&lt;abraham&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23072" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23071" CreationDate="2013-11-22T22:53:28.560" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question seems to be based on a false premise.  Most of Israel is not a desert.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.icr.org/article/jerusalems-unique-climate/&quot;&gt;The Institute for Creation Research has an article discussing the ideal climate that exists in Jerusalem.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A few excerpts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An Ideal Combination of Sun and Rain&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Most people think of Israel as a desert. They have seen pictures and&#xA;  drawings of caravans of camels tramping through the sand of the Sahara&#xA;  Desert and translate that image to Israel. They have read Bible&#xA;  stories about Jesus and His disciples walking across Israel in their&#xA;  sandals and the need for foot washing, the lack of water, and famine.&#xA;  They have seen Hollywood movies depicting the time of Moses and the&#xA;  Exodus in the deserts of Egypt and the lower Sinai. All these images&#xA;  give an impression of extremely hot, sunny conditions and very little,&#xA;  if any, rain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is true that very dry conditions exist in southern Israel in the&#xA;  Negev and eastward of the Jordan River Valley. However, along the&#xA;  central and northern coast in northern Israel near the Sea of Galilee,&#xA;  and along the highlands on which Jerusalem sits, temperatures are much&#xA;  cooler and bountiful rainfall occurs. The average annual rainfall in&#xA;  northern Israel and along the highlands typically exceeds 15 inches.&#xA;  These portions of Israel produce plentiful crops of citrus, olives,&#xA;  figs, and grain. Far from being a desert, this part of Israel is&#xA;  highly productive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In addition, there is Scriptural evidence that the climate was different then.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that&#xA;  it was well watered everywhere, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and&#xA;  Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as&#xA;  thou comest unto Zoar (Genesis 13:10).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The linked article goes into more depth than I will here, discussing the fact that a similar change occurred in the climate in Northern Africa.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea of a more lush historical Israel, describable as a land flowing with milk and honey, is not that far-fetched.  Based on that, and in the tradition of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.preachersjournal.org/Sermons/Hebrews/Second%20Guessing%20God.htm&quot;&gt;not second-guessing God&lt;/a&gt;,  I'm going to say that He put them in exactly the land He promised and intended.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-11-22T23:36:40.083" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T23:36:40.083" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23073" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23062" CreationDate="2013-11-22T22:54:54.833" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should perhaps be emphasized that an annulment does not dissolve a marriage. It is, rather, an official declaration that what appeared to be a marriage was not, i.e., that there was never a valid marriage in the first place. Unfortunately, in recent decades, the grounds for annulments have been expanded to the point where I find it hard to take them seriously --- for example, the &quot;carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage&quot; quoted by Jeremy in his answer.  In principle, grounds for annulments are supposed to be reasons why the purported marriage could not be valid --- for example, if one party was already married to someone else, or if one or both parties were being forced to get married, or if they had conspired to murder the previous spouse of one of the parties.  In other words, grounds for annulments are essentially the same as impediments to marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-11-22T22:54:54.833" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23074" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-22T23:48:58.270" Score="6" ViewCount="633" Body="&lt;p&gt;See what I mean by &quot;Prevenient Grace&quot; in the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23070/prevenient-grace-where-how-is-it-supported-rejected-in-the-bible&quot;&gt;first question&lt;/a&gt; I asked relating to this topic. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your understanding of scripture leads you to believe the doctine of Prevenient Prace is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; supported in the Bible, what are your responses to some of the proof texts used to prove/explain the concept of Prevenient Grace? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some examples, I believe are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Cornelius coming to the Peter even though apparently not yet a Christian in Acts 10&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Luke 19:10 &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Titus 2:11: &quot;For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 6:44: &quot;No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him...&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 16:18 &quot;And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm looking less for opinions and more for evidence/rationale supported by the larger context of Scripture, historical setting, background, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="962" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T16:04:14.167" Title="Prevenient Grace - Negative Responses to Scriptural Examples of It" Tags="&lt;reformed-theology&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;grace&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23075" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23070" CreationDate="2013-11-23T02:54:54.153" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I had to research this more before answering. I had never heard of the term before. Really what you are looking for then is &amp;quot;Do you believe that God draws us to him with Holy spirit?&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am no expert on the matter, but with my knowledge of the scriptures my answer is an emphatic yes! God is known to draw those who have qualities he desires. He opens their heart to the knowledge of himself. A good example of this is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/44/16#h=114:270-115:0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 16:13-15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;On the Sabbath day we went outside the gate beside a river, where we thought there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. 14 And a woman named Lyd′i·a, a seller of purple from the city of Thy·a·ti′ra and a worshiper of God, was listening, and Jehovah opened her heart wide to pay attention to the things Paul was saying. 15 Now when she and her household got baptized, she urged us: “If you have considered me to be faithful to Jehovah, come and stay at my house.” And she just made us come.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some more scriptural Evidence is found at &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/43/6#h=45:331-45:443&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 6:44&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact without God giving us the blessing of his holy spirit, we could not understand him or the blessings he gives us. &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/46/2#h=10:0-10:315&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 2:11-13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So, too, no one has come to know the things of God except the spirit of God. 12 Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knows that just as we did not come into the truth on our own, we will not stay in the truth on our own. &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/60/1#h=3:190-3:415&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Peter 1:4-5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/65/1#h=10:0-10:136&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jude 1:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4 &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you, 5 who are being safeguarded by God’s power through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last period of time.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24 &lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;Now to the one who is able to guard you from stumbling and to make you stand unblemished in the sight of his glory with great joy&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some other scriptures that support this idea are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-thessalonians/2/#v53002013&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Thessalonians 2:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;However, we are obligated always to thank God for you, brothers loved by Jehovah, because from the beginning God selected you for salvation by sanctifying you with his spirit and by your faith in the truth.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/19/#v42019010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 19:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;For the Son of man came to seek and to save what was lost.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-chronicles/28/#v13028009&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Chronicles 28:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;For Jehovah searches through all hearts, and he discerns every inclination of the thoughts. If you search for him, he will let himself be found by you, but if you leave him, he will reject you forever.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other scriptures, but this post is already monstrous, so I will let this be enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God draws us to him, but he doesn't force us to follow and learn about him. He draws us and then gives us to choice or opportunity. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/deuteronomy/30/#v5030019-v5030020&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 30:19-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/43/17#h=115:287-115:408&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 17:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T02:54:54.153" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23076" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18468" CreationDate="2013-11-23T05:23:40.863" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The question seems to be about potential errors made in the recording &amp;amp; translation process. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First, there is an important point I think I should mention:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;We do not believe that imperfect record keeping of men, &amp;amp; potential errors made by translators, discounts the principles of the God's original message&lt;/em&gt; (i.e. The Bible is not discredited because Matthew &amp;amp; Luke weren't consistent on the genealogies of Joseph, Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Recording Process&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;Abridgers,&quot; or &quot;Compilers,&quot; of the Book of Mormon (Mormon &amp;amp; his son Moroni) were working with records that were considered archaic even for their time. (Mormon : ~380 A.D., Alma ~80B.C.). LDS Scholars have demonstrated that their ways of writing &amp;amp; speaking were different (Keller 1988, Welch 1986). Exposure to minor errors like that is not surprising.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Book of Mormon text informs us they made records, some of which would become our current Book of Mormon on a metallic, durable, substance. Any errors made would be difficult to correct.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The authors &amp;amp; compilers of the record themselves admit that they are not able to make a perfect record&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Translation Process&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;During the translation process with the original manuscript, there were indeed small grammatical errors that were later corrected. There were ~1,500 minor changes during the translation process &amp;amp; shortly after. &lt;em&gt;Most having to do with phraseology (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon&quot;&gt;Skousen 2002&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/em&gt; It is possible that not all the grammatical errors were corrected by the time it got to our current edition. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There are two main schools of thought within LDS scholars (with shades of grey in-between), as far as I know. The first is that the current Record we have is a literal, word-for-word translation of the original metallic records, the other camp is that our current Record is a &quot;functional&quot; &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; word for word translation, translated as accurately as possible from Mormon's times, to mid-1800's English (in a Scriptural style). If it's the first extreme, than all errors would derive from the Recorders / Abridgers, if the latter (which there is more evidence for), than there could be minor errors deriving from both. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this was at least a little helpful as to why you may see errors in phraseology &amp;amp;/or grammar you may find in The Book of Mormon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please also see : &#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&amp;amp;sourceId=b10cd75ccbae7110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&amp;amp;vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&quot;&gt;Changes to the Book of Mormon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8722" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-11-23T14:42:10.050" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T14:42:10.050" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23079" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23071" CreationDate="2013-11-23T09:56:56.960" Score="4" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I&#xA;have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am&#xA;concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them&#xA;from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land&#xA;into a &lt;strong&gt;good and spacious&lt;/strong&gt; land, a land &lt;strong&gt;flowing with milk and honey&lt;/strong&gt;—the&#xA;home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and&#xA;Jebusites. (Exodus 3:7-8, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God did not promise a land with beautiful landscapes(like the one in your picture) but a &lt;strong&gt;fertile land&lt;/strong&gt;, a land rich with fruits, vines, grains, livestock and animals. Canaan was(and now) indeed a fertile land and included in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_Crescent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Fertile Crescent&lt;/a&gt; region. We can see the fertility of the land from the reports of the twelve spies sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So they went up and explored the land from the &lt;strong&gt;Desert of Zin&lt;/strong&gt; as far as&#xA;Rehob, toward Lebo Hamath. They went up through the Negev and came to&#xA;Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai, the descendants of Anak,&#xA;lived. (Hebron had been built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) When&#xA;they reached the Valley of Eshkol, they cut off a branch bearing a&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;single cluster of grapes. Two of them carried it on a pole between&#xA;them&lt;/strong&gt;, along with some pomegranates and figs. That place was called the&#xA;Valley of Eshkol because of the cluster of grapes the Israelites cut&#xA;off there. (Numbers 13:21-24, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we can see from the reports, there were deserts also but most of the land was fertile and rich with fruits and vines. Imagine a single cluster of grapes big enough to be carried by two men, it was indeed a fertile land. Hence, the Promised Land was not a beautiful land but a rich and fertile land.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T09:56:56.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23080" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20" CreationDate="2013-11-23T14:31:27.737" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ryan you are correct. Baptism of babies and young children didn't come until much later. The reason for this is that a baptism is a dedication of &lt;strong&gt;yourself&lt;/strong&gt; to God. How can you do that if you have no understanding of God or what he requires of us? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As this relates to children, even if God gave infants that grace how could they make the decision? How could they tell us they are ready?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Besides all this reasoning there is scripture to show that the child is protected through the parents. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-corinthians/7/#v46007014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 Corinthians 7:14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, &lt;strong&gt;but now they are holy&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is true even if only one parent is a believer. The child will be saved through their faith. God prepared for these circumstances ahead of time. He draws those to him, those having the heart condition and qualities God favors. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/ephesians/2/#v49002008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ephesians 2:8-10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;By this undeserved kindness you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing; rather, it is God’s gift. 9  No, it is not a result of works, so that no one should have grounds for boasting. 10  We are God’s handiwork and were created in union with Christ Jesus for good works, which God determined in advance for us to walk in them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the scriptures surrounding Prevenient Grace. I posted on a similar question with plenty of verse to support it. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23070/prevenient-grace-where-how-is-it-supported-rejected-in-the-bible&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prevenient Grace - Where/How is it Supported/Rejected in the Bible?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-12-17T05:22:01.473" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23081" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23070" CreationDate="2013-11-23T15:07:59.510" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea that God draws and offers salvation to all men, not only a chosen elect, comes from passages such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 3:16-21&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine (note that this passage can just as easily support a Calvinist view)) -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For &lt;em&gt;God so loved the world&lt;/em&gt;, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. &lt;em&gt;For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Whoever believes in him is not condemned&lt;/em&gt;, but &lt;em&gt;whoever does not believe is condemned already&lt;/em&gt;, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:27-36&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;John 12&lt;/a&gt;, Jesus says &quot;I, when I am lifted up from the earth, &lt;em&gt;will draw all people&lt;/em&gt; to myself.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see here our total depravity (&quot;people loved the darkness rather than the light&quot;), God drawing all men (prevenient grace), and some choosing to reject Him. This is only a primer of sorts; if you take these verses alone (ignoring or rejecting other passages) you end up denying the sovereignty of God, as it looks like God doesn't always get His way. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6854/4188&quot;&gt;Arminianism does not sacrifice the sovereignty of God&lt;/a&gt; for the free will of man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.667" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T15:07:59.510" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23082" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1086" CreationDate="2013-11-23T15:35:54.887" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I realize I'm bringing back an old post, but I think this question should have this scripture in it. God did not create us to be homosexual. That is why the first humans where man and women. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God created man and women, then gave a very straightforward commandment against homosexuality, do you think he would make within people that desire? By making that law, God shows that he never intended us to do such things. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple scriptures to support this: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/numbers/23/#v4023019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Numbers 23:19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;God is not a mere man who tells lies,&#xA;  Nor a son of man who changes his mind.&#xA;  When he says something, will he not do it&#xA;  When he speaks, will he not carry it out?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/james/1/#v59001013&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 1:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T15:35:54.887" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23083" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23074" CreationDate="2013-11-23T15:57:12.277" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am understanding your use of the word prevenient grace to be not only God's influence upon men before actual justification but also joined with the assumption that his intended influence upon men to draw them to salvation by the Holy Spirit can be &lt;em&gt;rejected&lt;/em&gt; and is &lt;em&gt;resistible&lt;/em&gt;.  In this sense the grace you imagine is something opposed to Calvinism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer the question from the standpoint of a Calvinistic view we must first make clear that &lt;strong&gt;Calvinism does not reject the idea that there is a gracious influence from God before actual grace is received through the gospel, rather it upholds it. Calvinism only rejects the idea that it is resistible.&lt;/strong&gt; The original reason for rejecting the idea of the original Roman Catholic teaching of prevenient grace is because under Catholic theology it is actually a means to introduce the idea that grace is only half grace (from the protestant concept) and always depends on cooperative human works. Under this scheme grace can be earned by cooperating with previous grace and justification is not in a moment but through a lifetime of 'cooperative' works. Therefore, under a reformed evangelical view, Catholic theology actually says that salvation is by human effort 'aided by the Holy Spirit' and is therefore actually just salvation by works. You seem unaware as you toy with the phrase prevenient grace that many theologians see such a devilish background lurking around it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One can see this line of reasoning from Calvin himself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;the Papists confess that we are under the tyranny of the devil, and slaves to him, and that there is no right will in men, except through the prevenient (præeunte) grace of the Holy Spirit. But as I have already said, they talk vainly of the grace of the Spirit, and say that it is an influence by which God enables us to follow that which is right, if we have a will to do so. Thus, then, the grace of God, according to them, leaves men in suspense, so that they are free either to receive or to reject the grace of God. Afterwards, they join the subsequent grace, which, in their view, is a reward; for if I assent to God, that is, if I suffer myself to be ruled by his Spirit, and embrace the grace offered to me, God will then reward me with another grace to confirm me in my right purpose. And thus they confess that perseverance is in part the gift of God; but they always imagine it a co-operating grace. And then, as perseverance, according to them, is God’s subsequent grace, and is, as it were, a handmaid, it ceases to be grace, for it is rather the reward of merit. (BOOK OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH and THE LAMENTATIONS BY JOHN CALVIN, p4.213)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However I understand that under your thinking you are associating the idea of prevenient grace NOT as a sinister means to destroy the protestant view of grace. You have a more happy idea in mind, for you seem to be considering people like Baptists or any evangelical that does not believe in the non-resistible grace of reformed theology. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I assume these question arise not from the subject of God's influence on men prior to new birth but are an outcome of wrestling with the idea of election. I can't imagine a big interest in the term otherwise. From this standpoint you may be contemplating a 'limited acceptance' of the concept of 'prevenient grace' to be a possible solution to the unresolvable tension between the idea of free will and predestination.  However, I do not think this will really resolve that tension for it does not address the issue before time began but merely in the experience of men with the Holy Spirit in time.  This means regardless of how we color a limited acceptance of some kind of grace that can be 'rejected or accepted' it can not prove if it is ultimately resistible or not.  For example, this simple Calvinistic type question removes the relevance of prevenient grace from the subject of predestination: 'What if God choses to provide limited influence of goodness towards those destined to hell, only to establish more guilt on their soul for rejecting his prevenient grace, knowing that they would reject it. On the other hand for the elect he provides 'more' prevenient grace which becomes 'irresistible' in order to save those he choses to save?'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not actually think God works in a way that we can fully comprehend and understand to relive the tension of election and free will, so my question above is actually not my question.  My personal theology is Calvinistic with some associated mysticism, a.k.a..humble admission of not knowing everything. What I mean is all the elect will be saved and actual saving grace is irresistible but I also believe God desires the salvation of all men. The knowledge that can relieve this apparent contradiction is not in my mind declared in scripture, making faith our only refuge and comfort for the desired removal of the seeming tension. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyway to answer your specific examples:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Cornelius coming to the Peter even though apparently not yet a Christian in Acts 10&#xA;Luke 19:10 &lt;strong&gt;This is not an example that opposes irresistible grace as Cornelius eventually becomes a Christian, which rather supports Calvinistic beliefs in irresistible grace&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Titus 2:11: &quot;For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;This has no bearing on Calvinistic doctrine concerning irresistible grace for of course the grace of God has appeared to all men but only those who are irresistibly drawn to it can take hold of it through faith.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 6:44: &quot;No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him...&quot; &lt;strong&gt;This is a actually a proof text for irresistible grace which assume a prevenient and irresistible saving work of the Holy Spirit upon a sinner who is unable to draw himself or properly cooperate in a meritorious way into his salvation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 16:18 &quot;And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;&quot;&lt;strong&gt;Again this has no bearing on Calvinistic views concerning irresistible grace, for being convicted of sin and fearing the judgment as a guilty sinner, or being convicted of one's justification by freely accepting the irresistible grace of God is entirely in accordance with Calvinistic views of the work of the Holy Spirit, condemning the damned and saving the elect.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Possibly your only confusion is that you did not realize every Protestant believes in a kind of external grace before actual justifying grace (call it prevenient or whatever). The only difference between some Baptists for example and reformed parts of the church is that this prevenient grace is not resistible with respect to the elect and their being drawn into actual justifying grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-11-23T16:04:14.167" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T16:04:14.167" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23084" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23070" CreationDate="2013-11-23T16:30:03.860" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The doctrine of Prevenient Grace is seen by those who adhere to it as a natural outcome of sound Biblical exegesis.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In one respect it's akin to the doctrine of the Trinity in that it resolves apparent discrepancies.  With the Trinity, we have clear teachings in Scripture that there is only one God, other clear teachings that Jesus is God, and others supporting that the Holy Spirit is fully God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer this fully is going to take a bit of time, so I'm going to break this down into three sections:  &lt;strong&gt;Principles that are used when looking at these Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;, the &lt;strong&gt;supporting Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;, and the &lt;strong&gt;application of the principles&lt;/strong&gt; that lead to the conclusion of Prevenient Grace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Principles&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The doctrine of Scripture as the inspired inerrant, infallible Word of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Rules for resolving apparent Biblical discrepancies.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To understand how Prevenient Grace is drawn out of the texts, you need to &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;start&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; by bearing in mind that to these groups, there can be no question that the Bible is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;inspired, inerrant, and infallible&lt;/a&gt;.  In other words, it was written by God Himself, using the authors as instruments, and therefore not only does not contain errors, it cannot contain errors. This means that it cannot have contradictions.  Something cannot be logically true and false at the same time.  Two polar opposite views that contradict each other cannot be true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Next, you need to understand that if the Bible contains apparent contradictions, then either the bible is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; inerrant, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;or&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; there's a way to resolve the apparent discrepancy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Supporting Scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The supporting Scriptures here are, interestingly enough, the ones that show the apparent discrepancy:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses that support the Calvinistic view that man plays no part in his salvation, or choice are already documented in many questions on this site:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/27/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-total-depravity&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/308/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-irresistible-grace&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical Basis for Irresistible Grace?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/70/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-limited-atonement&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-unconditional-election&quot;&gt;What is the Biblical basis for Unconditional Election?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you take the time to go through the above questions and the answers, the support for the idea that man has no choice in his salvation, and that God chooses who will be saved is overwhelming.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, on the other side, there is also overwhelming Scriptural support for the idea that we must choose to accept God's free gift of salvation - in other words, man &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; play a part.  (Emphasis mine in the following verses)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 16:24 - Then said Jesus unto his disciples, &lt;em&gt;If any man will&lt;/em&gt; come after me, &lt;em&gt;let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 3:16 -  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that &lt;em&gt;whosoever believeth&lt;/em&gt; in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 11:40 - Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, &lt;em&gt;if thou wouldest believe&lt;/em&gt;, thou shouldest see the glory of God? &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 7:37 - In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, &lt;em&gt;let him come unto me&lt;/em&gt;, and drink.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Romans 4:24 - But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, &lt;em&gt;if we believe on him&lt;/em&gt; that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Matthew 11:28-30 - &lt;em&gt;Come unto me&lt;/em&gt;, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that &lt;em&gt;everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him&lt;/em&gt; shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Revelation 22:17 - And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And &lt;em&gt;let him that heareth say, Come&lt;/em&gt;. And &lt;em&gt;let him that is athirst come&lt;/em&gt;. And &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm going to stop there.  A comprehensive list is far too long for an answer here, and that's enough to make the point:  There is Scriptural support for the idea that man does have to choose to follow Christ, and that the choice does exist.  It is real.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Taking one more tiny (well, maybe not so tiny since it's the central point of all Christianity) piece of evidence into account... &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/what-is-unique-about-christianity/3983#3983&quot;&gt;Since man cannot save himself, God provided the payment for our sins&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, when man is incapable. God provides a way...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Application of the Principles to the Scriptures to draw out the Biblical Concept&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus far, we've established the following two opposing facts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scriptures clearly teach that man is fully depraved and utterly incapable of choosing to follow God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Scriptures clearly teach that we must choose to follow God, that the choice is ours to make.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therein lies the conflict.  Do we have a choice or don't we?  Are we capable of choosing or aren't we?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is one other conflict that ties in here, for which I haven't provided the Scriptural arguments, but which bears on this topic:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Does God want only certain people to be saved&lt;/a&gt;, or does &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianblog.com/blog/billyb/not-willing-that-any-should-perish-but-that-all-should-come-to-repentance/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;God desire that all would come to Him?&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Assuming that God's Word is true and that he desires that all come unto repentance...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scriptural facts:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God wants us all to be saved&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;we are totally depraved. &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We cannot choose to follow God unless He calls us&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We cannot be saved unless we choose to follow God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God always provides a way&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can be rephrased as... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God desires that all be saved, and he teaches that it's our choice to do so.  He doesn't force us.  But because we are totally depraved,&#xA;  we cannot choose to follow God.  we are utterly incapable.  Since we&#xA;  cannot choose to follow Him on our own, but He expects us to choose, &#xA;  He provides a way that allows us to choose to follow God.  He calls us&#xA;  first and gives us the previnent grace to choose to obey His perfect&#xA;  will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...with no conflicts and no leaps of logic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2014-06-02T20:20:13.440" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23086" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15365" CreationDate="2013-11-23T16:37:44.023" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom He didn’t say, “Repent because you have been sinning.”  Sin is not the issue in the Kingdom.  The issue is &lt;strong&gt;allegiance&lt;/strong&gt;.  Repentance means to repudiate something you have believed in and clung to in order to believe in and cling to something else.  Repentance is the call to change our minds about the rule of our lives.  Repentance is  the call for us to change kingdoms.  The Kingdom of God is spiritual, it doesn’t work in the carnal mind. So whether a man is sinning or being religious he must repent, because the Kingdom only works in the spiritual mind.  Kingdoms clash.  Every kingdom wants to rule. When one kingdom is in power and another kingdom comes to take the dominion there is warfare.  The message of the Christ is repentance unto another Kingdom. Another rule comes into our lives which will cast out the demons and establish the mind of Christ.  God has called upon us to repent of the rule of the flesh, the rule of the carnal mind, the rule of the world, the rule of religion, the rule of the church-systems, the rule of laws and external ordinances, and all that pertains to the old order. Repent of sin?  Yes!  But much more.  It is a whole economy, a whole mentality, a whole way of life, an entire system of things that we must repent of in order to enter into the Kingdom Rule of God.  When we talk about entering the Kingdom we are changing many things; there must be a change in our whole world of existence, where we think we came from, who we think we are, what we think we are, what our purpose is in this world, how we live in this world, and where we think we are going.  All our concepts and realities change.  In our natural  birth we came from the earth.  In our spiritual birth we came from heaven.  We are shedding that Adam identity, that Adam delusion, the Adam mind, the Adam life-style, the Adamic wisdom, knowledge and ability. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8727" LastEditorUserId="8727" LastEditDate="2013-11-23T16:52:36.627" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T16:52:36.627" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23087" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15365" CreationDate="2013-11-23T16:56:11.750" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is an interesting and illustrative incident in the ministry of Jesus that speaks powerfully to us of the new mind of the Kingdom.  “After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before His face into every city and place, whither He Himself would come.  Therefore He said unto them, Into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.  But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, &lt;strong&gt;Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do WIPE OFF against you&lt;/strong&gt;: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you” (Lk. 10:1-2,8-11).  Jesus sent the disciples out to heal the sick.  The healings were a sign and a sign is a message.  The message was that the Kingdom of God had come.  The healings were done by the power of the Kingdom.  They were the sign, the declaration of the Kingdom, the proof that the power of another Kingdom was already at work in their midst.  Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees, “O, ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but ye cannot discern the signs of the times.”  In other words, “You don’t understand the message that sounds forth when I do these things.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew records Jesus’ instructions to the seventy in these words, “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, &lt;strong&gt;shake off the dust of your feet&lt;/strong&gt;.”  One thing is certain — the disciples were not just shaking dust off their clothes and shoes.  They were saying something.  By that action they were sending a message.  The message was just this.  When the people rejected the ministry of the disciples they were rejecting the Kingdom of God, because that is what they were preaching, demonstrating and manifesting.  Jesus instructed them, “When the people reject the Kingdom of God shake that dust off of you, shake that Adamic nature off of you, don’t let that earth-bound mentality cling to you, or find a place in you, don’t be influenced or affected by their words or actions, don’t walk away from the city with the same kind of serpent meat they are providing!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This brings us back to the curse laid upon the serpent in the beginning.  The ancient serpent, having beguiled Eve, became the recipient of the first curse in history.  “And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” (Gen. 3:14).  This is a symbol and the Deceiver, Satan, that old Serpent, the Devil, has to eat dust!  The metaphor can be more clearly understand when we hear the judgment handed out to the man.  God said, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for DUST THOU ART, and UNTO DUST shalt thou return” (Gen. 3:19).  So that first Adam, the fleshly man, that cursed man, is declared by the counsel of the Lord God to &lt;strong&gt;be dust&lt;/strong&gt;.  Said the wise man, “He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that &lt;strong&gt;we are dust&lt;/strong&gt;” (Ps. 103:14).   That we are DUST!  Not very flattering, not very complimentary, is it?  This great gob of mud called man, strutting his superior know-it-all attitude even in the face of the Almighty!  Dust!  Our FRAME!  Adam’s name could just as well have been called “Dusty.”  The mind of Adam is the earthly mind, and it always minds earthly things.  It is a dust-mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The message is clear — Adam and those belonging to him are of the earth, earthy.  The Holy Spirit bears witness, “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.  As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (I Cor. 15:45-49).  The Amplified Bible reads, “The first man was from out of the earth, made of dust — earth minded; the second man is the Lord out of heaven.  Now those who are made of the dust are like him who was first made of the dust — earth minded.  And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, so shall we and so let us bear also the image of the Man of heaven.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8727" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-11-23T19:52:34.047" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T19:52:34.047" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23089" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20247" CreationDate="2013-11-23T17:01:58.097" Score="2" Body="&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The primary purpose is to serve as an instrument to proclaim The Gospel of Jesus Christ.&lt;/strong&gt; All other goals of the band are considered &quot;Proper&quot; when their ultimate goal is observed.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The brass band may be seen as &lt;strong&gt;an evangelical tool&lt;/strong&gt; to generate a spiritual response by helping to set the mood &amp;amp; enhancing a spiritual message.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Member retention.&lt;/strong&gt; Many members were introduced through to the Salvation Army through the brass band, &amp;amp; some may have strayed if not for their attachment to the band.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Drawing attention &amp;amp; Publicity &lt;strong&gt;for fundraising&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christian fellowship&lt;/strong&gt; for players&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The brass bands also seem to be more popular in the United Kingdom than in the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is some more information about the Salvation Army Brass Band :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brassbandinformation.co.uk/salvation-army-brass-bands.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Some history &amp;amp; information&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theisb.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;About the International &quot;Staff&quot; band of the Salvation Army (The top Salvation Army band)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.satiche.org.uk/vinbbp/phot6776.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A 1932 &quot;Appreciation&quot; flier (Back than, the band was called &quot;Callender's Band&quot;)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_Army_brass_band&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this little bit of information was helpful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8722" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T17:01:58.097" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23092" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-23T17:24:02.587" Score="-1" ViewCount="117" Body="&lt;p&gt;where in the bible is stated that before GOD made heavens and earth he had write a book &#xA;with all the names of those who had been saved in it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8728" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T21:30:39.867" Title="did GOD predestinate all of us?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2013-11-26T17:18:24.330" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23094" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4195" CreationDate="2013-11-23T20:29:12.687" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is a difference in the translation of my bibles &lt;strong&gt;Revelation 13:7-8&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;It was permitted to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue&lt;/em&gt; and nation. 8 And all those who dwell on the earth will worship it. &lt;strong&gt;From the founding of the world, not one of their names has been written in the scroll of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;*&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My bibles translation implies that from the founding of the earth up till Armageddon, that the book of life isn't finished. This means then that based on decisions we make that we can be wiped out of the book of life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God knows our very thoughts and intentions &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/139/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalms 139:1-3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;O Jehovah, you have searched through me, and you know me.&#xA;  2   You know when I sit down and when I rise up.&#xA;  You discern my thoughts from afar.&#xA;  3   You observe me when I travel and when I lie down;&#xA;  You are familiar with all my ways.&#xA;  4   There is not a word on my tongue,&#xA;  But look! O Jehovah, you already know it well.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God can see our motives. He knows what we are going to do before we do it because he knows our intentions. Does this mean that every action is predestined? Not exactly, to illustrate this think of a man who had caught on fire. It hurts and he doesn't want to be burned. You are then reasonably assured he will put it out. Does this mean that because you knew he would do so that you caused him to put it out?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This makes sense when you consider free will and Jesus' sacrifice. God can give us his holy spirit so that we can take in knowledge of him. God doesn't force us to follow him. He gives us the choice and the 2 roads are in front of us for us to choose. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An example of this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/2/32#h=308:284-308:500&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exodus 32:32&amp;amp;33&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;But now if you are willing, pardon their sin; if not, please wipe me out from your book that you have written.” 33 However, Jehovah said to Moses: “Whoever has sinned against me, I will wipe him out of my book.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This shows that the disobedient Israelite's had been in the book of life before this took place. Because of their actions, or sin, God was going to wipe them out of the book.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So rather than everything being already written, I would imagine that the book of life is being constantly updated according to our actions. Another example is &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/66/2#h=12:326-12:613&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Revelations 2:10&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. Look! The Devil will keep on throwing some of you into prison so that you may be fully put to the test, and you will have tribulation for ten days. &lt;strong&gt;Prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T20:29:12.687" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23095" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-23T20:45:45.073" Score="2" ViewCount="1776" Body="&lt;p&gt;1st Thessalonians 4:16  says that those Christians who have already died when Christ returns, will rise first&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the Revelation 20:4 and 5 it tells us that that will not take place until after the thousand year reign, if I understand it correctly;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Verse 4 as I read it says that those who were martyred for Christ will resurrect and reign with him, but the rest of us will not resurrect until after the thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or am I misreading 1st Thessalonians, and it is referring to only the martyrs?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20:4  And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20:5  But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2015-10-01T14:27:12.043" Title="Does The Revelation chapter 20 tell us that the Rapture will take place after the millennial reign of Christ?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-10-01T13:32:31.713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23096" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23092" CreationDate="2013-11-23T21:30:39.867" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Scripture to which you are referring is found in the book of the Revelation, but you appear to be not only misreading the Scripture, but assigning a meaning to it which does not fit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 17:8  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God  &quot; DID NOT PREDESTINATE WHO WOULD AND WHO WOULD NOT BE SAVED!&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the names were written in the Book Of Life at the foundation of the World is based on God's fore knowledge.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What I mean from that is that God is Pre-imminent (Always existed), All powerful, and all knowing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is the all knowing part that you seem to be misunderstanding. That is because God knew even before he created the Universe whether or not you would accept salvation or not, and he either wrote your name there before he created the World or left it out, He had to do it that way because He gives us free will and will not interfere with our choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That by no means is to say that he will not use what ever means he has to influence you, but He will not make you choose to follow him, that must be your choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T21:30:39.867" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23097" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23062" CreationDate="2013-11-23T22:09:52.960" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Members of the Catholic Church are required to marry in front of a priest (or deacon) (CCC 1630). If one of the parties is Catholic, but there is a serious reason why the marriage should be celebrated in front of a civil servant or a non-Catholic minister, a dispensation can be granted. If no dispensation was granted and the couple did not observe this law — the marriage is considered invalid. Because the nullity of the marriage is clear from the circumstances there is no need for a canonical process to issue a Declaration of Nullity. The correction of this invalidity requires the couple to exchange their consent according to canonical form (commonly called &quot;having the marriage blessed&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Impediments&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If one of the parties were prohibited from marrying by a diriment impediment, the marriage is invalid. Because these impediments may not be known at all, the marriage is called a putative marriage if at least one of the parties married in good faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Diriment impediments include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Being too young&lt;/em&gt;. The absolute minimum age is 16 for males, 14 for females, but episcopal conferences can set a higher limit &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Antecedent and perpetual impotence&lt;/em&gt; (not to be confused with sterility)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Being already married&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;If one party is a Catholic and the other has not been baptized&lt;/em&gt; (unless a dispensation is granted) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The man was ordained to holy orders&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Either party made a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Abduction with the intent of marriage (known as raptus), is an impediment as long as the person remains in the kidnapper's power&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Impediment of Crime&lt;/em&gt;, bringing about the death of one's own spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Close relationship by blood&lt;/em&gt;, called Consanguinity, even if the relationship is only by law &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Close relationship by marriage&lt;/em&gt;, called Affinity&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of these laws can be relaxed by a dispensation before the ceremony. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII of England received a dispensation from the impediment of affinity (Catherine had previously been married to Henry's brother Arthur, who died). Henry based his request for an annulment on the grounds that the dispensation had been improperly given in that his father, Henry VII, had pressured the Archbishop of Canterbury into granting the dispensation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The correction of this invalidity after the marriage requires first that the impediment has ceased or has been dispensed, and then a &quot;convalidation&quot; can take place or a sanatio in radice can be granted to make the marriage valid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Grounds for nullity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A marriage may be declared invalid because at least one of the two parties was not free to consent to the marriage or did not fully commit to the marriage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Grounds for nullity include:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Simulation of consent; that is, the conscious and positive exclusion at consent by either or both of the contracting parties of one or all of the essential properties or &quot;goods&quot; of marriage: a) exclusivity of the marital relationship; b) the permanence of the marital bond; c) openness to offspring as the natural fruit of marriage (canon 1101§2) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deliberate deceit about some personal quality that can objectively and gravely perturb conjugal life (canon 1098) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Conditional consent; the condition must concern the past or present (canon 1102) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Force or grave fear imposed on a person to obtain their consent (canon 1103) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A serious lack of the discretion of judgment at consent concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be given (canon 1095 n.2) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psychic incapacity at consent to undertake the essential obligations of marriage (canon 1095 n.3). According to Canon 1095 a marriage can be declared null only when consent was given in the presence of some grave lack of discretionary judgment regarding the essential rights and obligations of marriage, or of some real incapacity to assume these essential obligations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastActivityDate="2013-11-23T22:09:52.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23098" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23095" CreationDate="2013-11-23T22:13:22.327" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;A premillenialist would say, &quot;No.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tim LaHaye, co-author of the best-selling &lt;em&gt;Left Behind&lt;/em&gt; series of novels, wrote a book called &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310230055&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Revelation Unveiled&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, a commentary on the book of Revelation from a premillenial, pre-tribulation viewpoint.  The book essentially provides a scriptural basis for the &lt;em&gt;Left Behind&lt;/em&gt; series.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several chapters in the book devoted to the first few verses in Revelation 20, discussing different viewpoints and defending the premillennial view.  In a chapter titled &quot;The First Resurrection,&quot; he talks about this &quot;believer's resurrection&quot; occurring in three phases.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phase 1 is the resurrection of the church age saints.  These are Christians who have died from the time of Jesus through the time of the Rapture (which he places before the tribulation).  This is the resurrection described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, with the Rapture happening immediately after.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phase 2 is the resurrection of the Old Testament saints: those who were servants of God before the time of Jesus.  Based on Daniel 12:1-2, he places this resurrection at the end of the tribulation (still before the millennium).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Phase 3 is the resurrection of the tribulation saints.  These are the people described in Revelation 20:4: those that had lived during the tribulation, but were martyred and did not worship the beast.  This occurs shortly after Phase 2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These three groups, which together make up all believers of all time, are all considered part of the &quot;first resurrection&quot; described in Revelation 20:6.  Mr. LaHaye places the timing of all of these within a 7 year period.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;rest of the dead&quot; mentioned in Revelation 20:5 are the unbelievers of all ages.  They are not resurrected until after the millennium, when they are judged (Revelation 20:11-15).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4412" LastEditorUserId="4412" LastEditDate="2014-02-24T06:23:04.930" LastActivityDate="2014-02-24T06:23:04.930" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23104" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="410" CreationDate="2013-11-24T05:09:16.520" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the matter of how far is too far when allowing doctors to heal us, when what you do is in violation of gods commandments. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/44/15#h=109:615-110:0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Acts 15:28&amp;amp;29&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; we see that the command to have nothing to do with blood is still relevent:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to &lt;strong&gt;keep abstaining&lt;/strong&gt; from things sacrificed to idols, &lt;strong&gt;from blood&lt;/strong&gt;, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Luke is saying here is that we are to continue to follow those commandments of the old law. It was not just to not eat blood. We are told to &lt;strong&gt;abstain&lt;/strong&gt; from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstain&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abstain,Merriam-Webster.com,Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;To refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice (abstain from drinking, consumption of a food or a drug or indulgence in sexual intercourse)&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we are abstain from blood, then we reject it in any form. To illustrate, when your doctor tells you to abstain from drinking alcohol, do consume it in another form? Would you then inject the alcohol into your veins? If you have alcohol in you then you have not abstained from it. This is the same way with blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is with medical reasons aside. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the US, the chances of getting diseases from a blood transfusion are low, but are still possible. Why risk it when you can use blood alternatives that have no risk? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Transfused blood can take up to a full day to reach full oxygenation. A blood substitute can be fully oxygenated immediately. Natural replenishment of lost red blood cells usually takes months, so an oxygen-carrying blood substitute can perform this function until blood is naturally replenished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Artificial blood is OK to use by that scripture. In some cases they don't even use plasma such as saline and Hyper-branched polymer-protected porphyrins. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Often simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989215&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Insight from the scriptures&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; shares with us many reasons why it is better to abstain from blood. It also has information an many different bloodless options available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is another magazine one the topic. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/blood/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How can blood save your life?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is of course another angle to this. What if you should die because you rejected and abstained from blood? We gain courage from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/16/#v40016024&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 16:24-25&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then Jesus said to his disciples: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and keep following me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We have faith in the resurrection, so we know if we lose our life because we observed Gods commandments that he will give it back to us and add to it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-24T05:09:16.520" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23107" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2109" CreationDate="2013-11-24T14:24:56.567" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Denial of the cross goes hand in hand with the denial of Christ. There is one very important factor that is missing when trying to understand why it's so very important to reason about the cross vs a stake. Satan himself was defeated at Calvary by Jesus' crucifixion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it matter if it is a stake or cross? Most definitely! Satan is called many things. Deceiver being one. Liar another. A wolf in sheeps clothing. To focus so dramatically on a symbol of the very defeat of the devil and to diminish its significance can only come from the Devil himself. To claim the cross is a pagan symbol to explain why it shouldn't be called a cross, rather a stake only proves the Devil's intent to minimize his defeat. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There isn't one single Christian who wears a cross that declares allegiance to paganism. There isn't one single Christian church that has a cross inside or outside their place of worship that does so to worship paganism. It is an outward declaration of the defeat of satan at Calvary. It is the very death of Jesus on this cross that sets every human being on earth free from SATAN'S trap!!! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say a Christian who calls it a cross is paganistic is calling God a liar. And we all know God is not the Liar. Satan is. You can reason it away as much as you want to, but the truth is, only the devil hates the cross more than Jehovah's Witnesses. If you can't see the correlation here, then you have already been deceived. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8735" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-24T23:09:17.353" LastActivityDate="2013-11-24T23:09:17.353" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23108" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-24T14:53:00.517" Score="-3" ViewCount="72" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many texts describe Heaven's joy as 'infinite' (including a personal favourite, CS Lewis's Weight of Glory') but, as we are finite beings, we must assume this is merely to convey that there is 'a great deal of it' rather than literally INFINITE joy.&#xA;Likewise many (including plenty on this site) describe that happiness as being 'unimaginably great'. Jonathan Edwards said all joy in this World was but a meager shadow compared to that experienced in Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is exageration- how can we tell when something is intended to be taken literally as regards the amount of joy in heaven/the New Earth? As regards Christmas I could say I'm 'dying of excitement' about it, that it is going to be 'ineffibly brilliant'...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastActivityDate="2013-11-24T15:09:27.603" Title="How to know when a text on religion is using hyperbole to describe Heavenly joy?" Tags="&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;word-study&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2016-06-25T13:57:35.643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23109" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23108" CreationDate="2013-11-24T15:00:47.183" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The rules on textual criticism described &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2945/determining-literary-types-in-the-bible/11282#11282&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; generally apply to all forms of textual criticism.  To plagiarize myself...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The &lt;em&gt;Biblical Research Society&lt;/em&gt; put it simply.  Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense,seek no other&#xA;  sense;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal&#xA;  meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the&#xA;  light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths&#xA;  indicate clearly otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A shortened version, which I've heard far more often goes like this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result&#xA;  in nonsense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same basic advice can be applied to the works you ask about.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.880" LastActivityDate="2013-11-24T15:09:27.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23111" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23068" CreationDate="2013-11-24T16:06:08.963" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Penance is man's way of paying for sin. You cannot pay for your sin. Christ paid the debt we were unable to pay. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One of The enemy's best strategies is to place a burden on you that u weren't designed to handle. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's what religion does. It takes what Christ did and robs the power, thus placing the burden on you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible says &quot;Having a form of Godliness but they deny the power&quot;. That's EXACTLY what man made methods, or religion (trying to become right with God) does. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It us for freedom that Christ set us free but we do not use that freedom to indulge the sinful nature. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8737" LastEditorUserId="8737" LastEditDate="2013-11-24T16:12:24.283" LastActivityDate="2013-11-24T16:12:24.283" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23112" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="24088" CreationDate="2013-11-24T16:37:38.960" Score="7" ViewCount="339" Body="&lt;p&gt;This question is very similar to the one I had asked before: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19368/when-was-it-first-said-in-christianity-by-a-church-father-that-heretics-must-be&quot;&gt;&quot;When was it first said in Christianity by a Church Father that heretics must be put to death?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, however, there is still a difference. In this question I am not looking at the approval of taking someone's life, but rather at the first known case of an approval (by any Church father) of inflicting physical tortures on heretics, perhaps, accompanied by cutting off some parts of their bodies (tongues, noses, hands, etc) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="234" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.513" LastActivityDate="2014-03-24T08:30:04.283" Title="When was it first said in Christianity by a Church Father that heretics must be tortured physically?" Tags="&lt;church-fathers&gt;&lt;heresy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23114" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="80608" CreationDate="2013-11-24T18:39:41.570" Score="7" ViewCount="586" Body="&lt;p&gt;There were some bone fragments found under St. Peter's Basilica in the 1940's. Pope Paul VI said in 1968 that the bones were &quot;identified in a way that we can consider convincing.&quot; What is the convincing argument that these bones are indeed's St. Peter's?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A perfect answer will include the details about how the bones were found.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a related note, &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-unveils-bone-fragments-said-peters-095320034.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;the bones have recently been made available for public viewing for the first time&lt;/a&gt;. During a Mass, Pope Francis seemed to venerate the relics, which may mean that the Church will officially declare them as St. Peter's bones.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3961" LastActivityDate="2021-01-29T22:00:06.060" Title="What is the evidence that the bones found under St. Peter's Basilica are actually St. Peter's bones?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;peter&gt;&lt;relics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23116" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-24T19:29:29.123" Score="9" ViewCount="54006" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the Old Testament, an army of some 15,000 Midianites invaded Israel for the purpose of &quot;hijacking&quot; their food supplies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A judge named Gideon called the Israelis &quot;to the colors.&quot; Some 30,000 showed up to form an army that was probably large enough to defeat the Midianites.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gideon was told by God to &quot;downsize&quot; his army by telling the volunteers that anyone who was afraid or &quot;indisposed&quot; to fight could go home. About two-thirds, or 20,000 did so, leaving Gideon with about 10,000 men, a smaller, but more &quot;select&quot; army than the Midianites had, because it had &quot;sluffed&quot; its weakest men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God further told Gideon to take his remaining troops to the river to drink. Most drank by burying their face in the water, but a few knelt, and used their hands to lift water to their mouths. Gideon was told to use only the latter few, some 300 in all. These were supposedly the equivalent of &quot;special forces&quot; picked by God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When they went to battle, they used unusual &quot;shock and awe&quot; tactics, blowing trumpets, flashing torches, and throwing stones noisily, rather than standard assault tactics using sword and spear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Were these tactics, and the selection of 300 &quot;picked&quot; troops (1% of the original 30,000, 2% of the 15,000 Midianites, 3% of the later 10,000) at the heart of a &quot;faith based&quot; military operation? Gideon won, of course, but what was God's plan in using the special methods that He did? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="418" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-12-31T03:20:13.200" LastActivityDate="2017-05-06T17:41:13.783" Title="How did Gideon win his battle against the Midianites?" Tags="&lt;war&gt;&lt;book-of-judges&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23117" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23175" CreationDate="2013-11-24T19:43:08.230" Score="10" ViewCount="5574" Body="&lt;p&gt;Back in my early years it seemed that every other Sermon was about staying out of Hell. Now it seems that you never hear any Sermons about how terrible it is there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a young child that scared me and began my quest to find Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a recent Sermon the minister even said that the result of sin was eternal separation from God. And while I agree that that is a part of the punishment, I do not feel that it is any more horrendous than burning for eternity in the lake of fire and not being able to die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2014-12-07T04:33:21.337" Title="Why have Ministers and Preachers stopped preaching on Hell?" Tags="&lt;hell&gt;&lt;preaching&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-12-07T14:18:16.400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23118" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23116" CreationDate="2013-11-24T20:13:08.913" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not being able to read God's mind I cannot answer your question as to what his plan was, but I will tell you why I believe he did it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God told the Israelites that if they would  serve him he would give them the ability to overcome 100 to 1 odds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lev 26:7 through 9 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7  And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8  And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9  For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also told them that if they did not serve him he would turn that around.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lev 26:14 and 17  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17  And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are many other promises that God made to them in Leviticus chapter 26 concerning what they would go through if they did not serve him, and you might enjoy reading them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Israel had been undergoing all of those circumstance for decades prior to Gideon's day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe that it was God just keeping his word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-24T20:13:08.913" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23119" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23117" CreationDate="2013-11-24T20:30:33.360" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is a very good question. The hell concept looks and/or sounds complicated, bet it actually is easy to understand. The reason most preachers do not preach on hell may simply be because it is not of interest to them. Most preachers are now preaching on things that will bring their churches money such as tights and other related stuff. As a Christian, you must not focus on your religious leaders. The path to everlasting life must be followed by only you and only you will be judged. Reading the bible is the best solution. Do not try to understand the hell concept at this time, but just know that, the wages of in is death and when you die in sin you belong to the devil and he can do anything to you. I believe that when the right time comes, you will understand this perfectly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8741" LastActivityDate="2013-11-24T20:30:33.360" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23121" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22877" CreationDate="2013-11-24T22:45:50.260" Score="1" Body="&lt;h2&gt;The Scripture&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%2015:1-1Cor%2015:5&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 15:1-5 (NET)&lt;/a&gt; - 15:1 Now I want to make clear for you,1 brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Paul’s Education&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One must understand that Paul was more than your average educated man. Though a Jew, he knew well the common Greek language used between speakers that had different native languages. He was also throughly familiar with the dominate philosophy of the day, Stoicism. Then in Acts 22:3-5 we see him being educated in the law of the ancestors by Gamaliel. Gamaliel was a leading Pharisee and cautioned the Sanhedrin (the highest legal, legislative, and judicial body among the Jews) about the apostles: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:38-39&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 5:38–39 (NET)&lt;/a&gt; So in this case I say to you, stay away from these men and leave them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking originates with people, it will come to nothing, but if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them, or you may even be found fighting against God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now given all of this, we can then get an idea what Paul is referring to as “the scriptures”. In another answer it has been said, Paul was a &quot;Pharisee amongst Pharisees&quot;, which we take as being well versed in scripture. This may have included more than what has become familiar to us as the Old Testament. How much, however, does not need to be an issue for many reasons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, based on God and faith, the Christian believes the current Bible includes the books God desires it to have and that what we have is sufficient to permit the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth needed for life and righteousness. Second, and more pointed to your questions, the Bible is rich with Messianic Prophecies and their fulfillment. Much of this is found in the Old Testament and it is these that Paul is referring to as “the scriptures.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Who Influenced Paul&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being taught under Gamaliel, Paul would have had to know the various scrolls and writings of that day to excel as his student. It would have been as if he were in something like our universities of today. He would have had to pass tests and probably give oral arguments. He had to demonstrate, to Gamaliel’s satisfaction, that he knew the subject matter. Today, we can take ‘open book’ tests. In Paul’s day, very few had any ‘book’ to take home and study. They had to rely much more on memorization and really knowing what the text said. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Later, after his conversion, the Holy Spirit could guide Paul with this knowledge to produce so much of the doctrine that Paul revealed. Such things as the secrets of Christ, that Jew and Gentile were both provided salvation through Jesus Christ (Eph 3:1-12). The Holy Spirit would also bring to Paul’s mind (John 14:26) scripture to show Paul how God had been at work since the beginning to provide this salvation for us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;The Answers&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to your questions is: “the scripture” Paul is speaking of in 1 Cor 15:3-4 deals with Messianic Prophecy and its fulfillment that Paul knew about and realized was the reason for the fullness of the gospel that he preached. You will have to visit the links below to learn about specific verses in the Bible that Paul is speaking about. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For another of your questions, you will need to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal if these verses are to be taken seriously. For this, you might find a quiet place and spend some time BEFORE reading the links to ask God in prayer to help. Then go and read the material in some of the Messianic links and see if you come to similar conclusions Paul has. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have not answered the “Did the Corinthians have the same Bible we have?” question because this has been covered well by Mr. J. Hampton Keathley III in his “&lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/seriespage/introduction-new-testament&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Introduction to the New Testament&lt;/a&gt;”. The chart that is in that article places the writing of 1 Corinthians in the early writings of Paul. At that time (around 55 AD), many books we have today were not yet written. Maybe if a Corinthian was still alive after Revelation was written (around 95 AD), they may have be able to read all we have. All the other questions have been answered in one manner or another in my text above.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;References:&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Early_life&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Paul the Apostle: Early Life&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel#In_Christian_tradition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Gamaliel: In Christian Tradition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/article/messianic-prophecies&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bible.org - Messianic Prophecies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_messianic_prophecy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia article on Jesus and Messianic Prophecy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.messianic-prophecy.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Messianic-Prophecy.net&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, there is a book: &lt;em&gt;All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible&lt;/em&gt; by Herbert Lockyer you can &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0310280915&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;get from Amazon&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6282" LastEditorUserId="6282" LastEditDate="2013-11-25T14:57:36.920" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T14:57:36.920" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23124" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-24T23:48:03.970" Score="3" ViewCount="299" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have been a Christian for my entire life.  Lately, I have been in a low spot in faith, and have had some skepticism towards a few things in the bible.  I do have faith in the bible, but I would like to see some extra-biblical historical, and or scientific evidence of things things that are accounted for in the bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8747" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T15:12:12.887" Title="Evidence towards Christianity" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;history&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-11-25T15:36:04.853" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23125" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23124" CreationDate="2013-11-25T00:22:57.390" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, I think I can help you with historical evidences to support Christianity. Jesus Christ prophesized the destruction of Jerusalem (which includes the temple of Jerusalem) in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also see Jesus Christ weeping over Jerusalem in Luke Chapter 19, because he foresaw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As we all know, &lt;strong&gt;the destruction of Jerusalem&lt;/strong&gt; (which includes temple of Jerusalem historically known as Herod's temple) happened in 70 AD. This incident is recorded by Josephus in Jewish Wars (especially in Book Six of Jewish Wars), Tacitus in Histories (Book 5), Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (Book 3), and Jewish History Document &quot;Sepher Yosippon&quot; (especially Chapter 87 - &quot;Burning of the temple&quot;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke 3&lt;/strong&gt; teaches that in the fifteenth year of the reign of &lt;strong&gt;Tiberius Caesar&lt;/strong&gt;--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Tiberius was a Roman Emperor who ruled from 14 AD to 37 AD. We read that Jesus was born during the time when Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar (31 BC - 14 AD) ruled &lt;strong&gt;(Luke 2:1-3)&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Acts 24, we see that Apostle Paul was taken to &lt;strong&gt;Felix&lt;/strong&gt; who was Roman procurator of Judean Province from 52 AD to 58 AD. In Acts 25:27, Felix was succeeded by &lt;strong&gt;Festus&lt;/strong&gt; who historically ruled Judean Province from 59 AD to 62 AD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Josephus mentions about the death of James (brother of Jesus Christ in Galatians 1:18-1:19) by Young Ananus in Antiquities 20.9.1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Antiquities of Jews 20.9.1:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;And now Caesar, upon hearing of the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. ... But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. &lt;strong&gt;Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned&lt;/strong&gt;: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus ... Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastEditorUserId="4310" LastEditDate="2013-11-25T01:12:20.333" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T01:12:20.333" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23126" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23124" CreationDate="2013-11-25T00:26:40.290" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Consider doing a little googling, such as I did.  In a couple minutes I came up with the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html&lt;/a&gt;  (Copyright © 1994 by The Issachar Institute.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/advanced/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament.htm#_edn2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/advanced/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament.htm#_edn2&lt;/a&gt;  From J.P. Moreland, &amp;quot;The Historicity of the New Testament&amp;quot;, footnote number 2:  &amp;quot;[2] For a summary of archaeology and the New Testament, see Edwin M. Yamauchi, &amp;quot;Archaeology and the New Testament;&amp;quot; in Introductory Articles, vol. 1 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 645-69. Two of the best summaries of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus are Gary R. Habermas Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus: Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), E F Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).&amp;quot;  Moreland's complete article is well worth reading!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://images.acswebnetworks.com/1/934/Historicity_of_Bible.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://images.acswebnetworks.com/1/934/Historicity_of_Bible.pdf&lt;/a&gt;  I can't vouch for this web site (nor can I vouch for the previous two), but it does seem to take a novel approach to a controversial issue!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff, of the Christian Research Institute has some interesting things to say.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/#christian-books-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/#christian-books-1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;See Wayne Jackson's &amp;quot;The Historicity of Jesus Christ&amp;quot; at &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/26-historicity-of-jesus-christ-the&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/26-historicity-of-jesus-christ-the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, there is a wealth of information out there that may serve to buttress your faith and give you the encouragement you need at this time.  I wish you well.  Don&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T00:26:40.290" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23128" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23124" CreationDate="2013-11-25T04:02:03.807" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;While just about any answer you may find helpful.  I've been reading this book and it's fantastic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ministryhelps.com/the-two-kinds-of-knowledge-kenyon-p-253.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Two kinds of knowledge by E.W Kenyon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Description: All the knowledge that is taught in our schools, colleges&#xA;  and universities has been gained through our five senses. It is what&#xA;  we call &quot;Sense Knowledge.&quot;  Man has never been able to know God&#xA;  through the five senses of his physical body.  Sense Knowledge cannot&#xA;  give us the Reason for Creation, the source of Light, of Life, of&#xA;  Motion, of Gravitation, has been unable to explain the obvious design&#xA;  of Creation.  When man reaches the limits of his Sense Knowledge, he&#xA;  turns philosopher or guesser. Natural man cannot understand spiritual&#xA;  things. There are Two kinds of Knowledge, sense knowledge and&#xA;  spiritual knowledge. Sense Knowledge cannot find God, can never know&#xA;  Him, but there stands by the side of everyone a Guide to lead him into&#xA;  the new kind of knowledge, the new kind of life. Two Kinds of&#xA;  Knowledge by EW Kenyon shows the contrast between Sense Knowledge and&#xA;  The Revelation Knowledge which we receive only from the Word of God. &#xA;  Sense Knowledge faith is in what man is, and can do, and has done.&#xA;  Revelation faith is in the Word of God, &quot;That liveth and abideth&#xA;  forever.&quot; Understand these Two Kinds of Knowledge and strengthen your&#xA;  walk of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T04:02:03.807" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23129" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23117" CreationDate="2013-11-25T04:44:16.607" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The world is so full of suffering and pain these days, the last thing we need to hear is that we are going to burn in hell. I think that pastors and spiritual leaders recognize this. Maybe they are trying to give encouragement and hope to their sheep instead of more fear?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if that is why they don't grill people with that anymore. It seemed to work. I can see previous generations before me, have a stronger moral compass. This could be that they are so afraid of god they won't even think twice of doing something wrong. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I myself don't believe in hell. It doesn't make sense that a god of love, peace, justice, and righteousness would watch something he created suffer like that. That combined with the accounts of Gods punishment. Whenever God punished people, their deaths where quick and they didn't suffer long. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/deuteronomy/11/#v5011006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Deuteronomy 11:6&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Or what he did to Da′than and A·bi′ram, the sons of E·li′ab the son of Reu′ben, when the earth opened and swallowed them up, along with their households and their tents and every living thing that followed them, before the eyes of all Israel.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/19/#v1019024&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 19:24-26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then Jehovah made it rain sulfur and fire on Sod′om and Go·mor′rah—it came from Jehovah, from the heavens. 25 So he overthrew these cities, yes, the entire district, including all the inhabitants of the cities and the plants of the ground. 26 But Lot’s wife, who was behind him, began to look back, and she became a pillar of salt.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even that aside, once we die our sins are paid in full. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/6/#v45006006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 6:6-7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;For we know that our old personality was nailed to the stake along with him in order for our sinful body to be made powerless, so that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin. 7 For &lt;strong&gt;the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So if God views our sins paid for by death, then why would he punish us after our sin debt is paid?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think if someone's love for God is strong enough, they don't need to learn punishments. To illustrate the point, your father teaches you not to do something because it is wrong. If you love your father, you care enough that you don't want to disappoint him by doing something he told you not to. I don't think of the punishment for something I've done wrong. Instead I think about how much I've hurt someone who loves me, so much that he sacrificed his son, so that I could have a chance to live. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T04:44:16.607" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23130" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23114" CreationDate="2013-11-25T06:30:23.637" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot of the evidence is circumstantial, so it's probably a matter of opinion whether it's convincing or not:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The bones that are thought to be St. Peter's were found near a grave under the current high alter of the Basilica - a location that's long been considered St. Peter's grave.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are written records that indicate that ~160 AD there was a shrine erected in the Vatican area over Peter's grave.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Excavations below the current high altar revealed the remains of the ~160 AD shrine and some evidence of an even earlier one (~70 AD).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Constantine was certainly convinced of the location of the grave when he built the first St. Peter's.  In order to position the centre of the apse in the right place, a large area of the Vatican hill had to be flattened. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's been quite a while since I've read any of the books about this... the bones thought to be St. Peter's weren't found in the grave, they were found in a niche in a wall next to the grave, a wall that has ancient graffiti carved into it that says something like &quot;Peter is here.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The bones that were found in the grave were identified as being from an elderly man, heavily built.  There was dirt on the bones that matched the dirt in the grave and the theory is that the bones were moved to protect them since drainage and flooding of the lower levels of the Basilica was a concern.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I think the details that would make this closer to the &quot;perfect answer&quot; you asked for run afoul of one of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;StackExchange guidelines for what not to ask:&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Among the books that cover this are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1933184752&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Peter-John-Evangelist-Walsh/dp/1933184752&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2438024.The_Tomb_of_St_Peter&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2438024.The_Tomb_of_St_Peter&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1199553344&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Peters-James-Lees-Milne/dp/1199553344&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The texts of (and some pictures from) these 3 books can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://saintpetersbasilica.org/tours.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;on this site.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T06:30:23.637" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23132" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14069" CreationDate="2013-11-25T07:38:45.483" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am not versed in theological debate on the gifts, but as a Christian Seer, I can tell you the likely evidence of this gift from a great deal of personal experience. The Word of Knowledge, to my personal experience are typically audibly heard words or impressions within one's mindspace that as a believer I encounter both in prayer, and on a daily basis as I am going about my day with God. They are highly symbolic, using the same &quot;language&quot; as that of dreams. Many times I will receive these &quot;insights&quot; from the Holy Spirit while studying the Word, or while in prayer. Sometimes I simply get them while I'm doing something in my daily life that has to do with some sort of narrative or parabolic experience. The typical purpose of these words is not confined to healing; but rather to divine communication, teaching/strengthening/confirming the Word of God, and the learning of prophetic symbolic vocabulary as so to strengthen divine dialogue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8749" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T07:38:45.483" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23134" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4082" CreationDate="2013-11-25T08:04:46.343" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I try to answer with my Scripture reading. May this answer help&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer for number one:&#xA;First we have to know that Jacob seems knew that he was &lt;em&gt;not good&lt;/em&gt; at all. We can see in the previous chapters before, Jacob get everything by tricking. Tricking his brother (Esau) and tricking his uncle (Laban).&#xA;For the reason why GOD Choose to wrestle with Jacob,This may be the answer:GOD choose to wrestle with him because the answer for his prayer in the &lt;strong&gt;chapter 32:9-12&lt;/strong&gt;. Jacob prayed so hard, but he try to depend of what he have and what he think (the herds he give to Esau to win his heart in the Chapter 32:13-21). He try to win his brother heart with his plan (understanding).&#xA;After Jacob sent all he had across the stream (only himself), he wrestle with GOD. GOD want to tell him:&#xA;1. He shouldn't depend on the prosperous he has, but he only need to depend on GOD, because the herds he sent to Esau is not necessary to win his heart.&#xA;2. Another lesson is GOD try to tell him that GOD is greater than him (and of course his thinking and understanding). The &lt;strong&gt;proverbs 3:5-6&lt;/strong&gt; said &quot;trust in god with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding&quot;.&#xA;This is proven in the next chapter which is &lt;strong&gt;chapter 33:9&lt;/strong&gt;, Esau replied: &lt;em&gt;&quot;i already have plenty, my brother. Keep what you have for yourself.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; Even Esau try to accompany and protect Jacob. This is a lesson for Jacob to depend on GOD not depend on what he has.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the number two:&#xA;The Scripture (Genesis) was written by Moses, and he was write by the power of Holy Spirit (the one who wrestle with Jacob - because Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit is one). But the Scripture never tell about intent to kill like it said in the Exodus for Moses. So i don't think GOD was trying to kill Jacob at all. Instead HE just want to wrestle and teach him a lesson&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For number three:&#xA;This may be the symbolic for Esau not to flee again. Because he always flee when the fear overcome him just like the Sean Daniel told us.. He probably want to flee and fear overcome him, that is why he was injured.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8751" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T08:04:46.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23136" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-25T09:49:39.460" Score="3" ViewCount="180" Body="&lt;p&gt;God prepared Jewish people throughout their history and moulded them according to His requirement so that they become ready for accepting His Saviour for all the mankind. Even then many of His chosen people failed to recognise Jesus as promised Saviour.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus was supposed to be the saviour for all humanity, there is every possibility that God would want to reveal His plan of saving humanity, to other non Jewish people around the world. Hence it is likely that God would make aware to other non-Jewish people also, for a need of a saviour for this world. So it is possible that such revelation did came to many other groups of people around the world, yet the same was most probably misinterpreted in the subset of their geographical as well as regional belief system.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One such instance that comes to my mind is close resemblance in some of the details, between Jesus and Krishna. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ancient.eu.com/Bhagavad_Gita/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recording of these details&lt;/a&gt; was close to the period (century) of Prophet Isaiah, when very clear references to birth of Jesus were revealed.  While there is no evidence to back up the claim that this story of Krishna was of the events that had already happened, it is surely a shaded reference to Jesus who was to come somewhere in future. It is highly possible that over the years, it was presumed by these groups of people, that whatever was revealed has already come to pass, because of their ignorance of God’s actual plan in that region of the world. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So are there any other such references in non-Jewish traditions where the manifestation Jesus Christ was prophesised?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-11-26T08:30:03.820" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T08:30:03.820" Title="Do we find any (even hazy) references in non-Jewish traditions about Jesus, as promised saviour?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;messiah&gt;&lt;special-revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23137" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16239" CreationDate="2013-11-25T10:40:52.263" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Would like to add some additions and details on specific points:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;a) The Sabbath&#xA;It has been written before that we as SDAs would force the Sabbath on the people, in like manner we accuse the Catholic Church would do, the latter of which will result in the so called &quot;Mark of the Beast&quot;, which to us is similar to the term &quot;Sunday-Law&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some details need to be clarified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination is forcing anybody to keep a specific day of worship. Both denominations state that they believe in keeping the Sabbath in their way and members should do accordingly - but nobody is forced to be a Roman Catholic or a Seventh-Day Adventist, and nobody is forced to be it any longer if he wants to live different to the beliefs of either denomination. As long as neither Religion becomes a prescribed (enforced) state religion none of both would fulfill the requirements of the &quot;Mark of the Beast&quot; and enforce anything on the free choice of anybody (maybe infant baptism is a smaller kind of &quot;enforcement&quot;, but as stated everybody is free to leave at any time).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the &quot;Mark of the Beast&quot; is fulfilled by &quot;the Beast&quot;, not by &quot;a Woman&quot; (That's why it is called the &quot;Mark of the Beast&quot; and not &quot;Mark of the Woman&quot; :-)). Biblical pictures describe churches with the picture of women (either clean, tidy and beautiful when speaking about Gods Church or as a harlot when speaking of God's apostate Church) and political entities with the pictures of Beasts or Horns. Therefore the enforcement of &quot;Keeping Sunday&quot; will be a work of a political entity, not the work of a Church.&#xA;The main problem is not that it enforces this day or another, but that it enforces something that is entirely an area of God's Authority alone - it is an area where one can only act on his free will and own conscience to obey or not. The &quot;error&quot; is that it enforces something by law which can only be rendered by free choice (for something to be genuine it has to be given out of love, freely).&#xA;The reasons to enforce such a sunday-law may be, from a human perspective, very good and logical. But they will enslave the free choice of the human race - and because of that God will intervene and the events of Christ's Second Coming will be set in motion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me clarify. If the coming Sunday-Law would not be a Sunday-Law but a Sabbath-Law or a Saturday-Law. We as Seventh-Day Adventists would oppose it as strongly as a Sunday-Law - even if at first glance we would be benefitted by it. But, because it would be a human law on something that can only be given by free choice our of pure love to someone else, we would oppose it. Take for example this: if your boy or girl-friend, your wife or husband would invite you to dinner on Thursday evening, surely, because the day does not matter, you would be there on Wednesday or on Friday, right? Of course not. You would respect the choice of the other one because you love them. Same with the biblical Sabbath. God has said that he loves us 24/7 but every Sabbath he wants to meet with us and have a special time together. And out of love towards him I will agree to that and meet with him every Seventh Day. Only in this way I truly can &quot;Keep the Sabbath&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;b) The Trinity&#xA;I don't want to go at full length on this topic (because this doctrine is not fully accepted by all members of the SDA church and the movement to support a different view on the Godhead is well and growing). But share some differences in viewpoints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there are several different groups within the Adventist Church who believe different about the Trinity. Some 100% agree with the Athanasian Creed that God consists of one indivisible Substance / Essence. Others strongly disagree to that specific point because Ellen White once wrote: &quot;The great Teacher [i.e. Jesus] held in His hand the entire map of truth. In simple language He made plain to His disciples the way to heaven, and the endless subjects of divine power. The question of the essence of God was a subject on which He maintained a wise reserve, for their entanglements and specifications would bring in science which could not be dwelt upon by unsanctified minds without confusion.&quot; {The Upward Look, p. 146}&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If that would be officially accepted by the SDA church today we would not be deemed as mainstream Christians, because one can only be that, if one accepts the Athanasian Creed. So we still have an issue to be resolved. But as far as I can see it, the growing discussions about Trinity or not will lead to a clarification in the end… .&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8753" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T10:40:52.263" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23138" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23124" CreationDate="2013-11-25T11:27:37.337" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Prophesies corroborated historically:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;The real determination of any books claim for its inspired truth is in its supernatural evidence, including prophecy. God used prophets to speak and write down His Word and God used miracles like fulfilled prophecy to authenticate His messengers. For example, in Genesis 12:7, God promises the land of Israel for Abraham and his descendants. In 1948 Israel was returned back to the Jewish people for the second time in history. This may not seem so astonishing until you realize that no nation in the history of the world has been scattered from its homeland and returned! Israel has done it twice. The book of Daniel predicts with accuracy the coming of the four great kingdoms from Babylon, to Medo-Persia, to Greece, to Rome centuries before some of those kingdoms came on the scene (a time span of over 1,000 years!) with details concerning how they would rule and be broken. This includes the reigns of Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanies. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Ezekiel 26 we can see in astonishing detail how the city of Tyre was to be destroyed, how it would be torn down, and how its debris would be thrown into the sea. When Alexander the Great marched on that area, he used these rocks, the leftover rubble from the city of Tyre for the land bridge.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are several prophecies concerning Christ in the books of Old Testament and it would take more than a few screens worth of space to list them all. Further, Jesus would have had no control over many of them such as His birthplace or time and type of birth. Second, the odds of one man accidentally fulfilling even a very few of these is miniscule.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even this is a thought provoking findings from &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14153/are-there-any-secular-historical-references-to-the-natural-phenomenon-that-occur/14196#14196&quot;&gt;Taylor &amp;amp; Francis &lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stood the test of adverse times in the nascent stage:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Any belief system that is fake would not have survived the type of persecution that Christianity went through. All those disciples who were hiding like cowards were suddenly ready to die for Jesus. It would have been a lot easier for detractors of Christianity to make a point that all the writings that we have today on which the foundation of Christianity is based upon, were in fact all cooked up and doctored with the help of the political and reigning powers at that time. But the fact is, all the worldly forces were trying to wipe out nascent Christianity by persecution and destroying all their literature. All that we have today has passed through a most turbulent period and has survived under most cruel persecution. By the time Christians could live a serene living under a favourable reigning emperor, all present day Gospels were already in use , as independent books before they were canonised in this favourable time.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Defying human logic:&lt;/strong&gt;   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus did numerous miracles when He walked on this earth. All these miracles are the manifestation of His ability to do “anything and everything”. There was nothing which was not able to do. Yet He stops short of overcoming those who killed Him. There can be no explanation for this except that that was how it was supposed to be- for a reason.  By the way there is a strong non Biblical evidence for these miracles from Josephus as well as for Christianity &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T11:27:37.337" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23139" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23116" CreationDate="2013-11-25T12:49:57.873" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's plan had very little to do with the tactics employed.  Indeed, God's purpose in downsizing Gideon's army was specifically to de-emphasize the role of man in the conflict.  To wit, Judges 7:2 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Lord said to Gideon, “The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’ &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to the method employed, Judges 7:22 answers this - God used the confusion in the ranks of the Midianite army to set the Midians against themselves.  It is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22 When they blew the 300 trumpets, &lt;strong&gt;the Lord set every man's sword against his comrade and against all the army.&lt;/strong&gt; And the army fled as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah,[a] as far as the border of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Chronicles reports a similar thing when the Ammonites and the Moabites rose up against Israel under King Jehosophat. Jerusalem itself was besieged, and there was famine so great that women resorted to cannibalism.  When the Lord hear the Israelites' cry, however, he chose to rescue them.  The text states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20:22 As soon as they began singing, the Lord confused the enemy camp, 23 so that the Ammonite and Moabite troops attacked and completely destroyed those from Edom. Then they turned against each other and fought until the entire camp was wiped out! 24 When Judah’s army reached the tower that overlooked the desert, they saw that every soldier in the enemy’s army was lying dead on the ground. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For a disciplined army to turn on itself, the confusion must have been great indeed. The point in each of these narratives is simple - it &lt;em&gt;wasn't&lt;/em&gt; the Israelites who conquered their enemies. It was their God who fought on their behalf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, finally in 2 Kings 19, the Assyrian Sennacharib brought an army of 185,000 to lay seige to Hezekiah's Jerusalem.  The prophet Isaiah was moved by the spirit to tell Hezekiah that the Lord would deliver, and sure enough:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;35 That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies! 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-25T12:56:38.740" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T12:56:38.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23140" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23124" CreationDate="2013-11-25T14:12:33.620" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am an Orthodox Christian (you may call me neophite, as I have only started seriously relating my life with teachings of Christ, attending to the church, praying and everything else just a year ago) and I was also very much interested in this topic. The answer I found for myself may be something more broad than what people already suggested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You see, after reading books and listening to lectures, I learned to understand that Bible is a collaboration of God and man, a Word of God recorded by man, for a purpose of teaching other men both about past facts of revelations from God, and about how to structure our own lives in the immediate &quot;now&quot;. How every single person formed, edited, compiled and presented whatever he received in a revelation from God, or seen by his own eyes, is very much based on that exact person, his character, his intended readers, his culture...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What this means is that when we read something in the Bible (like, the moment of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan river), we must not interpret it as a list of facts, a report from the scene, a newspaper article, a movie recitation, a photograph of sorts, but rather as an icon. Details matter not as much, but the meaning, the gist is ultimately what matters. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we try to focus on the details, and take Bible as a scientific historical report of &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt; happened, we will be piled in unconsistencies and divert our attention to the unimportant details. For example, we have conflicting reports from evangelists about how some obviously similar events happened and where did they happen. The event of a lady washing Jesus's legs with her hair - where and how did it happen? The event of miraculous fishing catch - when did it happen? Some key phrases are spoken by Jesus in different areas or different order in different gospels... Does this mean that one of the evangelists is wrong? If so, who is the scientifically and historically correct one, and who made a blunder? Did Jesus say &quot;Blessed are the poor in spirit&quot; or &quot;Blessed are you who are poor&quot;? Where did Jesus say it - on a mountain or on a field? What version of the Lord's Prayer is the &quot;legit&quot; one - by Luke or by Matthew? Who and in which order visited Jesus's tomb? And so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, we will keep on focusing on moments that are, honestly, not that important. Instead of trying to get the gist of things - learning what is God's will about our lives, learning to live better and cleaner life, learning to combat the temptation and sin, learning to pray and do good deeds and so on - we get carried away in discussions like &quot;Why Genesis has two accounts of the creation of Earth that contradict each other&quot;, or wether or not Earth is 5k or 5m years old, or whether or not all Psalms were written by David or not, or wether or not Isaiah is a book by one or two different people - discussions that, while interesting, have little impact on our nowaday lives, on our immediate &quot;now&quot;. Like Sherlock Holmes said, if something does not have a use to you, does not effect you, you'd better not care to even remember it. Sure, it may be good to argue about Creationism vs Evolution, but is that the mission that Jesus bestowed on his followers? How will it help me today not to judge my brother, or love my neighbour as myself? How will it help me to resist the temptation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And does it really matter if, for instance, the incident with a huge number of pigs dying when posessed by the legion was a folk tale, integrated into the narrative to make it more vivid, or is a true story which happened exactly like that? Certain christian scholars, like Joachim Jeremias, consider it to be the former, but does the fact that the story did not happen exactly as written hurt the overall narrative in any way? When reading about this, are we to learn about what happened to a certain pig herd in a certain country a certain long time ago, or are we to learn about the way God acts, the way humans react, and the way God interacts with humans (rejecting Jesus after He cured their bretheren, and Jesus telling the cured man to stay and preach about what God did to him).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Finally, I came to a conclusion, that I need not base my faith on the historical authenticity of smaller details of the Bible narrative. Essentially, any religion is an intimate experience that you cannot really &quot;prove&quot; to anybody. God touched me, personally, and that I know for sure. And if I forget that, I am the one to blame - for I should treasure that and remember it. What is the difference between christianity and other religions for me then? Why, if I have no exact proof that bible is all so scientifically evident, while koran/whatever else is false, did I, as a programmer, a PhD, choose this faith and not others? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I've read Koran and other religious literature and books. It didn't resonate with me, it left unsanswered questions (not about historical authenticity but about my immediate life today, how to view it and how to act). Then I've read the Bible, and I see it applying to me. I see that I, as Paul describes it, do bad deeds which I do not want to, and am not doing good deeds which I want to. I see how I try to remove dust from the eye of my brother, while forgoing a log in my own. I see how I force someone to pay me the smallest debt they owe, after being forgiven by God (and other people) for much bigger tresspassings. I also see how sin follows from sin, and also how chosing not to  sin turns out to be better for you &quot;in the long run&quot; even if initially, it is hard to force yourself away from something clearly wanted, attractive. I see that, however tempting, it is good not to &quot;look at women with lust&quot; or &quot;not to commit adultery&quot; or not to use foul language, and so on. I also see and know people who are way more &quot;senior&quot; christians than me, and I see &quot;their light shining before them&quot;, for which I want to praise &quot;the Father who is in Heaven&quot;. I feel how hard, but how rewarding, it is to sacrifice even a tiny bit of your own &quot;something&quot; for someone else, like feed the poor instead of spending money on your own pleasure. And so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How will knowing that someone found Noah's ark, or came up with a theory to explain the Flood, or found pharaoh's charriot remains in the Red Sea, help me now? Or how will it hurt me to know that a certain sequence of events in bible is historically wrong, certain miracle or event may as well be a folk tale and not a historical fact? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not at all discrading any historical validity to the bible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is important that Jesus, both God and man, did walk the Earth, that he was concieved without a human father, that he was preaching the coming of Kingdom of God, that he was crucified, that his body did disappear from his tomb, that he did appear in a resurrected state to his apostles. If they (historians, scientists, idk) find out a scientific way to prove that crucifiction did not happen, or resurrection did not happen, or that Jesus was a simple human - for exmaple, find remains of Jesus of Nasareth, or like, study the genetic material found in the Shroud of Turin and prove that Jesus had a human father, or something of sorts - then we will have a reason to be worrying about wether bible is a fairy tale or not... Except they won't prove it, because there's just no undebateable way of doing so. Really, how will you, scientifically, prove that there were no crucifiction or no resurrection? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And so, historical validity of the events in the Bible will forever remain a matter of dispute. And up to every single person to believe or not. Those willing to believe will find ways to back their claim. Those willing to disbelieve will find ways to back theirs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I, personally find the multiple causes of martyrdom and the way Christianity began to spread and ended up being a world religion to be extremely convincing. The apostles (uneducated people, most of them) just could not come up with a religion so complex and out-of-this-word, and both them and people they converted just could not have the willpower to stand up to such cruel executions and prosecutions, if God would not be with them. Even if you take the moment right after Jesus's death - he was taken, judged and found guilty, all his follower scattered, hidden in their habitats, fearing to come out lest they be prosecuted and executed as well. Every one of them a coward, even Peter. What could have happened to change them so drastically, to preach with such force, such power, as we read in the Acts? Also, who in their mind will create a religion that sets the plank SO HIGH, basically, which makes your life very &quot;uncomfortable&quot;, because you have to strive to be as Holy as you can never truly become, and never be able to rest and bask in your achivements?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Others will argue. They will find explanations - madness of individual preachers, falsification of individual evidence to turn the whole picture, other personal motives, and so on. They will find counter arguments to my argument.s Thing is - they cannot prove I am wrong and I cannot prove they are wrong, so there's a limited usefullness to even indulge in the argument.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bottom line is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you are &quot;low on faith&quot;, take your time to settle aside your common activities, find some time in your life to spare, and pray to God. Honestly, sincerely, in any words you want to choose. There's even a verse for that in the Bible, if you like - Mark 9:24 (“I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”). And wait for answer, patiently and paying attention. If you can muster another moment of spare time, pray again - don't fret or be discouraged if you don't get &quot;immediate results&quot;, because  being persistent and relentless in your prayer is a recurring motive in the gospels (Luke 11:5-10, Mathew 7:7 and other places). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You could probably substitute for that by reading literature by intelligent scholars that will convince you how Bible is so historically true, how every mismatch has a complelling answer, couple that with multiple real-world evidence and so on and so forth... But to my opinion, and to my (although limited, as I said above) experience, this is not really a Christian way of doing things. Because Jesus taught us (including by his own example) how praying is important, and how everything we really need, God will give to us, if we ask. So if you need to be reinforced in your faith - ask God and make effort to listen. It can be revealed to you in any imaginable and unimaginable way - but you will find out the answer, and when you do, you will feel that it is from God, and it is true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I wish you best. Sorry for quite a long post.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8754" LastEditorUserId="8754" LastEditDate="2013-11-25T15:12:12.887" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T15:12:12.887" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23141" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23151" CreationDate="2013-11-25T14:13:31.360" Score="9" ViewCount="7176" Body="&lt;p&gt;I work with a handful of Church of God members, and we frequently have friendly ecclesiastical conversations. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_%28Cleveland,_Tennessee%29&quot;&gt;Church of God&lt;/a&gt; denomination is very prevalent in the area that I live and work. They often describe church services they have attended that involve sporadic behavior, such as spastic convulsions, falling in the floor, seizures, running around the pews and/or sanctuary, running across the top of pews, and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any biblical support for this kind of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ0373FD5f4&quot;&gt;behavior&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;My intentions are not meant to mock these services at all.&lt;/em&gt; Every person I know that is a member (many of whom are my very close friends) are very down to Earth, good people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I just want to be able to bring scriptural material (if any) to our next breakfast fellowship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NOTE&lt;/strong&gt;: I am well aware of the argument for &quot;speaking in tongues&quot; being in the Bible. I am not looking for an answer concerning speaking in tongues...&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;only physical behavior&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2016-03-27T15:52:29.413" LastActivityDate="2016-03-27T15:52:29.413" Title="Is there any scriptural support for the belief of convulsions/seizures being a sign of the Holy Spirit's presence?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;pentecostalism&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-09-07T21:40:03.070" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23142" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-25T14:17:23.037" Score="4" ViewCount="4312" Body="&lt;p&gt;There have been several comments on this site which tend to deny the existence of Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But Jesus tells me that the lake of fire is the place of Eternal punishment that God created for Satan and the rebellious Angels, and that the unsaved will also be cast into it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 25:41  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 20:12 through 15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Jesus himself spoke of Hell 15 times in the Gospels and one time in the Revelation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But by far there is one question that haunts me the most, and that is that if there was not the most horrendous of all punishments awaiting the unsaved, why would God send Jesus to be tortured and die on the Cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You say it is because of his great love for us, but that doesn't pass the smell test; in that if he loves us that much why would he love his own son less.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To take him from Heaven and make him go through what he went through on Earth has to be a lot worse than us just dieing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even beyond that unless he was saving mankind from a fate worse than his torture and death on the cross, why would Jesus voluntarily go through it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T02:10:56.720" Title="If Hell does not exist would God have sent Jesus to die?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="19" FavoriteCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-11-26T13:02:19.647" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23143" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23136" CreationDate="2013-11-25T14:50:54.250" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;In his book, &lt;em&gt;Eternity in Their Hearts&lt;/em&gt;, Don Richardson details what he calls &quot;A World Prepared for the Gospel&quot;, which is the title of the first section of the book.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;People of the Lost Book&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapter 2 is entitled &quot;Peoples of the Lost Book&quot;, which details tribes that bemoan the fact that their ancestors had lost &quot;the book&quot; from God.  Some of them looked forward to the day when this book would be restored.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;People with Strange Customs&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Chapter 3 speaks is entitled &quot;Peoples with Strange Customs&quot;, which detail the customs of very remote tribes with strikingly similarities to things in the Bible.  In Don Richardson's own experience as a missionary to a remote tribe, he identifies the custom of the &quot;Peace Child&quot;.  When he presents Jesus as God's peace child, the tribe responds to the Gospel in a powerful way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Ancient Chinese&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The ancient Chinese also have some interesting writings from Lao Tze and others.  Prior to Mao Tse Tung, the emperor actually offered what was called the Border Sacrifice every year in the Temple of Heaven.  This closely resembles the offering of the Jewish High Priest once a year for the sins of the people.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Chinese alphabet itself has some extraordinary parallels to Genesis 1-11.  Interestingly enough, the word for righteousness is a combination of two other characters--the word for Lamb and the word for me.  Righteousness is a lamb over/covering me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-11-25T17:02:48.980" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T17:02:48.980" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23145" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23142" CreationDate="2013-11-25T16:21:49.093" Score="-2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;This answer has been edited&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am going to start of by saying Hell is a term put together by mankind for mankind. It is only a figurative “place”. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What do I mean? God has created Heaven and God has created Earth and&#xA;  God has created all of creation. But God has not created some “place”&#xA;  or “location” called Hell. There is no record in the entire Bible of&#xA;  God creating Hell. It is a term mankind has used to describe the final&#xA;  state of the wicked and unconverted. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Quoting Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson, pg 456 -&#xA;  “Throughout life, a person says to God, in effect, “Leave me alone.”&#xA;  Hell, the absence of God, is God’s simply giving that person at last&#xA;  what he or she has always asked for. It is not God, but one’s own&#xA;  choice that sends a person to hell.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Hell is not a ‘place’, it is being apart from God, which most of the&#xA;  following is trying to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now I believe some will follow this question and read that and say, “exactly!”. But the problem is, the substance of their conclusion and mine is totally opposite. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Quoting from Dr. Deffinbaugh’s article - “&lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/seriespage/hell-shun&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A Hell to Shun&lt;/a&gt;”: “No one&#xA;  really wants to talk about hell. The person who finds some kind of&#xA;  satisfaction in exploring its horrors must have a problem. Many do not&#xA;  wish to believe that some will suffer eternal torment. One survey over&#xA;  ten years ago indicated that 58% Methodists, 60% Episcopalians, 54%&#xA;  Presbyterians, 35% American Baptists, 22% American Lutherans deny it&#xA;  is a specific place after death.9 It is not difficult to understand&#xA;  why some choose to believe there is no such thing as eternal torment.&#xA;  After all, such a fact would have dramatic implications!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The cults have generally tended to distort biblical teachings on&#xA;  eternal punishment: Christian Science believes there is no final&#xA;  judgment. The Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that lost men will have a&#xA;  second chance and that those who reject this offer of salvation will&#xA;  be annihilated. Mormonism maintains that all non-Mormons will be&#xA;  sentenced to eternal torment, along with those Mormons who are thus&#xA;  judged worthy of it. Unity refuses to believe in the finality of&#xA;  death, but believes that through mind action we resurrect ourselves&#xA;  from the dead. Modern theology insists that a loving God could never&#xA;  subject anyone to such punishment.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;So according to Mr. Deffinbaugh, there are those who will say,&#xA;  “exactly - there is no hell”. I now go on to show the substance behind&#xA;  their conclusion cannot be correct. Though there may not be a “place”&#xA;  called hell, there certainly IS a condition for it, that of being&#xA;  apart from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is Creator, I am created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is Holy and lives without sin because His nature cannot sin.&#xA;My nature makes possible my own suffering and the suffering of others. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Belief in His Son provides my Salvation and moves me into His realm. &#xA;With Him, I can now relish this blessing and strive to live like Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His realm is one of beauty and righteousness and awe and wonder. We know this because we see His handiwork in the earth and the heavens. There are many incredible things God has created around us which we have learned from over the years. And in God’s realm, there is an eternity MORE of things to learn and experience. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you cannot be part of this realm and presented with this boundless goodness unless you choose now that Jesus Christ provides the way to this realm. There is the issue. There is the stopping point for many. Presented with an eternity that FAR surpasses any and all that has been experienced on this planet, there are those who don’t want to get there through Jesus Christ. But that is not a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is going to go out of the way to make sure that is your final decision. He is going to allow suffering like you have never known just to make sure you really want to live with your decision. But this suffering will come by the hands of mankind, not God. It will be mankind who invokes such suffering upon mankind. At some point in time God will have to step in or all would be destroyed. But he is going to allow mankind to do this because He would much rather you choose salvation through Jesus Christ then live apart from Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At some point in the future, there will be a separation. Those who accepted Jesus Christ will go to live in God’s realm, the kingdom of God, ruled by Jesus Christ. What about the rest? Where will they go? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who choose not to accept Jesus Christ will get to live outside the realm, outside the kingdom of God. Where is that place? One term mankind has put together for this is “hell”. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All created beings are to face a final judgement before Jesus Christ.&#xA;  At this judgement, some people will be turned aside as they have&#xA;  desired all their life while others will receive the blessings and&#xA;  rewards God chooses to bestow upon them. There will be no other&#xA;  judgement after this. Those who are turned aside will reside in “hell”&#xA;  - being without God. You really do not want to be in that group so accept the salvation God offers through Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;See: “&lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/seriespage/future-judgment-believer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Future Judgment of the Believer&lt;/a&gt;” by Lehman Strauss&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now to answer the question. If we permit “hell” to be a term that does not describe a “literal place or location”, we must yet realize there will be a separation of people based upon their choice of believing Jesus Christ is their Savior. We must also realize there will be a group who rejects a kingdom based upon “love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control” and who will not be in that kingdom. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Though dispensing with the term, Jesus Christ would still have had to come to provide salvation for those who will be allowed to live eternally in the kingdom of God. We are created, therefor not perfect, as is the Creator, and still have need of a Savior. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;At the start, I showed “hell” as a term created by mankind rather than&#xA;  a “place” or “location” created by God. But we must realize we are&#xA;  created beings and being created, are not perfect. Since this is the&#xA;  case, Jesus Christ would still have had to die because nothing else&#xA;  would have been sufficient in God’s eyes to bring us into the perfect&#xA;  kingdom of the Son he Loves. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;See: “&lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/article/gods-plan-salvation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;God’s Plan of Salvation&lt;/a&gt;” by J. Hampton Keathley III&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;One Final Point&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If I am not created, I am perfect&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If I am not perfect, I need a Savior&lt;br&gt;&#xA;Yes, Jesus would have had to die for me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Now points about the comments&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, most of what I have written is from an Evangelical, Christian, Biblical point of view and not from any specific denomination. Perhaps I have stated what a specific denomination believes but did not do so with that purpose in mind. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, the scriptures mentioned in the comments suggest the word “Hell” be taken as authoritative. The problem is that the word “Hell” in Rev 20:13, according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Revelation%2020:13&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;English translations offered at Bible Gateway&lt;/a&gt; and Dr. Deffinbaugh’s &lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/seriespage/hell-shun&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article above&lt;/a&gt;, is more often translated as “Hades”. Further, “Hades” does not carry the idea of everlasting separation from God. Quoting Dr. Deffinbaugh: “As is seen by its usage in the New Testament, Hades has the same general reference to the abode of the dead, whether righteous or wicked.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Matthew 10:28, it seems “hell” is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2010:28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;term most commonly used by translators&lt;/a&gt;. But from the context, I would suggest it is really talking about eternal separation from God, as was mentioned above. Regarding this, all people should fear its meaning and seek salvation offered by God because, like you implied, Jesus was not a liar. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Edits&lt;/strong&gt;: Seeing the down votes and disparaging comments, I recognize&#xA;  my answer lacked clarity. Due to this, I have added the highlighted&#xA;  text and references above in an effort to be better understood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6282" LastEditorUserId="6282" LastEditDate="2013-11-26T02:10:56.720" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T02:10:56.720" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23146" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2881" CreationDate="2013-11-25T16:26:06.727" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It seems that most of us echo the teachings that have been passed on through the ages.I feel that scripture points to a definite hierachy within the Trinity.Scripture points to the fact that Jesus was sent to draw us back to the Father.Our worship is to the Father and our prayers should be addressed to Him as when Jesus taught His disciples - &quot;Our Father which art in heaven.Hallowed be THY name.THY kingdom come, THY will be done ...&quot;&#xA;The death on the cross was Jesus being obedient to the will of the Father -&quot;Father remove this cup of suffering from Me - not My will but THY will be done.&quot; The decision was made by the Father and the Son was obedient to the will of the Father.&#xA;Jesus Himself says, &quot; For the Father is greater than I am.&quot;&#xA;The Holy Spirit seems to take instruction from the Son - &quot; I will send the Holy Spirit.&quot;&#xA;The oneness of the Trinity is a oneness of thought and mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8755" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T16:26:06.727" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23149" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="11625" CreationDate="2013-11-25T16:52:13.810" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The God of the Old Testament is Yaweh (The Father).The christians of the Old Testament had no idea of the Trinity. There was no physical incarnation (Jesus) as we have in the New Testament.In as much as the Son and the Holy Spirit were there in the beginning, people of the time were not aware of their existence. Does the Father still want that interaction with us - the New Testament church? My answer would be, &quot;Yes&quot;. The Son was sent to draw us back to the Father and upon His death on the cross, the way was once again opened for us to do just that.The modern day church seems to have an affiliation to the One that was sent rather than with the One that sent Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8755" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T16:52:13.810" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23150" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23142" CreationDate="2013-11-25T16:57:57.527" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on how you interpret the word &lt;strong&gt;&quot;&lt;em&gt;perish&lt;/em&gt;&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; in &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;John 3:16&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that&#xA;  whoever believes in him shall not &lt;strong&gt;perish&lt;/strong&gt; but have eternal life.&#xA;  (John 3:16, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Physical death:&lt;/strong&gt; To say that the word 'perish' here means physical death would mean that the moment we believe in Jesus Christ, we will become immortal and we will never die; which is obviously false. One might also interpret this as the resurrection at the last day, which would mean that non-believers will never be raised again, they will remain in the dust forever, which is again in contradiction to &lt;code&gt;Revelation 20:5&lt;/code&gt;, which has resurrection of the unjust after the Millennium.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&quot;Hell/Lake of fire/ Second death:&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; We will go to Hell after we die if we do not accept the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revelation 20(NIV)&lt;/a&gt; has something to say about this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[4-6] I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given&#xA;  authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded&#xA;  because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.&#xA;  They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received&#xA;  its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and&#xA;  reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not&#xA;  come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first&#xA;  resurrection. &lt;strong&gt;Blessed and holy are those who share in the first&#xA;  resurrection. The second death has no power over them&lt;/strong&gt;, but they will&#xA;  be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand&#xA;  years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[11-15] Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it.&#xA;  The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no&#xA;  place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before&#xA;  the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is&#xA;  the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done&#xA;  as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it,&#xA;  and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each&#xA;  person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and&#xA;  Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. &lt;strong&gt;The lake of fire is the&#xA;  second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of&#xA;  life was thrown into the lake of fire.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was born and brought up in the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Assembly of God&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; Church. Most of the preachers always interpret &lt;code&gt;John 3:16&lt;/code&gt; as, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Those who believe in Jesus will not go to Hell&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;After the fall of Adam and Eve, everyone is destined to go to Hell because we no&#xA;  longer belonged to God and we are now children of Satan. When God saw&#xA;  that all men are going to Hell, He could no longer stay where He was. God then came down from Heaven to earth, to pay the death penalty of sins for&#xA;  us, so that we may escape the fire of Hell by accepting Jesus Christ as our savior&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No wonder why the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apostles' Creed&lt;/a&gt; states  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Jesus descended into hell&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-11-25T17:08:46.787" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T17:08:46.787" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23151" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23141" CreationDate="2013-11-25T18:21:29.683" Score="3" Body="&lt;h2&gt;No.&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(Here are some more words since I have to have at least 30 characters to post an answer.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T18:21:29.683" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23152" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-25T18:48:51.267" Score="5" ViewCount="8590" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that&#xA;  whoever believes in him shall not &lt;strong&gt;perish&lt;/strong&gt; but have eternal life.&#xA;  (John 3:16, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the Roman Catholic way of interpreting John 3:16, the most popular verse in the Bible? What does the word &quot;perish&quot; mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T06:58:39.787" Title="What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 3:16?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="6" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23153" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8126" CreationDate="2013-11-25T20:15:19.513" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How should a Christian deal with destructive higher criticism of the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a believer who also happens to be a rhetorician, about the only element I can add to River C's and Narnian's answers is the importance of the role of rhetoric in determining which side of the fence one is on regarding any controversial issue in general, and the issue of higher criticism in particular.  In a nutshell, the role of rhetoric is significant in critical and often overlooked ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;BEING FULLY PERSUADED IS NOT A DISEASE&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there is nothing wrong with being fully persuaded of one's point of view.  Just as the Apostle Paul was fully persuaded that God was able to keep whatever Paul had committed unto Him until the day of Christ's return (see 2 Timothy 1:12), we too should be unashamed to be fully persuaded there is indeed something special about the Bible in both its historicity and the authoritative nature of its claims in all things pertaining to life and godliness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just as an aside, which probably resembles more of a criticism of higher critics than an aside, I suggest there are more godly people on the side of those who believe in the inspiration of the Scripture than on the side of those who believe the Bible cannot be taken at face value.  That alone is significant, I feel.  With that said, let us proceed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PSSST. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE SHOWING!&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, persuasion, if it is truly heartfelt and ethical, and not simply conjured up to take advantage of people, requires some bedrock assumptions or presuppositions.  If it lacks them, persuasion could not exist, since to persuade someone of something, one needs to have been persuaded of that something in the first place, unless of course one is simply posturing, for whatever reason(s).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about it.  Even a purely informational type of speech, whether it concerns how to fix a kitchen faucet or how to construct a nuclear weapon, is grounded in certain assumptions, not the least of which is that words when strung together actually make sense and have real-world implications.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the English language, for example, the words &lt;em&gt;Allen wrench&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Allen screw&lt;/em&gt; correspond to a common tool and part, respectively, that are used in repairing some kitchen faucets.  Not so coincidentally, the right sized wrench fits the corresponding axial hexagonal hole in the screw's head perfectly, whether to tighten it or to loosen it!  If the speaker who is imparting this crucial information were not fully convinced of this fact, he would not be speaking in the first place, unless of course the faucet he's informing us how to repair does not contain an Allen screw!  But I digress.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;YOU CANNOT &lt;em&gt;NOT&lt;/em&gt; BE PERSUASIVE&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, persuasion is at the heart of any pronouncement, whether it is overtly persuasive (e.g., Aristotelian-style rhetoric), informative, inspirational (e.g., epideictic oratory), or legal (e.g., forensic oratory).  We commonly call the form this persuasion takes &lt;em&gt;assumptions&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;presuppositions&lt;/em&gt;.  Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective, these presuppositions are often taken for granted.  Personally, I think this is a good thing, since in virtually any communication, written or spoken, it's nice not to have to re-invent the wheel, so to speak, every time you open your mouth or commit some words to paper!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, in discussing the Bible with fellow believers, I need not defend my use of the word &amp;quot;Paul&amp;quot; whenever I quote a verse from one of his letters in the New Testament.  Chances are better than good that my peers assume the words I quote to have originated in the Apostle Paul and that whether or not they actually came from Paul is in a sense immaterial or moot, since the words are authoritative anyway!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In discussing the Bible with antagonistic unbelievers, I need to take a completely different tack, since we do not likely share the same assumptions about the authoritativeness of that verse from Paul's letter.  I would then need to make my presuppositions clear and hope that my interlocutors would do the same.  Chances are, we would likely need to agree to disagree &lt;em&gt;agreeably&lt;/em&gt;, at least on my part.  (After all, I'm the Christian, right?!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is not to say that it would be unseemly for me to engage in good-natured debate with my interlocutors and appeal to their rational faculties by delving into bibliographical proofs (i.e., the existing manuscript evidence for the historicity and accuracy of the Bible); internal and external evidences as to the people, places, things, events, and dates contained in the manuscripts of both the Bible and non-biblical sources as well; the occasional touch of humor, satire, ridicule, and even sarcasm (read this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.equip.org/.../communicating-truth-through-humor-ridicule-and-%20emotions/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; for practical guidelines in this regard); and, finally, anecdotal evidence of people whose lives have been transformed, sometimes radically, by believing the Bible is in fact God's word and not some cobbled-together hodgepodge of &lt;em&gt;historical&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;hortative&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;histrionic&lt;/em&gt; elements (those are  my three H-words, by the way!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;THE NEXUS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND APOLOGETICS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, you cannot really talk about presuppositions without getting into apologetics, in which both unbelievers and believers need to be conversant if they want to be taken at least somewhat seriously.  I am not advocating, however, that Christians debate the higher critics, for example, by attempting deliberately to embarrass and/or shame them.  First Peter 3:15 makes it perfectly clear that Christians should defend their faith by&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By reverencing Christ in our hearts (i.e., asking ourselves, &amp;quot;What would Jesus do or say in this situation?&amp;quot;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By being ready to mount a defense (or in Greek, &lt;em&gt;apologia&lt;/em&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By answering everyone who asks, not just nice people but not-so-nice people, too. Notice that Peter uses the word &lt;em&gt;answer&lt;/em&gt;, which of course assumes there is a &lt;em&gt;question&lt;/em&gt;. Waiting for a question may be difficult, especially if your interlocutor is on the attack. Sometimes a simple, &amp;quot;Is there a question in there?&amp;quot; can be enough to get him or her off their high horse and get them to articulate a question. Patience and diplomacy go a long way in those circumstances. More often than not, I suggest, Christian apologists are better off &lt;em&gt;waiting for a question&lt;/em&gt;, at least in non-formal situations, particularly in one-on-one conversations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By giving an account of the hope we have in Christ&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;By doing all the above in a spirit of gentleness and reverence, and by keeping a clear conscience, so as not to become a babbling hypocrite (see v.16)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SUMMARY&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As people of the Word we need to love the higher critics; we need to debate them not only to persuade them of our point of view but to learn from them humbly and to commend them sincerely for whatever legitimate insights they provide; and we need to pray for them and be ready to defend our faith and at the same time realize we cannot convert anyone, since that is the Lord's work and not ours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our job is always to be ready to engage people in considering the claims of Christ on their lives.  To that end, a drop of honey beats a gallon of gall, or to quote the Apostle Paul, who may or may not have written(!) Colossians 4:6,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;CONCLUSION&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At a recent &amp;quot;Pride Parade&amp;quot; (formerly &amp;quot;Gay Pride Parade&amp;quot;) in Pittsburgh, I witnessed something disturbing. Several men, all of whom would likely identify themselves as Christians, had cordoned off a little section of a sidewalk on the parade route. They took turns &amp;quot;preaching&amp;quot; repentance to any and all who would listen to them. Their placards, by the way, said things like &amp;quot;Homosexuality Is A Sin,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Hell Awaits All Who Fail to Repent,&amp;quot; and so on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They attracted quite a few vocal detractors and engaged in rigorous &amp;quot;debate&amp;quot; with their interlocutors. (Only the &amp;quot;Christians,&amp;quot; however, had a bullhorn!) All I could say to a bystander who saw what was going on was &amp;quot;I thought God loved everybody!&amp;quot; The bystander said to me, &amp;quot;I guess they didn't get the memo.&amp;quot; How true!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes, repentance is a legitimate and important part of the kerygma, but for Christians to single out one particular sin and harp on it in a spirit of condemnation--often bereft of love--is neither wise nor winsome in the marketplace of ideas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2015-06-20T23:58:11.600" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23156" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20167" CreationDate="2013-11-25T22:19:05.657" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to scripture.  Yes.  There are 2 minds at work in you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You may not realise it, but the scripture tells us in &lt;strong&gt;1 Thes 5:23&lt;/strong&gt; that we are 3 part beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your&#xA;  whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming&#xA;  of our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The part that got born again and made new is our spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor 2:!6 - &quot;For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may&#xA;  instruct him? &lt;strong&gt;But we have the mind of Christ.&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's the only part of you that became the new creation talked about in 2 Cor 5:17. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 Cor 5:17 &quot;Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:&#xA;  old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also have our own carnal mind (the soul) which the bible also calls &quot;the flesh&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is why we can be double minded people as talked James 1:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;James 1:8 - &quot;A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When our soul agree's with our spirit we become single minded.  The reason that a double minded man cannot from God is because God has already provided everything we need.  Our soul can not reach out in faith and grab hold of what's already provided by grace if we cannot agree with our new spirit man that it's actually there. Often times we won't believe what we cannot see.  How can you faith for something that you can see?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So yes, we have two minds our soul and our spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for those other parts to your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If Spirits/souls/angels (call them what you want) do think and make decisions, wouldn't be possible to someone in heaven, maybe a saint,&#xA;  to make a wrong decision and end up in hell, just like the devil?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I thank God I have the mind of Christ and not the Mind of Adam.  Jesus overcame sin for us and he put that ability within us in our new man.  Salvation was made available to people, not to the devil or to angels.  Christ didn't die for the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;If they don't think and don't make decisions, meaning that if you were a saint on earth, you'll be a saint forever. Then how did the&#xA;  devil make the wrong decision? Furthermore, how do spirits live in&#xA;  heaven or hell, as objects?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well they do think.  And the devil and those that follow him have rejected God.  I'm not sure I fully get that question but I hope it satisfies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T22:19:05.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23157" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-25T22:58:22.560" Score="11" ViewCount="2239" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/884/what-is-mainstream-christianity&quot;&gt;Christians&lt;/a&gt; believe a few basic things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God exists as Three Persons in One Being&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus died on the cross (and rose again)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus was God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;During #2, however, there seems to be a bit of a problem.  How is that any part of God died on the Cross?  For the period of time that Jesus was dead, was the Trinity actually a Trinity?  And how is this reconciled with the fact that &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;patripassianism&lt;/a&gt; is considered heresy by Nicene Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note, this question assumes that AffableGeek's answer in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/15656/1039&quot;&gt;What is the basis of the view that Jesus was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit upon death?&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;is understood as &quot;true&quot; for the parties in question.  Given this understanding, a good answer should indicate how the Trinity is maintained in light of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5565" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2017-05-25T20:52:26.753" LastActivityDate="2017-07-02T19:37:05.457" Title="Was the Trinity still a Trinity when Jesus died?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23159" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23117" CreationDate="2013-11-25T23:17:27.013" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well, I think that may be a blanket statement and not necessarily universally so, but maybe the pastors/teachers that you have encountered have woken to this truth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 2:4 - Or do you despise the riches of His goodness,&#xA;  forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that &lt;strong&gt;the goodness of God&#xA;  leads you to repentance&lt;/strong&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While it's true that if you reject Jesus then there is no salvation left for you and you will not spend eternity with him in fullness of Joy, it's not the Gospel.  The Gospel is literally Good news.  The nearly too good to be true news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure if you've noticed that if you try to teach your children how bad something is if they do something you don't want them to do it actually has the reverse effect and they do it anyway.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible says in &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Cor 15:56 - &quot;The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is&#xA;  the law. &quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Preaching hell isn't the Gospel and isn't going to save anyone.  We need to be sharing the good news.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-11-25T23:17:27.013" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23162" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-25T23:57:02.430" Score="5" ViewCount="128" Body="&lt;p&gt;My wife has currently undertaken a project to translate a prayer card from English to Polish. There is a reference on the card to Saint Augustine's 5th and 6th Needs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is, what are these &quot;Needs&quot;? I presume that this is a reference to a specific text written by St. Augustine. Does anyone know which one? Translating the footnote &quot;Saint Augustine's 5th and 6th Needs&quot; is difficult since we don't know what this means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&#xA;mj&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edit 1 ----&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The prayer card is somewhat ambiguous in this in that it describes how to pray and references these &quot;needs.&quot; It references 6 of them. I've copied the text and preserved the bolding/italics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pray a very sorrowful, very sincere, heartfelt &quot;Act of Perfect Contrition.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;This will give us the correct disposition to pray. The best way to present your petitions is with less sins on your soul.&lt;/em&gt; St. Augustine's 1st and 2nd Needs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pray the 3 &quot;All Healing Prayers&quot; slowly and wholeheartedly! Perseveringly and vocally to hear and to emphasize your prayers!&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;By praying this way you are praying as perfectly as you can, praying the way Jesus taught us.&lt;/em&gt; St. Augustine's 3rd and 4th Needs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pray the following Mary Mediatrix, proven &quot;All Healing Prayers&quot;. When you pray, hold out your right hand to Mary's hand in the Miraculous icon and she will spiritually hold your hand in prayer!&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;By praying this way, you are praying most lovingly, most reverently, most humbly - with deep faith, deep trust, like a small child, tenderly holding Our Dearest, Most Loving Mother's comforting hand.&lt;/em&gt; St. Augustine's 5th and 6th Needs&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;/Edit 1 ----&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8762" LastEditorUserId="8762" LastEditDate="2013-11-26T03:20:45.633" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T03:20:45.633" Title="St Augustine's 5th and 6th Needs - Translation" Tags="&lt;saint&gt;&lt;translation&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23164" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19822" CreationDate="2013-11-26T01:40:46.370" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 1:11-12&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reason we exist is &quot;for the praise of his glory&quot;.  All praise be to the Glory of Christ!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8764" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-26T12:37:53.743" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T12:37:53.743" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23165" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23162" CreationDate="2013-11-26T02:24:17.047" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think there are a couple of possibilities, at least. If you can provide any more information about the text and its purpose then we could try to narrow it down.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a few places where St Augustine proposes a seven-step journey of the soul. However,  the schemes don't match up (which is fine: he actually says in the earliest work that there are many ways to view the topic; also, they have slightly different purposes).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first one is in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.augustinus.it/latino/grandezza_anima/grandezza_anima.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;De quantitate animae&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;On the magnitude of the soul&lt;/em&gt;), written in 387 or 388. In 33.70ff, the ascent of the soul has the following steps:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The soul gives life to the body.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Experience of the world through the senses.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reason, language, art, etc.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Approach to the knowledge of God through trying to purify and strengthen oneself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perseverance in faith, completing the work of step 4 and preparing for step 6.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Contemplation of God, and submission to his will for regeneration of the spirit.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perfect joy and peace.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is noted that step 3 and following are unique to humans. Steps 4 and 5 go together as being primarily about self-transformation, whereas the last two steps are directed towards God completely. This scheme is rather Neoplatonic, as it draws from a tradition of abandoning the material world in favour of seeking pure spirit. (See &lt;em&gt;Augustine's intellectual conversion: the journey from Platonism to Christianity&lt;/em&gt;, Brian Dobell, 2009.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A couple of years later, just before his ordination (390), Augustine wrote about the transformation of the &quot;old man&quot; into the &quot;new man&quot; in seven stages (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.augustinus.it/latino/vera_religione/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;De vera religione&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; / &lt;em&gt;On true religion&lt;/em&gt;, 26.49). These are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Learning from history.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Abandoning merely human teaching to learn from the divine law.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Withdrawing from sinful behaviour.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enduring in uprightness despite persecution and other difficulties.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Living in the kingdom of the supreme and incomprehensible wisdom.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Final abandonment of everything worldly, in favour of the coming eternal life in the image and likeness of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perpetual blessedness and eternal life.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The seven-age scheme is numerologically connected to the seven days of creation in Genesis 1 - compare &lt;em&gt;City of God&lt;/em&gt; 11. Augustine would later return to this inspiration with his proposed seven ages of history (&lt;em&gt;De catechizandis rudibus&lt;/em&gt; / &lt;em&gt;On the catechizing of the unlearned&lt;/em&gt;, 400). The fifth age is from the exile in Babylon to the nativity of Jesus. We are presently in the sixth age, and the seventh is the coming reign of Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The last work is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.augustinus.it/latino/dottrina_cristiana/index2.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;De doctrina christiana&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;On Christian Doctrine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;). In Book 2, 7.9ff, he presents the &lt;em&gt;seven steps to wisdom&lt;/em&gt;: fear, piety, knowledge, strength, the counsel of compassion (&lt;em&gt;consilio misericordiae&lt;/em&gt;), purification of heart, and finally the achievement of wisdom. Here is the section on steps 5 and 6 in the James Shaw translation (at New Advent):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When, to the extent of his power, he has gazed upon this object shining from afar, and has felt that owing to the weakness of his sight he cannot endure that matchless light, then in the fifth step - that is, in the counsel of compassion - he cleanses his soul, which is violently agitated, and disturbs him with base desires, from the filth it has contracted.  And at this stage he exercises himself diligently in the love of his neighbor; and when he has reached the point of loving his enemy, full of hopes and unbroken in strength, he mounts to the sixth step, in which he purifies the eye itself which can see God, [Matthew 5:8] so far as God can be seen by those who as far as possible die to this world. For men see Him just so far as they die to this world; and so far as they live to it they see Him not. But yet, although that light may begin to appear clearer, and not only more tolerable, but even more delightful, still it is only through a glass darkly that we are said to see, because we walk by faith, not by sight, while we continue to wander as strangers in this world, even though our conversation be in heaven. And at this stage, too, a man so purges the eye of his affections as not to place his neighbor before, or even in comparison with, the truth, and therefore not himself, because not him whom he loves as himself. Accordingly, that holy man will be so single and so pure in heart, that he will not step aside from the truth, either for the sake of pleasing men or with a view to avoid any of the annoyances which beset this life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is true that all of these are steps, and not really &quot;needs&quot;, unless it is implicit that one needs to take a step. If you can give any more clues from the original text, then that could help us to work out which of these, if any, is the intended referent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T02:24:17.047" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23167" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23180" CreationDate="2013-11-26T03:14:58.283" Score="1" ViewCount="22503" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm having difficulty understanding the following passage from &lt;a href=&quot;http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:51-53&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 12:51-53&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My Question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Should this passage be ignored or deleted?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If not&lt;/strong&gt;, then what does it mean?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1100" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2016-09-13T22:58:40.887" LastActivityDate="2016-09-13T22:58:40.887" Title="What did Jesus mean by &quot;not peace but division&quot;?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-09-14T02:37:43.903" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23169" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2351" CreationDate="2013-11-26T05:01:43.303" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Their habitation was heaven their first estate was obeying God and not to marry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But they did something that the other angels did not do that got them locked away till the judgement.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They may be the ones in Gen 6 that took earthly women to marry and had children by them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8769" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-11-26T12:31:52.213" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T12:31:52.213" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23171" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-26T06:16:24.537" Score="5" ViewCount="254" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does the Roman Catholic Church believe in the existence of Hell?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If YES - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Who will go to Hell and why?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How long will they stay in Hell?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Is there any second chance after they go to Hell?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;What should we do to avoid going to Hell?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T07:28:47.787" Title="Does Hell exist according to Catholicism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;catholic-catechism&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23172" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23171" CreationDate="2013-11-26T07:28:47.787" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catechism answers the questions (as ever!):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM&quot;&gt;1035&lt;/a&gt; The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”&lt;sup&gt;615&lt;/sup&gt; The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Those who die in a state of mortal sin will go to hell, because of that state.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They will stay in hell for eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no second chance: it’s for eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;To avoid hell, they should ensure that they do not die in a state of mortal sin.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference between mortal and venial sins is also described &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM&quot;&gt;in the Catechism&lt;/a&gt;. The best of way of not dying in sin is not to commit any; but since that is impossible, the Church provides the sacrament of Reconciliation [Confession] so that a penitent soul may be reconciled to God and man. This is the “second chance” which mankind feels is inherently “fair”: you get the second chance before death, while you can do something about your earthly, sacramental, life. Once that life is over you are out of reach of the sacraments.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T07:28:47.787" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23173" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23141" CreationDate="2013-11-26T08:43:57.960" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no Biblical precedent for convulsions or seizures being a sign of The Holy Spirit's presence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Falling on the floor in a convulsion does have a Biblical precedent, but not a good one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9:20&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;Mark 9:20&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not saying that the people you have seen are possessed. However, I do think it is wise to be very wary about this ministry. Consider carefully the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:15-20&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;fruit&lt;/a&gt; of the ministry - are they encouraging people to develop a relationship with Jesus or are they encouraging mere physical manifestations? If the latter, I would stay clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;1. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:25&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot;&gt;verse 25&lt;/a&gt; this is described as an &lt;em&gt;impure&lt;/em&gt; spirit; Jesus says it is a &lt;em&gt;deaf and mute spirit&lt;/em&gt;. This is also referred to as a &lt;em&gt;demon&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T08:43:57.960" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23174" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23167" CreationDate="2013-11-26T08:58:15.490" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;First of all, I don't know your meaning of &quot;deletion&quot; of a passage, so I'll try to give you some bits of general information.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bible is a work of group of people, it's a tradition, not a text &quot;downloaded&quot; straight from God to Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even when we talk about a work of one person (Gospel of XX, Book of XX), it's really not. For example, what we call &quot;Paul's Epistle to ...&quot; is not actually written by Paul - he only dictated the message to his clerk (there is even evidence of this in Romans 16:22 &quot;I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord&quot;, and in other place, he explicitly states he has the urge to write a part of episle himself, because of the circumstances - Galatians 6:11 &quot;See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!&quot;). Naturally, the person who wrote it down could have made a mistake or change something. He was human, humans can fail. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But there is also a possibility someone composed the message and signed it as Paul, in order to give it more weight - this is considered about 2nd Thessalonians, because the style and beliefs expressed concerning the second coming are very different to 1st Thessalonians. Not only could that be done in order to give weight to your word, but generally, signing your work with the name of your master/someone you respect as a teacher was common in ancient times. For example, hardly any manuscripts signed by Socrates really belong to him, same can be said for Pythagoras, Hyppocratus, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But then, even after it's written, you had only one copy of the written text on your hand, but you'd want to spread it, so you had to make duplicates. They didn't have direct ways of copying texts back then like we do now - the printing press was invented way way later into the middle ages, so, people re-wrote texts to make copies! Obviously, when someone re-writing a text saw a mistake (as he thought) or a sticking out fragment, he would sometimes correct it. For example, Mark 1 &quot;41 Jesus was indignant.&quot; and &quot;43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: &quot; - if I recall correctly, in original greek manuscript in one of these verses a verb &quot;to roar like a lion&quot; is used to express Jesus reaction towards the man. Obviously, those rewriting the texts wanted to soothe this passage, because they didn't feel that it fit for Jesus to make such expressions. Eventually, 1:41 turned into a feeling of compassion for the sick man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, some churches or groups of people could have lost parts of the whole text, some could have bundled together texts that they thought were part of one whole, while they weren't (read about 2nd Corinthians, and how it is considered to contain several different missives all in one - for example, here &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2corinthians.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2corinthians.html&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are certain verses that may likely have been added at a certain point (meaning, they were not part of the original manuscript written by original author in the first go). A big example would be the whole ending of the Gospel by Mark (16:9-20). The last chapter of Gospel by John is also likely an addition (but by John himself) to the originally complete text (it is obvious from the chapter's contents why the addition was made). There are also single verses added here and there, or &quot;Amen&quot; added to the end of several Paul messages that originally wasn't there. And so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You have to understand: there is no problem with that, because this isn't &quot;falsification&quot; or &quot;alteration&quot; of the Bible, as those who attack the Word of God would like to believe, when they say &quot;Bible was altered many times and thus it's authenticity is questionable&quot;. Nothing essential, nothing &quot;false&quot; was added. And nothing significant was lost. Sure, it would be great to have all the Epistles to Corinth by Paul (which there were at least four, the one before the one we know as 1st, and the one between the ones we know as 1st and 2nd). But we have what we have. And we believe that since God did not make effort to preserve the rest, these are enough for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, yes, to conclude: certain verses (or even whole bunch of verses) in the Bible could (or most likely were) added later down the line. And you could consider &quot;deleting&quot; them (which is done in some modern translations, where those verses are not present - for example, does your translation have verses 44 and 47 of Mark 9?) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Should you do so? Consider the fact I started with. Bible is a tradition, a work of group of people. The fact that you consider New Testament to contain the books it contains, in the form in which they are there - this was not a result of direct Jesus's will, or any of the apostles. It happened naturally, through the work of the Holy Spirit, and was finalised officially only in ~690. You can read about it here &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon&lt;/a&gt; So, if naturally some verses were added, and got accepted by the vast majority of the Christians, why consider them &quot;to be ignored or deleted&quot; just because the original author in the original manuscript didn not have them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;However.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is definetly not the case when you don't like the verse personally and want it to &quot;not be there&quot;. This is basically trying to twist the words of God to fit your needs. People want to remove verses from the Bible every day - like verses about homosexuality, because they want Christianity to be fit to their liking. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope I need not explain why this is not a good idea.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, you are right in your second point - since we obviously cannot ignore and delete anything from the Bible because we don't understand it or don't like it, we should make effort to understand it to the best of our abilities.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On topic of actual meaning of the verse:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) First of all, it literally means what it means. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus warned people not to be fooled, because his teaching would not bring a way to make everybody live in peace, because that is impossible (because there are people who do not wish to do so, and God does not control the will of men). He warned people that his religion would divide even the most hard bounds - those of the blood - father and son, mother and daughter (which meant way more to the people of his time and in the area where he preached, than it does today to us). As it did (this was one of the reason for prosecution of Christianity by authorities). He obviously didn't want to &quot;bait and switch&quot;, so he warns his disciples beforehead, that chosing to go with Him will have very serious consequences they should be aware of BEFORE they make the choice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you study the flow of the narrative of the Gospels, you will notice that the closer Jesus is to crucifiction, the more &quot;serious&quot; his preaching becomes. Because he saw that people misunderstood Him. They considered Him to be a miracle worker, a healer, even Messiah (meaning, a person who'll become a king like David, smash the idolaters and conquer the world for Jews). Even his disciples misunderstood Him. He obviously saw that and tried to correct it. Hence such &quot;unpleasant&quot; verses. Hence frequent mention of how disciples did not understand what he said, how he told them to be silent about him being the Messiah, about him curing people, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2) Second, it always helps to read relative places in the Bible. This passage corellates with many others in the Bible. Here's the immediate two:&#xA;* Luke 14:26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.&#xA;* Matthew 10:37 Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.&#xA;I'm sure there are others too. This will let you feel the overall picture. And also show you why you can't consider one single verse to be out of it's place, can't ignore or delete it - because it isn't out of it's place, it's very well in it's place and it corellates with other things Jesus had to say.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3) How to apply it to your own life? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well obviously, this verse tells us that following after Christ can get in the way of our family life, our relationships with our relatives, and in that case, following Christ will have to take precedence. We all hope this will not go down to such levels, but sometimes, it will, and in this case, we have been forewarned that we will have to take a side - Jesus or my father/mother/relatives. Notice how there's nothing said about division of wife and husband, by the way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Finally:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd love to cite you good commentaries for the verse (and relevant verses) but I'm russian and all good commentaries I know are in russian too. I guess you can easilly find those for yourself in your language of preference if you google (for such a controversal verses, there must be many available). Read multiple ones and find out what explains the verse better to you. In the end, it's not about finding &quot;true meaning&quot; or &quot;true interpretation&quot; - it's about the Word of God being beneficial to you, influencing your life, helping you become a better person. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no &quot;true&quot; and &quot;only&quot; interpretation. There can only be false ones - those that twist the meaning, obviously, and should be disregarded as such (like muslims saying that John 16:13-15 talks about Mohhamed). But from those that are not false, you are free to peruse the ones that you feel resonate with yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8754" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T08:58:15.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23175" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23117" CreationDate="2013-11-26T09:20:00.910" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer? Churches nowadays are unfortunately often focused on quantity. &quot;We have X churchgoers&quot; or &quot;Our denomination has X followers&quot;. They preach in order to get more people to attend and come back for the next seremon.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Preaching about &quot;controversal&quot; subjects loses followers, as we can clearly see from the Gospel itself - John 6 from 53 on, where Jesus talks about eating flesh and drinking blood, which resulted in 66 &quot;From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.&quot; By the way, Jesus was not about quantity - his reaction was in 67 &quot;Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can also recount the fate of John the Baptist. He preached to Herod about his unethical sexual relationships, and where did it got him? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm from Russia, and we had a similar case recently. A priest Daniel Sysoev &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sysoyev&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sysoyev&lt;/a&gt; (arcticle is short, if you want to know more, better read its russian version through google translator, since it's got more content). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He preached very radically and with disregard towards how people will take his word or be offended by it. He was not shy to speak about hell, and how muslims and atheists and gay people will suffer eternal damnation if they do not repent, he was not shy to state boldly that Christianity is the only true religion, and the only one that leads to salvation, he was not shy to state that God does punish sinners. He made huge missionary effort, he converted many muslims to Christianity. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What happened to him in the end? He was assasinated, shot in the chest in his own church building by a radical muslim. Many people regard him as a martyr.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think this answers your question very well. Preaching about controversal subjects is hard, and requires a certain degree of selfishness. And gets you in trouble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;PS: &#xA;Finally, Hell is a hard subject to talk about because it has so many meanings entwined and attached to it. The term may very well be misunderstood by the modern society as some sort of prison for sinners, made by God to punish them, which it is not. So it may be a good idea to explain the concept without using the word.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8754" LastEditorUserId="8754" LastEditDate="2013-11-26T09:26:39.897" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T09:26:39.897" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23178" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-26T11:22:08.550" Score="4" ViewCount="33194" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answers on this question &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/508/heaven-paradise-sheol-hell-hades-the-lake-of-fire&quot;&gt;&quot;Heaven/Paradise/Sheol, Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire&quot;&lt;/a&gt; are not clear enough regarding difference between Hell and Lake of Fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and&#xA;  hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged&#xA;  every man according to their works. And &lt;strong&gt;death and hell were cast&#xA;  into the lake of fire&lt;/strong&gt;. This is the second death. And whosoever was&#xA;  not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.&#xA;  &lt;em&gt;(Revelation 20:13-15, KJV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is what I understand from reading the above passage. Apostle John was watching the &lt;em&gt;Judgement Day&lt;/em&gt; event as if it was happening in front of him. He saw how the dead came to live and how their fate was decided. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three places where the dead came from:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The sea&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Death&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hell&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Three things which were thrown into the Lake of Fire:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Death&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hell&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The unsaved people&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The word 'Hell' has &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/revelation/20-14.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;other translations&lt;/a&gt; -&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hell (KJV)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Grave (NLT)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Hades (NIV)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sheol (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only difference I can find from this verse is that the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lake of Fire is bigger than Hell/Grave/Hades/Sheol&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; because it can hold both death and Hell. :)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How have theologians explained the difference between Hell and Lake of Fire?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.283" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T05:24:50.557" Title="What is the difference between Hell and Lake of Fire?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;hell&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-12-07T14:28:26.277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23180" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23167" CreationDate="2013-11-26T13:31:20.987" Score="11" Body="&lt;p&gt;Following Christ in many countries carries a significant price to pay in many places of the world.  In fact, the decision to become a Christian often results in being ostracized from one's family and even worse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even within some Christian traditions, the decision to leave the tradition of one's family to join another tradition is met with exclusion from the family.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus told His disciples before His death that the world will, in fact, hate them:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“If &lt;strong&gt;the world hates you&lt;/strong&gt;, you know that &lt;strong&gt;it has hated Me before it hated you&lt;/strong&gt;. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this &lt;strong&gt;the world hates you&lt;/strong&gt;. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, &lt;strong&gt;they will also persecute you;&lt;/strong&gt; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.  John 15:18-21&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there is division and that decision does arise out of one's decision to follow Christ, but the prophecy was that the world would hate Christians--not that Christians would hate the world (the people of the world).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no, the passage should not be deleted.  There are millions of Christians who have experienced the hatred of one's own family upon their decision to follow Christ.  These verses predicted that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T13:31:20.987" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23182" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23178" CreationDate="2013-11-26T14:51:09.907" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the commentaries and studies that I'm familiar with, this isn't to be taken as two literally different places,this is merely a literary device. (And this coming from a self-described Biblical literalist.)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/revelation/20-13.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;Pulpit Commentary&lt;/strong&gt; on the Bible Hub page:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(2) The sea being a type of the ungodly nations, the sentence may mean&#xA;  those spiritually dead, but living on the earth at the time of the&#xA;  judgment. The next clause seems to support this view. And death and&#xA;  hell delivered up the dead which were in them; death and Hades (see&#xA;  Revelation 1:18; Revelation 6:8). As in Revelation 6:8, the two -&#xA;  really one - are mentioned separately, the latter being looked upon as&#xA;  the guard house of those whom the former has seized. This clause,&#xA;  taken in conjunction with the preceding one, may mean - From the&#xA;  ungodly nations, those physically living but spiritually dead were&#xA;  called up for judgment, and also those who were actually dead, having&#xA;  been seized by death and Hades.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, from &lt;strong&gt;Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;death and hell—Greek, &quot;Hades.&quot; The essential identity of the dying and risen body is hereby shown; for the sea and grave give up their&#xA;  dead. The body that sinned or served God shall, in righteous&#xA;  retribution, be the body also that shall suffer or be rewarded. The&#xA;  &quot;sea&quot; may have a symbolical [Cluver from Augustine], besides the&#xA;  literal meaning, as, in Re 8:8; 12:12; 13:1; 18:17, 19; so &quot;death&quot; and&#xA;  &quot;hell&quot; are personifications (compare Re 21:1). But the literal sense&#xA;  need hardly be departed from: all the different regions wherein the&#xA;  bodies and souls of men had been, gave them up.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew McGee has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.matthewmcgee.org/helwords.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fairly comprehensive teaching on Hell&lt;/a&gt; that would seem toagree.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The English word &quot;Hell&quot; refers to a place of eternal punishment for&#xA;  the wicked. Its meaning does not distinguish between the two separate&#xA;  places for the wicked to be punished, one temporary for the soul, and&#xA;  the other, the Lake of Fire, permanent for the soul and body. Nor does&#xA;  its meaning include the place of comfort for saints prior to Christ's&#xA;  resurrection. In normal English conversation, &quot;Hell&quot; is used only in&#xA;  the negative sense, with no saved people ever going there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T14:51:09.907" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23183" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20278" CreationDate="2013-11-26T14:53:08.063" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Chronologically, belief comes before faith.&#xA;As Christ taught us in John 3:16 &quot;... whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This &lt;strong&gt;belief&lt;/strong&gt; is the beginning of our following Christ. But as a believer, not yet as a disciple. After the believer spend enough time in the Scriptures (just like Christ did when He was little, just like Paul did after he was converted from Saul the Christian hunter), God the Holy Spirit who dwells inside the believer empowers him/her to start having faith in Him through Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only then, the believer can become a disciple, growing daily in his &lt;strong&gt;faith&lt;/strong&gt;, which is manifested in increased appreciation, understanding, and capacity to love God (and subsequently fellow human beings).  Eventually, the disciple will approach what is called the state of 'teleos' (in Greek) or being a mature or complete Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastEditorUserId="8714" LastEditDate="2013-11-27T15:25:17.967" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T15:25:17.967" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23184" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23178" CreationDate="2013-11-26T15:50:34.940" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have spent many hours researching that particular question, but do not have a definitive answer for you. I will give you some of the Scriptures which may or may not clear this up for you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not sure but I have come to these possible conclusions:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hell and the bottomless pit may indeed be the same place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eze 31:2, 3,16, and 17 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2  Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3  Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16  I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17  They also went down into hell with him unto them that be slain with the sword; and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am intrigued by the part that says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is also a Proverb which causes me to believe that  they may be the same, but different from the grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proverbs 1:12 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and the following Psalm seems to indicate that Hell is separate from the grave.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 30:3 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to&#xA;  the pit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the lake of fire Jesus said that it was prepared as a place of eternal punishment for the Devil and the fallen angels&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 25:41  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared &#xA;  for the devil and his angels: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation tells us that it will also be the place for eternal punishment for the unsaved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 14:9 through 11  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9  And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his&#xA;   image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10  The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11  And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and I have concluded most possibly Hell and the bottomless pit may indeed be one and the same; and is a temporary holding place for at least some of the fallen angels, as well as those who reject salvation, to await the great white throne judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have also concluded that the grave is a temporary holding place for Christians to await the judgment of the righteous, but I still have not been able to reconcile that with Jesus telling the thief on the cross that today he would be with Jesus in Paradise. I do have a possible solution for that , but will keep that to myself since I have not researched it completely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T15:50:34.940" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23185" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23141" CreationDate="2013-11-26T16:33:10.863" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When we peruse the New Testament, we see that God the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Holy Trinity brings about guidance, power, and the essential connection to God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the book of Acts, we see that the Holy Spirit is the power that turned cowardly Peter into the super-apostle that he became. The same power that has been with countless saints in history up until today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That same power is still in us believers, waiting for us to submit ourselves onto Christ's authority, which will open the flood of understanding, appreciation, and love, like a great wind that pick up our sails and brings us closer to God (&quot;The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.&quot; - John 3:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could there be physical manifestations? Sure, for nothing is impossible for God. But the impact of the Holy Spirit is the transforming of our minds, and that incredible expansion of our capacity to love God.  So look for great things to happen in our mind, as we consume the Scriptures daily and submit to His teachings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps to think about the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T16:33:10.863" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23187" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23157" CreationDate="2013-11-26T18:35:34.413" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus Christ, on earth, was the &lt;strong&gt;incarnate Word:&lt;/strong&gt; the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son. His earthly body and the soul which animated it were &lt;strong&gt;both&lt;/strong&gt; at once human and divine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To say “God died” actually denies the human soul and its continued existence after the death of the body. Even though Jesus’ body died, his soul did not — or what hope is there for the rest of us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His body died, but his soul — with its divine nature as well as human — continued its existence. &lt;strong&gt;The Word did not die.&lt;/strong&gt; Indeed, not only did the Word not die, but he descended to hell. &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1096/what-does-gates-of-hell-mean-in-matthew-1618/7340#7340&quot;&gt;The gates of hell&lt;/a&gt; in Mt 16:18 are important because they could not contain him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1P.HTM&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic Catechism&lt;/a&gt; puts meat on the bones of this answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;625 Christ's stay in the tomb constitutes the real link between his passible&lt;sup&gt;A&lt;/sup&gt; state before Easter and his glorious and risen state today. The same person of the &amp;quot;Living One&amp;quot; can say, &amp;quot;I died, and behold I am alive for evermore&amp;quot;:&lt;sup&gt;465&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God [the Son] did not impede death from separating his soul from his body according to the necessary order of nature, but has reunited them to one another in the Resurrection, so that he himself might be, in his person, the meeting point for death and life, by arresting in himself the decomposition of nature produced by death and so becoming the source of reunion for the separated parts.&lt;sup&gt;466&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;626 Since the &amp;quot;Author of life&amp;quot; who was killed&lt;sup&gt;467&lt;/sup&gt; is the same &amp;quot;living one [who has] risen&amp;quot;,&lt;sup&gt;468&lt;/sup&gt; The divine person of the Son of God necessarily continued to possess his human soul and body, separated from each other by death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the fact that at Christ's death his soul was separated from his flesh, his one person is not itself divided into two persons; for the human body and soul of Christ have existed in the same way from the beginning of his earthly existence, in the divine person of the Word; and in death, although separated from each other, both remained with one and the same person of the Word.&lt;sup&gt;469&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;627 Christ's death was a real death in that it put an end to his earthly human existence. But because of the union his body retained with the person of the Son, his was not a mortal corpse like others, for &amp;quot;divine power preserved Christ's body from corruption.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;470&lt;/sup&gt; Both of these statements can be said of Christ: &amp;quot;He was cut off out of the land of the living&amp;quot;,&lt;sup&gt;471&lt;/sup&gt; and &amp;quot;My flesh will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption.&amp;quot;&lt;sup&gt;472&lt;/sup&gt; Jesus' Resurrection &amp;quot;on the third day&amp;quot; was the proof of this, for bodily decay was held [by the people of the time] to begin on the fourth day after death.&lt;sup&gt;473&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sup&gt;A&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;passible:&lt;/em&gt; able to suffer [from Latin &lt;em&gt;passio,&lt;/em&gt; suffering]&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;465&lt;/sup&gt; Rev 1:18.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;466&lt;/sup&gt; St. Gregory of Nyssa, &lt;em&gt;Orat. catech.&lt;/em&gt; 16: &lt;em&gt;PG&lt;/em&gt; 45, 52D.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;467&lt;/sup&gt; Acts 3:15.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;468&lt;/sup&gt; Lk 24:5-6.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;469&lt;/sup&gt; St. John Damascene, &lt;em&gt;De fide orth.&lt;/em&gt; 3, 27: &lt;em&gt;PG&lt;/em&gt; 94, 1097.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;470&lt;/sup&gt; St. Thomas Aquinas, &lt;em&gt;Summa Theol.&lt;/em&gt; III, 51, 3.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;471&lt;/sup&gt; Is 53:8.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;472&lt;/sup&gt; Acts 2:26-27; cf. Ps 16:9-10.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;473&lt;/sup&gt; Cf. I Cor 15:4; Lk 24:46; Mt 12:40; Jn 2:1; Hos 6:2; cf. Jn 11:39.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1377" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T18:35:34.413" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23188" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23152" CreationDate="2013-11-26T18:39:20.593" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I can't answer for the Catholic interpretation of Perish in John 3:16, but I can give you the Catholic approach to reading the Bible and my opinion of that.  It's all pretty obvious and doesn't help, but should shed light on why this is an unanswerable (yet good) question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;The four senses of scripture&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Literal&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:16 literally means &amp;quot;shall not perish&amp;quot;, the same way Jesus said to Peter later in the Book that the disciple whom He loved might live until He returns.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Moral&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:16 instructs the faithful just how much God the Father loves His children. If you love someone you will make the ultimate sacrifice for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Metaphorical&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Perish could mean die a spiritual death as easily as it means die a physical death.  To die in ones sins, would be a metaphorical interpretation of the word perish.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eternal&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here's where perish means, suffer the fire of hell and that would be true too.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there's 4 legitimate ways of looking at the same piece of scripture neither of which negate the other, neither of which are authoritative.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T18:39:20.593" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23190" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4390" CreationDate="2013-11-26T20:40:50.323" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to your question is that God is a perfect teacher with a perfect sense of justice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will illustrate and then explain: (this is a completely hypothetical situation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine that there is a flight from the US to Switzerland. The pilot is very good, in fact he is a perfect pilot. He has more knowledge and experience that anyone else in his field. Now after getting the jet into the air, one of his co-pilots decides that he can fly that plane better. He charges that the pilot doesn't know what he is doing and that he would make a better pilot. What does the pilot do? The pilot knows that he can fix any mistakes his co-pilot makes and by letting the co-pilot fly for a little while he will prove to everyone that there is no better pilot than he. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So he hands over the controls and gives the co-pilot a set amount of time to prove his accusations. The pilot sits back and watches, not wanting to help because that would just prove his co-pilot right. Well his inexperienced co-pilot is soon heading off course, in a direction that the pilot never intended. The pilot calmly sends his oldest friend and worker to tell everyone aboard the jet that everything is under control and will be fixed shortly. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eventually the co-pilot's time runs out and the flight is way off course. He has proved himself wrong. The pilot then takes control of the jet back, as he has promised. He then makes some adjustments to steer them all in the correct direction. He lands the plane at its destination as was intended. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The pilot is God and the co-pilot is Satan. God's intention for the earth never changed, just as that aircraft's destination had not changed. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/isaiah/45/#v23045018&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 45:18&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;For this is what Jehovah says,&#xA;  The Creator of the heavens, the true God,&#xA;  The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it,&#xA;  Who &lt;strong&gt;did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited&lt;/strong&gt;:&#xA;  “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/37/#v19037029&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 37:29&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;The righteous will possess the earth, And they will &lt;strong&gt;live forever on it&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan charged that God is a liar, questioned man's motive for loving God (letting him be pilot), and sought a position higher than God's. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/3/#v1003003&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:3-4&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; &lt;strong&gt;otherwise you will die&lt;/strong&gt;.’” 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “&lt;strong&gt;You certainly will not die&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan then questions mans motive and integrity at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/job/1/#v18001009&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Job 1:9-12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;At that Satan answered Jehovah: “Is it for nothing that Job has feared God?10  Have you not put up a protective hedge around him and his house and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock has spread out in the land. 11  But, for a change, stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and &lt;strong&gt;he will surely curse you to your very face&lt;/strong&gt;.” 12  Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! Everything that he has is in your hand. Only do not lay your hand on the man himself!”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/isaiah/14/#v23014013&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 14:13-14&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens.&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;Above the stars of God I will lift up my throne&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  And I will sit down on the mountain of meeting,&#xA;  In the remotest parts of the north.&#xA;  14  I will go up above the tops of the clouds;&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;I will make myself resemble the Most High&lt;/strong&gt;.’&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just like that pilot, God is letting Satan take control of the world to prove his accusations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-john/5/#v62005019&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;We know that we originate with God, but &lt;strong&gt;the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God recognizes that when Satan rules, Satan will go off course just like that jet. Satan teaches us false things about god. He distorts true worship. He imprints qualities of himself in man.   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-timothy/3/&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;2 Timothy 3:2-5&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal,3  having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness,4  betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5  having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God comforts us through his son Jesus. Jesus teaches us about what is happening and what God promises for the future. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-john/5/#v62005020&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 5:20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us insight so that we may gain the knowledge of the one who is true.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-john/3/#v62003008&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1 John 3:8&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;For this purpose the Son of God was made manifest, to break up the works of the Devil.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is letting this all happen for a reason. There are other watchers, not just Satan. Satan rebelled and brought other angels out from God's house. By letting things play out this way, God will prove for all time that he the only one fit to rule. In a court case this would be considered a &quot;&lt;strong&gt;precedent&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. In case this question should ever come up again, God has a precedent to show us he is the best ruler. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Precedent definition&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;: a similar action or event that happened at an earlier time,&#xA;     : something done or said that can be used as &lt;strong&gt;an example or rule to be followed in the future&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan's time is almost up. Satan has proved himself a liar and unfit to rule. God will be taking back control over the world. Jehovah God will then restore the world to its original purpose; That is: a paradise earth and on it perfect people who never die. This is basically what the bibles message is, shortened and paraphrased.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-26T20:40:50.323" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23191" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1580" CreationDate="2013-11-26T20:59:11.140" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to John MacArthur in his sermon titled Saved or Self-Deceived (available on YouTube &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lRkU4KrURI&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), he says Paul wrote two more letters to the church of Corinth (about 19 minutes into the sermon). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He explicitly says that they were not included in the Bible. &quot;..a church to which by the time he writes 2nd Corinthians he's already written three other letters, 1st Corinthians and two other letters that aren't in Scripture.&quot; John Mac Arthur. As one of the most authentic bible scholars of our time, I would take his word for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8779" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-11-27T00:18:16.083" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T00:18:16.083" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23192" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23141" CreationDate="2013-11-26T22:47:25.747" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say the answer is No! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While I could not see anywhere in the Bible where such was done, it is believed in some churches (esp. in my area) that those people have some spirit(s) (whether supernatural or personal stubborness) within them that do(es) not want to submit to the Holy Spirit trying to possess them (like Light Vs Darkness in one body) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;How can one enter a strong man's house … unless he first binds the&#xA;  strong man (Matthew 12:29)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the running around, here is my personal observation and opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Excitement&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Display&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Freedom of Expression&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some other reasons I don't know&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1839" LastEditorUserId="1839" LastEditDate="2013-11-30T03:21:26.693" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T03:21:26.693" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23193" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23141" CreationDate="2013-11-27T00:43:20.843" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;TL;DR Yes. For some of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I was raised in a Church of God in Christ family (even though we didn't spend a lot of time in actual C.O.G.I.C. churches because ... reasons).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's very easy for someone unfamiliar to walk into a Pentecostal service and misunderstand what they're seeing. It's also kind of hard to describe some of these things without sounding a little silly. Pentecostal services are very emotionally charged. It is a part of the practice of worship to let your conscious self fade away in order to allow the Holy Spirit to take control. This is based in part on James 4:7-10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.com/111/jas.4.7-10.niv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;James 4:7-10 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;While there's no place in the Bible that specifically says &amp;quot;And thou shalt run around the church, jump the pews, and stuff&amp;quot; there are plenty of passages that describe singing and shouting praises to God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.com/111/luk.19.40.niv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Palm Sunday&lt;/a&gt; is a perfect example. Another passage that is often quoted is the one about &lt;a href=&quot;http://bible.com/111/jas.4.7-10.niv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;David dancing before the Lord&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you've ever gotten yourself so worked up emotionally that you just had to move then you have a sense of what's happening to people when they are filled with the Holy Spirit. From my own experience it's a lot like being drunk. Your inhibitions fade away. You are overcome with emotion and then that emotion just has to get out. And so you dance, cry, shout, sing, run or whatever. On the day of Pentecost people were so overcome by the Holy Spirit that they were accused of being drunk at 9:00 AM (&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.bible.com/bible/111/act.2.niv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Acts 2&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, the only times I've ever seen or heard of anyone having a seizure or convulsions during service were either:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;someone was faking it and trying to hard (it happens ... kind of a lot)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;someone was having a legitimate medical seizure (this one I saw and the elders recognized it immediately and called 911)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;(this one is really really rare) someone was so tied up in something so horrible emotionally that the encounter with the Holy Spirit manifested a powerful physical reaction. Given my experience with modern mental health, I'd say it was that a person with a serious emotional disorder experiencing a powerful physical reaction to their condition combined with the emotional experience of worship. Old folks would say it was the Holy Spirit fighting with demons for a persons soul which if you think about it is pretty accurate. And that literally happened in scripture at least twice that I can think of.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pentecostals are great jokers and are easy to make fun of. And combined with what they actually do it can be hard to draw the line between what really happened and what was a joke. I advise you to specifically ask your friends about what they've actually seen or better yet, go to church with one of them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T00:43:20.843" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23196" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23117" CreationDate="2013-11-27T06:20:25.443" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Like any topic, if a person thinks it is important, they will talk about it.&#xA;You may draw your own conclusions as to why some Pastors do not teach on Hell therefore.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus spoke a lot about Hell. Guess He thought it was important to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T06:20:25.443" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23199" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23070" CreationDate="2013-11-27T06:59:40.633" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some older puritan writers used to talk about a sinner being awakened (not saved, just awakened). This would involve conviction of sin. It is pertinent to the discussion on pre-venient grace (as in the question) as this was the term used by the Puritans for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;e.g. from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress (emphasis mine): 'This miry Slough is such a place as cannot be mended; it is the descent whither the scum and filth that attends conviction for sin doth continually run, and therefore is it called the Slough of Despond: for still as the sinner is &lt;strong&gt;awakened&lt;/strong&gt; about his lost condition, there ariseth in his soul many fears, and doubts, and discouraging apprehensions, which all of them get together, and settle in this place; and this is the reason of the badness of this ground.' &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bunyan/pilgrim.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bunyan/pilgrim.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And following is a short excerpt from a Puritan poem (Taken from &quot;The Valley of Vision&quot;, published by Banner of Truth) indicating the idea of awakening:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Awakened Sinner&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;O my forgetful soul,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Awake from the wandering dream;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;            Turn from chasing vanities&#xA;&#xA;            Look inward, forward, upward,&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;View thyself,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Reflect upon thyself,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;            Who and what thou are, why here,&#xA;&#xA;            What thou must soon be.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thou art a creature of God,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;            Formed and furnished by him,&#xA;&#xA;            Lodged in a body like a shepherd in his tent;&#xA;&#xA;            Dost thou not desire to know God’s ways?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;.....and it goes on for several more stanzas.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the idea is there about an awakening before actual salvation, or as you term it, pre-venient grace.&#xA;Some say &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2052&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 52&lt;/a&gt; teaches this doctrine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5197" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T06:59:40.633" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23205" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-27T13:25:10.137" Score="2" ViewCount="176" Body="&lt;p&gt;For example, some people view evangelism to be &quot;most effective&quot; using one method, whislt another person might view it as &quot;most effective&quot; to use another method. Ie, our opinions (and hence actions) can bring us closer/further away from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example would be differing views of the interpretation of the bible. Our opinions can be correct and hence bring us closer to God, or they can be incorrect and take us away from him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To what extent can we rely on our own human judgement to help build a better relationship with God?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8788" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T20:45:50.707" Title="What is the role of human judgement given God's omnipotence and his plans" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;free-will&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-12-02T14:42:21.900" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23206" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23218" CreationDate="2013-11-27T13:38:01.820" Score="4" ViewCount="1234" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every time I hear someone say that 'If God were a loving God he would not send people to Hell', It makes me wonder Why does God, who is such a loving God send unbelievers to Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus said that the Lake of fire was created for the Devil and his angels, and not for unbelievers;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 25:41  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard that there are some Christians who do not believe that God will so punish unbelievers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any mainstream Churches who endorse this position?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2015-03-20T01:24:26.883" Title="If there were no punishment for sin would salvation be necessary?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23207" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18689" CreationDate="2013-11-27T13:39:56.623" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;God's being the same today as He was yesterday enables us to trust in His Word. What can be and must be increased is our own understanding of the Scriptures. As we will grow in a study, our questions about God's knowledge will be changed to the gratitude to God for the healing us from our misunderstandings. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8745" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T13:39:56.623" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23210" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23205" CreationDate="2013-11-27T16:03:18.957" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Actually this is a very good question.&#xA;The first thing to realize is that relationship is a two-way street.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When someone became a Christian, he or she began with accepting Christ. That's no work on our part, we just receive the Gift of Salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Afterwards, the Holy Spirit is now living inside of this believer, preparing him or her to become God's temple. This is the critical point when the relationship between this believer and God began.  Two outcomes can result:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the believer undergoes discipleship (as the Lord commanded in Matthew 28:19) that points him in the direction of submission to the authority of the Scripture and the Holy Spirit and he &lt;em&gt;took the time&lt;/em&gt; to consume the Bible regularly without being critical, he will grow closer to God as the result. Which makes his judgement no longer relies on his own wisdom or intellects, but rather it will be more and more influenced by God's will in this person's life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the believer got stuck or distracted in the various ways (lack of discipleship, &quot;instant-sunday-school&quot;-recruitment, extreme dependence on liturgies, doctrinal debates, guilt-driven social works, became a celebrity, you name it). He remains distant from God and never acquire that growing relationship, because he is too busy &lt;em&gt;doing&lt;/em&gt; his Christian actions rather than immerse himself in the Scriptures. Or he is so critical in his Bible reading.  In this case, his judgement is not Godly, is still of himself, and not only being useless for himself, but can also mislead others.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore you see, our (human or self) judgement does not propel us closer to God by itself, only the Holy Spirit can do that.&#xA;Only when we submit to His authority, we can start reading the Bible with the right attitude, which will cause our judgement to be more God-powered, and less self-powered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Last thought: God's plan is designed to be executed by God-powered Christians. It was not meant to be shouldered by self-powered individuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps. And thank you for the excellent question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastEditorUserId="8714" LastEditDate="2013-11-27T16:40:51.077" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T16:40:51.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23212" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23260" CreationDate="2013-11-27T16:23:03.987" Score="13" ViewCount="5746" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pope Francis has just released an Apostolic Exhortation called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel)&lt;/a&gt;. He also released an Encyclical Letter in the summer called &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/lumen-fidei/en/html/#1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith)&lt;/a&gt;. What is the difference between these two types of documents? Is one considered to be more important than the other?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4067" LastEditorUserId="10672" LastEditDate="2020-10-09T13:35:00.117" LastActivityDate="2020-10-10T14:52:46.583" Title="What is the difference between an Apostolic Exhortation and an Encyclical Letter?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;terminology&gt;&lt;papacy&gt;&lt;encyclicals&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23214" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23230" CreationDate="2013-11-27T16:29:29.717" Score="5" ViewCount="146276" Body="&lt;p&gt;What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8795" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2016-03-04T01:45:01.670" LastActivityDate="2020-11-17T21:04:20.237" Title="What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;eastern-orthodox&gt;&lt;comparative-christianity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23215" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-27T16:47:19.123" Score="3" ViewCount="16650" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know there is a verse that states this I will edit it in after I will find it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But also we have these verses:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,&#xA;  that thou visitest him?  Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower&#xA;  than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we know God created both angels and men but here it states man are created &quot;lower&quot; than angels.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in what aspects are men God's greatest creation. Power, intelligence ?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or can this be interpreted as the reason for which men is the &quot;crown&quot; of his creation ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastActivityDate="2017-07-19T00:38:02.677" Title="Is man God's greatest creation?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2017-07-20T17:26:09.803" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23217" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-27T16:51:24.643" Score="4" ViewCount="369" Body="&lt;p&gt;If we discover other intelligent life forms in the universe, would this change Christianity in any way or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the sake of the argument, let's presume we will find human-like life in a newly discovered planet in our solar system.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="952" LastEditorUserId="207" LastEditDate="2013-11-27T17:14:49.923" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T16:20:38.557" Title="Would aliens invalidate Christianity as we know it?" Tags="&lt;humanity&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2013-12-01T19:08:53.587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23218" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23206" CreationDate="2013-11-27T16:57:07.707" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jehovah's Witness take that stance. We believe that the references to furnaces and everlasting fire just mean complete everlasting destruction. In Revelation it says that Satan, his angels, the false prophets, and hell will be thrown into the lake of fire. In other words they will be destroyed. We believe that Hell, Hades, and Sheol just mean the common grave of mankind or death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We already have punishment from the original sin through Adam and Eve. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/genesis/3/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Genesis 3:16-19&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;To the woman he said: “I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in pain you will give birth to children, and your longing will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”&#xA;  17  And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18  It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19  In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God has punished us for the original sin that we still inherit today. In addition to the others, God also took away Eternal life. We die because we have all sinned through Adam. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/5/#v45005012&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 5:12&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is the punishment for our sins. Then comes Jesus to save us from death. Jesus's purpose was to bring about a new covenant between man and God because the old covenant with the Jews had failed. Second Jesus gave himself to torture and death, a perfect life in exchange for many imperfect ones. That provides the basis for God being able to forgive us if we ask it of him. Without Jesus's ransom sacrifice, we would have no means to be saved and restored to perfection. This is the result of Jesus's sacrifice. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/24/#v40024022&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:22&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/24/#v40024013&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 24:13&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But the one who has endured to the end will be saved.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lake of fire or destruction, is also for unbelievers. We see this from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/25/#v40025046&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 25:32-46&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;He will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33  And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The goats are the ones that have been given the opportunity to accept Jesus and salvation and declined. It is also the ones whom accepted Jesus, but did not live according to the way he told them to. The goats punishment is everlasting death, they will be &quot;Cut-off&quot; from God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/25/#v40025046&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 25:46&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;These will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To answer your question, if there was no punishment for sin then all of us would be perfect. There would be no need for Jesus's sacrifice and salvation from it. However, since Jesus came and provided salvation, then we know there is punishment to be saved from.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to &quot;why does a loving God send people to hell?&quot;, I think that Satan may have painted that picture of God. The thought of God torturing people for all eternity throws many people off. In fact I have family that believes that God is wrathful, has no mercy, doesn't really care about us, etc...because of the teaching of hell. Because of their perception of hell they don't want anything to do with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God will punish unbelievers, but not like that. When you die your sins are paid for in full, that is your punishment. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/6/#v45006007&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Romans 6:7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;For the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T16:57:07.707" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23219" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23217" CreationDate="2013-11-27T17:36:21.250" Score="2" Body="&lt;h2&gt;NO!&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; The Bible never say that we are the only people in this universe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible was written for men on this planet Earth and Jesus came for the people on this planet Earth. Man is the center of interest in the Bible. God created man and when man failed to remain righteous, God came down to planet Earth to die for the people in this Earth. That's all the Bible records. It has no reference to any other life on other planets. The Bible never say that we are the only people created in his own image nor there are others. The Bible is simply silent on this. Hence, the Bible can't be wrong in any case, whether aliens are discovered or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if aliens are discovered today, that won't change a thing. Who knows if God created other human on another planet, who also failed like us and Jesus already died for them also. However, it is irrelevant for us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T17:36:21.250" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23220" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23217" CreationDate="2013-11-27T17:37:23.430" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It wouldn't change Christianity it all.  The Bible does not suggest that it contains all knowledge and all revelation.  There is a lot it does not reveal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The presence of other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would not change our own reality, which includes the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Eternal Triune God created the universe of time, space and matter and everything in it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mankind was created in the image of God.  (Genesis 1:26-27)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Mankind sinned against God and thereby incurred God's punishment.  (Genesis 3)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God the Son, the Third Person of the Trinity, entered into creation through the virgin birth and then received the name Jesus (Yeshua/God saves).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Jesus died on the Cross to take upon Himself the punishment incurred by us.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;By faith in Jesus, Christ's work on the Cross is credited to our account, freeing us from the penalty of sin and making us sons and daughters of God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;There is a final judgment for every person where those who follow Christ are rewarded and those who reject Christ will pay the penalty for sin themselves.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the reality for us.  The reality for other intelligent life would have no impact on our reality, other than that our reality would acknowledge that there was other intelligent life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it impossible for God to enter into His creation again?  No.  It wouldn't matter to us if He did, though.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, no, Christianity would not change at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T17:37:23.430" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23221" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15737" CreationDate="2013-11-27T17:44:14.623" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . .&quot; (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would seem to me that the argument given by Justin Martyr is that because the law (Old Testament and specifically Genesis-Deuteronomy) had been fulfilled by Christ, then it was no longer necessary to keep them, seeing as they were fulfilled in Christ. Now that Christ has become the lamb of God, we no longer need to keep passover...etc. It appears that this was his logic behind the 7th day sabbath, saying Christ is our sabbath and when we come to him we enter into that rest. It becomes apparent then, that to impose these things (circumcision, sabbath, passover, etc.) would be taking us back and placing us under the requirements of the law and tying our doing of those deeds to our justification/salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The sabbath thus being done away with, having been fulfilled, the Christian must find a day to worship on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead&quot; (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This day becomes Sunday, for various reasons. It is the beginning of the Creation of God, and God was birthing new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV). This is confirmed by Athanasius (who was a contemporary of the council and probably took part.) saying:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation&quot; (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it was the Day of the Resurrection, the same being shown to be the beginning of new life after we have died to the flesh. (Romans 6:4-11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8796" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T17:44:14.623" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23222" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23215" CreationDate="2013-11-27T17:45:51.260" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm not sure you can get a good answer to this question without opinion. I wouldn't say we are the greatest creation because everything God makes is great.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God looks to make sure that his creation came out the way he intended it. All throughout &lt;strong&gt;chapter 1 in Genesis&lt;/strong&gt; you see this &quot;Then God saw that it was good&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So really asking which creation is God's greatest leaves the matter open to a persons perception. Some of the things that could be said are the greatest are the earth, Heavens, angels, humans, emotions, music, so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think from Gods standpoint, he views and loves everything equally. I can't remember any scripture that articulates any one thing as being his greatest creation or achievement.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I myself would say it is love. Because it is the platform for everything that God does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T17:45:51.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23224" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23217" CreationDate="2013-11-27T18:48:20.720" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exactly what does what else God may have created in the Universe have to do with what happened here on Earth? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is sovereign he can create as many planets and people as he desires to fulfill his wants.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not he decides to extend his great love to multiple planets and peoples makes absolutely no difference in our relationship to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems to me that to even think that we are the only ones God could or even does love is sort of egotistical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Looking at what I've written it may seem that I'm scolding or deriding, but that is not the case. I am simply stating my point of view and do not in any way wish to cast aspersions on anyone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T18:48:20.720" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23225" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23215" CreationDate="2013-11-27T20:15:02.587" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way I interpret this passage&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,&#xA;  that thou visitest him? Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower&#xA;  than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God is the God of all creation. Jesus IS also God who dwelt among men (John 1). He lowered his status as God himself to dwell among men and die for them. That's what it is referring to being made lower than the angels.  The angels are up in heaven.  Men are down here on the earth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Phil 2:5-8  -  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:&#xA;  6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the&#xA;  form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became&#xA;  obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the specific question about is man God's greatest creation I would says yes absolutely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God didn't send Jesus to die for Angels, or plants or animals.  He didn't become a horse when he came to live among men.  He became a man.  We were made last on the earth for a reason.  It was because in the beginning everything on the earth was made for man to enjoy.  Only man is made in His image and we were the ones who were given dominion over the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen 1:27-28  27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,&#xA;  and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion&#xA;  over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every&#xA;  living thing that moves upon the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastEditorUserId="4711" LastEditDate="2013-11-27T20:29:35.810" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T20:29:35.810" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23227" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23229" CreationDate="2013-11-27T20:39:24.373" Score="0" ViewCount="417" Body="&lt;p&gt;Through Gods word the bible, we are given commandments of what we shouldn't do and what we need to do in order to attain salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That last part is really what I'm focusing on. &lt;strong&gt;What does the New Testament tell us about what we need to do to be in accordance with God&lt;/strong&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How much of the Old Testament still applies? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources from anywhere are acceptable, however I am primarily looking for sources from the scriptures. Please include scriptures that come to mind to support your ideas! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance I am looking for something along these lines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus said we need to be doing X or displaying X qualities. Here is the scripture where he said that (Insert scripture here).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I searched for similar questions and didn't find any that articulated what I'm looking for. If this question has been asked, I apologize and will delete this question. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-04-13T02:35:12.167" LastActivityDate="2015-04-13T02:35:12.167" Title="What kind of worship does God look for, for Salvation?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;worship&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ClosedDate="2015-04-14T19:36:34.763" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23228" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23215" CreationDate="2013-11-27T21:47:40.727" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm going to answer this question from the point of view of the Church Fathers, and in particular from the point of view of Gregory of Nazianzus, also known as Gregory the Theologian because of his enormous influence on Christian theology. Many of these themes were also picked up in the theology of Maximus the Confessor and, while they are not particularly well known in the West, they are a significant feature of Eastern Orthodox theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The passage in particular is &lt;em&gt;Oration 38&lt;/em&gt;, known as &lt;em&gt;On the Theophany&lt;/em&gt;. This is a little hard to find in decent translation on the internet, but &lt;a href=&quot;https://beardocs.baylor.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2104/8358/Abstract.pdf?sequence=1&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this is one as part of a dissertation&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310238.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;this one is available on NewAdvent&lt;/a&gt;. A very good translation is that of Nonna Verna Harrison in &lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0881413259&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Festal Orations&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. I'll quote from the first of these translations in my answer, however, because I'm currently 850 miles from my copy of &lt;em&gt;Festal Orations&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In many ways, this is a commentary on the creation narrative of Genesis. Gregory sees creation as double:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;intellectual&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;noetic&lt;/em&gt; creation: the creatures not of matter but of pure intellect. Gregory writes, &quot;We must understand them either as intelligent &#xA;spirits, some kind of immaterial and bodiless fire, or as some other nature that is nearest &#xA;the beings described.&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Or.&lt;/em&gt; 38.9) In many ways, these are the creatures we know as angels.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &lt;em&gt;material&lt;/em&gt; creation: the creatures of visible, tangible matter. Gregory writes, &quot;this is both the system and combination of heaven and earth, and the things between them, praiseworthy for the shapeliness of each, but more praiseworthy for the well-joined nature and harmony of the whole&quot; (&lt;em&gt;Or.&lt;/em&gt; 38.10) Whereas the creatures of the intellectual realm are like in nature to God, the creatures of the material realm are &quot;foreign&quot; to him.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we have these two creations. They are good, but there is a limit:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mind and sense perception then, having been distinguished from one another in this way, &#xA;  stood within their own limits, and bore in themselves the magnificence of the creator &#xA;  Word, being silent they praise the great work and are brilliant heralds. There was not yet &#xA;  was not yet a blending of the two natures, nor any mixing of opposites, a sign of a greater &#xA;  wisdom and generosity as regards the natures; nor was the entire richness of goodness &#xA;  known (&lt;em&gt;Or.&lt;/em&gt; 38.11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, God creates a new thing out of both:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then the Creator Word, having willed to show this forth, also crafts one life from both, I mean both invisible and visible natures, the man; and taking the body from the matter already created, and from himself he added the breath of life, “which thing Scripture knows as the noetic soul and the image of God” (&lt;em&gt;Or.&lt;/em&gt; 38.11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is the human being, the union of the invisible (intellectual) creation and the visible (material) creation. The &lt;em&gt;purpose&lt;/em&gt; of man is precisely this: to unite the two creations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He continues to describe what this man is like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He set upon earth a sort of second cosmos, a great in a small, another angel, a composite worshiper, a beholder of the visible creation, an initiate into the intelligible, king of things on earth, subject to what is above, earthly and heavenly, transitory and immortal, visible and intelligible, a mean between greatness and lowliness, the same spirit and flesh. (&lt;em&gt;Or.&lt;/em&gt; 38.11)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this way, the human being is the crown of creation, uniting the whole creation in one. This anthropology has a salvific purpose as well: &lt;em&gt;Oration 38&lt;/em&gt; goes on to discuss Christ in his Incarnation as uniting human nature to God, and therefore as uniting all of creation to God, since all creation is united in the human being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So in this way the human  is the crowning of creation. Man is &quot;lower than the angels&quot;, according to Gregory's account, because the angels are part of first creation, in nature closest to God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T21:47:40.727" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23229" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23227" CreationDate="2013-11-27T21:52:03.967" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some scriptures that will help:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Corinthians 15:1-2  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1 Timothy 4:14-16  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ezekiel 33:12-19  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his [righteousness] in the day that he sinneth. When I shall say to the righteous, [that] he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it. Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;  [If] the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This what I use:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 15:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in order to Abide in Christ I remind myself of what Salvation really is; and how I gained it in the first &#xA;place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1.  By first acknowledging my sin, to that end I remember what Jesus said about that in the Lord's prayer.&#xA;&#xA;   a. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.&#xA;&#xA;        1. So to start I ask god to forgive anyone who has irked me that day and forgive them in my heart. that&#xA;         also makes me sleep better at night.&#xA;&#xA;    2.  Only after I have forgiven them do I ask God to forgive me for what I have done wrong.&#xA;&#xA;    3.  I have to  make a concentrated effort each day to act exactly the way Jesus did.&#xA;&#xA;    a. By that I mean try to love others as Jesus did and that means that I just do not expect them to be or do as&#xA;    I think they should but accept them as if had.&#xA;&#xA;    b. It seems to me that to be like Jesus means that I should reject the things which are ungodly and support &#xA;    those things which are.     &#xA;&#xA;     c. This is the big one, I need to do all I can to exhibit Jesus to the world and People around me, and to&#xA;     honor God in all my actions.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as just what Scriptures will help you to live a life pleasing to God I can only say all of them, and in order to do that I have to study my Bible every day, and ask the Holy Spirit to give me understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and by the way Jesus said that not even a accent mark of the Scripture would eve pass away, so all of the Old Testament is still in effect only that Jesus fulfilled all of the law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2013-11-27T22:02:00.077" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T22:02:00.077" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23230" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23214" CreationDate="2013-11-27T22:18:03.567" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;The differences are almost too great to list in an answer like this! The real problem in answering your question is that it isn't just a list of &quot;things Roman Catholics believe&quot; and &quot;things Greek Orthodox believe&quot;. (NB that &quot;Greek&quot; Orthodox probably isn't accurate here: it's more accurate to talk in terms of &quot;Eastern&quot; Orthodox.) The problems are much more fundamental and enormous than that, and ultimately amount to entirely different methods of theology, theological reasoning, ecclesiological assumptions, thinkings about authority, worship, etc. A major factor is the simple fact that the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church) spoke and wrote in Latin, whereas the Eastern Church used Greek. Translation (particularly of theology) is hard. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But here are some headlines:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Authority&lt;/strong&gt; The Roman Catholic Church believes in the infallible teaching authority of the Church. This most famously means the doctrine of papal infallibility, though the concept of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium (teaching office of the church) is also stated. This is a concept foreign to the Eastern Orthodox, who see the authority of the Church as stemming from the Holy Tradition, seen most fully in the Ecumenical Councils. But the Orthodox would be careful not to pin the question of &quot;infallibility&quot; down: it's not a concept that really works in Eastern thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Papacy&lt;/strong&gt; For the Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has universal jurisdiction over all the Church. This is not true in Eastern Orthodoxy. They recognise the Bishop of Rome as being &lt;em&gt;primus inter pares&lt;/em&gt;, first among equals, but as essentially equal to the other major patriarchs (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The &lt;em&gt;filioque&lt;/em&gt; clause&lt;/strong&gt; The famous cause of the Great Schism of 1054. This was a modification to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The question was whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father &lt;em&gt;and the Son&lt;/em&gt;. (&lt;em&gt;filioque&lt;/em&gt; means &quot;and from the Son&quot;.) For the Catholics, it is important that the phrase is used; for the Orthodox, it is breaking with tradition and perverting the doctrine of the Trinity. This problem is closely related to the above problems.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Church unity&lt;/strong&gt; What is necessary for the Church to be one? For Roman Catholics, it means participation in the organisation headed by the Pope. For the Orthodox, it means membership in one of the Orthodox churches, which are fully in communion with one another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are all &quot;dividing&quot; issues, which contribute to the continuing division between the Orthodox and the Catholics. There are other differences as well, which aren't divisive in the same way:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Liturgy&lt;/em&gt; The Roman Catholic Mass is very different to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Married clergy&lt;/em&gt; In the Roman Catholic Church, priests may not be married (except in some narrow circumstances, and in some Eastern Catholic Churches). For the Eastern Orthodox, married men may become priests, but not bishops.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Bread and the Eucharist&lt;/em&gt; Roman Catholics typically use unleavened bread (wafers) whereas the Orthodox use leavened bread. This is due to a &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; old dispute about the precise date of Easter, and whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And, moreover, culturally there are very different attitudes. A summary would be that Catholics &lt;em&gt;tend&lt;/em&gt; to systematise things (e.g. the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas) whereas the Orthodox tend to prefer a more discursive, poetic, less precise way of doing theology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T22:18:03.567" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23232" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14179" CreationDate="2013-11-27T23:14:08.250" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let me ask you this. If you knew that a bomb was in a building and it was going to go off soon would you tell others? You are safe even if that bomb goes off, but those people are not shielded. If you don't warn people, then how will they know the danger they are in?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This situation is different of course, but the outcome is still the same. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a Jehovah's Witness and I go out every week (or I try to at least) to spread Gods message . It's not just that Jesus told us to &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Therefore go and make disciples of all nations&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;. We are generally concerned about people. We even print books and material at our own expense and give it away free. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't try to push our materials on people. If people are interested in bible knowledge we make sure they get it. If they don't want it or ask us to leave and never come back then we respect their decision. Even if people aren't interested or are downright nasty, at least you tried to save them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-27T23:14:08.250" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23234" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9479" CreationDate="2013-11-27T23:25:20.300" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The authority of Rome may have been presumed because of the time St Paul spent there. He died AD&amp;nbsp;64/5 and probably some of the Corinthians who heard him teach were still alive when they wrote to Rome.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At least four of Paul's doctrinal letters were written from Rome and it seems to be where his days ended, though there is some doubt.  Many scholars agree that St Paul's letters were the first to be recognized as inspired by the early church, and certainly no other writings rise to the level of his prison epistles.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There seems to have been a flourishing Christian community in Rome (see Romans 16 and Philippians) and possibly the Corinthians thought some of Paul's adherents would give an answer to their questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8800" LastEditorUserId="1377" LastEditDate="2013-11-28T08:11:18.717" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T08:11:18.717" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23237" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23206" CreationDate="2013-11-28T02:29:21.317" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;At one time, the belief in universal salvation was the defining characteristic of a Christian denomination known as the &quot;Universalists&quot; or the &quot;Christian Universalists.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That denomination, however, merged with the Unitarians, and is no longer considered a Christian denomination by people inside or outside that church.  There remain some Christian Universalists, but not with sufficient numbers or organization to be considered a mainstream Christian denomination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T02:29:21.317" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23238" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23206" CreationDate="2013-11-28T02:36:46.733" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I suppose it depends on your definition of &quot;Mainstream&quot; - within Christian orthodoxy? No I don't think that any hold to a doctrine of Hell not also being a place for those who commit sin and stand naked before God at judgment condemned by their sin. I may be wrong here but I can't think of any mainline Protestant denominations that teach this and I'm fairly certain the Catholic church doesn't teach this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I don't want to argue with all of the verses mentioned in Jeremy's thoughtful answer because I don't believe that is the proper purpose here, but I come to different conclusions with the verses in context of the larger passages or the whole of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I look to verses like:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 13:41-42: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of&#xA;  His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,&#xA;  and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will&#xA;  be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 18:8-9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw&#xA;  it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than&#xA;  to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If&#xA;  your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It&#xA;  is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes&#xA;  and be cast into the fiery hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 20:15 &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was&#xA;  thrown into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are just a few places of many. Hell is described in various terms throughout the Bible as &lt;strong&gt;Eternal&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;A Place of Consciousness for those within it&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;A Place of punishment - both described physically (fire, pain) and spiritually (separation from God)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think Jesus' words in Luke 16:19–31 of the Rich Man and Lazarus is an accurate depiction in the context of all of the passages that speak of Hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Question In Your Title, Though&lt;/strong&gt; - &quot;If there were no punishment for sin, would salvation be necessary&quot; is an interesting one. I don't believe this is the case and everything I read in the Bible backs that up. But some thoughts on the question anyway - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That question has a lot of &quot;It depends&quot; answers surrounding it also. &lt;em&gt;So if there were no punishment for sin, would sin still be sin? Would this world still have a holy standard and a just and holy God over it?&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's a cliche example but take a Judge on the earth as we know them in our criminal justice system. If you went before this judge and faced an accused murderer of a family member of yours.. There was incontrovertible evidence. There was an iron-clad confession. The defendant even said &quot;yes.. I killed your family member&quot;.. You would expect, demand even, that this judge punish the murderer. If this judge picked up their gavel and proclaimed &quot;&lt;em&gt;Meh&lt;/em&gt; Yeah, he broke a bunch of rules, sorry for the murder, but sir you are to be declared innocent of this crime forever from this point on.&quot; There would be quite the outrage, I'd imagine. Because justice was not served.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If God is Holy (Is 43:15) and God is just(Ps 25:8-14) - He cannot just accept sin and look the other way. He is truth. So the sin problem is there. And the Bible minces no words about this. Read the book of Romans, or any book in the Bible. So if we find ourselves as sinners and unable to enter His presence as sinners, something has to be done. Either we have to be perfect and sin free - too late - or salvation was necessary. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is speaking of the resurrection of Christ and says that if Christ was not raised, then He is dead in vain. You could read this chapter, and also pull from it - that if salvation is not necessary than Christ is dead in vain. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="962" LastEditorUserId="962" LastEditDate="2013-11-28T03:09:32.487" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T03:09:32.487" CommentCount="9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23239" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22965" CreationDate="2013-11-28T04:33:00.223" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The church has always held that the constitution and the rights established therein are inspired by god including the right to bear arms. As for the BYU-Idaho comment, it is an institution of higher education they can establish what rules they deem necessary to keep their student body safe it was not a statement of the LDS beliefs. Other non-religious and religious institutions  have similar rules regarding weapons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8805" LastEditorUserId="5440" LastEditDate="2013-11-28T16:44:14.757" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T16:44:14.757" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23240" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-28T05:06:19.910" Score="7" ViewCount="24499" Body="&lt;p&gt;This always confused me. We read this in Matthew 5:43-45&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:43-45 (NIV) - “You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But we read that Jesus was severely angry with Jewish scholars (especially Pharisees and scribes) by calling them &quot;hypocrites&quot;, &quot;snakes&quot;, &quot;offspring of vipers&quot;, &quot;fools&quot; etc in Matthew 23:13-36, Mark 7:6, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We even see Jesus saying to Jews that their father is devil (John 8:44). Does this mean we are supposed to love our enemies, but hate God's enemies?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4310" LastActivityDate="2015-07-12T14:14:45.310" Title="What does it mean when Jesus say &quot;Love your enemies&quot; (Matthew 5:43-45)?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23241" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23240" CreationDate="2013-11-28T06:34:04.713" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;TL;DR Tough love is not hate&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Judaism teaches that you should &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reformjudaism.org/love-your-enemy-no-way-treat-him-fairly-way&quot;&gt;treat your enemy fairly&lt;/a&gt;. The laws of retribution, like &quot;eye for an eye&quot;, are limitations on how much retribution you can do to someone. It's designed to promote justice over vengance. But Christ had this way of pushing you to go further than the Law required. So while the Law taught justice. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Matt/Love-Your-Enemies&quot;&gt;Christ taught mercy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when Jesus was &quot;on a rant&quot; about the Jewish leadership, it wasn't hate. If you follow the news at all you've seen stories like the one about the fiery anti-gay preacher who was discovered having gay sex or the one about the man who murdered an abortion doctor in a church because the Bible says &quot;Thou shall not kill&quot;. You've seen Christians who demand the strictest adherence to the most conservative reading of the Law while not being able to hold themselves to the same standard. This is what Jesus was addressing with the Jewish leaders. It was actually more on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getChapterSections&amp;amp;cid=1&amp;amp;source=1&amp;amp;schap=23&quot;&gt;go beyond the letter of the Law&lt;/a&gt;. Don't just help someone because that's what the law says, help them because you care about them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Several years ago I wrote an article about how I have to love the very people I want to hate most: our modern day Pharisees who preach hate and division in the name of Jesus. But, I don't have to love them because Christ told me to. I have to love them because I know exactly what it is to be wrong. I've been a hypocrite. I've been a liar. I've hurt people so badly that it's physically painful to even think about it. I am an enemy of God and I know that despite all of that God still loves me. The Bible, God's own Law, says that I'm free to hate them because they're my enemies but how can I hate them without hating myself. So I find myself forced to go beyond the law and love them. I want them to be better. I even correct them when I think it will do the most good. But, none of that means that I don't love them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T06:34:04.713" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23243" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6088" CreationDate="2013-11-28T08:41:26.187" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think you're right on.  I think the hymn writer failed to grasp--or least convey--the meaning of grace.  Biblically, grace and debt are antithetical words.  It's like saying we are indebted to someone after they've given us a gift.  If something is a gift, there is no debt to be paid in any way, otherwise grace fails to be grace.  Maybe he should have said, &quot;Oh to God I'm very thankful, for His grace conveyed to me&quot;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8808" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T08:41:26.187" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23245" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12347" CreationDate="2013-11-28T11:28:10.240" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12637/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity&quot;&gt;doctrine of the Trinity&lt;/a&gt; states that there is one God, who exists in &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2548/does-the-trinity-share-one-mind-or-are-there-three-separate-minds/15735#15735&quot;&gt;three persons&lt;/a&gt;, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Son of God is therefore the title for the second person of Trinity. &lt;strong&gt;It is a clear identification for the second person of Trinity.&lt;/strong&gt; When Jesus came into this world, the true nature of One Almighty God was also revealed through His message (NT). God the father was revealed in OT (We though find references to Trinity in OT as well in amorphous manner). Second person was revealed by arrival of Jesus and the third person was revealed after Jesus was glorified. That’s how we find most of the references to God the father in OT, God the Son in Gospels and majority of the references in explaining God the Holy Spirit, after Jesus was glorified.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is not that the term Son of God does not mean that Jesus is God. Just like the term Son of Man means that Jesus is a man, so is the Son of God means Jesus is God. God took a human birth and that’s how the title Son came to him though He was Himself is God. God is revealed as human to man.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Jewish leaders understood exactly what it meant by the phrase “Son of God and precisely this understanding of the phrase led them to ask for Jesus’ death sentence.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To be the Son of God is to be of the same nature as God. The Son of God is “of God.” The claim to be of the same nature as God—to in fact be God—was blasphemy to the Jewish leaders; therefore, they demanded Jesus’ death  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is the image of God to mankind.  God - omnipotent, revealed Himself to mankind, in Christ. There are many verses in Bible where we see that in Christ, the invisible God is revealed.  Jesus was with the Father before the world began.  Christ, as God the Son, is the Creator of all things.  God in all His fullness, dwelt in Christ, reconciling the world.  We see that Christ, as the Son of God - God's representation, is God manifest and revealed to the world. Angels, prophets, and things can reveal to us something about God.  But they could not be said to be Son of God. God alone can reveal God hence Jesus is Son of God, same as God.  It takes God to reveal Himself to mankind.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T11:28:10.240" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23246" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23251" CreationDate="2013-11-28T12:10:51.110" Score="6" ViewCount="20218" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am asking this question because the question about video games being sin was placed on hold, but I feel so compelled to answer it that I have decided to ask and answer my own question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T18:47:43.230" Title="Does playing Video games affect our relationship to God?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="10" ClosedDate="2013-11-28T20:40:51.160" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23247" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23246" CreationDate="2013-11-28T12:10:51.110" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Even though I agree that that question is an opinion question, I am going to answer it in my own way, because I feel that it one of our biggest problems in Society. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan knows that one of the best ways that he can entrap people and put a wedge between them and their God, to entice  them with glitter and peak their desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is also aware that one of his best attractions he can use is the challenge of being the best which man will accept every time it is offered. He not only uses that in things like sports and video games, but he is able to infect churches with it. How often do you see Churches and Pastors brag about their attendance or compare their Baptism numbers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Competition is not bad within itself, but Satan knows that he can slowly sneak in things which may seen innocuous to start with, but over  time he can work them around to desensitize people to  not only sin but violence and sexual promiscuity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We as Christians must never forget that there is a war going on between the forces of good and evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That was the reason God made the penalty for disobeying him and gaining the knowledge of good and evil, so stringent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was the gaining of the knowledge of good and evil that initiated the war for men's souls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When God created man, man was perfect in the site of God, and that is why he looked at all he had made and said it was good. Remember that that man was perfect as God originally made him, and that was without the knowledge of Good and Evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The knowledge of good and evil within itself is not a sin, sin is disobeying God. What makes the knowledge of good and evil so  bad is that Satan as the Prince of the World knows just how to make evil so attractive that it will tempt man away from the Grace of God. We as humans exist because of the grace of God, Since God is omniscient he knew exactly what was going to happen, so it was only because of his great grace that he made the world and man and even gave man the opportunity to go to Heaven for eternity. Heaven would be just fine without even one man or woman we need to be aware that we need God he doesn't need us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does that have to do with your original question?? The reason for saying all of that is to make what I am going to say next make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with the advent of video games Satan had a new and most valuable weapon. The first video games he used were somewhat innocuous that is to say that they started out games like pong and then progressed to Pacman and on to the games of today. What made these games so valuable to Satan was that he could combine dexterity and challenge with sight. He began slowly to build these games from the pong type games to the gore of modern games like we see played today.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance Pacman was a tiny step in the direction he wanted to go in that Pacman ate up his opponents, and before you say that's nothing consider that gobbling up the opposition was foriegn to that generation, we did not eat our enemies. So what Satan has done is to slowly desensitize us to violence, death and disobedience to God.&#xA;We must remember that Man's third sin was murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I will not stop with just video games Satan has used circumstance and greed and quest for power to slowly entice man away from the haven of God's grace. He has made man to kill maim and degrade his fellow man in seeking both power and greed. that's why we have wars and weapons of mass destruction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And all the While Satan is laughing at how he is able have man rebel against God for such trivial and evaporative possessions, while ignoring the one valuable thing that man could have. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T12:10:51.110" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23248" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23246" CreationDate="2013-11-28T13:57:09.693" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The way I see it, the sin in question here is idolatry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As with anything we do in life, if we find that it's taking top priority away from God then it will begin to adversely affect our relationship with Him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I find that to pray about these things helps because this means you're involving God with the pastime rather than shutting Him out.  If you're conscious of God in all that you do then you're more likely to do what pleases Him, which may even be to stop playing a particular game!  Prayer is a great way of preventing Satan closing the door on God in all aspects of your life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5188" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T13:57:09.693" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23249" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="14179" CreationDate="2013-11-28T14:03:34.247" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I liked David's answer and +1'd it. He talks about one working motive and he is absolutely right in that regard - because a Christian cares about the one they are witnessing to - that's the answer in the Penn Jillette perspective basically. I don't necessarily see a problem with those answers, and when I share with someone, it is out of a motive of love for that person, in part. But that is not the only reason, or even the primary reason that I get from the Bible. The primary reason I get is:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Because we are commanded to&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible commands this to us in Matthew 28:18-20 (NASB):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been&#xA;  given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of&#xA;  all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son&#xA;  and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded&#xA;  you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And frankly, &lt;strong&gt;that is enough&lt;/strong&gt;. God deserves glory out of His creation. The only way He will get glory out of sinful, fallen mankind is through the transaction that took place at the cross. Through Christ declaring a sinner as righteous because His Son's punishment was sufficient for that sin and His resurrection was accomplished. And then the Holy Spirit taking up residence in that person's &quot;heart&quot;. Salvation is about a gift to us, indeed, but it is about God receiving the glory due to His name. So &quot;the Lamb that was slain may receive the reward of His suffering.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="962" LastEditorUserId="962" LastEditDate="2013-11-28T14:50:43.123" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T14:50:43.123" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23251" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23246" CreationDate="2013-11-28T14:40:47.833" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Every now and then a passage jumps up and sticks with me. Right now it's Romans 14. The entire chapter is summed up in the very first verse,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. -Romans 14:1&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If there ever was a disputable matter, it's video games. I've been a gamer my entire life. I've also been a Christian my entire life. The games I've played run the gambit from educational to religious to violent to outright demonic. However, no matter what, there's never been a game that's been able to distract me from God. If anything, there were games I put down because my relationship with God made playing them uncomfortable. But my point here in the next few verses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. -Romans 14:2-4&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can handle games, video or otherwise, without losing sight of God and his purpose for me. And there are plenty of Christian game makers and gamers unions that say I'm not alone. But, here in Romans, Paul says that we shouldn't judge one another for what our faith allows us to do. Just because I play games, I'm not going to sit here and insist that playing games isn't a sin. Because while I can play a game without being desensitized to violence, death, and disobedience to God, that doesn't mean everyone can. I shouldn't judge them and they shouldn't judge me because both of us go before God who is our master and he makes both stand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, and this is how you know I'm a Methodist, it goes so much farther than I think it's right and you think it's wrong and we should all be OK with that. When I was 19, my father forbade me to bring my Magic: the Gathering cards into his house because he thought they were tarot cards. My father, the nerd, who handed me my first video games and my first fantasy novel couldn't wrap his mind around a card game because it said Magic on it. But, I never brought my cards to his house again because of what comes next in Romans 14. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. -Romans 14:14-15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Methodists were among the biggest supporters of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States&quot;&gt;prohibition movement&lt;/a&gt;. The lasting effect on us is that we hold Romans 14 and other similar passages to heart especially this next bit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know some people can't handle alcohol so we ask our Elders not to drink in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who are struggling with addiction. We use grape juice and not wine in worship because it's better to make worship easier for those who are struggling than it is to follow the church traditions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, I'm not giving up video games (or alcohol) anytime soon, but, I am aware of of the effect games have on others. I have put games up for the sake of other people and played them elsewhere. I also help my friends with kids to be aware of the content of certain games so they can make informed decisions about what their kids play. I'm something of an advocate for age appropriate play to help protect games from being judged en masse. That and this entire post is how I best understand Romans 14:16-18.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T14:40:47.833" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23252" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15931" CreationDate="2013-11-28T15:10:31.087" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The idea of dualism between body and soul is natural to the Greek world, and to the Mediterranean cultures steeped in hellenism. But such dualism does not exist in the Hebrew thought. Hence, the Corinthians seems to have balked at Paul's idea of bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:35-58). In the Bible, only God is Immortal (I Tim. 1:17). There is no soul that is immortal because God said, man will &quot;surely&quot; die (Gen. 2:17). He didn't said, &quot;you will not surely die but go separate from your bodies and wing your way to heaven, a separate entity.&quot; Rather, we expressly find in Ezekiel 18:4,20: &quot;the soul the sinneth, it shall die.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8810" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T15:10:31.087" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23254" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23227" CreationDate="2013-11-28T15:35:32.867" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The answer to your question about salvation, is super-simple.&#xA;We do nothing to receive the Gift of Salvation.&#xA;We just &lt;strong&gt;acknowledge&lt;/strong&gt; our sinful nature, which opens the way for us to &lt;strong&gt;believe&lt;/strong&gt; that what Christ has done on the cross is enough to save us from eternal separation from God (refer to John 3:16 and John 14:6 as the super-abridged version of this truth).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The next question is, what then shall I do after I'm saved? Only at this point the concept of worship, bible-doctrines, fruits of the spirit, missionary, serving/giving-sacrificially start to make sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T15:35:32.867" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23255" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23217" CreationDate="2013-11-28T16:09:50.293" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Interesting question!&#xA;One that I've wondered from time to time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My thought is this: Had we (human beings) not rebel against God, and instead follow His plan for us, we probably would have reached the technological advances that allow us to travel between galaxies today.  And yes, we probably would find other sentient beings in this vast universe that God has created for us (if not alongside with us).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think about it, earth is but a speck of dust compared to the universe, why did God put us here and the stars out there if He didn't mean for us to reach it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm sorry if this answer slightly violate the StackExchange rule because it is purely my speculation, but I am excited when I think this way because it makes me look forward to the future of what we may do with Christ as our King.  I believe science and technology will have their place in the new Heaven and Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T16:09:50.293" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23257" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23240" CreationDate="2013-11-28T17:30:46.337" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jesus was only correcting the religious leaders and scholars because they were in the wrong&lt;/strong&gt;. Jesus did not do anything to harm them. Many of the religious leaders were jealous of Jesus because Jesus knew too much and they hated him because Jesus knew their hidden activities. The Pharisees and Sadducees always wanted to challenge the wisdom of Jesus but they always failed, which made them more jealous and angry. Jesus knew their heart and their stubbornness. They were so stubborn to accept Jesus as a man from God even though they saw the extraordinary miracles with their own eyes. That is why Jesus called them &quot;hypocrites&quot;, &quot;snakes&quot;, &quot;offspring of vipers&quot;, &quot;fools&quot; etc. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, not all pharisees were wicked, there was a pharisee called Nicodemus, who approached Jesus to seek his spiritual counsel and Jesus revealed great things to him.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By saying &quot;&lt;em&gt;Love your enemies&lt;/em&gt;&quot;, Jesus meant that we should not take revenge on them or harm them but instead we should show kindness to them and pray for them. Jesus did that exactly when He was being crucified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are&#xA;  doing.” &lt;em&gt;(Luke 23:34, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is how we can show our love to our enemies.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Do not repay anyone evil for evil&lt;/strong&gt;. Be careful to do what is right in&#xA;  the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you,&#xA;  live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but&#xA;  leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge;&#xA;  I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “&lt;strong&gt;If your enemy is&#xA;  hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink&lt;/strong&gt;. In&#xA;  doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be&#xA;  overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. &lt;em&gt;(Romans 12:17-21, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T17:30:46.337" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23258" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23246" CreationDate="2013-11-28T18:47:43.230" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;No materials are by itself a sin. I knife is useful for cutting vegetables but the same knife can be used to kill someone. Wine itself is not a sin but when misused, it is chaos. Sex is not a sin but improper use of sex is a sin. I can't list all examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the same manner, Video Games by themselves are not evil or sin. Misusing them is the cause of problems. Some video games are very useful and helpful. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_video_game&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Strategy Video Games&lt;/a&gt; are my favorite. The first time I played Age of Empires, I was completely into it. Later I played Age of Mythology, Stronghold Crusaders, Knights of Honor, War Craft etc. and I still love them. I just wish that I still have time to play them but I don't have time for them anymore. I find strategy games very helpful for training the brain. Some are helpful for studying history and mythology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We can misuse video games also. On Sunday, instead of going to church, if you play video games at home, that is obviously the instrument of Satan to enslave us with worldly things. Some games have wrong teachings or are too violent, which can transform a person to mindless and violent animal-like human. And I believe there is no need of mentioning Adult Video Games, which are designed only to satisfy sexual fantasies.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, let us spend more time in prayer and reading Bible, instead of wasting our time on worldly things which cannot give us salvation nor inner peace.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the&#xA;  world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the&#xA;  world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of&#xA;  life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its&#xA;  desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. &lt;em&gt;(1&#xA;  John 2:15-17, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T18:47:43.230" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23259" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23152" CreationDate="2013-11-28T21:45:53.600" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simplest answer, Catholic or otherwise, given the context would be that the word &quot;perish&quot; here means hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Catholic Church does not usually have official interpretations of individual scripture passages, Catholics view the bible as a whole.  For example if you view this passage alone you can say that all you need is to believe in Jesus and you will not perish. But reading on in the same chapter (verse 36) we see &quot;He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him&quot; This passage adds more meaning to John 3:16.  Here obedience and faith play role in salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course just because the Church does not have an official interpretation of each bible passage that doesn't mean that individual Catholics can't interpret the passages by themselves. As long as they stay withing the Catholic faith and using the four senses of scripture as outlined in answer by Peter Turner.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2004" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T21:45:53.600" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23260" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23212" CreationDate="2013-11-28T21:52:23.570" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Apostolic Exhortation is a type of communication from the Pope that is written to encourage people to undertake an implementation of particular set of recommendations listed in the document.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Encyclical Letter which is usually more important than Apostolic Exhortation is a letter that usually deals with a specific doctrine, where the doctrine is clarified, or explained in greater detail.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2004" LastActivityDate="2013-11-28T21:52:23.570" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23262" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23240" CreationDate="2013-11-28T23:56:58.843" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus' teaching on loving your enemies is perhaps one his most--if not &lt;em&gt;the&lt;/em&gt; most--difficult.  By combining His teaching in Matthew and Luke, we learn exactly who our enemies are.  They are people who&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Insult us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Persecute us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spread falsehoods about us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hate us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exclude us&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reject our name as evil&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fueled by the old nature, we quite naturally either lash out at people who do the above things to us, or we secretly plot our revenge.  Revenge, they say, is a dish best served cold!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fueled by the new nature, however, we begin to see our enemies as those whom Christ loves and for whom He died, just as He loves us and died for us.  We all are just sinners saved by God's grace.  The ground is level at the cross.  Jesus, of course, set the example for us in these matters.  Rather than calling ten thousand angels to rescue Him from His tormentors at Calvary, Jesus asked His Father to forgive them for their ignorance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for His lambasting the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, think of it as a form of discipline, not vengeance or hate.  Knowing what was in people's hearts, Jesus &amp;quot;told it like it is.&amp;quot;  Much like a good parent who reprimands his or her child and perhaps provides some judicious and appropriate punishment, Jesus as God in the flesh spoke His harshest reprimands to people who should have known better but didn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The leaders of the religious establishment in Jesus' day loved to be called, &amp;quot;Rabbi&amp;quot; (i.e., teacher), oblivious that their praxis did not match their theory.  Consequently, Jesus gave them a taste of the judgment to come by calling them to account for their hypocrisy, giving them a chance to repent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Let not many of you become teachers,&amp;quot; James said, &amp;quot;knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment&amp;quot; (3:1).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Jesus' day, the Samaritans were the sworn enemies of orthodox Jews.  To them they were worse than your average garden-variety Gentiles because the Samaritans held to a bastardized form of Judaism that included pagan elements and accretions which crept in during the Jews' Babylonian captivity.  Knowing this, when a self-righteous lawyer tried to trip Jesus up and at the same time justify himself by asking &amp;quot;Who is my neighbor?&amp;quot;,  Jesus then delivered a scathing rebuke by telling the story of the &amp;quot;Good Samaritan.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short, Jesus told this lawyer that his neighbor was in fact his enemy!  How scandalous, and how revolutionary Jesus' teaching was.  I suggest, however, it is no less revolutionary today.  If you can somehow get past being slandered, rejected, hated, persecuted, and excluded, what are your chances of getting past radical Islam or other enemies (e.g., Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, pro-abortionists, atheists, et al.)?  When is the last time you prayed for Muslims or for Planned Parenthood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The lunatic fringe of Islam may be America's enemies, but even they are human beings whom God loves and for whom He sent His Son to die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not suggesting that America not defend herself against another 9/11, nor do I condone, for example, the mass killings of Christians by Muslims in the Central African Republic.  The &amp;quot;authorities that be&amp;quot; in any country in which such atrocities take place need to do everything in their power to bring them to a halt.  And what of the Christians in C.A.R.?  Should they simply lie down and take it, or should they take up arms to defend themselves?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, I have no easy answers, and I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation in C.A.R. to have an opinion about how persecuted Christians there should respond to Muslim violence directed at them.  Is it inappropriate for a husband and father (or a wife and mother) to take up arms in defense of his (or her) family?  True, in the Garden of Gethsemane where the Roman soldiers arrested Jesus, He did tell Peter to put away his sword and actually healed an &amp;quot;enemy&amp;quot; whose ear Peter cut off in his haste to defend his Lord.  Was that Jesus' final word on the matter; that is, &amp;quot;Christians, put away your weapons&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fairly recent book by Dekker and Medearis, &lt;em&gt;Tea With Hezbollah&lt;/em&gt;, brings Jesus' teaching on enemies into the 21st century poignantly and powerfully.  I commend it to anyone who is interested in an up-to-date application of the &amp;quot;Samaritan ethic&amp;quot; in today's hurting world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T05:01:58.470" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23263" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22930" CreationDate="2013-11-29T01:46:47.760" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Revelation is the revealed christian life being lived out in a person&#xA;The Book of Revelation Chap 21  22  shows this is the fullness of all Revelation&#xA;there is no more&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8818" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T01:46:47.760" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23266" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-29T02:52:25.523" Score="3" ViewCount="9583" Body="&lt;p&gt;A lot has been said about man being made in God's image. However, when I once explained this to a Hindu lady, she said &quot;God in man's image or man in God's image, it's all the same&quot;, implying that she thought the God of the Bible was just man's projection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, I think it would be useful to have some explanation of the &quot;otherness&quot; of God as seen in the Bible. I think that most non-Christians are unaware that the Bible has a particular view of God, that is different from their own. It would be nice to have some discussion on the question of the otherness of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2164" LastActivityDate="2016-10-20T14:36:55.783" Title="What are the differences between God and mankind?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2016-10-21T18:08:23.617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23267" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23227" CreationDate="2013-11-29T04:59:01.210" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Praise The Lord&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is &lt;strong&gt;NOTHING&lt;/strong&gt; one can do to attain salvation. It is absolutely the grace of God that salvation is given to us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of worship? A genuine heart always The Bible and the gospels as your standard for your personal position with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus Himself mentioned the old testament many times, the old testament is all about the law and the new testament is Grace. The last word of the old testament and the beginnings of the new testament ought to encourage you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="910" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T04:59:01.210" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23268" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22930" CreationDate="2013-11-29T05:05:45.227" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you read Mathew 16:18 and go up a few verses the rock that Jesus is referring to is the statement by Peter “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:18&#xA;18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Will it get replaced? - In the above verse the second part is your answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 14:6 &#xA;6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="910" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T05:05:45.227" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23270" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12449" CreationDate="2013-11-29T06:21:06.803" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthias was mans at attempt to complete the prophesy and bring the number back to twelve. The 11 were not asked to do it nor did they ask God if they should. They only assumed they should. They chose between Him and another by lots. Notice Matthias never did anything. Paul was chosen by Jesus as the other 11 were. Paul is the true 12Th. notice Rev says there are 12 names on the wall? We know one of them is NOT Judas. and if you add matthias that's 13. What ever you conclude, it can't be a contradiction. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8820" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T06:21:06.803" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23273" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19665" CreationDate="2013-11-29T12:18:14.490" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the book Ezekiel we can find a description of a cherub that was removed from the mountain of God. He is called the king (מֶלֶךְ) of Tyr there. Although some believe this is about the prince (נָגִיד) of Tyr in the prophecy earlier in the chapter, the description is commonly believed to be that of Satan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;11 Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;every precious stone was thy covering,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;the sardius, topaz, and the diamond,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes&#xA;&lt;br&gt;was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;till iniquity was found in thee.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;16 By the multitude of thy merchandise&#xA;&lt;br&gt;they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;from the midst of the stones of fire.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;I will cast thee to the ground,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;by the iniquity of thy traffick;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;it shall devour thee,&#xA;&lt;br&gt;and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth&#xA;&lt;br&gt;in the sight of all them that behold thee.&#xA;&lt;br&gt;19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee:&#xA;&lt;br&gt;thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.&#xA; &amp;mdash; [Ezekiel 28:11-19](https://tinyurl.com/Ezekiel-28)&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Note that the description of the covering of this cherub (verse 13 and 14) is very similar to the clothing of the high priest &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex%2039&amp;amp;version=AKJV#en-AKJV-2673&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ex. 39&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5444" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T12:18:14.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23276" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22930" CreationDate="2013-11-29T15:56:38.140" Score="1" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Hebrews 1:1-3, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews is a long discussion about how Jesus is supreme in every way: compared to angels, to Moses, to the high priests etc. It begins though by noting that Jesus is supreme way God has revealed himself. As Jesus said, &quot;Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.&quot; (John 14:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Jesus is the big definitive revelation from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does that mean that God has not given further revelations after the New Testament? There is no consensus on that question, and the debate between continuationism and cessationism is still ongoing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T15:56:38.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23278" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23152" CreationDate="2013-11-29T16:42:18.977" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Let us not forget context. Much error can be avoided if we remember the context in which Scripture verses are written. John 3:16 is the continuation of Yeshua's conversation with Nicodemus that began in John 3:1. It is Pesach (Passover), and the conversation Yeshua and Nicodemus are having involves the nation of Israel. In John 3:3, Yeshua says, unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. The word &quot;again&quot; is G509, and it means &quot;above&quot;, not &quot;again&quot;. So, the verse should read, unless one is born from &quot;above&quot;, he cannot see the Kingdom of Elohim (God). The phrase, &quot;The Kingdom of Elohim&quot; (God) is a reference to the Throne of David, the House of Jacob, which is the Kingdom of Elohim (Luke 1:32-33). Where is the site of David's throne? It is Jerusalem (I Chronicles 14-17). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In John 3:14, Yeshua mentions Moses and the serpent in the wilderness. Who was that story about--the nation of Israel. So, when Yeshua speaks of the world, in v.16, He refers to Israel. The word &quot;world&quot; is G2889. Yes, it does mean the world, as in the global world itself, but it also means an orderly arrangement, a region with borders; a territory. And in this case, it refers to Israel, since that is the territory Yeshua and Nicodemus were talking about. They were talking about Israel, not the world at large. The word &quot;perish&quot; is G622. It means destruction, but it also means to sever from its source. So, Elohim so loved Israel, that He gave Israel His Begotten Son (Yeshua is the Kinsmen Redeemer of Israel only), that whosoever IN ISRAEL, believeth in Him will not be severed from the nation of Israel, but will have everlasting life... &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8824" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T16:42:18.977" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23279" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9406" CreationDate="2013-11-29T17:40:07.907" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;After what I've studies and read here [on this site], my understanding is that 'prophecy' is God's wisdom manifested on earth as God's Word which is the Bible (including all the unpublished Scriptures, we know or not know about!).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8825" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-11-30T14:45:20.427" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T14:45:20.427" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23280" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23227" CreationDate="2013-11-29T17:53:06.970" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;One of the greatest gifts that God gave mankind was giving his son to die, so that everyone would have a chance to live. This act shows us how much God loves mankind. It shows us qualities about him such as forgiveness, patience, mercy, justice, and greatest of all love. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to take advantage of that gift we need to show that we appreciate it with our actions. We need to constantly ask ourselves &quot;Does the way I live seem to be in accordance with Gods laws&quot;? This will keep us from forming bad habits and keep us on the road to salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How can we know God's laws if we don't read the bible diligently? Seeking God's forgiveness without knowing his commandments is like trying to get somewhere with a map that you don't know how to use. With frequent bible reading we get a sense of what God requires of us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By reading God's inspired word in the scriptures you see that there is more to pleasing God than just showing up for Church/service on Sundays. At &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/james/2/#v59002024&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;James 2:24&amp;amp;26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Jesus say's this:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24 &quot;You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.&quot; 26 &quot;Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The bible also tells us that we need to follow &lt;strong&gt;all&lt;/strong&gt; the things Jesus taught us as best as possible. Not everyone blending into the flock crying &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; will be saved. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/7/#v40007021&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:21&amp;amp;26&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.&quot; 26 &quot;Furthermore, everyone hearing these sayings of mine and not doing them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus gave us a very powerful illustration of how we will recognize true worship of God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/7/#v40007016&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 7:16-17&amp;amp;20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17  Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit.&quot; 20 &quot;Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we are able to draw from this that we need to be displaying certain actions in order to be considered fit for salvation. What does the bible tell us we need to be doing?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the pharisees tested Jesus they asked &quot;Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the law&quot;. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/22/#v40022037&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 22:37&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; Jesus said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“You must &lt;strong&gt;love&lt;/strong&gt; Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After he answered them they asked what the second greatest commandment was. Jesus told them that it was to &quot;&lt;strong&gt;Love&lt;/strong&gt; your neighbor as yourself&quot;. The reason behind Jesus's words is in verse 40 of that chapter:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then &lt;strong&gt;Love&lt;/strong&gt; is what should be the motive behind all our actions. Like God our love for others should motivate us to &lt;strong&gt;forgive&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;be patient&lt;/strong&gt;, and strive to show &lt;strong&gt;compassion&lt;/strong&gt; for others helping those in need. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our love and compassion helps us to accomplish a very important work. &lt;strong&gt;Preaching God's word to all the nations&lt;/strong&gt;. We where given a commandment from Jesus to do this. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/28/#v40028019&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 28:19-20&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Go, therefore, and &lt;strong&gt;make disciples&lt;/strong&gt; of people of all the nations, &lt;strong&gt;baptizing&lt;/strong&gt; them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, &lt;strong&gt;teaching&lt;/strong&gt; them to observe all the things I have commanded you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why do we minister, teach and baptize? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/17/#v43017003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 17:3&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; answers this nicely:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not only does knowledge mean everlasting life, it also means you have helped save that person from death! The ministry work should be our first and foremost concern as Christians.  Jesus gave us a warning about seeking valuable things in this world. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/6/#v40006033&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:24&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“No one can slave for two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will stick to the one and despise the other. &lt;strong&gt;You cannot slave for God and for Riches&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way to look at this is to ask yourself &quot;how much time am I spending on godly pursuits vs. worldly gains?&quot;. Do we work to pay the bills and provide for our family or do we work to get nice things or that is &quot;Treasures in this world&quot;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Part of being a Christian is sharing in preaching work Jesus left for us to finish. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A topic I will touch just a little more on is &lt;strong&gt;forgiveness&lt;/strong&gt;. If we do not display this quality of God why then would he give it to us? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/6/#v40006014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 6:14-15&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you;  whereas if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are other things that we need to be doing as Christians. Pray to God regularly and properly, give to God your material things, observe the lords evening meal, displaying the fruit of the holy spirit, and having faith in both God and Jesus's sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we keep seeking God and put faith in him then our chances of obtaining his protection and salvation are very good. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/3/#v43003036&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 3:36&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I exhort all of you to keep on loving, learning, ministering, and exercising faith in order to stay awake spiritually. May God bless your efforts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T17:53:06.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23281" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23266" CreationDate="2013-11-29T17:56:48.607" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The statement that your quoted from the Hindu believer has a Pantheistic notion in it. Contrast this with the way the Christian Holy Bible &lt;em&gt;consistently&lt;/em&gt; teaches about God and His plan for humanity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God is distinctly declared as the Creator of Heaven and Earth and the first human being. The account of the creation of the world starting from Genesis 1:1 would be a good starting point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The names ascribed to God in the ancient Hebrew traditions (Old Testament) would be another field of study that can profoundly improve our understanding on the observable attributes of God that His chosen people ascribed to Him.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;God reveals Himself in three persons, co-equal, co-eternal (the concept of Trinity) in order to carry out the plan of Salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;And lastly, and most pertinent when discussing Christianity with people of different faiths, is the fact that the Christian Bible is not a collection of wisdoms, it is not a collection of legends, it is not a collection of legalistic rules and regulations.  Instead, it use all those to weave a coherent &lt;em&gt;blueprint&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;a model&lt;/em&gt; on how to connect ourselves to God, so we can participate in His plan using His strength.  This &lt;em&gt;plan&lt;/em&gt; has a definite beginning, and it has a definite end.  It is not an cycle with indefinite number of iterations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, this doesn't even began to describe how rich the revelation of God in the Scriptures really is. This is just a starting point, a frame of mind to start a discussion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T17:56:48.607" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23282" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23266" CreationDate="2013-11-29T18:51:13.110" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The first difference is that &lt;strong&gt;man is not equal to God&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other differences are hard to explain because the scripture is not clear at this point, except that it explicitly uses the words 'image' and 'likeness', with no further explanation of it. Really, the Bible doesn't offer us what this &lt;em&gt;&quot;Image of God&quot;&lt;/em&gt; exactly means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our &lt;strong&gt;image&lt;/strong&gt;, in our &lt;strong&gt;likeness&lt;/strong&gt;, so&#xA;  that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,&#xA;  over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the&#xA;  creatures that move along the ground.” &lt;em&gt;(Genesis 1:26, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologians from the past and today are still attempting to explain what these words mean and Biblical scholars still have no consensus about the meaning of the term. It is obvious that man inherited some nature and attributes of God. Hence, there is nothing wrong to infer that God has two eyes and one nose but no one should not make such deductions. The main difficulty here is that no one has seen God and the Bible never mention how God looks like. Another difficulty we have is that God is invisible and though God is invisible to us, it still doesn't mean that God has no form. The scripture again tells us that Jesus is the image of God, which further complicates the whole thing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Son is the image of the invisible God&lt;/strong&gt;, the firstborn over all&#xA;  creation. &lt;em&gt;(Colossians 1:13-15, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nothing really makes sense. We can't really explain this. We have difficulty in explaining the countenance of God because He is our creator and we are His creation. We still haven't understood everything about our body yet, and understanding our designer is something yet beyond our reach and capability.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One thing for sure is that, man is not God and man cannot be equal to God because man was created by God. The creation can never surpass nor be equal with the creator. One good example is that man cannot remain holy and righteous. While Adam failed to obey God's commandments, Jesus the Son of God was able to fulfill the will of God. Man cannot remain sinless while Jesus our God remains sinless.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our&#xA;  weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as&#xA;  we are—yet &lt;strong&gt;he did not sin&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;em&gt;(Hebrews 4:15, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T18:51:13.110" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23283" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-11-29T20:34:25.867" Score="1" ViewCount="123" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read about how the King's James bible and (I think) the NIV bible differ.  Some verses from the Kings james bible were removed as they were not present in earlier manuscripts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anyhow, are there any research papers or books that go over each verse and notes exactly which manuscript contains the verse?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I know that this is actually an on-going process, where some verses are removed, and then the verse above is split into 2 to keep the verse count the same etc.  I would like to know exactly what was done, and by whom, and which manuscript was used as the source.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5886" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T22:13:14.950" Title="Book recommendation that goes over how the bible is compiled based on manuscripts" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;manuscript&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-10-29T19:00:35.440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23284" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23205" CreationDate="2013-11-29T20:45:50.707" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/proverbs/3/#v20003005&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Proverbs 3:5-7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Trust in Jehovah with all your heart,&#xA;  And do not rely on your own understanding.&#xA;  6   In all your ways take notice of him,&#xA;  And he will make your paths straight.&#xA;  7   Do not become wise in your own eyes.&#xA;  Fear Jehovah and turn away from bad.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can rely on God's judgement. Seek his understanding and it will be given to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/isaiah/55/#v23055009&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Isaiah 55:9&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,&#xA;  So my ways are higher than your ways&#xA;  And my thoughts than your thoughts.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In short we can't use our judgement to draw closer to God because our imperfect minds can't understand what God does. The only way we can draw closer to God is through reading his inspired word the bible and Praying to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/19/1#h=3:0-7:0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Psalm 1:1-2&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Happy is the man who does not walk according to the advice of the wicked&#xA;  And does not stand on the path of sinners&#xA;  And does not sit in the seat of scoffers.&#xA;   2 But his delight is in the law of Jehovah,&#xA;  And he meditates on His law day and night.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/philippians/4/#v50004006&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philippians 4:6-7&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God; 7  and the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of how you would draw closer to a friend. If you don't talk to that person and show no interest in what they want then they aren't really a friend are they? In that same way, to draw close to God we have to talk to him and get to know him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T20:45:50.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23285" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23304" CreationDate="2013-11-29T20:50:56.527" Score="10" ViewCount="4654" Body="&lt;p&gt;Can one be baptized and become a Catholic if they don't believe in every particular &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Catholic dogma&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I personally am interested in being a Catholic, i.e., being baptized by a Catholic priest, being confirmed, and so forth. However, there are some dogmas that, even after serious biblical study, I am hesitant to believe in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After responses/ comments from a few members, I narrowed these dogmas to the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Perpetual virginity&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Immaculate conception&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Assumption of Mary&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(While I did not include #2-3 in the original post, I am including them in my revision so that further clarification can be accomplished on this matter. The original post was not intended to include each dogma I did not believe in, but rather, to give a few examples.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Originally, I said that I did not believe that one was required to pray to Mary and the saints. As @AndrewLeach responded,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You present that praying to Mary and to the Saints are necessary. It's not necessary for salvation to pray to them, merely to accept that they are there if required... However, it is necessary to accept that the Saints are there if required, and that their prayers are effective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I should clarify that I have no problem with people praying to the saints and/ or Mary, if they wish. I don't feel it is necessary, for anything, but as long as I myself am never compelled to do so, I have no problem if others do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It seems that the liturgy of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Penitential Rite&lt;/a&gt; has the following statement:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I confess to almighty God,&#xA;  and to you, my brothers and sisters,&#xA;  that I have sinned through my own fault,&#xA;  in my thoughts and in my words,&#xA;  in what I have done,&#xA;  and in what I have failed to do;&#xA;  and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,&#xA;  all the angels and saints,&#xA;  and you, my brothers and sisters,&#xA;  to pray for me to the Lord, our God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, is one &lt;strong&gt;required&lt;/strong&gt; to recite this prayer during Mass, where he/ she is basically beseeching or praying to Mary and the saints? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All that being said, and this is the primary question, can I still become a Catholic if I do not believe in (accept) those particular dogmas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-11-30T01:49:59.450" LastActivityDate="2017-06-02T16:01:12.053" Title="Can one be baptized and become a Catholic if they don't believe in every particular Catholic dogma?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;baptism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23286" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23283" CreationDate="2013-11-29T21:23:27.737" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bruce Metzger's &lt;em&gt;A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament&lt;/em&gt; is a well-known book that accomplishes what you asked about. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'd also recommend procuring some critical apparati. These list the variants and allow the reader to form their own conclusions, for the most part. Two well-known apparati are Nestle-Aland's NA26/ 27/ 28 Greek New Testament, as well as Constantin Tischendorf's critical apparatus. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-11-29T22:13:14.950" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T22:13:14.950" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23288" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23266" CreationDate="2013-11-29T23:38:37.490" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;To answer your question about man being made in God's image, we must first establish what God's image means.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some cogent references:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis chapter 1  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Obviously it could not mean physical appearance since man and woman are dissimilar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is the image of God that is referred to in verses 1:26 and 27? To find the answer to that we have to go back the original Hebrew scriptures:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;H6754 צֶּלֶם tselem (tseh'-lem) n-m.&#xA;&#xA;1. a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance &#xA;&#xA;2. (hence) a representative figure, especially an idol&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we see in the original Hebrew that it has to do not with  any material aspect, but with a Spiritual aspect.&#xA;Which only stands to reason since all material things were created by and for him. And God existed before any material thing So God must be all Spiritual (you may call that state by some other name, but the concept is still the same).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That leaves us to ponder then what does being made in the image of God mean?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As near as I can determine from all of the Scriptures I have studied, it means that we  are made in the concept of the Trinity, or in other words in three parts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I take that to mean body, Spirit and Soul. Even beyond that in studying Genesis I came to the decision that the following Scripture gave a deeper meaning to murder than just the loss of life for the man because of the statement that man was made in the image of God. Of course that is only my thoughts and I was wrong once a long time ago.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 9:6  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I also take that to justify capitol punishment, but that's another argument entirely.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis  5:3  KJV  tells me that we are all in the image of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-29T23:38:37.490" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23290" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23294" CreationDate="2013-11-30T02:00:01.263" Score="6" ViewCount="155" Body="&lt;p&gt;This &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;website&lt;/a&gt; lists three options for the greeting recited by the presider of the Mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priest:  In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  [All together make the sign of the cross.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All:  Amen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then, one of three options:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Option A&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priest:  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All:  And also with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Option B&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priest:  The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All:  Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;or All:  And also with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Option C&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Priest:  The Lord be with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[or Bishop:  Peace be with you.]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All:  And also with you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Why are there three options?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Which authority determines which option to use? Is this the presider's choice alone, or does one in authority above the presider make this determination?&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T03:49:11.383" Title="Why are there differences in the &quot;Greeting&quot; of the Mass?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;mass&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23291" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9406" CreationDate="2013-11-30T02:05:16.707" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A &lt;strong&gt;prophet&lt;/strong&gt; is someone God chooses to speak through. As others have said, sometimes this is foretelling the future, but more commonly God uses the prophets to speak about the present time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. (Deut 18:18)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them. (Hosea 12:10)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T02:05:16.707" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23292" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23285" CreationDate="2013-11-30T03:14:37.100" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;When you obstinately reject a Catholic dogma you become a heretic.  There are many heretics that call themselves Catholic, but they will have no share in Eternal Life according to the infallible decree of Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex&#xA;  cathedra:” The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and&#xA;  preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only&#xA;  pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in&#xA;  eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared&#xA;  for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church&#xA;  before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical&#xA;  body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the&#xA;  Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving&#xA;  and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia&#xA;  productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter&#xA;  how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in&#xA;  the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of&#xA;  the Catholic Church.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T03:14:37.100" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23294" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23290" CreationDate="2013-11-30T03:49:11.383" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Not just the introductory right, there are numerous variation for prayers all through the mass. There are 13 Eucharistic Prayers approved by Holy See for use in the United States.&lt;sup&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/eucharistic_prayers.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;src&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why are there three options?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because even though all Mass are same in essence, people are invited to meditate upon a certain theme in each mass. Prayers differ depending on the theme of the mass.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Which authority determines which option to use? Is this the presider's choice alone, or does one in authority above the presider make this determination?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer is both. Mostly it is the presider's choice. But he has to follow the guidelines in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal Chapter VII. The bishop can make changes but all changes have to be approved by &lt;em&gt;Congregation For Divine Worship And The Discipline of The Sacraments&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T03:49:11.383" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23295" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23511" CreationDate="2013-11-30T05:33:55.550" Score="8" ViewCount="501" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just perusing the wikipedia article on predestination, and came across an interesting blip on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination#Temporal_predestination&quot;&gt;&quot;Temporal Predestination&quot;&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Temporal predestination is the view that God only determines temporal matters, and not eternal ones. This Christian view is analogous to the traditional Jewish view, which distinguishes between preordination and predestination. &lt;strong&gt;Temporal matters are pre-ordained by God, but eternal matters, being supra-temporal, are subject to absolute freedom of choice.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can someone knowledgeable elaborate on this view for me?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Would a scholar from this camp reject the idea of God preparing a place for the elect in Heaven, or would they just say that while God does know those who will end up in Heaven, and does prepare a place for them, ultimately it is their choice?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are there any major Christian denominations or scholars who hold this view?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;EXTRA CREDIT: If this was the traditional Jewish view, why was it abandoned by Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1548" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T16:09:54.620" Title="Clarifications on &quot;Temporal Predestination&quot;" Tags="&lt;predestination&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23296" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23266" CreationDate="2013-11-30T08:23:30.733" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;God is one single being comprised of three persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. He is complete within himself and needs no others. People, on the other hand, are single persons who were created as male and female and were not meant to be alone. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8829" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T08:23:30.733" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23303" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23357" CreationDate="2013-11-30T14:23:23.580" Score="4" ViewCount="198" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why do Catholic church teaches to practice abstinence from meat on certain occasions(Example :Good Friday) or periods like lent? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have heard some say that it is in respect towards Christ. However, I have not understood the rationale behind it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;EDIT&lt;/strong&gt; : I can understand when Catholic church say that I must observe penance for my sins by fasting and abstinence from what I love. What I do not understand is the insistence on abstinence from meat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3762" LastEditorUserId="3762" LastEditDate="2013-11-30T23:56:49.053" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T20:19:14.800" Title="Abstinence from meat" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;lent&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23304" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23285" CreationDate="2013-11-30T15:10:51.063" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;You asked about &quot;every particular Catholic dogma.&quot; I think there are many good Catholics who, not being theologians, don't even know what all the particular dogmas of the Catholic Church are, and who therefore don't explicitly believe them. But they implicitly believe them, in the sense that (1) they believe that the Catholic Church has received from Christ the authority to declare certain doctrines as being revealed by God and (2) they would therefore believe any of these revealed doctrines if they were informed about them.  What is incompatible with Catholicism is to deny a doctrine even though one knows that the Church has declared it to be divinely revealed.  That's heresy and would put one outside the Church (even though one's baptism would remain valid).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T15:10:51.063" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23306" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23295" CreationDate="2013-11-30T16:41:40.113" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Temporal Predestination is a theory which began back when the Bible became commonly available to the general public. It was begun as a counter theory to a belief which sprang up sometime during the 17th Century, known as Predestinationism. It was espoused by some groups that due to God having predestined who would and who would not go to Heaven that it was not a free choice of the individual to attain salvation since God had already determined that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Two  events in History took the interpretation of the Bible out of the hands of the Clergy and into every home in which there was a Bible;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;The Gutenberg Bible is the first substantial book printed in the West with moveable&#xA;metal type. Before its printing in 1454 or 1455, books were either copied by hand&#xA;or printed from engraved wooden blocks—processes that could take months or years&#xA;to complete. Johann Gutenberg invented a printing press that revolutionized the &#xA;distribution of knowledge by making it possible to produce many copies of a work &#xA;in a relatively short amount of time.&#xA;&#xA;The second major contributing factor was the King James translation of the Bible.&#xA;In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible &#xA;into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first&#xA;translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526).&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When the common man began to read the Bible for himself this passage caused quite a stir:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ephesians 1:11  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These three other Scripture were often quoted as further evidence to back up their theory:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jude 1:4 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 1:5  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 17:8  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Surprisingly enough that concept is still  espoused by some today even though many have shown that predestination is cased in the fact that God being omniscient knew before creation who would or would not accept Christ's sacrifice as their salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In order to satisfactorily answer your question on Temporal predestination, we must first describe  Predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Predestination in its broadest conception is the doctrine that because God&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely sovereign, he &quot;from all eternity did &#xA;by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass,&quot; (Westminster Confession). &quot;In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will&quot; (Ephesians 1:11).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically Predestination is the belief that God has chosen exactly what will happen&#xA;throughout time and decreed exactly how history would unfold including who would &#xA;and who would not be saved. This concept was espoused by John Calvin, and adopted &#xA;by several other denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Predestination and salvation Calvinists and Arminians agree that only some are&#xA;chosen for salvation, and that those who are elect will come to faith and believe&#xA;until the end. Further, both viewpoints agree that those who turn from sin to follow&#xA;Christ are saved. The question is this: On what basis did God predestine people? &#xA;Did God predestine some because He knew they would believe of their own free will, &#xA;or did He predestine without regard to human choices? Was God's choice based on man's&#xA;choice, or is man's choice itself a result of God's choice?&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to John Calvin,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;&quot;Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has determined in     &#xA;Himself, what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they &#xA;are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for     &#xA;some and eternal death for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one &#xA;or the other of these ends, we say he is predestinated either to life or to death.&quot;&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Not willing to accept John Calvin's concept that man had no choice in salvation, the concept of double predestination  emerged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Double predestination&#xA;    The term double predestination has been used to refer to the dual concepts&#xA;    of election and reprobation in Reformed theology. This is largely a pejorative&#xA;    term which leads to misconceptions of the Calvinist (or Reformed) doctrine. &#xA;    It has been used as a synonym for a &quot;symmetrical&quot; view of predestination which &#xA;    sees election and reprobation being worked out in an equally parallel mode of &#xA;    divine operation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;The distortion of double predestination suggests a parallelism of foreordination &#xA;and predestination by means of a positive symmetry, which may be called a &#xA;positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively &#xA;intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation; and in the same way &#xA;God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to&#xA;sin.&#xA;&#xA;This distortion makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what&#xA;God monergistically and irresistibly moves man to do. This is not the Reformed view&#xA;of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a &#xA;view may be identified with what is often loosely described as Hyper-Calvinism and&#xA;involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has &#xA;been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The classic position of Reformed theology views predestination as double in that &#xA;it involves both election and reprobation but not symmetrical with respect to the&#xA;mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather&#xA;predestination is viewed in terms of a positive-negative relationship.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively&#xA;intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of&#xA;grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing &#xA;them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or&#xA;unbelief in their lives. Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is&#xA;not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works&#xA;regeneration monergistically but never sin.&#xA;&#xA;The above is an extracted excerpt from Double Predestination by R. C. Sproul&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what does Reprobation mean? Reprobation is a state of being beyond salvage or salvation. It is the source of the word reprobate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Reprobation, in Christian theology, is a corollary to the Calvinist doctrine of&#xA;unconditional election which derives that since (in this view) some of mankind &#xA;(the elect) are predestined by God for salvation, the remainder are necessarily &#xA;pre-ordained to condemnation, i.e. reprobation. In Calvinist terminology, the &#xA;non-elect are often referred to as the reprobate. Similarly, when a sinner is so&#xA;hardened as to feel no remorse or misgiving of conscience, it is considered as a&#xA;sign of reprobation.&#xA;&#xA;The word &quot;reprobation&quot; comes from the Latin reprobatus (reproved or condemned),&#xA;which is the opposite of approbatus (commended or approved).&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The term Hyper-Calvinism refers primarily to a theological position that &#xA;historically arose from within the Calvinist tradition among the early English&#xA;Particular Baptists in the mid 1700's. It can be seen in the teachings of men &#xA;like Joseph Hussey (d. 1726), Lewis Wayman (d. 1764), John Brine (d. 1765), &#xA;and to some extent in John Gill (d. 1771).&#xA;&#xA;It is called Hyper-Calvinism by its critics, who maintain that it deviates from &#xA;the biblical gospel by:&#xA;&#xA;    (1) denying that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal,&#xA;    i.e. for all alike, and &#xA;&#xA;    (2) denying that the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and &#xA;    believe in Christ for salvation.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Supralapsarianism is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose&#xA;some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would &#xA;say that the reprobate (non-elect) vessels of wrath fitted for destruction&#xA;(Rom. 9:22) were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they &#xA;fell into sin was ordained.&#xA;&#xA;In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically&#xA;preceded His decree to permit Adam's fallso that their damnation is first of all &#xA;an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.&quot; &#xA;&#xA;This view is most often contrasted with Infralapsarianism (also known sometimes&#xA;as &quot;sublapsarianism&quot;) which suggests that God's decree to permit the fall logically&#xA;preceded His decree of election. So when God chose the elect and passed over the &#xA;non-elect, He was contemplating them all as fallen creatures.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So to what is temporal predestination.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;A predestination paradox is a temporal anomaly which is said to be possible under fixed time theory.  It is also known as a causal loop or uncaused cause.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Fixed time maintains that the past and the future all exist already in static form, and that time is not more than our perception or experience of events within it.  Thus for something to move from the future to the past is not different in kind from something moving from the living room to the bedroom; it is simply in a different position within four-dimensional space, and it happens that the value of the dimension we call time has moved in the direction in which it does not usually move.  Since this is possible, it would also be possible for that object to initiate a chain of events which ultimately is the cause of its own motion from the future to the past.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Temporal predestination is a term coined to designate that since there is actually no such thing as time and it is only our imagination that dictates things being sequential rather than static, we have the ability to overcome predestination by moving our salvation from the future back to the creation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is a simplified definition, but it covers the main concept.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I apologize for the long winded answer but it is in response to a request by curiousdanni&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2013-12-05T16:40:34.530" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T16:40:34.530" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23307" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23206" CreationDate="2013-11-30T17:02:49.567" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Cain would agree, &quot;My punishment is more than I can bear&quot; (Gen 4:13).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But going back, Do you agree with God punishing Satan/Sin?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;If NO! You are right. No punishment for sin/satan = no need for salvation.&lt;br&gt; So Satan/Sin would still be in heaven. Stop reading.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If YES. I know. We want Satan to be punished but not Us. Never mind read on.&lt;Br&gt;&#xA;Since Satan/Sin &quot;entered the world&quot; (Rom 5:12), ANYONE taking part with him WOULD ALSO be punished or let alone exempted from salvation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember what Isaiah said in 59:2, &quot;But your iniquities have separated you from your God&quot;. God can't have SIN/SATAN in heaven. So anyone would have to be SAVED or FREED or CLEANSED or FORGIVEN from SIN to be in heaven. Second-hand sin at least. First-hand sin cannot be forgiven - like blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mat 12:31).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;thanks for reading&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6506" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T17:02:49.567" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23309" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23311" CreationDate="2013-11-30T18:41:51.547" Score="9" ViewCount="18564" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know of no Scriptural basis for Cherubs being baby Angels, or in fact that any Angels are infants. Additionally I find no reference to Cupid who is depicted as a infant with wings and bow and arrows anywhere in the Bible?&#xA;If anyone is aware of any such Scriptures please inform me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2015-03-03T01:37:28.423" Title="Where did the idea that Cherubs were baby Angels originate?" Tags="&lt;angels&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23310" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9573" CreationDate="2013-11-30T19:04:23.717" Score="16" Body="&lt;p&gt;This issue will be debated for a long time.  However, Henry H. Halley addresses this issue with great clarity.  In his book, Halley's Bible Handbook, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 113, &quot;There are two leading opinions: Amenhotep II (1450-1420 B.C.), or Merneptah (1250-1220 B.C.).  Merneptah was the son of Rameses II, who was a master builder &amp;amp; creator of the Ramesseum, located across the River Nile from modern day Luxor, and the city of Pi-Ramesses. Rameses II, A.K.A. Ramesses the Great or Ramses, is one of the most notable and powerful pharaohs of all time. If Moses was raised by the daughter of Ramses II and Nefertari, then the Exodus occurred under the leadership of Merneptah and the cruel enslavement of the Jews occurred under the leadership of Ramses II.  Many scholars believe this based upon the Scripture &lt;em&gt;&quot;Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.&quot;&lt;/em&gt; Ex. 1:11, KJV.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) agrees, but adds that it could have been Amenhotep II.  The belief that it was Amenhotep II is somewhat confusing; and yet, compelling! It revolves around Pharaoh's daughter. &quot;If, as many think, the Pharaoh of the Oppression was Thothmes III [a.k.a. Thutmose III, Tuthmosis III, Thutmosis, Thothmes], then Pharaoh's daughter was some unknown princess. Some have thought she was Hatshepsut, the &quot;Queen Elizabeth of Egypt.&quot; (from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, &quot;Pharaoh's Daughter&quot;, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.). Why is it important to determine who the daughter of Pharaoh was?  By determining who the Pharaoh's daughter was, we can determine who the Pharaoh was.  The problem is tumultuous and I will attempt to explain it below. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the way, the belief that she was Hatshepsut, the &quot;Queen Elizabeth of Egypt&quot; is also mentioned in Halley's Handbook, p. 112.  She was the daughter of Thotmes I.  And she was co-regent (co-Pharaoh) with Thotmes II and Thotmes III. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently, Thotmes II married his half-sister, Hatshepsut, who was the real &quot;ruling&quot; power of Egypt. Upon his death, Thotmes III took his place, with Hatshepsut still in power.  When she died, Thotmes III extended the empire, built many monuments, constructed a mighty Navy; and is considered the greatest conqueror in Egyptian history.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But, here is where the theory gets confusing.  If Thotmes III is the Pharaoh of Moses' time, how could his firstborn son die by the death angel of Exodus?  When his firstborn son died two years before?  Apparently, Thotmes III, appointed Amenhotep II to be his co-regent two or three years before the Exodus.  Thotmes III sent Amenhotep II to lead a battle against the Syrians.  So when the death angel swept over the land, it was Amenhotep II's firstborn who died. Furthermore, history records that Thotmes III died in the same year (in the Red Sea).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hence, the confusion as to whether it was Thotmes III or Amenhotep II who was the pharaoh of Moses' time.  It was both.  Whose son died?  Amenhotep II.  And history does record that shortly after his co-regency began, his son died mysteriously.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thotmes II &amp;amp; Thotmes III were pharaohs during the time of Moses' upbringing.  Thotmes III was the Pharaoh during the years that Moses was living in Midian. Thotmes III &amp;amp; Amenhotep II were pharaohs when the Exodus began. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, if you take a careful look at the Scriptures, it says in 1 Kings 6:1, &lt;em&gt;&quot;And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;   We only need to trace the time from the fourth year of Solomon's reign and go backwards in time 480 years, you come to the time of Amenhotep II's reign.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which of the two pharaoh's did Moses oppose?  Let the scholars debate that issue.  As for me, I believe it was Amenhotep II.  After all, it was his son that died! Amenhotep II went to war with the Syrians because he was younger, more virile and did not believe that Moses' threat would amount to a hill of beans.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could it have been Ramses II?  Yes, there is a lot of evidence to show that it was him.  It's the timeline that I have a problem with!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The debate will go on and on; but this is for certain, archaeology confirms that the Pharaohs came to power and are now gone, yet the Jews are still living among us.  Let God be praised!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8831" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T19:04:23.717" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23311" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23309" CreationDate="2013-11-30T20:06:39.607" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;You are correct that the Bible does not consider angels to look like babies with wings. Angels sometimes appear in human form, or in some inexplicable and terrifying guise. Also, Cupid/Eros is part of classical mythology - and he is more typically an adolescent rather than a baby, though both images are possible. Generic &quot;flying baby&quot; images may represent nature spirits of some kind. This iconography was known to Renaissance artists via the survival of classical statuary, and adapted into Christian art. Its popularity at this time is largely due to the influence of Donatello, although there are many examples prior to him (&lt;em&gt;Inventing the Renaissance Putto&lt;/em&gt;, Charles Dempsey, UNC Press 2001). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Properly speaking, the flying baby is a &lt;em&gt;putto&lt;/em&gt; (plural &lt;em&gt;putti&lt;/em&gt;). There are variants, like &lt;em&gt;panisci&lt;/em&gt; who are the compatriots of the god Pan; &lt;em&gt;spiritelli&lt;/em&gt; who are general nature spirits or fairies; and so on. They all generally play a supporting role, doing things like holding up garlands of flowers, playing miniature musical instruments, carrying important people on clouds, or just flitting around the edge of a painting; though there are also works where they are the subject. Important variants include the flying baby head (maybe with six wings, maybe with just two), and the cloudy/ghostly/translucent putto.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are a couple of examples of these. My first example is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/search-the-collections/436968&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Madonna and Child with Seraphim and Cherubim&lt;/em&gt; by Andrea Mantegna&lt;/a&gt;, c. 1460. You can see that the background of the painting is entirely full of winged baby heads. They function here like an aureole (a sort of whole-body halo that surrounds particularly holy people); instead of abstract glowing rays, we have a mass of angels. Another incredibly famous example is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Madonna&quot;&gt;Sistine Madonna&lt;/a&gt; of Raphael, 1512. In &lt;a href=&quot;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/RAFAEL_-_Madonna_Sixtina_%28Gem%C3%A4ldegalerie_Alter_Meister%2C_Dresde%2C_1513-14._%C3%93leo_sobre_lienzo%2C_265_x_196_cm%29.jpg/747px-RAFAEL_-_Madonna_Sixtina_%28Gem%C3%A4ldegalerie_Alter_Meister%2C_Dresde%2C_1513-14._%C3%93leo_sobre_lienzo%2C_265_x_196_cm%29.jpg&quot;&gt;an enlarged version of the image&lt;/a&gt;, it can be seen that the cloudy background is actually composed of angelic faces. The two putti at the bottom are more &quot;conventional&quot;, and probably immediately recognizable. The background angels are part of the heavenly vision - transcendent and immaterial - while the foreground pair are a playful bridge between the painting-world and the exterior world. So in these examples, we see a spectrum of uses of the image, from alien to friendly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theologically - if there is any real theological justification behind artistic appropriation of classical myth - the portrayal of angels as children emphasizes their benevolence and innocence (ie, lack of sin). Simply put, they are meant to look cute. On the other hand, the flying heads are quite un-cute to my eyes: the adorable baby head is in an odd context, creating a striking dissonance which is suggestive of the sheer incomprehensibility of the Biblical angel, even if it's not a literal depiction. I'm thinking of the Ezekiel/Revelation kind of thing, which actually &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; cherubim, כְּרוּבִים. We can probably point to Donatello for the habit of showing angels as winged children, though to be fair his putti aren't as schmalzy as some more recent examples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="545" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T20:06:39.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23312" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="18736" CreationDate="2013-11-30T20:30:25.970" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Here are some thoughts I have had  over the years:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;God created man in his own image, but God is not material and so He may have&#xA;used the design which he used to form the Angels as a blueprint for making man.&#xA;&#xA;His original creation was masculine (Adam) for which he may have used the Angels &#xA;as a pattern.&#xA;&#xA;So then Man may have been created in God's image (body, Spirit and Soul) which has&#xA;no Material form and in the pattern of the Angels.&#xA;&#xA;And then when He decided to create woman as a companion for man; Knowing all things&#xA;and especially that woman would be deceived by Satan and then entice Adam to&#xA;intentionally sin, and that her punishment was to be the bearing of children&#xA;modified that pattern and created Eve.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of  course that is pure conjecture on my part and there are no Scriptures for me to cite, but there are some things that I believe God just didn't think we needed to know before we go to Glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T20:30:25.970" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23313" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15669" CreationDate="2013-11-30T20:49:59.270" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your assertion that Angels who have sinned do not die is in contrast to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation   KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20:14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20:10  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not find that any Angels who did not rebel ever die , but at least the second death gets the bad guys.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T20:49:59.270" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23314" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="7530" CreationDate="2013-11-30T21:06:15.873" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Some, but not all, Angels do die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation   KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20:14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;20:10  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not find that any Angels who did not rebel ever die , but at least the second death gets the bad guys.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-11-30T21:06:15.873" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23317" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23319" CreationDate="2013-11-30T22:41:39.463" Score="1" ViewCount="967" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am considering to translate my book into Russian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A stopper for this is that the standard Russian Bible (Russian Synodal Translation) is out of question &lt;strong&gt;very&lt;/strong&gt; poor quality. (I once compared it with the Hebrew/Greek original, and it seems that more than half verses are with errors.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where can I get a good free complete translation of Bible into Russian language?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8834" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-20T08:49:57.193" LastActivityDate="2015-01-20T08:49:57.193" Title="Where can I find a free Russian Bible other than the Russian Synodal Translation?" Tags="&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;resource-request&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2015-01-20T21:58:05.557" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23319" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23317" CreationDate="2013-11-30T23:02:58.297" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I found a browsable Bible in Russian:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://allbible.info/bible/modern/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://allbible.info/bible/modern/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8834" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-20T05:26:10.077" LastActivityDate="2015-01-20T05:26:10.077" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23320" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23317" CreationDate="2013-12-01T00:50:17.297" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New World Translation&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;NWT in English&quot;&gt;English&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/ru/%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8/%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F/nwt/%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;NWT in Russian&quot;&gt;Russian&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can read the entire Bible online or download the PDF version of it. You can switch between languages using the drop-down bar on the right of the screen. There are about 600 languages we translate into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you would like a hard copy then you can request one here — &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/contact/russia/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Contact for Russia&lt;/a&gt;. We give them out at no charge to you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="214" LastEditDate="2013-12-04T21:23:23.203" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T21:23:23.203" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23321" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="13772" CreationDate="2013-12-01T01:09:04.343" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;mark 10&#xA;6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8and the two will become one flesh.’c So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;the reason God made men and women was so that they would pair up and procreate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;this was a command given by God to Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. that command still stands today. thought the heavens and earth pass away His Words will not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also the fullest and deepest meaning of Love They Neighbor As Thyself is accomplished through a spousal relationship. After all the definition of a neighbor is a person living near or next door to the speaker or person referred to. Its the closest person to you. whether in a community setting and/or in a relationship reguard getting married is fully walking out your christianity. not to mention is teaches you much on how the saviour feels towards us and visa versa. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8837" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T01:09:04.343" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23322" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="2206" CreationDate="2013-12-01T01:16:48.300" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;As a Christian, and a spare time student of the great World Religions, I am aware that the vedantic and yogic texts actually explain this in detail.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the details are lost in the metaphorical nature of the Christian texts.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the yoga tradition, they further distinguish the being as five &quot;bodies&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1) Physical body (cells, tissues, etc.)&#xA;2) Bio-energetic body (bio-energy is translated as: &quot;chi&quot; in Chinese; &quot;ki&quot; in Japanese; and &quot;prana&quot; in Sanskrit)&#xA;3) Emotional body (emotional volition)&#xA;4) Mental body (thoughts)&#xA;5) Consciousness body (awareness/soul/spirit)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my understanding, in the Christian tradition, the Soul includes the thoughts, emotions, and a portion of the Spirit in man; that is, man's connection with the Divine, Universal Consciousness.  However, most people are lost, wandering the planet, not knowing that their Soul is also a part of God, of Spirit.  It is only when they look within, and experience their own Soul, that they experience the sacred Divinity within - the &quot;Kingdom of God within.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8838" LastEditorUserId="21826" LastEditDate="2015-06-30T17:26:22.153" LastActivityDate="2015-06-30T17:26:22.153" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23332" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23350" CreationDate="2013-12-01T11:54:32.150" Score="2" ViewCount="2912" Body="&lt;p&gt;What do these Bible verses mean? Why does it demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 20:13 – demands the death of homosexuals.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 35:2 – demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8795" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-11-20T02:04:39.787" Title="Why does the Mosaic Law demand the death of so many innocent people?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;death&gt;&lt;torah&gt;&lt;capital-punishment&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23335" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23332" CreationDate="2013-12-01T14:57:34.677" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The severity of the punishment matches the severity of the crime, that's all. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For Israel to keep a holy God in her midst who will provide her with plenty of rain and abundant crops, health and well-being, protection in all warfare, bravery and courage in its citizens, much healthy offspring, and so on (Deuteronomy 28), will demand high standards on the side of the subjects of His rule. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look at the longer lines we put up with from Homeland Security to be protected from terrorists. Look a the diminishing rate of privacy we endure as cameras go up around the city and the government has access to all the server contents on demand. We put up with these greater restrictions for more protection. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even so, the Israelites agreed to these standards in their covenant with God to maintain a right relationship with a holy God. All of these punishments you read about in the OT are spelled out in the Israelite's contract with God (in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy). If they wanted a holy God to remain in their midst, then they would have to agree with these rules (Deuteronomy 18:24-30). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T14:57:34.677" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23336" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22930" CreationDate="2013-12-01T15:05:45.087" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus' claims about Himself, such as there is no way to God but through Him (John 14:6) expressly reject any newer revelation that will supplant faith in Jesus Christ. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The book of Revelation shows us what will happen for a good while to come, and it shows Jesus, the Lamb of God, on the throne at the end (Rev. 21:22). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;According to 1 Cor. 15:20-28 we find that the God of the Bible will endure forever; there will be no other gods from new revelations to replace Him, and Jesus is the agent through which God will draw all people to Himself. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T15:05:45.087" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23337" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-01T15:35:44.573" Score="0" ViewCount="70" Body="&lt;p&gt;Does this verse permit slavery on the Holy Bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be&#xA;  punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be&#xA;  punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is&#xA;  their property.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user8844" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T15:35:44.573" Title="Slavery on Exodus 21 verse 20-21" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;slavery&gt;" AnswerCount="0" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-12-02T14:39:52.090" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23338" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23352" CreationDate="2013-12-01T15:41:37.113" Score="1" ViewCount="2289" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it ok to have slavery according to bible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the&#xA;  good and gentle, but also to the froward.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure&#xA;  grief, suffering wrongfully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye&#xA;  shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it,&#xA;  ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user8844" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T20:49:59.840" Title="Slavery verses on the bible (1 Peter 2:18-20)" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;&lt;bible-translation&gt;&lt;peter&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-12-02T14:39:41.667" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23339" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23349" CreationDate="2013-12-01T15:49:16.363" Score="4" ViewCount="4070" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does this verse tell us? It's quite hard to understand.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 18:9:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It&#xA;  is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be&#xA;  thrown into the hell of fire.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user8844" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-13T17:10:34.927" LastActivityDate="2017-11-20T21:47:38.597" Title="What does Matthew mean by &quot;if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out&quot;, etc.?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23340" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23345" CreationDate="2013-12-01T15:54:18.230" Score="4" ViewCount="29034" Body="&lt;p&gt;What does this verse mean? Is this the reason why many good people die and lots of bad person are living the greed and wealth in this world? This keeps on bugging me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 12:25&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;”Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this&#xA;  world will keep it for eternal life.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8795" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2015-01-05T10:59:06.450" LastActivityDate="2015-01-05T10:59:06.450" Title="What does John 12:25 mean?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="3" ClosedDate="2016-05-26T03:36:41.623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23341" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23363" CreationDate="2013-12-01T16:00:54.487" Score="-1" ViewCount="130" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is it worth even being skinned alive like St. Bartholomew? In Earthly terms, you wouldn't allow THAT to happen to you even for the adoration of the planet's most lovely woman or the richest bounty of wealth, fame or beauty!!!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm just trying to gauge what is felt 'generally' on the subject. A good answer would help me to get an understanding of what is mostly taught and considered understood among theologians, priests, parishes etc... rather than a personal guess.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-12-02T05:52:40.363" LastActivityDate="2013-12-16T18:36:46.667" Title="What does the Catholic Church say about the experience of Joy felt by the martyrs?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;saint&gt;&lt;belief&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23343" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23217" CreationDate="2013-12-01T16:20:38.557" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are Christians that have already discovered other intelligent life forms.&#xA;Some, like Ria Kotze ('Journey Beyond Tomorrow), believe that the angel that anounced the birth of Jesus was&quot;the lord of Capricorn Command&quot;.&#xA;Jesus, they say, arrived on a &quot;specially constructed interdimensional starship of indesceibable beauty&quot; - the Star of Bethlehem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For these Christians it was the discovery of earthlings by aliens that led to Christianity.&#xA;So the experts in these matters would surely agree with the mainstream Christians.&#xA;Discovering aliens would not change the plans in place for Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T16:20:38.557" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23345" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23340" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:17:03.983" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Generally this verse is understood as a poetic way of telling us what our priorities should be.  If we're focused on our temporary earthly life, we'll throw away our eternal life, but f we love the things of God and are willing to focus, instead, on things of eternal import, we will gain eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;He that loveth his life shall lose it,.... The sense is, that whoever&#xA;  is so in love with this present temporal life, as to be anxiously&#xA;  careful of it, and takes all precautions to secure it; and rather than&#xA;  to expose it to any danger, chooses to deny the faith of Christ, and&#xA;  desert his cause and interest; as such an one shall not long enjoy&#xA;  this life, so he shall come short of an eternal one:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;and he that hateth his life in this world: on the other hand, whoever&#xA;  seems careless about it, and not to consult the safety of it, but is&#xA;  unconcerned about it; yea, as if he was throwing it away, as of no&#xA;  great moment and significancy, rather than do anything to preserve it,&#xA;  which would be scandalous to himself, and be dishonourable to his Lord&#xA;  and master; he&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;shall keep it unto life eternal: he shall be preserved in his temporal&#xA;  life, in a remarkable manner, until he has done the will and work of&#xA;  God, notwithstanding all attempts upon it; and he shall appear to have&#xA;  that spiritual life, which is the beginning and pledge of, and which&#xA;  springs up unto, and issues in eternal life; and that he shall enjoy&#xA;  in the world to come. This Christ said to let his disciples and&#xA;  followers know, that they must suffer and die, as well as he, though&#xA;  not on the same account, and for the self-same reasons; and that their&#xA;  sufferings and death in his cause, and for his Gospel, would turn to&#xA;  their advantage.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similarly, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2005/05_78_1.html&quot;&gt;Grace in Focus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Love and Hate Are Figures of Speech Concerning Priorities&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The person who “loves his life [psyche]” is one who is living for the&#xA;  now. He is contradicting Jesus’ command, “Don’t lay up treasure on&#xA;  earth” (Matt 6:19). He is failing to serve Jesus (“If anyone serves&#xA;  Me, him My Father will honor,” (John 12:26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The person who “hates his life [psyche]” is one who is living for the&#xA;  life to come. He is obeying Jesus’ command, “Lay up treasure in&#xA;  heaven” (Matt 6:20). He is following Jesus and serving Him and will&#xA;  one day be honored by God (John 12:26).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T17:17:03.983" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23347" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23339" CreationDate="2013-12-01T17:33:51.807" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; literally mean “And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That's fairly straightforward.  Eternal intense, unimaginable, agonizing suffering, or temporary pain and blindness...  The choice is yours.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Kind of puts the real requirements for goodness and holiness required of us by God into perspective. We all think &quot;We're not so bad&quot;, but if you ever get a real understanding of God's requirements, you realize that there's no way we can attain to that level of perfection. &lt;a href=&quot;http://christiananswers.net/q-comfort/heaven-goodenough.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;None of us is good enough to get to heaven.  Thankfully, He provided the lamb of God to pay the penalty for our sins, since we can't.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is typically used as a hyperbole to make a principle clear:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you have things in your lift that are causing you to sin, get rid of them.  It's better to have temporary loss in this world than eternal loss.  Love the things of God, and get rid of those things that are not Godly, that cause you to stumble.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Companion verse: &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23340/biblical-verse-confusion-john-1426&quot;&gt;John 12:25&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.463" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T19:05:17.343" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23348" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23285" CreationDate="2013-12-01T18:35:51.767" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Can I still become a Catholic if I do not believe in (accept) these&#xA;  particular dogmas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ol&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perpetual virginity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Immaculate conception&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Assumption of Mary&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Short answer…&lt;strong&gt;no&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Historical Christianity (i.e. both the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Roman Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;  and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Orthodox Catholic Church&lt;/a&gt;) have &lt;strong&gt;traditionally&lt;/strong&gt; taught that the Blessed Theotokos remained &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;perpetually a virgin&lt;/a&gt; and that she was &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;assumed into Heaven&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;See: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perpetual Virginity of Mary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Roman Catholic Church declared the “&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#History&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Immaculate Conception&lt;/a&gt;” to be an infallibly defined dogma of the Church – meaning that this is &lt;em&gt;definitely&lt;/em&gt; something Catholics must believe to be a Catholic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The doctrines surrounding &lt;a href=&quot;http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mary&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://scripturecatholic.com/saints.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;communion of Saints&lt;/a&gt; are not distant orbiting doctrinal satellites circling the “back pews” of the Church to be simply ignored. The Catholic Church teaches that they are front and center – so intimately intertwined with the Sacred of Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist that they are virtually indistinguishable. To be a Catholic means to love Mary. To be a Catholic means to commune with Saints. It’s not a matter of requirement. It’s a matter of Love.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDVLBUK5FGw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;It should be kept in mind by you, or anyone else that may be gravitating toward the Catholic Church, that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholicism. The Eucharist should be the focal point for &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; Catholics. Holy Mother Church teaches that the Eucharist is Jesus! If the Eucharist doesn’t truly draw you into the Church, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;nothing&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; will.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-12-05T17:00:11.740" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T17:00:11.740" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23349" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23339" CreationDate="2013-12-01T19:21:00.333" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin is not something we as Christians should fool around with. The same applies to non-Christians as well, for that matter.  Consequently, we need to get tough with sin and tough with ourselves when it comes to nipping it in the bud. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course, a man could avoid lusting after a woman by blinding himself in both eyes, but such an extreme measure, interestingly enough, would not cure lust! I suggest that is why Jesus talked about plucking out one eye, not two.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's pretty clear, to me at any rate, Jesus is using hyperbole, which is a figure of speech which exaggerates deliberately for best effect. If Jesus had said,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;If you are aware of what is causing you to sin, you need to have a little conversation with yourself in which you rebuke yourself and promise God you'll not sin again,&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;His words would not have had the impact as would His words about eye-gouging. He knew that, of course, and He knew His words would cause His listeners to stop and analyze what they'd just heard, and in doing so they would've gotten the message.  In essence, Jesus was saying &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Get tough on yourself. Make a clean break with sin and with anything that causes you to sin. What you thereby 'lose' for my kingdom's sake will be rewarded richly in the kingdom to come. If you refuse to make a clean break with sin, you may just find yourself in hell one day because of the very thing you refused to give up!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Very sobering words, indeed, for believers and unbelievers alike. Sinful, earthly pleasures are but for a season, but at God's right hand in heaven, there are joy and pleasure forevermore (Psalm 16:11). In other words, a little pain now will yield eternal rewards. Our rejection of pain now will yield eternal regret in hell. The choice is ours to make.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Allow me to alter Jim Elliot's famous words ever so slightly:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;He is no fool who gives [up] what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jim Elliot, a missionary who sacrificed his life attempting to bring the gospel to a murderous tribe in the Amazon Rain Forest, was speared to death by the very people he came to serve (the Aucas).  He was an eye gouger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="5119" LastEditDate="2013-12-06T01:43:40.783" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T01:43:40.783" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23350" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23332" CreationDate="2013-12-01T19:54:43.967" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your real question is really why do the sins in these three instances deserve Death in God's eyes?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Leviticus 20:13,  Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 21:18-21.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The answer to that is the same as why God demanded death for when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:17  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that&#xA;  thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God had created man in his image, and he had created both man and woman. In that original creation God did not give them or any of their prosperity the knowledge of good and evil. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:7  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Eve was created to be Adam's helper:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:18, 21, &amp;amp; 22  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God created them differently for a reason, and that reason was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:26 through 28 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Man was not created as an after thought God had specific plans for man. When God  created Adam, before he created Eve he gave Adam an assignment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:5 &amp;amp; 15 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15  And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God had also created Adam as an eternal being. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:16 &amp;amp;  17 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when Man disobeyed God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, lost that eternal life, and also marred what God had already pronounced as good.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 1:31  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So now that man had given up his eternal life, when Adam died there would be left no one to tend the earth and till the soil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore in order for those duties to be carried on man had to procreate, and so God told man to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth. So man even though he had given up life eternal on the Earth, God still needed to fulfill his overall plan. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the part about homosexuality, For that you have to consider that God meant for man to procreate for several reasons, and one purpose was to have Adams posterity to care for his creation, that is why he gave sex to mankind in the beginning, and his explicit instructions were to multiply and fill the Earth. Sex was given to mankind for that reason, not for his pleasure. God made it pleasant so that man would not think of it as strictly a duty to him, even though it was. And there is no procreation in homosexuality, and it is therefore an abomination to God in that it is relegated to a place of pleasure only and not to fulfill God's edict to fill the Earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Leviticus 20:13  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an&#xA;  abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;But you have singled out only one of many sexual deviations for which God has pronounced physical death and all of those are for the same reason and that is the misuse of sex.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the punishment of physical death for breaking the Sabbath God gave man a specific command;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 20:10 &amp;amp; 11 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God blessed the Sabbath and made it holy and is to be observed as a covenant to the LORD.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 31:15 &amp;amp; 16  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16  Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We do not have the right to degrade the Sabbath and ignore it's significance. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for the last part of your question, concerning disobedient children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again God gave a specific command in the 10 commandments, and with this command, and none of the others, God gave the reward for obedience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exo 20:12  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy&#xA;  God giveth thee. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 21:18 through 21 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18  If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19  Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;20  And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21  And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it only stands to reason that if you do not honor your parents you should expect that your days will not be long, and matter of fact the less you honor them the shorter you should expect them to be right up to the point of not having any more days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2013-12-02T13:55:23.987" LastActivityDate="2013-12-02T13:55:23.987" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23351" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-01T20:42:40.650" Score="5" ViewCount="121" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to some people calling God 'Father', without adding that God is also Mother, unfairly exalts one image for God above all others and ignores the culturally conditioned nature of all our images of God, but Ratzinger said:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our mind. Christianity is not 'our' work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose. Consequently, we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;; it is based on the same Man-God relationship he came to reveal to us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: Do Protestant churches have the same or a different perspective on this matter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-12-02T18:48:30.963" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T00:15:06.780" Title="Do Protestants believe that &quot;Our Father&quot; is on par with &quot;Our Mother,&quot; or is Jesus strictly invoking a male symbol only?" Tags="&lt;religious-education&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23352" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23338" CreationDate="2013-12-01T20:49:59.840" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;It &lt;strong&gt;was&lt;/strong&gt; certainly &quot;okay.&quot; The Israelites owned slaves purchased with money (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=12&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/44&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exo. 12:44&lt;/a&gt;). No explicit prohibition is ever declared of this practice in the NT. In fact, servants are commanded to obey their masters (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Col&amp;amp;c=3&amp;amp;t=KJV#22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Col. 3:22&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Slavery is not inherently evil but it can be abused like most things. The Bible explicitly prohibits abusing slaves (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=21&amp;amp;v=20&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exo. 21:20&lt;/a&gt;), for all men are made in God's image.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, it is &lt;strong&gt;no longer&lt;/strong&gt; &quot;okay&quot; because civil law prohibts it, and Christians are commanded to obey the authorities under which they live.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T20:49:59.840" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23353" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23340" CreationDate="2013-12-01T20:52:47.710" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;As Christian martyr Jim Elliot was quoted as saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To gain what he cannot lose.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jim and four of his fellow missionaries were speared to death in the Amazon Rain Forest by the murderous Aucas (a pejorative term appended to them by outsiders, meaning &amp;quot;savages&amp;quot;), the very people they came to love and serve for Jesus' sake. Thankfully, Elizabeth Elliot, Jim's wife, had a fruitful ministry among the Auca (aka, Guarani) for many years after her husband's death.  The story of the Auca martyrs was told recently in the widely-released movie, &amp;quot;The End of the Spear.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As a sidebar, I'll simply point out that very often the &amp;quot;sacrifices&amp;quot; we make for Jesus in this life are frequently rewarded in this life, as well as the next. We Christians aren't after just &amp;quot;pie in the sky when we die by and by.&amp;quot; Consider the following verses from Mark's Gospel:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Then Peter began to say unto [Jesus], 'Lo , we have left all, and have followed thee.' And Jesus answered and said , 'Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, &lt;strong&gt;But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions&lt;/strong&gt;; and in the world to come eternal life'&amp;quot; ( Mk 10:28-30, my emphasis).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T20:52:47.710" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23354" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="12414" CreationDate="2013-12-01T20:58:20.797" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Perhaps we can also find helpful insight from scripture itself. Here are a few that I think help provide a “general” understanding of what “emptied himself” might mean. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, John, in prison, asked his disciples to inquire if Jesus was the “one-to-come”. Jesus answered: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011:4-5&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 11:4&lt;/a&gt; - Jesus answered them, “Go tell John what you hear&#xA;  and see: 11:5 the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the&#xA;  deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news proclaimed&#xA;  to them. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:22&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 7:22&lt;/a&gt; - So he answered them, “Go tell John what you have seen&#xA;  and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf&#xA;  hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus also sent out his disciples with authority to minister to the surrounding towns. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:1&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 10:1&lt;/a&gt; - Jesus called his twelve disciples and gave them&#xA;  authority over unclean spirits so they could cast them out and heal&#xA;  every kind of disease and sickness. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%209:1-2&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 9:1&lt;/a&gt; - After Jesus called the twelve together, he gave them&#xA;  power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, 9:2 and he&#xA;  sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And Jesus even permitted the Holy Spirit to lead him into temptation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew  4:1&lt;/a&gt; - Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the&#xA;  wilderness to be tempted by the devil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204:1-2&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 4:1&lt;/a&gt; - Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the&#xA;  Jordan River and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, 4:2 where&#xA;  for forty days he endured temptations from the devil. He ate nothing&#xA;  during those days, and when they were completed, he was famished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think that without much trouble, we can find many more references in the Bible along these same lines. But using just these, what can we start understanding about Jesus “emptying himself”? We find he yet had the ability to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Gave sight to the blind  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Heal the lame  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Remove leprosy from lepers  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Enable the deaf to hear  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Raise the dead   &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Proclaim the Gospel to the poor  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What else do we see from these scriptures? Jesus had the ability to pass “authority” to the disciples. Using this authority, the disciples(!) were able to cast out demons, cure diseases, and heal the sick. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And finally, would you like to be lead into temptation? Me, I want to flee it! But Jesus allowed the Holy Spirit to lead him into direct “with the devil” temptation. Who had the authority at that time? If it was Jesus, the devil would not have been able to tempt Him. But in this instance, the devil had the authority to harass Jesus much like any one of us gets harassed by him. Truly, Jesus would have had to given “something” up or the devil would not have been able to do this! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it seems scripture presents Jesus was still quite capable and yet humble in many ways. And really, it’s like, if these are the things He can do in a “limited” state, he is still far more than any person who ever lived and is alone worthy of our praise and worship. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;P.S. - Did you notice that Jesus places proclaiming the Gospel right up there with miracles? Perhaps this is for us to realize that without Jesus, it would be impossible to have the Gospel as it too is a miracle He has provided. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6282" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T20:58:20.797" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23355" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23340" CreationDate="2013-12-01T22:34:57.440" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order to understand Scripture you cannot take a single verse and draw a conclusion. You must first of all consider the entire chapter, and glean its meaning, since a verse is only a small part of the entire thought.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this Chapter of John there are four areas covered.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All references are from the KJV: and the following is quoted from Clark's commentary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;1. Jesus vindicates Mary and reproves Judas, John 12:7, and 8.&#xA;&#xA;2. The chief priests consult to put Lazarus to death, because that through him many&#xA;believed on Jesus, John 12:9-11. He enters Jerusalem in triumph; the people meet &#xA;him, and the Pharisees are troubled, John 12:12-19. Greeks inquire after Jesus,&#xA;John 12:20-22.&#xA;&#xA;3. Our Lord’s discourse on the subject, John 12:23-26. Speaks of his passion, and is&#xA;answered by a voice from heaven, John 12:27, and 28. The people are astonished at&#xA;the voice, and Jesus explains it to them, and foretells his death, John 12:29 &#xA;through 33. They question him concerning the perpetuity of the Messiah, and he&#xA;instructs them, John 12:34 through 36. Many believe not; and in them the saying of&#xA;Isaiah is fulfilled, John 12:37 through  41.&#xA;&#xA;4. Some of the chief rulers believe, but are afraid to confess him, John 12:42,&#xA;and 43. He proclaims himself the light of the world, and shows the danger of &#xA;rejecting his words, John 12:44 through 50.&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as verse 12:25 goes we have to take it in context with the whole Chapter, and with the other verses in the context of what specific concern Jesus was addressing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Chapter itself is describing the circumstance leading up to Jesus arrest, trial and ultimately his crucifixion. in this particular discourse Jesus is telling them that his time has come. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(note) Jesus referred to it as glorification!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verse 24 he is telling them that unless he does the will of the Father and dies on the cross Salvation will not come into the World.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In verse 25 he is saying that once he does die on that cross, the path to Salvation involves giving up the lust for things of this World and turning our attention to spending our eternity in Heaven. and to accomplish that the old sinful man must also die to the things of this World and hate that old life but love the new life he obtains through Salvation. Should anyone not be willing to reject that lust for the things of this world then they will not gain eternal life.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 12:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23  And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone:&#xA;  but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;25  He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life &#xA;  eternal. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;26  If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man&#xA;  serve me, him will my Father honour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;27  Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I &#xA;  unto this hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verse 26 he is telling them that If they will accept his offer of Salvation, and live the reformed life of a Christian, God will share Heaven with them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;finally in verse 27 he is telling them that he wishes he did not have to go through the cross, but he cannot ask the father to excuse him from it, since that was the reason God took him from Heaven and sent him to live and die as a man on the Earth. Because he is the only blemish free, and acceptable sacrifice to carry away our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2013-12-02T13:44:06.103" LastActivityDate="2013-12-02T13:44:06.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23356" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23339" CreationDate="2013-12-01T23:14:43.140" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew chapter 18 Jesus is covering Salvation and what it means and giving tips on how to live the Christian life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In verse 9 did Jesus mean to physically gouge out your eyes? Probably not any more than when he told Nicodemus that he must be born again did mean to physically go back into the womb and start all over.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In both these incidents Jesus was referring not to a physical process, but a spiritual process.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;consider:&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:27 and 28  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;27  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What would seem more feasible is that Jesus was saying wickedness is not confined to actions, but that we must also clean up our minds. And in order to do that it is not going to be easy. Remember the old saying that it will cost an arm and  a leg. The meaning there was that it was going to be really expensive, and in verse nine the connotation is probably similar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T23:14:43.140" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23357" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23303" CreationDate="2013-12-01T23:38:50.637" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to the edit, the essential question is why the Church prescribes a specific penitential action (abstaining from meat) on specific days, rather than just telling us to do penance (our own way).  I think the reason for being so specific is that, although a general exhortation to do penance would be followed by some people, it would fail for a great many other people, even well-meaning people who intend to do penance. Penance is too easily procrastinated. If I eat meat (knowingly) on a day of abstinence, I know that I've committed a sin that I need to confess. If I procrastinate a general intention to do penance, it never quite feels like a real sin --- after all, I'm planning to do some penance next week or next month or whenever.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The preceding paragraph was about why the Church makes specific rules. Another aspect of the question is why the rule refers specifically to abstaining from meat. I don't know the historical reason for that, but here's a guess. For many centuries, meat was not part of the regular diet of &quot;ordinary&quot; folks; only the rich could afford to eat meat often. So the requirement of abstinence had little or no effect for most people, but it required the rich to occasionally live like the rest of the population, an exercise in humility.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this guess vitiate my first paragraph? After all, ordinary people also need to do penance, yet, if I'm right, they weren't seriously affected by the law of abstinence.  The answer to that is that abstinence from meat was not the only penitential practice prescribed by the Church.  There are also days (and a whole season --- Lent) of fasting, which imposes a limit on the &lt;em&gt;amount&lt;/em&gt; of food that one is allowed to eat. That would affect everyone, not just the rich. (And the restrictions were more severe longer ago).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-12-01T23:38:50.637" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23358" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23340" CreationDate="2013-12-02T00:12:21.447" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;We need to place this verse into its proper context rather than simply trying to answer it as it stands. Let’s read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:20-23&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 12:20-23 (NET)&lt;/a&gt; - Now some Greeks were among those who had&#xA;  gone up to worship at the feast. 12:21 So these approached Philip, who&#xA;  was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and requested, “Sir, we would like to&#xA;  see Jesus.” 12:22 Philip went and told Andrew, and they both went and&#xA;  told Jesus. 12:23 Jesus replied, “The time has come for the Son of Man&#xA;  to be glorified.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before we can really understand what is going on, we need one more verse from scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:24&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 15:24&lt;/a&gt; - So he answered, “I was sent only to the lost&#xA;  sheep of the house of Israel.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what is going on? Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel and that is who He ministered to. This included, but was not totally made up of, the Jews. What we see in these verses are people from a nationality different than the Israelites, or the Jews, coming to worship Him. How could that possible be? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:9-18&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 3:9-18&lt;/a&gt; says no one seeks God. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only explanation is that the Holy Spirit was leading all sorts of people to worship Jesus. It should be noted, this is the same work the Holy Spirit is still doing in our day and age. Jesus was able to recognize this and realized the time had come for him to be gloried, which is a reference to His death on the cross. Let’s keep reading:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:24-26&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;John 12:24-26&lt;/a&gt; - I tell you the solemn truth, unless a kernel of&#xA;  wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains by itself alone. But&#xA;  if it dies, it produces much grain. 12:25 The one who loves his life&#xA;  destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it&#xA;  for eternal life. 12:26 If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow&#xA;  me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the&#xA;  Father will honor him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here we have the verse in question. But one thing we realize is, it is being spoken by Jesus! Further, before the verse we see Jesus giving a parable about a kernel of wheat “giving up its life” (my paraphrase) in order to produce much grain. Armed with this, and the preceding context, we come to understand the verse in question is Jesus saying it is His desire obey the will of God and give up his life so many more, from all nationalities, might live. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So that is the answer to your question. But is there some application for us in our own lives?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First off, let me say it DOES NOT suggest we should somehow seek to destroy our life! John 12:25 is not saying to destroy the physical life we have but to destroy those things in our life that keep us away from God. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:19-21&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 5:19-21&lt;/a&gt; for an idea of what to destroy that keeps us away from God. Ok, then, what DOES it say? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Look into your own life. What do you really want from life? I did a quick Google for “&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.com/search?site=&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=what+do+people+desire&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;what do people desire&lt;/a&gt;”. The following is a summary (minus bazaar ones like: why do people want to eat babies? (Who writes this stuff?????)): &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Material Things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Self-Confidence Things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Adventurous Things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Spiritual/Emotional Things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Career-Related Things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lifestyle Things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Health Things&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To apply this verse to ourselves, then, is to realize it is so very easy to desire things that are, pretty much, only on a physical level. It would seem that is, “only natural”! But let’s read Galatians 5:22-25:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:22-25&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Galatians 5:22-25&lt;/a&gt; - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,&#xA;  peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 5:23 gentleness,&#xA;  and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 5:24 Now those&#xA;  who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and&#xA;  desires. 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in&#xA;  accordance with the Spirit.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is our human nature that desires only the things provided in this life. ALL this life can offer is death. It is Jesus Christ who has freed us from this simplistic mindset making possible a truly abundant life. It is THIS life we want to loose and it is the life of practicing the will of God, of Jesus Christ, of building up our neighbor, that results in living with God for eternity. And note, such a blessing only comes from the salvation Jesus Christ has provided for us. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now if you would like more in-depth information about this verse, you can always read Dr. Deffinbaugh’s article titled “&lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/seriespage/greeks-seek-jesus-john-1220-50&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Greeks Seek Jesus (John 12:20-50)&lt;/a&gt;”.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, about your confusion where you see many good people dying and lots of bad people living what appears to be the good life. This is exactly what &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2073:1-28&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 73&lt;/a&gt; is talking about. And this was written by King David well over 2000 years ago. So your confusion has been felt by many for quite some time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The conclusion of that Psalm gives perhaps the best way to clear up such confusion. But Dr. Deffinbaugh also has a fine article titled “&lt;a href=&quot;https://bible.org/seriespage/psalm-73-suffering-righteous-and-success-sinners&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 73: The Suffering of the Righteous and the Success of Sinners&lt;/a&gt;”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2073:27-28&amp;amp;version=NET&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psalm 73:27-28&lt;/a&gt; - Yes, look! Those far from you die; you destroy&#xA;  everyone who is unfaithful to you. 73:28 But as for me, God’s presence&#xA;  is all I need. I have made the sovereign LORD my shelter, as I declare&#xA;  all the things you have done.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6282" LastEditorUserId="6282" LastEditDate="2013-12-02T09:36:19.193" LastActivityDate="2013-12-02T09:36:19.193" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23362" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23285" CreationDate="2013-12-02T05:20:51.143" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;One really obvious reason why you can't be Catholic without accepting Marian Dogmas is that they're built into the Liturgical Year as the penultimate celebrations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;December 8th, Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of Mary&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;January 1st, Solemnity Mary, Mother of God (you could stand this one)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;August 15th, Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These are all Holy Days of Obligation, which means, in order to be a Catholic in good standing, you need to attend Mass on each of these days (unless moved because of Sunday Mass [except for the December 8th, which is always celebrated]).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if you think of the Mass as one big prayer, the ones that are Marian focused require your devotion to her; which is to say, whatever you bring to the table in her honor will be multiplied by her Divine Son.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Dogmas are the way the Church makes sense of the supernatural realities found in the Bible and Tradition.  If you can figure out a better way to reconcile Sacred Scripture with Sacred Tradition, that would make for an interesting book.  But if you delve into it deeply, and continue the path you said you set up for yourself, I think you'll find out what G.K. Chesterton found out when he put the finishing touches on &lt;a href=&quot;https://librivox.org/orthodoxy-by-gk-chesterton/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;his new heresy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Still, as I said in my deleted comments a few days ago, Chesterton didn't become Catholic until well after writing Orthodoxy where he asks, as you do (more or less, he's talking about original sin (which is connected to all Marian Dogmas))&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;why cannot you simply take what is good in Christianity, what you can define as valuable, what you can comprehend, and leave all the rest, all the absolute dogmas that are in their nature incomprehensible?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;to which, he answers himself (this time concerning the Incarnation)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;mean that having found the moral atmosphere of the Incarnation to be common sense, I then looked at the established intellectual arguments against the Incarnation and found them to be common nonsense.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And you could insert any of the Dogmas proclaimed by the Catholic Church in place of the Incarnation.  What are the rational arguments &lt;em&gt;against&lt;/em&gt; the Assumption of Mary anyway? And furthermore, what right have we to doubt the testimony of a Miracle, like the Assumption of Mary, just because it didn't happen in the books the Church recognized as canonical?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is one reason that the Church has always kept Sacred Tradition in the same company as Sacred Scripture.  Even the most Bible-thumpingist evangelical preacher believes this when he professes to cast demons out on live television.  If a miracle occurs, which I believe happens to Protestants as well as Catholics, then another line is written in Salvation History.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;hr /&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We just baptized our fourth child this morning, and she did a great job of not voicing any dissent when we renewed our baptismal vows for her benefit.  She just laid there and smelt good.  I think if you can manage to lay down and smell good, you'll make a good Catholic eventually.  If you were at Mass this morning, you'd also have read:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Be sure of this: if the master of the house&#xA;had known the hour of night when the thief was coming,&#xA;he would have stayed awake&#xA;and not let his house be broken into.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/120113.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/120113.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And that would give you pause to think.  In any event, I think, from talking to converts in my Parish that Marian Devotion is so foreign to them that they haven't even analyzed it the way you did.  So, the way one probably can approach the matter is to put yourself in their shoes again.  If you want to enter the church, I think you have to enter it uncritical of the Marian Dogmas and let her teach you what's up with them. There's no point putting yourself at a disadvantage from the tens of thousands of converts who just did it to make their wives happy and entered the same way my daughter just did.  Knowing little and accepting the truth as a child would.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-02T05:20:51.143" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23363" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23341" CreationDate="2013-12-02T05:47:27.297" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes, the manner of death of the Martyrs is written of, by Pope Paul VI (citing the early Church Martyrs) as an ecstasy second only to that of the supreme joy felt by the Blessed Virgin Mary.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After Mary, we find the expression of the purest and most burning joy -- where the cross of Jesus is embraced with the most faithful love -- among the martyrs, in whom, in the very midst of their torment, the Holy Spirit inspires an impassioned longing for the coming of the Spouse. Dying and seeing heaven open, Saint Stephen is but the first of the innumerable witnesses of Christ. How many there are, in our day still and in many countries, who, risking everything for Christ, could declare with the martyr Ignatius of Antioch: &amp;quot;It is in the fullness of life that I write to you, desiring to die. My earthly desire has been crucified, and there is no more fire in me to love matter. There is only in me a living water that murmurs and says: 'Come to the Father.'&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6gaude.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Pope Paul IV - Gaudete in Domino&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and a little under (possibly) the immediate torture and death of the Martyrs is the agonizing passions of the Saints like St. Bernadette and St. Maximilian Kolbe and all the others who suffered with chronic illnesses like tuberculosis.  Not to mention the saints who actually miraculously received the wounds of Christ like St. Pio and St. Francis of Assisi and St. Theresa of Avila.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Beyond that, there is the martyrdom of ignominy (phrase I coined - don't look it up), which is shared by the various saints who were wrongly accused and vindicated into sainthood like St. Gerard and St. Joan of Arc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, there are numerous brutal paths one can take to be tested by fire, the most direct route happens to be martyrdom, but like St. Francis found out, you can't just always hop in a boat and get martyred!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-02T05:47:27.297" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23365" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-02T15:25:51.520" Score="9" ViewCount="1086" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thomas Aquinas defined the beatific vision as the human being's &amp;quot;final end&amp;quot; in which one attains to a perfect happiness. Aquinas reasons that one is perfectly happy only when all one's desires are perfectly satisfied, to the degree that happiness could not increase and could not be lost.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to desire and seek.&amp;quot;STh I–II, q., 3, a. 8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this kind of perfect happiness cannot be found in any physical pleasure, any amount of worldly power, any degree of temporal fame or honor, or indeed in any finite reality. It can only be found in something that is infinite and perfect – and this is God. STh I–II, q. 2, a. 8.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And since God is not a material thing but is pure spirit, we are united to God by knowing and loving him. Consequently, the most perfect union with God is the most perfect human happiness and the goal of the whole of the human life. But we cannot attain to this happiness by our own natural powers; it is a gift that must be given to us by God, who strengthens us by the &amp;quot;light of glory&amp;quot; so that we can see him as he is, without any intermediary. (Thomas quotes Psalm 35:10 on this point:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;In your light we shall see light.&amp;quot;)STh I, q. 12, a. 4.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further, since every created image or likeness of God (including even the most perfect &amp;quot;ideas&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;images&amp;quot; of God we might generate in our minds) is necessarily finite, it would thus be infinitely less than God himself.STh I, q. 12, a. 2.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only perfect and infinite good, therefore, is God himself, which is why Aquinas argues that our perfect happiness and final end can only be the direct union with God himself and not with any created image of him. This union comes about by a kind of &amp;quot;seeing&amp;quot; perfectly the divine essence itself, a gift given to our intellects when God joins them directly to himself without any intermediary. And since in seeing this perfect vision of what (and who) God is, we grasp also his perfect goodness, this act of &amp;quot;seeing&amp;quot; is at the same time a perfect act of loving God as the highest and infinite goodness&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Wikipedia 'Beatific Vision'.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is this largely accepted in the 'present' or are there other popular philosophies of theology that combat this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4737" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2014-07-06T00:00:13.537" Title="Is Aquinas' idea of 'Beatific Vision' widely accepted today?" Tags="&lt;resurrection&gt;&lt;st-thomas-aquinas&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23366" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-02T18:48:33.700" Score="5" ViewCount="4379" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hi I am new here but there is this question that bothers me. It concerns the marriage between JW and another congregation.  I am currently dating a JW member who is also of that background. Everything is been fine until he comes to say we can't get married because I am not from his church and that the church will disfellowship him and that none of his siblings will attend the wedding if he pushes through. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My question is: &lt;strong&gt;do Jehovah's Witnesses see other Christians as unbelievers?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am a Catholic and he is a Witness; why would I be viewed as an unbeliever? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8856" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-12-04T07:29:20.840" LastActivityDate="2019-12-26T15:08:43.730" Title="Why do Jehovah's Witnesses have a problem with my relationship with one of their members?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23368" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-02T19:04:42.820" Score="5" ViewCount="1129" Body="&lt;p&gt;Was Christmas a replacement of the Jewish festival of Hanukkah that was celebrated by the early Christians or was it to replace the Pagan festival of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;'Invincible Sun'&lt;/a&gt; instituted in 274 CE.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-12-05T12:06:06.010" LastActivityDate="2019-12-05T22:14:32.713" Title="Was Christmas a replacement of the feast of Hanukkah or of the 'Invincible Sun'?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;hanukkah&gt;" AnswerCount="7" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23369" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23375" CreationDate="2013-12-02T21:17:46.660" Score="14" ViewCount="629" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many depictions of the nativity have both the shepherds and the wise men at the stable on the night of Jesus' birth.  However, it is commonly held that the wise men did not arrive until several months after the birth of Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What specifically is the basis for this belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="207" LastActivityDate="2015-03-26T05:09:52.037" Title="What is the basis for the belief that the wise men did not arrive in Bethlehem until several months after the birth of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23371" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23368" CreationDate="2013-12-02T22:41:14.780" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christmas has no biblical origins, it is meant to celebrate Jesus's birthday. In fact the church recognized Christmas's pagan origins and banned in England in 1647. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Reformation_into_the_19th_century&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Reformation in the 19th Century&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In America it was banned between the years of 1659-1681. Christmas as we know it really didn't start happening until the late 1800's and even then it was foreign to most people. Puritans then where preaching and distributing literature denouncing such celebration. Christmas really became what we think of it today, when in 1843 Charles Dickens wrote &quot;A Christmas Carol&quot;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;History aside, now we look at the origin of Christmas itself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dies Natalis of Sol Invictus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, or that is the birthday of the unconquerable sun. It is also called &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Saturnalia&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; as it Honors the deity Saturn. Saturn was worshiped for agricultural purposes. This was later celebrated by the Romans as Dies Natalis of Sol Invictus. It celebrated the renewal of light and the coming of the new year. What day was it celebrated on? You guessed it December 17-23 and 25. Saturnalia was celebrated with feasting, partying, and gifts. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Saturnalia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the Roman empire came under Christian rule pagan holidays where added to help convert pagans to Christianity. You see this mainly under emperor Constantine's rule. The people whom the Romans conquered had their &quot;religion&quot; and celebrations added to the Romans celebrations. The Romans may have gotten this from Persia. who had done this before in history.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Emperor Constantine did not really become a christian until later in life and even then he didn't stick with just Christianity. One or the other wasn't an option for him I guess. Constantine supported both Christianity and pagan beliefs. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Constantine&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The names of Saturnalia where later changed to take on a more Christian aspect. The church commemorated December 25 as Jesus's birthday. The church got pagan converts and the pagans got to keep their holidays. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christians.eu/christmas-jesus/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christmas origin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Emperor Constantine the Great’s (285–337) desire was to consciously use elements of Christianity to strengthen the pagan Roman Empire. He succeeded in redefining the existing celebration of Sun worship as the festival of Christ’s birth.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that Jesus could not have been born in December or January. The bible tells us that at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/2/#v42002008&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 2:8&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;There were also in the same region shepherds &lt;strong&gt;living out of doors&lt;/strong&gt; and keeping watch in the &lt;strong&gt;night&lt;/strong&gt; over their flocks.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So when Jesus was born we see that people where out sleeping in the field and watching sheep most of the day. Lets see what the bible says about that months weather conditions. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/ezra/10/#v15010013&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Ezra 10:13&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;However, there are many people, and it is the &lt;strong&gt;rainy season&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;strong&gt;It is not possible to stand outside&lt;/strong&gt;, and the matter will not take just one or two days, for we have rebelled extensively in this matter.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It was not even possible to stand outside it was so bitter cold. That is rain aside. Shepherds would not have been outside after late October let alone December.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Changing the name of the holiday doesn't change the pagan roots. Christmas doesn't celebrate Jesus's birthday, but a celebration by pagan devotees of Mithra. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mithra the Pagan Christ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Further wisdom can be found in the online library at:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102002885#h=4:0-8:356&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The bibles viewpoint-What you should know about Christmas&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-12-03T03:24:51.780" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T03:24:51.780" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23372" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22946" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:02:01.853" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe the only time when God is referred to with a plural noun or pronoun is in Genesis 1, when God Himself refers to Himself. The Bible always mentions the Father, Son and Holy Ghost separately when referring to the separate persons of God together. Otherwise, it is &quot;He&quot; and &quot;Him.&quot; God is always a singular pronoun. There is no need to refer to the Trinity as your question suggests, for God is one. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are no strict directives in the Bible about new terms used to describe the Trinity. But it's important that Christians do not stray too far from the language that has been given to us in the Scriptures to avoid confusion or perversion of the text. Every word of Scripture is God-breathed, so there is a good reason why there are not many words to describe the Trinity. YHWH, I AM THAT I AM, The Godhead, and The Fullness of the Glory of God, come to mind, but even these examples must be taken into the context of their Hebrew/Greek origin and their texts. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, even Biblical terms can be twisted to mean something completely different from their traditional, Biblical understanding. The Trinity, even, means something very different to different people. It would be foolhardy to bring in another word that is not clearly defined or established in Biblical text or received Christian tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[important note]:&lt;em&gt;Addressing or referring to the Godhead should always be done with reverence. This is a basic truth embedded in the 10 commandments.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="66" LastEditorUserId="66" LastEditDate="2013-12-03T01:28:28.470" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T01:28:28.470" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23373" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23369" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:06:20.033" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi#Original_account&quot;&gt;this wikipedia article&lt;/a&gt;, which mentions the Bible account in Matthew. Basically, the Bible refers to Jesus as being a &quot;child&quot; at the time. Also, Herod killed the male population under 2, which is probably the upper limit on Jesus' age at the time. Nothing concrete here, but enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion that it was some months after the birth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="218" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T01:06:20.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23374" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23369" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:17:30.973" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;If you read the account in Luke 2:1-20, you'll find no mention of Magi at the manger, just shepherds. There, Jesus is born in Bethlehem. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 2:1-18, we find the Magi arriving at Jerusalem, from the scribes there they find out the scripture which places the Messiah in Bethlehem (2:5-6), and follow the star, which is low enough to appear over a specific dwelling, over a house, not a manger. Jesus is called a Child at that point, not a babe (1:9). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Magi went home a different way and Herod, finding out, send soldiers to kill newborns 2 years old and younger. So Jesus was several months to a couple years older at that point. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2013-12-04T16:05:24.050" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T16:05:24.050" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23375" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23369" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:23:39.717" Score="10" Body="&lt;p&gt;That the wise men did not arrive until Jesus was a &lt;em&gt;child&lt;/em&gt; and no longer an &lt;em&gt;infant&lt;/em&gt; is derived from several Scriptures, particularly in Matthew.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew chapter 2: KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8  And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;the young child&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9  When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;young child&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11  And when they were come into the house, they saw the &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;young child&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13  And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;young child&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14  When he arose, he took the &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;young child&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In these Scriptures Jesus is referred to as a &lt;em&gt;child&lt;/em&gt; and not a &lt;em&gt;babe&lt;/em&gt;. In the following scripture is where it is thought that Jesus was at least a year old and maybe as old as two when the Wise men arrived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 2:16  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even though this is not definitive it is a pretty strong argument that Jesus was no longer a babe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T17:01:17.603" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23379" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23368" CreationDate="2013-12-03T06:44:42.853" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why should Christmas be meant to replace anything? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The liturgical year is riddled with merriment, every other day is a feast or a solemnity or at least an observance of some pious memorial. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Other than to denounce Christ or the Churches that keep Christmas, there is no reason to conflate some pagan festivity no one cares about with Christmas.  If there was a conspiracy back in the fourth Century, then St. Augustine would have said something about it.  What he did say was that when the barbarians came to sack Rome, they left the churches alone, out of respect for traditions that were foreign to them, but which they could see were clearly holy.  They didn't see in them their own idolatry, they saw the city of God made manifest. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hanukkah on the other hand, has never been as big a thing as Christmas.  Christmas has been an important marker in the eyes of the Catholic Church purely out of necessity.  Consider the lectionary and how the Bible itself was formed.  The books we use at Mass were the same books and letters mentioned by St. Justin Martyr when he wrote about what it is that Christians do during their get togethers. Naturally, a book can't go on ad infinitum so it makes sense that at some point you're going to finish the book and start over again.  So, it makes sense that you'd want to put the events leading up to Jesus' birth in the first part of the book and go on from there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, we know Jesus died around Passover, we posit that the two most important truths in history took place on the same day of the year (The Incarnation and The Resurrection) and we do a +=9 months to get a good approximation of where Christmas should be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pagans and Jews aside, the question to be asked is, is there really a better day for Christmas?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T06:44:42.853" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23380" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-03T07:03:00.737" Score="4" ViewCount="1367" Body="&lt;p&gt;As my profile says, I don't belong to any denomination and I can't answer this question myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Recently, there was a question from a Catholic woman having difficulty in her love relationship because her boyfriend  from &lt;em&gt;Jehovah's Witness&lt;/em&gt; can't marry her. The main problem  that I suspect is that both of them are not ready to change their denomination. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is the thing I can't understand. What is the problem with changing our denomination? Why don't people want to change their denomination? I am ready to join any denomination if required, let it be Catholic, JW, Seventh Day, Orthodox, I don't mind as long as I can read the Bible and worship Jesus. I obviously have my personal choices. I like to go to a church that uses modern instruments, good music system, good worship songs, good sermons, good Bible study programs and a good and supporting community. For now, I prefer to remain denomination-less but I think I can join any denomination and adhere to their doctrines and ordinances, if their is no other choice available.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why are people &lt;strong&gt;reluctant&lt;/strong&gt; to change their denomination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is the reason why some people &lt;strong&gt;cannot&lt;/strong&gt; change their denomination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What are the major &lt;strong&gt;hindrances&lt;/strong&gt; in changing the denomination?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of &lt;strong&gt;challenges&lt;/strong&gt; are faced after changing the denomination? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T16:36:40.213" Title="Why can't people change their denomination?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;non-denominational&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" ClosedDate="2013-12-07T14:28:48.717" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23381" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-03T07:07:00.913" Score="1" ViewCount="441" Body="&lt;p&gt;i need the answers .. first tell me christians belong to Jesus or some one else.. if jesus sacrifice for us .. then first preference go the christians not the others religions right.. Do you know that jesus more love isreal not the others people  .. so tell me we have to prefer christianity or the buddist, muslims etc.. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8867" LastEditorUserId="8867" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T07:20:03.783" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T07:20:03.783" Title="Is it right for us to help more non-Christians people as compare to Christians? jesus sacrifice for us then more eligible christians or some ane else?" Tags="&lt;bible&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="8" ClosedDate="2013-12-03T21:57:05.877" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23384" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="9653" CreationDate="2013-12-03T10:06:25.610" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have long suspected Paul was a false apostle. Many in the past have, and many today still do, believe this to be the case.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we read the epistles attributed to Paul or even the book of Acts many red flags seem to appear. For starters, Paul began by arresting/persecuting Christians. In the book of Acts we are told Paul was present at the murder of a Stephen who was a known Christian. Acts goes on to tell us Paul experienced a conversion on his way to Damascus to further persecute Christians. This account is mentioned in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209%3A1-31%2C%2022%3A1-22%2C%2026%3A9-24&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;9:1-31, 22:1-22, and 26:9-24&lt;/a&gt;. This whole story is suspicious for a number of reasons. First, the way Jesus appears to Paul in the story is not biblical. Jesus always appeared in the flesh, not as a light as specified in Paul's supposed account. Second, the account given is contradictory. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209%3A7&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 9:7&lt;/a&gt; tells us the individuals traveling with Paul heard Jesus' voice but saw no one. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2022%3A9&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 22:9&lt;/a&gt; tells us instead the individuals with Paul saw a light but did not hear Jesus' voice. Third, is the improbable claim that Paul was on his way to Damascus to round up Christians. This is very unlikely considering Damsacus was a predominantly pagan territory at the time under Nabataean control. Paul would have had no authority to round any one up. Fourth, where are those individuals that were with Paul to verify this incident? It surely would make it more believeable if there were witnesses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the New Testament Paul is referred to as an apostle 22 times. Only twice is this done by someone other than Paul himself. It is not from Jesus, or any of the original apostles(disciples), but from Paul's friend and personal press secretary Luke. It is obvious from reading the accounts of Paul, Acts for instance, that the disciples did not believe him to be one of them. There was obviously no love loss between the disciples and Paul.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another area of contradiction is in Paul's teachings. Paul was a stout supporter of faith. This in itself is not a bad thing. The problem is Paul emphasized faith over everything else; including action. Paul's teachings on salvation apart from works contradicts other clear teachings in the New Testament such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A19%2C%2025%3A31-46%2C%20John%2015%3A10%2C%20James%201%3A22-25%2C%202%3A24&amp;amp;version=NRSV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 5:19, 25:31-46, John 15:10, James 1:22-25, 2:24&lt;/a&gt;. Other than Paul, the New Testament teachings are predominantly works based. Another area of difference in Paul's teachings and the rest of the New Testament are his views in the Jewish Law. Paul's letters contain a substantial amount of criticism of the Law. This view would not have held well with the Jewish Jesus and his Jewish disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people over the centuries have doubted Paul. Many considered themselves Christian (followers of Jesus).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ebionites&lt;/a&gt; (possibly the first Christians) believed him to be a false apostle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These men (Ebionites), moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle [Paul], whom they called an apostate from the law&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — Eusebius 325 AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some significant early church fathers had issues with Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macarius_Magnes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Macarius Magnes&lt;/a&gt; (early church theologian) found Paul to be contradictory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;[Paul] says, ‘As many as are under the Law are under a curse’ (Gal 3:10). The man who writes to the Romans, ‘The Law is spiritual’ (7:14), and again, ‘The Law is holy and the commandment holy and just’ (7:12), places under a curse those who obey that which is holy!... In his Epistles … he praises virginity (I-Tim 4:1, I-Cor 7:25), and then turns round and writes, ‘In the latter times some shall depart from the faith,... forbidding to marry’ (I-Tim 4:1-3).... And in the Epistle to the Corinthians he says, ‘But concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord’&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — (I-Cor 7:25).  ca. 300&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Augustine&lt;/a&gt; (early church theologian) accused Paul of being a liar. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If it be possible for men to say and believe that, after introducing his narrative with these words, ‘The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not’, the apostle (Paul) lied when he said of Peter and Barnabas, ‘I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel’,... [then] if they did walk uprightly, Paul wrote what was false; and if he wrote what was false here, when did he say what was true?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — 397 AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jerome&lt;/a&gt; (early church theologian) accused Paul of hypocrisy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Porphyry ... accuses Paul of presumption because he dared to reprove Peter and rebuke him to his face, and by reasoning convict him of having done wrong; that is to say, of being in the very fault which he himself, who blamed another for transgressing, had committed.... Oh blessed Apostle Paul— who had rebuked Peter for hypocrisy, because he withdrew himself from the Gentiles through fear of the Jews who came from James—why are you, notwithstanding your own doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy (Acts 16:3), the son of a Gentile, nay more, a Gentile himself?&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — 404 AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jerome's continued criticism of Paul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul does not know how to develop a hyperbaton [i.e., a change of normal word order for emphasis], nor to conclude a sentence; and having to do with rude people, he has employed the conceptions, which, if, at the outset, he had not taken care to announce as spoken after the manner of men, would have shocked men of good sense.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — 411 AD&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many modern Christian theologians have found reason to doubt Paul. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made &quot;Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Soren Kierkegaard&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology. — theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Renan&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ernest Renan&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary proclamation of Paul. . . . Sayings of Jesus do not play a role in Paul 's understanding of the event of salvation. . . . Paul did not care at all what Jesus had said. . . . Had Paul been completely successful very little of the sayings of Jesus would have survived.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Koester&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Helmut Koester&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus. . . . He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ferdinand Christian Baur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul. . . . did not desire to know Christ. . . . Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded. . . . What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?. . . . The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority. . . . The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Albert Schweitzer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his. . . . views. when the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus' teaching is -- to all intents and purposes -- irrelevant for Paul.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rudolf Bultmann&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — theologian &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bauer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Walter Bauer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As I stated earlier, many today as well as many in the past, who doubt Paul's credibility consider themselves Christian. They have come to realize much aspects of Paul are anti-Jesus. This has led them to either become weary of Paul or just out right reject him. They believe a person can be a follower of Jesus without being a believer of Paul. I agree with them whole heartedly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me conclude with the words of the author of the Declaration of Independence and the 3rd President of the United States. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  — Thomas Jefferson&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8841" LastEditorUserId="20394" LastEditDate="2015-04-15T03:50:31.963" LastActivityDate="2015-04-15T03:50:31.963" CommentCount="7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23385" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23380" CreationDate="2013-12-03T11:52:46.123" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The primary reason why serious Christians cannot switch denominations is because the doctrines surrounding salvation have eternal consequences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance, the Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith, and that without a valid transubstantial reception of the Eucharist the human soul will eventually wither away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, most Baptist camps teach and believe that the Eucharist is only a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper, and really has nothing to do with salvific Grace other than a Christ-given ordinance of worship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...two totally different denominational doctrines...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(I chose these two denominations for no specific anti-ecclesiastical reason other than comparison of doctrine)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another example is justification by Grace alone through a working faith taught by pre-Reformation churches versus justification by faith &lt;em&gt;alone&lt;/em&gt; taught by the majority of Protestant denominations.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On crucially important doctrines such as these, you are either right or wrong. This is why its infinitely and eternally important to find the right denomination (well...at least as close as possible).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there are many other superfulous reasons why people stay where they are, such as familial pressure and tradition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I really hate focusing on differences rather than what we all have in common, but this question seems to draw lines in the sand. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;It must be said that there will always be overlapping areas of grey, and the Holy Spirit knows what he is doing.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2013-12-06T17:27:17.570" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T17:27:17.570" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23386" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23381" CreationDate="2013-12-03T12:57:54.323" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As far as whether it is right or wrong that cannot be answered since it is subjective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As to why we do it that is easy to answer: We do it because Jesus told us to!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 5:42 through 48  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;42  Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;43  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;45  That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;46  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;47  And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;48  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we do no less than what we are able to do to be as Jesus was, then we are not worthy of being his disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That goes along with his commands 'to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and turn the other cheek'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T12:57:54.323" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23388" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-03T13:38:53.513" Score="3" ViewCount="2463" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the&#xA;  &lt;strong&gt;star&lt;/strong&gt; they had seen when it rose &lt;strong&gt;went ahead&lt;/strong&gt; of them until it &lt;strong&gt;stopped over the place&lt;/strong&gt; where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the &lt;strong&gt;house&lt;/strong&gt;, they saw the child&#xA;  with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they&#xA;  opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold,&#xA;  frankincense and myrrh. (Matthew 2:9-11, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have never seen a star the moves and that can stop above a particular place. In fact, when I travel at night in a bus or train, the faster I move, the faster the moon and stars appear to follow me. I can't comprehend how exactly a single star can show a particular location and appears to stop over a particular house. If you think that a particular star is exactly above you, just keep on moving and wherever you go it will follow you and it will always be right above you, no matter where you are.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The star that shined during the birth of Jesus didn't seem to be a normal star. It might not be a star at all! A star that moves and so strange that even the wise men from the east followed it because they believe that it was a sign of the birth of a new king. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What kind of star was shining at the birth of Jesus?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How have scholars explained this?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T14:32:57.577" Title="What kind of star was shining when Jesus was born?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;science&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="5" ClosedDate="2013-12-03T23:45:48.837" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23389" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23381" CreationDate="2013-12-03T14:05:27.477" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;You should help people despite them being Christian or non-Christian&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mark 12:31 NIV&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no&#xA;  commandment greater than these.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What is important is that it does NOT say, &quot;love your neighbor as yourself, if he believes like you do&quot;.  Also, I would suggest that it would be against Jesus' teachings to even consider helping someone or not based on their status of being a Christian, Jew, or neither.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There's another way to read the OP's question, which would be, &quot;why isn't American (being a Christian nation) helping Christians in Pakistan?&quot;  If that is the OP's intended question, then the question is political and off topic for Christianity.SE.  Christians in Pakistan (or any other country) shouldn't expect America to specifically help them due to their Christian status.  America is not a Christian nation and is not the leading voice for Christianity.  76% of people in America identify themselves as Christian.  Christians generally assert that America was founded on Christian principles and many would assume (but not say) that it is a Christian nation.  However, it's just as likely that America has influenced Christianity.  For example, toleration of other faiths is not a Christian principle - especially during the dark ages.  Does that appear to contradict the above bible quote?  Yes, yes it does.  Therefore there are differences between the mainstream Christian Church and some teachings from the bible for better or worse.  There are too many to list here and I will not engage in a comment tit for tat with anyone over this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4277" LastEditorUserId="4277" LastEditDate="2013-12-03T17:09:18.537" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T17:09:18.537" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23390" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-03T14:23:21.140" Score="6" ViewCount="2505" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King&#xA;  Herod, &lt;strong&gt;Magi from the east&lt;/strong&gt; came to Jerusalem and asked, “&lt;strong&gt;Where is the&#xA;  one who has been born king of the Jews&lt;/strong&gt;? We saw his star when it&#xA;  rose and have come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:1-2, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I can't understand how one can conclude that a single star is pointing at a specific location. Even if I draw some lines by joining some stars, I don't think I can point at a specific location on earth. Even if I think that it points to a particular place, when I reached that place, the same line will point again somewhere ahead from that location.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The wise men were from the east, indicating that they were not Jews, I presume. They simply saw an unusual star and are able to calculate or know that a new king of the Jews is born in Israel. From the appearance of the star, I believe it is possible to conclude that a new king is born, provided the observer truly believe in star signs. However, I still can't understand how the star provided some clue where the new born king is. Moreover, the wise men were very specific when they asked king Herod. They said &lt;em&gt;&quot;Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did the wise men stop at Jerusalem and asked &quot;Where is the king of the Jews&quot;? They could have gone up to Egypt or Greece, or even further. &lt;strong&gt;From their question, it sounds like they were searching in Israel only&lt;/strong&gt;. It appears as though they knew that the king was born in Israel and hence they went straight to Jerusalem, the city of the king of Israel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How did the Magi know the country where the new king was born by simply looking at a distant star in the sky?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-03T21:14:49.973" LastActivityDate="2017-08-21T17:49:11.197" Title="How did the wise men (Magi) know the country where the new king was born?" Tags="&lt;science&gt;&lt;christmas&gt;&lt;birth-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23391" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23388" CreationDate="2013-12-03T14:32:57.577" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Star which led the wise men was a new Heavenly body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew chapter 2:KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2  Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7  Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Star may not have been a Star, but a (messenger of God) which shined like a Star.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 2:9  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whatever it as it could not have been a Star as we know them since to us a Star is actually a distant Sun, and this Star was low enough that it could guide them and move to where Jesus was. The wise men may have deemed it a Star for lack of any other descriptive of it's phenomena.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It should also be noted that King Herod asked them when the Star appeared, and if that Star were to have appeared where it could be seen by everyone, why was Herod not aware of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Bible does not tell us that the Shepherds saw the Star:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke chapter 2:9 through 18 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;10  And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;11  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12  And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;14  Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;15  And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;16  And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17  And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;18  And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since the birth of Jesus was such an Earth changing event it seems to me that announcing with a shining Angel would fit just right with what I know of God&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T14:32:57.577" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23393" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23390" CreationDate="2013-12-03T15:02:54.190" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think what you're looking for is detailed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202:1-12&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew 2:1-12&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, &lt;strong&gt;Magi from the east came to Jerusalem&lt;/strong&gt; and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? &lt;strong&gt;We saw his star when it rose&lt;/strong&gt; and have come to worship him.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. &lt;strong&gt;‘In Bethlehem in Judea,’&lt;/strong&gt; they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;‘“But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,&#xA;      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;&#xA;  for out of you will come a ruler&#xA;      who will shepherd my people Israel.”’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.’&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and &lt;strong&gt;the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.&lt;/strong&gt; When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, they headed first West (because of the sign of the star), then to the capital of the country they found themselves (Jerusalem), then zoomed in further by heading for Bethlehem (on the advice of Herod's staff) and finally to the exact house, because the star was above it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;em&gt;(Perhaps they should simply have followed the star all the way, instead of detouring via Jerusalem?)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="62" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T15:02:54.190" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23394" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23380" CreationDate="2013-12-03T15:08:21.790" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;In general people change their denominations all the time. This is especially true between different Protestant denominations. I've been Anglican, Pentecostal, Mennonite and United Church.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the specific case you quote, the Jehovah's Witnesses quite literally believe that all other Branches of Christianity are apostate - i.e. they are not really Christians at all. Most denominations are nowhere near that exclusive. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_witnesses&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Witnesses&lt;/a&gt; are a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Restorationist&lt;/a&gt; church, who believe that the entire church went off the rails and started worshipping a false God (the Trinity), and that their original leader had a specific revelation that told him to restart the true church. To them, marrying a Catholic is no different from marrying a non-Christian.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why are people reluctant to change denomination?&lt;/strong&gt; Many aren't, but where they are it is usually because they believe what their denomination teaches and don't want to be part of a church that teaches something different. The amount of reluctance depends on how important that person perceives the differences. There is also the question of leving an established community. For people changing denomination may be perceived as a slight to family or traditions. Changing church is a significant upheaval, and people rarely change without a good reason. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hindrances to changing denomination.&lt;/strong&gt; Some denominations require rebaptism, or some other initiation before accepting a new member. That's rarely onerous, but it can be a hindrance for some. In a free country there is pretty much no reason why people cannot change denomination if they really want.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For people who do change denomination, there will be a time of building of a new community to replace the one left. There may be a learning of new ways of doing things. The difficulty of this depends on the magnitude of the transition.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T16:36:40.213" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T16:36:40.213" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23395" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23408" CreationDate="2013-12-03T15:24:33.100" Score="2" ViewCount="308" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm having difficulty dealing with prophetic parts of the Old Testament that discuss God's wrath.  I understand that the wages of sin is death and before the new covenant in Jesus, God punished people for their sins by wiping them out (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, there are certain parts of the bible that talk about God subjecting people to His wrath by utilising the sins of mankind like sexual immorality and stealing, not just punishment by death.  It's as though sin here is actually used as a tool to bring about God's justice, which seems unbelievable considering that sin was never God's will in the first place.  Consider the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2013:13-16&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Isaiah 13:13-16&quot;&gt;Isaiah 13:13-16&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;&#xA;      and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the Lord Almighty,&#xA;      in the day of his burning anger.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Like a hunted gazelle,&#xA;      like sheep without a shepherd, they will all return to their own people,&#xA;      they will flee to their native land. 15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;&#xA;      all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;&#xA;      their houses will be looted and their wives violated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014:1-3&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; title=&quot;Zechariah 14:1-3&quot;&gt;Zechariah 14:1-3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be&#xA;  plundered and divided up within your very walls.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the&#xA;  city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half&#xA;  of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be&#xA;  taken from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against&#xA;  those nations, as he fights on a day of battle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm comfortable with God destroying people for their sins by His own divine actions, but to take advantage of sinful man to bring about His holy justice it a little bit like abetting these sinful acts.  In effect, it's like saying stealing, rape and even murder can actually be Godly acts if used to fulfil His prophecies, and this makes me very uncomfortable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can anybody offer an explanation as to how God can bring about justice by these means yet still hate sin and remain holy and righteous?  This seems like a conflict of character to me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5188" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-12-04T14:06:57.387" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T14:06:57.387" Title="Does God Abet Sinful Behaviour if it Brings About His Justice?" Tags="&lt;sin&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;justice&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23396" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-03T15:27:35.120" Score="7" ViewCount="9776" Body="&lt;p&gt;At the time when Jesus' trial was to commence before the High priest, John readily went inside the courtyard because he knew the high priest well, whereas Peter was relatively unknown in the place. Yet Peter was stopped at the gate and John was not.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 18:15-17&lt;/strong&gt; Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. (Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard.) But Simon Peter was left standing outside by the door. So the other disciple who was acquainted with the high priest came out and spoke to the slave girl who watched the door, and brought Peter inside. The girl who was the doorkeeper said to Peter, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” He replied, “I am not.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the slave girl allowed John inside and not Peter is a bit puzzling. If John was well known to the High priest, then how is that they did not know that he was Jesus' disciple? What could be the rational reason, that they allowed John inside and not Peter?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-11-02T03:47:46.920" LastActivityDate="2018-03-25T04:03:11.837" Title="Why did the slave girl at the gate stop Peter but not John?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;passion-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2018-03-26T12:36:51.477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23397" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23400" CreationDate="2013-12-03T15:44:12.353" Score="1" ViewCount="3065" Body="&lt;p&gt;We are told nothing about Jesus childhood except what is recorded in the second chapter of Luke.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke Chapter 2 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;21  And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22  And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23  (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24  And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;39  And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;40  And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;42  And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;43  And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;46  And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;47  And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;48  And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;49  And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus at age twelve was keenly aware that he was the son of God, it begs to question whether or not Jesus ran and played with the other children or not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T13:09:50.403" Title="Did Jesus have a normal childhood?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23398" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23380" CreationDate="2013-12-03T15:53:29.487" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;A person embrace a denomination usually based on two things:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They grew up in the denomination&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;They are discipled by people from a certain denomination&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And neither of these are wrong, because denominations help us to create a frame of mind on how to relate to God &lt;strong&gt;when we started as a young Christian&lt;/strong&gt;.  But here is the crux of the problem, many Christian made the denomination their source of power and knowledge for &lt;em&gt;spiritual growth&lt;/em&gt;, instead of The Holy Spirit (ref. 1 Corinthians 2:10-16).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is why we see people debate endlessly about denomination-specific doctrines. Instead of letting ourselves be grown by God (ref. 1 Corinthians 3:6-7), we try to grow ourselves by choosing to adopt the beliefs of the denomination founders or teachers.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Apostle Paul already warned that we should not choose any (human) sides when it comes to our growth. We should have the mind of Christ, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our final goal is to be Christ's image ('icon' in Greek), not becoming the paragon or champion of the denomination that we belong to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I do not belong to any denominations, but I learned great truths by studying those saints whose heart is solely consumed and focused towards God. I learned from Saint Thomas Aquinas (Catholic), I learned from Alistair Begg (Evangelical Reformed), R.C. Sproul (Presbytarian), I learned from Eli Stanley Jones (Methodist), and many, many more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;How do I reconcile the points where they differ? I don't, I wait for the Holy Spirit to direct me towards the ones that will grow me closer to God. And no, none of the denominations has &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt; of the truths, but almost all of the denomination teachings can be used for our growth &lt;em&gt;by God&lt;/em&gt;. Not by ourselves nor by any other human beings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, can we change denominations?&#xA;By all means, but don't focus on the denominations, focus on Christ, read and study the Scriptures with a submitting, and waiting heart, and God through His own Holy Spirit will grow you from the inside. It is a marvelous experience.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastEditorUserId="8714" LastEditDate="2013-12-03T16:14:05.183" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T16:14:05.183" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23400" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23397" CreationDate="2013-12-03T16:36:15.930" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are simply no extant records on the life of Jesus that are recognized by scholars as having any validity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are fictional accounts of the life of Jesus, such as the Gnostic &lt;a href=&quot;http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm&quot;&gt;Infancy Gospel of Thomas&lt;/a&gt; which relate stories such as:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus making sparrows out of clay on Sunday&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus blinding Pharisees&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jesus resurrecting one of his playmates.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem is that this fictional account is just that - it was never recognized as anything other than a story by any of the respected church fathers. These stories are inconsistent with the character of the Jesus recorded in the Gospel.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T16:36:15.930" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23401" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23397" CreationDate="2013-12-03T16:52:45.003" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;James: Why don't you ever punish Jesus? Is He your favorite? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Joseph: He never does anything wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;James: Jesus always knows the right answer,  its not like He is God or something. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mary: Actually He is, so go back and try again. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Humor aside, this is illustrative.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that He had siblings according to Mat 13:55-56&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and&#xA;  aren’t his brothers  James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his&#xA;  sisters with us? Where then did this  man get all these things?”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So He had at least 4 brothers and 3 sisters based on the grammer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We also know that had emotions.  He often greeted His friends/disciples with &quot;Rejoice&quot;. &lt;code&gt;&quot;Rejoice and be exceeding glad&quot;&lt;/code&gt; (Matthew 5:12). Also consider that &lt;code&gt;The One enthroned in heaven laughs&lt;/code&gt; (Psa 2:4).  He also cried, see Jhn 11:35-36&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus is fully human and fully God according to many passages; like Hbr 2:9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little&#xA;  while, now  crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so&#xA;  that by the grace of God  he might taste death for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Based on all this we can surmise that Jesus did normal childhood things, except he always obeyed and never got in trouble.  There is no recorded history of Him running and playing or having a dirty diaper or scraping His knee but I am reasonable sure He did all of those things and more.  It is important, according to the Bible, that we be able to identify with Him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1841" LastEditorUserId="1841" LastEditDate="2013-12-06T07:37:50.747" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T07:37:50.747" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23402" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23332" CreationDate="2013-12-03T18:33:26.937" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's important to remember that in many instances the people weren't actually physically killed. Their names were put on the &quot;to be stoned&quot; roster and they were given sufficient time to gather their rightful belongings and allowed to leave that society in search of another place to live. There were established cities known as cities of refuge that they could flee to in order to preserve their lives.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The main point of these commandments that have loss of life as a penalty is to provide a context for society where people can live in liberty, per the commandments given. This is a society under a covenant with their God. Those who are a party to this covenant represent a group of souls who wish for things to be just as the commandments prescribe. So, when you have individuals doing things that this societal group deems critically disruptive, they are to be purged because they want that type of society to persist for the benefit of their posterity. If certain people persist in imposing their perversions, etc. upon the society instead of leaving, that is when they are actually put to death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If the people become lax and do not perform judgment as they are responsible to do and start to implement and conform to the ways of their surrounding nations, then God considers the entire society guilty of adultery against Him. What does He do about it? He carries out the provisions of the law they are under covenant to obey. What is that? God has the entire society &quot;stoned to death&quot; for their adultery against Him. This is in fact what happened and is why the ancient nations of Israel/Judah spent such a long time in dispersion as if they were the scattered bits and pieces of a dead (societal) body. They were &quot;stoned to death&quot; as a society for their adultery against Jehovah. (See Ezekiel 23:47)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The resurrection (gathering) of Israel is literally when they are established again as a covenant society and they again implement in its purity the laws they formerly were given. It will be a society where the patriarchal unit will shoulder the responsibility to govern. There will be no need of governmental agencies to extract taxes in order to dole out welfare. All individuals in need of welfare will get it by coming into association with a patriarch who is the head of a household. The fathers are the mayors, supervisors, governors, presidents, etc. When you understand that Jehovah's governmental system relies almost solely upon functional family units instead of state sponsored agencies, then you will understand why His laws concerning how families are to function are so vital to the well-being of their society.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4363" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T18:33:26.937" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23403" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23407" CreationDate="2013-12-03T18:50:56.953" Score="-3" ViewCount="1083" Body="&lt;p&gt;When the bible was written and the first people read it, why did they assume that its content was the truth? Couldn't the author just have convinced a group of people that this was the truth and then the group spread the believe around the world?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Just curious not offensive.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8872" LastEditorUserId="3961" LastEditDate="2015-01-07T22:07:56.817" LastActivityDate="2015-01-07T22:07:56.817" Title="Why do we assume that the events in the bible actually happened?" Tags="&lt;biblical-reliability&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="11" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2013-12-05T23:17:42.080" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23404" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23309" CreationDate="2013-12-03T19:12:16.913" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;Dr. A Cohen, in his commentary on the Pentateuch explains the cherubim in Exodus 25: 18, as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Apart from the mention of wings, there is no description offered of&#xA;  these emblematic figures. The Talmud, by a popular derivation of the&#xA;  Hebrew word, asserts that the cherubim had the faces of children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is therefore a possibly very old tradition that link cherubim to children.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T19:12:16.913" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23407" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23403" CreationDate="2013-12-03T20:57:02.680" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;One major point to consider is that there isn't just &quot;one&quot; author.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First and foremost, the &quot;Bible&quot; is a &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/22773/1039&quot;&gt;collection of 66 (or 73) discrete books&lt;/a&gt; written by at least 40 different authors over a period of over 1500 years.  To say that at least 40 authors over 15 centuries all had the same hidden agenda is conspiratorial thinking at its best. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Old Testament&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly some of the oldest books (Genesis) &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/22853/1039&quot;&gt;rely on some oral tradition&lt;/a&gt;.  If the charge of &quot;it was never intended as fact were to be leveled, it would be here. Here, there is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16174/who-decides-if-a-verse-is-literal-and-what-part-is-metaphorical/16181#16181&quot;&gt;some spectrum&lt;/a&gt; of belief on &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8344/what-does-it-mean-to-interpret-the-bible-literally/8345#8345&quot;&gt;whether it is intended to be literal&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Much of the remainder of the &lt;strong&gt;Torah&lt;/strong&gt; (2nd half of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus) is legal in nature, and thus not subject to &quot;whether or not it happened.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Likewise, the vast majority of &lt;strong&gt;the Prophets&lt;/strong&gt; are writing sermonic warnings about things that hadn't happened yet - but archeology has shown that these things did happen.  Be it Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, Midian, Assyria, Babylon - the fall of these nations are all facts proved by archeology.  The sermonic warnings to be taken from them really aren't &quot;history&quot; in any event. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Writings&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon) were typically considered to be what we would call fiction today (Job is questionable) - but have always been interpreted as such.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;The New Testament&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Most of the books in the New Testament, by contrast, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11442/1039&quot;&gt;were written by eyewitnesses.&lt;/a&gt; These books were all written within &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/9486/1039&quot;&gt;70 years of the death of Christ - at the latest, and many scholars believe the vast majority was complete within 40 years of the Crucifixion.&lt;/a&gt; These books do claim to be purveying an &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;orderly&lt;/a&gt;&quot; eyewitness account of things &quot;they &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+1:16&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;saw and heard&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;  Indeed, the book of Acts claims &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/647/what-happened-to-the-500-witnesses-in-1-corinthians-15&quot;&gt;at least 500 witnesses to these things&lt;/a&gt;. The overall tenor of the Gospel accounts at a bare minimum suggest that these were true.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Epistles are all letters being communicated from one writer to another, and the expectation is clear that these are events the authors believe occurred.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point is that each work needs to be considered on its own, and that the New Testament is more &quot;historical&quot; than Old, in terms of the standard of evidence that modern historians would accept.  That said - I would argue the most important and audacious claims - namely that God became a&amp;nbsp;man, died on cross, and then wasn't dead - are in the New Testament.  By contrast, the Old Testament miracles have nothing to suggest they aren't true - but their importance is less than that of the Crucifixion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, each person decides the historicity of each work for themselves - but there is nothing to suggest that any of the authors were being deceptive. Some &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; clear they weren't writing &quot;history&quot; (indeed, that concept comes after the canon was closed). Some works were intended as story.  Some works were intended as law. Some works were intended as prophecy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/17414/1039&quot;&gt;most vital claims&lt;/a&gt; of the Bible made by Christians that are story in form were written by people who clearly believed it. Indeed, most of them &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/DeathoftheApostles.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;went to their martyr's graves&lt;/a&gt; maintaining it. That pattern continued for another 300 years.  That seems like an awfully high price to pay for something you were making up - or hadn't experienced in faith yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.803" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T23:59:54.693" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23408" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23395" CreationDate="2013-12-03T21:03:57.730" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Your question seems to be different than what your references convey.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Isaiah chapter 13  and most of chapter 14 Isaiah is warning Babylon not of God striking the Nation, but of the coming overthrow by the Medes and the Persians. He is telling them that unless they change their ways God will not interfere on their behalf.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah 13:17  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in chapter 14 he is telling them that they are as detestable to him as is Satan, and describes how Satan also became so despicable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Isaiah chapter  14    KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10  All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And in Zechariah chapter 14 It appears to be a prediction of that war in which Jerusalem was finally destroyed, and the Jews scattered all over the face of the earth. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Zechariah chapter 14  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8  And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10  All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11  And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Nation of Israel was scattered around the World as predicted in Zechariah chapter 14 and their land was inhabited by others, up until 1949 when Israel was once again brought together as a nation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T21:03:57.730" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23409" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23403" CreationDate="2013-12-03T22:01:30.007" Score="5" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When the bible was written and the first people read it, why did they assume that its content was the truth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For the New Testament there is a simple answer to this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people who first read it where in a good position to either already know or able to verify the veracity of the claims made in the text.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Once the most extraordinary are confirmed trust in the rest comes easily enough.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T22:01:30.007" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23410" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19244" CreationDate="2013-12-03T23:52:25.773" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;This doctrine is taught in The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of the Second Vatican Council, paragraph #12 as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The holy people of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name.(110) &lt;b&gt;The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief.&lt;/b&gt; They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when &quot;from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful&quot; (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8877" LastActivityDate="2013-12-03T23:52:25.773" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23412" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23396" CreationDate="2013-12-04T00:41:11.907" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;When reading the Bible, you need to find other scriptures linking to the same context/text&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First of all, the High Priest isn't John but Caiaphas: In Matthew 26, this states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be&#xA;  fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All the disciple left. The only one that followed Jesus was Peter and &lt;em&gt;another&lt;/em&gt; disciple, known to the high priest. This disciple was not amongst the 12 as the Bible would have mentioned a name.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The slavegirl only allowed the high priest in the house and those acquainted with the high priest. The &lt;em&gt;other&lt;/em&gt; disciple had to come back and fetch Peter. This shows that he convinced the high priests upon entering that it was ok to bring Peter in their interrogation meeting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8879" LastEditorUserId="721" LastEditDate="2013-12-04T01:51:14.003" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T01:51:14.003" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23413" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23395" CreationDate="2013-12-04T00:54:18.493" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sin is not what people believes today: Sin is unbelief towards God's Word. What God has spoken, if one doesn't believe it, it is sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 8:24 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye&#xA;  believe not that &lt;strong&gt;I am he&lt;/strong&gt;, ye shall die in your sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who is the &lt;em&gt;I am he&lt;/em&gt;? Jesus is Emmanuel, GOD with u. Who is &lt;em&gt;us&lt;/em&gt;? This is man, the sinners, those born of a woman, through the love of our father and mother. Don't forget, Mary was not conceived the natural way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, if one doesn't believe that Jesus is GOD, 1 Timothy 3:16 &lt;code&gt;And without controversy great is the **mystery of godliness**: God was manifest **in the flesh**, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.&lt;/code&gt;, and there is only ONE GOD, as John saw in the book of Revelation, ONE GOD, and only ONE sitting on that throne, and the same GOD came down on earth in the flesh and was called Jesus Christ to save mankind, you shall die in your sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Belief is key in this instance.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scriptures you have quoted are related to the time of wrath (the great and dreadful day of the Lord, Malachi 4:5-6), after the Bride of Jesus Christ has taken place and the 144000 jews were sealed and killed. The time of grace will be over, and God will be a judge. His judgement will be final and those who remained in their sins will feel God's WRATH. That time, God will not listen to any prayers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this helps.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8879" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T00:54:18.493" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23415" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23396" CreationDate="2013-12-04T02:09:32.993" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;Bible tells that as soon as Jesus was arrested, all His disciples fled and went into hiding. So there was this possibility that whoever known to be close to Jesus would be arrested or tried like Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matt. 26:56 But this has happened so that the scriptures of the prophets would be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So there could be two possibilities. First: Peter was reluctant to enter inside lest he might be recognised by the people to be disciple of Jesus and land in trouble just like Jesus. Second: Peter was stopped because he was an unknown person trying to enter into a sensitive area.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In case of the “other disciple”: Like the Beloved Disciple, this other disciple is unnamed, closely associated with Peter and characterized as having special knowledge, wanted Peter to come inside to witness the trial of Jesus. Note that John says that this other disciple “knew the high priest and &lt;strong&gt;went into the courtyard with Jesus&lt;/strong&gt;” indicating that in the courtyard this other disciple was &lt;strong&gt;not known to be a close disciple of Jesus&lt;/strong&gt; or else he would have been in the same danger as other disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gill's commentary says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this Apostle is thought to be  John, because he frequently speaks of himself in Gospel of John, then he is supposed to be known to the high priest, by carrying fish to his house, and selling it to him; so Nonnus says, he was known from his fishing trade and it is not probable that he was known, or could be known by the high priest, so as to have any intimacy with him; nor is it likely that he, being a Galilaean, would venture in; he was discoverable by his speech, and would have been in equal danger with Peter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Or possibility is that this desciple was some other disciples of Christ, who had not openly professed him; one of the chief rulers that believed in him, but, for fear of the Pharisees, had not confessed him; or it may be Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the man at whose house Christ had eaten the passover. In the Syriac version he is called one of the other disciples; not of the twelve, but others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Adam Clarke in his commentary on the bible states that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For this “another disciple”, there are many conjectures who this disciple was: Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus, Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, and others, say it was John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clarke however further says that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“It is true John frequently mentions himself in the third person; but then he has always, whom Jesus loved, as in Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20, except in John 19:35, where he has plainly pointed out himself as writer of this Gospel. So in this instance verse, he has mentioned no circumstance by which that disciple may be known to be John.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/strong&gt; So Peter was stopped either because he was an unknown person entering the sensitive area or Peter was reluctant to go inside courtyard out of fear that he might be recognised, yet his love for his master brought him till the gate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whereas the other disciple, if he is John the apostle, was either not known in the courtyard to be close disciple of Jesus as Gill,s commentary suggest or he was brave enough to face any danger unlike Peter or this other disciple was not from the twelve apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3455" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T06:22:19.043" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23416" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="462" CreationDate="2013-12-04T04:35:34.867" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to LDS theology, there are 3 main Regions of existence from the highest to the lowest, and within each of these Regions are many other places, or sub-regions. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus himself speaks about these different Regions including the one He is from which He refers to as &quot;The First Mystery&quot;. The Earth is one of 3 places in the lowest Region. This Lowest 3rd Region is the only Region where beings are material . &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The beings in the higher Regions are identified by their &quot;Light&quot;. This is all recorded in the 'Pistis Sophia', which recorded Jesus instructions to his disciples, as well as Mary his mother, Mary Magdalene, Martha, and others in the 11 year period (or 11 months, as there is some dispute about the actual time period involved) after Jesus's Resurrection from the Dead, and before he Ascended to Heaven for the final time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8882" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-12-04T12:40:20.257" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T12:40:20.257" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23419" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-04T07:32:15.440" Score="7" ViewCount="7448" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was just reading some history on extreme forms of asceticism and monasticism. In passing the subject of Origen it said he had castrated himself. Is this generally considered true by church historians?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastActivityDate="2019-12-23T19:32:10.887" Title="Did Origen castrate himself under a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12?" Tags="&lt;church-history&gt;&lt;church-fathers&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23421" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23419" CreationDate="2013-12-04T08:40:10.887" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;This has been debated, so no one knows for sure. The consensus of the scholars &lt;em&gt;seems to be&lt;/em&gt; that this was a malicious rumor about him, possibly started by Demetrios, the Bishop of Alexandria, a prosecutor of Origen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John McGuckin's &lt;em&gt;Westminster Handbook to Origen&lt;/em&gt; states that someone who interpreted the Gospels so allegorically would be unlikely to have interpreted Matthew 19:12 so literally and that in Origen's commentary on Matthew, he himself derides the literal interpretation of the eunuch and says only an idiot would consider that. Origen doesn't use the word &quot;idiot,&quot; but you can read his derision for the interpretation in his &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.well.com/~aquarius/origen-matthew.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Commentary on Matthew 15.1-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The castration story comes from the historian Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius, the church historian who lived a generation after Origen, devotes nearly all of Book VI of his Ecclesiastical History to the life of Origen. While some scholars have cast doubt on the reliability of this source due to the author's obvious admiration for his subject and the work's loving hagiographical tone, most do not believe these factors are reason for doubting Eusebius' reports. However, why take Eusebius' account over Origen's own words?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A nice account can be found here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://houseoftheinklings.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-origen.html&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;http://houseoftheinklings.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-origen.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8884" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-03-11T19:22:36.063" LastActivityDate="2015-03-11T19:22:36.063" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23422" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22828" CreationDate="2013-12-04T10:56:08.223" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Sometimes a relationship is initiated by someone declaring it to be so: &quot;You are my friend&quot; could begin a new friendship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But sometimes a relationship exists even before it is named. Sons and daughters do not become sons and daughters when they are called that by their parents, but are sons and daughters since the moment of their conception, before anyone other than God even knows they exist.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luke 1:35 is not saying that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God in the incarnation, but instead simply that people will recognise and declare that Jesus is the Son of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2014-10-30T09:18:59.073" LastActivityDate="2014-10-30T09:18:59.073" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23423" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23419" CreationDate="2013-12-04T11:09:41.960" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Many historians argue that Eusebius, who lived only a few decades after Origen, would have access to accurate information and no incentive to lie.  Others argue that much of what Eusebius says cannot be considered historically reliable, pointing out that Origen's self-castration would conflict with Origen's theology: he interpreted Mat 18:8-9 as a command to separate from people who are causing one to sin, not a command to rid oneself of body parts.  Thus it is very unlikely that he took Matthew 19:12 to be about amputation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;ORIGEN ON MATTHEW 18:8-9: &amp;quot;If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is well, then, if the eye and the hand are deserving of praise, that the eye cannot with reason say to the hand, I have no need of you. 1 Corinthians 12:21 But if any one in the whole body of the congregations of the church, who because of his practical gifts has the name of hand, should change and become a hand causing to stumble, let the eye say to such a hand, I have no need of you, and, saying it, let him cut it off and cast it from him. Matthew 18:8 And so it is well, if any head be blessed, and the feet worthy of the blessed head, so that the head observing the things which are becoming to itself, may not be able to say to the feet, I have no need of you. If, however, any foot be found to become a stumbling-block to the whole body, let the head say to such a foot, I have no need of you, and having cast it off, let him cast it from himself; for even it is much better that the rest of the body should enter into life, wanting the foot or the hand which caused the stumbling-block, rather than, when the stumbling-block has spread over the whole body, it should be cast into the hell of fire with the two feet or the two hands. And so it is well, that he who can become the eye of the whole body should be worthy of Christ and of the whole body; but if such an eye should ever change, and become a stumbling-block to the whole body, it is well to take it out and cast it outside the whole body, and that the rest of the body without that eye should be saved, rather than that along with it, when the whole body has been corrupted, the whole body should be cast into the hell of fire. For the practical faculty of the soul, if prone to sin, and the walking faculty of the soul, so to speak, if prone to sin, and the faculty of clear vision, if prone to sin, may be the hand that causes to stumble, and the foot that causes to stumble, and the eye that causes to stumble, which things it is better to cast away, and having put them aside to enter into life without them, like as one halt, or maimed, or one-eyed, rather than along with them to lose the whole soul. And likewise in the case of the soul it is a good and blessed thing to use its power for the noblest ends; but if we are going to lose one for any cause, it is better to lose the use of it, that along with the other powers we may be saved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it is possible to apply these words also to our nearest kinsfolk, who are our members, as it were; being considered to be our members, because of the close relationship; whether by birth, or from any habitual friendship, so to speak; whom we must not spare if they are injuring our soul. For let us cut off from ourselves as a hand or a foot or an eye, a father or mother who wishes us to do that which is contrary to piety, and a son or daughter who, as far as in them lies, would have us revolt from the church of Christ and the love of Him. But even if the wife of our bosom, or a friend who is kindred in soul, become stumbling-blocks to us, let us not spare them, but let us cut them out from ourselves, and cast them outside of our soul, as not being truly our kindred but enemies of our salvation; for whosoever hates not his father, and mother, Luke 14:26 and the others subjoined, when it is the fitting season to hate them as enemies and assailants, that he may be able to win Christ, this man is not worthy of the Son of God. And in respect of these we may say, that from a critical position any lame one, so to speak, is saved, when he has lost a foot— say a brother— and alone obtains the inheritance of the kingdom of God; and a maimed one is saved, when his father is not saved, but they perish, while he is separated from them, that he alone may obtain the benedictions. And so also any one is saved with one eye, who has cut out the eye of his own house, his wife, if she commit fornication, lest having two eyes he may go away into the hell of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;~Origen&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/zlFbM.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;a depiction of Origen's self-castration&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8885" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T11:09:41.960" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23427" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23518" CreationDate="2013-12-04T14:22:35.103" Score="1" ViewCount="266" Body="&lt;p&gt;In John 1:46-50, Nathanael is introduced to Jesus for the first time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know He was Philip's friend from Bethsaida and He was &quot;truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Where can I find some information about Nathanael besides John 1?&#xA;Any passage or book, biography, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibliapage.com/apostolo.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;site&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8888" LastEditorUserId="8888" LastEditDate="2014-01-23T12:35:40.973" LastActivityDate="2014-01-23T12:35:40.973" Title="Where can I find some information about Nathanael besides John 1?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-john&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23428" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23452" CreationDate="2013-12-04T14:41:05.490" Score="12" ViewCount="9757" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Genesis chapter  two God places the burden of death on man's sin(disobedience of God).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:17  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus died on the cross all of our sins were given to him and his death paid the penalty for our transgressions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Jesus suffered death for us why do Christians who have given their sins to Jesus on the cross still die?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1st John 2:2  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And he is the &lt;strong&gt;propitiation&lt;/strong&gt; for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 1:4  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans chapter 5   KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2016-06-13T18:58:39.877" Title="Since Jesus death paid our sin debt in full, why do Christians still die?" Tags="&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;nature-of-god&gt;&lt;soteriology&gt;" AnswerCount="6" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-06-15T20:20:48.967" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23430" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23428" CreationDate="2013-12-04T15:56:44.000" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;We know that when we reach the end of our lives here on earth, we die as a physical being, this is the fulfillment of Genesis 2:17 quoted in the question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what happened to us when this happens?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Lord Jesus promised that &lt;strong&gt;those who believe in Him&lt;/strong&gt; shall have eternal life.&#xA;The Lord also said in John 14:1-3 that in Heaven, where he was going, there are many mansions that He is preparing for His disciples. Then He commissioned His disciples to make more disciples.  Therefore disciples of Lord Jesus will be with Him when they leave this earth physically.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, as the Lord fulfills each and every past prophecies regarding Him as the Messiah, He will also fulfill the ones yet to come in the future. One of which is when He will be back to take His bride (the Church). When that happens, those who are still living will be taken up to the clouds. Do they bypass physical death? Maybe, just like Enoch and Elijah did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So here we see two ways in which we leave our sinful existence in this world and enter into a heavenly existence with the Lord. Either way, this can only happen because of what Lord Jesus did on the cross. Without Him, we have no hope.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T15:56:44.000" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23431" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19850" CreationDate="2013-12-04T16:58:45.750" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Yes you could add &quot;made righteous&quot; to &quot;in Christ&quot; but, first of all, the text doesn't say that, and secondly, that would be redundant since the term &quot;in Christ&quot; is the most complete description of salvation, it encompasses the full spectrum of all that God has in store for His saints Colossians 2:9 - 10  &quot;For in him [in Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. and ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power&quot;  So if you want to add &quot;made righteous&quot; or justified, you should also add sanctified, redeemed, reconciled, saved, glorified... and we could keep going on or we could just simply say, in Christ and there's no need to say anything else. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8889" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T16:58:45.750" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23432" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23442" CreationDate="2013-12-04T17:30:52.330" Score="11" ViewCount="734" Body="&lt;p&gt;Recently I invited some colleague students over to an evening called Questions to Christians at my student association. Two of them came (both almost) completely unfamiliar with Christianity/faith/God etc.) and we discussed several topics and read the story about the Good Samaritan. I gave both of them a copy of the New Testament and one said we would read the story of the Good Samaritan with our project group. Today one of them was browsing the bible and read some pages. He found the following sentence in &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+11:14&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Luke 11:14&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. [NIV]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He also found some other parts but this one made him laugh really hard. To quote: &lt;code&gt;&quot;Are you serious, you really believe this ****?&quot;&lt;/code&gt; After this question I took the bible and imagined how it would be as non-Christian, unaware of a God/Devil/sin and could only come to the same reaction. Now I'm wondering, how can you explain such a text to a non-christian? In this case, how can you make driving out demons reasonable (acceptable) for non-Christians?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: This question may seem close to a pastoral advice question, however I'd say this question fits into this description in the FAQ: &lt;code&gt;understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint&lt;/code&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3355" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-12-08T14:50:17.123" LastActivityDate="2019-12-08T14:50:17.123" Title="How to make driving out demons reasonable for non-christians?" Tags="&lt;gospel-of-luke&gt;&lt;apologetics&gt;&lt;demons&gt;&lt;evangelism&gt;&lt;exorcism&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="5" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23435" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23432" CreationDate="2013-12-04T18:50:55.660" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;There's a lot of baggage that comes with belief, but it's simple to explain:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God exists and he is pure spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God made Angels which are pure spirit&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some Angels are good&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Some Angels are bad&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God made the world&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;God made people with a body and a spirit&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Humanity's ability to comprehend this ends at &quot;people with a body&quot;.  Philosophers can come up with the rest without the assistance of revelation.  But all that is directly observable is that we exist because the rest is supernatural.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As G.K. Chesterton wrote&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The strange truth about the matter is told in the very word &quot;holiday.&quot; A bank holiday means presumably a day which bankers regard as holy. A half-holiday means, I suppose, a day on which a schoolboy is only partially holy. It is hard to see at first sight why so human a thing as leisure and larkiness should always have a religious origin. Rationally there appears no reason why we should not sing and give each other presents in honour of anything—the birth of Michael Angelo or the opening of Euston Station. But it does not work. As a fact, men only become greedily and gloriously material about something spiritualistic. Take away the Nicene Creed and similar things, and you do some strange wrong to the sellers of sausages. Take away the strange beauty of the saints, and what has remained to us is the far stranger ugliness of Wandsworth. Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm&quot;&gt;G.K. Chesterton - Heretics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, when someone asks you if you &quot;really believe all that stuff&quot;, ask them whether it's more likely that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058548/&quot;&gt;Santa Claus conquers mars&lt;/a&gt; or that St. Nicholas is a member of the Church Triumphant gloriously giving his intercession to all those who call upon him in the communion of saints. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Specific to driving out demons.  Consider what it means, the mission of the Church and the Apostles was and is to go into places where people believed in demons, gave homage to them and worshiped them, and drive them out.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The new kingdom has an eminently spiritual character. To enter it, it is necessary to repent and believe in the Gospel, to be freed from the power of the spirit of darkness, to submit to the power of God's Spirit, which Christ brings to human beings. As Jesus says: &quot;But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19871104en.html&quot;&gt;Pope John Paul II - General Audience 11/4/1987&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not the fellow you're in conversation believes in demons, he or she can certainly believe their absence is a good thing!  Maybe that's a place to start.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T18:50:55.660" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23436" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23428" CreationDate="2013-12-04T18:54:43.300" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;Jesus's death paid for our sins and opened the way for the father to forgive us. This gives us the opportunity to be restored to perfection and everlasting life. That is only the first half of the problem solved. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second half is that Satan charged God with being a liar and questioned his right to rule. Some of the other angels rebelled against God with Satan. Jehovah is now taking this time to prove without a doubt that he is not only a better ruler than Satan, but the only one who is fit to rule. He is proving it to us and all of the angels so he has a precedent if this question should ever rise again. Satan has a set amount of time to prove his point. After Satan's time is up then God will start to bring things back into the order he had set for them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/23190/7536&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why hasn't God stopped Satan and his demons?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This other answer of mine explains the purpose of Jesus, Satan, why we die, and Gods promise for the future. It has many references back to the bible. My answer here on this question is sort of a short paraphrasing of that answer. I hope this helped!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.877" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T20:43:34.783" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23437" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23428" CreationDate="2013-12-04T19:52:23.603" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;1/ Jesus made death a path of salvation&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would go so far as to pretend that death is a good thing in our sinful condition. For if we were immortals, we would probably not choose God over ourselves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What we lost with the original sin is not immortality, it is our capacity to love unconditionnally. And Jesus actually showed us how to restore that by 1) going all the way Himself 2) teaching us that this is the way God loves.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now scriptures to make my point (please anyone with actual biblical knowledge, can you locate the following and correct me as needed) :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;[whoever wants to be with me] &quot;let he take his cross and follow me&quot; (accuracy doubtful)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;there are four instances in the New Testament about taking up your cross, they are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 16:24  KJV Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 8:34  And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Mark 10:21  Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luk_9:23  And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The disciple in not greater than his Master&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are 3 instances of this in the Bible, they are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 10:24  KJV The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 6:40  KJVThe disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;There is no greater love than to give one's life for one's friends&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 15:13  KJV Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;-&gt; Jesus turns the universe around : death is no longer a punishment for past sins but a way do give one's life, i.e. a path of salvation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Temporary conclusion : &#xA;on the personal scale, physical death is a consequence of the original sin, not erased but made into a mean of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus, whom we are compelled to imitate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2/ a little more patience ...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, death per se remains something wrong that God &quot;does not want&quot;. The salvation is not only a matter of personal history but also an event of cosmic magnitude in which the laws of Nature themselves are healed. But this is an historical event which has simply not happened yet :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;and the last enemy He will put under His feet is Death&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;implies that the collective salvation will occur on Judgment Day, after which death will no longer be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8894" LastEditorUserId="5867" LastEditDate="2013-12-04T21:01:32.107" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T21:01:32.107" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23438" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23303" CreationDate="2013-12-04T20:19:14.800" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Matthew 15&#xA;Darby Translation (DARBY)&#xA;15 Then the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem come up to Jesus, saying,&#xA;2 Why do thy disciples transgress what has been delivered by the ancients? for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.&#xA;3 But he answering said to them, Why do &lt;em&gt;ye&lt;/em&gt; also transgress the commandment of God on account of your traditional teaching?&#xA;4 For God commanded saying, Honour father and mother; and, He that speaks ill of father or mother, let him die the death.&#xA;5 But &lt;em&gt;ye&lt;/em&gt; say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift, whatsoever [it be] by which [received] from me thou wouldest be profited:&#xA;6 and he shall in no wise honour his father or his mother; and ye have made void the commandment of God on account of your traditional teaching.&#xA;7 Hypocrites! well has Esaias prophesied about you, saying,&#xA;8 This people honour me with the lips, but their heart is far away from me;&#xA;9 but in vain do they worship me, teaching [as] teachings commandments of men.&#xA;10 And having called to [him] the crowd, he said to them, Hear and understand:&#xA;11 Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man; but what goes forth out of the mouth, this defiles the man.&#xA;12 Then his disciples, coming up, said to him, Dost thou know that the Pharisees, having heard this word, have been offended?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8641" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T20:19:14.800" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23439" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-04T20:49:20.123" Score="8" ViewCount="237" Body="&lt;p&gt;In response to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/11/27/it_s_sad_how_wrong_pope_francis_is_unless_it_s_a_deliberate_mistranslation_by_leftists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rush Limbaugh's criticism&lt;/a&gt; of Pope Francis' &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelii_gaudium&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Evangelii Gaudium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;text&lt;/a&gt;), &lt;a href=&quot;http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/02/rush-limbaugh-vs-the-pope/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christopher Hale said&lt;/a&gt; that &quot;to call the Holy Father a proponent [of] 'pure Marxism' is both mean-spirited and naive. Francis’s critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church’s social teaching.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&quot;Pure Marxism&quot; aside, can anyone explain, in light of &lt;em&gt;Evangelii Gaudium&lt;/em&gt;, what, if any, is the different perspective on capitalism that distinguishes Pope Francis from Ratzinger?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2202" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-07T23:37:14.647" LastActivityDate="2019-02-28T03:55:38.607" Title="How does &quot;Evangelii Gaudium” pose a new perspective on capitalism?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;pope-francis&gt;&lt;economics&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23440" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23428" CreationDate="2013-12-04T21:02:05.563" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The text of Genesis 2:17 KJV aims to &lt;strong&gt;spiritual&lt;/strong&gt; death, ie separation from God, not only phisical death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8888" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T21:02:05.563" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23441" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-04T21:58:29.027" Score="3" ViewCount="561" Body="&lt;p&gt;My understanding of Isaiah 42:4 is that it states that the Messiah will not falter before his job is completed. How do Christians reconcile this with the fact that Jesus died?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He will not &lt;strong&gt;falter&lt;/strong&gt; or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the islands will put their hope.  Isaiah 42:4 NIV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;“He will not be &lt;strong&gt;disheartened or crushed&lt;/strong&gt; until He has established justice in the earth;  And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law.”  Isaiah 42:4 NASB&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6496" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T03:21:19.417" Title="How do Christians reconcile Isaiah 42:4 with the death of Jesus?" Tags="&lt;isaiah&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23442" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23432" CreationDate="2013-12-04T22:21:09.217" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;First, at the question : &quot;do you really believe all of this ?&quot; you can confidently answer &quot;Yes&quot;. We can have faith in our faith, because it is utterly compatible with reason and science.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Regarding your question, I should decompose it in &#xA;1/ possibility of existence of such a thing as demonic possession&#xA;2/ necessity (or probability) of it happening&#xA;3/ spiritual meaning&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1/ Possibility&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If it is deemed not possible there must be some authority standpoint that says so. Logically we cannot rule out a possibility just because we did not witness it actualised.&#xA;So there should be a sound proof that it is not possible - or a sound &lt;em&gt;belief&lt;/em&gt; that it is not possible. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The premise of rejection is a miscomprehension of science - which is widely believed to hold the truth about the universe in general and in all its aspects. Hence it is first necessary to return to actual science :&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;modern science only emits hypotheses and temporary &quot;best solutions&quot;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To illustrate the point, this is why science could change radically (and several times) its view of the universe, life, existence of aethers, etc. For example, the existence of black holes is widely accepted as a scientific fact while no one has ever detected one. &#xA;True scientists remain aware that scientific &quot;truth&quot; is methodological, not actual.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the possibility of existence of such a thing as demonic possession would actually be a valid scientific hypothesis. However, even with direct observations of the phenomenon in controlled environment, this could probably never turn into a science object.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth criterion in modern science is renewable material experience - same conditions, same results. So modern science is only capable of providing &quot;truths&quot; on material matters. There is absolutely no possibility (outside downright abuse of the science mantle) that science can bring freedom-related questions into its scope, and demonic possession is freedom-related (more accurately loss-of-freedom-related).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Side note : when science enquires the human mind it's often depressing because it only sees the mechanical part of our psychology. It is a built-in feature of science that it can only establish material causality - otherwise the best it can do is recognize that there is none (but this translate to &quot;not a scientific fact&quot;).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So science &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;has not ruled out the existence of such things as demonic possession&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;is intrinsically incapable of apprehending matters that are outside its (very efficient but very narrow) scope of material causality - so it won't &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt; rule on the question&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You can only discuss such matters outside &lt;em&gt;modern&lt;/em&gt; science - which does not mean outside reason or logic. So another step is to accept that it is possible to state something true about the universe (material or spiritual) outside the scope of &lt;em&gt;modern&lt;/em&gt; science. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The scientific method is to remain logically consistent, establish some accepted principles that constrain the possibilities, and specify which kind of facts fall within the scope of the questionning. Different sciences can exist, leading to knowledge of different natures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2/ Necessity / probability &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Anthropology for instance is a field that brings a lot of knowledge, none of it being hard science. Through observation of customs, the belief in universal patterns and structures (family etc.), anthropologists have brought some useful self-knowledge.&#xA;I mention anthropology because all primitive cultures have spontaneously fostered belief in the invisible world. If it was an error, then it should happen in some specific cultures- why all of them ? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The christian faith is not an explanation of the material world, nor of our social world, but the tale of a relationship between Man and God, which existence we know indirectly &#xA;- through the testimony of saints, first of all Jesus, &#xA;- through intuition that we get contemplating life, nature, the universe etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theology is the science of this relationship. Instead of renewable experience, the truth criterion is the scriptures, which hold both testimonies and intuitions. Those scriptures have not been randomly put on paper: wisdom accumulated, meditated and worked upon for centuries, starting with the intuition that God &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Demonic possession would not be mentionned so clearly and repeatedly in the Gospel, especially as a subject upon which Jesus acts, if it wasn't essential to our understanding of redemption. &#xA;So the existence of demonic possession is not necessary per se (it is wrong), but you have to admit its reality in order to fully understand the Gospel. Nothing happens by chance in the life of Jesus, as showed by that in these occasions Jesus always &lt;em&gt;frees&lt;/em&gt; people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3/ Spiritual sense and return to everyday life&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the reality of demonic possesion is a loss of freedom through sin. Sin makes us slaves, incapable of achieving what we really want because we find ourselves following our &quot;inclinations&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Every sin is a step toward possesion, and it manifests itself as such in its consequence, a greater difficulty to resist it. Finally some people find themselves unable to resist pulses that can lead them to outright horrors - but this was slowly built by progressive consent. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a reassuring psycho-fuzzy explanation, no longer is the demon needed... &#xA;But if you believe that the demon exists (if not please run a consistency check on your beliefs), there is no reason to reject demonic possession as the ultimate loss of freedom down the road of sin.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually it gives an account of our freedom, which goes so far as to make us able to rebuke God in everything he gave us, here the soul as the unity of body and mind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8894" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T22:21:09.217" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23443" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23441" CreationDate="2013-12-04T23:03:13.673" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;This is easily reconciled because here is nothing to reconcile! Christ has never faltered, been disheartened, or crushed. He fulfilled His mission while here on earth, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gospeltruth.net/1861OE/610116_christ_advocate.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;continues to do so as our advocate&lt;/a&gt;, and will continue to do so. His death and resurrection &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;demonstrated&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; this, rather than negating it!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A look at Christian commentaries shows that this is the common understanding among Christians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Isaiah  42:1-4 This prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, Mt 12:17. Let&#xA;  our souls rely on him, and rejoice in him; then, for his sake, the&#xA;  Father will be well-pleased with us. The Holy Spirit not only came,&#xA;  but rested upon him, and without measure. He patiently bore the&#xA;  contradiction of sinners. His kingdom is spiritual; he was not to&#xA;  appear with earthly honours. He is tender of those oppressed with&#xA;  doubts and fears, as a bruised reed; those who are as smoking flax, as&#xA;  the wick of a lamp newly lighted, which is ready to go out again. He&#xA;  will not despise them, nor lay upon them more work or more suffering&#xA;  than they can bear. &lt;strong&gt;By a long course of miracles and his resurrection,&#xA;  he fully showed the truth of his holy religion&lt;/strong&gt;. By the power of his&#xA;  gospel and grace he fixes principles in the minds of men, which tend&#xA;  to make them wise and just. The most distant nations wait for his law,&#xA;  wait for his gospel, and shall welcome it. If we would make our&#xA;  calling and election sure, and have the Father delight over us for&#xA;  good, we must behold, hear, believe in, and obey Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even in His darkest hour, as He prepared to fulfill His mission on the cross, He never faltered.  He did the will of the Father, putting aside His own needs without hesitation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew 26:39  (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed,&#xA;  saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:&#xA;  nevertheless &lt;strong&gt;not as I will, but as thou wilt&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In my book. that's not faltering.  were it me, I'd have faltered. I'd have run away, lied, done anything to escape, yet He never faltered.  He went ahead, knowing what was to come, because He cannot falter.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Extra credit: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/scripture/sermons-on-isaiah-42+4.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Here's a list of sermons that preach on that verse&lt;/a&gt;, many of which focus on Christ as the triumphant servant.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Edits to address points missed per the comments below.  Namely, this comment:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Maybe you know more than me and can show that there has been justice&#xA;  on this earth for the past 2000 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This was addressed in the very first paragraph on this answer, but I will expand upon it.  Repeating the relevant sentence, with some emphasis added:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He fulfilled His mission while here on earth, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;continues to do&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; so as our advocate, and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;will continue to do so&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The misunderstanding here of commonly accepted Christian doctrine, is that in asking whether there has been justice on this earth in the last 2000 years is that His work was done on the cross.  That is not the case.  Christianity isn't based on His death, it's based on His resurrection, and the work that He &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;continues&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; to do.  He has &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; not, to this very second, faltered. He is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; doing the will of his father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea that the verse is nullified because perfect justice wasn't established on this earth by the time of His death ignores the very basic tenets of the Christian faith.  For there to be a discrepancy, His would would have had to end with His death.  It didn't.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rather than going deep into detail on all of the doctrinal points that this question ignores, I'll simply summarize them with links for further study.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://ratiochristi.org/pepperdine/blog/post/the-resurrection-is-historically-reliable/1583#.UqE_o-JDdMg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christ was resurrected&lt;/a&gt;.  So His work didn't end at the cross.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024&amp;amp;version=KJV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;He then spent a little more time on this earth after his resurrection, and then ascended to heaven&lt;/a&gt;.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Lest you wonder about the three days between His death and resurrection and somehow try to interpret that as a &quot;pause&quot;, we know little of what He was doing during those three days, but we do know that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8579/where-was-jesus-during-the-period-from-his-death-to-resurruction/8588#8588&quot;&gt;He was active, &quot;preaching to the spirits in prison&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  (Although the exact details on what that means aren't clear.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gospeltruth.net/1861OE/610116_christ_advocate.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christ continues, right now, even as I type this, to work as our Advocate.&lt;/a&gt;  (still hasn't stumbled.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, up until the present time, at no point has Christ stumbled, wavered, or strayed from his path.  We have no evidence whatsoever that he was discouraged, even in His darkest hour, or since.  Thus, the fact that perfect justice hasn't been established yet is not a problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripture does promise that &lt;a href=&quot;http://biblehub.com/niv/revelation/21.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;He will establish new Heaven and a new Earth&lt;/a&gt;.  This is the point at which perfect justice will be established on earth, but that is a promise for the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;future&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Only if he stumbles before that future promise comes to pass could there possibly be any potential discrepancy here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:48.790" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T03:21:19.417" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23444" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23432" CreationDate="2013-12-04T23:20:51.467" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are TV and Radio signals all around us every day.  Yet we would be foolish to assume they didn't exist because we can't see them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Imagine if you were to encounter someone who had no knowledge of TV or Radio like someone from the 16th century.  If you were to try to tell them about something they couldn't see they would have a hard time trying to believe.  That is, until you were to switch on a TV.  The reason they can't grasp it is because they can't see it &amp;amp; hear it.  It's all to do with a lack of knowledge and because people are used to gaining knowledge by our 5 senses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This quote taken from the back of a little book called &quot;Two Kinds of Knowledge&quot; by E.W.Kenyon explains this dilemma.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;All the knowledge that is taught in our schools, colleges and&#xA;  universities has been gained through our five senses. It is what we&#xA;  call &quot;Sense Knowledge.&quot;  Man has never been able to know God through&#xA;  the five senses of his physical body.  Sense Knowledge cannot give us&#xA;  the Reason for Creation, the source of Light, of Life, of Motion, of&#xA;  Gravitation, has been unable to explain the obvious design of&#xA;  Creation.  When man reaches the limits of his Sense Knowledge, he&#xA;  turns philosopher or guesser. Natural man cannot understand spiritual&#xA;  things. There are Two kinds of Knowledge, sense knowledge and&#xA;  spiritual knowledge. Sense Knowledge cannot find God, can never know&#xA;  Him, but there stands by the side of everyone a Guide to lead him into&#xA;  the new kind of knowledge, the new kind of life. Two Kinds of&#xA;  Knowledge by EW Kenyon shows the contrast between Sense Knowledge and&#xA;  The Revelation Knowledge which we receive only from the Word of God. &#xA;  Sense Knowledge faith is in what man is, and can do, and has done.&#xA;  Revelation faith is in the Word of God, &quot;That liveth and abideth&#xA;  forever.&quot; Understand these Two Kinds of Knowledge and strengthen your&#xA;  walk of faith.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So you can talk to them about how God is spirit and can't be seen with human eyes.  And that just because you can't see him it doesn't mean he doesn't exist.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Remember these words from Jesus - &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the&#xA;  words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. -&#xA;  John 6:63.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of God.  Faith does not come by the word of God, hearing does.  Let them hear by continuing to share the Gospel.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-12-04T23:20:51.467" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23446" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23380" CreationDate="2013-12-05T00:47:22.657" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Someone who knows that the doctrines of his present church are true and revealed by God would commit a sin if he were to change to a church with different doctrines, which he knows to be false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T00:47:22.657" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23447" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23366" CreationDate="2013-12-05T00:57:46.417" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually, you would be welcomed with open arms. No one has anything against you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They are just trying to protect your boyfriend from heartache and from being even more tempted to leave the faith. The Bible tells us, at 1 Corinthians 7:39, to marry only in the Lord. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are the only true Christian religion, but they want everyone to join them. That is why they go door to door.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He would still get to remain one of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user8561" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T00:57:46.417" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23448" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23474" CreationDate="2013-12-05T00:58:32.603" Score="4" ViewCount="316" Body="&lt;p&gt;When God warned Adam about eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he said that in the day that he ate there of he would surely die.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 2:17  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that Adam lived over 900 years on the Earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 5:5  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So Adam and Eve did not die physically that day,  but  the argument could be made that they did die in the respect that they were now separated from God for eternity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since God had created man in their image, which I take to mean as in three parts body, spirit, and soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If sin had separated man from God eternally, and man was condemned to eternity in the lake of fire that would be the second death:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 21:8  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And since man was condemned to the lake of fire for eternity, which is the second death that would have taken place on the same day as their sin. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Could that have been the reason why:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 3:22  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T21:45:07.530" Title="When God said to man that if he sinned he would die, was he speaking of death of the human body or death of the Soul, or the Spirit?" Tags="&lt;biblical-basis&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;exegesis&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-12-06T21:08:50.177" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23449" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23366" CreationDate="2013-12-05T02:36:01.737" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;As one of Jehovah's Witnesses he really shouldn't even be &lt;em&gt;dating&lt;/em&gt; anyone outside the congregation either since dating is a precursor to marriage. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;tacosalad is correct, that is the reason we do not marry outside our faith. The scripture that really elaborates on this is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-corinthians/6/#v47006014&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Corinthians 6:14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What this means is that our beliefs are not compatible with other religions. A good example from the bible is king Solomon. He married wives that worshiped pagan gods. In time he too started to worship them and was punished for it. By marrying only in the lord we don't have to worry about distractions that may lead us astray. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Our perception and understanding of God and Jesus is different than the Catholic standpoint. We don't believe in the trinity, hell, that most of us will not be going to heaven, so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ask yourself this: What will we teach our children? What are we going to do about holidays? (We don't celebrate the holidays.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you were to study with the intent of becoming baptized then it would be OK for you to date. However, you would not be able to get married in a Kingdom Hall until both of you are baptized witnesses. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am surprised that the elders haven't counselled him about this. Unless that is they don't know.....&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You are correct in your last question. 'Do JW see other Christians as unbelievers?', we see other religions as false. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/2-timothy/3/#v55003001&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;2 Timothy 3:1-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2  For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3  having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4  betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5  &lt;strong&gt;having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power&lt;/strong&gt;; and from these turn away.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I suggest you both go to your respective spiritual leaders and ask for their advice. The longer you let this play out the more heartache if things go south. I wish you the best in dealing with this situation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="23657" LastEditDate="2019-12-26T15:08:43.730" LastActivityDate="2019-12-26T15:08:43.730" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23452" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23428" CreationDate="2013-12-05T05:24:42.733" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gen 2:17 reference is for the second death not the first.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The fact that we are still dying in spite of Jesus dying for us, shows that death is more than what we know it to be in everyday meaning. There is something called &quot;second death&quot; in the Bible.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev.20:6 “Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It worth noting how clearly this second death is mentioned at Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8. One of the first things God told Adam was regarding the forbidden fruit. He said:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gen.2:17, “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.” &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same day they were supposed to have been paying the penalty for their disobedience; the penalty was death. But they didn't die the same day, because:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 3:16 For this is the way   God loved the world: He gave his one and only   Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish   but have eternal life.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A substitute was already planned and therefore the penalty of sin was differed. When Adam died at the age of 930 years he was not paying the penalty of sin. Adam's probationary period of overcoming sin was over at nine hundred and thirty years; his lifespan ended.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In fact the Bible uses another word “sleep” many a time, when talking about the death that comes at the end of a lifetime. Talking about Lazarus' death, Jesus himself called it sleep. He said:   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 11:11-14 After he said this, he added, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep.   But I am going there to awaken him.”  Then the disciples replied,   “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.”  (Now Jesus had been talking about   his death, but they thought he had been talking about real sleep.) Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died,   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This word &quot;sleep&quot; has been used several times, in reference to the first death or the natural death that all have to face in this sinful world. (See Job 14:10-12, 1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16). All the people who ever died on planet earth died only the natural death or the first death; and first death is the consequence (natural result) of sin-because of Adam's fall-and not the wages (punishment) of sin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The death of Christ and also His resurrection were divine acts, and not natural acts. Death had no power on Him, as He did not sin. For us to die is natural, for Christ it was not. He was doing something that otherwise would not have happened. Just before Jesus could go to Calvary, this is what He said about Satan:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the ruler of this world is coming.  He has no power over me.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan had no power over Christ, as Christ did not yield to temptation. He had to lay His life down as a voluntary act for our salvation, and He did it. He was paying the penalty of the human race on the cruel Cross. He was dying the death that we deserved. Paul wrote: ...so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone. (Hebrew 2:9)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;First death and second death:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The death that Christ died was the second death.&lt;/strong&gt; The first death is a natural consequence of sin. Whether one is a believer or unbeliever, the first death is for all, whether a saint or a sinner. It is the close of probationary time, either to make it or break it to Heaven. When Adam and Eve were told that they would die the day they ate the fruit, it was a reference to the second death (the eternal extinction), not the first death.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first death physically destroys the body, but it is not an eternal destruction, as there will be a resurrection. But the second death is the eternal destruction of the person. So the second death is the real death, the complete death. The first death has only a part of the second death in it. The second death has the first death and more in it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;(Rev 20:6, 14, 15; 21:8), and not &quot;first and second death&quot;, as the second death is the complete death.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Those who die the second death have no resurrection. But Jesus rose from the dead even though He died the second death. Well, because He was sinless, He was dying a substitution death. He was not dying for His sin (He did no sin), but for the sins of the others (the whole world).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we die the first death, we can afford to smile and die, and even sing while burning at the stake, because we know it is only the first death, and there is a resurrection. But when Jesus was dying the death on Calvary, He cried in bitter agony:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But when we die our natural death, we don't cry that way, as God does not forsake us. It is at the final death, the second death, when people pay the wages of sin, they would feel the bitter agony of being forever cut off from God and from life, and then all will cry and weep and gnash their teeth.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Christ bore the sins of the world on Him, He could not, for that moment, see beyond the portals of the tomb, as it was total darkness within Him and around Him too. Only by faith He knew that resurrection was possible for Him while He was bearing our sins upon Himself. And that's how He gave hope to the thief, and that's how He committed His breath into the hands of His Heavenly Father and died. And lo! And behold! On the third day our Lord conquered the grave as He conquered death! Listen to the Victor:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev. 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;#Apologies for this long answer.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-12-05T06:10:00.387" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T06:10:00.387" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23453" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23390" CreationDate="2013-12-05T05:31:02.507" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;They knew the country because it was phophesied by Micah, In Micah 5:2 it reads:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8901" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T05:31:02.507" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23456" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23460" CreationDate="2013-12-05T07:24:27.643" Score="0" ViewCount="353" Body="&lt;p&gt;I mean how many times have we said 'let me see' or 'let me try'. Or how many times have we felt like - I'm trying to be a Christian.  Seems like trying is not good enough according to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13%3A24&amp;amp;version=NIVUK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 13:24&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, as a Christian, I've been trying to give at least my tithe, but have always failed because I hold back. So if I don't change NOW, I'm not gonna make it. Right or Wrong. Is there anywhere else in the Bible that reads trying is not good enough?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are about 7 billion people on earth. Taking Luke 13:24 in mind, is a FEW like 7000 people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6506" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-12-05T07:28:24.093" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T03:15:19.373" Title="Does Luke 13:24 give us a more vivid picture of how many people will be saved?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;&lt;suffering&gt;&lt;lifestyle&gt;&lt;non-christians&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2014-04-01T09:05:19.473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23458" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23471" CreationDate="2013-12-05T10:51:42.627" Score="9" ViewCount="20889" Body="&lt;p&gt;Comparing the lists of disciples in &lt;em&gt;Matthew 10:1-4&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Mark 3:13-19&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Luke 6:12-16&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Acts 1:12-14&lt;/em&gt; We find the name Bartholomew, but in &lt;em&gt;John 1&lt;/em&gt; We read about Nathanael.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In &lt;em&gt;John 1:46-50&lt;/em&gt;, Nathanael is introduced to Jesus for the first time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know He was Philip's friend from Bethsaida and He was &quot;truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit&quot; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Nathanael also appears in &lt;em&gt;John 21:2&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The name 'Bartholomew' appears in &lt;em&gt;Matthew 10:3&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Mark 3:18&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Luke 6:14&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are Nathanael and Bartholomew the same person?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8888" LastEditorUserId="24204" LastEditDate="2017-02-21T19:16:37.460" LastActivityDate="2019-05-04T16:44:49.847" Title="Are Bartholomew and Nathanael the same?" Tags="&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;apostles&gt;&lt;disciple&gt;&lt;bartholomew&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23459" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-05T12:47:00.540" Score="6" ViewCount="12917" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020&amp;amp;version=NIRV&quot;&gt;Revelation 20 (NIRV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4 I saw thrones. Those who had been given authority to judge were&#xA;  sitting on them. I also saw the souls of those whose heads had been&#xA;  cut off because they had given witness for Jesus and because of God’s&#xA;  word. They had not worshiped the beast or his statue. They had not&#xA;  received his mark on their foreheads or hands. &lt;strong&gt;They came to life&lt;/strong&gt; and&#xA;  ruled with Christ for 1,000 years.&#xA;  5 &lt;strong&gt;This is the first resurrection. The rest of the dead did not come to&#xA;  life until the 1,000 years were ended&lt;/strong&gt;. 6 Blessed and holy are those who take part in the first resurrection.&#xA;  The &lt;strong&gt;second death has no power over them&lt;/strong&gt;. They will be priests of God&#xA;  and of Christ. They will rule with him for 1,000 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;14 Then Death and Hell were thrown into the lake of fire. &lt;strong&gt;The lake of&#xA;  fire is the second death&lt;/strong&gt;. &#xA;  15 Anyone whose name was not written in the Book of Life was thrown&#xA;  into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%20%205:28-29&amp;amp;version=NIRV&quot;&gt;John 5:28-29 (NIRV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not be amazed at this. A time is coming when all who are in the&#xA;  grave will hear his voice. They will all come out of their graves.&#xA;  Those who have done good will rise and live again. Those who have done&#xA;  evil will rise and be found guilty.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%2012:2&amp;amp;version=NIV&quot;&gt;Daniel 12:2 (NIV)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to&#xA;  everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is clear enough from the above verses that we will all be resurrected one day. Those who believe in Jesus will be resurrected first, which is called the first resurrection and after 1000 years, the rest will be resurrected again, which obviously is the second resurrection. Hence,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;First Resurrection =  Resurrection of the just &#xA;Second Resurrection = Resurrection of the damned(1000 years after the First Resurrection)&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again, here we see a &quot;Second Death&quot;, which is the Lake of Fire. Those who believe in Jesus will have their names written in the Book of Life and will take part in the First Resurrection and they will not face the Second Death. The unbelievers will be be thrown into the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If there is a &quot;Second Death&quot;, it implies that there is also the &quot;First Death&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;. However, I can't find any information about the First Death in the Bible. Here are some possibilities that I suggests,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Physical death, returning to dust.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Original sin.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Living in sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Separation from God&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is the First Death?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2014-02-06T17:39:40.403" Title="What is the First Death?" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;death&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="1" ClosedDate="2014-05-02T10:10:45.073" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23460" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23456" CreationDate="2013-12-05T12:48:46.457" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Any time you hear anything along the lines of &quot;I'm trying to be a Christian&quot;, a giant red flag should immediately go up in your mind. Whoever said that is either playing fast and loose with words or they have completely missed the point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Being a Christian is a binary state (our position as either lost or saved in the eyes of God) that is not determined by anything we could ever do but on something somebody else did in our stead. This is so fundamental to Christianity that our way of speaking should never include a suggestion that we could ever do anything to change that status.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+4:7&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;1 Corinthians 4:7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Of course there are things we do in response to having had our status changed, but the way we talk about these things should clearly reflect their nature.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4:1&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot;&gt;Ephesians 4:1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; (ESV)&lt;br&gt;&#xA;  I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;By the same token I think your question is symptomatic of a similar misunderstanding. Never is &quot;trying hard&quot; connected to &quot;entering the Kingdom of God&quot;. In fact from beginning to end you will find a long saga about the God who does all of the doing to save his people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The question you should be asking yourself in light of what you know about your life is more along the lines of &quot;are my current desires and resulting actions evidence that I have been fundamentally changed and do I understand this change to be God's handiwork as effected by Christ who has adopted me?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Answer that question and your other one will become clear.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="30" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T12:48:46.457" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23461" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23459" CreationDate="2013-12-05T13:32:56.377" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm sure that there are people who think otherwise, but you didn't specify a perspective,so I'm going to go by answering it from what is the most common understanding in my personal experience.  By that I mean not my own personal opinion, but rather the understanding that every sermon I've heard, or every exposition I've read seems to think.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that qualifier out of the way, I believe that the most common understanding is that it refers to the physical death of the body.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In context it makes sense, since we're looking at a passage talking about the judgment of the resurrected, which implies that they suffered physical death already.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For an external source, I'll use &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mwtb.org/site/other-resources/online-books-and-pamphlets/questions-answered/the-bible-bible-questions/question-24-revelation-2014-mentions-the-second-death-what-is-this-second.html&quot;&gt;this post form  Moments With The Book&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The First Death&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Let's notice a few facts about the first death. Every person has a&#xA;  body, a soul, and a spirit. &quot;And the very God of peace sanctify you&#xA;  wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be&#xA;  preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ&quot; (1&#xA;  Thessalonians 5:23). The human spirit is that God-conscious part of a&#xA;  person that distinguishes him from the animals. It includes both&#xA;  knowledge and judgment (Mark 8:12; 1 Corinthians 2:11). The soul is&#xA;  that part of a person that is the home of the affections—right or&#xA;  wrong—of love, hate, lusts and even of the appetites of the body (Job&#xA;  23:13; 1 Peter 2:11). The body is the earthly house in which the&#xA;  spirit and soul dwell. At death a person's immortal (never-dying)&#xA;  spirit and soul leave the mortal (subject to death) body. This is the&#xA;  first death, or physical death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A believer's spirit and soul go immediately into a place of blessing&#xA;  at the time of death. This is evident in the well-known account of the&#xA;  thief on the cross. This repentant thief owned that he was getting&#xA;  what he deserved, and confessed Jesus as Lord, believing God would&#xA;  raise Him from the dead: &quot;Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy&#xA;  kingdom.&quot; The wonderful answer from the Lord Jesus was, &quot;Verily I say&#xA;  unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise&quot; (Luke 23:39-43).&#xA;  This blessed truth of the believer being with the Lord Jesus&#xA;  immediately after death is also repeated in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and&#xA;  Philippians 1:23.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is especially comforting to the Christian to see that the Lord&#xA;  Jesus did not refer to the death of the believer as death. The Bible&#xA;  speaks of it as the body falling asleep (see John 11:11-14 and 1&#xA;  Thessalonians 4:13-18). Death is the penalty of sin. The believer in&#xA;  the Lord Jesus does not come under the penalty of sin because the Lord&#xA;  Jesus took that penalty when He died on Calvary's cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;An unbeliever's spirit and soul go immediately into a place of torment&#xA;  at the time of death. The Lord Jesus tells us of this awful torment in&#xA;  His account of the rich man and Lazarus (read Luke 16:19-31). &quot;And in&#xA;  hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar&#xA;  off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham,&#xA;  have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his&#xA;  finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame&quot;&#xA;  (verses 23,24). The rich man was in torments, not because he was rich,&#xA;  but because he had not believed God's Word. People may disregard this&#xA;  account, but it came from the lips of the One who suffered sin's agony&#xA;  and torment on Calvary's cross so that no one ever would need to&#xA;  experience this awful judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/2404/Death-First.htm&quot;&gt;this article from the Forerunner Commentary&lt;/a&gt; goes into great detail about the various meanings of death,and agrees with the above.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We must always remember that our Creator, the Master Craftsman who&#xA;  made everything of the highest quality (Genesis 1:4-31), built death&#xA;  into man's design. He did this for good reasons. Surprisingly, there&#xA;  really are good and positive purposes behind both the &quot;first death&quot;&#xA;  and the &quot;second death&quot; (Revelation 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8). &lt;strong&gt;The first&#xA;  death is the one with which every person is familiar—the one everyone&#xA;  must face. This death terminates the physical life of every human&#xA;  being who lives during the 6,000 years allotted to man.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I could find immeasurable other supporting references, but I'll stop there. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I'm not saying it couldn't be any of those other things, but I've yet to run across another interpretation so my final answer is that the most common understanding seems to believe it means physical death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T13:32:56.377" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23463" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23439" CreationDate="2013-12-05T15:37:25.467" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Catholic social teaching on the subject of capitalism has been consistently promulgated by all of the last three popes in office. As always, the substance stays the same, although the tone and writing styles may or may not.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In his 1991 encyclical &lt;em&gt;Centesimus Annus&lt;/em&gt;, Pope John Paul II reflected on socialism and capitalism in light of the recent fall of the Soviet Union. Although he acknowledged that profit has a “legitimate role” in the function of a business and that “the Marxist solution” to economic inequality had failed, he also spoke of the “inadequacies of capitalism” and said that profit is the not the only indicator that a business is doing well. The human dignity of workers matter too, and if capitalism is left unchecked it becomes “ruthless” and leads to “inhuman exploitation.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Pope Francis's words are consistent with John Paul's:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used&#xA;and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is&#xA;now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression,&#xA;but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to&#xA;be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer&#xA;society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no&#xA;longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the&#xA;outcast, the “leftovers”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol start=&quot;54&quot;&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down&#xA;theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free&#xA;market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and&#xA;inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed&#xA;by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those&#xA;wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the&#xA;prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To&#xA;sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for&#xA;that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost&#xA;without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling&#xA;compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain,&#xA;and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s&#xA;responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we&#xA;are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the&#xA;meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere&#xA;spectacle; they fail to move us.  &lt;em&gt;Evangelii Gaudium&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Benedict did a great job of handing down the torch against radical, unbridled capitalism in his 2009 encyclical:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the&#xA;importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market&#xA;economy, not only because it belongs within a broader social and&#xA;political context, but also because of the wider network of relations&#xA;within which it operates. In fact, if the market is governed solely by the&#xA;principle of the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot&#xA;produce the social cohesion that it requires in order to function well.&lt;br /&gt;&#xA;&lt;em&gt;CARITAS IN VERITATE&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/rush-limbaugh-doesnt-get-pope-francis&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;If you pay close attention you see that the differences &amp;quot;perceived&amp;quot; do not stem from the actual words of the pope, but from the media and how its spun by them.&lt;/a&gt; The liberal media like to jump on Francis' side because he wears his heart on his sleeve, whereas Benedict was shunned as ultra-conservative, not because he taught anything different, but because he wanted to return to some of the liturgical traditions that pre-date Vatican II. At the same time we see radical conservatives like Rush attacking Francis who very strongly exhorts Christian leaders and laypeople to wake up and pay attention to this 30 year old teaching on the social injustices of rampant capitalistic endeavors.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a very volatile subject that is one spark away from igniting a politico-religious debate...so I'm going to stop here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditorDisplayName="user5286" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-02-28T03:55:38.607" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23465" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23456" CreationDate="2013-12-05T17:00:34.790" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 13:22-28 (NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to &#xA;  Jerusalem. &lt;strong&gt;Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to&#xA;  be saved?”&#xA;  He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow&#xA;  door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able&#xA;  to.&lt;/strong&gt; &#xA;  Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you&#xA;  will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’&#xA;  “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in&#xA;  our streets.’ “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away&#xA;  from me, all you evildoers!’&#xA;  “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see&#xA;  Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God,&#xA;  but you yourselves thrown out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When Jesus was asked how many people will be saved, Jesus did not reply directly that only a few will be saved. Jesus simply replied that  many will try to enter but will fail, thereby answering indirectly that &lt;strong&gt;only a few people will be saved&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we read the entire passage, we can understand that Jesus was speaking about the Jews specifically. The Jews at that time were trying very hard to enter the kingdom of God but their efforts were only outward and no effect internally. The people emphasizes more on rules and regulations rather than loving God and loving others.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You&#xA;  clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of&#xA;  greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside&#xA;  of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. &#xA;  (Matthew 23:25-26, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The people were trying very hard to remain ceremonially clean and to fulfill their religious duties. They paid &lt;strong&gt;offerings and tithes&lt;/strong&gt; faithfully, they observed the &lt;strong&gt;Sabbath&lt;/strong&gt; day strictly. They were perfect outwardly but sinful inwardly. They hearts were filled with hatred and greed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The same situation is going on today among many Christians. We try to attain salvation by our own deeds and we try to enter heaven by our own works. In contrast, salvation is a free gift from God and there nothing we can do about it. All we have to do you receive it with faith, let our old self die and put on the new self.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off&#xA;  your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; &lt;strong&gt;to&#xA;  be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self&lt;/strong&gt;,&#xA;  created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians&#xA;  4:22-24, NIV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Unless we are changed internally, put off our old nature and live a new live, we can never enter the kingdom of God. We need to born again spiritually. We need a transformation in our life. &lt;strong&gt;It's not about paying tithe or going to church every Sunday&lt;/strong&gt;. Your piety alone cannot save you. Your hard work alone cannot save you. If you are only trying to be saved, you are like those who try but fail. God doesn't care about how much you try to make him happy but instead, &lt;strong&gt;God wants you to strife hard to change yourself&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T17:00:34.790" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23469" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23459" CreationDate="2013-12-05T20:03:00.173" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 9:27 states:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (ESV).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The judgement (if adverse) is easily equatable to the &quot;second death,&quot; implying that the first death is thing to which all men are appointed once.  Since Genesis 3 indicates that all men are under the curse of physical death, that seems the most likely candidate.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1039" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T20:03:00.173" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23471" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23458" CreationDate="2013-12-05T20:32:13.673" Score="12" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_the_Apostle&quot;&gt;Popular&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/apostles/p/Saint_Bartholomew.htm&quot;&gt;thought&lt;/a&gt; on the subject agree that Bartholomew and Nathanael are the same person.  While there is no passage in the Bible that directly says &quot;Bartholomew is Nathanael,&quot; circumstantial evidence points in that direction.  Arguments can be made either way; church tradition points toward them being one and the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arguments for:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, regarding the names themselves.  Bartholomew seems like a family name or last name.  In Hebrew, the name would be Bar-Tholmai, or Son of Tholmai.  Nathanael seems like a first name, meaning Gift of God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, Bartholomew and Nathanael seem to be mutually exclusive.  Bartholomew makes appearances in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts.  Each reference is in a list of the 12 Disciples.  Nathanael makes appearances in the book of John, which has no formal list of the 12 Disciples.  In John chapter 21, Nathanael is included in a list of disciples (&lt;code&gt;John 21:2 &quot;There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.&quot;&lt;/code&gt;)  In John, Nathanael does what one of the 12 Disciples might be expected to do: he goes fishing with some of the others in the 12 Disciples.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, there is a relationship between Philip and Bartholomew in the lists of disciples in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts.  There is also a relationship between Philip and Nathanael in John (Nathanael is the friend Philip brings to Jesus when Philip first learns of Him).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Arguments against:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, Bartholomew is a perfectly reasonable first name.  It has been used many times since.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, Nathanael is never listed in a formal list of the 12 Disciples.  Certainly, there were &lt;em&gt;many&lt;/em&gt; disciples of Jesus who are not included in the 12 Disciples.  This was one of the requirements to be considered for Judas' replacement in the 12 Disciples after Judas betrayed Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Third, the link between Philip and Bartholomew in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts is hardly strong -- their names are simply grouped together.  Even if the link &lt;em&gt;were&lt;/em&gt; strong, it's not as if Philip cannot have two good friends.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The truth is that the Biblical authors were not concerned over whether we, thousands of years later, would definitively be able to link Nathanael and Bartholomew together.  If they were, Matthew 10:3 would have read, &quot;Philip, and &lt;strong&gt;Nathanael&lt;/strong&gt; Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;&quot; (bold text added).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8917" LastEditorUserId="8917" LastEditDate="2013-12-06T05:09:25.310" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T05:09:25.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23472" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23095" CreationDate="2013-12-05T21:39:52.113" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe that 1Tthessalonians 4:14-17 and Revelation 20:5-6 refers to after the millennial reign of Christ and after the battle at the end. But it will be before the great white throne Judgement. However the martyrs are the ones who reign with Christ 1000 years. At the end of the millennium we will be raised from the dead, judged and taken to heaven to be with God-Father, son, &amp;amp; Holy Spirit forever. This is what Revelation 20:5-6 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 refers to. Tell me if you agree please, and thank you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8920" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T21:39:52.113" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23474" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23448" CreationDate="2013-12-05T21:45:07.530" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;It can't have been his body, because he was still alive physically and didn't drop dead on the spot.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And it can't have been his soul because he felt naked after eating of the forbidden fruit.  Which means his natural mind was still working.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the&#xA;  cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the&#xA;  presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. - Gen 3:8&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The only part left of us is our spirit which we cannot perceive through our 5 senses.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of&#xA;  the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So I believe it was a spiritual death, not a natural death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why was he driven out of the garden?  I believe it was so that he couldn't continue to eat of the tree of life and continue to live physically forever in a fallen state.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know&#xA;  good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of&#xA;  the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Gen 3:22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I believe it wasn't so much that sin had separated God from man, but man from God.&#xA;It was man who hid from God in the garden after eating the fruit and man who felt shame.  God continued to reach out to man but sin kept man away from God.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But obviously things were not quite the same.  Without a spirit that is alive they were unable to fellowship with God.  They (and we) cannot relate to God spirit to spirit unless we are born again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 3:8-10:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in&#xA;  the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the&#xA;  presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art&#xA;  thou?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,&#xA;  because I was naked; and I hid myself.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastActivityDate="2013-12-05T21:45:07.530" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23479" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23458" CreationDate="2013-12-06T00:50:06.420" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since there is nothing in the scriptures to answer this question, any answer affirming or rejecting your premise would be pure conjecture. In fact there were many other disciples who followed Jesus around who were not one of the twelve Apostles, one well known person is Mary Magdalene.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in the following Scriptures where the Apostles were selecting a successor for Judas Iscariot we are told that there were  at least two who traveled with Jesus and the Apostles from the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Act 1:21 through 24 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;21  Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;22  Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;23  And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;24  And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T00:50:06.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23480" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2013-12-06T01:04:04.663" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;1)  We are all given a measure of faith, are we not?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2)  The disciples believed (because they had seen some miracles), but they asked the Lord to help their unbelief (prior to the resurrection).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3)  We need to GROW in our faith; does that mean we should &quot;get more faith&quot;?  I don't think so.  I think it means we need to exercise what we have received.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8924" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T01:04:04.663" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23481" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2013-12-06T02:03:07.247" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Pray for more faith, and be ready to accept it when it comes to you.  It's not necessarily something you can work at like weightlifting.  It's a gift from God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6235" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T02:03:07.247" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23483" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-06T03:04:55.820" Score="5" ViewCount="288" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;I am posting this question on behalf of &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/2479/user2479&quot;&gt;another user&lt;/a&gt;, and it corresponds to &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/7460/423&quot;&gt;a related textual question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 3:16 (KJV) says, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And&#xA;  to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is&#xA;  Christ.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This appears to be referring to the covenant made in Genesis 17:7. On this basis and others, some have concluded that this covenant was made to 'the Church', as St. Augustine would say, &quot;The Israel of God&quot;; they further cite the passage from Galatians 4:24 where Paul cites two covenants - the covenant at Mt. Sinai &quot;which gendereth to bondage&quot;; therefore, the Covenant w/Israel at Mt. Sinai is &quot;bondage&quot;, and the New Covenant, which Paul quotes in Hebrews 8:9 from Jer. 31:33, has 'replaced' the Old Covenant in which they quote Hebrews 8:13 (KJV), &quot;Decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.&quot; They conclude that this covenant indeed passed away in 70 CE, at the Destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The meaning of 'olam' which is clear from the Genesis 17:7 text means 'everlasting', and yet it doesn't describe Heb. 8:13. Are we then to 'assume' that Israel's Covenant with God is not the same 'olam' (everlasting) as Gen. 17:7? Or how else can this be understood?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1304" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:47:43.250" LastActivityDate="2017-06-26T01:49:36.633" Title="Was the Covenant made with the Church or does 'Everlasting' mean something other than 'eternal?'" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;israel&gt;&lt;covenants&gt;&lt;galatians&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="1" ClosedDate="2016-01-13T22:07:00.583" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23484" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23456" CreationDate="2013-12-06T03:15:19.373" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I believe that it is through faith alone we are saved, the only caveat I would like to put forward is the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.&#xA;&#xA;34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’&#xA;&#xA;37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’&#xA;&#xA;40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’&#xA;&#xA;41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’&#xA;&#xA;44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’&#xA;&#xA;45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’&#xA;&#xA;46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an implication that faith alone is not enough (without going into James 2:26.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8884" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T03:15:19.373" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23486" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23483" CreationDate="2013-12-06T03:51:23.260" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;My answer may not be extensive due to time restraints, but I think it's important to emphasize this main point.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old covenant (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&amp;amp;b=Jer&amp;amp;c=31&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;x=0&amp;amp;y=0#conc/32&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jer. 31:32&lt;/a&gt;), which the Israelites entered into at Sinai (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&amp;amp;c=24&amp;amp;v=7&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/7&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exo. 24:7&lt;/a&gt;), cannot be eternal because it never promised eternal life to the Israelites. Instead of eternal life, God (the other party of the covenant) promised that the Israelites would prolong their days on the earth (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=4&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/40&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deut. 4:40&lt;/a&gt;), that is, in the land of Canaan (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&amp;amp;c=5&amp;amp;t=KJV#33&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Deut. 5:33&lt;/a&gt;), if they kept His commandments (i.e., His covenant). Because of their disobedience, the Israelites were exiled on several occasions, with the last exile culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. by the Roman army. That being said, if the days of the Israelites in Jerusalem were not prolonged...than how much less were they to receive eternal life? Again, the old covenant never promised eternal life.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That being said, there's no wonder why the author of the epistle to the Hebrews (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&amp;amp;c=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/6&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Heb. 8:6&lt;/a&gt;) says that Jesus Christ is the mediator of a &quot;better covenant&quot; (κρείττονός διαθήκης) established on &quot;better promises&quot; (κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις). Among these &quot;better promises&quot; is the promise of &quot;the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began, but He manifested His word in due times by the preaching&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Tts&amp;amp;c=1&amp;amp;v=2&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tit. 1:2-3&lt;/a&gt;) which was committed to the apostles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The old covenant cannot be eternal because those who enter the covenant are neither immortal nor are they promised immortality. They all must inevitably die (granted, there are one or two exceptions, but let's consider the general rule instead). Also, one should understand that once one party of a conditional, bilateral covenant dies, the entire covenant is rendered void for both parties (see the apostle's example of the marriage covenant in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=7&amp;amp;v=1&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom. 7:2-3&lt;/a&gt;). Thus, whenever an Israelite dies, he is no longer a party to the old covenant; the old covenant is nullified with respect to him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, while those entering into the new covenant are mortal, they are promised eternal life upon their entrance into the covenant. Thus, the covenant endures eternally because the parties of the covenant, whether Jesus Christ or those who believe in, are or shall be immortal (possessing eternal life). On the one hand, they are promised eternal life by resurrection from the dead. But, on the other hand, all those who believe in Christ live with him (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&amp;amp;c=6&amp;amp;v=8&amp;amp;t=KJV#conc/8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rom. 6:8&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user900" LastEditorDisplayName="user900" LastEditDate="2013-12-06T04:00:46.273" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T04:00:46.273" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23487" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20254" CreationDate="2013-12-06T05:02:29.057" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think the answer you are looking for is in the verses around that one. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/12/#v42012041&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 12:41-48&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42  And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his &lt;strong&gt;master will appoint over his body of attendants&lt;/strong&gt; to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43  Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44  I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45  But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46  the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47  Then that &lt;strong&gt;slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked&lt;/strong&gt; will be beaten with many strokes 48  But &lt;strong&gt;the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten&lt;/strong&gt; with few. Indeed, &lt;strong&gt;everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see then from these scriptures that if we are in a leadership position spiritually, then we are responsible for taking care of tasks. If we do not do our appointed job then we are punished for it. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The degree of punishment is different depending on our understanding of the task. The one understanding and not doing correctly is punished severely. This is because they have the knowledge to know they are doing wrong and do it anyway. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For instance if upon seeing Jesus's miracles, a man still does not believe. The man has seen the proof and then has made an educated decision to not serve God. He is now fully accountable for his choice. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So today if we know God's law and the tasks left for us, we then are obligated to follow the law and do our part in the work.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T05:02:29.057" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23491" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-06T08:24:05.217" Score="10" ViewCount="36840" Body="&lt;p&gt;Why is everything 1/3 in Revelation?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It comes up with the four angels, and the dragon:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8:7 The first [angel's trumpet] sounded, ... and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. 8 The second angel sounded, ... and a third of the sea became blood, 9 and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed. 10 The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters. 11 The name of the star is called Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the waters, because they were made bitter. 12 The fourth angel sounded, and a third of the sun and a third of the moon and a third of the stars were struck, so that a third of them would be darkened and the day would not shine for a third of it, and the night in the same way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9:15 And the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released, so that they would kill a third of mankind. 18 A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12:4 And [the dragon's] tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8927" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2017-10-09T17:41:41.617" Title="What is the significance of one-third in Revelation?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;&lt;numerology&gt;" AnswerCount="4" CommentCount="4" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23492" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-06T08:43:01.237" Score="0" ViewCount="111" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was asked to devise a brief note on how to strengthen and enrich faith in Christianity.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are there any laid down guidelines in Roman Catholicism as to how this is achieved? If any such documents exists in Protestantism would be also helpful if their basic beliefs are conforming to Nicene Creed.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-21T16:37:26.977" LastActivityDate="2015-08-21T16:37:26.977" Title="Are there any laid down guidelines to enrich and strengthen Christian faith?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;faith&gt;&lt;christian-living&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23494" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1776" CreationDate="2013-12-06T12:27:51.083" Score="-4" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot; The  Bottom Line is..&quot;      I &quot; believe&quot;  most  of  the   Objectors  and  Nit-pickers.  yeah NIT  PICKERS !     Go  pick some...        OK  .   The  real issues  are;  you just  want to  find  ways  to  avoid  becoming a  Christian.  So in your  mind  you can  tell yourself;  &quot; It's  just a  a  fable&quot;  but  Christ  is  real and  IF  you end up  going to  hell..  Do you  think  The  people  who  tried to  convince  you  on this  site  are  going to be  losing  any sleep over it ? No;  because  they gave a  good  effort.  We  usually  get  what  we   ask for  (  God  offers  grace  and  forgiveness.  But  You Resist !  if  you  want  separation from  God, that's  what you'll get.      Just  realize  He  holds  the  universe  together.  So  where  does  that leave  you ?   &quot; But the children of the kingdom will be thrown outside into the darkness. People there will be weeping and grinding their teeth.”  and   It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,   ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.&quot;     How  would  you like to end up there ?  But just  keep UP  your  arguments:  When you  find  yourself  gnashing your  teeth  for all eternity...     maybe  then  you'll think again       but  it  will be too late &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8932" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T12:27:51.083" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23495" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23492" CreationDate="2013-12-06T13:09:09.103" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are a few passages in the bible such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/hebrews/10/#v58010023&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrews 10:23-25&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Let us hold firmly the &lt;strong&gt;public declaration of our hope&lt;/strong&gt; without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful. 24  And let us consider one another so as to &lt;strong&gt;incite to love and fine works&lt;/strong&gt;, 25 not forsaking our &lt;strong&gt;meeting together&lt;/strong&gt;, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So at our Christian meetings we can up-build and encourage one another. This can be anything from a quick complement, conversation, making plans for bible study, so on. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Another way of strengthening our faith is spreading our knowledge of the bibles message of hope publicly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T13:09:09.103" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23496" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23491" CreationDate="2013-12-06T13:28:46.107" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;As with any part of Revelation there are primarily four main theories.  Coincidentally most of them take the 1/3 literally regardless of the view as represented &lt;strong&gt;a significant judgment but minority (only 1/3) implicated result on the things in this world that otherwise sustain life&lt;/strong&gt;. Here are the main views very briefly and overly simplified as pertaining one example:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. (NIV Revelation 8:7)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Historicist&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When barbarians attacked Rome in ~AD 410, there was burning or destroying everything in their path. Approximately 1/3 of the Roman Empire was ravaged.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Preterist&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Similar to historicist but everything sandwiched around the sacking of Israel by Rome. Therefore destruction of actual vegetation in the land around Jerusalem. Let's assume around 1/3.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Futurist&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The most literal of all views with everything in the future, probably a literal 1/3 of the earth destroyed by nuclear bombs or something like it in whatever kind of bombs that might exists in the unknown future.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Symbolic/Spiritual&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Basically the obvious symbolism that can be imagined. For example 'whatever' kind of destruction which at any time damages the earth such as what we see on the news.  Maybe 1/3 is actually greater then what is actual but symbolism does not need to literally match the figure employed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note: I am a rare bird these days as I have unexpectedly switched from Symbolic to the Historicist view, which is really not that popular anymore. I started out in my teens as a futurist, moved to Symbolic, almost became a Preterist just before resting in my current view, Historicist. This is how I have became familiar with them over the last 25 years.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1743" LastEditorUserId="1743" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T02:10:53.257" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T02:10:53.257" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23497" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23491" CreationDate="2013-12-06T14:14:27.263" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It must first be noted that the Revelation is divided into 3 parts;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 1:19  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first part is the things which the Lord Jesus had already shown him, the second is the things that were and the third part is the things which will be.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;where the one third part comes in has mainly to do with the things that were, which in the main cover the Angelic rebellion in Heaven and the ejection of Satan and the rebellious Angels from Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Scripture tells us that a third part of the Angels in Heaven revolted with Lucifer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 12:3 and 4  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;3  And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;4  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T14:14:27.263" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23498" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23397" CreationDate="2013-12-06T14:47:57.330" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Exactly how normal of a childhood Jesus had is unclear. The Bible is mostly silent on the matter: we never hear even hear what happened to Joseph after the incident in the temple.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That said, I find the passages already quoted in this question and the answers to it to be telling in their own way. Consider Matthew 13:55-56, quoted in @Joshua's answer: the people who knew Jesus and his family while he was growing up still don't seem to have had any clue as to his origins. It's surprising what can happen in normal-seeming families, but there &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; limits: there may well have been extraordinary elements to the childhood of Jesus, but at the same time, it must have been normal enough to pass for mundane in the regular society of the time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5875" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T14:47:57.330" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23499" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23492" CreationDate="2013-12-06T15:22:50.700" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Broadly here are a few points which can greatly help to strengthen us in our faith:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Know the steps and daily chores of how to persevere in maintaining and enriching one's own faith. See the link provided in comments from @Wikis.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teaching skills and imparting an in-depth religious knowledge to defend the faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Making known to everyone which are the susceptible areas where Satan would initiates his lure, for making us weak in our faith.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Making aware of the uniqueness, strong points and truthfulness of Christianity.   &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teaching the hollowness, deceptiveness and errors in other faith. This aspect has been woefully and foolishly kept out of syllabus of our Catechism classes and we are paying a heavy price for it. On the other hand other faiths are solely dependent on this aspect for their propagation since they hardly stand an in-depth scrutiny of their own faith and prosper by deceptively propagating negative information about our faith.   &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Imparting training on how to strike a conversation with people of other faith so as to make them aware we are on much stronger ground and where they falter readily.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teaching and exhorting Christians to live their faith in their daily dealings with outside world, especially with non believers and in public. They need to be taught for not to feel awkward in practicing Christian faith in public places.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Teaching Christians to be good example to people of other faith so that as Jesus said ' world would know that we are disciples of Jesus' and not to give an impression that we are not practicing what has been taught by Jesus as was once commented by Mahatma Gandhi.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any official document on similar lines from any of denomination. It highly probable that something on these lines would definitely be available somewhere.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3455" LastEditorUserId="62" LastEditDate="2013-12-06T15:59:06.760" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T15:59:06.760" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23501" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23432" CreationDate="2013-12-06T16:38:50.380" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the eastern cultures today, the existence of evil spirits and its manifestations are not questioned, they are part of life, some people there even try to make a deal with these spirits who promised prosperity, power, etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So maybe a further study in recorded spirit-possession in different parts of the world will help those who are skeptical.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8714" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T16:38:50.380" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23502" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23504" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:53:05.467" Score="8" ViewCount="2229" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have heard that, although Catholics use the Bible, their faith is not solely based upon it. I have heard it said that for Catholics, tradition precedes the Bible, and that is why there are some practices and doctrines that the Church has that cannot be found in the Bible. The alleged reasoning behind this is that tradition predates the Bible and it's the tradition that influenced the making of the Bible. I'm not sure about this though. Is it true that the Catholic Church has some beliefs that override the Bible, or are not based upon it? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, but I don't really have a clue.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8937" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T00:08:27.033" LastActivityDate="2015-03-24T20:09:43.927" Title="Is the Catholic faith based purely on the Bible?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23503" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23483" CreationDate="2013-12-06T17:58:29.633" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;You have asked a great question and in order to answer it we have to do some reexamining of the Covenants, and what actually each means and with whom they were made. So bear with me this going to be a bit long winded.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First Let's take them in the order in which each was made and with whom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Genesis 17:7  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their &#xA;  generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This covenant which God made with Abraham, could also be extended to his posterity if they also kept the conditions of the covenant;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 17:1 through 13  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him,&#xA;  I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2  And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3  And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;4  As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5  Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of &#xA;  many nations have I made thee. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6  And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out &#xA;  of thee. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7  And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations &#xA;  for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8  And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, &#xA;  all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9  And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee &#xA;  in their generations. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;10  This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man &#xA;  child among you shall be circumcised. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11  And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt &#xA;  me and you. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12  And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, &#xA;  he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;13  He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: &#xA;  and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. &amp;lt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This covenant has to do with the giving of the land to Abraham and his posterity and was conditioned by circumcision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 31:33  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those &#xA;  days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be &#xA;  their God, and they shall be my people. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The key to this promise is in the preceding verse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jeremiah 31:32  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to &#xA;  bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them,&#xA;  saith the LORD: &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That covenant was:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 6:6 through 9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6  Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7  And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;8  And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;9  And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage. &amp;lt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 4:24  Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the &#xA;mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is a reference to:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gen 21:17 and 18  KJV  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;18  Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Galatians 3:16  KJV &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, &#xA;  as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The point that was that God's covenant is not a cover all commitment, but actually extends to each individual God would not nullify his covenant with all of Israel because one individual was not circumcised.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 8:9  KJV &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took&#xA;  them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, &#xA;  and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is in reference to Exodus chapter 6 verses 6 through 9&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 8:13  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here God is replacing his Old testament covenant we see in:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Psalms 50:5 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;with this one, from the New Testament; which is eternal and with all people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 13:20 KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great &#xA;  shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;......  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="10486" LastEditDate="2017-06-26T01:49:36.633" LastActivityDate="2017-06-26T01:49:36.633" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23504" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23502" CreationDate="2013-12-06T18:16:41.013" Score="13" Body="&lt;p&gt;Is the Catholic faith &lt;strong&gt;purely&lt;/strong&gt; based on the Bible?  No.  Is it largely based on the the Bible, and is the Bible the most sacred text in the Catholic faith? Yes.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are lots of important parts of Catholic theology that are extrabiblical traditions, and generally not believed by Protestant congregations who consider themselves &quot;purely&quot; based on the Bible.  Protestants are not &quot;purely&quot; based on the Bible, either.  It is entirely possible both churches &lt;strong&gt;would be&lt;/strong&gt; purely based on the Bible, but the Bible doesn't answer every question people like to ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is one belief that deviates from the Bible in both churches: the virginity of Mary after giving birth to Jesus.  If someone believes &lt;strong&gt;anything&lt;/strong&gt; on that subject, they have exceeded the scope of the Bible.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Certainly the Bible says that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, through the time when she gave birth to Jesus (see Matthew 1:23-25).  The Bible does not talk about her sex life after that.  In Protestant churches, many people believe Mary would have had a normal sex life with her husband Joseph, even going on to bear more children.  Evidence: Jesus has siblings.  In the Catholic church, the official belief is that Mary was eternally a virgin -- that is, throughout her entire life, she never had sex.  Jesus' siblings are explained away by other extrabiblical traditions: perhaps Joseph was a widower, and had children from another wife; perhaps the translation is incorrect, and the words for &quot;brother&quot; or &quot;sister&quot; should truly be translated as &quot;cousin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Both beliefs are based on things outside of the Bible.  Because the Bible doesn't say one way or another.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8917" LastEditorUserId="8917" LastEditDate="2013-12-06T19:21:59.797" LastActivityDate="2013-12-06T19:21:59.797" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23506" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23573" CreationDate="2013-12-06T21:38:39.997" Score="5" ViewCount="7646" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew Chapter 24 Jesus warned of the end time scenario, and said that when we saw the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place, that was when things were really going to get bad:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 24:15  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have searched the Scriptures in an effort to determine what he meant by the Holy place, but all I find is that the area in the Tabernacle just outside the curtain designating the holy of holies is called the holy place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Exodus 26:33  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is there any other guidance that I have overlooked, which someone can point out.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2016-10-15T08:50:29.680" LastActivityDate="2019-07-31T15:48:00.360" Title="What is the &quot;Holy place&quot; Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:15?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;gospel-of-matthew&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;exodus&gt;&lt;temple&gt;" AnswerCount="5" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23511" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23295" CreationDate="2013-12-07T00:05:05.110" Score="2" Body="&lt;h3&gt;Bullet Points&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The &quot;elect&quot; in this view is the same as Arminianism - God knows all who will freely choose Him (&quot;those He foreknew... he also glorified&quot;) and He elects to save all who believe in Jesus Christ.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ken Grider (one of the translators for the NIV Bible) is the only major/well-known theologian I know of that holds this view. I would bet many in Arminian churches hold this view without realizing it (assuming there is a real difference between the two; Arminianism allows but does not require libertarian free will).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Temporal Predestination&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Temporal predestination attempts to reconcile the facts of both God's foreknowledge and His eternal plan with our free will (limited in this view) - while He predestines our actions in time and what happens in the world, He allows each of us full freedom in choosing whether to follow or reject Him. For example, God determined that Judas would hand Jesus over to the chief priests (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22:22&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luke 22:22&lt;/a&gt;), but Judas freely chose to reject Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Proponents of temporal predestination sometimes claim that in every place that the Greek word &lt;em&gt;proorizo&lt;/em&gt; (&quot;to predestinate&quot;) is found in the New Testament (as well as other terms signifying His knowledge, actions, and decrees), not one of them refers to God predetermining our eternal destiny&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;; a better term for this view might be temporal-only predestination, as I have seen people use &quot;temporal predestination&quot; when they specifically want to refer to the predestination of events, regardless of whether or not our destinies are predestinated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Kenneth_Grider&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;J. Kenneth Grider&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.libraryoftheology.com/writings/predestination/Predestination_As_Temporal_Only-KenGrider.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;explains the concept&lt;/a&gt; via commentary on Scripture:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%208:29-30&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Romans 8:29, 30&lt;/a&gt; instances of &lt;em&gt;proorisen&lt;/em&gt;. There we read, &quot;For those God&#xA;  foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that he might be&#xA;  the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he&#xA;  called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.&quot; Here, &quot;predestined,&quot; is&#xA;  probably not used with reference to eternal destiny-although perhaps a better possible&#xA;  case could be made for such reference in v. 30, than can be made for such a reference in&#xA;  any of the other predestination passages. This passage states that &quot;those God foreknew,&quot;&#xA;  meaning surely those He foreknew would believe, &quot;he also predestined to be conformed&#xA;  to the likeness of his Son.&quot; That is, He pre-determined that the ones who would believe&#xA;  would be conformed to Christ's likeness... The point here, however, is that eternal destiny does not enter into the picture at all.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious problem with his reasoning is that Paul draws a clear link from God's predestination to our glorification. He answers this objection by claiming the glorification of the predestined is almost a side-effect rather than the intended result (that is, Paul is explaining a chain of causality rather than the process by which God works):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It is also to be noted that in the next verse the same kind of non-destiny meaning&#xA;  probably obtains. There, &quot;those he predestined&quot; (based on His foreknowledge according&#xA;  to the previous verse), he &quot;called,&quot; and the ones He called He &quot;justified,&quot; and the ones He&#xA;  justified He &quot;glorified.&quot; Here, unlike what obtains in the previous verse, the writer does&#xA;  get around, finally, to a word that has to do with destiny: glorification. So it could&#xA;  conceivably be interpreted that the predestination has to do with destiny-and it does,&#xA;  finally. But the passage states that, having predestined or predetermined for believers,&#xA;  through His foreknowledge (v. 29), that they would freely believe, He called them and&#xA;  justified them-and, perhaps because of His foreknowledge of their continuing as&#xA;  believers, He &quot;glorified them.&quot; As mentioned, destiny does get referred to in this&#xA;  passage; but the reference is so much disjoined from what is itself said to be&#xA;  predestinated that this glorification destiny can hardly be said to be what is itself&#xA;  predestinated.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Temporal predestination is probably closest to an Arminian (conditional predestination) view than to other major views (sublapsarian, supralapsarian, etc). In fact, the only people I have seen who distinguish between them are those who hold to temporal-only predestination&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h3&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1: I find this unconvincing. This claim concerning some passages is dependent upon the interpretation of the text, which is the very point in question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2: My personal opinion is that temporal-only predestination is merely a subpar method of explaining an Arminian view that denies full libertarian free will.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*: Concerning temporal predestination being the traditional Jewish view, see Tomáš Frydrych, &lt;em&gt;Living Under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth&lt;/em&gt;, Volume 90 of &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brill.com/publications/vetus-testamentum-supplements&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Supplements to Vetus Testamentum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, in which he argues that the author of Ecclesiastes did not hold such a view because of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%207:17&amp;amp;version=ESV&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the statement&lt;/a&gt; &quot;why should you die before your time?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4188" LastEditorUserId="4188" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T16:09:54.620" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T16:09:54.620" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23512" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15076" CreationDate="2013-12-07T00:38:55.670" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am late to this thread, but freshly meditating on the passage in Gen 18.  Here's why I think God did NOT judge her for the cynicism and lying.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;She did not actually know it was the LORD at first.  All she knew was that three strange men had come and Abraham was feeding them. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;They are outside the tent eating under a tree. She is still in the tent. She is eavesdropping/listening. One of them says that Sarah and Abraham will have a baby within a year. She's 89 years old. Who wouldn't laugh? It's crazy. She had been hearing Abraham talk about God's promises for 24 years...and at this point had resigned that Ishmael was the answer. And probably not in a very happy place in life at all.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then she hears the unthinkable: one of the guests reads her mail.  She had laughed &quot;in her heart&quot; and apparently had kept the thoughts we read about to herself. But the LORD heard it!  And called it out.  Now Sarah is freaked out. This Person knows her every thought and feeling.  Then He says, &quot;Nothing is too difficult for God.&quot; (Basically whats Gabriel later says to Mary. Gabriel was probably one of the angels present with the Lord.) Now Sarah knows something supernatural is happening. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then the Lord actually speaks face-to-face to Sarah and confronts her with her mockery. She is now trembling with fear and conviction of sin. She tries to hide her sin in shame (suggesting, again, that her mockery had NOT been openly spoken. Perhaps just thoughts, maybe quietly under her breath.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My take is that for the first time in her life, she has really had an encounter with the living God. As far as I recall, every time before it was only Abraham who met with God. Now Sarah has met the Lord and her sin was exposed. She was humbled.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Hebrews 11:11 says, &quot;By faith even Sarah herself obtained power to lay down seed. For she considered Him faithful who promised.&quot;  Sarah came to a real and personal faith as a result of God mercifully confronting her sin in a personal way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is awesome. Nobody ever gets saved or becomes fruitful until their faith is firsthand and no longer borrowed from someone else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8941" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T00:38:55.670" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23514" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2013-12-07T03:46:04.170" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;In order for there to be good, there has to be evil, or good would not be good, it would simply be a state of being since there would be nothing to compare it to. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8944" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T03:46:04.170" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23516" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2013-12-07T06:05:26.797" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;em&gt;Vine's,&lt;/em&gt; faith is having a firm persuasion that something is so. It is being utterly convinced something is true. We will increase faith in things and people by searching out evidences of what to believe. I gain a greater faith in my wife, for instance, by being with her, learning of her character, seeing her hard work, finding she keeps her word, etc. My faith in her grows the more I know her.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So it is with faith in God or in other things or situations. If you want faith regarding the fear of death, then learn more about God and heaven. Read up and find reasons that convince you that your fear of death is groundless. Read the scriptures and believe what God says; become convinced in your daily walk with God that his word is trustworthy and dependable. Listen and read of other Christians' experiences to gain further insight into how God works. Become more convinced in spiritual matters in the same way you become more convinced in secular matters. Growth in faith is not really a mystery when looked at this way. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to popular opinion, faith does not mean believing in spite of facts or reason; the Bible doesn't add a method to the definition of faith. The Bible presents plenty of reasons to help us believe. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4546" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T06:05:26.797" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23518" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23427" CreationDate="2013-12-07T06:55:00.770" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Nathaniel in the New Testament was a good friend of the Apostle Philip's and became one of Jesus' Apostles later on. He is only seen with the name Nathaniel in the Gospel of John but in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, he is mentioned under the name of Bartholomew. He witnessed the majority of Jesus' ministry along with his death and resurrection. Afterwards, it is thought that he was a missionary to India, and was eventually flayed and crucified for his testimony the Jesus' life and teachings.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8795" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T06:55:00.770" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23519" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23152" CreationDate="2013-12-07T06:58:39.787" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;John 3:16 tells us that:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God gave His only begotten Son, Jesus, to live for us and die for our sins on the Cross (see also Romans 5:8)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We must believe in Jesus in order to have eternal life. The word&#xA;“believe” means that we must commit our life to Him and follow Him as&#xA;our Lord and our God.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Believing in Jesus means we will not “perish,” meaning we won’t spend&#xA;all of our life and all eternity separated from the presence of God&#xA;in hell.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When we turn our life over to Jesus by believing in Him, He gives us&#xA;“everlasting life.”  Everlasting life begins the moment you believe&#xA;in Jesus and begin to follow Him, and it continues into heaven&#xA;itself.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8795" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T06:58:39.787" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23521" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="530" CreationDate="2013-12-07T08:47:00.193" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Absolutely Yes! We have to fight the injustice around us and for that we need to judge others cause unless you do that you cannot have justice around you.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This question has its source in verses at Mathew 7:2-5, where it says that we are not supposed to judge others. These verses however are not to be viewed through a narrow perspective. As is always in all the other verses of Gospels, there is much deeper wisdom and understanding in these words from Jesus. Gospels or the teachings of Jesus which are recorded in these Gospel are not superficial commands just to be read literally, understood and implemented as is the case with so many other Books.  Here each sentence in Gospels are like a goldmines under an ordinary soil. As you go deeper you find more wisdom hidden in them. This I am sure has been realized by everyone who have read Gospels in pious manner.  Certainly they are goldmines, because it is not from an ordinary human being but God Himself proclaiming His heavenly secrets to us.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 7:2–5  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?  Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What Jesus was condemning here was hypocritical, self-righteous judgments of others, not the actual judgement as such.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Note that Jesus said: first take out the log from your own eye, meaning first make amend to your life, feel sorry for what you have done, confess your sins, ask pardon from God and make good for any loss that you have done for others and then go and speak to your neighbour for pointing out his mistakes (show speck in his eye). That is the time you can judge others not before that lest that would be a perfect hypocrisy.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Say you have pocketed something that was not yours some time back and you just saw a robber coming out after a burglary in a house.  The moment you see that robber and realise that he is doing something wrong, and have an urge to expose him,  at that moment you also need to realise in your conscious that you have done something similar yourself. What you have done is also wrong and accepts the guilt. If do not accept your fault deep inside and pass judgement on that robber, that is the hypocrisy and that is what Jesus meant in Matt.7:2-5.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T16:15:17.830" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T16:15:17.830" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23523" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23540" CreationDate="2013-12-07T09:42:59.523" Score="0" ViewCount="154" Body="&lt;p&gt;Are there any expositions of christian philosophical resolutions to the problem of evil that one can more easily follow, in any presentation (video / audio / book /coursera / whatever)? Being a progressive at heart, I tend to get turned off when a philosophical system seems to require unnecessary (and counter-productive) suffering, but still I would genuinely like to understand christian theodicy positions. As much as I like to ridicule the position that &quot;evil exists because the evildoer along with the righteous must have free will&quot;, there is actually something beyond that.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8947" LastEditorUserId="8947" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T09:51:07.453" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T14:25:25.813" Title="Readable presentations on theodicy (problem of evil) theories?" Tags="&lt;good-and-evil&gt;&lt;theodicy&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="7" ClosedDate="2014-06-02T20:27:47.667" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23524" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19822" CreationDate="2013-12-07T10:31:19.953" Score="-2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I praise and worship Him because He is the creator of all. every &quot;product&quot; worship their creator. they can not live without their creator (the source). if you have a problem with the product, you go back to the Creator (manufacture).&#xA;Rev 4:11  O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I agree the purpose He created us to : Genesis 1:28 is to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.&#xA;when we (human) do according to His plan, we bring glory to His name, our creator, because we are function as His plan.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8948" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T10:31:19.953" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23525" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19822" CreationDate="2013-12-07T11:04:26.320" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I do not believe a perfect creator has any need for the cult of personality, but humans do. This part of religion is probably human-derived, not God-derived.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8947" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T11:04:26.320" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23528" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="530" CreationDate="2013-12-07T11:16:34.897" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Yes&lt;/strong&gt;. It is important that you assess the character of others, lest you be taken advantage of by scammers, &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;dangerous cults&lt;/a&gt; and charming personalities that have your interest at the bottom of their priority list.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8947" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T11:16:34.897" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23529" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="1308" CreationDate="2013-12-07T11:19:52.943" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I thought this was not the place to seek spiritual guidance...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Are you sure that &quot;getting more faith&quot; in spite of your instincts and talents is a worthy goal? Perhaps you can apply your qualities such as they are to the betterment of the world, in Christian ways.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8947" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T11:19:52.943" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23534" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2013-12-07T11:39:41.263" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Mormon church teaches the concept of opposition: in order for good to be appreciated there must exist evil, in order for salad to taste good there must be junk food etc. A very good description can be found in &quot;Confessions of a Sociopath&quot; by M.E. Thomas (despite the title and author)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=opposition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&amp;amp;query=opposition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8947" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T11:39:41.263" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23540" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23523" CreationDate="2013-12-07T14:25:25.813" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0802829767&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Doors of the Sea&lt;/a&gt; by David Bentley Hart, from an Orthodox perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/the-justification-of-god&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Justification Of God&lt;/a&gt; by John Piper, from a Reformed perspective. This book is more focused on the question of how can God be called good if he has sovereignly ordained that some people be damned, but the existence of God is clearly an implication of that question. As it's written by a Reformed theologian you can't be quite sure that the answer isn't &quot;because freedom!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T14:25:25.813" CommentCount="4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23543" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5297" CreationDate="2013-12-07T15:27:22.727" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;This blog on &lt;a href=&quot;http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/nt-sources-translations/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;NT Translations &amp;amp; Sources&lt;/a&gt; seems like a good summary, and pertinent to your question, at least in part. Even though the author doesn't look at the OT sources, it does seem well-researched for NT translation sources. It also has ample citations to its claims, including internet links, and books by well-known scholars in the field of textual criticism and history of Biblical sources. The bias of the blog's author is noted (he is an ex-Christian), but I don't think this takes away from the literary content of this blog article.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/HS8NP.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;New Testament Sources &amp;amp; Translations&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3439" LastEditorUserId="3439" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T15:44:34.820" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T15:44:34.820" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23544" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23351" CreationDate="2013-12-07T16:27:22.390" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I cannot and would not be so bold as to try to answer your question as it asks about a generalization of protestant belief, I wish to point out that Jesus in the LORD's prayer; as translated in the King James version, used the original word:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;πατήρ pater (pat-ayr') n.&#xA;1. a &quot;father&quot;&#xA;{literally or figuratively, near or more remote}&#xA;[apparently a primary word]&#xA;KJV: father, parent &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;which can be translated as the genderless word &quot;parent&quot; as opposed to the word:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Ἀββᾶ Abba (ab-bah`) n/p.&#xA;1. (vocatively) father&#xA;{referring to or addressing one's father}&#xA;[of Chaldee origin (H2)]&#xA;KJV: Abba &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which is a definitive reference to the male parent.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="2202" LastEditDate="2013-12-09T00:15:06.780" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T00:15:06.780" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23545" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23547" CreationDate="2013-12-07T17:35:05.060" Score="2" ViewCount="484" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Matthew 5:22 Jesus says that anyone who calls another a fool will be in danger of Hell fire&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew 5:22  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger&#xA;of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council:&#xA;but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;hell fire&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;and in the Revelation Chapter 20:14 it tells us that Death and Hell will be thrown into the lake of fire:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 20:14  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;death and hell&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also in the story about Lazarus and the rich man:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Luk 16:22 through 24  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;23  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;24  And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;tormented in this flame&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Apparently some go to Hell when they die and are tortured by the heat (fire) and at the Great White Throne judgment are then thrown into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation 20:15  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;lake of fire&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Revelation chapter says nothing about either &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Satan, His minions being judged&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; only thrown into the lake of fire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It does say that the dead are judged but only &lt;strong&gt;for their works&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Rev 20:12 and 13  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;they were judged every man according to their works&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does it seem possible that unbelief is judged along with Satan and his minions at the Cross, and the Great White Throne judgment is for what wrongs they have done on Earth?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T22:05:02.883" Title="Was man judged at the cross along with Satan and the rebellious Angels?" Tags="&lt;exegesis&gt;&lt;new-testament&gt;&lt;eschatology&gt;&lt;judgment&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23546" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4297" CreationDate="2013-12-07T17:48:47.183" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Short answer: because both the right to be king (which Matthew traces) and the legal guardianship (which Luke traces) came through the father.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Long answer:&#xA;&lt;strong&gt;Matthew's genealogy is traced through the right to be king.&lt;/strong&gt;  A theme in Matthew is the kingship of Jesus.  This starts in ch1, where Jesus is called the &quot;son of David&quot; (Mat 1:1) - Joseph is called the &quot;son of David&quot; only a few verses later (Mat 1:20).  Matthew's emphasis here is that Jesus, the legal (not biological) son of Joseph, was counted as a son of David because Joseph was a son of David.  This phrase harks all the way back to 2Sam 7:12-14, which say that David's &#xA;&quot;seed&quot; will be set up as a king and established forever, and be God's son.  Though this prophecy may be partially fulfilled by a few Old Testament kings, it is completely fulfilled in the Messiah.  This prophecy can be traced through the Old Testament in places like Is 11:1 (talking about the &quot;stem of Jesse&quot; [Jesse was David's father] producing the Messiah who would reign), cf. Is 16:5, Jer 33:15-17.  This phrase &quot;the son of David&quot; is therefore used as a synonym with &quot;Messiah&quot;, emphasizing Jesus' right to rule - the phrase is used more times in Matthew than in the rest of the New Testament combined (Mat 1:1, 20, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 31, 21:9, 15, 42).  Note also Matthew's emphasis on David's kingship in his genealogy in 1:6 - an emphasis found in none of the other kings in Matthew's genealogy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This theme of Jesus' kingship, which starts with the term &quot;son of David&quot;, can be traced through Matthew as the wise men worship him as king of the Jews, as Jerusalem is told, &quot;behold, thy King is coming, lowly and sitting upon a donkey&quot;, as Jesus at his trial admits to being the king of the Jews (Mat 27:29), and even as this same epithet is written over the cross as he dies.  The kingship theme in Matthew is undeniable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this emphasis on &quot;the son of David&quot; and kingship in Matthew, the trace of any genealogy but through the line of kings would be surprising.  Moreover, one of the people in the genealogy, Jehoiachin (Matthew calls him &quot;Jeconiah&quot;; he is also called &quot;Coniah&quot;), had no children: Jer 22:30, &quot;write this man down as childless&quot;.  Thus the genealogy cannot have been biological.  But as the right to be king passed from this childless man to the next man in line, a a genealogy tracing kingship rather than genes has no problems with a man having no children - the genealogy simply skips to the next man in line for kingship.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Luke's genealogy is traced through legal parenthood.&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sorry, gotta go.  If I have time, I'll finish the answer later - or make it a wiki, and someone will finish it for me.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8885" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T17:48:47.183" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23547" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23545" CreationDate="2013-12-07T17:59:48.863" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Mankind was not judged at the cross.  Rather, judgement &lt;em&gt;began&lt;/em&gt; - and per that, for the household of God, not mankind en masse.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As for Satan, he's been judged, Jn 16:11.  But, the sentence has yet to be carried out, Rev 20:2.  He will get a temporary brief from that incarceration, Rev 20:7.  Then, have a permanent sentence carried out, Rev 20:10.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back to mankind, judgement has &lt;em&gt;now begun&lt;/em&gt; with the household of God, 1 Pt 4:17.  The scripture's &quot;household of God&quot; can be &lt;em&gt;loosely&lt;/em&gt; interpreted as &quot;Christians&quot; today.  However, keep in mind mainstream religion is not a &lt;em&gt;spiritual&lt;/em&gt; body, rather an institution of man, e.g. Matt 13:24-30, I Cor 10:5-6, Rev 17 and more.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The rest of mankind that is not &quot;the household of God&quot; has not entered into judgment, Rev 20:5.  They will enter into judgement later, Rev 20:12.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The reference you make to Luke 16:22-24 does not support the poor man died then went to heaven immediately.  To make that assertion, one would have to throw out the &lt;em&gt;explicit&lt;/em&gt; references in scripture that is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the case, e.g. Heb 11:39-40, Jn 6:44, 54, I Cor 15:51-52.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Many also use Lk 23:43 in the same context.  There is no punctuation in the original Greek.  We &lt;em&gt;know&lt;/em&gt; the criminal on the cross is not in heaven per the scriptures above, among many, many more).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, one one's dying and going to heaven, or hell, upon the &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; death.  That's &lt;em&gt;explicitly&lt;/em&gt; not the case in scripture.  (And, popularity of a belief makes it no more true, scripture is the final authority). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, in conclusion: judgement &lt;em&gt;began&lt;/em&gt; - for a part of mankind, the &quot;household of God&quot; with the cross.  The rest of mankind enters into judgement later.  Satan is on his own &quot;judgement plan&quot; with God.  (And, there's a fourth category, 1 Cor 6:3 concerning the judgement of angels).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8953" LastEditorUserId="8953" LastEditDate="2013-12-07T22:05:02.883" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T22:05:02.883" CommentCount="8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23550" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="8743" CreationDate="2013-12-07T20:06:25.710" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Everything that has an opposite cannot exist without having one (except for God of course). God, by His very nature is good, in fact Goodness itself!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, if one of his creatures were to do something against his nature or wishes, such as to commit a sin, they/it would become &lt;em&gt;evil&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words, anything that is not good or or is against good, is evil. By the existence of good, evil has always existed and could always be accessed or embodied by an entity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Think of it as God, being the good being He is, didn't directly create evil, but was a result of His own being. (Without evil, one cannot be good!)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I hope this answers your question.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NOTE: This though is referred to as '&lt;em&gt;the problem of evil&lt;/em&gt;'.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8617" LastActivityDate="2013-12-07T20:06:25.710" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23559" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-08T05:29:04.977" Score="3" ViewCount="701" Body="&lt;p&gt;When I was little, my parents used to read to me a Chinese version of the story, &lt;em&gt;The Red Shoes&lt;/em&gt;, by Hans Christian Andersen. Though, I was not aware of the story's Christian themes and motifs until I read the English version, a language that I am more fluent in. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are some defining characteristics:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the girl cannot wear red, presumably because it's a sinful color (?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the girl must wear black shoes to church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the girl cannot wear red during her mother's funeral; it's socially forbidden&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the red shoes are very distracting to the girl, perhaps the epitome of sin&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the girl must &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;literally&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; repent and forsake her &quot;sinful&quot; life, marked by the red shoes&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;the type of Christian that Andersen depicts cannot show pride when other people admire her dress or her looks; she must be modest or humble, and that means ignoring the good things about her&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;What type of Christianity is this, or is this just a figment of Hans Christian Andersen's imagination, or is it a generic nameless type of Christianity as in Margaret Atwood's &lt;em&gt;The Handmaid's Tale&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4789" LastEditorUserId="4" LastEditDate="2013-12-08T07:05:35.680" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T12:43:14.833" Title="What type of Christianity does Hans Christian Andersen depict in *The Red Shoes*?" Tags="&lt;denomination-survey&gt;&lt;culture&gt;&lt;christian-literature&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23561" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-08T06:17:08.740" Score="5" ViewCount="544" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is a seemingly immoveable feast.  Unlike the other holy days &lt;a href=&quot;http://catholicism.about.com/od/2013calendar/f/2013_Immaculate.htm&quot;&gt;the obligation is not transferred&lt;/a&gt; when it falls on a Saturday or a Monday (so you have to go to Mass two days in a row, and daily communicants whip out their tiny violins to play a festive round of Stabat Mater).  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But this year, the Immaculate Conception is on a Sunday, and the readings and everything are transferred to Monday but there is no addition obligation to attend Mass. So, my question is, what is so much more superlative about having the requirement to attend Mass abrogated every few years on one day for one feast and why is the Immaculate Conception more important than other Marian Feasts or All Saints Day (or Corpus Christi or Ascension Thursday, which are always transferred to Sundays in my diocese)?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it only acceptable to celebrate a Christ/Trinity oriented feast day on a Sunday (Like Divine Mercy Sunday, Trinity Sunday or Christ the King of the Universe)? &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="42721" LastEditDate="2019-03-24T02:11:59.300" LastActivityDate="2020-11-13T23:45:49.997" Title="Why is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception treated differently?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;virgin-mary&gt;&lt;immaculate-conception&gt;&lt;liturgical-calendar&gt;&lt;sunday&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23563" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23559" CreationDate="2013-12-08T06:59:58.310" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;In western culture, Red is the color of passion and it's disordered vice of lust is cooped up in the color. (see also, the Scarlet letter). I see the esteemed Revered V says the sin is pride.  I don't disagree, I just think the real sin that is being covered here is lust and not pride.  Karen has a disordered desire to dance and be seen when she should stand still and keep quiet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As far as the particular religion is concerned.  I don't see it being Catholicism:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;She went to the &lt;em&gt;parsonage&lt;/em&gt;, and begged that she might be taken into service there.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Parsonage is a is a Protestant term, now, either he's just using the wrong word there, which is understandable or he's referring to someone else,  if it were Catholic, we'd call it a Rectory, not a parsonage. I don't think he didn't wrote deliberately Catholic stories like the Grimm brothers did, but I'm not an expert and have read more Grimm's Fairy Tales than his. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So, my answer would be, the same type of Christianity that Nathanael Hawthorne portrays in The Scarlet Letter, good old fashioned puritanism.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T06:59:58.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23565" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-08T10:23:41.403" Score="5" ViewCount="3387" Body="&lt;p&gt;I know that gambling is forbidden for a Jehovah's Witness. Would this include a phone in competition on the radio, for example to win money or a holiday?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8961" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-12-08T11:44:21.337" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T14:05:47.497" Title="What is the scope of gambling prohibitions for JW's?" Tags="&lt;jehovahs-witnesses&gt;&lt;gambling&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23566" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15621" CreationDate="2013-12-08T10:52:00.923" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God’s will for Mary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One day the angel, Gabriel, shows up and says in effect, Mary, God has this fantastic plan. He’s going to come to earth so people will know what God’s like. He’s going to use your body to enter the human family. You are going to be the mother of Jesus Christ. Many girls would have answered, Can’t you get somebody else. I’ve already got my plans and this whole things really doesn’t fit in. I’ve really got to think of what’s best for me. Instead, Mary answered Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.  Mary was willing to do what God wanted her to do.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are three things about Mary that reveal she earnestly desired to know and do God’s will. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;She was sensitive to finding out what God wanted her to do. In Luke&#xA;2:19 we read, &quot;Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her&#xA;heart.&quot;   Whenever there was a clear message from God, Mary would&#xA;ask, &quot;What is God saying and how does it apply to me?&quot; We get our&#xA;clear messages from God from the scriptures. Every day we ought to&#xA;have a private time to read God’s word and ask, &quot;What is God saying&#xA;and how does it apply to me?&quot; If we are truly sensitive to knowing&#xA;God’s will He will show it to us.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;She was joyful and enthusiastic about doing God’s will. Luke 1:46,&#xA;47, &quot;And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.&quot;   Mary  was not&#xA;like some who say, &quot;Well, I know God wants me to do so and so.&#xA;That’s not what I wanted to do, but I guess I’ll have to just grin&#xA;and bear it.&quot; Mary was joyful and enthusiastic about doing God’s&#xA;will.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;She was humble and yielded. &quot;Behold the maidservant of the Lord!&quot;. &#xA;Luke 1:38. &quot;...For He has regarded the lowly state of His&#xA;maidservant …&quot;  Luke 1:48 She didn’t think, &quot;God is sure lucky to&#xA;get me! With my abilities I’m going to do a lot of great things for&#xA;Him.&quot; She was thankful that God was willing to use her. Mary desired&#xA;to do God’s will.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8795" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T10:52:00.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23568" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23368" CreationDate="2013-12-08T12:58:09.470" Score="2" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;It was winter, and the Festival of the Dedication of the Temple was&#xA;  being celebrated in Jerusalem.  Jesus was walking in Solomon's Porch&#xA;  in the Temple, when the people gathered round him and asked, &quot;How long&#xA;  are you going to keep us in suspense?  Tell us the plain truth: are&#xA;  you the Messiah?&quot;&#xA;      - John 10: 22&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Hanukkah festivals that Jesus took part in was similar enough to Christmas in ritual and custom to assume that early Christians continued with the festival in honor of the birth of Jesus - that might well have fallen on the same day of the year.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Back then, the Feast of the Lights (Hanukkah or 'Festival of Dedication') took place for two days on the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth days of Kislev starting with the lighting of candles on the evening of the twenty-fourth.  (The Judaic month of Kislev is almost the same as December.)  Candles were then lit for a further six or possibly eight days.  The specific reason for the festival of Hanukkah is to celebrate the victory of the Maccabees over the Seleucids and the result of that victory, which was the re-dedication of the altar in the Temple after three years when no services took place.  In general, it celebrates religious freedom, the light that was lit in Israel for all people, and the spread of that light throughout the world.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The date was of particular importance in the Greek /Roman calendar and in the calendars of many of the ancient societies.  On or roundabout this day the star Sirius (the brightest of all stars) that flies behind the earth in its path around the Milky Way is right overhead at midnight.  When Sirius is overhead at midnight it means that the sun is at its furthest south and that summer is coming again.  For this reason, the date had been associated in many ancient and not so ancient religions with the birth of a god or a new period of religion.  It was therefore no accident that Antiochus Epiphanes offered the first sacrifice to Zeus Olympios in the Temple on this date in 167 BCE.  It was intended to show that a new period of rule of the Greek gods over the land had begun.  Judah Maccabeus would have been fully aware of this and made sure that the first Hanukkah also fell on 25 December 164 (165) BCE to counter the Greek claim.  (&lt;em&gt;Now upon the same day that the strangers profaned the Temple, on the very same day it was cleansed again, even the five and twentieth day of the same month, which is Kislev&lt;/em&gt; - II Maccabees 10: 5)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Persia was different from the other countries in their beliefs around Sirius, and used the star to make predictions.  This is based either on changes in color (white, blue, emerald) the star undergoes (in the past there were times when it has appeared red) or on the positional shift in relation to the background stars due to the gravitational influence of a white dwarf companion star.  Because these changes are minute and dependent on great knowledge, it is no surprise that nobody but the magoi noticed them.  (This would explain why Herod and the scribes did not notice it.  If a huge big comet hung over Bethlehem, millions of people would have turned up, as they were strong believers in the magic of stars.)   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because it is closely linked with the Feast of the Tabernacles (Succoth), so close that it is even called that, &lt;em&gt;and now see that that ye keep the Feast of Tabernacles in the month Kislev&lt;/em&gt; - II Maccabees 1: 9, it is a festival for all people (including gentiles) to celebrate.  To the original promise made in the desert by the festival of Sukkoth (that one day Israel would no longer live in tents but in houses) the important facet of lights were added.   With the rededication of the Temple, came the profound moment of the lighting of the candelabra.  &lt;em&gt;They made also new holy vessels, and into the temple they brought the candlestick . . . and the lamps that were upon the candlestick they lighted, that they might give light in the temple&lt;/em&gt; - I Maccabees 4: 49 - 50.  Josephus said (Antiquities of the Jews, 12: 7: 7), &lt;em&gt;and from that time to this we celebrate this festival, and called it Lights.  I suppose the reason was, because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and that thence was the name given to that festival&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The festival is supposed to be a happy time in accordance with I Maccabees 4: 59 - &lt;em&gt;the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their season from year to year by the space of eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, with mirth and gladness&lt;/em&gt;.  From the earliest, the festivalgoers &lt;em&gt;bare branches, and fair boughs, and palms also, and sang Psalms&lt;/em&gt; - II Maccabees 10: 7.  Israel in winter is green as this is the time of the rains and what snow there is (if at all) quickly melts.  Bringing greenery into the home therefore has nothing to do with the pagan midwinter festival but with the promise made in the desert and celebrated during the Feast of the Tabernacles. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The twenty-fifth of December (Kislev) that became important to Christianity together with joyous songs and the Christmas tree and lights all originated in Hanukkah.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastEditorUserId="6043" LastEditDate="2013-12-09T07:15:22.550" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T07:15:22.550" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23570" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-08T13:26:14.773" Score="2" ViewCount="379" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Radical's Critics argue that there is a discrepancy between the Genesis 1 account of creation and the Genesis 2 account, and thus proving that the doctrine of inerrancy is false.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Has this been addressed by Apologists, and if so, what is the response given by them?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.researchomatic.com/The-Creation-Narratives-84593.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Creation Narratives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;When it is realized that there are two distinct creation stories in&#xA;  Genesis belonging to two different periods and derived from two&#xA;  different sources, inconsistency becomes intelligible. That it exists&#xA;  at all, however, is sufficient to discredit a theory of divine&#xA;  inspiration that is obviously out of accord with the facts”.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user8844" LastEditorUserId="30" LastEditDate="2013-12-14T15:08:36.663" LastActivityDate="2017-02-07T14:06:42.823" Title="What are the responses to the &quot;Radical's Critics&quot; argument concerning Genesis 1 and 2?" Tags="&lt;genesis&gt;&lt;textual-discrepancies&gt;&lt;inerrancy&gt;&lt;textual-criticism&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23573" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23506" CreationDate="2013-12-08T13:43:18.403" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;*&lt;strong&gt;When the power of the holy people is broken *&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of&#xA;  the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven,&#xA;  and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time,&#xA;  times, and half a time; and when the power of the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;holy people&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; has been&#xA;  completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Daniel 12:7&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this&#xA;  mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a&#xA;  partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the&#xA;  Gentiles has come in; and then all Israel will be saved; just as it&#xA;  is written,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from&#xA;  Jacob.” 27 “This is [i]My covenant with them, When I take away their&#xA;  sins.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is believed and has been believed by many Christians, that at a point before the return of Christ, the Nation of Israel, as a nation, will turn en-mass to Christ. This belief is taken mainly from Romans chapter 11. Paul goes to great lengths in this chapter to explain what he calls a 'mystery'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A book By Ian Murray called 'The Puritan hope'(Banner of truth trust), is a good twentieth century exposition of this chapter in Romans. The author puts together the history of this teaching particularly from the the 16 century to this day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some of the people who hold this view, namely that immediately before the return of Christ there will be a an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on a scale not seen before in history! It will be sparked by the conversion of Israel as a nation (&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;The redeemer will come from Zion&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;). Their conversion as a nation will result in a world wide revival. This belief is taken from Romans 11:11&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it&#xA;  never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the&#xA;  Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is&#xA;  riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how&#xA;  much more will their fulfillment be!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In other words if the effect of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews results in riches of knowledge and grace for the Gentiles, what will be the outcome of the Jews accepting the Gospel as a nation? Paul says it will be &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Life from the dead&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. Many Christians deduct from this that not only will Israel turning to Christ bring incredible blessing to the nations, it will also signify the time of the end and of Christs return, (&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;LIFE FROM THE DEAD&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To put it simply. There will be a turning of the whole World to Christ. Then the abomination or the beast will arise again to destroy this body of believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to [a]rule all the&#xA;  [b]nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and&#xA;  to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she&#xA;  *had a place prepared by God, so that there [c]she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The final outcome after the beast has ravaged the follows of Christ and a third of the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;stars are cast to the Earth&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;(Rev 12:1-6), the nations will finally gather together at Jerusalem, what is considered 'The Holy city',&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel&#xA;  stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and&#xA;  those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside&#xA;  the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the&#xA;  Gentiles. And they will tread the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;holy city&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; underfoot for forty-two&#xA;  months.  And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will&#xA;  prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in&#xA;  sackcloth.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of&#xA;  by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let&#xA;  him understand:)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is possible that the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Temple of God, and the alter&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; do signify the Spiritual worship of God in prayer and therefore, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;the holy people&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, not an actual temple or alter! The beast will trample the people of God! The last stronghold in the World will be Jerusalem where the Two Witnesses will smite the beast and his followers with famine  and plauge,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Rev 10:4-6&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before&#xA;  the God of the earth.  And if anyone wants to harm them, fire proceeds&#xA;  from their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone wants to&#xA;  harm them, he must be killed in this manner.  These have power to shut&#xA;  heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they&#xA;  have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth&#xA;  with all plagues, as often as they desire.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Daniel 12:5 NASV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Then I, Daniel, looked and behold, two others were standing, one on this bank of the river and the other on that bank of the river.  And one said to the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be until the end of these wonders?”  I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It would be difficult, not to see, the two witnesses, in Revelation as here in Daniel. Parallel prophecies from the Old and the New testaments regarding one event..the Revelations of John. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The end. Their will be a slaughter of horrible proportions, a slaughter of Christians. But in order for their to be a mass slaughter their must be a mass conversion.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 24:22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)  Unless those days&#xA;  had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake&#xA;  of the elect those days will be cut short.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Romans 11:11 NASV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,  if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.  For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;life from the dead&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;?  If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mathew 24:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and&#xA;  you will be hated by all nations because of My name.  At that time&#xA;  many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. &#xA;  Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.  Because&#xA;  lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.  But the&#xA;  one who endures to the end, he will be saved.  &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;This gospel of the&#xA;  kingdom shall be preached in the whole world&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; as a testimony to all&#xA;  the nations, and then the end will come.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Again the bible teaches a great apostacy,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;2 Thessalonians 2&#xA;New King James Version (NKJV)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Great Apostasy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our&#xA;  gathering together to Him, we ask you,  not to be soon shaken in mind&#xA;  or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us,&#xA;  as though the day of Christ had come.  Let no one deceive you by any&#xA;  means; &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first,&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,  who opposes and&#xA;  exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so&#xA;  that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is&#xA;  God.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Let me suggest, that there could only be a great apostasy, if there had first been a great revival of Christianity. What caused this &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;great apostasy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;? A &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;great persecution&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, for father will betray son and son father. True Christianity is not in any way compatible with the present world system. When hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people turn to Christ, such people who are presently employed in many services, companies etc who's moral standard will not be compatible with their new minds, will no be able to continue in any employment which is corrupt, or of the nature of the beast's system. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;Come out from her my people,&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; will be Gods call to them, and do not participate in her sins for she has corrupted the Earth with her luxuries and vanity. The merchants will cry when they see Babylon destroyed and the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;Merchants *&lt;/em&gt;*of the earth will wail because the great city that made them rich **&lt;em&gt;is no more&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. This will mean massive economic and socialogical upheaval. Jobs where persons are employed in making weapons of war, or of gambling (financial services) or of any other employment that destroys and pollutes the Earth and Gods people, will be abandoned by Christ call to the elect, causing massive disruption to this present corrupt system Babylon(Confusion is the nature of this World system. There is no justice here or truth or righteousness and our thoughts are only sin continually(Gen 6:5). The number of the beast, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;666&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; , is the number of a &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;man&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, the man that serves numbers or mammon!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is said of the Beast that..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Revelation 17 English Standard Version (ESV) The Great Prostitute and&#xA;  the Beast&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said&#xA;  to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who&#xA;  is seated on many waters,  with whom the kings of the earth have&#xA;  committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual&#xA;  immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” 3 And he carried&#xA;  me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on&#xA;  a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven&#xA;  heads and ten horns.  The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet,&#xA;  and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a&#xA;  golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual&#xA;  immorality.  And on her forehead was written a name of mystery:&#xA;  “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's&#xA;  abominations.” 6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the&#xA;  saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When I saw her, I marveled greatly.  But the angel said to me, “Why&#xA;  do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the&#xA;  beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her.  The beast&#xA;  that you saw &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;was, and is not, and is about to rise&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; from the bottomless&#xA;  pit and go to destruction.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I would like to draw your attention to the words &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;&quot;was, and is not, and is about to rise&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;The present world system and its ruling families will be almost shattered by the revival that is coming. Initially the world rulers will stumble and fall &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;(was)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, they will see their power dramatically reduced and dying.&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;(is not)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;(for Christ will rule the world through his people and the gospel will be preached in all nations.) it will be like a millennium of peace(Rev 20: 1-3). Their only recourse will be force. To crush the opposition*&lt;strong&gt;(is about to rise)*&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This they will do, in a terrible display of the wickedness of man and sin. Unless those days had been cut short..&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Matthew 24:22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved;&#xA;  but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8641" LastEditorUserId="8641" LastEditDate="2013-12-14T07:33:41.150" LastActivityDate="2013-12-14T07:33:41.150" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23574" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23561" CreationDate="2013-12-08T14:43:19.410" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;Well it's not any Sunday but a Sunday in advent. So the Sunday takes precedence over a solemnity.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Can't understand why it doesn't move to Saturday though. Introduction to Divine Office says that's what should happen.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8962" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T14:43:19.410" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23575" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23570" CreationDate="2013-12-08T15:11:47.947" Score="6" Body="&lt;p&gt;Since you didn't specify which perspective you're looking for (other than the view of skeptics, which is off-topic considering this site is meant to cover what Christian groups teach), I'm going to provide an answer from a Fundamentalist view - one that holds Scripture to be &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in&quot;&gt;inspired, inerrant, and infallible&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Before doing so, I need to point out, however, that this site is not here to discuss which view is correct.  We're here to provide answers about what is taught, and believed, not whether the teaching or belief is valid.  I'm going to stick strictly to that guideline here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Also, There are plenty of Christians that regard the Genesis account as allegory, rather than as actual recorded history. The view is that the Genesis account is along the lines of one of Aesop's fables (or maybe as one of Jesus' parables) - a fictional story with a teaching purpose.  For those that hold such a view, the idea that there is an apparent discrepancy doesn't at all pose a problem.  It wouldn't affect  the doctrine of inspiration &lt;em&gt;at all&lt;/em&gt;.  A discrepancy here would only affect those who hold to a literal interpretation of the genesis account (A.K.A. Young-Earth Creationists).  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10051/why-do-young-earth-creationists-make-such-a-big-deal-about-the-yec-view&quot;&gt;For Young-Earth Creationists, this would pose a problem&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But again, I remind you that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1808/how-we-are-different-than-other-sites&quot;&gt;this site is not here to debate &quot;who's right&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.  The answer I'm about to give is &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3294/how-should-we-address-convince-me-questions&quot;&gt;not intended to convince anyone&lt;/a&gt; that there is no discrepancy, that the Y.E.C. view is correct, etc.  It is merely to provide the answer that would come from someone with that particular perspective.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(That's a lot of disclaimers.  Sorry about that, it's often necessary on this site with this topic.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Part 1: Is there a discrepancy?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The typical answer to this apparent discrepancy uses common Apologetic rules for resolving apparent discrepancies.  Those rules are summarized on another question on this site:  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12272/rules-behind-resolving-alleged-biblical-discrepancies&quot;&gt;Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies&lt;/a&gt;.  These rules are designed to avoid &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;logical fallacies&lt;/a&gt;, and keep both sides honest.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Summarizing the ones relevant to this question:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In all logical arguments, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;burden of proof must be on the person that is claiming that something exists&lt;/a&gt;.  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something, because you'd have to know everything.  It is possible to claim that something exists because you need only find one example as proof.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If we were discussing &quot;Does God exist&quot; the burden of proof would be on the Christian to prove His existence.  &lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;In this case, the question is &quot;does a discrepancy exist?&quot; so the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is a discrepancy.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;If a single plausible explanation for the discrepancy exists, then you have not &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;proved&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; a discrepancy.  the explanation may not be personally convincing to you, but that is irrelevant.  (And again, on this site, we're not here to convince you.)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Many Biblical discrepancies are resolved by simply understanding the context of the passages.  Failure to understand context of certain passages is by far the most common cause of misunderstandings.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With that, let's take a look at how CARM - an organization that meets all of the criteria for being Young-Earth creationists that hold to a literal interpretation of the genesis account, including Books one and two.  On their article on this question, they list all of the apparent discrepancies, and then provide the following answer:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a&#xA;  detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis&#xA;  two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the&#xA;  day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4,&#xA;  &quot;This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were&#xA;  created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.&quot; Then,&#xA;  Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in&#xA;  verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is&#xA;  found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the&#xA;  creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated&#xA;  by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was&#xA;  created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Creation.com puts it like this (One quote out of &lt;a href=&quot;http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;a rather large article&lt;/a&gt;):&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory&#xA;  accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is&#xA;  a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of&#xA;  creation.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Thus showing that the apparent contradiction could plausibly be simply a misunderstanding of the context, ignoring that the two accounts are given for a different purpose.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With a plausible explanation, we cannot, while remaining intellectually honest, say that a contradiction exists.  No contradiction has been proven.  You can find the explanation personally unsatisfying, and unconvincing, and still &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;believe&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; that a contradiction exists, but that is a different thing than proving a contradiction.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;So at best, you can have an unsubstantiated belief that there is a contradiction here.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;  Last time I checked, skeptics were pretty smug about not adhering to unsubstantiated beliefs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Part 2: What is the Radical's Critics case?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Radical Critics case is, therefore, &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;a flawed argument based on logical fallacy and a misinterpretation of the context.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The statement &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“When it is realized that there are two distinct creation stories in&#xA;  Genesis belonging to two different periods and derived from two&#xA;  different sources, inconsistency becomes intelligible. That it exists&#xA;  at all, however, is sufficient to discredit a theory of divine&#xA;  inspiration that is obviously out of accord with the facts.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;is rendered moot by the application of consistent rules of interpretation as demonstrated above, as applied to the extreme literal view of Genesis.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It's even more ignorant when you factor in the fact that many Christians believe the creation account to be allegorical with no impact on the doctrine of inerrancy.  &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9961/from-a-fundamentalist-viewpoint-what-does-it-mean-to-take-the-bible-literally&quot;&gt;Even for fundamentals, the existence of allegory, hyperbole, and other literary devices has no impact on the doctrine of inerrancy.&lt;/a&gt;  The arguments put forth claiming that a difference in the two accounts invalidates the inerrancy doctrine is a clear example of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;straw-man logical faccacy&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;All in all, the arguments hold no water and are easily shown to be ignorant, at best, or intentionally using straw-man arguments while ignoring basic logic at worst.  Either way, they hold no validity when examined without the use of logical fallacy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.840" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T04:09:57.080" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23578" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-08T17:18:26.773" Score="5" ViewCount="1015" Body="&lt;p&gt;I was christened as an infant in the Catholic faith. Due to where I lived, a Catholic church was not available, so I attended a Baptist church. I married a Catholic man, when we went to mass with his family, I was told by his family not to partake. It offended me but were they in the right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8964" LastEditorUserId="162" LastEditDate="2013-12-08T17:25:22.297" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T03:56:50.427" Title="If I was christened am I not Catholic?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;communion&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23579" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="16632" CreationDate="2013-12-08T17:37:34.760" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Psalm 139:16 says:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For me, this is proof that DNA was created by God &amp;amp; not by a series of 'FORTUNATE ACCIDENTS' that took place over eons of years. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is my own take on this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8965" LastEditorUserId="1039" LastEditDate="2013-12-08T22:45:43.347" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T22:45:43.347" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23580" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23561" CreationDate="2013-12-08T19:23:01.513" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is so much more superlative about having the requirement to attend Mass abrogated every few years on one day for one feast?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Code of Canon Law which guides Feast Days says the following:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God,  her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;§2. With the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, &lt;strong&gt;the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the canon law makes it clear that the bishops' council has the authority to suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday. And that is exactly what the &lt;em&gt;United States Conference of Catholic Bishops&lt;/em&gt; chose to do on December 13, 1991.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/canon-law/complementary-norms/canon-1246.cfm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;ref&lt;/a&gt; That is, they chose to remove the precept to attend Mass if a holy day of obligation (excluding Nativity) falls on a Saturday or on a Monday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Why did they choose so? That cannot be answered by us. Only the bishops can. They might have considered the culture, local tradition etc., before deciding so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;It is to be noted that &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; all Conference of Catholic Bishops chose this. For example in India we do have to attend mass on two consecutive days even if a a solemnity falls on a Saturday or on a Monday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why is the Immaculate Conception more important than other Marian Feasts or All Saints Day (or Corpus Christi or Ascension Thursday), which are always transferred to Sundays in my diocese)?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Actually Immaculate Conception is less important than Advent Sunday and that is the reason it is transferred to the next day. But All Saints Day / Corpus Christi / Ascension are more important than Ordinary Sundays and hence the local bishops conference can decide to move them to the next Sunday of the Ordinary Time.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Is it only acceptable to celebrate a Christ/Trinity oriented feast day on a Sunday?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yes. As the saying goes, &amp;quot;&lt;em&gt;Our Lord's Day is the Lord of All Days&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot;. But there are exception to this rule. The ranking of the days according to their priority are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Paschal Triduum and Easter Sunday&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The solemnities of Nativity of the Lord, the Epiphany, the Ascension, and Pentecost&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter season&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Ash Wednesday&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Weekdays of Holy Week up to and including Thursday&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Days within the Octave of Easter&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Other Solemnities&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Sundays of the Year&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So as per the above list Sundays of Advent have more priority than the the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, hence the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is moved to the next day.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is an exception to the third item on the list above. That is, if the Solemnities of a particular calendar falls on Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter then the local bishop can choose to celebrate them instead of the Sunday. The order of such solemnity are:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The solemnity of the principal patron of the place, city or state&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The solemnity of the dedication or anniversary of the dedication of one's own church&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The solemnity of the title of one's own church (the mystery or saint to which it is dedicated)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The solemnity of either the title or the founder of a religious institute&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For example, if a diocese's patron saint is Mary under the Title of Immaculate Conception (like my diocese), the feast of Immaculate Conception is celebrated on December 08 in that diocese alone when the rest of the Church celebrated the Advent Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(Just of of curiosity: //&lt;em&gt;festive round of Stabat Mater&lt;/em&gt;// Isn't Stabat Mater suppose to be a sorrowful song?? )&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4303" LastEditorUserId="14775" LastEditDate="2020-11-13T23:45:49.997" LastActivityDate="2020-11-13T23:45:49.997" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23583" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-08T20:33:24.000" Score="-1" ViewCount="615" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have a question that I need answered,  I am fearfully worried for my salvation!.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Some time ago I went through some spiritual problems - One such thing is that I started reading about the 'Unforgivable Sin'.  I felt I had comitted it!.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I started reading about it and asking questions,  I got two responses - &#xA;1) It was a Demon - making me believe I had done it.&#xA;2) It was the Holy Spirit - making me realize my sin and need for repentance hence the worry.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I pondered for weeks over this e.g. How can people give two opposing responses.  Then one day under my breath while working it out I said 'The Holy Spirit is Like a D*&lt;em&gt;*&lt;/em&gt;'&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I didn't think anything of it at the time as I was basing this statement on a vauge view of the Holy Spirit and Demons.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am worried that God will have taken this the wrong way - In my confusion I said this - That being said I never ever, ever meant it in the connotation that the Holy Spirit is evil.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The statement was mearly me working out how to tell them apart.  E.g. If some christians said number 1 and others number 2 then my reasoning is there must be some aspects that are undisernable.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We are even told to Test the Spirits which would mean comparing them and even finding Similaries otherwise we would not need to test them in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I am fearfully worried God will not understand what I mean?  Can someone tell me weather I have committed this or not?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2162" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-08-26T20:35:58.033" LastActivityDate="2015-08-26T20:35:58.033" Title="The Unforgivable Sin" Tags="&lt;soteriology&gt;&lt;sin&gt;&lt;pneumatology&gt;&lt;unforgivable-sin&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="2" ClosedDate="2013-12-09T03:41:11.950" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23584" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23578" CreationDate="2013-12-08T21:41:42.013" Score="7" Body="&lt;p&gt;I would say they erred on the side of caution. Your baptism is fully valid in the Catholic Church and since you are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04170b.htm&quot;&gt;mature&lt;/a&gt; enough to distinguish the Eucharist from regular food you have every right to partake.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However, because you were raised in a Baptist church, you did not receive a Catholic education nor did you have a Catholic confirmation. (In fact the Baptists do not Confirm since they do not baptize infants.) I also assume that you did not perform the sacrament of penance before taking Communion. Therefore, you partaking could present the appearance of impropriety. If you intend to continue worshiping in the Catholic church you should discuss taking the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/rcia/&quot;&gt;Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults&lt;/a&gt; with a priest. This will include education, Penance, Confirmation, and Communion. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5440" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T21:41:42.013" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23586" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23565" CreationDate="2013-12-08T22:27:17.397" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We don't gamble because:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We avoid greediness.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We don't want to put our faith in the &quot;god of Good Luck&quot; (Isaiah 65:11).&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;We don't want to take someone else's money in exchange for nothing.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; include a radio contest because the other radio listeners in the contest aren't losing any money if they don't win the prize.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With regard to your follow up question, &quot;&lt;em&gt;would a football team of Jehovah's Witnesses be able to participate in the coin toss to decide which end they started from?&lt;/em&gt;&quot; - Yes they would as long as they weren't doing something similar to what is mentioned in this paragraph taken from a 2011 Watchtower: &quot;&lt;em&gt;For example, auspicious numbers are chosen for lottery tickets; the uttering of certain words is forbidden among superstitious mah-jongg players; and a puff of air is blown over dice before they are thrown. Why? Gamblers often believe that luck will, or at least might, influence the outcome.&lt;/em&gt;&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011167&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011167&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here is an article that gives more details on how far to take the prohibition:&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002808&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002808&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user8561" LastEditorDisplayName="user8561" LastEditDate="2013-12-09T14:05:47.497" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T14:05:47.497" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23587" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4338" CreationDate="2013-12-08T23:46:43.407" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Jesus does affirm tithing in Matthew 23:23, although He points out that there are weightier matters -justice, mercy, and faithfulness.  I believe that the tithe (10%) is an old covenant minimum standard for most Christians' giving.  As you point out, high income people can actually do better than this, while some people who are struggling to put food on the table may not be able to tithe and feed their kids at the same time.  The real key to Christian stewardship is to be a cheerful and generous giver, and for most of us, the old covenant 10% is a minimum benchmark.  With that said, I don't want to hear about anyone starving their kids to tithe either.  (I have occasionally heard of such things.)  Remember - there are more important things like justice, mercy, and faithfulness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8971" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T23:46:43.407" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23588" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23583" CreationDate="2013-12-08T23:52:31.357" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;While I will not attempt to provide you with advice or counsel in helping you get past your current situation, I will be so bold as to state, based on my understanding of the truth of God's word, that there is only one unforgiveable sin, and that is unbelief, (which according to your question is not the issue with which you seem to be struggling).  The good news, however, is that even unbelief can be forgiven if we truly repent and believe before it's too late (in other words, before we die)!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Clearly, when the unbelievers in Jesus' day attributed to Satan the works Jesus performed in the power of the Holy Spirit, their sin, if not repented of, would not have been forgivable. On the other hand, repented of, their sin would be forgiven, as would any and all of their other sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John's first letter tells us that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us of all unrighteousness (1:9); not some, not most, but &lt;em&gt;all&lt;/em&gt;.  Interestingly, our sins are not what condemn us; unbelief is what condemns us. Christ has already done what was necessary to make the forgiveness of our sins a reality through His death on the cross, where God imputed our sins to Jesus. When we believe this fact, God then imputes Jesus' righteousness to us. In other words, forgiveness is possible only through our belief that His sacrificial death on the cross was for the forgiveness of our sins.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:18, NIV: &amp;quot;Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;John 3:36 NAS: &amp;quot;He who believes in the Son has eternal life ; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Notice what Jesus says about the link between unbelief and condemnation. According to Him, not to believe in God's one and only Son is what ultimately condemns us. Again, sin is not what condemns us but unbelief is.  Moreover, the refusal to believe in the Son means not only will we not see life (abundant life now and eternal life both now and later), but God will continue being righteously angry with us until we do believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;From what I'm hearing from you, it is not unbelief that is the cause of your present quandary, it's the vague uneasiness that you've committed a sin that is not forgivable. As I have taken pains to point out, however, the only unforgivable sin is unbelief. When we commit any sin other than that, God graciously forgives us when we simply confess to Him we've blown it. We then can pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and move forward, confident that nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:35-39).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5119" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-08T23:52:31.357" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23589" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20109" CreationDate="2013-12-09T00:21:01.297" Score="9" Body="&lt;p&gt;In the earliest centuries of the Church, there wasn't a pattern of using liturgical languages, as much as trade languages.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the East, Greek was predominantly used because whereas it was the first language of few people, it was a second language for many people. It's use could symbolize the internationality of the Church, but more practically, it made it possible for as many people as possible to follow along, if not understand every word. Interestingly enough, Greek predominated in Rome itself, because its heavily international population didn't all speak Latin. By contrast, in North Africa, Latin seems to have been the predominant language almost immediately. Outside of Egypt, Latin was the language of international affairs in North Africa because of its extensive colonization and coordination by Roman authorities. This was also the case in Spain, Britain, and non-Mediterranean France, other regions little influenced by the Greeks. When it was evangelized, Ireland experienced the Mass in Latin. (Nickerson, Jane Soames. A Short History of North Africa. New York: The Devin-Adair Co., 1961, p30.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In the ninth century, permission was given by the Church to translate the Mass and related texts (such as the scripture) into what is now called Old Church Slavonic. At the time, it was a dated but not quite defunct legal and ceremonial language used in Slavic regions, essentially a mother language to the languages they were speaking at the time. The idea was the same - a single liturgical language for a broad swath of country and for many nations, not exactly native to any of them, but not entirely foreign, either. (Korolevsky, Cyril. Living Languages in Catholic Worship: An Historical Inquiry, trans. Donald Attwater. Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1957, p3.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, Franciscan missionaries to the Mongols were given permission to translate the liturgical rites and the sacred scripture into their language in the 13th or 14th century, provided that the most noble and poetic version of the language be used. In like manner, Jesuits were given permission to translate the same materials into Chinese (Mandarin, I think) in the 16th-17th century, but because of the cultural climate in Europe at the time, they never actually made use of these permissions.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So long answer shortened: Latin was in use in the early Church but, ironically enough, not in the region of Latin's origin. The Church's primary concern was not exactly &lt;em&gt;just&lt;/em&gt; that the Mass should be &lt;em&gt;accessible&lt;/em&gt;. She was also concerned that the Mass should be transnational.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If you're wondering, while in the seminary, I wrote a paper on topic of liturgical and vernacular language in pre-Christian and Christian worship. My thesis is that the Church has always wanted both accessibility and transcendence in the worship of a God who transcends and makes himself accessible. (Here's a dropbox link. It doesn't seem like a very good way to share the file, but I don't think there's a place to upload or attach PDFs here: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.dropbox.com/s/4rx92zie2egbldi/KnowingTheMystery.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Vernacular and Liturgical Language in the Mass&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2152" LastEditorUserId="25495" LastEditDate="2019-02-14T15:33:02.923" LastActivityDate="2019-02-14T15:33:02.923" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23590" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="4338" CreationDate="2013-12-09T00:31:30.537" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;The Tithe was effectively a tax to support the Jewish religious system, and in particular the Levites and priests who ran the temple. So Tithing is not the correct term to use for giving to support ministry in church and around the world. As Narnian said the key verse for Christians is 2 Corinthians 9:7:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T00:31:30.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23591" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23578" CreationDate="2013-12-09T00:52:43.243" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;A validly baptized infant is a Catholic until he/she acquires the age of reason and rejects a tenet of the Catholic Faith (Dogma), when this happens a person becomes a heretic and is at that point is a non-Catholic.  If you are going to a Baptist church you've definitely rejected some Catholic Dogmas.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="424" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T00:52:43.243" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23592" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="20488" CreationDate="2013-12-09T01:00:33.180" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;I believe he is saying that God is a person who is full of happiness and goodness.  Namely &lt;code&gt;Love&lt;/code&gt; love for all mankind.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He uses every experienced pleasure as an opportunity to give gratitude and contemplate the majesty of God.  The God of all creation.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As can be seen here:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Adoration says, ‘What &#xA;must be the quality of that Being whose far-off and momentary coruscations are like this!’&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He continues:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;If I could always be what I aim at being, no pleasure would be too ordinary or too usual for &#xA;such reception;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I think he is implying that if we could keep that mindset, even the most mundane every day pleasures or experiences can be opportunities to bring us closer to God through adoration which in turn enriches said experiences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;However it's not always easy to keep this mindset, obstacles such as inattention to the wonders around us.  Or choosing to ignore God's role in said experiences.  Lastly Greed Conceit.  Not being grateful. e.g.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;that others would condemn as simply 'grey' the sky in which I am delightedly observing such delicacies of pearl and dove and silver.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Summary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;What sparkling flashes of God’s wit and brilliance—His coruscations—have caused your mind today to &#xA;run back up the sunbeam to the sun and given you cause to give thanks and to worship the Lord?&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is a children's hymn which is sung at my church that I think fits nicely with what C.S. Lewis is trying to get across here.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;Whenever I hear the song of a bird&#xA;Or look at the blue, blue sky,&#xA;Whenever I feel the rain on my face&#xA;Or the wind as it rushes by,&#xA;Whenever I touch a velvet rose&#xA;Or walk by our lilac tree,&#xA;I'm glad that I live in this beautiful world&#xA;Heav'nly Father created for me.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;He gave me my eyes that I might see&#xA;The color of butterfly wings.&#xA;He gave me my ears that I might hear&#xA;The magical sound of things.&#xA;He gave me my life, my mind, my heart:&#xA;I thank him rev'rently&#xA;For all his creations, of which I'm a part.&#xA;Yes, I know Heav'nly Father loves me.&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/my-heavenly-father-loves-me?lang=eng&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Link to music&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/1704&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Link to CS Lewis Letter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8970" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T01:00:33.180" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23594" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T01:13:30.007" Score="6" ViewCount="3799" Body="&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 13:1-4 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;states&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus abrogated the Mosaic law (e.g. keeping the Sabbath, dietary restrictions, etc.) and they no longer feel bound by them. How, then, do they understand the above passage, which states that one may not subtract commandments from the Law, and which seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6496" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-09-25T15:02:44.320" Title="How do Christians reconcile Deuteronomy 13:1-4 with their belief in the abrogation of the Mosaic law?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;&lt;deuteronomy&gt;" AnswerCount="12" CommentCount="3" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23595" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T01:24:19.730" Score="6" ViewCount="4135" Body="&lt;p&gt;If Jesus was born at a certain date in history, do trinitarian Christians believe that the Trinity did not exist before that date? Alternatively, is some sort of incorporeal Jesus believed to have been in existence despite not yet having been born?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6496" LastEditorUserId="21576" LastEditDate="2018-10-23T16:49:35.063" LastActivityDate="2018-10-23T16:49:35.063" Title="The Trinity before the birth of Jesus" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;&lt;christology&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23596" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23594" CreationDate="2013-12-09T01:25:41.890" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;The historical answer for this, as it applies to Gentiles, was recorded on the book of Acts.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gci.org/bible/act15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel (the Jews), not the Church&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Early on in Church history, the question of whether adherence to Mosaic Law was to be applied to Gentile believers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Acts 15&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;New International Version (NIV) The Council at Jerusalem&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching&#xA;  the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom&#xA;  taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and&#xA;  Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas&#xA;  were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem&#xA;  to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent&#xA;  them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria,&#xA;  they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the&#xA;  believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed&#xA;  by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported&#xA;  everything God had done through them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the&#xA;  Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and&#xA;  required to keep the law of Moses.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much&#xA;  discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that&#xA;  some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear&#xA;  from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows&#xA;  the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to&#xA;  them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and&#xA;  them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you&#xA;  try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that&#xA;  neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe&#xA;  it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as&#xA;  they are.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and&#xA;  Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the&#xA;  Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up.&#xA;  “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us&#xA;  how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the&#xA;  Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as&#xA;  it is written:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;16 “‘After this I will return&#xA;      and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild,&#xA;      and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,&#xA;      even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’[b]— 18     things known from long ago.[c]&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult&#xA;  for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to&#xA;  them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual&#xA;  immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For&#xA;  the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest&#xA;  times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;More is available at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gci.org/bible/act15&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;Grace Communion International&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Why, then, these four rules? Some scholars say the Jews believed that&#xA;  these laws dated back to the time of Noah, and therefore applied to&#xA;  all nations. Others say that all four rules were associated with&#xA;  idolatry. Some say that these four rules were laws of Moses, and were&#xA;  given so Gentiles and Jews could eat together. None of these&#xA;  suggestions is fully convincing. (See later for more details.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;However, the decree makes it clear that Gentiles do not have to be&#xA;  circumcised, nor do they have to obey the laws of Moses. They are&#xA;  circumcised spiritually, not physically. God never gave those commands&#xA;  to the Gentiles.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;To summarize: Some men said that Gentiles should be circumcised and&#xA;  obey the laws of Moses or else they could not be saved. Not so, said&#xA;  the apostles. Gentiles are saved by grace and faith. God is pleased to&#xA;  dwell in people who aren’t circumcised and who don’t keep the rituals.&#xA;  But since Moses is widely preached, we need to give a decree that&#xA;  clearly distinguishes the Christian faith from the Law of Moses. This&#xA;  pleased the entire church, so they wrote it in a letter and sent it to&#xA;  Antioch, where they “were glad for its encouraging message”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T01:25:41.890" CommentCount="10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23597" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23594" CreationDate="2013-12-09T01:28:54.627" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Moses is saying that the covenant must be kept intact - today we'd say that if they change the terms of the contract they break the contract!&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Gentile Christians however were never part of the Old Mosaic covenant, and so they are not bound by it. To use the analogy of an employment contract, imagine there are two workers at a company. One has a contract, and another is casually employed. (I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how realistic this is!) The one who has the contract may not change it, and the one who is casually employed is not bound by the other one's contract. The casually employed one may decide they like what the other one's contract says and work as if they were bound by it, but that won't make them part of the contract.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To give another analogy, residents of one country are not required to obey the laws of another country, though they may take inspiration from the laws of other countries. So Christians are not required to obey the Old Testament Law, but there is much in the Law which Christians will want to pay strong attention to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T01:28:54.627" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23599" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15621" CreationDate="2013-12-09T01:41:23.433" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'll try to give an answer from a Catholic perspective, to the extent I understand it (which is admittedly only a partial extent).  In some respects, Mary's situation is similar to ours: We need some grace from God in order to do anything pleasing to Him. Once God has given us this grace, we need to cooperate with it, and the degree of our cooperation can influence God's decision about what additional graces to give us.  In Mary's case, the initial grace was huge --- exemption from original sin plus a tremendous amount of actual grace --- but then it was up to Mary, and she cooperated fully with those graces, loving God more than any other mere creature.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God had, from all eternity, chosen Mary to be the mother of His Son, and He provided the graces necessary to make her a fit place for Jesus to enter our world by His incarnation.  But Mary still had free will and could have chosen to reject grace and commit sin; her total cooperation with every grace and her total love for God resulted in her present heavenly glory.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5110" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T01:41:23.433" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23601" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23595" CreationDate="2013-12-09T01:59:35.120" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Christians believe that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trinity&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; consists of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;three distinct persons&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; with &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;one divine nature.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This Trinitarian Godhead exists infinitely and eternally, and therefore existed before time. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Christians also adhere to the very distinct doctrine of the &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Hypostatic Union&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, which is the belief that Jesus Christ has two natures. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;One nature is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;truly divine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. One nature is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;truly human&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;These two doctrines are clearly stated in the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word&#xA;  was God. He was in the beginning with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Son&quot; (2nd Person of the Trinity) existed &quot;before all ages.&quot;  The Son was born into the world of a virgin roughly 2000 years ago. His name is Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Nicene Creed&lt;/a&gt; puts it best:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally&#xA;  begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from&#xA;  true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through&#xA;  him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down&#xA;  from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from&#xA;  the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under&#xA;  Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he&#xA;  rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven&#xA;  and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in&#xA;  glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no&#xA;  end.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20450/was-the-son-eternally-begotten/20467#20467&quot;&gt;Was the Son eternally begotten?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user5286" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-04-13T12:56:44.680" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T01:59:35.120" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23602" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23595" CreationDate="2013-12-09T02:01:13.853" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are, of course, exceptions, but most of mainstream Christianity believes that Jesus was eternal, that He always existed, coequal with God.  The Trinity is God, and is Eternal.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Addressing Jesus' pre-existence:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Scripturally, the strongest support for this belief is John 1.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;John 1 King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the&#xA;  Word was God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;2 The same was in the beginning with God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made&#xA;  that was made.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For some documentation showing that various mainstream denominations believe this...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gci.org/jesus/whowas&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Grace communion International, a Protestant denomination says this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The pre-existence of Christ is clearly stated in John 1:1-4: &quot;In the&#xA;  beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was&#xA;  God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were&#xA;  made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was&#xA;  life…&quot; It is this Word or Logos in Greek who became incarnate in&#xA;  Jesus. &quot;The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us,&quot; John&#xA;  tells us (verse 14).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;The eternal, uncreated Word who was God, and yet was with God as one&#xA;  of the Persons of the Godhead, became a human being. Note that the&#xA;  Word &quot;was&quot; God but &quot;became&quot; a human being. The Word never came into&#xA;  being, that is, he didn’t &quot;become&quot; the Word. He always was the Word,&#xA;  or God. The Word’s existence is open-ended. He has always existed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/incarn.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Caltholictruth.com says this&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Bethlehem and Nazareth were not the first homes of Jesus; His home&#xA;  was from all eternity in the bosom of the Father. &quot;In the beginning,&quot;&#xA;  says St. John (John 1:1), &quot;was the Word, and the Word was with God,&#xA;  and the Word was God.&quot; The Word Whom Scripture also calls Son of God&#xA;  proceeds from the Father by intellectual generation; He is the&#xA;  Father's understanding of Himself. He is the first Word ever spoken,&#xA;  and is in all things equal to Him by Whom He was spoken. The Father&#xA;  Who uttered Him is not prior to the Word, but both are equally&#xA;  eternal.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Yes, the Incarnate Christ is older than the oldest creatures since He&#xA;  is at once their Creator and the Pattern after which they were&#xA;  created: &quot;All things were made by Him: and without Him was made&#xA;  nothing that was made&quot; (John 1:3); &quot;In Him were all things created in&#xA;  heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or&#xA;  dominations, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by&#xA;  Him and in Him. And He is before all, and by Him all things consist&quot;&#xA;  (Colossians 1:16, 17). In the beatific light of the heavenly palace,&#xA;  says St.Paul, the Word before His Incarnation dwelt in the &quot;form of&#xA;  God,&quot; that is in a nature which - because it is Divine - cannot be&#xA;  acquired but is eternal (Philippians 2:6-8). Verily Christ could say&#xA;  of Himself, &quot;Before Abraham was made, I am&quot; (John 8:58).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A Google Search of &quot;Jesus before incarnation&quot; will turn up thousands of similar statements from myriad Churches and denominations.  Of course, &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2237/is-it-valid-to-ask-if-christianity-teaches-anything&quot;&gt;it would be inaccurate to say that all Christians believe this&lt;/a&gt;, it is a demonstrably widely held belief.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The details of what His pre-existence is like is unknown.  However, most also believe that He made appearances in the Old Testament long before His physical birth.  (This is known as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/christophanies-in-the-old&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Christophany&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jesus-christ?lang=eng&amp;amp;letter=j&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;The LDS Church gives an entirely different view&lt;/a&gt;, still holding that He existed, but in the &quot;Premortal life&quot; that they believe.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Premortal existence of Christ&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &#xA;  &lt;ul&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Lord appeared unto Abram:Gen. 12:7; ( Gen. 17:1; Gen. 18:1; Abr. 2:6–8; )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Lord spoke unto Moses face to face:Ex. 33:11; ( Deut. 34:10; Moses 1:1–2; )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;I saw the Lord standing upon the altar:Amos 9:1;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;In the beginning, the Word was with God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us:John 1:1, 14; ( 1 Jn. 1:1–3; )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Before Abraham was, I am:John 8:58;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was:John 17:5;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Isaiah verily saw my Redeemer as I and my brother Jacob have seen him:2 Ne. 11:2–3;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;On the morrow come I into the world:3 Ne. 1:12–14;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Christ was before the world began:3 Ne. 26:5; ( John 6:62; )&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;As I appear unto thee will I appear unto my people in the flesh:Ether 3:14–17;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;Enoch saw the Lord and walked with him:D&amp;amp;C 107:48–49;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;My Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning:Moses 4:2;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;li&gt;The Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me:Abr. 3:27;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;  &lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="721" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2017-03-16T16:39:36.090" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T02:11:57.783" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23603" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23594" CreationDate="2013-12-09T02:26:32.483" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;I think this verse speaks it plainly.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, &lt;strong&gt;which have not the law&lt;/strong&gt;, do by&#xA;  nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are&#xA;  a law unto themselves:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The verses you quote is not for Christians and never was meant to be.  It was specifically given to the Hebrew people.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4711" LastEditorUserId="4711" LastEditDate="2013-12-09T02:34:06.420" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T02:34:06.420" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23604" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23595" CreationDate="2013-12-09T02:32:44.463" Score="-3" Body="&lt;p&gt;Just to add to the great answers by both David Stratton and Charles Alsobrook, That Jesus was both fully man and fully God is central to Christianity. Unless Jesus was a sinless man He would not be an acceptable sacrifice for our sins. That could only be possible if he were also deity, which by definition would be an eternal being.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T02:32:44.463" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23605" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T02:52:58.963" Score="11" ViewCount="4713" Body="&lt;p&gt;Deuteronomy 13:1-4 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot;&gt;states&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The above passage seems to state that one may not subtract commandments from the Law of Moses which the Jewish people were commanded to obey, and  seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so. Do Christians believe that Jews must still obey the Mosaic Law, and if not, how is that consistent with the above passage?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user6496" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2019-09-19T14:11:49.667" Title="Do Christians believe that Jews must still follow the Mosaic law?" Tags="&lt;mosaic-law&gt;&lt;judaism&gt;&lt;jews&gt;&lt;law-and-gospel&gt;&lt;deuteronomy&gt;" AnswerCount="10" CommentCount="7" FavoriteCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23607" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23594" CreationDate="2013-12-09T03:07:29.537" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;There is no reconciliation needed.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In Matthew chapter 5 Jesus tells us that not even an accent mark will disappear from the law till Heaven and Earth pass away.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 5:18   KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So the law is still just as in force today as it was in the days of Moses. What has changed is that Jesus fulfilled the Law.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Mat 5:17  KJV&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So exactly how did he fulfill the part of the Law about not being deceived by false teachers? you ask.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Well that's a good question, and I'm glad you asked.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This how he fulfilled all of the law and not just the little part about being deceived by false teachers.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He gave the indisputable answer to all questions about not only who was the true God, but who and where and how, and any other question you might have.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He died on the cross and arose from the dead on the third day following, just as he had told people he would do before it took place.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;With this indisputable truth, anyone who desires to Spend eternity with God can do so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There is no other plan, program or theory that can come near competing with that answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5867" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T03:07:29.537" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23609" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T03:39:58.820" Score="6" ViewCount="704" Body="&lt;p&gt;I'm new here, I was just wondering of someone knows what books were used for English catechesis prior to the 1960's in English speaking countries. I'd like to teach my CCD kids a few prayers in Latin but am not well versed in the language.  I've got Cassel's Latin Dictionary, but I find that to be a little Virgil heavy and Vatican lite, so there's a lot of words that I don't know how to properly pronounce and I'm not interested at mastering the language, just rote memorization for something fun to do on Wednesday nights.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastEditorUserId="22238" LastEditDate="2015-09-11T17:42:21.653" LastActivityDate="2019-11-02T16:38:17.870" Title="Pre-Vatican II Latin Prayer" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;books&gt;&lt;religious-education&gt;&lt;resource-request&gt;&lt;latin&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23610" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23605" CreationDate="2013-12-09T03:43:03.730" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;It's a fundamental belief of Christianity that the coming of Jesus fulfils the Old Testament law. In other words that the Law was only ever intended to be until the coming of Messiah. Jesus did not therefore abolish or diminish the law. His coming simply marked the end of its original intended purpose. Jesus says as much in Matthew chapter 5 verse 17.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because of this Christians believe that nobody should be following the Law, Jews or non-Jews. A better way is available to them, namely following Jesus.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There are a relatively small number of Christians who believe that a way of salvation is open to the Jews who continue to follow the law, instead of Jesus, but it is a minority.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="162" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T03:43:03.730" CommentCount="6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23611" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23578" CreationDate="2013-12-09T03:56:50.427" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;If your family had been able to keep going to the Catholic Church where you were Baptized (christened isn't what Catholics call the sacrament, but don't worry about that. A convert friend of mine just posted pictures of my daughters &quot;Christening&quot; on Facebook, I was like, hmm when was that?) Anyway, if you had remained in the Catholic Church you started out in you wouldn't have automatically been able to receive Holy Communion until you had finished the preparation (usually happens I the USA by 2nd grade), but it wasn't always like that, in other times and places First Communion might not happen until the communicant is a teenager. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But you've got nothing to worry about, if you want to receive communion go to the priest and ask him what to do, it's not a one-size fits all problem.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="4" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T03:56:50.427" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23613" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T05:43:51.777" Score="3" ViewCount="6239" Body="&lt;p&gt;In Revelation 12, John sees Satan cast out of the Father's presence and down to earth:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Does this mean the Earth was created by the time Satan was cast out? Then were he and his angels present for the Creation? If not, to where was he cast out, maybe in the interim, until the earth was created?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="1003" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-13T01:40:27.613" Title="To where was Satan cast out?" Tags="&lt;creation&gt;&lt;satan&gt;&lt;revelation&gt;" AnswerCount="2" CommentCount="0" FavoriteCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23615" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23613" CreationDate="2013-12-09T09:34:49.900" Score="1" Body="&lt;p&gt;The angels were created before the earth. When God is speaking to Job we see that he refers to the angels or sons of God celebrating over the creation of the earth. &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/18/38#h=1200:0-1201:0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 38:1-7&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Then Jehovah answered Job out of the windstorm:&#xA;   2 “Who is this who is obscuring my counsel&#xA;  And speaking without knowledge?&#xA;   3 Brace yourself, please, like a man;&#xA;  I will question you, and you inform me.&#xA;   4 &lt;strong&gt;Where were you when I founded the earth?&lt;/strong&gt;&#xA;  Tell me, if you think you understand.&#xA;   5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,&#xA;  Or who stretched a measuring line across it?&#xA;   6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,&#xA;  Or who laid its cornerstone,&#xA;   7 &lt;strong&gt;When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,&#xA;  And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan was present with the other angels during the creation of the earth. It wasn't until God created man that Satan began to rebel against God. &lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/Rbi8/E/1984/1/3#h=21:326-21:502&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Genesis 3:3-5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” 4 At this &lt;strong&gt;the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die.&lt;/strong&gt; 5 For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan was then calling God a liar and inferred that God was keeping good things from man.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/23/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Isaiah 14:13-14&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens.&#xA;  Above the stars of God I will lift up my throne,&#xA;  And I will sit down on the mountain of meeting,&#xA;  In the remotest parts of the north.&#xA;  14 I will go up above the tops of the clouds;&#xA;  I will make myself resemble the Most High.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan wanted the glory of God's position. He also wanted humans to worship him as God.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;At the time Revelation was written Satan had not yet been thrown down to earth. That was prophecy that would occur at a later date. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/acts/2/#v44002032&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Acts 2:32-35&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “&lt;strong&gt;Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet&lt;/strong&gt;.”’&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Satan and his angels would have been thrown down from heaven when Jesus became the ruler of the kingdom. We don't know what time that happened or will happen, although different denominations will have different answers for this.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We know that Satan had not yet been thrown out of heaven because he was able to talk to God in the book of Job. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/job/1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Job 1:6-7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them.&#xA;  7  Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where have you come from?” Satan answered Jehovah: “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;We see that Satan did enter heaven to take his station before God. We know that can't have been on earth because Satan had just come from the earth. Satan cannot have been thrown out of heaven before this account then. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A plausible time-frame for that happening would have been some time after Jesus's resurrection.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="7536" LastEditorUserId="7536" LastEditDate="2013-12-09T20:05:26.327" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T20:05:26.327" CommentCount="5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23616" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23605" CreationDate="2013-12-09T09:42:59.113" Score="3" Body="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes&#xA;to the Father except through me. &lt;em&gt;(John 14:6, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by&#xA;faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus&#xA;that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of&#xA;the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.&#xA;&lt;em&gt;(Galatians 2:16, NIV)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If we believe that &lt;strong&gt;Jesus is the only way to Heaven&lt;/strong&gt; and that &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14759/was-eternal-life-promised-by-the-mosaic-law&quot;&gt;the Mosaic Law cannot take us to Heaven&lt;/a&gt;, there is really no other way around. Your good works cannot save you, your obedience to any religious laws cannot save you, your piety cannot save you. Without Jesus, nothing you do can really save you.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now, if the Law of Moses cannot take us to heaven, then &lt;strong&gt;it is really irrelevant whether Jews are following the Mosaic Law or not&lt;/strong&gt;, because if they reject Jesus, it won't do any good for salvation anyway. The same condition applies to anyone who follow any other laws from other religions. Only Jesus can take us to Heaven.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jewish perspective:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; It is important that everyone should follow the Law of Moses or at least the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;Seven Laws of Noah&lt;/a&gt;, because, according to Judaism, any non-Jew who adheres to these seven laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the World to Come, the final reward of the righteous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Christian&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; perspective:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; Everyone must believe in Jesus Christ because He is the only way to Heaven and their is no other way. Judaism cannot save you, Islam cannot save you, following the laws written in the Bible cannot save you. Our faith in the &lt;em&gt;death and resurrection of Jesus&lt;/em&gt; alone can save us.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(1) Any Christian group who strictly believes that Jesus is the only way to Heaven&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T09:58:58.890" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23618" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T10:05:17.343" Score="7" ViewCount="242" Body="&lt;p&gt;Protestants often consider the Roman Catholic church to have significantly distorted the gospel. Were there Christians prior to the Reformation who had essentially the same understanding of the doctrines of salvation (particularly &lt;em&gt;sola gratia&lt;/em&gt;) as the later Reformers did? I'm interested in people between Augustine (approx. 400 AD) and Luther (1517 AD).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8978" LastEditorUserId="20" LastEditDate="2014-07-16T23:34:09.340" LastActivityDate="2014-07-16T23:34:09.340" Title="Is 'sola gratia' as a soteriology traceable in the period leading to the Protestant Reformation?" Tags="&lt;history&gt;&lt;protestantism&gt;&lt;reformation&gt;&lt;grace&gt;&lt;sola-gratia&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="2" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23621" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23594" CreationDate="2013-12-09T10:30:24.033" Score="-1" Body="&lt;p&gt;One cannot say that Jesus was a 'false' prophet because he emphasized that nothing can be added to nor subtracted from the law.  Matthew 5: 19. He then goes further, Matthew 5: 20 - 48 and says that the 'Christians' must be even better than the Pharisees and to do that he puts a 'fence' around the law. &#xA;Not only are Christians bound by the law, they have to make sure they do not even come close to breaking it.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6043" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T10:30:24.033" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23624" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="6979" CreationDate="2013-12-09T11:48:35.067" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;i think what @asfallows said is right.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;In addition and my answer as a non-calvinist:&lt;br&gt;i see &quot;saving faith&quot; as an approach to convert someone. Which christians must.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, have faith to become saved.&#xA;Then follow up with repenting, baptism, and going to chruch.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Which order of procedure is right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like @asfallows, i'm not quoting because this is still a debate between denominations.&lt;br&gt;&#xA;So just follow your doctrine. Maybe one day we-all christians will have the same doctrine again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6506" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T11:48:35.067" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23627" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5596" CreationDate="2013-12-09T12:53:09.347" Score="5" Body="&lt;h1&gt;An etymology-based perspective&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here are some meanings for these roles based on the original meanings as used in the New Testament. Many denominations attempt to use these terms in the same way, such as the Brethren, Presbyterians and some Baptist churches.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Pastor:&lt;/strong&gt; a shepherd. Someone who looks after the 'flock' of God: his people. Pastors are listed in Ephesians 4:11 as one of the gifts that God has given the church. There are varying opinions about gifts: some think this is a leadership role, and others that it describes regular church members - in both cases they would be the people who are naturally good at caring for the spiritual health of the other church members.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Priest:&lt;/strong&gt; someone who mediates between a god and people. Jesus is called our Great High Priest, while many Protestants support a doctrine called the Priesthood of all Believers, which is based on 1 Peter 2. Those who support that doctrine believe that all Christians are priests because we are all meant to go between God and the people around us, and therefore the leaders of a church should not be called priests because they are not special in that regard.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Minister:&lt;/strong&gt; a servant. (We may not think of it that way, but in politics a &lt;em&gt;Prime Minister&lt;/em&gt; is the head of the &lt;em&gt;Public Servants&lt;/em&gt;, so the meaning is still hidden there.) There is a sense in which all Christians are meant to serve each other, and so we are all ministers, and we all do ministry. There is another sense for people who are particularly gifted at serving others - this is the sense found in Romans 12:7. And there is another sense: the Greek word for 'minister' is 'diakonia', from which we get the word Deacon. Most denominations believe that a Deacon is a person who has been specifically appointed to a position. Passages like 1 Timothy 3:8-13 might be indicating an appointed position, or they might not - I'm not particularly sure either way.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And though you didn't ask for this one, I'll include it too:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Elders, Presbyters and Bishops:&lt;/strong&gt; Presbyter is a transliteration of the Greek word meaning Elder. The idea is like a village elder, the natural leaders of a small community because of their age, wisdom and experience. In most Protestant denominations except for the Anglicans Bishops are thought to be equivalent to Elders - the word Bishop means an Overseer (which is how some Bibles translate it.) The idea is that they are there to oversee the church, to &quot;hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.&quot; (Titus 1:9)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;None of the terms I have described necessarily imply an employed position in a church. Most churches will use one of these terms and use it to mean that the person is an employed staff member of the church, which can give the wrong idea that their title is used because they are employed rather than because they are a servant or an overseer etc.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T12:53:09.347" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23629" PostTypeId="1" AcceptedAnswerId="23633" CreationDate="2013-12-09T13:13:19.813" Score="2" ViewCount="295" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have spoken to many who believe in the Trinity. I many times try to present the view the Jesus is the &lt;em&gt;second&lt;/em&gt; greatest being in the universe and that he was created by his father Jehovah God. I also say that we should have faith in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice. He deserves our love and utmost respect, but that we should only worship Jehovah the God that Jesus prayed to.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I understand why someone wouldn't believe this is true, but I am less sure why someone would get upset about it. I get the feeling people &lt;em&gt;love&lt;/em&gt; the trinity. Is there something about the trinity that has an &lt;em&gt;emotional&lt;/em&gt; appeal to it?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes I try to pose a hypothetical and say &quot;Imagine it were true that the trinity is false.&quot; Even if they consider it as a hypothetical truth, they &lt;em&gt;prefer&lt;/em&gt; the trinity over the alternative. It is this preference that I am interested in. Why the preference? For instance, some have the preference of believing in hellfire because they want there to be punishment for evil. So if they had a choice, in a hypothetical situation, to choose hell over no hell, they choose hell.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;p.s. - I don't want to debate the trinity, I just want to understand more the emotion involved.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerDisplayName="user8561" LastEditorDisplayName="user8561" LastEditDate="2013-12-09T13:27:43.497" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T16:25:52.260" Title="What is the emotional appeal of the trinity?" Tags="&lt;trinity&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="9" ClosedDate="2013-12-09T18:18:38.413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23630" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23629" CreationDate="2013-12-09T13:28:37.480" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;Trinitarians believe that God himself is a very emotional being - an overwhelmingly joyful being in fact. Eric's answer to &lt;a href=&quot;https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6578/6071&quot;&gt;Why did God create the Heavens and the Earth?&lt;/a&gt; gives some quotes from John Piper's book &lt;em&gt;Desiring God&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In creation, God “went public” with the glory that reverberates joyfully between the Father and the Son. There is something about the fullness of God’s joy that inclines it to overflow. There is an expansive quality to His joy. It wants to share itself. The impulse to create the world was not from weakness, as though God were lacking in some perfection that creation could supply. “It is no argument of the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain, that it is inclined to overflow.”&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God loves to behold His glory reflected in His works. So the eternal happiness of the triune God spilled over in the work of creation and redemption. And since this original happiness was God’s delight in His own glory, therefore the happiness that He has in all His works of creation and redemption is nothing other than a delight in His own glory. This is why God has done all things, from creation to consummation, for the preservation and display of His glory. All His works are simply the spillover of His infinite exuberance for His own excellence. (Desiring God, p44)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So we experience and share in God's joy because he is totally overflowing with joy. The reason why he is so joyful is because of he is eternally happy with himself - each person in the Trinity is constantly pleasing the other two.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A non-trinitarian God would be very different, and his character would be very different too. I won't say that there aren't any non-trinitarian explanations for God's joy, but I haven't heard any either.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many trinitarian Christians would rightly get upset at the idea of a non-trinitarian God because they believe that the only source of their own joy is from God's own overflowing joy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="6071" LastEditorUserId="-1" LastEditDate="2020-06-17T08:57:13.397" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T13:28:37.480" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23631" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="22929" CreationDate="2013-12-09T13:36:34.377" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;Redman started leading worship at St Andrews, Chorleywood, moving to help start up Soul Survivor alongside Mike Pilavachi and was the worship leader for the Soul Survivor Church in Watford. According to founder Mike Pilavachi, the Soul Survivor festivals (which began in 1993) grew out of worship sessions with him and the then 15-year-old Redman. Redman led worship at the early Soul Survivor festivals, returning to lead worship again in 2011.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2002, after a sabbatical in America recording Where Angels Fear To Tread, Redman moved to Brighton to work with Terry Virgo at the Newfrontiers church, CCK. He has been involved in their 'Newday' and 'Together on a Mission' conferences.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2004 Redman joined a new church plant, The Point, also in West Sussex, led by Will Kemp.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In 2008 Matt and Beth Redman, along with their three children, moved to Atlanta, Georgia, to plant a church with Louie Giglio and Chris Tomlin called Passion City Church. In August 2010 Redman and his family returned to the UK. They have since joined a church plant in Brighton at St Peter's Church, Brighton.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Sources: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.passioncitychurch.com/blog/?p=221&quot;&gt;http://www.passioncitychurch.com/blog/?p=221&lt;/a&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mattredman.sparrowrecords.com/biography/&quot;&gt;http://mattredman.sparrowrecords.com/biography/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8888" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T13:36:34.377" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23632" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15621" CreationDate="2013-12-09T13:41:51.897" Score="4" Body="&lt;p&gt;There would have been thousands of women in Nazareth and in the whole of Israel; and out of these women, God chose our Blessed Virgin Mary to be the mother of Christ. But why God Almighty did chose Mary to be the mother of Christ, out of the many women in the whole of Israel and indeed the world; we would have to be God Himself to be able to answer that question because it is God's mind that we are trying to understand. However we get to have a glimpse of God's mind in Bible, where He has revealed many of His secrets to us.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As per God’s plan of salvation:&lt;/strong&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When we look at God to be All-knowing and Almighty, we have a view of what was happening in God's scheme of salvation.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;1 Peter 1:20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for your sake.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here Bible tells us that God planned the salvation of mankind well before the foundation of the world. In that case God must have planned well in advance, every milestone of that plan of salvation and that include Our Lady.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God planned that Christ would be born into the world by a woman; the same way that all human beings were born. He is God and it is very possible to send Christ into the world without the process of being born by a woman, but that was not God's plan and He had revealed this plan through the prophets in the scriptures.    &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God prefers humble and lowly:&lt;/strong&gt; Throughout the Bible we find that there is a general theological and narrative of God's preferential option for the least, the last, and the lost. In Genesis, the stories of Abraham (a wandering nomad...a nobody), Isaac (the second born of Abraham), Jacob (the second born of Isaac), and Joseph (11th of Jacob's sons) reveal a pattern that would have been quite unusual: it was usually the eldest son who received the primary portion of the inheritance, but in these stories the &quot;least&quot; become the greatest. The Old Testament presents a preferential option for the least.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God chooses to work through one of the lowliest people imaginable...an unmarried peasant girl from a little off-the-map town in a province that the most powerful empire in the world looked on with great scorn. To further underscore this theme, Jesus was born in a stable and was countenanced by shepherds and foreigners. All these events help us to have the glimpse of God's mind and the possible reason why He chose Mary to bear Jesus.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;God is Holy:&lt;/strong&gt; God himself is holy, and it would only require a holy vessel to give birth to Christ and that holy vessel must be a virgin; but the question may arise out of the whole of Israel: was Mary the only virgin?, The answer would be a no but Mary was chosen not only because of her virginity but because she possessed the purest of hearts, and that was the essential ingredient that God needed from her to be the mother of Christ. A pure heart as at then required constant prayers directly to God from the heart and Mary was the only virgin in Israel and indeed the world to possess the purest of hearts and be a virgin.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Foreseeing all these qualities, Mary was ordained for her role, even prior to her own birth. God decided that he would choose her even before she was born. That is why she is Immaculate Conception. It was all God's plan that was taking shape. God made Mary free of original sin at the time of her own conception in readiness for her role as Christ’s mother.   &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;To quote the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;“the holy Fathers see [Mary] as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience.”  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Virtues of Mary:&lt;/strong&gt; Mary was free to reject this role,yet she grew up perfectly as God planned. Mary was a simple young woman of no great talent. She was not rich or famous. However, she did develop the qualities that God was looking for to bear his Son: Courage, willingness, love for God, and purity. Mary was a brave woman who would not shrink from this monumental task. That is how she bravely said:  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Luke 1:38 So Mary said, “Yes, I am a servant of the Lord; let this happen to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She was an incredible role model then and now. Mary exhibited complete femininity in her response to the angel Gabriel. She surrendered completely to the will of God. She had much to lose potentially - her husband, reputation, and even her life - yet she trusted in the providence of God. She was knowledgeable about her own religion and surrendered freely to the will of God. Mary understood the Jewish prophecies foretelling the Messiah.  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God chose Mary to be the mother of Christ; the reason is that God still remains God himself and just like when he created man in Genesis, he holds the reason for the mystery and why it has to be so.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="2018" LastEditorUserId="2018" LastEditDate="2013-12-14T03:56:33.877" LastActivityDate="2013-12-14T03:56:33.877" CommentCount="3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23633" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23629" CreationDate="2013-12-09T13:50:25.450" Score="8" Body="&lt;p&gt;The simplest answer is that denying the Trinity diminishes the person of Jesus.  There is an enormous gap between saying that Jesus is the Almighty God and saying that he is one of God's creations.  Even if Jesus was God's first and greatest creation, he would still be much less awesome than if he were God himself.  So, it is understandable that trinitarians would be offended by someone who degrades Jesus from God to a mere creation.  The person of Jesus Christ is, obviously, central to the Christian faith, so to differ in such a large way on such a central belief is, in the mind of many, the height of heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Secondarily, trinitarians often believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for our sins was only effective because he was God.  People holding to this view would argue that salvation for the world could not be achieved by the death of a mere man, even if he was a sinless man.  People holding to this view would therefore be further offended by a unitarian* because, in their mind, the unitarian would be endangering the souls of anyone that he might convince with his heresy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;* In the lower-case, historical sense of the word (i.e. non-trinitarian)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5160" LastEditorUserId="5160" LastEditDate="2013-12-09T14:57:21.310" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T14:57:21.310" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23634" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="19204" CreationDate="2013-12-09T14:41:50.177" Score="3" Body="&lt;p&gt;There are two fulfillments of this passage:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Firstly, an imminent and very literal fulfillment: the sign is that a young woman (one meaning of the Hebrew word 'almah') will conceive and have a child, and by the time they are 12 - 13 (that's when Judaism of that time would consider them to 'know right from wrong'), the lands of the two kings Ahaz fears, Israel and Aram/Syria will be  laid waste (which is what actually happened). &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The second fulfillment is a 'remez' (or hint) of the first. It takes place in a different time (about 700 years later) and this time the sign is that a virgin (the other meaning of 'almah') will give birth to a son. He will be 'God with us' but not literally called by that name. This use of prophecies with an imminent context and then with a slightly different and later context was well known in Hebrew prophecy and hence the use of the Hebrew term 'remez'. &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Matthew was an educated man and a learned scholar in Jewish Law (almost the same for Jews of that time) and he would have understood this use of prophecy and 'remez'. He does something similar with Hosea 11:1 (which is historic) and makes it a prophecy which he quotes in Matthew 2:15 ('out of Egypt I called my son'). Here again is 'remez' in action. There is another similar idea in Matthew 2:18:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;A voice is heard in Ramah,&#xA;      weeping and great mourning,&#xA;  Rachel weeping for her children&#xA;      and refusing to be comforted,&#xA;      because they are no more.&#xA;  (quoting Jeremiah 31:15)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Bearing all this in mind the second later prophecy (the 'remez' one) does not have to fit the details exactly literally like the earlier one. Therefore it doesn't imply that Jesus was not perfect his entire life. This also resolves the 'almah' dispute by considering its use to have been deliberately ambiguous.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8982" LastEditorUserId="9289" LastEditDate="2015-09-29T20:59:44.663" LastActivityDate="2015-09-29T20:59:44.663" CommentCount="2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23635" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T15:25:39.670" Score="2" ViewCount="144" Body="&lt;p&gt;Around the time of the 1st council of Nicaea (325), what was the makeup of Bishops at the time?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I read that 1800 people attending this council, but was this a fair cross-section of followers of Jesus or was it influenced in one direction or another?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I heard that at around 360, the dominant understanding of Jesus was more of an adoptionist belief, is this true historically?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;After people were exiled and executed and books burned, when was the creed established as the dominant creed and pretty much no-one else believed otherwise?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5886" LastActivityDate="2013-12-22T19:44:17.717" Title="What was the makeup of beliefs during the time of the 325 Councile of Nicaea" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;nicene-creed&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="1" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23636" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23613" CreationDate="2013-12-09T15:36:53.180" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;It depends on how you interpret this vision concerning &lt;strong&gt;the Woman and the Dragon&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Many people see this vision as describing the war in Heaven when Satan rebelled against God. But there are many reasons why this view cannot be accepted. Some of the reasons are that there is no mention of the rebellion of Satan here and the chronology of events explains something else.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Things become much clearer if we view this vision as the &lt;strong&gt;final battle between Satan and God&lt;/strong&gt;. Here is one way of interpreting the vision, according to the chronology of events in the vision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ol&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Woman represents the Church or Mother Mary&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Dragon represents Satan&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Woman/Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Satan tries to destroy Jesus but Jesus was taken away to Heaven&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Satan made a &lt;strong&gt;final attempt to dethrone God and to rule Heaven&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Satan was defeated and was hurled down to earth. Satan lost his position in Heaven.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Satan then started to pursue the Church but was snatched away by God (Rapture?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Satan then persecute the remaining believers (Tribulation?)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ol&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And the next chapter, Revelation 13 describes how Satan exercised his ultimate power through the Anti-Christ(the Beast) and the False Prophet.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If this vision is about the final battle of Satan against God, which will take place at the end times, it's no wonder why the earth is mentioned in this vision by John the Apostle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="3889" LastEditorUserId="3889" LastEditDate="2013-12-10T05:07:51.390" LastActivityDate="2013-12-10T05:07:51.390" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23637" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23629" CreationDate="2013-12-09T15:46:58.617" Score="5" Body="&lt;p&gt;In addition to Steven Doggart's answer (with which I wholeheartedly agree) I suggest that there is considerable emotional appeal in the idea that God himself would voluntarily give up his position, enter this fallen world with all the frailties of a human and sacrificed all for his lost and rebellious creation. As trinitarians we believe in a God who understands our situation through having experienced it for himself, whilst at the same time living in a way that exemplifies both the character of God and the depths of our fall.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In contrast, non-trinitarians appear to depict a God who is far more distant from his creation, a God who is willing to leave the means of our salvation in the hands of a servant, albeit a noble and worthy one.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="46" LastEditorUserId="46" LastEditDate="2013-12-09T16:25:52.260" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T16:25:52.260" CommentCount="0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23638" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T17:37:32.097" Score="1" ViewCount="389" Body="&lt;p&gt;In technical terms, using the Nicea creed as the basis of understand, how can you explain the assertion of Jesus dying on the cross?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is what I understand so far:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;Co-existence&#xA;Co-equal&#xA;Co-Substantial&#xA;Jesus is begotten, not made&#xA;&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When you say Jesus died on the cross, is this referring to Jesus the 3rd person in Trinity?  I understand that Jesus is understood as being divided into 2 parts: Human and Divine.  So did the divine part die on the cross or the human?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The idea is that original sin has to be accounted for, so does this necessitate the Divine or Human aspect to be sacrificed and die?  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Depending on the answer, which aspect/nature of Jesus is said to have risen on the 3rd day?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5886" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T18:30:44.700" Title="What is the technical understanding of the assertion of Jesus dying on the cross?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;life-of-jesus&gt;&lt;crucifixion&gt;" AnswerCount="1" CommentCount="6" ClosedDate="2013-12-10T07:11:47.527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23639" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="23638" CreationDate="2013-12-09T18:30:44.700" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;First off, I'm going to answer according to traditional Catholic Christology. This includes the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which took place in AD451, and issued the definition on Christology that most churches follow today. (The Oriental Orthodox form the most significant body that does not.) It also includes the Fifth Ecumenical Council of AD553.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;When you say Jesus died on the cross, is this referring to Jesus the 3rd person in Trinity? I understand that Jesus is understood as being divided into 2 parts: Human and Divine. So did the divine part die on the cross or the human?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, the Son (existing before all worlds, only-begotten of the Father) is the second person of the Trinity. The Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Second, Jesus is not &lt;em&gt;divided&lt;/em&gt; in two parts, as you say. Traditional (Chalcedonian) Christology says that Jesus has both a human nature and a divine nature, but that he is one person. He is not half-and-half human and divine, but fully human and fully divine. This is called the &lt;em&gt;hypostatic union&lt;/em&gt; of Christ. He is one human, with two natures.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Because Christ is only one person, there were no times when the divine nature was absent and no times when the human nature was absent. The two natures were fully united in Christ. As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm#468&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Catechism of the Catholic Church says&lt;/a&gt; quoting the Fifth Ecumenical Council:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: &quot;He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is to say, the person Jesus Christ, both God and man, suffered and died upon the Cross.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As Thomas Aquinas writes in &lt;em&gt;Summa Theologica&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;as before death Christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the Word of God, it remained so after His death, so that the hypostasis of the Word of God was not different from that of Christ's flesh after death&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You go on to ask which nature had to be sacrificed and which was raised on the third day. The answer by now should be obvious and is the same in both cases: it is the one person Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who was sacrificed, died and rose again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T18:30:44.700" CommentCount="11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23640" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="5405" CreationDate="2013-12-09T18:38:04.477" Score="0" Body="&lt;p&gt;&quot;The law which came 430 years later does not annual a covenant previously ratifed with Abraham.&quot; Gal 3:17.  Abraham 'believed' God and it was counted as righteousness.  Many years later he was circumcized in the flesh.  He obeyed all God's laws, precepts and commandments.  Law existed BEFORE the Mosaic Covenant.  Salvation by faith = justified freedly.  Works accompanying salvation if faith in action = santification.  Jesus wants a chaste bride, not a lustful mare.  'Put to death whatever is of the flesh.'  Crucify it.  Your body is now a temple and must be presented as a holy sacrifice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="8983" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T18:38:04.477" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23641" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T19:16:08.250" Score="6" ViewCount="1296" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have read that the Gospels were anonymous, and much later they were named Mark, Mathew, Luke and John (and Luke, Mark and Mathew very similar compared with John).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Now is this more of from a historical perspective, or is this something the Catholic Church will also agree too?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is it a heretical belief?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Is that stated in each of the Gospels themselves that the authors were inspired by God, or is this a belief that the Catholic Church has stated?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="5886" LastEditorUserId="6071" LastEditDate="2017-05-16T11:04:27.263" LastActivityDate="2017-05-16T11:04:27.263" Title="Are the Gospels considered anonymous by historians only or by the Catholic Church also?" Tags="&lt;catholicism&gt;&lt;gospels&gt;&lt;authorship&gt;" AnswerCount="3" CommentCount="10" FavoriteCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23642" PostTypeId="2" ParentId="15621" CreationDate="2013-12-09T19:47:14.480" Score="2" Body="&lt;p&gt;I have this image of the Archangel Gabriel wandering through the streets of Galilee, looking for someone good enough to merit bearing God himself, muttering as he finds no one good enough, until he comes to a small alley in the dirty end of Nazareth and finds a young woman perfect and holy, suitable for this great task...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This picture, romantic as it may be, is wholly inaccurate. The Incarnation wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;No, Mary is the height, zenith and summit of creation. She is the perfect being made perfect from the very beginning of her life by God's grace for the purpose of bearing his Son. As Pius IX wrote in &lt;em&gt;Ineffabilis Deus&lt;/em&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;She is foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures, where she is celebrated&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;God formed his chosen people, dwelling in his chosen land, to have among them his Son. And out of them, and foremost among them, he fashioned Mary. He fashioned her not because he had to! God could, if he so chose, have become incarnate from a sinner, and yet he chose to fashion Mary:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;He did this in order that she might &quot;give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#490&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(Cat. §490)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and give herself &quot;entirely to the person and to the work of her Son&quot;.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#494&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(Cat. §494)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So God chose Mary before the creation of the world, and formed her to be holy, perfectly without sin at every moment of her life, for the sake of the Incarnation. He made her to be  a meet and fitting mother for his Son, redeemed by the anticipation of his works. Her election was not because she was particularly fitting: she was so fitting because God had chosen her to be so, &quot;by a singular grace and privilege ... preserved free from all stain of original sin&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;And because of this special, overwhelming gracious act of God, we can speak with Pius IX and with the Fathers of the Church and say:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;" OwnerUserId="137" LastActivityDate="2013-12-09T19:47:14.480" CommentCount="1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23643" PostTypeId="1" CreationDate="2013-12-09T19:57:26.520" Score="4" ViewCount="3598" Body="&lt;p&gt;How do Jehovah Witnesses explain the differences between the &lt;em&gt;New World Translation&lt;/em&gt; and Latin/Greek, specifically in these two Bible verses?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;(1) Zechariah 12:10&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look &lt;strong&gt;upon me&lt;/strong&gt; whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New World Translation (NWT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look &lt;strong&gt;to the one&lt;/strong&gt; whom they pierced,+ and they will wail over him as they would wail over an only son; and they will grieve bitterly over     him as they would grieve over a firstborn son &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Latin Vulgate by Jerome in 382AD&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;..et effundam super domum David et super habitatores Hierusalem spiritum gratiae et precum et aspicient   &lt;strong&gt;ad me&lt;/strong&gt; quem confixerunt et plangent eum planctu quasi super unigenitum et dolebunt super eum ut doleri solet in morte primogeniti&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(There is no word indicating 'the one'.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LXX Septuagint — Greek translation of Hebrew in 132BC&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;καὶ ἐκχεῶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Δαυιδ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ιερουσαλημ πνεῦμα χάριτος καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται &lt;strong&gt;πρός&lt;/strong&gt; [TOWARD] &lt;strong&gt;με&lt;/strong&gt; [ME] ἀνθ’  ὧνκατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπ’ αὐτὸν κοπετὸν ὡς ἐπ’ ἀγαπητὸν καὶ ὀδυνηθήσονται ὀδύνην ὡς ἐπὶ πρωτοτόκῳ (No word indicating 'the one')&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;(2) Acts 20:28&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;King James Version (KJV)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with &lt;strong&gt;his own&lt;/strong&gt; blood.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New World Translation (NWT)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers,+ to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own &lt;strong&gt;Son&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Latin Vulgate by Jerome in 382AD&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;.adtendite vobis et universo gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam Dei quam adquisivit sanguine &lt;strong&gt;suo&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(There is no word translatable as 'son'.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Greek New Testament&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;Προσέχετε { οὖν ♦ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ {κυρίου καὶ ♦ - } θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ { &lt;strong&gt;ἰδίου&lt;/strong&gt; [OWN] αἵματος ♦ αἵματος τοῦ &lt;strong&gt;ἰδίου&lt;/strong&gt; [OWN]}.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;(There is no word translatable as 'son'.)&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Note&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Upon further research, I found the Dead See Scrolls segment that contains Zechariah 12:10  and, in trying to identify the Hebrew words in &lt;a href=&quot;http://blb.sc/1Ly8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;the English parallel&lt;/a&gt;, I am noticing what seems to be an aleph and tau (the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet) right after “inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon...” and before “and they shall mourn for him, as” as seen in &lt;a href=&quot;http://thoughtswithaccent.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/dss_-_4q80e_zechariah-1210.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;this picture&lt;/a&gt;. Does anyone know what the aleph and tau (if that’s what they are), are doing there?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Note&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;FYI, I re-posted this question on hermeneutics.se, as two separate questions as suggested by Affable Geek:&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Zech 12:10 &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7604/how-do-jehovah-witnesses-explain-differences-between-nwt-and-latin-hebrew-greek&quot;&gt;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7604/how-do-jehovah-witnesses-explain-differences-between-nwt-and-latin-hebrew-greek&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On Acts 20:28 &lt;a href=&quot;https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7605/how-do-jehovah-witnesses-explain-differences-between-n